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

APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)

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

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

(The following proceedings were held in camera:)

THE COURT: Let the record reflect we are in chambers. Sergeant Smith, when I came back from lunch, advised me that juror no. 1427, juror seat no. 1290--seat no. 2, was in the lounge bathroom area crying hysterically about 1 o'clock today. And he stopped to ask her what was wrong, and she said that 1489 has been harassing her and that she can't take it anymore and she wanted off the jury. So he told me this. I just came back just now and I thought I would--he said that he talked to her and told her that obviously nothing would happen to her while she is on this jury panel because the sheriffs were there. But she's very distraught. He said he appeared to have calmed her down, but thought that her emotional state was such that maybe I ought to talk to her and see if everything is okay. Before we go any further, I thought I would ask--bring her in. And it was Sergeant Smith's assessment that she is not well at this point. So let's bring her in here, see how everything is.

(Juror no. 1427 enters chambers.)

THE COURT: Hi, 1427. How are you? Why don't you have a seat. Mrs. Robertson, why don't you get the door. Thank you. 1427, Sergeant Smith tells me that you have a concern. And I'm concerned if you have a concern, and you look to me to be distraught. Can you tell me what the problem is?

JUROR NO. 1427: Yes, sir. I prepared something. I just--first of all, I feel really ridiculous and uncomfortable coming to you describing little things that happened between other jurors and myself, but it's just that--it's just that over the course of these past four months, sooner or later, you're bound to get frustrated when you're in the same--you know, in a situation where you can't get away from other people or from, you know, the situation itself. Just yesterday at lunch, I was simply working my way down the buffet line trying to get some food. I waited, like always, until everybody goes through. And that way, I don't get in anybody's way. But again, juror 1489, I felt him come really close to me and brush me. But this time, he did it from behind. And to me, that made me feel really uncomfortable. I've noticed for the past like four months or so, he's been pretty persistent in trying to annoy me, control me or just intimidate me in any way, and he sometimes does it in a very subtle manner, and I just feel he's invading my personal space and touching me in ways that are not necessary and that are not acceptable to me. And this is not the first time he's done that and--

THE COURT: I remember you mentioned the elevator incident. Is there anything else that has gone on?

JUROR NO. 1427: Just he's very subtle. I mean it's usually--you know, he brushes me. It's not like he's going to come straight out and push me or anything like that. For example, Monday, he--we do not ride in the same van. I mean, it's very obvious amongst everybody here we don't get along. It's very obvious to everyone. And he pretended to start climbing into the van I was in. What happened is, I was sitting in the middle pulling a strap. It was the belt that gets in the way for other jurors to walk--get into the van. And I was looking out into the van at the other jurors. Some were in the van, some were not. I was waiting for another--a female juror to get in the van. And he like right--he was right behind her, and then he just looked straight at me and then he mimics starting to get into the van. He holds the top of the van like the sill and he lifts his right leg as to mock--I don't know--to mock me that he's going to get into that van. He looks straight at me and then he smiles and then he retracts and then continues to walk to the same van. Just little games. He plays little games with me like that. And then yesterday in the phone room, accidentally, one of the jurors--what happens is, when a juror is done with a phone, she will call out the next number. She called out his number by mistake because there was a waiting list. My number was way at the bottom of all the numbers that had been crossed out, and his number was on top. She looked at the top of the page and failed to see my number. I walked in there and he walked in and noticed me, and he said, "Were you next?" And I said oh, well--he was just, you know, belittling me. He said, "Okay, okay," just made a big commotion. People on the phone turned around. The deputy turned around. He made a huge--I mean I wasn't arguing with him. I just started to speak. He made a huge commotion drawing attention to him and I and he just made all these hand gestures like, "Okay, okay. I'm--you're next. You're next. I'm getting out of here," whatever. He just draws a lot of attention towards me and makes it seem like I'm being the one who's doing something wrong here. And then this morning, he's staring at me. And I catch him staring at me quite a bit and so do other jurors. And this time--so naturally, my eyes are drawn to whoever is staring at me, and I make eye contact with him, and I keep looking at him, and he doesn't--he doesn't shift his eyes to focus on something else. So I hold the gaze and I don't--I just stare at him back. And he confronted me at lunch today. He's like, "Why are you staring at me? Why were you staring at me this morning in the elevator?" And I told him, "Look, I've caught you staring at me so many times. How could you--how could you even say that?" I told him, "Look, I could play the same games you play," and he said, "Well, I was wondering why you were staring at me." And I said, you know, "Just forget about it."

And it's just that every time there's a confrontation between him and I, he tries to turn around the circumstances and make it look like I did something wrong. And it's just--I don't--I know I have to get along with people here, but I think that it's--when it comes to touching somebody else or brushing up against them in a way that--I'm sure he would have not brushed up against a male in that manner. And I just draw the line there. I expect people to respect my personal space.

THE COURT: When you say that--you know, these touching incidents, there's the incident in the buffet line yesterday and you told me a while back about an incident in the elevator. Have there been any other elevator incidents like that?

JUROR NO. 1427: Well, there were two incidents in the elevator. One was, he was--where he brushed up against me three times. That was March 27th. And the other one was April 21st when he--he kind of like wedged himself really close to me in the elevator. I mean there's no need--sure we're all cramped into one space. But there's really no need to be right on top of another person. There's enough room to where you don't need to be touching another person.

THE COURT: Okay. And have there been any other incidents where he's physically come in contact with you?

JUROR NO. 1427: No. No. Those are the only three that I could think of.

THE COURT: Okay. How would you suggest I deal with this?

JUROR NO. 1427: I'm really not sure. I've done--I was doing pretty good at avoiding him, but he--it's almost like he continually puts himself physically in a position to where I have to deal with him. I try and stay away from him as much as possible and I'm--you know, I'm fine when he's not trying to get in my face all the time. For example, in the elevator for the past two and a half to three weeks--I don't know why--he always stands at a certain spot in the elevator where I usually stand. It's just out of hand. Why is it for the past three months, he hasn't done this, and all of a sudden, now he decides to stand in that spot. If he gets to the elevator before I do, he'll stand in a spot, or if somebody else is standing on that spot, he'll move close to the center and the front of the elevator as the other people are coming in, and he won't move back. People have to walk around him to get to the back of the elevator because I stand towards the front. When you're facing out of the elevator, I stand toward the front left like right behind the elevator operator. And it's something that he just started doing the past three and a half weeks or three weeks that I noticed.

THE COURT: Is there anybody else who is having any problem with 1489 that you are aware of?

JUROR NO. 1427: I notice very subtle little things, and he for some reason targets me. I don't know why. He's--for some reason, he just targets me from the beginning. I know other people like 19 and 1290 have observed little things he does, his behavior. 19 has caught him staring--he's caught 1489 staring at me on many occasions. I just try not to look at him. He's--

THE COURT: All right. Suppose--and don't misunderstand what I am going to say, but suppose somebody were to hear this and say, well, this strikes me as someone being overly sensitive. How do I differentiate that from something that's a real problem that's going on? Are you sure that it's just not something inadvertent that's happening?

JUROR NO. 1427: He makes--just both the way--just by the way he looks at me and every time I speak up or say something, he'll say something to contrast it. He's say the opposite.

THE COURT: Give me an example.

JUROR NO. 1427: For example, one time, Tasia came in. She was saying something about the entertainment on Saturdays, and she mentioned that somebody wanted to give these like trampoline devices. And then I said something like, "Oh, that sounds like fun." And then right away, he has to admit his two cents. He said something like, "No, that sounds pretty dangerous to me," and he'll just contrast whatever it is that I'll say.

THE COURT: Okay. How is everything--putting this other--what I'm concerned about is, Sergeant Smith told me you were very unhappy about this situation today.

JUROR NO. 1427: Well, after being here like four months, the frustration builds up inside you. I don't really know how to deal with him. I can't argue with him logically. He'll just turn things around and make it like I'm doing something wrong. He'll say, "I don't know what you are talking about." He knows he is playing mind games and other people can see the little games he plays too. Other people notice other little subtle things. He's very subtle about it.

THE COURT: All right. Do you feel it's just you that he's picking on?

JUROR NO. 1427: Well, I only see things from my perspective. I notice things when they happen to me. I just--I don't know if anybody else is having any problems with him.

THE COURT: All right. All right. Is there anything else you think you should tell me about this conflict with 1489?

JUROR NO. 1427: No. Just that I don't think he should--I don't think he should be getting close to me when it's very obvious that we don't get along. Everybody knows it. He knows it. Why is it he's always trying to get near me?

THE COURT: Okay. 1427, putting that situation aside, how is everything else?

JUROR NO. 1427: Everything--I mean, I'm just dealing with the situation like everyone else is. I'm sure it's difficult being here. Just imagine having to go home with the people that you work with Monday through Friday, having to sit down and eat dinner with these people, spending your weekend with these people. Even your visitations, you have no privacy. People are staring at you. You know, you have no privacy at all. It's--you know, it's difficult for everybody.

THE COURT: Okay. Miss Clark? Mr. Cochran? All right. 1427, let me talk to the lawyers about this, and I'll look into this.

JUROR NO. 1427: Okay.

THE COURT: Thank you for taking the time to talk with us.

JUROR NO. 1427: Okay.

(Juror no. 1427 exits chambers.)

THE COURT: All right. While we're here--while we're here, let me read to you very quickly a letter that I received yesterday that I need to share with you.

"Dear Judge Ito:" this is dated May 12th and the postmark is May 22nd. It says: "Dear Judge Ito: I have been debating over and over what to do with this information. But after seeing you last night on the news telling the pain your family went through during the war and what my family in Germany endured, it touched my heart and I felt so grateful to live in a country with very strong civil rights and a strong constitution. I guess that's why I feel so ashamed for the information I have. I work for a literary agent. I'm only a receptionist. It is true I am very young, but I am aware of what is happening with this office and one of your jurors on the Simpson trial. It has been kept very secret, but I know for a fact that my boss has entered an agreement with a juror and her husband.

"The working title for the book proposal is, quote, `standing alone, a verdict for Nicole,' unquote. It is obvious to me that the woman and her husband came to the conclusion of Mr. Simpson's guilt and sold the book with that agreement. "I have not come to you sooner because I too feel Mr. Simpson is guilty. But after seeing you last evening on television and seeing how what happened to your family and mine made you open your heart to the public, it affected me greatly, even though I may agree with this lady juror's ultimate verdict. "(I made my decision after the spousal abuse was made public.) I now feel it is imperative to bring this to your attention when you spoke about things happening to you and to me. I thought that those things can only happen when morality and laws and civil rights no longer matter to society.

"I know it may not be stating what I feel in a way you can understand, but all I can say is that it is fundamentally wrong for this juror and her husband to try to sell this book and enter an agreement secretively. "I am in a moral dilemma that a 20-year old receptionist should not be in. I can only identify the juror as female, once an alternate, her husband--once an alternate, husband became ill, about 40-years old, a white woman. She did not want to be on the jury, but her husband is the one driving this. She is very apprehensive and is worried this will become public. The husband wants her to stay on, but she wants off. "My boss has met with the husband at the blank hotel, which I assume is where the jury is staying. I know you are a very fair and decent man and Judge. So I know and have faith that you will use this information in a way that you know best.

"I am very worried about my job. I have a great opportunity with this job. I pray I don't lost it. But I promise you when I do become an agent, I will be ethical, and maybe some day, I'll even be able to meet you. "Thank you, Judge Ito. Respectfully yours, anonymous." The mailing zip code is 90064.

MS. CLARK: Any indication as to who her boss is?

THE COURT: No. So that's what I got. I got that yesterday. Deirdre, yesterday?

THE CLERK: Yesterday.

MR. COCHRAN: Judge, could I add something to that? As you know, from time to time, this former juror who you had the deputies talk to--I think that's juror no. 353 you're talking about. She as I mentioned I think once before, before they went out and talked to her, she wants to--she called last night again, and I said, I can't do any investigation. "I want to talk to Judge Ito. I want to talk to Judge Ito." They work at the same place. They work at different locations. She has said all kinds of things like that about no. 353. The anonymous call came in about she was writing a book, about her husband, about her coworkers. She wants to talk to you. So I think it's the same person. You probably need to talk to these people because apparently from everything, she seems to be--so I don't know anything about this.

MR. DARDEN: From what I hear, you guys have hired a Defense investigator to track down information on jurors.

MR. COCHRAN: I'm just talking about this particular situation.

THE COURT: I'll give you a heads up.

MR. COCHRAN: May I suggest something with regard to 1427? Will the Court consider listening to 1489?

THE COURT: Sure. But here's the thing. I think what we need to do at this point, Mr. Cochran--I don't share your intuition that it's no. 353. I think it sounds closer to me like no. 1290 by the way it's described.

MR. COCHRAN: The only reason I said that is, her husband had been sick at one point. That was one--

THE COURT: This letter also described the husband as--wife as being Caucasian.

MR. COCHRAN: 353 is Caucasian. 353, Judge.

THE COURT: Yeah. Everybody is shaking their head. Okay. I'm wrong again.

MR. COCHRAN: No. 1290 is the blonde lady, and ********************.

THE COURT: Rather than single anybody out, I think what I need to do is take a quick run through the jurors again and ask everybody about this allegation. And while we're at it, I can ask are there any other problems. The only question is scheduling it at this point. I want to finish Mr. Yamauchi. I want to finish Mr. Sims before we have to spend--because we are talking about spending half a day to a day, probably a whole day doing this.

MS. CLARK: I think you're right. We have to do it like that.

MR. COCHRAN: I think--you see, 1290, no. 1290 said she ***********. Neither one wanted to be on the jury. But I think if you look at that--

THE COURT: Maybe I got my numbers mixed up right now. But I propose that at some point in time, maybe once we finish the DNA and before we launch into the Coroner stuff, maybe take a day in-between--

MR. COCHRAN: The book thing, shouldn't that take a little more priority? If that's the situation, something's being written with that title--

THE COURT: Absolutely.

MR. COCHRAN: We shouldn't even give them a chance. We can come down here on Saturday, something like that, one of your Saturdays.

THE COURT: The problem is, we have--I have some absolute time commitments that are sort of set in stone unless you want to stop and do it right now.

MR. COCHRAN: May I just have a second?

(Discussion held off the record between the Defense Attorneys.)

MS. CLARK: Why not? I wouldn't mind that. I would like to do it now.

MR. COCHRAN: I think it's kind of important. I think we should. I think we should. That thing with the book--

THE COURT: Scary, isn't it?

MR. COCHRAN: I give that person a lot of credit. Obviously they saw you on that program. You were impressive.

(An off the record discussion was had.)

THE COURT: Miss Clark and Mr. Cochran, why don't I excuse you to go chat with your compatriots and tell them what the game plan is.

MS. CLARK: Are we going to talk to them now?

MR. COCHRAN: I think we should, Judge. Can I talk to my people?

(Recess.)

THE COURT: Folks, what I'm going to do is ask two areas. We're back in chambers with the attorneys. Mr. Cochran, you wanted to make a request regarding your client?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes. Thank you very kindly. As we have in the past, I would like to request again that Mr. Simpson be present for this hearing regarding the jurors. I understand we are going to be talking to all the jurors again. I spoke to him briefly, and he would like to be present and he would ask the Court to allow him to come back into chambers for this hearing.

THE COURT: Any other comment?

MS. CLARK: We have the same position as previously stated.

THE COURT: The Court's indicated I feel this is a matter that does not involve issues of guilt or innocence and that inquiry--private inquiry of jurors should be conducted in chambers outside the presence of the jurors. So that request renewed is denied. All right. Counsel, what I'm going to do is inquire of each one of the individual jurors regarding the two issues that we talked about today, number one being the letter that I got from a receptionist at a publishing company regarding an agreement by a juror to write a book with regards to this case, the title of which indicates a pre-conceived decision to vote for a guilt verdict in this case, although I will tell them a preconceived indication to vote for a particular verdict in this case no matter what. I'll also ask if they are aware of any conflict between any of the jurors that we haven't already discussed, and I'm going to go into those two areas.

MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, might I make a suggestion?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: Rather than approach it you received a letter, might I suggest you received information?

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. COCHRAN: Because she does say in the letter--I know you read the letter, but you said in the letter this young lady indicates the literary agent may have met at the hotel. So if you get--depending on the response you get, you may have to follow up with certain jurors.

THE COURT: All right. All right. Mrs. Robertson, would you bring me juror no. 230, 230.

MS. CLARK: We have to inquire about 1489 and for and 1427 too.

THE COURT: I know.

(Juror no. 230 enters chambers.)

THE CLERK: Juror 230.

JUROR NO. 230: I said I didn't do it. Yes.

THE COURT: How are you today, no. 230?

JUROR NO. 230: Fine, thank you.

THE COURT: Something has come to my attention that I need to chat with you about. And I want you to know the only reason I'm picking on you is because you are juror no. 1, seat no. 1.

JUROR NO. 230: No problem. I understand.

THE COURT: I'm going to be talking to everybody. At the conclusion, I am going to order you not to discuss anything we talked about here in chambers again with anybody else, not any of the other jurors, not any family members, none of the sheriffs. I have received information from a source that appears to me to be a credible source of information that a juror on our jury here has entered into an agreement with a literary agent to produce a book with regard to the case and that the working title of the book indicates a pre-conceived notion as to a guilty or innocent verdict. Do you know anything about that?

JUROR NO. 230: No, I do not.

THE COURT: Have you entered into any discussion with any literary agents?

JUROR NO. 230: No, I have not.

THE COURT: Have you talked to any publishers about writing a book about this case?

JUROR NO. 230: No.

THE COURT: Have you formed any opinions yet about this case as to the guilt or innocence of our Defendant?

JUROR NO. 230: No, I have not.

THE COURT: All right. One other issue I wanted to talk to you about. Are you aware of, since the last time we talked, any personal conflicts between any of the jurors, anything that has come to your attention?

JUROR NO. 230: Nothing personal has come to my attention other than, you know, things that I hear, personal conflict being between I guess--I don't even know--well, I don't even know his number, but I guess between maybe 247 and 165 trying to more or less intimidate people I guess. I don't know. But whether that's their mannerism, I don't know. I haven't had any personal conflict with them or anybody personally myself.

THE COURT: What have you heard?

JUROR NO. 230: Just other than them being extremely boisterous and demanding about certain things, you know. But other than that, I really don't know. So--

THE COURT: You have no personal knowledge of any of those things?

JUROR NO. 230: No. I have no personal knowledge of it myself personally.

THE COURT: Just to remind you, if anything comes to your attention that indicates that any of the jurors have done anything that you feel is inappropriate, you're under an obligation and duty to report that to me.

JUROR NO. 230: Oh, no problem.

THE COURT: How is everything at the hotel?

JUROR NO. 230: It's pretty good. Fine.

THE COURT: How is the TV working out? Better?

JUROR NO. 230: I guess it works out well. I don't know. You know, I'm locked down early. So I don't know. I'm usually in bed by 8:00, 8:30, you know, up at 4:35. But other than that, I really don't know. I guess it works out pretty well, you know, between the two sentiments.

THE COURT: Everything else going okay?

JUROR NO. 230: Yes. Everything else is going okay.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran? Miss Clark? All right. 1230, remember my order to you, do not discuss this with anybody.

JUROR NO. 230: 230.

THE COURT: Did I say 1230? All right. Thank you.

(Juror no. 230 exits chambers.)

THE COURT: Mrs. Robertson, 1290.

MR. COCHRAN: Would it be relevant before we get to 352 to see those latest reports from Downs, for each side to see those things on your desk that came a couple weeks ago? Would it be relevant as far as questioning--

THE COURT: No. Not really to tell you the truth.

(Juror no. 1290 enters chambers.)

THE CLERK: 1290.

THE COURT: 1290, hi. How are you?

JUROR NO. 1290: Hello.

THE COURT: Why don't you have a seat. How are you today?

JUROR NO. 1290: Fine, thank you.

THE COURT: I need to talk to you about two things this afternoon. And the fact that I'm asking you these questions--what I'm doing is just going through everybody in the jury today. And so the fact that I've asked you to step out doesn't mean I'm accusing you of anything, any wrongdoing. The same format as the last time we talked. Also again, when we conclude, you are under an order not to discuss this with any other jurors, any of the sheriff's deputies or anybody else, any family members. Okay?

JUROR NO. 1290: Okay.

THE COURT: Some information has been brought to my attention that one of our jurors has been in contact with a literary agent for a book publisher, has entered into an agreement to write a book about this case, and the working title of this book indicates a pre-conceived decision as to the guilt or innocence of Mr. Simpson. Do you know anything about this?

JUROR NO. 1290: Nothing at all. This is all news to me.

THE COURT: Have you been in contact with any literary agents?

JUROR NO. 1290: Not at all, no.

THE COURT: Have you or anybody close to you on your behalf contacted any publishers or literary agents?

JUROR NO. 1290: No.

THE COURT: You understand that you're under an obligation--if anything like that comes to your attention, that you have an obligation to report that to me.

JUROR NO. 1290: I definitely would do that, yes.

THE COURT: Okay. No. 1290, let me shift topics. Are you aware of, since the last time we talked, any incidents of any personality conflict between any of our jurors that is beyond the normal--any significant personality conflicts between any of our jurors?

JUROR NO. 1290: Well, there's still something--I don't think I ever mentioned it before, but there is something going on between--I always think names instead of numbers--1489 and 1427.

THE COURT: Can you tell me the nature of that conflict?

JUROR NO. 1290: I was going to say he and probably 353 also. But well, you know, this started when we were first having those so-called meetings in the deliberation room and 1489 was one that would stand up and start pointing his fingers at people, hanging his finger at people if he didn't like what was going on. 1427 would usually be outspoken about what was going on saying things like, "We all have to reflect each other and must be logical about this," and this type of thing where he seemed more volatile and seemed to kind of want to oh, force his ideas on people. And I think that's where the conflict started. And it seemed like it's just been more subdued, but there's still like an underlying hostility there, staring back and forth and this type of thing. I think he tries to egg me on sometimes too.

THE COURT: How so? Give us an example.

JUROR NO. 1290: Mostly the staring. And it's almost like a bating type of thing, remark about--I'm trying to think of a particular instance, but remarks about conditions that we should accept and keep our mouth shut about and, you know, we letter writers are the troublemakers, this type of thing. And being a letter writer myself, you know, I feel like he's talking to me, partially to me and 353 and 1427. And, you know, that type of bating which I--you know, I'm able to let go. But I think, you know, some of the others--maybe they're a little younger and maybe a little more--I don't know--maybe sensitive to that other type of thing than I might be. But there is some underlying tension going on.

THE COURT: Are you aware of any physical contact between 1489 and 1427?

JUROR NO. 1290: Only what I've been told. I haven't observed anything particularly.

THE COURT: What have you been told?

JUROR NO. 1290: That he has pushed her in the elevator a couple of times and seems to lunge into her in the hall, this type of thing, when there's nobody else around, that type of thing.

THE COURT: But you haven't observed any--

JUROR NO. 1290: I haven't observed it, no. No, I haven't observed it.

THE COURT: All right. Any other conflicts that are going on?

JUROR NO. 1290: Nothing except some verbal complaints--well, he says quite a lot that, "They always get what they want," and a couple of the rest of us say we want to join the "They" so we can get what we want. So we're never sure who "They" is or who he's talking about, but he says that quite a lot, "They get what they want and we don't." I hear him saying that to deputies, this type of thing.

THE COURT: But any personality conflict amongst the jurors?

JUROR NO. 1290: I don't think so. Nothing I can really put my finger on.

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Cochran.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Has anybody discussed writing a book about this case?

JUROR NO. 1290: Not to me. In fact, it seems silly to me because people outside know a hell of a lot more than we do. You know, makes no sense to me why they would even--

THE COURT: Yeah. You know things that nobody else knows.

JUROR NO. 1290: I don't--nobody's going to write about it except other jurors. That could be.

THE COURT: All right. No. 1290, remember my admonition to you, don't discuss this with anybody else.

JUROR NO. 1290: Okay.

THE COURT: How is everything else going?

JUROR NO. 1290: Fine. Much improved from when we originally started. It's better, yeah.

THE COURT: All right. Okay. 1290, thank you very much.

JUROR NO. 1290: Okay.

(Juror no. 1290 exits chambers.)

THE COURT: Mrs. Robertson, could I have juror no. 19.

THE CLERK: 19?

THE COURT: 19. We'll bring 1427 in before we get to 795. I'll let her cool for about another five.

(Juror no. 19 enters chambers.)

THE CLERK: Juror 19.

THE COURT: No. 19, hi. How are you? Sit down. How are you today?

JUROR NO. 19: I'm doing all right.

THE COURT: Okay. Good. No. 19, I need to talk to each one of the jurors about a couple of items that have come to my attention. And I want you to understand that just the fact that--I'm talking to everybody. So I'm not singling anybody out at this point, and you're just no. 4. So here we are again.

JUROR NO. 19: Okay.

THE COURT: Also, when we conclude our discussions, you are under an order not to discuss this with any of the jurors because I may not get to everybody today--at any time. You are also ordered not to discuss this with any family members or friends or sheriff's deputies, anybody.

JUROR NO. 19: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Juror no. 19, some information has been given to me that I find credible that indicates one of the jurors has been in contact with a literary agent, publisher and has agreed to write a book with regard to this case; and there is a working title for the book that indicates that this juror has already reached a conclusion as to the guilt or innocence of Mr. Simpson. First of all, are you that person?

JUROR NO. 19: No.

THE COURT: All right. Do you know of anybody on the jury who has planned or plans to write a book about this case?

JUROR NO. 19: No, sir.

THE COURT: Do you know if anybody has been discussing that with any literary agent or book publisher?

JUROR NO. 19: No, sir. None whatsoever.

THE COURT: And you understand that you're under an obligation to report to me any misconduct that you're aware of?

JUROR NO. 19: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. Juror no. 19, second topic, are you aware of any ongoing--since the last time we talked, any conflict between any of our jurors? And I should let counsel know, you wrote me a note the other day about some problems.

JUROR NO. 19: I was hoping you kind of shined that one on because when I did it, I was a little upset at the time.

THE COURT: All right. Tell me what the problem is.

JUROR NO. 19: Well, there is a conflict I see with--let's see. God, I'm sorry. I can't remember numbers. How would I know I have that problem? I see 247 all the time looking at 1427, giving her hard looks. I see sometimes some of the girls squabble and stuff with each other because somebody says something. Actually, what a lot of it is is just that people just don't hear the whole story. They come in halfway through something and they take it the wrong way. That's what a lot of the little squabbling is about, like as far as TV and stuff like that.

THE COURT: Tell me about that.

JUROR NO. 19: One time, I saw 1427, she was really upset. She was dropping some tears, and she had said something about, she didn't really want to talk about it but, you know, I knew it had to do with one of the jurors. And I had known from before how he kept looking at her. So I just kind of like put two and two together. And he's always looking at her.

THE COURT: Tell me about that. Tell me about--you mentioned hard looks.

JUROR NO. 19: Yeah. You know, when somebody is like if--you know, like a hard. Like Mr. Darden sitting there, and he's just like kind of like dogging him, stuff like that.

THE COURT: How long has that been going on?

JUROR NO. 19: Remember when they were trying to make some little meetings back here one time? And the deputies were playing into that real quick.

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

JUROR NO. 19: Well, since then, on a regular basis, I mean, staring contests or that sort of thing. Not like a staring contest because he'd win that. That's how hard they are. He just keeps watching her all the time, and I have noticed that. And I saw him--but I won't do it to your thing again. Seen him bump--I've seen him bump her a couple times in the elevator where--and then he would look over at 165 and they both just smile at each other about it. But other than that, there's been no--that's basically what I've seen.

THE COURT: Anything else you think you ought to tell me about?

JUROR NO. 19: No. No.

THE COURT: How's everything else?

JUROR NO. 19: Okay. I was going to write you a letter about something else. I mean nothing to do with--there's nobody here from the press, is there? Okay. I don't know.

THE COURT: No. Lawyers, my law clerk and Mrs. Robertson.

JUROR NO. 19: I wanted--there's a couple things coming up with me that I was--you know, if I can't, I understand. One is, there's going to be a birthday party for my son July 8th, and I was wondering, you know, maybe take some time out, some time, if I can get there maybe for just a little bit. He's going to turn 4. I just happened to get this in the mail and I just happen to have it handy. There's a tournament coming up that I'd like to go to.

THE COURT: Tournament?

JUROR NO. 19: Give me something to train for.

THE COURT: Yeah. But what happens if you win? You'll be there for a long time.

JUROR NO. 19: No, I won't. Only one-day event. It will take all ****************************. So--so if you want to hold on to that and think about it and--

THE COURT: All right. Where is this?

JUROR NO. 19: ******************************.

THE COURT: All right. Tell you what. Let me hold on to this for just a second. I'll have Mrs. Robertson return it to you. But I'll make a photocopy of the important aspects.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you have a date for that?

THE COURT: *****************. And the birthday party for your son is when?

JUROR NO. 19: July 8th.

THE COURT: What day of the week is that?

JUROR NO. 19: That will be the Saturday. Well, they're moving it to a Saturday. His actual birthday is 7-11.

THE COURT: I'll look into that. Okay. Tell me about the squabbles between the girls.

JUROR NO. 19: Well, you know, if one of the girl's in a bad mood or something like that or just edgy, you know, one might say something kind of harsh to somebody. But I mean, not specifically being mean, but ignoring them or something. If they ask them a question like, "Hey, how you doing," they just ignore them, keep on--"What's her problem?"

THE COURT: Anyone in particular or just among all the people?

JUROR NO. 19: Just a little circle like--I mean, just the girls.

THE COURT: The girls group?

JUROR NO. 19: Yeah.

THE COURT: Is there anything about that, those squabbles that you think might prevent these people from working together as a jury?

JUROR NO. 19: No, I don't think so.

THE COURT: Okay. Anything else you feel you need to tell us about?

JUROR NO. 19: That's it.

THE COURT: That's it?

JUROR NO. 19: That's it.

THE COURT: Okay. No. 19, remember, don't talk to anybody about this. All right?

JUROR NO. 19: Okay.

THE COURT: Okay.

JUROR NO. 19: Thank you.

(Juror no. 19 exits chambers.)

THE COURT: 984.

(Juror no. 984 enters chambers.)

THE CLERK: Juror 984.

JUROR NO. 984: Hello.

THE COURT: Hello. How are you?

JUROR NO. 984: Okay.

THE COURT: Thanks for coming in again, 984.

JUROR NO. 984: Oh, okay. Did I have a choice?

THE COURT: No. But at least I try to make it pleasant for you.

JUROR NO. 984: Okay.

THE COURT: 984, I need to talk to you about two things. And as usual, I'm going to talk to everybody, and you're just no. 5 in line here. So please understand that I'm not assuming any of these problems that you're involved in, but two matters have come to my attention that I need to talk to all the jurors. And when we finish our discussion this afternoon, you are under an order not to talk about this with any of the other jurors, any family or friends or any of the sheriff's deputies, okay?

JUROR NO. 984: Okay. Yeah.

THE COURT: 984, it's come to my attention--I've been given some information that sounds credible, that one of our jurors has been in contact with a literary agent or publisher and has agreed to write a book concerning this case.

JUROR NO. 984: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: And that the title of the book indicates that that juror has already made up his or her mind as to the guilt or innocence of Mr. Simpson.

JUROR NO. 984: Get out.

THE COURT: Are you that person?

JUROR NO. 984: No.

THE COURT: All right. Do you know of any of the other jurors who may have been discussing this case with any literary agent or publisher?

JUROR NO. 984: No, sir.

THE COURT: All right. If you were aware of that, you understand you're under an obligation to report that to me?

JUROR NO. 984: Okay.

THE COURT: All right?

JUROR NO. 984: All right.

THE COURT: Okay. Second item, have you--since the last time we talked, have you become aware of any conflicts between any of our jurors? And not just, you know, the little things, but anything that is significant or ongoing?

JUROR NO. 984: No. No. Just, you know--nothing personal in between the jurors. Just jurors complain, you know, but basically just--

THE COURT: Tell me about that.

JUROR NO. 984: Complain about what to watch on TV and all that stuff, you know, same old stuff, things like that. Nothing personal, not that I know of.

THE COURT: I thought we had pretty much resolved the cinema problem with two TV's.

JUROR NO. 984: We're never going to resolve that. I don't think that'll ever be resolved. Yeah. That's just--but other than that, I haven't heard anything about any personal conflicts between anybody.

THE COURT: Do you know anything about anybody bumping anybody or pushing anybody, shoving anybody, anything like that?

JUROR NO. 984: No. No.

THE COURT: Do you know anything about any squabbles amongst the people in the women's group?

JUROR NO. 984: Squabbles amongst people in the women's group?

THE COURT: Yeah.

JUROR NO. 984: What's the women's group?

THE COURT: That's the way it's been described to me.

JUROR NO. 984: I don't know what the women's group is.

THE COURT: So you don't know anything about that?

JUROR NO. 984: Uh-uh. Women's group.

THE COURT: Have you heard anything about anybody even discussing writing a book about this case?

JUROR NO. 984: No.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran?

MR. COCHRAN: No, sir.

THE COURT: Miss Clark?

MS. CLARK: No, your Honor.

THE COURT: 984, thanks a lot. Again, remember, don't talk to anybody about this matter. How's everything else going?

JUROR NO. 984: Everything is fine. Everything else is the same thing, no change. No problems.

THE COURT: Okay.

JUROR NO. 984: I just keep myself busy.

THE COURT: Yeah, I noticed. All right. Thanks a lot.

JUROR NO. 984: All right. Thank you.

(Juror no. 984 exits chambers.)

THE COURT: Off the record

(An off the record discussion was had.)

(Juror no. 247 enters chambers.)

THE CLERK: Juror 247.

THE COURT: Hello, 247. Why don't you come in, have a seat.

JUROR NO. 247: Okay.

THE COURT: You know the drill.

JUROR NO. 247: Okay.

THE COURT: 247, something has come to--a couple things have come to my attention that I need to talk to the jurors about, and I'm just going to talk to everybody, and you're no. 6 in line as you know.

JUROR NO. 247: Okay.

THE COURT: No. 247, also, when we finish our discussion this afternoon, you'll be under an order not to discuss this with any of the other jurors, any family or friends or any of the sheriff's deputies or anybody, okay?

JUROR NO. 247: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: 247, some information has been brought to me that I find to be credible, that one of the jurors has entered into an agreement with a literary agent or publishing company to write a book about this case. The problem is, there is a working title that has been assigned to this book, which indicates that this juror has already made a decision as to the guilt or innocence of Mr. Simpson. Are you that person?

JUROR NO. 247: No, sir.

THE COURT: All right. Do you know anything about anybody else who has done this?

JUROR NO. 247: Not to my knowledge.

THE COURT: To your knowledge, has anybody been discussing writing a book on this case?

JUROR NO. 247: Not to my knowledge.

THE COURT: And, 247, if you recollect, you are under an obligation to advise me immediately if anything like that comes to your attention. Do you understand that, sir?

JUROR NO. 247: Yes, I do, sir.

THE COURT: All right. 247, I have another thing I want to talk to you about. Since the last time we talked--do you recollect, we talked about any conflict amongst the jury members? Since we last talked, has anything come to your attention about any conflicts between any of the other jurors?

JUROR NO. 247: No, sir, not to my knowledge.

THE COURT: Do you know anything about any incidents that might involve bumping people, things like that?

JUROR NO. 247: No, sir.

THE COURT: Do you know anything about any ongoing squabbles that you would--I mean something that's been going on for a while between any of the jurors?

JUROR NO. 247: No. Not at all. Not to my knowledge.

THE COURT: Any staring or hard looks, something that happens all the time?

JUROR NO. 247: No. Not that I know of.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran?

MR. COCHRAN: Nothing.

THE COURT: Miss Clark?

MS. CLARK: Nothing else.

THE COURT: 247, thanks again. How's everything else before I let you go?

JUROR NO. 247: Everything's getting better, sort of improving. Sure.

THE COURT: Let me know if there's anything we need to talk about again.

JUROR NO. 247: Okay, sir.

THE COURT: Thank you, sir.

JUROR NO. 247: Thank you.

(Juror no. 247 exits chambers.)

THE CLERK: 795?

THE COURT: Give me 1427.

(Juror no. 1427 enters chambers.)

THE CLERK: Juror 1427.

THE COURT: Hello, 1427. Have a seat. Good afternoon again. When we were talking, I--there was something else that's come to my attention that I needed to talk to you about that I forgot to talk to you about the first time this afternoon. So I thought I'd just chat with you briefly. And some information has come to my attention recently that I find that information to be credible enough to have to stop and ask everybody about it. It's been brought to my attention that one of our jurors has entered into an agreement with a literary agent or with a book publisher to write a book about this case. And what concerns me is that the title of this book indicates that the juror has already reached an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of Mr. Simpson. Are you that person?

JUROR NO. 1427: No, I'm not.

THE COURT: Do you know anybody who has discussed writing a book about this case, any of our jurors?

JUROR NO. 1427: I don't--this is secondary information. I heard through other--like another juror that somebody here--something about being very open about a book, and that's all I heard.

THE COURT: What other juror told you this?

JUROR NO. 1427: 353. She said something about--there was a conversation between one of her visitors and that juror's visitor about something about a book, and that's pretty much the extent of it.

THE COURT: This is 353's visitor?

JUROR NO. 1427: Yes.

THE COURT: Who said that?

JUROR NO. 1427: Yes. Because I guess he had a conversation with another juror's visitor, and I guess it came out in the conversation, and that was pretty much all that I heard through 353.

THE COURT: All right. Do you recollect anything else about that conversation?

JUROR NO. 1427: No. There was just--you know, that was pretty much it. Just that something about--because it's second hand. I mean it's been passed along. I just heard something about this person's visitor was very open about it.

THE COURT: How about writing a book about the case?

JUROR NO. 1427: Yes.

THE COURT: So it's a visitor who's writing the book or the juror?

JUROR NO. 1427: No. The juror is writing a book, but that the visitor of that juror just mentioned it in conversation to one of 353's visitors.

THE COURT: So you don't know who the juror is?

JUROR NO. 1427: I believe it's--I was told who--what juror it was.

THE COURT: Which juror is that?

JUROR NO. 1427: I don't know his name. I don't know his number.

THE COURT: What seat does he sit in?

JUROR NO. 1427: It's either--it's either seat 5 or 6. 5 or 6. It's a male. I think it's 6. I believe a female sits in seat 5.

THE COURT: And that he has discussed writing a book?

JUROR NO. 1427: No. He hasn't discussed it. What happened was, juror 353 told me, "Yeah, my husband said that his--this juror's girlfriend mentioned something about a book," but I don't know what was said. I just--I just heard that it was mentioned, but I didn't know if it was true or not. I just--you know, it's something that was--

THE COURT: How long ago did you hear this?

JUROR NO. 1427: This was recently--it had to be within the last--this past month. I don't really--I can't really pinpoint it, you know. It was just something that was mentioned.

THE COURT: All right. If you should hear of anything that indicates to you that one of the jurors in this case has already formed an opinion, that's an act of misconduct and something that you need to tell me about.

JUROR NO. 1427: Yes, I understand that.

THE COURT: Okay. Okay. Mr. Cochran?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes, your Honor. Just one second. May I have just a second?

THE COURT: Sure.

MR. COCHRAN: Three coming up.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Do you know if any of the spouses of any of the jurors have indicated that they might write a book about this experience?

JUROR NO. 1427: No.

THE COURT: Spouses or boyfriends or girlfriends?

JUROR NO. 1427: No. I haven't heard anything like that.

THE COURT: All right. And nobody has said anything to you about writing a book, none of the other jurors?

JUROR NO. 1427: No. They don't--no. They don't mention that. And that juror, the one that his girlfriend said something about writing a book, he hardly--he's very quiet and very to himself and I hardly ever--I hardly have conversations with him. You know, it's hi, bye, just little things here and there. But no, I haven't heard anything. I haven't heard anybody say, "This is what I am going to do. I'm going to write a book," or anybody's visitors say, "I'm going to read a book," or--

THE COURT: Have you heard anything about any of the jurors' family members meeting with a literary agent or publisher over at the hotel?

JUROR NO. 1427: No. I don't know anything about that.

THE COURT: Okay. Okay. Same order, 1427. Don't discuss this with anybody.

JUROR NO. 1427: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: Thanks a lot.

JUROR NO. 1427: Uh-huh.

(Juror no. 1427 exits chambers.)

THE COURT: All right. Let's have 795.

(Juror no. 795 enters chambers.)

THE CLERK: 795.

THE COURT: 795, hi.

JUROR NO. 795: Yes. Hi. How you doing?

THE COURT: Good. 795, a couple of things that come to my attention that are serious enough that I needed to talk to all the jurors again.

JUROR NO. 795: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: And, you know, you're just no. 795 in the line. So don't assume that I've called you in here for some bad reason. But let me tell you what the problem is, and I hope you can help me with this. First of all, some information has come to my attention that indicates that one of our jurors has entered into an agreement with either a literary agent or with a publishing company to write a book about this case and that the title of the book indicates that the juror has already made up his or her mind as to the guilt or innocence of Mr. Simpson. Are you that person?

JUROR NO. 795: Oh, no, I'm not.

THE COURT: Have you heard about any of the other jurors writing a book about this case?

JUROR NO. 795: No, I haven't.

THE COURT: Have you heard anybody discuss writing a book about this case?

JUROR NO. 795: No. Not around me.

THE COURT: Have you heard anybody discussing meeting with a literary agent over at the hotel or any of their family members meeting with literary agents?

JUROR NO. 795: No, I haven't.

THE COURT: If you should hear anything that would indicate any of our jurors have already made up their mind about the case one way or another, would you report that to me?

JUROR NO. 795: Oh, definitely, yes.

THE COURT: Secondly, since the last time we talked about the problems with the jury, has anything come to your attention that indicates that there's a significant conflict between any two of our jurors?

JUROR NO. 795: No. You mean anything like a problem or something?

THE COURT: A problem.

JUROR NO. 795: No. Well, I haven't seen anything personally. Now, what goes on between, you know, the jurors, I don't know because most of the time, I be working out. When I get through working out, I just go to my room.

THE COURT: Okay.

JUROR NO. 795: Because I don't want to get mixed up with all that if it is.

THE COURT: Have you heard anything about that?

JUROR NO. 795: No, I haven't.

THE COURT: Okay. How's everything else?

JUROR NO. 795: Well, everything is fine except for the food. I mean, well--now we have junk for dinner and I'm not a junk eater. So now, actually that's the only problem. But everything else is okay.

THE COURT: All right. Last couple of days, you've seemed--you know how I like to look and see if everything is okay with all of our people. You've kind of seem distracted the last couple days. Everything okay?

JUROR NO. 795: It was probably because I've been up a little later. I work out. I get through about close to 11 o'clock, and then when I get to my room, I can't sleep. So then I'm up in the room a little later. And then when I'm ready to sleep, it's time to get up. So that might be it.

THE COURT: Okay. Nothing else?

JUROR NO. 795: So nothing serious. No.

THE COURT: Okay. Have you--you know, during the--any of the times that you've been with the other jurors, have you heard anything discussed either with their visitor or spouse or friends, anything about writing a book?

JUROR NO. 795: No, I haven't, because usually we're close, but we're not that close. We're--I don't be paying any attention, you know, to anybody's conversation because I be minding my own business most of the time. So I don't get into the other people's business. I just want to get through with this and, you know, do what I have to do and later, you know, for the other stuff.

THE COURT: All right. 795, I'm going to order you not to discuss this with any of the other jurors or anybody else, okay?

JUROR NO. 795: Sure. Uh-huh.

THE COURT: Thanks a lot.

JUROR NO. 795: You're welcome.

(Juror no. 795 exits chambers.)

THE COURT: And also, the record should reflect during the course of all our discussions, I have an abundant supply of post-it notes. Counsel always are free to offer the Court additional questions to ask of these jurors.

MS. CLARK: And the Court has been asking the questions proffered by counsel.

THE COURT: 90 percent of them. Anybody ready for a brief break?

MS. CLARK: Yeah. How late are we going to go?

THE COURT: Until we finish. 4:30. Let's take 10 minutes.

(Recess.)

THE COURT: Can I have 1233, please.

(Juror no. 1233 enters chambers.)

THE COURT: 1233, good afternoon. How are you?

JUROR NO. 1233: I'm fine.

THE COURT: Good. 1233, as you notice, I've been calling the other jurors in one at a time, and I'm bringing you in as no. 8 because you're juror no. 8. I don't want you to assume that the reason you're here is that any accusation of misconduct on your part has been made. But some information has been brought to my attention that I have to make inquiry of each of the jurors. I am sure you understand, the same thing as last time.

JUROR NO. 1233: Yes.

THE COURT: Also, when we finish this afternoon, you will be under an order not to discuss this with anybody else. You understand that?

JUROR NO. 1233: Yes.

THE COURT: 1233, I've received some information from a source that appears to be credible that one of the persons on our jury panel has entered into an agreement with a literary agent or a publisher to write a book about this case, and the title of this book indicates that that juror has already made up his or her mind as to the guilt or innocence of Mr. Simpson. Are you that person?

JUROR NO. 1233: No, I'm not.

THE COURT: All right. Do you know of any other juror who has done such a thing?

JUROR NO. 1233: No, I don't.

THE COURT: Have you heard any other juror discuss writing a book on this case?

JUROR NO. 1233: No.

THE COURT: Have you heard any of their friends or visitors discuss writing a book about this case?

JUROR NO. 1233: No.

THE COURT: Have you heard any discussion or has anything come to your attention that would cause you to believe that any of our jurors have already made up their mind as to the guilt or innocence of Mr. Simpson?

JUROR NO. 1233: No.

THE COURT: 1233, are you aware of any--since the last time we talked, are you aware of any conflict, personal conflict between any of our jurors?

JUROR NO. 1233: Yes.

THE COURT: Tell me about that.

JUROR NO. 1233: Well, I feel as though there are a few jurors that dislike me. And for what reason, I don't know. But I'm basically a person that stays to myself. There's very few people that I associate with here. And if it doesn't seem--if you don't go along with the flow or do what everybody else is doing, they kind of isolate you.

THE COURT: All right. Tell me about, who do you feel it is on our jury panel that doesn't like you?

JUROR NO. 1233: 1290, 353 and 1427.

THE COURT: How did this become apparent to you?

JUROR NO. 1233: I think it all started--remember when the first juror was dismissed, the elderly lady?

THE COURT: Yes.

JUROR NO. 1233: Okay. That myself and another juror had overheard her in a discussion with 353.

THE COURT: Yeah. I recollect.

JUROR NO. 1233: And then I think after she was dismissed, they took it apparently that it was something we did vindictive to get rid of this woman. And from that point on, there's been just this feeling, you know, that--looks that they give you, remarks that they've made. But I can--you know, that doesn't bother me. I'm not here for that purpose, to make friends or have anyone like me.

THE COURT: How do you think that will impact your ability to sit and deliberate as a juror? Will you be able to put that aside?

JUROR NO. 1233: I can associate that from them. It's two different issues. That doesn't bother me at all. As long as they don't bother me, I'm fine.

THE COURT: Are you aware of any physical contacts between any of the jurors?

JUROR NO. 1233: As I told you before, just what--

THE COURT: Not that. That's history.

JUROR NO. 1233: In the past, right. No, I don't know anything else.

THE COURT: Okay. It would be a shame if, you know, we had deliberations based upon people's personalities rather than facts and the law.

JUROR NO. 1233: Oh, sure.

THE COURT: How's everything else?

JUROR NO. 1233: Just fine. I'll just be glad when we can go home.

THE COURT: I'll be glad when you can go home too, believe me.

Anything else you feel you need to tell me?

JUROR NO. 1233: No.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran?

MR. COCHRAN: No.

THE COURT: Miss Clark?

MS. CLARK: No.

THE COURT: 1233, remember, don't talk to anybody about this.

JUROR NO. 1233: I understand.

THE COURT: Thank you.

JUROR NO. 1233: Thank you.

(Juror no. 1233 exits chambers.)

THE COURT: Can I have juror no. 9, please.

(Juror no. 98 enters chambers.)

THE CLERK: Juror 98.

THE COURT: Come on in, 98. How are you today?

JUROR NO. 98: Fine.

THE COURT: No. 98, as you have noticed, I have been asking each juror one at a time to come in and chat with me. That's probably--

JUROR NO. 98: Well, you know, I noticed that.

THE COURT: You noticed that. You pick up on these things real quick.

JUROR NO. 98: Doesn't take me any time. Anyone have to come in, we notice this.

THE COURT: Okay. So you understand there's something that's come up.

JUROR NO. 98: Sure something has. I don't know.

THE COURT: Also, when we finish, you'll be under order not to discuss this with any of the other jurors.

JUROR NO. 98: I don't have a problem with that part.

THE COURT: Okay. No. 98, it has come to my attention from a credible source that one of our jurors has met with a literary agent or publisher and has agreed to write a book about this case. And what concerns me about this information is that the title of this book indicates that this juror has already made up his or her mind as to the guilt or innocence of Mr. Simpson. Are you that person?

JUROR NO. 98: Oh, no.

THE COURT: Are you aware of any person, any member of our jury panel who has done such a thing?

JUROR NO. 98: No. I didn't know anyone here was doing anything like that.

THE COURT: Have you heard any of our jurors discuss writing a book or overheard any of our jurors' visitors discuss writing a book about this case?

JUROR NO. 98: I sure haven't.

THE COURT: You understand that if you ever hear or become aware of anything that indicates that one of our jurors has already made up his or her mind about the case, you have an obligation to tell me about that.

JUROR NO. 98: I really would. But I'm not aware of that. I'm shocked really. I thought it was something else.

THE COURT: What did you think it was?

JUROR NO. 98: I don't know, but not that.

THE COURT: Is there something you want to tell me?

JUROR NO. 98: Oh, no. Not me.

THE COURT: Looking at your face, I don't know.

JUROR NO. 98: Well, I'm surprised, you know.

THE COURT: Got you, didn't I? All right. No. 98, since the last time we talked, if you recollect, one of the questions I asked you the last time was if you were aware of any serious conflict between any of our jurors. Since that time, has anything come to your attention that would indicate that there's a problem between any of our jurors?

JUROR NO. 98: No. I usually go to bed pretty early, you know. If anything go down, you know, I'm really not into it much.

THE COURT: You must be in good shape, good health these days.

JUROR NO. 98: Why do you say that?

THE COURT: You get a lot of rest.

JUROR NO. 98: Well, for a few days, I've had a sinus problem. But other than that, I ride my bike, trying to lose a few pounds really.

THE COURT: Listen to that disk player and sing while you are bicycling?

JUROR NO. 98: Yeah. That's true.

THE COURT: All right. Anything else you think you need to tell us about?

JUROR NO. 98: No. I want to thank you. I'm enjoying myself. I had my--last weekend was really nice. I truly enjoyed it. I never thought I would be able to actually say I flew the blimp, but that was really nice.

THE COURT: The reason you got that is that my father-in-law wanted to go for a ride on the blimp. So I made some inquiry. You know, they don't let just anybody fly in the blimp. So through my inquiry on how to get my father-in-law on the blimp, I found out how to get you on the blimp. I have never even been there, let alone flown it yet.

JUROR NO. 98: It's amazing about that blimp too. They must have answered over a hundred questions. I mean, I know this is no time for it, but it's amazing.

THE COURT: I'm glad you had a good time. How was Miss Saigon?

JUROR NO. 98: Splendid movie. I recommend everyone to see that movie. I really recommend it.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran, any questions for 98?

MR. COCHRAN: No, your Honor.

THE COURT: Miss Clark?

MS. CLARK: No, your Honor.

THE COURT: Don't talk to anybody.

JUROR NO. 98: Okay.

THE COURT: Have a good weekend this weekend.

JUROR NO. 98: Thanks. I shall.

(Juror no. 98 exits chambers.)

(Juror no. 1489 enters chambers.)

THE CLERK: Juror 1489.

THE COURT: 1489, how are you? Have a seat.

JUROR NO. 1489: Fine. And you?

THE COURT: Okay. Sorry to keep you cooped up there.

JUROR NO. 1489: It's all right.

THE COURT: If you recollect, the last time we talked, I told you something had come to my attention, not necessarily meaning it's true or not, but I have to talk to everybody in order. You are the 10th person I'm talking to because you're seat no. 10, okay?

JUROR NO. 1489: Right.

THE COURT: Also, when we finish, you'll be under an order not to discuss this with anybody else. All right?

JUROR NO. 1489: All right.

THE COURT: 1489, some information has come to me that I find to be credible information, which indicates that one of our jurors has met with a literary agent or with a book publisher and has agreed--has entered into an agreement to write a book about their experience as a juror on the Simpson case. The title of this book indicates that that juror has already made up his or her mind about the outcome of this case, about the guilt or innocence of Mr. Simpson. With me so far?

JUROR NO. 1489: Right.

THE COURT: Are you that person?

JUROR NO. 1489: No.

THE COURT: Do you know of any of our jurors who have done such a thing?

JUROR NO. 1489: Wrote a book?

THE COURT: Wrote a book or entered into an agreement to write a book, selected a title which indicates they've already decided whether Mr. Simpson is guilty or innocent.

JUROR NO. 1489: No, I don't.

THE COURT: All right. Have you heard anybody discuss writing a book?

JUROR NO. 1489: No. I haven't communicated with anybody that was here before. I haven't talked to anybody that's--once they left here, I haven't spoken to anyone.

THE COURT: Okay. Anybody presently on the jury who's indicated anything like that?

JUROR NO. 1489: No. Not--not to me.

THE COURT: Okay. Have you overheard anybody talk about writing a book?

JUROR NO. 1489: No.

THE COURT: Have you heard or observed or has anything come to your attention that would indicate any of your fellow jurors have made up their mind as to the guilt or innocence of Mr. Simpson?

JUROR NO. 1489: No.

THE COURT: 1489, are you aware of any conflicts that are going on between any of the jury members?

JUROR NO. 1489: Conflict?

THE COURT: Conflict.

JUROR NO. 1489: No, I wouldn't. I wouldn't say conflict, no.

THE COURT: All right. 1489, it's been brought to my attention--and you should understand, these are only allegations. I don't necessarily assume them to be true, but it's been reported to me that on more than one occasion, while in the elevator, that you have shoved another one of the jurors, that--

JUROR NO. 1489: That I shoved someone?

THE COURT: Shoved someone.

JUROR NO. 1489: Those are--that's not true.

THE COURT: All right. Nothing like that happened?

JUROR NO. 1489: I don't have any reason to shove anybody. Usually when I get in the elevator, I go all the way to the back. Nine out of ten times, when I get in the elevator, I go to the back so everybody else can come in.

THE COURT: Has there been any incident when you were in the buffet line where you bumped into anybody or pushed anybody accidentally or on purpose?

JUROR NO. 1489: Not that I know. I usually let everybody else eat before I get in line or usually I'm first. So I don't know how all these things are coming about.

THE COURT: Okay. Has there been any situation where you've been involved in a staring contest with any of the jurors?

JUROR NO. 1489: This morning, when I was on the--on the elevator, one of the jurors was staring at me for whatever reason. I don't know. When I looked, she was just focused at me. So later on, in the hall, I asked her, I said, "Did I do something to you?" I said, "What was the purpose of staring at me this morning?" And the juror said, "Well, you stare at me," you know. But it just seemed a little strange because usually you can feel somebody if they're staring at you. And I was just focusing to the front and then I felt this person staring at me, and I looked at them and they were just zeroing in on me. So I looked and I nodded, you know, to speak, but they didn't do anything. So then later on, at lunch, I asked them, "Did I do something, or why were you staring at me this morning?" I said, "Did I do anything to you?" They said, "No. You stared at me," you know, and because I asked them what was the purpose of the staring at lunchtime.

THE COURT: Has--which juror is this that you had this--

JUROR NO. 1489: I think 1427.

THE COURT: Have you had any other conflict or problems with 1427?

JUROR NO. 1489: The day that I was here before when I spoke to you about 353 had hit me in the back of the head, okay, 1427 was sitting with 353. And so when the incident occurred, I turned around. She said it wasn't her. So--the only other person behind me was 353. And then there was another occasion when the--they post the movie schedule. Because 1427--three of them usually run in buddies. So the other day--I mean not the other day, but at some point in time--they post the movie schedule in the front. So they got a schedule and in the back, they got a calendar. So when someone else is looking at the schedule, I wait until they're through. When they get through, I go up and see what's playing. So this particular day, I was looking at the schedule, and 1427 come up and said, "Could you move out of the way so I could see the schedule?" I said, "Well, I'll move as soon as I get through." I said, "I'm only going to be here a few minutes." I said, "I'm sure you are not in that big a hurry." That happened sometime ago.

THE COURT: Anything since then? Anything since the last time we talked?

JUROR NO. 1489: Just the staring incident this morning.

THE COURT: Okay. Can you think of any reason that she might feel that you've been bumping her or pushing her in the elevator?

JUROR NO. 1489: Well, as I said, her and 353 are good friends. So all--I don't know why she would say something like that when it's not even true because most of the time, I'm on this side of the elevator and she is on the opposite side of the elevator. So the bumping incident--if you bump somebody, if I bump anybody, it's inadvertent. It's not done intentionally. But when you've got 20 other people trying to get on the elevator, it's hard sometimes to be on the elevator and not touch somebody. But just deliberately bump them, I've never done that.

THE COURT: Okay. 1489, my only word of advice to you would be to just, you know, stay away from this other person if there's a problem.

JUROR NO. 1489: That's why I try to stay away from anybody. I go to the back all the time and watch TV so usually there's only two or three people come there. I try to stay away from everybody because I don't want any problems from anyone.

THE COURT: How's the TV working out?

JUROR NO. 1489: The new TV's are fine.

THE COURT: I was kind of amazed when I went over there to look at the facilities and found out that you guys were watching all that stuff on a 20-inch TV I didn't know they were so small. That's why we took care of that.

JUROR NO. 1489: Yes. That's fine.

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

MR. COCHRAN: No.

THE COURT: Miss Clark?

MS. CLARK: May I have a moment, your Honor?

THE COURT: Sure.

MS. CLARK: Nothing, thank you.

THE COURT: 1489, thank you very much. Remember, don't discuss this with anybody else.

JUROR NO. 1489: Okay. Thank you.

(Juror no. 1489 exits chambers.)

THE COURT: Can I have 63, please?

(Juror no. 63 enters chambers.)

THE CLERK: Juror 63.

THE COURT: How are you?

JUROR NO. 63: Good, thank you.

THE COURT: Have a seat. No. 63, something has come to my attention, two things, that I needed to talk to all the jurors about. And you're no. 11 that I'm talking to today simply because you're seat no. 11. Don't assume that you're being accused of any misconduct or doing anything wrong. When we finish our discussion today, you will be under an order not to discuss this with anybody else. Do you understand that?

JUROR NO. 63: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. No. 63, some information has come to my attention that indicates that one of our jurors has been in contact with either a literary agent or with a publishing company and that juror has agreed to write a book about this case. And the title that has been selected for this book indicates that this juror has already made a decision as to the guilt or innocence of Mr. Simpson in this case. Are you with me so far?

JUROR NO. 63: Yeah.

THE COURT: Okay. Are you that person.

JUROR NO. 63: No.

THE COURT: Do you know of anything that is even remotely close to what I've just discussed with you?

JUROR NO. 63: I have no idea. First time I ever heard anything like that at all.

THE COURT: Have you heard any of the other jurors discuss writing a book?

JUROR NO. 63: Uh-uh.

THE COURT: Have you heard any of the jurors' visitors or guests or family members discuss anything about writing a book?

JUROR NO. 63: Uh-uh.

THE COURT: Have you heard any of the jurors make any comment or has anything come to your attention that would indicate that any of our jurors have made a decision about any of the facts or circumstances about this case.

JUROR NO. 63: No.

THE COURT: All right. Do you understand that if anything like that comes to your attention, that you have an obligation to tell me about that immediately?

JUROR NO. 63: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. Secondly, if you recollect, the last time we talked here in chambers together, I asked you about any conflicts between the jurors that might be causing problems. Are you aware of any incidents or any conflict amongst our jurors that might be a problem?

JUROR NO. 63: Since the last time we talked?

THE COURT: Yeah.

JUROR NO. 63: Not specifically, no. I mean, we talked about some examples when we talked the last time. But since then, I haven't really been aware of anything that's happened.

THE COURT: Okay.

JUROR NO. 63: So--

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Cochran?

MR. COCHRAN: Nothing, your Honor.

THE COURT: Miss Clark? All right. No. 63, remember my admonition to you; don't talk to anybody about this. But before you leave, how's everything else?

JUROR NO. 63: Good. I mean considering.

THE COURT: It could be worse?

JUROR NO. 63: It could be worse.

THE COURT: Just keep that in mind. It could be worse.

JUROR NO. 63: That's right.

THE COURT: All right. Thanks a lot.

JUROR NO. 63: Thank you.

(Juror no. 63 exits chambers.)

THE COURT: All right. 353 is next.

(Juror no. 353 enters chambers.)

THE CLERK: Juror 353.

THE COURT: Hello, 353.

JUROR NO. 353: Hello. Hello. Good afternoon. I don't know if I can take another tête-à-tête with you guys.

THE COURT: Have another seat. How are you today?

JUROR NO. 353: Okay.

THE COURT: All right. Something has come to my attention that I needed to stop the testimony today and talk to you individually again, same procedure as the last time. And when we conclude our discussion, you will be under an order not to discuss this with anybody else. Do you understand that?

JUROR NO. 353: I understand.

THE COURT: It has been brought to my attention from a credible source that one of our jurors has been in contact with a literary agent or publisher and that this particular juror has entered into an agreement that indicates that they are going to write a book about this case and that a title has been selected for this particular book that indicates that that person has already made up their mind as to the guilt or innocence of Mr. Simpson. Specifically, the title is--let's see here--standing alone, a verdict for Nicole. There's also an indication that this person is involved with their spouse, boyfriend or husband in making these arrangements. Are you with me so far?

JUROR NO. 353: (No audible response).

THE COURT: Are you that person?

JUROR NO. 353: No.

THE COURT: All right. Do you know anything about this?

JUROR NO. 353: Well, I know my husband had said somebody here is writing a book, that he heard from a person's girlfriend that somebody was writing a book.

THE COURT: Tell me about that.

JUROR NO. 353: One night--

THE COURT: How did this come about?

JUROR NO. 353: One night on conjugal visit time, he was telling me--he said, "Be careful what you say because somebody here is writing a book." And I said, "There's probably several people here that are writing books," you know, and he said, "Well," you know, "I know for a fact that somebody is writing a book," and he said, "His girlfriend told me."

THE COURT: Did he say who that was who told that to him?

JUROR NO. 353: No. But I kind of--you know, he doesn't know anybody. I mean, he doesn't know who's who or what girlfriend or boyfriend or husband, wife goes with what juror. So--but, you know, I kind of figured it out by process of elimination. I mean, there's not a lot of men on this panel. So--

THE COURT: So by process of elimination, who do you think it is?

JUROR NO. 353: I think it's 247, but I have no idea.

THE COURT: And which seat is he in?

JUROR NO. 353: He's seated directly in front of me, pretty much in front of me.

THE COURT: 247? Okay. Would your husband be able to identify the person that he talked to about this?

JUROR NO. 353: I'm sure he probably would. I mean, you know--I don't know. You would have to ask him. And, you know, I know he tries very hard not to even talk to--you know, he doesn't want to get involved with conversation anything. We try to keep pretty much to ourselves. So--

THE COURT: Okay: No. 353, have you heard anything or has anything come to your attention that would indicate that any of the jurors have already made up their mind as to the guilt or innocence of Mr. Simpson?

JUROR NO. 353: No. Like I said, I don't--I try to keep pretty much--don't talk about anything. I mean I--I try my best to try to stay out, you know, of--out of anything that would, you know, lend to that kind of conversation or would even--you know, anything like that would even--I don't even like to talk about things in persons' personalities or background or anything. I don't want to have to have any of that in my head. I just like to keep things, you know, as light as possible.

THE COURT: All right. All right. Let's shift subjects for just a moment here. Since the last time we talked--if you recollect, one of the things that we talked about was a question regarding any significant or serious conflict between any of the jurors. Since we last talked, has anything occurred or anything come to your attention that would indicate that we have a problem like that?

JUROR NO. 353: I know there's--I mean there's always conflict. I mean not--there's always little things, you know, "She gave me the hairy eyeball today," or, "He stands too close to me," or, you know. You always--I mean, we've been together for almost five months now, you know. It's kind of hard not to have pressure, you know, feel a little bit of stress. I try to take things not personally, you know. Somebody grunts at me or doesn't say hello or, you know, I try not to take it personally. So--but I know there are other people that do. So, you know, I probably have offended quite a few people here on a number of occasions, and quite a few people here have offended me. But it's--I mean, it's all part of living together. I try to take it as that anyway.

THE COURT: Any of those conflicts you think might make it difficult for this jury to work together?

JUROR NO. 353: For the jury to work together, huh?

THE COURT: Do you think you can put aside any of those petty things and work together?

JUROR NO. 353: I sure hope so. You know, I would hate to have to go through this and then come to the very end where our personalities are getting in the way of, you know, trying to come to a decision, you know. I mean, I really do. I mean, I hopefully--I think about that and I really honestly--I hope so. I think we can. You know, you have a lot of fairly intelligent people here. You know, I think you can set aside petty differences and really realize the importance of what is going on here. You know, I mean we're not here--at least, I'm not here for fun and games. I'm not here for the food or the entertainment or the excitement of all this. I'm just here to do my job as a juror. That is it. That's all. I try to teach my son a lesson here, that I'm trying to make him be proud of me. That's really why I'm here. If it wasn't for him, I, you know--

THE COURT: How's your husband? There was some illness problem.

JUROR NO. 353: Yeah. He's--he's still home. He's recovering. He's taking some time off, but he's doing better. He's recuperating. I think he's doing fine now.

THE COURT: Okay. Now, you mentioned that you suspected or you thought that maybe there was a lot of people on our jury writing books. What brings you to that conclusion?

JUROR NO. 353: Well, I just think, you know--I don't know. I know that one of the jurors that left here, 602, I know he had intentions to write a book, juror no. 602. And, you know, it wouldn't surprise me if there's somebody else here that's--I don't know personally. I mean, I don't know like I know, you know, from the girlfriend, you know, that kind of information. But, you know, I just, you know, kind of surmise that there might some more people willing to sell their story.

THE COURT: Do you know if your husband has contemplated writing a book about this or--

JUROR NO. 353: My husband?

THE COURT: Your husband.

JUROR NO. 353: No.

THE COURT: Do you--why do you laugh at that--

JUROR NO. 353: Because you would have to know my husband.

THE COURT: --out of curiosity.

JUROR NO. 353: He's a ********************. He's just, you know, an ordinary guy who--

THE COURT: He doesn't write poetry for the Atlantic?

JUROR NO. 353: No. No articles for New Yorker or anything like that. He's--

THE COURT: Okay. Have you ever seen this woman that your husband referred to who made this comment?

JUROR NO. 353: Yeah. I think I've seen her like visiting day, things like that.

THE COURT: Okay. To your knowledge, has any literary agent or publisher visited any of the family members over at the hotel?

JUROR NO. 353: I have no idea. No. That's--you have the extent of my knowledge of this entire incident. That's it. That's all I know.

THE COURT: All right. This business of one of the visitors of another juror talking about writing a book, have you discussed that with anybody else? Any of the other jurors mention that to anybody else?

JUROR NO. 353: Well, I think it's kind of a--I don't know. Like a--like a running gag, you know, write a letter kind of thing because I'm all for letter writing. I'll write out a letter. So I think it's--I mean you're always kind of on edge, you know. You don't know--you don't know why people or what people would do, you know.

THE COURT: Have you discussed that other incident about the woman talking to your husband with anybody else?

JUROR NO. 353: I might have mentioned it to somebody, you know, be careful because there are people--something, you know. But like I was saying, just kind of a--you know, just something you're aware of. I mean it's, you know--

THE COURT: Forgive me if I've asked you this question already, but do you recollect when your husband mentioned this to you?

JUROR NO. 353: Maybe about seven weeks or--or even longer. Maybe several weeks ago.

THE COURT: All right.

JUROR NO. 353: I don't know.

THE COURT: Anything else? Mr. Cochran? Miss Clark?

JUROR NO. 353: To tell you the truth, this scares me. I mean the idea that, you know--you know, to know that--to have the idea that somebody is probably going to write a book is one thing. But then to actually know somebody is, I mean that it like angers me kind of almost.

THE COURT: Is there anything you may have said to anybody else that might in the wildest way get interpreted as meaning you might have already made up your mind about this case, anything that you feel anybody might have misinterpreted?

JUROR NO. 353: I don't know. I mean, you know, that's really a hard question to answer because you could say a lot of things you know and people misinterpret them.

THE COURT: Anything stand out in your mind, as soon as you said it, "Oops, I wish I hadn't said that"?

JUROR NO. 353: A lot of things I say. I don't know. I can't think of anything that I would say because, you know, I haven't--I mean--so I don't know what I would say that somebody would--would take it as I have--unless they really truly want to misinterpret what I said unless, you know--

THE COURT: Okay. No. 353, how's everything else?

JUROR NO. 353: I guess--I guess it's okay, I mean, you know, as far as being sequestered goes.

THE COURT: I mean, you've settled into a routine and you're coping with it?

JUROR NO. 353: I have my good days. I have my bad days. I think stuff like this kind of is upsetting to me though, hearing this is.

THE COURT: I think given the tenor of what the information is, I mean, you understand that I have to ask these questions?

JUROR NO. 353: No. I know. But it kind of bothers me about 247. I mean--if that's true.

THE COURT: Well, we don't know that to be true yet.

JUROR NO. 353: Well, that's good.

THE COURT: Allrighty? Okay.

JUROR NO. 353: I guess.

THE COURT: Thank you very much, 353.

JUROR NO. 353: You tell me.

THE COURT: Don't talk to anybody about this. Don't worry about it.

(Juror no. 353 exits chambers.)

THE COURT: 2457.

(Juror no. 2457 enters chambers.)

THE CLERK: 2457.

THE COURT: Good afternoon, 2457. How are you today?

JUROR NO. 2457: I'm fine, thank you.

THE COURT: Good. Good. Sit down. 2457, something has come to my attention that I need to talk to all the jurors about. And you should understand that I don't assume necessarily these allegations to be true, and it's not an accusation that you've done anything wrong. I just need to ask you some questions, okay?

JUROR NO. 2457: Sure.

THE COURT: Same thing as last time. Also, 2457, you will be under the obligation not to discuss this with anybody else. Do you understand?

JUROR NO. 2457: Of course.

THE COURT: 2457, it's come to my attention from a credible source that one of our jurors has made contact with a literary agent or a book publisher and has agreed to write a book about this case, and the title of the book indicates that this juror has already made up his or her mind about whether or not Mr. Simpson is guilty or innocent. Are you with me so far?

JUROR NO. 2457: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. Are you that person?

JUROR NO. 2457: No, indeed not.

THE COURT: Have you made any arrangement or talked to anybody about publishing a book with regard to this case?

JUROR NO. 2457: No. And I wouldn't know how to even begin to.

THE COURT: Have you heard of any other jurors either wanting to, thinking about or agreeing to write a book about this case?

JUROR NO. 2457: No.

THE COURT: Have you heard anything or has anything come to your attention that would indicate to you that any of our jurors have already made up their mind about this case?

JUROR NO. 2457: No.

THE COURT: Do you understand that it would be an act of misconduct and that you would be required to report that to me?

JUROR NO. 2457: Of course.

THE COURT: All right. Have you heard anything about any of the visitors or any of the friends who are the girlfriend or boyfriend of any of our jurors discuss writing a book about this case?

JUROR NO. 2457: No.

THE COURT: Have you heard any discussions whatsoever that had to do with this case and writing a book account?

JUROR NO. 2457: No, I haven't.

THE COURT: 2457, since the last time we talked--if you recollect, I asked you about your knowledge of any serious conflicts between any of our jurors.

JUROR NO. 2457: Yeah.

THE COURT: Since we last talked, has anything else come to your attention or is there anything you should have told me about at that time?

JUROR NO. 2457: No. I think everything is trying to go pretty smooth right through here.

THE COURT: Nothing going on that you would consider a serious conflict?

JUROR NO. 2457: No.

THE COURT: How's everything else?

JUROR NO. 2457: Fine.

THE COURT: Okay. How's life over at the hotel?

JUROR NO. 2457: It's okay.

THE COURT: You going to survive?

JUROR NO. 2457: Yeah.

THE COURT: All right. No.--excuse me. Miss Clark? Mr. Cochran?

MR. COCHRAN: I have no questions.

THE COURT: All right. 2457--

JUROR NO. 2457: Excuse me?

THE COURT: Stay alive, 2457.

JUROR NO. 2457: I got to.

THE COURT: Don't talk to anybody about this.

JUROR NO. 2457: I won't.

THE COURT: Okay. Did you join the blimp ride? 2457, did you enjoy the blimp ride?

JUROR NO. 2457: Eh.

(Juror no. 2457 exits chambers.)

(Juror no. 165 enters chambers.)

THE CLERK: Juror 165.

THE COURT: Good afternoon.

JUROR NO. 165: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: How are you today? 165, something has come to my attention that I need to stop the testimony this afternoon to talk individually to each one of the jurors.

JUROR NO. 165: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: It's the same procedure as the last time you and I talked here in chambers. There's no allegation that you have done anything wrong. I just need to talk to each one of the jurors. And when we finish, sir, you will be under an order not to discuss this with anybody else. Do you understand that?

JUROR NO. 165: All right.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. No. 165, some information has been brought to me that indicates that one of our jurors has met with a literary agent or with a book publisher and has agreed to write a book about this case. And what is most troubling about this is that the title of the book indicates that this juror has already made up his or her mind about the guilt or innocence of Mr. Simpson. Are you with me so far?

JUROR NO. 165: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Then, 165, are you that person?

JUROR NO. 165: No, sir.

THE COURT: All right. Have you discussed in any way with anybody the possibility of writing a book about this case?

JUROR NO. 165: No, sir.

THE COURT: Do you know of any of your family or friends who on your behalf might have done that?

JUROR NO. 165: No, sir.

THE COURT: Are you aware of any of the other jurors who have discussed writing a book about this case?

JUROR NO. 165: I'm not aware of any, no, sir.

THE COURT: Have you heard anybody discuss the possibility of writing a book about this case?

JUROR NO. 165: No, sir.

THE COURT: Have you heard any of the family members or friends during any of the visits, anybody who might have discussed writing a book about the case?

JUROR NO. 165: No, sir.

THE COURT: 165, if you recollect, the last time we talked, one of the questions I asked you was, were you aware of any significant or major or big conflicts or problems between any of our jurors. Do you remember that question?

JUROR NO. 165: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right. Since we last talked, has anything come to your attention which would indicate we have any problems like that?

JUROR NO. 165: I wouldn't think so.

THE COURT: Okay. You don't think we have any problems there?

JUROR NO. 165: Between the jurors?

THE COURT: Yes, sir.

JUROR NO. 165: I wouldn't think so. Nothing major. Might be some misunderstandings sometimes.

THE COURT: Anything serious, anything that might prevent the jury from doing what they're here to do?

JUROR NO. 165: I'm not aware of anything of that serious nature.

THE COURT: Okay. Good to hear. Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: No questions.

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: No questions.

THE COURT: No. 165, thank you very much, sir, for taking your time to talk to us. Remember, don't talk to anybody else about this.

JUROR NO. 165: All right, sir.

THE COURT: Thank you very much.

JUROR NO. 165: All right, sir.

(Juror no. 165 exits chambers.)

(Juror no. 1386 enters chambers.)

THE CLERK: Juror 1386.

JUROR NO. 1386: Hi.

THE COURT: Hi. Come on in, sit down. How are you today?

JUROR NO. 1386: Fine.

THE COURT: Good. Something has come to my attention that I need to talk to the jurors again. As with the last time, there's no allegation that you've done anything wrong. I just need to talk to everybody. And the reason that you're at the end of the line is because you are almost at the end of the line. Okay?

JUROR NO. 1386: Right.

THE COURT: Also, when we finish talking, you will be under an order not to discuss this with any of the other jurors or anybody else. Do you understand that?

JUROR NO. 1386: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. 1386, it's come to my attention from a credible source that one of our jurors may have met with a literary agent or with a book publisher and has made an agreement to write a book about this case. Also, what's most troubling about this is that the title of this book indicates that this juror has already made up his or her mind about the guilt or innocence of Mr. Simpson. Are you with me so far?

JUROR NO. 1386: Uh-huh. Yes.

THE COURT: Are you that person?

JUROR NO. 1386: No.

THE COURT: Do you--have you had any meetings or any conversations with any book agents or--

JUROR NO. 1386: No.

THE COURT: --publisher?

JUROR NO. 1386: Uh-uh.

THE COURT: Has anybody on your behalf done anything like that?

JUROR NO. 1386: No.

THE COURT: Have you discussed with anybody the possibility of writing a book about this experience?

JUROR NO. 1386: No.

THE COURT: Have you heard anybody else, any of the other jurors discuss the possibility of writing a book?

JUROR NO. 1386: No.

THE COURT: Have you heard any of the jurors' visitors or friends discuss writing a book about this case?

JUROR NO. 1386: No.

THE COURT: Has anything come to your attention either by hearing it or some other things, anything come to your attention that would indicate to you--excuse me--that anybody is writing a book about this case?

JUROR NO. 1386: No.

THE COURT: If something like that came to your attention, would you report that immediately to me?

JUROR NO. 1386: Yeah. I guess I will if I'm supposed to, yeah. Okay. Yeah. I'm sorry I'm laughing. It's just--okay.

THE COURT: Not you?

JUROR NO. 1386: No. I'm just--

THE COURT: You sure?

JUROR NO. 1386: Sounds funny.

THE COURT: Okay.

JUROR NO. 1386: I mean--

THE COURT: Okay. I just want to make sure. No. 1386, if you let me shift topics now. If you recollect, the last time we talked, we talked about conflicts, problems and conflict between the jurors. Since the last time we talked, has anything come to your attention that would indicate that we've got any serious problems regarding conflict between our jurors?

JUROR NO. 1386: Serious problems? No, not that I know. I don't really pay much attention anymore. Since the one time I came in, I've learned to deal with it. I don't really pay attention to certain people.

THE COURT: Okay. Is there anything about any of these personality problems that you won't be able to set aside so that the jury can do what they have to do and finish this when we finish this case?

JUROR NO. 1386: Say that again, the question?

THE COURT: Anything about these conflicts that might prevent the jury from deliberating as a jury in this case?

JUROR NO. 1386: No.

THE COURT: Have you in any way said anything that would indicate to anybody that--anything that might have been misinterpreted that indicated you already made up your mind about this case?

JUROR NO. 1386: Have I said anything?

THE COURT: Anybody brought to your attention or mentioned to you or has there been anything that you've said that you said, "Oh, oh, shouldn't have said that," that might indicate that you've already made up your mind in this case?

JUROR NO. 1386: I don't think so. Not that I know of.

THE COURT: Is there anything else you think we ought to know about?

JUROR NO. 1386: I want to go home.

THE COURT: We would like to get you home as soon as we can. Are you hanging in there with us?

JUROR NO. 1386: I guess.

THE COURT: Things seem better than the last couple times we talked?

JUROR NO. 1386: Yeah. It's hard to say that, but yeah. I mean, I'm coping fine.

THE COURT: All right. Is there any particular squabbles that are going on amongst the woman jurors that you're aware?

JUROR NO. 1386: Squabbles with woman jurors? No. Not--just little comments people sometimes get offended by, just blow it off. That's not really hardly worth mentioning. I'm sure that happens with anyone with everything during the day. But I mean, I don't--I can't think of anything that's stuck in my head.

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: No questions, your Honor.

THE COURT: Miss Clark?

MS. CLARK: No.

THE COURT: All right. No. 1386, thank you very much. Don't talk about this with anybody.

JUROR NO. 1386: Okay. Thanks.

(Juror no. 1386 exits chambers.)

(Juror no. 2179 enters chambers.)

THE CLERK: 2179.

THE COURT: 2179, hi. How are you?

JUROR NO. 2179: Okay.

THE COURT: Have a seat. 2179, I need to talk to you about two things. And the reason I've left you second for the last is because you're in the order second to last. All right. It's not that we don't think you're important, but that's just the way those things work out. Maybe next time we'll start with 1492 and work backwards. I think we'll do it that way next time, making them wait the whole time. 2179, first of all, I need to talk to you about two things. And when we finish our discussion, you will be under an order not to discuss anything we talked about this afternoon with anybody else. Do you understand that?

JUROR NO. 2179: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: 2179, some information has come to me that indicates that one of our jurors has met with either a literary agent or with a book publisher and has agreed to write a book about this case. Also, the title of this book indicates that the juror has already made up his or her mind about the guilt or innocence of Mr. Simpson. All right. Are you with me so far?

JUROR NO. 2179: Yes.

THE COURT: No. 2179, are you that person?

JUROR NO. 2179: No.

THE COURT: Have you contacted or spoken with any literary agent or book publisher about writing a book about this case?

JUROR NO. 2179: No.

THE COURT: Has anybody on your behalf, any friend, your husband, any family member contacted any book publisher or literary agent on your behalf?

JUROR NO. 2179: No.

THE COURT: Have you agreed with anybody to write a book about this case?

JUROR NO. 2179: No.

THE COURT: Do you know of any of the other jurors who have discussed writing a book about this case?

JUROR NO. 2179: No.

THE COURT: Have you heard any discussion among the jurors' family members or guests during any of the visits, any discussions about writing a book?

JUROR NO. 2179: No.

THE COURT: And you understand that if you should hear anything that indicates that any of the jurors or observe anything or it should come to your attention that anybody else on the jury has already made up their mind as to the guilt or innocence of Mr. Simpson, that is something you need to tell me immediately. Do you understand that?

JUROR NO. 2179: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. 2179, do you recollect the last time that you and I talked here in chambers in this setting, I asked you about whether or not there were any serious conflicts between the jurors that might cause a problem with our jury? Do you remember that question?

JUROR NO. 2179: Yes.

THE COURT: Since then, has anything come to your attention that you would consider to be a serious conflict between our jurors?

JUROR NO. 2179: No. Not really. No.

THE COURT: Okay. You thought about it then for a second.

JUROR NO. 2179: No.

THE COURT: No? All right. No conflict or anything that you would consider would give us a problem?

JUROR NO. 2179: No.

THE COURT: 2179, when we last talked, also, ****************************. Has that been worked out?

JUROR NO. 2179: Yes.

THE COURT: Everything's cool?

JUROR NO. 2179: Yes.

THE COURT: Anything else you need to tell me about?

JUROR NO. 2179: Well, might be getting a house, and I was wondering if everything go through, will I be able to take a trip out there?

THE COURT: Your husband is going to buy a house and you haven't seen it?

JUROR NO. 2179: No. He supposed to be taking pictures today, bring them to me on Saturday. So if everything go through, I just want to, you know, just see it.

THE COURT: Where is this house?

JUROR NO. 2179: In corona.

THE COURT: In corona? Tasia, would you talk to Sergeant Smith? Have you already made an offer on the house?

JUROR NO. 2179: Yeah. He has already.

THE COURT: He needs your signature to buy it.

JUROR NO. 2179: Yeah. He brought me the papers last Saturday to sign it.

THE COURT: All right. But I think you probably ought to see it; don't you think?

JUROR NO. 2179: Yeah.

THE COURT: All right. All right. Tasia, would you talk to Sergeant Smith about making an arrangement soon to get 2179 out to this place, actually take a look at it in the company of two sheriff's deputies? You can't talk to anybody but your husband.

JUROR NO. 2179: Okay.

THE COURT: We'll see if we can't arrange it. You shouldn't be buying a house without going out to see it.

JUROR NO. 2179: Thanks.

THE COURT: I'll direct them to ride around the neighborhood. Have you ever been out to corona before?

JUROR NO. 2179: Just passing through.

THE COURT: On the 15 freeway?

JUROR NO. 2179: 91.

THE COURT: 91?

JUROR NO. 2179: Yeah.

THE COURT: Okay. No. Okay. I'll see if we can do something with the sheriff. I don't want you buying a house without seeing it.

JUROR NO. 2179: Okay. Thanks.

THE COURT: Okay. That make sense?

JUROR NO. 2179: I appreciate it.

THE COURT: Okay. We'll try to work on that. Okay. Anything else you feel you need to tell me about?

JUROR NO. 2179: No. That's it.

THE COURT: You sure?

JUROR NO. 2179: Yeah.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: No questions.

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: No, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thanks a lot. Don't talk to anybody about this. Don't even mention the house visit either.

JUROR NO. 2179: Okay.

THE COURT: That's between you and me.

JUROR NO. 2179: All right. Thank you.

(Juror no. 2179 exits chambers.)

(Juror no. 1492 enters chambers.)

THE CLERK: Juror 1492.

JUROR NO. 1492: Hello.

THE COURT: 1492, how are you today?

JUROR NO. 1492: Fine.

THE COURT: All right. 1492, something has come to my attention that I needed to talk to each one of you individually. And the only reason you're last is because you're at the end of the line.

JUROR NO. 1492: Always last.

THE COURT: But you won't be last next time. The next time we do this, you will be brought in first. Okay?

JUROR NO. 1492: Okay.

THE COURT: So all the other people can wonder what it is we are talking about.

JUROR NO. 1492: Really.

THE COURT: 1492, something has been brought to my attention that's rather serious, two things that I need to talk to you about. First of all, it's been brought to my attention from a credible source that one of our jurors has been in contact with a literary agent or publisher and has agreed to write a book about this case. And what I find very troubling and what causes me the problem is, the title to this book indicates that this juror has already made up his or her mind as to the guilt or innocence of Mr. Simpson. Are you with me so far?

JUROR NO. 1492: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: All right.

JUROR NO. 1492: Yes.

THE COURT: Are you that person?

JUROR NO. 1492: No.

THE COURT: Have you talked to any literary agent or any publishers about writing a book on this case?

JUROR NO. 1492: No.

THE COURT: Has anybody on your behalf, any friends, family members talked to any literary agent or book publishers about writing a book?

JUROR NO. 1492: No.

THE COURT: To your knowledge, have any of the other jury members discussed writing a book on this case?

JUROR NO. 1492: Not with me.

THE COURT: Have you--has anything come to your attention that might indicate to you that somebody was planning to write a book?

JUROR NO. 1492: No.

THE COURT: Have you heard any of the family or friends of any of the other jurors during any of the visits, any discussions regarding writing a book about this case?

JUROR NO. 1492: No.

THE COURT: Have you heard anything whatsoever about anybody writing a book about this case?

JUROR NO. 1492: No.

THE COURT: All right. If it were to come to your attention that somebody, one of our jury members has already made up their mind about any of the facts of this case, you would bring that to my attention right a way?

JUROR NO. 1492: I would.

THE COURT: 1492, if you recollect, the last time we talked, I asked you if there were any serious conflicts between any of the jury members that might prevent this jury from doing what they're here to do. Do you remember that question?

JUROR NO. 1492: Yes.

THE COURT: Since that time, have you become aware of any conflicts like that?

JUROR NO. 1492: No.

THE COURT: Anything that would even--any kind of conflict that you think I should know about?

JUROR NO. 1492: Not that I can think of. No.

THE COURT: Anything else you think I ought to know about?

JUROR NO. 1492: Well, there's just a lot of complaining going on.

THE COURT: About what?

JUROR NO. 1492: Anything and everything. It had gotten to the point--I was riding in one van, you know, riding in it for a while. Then I had to change vans because I couldn't stand it. Every morning from the hotel to the courthouse, we would--you know, just constantly complaining about anything.

THE COURT: Such as?

JUROR NO. 1492: Wanting to listen to a radio, the food. Just anything that they could find to complain about, they would, and it was constant.

THE COURT: Is that still ongoing?

JUROR NO. 1492: I'm sure.

THE COURT: Anything that might prevent the jury from doing their deliberations in this case?

JUROR NO. 1492: No, I don't think so.

THE COURT: All right. 1492, anything else you think you need to tell me about?

JUROR NO. 1492: Well, when you were calling people in, I did notice when the juror came back, they sat down and wrote on a newspaper and called another juror over and I could see her reading it; and then I saw her scribble it out and fold it up.

THE COURT: Which juror was that?

JUROR NO. 1492: 1427.

THE COURT: And with whom was she--

JUROR NO. 1492: 353. I don't know what, you know, she wrote on there or not. Just looked like they were trying, you know, to be secretive about it.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Cochran. Miss Clark.

MR. COCHRAN: Just one second.

MS. CLARK: Can we approach the desk? Never mind.

THE COURT: Never mind?

MS. CLARK: Withdrawn. Approach withdrawn.

THE COURT: All right. 1492, don't discuss this with anybody else.

JUROR NO. 1492: Okay.

THE COURT: All right. Thanks a lot.

(Juror no. 1492 exits chambers.)

THE CLERK: 1489 says there's something he would like to bring to your attention, can he come back in?

THE COURT: Not at this point. All right. Don't let the jurors go yet. Tell them to hold on. My inclination is to have the law clerks go in and collect all the newspapers in the jury room right now.

MR. COCHRAN: Maybe with special emphasis looking close to 1427 I guess. Judge, one other thing. I think--off the record for a second?

THE COURT: Yes.

(An off the record discussion was had.)

THE COURT: All right. We need to talk to 1427 about the note. We need to talk to 247 regarding his girlfriend. We need to talk to--I didn't ask directly--1489 wants to come back and talk to us again?

THE CLERK: He says there was an incident he forgot to report to you.

THE COURT: Then we ought to talk to 1489 to see what he wants to talk about. All right. Get me 1489.

(Juror no. 1489 enters chambers.)

THE COURT: All right. 1489, you mentioned to Mrs. Robertson--excuse me--there was something you neglected to tell us about?

JUROR NO. 1489: Right. When you asked about an incident with 1427, I didn't classify it as anything, but I don't know how she classified it. Last night, when I was watching TV, one of the jurors came out and said, "1489"--when they come out of the phone room, they usually call the next number on the list. And I went into the room. Then 1427 ran in and said she was next. So I said, "Well, if you're next, go ahead. I have no problem with that." And because there were two numbers left there--apparently the person who was leaving saw one list which had my name on it, but 1427 was on the bottom of the other list. So I said, "No problem." First thing she said, "I'm not going to argue with you." And all I said was, "Go ahead. You can use the phone. Then I'll come on out," you know.

So I don't know--she seems to be imagining things--I don't know--in my opinion because I'm not doing anything to her. But it's like every time something happens, it's like I'm trying to get on her case or for whatever reason. So I said I'd better point it out to you because I don't know how she took it.

THE COURT: All right.

JUROR NO. 1489: I didn't think it was anything.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: I have no questions.

THE COURT: Miss Clark. All right. 1489, thanks a lot.

(Juror no. 1489 exits chambers.)

THE COURT: Give me 247, please.

(Juror no. 247 enters chambers.)

THE CLERK: Juror 247.

THE COURT: All right. 247, I needed to call you back just to chat with you about one thing. Did you ever have a visitor, your girlfriend or wife--I don't have your questionnaire in front of me. So forgive me if I mischaracterize who this person might be. Did you ever have a visitor, a female visitor come and discuss with any of the other jurors' visitors anything about writing a book?

JUROR NO. 247: No way, sir. Not at all. No way.

THE COURT: Okay.

JUROR NO. 247: That's--that she was writing a book or I was?

THE COURT: That she discussed with another juror's visitor the fact that one of the jurors--and the inference that it was--you were going to write a book.

JUROR NO. 247: Oh, no sir. Not at all. No, sir.

THE COURT: Didn't happen?

JUROR NO. 247: No. Not at all, sir.

THE COURT: All right. Anything that might have been mischaracterized as that? Any discussion at all about writing a book?

JUROR NO. 247: No way, sir. I have no idea how anything of that nature even been brought up or even thought of.

THE COURT: Okay.

JUROR NO. 247: Not at all, sir.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: No questions.

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: No.

THE COURT: Thanks a lot. See you next time.

JUROR NO. 247: Okay.

(Juror no. 247 exits chambers.)

THE COURT: Hold on just a second. What do you think we ought to do about this?

MR. COCHRAN: See what they say.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DARDEN: She ain't black. So--

THE COURT: Mrs. Robertson, 1427, please.

(Juror no. 1427 enters chambers.)

THE CLERK: Juror 1427.

THE COURT: Hello, 1427. Sorry to keep bringing you back and forth here. 1427, when we left our discussion, I directed you not to discuss this with anybody else. Did you discuss this with any of the other jurors?

JUROR NO. 1427: No. I didn't discuss anything.

THE COURT: Did you write any notes to anybody?

JUROR NO. 1427: No. I didn't say anything.

THE COURT: Did you share with any other jurors anything that you might have written on any newspaper?

JUROR NO. 1427: I remember writing something down. I asked 353 a question. I asked her for--I asked her for something, and then I wrote something down. I remember scribbling. I was reading a newspaper and scribbling. I remember scribbling on a newspaper. I was reading a newspaper and I was scribbling on it.

THE COURT: Did you communicate anything that had to do with the questioning that I was discussing with you here?

JUROR NO. 1427: No. I wasn't trying to communicate with her about anything, about this, about the case.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Cochran, do you have any questions? Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: 1427, does this look familiar?

JUROR NO. 1427: Yes, it does.

THE COURT: Is that the note?

JUROR NO. 1427: Yes. I scribbled that.

THE COURT: Because it appears to say, "They asked about a juror writing a book."

JUROR NO. 1427: I remember scribbling that.

THE COURT: Okay. Didn't I ask you not to discuss this with anybody else?

JUROR NO. 1427: Yes, you did, sir.

THE COURT: Why did you do this?

JUROR NO. 1427: I wanted to make sure you know I'm here--I'm stating the truth to you. I want to make sure, you know, other people state the truth when they come in here and talk to you.

THE COURT: All right. 1427, though, the problem is that in order for me to have candid and honest discussions with anybody--

JUROR NO. 1427: Yes.

THE COURT: --I need to be able to talk to them without being influenced by their discussions with anybody else. Is there a particular reason that you shared this with another juror?

JUROR NO. 1427: I want to make sure she speaks the truth about--she mentioned something to me and it's something she may not recall mentioning to me, and I want to make sure she speaks the truth when she comes in here.

THE COURT: Uh-huh. And what was it that she mentioned to you?

JUROR NO. 1427: That same thing about that subject. She mentioned something about that juror's girlfriend, something about a book. She--I remember her husband and--she said that her husband had a conversation with that juror's girlfriend and that the gel friend said something openly about a book.

THE COURT: Okay. Don't talk to anybody or write anybody notes about this, okay?

JUROR NO. 1427: I understand that.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

(Juror no. 1427 exits chambers.)

THE COURT: Mrs. Robertson, 353, please.

(Juror no. 353 enters chambers.)

THE COURT: I know you get nervous every time you get called in here.

JUROR NO. 353: Take my bag with me.

THE COURT: 353, did another juror before you came in here write you a note about our discussions in here?

JUROR NO. 353: No.

THE COURT: All right. Let me show you something. Does this look familiar? Appears to say, "They asked me about a juror writing a book."

JUROR NO. 353: That he was writing a book?

THE COURT: No. The note there says, "They asked me about a juror writing a book." Was that note shown to you, scribbled out by another juror?

JUROR NO. 353: No.

THE COURT: You're sure?

JUROR NO. 353: I'm positive.

THE COURT: Any reason why two other jurors would say that note was shown to you?

JUROR NO. 353: I have no idea.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

JUROR NO. 353: Thank you.

(Juror no. 353 exits chambers.)

(An off the record discussion was had.)

THE COURT: Why don't you have a seat. All right. Chris, hold on.

(Juror no. 353 enters chambers.)

THE CLERK: Juror 353.

THE COURT: All right. 353, good afternoon.

JUROR NO. 353: Good afternoon.

THE COURT: We have a problem.

JUROR NO. 353: Okay.

THE COURT: And let me tell you what the problem is. Let me read this to you. This is a letter that I have--as you know, I have conducted an investigation into this, and I want to save all of us some problems and some time. Let me read the pertinent parts to you. This is a letter that is dated May the 12th.

"I work for a literary agent. I am aware of what is happening with this office and one of your jurors on the Simpson trial. It has been kept very secret, but I know for a fact that my boss has entered an agreement with a juror and her husband. The working title for the book proposal is standing alone, a verdict for Nicole. "It is obvious to me that this woman and her husband came to a conclusion of Mr. Simpson's guilt and sold the book with that agreement," blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

"I can only identify the juror as female, once an alternate. Her husband became ill. She is about 40 years old, Caucasian. She did not want to be on the jury, but her husband is the one driving this.

"She is very apprehensive and is worried this will become public. The husband wants her to stay on, but she wants off. My boss has met with the husband at the hotel where the jury is staying." That most accurately fits you. And I would like to avoid, if this is true, wasting any more of the Court's time looking into this. Can you tell me about this?

JUROR NO. 353: I have no idea what they're talking about. I mean, that is the oddest thing. They think I entered into a book agreement, my husband entered into a book agreement? This is ridiculous. This is absolutely--this is ridiculous. You are accusing me of going out and writing a book?

THE COURT: I'm asking you, is this true?

JUROR NO. 353: No, it is not true. I would never--I wouldn't even think about it. I mean, I know there are people in there that are considering making money out of this thing. I have heard it and I have said over and over and over again I wouldn't even--this would be the farthest thing from my mind. I am here for one purpose; to be a juror. I think it is horrible. I think it would be heinous to sit here--I have told you this before. It would be awful to sit here and think you could be a juror for some sort of commercial purpose. I mean, you know, Jesus. I want out. Just let me go. This is absolutely ridiculous.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran, any comment?

JUROR NO. 353: That my husband entered an agreement?

THE COURT: What I just read to you was the letter that I received.

JUROR NO. 353: From whom?

THE COURT: From somebody from a literary agency.

JUROR NO. 353: I mean it's almost funny. If I wasn't so angry, it would be funny.

MR. COCHRAN: Just one second.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: When you say that there are other jurors that you think are going to try to make money off this case, what leads you to say that?

JUROR NO. 353: Like I just told you about, 247. I mean, there have been times when I've heard other people making comments, you know, that even the sheriff's department people have said--well, you know, I've heard the comment, "Well, you'll be able to get something out of this." And I have stated over and over and over again this is not why I'm here. If I wanted to get something out of it, I could be at work doing overtime. I mean, you know, I just--you know, I thought this was a good thing. I really did. When I first came here, I thought I was doing something good. But, you know, the longer I'm here and the more I see and the more what goes on, I don't know if this system--I thought the system was pure and whole and I had some sort of idealism about this whole thing, you know.

THE COURT: All right. 353, thank you. Don't discuss this with anybody else.

JUROR NO. 353: Okay.

THE COURT: All right.

(Juror no. 353 exits chambers.)

MR. COCHRAN: You don't want to confront her again about 1427?

THE COURT: No. She already denied it, and we know it's true from 1492 and from 1427. So the question is, does 1427 go as well as 353?

MS. CLARK: I wouldn't think so.

THE COURT: I think 353 is gone.

MS. CLARK: Are you going to do any further investigation to find out the veracity of that letter? What if 353 is right or what if she and 247 have a book deal? I mean, there's lots of possibilities we ought to find out about.

THE COURT: Here's the problem. She out and out lied about this communication with 1427.

MS. CLARK: I'm not saying she should stay. I'm saying that we should investigate anyhow.

THE COURT: No. If I am going to boot her, then it's a waste of my time.

MS. CLARK: What if it really is someone else?

MR. COCHRAN: Can I say something, Judge? If there's any--I think 1427 wants to go also. I think--I think what I would like to ask you to do among other things--at least she had more candor than 353. She at least had enough candor at the end to kind of come clean and break down.

If you've looked at her, I think that for some time, as Bob had indicated, she's been having some really emotional problems. And I think that probably--I don't know if you ever talk to the sheriffs about her, but I think--she reminds me a lot of the way 453 seemed in those last days, if you watch her eyes, you watch all the things. In addition to that, we have additional problems with her; personally, the lies. And if you noticed, Judge, we noticed when she came back in the last time, she had picked her face so much after she left, she was almost red, as though she was bleeding. And I think we're going to see even more. But the fact she wrote that note about the book--she was the one totally--no. 11 sits real close to no. 353. She seemed to be very candid. She said she didn't know anything about a book. These two know what's going on about it and then they wanted to communicate about it and probably want to communicate even at the end. And I think that's the kind of poison we can't have. She lied to you. Whatever she says to you, how are you going to have any faith in what she says? I think if you don't kick her off today, I think she's going to fade. There's no way--she's not going to be able to stand up under this.

So I think this whole thing--she was caught in some absolute lies right in here by you and you weren't asking the question. You gave her a chance, and it was Chris's question which finally got her to tell the truth about the writing. She said, "I just was writing down something." It was clear. We could still see under that scribbling.

MS. CLARK: What's really unfortunate about this is, the person causing her emotional distress is 1489. She's okay with the rest of the jury. She hasn't complained about anyone else. You know, this has been a problem ongoing and 1489 acknowledges that other jurors have witnessed this and is quick to blame her for the problems he has created by harassing her, intimidating her. It's very unfortunate and has been corroborated by others.

THE COURT: The conflict between 1489 and 1427 is a separate issue.

MS. CLARK: Right. But that's the emotional problems Mr. Cochran is really talking about. I think that ought not be considered here. But it has been corroborated by others and it's knocked in her head. Others have seen it and have reported it. It's not something she has dreamed up, unlike, you know, 353. That was a whole different thing. You cannot compare the two. They are independent. We have seen what this man has done with her and the way he's behaved, and I think it's real unfair. I don't think there's any way that she should be held accountable for the fact that he is intimidating, harassing her. I think it's very unfair, very objectionable. She was not initially completely candid about writing the note, that's true. But to characterize her in the manner that counsel has is very unfair because ultimately, she did admit it and said what she wanted to do is make sure that that juror told you what that juror told her. And she knows as much as she told.

THE COURT: You're urging me to dump all three?

MS. CLARK: Dump all three?

THE COURT: 1489, 1427 and 353.

MS. CLARK: Who's urging you to do that?

THE COURT: That's what I hear you saying.

MS. CLARK: No.

THE COURT: What do I hear you saying?

MS. CLARK: That the only one that I'm really--that I think right now should be dismissed is 353. I mean I think we have to concede that given all we've seen, although I still feel, you know, the problem here is that we have her in the denial of something that others have seen her do and causes us to wonder about the credibility of her statements. However, what if the person writing this letter is not the credible one? What if--or what if they just got their facts wrong and there really is another juror on this panel who is writing a book? That's why I think we have to further investigate to find out who this juror actually is if it isn't her. Unfortunately, we can't--I don't think we should just drop that whole issue in that regard. What you have to do with 353, we accept it.

MR. COCHRAN: Can I say one other thing?

THE COURT: Let me just--hold on a second. Do you concede there's good cause to dump 353?

MS. CLARK: We try to be consistent, you know what I mean? We try to be consistently fair in our approach to jurors, and I think we have to. We have to concede to good cause. She denied what she was seen doing and she--anyway, so we are conceding that. But I don't think there's good cause for 1427. She did ultimately admit to having written the note and admitted with candor as to why, and I think she's learned a big lesson, but I don't think that--I certainly don't think that's good cause to excuse her.

THE COURT: All right. Johnnie.

MR. COCHRAN: Judge, the problem with that is that 1427--

THE COURT: I assume you agree with 353?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes, I think we agree. Judge, 1427 violated the Court's orders. I mean she was told on two separate occasions not to communicate. She not only communicated, but then she lied about it when she came in. Then she lied again when she told us about scribbling. When we looked at it, you couldn't even see what it said. You asked her if it was about a juror writing a book or the book or whatever. That was at least four, five lies. This is a juror who is sitting on the so-called trial of the century. We have never been faced with this situation before. It's not even comparable to anybody else from the standpoint of things that she is saying and doing. It goes right to the heart of what this case is about. She knows--because I think the other thing that--I think that if you look at this, what they're trying to do, in addition to lying, they try to put it off on another juror, and I think that's even worse. They try to schlep it on to somebody else, the two of them. It's only the two of them who know about it. And I think that's the real problem here. And so I think you have to overlook what she did in here in the face of all of this. I don't know how you rehabilitate her under the circumstances. That's the problem I have.

MS. CLARK: You know, let me--sorry, Johnnie. Let me make one observation. I apologize. I mean, you know, there was--she should not have written the note to the other juror, and we would not argue that. That's not the problem. The problem is how, you know--how seriously you're going to take this. If you are going to dismiss 1427 for that after she was ultimately candid--and I think she's told you exactly what she knows about the subject, and she learned it from 353. Whether that is true, whether what 353 said is true or not is another matter. But if you are going to do that, then we have to look at the conduct complained about 1489. He has intimidated her and stared her down and played these mind games with her. This is not reported just by her, but by two or three other jurors who have observed that conduct. Then he should go, because that's misconduct, and he's harassing and intimidating other jurors on the jury, not to mention trying to intimidate them against writing letters or having communication with the Court. And that is certainly in dereliction of his duty as a juror. I mean that's not diminimus conduct he's accused of. Actually that, we've had corroborated reports of. So I mean, if she's going to be excused for writing a note to another juror, then 1489, whose conduct has been egregious and going on for quite some time and has now escalated to the point he is intimidating and has caused other jurors again to write letters to the Court, I think he should be excused by definition.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. SHAPIRO: May I just be heard briefly?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: The cornerstone of the jury system is based on the fact that they make certain commitments and promises; and that is that they will follow the law and abide by the rules and regulations and orders of the Court. This juror has demonstrated unequivocally that she will not do that. You had directly and without any equivocation let her know the seriousness of the situation and ordered her not to communicate it anyway. She violated that order. That alone is enough to put her in a position where she can no longer continue to be a member of this jury.

How do you know when you tell her you are not to form any opinion about this case or discuss this case with others that she will follow that instruction when she would not follow this instruction? And on top of that, it was only when she was confronted with the absolute evidence, which she did not believe you had, that she finally came to grips with the fact, "Yes, I wrote something." But she still would not talk about it in terms of a book. And that is the real suspicious area here. Why was it that she wanted to communicate one thought to another juror, and that is about a book, and then scribble it out, hide it from you, lie to you and then try to minimize it? I think even if we only go to the first step, that she deliberately and immediately violated a Court order and attempted to hide that from your Honor is enough to render her as a person who cannot be fair and impartial, who cannot follow the Court's orders, rules and regulations and can no longer participate in this jury.

THE COURT: Okay. I am going to roll up 353 tonight. I'll think about 1427 and 1489, and I'll tell you tomorrow morning. All right. Let me have Deputy Magnera step in, please.

MS. CLARK: So tomorrow--

THE COURT: Tomorrow, I assume we'll finish Collin. No, we won't finish him.

(Deputy Magnera enters chambers.)

THE COURT: Deputy Magnera, roll up 353.

THE CLERK: You want her to come in first?

THE COURT: No. Hold on. No. Actually we do. Hold on. I need to give her the order. All right. Let's have 353. Mrs. Robertson, here's a copy of the order I want you to serve on the juror.

(Juror no. 353 enters chambers.)

THE COURT: 453, why don't you have a seat.

JUROR NO. 353: 353.

THE COURT: I'm sorry. 353. 353, I'm going to grant your wish and excuse you from further service. And I need to order you not to reveal the identity of any of the other juror members since we have an anonymous jury. You are not to reveal the name and location of the hotel where you're being held.

JUROR NO. 353: Okay. I want to know exactly what's going to be released to the press about my leaving.

THE COURT: Just that the Court found good cause to discharge you as a juror.

JUROR NO. 353: The Court found good cause? You mean--what exactly does that mean?

THE COURT: It means I think there's good reason to excuse you from further service--

JUROR NO. 353: And you think it's because I'm writing a book?

THE COURT: It's a number of things. Not being candid to me about this newspaper writing.

JUROR NO. 353: And, you know, I don't know--I just don't want to go out there and have my name and my being slandered for something that, you know--and it really upset me. I mean somebody writes in and says I'm writing a book, and then you come to me with that type of information--

THE COURT: I'm required to investigate any allegation of misconduct.

JUROR NO. 353: And you believe it? I mean you have to come to me even before you investigated it, because if you would have investigated it, you would have known that I wouldn't have anything to do with that.

THE COURT: Primarily, the problem was your lack of candor on this newspaper.

JUROR NO. 353: Well, you know what? I didn't read any note on that newspaper. Somebody may have written something on that newspaper, but I didn't see it.

THE COURT: Thank you.

(At 5:50 p.m., in camera proceedings were concluded.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; THURSDAY, JUNE 1, 1995 9:10 A.M.

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

APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted, ms. Clark not being present.)

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

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

(The following proceedings were held in camera:)

(Pages 30182 through 30199 redacted.)

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes, your Honor. With regard to juror 1427--we talked about this on Thursday and then briefly on Friday--I think there's no question that she needs to be excused from this jury. I think there are a number of problems with regard to her. First of all, she lied. She lied three or four times. We had asked your Honor to get the record and look at the record and see. She absolutely lied. The only reason we knew that she violated two of your orders was because juror number 1492 told us that she wrote this note to 353. There's really no difference between she and 353 except when she finally, about the third or fourth time, said, "Yes, I wrote it, but I was just trying to tell her to tell the truth." That's not what she had been saying all along. That seems to me more of a problem. This whole idea of people invading space, the way she looks around--I understand it goes to other people other than just juror no.--I forget--1489--1489, who she said he invades her space. But there allegedly are allegations where other people--she's concerned about other people looking at her, usually African American males.

So I think with regard to this lady, when somebody has lied to you right in here in front of all of us, this jury verdict would have no credibility if she was allowed to remain on this jury, especially in view of what happened with 353. What happened, we specifically told her not to talk about it, communicate in any way. She--twice you told her because she had come in earlier. She then went and did that. Then she denied it. Only when Mr. Darden sent a note saying well, let's get it over with, show her the paper that she then said, "Well, I scribbled something, but I was just trying to--" you know, first she denied it and then ended up saying, "I was trying to get her to tell the truth," meaning 353. So I think it becomes very, very clear. I don't think there's any issue at all regarding I guess it's 1489, 1489. People may not like you on the jury, but he's done nothing improper. There's no reason for him to be taken off the jury. He's a man who apparently is strong from the standpoint of the things we heard, but he's done nothing improper. In fact, quite the contrary. He has been the victim. The Court had a tough time seeing this, but there was an allegation by Jeanette Harris and by him that he had been struck, been kicked by number 353 or stepped on, that he had been struck in the back of the head by 353. And that 1427, that even in the phone incident where he came back in and said that it was basically his turn to use the phone, that rather than getting into problems with this lady 1427, he said, "No, no. You go ahead and use it." She felt he was trying to turn on her. She admitted she wasn't due in there at that time. He seemed to me to go out of his way. He told us, "When 353 stepped on my foot, I went out of my way not to do anything because I don't want to be kicked off this case." Maybe he feels he's being targeted or whatever. So I think that's clear from the things he said all along. There's no reason at all even to consider excusing him. But I think with her, it's a question of credibility. And everybody in this room heard that. She lied and she has to go. The time is now. I think we have to be careful about excluding--excusing jurors, but I think here, the record is abundantly clear that she absolutely lied, that she does in fact have some kind of problem, and we need to resolve it and move on with this case.

MS. CLARK: We have to be careful excusing jurors except when the juror is one the Defense does not want. And 1427 fits that bill. She's been targeted by the Defense as was 353. They've been very successful in getting rid of those they don't like. But 1427, if you review the transcript, the conduct is not nearly as egregious as painted by counsel. I concede that initially she denied having said anything. But if the Court looks at the transcript, the Court asked, "Did you write any note to anybody?" "I didn't say anything." "Did you share with any other jurors anything you might have written on any newspaper?" And then she admitted it right away, "I remember writing something." So it's not as though she is, you know, willfully stonewalling for a period of time, you know. When the specific questions were asked, she did admit it. Now, you want to talk about lying, that's all we had out of 1489. And he is aware of the cycle.

THE COURT: No. Let's not--let's not talk about apples and oranges. These are two separate issues.

MS. CLARK: Well, Mr. Cochran addressed 1489.

THE COURT: I understand.

MS. CLARK: The Court heard his comments.

THE COURT: I'll hear your comments, but I'm saying, I--conceptionally, I treat those two separately. In other words, separate cases, not related to each other is the point I'm making.

MS. CLARK: I understand. I agree with the Court they are separate. It was merely a comparative thing. We're talking about lying to the Court, you know. That's what I was going to point out with 1489. He repeatedly has come in here saying he's not doing anything. But it's not just 1427 that is complaining about his conduct. There were reports from at least three if not four other jurors corroborating her--what she's told us about what he's done to her, psychological intimidation, harassment, even attempting to intimidate 1290 telling her that, you know, "The letter writers are the problems in this case." You know, what he has done is--this is what is very interesting to me. When the Court excuses a juror because of an inability to follow rules, because of disobedience or some kind of misconduct, it's generally almost always because it's a prospective thing. The Court is projecting down the line that at some point, when it comes time to follow the rules when it matters, back in the deliberation room, they will not be able to do so. So you have to evaluate misconduct in light of that overall goal. With respect to 1427, although writing the note was a disobedience of the Court order, it's kind of--

THE COURT: Two Court orders.

MS. CLARK: Not to discuss--

THE COURT: I told her that twice that day.

MS. CLARK: Right. But there was only one discussion of the book. That's the thing that she violated. I mean with respect to that--because the Court asked--then the Court asked, "Did you talk--" when the Court asked, "Did you communicate anything that had to do with the questioning that I was discussing with you here," she refers back to the case thinking that you're talking about this trial. I'm not trying to split hairs here. I think what I'm really trying to express to the Court is the fact that the Court has to evaluate whether it's diminimus or a major league violation, a violation that would cause the Court to have grave concern as to whether or not she could meaningly deliberate in this case and follow the rules and the instructions given to her at the close of the case.

I do not think that the violation the Court has seen in this instance is of that magnitude. When you look at what makes a good juror, it's one that can get along with others, one that can be reasonable, one that can follow the instructions given to them, one that will pay attention to the evidence and one that could meaningfully discern and apply the law to the facts. That means someone who is able to talk with others, communicate with others and communicate with others in an adult and mature way. She's given us no reason to really doubt that. And the note that she scribbled to 353 was a note in an effort to make sure 353 brought information to the Court which she thought was important.

THE COURT: Well, Miss Clark, let me ask you this. How plausible do you find that explanation, that, "I was trying to encourage her to tell the truth by scribbling a note that says they asked me about a juror writing a book"?

MS. CLARK: What she's trying to do is--I don't know--see, I do find that response rather innocuous. She was cueing the other juror, saying, "This is the issue they are talking about." Had she said, "Remember, we had--remember you told me your husband," you would have found that even more improper. And instead, she's trying to find an innocuous way of letting her know, "Remember to tell them this." And then, you know, there was no conversation between them because other jurors would have reported that. But 353 came out--consistently said what 1427 reported, that her husband told her about another juror whose girlfriend talked about him writing a book. I think it is credible, I think it is true that's what she was trying to jog the other person's memory about. 1427 said it first. And then without--even without reviewing the facts of that incident through 353--1427 cued her memory, telling her it's about a book so 353 would remember to tell you as well, and she did and it was consistent with what 1427 said. So I don't find that to be so nefarious. I really don't see that it is in violation of your order not to discuss, not to say anything. But it was as diminimus a violation as she could get to accomplish the goal of letting you know, letting--make sure that 353 tells you what it is that transpired, which they both found to be important. So I really do think that what we're talking about here is a diminimus violation, not of the kind that is going to impact on her ability to be a fair and even-handed juror when it comes time to deliberate. I think that converses when you look at 1489. Here is a man who has systematically harassed and intimidated other jurors. Most notably, he's targeted 1427 for a period of time since the beginning of the trial. And 1427, if she were the only one complaining, the Court might look with askance or be more--have more difficulty seeing that the conduct is highly inappropriate and not just something that she's subjectively teasing him. But others have seen his conduct who the Court has no reason to doubt their credibility. 1290 and 19 as well as 353 and I believe also 1386 have all--have all seen the conduct. Two, they're heard about the conduct as well. It's not something that's subtle and not something subject to interpretation. He is harassing her. He is engaging in psychological warfare with respect to her.

He has stared her down. As 19 said, he always wins a staring contest. He has bumped into her in the elevator as 1290 and 19 have said and pushed her and all with an effort to intimidate her simply because he's a bully. He was wagging his finger in people's faces. He's trying to intimidate 1427 because she stood up to him. She said, "Let's be fair." She--and he can't stand that. Now, what kind of conduct--he doesn't like the fact that she stood up to him because he's a bully. That's really the bottom line. He is a bully and he wants to play these little psychological mind games and been doing it for five months now. Is this the kind of person that can actually deliberate with other jurors in a meaningful and adult fashion, corroborate with others in a mature manner? Absolutely not. He's given the Court nothing but cause for grave concern about his ability to be a fair juror. Now, we're talking prospectively. Every single bit of conduct by this juror indicates that prospectively, down the line, he is going to be nothing but a heartache for all the other jurors in this room because he cannot meaningful cooperate with others.

When you look at what--the kind of conduct that has been created here, it's not just the fact that he's unable to fulfill his duty. The more serious problem we have here is that he's distracting others from their ability to fulfill their duties even now with the wagging of the finger in their faces and continually harassing them to the point they come into the Court and they're distracted by what's gone on before to the point where 1427 is crying at noon in the bathroom and we have to pull her out to find out what's going on with him. I mean, this is the kind of person who isn't just himself a problem, but who's now infested all the other jurors, infused them with the problem he's created because he is simply a person who, by virtue of his own personality, cannot cooperate with others, so distracting them from their ability to listen, evaluate the evidence and ultimately to deliberate. So his problems go directly to the heart of the ability of the person to be a fair juror and to perform his duties in a manner that he should. When you contrast that--and he's lied to this Court as well. You want to talk about lies? He's come in here and denied any wrongdoing with respect to 1427. And every time he turns around, she's staring at him, and I mean turned everything on its head, making up stories about her, making up stories about everyone else, everyone else, but not him. Well, in this instance, he's caught dead out because everyone else has come in and said no, it's him. We've watched him. He's staring her down, he's intimidating her and he's harassing her. And now the Defense speaks in favor of him because they think he is going to be favorable to them. I don't know what side he is going to be favorable to. All I know is, I'm looking at a juror who is such a disruptive force even now and from an early stage in the proceedings that he's been distracting jurors from their duties to listen carefully to the evidence throughout this trial, and it's only getting worse. Now we find 1427 crying in the bathroom. But this is a person--the number has come up repeatedly over and over again from everyone's mouth. This is the one who is causing everyone problems, and you have a juror here who is continually distracting jurors from their duties. What can we possibly expect if we are looking prospectively as well. But I am talking about right now, he is a very severe and grave danger to the integrity of this jury and to their ability to evaluate the evidence. So I would submit that if anyone should be excused, it should be 1489. He is interfering with other jurors' duty and ability to evaluate and listen to the evidence. He is interfering with the ability to cooperate and get along as a juror. He himself has shown a desire to engage in psychological warfare that does not--that does not look good for any future ability to deliberate fairly and cooperate with the other jurors, and he's lied to this Court about his conduct with the other jurors, most notably, 1427.

THE COURT: Do you have any case law or any statutory authority that indicates that a court has the discretion in this situation?

MS. CLARK: I do. People versus Thomas, 218 Cal. App. 3D. 1477.

THE COURT: What's the page cite?

MS. CLARK: 1482 to 1488, determination of good cause.

THE COURT: What are the facts in that case?

MS. CLARK: I only happen to have that one page. I don't have the facts with me. I left them upstairs. But People versus Warren, W-A-R-R-E-N, 176 Cal. App. 3D. 324, in that case, a juror was properly dismissed who felt intimidated by the other jurors. But that goes to, you know, the ability to cooperate in general.

MR. COCHRAN: Judge, may I respond?

THE COURT: Let me just get the case authority here.

MS. CLARK: Why does he get to argue twice just out of curiosity?

THE COURT: I'll allow him to make any response and I'll allow you to make a response.

MS. CLARK: And the most recent case of People versus Thomas, 94 of the Daily Journal, DAR 10206.

THE COURT: 94, it ought to be in an advance sheet.

MS. CLARK: By now.

THE COURT: By now.

MS. CLARK: But the language in that case, your Honor, is where a juror was excused, the Court found that he refused to deliberate because the other jurors complained he wasn't paying attention to his fellow jurors, and the Court found that inattentiveness a ground for dismissal. Also, that--I mean, what we are talking about is conduct that's not cooperative. We're not just talking about someone who's saying, "I will not deliberate." That's very clear and easy. Cases don't happen that way. We're talking about uncooperative conduct. We're talking about conduct far worse than saying, "I don't want to sit with you." His conduct is, as the record is, replete with instances of his disruptiveness.

THE COURT: Okay. Any other cite?

MS. CLARK: People versus Johnson, 6 Cal. 41 at page 21.

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you very kindly, your Honor. First of all, your Honor, Miss Clark argues long and argues well as usual, but she's saying nothing. Your Honor, she's talking about personality characteristics, not violations of Court orders. 1489 did not tell 1427 to come in here and lie. That is where you are talking about credibility. You know--and I don't go around calling people liars. I don't know what happens back in the jury room because I'm not back there. But I can talk to you about what we saw in here, what you saw, your Honor. She can cite all the cases she wants. Those cases aren't going to tell the Court to dismiss 1489 because of her perception. If you recall, of the 17 jurors the Court talked to, only about three--in fact, almost all of them said the problems had gotten considerably better.

When the Court asked the jurors if they thought they could put their differences aside and reach a decision in this case, they said, "Yes, we can." Whatever the differences, they can put them aside and work together. They were very clear about that. I was somewhat impressed with that and encouraged by that. The Prosecution was not nearly as worried when we got Jeanette Harris saying early on that ****--1489, 1489 had been struck in the back of the head, that he had been kicked. Nobody worried about this big guy. They were not worried about him at that point. This stuff about staring, mind games, that's preposterous. If a person is paranoid--if this lady thinks other people are looking at her, it seems to me that has nothing to do with his ability to sit in this case. In fact, quite the contrary. She talks about him not being able to deliberate. There's no evidence of that. The evidence we heard was that when they're back in that movie room--remember all the testimony? He would say to people, "Please be quiet during the movie." You even responded yourself you hate people who talk during the movie. So you probably could identify with this man. Some people don't like to have everybody talking during the movie. So he's kind of a straight lace kind of guy, but there's no indication this man's ever lied to the Court. Not even--you are talking about apples and watermelon, compared to that. That doesn't even fly in the face. Let's talk about this lady. What Miss Clark didn't read to you--if I could borrow the transcript. If you'll allow me to do this, I'll read you the complete record here. Here's what you said. I'll read it. It says: "1427, when we left our discussion, I directed you not to discuss this with anybody else. Did you discuss this with any of the jurors?"

THE COURT: You are referring to 29552?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes, your Honor.

"JUROR 1427: No, I didn't discuss anything." That was absolutely the first lie to the Court.

MS. CLARK: "No, I didn't say anything."

MR. COCHRAN: "No, I didn't discuss it. Please apologize."

MS. CLARK: "I apologize."

MR. COCHRAN: "THE COURT: Did you write any notes to anybody?

"JUROR 1427: No, I didn't say anything." Now, again, I mean, is she being--I mean, is that being honest? She's become a liar. She--like she's become a liar in the five or six months she's been here. Another lie. "THE COURT: Did you share with any other jurors anything that you might have written on a newspaper?" You had to get specific.

"JUROR 1427: I remember writing something down. I asked 353 a question, asked her for--I asked her for something. Then I wrote something down. I remember scribbling. I was reading a newspaper and scribbling. I remember scribbling on a newspaper.

"THE COURT: Did you communicate anything that had to do with the question I was discussing with you here? "No. I wasn't trying to communicate with her about anything about this case, about the case." She lied. Now, that's four lies right there.

"All right. Mr. Cochran, do you have any other questions? Miss Clark?" And then Miss Clark says: "Yes, your Honor," and that's when he passed the note up here and then you showed her the newspaper,

"Does this look familiar?" Only after that, and then she says:

"Yes. I scribbled that." Now, this is--this flies right in the heart of your orders, flies right in the face--she actually lied four times in front of all of us. You can't get around it. Miss Clark, as eloquent as she is, can't get around it. She cites all these cases. None of those cases have to do with personality. Sure you have lots of discretion with regard to jurors, but you're not--you are a fair man. You're not going to dismiss some guy because he wants it to be quiet when he's watching a movie, because he was a victim, because this lady comes and tries to butt heads up on the phone, just a bunch of malarkey. She calls him a liar. There's no evidence he has ever lied to you at all about anything. Quite the contrary. He says he's gone out of his way not to have any problems. And you yourself gave him some advice. You said, "Look, in case of these kind of problems, stay away from 1427." And it was quite clear that they rode in separate vans, whatever.

THE COURT: Apparently he followed my advice. When there was that conflict over the phone, he just said, "Hey, I'm out of here."

MR. COCHRAN: Remember what she said about--how she took that? She said he turned it around on her and made like a big thing out of it like she had done something wrong. So, you know, it's very hard pleasing this particular juror it seems to me. Ask the deputies. If the Court asks the deputies, then I think this matter will be over with real quickly. So I think it's clear, your Honor, that in this situation, there's no comparison here. And those cases that counsel cites without the facts have nothing to do with personality or the fact that somebody might not want quiet in a movie or might--somebody looks at you is grounds to get somebody kicked off the jury. What does it mean staring at somebody? That's preposterous under the circumstances. But the point I want to make is that in your efforts here, every one of these jurors has said they can work together. Things have gotten a lot better. And they all said that. So it just seems to me the Prosecution has certain jurors they don't like. Certainly, for them to argue 1427 should be in here is outrageous. I don't think they really mean that given this record. This record is absolutely clear. So I'll submit it.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, let me cite another case to the Court. Let me just say this. All of these cases actually do come down to personality. You know, they really do.

THE COURT: What case do you want to cite to me?

MS. CLARK: Different--not a personality case. But basically that's what we're talking about, is about jurors' personality and whether or not those personalities allow them to deliberate. I agree that the Court ought to talk to the deputies if the Court has any need to resolve this issue because it does not sound to me like he was actually doing that, getting out of her way or anything. It was another way for him to get in her face, and he's using it in a way of saying, "I'm not getting in your face." And the truth of the matter is, you know, you will see, you know, over a period of time--if it's not her, it will be somebody else he's going to do this to because this is what he does. He needs to play these games. And, you know, I feel very strongly, your Honor that--we talk about lies. He's come in here and turned everything on its head. But Mr. Cochran can't get around the fact--he tries to minimize the conduct and make him, paint this man, 1489, as the victim. There are three or four other jurors who have seen the same conduct and reported it consistently even more vehemently than 1427, how inappropriate is his conduct. So we have a problem with this man that the Defense would like to sweep under the rug. But it's very patent. With respect to the dismissal of 1427, the punishment ought to fit the crime. There's been no harm here. The Court was not precluded from ascertaining the truth. It took her about a nanosecond to say, "That's right. I did write the note after all." Were they discussing the facts of this case? No, they were not. Were they forming opinions about the facts of this case? No, they were not. Nothing that goes to the heart of the issue here. Peripheral issue.

THE COURT: But, Miss Clark, don't I have a substantial concern when I order this person twice in half an hour not to do something that I have told them not to do on all other previous occasions, and then they go and write this note, and then when they're confronted with it, dance around it? Don't I have a fundamental problem with that person?

MS. CLARK: And that's what I'm telling you. No. Yes, there is a problem. But dismissal is not the only remedy. Under People versus Mincey, the Court has the power to admonish the jury instead of dismissal.

THE COURT: Which is?

MS. CLARK: 2 Cal. 4th 408 at page 421, m-I-n-c-e-y. Dismissal is not the only remedy. In that case, the Court did admonish the jurors in question not to base--somebody I think had brought a bible into the jury room in that case in violation of a court order. I'm sure there are other cases, and if given the opportunity, I will bring them to the attention of the Court, where an admonition is given to jurors who had committed some form of misconduct like experiment outside the confines of the courtroom. In that case, an admonishment was deemed to be sufficient to remedy and that dismissal was not called for. And we have a similar situation here and I think an admonition to that juror specifically in no uncertain terms would suffice.

THE COURT: But isn't the Mincey case--I seem to recollect having read that once a long time ago. Didn't Mincey though involve a situation where the juror during the course of deliberations brought in a bible and discussed some of the biblical implications of criminal law, but that was not in direct violation of a specific court order?

MS. CLARK: Well, no, your Honor. Actually the juror read other--read verses to the other jurors regarding the propriety of the death penalty and authority of governing rulers. No, that was a direct violation of the Court's order. Not--

THE COURT: What?

MS. CLARK: They brought something extraneous to the case in the jury room and started reading verses concerning the death penalty. I think that's much more serious and egregious violation than anything 1427 did. I mean, they're bringing extraneous information to a penalty phase determination. I mean that's about as serious as it gets, and yet the Court found an admonition was sufficient under those circumstances. I mean they're considering matters extraneous to the evidence and the law that was given to them by the Court. How much more serious can you get?

THE COURT: Okay. Allrighty. Counsel, what I would like to do is read the cases that have been cited to me. And, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Shapiro, if you want to submit any case authority to me, you're welcome to do so. I'll take a look at that. My guess is that we don't have a lot more of Mr. Sims, and if we can finish Mr. Sims this morning, I can take a look at this and hopefully rule this afternoon on this issue.

MS. CLARK: What time, your Honor?

THE COURT: Hopefully this afternoon. I want to finish Mr. Sims, get him back to DOJ. Had you not cited all this, had you told me about this before, I would have read it before.

MS. CLARK: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: All right. Because I have read everything else, and I will read it.

MR. DARDEN: I tried to call you.

THE COURT: All right. Let's take 10 minutes, and we will start with Sims at 10:30.

MS. CLARK: All right. Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Also an interesting day,

(At 10:20 a.m., in camera proceedings were concluded.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, JUNE 5, 1995 9:28 A.M.

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

APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)

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

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

(The following proceedings were held in camera:)

THE COURT: On the record. All right. We are in chambers with counsel, Mr. Darden, Miss Clark, Mr. Cochran and Mr. Shapiro. Also present is Dr. Jo-Ellen Dimitrius, jury consultant for the Defense. Counsel, I'm going to rule on the juror issues that that we have before us. As to juror no. 1427, the Court on two occasions directly ordered her not to discuss the subject of the chambers conferences with other jurors. That order was made specifically by the Court on two occasions, and the Court refers specifically to the transcript, volume 154A.

The order was violated by juror 1427 by writing a note to juror 353, who is now dismissed, and when she was confronted with that she was not candid with the Court. And I find that there is good cause, on the basis of the violation of the Court order and the lack of candor, to excuse 1427. As to 1489, the Court has received numerous reports of personal conflict between 1489 and other jurors. It is not unexpected that given the long period of sequestration and the long time duration, that there would be some personal conflicts between the jurors. However, when we have deliberate and offensive physical contact and the threat of physical contact, that is something significantly different than mere personality conflict. The Court makes reference to People versus McManus at 180 cal.app.2D 19, and specifically the discussion at page 30. There are a number of incidents that the Court has considered here. The first incident involves juror 1427, the elevator bumping incident when 1427 related that 1489 deliberately bumped into her on three occasions in a row.

The Court notes that 1489 is a male, approximately 5-10 and 200 pounds and 1427 is a female and approximately 5-8, very slender, approximately 125 pounds. In a second incident juror 1427 reported that she was deliberately shoved by juror 1489, again in the elevator. This incident was also reported to the Court by juror no. 19 on April the 21st. The Court notes that previously juror no. 19 had reported to the Court the contraband list of juror names that was kept by a dismissed juror, no. 602. The Court takes that into consideration in assessing the credibility of juror no. 19. The third incident, juror 1427 made a complaint that 1489 was offensively brushing up against her in the lounge. She was very distraught by this continued physical contact with 1489, and this is on May 25th. The Court makes reference to the hearing conducted on that date, and there were--she was very distraught at the time, indicating difficulty with continuing as a juror in this case. And in a fourth incident juror 1427 indicated that she had been upset by 1489's conduct by sitting in the jury room and staring at her, and this particular staring was commented upon by juror 1290 and juror 19.

The Court makes reference also to the incident regarding dismissed juror no. 353 where juror 1489 reported that juror 353 had stepped on his foot. Juror 353 told us that she did not recall actually stepping on his foot, but if it happened, it was inadvertent. The Court notes that juror 353 was approximately five feet four, 125 to 130 pounds, and that 1489 then threatened to trip her if she came by again and stepped on his shoes. This threat to trip was reported by jurors 19, 93 and 63. In a sixth incident juror no. 1290 reported that she is also a target of the staring by 1489 and that it makes her feel uncomfortable. The Court noted in incident 7 that jurors 984 and 247 reported that 1489 is the source of conflict over the viewing of TV and videotapes, TV viewing of videotapes, and this has caused the court extra expense to authorize the rental of a second TV room. And previously 1489 had denied any--having any conflict with 1427 and had denied physical contact. The Court finds that that denial is lacking in credibility.

Despite the pending dismissal of 1427, there are remaining jurors who have been targets and the victims of 1489's offensive behavior, and the Court finds that 1489's conduct is disruptive of the truth-finding process. The Court makes reference to the case United States versus Fajardo at 787 fed.2D at 1523. Penal code 1089 confers on the Court discretion and the Court can make dismissals upon a showing of good cause. The Court makes a finding that 1489 cannot perform his duties as a juror because of his offensive behavior toward other jurors on an ongoing basis and that this offensive behavior is not just oral, but is also physical in its manifestations, and also based upon his lack of candor with the Court in discussing these matters. All right. Let's have 1427, please.

MR. COCHRAN: Can we just note our objection to 1489?

THE COURT: Noted.

MS. CLARK: Our objection to 1427?

THE COURT: Noted.

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

THE COURT: Also interesting, in McManus, where there had been conflict between a juror and an alternate, the court found good cause to remove the problem by bouncing both, and I think by bouncing 1427, 1489 and 353 we have removed the warring parties.

MR. COCHRAN: Can I ask one other question? Is there any new development because we are getting so--I want to make a proposal, after we get through this today, about how we deal with it in the future.

(Juror no. 1427 enters chambers.)

THE COURT: All right. Good morning, 1427.

JUROR NO. 1427: Good morning.

THE COURT: How are you today?

JUROR NO. 1427: Fine.

THE COURT: 1427, I am going to dismiss you from further service on the jury panel and I want you to know that I've had to think about this for a long time. I did not want to lose you.

JUROR NO. 1427: I understand.

THE COURT: The problem was my direct order to you not to discuss the topics we were talking about and then your passing the note to 353, and that was a direct violation of two of my orders, so I don't think it is appropriate for you to serve any longer at this point. And you have the thanks of the Court, and I feel as badly about this as you do, but I think you understand why I have to do this.

JUROR NO. 1427: Yes, I understand.

THE COURT: All right. I'm going to serve you now with an order which orders you not to reveal to anybody the identity of any member of the jury or the alternates.

JUROR NO. 1427: Yes.

THE COURT: And not to reveal to anybody the name or location of the hotel. And Mr. Darden, would you hand that to 1427, please.

JUROR NO. 1427: Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you very much. You are excused.

(Juror no. 1427 exits chambers.)

THE COURT: 1489, please.

(Brief pause.)

(Juror no. 1489 exits chambers.)

THE CLERK: 1489.

THE COURT: All right. 1489, why don't you have a seat, please.

JUROR NO. 1489: Thank you.

THE COURT: 1489, there have been a number of problems during the course of this trial, as you know, regarding personality conflicts, and I am going to dismiss you as a juror at this time. And the reason is the ongoing personality conflict between you and other jurors, and I have dismissed those other jurors as well. I apologize to you because I know that this is not something that will sit well with you, but I have to protect this process and can't have it disrupted by conflicts between the jurors. All right. Thank you very much, sir.

JUROR NO. 1489: Sure.

THE COURT: Before I excuse you, I'm going to order you not to reveal to anybody the identity of any members of the jury and not to reveal the name or location of the hotel. All right. And Mr. Darden, would you hand 1489 a copy of that. All right. Thank you very much, sir.

JUROR NO. 1489: Sure.

(Juror no. 1489 exits chambers.)

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Okay. What else do we have to discuss?

MR. COCHRAN: Just, Judge, you noted our objection. I think that you will recall that Lee Bailey made a suggestion some time ago about considering upping the threshold for excusing jurors at some point, and what I wanted to ask you was there any updated status on *******? I guess we are going to be down to two alternates as of today.

THE COURT: Deputy Downs is attempting to locate and interview the complainant in the TRO.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You can put it on hold, but I think at some point I want to talk to our colleagues for the Prosecution.

THE COURT: I understand.

MR. COCHRAN: There may be a point where we want to talk about upgrading the whole process, because--

THE COURT: Actually, I think I should go in and tell the jurors now that the reason we are losing people is because of the lack of candor.

MS. CLARK: And cooperation.

THE COURT: And cooperation, so--but in any event--

MR. COCHRAN: If you do, then they may come forward. If you do, they will probably come in and say "I didn't tell you everything" and then we will finish today.

MS. CLARK: Well, good news, bad news story, Judge.

THE COURT: Sit down, sit down, sit down. But this case has subjected everybody to an unprecedented degree of public scrutiny, including the jurors, and things that would have normally just passed by without notice, mention or even thought, are discovered and magnified and communicated to the Court. I'm sure somebody from the news media, or parties that have interests in this case, have done background checks on all the jurors, which is why we have these things filtering in to us.

MR. COCHRAN: That is a real problem, yeah.

THE COURT: Which is, I can't recollect--and maybe Dr. D. can tell us if she is ever heard of a case where jurors have been scrutinized by outside parties, because I know none of you have done that, nor has the Court.

MS. CLARK: I have never seen a case like this.

DR. DIMITRIUS: The only comparison, and it is certainly nothing compared to this, was the federal trial of the four officers. We had a couple of instances, but it stopped after like the first month.

MR. COCHRAN: Maybe, Judge--

MS. CLARK: I think this is unprecedented.

MR. COCHRAN: I don't know. If you knew everything you knew now, if ever you had to do this again--

MS. CLARK: Let the record reflect I have reached toward counsel's neck.

MR. COCHRAN: Everybody has thrown up. That maybe you wouldn't release those questionnaires. You would probably have good cause or some other Judge has good cause not to do that.

MS. CLARK: This case may be a good platform on which to change that law, because it was Metropolitan News, wasn't that the one that said juror questionnaires have to be released, and maybe now we are seeing a good reason why they shouldn't be.

THE COURT: But on the other hand, if people are hiding things and this is a truth-finding process, I don't know. It cuts both ways. I mean, certainly it has been disruptive, but since I have made a finding of good cause in each instance where I have excused a juror based upon the information, or in the case of 353, the reaction to the information, you know, it is troubling to have to deal with anonymous information, although, you know, we attempt to corroborate and confirm all of that. In fact, we have.

MS. CLARK: We have, yeah.

THE COURT: Okay. What is on agenda we need to talk about? We have people from county counsel here on the personnel record matters.

MR. SHAPIRO: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Have you talked to them?

MR. SHAPIRO: Yes, and we should have Mr. Kelberg come in and Mr. Hernandez from the county counsel.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. SHAPIRO: I think we can at least expedite it.

(Discussion held off the record.)

(Brief pause.)

APPEARANCES: Mr. Kelberg and Mr. Lynch appearing on behalf of the District Attorney's office; Mr. Richard E. Townsend and Tony Hernandez, County counsel's office; also appearing, Dr. Sathyavagiswaran.

MS. CLARK: You don't need us, do you?

THE COURT: No. All right. We have now been joined by Mr. Townsend, Mr. Kelberg, Dr. Lakshmanan.

MR. HERNANDEZ: Tony Hernandez.

THE COURT: All right. Find a chair there, folks. All right. Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Shapiro, why don't you state our problem here.

MR. SHAPIRO: Yes, your Honor. We have issued a subpoena duces tecum which has been received and served on Dr. Lakshmanan, basically--

THE COURT: Who is present.

MR. SHAPIRO: Who is present.--basically for performance evaluation records regarding Dr. Golden, regarding Miss Ratcliffe and regarding--

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. SHAPIRO: --and regarding Mr. Jacobo and we have talked informally amongst ourselves. The County counsel's position is this falls under technically a pitchess motion and they are required--they are by the code allowed to have fifteen day's notice. However, we all realize that that would unnecessarily delay this case. We have tentatively suggested, if the Court would agree, that the County counsel will get the appropriate records together, that they will come to you in camera, that you can review them, and we may or may not have any problem. If you decide that they should be released, then the County counsel may have a position requiring additional time or may need to get a waiver or something further from their client. If you decide that for some reason they are not admissible or that they are privileged and we are not entitled to them, then the problem dissipates.

MR. TOWNSEND: At this point, your Honor, the problem seems to be timing, and if as Mr. Shapiro indicated earlier, the request is simply the standard county evaluation forms, we can--the county on its behalf can waive notice. We want to give the employees a reasonable time frame within which to respond. We believe a couple days would be sufficient and we would bring those in in camera. If something else is being sought by the subpoena, we are probably looking at additional time, so as I understand the statement from Mr. Shapiro, we are talking about the standard form. I would propose that we bring those back for your Honor to review in camera in two days. We will make sure the employees have been notified and ascertain whether they have any problem. The county will waive its notice requirement on its behalf. Then what we would ask in addition, your Honor, is that there be a protective order with regard to any records that are subsequently released, and as Mr. Shapiro indicated, we will be agreeable, once your Honor has had a chance to look at those records, that we be given an additional opportunity to express any other concerns about it.

THE COURT: All right. Then I would propose then that we meet again 9:00 a.m. On Wednesday.

MR. SHAPIRO: Very well.

MR. TOWNSEND: Very well.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, the only thing I would like to add on behalf of the District Attorney's office is we have a question, given that we have undergone personnel evaluations as members of the county ourselves, as to the relevancy of some aspects of the evaluations. We believe probably that anything that reflects upon, for example, Dr. Golden's competency as a forensic pathologist practicing forensic pathology may be appropriate, assuming there is no privilege or something of that nature, but for example, as the Court may remember from its days as a member of our office, those personnel evaluations, if they are anything like our office's, go into other aspects that our position would be are irrelevant to his competency as a forensic pathologist. So when the Court reviews these documents in camera, I hope you will keep in mind basically our background position with respect to whether any of this material is admissible, separate and apart from its discoverability and also to point out of course that ms. Ratcliffe and Mr. Jacobo have not been called as witnesses and may never be called. I don't know whether they will be called by our side or by the Defense, but it seems to me it is a matter that really ultimately, as to admissibility, requires them to be witnesses.

MR. TOWNSEND: Your Honor, if I might, that was part of the basis for our concern as well. Without a motion, a pitchess motion, which at this point--

THE COURT: To frame the issues?

MR. TOWNSEND: To frame the issues, exactly, your Honor, that was our concern as well.

THE COURT: I look at this as the evaluation of the performance evaluations as it goes to their professional competence is how I see it, and that is the only relevance I see to this.

MR. SHAPIRO: We are not seeking to look into personalities, conflict or other things that may be interesting but not relevant. We are interested in certain criteria which, according to the forms that we have received in Dr. Lakshmanan's manual, would directly relate the issues as he has now indicated he will be testifying to regarding Dr. Golden. And I assume that part of his testimony will be based on prior performance evaluations and opinions of colleagues regarding this doctor's ability, qualifications and performance.

THE COURT: All right. I think that is clear. All right. Counsel, anything else then? I appreciate the cooperation of county counsel and being able to resolve this on an informal basis.

MR. TOWNSEND: Very well. Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you.

(Mr. Townsend, Mr. Hernandez and Dr. Sathyavagiswaran exit chambers.)

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, do I have two and a half minutes to visit the restroom?

THE COURT: Yes, you do.

MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Kelberg, why don't you stay just a second.

THE COURT: The Defendant is asking to waive his presence for the purposes of this testimony.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, okay, not yet. I mean, what we are saying--

MR. SHAPIRO: May.

MR. COCHRAN: We anticipate, and you saw Friday, it may get--okay. What we are anticipating, Judge, is that there may come a time, and rather than make a big thing out of it--because Friday he was having a tough time--we would like for to him stay if at all possible, he is not going to see the photographs, but hearing about it has caused such an emotional thing--

THE COURT: But you know, even if I excuse him from attending, then I have to wire the lock-up.

MR. COCHRAN: He can't waive that?

MR. KELBERG: I suppose in this business you can waive just about anything, Judge.

MR. COCHRAN: Because that is the thing. He is not going to see the pictures anyway and I think he would probably waive that. Can I talk to him about that?

THE COURT: Talk to him.

MR. COCHRAN: Maybe, so we are clear on the record, he wants start out. We are just trying to anticipate, based upon what happened Friday, where we are going to go, and we think that you may want to draft--say something to the jury about this. This is not any ploy or anything. You may want to change that or you may want to make it stronger. I welcome that.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. COCHRAN: It is your choice.

MR. KELBERG: I was--

THE COURT: Chris went up to talk to the chiefs to see what their position is going to be.

MR. KELBERG: I can tell what you my position will be, and I believe I will speak for the office on this matter, because it is within the purview of the testimony I'm presenting. If Mr. Garcetti wants to speak on the matter, he can certainly come down here and do the examination of Dr. Lakshmanan.

THE COURT: Don't forget we are on the record here.

MR. KELBERG: I understand that, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. KELBERG: I'm not taking a position as to whether legally he can voluntarily absent himself, but I will say, based upon the papers that have been given to me, is that the admonition is totally inappropriate, no. 1. No. 2, that it is argumentative. No. 3, it may well be this is a performance and it will be for the jury to decide whether it a performance or not. And as a result, the only admonition, assuming he may voluntarily absent himself, would be to say to the jury that Mr. Simpson has the right to voluntarily absent himself from these proceedings at any time. He has decided to exercise that right at this time. That is it.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. COCHRAN: Well--

MR. SHAPIRO: One other issue, your Honor. I'm sorry, Johnnie.

MR. COCHRAN: We are not that far apart on that; however, we should talk to Marcia. Put it this way: This is not an act and I'm trying to say, having been here since September 26th, I am trying to save a little bit of time.

THE COURT: I appreciate the head's up.

MR. COCHRAN: I went over and talked to Mr. Kelberg and ask him if he could give me an idea when he is getting to that area.

MR. KELBERG: I have given Mr. Cochran basically an outline of where we hope to go to today.

THE COURT: That is very good of you, Mr. Kelberg. I appreciate that.

MR. KELBERG: Can I now have two and a half minutes?

THE COURT: You can have five minutes.

MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, could we have one further discussion, and that would be before the audience is brought in--before the audience is brought in, that we can put up the display boards with the photographs and see if we can find the location where they would not be visible to any members of the audience?

MR. KELBERG: That's fine with me. I'm not sure--

THE COURT: The problem, logistically the only place where that would happen would be, you know, at an angle.

MR. KELBERG: Going backwards.

MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, we are going to be losing two members of the jury so the jury is going to be move up. I think we should experiment because in the past--

THE COURT: Well, you guys go out and take a look and see--take five minutes and do that.

MR. SHAPIRO: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Do I get two and a half minutes on top--

THE COURT: On top of the five.

MR. LYNCH: I think for an appropriate record, your Honor, I should probably be included as counsel.

THE COURT: The record will so reflect, Mr. Lynch.

(At 9:54 a.m. The proceedings in camera were concluded.)

(Recess.)

(The following proceedings were held in camera, Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Kardashian being present.)

THE COURT: In chambers.

MR. SHAPIRO: We would ask the Court to not have juror no. 10 removed, have him kept here. We are going to come on the record and ask for permission to take a writ on this issue, and in order for us to protect the record, we have to have that juror here, in the event our writ is sustained, and not have another juror replaced.

THE COURT: Well, he has already left, I assume.

MR. SHAPIRO: We would ask the Court--I checked with the bailiff that he hasn't left yet, as of the time I walked in, and that he just remain and not be excused, even at the hotel, that the Court at least wait until we go on the record and ask to be given permission to apply to the Court of Appeal for an emergency writ.

THE COURT: Well, I don't think this is something that should be ex parte.

MR. SHAPIRO: I understand that, but I'm saying just to--right now the only thing that has to be ex parte is if he is let go and allowed to leave the hotel, then our position is nullified, and so I had to bring this to the Court's attention immediately.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Byrne will you get me a Prosecutor, please.

(Brief pause.)

(Mr. Darden enters chambers.)

THE COURT: All right. We are back in chambers and we have been joined by Mr. Darden. Mr. Darden, the Defense made an ex parte application to me to hold the dismissal of 1489 so that they can take a writ. And Mr. Shapiro, for Mr. Darden's benefit, why don't you repeat your argument.

MR. SHAPIRO: Yes. Our request, your Honor, is for the Court immediately to order the sheriff's department not to release 1489--1489, that he be kept in a position separate from the jury, but not be released back into--from his duties as a juror, and that we be allowed to immediately file with the District Court of Appeal a writ of prohibition or mandamus to request a hearing regarding the inappropriateness of dismissing this juror without good legal cause. And also to further at least look into the possibility of improper state action in dealing with this jury.

(Ms. Clark enters chambers.)

THE COURT: Okay. Any response from Mr. Darden?

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

MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, I know of no provision in the law that will allow for such a procedure. The Court has made its ruling and issued its order and advised this juror, 1489, that he is no longer a member of the panel. And I think legally, and technically speaking, at this point he is no longer a member of the panel. And as for state action, the issue of state action, there was no state action involved in the dismissal of this juror, so we would strenuously object to 1489 remaining as any part of this jury trial.

MR. SHAPIRO: We are going to bring the writ, so in any event, we think this way we are at least putting our position forward where we believe that jeopardy has attached and that if we are not given an opportunity to protect our writ with this juror, then we would put on the record that this will be invited error by the Prosecution.

MS. CLARK: No such thing as invited error by the Prosecution, that is nonsense. The Court cannot reinstate the juror once he has been excused. There is no legal provision for such a thing. He has been excused and that is that. They can take their writ, their appellate remedy, and I suspect that they will be issued a postcard denial, but they can take the writ, they can take a writ as to anything they want, but there is no legal provision for this Court to suspend proceedings with respect to the dismissal of 1489 which has already been accomplished. And it is simply--it is impossible, cannot do that. It is over and done. Counsel is also permitted to take writs and we invite them to do so, but are not inviting any error. The Court exercised its discretion. The Court of Appeals will have to find an abuse of discretion. And I can state 110 percent the Court of Appeal is going to find an abuse of discretion in the excusal of a juror whose conduct has made it clear he has not fulfilled his duties, and I feel very confident of that, so confident of that that I would urge the Court not to take any extraordinary measures to keep this juror here, and that is what it would be because there is no legal provision for it. I think it is a legal impossibility to reinstate a juror once excused and I would urge the Court to allow them to take their writ.

MR. COCHRAN: May I just respond, your Honor? I think this is a unique situation.

THE COURT: Sure is.

MR. COCHRAN: It is unique that we are in this position where this is the tenth of twelve alternates to be excused, and we think this situation regarding him is different than all the others who have been excused, because it is really more for personal matters. And we don't have to debate that, but we think this is the one we would be duty bound, after discussing it with our client, to take this up. Nothing has happened since we did this back in chambers. It has been now 25, 30 minutes or so I guess the Court issued the order. The juror, I don't know where he is, but this is the time for us to do this because there has been no testimony, there has been no further testimony. This is an extraordinary writ and I think we would like to talk to our client. And we the tried to reach Mr. Dershowitz, and it is lunchtime back east, but he is the one who is going to be doing the writ and we think it is appropriate.

Fortunately, we have not had this kind of case, but we are saying to you, and Bob just stated it, we are stating embargo this particular juror, we need to stop these proceedings, at least until we do this, because if we are right and the Court has abused your discretion, or whatever, but I think the remedy is he is just put back on, I suppose, so how do you do that if we no longer have him in a position where he is kept separate and apart? I'm not saying that we can force your Honor to put him back in the jury room, but we are saying you can keep him separate and apart, whatever, until we seek this writ and get some kind of a ruling, because if we are successful, I suppose the remedy will be he will be put back on the jury.

MS. CLARK: No.

MR. COCHRAN: I don't know what that remedy will get, but we want to find out. I have not talked personally with Mr. Dershowitz. What we are proposing you doing is extraordinary. It is extraordinary and I don't know if anybody has any cases like this, and we would like to brief it. And speaking off-the-cuff as we came up here, we wanted to bring it to your Honor's attention.

MS. CLARK: That is the problem and that is why we should not suspend the proceedings in order to keep him on and embargo him, which is an outrageous suggestion for the entire jury, as well as for 1489. If you analyze it to the wheeler line of cases, the reinstatement of a juror has never been the remedy. You cannot reinstate the juror to remedy an improvident excusal. And I think, by analogy, if counsel's position is that he should have--that he should have been retained and should not have been excused, then the remedy is a mistrial, but it is certainly not--it is certainly not the reinstatement of a juror. It is too late for that. And by analogy to the wheeler line of cases, you cannot do it, and I think that the cases all hold that that cannot be done.

MR. COCHRAN: Somebody knows a lot more about this than probably all of us.

MR. DARDEN: Who?

MR. COCHRAN: Alan Dershowitz.

MS. CLARK: What has he ever won?

THE COURT: Counsel, we are on the record.

MS. CLARK: Excuse me.

MR. COCHRAN: May I respond, your Honor? Mr. Douglas just--may the record reflect Mr. Douglas just spoke with Mr. Dershowitz in Massachusetts and what he asks is what we ask you to do is keep juror 1489 in the courthouse, sequestered, maintain the status quo while the writ is being filed. We are asking for a 48-hour delay and he is preparing the writ, he is starting right now, and we just reached--1:15 in Massachusetts. And that is just as we thought, unless we do this now, we lose those things and I think that certainly we are not seeking just at this point any mistrial. We are seeking to try to maintain the status quo. We bring this writ in good faith. He wants a 48-hour delay only and he is preparing the writ and we will start doing it right now.

MS. CLARK: So we have to recess the trial for two days?

MR. COCHRAN: This is extraordinary, Miss Clark, and I think that this is a very serious matter to Mr. Simpson, as well as the People, so we have a right to appellate review and if we--I think that--

MS. CLARK: I agree.

MR. COCHRAN: And if we do this, we are not waiving anything such as saying, well, go ahead and put another juror in there and let's go forward. At this instance we are just saying give us a 48-hour delay. We are going to file the writ. He will probably have it ready to file tomorrow morning and let's see what the Court says. I don't want to prognosticate what the Court is saying. Maybe they say maybe you are right or maybe you are wrong. If you are wrong, we are not seeking any mistrial, we are seeking to have him reinstated.

MR. DARDEN: Right or wrong the juror has already been dismissed. What kind of a juror can we expect under circumstances like these where the Court has already explained to him the reasons as to why he is being dismissed and then has given him the order or directed his dismissal. What type of juror can we expect to have under those circumstances?

MR. SHAPIRO: That is--

MR. DARDEN: Completely biased juror I would think, under the circumstances. I don't know who he would be biased for or against. In any event, he is no longer a member of the panel and we should move on with the trial.

MR. COCHRAN: Is that an order?

MR. SHAPIRO: These are issues for the Court of Appeal to decide. The only issue right now, and we are now losing valuable time, is that we at the earliest possible moment have requested that this juror be sequestered and that the People's objection clearly would violate the rules of double jeopardy and that we will then be asking for a dismissal, if our position is correct and this juror was excused without good cause--

MS. CLARK: The problem with counsel's proposal--

MR. SHAPIRO: --with prejudice.

MS. CLARK: --is that there is no--of all the possible things that a Court of Appeal might do, one that we know will not happen is have this juror reinstated. And I see no reason why we shouldn't just proceed, let counsel take his writ. I'm not saying that counsel is not allowed to seek appellate remedy. All counsel are allowed to seek appellate remedy whenever they see fit. And I don't think that there is any reasonable possibility they will be successful on appeal. That doesn't mean that they can't try, and they should. All I'm saying is that there is no reasonable possibility they will order the reinstatement of juror 1489 and we will lose two days for them to take an appellate writ that will be unsuccessful seeking a remedy that will never be ordered. The only possible remedy they could get is either a dismissal or a mistrial and whatever that--the Court of Appeals decide, so be it, but they are not going to reinstate this juror. And as Mr. Darden wisely pointed out, no court would reinstate that juror. If only for that reason alone, it is an impossibility, but forget about that, it is a legal impossibility once he has been excused. And the wheeler line of cases make that clear, so why take a two-day delay to seek a remedy that will never be allowed?

THE COURT: Well, I don't find the wheeler line of cases would be particularly persuasive since that deals with a pre-jeopardy attachment situation.

MS. CLARK: That is true.

THE COURT: Yes. Okay. The Court of Appeals will apply, with regards to the excusal of a juror, the abuse of discretion standard which is appropriate where they have to give great deference I think to the trial court, and necessarily so. I think any Justice on the Court of Appeal would agree with that. I think the Court's decision to excuse 1489 is based on abundant good cause and I think physical confrontations and shoving other jurors, threatening other jurors with physical harm, I think is clearly a sufficient basis. And this is not just one incident, it is many incidents. It is not just one other juror, it is many other jurors, and he is a disruptive force in the jury room and I don't feel any lack of good cause. At this point I think the suggestion that we sequester 1489 is tantamount to arresting him since he has now been released as a juror and he is under no further jurisdiction of the Court, and to hold him against his will sequestered I think is tantamount to imprisonment without good cause. There are alternate jurors available. These alternates were accepted by both sides. The Defendant is entitled to a jury that is selected through the jury selection process, including the alternates. He is not entitled to this particular juror. So the request for a stay at this time of the Court's order dismissing 1489 is denied. All right. Let's proceed.

MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, may we--

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, may we--we would like to offer an alternate proposal for the admonition to the jury concerning Mr. Simpson's absence.

THE COURT: No. That we will argue. That is not a chambers issue.

MR. SHAPIRO: One--one further point on this.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: We did ask for 48 hours. We would lower that request to this afternoon. I think we could get to the Court of Appeals immediately. I'm filing an emergency writ just on the basis of holding this juror, and we think to hold this juror--it is now 10:25--until 1:30 with the other members of the jury before you impanel someone to replace him, is a reasonable request.

THE COURT: John, give me Deputy G, will you please.

(Brief pause.)

MR. DOUGLAS: Judge, if we are taking a writ, there is going to be the need for the preparation of transcripts of certain days of in chambers conferences. Can those days applying be unsealed?

THE COURT: Deputy Jex, would you hold 1489 at the hotel, have him held there.

DEPUTY JEX: Okay.

THE COURT: Have him pack up his stuff but have him wait until 1:30.

MR. DARDEN: Can we inquire of the deputy, has he already been transported from the courthouse?

DEPUTY JEX: Yes, they have.

THE COURT: He is over at the hotel packing up his stuff. Have him held over there.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. COCHRAN: 1:30 then, Judge? What he is asking, Judge, is that can we follow up on that? Apparently there will be the need to get some transcripts on an expedited basis of this morning and some other proceedings, the other proceedings I guess into which you alluded where 1489 has come up, all the time he has come up, I suppose is what we are going to be asking and we are going to need at some point, so if we can get an order regarding those only for this purpose, I suppose.

THE COURT: John, Mr. Byrne.

MR. BYRNE: Yes.

THE COURT: Would you put together a set of the sealed transcripts, please, and I'm going--Mr. Cochran, I'm going to order the Defense not to disclose these transcripts anywhere.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

THE COURT: Other than the application to the Court of Appeal and the application for the writ is to note that the Court has made an order that these are sealed and not to be publicly viewed unless ordered unsealed by either this Court or the Court of Appeal.

MR. DARDEN: Will we be provided the package as well?

THE COURT: Sure. I believe I have the box of the sealed transcripts. Mr. Byrne, I think the box of the sealed transcripts is right at Mr. Cochran's feet.

MR. BYRNE: All right.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Anything else? I think we should go out and resolve the other matters, too.

MS. CLARK: Sure. Coroner stuff. So we are going to be in recess, as far as witnesses go, until 1:30?

THE COURT: Yes. Off the record.

(Discussion held off the record.)

(At 10:24 a.m. The proceedings in camera were concluded.)