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

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

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

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

(PAGES 13056 THROUGH 13086, VOLUME 81A, TRANSCRIBED AND SEALED UNDER SEPARATE COVER.)

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

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I ADDRESS THE COURT BRIEFLY?

THE COURT: TWO SECONDS. ALL RIGHT. BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. MR. SIMPSON IS AGAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT WITH HIS COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. DOUGLAS, MR. BAILEY. THE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED BY MISS CLARK, MR. DARDEN AND MR. GORDON. THE JURY IS NOT PRESENT. MR. COCHRAN, YOU HAD A COMMENT TO MAKE?

MR. COCHRAN: YES, YOUR HONOR. I HAVE THREE QUICK MATTERS, IF I MIGHT. YESTERDAY AT THE END OF THE DAY WHEN WE WERE LEAVING, YOUR HONOR, I WAS ADVISED THAT WHEN MR. RON SHIPP LEFT THE WITNESS STAND, FINALLY, HE WALKED THROUGH THE GATES THERE AND HE MADE WHAT HAS BEEN CALLED A POWER SIGN TOWARD THE BROWN FAMILY. THIS WAS SEEN BY PEOPLE IN THE BACK ROW, AND THE JURY WAS APPARENTLY STILL HERE, AND GIVEN THAT EVENTUALITY AND THE FACT THAT WE WERE TOLD BY INDEPENDENT PEOPLE THAT THAT TOOK PLACE, THE COURT NEEDS AGAIN PERHAPS TO INQUIRE OR CHECK WITH YOUR STAFF OR CHECK WITH THE PHOTOGRAPHERS IN THE BACK ROW AND I THINK YOU CAN VERIFY THAT. THOSE KIND OF OVERDISPLAYS BY THIS WITNESS I THINK HAVE NO PLACE, AND AGAIN I THINK IT WOULD REQUIRE AN ADMONISHMENT OF THE JURY, BECAUSE IT IS THOROUGHLY, THOROUGHLY IMPROPER. THAT IS ITEM NO. 1. THE SECOND ITEM HAS TO DO WITH DISCOVERY ISSUE. I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH A MAN NAMED SCOTT KENNEDY, YOUR HONOR, ON WEDNESDAY EVENING. MR. KENNEDY IS A MAN WHO SAYS THAT -- WHO HAS -- WHO TOOK A VIDEO OF THE ENDING OF THE RECITAL ON JUNE 12, 1994, A VIDEO THAT INCLUDES MR. O.J. SIMPSON WITH ONE OF HIS CHILDREN, HIS GREETING THE BROWN FAMILY, HAS THE BROWN FAMILY ON IT, AND APPARENTLY THE INDICATION IS THAT NONE OF THESE PARTIES KNEW THEY WERE BEING VIDEOED. THE CONCERN THAT I HAVE REGARDING MR. SCOTT KENNEDY IS THAT HE INDICATED TO ME HE SENT THIS VIDEO TO MISS MARCIA CLARK, HE SAID SPECIFICALLY LAST SUMMER, AND IN OUR -- AT LEAST MY REVIEW OF THE DISCOVERY WE HAVE NEVER EVER RECEIVED THAT. THIS VIDEO HAS NOW BEEN SHOWN AND WE EXPECT OF COURSE TO HAVE OUR COPY SHORTLY. BUT IF THE PROSECUTION HAD THAT, WE WERE ENTITLED TO THAT SOME TIME AGO AND MR. KENNEDY SAID THAT HE DID IN FACT SEND IT SPECIFICALLY TO MISS MARCIA CLARK AND THERE WAS NO FOLLOW-UP ON IT. THE THIRD THING HAS TO DO WITH A WITNESS BY THE NAME OF LEIF TILDEN, L-E-I-F T-I-L-D-E-N. MR. LEIF TILDEN IS A WITNESS WHO HAS IN FACT BEEN INTERVIEWED BY THE PROSECUTION. HE IS A WITNESS WHO SAYS HE SAW FOUR MEN IN THE AREA OF THE BUNDY STREET ADDRESS NEAR DOROTHY ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE 12, 1994, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, FOUR CAUCASIAN MEN, OR NOT AFRICAN AMERICAN MEN, BETWEEN THE TIME OF 10:00 AND TEN ALSO INDICATED HE HAS IN FACT BEEN INTERVIEWED BY THE PROSECUTION. WE RECEIVED NO INFORMATION ABOUT THIS MAN AT ALL, NO REPORTS OR WHATEVER. AS THE COURT HAS POINTED OUT TO ME, DISCOVERY IS RECIPROCAL. THESE ARE -- I STAND HERE UNDERSTANDING THAT AND I WANT TO BRING THIS TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION, THE LAST TWO MATTERS, AND ALSO THE SHIPP MATTER, I WOULD LIKE THE COURT TO CONDUCT SOME INVESTIGATION BECAUSE WE SHOULD NOT BE PREJUDICED BECAUSE A WITNESS LIKE SHIPP IS OVERZEALOUS. ON THESE OTHER TWO THINGS, WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING, IF THE COURT HAS THE KENNEDY TAPE, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE REPORTS, IF THEY ARE AVAILABLE, ON MR. LEIF TILDEN. WE THINK HE WILL BE A VERY IMPORTANT WITNESS, ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE PROSECUTION KNEW THAT THEY HAD ANOTHER WITNESS WHO TALKED ABOUT FOUR MEN IN AN AROUND THAT AREA BETWEEN 10:00 AND 10:30 ON JUNE 12. CERTAINLY IT WOULD BE MISLEADING TO THE JURY TO TALK FOR -- TO HAVE MISS CLARK'S OPENING STATEMENT -- REOPENING STATEMENT ON MONDAY, SO I WANTED TO PUT THOSE THINGS ON THE RECORD, IF I MIGHT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN, GOOD MORNING.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, IT IS CORRECT THAT MEMBERS OF THE D.A.'S OFFICE HAVE INTERVIEWED THE GENTLEMAN MR. COCHRAN JUST REFERRED TO. WE DID THAT ROUGHLY 24 HOURS AGO. JUST THIS MORNING BEFORE COMING DOWN HERE I SIGNED OFF APPROVING THE RELEASE OF THE TAPE OF THAT INTERVIEW TO MR. COCHRAN AND SO WE ARE AWARE OF THAT PERSON, WE ARE AWARE OF OUR DUTIES UNDER THE RULES OF DISCOVERY, AND WE ARE COMPLYING AND THEY WILL BE RECEIVING WRITTEN NOTIFICATION --

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

MR. DARDEN: -- AT ANY MOMENT. AND I SHOULD INDICATE AS WELL, THAT ISN'T SOMEONE THAT WE HAVE KNOWN ABOUT FOR SEVERAL WEEKS OR SEVERAL MONTHS. HE CAME FORWARD AFTER HE HEARD MR. COCHRAN'S OPENING STATEMENT AND HIS REFERENCE TO MISS GERCHAS AND I BELIEVE HE WILL TESTIFY THAT HE SAW FOUR YOUNG MEN IN THE AREA THAT NIGHT, BUT THAT THEY APPEARED TO BE COLLEGE STUDENTS, NONE OF THEM WORE KNIT CAPS. IN FACT, NOT ALL OF THEM WORE CAPS AT ALL AND THE CAPS THAT WERE WORN WERE BASEBALL CAPS. AND SO I DON'T KNOW HOW RELEVANT HIS TESTIMONY WILL BE, IF HE IS CALLED AS A WITNESS, BUT WE WILL CERTAINLY PROVIDE COUNSEL WITH THAT DISCOVERY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THAT APPEARS TO BE WITHIN THE COURT'S ORDER WHICH WAS TO GIVE NOTICE WITHIN ONE BUSINESS DAY.

MR. DARDEN: ABSOLUTELY.

THE COURT: UNLESS THERE IS SOME OTHER REASON. OKAY. HOW ABOUT THE SCOTT KENNEDY VIDEO?

MR. DARDEN: I AM NOT AWARE OF THAT VIDEO AND MR. FAIRTLOUGH IS HERE AND HE HANDLES MOST OF THE DISCOVERY. IF WE HAVE SUCH A VIDEO, WE WILL TURN IT OVER. I DON'T THINK WE DO, BUT SOMEONE UPSTAIRS I'M SURE IS CHECKING RIGHT NOW. IF WE HAVE IT, WE WILL GIVE TO IT MR. COCHRAN.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHEN WE COME BACK AT 1:30, AND IF YOU RECALL, I HAVE ASKED BOTH SIDES TO SUBMIT TO THE COURT AN INVENTORY BY TODAY AND THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT I HAVE RECEIVED THE DEFENSE INVENTORY THIS MORNING FROM MR. DOUGLAS AND I WILL -- SO THAT I WILL KNOW WHAT EVERYBODY HAS FROM THIS POINT ON.

MR. DARDEN: OKAY. SENIOR D.A. INVESTIGATOR MIKE ARMSTRONG IS WORKING ON THAT RIGHT NOW. IT WILL BE HERE BY THREE O'CLOCK.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. AS TO THE GESTURES BY MR. SHIPP, ANY COMMENT ABOUT THAT?

MR. DARDEN: I SAW NO SUCH GESTURE, BUT I DON'T THINK ANY SUCH GESTURE BY MR. SHIPP IS ANY MORE INAPPROPRIATE THAN WHAT HAPPENED HERE YESTERDAY, I BELIEVE IT WAS YESTERDAY, WHEN THE COURT WAS INTRODUCED TO MR. DOUGLAS' WIFE, MRS. DOUGLAS, AND AFTER THAT INTRODUCTION -- AND I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT -- SHE WALKED OVER TO THE DEFENDANT, SHE SHOOK HIS HANDS, SHE CONVERSED WITH HIM, RIGHT HERE IN FRONT OF THE JURY. RIGHT HERE IN FRONT OF THE JURY. I THOUGHT THAT WAS HIGHLY INAPPROPRIATE, BUT I DIDN'T BRING IT TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION. I DON'T SEE ANY NEED TO GET OR COMPLAIN ABOUT EVERY LITTLE THING THAT HAPPENS IN THE COURTROOM, BUT I DIDN'T SEE IT AND SO I CAN'T -- I CAN'T ADDRESS --

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

MR. DARDEN: IN ADDITION, WHEN DETECTIVE FARRELL LEFT THE WITNESS STAND THE OTHER DAY, AS HE PASSED BY THE DEFENDANT SAID TO HIM "THANKS FOR TELLING THE TRUTH," OR WORDS TO THAT EFFECT, WITHIN EARSHOT OF THE JURY. SO IF MR. SHIPP PERHAPS VIOLATED THE COURT'S RULE IN SOME MINOR WAY, HE IS NOT THE ONLY ONE, AND I DON'T THINK THE COURT SHOULD DRAW ATTENTION -- THE JURY'S ATTENTION TO WHATEVER OCCURRED YESTERDAY. AND MR. COCHRAN DIDN'T SEE IT. WE DON'T KNOW THAT IT HAPPENED. MAYBE IT DID; MAYBE IT DIDN'T.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I RESPOND?

THE COURT: NO. I THINK I'M GOING TO HAVE TO BECOME ARGUS. I HAVE TO STAY HERE THE WHOLE TIME.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, I DON'T --

THE COURT: INSTANT REPLAY.

MR. COCHRAN: HOPEFULLY THAT WON'T BE NECESSARY, YOUR HONOR. I THINK MOST WITNESSES I THINK WILL COMPLY AND CONDUCT THEMSELVES APPROPRIATELY. WE DON'T HAVE THIS PROBLEM EVERY DAY. THIS PARTICULAR WITNESS HAS SHOWN A PROCLIVITY OR PROPENSITY FOR DOING THIS. YOU HAD ALREADY WARNED HIM SEVERAL TIMES AND YOU HAD ALREADY CAUTIONED THE JURORS REGARDING HIM. AND WHAT I'M ASKING THE COURT TO DO IS SINCE I WAS ADVISED OF THIS, IS TO QUERY PEOPLE THAT ACTUALLY SAW IT, BECAUSE IT WOULD BE A FLAGRANT VIOLATION. THAT IS FAR DIFFERENT THAN MISS LINDA JACKSON DOUGLAS, WHO DID NOT SHAKE MR. SIMPSON'S HANDS AT ALL, BEING INTRODUCED AT A TIME IN AN APPROPRIATE MANNER. THAT IS FAR DIFFERENT. THE PEOPLE ALWAYS SEEM TO BE CONFUSED, YOUR HONOR, THAT WHENEVER SOMETHING HAPPENS THEY WANT TO SAY SO AND SO DID THAT. THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION. AS MISS CLARK HERSELF AT ONE POINT, TWO WRONGS WOULDN'T MAKE A RIGHT. WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE CONDUCT. THE LAST THING I WANT TO SAY, AND I APPRECIATE MR. DARDEN BEING FORTHCOMING ABOUT THE TAPE, THEY DIDN'T TELL ME ABOUT IT. I AM THE ONE WHO BROUGHT IT UP AND I'M GLAD WE ARE GOING TO GET THAT, BUT THAT VIDEOTAPE WAS FROM LAST SUMMER. HE GOT IT IN JULY. AND WE SHOULD KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT THE END OF THE DAY ON THAT?

MS. CLARK: YES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DEPUTY MAGNERA, LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

(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. LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT WE HAVE NOW BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL. GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

THE COURT: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IT WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION THAT YESTERDAY AFTERNOON, WHEN MR. SHIPP WAS LEAVING THE COURTROOM, HE MAY HAVE MADE A GESTURE TO SOMEBODY IN THE AUDIENCE THAT YOU MAY HAVE OBSERVED. YOU ARE TO DISREGARD ANY CONDUCT LIKE THAT HERE IN THE COURTROOM. ALL RIGHT. MR. DARDEN, WOULD YOU CALL YOUR NEXT WITNESS.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, THE PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO CALL SERGEANT LERNER TO THE STAND.

ROBERT LERNER, CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE PEOPLE, WAS SWORN AND TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:

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

THE WITNESS: YES, I DO.

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

THE WITNESS: MY NAME IS ROBERT LEARNER, R-O-B-E-R-T L E R N E R.

THE CLERK: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. DARDEN:

Q: GOOD MORNING, SIR.

A: GOOD MORNING.

Q: SIR, ON OCTOBER 25, 1993, WERE YOU A POLICE OFFICER?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: WERE YOU A MEMBER OF THE LAPD?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: ON THAT DATE AROUND 10:00 P.M. DID YOU RESPOND TO A 911 CALL FOR HELP?

A: NOT FOR HELP, BUT I DID RESPOND TO A 911 CALL.

Q: AND DID YOU RESPOND TO 325 SOUTH GRETNA GREEN?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: OKAY. THE HOME OF NICOLE BROWN?

A: YES.

Q: WHY DID YOU GO TO THAT LOCATION?

A: UMM, THE 911 CALL STATED THERE WAS A DOMESTIC DISPUTE. IT WAS MARKED CODE 2 HIGH, WHICH IS IN AN URGENT CALL.

Q: NOW, WERE YOU IN UNIFORM?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: WERE YOU IN A BLACK AND WHITE POLICE VEHICLE?

A: YES. I WAS WORKING A TWO-MAN BASIC CAR IN WEST LOS ANGELES AREA WITH MY PARTNER, SPENCER MARKS.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU AND OFFICER MARKS PROCEED IMMEDIATELY TO THAT LOCATION?

A: YES, WE DID.

Q: AND WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT 325 SOUTH GRETNA GREEN, NICOLE BROWN'S HOME, DID YOU SEE A VEHICLE?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT KIND OF VEHICLE?

A: IT WAS A FORD BRONCO, WHITE IN COLOR.

Q: WHERE WAS THAT FORD BRONCO WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT NICOLE BROWN'S HOME?

A: THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED SOUTHBOUND IN THE STREET IN FRONT OF THE LOCATION.

Q: WAS THE VEHICLE PARKED AT THE CURB?

A: NO, IT WASN'T.

Q: HOW FAR FROM THE CURB, IF YOU RECALL, WAS IT PARKED?

A: APPROXIMATELY BETWEEN FOUR AND SIX FEET.

Q: WAS IT PARKED OR WAS IT STOPPED IN THE STREET?

A: APPARENTLY IT WAS -- IT WAS STOPPED IN THE STREET. THE IGNITION WAS OFF BUT THE HEADLIGHTS WERE ON.

Q: DID YOU SEE ANYONE INSIDE THE BRONCO AT THAT TIME?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: IS THERE A DRIVEWAY IN FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE AT 325 SOUTH GRETNA GREEN?

A: UMM, I DON'T RECALL.

Q: OKAY. BUT THE VEHICLE WAS IN THE STREET?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: I TAKE IT YOU GOT OUT OF YOUR POLICE VEHICLE?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID YOU MEET SOMEONE AT THAT TIME?

A: YES, SIR, IN FRONT OF THE LOCATION AT 325 SOUTH GRETNA GREEN WE MET NICOLE BROWN.

Q: AND COULD YOU DESCRIBE FOR US THE -- NICOLE BROWN'S DEMEANOR?

A: WELL, SHE WAS -- SHE WAS VISIBLY SHAKEN, SHE WAS UPSET. SHE WAS CONCERNED, AND SHE WAS SCARED.

Q: DID YOU NOTICE ANY SIGNS OF ANY PHYSICAL INJURIES ON HER FACE OR ON HER NECK AT THAT TIME?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH HER?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. NOW, WHEN YOU MET NICOLE BROWN IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE, WAS THERE ANYONE ELSE WITH HER?

A: NO.

Q: WHAT DID YOU DO AFTER YOU FIRST SAW NICOLE BROWN?

A: WE WANTED TO MAKE A DETERMINATION IF THE INDIVIDUAL MENTIONED IN THE COMMENTS OF THE CALL AS THE INDIVIDUAL TO WHICH -- TO WHOM WE WERE RESPONDING WAS STILL AT THE LOCATION. SHE SAID, YES, HE WAS, THAT HIS NAME WAS O.J. SIMPSON, HE WAS IN THE --

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION TO ANY FURTHER CONVERSATION AS HEARSAY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. DARDEN: I WILL ASK ANOTHER QUESTION, YOUR HONOR.

Q: AFTER YOU SPOKE TO NICOLE BROWN, WHAT DID YOU DO?

A: WE MADE A FOLLOW-UP TO THE REAR HOUSE, THE GUEST HOUSE.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU HAVE TO WALK FROM THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE TO THE BACK?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: DID YOU GO THROUGH THE HOUSE OR DID YOU WALK AROUND TO THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE?

A: WE WALKED THROUGH THE HOUSE.

Q: OKAY. AND DID YOU EXIT INTO THE REAR YARD OF THE HOUSE?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, IS THERE A DOOR, A REAR DOOR TO THE HOUSE?

A: THERE IS. IT IS A DOUBLE FRENCH DOOR.

Q: AND DID YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THAT DOOR AS YOU PASSED THROUGH IT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND WHAT, IF ANYTHING, DID YOU NOTICE ABOUT THE CONDITION OF THAT DOOR?

A: THE DOOR HAD BEEN SPLIT AT THE -- NEAR THE TOP AND BOTTOM OF THE DOOR -- OF THE DOOR THAT HAS THE TWO DEAD BOLTS THAT GO INTO THE FLOOR AND INTO THE CEILING.

Q: AND DID YOU SEE SOMEONE AT THE REAR OF THE HOUSE THAT NIGHT, SOMEONE THAT YOU NOW SEE HERE IN COURT TODAY?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: POINT TO THAT PERSON.

A: THE DEFENDANT, MR. SIMPSON.

THE COURT: INDICATING MR. SIMPSON.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: YOU SAW THE DEFENDANT IN THE REAR OR AT THE REAR OF NICOLE BROWN'S HOUSE THAT NIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU SPEAK TO HIM?

A: YES.

Q: DID HE SPEAK TO YOU?

A: YES, HE DID.

Q: WAS THERE SOMEONE ELSE PRESENT AT THAT TIME?

A: YES, THERE WAS.

Q: WHO ELSE WAS PRESENT?

A: AN INDIVIDUAL I LEARNED LATER WAS KATO KAELIN.

Q: KATO KAELIN WAS PRESENT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: DESCRIBE FOR US, IF YOU WILL, THE DEFENDANT'S DEMEANOR WHEN YOU SAW HIM IN THE REAR YARD.

A: THE DEFENDANT WAS AGITATED, HE WAS UPSET, PACING BACK AND FORTH, AND HE WAS SPEAKING LOUDLY TO MR. KAELIN.

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

THE COURT: YES.

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

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER OF THIS WITNESS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY, YOUR HONOR.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. COCHRAN:

Q: GOOD MORNING, SERGEANT LEARNER.

A: GOOD MORNING.

Q: SIR, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, YOU RESPONDED TO THIS 911 CALL ON OCTOBER 25, 1993, AND WHAT TIME OF THE EVENING WAS THAT?

A: IT WAS AROUND TEN O'CLOCK.

Q: AND YOU REFERRED TO "WE" IN THE COURSE OF YOUR TESTIMONY. WHO WERE YOU ACCOMPANIED BY AT THAT TIME, IF ANYONE?

A: MY PARTNER, OFFICER SPENCER MARKS.

Q: AND THE TWO OF YOU WERE IN A TWO-PERSON CAR; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHEN YOU GOT TO THE LOCATION AT AROUND TEN O'CLOCK ON OCTOBER 25, 1993, WERE ALL PARTIES OUTSIDE THE GRETNA GREEN RESIDENCE?

A: NICOLE WAS IN FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE; THE OTHER TWO PERSONS PRESENT WERE IN THE REAR OF THE RESIDENCE.

Q: ALL RIGHT.

A: SO IN FACT ALL PARTIES WERE OUTSIDE THE RESIDENCE.

Q: THEY WERE OUTSIDE AT DIFFERENT LOCATIONS, AS I UNDERSTAND YOUR TESTIMONY?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: YOU PULL UP IN THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: YOU FIRST ENCOUNTERED MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AND YOU HAD A BRIEF CONVERSATION WITH HER AT THAT TIME; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: YOU HAD OCCASION TO OBSERVE HER AND IT IS TRUE, IS IT NOT, THAT SHE HAD SUSTAINED NO PHYSICAL INJURY THAT YOU COULD SEE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S TRUE.

Q: AND IN THE COURSE OF YOUR CONVERSATION WITH HER, WITHOUT TELLING US ABOUT THAT CONVERSATION, YOU ASCERTAINED THAT SHE HAD NOT BEEN STRUCK OR HIT AT ANY TIME; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: NOW, HOW LONG WOULD YOU SAY THAT YOU SPOKE WITH HER BEFORE YOU WENT TO TALK TO MR. SIMPSON AND MR. KAELIN, SIR?

A: THAT WAS A BRIEF CONVERSATION, MAYBE A COUPLE OF MINUTES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND AT THE TIME THAT YOU WERE TALKING TO MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON WAS YOUR PARTNER, OFFICER MARKS, THERE ALSO AT THAT TIME?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND AFTER YOU SPOKE WITH HER, AS I UNDERSTAND THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS, YOU THEN WENT AROUND TO THIS REAR HOUSE; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: WE WENT THROUGH THE INTERIOR OF THE FRONT HOUSE TO THE REAR HOUSE.

Q: OKAY. WHEN YOU GOT THERE WAS MR. SIMPSON AND MR. KAELIN OUTSIDE OF THE REAR HOUSE?

A: NO, SIR, THEY WERE INSIDE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU GO INSIDE OR DID YOU HAVE THEM COME OUTSIDE?

A: I WENT INSIDE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WERE YOU STILL ACCOMPANIED BY OFFICER MARKS?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO IT WAS YOU AND OFFICER MARKS INSIDE THE REAR HOUSE SPEAKING WITH MR. KATO KAELIN AND MR. O.J. SIMPSON; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT IS CORRECT.

Q: AT THAT TIME YOU HAD A CONVERSATION WITH MR. SIMPSON, DID YOU?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND IN THAT CONVERSATION MR. SIMPSON TOLD YOU --

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

MR. COCHRAN: GEE, I WOULD LIKE TO FINISH THE QUESTION.

THE COURT: FINISH THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: IN THAT CONVERSATION MR. SIMPSON TOLD YOU ABOUT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE ARGUMENT? AND YOU CAN ANSWER THAT YES OR NO.

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, IT STILL CALLS FOR HEARSAY.

MR. COCHRAN: HE CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION YES OR NO.

THE COURT: YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION YES OR NO.

THE WITNESS: YES.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AND WAS KATO KAELIN PRESENT WHEN YOU HAD THIS CONVERSATION WITH O.J. SIMPSON?

A: YES.

Q: AND THE ENTIRE CONVERSATION WHEREIN YOU WERE TALKING, YOU AND I PRESUME YOUR PARTNER, MR. MARKS WERE TALKING TO MR. O.J. SIMPSON, HOW LONG DID THAT CONVERSATION LAST?

A: SEVERAL MINUTES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, AT SOME POINT, SERGEANT LERNER, YOU OR YOUR PARTNER HAD OCCASION TO RECORD THE CONVERSATION WITH MR. O.J. SIMPSON?

A: NO.

Q: YOU DID NOT DO THAT?

A: NO.

Q: WAS THERE -- IS THERE ANOTHER OFFICER NAMED LALLY, L-A-L-L-Y?

A: THERE IS A SERGEANT NAMED CRAIG LALLY, YES.

Q: HE WAS A SERGEANT AT THAT TIME IN WEST LOS ANGELES?

A: YES, HE WORKED WEST LOS ANGELES.

Q: DID HE RESPOND TO THAT SCENE AT SOME TIME THAT NIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHILE YOU WERE STILL THERE?

A: CORRECT.

Q: AND WHILE YOU WERE THERE DID YOU SEE HIM WITH A TAPE-RECORDER TAPING STATEMENTS FROM NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AND O.J. SIMPSON REGARDING THE EVENTS THAT HAD TAKEN PLACE THAT EVENING?

A: NO.

Q: ARE YOU AWARE, AS YOU SIT HERE TODAY, THAT THERE IS A TAPE-RECORDING OF THE INDIVIDUALS FROM THAT PARTICULAR NIGHT?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

MR. COCHRAN: I AM ASKING IF HE IS AWARE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: YES.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. IS THERE SUCH A TAPE-RECORDING?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU'VE HEARD THAT TAPE-RECORDING?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT. LET'S NOT -- WE WON'T GO INTO THE TAPE-RECORDING RIGHT NOW --

MR. DARDEN: BEFORE WE DO THAT, CAN WE APPROACH?

THE COURT: YES, WITH THE COURT REPORTER.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE ARE OVER AT THE SIDE BAR. I TAKE IT THE PROSECUTION IS NOT GOING TO OVER THE TAPE-RECORDING?

MR. DARDEN: NO, I'M NOT GOING TO OFFICER IT. AND ASKING THE WITNESS ABOUT THE CONTENT, YOU KNOW, OF THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF CONVERSATIONS, THEY ARE HEARSAY. AM I WRONG ABOUT THAT?

MR. COCHRAN: YES.

MR. DARDEN: YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT THAT. SO WHY IS HE EVEN BEING ALLOWED TO GET INTO THIS? IF MR. SIMPSON WANTS TO TESTIFY AS TO WHAT HAPPENED, HEY, YOU KNOW, THIS AN OPEN INVITATION FOR TO HIM DO SO ANYTIME HE WANTS TO DO SO, BUT YOU KNOW, BUT TO TRY TO DIAGRAM THIS HEARSAY OUT IN FRONT OF THE JURY THE WAY HE IS DOING IT, I THINK IT IS UNFAIR.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, MAY I RESPOND? FIRST OF ALL, I HAVEN'T DRAGGED ANY HEARSAY OUT. THERE IS A DEFINITE MISUNDERSTANDING BETWEEN WHAT HEARSAY IS BETWEEN ME AND MR. DARDEN, WHICH WE MAY RESOLVE BY THE END OF THE CASE. IT WON'T AFFECT OUR AFFECTION FOR ONE ANOTHER, BUT THERE IS A MISUNDERSTANDING REGARDING THAT.

BUT I HAVE ASKED THE APPROPRIATE QUESTION, DID THEY TALK ABOUT THE SUBJECT MATTER. I AM SATISFIED THAT THE ANSWER IS YES OR NO. I HAVEN'T GONE INTO THAT ASPECT BECAUSE THERE IS A TAPE-RECORDING. AND I AM PRIVILEGED TO BRING THIS OUT. NOW, WHETHER OR NOT I WANT TO INTRODUCE THIS TAPE NOW OR AT SOME LATER TIME, I CAN DO THAT AND THE TAPE IS A STATEMENT OF THESE PEOPLE.

THE COURT: YOU BROUGHT OUT THAT HE IS AWARE OF A TAPE-RECORDING AND HE HAS HEARD IT, SO -- BUT SERGEANT LALLY IS THE ONE WHO MADE THE TAPE-RECORDING AND DOES THE INQUIRY ON THE TAPE, SO --

MR. COCHRAN: YOU ARE RIGHT, YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, JUDGE. I DIDN'T HAVE ASK TO HIM UP HERE. I AM READY TO MOVE ON WITH MAYBE ONE OR TWO OTHER FOUNDATIONAL QUESTIONS. AND I UNDERSTAND THE RULINGS AND CHRIS WAS RIGHT TO THE POINT, BUT I HAVE A RIGHT TO BRING THAT OUT. IF THEY DON'T BRING SOMETHING OUT. AND THEY DON'T. AS THOUGH VIDEO OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, I CAN TALK ABOUT IT, BUT THERE IS NOTHING IMPROPER ABOUT THAT.

MR. DARDEN: LET ME SAY THIS --

MR. COCHRAN: LET ME SAY ONE LAST THING REGARDING THE OPEN INVITATION FOR O.J. SIMPSON TO TESTIFY. I WILL TAKE THAT UNDER ADVISEMENT AND AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME THEY WILL BE THE FIRST TO KNOW WHEN WE MAKE THAT DECISION, YOUR HONOR.

MR. DARDEN: OKAY. BEFORE WE GO, PLEASE INSTRUCT MR. COCHRAN, ONE, NOT TO PULL A TAPE OUT OF HIS COAT POCKET BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WANT THE SAME THING TO HAPPEN WITH THE KNIFE THAT HAPPENED WITH THE TAPE. AND FURTHER, PLEASE INSTRUCT MR. COCHRAN NOT TO SUGGEST IN FRONT OF THE JURY THAT THE TAPE BE PLAYED OR ANY OF THAT, BECAUSE IT IS ALL -- BECAUSE IT IS ALL HEARSAY AND MR. SIMPSON IS HERE.

THE COURT: WELL, AT THIS POINT THE CONTENT OF THE TAPE IS HEARSAY.

MR. COCHRAN: YES.

MR. DARDEN: OKAY. WILL YOU ADMONISH MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: HE DOESN'T HAVE TO ADMONISH ME. HE LOOKS AT ME AND HE KNOWS I'M GOING TO DO THE RIGHT THING. I'M NOT GOING TO DO THAT. BUT I WANT TO ASK SOME FOUNDATIONAL QUESTIONS ABOUT THE TAPE.

THE COURT: LIKE WHAT?

MR. COCHRAN: WHEN LALLY COMES THEN WE WILL ADDRESS THAT ISSUE.

MR. DARDEN: WHAT ARE THE OTHER FOUNDATIONAL QUESTIONS?

THE COURT: WHAT ARE THE OTHER FOUNDATIONAL QUESTIONS THAT WE NEED? AT THIS POINT WE HAVE ALREADY GOT THAT THERE IS A TAPE AND HE HAS HEARD IT.

MR. COCHRAN: I WANT TO KNOW HOW LONG THIS TAPE WAS, IF HE HEARD IT THAT NIGHT, WAS HE PRESENT. I DON'T WANT TO BRING THIS GUY BACK. I'M NOT GOING TO ASK ABOUT THE TAPE. WHY DO I HAVE TO GET PRESCRIBED WITH REGARD TO MY CROSS-EXAMINATION?

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, EVERYTHING THIS WITNESS NOTES ABOUT THE TAPE IS HEARSAY. LATER ON HE HEARS THE TAPE AND LATER ON SOMEBODY TELLS HIM THAT THERE IS SUCH A TAPE, AND IT IS ALL BASED ON HEARSAY.

THE COURT: BUT HE SAID HE HAS HEARD IT.

MR. COCHRAN: HE SAID HE HEARD IT. I WILL MOVE ON.

THE COURT: OKAY.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY, YOUR HONOR. MAY I PROCEED, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: PLEASE.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: SERGEANT LERNER, DID YOU -- WHEN YOU LISTENED TO THE TAPE, IS THERE MORE THAN ONE TAPE?

A: NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU HEARD ONE TAPE WHEN YOU LISTENED TO IT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: WHEN WAS THAT THAT YOU LAST LISTENED TO THE TAPE?

A: IT WAS YESTERDAY, I BELIEVE.

Q: WHERE DID YOU LISTEN TO IT?

A: IN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

Q: THEY WERE PRESENT?

A: YES, MR. DARDEN WAS PRESENT.

Q: MR. DARDEN? DARDEN PLAYED IT FOR YOU?

A: YES.

Q: THAT WAS WHAT TIME YESTERDAY?

A: YESTERDAY MORNING.

Q: BEFORE COURT STARTED?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN YOU LISTENED TO THAT TAPE, YOU COULD HEAR THE VOICES OF THE PARTIES, COULD YOU?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU RECOGNIZED THOSE VOICES?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID YOU HEAR -- DID YOU HEAR MR. SIMPSON'S VOICE ON THE TAPE?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND WHO WAS CONDUCTING THE INTERVIEW OF MR. SIMPSON ON THE TAPE THAT YOU HEARD?

A: IT WAS MYSELF AND SERGEANT LALLY.

Q: SO YOU WERE PRESENT WHEN THE INTERVIEW WAS ACTUALLY TAKING PLACE?

A: YES, I WAS.

Q: AND WITH REGARD -- DID YOU HEAR THE VOICE OF MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON ON THE TAPE?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND DID YOU HEAR ANY OFFICER'S VOICES ON THAT?

A: YES.

Q: WHO WAS PRESENT?

A: I WAS PRESENT, SERGEANT LALLY WAS PRESENT.

Q: DID YOU KNOW THESE CONVERSATIONS WERE BEING TAPED?

A: NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: IN OTHER WORDS, MR. MARKS WAS TAPING -- SERGEANT LALLY WAS TAPING AND DIDN'T TELL YOU EITHER?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: SO IT WAS SURREPTITIOUSLY TAPED?

A: YES.

Q: SO WE ARE CLEAR ABOUT SURREPTITIOUSLY? SO YOU AND I KNOW WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT?

A: I'M NOT SURE IF MR. SIMPSON KNEW IT WAS BEING TAPED. WITH REGARD TO ME, IT WAS BEING SURREPTITIOUSLY TAPED.

Q: BY YOUR BROTHER OFFICER?

A: BY MY SUPERVISOR.

Q: AT WHAT POINT DID YOU FIND OUT THAT THE CONVERSATION WAS BEING SURREPTITIOUSLY TAPED?

A: YESTERDAY.

Q: YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT UNTIL YESTERDAY?

A: I HAD NO IDEA.

Q: FROM OCTOBER 25 OF '93?

A: THAT IS CORRECT, SIR.

Q: IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW, DO YOU THINK MR. SIMPSON KNEW?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION.

MR. COCHRAN: HE IS RIGHT ABOUT THAT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. COCHRAN: LET ME ASK IT ANOTHER WAY, YOUR HONOR.

Q: NOBODY CAME UP TO MR. SIMPSON AND SAID "WE ARE GOING TO TAPE YOU SURREPTITIOUSLY WITH THE TAPE"? YOU DIDN'T HEAR HIM --

A: I DON'T THINK SOMEONE SAID HE IS GOING TO TAPE YOU SURREPTITIOUSLY.

Q: THAT IS AN OXYMORON?

A: I BELIEVE IT IS.

Q: THAT IS THE POINT OF THE QUESTION. YOU DIDN'T HEAR ANYBODY SAY THAT?

A: I DIDN'T HEAR ANYBODY SAY TO MR. SIMPSON THAT WE WOULD TAPE SURREPTITIOUSLY.

Q: YOU DIDN'T HEAR ANYBODY SAY TO MISS NICOLE BROWN THAT YOU WERE GOING TO BE SURREPTITIOUSLY TAPED EITHER, DID YOU?

A: NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: THIS TAPE THAT YOU LISTENED TO YESTERDAY MORNING IN MR. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN'S OFFICE, HOW LONG WAS THAT TAPE ALTOGETHER?

A: IT WAS APPROXIMATELY THIRTY MINUTES.

Q: THAT INCLUDES BOTH OF THE PARTIES; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: IT INCLUDES YOUR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS?

A: YES, IT DOES.

Q: SO THAT I CAN PUT THIS IN PERSPECTIVE FOR THE JURY, YOU DESCRIBED FOR US HOW YOU MET WITH NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON OUT FRONT, WENT THROUGH THE HOUSE, RIGHT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: THEN MET WITH MESSERS. SIMPSON AND KATO KAELIN IN THE BACK HOUSE?

A: CORRECT.

Q: WAS SERGEANT LALLY, YOUR SUPERVISOR, THERE AT THAT TIME?

A: NO. HE -- THERE WAS APPROXIMATELY -- APPROXIMATELY TEN MINUTES DIFFERENCE FROM OUR TIME OF ARRIVAL TO SERGEANT LALLY'S ARRIVAL.

Q: BY THE TIME HE ARRIVED -- LET'S ASSUME IT WAS ABOUT TEN MINUTES AFTER YOU ARRIVED, ALL RIGHT?

A: OKAY.

Q: AT THAT POINT WHERE WERE YOU?

A: NEAR THE REAR HOUSE OR IN THE REAR HOUSE.

Q: WERE YOU STILL TALKING TO MR. SIMPSON AND MR. KAELIN?

A: YES.

Q: DID HE COME BACK TO WHERE YOU WERE?

A: YES, HE DID.

Q: IN THE ORDER OF THIS TAPE, THIS SURREPTITIOUS TAPE, WHO WAS ON THE TAPE FIRST, MR. SIMPSON OR MR. --

THE COURT: COUNSEL, I THINK WE ARE GOING INTO THE CONTENT OF THE TAPE AT THIS POINT.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR --

THE COURT: YOU ARE ASKING HIM TO INTERPRET TAPE AND AT THIS POINT IT IS HEARSAY.

MR. COCHRAN: HE WAS PRESENT. ALL RIGHT, YOUR HONOR, I WILL MOVE ON. I PRESUME LALLY WILL BE HERE.

Q: IN THE ORDER OF EVENTS, HOWEVER, DID SERGEANT LALLY COME TO THE REAR HOUSE AND ASK SOME QUESTIONS FIRST?

A: SERGEANT LALLY APPROACHED THE REAR HOUSE. I AT THAT TIME APPROACHED SERGEANT LALLY.

Q: OKAY. THEN AFTER YOU APPROACHED SERGEANT LALLY, DID YOU TALK TO HIM?

A: YES.

Q: AND AFTER THAT WHERE DID SERGEANT LALLY GO?

A: HE STAYED WITH ME.

Q: AND -- OKAY. THE TWO OF YOU STAYED TOGETHER AND WHERE DID YOU GO?

A: THERE WERE OTHERS PRESENT.

Q: OKAY. WHO ELSE WAS PRESENT?

A: MR. SIMPSON WAS PRESENT.

Q: OKAY. MR. KAELIN WAS PRESENT ALSO?

A: HE WAS IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY.

Q: OKAY. DID THEN YOU HEAR SERGEANT LALLY START TO TALK TO MR. SIMPSON AT THAT POINT?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID YOU COMPLETE A CONVERSATION WITH MR. SIMPSON BEFORE YOU WENT SOME OTHER PLACE?

A: YES.

Q: WHEN YOU COMPLETED THE CONVERSATION WITH MR. SIMPSON, HOW MUCH TIME HAD PASSED?

A: TEN MINUTES, FIVE, TEN MINUTES.

Q: AND WHEN YOU COMPLETED THIS FIVE OR TEN MINUTES OF CONVERSATION -- IN WHICH YOU SPOKE AND ALSO SERGEANT LALLY SPOKE, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: -- WHERE --

A: AND ALSO MR. SIMPSON SPOKE.

Q: AND SIMPSON, ALL RIGHT. WHERE DID YOU NEXT GO AT THAT POINT, IF YOU RECALL?

A: I WENT BACK INTO THE INTERIOR OF THE HOUSE, THE MAIN HOUSE.

Q: AND DID YOU AT THAT POINT MEET AND TALK WITH OR HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND WHO WAS PRESENT DURING THAT CONVERSATION?

A: SERGEANT LALLY WAS PRESENT AND NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON WAS PRESENT.

Q: AND DID YOU HEAR THEM AGAIN ENGAGE IN CONVERSATION?

A: YES. THERE WAS A BRIEF ENGAGEMENT.

Q: ALONG WITH YOURSELF?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, YOU DESCRIBED FOR US THAT THERE HAD BEEN SOME DAMAGE DONE TO SOME REAR DOUBLE FRENCH DOORS?

A: CORRECT.

Q: IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND WAS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THOSE DOORS -- DID THAT BECOME PART OF THE CONVERSATION THAT WAS CONDUCTED THAT EVENING BY YOU?

MR. DARDEN: SAME OBJECTION.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU CAN ANSWER THAT YES OR NO.

MR. DARDEN: SAME OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU DETERMINE OR ASCERTAIN THAT THESE DOUBLE FRENCH DOORS HAD BEEN PARTIALLY BROKEN BEFORE ANYTHING OCCURRED THAT EVENING? DID YOU FIND THAT OUT?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR HEARSAY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. COCHRAN: I WILL LINK IT UP.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU TAKE ANY PICTURES OF THOSE DOORS THAT NIGHT?

A: NO.

Q: DID MR. SIMPSON MAKE A STATEMENT ABOUT --

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

MR. COCHRAN: IT IS A SUBJECT MATTER STATEMENT. MAY I COMPLETE IT?

THE COURT: IT IS HEARSAY, THOUGH. IT IS TELLING US WHAT THE CONTENT WAS.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. VERY WELL.

Q: AFTER YOU COMPLETED THE CONVERSATION WITH MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON WHERE YOU WERE PRESENT AND SERGEANT LALLY WAS PRESENT, WHERE DID YOU NEXT GO THAT DAY, IF ANYTHING, THAT EVENING?

A: I RETURNED BACK TO MR. SIMPSON'S LOCATION, WHICH WAS NEAR THE GUEST HOUSE IN THE REAR.

Q: AND DID YOU HAVE A FURTHER CONVERSATION WITH HIM?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND THAT WAS AGAIN YOU AND SERGEANT LALLY?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: CORRECT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. HOW LONG DID THAT CONVERSATION -- THIS SECOND OR THIRD CONVERSATION WITH SIMPSON TAKE?

A: ANOTHER PROBABLY FIVE TO TEN MINUTES.

Q: NOW, YOU HAD INDICATED THAT AT SOME POINT WHEN YOU FIRST SAW MR. SIMPSON HE APPEARED TO YOU TO BE UPSET AND AGITATED. AS YOU TALKED TO HIM AND HE TALKED ABOUT THE EVENTS OF THAT NIGHT, DID HIS DEMEANOR CHANGE, BECOME LESS AGITATED?

A: YEAH, I WOULD SAY IT DID.

Q: WOULD YOU SAY THAT IS REFLECTED IN THE WAY HE RESPONDED TO YOUR QUESTIONS DURING THE VARIOUS CONVERSATIONS?

A: I'M SORRY, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.

Q: YES. WITH REGARD TO THE CHANGE IN HIS DEMEANOR FROM BEING AGITATED TO BEING MORE CALM, WOULD YOU SAY THAT WAS REFLECTED IN THE WAY THE TWO OF YOU TALKED DURING THESE VARIOUS CONVERSATIONS YOU HAD WITH HIM?

A: I WOULD SAY I HAD A CALMING AFFECT ON MR. SIMPSON, YES.

Q: SO THAT BY THE TIME YOU CONCLUDED YOUR CONVERSATIONS, YOU AND SERGEANT LALLY, HE WAS IN A CALMER STATE THAN HE HAD BEEN IN EARLIER; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: THERE WAS A POINT DURING THE CONVERSATION WHERE HE AGAIN BECAME AGITATED.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THEN YOU HAD A CALMING EFFECT?

A: YES.

Q: THEN HE BECAME CALM AT SOME POINT AGAIN; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: THERE WERE NO ARRESTS MADE THAT NIGHT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT IS CORRECT.

Q: AND WITH REGARD TO THIS ENTIRE INCIDENT, IF WE ASSUME THAT YOU ARRIVED SOMEWHERE AROUND TEN O'CLOCK P.M., SERGEANT LERNER, WHAT TIME DID YOU FINALLY LEAVE THE SCENE THAT PARTICULAR NIGHT?

A: ON OUR COMPUTER SCREEN WHEN WE LEAVE THE SCENE, I PUT US ON A FOLLOW-UP AND IT WAS APPROXIMATELY 2328. THAT WOULD BE 11:28.

Q: SO YOU WERE OUT THERE ABOUT AN HOUR AND A HALF?

A: PRETTY CLOSE.

Q: WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MAYBE THE FIRST TEN MINUTES, IT WAS YOU, YOUR SUPERVISOR AT THAT TIME, SERGEANT LALLY, AND YOUR PARTNER AT THAT TIME, SPENCER MARKS?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: DID YOU ALSO TALK TO KATO KAELIN?

A: NOT REALLY.

Q: DID YOU -- WHEN YOU LISTENED TO THIS TAPE, THIS AUDIOTAPE IN MR. CHRIS DARDEN'S OFFICE YESTERDAY MORNING, DID YOU EVER HEAR CHRIS DARDEN -- STRIKE THAT -- DID YOU EVER HEAR KATO KAELIN'S VOICE?

A: NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: I HOPE YOU DIDN'T HEAR CHRIS DARDEN'S VOICE?

A: NO.

MR. COCHRAN: VERY WELL. I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER OF THIS WITNESS AT THIS POINT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. DARDEN:

Q: SERGEANT LERNER, YOU WERE AT NICOLE BROWN'S HOUSE FOR AN HOUR AND A HALF?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF COUNSEL'S THEATRICS, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

MR. COCHRAN: BAD ACTING.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU.

MR. DARDEN: I DIDN'T KNOW THAT.

Q: YOU WERE THERE AN HOUR AND A HALF?

A: WE ARRIVED AT SEVEN MINUTES AFTER 10:00. WE DEPARTED AT 28 MINUTES AFTER 11:00.

Q: DID YOU HAVE OTHER CALLS, OTHER CALLS THAT YOU HAD TO RESPOND TO OR WERE SUPPOSED TO RESPOND TO DURING THAT TIME?

A: WE WERE ON A HIGH PRIORITY CALL. THIS PARTICULAR CALL IS CONSIDERED A HIGH PRIORITY CALL SO WE WERE OFF THE AIR.

Q: SO YOU HAD NO OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES OR DUTIES DURING THAT ONE AND ONE-HALF HOUR PERIOD, THAT IS, EXCEPT TO DEAL WITH THE SITUATION INVOLVING THIS DEFENDANT AND NICOLE BROWN?

A: THAT IS CORRECT.

Q: DID YOU STAY AT THE LOCATION ANY LONGER THAN YOU FELT NECESSARY?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: SO YOU FELT THAT YOU NEEDED TO BE THERE AN HOUR AND A HALF?

A: CORRECT.

Q: WHY?

A: WE HAD A DUTY TO ENSURE THAT OUR INVESTIGATION WAS COMPLETE, THAT THERE WAS NO POSSIBILITY OR LIMITED POSSIBILITY OF ANY FURTHER INCIDENT THAT EVENING, AND WE WERE REQUIRED TO COMPLETE A CRIME REPORT AT THE LOCATION.

Q: YOU INDICATED OR RATHER YOU TOLD MY GOOD FRIEND, MR. COCHRAN, THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS UPSET WHEN YOU FIRST ARRIVED?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND THEN YOU SAY THAT HE THEN CALMED, BECAME CALM; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: HE CALMED.

Q: AND I BELIEVE YOU TOLD MR. COCHRAN THAT YOU HAD A CALMING EFFECT ON HIM; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: NICOLE BROWN DIDN'T HAVE A CALMING EFFECT ON HIM?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION. CALLS FOR SPECULATION. OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THE QUESTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: WERE YOU THE ONLY PERSON WHO HAD A CALMING EFFECT ON THE DEFENDANT?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THE CONVERSATION. THERE WERE OTHER PEOPLE THERE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: THAT'S RIGHT. YES. I BELIEVE MY PARTNER HAD CALMING EFFECT AS WELL AS SERGEANT LALLY.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: BOTH YOU AND YOUR PARTNER WERE POLICE OFFICERS; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: YOU WERE IN UNIFORM?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: IS THAT WHAT CALMED HIM, THE FACT THAT YOU WERE POLICE OFFICERS?

A: NO.

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT. CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. THE ANSWER IS STRICKEN.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: BUT HE WAS UPSET WHEN YOU FIRST SAW HIM AND THEN AT SOME POINT --

MR. COCHRAN: ASKED AND ANSWERED, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: AT SOME POINT HE BECAME CALM, CORRECT?

A: HE DID BECOME CALM; NOT DIRECTLY BECAUSE OF THE UNIFORM.

Q: WHAT CALMED HIM?

A: I IMAGINE --

MR. COCHRAN: CALLS FOR SPECULATION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DID YOU MAKE AN EFFORT TO CALM THE DEFENDANT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: BUT HE CAME ANGRY AND UPSET AGAIN; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, HE DID.

Q: AND DID YOU CALM AGAIN?

A: I ATTEMPTED TO.

Q: WERE YOU ABLE TO?

A: I THOUGHT I WAS FAIRLY SUCCESSFUL IN THAT THE INCIDENT DID NOT ESCALATE AFTER MY ARRIVAL.

Q: WHAT DO YOU MEAN WHEN YOU SAY THAT THE INCIDENT DID NOT ESCALATE?

A: UP UNTIL --

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR -- OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: UP UNTIL THE TIME OF MY ARRIVAL THERE HAD BEEN NO PHYSICAL CONTACT BETWEEN MR. SIMPSON AND NICOLE BROWN AND THE ENTIRE PERIOD THAT MY PARTNER AND MYSELF AND SERGEANT LALLY WERE PRESENT IT DIDN'T ESCALATE INTO A PHYSICAL CONFRONTATION BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: HOW MANY OFFICERS ARRIVED AT NICOLE BROWN'S HOUSE THAT EVENING?

A: I BELIEVE THERE WERE A TOTAL OF FIVE.

Q: AND DID ALL FIVE OF THOSE OFFICERS REMAIN AT THAT HOUSE FOR ONE AND ONE-HALF HOURS?

A: FOR THE MOST PART OF IT, YES. THERE WERE TWO OFFICERS ARRIVED AFTER MY ARRIVAL AND DEPARTED ABOUT THE SAME TIME.

Q: YOU WERE WORKING THE P.M. SHIFT?

A: MID P.M.'S.

Q: HOW MANY PATROL OFFICERS ROUTINELY WORK THE P.M. SHIFT?

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT. THAT IS IRRELEVANT AND IMMATERIAL, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: MID P.M.'S HAS ONE BASIC CAR AND USUALLY AN "X" CAR, USUALLY FOUR OFFICERS.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: SO ALL THE OFFICERS ON THE SHIFT OR RATHER ALL THE PATROL OFFICERS ON THE SHIFT WERE AT NICOLE BROWN'S HOUSE FOR AN HOUR AND A HALF?

A: THERE WAS ONE MID P.M. WATCH UNIT, WHICH IS MYSELF, AND ONE UNIT FROM THE EARLY P.M. WATCH WHICH NORMAL END OF WATCH HOURS IS 11:30.

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

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: SO HALF THE WATCH THEN WAS AT NICOLE BROWN'S HOUSE, SERGEANT LERNER?

A: YES, SIR.

MR. COCHRAN: I OBJECT, YOUR HONOR. I OBJECT. THAT IS CUMULATIVE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: AND ABOUT THE TAPE, THE TAPE YOU JUST MENTIONED, YOU DIDN'T -- YOU DIDN'T TAPE THE CONVERSATION; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: NO, I DIDN'T TAPE THE CONVERSATION.

Q: YOU DON'T HAVE THE TAPE, DO YOU?

A: NO, I DON'T.

Q: YOU DIDN'T KNOW THE CONVERSATIONS WERE EVEN BEING TAPED?

A: I HAD NO IDEA.

Q: YOU ARE NOT REALLY THE PERSON TO ASK ABOUT THE TAPE, ARE YOU?

MR. COCHRAN: JUST A MOMENT. HE CAN'T ASK HIM THAT.

THE COURT: THAT IS ARGUMENTATIVE. SUSTAINED.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT IS ARGUMENTATIVE.

MR. DARDEN: I'M SORRY, I APOLOGIZE, YOUR HONOR. I APOLOGIZE TO COUNSEL. I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. COCHRAN: JUST A COUPLE OTHER QUESTIONS, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: COUPLE.

MR. COCHRAN: A FEW MORE QUESTIONS, SERGEANT LERNER.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. COCHRAN:

Q: AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THERE WITH NO CRIMINAL CHARGES FILED REGARDING THIS INCIDENT, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S INCORRECT.

Q: THERE WERE CRIMINAL CHARGES FILED?

A: I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WERE FILED. I COMPLETED A CRIME REPORT REGARDING TRESPASSING.

Q: YOU NEVER WENT TO COURT ON THIS CASE?

A: THAT'S RIGHT.

Q: YOU NEVER HAD TO TESTIFY?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AS FAR AS YOU KNOW MR. SIMPSON NEVER WENT TO COURT ON THIS CASE?

A: AS FAR AS I KNOW.

Q: WITH REGARD TO THAT, THIS TIME YOU SPENT THERE, MR. SIMPSON HAD LEFT THE SCENE BEFORE YOU ACTUALLY LEFT, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU AND YOUR PARTNER STAYED THERE FOR A PERIOD AFTER THAT; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT ESCALATION. AFTER YOU LEFT, MAYBE AROUND 11:30 THAT EVENING, YOU RECEIVED NO FURTHER CALLS OR DID NOT HAVE TO RESPOND TO THE GRETNA GREEN RESIDENCE THAT EVENING; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT IS CORRECT.

Q: YOU HAD DONE YOUR JOB WITH REGARD TO --

A: I FELT SO.

Q: -- AMELIORATING THE SITUATION AND MAKING IT BETTER; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: APPARENTLY SO.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY, SIR.

MR. DARDEN: JUST A COUPLE -- COUPLE QUESTIONS, YOUR HONOR.

FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. DARDEN:

Q: YOU SAY YOU COMPLETED A VANDALISM AND TRESPASS REPORT?

A: YES.

Q: IS THERE A SPECIAL BOX THAT YOU CHECK ON A CRIME REPORT IN SITUATIONS LIKE THESE?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT DOES THAT BOX SAY?

A: THAT IS A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INVOLVED BOX.

Q: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: DID YOU CHECK THAT BOX?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: ON THE CRIME REPORT?

A: YES, SIR.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU. NOTHING FURTHER.

THE COURT: ANYTHING ON THAT?

MR. COCHRAN: NOTHING ON THAT, YOUR HONOR, AND HE MAY BE EXCUSED.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SERGEANT, I'M GOING TO EXCUSE YOU FROM FURTHER ATTENDANCE TODAY. PLEASE DON'T DISCUSS YOUR TESTIMONY WITH ANYBODY ELSE UNTIL THE TRIAL IS COMPLETED, EXCEPT WITH THE LAWYERS IN THE CASE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING IN.

THE WITNESS: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, MAY I HAVE ONE MOMENT TO CHECK TO SEE IF THE NEXT WITNESS IS HERE OUT IN THE HALLWAY?

THE COURT: PLEASE.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, THE PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO CALL CATHERINE COLBY TO THE STAND.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. STAND OVER HERE BY THE COURT REPORTER, PLEASE, AND FACE THE CLERK. STAND RIGHT THERE AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

CATHERINE BOE, CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE PEOPLE, WAS SWORN AND TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:

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

THE WITNESS: YES, I DO.

THE CLERK: PLEASE HAVE A SEAT ON THE WITNESS STAND AND STATE AND SPELL YOUR FIRST AND LAST NAMES FOR THE RECORD.

THE WITNESS: MY NAME IS CATHERINE BOE, C-A-T-H-E-R-I-N-E, BOE, B-O-E.

THE CLERK: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. DARDEN:

Q: GOOD MORNING.

A: GOOD MORNING.

Q: WITHOUT GIVING US YOUR SPECIFIC ADDRESS, CAN YOU TELL US OR RATHER GIVE US THE INTERSECTION IN WHICH YOU LIVE?

A: I LIVE AT THE INTERSECTION OF SHETLAND LANE AND GRETNA GREEN WAY.

Q: DURING 1992 AND 1993, DID YOU LIVE NEXT DOOR TO NICOLE BROWN?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: HER HOME ON GRETNA GREEN WAS DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO YOUR HOME?

A: YES, IT WAS.

Q: OKAY. AND YOU LIVED AT YOUR HOME WITH CARL COLBY; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES, MY HUSBAND.

Q: LET ME DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO APRIL OF 1992. FIRST OF ALL, DURING APRIL OF 1992, DID YOU KNOW NICOLE BROWN?

A: YES, I DID KNOW NICOLE.

Q: AND DID YOU CONSIDER HER A FRIEND?

A: YES, I CERTAINLY DID.

Q: DID YOU KNOW HER HUSBAND AT THE TIME?

A: I DID KNOW HER HUSBAND.

Q: I'M SORRY?

A: I DID KNOW HER HUSBAND.

Q: THE DEFENDANT SEATED HERE IN COURT?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: YOU KNEW HIM?

A: YES.

Q: DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE LAST WEEK OF APRIL OF 1992, AT ABOUT 11:30 P.M., DID YOU SEE THE DEFENDANT AT THAT TIME?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: OKAY. WHERE WERE YOU WHEN YOU SAW THE DEFENDANT?

A: I WAS IN MY UPSTAIRS BEDROOM.

Q: AND WHERE WAS THE DEFENDANT WHEN YOU SAW HIM?

A: HE WAS ON THE SIDEWALK BELOW.

Q: WHAT DID YOU SEE THE DEFENDANT DO?

A: I SAW HIM WALKING AROUND ON THE SIDEWALK, WALKING FROM SHETLAND UP GRETNA GREEN SLOWLY.

Q: DID HE ONLY WALK FROM SHETLAND TO GRETNA GREEN ONE TIME?

A: I FELT UNCOMFORTABLE WATCHING HIM, SO I DIDN'T --

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: NONRESPONSIVE.

THE COURT: MISS BOE, IF YOU WOULD, LISTEN CAREFULLY TO THE QUESTION THAT THE ATTORNEY ASKS YOU AND TRY TO ANSWER ONLY THE PRECISE QUESTION THAT IS ASKED OF YOU.

THE WITNESS: ALL RIGHT.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU.

Q: HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU SEE THE DEFENDANT WALK FROM SHETLAND TO NICOLE BROWN'S HOUSE ON GRETNA GREEN?

A: ON THAT NIGHT I SAW HIM WALK ONCE.

Q: DID YOU EVER SEE HIM WALK BACK, THAT IS, FROM NICOLE BROWN'S HOUSE TO THE CORNER AT GRETNA GREEN?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: WHAT DID YOU DO THE FIRST TIME YOU NOTICED THE DEFENDANT OUTSIDE ON THE SIDEWALK?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

MR. DARDEN: STRIKE THAT. LET ME WITHDRAW THAT, YOUR HONOR, IF I MAY.

Q: OKAY. YOU SAW SOMEONE ON THE SIDEWALK, CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU KNOW WHO IT WAS WHEN YOU FIRST SAW HIM?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: DID YOU --

A: NOT IMMEDIATELY.

Q: NOT IMMEDIATELY. IS THAT NO?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: IS THAT NO?

A: NO.

Q: OKAY. AT SOME POINT DID YOU LATER DETERMINE WHO THAT PERSON WAS THAT YOU SAW ON THE SIDEWALK?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: OKAY. AT WHAT POINT WAS THAT?

A: JUST SOME FEW MINUTES LATER.

Q: AND HOW DID YOU DETERMINE THE IDENTITY THE PERSON YOU SAW ON THE SIDEWALK?

A: I RECOGNIZED HIM.

Q: OKAY. NOW, YOU MENTIONED A MOMENT AGO THAT YOU FELL UNCOMFORTABLE WATCHING THE MAN ON THE SIDEWALK; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT DID YOU DO AFTER YOU SAW THAT PERSON INITIALLY? DID YOU CONTINUE TO WATCH HIM?

A: NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: WHAT DID YOU DO?

A: I TURNED AWAY FROM THE CURTAIN.

Q: OKAY. WHERE DID YOU GO?

A: FURTHER INTO THE BEDROOM.

Q: OKAY. WHERE WAS YOUR HUSBAND, CARL COLBY, AT THAT TIME?

A: HE WAS WITH ME AT THE WINDOW.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU RETURN TO THE WINDOW?

A: ONLY AFTER HE WENT DOWNSTAIRS.

Q: OKAY. BUT AT SOME POINT YOU RETURNED TO THE WINDOW?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. WHERE WAS YOUR HUSBAND, CARL COLBY, WHEN YOU RETURNED TO THE WINDOW?

A: HE WAS GOING DOWNSTAIRS.

Q: OKAY. WHY DID YOU RETURN TO THE WINDOW?

A: BECAUSE I WANTED TO KNOW WHO IT WAS.

Q: AND THIS SECOND TIME, THIS SECOND TIME THAT YOU WENT TO THE WINDOW, WERE YOU ABLE TO RECOGNIZE THE PERSON YOU SAW ON THE SIDEWALK?

A: YES, I WAS.

Q: OKAY. WHO WAS THAT PERSON?

A: O.J.

Q: THE DEFENDANT?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, HOW MUCH TIME WENT BY BETWEEN THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU WENT TO THE WINDOW AND THE SECOND TIME THAT YOU WENT TO THE WINDOW?

A: TWO MINUTES, ONE OR TWO MINUTES.

Q: OKAY. NOW, THE SECOND TIME THAT YOU WENT TO THE WINDOW, WAS THE DEFENDANT IN THE EXACT SAME SPOT THAT HE WAS WHEN YOU FIRST WENT TO THE WINDOW?

A: NO, HE WAS MOVING SLOWLY FORWARD.

Q: IN WHAT DIRECTION?

A: NORTH.

Q: TOWARD NICOLE BROWN'S HOUSE?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, YOU KNEW THE DEFENDANT PRIOR TO THAT EVENING; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: YOU HAD MET HIM BEFORE?

A: UH-HUH.

Q: IS THAT YES?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, WHAT WAS THE DEFENDANT DOING OUT ON THE WALK THE FIRST TIME YOU SAW HIM?

A: HE WAS THINKING.

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR SPECULATION. MOTION TO STRIKE.

THE COURT: THE ANSWER IS ACTUALLY NONRESPONSIVE, SO THE ANSWER WILL BE STRICKEN. THE JURY IS TO DISREGARD.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: WELL, WHAT DID YOU SEE THE DEFENDANT DO? WHAT, IF ANYTHING, WAS HE DOING THAT YOU COULD SEE THE FIRST TIME YOU SAW HIM?

A: HE WAS JUST WALKING ALONG.

Q: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WAS HE WALKING IN A NORTHERLY DIRECTION THE FIRST TIME YOU SAW HIM?

A: YES, HE WAS.

Q: OKAY. AND THE SECOND TIME YOU SAW HIM, WAS HE STILL WALKING IN A NORTHERLY DIRECTION?

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, I'M GOING TO OBJECT. THIS HAS BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED THREE TIMES AND IT IS LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE.

THE WITNESS: YES, HE WAS.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DID YOU SEE THE DEFENDANT DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN WALK IN A NORTHERLY DIRECTION EITHER OF THOSE TWO TIMES?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: DID THE DEFENDANT EVER LEAVE YOUR VIEW?

A: NO, HE DID NOT.

MR. DARDEN: MAY I HAVE ONE MOMENT?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

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

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: NOW, AFTER THE FIRST TIME YOU SAW THE DEFENDANT, AT THE TIME IN WHICH YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHO HE WAS, DID YOU CALL 911?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: DID SOMEONE CALL 911?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. SHE CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION IF SHE KNOWS.

THE WITNESS: MY HUSBAND PREPARED TO CALL 911.

MR. SHAPIRO: MOTION TO STRIKE AS NONRESPONSIVE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DID YOU SEE THE DEFENDANT DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN WALK IN A NORTHERLY DIRECTION EITHER OF THOSE TWO TIMES?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: DID THE DEFENDANT EVER LEAVE YOUR VIEW?

A: NO, HE DID NOT.

MR. DARDEN: MAY I HAVE ONE MOMENT?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

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

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: NOW, AFTER THE FIRST TIME YOU SAW THE DEFENDANT, AT THE TIME IN WHICH YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHO HE WAS, DID YOU CALL 911?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: DID SOMEONE CALL 911?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. SHE CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION IF SHE KNOWS.

THE WITNESS: MY HUSBAND PREPARED TO CALL 911.

MR. SHAPIRO: MOTION TO STRIKE AS NONRESPONSIVE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DID YOU SEE YOUR HUSBAND PICK UP THE TELEPHONE?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: HOW DID HE PREPARE TO CALL 911?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE WITNESS: HE HEADED DOWNSTAIRS.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: AND AS YOUR HUSBAND HEADED DOWNSTAIRS, YOU CONTINUED TO WATCH THE MAN ON THE SIDEWALK?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: HOW LONG DID THE MAN REMAIN ON THE SIDEWALK?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: THE MAN YOU IDENTIFIED AS THE DEFENDANT?

A: ALL THE TIME THAT MY HUSBAND WAS DOWNSTAIRS.

Q: OKAY. HOW MUCH TIME WAS THAT?

A: TWO OR THREE MINUTES.

Q: DID YOUR HUSBAND CALL 911?

A: YES, HE DID.

Q: WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

A: I WENT TO TELL HIM THAT IT WAS O.J.

Q: YOU WENT DOWNSTAIRS TO TELL YOUR HUSBAND THAT THE MAN ON THE SIDEWALK WAS O.J., THE DEFENDANT?

A: UH-HUH, I DID, YES.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU TELL HIM THAT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: DID YOU LOOK BACK OUT TOWARD THE SIDEWALK AT THAT TIME?

A: I LOOKED, I RECOGNIZED HIM AND I WENT ON TELLING MY HUSBAND.

Q: YOU WENT DOWNSTAIRS?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: OKAY. IS THERE A WINDOW DOWNSTAIRS, A WINDOW THAT FACES GRETNA GREEN?

A: YES, THERE IS.

Q: DID YOU LOOK THROUGH THAT WINDOW WHEN YOU WENT DOWNSTAIRS?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: WHAT DID YOU DO AFTER YOU TOLD YOUR HUSBAND THAT THE MAN ON THE SIDEWALK WAS O.J.?

A: I WENT BACK UPSTAIRS.

Q: WHAT DID YOU DO?

A: AND I WENT TO BED.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU EVER LOOK OUT THE WINDOW AGAIN?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: DID THE POLICE ARRIVE AT YOUR HOUSE?

A: UMM, I DON'T REMEMBER.

Q: DID YOU EVER SEE THE DEFENDANT WALK UP TO THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE OCCUPIED BY NICOLE BROWN?

A: NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: DID YOU EVER TELL THE POLICE THAT YOU SAW THE DEFENDANT WALK TO THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE --

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: -- NEXT DOOR? DID YOU SEE THE DEFENDANT'S CAR AT ALL?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WHERE WAS HIS CAR?

A: IT WAS PARKED ON SHETLAND LANE.

Q: THE DEFENDANT'S CAR WAS PARKED ON SHETLAND LANE?

A: YES, IT WAS.

Q: OKAY. NOW, THE FRONT OF NICOLE BROWN'S HOUSE FACES WHICH STREET?

A: GRETNA GREEN.

Q: SO THE DEFENDANT'S CAR WAS PARKED AROUND THE CORNER?

A: THAT'S RIGHT.

Q: IS THERE A DRIVEWAY IN FRONT OF NICOLE BROWN'S HOME?

A: YES, THERE IS.

Q: IS THAT A SINGLE-CAR DRIVEWAY?

A: NO, IT IS A LARGE DRIVEWAY.

Q: THREE-CAR DRIVEWAY?

A: TWO-CAR.

Q: OKAY. AND ARE THERE PLACES TO PARK IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE, THAT IS, AT THE CURB?

A: YES, THERE ARE.

Q: OKAY. THE DEFENDANT DIDN'T PARK AT THE CURB IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE?

A: NO, HE DID NOT.

Q: HE DIDN'T PARK IN THE DRIVEWAY?

A: NO, HE DID NOT.

Q: AND WHEN YOU SAY THE DEFENDANT PARKED ON SHETLAND LANE AND AROUND THE CORNER, HOW FAR DOWN THE STREET, HOW FAR AWAY FROM THE INTERSECTION AT SHETLAND LANE AND GRETNA GREEN DID THE DEFENDANT PARK HIS CAR?

A: ONE BUILDING BEYOND THE CORNER. IT WAS REALLY IN FRONT OF OUR BUILDING THAT HE PARKED AND OUR BUILDING IS VERY LONG.

Q: AND THAT IS BECAUSE YOUR BUILDING HAS SEVERAL UNITS?

A: THREE, YES; THAT'S RIGHT.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHY THE DEFENDANT DIDN'T PARK HIS VEHICLE IN FRONT OF NICOLE BROWN'S?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE WITNESS: NO, I DON'T.

MR. SHAPIRO: MOTION --

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. WELL --

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: HAD YOU EVER SEEN THE DEFENDANT ARRIVE AT NICOLE BROWN'S HOUSE AT NIGHT?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, VAGUE AS TO TIME.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. FOUNDATIONAL. I ASSUME THERE ARE SOME MORE QUESTIONS COMING BEHIND THIS. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: UMM, NO, BUT I WAS -- I WASN'T OFTEN OVER THERE AT NIGHT MYSELF.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: OKAY. SO YOU NEVER SAW HIM ARRIVE AT NICOLE BROWN'S HOUSE AT NIGHT?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU EVER SEE THE DEFENDANT LEAVE ANYTHING FOR NICOLE BROWN, THAT IS, ON HER DOORSTEP?

A: I'M SORRY?

Q: DID YOU EVER SEE THE DEFENDANT, O.J., LEAVE ANYTHING AT NICOLE BROWN'S DOORSTEP?

A: I DIDN'T SEE -- NO, I DIDN'T SEE THINGS -- UMM, HIM LEAVE ANYTHING. I SAW THINGS THAT HE HAD LEFT THAT NICOLE TOLD ME HE HAD LEFT.

Q: DID THE DEFENDANT EVER VISIT YOU AT YOUR HOME?

A: YES, HE DID.

Q: ON HOW MANY OCCASIONS?

A: ONLY A COUPLE OF TIMES.

Q: OKAY. NOW, YOU HAVE A SON; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S RIGHT.

Q: OKAY. AND YOUR SON PLAYED WITH THE DEFENDANT'S SON, JUSTIN; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: THAT'S RIGHT.

Q: DID YOU EVER TALK TO THE DEFENDANT ABOUT HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH NICOLE BROWN?

A: ON A COUPLE OF OCCASIONS I DID.

Q: LET'S TALK ABOUT THE FIRST OCCASION. WHERE DID THAT CONVERSATION TAKE PLACE?

A: WELL, THAT TOOK PLACE IN MY KITCHEN.

Q: HOW IS IT THAT THE DEFENDANT FOUND HIMSELF IN YOUR KITCHEN?

A: WELL, NICOLE WOULDN'T LET HIM IN THE HOUSE AT THAT TIME.

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

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. SHAPIRO: MOTION TO STRIKE. MAY WE APPROACH THE BENCH?

THE COURT: THAT IS STRICKEN AND THE JURY IS ORDERED TO DISREGARD THE LAST ANSWER. YES. LET'S SEE THE COURT REPORTER, PLEASE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

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

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD REQUEST AN OFFER OF PROOF AS TO RELEVANCE AS TO ANY CONVERSATIONS O.J. HAD WITH HER. THERE IS NO FOUNDATION. WE HAVE NO DISCOVERY ON THIS. I HAVE CALLED THIS LADY AND ASKED TO TALK TO HER AND SHE REFUSED TO TALK TO US.

MR. DARDEN: YOU JUST NEVER REALLY KNOW WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO GET FROM MRS. COLBY.

MR. COCHRAN: IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL IF YOU TALKED TO HER.

MR. DARDEN: I HAVE, BUT I BELIEVE SHE IS GOING TO TESTIFY THAT --

MR. COCHRAN: SHE IS AN ALIEN FROM ANOTHER PLANET.

MR. DARDEN: SHE IS GOING TO TESTIFY AS TO WHAT I TOLD YOU ON THE TELEPHONE. THERE WERE OCCASIONS IN WHICH NICOLE WOULD NOT LET HIM IN THE HOUSE AND HE WOULD COME INTO HER HOUSE AND USE THE BATHROOM AND EAT PIE AND THEN THEY WOULD TALK ABOUT HE AND NICOLE AND SHE TOLD US SOMETHING VERY INTERESTING ABOUT THE DEFENDANT, THINGS LIKE THAT. YOU REMEMBER THE THINGS I TOLD YOU ABOUT THAT SUNDAY EVENING ON JANUARY 22ND?

MR. COCHRAN: WE HAD A CONVERSATION? I DON'T REMEMBER. YOU HAVE TO TELL ME AGAIN. I DON'T REMEMBER THAT. IT WASN'T IN WRITING.

MR. DARDEN: IT WAS A URINARY THING.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ENLIGHTEN US ALL.

MR. DARDEN: IS THAT AN ORDER?

MR. COCHRAN: YOU ARE NOT GOING TO USE --

MR. DARDEN: THAT PART? I'M JUST TRYING TO USE IT TO STIMULATE YOUR MEMORY.

MR. COCHRAN: THIS IS 23,000 PAGES PLUS. THAT IS A BIT.

MR. DARDEN: CAN WE GO OFF RECORD FOR ONE MOMENT?

THE COURT: SURE.

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

THE COURT: BACK ON THE RECORD. SHE IS GOING TO SAY, ACCORDING TO YOUR OFFER OF PROOF, THAT HE --

MR. DARDEN: SHE IS GOING TO SAY THAT SHE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE --

THE COURT: HE CAME OVER AND SAID SHE WON'T LET ME IN THE HOUSE?

MR. DARDEN: SHE KNOWS IT BECAUSE HE TOLD HER AND THEY HAD A CONVERSATION ONE DAY AND HE TOLD HER HOW UPSET HE WAS BEING BROKEN UP AND HOW DIFFICULT IT WAS FOR HIM TO DEAL WITH NICOLE.

THE COURT: OKAY.

MR. DARDEN: AND I GOT THAT INFORMATION ON JANUARY 22ND ORALLY AFTER I SPOKE TO HER AND I CALLED JOHNNIE AND I TOLD JOHNNIE THE SAME DAY. THAT IS -- THAT IS ABOUT IT.

THE COURT: OKAY.

MR. SHAPIRO: OKAY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. BUT WHAT WE ARE GETTING IS NICOLE SAID THAT BECAUSE NICOLE WOULDN'T LET HIM IN.

MR. SHAPIRO: RIGHT.

THE COURT: SO YOU NEED TO REPHRASE YOUR QUESTION.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I SUGGEST ONE THING, YOUR HONOR? THIS WITNESS DOESN'T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND ANYTHING ABOUT COURT AND SHE -- MAYBE MR. DARDEN SHOULD TELL HER SHE SHOULD WAIT. I MEAN, IT IS HARD FOR BOB TO OBJECT. HER ANSWER IS OUT AND YOU WILL SAY "SUSTAINED" AND SHE GIVES THE ANSWER. SHE UNDERSTANDS THE COURT. HOW DO YOU DO THAT?

THE COURT: WELL --

MR. COCHRAN: A REQUEST FOR WITNESSES.

THE COURT: FOR THE RECORD, MR. DARDEN, TO SAY THAT THE ATTORNEYS -- IF MR. SHAPIRO MAKES AN OBJECTION, DON'T ANSWER THE QUESTION UNTIL THE COURT HAS RULED ON THE OBJECTION.

MR. DARDEN: DO YOU WANT ME TO TELL HER THAT?

THE COURT: YEAH.

MR. DARDEN: I THINK YOU SHOULD TELL HER.

MR. SHAPIRO: I WILL.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ARE WE READY.

MR. DARDEN: YEAH.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ONE OF THE -- ONE OF THE JURORS LEFT TO GO TO THE BATHROOM QUICKLY, SO WE WILL WAIT FOR A FEW MOMENTS HERE.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO BACK ON THE RECORD.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNSEL. MISS BOE, IF YOU WOULD, WOULD YOU LISTEN VERY CAREFULLY TO THE QUESTION WHICH IS ASKED AND ANSWER ONLY THE PRECISE QUESTION THAT IS ASKED OF YOU. ALSO, IF ONE OF THE ATTORNEYS MAKES AN OBJECTION, DON'T ANSWER THE QUESTION UNTIL I RULE ON THE QUESTION. OKAY?

THE WITNESS: YES.

THE COURT: THANK YOU. MR. DARDEN, YOU MAY CONTINUE.

MR. DARDEN: WAS THE LAST OBJECTION SUSTAINED?

THE COURT: IT HAS BEEN SO LONG I DON'T EVEN REMEMBER.

MR. DARDEN: IT WAS A VERY GOOD QUESTION, YOUR HONOR.

MR. SHAPIRO: YES, IT WAS, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: YES, IT WAS, BECAUSE IT WAS NOT A STATEMENT BY THE DEFENDANT.

MR. DARDEN: OKAY.

Q: NOW, THE REASON THAT THE DEFENDANT CAME TO YOUR HOME ON THOSE FEW OCCASIONS YOU JUST MENTIONED A MOMENT AGO. OKAY. HOW DID YOU LEARN THE REASONS?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: WAS IT FROM WATCHING SOMETHING OR FROM TALKING TO SOMEONE?

A: THAT IS WHAT HE TOLD ME.

Q: OKAY. THAT IS WHAT THE DEFENDANT TOLD YOU; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: YOU HAVE TO ANSWER OUT LOUD.

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. THE DEFENDANT -- WHAT DID THE DEFENDANT TELL YOU? WHAT REASON DID HE GIVE YOU FOR COMING OVER TO YOUR HOUSE?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, HEARSAY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: HE DIDN'T HAVE TO GIVE ME A REASON. THE BOYS WERE BACK AND FORTH. MY KITCHEN DOOR WAS OPENED. I WAS WORKING IN THE KITCHEN. HE WOULD BE COMING BY TO SEE NICOLE AND THE CHILDREN. HE DIDN'T TELL ME WHY HE WASN'T ALLOWED IN THE HOUSE THAT DAY. HE JUST HUNG OUT IN MY KITCHEN FOR A WHILE.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DID HE TELL YOU THAT HE WASN'T ALLOWED IN THE HOUSE THAT DAY?

A: YES, HE DID.

Q: OKAY. AND YOU WOULD HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE DEFENDANT; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: ONE TIME I FED HIM A PIECE OF PEACH COBBLER. ANOTHER TIME WE STOOD AND TALKED, YES, WE HAD DIALOGUE.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU TALK ABOUT NICOLE BROWN?

A: I DID NOT TALK ABOUT NICOLE.

Q: DID THE DEFENDANT TALK ABOUT NICOLE?

A: THE DEFENDANT TALKED ABOUT NICOLE.

Q: OKAY. WHAT DID HE TELL YOU? WHAT DID HE SAY ABOUT NICOLE?

A: THAT SHE WOULDN'T LET HIM IN THE HOUSE.

Q: DID HE SAY ANYTHING --

A: AND HE TOLD ME THAT I HAD HEARD AN ARGUMENT BETWEEN THEM PRIOR TO ONE OF THESE OCCASIONS, AND FROM WHAT FRAGMENTS I HEARD, SHE WAS ANGRY AT HIM ABOUT --

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THIS. THIS IS NONRESPONSIVE.

MR. DARDEN: PLEASE LET HER CONTINUE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: NEXT QUESTION, MR. DARDEN.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: YOU HEARD AN ARGUMENT BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND NICOLE BROWN?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: YOU COULD HEAR THE DEFENDANT SPEAKING?

A: MY KITCHEN DOOR WAS OPEN. I COULD HEAR THE DEFENDANT SPEAKING. THEY WERE GOING THROUGH THE DRIVEWAY WHICH IS RIGHT NEXT TO MY BACK DOOR.

Q: AND THEY WERE ARGUING?

A: YES, THEY WERE.

Q: AND COULD YOU DISCERN FROM WHAT THE DEFENDANT WAS SAYING WHAT IT WAS THAT THEY WERE ARGUING ABOUT?

A: YES, I COULD.

Q: WHAT WERE THEY ARGUING ABOUT?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: COME ON OVER HERE TO THE SIDE BAR WITH THE REPORTER, PLEASE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN, WHAT IS ABOUT TO COME OUT HERE?

MR. DARDEN: I DON'T KNOW.

MR. SHAPIRO: WELL, THEN, YOUR HONOR, HE HAS MADE AN OFFER OF PROOF AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT AND NOW HE SAYS HE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT THE WITNESS IS GOING TO TESTIFY TO. I THINK HE SHOULD HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS AND SIT DOWN.

MR. DARDEN: I HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT OTHER THINGS, BUT AS FAR AS THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION --

MR. SHAPIRO: OF WHICH YOU KNOW THE ANSWERS TO? OF WHICH YOU HAVE INTERVIEWED THE WITNESS?

MR. DARDEN: I WANT TO KNOW WHAT THEY WERE ARGUING ABOUT. I MEAN, THE RELATIONSHIP IS AT ISSUE HERE.

THE COURT: ISN'T THE VALUE OF THIS WITNESS TO SAY WHAT THE DEFENDANT TOLD HER ABOUT THE NATURE OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP?

MR. DARDEN: OKAY.

THE COURT: OTHER OBSERVATIONS ARE INTERESTING, BUT HOW DO WE GET AROUND THE HEARSAY PROBLEM.

MR. DARDEN: I WILL ASK HER WHAT DID THE DEFENDANT TELL YOU ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE RELATIONSHIP. I WILL ASK HER THAT QUESTION.

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, WOULD YOU ADMONISH THE JURY AND ADMONISH THE WITNESS THAT THESE AREAS ARE INAPPROPRIATE TO GET INTO AND THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN AREAS AND JUST OUTLINE WHAT THEY ARE SO SHE GETS THE CLUE.

MR. DARDEN: COME ON.

MS. CLARK: MAYBE THE COURT WILL DO THAT FOR DEFENSE COUNSEL, TOO, WHEN THEY GO INTO INAPPROPRIATE AREAS ON CROSS AND TELL THE JURY THAT THEY ARE DOING INAPPROPRIATE THINGS.

MR. DARDEN: IS CARL GOING TO CROSS-EXAMINE THIS WITNESS?

THE COURT: MR. SHAPIRO IS, APPARENTLY. FOLKS, LET'S GO BACK. THANK YOU.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

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

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DURING THE KITCHEN CONVERSATIONS YOU HAD WITH THE DEFENDANT, WHAT, IF ANYTHING, DID HE TELL YOU ABOUT THE NATURE OF HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH NICOLE BROWN?

A: HE IMPLIED THAT SHE WAS UPSET OVER HIS WOMANIZING BUT THAT THAT WAS IN THE PAST, THE WOMANIZING WAS IN THE PAST.

Q: IS THERE A PARK LOCATED NEAR YOUR HOME?

A: NOT ON FOOT, BUT THERE IS A PARK NEARBY, YES.

Q: WHAT IS THE NAME OF THAT PARK?

A: KENTER CANYON RECREATION CENTER.

Q: OKAY. WAS THERE EVER AN OCCASION IN WHICH YOU HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THE DEFENDANT AT THAT PARK?

A: YES, THERE WAS.

Q: AND DO YOU RECALL WHEN THAT WAS?

A: IT WAS AROUND THE SAME TIME.

Q: OKAY.

A: IN THE SPRING.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU AND THE DEFENDANT GO TO THE PARK TOGETHER?

A: WE WENT WITH OUR TWO BOYS AND NICOLE.

Q: AND WHILE AT THE PARK DID YOU AND THE DEFENDANT HAVE A CONVERSATION REGARDING THE NATURE OF HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH NICOLE BROWN?

A: THAT WAS PART OF THE CONVERSATION, YES, WE DID.

Q: WHAT WAS THE GENERAL SUBJECT MATTER OF THE REST OF THE CONVERSATION?

A: I WAS ADDRESSING WHAT I RECOGNIZED AS HIS STRESS.

Q: OKAY. SORRY -- THE DEFENDANT SEEMED TO BE UNDER STRESS?

A: YES, HE DID.

Q: WHAT CAUSED YOU TO THINK OR BELIEVE THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS UNDER STRESS?

A: WELL, HE WAS ARGUING LOUDLY AND ALSO I SAW A LOT OF THE WHITE OF HIS EYES SHOWING BETWEEN THE LID AND THE IRIS AND THAT IS AN INDICATION OF STRESS, AND I BROUGHT IT TO HIS ATTENTION AT ONE POINT DURING THE DIALOGUE AND WE TALKED ABOUT THAT.

Q: OKAY. WELL, WHO WAS HE ARGUING LOUDLY WITH?

A: NICOLE.

Q: WHAT WAS HE SAYING TO NICOLE?

A: UMM, I GATHER THAT HE WAS ANGRY AT HER, THINKING THAT SHE HAD BEEN WITH ANOTHER MAN AND SHE WAS ANGRY AT HIM FOR BEING ANGRY AT HER.

Q: COULD YOU ELABORATE ON THAT?

A: WELL, AFTER A WHILE SHE WOULDN'T ARGUE ANY MORE AND SHE JUST FUMED ON A STONE WALL, SO I WAS STUCK WITH O.J.

Q: OKAY. AND YOU HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THE DEFENDANT THEN?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: OKAY. AND TELL US. TELL US THE CONVERSATION YOU HAD WITH THE DEFENDANT AT THAT TIME.

A: WELL, HE SAID THAT SHE WAS SLEEPING WITH SOMEBODY WHO HAD BEEN STAYING AT HER HOUSE, AND I WAS RELUCTANT TO DISCUSS IT, BUT BECAUSE HE SEEMED SO UPSET, I FELT I COULD PUT HIS MIND MORE AT EASE BY TELLING HIM THAT I DIDN'T THINK SHE WAS. IN FACT, I WAS SURE SHE WASN'T BECAUSE MY BOY WAS OVER FOR OVERNIGHTS AND NICOLE HAD SPECIFICALLY TOLD ME THAT THIS INDIVIDUAL WAS STAYING IN THE SPARE ROOM, AND WHEN MY SON WAS THERE FOR AN OVERNIGHT, THE NEXT DAY I DID ASK HIM WHERE HE HAD STAYED, WHERE THE GUEST HAD STAYED, AND MY SON TOLD ME THAT HE HAD STAYED IN THE SPARE ROOM. BUT WHEN I TOLD O.J. THAT, HE SCOFFED AT ME AS THOUGH TO INDICATE THAT I SHOULDN'T BELIEVE HER. BUT I DO -- I DID BELIEVE HER BECAUSE SHE HAD NEVER LIED TO ME -- I HAD NO REASON TO THINK THAT SHE WOULD EVER LIE TO ME.

THE COURT: NEXT QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: I COULDN'T CONVINCE --

THE COURT: HOLD ON. NEXT QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: WAS THE DEFENDANT UPSET OR ANGRY DURING THAT CONVERSATION?

A: YES, HE WAS VERY UPSET.

Q: AND WERE YOU ABLE TO RELIEVE HIS STRESS SOMEHOW?

A: EVENTUALLY I WAS.

Q: HOW LONG DID IT TAKE YOU?

A: WELL, I'M NOT SURE I ENTIRELY SUCCEEDED, BUT MAYBE FIFTEEN OR TWENTY MINUTES.

Q: WHY AREN'T YOU SURE THAT YOU ENTIRELY SUCCEEDED?

A: BECAUSE HE WAS CONVINCED THAT I WAS MISTAKEN, THAT HE KNEW HOW THINGS WERE.

Q: WAS THE DEFENDANT AND NICOLE BROWN LIVING TOGETHER AT THAT TIME?

A: NO, HE WAS NOT. HE WAS DIVORCED AT THAT TIME.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU. THAT IS ALL I HAVE.

THE COURT: MR. SHAPIRO.

MR. SHAPIRO: YES, YOUR HONOR. MAY WE JUST HAVE A MOMENT TO CONFER?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU.

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

BY MR. SHAPIRO:

Q: GOOD MORNING. I'M ROBERT SHAPIRO. I REPRESENT MR. SIMPSON.

A: GOOD MORNING, MR. SHAPIRO.

Q: HOW ARE YOU TODAY? HOW WOULD YOU PREFER THAT I ADDRESS YOU?

A: MISS BOE IS FINE.

Q: MISS BOE. BECAUSE EVERYBODY HAS DIFFERENT CONNOTATIONS THESE DAYS AND I DON'T WANT TO INSULT YOU AT ALL.

A: THANK YOU, MR. SHAPIRO.

Q: HOW LONG HAD YOU KNOWN NICOLE SIMPSON IN 1992?

A: I REALLY BECAME FRIENDS WITH NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON WHEN SHE MOVED IN NEXT DOOR.

Q: WHICH WAS WHEN?

A: SO IT WAS -- I DON'T REMEMBER WHEN SHE MOVED IN.

Q: CAN YOU GIVE US AN APPROXIMATE YEAR OR MONTH?

A: DOES SOMEBODY KNOW WHAT YEAR -- WHEN SHE MOVED IN NEXT DOOR TO ME?

Q: LET ME GO ON TO ANOTHER QUESTION. DID YOU KNOW O.J. SIMPSON PRIOR TO THE TIME THAT NICOLE SIMPSON MOVED IN NEXT DOOR TO YOU?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: AND WHEN NICOLE SIMPSON MOVED IN, SHE MOVED IN AT THE TIME THAT SHE WAS GOING THROUGH A SEPARATION AND LATER A DIVORCE?

A: THAT'S RIGHT.

Q: AND THE INCIDENTS THAT YOU ARE RELATING TO NOW IN APRIL OF 1992 TOOK PLACE DURING THE TIME THAT THE DIVORCE WAS PENDING, WHICH WAS FILED IN ABOUT FEBRUARY; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I BELIEVE THE DIVORCE WAS FINAL AT THAT TIME.

Q: IN '92?

A: AM I MISTAKEN?

MR. SHAPIRO: YES.

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. IS MR. SHAPIRO GOING TO TAKE THE STAND?

MR. SHAPIRO: YES. I MEAN, IT IS A COURT RECORD, IF WE ARE GOING TO ARGUE ABOUT THE DATE OF THE DIVORCE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, COUNSEL, HOLD ON. THE DATE -- THE DATE OF THE LEGAL DOCUMENTS AND THE DATE OF THE DIVORCE ARE NOT DISPUTED, SO MR. SHAPIRO, WHY DON'T YOU PROCEED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: YES. THE DATE OF THE DIVORCE -- SHE FILED FOR DIVORCE IN FEBRUARY OF '92 AND THE DIVORCE WAS FINAL SIX MONTHS LATER IN OCTOBER OR THEREABOUTS, TO PUT THAT IN PERSPECTIVE.

NOW, WHEN YOU SAW O.J. SIMPSON DURING THIS PERIOD OF TIME, DID YOU EVER SEE HIM IN THE COMPANY OF HIS SON AND YOUR SON?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: ON HOW MANY OCCASIONS?

A: A HALF DOZEN.

Q: AND DID HE EVER ACCOMPANY YOUR SON AND HIS SON TO ATHLETIC PRACTICES?

A: YES, HE DID.

Q: SO YOU WOULD FIND NOTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT MR. SIMPSON COMING TO YOUR HOUSE AT ALL, WOULD YOU?

A: NO, NOT AT ALL.

Q: AND IF HE CAME TO YOUR HOUSE WOULD YOU FIND IT UNUSUAL IF HE WANTED TO GO NEXT DOOR AND VISIT OR TALK TO SOMEBODY WHO HE WAS GOING THROUGH A DIVORCE WITH?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. CONFUSING, VAGUE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: CAN YOU SAY THAT AGAIN?

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WOULD YOU FIND IT UNUSUAL THAT WHILE HE WAS COMING TO BRING HIS SON TO PLAY WITH YOUR SON THAT HE MIGHT WANT TO STOP BY NEXT DOOR AND TALK TO A WOMAN WHO HE WAS GOING THROUGH A DIVORCE WITH?

A: YOU MEAN HE WOULD COME BY AND STOP BY AND TALK WITH NICOLE?

Q: I'M SAYING WOULD YOU FIND IT UNUSUAL IF HE CAME BY WITH HIS SON TO VISIT YOUR SON THAT HE MIGHT DURING THAT SAME VISIT GO NEXT DOOR AND CHECK AND SEE NICOLE?

A: IT WOULD BE UNLIKELY THAT HE WOULD COME TO MY HOUSE WITHOUT GOING TO NICOLE'S HOUSE, YES.

Q: AND DURING THE TIME THAT NICOLE LIVED NEXT DOOR TO YOU, DID YOU EVER SEE ANY EVIDENCE OF ANY PHYSICAL ABUSE ON NICOLE?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: THE INDIVIDUAL THAT YOUR SON SAID WAS SPENDING THE NIGHT WITH NICOLE THE DAY THAT YOUR SON -- THE NIGHT YOUR SON SLEPT OVER --

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THAT MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE, THAT HE WAS SPENDING THE NIGHT WITH NICOLE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: YOU REFERRED TO AN INCIDENT WHERE THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT A GENTLEMAN BEING OVER AT NICOLE'S HOUSE AND O.J. HAD SOME DEGREE OF BEING CONCERNED ABOUT THAT AND DISCUSSED IT WITH YOU; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: WAS THAT GENTLEMAN'S NAME KEITH?

A: YES.

Q: AND NICOLE HAD TOLD YOU THAT NOTHING HAPPENED BETWEEN HERSELF AND KEITH?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, THAT --

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: -- OF ANY SEXUAL CASES NATURE?

MS. CLARK: THAT MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: I CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION?

THE COURT: YES.

THE WITNESS: NICOLE TOLD ME THAT HE SLEPT IN THE SPARE BEDROOM. WE DID NOT DISCUSS WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE OR HAD BEEN OR WERE BECOMING LOVERS.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: AND O.J. SAID THAT HE WAS UPSET BECAUSE HE BELIEVED THAT THERE WAS SOME SEXUAL ACTIVITY IN THE CLOSE PROXIMITY OF CHILDREN, INCLUDING YOUR SON?

A: NO. I DON'T THINK HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT WHETHER IT WAS IN THE PROXIMITY OF THE CHILDREN. I THINK HE WAS CONCERNED OF WHETHER IT WAS HIS WIFE.

Q: ON OCCASION WOULD YOU KNOW O.J. TO BRING FLOWERS BY TO NICOLE?

A: I HAVE -- I DID SEE THE FLOWERS THAT HE LEFT FOR HER AND THAT HE HAD DELIVERED TO HER.

Q: AND ON THE PARTICULAR OCCASION THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT IN APRIL, BEFORE YOU REALIZED IT WAS O.J. SIMPSON AND YOUR SUSPICIONS WERE AROUSED, WAS THERE ANYTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT THE WAY HE WAS WALKING UP TO HER HOUSE?

A: UNUSUAL?

Q: YEAH.

A: PROBABLY THE ONLY THING UNUSUAL ABOUT IT WAS THAT IT WAS 11:30 AT NIGHT.

Q: AND YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER NICOLE WAS HOME OR NOT, DO YOU?

A: I ASSUMED NICOLE WAS HOME.

Q: AND YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER HE HAD BEEN INVITED TO COME OVER OR NOT, DO YOU?

A: NO, I DON'T.

Q: HE WASN'T DRESSED IN ANY UNUSUAL WAY, WAS HE?

A: NO, NO.

Q: HE DIDN'T HAVE ANY HATS ON OR ANY DISGUISES ON?

A: NO.

Q: AND AS FAR AS PARKING THE CAR -- LET ME MARK TWO PHOTOGRAPHS, IF I MIGHT, FOR IDENTIFICATION, PLEASE, YOUR HONOR.

MR. DARDEN: MAY WE APPROACH FOR A MOMENT WITHOUT THE REPORTER?

THE COURT: SURE. WITHOUT THE REPORTER.

MR. DARDEN: YES.

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

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. DARDEN, DO YOU HAVE EXHIBIT NUMBERS PREPARED FOR THOSE PHOTOS?

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, I APOLOGIZE. THESE ARE MR. DARDEN'S PHOTOGRAPHS. I DIDN'T WANT TO MARK THEM WITH MY NUMBERS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. DARDEN: WHICH NUMBER?

MS. CLARK: 23. WE ARE UP TO 23.

THE COURT: WHAT NUMBER ARE WE ON NEXT FOR THE PEOPLE?

MR. DARDEN: I HAVE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS HERE, YOUR HONOR. MAY THEY BE MARKED PEOPLE'S --

THE COURT: 23 AND 24.

MR. DARDEN: 23 AND 24.

THE COURT: SO MARKED.

(PEO'S 23&24 FOR ID = PHOTOS OF 325 S. GRETNA GREEN)

MR. DARDEN: EACH OF THESE PHOTOGRAPHS APPEAR TO DEPICT MISS BOE'S HOME AND NICOLE BROWN'S HOME AT 325 SOUTH GRETNA GREEN.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. NOTED. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, MAY I SHOW THESE PHOTOGRAPHS TO THE WITNESS, PLEASE?

THE COURT: YOU MAY.

MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

Q: MISS BOE, CAN YOU IDENTIFY THESE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS FOR THE JURY, PLEASE?

A: YES, I CAN. THIS IS MY HOUSE HERE, (INDICATING), WHICH IS ON THE CORNER OF GRETNA GREEN AND SHETLAND LANE. HERE IS NICOLE'S HOUSE, HER DRIVEWAY, AND HERE IS THE LITTLE STONE WALL. MY KITCHEN DOOR IS IN THE BACK THERE. THE BOYS WOULD BE BACK AND FORTH ACROSS THE WALL.

Q: THIS PHOTOGRAPH IS IDENTIFIED -- I DON'T HAVE MY GLASSES ON. WHAT IS THE NUMBER, PLEASE?

A: P-24.

Q: AND THE SECOND PHOTOGRAPH?

A: THIS IS NICOLE'S HOUSE WITH THE GARAGE DOOR CLOSED.

Q: AND WOULD YOU IDENTIFY THAT PHOTOGRAPH?

A: P-23.

Q: NOW, P-23 IS DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF NICOLE'S HOUSE?

A: YES, IT IS.

Q: SHOWS CARS RIGHT IN FRONT?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, THERE ARE LARGE TREES THERE, ARE THERE NOT?

A: YES, THERE ARE.

Q: AND ARE THOSE THE TYPE OF TREES THAT TEND TO DROP A LOT OF BERRIES AND OTHER TYPES OF RESIDUE?

A: WELL, THOSE ARE BOTTLE BRUSH TREES AND THEY HAVE BIG RED BLOSSOMS LIKE BRUSHES.

Q: DO YOU KNOW THAT THERE MAY BE SOME PEOPLE WHO PREFER NOT TO PARK NICE CARS UNDER TREES THAT HAVE A PROPENSITY TO SHED?

A: NO. THOSE ARE JACARANDA TREES.

Q: WELL, WE ARE GETTING A GREAT LESSON IN TREES HERE TODAY.

A: THE JACARANDA TREES ARE ACTUALLY IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE.

Q: WELL, IF SOMEBODY DIDN'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE TREES AND SOMEBODY TOOK GREAT CARE IN THEIR CAR, DO YOU THINK THEY MIGHT HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF ANXIETY ABOUT PARKING THERE?

A: I THINK THEY MIGHT HAVE ANXIETY ABOUT PARKING ON THAT STREET BECAUSE GRETNA GREEN WAY IS A THROUGH STREET AND YOU MIGHT NOT WANT TO PARK YOUR CAR ON A THROUGH STREET.

MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US TODAY. I APPRECIATE IT.

THE COURT: DO YOU WANT TO SHOW THE JURORS THOSE PHOTOS?

MR. SHAPIRO: YES, PLEASE, YOUR HONOR.

MR. DARDEN: I WAS GOING TO PUT IT UP ON THE SCREEN.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. DARDEN, REDIRECT?

MR. DARDEN: BRIEFLY, YOUR HONOR, VERY BRIEFLY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. DARDEN: I HAVE HANDED MR. FAIRTLOUGH PEOPLE'S 24 AND ASKED HIM TO PUT IT UP ON THE SCREEN.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. AND MISS BOE, THERE IS A MONITOR RIGHT TO YOUR RIGHT THERE. DO YOU SEE THAT?

THE WITNESS: YES, I DO.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. DARDEN:

Q: NOW, THE HOUSE ON THE LEFT, IS THAT YOUR HOME?

A: YES, THAT IS.

Q: AND THE HOUSE TO THE RIGHT OF THE PHOTOGRAPH, THAT WOULD BE 325 SOUTH GRETNA GREEN?

A: THAT'S RIGHT.

Q: A NICE BIG DRIVEWAY THERE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S RIGHT.

Q: SHOWING YOU PEOPLE'S 23, THERE ARE TWO CARS PARKED THERE IN FRONT OF 325 SOUTH GRETNA GREEN; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S RIGHT.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHO OWNS THOSE CARS AND WHO THEY BELONG TO?

A: NO, I DON'T.

Q: DID YOU EVER SEE THE DEFENDANT PARK HIS CAR IN THE DRIVEWAY?

A: YES, MANY TIMES.

Q: DIRECTLY BENEATH THAT BIG TREE MR. SHAPIRO ALLUDED TO?

A: WELL, I SAW -- I SAW HIM PARK IN THE DRIVEWAY, WHICH ISN'T DIRECTLY BENEATH THE TREE, AND I SAW HIM PARK ON GRETNA GREEN WAY IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE SOMETIMES AS WELL.

Q: HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU SEE HIM PARK ON SHETLAND?

A: SEVERAL TIMES.

Q: AND THAT WOULD BE AROUND THE CORNER; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S RIGHT.

Q: AND ON THOSE OCCASIONS, THOSE OCCASIONS THAT HE PARKED HIS CAR ON SHETLAND, WAS THERE ROOM FOR HIM TO PARK HIS CAR IN THE DRIVEWAY AT NICOLE'S?

A: WELL, I CAN'T REMEMBER EVERY OCCASION THAT HE PARKED ON SHETLAND LANE. THERE MAY HAVE BEEN; THERE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN.

Q: SOMETIMES THERE WAS; SOMETIMES THERE WASN'T?

A: SOMETIMES SHE PARKED HER CAR IN THE GARAGE; SOMETIMES SHE LEFT IT IN THE DRIVEWAY.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU. THAT IS ALL.

THE COURT: MR. SHAPIRO?

MR. SHAPIRO: NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MISS BOE, FOR COMING.

THE COURT: MISS BOE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING IN. PLEASE DON'T DISCUSS YOUR TESTIMONY WITH ANYBODY ELSE, EXCEPT FOR THE LAWYERS, UNTIL THE END OF THE TRIAL.

THE WITNESS: NO, I WON'T. HAVE A GOOD DAY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. DARDEN, YOUR NEXT WITNESS, PLEASE.

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

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. DARDEN: CARL COLBY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

CARL COLBY, CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE PEOPLE, WAS SWORN AND TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:

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

THE WITNESS: YES, I DO.

THE CLERK: PLEASE HAVE A SEAT ON THE WITNESS STAND AND STATE AND SPELL YOUR FIRST AND LAST NAMES FOR THE RECORD.

THE WITNESS: MY NAME IS CARL COLBY, C-A-R-L C-O-L-B-Y.

THE CLERK: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. DARDEN:

Q: MR. COLBY, THE WITNESS THAT JUST TESTIFIED A MOMENT AGO, THAT IS YOUR WIFE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: NOW, SIR, THROUGHOUT 1992 AND 1993, WERE YOU LIVING IN A HOME LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF SHETLAND AND GRETNA GREEN?

A: YES, WE WERE LIVING ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SHETLAND AND GRETNA GREEN, TWO-STORY HOUSE CHEEK TO JOWL WITH 325.

Q: OKAY. SO NICOLE BROWN'S HOME WAS DIRECTLY NEXT DOOR TO YOURS DURING APRIL OF 1992; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: YOU HAVE A SON; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES. WE HAVE A SON NOW SIX YEARS OLD WHO WAS IN SCHOOL WITH JUSTIN SIMPSON, O.J.'S SON, AND THEY WERE BEST FRIENDS AND THEY SAW EACH OTHER CONSTANTLY AND, UMM, WHEN THEY MOVED IN, ACTUALLY NEXT DOOR, IT WAS A BIG SURPRISE AND A TERRIFIC EVENT BECAUSE TWO FRIENDS WHO WENT TO SCHOOL TOGETHER WERE NOW LIVING SIDE-BY-SIDE, SO THEY SAW EACH OTHER NEARLY EVERY DAY.

Q: OKAY. AND YOU BECAME ACQUAINTED WITH THE DEFENDANT HERE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND YOU BECAME ACQUAINTED WITH NICOLE BROWN?

A: YES. MORE WITH NICOLE BROWN BECAUSE SHE LIVED THERE AND WE JUST HAD MORE ENCOUNTERS WITH HER.

Q: WHEN DID NICOLE BROWN MOVE INTO THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR, IF YOU KNOW?

A: UMM, I BELIEVE IT WAS IN THE BEGINNING OF 1992.

Q: JANUARY, 1992?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: OKAY. AND WHEN SHE MOVED INTO THE HOUSE, DID THE DEFENDANT MOVE INTO THE HOUSE WITH HER?

A: NO, HE DID NOT.

Q: NOW, DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE LAST WEEK OF APRIL, 1992, DID YOU HAVE AN OCCASION TO CALL 911?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WHAT CAUSED YOU TO CALL 911?

A: WELL, IT WAS AN EVENING APPROXIMATELY 10:30 OR ELEVEN O'CLOCK AT NIGHT, AND IT IS A VERY -- IT IS A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, VERY QUIET, AND SOMETIMES BEFORE RETIRING I LOOK -- JUST GO CHECK THE LOCKS AND LOOK AROUND DOWNSTAIRS AND MAKE SURE THE LIGHTS ARE OFF AND THINGS LIKE THAT. AND I HAPPENED TO LOOK OUTSIDE AND I SAW A MAN OUTSIDE ON THE SIDEWALK.

Q: AND WHAT WAS THAT MAN DOING?

A: UMM, HE WAS STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK LOOKING AT WHAT APPARENTLY WAS THE RESIDENCE NEXT DOOR, DIRECTLY TO THE NORTH OF US.

Q: AND WHAT TIME OF THE NIGHT WAS THIS?

A: I WOULD SAY IT WAS APPROXIMATELY BETWEEN 10:30 AND ELEVEN O'CLOCK THAT NIGHT.

Q: SO THE MAN WAS STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK?

A: YES. INITIALLY WHEN I SPOTTED HIM HE WAS STANDING ABOUT FIVE YARDS SOUTH OF THE DRIVEWAY AND RELATIVELY STATIONARY LOOKING AT THE HOUSE AND THEN SINCE I SAW HIM I WAS CURIOUS AND I DIDN'T RECOGNIZE HIM, SO I THOUGHT TO MYSELF, WHAT IS A MAN OF THIS DESCRIPTION DOING OUTSIDE AT THAT TIME, SO --

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, I'M GOING TO OBJECT TO THE NARRATIVE ANSWER.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. ALL RIGHT. MR. DARDEN, NEXT QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: SO YOU BECAME CURIOUS?

A: YES, I WAS CURIOUS.

Q: DID YOU CONTINUE TO WATCH THE MAN?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WHAT DID YOU SEE THE MAN DO?

A: I SAW HIM OBSERVE THE RESIDENCE NEXT DOOR AND THEN WALK AROUND THE CORNER, WHICH WOULD BE SOUTHERLY AND THEN WESTERLY ON SHETLAND, AND THEN GO BACK AROUND AGAIN AND LOOK AGAIN AT THAT RESIDENCE, AND I WAS A LITTLE BIT CONCERNED BECAUSE --

Q: WELL, LET ME JUST STOP YOU THERE.

A: ALL RIGHT.

Q: SO THAT IT IS CLEAR, WHEN YOU FIRST SAW THE MAN WHO WAS ON THE SIDEWALK FIVE FEET FROM NICOLE BROWN'S DRIVEWAY --

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, I'M GOING TO OBJECT TO MR. DARDEN LEADING THE WITNESS IN HIS TESTIMONY. HE HAS TESTIFIED. IT IS VERY CLEAR.

THE COURT: ACTUALLY IT MISSTATES THE ANSWER.

THE WITNESS: IT WAS FIVE YARDS.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: FIVE YARDS, OKAY, AND THEN HE WALKED BACK AROUND THE CORNER?

A: YES. THEN HE WALKED IN A SOUTHERLY DIRECTION AND THEN BACK AROUND THE CORNER -- OUR HOUSE IS ON A CORNER LIKE THIS, (INDICATING). HE THEN WENT SOUTHERLY AND THEN WESTERLY AND THEN BACK AROUND AGAIN.

Q: OKAY. DID HE WALK BACK TO THE SAME SPOT HE WAS IN WHEN YOU SAW HIM INITIALLY?

A: YES, HE DID.

Q: HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU SEE THIS MAN WALK WITHIN FIVE YARDS OF NICOLE BROWN'S DRIVEWAY AND THEN WALK BACK --

A: JUST THOSE TWO INCIDENTS.

Q: WERE YOU CONCERNED AT ALL BECAUSE HE WAS --

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, IT HAS BEEN ANSWERED. I'M SORRY.

MR. DARDEN: I WAS ASKING IF HE WAS CONCERNED.

THE WITNESS: WELL, I ASKED --

THE COURT: WELL, THERE IS AN OBJECTION, MR. COLBY. IF YOU WOULD, ALLOW ME TO RULE ON THE OBJECTION AND IF IT IS OKAY TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, I WILL TELL YOU THAT. ALL RIGHT. YOU HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION WERE YOU CONCERNED. THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS EITHER YES OR NO AND YOU HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: THE ANSWER IS YES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. NEXT QUESTION, MR. DARDEN.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: WHAT DID YOU DO AFTER YOU SAW THE MAN RETURN TO A POINT WITHIN FIVE YARDS OF NICOLE BROWN'S DRIVEWAY?

A: WELL, I THOUGHT THAT MAN MIGHT BE --

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THE QUESTION IS WHAT DID YOU DO.

THE COURT: HOLD ON.

THE WITNESS: I CALLED --

THE COURT: MR. COLBY, I REALIZE YOU ARE NOT USED TO DOING THIS VERY MUCH. LISTEN CAREFULLY TO THE QUESTION THAT MR. DARDEN OR MR. SHAPIRO ASKS YOU AND ANSWER THAT PRECISE QUESTION, PLEASE. OKAY. MR. DARDEN.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: WHAT DID YOU DO AFTER YOU SAW THE MAN RETURN TO THE DRIVEWAY?

A: I CALLED 911.

Q: WHY DID YOU CALL 911?

A: BECAUSE I FELT THAT THE GENTLEMAN IN QUESTION COULD BE A POSSIBLE BURGLAR OR INTRUDER TO MY RESIDENCE OR TO ONE OF THE RESIDENCES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

Q: OKAY. AFTER YOU CALLED 911 DID YOU CONTINUE TO WATCH THE MAN?

A: YES, I DID, AND WHEN I CALLED 911 I TOLD HIM --

MR. SHAPIRO: ASKED AND ANSWERED, YOUR HONOR.

THE WITNESS: -- THAT WAS NOT AN EMERGENCY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. PLEASE, JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION. THANK YOU.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: WHEN YOU CALLED 911 DID YOU CONTINUE TO WATCH THE MAN?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: OKAY. WHAT DID YOU SEE THE MAN DO AFTER YOU CALLED 911?

A: HE WENT BACK TO THE ORIGINAL POSITION AND LOOKED UPON -- AT THE RESIDENCE AND THEN LEFT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, AS THE MAN LEFT, DID YOU RECOGNIZE HIM?

A: YES, I DID. AFTER I HAD MADE THE CALL I RECOGNIZED HIM.

Q: AND WHO WAS THAT MAN?

A: IT WAS MR. SIMPSON.

Q: DID YOU EVER SEE THE DEFENDANT APPROACH THE FRONT DOOR OF NICOLE BROWN'S HOME THAT EVENING?

A: NO, NOT THAT EVENING.

Q: DID YOU EVER SEE NICOLE BROWN THAT EVENING?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: COULD YOU SEE NICOLE BROWN'S DRIVEWAY AT ALL THAT EVENING?

A: YES.

Q: WAS HER VEHICLE OR HER CAR PARKED IN THE DRIVEWAY?

A: I DON'T REMEMBER. I DON'T BELIEVE IT WAS.

Q: DID YOU SEE THE DEFENDANT'S CAR IN NICOLE BROWN'S DRIVEWAY?

A: NO. THE DEFENDANT'S CAR WAS AROUND THE CORNER.

Q: AND HOW DO YOU KNOW THE DEFENDANT'S CAR WAS AROUND THE CORNER?

A: BECAUSE I SAW HIM DRIVE AWAY.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU SEE HIM WALK AROUND THE CORNER?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU SEE HIS CAR PARKED AROUND THE CORNER?

A: I ONLY SAW IT DRIVE OFF.

Q: AND THE CORNER YOU ARE REFERRING TO, THAT WOULD BE SHETLAND; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: RIGHT INTO THE CUL-DE-SAC.

Q: I BELIEVE YOU INDICATED BEFORE THAT YOUR HOME IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION AT SHETLAND AND GRETNA GREEN; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: HOW FAR DOWN SHETLAND LANE, HOW FAR AWAY FROM THE INTERSECTION WAS THE DEFENDANT'S CAR THE FIRST TIME YOU SAW IT THAT NIGHT?

A: APPROXIMATELY FIFTY TO SIXTY YARDS DOWN. I SAW THE CAR AS IT DEPARTED.

Q: OKAY. NOW, WHAT DID YOU DO AFTER YOU REALIZED THAT THE MAN YOU SAW LOOKING AT NICOLE BROWN'S HOME WAS IN FACT THE DEFENDANT?

A: WELL, I WAS EMBARRASSED THAT I HAD CALLED 911 BECAUSE I DIDN'T FEEL THAT MR. SIMPSON WAS A THREAT TO ME OR TO ANYONE ELSE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, SO I DID NOT CALL THE POLICE BACK, BECAUSE SHORTLY THEREAFTER THE POLICE DID APPEAR AND I TOLD THEM WHO IT WAS AND WHAT THE NATURE OF THE INCIDENT HAD BEEN.

Q: DID YOU HAVE ANY CONVERSATION WITH THE DEFENDANT PRIOR TO HIM LEAVING?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: HAD YOU EVER SEEN THE DEFENDANT ARRIVE AT NICOLE BROWN'S HOUSE LATE IN THE EVENING AND JUST STAND ON THE SIDEWALK?

A: NO, ONLY THAT ONE INCIDENT.

Q: DID YOU EVER SEE HIM OUTSIDE IN FRONT OF NICOLE BROWN'S HOUSE LATE AT NIGHT?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: DID YOU KNOW, WHAT WAS HE DOING THAT NIGHT, THE NIGHT THAT YOU SAW HIM AND CALLED 911?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: I THINK HE CAN DESCRIBE WHAT HE OBSERVED.

MR. SHAPIRO: HE ALREADY HAS, YOUR HONOR. IT IS ASKED AND ANSWERED AND CUMULATIVE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: WHAT WAS HE DOING?

A: HE SEEMED TO BE HESITANT AND TO BE ATTEMPTING TO PERHAPS OBSERVE SOMETHING THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OCCURRING WITHIN THE HOUSE, BUT HE NEVER TOOK ACTION AND STEPPED ON TO THE PROPERTY OF THE HOUSE OR HE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING UNTOWARD.

Q: THERE IS A BIG PICTURE WINDOW IN FRONT OF 325 SOUTH GRETNA GREEN; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR

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

MR. DARDEN: IF WE CAN PUT PEOPLE'S 24 ON THE ELMO, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT, 24, AND MR. COLBY, RIGHT TO YOUR RIGHT THERE IS A MONITOR FOR YOU TO LOOK AT WHAT IS BEING DEPICTED.

THE WITNESS: YES, I SEE IT.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: WHERE DO YOU SEE THE PICTURE WINDOW? WHERE? JUST TAKE A LOOK AT THE MONITOR. WHERE IS THE PICTURE WINDOW LOCATED?

A: THE PICTURE WINDOW IS ON THE FAR RIGHT-HAND SIDE IN THE SHADOW OF THE TREES TO THE RIGHT OF THE DRIVEWAY.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU.

Q: AND YOU CAN SEE THROUGH THAT WINDOW FROM THE SIDEWALK, CAN'T YOU, OR DO YOU KNOW?

A: CONCEIVABLY.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU. THAT IS ALL I HAVE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. SHAPIRO.

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

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. SHAPIRO:

Q: GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. COLBY.

A: GOOD AFTERNOON. HOW ARE YOU?

Q: I'M ROBERT SHAPIRO. I AM ONE OF MR. SIMPSON'S LAWYERS AND I HAVE A VERY FEW QUESTIONS FOR YOU THIS MORNING.

A: ALL RIGHT.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT O.J. SIMPSON WAS SIMPLY WAITING FOR NICOLE SIMPSON TO ARRIVE THAT NIGHT AND MEET HER?

A: I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THAT.

Q: DO YOU KNOW IF SHE WAS HOME?

A: I DON'T KNOW THAT EITHER.

Q: DO YOU KNOW IF THEY HAD HAD ANY PREARRANGEMENTS THAT NIGHT?

A: NO.

Q: AND AS YOU SAY, YOU WERE EMBARRASSED BY THE FACT THAT YOU HAD CALLED THE POLICE BECAUSE REALLY THERE WAS NOTHING SUSPICIOUS?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: REPEAT THE QUESTION AGAIN.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: YOU WERE SLIGHTLY EMBARRASSED THAT YOU HAD CALLED THE POLICE WHEN YOU REALIZED IT WAS O.J. SIMPSON, BECAUSE THERE REALLY WAS NOTHING SUSPICIOUS THAT EVENING?

A: I CAN'T SPECULATE AS TO WHETHER IT WAS SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOR OR NOT. ALL I SAID IS THAT I OBSERVED THE PARTY ON THE SIDEWALK.

Q: AND JUST A FINAL QUESTION. ONE OF THE LAWYERS IF MY OFFICE, SARA CAPLAN, CALLED YOU, DID SHE NOT?

A: I DON'T REMEMBER THAT.

Q: AND DO YOU RECALL LAST WEEK CALLED AND ASKED TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT YOUR OBSERVATIONS? DO YOU REMEMBER OR NOT?

A: I THINK SO.

Q: AND YOU TOLD HER THAT YOU WOULDN'T SPEAK WITH HER?

A: I BELIEVE I DID SAY I DIDN'T SPEAK TO HER.

Q: WAS SHE RUDE IN ANY WAY TO YOU OR OFFENSIVE IN ANY WAY?

A: NO, BUT I -- NO.

MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU. NOTHING FURTHER.

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

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN, ANY REDIRECT?

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. DARDEN:

Q: WHY IS IT THAT YOU REFUSED TO SPEAK TO SARA CAPLAN?

A: I FELT THAT TO COME FORWARD AND TO SPEAK TO YOU, MR. DARDEN, AND TO YOU, MISS CLARK, WAS APPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR AND I DON'T ATTRACT THE ATTENTION OF THE PRESS OR OF ANY OTHER PARTY.

Q: BY THE WAY, THAT NIGHT, THE NIGHT IN WHICH YOU SAW THE DEFENDANT IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE, DID YOU KNOW THAT NICOLE HAD FILED FOR DIVORCE?

A: YES.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: MR. SHAPIRO?

MR. SHAPIRO: NOTHING FURTHER. THANK YOU FOR COMING.

THE WITNESS: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: MR. COLBY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING. PLEASE DON'T DISCUSS YOUR TESTIMONY WITH ANYBODY ELSE, EXCEPT THE ATTORNEYS, UNTIL THE CASE IS OVER.

THE WITNESS: I WILL. THANK YOU, JUDGE.

THE COURT: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. DARDEN, YOUR NEXT WITNESS?

MR. DARDEN: ANY CHANCE WE CAN HAVE A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK, JUDGE, BEFORE THE NEXT WITNESS?

THE COURT: I'M GETTING THE SIGNAL THE JURORS WANT A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK. ALL RIGHT. LET'S TAKE A QUICK FIVE-MINUTE BREAK.

(RECESS.)

(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. MISS CLARK, THE PEOPLE'S NEXT WITNESS.

MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR. I THINK WE NEED TO APPROACH BEFORE THE TESTIMONY IS BEGUN.

THE COURT: WITH THE REPORTER, PLEASE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: WE ARE AT THE SIDEBAR. COUNSEL, WHY ARE WE HERE? MR. GORDON.

MR. GORDON: MR. SHAPIRO JUST SHOWED US EIGHT OR NINE INCHES OF DOCUMENTS, AND THERE WAS A QUESTION RAISED --

MR. SHAPIRO: ABOUT A FOOT.

MR. GORDON: -- FOOT OF DOCUMENTS THAT WE DON'T HAVE THAT THERE WAS A QUESTION WITH REGARD TO COPYING BEFORE WE GOT THEM. DO YOU WANT TO DO IT IN OPEN COURT OR AT SIDEBAR?

MR. SHAPIRO: THESE ARE THE DOCUMENTS I REFERRED TO THE BEGINNING OF THE WEEK, YOUR HONOR, THAT I SAID I WAS GOING TO USE. THEY ARE THE LEXIS SEARCH OF ALL PUBLIC STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO DENISE BROWN. AND I WAS INFORMED BY LAWYERS THAT I CONSULTED WITH THAT I COULD NOT PHOTOCOPY THEM, THAT IT WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT LAWS. I INFORMED YOUR HONOR AND MR. DARDEN IF THEY WANTED THIS MATERIAL, THEY WOULD HAVE TO RUN IT ON LEXIS THEMSELVES AND POINTED OUT WHAT THE DOCUMENTS WERE.

MR. GORDON: THE PROBLEM WITH THAT, WITHOUT KNOWING EXACTLY WHAT THE PERIMETERS OF THE SEARCH RUN BY COUNSEL, WE DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE SAME DOCUMENTS. THE COURT DOESN'T HAVE THAT. SO --

MR. SHAPIRO: WE WILL GIVE YOU THE PERIMETERS. WE HAVE THAT. IT'S ALL SUBMITTED -- YOU KNOW HOW IT COMES OUT, DON'T YOU, JUDGE?

THE COURT: UH-HUH.

MS. CLARK: BEFORE THE PEOPLE ARE ABLE TO GET THAT -- AND I THINK WE HAVE WEST LAW. UNTIL THE PEOPLE ARE ABLE TO GET THEIR OWN COPY OF THE LEXIS MATERIAL MR. SHAPIRO IS REFERRING TO, HE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO REFER TO EITHER THE SIZE OR THE WEIGHT OR THE EXISTENCE OF THOSE DOCUMENTS. AND WE MAY HAVE SOME LITIGATION TO ENTER CONSIDERING WHAT IS PROPER IMPEACHMENT AND WHAT IS NOT. BUT AT THIS POINT, THE PEOPLE ARE NOT IN POSSESSION -- WE CAN'T PUT OUR HAND ON IT THIS MINUTE.

MR. SHAPIRO: I HAVE NO OBJECTION IF THEY CALL THIS WITNESS OUT OF ORDER AT A LATER TIME. BUT THEY'VE HAD DUE WARNING ON THIS AND I WAS VERY CAREFUL TO BRING IT TO YOUR HONOR'S ATTENTION.

THE COURT: I DON'T KNOW WHY I COULDN'T ORDER MY STAFF TO MAKE A PHOTOCOPY OF WHAT YOU HAVE AND DIRECT COUNSEL FOR THE PROSECUTION NOT TO MAKE ANY COPIES OR OTHERWISE DISSEMINATE IT. I THINK USE IN COURT IS NOT A COPYRIGHT VIOLATION.

MR. SHAPIRO: MAY WE GO OFF THE RECORD FOR A MOMENT?

THE COURT: SURE.

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

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I HAVE ONE OR TWO OTHER LEGAL MATTERS THAT I NEED TO TAKE UP OUT OF YOUR PRESENCE. SINCE WE ARE FIVE MINUTES TO NOON, I'LL SEND YOU OUT TO AN EARLY LUNCH. PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITION TO YOU; DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONGST YOURSELVES, FORM ANY OPINION ABOUT THE CASE, DON'T ALLOW ANYBODY TO TALK ABOUT THE CASE, DON'T CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN FINALLY SUBMITTED TO YOU. ALL RIGHT. DEPUTY MAGNERA, LET'S EXCUSE THE JURY. BUT WE WILL GO BACK INTO SESSION BRIEFLY FOR A FEW DISCOVERY MATTERS.

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

THE COURT: COUNSEL, WE'RE STILL IN SESSION. SINCE WE'RE ABOUT TO DISCUSS MISS BROWN'S, DENISE BROWN'S CROSS-EXAMINATION MATERIAL, PERHAPS WE SHOULD EXCUSE HER FROM THE COURTROOM. AND, MISS BROWN, I'LL ORDER YOU TO COME BACK AT 2:00 O'CLOCK.

THE WITNESS: 2:00 O'CLOCK?

MR. DARDEN: CAN SHE WAIT IN THE FOYER?

THE COURT: AS LONG AS SHE'S OUT OF THE COURTROOM.

MR. DARDEN: SHE WILL BE GOING UPSTAIRS. THANK YOU.

(THE WITNESS COMPLIED.)

THE COURT: COUNSEL, AT THE SIDEBAR, WE DISCUSSED CERTAIN MATERIALS IN THE PUBLIC RECORD ARE AVAILABLE FROM CERTAIN DATABASES. AND, MR. SHAPIRO, JUST SO THE RECORD IS CLEAR, I'VE ORDERED YOU TO TURN OVER ONE COPY OF THAT INFORMATION WHICH IS OTHERWISE COPYRIGHTED TO THE PROSECUTION. AND YOU'VE INDICATED THAT YOU HAVE ALREADY MADE A PHOTOCOPY AVAILABLE TO MR. GORDON WITH THE EXCEPTION OF CERTAIN ITEMS YOU ALREADY DESCRIBED WITH YOUR PERSONAL NOTES, AND THAT YOU WILL GIVE A LIST TO MR. GORDON OF THE DATABASE AND PERIMETERS FOR THOSE MISSING ARTICLES, CORRECT?

MR. SHAPIRO: YES, THAT HAS BEEN DONE. WE INFORMED THE PEOPLE EARLIER THIS WEEK THAT WE IN FACT HAD DONE AN EXTENSIVE SEARCH AND COMPILED WHAT WE BELIEVE TO BE EVERY PUBLIC STATEMENT MADE BY DENISE BROWN REGARDING THIS CASE. AND WE DO NOT FEEL THAT WE HAVE ANY LEGAL OBLIGATION WHATSOEVER TO INFORM THE PROSECUTION OF THIS, BUT IN THE SPIRIT OF COOPERATION AND GOOD FAITH AND IN THE SPIRIT OF TRYING TO SAVE TIME, BECAUSE I FEEL THAT I WILL BE USING THESE DOCUMENTS FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION, THAT THE PEOPLE WILL HAVE ADEQUATE TIME TO GET READY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, I APPRECIATE YOUR HAVING ALREADY MADE A COPY TO SAVE MY STAFF SOME TIME.

MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: I'M GOING TO ORDER THE PROSECUTION, SINCE THESE ARE OTHERWISE COPYRIGHTED MATERIALS, NOT TO MAKE ANY FURTHER PHOTOCOPIES OF THAT AND THAT IT IS TO REMAIN IN YOUR POSSESSION, MR. GORDON, OR POSSESSION OF THE PROSECUTION TEAM.

MR. GORDON: YES, YOUR HONOR. WE'RE AWAITING THE OTHER DATA SEARCH AND WILL CONDUCT IT AS SOON AS WE GET IT.

THE COURT: GIVEN WHAT IS LEFT OF OUR COURT DAY, I SUSPECT WE WON'T FINISH DIRECT EXAMINATION TODAY. SO YOU WILL HAVE THE WEEKEND TO PERUSE THOSE MATTERS. ANYTHING ELSE WE NEED TO PUT ON THE RECORD BEFORE WE TAKE OUR RECESS FOR THE NOON HOUR? TERRIFIC. MR. SHAPIRO, YOU ARE EXCUSED. WHOSE BEEPER WAS THAT? EXCUSE ME. MR. SHAPIRO, YOU ARE EXCUSED UNTIL 2:00 O'CLOCK.

MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THE COURT: WE'LL STAND IN RECESS UNTIL 1:30 FOR DISCOVERY MATTERS AND OTHER REMAINING MOTIONS AT 1:30. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

(AT 11:45 A.M., THE NOON RECESS WAS TAKEN UNTIL 1:30 P.M. OF THE SAME DAY.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1995 1:35 P.M.

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

APPEARANCES: (APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED; ALSO PRESENT DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY ROCKNE HARMON.)

(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: BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. MR. SIMPSON IS AGAIN PRESENT WITH COUNSEL, MR. COCHRAN, MR. BLAISER, PEOPLE REPRESENTED BY MR. HARMON. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE BEFORE ME A LETTER FROM THE DEFENSE DATED JANUARY 30, 1995. ON PAGE 2, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ITEMS BEARING EVIDENCE NUMBERS WHICH CORRESPOND TO THE LAPD LIST. MR. BLAISER.

MR. BLAISER: YES, YOUR HONOR. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT MISS CLARK YESTERDAY AGREED ESSENTIALLY TO WHAT WE WERE ASKING FOR WITH THE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION OF THE LAST HEARTFELT LETTER WHERE WE WANTED TO DO POSSIBLY SOME TESTING IN CONFIDENCE WITHOUT THEIR PEOPLE LOOKING OVER OUR SHOULDERS. WITH THAT IN MIND, I WOULD INDICATE TO THE COURT THAT ALL OF THESE EXHIBITS HAVE BEEN IN THE CUSTODY OF THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT OR VARIOUS LABS WORKING FOR THEM FOR THE LAST EIGHT MONTHS. MANY OF THE EXHIBITS, THEY'VE ALREADY DONE EXTENSIVE TESTING ON. SOME OF THEM, THEY HAVE TESTED AS MANY AS THREE TIMES, THREE DIFFERENT LABS. OTHER ITEMS -- I'M ASSUMING THEY HAVE EXAMINED ALL OF THE ITEMS. THEY HAVE INDICATED I BELIEVE AROUND JANUARY 4TH, WHEN WE WERE PROVIDED WITH THE DOJ REPORTS, THAT THEY WERE DONE TESTING. WE AT THAT POINT BEGAN DISCUSSIONS ABOUT GETTING ACCESS TO THE EXHIBITS SO THAT WE COULD CONDUCT OUR OWN INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION. I WOULD INDICATE TO THE COURT THAT UNDER THE SIXTH AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, MR. SIMPSON HAS A RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; AND IN FACT, WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE THAT EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE TO HIM. FUNDAMENTAL TO THAT RIGHT IS OUR OBLIGATION TO EXAMINE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE THAT MIGHT BE USED AGAINST HIM. WE -- AND WE MUST BE ABLE TO DO THAT IN A MEANINGFUL MANNER. RIGHT NOW, TO THIS POINT, WE'VE ONLY HAD ACCESS TO THIS EVIDENCE FROM AFAR. WHEN DRS. BADIN AND WOLF WERE ALLOWED TO LOOK AT EXHIBITS, THEY WERE INSTRUCTED THAT THEY WERE NOT ALLOWED TO TOUCH ANYTHING, THEY WERE NOT ALLOWED TO TAKE ANYTHING OUT OF ANY BAGS, THEY WERE NOT ALLOWED TO DO ANY PHOTOGRAPHING. THIS IS OBVIOUSLY ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THERE ARE NO REPORTS FROM THOSE PEOPLE, BECAUSE THEY WOULD NOT PREPARE REPORTS BASED ON THAT KIND OF A CURSORY EXAMINATION. THAT IS NOT A MEANINGFUL EXAMINATION FROM OUR STANDPOINT. PROPOSITION 115 REQUIRES THAT WE MAKE AVAILABLE TO THE PROSECUTION ANY SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, EVIDENCE EXAMINATIONS THAT WE INTEND TO USE. WHILE 115 IMPOSES CERTAIN OBLIGATIONS ON US, IT ALSO CREATES CERTAIN PROTECTIONS FOR US. WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO TURN OVER EXPERT REPORTS OR INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS THAT WE DO NOT INTEND TO USE IN OUR CASE. AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS SO THAT WE CAN CONDUCT AN EFFECTIVE INVESTIGATION. WE MAY FIND SOME THINGS THAT WE DON'T LIKE AND DON'T WANT TO USE, AND IT'S OUR RIGHT NOT TO USE THOSE THINGS AND WE DON'T HAVE TO TURN THEM OVER TO THE PROSECUTION. TO ALLOW A PROSECUTION EXPERT TO BE LOOKING OVER OUR SHOULDERS AS YOU WILL WHILE WE CONDUCT SCIENTIFIC TESTING IS IN A SENSE REQUIRING US TO MAKE DISCLOSURE TO THE PROSECUTION OF THE RESULTS OF ALL EXAMINATIONS THAT WE DO WHETHER WE LIKE THE RESULTS OR NOT, WHETHER WE INTEND TO USE THE RESULTS OR NOT. I WOULD POINT THE COURT TO THE CASE OF PEOPLE VERSUS OR PRINCE VERSUS SUPERIOR COURT, WHICH IS AT 8 CAL. APP. 4TH 1180, WHICH I BELIEVE THE COURT'S ALREADY FAMILIAR WITH. THAT CASE INVOLVED A SITUATION WHERE THERE WERE TWO VAGINAL SWABS, AND THE COURT RULED THAT THE DEFENSE HAD A RIGHT TO ONE OF THOSE SWABS SINCE THE PROSECUTION WOULD HAVE THE OTHER SWAB AND COULD DO WHATEVER TESTING THEY WANTED TO DO ON THAT SWAB AND THAT THE DEFENSE WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONDUCT INDEPENDENT TESTING OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE PROSECUTION ON THE REMAINING SAMPLE. THE BASIS FOR THAT RULING WAS THE SIXTH AMENDMENT EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT THAT UNDER CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018, WHICH IS THE WORK PRODUCT STATUTE, THE POLICY OF THAT SECTION IS TO PRESERVE THE RIGHTS OF ATTORNEYS TO PREPARE THEIR CASES AND TO PREVENT ATTORNEYS FROM TAKING UNDUE ADVANTAGE OF AN ADVERSARY'S INDUSTRY AND EFFORTS. AND I WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU THAT TESTING THAT MIGHT BE DONE BY OUR EXPERTS AT OUR DIRECTION ARE CERTAINLY WORK PRODUCT UNDER THAT GUISE UNTIL THE POINT WHERE WE DECIDE THAT WE'RE GOING TO SUBMIT SOMETHING TO THE COURT OR TO THE JURY, AT WHICH POINT THE PROSECUTION HAS A RIGHT TO HAVE THAT. I MIGHT ALSO ADD THAT WE WERE NOT PERMITTED TO BE PRESENT WHEN THIS EVIDENCE WAS COLLECTED. WE WERE NOT PERMITTED TO BE PRESENT WHEN IT WAS TRANSPORTED OR WHEN IT WAS INITIALLY PREPARED FOR ANALYSIS AT PIPER TECH WITH THE LAPD PEOPLE. NOW, WHILE WE HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO WATCH WHILE SOME OF THE DNA TESTING HAS BEEN DONE, WE HAVE NOT BEEN ALLOWED TO DO ANY TESTING ON OUR OWN. THE COURT HAS -- UP TO THIS POINT HAS BEEN UNWILLING TO IMPOSE ANY KIND OF TIMELINESS REQUIREMENT ON THE PROSECUTION. THEY'VE HAD THIS EVIDENCE FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME. I BELIEVE IN YOUR ORDER, YOUR RULING ON THE GRIFFIN HEARING, YOU POINTED OUT THAT THE DEFENSE SHOULD USE OR THE PROSECUTION SHOULD USE ALL CONSERVATIVE METHODS IN ORDER TO PRESERVE POSSIBLE SAMPLES FOR TESTING BY THE DEFENSE. AND WE ARE AT A POINT IN TIME NOW WHERE THE TRIAL HAS ALREADY STARTED. WE WOULD LIKE OUR OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THIS EVIDENCE. AND IF WE DECIDE THAT WE WANT TO CONDUCT SPECIFIC TESTS, WE THINK WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DO THAT IN PRIVATE AND NOT REVEAL THE RESULTS UNLESS WE DECIDE THAT WE'RE GOING TO USE THAT RESULT. SO WITH THAT, I WOULD SUBMIT THE MATTER AND ASK WE BE ALLOWED TO -- THAT THE EXHIBITS BE PROVIDED TO US AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AND THAT WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THEM BEING THERE WHILE WE OPEN THEM UP AND LOOK AT THEM, AND THEY CAN VIDEOTAPE THAT IF THEY LIKE. BUT AT A POINT IN TIME WHERE WE DECIDE WE WANT TO DO A SPECIFIC TEST, WE SUBMIT THAT WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DO THAT IN PRIVATE.

THE COURT: YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE PRESENCE OF THE CUSTODIAN OF THESE ITEMS BEING PRESENT WHEN THEY'RE DISPLAYED, EXAMINED, SPLITS ARE TAKEN, BUT FOR THE ACTUAL TESTING, YOU WANT THAT DONE IN PRIVATE?

MR. BLAISER: THAT'S CORRECT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ARE THERE ANY UNUSUAL ITEMS HERE, MR. BLAISER? YOU HAVE THE LIST -- THE NUMBERS THAT YOU LIST ON PAGE 2 OF YOUR LETTER. ARE THERE ANY ITEMS THAT ARE OF UNUSUAL DIFFICULTY IN HANDLING?

MR. BLAISER: I DON'T BELIEVE SO. I THINK MOST OF THE OR A LOT OF THE ITEMS HAVE ALREADY BEEN TESTED BY THE PROSECUTION. WE DID NOT ASK FOR LARGE PIECES OF THE BRONCO. THAT MIGHT BE TROUBLESOME TO TRANSPORT BACK TO THE -- ALL OF THE CORONER'S EXHIBITS ARE ALL RELATIVELY WELL CONTAINED IN AMPLE QUANTITY THAT IF THE PROSECUTION WANTS TO DO FURTHER TESTING, PRESUMABLY THEY COULD. SO I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING THAT REQUIRES ANY KIND OF A SPECIAL ORDER.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. HARMON.

MR. HARMON: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR. IT'S FUNNY HOW WE CAN LIVE THROUGH THE SAME EVENTS AND HAVE A DIFFERENT APPRECIATION FOR THEM.

THE COURT: WELL, THERE'S A JURY INSTRUCTION ON THAT.

MR. HARMON: THIS IS ALL NOT IN FRONT OF THE JURY. SO -- A LITTLE HISTORY I THINK IS IN ORDER. ON NOVEMBER 28TH, WE WROTE THE COURT AND TOLD THE COURT AND COUNSEL THAT THE SOCKS AND THE GLOVE WERE BACK HERE AND IF YOU WANTED TO DO ANY SAMPLING OR EXAMINATION, FEEL FREE TO. WE JUST WANTED TO VIDEOTAPE IT. AND IN LIGHT OF MR. COCHRAN'S OPENING STATEMENT, I'M JUST THANKFUL THAT THEY DIDN'T TAKE US UP ON THAT FOR REASONS THAT WILL BECOME OBVIOUS IN A FEW MINUTES. SO SOME OF THOSE ITEMS AND THOSE TWO IN PARTICULAR HAVE BEEN HERE FOR MONTHS, AND NO ONE TOOK US UP ON THAT. MUCH TO OUR SURPRISE, ON JANUARY 9TH, WE GOT A LETTER FROM THE DEFENSE TEAM SAYING THEY WANTED ALL THEIR LAWYERS TO GO VISIT THE LAB THE NEXT DAY WITH -- AND, YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE NOT EASY ARRANGEMENTS TO MAKE. AND THEN THEY ALSO SAID THAT THEY WANTED DESIGNATED ITEMS TO BE SENT TO DR. LEE IN ANY FASHION WE DESIRE, AND THEY NEVER DESIGNATED THEM. AND THAT'S WHEN I MADE THE MISTAKE OF DOING SOMETHING THAT I HAD TRIED NOT TO DO IN THIS CASE. I TRIED TO DISCUSS THIS WITH MR. SCHECK. AND IF YOU RECALL, WHEN WE WENT ON THE RECORD AFTER THAT, I ASKED MR. SCHECK THAT WHENEVER WE HAD ANY COMMUNICATION, LET'S PUT IT IN WRITING SO OUR MEMORIES CAN'T FADE AND WE CAN'T FORGET WHAT REALLY WAS DISCUSSED. SO THIS LATEST LETTER -- ACTUALLY WE RESPONDED TO THAT JANUARY 9TH LETTER ON JANUARY 9TH, AND WE SAID -- AND THIS IS A QUOTE:

"WE ARE IN RECEIPT OF YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 9TH, 1995. YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED US WITH ADEQUATE TIME NOR GIVEN US SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO INTELLIGENTLY RESPOND TO YOUR REQUEST. PLEASE FILE APPROPRIATE LEGAL MOTIONS WITH THE COURT, JANUARY 9TH." NOTHING HAPPENED. JANUARY 30, THREE WEEKS LATER, WE GET THE LETTER THAT BROUGHT US HERE TODAY. AND MUCH TO MY SURPRISE, THE LETTER SAYS THAT MR. CLARK AND I AGREED TO SOMETHING. NOW, WE AGREED TO AGREE TO SOMETHING WHEN FULL INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED. AT THAT TIME, MR. SCHECK SUGGESTED THAT WE ABIDE BY THE RULES OF CELLMARK. AND IF YOU RECALL, THIS IS LONG BEFORE I WAS INVOLVED IN THE CASE, CELLMARK WOULD ALLOW DEFENSE EXPERTS TO VIEW TESTING. AND WE WERE VERY SURPRISED THAT SOMETHING LIKE THAT WOULD BE SO EASILY RESOLVED BETWEEN MR. SCHECK AND I. AND THEN NOTHING EVER CAME OF IT UNTIL WE READ THIS LETTER READING THAT WE HAD AGREED TO SHIPPING EVERYTHING WHEN IN FACT NO NUMBERED ITEMS HAD EVER BEEN MENTIONED IN ANY OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS. IF THERE WAS EVER ANY AGREEMENT, IT WAS THAT OUR EXPERTS WOULD BE ALLOWED TO WATCH, TO VIDEOTAPE THE SAMPLINGS, EXAMINATIONS AND TESTS JUST AS WE HAVE ALLOWED THE DEFENDANT TO DO AT EVERY TURN IN THIS PROCEEDINGS. THE UBIQUITOUS DR. BLAKE, THE UBIQUITOUS BUT VISIBLE DR. BLAKE CONTINUES TO VISIT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. AND THIS IS DONE VERY CORDIALLY BY THEM. THEY TELL HIM WHEN THINGS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN AND CHANGE THEIR SCHEDULE SO THAT HE CAN SHOW. I THINK IT'S AT THIS POINT WE NEED TO REFLECT BACK ON SOMETHING THAT I WATCHED AT HOME ON TELEVISION BACK IN AUGUST, NOT REALIZING I WOULD BE HERE. MISS CLARK OFFERED TO HAVE THE UBIQUITOUS DR. BLAKE DO ALL OF THE TESTING, ALL OF THE PCR TESTING THAT APPARENTLY -- AND I SAY APPARENTLY IS NOW BEING REQUESTED OF THIS COURT. I'M SOMEWHAT SURPRISED TO HEAR MR. BLAISER -- PERHAPS HE HASN'T BEEN INFORMED OF THIS. AND IF HE HASN'T, IT'S ANOTHER CURIOUS EVENT -- SAY THAT THEY'VE NEVER HAD ANY OF THE EVIDENCE WHEN YOU KNOW, YOUR HONOR, THAT YOU SIGNED AN EX PARTE ORDER WAY BACK IN OCTOBER FOR ITEMS 47, 50 AND 78, AND THOSE ITEMS WERE RELEASED TO THE DEFENSE TEAM. MR. BLAISER APPARENTLY DOESN'T KNOW THAT. PERHAPS THIS IS ANOTHER ONE OF THESE INSTANCES WHERE THEY'VE TESTED SOMETHING IN SECRET AND THEY DON'T EVEN WANT HIM TO KNOW WHAT THE ANSWER IS. IT'S CLEAR THAT WHAT THEY WANT TO DO IS HIDE THE BALL. AND I'M GOING TO CONVINCE YOU TODAY, YOUR HONOR, THAT ON MANY OF THESE ITEMS, THE TIME HAS COME TO REALIZE THAT THIS IS NOT ABOUT FINDING THE TRUTH THAT IS IN THAT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE IS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT CATEGORY OF EVIDENCE IN THIS STATE. THAT THIS IS ONLY ABOUT WINNING AT ALL COSTS. THE DEFENDANT HAS REQUESTED 184 ITEMS, MOST OF THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, TO BE TRANSPORTED TO A LABORATORY ON THE EAST COAST RIGHT WHEN WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR CASE. OR I SHOULDN'T SAY MIDDLE, BUT RIGHT WHEN WE'VE BEGUN OUR CASE. SOME OF THEM ARE REALLY INTERESTING AND INTRIGUING ITEMS. NOW, THEY HAVEN'T SAID WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WITH IT. THEY HAVEN'T SAID WHAT KIND OF TESTS THEY WANT TO PERFORM ON IT, AND I THINK THERE ARE LEGAL REASONS WHY THEY HAVE TO SPECIFY THAT I'LL ADDRESS. THEY WANT NO. -- I'VE PICKED OUT SOME OF THE MORE INTRIGUING ITEMS. NO. 118, IT'S A KNIFE THAT MR. COCHRAN HAD UP ON GREG MATHESON'S REPORT. IT'S A KNIFE WITH SOMEONE ELSE'S BLOOD ON IT OTHER THAN THE VICTIMS'. THAT'S ONE OF THE KNIVES OR ONE OF THE ITEMS THEY WANT TO SEE. THEY WANT NO. 136, WHICH WAS SEIZED BY -- SEIZED FROM RONALD GOLDMAN'S APARTMENT ON JUNE 15TH. DINO, THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF DEAN MARTIN FOR SOME STRANGE REASON. THEY WANT NO. 143, A KNIFE FOUND ALL THE WAY DOWN IN OCEANSIDE. PERHAPS THE MOST INTERESTING ITEM THAT THEY --

THE COURT: OCEANSIDE AS IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY?

MR. HARMON: THAT'S RIGHT, YOUR HONOR. THEY MUST KNOW SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T KNOW. THE ITEM THAT I FOUND MOST INTRIGUING AND INTERESTING IS, THEY WANT NO. 200, THE CASSETTE THAT WAS SEIZED FROM MR. SIMPSON'S BRONCO, CARLITO'S WAY, THE SOUND TRACK. AND ALL I COULD THINK OF WAS PERHAPS THEY WANT TO PLAY IT BACKWARDS LIKE THE BEATLES, "I'M THE WALRUS," AND IF YOU DO THAT -- REMEMBER YOU HEAR PAUL IS DEAD -- THERE WILL BE A CLUE AS TO WHO REALLY KILLED THE VICTIMS IN THIS CASE.

THE COURT: YOU'RE DATING YOURSELF.

MR. HARMON: IT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, YOUR HONOR, YOU SEEMED TO UNDERSTAND IT ALSO.

MR. HARMON: AMONG THE LIST OF ITEMS ARE SOME ITEMS THAT ARE STILL BEING TESTED AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. THIS LIST WAS DONE VERY CARELESSLY WITHOUT ANY REAL CONSIDERATION FOR WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY TOLD THEM. ITEMS 79, 81 AND 86, THEY'RE AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. THEY KNOW THAT. WE'VE TOLD THEM THAT.

THE COURT: WHAT ARE THOSE ITEMS?

MR. HARMON: THEY ARE CLOTHING ITEMS BELONGING TO RONALD GOLDMAN AND NICOLE BROWN. I CAN'T SORT THEM OUT NOW. I DON'T QUITE HAVE THEM MEMORIZED YET. AND 303 AND 304 -- AND THIS IS NOT INCLUSIVE, BUT I'M PRETTY SURE IT IS -- THOSE ARE SOME STAINS FROM THE BRONCO THAT WERE COLLECTED THE SECOND TIME AROUND I BELIEVE IN AUGUST. THOSE THINGS ARE STILL AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND WE'VE TOLD THEM THAT ALL ALONG. NO SPECIFIC REASON IS PROVIDED FOR ANY OF THESE ITEMS, NO SPECIFIC TEST IS MENTIONED. AND THERE ARE LEGAL REASONS WHY IT'S INCUMBENT UPON THEM IN MY OPINION TO PROVIDE THAT KIND OF SPECIFICITY. SO THE DEFENDANT NOW WANTS ALL OF THESE 184 ITEMS TO BE SHIPPED OFF TO THE EAST COAST. WHAT'S INTERESTING ABOUT THE TIMING OF THE REQUEST YOUR HONOR, IT'S MADE IMMEDIATELY AFTER MR. COCHRAN HAS PUBLICLY ACCUSED THE PROSECUTION OF CONDUCTING UNRELIABLE DNA TESTS ON CONTAMINATED SAMPLES, THE SAME TIME HE'S ACCUSED SOMEONE IN LAW ENFORCEMENT OF PLANTING NICOLE SIMPSON'S BLOOD ON THE DEFENDANT'S SOCKS. BECAUSE DEFENDANT OR HIS TEAM APPARENTLY SEEKS TO PERFORM TESTS WHICH CONSUME OR ALTER SOME OF THESE ITEMS OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FOREVER, THEY HAVE TO JUSTIFY UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF PEOPLE VERSUS COOPER WHAT THESE ITEMS ARE, WHY THESE SAMPLES ARE NEEDED AND WHO WILL PERFORM THE TESTS. IF THE DNA TESTS ARE BEING CONTEMPLATED BY THE DEFENSE, HOW HAVE THOSE TESTS SUDDENLY BECOME RELIABLE IN THERE HANDS WHEN MR. COCHRAN HAS ANNOUNCED TO THIS JURY AND THE WORLD THAT THEY ARE UNRELIABLE IN THEIR FORENSIC APPLICATION? PERHAPS THEY ARE CONTEMPLATING HAVING NOBLE PRIZE WINNER MULLIS PERFORM SOME OF HIS CYBERSPACE 21ST CENTURY TESTS ON THESE ITEMS. AND HOPEFULLY -- I ADD THIS PARENTHETICALLY. HOPEFULLY THE COURT WILL ALLOW THE PEOPLE WHEN WE CROSS-EXAMINE DR. MULLIS TO ENGAGE IN SOME OF THE PROBING QUESTIONING THAT RON SHIPP UNDERWENT IN TERMS OF HIS CONSUMPTION HABITS AND HIS BIZARRE SCIENTIFIC OPINIONS. IF MULLIS PERFORMS THESE ANALYSIS, IT WILL BE THE FIRST TIME HE'S EVER TESTED FORENSIC EVIDENCE. SOMEHOW, PERHAPS THE DEFENSE HAS SUGGESTED THAT THE WAY MULLIS WILL DO IT WILL OVERCOME THE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER POINT THAT MR. COCHRAN ALLUDED TO IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT. WELL, BECAUSE OF THOSE SHOCKING ALLEGATIONS, SPECIFICALLY WITH RESPECT TO NICOLE SIMPSON'S OR NICOLE'S BLOOD ON THE DEFENDANT'S SOCKS WHICH MR. COCHRAN MADE PUBLIC FOR THE FIRST TIME ON MONDAY, THE PROSECUTION PRESENTLY INTENDS TO PERFORM TESTS ON THOSE BLOOD-STAINED AREAS OF DEFENDANT'S SOCKS WHICH ARE ABLE TO DETECT THE PRESENCE OF THE PRESERVATIVE IN REFERENCE SAMPLES IN THE SAMPLE THAT WAS PRESERVED BY THE CORONER. THERE IS A PRESERVATIVE NAMED EDTA IN THOSE TUBES. THEY'RE PREMANUFACTURED. THERE'S A SPECIFIED AMOUNT OF THAT PRESERVATIVE IN THOSE TUBES. WE INTEND TO PURSUE THAT WITH ALL OF OUR VIGOR TO REFUTE THE ALLEGATIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN -- WHICH HAVE CAST A CLOUD OVER MANY OF THE PEOPLE WHO WORKED IN THIS CASE. HAD THESE ALLEGATIONS BEEN MADE MONTHS AGO, WE COULD HAVE DONE THIS MONTHS AGO. BUT FOR WHATEVER REASON, THOSE UGLY RUMORS CIRCULATED AND CIRCULATED, AND THEN FINALLY ON MONDAY, MR. COCHRAN POINTED THE FINGER. UNFORTUNATELY, WHEN HE POINTED THE FINGER IN HIS SOCK TIMELINE, HE LEFT OFF ONE IMPORTANT EVENT THAT TOTALLY UNDERMINDS THE CHRONOLOGY THAT HE CREATED OR DEMONSTRATED IN FRONT OF THE JURY. AND THE EVENT THAT HE LEFT OUT WAS, BEFORE THAT LEAKED STORY, THE LAPD HAD DONE CONVENTIONAL SCREENING ON THAT SOCK AND DETERMINED THAT THE PGM SUBTYPE BELONGED TO NICOLE AND DID NOT BELONG TO ANY OF THESE OTHER PEOPLE. SO IT WAS KNOWN. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT DIDN'T APPEAR THAT THERE WAS A LEAK. BUT THAT'S AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE STORY THAT MR. COCHRAN LEFT OUT. WE ARE UNDER A LEGAL OBLIGATION IN LIGHT OF THESE ALLEGATIONS UNDER BRADY VERSUS MARYLAND TO PURSUE THIS ISSUE. NOT THAT WE BELIEVE IT WILL PRODUCE EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE. BUT WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO DO SO, AND WE INTEND TO DO SO WITH ALL THE RESOURCES THAT MAY BE AVAILABLE TO US. WE ALSO HAVE A MORAL AND AN ETHICAL OBLIGATION TO PURSUE THIS. AND THIS ISN'T ANY INQUIRY MOTIVATED BY ADVOCACY. THIS IS A PURELY SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY. WE CAN'T RELY ON TAINTED EVIDENCE. WE HAVE NO DOUBT THAT THE BLOOD ON THOSE SOCKS WHICH WE HAVE IDENTIFIED CONCLUSIVELY THROUGH MULTIPLE DNA TESTS BELONG TO NICOLE AND WAS TRANSFERRED THERE DURING THE SAVAGE BRUTAL KILLINGS OF RON GOLDMAN AND NICOLE. WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO THOSE PEOPLE WHOSE REPUTATION STAND TO BE TARNISHED BY MR. COCHRAN'S CARELESS CHARGES WITH NO SUBSTANCE TO THEM. THE TESTS WILL SHOW THAT THE BLOOD ON THOSE SOCKS WHICH MR. COCHRAN ADMITS IS NICOLE'S DID NOT COME FROM THE REFERENCE SAMPLE THAT WAS LACED WITH EDTA THAT WAS OBTAINED BY THE CORONER'S OFFICE. IT'S A QUESTION OF SCIENTIFIC TRUTH WHICH CAN ONLY BE ADDRESSED BY FAIR AND IMPARTIAL SCIENTISTS, NOT ATTORNEYS WHOSE INTERESTS ARE IRRECONCILABLE OR WHOSE CAREERS SERVE TO BE PROMOTED OR ADVANCED BY CARELESS CHARGES SUCH AS THAT. IN FACT, WE'VE INVITED AND WE CONTINUE TO INVITE INPUT FROM THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY ABOUT HOW TO APPROACH THESE TESTS AND TO DESIGN THEM IN A WAY THAT THERE WILL BE NO QUESTION THAT WHEN THOSE TESTS PROVE THAT THERE'S NO EDTA ON THE STAIN THAT'S BEEN IDENTIFIED AS COMING FROM NICOLE, THERE WILL BE NO QUESTION. NO ONE WILL HAVE A LINGERING DOUBT. RIGHT NOW, WE ACTUALLY INVITE THE DEFENDANT TO JOIN US IN THIS SEARCH IF THEY WANT TO FIND OUT WHAT THE TRUTH IS ABOUT HOW THOSE STAINS GOT THERE. PERHAPS WE CAN AGREE ON A SERIES OF DIFFERENT TESTS TO BE PERFORMED BY DIFFERENT LABS OVERSEEN BY A MUTUALLY AGREED UPON BLUE RIBBON PANEL. IF THIS IS ABOUT FINDING THE TRUTH, WE WILL AGREE. IF IT'S ABOUT WINNING AT ALL COSTS, WE WON'T. THERE'S ONLY TWO POSSIBLE OUTCOMES TO THIS TEST. THERE'S EITHER GOING TO BE EDTA THERE OR THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE EDTA THERE. AND WE'RE WILLING TO ACCEPT THE OUTCOME, WHATEVER THAT IS. ONE CAN ONLY IMAGINE THE ONLY REASON THAT THE DEFENSE MIGHT NOT WANT TO JOIN IN MUTUALLY AGREEING ON THIS IS BECAUSE THEY ALREADY KNOW THERE'S NO EDTA THERE AND THEY ALREADY KNOW HOW THAT BLOOD GOT THERE. WE AGREE TO ACCEPT THOSE RESULTS IN ADVANCE. WE SINCERELY HOPE THAT THE DEFENSE AGREES TO DO SO TOO, AND WE ESPECIALLY HOPE THAT SHOULD WE PROVE CONCLUSIVELY THROUGH A SERIES OF TESTS, WELL-ESTABLISHED TESTS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY, THE DEFENDANT WILL NOT FALL BACK ON THE DATED LEGAL ARTIFICE OF PEOPLE VERSUS KELLY TO TRY TO PREVENT THE RESULTS FROM BEING PRESENTED TO THIS JURY. THAT KIND OF TACTIC WOULD ONLY SUBVERT THE TRUTH EVEN MORE. I BELIEVE AT THIS POINT, WE HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT THOSE SOCKS NEED TO BE MAINTAINED IN OUR POSSESSION UNTIL WE HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO PURSUE THIS SCIENTIFICALLY. THAT INCLUDES ALL THE REFERENCE SAMPLES, AND I'M BROADENING THIS A LITTLE BIT TOO TO INCLUDE THE OTHER TWO REFERENCE SAMPLES FOR REASONS I'LL ALLUDE TO. IF WE'RE FORCED AT THIS POINT TO TURN OVER ANY OF THOSE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE, THAT COULD COMPROMISE OUR ABILITY TO PRODUCE A DEFINITIVE ANSWER ABOUT THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF EDTA ON THE STAIN THAT'S BEEN CONCLUSIVELY IDENTIFIED AS COMING FROM NICOLE ON THE -- FROM THE SOCKS FOUND IN THE DEFENDANT'S BEDROOM. NO COURT SHOULD FORCE US TO PART WITH THOSE ITEMS AT THIS POINT. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, YOUR HONOR, IT'S DOUBTFUL THAT ANY COURT COULD AT THIS POINT. AND I SAY THAT RESPECTFULLY. THERE'S TOO MUCH AT STAKE. WE HAVE TO GO WITH THAT AND WE'RE WILLING TO ACCEPT WHATEVER OUTCOME. MR. COCHRAN ALSO ALLUDED TO THE DEFENDANT'S REFERENCE SAMPLE DRIFTING AROUND IN MR. -- DETECTIVE VANNATTER'S POCKET, GOING TO ANOTHER SIDE OF TOWN, AND HE NEVER POINTED OUT WHAT STAINS MIGHT HAVE BEEN POLLUTED OR PLANTED BY DETECTIVE VANNATTER. AND THERE'S A REASON HE DIDN'T DO THAT. BUT THAT'S SPECTER. THAT IMAGE IS STILL FLOATING AROUND OF VANNATTER DRIVING ACROSS TOWN RATHER THAN TAKING THE SHORT ROUTE. THERE'S A REASON THAT HE DIDN'T -- HE WASN'T SPECIFIC, AND THAT IS BECAUSE ALL THOSE EVIDENCE STAINS WERE COLLECTED BEFORE THE REFERENCE SAMPLE HAD BEEN OBTAINED FROM MR. SIMPSON. BUT STILL, IN LIGHT OF THAT MISLEADING IMPRESSION THAT WAS CREATED, WE WANT TO MAINTAIN POSSESSION OF ALL THREE REFERENCE SAMPLES. AND THEY EXIST IN TUBES, THEY EXIST IN CARDS, THEY EXIST IN SWATCHES.

THE COURT: WELL, LET ME ASK YOU THIS, MR. HARMON.

MR. HARMON: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: AS TO THOSE REFERENCE SAMPLES --

MR. HARMON: THE DEFENSE HAS ALREADY GOTTEN SAMPLES FROM THEM. I'M SORRY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THEN I WON'T CONCERN MYSELF WITH THOSE.

MR. HARMON: THEY HAVE ALREADY -- I COULD PULL OUT THE DATES, BUT THE DEFENSE HAS ALREADY HAD ACCESS TO THE REFERENCE SAMPLES, ALL THREE OF THEM. SO IN MY OPINION, THERE'S NO CONTINUED NEED TO OBTAIN THOSE ITEMS.

THE COURT: ARE THERE ANY ITEMS ON THIS LIST THAT YOU ARE WILLING TO CONCEDE THAT THEY ARE ENTITLED TO HAVE IN THEIR POSSESSION FOR TESTING AND YOU HAVE NO FURTHER OBJECTION?

MR. HARMON: WELL, HOW ABOUT DINO AND CARLITO'S WAY FOR STARTERS? WE MADE PROGRESS THIS AFTERNOON. WELL, I THINK IT'S INCUMBENT ON THEM TO SPECIFY WHAT IT IS THAT THEY NEED. AND WHEN I FINISH IN A MOMENT, I THINK YOU'LL SEE THE REASON WHY, YOUR HONOR. UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF KEENAN VERSUS SUPERIOR COURT, WHICH WE LIST IN OUR LETTER, WE HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO OBSERVE THESE TESTS, NOT ONLY TO OBSERVE THEM, BUT TO MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF THE EVIDENCE. THAT'S AT 126 CAL. APP. 3D 576. DEFENDANT -- THERE'S NO SURPRISE THAT THEY SHOULD RELY ON PRINCE VERSUS SUPERIOR COURT. I THINK THE COURT NEEDS TO LOOK AT WHAT OUR SUPREME COURT HAS SAID, PEOPLE VERSUS COOPER, 53 CAL. 3D. 771. THEY SIMPLY ASSERT THAT THIS KIND OF MONITORING WOULD VIOLATE THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES. AND REMEMBER A COUPLE MONTHS AGO, WE WENT THROUGH SOME DISCUSSIONS ABOUT ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE. PEOPLE VERSUS COOPER IN MY OPINION DISPOSES OF THAT. AND IF IT DOESN'T, IT'S INCUMBENT ON THEM TO POINT OUT BY SPECIFYING WHAT IT IS THAT THEY WANT TO DO AND HOW MUCH THAT THEY'RE GOING TO CONSUME. YOU KNOW, IF WE JUST SHIP ALL THIS STUFF OFF, UNDER THEIR THEORY, IT DISAPPEARS INTO THE BLACK HOLE OF CALCUTTA AND WE NEVER GET TO SEE OR FIND OUT ANYTHING THAT COMES OUT OF IT. I JUST SENT A LETTER TO THE DEFENSE TEAM TODAY. I WANT TO KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENED TO 47, 50 AND 78. WE'RE ENTITLED TO PRESENT AN ACCOUNT FOR THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY. AND I WASN'T THAT ACTIVELY INVOLVED AT THE TIME THEY OBTAINED POSSESSION OF IT, BUT I THINK WE'RE ENTITLED TO KNOW THAT, WHAT'S LEFT. YOU KNOW, THERE ARE SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS ABOUT HOW TERRIBLE THE CESSPOOL OF LAPD, SID IS, AND WE'RE ENTITLED TO CLEAR THOSE UP BY DEMONSTRATING THAT EVERYTHING IS ACCOUNTED FOR. REMEMBER THE TIME OR THE CHART ABOUT MR. SIMPSON'S REFERENCE SAMPLE? THEY'VE MADE SOME SERIOUS CHARGES ABOUT THAT, AND WE'RE ENTITLED. BUT IF WE GIVE THEM STUFF AND ARE NEVER ABLE TO ACCOUNT FOR IT -- I MEAN THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES, THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY AND THEN THERE'S THE MANDATE -- TO ME, THE PRECISE LEGAL QUESTION IS, WHAT LEGAL AUTHORITY DID THEY HAVE TO SHIELD THOSE RESULTS. THAT'S OUR EVIDENCE. AND WE'RE MORE THAN HAPPY TO LET THEM BE AS EFFECTIVE AS THEY CAN BE. BUT THE LAW IN THIS STATE AND IN THIS COUNTRY DOESN'T ALLOW THEM TO BE ANY MORE EFFECTIVE THAN THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE ALLOWS THEM TO BE. AND THERE'S THE BIND. THEY WANT TO TAKE OUR EVIDENCE, THEY WANT TO DO SOME TESTING SOMEWHERE, AND THEY HAVEN'T EVEN TOLD YOU THAT'S WHERE THE TESTING WAS GOING TO BE. IT IS MY OPINION THAT THE LAB THEY WE WILL BE SHIPPING IT TO IS MERELY A CONDUIT TO PREVENT US -- WHAT GOOD DOES IT DO TO TAPE THIS AND FILM THEM IN ONE PLACE IF IT'S GOING TO BE SHIPPED OUT ALL OVER THE COUNTRY FROM THERE? HOW ARE WE EVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO ACCOUNT FOR THINGS? YOU KNOW, JURIES ASK -- I'M SURE YOU'VE SEEN -- SOME STRANGE QUESTIONS. THEY WANT TO SEE THINGS SOMETIMES. AND WHERE ARE WE WHEN WE SAY, WELL, WE SHIPPED IT ALL OFF TO THEM? I'M SURE THAT THEY'LL PROBABLY OBJECT TO ANY REFERENCE TO THEM HAVING HAD ACCESS IN THE ACTUAL TRIAL TOO. I'M TRYING NOT TO PREDICT THE FUTURE, BUT YOU KNOW THAT'S COMING TOO. THAT NOT ONLY -- IF THEY PREVAIL ON ANY OF THESE ISSUES, NOT ONLY DO THEY RESERVE THE RIGHT TO ATTACK OUR EVIDENCE, EVEN IF THEY'VE GOTTEN THE SAME ANSWERS, AS THEY SURELY WILL IN THIS CASE, BUT THEN THEY'LL TRY TO PREVENT ANY REFERENCE TO THE FACT THAT THEY GOT THE STUFF IN THE FIRST PLACE, SERIOUSLY MISLEADING THE JURY, DEPRIVING US OF ANY OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW THEM THAT THIS IS MERELY ABOUT CRITICIZING WHAT OUR EVIDENCE SHOWS, BUT NOT ABOUT SHOWING THAT THE ANSWERS ARE INCONSISTENT. AND I JUST CLOSE ON A PRACTICAL MATTER. YOU KNOW, THE TRIAL'S BEGUN. YOU CAN IMAGINE WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WHEN WE SAY, CAN WE HAVE THE GLOVE? WE ARE GOING TO NEED IT ABOUT 10:00 O'CLOCK TOMORROW, AND THEN THEY HAVE TO TRACK IT DOWN. SO AT THIS POINT, YOUR HONOR, I SEE THREE CATEGORIES. I SEE THE SOCKS AND THE REFERENCE SAMPLES. I SEE ALL THE ITEMS OF BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE THAT WE MAY INTEND TO PURSUE ONCE WE PURSUE THE QUESTION ON THE SOCK, THE QUESTION OF, IS THERE ANY EDTA IN ANY OF THE SAMPLES THAT WE'VE ASSOCIATED WITH MR. SIMPSON. AND WHAT'S INTERESTING, THERE AREN'T THAT MANY SAMPLES THAT WE'VE ASSOCIATED WITH MR. SIMPSON EXCEPT -- THAT HAVE A PURELY SINISTER IMPLICATION TO THEM EXCEPT FOR THE CRIME SCENE DROPS. THERE'S BLOOD IN HIS BRONCO, THERE'S BLOOD AT HIS HOUSE AND THERE'S ALSO HIS BLOOD WHICH HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED ON THOSE VERY SAME SOCKS TOO. BUT MR. COCHRAN HAS RAISED THE SPECTER THAT DETECTIVE VANNATTER OR SOME OTHER DARK AGENT OF HIS DID SOMETHING WITH MR. SIMPSON'S REFERENCE SAMPLE AND PLANTED IT SOMEWHERE. AND DEPENDENT ON HOW THE FIRST SET OF EDTA TESTS ARE DONE -- AND I CAN'T EVEN GIVE YOU A TIMETABLE ON THAT, YOUR HONOR. WE'VE BEEN MAKING MANY PHONE CALLS SINCE MR. COCHRAN MADE THAT ANNOUNCEMENT TO THE WORLD THE OTHER DAY. BUT WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO BE ABLE TO TRY TO DETECT EDTA OR DETERMINE THAT THERE IS NO EDTA IN MANY OF THESE OTHER SAMPLES TOO.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. BLAISER.

MR. BLAISER: YES, YOUR HONOR. I'M NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT MR. SHIPMAN OR CARLITO'S WAY. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS. WE'VE MADE ALLEGATIONS THAT MAYBE SOME OF THIS EVIDENCE WAS TAMPERED WITH, AND NOW THEY'RE SAYING WE CAN'T EVEN LOOK AT IT TO TRY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT. JUST BECAUSE OF WHAT OUR DEFENSE HAPPENS TO BE DOESN'T GIVE THEM LEGAL AUTHORITY TO SAY WE CAN'T LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE AT ALL ANYMORE. THE ONLY AUTHORITY THAT MR. HARMON CITED IS PEOPLE VERSUS COOPER. AND COOPER DOES NOT SAY THAT WE HAVE TO TELL THEM WHAT OUR TESTS ARE GOING TO BE, THAT WE HAVE TO TELL THEM WHEN WE ARE GOING TO DO IT, THAT WE HAVE TO TELL THEM HOW MUCH WE ARE GOING TO USE AND THAT WE HAVE TO TELL THEM WHAT THE RESULTS ARE. WHAT PEOPLE VERSUS COOPER SAYS IS THAT WHERE A SAMPLE IS SO SMALL THAT BOTH SIDES CAN'T DO TESTING INDIVIDUALLY, THAT IT HAS TO BE DONE TOGETHER. THE DEFENSE DOES NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO DEPRIVE THE PROSECUTION OF DOING TESTING BY DOING IT THEMSELVES AND DESTROYING ALL OF THE EVIDENCE. THAT'S ALL THAT COOPER SAYS. PRINCE CAME AFTER COOPER AND SAID THAT THAT'S WHAT COOPER SAID. BUT WITH PRINCE, WHERE THERE'S ADDITIONAL MATERIALS FOR THE DEFENSE TO DO TESTING, THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO DO IT AND THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO DO IT IN PRIVATE. MR. HARMON SEEMS TO BE -- FORGOTTEN THAT WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION IN THIS COMPANY -- IN THIS COUNTRY THAT PROVIDES THAT THE DEFENSE HAS CERTAIN RIGHTS, THAT WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION, THAT THERE'S ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE, THAT WE'RE NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE INFORMATION THAT MIGHT INCRIMINATE OUR OWN CLIENT IF INDEED THAT IT IS OUT THERE AND THAT WE HAVE A RIGHT TO CONDUCT OUR INVESTIGATION IN A WAY THAT BEST ALLOWS US TO PREPARE OUR DEFENSE. IF MR. HARMON IS HERE TO SAY THAT THE FACT THAT THE SOCKS -- THAT THERE WAS AN ANNOUNCEMENT TO THE PRESS THAT NICOLE SIMPSON'S DNA WERE ON THOSE SOCKS WHILE THEY WERE STILL IN THE CRIME LAB BEFORE THEY HAD BEEN SENT FOR TESTING, IF THEY CAN'T FIGURE OUT FROM THAT THAT WE MIGHT MAKE SOME ALLEGATION THAT WHEN THE BLOOD LATER ON TURNS UP ON THE SOCK, THAT THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN TAMPERED WITH, THEN THEY AREN'T VERY GOOD TRIAL LAWYERS. CERTAINLY THEY KNEW THAT THAT WAS A POSSIBILITY. NOW THEY'RE TRYING TO TIE UP THAT PIECE OF EVIDENCE BY SAYING THEY'RE GOING TO DO OTHER TESTING, OTHER TESTING THAT I DON'T KNOW HAS PASSED KELLY-FRYE, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S ADMISSIBLE OR NOT. THEY WANT TO TIE THAT UP NOW SO WE CAN'T LOOK AT THAT. WITH RESPECT TO THE ITEMS THAT THEY DID TELL US THAT THEY ALREADY -- THAT THEY WERE STILL DOING SOME TESTING ON, WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO LETTING THEM FINISH THAT AND THEN HAVE US LOOK AT IT. THE REFERENCE SAMPLES, WE ARE INTERESTED IN EXAMINING THE TUBES. IF THERE WAS TAMPERING WITH THE TUBES, WE WANT TO LOOK AT THE TUBES AND THE LABELS. WE'RE NOT SO CONCERNED ABOUT THE BLOOD THAT IS ON THE INSIDE, BUT IN THE MANNER IN WHICH IT'S BEEN PRESERVED IN THE TUBES AND IN THE ENVELOPE. AND THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO INSPECT WITH THESE THINGS. WE POINTED -- MR. COCHRAN POINTED OUT IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT THAT THERE HAD BEEN SOME CONVENTIONAL SEROLOGY DONE ON THOSE SOCKS. IT WAS THE FACT THAT IT WAS ANNOUNCED THAT THERE WAS DNA TESTING THAT HAD BEEN COMPLETED WHEN THEY HAD NEVER BEEN SENT TO THE LAB THAT WE FELT WAS SUSPICIOUS AND IS PART OF OUR DEFENSE AND CERTAINLY IS A LEGITIMATE PART OF OUR DEFENSE. I WOULD JUST CLOSE BY SAYING THAT IF THE ONLY AUTHORITY MR. HARMON HAS IS COOPER, IT DOESN'T SUPPORT WHAT HE HAS TOLD THIS COURT THAT IT SETS. IT DOES NOT SAY THAT WE HAVE TO TELL THEM WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO, HOW MUCH WE ARE GOING TO USE, WHERE WE ARE GOING TO DO IT AND HOW WE ARE GOING TO DO IT. WE APPARENTLY OFFERED TO ALLOW TO HAVE DOCTORS WOLF, BADIN AND LEE ASSIST THE PROSECUTION'S EXPERT IN CONDUCTING TESTS EARLY ON. THEY WERE NOT PARTICULARLY INTERESTED IN THAT, AND NOW WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DO THE TESTING OURSELVES SO THAT WE CAN PREPARE OUR DEFENSE.

THE COURT: WHY DO WE HAVE TO DO THIS EXAMINATION AND SPLIT IN NEW YORK? WHY CAN'T YOU HAVE YOUR PEOPLE COME HERE, DO THE PHYSICAL EXAMINATION, TAKE WHATEVER SPLITS ARE AGREED UPON BY BOTH SIDES HERE AND THEN TRANSPORT ON YOUR OWN THOSE SPLITS FOR TESTING?

MR. BLAISER: SOME OF THOSE EXAMINATIONS THAT WE WANT TO DO ARE PROBABLY GOING TO BE MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATIONS OF ITEMS TO DETERMINE WHETHER WE NEED TO DO ANY TESTING. THAT IS DONE IN OUR LAB BY OUR PEOPLE WITH THEIR EQUIPMENT. WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THEM WATCHING THAT SO THAT THEY SEE WHAT'S DONE. BUT IN OUR VIEW, IT'S UNREASONABLE TO REQUIRE ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE TO COME BACK HERE, NOT KNOWING WHAT EQUIPMENT THEY MIGHT HAVE AVAILABLE TO THEM, NOT KNOWING WHETHER THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE EQUIPMENT, NOT KNOWING HOW MUCH TIME THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE. WE THINK IT'S FAR MORE REASONABLE THAT THEY BE ALLOWED TO EXAMINE IT IN THEIR OWN SETTING, AND WE DO NOT HAVE ANY INTENTION OF SHIPPING THIS STUFF ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. THEY'RE GOING TO BE THERE, THEY'RE GOING TO SEE WHAT WE DO WITH IT, THEY'RE GOING TO SEE US TAKE SPLITS. THEY'RE JUST NOT GOING TO GO SEE WHAT KIND OF TESTING WE MIGHT DO WITH THOSE SPLITS.

THE COURT: WELL, HERE'S THE PROBLEM. I MEAN WE'RE HERE, WE'RE IN TRIAL. I'M TOLD THAT THE PEOPLE'S OPENING REGARDING THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ISSUES WILL PROBABLY CONCLUDE IN A WEEK OR SO AND THAT WE WILL GO INTO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. THEY'RE GOING TO START WANTING TO PRESENT SOME OF THIS PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. HOW CAN I JUSTIFY -- YOU SAY IT'S REASONABLE. HOW CAN I REASONABLY ALLOW YOU TO TAKE ALL THIS EVIDENCE TO NEW YORK WHEN WE'RE IN TRIAL HERE AND ONE OF THE PARTIES WANTS TO PRESENT IT?

MR. BLAISER: FIRST OF ALL, WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THEM SPECIFYING WHICH PARTICULAR ITEMS THEY ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO USE AND WILL DO THOSE FIRST AND GET THEM BACK AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. THERE ARE PICTURES OF ALL OF THESE THINGS. PICTURES CAN BE USED UNTIL THE ITEMS COME BACK. I THINK -- THE NUMBER OF ITEMS THAT THEY ACTUALLY INTEND TO INTRODUCE PHYSICAL PIECES OF EVIDENCE I THINK ARE RELATIVELY SMALL. MUCH OF WHAT WE ASKED FOR ARE THINGS THAT THEY FEEL ARE UNIMPORTANT. THEY HAVEN'T EVEN DONE TESTING ON SOME OF THIS STUFF. SO WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO EXAMINING THINGS IN AN ORDER IN WHICH WE CAN GET THEM BACK AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE SO THAT THEY CAN BE USED FOR WHATEVER PURPOSE THEY WANT TO USE THEM.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, I AM GOING TO WANT FROM BOTH SIDES ON MONDAY MORNING A LIST OF THESE ITEMS, AS TO WHAT IT IS, WHERE IT IS, WHAT TYPE OF TESTING THE PROSECUTION WANTS TO SUBJECT THESE TO AND WHY. OR I CAN FIGURE OUT THE WHY. AND I'LL TAKE THE MATTER UNDER SUBMISSION UNTIL I HEAR FROM THE PROSECUTION. BECAUSE JUST THESE LISTS -- MR. BLAISER, JUST THE LIST OF THE NUMBERS HERE, I WOULD HAVE TO SIT DOWN AND CORRELATE WITH MY OWN NOTES, AND I DON'T KNOW WHERE ALL THESE ITEMS ARE.

MR. BLAISER: WE CAN PROVIDE THAT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. HARMON: SO THAT'S -- YOU JUST WANT TO KNOW WHAT TESTS WE WANT TO DO?

THE COURT: I WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE ITEM IS, I WANT TO KNOW WHERE IT IS, WHAT ITS CURRENT STATUS IS, WHAT ADDITIONAL TESTING YOU WANT TO DO. I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THIS EDTA TESTING, AS TO HOW YOU PROPOSE TO DO THAT.

MR. HARMON: I KNOW I WON'T BE ABLE TO TELL YOU THAT MONDAY, YOUR HONOR. I MEAN, WE'VE ONLY HAD FOUR DAYS FOR A COMMITMENT THAT THIS IS WHAT THE DEFENSE WOULD SHOW. AND SO I CAN'T TELL YOU WHERE THE TESTS WILL BE DONE BECAUSE WE'RE STILL --

THE COURT: NO. I AM JUST CURIOUS ABOUT WHAT KIND OF TESTS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE.

MR. HARMON: OH, I AM SORRY.

THE COURT: I MEAN, I NEED TO KNOW WHAT TYPE OF TESTS SO I KNOW LOGISTICALLY -- I MEAN ARE WE GOING TO HAVE TO -- IS THE ONLY PLACE YOU CAN DO THIS IS SOMEWHERE IN VIRGINIA OR IS IT SOMETHING WE CAN DO LOCALLY HERE, IS IT SOMETHING THAT ONE OF OUR LOCAL UNIVERSITIES CAN DO.

MR. HARMON: WELL, WE WANT TO TRY TO GET AWAY FROM LOS ANGELES BECAUSE OF THE CHARGES MR. COCHRAN HAS MADE FOR OBVIOUS REASONS. NOT THAT WE BELIEVE THEM, BUT FOR OBVIOUS REASONS. THAT WE'LL INVITE THE COURT TO EVEN CONTRIBUTE IF YOU HAVE SOME LABS YOU WANT TO SUGGEST. IT CAN BE -- THERE ARE A VARIETY OF TESTS THAT CAN BE DONE IN A NUMBER OF PLACES. SO --

THE COURT: NO. I'M JUST CURIOUS AS TO HOW WE TEST FOR EDTA AND THE SAMPLES, WHAT TYPE OF TESTS IT IS, HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE.

MR. HARMON: THE PHONES ARE PROBABLY RINGING RIGHT NOW, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: WHO DOES IT. JUST CURIOUS.

MR. HARMON: OKAY.

THE COURT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT THANK YOU, COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE? LET'S HAVE THE JURY.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, WERE WE GOING TO HANDLE THE MOTION -- THERE WAS ANOTHER MOTION.

THE COURT: I AM SORRY. I FORGOT THE OTHER MOTION.

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, CAN WE APPROACH, YOUR HONOR, VERY BRIEFLY WITHOUT THE REPORTER?

THE COURT: YES.

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

THE COURT: DEPUTY MAGNERA, LET'S HAVE THE JURY PLEASE.

THE BAILIFF: YES, SIR.

THE COURT: LET'S HAVE THE JURY, PLEASE.

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

THE COURT: THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. BE SEATED. ALL RIGHT. ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. MR. SIMPSON IS AGAIN PRESENT WITH HIS COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. DOUGLAS, PEOPLE REPRESENTED BY MR. DARDEN, MR. GORDON. MR. DARDEN, CALL YOUR NEXT WITNESS.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THE PEOPLE CALL DENISE BROWN.

DENISE BROWN, CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE PEOPLE, WAS SWORN AND TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:

THE CLERK: PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND TO BE SWORN. 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 HAVE A SEAT ON THE WITNESS STAND AND STATE AND SPELL YOUR FIRST AND LAST NAME FOR THE RECORD.

THE WITNESS: DENISE BROWN, D-E-N-I-S-E B-R-O-W-N.

THE CLERK: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS BROWN, WOULD YOU PULL THE MICROPHONE OVER TOWARDS YOU, PLEASE.

THE WITNESS: LIKE THIS?

THE COURT: YEAH. GREAT. THANK YOU. MR. DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. GOOD AFTERNOON.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. DARDEN:

Q: MISS BROWN, YOU ARE NICOLE BROWN'S OLDEST -- OLDER SISTER?

A: YES, I AM.

Q: DO YOU HAVE OTHER SISTERS?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: HOW MANY?

A: THERE'S DOMINIQUE AND TANYA AND OF COURSE NICOLE.

Q: AND YOU ARE THE OLDEST OF THE SISTERS; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, I AM.

Q: AND WHAT IS YOUR FATHER'S FIRST NAME?

A: LOUIS BROWN.

Q: AND YOUR MOTHER'S NAME?

A: JUDITHA BROWN.

Q: AND WHERE DOES YOUR FAMILY RESIDE?

A: WE'RE IN DANA POINT, CALIFORNIA.

Q: NOW, IF YOU ARE THE OLDEST OF THE SISTERS, WHO WAS DIRECTLY BENEATH YOU?

A: NICOLE WAS.

Q: AND WHO WAS BENEATH HER?

A: DOMINIQUE.

Q: AND WHO WAS THE YOUNGEST?

A: THEN TANYA.

Q: DO YOU KNOW THE DEFENDANT SEATED HERE AT THE END OF COUNSEL TABLE?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: HE'S YOUR FORMER BROTHER-IN-LAW?

A: YES, HE IS.

Q: WHEN DID YOU FIRST MEET THE DEFENDANT?

A: BACK IN 1977.

Q: AND WHERE WAS HE WHEN YOU MET HIM?

A: HE WAS PLAYING FOOTBALL FOR BUFFALO.

Q: AND DID YOU MEET HIM IN BUFFALO?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: YOU WERE INVITED TO BUFFALO?

A: YES.

Q: WHO INVITED YOU?

A: NICOLE DID.

Q: WAS YOUR SISTER NICOLE AND THE DEFENDANT DATING BACK THEN IN 1977?

A: YES, THEY WERE.

Q: AND YOU WENT THERE TO BUFFALO?

A: SHE ASKED US TO COME UP, DOMINIQUE AND I.

Q: SO YOUR SISTER DOMINIQUE ALSO WENT TO BUFFALO?

A: YES.

Q: WAS THE DEFENDANT MARRIED AT THAT TIME?

A: YES, HE WAS.

Q: AND WHO WAS HE MARRIED TO, IF YOU KNOW?

A: LADY BY THE NAME OF MARGUERITE SIMPSON.

Q: AND WHAT KINDS OF THINGS DID YOU DO WHEN YOU VISITED THE DEFENDANT FOR THE FIRST TIME IN BUFFALO?

A: WE WENT TO A FOOTBALL GAME.

Q: DID BOTH YOUR SISTERS ALSO GO TO THE FOOTBALL GAME?

A: YES, THEY DID.

Q: THAT WOULD BE DOMINIQUE AND NICOLE?

A: AND NICOLE.

Q: AND WAS IT A BUFFALO BILLS FOOTBALL GAME?

A: YES, IT WAS.

Q: DID THE DEFENDANT PLAY IN THAT GAME?

A: HE WAS ON THE SIDELINE. I DON'T KNOW IF HE ACTUALLY PLAYED. I DON'T REMEMBER.

MR. SHAPIRO: EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR. MAY WE APPROACH WITH THE REPORTER?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY. WITH THE REPORTER, PLEASE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: WE ARE AT THE SIDEBAR. MR. SHAPIRO.

MR. SHAPIRO: YES, YOUR HONOR. I WOULD LIKE THE COURT TO ASK FOR AN OFFER OF PROOF AS TO WHAT BEARING THIS HAS ON RELATIONSHIPS IN 1977, WATCHING FOOTBALL GAMES. IF THEY WANT TO GET INTO THIS, MAYBE WE WILL HAVE TO GET INTO THE FACT OF GOING BACK TO HIS HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL CAREER, WHAT GAMES HE PLAYED.

MR. DARDEN: THESE ARE FOUNDATIONAL QUESTIONS, YOUR HONOR. I'M JUST TRYING TO DEVELOP A RELATIONSHIP.

MR. SHAPIRO: NO, YOUR HONOR. THAT'S DISHONEST. WHAT HE WAS TRYING TO DO IS TO SHOW THAT HE WAS DATING NICOLE AT THE TIME HE WAS MARRIED. AND IF HE TRIES TO SAY OTHERWISE, EITHER HE IS NAIVE OR MISSED THE POINT.

MR. DARDEN: HOW ABOUT THIS? HOW ABOUT I'M JUST HONEST AND TRUTHFUL? I WASN'T GOING TO ASK HIM ANYTHING ABOUT ALL OF THAT. I'M JUST TRYING TO DEVELOP THE RELATIONSHIP, AND SO THREE OR FOUR MORE QUESTIONS IN THE '70'S AND I'LL BE IN THE '80'S.

THE COURT: WHERE ARE WE GOING? WHAT ELSE DO WE GOT LEFT IN THE '70'S?

MR. DARDEN: PARDON ME?

THE COURT: WHAT ELSE DO WE HAVE IN THE '70'S?

MR. DARDEN: WE HAVE FRIENDS OF HIS, OF DEFENDANT THAT THEY MET, FRIENDS' NAMES WHO I BELIEVE MR. COCHRAN HAS MENTIONED. I'M JUST TRYING TO DEVELOP A RELATIONSHIP.

THE COURT: AT THIS POINT, I'M GOING TO OVERRULE THE OBJECTION.

MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU, JUDGE

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

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

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: BOTH YOU AND YOUR TWO SISTERS WATCHED THE GAME THAT DAY; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, WE DID.

Q: AND AFTER THE GAME, DID YOU GO TO THE DEFENDANT'S HOUSE?

A: YES, WE DID.

Q: ALL THREE OF YOU, YOU AND BOTH OF YOUR TWO SISTERS?

A: YES.

Q: DID ANYTHING UNUSUAL HAPPEN AT THE FOOTBALL GAME?

A: ACTUALLY, NO. A FRIEND OF -- A FRIEND OF O.J.'S WAS THERE. HE CAME OVER AND SAID HELLO TO US AND NICOLE SAID HELLO, KISSED HIM ON BOTH CHEEKS. I SAID HELLO, SHE INTRODUCED ME TO HIM AND THAT WAS IT.

Q: AND WHAT WAS THAT PERSON'S NAME?

A: MICHAEL MILLITELLO.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, MAY I ADJUST THE MICROPHONE?

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: LET ME ASK YOU TO SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE --

A: OKAY.

Q: -- PLEASE, MISS BROWN. WAS THAT THE FIRST TIME YOU MET MICHAEL MILLITELLO?

A: YES, IT IS.

THE COURT: HOW DO YOU SPELL IT?

THE WITNESS: I DON'T KNOW.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: M-I-L-L-I-T-E-L-L-O. M-I-L-L-I-T-E-L-L-O, DOES THAT SOUND ABOUT RIGHT?

A: ABOUT RIGHT.

Q: YOU RETURNED TO THE DEFENDANT'S HOME AFTER THE GAME, CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: ANYTHING UNUSUAL HAPPEN THEN?

A: YEAH. O.J. GOT REAL UPSET AND HE STARTED SCREAMING AT NICOLE.

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, I'M GOING TO OBJECT ON GROUNDS OF RELEVANCE.

THE COURT: LET ME SEE COUNSEL AT THE SIDEBAR, PLEASE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: WE ARE OVER AT SIDEBAR. MR. DARDEN, I THOUGHT WE WERE JUST GOING TO DO A FEW MORE FOUNDATIONAL THINGS, NOT INCIDENTS, AND MY RULING ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DOESN'T INCLUDE ANYTHING IN THIS ERA. WHAT ARE WE DOING HERE?

MR. DARDEN: I'M NOT ABOUT TO ALLEGE OR SOLICIT ANY TESTIMONY THAT THE DEFENDANT BEAT NICOLE IN 1977, YOUR HONOR. I'M JUST TRYING TO DEFINE AND EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP, HOW IT DEVELOPED OVER THE YEARS. I MEAN WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT? I MEAN, WE'RE TRYING TO SHOW THEIR RELATIONSHIP OVER THE YEARS, THAT ISSUE. I'M NOT ABOUT TO SOLICIT ANY TESTIMONY REGARDING ANY PHYSICAL ABUSE OR ANY THREATS OF PHYSICAL ABUSE. I AM SIMPLY TRYING TO MAP OUT THE RELATIONSHIP, SORT OF DRAW A PICTURE FOR THE JURY OF THE DEFENDANT, HIS MOOD AND HIS ATTITUDE AND PERSONALITY. THESE ARE THINGS WE THINK ARE RELEVANT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THE PROBLEM IS, WE'VE ALREADY LITIGATED THE ISSUE OF WHAT INCIDENTS OF PAST CONDUCT THAT WERE GOING TO BE ALLOWED, AND THIS WAS NOT ONE OF THEM THAT WAS LITIGATED. AND AT THIS POINT, I'M GOING TO SUSTAIN THE DEFENSE OBJECTION. I AM GOING TO ADMONISH THE JURY TO DISREGARD THE LAST ANSWER.

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, THERE'S ALSO A MOTION TO STRIKE AND WE WOULD REQUEST AN ADMONITION.

THE COURT: THAT'S WHAT I JUST SAID.

MR. SHAPIRO: NO. ADDITIONAL -- I AM SORRY. I HEARD YOU. ADDITIONAL ADMONITION TO MR. DARDEN ON THE RECORD IN FRONT OF THE JURY SIMILAR TO WHAT WAS DONE TO THE DEFENSE; THAT MR. DARDEN NOW HAS GOT THE THIRD WITNESS ON WHERE HE EITHER IS FEIGNING THAT HE'S NEVER TALKED TO THESE PEOPLE AND HAS NO IDEA WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO SAY OR THAT THESE PEOPLE HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY DIRECTED THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE LIMITATIONS ON THEIR TESTIMONY AS THE COURT HAS ORDERED. AND I THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR YOUR HONOR TO SAY TO THE JURY MR. DARDEN VIOLATED A COURT RULING WHEN WE HAD PREVIOUSLY LITIGATED THESE MATTERS THAT WERE OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY IN THE SAME WAY THAT YOU DID TO US.

MR. DARDEN: IS THIS A MATTER THAT WAS LITIGATED BEFORE THE COURT? I DON'T THINK SO. AND IS THIS A MATTER THAT I WAS ORDERED NOT TO BRING UP IN FRONT OF THIS JURY OR PRESENT EVIDENCE ON? WRONG. YOU MUST BE THINKING ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE THEN, MR. SHAPIRO.

THE COURT: I'VE RULED.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY, YOU ARE TO DISREGARD -- I AM STRIKING FROM THE RECORD THE LAST QUESTION AND ANSWER. YOU ARE TO DISREGARD THAT, TREAT IT AS THOUGH YOU HAD NEVER HEARD IT. MR. DARDEN.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: OKAY. MISS BROWN, WE'RE NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT ANYTHING THAT OCCURRED BETWEEN 1977 AND DECEMBER 31, 1984. YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

A: OKAY. SURE.

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, I'M GOING TO OBJECT TO THAT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. PROCEED.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, MAY WE BE HEARD JUST FOR THE RECORD?

THE COURT: LATER. MR. DARDEN.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: MISS BROWN, YOUR SISTER NICOLE MARRIED THE DEFENDANT IN FEBRUARY 1985?

A: YES, SHE DID.

Q: DID YOU ATTEND THE WEDDING?

A: YES, I DID. I WAS THE MAID OF HONOR.

Q: DO YOU HAVE A HALF SISTER NAMED WENDY?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: AND WHERE WAS SHE LIVING IN 1987 AND 1988?

A: WENDY?

Q: YES.

A: IN ARIZONA.

Q: AND WAS THERE AN OCCASION DURING THAT TIME PERIOD IN WHICH SHE CAME FROM ARIZONA TO YOUR FAMILY'S HOME IN LAGUNA BEACH ON VACATION?

A: YES, SHE DID.

Q: AND DID SHE BRING SOMEONE WITH HER?

A: A GIRLFRIEND OF HERS WHO WAS ALSO LIVING THERE.

Q: AND WHAT IS THE GIRLFRIEND'S NAME?

A: JULIANNE HENDERICKS.

Q: AND DID YOU, YOUR SISTER WENDY, YOUR SISTER NICOLE AND JULIANNE HENDERICKS GO OUT DURING THAT VACATION PERIOD?

A: YES, WE DID.

Q: WAS THERE EVER AN OCCASION WHEN THE FOUR OF YOU AND THE DEFENDANT WENT OUT AND WENT TO THE RED ONION IN SANTA ANA?

A: YES, WE DID.

Q: DID ANYONE ELSE GO ON THAT EXCURSION OR THAT TRIP THAT NIGHT?

A: THERE WAS DINO BUCOLLA AND REGGIE MACKENZIE.

Q: AND WHO IS DINO BUCOLLA?

A: HE WAS MY BOYFRIEND AT THE TIME.

Q: AND WHO WAS REGGIE MACKENZIE?

A: A FRIEND OF O.J.'S.

Q: AND HE IS A FORMER --

A: FOOTBALL PLAYER.

Q: NOW, WAS THERE SOME PLAN OR AGREEMENT AMONGST THE GROUP TO MEET AT A CERTAIN LOCATION AND AT A CERTAIN TIME?

A: WE WERE GOING TO GO AND MEET THEM, MEET O.J., AND WE WERE RUNNING A LITTLE LATE AND WE GOT THERE AND HE GOT UPSET. BUT THAT BLEW OVER AND THEN WE CONTINUED ON, WENT TO THE CLUB.

Q: SO WHEN YOU ARRIVED LATE, THE DEFENDANT GOT A LITTLE UPSET YOU SAY?

A: YEAH. HE WAS ANNOYED WITH US, YEAH, FOR BEING LATE.

Q: AND THAT WAS YOU, NICOLE, WENDY --

A: WENDY.

Q: -- AND JULIANNE?

A: RIGHT.

Q: AND THEN THE GROUP WENT OUT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: RIGHT.

Q: DID YOU ALL GO OUT IN ONE CAR?

A: NO. THERE WERE A COUPLE OF CARS.

Q: AND WHO OWNED THE TWO CARS THAT YOU USED TO GO OUT IN THAT NIGHT?

A: I THINK -- THAT NIGHT, IT WAS O.J.'S CAR AND I'M NOT SURE WHO ELSE WAS DRIVING OR WHO ELSE'S CAR IT WAS.

Q: DID YOU GO TO THE RED ONION?

A: YES, WE DID.

Q: IS THERE A BAR IN THE RED ONION?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO DRINK?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: REALLY. WHAT DID YOU DRINK?

A: WE WERE ALL -- WELL, ACTUALLY, WE WERE ALL DOING SHOTS OF TEQUILA.

Q: THE DEFENDANT WAS DOING SHOTS OF TEQUILA?

A: YES.

Q: WAS NICOLE DOING SHOTS OF TEQUILA?

A: YES.

Q: DID JULIANNE DRINK TEQUILA?

A: I THINK SHE MAY HAVE. I'M NOT SURE, BUT I KNOW THAT WE WERE.

Q: HOW ABOUT REGGIE MACKENZIE? DID HE DRINK SHOTS OF TEQUILA?

A: YEAH. YEAH, HE DID TOO.

Q: NOW, WERE THERE OTHER PERSONS OR PATRONS IN THE BAR?

A: OH, IT WAS PACKED. THERE WERE LOTS OF PEOPLE THERE.

Q: AND DID SOME OF THOSE PATRONS RECOGNIZE THE DEFENDANT?

A: YEAH. HE ALWAYS GETS RECOGNIZED WHEREVER HE GOES.

Q: AND DID THE PEOPLE WALK UP TO THE DEFENDANT AND TALK TO HIM?

A: OH, SURE.

Q: DID HE SIGN AUTOGRAPHS?

A: I DON'T KNOW IF HE SIGNED AUTOGRAPHS THAT NIGHT, BUT, YOU KNOW, HE'S FRIENDLY TO PEOPLE. HE SHAKES HANDS.

Q: DID PEOPLE IN THE BAR BUY HIM ANYTHING?

A: OH, THEY COULD HAVE. I THINK THE BARTENDERS, THEY HAD GIVEN HIM SHOTS OF TEQUILA AND THINGS LIKE THAT, SURE. I MEAN, THAT HAPPENS WHEN HE GOES OUT.

Q: SO THE DRINKS WERE FREE?

A: I'M NOT SAYING ALL OF THEM WERE. I'M NOT SURE, BUT PEOPLE DO TEND TO BUY HIM DRINKS AND BUY US -- AND THEY WERE BUYING US DRINKS TOO BECAUSE WE WERE WITH HIM.

Q: AND DID YOU SEE THE DEFENDANT DRINK SHOTS OF TEQUILA?

A: UH-HUH. YES.

Q: DID ANYTHING UNUSUAL HAPPEN THAT NIGHT IN THE RED ONION?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT WAS THAT?

A: WELL, WE ALL STARTED -- WELL, WE WERE ALL DRINKING AND GOOFING AROUND AND BEING LOUD AND DANCING AND HAVING A GREAT TIME. AND THEN AT ONE POINT, O.J. GRABBED NICOLE'S CROTCH AND SAID, "THIS IS WHERE BABIES COME FROM AND THIS BELONGS TO ME." AND NICOLE JUST SORT OF WROTE IT OFF AS IF IT WAS NOTHING, LIKE -- YOU KNOW, LIKE SHE WAS USED TO THAT KIND OF TREATMENT AND HE WAS LIKE -- I THOUGHT IT WAS REALLY HUMILIATING IF YOU ASK ME.

MR. SHAPIRO: MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST PART AS BEING NONRESPONSIVE, CALLING FOR SPECULATION, NARRATIVE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: AND WHEN HE GRABBED YOUR SISTER'S CROTCH AND SAID, "THIS IS WHERE BABIES COME FROM" -- IS THAT WHAT HE SAID?

A: "THIS IS WHERE BABIES COME FROM AND THIS BELONGS TO ME," AND, "THIS IS MINE."

Q: AND WHEN HE SAID THIS AND WHEN HE GRABBED HER IN THE CROTCH, WERE THERE PEOPLE AROUND?

A: OH, YEAH. THE BAR WAS PACKED.

Q: STRANGERS?

A: YEAH. YEAH. HE WAS TALKING TO THE STRANGERS.

Q: DID YOUR SISTER NICOLE REACT TO THIS AT ALL?

A: SHE JUST KIND OF WROTE IT OFF AND JUST, YOU KNOW, SHRUGGED HER SHOULDERS, YOU KNOW, STOP IT OR WHATEVER. I MEAN IT WAS -- I DON'T KNOW. SHE DIDN'T REALLY REACT.

Q: DID THE DEFENDANT APPEAR MAD OR ANGRY OR UPSET WHEN HE GRABBED YOUR SISTER'S CROTCH AND MADE THESE STATEMENTS IN FRONT OF THESE STRANGERS?

A: NO. NO. HE WASN'T ANGRY. IT WAS HIS. THAT'S THE WAY HE -- HE -- JUST THE WAY HE ACTED, THE WAY -- IT WAS LIKE, "THIS BELONGS TO ME. THIS IS MINE." HE WASN'T ANGRY WHEN HE SAID IT. HE JUST MADE IT A POINT. HE WANTED IT TO BE KNOWN THAT THAT WAS HIS.

Q: WAS SHE WEARING A DRESS OR WAS SHE WEARING PANTS, IF YOU RECALL?

A: AHH, I DON'T REMEMBER.

Q: AND DURING THE TIME THAT THESE STRANGERS WERE APPROACHING HIM AND SHAKING HANDS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, DID HE APPEAR TO SHY AWAY FROM THE ATTENTION AT ALL?

A: OH, NO. NO, NOT AT ALL. HE LOVES THE ATTENTION. HE LOVES IT. HE'S GOT A BIG EGO. IT FEEDS HIS EGO.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, MAY WE APPROACH THE BENCH, PLEASE?

THE COURT: YES, PLEASE.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: WE ARE OVER AT SIDEBAR. THIS IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE AT HAND HERE.

MR. COCHRAN: AND TWO THINGS, YOUR HONOR. WE'RE GOING TO ASK THE COURT TO MOVE TO STRIKE THIS LAST PART AND TO ADMONISH THE JURY TO DISREGARD IT AND ALSO ADMONISH THE WITNESS. THIS WITNESS, WE'RE GOING TO BE HERE A LONG TIME WITH HER. BOB IS PREPARED TO EXAMINE HER. BUT IT'S NOT FAIR TO HIM, IT'S NOT FAIR TO THIS DEFENDANT. THIS LADY IS HOSTILE. IT'S NOT FAIR TO THIS DEFENDANT. WE'RE TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, KEEP HIM UNDER CONTROL. ALSO, FOR THE RECORD, I WANTED TO INDICATE AGAIN, AS I'VE SAID BEFORE, BECAUSE THEY WON'T STIPULATE, THAT I'M OBJECTING TO EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE ACTS THAT YOU HAVE SAID THEY CAN GET INTO, SO I WANT THE RECORD PRESERVED, THE 352, 1101(B), ET CETERA. SO IS THAT OKAY FOR THE RECORD?

THE COURT: YES.

MR. DARDEN: THIS IS ONE OF THE ACTS YOU SAID WE COULD GET INTO.

THE COURT: THIS BUSINESS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, HE'S GOT A BIG EGO, HE LIKES THE ATTENTION, I MEAN THAT'S NOT PART OF THIS.

MR. COCHRAN: I MEAN, OVER AND OVER AGAIN, ALL THIS STUFF, OH, YES, I THINK HE ALWAYS GOT FREE DRINKS, WE COULD OBJECT TO EVERY QUESTION. WE DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. IT'S NOT FAIR FOR HER TO BE UP THERE IN A UNIQUE POSITION, AND I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO ADMONISH HER. THEY KNEW THEY WERE GOING TO CALL HER FOR A LONG TIME. AND DARDEN IS A GOOD LAWYER AND DARDEN HAS SPENT TIME WITH HER. THESE ARE NOT MISTAKES, JUDGE. THIS IS HAPPENING. NOW, WE MAY LOOK BACK ON THIS AND SMILE WHEN THE JURY VERDICT COMES IN IN MAY OR JUNE. BUT FOR RIGHT NOW, WE CAN'T ALLOW THIS TO TAKE PLACE. I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S RIGHT.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, I DON'T KNOW WHAT MR. COCHRAN MEANS BY, WE CAN'T ALLOW. IS HE WEARING THE ROBE IN THIS COURTROOM TODAY?

MR. COCHRAN: I SAID WE CAN'T ALLOW THIS WITHOUT OBJECTION. THAT'S ALL I SAID, COUNSEL.

MR. DARDEN: THEN I THINK YOU SHOULD OBJECT. I HAVE SPENT SOME TIME WITH THIS WITNESS. I DIRECTED THE WITNESS TO GO TO 1985, YOU KNOW, SO THAT WE DIDN'T GET INTO OTHER THINGS LIKE THAT.

THE COURT: HOW ABOUT THIS STUFF ABOUT HE'S GOT A BIG EGO, THAT KIND OF STUFF?

MR. DARDEN: WELL, MAY I ALLOW MR. GORDON TO RESPOND TO THAT?

THE COURT: NO, BECAUSE YOU'RE THE ONE CONDUCTING THE EXAMINATION.

MR. DARDEN: MAY I HAVE ONE MOMENT?

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

MR. DARDEN: THEY HAVE PUT HIS PERSONALITY PROFILE IN ISSUE. THEY TOLD THE JURY HE DOES NOT HAVE AN ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY. SO HIS PERSONALITY IS RELEVANT AND IT'S ALSO RELEVANT ON THE ISSUE -- FOR INSTANCE, IF HE LIKES ALL THIS PUBLIC ATTENTION, WHY IS HE RIDING AROUND IN A BRONCO JUNE 17TH? THAT WOULD BE RELEVANT. YOU KNOW, ALL THESE THINGS ARE RELEVANT.

THE COURT: WELL, COUNSEL, AT SOME POINT IN TIME, YOU CAN USE ANOTHER WITNESS TO DO THAT. IF YOU HAVE TO, YOU CAN RECALL THE WITNESS IF THIS REALLY BECOMES AN ISSUE. YOU'RE SORT OF GUESSING AT THIS POINT. THE ISSUE HERE IS THE INCIDENTS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. THAT'S WHAT I ALLOWED THIS TESTIMONY FOR. LET'S STICK TO THAT.

MR. COCHRAN: SHE'S VOLUNTEERING A BUNCH OF STUFF ON OTHER ISSUES.

MR. DARDEN: CAN I MAKE A SUGGESTION?

THE COURT: YES.

MR. DARDEN: ARE WE ADJOURNING AT 3:00 O'CLOCK?

THE COURT: BOY, I SURE HOPE SO.

MR. DARDEN: IF YOU LOOK OVER AT THE WITNESS, I DON'T THINK SHE'S GOING TO MAKE IT.

THE COURT: SHE'S ALL RIGHT. SHE'LL MAKE IT.

MR. COCHRAN: IF SHE JUST ANSWERS THE QUESTION, IF SOMEBODY ADVISES HER JUST TO ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THE COURT: YEAH.

MR. DARDEN: I MEAN SHE'S VERY, VERY EMOTIONAL.

THE COURT: I KNOW.

MR. DARDEN: I DON'T THINK SHE'S GOING TO MAKE IT.

THE COURT: THEN SHE WILL HAVE THE WEEKEND TO STIFFEN HER UPPER LIP.

MR. COCHRAN: I WOULD RATHER NOT END THE WEEKEND WITH HER BREAKING DOWN CRYING. IF CHRIS SAYS HE'S GOING INTO AN AREA WHERE SHE'S ABOUT TO FALL APART, MAYBE WE SHOULD FIND OUT WHAT AREA HE IS GOING TO GO INTO NEXT.

THE COURT: WELL, COUNSEL, I CAN'T -- YOU KNOW, TIMING IS EVERYTHING. WHAT CAN I TELL YOU?

MR. COCHRAN: I KNOW TIMING IS EVERYTHING.

THE COURT: I CAN'T CONTROL THESE THINGS. WE'VE STILL GOT SOME TIME. LET'S GO.

MR. COCHRAN: IS THE COURT GOING TO ADMONISH HER?

THE COURT: I'M JUST GOING TO ASK HER TO LISTEN CAREFULLY TO THE QUESTION AND ANSWER THE PRECISE QUESTION.

MR. COCHRAN: MOVE TO STRIKE THE ANSWER.

THE COURT: YEAH, I KNOW.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I'M GOING TO INSTRUCT YOU TO DISREGARD THE LAST ANSWER REGARDING THE DEFENDANT'S EGO. THAT QUESTION AND ANSWER IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT AT THIS TIME. AND, MISS BROWN, IF I CAN ASK YOU, WOULD YOU PLEASE LISTEN CAREFULLY TO THE QUESTION THAT THE ATTORNEYS ASK OF YOU AND IF YOU WOULD ANSWER JUST THE PRECISE QUESTION THAT THEY ASK YOU, THIS WILL GO A LOT EASIER.

THE WITNESS: OKAY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT? THANK YOU.

THE WITNESS: SURE.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.

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

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

THE COURT: WE'RE NOT IN A HURRY. SO DON'T RUSH. MR. DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: YOU OKAY, MISS BROWN?

A: YEAH.

Q: LET ME DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THE LA CANTINA RESTAURANT, OKAY?

A: OKAY.

Q: ARE YOU ACQUAINTED WITH SOMEONE BY THE NAME OF ED MCCABE?

A: YES, I WAS.

Q: THIS IS SOMEONE YOU'VE KNOWN OVER THE LAST DECADE OR SO?

A: I'VE KNOWN ED FOR A WHILE. I USED TO DATE HIM.

Q: AND WHEN DID YOU STOP DATING ED MCCABE?

A: OH, I THINK WE MAY HAVE GONE OUT FOR A YEAR OR TWO, MAYBE TWO YEARS.

Q: DO YOU STILL SPEAK TO ED MCCABE?

A: NOT TOO OFTEN.

Q: AND IN WHAT CITY AND STATE DOES HE LIVE?

A: HE'S IN NEW YORK.

Q: DO YOU RECALL AN OCCASION WHEN YOU AND ED MCCABE AND NICOLE AND THE DEFENDANT WENT OUT TO DINNER?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: AND WHERE DID THE FOUR OF YOU GO AFTER YOU LEFT THE LA CANTINA RESTAURANT?

A: WE WENT TO O.J.'S HOUSE, O.J. AND NICOLE'S HOUSE.

Q: ON ROCKINGHAM?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, HAD YOU HAD SOMETHING TO DRINK AT THE RESTAURANT BEFORE?

A: YEAH. MARGUERITAS.

Q: AND DID THE DEFENDANT HAVE SOMETHING TO DRINK?

A: YEAH. WE ALL DID.

Q: ALL FOUR OF YOU?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT DID YOU DO WHEN YOU RETURNED TO THE DEFENDANT'S HOME ON ROCKINGHAM?

A: WE WERE SITTING AT THE BAR TALKING, HAVING SOME MORE DRINKS AND TALKING.

Q: OKAY. WHILE YOU WERE TALKING, DID YOU SAY SOMETHING TO THE DEFENDANT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WHAT DID YOU SAY TO HIM?

A: I TOLD HIM HE TOOK NICOLE FOR GRANTED, AND HE BLEW UP.

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, I'M GOING TO OBJECT. THE QUESTION HAS BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED. MOTION TO STRIKE THE LAST RESPONSE.

THE COURT: MISS BROWN, IF YOU WOULD, DON'T VOLUNTEER ANYTHING BEYOND THE ACTUAL QUESTION, PLEASE.

THE WITNESS: OKAY.

THE COURT: THANK YOU. MR. DARDEN.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: YOU TOLD THE DEFENDANT THAT HE TOOK NICOLE FOR GRANTED?

A: YES.

Q: WHY DID YOU TELL HIM THAT?

A: BECAUSE SHE DID HAVE --

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION. IRRELEVANT.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. DARDEN: ON 352 GROUNDS, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: IT'S IRRELEVANT. WHY THIS WITNESS THINKS THAT MISS BROWN SIMPSON WAS TAKEN FOR GRANTED IS NOT RELEVANT. WHAT'S RELEVANT IS THE FACT SHE MADE THE COMMENT AND ANY REACTION TO THAT COMMENT.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: WHAT REACTION IF ANY WAS THERE BY THE DEFENDANT WHEN YOU TOLD HIM THAT HE TOOK YOUR SISTER NICOLE FOR GRANTED?

A: HE GOT EXTREMELY UPSET. HE --

Q: AND WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

A: HE STARTED YELLING AT ME, "I DON'T TAKE HER FOR GRANTED. I DO EVERYTHING FOR HER. I GIVE HER EVERYTHING," AND HE CONTINUED, AND THEN A WHOLE FIGHT BROKE OUT AND PICTURES STARTED FLYING OFF THE WALLS, CLOTHES STARTED FLYING -- HE RAN UPSTAIRS, GOT CLOTHES, STARTED FLYING DOWN THE STAIRS AND GRABBED NICOLE, TOLD HER TO GET OUT OF HIS HOUSE, WANTED US ALL OUT OF HIS HOUSE, PICKED HER UP, THREW HER AGAINST THE WALL, PICKED HER UP, THREW HER OUT OF THE HOUSE. SHE ENDED UP ON HER -- SHE ENDED UP FALLING. SHE ENDED UP ON HER ELBOWS AND ON HER BUTT. THEN SHE -- HE THREW ED MCCABE OUT. WE WERE ALL SITTING THERE SCREAMING AND CRYING, AND THEN HE GRABBED ME AND THREW ME OUT OF THE HOUSE.

Q: ARE YOU OKAY, MISS BROWN?

A: YEAH. IT'S JUST SO HARD. I'LL BE FINE.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, IF IT PLEASES THE COURT, CAN WE ADJOURN AND CONTINUE THIS MONDAY MORNING?

MR. COCHRAN: MAY WE APPROACH?

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, WOULD THE COURT INSTRUCT THE BAILIFF TO ASSIST MISS BROWN IF SHE NEEDS ASSISTANCE?

THE WITNESS: NO.

MR. SHAPIRO: YES, JUDGE.

THE COURT: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OUR RECESS FOR THE AFTERNOON. MISS BROWN, IF YOU'D JUST STAY THERE FOR JUST A SECOND. WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OUR RECESS FOR THE AFTERNOON. PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITION; DON'T DISCUSS THIS CASE AMONGST YOURSELVES, DON'T FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, DON'T ALLOW ANYBODY TO SPEAK TO YOU ABOUT THE CASE OR SPEAK TO ANYBODY ELSE ABOUT IT, DO NOT CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU. I'LL SEE YOU BACK HERE MONDAY MORNING 9:00 O'CLOCK. HAVE A NICE WEEKEND.

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

THE COURT: MISS BROWN, THANK YOU.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT. SHE'S SITTING RIGHT IN FRONT OF MARCIA. SHE'S SEATED RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE JURORS AND ALTERNATES. IT'S A SMALL COURTROOM. SHE SHOULD NOT BE DOING THAT.

THE COURT: WHY DON'T YOU HAVE HER WALK AROUND.

MR. COCHRAN: SHE'S TWO FEET FROM THE JURORS.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, I WANT TO INDICATE, I'VE MET WITH HER FOUR OR FIVE TIMES. SO I DID NOT NECESSARILY ASK SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.

MR. COCHRAN: HE SAID GET HER OUT OF HER, SCOTT.

THE COURT: WHY DON'T YOU ASK TO TAKE HER -- WHY DON'T YOU TAKE HER OUT.

MS. CLARK: OKAY. SHE HEARD YOU THINKING. I ASKED HER IF SHE WANTED TO LEAVE, AND SHE SAID SHE JUST WANTED TO SIT FOR A MINUTE.

MR. COCHRAN: THE POINT I WANTED TO MAKE IS, THIS IS GOING TO BE A LONG TRIAL AND I TRIED TO PROTECT THIS FROM HAPPENING, YOUR HONOR. TIMING IS EVERYTHING. I MEAN THIS WAS LIKE -- WE'RE NOT -- THAT WAS PLANNED. THE THING IS, SHE'S JUST SOPHISTICATED. LOOK AT THIS WOMEN AND THEN LOOK AT THEM. THEY'RE NOT FOOLING ANYBODY WITH THIS STUFF. AND I THINK THE RECORD SHOULD SO INDICATE. THAT WITNESS GETS UP THERE -- AND HE'S SPENT A LOT OF TIME WITH HER, AND SHE KEEPS VOLUNTEERING THIS STUFF. I MEAN, I'M TELLING THEM IT'S GOING TO BACKFIRE ON THEM. THEY KEEP DOING IT AND IT'S NOT RIGHT. WE COMPLAIN CONTINUOUSLY ABOUT INVESTIGATING OFFICERS, WHATEVER, FUHRMAN, THEN THEY SIT HERE IN HER SEAT NO MORE THAN TWO FEET FROM THIS JURY. SHE CAN'T LOOK AT THEM. IT'S JUST NOT FAIR, JUDGE, AND IT WAS DONE BY DESIGN. AND WE'LL BE HERE FOR FOREVER WITH THIS KIND OF THING. I WOULD ASK THAT THE COURT INSTRUCT COUNSEL WHEN WE COME BACK ON MONDAY -- SHE CAN CRY ALL SHE WANTS TO IN QUESTIONS, BUT SHE SHOULD NOT BE CLOSE TO THE JURY AND THEY SHOULD STICK TO THE INCIDENTS AND THAT SHE SHOULD STOP VOLUNTEERING INFORMATION. AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE ON THE RECORD THAT FOR EACH OF THE INCIDENTS, THAT MY OBJECTION WAS CLEAR FOR THE RECORD.

THE COURT: IT'S CLEAR FOR THE RECORD.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, IN RESPONSE, I WOULD SAY THAT COUNSEL HAS EXHIBITED A COMPLETE LACK OF SENSITIVITY FOR THIS WOMAN WHO HAS SUFFERED A LOSS. WHETHER OR NOT HE WANTS TO STATE PUBLICLY THAT IT'S AS A RESULT OF VIOLENCE DONE BY HIS CLIENT OR NOT, AND I THINK HER CONDUCT IS COMPLETELY UNDERSTANDABLE AND I THINK THE JURY RECOGNIZES THAT HER SISTER IS DEAD. MR. COCHRAN, HOW ELSE DO YOU EXPECT HER TO REACT, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, GIVEN HER RELATIONSHIP TO THE DEFENDANT, GIVEN HOW LONG SHE'S KNOWN HIM? SHE IS GRIEVING, MR. COCHRAN. IT HAPPENS WHEN PEOPLE LOSE THEIR LOVED ONES. AND I CAN'T CONTROL THAT. I CAN'T STOP THAT. I DIDN'T WIELD THE KNIFE. I DIDN'T KILL HER. I HAVE TAKEN TIME, A LOT OF TIME TO SIT WITH HER AND TRY TO -- YOU KNOW, TRY TO HELP HER THROUGH THIS AND TRY TO ACQUAINT HER WITH TYPES OF THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO BE ASKED HER IN THIS CASE THAT MAYBE SHE WON'T BREAK DOWN ON THE STAND, OKAY. BUT HEY, I'M NOT A PSYCHIATRIST.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, THE ONE OBSERVATION I WILL MAKE, MR. COCHRAN, YOU KNOW, AS I MENTIONED HERE TODAY -- AND I AM FAMILIAR WITH WHO THIS WITNESS IS AND MY COMMENT IS, TIMING IS EVERYTHING. I MEAN THIS IS JUST ONE OF THOSE NUMBER OF DRAWS THAT GOES TO THE PROSECUTION'S TACTICAL BENEFIT TODAY. THERE'S NO WAY TO PREVENT WHERE THE COURT DAY IS GOING TO START OR END. BUT, MR. DARDEN, I WILL MAKE THIS OBSERVATION TO YOU. I THINK I HAVE GIVEN YOU BROAD LEEWAY ON THESE 1101(B) INCIDENTS TO BRING FROM A WIDE RANGE OF INCIDENTS. HOWEVER, I WOULD APPRECIATE IF YOU WOULD STICK TO THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF THOSE INCIDENTS AND NOT EMBELLISH UPON THEM. THE ISSUE IS THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. THESE GRATUITOUS COMMENTS ABOUT HIS BIG EGO, PEOPLE BUYING HIM DRINKS DON'T ADD TO THAT. AT LEAST NOT IN THIS CONTEXT WITH THIS WITNESS. SO THE COURT I THINK HAS BEEN MORE THAN GENEROUS TO YOU AS FAR AS THOSE PERIMETERS ARE CONCERNED. BUT I WOULD ASK YOU TO STAY WITHIN THOSE PERIMETERS.

MR. DARDEN: I'M TRYING, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: DON'T TRY. DO IT. I REALIZE THIS IS A DIFFICULT WITNESS. AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO SIT HER DOWN AND ENCOURAGE HER TO TAKE A BREATH AFTER SHE HEARS EVERY QUESTION BEFORE SHE STARTS TO ANSWER AND ANSWER THE EXACT QUESTION. OTHERWISE, WE WILL BE HERE FOR THREE DAYS.

MR. DARDEN: YOU KNOW, I WENT OVER TO DEFENSE COUNSEL AND I INDICATED TO THEM THAT I WAS GOING TO LEAD HER A LITTLE BIT, AT LEAST UP TO THE AREAS, YOU KNOW, OF INQUIRY AND TRY TO CONTROL THIS. BUT, YOU KNOW, SHE BLURT THESE OUT. BUT GEEZ, FRANKLY I'M TOUCHED BY IT. I FEEL BAD ABOUT IT. MAYBE I'M A LITTLE SLOW TO STOP HER, BUT I WILL ATTEMPT TO DO BETTER. I WILL SAY HOWEVER THAT MR. COCHRAN HAS BEEN MY MENTOR FOR YEARS AND I'VE LEARNED --

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, HE'S GOING TO SEE WHAT EFFECT IT HAS ON THE JURY. I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO HAVE THE EFFECT YOU THINK YOU ARE HAVING. THESE PEOPLE ARE SOPHISTICATED.

MR. DARDEN: I UNDERSTAND THAT.

MR. COCHRAN: WATCH THEM, SEE IF THEY'RE MANIPULATED OR NOT. YOU GUYS KEEP TRYING THIS AND SEE HOW IT ENDS UP IN JUNE. I'LL REMIND YOU ABOUT IT. YOU SAY YOU'RE WORRIED ABOUT ME. I THINK IT'S OUTRAGEOUS. YOU AND YOU GUYS -- I MEAN EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS SHE IS A VICTIM. WE UNDERSTAND THAT AS MUCH AS ANYBODY ELSE. BUT OUR CLIENT HASN'T HAD A CHANCE TO GRIEVE EITHER. YOU TALK ABOUT KNIVES AND THINGS. OUR CLIENT SAID HE DIDN'T WIELD THAT KNIFE. HE DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO GRIEVE EITHER.

MR. DARDEN: LET ME JUST SAY THIS IN RESPONSE. I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT YOU, OKAY. I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT YOU AT ALL.

THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL. YOU ALL HAVE A NICE WEEKEND.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL. ANYTHING ELSE WE NEED TO PUT ON THE RECORD? WE'LL STAND IN RECESS UNTIL MONDAY 9:00 A.M.

(AT 3:00 P.M., AN ADJOURNMENT WAS TAKEN UNTIL, MONDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 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

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1995

VOLUME 81

PAGES 13087 THROUGH 13261, INCLUSIVE
(PAGES 13056 THROUGH 13086, INCLUSIVE, SEALED)

APPEARANCES: (SEE PAGE 2)

JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR #4588
CHRISTINE M. OLSON, CSR #2378 OFFICIAL REPORTERS

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE PEOPLE: GIL GARCETTI, DISTRICT ATTORNEY
BY: MARCIA R. CLARK, WILLIAM W.
HODGMAN, CHRISTOPHER A. DARDEN,
CHERI A. LEWIS, ROCKNE P. HARMON,
GEORGE W. CLARKE, SCOTT M. GORDON
LYDIA C. BODIN, HANK M. GOLDBERG,
AND DARRELL S. MAVIS, DEPUTIES
18-000 CRIMINAL COURTS BUILDING
210 WEST TEMPLE STREET
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012

FOR THE DEFENDANT: ROBERT L. SHAPIRO, ESQUIRE
SARA L. CAPLAN, ESQUIRE
2121 AVENUE OF THE STARS
19TH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067

JOHNNIE L. COCHRAN, JR., ESQUIRE
BY: CARL E. DOUGLAS, ESQUIRE
SHAWN SNIDER CHAPMAN, ESQUIRE
4929 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
SUITE 1010
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90010

GERALD F. UELMEN, ESQUIRE
ROBERT KARDASHIAN, ESQUIRE
ALAN DERSHOWITZ, ESQUIRE
F. LEE BAILEY, ESQUIRE
BARRY SCHECK, ESQUIRE
ROBERT D. BLAISER, ESQUIRE

I N D E X

INDEX FOR VOLUME 81 PAGES 13087 - 13261

-----------------------------------------------------

DAY DATE SESSION PAGE VOL.

FRIDAY FEBRUARY 3, 1995 A.M. 13087 81
P.M. 13195 81
-----------------------------------------------------

PROCEEDINGS

MOTION RE DISCOVERY (RESUMED) 13087 81
MOTION RE DNA TESTING 13195 81

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.

LERNER, ROBERT 13097D 13103C 13124D 13130C 81
(FURTHER) 13131D

BOE, CATHERINE 13134D 13161S 13170D 81

COLBY, CARL 13173D 13183S 13185D 81

BROWN, DENISE 13227D 81

-----------------------------------------------------

ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

PEOPLE'S
WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS VOL.

LERNER, ROBERT 13097D 13103C 13124D 13130C 81
(FURTHER) 13131D

BOE, CATHERINE 13134D 13161S 13170D 81

COLBY, CARL 13173D 13183S 13185D 81

BROWN, DENISE 13227D 81

EXHIBITS

PEOPLE'S FOR IN
EXHIBIT IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE

PAGE VOL. PAGE VOL.

23 - PHOTOGRAPH OF 13167 81
325 SOUTH GRETNA GREEN

24 - PHOTOGRAPH OF 13167 81
325 SOUTH GRETNA GREEN

??

13087