DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE

APPEARANCES: (APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED,
MR. GOLDBERG ALSO APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE.)

(JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR NO. 4855, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)

(CHRISTINE M. OLSON, CSR NO. 2378, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)

(PAGES 12650 THROUGH 12653, VOLUME 79A, TRANSCRIBED AND SEALED UNDER SEPARATE COVER.)

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)

THE COURT: GOOD MORNING, COUNSEL. BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. MR. SIMPSON IS AGAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT WITH HIS COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. DOUGLAS, MR. BAILEY. THE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED BY MISS CLARK AND MR. GOLDBERG. AND WE HAD A PRELIMINARY MATTER TO SETTLE BEFORE CALLING THE NEXT PEOPLE'S WITNESS IN THE NATURE OF AN OBJECTION REGARDING CERTAIN CONTENT OF THE STATEMENT. WE ARE NOW JOINED BY MR. DARDEN. GOOD MORNING, COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. MR. DOUGLAS, I HAVE REVIEWED THE ESTES CASE, 82 CAL.APP.3D 509, ESTES, E-S-T-E-S, AND I HAVE ALSO REVIEWED THE MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES FILED THIS MORNING BY THE PROSECUTION AND SPECIFICALLY BY MISS LEWIS.

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THIS MORNING WE FOUND A COUPLE OF ADDITIONAL CASES THAT WE WANTED TO CITE TO THE COURT AND COUNSEL. I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT HAVING THEM IN THE POINTS AND AUTHORITIES. ONE WAS PEOPLE VERSUS BREAUX AT ONE CAL.4TH 281 AND THE RELEVANT DISCUSSION STARTS ON 302, AND THE OTHER CASE IS ALSO CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT CASE, PEOPLE VERSUS PRIDE, AT 3 CAL.4TH, 195. RELEVANT DISCUSSION STARTS ON 234.

MR. DOUGLAS: REGRETTABLY, YOUR HONOR, I ONLY THIS MORNING HAD A CHANCE TO BRIEFLY PERUSE THE MEMORANDUM THAT WAS SUBMITTED. I HAVE NOT OF COURSE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THESE CASES OR THEIR APPLICABILITY TO THE ISSUE AT HAND. I EXPECT THAT MY CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THIS WITNESS IS GOING TO LAST FOR AT LEAST A COUPLE OF HOURS. I WOULD LIKE, BEFORE I AM REQUIRED TO RESPOND WITH ANY IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS, TO AT LEAST BE GIVEN THE CHANCE TO REVIEW THESE CASES, TO EXAMINE THEM. I BELIEVE, YOUR HONOR, THAT THE STATUTE ABOUT WHICH WE CONCERN OURSELVES IS CLEAR. I OFFERED A PARALLEL TO THAT STATUTE IN THE ESTES CASE. THOUGH IT IS NOT THE EXACT STATUTE, I DO THINK THAT THE REASONING OF THAT STATUTE IS VERY APPLICABLE TO THE ISSUE AT HAND. I DO THINK, YOUR HONOR, THAT THERE IS ANOTHER THRESHOLD ISSUE THAT IS RAISED AND THAT IS ONE OF 352 AS TO THE PROBATIVE NATURE OF THE SUBSTANTIVE STATEMENT, EVEN IN ANY EXCISED FORM. I THINK THAT THERE IS A TREMENDOUS QUESTION IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY AS TO THE PREDICTIVE NATURE OF CERTAIN STATEMENTS ABOUT WHICH WE CONCERN OURSELVES. THEY ARE NOT PREDICTIVE OF EVENTS THAT MAY HAVE OCCURRED IN THE PAST OR PREDICTIVE OF THINGS IN THE FUTURE, AND THAT ENTIRE ISSUE IS ONE THAT IS MOST PROPERLY THE SUBJECT OF EXPERT TESTIMONY. THERE IS THE VERY STRONG LIKELIHOOD THAT IT IS GOING TO NECESSITATE CONFUSING OF ISSUES, THE UNDUE USE OF ADDITIONAL TIME, THE CERTAIN CALLING OF DIFFERENT WITNESSES WHO MIGHT BE EXPERTS ON THIS AREA WHO MIGHT THEN BE ABLE TO PLACE THESE STATEMENTS, EVEN IN ITS EXCISED FORM, IN A GREATER UNDERSTANDABLE CONTEXT FOR THE JURY. I OFFER TO THE COURT MY OPINION, AS I DID AT SIDE BAR, THAT I CANNOT PROPERLY ADDRESS THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE STATEMENT WAS ALLEGEDLY GIVEN, AND FOR THE RECORD, WE WILL DENY THAT THE STATEMENT WAS EVEN MADE, AND WE WILL STRONGLY CHALLENGE THE FACTUAL PREDICATE FOR THE GIVING OF THE STATEMENT, SUCH THAT WE WOULD THINK IT PROPER THAT THERE BE A HEARING CONSISTENT WITH EVIDENCE CODE 403 LAYING THE FOUNDATION FOR THE PRELIMINARY FACT THAT IN FACT THIS STATEMENT WAS EVEN GIVEN. FOR ALL THESE REASONS, YOUR HONOR, AND GIVEN THE FACT THAT I HAVE NOT HAD AN ADEQUATE CHANCE TO PROPERLY CROSS-EXAMINE OR TO PROPERLY REVIEW THESE CASES, THAT WE BE ALLOWED TO EXAMINE THIS WITNESS BECAUSE I'M READY TO EXAMINE THIS WITNESS, ON MATTERS OTHER THAN THIS DISPUTED AREA, THAT I BE GIVEN ADEQUATE TIME TO DO MY OWN INDEPENDENT RESEARCH, GIVEN THIS NEW INFORMATION, AND THAT THE WITNESS BE RECALLED LATER IN THE TRIAL OR THAT THAT PORTION OF HIS TESTIMONY BE HELD UNTIL LATER.

THE COURT: MR. GOLDBERG.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

THE COURT: MRS. ROBERTSON, LET ME ASK YOU TO, IF YOU WOULD, MAKE TWO PHOTOCOPIES OF THE RELEVANT PORTIONS. MR. GOLDBERG.

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, APPARENTLY THE DEFENSE HAS BEEN AWARE OF THE STATEMENT SINCE JANUARY THE 22ND, AND OBVIOUSLY IF THERE WERE ANY ISSUES AS TO LEGAL ADMISSIBILITY, THERE WAS PLENTY OF TIME TO RESEARCH THOSE TO ADDRESS THOSE TODAY. OBVIOUSLY THE PROSECUTION WANTS TO PUT THE STATEMENT ON AS PART OF MR. SHIPP'S TESTIMONY. THERE IS NO REASON FOR BREAKING UP HIS TESTIMONY AND HAVING HIM COME BACK LATER AFTER COUNSEL HAS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO A FURTHER LEGAL RESEARCH. DOES THE COURT WANT THE PROSECUTION TO ADDRESS OUR THEORY OF ADMISSIBILITY NOW AND THE ISSUES REGARDING THE STATEMENT?

THE COURT: YES.

MR. GOLDBERG: OKAY. I WOULD FIRST LIKE TO START OUT WITH A DISCUSSION OF THE RELEVANCY OF THE STATEMENT BECAUSE I THINK COUNSEL SEEMS TO BE SUGGESTING UNDER 352 IT IS NOT ADMISSIBLE, AND ANY DISCUSSION PROBABLY SHOULD START WITH AN ISSUE OF WHY IS IT PROBATIVE, WHY IS IT RELEVANT? AND THEN I WILL GET INTO THE ISSUE OF THE POLYGRAPH ASPECT OF THE STATEMENT IN THE SECOND PART OF MY RESPONSE. AS TO THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF THE STATEMENT, YOUR HONOR HAS RULED ALREADY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE EVIDENCE THAT THE PROSECUTION IS ENTITLED TO PUT ON EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE AND APPARENTLY SPEND A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME DOING SO IN WHAT I THINK THE COURT CHARACTERIZED AS BEING THE EQUIVALENT OF SEVERAL MISDEMEANOR JURY TRIALS. WE ARE ENTITLED TO PUT ON THIS EVIDENCE FOR THE PURPOSES OF SHOWING THE DEFENDANT'S MENTAL STATE AND SHOWING HIS INTENTION AT OR AROUND THE TIME OF THE MURDER.

THE COURT: YEAH, THE CONTROVERTED STATEMENT, THOUGH, IS THE VERY NEXT DAY, SO I MEAN, WE ARE OUT OF THE CATEGORY OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, WOULDN'T YOU SAY?

MR. GOLDBERG: I JUST WANT TO TIE IT IN AS TO WHY IT IS RELEVANT IN THE CONTEXT OF ALL OF THE EVIDENCE THAT THE COURT HAS ALLOWED. THE PURPOSE OF THAT EVIDENCE IS TO ALLOW THE JURY TO INFER SOMETHING CIRCUMSTANTIALLY ABOUT WHAT THE DEFENDANT WAS THINKING AT OR AROUND THE TIME OF THE MURDER, WHAT HIS MENTAL STATE AND HIS MOTIVATIONS WERE, CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, BECAUSE THE INFERENCE, THE CHAIN OF INFERENCE IS THAT WE CAN DETERMINE FROM HIS CONDUCT WHAT HIS INTENTION, WHAT HIS MENTAL STATE MUST HAVE BEEN. THE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO MR. SHIPP DIFFERS IN ONLY ONE RESPECT AND THAT IS THAT INSTEAD OF BEING CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF HIS INTENT AND HIS MENTAL STATE, IT IS DIRECT EVIDENCE, BECAUSE IT IS HIM SAYING THIS IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN THINKING AND FROM THE CONTEXT OF THE STATEMENT IT WAS OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. NOW, THE DISTINCTION THERE BETWEEN DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL ISN'T DIRECTLY IMPORTANT. WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST TO THE COURT IS IMPORTANT IS THE WAY THAT THE -- THAT THE RESPECTIVE SIDES HAVE ASKED THE JURY AND THIS COURT TO INTERPRET THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, BECAUSE WHAT WE HAVE SAID, YOUR HONOR, IS WE HAVE SAID, LOOK, WHAT THIS EVIDENCE SHOWS IS IT SHOWS THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD AN OBSESSION WITH NICOLE SIMPSON AND THAT IT WAS AN OBSESSION THAT LED TO HER MURDER. I GUESS WE COULD TERM A FATAL OBSESSION. ISN'T THAT PRECISELY WHAT THE STATEMENT TO MR. SHIPP IS SAYING? "I HAVE BEEN DREAMING ABOUT KILLING MY WIFE." ISN'T THAT POWERFUL, POWERFUL EVIDENCE OF THAT FATAL OBSESSION, EXCEPT THAT INSTEAD OF COMING IN THE FORM OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, IT IS COMING IN THE FORM OF DIRECT EVIDENCE? THE DEFENSE, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION OF THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE EVIDENCE. THEY SAY, NO, IT IS NOT REALLY EVIDENCE THAT SHOWS THE DEFENDANT'S STATE OF MIND IN TERMS OF A FATAL OBSESSION. WHAT IT REALLY SHOWS IS A CYCLE OF BENEVOLENCE, AND THEY ARE ENTITLED TO MAKE THAT ARGUMENT, YOUR HONOR. WE ARE NOT SAYING THAT THAT IS IMPROPER. THAT IS A PROPER JURY ARGUMENT.

BUT WHEN THEY ARE ALLOWED TO STAND BEFORE THE JURY AND SAY THAT ALL THAT THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS INTRODUCED SIMPLY SHOWS A CYCLE OF BENEVOLENCE AND WE HAVE DIRECT EVIDENCE WHICH CONCLUSIVELY SHOWS THAT THAT ISN'T TRUE --

THE COURT: MR. GOLDBERG, LET'S SORT OF LEAP AHEAD TO WHAT REALLY CONCERNS ME. I AGREE THAT IT IS AN INTERESTING STATEMENT, AND WERE I IN YOUR SHOES, I WOULD PROBABLY WANT TO GET IT BEFORE THE JURY. WHAT CONCERNS ME ABOUT THIS IS TWO THINGS: ONE, THE 351.5 PROHIBITION OF ANY MENTION OF POLYGRAPH OR LIE DETECTOR WHICH IS INCLUDED IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS STATEMENT. AND SECONDLY, THE -- WHETHER OR NOT IT IS FAIR OR SOMEHOW FUNDAMENTALLY MISLEADING TO THE TRIER OF FACT TO PLUCK THIS SENTENCE OUT OF THE CONTEXT IN WHICH IT WAS SAID, WHICH IS BEGINNING AND ENDING WITH COMMENTS ABOUT POLYGRAPH. SO IS IT FAIR TO PLUCK THIS OUT? THAT IS THE CONCERN THAT I HAVE.

MR. GOLDBERG: OKAY.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE COURT AND THE CLERK.)

THE COURT: MR. GOLDBERG.

MR. GOLDBERG: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: I MEAN, THAT IS THE PROBLEM THAT I SEE, ASSUMING YOU GET OVER THE RELEVANCE QUESTION AND ASSUMING I AGREE WITH YOU THAT IT HAS SOME PROBATIVE VALUE AND WOULD BE OF INTEREST TO THE PROSECUTION CASE AND THAT IT CLEARLY IS VIRTUALLY CONTEMPORANEOUS TO THE ACTS IN QUESTION.

MR. GOLDBERG: I EXPECT --

THE COURT: WHAT CONCERNS ME IS THE CONTEXT.

MR. GOLDBERG: I SUSPECTED, YOUR HONOR, THAT IS WHERE THE COURT'S FOCUS WAS GOING TO BE.

THE COURT: WHY DON'T WE JUMP TO THAT.

MR. GOLDBERG: THE ONLY REASON THAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT RELEVANCY AND PROBATIVE VALUE IS THAT THERE IS A SPILL-OVER EFFECT ON THIS QUESTION THAT THE COURT IS CONCERNED OF, YOU CAN SEVER PART OF THE STATEMENT OUT AND THEN LEAVE THE PORTION ABOUT THE DEFENDANT DREAMING ABOUT KILLING HIS WIFE AND IS THAT FAIR?

THE COURT: MR. GOLDBERG, LET ME ASK YOU THIS, BECAUSE YESTERDAY IN THE DISCUSSIONS THAT I HAD, NOBODY GAVE ME A PRECISE OFFER AS TO EXACTLY WHAT STATEMENTS WERE GOING TO BE OFFERED.

MR. GOLDBERG: OKAY. LET ME READ THE ENTIRETY OF THE STATEMENT, INCLUDING THE PORTIONS THAT I BELIEVE THE COURT FINDS TO BE OBJECTIONABLE, AS WELL AS THOSE THAT THE PROSECUTION WANTS TO INTRODUCE.

THE COURT: GO AHEAD.

MR. GOLDBERG: THANK YOU.

"I WAS INTERVIEWED BY DETECTIVES AND THEY ASKED ME TO TAKE A LIE DETECTOR TEST AND I REPLIED, 'WELL, WHAT DID YOU SAY?'" THIS IS MR. SHIPP TALKING.

"AND HE KIND OF CHUCKLED AND HE SAYS, 'HEY, TO BE TRUTHFUL, RON, MAN, I'VE HAD A LOT OF DREAMS ABOUT KILLING HER.' AND HE SAYS, 'I REALLY DON'T KNOW ABOUT TAKING THAT THING.' HE DID NOT SAY HE WOULDN'T TAKE IT. HE SAYS, 'I REALLY DON'T KNOW ABOUT TAKING IT," SO THAT IS THE FULL CONTEXT OF MR. SHIPP'S STATEMENT TO US. THE PORTION THAT WE WANT TO INTRODUCE IS MERELY THE PORTION THAT SAYS, "HEY, TO BE TRUTHFUL, RON, MAN, I'VE HAD A LOT OF DREAMS ABOUT KILLING HER," UNQUOTE. THAT IS THE PORTION THAT WE ARE INTERESTED IN. BUT TO GET BACK TO THE ISSUE THAT THE COURT ADDRESSED, THE REASON THAT I MADE SOME COMMENTS ABOUT RELEVANCY IS THAT IN OUR STATE UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 1, SECTION 28, WE DO HAVE A RIGHT TO TRUTH IN EVIDENCE IN THIS STATE AND THERE ARE ONLY CERTAIN SPECIFIED EXCEPTIONS TO THAT RIGHT, AND THOSE EXCEPTIONS ARE THAT A STATEMENT CAN BE EXCLUDED -- THE STATEMENT CAN BE EXCLUDED OR EVIDENCE CAN BE EXCLUDED IF IT IS PRIVILEGED, WHICH THIS ISN'T, IF IT IS HEARSAY, WHICH THIS ISN'T, IF IT IS 352, WHICH THIS ISN'T, IF IT IS PROTECTED BY THE RAPE SHIELD LAW THAT IS CODIFIED IN 1103 AND 782, WHICH THIS ISN'T, OR IF IT IS TAKEN IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, WHICH IT ISN'T. AND THAT IS WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS, OF OUR STATE, IT SHALL BE ADMITTED. THIS IS HIGHLY RELEVANT EVIDENCE AND IT DOESN'T COME UNDER ANY OF THE EXCEPTIONS AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE ADMITTED. LET ME JUST POINT OUT THAT AS TO THE STATEMENT THAT THE CONTEXT OF THE STATEMENT WAS RELATING TO THE POLICE INTERROGATION, JUST TO PUT THE QUOTED PORTION IN CONTEXT, YOUR HONOR, HE WAS TALKING ABOUT HIS CONVERSATIONS WITH THE POLICE IN THE CONTEXT OF MAKING THE STATEMENT THAT I PREVIOUSLY QUOTED. THEREFORE THE ISSUE BECOMES, YOUR HONOR, ARE WE SOMEHOW GOING TO, CONTRARY TO THE CLEAR POLICY OF THE RIGHT TO TRUTH IN EVIDENCE PROVISION, EXCLUDE HIGHLY PROBATIVE EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE WHICH REALLY SEEMS TO BLOW A HOLE IN THE DEFENSE THEORY OF THE CYCLE OF BENEVOLENCE SIMPLY BECAUSE CONTAINED WITHIN THAT STATEMENT THAT THERE ARE OTHER MATERIALS WHICH YOUR HONOR IS RIGHTFULLY CONCERNED ABOUT AND WHICH ARE INADMISSIBLE? AND CLEARLY THE LAW DOES NOT LEAD US TO WHAT IN OUR VIEW WOULD BE AN ABSURD CONCLUSION. I WOULD LIKE TO GET INTO THAT LEGAL CONCLUSION NOW WHICH I THINK IS WHAT IS AT THE FOREFRONT OF THE COURT'S CONCERN. AND STARTING WITH EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 356, WHICH I BELIEVE IS THE SECTION THAT IS RELIED ON BY COUNSEL, WHICH LIKE EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 352 I THINK HAS BEEN OVERSIMPLIFIED AGAIN AND AGAIN BY ATTORNEYS AND MISSTATED BY ATTORNEYS IN TERMS OF WHAT IT REALLY STANDS FOR. THE COURT MAY RECALL THAT WHEN WE ADDRESSED 352 LAST I POINTED OUT THAT OFTENTIMES ATTORNEYS TALK ABOUT SOMETHING BEING MORE PREJUDICIAL THAN PROBATIVE AND THEY CUT OUT THAT WORD "SUBSTANTIALLY" MORE PREJUDICIAL THAN PROBATIVE. OVER AND OVER AGAIN IN OUR COURTS WE SEE ATTORNEYS SAYING, WELL, YOUR HONOR, IF THEY PUT IN PART OF THE STATEMENT, I GET TO PUT IN THE WHOLE STATEMENT. I THINK YOUR HONOR HAS PROBABLY HEARD THAT. AND THAT IS NOT THE LAW OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND IT NEVER HAS BEEN, YET IT IS CONTINUOUSLY REPEATED AS IF IT WERE HANDED DOWN BY MOSES FROM THE MOUNT. IT IS NOT WHAT EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 356 SAYS AND IT IS NOT WHAT THE CASES SAY THAT INTERPRET THAT STATUTE.

WHAT THE STATUTE STANDS FOR IS THE VERY COMMON SENSE PROPOSITION THAT WHEN YOU PUT IN PART OF THE STATEMENT AND THE OTHER SIDE CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT IT IS NECESSARY TO PUT IN ANOTHER PART OF THAT STATEMENT, TO PUT IT IN CONTEXT, THAT THAT CAN BE ALLOWED, AND THERE ARE A NUMBER OF CASES THAT INTERPRET 356 IN THAT WAY, ONE OF WHICH WE CITED IN OUR BRIEF, THE OTHER TWO WHICH I PROVIDED THIS MORNING. ONE BEING PEOPLE VERSUS BREAUX, THAT WAS AT 1 CAL.4TH 281, AND WHAT IT SAYS OF EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 356 IS:

"THE SECTION PERMITS INTRODUCTION ONLY IF STATEMENTS ON THE SAME SUBJECT OR WHICH ARE NECESSARY FOR THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE STATEMENT ALREADY INTRODUCED. THE OTHER CONVERSATION REFERRED TO IN THE EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 356 MUST HAVE SOME BEARING UPON OR CONNECTION WITH THE ADMISSIONS OR DECLARATION IN EVIDENCE." SO IN OTHER WORDS WHEN WE NEEDED TO PUT SOMETHING IN CONTEXT, THEN WE CAN USE EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 356 TO DO THAT. I THINK THE CASE OF PEOPLE VERSUS PRIDE IS MORE INSTRUCTIVE FOR YOUR HONOR AND THERE WHAT HAPPENED AT 3 CAL.4TH 195 IS THE DEFENDANT GAVE A VERY LENGTHY TAPE-RECORDED INTERVIEW TO THE POLICE THAT OCCURRED OVER A COURSE OF APPROXIMATELY TWO HOURS, AND INSTEAD OF PRODUCING THE TAPE-RECORDING, WHAT THE PROSECUTION DID IS THEY CALLED THE DETECTIVE THAT TOOK THE STATEMENT TO THE STAND AND THEY ASKED HIM ABOUT ONLY ONE TINY LITTLE SNIPPET OF THAT CONVERSATION. THAT WAS THE STATEMENT TO THE EFFECT THAT THE DEFENDANT ACCOUNTED FOR HIS WHEREABOUTS AND THOSE WHEREABOUTS WERE FALSE, SO THE PROSECUTION SIMPLY WANTED TO PROVE THAT IN A COUPLE SENTENCES OF THAT LENGTHY INTERVIEW HE HAD MADE A FALSE STATEMENT. AND THE DEFENSE SAYS, WELL, WE WANT TO PUT IN THE WHOLE THING. WE WANT TO PUT IN THE WHOLE THING TO SHOW THAT MAYBE THE DEFENDANT'S STATE OF MIND WAS SUCH THAT HE WAS CONFUSED OR WASN'T REALLY FOCUSING IN ON WHAT THE DETECTIVE WAS ASKING HIM. WE WANT TO PUT IT IN MAYBE TO SHOW THAT HE WAS GIVING AN ESTIMATION OR APPROXIMATION IN ACCOUNTING FOR HIS WHEREABOUTS, AS OPPOSED TO A DEFINITIVE TYPE STATEMENT. TRIAL COURT THERE DID NOT ALLOW IT IN AND WHAT THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT HELD WAS THAT IT WAS PROPERLY EXCLUDED BECAUSE THEY REVIEWED THE TAPE THEMSELVES AND THEY FOUND THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO ADMIT THE REST OF THE TAPE BECAUSE IT DOES NOT SUPPORT THE DEFENDANT'S THEORY THAT THERE WAS PSYCHOLOGICAL COERCION, IT DID NOT HELP TO EXPLAIN OR ACCOUNT FOR THE STATEMENT, AND IN FACT THE TAPE AMPLY SUPPORTED THE PROSECUTION'S THEORY THAT THE DEFENDANT GAVE A POSITIVE ACCOUNTING FOR HIS TIME WHICH TURNED OUT TO BE FALSE. SO THEY HELD THAT IF THE COURT HAD ADMITTED IT, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN AN ERROR, SO I THINK THAT VERY, VERY STRONGLY SUPPORTS WHAT THE PROSECUTION IS ASKING YOUR HONOR TO DO HERE. NOW, LET'S TAKE A LOOK BACK AT THE DEFENDANT'S STATEMENT TO MR. SHIPP. THE QUOTE BEING:

"HEY, TO BE TRUTHFUL, RON, MAN, I'VE HAD A LOT OF DREAMS ABOUT KILLING HER." IN AND OF ITSELF THE STATEMENT IS PERFECTLY UNDERSTANDABLE. IT IS PERFECTLY CLEAR. IT IS THE DEFENDANT SAYING I HAVE DREAMED ABOUT KILLING THIS WOMAN. IT IS VERY SIMPLE, VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD. WHAT IS THE STATEMENT THAT IMMEDIATELY PRECEDED THAT?

"I WAS INTERVIEWED BY THE DETECTIVE AND THEY ASKED ME TO TAKE A LIE DETECTOR TEST" AND THEN HE CHUCKLES. HOW DOES THAT POSSIBLY PUT ANY DIFFERENT SPIN ON THE STATEMENT? IT DOESN'T EXPLAIN THE STATEMENT, QUALIFY THE STATEMENT, RETRACT THE STATEMENT. IT DOESN'T DO ANYTHING TO MAKE THE STATEMENT MORE UNDERSTANDABLE. HOW DOES THE FACT THAT HE SAYS I WAS OFFERED TO TAKE A LIE DETECTOR TEST EITHER CONTRIBUTE OR DETRACT FROM THE STATEMENT THAT HE WAS DREAMING ABOUT KILLING HIS WIFE? DOES IT MAKE IT MORE LIKELY THAT HE WAS DREAMING ABOUT KILLING HIS WIFE OR LESS LIKELY? I WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU THAT IT IS LOGICALLY ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT AND THIS IS A STATEMENT WHICH STANDS ALONE WHICH IS PERFECTLY COMPREHENSIBLE, PERFECTLY UNDERSTANDABLE IN AND OF ITSELF. AND THAT IF YOU SUBTRACT THE PARTS ABOUT THE POLYGRAPH TEST, YOU DON'T LOSE ANYTHING AT ALL. I THINK THE DEFENSE WILL HAVE DIFFICULTY ARTICULATING WHY YOU DID LOSE SOMETHING, BUT EVEN IF THEY CAN, THEN I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO REFER BACK TO PEOPLE VERSUS PRIDE WHERE THE DEFENSE THREW OUT SOME THEORIES THERE AS WELL AS TO WHY THEY NEEDED THE ENTIRE TAPE AND THE COURT REVIEWED IT, MADE ITS OWN DETERMINATION AND SAID NO, I DON'T BUY THAT, THAT DOESN'T EXPLAIN, QUALIFY OR IN ANY WAY DETRACT FROM THE STATEMENT, AND IT WAS UPHELD BY THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. HOW DOES THE -- BUT WE HAVE SORT OF THE INVERSE SITUATION HERE WHERE THEY DON'T WANT THE CONTEXT BECAUSE OF THE DISCUSSION OF POLYGRAPH AND THE NEGATIVE IMPLICATION THAT CAN BE DRAWN FROM THAT BY THE TRIER OF FACT, NOT FULLY AWARE OF THE NATURE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE POLYGRAPH EVIDENCE.

MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, THEN IT SOUNDS LIKE IF THAT IS THE CASE, WE ARE ALL IN AGREEMENT. I MEAN, THEN I REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE ARGUMENT IS ABOUT, BECAUSE IF WE ARE SAYING ALL WE WANT IS THE STATEMENT AND THEY ARE SAYING ALL WE WANT IS THE STATEMENT, WHERE IS THE DISAGREEMENT?

THE COURT: WELL, I WILL HEAR WHAT THEIR POSITION IS IN A SECOND. I'M JUST ASKING YOU SINCE IT IS THE INVERSE SITUATION.

MR. GOLDBERG: YEAH, YEAH. I THINK THAT WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO DO IS ESSENTIALLY SAYING, WELL, WE DON'T WANT THE STATEMENT EITHER, BUT WE ARE GOING TO SAY THAT WE WANT THE STATEMENT KIND OF BECAUSE MAYBE IF WE DO THAT THE COURT WILL THROW THE WHOLE THING OUT, THE BABY WITH THE BATH WATER. AND THE ANALOGY THAT I COME UP WITH THERE, YOUR HONOR, IS IT IS VERY ANALOGOUS TO THE SITUATION THAT YOUR HONOR HAS UNDOUBTEDLY CONFRONTED IN THE CONTEXT OF ARANDA ISSUES WHERE THE PROSECUTION WANTS TO INTRODUCE THE STATEMENT OF THE CO-DEFENDANT -- OF THE DEFENDANT WHICH IMPLICATES THE CO-DEFENDANT AND WE SAY, WELL, YOUR HONOR, JUST REDACT OUT THE STUFF THAT REFERS TO THE CO-DEFENDANT SO WE COULD HAVE A JOINT TRIAL OF THESE TWO DEFENDANTS.

THE -- THAT ATTEMPT IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE FOILED OR THEY ARE ALWAYS GOING TO ATTEMPT TO FOIL IT BY SAYING WE HAVE TO PUT IN THE CO-DEFENDANT'S STATEMENT IN ORDER TO PLACE -- WE HAVE TO PUT IN THE STATEMENT THAT REFERS TO THE CO-DEFENDANT IN ORDER TO PLACE INTO PROPER CONTEXT OUR CLIENT'S STATEMENT. AND IN REALITY WHAT I THINK IS HAPPENING IS AN EFFORT TO PUT IN SOMETHING THAT REALLY DOESN'T LOGICALLY HELP THEM FOR THE PURPOSES OF GETTING A SEVERANCE, YET THE COURTS HAVE OVER AND OVER AGAIN, PERHAPS YOUR HONOR HAS BEEN IN THIS SITUATION, REDACTED THOSE STATEMENTS UNDER ARANDA AND SAID, NO, YOU CAN'T PUT IN YOUR CLIENT'S STATEMENTS WHICH IMPLICATE THE CO-DEFENDANT BECAUSE THEY AREN'T LOGICALLY NECESSARY HERE. THE OTHER ANALOGY I GIVE THE COURT IN TERMS OF PRACTICAL SITUATIONS WHERE THIS COMES UP IS IN THE CONTEXT OF A DEFENDANT'S CONFESSION WHERE HE, IN A LENGTHY TAPE-RECORDED STATEMENT, WHERE MANY, MANY TOPICS ARE DISCUSSED, DISCUSSES THINGS THAT ARE CLEARLY INADMISSIBLE, FOR EXAMPLE, SOMETIMES DEFENDANTS WILL TALK ABOUT THEIR PRIOR CRIMINAL HISTORY, WHAT THEY WERE DOING IN STATE PRISON, THINGS THAT CLEARLY DON'T COME IN, AND THOSE ARE REDACTED OUT ALL THE TIME. AND I DON'T THINK THE DEFENSE CAN BE HEARD TO SAY, WELL, THOSE ARE PREJUDICIAL TO US SO WE DON'T WANT THEM TO BE HEARD BY THE JURY, THEREFORE YOU HAVE TO THROW OUT THE WHOLE STATEMENT. I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND THE DEFENSE HERE IS IN A TACTICAL BIND. I MEAN, THEY DON'T WANT THE STATEMENT ABOUT POLYGRAPH TO COME IN, BUT APPARENTLY THEY ALSO WANT TO ARGUE THAT IT SHOULD COME IN IN ORDER TO GET THE WHOLE STATEMENT REMOVED, AND I JUST DON'T THINK THAT THAT IS A CONSISTENT POSITION. THEY ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS US AND MAYBE WE WILL HEAR AND THEY WILL CLARIFY WHAT THEIR POSITION IS, MAYBE THEY WILL CLARIFY THAT INDEED WE ARE ALL IN AGREEMENT HERE, THAT STATEMENT DOESN'T COME IN PERTAINING TO POLYGRAPHS. BUT THE PORTION ABOUT WANTING TO KILL THE WIFE STANDS ALONE, IT IS HIGHLY RELEVANT AND IT SHOULD BE ADMITTED.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. GOLDBERG. MR. DOUGLAS, YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN PHOTOCOPIES OF PEOPLE VERSUS PRIDE AND BREAUX.

MR. DOUGLAS: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR, AND I HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO READ THE CITED PORTIONS OF THE CASES THAT MR. GOLDBERG REFERRED TO AND I APPRECIATE THE COURT'S CONVENIENCE IN THAT MATTER. LET ME BEGIN BY SAYING CATEGORICALLY THAT WE DENY THAT THE CONVERSATION EVER TOOK PLACE OR THAT THE STATEMENTS WERE EVER MADE, THAT THE COURT MUST UNDERSTAND AS A PREDICATE, SO THAT THE COURT CAN APPRECIATE THE SERIOUSNESS WITH WHICH I WILL THEN HAVE TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE WITNESS ABOUT THE ENTIRE CONVERSATION. I'M NOT SURE HOW MANY PEOPLE CHARGED WITH MURDER MR. GOLDBERG HAS EVER REPRESENTED, SO I DON'T KNOW HOW HE IS ABLE TO GET INTO THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY'S MIND AND TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS THAT THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY HAS TO DO, BUT YOUR HONOR, LET ME TELL YOU THERE IS A STATEMENT THAT IS MADE IN CONNECTION WITH A CONVERSATION ABOUT POLYGRAPHS, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY RIGHT BEFORE THE QUESTION COMMENT IS MADE THERE IS THEN A CHUCKLE, HE KIND OF CHUCKLES. THEN, YOUR HONOR, AS THE COURT UNDERSTANDS AS A FORMER DEFENSE ATTORNEY, I AM GOING TO EXAMINE THIS WITNESS ABOUT EVERYTHING, GIVEN THE CONTEXT OF THAT CONVERSATION, BECAUSE AS I SAID AS A PREDICATE, THE CONVERSATION DID NOT OCCUR, AND I AM GOING TO TRY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT HE IS LYING WHEN HE SAYS THAT MR. SIMPSON TOLD HIM THAT THERE WAS A DREAM ABOUT GIVING -- ABOUT KILLING HIS WIFE. BUT YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE A PROBLEM, A PROBLEM THAT MR. GOLDBERG'S MEMO, A PROBLEM THAT THE PRIDE CASE, A PROBLEM THAT THE OTHER CASE DOES NOT ADDRESS, AND THAT IS PENAL CODE SECTION 351.1 WHICH IS A CODE SECTION STANDING ALONE WHICH SAYS:

"NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF LAW, THE RESULTS OF A POLYGRAPH EXAMINATION, THE OPINION OF A POLYGRAPH EXAMINER OR ANY REFERENCE TO AN OFFER TO TAKE A FAILURE TO TAKE OR THE TAKING OF A POLYGRAPH EXAMINATION SHALL NOT BE ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE IN ANY CRIMINAL PROCEEDING." I AM THEN IN A QUANDARY. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES IS THE LAW ENABLING ANYONE, AND I'M NOT GOING TO WAIVE THAT -- THAT CODE SECTION'S APPLICABILITY TO THIS CASE, BUT IN NO -- IN NO SENSE DOES THE LAW ALLOW ANY DISCUSSION, REFERENCE CONCERNING POLYGRAPHS TO BE ADMITTED, YET IN THE STATEMENT WHERE I MUST ATTEMPT TO CHALLENGE THE AUTHENTICITY AND THE ACCURACY, THERE IS A CHUCKLE. QUERY: WHAT DOES THAT CHUCKLE MEAN? DOES THAT CHUCKLE MEAN THAT MR. SIMPSON IS TAKING A FLIP SENSE OF THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF A POLYGRAPH? DOES THAT CHUCKLE PRESAGE THE JOKE THAT WAS MADE BY THE QUESTIONED LANGUAGE SUCH THAT THE JURY CAN UNDERSTAND THAT THE QUESTIONED LANGUAGE WAS GIVEN IN TERMS OF A JOKE, BECAUSE THE SPEAKER HAS A GENERAL FLIPPANT, JOKING SENSE OF POLYGRAPHS IN GENERAL? I AM UNABLE TO CHALLENGE THAT. I AM UNABLE TO PUT THIS STATEMENT, WHICH I SAY NEVER OCCURRED, IN ANY KIND OF A CONTEXT, AND THAT IS UNFAIR. THAT DENIES ME DUE PROCESS RIGHTS. THAT DENIES ME CONFRONTATION CLAUSE RIGHTS. THAT VIOLATES MR. SIMPSON'S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS UNDER BOTH THE CALIFORNIA AND THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. AND THAT IS NOT JUST A TECHNICALITY, YOUR HONOR. THAT GOES TO THE VERY ESSENCE OF WHAT A FAIR TRIAL IS ALL ABOUT. I CANNOT CHALLENGE A STATEMENT THAT I SAY NEVER OCCURRED, A STATEMENT WHERE THERE IS, EVEN FROM THE MOUTHS OF THE WITNESS, INFORMATION THAT MIGHT SUGGEST THAT THE STATEMENT WAS NOT OFFERED IN TOTAL SERIOUSNESS, IN TRUE APPRECIATION FOR THE VALUE OF THAT STATEMENT. AND THERE IS ANOTHER PROBLEM WHICH RUNS INTO 352. I AM INFORMED, ALTHOUGH I HAVE NOT SPOKEN TO ANYONE PROFESSIONALLY, THAT WHENEVER THERE ARE STATEMENTS OF DREAMS OR QUESTIONS OF DREAMS, IT IS NOT NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF THE STATE OF MIND OF THE SPEAKER. IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT IF HE DREAMT SOMETHING IT IS RELEVANT TO AN ISSUE IN THE CASE THAT HE KILLED HER, AND THAT THERE IS A MISCONCEPTION, THAT MR. GOLDBERG APPARENTLY HOLDS AS WELL, THAT THERE IS SOME PROBATIVE NEXUS BETWEEN SOMEONE SAYING THAT I DREAMT ABOUT SOMETHING, ASSUMING FOR THE SAKE OF MY STATEMENT THAT THE STATEMENT WAS MADE, AND THAT IT MEANS SOMETHING THAT IS RELEVANT TO THE TRIER OF FACT. THEREFORE, THERE IS GOING TO BE A GREAT DEAL OF SCIENTIFIC TESTIMONY THAT I WILL HAVE TO TRY TO OBTAIN TO PUT ON PEOPLE THAT WILL BE ABLE TO TALK ABOUT DREAMS AND PARTICULARLY IN THE CONTEXT WHEN THIS MAN IS TOLD THAT VERY DAY THAT A WOMAN WITH WHOM HE HAD BEEN INVOLVED FOR SEVENTEEN YEARS HAD JUST DIED AND HE IS GOING THROUGH -- AND HE WASN'T AROUND, AND HE IS TOLD ON THE TELEPHONE THAT THIS HAPPENS AND HE RUSHES BACK AND HE IS CONSUMED WITH ALL OF THIS GRIEF AND ALL OF THIS UNCERTAINTY AND ALL OF THIS EMOTION AND HE IS TIRED BECAUSE HE DIDN'T SLEEP GOING TO CHICAGO AND DIDN'T SLEEP COMING BACK AND THERE ARE THESE FAMILY MEMBERS THAT ARE ALSO GRIEVING WITH HIM. THERE IS AN ENTIRE CONTEXT, YOUR HONOR, THAT IT WOULD BE UNFAIR TO REQUIRE THAT WE SIMPLY EXAMINE UNDER A MICROSCOPE SIX OR SEVEN DIFFERENT WORDS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE ENTIRE CONTEXT IN WHICH IT IS OFFERED. I ARGUE, YOUR HONOR, THAT ON THIS LEVEL THE ANSWER IS CLEAR: WHEN YOU MUST BALANCE THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE PEOPLE AND THEIR INTERESTS IN GETTING IN THIS EVIDENCE AGAINST THE POSSIBLE DANGER OF UNFAIR PREJUDICE, AGAINST THE POTENTIAL FOR CONSUMING UNDUE TIME, AGAINST THE INABILITY FOR ME TO VIGOROUSLY CONTEST THE VERY CONTEXT IN WHICH THE STATEMENT IS WEIGHED, THE RESULTS ARE CLEAR AND YOU SHOULD RULE IN FAVOR OF NOT ALLOWING THE STATEMENT TO COME IN.

THE COURT: THANK YOU, MR. DOUGLAS.

MR. GOLDBERG: MAY I RESPOND, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: I'M INTERESTED, MR. GOLDBERG, IN MR. DOUGLAS' ARGUMENT OF WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF DREAMS.

MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, I WAS ALSO VERY INTERESTED BY THAT ARGUMENT, TOO, BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO BE SO PREPOSTEROUS. I MEAN, LET'S IMAGINE, FOR EXAMPLE, YOUR HONOR, THAT HE SIMPLY HAD SAID I HAVE BEEN DREAMING ABOUT NICOLE EVERY DAY OF MY LIFE OR I HAVE BEEN DREAMING ABOUT NICOLE CONSTANTLY, NOT THAT HE WAS GOING TO KILL HER, JUST THAT HE HAD BEEN DREAMING ABOUT NICOLE. WOULDN'T THAT IN AND OF ITSELF BE RELEVANT TO SHOW THIS ISSUE OF THIS OBSESSION, THIS FIXATION ON THIS WOMAN, THAT HE HAS NOT LET GO OF IT -- LET GO OF HER? THE FACT THAT HE IS DREAMING ABOUT KILLING HER SIMPLY MAGNIFIES SEVERAL HUNDREDFOLD THE RELEVANCE OF THE STATEMENT THAT HE HAS BEEN DREAMING ABOUT NICOLE. IT IS HIGHLY RELEVANT AND HIGHLY MATERIAL HERE.

THE COURT: ARE YOU GOING TO OFFER SOME PSYCHIATRIC OR PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTIMONY TO BACK THIS UP, THAT THERE IS SOME PROBATIVE VALUE TO THIS?

MR. GOLDBERG: IF IT IS ADMISSIBLE, WE WILL. IF THE COURT -- YOU KNOW, WE HAVE LITIGATED EXTENSIVELY THIS ISSUE OF CAN WE PUT IN EXPERT TESTIMONY, AND I WASN'T ABSOLUTELY CLEAR WHAT THE BOTTOM LINE RULING OF THE COURT WAS ON THAT ISSUE, BUT OBVIOUSLY THE COURT KNOWS WE WOULD LIKE TO PUT ON EXPERT TESTIMONY. BUT I THINK THAT WHETHER YOU HAVE EXPERT TESTIMONY OR NOT, THIS IS THE KIND OF ISSUE THAT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND FROM THEIR OWN EXPERIENCE AND WE ALL HAVE DREAMS AND EVERY PERSON ON THAT -- THAT JURY DOES, AND THEY UNDERSTAND FROM THEIR OWN EXPERIENCE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS KIND OF EVIDENCE. AND I THINK EVEN YOUR HONOR, AS A CASE OF FIRST IMPRESSION, WHEN I STARTED ADDRESSING YOU THIS MORNING, YOU KNOW, CUTS ME OFF, SAID, WELL, MR. GOLDBERG -- I KIND OF AM PARAPHRASING NOW -- I SORT OF APPRECIATE THE RELEVANCE HERE. I'M MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS POLYGRAPH ISSUE, BECAUSE I THINK THAT AS A MATTER OF COMMON SENSE THAT A PERSON LOOKING AT THIS, EVEN ON A CASE OF FIRST IMPRESSION, IS GOING TO UNDERSTAND HOW HIGHLY PROBATIVE IT IS. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE OTHER COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE JUST A FEW MOMENTS AGO. FIRST OF ALL, AS TO THE CHUCKLE, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE DEFENSE ARGUMENT HERE. I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO GET CLARIFICATION AND NOW I AM EVEN LESS CLEAR. DO THEY WANT THE STATEMENT ABOUT THE POLYGRAPH IN OR DO THEY NOT WANT IT IN?

THE COURT: THEY DON'T WANT ANY OF IT IN.

MR. GOLDBERG: THEY DON'T WANT ANY OF IT IN, WE KNOW THAT, BUT IF THEY ARE GOING TO GET THE STATEMENT ABOUT THE DREAMS IN, THEN I'M NOT CLEAR, DO THEY FEEL THEY NEED TO THEN BRING IN THE POLYGRAPH FOR PURPOSES OF EXPLAINING IT OR DO THEY STILL NOT WANT TO? I DON'T THINK THAT POSITION HAS AT ALL BEEN CLARIFIED FOR US AND I THINK THAT THE REASON THAT THEY ARE HAVING DIFFICULTY CLARIFYING IT IS BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THERE IS AN INCONSISTENCY. ON THE ONE HAND THEY WANT TO ARGUE THAT IT IS INADMISSIBLE AND ON THE OTHER HAND THEY WANT TO TURN AROUND AND ARGUE THAT IT NEEDS TO BE ADMITTED FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLARIFYING THE STATEMENT. AND I THINK THAT THAT SHOULD BE INTERPRETED OF WHAT IT IS. THEY ARE STAKING OUT A POSITION THAT IS DESIGNED TO MAXIMIZE THE LIKELIHOOD OF, AS I SAID, THROWING OUT THE BABY WITH THE BATH WATER, RATHER THAN SPECIFICALLY TELLING YOU WHAT IT IS THEY WANT AND WHAT IT IS THAT THEY DON'T WANT. BUT THE CHUCKLE ITSELF WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO. NOW, COUNSEL SAYS, WELL, I WANT TO SHOW THAT THE CHUCKLE RELATES TO THE POLYGRAPH TESTS. IN OTHER WORDS, I WANT TO PUT THE CHUCKLE IN CONTEXT. WHY? HOW DOES THAT HELP THEIR POSITION THAT THE DEFENDANT MAY HAVE HAD A FLIPPANT ATTITUDE ABOUT POLYGRAPHS? WHAT ON EARTH DOES THAT BEGIN TO SAY ABOUT THE CONTEXT OF THE STATEMENT THAT WE ARE CONCERNED WITH, ABOUT DREAMING ABOUT THE MURDER OF HIS WIFE? THAT IS THE STATEMENT WE ARE INTERESTED IN PUTTING INTO CONTEXT. WHAT MR. -- WHAT HE SHOULD HAVE ARGUED IS HE SHOULD HAVE ARGUED THAT SOMEHOW THE CHUCKLE REFLECTS UPON THAT STATEMENT, BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT IT DOES, THE CHUCKLE CAN COME IN. AGAIN, THIS IS WHY I THINK THAT THE CASE OF PEOPLE VERSUS PRIDE IS PARTICULARLY SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T EXPECT THE DEFENSE TO ROLL OVER AND SAY, LOOK, WE REALLY DON'T HAVE A GOOD THEORY ON THIS. THEY ARE GOING TO COME UP WITH AN ARGUMENT AS TO WHY IT IS THAT SIMPLY TAKING THAT ONE STATEMENT IS GOING TO BE OUT OF CONTEXT AND WHY IT IS I SUSPECT THAT THEY NEED TO PUT IT BACK IN CONTEXT, JUST AS THE ATTORNEYS DID IN PRIDE.

THE COURT: LET ME REDIRECT YOUR THOUGHT -- AND I APOLOGIZE TO YOU FOR THIS, BECAUSE I HAD --

MR. GOLDBERG: THAT IS OKAY.

THE COURT: -- PART OF THE PROBLEM WAS IN OUR DISCUSSIONS YESTERDAY WHAT I HAD BEEN -- WHAT MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE STATEMENT IN PARTICULAR WAS THAT "I HAVE BEEN DREAMING ABOUT KILLING HER." AND THE STATEMENT IS A LITTLE MORE OBLIQUE. IT SAID, "I HAVE HAD A LOT OF DREAMS ABOUT KILLING HER" WHICH IS MAYBE JUST SEMANTICS, BUT IT IS A LITTLE MORE INDIRECT AS A THOUGHT PROCESS. SO THE QUESTION THEN BECOMES WHAT IS THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF, YOU KNOW, PUTTING YOUR HEAD ON THE PILLOW AND HAVING DREAMS ABOUT KILLING YOUR WIFE?

MR. GOLDBERG: IN A CASE WHERE THE DEFENDANT IS CHARGED WITH KILLING HIS WIFE, IT SEEMS TO BE HIGHLY, HIGHLY PROBATIVE, THAT HE HAS BEEN HAVING A LOT OF DREAMS.

THE COURT: SURE. ON THE SURFACE IT IS. I AGREE WITH YOU THAT THE FIRST IMMEDIATE REACTION IS CLEARLY THAT IS RELEVANT AND CLEARLY THE JURY OUGHT TO HEAR ABOUT IT. I'M JUST SAYING WHEN YOU GET DOWN TO THE SUBSTANCE OF IT, THOUGH, WHAT DOES IT REALLY MEAN?

MR. GOLDBERG: WHEN YOU GET DOWN TO THE SUBSTANCE?

THE COURT: WHAT DOES IT REALLY MEAN, THAT YOU HAVE HAD DREAMS ABOUT KILLING YOUR WIFE? MR. GOLDMAN: AND THAT IS WHY I STARTED THE DISCUSSION TALKING ABOUT OUR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE EVIDENCE AND SHOWING THAT THAT IS CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF A -- WHAT YOU COULD CALL A FATAL OBSESSION WITH THIS WOMAN. AND HERE IT IS ALMOST AS IF HE IS SAYING I HAVE A FATAL OBSESSION WITH NICOLE EXCEPT PEOPLE DON'T TALK LIKE THAT, AND THE WAY THAT HE EXPRESSES IT IS HE SAYS I HAVE BEEN HAVING A LOT OF DREAMS ABOUT KILLING HER, AND TO ME THAT SEEMS LIKE IT IS SO OBVIOUSLY POWERFUL COMPELLING EVIDENCE OF THIS FATAL OBSESSION WITH THIS WOMAN THAT IT IS ALMOST DIFFICULT FOR ME TO -- TO THINK OF -- TO ARTICULATE, TO PUT IT INTO WORDS. IT IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT ALMOST SEEMS TO LEAP OUT.

THE COURT: YOU MEAN SELF-AUTHENTICATING?

MR. GOLDBERG: YEAH. I SUPPOSE YOU COULD SAY THAT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SOMETHING LIKE THAT. ALL RIGHT. MR. GOLDBERG, HOW WOULD YOU PROPOSE TO PRESENT THIS, KNOWING THE MINE FIELDS THAT ARE APPARENT ON EITHER SIDE OF THIS SENTENCE?

MR. GOLDBERG: THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT COMES OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND WE HAVE A LOT OF EXPERIENCE DEALING WITH IT BECAUSE WE REDACT AND CHANGE STATEMENTS IN COURTS ALL THE TIME. AND THE WAY THIS IS HANDLED IS YOU SPEAK TO THE WITNESS --

THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND THAT. I UNDERSTAND IT. I'M JUST SAYING ARE YOU PREPARED TO DO THAT?

MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, I AM NOT GOING TO BE PRESENTING THIS WITNESS, BUT I'M SURE THAT WHOEVER DOES WILL SIT DOWN WITH HIM AND EXPLAIN THE COURT'S RULING.

THE COURT: I THOUGHT THIS WAS THE NEXT WITNESS UP.

MR. GOLDBERG: YES, BUT THE COURT HASN'T RULED ON IT. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER MR. DARDEN HAS ACTUALLY GONE THROUGH AND SAID, WELL, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A HEARING ON THIS ISSUE. IT WOULD BE RATHER DIFFICULT TO EXPLAIN TO A WITNESS YOU MAY HAVE TO KEEP SOMETHING OUT OF YOUR TESTIMONY BUT WE ARE NOT SURE AT THIS POINT, AND IT DOESN'T REALLY TAKE TOO LONG TO GIVE THAT KIND OF AN EXPLANATION. SO THE PROPOSAL IS AS YOU SPEAK TO THE WITNESS, YOU TELL HIM EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO BE ASKING HIM, WHAT SPECIFIC QUESTION YOU ARE GOING TO BE ASKING ABOUT, CONVERSATION THAT TOOK PLACE ON A CERTAIN DATE AT A CERTAIN LOCATION AND DID MR. SIMPSON SAY SOMETHING ABOUT DREAMS. YES. WELL, WHAT DID HE SAY? AND THEN THE WITNESS WILL GIVE THAT ONE SINGLE SENTENCE, SO I DON'T SEE THAT MECHANICALLY THAT THERE IS A LOT OF DIFFICULTY IN TERMS OF PRESENTING THAT EVIDENCE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: I DON'T SUPPOSE EITHER SIDE HAS FOUND CASES THAT DEAL WITH ADMISSIBILITY OF DREAMS?

MR. GOLDBERG: NO, I CAN'T SAY THAT -- YOU KNOW, QUITE FRANKLY, WE DIDN'T EVEN RESEARCH THAT, YOUR HONOR, BECAUSE IT SEEMED LIKE OUR THOUGHT PROCESS WAS MUCH THE SAME AS THE COURT'S AND THAT WE WERE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE ISSUE OF THE POLYGRAPH AND REDACTING THAT OUT. I MEAN, THE ISSUE OF RELEVANCE ALWAYS TURNS ABOUT A JUROR -- A JURY USING THEIR COLLECTIVE LIFE EXPERIENCE AND THEIR COMMON SENSE FOR THE PURPOSES OF INTERPRETING EVIDENCE. COUNSEL MADE THE EXACT SAME ARGUMENT ABOUT THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE EVIDENCE, YOUR HONOR. WELL, JUST BECAUSE YOU HIT SOMEONE, IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT YOU ARE LATER GOING TO KILL THEM. JUST BECAUSE YOU DO THESE VARIOUS THINGS DOESN'T NECESSARILY LEAD UP TO MURDER. BUT WHAT WE ARE ALWAYS ASKING THE JURY TO DO, WITH ANY KIND OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, IS USE COMMON SENSE, LIFE EXPERIENCE, AND THAT IS ALL WE ARE GOING TO BE ASKING THEM TO DO HERE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO GIVE MR. DOUGLAS ANOTHER COMMENT SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE UNUSUAL NATURE OF THIS.

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY. THERE IS CLEARLY A MINE FIELD THAT WE WILL BE DELICATELY WALKING AROUND AND BETWEEN IF WE GET INTO THIS PARTICULAR AREA, AND AS WELL, YOUR HONOR, WE ARE GOING TO BE OPENING THE DOOR, BECAUSE -- BECAUSE IN THIS INSTANCE IT IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT ON JUNE 15, 1994, ROBERT SHAPIRO SENT A LETTER TO TOM VANNATTER ASKING AND OFFERING AND SENT THE REQUEST FOR A POLYGRAPH SO LONG AS THE RESULTS WERE STIPULATED AND ADMISSIBLE BY STIPULATION. AND THEREFORE, YOUR HONOR, I CANNOT SIMPLY REST ON SEVEN CERTAIN WORDS, "I'VE HAD A LOT OF DREAMS ABOUT KILLING NICOLE," AND THEN MOVE ON TO MY NEXT TOPIC, BECAUSE BEFORE THOSE WORDS WERE UTTERED THERE WAS A CHUCKLE AND SHIPP WILL SAY THERE WAS A CHUCKLE AND THAT CHUCKLE DOES HAVE SIGNIFICANCE, BECAUSE IT MIGHT EVEN ARGUABLY PLACE INTO SOME QUESTION THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE STATEMENTS THAT FOLLOW. IS HE CHUCKLING BECAUSE THE WHOLE IDEA OF A POLYGRAPH WAS FUNNY BECAUSE HE IS INNOCENT AND OF COURSE HE PASSED? IS HE CHUCKLING BECAUSE IT IS A SILLY IDEA BECAUSE HE IS INNOCENT AND HE THROWS IN JUST BY HAPPENSTANCE THE SENTENCE, "WELL, YOU KNOW, I'VE HAD DREAMS ABOUT KILLING HER"? IS HE CHUCKLING BECAUSE THE WHOLE IDEA OF HAVING DREAMS IS FUNNY TO HIM AS WELL? WHO KNOWS. BUT TO ALLOW SIMPLY TO HAVE THE WORDS COME UP, WITHOUT ALLOWING THE CONTEXT THAT TRAIPSES AROUND A VERY DELICATE MINE FIELD OF ERROR -- AND CLEAR ERROR, BECAUSE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A CODE SECTION THAT IS MANDATORY AND THAT IS CLEAR, BECAUSE POLYGRAPH TESTIMONY IS NOT ADMISSIBLE, BECAUSE POLYGRAPHS IN AND OF THEMSELVES HAVE NOT DEVELOPED THE CERTAIN RELIABILITY SUCH THAT THEY CAN BE ADMISSIBLE. IT IS NOT EVEN SUSCEPTIBLE TO A KELLY-FRYE HEARING, YOUR HONOR. THE LEGISLATURE HAS SPOKEN AS A MATTER OF LAW AND IT IS BINDING, AND BECAUSE TO DO SO WOULD OPEN UP THE DOORS ABOUT THIS LETTER WHERE MR. SIMPSON'S LAWYER TWO DAYS LATER OFFERED TO TAKE A POLYGRAPH SO LONG AS IT WAS ADMISSIBLE, AND IN FAIRNESS WE WOULD WANT TO BRING THAT OUT TO PUT IT INTO THE CONTEXT THAT HE REALLY DIDN'T HAVE ANY DREAMS ABOUT KILLING HER AND HE REALLY WASN'T RELUCTANT TO TAKE AN EXAMINATION. I THINK THE BEST AND THE PROPER COURSE WOULD BE TO LET IT ALL OUT, TO KEEP IT ALL OUT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, CAN I RESPOND TO A COUPLE COMMENTS?

THE COURT: WELL, NO. IT IS JUST AN UNUSUAL ISSUE AND I JUST WANTED TO HEAR ONE MORE COMMENT FROM THE DEFENSE. I JUST WANTED TO SOLIDIFY SOMETHING IN MY MIND. ALL RIGHT. THE OBJECTION TO THE COMMENTS WILL BE SUSTAINED AS TO ANY COMMENTARY REGARDING POLYGRAPH UNDER EVIDENCE CODE -- EXCUSE ME 351.5, IF I AM NOT MISTAKEN.

MR. DOUGLAS: 1.

THE COURT: .1. THE STATEMENT REGARDING THE DREAMS ABOUT KILLING WILL BE ADMITTED. MR. DARDEN, ARE YOU GOING TO BE PRESENTING THIS?

MR. DARDEN: YES, I AM, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: IS YOUR WITNESS PREPARED AND INSTRUCTED?

MR. DARDEN: I'M GOING TO NEED TEN MINUTES, YOUR HONOR. HE IS IN THE BUILDING. HE IS UPSTAIRS. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE HE UNDERSTANDS A COUPLE OF THINGS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER MINE FIELDS THAT I NEED TO DEAL WITH BEFORE WE INVITE THE JURORS IN? ALL RIGHT. AS A MATTER OF SCHEDULING, I INDICATED TO COUNSEL YESTERDAY THAT WE WOULD RECESS TODAY AT TWO O'CLOCK BECAUSE SOME OF THE COURT STAFF AND SOME OF COUNSEL HAVE ASKED PERMISSION TO ATTEND A FUNERAL THIS AFTERNOON. I HAVE INDICATED THAT I WOULD ALLOW THEM TO DO SO, SO WE WILL RECESS AT TWO O'CLOCK.

MR. DOUGLAS: CLARIFICATION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: WE ALSO HAVE A FOUR O'CLOCK HEARING AS TO MARGUERITE SIMPSON THIS AFTERNOON, WHICH I HAVE ASKED MRS. ROBERTSON TO CONTACT MR. JONES TO SEE IF HE HAD ANOTHER DATE. ALL RIGHT. WE WILL TRY TO RESCHEDULE THAT WITH MR. JONES. ALL RIGHT, MR. DOUGLAS.

MR. DOUGLAS: POINT OF CLARIFICATION, YOUR HONOR. SINCE THERE IS, AS A PREDICATE MATTER, AS A THRESHOLD MATTER, A CHALLENGE THAT THE STATEMENT WAS EVEN MADE, THAT THE PRELIMINARY FACT OF THE STATEMENT, SEPARATE FROM WHATEVER INFERENCES MIGHT BE OFFERED TO FLOW, I WOULD ASK UNDER 403 THAT THERE BE A HEARING AS TO THAT STATEMENT AT AN APPROPRIATE TIME.

I DON'T WANT TO TAKE FROM THE JURY RIGHT NOW, BUT I WOULD ASK, YOUR HONOR, THAT AS A PRELIMINARY MATTER THAT THAT BE ALLOWED. AND SECONDARILY, I WOULD ASK, FOR MY OWN PURPOSES AND MY OFFICE'S PURPOSES, THAT I BE ALLOWED TO KNOW THAT I CAN SEEK TO OBTAIN EXPERT WITNESS TESTIMONY ABOUT DREAMS, BECAUSE I AM GOING TO INTEND TO CHALLENGE ANY SORT OF PROBATIVE WEIGHT THAT THE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO ATTACH TO THIS ALLEGED STATEMENT WHICH I CONTEND NEVER OCCURRED.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN, DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE, 403 ISSUE?

MR. DARDEN: NOT THE PSYCHIC HOTLINE ISSUE, BUT THE 403 ISSUE, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YES.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, MR. DOUGLAS HAS A COPY OF OUR TAPED INTERVIEW WITH MR. SHIPP. IF THE COURT WOULD LIKE A COPY OF THAT TAPED INTERVIEW, I AM HAPPY TO PROVIDE A COPY. I THINK IT IS INAPPROPRIATE TO INTERRUPT MR. SHIPP'S TESTIMONY AT THIS POINT. MR. DOUGLAS KNOWS WHAT THE WITNESS HAS TO SAY. HE KNOWS WHAT HE HAS SAID IN THE PAST. THE WITNESS IS ADAMANT THAT THE STATEMENT WAS MADE. IT IS A QUESTION FOR THE JURY, AN ISSUE FOR THE JURY TO RESOLVE. THERE IS NO 403 ISSUE HERE AT ALL, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. DOUGLAS.

MR. DOUGLAS: BECAUSE, YOUR HONOR, THIS EVIDENCE IS POTENTIALLY PREJUDICIAL AND RISKY, I ALSO BELIEVE -- AND BECAUSE THE COURT HAS ONE REPRESENTATION AT SIDE BAR ABOUT WHAT IS GOING TO BE SAID, AND ANOTHER REPRESENTATION HERE IN OPEN COURT, THERE IS ANOTHER REPRESENTATION IN A BOOK WHERE THIS WITNESS' CONVERSATION HAS BEEN REFLECTED, THERE ARE ASPECTS OF THIS WITNESS' BACKGROUND THAT I THINK WILL BE PROBATIVE FOR THE COURT TO EVALUATE PRELIMINARILY, I THINK THE MORE PRUDENT COURSE WOULD BE FOR THIS COURT TO FIRST HEAR THE ENTIRE STATEMENT SO THIS COURT CAN UNDERSTAND WHY I THINK IT IMPORTANT THAT I GO INTO THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE TENOR UNDER WHICH IT IS SPOKEN BEFORE THE COURT ALLOWS THE JURY TO HEAR THIS CERTAIN STATEMENT. I'M NOT GOING TO ASK FOR A 403 WITH EVERY PARTICULAR WITNESS. I DO INTEND TO ASK FOR 403'S WITH THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE WITNESSES WHOM WE DISPUTE THAT THE ACT OCCURRED, THAT MR. SIMPSON WAS INVOLVED IN THE ACT, OR THAT THERE IS THE 1101(B) INFERENCE THAT IS PROPERLY DRAWN, GIVEN THE FACTUAL CONTEXT. ON THOSE -- ON THOSE INSTANCES HE WILL BE ASKING FOR 403'S. ON THIS INSTANCE, BECAUSE THE COURT NEEDS TO PREVIEW THE EVIDENCE, THE COURT NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND WHY I SAY I CANNOT DO JUSTICE TO MY CLIENT ON TRIAL FOR MURDER WITH THE FIFTH WITNESS IN THIS CASE WITHOUT MY BEING ABLE TO VIGOROUSLY CROSS-EXAMINE HIM ON THAT PARTICULAR POINT.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN, DO YOU AGREE THE COURT HAS DISCRETION TO CONDUCT THESE 402/403 ISSUES FOR THE JURY AND CAN STRIKE TESTIMONY IF THE FOUNDATION IS NOT THERE?

MR. DARDEN: YES, YOUR HONOR, BUT THIS PLOY, THIS PLOY PURSUED BY COUNSEL WE HAVE SEEN BEFORE, YOUR HONOR. WE SAW IT IN THE CHINATOWN MURDERS. WHAT COUNSEL IS REALLY ASKING FOR IS A DRESS REHEARSAL OF A WITNESS' WHOSE TESTIMONY IS EXTREMELY DAMAGING TO HIS CLIENT. THE COURT HAS A COPY OF A TRANSCRIPT OF THE TAPE -- OF THE TAPE INTERVIEW. THE WITNESS IS HERE. HE IS READY AND WILLING TO TESTIFY AND IN A MANNER I BELIEVE WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THAT TRANSCRIPT. THERE IS NO 402 OR 403 ISSUE HERE. THE COURT WILL JUST BE WASTING ITS TIME AND GIVING MR. DOUGLAS AN EXTRA SHOT AT CROSS-EXAMINING OUR WITNESS. THAT IS UNNECESSARY UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. IT ISN'T FAIR. MR. DOUGLAS HAS KNOWN ABOUT THIS WITNESS AND HIS TESTIMONY FOR TEN DAYS AND IF HE -- YOU KNOW, LET'S GET THIS ON AND LET'S FINISH THIS TRIAL AND STOP DILLY-DALLYING AROUND.

THE COURT: APPARENTLY IT IS IN A BOOK NOW AS WELL. ALL RIGHT. THE COURT WILL UNDERTAKE THE 403 EXAMINATION DURING THE COURSE OF THE ACTUAL TESTIMONY. ALL RIGHT. WE WILL STAND IN RECESS FOR FIFTEEN.

MR. DARDEN: MAY I INTERJECT? IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A 403, I WOULD LIKE NOT TO HAVE MY WITNESS' TESTIMONY INTERRUPTED MOMENTS BEFORE HE PROVIDES THIS IMPORTANT INFORMATION OR THE TESTIMONY. IF THERE IS A CONCERN, IF THE COURT HAS A CONCERN AND THE COURT WANTS TO DO A 403 HEARING, LET'S DO IT RIGHT NOW. DON'T INTERRUPT HIS TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN, WHAT DO YOU WANT? DO YOU WANT THE 403 HEARING NOW OR DO YOU WANT IT DURING THE COURSE OF THE TESTIMONY?

MR. DARDEN: I DON'T WANT IT EVER.

THE COURT: TAKE YOUR PICK.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

MR. DARDEN: DON'T BE SO SUBTLE WITH THESE THINGS, JUDGE. I MISS IT SOMETIMES. THANK YOU.

THE COURT: YOU ARE WELCOME. FIFTEEN.

(RECESS.)

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, I APOLOGIZE FOR BEING LATE. IT IS THE ELEVATOR SITUATION. ONLY FOUR ELEVATORS COME TO THE 18TH FLOOR THAT STOP HERE ON THE 9TH. IT TAKES SEVERAL MINUTES TO GET HERE. A NIGHTMARE. IT IS KILLING ME, JUDGE.

MR. SHAPIRO: THEY HAVE STAIRS, JUDGE, THAT ALSO WORK.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU, MR. SHAPIRO.

MR. SHAPIRO: YOU ARE WELCOME.

THE COURT: WE ARE MAKING A HABIT OF THIS.

MR. DARDEN: SOMETIMES WE WAIT TEN, TWELVE, THIRTEEN MINUTES FOR AN ELEVATOR. IT REALLY ISN'T OUR FAULT.

MS. CLARK: PLUS WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE PUBLIC DEFENDERS, THAT KEY IT PAST US. YOU KNOW, WHAT IS GOING UP IS NOT COMING DOWN.

THE COURT: WE WILL HAVE TO TALK ABOUT THAT.

MS. CLARK: OKAY.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, I WANT TO TAKE UP A COUPLE OF MATTERS BEFORE WE ACTUALLY INVITE THE JURY TO JOIN US. MR. SHAPIRO, OVER THE BREAK, OVER THE 15-MINUTE BREAK, ADVISED ME OF A PROBLEM, SOMETHING THAT IS BEING REPORTED. MR. SHAPIRO, DO YOU WANT TO ENLIGHTEN THE PROSECUTORS ABOUT THIS?

MR. SHAPIRO: YES, YOUR HONOR.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

THE COURT: COUNSEL, WHY DON'T YOU HAVE YOUR WITNESS HAVE A SEAT BECAUSE IT WILL BE A BIT BEFORE WE GET THERE.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MS. CLARK: MAY WE APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO APPROACH.

MS. CLARK: YOU ARE NOT GOING TO ADDRESS IT NOW?

THE COURT: I JUST WANT TO PUT ON THE RECORD WHAT THE STATE OF THE SITUATION IS.

MR. SHAPIRO: I HAVE INFORMED THEM OF OUR CONVERSATIONS, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WELL, MR. SHAPIRO -- THIS IS SOMETHING I NEED TO PUT ON THE RECORD AT THIS POINT. YOU HAVE INDICATED TO THE COURT THAT APPARENTLY THE CHIEF OF POLICE HAS MADE SOME INDICATION THAT HE HAS RECEIVED A COMMUNICATION FROM THIS COURT.

MR. SHAPIRO: NO. I HAVE -- IT WAS REPORTED TO ME THAT THERE WERE SOME NEWS REPORTS, NOT DIRECTLY FROM THE CHIEF OF POLICE, BUT FROM SOME OTHER MEMBERS IN THE MEDIA, THAT THERE WERE COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN YOURSELF AND THE CHIEF OF POLICE REGARDING WHETHER OR NOT THE CHIEF OF POLICE SHOULD MAKE ANY STATEMENTS REGARDING THIS CASE. I THOUGHT IT INCUMBENT UPON MYSELF, AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT, TO INFORM YOUR HONOR IN CASE YOU HAD NOT HEARD THOSE. YOUR HONOR HAS ASSURED ME, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I ANTICIPATED WAS THE CASE, THAT YOU HAVE NOT TALKED WITH THE CHIEF OF POLICE, BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IF THESE RUMORS ARE OUT IN THE PRESS AND THEY ARE REPORTED TO ME, IF THEY ARE REPORTED TO OTHERS, THAT IT IS SOMETHING YOUR HONOR WOULD AND SHOULD WANT TO KNOW ABOUT.

THE COURT: I THINK PERHAPS THIS IS A MISINTERPRETATION. IF YOU RECALL, ABOUT TWO MONTHS AGO, WHEN WE WERE DEALING WITH THE LEAKS PROBLEM, AT THE REQUEST OF BOTH PARTIES AND WITH THE CONSENT OF BOTH PARTIES I SENT A LETTER TO CHIEF WILLIAMS ASKING HIM TO DO WHATEVER HE COULD TO INVESTIGATE THE LEAKS AND STOP ANYTHING THAT WAS LEAKING OUT FROM HIS DEPARTMENT.

MR. SHAPIRO: THAT WAS AT OUR REQUEST.

THE COURT: THAT WAS THE ONLY COMMUNICATION THIS COURT HAS HAD WITH THE CHIEF OF POLICE.

MR. SHAPIRO: I THINK THE RECORD IS CLEAR AND THAT WAS EXACTLY WHAT WE ANTICIPATED AND I THINK IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT THE PRESS ACCURATELY REPORT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT TO MY ATTENTION, MR. SHAPIRO. THERE IS ONE OTHER MATTER --

MR. SHAPIRO: YOU ARE WELCOME.

THE COURT: I NOTICED THAT MISS TRACIE SAVAGE -- GOOD MORNING, MISS SAVAGE -- IS PRESENT IN COURT TODAY AS A MEDIA REPRESENTATIVE AND I RECALL THAT SHE IS ON THE DEFENSE LIST WITNESS AND THERE IS A WITNESS EXCLUSION ORDER AT THIS TIME. AND I WONDERED WHAT THE PARTY'S POSITION WAS ABOUT MISS SAVAGE REMAINING.

MR. COCHRAN: SOMEBODY SAID, WELL, SHE CAN'T WATCH TELEVISION, YOUR HONOR. MAY WE APPROACH FOR A MOMENT, PLEASE?

THE COURT: SURE. MISS SAVAGE, WOULD YOU STAND AND WAVE TO MR. COCHRAN.

(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL AND THE DEFENDANT.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: YES. GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. YOUR HONOR, IN THE MATTER INVOLVING MISS SAVAGE, WHO IS WITH US TODAY AND IN A REPORTING CAPACITY, WE DISCUSSED IT WITH MR. SIMPSON AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT SHE HAS A JOB TO DO AND I BELIEVE THAT ON THE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO THE SOCKS WHERE WE THINK HER TESTIMONY WOULD BE RELEVANT, IF SHE -- I WOULD SUGGEST TO CHANNEL 4 THAT SHE NOT COVER, NOT BE IN HERE COVERING THOSE DAYS, BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE TO ASK HER TO BE EXCUSED. FOR TODAY WE HAVE NO PROBLEM. I BELIEVE WITH REGARD TO SOME OF THE FOUNDATIONAL MATERIAL, MISS CLARK AND I WILL BE ABLE TO STIPULATE BECAUSE IT WAS A DATE IN WHICH SHE AND I MUTUALLY CALLED FOR AN INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATION BECAUSE THERE WAS THESE LEAKS AND RESULTS WHEN THE SOCKS WERE STILL THERE, SO OUR POSITION IS THAT SHE COULD STAY HERE NOW. WE WAIVE THE COURT'S ORDER SO SHE CAN STAY HERE TODAY, AND ASK ONLY THAT CHANNEL 4 BE FAIR IN THEIR REPORTING.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. AND I TAKE IT, MISS CLARK, YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THAT AS WELL?

MS. CLARK: THAT'S CORRECT, YOUR HONOR. THE PEOPLE HAVE NO OBJECTION. TO A LARGE EXTENT I THINK THAT THE MATTERS THAT COUNSEL IS GOING TO BE SEEKING TO PUT BEFORE THE JURY ARE A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD, IF NOT ACTUALLY A MATTER OF VIDEOTAPE THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN BROADCAST, AND I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEM WITH MISS SAVAGE REMAINING.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THEN OBJECTIONS HAVING BEEN WAIVED, WE WILL ALLOW MISS SAVAGE TO REMAIN FOR THOSE PORTIONS OF THE PROCEEDINGS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH DNA TESTING. HOWEVER, MISS SAVAGE, YOU SHOULD HAVE YOUR STATION MANAGER REASSIGN YOU WHEN WE GET TO THE DNA ISSUES. ALL RIGHT. ALSO, YOU ARE NOT TO WATCH ANY TELEVISION COVERAGE OF THE ISSUES. ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE.

MR. DARDEN: JUDGE, DID WE RESCHEDULE THE MOTION TO QUASH ON MARGUERITE THOMAS?

THE COURT: WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO MAKE CONTACT WITH MR. JONES.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, SO WE ARE CLEAR, YOUR LAST COMMENT REGARDING NOT WATCHING ANY DNA COVERAGE, THAT WAS NOT A JOKE? I THINK SOME PEOPLE WERE LAUGHING, BUT THAT IS NOT A JOKE?

THE COURT: NO, I THINK SHE UNDERSTANDS THE ORDER, CORRECT? SHE INDICATES IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. BE SEATED. ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

THE COURT: MY APOLOGIES TO YOU FOR HAVING KEPT UP IN THE SMALL ROOM SO LONG THIS MORNING. I THOUGHT WE WOULD GET STARTED WITHIN TEN OR FIFTEEN MINUTES OF OUR NINE O'CLOCK START TIME, AND UNFORTUNATELY OTHER THINGS CAME UP THAT I HAD TO DEAL WITH. IN YOUR DEFENSE, DEPUTY MAGNERA URGED ME NOT TO BRING YOU DOWN UNTIL TEN O'CLOCK, BUT I THOUGHT WE WOULD GET IT DONE SOONER, BUT THESE THINGS HAPPEN. ALL RIGHT. ARE THE PEOPLE READY TO CALL THEIR NEXT WITNESS?

MR. DARDEN: YES, YOUR HONOR. WE ARE. GOOD MORNING.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN: GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

MR. DARDEN: THE PEOPLE CALL RON SHIPP TO THE STAND, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. SHIPP.

RONALD SHIPP, CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE PEOPLE, WAS SWORN AND TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:

THE CLERK: PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU MAY GIVE IN THE CAUSE NOW PENDING BEFORE THIS COURT, SHALL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD.

THE WITNESS: YES, I DO.

THE CLERK: PLEASE BE SEATED AND STATE AND SPELL YOUR FIRST AND LAST NAMES FOR THE RECORD.

THE WITNESS: RONALD SHIPP, R-O-N-A-L-D S-H-I-P-P.

THE CLERK: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. DARDEN:

Q: GOOD MORNING, SIR.

A: GOOD MORNING.

Q: MR. SHIPP, ARE YOU ACQUAINTED WITH THE DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE?

A: YES, I AM.

Q: HOW LONG HAVE YOU KNOWN HIM?

A: APPROXIMATELY 26 YEARS.

Q: AND DO YOU RECALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH YOU FIRST MET HIM?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: WHAT WERE THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES?

A: UMM, WHEN I WAS ABOUT 16 YEARS OLD MY BROTHER, MIKE, PLAYED AGAINST O.J. IN HIGH SCHOOL UP IN SAN FRANCISCO, AND HE HAD COME DOWN TO LOS ANGELES RIGHT AFTER O.J. HAD WON THE HEISMAN TROPHY, AND MYSELF, MIKE AND MY BROTHER SKIP WENT OVER TO O.J.'S HOUSE AND CONGRATULATED HIM AND THIS IS WHEN I WAS 16 YEARS OLD.

Q: AND DID YOU AND THE DEFENDANT DEVELOP A FRIENDSHIP AFTER THAT INITIAL MEETING?

A: UMM, NOT -- WE WEREN'T VERY CLOSE AT THAT TIME. I HAD RUN INTO HIM FROM TIME TO TIME AND, UMM, EVERY TIME I WOULD SEE HIM HE WOULD ASK ME HOW WAS MIKE DOING, AND BUT WE WEREN'T REALLY THAT CLOSE AT THAT TIME.

Q: OKAY. WELL, AS THE YEARS WENT ON, DID YOU DEVELOP A CLOSER RELATIONSHIP?

A: I WOULD SAY APPROXIMATELY FROM ABOUT 1978 ON.

Q: DID YOU VISIT THE DEFENDANT'S HOME?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: ON HOW MANY OCCASIONS?

A: HOW MANY OCCASIONS?

Q: YES.

A: GEE, UMM -- LET'S SEE. IN '78 I WAS A POLICE OFFICER AT THE TIME AND I WAS ASSIGNED TO WEST LOS ANGELES DIVISION AND AT THAT TIME I WOULD GO UP THERE ON OCCASION, PROBABLY APPROXIMATELY MAYBE TWO TIMES A WEEK UP UNTIL 1982.

Q: YOU WERE AN LAPD OFFICER?

A: YES, I WAS.

Q: WHEN DID YOU JOIN THE LAPD?

A: 1974.

Q: AND YOU ARE NO LONGER AN LAPD OFFICER?

A: NO, I'M NOT.

Q: WHEN DID YOU LEAVE THE LAPD?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS OCTOBER OF 1989.

Q: AND YOU SAY THAT DURING THE TIME THAT YOU WERE A POLICE OFFICER YOU WERE ASSIGNED TO WEST L.A. STATION?

A: NO. I WAS ASSIGNED TO WEST L.A. FROM 1978 TO '82.

Q: AND WEST L.A. STATION HAS JURISDICTION OVER BRENTWOOD; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES, IT DOES.

Q: OKAY. NOW, A MOMENT AGO YOU TESTIFIED THAT THERE WAS A TIME PERIOD IN WHICH YOU WOULD GO TO THE DEFENDANT'S HOUSE PERHAPS TWO TIMES A WEEK?

A: APPROXIMATELY.

Q: ON THOSE OCCASIONS WERE YOU ON DUTY?

A: I WOULD SAY HALF. SOME OF THE TIMES I WOULD COME BY IN THE PATROL CAR AND OTHER TIMES I WOULD GO BY THERE AND PLAY SOME TENNIS.

Q: YOU PLAYED TENNIS AT THE DEFENDANT'S HOME?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: ON HIS TENNIS COURT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: ON THOSE OCCASIONS WHEN YOU PLAYED TENNIS AT THE DEFENDANT'S HOME, WAS HE -- WAS HE AT THE HOME?

A: SOMETIME HE WOULD BE THERE AND SOMETIME HE WOULDN'T.

Q: DID YOU HAVE TO GET PERMISSION TO PLAY TENNIS ON HIS TENNIS COURT?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: YOU COULD JUST SHOW UP AND PLAY TENNIS?

A: YEAH. O.J. TRUSTED ME, SO I DIDN'T REALLY HAVE TO CALL.

MR. DOUGLAS: MOVE TO STRIKE THAT AS SPECULATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: SO YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO GET PERMISSION TO PLAY TENNIS THERE?

A: NO. ALL I HAD TO DO WAS CLEAR IT WITH -- I WOULD CALL THE MAID, WHOEVER WAS THERE, AND LET THEM KNOW I WAS COMING.

Q: YOU SAID THAT O.J. OR THE DEFENDANT TRUSTED YOU?

A: YES, HE DID. I FELT HE DID.

Q: WHAT PERIOD OF TIME ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HERE?

A: PLAYING TENNIS?

Q: YES.

A: APPROXIMATELY FROM 1978 TO '82.

Q: WAS THERE A SECURITY GATE AT THE HOUSE ON ROCKINGHAM AT THAT TIME?

A: YES, THERE WAS.

Q: DID IT REQUIRE A SECURITY CODE OR SOMETHING TO OPEN THE GATE?

A: NO. TO MY KNOWLEDGE THERE WAS JUST A BUTTON THAT YOU WOULD PUSH.

Q: HOW ABOUT AFTER 1982? DID YOU CONTINUE YOUR RELATIONSHIP OR YOUR FRIENDSHIP WITH THE DEFENDANT?

A: YES, I DID. I DIDN'T GO BY THERE AS FREQUENT. ONCE I -- I TRANSFERRED DOWNTOWN AND MAYBE I WAS -- I WENT OVER THERE MAYBE ONCE EVERY MAYBE TWO, THREE WEEKS.

Q: DID YOU CONTINUE TO PLAY TENNIS?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: ON THOSE OCCASIONS WHEN YOU WENT TO THE DEFENDANT'S HOME, WHILE YOU WERE ON DUTY, DID YOU EVER TAKE OTHER OFFICERS TO THE DEFENDANT'S HOME AS WELL?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: DID OTHER OFFICERS ALSO PLAY TENNIS?

A: THERE WAS ONLY ONE -- THERE WAS ONLY OFFICER THAT I USED TO PLAY WITH. YEAH, THAT I RECALL, THERE WAS ONE OFFICER.

Q: AND WHAT IS THAT OFFICER'S NAME?

A: CHUCK SMITH.

Q: AND IF YOU KNOW, IS HE STILL A MEMBER OF THE LAPD?

A: YEAH, HE IS STILL AT WEST L.A.

Q: DID OTHER OFFICERS ALSO VISIT THE DEFENDANT AT HIS HOME?

A: TO MY KNOWLEDGE, UMM, NO, UNLESS THEY CAME OVER WITH ME.

Q: OKAY. WELL, DID YOU TAKE OFFICERS TO THE DEFENDANT'S HOME OTHER THAN CHUCK SMITH?

A: YES, I DID. IF I WAS ON PATROL, SOMETIME I WOULD TAKE PEOPLE OVER THERE. I USED TO GET A KICK OUT OF NOT TELLING THEM WHERE I WAS GOING AND RINGING THE DOORBELL AND HAVE O.J. COME OUT AND GREET THEM.

Q: HOW MANY OTHER OFFICERS WOULD YOU SAY YOU TOOK TO ROCKINGHAM?

A: WOW. I WOULD HAVE TO SAY APPROXIMATELY MAYBE -- MAYBE FORTY GUYS MAYBE.

Q: AND WERE THESE FORTY GUYS ALL MEMBERS OF THE LAPD'S WEST L.A. DIVISION OR STATION?

A: UMM, MOST OF THEM. MOST OF THEM WERE.

Q: WAS THERE EVER ANY ANIMOSITY OR HOSTILITY BETWEEN THOSE FORTY GUYS THAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED AND THE DEFENDANT?

A: NO WAY. NO.

Q: DID ANY OFFICER GET THE DEFENDANT'S AUTOGRAPH?

A: YES, A FEW OF THEM I GOT AUTOGRAPHS FROM O.J. FOR A FEW OF THEM. A COUPLE WERE WOMEN THAT I GOT AUTOGRAPHS FOR THEM AND THEIR KIDS, FEMALE PARTNERS.

Q: WEST L.A. DIVISION HOLDS AN ANNUAL CHRISTMAS PARTY; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: OKAY. WAS THERE EVER AN OCCASION WHERE YOU WERE IN CHARGE OF GETTING CELEBRITIES TO COME TO THE ANNUAL CHRISTMAS PARTY?

A: ONE PARTICULAR TIME, YES.

Q: DO YOU RECALL WHICH YEAR THAT WAS?

A: I BELIEVE IT IS EITHER 1980 OR '81.

Q: AND DID YOU ARRANGE FOR A CELEBRITY'S APPEARANCE AT THE CHRISTMAS PARTY?

A: I THOUGHT I DID.

Q: WHO WAS THAT PERSON?

A: O.J.

Q: DID THE DEFENDANT AGREE TO APPEAR AT THE LAPD'S ANNUAL CHRISTMAS PARTY?

A: YES, HE DID.

Q: DID YOU EVER MEET NICOLE BROWN?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: DO YOU RECALL WHEN THAT WAS?

A: THAT WAS EITHER '79 OR '80. I'M NOT SURE.

Q: WERE THEY MARRIED AT THE TIME?

A: NO, THEY WEREN'T.

Q: DID YOU EVER VISIT NICOLE BROWN AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: ON HOW MANY OCCASIONS?

A: I CAN'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHEN SHE MOVED IN, SO WHENEVER SHE MOVED IN, UMM, PROBABLY ABOUT MAYBE ONCE A WEEK WHEN WE WERE ONCE AGAIN ON PATROL MOST OF THE TIME.

Q: OKAY. AND DID YOU CONSIDER NICOLE BROWN A FRIEND?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AS YOU DID THE DEFENDANT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: DO YOU AND THE DEFENDANT REMAIN FRIENDS TODAY?

A: I STILL LOVE THE GUY, BUT, UMM, I DON'T KNOW. I MEAN, THIS IS A WEIRD SITUATION I'M SITTING HERE IN.

Q: YOU SAY YOU STILL LOVE HIM?

A: SURE.

Q: DID YOU EVER ATTEND PARTIES AT THE DEFENDANT'S HOUSE?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: DID YOU ATTEND HIS WEDDING?

A: THE RECEPTION.

Q: DID YOU EVER HAVE INTIMATE AND PERSONAL CONVERSATIONS WITH HIM?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WHAT KINDS OF THINGS DID YOU TALK ABOUT DURING THOSE PERSONAL AND INTIMATE CONVERSATIONS?

MR. DOUGLAS: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. OVERBROAD, VAGUE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE TERM "INTIMATE AND PERSONAL"?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU EVER DISCUSS YOUR HEALTH WITH THE DEFENDANT?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: DID YOU EVER DISCUSS YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH YOUR WIFE WITH THE DEFENDANT?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

Q: DID HE EVER DISCUSS HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS WIFE, NICOLE, WITH YOU?

MR. DOUGLAS: NO FOUNDATION, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS A LONG TIME WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. IRRELEVANT PERHAPS.

THE COURT: I THINK THIS IS FOUNDATIONAL. WE ARE NOT GOING TO CONTENT YET. OVERRULED. YOU CAN ASK THE FOUNDATIONAL QUESTIONS.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DID THE DEFENDANT EVER DISCUSS HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS WIFE, NICOLE, WITH YOU?

A: YES, UMM -- YES, HE DID.

Q: YOU TESTIFIED A MOMENT AGO THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THE TERM "INTIMATE AND PERSONAL," CORRECT?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: CAN YOU GIVE US SOME EXAMPLE OF SOME OF THE INTIMATE AND PERSONAL CONVERSATIONS YOU HAD WITH THE DEFENDANT?

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION. MAY WE APPROACH WITH AN OFFER OF PROOF?

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WITH THE REPORTER, PLEASE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE ARE AT THE SIDE BAR. MR. DARDEN, WHERE WE GOING WITH THIS?

MR. DARDEN: I'M JUST TRYING TO ESTABLISH THE CLOSENESS OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP, THAT'S ALL. HE IS NOT GOING TO JUMP OUT AND SAY HE HAD SEX WITH ANOTHER WOMAN OR USED DRUGS, YOU KNOW, THE USUAL THINGS GUYS TALK ABOUT.

THE COURT: WHAT IS HE GOING TO SAY?

MR. DARDEN: AND HE IS GOING TO SAY THAT HE DISCUSSED AN INCIDENT THAT APPARENTLY HAPPENED ON JANUARY 1, 1989, AND THAT IS WHERE WE ARE HEADED. SO YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK ANY BOMBS ARE ABOUT TO FALL ON THEM.

THE COURT: MR. DOUGLAS.

MR. COCHRAN: WE ARE NOT AFRAID, MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT, BUT WE HAVE TO DO OUR JOB FOR OUR CLIENT. WHEN SOMEBODY ASKS THESE QUESTIONS ABOUT BOYFRIENDS, WE CAN'T SIT HERE AND ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN. CHRISTOPHER WANTS TO BE ALL RELAXED, JUDGE, BUT HE HAS GOT TO PIN THIS STUFF DOWN.

MR. DOUGLAS: AS WELL, YOUR HONOR, THE COURT HAS DIFFERENT INCIDENTS THAT THE COURT HAS RULED INADMISSIBLE AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THINGS THAT ARE COOL.

THE COURT: I ASSUME YOU ARE NOT GOING TO OBJECT TO A LEADING QUESTION?

MR. DOUGLAS: IF HE IS TARGETING A CERTAIN AREA.

MR. DARDEN: MR. DOUGLAS BRINGS UP AN INTERESTING ISSUE BECAUSE IF YOU REALLY WANT ME TO KEY ON CERTAIN AREAS, I WILL DO IT, JUDGE. YOU KNOW, IT IS GOING TO REQUIRE SOME LEADING QUESTIONS OCCASIONALLY.

MR. DOUGLAS: OCCASIONALLY.

THE COURT: OCCASIONAL LEADING QUESTIONS ARE APPROPRIATE FOR FOUNDATIONAL PURPOSES TO REDIRECT ATTENTION.

MR. COCHRAN: ROUND ROBIN AT THE BARN.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE ONE QUESTION, YOUR HONOR. WAS THAT SO THERE WOULD BE AN LAPD INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATION STARTING RIGHT TODAY? WAS HE BEING MEAN? WHAT WAS THE DEAL ON THAT?

THE COURT: I SUSPECT THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT WILL BE WONDERING WHY LAPD OFFICERS ARE WANDERING AROUND AND PLAYING TENNIS.

MR. COCHRAN: YOU HAVEN'T HEARD ALL OF IT YET. YOU HAVEN'T HEARD THE CROSS-EXAMINATION. SO THEY START THE INVESTIGATION TODAY. SHALL WE CALL FOR IT AT LUNCHTIME LIKE WE DID BEFORE?

THE COURT: COUNSEL, UNNECESSARY TO OUR DISCUSSION HERE. INTERESTING POINT, THOUGH.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. PERHAPS MR. DARDEN, YOU CAN GET A TIGHTER FRAMEWORK FOR THE QUESTION.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, I WILL WITHDRAW THE QUESTION.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: IN ADDITION TO PLAYING TENNIS AT HIS HOME, WHAT KINDS OF THINGS DID YOU AND THE OFFICERS YOU TOOK TO HIS HOME DO?

A: UMM, OTHER THAN PLAYING TENNIS, THE OFFICERS I TOOK OVER THERE, WE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING ELSE.

Q: UMM, DID THE DEFENDANT HAVE A SWIMMING POOL?

A: YES, HE DID.

Q: DID YOU EVER SWIM IN THE POOL?

A: I DID.

Q: HOW ABOUT THE OTHER OFFICERS THAT YOU TOOK OVER?

A: NO ONE I TOOK OVER SWAM IN THE POOL.

Q: NOW, DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THESE OTHER OFFICERS EVER WENT BACK TO THE DEFENDANT'S HOUSE ON THEIR OWN?

A: NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

Q: YOU HAVE NO FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF THAT?

A: NO, I DO NOT.

Q: WERE YOU STILL A MEMBER OF THE LAPD DURING THE FIRST WEEK OF JANUARY, 1989?

A: YES, I WAS.

Q: AND DID YOU RECEIVE A TELEPHONE CALL FROM NICOLE THAT WEEK?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: DID SHE ASK YOU TO DO SOMETHING?

A: YES, SHE DID.

Q: WHAT DID SHE ASK YOU TO DO?

MR. DOUGLAS: OBJECTION, HEARSAY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. DARDEN: QUESTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: I'M SORRY.

MR. DARDEN: IT IS A QUESTION, WHAT DID SHE ASK HIM TO DO.

THE COURT: AND THE CONTENTS OF THIS ANSWER IS HEARSAY.

MR. DARDEN: I'M NOT ASKING FOR THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION; I'M JUST ASKING FOR THE QUESTION. IT IS NOT OFFERED FOR THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER STATED.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: SHE ASKED YOU TO DO SOMETHING?

A: YES, SHE DID.

Q: AND THIS WAS DURING THE TELEPHONE CALL?

A: YES, IT WAS.

Q: DID YOU CALL HER OR DID SHE CALL YOU?

A: SHE CALLED ME.

Q: OKAY. DID SHE APPEAR UPSET OR SOUND UPSET AT ALL?

MR. DOUGLAS: NO FOUNDATION THAT HE KNOWS.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I'M SORRY. YES, SHE DID.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: WAS SHE HYSTERICAL?

A: NO, SHE WAS NOT.

Q: AND WHAT DID YOU DO AFTER SHE ASKED YOU TO DO SOMETHING?

A: SHE ASKED ME --

MR. DOUGLAS: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, NONRESPONSIVE.

THE COURT: MR. SHIPP, THE QUESTION WAS WHAT DID YOU DO AFTER THE REQUEST WAS MADE OF YOU?

THE WITNESS: I'M SORRY. WHEN I GOT OFF OF WORK I WENT OVER THERE.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: NOW, YOUR GOING OVER THERE, WAS THAT IN RESPONSE TO SOMETHING SHE ASKED TO YOU DO?

A: YES, IT WAS.

Q: AND DID YOU DO EXACTLY WHAT SHE ASKED YOU TO DO?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: YOU WENT TO THE DEFENDANT'S HOME ON ROCKINGHAM?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: DID YOU TAKE ANYTHING WITH YOU AT THAT TIME?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: DID YOU DRIVE YOUR PERSONAL CAR OVER TO THE PROPERTY AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: I CAN'T REMEMBER IF I DID OR NOT. SOMETIMES I WOULD PARK ON THE GROUNDS AND SOMETIMES I WOULD JUST PARK ON THE STREET.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU KNOCK AT THE DOOR?

A: YES, I -- I PUSHED THE BUZZER.

Q: DID SHE COME TO THE DOOR?

A: SHE BUZZED ME IN.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU KNOCK AT THE DOOR THEN?

A: NO. I JUST WALKED ON IN. A LOT OF TIME WHEN THEY BUZZ YOU IN, THE DOOR IS OPEN, YOU WALK IN.

Q: OKAY. SO YOU JUST WALKED ON INTO THE HOUSE?

A: WALKED ON IN.

Q: AND DID YOU SEE NICOLE BROWN AT THAT TIME?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: NOW, WHAT DAY OF THE WEEK WAS THIS, IF YOU KNOW?

A: I WOULD HAVE TO SAY IT WAS EITHER I THINK TUESDAY OR WEDNESDAY.

Q: AND HOW MANY DAYS AFTER JANUARY 1, 1989, WAS IT THAT YOU WENT TO THE DEFENDANT'S HOUSE?

A: I THINK PROBABLY TWO.

Q: PROBABLY WHAT?

A: TWO DAYS.

Q: OKAY. SO SOMEWHERE AROUND THE 3RD OR 4TH?

A: YEAH, RIGHT AROUND THE 3RD OR 4TH.

Q: AND DID YOU SEE NICOLE BROWN AT THAT TIME?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND DID YOU NOTICE ANYTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT HER AT THAT TIME?

A: YES. UMM, IF I REMEMBER, SHE HAD SOME INJURIES THAT HAD STARTED TO FADE.

MR. DOUGLAS: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. HOW DOES HE KNOW THAT? CALLS FOR SPECULATION. NO FOUNDATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: WHAT INJURIES DID YOU SEE AT THAT TIME, MR. SHIPP?

A: IF I REMEMBER -- I MEAN, I COULDN'T SEE THAT WELL BECAUSE I REMEMBER SHE HAD MAKE-UP ON, BUT IF I REMEMBER THERE, WAS SOME SWELLING ABOUT HER HEAD SOMEWHERE. I REMEMBER IT WAS COVERED UP PRETTY GOOD.

Q: SHE HAD MAKE-UP ON?

A: SHE HAD MAKE-UP ON.

Q: COVERING HER INJURIES?

A: RIGHT.

Q: BUT YOU COULD STILL SEE?

A: A LITTLE BIT OF IT.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN, MR. SHIPP, YOU ALL ARE GOING TO HAVE TO TALK ONE AT A TIME.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: AND DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH HER AT THAT TIME?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WHAT WAS HER DEMEANOR DURING THAT CONVERSATION?

A: WHEN SHE FIRST STARTED OUT SHE WAS LIKE SHE ALWAYS WOULD BE WHEN WE WOULD TALK, SHE WAS KIND OF JOKING, AND THEN AFTER A WHILE SHE JUST KIND OF GOT INTO ACTUALLY WHAT HAD HAPPENED AND STARTED TELLING ME WHAT HAD HAPPENED BETWEEN HER AND O.J.

Q: DID SHE SHOW YOU ANYTHING AT THAT TIME?

A: NO, SHE DID NOT.

Q: WHAT WERE YOUR DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES WITH THE LAPD DURING THE FIRST WEEK OF JANUARY, 1989?

A: AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME I WAS ON LOAN TO WEST LOS ANGELES -- ACTUALLY IT WAS THE VALLEY DIVISION, FORGERY UNIT, WHICH WAS ACTUALLY OUT OF WEST LOS ANGELES.

Q: OKAY. NOW, DOES THE LAPD HAVE A POLICE ACADEMY?

A: YES, THEY DO.

Q: AND WHAT EXACTLY IS A POLICE ACADEMY?

A: A POLICE ACADEMY IS WHERE ALL THE RECRUITS RECEIVE THEIR TRAINING PRIOR TO BECOMING A FULL-FLEDGED LOS ANGELES POLICE OFFICER.

Q: OKAY. AND WERE YOU EVER ASSIGNED TO TEACH ANY PARTICULAR SUBJECT AT THE POLICE ACADEMY?

A: YES, I WAS.

Q: AND WERE YOU SO ASSIGNED DURING JANUARY OF 1989?

A: NO, I WAS NOT.

Q: WHEN HAD YOU LAST BEEN --

A: ACTUALLY, EXCUSE ME. LET ME CORRECT. I WAS ASSIGNED TO THE ACADEMY, BUT I WAS ON LOAN TO FORGERY, WEST L.A. FORGERY.

Q: OKAY. SO YOU WERE STILL A MEMBER OF THE POLICE ACADEMY TEACHING STAFF?

A: ON PAPER.

Q: OKAY. AND DID YOU SPECIALIZE IN A PARTICULAR AREA?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: YOU TAUGHT A PARTICULAR SUBJECT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WHAT WAS THAT SUBJECT?

A: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

Q: YOU TAUGHT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: YOU TAUGHT THAT TO OTHER POLICE OFFICERS?

A: YEAH, OTHER POLICE OFFICERS AND RECRUITS.

Q: WHAT KIND OF THINGS DID YOU TEACH THOSE OTHER POLICE OFFICERS AND RECRUITS?

A: PARDON ME?

Q: WHAT KIND OF THINGS DID YOU TEACH THOSE OTHER POLICE OFFICERS AND RECRUITS?

MR. DOUGLAS: OBJECTION, VAGUE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I TAUGHT THEM FOR THE MOST PART THE DYNAMICS AND PROFILES OF THE VICTIM AND THE BATTERER IN RELATION TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: WHAT DOES THAT MEAN EXACTLY?

A: OKAY. FOR THE MOST PART, WHAT IT IS, IT IS THE DIFFERENT -- THE MAKE-UP, THE -- HOW CAN I SAY THIS? THE -- I'M DRAWING A BLANK RIGHT NOW, BUT ANYHOW, LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, LIKE THE VICTIM, IT WOULD TALK ABOUT EXACTLY WHAT MAKES UP A BATTERER -- I MEAN, WHAT MAKES UP A VICTIM AS FAR AS BEING LIKE THEIR BACKGROUND, UMM, LOW SELF-ESTEEM, JUST YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT PROFILES.

Q: AND YOU ALSO TALKED ABOUT THE PROFILES OF THE BATTERER?

A: RIGHT.

Q: NOW -- MAY I HAVE ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DID YOU ALSO HAVE A -- STRIKE THAT. AT SOME POINT DID YOU DEVELOP A TEACHING PLAN OR TEACHING OUTLINE?

A: I DIDN'T DEVELOP IT. IT WAS ALREADY -- IT WAS ALREADY GIVEN TO ME FROM THE ACADEMY.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE HERE IN MY HAND THAT WHICH APPEARS TO BE A TEACHING PLAN. MAY IT BE MARKED PEOPLE'S 8?

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. PEOPLE'S 8.

(PEO'S 8 FOR ID = DOC/4-PG LAPD TEACHING PLAN)

THE COURT: HOW MANY PAGES IS THAT? IT APPEARS TO BE MULTIPLE PAGES.

MR. DARDEN: CAN I HAVE ONE MOMENT?

THE COURT: SURE.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

MR. DARDEN: PEOPLE'S 8 WILL CONSIST OF FOUR PAGES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. FOUR PAGES.

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, AT THE BREAK COULD THE CLERK BE SO KIND TO MAKE A COPY, AT A BREAK?

MR. COCHRAN: WE DON'T HAVE A COPY.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: SHOWING YOU PEOPLE'S 8 FOR IDENTIFICATION, MR. SHIPP, DOES THAT APPEAR TO BE A COPY OF TEACHING OUTLINE ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE THAT YOU JUST MENTIONED A MOMENT AGO?

A: YES, IT IS. IT IS A PORTION OF IT. IT IS ENLARGED FROM HOW I REMEMBER IT, BUT YES, IT IS.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WHAT IS PAGE 1 ENTITLED?

A: "VICTIM'S PROFILE" --

MR. DOUGLAS: MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: SURE.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: WHAT IS PAGE 1 ENTITLED?

A: "VICTIM'S PROFILES."

Q: AND PAGE 2, WHAT IS IT ENTITLED?

A: "BATTERER'S PROFILES."

Q: AND PAGE 3?

A: "THE CYCLES OF BATTERING."

Q: AND IS THERE A FOURTH PAGE?

A: "BATTERING AND ARGUING."

Q: DOES PAGE 1 LIST SOME OF THE CHARACTERISTICS COMMON TO WOMEN WHO REMAIN IN ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS?

A: YES, IT DOES.

Q: COULD YOU LIST THOSE CHARACTERISTICS FOR US?

A: YES. IT HAS HERE SELF-BLAMING GUILT AND THE NEXT ONE IS LIVES IN CONSTANT FEAR, HIGH LEVEL OF DEPENDENCE, AND THEN IT SAYS ECONOMIC AND/OR EMOTIONAL, AND IT SAYS COMMITMENT TO RELATIONSHIP, WILL DO ALMOST ANYTHING TO KEEP THE FAMILY TOGETHER, TRADITIONAL SEX ROLE, MEANING SHE IS A MOTHER --

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD OBJECT TO THE READING OF THIS DOCUMENT AT THIS POINT THROUGH THIS WITNESS. IT IS NOT IN EVIDENCE, YOUR HONOR, AND I THINK THAT THERE IS A HEARING THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE ABOUT THIS ENTIRE SUBJECT MATTER AT THIS POINT.

MR. DARDEN: IF COUNSEL HAS AN OBJECTION, HE SHOULD ASK TO APPROACH THE SIDE BAR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THAT IS A SPEAKING OBJECTION. LET ME SEE COUNSEL AT THE SIDE BAR, PLEASE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE ARE AT THE SIDE BAR. COUNSEL, WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH 1107.A HERE, DON'T WE?

MR. DARDEN: I DON'T THINK WE DO. I THINK YESTERDAY I THINK GIVEN THE CONTENT OF MR. COCHRAN'S OPENING STATEMENT, THE QUESTION YESTERDAY REGARDING THE VICTIM'S DECISION NOT TO PROSECUTE IN A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASE, I THINK WE ARE WELL -- I THINK NOW WE HAVE CREATED AN ISSUE REGARDING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. I THINK WE HAVE A DUTY AND OBLIGATION TO DISABUSE THE JURY ABOUT THE MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE THAT THEY -- THAT THEY HAVE RAISED AND I THINK WE HAVE A RIGHT NOW UNDER THE EVIDENCE CODE. WHEN I OBJECTED YESTERDAY, I OBJECTED SO THAT COUNSEL WOULD BE PUT ON NOTICE THE LAW WAS IN OUR FAVOR ON THIS ISSUE, THAT BY CREATING THE MISCONCEPTIONS THAT THEY WERE IN FRONT OF THE JURY, THAT WE WOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO OFFER THE VICTIM'S PROFILE.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR --

MR. DARDEN: A RIGHT UNDER THE LAW AND I THINK THE CASE LAW IS CLEAR, AND WE WILL GET MISS BODIN AND MR. GORDON DOWN HERE TO EXPLAIN IT TO COUNSEL AND ARGUE THE ISSUE IF THEY DESIRE, BUT THE LAW IS CLEAR NOW.

MR. COCHRAN: I DON'T NEED THEM TO EXPLAIN ANYTHING TO ME. BY THE END OF THIS TRIAL THEY ARE ALL GOING TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WERE NO MISCONCEPTIONS. WE HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT. THEY ARE GOING TO TELL ALL THE STORY AND THEY WANT TO CUT IT OFF WHENEVER THEY WANT TO. WHEN YOU BRING UP THE CHARGES, I HAVE A RIGHT TO BRING IT OUT, AS YOUR HONOR SO RULED. THEY MAY HAVE A RIGHT TO TALK ABOUT THIS. THIS ISN'T NECESSARILY THE WITNESS TO DO THIS WITH. THIS IS NOT THE WITNESS TO DO THIS WITH. THIS IS 1107. THEY ARE USING SOME DOCUMENT THAT HE SHOWED US FOR THE FIRST TIME THIS MORNING AND WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A COPY OF IT AND HE IS TRYING TO READ THIS DOCUMENT IN. THERE WILL BE AN ISSUE WHETHER OR NOT -- AS TO WHETHER THIS DOCUMENT GETS IN. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER HE WILL BRING DOWN SCOTT GORDON OR LYDIA BODIN. HE CAN BRING THEM ALL DOWN AT ONCE. THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. WE ARE ENTITLED TO A HEARING AND THE FACT THAT WE BRING OUT THE TOTAL FACTUAL SITUATION, THIS LADY BROUGHT THE CHARGES AND THEY DROP THE CHARGES, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY ARE ENTITLED TO BRING OUT SOME DOCUMENT THAT RON SHIPP USED AT THE ACADEMY.

THE COURT: I AM JUST CURIOUS, MR. DARDEN. WHY ARE WE USING MR. SHIPP FOR THIS PURPOSE, JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY?

MR. DARDEN: MAY I SAY TWO THINGS AND ADDRESS THE QUESTION? FIRST OF ALL, THE REASON THAT THEY MENTIONED HER DECISION OR DESIRE TO DROP THE CHARGES WAS BECAUSE THEY WERE TRYING TO MINIMIZE THE DEFENDANT'S CONDUCT. LET ME JUST INDICATE THAT AND THAT IS WHY 1107 KICKS IN, BUT BEYOND THAT, THE WITNESS IS GOING TO SUBSEQUENTLY TESTIFY THAT HE SHOWED THIS SAME PROFILE TO THE DEFENDANT AND THEY HAD A DISCUSSION WITH HIM ABOUT IT AND HE ALSO SHOWED THE SAME PROFILE TO NICOLE BROWN AND HAD A DISCUSSION WITH HER ABOUT IT. THAT IS WHY -- THIS IS WHY IT IS RELEVANT AND THAT IS WHY IT IS COMING IN.

MR. COCHRAN: CAN I RESPOND?

THE COURT: NO, NO. HOLD ON. HOLD ON. I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION FOR MR. DARDEN.

MR. COCHRAN: OKAY.

THE COURT: HOW DO WE GET AROUND THE PROHIBITION OF 1107.A OF THE EVIDENCE CODE?

MR. DARDEN: WHAT PROHIBITION?

MR. COCHRAN: READ IT FIRST.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. DARDEN: IT IS NOT BEING OFFERED TO PROVE THE ACT OR OCCURRENCE OR -- OF ABUSE. THAT IS NOT WHAT IT IS BEING OFFERED FOR. IT IS BEING OFFERED TO DISABUSE THE JURY.

MR. COCHRAN: THEN THAT IS PREPOSTEROUS. THEN IT IS IRRELEVANT AND IMMATERIAL.

MR. DARDEN: LET ME GO GET MY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE MATERIAL. I WILL COME CAME DOWN HERE AND EXPLAIN IT TO YOU AND GIVE YOU THE COURT CASES. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS LOOK BACK AT THE P AND A'S WHICH WE FILED WHICH CLEARLY LAID OUT THE LAW IN THIS CARE. THERE IS NO PROHIBITION HERE UNDER 1107.A.

MR. COCHRAN: COUNSEL IS AGAIN THWARTED BY THE EVIDENCE CODE. BRING ALL THE MATERIALS HE WANTS TO. HE DOESN'T GET AROUND THIS ON THE BASIS OF THAT. NO DOOR OPENED HERE.

THE COURT: I'M SORRY.

MR. COCHRAN: I CAN'T HEAR BECAUSE SHE IS TALKING.

THE COURT: HOLD ON, HOLD ON, MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THE POINT OF THE -- OF THE -- WHAT THE POINT OF SECTION A IS TO ADDRESS A BLOOD CELL SITUATION WHERE YOU ARE TRYING TO PROVE THAT AN ACT OCCURRED BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, INCLUDING THE TESTIMONY OF AN EXPERT WHO IS INTERPRETING THE CONDUCT OF THE VICTIM OR THE DEFENDANT.

THAT IS NOT WHAT WE ARE DOING HERE. THE FACT IS THE ABUSE IN 1989 OCCURRED. IT IS A MATTER OF RECORD. HE PLED GUILTY TO IT. WE'VE HAD THE TESTIMONY OF THE OFFICER WHO WAS A WITNESS TO HER BEHAVIOR. WE ARE NOT ASKING HIM TO TESTIFY TO ANY ULTIMATE CONCLUSION CONCERNING WHETHER OR NOT SHE WAS IN FACT ABUSED AND THAT IS WHAT THE 1107.A PROHIBITION GOES TO. WE DON'T WANT THAT. WE ARE ASKING HIM TO TESTIFY TO HIS CONDUCT VIS-A-VIS THE DEFENDANT AND NICOLE WHICH IS IMPORTANT TO HER RELATIONSHIP -- THEIR RELATIONSHIP, THE THREE OF THEM, AND HIS KNOWLEDGE OF THE DEFENDANT, WHAT KNOWLEDGE HE IMPARTED TO THE DEFENDANT, WHAT KNOWLEDGE HE IMPARTED TO NICOLE. ON AN ADDITIONAL LEVEL, ON ANOTHER LEVEL, IT BECOMES IMPORTANT AND ADMISSIBLE UNDER 1107 BECAUSE THEY ARE ATTACKING THE CREDIBILITY OF THE ABUSE AND TRYING TO MINIMIZE --

THE COURT: THEN DON'T I HAVE TO ADVISE THE JURY THAT THIS ONLY HAS TO GO TO EXPLAIN -- LIMITED TO THE PURPOSE OF EXPLAINING THE CONDUCT OF THE '89 INCIDENT?

MS. CLARK: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: AND --

MS. CLARK: AT THIS POINT WITH RESPECT TO THE '89 CONDUCT, I BELIEVE THAT IS TRUE, BUT THEN WE HAVE TO JUMP BACK OUT OF THAT AND REVISIT THE REST OF THIS IS FOR ALL PURPOSES.

MR. COCHRAN: I WAS TALKING AND ONLY ONE OF THEM ARE SUPPOSED TO TALK. THEY VIOLATED ALL THE RULES. WHAT I WAS SAYING IS WE COULDN'T HEAR BECAUSE MARCIA WAS WHISPERING IN HIS EAR SO LOUD THAT THE COURT REPORTER COULDN'T TAKE IT DOWN AND I COULDN'T HEAR EITHER, THEN MARCIA STARTS TALKING AND VIOLATING ANOTHER ONE OF YOUR RULES. AND I'M TRYING TO SAY, AND I APPRECIATE HER EXPLANATION, BUT UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS PREPOSTEROUS, YOUR HONOR, FOR THEM, IN THE FACE OF 1107 -- I THINK HE CAN COME DOWN AND DAZZLE US WITH SOME PAPERS OR BRINGING SOME LAWYERS DOWN HERE -- WE DON'T CARE ABOUT ANY LAWYERS. HE CAN BRING GARCETTI DOWN HERE. THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE. ALWAYS TALKING ABOUT MISCONCEPTIONS AS IF THEY ALWAYS HAVE THE RIGHT ANSWER. BY THE END OF THIS CASE THEY ARE GOING TO UNDERSTAND WE HE HAVE THE RIGHT ANSWER. IT IS OUTRAGEOUS FOR HIM TO TELL YOU THIS AND HE IS GOING TO GET THIS IN AND HE HAS TO HAVE SOME THEORY OR BASIS GOT GETTING THIS. AND IT IS NOT TO HAVE SOME MAN WHO WORKS AT THE POLICE ACADEMY TO START READING SOME DOCUMENT. HE IS NOT AN EXPERT. HE IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE WITNESS.

THE COURT: AS I UNDERSTAND THE OFFER OF PROOF, MR. SHIPP IS GOING TO TESTIFY AS TO WHAT HE TOLD NICOLE AND WHAT HE TOLD THE DEFENDANT ABOUT BATTERING SITUATIONS, CORRECT?

MR. DARDEN: NOT BEING OFFERED. HE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THOSE TWO INDIVIDUALS.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT IS NOT WHAT HE WAS DOING UNTIL WE GOT UP HERE, AND THAT IS CLEAR. WE NEED A LIMITING AND I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO GIVE THAT AND THIS IS A LIMITING ON TOP OF A LIMITING.

THE COURT: I KNOW.

MR. COCHRAN: AND CAN YOU MAKE THIS CLEAR, BECAUSE YESTERDAY WHEN YOU GAVE THE LIMITING, IT WAS EVEN CONFUSING FOR SOME OF US, JUDGE, THAT YOU GAVE THE LIMITING BEFORE, THEN YOU ALSO REFERRED BACK TO THE LIMITING AND IT WASN'T ALTOGETHER CLEAR, SO AT SOME POINT COULD YOU MAYBE --

THE COURT: I'M GOING TO COME BACK.

MR. COCHRAN: WHAT THE LIMITINGS WERE.

MR. DARDEN: PLEASE DON'T LEAVE YET. WHAT TYPE OF LIMITING INSTRUCTION ARE YOU --

THE COURT: I'M GOING TO TELL THEM THAT THIS TESTIMONY IS ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF EVALUATING THE CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES WITH REGARD TO THE 1989 INCIDENT.

MR. DARDEN: OKAY. YOU ARE REFERRING SPECIFICALLY TO THE CONVERSATIONS HE HAD WITH NICOLE AND THE CONVERSATION HE HAD WITH THE DEFENDANT?

THE COURT: CORRECT.

MS. CLARK: ON THE '89 INCIDENT?

THE COURT: ON THE '89 INCIDENT.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, SO WE CAN SAVE SOME TIME, WILL YOU DIRECT COUNSEL AGAIN TO UNDERSTAND WHAT HEARSAY IS. MR. DOUGLAS IS GOING TO OBJECT EVERY TIME HE TRIES TO BRING IN NICOLE'S TESTIMONY. THIS MAN CAN SAY WHAT HE SAID, BUT HE SEEMS LIKE AT A LOSS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS HEARSAY WHEN HE ASKS THE SAME QUESTION AGAIN, SO TRY AND DEAL WITH --

MR. DARDEN: HOWEVER, GIVEN COUNSEL'S ATTEMPT YESTERDAY TO MINIMIZE THE EVENTS THAT HAPPENED ON JANUARY 1, '89, I THINK HIS STATE OF MIND IS RELEVANT NOW, AND IF SHE STATES THAT SHE IS AFRAID OF BEING BEATEN AGAIN OR THAT SHE WAS AFRAID ON JANUARY 1, 1989, THAT IS RELEVANT NOW, JUDGE. IT IS CLEARLY RELEVANT.

MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE, COUNSEL DOESN'T UNDERSTAND HEARSAY AND CAN I MAKE A STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD? THE FIRST QUESTIONS I GOT UP, EDWARDS, ONE OF THEIR HOSTILE WITNESSES -- THEY MAY THINK HE'S GREAT BUT SOME WHO WATCHED DIDN'T. THEY THINK HE WAS SO GREAT. DIDN'T HE PLEAD GUILTY TO THIS? DIDN'T HE PLEAD NOLO CONTENDERE? THEY MAKE A BIG DEAL OUT OF THIS. I WOULD JUST AS SOON MOVE ON FROM THIS. THEY ARE THE ONES WHO WANT TO BELABOR. WE HAVE ADMITTED THAT, JUDGE. HE DID THAT RIGHT OUT THE OUTSET.

THE COURT: WHICH IS WHY I MADE THE GREEDY COMMENT YESTERDAY.

MR. COCHRAN: THEY ARE GREEDY.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, COUNSEL, WE ARE DONE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, LET ME JUST REMIND YOU THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU ARE HEARING REGARDING THE 1989 INCIDENT IS LIMITED. THIS TESTIMONY IS LIMITED TO THAT PARTICULAR TESTIMONY AT THIS TIME.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN: CAN I HAVE THE LAST QUESTION READ BACK, YOUR HONOR? IT HAPPENED A WHILE AGO.

THE COURT: I THINK YOU ASKED MR. SHIPP TO TELL US ABOUT THE CHARACTERISTICS ON THE LIST.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: YOU JUST READ THE CHARACTERISTICS OF A BATTERER -- A VICTIM?

A: I GOT HALF WAY.

MR. DARDEN: OKAY. SHALL WE START AT THE TOP FROM THE BEGINNING OR SHALL WE START MIDWAY, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: WELL, READING THE DOCUMENT IS REALLY NOT WHAT IS AT ISSUE.

MR. DARDEN: PARDON ME?

THE COURT: ISN'T IT AT ISSUE HIS DISCUSSIONS WITH THE VARIOUS PARTIES?

MR. DARDEN: SURE. ABSOLUTELY.

Q: CONTINUE READING, PLEASE.

MR. DOUGLAS: WELL, YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT TO HIM READING THE DOCUMENT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: READING THE DOCUMENT IS IRRELEVANT TO THE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PARTIES AT THIS TIME, ISN'T IT?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

Q: OKAY. BUT YOU HAD THIS CONVERSATION WITH NICOLE BROWN AT THE HOUSE A COUPLE OF DAYS AFTER JANUARY 1, CORRECT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: OKAY. NOW, DID YOU HAVE THAT TEACHING PLAN WITH YOU AT THAT TIME?

A: THE FIRST TIME I WENT OVER THERE?

Q: YES.

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: OKAY. WAS THE DEFENDANT PRESENT THAT FIRST TIME YOU WENT OVER?

A: NO, HE WAS NOT.

Q: HOW LONG WERE YOU AT THE HOUSE THAT DAY, THAT FIRST TIME?

A: THE FIRST TIME I WAS THERE PROBABLY I THINK MAYBE FOUR -- MAYBE FOUR, MAYBE FIVE HOURS, SOMEWHERE AROUND THERE.

Q: OKAY. AND DID YOU RETURN TO THE HOUSE AGAIN?

A: THE NEXT DAY, YES, I DID.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU BRING ANYTHING WITH YOU AT THAT TIME?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WHAT DID YOU BRING WITH YOU?

A: I MADE COPIES OF A PORTIONS OF THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LESSON PLAN.

Q: YOU MADE COPIES OF THE LESSON PLAN IN FRONT OF YOU?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT THE HOUSE WAS NICOLE BROWN THERE?

A: YES, SHE WAS.

Q: WAS THE DEFENDANT THERE?

A: NO, HE WASN'T.

Q: DID YOU HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH NICOLE BROWN?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: DID YOU SHOW HER THE PROFILE OF THE BATTERED WOMAN?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: THE VICTIM'S PROFILE?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: DID YOU DISCUSS IT WITH HER?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: DID YOU DISCUSS WITH HER EACH OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VICTIM'S PROFILE?

A: YEAH. I SHOWED THEM TO HER AND JUST WENT DOWN, YOU KNOW, AND WE READ THEM TOGETHER.

Q: DID YOU ASK HER WHICH CHARACTERISTICS SEEMED TO APPLY TO HER?

A: YOU KNOW, I REALLY CAN'T REMEMBER IF SHE ACTUALLY -- IF SHE ACTUALLY CAME OUT AND SAID, WELL, YEAH, THIS IS ALL ME. I REALLY CAN'T REMEMBER THAT. I DON'T RECALL HER ACTUALLY SAYING, YEAH, THIS FITS ALL ME. IT WAS -- IT WAS THE BATTERER'S THING THAT SHE FOCUSED THE MOST ON.

Q: SO SHE FOCUSED MAINLY ON THE BATTERER'S PROFILE?

A: RIGHT.

Q: AND DID SHE ASK YOU TO DO SOMETHING WITH THAT BATTERER'S PROFILE?

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, I ASK IT BE ANSWERED YES OR NO.

THE COURT: YES.

MR. DARDEN: THIS IS INAPPROPRIATE.

THE COURT: NO, IT IS AN OBJECTION, BUT THE QUESTION CALLS FOR A YES OR NO ANSWER.

THE WITNESS: AM I ANSWERING IT?

THE COURT: YOU MAY.

THE WITNESS: YES, SHE DID.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: AND DID YOU DO WHAT SHE ASKED YOU TO DO?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WHEN WAS THE NEXT TIME THAT YOU SAW THE DEFENDANT?

A: IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN LATER ON THAT WEEK.

Q: OKAY.

A: I'M PRETTY SURE IT WAS.

Q: DO YOU RECALL WHERE HE WAS WHEN YOU SAW HIM?

A: AT THE HOUSE.

Q: WERE YOU ALSO AT THE HOUSE?

A: YES, I WAS.

Q: AND HAD YOU GONE TO THE HOUSE FOR A SPECIFIC REASON THAT DAY?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND WHAT WAS THAT REASON?

A: TO TALK TO O.J. ABOUT THE PROFILES, AT NICOLE'S REQUEST.

Q: BY THE WAY, THE SECOND TIME THAT YOU VISITED NICOLE THAT WEEK, DID SHE SHOW YOU ANYTHING?

A: YES, SHE DID.

Q: WHAT DID SHE SHOW YOU?

A: SHE SHOWED ME SOME PICTURES.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE IN MY HAND THREE POLAROID PHOTOGRAPHS. MAY THEY BE MARKED PEOPLE'S 9, 10 AND 11?

THE COURT: YES.

(PEO'S 9 THRU 11 FOR ID = POLAROID PHOTOS OF NBS)

MR. DARDEN: SHOWING THEM TO DEFENSE COUNSEL.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. DARDEN: MAY I CONTINUE WITH OTHER QUESTIONS WHILE WE WAIT FOR DEFENSE COUNSEL?

MR. DOUGLAS: NO, YOUR HONOR. I'M ANALYZING THE PICTURES.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YOU MAY.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: MR. SHIPP, LET ME HAND YOU PEOPLE'S 9 FOR IDENTIFICATION. DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT PHOTOGRAPH?

A: NO, I DON'T.

Q: YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN THAT PHOTOGRAPH BEFORE?

A: NO, I HAVE NOT.

Q: WHO WAS THE PERSON DEPICTED IN THE PHOTOGRAPH, IF YOU KNOW?

MR. DOUGLAS: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: WHO IS THE PERSON IN THE PHOTOGRAPH?

A: NICOLE, NICOLE BROWN.

Q: THAT IS NICOLE BROWN?

A: YEAH, THERE'S NICOLE BROWN.

Q: THAT PICTURE WASN'T SHOWN TO YOU ON -- DURING THAT FIRST WEEK OF JANUARY, 1989?

A: NO, IT WAS NOT.

Q: SHOWING YOU PEOPLE'S 10 FOR IDENTIFICATION, DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT PHOTOGRAPH?

A: NO, I DO NOT.

Q: WAS THAT PHOTOGRAPH SHOWN TO YOU?

A: NO, IT WAS NOT.

Q: SHOWING YOU PEOPLE'S 11, WHO IS DEPICTED IN THAT PHOTOGRAPH?

A: NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON.

Q: WAS THAT PHOTOGRAPH SHOWN TO YOU?

A: NO, IT WAS NOT.

Q: YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN THESE PHOTOGRAPHS BEFORE?

A: NO, THOSE WEREN'T THE ONES THAT SHE SHOWED ME.

Q: THESE ARE NOT THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON SHOWED YOU DURING THE FIRST WEEK OF JANUARY, 1989?

A: NO.

MR. DOUGLAS: ASKED AND ANSWERED, YOUR HONOR, THREE TIMES.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE ANSWER WILL STAND.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: SO THAT THE RECORD IS CLEAR, EACH OF THESE PHOTOGRAPHS DEPICT NICOLE BROWN; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: BUT YOU WERE SHOWN SOME PHOTOGRAPHS?

A: I WAS SHOWN SOME PHOTOGRAPHS.

Q: AND WERE THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS, PHOTOGRAPHS OF NICOLE?

A: YES, THEY WERE.

Q: HOW MANY PHOTOGRAPHS DID SHE SHOW YOU?

A: APPROXIMATELY FOUR, MAYBE FIVE.

Q: WERE THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS POLAROID PHOTOGRAPHS?

A: I REALLY -- I THINK -- I CAN'T REMEMBER. I THINK THEY MAY HAVE BEEN. NO, SHE TOLD ME SHE TOOK THEM OF HERSELF, SO I CAN'T REALLY REMEMBER IF THEY WERE POLAROID OR NOT.

Q: DO THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS DEPICT NICOLE'S FACE?

A: THEY WEREN'T REALLY THAT CLOSE UP. THEY WERE MORE -- IF I REMEMBER, THEY WERE MORE OF HER BODY, THE ONES THAT I SAW.

Q: OKAY. WHAT PARTS OF HER BODY WERE DEPICTED IN THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS?

A: I REMEMBER HER LEFT ARM STANDS OUT AND ALSO HER -- IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, HER LEFT -- LEFT UPPER THIGH.

Q: ANY OTHER PARTS OF HER BODY THAT YOU RECALL?

A: THAT IS ALL I CAN REMEMBER.

Q: AND DID YOU NOTICE ANYTHING UNUSUAL ON HER LEFT ARM AND ON HER UPPER THIGH, THAT IS, AS SHOWN IN THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS?

A: UMM --

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, BEST EVIDENCE RULE. OBJECTION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED ON THAT BASIS.

MR. DOUGLAS: NO FOUNDATION.

THE WITNESS: NO.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

THE WITNESS: THE PHOTOS SHE SHOWED ME WERE FROM THE PAST.

THE COURT: HOLD ON. LET ME SEE COUNSEL AT THE SIDE BAR.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN, HOW DO WE KNOW WHEN THOSE PICTURES WERE TAKEN?

MR. DARDEN: WHICH ONES?

THE COURT: THE ONES WE ARE TALKING ABOUT NOW, THE ONES THAT HE IS DESCRIBING, I DON'T HAVE A FOUNDATION FOR -- WITHOUT HEARSAY, UNLESS HE CAN SAY, YOU KNOW, HE SAW THE INJURY ON THE ARM AND SHE SHOWED HIM THE SAME INJURY, SO YOU KNOW, SO AT LEAST YOU HAVE SOME IDEA WHEN THESE PHOTOGRAPHS WERE TAKEN, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE THE TIME FOUNDATION RIGHT NOW.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S RIGHT, BECAUSE BASICALLY HE CAN'T IDENTIFY THE PHOTOGRAPHS HE IS SHOWING HIM ALREADY, AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE BACK OF THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS, I KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT POLAROID PICTURES BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE NUMBER -- I REMEMBER IT FROM GERONIMO PRATT TWENTY SOME YEARS AGO -- THAT THE NUMBERS ARE SEQUENTIAL AND THEY ALL MEAN SOMETHING AND THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS ARE TAKEN ALL AT DIFFERENT TIMES, THEY ARE NOT FROM THE SAME BATCH, AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM. YOU HAVE A REAL PROBLEM WITH THOSE.

MR. DARDEN: ACTUALLY, COUNSEL HAS IN HIS POSSESSION ANALYSIS OF THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS, SO I'M NOT GOING TO CORRECT HIM AT THIS TIME, BUT IN ANY EVENT, I WILL AGREE WITH YOU.

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

MR. DARDEN: I WILL MOVE ON.

MR. COCHRAN: MOVE TO STRIKE ALL THIS -- STRIKE THIS.

MR. DOUGLAS: STRIKE THIS AND ADMONISH THE JURY.

MR. COCHRAN: I'M TALKING. CAN WE MOVE TO STRIKE THAT ASPECT, YOUR HONOR, BECAUSE IF THEY DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT MISLEADING, BUT QUESTION THESE QUESTIONS. THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING AT THIS POINT. BUT IF HE WANTS TO LINK THEM UP LATER, THAT IS FINE, BUT RIGHT NOW THEY SHOULD BE STRICKEN. WHAT IS FAIR IS FAIR.

MR. DARDEN: WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO ESTABLISH IS THAT THERE WERE ACTUALLY OTHER PHOTOGRAPHS OF -- EXCUSE ME.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. DARDEN: THAT THERE ARE OTHER PHOTOGRAPHS.

THE COURT: I DISREGARD THOSE KIND OF REACTIONS.

MR. DARDEN: OKAY.

MR. COCHRAN: I JUST LOOKED AT THE WALL.

MR. DARDEN: THE PERSON THAT TOOK THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS WILL BE HERE TO TESTIFY. BUT WHAT I'M TRYING TO ESTABLISH IS WHETHER OR NOT THESE ARE THE ONES THAT HE SAW AND NOW HE SAYS THEY AREN'T THE ONES HE SAW SO APPARENTLY THERE ARE OTHERS, BUT TO STRIKE HIS TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS DISREGARD THE TESTIMONY -- THE TESTIMONY AS TO WHAT WAS IN THEM.

MR. DARDEN: WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO?

THE COURT: STRIKE HIS TESTIMONY SO FAR AS HIS DESCRIPTION OF WHAT THEY WERE. THE FACT THAT HE SAW OTHER PHOTOGRAPHS WILL STAND.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT IS FINE. I THINK THAT IS FAIR.

THE COURT: OKAY.

MR. DARDEN: EXCUSE ME, JUDGE.

THE COURT: WHAT?

MR. DARDEN: THAT HE SAW OTHER PHOTOGRAPHS OF HER BODY PARTS, YOU ARE GOING TO STRIKE THAT?

MS. CLARK: NO.

MR. DARDEN: THAT HE SAW PHOTOGRAPHS OF HER BODY?

THE COURT: THAT HE SAW -- THE FACT THAT HE SAW OTHER PHOTOGRAPHS -- WELL, YOU KNOW SOMETHING, LET ME TELL YOU, LET'S CLARIFY THIS. YOU KNOW, NOW THAT I HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT IT SOME MORE, HE SAYS HE SAW LEFT THIGH, LEFT ARM. HE HASN'T DESCRIBED ANY INJURY YET, SO THE FACT THAT THERE ARE PHOTOS OF LEFT ARM, LEFT THIGH --

MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE, HE HAS ALSO SAID THOSE AREN'T THE PHOTOGRAPHS.

MR. DARDEN: HE SAW OTHER PHOTOGRAPHS.

THE COURT: HE HAS DESCRIBED THE PHOTOS THAT HE SAW.

MR. COCHRAN: I WANT THE PART STRICKEN WITH REGARD TO THESE PARTICULAR PHOTOGRAPHS. HE MAY HAVE SEEN SOME PHOTOGRAPHS, BUT THEY ARE NOT HERE AT THIS POINT BECAUSE HE CAN'T IDENTIFY THEM.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO SUSTAIN THE FOUNDATIONAL OBJECTION, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO STRIKE THAT FROM THE RECORD BECAUSE ALL HE HAS DONE IS DESCRIBE WHAT HE WAS SHOWN. THAT IS ALL HE HAS DONE.

MR. DARDEN: PLEASE KEEP IN MIND WE ARE TRYING TO ESTABLISH --

THE COURT: SOMEBODY ELSE TOOK PHOTOS?

MR. DARDEN: -- THERE IS ANOTHER SET OF PHOTOS.

THE COURT: GO BACK. THANK YOU. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: THANK YOU, MADAM REPORTER. MR. DARDEN.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT YOU SAW, SIR, OF NICOLE BROWN'S LEFT ARM AND THIGH, DID YOU NOTE ANY INJURY ON THOSE AREAS OF HER BODY?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WHAT DID YOU SEE?

A: THEY WERE LIKE BRUISES. BRUISES, YOU KNOW, DARKISH KIND OF BLUISH COLOR.

Q: WHY DID SHE SHOW YOU THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS?

MR. DOUGLAS: OBJECTION, SPECULATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DO YOU KNOW WHY SHE SHOWED YOU THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS?

MR. DOUGLAS: OBJECTION, BASED ON HEARSAY.

THE COURT: PROBABLY. SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: YOU WERE HAVING A DISCUSSION, THOUGH, ABOUT THE BATTERER'S PROFILE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: WAS IT DURING THAT DISCUSSION THAT SHE SHOWED YOU THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS?

A: YES, IT WAS.

Q: AND DURING YOUR DISCUSSION OF THE BATTERER'S PROFILE DID YOU AND NICOLE BROWN AGREE ON A SPECIFIC COURSE OF ACTION?

A: UMM, YES, WE DID. THAT IS WHEN --

MR. DOUGLAS: OBJECTION. HE HAS ANSWERED THE QUESTION.

THE COURT: CORRECT. NEXT QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DID YOU INTEND TO PURSUE THE MATTER FURTHER?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WHAT DID YOU TELL NICOLE BROWN YOU WERE GOING TO DO?

A: THAT I WOULD MEET WITH O.J.

Q: FOR WHAT REASON?

A: TO DISCUSS THE BATTERER'S PROFILES.

Q: AND DID YOU MEET WITH THE DEFENDANT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: DID YOU SHOW HIM THE BATTERER'S PROFILE?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND THAT PROFILE DOES LIST CERTAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF A BATTERER; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: NOW, DURING THAT DISCUSSION DID YOU DISCUSS WITH HIM THE EVENTS OF JANUARY 1, 1989?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: RELATE TO US THE CONTENT OF THAT CONVERSATION, PLEASE.

A: UMM, O.J. HAD SAID THAT THEY HAD GONE OUT THAT NIGHT, HE AND NICOLE, MARCUS AND KATHY, AND THEY HAD HAD A PRETTY GOOD TIME, THAT THEY HAD TOO MUCH TO DRINK, THEY WERE PARTYING TOO MUCH, AND WHEN THEY GOT BACK, THEY GOT IN AN ARGUMENT.

Q: DID HE SAY WHAT THE ARGUMENT WAS ABOUT?

A: YEAH. I MEAN, HE SAID THAT THEY HAD BEEN KIND OF INTIMATE AND THEN THAT IN THE MIDDLE OF IT THEY STARTED ARGUING FOR THE MOST PART.

Q: WHAT DO YOU MEAN "THEY WERE KIND OF INTIMATE AND IN THE MIDDLE OF IT THEY STARTED ARGUING"?

A: WELL, THEY WERE --

Q: TELL US WHAT --

A: FROM WHAT HE TOLD ME, THEY WERE MAKING LOVE AND I GUESS NICOLE HAD WANTED TO STOP, FOR WHATEVER REASONS, AND THEY BEGAN TO ARGUE.

Q: DID HE TELL YOU WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

A: I BELIEVE AT THE TIME HE TOLD ME THAT NICOLE WAS THE AGGRESSOR AND CAME AFTER HIM AND THAT HE WAS ACTING IN SELF-DEFENSE.

Q: WHAT DID HE SAY WHAT HE DID TO NICOLE IN SELF-DEFENSE?

A: HE HAD TOLD ME WHAT HE HAD -- AT THE TIME THAT HE HAD -- WAS DEFENDING HIMSELF AND THEN PUSHED HER AWAY AND HE DIDN'T REALLY HIT HER.

Q: HE SAID THAT ALL HE DID WAS PUSH HER AWAY?

A: AT THE TIME.

Q: DID HE SAY WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

A: UMM, I THINK HE SAID, YOU KNOW, SHE GOT HYSTERICAL AND CALLED THE POLICE ON HIM.

Q: DID YOU ASK THE DEFENDANT IF HE BEAT HER UP?

A: NO, I DIDN'T. NOT AT THAT TIME I DIDN'T.

Q: OKAY. CONTINUE ON THEN WITH YOUR CONVERSATION YOU WERE HAVING WITH THE DEFENDANT REGARDING THE BATTERER'S PROFILE.

A: OKAY. WHAT HAPPENED THEN IS WE WERE TALKING, AND AFTER HE EXPLAINED TO ME WHAT HAPPENED, THEN I TOLD HIM WHAT NICOLE SAID HAD HAPPENED, AND I TOLD HIM NICOLE HAD ADVISED ME THAT HE HAD HIT HER AND THAT AFTER LOOKING AT THE PROFILE SHE FELT THAT THEY ALL FIT HIM TO THE "T".

MR. DOUGLAS: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. HOLD ON. THE JURY IS TO DISREGARD ANY COMMENTS BY THE WITNESS AS TO WHAT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON SAID. MR. DARDEN.

MR. DOUGLAS: CAN THE WITNESS BE ADMONISHED, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: NO.

MR. DARDEN: WELL, I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED AS TO WHAT IS IN AND WHAT IS OUT NOW. MAY I HAVE ONE MOMENT?

THE COURT: SURE.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, DID THE COURT EXCLUDE EVERYTHING NICOLE BROWN SAID OR JUST THE END OF THE SECOND HALF OF IT?

THE COURT: JUST THAT PORTION FROM THE PART "I TOLD HIM WHAT NICOLE SAID HAD HAPPENED AND I TOLD HIM WHAT NICOLE HAD ADVISED," THAT IS ALL STRICKEN. ANYTHING THIS WITNESS JUST SAID THAT WAS SAID BY NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON IS STRICKEN AS HEARSAY.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: OKAY. WITHOUT TELLING US WHAT NICOLE TOLD YOU AND WHAT YOU TOLD THE DEFENDANT, WHAT WAS THE DEFENDANT'S REACTION?

A: AT THE TIME, AFTER WE WENT OVER ALL THE PROFILES, HE DENIED THAT ANY OF THOSE WERE HIM EXCEPT FOR MAYBE ONE.

Q: AND WHICH ONE WAS THAT?

A: THE JEALOUS. HE SAID "MAYBE I MIGHT BE A LITTLE JEALOUS" AND THAT WAS IT.

Q: READ TO US EXACTLY WHAT THE PROFILE SAYS ABOUT JEALOUS.

MR. DOUGLAS: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. SAME OBJECTION AS BEFORE.

THE COURT: LET ME SEE THAT.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. DARDEN. AND DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF THIS, COUNSEL?

MR. COCHRAN: NO, WE DON'T HAVE A COPY OF THAT, YOUR HONOR.

MR. DOUGLAS: WE DON'T HAVE A COPY.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, THAT WAS TURNED OVER IN DISCOVERY TO THE DEFENSE.

THE COURT: WELL, THEY DON'T HAVE A COPY HERE.

MR. COCHRAN: WE DON'T HAVE A COPY HERE, YOUR HONOR.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN, I WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE IF YOU ASKED THE WITNESS ONE ADDITIONAL FOUNDATIONAL QUESTION REGARDING WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS ACTUALLY DISCUSSED, THE SECOND ITEM.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU.

Q: MR. SHIPP, SHOWING YOU PAGE 2 OF THE DOCUMENT AND DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION SPECIFICALLY TO LINES 3 AND 4, DID YOU AND THE DEFENDANT DISCUSS SPECIFICALLY THOSE TWO LINES?

A: JUST THE PATHOLOGICALLY JEALOUS.

Q: IS THAT WHAT THE PROFILE SAYS, "PATHOLOGICALLY JEALOUS"?

A: YES, IT DOES.

Q: YOU AND HE DISCUSSED THAT?

A: THAT'S THE ONLY ONE THAT THE DEFENDANT SAID I MIGHT BE A LITTLE. HE JUST SAID MAYBE. HE DIDN'T REALLY SAY I AM JEALOUS. HE SAID "MAYBE A LITTLE BIT THAT ONE."

Q: HE SAID HE MAY BE PATHOLOGICALLY JEALOUS; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: DID HE EXPRESS TO YOU AT ALL THAT HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT NICOLE BROWN'S PHYSICAL WELL-BEING?

A: YES, HE DID.

Q: WHAT DID HE SAY?

A: WELL, YOU KNOW, HE SAID HE LOVED NICOLE AND HE WOULD NEVER DO ANYTHING TO HURT HER, AND IT WAS JUST -- IT WAS JUST AN ISOLATED INCIDENT.

Q: NOW, AT THAT POINT -- I'M SORRY, HE SAID WHAT?

A: HE SAID IT WAS AN ISOLATED INCIDENT.

Q: NOW, HAD YOU READ ANYTHING IN THE NEWSPAPERS UP TO THAT POINT, THAT IS, ABOUT THE JANUARY 1, '89, INCIDENT?

A: IN THE NEWSPAPERS?

Q: YEAH.

A: NO. IT HADN'T BEEN MADE PUBLIC THEN.

Q: AT SOME POINT WAS IT MADE PUBLIC?

A: YEAH. I CAN'T REMEMBER IF IT WAS A WEEK OR TWO WEEKS. IT WASN'T UNTIL LIKE A WEEK AND A HALF LATER AFTERWARDS.

Q: WELL, AFTER IT WAS MADE PUBLIC, DID YOU HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH THE DEFENDANT AGAIN?

A: NO. IT WAS -- IT WAS -- YES, I DID. I'M SORRY, I DID. I DID AFTERWARDS.

Q: AFTER IT BECAME PUBLIC?

A: GIVE ME ONE SECOND AND LET ME THINK ABOUT THIS ONE SECOND. NO, IT WAS BEFORE IT WAS MADE PUBLIC I HAD A DISCUSSION WITH HIM, YEAH.

Q: OKAY. DID THAT DISCUSSION -- WAS IT IN REGARD TO PUBLICITY?

A: YES, IT WAS.

Q: WHAT DID THE DEFENDANT SAY ABOUT THAT?

A: WELL, AT THE TIME HE WAS VERY UPSET BECAUSE HE THOUGHT THAT HE WAS GOING TO LOSE HERTZ AND HIS IMAGE WAS GOING TO BE TARNISHED AND, UMM, HE WAS JUST ASKING ME TO TELL NICOLE, YOU KNOW, HEY, THIS IS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN AGAIN, AND YOU KNOW, THAT HE LOVED HER.

Q: WELL, THE CITY ATTORNEY WAS CONSIDERING FILING CHARGES AT THAT TIME, CORRECT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: DID HE ASK YOU TO SAY ANYTHING TO NICOLE ABOUT FILING CHARGES?

A: YES. HE HAD ASKED ME TO GET A -- TO SEE IF I COULD HAVE HER SIGN OFF -- SIGN OFF THE REPORT, NOT PRESS CHARGES.

Q: HE ASKED YOU TO SEE IF YOU COULD GET HER TO SIGN OFF THE REPORT?

A: YES, HE DID.

Q: AND WHAT DOES SIGNING OFF THE REPORT MEAN?

A: MEANING SAYING THAT IF SHE WERE TO SIGN IT THAT SHE WAS NOT AGREEING THAT HE, YOU KNOW, HAD ACTUALLY BATTERED HER, THAT SHE DIDN'T WANT TO GO THROUGH WITH THE ACTUAL CRIME REPORT AND HAVE IT GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

Q: DID YOU EVER CONTACT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ON THE DEFENDANT'S BEHALF?

A: NEVER.

Q: DID YOU EVER SPEAK TO ANY SUPERVISOR IN THE LAPD ON THE DEFENDANT'S BEHALF?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WHY DID YOU DO THAT?

A: WELL, HERE ONCE AGAIN I WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE, AND I WAS -- WANTED TO TRY AND HELP O.J. OUT, BUT AT THE SAME TIME I FELT THAT I DIDN'T WANT TO DO IT BECAUSE OF WHAT I KNEW AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, THAT TYPE OF RELATIONSHIP, BUT I DID BRING -- I BROUGHT THE PAPER OVER TO HER.

MR. DOUGLAS: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THAT IS NONRESPONSIVE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DID SOMEONE ASK YOU TO BRING THE PAPER TO NICOLE?

A: YEAH, O.J. DID.

Q: WHAT IS THIS PAPER THAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO?

A: WHAT I REMEMBER, IT WAS -- IT WAS A DOCUMENT -- I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT THE ACTUAL WORDING IS. IT WAS SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT THAT, YOU KNOW, I DO NOT WISH TO PRESS CHARGES AT THIS TIME, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I CAN'T REMEMBER.

Q: OKAY. BUT YOU WERE A MEMBER OF THE LAPD AT THAT TIME; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: RIGHT.

Q: SWORN POLICE OFFICER?

A: RIGHT. YES, I WAS.

Q: AND YOU DID TAKE IT TO HER?

A: I TOOK IT TO HER.

Q: DID SHE SIGN IT?

A: NO, SHE DIDN'T.

Q: TO GO BACK TO THE ISSUE OF WHETHER YOU CONTACTED ANY SUPERVISORS ON THE DEFENDANT'S BEHALF, DID YOU CONTACT ANY OF YOUR SUPERVISORS AT THE LAPD?

A: IT WASN'T MY IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR, BUT IT WAS THE SUPERVISOR THAT WAS HANDLING THE CASE.

Q: WHO WOULD THAT BE?

A: LEE KINGSFORD.

Q: AND WAS HE IN THE DETECTIVE SECTION AT WEST L.A. STATION?

A: YES, HE WAS. HE WAS THE DETECTIVE 3.

Q: THAT IS THE SUPERVISING DETECTIVE?

A: YES. YES, IT IS.

Q: OKAY. NOW, DID SOMEONE ASK YOU TO CONTACT THE SUPERVISOR DETECTIVE AT LAPD?

A: I WASN'T SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO CONTACT AN INDIVIDUAL. IT WAS JUST, "HEY, RON, CAN YOU GET THIS TAKEN CARE OF?"

Q: WELL, DID THE DEFENDANT TELL YOU HOW OR WHAT TO DO TO TAKE CARE OF IT?

A: NO, HE DIDN'T.

Q: WELL, WHAT WAS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THAT REQUEST? WHAT DID HE MEAN BY "TAKE CARE OF IT"?

A: IF I COULD --

MR. DOUGLAS: CALL FOR SPECULATION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: IF I COULD TAKE THE -- IF I COULD BRING THE DOCUMENT THAT NICOLE WOULD SIGN, BECAUSE AT THE TIME NICOLE WASN'T SURE WHAT SHE WANTED TO DO.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN: YES. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

Q: DID YOU REMAIN FRIENDS WITH THE DEFENDANT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: DID YOU REMAIN FRIENDS WITH NICOLE?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WERE YOU STILL FRIENDS WITH THE DEFENDANT AND NICOLE ON JUNE 12, 1994?

A: YES, I WAS.

Q: AT SOME POINT YOU LEARNED THAT NICOLE BROWN WAS DEAD; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES, I DID.

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, I'M SORRY, I'M HAVING TROUBLE HEARING BECAUSE OF THE NOISE HERE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I THINK THEY ARE MOVING NEXT DOOR. MADAM REPORTER, WHAT IS YOUR PAPER SUPPLY STATUS?

REPORTER OLSON: I HAVE ABOUT FIFTEEN MINUTES, BUT I WOULD LIKE A BREAK.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A RECESS NOW FOR ONE-HALF HOUR. I DON'T KNOW IF THE BAILIFFS TOLD YOU, BUT WE HAD A MODIFICATION OF OUR SCHEDULE TODAY. SOME OF THE COURT STAFF AND SOME OF THE ATTORNEYS HAVE ASKED TO ATTEND A FUNERAL THIS AFTERNOON. WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A HALF HOUR BREAK TODAY, RIGHT NOW. WHEN WE RESUME WE WILL GO UNTIL TWO O'CLOCK AND THEN WE WILL RECESS FOR THE DAY. ALL RIGHT. PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITION TO YOU. DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONG YOURSELVES, DON'T FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, DON'T ALLOW ANYBODY TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE CASE. AND WE WILL SEE YOU BACK HERE IN -- DEPUTY MAGNERA -- DEPUTY JEX, TWENTY MINUTES AFTER 12:00.

THE BAILIFF: OKAY.

THE COURT: HALF HOUR BREAK UPSTAIRS IN THE LOUNGE. AND YOU CAN STEP DOWN AND YOU ARE ORDERED BACK IN A HALF AN HOUR.

(RECESS.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1995 12:25 P.M.

DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE

APPEARANCES: (APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)

(JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR NO. 4855, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)

(CHRISTINE M. OLSON, CSR NO. 2378, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)

THE COURT: GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNSEL.

MR. DARDEN: BEFORE WE CALL THE JURY IN, PERHAPS THE COURT WOULD LIKE TO ADMONISH THE WITNESS REGARDING ITS EARLIER RULING THIS MORNING -- I EXPLAINED IT THIS MORNING -- JUST TO BE ON THE SAFE SIDE.

THE COURT: I THOUGHT WE COULD TAKE UP MR. JONES FIRST, BUT I PRESUMED YOU DISCUSSED THAT WITH THE WITNESS.

MR. COCHRAN: WE HAVE A HEARING ANYWAY BEFORE WE GET TO THAT POINT, DON'T WE?

MS. CLARK: HE'S GOING TO HEAR THE TESTIMONY IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. JONES, GOOD AFTERNOON. MY APOLOGIES TO YOU. WE HAD A SCHEDULING DIFFERENCE. COUNSEL HAVE ASKED TO HAVE THE REST OF THE AFTERNOON OFF TO ATTEND A FUNERAL. WHAT'S YOUR PLEASURE?

MR. JONES: I RECEIVED THAT MESSAGE. THAT'S FINE. IF WE KEEP THE 4:00 O'CLOCK TIME, THEN ANY DAY IS OKAY. I'M JUST DOWN THE HALL IN TRIAL.

THE COURT: GREAT. OKAY. TOMORROW 4:00 O'CLOCK?

MS. CLARK: THAT'S FINE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. TOMORROW 4:00 O'CLOCK.

MR. JONES: THANK YOU.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I WASN'T CLEAR. JUST AS A MATTER OF CLARIFICATION, THERE WILL STILL BE A HEARING BEFORE ANY STATEMENTS ELICITED REGARDING THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE DREAMS?

THE COURT: I INDICATED I WILL CONDUCT A 402 AND 403 INQUIRY DURING THE COURSE OF TESTIMONY.

MR. COCHRAN: BEFORE WE GET TO THAT. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE.

MR. DOUGLAS: ARE YOU SAYING IN THE JURY'S PRESENCE?

THE COURT: YES.

MR. DOUGLAS: FOR THE RECORD, YOUR HONOR, I WOULD OBJECT AND I WOULD ASK THAT THAT HEARING BE HELD OUTSIDE THE JURY'S PRESENCE PRELIMINARILY BEFORE BECAUSE --

THE COURT: WHAT'S YOUR OFFER?

MR. DOUGLAS: I AM SORRY?

THE COURT: WHAT'S YOUR OFFER BESIDES YOU CLAIM THIS NEVER HAPPENED?

MR. DOUGLAS: I HAVE A CONCERN, YOUR HONOR, AS TO THE RELEVANCE OF THE STATEMENT. I HAVE A CONCERN THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE THE EQUIVALENT OF A KELLY-FRYE HEARING AS TO THE SIGNIFICANCE, IF ANY, TO BE ATTACHED TO DREAMS AND I ALSO HAVE A 352 OBJECTION GENERALLY AS WELL AS MY 403 OBJECTIONS.

THE COURT: WE'VE DEALT WITH THOSE.

MR. DOUGLAS: VERY WELL.

THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE.

MR. DARDEN: SHOULD THE WITNESS TAKE THE STAND?

THE COURT: YES.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. BE SEATED. ALL RIGHT. LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT WE HAVE BEEN REJOINED BY ALL OF THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL, THAT MR. SHIPP IS AGAIN ON THE WITNESS STAND. MR. SHIPP, YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH. MR. DARDEN, YOU MAY RESUME YOUR DIRECT EXAMINATION.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. DARDEN:

Q: GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR.

A: GOOD AFTERNOON.

Q: MR. SHIPP, A LITTLE WHILE AGO, YOU TOLD US THAT YOU SPOKE TO A DETECTIVE IN AN ATTEMPT TO SEE IF YOU COULD TAKE CARE OF THIS SITUATION FOR MR. SIMPSON?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: DURING 1989, DID THE LAPD HAVE A POLICY AS IT RELATED TO THE ARREST OF SPOUSAL ABUSE SUSPECTS?

A: YES, THEY DID. IT WAS 273.5 PC, PENAL CODE.

Q: NOW, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT YOU TAUGHT DURING YOUR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CLASSES AT THE POLICE ACADEMY?

A: YES, IT WAS.

Q: AND WHAT WAS THAT POLICY?

A: THE POLICY WAS -- WHAT THE LAW -- WHAT THE LAW DID WAS, MOST VICTIMS, WHEN THEY'RE IN A BATTERED RELATIONSHIP, HAVE A TENDENCY --

THE COURT: MR. SHIPP, THE QUESTION IS, WHAT WAS THE POLICY, NOT WHY.

THE WITNESS: I'M SORRY. THE POLICY WAS TO MAKE AN ARREST IF THERE'S ANY KIND OF AN INJURY.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: SO ANY TIME THERE'S SOME INDICATION THAT A VICTIM HAS SUFFERED SOME INJURY IN A SPOUSAL ABUSE SITUATION, THE POLICY REQUIRED THE LAPD OFFICER TO ARREST THE SUSPECT?

A: YES, IT DID.

Q: ANY TIME THERE WAS AN INJURY?

A: ANY TIME THERE WAS ANY KIND OF A WILLFUL INJURY BY THE ACTUAL SUSPECT OR BATTERER.

Q: NOW, YOU TOLD US THAT YOU HEARD ON MONDAY, JUNE 13, THAT NICOLE BROWN WAS DEAD; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND WHERE WERE YOU WHEN YOU HEARD THE NEWS?

A: I WAS IN A BANK, THE FIRST INTERSTATE BANK.

Q: AND WHAT DID YOU DO AT THAT POINT?

A: I CALLED THE HOUSE.

Q: WHOSE HOUSE?

A: O.J. SIMPSON'S HOUSE.

Q: DID THE DEFENDANT -- DID HE ANSWER THE PHONE?

A: NO, HE DID NOT.

Q: DID YOU GO TO THE DEFENDANT'S HOME?

A: NOT AT THAT TIME. NOT AT THAT TIME, NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: AT SOME POINT THAT DAY, THAT MONDAY, DID YOU GO TO THE DEFENDANT'S HOME?

A: YEAH. I WENT THERE -- I THINK I WENT THERE LIKE MAYBE AN HOUR OR TWO AFTERWARDS, A COUPLE HOURS IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.

Q: AND WAS THE DEFENDANT AT HIS HOME WHEN YOU ARRIVED?

A: NO, HE WASN'T.

Q: DO YOU RECALL WHAT TIME IT WAS WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT THE DEFENDANT'S HOME?

A: THE FIRST TIME, IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN ROUGHLY AROUND MAYBE 2:00 O'CLOCK, SOMEWHERE AROUND THERE. I'M NOT REALLY SURE. I WENT THERE TWICE THAT DAY.

Q: SO YOU ARRIVED AT 2:00 O'CLOCK MONDAY THE FIRST TIME, RIGHT?

A: RIGHT.

Q: THE DEFENDANT WASN'T THERE?

A: NO, HE WASN'T.

Q: DID YOU GO TO HIS HOUSE A SECOND TIME THAT SAME MONDAY?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WHAT TIME WAS THAT?

A: I THINK IT WAS APPROXIMATELY 5:45 TO 6:00 O'CLOCK.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHERE THE DEFENDANT WAS AT 2:00 O'CLOCK ON THAT MONDAY?

A: I HAD NO IDEA.

Q: WELL, WHEN YOU WENT TO THE HOUSE THE SECOND TIME THAT EVENING, WAS HE THERE?

A: YES, HE WAS.

Q: DID YOU JUST WALK INTO THE HOUSE AS YOU HAD ON PRIOR OCCASIONS?

A: NO. ONCE AGAIN, I PUSHED THE BUZZER.

Q: YOU WERE BUZZED IN?

A: I WAS BUZZED IN.

Q: WHO BUZZED YOU IN?

A: I CAN'T REMEMBER. THERE WAS LIKE MAYBE 10, 15 PEOPLE THERE AT THE TIME.

Q: SO YOU WALKED INTO THE HOUSE AND THERE WERE 10 OR 15 PEOPLE THERE?

A: YEAH, AROUND THAT, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE HOUSE.

Q: WHO WAS THERE?

A: WHAT I REMEMBER AT THE TIME, I REMEMBER THERE WAS -- IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, I THINK CATHY RANDA WAS THERE.

Q: AND WHO WAS CATHY RANDA?

A: O.J.'S ASSISTANT.

Q: WHO ELSE?

A: I REMEMBER THERE WAS JASON IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, THERE WAS ARNELLE.

Q: IS THAT JASON AND ARNELLE SIMPSON?

A: YEAH.

Q: THE DEFENDANT'S TWO ADULT CHILDREN?

A: YEAH. I MEAN I WAS THERE OVER A WEEK'S PERIOD. SO I MEAN THIS IS WHAT I'M THINKING ON THAT NIGHT. THERE WAS ALSO --

THE COURT: EXCUSE ME. LET ME SEE COUNSEL WITHOUT THE REPORTER.

(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)

THE COURT: COUNSEL, LET'S RESUME, PLEASE.

MR. DARDEN: CAN WE APPROACH AGAIN?

THE COURT: FOR WHAT PURPOSE, MR. DARDEN? I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY AT THIS POINT. WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF A QUESTION.

MR. DARDEN: THERE'S STILL A WITNESS PRESENT.

(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)

THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. DARDEN, YOU MAY RESUME.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: WHEN WE LEFT OFF, MR. SHIPP, YOU TOLD US CATHY RANDA AND JASON AND ARNELLE SIMPSON WERE PRESENT IN THE HOUSE THAT EVENING; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: WHAT I REMEMBER, YEAH, I THINK THEY --

Q: OKAY. WHO ELSE WAS PRESENT?

A: O.J.'S SISTERS WERE BOTH THERE AND BROTHERS-IN-LAW, HIS MOM AND I THINK THERE WAS GRAND KIDS THERE, UMM, I THINK A COUPLE OF O.J.'S FRIENDS, I THINK JOE STELLINI WAS THERE, NELL SLOAN. I'M NOT SURE IF BOB KARDASHIAN WAS THERE. I'M NOT SURE IF HE WAS THERE. I THINK HE WAS. I'M NOT REAL SURE.

Q: ROBERT KARDASHIAN SEATED HERE?

A: YES. ROBERT KARDASH (SIC). AND I THINK THERE WAS ONE GUY THERE, I'M NOT SURE IF IT WAS ONE OF O.J.'S GOLFING BUDDIES OR WHATEVER THAT I REMEMBER.

Q: DO YOU RECALL THAT PERSON'S NAME?

A: I CAN'T REMEMBER HIS NAME.

Q: WHAT ARE THE NAMES OF MR. SIMPSON'S TWO SISTERS?

A: CARMELITA AND -- I AM SORRY. I'M DRAWING A BLANK AGAIN. I CAN'T THINK OF HIS OTHER SISTER'S NAME RIGHT NOW.

Q: AND THE TWO BROTHERS-IN-LAW, WHAT ARE THEIR NAMES IF YOU KNOW?

A: I CAN'T REMEMBER.

Q: AND YOU SAID THAT SOMEONE'S GRANDCHILDREN WERE THERE?

A: EXCUSE ME. IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN O.J.'S NIECES. I'M SORRY. NIECES WERE THERE.

Q: DO YOU RECALL THEIR NAMES?

A: NO, I CAN'T REMEMBER.

Q: RECALL THEIR AGES, APPROXIMATE?

A: EARLY 20'S MAYBE? EARLY 20'S?

Q: HOW MANY OF THEM WERE THERE? HOW MANY NIECES?

A: TWO.

Q: NOW, DID YOU TESTIFY A WHILE AGO THAT YOU ARRIVED THE SECOND TIME AT 6:00 O'CLOCK?

A: YES, I DID. BETWEEN 5:45 AND 6:00.

Q: AND WHAT TIME DID YOU LEAVE?

A: AT ABOUT 11:00.

Q: NOW, WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT THE HOUSE AROUND 6:00 O'CLOCK P.M., DID YOU GO TO A PARTICULAR ROOM OR PART OF THE HOUSE?

A: YEAH. I GUESS YOU WOULD CALL IT HIS T.V. ROOM.

Q: WERE THERE OTHER PERSONS OR PEOPLE IN THE T.V. ROOM?

A: YEAH. THERE WAS MYSELF, LIKE I SAID, JOE STELLINI, NELL SLOAN AND I THINK ROBERT KARDASH. I'M NOT SURE. I CAN'T REMEMBER.

Q: AND WAS THE TELEVISION ON AT THAT TIME?

A: YEAH. I THINK THERE WAS EITHER THREE OR FOUR OF THEM ON.

Q: OKAY. AND DID YOU NOTICE ANYTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT THE DEFENDANT'S HAND AT THAT TIME?

A: YES. I NOTICED THAT HE HAD ONE OF HIS -- ON HIS LEFT HAND, I THINK ONE OF HIS FINGERS WAS BANDAGED, WHITE BANDAGE ON IT.

Q: AND DID YOU POSE ANY QUESTIONS TO HIM AT THAT TIME?

A: YES. I ASKED HIM HOW HE CUT HIS HAND, HOW HE CUT HIS FINGER.

Q: AND WHAT DID HE SAY?

A: HE SAID HE DID IT IN CHICAGO.

MR. DARDEN: MAY I HAVE ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: YOU SAID HE SAID HE CUT HIS HAND IN CHICAGO?

A: YES, HE DID.

Q: NOW, AT SOME POINT, DID THE DEFENDANT PREPARE TO GO UPSTAIRS TO GO TO BED?

A: YEAH, AFTER A FEW HOURS.

Q: AND WHAT DID YOU PREPARE TO DO AT THAT TIME?

A: GO HOME.

Q: IF YOU KNOW, WHERE IS THE DEFENDANT'S BEDROOM LOCATED? WHERE IN THE HOUSE?

A: UPSTAIRS LOCATED ON THE EAST -- FAR EAST SECTION OF THE HOUSE.

Q: HAVE YOU EVER BEEN IN THE DEFENDANT'S BEDROOM?

A: I THINK MAYBE ONCE OR TWICE PRIOR TO THAT NIGHT.

Q: NOW, AS YOU PREPARED TO LEAVE THE DEFENDANT'S HOME, DID YOU WALK TOWARDS THE FRONT DOOR?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND WHERE WAS THE DEFENDANT AT THAT TIME?

A: WALKING TOWARDS THE STAIRS.

Q: THE STAIRS LEADING UPSTAIRS TO HIS BEDROOM?

A: UP TO HIS BEDROOM.

Q: AND DID HE SAY ANYTHING TO YOU AT THAT TIME?

A: YEAH. HE SAID, "RON, COME UPSTAIRS FOR A MINUTE."

Q: AND DID YOU GO UPSTAIRS?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: DID YOU GO UPSTAIRS WITH THE DEFENDANT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: DID YOU AND THE DEFENDANT GO TO A PARTICULAR ROOM?

A: TO HIS BEDROOM, YES.

Q: AND WHAT WAS THE FIRST THING THAT YOU DID WHEN YOU ENTERED THE DEFENDANT'S BEDROOM?

A: THE FIRST THING I DID AT HIS REQUEST WAS TO OPEN THE CABINETS WHERE HIS T.V. WAS.

Q: AND WHAT WAS THE DEFENDANT DOING WHILE YOU WERE DOING THAT?

A: STARTING TO GET UNDRESSED.

Q: NOW, WHAT WAS HE WEARING INITIALLY?

A: I THINK HE WAS WEARING A WHITE SHIRT AND I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT COLOR THE PANTS WERE.

Q: WAS HE WEARING PANTS?

A: YEAH, HE HAD PANTS ON.

Q: DID YOU WATCH THE DEFENDANT AS HE UNDRESSED AND PREPARED TO GET READY FOR BED?

A: I MEAN I DIDN'T JUST STARE AT HIM. BUT I JUST -- I MEAN I WAS LOOKING AT T.V. AND WE WERE TALKING, YOU KNOW.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DID HE TAKE HIS CLOTHES OFF, HIS PANTS AND SHIRT OFF?

A: YES, HE DID.

Q: AND WHAT DID HE DO WITH THEM AFTER HE TOOK THEM OFF?

A: HE FOLDED THEM AND I CAN'T REMEMBER -- I CAN'T REMEMBER IF HE HUNG THEM UP OR IF HE JUST LAID THEM DOWN, BUT I REMEMBER HE WAS VERY METICULOUS AS TO HOW HE WAS TAKING OFF HIS CLOTHES AND BEING VERY NEAT.

Q: AND HE'S ALWAYS BEEN THAT WAY, HASN'T HE, I MEAN NEAT WITH HIS CLOTHES?

A: YEAH. YES, HE HAS.

Q: SO WHAT HAPPENED NEXT? WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THE DEFENDANT NEATLY FOLDED HIS CLOTHES?

A: HE BEGAN TO ASK ME A COUPLE QUESTIONS.

Q: WHAT WAS THE FIRST --

A: NO. EXCUSE ME. I TAKE THAT BACK. THE FIRST THING HE SAID, HE TOLD ME WHAT THE POLICE HAD DONE WHEN THEY CAME OUT TO HIS HOUSE.

Q: AND WHAT DID HE TELL YOU THE POLICE HAD DONE WHEN THEY CAME OUT TO HIS HOUSE?

A: HE SAID THAT THEY HAD GONE THROUGH EVERYTHING AND THAT THEY TOLD HIM THAT THEY HAD FOUND A BLOODY GLOVE, THEY TOLD HIM SOMETHING ABOUT A WATCH CAP, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, AND THAT THEY HAD -- WHAT WAS IT? THAT'S ALL I CAN REMEMBER AT THIS TIME.

Q: AND DID HE ASK YOU ANY QUESTIONS?

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, MAY WE APPROACH?

THE COURT: YES, WITH THE REPORTER.

MR. DOUGLAS: WITH THE REPORTER.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: WE ARE OVER AT SIDEBAR.

MR. COCHRAN: I WANTED TO APPROACH THE BENCH SO I COULD UNDERSTAND THE GROUND RULES. WE WERE TOLD -- AND I GUESS I MUST HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD YOU THIS MORNING. I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO HAVE A HEARING DURING THE TRIAL OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY. NOW WE'RE HAVING A HEARING IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY. I'M NOT TOTALLY CLEAR HOW WE'RE DOING THIS. WE WOULD LIKE TO TAKE HIM ON VOIR DIRE. WHAT WE ARE DOING IS, ARE WE GOING TO LET HIM GO THROUGH IT?

THE COURT: DO YOU WANT TO TAKE HIM ON VOIR DIRE AT THIS POINT?

MR. COCHRAN: I'M NOT CLEAR ABOUT ACTUALLY WHERE WE ARE AT THIS POINT. I WILL NOT EXAMINE. MR. DOUGLAS WILL WANT TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS ON VOIR DIRE, A FEW QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT BEFORE WE GET INTO THE OTHER SUBJECT MATTER. THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO STATE FOR THE RECORD, HAS HE BEEN ADMONISHED? BECAUSE I UNDERSTOOD CHRIS TO SAY HE WANTED YOU TO ADMONISH HIM. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT AT THIS POINT?

THE COURT: NO. I ASSUME HE'S BEEN PREPARED BY MR. DARDEN.

MR. COCHRAN: CAN WE GET A REPRESENTATION THAT HE'S BEEN PREPARED ABOUT THIS WHOLE POLYGRAPH THING OR WHATEVER?

MR. DARDEN: YOU KNOW, I TRIED TO GET YOU GUYS TO ADMONISH THE GUY TO MAKE SURE IT WAS CLEARLY DONE. YOU KNOW --

MR. COCHRAN: WE DIDN'T WANT TO DO IT. I'M JUST ASKING YOU.

MR. DARDEN: YEAH, I TOLD HIM, BUT I THINK YOU PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE DONE IT ON THE RECORD.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN, THIS IS YOUR WITNESS. IT'S YOUR PRESENTATION --

MR. DARDEN: I'M NOT CRITICIZING YOU, JUDGE. YOU'RE MY BUD.

MR. COCHRAN: WAIT A MINUTE. I RESENT THAT.

MR. DARDEN: I'M TRYING TO COVER MYSELF.

MR. COCHRAN: IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF HIM BEING YOUR BUD. I MOVE TO STRIKE THAT.

MR. DARDEN: THE OTHER ISSUE IS, THIS IS NOT THE TIME FOR THEM TO TAKE MY WITNESS ON VOIR DIRE. THAT'S WHAT CROSS-EXAMINATION IS FOR.

THE COURT: NO. YOU CAN TAKE HIM ON VOIR DIRE AS TO FOUNDATIONAL MATTERS.

MS. CLARK: WHAT FOUNDATIONAL MATTERS?

MR. DARDEN: YEAH. WHAT COULD YOU --

MR. COCHRAN: WHY DO THEY CONTINUALLY BREAK THE RULE? WHY DO WE HAVE TO HEAR ALL THIS STUFF? YOU RULE, YOU RULE.

MS. CLARK: THAT'S RIGHT. YOU ARE UP HERE ARGUING FOR THE THIRD TIME OVER THE RULING HE'S ALREADY MADE CLEAR.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S NOT --

THE COURT: NO. I INDICATED THAT WE WOULD DO THE HEARING DURING THE COURSE OF THE PRESENTATION OF THIS WITNESS DURING HIS TESTIMONY. NOW THEY WANT TO TAKE HIM ON VOIR DIRE AS TO SOME FOUNDATIONAL MATTERS. THAT GOES TO HIS ABILITY AND COMPETENCY TO TESTIFY. THAT'S WHAT THE VOIR DIRE PROCESS IS FOR.

MS. CLARK: RIGHT. BUT LET'S HAVE AN OFFER. WHAT FOUNDATIONAL OFFER COULD YOU POSSIBLY HAVE? COULD THE WITNESS HEAR? COULD THE WITNESS SEE? COULD THE WITNESS SPEAK? I THINK WE'VE ESTABLISHED HE DID ALL THE ABOVE.

THE COURT: THEY'RE ENTITLED TO TAKE THE WITNESS ON VOIR DIRE.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY WE RETURN?

MR. DARDEN: CAN WE SET THE GROUND RULES?

THE COURT: THE GROUND RULES ARE, THEY GET TO ASK FOUNDATIONAL QUESTIONS.

MS. CLARK: BUT THERE HAS TO BE A FOUNDATIONAL ISSUE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: WHEN WE LEFT OFF, MR. SHIPP -- I AM SORRY.

MR. DOUGLAS: MAY I VOIR DIRE NOW?

THE COURT: DO YOU WISH TO VOIR DIRE THE WITNESS AT THIS TIME?

MR. DOUGLAS: I DO.

MR. DARDEN: WE ARE NOT AT THAT POINT YET, YOUR HONOR. I HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OF THE WITNESS.

THE COURT: THE OBJECTION IS OVERRULED. BRIEFLY, MR. DOUGLAS.

MR. DARDEN: WE'RE NOT AT THAT POINT YET, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THAT'S FOR ME TO DETERMINE, MR. DARDEN. MR. DOUGLAS.

MR. DOUGLAS: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION BY MR. DOUGLAS:

Q: MR. SHIPP, YOU SAID YOU ARRIVED AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION THE SECOND TIME SOMETIME AROUND 5:45 OR 6:00, CORRECT?

A: ROUGHLY AROUND THERE.

Q: AND DID YOU SAY THAT IT WAS SOMETIME AROUND 11:00 O'CLOCK OR SO THAT YOU MET WITH MR. SIMPSON IN HIS BEDROOM?

A: IF I AM NOT MISTAKEN, I THINK IT WAS SOMEWHERE AROUND THAT TIME.

Q: DO YOU RECALL, SIR, THAT IN FACT YOU LEFT MR. SIMPSON'S HOME SOMETIME AROUND MIDNIGHT THAT DAY?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. THAT ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: YEAH. CORRECT. BAD QUESTION.

MR. DARDEN: IS THE QUESTION STRICKEN, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: NO, THE QUESTION IS NOT STRICKEN. MR. DOUGLAS.

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: DO YOU RECALL, SIR, THAT YOU LEFT THE ROCKINGHAM HOME ESCORTING CATHY RANDA TO HER CAR?

MR. DARDEN: SAME OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS, OKAY, AS FAR AS --

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: THE QUESTION, SIR, IS, DO YOU RECALL ESCORTING CATHA RANDA TO HER CAR?

THE COURT: HOLD ON. WAIT A MINUTE, COUNSEL. MR. DARDEN, PLEASE.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, HE'S INTERRUPTING THE WITNESS IN THE MIDDLE OF HIS ANSWER.

THE COURT: IF YOU WOULDN'T INTERRUPT ME, MAYBE I COULD HEAR WHAT IS GOING ON.

MR. DARDEN: I CAN'T HEAR WHAT'S GOING ON EITHER, JUDGE.

THE COURT: MR. DOUGLAS. THIS IS BEYOND THE BOUNDS OF REGULAR VOIR DIRE AS FAR AS FOUNDATION IS CONCERNED. I DON'T HEAR FOUNDATIONAL QUESTIONS HERE.

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: WHEN YOU WENT UP TO MR. SIMPSON'S ROOM, ISN'T IT TRUE THAT SHIRLEY BAKER, HIS SISTER, WAS THERE?

A: IN THE ROOM?

Q: CORRECT.

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION.

THE WITNESS: NO, IT'S NOT TRUE.

MR. DARDEN: THIS IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE LINE OF QUESTIONING UNDER 403, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU A COUPLE MORE QUESTIONS, MR. DOUGLAS, BUT WE'RE IN CROSS-EXAMINATION, WE'RE NOT IN VOIR DIRE AT THIS POINT.

MR. DOUGLAS: YES, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: WHEN YOU HAD THE CONVERSATION WITH MR. SIMPSON, YOU AND HE WERE ALONE?

A: YES, WE WERE.

Q: WHEN YOU HAD THE CONVERSATION WITH MR. SIMPSON, WASN'T HE ALREADY IN BED?

A: NO, HE WAS NOT.

Q: WHEN YOU HAD THE CONVERSATION WITH MR. SIMPSON, WASN'T HIS SISTER THERE IN THE ROOM?

A: NO, SHE WAS NOT.

Q: IT'S YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOU AND MR. SIMPSON WERE PRESENT ALONE TOGETHER, CORRECT?

A: BY OURSELVES.

MR. DOUGLAS: ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. DOUGLAS: I WILL RESERVE MY QUESTIONS FOR LATER. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THE COURT: THANK YOU. MR. DARDEN.

DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. DARDEN:

Q: WHEN WE LEFT OFF, MR. SHIPP, I BELIEVE YOU TOLD US THAT THE DEFENDANT TOLD YOU THAT THE POLICE TOLD HIM THAT THEY FOUND A BLOODY GLOVE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND THEY ALSO SAID THEY FOUND A WATCH CAP OR SOMETHING SOMEWHERE?

A: THEY SAID THEY FOUND A WATCH CAP ON THE PROPERTY.

Q: DID YOU AND THE DEFENDANT DISCUSS THINGS UNRELATED TO NICOLE BROWN'S DEATH?

A: UNRELATED TO HER DEATH?

Q: UNRELATED.

A: NOT AT THIS TIME.

Q: DID YOU KNOW THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD GONE DOWN TO THE LAPD HEADQUARTERS THAT DAY?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND DID YOU AND THE DEFENDANT DISCUSS WHAT OCCURRED THERE?

A: NOT AT ALL.

Q: WELL, DID HE ASK YOU ANY QUESTIONS, ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION?

A: AFTER HE TOLD ME ABOUT WHAT THEY FOUND AT HIS HOUSE, HE ASKED ME HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE DNA TO COME BACK.

Q: AND AT THAT TIME, DID YOU KNOW THE CORRECT ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION?

A: I DID NOT KNOW THE CORRECT ANSWER, BUT WHAT I DID SAY, I JUST OFF THE CUFF SAY TWO MONTHS.

Q: AND WHAT DID HE SAY IN RESPONSE TO YOUR INDICATION THAT IT TAKES DNA TWO MONTHS TO COME BACK?

A: HE KIND OF JOKINGLY JUST SAID, YOU KNOW, "TO BE HONEST, SHIPP --" THAT'S WHAT HE CALLED ME, SHIPP. HE SAID, "I'VE HAD SOME DREAMS OF KILLING HER."

Q: DID HE SAY HOW MANY DREAMS HE HAD HAD OF KILLING HER?

A: NO, HE DID NOT.

Q: DID HE SAY IT WAS MORE THAN ONE?

A: HE JUST SAID DREAMS, PLURAL.

Q: YOU WERE INTERVIEWED BY THE LAPD BACK IN JUNE OR JULY OF 1994; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND DID YOU REVEAL TO THE LAPD AT THAT TIME THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD TOLD YOU THAT HE HAD HAD DREAMS ABOUT KILLING NICOLE BROWN?

A: NO, I DID NOT. NO, I DID NOT.

Q: DID THE DETECTIVES ASK YOU ABOUT YOUR CONVERSATION WITH THE DEFENDANT, IF ANY, ON JUNE 13?

A: THEY ASKED IF I HAD ONE, BUT AT THE TIME, I DID NOT. NO, I DID NOT TELL THEM.

Q: YOU DID NOT TELL THEM?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: WELL, YOU'RE AN EX-POLICE OFFICER, RIGHT?

A: YES, I AM.

Q: YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT THEY WERE CONDUCTING A HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION, CORRECT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WELL, WHAT WAS YOUR REACTION WHEN YOU HEARD THE DEFENDANT SAY THAT HE HAD HAD DREAMS ABOUT KILLING NICOLE BROWN?

MR. DOUGLAS: IRRELEVANT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. DARDEN: IT GOES TO EXPLAIN HIS SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: YOU CAN ASK HIM WHAT HE DID AFTER HE HEARD IT.

MR. DARDEN: OKAY.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: WELL, AFTER THE DEFENDANT TOLD YOU THAT HE HAD HAD DREAMS OF KILLING NICOLE BROWN, DID YOU TELL ANYONE ELSE IMMEDIATELY?

A: THAT NIGHT, I WENT BACK AND TOLD MY WIFE.

Q: WERE THERE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT IN THE HOUSE AT THAT TIME, THAT IS THE TIME IN WHICH YOU HEARD THE DEFENDANT SAY THAT HE HAD HAD DREAMS?

A: OTHER PEOPLE PRESENT?

Q: YEAH.

A: YES, THERE WERE.

Q: THERE WERE OTHER PEOPLE IN THE HOUSE DOWNSTAIRS?

A: DOWNSTAIRS, RIGHT, CORRECT.

Q: DID YOU GO DOWNSTAIRS AND TELL THOSE PEOPLE?

A: NO. NO, I DID NOT.

Q: AND YOU DIDN'T TELL THE POLICE DETECTIVES WHEN THEY QUESTIONED YOU?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: WHY DIDN'T YOU TELL THE POLICE DETECTIVES ABOUT THE DEFENDANT'S STATEMENT THAT HE HAD HAD DREAMS OF KILLING NICOLE BROWN?

A: AT THE TIME, WHEN DETECTIVE VANNATTER APPROACHED ME WITH THE SITUATION -- YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND, I WAS IN A STATE OF SHOCK FOR -- UP UNTIL THAT TIME, AND I WANTED NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY OF THIS AT THE TIME. I JUST -- I WAS JUST STILL THINKING IT WAS A DREAM LIKE MOST OF AMERICA.

Q: WELL, DID YOU THINK THAT YOU COULD SOMEHOW HURT THE DEFENDANT OR HARM HIM BY DISCLOSING THAT INFORMATION?

A: PARDON ME?

Q: DID YOU THINK --

A: YES, YES, YES, I DID. I THOUGHT IT WAS VERY -- IT WAS HARMFUL.

Q: WELL, WHY DIDN'T YOU JUST TELL THE DETECTIVES?

A: I DIDN'T WANT TO TELL THE DETECTIVES AT THE TIME. I DIDN'T EVEN WANT TO TALK TO THEM. I WANTED NOTHING TO DO -- I JUST WANTED EVERYTHING TO GO AWAY. I WANTED NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. I HAD BEEN A CIVILIAN I THINK AT THE TIME ALMOST FIVE YEARS, LIVING A NORMAL LIFE.

Q: DID THE FACT OF YOUR FRIENDSHIP WITH THE DEFENDANT ENTER INTO YOUR DECISION NOT TO TELL THE DETECTIVES?

A: YES, IT DID.

Q: HOW?

A: LIKE I SAID EARLIER, I MEAN I LOVED THIS MAN FOR 26 YEARS, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN, YOU KNOW, MY THOUGHT PROCESS -- I JUST -- LIKE I SAID, I WANTED NOTHING TO DO WITH IT AT ALL.

Q: ARE YOU ACQUAINTED WITH SOMEONE NAMED SHEILA WELLER?

A: YES, I AM.

Q: AND WHO IS SHEILA WELLER?

A: SHEILA WELLER IS AN AUTHOR OF THE BOOK RAGING HEART.

Q: SHE IS THE AUTHOR OF A BOOK CALLED RAGING HEART?

A: RIGHT.

Q: HAVE YOU READ THAT BOOK?

A: MOST OF IT. NOT ALL OF IT.

Q: WERE YOU INTERVIEWED BY SHEILA WELLER?

A: YES, I WAS.

Q: AND WERE YOU INTERVIEWED BY HER FOR THAT BOOK?

A: YES, I WAS.

Q: AND WHEN WERE YOU FIRST INTERVIEWED BY SHEILA WELLER?

A: I THINK IT WAS IN JULY.

Q: JULY OF 1994?

A: CORRECT.

Q: HOW MANY TIMES WERE YOU INTERVIEWED BY HER?

A: MAYBE SIX, SEVEN TIMES. MAYBE A LITTLE MORE. I CAN'T REMEMBER.

Q: DID YOU TELL HER ABOUT THE DEFENDANT'S STATEMENT, THE STATEMENT THAT HE HAD HAD DREAMS OF KILLING NICOLE BROWN?

A: NOT THE FIRST TIME WHEN I TALKED TO HER.

Q: DID SHE ASK YOU ABOUT YOUR CONVERSATIONS WITH THE DEFENDANT ON JUNE 13?

A: SHE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT THEN.

Q: NOW, YOU SAY THAT YOU HAVE READ THIS BOOK RAGING HEART OR RATHER MOST OF IT?

A: YES, I HAVE.

Q: AND THERE IS A SCENARIO IN THE BOOK THAT DESCRIBES SOMEONE WHO IN THE BOOK IS CALLED OR NAMED LEO; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, IT IS.

Q: HAVE YOU READ THAT PASSAGE?

A: YES, I HAVE.

Q: ARE YOU THE LEO?

A: YES, I AM.

Q: ARE YOU LEO, THE LEO THAT'S DESCRIBED IN THAT BOOK?

A: YEP. THAT'S ME.

Q: IS THE BEDROOM CONVERSATION YOU JUST DESCRIBED TO US TODAY DESCRIBED IN THE BOOK?

A: YES, IT IS.

Q: SO YOU TOLD WELLER ABOUT THE BEDROOM CONVERSATION?

A: YEAH. LATER ON I DID.

Q: WHEN, IF YOU RECALL?

A: MAYBE -- I THINK IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN WITHIN A MONTH AFTERWARDS.

Q: A MONTH AFTER THE KILLING?

A: AFTER THE FIRST TIME THAT I HAD TALKED TO HER.

Q: SO WHAT TIME WOULD THAT BE?

A: I GUESS AUGUST.

Q: OKAY. WELL, HAD YOU TOLD THE LAPD ABOUT THE DEFENDANT'S STATEMENT REGARDING THESE DREAMS?

A: NO.

Q: SO YOU TOLD WELLER BEFORE YOU TOLD THE LAPD?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: YOU TOLD WELLER BEFORE YOU TOLD MARCIA CLARK OR MYSELF?

A: I SURE DID.

Q: WHY DID YOU TELL WELLER ABOUT THE DREAMS BEFORE YOU TOLD US?

A: EVER SINCE I HEARD THAT CONVERSATION, IT WAS JUST EATING ME UP AND I KNEW I DIDN'T WANT TO TELL YOU GUYS BECAUSE I DIDN'T NEVER WANT TO BE IN THIS POSITION WHERE I'M TALKING ABOUT THIS, AND I JUST HAD TO GET IT OUT AND THAT'S WHY I TOLD HER. ORIGINALLY, THIS WHOLE THING -- I WAS GOING TO BE ANONYMOUS.

Q: YOU TOLD SHEILA WELLER ABOUT THE CONVERSATION AND ASKED THAT YOU REMAIN ANONYMOUS?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: SO YOUR NAME ISN'T LEO. YOUR REAL NAME ISN'T LEO?

A: NO, IT IS NOT.

Q: AND PEOPLE REFER TO YOU AS RON; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES, THEY DO.

Q: DID WELLER AGREE TO KEEP YOU ANONYMOUS IN THE BOOK?

A: YES, SHE DID.

Q: DID SHE OFFER YOU MONEY IN EXCHANGE FOR YOUR TELLING HER THIS INFORMATION?

A: NOT AT ALL. THE ONLY REASON I AGREED TO DO THE BOOK, I GOT A CALL FROM ROLF BAUER, NICOLE'S BROTHER. I MEAN HE'S HER COUSIN. AND ORIGINALLY, HE -- I DIDN'T WANT TO DO IT AT THAT TIME. HE ASKED ME TO INTERVIEW WITH HER.

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION, IF HE IS GOING TO GO INTO WHATEVER MR. BAUER MAY HAVE SAID.

THE COURT: CORRECT. NEXT QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: SO YOU WERE NEVER OFFERED MONEY IN EXCHANGE FOR --

A: NEVER. MONEY WAS GOING TO SIDNEY AND JUSTIN. THAT'S ALL I WAS TOLD, THAT THEY WOULD DONATE A NICE SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT TO SIDNEY AND JUSTIN.

Q: OKAY. SO IF I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY THEN, MONEY FROM THE SALE OF THE BOOK WAS GOING TO GO TO THE DEFENDANT'S CHILDREN?

A: RIGHT. CORRECT.

Q: NONE WAS TO GO TO YOU?

A: NOT A DIME.

Q: OR ANY OTHER PERSON?

A: NO ONE IN MY -- NO ONE. I MEAN THERE WAS NO MENTION OF MONEY FOR ME AT ALL.

Q: HAVE YOU EVER ACCEPTED ANY MONEY IN EXCHANGE FOR YOUR TESTIMONY OR IN EXCHANGE FOR YOUR ACCOUNTING OF THE INFORMATION YOU'VE GIVEN TO US?

A: NEVER.

Q: NEVER ACCEPTED ANY --

A: NONE.

Q: HAVE YOU GIVEN ANY TELEVISION INTERVIEWS?

A: NONE.

Q: HAVE YOU SPOKEN TO THE TABLOIDS AT ALL?

A: NO, I HAVE NOT.

Q: NOW, AT SOME POINT, YOU DID TELL DETECTIVE VANNATTER AND DETECTIVE LANGE AND MYSELF ABOUT THIS CONVERSATION; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YEAH, JUST RECENTLY.

Q: AND THAT WAS JANUARY 21; WASN'T IT? IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: DID ANYONE FORCE YOU TO DISCLOSE THIS INFORMATION TO SHEILA WELLER?

A: NO. NOT AT ALL.

Q: OR TO US?

A: NO.

Q: YOU KNEW THE BOOK WOULD BE PUBLISHED AT SOME POINT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YEAH, I DID.

Q: AND WERE YOU TOLD THAT THE CONVERSATION YOU HAD WITH THE DEFENDANT WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE BOOK?

A: YES, I WAS.

Q: WERE YOU CONCERNED AT ALL THAT OTHERS MIGHT READ THAT SCENARIO AND TRY TO IDENTIFY THE PERSON WHO WAS DESCRIBED AS LEO IN THE BOOK?

A: YES, I WAS.

Q: WERE YOU CONCERNED THAT SOMEONE ELSE MIGHT READ THE SCENARIO IN THE BOOK AND REALIZE WHO LEO REALLY WAS?

A: YES.

Q: WHO?

A: YOU GUYS.

Q: WERE YOU CONCERNED AT ALL THAT THE DEFENDANT MIGHT READ THE BOOK?

A: I WOULD THINK THAT HE WOULD BE TOLD ABOUT IT IF HE DID NOT READ IT.

MR. DARDEN: MAY I HAVE ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: MR. SHIPP, DO YOU STILL CONSIDER YOURSELF A FRIEND OF THIS DEFENDANT?

MR. DOUGLAS: IRRELEVANT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: I DO. I DON'T KNOW HOW HE FEELS.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU, SIR. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: MR. DOUGLAS.

MR. DOUGLAS: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DOUGLAS:

Q: MR. SHIPP, WHAT DID YOU REVIEW IN PREPARATION FOR YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY, SIR?

A: THE ONLY THING I EVER LOOKED OVER WAS THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROFILES.

Q: NOW, IT IS TRUE, IS IT NOT, THAT YOU HAVE GIVEN A FEW STATEMENTS ABOUT INFORMATION THAT YOU HAVE CONCERNING THIS CASE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, I HAVE.

Q: YOU WERE INTERVIEWED IN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN JULY, TRUE?

A: IF THAT'S WHEN IT WAS, OKAY.

Q: AND THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN JULY 28TH, 1994. SOUND ABOUT RIGHT?

A: I GUESS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DATE WAS.

Q: YOU DO REMEMBER GIVING THAT INTERVIEW IN JULY?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: WAS THAT INTERVIEW BEFORE OR AFTER YOUR FIRST INTERVIEW WITH MISS WELLER?

A: THAT INTERVIEW, I THINK IT MAY HAVE BEEN AFTERWARDS.

Q: YOU THINK THAT THE FIRST INTERVIEW WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS AFTER THE INTERVIEW WITH THE AUTHOR, CORRECT?

A: YOU SAY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OR WITH MARCIA CLARK AND --

Q: WELL --

A: WHICH ONE?

Q: POLICE OFFICERS WERE PRESENT IN MARCIA CLARK'S OFFICE; WERE THEY NOT?

A: YES, THEY WERE.

Q: OFFICER VANNATTER WAS PRESENT, TRUE?

A: TRUE. BUT I TALKED TO PHIL BEFORE I EVEN TALKED TO MARCIA AND BILL HODGMAN.

Q: YOU TALKED TO PHIL BEFORE TALKING TO MARCIA. MARCIA IS MARCIA CLARK?

A: YES. MARCIA CLARK.

Q: AND PHIL IS WHO?

A: PHIL VANNATTER, DETECTIVE.

Q: YOU AND PHIL GO BACK A WHILE, DON'T YOU?

A: YEAH. WE'VE KNOWN EACH OTHER OVER THE YEARS.

Q: AND HOW ABOUT YOU AND MARCIA?

A: FIRST TIME I'VE EVER MET HER.

Q: AND BILL WAS ALSO PRESENT AT THAT INTERVIEW?

A: YES. CORRECT.

Q: REMEMBER BILL?

A: YEAH, I REMEMBER BILL.

Q: BILL HODGMAN.

A: OKAY.

Q: NOW, YOU SPOKE WITH PHIL AND MARCIA AND BILL FOR ABOUT 90 MINUTES, DIDN'T YOU?

A: WHATEVER YOU SAY.

Q: SOUND ABOUT RIGHT?

A: OKAY.

Q: AND THEY ASKED YOU EVERYTHING THAT YOU KNEW ABOUT YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH MR. SIMPSON; DID THEY NOT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND IN FACT, THERE WAS SOMEBODY TAKING DOWN, TRANSCRIPTION, EVERYTHING THAT WAS SAID, WASN'T THERE?

A: CORRECT.

Q: WERE YOU PLACED UNDER OATH DURING THAT INTERVIEW WITH PHIL --

A: NO, I WASN'T.

Q: -- AND BILL AND MARCIA?

A: NO, I WAS NOT.

Q: NOW, HAVE YOU EVER HAD OCCASION TO READ THE STATEMENT OF THAT INTERVIEW, WHICH IS 60 PAGES LONG?

A: YES, I DID. I READ PORTIONS OF IT.

Q: YOU READ THAT WHEN I GAVE IT TO YOU, DIDN'T YOU?

A: SOMETIME AFTERWARDS. I DIDN'T READ IT IMMEDIATELY.

Q: RIGHT. BECAUSE SOMETIME AFTER MEETING WITH PHIL AND BILL AND MARCIA, YOU MET WITH MR. DOUGLAS, DIDN'T YOU?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: REMEMBER THAT?

A: OH, YES, I DO.

Q: AND YOU AND I MET IN YOUR ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, DIDN'T YOU?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: REMEMBER THAT?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: AND THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ABOUT SEPTEMBER THE 9TH OF 1994, CORRECT?

A: IF THAT'S WHAT YOU SAY. I DON'T KNOW THE DATES.

Q: AND DURING -- WITHDRAWN. WE MET IN YOUR ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR ABOUT TWO HOURS, DIDN'T WE?

A: NO, WE DID NOT.

Q: HOW LONG DID IT LAST?

A: 40, 45 MINUTES.

Q: AND DURING ANY TIME -- WITHDRAWN. YOU KNEW ON THAT OCCASION THAT I WAS REPRESENTING MR. SIMPSON, DIDN'T YOU?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: I GAVE YOU MY BUSINESS CARD, DIDN'T I?

A: YES, YOU DID.

Q: IN FACT, AFTER THAT INTERVIEW, YOU CALLED ME BACK LATER, DIDN'T YOU?

A: DID I CALL YOU OR DID YOU CALL ME?

Q: NO. I CALLED YOUR HOME AFTER YOU HAD CALLED AND LEFT A NUMBER. RECALL THAT?

A: IF YOU SAY SO. I CAN'T REMEMBER.

Q: DURING ANY PART OF THE 45 MINUTES THAT YOU AND I SPOKE, DID YOU EVER MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT THIS CONVERSATION WITH MR. SIMPSON?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: DIDN'T I ASK YOU DURING THAT CONVERSATION TO TELL ME THE WORSE THINGS THAT YOU KNEW ABOUT O.J. SIMPSON?

A: YES, YOU DID.

Q: AND WOULDN'T YOU AGREE THAT THIS STATEMENT ABOUT THIS SUPPOSED DREAM IS A PRETTY BAD THING ABOUT MR. SIMPSON?

A: YES, IT IS.

Q: SO DID YOU LIE WHEN YOU DIDN'T TELL ME ABOUT THAT DREAM?

A: I SURE DID.

Q: YOU DID. OKAY. YOU'VE LIED A FEW TIMES, HAVEN'T YOU, SIR?

A: NEVER IN COURT.

Q: BUT YOU'VE LIED A FEW TIMES CONCERNING WHAT YOU KNOW ABOUT MR. SIMPSON, TRUE?

A: YEAH, I'D SAY.

Q: YOU LIED TO MARCIA, DIDN'T YOU?

A: WELL IF HOLDING BACK INFORMATION -- THEY NEVER ASKED ME ABOUT -- IF HOLDING BACK INFORMATION IS LYING. I DON'T THINK IT IS LYING. I JUST DIDN'T TELL THEM EVERYTHING.

Q: WELL, YOU DIDN'T TELL THE POLICE AND THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABOUT AN IMPORTANT CONVERSATION THAT YOU CLAIM OCCURRED, TRUE?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: NOW, THE FIRST TIME -- WITHDRAWN. SOMETIME BEFORE TALKING WITH ME, YOU HAD A CONVERSATION WITH AN INVESTIGATOR WORKING ON MY BEHALF; DID YOU NOT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: MR. JOE BROWN. RECALL THAT?

A: OKAY. I WAS THINKING OF HOSTETLER. I'M SORRY. MR. JOE BROWN, I DID. YOU'RE RIGHT.

Q: AND YOU NEVER TOLD JOE BROWN ABOUT THIS SUPPOSED CONVERSATION WITH YOU AND MR. SIMPSON, DID YOU?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: SO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT. YOU MET FOR 90 MINUTES WITH PHIL AND MARCIA AND BILL AND NEVER MENTIONED THIS CONVERSATION, CORRECT?

A: NEVER DID.

Q: YOU MET FOR 25 MINUTES WITH JOE BROWN AND NEVER DISCUSSED THIS CONVERSATION, CORRECT?

A: DID NOT.

Q: YOU MET WITH ME IN YOUR ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR 45 MINUTES AND NEVER TALKED ABOUT THIS CONVERSATION, CORRECT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: AND YOU ARE MR. SIMPSON'S FRIEND AS FAR AS YOU THINK, CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, YOU SAID THAT THE REASON WHY YOU DIDN'T TELL PHIL ABOUT THE CONVERSATION WAS BECAUSE OF WHAT?

A: I SAID I DIDN'T TELL PHIL BECAUSE AT THE TIME, I REALLY DID NOT WANT TO BE REALLY INVOLVED IN ALL OF THIS AND I DIDN'T WANT TO BE GOING DOWN AS A PERSON TO NAIL O.J.

Q: LET ME ASK YOU THIS. WELL, YOU'RE NOT. SO DON'T WORRY ABOUT THAT. BUT LET ME ASK YOU THIS.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION TO THAT EDITORIAL.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. COUNSEL, YOU KNOW BETTER.

MS. CLARK: MOTION TO STRIKE.

THE COURT: THE JURY IS TO DISREGARD COUNSEL'S REMARK.

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: WHEN YOU TALKED TO MISS WELLER ABOUT THIS SUPPOSED CONVERSATION, DID YOU WANT TO REMAIN ANONYMOUS THEN?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: DID MISS WELLER INFORM YOU THAT SHE WAS WRITING A BOOK?

A: YES, SHE DID.

Q: AND DID SHE SUGGEST TO YOU THAT YOUR CONVERSATION WOULD BE IN THE BOOK?

A: YES, SHE DID.

Q: AND DID YOU INTERPRET BY THE FACT THAT YOUR CONVERSATION WOULD BE IN THE BOOK THAT YOU WOULD NO LONGER BE ANONYMOUS?

A: WELL, I FELT THE ONLY ONES THAT WOULD KNOW ABOUT THAT CONVERSATION WOULD BE ME AND O.J.

Q: I SEE. WOULDN'T ANYONE ELSE WHO WAS PRESENT AT MR. SIMPSON'S HOME WHEN YOU WENT UPSTAIRS AS YOU SAY ALSO KNOW WHO YOU WERE IN RELATION TO YOUR IDENTITY?

A: POSSIBLY.

Q: SO I UNDERSTAND YOUR VERSION, THERE WAS A TIME WHEN MR. SIMPSON WENT TO BED, CORRECT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: AND THIS WAS A MAN THAT HAD JUST LOST THE MOTHER OF HIS CHILDREN, CORRECT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: AND HE WAS GRIEVING THAT EVENING, WASN'T HE?

A: DEFINE GRIEVE.

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION.

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: HE WAS IN GRIEF, WASN'T HE?

MR. DARDEN: THIS WITNESS ISN'T COMPETENT TO DEFINE WHO IS GRIEVING AND WHO ISN'T, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: I THINK IT'S A COMMON HUMAN CONDITION THAT HE CAN TESTIFY TO. YOU MAY ANSWER.

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: YOU MAY ANSWER.

A: AT THE TIME WHEN I TALKED TO -- GRIEVE, YOU MEAN CRYING AND STUFF LIKE THAT?

Q: WASN'T HE FEELING BAD ABOUT HIS WIFE'S DEATH, MR. SHIPP?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. YOU CAN ASK HIM TO DESCRIBE DEMEANOR.

MR. DOUGLAS: CAN MR. DARDEN BE THE ONE TO OBJECT, YOUR HONOR.

MR. DARDEN: SO MUCH OBJECTIONABLE MATERIAL, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, YOU DON'T NEED TO SAY THAT. THE JURY IS TO DISREGARD THAT COMMENT BY COUNSEL AS WELL.

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: NOW, MR. SIMPSON WASN'T IN A GOOD MOOD?

A: NO, HE WAS NOT.

Q: HE WAS SURROUNDED BY HIS FAMILY, CORRECT?

A: YES, HE WAS.

Q: HE WAS SURROUNDED BY HIS CLOSE FRIENDS, CORRECT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: HIS FAMILY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT HIS EMOTIONAL STATE; WERE THEY NOT?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

THE WITNESS: YES, THEY WERE.

MR. DARDEN: MOTION TO STRIKE, YOUR HONOR.

THE WITNESS: I'M SORRY. EXCUSE ME.

THE COURT: IS THERE ANY REAL DISPUTE ABOUT THAT? FAMILY AND FRIENDS WERE THERE. ALL RIGHT.

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION WITHDRAWN, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: WHEN MR. SIMPSON RETIRED FOR THE EVENING, DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO SEE HIS FAMILY WISH HIM A GOOD EVENING?

A: WHEN I WAS LEAVING?

Q: NO. YOU SAID THAT MR. SIMPSON WAS RETIRING FOR THE EVENING, CORRECT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: AND HE ASKED YOU TO WALK UPSTAIRS WITH HIM, CORRECT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: DO YOU REMEMBER HIS FAMILY WISHING HIM GOOD NIGHT, SLEEP WELL, PLEASANT DREAMS OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE?

A: NOT AT THAT TIME, NO.

Q: DID YOU REMEMBER THAT HE SNUCK UPSTAIRS WITHOUT ANYONE ELSE IN THE ROOM NOTICING?

A: HE SNUCK UPSTAIRS?

Q: YES.

A: I DON'T REMEMBER THAT.

Q: OKAY. SO IT WASN'T A SECRET WHEN HE WENT TO SLEEP THAT EVENING, TRUE?

A: NO. EVERYONE KNEW HE WAS -- WENT TO BED BECAUSE I WAS ASKED TO -- I WAS ASKED BY SHIRLEY TO UNPLUG THE PHONE.

Q: SO EVERYONE KNEW HE WAS GOING TO BED AND THAT YOU WERE GOING UPSTAIRS WITH HIM?

A: YES.

Q: SO IT WASN'T A SECRET THAT YOU WERE GOING UPSTAIRS WITH MR. SIMPSON WHEN HE WAS GOING TO BED?

A: NO, IT WASN'T.

Q: OKAY. SO THAT IF THERE WOULD BE REVEALED IN SOME SUBSEQUENT BOOK A CONVERSATION THAT OCCURRED ON JUNE 13TH WHEN MR. SIMPSON WAS GOING TO BED, YOU KNEW THAT THE PEOPLE IN THAT ROOM COULD IDENTIFY YOU AS BEING THE SOURCE OF THAT CONVERSATION, CORRECT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: SO YOU DIDN'T REALLY HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT BEING ANONYMOUS, DID YOU, SIR?

A: WELL, LIKE I SAID, I FELT THAT THOSE -- OKAY. LIKE I FELT O.J. WOULD KNOW. AND AT THE TIME -- LIKE I SAID, WHEN I TOLD SHEILA ABOUT THIS, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS SEVERAL PEOPLE OF COURSE THERE AT THE HOUSE AND I WAS THINKING HEY, NO ONE WOULD REALLY I MEAN MAYBE PUT TWO AND TWO TOGETHER.

Q: I SEE. NOW, YOU WERE A POLICE OFFICER FOR HOW MANY YEARS?

A: 15 YEARS.

Q: AND DURING THE COURSE OF YOUR 15 YEARS AS A POLICE OFFICER, YOU INVESTIGATED CRIMES I WOULD ASSUME.

A: I DID.

Q: AND WOULD THERE BE OCCASIONS THAT YOU WOULD READ DESCRIPTIONS ABOUT EVENTS IN EITHER NEWSPAPERS OR BOOKS THAT WOULD ASSIST YOUR INVESTIGATION OF A PENDING CRIME?

A: YES. I WOULD SAY YOU'RE CORRECT.

Q: SO IT WAS NOT UNSUSPECTING OF YOU THAT IF SOME POLICE OFFICER WERE TO LATER READ ABOUT A CONVERSATION IN A BOOK CONCERNING A CONVERSATION THAT MAY HAVE OCCURRED WITH O.J. SIMPSON, THAT SOMEONE LATER WOULD INVESTIGATE THE SOURCE OF THAT CONVERSATION, TRUE?

A: TRUE.

Q: SO YOU KNEW, MR. SHIPP, THAT BY HAVING THIS CONVERSATION WITH MISS WELLER, THAT YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ASSURE YOUR ANONYMITY, CORRECT?

A: MR. DOUGLAS, I WOULD SAY YOU'RE PROBABLY CORRECT.

Q: PRIOR TO THE BOOK BEING RELEASED, DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO REVIEW A DRAFT OF THE MANUSCRIPT CONCERNING YOUR CONVERSATIONS WITH MISS WELLER?

A: YEAH, I DID.

Q: HOW MANY TIMES?

A: ONCE THAT I LOOKED IT OVER. ONCE.

Q: WHEN IN THIS SERIES OF SIX OR SEVEN OCCASIONS THAT YOU AND SHE MET DID YOU REVIEW A DRAFT?

A: I DIDN'T REVIEW IT AT ALL AT THE TIME WHEN SHE TOOK THE NOTES.

Q: NO. I'M ASKING WHEN DURING THE COURSE OF THESE SIX OR SEVEN TIMES THAT YOU MET WITH HER DID YOU REVIEW THE DRAFT.

THE COURT: DOESN'T THAT ASSUME A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE?

THE WITNESS: I THOUGHT I JUST ANSWERED THAT.

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: DID YOU EVER REVIEW THE DRAFT TEXT OF WHAT SHE SAID?

A: NOT DURING THE SIX OR SEVEN TIMES WHEN I MET WITH HER.

Q: WHEN DID YOU REVIEW THAT DRAFT, SIR?

A: PROBABLY MAYBE TWO WEEKS BEFORE IT CAME OUT.

Q: AND DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO OFFER ANY CORRECTIONS?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND DID YOU OFFER CORRECTIONS?

A: NOTHING -- YES, I DID.

Q: WERE THE CORRECTIONS ULTIMATELY MADE?

A: YES, THEY WERE.

Q: YOU'VE HAD OCCASION SINCE THE PUBLICATION OF THAT BOOK TO READ THE VERSION APPLYING TO YOU?

A: YES, I HAVE.

Q: IS IT ACCURATE?

A: YEAH. JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING IS ACCURATE, YEAH. I WOULD SAY IT IS.

MR. DOUGLAS: I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW THE WITNESS, YOUR HONOR --

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, COULD I GET A COPY OF THIS --

MR. DOUGLAS: I'M GIVING A COPY, YOUR HONOR. COPY OF A DOCUMENT THAT I AM GOING TO HAVE MARKED AS PLAINTIFF'S -- I AM SORRY -- DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1000.

(DEFT'S 1000 FOR ID = PARTIAL DRAFT, RAGING HEART)

MR. DOUGLAS: AND I'M WRITING D-1000 IN THE UPPER RIGHT-HAND CORNER.

THE COURT: AND WHAT PAGE ARE YOU STARTING AT?

MR. DOUGLAS: I'M BEGINNING AT PAGE 8, YOUR HONOR, AND IT GOES UNTIL PAGE 12.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: FIRST OF ALL, MR. SHIPP, LOOKING AT THE DOCUMENT THAT HAS NOW BEEN MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1000, DOES THAT APPEAR TO BE THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE BOOK RAGING HEART BY MISS WELLER?

A: IT APPEARS TO BE. YES, IT DOES.

Q: AND THERE APPEARS TO BE SOME REFERENCE TO THE CONVERSATION THAT YOU HAD WITH MR. SIMPSON SUPPOSEDLY BEGINNING ON PAGE 9, CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: WAS IT IN ANY WAY -- WITHDRAWN. LET'S TALK ABOUT THE CONVERSATIONS THAT YOU HAD WITH MISS WELLER. YOU SAY YOU SPOKE TO HER THE FIRST TIME BEFORE TALKING WITH MARCIA AND BILL AND PHIL, CORRECT?

A: YES. THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND HOW MUCH TIME DID YOU SPEND WITH MISS WELLER THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU SPOKE WITH HER?

A: MAYBE TWO HOURS.

Q: DID YOU TALK IN PERSON OR ON THE PHONE?

A: IN PERSON.

Q: HOW DID SHE GET YOUR NUMBER, IF YOU KNOW?

A: FROM ROLF.

Q: DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO SPEAK WITH ROLF ABOUT YOUR SUPPOSED CONVERSATION WITH MR. SIMPSON BEFORE YOU MET WITH MISS WELLER?

A: DID I TELL HIM?

Q: CORRECT.

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: WHEN YOU MET WITH MISS WELLER, WHERE DID YOU MEET?

A: AT YAMASHIRO'S.

Q: YOU AND SHE HAD DINNER?

A: HORS D'OEUVRES.

Q: ANYONE ELSE PRESENT?

A: WAITRESSES.

Q: AT THE TABLE WITH THE TWO OF YOU I'M ASKING.

A: NO. NO ONE ELSE.

Q: AND AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE FIRST MEETING, DID THE TWO OF YOU AGREE TO MEET AGAIN?

A: YES, WE DID.

Q: AFTER YOU MET WITH HER THE FIRST TIME, DID YOU LIKE HER?

A: YES, I LIKED HER.

Q: DID YOU FEEL SOME SORT OF KINSHIP WITH HER?

A: KINSHIP?

Q: CORRECT.

A: I THOUGHT SHE WAS A NICE PERSON, YEAH.

Q: DID YOU FEEL THAT YOU COULD TRUST HER?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: DID YOU FEEL THAT YOU COULD TRUST HER MORE THAN YOU FELT THAT YOU COULD TRUST THE POLICE DEPARTMENT?

A: IT'S NOT A THING OF TRUSTING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. I FELT I COULD TRUST HER AS FAR AS NOT PRINTING MY NAME IN A BOOK.

Q: BUT YOU WERE GOING TO TRUST HER WITH SOME INFORMATION THAT YOU DIDN'T TELL THE POLICE.

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: WERE YOU NOT?

A: THAT'S RIGHT.

Q: YOU WERE GOING TO TRUST HER WITH SOME INFORMATION THAT YOU HADN'T TOLD THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: WHEN DID YOU DEVELOP THAT QUALITY OF TRUST IN HER THAT YOU WERE COMFORTABLE SHARING SOMETHING WITH HER THAT YOU HAD NOT SHARED WITH THE POLICE?

A: MAYBE -- I DON'T KNOW. MAYBE THE THIRD TIME I MET WITH HER.

Q: THE THIRD TIME, YOU FELT THAT COMFORT. AND WHERE HAD YOU MET WITH HER THE SECOND TIME?

A: MOST OF THE TIMES WE MET, IT WAS AT YAMASHIRO'S.

Q: EACH OF THE TIMES?

A: YEAH.

Q: HOW MUCH TIME PASSED BETWEEN THE FIRST TIME AND THE SECOND TIME?

A: OH, MAYBE A COUPLE DAYS.

Q: COUPLE OF DAYS. WHEN YOU MET THE FIRST TIME, WHO PICKED UP THE TAB?

A: FIRST TIME, I DID.

Q: AND THE SECOND TIME?

A: I THINK I DID.

Q: AND THE THIRD TIME?

A: I THINK SHE DID.

Q: AND THE FOURTH TIME?

A: I THINK SHE MAY HAVE.

Q: AND THE FIFTH TIME?

A: WE WEREN'T ALWAYS EATING. WE NEVER HAD DINNER. WE WERE JUST BASICALLY JUST HAVING HORS D'OEUVRES AND --

Q: DID YOU AND MISS WELLER EVER SIGN ANY DOCUMENTS CONCERNING YOUR INTERVIEW WITH HER?

A: YEAH. WE SIGNED A DOCUMENT SAYING THAT SHE WOULD NOT REVEAL MY NAME.

Q: WHERE IS YOUR COPY OF THAT DOCUMENT?

A: IN MY HOUSE.

Q: COULD YOU BRING IT WITH YOU TOMORROW?

A: SURE.

Q: WHEN YOU COME TO COURT?

A: YES.

Q: THANK YOU. AND HOW MANY PAGES DOES THAT DOCUMENT CONSIST OF?

A: ONE.

Q: ONE PAGE? AND WHAT DOES THAT DOCUMENT SAY AS BEST AS YOU CAN RECALL?

A: I CAN'T REMEMBER.

Q: TELL ME ALL THAT YOU CAN REMEMBER THAT IT SAYS.

A: SOMETHING, " I -- I, SHEILA WELLER PROMISE NOT TO REVEAL YOUR NAME," SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

Q: WAS THAT DOCUMENT SIGNED BY MISS WELLER AND BY YOURSELF?

A: YES, IT WAS.

Q: AND IT WAS DATED?

A: I THINK SO.

Q: OKAY. AND DURING WHICH OF THE SIX OR SEVEN OCCASIONS THAT YOU AND SHE MET DID YOU SIGN THAT DOCUMENT THAT WE'VE JUST DISCUSSED?

A: I THINK IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE FIRST. ONCE I AGREED TO START TALKING WITH HER, I THINK SHE WROTE IT UP.

Q: IN YOUR MIND, WAS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING FOR YOUR COMFORT THAT YOU BE ANONYMOUS?

A: YES.

Q: IF YOU HAD NOT HAD A PROMISE OF ANONYMITY IN YOUR MIND, WERE YOU PREPARED TO SHARE INTIMATE SECRETS ABOUT MR. SIMPSON WITH A TOTAL STRANGER?

A: MR. DOUGLAS, SOMETIMES WHEN PEOPLE ARE GOING THROUGH STUFF, SOMETIMES THEY SAY THINGS THAT THEY REALLY WANT EVERYONE TO KNOW.

Q: THAT'S NOT MY QUESTION, SIR. MY QUESTION IS, IN YOUR MIND, WERE YOU PREPARED TO SHARE INTIMATE SECRETS ABOUT YOUR FRIEND TO A TOTAL STRANGER WITHOUT THE PROMISE OF ANONYMITY?

A: OH, NO. NO.

Q: SO THE PROMISE OF ANONYMITY WAS THE REASON OR THE MOTIVATION FOR YOU TO SHARE INTIMATE SECRETS WITH YOUR FRIEND TO A TOTAL STRANGER?

A: CORRECT.

Q: HAVE YOU IN THE PAST SHARED INTIMATE SECRETS ABOUT A FRIEND TO SOMEBODY WRITING A BOOK?

A: NEVER.

Q: NEVER BEFORE?

A: NEVER.

Q: HAVE YOU IN THE PAST LIED TO POLICE OFFICERS ABOUT A MURDER INVESTIGATION?

A: NEVER.

Q: NEVER BEFORE. YOU SAY THAT THE CONVERSATION WITH MR. SIMPSON WAS EATING YOU UP. IS THAT YOUR STATEMENT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND DID YOU HOPE TO EXERCISE THIS PAIN FROM YOUR BODY BY TALKING TO SHEILA WELLER?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: YOU DIDN'T THINK THAT YOU COULD EXERCISE THIS PAIN FROM YOUR BODY BY TALKING TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT?

A: WELL, AT THE TIME, I -- TRUTHFULLY, NO, I DID NOT. I DID NOT WANT TO PUT THEM IN A CERTAIN SITUATION KNOWING THEIR PROFESSION, HOW PROFESSIONAL THESE GUYS ARE.

Q: YOU DIDN'T WANT TO PUT THE POLICE IN THE POSITION OF KNOWING INFORMATION THAT YOU THOUGHT WAS IMPORTANT CONCERNING THE DEATH OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON?

A: WELL, I KNOW IF I WOULD HAVE TOLD PHIL, "OKAY, HEY, PHIL, CONFIDENCE, YOU KNOW, I WANT TO SHARE SOMETHING WITH YOU," THERE'S NO WAY IN THE WORLD PHIL WOULD HAVE SAID, "YEAH, RON, I'M GOING TO BURY THIS." SO I --

Q: BUT YOU DID KNOW THAT WHEN THE BOOK CAME OUT, PHIL WOULD BE ABLE TO FIGURE IT OUT, TRUE?

A: LIKE I SAID, I FIGURED SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE, YEAH, THEY WOULD KNOW IT WAS ME.

Q: SO SOONER OR LATER, THEY WOULD HAVE TO FIND OUT?

A: SURE.

Q: DID YOU THINK THAT YOU COULD RID YOURSELF OF THIS PAIN BY TALKING WITH THE PEOPLE WHO WERE PROSECUTING MR. SIMPSON?

A: I HAVE.

Q: AFTER THE BOOK CAME OUT.

A: MAYBE A DAY OR TWO BEFORE.

Q: SINCE YOU REALIZED THAT IT WOULD PROBABLY OCCUR THAT YOUR IDENTITY WOULD BE DISCLOSED DURING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT INVESTIGATION OF THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE BOOK, WHY DIDN'T YOU TALK TO THE POLICE AFTER TALKING WITH MISS WELLER, IMMEDIATELY AFTER TALKING TO MISS WELLER?

A: BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, MR. DOUGLAS, AT THE TIME, I JUST DID NOT WANT IT TO BE DOWN ON RECORD WHAT I THOUGHT, MY PERSONAL FEELINGS, WHAT I FELT ABOUT MR. SIMPSON.

Q: BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T WANT TO BE A WITNESS IN THIS CASE?

A: YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

Q: ISN'T IT TRUE, SIR, THAT YOU WERE HOPEFUL THAT YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO GARNER SOME PUBLICITY BY MAKING UP FALSE ALLEGATIONS ABOUT MR. SIMPSON?

A: NO, THAT'S NOT TRUE AT ALL.

Q: DIDN'T YOU THINK, SIR, THAT BY CONCOCTING THIS STORY ABOUT MR. SIMPSON, IT MIGHT ENHANCE YOUR OWN PERSONAL PROFILE?

A: MR. DOUGLAS, I PUT ALL MY FAITH IN GOD AND MY CONSCIENCE. SINCE NICOLE'S BEEN DEAD, I'VE FELT NOTHING BUT GUILT, MY OWN PERSONAL GUILT, THAT I DIDN'T DO AS MUCH AS I PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE.

Q: WELL, LET ME ASK YOU THIS. DIDN'T YOU THINK THAT BY BEING A WITNESS IN THIS CASE, IT WOULD ENHANCE YOUR OWN PERSONAL PROFILE?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: AREN'T YOU AN ACTOR?

A: SIR, I HAVE DONE SOME ACTING, YES, I HAVE.

Q: LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT. HOW MUCH ACTING HAVE YOU DONE, MR. SHIPP?

A: I'VE DONE ALMOST -- A BUNCH OF BIT PARTS HERE AND THERE.

Q: HAVE YOU GONE TO SCHOOL FOR ACTING?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. IS THIS RELEVANT, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YES, SOMEWHAT. LET'S SEE WHERE IT GOES.

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: HAVE YOU GONE TO SCHOOL FOR ACTING?

A: YEARS AGO.

Q: WHEN DID YOU GO TO SCHOOL?

A: I JUST TOOK A -- TOOK A COMMERCIAL CLASS.

Q: HOW LONG DID THE SCHOOL LAST?

A: SIX WEEKS.

Q: DID THE SCHOOL TEACH YOU HOW TO PLAY CERTAIN ROLES?

A: THE COMMERCIAL CLASS?

Q: YES.

A: NO.

Q: WELL, YOU HAVEN'T JUST ACTED IN SCHOOLS OR IN COMMERCIALS, HAVE YOU?

A: NO. I'VE DONE OTHERS.

Q: YEAH. YOU'VE ASPIRED TO GENERATE AN ACTING CAREER, DIDN'T YOU?

A: I'VE ACTED -- ALMOST EVERYTHING I HAVE DONE, I PLAYED A COP, WHICH IS NOT TOO HARD TO DO.

Q: BUT IT IS A ROLE; IS IT NOT?

A: YEAH, IT'S A ROLE.

Q: AND BY PLAYING A ROLE, YOU'RE TRYING TO ACT AS IF YOU'RE SOMETHING OTHER THAN YOUR TRUE SELF.

A: LIKE I SAID, I PLAYED A COP. THAT'S NOT HARD TO DO. SO I PLAYED MY TRUE SELF A LOT OF TIMES.

Q: ARE YOU ACTING NOW?

A: EVERY NOW AND THEN. I DO A LITTLE SOMETHING HERE AND THERE.

Q: ISN'T IT TRUE, SIR, THAT BY BEING THE WITNESS WHO HAS A CONVERSATION WITH MR. SIMPSON, THAT IT IS GOING TO POSSIBLY ENHANCE YOUR PROFILE AROUND THE WORLD?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: YOU MAY ANSWER THE QUESTION.

A: MR. DOUGLAS, THERE'S NO WAY, SHAPE OR FORM THAT I WOULD SIT HERE AND GO THROUGH ALL THIS, PUT MY FAMILY THROUGH THIS FOR AN ACTING CAREER. I COULD CARE LESS IF I DO ANY ACTING.

Q: THAT'S NOT THE QUESTION. THE QUESTION IS --

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, HE'S ANSWERING THE QUESTION.

THE COURT: HE'S ANSWERED THE QUESTION.

MR. DARDEN: CAN WE ASK THE WITNESS IF HE HAS FINISHED HIS ANSWER?

THE COURT: HOLD ON. I THINK HE'S FINISHED HIS ANSWER. HAVE YOU FINISHED YOUR ANSWER?

THE WITNESS: YES.

THE COURT: MR. DOUGLAS.

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: YOU DID REALIZE, MR. SHIPP, THAT AS YOU'VE TESTIFIED AS YOU HAVE, YOU ARE GOING TO ENHANCE THE NAME OF RON SHIPP AROUND THE WORLD?

A: JUST LIKE YOU ARE ENHANCING CARL DOUGLAS BY BEING MR. -- ATTORNEY HERE.

Q: YOU REALIZE THAT TOO, RIGHT?

A: CERTAINLY.

Q: SO YOU ARE A STAR AS WELL?

A: WELL, I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT EVERYBODY -- YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT THEY SAY. PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SEE YOU. BUT THAT'S NOT WHY I'M DOING THIS, MR. DOUGLAS. I'M DOING THIS FOR MY CONSCIENCE AND MY PEACE OF MIND. I WILL NOT HAVE THE BLOOD OF NICOLE ON RON SHIPP. I CAN SLEEP AT NIGHT UNLIKE A LOT OF OTHERS.

Q: THANK YOU, MR. SHIPP. NOW, HOW MANY MONTHS PASSED BETWEEN YOUR CONVERSATIONS WITH MISS WELLER ABOUT THIS SUPPOSED DREAM AND YOUR CONVERSATION WITH ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY ABOUT THE DREAM?

A: I DON'T KNOW WHAT DID I TELL HER. AUGUST I GUESS. FROM AUGUST UNTIL I TOLD MR. DARDEN.

Q: AND HOW DID IT OCCUR THAT YOU TOLD MR. DARDEN ABOUT THIS SUPPOSED DREAM?

A: MAINLY, THOUGHT THAT IT PROBABLY WILL COME UP HERE IN COURT AND I DID NOT WANT TO SIT UP HERE AND LIE. LIKE I SAID, I'VE NEVER LIED ON THE STAND EVER IN MY LIFE AND I'M NOT STARTING NOW.

Q: SO YOU CALLED MR. DARDEN UP?

A: YEAH, I DID. I THINK I DID CALL MR. DARDEN UP, YEAH.

Q: AND DID YOU TELL HIM IN THAT CONVERSATION THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT YOU HAD LIED ABOUT EARLIER?

A: NOW, ARE YOU REFERRING -- OKAY, THE FACT THAT I DIDN'T REVEAL INFORMATION TO MISS CLARK, THAT I LIED, IS THAT LYING?

Q: CORRECT.

A: YEAH, I CALLED HIM UP AND SAID I LIED.

Q: AND WHAT DID HE SAY WHEN YOU CALLED HIM AND SAID, "I HAD LIED EARLIER"?

A: I DIDN'T USE THOSE WORDS. BUT ANYHOW, HE ASKED ME TO COME IN AND HE ASKED ME THE SAME QUESTIONS YOU ASKED ME, WHY DID I NOT REVEAL --

Q: AND WHO WAS PRESENT DURING THE SUBSEQUENT CONVERSATION THAT YOU HAD WITH MR. DARDEN ABOUT YOUR EARLIER LIE?

A: I THINK PHIL VANNATTER.

Q: ANYONE ELSE?

A: I THINK IT WAS JUST PHIL.

Q: AND YOU MET IN MR. DARDEN'S OFFICE?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND HOW LONG DID THAT SUBSEQUENT CONVERSATION TAKE?

A: I DON'T KNOW. MAYBE TOTAL OF -- I MEAN -- YEAH. TOTAL OF 45 MINUTES I THINK JUST SITTING THERE AND HAVING THEM RECORD IT AND STUFF LIKE THAT.

Q: AND DID YOU DISCLOSE ANYTHING ELSE DURING THAT CONVERSATION THAT YOU HADN'T SAID EARLIER?

A: EXCUSE ME. OTHER THAN THE LEO CONVERSATION?

Q: OTHER THAN THE CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS ALLEGED DREAM.

MR. DARDEN: MAY I INTERRUPT AND CONFER WITH COUNSEL FOR A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. DOUGLAS: I'LL WITHDRAW THE QUESTION, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: YOU FIRST CALLED THE SIMPSON HOME ON JUNE 13TH SOMETIME THAT MORNING; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND THAT WAS SOMETIME ABOUT 10:00 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING, WASN'T IT?

A: YEAH. MY MOM PAGED ME AT AROUND -- ABOUT 10:00, 10:30.

Q: AND UPON HEARING THE NEWS, YOU TRIED TO REACH SOMEONE AT THE SIMPSON HOME, CORRECT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND WHEN YOU PICKED UP THE PHONE AND DIALED THE SIMPSON HOME, DID SOMEONE ANSWER?

A: YES, THEY DID.

Q: WHO WAS THAT?

A: MARK FUHRMAN.

Q: HAD YOU KNOWN MARK FUHRMAN BEFORE JUNE 13TH?

A: YES, I HAD.

Q: WHEN MARK FUHRMAN PICKED UP THE PHONE, TELL ME EVERYTHING THAT YOU CAN RECALL ABOUT THAT CONVERSATION. FIRST OF ALL, WHAT'S THE FIRST THING THAT YOU ASKED MARK FUHRMAN?

MR. DARDEN: HEARSAY, YOUR HONOR, ALL HEARSAY.

THE COURT: HE CAN TELL US WHAT HE SAID, BUT THAT'S ABOUT IT.

MR. DOUGLAS: VERY WELL.

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: WHAT DID YOU ASK MARK FUHRMAN?

A: I SAID, "MARK, DID O.J. KILL NICOLE?"

Q: DID YOU ASK MARK FUHRMAN ABOUT ANY OF THE EVIDENCE?

A: NO, NOT AT ALL.

Q: DID YOU ASK MARK FUHRMAN WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A SUSPECT IN MIND?

A: YES. WELL, ACTUALLY, YEAH. HE TOLD ME -- HE WOULDN'T ANSWER ME. HE TOLD ME, "RON, YOU KNOW I CAN'T ANSWER YOU," AND I TRIED TO PERSUADE HIM, TOLD HIM, "HEY, IT'S ME YOU ARE TALKING TO."

Q: HOW LONG DID YOU AND MARK FUHRMAN TALK ON THE PHONE THAT DAY?

A: NO MORE THAN ONE MINUTE.

Q: ONE MINUTE?

A: AT THE MOST.

Q: WITHOUT SAYING WHAT HE SAID, DID MARK FUHRMAN EXPLAIN WHY HE WAS THERE AT 10:00 O'CLOCK ANSWERING THE PHONE?

A: I ALSO ASKED HIM -- I DID ASK HIM -- I ASKED HIM IF NICOLE WAS REALLY DEAD.

Q: DID MARK EXPLAIN TO YOU WHY HE WAS THERE ANSWERING THE PHONE AT 10:00 O'CLOCK A.M.?

A: YEAH. HE SAID HE WAS INVESTIGATING. THAT'S WHAT HE SAID, "YES, SHE IS DEAD," AND HE'S THERE INVESTIGATING THE HOMICIDE OF HER AND RON.

Q: HE WAS AT MR. SIMPSON'S HOME AT 10:00 O'CLOCK INVESTIGATING THE HOMICIDE OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AND RONALD GOLDMAN?

A: RIGHT.

Q: WHEN YOU RETURNED LATER THAT EVENING, WAS MR. SIMPSON THERE WHEN YOU GOT THERE?

A: YES, HE WAS.

Q: AND HE WAS THERE WITH HIS TWO SISTERS, CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND HE WAS THERE WITH HIS TWO ADULT CHILDREN?

A: IF I AM NOT MISTAKEN -- IF ARNELLE WAS THERE, I THINK SHE MIGHT HAVE BEEN IN THE GUEST HOUSE. I'M NOT SURE. I WAS THERE FOR A WHOLE WEEK, YOU KNOW, MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY. SO SOME OF THOSE DAYS HAVE RUN INTO EACH OTHER.

Q: DO YOU RECALL HIS MOTHER WAS THERE?

A: YES, I THINK SHE WAS THERE. YES, SHE WAS THERE.

Q: THAT WAS A DAY THAT WAS SOMEWHAT UNUSUAL; WAS IT NOT?

A: VERY MUCH, YES, IT WAS.

Q: THERE WERE MEDIA OUTSIDE THE HOME; WERE THERE NOT?

A: YES, THERE WAS.

Q: THERE WERE HELICOPTERS CIRCLING OVERHEAD, TRUE?

A: TRUE.

Q: PEOPLE WERE INSIDE WATCHING DIFFERENT TELEVISION PROGRAMS, CORRECT?

A: NO. EVERYBODY WAS WATCHING THE NEWS FOR THE MOST PART.

Q: DIFFERENT NEWS PROGRAMS?

A: YES.

Q: THERE CAME A TIME, AS YOU'VE SAID, THAT MR. SIMPSON RETIRED UPSTAIRS TO THE BEDROOM.

A: YES, THERE WAS.

Q: AND HE ASKED YOU TO JOIN HIM ACCORDING TO YOUR VERSION.

A: YES, HE DID.

Q: AND DID YOU AND HE WALK UP THE STAIRS ALONE OR TOGETHER?

A: TOGETHER.

Q: AND DID YOU AND HE THEN WALK INTO THE BEDROOM TOGETHER?

A: YES, WE DID.

Q: AND IT WAS DURING THIS TIME WHILE YOU AND HE WERE IN THE BEDROOM TOGETHER THAT THIS CONVERSATION SUPPOSEDLY TOOK PLACE?

A: YES, IT IS.

Q: NOW, IS IT YOUR VERSION THAT MR. SIMPSON TOLD YOU THAT THE POLICE SAID THEY HAD FOUND A GLOVE?

A: YES. THAT'S WHAT HE TOLD ME.

Q: AND DID HE TELL YOU THAT THEY HAD FOUND A GLOVE WITH BLOOD ON IT?

A: YEAH. THEY SAID THEY FOUND A BLOODY GLOVE. AND I DID LEAVE OUT ONE STATEMENT BECAUSE I DID -- WHEN MR. DARDEN WAS QUESTIONING ME, HE DID ASK ME WHAT DOES THIS MEAN, WHAT DOES ALL THIS MEAN.

Q: NOW, DID HE TELL YOU WHEN HE HAD BEEN TOLD THAT THE POLICE HAD FOUND THE BLOODY GLOVE?

A: I CAN'T REMEMBER.

Q: YOU KNEW BY THE TIME OF YOUR CONVERSATION THAT THE POLICE HAD HAD AN INTERVIEW WITH MR. SIMPSON?

A: YEAH. OKAY. YEAH, HE DID COME FROM DOWNTOWN, CORRECT.

Q: AND YOU KNEW THAT MR. SIMPSON HAD VOLUNTARILY GONE DOWNTOWN, SPOKE TO THE POLICE, HAD GIVEN A STATEMENT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND YOU KNEW THAT MR. SIMPSON HAD VOLUNTARILY RETURNED FROM CHICAGO TO LOS ANGELES UPON LEARNING OF THE DEATHS?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: NOW, IS IT YOUR VERSION THAT MR. SIMPSON TOLD YOU THAT THEY ALSO FOUND A CAP?

A: IS IT MY VERSION?

Q: DID MR. SIMPSON TELL YOU THAT THE POLICE HAD TOLD SIMPSON THAT THEY HAD ALSO FOUND A CAP?

A: THERE WERE TWO ITEMS. I'M PRETTY SURE IT WAS A CAP AND A GLOVE.

Q: DID SIMPSON TELL YOU THAT THE POLICE HAD TOLD SIMPSON THAT THE POLICE HAD FOUND BLOOD IN THE CAR?

A: YEAH, I THINK HE DID. I'M NOT SURE. I THINK HE DID.

Q: WELL, IF THAT STATEMENT WAS WRITTEN IN EXHIBIT 1000 --

A: UH-HUH.

Q: -- THAT SIMPSON TOLD LEO THAT THE POLICE HAD FOUND BLOOD IN THE CAR, WOULD THAT STATEMENT HAVE COME FROM YOU SINCE YOU'RE LEO?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: DID SIMPSON TELL YOU THAT THE POLICE HAD TOLD SIMPSON THAT BLOOD WAS FOUND IN THE HOUSE, IN HIS HOUSE?

A: YES, HE DID.

Q: NOW, IT'S YOUR POSITION THAT SIMPSON ASKED YOU ABOUT DNA EVIDENCE?

A: YES, HE DID.

Q: DID SIMPSON ASK YOU ABOUT REGULAR BLOOD, SEROLOGICAL EVIDENCE AS WELL?

A: NO, HE DID NOT.

Q: ISN'T IT TRUE, SIR, THAT SIMPSON NEVER ASKED YOU ANYTHING ABOUT OR MENTION TO YOU ANYTHING ABOUT A CAP BEING FOUND?

A: THAT HE NEVER MENTIONED IT TO ME?

Q: CORRECT.

A: NO, IT'S NOT TRUE. HE DID --

Q: ISN'T IT TRUE, SIR, THAT SIMPSON NEVER SAID ANYTHING TO YOU ABOUT THERE BEING BLOOD FOUND IN THE CAR?

A: NO, IT'S NOT TRUE.

Q: ISN'T IT TRUE, SIR, THAT MR. SIMPSON SAID NOTHING TO YOU ABOUT BLOOD BEING FOUND IN THE HOUSE?

A: THAT'S NOT TRUE.

Q: ISN'T IT TRUE, SIR, THAT YOU MENTIONED TO MR. SIMPSON THAT THE POLICE HAD FOUND THE GLOVE ON HIS PROPERTY?

A: I HAD NO IDEA WHAT THEY FOUND IN THE HOUSE. NOTHING.

Q: DIDN'T YOU TAKE MR. SIMPSON OUT TO BEHIND THE GARAGE TO SHOW HIM THE AREA WHERE THE GLOVE WAS SUPPOSEDLY FOUND?

A: THIS IS SAD, O.J., BUT NO. THIS IS REALLY SAD.

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, I MOVE TO STRIKE THAT.

THE COURT: WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, YOU ARE TO DISREGARD MR. SHIPP'S DIRECT COMMENT TO THE DEFENDANT. MR. SHIPP, PLEASE, YOU ARE INSTRUCTED NOT TO DO THAT.

THE WITNESS: I'M SORRY.

THE COURT: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, PLEASE DISREGARD THAT. ALL RIGHT. THEY ALL NODDED IN AGREEMENT. MR. DOUGLAS.

MR. WITNESS: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: ISN'T IT TRUE, SIR, THAT WHEN YOU LEFT THE SIMPSON HOME, YOU LEFT AND WALKED CATHY RANDA OUT TO HER CAR?

A: LIKE I SAY, I WAS THERE A WHOLE WEEK. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS THAT NIGHT OR -- I HAVE WALKED A LOT OF PEOPLE TO THEIR CARS.

Q: WELL, THINK HARD. JUNE 13TH.

A: NO. I WALKED MYSELF TO THE CAR.

Q: YOU DIDN'T WALK CATHY RANDA TO CATHY RANDA'S CAR?

A: ON JUNE 13TH?

Q: ON JUNE 13TH.

A: NO, BECAUSE I WAS SO SHAKEN UP. I REMEMBER I WALKED BY MYSELF AND I SAT IN THE CAR AND I WAS BY MYSELF. I REMEMBER THAT BECAUSE I WAS VERY TRIPPED OUT OVER ALL OF THIS.

Q: ISN'T IT TRUE, SIR, THAT YOU AND CATHY RANDA WALKED OUT TOGETHER FROM THE FIRST FLOOR RIGHT OUT THE HOUSE TOGETHER, AND AFTER YOU WALKED HER TO HER CAR, YOU THEN GOT INTO YOUR CAR AND LEFT?

A: NOT THAT NIGHT, NO.

Q: ISN'T IT TRUE, MR. SHIPP, THAT BECAUSE O.J. -- WITHDRAWN. YOU ARE AWARE THAT O.J. SIMPSON WAS VERY TIRED THAT EVENING; ARE YOU NOT?

A: THAT'S TRUE.

Q: AND YOU ARE AWARE THAT O.J. SIMPSON WAS VERY TIRED BECAUSE HE HADN'T GOTTEN MUCH SLEEP THE NIGHT BEFORE, TRUE?

A: TRUE.

Q: BECAUSE HE HAD TAKEN A RED EYE FROM LOS ANGELES TO CHICAGO, TRUE?

A: TRUE.

Q: AND THEN HAD TAKEN A RED EYE OR TAKEN THE FIRST FLIGHT, 6:00 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING, FROM CHICAGO BACK TO LOS ANGELES, CORRECT?

A: TRUE.

Q: AND THEN BECAUSE HE WAS ON THE PHONE SO MUCH, HE DID NOT SLEEP VERY MUCH ON THE RETURN FLIGHT FROM CHICAGO, CORRECT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: AND AS SOON AS HE GOT BACK FROM CHICAGO, HE WAS THEN HANDCUFFED BY POLICE OFFICERS AT HIS HOME, CORRECT?

A: FROM WHAT I SAW ON THE T.V., YES.

Q: AND THEN AS SOON AS HE GOT BACK FROM CHICAGO, HE WAS TAKEN DOWN TO PARKER CENTER, CORRECT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: AND AFTER TALKING WITH PARKER CENTER, HE WAS THEN BROUGHT BACK TO HIS HOUSE, CORRECT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: AND THEN WHEN HE RETURNED TO HIS HOUSE, HIS FRIENDS, HIS FAMILY WERE THERE, CORRECT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: AND SINCE HE HADN'T SLEPT FOR THE PAST 24 HOURS OR SO, HE WENT TO BED EARLY ON JUNE 13TH, DIDN'T HE?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT ASSUMES FACTS IN EVIDENCE, CALLS FOR SPECULATION, HEARSAY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: YOU MAY ANSWER THE QUESTION.

A: NO, HE DID NOT.

Q: ISN'T IT TRUE, SIR, THAT MR. SIMPSON DIDN'T GO TO BED AROUND 11:00 O'CLOCK, BUT IN FACT HE WENT TO BED CLOSER TO 8:00 OR 8:15 ON JUNE 13TH SINCE HE HADN'T SLEPT THE PRIOR NIGHT? ISN'T THAT TRUE?

A: I AM SORRY. I AM SORRY. I LOST MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT. GO RIGHT AHEAD. SORRY.

Q: SINCE MR. SIMPSON HADN'T SLEPT THE PRIOR EVENING OR EARLIER THAT DAY, HE WENT TO BED AT ABOUT 8:00 OR 8:15 ON JUNE 13TH, DIDN'T HE?

A: NO, HE DID NOT.

Q: AND ISN'T IT TRUE, SIR, THAT HIS SISTER SHIRLEY AND HIS BROTHER-IN-LAW, BENNY BAKER, ESCORTED MR. SIMPSON UP TO HIS ROOM AND HELPED HIM UNDRESS ON JUNE 13TH? ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: IS THAT WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO TESTIFY TO, SIR?

THE COURT: ARE ANY OF THOSE PERSONS IN THE COURTROOM?

MR. DOUGLAS: NO, YOUR HONOR. THEY'RE OUTSIDE.

THE WITNESS: THAT IS NOT CORRECT. THAT IS NOT CORRECT.

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: MY STATEMENT IS NOT CORRECT?

A: IT IS NOT CORRECT.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, MAY WE HAVE JUST ONE MOMENT? MAY WE APPROACH THE SIDE?

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: WE'RE AT SIDEBAR. MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: THIS WITNESS KEEPS ON LOOKING OVER AT O.J. AND SAYING THINGS LIKE, "IS THAT WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO SAY," OR, "THAT'S SAD, O.J." I THINK THAT'S CLEARLY IMPROPER. YOU DID ADMONISH HIM NOT TO DIRECT HIS COMMENTS TO O.J. HE'S GOING TO BE UP THERE A LONG TIME. WE'RE GOING TO BE SPENDING A LONG PERIOD OF TIME WITH THIS FELLOW AND I DON'T THINK -- IT'S CLEARLY IMPROPER. BECAUSE IF O.J. WAS DOING ANYTHING LIKE THAT, I AM DOING EVERYTHING I CAN TO MAKE HIM MAINTAIN HIMSELF. HE NEEDS TO BE ADMONISHED. I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO DO THAT. HE'S GOING TO BE UP THERE A LONG TIME. OBVIOUSLY THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF WITNESSES. THIS MAN WANTS TO BURY O.J. I THINK HE'S GOING TO BE CALLED A LIAR OR, YOU KNOW --

MR. DARDEN: I THINK IT'S CLEARLY IMPROPER --

THE COURT: I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THERE WASN'T ANYBODY ELSE IN THE COURTROOM.

MR. COCHRAN: I THINK EVEN JASON, WHO PROBABLY WASN'T THERE THAT NIGHT -- I WANTED HIM OUT. HE LEFT TOO.

MR. BAILEY: IF YOU RESPECTFULLY WOULD REMIND THE COURT TO REMIND COUNSEL, ONE WITNESS, ONE OBJECTOR.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, THEY GOT CONFUSED. I KNOW HOW IT IS. BUT, MARCIA, I'M CONTAINING MYSELF, SO YOU HAVE TO DO LIKEWISE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. THANK YOU.

MR. COCHRAN: SO, JUDGE, CAN YOU ADMONISH HIM? HE KEEPS DOING THAT. THIS LAST TIME, WHEN HE SAID -- HE SAID, "IS THAT WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO TESTIFY ABOUT?"

THE COURT: I DIDN'T SEE THAT COMMENT DIRECTED TOWARDS YOUR CLIENT.

MR. COCHRAN: MARCIA, I WAS WATCHING THIS. HE LOOKED -- WHEN HE SAID THAT, HE WAS LOOKING RIGHT AT US.

THE COURT: I DIDN'T SEE THAT.

MR. COCHRAN: BUT I'M TELLING YOU THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED.

THE COURT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

MS. CLARK: IT LOOKED LIKE HE WAS LOOKING AT CARL.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. MR. DOUGLAS, YOU MAY CONTINUE.

MR. DOUGLAS: THANK YOU.

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: ISN'T IT TRUE, MR. SHIPP, THAT FROM 8:15, THE TIME THAT MR. SIMPSON WENT TO BED, THROUGHOUT THAT ENTIRE EVENING, SOME MEMBER OF HIS FAMILY SAT WITH HIM IN HIS ROOM BECAUSE HE WAS SO GRIEF STRICKEN?

A: THAT'S NOT TRUE. SHIRLEY ASKED ME TO GO STAY WITH HIM. SHE DIDN'T WANT O.J. TO BE ALONE. SHE SAID, "YOU STAY UP THERE WITH HIM, RON."

Q: NOW, MR. SHIPP, LET ME CHANGE THE SUBJECT AND TALK ABOUT YOUR FRIENDSHIP WITH MR. SIMPSON. WERE YOU AND HE CLOSE FRIENDS?

A: I WOULD SAY WE WERE PRETTY GOOD FRIENDS. WE DIDN'T -- NEVER WENT OUT TO DINNER LIKE ON A REGULAR BASIS AND STUFF LIKE THAT.

Q: DID YOU EVER GO OUT TO DINNER WITH HIM AND YOU, EVER?

A: WELL, WHEN HE WAS TRYING TO HAVE ME HELP HIM GET BACK WITH NICOLE. HE WAS REAL --

Q: YOU AND HE WENT OUT TO DINNER?

A: HE TOOK ME OUT A COUPLE OF TIMES.

Q: WHERE DID YOU GO?

A: ONE OF THE PLACES WAS RIGHT NEXT TO HIS OFFICE. I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S THE PIZZA PLACE OVER THERE.

Q: YOU AND HE WENT ALONE TO DINNER?

A: OH, YEAH.

Q: WHAT MONTH WAS THAT IN?

A: WHENEVER HE -- 1989, WHENEVER -- THE FIRST WEEK AFTER HE AND NICOLE HAD THE ALTERCATION.

Q: WHEN ELSE DID YOU AND HE EVER GO TO DINNER TOGETHER IN THE 26 YEARS THAT YOU AND HE HAVE BEEN SUPPOSED FRIENDS?

A: YOU KNOW, MR. DOUGLAS, I'M SORRY. YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, OKAY. WHAT HE DID, HE TOOK ME OUT TO -- MAYBE IT WAS A LATE BRUNCH TYPE -- IT WASN'T A DINNER. LATE BRUNCH TYPE OF A THING.

Q: YOU HAVE NEVER HAD A DINNER IN THE PRESENCE OF O.J. SIMPSON ALONE, HAVE YOU?

A: YES, I HAVE.

Q: O.J. SIMPSON IS A FOOTBALL FAN, ISN'T HE?

A: PARDON?

Q: O.J. SIMPSON IS A FOOTBALL FAN, ISN'T HE?

A: YEAH. HE LOVES FOOTBALL, YES, HE DOES.

Q: HE GOES TO GAMES A LOT, DOESN'T HE?

A: YES, HE DOES.

Q: YOU AND O.J. SIMPSON HAVE NEVER ATTENDED A FOOTBALL GAME TOGETHER --

A: NEVER.

Q: -- IN THE 26 YEARS THAT HE'S BEEN YOUR SUPPOSED FRIEND, HAVE YOU?

A: NOT ONE.

Q: YOU AND YOUR WIFE HAVE NEVER GONE ON A DOUBLE DATE WITH NICOLE AND O.J. SIMPSON IN THE ENTIRE TIME THAT YOU'VE KNOWN THEM, HAVE YOU?

A: YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.

Q: YOU AND YOUR WIFE AND HE AND HIS EX-WIFE NEVER WENT TO A MOVIE OR A PLAY OR A CONCERT TOGETHER, THE FOUR OF YOU, HAVE YOU?

A: MY WIFE AND I WERE INVITED SHORTLY AFTER HE BEAT UP NICOLE.

MR. DOUGLAS: MOVE TO STRIKE THAT, YOUR HONOR; NONRESPONSIVE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR WIFE AND YOU WERE INVITED, BUT YOU NEVER WENT, DID YOU?

A: NEVER WENT.

Q: ALL THE TIMES THAT YOU CLAIM THAT YOU WERE OVER HIS HOUSE PLAYING TENNIS, YOU HAVE NEVER IN YOUR ENTIRE LIFE PLAYED TENNIS ON THE SAME COURT WITH O.J. SIMPSON, HAVE YOU?

A: NEVER.

Q: YOU'RE NOT REALLY THIS MAN'S FRIEND, ARE YOU, SIR?

A: WELL, OKAY. ALL RIGHT. IF YOU WANT ME TO EXPLAIN IT, I GUESS YOU CAN SAY I WAS LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE, ONE OF HIS SERVANTS. I DID POLICE STUFF FOR HIM ALL THE TIME. I RAN LICENSE PLATES. THAT'S WHAT I WAS. I MEAN, LIKE I SAID, I LOVED THE GUY.

Q: YOU WEREN'T THE KIND OF FRIEND THAT HE WOULD SHARE SOME PRIVATE SECRET WITH, WERE YOU, SIR?

A: NOTHING EXCEPT FOR THE 1989 BEATING WHERE HE NEEDED ME.

Q: YOU KNOW THAT MR. SIMPSON IS AN AVID GOLFER, TRUE?

A: VERY TRUE.

Q: EVER BEEN GOLFING WITH HIM?

A: NEVER.

Q: EVER ASKED TO GO WITH HIM?

A: NEVER. I'M NOT THAT GOOD.

Q: EVER BEEN TO A RAIDER GAME WITH HIM?

A: NEVER.

Q: A TROJAN GAME WITH HIM?

THE COURT: I THINK IT'S REDUNDANT.

MR. DOUGLAS: VERY WELL.

THE WITNESS: TROJAN GAME? WHERE YOU GOT A HOLD OF ME?

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: NOW, YOU HAVE HAD OCCASION TO MEET WITH MEMBERS OF THE BROWN FAMILY SINCE THE DEATH OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, HAVEN'T YOU?

A: SINCE THE DEATH?

Q: YEAH.

A: ON ONE OCCASION.

Q: WHEN WAS THAT?

A: A MEMORIAL SERVICE FOR NICOLE.

Q: HAVE YOU BEEN DOWN TO DANA POINT TO SPEAK WITH ANY OF THE FAMILY SINCE THEN?

A: NO, I HAVE NOT.

Q: HAVE YOU SPOKEN WITH THEM ON THE PHONE OTHER THAN ON THE DAY OF THE FUNERAL?

A: OH, YES, I HAVE.

Q: HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU SPOKEN WITH ANYONE FROM THE BROWN FAMILY ON THE PHONE SINCE THE FUNERAL UNTIL TODAY?

A: MAYBE SIX.

Q: WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME?

A: MAYBE THREE WEEKS AGO.

Q: WHO DID YOU SPEAK WITH?

A: SPOKE TO BOTH LOU AND JUDY.

Q: WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME?

A: AFTER THE DEATHS.

Q: WHO DID YOU SPEAK WITH?

A: I'M TRYING TO CLARIFY.

Q: AFTER THE DEATHS.

A: I REMEMBER I WENT --- I DIDN'T WANT TO BOTHER THEM LIKE -- BECAUSE THEY WERE BEING BOTHERED. SO I PROBABLY WENT AROUND TWO AND A HALF, THREE MONTHS BEFORE I EVEN CALLED THEM. I MEAN I CALLED ROLF ALL THE TIME AND I CHECKED ON THEM THROUGH ROLF, AND I WOULD ASK HIM HOW THEY WERE DOING.

Q: YOU'VE SPOKEN WITH DENISE BROWN SINCE HER SISTER'S DEATH; HAVE YOU NOT?

A: ONCE AT THE MEMORIAL.

Q: HAVE YOU SPOKEN WITH DOMINIQUE BROWN SINCE THE DEATH OF HER SISTER?

A: TALKED TO HER ONCE, WHICH WAS ALSO THAT THREE-WEEK PERIOD, THREE WEEKS AGO WHEN SHE ANSWERED THE PHONE.

Q: DID YOU TALK TO TANYA BROWN AT ALL SINCE THE DEATH OF HER SISTER?

A: AT THE MEMORIAL.

Q: I'M SORRY?

A: AT THE MEMORIAL.

Q: YOU MENTIONED THERE WERE SIX TIMES OR SO THAT YOU HAVE SPOKEN TO SOMEONE IN THE BROWN FAMILY ON THE TELEPHONE. ONE TIME WAS WITH LOUIS AND JUDITHA BROWN.

A: I TALKED TO LOU A FEW TIMES. I MEAN A FEW TIMES, I CALLED AND I WOULD ASK TO SPEAK TO JUDY OR SHE ANSWERED THE PHONE AND PUT LOU ON THE PHONE.

Q: DID YOU EVER TALK TO ANYONE IN THE BROWN FAMILY ABOUT THIS SUPPOSED CONVERSATION WITH YOU AND MR. SIMPSON ABOUT DREAMS?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: WHO ELSE HAVE YOU TOLD -- BEFORE TALKING TO MR. DARDEN AND MR. VANNATTER, WHO ELSE DID YOU TALK TO ABOUT THESE DREAMS OTHER THAN YOUR WIFE AND OTHER THAN SHEILA WELLER?

A: MY ATTORNEY, BOB MC NEILL.

THE COURT: ROBERT MC NEILL?

THE WITNESS: YEAH. ROBERT MC NEILL, CORRECT.

THE COURT: WASHINGTON BOULEVARD OFFICE?

THE WITNESS: YEAH.

MR. COCHRAN: NOT ANYMORE. THEY MOVED, YOUR HONOR.

THE WITNESS: DOWN ON -- HE WAS ON WASHINGTON, YES.

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: YOU BEGAN THE POLICE FORCE WHEN, MR. SHIPP?

A: NOVEMBER 1974.

Q: AND YOU WERE A MEMBER OF THE POLICE FORCE UNTIL WHEN, MR. SHIPP?

A: OCTOBER 1989.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET ME SEE COUNSEL OVER HERE AT SIDEBAR WITH THE REPORTER, PLEASE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: OVER AT SIDEBAR. COUNSEL, DO WE HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST HERE? THIS GENTLEMAN IS BEING REPRESENTED BY BOB MC NEILL -- AND LET ME ASK DEFENSE COUNSEL TO STEP BACK -- I MEAN PROSECUTION COUNSEL TO STEP BACK. THERE IS SOMETHING IN THE EX PARTE STUFF THAT I NEED TO ASK THEM ABOUT.

(THE PROSECUTORS LEFT SIDEBAR.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ISN'T BOB MC NEILL ONE OF THE LAWYERS THAT WAS VISITING O.J.?

MR. COCHRAN: YEAH, HE WAS. AND I THINK THAT HE WAS A FRIEND WITH O.J. AT ONE POINT AND I THINK MAY BE OFF THE LIST NOW. YEAH, HE WAS. I THINK HE CAME TO SEE HIM ONE TIME.

THE COURT: JANUARY 1ST.

MR. COCHRAN: HE CAME DOWN TO SEE HIM ONE TIME, BUT I DON'T THINK THERE'S A CONFLICT. HE'S A LAWYER, BUT MC NEILL KNEW O.J. NOW, OF COURSE -- SEE, THIS GUY HAD NOT SAID ANYTHING -- I'M NOT SURE MC NEILL KNOWS ABOUT THIS, YOU SEE, UP UNTIL -- ACTUALLY UP TO THE TIME DARDEN TOLD ME. ACTUALLY HE DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS.

THE COURT: YOU'VE GOT MC NEILL ON THE ATTORNEY LIST, NOT ON THE FRIEND WITNESSES.

MR. COCHRAN: HE IS AN ATTORNEY. THAT'S WHY HE IS ON THERE. WHATEVER YOUR HONOR'S PLEASURE IS. THERE WOULD BE A CONFLICT NOW BECAUSE THIS GUY IS DEFINITELY ADVERSE. THAT'S HIS LAWYER AND --

THE COURT: OKAY. I NEED TO MAKE INQUIRY OF YOUR CLIENT.

MR. COCHRAN: DO YOU WANT TO DO IT AS SOON AS WE FINISH?

THE COURT: YEAH.

MR. COCHRAN: IF THERE'S A PROBLEM, WE'LL TAKE HIM OFF THE LIST. I THINK HE CAME ONE TIME.

THE COURT: IT MAY NOT BE THAT SIMPLE. I JUST WANTED TO RAISE TO YOU THE PROBLEM. ALL RIGHT.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, SORRY ABOUT THE DELAY. MR. DOUGLAS, DO YOU WISH TO CONCLUDE FOR THE AFTERNOON?

MR. DOUGLAS: I WOULD, YOUR HONOR, IF I MAY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: WHEN IS THE LAST TIME BEFORE JUNE 13TH, 1994, MR. SHIPP, THAT YOU HAD OCCASION TO VISIT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION?

A: PROBABLY ABOUT A WEEK BEFORE THAT.

Q: AND THAT WAS WHEN YOU VISITED THERE WITH SOME BLOND FEMALE, WASN'T IT?

A: OH, YES, IT WAS.

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. YOUR HONOR, CAN WE APPROACH THE SIDEBAR?

THE COURT: YES.

THE COURT: I TAKE IT THERE'S AN OBJECTION?

MR. DARDEN: YES.

THE COURT: RELEVANCY?

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: WE'RE OVER AT SIDEBAR. THE OBJECTION IS RELEVANCY I TAKE IT?

MR. DARDEN: YEAH. I GUESS HE JUST WANTS TO RUIN HIS MARRIAGE TO HER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I WOULD LIKE AN OFFER OF PROOF.

MR. COCHRAN: AS AN OFFER OF PROOF, THERE'S GOING TO BE TESTIMONY THIS GUY WOULD COME BY ALL TIMES OF THE DAY AND NIGHT WITH THESE DIFFERENT BLOND WOMEN THAT WANTED TO BE LIKE NICOLE, NICOLE TYPES, GET IN THE JACUZZI AND DRINK. HE WAS SUSPENDED FOR DRINKING AS AN LAPD OFFICER. HE HAS A DRINKING PROBLEM. HE HAS A TREMENDOUS DRINKING PROBLEM. HIS HABITS AND HIS DRINKING STUFF IS VERY, VERY RELEVANT AND WHAT HE DID IS RELEVANT. WE ARE ENTITLED TO GO INTO THIS.

MR. DOUGLAS: HE'S NOT THAT FRIENDLY, YOUR HONOR, AND HE DROPPED BY UNANNOUNCED AND HE WANTED TO GET ALCOHOL 10:00 O'CLOCK AT NIGHT. THAT WAS HIS TENDENCY. AND THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE WHO WILL TESTIFY ABOUT WARNING HIM ABOUT COMING BY UNANNOUNCED AND PLAYING TENNIS, WILL TESTIFY AS TO HOW HE WOULD ALWAYS USE THE TENNIS COURT, AND THERE WERE MEETINGS WHICH HE HAD WITH CATHY RANDA ABOUT HOW HE WOULD COME BY UNANNOUNCED AND HOW HE COULDN'T DO THAT.

MR. DARDEN: WE WOULD MAKE A 402, 352 OBJECTION. AND, YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T DESTROY THE LIVES OF EVERY WITNESS WHO TAKES THE WITNESS STAND, YOU KNOW, JUST TO SUIT MR. SIMPSON'S NEEDS. YOU KNOW WHAT? WE HAVE HIT AN ALL TIME LOW HERE I THINK. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS CAN GO ANY LOWER BUT --

MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S BALONEY. WE CAN PROVE THIS. THIS IS PREPOSTEROUS.

THE COURT: LET ME JUST ASK -- I THINK YOU CAN ASK HIM HOW MANY TIMES HE COMES OVER AND WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME HE WAS THERE AND THEY CAN -- I MEAN BECAUSE THEY'RE ENTITLED TO GO INTO THE NATURE OF THE RELATIONSHIP HERE. BUT I ALSO DON'T WANT TO GET INVOLVED IN DIVORCE COURT HERE EITHER.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, YOUR HONOR, THIS IS A MURDER CASE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND, MR. COCHRAN. I'M RULING IN YOUR FAVOR AND I'M TELLING YOU TO BE CAUTIOUS, DON'T GET GREEDY.

MR. COCHRAN: WE'RE NOT BEING GREEDY. WE'RE JUST TRYING TO DEFEND OUR CLIENT.

MR. DARDEN: IF YOU DO, I'LL GET GREEDY. JUST REMEMBER THAT. THERE'S A BOMB ABOUT TO DROP ON YOU ANYWAY.

MR. COCHRAN: GREEDY, COME ON.

THE COURT: WE'VE ONLY GOT FIVE MINUTES LEFT ANYWAY

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. DOUGLAS, YOU MAY WIND IT UP FOR THE AFTERNOON, PLEASE.

MR. DOUGLAS: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: IT IS TRUE, IS IT NOT, THAT ABOUT A WEEK BEFORE THE DEATH OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, YOU VISITED MR. SIMPSON'S HOUSE UNANNOUNCED AT ABOUT 10:00 O'CLOCK P.M. WITH A BLOND FEMALE? TRUE?

A: NO. THAT WAS APPROXIMATELY --

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, YOU KNOW, I OBJECTED TO THE QUESTION. I THOUGHT THE COURT SUSTAINED IT.

THE COURT: NO. OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: YOU MAY ANSWER.

THE COURT: BUT NOT VERY BROAD HERE.

THE WITNESS: NO. THE NIGHT THAT THE BLOND FEMALE WAS OVER, THAT WAS THREE WEEKS BEFORE. IT WAS A GOOD FRIEND OF MY WIFE AND WE'RE GOOD FRIENDS WITH HER HUSBAND. HER NAME IS LISA MADIGAN. THAT WAS THREE WEEKS PRIOR TO.

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: IS SHE ABOUT SIX FOOT ONE RESEMBLING NICOLE SIMPSON?

A: NO. I AM SORRY. SHE'S ABOUT -- LISA'S 5/9, ALMOST 5/10.

Q: WAS THIS THE WOMAN WHO YOU WANTED TO SHARE THE JACUZZI WITH?

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION. HOW IS THIS RELEVANT?

THE COURT: THE FACT THAT HE WAS OVER THERE THREE OR FOUR WEEKS AGO, THAT'S ABOUT IT. THAT'S RELEVANT, COUNSEL.

MR. DOUGLAS: VERY WELL.

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: WHEN YOU WERE THERE ON THIS OCCASION, DID YOU ASK MR. SIMPSON TO GO AND BRING YOU SOME WINE?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: YOU DRINK A LOT, DON'T YOU?

A: I USED TO.

Q: YOU'VE HAD A DRINKING PROBLEM, HAVEN'T YOU?

A: IN THE PAST I HAVE.

MR. DOUGLAS: WE CAN STOP NOW, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OUR RECESS FOR THE AFTERNOON. MR. SHIPP, I'M GOING TO DIRECT YOU TO COME BACK TOMORROW MORNING AT 9:00 O'CLOCK. DON'T DISCUSS YOUR TESTIMONY WITH ANYONE ELSE EXCEPT THE LAWYERS IN THE CASE, ALL RIGHT? LET'S HAVE IT QUIET IN THE COURTROOM, PLEASE. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITION TO YOU. MR. SHIPP, YOU CAN STEP DOWN. GO AHEAD. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITION TO YOU; DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONGST YOURSELVES, FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, HAVE ANY CONTACT WITH ANYBODY FROM THE OUTSIDE OR ALLOW ANYBODY TO CONTACT YOU. AND WE WILL SEE YOU BACK HERE HOPEFULLY BRIGHT AND EARLY 9:00 O'CLOCK TOMORROW MORNING. ALL RIGHT. HAVE A PLEASANT EVENING. ALL RIGHT. LET'S CLEAR THE COURTROOM FOR THE JURY, PLEASE. COUNSEL WHO HAVE ANY ENGAGEMENT ARE EXCUSED. I DO NEED COUNSEL TO STAY FOR A MOMENT.

MR. COCHRAN: CAN WE APPROACH? I THINK IT WILL BE A LOT EASIER.

(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)

THE COURT: BACK ON THE RECORD. THE JURY HAS LEFT. MR. BAILEY, MR. DOUGLAS, YOU HAD SOME COMMENT?

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, I WAS JUST INFORMED THAT WHEN MR. SHIPP LEFT THE WITNESS STAND, THERE WERE AUDIBLE COMMENTS OF SUPPORT MADE BY MEMBERS OF THE GOLDMAN FAMILY TO HIM THAT WAS LOUD ENOUGH AND CAPABLE OF BEING HEARD BY THE JURY WHILE THE JURY SAT AS THE AUDIENCE WAS LEAVING. I WAS NOTIFIED OF THIS BY COCOUNSEL WHO WAS ABLE TO HEAR THE COMMENT AND WAS CONCERNED AND BROUGHT IT TO MY IMMEDIATE ATTENTION. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT PARTICULARLY GIVEN THE CRITICAL JUNCTURE THAT WE ARE IN HIS TESTIMONY, THAT ALL FAMILY MEMBERS AND PEOPLE THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE BE STERNLY WARNED AND ADMONISHED ABOUT SUCH CONDUCT, WHICH I OBJECT TO AND THAT JEOPARDIZES MR. SIMPSON'S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET ME ASK, MISS CHAPMAN, ARE YOU THE INDIVIDUAL WHO OVERHEARD THIS?

MS. CHAPMAN: NO.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO INDICATE I WAS SEATED ADJACENT TO MR. SHIPP. I DIDN'T HEAR IT. I'M NOT SAYING IT DIDN'T HAPPEN, BUT I CERTAINLY DIDN'T HEAR IT.

THE COURT: I WOULD LIKE THE INDIVIDUAL WHO HEARD IT, CLAIMS TO HAVE HEARD IT TELL ME WHAT IT WAS.

MR. DARDEN: MAY I RETRIEVE THE EVIDENCE?

THE COURT: YOU MAY.

THE COURT: MISS CAPLAN?

MS. CAPLAN: YES.

THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND THERE WAS SOME COMMENT THAT WAS MADE. YOU WANT TO TELL ME WHAT IT WAS?

MS. CAPLAN: I SAW MISS GOLDMAN GESTURING TO RON SHIPP, "YOU DID A WONDERFUL JOB." SHE DID THIS WHILE THE JURY WAS SITTING RIGHT THERE, INDICATING A THUMBS UP GESTURE. SHE WAS ALSO TALKING, "RON, YOU DID A GREAT JOB" (INDICATING).

MR. COCHRAN: THUMBS UP FOR THE RECORD.

MS. CLARK: FOR THE RECORD, THE WITNESS DIDN'T HEAR HER SAY THAT.

MS. CAPLAN: HE TURNED AROUND AND SMILED AT HER. I WAS SITTING RIGHT THERE.

THE COURT: MS. CAPLAN, WE'RE NOT ARGUING HERE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. TOMORROW MORNING, WHAT WE WILL DO IS READMONISH THE AUDIENCE WHEN THEY COME IN, ALSO ADMONISH THE JURORS THAT IF THEY SAW OR HEARD ANY GESTURE INDICATION FROM THE AUDIENCE, THEY'RE OBVIOUSLY TO DISREGARD IT.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, BEFORE WE START AGAIN, WILL YOU ADMONISH THE WITNESS WHAT I ALSO ASKED YOU ABOUT ABOUT DIRECTING COMMENTS OVER TO MR. SIMPSON?

THE COURT: YES.

MR. DARDEN: CAN WE DEAL WITH THE --

THE COURT: WE HAD ONE OTHER MATTER THAT CAME UP DURING THE COURSE OF THE DETECTIVE. AS YOU RECALL, MR. SHIPP INDICATED HE IS REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEY ROBERT MC NEILL, WHO IS KNOWN TO ME AS ROBERT MC NEILL, JR. AND THE REASON THIS CAME UP IS, ON THE LIST OF ATTORNEYS WHO ARE AUTHORIZED TO VISIT MR. SIMPSON AT THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL AS HIS COUNSEL IS ONE ROBERT MC NEILL, JR. SO OBVIOUSLY THERE IS AN APPARENT OR POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST IF MR. MC NEILL REPRESENTED MR. SHIPP AND MR. SIMPSON. MR. COCHRAN, YOU WANT TO EXPLAIN TO THE COURT WHAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE SITUATION IS?

MR. COCHRAN: CERTAINLY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: AS IF WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH.

MR. COCHRAN: I DON'T THINK THERE'S A PROBLEM, YOUR HONOR. MR. MC NEILL WAS ACQUAINTED WITH MR. SIMPSON AND HAD ASKED THAT HE BE ALLOWED TO GO AND VISIT HIM. AT SOME POINT, HIS NAME WAS ADDED TO THE LIST. THEY WERE FRIENDS BEFORE THIS CASE EVER STARTED. I INQUIRED AND CHECKED WITH MR. SIMPSON. MR. MC NEILL HAS NEVER EVER VISITED MR. SIMPSON. BUT IN VIEW OF MR. SHIPP'S TESTIMONY, I'LL ASK THAT HIS NAME BE TAKEN OFF THE LIST. HE SHOULD NOT BE ON THAT LIST IN VIEW OF THE POTENTIAL CONFLICT AT THIS POINT AS A FRIEND OR OTHER BUSINESS. BUT NOW, AT THIS TIME, BECAUSE OF THE POTENTIAL FOR CONFLICT -- I'M SURE HE WOULD NOT DO IT. BUT WE ASK HIS NAME BE TAKEN OFF. AND I WILL FURTHER CALL HIS OFFICE AND LET HIM KNOW HIS NAME IS OFF THE LIST.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. AND, MR. SIMPSON, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT MR. ROBERT MC NEILL HAS NOT REPRESENTED YOU, HE HAS NOT APPEARED ON THE RECORD IN THIS CASE AS FAR AS MY UNDERSTANDING.

THE DEFENDANT: THAT IS CORRECT.

THE COURT: AND YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PROBLEM IS?

THE DEFENDANT: YES, I DO.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. OKAY.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ONE OTHER THING. MISS CLARK, I NEED TO DO SOME PLANNING ABOUT OUR VISIT OUT IN THE FIELD. CAN YOU TELL ME WHEN YOU ARE PLANNING THAT?

MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR. I HAD PLANNED THAT WE WOULD ASK FOR A VIEWING OF BUNDY JUST AFTER THE FIRST OFFICER ON THE SCENE TESTIFIES. THAT WOULD COME UP -- I'M VIEWING THE WITNESS LIST -- THAT WOULD COME UP AFTER THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES FROM MEZZALUNA AND THAT. SO WE'LL HAVE -- IT'S NOT GOING TO COME UP UNTIL AFTER ALL THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS DONE. IT'S HARD TO ESTIMATE HOW LONG IT IS GOING TO TAKE TO CROSS.

THE COURT: ARE WE TALKING A COUPLE WEEKS?

MS. CLARK: YEAH, I THINK SO.

THE COURT: OKAY. THEN, COUNSEL, WOULD EACH SIDE -- EACH SIDE IS AGREED THIS IS SOMETHING NECESSARY, TO VIEW THE SCENE BOTH AT BUNDY AND ROCKINGHAM BOTH DURING THE DAYLIGHT HOURS AND AGAIN AT NIGHT. AND MY PROPOSAL WAS THAT WE GO THERE ONCE IN THE DAYLIGHT HOURS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE CASE AND THEN TOWARDS THE END OF THE CASE, GO BACK AGAIN DURING NIGHTTIME HOURS, WHICH MAY GET US RIGHT ABOUT JUNE.

MR. COCHRAN: I CERTAINLY HOPE NOT.

THE COURT: SO WE MAY EVEN GET THE RIGHT TIME AND MOON AND SUN AND THE STARS AND ALL OF THE ABOVE. THE SHERIFF'S ARE PUTTING TOGETHER A TRAVEL ITINERARY. AND WE OF COURSE HAVE TO FORM A PRESS POOL TO GO ALONG WITH US. OTHERWISE THEY'LL HOUND US. AND THE ITINERARY THAT THEY HAVE PLANNED SO FAR IS BUNDY, DRIVE BY MEZZALUNA AND THEN UP TO ROCKINGHAM ROUGHLY, ALTHOUGH THEY HAVE THE SECRET ROUTE. BUT IF YOU WANT, WOULD YOU GIVE ME AN ITINERARY OF WHAT YOU THINK WE NEED TO DO, BECAUSE I'LL HAVE TO PLAN HOW LONG IT'S GOING TO TAKE. WE CAN'T ALL GO THROUGH THE LOCATIONS PROBABLY AT THE SAME TIME BECAUSE OF NARROWNESS OF SOME OF THESE PLACES. MAYBE THREE OR FOUR AT A TIME ESCORTED BY DEPUTIES, ET CETERA.

MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU SAY, MISS CLARK, WHEN THAT WOULD BE?

MS. CLARK: I THOUGHT AT BEST TWO WEEKS, PROBABLY LONGER.

MR. COCHRAN: AND WE WOULD DO ROCKINGHAM AND BUNDY ON THE SAME DAY? WE NEED TO OF COURSE KNOW IN ADVANCE REGARDING ROCKINGHAM.

MS. CLARK: I WASN'T ANTICIPATING DOING BOTH AT THE SAME TIME. I WOULD LIKE TO GO TO ROCKINGHAM AND BUNDY AT LEAST DURING DAYLIGHT HOURS.

THE COURT: I THINK WE CAN DO ALL THREE THE SAME DAY. THEY'RE ALL IN PRETTY CLOSE PROXIMITY.

MR. COCHRAN: IF WE GO BACK AT NIGHT, JUDGE, WE CAN VIEW THEM BOTH AT NIGHT RATHER THAN MAKE THREE OR FOUR TRIPS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I INQUIRE, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: LET ME JUST ASK ONE OTHER THING. ARE WE GOING TO NEED TO SEE THE INTERIOR OF THE BUNDY ADDRESS? ANY REASON THAT WE NEED TO GO IN THERE?

MS. CLARK: I REALLY AT THIS TIME DON'T THINK SO, YOUR HONOR. BUT THE COURT HAS ASKED ME TO --

THE COURT: YOU THINK SO?

MR. COCHRAN: YES, I THINK SO. I THINK ABSOLUTELY.

MS. CLARK: WHAT'S THE RELEVANCE?

MR. COCHRAN: I THINK THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF RELEVANCE. THIS INSTANCE WHERE --

THE COURT: ACTUALLY IF WE GET TO THE -- YOU KNOW, WAS THAT GRETNA GREEN?

MR. COCHRAN: I STILL THINK IT'S VERY RELEVANT, YOUR HONOR, BECAUSE OF ALL THE THINGS THAT THE LAPD DIDN'T DO AMONG OTHER THINGS. SO I THINK IT'S VERY RELEVANT NOT ONLY TO SEE THE OUTSIDE, BUT THE INSIDE WHERE THE CHILDREN WERE, THAT SORT OF THING. IT'S VERY RELEVANT BECAUSE WE HAVE THESE WITNESSES WHO WILL BE TESTIFYING ABOUT THINGS THAT THEY HEARD.

THE COURT: WELL, WHAT I'M ASKING IS, WHY DON'T YOU PUT -- EACH SIDE PUT TOGETHER A LIST OF WHAT IT IS YOU WANT TO SEE AND THEN -- BECAUSE THE SHERIFF'S HAVE TO KNOW TIME WISE HOW LONG IT'S GOING TO TAKE US TO DO ALL OF THIS FOR PLANNING.

MS. CLARK: AND I WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THE SUBJECT MATTER OF GOING -- TAKING THE JURY INSIDE THE BUNDY RESIDENCE.

THE COURT: WELL, THINK ABOUT IT.

MS. CLARK: OKAY. I'M NOT GOING TO FIGHT ABOUT IT IF WE DON'T HAVE TO, BUT IT DOESN'T SEEM RELEVANT TO ME AT THIS TIME.

THE COURT: I MEAN IF WE'RE THERE, SOMETHING COMES UP.

MR. COCHRAN: I THINK IT'S VERY RELEVANT, AND I'LL TALK TO MS. CLARK. I'LL CONVINCE HER WHY IT IS RELEVANT, YOUR HONOR. I WOULD LIKE TO INQUIRE OF THE PEOPLE NOW THAT WE'RE FINALLY IN TRIAL -- AND MISS CLARK SAID SOMETHING THE OTHER DAY ABOUT THEM CONCLUDING THEIR CASE WITHIN FOUR TO SIX WEEKS. WE WOULD LIKE A REALISTIC ESTIMATE BECAUSE THIS IS THE KIND OF SITUATION WHERE I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW HOW LONG THIS TRIAL IS GOING TO TAKE. MAY I HAVE JUST A SECOND?

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

THE COURT: WELL, MR. COCHRAN, LET ME SUGGEST THIS TO YOU AND MS. CLARK. WHY DON'T YOU ALL -- SINCE WE HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL TIME THIS AFTERNOON, WHY DON'T YOU SIT DOWN AND INFORMALLY CHART OUT IN BLOCKS WHERE IT IS YOU THINK YOU ARE GOING TO BE IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS.

MR. COCHRAN: I THINK WE HAVE SOMETHING WE CAN REPRESENT TO YOUR HONOR.

MS. CLARK: I HAVE GIVEN AN ESTIMATE, YOUR HONOR, THAT COUNSEL SHOULD BE READY TO PROCEED BEGINNING OF APRIL, GIVING EXTRA LAG TIME FOR THINGS THAT MAY OCCUR LIKE ILLNESSES, EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF --

THE COURT: THAT'S TWO BEEPERS I OWN. DEPUTY MAGNERA, WOULD YOU TAKE MR. DARDEN'S BEEPER, PLEASE.

MR. DARDEN: GEEZ, YOU DIDN'T TAKE THESE OTHER PEOPLE'S LIKE MR. BAILEY'S CELLULAR TELEPHONE.

THE COURT: ANY OTHER ELECTRONIC DEVICES? I TOOK ONE FROM COURT T.V. LAST WEEK. THERE'S TWO I HAVE NOW.

MR. DARDEN: I HOPE THE BEEPER COMPANY SENDS ME A NEW BEEPER, A NEW ONE, BETTER MODEL, CELLULAR BEEPER, DIGITAL BEEPER. HOW IS MISS CLARK GOING TO GET IN CONTACT WITH ME TONIGHT?

MS. CLARK: YOU HAVE JUST HAMSTRUNG THE PROSECUTION IN A VERY SERIOUS WAY.

THE COURT: THAT'S LIFE IN THE BIG CITY.

MR. DARDEN: MAY I BE EXCUSED?

THE COURT: YOU MAY, MR. DARDEN. YOU MAY THANK ME FOR THAT, MR. DARDEN. ALL RIGHT. END OF APRIL?

MS. CLARK: NO. BEGINNING OF APRIL. AND I'M GIVING SOME -- THIS IS VERY APPROXIMATE. I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG THE CROSS -- IT IS GOING TO BE VERY HARD FOR COUNSEL -- FOR MR. COCHRAN AND MYSELF TO ESTIMATE THE DNA, LENGTH OF TIME FOR THOSE HEARINGS, YOU KNOW, THAT TESTIMONY. SO THIS IS A VERY ROUGH ESTIMATE. AND I CAN'T -- PLEASE DON'T HOLD ME TO THIS. YOU KNOW, I AM DOING THE BEST I CAN, BUT I REALLY DON'T KNOW AND CROSS DOES VARY. I'M UNABLE TO PREDICT HOW LONG IT GOES.

THE COURT: WHEN DO YOU ANTICIPATE WE'LL SEE MR. HODGMAN BACK, IF AND WHEN?

MS. CLARK: I DON'T KNOW, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, ANYTHING ELSE?

MR. COCHRAN: I THINK WE'VE AGREED TO TRY TO SHOOT FOR APRIL 1ST FOR THE BEGINNING OF THE DEFENSE CASE, YOUR HONOR, GIVE OR TAKE, AS YOU SAID, THE DNA, WHICH IS GOING TO BE INTERESTING. IS IT POSSIBLE -- I HAVE A BRIEF, BRIEF HEARING TOMORROW MORNING. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT WE COULD -- THAT STARTS AT 8:30 -- POSSIBLY START AT 9:15 TOMORROW? IT'S DOWN IN DEPARTMENT 111. APPARENTLY THEY HELD IT TODAY AT 8:30. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE UNTIL 9:15 AT LEAST TOMORROW MORNING. IS THAT POSSIBLE, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT REQUEST?

MR. COCHRAN: SHE WON'T BE HERE ANYWAY, YOUR HONOR. SO IT'S OKAY.

MS. CLARK: NO OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: 9:15.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, THANK YOU.

(AT 2:20 P.M., AN ADJOURNMENT WAS TAKEN UNTIL, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1995, 9:15 A.M.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, )
)
PLAINTIFF, )
)
) VS. ) NO. BA097211
)
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, )
)
)
DEFENDANT. )

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1995

VOLUME 79

PAGES 12654 THROUGH 12855, INCLUSIVE
(PAGES 12650 THROUGH 12653, INCLUSIVE, SEALED)

APPEARANCES: (SEE PAGE 2)

JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR #4588
CHRISTINE M. OLSON, CSR #2378 OFFICIAL REPORTERS

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE PEOPLE: GIL GARCETTI, DISTRICT ATTORNEY
BY: MARCIA R. CLARK, WILLIAM W.
HODGMAN, CHRISTOPHER A. DARDEN,
CHERI A. LEWIS, ROCKNE P. HARMON,
GEORGE W. CLARKE, SCOTT M. GORDON
LYDIA C. BODIN, HANK M. GOLDBERG,
AND DARRELL S. MAVIS, DEPUTIES
18-000 CRIMINAL COURTS BUILDING
210 WEST TEMPLE STREET
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012

FOR THE DEFENDANT: ROBERT L. SHAPIRO, ESQUIRE
SARA L. CAPLAN, ESQUIRE
2121 AVENUE OF THE STARS
19TH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067

JOHNNIE L. COCHRAN, JR., ESQUIRE
BY: CARL E. DOUGLAS, ESQUIRE
SHAWN SNIDER CHAPMAN, ESQUIRE
4929 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
SUITE 1010
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90010

GERALD F. UELMEN, ESQUIRE
ROBERT KARDASHIAN, ESQUIRE
ALAN DERSHOWITZ, ESQUIRE
F. LEE BAILEY, ESQUIRE
BARRY SCHECK, ESQUIRE
ROBERT D. BLASIER, ESQUIRE

I N D E X

INDEX FOR VOLUME 79 PAGES 12654 - 12855

-----------------------------------------------------

DAY DATE SESSION PAGE VOL.

WEDNESDAY FEBRUARY 1, 1995 A.M. 12654 79
P.M. 12758 79
-----------------------------------------------------

PROCEEDINGS

MOTION RE ADMISSIBILITY OF STATEMENTS 12654 79 OF RONALD SHIPP

LEGEND:

MS. CLARK - MC
MR. HODGMAN - H
MR. DARDEN D
MR. KAHN - K
MR. GOLDBERG - GB
MR. GORDON - G
MR. SHAPIRO - S
MR. COCHRAN - C
MR. DOUGLAS - CD
MR. BAILEY - B
MR. UELMEN - U
MR. SCHECK - BS
MR. NEUFELD - N

-----------------------------------------------------

CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

PEOPLE'S
WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS VOL.

SHIPP, RONALD 12700D 79 (RESUMED) 12761D
(VOIR DIRE) 12775CD
(RESUMED) 12778D 12789CD

-----------------------------------------------------

ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

PEOPLE'S
WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS VOL.

SHIPP, RONALD 12700D 79 (RESUMED) 12761D
(VOIR DIRE) 12775CD
(RESUMED) 12778D 12789CD

EXHIBITS

PEOPLE'S FOR IN
EXHIBIT IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE

PAGE VOL. PAGE VOL.

8 - 4-PAGE DOCUMENT 12720 79
LAPD TEACHING PLAN ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

9 - POLAROID PHOTOGRAPH 12736 79
(FRONT VIEW OF FACE OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON)

10 - POLAROID PHOTOGRAPH 12736 79
(FACE OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON)

11 - POLAROID PHOTOGRAPH 12736 79
(FACE AND RIGHT ARM OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON)

-----------------------------------------------------

DEFENSE FOR IN
EXHIBIT IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE

PAGE VOL. PAGE VOL.

1000 - 5-PAGE EXCERPT 12802 79
FROM THE BOOK"RAGING HEART"