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 MORNING, COUNSEL.

MR. COCHRAN: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT THE DEFENDANT IS PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT WITH HIS COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. DOUGLAS, MR. BAILEY, PEOPLE REPRESENTED BY MISS CLARK AND MR. DARDEN. THE JURY IS NOT PRESENT. MR. DOUGLAS, YOU HAD TWO MATTERS YOU WANTED TO ADDRESS THE COURT ON?

MR. DOUGLAS: I WOULD, YOUR HONOR. I JUST WOULD LIKE TO STATE FOR THE RECORD THAT YESTERDAY, I TURNED OVER TO THE PROSECUTION COPIES OF TWO SEPARATE VIDEOTAPES WHICH I BELIEVE COMPLETES MY OBLIGATION OF TURNING OVER COPIES OF VIDEOTAPES THAT WE CULLED TO CREATE THE MONTAGE OF DIFFERENT CRIME SCENE CONTAMINATION. THIS MORNING, YOUR HONOR, THOUGH I HAD IT YESTERDAY AND FORGOT TO TURN IT OVER -- AND I ALSO TURNED OVER YESTERDAY A STATEMENT OF REGGIE MACKENZIE, WHICH REFLECTS A RECENT TELEPHONE INTERVIEW. THIS MORNING, YOUR HONOR, CONSISTENT WITH THE COURT'S ORDERS, I TURNED OVER THE STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DELBERT WONG AND I ALSO TURNED OVER AN UPDATED SUPPLEMENTAL WITNESS LIST PRIMARILY INCLUDING THOSE DNA PEOPLE THAT HAD BEEN INADVERTENTLY OMITTED FROM THE EARLIER LIST, AND DR. FISCHMAN AND DR. RIECHARDT AND HOWARD WEITZMAN ARE INCLUDED ON THE NAMES ON THAT LIST.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. DOUGLAS: THE SECOND MATTER DEALS WITH, YOUR HONOR, AS WILL LIKELY BE THE CASE, EACH EVENING WHEN I RETURN FROM COURT OR WHEN WE RETURN FROM COURT, WE HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH DEAN UELMEN AND PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ. AND I HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THEM BOTH LAST NIGHT AND AGAIN THIS MORNING, AND A COUPLE OF POINTS PROFESSORS DERSHOWITZ AND UELMEN SPOKE TO ME ABOUT THAT THEY WANTED ME TO STRESS TO THE COURT. AND THAT DEALS WITH, YOUR HONOR, THE STATE OF THE CURRENT RECORD AS A RESULT OF A DECISION THAT I THINK, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, WAS MADE INCORRECTLY CONCERNING THE IMPLICATIONS OF HAVING EXCISED A PORTION OF MR. SIMPSON'S ALLEGED STATEMENT ABOUT A POLYGRAPH. AS THE COURT UNDERSTANDS, THE STATEMENT ABOUT THE DREAMS FOLLOWED SOME REFERENCE TO A POLYGRAPH. AND UNDER ONE PARTICULAR SCENARIO, MR. SIMPSON IS INNOCENT. AND THE QUESTION IS RAISED ABOUT TAKING A POLYGRAPH, AND MR. SIMPSON SAYS, "I'M INNOCENT, BUT I'M WARY ABOUT TAKING A POLYGRAPH BECAUSE I'VE BEEN HAVING DREAMS ABOUT KILLING MISS NICOLE." ASSUME FOR THE SAKE OF MY ARGUMENT THAT THAT IS AN ACCURATE REFLECTION OF WHAT OCCURRED. THE STATEMENT ABOUT -- AND THAT IT WAS JOKINGLY MADE, AS MR. SHIPP SUGGESTED, AND IN FACT, HE ALSO SAYS THAT THERE WAS A CHUCKLE BEFORE TALKING ABOUT THE DREAMS. WHEN THE STATEMENT IS TAKEN IN THAT CONTEXT, IN THE CONTEXT OF REFERENCE TO A POLYGRAPH, IT SAYS, I'M INNOCENT, BUT I'M AFRAID TO TAKE A POLYGRAPH BECAUSE I'VE BEEN HAVING THESE DREAMS AND I'M AFRAID THAT THESE DREAMS MAY CAUSE THERE TO BE A FALSE POSITIVE READING ON THE POLYGRAPH, AND THAT'S WHY I'M AFRAID TO TAKE A POLYGRAPH. THAT IS AN EXPLANATION THAT IS VERY CONSISTENT WITH INNOCENCE, AND THAT WOULD HAVE ENABLED US TO ARGUE A THEORY THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN CONSISTENT WITH MR. SIMPSON'S INNOCENCE. THE WAY THAT THE RECORD UNFOLDED HOWEVER IS FAR MORE SINISTER. AND AS THE COURT WILL RECALL, THERE WAS FIRST A QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED OF MR. SHIPP, THAT MR. SIMPSON RAISED THE ISSUE OF DNA. THEN MR. DARDEN LED HIM AND SAID, "WHAT WAS MR. SIMPSON'S NEXT RESPONSE," AND THE STATEMENT WAS, "WELL, HE SAID THAT, 'I'VE BEEN HAVING A LOT OF DREAMS ABOUT KILLING NICOLE LATELY.'" NOW, YOUR HONOR, BECAUSE WE HAVE HAD --

THE COURT: I DON'T THINK THAT WAS PRECISELY WHAT HE SAID.

MR. DOUGLAS: WELL, THE STATEMENT ABOUT THE DREAMS FOLLOWED THE STATEMENT ABOUT THE DNA, AND THE QUESTION WAS, HOW DID HE RESPOND OR WHAT WAS THE NEXT STATEMENT THAT WAS MADE IN RESPONSE, AND THERE WAS THIS IMMEDIATE LINKAGE OF THE DREAMS TO THE DNA. MY CONCERN AND MY PROBLEM AND PROFESSORS DERSHOWITZ' AND UELMEN'S PROBLEM IS THAT NOW, A STATEMENT THAT WE COULD HAVE POSSIBLY INTERPRETED FOR THE JURY IN A MANNER THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN CONSISTENT WITH INNOCENCE IS NOW GOING TO BE GIVEN TO THE JURY IN A MANNER THAT MAKES IT VERY SINISTER AND VERY FOREBODING; AND THAT JUST CAUSES TO EXEMPLIFY IF YOU WILL THE RICH PREJUDICE THAT HAS FLOWED FROM THE FACT THAT THE POLYGRAPH INFORMATION HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN AND FROM THE FACT THAT THERE HAS NOW BEEN THIS INCORRECT IF YOU WILL LINKAGE. IN ESSENCE, YOUR HONOR, IT IS A FALSE LINKAGE BECAUSE THE STATEMENT OF THE DREAMS DID NOT IMMEDIATELY FOLLOW THE STATEMENT OF THE DNA.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET ME ASK THE REPORTER, MADAM REPORTER, WHEN DO YOU ANTICIPATE THE TRANSCRIPT FROM YESTERDAY, THE PRECISE LANGUAGE, WILL BE AVAILABLE?

THE COURT REPORTER: YOUR HONOR, IT'S BEING BEEN TOGETHER NOW.

THE COURT: IT'S BEING PUT TOGETHER? ALL RIGHT.

MR. DOUGLAS: I NOW HAVE A QUANDARY, YOUR HONOR. I AM NOT PREPARED TO WAIVE REFERENCES TO A POLYGRAPH OR CONVERSATIONS ABOUT POLYGRAPH BECAUSE I FEAR THAT EVEN THOUGH MR. SIMPSON THROUGH HIS ATTORNEY ON JUNE THE 15TH WROTE A LETTER OFFERING OR ACCEPTING THE INVITATION FOR A POLYGRAPH SO LONG AS THE RESULTS WERE ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE, THAT OPENS UP AN ENTIRE CAN OF WORMS THAT IN CONSULTATION WITH MY COLLEAGUES, WE'VE CHOSEN NOT TO WANT TO GET INTO. BUT I HAVE A QUANDARY, AND THE TYPICAL RESOLUTION OF MY PROBLEM, WHICH MIGHT BE TO OFFER A LIMITING INSTRUCTION, CREATES OTHER PROBLEMS BECAUSE WHAT IT SERVES TO DO IS TO MERELY HIGHLIGHT THE OFFENDING RELATIONSHIP ABOUT WHICH I COMPLAIN. I THINK WHAT HAS OCCURRED, HOWEVER, IS THAT AN UNTENABLE SITUATION HAS BEEN CREATED.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. DOUGLAS.

MR. DOUGLAS: AN UNTENABLE SITUATION HAS BEEN CREATED, AND I THINK IT SHOULD BE CORRECTED. I THINK THAT IT SHOULD BE CLEARLY -- THAT I SHOULD BE ALLOWED CLEARLY TO STATE OR TO ASK MR. SHIPP THAT IN TRUTH AND IN FACT, THE STATEMENT ABOUT THE DREAMS DID NOT FOLLOW THE STATEMENT ABOUT DNA, THAT WHEN HE SAID YESTERDAY THAT IT DID, THAT WAS UNTRUE. AND I THINK --

THE COURT: NO, HE DIDN'T SAY THAT IT DID -- THE ORDER OF QUESTIONS WAS THAT GAVE THAT INFERENCE.

MR. DOUGLAS: I BELIEVE, YOUR HONOR, EVEN STRONGER THAN THAT, AND I WOULD LIKE THE COURT FIRST TO MAKE SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO THE RECORD FIRST.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, AS TO THAT ISSUE.

MS. CLARK: AS TO THAT -- THAT'S RIDICULOUS. THE WITNESS WAS ORDERED NOT TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE REFERENCE TO THE POLYGRAPH, AND NOW WE ARE GOING TO GIVE AN INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY THAT FOR FOLLOWING THE COURT ORDERS, HE IS GOING TO BE CALLED A LIAR? THAT'S ABSURD. HE WAS ORDERED TO EXCISE THAT PORTION OF THE STATEMENT AND THAT IS WHAT HE DID AT THE COURT'S ORDER.

THE COURT: WELL, I THINK WHAT MR. DOUGLAS IS SAYING IS, THERE'S AN INFERENCE THAT ONE IS LINKED WITH THE OTHER. I AGREE WITH YOUR POINT THAT THE INSTRUCTION THAT SOMETHING WAS NOT TRUE IS A BIT STRONG. IT'S JUST THAT THE TESTIMONY MAY HAVE LEFT THAT INFERENCE, WHICH IS NOT CORRECT, THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT INTERVENED BETWEEN THOSE TWO EVENTS.

MS. CLARK: YES. OKAY.

THE COURT: WHICH I THINK YOU CAN EITHER CLEAR UP ON REDIRECT OR ON -- DURING CROSS, HOWEVER YOU WISH TO DO THAT. COUNSEL, WHILE YOU'RE AT IT, WHILE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR SUBJECT, WOULD YOU NEXT TIME WE HAVE A BREAK READ THE CASE OF PEOPLE -- EXCUSE ME -- STATE VERSUS WHITE AT 271 NORTH CAROLINA 391. I'M SURE YOUR RESEARCH ATTORNEYS CAN GET IT OFF LEXIS. IT'S A 1967 OPINION FROM THE NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT.

MS. CLARK: PERTAINING TO --

THE COURT: PERTAINING TO ADMISSIBILITY OF STATEMENTS REGARDING DREAMS AND THE IMPACT. 271, 391. 156 SOUTHEAST 2D 721. I'LL HAVE ONE OF MY LAW CLERKS MAKE A PHOTOCOPY. I HAVE THE LEXIS VERSION OF IT. YOU MIGHT WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS.

MS. CLARK: MAY I BE HEARD, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

MS. CLARK: COUNSEL MAKES A GREAT DEAL OF THE INFERENCE HE WOULD LIKE THE JURY TO DRAW FROM THIS STATEMENT. THAT'S FINE. THE JURY CAN DRAW WHATEVER INFERENCE THEY WANT TO FROM IT. IT HAPPENS VERY OFTEN THAT STATEMENTS ARE EVIDENCE ARE SUBMITTED TO THE JURY FROM WHICH THEY CAN DRAW ONE OR TWO OR THREE OR MORE INFERENCES. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, I THINK COUNSEL -- THE INFERENCE THAT COUNSEL SEEKS TO HAVE THE JURY DRAW IS UNREASONABLE. THE ACTUAL INFERENCE THAT SHOULD BE DRAWN, EVEN IF YOU PUT THE POLYGRAPH STATEMENT BACK IN, IS THAT IT'S AN ALIBI, IT'S AN EXCUSE FOR NOT WANTING TO TAKE THE POLYGRAPH AND THE KNOWLEDGE AND THE SURE KNOWLEDGE THAT HE WILL FLUNK IT. AND AS A MATTER OF FACT, ALTHOUGH COUNSEL MAKES MUCH OF A LETTER THAT THEY SENT, WHAT THEY ACTUALLY INDICATED IN THE LETTER WAS THAT THEY WOULD CONSIDER TAKING A POLYGRAPH IF IT WERE STIPULATED THAT THE RESULTS WOULD BE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE, WHICH THEY KNOW CANNOT BE DONE. HOWEVER, IN RESPONSE TO THAT LETTER, A PHONE CALL WAS MADE TO COUNSEL IN WHICH COUNSEL WAS INVITED TO BRING HIS CLIENT IN FOR FURTHER QUESTIONING AND DECLINED TO DO SO. SO IF COUNSEL WOULD LIKE TO AT THIS POINT OPEN THAT ISSUE UP, BRING UP THE FACT THAT THERE WAS AN OFFER TO TAKE A POLYGRAPH THAT WAS ACTUALLY CONDITIONAL AND THE FACT THAT HE WAS OFFERED THE OPPORTUNITY TO BRING HIS CLIENT IN FOR QUESTIONING AND DECLINED TO DO SO, THAT'S FINE. WE CAN PUT IT ALL INTO CONTEXT AND THE PEOPLE WOULD NOT OBJECT TO THAT.

THE COURT: WELL, MR. DOUGLAS HAS ALREADY INDICATED IT'S THEIR POSITION THAT THERE ARE TOO MANY CANS OF WORMS THERE.

MS. CLARK: IN THAT CASE THEN, YOUR HONOR, I THINK THE AVENUE THAT THE COURT TOOK WAS CLEARLY THE APPROPRIATE ONE. ALL THAT WE HAVE HERE IS A STATEMENT THAT HAD SOME INADMISSIBLE REFERENCE THAT WAS EXCISED FROM THE ADMISSIBLE PORTION OF THE STATEMENT THAT IS CLEARLY AN ADMISSION. I THINK THAT IT'S BEEN THE DEFENSE THAT HAS BEEN COMPLAINING REPEATEDLY THROUGHOUT THIS TRIAL THAT THE PEOPLE ARE SEEKING TO RELITIGATE AND RELITIGATE RULINGS AND COME BACK AND ARGUE WITH THE COURT ABOUT RULINGS. IT HAS BEEN THE DEFENSE REPEATEDLY THAT HAS DONE SO.

THE COURT: WELL, DON'T FORGET THE STATUS OF OUR- -- WE'RE CONDUCTING THE 403 FOUNDATIONAL DURING THE COURSE OF THIS AS WELL DON'T FORGET.

MS. CLARK: RIGHT. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT COUNSEL'S ARGUMENT PERTAINS TO, YOUR HONOR. IT'S NOT A FOUNDATIONAL ISSUE THAT'S BEING ARGUED HERE. IT'S THE ADMISSIBILITY THAT'S BEING ARGUED HERE, AND I THINK THE COURT HAS ALREADY RESOLVED THAT RULING, AT LEAST I THOUGHT IT HAD AND APPROPRIATELY SO. THE REFERENCE -- THE THING ABOUT THIS STATEMENT IS, YOUR HONOR, AND THE REASON THAT I WONDER ABOUT -- THE POSITION THAT COUNSEL IS TAKING IS THAT IF COUNSEL FEELS THAT THE INFERENCE IS ACTUALLY ONE OF INNOCENCE, THEN -- AND CAN ARGUE THAT TO THE JURY, THEN OBVIOUSLY IT ISN'T ALL THAT PREJUDICIAL BECAUSE THERE ARE TWO INFERENCES THAT CAN BE DRAWN. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF DREAMS IS NOT THAT WE'RE SAYING LITERALLY -- IT'S NOT EVEN ACTUALLY A HEARSAY ISSUE. WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR IT TO BE ACCEPTED FOR THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER. IT ISN'T THAT WE CONTEND THAT HE'S DREAMING. IT IS THAT WE CONTEND THAT WHAT HE IS SAYING IS THAT HE'S BEEN THINKING ABOUT KILLING HER, AND THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT HE'S BEEN CHARGED WITH.

THE COURT: ARE YOU SAYING THAT IS SOMETHING ON THE ORDER OF I'VE BEEN DREAMING OF BECOMING A MAJOR LEAGUE BALL PLAYER, SOMETHING LIKE THAT?

MS. CLARK: COUNSEL IS FREE TO ARGUE THAT. THAT'S NOT THE INFERENCE THAT I THINK IS REASONABLE. WE THINK THAT THE INFERENCE THAT IS REASONABLE FROM THIS IS MORE IN THE NATURE OF, I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT IT, I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT DOING THIS, AND SO I AM AFRAID THAT I'LL FLUNK THE POLYGRAPH. IT'S AN EXCUSE FOR NOT TAKING THE POLYGRAPH. IT'S AN EXCUSE FOR FAILING THE POLYGRAPH. THAT'S THE PEOPLE'S POSITION. AND I THINK THAT'S THE REASONABLE INFERENCE THAT A COMMON SENSE, COMMON-THINKING PERSON WOULD DRAW FROM THIS. BUT COUNSEL CAN ARGUE TO THE CONTRARY, AND THAT'S WHY THE PREJUDICE DOES NOT EXIST. COUNSEL IS VERY FREE TO ARGUE TO THE JURY THAT IT'S IN THE NATURE OF WHAT THE COURT HAS SAID, A DREAM. BUT IN FACT -- YOU KNOW, I THINK WALT DISNEY SAID IT BEST I THINK IN SLEEPING BEAUTY, A DREAM IS A WISH YOUR HEART MAKES. AND THAT'S WHAT THIS DEFENDANT WAS TALKING ABOUT. YOU KNOW, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HE THOUGHT ABOUT, IT'S SOMETHING THAT HE WANTED TO HAVE HAPPEN. THAT'S ANOTHER INFERENCE THAT CAN BE DRAWN. BUT I MEAN THE FACT THAT THERE ARE MULTIPLE INFERENCES THAT CAN BE DRAWN, YOUR HONOR, I THINK IS WHAT ALLAYS SO MUCH THE PREJUDICE THAT COUNSEL IS REFERRING TO. SUBJECT TO INTERPRETATION, THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT DOESN'T COME IN. OBVIOUSLY MANY THINGS COME IN THAT ARE SUBJECT TO INTERPRETATION. THE COURT IS VERY WELL AWARE OF THAT, AND THIS IS ANOTHER ONE. BUT IS THE COURT -- IF THE COURT WOULD LIKE, WE WILL GO AND READ THE CASE THAT PERTAINS TO THIS AND ARGUE IT LATER.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I'M JUST GIVING YOU THE INVITATION TO DO THAT. AS SOON AS I GET THE TEXT OF WHAT WAS ACTUALLY SAID.

MS. CLARK: I BELIEVE THAT WHAT WAS ACTUALLY SAID WAS THAT -- AND I THINK I RECALL THIS PRETTY ACCURATELY -- THAT MR. SHIPP INDICATED THAT THE DEFENDANT KIND OF LAUGHED AND SAID, "I HAVE HAD SOME DREAMS ABOUT KILLING HER." AND I THINK THAT DOES MITIGATE. BUT IF THE COURT WOULD LIKE, THERE CAN BE AN INDICATION THROUGH THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESS THAT THERE WERE INTERVENING REMARKS MADE THAT, ONE, THE REFERENCE TO DNA WAS NOT IMMEDIATELY PRECEDENT TO THE REMARK ABOUT HAVING DREAMS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WELL, LET ME FIND THE TEXT HERE, AND WE'LL SEE. ALL RIGHT. MISS ROBERTSON, WHILE WE'RE WAITING, WOULD YOU MAKE TWO PHOTOCOPIES OF THIS CASE, PLEASE? THANK YOU. I THOUGHT MR. DOUGLAS WAS HANDLING THIS ISSUE.

MR. COCHRAN: HE IS HANDLING THAT. AS AN ASIDE, I HAVE ONE REQUEST.

THE COURT: WHAT IS THAT, SIR?

MR. COCHRAN: IT HAS TO DO WITH -- MAY I APPROACH THE PODIUM?

THE COURT: SURE.

MR. COCHRAN: I'M MINDFUL OF ONE LAWYER PER SIDE. MR. DOUGLAS WILL RESPOND TO MISS CLARK. I WOULD LIKE, HOWEVER, AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME IF WE HAVE A FEW MINUTES TO MAKE A PHONE CALL. I NEED TO TALK TO PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ WITH REGARD TO THIS WHOLE ISSUE THAT SHE RAISES ABOUT THE POLYGRAPH AND THE LETTER THAT WAS SENT BY MR. SHAPIRO. AND I WOULD NEED A FEW MINUTES TO BE ABLE TO -- AND THE LETTER WAS NEVER RESPONDED TO. THEY NEVER RESPONDED TO THE LETTER. THEY CAN TALK ABOUT ANY CONVERSATION THEY WANT TO --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. COUNSEL WASN'T EVEN ON THE CASE AT THE TIME.

MR. COCHRAN: IT DOESN'T MATTER. THE LETTER WAS NOT RESPONDED TO, WHETHER I WAS ON THE CASE OR NOT. I LIVED IN LOS ANGELES AT THE TIME.

THE COURT: EXCUSE ME, MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: SORRY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: BOTH SIDES.

MR. COCHRAN: WHAT I'M ASKING, YOUR HONOR, AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME IS IF I CAN HAVE A FEW MINUTES TO CALL PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ AND PROFESSOR UELMEN SO WE CAN MAKE A FINAL DECISION AS TO OUR VIEW ON THE POLYGRAPH. THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. DOUGLAS: DOES THE COURT WANT TO SEE THE PASSAGE BEFORE I RESPOND?

THE COURT: YEAH. I AM WAITING FOR THE PASSAGE.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: COUNSEL, I MAKE REFERENCE TO PAGE 12779. IN FACT, BEFORE I READ THIS TO YOU, LET ME -- NOW, EVERYBODY HAS DISAPPEARED. MISS SCALINAS, WOULD YOU COME UP HERE, PLEASE.

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, SHOULD THE WITNESS BE EXCUSED WHILE WE ARE DISCUSSING HIS TESTIMONY?

THE COURT: YES. UNFORTUNATELY, I ERASED MY COMPUTER FROM YESTERDAY SINCE I HAVE THE HARD COPY. WHILE WE ARE WAITING FOR THE PHOTOCOPIES, COUNSEL, YESTERDAY, IT WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN THINGS GOING ON OUT IN THE AUDIENCE AND INSIDE THE BAR THAT WERE BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN IN THE AUDIENCE, LET ME REMIND YOU THAT ANY REACTION, GESTURES MADE DURING THESE COURT SESSIONS, ESPECIALLY WHILE THE JURY IS HERE, THOSE ACTIVITIES ARE INAPPROPRIATE AND WILL RESULT IN YOUR EXPULSION FROM THE COURTROOM. ALSO, I WAS SHOWN A VIDEOTAPE OF COUNSEL INSIDE THE BAR MAKING SIMILAR REACTIONS, GESTURES, FACIAL EXPRESSIONS TO THE TESTIMONY THAT ARE INAPPROPRIATE, AND I'M CAUTIONING COUNSEL AS WELL. AND I HAVE THAT ON VIDEOTAPE. SO COUNSEL ARE CAUTIONED AND STAFF ARE CAUTIONED AS WELL. THAT'S A CAUTION.

MR. DOUGLAS: COULD I HAVE THE PAGE AGAIN, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: 12779 AND 80. COUNSEL, DO YOU HAVE THE TEXT BEFORE YOU STARTING AT -- THE RELEVANT QUESTION AND ANSWER STARTS AT ROUGHLY LINE 11 ON 12779.

MR. DOUGLAS: I THINK, YOUR HONOR, IF I MAY --

THE COURT: YES.

MR. DOUGLAS: -- THAT MY POINT IS REFLECTED BY, IF I BEGIN READING FROM LINE 16:

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

"I DID NOT KNOW THE CORRECT ANSWER, BUT WHAT I DID SAY, I JUST GOT -- I JUST OFF THE CUFF SAY TWO MONTHS.

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

"HE KIND OF JOKINGLY JUST SAID, YOU KNOW, QUOTE, TO BE HONEST, SHIPP -- THAT'S WHAT HE CALLED ME -- SHIPP, HE SAID, I'VE HAD SOME DREAMS OF KILLING HER." AND THE NATURE OF MR. DARDEN'S LEADING QUESTION TO DIRECT THAT THE WITNESS FOCUS AWAY FROM THE POLYGRAPH INFORMATION IMPROPERLY GAVE THE INFERENCE THAT THE DREAM SEQUENCE OR THE DREAM, THE ALLEGED DREAM STATEMENT WAS MADE IN DIRECT RESPONSE TO THE DNA STATEMENT, WHICH IS FACTUALLY UNTRUE. EVEN MORE GRAVELY, YOUR HONOR, I THINK THAT WHAT --

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. BUT, MR. DOUGLAS, ISN'T THIS SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN DEAL WITH ON CROSS-EXAMINATION?

MR. DOUGLAS: WELL, YOUR HONOR, WHAT I WANTED TO DO IN RAISING THIS WAS TO CLUE THE COURT BEFOREHAND THAT I INTEND TO ASK THE WITNESS THAT THAT STATEMENT, THAT ALLEGED STATEMENT WAS NOT IN RESPONSE TO THE DNA QUESTION.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT I MEAN BY CROSS-EXAMINATION. I AGREE WITH YOU THAT THAT QUESTION, THE WAY IT WAS PHRASED, CREATES AN INFERENCE THAT IS NOT ACCURATE.

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, THERE IS EVEN -- ONE MOMENT, PLEASE.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. DOUGLAS: THE DIFFICULTY THAT I HAVE, YOUR HONOR, THAT MR. COCHRAN HAS REMINDED ME IS, MR. SHIPP IS NOT A FRIENDLY WITNESS AND MR. SHIPP MAY WELL BLURT OUT SOMETHING THAT MIGHT BE IMPROPER OR THAT MIGHT BE UNTRUE.

THE COURT: WELL, COUNSEL HAS TO BE VERY CAREFUL IN THE WAY ONE QUESTIONS. BUT WERE I IN YOUR PLACE, I WOULD ASK MR. SHIPP -- I WOULD READ TO HIM THE TESTIMONY THAT WE'VE JUST DISCUSSED AND ASK HIM, ISN'T IT A FACT THAT BETWEEN THE DISCUSSION OF DNA AND BETWEEN THIS ALLEGED STATEMENT REGARDING A DREAM REGARDING KILLING HIS WIFE, THERE WAS DISCUSSION OF ANOTHER TOPIC IN BETWEEN; ISN'T THAT CORRECT? THAT'S HOW I WOULD ASK THAT QUESTION.

MR. DOUGLAS: VERY WELL, YOUR HONOR. BUT I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ASK THE QUESTION THAT, WHEN YOU TESTIFIED YESTERDAY THAT THE DREAM, THE ALLEGED DREAM QUESTION OR THE STATEMENT WAS MADE IN RESPONSE TO THE DNA, THAT WAS NOT TRUE.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, THAT'S --

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: THAT'S VERY UNFAIR.

THE COURT: WHY? IT WAS YOUR QUESTION THAT LED TO THAT.

MS. CLARK: BUT IT WAS OUR QUESTION AT THE COURT'S ORDER.

THE COURT: NO. IT WAS YOUR QUESTION. HERE'S THE PROBLEM. MISS CLARK, IF YOU READ THE QUESTION,

"AND WHAT DID YOU SAY IN RESPONSE TO YOUR INDICATION THAT IT TAKES TWO MONTHS FOR DNA TO COME BACK," WOULDN'T THE MORE ACCURATE WAY TO DO THIS WOULD BE TO SAY:

"WAS THERE A CONVERSATION ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE IN BETWEEN WITHOUT TELLING US WHAT THAT WAS?

"ANSWER: YES." THEN:

"WAS SOMETHING ELSE MENTIONED?

"ANSWER: YES.

"WHAT WAS THAT?" BUT THE WAY THE QUESTION WAS PHRASED, IT IMPLIES AND WHAT -- IN FACT IT SAYS:

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

MS. CLARK: THIS WAS DONE, YOUR HONOR, IN AN EFFORT TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDER TO EXCISE THE REFERENCE TO THE POLYGRAPH AND TO -- I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE COURT IS SAYING. PERHAPS --

THE COURT: DO YOU AGREE IT WAS DONE INARTFULLY?

MS. CLARK: I DO. I DO. I CONCEDE THAT, YOUR HONOR. I DO. NO. WELL, I CONCEDE IT BECAUSE IT WASN'T MY QUESTION. NO, I'M JUST KIDDING. I AGREE WITH THE COURT. THAT WAS -- THAT IT COULD HAVE BEEN BETTER DONE AND SHOULD HAVE HAD SOME INDICATION IN IT THERE WAS SOMETHING IN BETWEEN. THE PROBLEM THAT I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT TO THE COURT IS THAT WE'RE GIVING THE IMPRESSION THAT THE WITNESS WAS UNTRUTHFUL WHEN ALL THE WITNESS WAS DOING WAS ATTEMPTING TO FOLLOW THE ORDERS OF THE COURT AND TO RESPOND TO THE QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED. AND SO TO LEAVE THE JURY WITH THE IMPRESSION THAT HE WAS WILLFULLY UNTRUTHFUL ABOUT SOMETHING THAT HE WAS CONFINED BY QUESTIONING TO IS UNFAIR AND IT'S A MISLEADING IMPRESSION TO GIVE.

THE COURT: WELL, THE PROBLEM I HAVE, MISS CLARK, IS THAT THE IMPRESSION WAS CREATED BY THE WAY THE QUESTION WAS PHRASED.

MS. CLARK: WELL, MAY I POSE TO THE COURT ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE, WHICH WOULD ALSO PROTECT COUNSEL FROM ANYTHING BEING BLURTED OUT? IS THAT PERHAPS THE JURY COULD BE INSTRUCTED THAT THERE WAS CONVERSATION IN BETWEEN THE DNA STATEMENT AND THE DISCUSSION OF DREAMS.

THE COURT: NO. THEN THE COURT IS TAKING THE -- THEN THE COURT WOULD BE EXPRESSING AN OPINION AS TO WHAT DID OR DID NOT HAPPEN, WHICH THE COURT IS NOT INCLINED TO DO IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION.

MS. CLARK: HOW WOULD THAT -- WELL, YOUR HONOR --

THE COURT: HERE'S THE PROBLEM. YOU'VE GOT AN IMPRECISE QUESTION. CELLOPHANE IS A NO-NO, COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. YOU'VE GOT AN IMPRECISE IMPRESSION THAT CREATED THIS INFERENCE. I THINK THEY'RE ENTITLED TO CROSS-EXAMINE ON THAT. YOU CAN COME BACK AND CLARIFY.

MS. CLARK: BUT YOU ARE PUNISHING --

THE COURT: NO, I'M NOT PUNISHING ANYBODY, MS. CLARK. I DIDN'T ASK THE QUESTION. THE CODE SECTION CLEARLY SAYS WE CANNOT DISCUSS POLYGRAPH PERIOD. IF YOU WANT THE STATEMENT IN ABOUT THE DREAMS, YOU HAVE TO TAILOR THE TESTIMONY IN YOUR QUESTIONING TO AVOID THAT. IT WAS DONE IN AN IMPRECISE WAY. IT CREATED AN INFERENCE THAT'S NOT TRUE AT LEAST BASED UPON THE STATEMENT THAT YOU HAVE. SO HOW CAN I INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT SOMETHING -- I MEAN, TO INSTRUCT THE JURY AS YOU REQUEST WOULD BE FOR ME TO ASSUME THAT CERTAIN FACTS ARE TRUE, WHICH IS NOT MY JOB IN THIS CASE. ALL I DO IS REFEREE THE DISPUTES. THIS INFERENCE WAS CREATED, THEY'RE ENTITLED TO CROSS-EXAMINE ON IT.

MS. CLARK: AND LEAVE THE IMPRESSION THAT THE WITNESS WAS UNTRUTHFUL WHEN IN FACT THE WITNESS WAS NOT AT ALL. I MEAN IS THAT THE CURE?

THE COURT: WELL, MISS CLARK, MISS CLARK, THE PROBLEM WASN'T CREATED BY THE DEFENSE. THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE IMPRECISION IN THE WAY THE QUESTION WAS ASKED. YOU CAN COME BACK ON REDIRECT EXAMINATION AND CLEAN THAT UP.

MS. CLARK: THE COURT IS IN ESSENCE SAYING THAT TWO WRONGS MAKE A RIGHT. I MEAN, I'M NOT SAYING THAT OUR QUESTION WAS NOT INARTFULLY PHRASED BECAUSE IT WAS. BUT TO COME BACK AND THEN CREATE MORE MISIMPRESSION, YOU KNOW, THROUGH CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT'S MISLEADING IS NOT FAIR EITHER.

THE COURT: WELL, BUT WHAT'S TRUE IS FOR THE JURY TO DECIDE.

MS. CLARK: RIGHT. BUT THEY HAVE TO BE GIVEN THE FACTS IN ORDER TO DO THAT. AND IF WE GIVE THEM MISIMPRESSIONS AND MISREPRESENTATIONS, THEY HAVE NO HOPE.

THE COURT: THEIR JOB IS TO DETERMINE WHAT THE FACTS ARE.

MS. CLARK: YES. BUT THEY HAVE TO GET THE TRUTH IN ORDER TO DO THAT. BUT THEY HAVE TO GET THE TRUE STATE OF AFFAIRS IN ORDER TO MAKE A FAIR JUDGMENT AND IF WE --

THE COURT: WELL, THAT'S WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO FIND OUT, IS WHAT THE TRUTH IS, MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: I AGREE, YOUR HONOR. THERE'S NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT. BUT --

THE COURT: IT'S A VERY DIFFICULT SITUATION THAT YOU'LL JUST HAVE TO HANDLE ON REDIRECT. AND I KNOW MR. DOUGLAS IS GOING TO ACCEPT THE COURT'S OBSERVATIONS AS TO HOW TO DO THIS.

MS. CLARK: MAY I ASK THEN THAT COUNSEL AT LEAST NOT BE PERMITTED TO FRAME IT IN SUCH A WAY AS TO MAKE IT SOUND AS THOUGH THE WITNESS LIED WHEN HE ANSWERED THE QUESTION THAT WAS PHRASED IN A MANNER THAT COULD BE CONSTRUED -- BECAUSE THERE WAS VERY LITTLE IN BETWEEN THOSE TWO THINGS AS THE COURT KNOWS. I MEAN IT'S NOT VERY FAR OFF. WE KNOW THAT THE POLYGRAPH REFERENCE IS TAKEN OUT. BUT TO ALLOW COUNSEL NOW TO QUESTION THE WITNESS AND ESSENTIALLY ASK, ISN'T IT TRUE THAT YOU LIED WHEN YOU SAID IT WAS IN RESPONSE TO THE DNA, IT WAS IN RESPONSE TO THE DNA ANSWER IS FALSE. IT'S COMPLETELY FALSE.

THE COURT: BUT THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE QUESTION IS, QUOTE:

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

"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.'" IS THAT ACCURATE?

MS. CLARK: WHY NOT -- NO. THAT'S RIGHT. YOUR HONOR, I CAN'T ADMIT IT TOO MANY TIMES. IT COULD HAVE BEEN BETTER. IT COULD HAVE BEEN MORE PRECISE AND I WISH IT HAD BEEN.

THE COURT: MR. DOUGLAS IS ENTITLED TO SAY:

"ISN'T THIS STATEMENT INCORRECT? WASN'T THERE A CONVERSATION, SOMETHING -- A SUBJECT DISCUSSED, AND WITHOUT TELLING US WHAT THAT IS IN BETWEEN DNA AND THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT DREAMS?

"ANSWER: YES.

"SO WHEN YOU SAID THAT THIS STATEMENT WAS MADE IN RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION ABOUT DNA, THAT WAS NOT A TRUTHFUL ANSWER, CORRECT?

"THAT'S CORRECT."

MS. CLARK: BUT THAT'S NOT CORRECT BECAUSE THE WITNESS WAS NOT WILLFULLY FALSE. THE WITNESS WAS RESPONDING TO A QUESTION THAT ATTEMPTED TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT. IT WOULD BE TRUTHFUL TO SAY --

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, I UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION VERY CLEARLY, BUT THE PROBLEM IS, THE PROBLEM WAS CREATED BY THE WAY THE QUESTION WAS PHRASED. THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

MS. CLARK: AND WHY DON'T WE CURE IT WITH THE TRUTH, YOUR HONOR? WHY NOT LET THE WITNESS TESTIFY TO THE FACT THAT HE WAS ORDERED NOT TO TESTIFY TO CERTAIN THINGS BY THE COURT?

THE COURT: WELL, WE ARE ABOUT TO START THIS CIRCLE ONE MORE TIME.

MS. CLARK: NO. I MEAN, REALLY, WHY NOT TELL THE TRUTH? THE WITNESS WAS ORDERED NOT TO DISCUSS CERTAIN THINGS BY THE COURT, AND THOSE CERTAIN THINGS CAME IN BETWEEN THE REFERENCE TO DNA AND THE REFERENCE TO THE DREAMS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SO YOU CAN BRING THAT UP DURING THE COURSE OF YOUR REDIRECT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. ANY OTHER CONUNDRUMS?

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE FREQUENTLY ATTEMPTED TO ABIDE BY THE RULE THAT WHEN THE COURT RULES, THE COURT RULES AND DOESN'T ALLOW THE OTHER SIDE TO COME BACK AND WHINE OR TO TRY TO CHANGE THE COURT'S RULING. I WOULD HOPE EVERYONE WOULD APPRECIATE THE SPIRIT OF THAT RULING.

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

MS. CLARK: THEY JUST VIOLATED IT.

MR. COCHRAN: WE DIDN'T VIOLATE IT. WE COULDN'T STAND IT ANYMORE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: WELL, COUNSEL, LET'S STOP THAT. I'VE JUST AN OVERLY PATIENT PERSON AND I'M WILLING TO LISTEN TO WHAT MOST EVERYBODY HAS TO SAY. ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE INVITE THE JURORS TO JOIN US?

MR. DOUGLAS: NO, YOUR HONOR.

MS. CLARK: NO, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE THE WITNESS AND THE JURORS, PLEASE.

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

THE COURT: THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. BE SEATED, PLEASE. ALL RIGHT. LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT WE HAVE BEEN REJOINED BY ALL OF THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL. GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

THE COURT: MR. SHIPP, WOULD YOU PLEASE RESUME THE WITNESS STAND.

RONALD SHIPP,

THE WITNESS ON THE STAND AT THE TIME OF THE EVENING ADJOURNMENT, RESUMED THE STAND AND TESTIFIED FURTHER AS FOLLOWS:

THE COURT: GOOD MORNING, MR. SHIPP. YOU ARE REMINDED THAT YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH. MR. DOUGLAS, DO YOU WISH TO CONTINUE YOUR CROSS-EXAMINATION?

MR. DOUGLAS: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. I WOULD.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. DOUGLAS:

Q: MR. SHIPP, WHEN YOU TESTIFIED YESTERDAY, YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU WOULD BE BRINGING TODAY THE CONTRACT YOU HAD HAD WITH MISS SHEILA WELLER.

A: YES, SIR.

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, CAN I HAVE THIS MARKED AS THE NEXT EXHIBIT?

THE COURT: WHY DON'T WE HAVE A PHOTOCOPY MADE AND WE WILL AGREE THAT THE PHOTOCOPY WILL BE THE COURT'S EXHIBIT.

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, FOR THE RECORD, I'VE BEEN GIVEN A ONE-PAGE DOCUMENT.

THE COURT: I TAKE IT THIS IS GOING TO BE 1001?

MR. DOUGLAS: 1001, YOUR HONOR, YES.

THE COURT: OKAY.

(DEFT'S 1001 FOR ID = CONTRACT BET. SHIPP AND WELLER)

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: NOW, MR. SHIPP, YOU WERE --

THE COURT: EXCUSE ME, MR. DOUGLAS. MR. COCHRAN, WHY DON'T YOU GIVE THAT TO MISS ROBERTSON SO EVERYONE CAN HAVE A COPY.

MR. COCHRAN: SURE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: MR. DOUGLAS.

MR. DOUGLAS: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: MR. SHIPP, YOU WERE EMPLOYED BY THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR ABOUT 15 YEARS?

A: YES, I WAS.

Q: AND ONE OF THE DUTIES OF A LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICER IS TO TESTIFY IN COURTS, TRUE?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: IN FACT, BEFORE YOU WERE ABLE TO BEGIN WORKING AS A PATROL OFFICER, YOU HAD TO GO THROUGH THE POLICE ACADEMY?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND THERE WERE CLASSES AND TRAINING SESSIONS EDUCATING THE RECRUITS ABOUT HOW TO TESTIFY IN COURT?

A: THIS IS TRUE.

Q: OVER THE 15 YEARS THAT YOU'VE TESTIFIED IN THE PAST AS A POLICE OFFICER --

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THAT ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: OVER THE 15 YEARS THAT YOU'VE TESTIFIED AS A POLICE OFFICER, YOU'VE TESTIFIED IN JURY TRIALS AND THEN YOU'VE TESTIFIED IN FRONT OF THE COURTS WITHOUT A JURY?

A: YES, I HAVE.

Q: AND IF YOU WERE TO ESTIMATE THE NUMBER OF TIMES THAT YOU'VE TESTIFIED UNDER OATH, THAT NUMBER WOULD BE IN THE HUNDREDS; WOULDN'T YOU AGREE?

A: WELL, IN 15 YEARS, I WORKED VARIOUS ASSIGNMENTS. I WAS NOT ALWAYS IN PATROL. I WORKED SOME UNDERCOVER, I WORKED JUVENILE DIVISION. SO MAYBE OUT OF THE 15 YEARS, I HAD APPROXIMATELY SEVEN OR EIGHT YEARS OF ACTUAL PATROL TIME, AND THE ONLY TIME I EVER TESTIFIED AND WENT TO COURT WAS WHEN I WAS WORKING PATROL.

Q: BUT WOULDN'T YOU AGREE THAT YOU'VE TESTIFIED OVER A HUNDRED TIMES IN THE PAST?

A: MAYBE NOT THAT MUCH.

Q: WHAT WOULD BE YOUR ESTIMATE OF THE NUMBER OF TIMES YOU'VE TESTIFIED IN THE PAST?

A: APPROXIMATELY 50 TO 60.

Q: SO YOU WOULD ESTIMATE THAT YOU HAD TESTIFIED NO MORE THAN FOUR OR FIVE, THAT'S SEVEN, EIGHT, NINE TIMES PER YEAR, FOR EACH OF THE SEVEN OR EIGHT YEARS THAT YOU WERE ON PATROL?

A: IF THAT MUCH.

Q: CERTAINLY YOU WOULD AGREE THAT YOU WERE SOMEWHAT COMFORTABLE SITTING IN THE WITNESS STAND FROM YOUR PAST EXPERIENCE?

A: IT DEPENDS. SOMETIMES I WAS. I MEAN IF I WAS IN TRAFFIC COURT, I DON'T KNOW WHY, I USED TO WRITE LOUSY TICKETS. SO SOMETIMES I'D GET A LITTLE NERVOUS.

Q: NOW, MR. SHIPP, WHEN WE LEFT OFF YESTERDAY, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT YOUR ALCOHOL PROBLEM. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU SAID THAT YOU NO LONGER HAVE AN ALCOHOL PROBLEM, DIDN'T YOU?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: NOW, YOUR ALCOHOL PROBLEM STARTED WHEN?

A: WHEN I WAS A POLICE OFFICER.

Q: ABOUT WHAT YEAR DID THE PROBLEM START?

A: I WOULD SAY IT PROBABLY GOT KIND OF OUT OF HAND I THINK AROUND MAYBE '83.

Q: AND YOU BELIEVE THAT YOUR ALCOHOL PROBLEM ENDED WHEN?

A: PROBABLY WHEN I LEFT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

Q: WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN '89?

A: '89.

Q: NOW, AS A RESULT OF YOUR ALCOHOL PROBLEM, YOU WERE SUSPENDED FOR 30 DAYS AS A POLICE OFFICER, WEREN'T YOU?

A: NO, I WAS NOT.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD OBJECT AT THIS TIME. MAY I ASK WE APPROACH THE SIDEBAR?

THE COURT: YES, WITH THE COURT REPORTER, PLEASE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN, YOU HAD AN OBJECTION?

MR. DARDEN: YES. YOU KNOW, ACTUALLY I'LL WITHDRAW MY OBJECTION TO THE LAST QUESTION AND ANSWER. BUT I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE A 402 ON SOME OF THE IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE THEY WANT TO INTRODUCE. THERE'S A RUMOR IN THE BUILDING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO ALLEGE THAT MR. SHIPP BEAT HIS WIFE, WHICH I THINK IS IRRELEVANT, IF THAT IS AN ALLEGATION THEY WISH TO MAKE IN FRONT OF THE JURY. SO I WOULD ASK FOR AN OFFER OF PROOF AND I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A 352 HEARING ON THE ISSUE BEFORE IT'S INTRODUCED IN FRONT OF THE JURY.

THE COURT: WELL, LET'S SEE WHERE WE GO. SO YOU ARE WITHDRAWING YOUR OBJECTION TO THE QUESTION?

MR. DARDEN: CAN WE AGREE THAT WE WILL APPROACH THE SIDEBAR BEFORE THAT INFORMATION?

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SO ORDERED.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: THANK YOU. MR. DOUGLAS, YOU CAN RESUME.

MR. DOUGLAS: CAN I HAVE THAT LAST QUESTION REREAD, PLEASE?

THE COURT: NOW, AS A RESULT OF YOUR ALCOHOL PROBLEM, YOU WERE SUSPENDED, YOU HAD A SUSPENSION FOR 30 DAYS AS A POLICE OFFICER.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, MAY THE RECORD REFLECT THAT I'M WITHDRAWING THE OBJECTION TO THAT QUESTION?

THE COURT: NOTED.

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: AND YOUR ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS, SIR?

A: NO.

Q: YOU WERE SUSPENDED FOR 30 DAYS WHILE YOU WERE WORKING AT THE ACADEMY; WERE YOU NOT?

A: NO, I WAS NOT.

Q: WASN'T THERE AN OCCASION, SIR, WHEN YOU CAME TO THE ACADEMY WITH ALCOHOL ON YOUR BREATH?

A: YES, THERE WAS.

Q: DIDN'T YOU RECEIVE A DISCIPLINE AS A RESULT OF THAT CONDUCT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WHAT WAS THAT DISCIPLINE?

A: I RECEIVED 15 DAYS SUSPENSION.

Q: WHAT YEAR WAS THAT?

A: IT WAS 1988 I BELIEVE.

Q: WHAT HAPPENS TO YOU, SIR, WHEN YOU GET INTOXICATED?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. IRRELEVANT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: WHEN YOU ARE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL, DOES IT TEND TO AFFECT YOUR ABILITY TO RECALL?

MR. DARDEN: SAME OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: ON JUNE 13TH, 1994, YOU WERE DRINKING AT MR. SIMPSON'S HOUSE --

A: NO, I WAS NOT.

Q: -- WEREN'T YOU? DO YOU RECALL, SIR, AN OCCASION WHEN YOU WERE SEATED -- WITHDRAWN. INSIDE MR. SIMPSON'S HOME, THERE IS A BAR AREA, ISN'T THERE?

A: THAT IS CORRECT.

Q: AND THE BAR AREA IS AN AREA WHERE THE T.V. CONSOLE IS ALSO SET UP, TRUE?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND WHEN YOU WERE PRESENT ON JUNE 13TH, THERE WERE OTHER MEMBERS, AS WE SAID, OF MR. SIMPSON'S FAMILY THAT WERE THERE AS WELL, TRUE?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: MR. SIMPSON'S SISTERS WERE THERE?

A: RIGHT.

Q: THERE WERE INDIVIDUALS SUCH AS JOE STELLINI THAT WAS THERE?

A: RIGHT.

Q: THERE WAS A PERSON BY THE NAME OF PETER BORT THAT WAS THERE?

A: YES. PETER WAS THERE. THAT'S RIGHT.

Q: AND YOU --

THE COURT: HOW DO YOU SPELL BORT?

MR. DOUGLAS: B-O-R-T I BELIEVE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: AND THERE WAS AN OCCASION WHEN YOU WERE SEATED AT THE BAR AREA WITH MR. SIMPSON'S SISTER CARMELITA. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?

A: ON THIS PARTICULAR NIGHT?

Q: YES.

A: THE 13TH?

Q: CORRECT.

A: NO, I WAS NOT.

Q: AND DO YOU REMEMBER, SIR, THAT WHILE YOU WERE SEATED NEAR THE BAR WITH MR. SIMPSON'S SISTER, SHE ASKED IF YOU WANTED A DRINK?

A: WELL, YOU JUST ASKED ME --

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE; HE WAS SEATED AT THE BAR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: LET ME TRY TO REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION. DO YOU RECALL A CONVERSATION WHERE SHE ASKED YOU IF YOU WANTED A DRINK AND YOU SAID, "NO, BUT I'LL HAVE A BEER"?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THE QUESTION IS VAGUE AS TO TIME.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MR. DARDEN: ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: YOU MAY ANSWER.

A: I RECALL A CONVERSATION, BUT NOT ON THE 13TH.

Q: OKAY. WHEN DO YOU RECALL THAT CONVERSATION HAVING OCCURRED?

A: EITHER THE 14TH OR THE 15TH. I HAD NO DRINKS WHATSOEVER ON THE 13TH, NONE.

Q: WHILE MR. SIMPSON WAS IN THE HOME AS WELL?

A: PARDON ME?

Q: THIS CONVERSATION THAT YOU HAD WITH CARMELITA WAS WHILE MR. SIMPSON WAS ALSO AT HIS HOME, CORRECT?

A: NO, HE WAS NOT. HE LEFT TUESDAY MORNING.

Q: BECAUSE MR. SIMPSON WASN'T HOME TUESDAY MORNING, TRUE?

A: HE LEFT TUESDAY MORNING.

Q: AND WHEN YOU WERE THERE DURING THE REST OF THE WEEK, WHAT SERVICE WERE YOU RENDERING?

A: ASSISTANCE TO THE FAMILY.

Q: WERE YOU ACTING AS LIKE SECURITY?

A: NO. NOT AT ALL.

Q: SO IT'S YOUR RECOLLECTION THAT THIS CONVERSATION THAT YOU HAD WITH CARMELITA AND YOU TOOK A BEER WAS NOT ON THE 13TH?

A: IT WAS NOT ON THE 13TH.

Q: AND WHAT DAY DO YOU RECALL THAT IT WAS?

A: IT WAS EITHER THE 14TH OR THE 15TH. I WAS THERE EVERY DAY THAT WEEK.

Q: NOW, WHEN YOU WERE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL, DO YOU HAVE OCCASION TO VISIT PEOPLE UNANNOUNCED?

A: YEAH, I HAVE.

Q: AND YOU HAVE WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL VISITED PEOPLE UNANNOUNCED EVEN LAST YEAR, TRUE?

A: LAST YEAR?

Q: CORRECT.

A: YOU HAVE TO REFRESH MY MEMORY ON THAT ONE.

Q: LET ME TRY TO DO THAT.

MR. DARDEN: BEFORE HE DOES THAT, YOUR HONOR, THERE'S A RELEVANCE OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. ACTUALLY NO. OVERRULED. HE'S TESTIFIED TO THE LENGTH AND BREATH OF ALCOHOL ABUSE.

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: WHEN YOU SAY, MR. SHIPP, THAT YOU DIDN'T HAVE A DRUG PROBLEM -- I AM SORRY -- AN ALCOHOL PROBLEM AFTER 1989, ARE YOU SAYING BY THAT THAT YOU HAVE NOT BEEN DRUNK SINCE 1989?

A: NO. I'M SAYING -- TO ME, A DRINKING PROBLEM -- AND LET ME EXPLAIN THIS. YOU KNOW, WHEN I DID HAVE A DRINKING PROBLEM, I WAS THE ONE THAT TOLD MYSELF. ACCORDING TO ALL MY FRIENDS AND FAMILY, EVERYBODY WAS SHOCKED. IT WAS ME. IT WAS MY STANDARDS.

Q: I RESPECT THAT. BUT MY QUESTION IS, YOU STILL HAVE GOTTEN DRUNK SINCE '89, HAVEN'T YOU?

A: I'D SAY YES.

Q: IN FACT, JULY OF 1994, YOU GOT DRUNK AND 1:00 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING, YOU STARTED BANGING ON THE DOOR OF CATHY RANDA DISTURBING HER NEIGHBORS, DIDN'T YOU?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. IRRELEVANT, BEYOND THE DATE OF THE MURDERS, BEYOND THE CONVERSATION HE HAD WITH DEFENDANT.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. DOUGLAS: MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR, TO LINK IT UP?

THE COURT: IT'S WAY PAST THE DATES HERE.

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, IT'S PART OF THE CONTINUING PATTERN I SUGGEST.

THE COURT: BRIEFLY.

MR. DOUGLAS: VERY WELL.

MR. DARDEN: I'M SORRY. DID YOU SAY WE'RE GOING TO SIDEBAR?

THE COURT: NO.

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: YOU DO RECALL THAT INCIDENT; DO YOU NOT?

A: OH, YES, I DO.

Q: IT WAS 1:00 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING?

A: YEAH. ROUGHLY AROUND THERE.

Q: YOU CREATED A DISTURBANCE?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: NEIGHBORS HAD TO COME OUT TO RESTRAIN YOU?

A: THE NEIGHBORS WERE ALREADY OUT WHEN I GOT THERE.

Q: ISN'T IT TRUE, MR. SHIPP, THAT AS A RESULT OF YOUR BANGING ON MISS RANDA'S DOORS, HER NEIGHBORS CAME OUT OUT OF CONCERN?

A: NO. THEY WERE ALREADY -- CATHY HAD TOLD ME THEY HAD BEEN WATCHING OUT FOR HER THE WHOLE WEEK BECAUSE ALL OF THE DIFFERENT NEWS PEOPLE WERE TRYING TO HANG OUT AND BOTHER HER.

Q: NOW, WHEN YOU WERE DRUNK IN JULY OF 1994, WAS THAT A RESULT OF THE TURMOIL THAT YOU TALKED ABOUT YESTERDAY?

A: JUST ABOUT EVERYBODY WHO CAME TO THAT HOUSE WAS DRUNK DURING THE TIME.

Q: AND YOU WERE DRUNK AGAIN ON ANOTHER OCCASION WHEN YOU CAME BY MISS RANDA'S HOME, ISN'T THAT TRUE, IN AUGUST OF '94?

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION.

THE WITNESS: AUGUST OF '94?

THE COURT: LET'S APPROACH THE SIDEBAR.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ALCOHOLISM IS A MINOR ISSUE AS FAR AS CREDIBILITY IS CONCERNED.

MR. DOUGLAS: I HAVE WITNESSES THAT WILL SAY, YOUR HONOR, HE WAS DRINKING ON THE 13TH OF JUNE, HE WAS DRINKING IN JULY, HE WAS DRINKING IN AUGUST. THIS FLIES SQUARELY IN THE FACE OF HIS CLAIM HE NO LONGER HAD AN ALCOHOL PROBLEM. I BELIEVE THAT IS RELEVANT TO WHAT HIS STATE OF MIND WAS, WHETHER OR NOT HE IS MAKING UP ALL THIS ABOUT THIS ALLEGED CONVERSATION. I THINK IT IS VERY RELEVANT AND IT IS VERY ESSENTIAL TO MY IMPEACHMENT.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN: IT'S COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT BEYOND JUNE 13TH. I THINK HE'S BEEN VERY CANDID ABOUT HIS SO-CALLED DRINKING PROBLEM. IT'S IRRELEVANT. THIS IS REALLY CHARACTER ASSASSINATION RIGHT HERE. THAT'S ALL THIS IS. HE'S ADMITTED THAT HE HAD A PROBLEM. HE IS ADMITTING WHEN HE HAD SOMETHING TO DRINK. WE ARE ALL THE WAY INTO AUGUST. THE CONVERSATION HE HAD WITH DEFENDANT IS OVER. THE MURDERS ALREADY OCCURRED. HOW IS IT RELEVANT? HE ADMITTED THAT HE DRANK THE WEEK FOLLOWING THE MURDERS. I MEAN WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO? ARE WE GOING TO ASK HIM HAS HE HAD A DRINK ALL THE WAY UP TO TODAY? IT'S IRRELEVANT.

MR. DOUGLAS: I THINK HE TESTIFIED FALSELY. I'M TRYING TO ESTABLISH THAT. I THINK I SHOULD BE GIVEN SOME LEEWAY FOR THIS WITNESS TO ESTABLISH THAT HE'S BEEN FALSE IN ONE RESPECT, SO I CAN ARGUE HE'S BEEN FALSE IN OTHER RESPECTS SO I CAN ARGUE THE REASON HE'S BEING FALSE.

THE COURT: HOW MANY OF THESE INCIDENTS DO YOU HAVE?

MR. DOUGLAS: I HAVE JUNE, JULY, AUGUST. THOSE ARE ALL, JUST THOSE THREE.

MR. DARDEN: DO WE REALLY WANT TO GET INTO THIS?

THE COURT: WE'VE ALREADY GOTTEN INTO THESE THREE ALREADY, HAVEN'T WE?

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, HE WANTED TO APPROACH. I WAS MOVING ON.

THE COURT: IS THAT THE END OF IT?

MR. DOUGLAS: YES, YOUR HONOR.

MR. DARDEN: HE ASKED ABOUT AUGUST. I OBJECTED.

THE COURT: TELL ME ABOUT THE AUGUST INCIDENT.

MR. DOUGLAS: HE CAME AGAIN AT ABOUT 10:00 O'CLOCK IN THE EVENING TO CATHY RANDA'S HOME UNANNOUNCED WITH ALCOHOL ON HIS BREATH AND SHE WAS CONCERNED.

MR. DARDEN: WHAT DOES THAT PROVE? WHAT DOES IT PROVE?

THE COURT: IT PROVES TRUTH OR FALSITY OF THE STATEMENT, "I DON'T HAVE AN ALCOHOL PROBLEM," AND ALCOHOL IS RELEVANT TO PERCEPTION, HIS ABILITY TO PERCEIVE, RECOLLECTION ON THE DATE IN QUESTION ALTHOUGH HE SAYS --

MR. DARDEN: CATHY RANDA IS ALSO A DRUNK. ARE WE GOING TO BE ABLE TO GO INTO THAT?

THE COURT: YEAH, PROBABLY.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S CHARACTER ASSASSINATION.

THE COURT: JOHNNIE, COME ON.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, YOUR HONOR, TERMS LIKE "DRUNK", WE DON'T APPRECIATE THAT. IT'S DIFFERENT IN HOW WE TAKE THE HIGH ROAD.

THE COURT: YOU CAN BRIEFLY GO INTO THAT, WASN'T THERE ANOTHER INCIDENT.

MR. COCHRAN: THIS IS JUST CHARACTER ASSASSINATION OF PEOPLE TIME AND TIME AGAIN.

THE COURT: MR. DOUGLAS, ALL YOU HAVE TO ASK IS, THERE WAS ANOTHER INCIDENT INVOLVING DRINKING IN 1994 AT CATHY RANDA'S HOUSE, YES OR NO, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: IS IT TRUE, MR. SHIPP, THAT IN AUGUST 1994, THERE WAS ANOTHER OCCASION WHERE YOU CAME OVER MISS RANDA'S HOUSE UNANNOUNCED WITH ALCOHOL ON YOUR BREATH?

A: NO, THAT'S NOT TRUE.

Q: IT IS TRUE, IS IT NOT, THAT WHEN YOU ARE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL, YOUR PERCEPTION IS ALTERED?

A: AS MOST PEOPLE, I WOULD SAY.

Q: THAT YOUR ABILITY TO RECALL FACTS AND EVENTS IS EFFECTED?

A: IF YOU'RE DRUNK. I WAS DRUNK THE NIGHT WHEN I WENT OVER CATHY RANDA'S AT 1:00 IN THE MORNING. I WAS.

Q: YOU'VE ANSWERED THE QUESTION. THANK YOU, SIR. NOW, LET'S TALK ABOUT YOUR CAREER AS A POLICE OFFICER. YOU TESTIFIED THAT THERE WERE OCCASIONS WHEN YOU WOULD COME BY AND SPEAK WITH MR. SIMPSON, TRUE?

A: YES, THERE WERE.

Q: AND YOU WOULD COME BY HIS HOME WHILE WORKING FOR THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND YOU'D COME BY IN UNIFORM?

A: YES, I WAS.

Q: IN MARKED CARS?

A: MARKED CARS?

Q: CORRECT.

A: OH, MARKED BLACK AND WHITES, I'M SORRY. YEAH, THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND YOU WOULD COME BY AND BASICALLY SHOW OFF YOUR FRIENDSHIP TO A HALL OF FAMER, TRUE?

A: WHAT I WOULD DO, I MEAN -- YEAH, THAT'S TRUE.

Q: AND YOU WOULD TRY TO IMPRESS YOUR FRIENDS ON THE FORCE THAT YOU KNEW O.J. SIMPSON AND COULD COME BY HIS HOUSE, TRUE?

A: GET AUTOGRAPHS, PICTURES.

Q: AND YOU WOULD OFTEN TAKE YOUR PARTNERS INTO MR. SIMPSON'S HOUSE TO SHOW OFF HIS HEISMAN TROPHY THAT IS DISPLAYED THERE, WOULDN'T YOU?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND YOU WOULD ALSO TAKE THEM TO HIS MAGNIFICENT TROPHY ROOM AND SHOW ALL OF THOSE CHAMPIONSHIP FOOTBALLS THAT HE HAD ON DISPLAY?

A: I DID.

Q: AND YOU WOULD ALSO SHOW OFF THE WALTER CAMP TROPHIES AND THE OTHER TROPHIES THAT WERE PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED IN HIS TROPHY ROOM, WOULDN'T YOU?

A: ALL THE TROPHIES, EVERYTHING HE HAD THERE.

Q: AND IN FACT, YOU WOULD EVEN GO BACK AND YOU WENT BACK LAST YEAR TO HAVE MR. SIMPSON SIGN FOOTBALLS FOR SOME FRIENDS OF YOURS.

A: YES, I DID.

Q: TRUE? YOU SAID THAT THERE MAY HAVE BEEN AS MANY AS 40 DIFFERENT OFFICERS THAT EITHER AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER YOU BROUGHT TO MR. SIMPSON'S HOME, CORRECT?

A: OVER A FIVE-YEAR PERIOD, CORRECT.

Q: HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU BRING MARK FUHRMAN BY?

A: MARK FUHRMAN?

Q: YEAH.

A: NEVER.

Q: IT WAS WELL KNOWN AT THE WEST LOS ANGELES DIVISION WHEN YOU WERE THERE --

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION TO THE FORM OF THE QUESTION.

THE COURT: WELL, LET'S HEAR THE QUESTION.

MR. DOUGLAS: THANK YOU.

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: BECAUSE YOU BROUGHT SO MANY POLICE OFFICERS BY MR. SIMPSON'S HOME TO SHOW OFF MR. SIMPSON AND HIS TROPHIES, ET CETERA, IT WAS WELL KNOWN, WASN'T IT, AT WEST LOS ANGELES THAT O.J. SIMPSON LIVED WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THAT DIVISION?

A: VERY MUCH.

Q: OKAY. NOW, YOU LEFT THE POLICE FORCE IN OCTOBER OF 1989, DIDN'T YOU?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND WHEN YOU LEFT, YOU HAD PLANS TO FURTHER YOUR ACTING CAREER, DIDN'T YOU?

A: WELL, I LEFT -- TO BE PERFECTLY HONEST -- AND MY WIFE WILL VERIFY THIS AND MY FAMILY -- I WAS BURNED OUT. I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE HECK I WAS GOING TO DO, BUT I JUST -- LEFT THE JOB BECAUSE I WAS BURNED OUT.

Q: DIDN'T YOU LEAVE VOLUNTARILY?

A: OH, YES, I DID.

Q: AND DIDN'T YOU HAVE CONVERSATIONS AFTER YOU LEFT WITH MR. SIMPSON, IN PERHAPS USING MR. SIMPSON'S INFLUENCE TO KICK OFF YOUR ACTING CAREER?

A: CAN I ANSWER THIS FULLY?

Q: CAN YOU ANSWER IT YES OR NO?

A: NO.

Q: OKAY. AT ABOUT THE TIME THAT YOU LEFT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, MR. SIMPSON WAS A PRODUCER OF A T.V. SERIES, WASN'T HE?

A: WHEN I LEFT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT?

Q: CORRECT.

A: I'M NOT SURE IT IF WAS CANCELLED BY THEN OR NOT.

Q: FIRST IN TEN WAS THE SERIES; WAS IT NOT?

A: YEAH, HE DID HAVE A SERIES.

Q: AND IN FACT, MR. SIMPSON WAS ABLE TO GET YOU SMALL ROLES ON THAT SERIES, WASN'T HE?

A: ONE ROLE.

Q: AND YOU HAD WANTED TO TRY TO OBTAIN MORE AND LARGER ROLES, DIDN'T YOU?

A: THAT'S NOT TRUE.

Q: ISN'T IT TRUE, SIR, THAT WHEN YOUR ACTING CAREER FLOUNDERED, YOU REAPPLIED TO WORK AGAIN WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT EVEN THOUGH YOU HAD BEEN SO BURNED OUT AS YOU SAID?

A: I DID. OKAY. WHAT HAPPENED WAS, WHEN THINGS -- I STARTED A SECURITY BUSINESS. THINGS DIDN'T WORK OUT, OKAY. THINGS DIDN'T WORK OUT.

Q: LET ME ASK YOU THIS. IT'S TRUE EVEN THOUGH YOU WERE SO BURNED OUT WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, YOU REAPPLIED?

A: YES, I DID REAPPLY.

Q: WHEN WAS THAT?

A: PROBABLY ABOUT A YEAR AFTERWARDS.

Q: ARE YOU SURE IT WAS THAT LONG?

A: I CAN'T REMEMBER. YOU HAVE THE DATES. I'M NOT SURE.

Q: SURE I DO. WAS IT MORE LIKE FOUR MONTHS?

A: NO, IT WASN'T FOUR MONTHS THAT I RECALL. NO.

Q: AND ISN'T IT TRUE THAT EVEN THOUGH YOU WANTED TO BE AGAIN A MEMBER OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, THEY DIDN'T ACCEPT YOU, CORRECT?

A: THIS IS TRUE.

Q: AND ISN'T IT TRUE THAT THEY DIDN'T ACCEPT YOU BECAUSE OF A SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROBLEM THAT YOU HAD?

A: NO, NOT AT ALL. THAT'S NOT TRUE.

Q: WHY WERE YOU TOLD THAT YOU WERE NOT ACCEPTED?

A: BECAUSE WHEN I -- DURING THE TIME WHEN I HAD THE ALCOHOL PROBLEM, I TOOK STRESS LEAVE. AND I WAS TOLD BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE THAT IT WOULD BE -- I WOULD BE A VERY HIGH RISK TO COME BACK TO THE LAPD.

Q: SO THEY THOUGHT YOU WOULD BE UNFIT AS AN OFFICER?

A: BECAUSE -- YEAH, BECAUSE OF THE STRESS.

Q: LET'S TURN OUR FOCUS TO A DISCUSSION OF YOUR CONVERSATIONS WITH THE SIMPSON FAMILY IN 1989. YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS A TIME AFTER THE INCIDENT WHEN YOU SPOKE TO MR. O.J. SIMPSON, CORRECT?

A: YES. CORRECT.

Q: AND IT'S TRUE, IS IT NOT, THAT O.J. TOOK FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PROBLEMS THAT HAD OCCURRED IN '89 WITH HIS WIFE?

A: AT ONE POINT, YEAH, HE DID. HE CHANGED HIS MIND THE NEXT DAY, BUT AT ONE POINT HE DID.

Q: WELL --

MR. DOUGLAS: ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: AND OTHER THAN -- WITHDRAWN. MR. SIMPSON SPOKE TO YOU ABOUT HOW HE WANTED TO PUBLICLY CONFESS OR PUBLICLY MAKE A STATEMENT ABOUT THE ERROR OF HIS WAYS OF '89, TRUE?

A: YES, HE DID.

Q: NOW, YOU WERE ABLE TO PERSONALLY RELATE WHEN HE ACCEPTED RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE INCIDENT OF '89 BECAUSE OF YOUR OWN PROBLEMS, TRUE?

A: WHICH PROBLEMS?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

MR. DOUGLAS: MAY WE APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YES, WITH THE COURT REPORTER.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: WHERE ARE WE GOING WITH THIS, MR. DOUGLAS?

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, I JUST LEARNED TODAY THERE'S A WITNESS WHO WILL TESTIFY THAT MR. SHIPP WAS INVOLVED IN AN ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS FIRST WIFE INCLUDING STRIKING HER.

THE COURT: OKAY. WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH CREDIBILITY OR ANY OF THE ISSUES HERE?

MR. COCHRAN: MAY WE JUST HAVE A SECOND HERE, YOUR HONOR?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. DOUGLAS: IT GOES DIRECTLY, YOUR HONOR, TO HIS CREDIBILITY AND TO HIS INTERPRETATION OF MR. SIMPSON'S CONDUCT, AND I THINK THAT HE IS GOING TO SAY NOW THAT MR. SIMPSON WAS LESS FORTHCOMING THAN HE ACTUALLY WAS BECAUSE HE ONCE HAD HIS OWN TRANSGRESSION.

MS. CLARK: HOW DOES ONE BACK THE OTHER? I DON'T GET THE CONNECTION THERE.

MR. DOUGLAS: WELL, YOUR HONOR, HE IS A WITNESS TALKING ABOUT GIVING ALL KINDS OF ADVICE ABOUT BEING BATTERED, TALKING ABOUT TRYING TO CONVINCE SOMEONE THAT YOU SHOULD NOT PRESS CHARGES, AND I THINK HE KNOWS FROM HIS OWN EXPERIENCE, AND I THINK THE JURY NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO BE GIVEN THE PROPER CONTEXT IN WHICH ALL OF THIS INFORMATION CAN BE EVALUATED.

MS. CLARK: THERE'S NOTHING HERE --

MR. DOUGLAS: IS SHE TALKING NOW OR MR. DARDEN?

MR. DARDEN: I THINK IT SOUNDED LIKE HER.

THE COURT: YEAH.

MR. DARDEN: CONTINUE.

MS. CLARK: I DON'T SEE ANYTHING HERE THAT REALLY GOES TO CREDIBILITY. THAT'S THE ISSUE. FIRST OF ALL, IT'S JUST ANOTHER ATTEMPT AT CHARACTER ASSASSINATION. THIS IS PURE AND SIMPLY NOTHING BUT BRINGING UP THE MOST SEAMY KIND OF FALSE ACCUSATIONS IN ORDER TO IMPRESS THE JURY WITH THINGS THAT ARE SINISTER INFERENCE AND INNUENDO REGARDING SOMETHING THAT HAS NO BEARING ON HIS CREDIBILITY, TRYING TO BRING UP SOMETHING THAT HAS NO RELEVANCE TO THIS WITNESS' CREDIBILITY CONCERNING THE INCIDENT OF THE '89 ABUSE. I DON'T SEE THE CONNECTION BETWEEN WHAT COUNSEL IS TRYING TO GET THE JURY TO INFER AND THE ALLEGATIONS OF WIFE ABUSE BY THIS WITNESS. THERE'S NO LOGICAL CONNECTION. COUNSEL IS ATTEMPTING TO SAY THAT SOMEHOW THE CREDIBILITY CONCERNING THAT ASPECT OF THAT TESTIMONY IS IMPACTED BY HIS OWN EXPERIENCE. AND IF ANYTHING, IT WILL BE IMPACTED FAVORABLY, NOT NEGATIVELY. BUT THE CONNECTION THAT COUNSEL IS ATTEMPTING TO GET THE COURT TO DRAW DOESN'T EXIST. THERE'S NO LOGIC TO THIS.

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, WHEN THEY BRING --

THE COURT: GO AHEAD.

MR. DOUGLAS: WHEN THEY BRING A WITNESS THAT AS OF JANUARY 21ST I AM TOLD FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT HE IS MAKING A STATEMENT THAT MY CLIENT HAD A DREAM AND THAT THIS DREAM HAS SOME SINISTER INTERPRETATION AND THE COURT ALLOWS THAT STATEMENT TO COME IN -- I TOLD THE COURT I WOULD BE FORCED TO ATTEMPT TO VIGOROUSLY IMPEACH HIM AND WOULD BE FORCED TO PERSONALLY ATTACK HIS CREDIBILITY. I GAVE A WARNING AND I HAVE TO TRY TO HIT HARD. EVERYONE, THE PROSECUTION INCLUDED, MAY NOT AGREE WITH SOME OF MY TACTICS, BUT I HAVE TO TRY MY CASE MY WAY IF THE COURT PLEASES.

THE COURT: OBJECTION IS SUSTAINED.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT.)

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: DURING THE COURSE OF YOUR CONVERSATION WITH MR. SIMPSON, YOU RECOMMENDED THAT MR. SIMPSON SEE A PARTICULAR PSYCHIATRIST, DIDN'T YOU?

A: I SURE DID.

Q: AND THAT WAS A PSYCHIATRIST WITH WHOM YOU HAD PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT, TRUE?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND THAT WAS A PSYCHIATRIST WITH WHOM YOU YOURSELF WERE TREATING, TRUE?

A: YES, THAT'S TRUE.

Q: AND MR. SIMPSON ATTENDED HIS COUNSELING SESSIONS AS FAR AS YOU KNEW, TRUE?

A: AS FAR AS I KNEW.

Q: AND AS YOU WOULD LOOK BACK ON MR. SIMPSON'S MARRIAGE WITH NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, YOU WOULD INTERPRET THAT AS BEING A GOOD RELATIONSHIP, WOULDN'T YOU?

A: TOTALLY, WHAT I KNEW, IN THE PAST. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT BEFORE 1989?

Q: WELL, IN 1984, WHEN YOU WERE GIVING A STATEMENT ABOUT MR. SIMPSON'S RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS WIFE WHILE THEY WERE MARRIED, YOU DESCRIBED IT AS BEING A GREAT RELATIONSHIP, A GREAT MARRIAGE, DIDN'T YOU?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YEAH. THAT I KNEW OF, YEAH.

Q: NOW, WE TALKED BRIEFLY YESTERDAY ABOUT AN OCCASION IN JUNE OF '94 WHEN YOU VISITED MR. SIMPSON UNANNOUNCED ASKING TO USE A JACUZZI WITH A FRIEND. RECALL THAT?

A: I DID -- THAT'S TOTALLY FALSE. TOTALLY FALSE.

Q: OKAY. THERE WAS AN OCCASION WHEN YOU CAME WITH A FRIEND AND ASKED TO USE MR. SIMPSON'S JACUZZI, CORRECT?

A: MR. DOUGLAS, I HOPE YOU GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT, OKAY.

Q: MR. DOUGLAS: CAN HE ANSWER MY QUESTION, YOUR HONOR?

THE WITNESS: I WENT TO PLAY TENNIS, MR. DOUGLAS. I WAS PLAYING TENNIS. AFTER THE TENNIS GAME --

THE COURT: HOLD ON. HOLD ON.

THE WITNESS: YOU ARE ATTACKING ME.

THE COURT: HOLD ON, MR. SHIPP. THE JURY IS TO DISREGARD THE LAST COMMENTS BOTH BY MR. SHIPP AND BY MR. DOUGLAS. MR. DOUGLAS, ASK YOUR QUESTIONS.

MR. DOUGLAS: THANK YOU.

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: DON'T YOU RECALL AN OCCASION WHEN YOU CALLED MR. SIMPSON AT ABOUT 10:00 O'CLOCK IN THE EVENING AND ASKED TO USE HIS JACUZZI? DO YOU RECALL THAT, SIR; YES OR NO?

A: NO.

Q: DO YOU RECALL AFTER HE LET YOU USE THE JACUZZI, THAT ABOUT 20 MINUTES LATER, YOU CALLED BACK AND ASKED HIM TO BRING YOU A BOTTLE OF WINE? DO YOU RECALL THAT, SIR?

A: YOU JUST SAID 10:00 O'CLOCK AT NIGHT. DIDN'T YOU SAY 10:00 O'CLOCK AT NIGHT?

Q: I AM ASKING, DO YOU RECALL WHEN YOU CALLED HIM BACK TO ASK HIM TO BRING A BOTTLE OF WINE DOWN TO YOU IN THE JACUZZI? DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: CAN I HAVE THE TIMES CLARIFIED, SIR?

Q: 1994, JUNE, IF NOT MAY.

A: JUNE. I'M TALKING ABOUT THE TIME. NOT THE DATE. THE TIME.

Q: IT WAS IN THE EVENING, MR. SHIPP. DO YOU RECALL THAT OCCURRING?

A: I DO RECALL THAT.

Q: OKAY. YOU WERE WITH A FRIEND OTHER THAN YOUR WIFE; WERE YOU NOT?

A: YES, I WAS.

Q: SHE WAS A BLOND; WAS SHE NOT?

A: WHO WAS A FRIEND OF MY WIFE'S, THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND YOU SAY HER NAME IS WHAT?

A: LISA MADIGAN.

Q: DO YOU KNOW SOMEONE BY THE NAME OF ANGELA SPILKER?

A: ANGELA SPILKER?

Q: YES.

A: I CAN'T RECALL.

Q: YOU HAVE WORKED IN OTHER JOBS AS AN INVESTIGATOR; HAVE YOU NOT?

A: YES, I HAVE.

Q: AND YOU HAVE DONE INVESTIGATIVE WORK FOR FRIENDS OF MR. SIMPSON'S; HAVE YOU NOT?

A: YES, I HAVE.

Q: AND THERE WAS AN OCCASION WHEN YOU WERE ASKED TO LOOK INTO THE BACKGROUND OF ANGELA --

A: OH, ANGELA, YEAH. I DO REMEMBER. CORRECT. I AM SORRY. TOM MC CULLIN.

Q: ANGELA IS A GERMAN WOMAN, ISN'T SHE?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: SHE IS ABOUT SIX FOOT ONE, ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: I'VE NEVER MET THE WOMAN, BUT -- ACTUALLY, NO. I DID. SHE WAS IN A CAR. I SERVED HER I THINK.

Q: YOU DID MEET HER, TRUE?

A: THAT'S RIGHT.

Q: SHE'S A TALL BLONDE, ISN'T SHE?

A: SHE WAS IN THE CAR. I SAW HER FOR ABOUT 10 SECONDS.

Q: AND THE ONLY TIME THAT YOU HAD EVER SEEN HER WAS FOR THOSE 10 SECONDS?

A: YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND MISS SPILKER WAS NOT THE PERSON WHO WAS WITH YOU ON THIS OCCASION WHEN YOU ASKED FOR THE BOTTLE OF WINE?

A: NO. I JUST GAVE YOU HER NAME.

Q: NOW, LET'S TALK ABOUT THIS ALLEGED CONVERSATION THAT YOU HAD WITH MR. SIMPSON ON THE 13TH. WHAT TIME DO YOU RECALL THAT YOU AND HE HAD THIS ALLEGED CONVERSATION ABOUT THE DREAM? WHAT TIME OF THE EVENING WAS IT?

A: I THINK IT WAS MAYBE CLOSE -- I REMEMBER IT LIKE 11:00 O'CLOCK, SOMEWHERE AROUND THERE.

Q: DO YOU RECALL TELLING MISS WELLER THAT THIS CONVERSATION THAT YOU HAD WAS SHORTLY PAST MIDNIGHT ON THE 13TH?

A: IT COULD HAVE BEEN. THAT WHOLE WEEK KIND OF RAN TOGETHER.

Q: DO YOU NEED TO SEE SOMETHING TO REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION, SIR?

A: WELL, YEAH, IF YOU HAVE IT.

Q: SURE. AND BY THE WAY -- I AM SORRY. ONE OTHER QUESTION ABOUT THE OCCASION WHEN YOU AND MISS MADIGAN WERE IN THE JACUZZI. YOU SAW MR. SIMPSON'S DAUGHTER ARNELLE WHILE YOU AND SHE WERE IN THE JACUZZI, TRUE?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND IT WAS IN JUNE, WASN'T IT?

A: IT WAS IN JUNE.

Q: OKAY.

A: I WAS DISPUTING THE TIME, NOT DISPUTING THE DAY.

Q: I JUST WANTED TO REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION WITH A COPY OF EXHIBIT D-1000, AND I JUST WANT YOU TO READ TO YOURSELF THE PORTION THAT I'M REFERRING TO BEGINNING ON THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 8.

A: OKAY (WITNESS COMPLIES).

Q: AFTER HAVING READ EXHIBIT 1000, IS YOUR MEMORY NOW REFRESHED THAT IT WAS JUST AFTER MIDNIGHT WHEN YOU AND MR. SIMPSON SUPPOSEDLY WENT UP TO HIS BEDROOM?

A: I REALLY DON'T THINK IT WAS THAT LATE BECAUSE I REMEMBER GETTING HOME ROUGHLY AROUND 12:30, SOMEWHERE AROUND THERE.

Q: WELL, DO YOU REMEMBER THAT WHEN YOU HAD AN OCCASION TO READ THE DRAFT OF MISS WELLER'S BOOK, THAT THE BOOK HAD SAID JUST AFTER MIDNIGHT? DO YOU REMEMBER READING THAT?

A: I THINK -- YEAH, I THINK I PRETTY MUCH --

Q: AND YOU DO REMEMBER THAT, AS YOU SAID YESTERDAY, THAT THE DRAFT OF THE BOOK WAS CORRECT, TRUE?

A: TRUE.

Q: AND IT IS TRUE, IS IT NOT, THAT YOUR MEMORY OF THESE EVENTS WAS FRESHER DURING YOUR CONVERSATION WITH MISS WELLER IN JULY OR AUGUST THAN IT IS TODAY?

A: THAT'S -- I WOULD SAY YOU ARE PROBABLY CORRECT.

Q: BECAUSE YOUR MEMORY DOESN'T IMPROVE OVER TIME, DOES IT?

A: NO, IT DOES NOT.

Q: SO IF MISS WELLER SAYS THAT IT WAS JUST AFTER MIDNIGHT, THAT'S PROBABLY A BETTER REFLECTION OF THE TIME FRAME?

A: WELL, LIKE I SAID, I'M STILL -- I'M THINKING ABOUT WHEN I GOT HOME. I'M SAYING GOT HOME AT ABOUT 12:30. IT USUALLY TAKES ME 45 MINUTES, ALMOST AN HOUR TO GET HOME.

Q: NOW, AFTER YOU AND MR. SIMPSON WERE UPSTAIRS, ACCORDING TO YOUR VERSION OF THIS, MR. SIMPSON BEGAN ASKING YOU A SERIES OF QUESTIONS YOU SAY; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: DID YOU SAY OR IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY THAT MR. SIMPSON ASKED YOU ABOUT -- WITHDRAWN. IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY THAT MR. SIMPSON SAID THAT THE POLICE HAD TOLD HIM ABOUT A BLOODY GLOVE?

A: COULD YOU REPEAT THAT AGAIN, PLEASE?

Q: SURE. DID MR. SIMPSON TELL YOU THAT THE POLICE HAD TOLD SIMPSON ABOUT A BLOODY GLOVE?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND DID SIMPSON TELL YOU THAT THE POLICE HAD TOLD SIMPSON ABOUT SOME CAP THAT WAS FOUND?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: DID YOU KNOW THAT DURING THE ENTIRE TIME THAT MR. SIMPSON WAS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE POLICE OFFICERS ON THAT DAY --

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. ASSUMING FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: -- THAT THEY NEVER MENTIONED ANYTHING ABOUT A BLOODY GLOVE?

MR. DARDEN: COUNSEL IS ATTEMPTING TO TESTIFY. MR. SIMPSON WAS NOT IN CUSTODY.

MR. DOUGLAS: I CAN LINK IT UP AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME.

THE COURT: I AM GOING TO SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION TO THE FORM OF THE QUESTION AS BEING COMPOUND.

MR. DOUGLAS: VERY WELL.

THE COURT: AT THIS POINT.

MR. DOUGLAS: BECAUSE IT IS COMPOUND.

THE COURT: IT MAY ALSO ASSUME A FACT THAT'S NOT IN EVIDENCE. THERE'S -- WHEN YOU USE THE TERM "CUSTODY", THAT'S A VERY FINE TERM IN OUR TERMINOLOGY HERE.

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, I JUST NEED TO KNOW THE RULING SO THAT I CAN CHANGE THE QUESTION ACCORDINGLY.

THE COURT: REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

MR. DOUGLAS: I'LL REPHRASE THE QUESTION. CERTAINLY.

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: DID YOU KNOW THAT NOTHING ABOUT A BLOODY GLOVE WAS EVER MENTIONED TO MR. SIMPSON BY THE POLICE ON JUNE 13TH?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THIS WITNESS IS NOT COMPETENT TO TESTIFY TO THE CONVERSATION DEFENDANT HAD WITH THE POLICE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. THAT'S A SPEAKING OBJECTION, COUNSEL.

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: YOU MAY ANSWER.

A: I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE POLICE HAD SAID THEY FOUND. I'M JUST GOING BY WHAT O.J. MENTIONED TO ME.

Q: SO YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT?

A: HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY FOUND.

Q: AND YOU DIDN'T KNOW NOTHING ABOUT ANY CAP BEING RECOVERED WAS EVER MENTIONED TO MR. SIMPSON?

A: I HAD NO IDEA.

Q: IF YOU KNEW THAT NOTHING ABOUT A BLOODY GLOVE WAS EVER MENTIONED TO MR. SIMPSON ON THE 13TH BY THE POLICE, WOULD THAT CAUSE YOU TO MAYBE RETHINK YOUR VERSION OF THIS CONVERSATION?

A: NOT ONE -- NOT -- NO. I KNOW WHAT I HEARD. NO. NO WAY.

MR. DOUGLAS: ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: NOW, THIS ALLEGED STATEMENT ABOUT A DREAM YOU WERE ASKED ABOUT YESTERDAY, WEREN'T YOU?

A: YES, I WAS.

Q: AND YOU WERE ASKED YESTERDAY WHETHER MR. SIMPSON ALLEGEDLY MADE SOME STATEMENT ABOUT DNA COMING BACK, TRUE?

A: TRUE.

Q: AND YOU WERE ASKED YESTERDAY WHAT MR. SIMPSON SAID IN RESPONSE TO YOUR INDICATION THAT IT TAKES DNA TWO MONTHS TO COME BACK, CORRECT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: AND YOU RESPONDED THAT HE KIND OF JOKINGLY JUST SAID, "YOU KNOW, TO BE HONEST, SHIPP, I'VE HAD SOME DREAMS OF KILLING HER." THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID YESTERDAY, TRUE?

A: THAT'S VERY TRUE.

Q: ISN'T IT MORE ACCURATE, MR. SHIPP, THAT MR. SIMPSON NEVER SUPPOSEDLY SAID ANYTHING ABOUT DREAMS IN RESPONSE TO THIS QUESTION ABOUT DNA, TRUE?

A: CAN YOU REPEAT THAT QUESTION?

Q: SURE. THERE WAS SOME OTHER PORTION OF A CONVERSATION THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO INTO THAT CAME BETWEEN THE STATEMENT ABOUT DNA THAT YOU HAD SAID AND THE STATEMENT THAT YOU SAY MR. SIMPSON SAID ABOUT THE DREAM; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: IF I --

Q: YES OR NO? YOU CAN ANSWER IT YES OR NO.

A: THAT OTHER STATEMENT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT CAME FIRST IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.

Q: BEFORE THE DNA STATEMENT?

A: IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.

Q: WELL --

A: I THINK THAT MAY HAVE COME FIRST.

Q: WOULD YOU LIKE TO REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION AS TO THE ORDER OF THE CONVERSATION BY REVIEWING AGAIN THE STATEMENT ATTRIBUTABLE TO YOU IN MISS WELLER'S BOOK?

MR. DOUGLAS: MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YOU MAY. IT'S 1001?

MR. DOUGLAS: 1000, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. DOUGLAS: AND I ASK THE WITNESS SIMPLY TO READ IT TO HIMSELF SO I CAN ASK MY NEXT SERIES OF QUESTIONS.

THE COURT: YES.

THE WITNESS: OKAY (WITNESS COMPLIES). I'VE READ IT.

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: AFTER HAVING REVIEWED THE EXCERPTS FROM THIS BOOK, IS YOUR RECOLLECTION NOW REFRESHED?

A: OKAY. IT'S REFRESHED. THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: IT IS TRUE, IS IT NOT, THAT EVEN ACCORDING TO YOUR VERSION, THIS ALLEGED STATEMENT ABOUT THE DREAMS DID NOT DIRECTLY COME IN RESPONSE TO THE ALLEGED STATEMENT ABOUT DNA, CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: THERE WAS SOMETHING ELSE THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO GO INTO THAT CAME IN BETWEEN THE TWO?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND WHEN YOU RESPONDED AND CHARACTERIZED MR. SIMPSON'S ALLEGED STATEMENT ABOUT THE DREAMS, YOU SAID THAT THE STATEMENT WAS MADE JOKINGLY, DIDN'T YOU?

A: THAT'S TRUE.

Q: TELL ME EVERYTHING THAT YOU SAW THAT GAVE YOU AN INDICATION THAT THE STATEMENT, THE ALLEGED STATEMENT WAS MADE JOKINGLY.

A: WELL, HE JUST KIND OF SAID, "YOU KNOW, TO BE TRUTHFUL, SHIPP, I'VE HAD DREAMS OF KILLING HER."

Q: SO HE KIND OF CHUCKLED?

A: KIND OF CHUCKLED, YEAH.

Q: MR. SHIPP, WHEN WERE YOU FIRST INFORMED BY ANYONE REPRESENTING THE PROSECUTION IN THIS CASE THAT YOU WOULD BE CALLED AS A WITNESS TO TESTIFY IN THIS MATTER?

A: WHENEVER PHIL VANNATTER -- I THINK IT'S PROBABLY THE SECOND TIME HE VISITED MY HOUSE, HE SAID I POSSIBLY MAY BE CALLED. HE DIDN'T SAY I WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE CALLED.

Q: AND GIVE ME YOUR BEST ESTIMATE OF WHEN IT WAS THAT PHIL VANNATTER VISITED YOUR HOUSE A SECOND TIME.

A: CAN YOU REFRESH MY MEMORY OR SOMEONE AS TO WHEN -- AS TO WHEN I MET WITH MARCIA AND MR. DARDEN?

Q: I THINK YOU MET WITH MARCIA THE FIRST TIME IN JULY OF '94.

A: JULY? OKAY. IT WAS PROBABLY MAYBE ABOUT TWO OR THREE WEEKS AFTER THAT.

Q: SO TWO OR THREE WEEKS AFTER MEETING WITH MARCIA, PHIL TOLD YOU THAT YOU WOULD PROBABLY BE A WITNESS IN THE CASE?

A: YES, HE DID.

Q: AND DID YOU THEN TELL PHIL KNOWING THAT YOU WOULD BE A WITNESS IN THE CASE ABOUT THIS CONVERSATION CONCERNING THE DREAM THAT SUPPOSEDLY OCCURRED?

A: NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: HOW MANY TIMES AFTER THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU MET IN MARCIA'S OFFICE DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH ANYONE FROM THE PROSECUTION TEAM?

A: I THINK I MAY HAVE HAD SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS, MAYBE TWO, THREE MAYBE WITH PATTI FAIRBANKS.

Q: HOW MANY OTHER CONVERSATIONS DID YOU HAVE WITH PHIL VANNATTER OTHER THAN ON THE DAY THAT YOUR STATEMENT WAS RECORDED?

A: REPEAT THAT QUESTION?

Q: HOW MANY CONVERSATIONS DID YOU HAVE WITH PHIL VANNATTER OTHER THAN THE DAY WHEN YOUR STATEMENT WAS RECORDED, TRANSCRIBED?

A: ONE, MAYBE TWO.

Q: AND THEY WERE BOTH AT YOUR HOME?

A: NO. ONE WAS AT MY HOME AND I THINK ONE OTHER TIME, I JUST CALLED TO ASK HIM SOME KIND OF QUESTION.

Q: DID YOU JUST SAY A MINUTE AGO THAT PHIL TOLD YOU THAT YOU MAY BE A WITNESS THE SECOND TIME THAT HE CAME TO YOUR HOME?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME?

A: THE FIRST TIME HE CAME TO MY HOME?

Q: YES.

A: FIRST TIME HE CAME TO MY HOME WAS WHEN HE BROUGHT A SUBPOENA FOR THE GRAND JURY.

Q: YOU DID TESTIFY UNDER OATH IN A GRAND JURY PROCEEDING?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: WHEN YOU TESTIFIED --

MR. DARDEN: PARDON ME, YOUR HONOR. MAY WE APPROACH THE SIDEBAR?

THE COURT: YES, WITH THE COURT REPORTER, PLEASE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: WE ARE OVER AT SIDEBAR. MR. DARDEN, YOU ASKED TO APPROACH.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, MR. SHIPP DID TESTIFY IN THE COWLINGS GRAND JURY, THE FOCUS OF WHICH WAS NOT THESE MURDERS, OKAY. IN FACT, WE WERE PROHIBITED FROM INVESTIGATING THE MURDERS IN THAT GRAND JURY PROCEEDING. SO THERE WAS NO OPPORTUNITY TO ASK MR. SHIPP ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THESE MURDERS. CAN I FINISH? THANK YOU, SIR. AND SO TO GO INTO ANY TESTIMONY OF THIS WITNESS IN THESE PROCEEDINGS IS HIGHLY PREJUDICIAL AND WILL MISLEAD THE JURY.

THE COURT: WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO ELICIT?

MR. DOUGLAS: HE DID MENTION HAVING SPOKEN TO O.J. ON MONDAY NIGHT IN THAT GRAND JURY. HE SAID NOTHING DURING THAT OCCASION ABOUT ANY DREAMS THAT MR. SIMPSON MAY HAVE HAD. HE MADE A BIG POINT YESTERDAY TO TALK ABOUT THAT HE NEVER LIED UNDER OATH. HE SAID YESTERDAY AND HE AGREED WITH MY CHARACTERIZATION THAT HIS FAILURE TO TELL VANNATTER OR DOUGLAS ABOUT THESE DREAMS WAS IN FACT A LIE. I THINK IT IS PROPER FOR ME TO --

THE COURT: WHAT'S THE QUESTION AND ANSWER BEFORE THE GRAND JURY?

MR. DOUGLAS: SORRY?

THE COURT: WHAT IS THE QUESTION AND ANSWER BEFORE THE GRAND JURY?

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR --

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, FOR THE RECORD, I'M GIVING YOU PAGE 629 AND 630 OF THE A.C. COWLINGS GRAND JURY.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, I CAN'T SEE. I CAN'T SEE THE PAGE.

THE COURT: OKAY.

MR. DARDEN: AS THE COURT WILL NOTICE, I DID NOT FOLLOW UP ON HIS CONVERSATION BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS OUTSIDE THE PROVINCE OF THE GRAND JURY'S INVESTIGATION. SO I THINK THEY'RE BEING ALLOWED TO SANDBAG ME ON THIS UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.

THE COURT: CARL, THERE'S NO QUESTION HERE ABOUT, "DID YOU HAVE ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH THE DEFENDANT?"

MR. DOUGLAS: WHAT HE SAID, YOUR HONOR -- FIRST OF ALL, HE GAVE AN OATH TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, OKAY. FIRST OF ALL --

THE COURT: BUT WE DO THIS BY QUESTION AND ANSWER. HE WAS NOT ASKED THE QUESTION DID HE HAVE ANY CONVERSATION --

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I SAY SOMETHING?

THE COURT: NO. ONE GLADIATOR.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, HE MADE A BIG THING YESTERDAY SAYING THAT HE NEVER LIED UNDER OATH. HE'S ACKNOWLEDGED YESTERDAY THAT NOT TELLING PHIL ABOUT THIS CONVERSATION WAS LYING, THAT NOT TELLING WAS LYING. HE HAS ACCEPTED FOR PURPOSES OF MY FUTURE ARGUMENT THE THOUGHT THAT WHEN I DON'T TELL SOMETHING THAT I KNOW IS RELEVANT ABOUT A CONVERSATION, THAT I THINK IS IMPORTANT, THAT I THINK IS PROBATIVE, THAT THAT IS SOME INDICATION OF GUILT, THAT THAT IS LYING. I SHOULD BE ALLOWED, YOUR HONOR -- AND THEY CAN GET BACK UP AND SAY, "AND YOU WEREN'T ASKED THE QUESTION." THAT GOES TO THE WEIGHT. BUT I SHOULD BE ABLE TO ASK A THRESHOLD QUESTION. THEY ARE ALLOWED TO COME BACK AND PUT WHATEVER SPIN ON IT. THEY'RE GOING TO SAY HE WAS NEVER ASKED THE QUESTION, AND FINE. THAT'S ALWAYS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU'RE IMPEACHING SOMEBODY WITH A DOCUMENT UNDER OATH. I AM WILLING TO ACCEPT THE COST FOR MY ASKING THIS QUESTION BECAUSE THE FLIPSIDE IS, THAT'S WHAT I WOULD DO IN RESPONSE. BUT IT IS RELEVANT AND IT DOES GO TO BIAS, IT DOES GO TO CREDIBILITY AND THIS IS AN ESSENTIAL WITNESS.

THE COURT: HERE'S OUR PROBLEM THOUGH. THE GRAND JURY WAS NOT ALLOWED TO INVESTIGATE INTO MR. SIMPSON. SO I THINK THAT WAS -- AND THERE ARE CLEAR OBJECTIONS MADE BY THE DEFENSE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE COWLINGS GRAND JURY WAS INVESTIGATING MATTERS OTHER THAN MR. SIMPSON. SO TO THEN TRY TO DRAG THIS IN WHEN THERE WAS NO DIRECT FOCUS ON MR. SIMPSON AND THAT FOCUS WAS MAINTAINED BY THE COURT, I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE AND I'M GOING TO SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: WE'RE GOING TO --

MR. DOUGLAS: MAY I -- YOUR HONOR, CAN I BRING OUT THE FACT THAT HE DID TESTIFY IN THE GRAND JURY, HE DID TESTIFY ABOUT HAVING SEEN MR. SIMPSON ON MONDAY?

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THAT DIRECT QUESTION AND ANSWER. THAT'S ADMISSIBLE.

MR. DARDEN: EXCUSE ME. CAN WE -- OKAY. HE'S ALREADY ADMITTED SEEING -- HE HAS ALREADY ADMITTED TO SEEING THE DEFENDANT ON MONDAY. IF YOU ASK HIM IF HE TESTIFIED IN FRONT OF THE GRAND JURY, YOU'RE JUST OPENING UP A WHOLE CAN OF WORMS, OKAY.

MR. DOUGLAS: HE SAID IT.

MR. DARDEN: IF YOU PUT YOUR FINGER IN MY FACE AGAIN -- IT'S JUST GOING TO MISLEAD THE JURY, AND I HAVE TO GET INTO WHAT -- IN THE GRAND JURY, WHY HE NEVER TESTIFIED TO THIS STUFF. ARE WE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE A MINI TRIAL REGARDING THE GRAND JURY? I MEAN IT JUST ISN'T FAIR.

THE COURT: THAT'S TRUE.

MR. DARDEN: IT ISN'T FAIR AT ALL.

THE COURT: OBJECTION SUSTAINED. COUNSEL, THAT GRAND JURY, YOU CAN'T GO INTO THIS.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL HE IS GOING TO GO INTO IS WHAT HE TESTIFIED ABOUT, JUDGE.

MR. DARDEN: WE HAVE A ONE-LAWYER RULE. STOP WHINING.

MR. DOUGLAS: HE SAID HE WAS VERY DISTRAUGHT.

THE COURT: NO. I AM GOING TO SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A BRIEF 15-MINUTE RECESS AT THIS TIME. PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITION TO YOU; DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONG YOURSELVES, FORM ANY OPINIONS, ALLOW ANYBODY TO TALK ABOUT THE CASE. I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO STEP BACK IN THE JURY ROOM, PLEASE. ALL RIGHT. MR. SHIPP, YOU MAY STEP DOWN. LET'S HAVE IT QUIET IN THE COURTROOM, PLEASE. WE'RE STILL IN SESSION.

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

THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL. WE'LL BE IN RECESS FOR 15.

MR. SHAPIRO: MAY WE PUT SOMETHING ON THE RECORD, PLEASE, OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY?

THE COURT: SURE. THE RECORD WILL REFLECT THE JURY HAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE COURTROOM. MR. SHAPIRO.

MR. SHAPIRO: YES, YOUR HONOR. WHILE YOU WERE DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO COUNSEL AT SIDEBAR, I WAS CONFERRING WITH MR. SIMPSON; AND MR. SHIPP CONTINUALLY WAS STARING AT US, WAS MOUTHING SOME TYPE OF WORDS IN SOME TYPE OF ATTEMPT TO EITHER COMMUNICATE WITH ME OR WITH MR. SIMPSON, WAS MAKING VERY UNUSUAL FACIAL EXPRESSIONS THAT WOULD GO FROM A GRIMACE TO A SNIRK -- TO A SMIRK, AND IT WAS IN FRONT OF THE JURY AND I FOUND IT -- I FOUND IT MYSELF TO BE VERY, VERY UNCOMFORTABLE, AND I TRIED TO DIRECT MY ATTENTION AWAY FROM HIM, AND I WANTED TO CALL THAT TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MS. LEWIS, YOU HAD A COMMENT?

MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE BEEN SITTING AT THE BACK OF THE COURTROOM AT THE SMALLER COUNSEL TABLE DURING THE TIME THAT MR. SHIPP WAS WAITING FOR THE SIDEBAR CONFERENCE TO FINISH, AND WHAT I SAW WAS A WITNESS WHO DIDN'T KNOW WHERE TO LOOK. HE DIDN'T WANT TO SIT THERE AND STARE AT THE JURY. HE COULD NOT STARE AT THE AUDIENCE. SO HE WAS LOOKING AROUND, AS IS TYPICAL OF A WITNESS WHEN ATTORNEYS ARE AT SIDEBAR. I DIDN'T SEE HIM MAKE ANY UNUSUAL EXPRESSIONS OTHER THAN THOSE TYPICAL AND CONSISTENT WITH A WITNESS WHO IS JUST TRYING TO DETERMINE WHAT TO DO WHILE THE ATTORNEYS ARE AT SIDEBAR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WELL, IF WE HAVE ANY LUCK, MAYBE COURT T.V. HAD THE FOCUS ON MR. SHIPP DURING THAT TIME. WE'LL SEE. LET'S TAKE A 15-MINUTE RECESS.

(RECESS.)

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

THE COURT: BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. ALL THE PARTIES ARE PRESENT. MR. COCHRAN, DID EVERYTHING GET TAKEN CARE OF IN 111?

MR. COCHRAN: NO, THEY HAVE A HEARING. I LEFT MISS CHAPMAN AND I WILL GO BACK HOPEFULLY TO ARGUE IT.

THE COURT: YOU KNOW I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE YOUR OTHER OBLIGATIONS.

MR. COCHRAN: I APPRECIATE THAT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, BEFORE WE RESUME, I HAVE BEEN ADVISED BY MEMBERS OF MY STAFF THAT THEY DID IN FACT OBSERVE MR. SHIPP DURING THE COURSE OF THE SIDE BAR CONFERENCE MAKE SOME GESTURE OR ATTEMPT TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE DEFENDANT. AND WHEN THE JURY COMES OUT, I AM GOING TO ORDER THEM TO DISREGARD THAT.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, I ASKED MR. SHIPP DURING THE BREAK IF HE MOUTHED SOMETHING TO THE DEFENDANT WHILE WE WERE AT SIDE BAR AND HE TOLD ME THAT, YES, IN FACT HE DID, AND I INTEND TO ASK HIM ON REDIRECT WHAT IT WAS, SINCE IT WAS DONE IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY.

WE WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE -- EXCUSE ME. THE JURY SAW IT. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT IT IS HE SAID TO HIM. I WOULD LIKE HIM TO KNOW WHAT IT IS HE SAID TO HIM.

MR. DOUGLAS: THAT IS NOT EVIDENCE, YOUR HONOR. THAT IS NOT PROPER. I THINK THE COURT SHOULD ADMONISH.

THE COURT: I'M GOING TO ADMONISH AND COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN A WITNESS AND A DEFENDANT DURING THE COURSE OF A TRIAL I DON'T THINK ARE RELEVANT TO ANYTHING, UNLESS THERE IS SOMETHING HIGHLY UNUSUAL. I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THAT IN FRONT OF THE JURY.

MR. BAILEY: CAN WE HEAR WHAT HE SAID?

THE COURT: WHAT DID HE SAY, MR. DARDEN? WHAT IS YOUR OFFER OF PROOF?

MR. DARDEN: HE SAID "TELL THE TRUTH."

MR. DOUGLAS: I WOULD OBJECT, YOUR HONOR.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT --

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, PLEASE. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE THE JURY, PLEASE.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. DARDEN: CAN MR. SHIPP HAVE A SEAT ON THE STAND?

THE COURT: YES, PLEASE.

(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, PLEASE. ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING AGAIN, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

THE COURT: MY APOLOGIES FOR THE DELAY IN GETTING STARTED AGAIN; HOWEVER, WHEN YOU HAVE SO MANY ATTORNEYS INVOLVED IN A CASE, THIS, AS YOU WILL FIND OUT, IS NOT THEIR ONLY CASE THAT THEY HAVE. AND I ALLOWED ONE OF THE ATTORNEYS TO MAKE A QUICK APPEARANCE IN ANOTHER COURTROOM IN THE COURTHOUSE AND THAT ATTORNEY WAS UNFORTUNATELY DELAYED AND THAT WAS THE REASON FOR THE LONGER CONTINUANCE THAN I HAD ANTICIPATED. ALSO, DURING THE COURSE OF THE LAST SIDE BAR DISCUSSION IT WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION THAT THERE APPEARED TO BE SOME COMMUNICATION OR ATTEMPTED COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE WITNESS, MR. SHIPP, AND PERSONS OVER AT COUNSEL TABLE. YOU ARE INSTRUCTED TO DISREGARD ANY CONDUCT THAT YOU SEE LIKE THAT. IT IS OBVIOUSLY NOT EVIDENCE. I HAVE INSTRUCTED THE WITNESS NOT TO DO ANYTHING LIKE THAT IN THE FUTURE, BUT PLEASE DISREGARD ANYTHING THAT YOU SEE OF THAT NATURE. ALL RIGHT. MR. DOUGLAS. YOU MAY CONTINUE.

MR. DOUGLAS: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

Q: MR. SHIPP, DO YOU KNOW A WOMAN BY THE NAME OF MARGARET EDWARDS?

A: PARDON ME?

Q: DO YOU KNOW MARGARET EDWARDS?

A: MARGARET EDWARDS?

Q: YES.

A: A FRIEND OF MY MOM'S?

Q: YES.

A: YES, I DO.

MR. DARDEN: THERE IS AN OBJECTION HERE. MAY WE APPROACH AT SIDE BAR?

MR. DOUGLAS: I'M MOVING ON. ESTABLISHING.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. HE HAS INDICATED THAT IS THE ONLY QUESTION HE IS GOING TO ASK. OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: NOW, MR. SHIPP, LET'S GO BACK TO WHEN YOU HAD THESE SERIES OF MEETINGS WITH MISS WELLER ABOUT THIS BOOK. AND BASED ON YOUR PRODUCING THE DOCUMENT THAT IS NOW LISTED AS EXHIBIT 1001, THE FIRST OF THOSE MEETINGS OCCURRED ON JULY 13, DID IT NOT?

A: I THINK THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: OKAY. AND YOU SAY THAT YOU HAD A SERIES OF SIX OR SEVEN MEETINGS THAT FOLLOWED?

A: APPROXIMATELY.

Q: AND EACH OF THE MEETINGS OCCURRED AT YAMASHIRO'S, A RESTAURANT?

A: MOST OF THEM. I THINK WE MAY HAVE HAD ONE I THINK AT THE BICYCLE SHOP.

Q: OKAY.

A: ON WILSHIRE BOULEVARD.

Q: WHEN YOU MET AT YAMASHIRO'S, YOU SAY THAT YOU WERE EATING HORS D'OEUVRES?

A: YES, I THINK SUSHI.

Q: WERE YOU ALSO DRINKING?

A: NO.

Q: WAS SHE DRINKING?

A: SHE HAD A GLASS OF WINE.

Q: NOW, IT IS TRUE, IS IT NOT, THAT SOMETIME IN 1994 YOU AND CATHY RANDA WENT OUT FOR A QUICK BITE, CORRECT?

A: PROBABLY SEVERAL TIMES. WE HUNG OUT QUITE A BIT.

Q: WHAT ABOUT THE TIME WHEN YOU AND SEE HUNG OUT AND SHE ASKED YOU TO STOP DROPPING --

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, CALLS FOR HEARSAY.

MR. DOUGLAS: STATE OF MIND.

MR. DARDEN: 352 OBJECTION.

THE COURT: LET'S APPROACH.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

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

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, HE SAID YESTERDAY THAT IT WAS ALWAYS FINE FOR HIM TO DROP OVER TO MR. SIMPSON'S HOUSE UNANNOUNCED, SUGGESTING THAT THAT WAS THE QUALITY OF THEIR FRIENDSHIP. THIS YEAR -- LAST YEAR MISS RANDA HAD A CONVERSATION WITH MR. SHIPP WHEN SHE ASKED MR. SHIPP TO NOT KEEP DROPPING BY, COMING OVER, PLAYING TENNIS, BECAUSE HE WAS CREATING A DISTURBANCE AND MR. SIMPSON DIDN'T WANT THAT TO OCCUR. MISS RANDA WILL TESTIFY THAT IT GOES TO HIS STATE OF MIND, IT GOES TO CHALLENGE THE ACCURACY OF A STATEMENT THAT HE MAKES. IF HE DENIES IT, I CAN ARGUE IT, AND IF HE ACKNOWLEDGES IT, I CAN ARGUE IT ACCORDINGLY. IT IS DIRECTLY CONTRADICTING HIS SUGGESTION THAT HE HAD FREE REIGN TO THE PREMISES.

MR. DARDEN: THAT IS WHY WE HAVE WITNESSES AND DECLARANTS AND THAT IS WHY WE HAVE THE WITNESS DECLARANTS COME TO COURT AND TESTIFY. DO YOU REMEMBER THE TIME WHEN SHE TOLD YOU THIS? THAT CALLS FOR HEARSAY.

MR. DOUGLAS: NOT HEARSAY.

MR. DARDEN: IT ISN'T?

MR. DOUGLAS: IT IS NOT OFFERED FOR THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER. IT IS OFFERED FOR HIS STATE OF MIND.

THE COURT: KEEP YOUR VOICE DOWN. THE OBJECTION IS OVERRULED, BUT SEVERELY LIMITED; TWO QUESTIONS.

MR. COCHRAN: AS NECESSARY.

THE COURT: NO. WERE YOU EVER ADVISED DURING THE COURSE NOT TO DO THIS? YES OR NO. ALL RIGHT. MAYBE ONE FOLLOW-UP QUESTION.

MR. COCHRAN: WE ARE NOT GOING TO VIOLATE YOUR RULE.

THE COURT: WE ARE NOT GOING TO SPEND ALL DAY ON THIS.

MR. DOUGLAS: I DIDN'T INTEND ON THIS.

THE COURT: I KNOW. I SAID OVERRULED.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. MR. DOUGLAS, YOU MAY CONTINUE.

MR. DOUGLAS: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

Q: MR. SHIPP, AS I WAS ASKING BEFORE THE OBJECTION, DO YOU RECALL AN OCCASION IN 1994 WHEN YOU HAD A CONVERSATION WITH CATHY RANDA AND MISS RANDA ASKED YOU TO STOP DROPPING BY MR. SIMPSON'S HOME UNANNOUNCED?

A: NEVER.

Q: IT DIDN'T OCCUR IN APRIL OR MAY OF 1994 OVER LUNCH?

A: NO ONE HAS EVER ASKED ME TO STOP DROPPING BY THAT HOUSE.

Q: OKAY. LET'S TALK ABOUT THE NATURE OF YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH MRS. SIMPSON. YOU AND SHE MET BEFORE THE SIMPSONS WERE MARRIED, CORRECT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: AND YOU AND SHE BECAME CLOSE, CORRECT?

A: GOOD FRIENDS.

Q: IN 1989 YOU SAID THAT YOU SPOKE TO HER ALMOST DAILY AT ONE PERIOD OF TIME, TRUE?

A: YOU MEAN AFTER THE INCIDENT?

Q: AFTER THE INCIDENT IN '89?

A: YEAH, PRETTY MUCH.

Q: AND YOU CONTINUED TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH HER EVEN AFTER SHE AND MR. SIMPSON BROKE UP, CORRECT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: YOU WOULD HAVE OCCASIONS WHEN YOU WOULD VISIT HER AT HER HOME ON GRETNA GREEN IN LOS ANGELES, DIDN'T YOU?

A: TWICE. I THINK I WAS OVER THERE TWICE.

Q: THERE WERE OTHER OCCASIONS WHEN YOU WOULD SPEAK TO HER ON THE TELEPHONE, CORRECT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: YOU WOULD SPEAK WITH HER WHEN SHE MOVED TO THE LOCATION ON BUNDY, DIDN'T YOU?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: YOU CONSIDERED HER A CLOSE FRIEND?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: DURING THE COURSE OF THEIR MARRIAGE YOU NEVER HAD AN OCCASION TO PERSONALLY OBSERVE ANY ARGUMENTS BETWEEN MR. AND MRS. SIMPSON, DID YOU?

A: NONE WHATSOEVER.

Q: ISN'T IT TRUE, SIR, THAT YOU HAVE IN THE PAST TOLD MR. SIMPSON'S FRIENDS THAT IF MR. SIMPSON WEREN'T AROUND YOU MIGHT HAVE A SHOT AT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON YOURSELF?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: YOU HAVE NEVER SAID THAT TO ANY OF MR. SIMPSON'S FRIENDS?

A: EXCUSE ME FOR SMILING, BUT NO, I DID NOT. I'M SORRY.

Q: IT IS TRUE, THOUGH, THAT YOU HAD AN OCCASION TO SEE MR. SIMPSON OUT PUBLICLY A WEEK OR TWO BEFORE THE DEATHS, DIDN'T YOU?

A: I SURE DID.

Q: YOU SAW HIM AT A NIGHT SPOT THAT IS CALLED THE HOUSE OF BLUES, DIDN'T YOU?

A: SURE DID.

Q: HE WAS THERE WITH HIS GIRLFRIEND, PAULA BARBIERI, WASN'T HE?

A: CORRECT.

Q: THEY APPEARED TO BE HAPPY TO YOU, DIDN'T THEY?

A: HE DID.

MR. DOUGLAS: NOTHING FURTHER.

THE COURT: ANY REDIRECT?

MR. DARDEN: YES, YOUR HONOR.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. DARDEN:

Q: MR. SHIPP, YOU HAVE BEEN CALLED JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING IN THE BOOK SO FAR, HAVEN'T YOU?

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

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: YOU WERE SUBPOENAED TO COME HERE AND TESTIFY, MR. SHIPP?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: YOU DIDN'T GET A LAWYER AND FIGHT THAT SUBPOENA, DID YOU?

MR. DOUGLAS: LEADING, YOUR HONOR. OBJECT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I GOT A LAWYER FIRST, ROBERT MC NEIL, BUT I DIDN'T -- NO, I DIDN'T FIGHT IT.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: YOU KNEW, WHEN YOU RECEIVED THE SUBPOENA, THAT ON AN OCCASION IN YOUR LIFE YOU HAD A DRINKING PROBLEM? YOU KNEW THAT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: DID YOU TELL THAT TO THE DEFENDANT?

A: THAT I HAD A DRINKING PROBLEM?

Q: YEAH.

A: I THINK I MAY HAVE TOLD CATHY RANDA AND I THINK HE KNEW.

Q: DID YOU EVER TELL THE DEFENDANT THAT YOU WERE SUSPENDED FROM THE DEPARTMENT FOR SOME DAYS?

A: OH, NO. I DON'T THINK I TOLD HIM THAT.

Q: BUT YOU KNEW THAT, RIGHT?

A: OH, YEAH.

Q: AND YOU KNEW MR. COCHRAN WAS MR. SIMPSON'S ATTORNEY, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: YOU KNEW THEY WOULD FIND OUT ABOUT THAT, DIDN'T YOU?

MR. DOUGLAS: OBJECTION. LEADING, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: YOU FILED A STRESS CLAIM AND WENT OUT ON STRESS AT SOME POINT DURING YOUR CAREER WITH THE LAPD?

A: THAT IS RIGHT AROUND THE TIME WHEN I HAD THE INCIDENT, MY ONE AND ONLY INCIDENT ON LAPD.

Q: WHAT -- WHAT BROUGHT ABOUT THAT INCIDENT?

A: I WAS JUST BURNED OUT BEING A COP. I WAS UNHAPPY AND I WAS JUST PARTYING QUITE A BIT.

Q: AND WHEN YOU WENT TO SEE CATHY RANDA ONE NIGHT AND BEAT ON HER DOOR AROUND ONE O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING, WHAT BROUGHT ABOUT THAT INCIDENT?

A: I HAD HAD SOME DRINKS AND I KNOW CATHY WAS TAKING THIS REAL HARD, AND I FELT REALLY BAD AND I WANTED TO GO BY THERE AND JUST TALK TO HER, AND CATHY WAS THE TYPE OF PERSON, BECAUSE CATHY ALSO HAS HAD A DRINKING PROBLEM, AND AT TIMES WE USED TO REINFORCE EACH OTHER, AND SHE HADN'T HAD ANY DRINKS THAT I RECALL DURING THIS WHOLE TIME THAT I RECALL, AND I THINK I KIND OF WENT BY THERE TO GO, HEY, CATHY, WHOOPS, HERE I AM.

Q: WERE THERE OTHER OCCASIONS DURING THE TIME THAT YOU HAVE KNOWN CATHY RANDA IN WHICH YOU WENT TO HER HOUSE LATE AT NIGHT?

A: YEAH. I USED TO -- ONCE AGAIN, HERE I WAS ON PATROL. I WORKED NORTH HOLLYWOOD DIVISION AND SHE HAD PROBLEMS WITH PEOPLE AND I WOULD GO BY THERE AND CHECK ON HER, AND IF I WAS OFF, I WOULD CALL OTHER OFFICERS AND SAY WOULD YOU GO CHECK ON CATHY RANDA, BECAUSE SHE HAD A PROBLEM WITH SOME DRUG PEOPLE DOWN THE STREET THAT WERE HANGING OUT, HER AND HER NEIGHBORS, AND I HAD A FRIEND OF MINE, A SERGEANT, GO DOWN THERE OR HE WAS TRYING TO MEET WITH HER.

Q: AND WERE THERE OCCASIONS WHEN CATHY RANDA WILL CALL YOU LATE AT NIGHT AND ASK YOU TO COME OVER AND HELP HER WITH HER DRINKING PROBLEM?

A: WELL, CATHY -- SHE WOULDN'T REALLY CALL ME LATE AT NIGHT, BUT THERE WERE TIMES WHEN SHE HAD HER OWN PROBLEMS WHERE SHE HAD TO TAKE LEAVE FROM MR. SIMPSON'S OFFICE --

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION, HEARSAY. BASED ON HEARSAY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: SHE HAD HER OWN PROBLEMS WHERE SHE HAD TO TAKE LEAVE AND BASICALLY CATHY AND I AT ONE TIME --

MR. DOUGLAS: THIS IS NONRESPONSIVE, YOUR HONOR.

THE WITNESS: WE WERE VERY CLOSE. WE WOULD REINFORCE EACH OTHER.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE ANSWER WILL STAND.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: NOW, WHATEVER THE PROBLEM WAS THAT CATHY RANDA HAD, YOU KNOW THAT PROBLEM -- YOU KNOW WHAT THAT PROBLEM IS, CORRECT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: DO YOU SEE ANY NEED TO TELL THE WHOLE WORLD WHAT THAT PROBLEM IS?

A: NOT AT ALL.

Q: IT IS BETWEEN YOU AND SHE, ISN'T IT?

A: IT IS BETWEEN ME AND HER.

Q: YOU HAD A DRINKING PROBLEM AND THE DEFENDANT KNEW THAT?

A: YES, YES, HE DID.

Q: BUT YOU WERE STILL HIS FRIEND?

A: SURE, OF COURSE.

Q: HE ACCEPTED YOU AS HIS FRIEND, NEVERTHELESS, CORRECT?

MR. DOUGLAS: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THAT IS LEADING AND CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: I THINK THAT IS A CONCLUSION THAT HE COULD RECALL. OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: HE ACCEPTED YOU AS HIS FRIEND EVEN THOUGH YOU HAD A DRINKING PROBLEM; IS THAT RIGHT?

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

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I GOT DRUNK AT O.J.'S WEDDING AND MADE A FOOL OUT OF MYSELF AND HE ACCEPTED ME AND THOUGHT IT WAS A JOKE LATER ON.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: AND YOU WERE GOOD FRIEND WITH THE DEFENDANT, RIGHT?

A: YES, I WAS.

Q: WHO ARRANGED THE SECURITY FOR NICOLE BROWN'S FUNERAL?

A: I DID. I WAS CONTACTED BY CATHY AND I CALLED A FRIEND OF MINE WHO ACTUALLY DID THE SECURITY. I MEAN, I DIDN'T DO IT, BUT I CALLED HIM, MADE THE CONTACT.

Q: DID YOU ATTEND THE SERVICES AT THE CHURCH?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: NOT EVERYONE WAS ALLOWED ADMITTANCE TO THOSE SERVICES, WERE THEY?

A: OH, NO, THEY WEREN'T.

Q: WERE YOU ADMITTED INTO THOSE SERVICES?

A: YES, I WAS.

Q: THE DEFENDANT WAS THERE, WASN'T HE?

A: YES, HE WAS.

Q: HE DIDN'T STOP YOU FROM ENTERING THOSE FUNERAL SERVICES FOR NICOLE BROWN, DID HE?

A: NO, HE DID NOT.

Q: YOU ATTENDED THE DEFENDANT'S WEDDING RECEPTION?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: YOU DISCUSSED HIS PROBLEMS, THE PROBLEMS HE WAS HAVING WITH NICOLE WHEN HE BEAT HER UP IN 1989; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: THOSE ARE THE KIND OF THINGS THAT FRIENDS DO, CORRECT?

MR. DOUGLAS: OBJECTION, ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE WITNESS: THAT'S CORRECT.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. COCHRAN: MOVE TO STRIKE.

MR. DOUGLAS: MOVE TO STRIKE.

THE COURT: STRICKEN. THE JURY IS TO DISREGARD.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: YESTERDAY MR. DOUGLAS ASKED YOU IF YOU HAD EVER HAD A MEAL WITH THE DEFENDANT. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: HAD YOU EVER HAD A MEAL WITH THE DEFENDANT IN PUBLIC?

A: NOT PRIOR TO THE -- NOT PRIOR TO THE -- THE '89 INCIDENT, JUST HIM AND I, NO.

Q: DID YOU HAVE ANY MEALS IN PUBLIC WITH HIM AFTER THE '89 INCIDENT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WHEN WAS THAT? WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME?

A: UMM, I HAD A MEAL WITH HIM ON THE SET OF NAKED GUN 2 AND 1/2 IN FRONT OF EVERYBODY.

Q: WERE YOU SCHEDULED TO HAVE LUNCH WITH THE DEFENDANT ON JUNE 3RD, 1994?

A: I THOUGHT IT WAS A DINNER, BUT I GUESS IF IT WAS LUNCH, I DO REMEMBER, YEAH, WE WERE SCHEDULED.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE HERE WHAT APPEARS TO BE A XEROX COPY OF THE DEFENDANT'S PERSONAL CALENDAR. MAY IT BE MARKED NEXT IN EVIDENCE? I BELIEVE THAT WILL BE PEOPLE'S 11 -- PEOPLE'S 12.

MR. DOUGLAS: I WOULD OBJECT, YOUR HONOR. IF THIS WERE PRESENTED BY -- TO THIS WITNESS WITH THIS DOCUMENT.

THE COURT: WAIT. SPEAKING OBJECTIONS, COUNSEL. APPROACH, PLEASE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE ARE OVER AT THE SIDE BAR. MR. DOUGLAS, DO YOU HAVE AN OBJECTION?

MR. DOUGLAS: I HAVE SEVERAL OBJECTIONS, YOUR HONOR. ONE, THIS WITNESS CANNOT TESTIFY ON HEARSAY GROUNDS TO ANYTHING CONCERNING ANY CALENDARS BECAUSE THIS WITNESS HAS NEVER SEEN THE CALENDARS. THIS -- IT WOULD BE HEARSAY. HE MAY HAVE SEEN THEM NOW, BUT YOUR HONOR AS WELL, THERE WAS THIS WHOLE PROBLEM ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT CALENDARS AND THEY ARE SAYING DIFFERENT THINGS AND WHETHER ONE CALENDAR WAS CATHY RANDA'S CALENDAR OR WHETHER ONE CALENDAR WAS MR. SIMPSON'S CALENDAR. I HAVE, JUST FOR COMPARISON, A COPY OF TWO DIFFERENT CALENDARS.

THE COURT: BUT MR. DOUGLAS, BEFORE WE GO INTO ALL THAT ARGUMENT, ISN'T YOUR OBJECTION FOUNDATION, THAT IF HE HAS NEVER SEEN THE CALENDAR OR PARTICIPATED IN ITS PREPARATION, THEN HE CAN'T TESTIFY TO WHAT IT IS? HE IS INCOMPETENT TO TESTIFY? IS THAT WHAT YOUR OBJECTION IS?

MR. DOUGLAS: YES, YOUR HONOR. THAT IS WHY I'M OBJECTING TO IT BEING PRESENTED TO HIM.

MR. DARDEN: I'M GOING TO SHOW HIM THE CALENDAR. IS THIS THE DATE? IS THIS YOUR NAME? I'M GOING TO CALL CATHY RANDA AND STRAIGHTEN OUT --

THE COURT: YOU CAN JUST SAY -- YOU CAN ESTABLISH, BUT NOT USING THE CALENDAR. HE CAN'T TESTIFY TO WHAT THIS IS UNLESS HE HAS SEEN IT OR DONE SOMETHING WITH IT.

MR. DARDEN: OKAY.

MR. DOUGLAS: HE HASN'T SEEN --

MR. DARDEN: HE HAS RULED.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, WE COULD --

MR. COCHRAN: HE HAS RULED.

THE COURT: I HAVE RULED. BYE.

MR. COCHRAN: HE HAS RULED.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THAT ITEM, HOWEVER, WILL BE MARKED PEOPLE'S 11.

(PEO'S 12 FOR ID = COPY OF DEFT'S CALENDAR)

MR. DARDEN: THE DEFENDANT'S CALENDAR WILL BE MARKED PEOPLE'S 12?

THE COURT: CORRECT.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: MR. SHIPP, DID YOU INDICATE A MOMENT AGO THAT YOU COULDN'T RECALL WHETHER IT WAS A LUNCH OR A DINNER?

A: THAT'S CORRECT. I THOUGHT IT WAS A DINNER.

Q: WOULD IT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION IF YOU LOOKED AT THE DEFENDANT'S PERSONAL CALENDAR?

MR. DOUGLAS: SAME OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: YOU TOLD US THAT YOU ARE SOMEWHAT OF AN ACTOR; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: ARE YOU ACTING TODAY?

A: I DO A LITTLE EXTRA STUFF EVERY NOW AND THEN.

Q: OKAY. SO YOU DO GET SOME ROLES FROM TIME TO TIME?

A: YEAH. I WORKED WITH IDEL -- I'M REGISTERED WITH IDLE JAMES AND SHE GETS ME OUT EVERY NOW AND THEN.

Q: WHAT ABOUT YOUR PRESENCE HERE ON THE WITNESS STAND AND YOUR TESTIMONY YESTERDAY? WERE YOU JUST ACTING HERE IN COURT TODAY AND YESTERDAY?

A: I'M NOT THAT GOOD.

Q: MR. DOUGLAS SUGGESTED THAT YOU MIGHT BE ATTEMPTING TO ENHANCE YOUR PUBLIC PROFILE. DO YOU RECALL THAT YESTERDAY?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: HAVE YOU BEEN CONTACTED BY HARD COPY?

A: NO.

Q: HAVE YOU BEEN CONTACTED BY SOME OF THE TABLOID TELEVISION SHOWS?

A: YES, I HAVE.

Q: WHICH ONES, IF YOU RECALL?

A: CURRENT AFFAIR.

Q: OKAY. HAVE YOU BEEN CONTACTED BY THE NEWS MEDIA?

A: YES, I HAVE.

Q: AND DO YOU RECALL WHICH MEDIA ENTITIES?

A: 2 -- 2, 7 -- 2 AND 7.

Q: HAVE YOU BEEN CONTACTED BY SOME OF THE PAPER TABLOIDS?

A: NONE.

Q: HAVE YOU CONTACTED THE TABLOIDS?

A: NO.

Q: HAVE YOU CONTACTED THE NEWS MEDIA?

A: NO, I HAVE NOT.

Q: HAVE YOU OFFERED TO GIVE ANYONE AN INTERVIEW RELATIVE TO YOUR INFORMATION OR YOUR KNOWLEDGE SURROUNDING THIS CASE?

A: NO, I HAVE NOT.

Q: YOU UNDERSTAND, SIR, THAT YOU CAN MAKE MONEY DOING THAT?

A: THIS IS TRUE.

Q: YOU CAN GET YOUR PICTURE IN THE PAPER AND ON TELEVISION DOING THAT?

MR. DOUGLAS: OBJECTION, LEADING, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: YOU ARE NOT A RICH MAN, I TAKE IT?

A: PARDON ME?

Q: ARE YOU RICH?

A: NO. I WORK FOR A PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY. I'M VERY HAPPY WORKING THERE.

Q: WELL, WHY DIDN'T YOU PURSUE SOME OF THESE OTHER DIRECTIONS, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THESE DIRECTIONS WHERE YOU MIGHT PROVIDE THE INFORMATION YOU GAVE US HERE IN COURT TODAY AND GET PAID A HEFTY SUM?

A: I PERSONALLY FELT THAT WAS BLOOD MONEY. I DIDN'T WANT ANY PART OF IT, EXCEPT FOR THE MONEY THAT WENT TO JUSTIN AND JASON -- JUSTIN AND SYDNEY.

Q: AND THE MONEY THAT WENT TO JUSTIN AND SYDNEY IS THE MONEY THAT WENT DIRECTLY TO THEM FROM SHEILA WELLER?

MR. DOUGLAS: COUNSEL IS TESTIFYING, YOUR HONOR. I OBJECT.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: WHAT MONEY ARE YOU REFERRING TO?

A: WHATEVER DONATIONS ARE COMING FROM THAT BOOK, THE SALE OF THAT BOOK.

Q: WHO DO YOU EXPECT THOSE DONATIONS TO GO TO?

A: TO SYDNEY AND JUSTIN.

Q: THE DEFENDANT'S CHILDREN?

A: THE DEFENDANT'S CHILDREN.

Q: HOW MUCH OF THAT MONEY WENT TO YOU?

A: NOT A DIME.

Q: HOW MUCH IS GOING TO GO TO YOU?

A: NONE.

Q: HAVE YOU OBTAINED ANY MONETARY GAIN AT ALL AS A RESULT OF THE INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE YOU HAVE RELATIVE TO THIS CASE?

A: NOT SO EVER.

Q: YOU TOLD MR. DOUGLAS YESTERDAY THAT YOU BROUGHT APPROXIMATELY FORTY POLICE OFFICERS TO ROCKINGHAM; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: DID THE DEFENDANT EVER HAVE ANY ARGUMENTS OR DISAGREEMENTS WITH ANY OF THOSE FORTY POLICE OFFICERS?

A: NEVER. O.J. LOVED THEM.

Q: DID THEY APPEAR TO FEEL THE SAME WAY ABOUT THE DEFENDANT?

MR. DOUGLAS: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DID ANY POLICE OFFICER EVER TELL YOU THAT THEY DIDN'T LIKE THE DEFENDANT?

MR. DOUGLAS: OBJECTION, HEARSAY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DID THE DEFENDANT EVER REJECT ANY OF THOSE POLICE OFFICERS OFF HIS PROPERTY?

A: NO.

Q: DID HE EVER ASK THEM TO LEAVE?

A: NO.

Q: AND DID THOSE POLICE OFFICERS MAKE REQUESTS OF THE DEFENDANT? DID THEY ASK HIM FOR THINGS?

MR. DOUGLAS: OBJECTION, HEARSAY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DID THE DEFENDANT GIVE THOSE POLICE OFFICERS ANYTHING?

A: NOT ALL OF THEM, BUT A FEW OF THEM, AUTOGRAPHED PICTURES AT MY REQUEST.

Q: AND DID THOSE OFFICERS APPEAR TO APPRECIATE THAT?

MR. DOUGLAS: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. HE WAS THERE. HE CAN TESTIFY TO THAT.

THE WITNESS: YES, THEY DID.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DID YOU EVER OBTAIN THE DEFENDANT'S AUTOGRAPH?

A: ONE OF THE THINGS BEING AROUND O.J. AND NICOLE, I NEVER --

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

THE COURT: OVERRULED. HE IS SAYING "NEVER" SOMETHING IF HE COULD FINISH THE ANSWER, PLEASE.

THE WITNESS: I NEVER ASKED O.J. AND NICOLE FOR ANYTHING, NOTHING. TO THIS VERY DAY I DO NOT HAVE AN AUTOGRAPHED PICTURE OF O.J. SIMPSON. I ASKED FOR FRIENDS OF MINE AND MYSELF -- NEVER FOR MYSELF. MY KIDS DON'T HAVE AN AUTOGRAPHED PICTURE, MY WIFE; I DON'T HAVE ONE.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DID YOU EVER ASK THE DEFENDANT TO HELP YOU ALONG IN YOUR ACTING CAREER?

A: NEVER. ONCE AGAIN, I SAY I NEVER ASKED HIM FOR ANYTHING.

Q: DID HE EVER HELP YOU IN ANY WAY IN TERMS OF YOUR ACTING CAREER?

A: YES, HE DID. OUT OF THE BLUE I GET A CALL FROM --

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS NONRESPONSIVE. HE HAS ANSWERED THE QUESTION ALREADY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I GET A CALL FROM KUSHNER AND LOCKE OUT OF THE BLUE SAYING COME DOWN HERE AND PICK UP A SCRIPT. I THOUGHT IT WAS A TINY LITTLE PART. SO I GET DOWN THERE AND IT WAS A POLICE PART.

THE COURT: NEXT QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: WHO ARRANGED FOR THAT POLICE PART FOR YOU?

A: O.J.

MR. DOUGLAS: CALLS FOR SPECULATION AND HEARSAY.

MR. DARDEN: I WILL ASK ANOTHER QUESTION.

THE COURT: PLEASE.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DID YOU EVER THE DISCUSS THE MANNER IN WHICH YOU OBTAINED THAT POLICE PART WITH THE DEFENDANT?

A: LATER ON I SAID, "HEY, THANKS, O.J."

Q: WHAT DID HE SAY?

A: HE PLAYED IT OFF. IT WAS LIKE NO BIG DEAL. I GOT TO TAKE MY SON DION DOWN AND HE HUNG OUT WITH LAWRENCE TAYLOR AND THAT WAS A GREAT DAY. THAT WAS HIS HERO.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: THESE ARE THE THINGS FRIENDS DO FOR FRIENDS, AREN'T THEY?

A: CORRECT.

MR. DOUGLAS: OBJECTION, ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE HERE IN MY HAND THREE PHOTOGRAPHS. THE DEFENDANT AND MR. SHIPP ARE DEPICTED IN EACH OF THESE PHOTOGRAPHS. MAY THESE BE MARKED PEOPLE'S --

MR. COCHRAN: MAY WE SEE THE PICTURES BEFORE HE DESCRIBES THEM, YOUR HONOR? WE MAY HAVE AN OBJECTION. MAY WE SEE THE PHOTOGRAPHS?

THE COURT: SURE.

MR. DARDEN: I WON'T DESCRIBE THEM FURTHER, BUT IF THEY MAY BE MARKED 13, 14, AND 15, I WILL HAND THEM TO DEFENSE COUNSEL.

THE COURT: 13, 14 AND 15.

(PEO'S 13 THRU 15 FOR ID = PHOTOS OF DEFT/SHIPP)

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

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, MAY WE APPROACH?

THE COURT: SURE.

(PAGES 12956 THROUGH 12962, VOLUME 80A, TRANSCRIBED AND SEALED UNDER SEPARATE COVER.)

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: MADAM REPORTER, WHY DON'T YOU STAY THERE. DEPUTY MANAGER, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OUR BREAK. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OUR BREAK FOR THE NOON HOUR. DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONG YOURSELVES, FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, HAVE ANY CONTACT ABOUT THE CASE OR ALLOW YOURSELF TO BE CONTACTED WITH REGARDS TO THE CASE. WE WILL SEE YOU BACK HERE AT 1:30. MR. SHIPP, YOU ARE EXCUSED UNTIL 1:30. PLEASE DON'T DISCUSS YOUR TESTIMONY WITH ANYBODY ELSE, EXCEPT THE LAWYERS. ALL RIGHT. WE WILL STAND IN RECESS UNTIL 1:30.

(AT 11:54 A.M. THE NOON RECESS WAS TAKEN UNTIL 1:30 P.M. OF THE SAME DAY.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1995 1:31 P.M.

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

APPEARANCES: (APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)

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

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

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. MR. SIMPSON IS AGAIN PRESENT WITH HIS COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. DOUGLAS AND MR. BAILEY. THE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED BY MISS CLARK AND MR. DARDEN. COUNSEL, ANYTHING WE NEED TO DISCUSS BEFORE WE INVITE THE JURORS TO REJOIN US?

MR. DOUGLAS: NO, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE OUR WITNESS HERE? ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE OUR JURORS, PLEASE. (BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. SHIPP, WOULD YOU RESUME THE WITNESS STAND, PLEASE. THANK YOU.

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. PLEASE BE SEATED. ALL RIGHT. THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT WE HAVE NOW BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL.

RONALD SHIPP, THE WITNESS ON THE STAND AT THE TIME OF THE NOON RECESS, RESUMED THE STAND AND TESTIFIED FURTHER AS FOLLOWS: MR. SHIPP IS STILL ON THE WITNESS STAND.

MR. SHIPP, YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH.

THE WITNESS: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN: GOOD AFTERNOON.

THE COURT: YOU MAY CONTINUE, PLEASE.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED)

BY MR. DARDEN:

Q: MR. SHIPP, WHEN WE LEFT OFF YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT YOUR FRIENDSHIP WITH THE DEFENDANT AND YOU WERE TELLING US ABOUT YOUR ACTING CAREER; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: WERE THERE OR WAS THERE A PROGRAM CALLED FIRST AND TEN?

A: YES.

Q: WAS THAT ON FOX?

A: HBO.

Q: A CABLE PROGRAM?

A: YES, IT WAS.

Q: AND WHAT WAS THE BASIC UNDERLYING STORY?

A: O.J.'S CHARACTER WAS T.D. I THINK HE WENT FROM A FOOTBALL PLAYER TO A COACH TO ADMINISTRATION. I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT THE POSITION WAS ON THE SHOW.

Q: AND IS THAT THE SHOW IN WHICH THE DEFENDANT GOT YOU A ROLE ON?

A: YES, IT IS.

Q: AND YOU PLAYED A POLICE OFFICER?

A: ONCE AGAIN, YES, I DID.

Q: OKAY. LET ME SHOW YOU A PHOTOGRAPH MARKED EXHIBIT --

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: EXHIBIT 14.

MR. DARDEN: FAIRTLOUGH IS A LITTLE SLOW TODAY, YOUR HONOR. EXHIBIT 14.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: WOULD YOU JUST STEP DOWN FOR A MOMENT, MR. SHIPP. IS THAT A PHOTOGRAPH OF YOU AND THE DEFENDANT THERE?

A: YES, IT IS.

Q: OKAY. THAT IS YOU SMILING THERE?

A: YES.

Q: AND HIS ARMS ARE AROUND YOU?

A: YES, THEY ARE.

Q: WERE YOU SHOOTING A SCENE AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME?

A: NO, WE WEREN'T.

Q: WHAT WAS GOING ON IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH?

A: I REMEMBER I THINK THE DIRECTOR, STAN, MADE SOME KIND OF A JOKE, SOMETHING -- SOMEONE BLEW A LINE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT AND O.J. -- WE THOUGHT IT WAS FUNNY AND THAT IS WHEN HE HUGGED ME.

Q: THE DEFENDANT HUGGED YOU, HUM?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: SHOWING YOU WHAT HAS BEEN MARKED AS EXHIBIT 15, THAT IS THE DEFENDANT THERE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE PHOTOGRAPH, ON YOUR RIGHT SIDE?

A: I'M SORRY, YES, IT IS.

Q: THAT IS YOU IN THE MIDDLE?

A: THAT'S ME.

Q: WHO IS THE WOMAN ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE PHOTOGRAPH?

A: THAT IS MY WIFE, NINA.

Q: HOW LONG HAS SHE BEEN YOUR WIFE?

A: ALMOST FOURTEEN YEARS.

Q: WHERE WAS THERE PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN?

A: AT THE SIMPSON HOUSE ON ROCKINGHAM.

Q: OKAY. WAS THERE SOME TYPE OF AFFAIR OR SOCIAL OCCASION GOING ON THERE?

A: I THINK IT WAS HIS 40TH BIRTHDAY.

Q: WERE YOU INVITED TO HAD HIS 40TH BIRTHDAY PARTY?

A: YES, I WAS.

Q: SO WAS YOUR WIFE?

A: YES, SHE WAS.

Q: THANK YOU. PLEASE TAKE THE WITNESS STAND?

A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.)

Q: AND YOU HAVE OTHER PHOTOGRAPHS WITH THE DEFENDANT, DON'T YOU?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: AND YOU WENT TO HIS WEDDING?

A: THE RECEPTION PART; NOT THE PRIVATE.

Q: BY THE WAY, YOUR WIFE HAS BEEN PRESENT HERE IN COURT THROUGHOUT YOUR TESTIMONY; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: SHE IS HERE NOW?

A: YES, SHE IS.

Q: YOU INDICATED ON CROSS-EXAMINATION YESTERDAY, THAT IS WHEN MR. DOUGLAS WAS ASKING YOU QUESTIONS, THAT THE DEFENDANT'S STATEMENT ABOUT HAVING DREAMS CAME BEFORE THE DEFENDANT ASKED YOU HOW LONG DNA TAKES TO COME BACK. WAS THAT YOUR TESTIMONY.

MR. DOUGLAS: MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THE QUESTION IS ASKING HIM IF THAT IS WHAT IT WAS. OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I'M SORRY, MR. DARDEN, CAN YOU REPEAT THAT AGAIN?

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: OKAY. AT SOME POINT THE DEFENDANT ASKED YOU HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE DNA TO COME BACK, CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: HE ALSO MADE A STATEMENT ABOUT HAVING DREAMS ABOUT KILLING NICOLE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: WHICH CAME FIRST, THE DNA STATEMENT OR THE KILLING STATEMENT?

A: THE DNA STATEMENT CAME FIRST.

Q: NOW --

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, I THINK HE MISSPOKE WHEN HE SAID THE KILLING STATEMENT.

THE COURT: DREAM STATEMENT.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: THE DREAM ABOUT KILLING STATEMENT, THAT STATEMENT CAME SECOND OR FIRST?

A: I'M SORRY, ONE MORE TIME.

Q: WHICH CAME FIRST, THE QUESTION ABOUT WHEN DNA COMES BACK?

A: OH, THE DNA CAME FIRST. I'M SORRY, THE DNA.

Q: THEN AT SOME POINT THE DEFENDANT MADE THE COMMENT ABOUT HAVING SOME DREAMS ABOUT KILLING NICOLE?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, RIGHT.

Q: NOW, WAS THERE SOME CONVERSATION BETWEEN THOSE TWO STATEMENTS?

A: YES, THERE WAS. THAT IS WHY I WAS CONFUSED EARLIER, I'M SORRY.

Q: YOU DIDN'T TELL US ABOUT THE CONVERSATION BETWEEN THOSE TWO STATEMENTS, DID YOU?

A: I WAS ORDERED NOT TO.

Q: WHO ORDERED YOU NOT TO?

A: WELL, ACTUALLY YOU INFORMED ME -- THE JUDGE, I'M SORRY, JUDGE ITO SAID NOT TO TALK ABOUT IT.

Q: SO YOU WEREN'T TRYING TO MISLEAD ANYONE?

A: OH, NO. NO, I WAS NOT.

Q: YOU WERE TRYING TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDER?

A: I WAS TRYING TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDER.

THE COURT: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, JUST DON'T SO YOU SPECULATE AS TO WHAT THAT IS, THERE IS SOMETHING THAT TRANSPIRED THAT I HAVE DETERMINED THAT IS NOT RELEVANT TO THIS CASE AND I HAVE ORDERED THE WITNESS NOT TO TESTIFY ABOUT. IT IS NOT TO HAVE ANY IMPACT UPON YOUR EVALUATION OF THIS WITNESS. MR. DARDEN.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: TO GO BACK AND DISCUSS THE 1989 INCIDENT BRIEFLY, MR. SHIPP, I BELIEVE YOU TOLD MR. DOUGLAS TODAY THAT THE DEFENDANT SEEMED TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE BEATING?

A: YES, AT ONE POINT HE DID.

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, ARE WE THROUGH WITH THE PICTURE?

THE COURT: MR. FAIRTLOUGH.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

Q: SO UP TO SOME POINT OR AT SOME POINT THE DEFENDANT ACCEPTED RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE BEATING?

A: YES, HE DID.

Q: DID HE CONTINUOUSLY ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE BEATING?

A: CAN YOU BE A LITTLE BIT MORE EXACT? DID HE --

Q: LET ME PUT IT TO YOU THIS WAY: YOU HAD A CONVERSATION WITH HIM THAT FIRST WEEK OF JANUARY, CORRECT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: DID HE IMMEDIATELY ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE BEATING?

A: NOT IMMEDIATELY, BUT AFTER -- AFTER WE HAD TALKED FOR AWHILE, UMM, O.J. MADE A REMARK TO ME. HE SAID THAT HE DIDN'T THINK THAT HE WAS A BATTERER, AND I EXPLAINED TO HIM -- I SAID, "HEY, MAN, YOU HIT HER. SHE HAS GOT MARKS. YOU ARE A BATTERER." AND THAT IS WHEN HE KIND OF AGREED AND SAID, "I GUESS YOU ARE RIGHT."

Q: DID YOU ASK THE DEFENDANT TO ADMIT THAT PUBLICLY?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND WHAT DID HE SAY?

A: UMM, LIKE I SAID, AT FIRST HE WAS VERY RESISTANT BECAUSE HE THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO RUIN HIS IMAGE, HE THOUGHT HE WOULD LOSE THE HERTZ AND HE DIDN'T WANT ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT. AND I EXPLAINED TO HIM THAT A LOT OF TIMES IF YOU COME FORTH WITH WOMAN'S GROUPS AND ADMIT YOU HAVE A PROBLEM, THAT PEOPLE WILL WELCOME YOU MORE.

Q: WHAT DID HE SAY HE WOULD DO?

A: HE SAID, YOU KNOW, HE WOULD THINK ABOUT IT AND IT SOUNDED PRETTY GOOD TO HIM.

Q: AND DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH HIM THE NEXT DAY OR THE DAY AFTER THAT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND WHAT DID THE DEFENDANT SAY THEN?

A: HE SAID HE HAD RECEIVED ADVICE, I DON'T KNOW WHO FROM, THAT IT WAS NOT A GOOD IDEA.

MR. DOUGLAS: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THE ANSWER WILL STAND.

MR. DARDEN: I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T HEAR THE ANSWER, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THE ANSWER WAS HE DIDN'T KNOW WHO FROM BUT IT WASN'T A GOOD IDEA.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: SO THE NEXT DAY THE DEFENDANT TOLD YOU THAT THIS NOTION ABOUT ACCEPTING RESPONSIBILITY PUBLICLY WAS NOT A GOOD IDEA?

A: RIGHT, THAT HE WASN'T GOING TO DO IT.

Q: YOU ALSO TOLD MR. DOUGLAS THAT YOU FELT THAT YOU WERE TREATED LIKE A SERVANT BY THE DEFENDANT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND WHAT DID YOU MEAN? WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT?

A: I WAS LIKE A SERVANT TO HIM, LIKE A LOT OF PEOPLE, MEANING THAT I DID NOT MIND DOING ANYTHING I DID FOR O.J. BECAUSE I IDOLIZED HIM, AND I DID IT WITH OPEN ARMS AND A LOT OF PEOPLE WERE THE SAME WAY.

Q: SO YOU DID THINGS FOR HIM?

A: I DID A LOT OF THINGS.

Q: WHATEVER -- WHATEVER IT WAS HE ASKED OF YOU, YOU DID IT?

A: YES, THAT'S TRUE.

Q: OKAY. NOW, YOU TOLD US YESTERDAY THAT YOU RAN VEHICLE LICENSE PLATES FOR HIM?

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, COUNSEL IS LEADING.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: PARDON ME?

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: YOU TOLD US YESTERDAY THAT YOU RAN LICENSE PLATES FOR THE DEFENDANT?

A: FOR THE DEFENDANT, CORRECT.

Q: AND YOU CONTACTED A DETECTIVE -- THE DETECTIVE ON THE '89 BEATING CASE ON HIS BEHALF; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: DID YOU DO OTHER THINGS FOR THE DEFENDANT, THAT IS, OTHER THINGS IN YOUR OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS A POLICE OFFICER?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WHAT KIND OF OTHER THINGS?

A: WELL, YOU MEAN AS A POLICE OFFICER OR ON MY OFF DUTY TIME?

Q: WELL, AS A PEACE OFFICER?

A: AS A POLICE OFFICER ON DUTY, OTHER THAN TALKING TO THE DETECTIVE ABOUT SIGNING OFF THE REPORT, NO, NOT ON DUTY.

Q: OKAY. WELL, HOW ABOUT THINGS THAT YOU DID IN YOUR CAPACITY AS AN OFF-DUTY POLICE OFFICER?

A: YES, I DID QUITE A BIT.

Q: OKAY. WHAT TYPES OF THINGS DID YOU DO THERE?

A: UMM, THERE WAS TIMES -- THERE WAS ONE TIME IN PARTICULAR WHEN O.J. CALLED ME WHEN JASON AND SOME FRIENDS -- I THINK WHEN HE WAS AROUND 16 YEARS OLD -- HAD USED SOME COCAINE AND JASON HAD A SEIZURE AND O.J. WAS VERY UPSET THAT THIS HAPPENED AND HE WANTED TO FIND OUT WHO SOLD THE COCAINE TO HIM AND HIS FRIENDS AND HE SET UP A MEETING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH A BUNCH OF THE PARENTS.

Q: OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE?

A: THERE WAS ALSO ANOTHER TIME WHEN I WAS AT HOME WHEN I RECEIVED A CALL FROM ROLF BAUER STATING THAT JASON --

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, HEARSAY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: AFTER YOU RECEIVED THIS CALL FROM ROLF BAUER, DID YOU DO SOMETHING?

A: YEAH. I WENT TO -- TO O.J.'S HOUSE BECAUSE JASON HAD APPARENTLY TAKEN A BAT TO O.J.'S LIFE-SIZE STATUE IN THE BACKYARD.

Q: AND YOU WANTED TO SPEAK TO JASON SIMPSON?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: OKAY. TO COUNSEL HIM?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: TO GO BACK TO MONDAY, JUNE 13, THAT WOULD BE THE MONDAY FOLLOWING THE MURDERS; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: THE DAY FOLLOWING THE MURDERS?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND YOU TOLD MR. DOUGLAS THAT YOU WERE IN THE TELEVISION ROOM OR THE T.V. ROOM AT ROCKINGHAM; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND THERE ARE FOUR TELEVISION SETS THERE?

A: I THINK IT IS APPROXIMATELY FOUR, THREE OR FOUR.

Q: AND WERE ALL THOSE TELEVISION SETS ON?

A: YES, THEY WERE.

Q: WAS THERE NEWS FOOTAGE AND NEWS COMMENTARY REGARDING THE MURDERS?

A: ON EVERY STATION.

Q: DID YOU SEE THE DEFENDANT ON T.V. THAT DAY?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WAS HE IN HANDCUFFS AT SOME POINT?

A: AT ONE PARTICULAR TIME, YES, HE WAS.

Q: WAS HE RELEASED?

A: YES, HE WAS.

Q: THOSE HANDCUFFS WERE TAKEN OFF?

A: YES, THEY WERE.

Q: THIS HAPPENED ON MONDAY, JUNE 13; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND WAS THE DEFENDANT PRESENT AS YOU WATCHED THE THREE OR FOUR DIFFERENT TELEVISION SETS?

A: YEAH, HE SAT THERE WITH US.

Q: DID YOU SEE FILM FOOTAGE OF THE MURDER SCENE ON TELEVISION THAT DAY?

A: I DO BELIEVE THERE WAS -- YEAH, THERE WAS -- AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME I THINK THEY WERE FOCUSING MORE ON THE FACT THAT O.J. HAD BEEN ARRESTED, BUT THEY DID FLASH BACK A LITTLE BIT TO THE SCENE.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU SEE NEWS FOOTAGE OF THE BODIES BEING TAKEN AWAY?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WAS THE DEFENDANT THERE WHILE THIS NEWS FOOTAGE WAS ON?

A: YES, HE WAS.

Q: AND WHILE YOU WERE WATCHING TELEVISION IN THAT ROOM WITH THE DEFENDANT, DID HE EVER ASK YOU WHO YOU THOUGHT KILLED NICOLE BROWN AND RONALD GOLDMAN?

A: NEVER.

Q: DID HE EVER EXPRESS ANY SADNESS OR SENSE OF LOSS BECAUSE NICOLE WAS GONE?

A: I DIDN'T SEE IT BECAUSE OF NICOLE, NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: YOU TOLD MR. DOUGLAS THAT BEFORE THE DEFENDANT TOLD YOU ABOUT THE DREAMS HE HAD HAD OF KILLING NICOLE, THAT HE CHUCKLED, CORRECT?

A: YES, HE DID.

Q: DID HE REALLY CHUCKLE?

A: HE CHUCKLED.

Q: THIS WAS THE SAME DAY THAT THE BODIES WERE REMOVED?

A: SAME DAY, SAME -- THAT EVENING.

Q: SAME DAY THAT YOU AND HE SAW PHOTOGRAPHS OR FILM FOOTAGE OF THE MURDER SCENE; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND HE CHUCKLED?

A: YES, HE DID.

Q: YOU TOLD MR. DOUGLAS THAT YOU DID NOT GO TO FOOTBALL GAMES WITH THE DEFENDANT; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: HAVE YOU EVER BEEN TO NEW YORK CITY?

A: NEVER.

Q: HAVE YOU LIVED IN LOS ANGELES YOUR ENTIRE LIFE PRETTY MUCH?

A: MY ENTIRE LIFE.

Q: IF YOU KNOW, WHERE WAS THE DEFENDANT USUALLY DURING FOOTBALL SEASON?

A: EITHER IN NEW YORK OR DOING SOME KIND OF A SHOW, FOOTBALL SHOW.

Q: AND WHAT WOULD HE BE DOING IN NEW YORK, IF YOU KNOW?

A: COMMENTATING.

Q: COMMENTATING ON WHAT?

A: FOOTBALL GAMES.

Q: HE WAS AN NFL COMMENTATOR; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: SO WHILE FOOTBALL GAMES WERE BEING PLAYED DURING FOOTBALL SEASON, HE WASN'T EVEN IN CALIFORNIA?

A: UNLESS THERE WAS A GAME THAT HE WAS DOING IN LOS ANGELES, A RAIDER GAME.

Q: DID YOU GO TO COLLEGE, MR. SHIPP?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WHERE DID YOU GO?

A: I WENT TWO YEARS AT EAST L.A. JUNIOR COLLEGE AND I TRANSFERRED OVER TO USC.

Q: USC, THE SAME COLLEGE THE DEFENDANT WENT TO?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: DID YOU PLAY FOOTBALL THERE?

A: I WENT OUT FOR THE TEAM.

Q: DIDN'T MAKE IT?

A: WASN'T GOOD ENOUGH.

Q: YOU ALSO TOLD US THAT WHILE EMPLOYED AS A POLICE OFFICER YOU TESTIFIED FIFTY TO SIXTY TIMES; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: YOU ALSO TOLD US THAT YOU WERE GIVEN SOME TRAINING IN HOW TO APPEAR IN COURT; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: WHAT WAS THE MOST BASIC THING YOU WERE TAUGHT IN THE POLICE ACADEMY WITH REGARD TO HOW TO TESTIFY?

A: NEVER TELL A LIE.

Q: AND HAVE YOU -- HAVE YOU ATTEMPTED TO FOLLOW THAT TRAINING TODAY?

A: TO THIS VERY DAY.

Q: AND ARE YOU TELLING US THE TRUTH TODAY, MR. SHIPP?

A: ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU, SIR.

THE COURT: RECROSS.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. DOUGLAS:

Q: MR. SHIPP, WERE YOU TOLD IN THE ACADEMY THAT IT WAS PROPER TO MISLEAD A PENDING INVESTIGATION OF MURDER CHARGES?

A: AS A POLICE OFFICER?

Q: CORRECT?

A: OF COURSE, YEAH, I WAS TOLD THAT.

Q: THAT IT IS PROPER TO MISLEAD?

A: NO, THAT YOU SHOULDN'T, RIGHT.

Q: WERE YOU TOLD IN THE ACADEMY THAT IT WAS PROPER FOR A WITNESS TO AN INCIDENT TO LIE TO INVESTIGATORS WHO WERE INVESTIGATING AN INCIDENT?

A: NO, I WAS NOT TOLD TO DO THAT.

Q: NOW, YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU MADE A FOOL OF YOURSELF AT MR. SIMPSON'S WEDDING RECEPTION, DIDN'T YOU?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND YOU MADE A FOOL OF YOURSELF AFTER YOU GOT DRUNK, DIDN'T YOU?

A: WELL, TO ME. I MEAN, THERE IS NOBODY ELSE THAT CAN ACTUALLY -- TO ME -- I MEAN, I WAS SLURRING MY WORDS. TO ME THAT IS MAKING A FOOL OUT OF YOURSELF. NO ONE SAID, HEY, GET THIS BUM OUT OF HERE.

Q: ONCE YOU GOT DRUNK DIDN'T YOU BEGIN MAKING MORE OF A FOOL OF YOURSELF WITH YOUR CONDUCT?

A: AS FAR AS I WAS CONCERNED.

Q: DID YOU?

A: WHENEVER -- IF I WAS DRUNK AND I WAS NOT ABLE TO SPEAK LIKE I WOULD SPEAK WHEN I'M SOBER, AND I KNOW THAT I'M SLURRING, TO ME THAT IS EMBARRASSING.

Q: WELL, AT MR. SIMPSON'S WEDDING RECEPTION ISN'T IT TRUE THAT YOU GOT DRUNK AND GOT INTO AN ARGUMENT AND FIGHT WITH ONE OF THE OTHER GUESTS THAT WERE THERE?

A: ONE OF THE GUESTS?

Q: YES.

A: NO, I DID NOT. THAT IS NOT WHAT I MEANT BY "FOOL."

Q: NOW, YOU ALSO SAID THAT WHEN YOU GOT DRUNK THIS PAST YEAR YOU WENT OVER TO MISS RANDA'S HOUSE AT ONE O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING TO SAY, "WHOOPS, HERE I AM"?

A: CORRECT.

Q: DID YOU THINK THAT YOU WANTED -- WITHDRAWN. DID YOU THINK THAT MISS RANDA WANTED TO SEE YOU IN ALL OF YOUR DRUNKEN GLORY AT ONE O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING OUTSIDE OF HER HOME UNANNOUNCED?

A: WELL, I THOUGHT I HAD DONE SO MANY FAVORS FOR O.J. AND ALL HIS FRIENDS AND I WAS CLOSE TO CATHY, THAT IT WOULDN'T -- SHE WOULD UNDERSTAND HERSELF, OKAY, HAVING A PROBLEM, WHICH SHE HAD UNDERSTOOD SO MANY TIMES BEFORE.

Q: SO YOU WANTED HER TO SEE YOU IN ALL OF YOUR DRUNKEN GLORY?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND WERE YOU TOO DRUNK TO CALL HER ON THE TELEPHONE AND SAY THAT YOU ARE COMING OVER SO THAT YOU CAN SEAMY IN ALL OF MY DRUNKEN GLORY?

A: NO, I WAS NOT.

Q: DID YOU DRIVE OVER THERE DRUNK?

A: DID I DRIVE OVER THERE? YES, I DID. I WAS DRUNK.

Q: THAT WASN'T VERY SMART, WAS IT?

A: IT WAS BAD.

Q: DID YOU DRIVE HOME AFTER LEAVING HER HOUSE AT 1:00 IN THE MORNING DRUNK?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: THAT WASN'T VERY SMART EITHER, WAS IT?

A: NO, IT IS NOT. I'M NOT PROUD OF IT. I TOLD YOU I'M NOT PERFECT, MR. DOUGLAS.

Q: THAT'S THE QUESTION. THANK YOU, SIR. ISN'T IT TRUE, SIR, THAT SOME OF THE POLICE FAVORS THAT YOU PERFORMED WERE PERFORMED FOR MRS. SIMPSON, CORRECT?

A: QUITE A BIT, THAT'S TRUE.

Q: YOU RAN A LICENSE PLATE AT MRS. SIMPSON'S REQUEST, DIDN'T YOU?

A: ALSO, YES, I DID.

Q: NOT FOR MR. SIMPSON?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: DIDN'T SHE WANT YOU TO HELP HER TO REMOVE SOME TENANTS OUT OF AN APARTMENT THAT SHE OWNED IN THE SOUTH BAY?

A: YES, SHE DID.

Q: AND YOU THEN RAN A LICENSE PLATE FOR HER UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, DIDN'T YOU?

A: THAT WAS NOT THE ONLY TIME I RAN A LICENSE. I HAVE RAN LICENSE PLATES QUITE A BIT WHEN THEY HAD PEOPLE COMING OVER THE HOUSE THAT THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHO WAS HANGING AROUND. "SHIPP, WOULD YOU CHECK THIS OUT, PLEASE."

Q: WERE YOU VIOLATING ANY OFFICIAL RULES OR PROCEDURES OF THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT BY RUNNING A LICENSE PLATE FOR A PERSONAL FRIEND?

A: YES, I WAS.

Q: NOW, ISN'T IT TRUE, SIR, THAT THE BROWN FAMILY WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR ARRANGING FOR SECURITY AT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S FUNERAL?

A: I WAS CONTACTED BY CATHY ORIGINALLY, NOT THE BROWNS.

Q: THE OCCASION THAT YOU COULD THINK OF, THE ONLY OCCASION THAT YOU COULD THINK OF IN YOUR 26-YEAR FRIENDSHIP WITH MR. SIMPSON WHEN YOU AND HE ATE TOGETHER WAS ON THE SET OF NAKED GUN 2 AND 1/2, CORRECT?

A: THAT'S ONE.

Q: AND THAT WAS A MEAL THAT TOOK PLACE DURING A CASTING BREAK, DIDN'T IT?

A: YES, IT DID.

Q: AND THERE WERE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE CAST THAT WERE ALSO SITTING AROUND ENJOYING THE MEAL, WASN'T THERE?

A: OUR LUNCH WAS ISOLATED, IT WAS JUST HE AND I, AND THEN THERE WAS TWO PEOPLE THAT CAME TO GET SOME FOOTBALLS SIGNED, SOME ALUMNI FROM USC THAT JOINED US, BUT ORIGINALLY IT WAS JUST HE AND I.

Q: NOW, YOU MENTIONED THAT IN 1989 YOU ATTEMPTED TO ARRANGE FOR THE CHARGES AGAINST MR. SIMPSON TO BE SIGNED OFF ON, CORRECT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: IN 1989 YOU HAD WORKED AS AN INSTRUCTOR AT THE ACADEMY?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: YOU WERE AN INSTRUCTOR WORKING AND TEACHING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, DID YOU NOT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: YOU WERE AWARE IN 1989 THAT WHENEVER ALLEGATIONS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE WERE FILED AND THERE WAS SOME INDEPENDENT CORROBORATION, THAT THE CHARGES HAD TO BE BROUGHT FORMALLY, CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: SO YOU KNEW IN 1989 THAT THERE WAS NOTHING THAT YOU COULD PERSONALLY DO TO OBVIATE THE FILING OF CHARGES, TRUE?

A: THAT IS WHAT I BELIEVED.

Q: NOW, YOU SAID EARLIER TO MR. DARDEN THAT YOU HAD NEVER ASKED MR. SIMPSON FOR ANYTHING. DO YOU REMEMBER SAYING THAT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: YOU DID ASK ON OCCASION TO PLAY TENNIS ON HIS TENNIS COURT, TRUE?

A: YES, THAT'S TRUE.

Q: AND WHEN YOU WERE AT HIS HOME IN THE DARK WITH THE BLOND WHO WASN'T YOUR WIFE WHO IS HERE IN COURT, YOU DID ASK THAT HE BRING YOU A BOTTLE OF WINE, DIDN'T YOU?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND DID SHE DRINK THE WINE BY HERSELF?

A: NO.

Q: OR DID YOU?

A: WE DRANK IT. O.J. CAME OUT AND STAYED WITH US BECAUSE HE THOUGHT SHE WAS REAL ATTRACTIVE.

Q: WASN'T O.J. LIVING HIS OWN LIFE AT THE TIME THAT YOU CAME BY UNANNOUNCED AND ASKED TO USE THE JACUZZI?

A: CAN I ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS? I DIDN'T COME BY UNANNOUNCED. I WAS THERE. HE'S FORGETTING. I WAS THERE -- WE GOT THERE AT SEVEN O'CLOCK, PLAYED TENNIS.

Q: WHY DON'T YOU LET ME ASK THE QUESTIONS.

A: I'M TRYING TO ANSWER. SORRY.

Q: OKAY. YOU FIRST CALLED MR. SIMPSON AND HE WAS ON THE PHONE WHEN YOU CALLED, CORRECT?

A: OKAY. WELL, I BUZZED HIM, RIGHT.

Q: AND YOU ASKED MR. SIMPSON TO USE THE JACUZZI, CORRECT?

A: YES. I HAVE NEVER GOTTEN IN HIS JACUZZI.

Q: AND HE ASKED YOU WHETHER OR NOT THE JACUZZI WAS STILL ON, DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?

A: I THINK YOU ARE CORRECT.

Q: AND YOU INFORMED HIM THAT THE JACUZZI WAS ON BECAUSE YOU HAD BEEN THERE EARLIER THAT DAY?

A: EARLIER THAT DAY?

Q: CORRECT?

A: NO, I WASN'T THERE EARLIER THAT DAY. I WAS PLAYING TENNIS AT SEVEN O'CLOCK.

Q: SO HE THEN ALLOWED YOU AND YOUR BLOND FRIEND TO USE THE JACUZZI, CORRECT?

A: THAT'S TRUE.

Q: THEN ABOUT A HALF HOUR LATER YOU CALLED HIM BACK?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND ASKED FOR THE BOTTLE OF WINE?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND IT WAS SOMETIME WHILE YOU AND THIS FRIEND OF YOURS WAS IN THE JACUZZI THAT YOU HAPPENED TO SEE HIS DAUGHTER, ARNELLE SIMPSON?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: NOW, YOU HAVE SUGGESTED EARLIER THAT YOU HAD ONLY SEEN THIS WOMAN, ANGELA SPILKER, BUT FOR TEN SECONDS ON ONE OCCASION?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: THAT IS NOT TRUE, IS IT, SIR?

A: IT IS THE GOSPEL TRUTH.

MR. DARDEN: I OBJECT, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS BEYOND THE REDIRECT.

THE COURT: THAT'S TRUE.

MR. DOUGLAS: IF IT IS, YOUR HONOR, I WOULD ALLOW THE COURT TO ALLOW ME TO REOPEN FOR THIS BRIEF AREA WHICH MIGHT BE THE END.

MR. DARDEN: IT IS IRRELEVANT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: IT IS REAL TANGENTIAL. IT IS REAL TANGENTIAL.

MR. DOUGLAS: MAY I AT SIDE BAR TELL THE COURT?

THE COURT: PLEASE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE ARE OVER AT SIDE BAR.

MR. DOUGLAS: AS WILL FREQUENTLY HAPPEN IN THIS CASE, YOUR HONOR --

THE COURT: HE HAS ALREADY DENIED THAT HE HAD ANY RELATIONSHIP WITH THIS WOMAN, HASN'T HE?

MR. DARDEN: YES.

MR. DOUGLAS: DURING THE BREAK I SPOKE TO A PERSON WHO KNOWS THAT HE HAS HAD MORE THAN JUST THIS CONTACT, AND I'M GOING TO ASK THEM ABOUT THIS OTHER OCCASION WHEN THEY WERE TOGETHER, WHEN THEY SAT -- HE WORKED FOR A FRIEND OF MR. SIMPSON'S, TOM MC CULLUM AND HE INVESTIGATED THIS WOMAN, ANGELA SPILKER.

THE COURT: YOU HAVE ALREADY ASKED HIM THAT.

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, I'M GOING TO ASK HIM ABOUT ANOTHER INCIDENT WHEN I KNOW THAT HE WAS WITH HER.

THE COURT: HE HAS ALREADY DENIED EVER BEING WITH HER OTHER THAN THIS ONE TIME. WE ARE WASTING A LOT TIME ON REAL TANGENTIAL STUFF.

MR. DOUGLAS: FURTHER, I BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON WHO WAS IN THE JACUZZI WAS NOT THIS MADIGAN BUT WAS ANGELA SPILKER AND THAT IS WHY.

THE COURT: YOU HAVE ALREADY ESTABLISHED -- YOU HAVE ASKED HIM AND HE HAS DENIED IT AND HE IS SAYING IT IS SOMEBODY ELSE AND HE HAS DENIED HE HAS HAD ANY CONTACT WITH THIS SPILKER WOMAN OTHER THAN THIS TEN-SECOND TIME, SO YOU'VE ALREADY ESTABLISHED ALL OF THAT.

MR. DOUGLAS: VERY WELL.

THE COURT: BUT BE WARY, BOTH SIDES BE WARY THAT IMPEACHMENT ON COLLATERAL ISSUES IS WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT, SUBJECT TO 352.

MR. DARDEN: IS IT -- THE OBJECTION IS SUSTAINED?

THE COURT: YES.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: YOU RECALLED WHEN MR. SIMPSON WAS PRESENT AT HIS HOME ON JUNE 13, CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND DO YOU RECALL THAT HE WAS SITTING THERE IN THE COMPANY OF HIS MOTHER FOR MOST OF THAT EVENING WHILE HE WAS WATCHING TELEVISION?

A: ACTUALLY, YEAH, THAT'S CORRECT, SHE WAS SITTING THERE.

Q: AND DO YOU RECALL IN FACT THAT MR. SIMPSON WAS VERY DISTRAUGHT DURING THAT TIME?

A: HE WAS -- IN MY OPINION, MR. SIMPSON, WHAT I SAW WAS ANGER. I SAW ANGER AT THE NEWS COVERAGE THAT HE WAS ACTUALLY BEING ACCUSED OF MURDERING NICOLE AND RON. THAT IS ALL I SAW.

Q: WELL, IT IS TRUE, IS IT NOT, THAT MR. SIMPSON WAS DISTRAUGHT THAT WEEK OF JUNE 13 WHEN YOU SAW HIM, CORRECT?

A: TUESDAY MORNING I SAW O.J. BEFORE HE SNUCK OUT OF THE COMPOUND. I SAW HIM THAT MORNING HE WAS LEAVING. THAT IS WHEN TO ME -- THAT IS WHEN I SAW HIM, HE LOOKED TOTALLY DISHEVELED AND DISTRAUGHT.

Q: AND IT IS YOUR TESTIMONY THAT MR. SIMPSON DIDN'T SHOW ANY SIGNS OF CONCERN ON JUNE 13 WHEN YOU WERE THERE IN HIS HOUSE?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, THAT IS VAGUE. YOUR HONOR, THAT IS VAGUE, "SIGNS OF CONCERN."

THE COURT: OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

MR. DOUGLAS: ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR.

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

MR. DOUGLAS: NOTHING FURTHER, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN, BRIEFLY.

MR. DARDEN: NOTHING FURTHER, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: GREAT. THANK YOU.

MR. DARDEN: MAY THIS WITNESS BE EXCUSED?

THE COURT: YES.

MR. DOUGLAS: NO, YOUR HONOR. I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP HIM ON CALL.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. SHIPP, I'M GOING TO EXCUSE YOU AT THIS TIME SUBJECT TO FURTHER RECALL. YOU ARE ORDERED NOT TO DISCUSS YOUR TESTIMONY WITH ANY OTHER PERSON, OTHER THAN THE ATTORNEYS IN THE CASE.

THE WITNESS: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THANK YOU, SIR.

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, CAN THE WITNESS BE SIMILARLY ADMONISHED AS TO THE COURT'S ORDER AS TO PENDING WITNESSES?

THE COURT: ALSO, DON'T WATCH ANY OF THE TELEVISION COVERAGE OR NEWS COVERAGE REGARDING THIS CASE.

THE WITNESS: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THANK YOU, SIR.

THE WITNESS: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN, YOUR NEXT WITNESS.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, THAT IS GOING TO TAKE A COUPLE OF MOMENTS. WE MAY HAVE SOME SIDE BAR ISSUES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET ME ASK THE JURORS TO STEP BACK INTO THE JURY ROOM THEN. WHY DON'T YOU GET YOUR WITNESS STARTED, HOWEVER.

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT THE JURY HAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE COURTROOM. MR. DARDEN, WHO IS YOUR NEXT WITNESS?

MR. DARDEN: THE NEXT WITNESS WILL BE SENIOR D.A. INVESTIGATOR MIKE STEVENS. HE IS THE INVESTIGATOR THAT RETRIEVED CERTAIN ITEMS FROM NICOLE BROWN'S SAFE DEPOSIT BOX. I DON'T KNOW THAT COUNSEL HAS EVER SEEN THE ORIGINALS OF THE ITEMS CONTAINED THEREIN AND I INTEND TO INTRODUCE MUCH -- MANY OF THOSE ITEMS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU HAVE THESE ITEMS HERE?

MR. DARDEN: DO YOU HAVE THE ITEMS?

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THIS IS MR. STEVENS, I TAKE IT?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN MR. DARDEN AND INVESTIGATOR STEVENS.)

MR. DARDEN: CAN WE TAKE A BRIEF RECESS?

THE COURT: FOR WHAT PURPOSE? TO EXAMINE THE CONTENTS THERE AND SHOW THEM TO COUNSEL?

MR. DARDEN: YEAH, AND TO SEE IF WE CAN'T REACH SOME COMPROMISE ON SOME OF THE ITEMS, WHICH I DOUBT, BUT IT MIGHT SAVE SOME TIME.

THE COURT: WELL, THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS I WANDER INTO THE BACK THERE, SO WHY DON'T YOU PULL IT OUT AND SHOWN IT TO COUNSEL. MAYBE IF I STAY HERE IT WILL GO QUICKER.

MR. COCHRAN: CAN THERE BE CUT OFF, THIS MICROPHONE?

THE COURT: AH, I UNDERSTAND.

MR. COCHRAN: YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YES, I UNDERSTAND. ALL RIGHT. WE WILL TAKE A RECESS, MR. DARDEN.

MR. COCHRAN: I DON'T MIND, IF WE CAN JUST MOVE SOMEPLACE AWAY FROM HERE.

MR. DARDEN: THERE IS A LOT OF STUFF. THERE ARE TEN OR TWELVE ITEMS. THINGS LIKE NEWSPAPERS FROM 1989.

MR. COCHRAN: WHY DON'T WE STEP OVER THERE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. STEP OVER HERE TO THE SIDE BAR.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

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

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. BACK ON THE RECORD. ALL RIGHT. THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, MR. DARDEN, HAS DISPLAYED TO THE COURT AND DEFENSE COUNSEL CERTAIN ITEMS OF EVIDENCE THAT ARE -- AND IT IS YOUR OFFER, MR. DARDEN, THAT THESE CAME FROM A SAFE DEPOSIT BOX BELONGING TO NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON?

MR. DARDEN: THAT'S CORRECT, YOUR HONOR, AND THEY WERE SEIZED BY A D.A. INVESTIGATOR ON DECEMBER 6, 1994. THERE WERE A NUMBER OF ITEMS INCLUDED IN THE SAFE DEPOSIT BOX, INCLUDING A WILL DATED IN JANUARY 1990.

THE COURT: A WILL?

MR. DARDEN: A WILL.

THE COURT: 1990. OKAY. ARE YOU GOING TO BE OFFERING THAT WILL?

MR. DARDEN: NO, YOUR HONOR. I AM, HOWEVER, GOING TO BE OFFERING THREE POLAROID PHOTOGRAPHS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN MARKED EARLIER PEOPLE'S 9, 10 AND 11.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. DARDEN: I AM ALSO GOING TO BE OFFERING SOME NEWSPAPERS, OLD NEWSPAPERS THAT WERE ALSO FOUND IN THE SAFE DEPOSIT BOX. THEY ARE ALL FROM THE YEAR 1989. ALL BUT ONE PIECE CONTAINS NEWS STORIES REGARDING THE BEATING THAT OCCURRED ON JANUARY 1, 1989, THE FACT THAT THE L.A. CITY ATTORNEY FILED CHARGES AGAINST THE DEFENDANT, AND I BELIEVE THE PLEA. I'M SORRY, THEY ALSO ANNOUNCED THE ARRAIGNMENT IN THESE NEWSPAPERS. I THINK THESE ARE RELEVANT BECAUSE THEY HELP TO DATE THE PHOTOGRAPHS CONTAINED WITHIN THE SAFE DEPOSIT BOX. IT APPEARS TO US THAT WHAT NICOLE BROWN WAS DOING IS LEAVING A TRAIL FOR US, SOME INDICATION AS TO WHAT HAPPENED BACK ON JANUARY 1, 1989. I EXPECT THAT AS WE PROCEED THROUGH THE TRIAL OTHERS WILL STEP FORWARD AND MAY TESTIFY TO HAVING SEEN THESE SPECIFIC PHOTOGRAPHS BEFORE, IF NOT OTHERS, THAT DEPICT OTHER BRUISES OR INJURIES SUFFERED BY NICOLE BROWN ON JANUARY 1, 1989.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN, WHAT IS THE OFFER OF PROOF THAT YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE TO THE COURT REGARDING MR. STEVENS' TESTIMONY REGARDING THE PROXIMITY OF THOSE PHOTOS TO THE NEWSPAPERS THAT YOU HAVE THERE?

MR. DARDEN: THEY ARE IN THE SAME SAFE DEPOSIT BOX, YOUR HONOR.

INVESTIGATOR STEVENS: YES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. DARDEN: THERE IS ANOTHER ITEM, IT IS NOT DATED, IT IS FROM THE REAL ESTATE SECTION APPARENTLY FROM THE L.A. TIMES. THIS SMALL ARTICLE IS ENTITLED O.J. SIMPSON BUYS LAGUNA BEACH HOME," AND I THINK THIS IS RELEVANT OR IT WILL BECOME RELEVANT AS TIME GOES ON AS WE CALL MR. AGUILERA TO THE STAND TO TESTIFY AS TO HAVING SEEN THE DEFENDANT STRIKE NICOLE BROWN WITH AN OPEN HAND AT VICTORIA BEACH.

THE COURT: BUT -- ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO ANY OF THESE ITEMS?

MR. COCHRAN: YES. I AM JUST WAITING FOR HIM TO FINISH.

MR. DARDEN: OKAY.

THE COURT: ARE THOSE THE ITEMS THAT YOU ARE GOING TO OFFER, MR. DARDEN?

MR. DARDEN: WELL, WE WILL BE OFFERING THREE LETTERS SEIZED FROM THE SAME SAFE DEPOSIT BOX AND THE DEFENSE HAS ALREADY STIPULATED THAT THE DEFENDANT WROTE THOSE LETTERS, BUT WE WILL OFFER THOSE AS WELL.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. DARDEN: I SHOULD INDICATE THAT THERE IS A PLANE TICKET TO NEW YORK IN NICOLE BROWN'S NAME FROM 1979.

INVESTIGATOR STEVENS: '78.

MR. DARDEN: FROM 1978 THAT IS ALSO CONTAINED IN THE SAFE DEPOSIT BOX. I DON'T INTEND TO OFFER THAT.

THE COURT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. LET ME START AT THE TOP. MR. COCHRAN, DO YOU HAVE ANY OF THESE ITEMS THAT YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION TO?

MR. COCHRAN: YES, YOUR HONOR. I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO -- NO. 1, IF HE IS NOT GOING TO OFFER THE WILL OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1990, WHICH IS HOW MANY PAGES? EIGHT PAGES PLUS A RIDER, WE WOULD OFFER THE WILL. WE THINK THAT IS RELEVANT. AND I WOULD NOT OFFER THE TRAVELER'S INDEMNITY INSURANCE COVERAGE BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE TO HAVE MR. SIMPSON'S ASSETS PUBLICLY DISPLAYED. WITH REGARD TO THE NEWSPAPERS, YOUR HONOR, ALL THE NEWSPAPERS THAT RELATE TO THIS PARTICULAR INCIDENT OF JANUARY 1ST, 1989, I OBJECT. THIS IS ALL HEARSAY. THAT DOESN'T HELP US AT ALL. IT IS HEARSAY. IT IS SOME PARTICULAR WRITER'S VERSION OF EVENTS THAT ARE AT ARRAIGNMENT OR WHAT WAS COMING UP AND THAT IS HEARSAY AND SHOULD BE KEPT OUT. THERE IS NO EXCEPTION TO WITH REGARD TO THESE PHOTOGRAPHS. IF I COULD HAVE JUST A MOMENT TO TALK TO COUNSEL.

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

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

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, WITH REGARD TO THESE THREE PHOTOGRAPHS, MR. DARDEN MADE A REPRESENTATION TO ME THAT IT IS HIS BELIEF THESE PHOTOGRAPHS ALL RELATE TO THE JANUARY 1ST, '89. I TOLD HIM THAT IF THERE IS GOING TO BE TESTIMONY, HE INDICATES DENISE BROWN WOULD BE THE PERSON WHO WOULD PERHAPS SO TESTIFY, IF THERE IS TESTIMONY IN THAT REGARD, WE PERHAPS WILL NOT OBJECT TO THEM IF THEY RELATE TO THAT PARTICULAR TIME. WE DON'T NEED THE NEWSPAPERS FOR THAT PARTICULAR THING, IT SEEMS TO ME. WE DON'T HAVE AN OBJECTION TO THE O.J. SIMPSON BUYS LAGUNA BEACH HOME.

THE COURT: HOW ABOUT THE THREE LETTERS?

MR. COCHRAN: THE THREE LETTERS, I PREVIOUSLY INDICATED TO COUNSEL THAT I WOULD STIPULATE THOSE LETTERS WERE WRITTEN BY MR. SIMPSON'S HANDWRITING.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. COCHRAN: WOULD THE COURT LIKE TO HEAR MORE ARGUMENT REGARDING THESE NEWSPAPER ARTICLES?

THE COURT: NO.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, WITH REGARD TO THE NEWSPAPER ARTICLES, MY ONLY CONCERN REALLY IS THE DATE -- ARE THE DATES, AND WE COULD SIMPLY REDACT A LOT OF THE STUFF FROM THE NEWSPAPER, YOU KNOW, INCLUDING THE ARTICLES ABOUT MR. SIMPSON BEATING UP NICOLE OR WHATEVER. I MEAN, I DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THAT. WHAT I AM REALLY INTERESTED IN ARE THE DATES AND PERHAPS THE HEADLINES JUST TO ESTABLISH THOSE DATES.

THE COURT: HOW DO WE GET OVER THE HEARSAY OBJECTION, THE NEWSPAPER HEARSAY OBJECTION?

MR. DARDEN: YOU MEAN TO THE HEADLINE? IT IS NOT OFFERED FOR THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER STATED, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: IT IS OFFERED FOR THE DATE.

MR. DARDEN: IT IS OFFERED FOR THE DATE. YES, IT IS, IT IS A NEWSPAPER. LET'S GRAB THE EVIDENCE CODE AND SEE WHAT IT SAYS ABOUT NEWSPAPERS. I THINK IT WILL SAY THEY ARE ADMISSIBLE.

MR. COCHRAN: HE HAS A DIFFERENT EVIDENCE CODE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. DARDEN: LET'S GRAB IT.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, I DON'T REALLY THINK THAT THE DATE IS IN DISPUTE. THE COURT DOCUMENT -- ARE YOU EVER GOING TO OFFER A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COURT DOCUMENTS FROM THE WEST LOS ANGELES MUNICIPAL COURT?

MR. DARDEN: I --

THE COURT: BECAUSE THAT PRETTY MUCH WOULD SPEAK FOR ITSELF, DON'T YOU THINK, SINCE IT WOULD BE AN ARGUABLY CERTIFIED COPY AND I WOULD HAVE TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF IT.

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

MR. DARDEN: MISS CLARK HAS GIVEN ME A VERY GOOD ARGUMENT ON THIS ISSUE.

MR. COCHRAN: I HEARD IT.

MS. CLARK: I SCARED HIM.

MR. DARDEN: MR. COCHRAN IS GOING TO OBJECT BEFORE I EVEN STATE THE ARGUMENT, BUT WHAT IS IMPORTANT HERE, YOUR HONOR, IS THE FACT THAT NICOLE BROWN APPARENTLY FELT, EVEN BACK THERE IN 1990, EVEN AT THE AGE OF ONLY 30 YEARS OLD, THAT SOMETHING BAD WAS GOING TO HAPPEN TO HER AND THAT IT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN TO HER AT THE HANDS OF THE DEFENDANT. SHE PREPARED A WILL IN 1990.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WELL, THERE HAS BEEN NO OBJECTION TO THE WILL.

MR. DARDEN: OKAY.

THE COURT: THE WILL IS A HOLOGRAPHIC WILL AND BEARS THE DATE AND SIGNATURE OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON. I ASSUME SOMEBODY FROM HER FAMILY WILL COME IN AND SAY THIS IS HER HANDWRITING.

MR. DARDEN: THAT'S TRUE. SHE LEFT SOME PHOTOGRAPHS.

MR. COCHRAN: WE ARE STIPULATING THAT IS HER WILL.

THE COURT: I ASSUME SOMEBODY -- THE OFFER OF PROOF IS THAT DENISE BROWN IS GOING TO COME IN AND GIVE US A DATE OF THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS.

MR. DARDEN: I -- WELL, DENISE BROWN WILL COME IN AND SAY THAT SHE SAW THESE PHOTOGRAPHS.

MR. COCHRAN: IF WE ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THIS, DENISE BROWN SHOULDN'T BE IN HERE TO HEAR THIS PART.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS BROWN, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO ASK YOU TO LEAVE. THANK YOU.

(DENISE BROWN EXITS THE COURTROOM.)

MR. DARDEN: I WOULD SAY THAT THE NEWSPAPER ARTICLES GO TO THE STATE OF MIND OF NICOLE BROWN. SHE IS LEAVING A TRAIL FOR US. SHE IS TRYING TO DATE THE PHOTOGRAPHS FOR US, AND I THINK IT IS RELEVANT. THE DATE THAT THE PHOTOGRAPHS WERE TAKEN ARE RELEVANT. THE INCIDENTS THAT IT RELATES TO ARE RELEVANT. THE THREE PHOTOGRAPHS HELP TO ESTABLISH -- THE NEWSPAPERS HELP TO ESTABLISH THAT.

THE COURT: WELL --

MR. DARDEN: DENISE BROWN WASN'T PRESENT AT THE TIME THAT THE DEFENDANT BEAT UP NICOLE BROWN IN 1989.

THE COURT: I ASSUME THAT SHE WILL BE ABLE TO TESTIFY AS TO WHEN SHE WAS SHOWN THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS AND BY WHOM AND THE PHOTOGRAPHS PRETTY MUCH SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES, BUT WHAT IS RELEVANT TO THE INVESTIGATOR'S TESTIMONY IS THAT ON SUCH AND SUCH A DATE AND SUCH AND SUCH A TIME HE SERVED A SEARCH WARRANT, AND THIS WAS WHAT WAS IN IT AND SOMEBODY ELSE WILL HAVE TO LAY THE FOUNDATION FOR THE PHOTOGRAPHS.

MR. DARDEN: YOU ARE NOT GOING TO LET ME PUT IN MY NEWSPAPERS?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION.

MR. DARDEN: I'M NOT FINISHED YET. I'VE GOT THE PODIUM.

THE COURT: I'M GOING TO SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION TO THE NEWSPAPERS.

MR. DARDEN: THIS IS VERY DAMAGING EVIDENCE, YOUR HONOR. VERY POETIC EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: THAT IS WHAT ALL THE PROSECUTORS SAY.

MR. DARDEN: THE "HOT PROPERTY" ITEM, THAT REMAINS IN?

THE COURT: THERE IS NO OBJECTION TO IT. IT IS RELEVANT EVIDENCE, ALTHOUGH THE ORANGE COUNTY RECORDER REGISTRAR'S OFFICE WOULD PROBABLY HAVE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THOSE DOCUMENTS AS WELL.

MR. DARDEN: THAT IS ORANGE COUNTY. YOU KNOW HOW CONFUSING THINGS ARE THERE THESE DAYS. AS FOR THE WILL, I'M NOT GOING TO OFFER THE WILL.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. DARDEN: I'M GOING TO OFFER THE PHOTOGRAPHS, THE "O.J. SIMPSON BUYS LAGUNA BEACH HOME" AND THE LETTERS RETRIEVED FROM THE SAFE DEPOSIT BOX.

THE COURT: I ASSUME THEN ON CROSS-EXAMINATION MR. COCHRAN WILL ELICIT FROM DETECTIVE STEVENS THAT HE DID FIND SOME OTHER MATTERS?

MR. COCHRAN: I WANT -- MAY I HAVE A SECOND, YOUR HONOR? IF I'M GOING TO STIPULATE TO THE HANDWRITING, I WANT TO TALK TO MR. DARDEN FOR JUST A MOMENT, IF I MIGHT.

MR. DARDEN: HE HAS ALREADY STIPULATED TO THE HANDWRITING, YOUR HONOR, SO THAT THE RECORD IS CLEAR.

THE COURT: YES, HE HAS.

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

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, WHILE COUNSEL IS UP HERE MAKING STATEMENTS, IF YOU DON'T MIND, LET ME JUST HAVE MY MINUTE TO RESPOND.

WE ARE GOING TO BE OFFERING THIS PARTICULAR WILL. COUNSEL TALKS ABOUT, IF THE COURT PLEASES, THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THE EVIDENCE. THEY ARE ALWAYS TALKING ABOUT THESE TRAILS, AND I THINK THAT THE COURT SHOULD BE AWARE THAT THE REASON THEY DON'T WANT THIS WILL IN IS AS FOLLOWS: SHE SAYS THIS IS MY WILL --

THE COURT: COUNSEL, I HAVE READ THE WILL.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I AM RESPONDING -- I KNOW YOU HAVE READ IT, BUT COUNSEL HAS A PENCHANT FOR SPEAKING SO THE PRESS PICKS IT UP AND WE SHOULDN'T BE PRECLUDED FROM RESPONDING.

MR. DARDEN: HE TAUGHT ME THAT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN, THANK YOU. COUNSEL, I HAVE READ IT AND IF IT IS ONLY FOR THE PUBLIC'S -- I MEAN, YOU HAVE A COPY OF THAT DOCUMENT IN YOUR POSSESSION.

MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE A COPY.

THE COURT: THE PRESS PROBABLY HAS SEEN IT ALREADY.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL I WANT TO DO IS RESPOND TO WHAT HE SAID, YOUR HONOR, IF I MIGHT. YOU WOULDN'T PRECLUDE ME FROM THAT, WOULD YOU?

THE COURT: BRIEFLY.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. WHAT I WANTED TO INDICATE IS THAT THIS WILL SETS FORTH A YOUNG LADY WHO HAS TREMENDOUS ASSETS WHO BASICALLY APOLOGIZES TO O.J. BY SAYING:

"YOU HAVE SO MUCH WEALTH, THAT IS WHY I'M NOT LEAVING ANYTHING TO YOU. REMEMBER ME FROM EARLY IN OUR RELATIONSHIP BEFORE I BECAME SO UNHAPPY AND SO BITCHY." SO I MEAN I THINK THAT HIS INTERPRETATIONS ARE SUCH THAT SHE WAS THE ONE WHO WAS UNHAPPY TALKING ABOUT HER STATE OF MIND, WHICH ISN'T RELEVANT, AND SHE HAS ALL THESE TREMENDOUS ASSETS, INCLUDING THIS CONDO THAT MR. SIMPSON GAVE HER FREE, SO THAT I THINK THE INTERPRETATION THAT THEY MAKE IS CLEARLY WRONG UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, SO I JUST WANTED AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO WHAT THEY SAID.

THE COURT: LET ME JUST ASK A QUESTION: HAS ANY LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT BEEN FILED BY NICOLE BROWN'S SIMPSONS ESTATE? I ASSUME YES.

MR. COCHRAN: I BELIEVE YES, IN SANTA MONICA I BELIEVE.

THE COURT: OKAY. SO THAT IS A COURT DOCUMENT. DOES IT BEAR ANY RESEMBLANCE TO THIS DOCUMENT HERE?

MR. COCHRAN: I THINK IT MAY, YOUR HONOR. I'M NOT SURE. SHE SAID SHE WAS BITCHY AND UNHAPPY WHEN IT WAS FILED, SO I THINK IT BEARS SOME SEMBLANCE.

THE COURT: AT THIS POINT WHAT YOU CAN DO IS ASK INVESTIGATOR STEVENS IF HE FOUND IT THERE, MARK IT FOR IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES. YOU WILL HAVE TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT FOR ITS ADMISSIBILITY AT SOME POINT IN TIME, BUT WHILE WE HAVE INVESTIGATOR STEVENS HERE --

MR. COCHRAN: I WILL DO THAT.

THE COURT: BUT IT WON'T BE SHOWN TO THE JURY UNTIL IT IS FOUND TO BE ADMISSIBLE AND NOT DISPLAYED ON THE ELMO.

MR. COCHRAN: I WON'T DO LIKE THEY DO. ABIDE BY THE RULES.

MR. DARDEN: AS I UNDERSTAND, YOUR HONOR, THIS IS NOT THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT. IT IS NOT. AND THE REAL QUESTION HERE IS WHAT MADE HER SO UNHAPPY AND BITCHY I THINK.

THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL. I AM NOT THE ONE WHO HAS TO BE CONVINCED, SO YOU CAN SAVE THE PERIPHERAL COMMENTS. ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE THE JURY.

MR. DARDEN: LET ME INDICATE THIS: I DO, HOWEVER, INTEND DISPLAY THE LETTERS.

THE COURT: YES, AND THERE HAS BEEN NO OBJECTION TO THE LETTERS.

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

MR. COCHRAN: IF HE CAN DISPLAY THE LETTERS, WHY CAN'T I DISPLAY THE WILL?

THE COURT: BECAUSE THERE IS NO OBJECTION.

(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 AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. JUST TO LET YOU KNOW THAT OCCASIONALLY WHEN A NEW WITNESS IS GOING TO BE CALLED, I HAVE TO REVIEW SOME OF THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE THAT IS GOING TO BE OFFERED DURING THE COURSE OF THAT WITNESS' TESTIMONY TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT IT IS ADMISSIBLE AND SOMETHING THAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR YOU TO SEE AND THAT IS WHAT WE WERE DOING IN YOUR ABSENCE. ALL RIGHT. MR. DARDEN, YOU MAY CALL YOUR NEXT WITNESS.

MR. DARDEN: SENIOR D.A. INVESTIGATOR MIKE STEVENS, YOUR HONOR.

MICHAEL STEVENS, 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: I DO.

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

THE WITNESS: MICHAEL STEVENS, M-I-C-H-A-E-L S-T-E-V-E-N-S.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. DARDEN:

Q: MR. STEVENS, WHAT IS YOUR PRESENT OCCUPATION AND ASSIGNMENT?

A: SENIOR INVESTIGATOR FOR THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, CURRENTLY ASSIGNED TO THE MAJOR CRIMES INVESTIGATION SECTION.

Q: WERE YOU ON DUTY ON DECEMBER 6, 1994?

A: YES.

Q: AND ON THAT DAY WERE YOU ARMED WITH A SEARCH WARRANT?

A: YES, I WAS.

Q: AND DID THAT SEARCH WARRANT AUTHORIZE YOU TO DRILL A HOLE IN A SAFE DEPOSIT BOX AT UNION BANK?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT UNION BANK IS LOCATED ON SAN VICENTE BOULEVARD; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES 11661 SAN VICENTE.

Q: OKAY. IS THERE -- STRIKE THAT. IS THERE A BUSINESS CALLED ORENTHAL PRODUCTIONS LOCATED IN THAT SAME BUILDING?

A: YES.

Q: SO YOU WENT TO UNION BANK WITH A SEARCH WARRANT?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT DID THE SEARCH WARRANT AUTHORIZE YOU TO DO?

A: TO REMOVE THE SAFE DEPOSIT BOX, ACTUALLY DRILL IT OPEN AND OPEN IT AND SEIZE WHAT PROPERTY WAS INSIDE OF IT.

Q: OKAY. AND DID YOU DO THAT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND DID YOU EXAMINE THE CONTENTS OF THAT SAFE DEPOSIT BOX?

A: YES.

Q: WHOSE SAFE DEPOSIT BOX WAS IT?

A: NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON.

Q: OKAY. AND DID YOU REMOVE CERTAIN ITEMS FROM THAT SAFE DEPOSIT BOX?

A: YES, I DID.

MR. DARDEN: MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YOU MAY.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: SHOWING YOU A POLAROID PHOTOGRAPH THAT HAS BEEN MARKED EXHIBIT 10, PEOPLE'S 10 FOR IDENTIFICATION, DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT PHOTOGRAPH?

A: YES.

Q: IS THAT A PHOTOGRAPH YOU REMOVED FROM NICOLE BROWN'S SAFE DEPOSIT BOX?

A: YES, IT IS.

Q: SHOWING YOU EXHIBIT 9, PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT 9, THAT IS A POLAROID PHOTOGRAPH, CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU REMOVE THAT POLAROID FROM NICOLE BROWN'S SAFE DEPOSIT BOX?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND SHOWING YOU WHAT HAS BEEN MARKED AS PEOPLE'S 11, THAT IS A POLAROID PHOTOGRAPH?

A: YES.

Q: AND WAS THAT PHOTOGRAPH CONTAINED IN NICOLE BROWN'S SAFE DEPOSIT BOX?

A: YES, IT WAS.

Q: NOW, EACH OF THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS DEPICT THE FACE OF SOMEONE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND IS THAT THE FACE OF SOMEONE YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH OR A FACE THAT YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH?

A: YES.

Q: WHO IS DEPICTED IN EACH OF THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS?

A: NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON.

Q: WERE THERE OTHER ITEMS INSIDE THE SAFE DEPOSIT BOX?

A: YES, THERE WAS.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, I AM HOLDING IN MY HAND THAT WHICH APPEARS TO BE A NINE-PAGE DOCUMENT DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 1990. MAY IT BE MARKED PEOPLE'S 14?

MR. DOUGLAS: NO, YOUR HONOR, 16.

THE COURT: HOLD ON. LET ME GET THE FINAL WORD. 16? 16.

(PEO'S 16 FOR ID = 9-PG WILL/9-30-90)

MR. DARDEN: THIS IS A WILL DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 1990, YOUR HONOR.

Q: SHOWING YOU WHAT HAS BEEN MARKED PEOPLE'S 16, DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT ITEM?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: IS THAT AN ITEM THAT YOU FOUND IN NICOLE BROWN'S SAFE DEPOSIT BOX?

A: YES, IT WAS IN A SEALED ENVELOPE THAT WAS CONTAINED INSIDE THE SAFE DEPOSIT BOX.

Q: IF I CAN HAND YOU THE ENVELOPE -- YOUR HONOR, MAY THE ENVELOPE BE MARKED AND INCLUDED IN PEOPLE'S 16?

THE COURT: 16-A. THE ENVELOPE WILL BE MARKED 16-A, MADAM CLERK.

(PEO'S 16-A FOR ID = ENVELOPE)

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: THE ENVELOPE THAT I JUST HANDED YOU, 16-A, IS THAT THE ENVELOPE?

A: YES, IT IS.

Q: THE ENVELOPE WAS SEALED?

A: YES.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, I AM HOLDING IN MY HAND WHAT APPEARS TO BE A HANDWRITTEN LETTER THAT CONSISTS OF SIX PAGES AND IT INCLUDES AN ENVELOPE. MAY IT BE MARKED PEOPLE'S 17 COLLECTIVELY?

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. PEOPLE'S 17.

(PEO'S 17 FOR ID = 6-PG HNDWRTN LTR/ENV)

MR. DARDEN: MAY I HAVE ONE MOMENT?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN MR. DARDEN AND MR. FAIRTLOUGH.)

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: SHOWING YOU THE ITEMS MARKED PEOPLE'S 17 COLLECTIVELY, MR. STEVENS, DO YOU RECOGNIZE THESE ITEMS?

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I APPROACH?

THE COURT: YES. COUNSEL MAY APPROACH WITHOUT LEAVE OF THE COURT ONE AT A TIME FROM EITHER SIDE.

THE WITNESS: YES, I DO.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME YOU SAW THE LETTER MARKED PEOPLE'S 17?

A: DECEMBER 6, WHEN I OPENED UP THE SAFE DEPOSIT BOX.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, IF I MAY, MAY I DISPLAY THE LETTER FOR THE JURY?

MR. COCHRAN: I THINK I HAVE NO OBJECTION. MAY I JUST LOOK AT IT ONE SECOND, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: SURE.

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

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN, DO WE NEED THE ELMO FOR THIS OR DO WE HAVE THIS ON THE LASER DISK?

MR. DARDEN: WE NEED THE ELMO FOR THIS.

MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE NO OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, TO THESE BEING SHOWN.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: ONE, PLEASE.

MR. DARDEN: THIS IS THE ENVELOPE INCLUDED IN PEOPLE'S 17, YOUR HONOR, PAGE 1. MAY I READ THE LETTER INTO THE RECORD, YOUR HONOR?

MR. COCHRAN: THE LETTER SPEAKS FOR ITSELF, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: I THINK THE SCRIPT -- IT APPEARS TO BE -- LET ME ASK THE JURY. CAN YOU READ THE LETTER, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN?

(THE JURY ANSWERED COLLECTIVELY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.)

THE COURT: I'M GETTING NODS EVEN FROM THE END OF THE JURY BOX. ALL RIGHT. WE WILL LET THEM READ THE LETTER TO THEMSELVES.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: PAGE 2.

MR. DARDEN: PAGE 3, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: PAGE 3.

MR. DARDEN: PAGE 4. NEXT HALF. NEXT PAGE, PAGE 5. NEXT HALF. PAGE 6.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE ANOTHER TWO-PAGE LETTER. MAY IT BE MARKED PEOPLE'S 18?

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. PEOPLE'S 18, TWO-PAGE LETTER.

(PEO'S 18 FOR ID = 2-PG LTR/ENVELOPE)

(BRIEF PAUSE.) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN: I ALSO HAVE ANOTHER TWO-PAGE LETTER. MAY IT BE MARKED PEOPLE'S 19?

(PEO'S 19 FOR ID = 2-PG LETTER)

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: MR. STEVENS, SHOWING YOU PEOPLE'S 18, WAS THAT LETTER CONTAINED IN NICOLE BROWN'S SAFE DEPOSIT BOX?

A: YES, IT WAS.

Q: THIS LETTER MARKED PEOPLE'S 18, AS WELL AS THE LETTER MARKED 17, WERE BOTH CONTAINED IN THE SAFE DEPOSIT BOX?

A: YES.

Q: ALONG WITH THOSE THREE PHOTOGRAPHS?

A: YES.

MR. DARDEN: MAY I DISPLAY PEOPLE'S 18 FOR THE JURY, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN?

MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE NO OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: IF I MAY HAVE A MOMENT TO REMOVE THIS PARTICULAR LETTER FROM THE PLASTIC TO ENABLE BETTER VISION.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. DARDEN: SECOND HALF. PAGE 2.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: MR. STEVENS, SHOWING YOU PEOPLE'S 19, THIS IS A TWO-PAGE LETTER; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: WAS THAT LETTER IN NICOLE BROWN'S SAFE DEPOSIT BOX?

A: YES.

MR. DARDEN: PAGE 2. SECOND HALF.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: NOW, MR. STEVENS, THE POLAROID PHOTOGRAPHS, EXHIBITS 9, 10 AND 11, YOU TESTIFIED THAT EACH OF THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS DEPICT OR SHOW NICOLE BROWN?

A: YES.

Q: DO THEY SHOW INJURIES TO HER?

A: YES, THEY DO.

Q: THAT IS ON EACH OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS?

A: YES.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, I'M HOLDING HERE WHAT APPEARS TO BE A PORTION OF A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE. MAY IT BE MARKED PEOPLE'S 20?

THE COURT: PEOPLE'S 20.

(PEO'S 20 FOR ID = "HOT PROPERTY" NWSPPR ARTICLE)

MR. DARDEN: IT IS ENTITLED "HOT PROPERTY O.J. SIMPSON BUYS LAGUNA BEACH HOME."

Q: DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT SMALL PIECE OF NEWSPAPER, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: WAS THAT ALSO IN NICOLE BROWN'S SAFE DEPOSIT BOX?

A: YES, IT WAS.

Q: THERE WERE OTHER ITEMS IN THAT BOX AS WELL; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: HAVE YOU MADE ANY ATTEMPT TO DETERMINE THE DATE IN WHICH EACH OF THOSE POLAROID PHOTOGRAPHS WERE TAKEN?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WHAT DID YOU DO IN THAT REGARD?

A: I TOOK THE PHOTOGRAPHS TO POLAROID CORPORATION IN SANTA ANA.

Q: AND WHY DID YOU TAKE THEM THERE?

A: THERE WAS NUMBER ON THE BACK OF THE PHOTOS. I CONTACTED POLAROID. THEY TOLD ME THAT THEY COULD DATE THEM.

MR. COCHRAN: JUST ONE MOMENT. HEARSAY WHAT THEY TOLD HIM. AN OFFER OF PROOF, YOUR HONOR? IF COUNSEL WANTS TO TALK ABOUT IT, I WILL BE GLAD TO LISTEN.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. STRICKEN AFTER TAKING THE POLAROIDS. NEXT QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: I'M SORRY, WHY DID YOU TAKE THEM TO POLAROID, WITHOUT TELLING US WHAT POLAROID TOLD YOU?

A: TO DATE THE PHOTOGRAPHS.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY, YOUR HONOR.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. COCHRAN:

Q: GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. STEVENS.

A: GOOD AFTERNOON.

Q: AS I UNDERSTAND YOUR TESTIMONY, ON DECEMBER 6 OF 1994, ARMED WITH A SEARCH WARRANT, YOU WENT INTO THIS PARTICULAR SAFE DEPOSIT BOX AND RECOVERED A NUMBER OF ITEMS; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AMONG THE ITEMS THAT YOU RECOVERED WERE THE THREE LETTERS WE JUST SAW WHICH LETTERS APPEAR TO BE APOLOGY LETTERS TO NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON; IS THAT RIGHT?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE LETTERS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.

MR. COCHRAN: I CAN ASK THAT QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU FOUND THOSE APOLOGY LETTERS IN THAT BOX ALL TOGETHER, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, IN ADDITION TO THE LETTERS OF APOLOGY REGARDING THIS 1989 INCIDENT, YOU ALSO FOUND THIS WILL WHICH COUNSEL MARKED; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: STILL UP THERE? MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YOU MAY.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU.

Q: THIS DOCUMENT THAT IS MARKED A WILL, AND FOR THE RECORD, YOUR HONOR, THIS NUMBER IS --

THE COURT: PEOPLE'S 16.

MR. COCHRAN: -- PEOPLE'S 16 AND 16-A.

Q: MR. STEVENS, SIR, THIS PARTICULAR DOCUMENT, THE WILL, WAS INSIDE THIS PARTICULAR ENVELOPE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND THE ENVELOPE INDICATED "ONLY OPEN IN FRONT OF A LAWYER"?

A: THAT'S RIGHT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU OPENED IT?

A: I DID IT IN FRONT OF A LAWYER.

Q: YOU FOUND A LAWYER?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: IS THE LAWYER IN THIS COURTROOM?

A: YES, HE IS.

MR. DARDEN: YES, I AM.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: IS THAT HIM THERE?

A: YES, SIR.

THE COURT: INDICATING FOR THE RECORD MR. DARDEN.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. SO HE WAS PRESENT WHEN YOU OPENED THIS?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AND YOU HAD OCCASION TO READ THIS DOCUMENT DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 1990, DID YOU NOT?

A: BRIEFLY. I READ THROUGH IT REAL QUICK ONCE.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. AND YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW THE FIRST PAGE OF THIS PARTICULAR DOCUMENT ON THE ELMO.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN?

MR. DARDEN: I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW IT TO WHO?

THE COURT: HE WOULD LIKE TO SHOW IT USING THE ELMO.

MR. DARDEN: I OBJECT.

MS. CLARK: THE COURT ALREADY RULED.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. COCHRAN: NO. THAT IS NOT TRUE AT ALL.

MS. CLARK: IT IS DARDEN.

MR. COCHRAN: THEY WEREN'T GOING TO MARK IT I THOUGHT. WE WILL APPROACH.

THE COURT: IT IS MARKED, BUT THERE IS NO FOUNDATION FOR IT AT THIS POINT.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, MAY I ASK A COUPLE QUESTIONS.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, LET'S DO THIS -- HOLD ON. WE ARE RIGHT AT THREE O'CLOCK. I NEED TO TAKE A BREAK FOR THE COURT REPORTER. LET'S DO THIS. LET'S LET THE JURY GO AND WE WILL COME BACK AND DISCUSS IT. MAY I QUESTION BEFORE WE GO? ARE WE GOING TO ADJOURN AT FOUR O'CLOCK TODAY?

THE COURT: OH, YES, I'M SORRY, WE HAVE THE MOTION TO QUASH WITH THE JURY -- EXCUSE ME -- WITH THE SUBPOENA. LET ME TALK TO THE BAILIFF REAL QUICK.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE COURT AND DEPUTY MAGNERA.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, I'M GOING TO TAKE THE RESCHEDULED RECESS AND THE -- PART OF THE PROBLEM, AND I WILL DISCUSS IT WITH YOU UP HERE AS SOON AS WE RELEASE THE JURY, BUT I WILL TELL YOU WHAT OUR LOGISTICAL PROBLEM IS.

MR. COCHRAN: SURE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I'M GOING TO TAKE OUR MID-AFTERNOON RECESS AT THIS TIME. I HAVE ANOTHER MATTER SCHEDULED AT FOUR O'CLOCK, SO WE ARE GOING ONLY TO HAVE A BRIEF PERIOD OF MORE TIME WHEN YOU COME BACK. PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITION TO YOU. DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONG YOURSELVES, DON'T FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, DON'T TALK TO ANYBODY ABOUT THE CASE OR LET ANYBODY TALK TO YOU ABOUT IT. AND WE WILL SEE YOU BACK HERE AT 3:30. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. LET ME SEE COUNSEL.

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

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

(RECESS.)

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER: ALL PARTIES ARE PRESENT. COUNSEL, ANYTHING WE NEED TO TAKE UP BEFORE WE REINVITE THE JURORS TO JOIN US?

MR. COCHRAN: I DON'T THINK SO, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: DETECTIVE STEVENS, WOULD YOU TAKE THE WITNESS STAND, PLEASE. DEPUTY MAGNERA, LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE.

MR. DARDEN: IS THIS THE LAST WITNESS OF THE DAY?

THE COURT: I DON'T THINK SO. I ASSUME WE ONLY HAVE FIVE MORE MINUTES FOR THIS WITNESS.

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

THE COURT: THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. BE SEATED. LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT WE HAVE BEEN REJOINED BY ALL MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL. INVESTIGATOR STEVENS IS ON THE WITNESS STAND UNDER CROSS-EXAMINATION. INVESTIGATOR STEVENS, YOU'RE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH.

THE WITNESS: YES.

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, YOU MAY CONTINUE YOUR CROSS-EXAMINATION.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY, YOUR HONOR. JUST A FEW MORE QUESTIONS.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DETECTIVE STEVENS, I PRESUME YOU FOUND NO OTHER LETTERS IN THAT SAFETY DEPOSIT BOX WE HAVE NOW TALKED ABOUT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THERE WAS ONE OTHER LETTER.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WE'VE NOT MARKED THAT THIS AFTERNOON?

A: NO, WE HAVE NOT.

Q: DID YOU FIND SOME PLANE TICKETS IN THERE ALSO?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND WHOSE NAME WERE THESE PLANE TICKETS IN?

A: IF I RECALL, IT WAS NICOLE SIMPSON.

Q: AND WAS THIS A TRIP TO NEW YORK?

A: YES, IT WAS.

Q: WERE THESE TICKETS EVER USED, IF YOU KNOW?

A: IT APPEARED TO BE THE RECEIPT.

Q: THE RECEIPT FOR PLANE TICKETS TO NEW YORK AND BACK TO LOS ANGELES?

A: YES. TO JFK AIRPORT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, MR. DARDEN ALLUDED TO IN HIS DIRECT EXAMINATION A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE REGARDING THE PURCHASE BY MR. O.J. SIMPSON OF SOME PROPERTY IN LAGUNA BEACH; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND IS THAT NEWSPAPER ARTICLE BEFORE YOU?

A: YES, IT IS.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I DON'T THINK WE'VE SHOWN THAT TO THE JURY. MAY I SHOW THAT TO THE JURY?

THE COURT: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I APPROACH?

THE COURT: YOU MAY. ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE THE ELMO WORKING? THIS IS PEOPLE'S 20?

MR. DARDEN: 20, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: 20.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, WE PURPORT TO PUT IT ON THE BOARD.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THAT IS THE SUNDAY COLUMN FROM THE TIMES REAL ESTATE SECTION?

MR. COCHRAN: HOT PROPERTY, YES, YOUR HONOR. CAN WE INQUIRE WHETHER OR NOT THE JURORS ARE ABLE TO READ THAT?

THE COURT: IT SEEMS TO BE SLIGHTLY OUT OF FOCUS. AND THE PART ABOUT MR. SIMPSON'S PROPERTY, THE FIRST TWO PARAGRAPHS, WE CAN JUST FOCUS IN ON THAT I THINK. ALL RIGHT.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: IS THAT SUFFICIENT, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: MOVE IT SLIGHTLY TO THE LEFT. PERFECT. ALL RIGHT. MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY, YOUR HONOR. I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER OF INVESTIGATOR STEVENS AT THIS POINT.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. DARDEN:

Q: INVESTIGATOR STEVENS, YOU DESCRIBED THE THREE LETTERS THAT WE DISPLAYED AS AN APOLOGY?

A: YES.

Q: WAS THERE ANYTHING IN THOSE LETTERS THAT MENTIONED ANYTHING ABOUT A MUTUAL WRESTLING MATCH?

MR. COCHRAN: I OBJECT, YOUR HONOR. THE LETTERS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. THE JURORS HAVE SEEN THE LETTERS. IMPROPER REDIRECT.

THE COURT: CORRECT. ALL THE INVESTIGATOR DID WAS SEIZE THE LETTERS. HE IS NOT THE INTERPRETER.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: COULDN'T THE LETTERS BE CHARACTERIZED MORE AS A CONFESSION AS OPPOSED TO AN APOLOGY?

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT. THIS IS ARGUMENTATIVE AND COUNSEL KNOWS IT.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. COUNSEL, THE LETTERS HAVE BEEN EXHIBITED IN THEIR ENTIRETY TO THE JURY. THEY CAN CHARACTERIZE IT AS THEY WISH.

MR. COCHRAN: MOVE TO STRIKE COUNSEL'S REMARK.

MR. DARDEN: NOTHING FURTHER, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THANK YOU. ANY RECROSS ON THAT ONE QUESTION?

MR. COCHRAN: NO. THERE WAS NO QUESTION I PRESUME.

THE COURT: OH, THEY GOT ONE IN. INVESTIGATOR STEVENS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU ARE EXCUSED FOR THE AFTERNOON. IF YOU WOULD RETURN THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS TO MR. DARDEN, PLEASE, AND DON'T DISCUSS YOUR TESTIMONY WITH ANYONE OTHER THAN THE ATTORNEYS IN THE MATTER. THANK YOU, SIR. ALL RIGHT. NEXT WITNESS.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, PEOPLE'S 21 IS AN AUDIOTAPE, AN AUDIOTAPE OF AN INCIDENT THAT OCCURRED ON OCTOBER 25, 1993. MAY IT BE MARKED PEOPLE'S 21?

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. PEOPLE'S 21.

(PEO'S 21 FOR ID = AUDIOTAPE/INCIDENT OCT. 25, 1993)

MR. DARDEN: PEOPLE CALL TERRI MOORE, YOUR HONOR.

TERRI MOORE, CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE PEOPLE, WAS SWORN AND TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS MOORE, WOULD YOU COME OVER HERE, STAND HERE BY THE COURT REPORTER, PLEASE, AND FACE THE CLERK.

THE CLERK: RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, PLEASE. 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.

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

THE WITNESS: TERRI, T-E-R-R-I, MOORE, M-O-O-R-E.

THE CLERK: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN: MR. WHO?

THE COURT: DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN: OH. THANK YOU.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. DARDEN:

Q: GOOD AFTERNOON, MISS MOORE.

A: HI.

Q: WHO DO YOU WORK FOR?

A: LOS ANGELES POLICE.

Q: AND WHAT DO YOU DO FOR THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT?

A: I'M A POLICE SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE INSTRUCTOR.

Q: AND WHAT IS IT THAT YOU INSTRUCT?

A: ALL OF THE FUNCTIONS OF BEING A POLICE SERVICE REP.

Q: AND DOES THAT INCLUDE A 911 OPERATOR?

A: YES.

Q: HAVE YOU BEEN A 911 OPERATOR IN THE PAST?

A: YES. FOR THE PAST THREE YEARS AND SEVEN MONTHS.

Q: AND WERE YOU A 911 OPERATOR ON OCTOBER 25, 1993?

A: YES.

Q: AND WERE YOU ON DUTY AT APPROXIMATELY 9:54 P.M. ON THAT DATE?

A: YES.

Q: WERE YOU AT YOUR STATION?

A: YES.

Q: WERE YOU RECEIVING CALLS OR TAKING CALLS?

A: YES.

Q: AND ON THAT DATE AND AT THAT TIME, DID YOU RECEIVE A 911 EMERGENCY CALL?

A: YES.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE HERE WHAT APPEARS TO BE AN LAPD 911 INCIDENT REPORT. MAY IT BE MARKED PEOPLE'S 22 FOR IDENTIFICATION?

THE COURT: PEOPLE'S 22.

(PEO'S 22 FOR ID = LAPD 911 INCIDENT REPORT)

MR. DARDEN: MAY WE APPROACH FOR A MOMENT WITHOUT THE REPORTER, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: SURE.

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THERE'S AN ISSUE I NEED TO TAKE UP OUT OF YOUR PRESENCE. I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO STEP BACK IN THE JURY ROOM. THIS SHOULD ONLY TAKE ABOUT FIVE OR EIGHT MINUTES.

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THE JURY HAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE COURTROOM. BE SEATED. THANK YOU. MR. DARDEN, DO YOU HAVE THIS TAPE YOU WANT TO PLAY?

MR. DARDEN: YES, I DO, YOUR HONOR. AS THE COURT IS AWARE, THE COURT ORDERED US TO REDACT FROM THE TAPE THE FOLLOWING COMMENT:

"HE'S GOING TO BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF ME," AND WE'VE REDACTED THE TAPE AS THE COURT HAS INSTRUCTED US TO DO.

THE COURT: WHAT'S THE LENGTH OF THE TAPE, MR. DARDEN?

MR. DARDEN: PARDON ME?

THE COURT: WHAT IS THE LENGTH OF THE TAPE?

MR. DARDEN: MR. DOUGLAS SAYS IT'S APPROXIMATELY 14 MINUTES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. COCHRAN: WE'RE OFF BY ABOUT EIGHT OR NINE MINUTES.

THE COURT: MY CONCERN IS MISS CLARK'S PROBLEM.

MS. CLARK: IF I CAN MAKE A PHONE CALL, YOUR HONOR, MAYBE --

MR. COCHRAN: I'LL STIPULATE MISS CLARK DOESN'T HAVE TO USE THE TAPE.

THE COURT: DO WE HAVE THE TAPE CUED UP?

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: YOUR HONOR, I'M EXPERIENCING MOMENTARY DIFFICULTY. I'LL DO AN AUDIO CHECK POSSIBLY USING THE SPEAKERS.

MR. DARDEN: SHOULD WE PUT IN EARPLUGS?

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: NO. IT'S SET DOWN LOW.

THE COURT: I CAN JUST BRING IN MY BOOM BOX.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: WE NOW HAVE THE PROPER AUDIO.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. PLAY THE TAPE.

(AN AUDIOTAPE IS PLAYED.)

THE COURT: THAT WAS THE PORTION THAT I RECALL THAT THE OTHER COMMENT WAS THAT THE COURT ORDERED REDACTED.

MR. COCHRAN: I THINK THERE'S ANOTHER PART THAT I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO CONSIDER REDACTING.

THE COURT: WHAT IS THAT?

MR. COCHRAN: THE PART ABOUT HE'S F'ING GOING NUTS. DID YOU HEAR THAT PART?

THE COURT: WELL, I THINK IT'S DESCRIPTIVE OF WHAT APPEARS TO GO ON.

MR. COCHRAN: I DON'T THINK -- I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE WITH THE COURT WITH REGARD TO THE F'ING PART. THAT'S WHAT I HAD REFERENCE TO. I JUST DON'T THINK WE NEED THE EXPLETIVE.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN: I'M NO GREAT FAN OF EXPLETIVES, YOUR HONOR, BUT I THINK THAT THE JURY HAS A RIGHT TO HEAR THE TAPE IN ITS FULL CONTEXT, AND THIS IS AN ISSUE WE DISCUSSED WEEKS AGO.

THE COURT: I AGREE.

MR. DARDEN: AND I MEAN, LET'S MOVE ON WITH THE TRIAL.

MR. COCHRAN: WE WANT TO MOVE ON WITH THE TRIAL. ALL I'M SAYING TO THE COURT IS THAT IT'S THE SAME WHEN WE HAD TO EXCISE ALL THIS STUFF ABOUT POLYGRAPHS TO GET A DREAM THAT HE WANTED TO -- SO I'LL SUBMIT IT, BUT I THINK THE COURT HAS IN YOUR DISCRETION -- IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FLAVOR TO SAY HE'S GOING NUTS AS OPPOSED TO F'ING.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THE COURT HAS CONSIDERED THAT PREVIOUSLY. ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE.

MR. COCHRAN: THERE'S MORE, YOUR HONOR. IS THAT ALL?

THE COURT: THAT WAS THE PART THAT WAS TO BE REDACTED, AND WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT HAD IN FACT BEEN REDACTED. I THINK WE HAVE ENOUGH TIME IN THE COURT DAY TO PLAY THE TAPE.

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

THE COURT: THANK YOU. PLEASE BE SEATED. ALL RIGHT. MR. DARDEN, YOU MAY CONTINUE.

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

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

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

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

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

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN: MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YOU MAY.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: MISS MOORE, SHOWING YOU WHAT HAS BEEN MARKED AS PEOPLE'S 22 FOR IDENTIFICATION, DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT DOCUMENT?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT IS THAT DOCUMENT?

A: THAT'S AN INCIDENT HISTORY.

Q: AND WHAT EXACTLY IS AN INCIDENT HISTORY?

A: WHENEVER WE TAKE A CALL THAT COMES IN FROM 911 OR ANY OTHER CONSOLE, WE CREATE AN INCIDENT HISTORY, AND IT GIVES -- THEN WE INPUT IN THE COMPLAINT THE ADDRESS, THE NAME OF THE PERSON CALLING AND ANY OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION, AND IT CREATES -- IT GENERATES AN INCIDENT NUMBER SO IT CAN BE LATER REFERENCED AND THE OFFICERS CAN KNOW WHERE THEY'RE GOING AND WHAT THEY NEED.

Q: OKAY. NOW, BY LOOKING AT THAT INCIDENT REPORT, CAN YOU TELL US WHEN AND IF A 911 OPERATOR RECEIVED A TELEPHONE CALL FROM 325 GRETNA GREEN?

A: YES.

Q: WHO RECEIVED THE FIRST CALL?

A: THERE WAS ANOTHER OPERATOR WHO WAS SITTING ON THE CONSOLE 40, WHICH WAS RIGHT NEXT TO ME.

Q: AND WHO WAS THAT PERSON?

A: THAT WAS PSR STEPHANIE MARTIN.

Q: STEFANIE MARTIN?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT TIME DOES STEFANIE PART RECEIVE THE FIRST 911 CALL?

A: SHE RECEIVED IT AT 2145 HOURS MILITARY TIME, WHICH IS 9:44 P.M.

Q: AND DID SHE COMPLETE THE INCIDENT REPORT?

A: YES, SHE DID.

Q: DOES SHE INDICATE THE NAME OF THE CALLER?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT'S THE NAME?

A: NICOLE SIMPSON.

Q: AND DID SHE INDICATE THE ADDRESS FROM WHICH THE CALL ORIGINATED?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT ADDRESS WAS THAT?

A: 325 SOUTH GRETNA GREEN WAY.

Q: DID SHE INDICATE ANYTHING IN THE COMMENTS AREA REGARDING THE NATURE OF THE CALL?

A: YES. IT SHOWS INDICATED A SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND THE NATURE OF THE TROUBLE.

Q: WHAT DOES IT SAY EXACTLY IN THE COMMENTS AREA?

MR. COCHRAN: I'LL OBJECT TO THAT, YOUR HONOR. THE DOCUMENT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. HEARSAY ALSO.

MR. DARDEN: WOULD THE COURT LIKE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE REPORT? IT IS A RATHER UNIQUE SORT OF DOCUMENT AND ACTUALLY IT TAKES A QUALIFIED PERSON --

MR. COCHRAN: SPEAKING OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THAT'S TRUE. WELL --

MR. DARDEN: I'M NOT OBJECTING.

THE COURT: -- I THINK WE'VE SEEN A FOUNDATION FOR THE FIRST PART AT THIS POINT, HAVEN'T WE?

MR. DARDEN: YES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHY DON'T YOU PROCEED.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: WHEN WAS THE SECOND CALL RECEIVED?

A: APPROXIMATELY 2154 HOURS.

Q: SO THE FIRST ONE WAS RECEIVED AT 2144?

A: YES.

Q: THAT'S 9:44 P.M.?

A: YES.

Q: AND THE SECOND CALL WAS RECEIVED AT 9:54 P.M.?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHICH 911 OPERATOR RECEIVED THAT SECOND CALL?

A: I DID.

Q: DID THE CALLER IDENTIFY HERSELF?

A: YES, SHE DID.

Q: AND DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THAT CALLER?

A: YES.

Q: ARE 911 CALLS RECORDED?

A: YES.

Q: AND WAS THAT CALL RECORDED?

A: YES.

Q: HOW MANY TELEPHONE CALLS FROM NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON DID YOU RECEIVE THAT NIGHT?

A: ONE.

Q: AND HOW LONG DID THAT CALL LAST?

A: IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, IT WAS APPROXIMATELY 14 OR 15 MINUTES.

Q: NOW, THE EVENTS DESCRIBED ON THAT INCIDENT LOG OCCURRED ON OCTOBER 25, 1993; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND HAVE YOU SINCE THAT HAD OCCASION TO LISTEN TO A RECORDING OF YOUR CONVERSATION WITH NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON BACK ON OCTOBER 25, 1993?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU LISTENED TO THAT TAPE UPSTAIRS IN MY OFFICE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE SUCH A TAPE. IT HAS BEEN MARKED PEOPLE'S 1 FOR IDENTIFICATION. MAY WE PLAY IT FOR THE JURY?

THE COURT: LET ME JUST ASK THIS. MISS CLARK, DO YOU HAVE ANY TIMING PROBLEMS AT THIS POINT?

MS. CLARK: NO, THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OKAY. PLAY THE TAPE. (AN AUDIOTAPE IS PLAYED.)

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN, I BELIEVE THAT'S THE END OF THE TAPE.

MR. DARDEN: I DON'T THINK IT IS.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: COULD YOU HEAR THE POLICE ARRIVING IN THE TAPE?

A: YES. I HAD THE RADIO FREQUENCY UP.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, MAY THE RECORD REFLECT MR. FAIRTHOLT BEGAN THE TAPE AT ZERO AND IT IS NOW AT 181?

THE COURT: 181?

MR. DARDEN: 181.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DURING THE CONVERSATION YOU HAD WITH MISS BROWN, DID YOU ASK HER IF THIS EVENT OR EVENT LIKE THIS HAD HAPPENED ON OTHER OCCASIONS?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT DID SHE SAY?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. OBJECT TO THAT QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: SHE SAID YES.

MR. COCHRAN: HEARSAY. THE TAPE SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. IT'S HEARSAY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: NOW, WHEN THE FIRST CALL WAS RECEIVED, WAS IT GIVEN SOME TYPE OF PRIORITY IN TERMS OF HOW URGENT THE CALL WAS BEING CONSIDERED BY THE 911 OPERATOR?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT PRIORITY CODE WAS IT GIVEN AT 9:44 P.M.?

A: IT WAS GIVEN A CODE 2 PRIORITY, WHICH IS URGENT, BUT NOT LIFE THREATENING.

Q: AND WAS THAT PRIORITY CODE UPGRADED AT SOME POINT?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHO UPGRADED THE PRIORITY OF THAT CALL?

A: I DID.

Q: WHAT DID YOU UPGRADE IT TO?

A: I UPGRADED IT TO CODE 2, HIGH RISK, NOW POTENTIALLY LIFE THREATENING.

Q: AND WHY DID YOU DO THAT?

A: SHE STATED THAT HE WAS NOT THERE, BUT HE HAD RETURNED AND SHE FELT THAT SHE WAS IN EMINENT DANGER, AND SO WE MADE IT -- I MADE IT LIFE THREATENING.

Q: DO YOU HAVE TRAINING IN TERMS OF DEALING WITH DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS WHEN THEY TELEPHONE 911?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT TYPE --

A: TO SOME EXTENT.

Q: I AM SORRY?

A: TO SOME EXTENT, YES.

Q: BUT YOU'VE HAD TRAINING IN HOW TO DEAL WITH THESE PEOPLE, PEOPLE WHO ARE BEING ABUSED WHEN THEY CALL?

A: YES.

Q: IS THAT WHAT YOU USED HERE, SOME OF THE TRAINING YOU HAD BEEN GIVEN?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHO GAVE YOU THAT TRAINING? WHERE DID YOU GET IT?

A: WHEN WE FIRST BEGIN TRAINING, WE HAVE SIX WEEKS OF TRAINING AT THE ACADEMY, THE POLICE ACADEMY, AND THAT'S GIVEN BY DIFFERENT -- IT'S GIVEN BY VARIOUS INSTRUCTORS.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU. NOTHING FURTHER.

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY.

THE COURT: QUESTIONS FOR MISS MOORE?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN:

Q: JUST BRIEFLY, MISS MOORE. GOOD AFTERNOON.

A: GOOD AFTERNOON.

Q: AND WITH REGARD TO THE TAPE WE JUST HEARD, YOU HAVE LISTENED TO THAT TAPE ON OCCASIONS BEFORE THIS AFTERNOON; HAVE YOU NOT?

A: YES.

Q: AND PRIOR TO TODAY, WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU LISTENED TO THAT TAPE?

A: APPROXIMATELY TWO OR THREE WEEKS AGO.

Q: AND WAS THAT IN MR. DARDEN'S OFFICE?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU OF COURSE LISTENED TO THE TAPE THAT NIGHT, THE NIGHT OF OCTOBER 19, 1993; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU MADE THIS DETERMINATION OF THIS CALL AND YOU CONTINUED TO MONITOR AND TALK TO MISS NICOLE SIMPSON; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU WERE ABLE TO ASCERTAIN DURING THE COURSE OF THAT TAPE THAT AT SOME POINT WHEN SHE FIRST STARTED TO TALK TO YOU THAT SHE WAS IN SOME PARTICULAR -- A BEDROOM, SOMETHING LIKE THAT?

A: I BELIEVE SO.

Q: DID YOU ASCERTAIN AT SOME POINT SHE LEFT THAT ROOM AND CAME DOWNSTAIRS TO THE KITCHEN PER HER CONVERSATION?

A: YES. MAYBE AT THE END WHEN I ASKED HER WHERE WAS SHE.

Q: AND YOU WERE ABLE TO DETERMINE, WERE YOU NOT, THAT DURING THIS ENTIRE TAPE AND DURING THE ENTIRE EPISODE, SHE WAS NEVER STRUCK BY THE GENTLEMAN WHO WAS IN THE BACKGROUND; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT AT OR ABOUT THE TIME OR SHORTLY AFTER THE TIME THAT SHE CAME DOWNSTAIRS, WERE YOU AWARE THAT THE POLICE ARRIVED AT THE LOCATION?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THERE WAS ONE POINT DURING THE TAPE THAT SHE INDICATED THAT SHE WANTED TO GET OFF THE LINE, THAT SHE FELT SHE WANTED TO HANG UP THE PHONE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT WAS PRIOR TO THE ARRIVAL OF THE POLICE?

A: YES.

Q: AND DURING THE COURSE OF THE TAPE, THE ONSET OF THE TAPE, YOU COULD HEAR A PERSON IN THE BACKGROUND, AND SHE TOLD YOU THAT PERSON WAS TALKING TO HER ROOMMATE OR MALE WHO LIVED IN THE BACK HOUSE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: SO AS YOU SAT THERE LISTENING, YOU BASICALLY HEARD THE SAME THINGS WE HEARD AND JUST CARRIED ON THIS CONVERSATION; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND AT THE TIME THAT THE CONVERSATION ENDED, AT THAT TIME, YOU FELT OR YOU HAD INFORMATION THAT THE POLICE HAD ARRIVED; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: YOU FELT THE SITUATION WAS IN HAND AT THIS POINT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: YOU HAD NEVER TALKED TO MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON BEFORE THAT TIME, HAD YOU?

A: NO.

Q: THIS WAS THE FIRST AND ONLY TIME?

A: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY, YOUR HONOR. I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER.

THE COURT: ANY REDIRECT, MR. DARDEN?

MR. DARDEN: NO REDIRECT, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU.

THE COURT: MISS MOORE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING IN. YOU ARE EXCUSED. PLEASE DON'T DISCUSS YOUR TESTIMONY WITH ANYONE ELSE EXCEPT THE LAWYERS ON THE CASE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT WITNESS.

MR. DARDEN: MAY THIS WITNESS BE EXCUSED?

THE COURT: YES. I JUST DID.

MR. DARDEN: MAY WE APPROACH AT SIDEBAR WITHOUT THE REPORTER?

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

THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OUR RECESS FOR THE AFTERNOON AT THIS TIME, AND WE WILL RESUME AGAIN TOMORROW MORNING AT 9:00 O'CLOCK. PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITION TO YOU; DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONGST YOURSELVES, FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, HAVE ANY CONTACT WITH ANYBODY OR ALLOW YOURSELF TO BE INFLUENCED OR CONTACTED BY ANYBODY ON THE OUTSIDE. HAVE A PLEASANT EVENING. ENJOY THE MOVIES, AND WE'LL SEE YOU -- ENJOY THE MOVIES. AND THE FLINTSTONES WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN MY PICK, BUT -- WE WILL SEE YOU BACK HERE TOMORROW MORNING AT 9:00 O'CLOCK.

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

THE COURT: BACK ON THE RECORD. MR. COCHRAN, FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROCEEDING, TO CONTINUE THE HEARING AS TO MARGUERITE SIMPSON OVER, DO YOU WANT TO WAIVE YOUR CLIENT'S PRESENCE TO PICK ANOTHER DATE?

MR. COCHRAN: YEAH, I WILL DO THAT, YOUR HONOR. WE CAN -- I WILL MAKE SURE HE'S AWARE OF THAT. WE CAN PICK A DATE, WHATEVER DATE.

THE COURT: MR. JONES, YOU HAVE THE COURT'S SINCERE APOLOGIES. OUR SCHEDULE KEEPS CHANGING. A COUPLE OF THINGS HAPPENED THAT CAUSED US TO RESCHEDULE. THIS HAPPENS FROM TIME TO TIME. I APPRECIATE YOUR DILIGENCE TO THE COURT.

MR. JONES: YOUR HONOR, WE HAD BEEN USING 4:00 P.M. BECAUSE OF MY TRIAL. BUT WE DO HAVE A WINDOW HERE WEDNESDAY THE 8TH. SO I CAN APPEAR ANY TIME DURING THAT DATE.

THE COURT: HOW ABOUT FIRST THING IN THE MORNING WEDNESDAY?

MS. JONES: VERY WELL.

THE COURT: WEDNESDAY 9:00 A.M. FOR SURE. MISS CLARK, YOU WILL HAVE YOUR FOLKS HERE READY TO GO?

MS. CLARK: FOLKS?

THE COURT: WELL, I MEAN, IT'S A HEARING TO QUASH THE SUBPOENA. WHOEVER IT IS THAT YOU HAVE ON THAT MOTION. MR. DOUGLAS.

MR. DOUGLAS: UNRELATED.

THE COURT: OKAY. THEN THE BODY ATTACHMENT ISSUED FOR MARGUERITE SIMPSON WILL CONTINUE TO BE HELD UNTIL THE 8TH OF MARCH AT -- EXCUSE ME -- 8TH OF FEBRUARY, 9:00 A.M. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

MS. JONES: YOUR HONOR, FOR PLANNING, I THINK WE AGREED THE HEARING WOULD TAKE APPROXIMATELY 20, 25 MINUTES.

THE COURT: I FIGURED HALF AN HOUR.

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE BEEN REMISS AND I HAVE BEEN REMINDED BY BOTH MR. BLASIER AND MR. SCHECK IN MY OFFICE OF OUR NEED IF POSSIBLE TO RESOLVE THIS.

THE COURT: THE LETTER IS ON MY DESK. LET ME GET IT.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: MR. DOUGLAS, YOU'RE MAKING REFERENCE TO THE LETTER FROM YOUR OFFICE DATED JANUARY 30, 1995 SIGNED BY MR. BLASIER?

MR. DOUGLAS: THAT'S CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: PAGE 2 LISTS THE ITEMS IN NUMERICAL ORDER YOU WISH TO SECURE FOR EXAMINATION, INSPECTION AND TESTING, CORRECT?

MR. DOUGLAS: THIS IS CORRECT, YOUR HONOR. I THINK WE HAVE AGREED THAT IT CAN BE SENT TO ALBANY AND TO DR. WOLF'S LAB. I THINK THAT WE HAVE AGREED THAT -- AND I'M NOT SURE ON THIS PART -- THAT THE PROTOCOL THAT WAS EMPLOYED AT CELLMARK WOULD BE THE STANDARD PROTOCOL THAT WOULD BE USED WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT ONCE A SPLIT IS TAKEN, THAT THERE WOULD BE PRIVILEGED TESTING SO THAT WE MAY CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN BOTH ATTORNEY-CLIENT AND WORK PRODUCT RESULTS. THERE IS AN ISSUE THAT I BELIEVE THERE IS AN INTEREST THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE IN VIDEOTAPING SOME PORTION OF THIS PROCEDURE. I SIMPLY SAY FOR THE RECORD THAT WE HAD SOUGHT SUCH A CONDITION WHEN WE WENT TO CELLMARK, AND THAT WAS REFUSED. SO I THINK IN FAIRNESS, I WILL OBJECT TO THAT PORTION BECAUSE IT WAS NOT THE BENEFIT THAT WE WERE LIKEWISE GIVEN. GIVEN THE EXPECTATION, YOUR HONOR, THAT WE WILL BE GETTING INTO THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE PORTION OF THE CASE SOMETIME NEXT WEEK, I WOULD LIKE THAT THE COURT CAN ARRANGE FOR THIS TRANSFER SOON. I WOULD ASK THAT WE HAVE -- AND I'M NOT SURE OF THE NUMBER OF ITEMS TO KNOW -- BUT A MINIMUM OF THREE DAYS, I THINK WORK DAYS FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO TEST. IF IT'S NECESSARY THAT IT BE DONE IN SHIFTS, THAT WOULD BE AGREEABLE. I DON'T WANT TO UNDULY BURDEN THE PEOPLE, BUT I DO WANT TO HAVE MY EXPERTS HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK THEM OVER AND PHYSICALLY TEST THINGS.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: WE NEED TO HAVE THE RELEVANT LAWYERS PRESENT FOR THIS, YOUR HONOR. I CAN'T MAKE AN AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE PROCEDURES. MY UNDERSTANDING DOES NOT MATCH UP TO COUNSEL'S UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE PROCEDURES ARE.

THE COURT: WELL, WE'RE AGREED THAT THESE MATTERS -- THESE ITEMS WILL BE SENT TO DR. WOLF'S LABORATORY IN ALBANY, CORRECT?

MS. CLARK: YES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. AND WE ARE AGREED THAT YOU MAY HAVE A PERSON, AN EXPERT OF YOUR CHOICE PRESENT AT ANY TIME ANY EXAMINATION, SPLIT OF THE SAMPLE IS MADE; IS THAT CORRECT?

MS. CLARK: YES.

THE COURT: AND WE ARE AGREED THAT THEY CAN CONDUCT THEIR OWN TESTING AS THEY SEE FIT IN THE PRIVACY OF THEIR LABORATORY, CORRECT?

MS. CLARK: NO.

THE COURT: NO?

MS. CLARK: WE NEED TO ADDRESS THE COURT ON THAT. MR. HARMON AND MR. CLARK HAVE TO ADDRESS VERY SERIOUS CONCERNS WITH THAT PROCEDURE, AND WE NEED TO -- WE WERE GOING TO HAVE THEM IN ON ONE MORNING, BUT WE HAD TO PROCEED WITH TRIAL. THEY WERE HERE YESTERDAY WAITING TO PRESENT TO THE COURT, AND WE DIDN'T FOR SOME REASON ADDRESS THE MATTER. AND WE NEED TO DO THAT. SO --

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THEN WE'LL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE MR. BLASIER HERE AND MR. CLARK AND MR. HARMON. WHEN WILL THEY BE AVAILABLE?

MS. CLARK: I BELIEVE THEY CAN BE AVAILABLE TOMORROW MORNING.

THE COURT: I ALREADY TOLD THE JURY 9:00 O'CLOCK. HOW ABOUT 1:30, BRING THE JURY BACK FROM LUNCH AT 2:00. WHY DON'T WE DO THAT. THAT WILL TAKE ABOUT HALF AN HOUR TO RESOLVE.

MS. CLARK: FINE. YES, THANK YOU.

THE COURT: THEN, MR. DOUGLAS, JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR, THE ITEMS THAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR SPECIFICALLY ARE THESE ITEMS LISTED HERE ON PAGE 2?

MR. DOUGLAS: YES, YOUR HONOR. I DO NOT WANT TO MISLEAD THE COURT AND SAY THAT THAT IS THE EXCLUSIVE OR THE ENTIRE LIST.

THE COURT: WELL, THIS IS THE FIRST BATCH THAT YOU REALLY WANT TO GET STARTED?

MR. DOUGLAS: ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU.

MR. DARDEN: SO THE RECORD IS CLEAR, TOMORROW, WE ARE PLANNING TO CALL OFFICER LERNER AND SERGEANT LALLY, AND THEIR TESTIMONY WILL RELATE TO THE TAPE THE COURT HEARD JUST PRIOR TO THIS AFTERNOON'S ADJOURNMENT. WE WILL ALSO BE CALLING DENISE BROWN TO THE STAND. AND I DON'T KNOW IF COUNSEL CAN GIVE AN INDICATION AS TO HOW LONG THEY THINK MISS BROWN'S TESTIMONY MAY TAKE, BECAUSE I KNOW WE ADJOURN ON FRIDAY AT 3:00 O'CLOCK AND --

MR. COCHRAN: WE DO?

MR. DARDEN: AND SHE MAY BE THE LAST WITNESS OF THE DAY. MAYBE I CAN DIRECT THE QUESTION TO MR. SHAPIRO. DO YOU THINK OFFICER LERNER, SERGEANT LALLY AND DENISE BROWN WILL CONSUME PRETTY MUCH THE ENTIRE DAY TOMORROW?

MR. SHAPIRO: IT'S PRETTY DIFFICULT TO SAY. IT'S GOING TO BE BASED ON DIRECT EXAMINATION.

THE COURT: ARE YOU BRINGING IN DENISE BROWN TO TESTIFY TO THE '93 INCIDENT OR A RANGE OF OTHER INCIDENTS?

MR. DARDEN: A RANGE OF OTHER INCIDENTS. SHE WILL BE TESTIFYING TO THE NATURE OF THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DEFENDANT, THE DEFENDANT HAD WITH HER SISTER AS WELL. SO --

THE COURT: I THINK IT WILL BE QUITE A WHILE.

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR --

THE COURT: ALTHOUGH I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT SERGEANT LALLY AND THE OTHER PATROL OFFICER WOULD BE THAT LONG, I HOPE.

MR. SHAPIRO: IT'S VERY, VERY HARD TO PREDICT. CROSS-EXAMINATION WILL IN LARGE PART DEPEND ON THE DIRECT EXAMINATION.

THE COURT: BUT I HAVE A FEELING GIVEN THE NUMBER OF INCIDENTS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, IT COULD BE EXTENSIVE. OKAY. 9:00 O'CLOCK. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

(AT 4:20 P.M., AN ADJOURNMENT WAS TAKEN UNTIL, FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1995, 9:00 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

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1995

VOLUME 80

PAGES 12856 THROUGH 13055, INCLUSIVE

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 80 PAGES 12856 - 13055

-----------------------------------------------------

DAY DATE SESSION PAGE VOL.

THURSDAY FEBRUARY 2, 1995 A.M. 12856 80
P.M. 12964 80
-----------------------------------------------------

PROCEEDINGS

MOTION RE ADMISSIBILITY OF STATEMENTS 12858 80 OF RONALD SHIPP (RESUMED)

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA ON 13049 80 MARGUERITE THOMAS (RESUMED)

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 80 (RESUMED) 12881CD
12938D
(RESUMED) 12966D 12980CD

STEVENS, 13010D 13020C 13029D 80
MICHAEL

MOORE, TERRI 13031D 13045C 80

-----------------------------------------------------

ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

PEOPLE'S
WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS VOL.

MOORE, TERRI 13031D 13045C 80

SHIPP, RONALD 80 (RESUMED) 12881CD
12938D
(RESUMED) 12966D 12980CD

STEVENS, 13010D 13020C 13029D 80
MICHAEL

EXHIBITS

PEOPLE'S FOR IN
EXHIBIT IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE

PAGE VOL. PAGE VOL.

12 - COPY OF DEFENDANT'S 12948 80
CALENDAR

13 - PHOTOGRAPH OF THE 12955 80
DEFENDANT AND MR. SHIPP

14 - PHOTOGRAPH OF THE 12955 80
DEFENDANT AND MR. SHIPP

15 - PHOTOGRAPH OF THE 12955 80
DEFENDANT AND MR. SHIPP

16 - 9-PAGE WILL OF 13013 80
NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON DATED 9/30/90

16-A - ENVELOPE 13013 80
(CONTAINING WILL)

17 - 6-PAGE HANDWRITTEN 13014 80
LETTER AND ENVELOPE

18 - 2-PAGE HANDWRITTEN 13016 80
LETTER AND ENVELOPE

19 - 2-PAGE HANDWRITTEN 13017 80
LETTER AND ENVELOPE

20 - L.A. TIMES 13018 80
NEWSPAPER ARTICLE ENTITLED "HOT PROPERTY: O.J.
SIMPSON BUYS LAGUNA BEACH HOME."

21 - AUDIOTAPE OF 13030 80
INCIDENT OF OCTUBER 25, 1993

22 - 1-PAGE DOCUMENT 13033 80
(911 INCIDENT REPORT/DISPATCHER LOG)

-----------------------------------------------------

DEFENSE FOR IN
EXHIBIT IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE

PAGE VOL. PAGE VOL.

1001 - MEMORANDUM DATED 12881 80
JULY 13, 1994 FROM SHEILA WELLER