|
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1995 9:16 A.M.
DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE
APPEARANCES: (APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED; (JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR NO. 4855, OFFICIAL REPORTER.) (CHRISTINE M. OLSON, CSR NO. 2378, OFFICIAL REPORTER.) (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:) THE COURT: 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, MISS LEWIS. THE JURY IS NOT PRESENT. COUNSEL, ANYTHING ELSE WE NEED TO TAKE UP? MR. COCHRAN: WE MAY PROCEED, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: INVITE THE JURORS TO JOIN US. MS. CLARK: EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR. THE PEOPLE HAVE A MOTION. THE COURT: MISS CLARK. MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR. AS WE ADVISED THE COURT IN CHAMBERS, WE HAD FILED A MOTION THIS MORNING REQUESTING THAT THIS MATTER BE CONDUCTED AS A CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION ON VIDEOTAPE AND WE ARE PREPARED WITH THE MEANS BY WHICH TO DO SO. THE REASON THAT WE HAVE MADE THIS MOTION, WE HAVE NOT BEEN AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD ON WHETHER THIS WOULD BE A CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION OR IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY. AND WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE COURT'S DISCRETION IN THIS MATTER. NEVERTHELESS, WE FEEL -- THE COURT: I THOUGHT WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION SEVERAL TIMES BEFORE. MS. CLARK: NO, WE DID NOT. WE ASKED FOR TIME TO CONSIDER THE POSITION. ALTHOUGH OUR POSITION HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY CONSISTENT, THAT WE WANTED A CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION, WE DID NOT WANT TO TAKE THE WITNESS OUT OF ORDER IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR CASE IN CHIEF. AT THE ELEVENTH HOUR YESTERDAY THE COURT ASKED US AGAIN TO RECONSIDER AND WE STATED THAT WE WOULD CONSIDER, BUT WE WERE NEVER GIVEN THE OPTION OF ARGUING TO THE COURT WHAT OUR POSITION WOULD BE. WE CONSIDERED THE MATTER AND DETERMINED THAT WE DID NOT WANT TO PROCEED IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY, BUT WE WERE NOT AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD IN THAT REGARD. WE WERE NOT. WE HAVE -- THE COURT: NO. WE DISCUSSED THIS A HALF DOZEN TIMES, COUNSEL. MS. CLARK: WE DISCUSSED IT AT SIDE BAR AT THE LAST OPPORTUNITY -- THE COURT INQUIRED OF US, I BELIEVE ON FRIDAY, WHETHER THE PEOPLE CONTINUED TO OBJECT TO HER BEING CALLED IN OUR CASE OF CHIEF OUT OF ORDER IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY, AND WE SAID WE CONTINUED TO OBJECT. THEN WE WENT TO SIDE BAR AT THE END OF THE DAY AND THE COURT ASKED WHETHER OR NOT WE WANTED TO HAVE THAT. THE COURT INDICATED THAT WE SHOULD -- WHETHER WE WANTED TO CONSIDER HAVING HER IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY AND WE SAID WE WERE CONSIDERING THAT OTHER OPTION, BUT WE HAVE NOT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT TO THE COURT OUR POSITION ON THIS SINCE THAT TIME, AND I WOULD LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO. I THINK THAT THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL IS SUBSTANTIALLY ENDANGERED BY THIS PROCEDURE. NO. 1, BY ALLOWING THE WITNESS TO BE CALLED OUT OF ORDER IN THE CONTEXT OF THE MIDDLE OF THE PEOPLE'S CASE IN CHIEF. THIS HIGHLIGHTS THE WITNESS' TESTIMONY, AFFORDS HER UNDUE IMPORTANCE, HIGHLIGHTING HER ABOVE ALL OTHER WITNESSES, WHICH IS UNFAIR TO THE PEOPLE'S CASE. BUT BEYOND THAT, YOUR HONOR, IT IS VERY DISRUPTIVE. THE PEOPLE WILL THEN HAVE TO PRESENT REBUTTAL TESTIMONY WHICH IS ONLY IN ITS EMBRYONIC STAGES IN BEING FORMULATED. THERE IS A GREAT DEAL OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST THIS WITNESS, A GREAT DEAL. YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATING HER ALL ALONG. IT IS NOT THAT WE WAITED UNTIL THE ELEVENTH HOUR TO DO SO; HOWEVER, WE WERE ALWAYS OF THE BELIEF, AND IT WAS A WELL-FOUNDED ONE, THAT THE ULTIMATE REBUTTAL WOULD NOT OCCUR UNTIL REBUTTAL IN THE PEOPLE'S -- IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF THINGS. THAT IS, HER TESTIMONY WOULD BE PRESENTED IN THE COURSE OF THE DEFENSE CASE AND THAT WE WOULD BE AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT REBUTTAL OF HER TESTIMONY AFTER THAT WHEN THE PEOPLE'S REBUTTAL BEGAN. SO THERE WAS AT LEAST A TWO TO THREE-MONTH WINDOW IN WHICH TO FURTHER DEVELOP ALL THE LEADS. EVEN THIS WEEKEND WE HAVE BEEN OBTAINING SUBSTANTIALLY NEW INFORMATION. TO PRECLUDE US FROM GETTING ALL THAT INFORMATION AND TO REQUIRE US TO BASICALLY PREPARE FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION IN ONE WEEKEND AND THEN CROSS-EXAMINE THIS WITNESS THAT THE DEFENSE CONTENDS IS A KEY WITNESS FOR THEM, ON WHICH THEIR WHOLE CASE HINGES, IS BASICALLY TO DEPRIVE THE PEOPLE OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE AN EFFECTIVE RIGHT OF CROSS-EXAMINATION AND CONFRONTATION. NOT ONLY DOES IT RIP THE FABRIC OF THE PEOPLE'S CASE AT A CRITICAL POINT IN TIME, BUT IT ALSO PREVENTS THE PEOPLE FROM CONDUCTING THE THOROUGH KIND OF INVESTIGATION THAT WE ARE ENTITLED TO CONDUCT WITH RESPECT TO THIS WITNESS' CREDIBILITY, WHICH AS THE COURT IS ALREADY AWARE, IS SUBSTANTIALLY IN QUESTION. WE ASK ONLY THAT THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL BE PRESERVED BY AFFORDING THE DEFENSE THE CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION THAT INITIALLY REQUESTED, ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE'S POSITION HAS NOT CHANGED THAT THE GRANTING OF THE CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION WAS NOT REQUIRED BASED ON THE TESTIMONY GIVEN, THAT PERHAPS 1332 OF THE PENAL CODE, MATERIAL WITNESS SECTION, WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATE TO PROTECT THEIR RIGHT TO HAVE THAT WITNESS PRESENT. THE COURT: YOU WANT ME TO INCARCERATE A WITNESS FOR TWO MONTHS? MS. CLARK: NO. THE WITNESS CAN POST BOND. THE DEFENSE HAS BEEN GIVING THIS WITNESS MONEY, FEEDING HER, CLOTHING HER, HOUSING HER, PAID FOR A ROUND TRIP TICKET FOR HER. I'M SURE THEY WILL POST BOND FOR HAS AS WELL. SHE NEED NOT BE INCARCERATED. THE COURT IS ALSO AWARE OF THE DEFENSE FUND AND MAKE SURE SHE HAS THE ABILITY TO POST THE BOND. THAT OPTION WAS AVAILABLE AND THE PEOPLE URGED THE COURT TO TAKE IT. NEVERTHELESS, THE COURT RULED THAT A CONDITIONAL EXAM WOULD BE AFFORDED TO THE DEFENSE FOR THIS WITNESS. ALL THE PEOPLE ARE ASKING NOW IS THAT THE COURT HOLD TO THAT RULING AND CONDUCT THIS AS A CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION SO THAT THE PEOPLE WILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO PRESENT THEIR CASE IN AN ORDERLY FASHION, COMPLETE THE INVESTIGATION THAT THEY HAVE ONLY BEEN GIVEN A WEEKEND TO SPEED UP. THE COURT: I THOUGHT YOU SAID THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS BEEN LONG AWARE OF THIS WITNESS. MS. CLARK: THE PROSECUTION WAS AWARE OF THIS WITNESS AND WAS CONDUCTING INVESTIGATION INTO THIS WITNESS; NEVERTHELESS, HER LACK OF CREDIBILITY WAS SO APPARENT THAT WE COULD NEVER HAVE ANTICIPATED THE DEFENSE WOULD HINGE THEIR WHOLE CASE ON HER. MOREOVER, THE DEFENSE HAS MADE REPRESENTATIONS CONCERNING SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS BY THIS WITNESS THAT WE WERE NEVER MADE AWARE AND TO THIS DATE HAVE NO WRITTEN STATEMENT ON. WE HAVE ONLY COUNSEL'S REPRESENTATIONS IN THE OPENING STATEMENT AS TO MANY OF THE THINGS SHE IS GOING TO TESTIFY TO. AND I'M SURE WE ARE GOING TO HEAR ANOTHER VERSION ON THE WITNESS STAND TODAY, WHETHER THAT THE BE BY CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION OR IN FRONT OF THE JURY, BUT THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL IS IN JEOPARDY HERE AND I THINK THERE IS NO DETRIMENT PRESENTED BY THE DEFENSE IF WE PRESENT THE CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION AND VIDEOTAPE IT. DON'T FORGET, YOUR HONOR, THAT THEY WILL STILL HAVE HER PRESENT AND AVAILABLE TO TESTIFY IN CASE THEY WANT TO PUT HER ON THE WITNESS STAND. THEY WILL HAVE THE OPTION, IF THEY DECIDE THAT THEY DON'T LIKE THIS WITNESS, THEY CAN PUT IT ON THROUGH VIDEOTAPE OR, IF SHE HAS A GOOD DRESS REHEARSAL, THEY WILL HAVE HER PRESENT FOR THE DEFENSE CASE. NO ONE SHOULD HAVE ANY DOUBT ABOUT THAT. SHE WILL BE HERE. NEVERTHELESS, IF WE DO PRESENT THIS AS A CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION AND VIDEOTAPE IT, THE RIGHT OF ALL SIDES WILL BE FULLY PRESERVED, BUT TO INTERRUPT THE PEOPLE'S CASE AND TO BASICALLY STOP THE EXAMINATION AND INTERJECT A DEFENSE WITNESS THAT WILL REQUIRE LENGTHY CROSS-EXAMINATION AND LENGTHY REBUTTAL PERTAINING TO FACTS THAT HAVE NOT YET BEEN PRESENTED, EVEN IN THE PEOPLE'S, CASE WILL BE CONFUSING AND MISLEADING TO THE JURY, WILL CURTAIL THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO AN EFFECTIVE CROSS-EXAMINATION AND WILL CURTAIL THE PEOPLE'S ABILITY TO EFFECTIVELY INVESTIGATE HER. AND I'M ASKING THE COURT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE TO ALLOW THIS AS A CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION. THAT WILL PROTECT EVERYONE'S RIGHTS. THE COURT: HOW DO YOU PROPOSE TO PREPARE UNDER EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 770, IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY? MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY? THE COURT: WELL, IF YOU ARE GOING TO CONFRONT HER WITH INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS, DON'T YOU HAVE TO DO THAT NOW DURING THE CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION? ARE YOU PREPARED TO DO THAT? MS. CLARK: YES, AND I THINK THAT, FIRST OF ALL, WE CAN DO THAT BY ASKING -- BY BEING GIVEN BROAD LATITUDE IN CROSS-EXAMINATION, WHICH I'M SURE THE COURT WILL AFFORD US, GIVEN THE UNUSUAL NATURE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS AND THE FACT THAT IT IS A CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION, AND WE ASK THOSE KIND OF BROAD FAR-REACHING QUESTIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT WILL SUBSUME THE ISSUES -- MANY OF THE ISSUES OF PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS. THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN. MR. COCHRAN: YES, YOUR HONOR. I THOUGHT I WOULD NOT BE AMAZED ANY MORE, BUT IT IS AMAZING THAT IF THE COURT WILL RECALL AT THE END OF THE DAY ON FRIDAY, MR. DARDEN WAS SAYING HOW HE LOOKED FORWARD TO HAVING MISS LOPEZ BEFORE THE JURY. IN FACT, HE MADE THE STATEMENT "I WONDER WHO IS GOING TO CLEAN UP THE BLOOD AFTER THE FINISH OF THE CROSS-EXAMINATION," AND I WELCOME IT, AND I SAID, WE HAVE A TRUTHFUL WITNESS HERE. THIS WAS LITIGATED, AND AS ALWAYS, THE PEOPLE -- IT IS BEYOND DISINGENUOUS FOR SOMEBODY TO COME INTO COURT AT 6:30, AFTER YOU BROUGHT ALL THESE JURORS OVER HERE, WE ARE READY TO PROCEED, AND THE WITNESS MAKES A PROMISE TO YOU SHE WILL COME BACK, AND THEY SAY, WELL, WE CAN'T DO IT TONIGHT, JUDGE, BECAUSE I HAVE TO PICK UP MY CHILDREN. AND THE COURT IS SENSITIVE TO THAT AND IT WAS ONLY A PLOY FOR THEM TO GO AND CRY AND MOAN OVER THE WEEKEND AND COME UP WITH SOME OTHER DOCUMENT. FOR MISS CLARK TO EVEN STAND UP HERE AND TALK ABOUT THE DEFENSE DOING THIS, SHE DOESN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE DEFENSE. IF SHE THINKS THAT OUR WHOLE CASE HINGES ON THIS WITNESS, THEN SHE, LIKE SO MANY PEOPLE WHO WRITE ABOUT THIS CASE, DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT, THEY ARE NOT EVEN A PART OF THIS CASE. WE HAVE A NUMBER OF WITNESSES, ALL OF WHICH THEY KNOW ABOUT, SO IT IS PREPOSTEROUS FOR THEM TO SAY THAT. THIS IS A WITNESS, YOUR HONOR, WHO IS GOING TO BE LEAVING. THE COURT HAS RULED ON THIS MATTER. WE ALL COME BACK TO COURT PREPARED TO DO THIS AND THEY ARE PREPARED TO PUT IT OVER JUST UNTIL TODAY TO PROCEED AND ALL OF A SUDDEN WE GET THIS MOTION WHERE ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY ARE BEING PREJUDICED OR WHATEVER. IT IS THE USUAL THING, YOUR HONOR, AND FOR HER TO SAY THAT OUR WHOLE CASE HINGES UPON THIS WITNESS IS PREPOSTEROUS. WE HAVE A NUMBER OF OTHER WITNESSES AND THEY ARE VERY MUCH AWARE OF IT. AND SPECIFICALLY, THE COURT HAS RULED ON THIS, THEY AGREED TO IT. WE TALKED ABOUT IT, AS YOU SAID, A HALF DOZEN TIMES, AND WHEN THEY ASKED FOR THE DELAY ON FRIDAY NIGHT, LOOK AT THE TRANSCRIPT, THEY DIDN'T SAY WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE HER TESTIFY BEFORE THE JURY. THEY SAID WE JUST CAN'T DO IT TONIGHT BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH MR. DARDEN IS GOING TO BE CONDUCTING THE EXAMINATION, MISS CLARK HAS TO BE HERE TO SEE AND ADVISE HIM AND TELL HIM WHAT QUESTIONS TO ASK AND THAT WAS WHY WE PUT IT OVER. WE WENT THROUGH IN THIS DETAIL. AND SO CLEARLY, YOUR HONOR, THIS IS ANOTHER ATTEMPT BY THEM TO AVOID FACING UP TO WHAT THEY HAVE TO FACE UP TO IN THIS CASE, AND WE ARE READY TO PROCEED AND WE SHOULD PROCEED. AND THE COURT HAS RULED ON THIS. IT IS THE HONORABLE AND FAIR THING TO DO. AND ALL OF THE REST OF THIS WILD SPECULATION ON THEIR PART IS TOTALLY DISINGENUOUS. I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO ALLOW US TO PROCEED AT THIS POINT. MS. CLARK: I'M OFFENDED AS A WOMAN, AS A SINGLE PARENT AND AS A PROSECUTOR AND AN OFFICER OF THE COURT TO HEAR AN ARGUMENT POSED BY COUNSEL LIKE THAT OF MR. COCHRAN TODAY. SOME OF US HAVE CHILD CARE ISSUES AND THEY ARE SERIOUS AND THEY ARE PARAMOUNT. OBVIOUSLY MR. COCHRAN CANNOT UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT HE SHOULD NOT COME BEFORE THIS COURT AND IMPUGN THE INTEGRITY OF SOMEONE WHO DOES HAVE THOSE CONSIDERATIONS. AND I'M DEEPLY OFFENDED. THE PEOPLE'S -- I WOULD LIKE TO INDICATE THE PEOPLE ARE STRENUOUS AND VIGOROUS IN THEIR DESIRE TO HAVE THIS WITNESS TESTIFY. WE WANT THE ABILITY TO FULLY AND EFFECTIVELY CROSS-EXAMINE HER. WE FEEL THAT IT WOULD BE THE FAIREST THING FOR BOTH SIDES TO DO THAT IN A CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION. WHAT THE COURT NOR THE PEOPLE COULD NOT KNOW ON FRIDAY IS THAT NEW INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED -- WOULD BE OBTAINED OVER THE WEEKEND, WHICH IT HAS BEEN, THAT WILL PROVIDE FERTILE GROUND FOR MORE EFFECTIVE CROSS-EXAMINATION. THIS INFORMATION NEEDS TO BE FOLLOWED UP. IT WILL AFFORD US THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT OUR REBUTTAL EFFECTIVELY HAVING GATHERED ALL OF THAT INFORMATION AT ONE TIME. IF WE HAVE TO PRESENT THIS WITNESS BEFORE THE JURY NOW, WE WILL BE REQUIRED TO PRESENT SOME REBUTTAL NOW AND THEN SOME LATER IN A DISJOINTED FASHION. THE PEOPLE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO TRY THEIR OWN CASE, AS DOES THE DEFENSE, AND THE ORDER OF WITNESSES IS A VERY IMPORTANT MATTER THAT WE KNOW THE COURT IS AWARE OF. THE ABILITY TO STRUCTURE A TRIAL STRATEGY THAT MOST EFFECTIVELY CONVEYS THE NATURE OF THE CASE AND THE INFORMATION THAT IS REQUIRED TO BE CONVEYED TO THE JURY IS A VERY, VERY IMPORTANT MATTER. IT IS NOT ONE TO BE TAKEN LIGHTLY. THIS IS WHY THE DEFENSE IS SO DESIROUS OF HAVING THIS WITNESS TAKEN OUT OF ORDER. IF SHE DOESN'T COME ACROSS EFFECTIVELY, THE JURY IS ADEQUATELY PROTECTED SO THAT HER TESTIMONY, EVEN THOUGH MAY NOT BE BELIEVED, SIMPLY RENDS THE PEOPLE'S CASE SUFFICIENTLY TO CAUSE CONFUSION AND DISTORTION OF THE PEOPLE'S CASE. ALL WE WANT IS FOR THE ABILITY TO EFFECTIVELY AND COHESIVELY PRESENT OUR CASE TO THE JURY. THE DEFENSE HAS ALREADY PERSUADED THE COURT TO AFFECT THE ORDER OF WITNESSES THAT THE PEOPLE HAD PROPOSED ON THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ISSUES. THE DEFENSE NOW SEEKS TO DO IT AGAIN, BUT WITHOUT GOOD CAUSE, YOUR HONOR. THE PEOPLE SUBMIT THAT THERE ARE SUBSTANTIAL ISSUES OF FAIRNESS IN THIS TRIAL, THE PEOPLE'S EFFECTIVE ABILITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE AND TO PRESENT THE CASE TO THIS JURY THAT ARE BEING -- THAT WE ARE BEING DEPRIVE OF BY HAVING THIS WITNESS TAKEN OUT OF ORDER. WE DO FEEL THAT EVERYONE'S RIGHTS WILL BE ADEQUATELY PROTECTED BY A CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION, BUT PLEASE BEAR IN OUR MIND THAT OUR INVESTIGATION OF THIS WITNESS IS ACTIVELY ONGOING, HAS BEEN, BUT CERTAINLY WENT INTO HIGH GEAR OVER THIS WEEKEND AND A NUMBER OF NEW MATTERS WERE BROUGHT TO LIGHT. SO WE WOULD ASK THAT THE COURT TAKE THE WITNESS' TESTIMONY TODAY, BUT ALLOW US TO DO THAT AS A CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION. AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME, IF THE DEFENSE DESIRES TO PLAY THE VIDEOTAPE, THEY WILL HAVE THE OPTION OF DOING SO, PROVIDING THEY CAN SHOW DUE DILIGENCE, BUT I SUSPECT THAT THE WITNESS WILL BE AVAILABLE TO BE TESTIFYING IN PERSON AT THAT TIME. EITHER WAY IT IS A NO LOSE SITUATION REALLY FOR THE DEFENSE, BUT AT LEAST IT AFFORDS THE PEOPLE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT A COHESIVE CASE AND TO EFFECTIVELY INVESTIGATE AND CROSS-EXAMINE THIS WITNESS. THE COURT: WHAT IS YOUR TIME ESTIMATE, MISS CLARK, FOR THE PRESENTATION OF THE REMAINDER OF YOUR CASE? REALISTICALLY NOW, WOULD YOU SAY PERHAPS THE END OF MARCH? MS. CLARK: BASED ON WHAT WE HAVE SEEN THE WAY TESTIMONY IS GOING, I HAVE A BETTER FEEL FOR THE PACE, BUT I NEED TO TALK TO THE PEOPLE WHO WILL BE PRESENTING THE BLOOD EVIDENCE AND THE DNA EVIDENCE TO REALLY GIVE A GOOD IDEA, SO I'M GOING TO GIVE IT MY BEST SHOT, YOUR HONOR. I THINK THAT IS PROBABLY FAIR, THE END OF MARCH. I THINK SO. I MEAN, IF YOU REALLY WANT ME TO GET MORE SPECIFIC AND MORE ACCURATE -- THE COURT: JUST SORT OF A BALLPARK GUESS IN ASKING YOU HOW MUCH DISRUPTION THIS IS, JUST TO PUT THIS IN CONTEXT. MS. CLARK: WE HAVEN'T EVEN GOTTEN TO -- LET ME HELP WITH THAT. WE HAVEN'T EVEN GOTTEN TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES THAT MAKE ROSA LOPEZ RELEVANT. WE HAVEN'T EVEN GOTTEN THAT FAR. WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN THE TESTIMONY OF KATO, WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN THE TESTIMONY OF ALLAN PARK. THESE ARE THE KEY WITNESSES THAT MAKE ROSA LOPEZ' TESTIMONY INTELLIGIBLE. SO WE ARE GOING TO BE -- WIND UP REBUTTING TESTIMONY THAT HAS NOT EVEN BEEN -- ESSENTIALLY THEY ARE PUTTING ON THEIR REBUTTAL BEFORE WE PUT ON ANYTHING DIRECTLY TO MAKE THAT INTELLIGIBLE TO THE JURY. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. WELL, YOU CERTAINLY MAKE MY LIFE INTERESTING EVERYDAY. I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT BOTH SIDES ANTICIPATED GOING FORWARD WITH HER TESTIMONY BEFORE THE JURY TODAY. THE ORIGINAL DEFENSE REQUEST WAS FOR A 1335 CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION, WHICH I GRANTED, AND AFTER OUR DISCUSSIONS, I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT BOTH SIDES AGREED THAT IT WOULD BE BETTER UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES TO HAVE MISS LOPEZ TESTIFY BEFORE THE JURY SINCE THAT IS THE IDEAL SITUATION. HOWEVER, THE RIGHTS OF BOTH SIDES WILL BE PROTECTED UNDER THE 1335 PROCEDURE, SO I WILL MODIFY MY ORDER. MR. COCHRAN: MAY I RESPOND JUST BRIEFLY? THE COURT: YES, BRIEFLY. MR. COCHRAN: I STARTED TO RESPOND TO THE LAST THINGS COUNSEL SAID, BUT YOUR HONOR, BOTH SIDES DID IN FACT AGREE, AND THE FACT THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE NOW COME IN AND CHANGED THAT I THINK IT IS OUTRAGEOUS, YOUR HONOR. WE CAN NEVER HAVE ANY CLOSURE ON THIS THING. MS. CLARK: I THOUGHT COUNSEL WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO ARGUE WITH RULINGS. MR. COCHRAN: AND THE COURT HAS NOT RULED YET, COUNSEL. THE COURT: I JUST DID, MR. COCHRAN. MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, YOU RULED ON FRIDAY NIGHT AND THEY ARE BACK UP HERE TALKING, SO I SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO AT LEAST INDICATE THIS. THE COURT: MISS CLARK IS CORRECT IN THAT AFTER I MADE THE DECISION I TOLD HER IF SHE SAID SHE WANTED TO BE HEARD AND THEN THE OTHER ISSUE CAME UP WITH CHILD CARE AND THAT SORT OF CLOSED THE WHOLE ISSUE FOR THE EVENING, AS FAR AS I WAS CONCERNED, AND FRANKLY, SINCE WE HAD BEEN IN SESSION SIX HOURS BEYOND OUR ANTICIPATED CLOSING TIME ON FRIDAY, I WAS READY TO CALL IT A NIGHT THEN. MR. COCHRAN: MAY I REMIND THE COURT WHAT HAPPENED WAS MISS CLARK WAS NOW GONE, AT THIS POINT THE COURT CALLED THE JURY IN AT THE END OF THE DAY AND SAID WE WOULD BE CALLING A WITNESS IN OUT OF ORDER TO TESTIFY. THE COURT: YOU ARE RIGHT. MR. COCHRAN: IT WAS A MADE DECISION. THE COURT: YOU ARE RIGHT. MR. COCHRAN: EVERYBODY IN AMERICA LOOKING IN WAS AWARE THAT THIS WAS A MADE DECISION, AND THEY COME UP WITH THIS MOTION THAT NOBODY KNEW ABOUT. MR. DARDEN HAD AGREED TO IT. MR. DARDEN: I NEVER AGREED TO THAT. THE COURT: WELL, MR. COCHRAN, THANK YOU. I AGREE WITH YOU IN MANY RESPECTS, HOWEVER, YOU ASKED INITIALLY FOR A 1335, SO YOU WON THE DAY, YOU GOT YOUR 1335. MISS CLARK NOW BRINGS UP GOOD POINTS. I AM MORE THAN WILLING TO CHANGE MY MIND WHEN I FEEL IT IS APPROPRIATE. MR. COCHRAN: WELL, CAN WE JUST TALK FOR A MOMENT ABOUT HER GOOD POINTS? THE GOOD POINTS ARE THESE, YOUR HONOR -- THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, WE HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO ARGUE IT. MR. COCHRAN: WELL, YOUR HONOR, I WOULD JUST SUBMIT TO THE COURT THAT THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO COME BACK IN AND RECONVINCE YOUR HONOR AFTER WE MADE A DECISION. YOU WERE GOING TO DO THIS ON FRIDAY NIGHT. THE COURT: WELL, MISS CLARK RAISES THE POSSIBILITY THAT IF WE PUT ON ROSA LOPEZ NOW, THEN THEY ARE GOING TO BRING ON FIVE REBUTTAL WITNESSES, WHICH IS GOING TO TOTALLY DERAIL THINGS. MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, THEY ARE ALWAYS CLAIMING THINGS LIKE THAT AND IT TURNS OUT TO BE MUCH TO DO ABOUT NOTHING. THE COURT: WELL, THAT IS WHAT I WOULD DO IF I WERE THEM. MR. COCHRAN: LET THEM DO THAT. THEY WERE GOING TO BE SO READY TO DO THIS. JUDGE, THEY HAVE KNOWN ABOUT THIS WITNESS SINCE LAST JULY OR AUGUST. THE COURT: EXCUSE ME, MR. COCHRAN. LET ME -- FORGIVE ME FOR INTERRUPTING YOU FOR JUST A SECOND. MR. COCHRAN: YES. THE COURT: MISS HAYSLETT, WOULD YOU ASK MR. SHULMAN TO GET HIS GEAR TOGETHER FOR ME. MS. HAYSLETT: YES, YOUR HONOR. MR. COCHRAN: IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THEY HAVE KNOWN ABOUT THIS WITNESS SINCE LAST SUMMER. THE FACT THAT WE GET INFORMATION THIS VERY MORNING, AT THIS VERY MOMENT PEOPLE ARE CALLING IN BOTH SIDES, IT IS TOTALLY DISINGENUOUS TO SAY WE GOT NEW INFORMATION. WE GET NEW INFORMATION MINUTE BY MINUTE IN THIS CASE AND IT WILL CONTINUE UNTIL THIS CASE GOES TO THE JURY, YOUR HONOR. IT IS ANOTHER STALL, AS FRIDAY NIGHT. YOUR HONOR HAS BEEN WISE AND FAIR IN THIS CASE, BUT CERTAINLY YOU CAN SEE THROUGH THIS, AND FOR HER TO SAY THAT I'M NOT SENSITIVE TO CHILD CARE, IT IS PREPOSTEROUS. WHAT I'M SENSITIVE TO IS THE FACT THAT THEY CAME IN HERE AND SAID WE ARE READY TO GO ON MONDAY, BUT I JUST HAVE TO BE HERE SO I CAN ADVISE CHRIS DARDEN. AND NOW WE COME WITH THIS MOTION, AND THAT IS THE THING, SO I WANTED TO AT LEAST HAVE THE COURT INDICATE HOW STRONGLY THE DEFENSE FEELS ABOUT THIS. I DON'T WANT TO SEE THIS COURT SNOOKERED BY THIS. THIS STUFF ABOUT A FAIR TRIAL WORKS BOTH WAYS, JUDGE. THEY HAVE THE POWER OF THE STATE, THE ENTIRE POLICE DEPARTMENT AS, D.A.'S INVESTIGATORS. THEY HAVE GOT EVERYTHING. THEY HAVE KNOWN ABOUT THIS WITNESS SINCE LAST SUMMER, AND FOR THEM TO COME IN AND SAY WE ARE NOT READY, JUDGE, WE HEAR THIS TIME AND TIME AND TIME AGAIN, AND I THINK IT IS UNFAIR BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO A FAIR TRIAL ALSO. AND THE COURT HAD MADE ITS DECISION AND WE LIVED WITH THAT DECISION. AND AS USUAL, THEY COME BACK AND BEGGED AND MOANED AND ASKED YOU TO DO SOMETHING ELSE, AND YOU RIGHTFULLY CONSIDER THOSE THINGS, JUDGE, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME IN THIS INSTANCE, GIVEN THEIR RECORD, AND WHAT YOU SAID, THIS AFFECTS YOUR CREDIBILITY. WE TELL THE JURORS WE WOULD HAVE DONE THIS FRIDAY NIGHT. YOU TELL THE JURORS TAKE THIS WITNESS OUT OF ORDER, COME BACK MONDAY MORNING. MISS LOPEZ, WHO STAYS OVER, SAYS I WILL DO THAT FOR YOU, JUDGE, AND YOU SAY TO HER, I WILL GET YOU ON AND YOU WILL TESTIFY BEFORE THE JURY AND IT WILL BE OVER WITH MONDAY MORNING AND WE WILL LEAVE. THE COURT: WHAT SHE ANTICIPATED WAS COMING HERE AND HAVING HER TESTIMONY TAPE-RECORDED, WHICH WHAT IT IS WE ARE GOING TO DO. MR. COCHRAN: WELL, NOT AS OF FRIDAY NIGHT. SHE ANTICIPATED HAVING IT OVER. WHAT THEY ARE ARGUING -- AND YOU KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING, JUDGE. MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, I'M OBJECTING. I'M SORRY, THIS IS SO INAPPROPRIATE. THE COURT: MISS CLARK. MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE, WHAT THEY ARE DOING AGAIN IS SEEKING TO REARGUE EVERYTHING. THEY ARE SAYING IN THEIR MOTION WHEN YOU RULE AND ROSA LOPEZ WOULD LEAVE TO GO TO EL SALVADOR, AND THEY DON'T LIKE YOUR RULING, THEY TRY TO COME AND CIRCUMVENT IT BY EVERY WAY THEY CAN. THEY SAY DO THIS CONDITIONAL EXAM BECAUSE WE KNOW SHE IS REALLY GOING TO BE AVAILABLE, WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE DECISION, SO THEY ASK YOU TO RECONSIDER THAT PARTICULAR POINT, YOUR HONOR, AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IS UNFAIR. IN THIS CASE STRINGS ARE BEING PULLED BY OTHERS SITTING HERE AT THIS TABLE AND THEY COME HERE AND MAKE A REPRESENTATION AND THEY GO BACK AND THEY HAVE TO WALK UPSTAIRS AND GET THEIR NEW ORDERS AND RUN DOWN HERE. MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. HE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT. THAT IS TOTALLY FALSE. THE COURT: MISS CLARK, DON'T INTERRUPT COUNSEL. MR. COCHRAN: THEY WANT TO PULL UP IN THE MIDDLE OF THEIR BATTLE UP THERE WHEN ONE PERSONS SAYS SOMETHING AND THAT IS NOT FAIR, AND THAT IS WHY YOU ARE THE JUDGE, TO MAKE THESE RULINGS, AND MAKE THEM AND STICK BY THEM. SO I JUST THINK WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO GO FORWARD AS WE -- I THINK IT AFFECTS EVERYBODY'S CREDIBILITY WHEN WE TELL JURORS SOMETHING AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY COME UP WITH THIS LAST MINUTE STATEMENT, SO I AM JUST SAYING TO THE COURT, YOU RULED, IT WAS AN APPROPRIATE RULING GIVEN ALL THE EVIDENCE, WE SHOULD PROCEED WITH THE TESTIMONY. AND IF THEY WANT TO CALL FIVE REBUTTAL WITNESSES, THEY HAVE ALL THE TIME IN THE WORLD TO DO THAT. THEY CAN CALL ANYBODY THEY WANT. THEY WERE SO WORRIED ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT TO CALL THIS WITNESS, AND MAKE IT VERY CLEAR, WHEN I STOOD UP AND I SAID "SUBMITTED," HE SAID LET'S PUT HER BEFORE THE JURY. EVERYBODY IN AMERICA IS WORRIED ABOUT ROSA LOPEZ. WE MADE OUR DECISION WITH REGARD TO THAT. IT HAS BEEN ABUNDANTLY CLEAR. YOU DON'T SEE US CHANGING OUR STRATEGY EVERY FEW MINUTES, WHERE THEY HAVE, AND I SUGGEST TO THE COURT THAT THAT IS NOT FAIR TO THE DEFENSE. WE TALK ABOUT WHAT IS FUNDAMENTALLY FAIR AND I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO THINK ABOUT THAT BEFORE YOU REVERSE YOUR WELL THOUGHT OUT AND WELL-REASONED RULING. THE COURT: THANK YOU, MR. COCHRAN. ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, WE HAD NOT STARTED THE ACTUAL EXAMINATION OF THE WITNESS. WHAT YOU HAD ASKED FOR WAS A 1335 CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION. I GRANTED THAT. SINCE THE JURY WAS AVAILABLE, I DECIDED TO DO THAT. SINCE THEN THE PROSECUTION HAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION A POINT THAT I HAD NOT CONTEMPLATED. SINCE WE HAD NOT EMBARKED UPON THAT COURSE OF ACTION IT IS NOT INAPPROPRIATE FOR ME TO CHANGE THAT, WHICH I'M GOING TO DO. WE WILL TAKE A 20-MINUTE RECESS TO ALLOW THE VIDEOTAPE EQUIPMENT TO BE SET UP AND THEN WE WILL PROCEED. MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR -- THE COURT: AND DEPUTY MAGNERA, WE WILL NEED TO TRANSPORT THE JURY UP TO THE HOLDING LOUNGE UPSTAIRS. MR. DARDEN. MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, BEFORE WE BREAK, I HAVE ASKED DEFENSE COUNSEL AND I'VE ASKED ON THE RECORD AS WELL FOR ANY NOTES AND RECORDINGS RELATIVE TO ANY INTERVIEW THEY HAD WITH MISS LOPEZ. I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY NOTES OR ANY RECORDINGS OF ANY INTERVIEW THEY MAY HAVE HAD WITH HER AND I WOULD LIKE TO INQUIRE OF DEFENSE COUNSEL IF ANY SUCH NOTES OR TAPE-RECORDINGS EXIST. MR. COCHRAN: AS FAR AS OTHER THAN TALKING TO HER, WE HAVE NO NOTES OR RECORDINGS. I CAN INQUIRE. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.) MR. COCHRAN: THE ONLY THING I CAN DO IS CALL MR. PAVELIC. THAT IS THE ONLY PERSON I CAN CALL. MR. DARDEN: WE UNDERSTAND, YOUR HONOR, THAT OVER THE WEEKEND MR. SCHILLER, WHO IS APPARENTLY MR. SIMPSON'S PERSONAL BIOGRAPHER, SPENT SOME TIME WITH MISS LOPEZ, AND I WOULD LIKE TO INQUIRE OF MR. SCHILLER IF HE HAS NOTES. IF HE INTERVIEWED MISS LOPEZ, I WOULD LIKE THOSE NOTES, YOUR HONOR. MR. COCHRAN: IS HE KIDDING, YOUR HONOR? THAT IS HOW BAD THEIR INFORMATION IS, YOUR HONOR. MR. DARDEN: IS THAT A DENIAL -- IF THAT IS A DENIAL, YOUR HONOR -- MR. COCHRAN: LET HIM GO AND TALK TO MR. SCHILLER, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: ARE YOU INDICATING, MR. COCHRAN, THAT THAT IS NOT TRUE? MR. COCHRAN: AS FAR AS I KNOW HE DIDN'T TALK TO HER. HE HAS NEVER TALKED TO HER. MR. WALSH, YOU HAD SOMETHING? MR. WALSH: YES, YOUR HONOR. MR. DOUGLAS HAD MADE AN EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME. IF THE COURT IS NOT GOING TO CONSIDER THAT NOW, MAY I BE EXCUSED? THE COURT: NO. I'M GOING TO CONSIDER THAT NOW. MR. WALSH: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. MR. WALSH, DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THAT? MR. WALSH: WELL, THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. WE RECEIVED THE APPLICATION THIS MORNING INDICATING THAT THE DEFENSE BECAME AWARE ON FEBRUARY 22ND THAT THERE MAY HAVE BEEN CERTAIN INVESTIGATIONS INTO ALLEGATIONS AGAINST DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. THEY ARE NOW ASKING THAT THE COURT ISSUE AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME UNTIL MARCH 2ND TO HAVE A HEARING ON WHETHER THOSE DOCUMENTS, IF THEY EXIST, SHOULD BE PRODUCED AND DISCLOSED. I AM AT A LOST TO UNDERSTAND WHY THEY WAITED UNTIL THIS MORNING TO PREPARE THESE DOCUMENTS AND FILE THEM AND GIVE THEM TO ME. THE -- IT IS A VERY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME FOR THE CITY TO ANALYZE THE REQUEST AND MAKE A DETERMINATION ON THE STATURE AND POSITION THAT IT WANTS TO TAKE. THE ONLY REASON GIVEN IN THE DECLARATION WHY AN ORDER TO SHORTEN TIME SHOULD BE ALLOWED IS THAT THEY BELIEVE THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IS TO TAKE THE STAND ON MARCH 1ST. I HAVE NO INFORMATION AS TO WHETHER THAT IS TRUE OR NOT, BUT MARCH 2ND IS AN INCONVENIENT DATE FOR ME FOR TWO REASONS: ONE, I HAVE A PRIOR APPEARANCE THAT MORNING. SECOND, I HAVE A FUNERAL THAT I MUST ATTEND TOMORROW, SO I WOULD HAVE A LIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME TO RESPOND TO THE REQUEST AND TO DETERMINE WHAT THE CITY'S LEGAL POSITION WOULD BE -- THE COURT: HOW ABOUT MARCH 3RD? MR. WALSH: MARCH 3RD WOULD BE BETTER, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MARCH 3RD. MR. WALSH: THANK YOU. WHAT TIME? THE COURT: 9:00 A.M. MR. WALSH: THANK YOU. THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. MISS ROBERTSON, LET'S -- OKAY. WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A RECESS TO SET UP THE VIDEOTAPE EQUIPMENT AND WE WILL RESUME AS SOON AS THE EQUIPMENT IS AVAILABLE. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. (RECESS.) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT WE ARE ABOUT TO CONDUCT A CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION PURSUANT TO 1335 OF THE PENAL CODE AND THAT THE COURT WILL BE SITTING IN THIS MATTER AS A MAGISTRATE. ALL RIGHT. MR. SHULMAN ARE YOU READY? MR. SHULMAN: YES. THE COURT: MR. FURTH, ARE YOU READY? MR. FURTH: (NODS HEAD UP AND DOWN.) THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, ARE YOU READY? MR. COCHRAN: YES. MAY WE APPROACH FOR A MOMENT? THE COURT: YES. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN. MR. COCHRAN: I JUST WANT TO FIND OUT IF THE INTERPRETER IS HERE, IF THE SALVADORIAN INTERPRETER IS HERE. (BRIEF PAUSE.) THE COURT: DO YOU WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT TO TALK TO THE WITNESS WITH THE INTERPRETER? MR. COCHRAN: IS SHE HERE? THE COURT: SHE SAID SHE WAS ON HER WAY DOWN. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.) MR. COCHRAN: CAN WE MAKE ANOTHER CALL? THE COURT: MRS. ROBERTSON IS WAY AHEAD OF YOU. MR. COCHRAN: THE OTHER POINT IS WHILE WE ARE UP HERE, AND I HAD ASKED BEFORE ABOUT THIS QUESTION OF SCOPE OF CROSS, AND THAT IS WHY I WANTED TO ASK ABOUT THAT, AND THE THIRD THING, I SEE THERE ARE TWO CAMERAS. THE D.A.'S HAVE A CAMERA AND THE COURT CAMERA? THE COURT: ACTUALLY WE HAVE -- SCOTT SHULMAN IS DOING IT FOR THE COURT. MR. COCHRAN: THE D.A.'S OFFICE -- THE COURT: FOR THE COURT. THE D.A.'S OFFICE INDICATED THEY WANTED THEIR OWN PERSON TO TAKE ONE SO THAT THEY IMMEDIATELY HAVE A COPY. I WILL MAKE YOU A COPY. MR. COCHRAN: OF YOURS AND THEIRS, TOO? THE COURT: WE WILL ALSO HAVE THE COURT T.V. COPY, SO THERE WILL BE THREE DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF THIS. MS. CLARK: GREAT. MR. DARDEN: WHAT ABOUT THE SECURITY CAMERA UP THERE? THE COURT: THE SECURITY CAMERA UP THERE DOESN'T ACCURATELY RECORD THE QUESTIONS OF THE WITNESSES. I MEAN OF THE QUESTIONER. MS. CLARK: AND THE ANGLE, IS IT -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT KIND OF ANGLE IT GIVES ON THE WITNESS, THE SECURITY CAMERA. IS IT GOOD? THE COURT: WELL, THAT IS IT RIGHT THERE, (INDICATING). THE COURT: THE REASON I ASKED SHULMAN TO SET UP IN THE JURY BOX WAS BECAUSE THAT IS THE VIEW THE JURY WOULD SEE. MS. CLARK: UH-HUH, UH-HUH. MR. SHAPIRO: MAKES SENSE. THE COURT: SO I MEAN, IF WE HAD AN EMPTY COURTROOM, IF ALL THINGS WERE PERFECT, WE COULD DO EVERYTHING. MR. COCHRAN: SO, JUDGE, WHILE WE ARE WAITING ON THE INTERPRETER, WHAT ABOUT THE SCOPE OF CROSS ON THIS SITUATION? THE COURT: HOLD ON. (BRIEF PAUSE.) THE COURT: BUT I HAVE TO TELL YOU, I THINK PART OF THE PROBLEM FROM MY SENSE IS THAT THE WITNESS WAS LISTENING TO THE ENGLISH QUESTION AND SIMULTANEOUSLY LISTENING TO THE SPANISH INTERPRETATION. MS. CLARK: THE PROBLEM, THOUGH, THAT WE WERE AWARE OF, IS THE TRANSLATOR WAS INTERPRETING INSTEAD OF TRANSLATING WHAT SHE WAS SAYING AND CHANGING WORDS AND CLEANING UP HER LANGUAGE, NOT EVEN INTERPRETING SOME OF THE THINGS SHE WAS SAYING AT ALL. MR. DARDEN: ESPECIALLY SOME OF THE THINGS SHE WAS SAYING ABOUT MARCIA. MS. CLARK: RIGHT, RIGHT. REALLY. I KNOW. MR. COCHRAN: YOU MEAN ABOUT EVIL EYE? YOU MEAN THE EVIL EYE? SHE SAID YOU WERE GIVING HER THE EVIL EYE. MS. CLARK: HOW DO YOU DO THAT? MR. COCHRAN: I DON'T KNOW, MARCIA. YOU ARE GIVING IT TO ME RIGHT NOW, I WANT THE RECORD TO REFLECT. I DON'T KNOW IF SHE FEELS COMFORTABLE ENOUGH TO DO IT IN ENGLISH. THE COURT: NO. I WILL ASK HER THAT. I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE FRAUGHT WITH PROBLEMS. MR. DARDEN: I DON'T KNOW. I HEAR SHE SPEAKS VERY GOOD ENGLISH. THE COURT: WELL, WE CAN ASK. MR. COCHRAN: SHE SPEAKS ENGLISH, BUT IT ISN'T HER NATIVE TONGUE. MR. DARDEN: DON'T LET CARL ASK HER ANY QUESTIONS. HE DOESN'T SPEAK ENGLISH WELL HIMSELF. THE COURT: MR. DARDEN, PLEASE. MR. DARDEN: I APOLOGIZE, YOUR HONOR. (BRIEF PAUSE.) MR. COCHRAN: WE ARE GOING TO BE ABOUT FIVE MINUTES. CAN WE GO SOMEWHERE ELSE AND ASK HER ABOUT THIS AND THE SCOPE OF CROSS? AND I WANTED TO ASK YOU ABOUT ... REQUEST, IF YOU FORMULATED ANY PLAN. THE COURT: I WAS HOPING TO TAKE CARE OF BOTH ... AND ... TODAY, BUT OBVIOUSLY WE GOT SIDETRACKED, BUT I WANT TO BRING THEM IN INDIVIDUALLY AND TALK TO BOTH OF THEM. MR. DARDEN: HOW LONG DO YOU THINK IT IS -- YOUR DIRECT IS GOING TO BE? THE COURT: AND THE JUROR NUMBERS SHOULD BE DELETED IN THE TRANSCRIPT. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. BACK ON THE RECORD. ANYTHING ELSE WE NEED TO TAKE UP? MR. SHAPIRO: SHE FEELS MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE IN SPANISH. THE COURT: I ASSUMED SO. MR. COCHRAN: I THINK WE SHOULD CHECK ON THAT. CAN WE GET SOME IDEA OF WHERE WE ARE ON THE SCOPE OF CROSS, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: WELL, IT DEPENDS ON WHAT THEY ASK. IT IS KIND OF HARD TO SAY AT THIS POINT. YOU KNOW, 220, I ASSUME THAT THEY ARE GOING TO TRY TO COME AFTER HER ABOUT THE EQUIVOCATION OF WHEN SHE WAS GOING TO LEAVE OR NOT, AND 220 DOES TALK ABOUT YOUR ATTITUDE ABOUT GIVING TESTIMONY AND PARTICIPATING AS A WITNESS, SO I MEAN THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS COVERED IN 220, BUT I DON'T WANT TO GO INTO IT AD INFINITUM. THAT IS WORTH FIVE MINUTE'S WORTH OF QUESTIONS. MR. COCHRAN: I DOUBT IF IT IS WORTH MUCH, BUT I JUST WANT TO GET A SENSE OF HOW FAR -- SINCE YOU RULED THAT SHE IS ALLOWED TO TESTIFY, HOW RELEVANT DOES ALL THAT BECOME? I WILL MAKE THE APPROPRIATE OBJECTION, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE COURT TO HAVE THAT IN MIND WITH REGARD TO WHERE THE DIRECT GOES AND WHAT THE CROSS IS ABOUT. THE COURT: DON'T FORGET, TOO, THAT THIS IS SORT OF A DRY RUN, BUT IT IS STILL SUBJECT TO OBJECTION AND WHATEVER. I MADE THE POINT ON THE RECORD THAT I'M SITTING AS A MAGISTRATE AT THIS POINT DURING THE 1335 AND YOU CAN STILL LODGE OBJECTIONS AT THE PRESENTATION AT TRIAL. SO I ALSO RAISE THE ISSUE ON 770 AS TO HOW MUCH YOUR INVESTIGATION HAS UNCOVERED, BECAUSE EITHER THE PERSON HAS TO STILL BE AVAILABLE AS A WITNESS OR HAVE BEEN CONFRONTED WITH IT. MS. CLARK: RIGHT. THE COURT: SO IT IS A FOUNDATION. THAT IS WHY I ASKED THAT QUESTION. MS. CLARK: I UNDERSTAND. MR. COCHRAN: WE HAVE NOT GOTTEN ANY DISCOVERY FROM THEM ABOUT ANY -- ANYTHING OF THIS NATURE, SO, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, IT PUTS US IN A -- YOU HAVEN'T GIVEN US ANY REPORTS OF ALL THIS INVESTIGATION YOU GUYS HAVE DONE ON ROSA. I HAVEN'T SEEN IT. MR. DARDEN: THAT IS TRUE. MR. COCHRAN: SO MINDFUL OF THAT. THE COURT: I AM MINDFUL OF THAT, BUT THEN INFORMATION THAT YOU GET TO IMPEACH -- DIRECTLY IMPEACH THE OTHER SIDE'S WITNESS IS NOT NECESSARILY DISCOVERABLE UNTIL THAT TIME COMES AROUND, ALTHOUGH THAT SHOULD BE SHORTLY. MS. CLARK: YEAH. MR. DARDEN: VERY SHORTLY. MS. CLARK: VERY SHORTLY. MR. COCHRAN: WE ARE NOT THE ONES RUNNING FROM IT. TAKE YOUR BEST SHOT. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.) MR. DOUGLAS: THE RECORD IS CLEAR THAT WE HAD TURNED OVER AN AUGUST REPORT OF MISS LOPEZ, AND MAY I HAVE A COPY OF THAT? MS. CLARK: THE REPORT YOU GUYS TURNED OVER? MR. COCHRAN: YOU HAVE A COPY OF THAT, RIGHT? MS. CLARK: YES, UH-HUH. IT DOESN'T REFLECT WHAT YOU REPRESENTED IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT, BUT WE HAVE ONE. MR. DARDEN: IN FACT, THE -- MR. COCHRAN: PROBABLY REFLECTS MORE THAN WHAT I REPRESENTED. MR. DARDEN: THE "MORE" IS INCOMPLETE. MR. COCHRAN: THERE IS MORE TO IT. MS. CLARK: IT IS INCOMPLETE. MR. DARDEN: YOU KNOW, IT CUTS OFF IN THE MIDDLE OF SENTENCES AND DOT, DOT, DOT, AND PICKS UP LATER. YOU KNOW, WHERE IS REST OF IT? MR. COCHRAN: I PRESUME YOU GOT WHAT WE GOT. I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH DISCOVERY. I ASSUME YOU GOT WHAT WE GOT. INCOMPLETE DOT, DOT, DOT? WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? MS. CLARK: SENTENCES TRAIL OFF, THEY DON'T END AND IT DOT, DOT, DOT, DOT, AND THEN PICKS UP AGAIN. IT IS A STYLE I ASSUME OF THE INVESTIGATOR WHO WROTE IT. MR. DARDEN: HE IS EDITING. MR. COCHRAN: WHO DO YOU WANT TO BLAME FOR THAT? MR. DARDEN: WE JUST WANT DISCOVERY. MS. CLARK: CALL HIM, I GUESS. MR. COCHRAN: AND SAID WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY DOT, DOT, DOT? MS. CLARK: YEAH. WHERE IS THE REST OF THE SENTENCE? MR. COCHRAN: GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE. SHOW ME A COPY OF THAT. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S CONCLUDE THIS. ALL RIGHT. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:) (A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED.) (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:) (BRIEF PAUSE.) (A CONFERENCE WAS HELD IN CAMERA.) LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1995 11:30 A.M. DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE APPEARANCES: (APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED; ALSO PRESENT, MAYA Z. HAMBURGER, ESQUIRE, APPEARING FOR CARL JONES FOR ROSA LOPEZ.) (JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR NO. 4855, OFFICIAL REPORTER.) (CHRISTINE M. OLSON, CSR NO. 2378, OFFICIAL REPORTER.) (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN CAMERA:) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE'RE IN CHAMBERS. COUNSEL, YOUR APPEARANCES. MR. COCHRAN: JOHNNIE COCHRAN, YOUR HONOR, ALONG WITH BOB SHAPIRO, F. LEE BAILEY, ROBERT KARDASHIAN AND CARL DOUGLAS. MS. HAMBURGER: MAYA HAMBURGER FOR CARL JONES -- THE COURT: WHAT'S -- MS. HAMBURGER: -- FOR ROSA LOPEZ. THE COURT: WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? MR. COCHRAN: ESSENTIALLY, WE'RE READY TO PROCEED, YOUR HONOR. WHAT I -- THERE IS A PROBLEM IN THE DISCOVERY APPARENTLY -- I DON'T KNOW THE DATES BECAUSE IT WAS DONE BY SARA CAPLAN. A REPORT WAS TURNED OVER TO THE PROSECUTION AUGUST 18TH, 1994 INVOLVING AN INTERVIEW WITH ROSA LOPEZ, AND APPARENTLY THAT'S THE REPORT SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT HAVING DOT, DOT. WE APPROACHED THE BENCH. THERE IS ANOTHER REPORT -- I LOOKED AT THE FILE, AND THERE'S ANOTHER REPORT DATED JULY 29. I AM NOT SURE IT'S EVER BEEN TURNED OVER. WHEN I WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT THE TWO REPORTS, THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IN THE REPORTS ARE THAT -- AND I CAN SHOW YOU THE TWO REPORTS. IN THE REPORT FROM JULY 29TH, BOTH -- THE REPORT FROM PAVELIC TO SHAPIRO IS IN THE FIRST REPORT. THERE IS A -- WELL, LET ME JUST READ IT TO YOU. THAT'S PROBABLY THE BEST WAY TO DO IT. IN THE -- LET ME TAKE THE 29, JULY 29TH REPORT. "MISS LOPEZ STATED THAT ON JUNE 12TH, 1994, AT APPROXIMATELY 2030 TO 2100 HOURS, SHE OBSERVED O.J. AND A PASSENGER DRIVE OFF IN HIS ROLLS ROYCE. SHE DISTINCTLY RECALLED SEEING SIMPSON'S BRONCO PARKED NEAR THE ROCKINGHAM GATE. "SHORTLY AFTER HE LEFT, HER FRIEND SYLVIA CAME BY, AND THEY HAD A CUP OF COFFEE. THEY SPENT TOGETHER APPROXIMATELY 10 TO 15 MINUTES, AND MISS LOPEZ DROVE SYLVIA TO HER HOUSE A COUPLE MINUTES AWAY. "WHEN SYLVIA OBSERVED SIMPSON'S BRONCO, SHE MADE A COMMENT ABOUT THE WAY IT WAS PARKED. MISS LOPEZ STATED THAT O.J. ALWAYS PARKS HIS CAR THAT WAY. "AFTER DROPPING OFF HER FRIEND SYLVIA AND WHILE O.J. AND HIS PASSENGER WERE OUT, SHE HEARD A PROWLER ALONGSIDE HIS AND HER RESIDENCE FENCE. MISS LOPEZ ESTIMATED THE TIME TO BE AROUND 2120 OR 2130 HOURS." AND THEN SHE GOES ON TO SAY: "SHE HEARS FOOTSTEPS." THE REPORT OF AUGUST 18TH, THIS IS HOW IT'S WORDED. "MISS LOPEZ STATED THAT ON JUNE 12TH, 1994 AT APPROXIMATELY 2000 TO 2030 HOURS, SHE OBSERVED O.J. SIMPSON'S BRONCO PARKED AT THE ROCKINGHAM GATE, DOT, DOT, DOT, DOT, DOT, AND THAT THE BRONCO REMAINED PARKED THERE UNTIL THE FOLLOWING DAY. MISS LOPEZ HAS SEEN THE BRONCO PARKED IN THE SAME SPOT ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS. "MISS LOPEZ STATED THAT AT APPROXIMATELY 2100 HOURS, SHE OBSERVED O.J. SIMPSON AND UNKNOWN PASSENGER DEPART THE ROCKINGHAM ESTATE IN MR. SIMPSON'S ROLLS ROYCE." AND THEN SHE GOES ON TO SAY: "APPROXIMATELY 2000 TO 2030, WHILE O.J. WAS OUT, MISS LOPEZ HEARD A PROWLER WALKING NEAR THE RESIDENCE." SO THE DIFFERENCE IN THESE TWO REPORTS IS THIS PERSON SYLVIA. SO AGAIN, THE REASON WHY WE'RE IN CAMERA, I ASKED TO HAVE THE TWO REPORTS BEFORE ME NOW. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE SEEN THE ONE FROM THE 18TH. I'VE SEEN THE OTHER ONE. THE INDICATION WAS THAT SYLVIA APPARENTLY IS AN UNDOCUMENTED WORKER AND APPARENTLY SHE DIDN'T WANT TO GET INVOLVED OR WHATEVER. BUT WE TALKED ABOUT IT BACK THERE, AND AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT, WE HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT THERE IS -- THAT THERE IS THIS OTHER PERSON WHO MAY OR MAY NOT COME FORWARD. I DON'T KNOW. WE HAVE NEVER INTERVIEWED SYLVIA OR WHATEVER. BUT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE -- THE COURT: BUT YOU ARE QUESTIONING THEN WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE TO DISCLOSE THAT FIRST REPORT? MR. COCHRAN: YEAH. GIVE THEM THE FIRST REPORT, THE JULY 29TH REPORT, THAT TALKS ABOUT SYLVIA. MR. DOUGLAS: BECAUSE, YOUR HONOR, WE DON'T INTEND TO GO INTO SYLVIA ON OUR DIRECT OF HER. MR. COCHRAN: SO WE WOULD JUST USE THE REPORT THAT WE HAVE, THE 18TH -- IS THAT THE 18TH? MR. DOUGLAS: IT'S THE 18TH. MR. COCHRAN: THERE IS THE 29TH REPORT WHERE SYLVIA IS MENTIONED. THEY MAY OR MAY NOT KNOW ABOUT SYLVIA OR WHATEVER. I CAN TELL YOU AS AN OFFER, MISS LOPEZ SAYS THAT SYLVIA IS UNDOCUMENTED. HER EMPLOYER SAYS, "YOU WERE NEVER DOWN THERE, YOU DON'T KNOW HER," OR, "YOU CAN'T GET INVOLVED IN THIS OR WHATEVER." APPARENTLY SHE'S UNDOCUMENTED. NOW, BUT THIS IS -- I ALWAYS WANT TO MAKE IT EASY FOR YOU. THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE ANY SIMPLE PROBLEMS FOR ME TODAY? MR. COCHRAN: NO. THIS CAME UP AND WE THOUGHT THAT WE'D BETTER BRING IT IN HERE. THE COURT: SO THIS IS A 1054.7 IN CAMERA REVIEW OF WHETHER OR NOT YOU FEEL THIS IS DISCOVERABLE? MR. COCHRAN: YES, DISCOVERABLE. AND NOW, KEEP IN MIND ALSO THE OTHER THING THAT FURTHER COMPLICATES IT. THESE ARE -- THIS IS NOT ROSA LOPEZ' REPORT. I'M GLAD TO GIVE YOU BOTH OF THEM. THIS REPORT IS FROM PAVELIC TO SHAPIRO. MR. DOUGLAS: SHE DIDN'T SIGN IT. MR. COCHRAN: AND NEVER SAW IT. AND FURTHER, TO FURTHER MESS IT UP, NEITHER, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, PAVELIC OR MC NALLY SPEAKS SPANISH. IS THAT RIGHT, BOB? MR. BAILEY: THAT'S RIGHT. MR. COCHRAN: THEY DON'T SPEAK SPANISH. SO WHATEVER THEY TALKED TO HER ABOUT, IT'S CLEARLY NOT -- MC NALLY IS NOT ON THE CASE ANYMORE. I DON'T THINK PAVELIC SPEAKS SPANISH. HE DOESN'T SPEAK IT VERY WELL. THERE'S SOME OTHER CONFLICT IN THIS THING THAT I DON'T -- THERE'S THINGS HE HAS IN THIS REPORT -- THIS IS NOT WHAT I'M GOING TO USE. THE COURT: WHY WOULD THIS NOT BE DISCOVERABLE SINCE IT DOES ENCAPSULATE A PRIOR STATEMENT ON THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER? MR. COCHRAN: IT MAY BE. WE WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW. THE PROBLEM IS -- I GUESS THE PROBLEM IS THAT IT IS A STATEMENT THAT IS SUPPOSEDLY TAKEN BY PAVELIC AT A TIME EARLIER THAN THE AUGUST 18TH STATEMENT AND IT HAS -- THE MAJOR DIFFERENCE IS THIS WITNESS SYLVIA. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. YOU REALIZE WHAT THIS IS LIKELY TO DO. IT'S GOING TO SEND THE PROSECUTION BALLISTIC IN CLAIMING THAT NOW THERE ARE MORE REPORTS AND THAT I SHOULD PRECLUDE YOU FROM CALLING THIS WITNESS BECAUSE OF THE DISCOVERY DELAY. MR. COCHRAN: WELL -- THE COURT: JUST SO YOU KNOW, AS SOON AS WE GO OUT THERE AND TELL THEM THIS IS HERE, THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, WHICH IS GOING TO DELAY OUR GETTING STARTED WITH MISS LOPEZ THIS MORNING. MR. COCHRAN: WELL, IT MAY, BUT WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION UPON DISCOVERY -- THE COURT: ABSOLUTELY. MR. COCHRAN: I MEAN THIS IS NOT ANYTHING THAT WE KNEW ABOUT. THIS WAS ALL TURNED OVER IN AN EARLIER REPORT. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING WE WERE AWARE OF. WE JUST DISCOVERED IT. THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENT? MR. BAILEY: CAN I MAKE AN OBSERVATION, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: SURE. MR. BAILEY: IF MR. PAVELIC HAD FOLLOWED HER INSTRUCTIONS IN HIS INITIAL REPORT AND NOT MENTIONED SYLVIA AS SHE ASKED, WOULD THERE BE ANYTHING FRAUDULENT ABOUT THAT REPORT THAT SHE WAS LEFT OFF? I THINK WHAT WE'RE DOING IS REDACTING BY WRITING A NEW REPORT OMITTING THAT NAME TO PREVENT HER FROM BECOMING INVOLVED IN IT. THE COURT: STILL, IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT CORROBORATES, I THINK THE PROSECUTION IS ENTITLED TO IT. MR. BAILEY: THEY'VE INTERVIEWED HER. SHE SAID SHE WAS NEVER THERE. I DON'T THINK THEY HAVE ANY -- THE COURT: MR. DOUGLAS. MR. DOUGLAS: THE ONLY THING I WANTED TO SAY, YOUR HONOR, WHEN I HAD EARLIER GONE THROUGH AND DISGORGED, I WAS DEALING ONLY WITH THE FIRST JULY 29 STATEMENT THAT WAS THE INTERVIEW OF ROSA LOPEZ THAT I HAD ASSUMED HAD BEEN TURNED OVER TO THE PROSECUTION. TODAY, I JUST HAPPENED TO CHECK MY NOTEBOOK THAT IS IN THE COURTHOUSE ABOUT WHAT THE ACTUAL STATEMENT WAS, AND I SAW THAT IT WAS THE AUGUST 18TH STATEMENT AND NOT THE JULY 29TH STATEMENT THAT HAD BEEN THE STATEMENT THAT WAS TURNED OVER. UP UNTIL THIS MORNING, I WAS ALWAYS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT IT WAS THE JULY THE 29TH STATEMENT AND THAT THEY IN FACT WERE ONE AND THE SAME. AND I LEARNED THAT THERE WAS IN FACT THIS OTHER STATEMENT WHERE THE MENTION OF SYLVIA HAD BEEN DELETED AND THAT WAS THE ONE THAT HAD BEEN TURNED OVER AND NOT THE JULY 29TH STATEMENT. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. OKAY. COUNSEL, I'M GOING TO REQUIRE YOU TO DISCLOSE THE ADDITIONAL PREVIOUS REPORT TO THE PROSECUTION. MR. BAILEY: CAN WE REDACT THE INFORMATION? THE COURT: I DON'T THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE. MR. COCHRAN: CAN WE HAVE A CLEAN COPY OF THIS? MR. DOUGLAS: WE DON'T HAVE ONE WITHOUT HANDWRITING. MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE, WE NEED TO GET A CLEAN COPY OF THE JULY 29TH REPORT. YOU WANT SOMEBODY TO STEP OUT? YOU WANT DEIRDRA? THE COURT: YEAH. WOULD YOU INVITE THE PROSECUTORS TO JOIN US, PLEASE. THANK YOU. MR. COCHRAN: I CAN GET A CLEAN COPY THAT DOESN'T HAVE THE TIME. THE COURT: UH-HUH. GOT ANY MORE TWISTS AND TURNS FOR ME THIS MORNING? MR. COCHRAN: NO. WE JUST DISCOVERED THIS. THE COURT: MISS HAMBURGER, WELCOME TO OUR -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU CALL IT AT THIS POINT. (BRIEF PAUSE.) (MS. CLARK, MR. DARDEN AND MS. LEWIS ARE NOW PRESENT IN CHAMBERS.) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT WE'VE BEEN JOINED BY MISS CLARK, MR. DARDEN AND MISS LEWIS. COUNSEL, DEFENSE COUNSEL ASKED ME TO CONDUCT A 1054.7 IN CAMERA REVIEW OF ITEMS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE DISCOVERABLE, AND THOSE ITEMS HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED TO ME AND I'VE DETERMINED THAT THEY ARE IN FACT DISCOVERABLE AND I AM GOING TO ORDER THEM TO TURN OVER A COPY TO YOU. THEY INDICATE THEY ONLY HAVE ONE COPY HERE RIGHT NOW THAT HAS THEIR WRITING ON THE SIDE IN THE MARGINS. SO I'M GOING TO ASK THEM TO WITE THAT OUT, THEIR COMMENT AND THEN GIVE YOU A COPY. YOU MAY WANT TO REVIEW THAT. AND IT HAS TO DO WITH ROSA LOPEZ' TESTIMONY TODAY. MS. CLARK: THIS IS A SUBSEQUENT STATEMENT THAT WAS TAKEN FROM HER? THE COURT: PREVIOUS STATEMENT. MS. CLARK: PREVIOUS STATEMENT? THE COURT: OR REPORT. MAYBE IT'S THE SAME STATEMENT. MR. COCHRAN: I THINK WHAT IT IS, MARCIA, IS, IT'S A STATEMENT TAKEN -- IT'S A STATEMENT FROM PAVELIC TO SHAPIRO THAT YOU JUST ASKED ME ABOUT THIS EARLIER ONE. IT PREDATES THAT ONE. WE DISCOVERED THAT. THE COURT: MRS. ROBERTSON, DO YOU HAVE SOME WITE-OUT? MS. CLARK: IF IT PREDATES AUGUST, WHY ARE WE ONLY HEARING ABOUT IT NOW? THE COURT: WELL, COUNSEL, I'M SURE -- TAKE A LOOK AT IT FIRST TO SEE IF YOU WANT TO MAKE AN ISSUE OF IT. IF YOU WANT TO MAKE AN ISSUE OF IT, DISCOVERY VIOLATION ISSUE OF IT, THAT'S ANOTHER ISSUE. OKAY. AT THIS POINT, LET ME JUST MAKE -- I'VE DETERMINED THAT IT'S DISCOVERABLE AND WE'LL GET YOU A COPY OF IT AS SOON AS THE WITE-OUT DRIES BECAUSE I DON'T WANT IT ON MY XEROX MACHINE. AND WE'LL PROCEED. TAKE A LOOK AT IT, AND THEN WE'LL PROCEED. MS. CLARK: ARE WE GOING TO BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW IT BEFORE WE BEGIN WITH HER TESTIMONY? THE COURT: IT LOOKS TO ME THAT GIVEN THAT WE'RE 21 MINUTES UNTIL THE NOON HOUR, YOU'LL PROBABLY HAVE AT LEAST THE NOON HOUR TO LOOK AT IT BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO TAKE FIVE MINUTES FOR THE WITE-OUT TO DRY. SO -- CARL, ARE YOU WITING? MR. DOUGLAS: I'M WITING. THE COURT: HE'S WITING. OKAY. MS. CLARK: THEN I TAKE IT THE COURT IS NOT AT THIS TIME ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF SANCTIONS OR DELAY. THE COURT: TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND SEE WHAT YOU THINK. I DON'T KNOW -- YOU KNOW YOUR CASE. UNFORTUNATELY, I DON'T. I DON'T UNDERSTAND IF IT WOULD MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE TO YOU. IT MAY, IT MAY NOT. MS. CLARK: OKAY. I'M A LITTLE PERTURBED ABOUT A STATEMENT TAKEN SO LONG AGO. THE COURT: I'M NOT SURPRISED TO HEAR THAT YOU MIGHT BE PERTURBED. MS. CLARK: BUT THE DEGREE OF PERTURBNESS WILL BE ADDRESSED LATER. THE COURT: WHY DON'T YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE STATEMENT, SEE WHETHER OR NOT YOU -- MR. COCHRAN: AND BEFORE YOU GET TO THE DEGREE OF PERTURBNESS, LOOK AT THE STATEMENT AND THEN LET ME TALK TO YOU ABOUT IT BEFORE YOU GET PERTURBED. THIS CAME UP WHILE WE DID THIS TODAY. THE COURT: I WOULD SAY, GIVEN THIS LATEST TURN OF EVENTS JUST NOW, WE'LL JUST STAND IN RECESS UNTIL 1:30. OKAY. AND WE ARE QUITTING AT 3:00 TODAY UNFORTUNATELY BECAUSE ONE OF THE JURORS HAS A MEDICAL APPOINTMENT AT 4:00. MR. COCHRAN: DO THEY KNOW ABOUT THE NEW SCHEDULE? THE COURT: IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER. MR. COCHRAN: IT DOESN'T MATTER TO THEM. IF YOU HAVE -- THE COURT: I AM GOING TO CUT THEM LOOSE. THERE'S NO WAY WE CAN START A CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION AT 1:30 AND -- NEVER MIND. MR. SHAPIRO: CAN WE USE THIS TIME FOR SOME OF THE OTHER PROBLEMS? THE COURT: SUCH AS? MR. SHAPIRO: WITH THE JURORS? THE COURT: NO, BECAUSE THEY'RE -- LET'S GET THIS OUT OF THE WAY. YOU KNOW, WE'LL WORRY ABOUT 620 AND THIS OTHER PROBLEM PROBABLY NOT UNTIL WEDNESDAY FRANKLY, BECAUSE I'M SURE THIS IS GOING TO SLOP OVER TO TOMORROW. MS. CLARK: SO YOU'LL BRING THE JURY BACK ON WEDNESDAY? THE COURT: NO. I'LL BRING THEM BACK TOMORROW. WE COULD GET TO THEM TOMORROW AFTERNOON. MS. CLARK: YOU THINK? THE COURT: I'M OPTIMISTIC. MIGHT AS WELL GET THEM OUT, GET THEM DRESSED. IN FACT, IF YOU WANT TO -- WELL, WE CAN -- I'VE GOT WINDEX. WE CAN CLEAN IT OFF. MISS CLARK, MARCIA, WHY DON'T YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. IN FACT, WHY DON'T YOU SIT DOWN RIGHT HERE -- MISS CLARK, WHY DON'T YOU SIT DOWN AND JUST READ THAT REAL QUICK, AND THEN MAYBE YOU AND MR. COCHRAN CAN CHAT ABOUT IT. SEE IF MY PREDICTION IS RIGHT OR WRONG. (BRIEF PAUSE.) (A CONFERENCE WAS HELD, NOT REPORTED.) THE COURT: YOU ACTUALLY WANT TO TALK, COME BACK AT 1:30 OR COME BACK AT 1:00? MR. DARDEN: DO WE HAVE A LAST NAME FOR SYLVIA? MR. COCHRAN: NO, I DON'T. THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S TAKE A BREAK AT THIS POINT. MISS CLARK, DO YOU WANT TO CHAT WITH YOUR COLLEAGUES FIRST AND CHAT WITH MR. COCHRAN? MS. CLARK: YEAH. THE COURT: WHY DON'T WE CALL IT AT 1:30. MR. COCHRAN: AFTER YOU TALK TO THEM, MARCIA, LET ME TALK TO YOU. IT MIGHT SAVE SOME TIME. THE COURT: MISS ROBERTSON, WE'LL STAND IN ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 1:30. THANK YOU. WHY DON'T YOU TALK WITH CHERI AND CHRIS, THEN COME BACK. AND ACTUALLY, WE'LL TOSS EVERYBODY OUT AND YOU GUYS CAN TALK. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:) (AT 11:40 A.M., THE NOON RECESS WAS TAKEN UNTIL 1:30 P.M. OF THE SAME DAY.) LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1995 1:33 P.M. DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE APPEARANCES: (APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED.) (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. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. BAILEY, MR. DOUGLAS. THE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED BY MS. CLARK, MR. DARDEN AND MISS LEWIS. MR. DOUGLAS: I HAVE A MATTER, YOUR HONOR, WHICH I WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION AND WAS THE SUBJECT OF SOME DISCUSSIONS THAT WE HAD IN CHAMBERS. YOUR HONOR, THERE -- (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.) MR. DOUGLAS: AS THE COURT IS AWARE, YOUR HONOR, THIS MORNING, A DOCUMENT WHICH IS A TWO-PAGE STATEMENT WRITTEN BY AN INVESTIGATOR AND ADDRESSED TO MR. SHAPIRO CONCERNING ROSA LOPEZ WAS TURNED OVER TO THE PROSECUTION AFTER HAVING AN IN CAMERA REVIEW WITH THE COURT. THAT WAS A DOCUMENT THAT IS DATED JULY 29, 1994. NOW, YOUR HONOR, I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THAT DOCUMENT HAD BEEN TURNED OVER TO THE PROSECUTION CONSISTENT WITH OTHER DOCUMENTS THAT WE HAD TURNED OVER ON SEPTEMBER THE 1ST, 1994. INDEED, YOUR HONOR, WHEN WE DISCUSSED WITH MISS LOPEZ LAST WEEK THE SUBSTANCE OF HER TESTIMONY, WE WERE DISCUSSING IT WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE JULY 29TH DOCUMENT. THAT DOCUMENT, YOUR HONOR, INCLUDED REFERENCE TO AN UNDOCUMENTED HOUSEKEEPER WHO IS NAMED SYLVIA WHO IS ACQUAINTED WITH MISS LOPEZ AND WHO WAS PRESENT ON SOME TIMES THAT ARE NOT CRITICAL NOR GERMANE TO THE SUBSTANCE OF MISS LOPEZ' TESTIMONY. MISS LOPEZ HAD EXPRESSED SEVER CONCERN THAT THIS SYLVIA, AND SHE IS NOT AWARE OF SYLVIA'S LAST NAME, BUT THAT SYLVIA, SINCE SHE WAS UNDOCUMENTED, DID NOT WANT TO HAVE ANY INVOLVEMENT AT ALL IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE AND DID NOT WANT HER NAME MENTIONED AT ALL IN ANY REPORTS DEALING WITH MISS LOPEZ' STATEMENT. IT WAS WITH THAT CONTEXT THAT MR. PAVELIC GENERATED A SECOND DOCUMENT WHICH WAS AN INTERVIEW OF MISS LOPEZ WHICH OCCURRED AND THAT DOCUMENT WAS DATED AUGUST THE 18TH, 1994. IT IS THE AUGUST THE 18TH, 1994, DOCUMENT THAT WAS TURNED OVER TO THE PROSECUTION. I HAVE, YOUR HONOR, IN THE INTERIM SINCE THIS MORNING, CHECKED WITH MY OFFICE TO SEE WHETHER MY OFFICE HAD ANY RECORD OR KNOWLEDGE OF THE AUGUST 18TH STATEMENT BECAUSE IT WAS NOT AMONG THE DOCUMENTS THAT I USED TO HELP DISCUSS MISS LOPEZ' TESTIMONY WITH HER THIS PAST WEEK. AND I WAS TOLD THAT WE DID NOT HAVE THE AUGUST 18TH DOCUMENT IN OUR PARTICULAR FILE. I LEARNED ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY THAT SUCH A DOCUMENT EXISTED WHEN I SPOKE TO MR. PAVELIC ON SUNDAY COMPLAINING THAT MR. PAVELIC HAD INCLUDED IN HIS REPORT TO THE PROSECUTION A NAME THAT MISS LOPEZ HAD WANTED TO NOT BE INCLUDED. IT WAS THEN THAT I LEARNED, AND I VERIFIED IT WHEN I CHECKED MY OWN DOCUMENTS HERE IN COURT, THAT IN FACT THERE HAD BEEN A SECOND REPORT, THE AUGUST 18TH REPORT, THAT WAS IN FACT A TWO-PAGE DOCUMENT OF MISS LOPEZ, JUST AS THE JULY 29TH STATEMENT WAS A TWO-PAGE DOCUMENT OF MISS LOPEZ. THAT IS WHERE MY CONFUSION WAS BORNE, SUCH THAT WHEN I SAW THAT THERE WAS A TWO-PAGE STATEMENT OF MISS LOPEZ, I THOUGHT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE EARLIER STATEMENT AND I WAS NOT AWARE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE AUGUST STATEMENT. I ANTICIPATE THAT MISS CLARK WILL STAND BEFORE YOU AND EXPRESS SOME SHOCK, SOME OUTRAGE AND SOME SENSE OF PREJUDICE. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THESE WORDS IN RESPONSE, HOWEVER. THE AUGUST 18TH STATEMENT THAT WAS TURNED OVER TO THE PROSECUTION IS MORE DETAILED IN TERMS OF THE GERMANE FACTS OF MISS LOPEZ' TESTIMONY. THERE IS MORE INCLUSION, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE AUGUST 18TH STATEMENT ABOUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE JUNE 13TH INTERVIEW BETWEEN MR. FUHRMAN IN THE MORNING AND MISS LOPEZ. MORE INFORMATION WAS CONTAINED IN THE AUGUST 18TH STATEMENT THAN WAS EVEN IN THE JULY 29TH STATEMENT. THE AUGUST 18TH STATEMENT WAS CREATED SIMPLY TO ASSUAGE MISS LOPEZ' CONCERNS THAT HER UNDOCUMENTED FRIEND, WHO DID NOT WANT ANY INVOLVEMENT IN THIS CASE, MIGHT COME FORWARD, HER NAME MIGHT BE RELEASED AND SHE THEN MIGHT BE INTERVIEWED OR SOME WAY INVOLVED IN THIS CASE. HOWEVER, MISS LOPEZ TOLD ME AND TOLD MR. COCHRAN, WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING THAT STATEMENT, THAT SHE HAD HAD SUBSEQUENT CONVERSATIONS WITH THIS SYLVIA AND THAT SYLVIA HAD IN FACT BEEN INTERVIEWED BY LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICERS MONTHS AGO, THAT SYLVIA IN THAT INTERVIEW HAD DENIED ANY ACQUAINTANCESHIP WITH MISS LOPEZ, KNEW HER ONLY BRIEFLY AND DID NOT HAVE ANY INFORMATION TO LEND TO ANYTHING CONCERNING THIS CASE, WHICH WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE STATEMENT THAT SYLVIA TOLD MISS LOPEZ THAT SYLVIA DID NOT WANT TO HAVE ANY INVOLVEMENT IN THIS CASE AND WOULD DENY ANY SUBSEQUENT INVOLVEMENT IN THE CASE WERE SHE TO BE ASKED ABOUT IT. THEREFORE, YOUR HONOR, IF THERE IS SOME CLAIM THAT THERE IS SOME SURPRISE THAT THERE IS SOME PREJUDICE, I THINK THAT YOU SHOULD INQUIRE WHETHER OR NOT THIS SYLVIA PERSON HAS EVER BEEN KNOWN TO THE PROSECUTION, WHETHER OR NOT THIS SYLVIA PERSON HAD EVER BEEN INTERVIEWED BY THE PROSECUTION, AND SHE WAS IN FACT INTERVIEWED, AS I SAID, MONTHS AGO. HER RELEVANT INVOLVEMENT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE IS NOT GERMANE TO THE SUBSTANCE OF MISS LOPEZ' STATEMENT THAT SOMETIME AFTER TEN O'CLOCK SHE WENT OUTSIDE WALKING HER DOG AND SAW MR. SIMPSON'S BRONCO IN A LOCATION IDENTICAL TO WHERE SHE HAD SEEN THAT BRONCO EARLIER IN THE EVENING. THE ONLY CONTEXT WITH WHICH THIS SYLVIA INFORMATION HAS ANY SORT OF RELEVANCE IS TO EXPLAIN WHY AT APPROXIMATELY EIGHT O'CLOCK MISS LOPEZ WAS OUTSIDE WAITING FOR SYLVIA TO COME OVER AND THEREBY SAW MR. SIMPSON'S BRONCO PARKED IN THE SAME POSITION AS IT WAS PARKED LATER AFTER TEN O'CLOCK AND WHY SOME TIME AFTER 9:00 OR 9:15 MISS LOPEZ WAS OUTSIDE TO SEE MR. SIMPSON LEAVE AND TO NOTICE THAT HE HAD LEFT IN HIS ROLLS ROYCE WITH ANOTHER MAN WHO WE NOW KNOW WAS KATO KAELIN WHEN THEY WENT TO GO GET A HAMBURGER. THE STATEMENT IN AUGUST INCLUDES MENTION OF MISS LOPEZ BEING OUTSIDE AT TEN O'CLOCK AND SEEING THE BRONCO, INCLUDES MENTION OF MISS LOPEZ SEEING MR. SIMPSON LEAVE IN HIS BENTLEY AFTER NINE O'CLOCK WITH AN UNKNOWN PERSON, AND THEN LEARNING THAT THERE WAS SOME HARD-SOLED SHOES WALKING DOWN MR. SIMPSON'S PROPERTY ABOUT TWENTY TO THIRTY MINUTES AFTER HE HAD LEFT TO MC DONALD'S. MR. DARDEN: EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR. IF MISS LOPEZ IS HERE, CAN WE HAVE HER STEP OUTSIDE NOW THAT COUNSEL IS GIVING -- THE COURT: MRS. HAMBURGER, WHY DON'T YOU AND YOUR CLIENT STEP OUTSIDE WHILE WE ARE DISCUSSING YOUR CLIENT'S POTENTIAL TESTIMONY, PLEASE. THANK YOU. PLEASE WAIT IN THE HALLWAY. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. (ROSA LOPEZ EXITS THE COURTROOM.) MR. DOUGLAS: BUT YOUR HONOR, ANY INVOLVEMENT OR MENTION OF SYLVIA OR ANY RELEVANCE TO ANYTHING THAT SHE MAY OFFER IS REALLY COLLATERAL AND TANGENTIAL TO THE SUBSTANCE OF MISS LOPEZ' TESTIMONY. THE STATEMENT THAT SHE GAVE IN AUGUST IS MORE COMPLETE AS TO WHAT MISS LOPEZ WILL TESTIFY TO THAN THE STATEMENT THAT WAS IN JULY. THE PREJUDICE, IF ANY, IS MINIMIZED BECAUSE THE PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY INTERVIEWED THIS SYLVIA. THE PEOPLE HAVE A STATEMENT, I WOULD ASSUME, ALTHOUGH I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANY REPORTS OF THE INTERVIEW OF SYLVIA, BUT SYLVIA TOLD MISS LOPEZ THAT IN FACT SHE WAS INTERVIEWED BY DETECTIVES OR POLICE OFFICERS SHORTLY AFTER THE INCIDENT OCCURRED MONTHS AGO. AND THEREFORE, YOUR HONOR, I THINK THAT, YES, THERE WAS A PROBLEM BECAUSE A TWO-PAGE REPORT THAT PREDATES THE REPORT THAT WAS TURNED OVER WAS NOT ACTUALLY TURNED OVER. HOWEVER, THE REPORT THAT WAS TURNED OVER IS MORE COMPLETE IN TERMS OF THE TESTIMONY THAT MISS LOPEZ WILL GIVE IN THIS TRIAL, AND THE REASON WHY THE SECOND REPORT WAS GIVEN -- WAS CREATED WAS SIMPLY TO PROTECT THE IDENTITY OF AN UNDOCUMENTED WORKER WHO DID NOT WANT TO HAVE HER NAME MENTIONED OR TO BE INVOLVED IN A CASE OF THIS SORT OF PROFILE. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.) MR. DOUGLAS: I AM ALSO REMINDED, YOUR HONOR, THAT WE, UPON LEARNING -- AND THIS MORNING WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE TURNED OVER TO THE PROSECUTION, LEARNED FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT IN FACT TO OUR SURPRISE THE JULY 29TH STATEMENT WAS NOT THE ONE THAT HAD BEEN TURNED OVER BUT IT WAS THIS AUGUST 18TH STATEMENT, AND THAT WAS THEN THE REASON FOR THE ADDED DELAY WHILE WE BROUGHT THAT UP TO THE COURT AND THEN VOLUNTARILY TURNED THAT DOCUMENT OVER TO THE PROSECUTION. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.) THE COURT: MISS CLARK. MS. CLARK: MAY I HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: CERTAINLY. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.) MS. CLARK: I FEEL LIKE I'M EXPERIENCING DEJA VU. THE COURT: ALL OVER AGAIN. MS. CLARK: ALL OVER AGAIN, THAT'S RIGHT. MR. DOUGLAS STANDS BEFORE THE COURT ONCE AGAIN FALLING ON HIS SWORD. I GUESS HE HAS ELECTED TO DO THAT. THAT IS HIS JOB IN THIS TRIAL. I AM NOT IMPRESSED. I THINK THAT THESE REPRESENTATIONS BY COUNSEL ARE UNAVAILING TO ALLEVIATE THE PROBLEM THAT THEY HAVE CREATED BY WILLFULLY FAILING TO DISCLOSE MATERIAL STATEMENTS. THIS JULY 29TH STATEMENT IS NOT ONLY -- COUNSEL WANTS TO REPRESENT TO US THAT THE AUGUST 18TH STATEMENT WAS MORE DETAILED AND HAD MORE RELEVANT INFORMATION THAN THE JULY 29TH STATEMENT. WHEN I WENT THROUGH AND COMPARED THE TWO STATEMENTS, WHAT I FOUND WAS THAT ACTUALLY IN MOST RELEVANT RESPECTS THE JULY 29TH STATEMENT WAS FAR MORE DETAILED. AND THERE WAS ONE OBVIOUS OMISSION IN THAT JULY 29TH STATEMENT, AND THAT IS THAT AT 10:15 TO 10:20 ON JULY 29TH, ROSA LOPEZ SAID SHE WENT OUT TO WALK THE DOG AND MADE NO MENTION OF SEEING THE BRONCO AT ALL. THAT STATEMENT IS TOTALLY ABSENT FROM THE JULY 29TH STATEMENT. ONLY ON THE AUGUST 18TH DOES IT STATE THAT SHE WENT OUT TO WALK THE DOG AT 10:15 TO 10:20 AND SAW THE BRONCO. OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE SOME MATERIAL DISCREPANCIES OF A VERY IMPORTANT NATURE, DISCREPANCIES THAT WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN INFORMED OF QUITE A LONG TIME AGO, DISCREPANCIES THAT WOULD HAVE ALLOWED US TO ADDRESS MISS LOPEZ IN A FAR DIFFERENT MANNER. WITH RESPECT TO GREATER DETAIL IN THE AUGUST 18TH STATEMENT, LET ME POINT OUT THAT IT WAS ONLY THE JULY 29TH STATEMENT WHEN SHE MADE MENTION OF WHAT KIND OF SHOES SHE WAS ADAMANT THE PROWLER WAS WEARING. AUGUST 18TH SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THAT. THE INFORMATION CONCERNING DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN IN THE JULY 29TH STATEMENT IS NO DIFFERENT. IN FACT, IT STATES THAT IT WAS CONCLUSIVELY DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN SHE SPOKE TO, WHEREAS IN THE AUGUST 18TH STATEMENT IT SAYS THAT HE WAS SUBSEQUENTLY IDENTIFIED AS MARK FUHRMAN. AND LEST THERE BE ANY MISTAKE HERE, YOUR HONOR, THE AUGUST 18TH STATEMENT MAKES NO MENTION OF A JULY 29TH INTERVIEW AND THE AUGUST 18TH STATEMENT STATES SPECIFICALLY THAT IT IS NOT AN EDITED VERSION OF A PRIOR STATEMENT, BUT IT WAS A STATEMENT GENERATED BY ROSA LOPEZ ON AUGUST 18TH. SO WE HAVE NOT ONLY WILLFUL FAILURE TO DISCLOSE THE JULY 29TH STATEMENT BY THEIR LATE PRESENTATION TODAY, BUT WE ALSO HAVE A DELIBERATE MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION IMPLICIT IN THE AUGUST 18TH STATEMENT IN WHICH IT PURPORTS TO HAVE INTERVIEWED HER ONCE AND ONLY ONCE, AND THAT WAS ON AUGUST 18TH, DELIBERATELY MISREPRESENTING AND MISLEADING THE PEOPLE TO BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS ONLY ONE INTERVIEW. NOW, WHAT MAKES THAT AN EVEN MORE GROSS LIE, IS THAT BOTH STATEMENTS WERE TAKEN BY THE SAME INVESTIGATOR, BILL PAVELIC, GIVEN TO THE SAME ATTORNEY, ROBERT SHAPIRO. OBVIOUSLY COUNSEL KNEW, OBVIOUSLY PAVELIC KNEW THAT THERE WAS A PRIOR STATEMENT, AND THERE IS NO MENTION OF THAT. THIS IS A MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION IN AND OF ITSELF, AND AS OFFICERS OF THE COURT, THEY SHOULD BE ASHAMED, THEY SHOULD BE EMBARRASSED, IN FACT, THEIR BAR TICKET SHOULD BE HANGING IN JEOPARDY AT THIS POINT FOR THIS KIND OF MISCONDUCT. AND THIS IS MISCONDUCT, THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT IT. THE QUESTION IS WHAT THE COURT WANTS TO DO ABOUT IT IS ANOTHER ISSUE, BUT I AM APPALLED, I AM APPALLED AS AN OFFICER OF THIS COURT THAT THESE KIND OF REPRESENTATIONS WOULD BE PROPOUNDED IN THE MANNER THAT THEY ARE WITH THESE SANCTIMONIOUS DENIALS AND CLAIMS OF BEING FAIR-MINDED AND OPEN-HANDED AND FORGETTING. FORGETTING? FORGETTING THAT THERE WAS A SUPPOSEDLY A WITNESS WHO WOULD CORROBORATE AT LEAST SOME ASPECT OF ROSA LOPEZ' STATEMENT. OBVIOUSLY ROSA LOPEZ PUT THIS PERSON INTO HER JULY 29TH STATEMENT FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF SHOWING HOW CREDIBLE SHE WAS, AND WHEN THE DEFENSE FOUND OUT THAT SYLVIA WAS NOT ONLY NOT GOING TO CORROBORATE MISS LOPEZ, BUT WAS GOING TO SAY SHE IS A LIAR AND NO SUCH THING EVER HAPPENED AND I WASN'T AT HER HOUSE AND I DID NOT MAKE AN OBSERVATION OF THE BRONCO, SHE CONVENIENTLY DISAPPEARED FROM THE STATEMENT. THAT IS THE TRUTH. ALL WE KNEW -- AND COUNSEL WANTS NOW TO POINT THE FINGER AT US TO TRY AND PUT US ON THE DEFENSIVE AFTER THEIR MISCONDUCT, WHICH IS REPREHENSIBLE IN ITSELF. I WOULD LIKE FOR THE COURT TO KNOW WHAT THAT SITUATION WAS. WHAT HAPPENED IS THAT WE RECEIVED A CLUE TO TALK TO A MAID NAMED SYLVIA WHO SAID THAT ROSA SOLD HER STORY FOR $5,000 AND THAT IS WHAT WE DID. WE INTERVIEWED A MAID NAMED SYLVIA WHO LIVED CLOSE TO THE ROCKINGHAM ADDRESS OF THE DEFENDANT AND SHE DENIED HAVING SPOKEN TO -- SHE DENIED HAVING ANY CLOSE RELATIONSHIP WITH ROSA LOPEZ. SHE DENIED HAVING ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE CASE AT ALL. SHE SAID SHE DID KNOW ROSA, BUT HAVING RIDDEN THE BUS WITH HER A COUPLE TIMES AND THAT IS ALL SHE KNEW. AND SO THERE WAS NOTHING TO GENERATE BECAUSE ALL WE DID WAS FOLLOW UP A CLUE THAT WOUND UP BEING "I HAVE NO INFORMATION." WE HAD NO IDEA, BECAUSE OF THE DEFENSE MISCONDUCT, THAT SYLVIA WAS SOMEBODY WHO HAD SOME MATERIAL INFORMATION, ROSA LOPEZ CLAIMED, AND SO ALL WE WERE DOING WAS FOLLOWING UP A TIP THAT DIDN'T PAN OUT. HAD WE KNOWN THAT ROSA LOPEZ MADE THIS STATEMENT ON JULY 29TH CLAIMING TO HAVE VISITED -- AND NOW THE DEFENSE WANTS TO DOWNPLAY HER IMPORTANCE AND THEY WANT TO DOWNPLAY HER IMPORTANCE IN ORDER TO -- THIS IS GOING TO BE HOW THEY COVER UP, HOW THEY EXPLAIN AWAY, YET ANOTHER WAY WE ARE GOING TO EXPOSE ROSA LOPEZ AS A LIAR. NOW, WE'VE GOT THEIR COVER STORY, THE COURT HAS HEARD IT, THAT THIS WOMAN DOESN'T WANT TO GET INVOLVED AND SHE IS AN ILLEGAL ALIEN. ILLEGAL ALIENS TELL THE TRUTH, YOUR HONOR, AND I'M SURE THAT SYLVIA WILL TELL THE TRUTH IF ASKED WHETHER OR NOT SHE WAS WITH ROSA LOPEZ THAT NIGHT, BUT OBVIOUSLY SHE BECOMES A SOURCE OF IMPEACHMENT MATERIAL. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. TWO QUESTIONS THEN, MISS CLARK. ARE WE CONFIDENT IN OUR DETERMINATION THAT THE SYLVIA MENTIONED IN THE REPORT FROM JULY IS THE SAME SYLVIA THAT THE TIP WAS FOLLOWED UP ON? MS. CLARK: WE HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING THAT. BECAUSE THE DEFENSE HID THIS REPORT FROM US, WE HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING AT THIS TIME. WE ARE GOING TO ATTEMPT TO FIND OUT. THE COURT: OKAY. SECOND QUESTION. ALTHOUGH FROM MR. DOUGLAS' COMMENT I TAKE THAT TO MEAN THAT APPARENTLY IT IS THE SAME PERSON -- MS. CLARK: IT WOULD SEEM THEY ARE SAYING SO. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.) MS. CLARK: MAY I HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: SURE. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.) MS. CLARK: I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT TO THE COURT THAT WE HAVE AN INCONSISTENCY EVEN AMONG DEFENSE COUNSEL. THE COURT: MISS CLARK, I JUST HAD TWO QUESTIONS TO YOU. MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY. THE COURT: LET ME POSE MY QUESTIONS TO YOU. I JUST WANTED TO SEE WHAT YOUR LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE WAS IN THAT SYLVIA IS THE SAME SYLVIA. YOU SEEM TO HAVE A FAIR DEGREE OF CONFIDENCE THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME PERSON. MS. CLARK: ONLY -- THE COURT: MY SECOND QUESTION. LET'S ASSUME THAT I AGREE WITH YOU THAT THIS IS A DELAY IN DISCOVERY THAT IS SUBSTANTIAL AND SHOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED, ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF WHAT TRANSPIRED EARLIER, RECALLING YOUR FIRST OBSERVATION THAT THIS IS DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN. WHAT SANCTION, IF ANY, DO YOU SEEK AT THIS POINT SINCE THAT IS REALLY THE BOTTOM LINE OF OUR DISCUSSION, I ASSUME? MS. CLARK: YES. LET ME ADDRESS THE POINTS SERIATIM. NO. 1, ONLY HEARING MR. DOUGLAS' STATEMENTS NOW DID I GAIN THAT CONFIDENCE. PRIOR TO COMING DOWN TO COURT AND HEARING HIM MAKE THOSE STATEMENTS, I DIDN'T. I WASN'T SURE. I ASKED -- THE COURT: I WOULD ASSUME THAT DURING THE COURSE OF CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MISS LOPEZ, ASSUMING WE GO FORWARD TODAY, WE CAN FLUSH OUT WHO SHE IS. MS. CLARK: I'M ASSUMING THAT. THE COURT: AND THEN CONFRONT HER WITH ANY CONTRARY VIEWS EXPRESSED BY SYLVIA, QUOTE-UNQUOTE. MS. CLARK: RIGHT. OF COURSE, THANKS TO DEFENSE COUNSEL'S MISCONDUCT, WE ARE GOING TO BE DOING THAT IN THE BLIND, AND AS WE ALL KNOW, LAWYERS SHOULD NOT BE ASKING QUESTIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION FOR WHICH THEY DO NOT HAVE ANSWERS, AND WHAT COUNSEL HAS DELIBERATELY DONE IS FORCED US TO DO THAT VERY THING. SO NO. 1 THING, I WANT TO POINT OUT TO THE COURT ON HOW MANY OCCASIONS IN THE PAST WE HAVE ASKED FOR THE NOTES, TAPES, PRIOR OTHER STATEMENTS OF THIS WITNESS, SPECIFICALLY THIS WITNESS. WE HAVE REQUESTED THEM; THEY WERE DENIED TO US. THIS MORNING MR. COCHRAN CAME IN AND TOLD THE COURT THAT HE FIRST HEARD OF THIS OTHER STATEMENT TODAY AND NOW MR. DOUGLAS TELLS US HE KNEW ABOUT IT ALL ALONG. WE HAVE INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN COUNSEL AND WE HAVE -- NOW WE HAVE TO RAISE THE TABLOIDS IN ORDER TO FIND OUT WHERE THIS SYLVIA IS, WHO SHE IS, AND WHAT SHE WILL HAVE TO SAY. REALLY WE ARE CAUGHT BEHIND THE EIGHT BALL IN A VERY SERIOUS WAY AND MR. DOUGLAS' ELABORATE DANCE DOESN'T CLOUD THE FACT THAT WE ARE PUT BEHIND THE EIGHT BALL WITH THIS. I THINK THAT -- HERE IS WHAT I THINK WOULD BE THE FAIREST THING, IS TO PRECLUDE COUNSEL FROM USING THIS AS A PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT, WHICH IS IN ANY CASE -- LEGALLY IT DOESN'T AMOUNT TO A PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT THAT WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE FOR CORROBORATION BECAUSE IT DOES NOT ARISE AT A TIME PRIOR TO THE GENESIS OF THE BIAS, BUT IN ANY CASE, IF THEY WERE TO ATTEMPT TO USE IT IN ANY FORM IT SHOULD NOT BE ADMISSIBLE AS A PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT. FURTHERMORE -- FURTHERMORE, THEY SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM EVER CALLING SYLVIA AND WE SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO CROSS-EXAMINE ON THIS JULY 29TH STATEMENT AT OUR DISCRETION. WE WOULD FURTHER ASK THE COURT TO ADMONISH THE JURY THAT WE HAVE A WILLFUL AND INTENTIONAL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE COURT ORDER IN THE DELAYING TACTIC OF THE DEFENSE IN TURNING OVER THIS REPORT, WHICH DELAYING TACTIC WAS ENGAGED IN FOR THE PURPOSE OF GAINING A TACTICAL ADVANTAGE IN THE CASE AND TAKING THE PEOPLE BY SURPRISE AND IN AN EFFORT TO CURTAIL THEIR EFFECTIVE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF ROSA LOPEZ. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.) MS. CLARK: AND I'M REMINDED THAT PERHAPS THIS WOULD BE THE TIME, YOUR HONOR, TO LIFT THE DISCOVERY SANCTIONS IMPOSED UPON US SOME TWO MONTHS AGO. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.) THE COURT: BUT THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO START WITH DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AGAIN ALL OVER, WOULDN'T WE? MS. CLARK: REVISIT, YES, BUT AT LEAST THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO PRESENT WITNESSES AND TRY THE CASE CLOSER TO THE MANNER WHICH WE HAD ANTICIPATED DOING. IT HAS NOW BEEN TWO MONTHS. COUNSEL WAS AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO INVESTIGATE THOSE WITNESSES. NOW THEY HAVE HAD ALL OF THE TIME THAT THE COURT DEEMED APPROPRIATE. I THINK THE COURT SAID SIX WEEKS, IT HAS BEEN LONGER THAN THAT, AND WE SHOULD BE PERMITTED, I THINK AT THIS TIME, TO BE ABLE TO PUT THOSE WITNESSES ON. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SO AS I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY THEN, YOUR POSITION IS, IS THAT YOU WANT ME TO RESTRICT OR PREVENT THE DEFENSE FROM USING THE JULY 29TH STATEMENT AS A PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT SHOULD THAT COME UP. YOU WANT ME TO PRECLUDE THE USE OF SYLVIA AS A DEFENSE WITNESS. MS. CLARK: THAT'S CORRECT. THE COURT: YOU WANT ME TO GIVE AN INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY REGARDING ANOTHER VIOLATION OF THE DISCOVERY RULES, AND YOU WANT ME TO LIFT THE PREVIOUS SANCTION REGARDING THE WITNESSES THAT WERE BELATEDLY DISCLOSED BY THE PROSECUTION, CORRECT? MS. CLARK: RIGHT. I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERLINE ONE THING TO THE COURT. WHEN WE SAY "BELATED," IN THE PEOPLE'S CASE IT WAS A TWO TO THREE-WEEK DELAY. WE ARE NOT TALKING -- THE DEFENSE DELAY IS MORE LIKE AN ICE AGE COMPARED TO THAT, YOU KNOW. I MEAN, WE ARE TALKING EIGHT MONTHS, YOUR HONOR, EIGHT MONTHS THAT THEY SAT ON A STATEMENT THAT -- THAT AT LEAST ONE OF THEM KNEW THEY HAD, A STATEMENT THAT WAS PREPARED BY THE VERY SAME INVESTIGATOR WHO PREPARED THE AUGUST 18TH STATEMENT. I MEAN, THIS IS SO OBVIOUSLY WILLFUL, THIS IS SO OBVIOUSLY INTENTIONAL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE COURT'S ORDER, THAT I AM SHOCKED. I AM SHOCKED. I HAVE NEVER SEEN A DEFENSE ATTORNEY BEHAVE THIS WAY. I HAVE NEVER SEEN THIS HAPPEN. YOU KNOW, I'VE HEARD OF DELAYS, I'VE HEARD OF REFUSAL TO TAKE STATEMENTS, I HAVE HEARD OF A LOT OF THINGS, BUT I HAVE NEVER SEEN THIS AND I HAVE NEVER SEEN IT IN SUCH A BLATANT FORM IN AN EFFORT TO SANDBAG THE PROSECUTION, TO BLIND SIDE US. YOU KNOW, THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY VERY DESPERATE, YOU KNOW, TO ENGAGE IN SUCH OBVIOUS TACTICS, BUT THEY SHOULD BE UNAVAILING. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.) MS. CLARK: YOU KNOW, AFTER THE REPEATED REQUEST BY THE PROSECUTION FOR NOTES, TAPES AND OTHER REPORTS ON WITNESSES, AND PARTICULARLY THIS ONE, AND THE DENIALS OF DEFENSE COUNSEL THAT ANY SUCH THING EXISTED, ONLY TO HAVE THE ELEVENTH HOUR REPORT COME OUT, I WOULD ASK THAT -- THE COURT: WELL, COUNSEL, LET ME TELL YOU WHAT CONCERNS ME THE MOST ABOUT THAT. HAVING SAID ALL THAT, AND FORGIVE ME FOR INTERRUPTING YOU, BUT A MORE PERTINENT POINT IS THAT AFTER WE HAD HAD THAT LAST EPISODE, I THEN DIRECTED DEFENSE COUNSEL TO GO THROUGH AND MAKE AN INVENTORY OF ALL THEIR WITNESSES AND STATEMENTS. MS. CLARK: RIGHT, AND IT WAS -- THE COURT: BECAUSE I WANTED TO AVOID SPECIFICALLY WHAT WE HAVE HERE. THAT IS WHAT CONCERNS ME MORE THAN WHAT YOU HAVE JUST MENTIONED. MS. CLARK: RIGHT, RIGHT, AND BECAUSE I WAS NOT CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF COMPILING THE INVENTORY, THE PAIN OF THAT EFFORT CAUSED ME TO FORGET THAT THE COURT HAD MADE THAT ORDER AND THAT MAKES IT EVEN WORSE, THAT'S RIGHT, BECAUSE WHO KNOWS WHAT ELSE THEY HAVE. WHO KNOWS WHAT ELSE THEY ARE SITTING ON. SO I WOULD ASK THE COURT FOR THIS: I WOULD LIKE THEIR INVESTIGATORS TO COME INTO COURT AND DIVULGE TO US ALL OF THE REPORTS AND NOTES AND STATEMENTS THAT THEY HAVE TAKEN ON THE RELEVANT DEFENSE WITNESSES THAT WE WILL DESIGNATE, SO THAT WE CAN GET A COMPLETE AND ACCURATE IDEA OF WHAT ELSE THEY HAVE GOT THAT THEY HAVE NOT TURNED OVER, BECAUSE I THINK WE STILL HAVE NOT -- WE HAVE NOT SEEN THE END OF THIS. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MS. CLARK: WE NEED ROSA'S NOTES ANYWAY. WE KNOW THAT SHE HAS BEEN INTERVIEWED EXTENSIVELY BY COUNSEL. I CANNOT BELIEVE FOR ONE MINUTE THAT THERE WAS NO NOTE TAKEN, ANY STATEMENT TAKEN, ESPECIALLY OVER THIS LAST WEEK, SO THERE ARE CONSIDERABLE NOTES AND STATEMENTS THAT EXIST ON THIS WITNESS THAT WE HAVE NOT BEEN SHOWN. AND IF DEFENSE COUNSEL WANT TO GET UP IT AND DENY IT AGAIN, WE ARE GOING TO REVISIT IT AGAIN, BUT I WOULD HOPE THAT THE COURT'S SANCTIONS WOULD BE MORE MUCH DRACONIAN, BUT I WOULD ASK, BEFORE WE PROCEED, WE SHOULD HEAR FROM THESE INVESTIGATORS AND I THINK THE COURT SHOULD SEE WHAT ELSE THEY'VE GOT, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE WE WILL FIND OUT, BUT WE CAN TRY. THE COURT: MR. DOUGLAS. MR. DOUGLAS: A COUPLE THINGS COME TO MIND, YOUR HONOR. THERE ARE FEW OCCASIONS IN COURT WHERE I FELT AS BAD BACK IN JANUARY WHEN I HAD TO SUFFER THE SLINGS AND ARROWS FOR THINGS THAT OCCURRED THEREFORE; YOUR HONOR, I WOULD NOT WILLINGLY OR INTENTIONALLY THRUST THE DEFENSE INTO A POSITION WHERE I FIND MYSELF AGAIN HAVING TO EXPLAIN SOMETHING SUCH AS THIS. WHEN THE COURT ADMONISHED DEFENSE COUNSEL TO SERIOUSLY AND CAUTIOUSLY REVIEW THE DISCOVERY AND TO RECREATE A BOOK AND TO SET FORTH ALL OF THE DOCUMENTATION, I DID THAT AND I COMPLIED WITH THE COURT'S CORRECTION IN THAT REGARD. THERE WAS, YOUR HONOR, IN MY RECORDS, A TWO-PAGE INTERVIEW FROM WILLIAM PAVELIC TO ROBERT SHAPIRO CONCERNING ROSA LOPEZ. I THEN CHECKED OFF THAT CONSISTENT WITH A TWO-PAGE INTERVIEW FROM WILLIAM PAVELIC TO ROBERT SHAPIRO THAT HAD BEEN TURNED OVER TO THE PROSECUTION. IT WAS ONLY THIS MORNING, YOUR HONOR, THAT I SAW FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT THE TWO-PAGE INTERVIEW THAT WE HAD GIVEN TO THE PROSECUTION WAS NOT THE SAME TWO-PAGE INTERVIEW THAT I HAD BEEN USING IN MY NOTES. YOUR HONOR, I STAND BEFORE THIS COURT AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT TO TELL YOU THAT I NEVER HAD IN MY POSSESSION THE AUGUST 18TH STATEMENT UNTIL I WENT BACK AT DIRECTION OF MR. COCHRAN AND CHECKED TO SEE WHAT DOCUMENT IT WAS THAT HAD BEEN GIVEN. THE COURT: MR. DOUGLAS, LET ME -- LET ME DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO WHAT -- ONE OTHER THING THAT I AM MORE INTERESTED IN. LET'S ASSUME THAT WE BOTH AGREE, HOWEVER, THAT THIS IS A LATE DISCLOSURE, BECAUSE THERE IS SOME DIFFERENCE -- SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE TWO STATEMENTS, SO YOU AND I BOTH HAVE TO AGREE THAT THE DISCLOSURE IS LATE IN COMING, CORRECT? MR. DOUGLAS: YES, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: PUTTING ASIDE THE EXPLANATION AS TO HOW THAT HAPPENED, THE PROSECUTION HAS ASKED FOR FOUR SANCTIONS AS A RESULT OF THIS. WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE TO THEIR REQUEST FOR THESE FOUR SANCTIONS? MR. DOUGLAS: I DO NOT THINK, YOUR HONOR, THAT IT JUSTIFIES BRINGING IN INVESTIGATORS AND HAVING INVESTIGATORS SHARE INTIMATE ATTORNEY/CLIENT WORK PRODUCT WITH THE PROSECUTION. THERE ARE NO NOTES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN TURNED OVER. THERE ARE NO TAPE-RECORDED STATEMENTS OF MISS LOPEZ. I'M NOT SURE, YOUR HONOR, HOW THE PROSECUTION SPEAKS TO A WITNESS THAT THEY ARE GOING TO CALL WHEN THERE ARE ATTORNEYS PRESENT. WE SIT IN A CONFERENCE ROOM AND BASICALLY DISCUSS QUESTIONS THAT WILL BE ASKED, ANSWERS THAT ARE GOING TO BE GIVEN, BUT WE ARE NOT TAKING DOWN NOTES SUCH THAT IT WOULD BE THE KIND OF THING THAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT, SO I'M POT SURE WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT. THERE IS NO TAPE-RECORDING OF MISS LOPEZ BY ANY OF OUR INVESTIGATORS. WE TURNED OVER, YOUR HONOR, THE JULY 29TH, 1994, STATEMENT. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. DOUGLAS, THAT IS REALLY A -- ANOTHER QUESTION THAT YOU ARE ADDRESSING. I WANT YOU TO ADDRESS THE FOUR SPECIFIC ANSWERS THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS ASKED FOR IN LIGHT OF THE DELAY AND DISCLOSURE. ANOTHER ISSUE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE GOING TO TALK TO MR. PAVELIC OR THE OTHER INVESTIGATOR TO ASK THEM TO DISGORGE ANYTHING ELSE THEY MIGHT HAVE AS TO ANY OTHER WITNESSES, THAT IS INTERESTING, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE WILL TAKE UP AT A LATER TIME. I AM MORE INTERESTED IN GETTING YOUR RESPONSE TO THESE FOUR REQUESTS. MR. DOUGLAS: VERY WELL, YOUR HONOR. CAN YOU REMIND ME WHAT THE FOUR WERE? THE COURT: NO. 1, THAT YOU BE PRECLUDED FROM USING THE JULY 29TH STATEMENT AS A PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT. NO. 2, THAT YOU BE PRECLUDED FROM USING SYLVIA, QUOTE-UNQUOTE, AS A DEFENSE WITNESS. NO. 3, THAT THE COURT GIVE AN INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY THAT THERE HAS BEEN A WILLFUL FAILURE TO DISCLOSE THE PRIOR STATEMENT OF SYLVIA -- EXCUSE ME -- OF ROSA LOPEZ TO THE JURY. AND FOURTHLY, THAT THE COURT LIFT ITS PREVIOUS SANCTION ON THE PROSECUTION FOR THEIR DELAY IN DISCLOSURE AND ALLOW THEM TO NOW PRESENT THE WITNESSES THAT WERE LATE IN BEING DISCLOSED. MR. DOUGLAS: I THINK, YOUR HONOR, I WILL ANSWER THIS QUESTION AND I THINK THE COURT SHOULD UNDERSTAND SOME CONTEXT SO THAT YOU WOULD WEIGH THE APPROPRIATENESS OF ANY PARTICULAR SANCTION. WHAT WE ARE DOING IS CREATING A CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION RECORD THAT THE DEFENDANT WILL USE IN HIS CASE NOW, WE ARE LEARNING, WILL COME AT A MINIMUM OF SIX WEEKS FROM NOW, IF NOT LONGER. IF THIS IS THE COURT'S POSITION, THAT SOME SORT OF A SANCTION WOULD BE APPROPRIATE BECAUSE THERE MAY BE SOME MEASURE OF PREJUDICE WITH THE PEOPLE BEING UNABLE TO SPECIFICALLY QUESTION THIS SYLVIA -- AND WE HAVE NOT INTERVIEWED SYLVIA, YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE NOT CONTACTED HER, LET ME MAKE THAT CLEAR AS WELL -- I THINK THAT THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THAT WHICH WAS IMPOSED ON THE PROSECUTION, THAT IS, CREATING SOME TIME FRAME WITHIN WHICH THE DEFENSE WOULD BE BARRED FROM OFFERING THAT VIDEOTAPE UNTIL THERE HAS BEEN A SHOWING THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE HAD AN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO INVESTIGATE THIS SYLVIA, TO OBTAIN A SUBSEQUENT STATEMENT FROM HER AND ARE NOW ADEQUATELY PREPARED TO REBUT ANYTHING THAT MAY HAVE BEEN SAID ABOUT SYLVIA IN MISS LOPEZ' STATEMENT. IT IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER, YOUR HONOR, THAT WE ARE NOT INTENDING TO BRING ANY CIRCUMSTANCES OF SYLVIA'S INVOLVEMENT IN OUR CASE THROUGH THE TESTIMONY OF MISS LOPEZ. OUR ENTIRE TESTIMONY IS GOING TO BE BASED ON THAT WHICH IS INCLUDED IN THE AUGUST 18TH, 1994, STATEMENT, WHICH IS WHY I SAY THAT STATEMENT IS MORE COMPLETE FOR THE PURPOSES OF HER TESTIMONY THAN EVEN THE STATEMENT FROM JULY, 1994. I DO NOT THINK, YOUR HONOR, THAT IT WOULD BE PROPER TO PRECLUDE SYLVIA FROM BEING CALLED AS A DEFENSE WITNESS, BECAUSE I THINK THAT WILL BE A PREMATURE RULING AT THIS POINT. IT MAY THAT BE SHE WILL HAVE NOTHING THAT WE ARE GOING TO OFFER IN CORROBORATION OF MISS LOPEZ. IT MAY BE THAT SHE WILL. I WOULD URGE THE COURT TO WITHHOLD THAT PARTICULAR CONSIDERATION OF THE SANCTION UNTIL WE GET TO THAT POINT AND TO REQUIRE THAT WE WOULD BE OBLIGATED TO INFORM THE COURT BEFOREHAND. THIS SYLVIA IS NOT ON OUR WITNESS LIST. WE HAVE NO DOCUMENT FROM SYLVIA. I CANNOT REPRESENT TO THE COURT THAT THERE IS EVEN A PRESENT INTENTION TO CALL SYLVIA IN ANY REGARD. I SUSPECT, BECAUSE SHE IS UNDOCUMENTED, THAT SHE IS NOT GOING TO BE VERY INTERESTED IN INVOLVING HERSELF IN A CASE OF THIS PROFILE AND I SUSPECT THAT WE WOULD NOT ANTICIPATE CALLING HER AS A WITNESS, BUT I DO NOT THINK IT BE PRUDENT AT THIS POINT TO COMMIT TO THAT PARTICULAR SANCTION. AS TO THE FINAL SANCTION, THAT IS THAT THEY SHOULD NOT BE RELIEVED OF THEIR OBLIGATIONS, THE COURT HAS ALWAYS MADE IT CLEAR THAT WE CAN'T CONFUSE APPLES AND ORANGES. THE COURT IMPOSED A SANCTION THAT THE COURT THOUGHT WAS WELL-FASHIONED AND WELL-BASED GIVEN THAT RECORD. I WOULD URGE THE COURT TO IMPOSE A SANCTION THAT IS SIMILAR, GIVEN THIS PARTICULAR RECORD, AND THAT IS THE ADVANTAGE THAT WE HAVE NOW OF HAVING A CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION. SHE IS NOT GOING TO BE TESTIFYING IN FRONT OF THE JURY. IT IS NOT, FOR EXAMPLE, A SITUATION WHERE PRIOR TO HER GOING AWAY FOR THE DAY AFTER HER DIRECT HAS ALREADY BEEN PLACED IN FRONT OF THE JURY, WE NOW SAY, OH, BY THE WAY, WE HAVE THIS STATEMENT. WHEN WE LEARNED ABOUT THIS STATEMENT, WHEN WE LEARNED THAT THEY WERE DIFFERENT, WE THEN FIRST BROUGHT IT TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION TO SEE FOR THE COURT PRELIMINARILY TO RULE WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS AN OBLIGATION TO RELEASE THE STATEMENT. CERTAINLY, YOUR HONOR, I UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE THE SCORN THAT WOULD BEFALL ME FOR EXPLAINING THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS, BUT THIS WAS NOT INTENTIONAL, YOUR HONOR, IT WAS NOT WILLFUL, AND CERTAINLY THIS COURT HAS HAD SOME ABILITY TO GAUGE THE NATURE OF THE DEFENSE EFFORT, UNDERSTANDING THAT IT IS VERY MUCH A MONUMENTAL EFFORT, BUT THIS WAS A MATTER THAT WE BROUGHT TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION BEFORE THE WITNESS WAS CALLED TO TESTIFY. AND I DO THINK, YOUR HONOR, WHEN THE COURT IS TRYING TO BALANCE AND TO INTERPRET AND TO READ BETWEEN THE LINES, THERE SHOULD BE SOME UNDERSTANDING PLACED THAT THE DEFENDANT DID IN FACT COME FORWARD WITH THIS EVIDENCE, THIS INFORMATION, AND OFFERED AN EXPLANATION TO EXPLAIN IT, THOUGH CERTAINLY NOT A JUSTIFICATION THAT THE NAME WAS IN FACT MISSED. I DO THINK, YOUR HONOR, AS WELL, THAT IT WOULD BE TOTALLY IMPROPER, GIVEN THE CURRENT STATE AND WHERE WE ARE, FOR THE COURT TO ISSUE AN INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY THAT THERE HAS BEEN SOME FURTHER WILLFUL MISCONDUCT. THE REASON WHY THE COURT FELT IT APPROPRIATE EARLIER TO ISSUE A CURATIVE INSTRUCTION WAS BECAUSE THERE HAD BEEN STATEMENTS MADE CONCERNING MARY ANNE GERCHAS TO THE JURY AND THE COURT REALIZED THAT WE COULD NOT UNRING THE BELL. THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANYTHING SAID ABOUT ANY SYLVIA, ANY MENTION TO THE JURY AT ALL OF ANY CONNECTION THAT SHE MAY HAVE. HER CONNECTION AT BEST IS ONLY TANGENTIAL AND IS NOT ONE THAT WE INTEND TO ELICIT ON DIRECT EXAMINATION, SO I DO NOT THINK THAT THERE IS A SHOWING THAT WE HAVE IN ANY WAY TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF THIS SLIP AS THE SHOWING THAT WAS MADE IN THE EARLIER EXAMPLE WHICH THEN IN THE COURT'S MIND JUSTIFIED THE IMPOSITION OF THAT SANCTION. THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, MAY I POINT SOMETHING OUT TO THE COURT? THE COURT: ONE THING. MS. CLARK: OKAY. I FIND IT VERY, VERY IMPOSSIBLE TO BELIEVE THAT THE DEFENSE DID NOT FOLLOW UP TO INTERVIEW A POTENTIALLY CORROBORATING WITNESS FOR SOMEONE WHO IS THEIR KEY ALIBI WITNESS, AND MR. DOUGLAS' EFFORTS TO CONVINCE THIS COURT TO MINIMIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF SYLVIA TO THE DEFENSE SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED AT FACE VALUE. IT IS CLEAR THAT SHE IS SOMEBODY THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO RELY ON AND PROBABLY DID INTERVIEW AND REJECTED BECAUSE SHE DUMPED ROSA LOPEZ OUT AS BEING A LIAR. AND I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT TO THE COURT THAT THE DEFENSE CAME FORWARD THIS MORNING ONLY AFTER IT REALIZED IN FEAR THAT ONCE MISS LOPEZ WAS CROSS-EXAMINED ABOUT HOW MANY TIMES SHE SPOKE TO THEIR INVESTIGATORS AND WHEN THERE SUBTERFUGE WAS GOING TO BE EXPOSED. HAD WE DONE THE CONDITIONAL EXAM ON FRIDAY NIGHT, YOUR HONOR, SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN HERE AND GONE AND WE WOULD NEVER HAVE REALIZED THAT THERE WAS ANOTHER STATEMENT GIVEN BY HER. THE COURT: WELL, WE ARE LUCKY WE ALL GOT TIRED. MS. CLARK: PARDON? THE COURT: NEVER MIND. I TAKE IT, MISS CLARK, THAT SINCE YOU ARE ASKING FOR THESE VARIOUS SANCTIONS, MR. DOUGLAS IS CORRECT, THAT I NEED NOT IMPOSE ANY OF THESE SANCTIONS EXCEPT FOR THE ONE LIFTING YOUR ORDER OF PROOF UNTIL -- UNLESS AND UNTIL THE DEFENSE CHOOSES TO PRESENT ROSA LOPEZ' 1335 STATEMENT, CORRECT? I THINK YOU AGREE WITH THAT TIMING WISE. MS. CLARK: UH-HUH. UH-HUH. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THEN I WOULD PROPOSE THAT WE GO FORWARD THEN WITH THE 1335 WITH ROSA LOPEZ AT THIS TIME. MS. CLARK: THERE IS ONLY ONE THING THAT I WOULD REQUEST AT THIS TIME, YOUR HONOR, AND THAT IS THAT THE INVESTIGATORS BE BROUGHT INTO COURT AND REQUIRED TO DIVULGE THE INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO ANY OTHER NOTES, REPORT OR INTERVIEWS TAKEN. THE COURT: WE CAN TAKE THAT UP LATER, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO GET THE 1335 IN THE CAN, SO TO SPEAK, IF WE CAN DO THAT. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.) MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: I WOULD LIKE TO GET -- WE WILL THAT TAKE THAT ISSUE UP WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS ANY -- WHAT HAS TRANSPIRED OBVIOUSLY CAUSES ME SOME CURIOSITY AND CONCERN AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS ANYTHING MORE OUT THERE THAT WE OUGHT TO KNOW ABOUT. I AGREE WITH YOU THERE. BUT I WOULD PREFER TO USE OUR TIME TODAY GETTING THE 1335 IN THE CAN. MS. CLARK: THE PROBLEM IS THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT OUR RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE THIS WITNESS. IF THERE ARE OTHER NOTES AND REPORTS OF HER MADE BY THE INVESTIGATORS, WE OBVIOUSLY NEED TO THOUGH ABOUT THAT BEFORE WE CROSS-EXAMINE HER. THE COURT: WELL, THE REPRESENTATION THAT HAS BEEN MADE BY MR. DOUGLAS IS THAT THERE ARE NO SUCH OTHER REPORTS. MS. CLARK: WHICH HAS BEEN MADE BEFORE SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARD TO THIS WITNESS THIS MORNING. YOU KNOW, MR. DARDEN CAME INTO COURT AND REQUESTED ANY OTHER NOTES OR REPORTS AND WE WERE GIVEN A VERY ASSURED CONFIDENT STATEMENT THAT THERE WAS NOTHING ELSE, ONLY TO BE CONFRONTED WITH AT THE ELEVENTH HOUR WITH OTHER STATEMENTS THAT CAME FLOATING OUT. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SO YOU WOULD BE SATISFIED WITH MR. PAVELIC COMING IN AND TELLING US ON THE RECORD THAT THIS IS ALL THERE IS? MS. CLARK: UNDER OATH, YEAH, AS LONG AS -- (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN HE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.) MS. CLARK: THE OTHER SANCTION THAT WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO THE CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION, YOUR HONOR, IS THE USE OR MENTION OF ANY OF THE STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE JULY 29TH STATEMENT, ANY REFERENCE TO THOSE AS A PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT. THE COURT: I WOULD SAY THIS, THOUGH, MISS CLARK. THAT WE CAN GO FORWARD WITH A RATHER BROAD RANGE DURING THE 1335, BECAUSE THAT IS A STATEMENT THAT WILL NOT BE OFFERED UNLESS AND UNTIL I FIND THERE IS GOOD CAUSE, AND IT IS STILL SUBJECT TO EDITING FOR OBJECTIONS AND OTHER SANCTIONS. MS. CLARK: UH-HUH. THE COURT: BECAUSE I HAVE THE IMPRESSION THAT YOU WOULD HIKE TO CROSS-EXAMINE HER ON THE JULY 29TH. MS. CLARK: THAT MAY BE TRUE ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF THE FACT SHE DOESN'T SEE A BRONCO. THE COURT: SO IF YOU CROSS-EXAMINE ON IT, THEN THEY ARE ENTITLED TO GO BACK AND REESTABLISH THE COMPLETE STATEMENT OF WHAT IS THERE. NOW, WHETHER OR NOT THAT COMES BEFORE THE JURY IS ANOTHER QUESTION. MS. CLARK: UH-HUH. THE COURT: BUT IF IT IS IN THE CAN, AT LEAST I KNOW IT IS THERE. MS. CLARK: OKAY. OKAY. THEN -- WHAT ABOUT THE -- THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. BUT I WILL -- I WILL ASK MR. PAVELIC TO COME IN AND TO RESPOND TO THE QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE ANY OTHER ITEMS WITH REGARDS -- MS. CLARK: MR. MC NALLY AS WELL, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: I DON'T BELIEVE MR. MC NALLY IS EMPLOYED BY THE DEFENSE ANY LONGER. MS. CLARK: HE IS REFERRED TO IN THE AUGUST 18TH STATEMENT AS ONE OF THE INTERVIEWERS. THE COURT: I DON'T BELIEVE IS HERE AND I DON'T BELIEVE HE IS IN THE EMPLOY OF THE DEFENSE ANY LONGER. MS. LEWIS: HE HAS BEEN IN COURT THE LAST FEW DAYS. MS. CLARK: NO, THAT IS MC KENNA. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.) THE COURT: MR. DOUGLAS. MS. CLARK: IS THERE ANYWAY -- I'M SORRY, BUT IS THERE ANYWAY THAT WE CAN GET SOME KIND OF STATEMENT FROM THE DEFENSE CONCERNING MR. MC NALLY'S NOTES AND WHO THEY WERE TURNED OVER TO. PERHAPS MR. PAVELIC IS IN POSSESSION OF THEM. OBVIOUSLY HE WAS ENGAGED BY THE DEFENSE BACK AT THE -- THE COURT: WELL, LET'S ASK MR. DOUGLAS. IS MR. PAVELIC AVAILABLE? MR. DOUGLAS: HE CAN BE AVAILABLE, YOUR HONOR, YES. MR. BAILEY: NOT UNTIL THREE O'CLOCK. THE COURT: WELL, I'M GOING TO PROPOSE A MODIFICATION TO OUR SCHEDULE TODAY TO GO TO 4:35 SINCE WE ARE GETTING SUCH A LATE START. ANY OBJECTIONS? MS. CLARK: NO, YOUR HONOR, EXCEPT THAT WE WANT TO HEAR FROM MR. PAVELIC BEFORE WE BEGIN CROSS. MR. COCHRAN: NO, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WELL, LET'S GET THE DIRECT, AND MR. SHAPIRO, WOULD YOU MAKE A PHONE CALL TO MR. PAVELIC, HAVE HIM COME TO COURT FORTHWITH, AND WE WILL COMMENCE WITH THE DIRECT EXAMINATION AND I WILL TAKE A RECESS BETWEEN THE DIRECT AND THE CROSS-EXAMINATION SO THAT WE CAN ADDRESS THE PAVELIC ISSUE, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO GET STARTED WITH THIS. MR. DOUGLAS: ONE THING, YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE THE RECORD TO BE CLEAR, IS WE HAVE NOT INTERVIEWED THIS PERSON KNOWN AS SYLVIA. WE DO NOT KNOW HER. THE COURT: I GOT IT THE FIRST TIME. MR. DOUGLAS: WELL, YOUR HONOR, THE SUGGESTION THAT I'M LYING WHEN I SAY THAT OFFENDS ME, SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE. THE COURT: WELL, MR. DOUGLAS, LET'S BE VERY CLEAR, I HAVE NOT IMPOSED ANY SANCTIONS YET. MR. DOUGLAS: YES, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: I HAVEN'T MADE ANY FINDING YET SO LET'S NOT GET TOO EXCITED AT THIS POINT, BUT I AM CONCERNED FOR THE REASON I MENTIONED. MR. DOUGLAS: I RESPECT THAT, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. MR. SHULMAN, MR. FURTH, ARE WE READY? (BRIEF PAUSE.) THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, I'M SORRY. MR. COCHRAN: TWO MINUTES? THE COURT: TWO MINUTES? MR. COCHRAN: TWO MINUTES. THE COURT: OKAY. TWO MINUTES. (RECESS.) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE ROSA LOPEZ, PLEASE. (BRIEF PAUSE.) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON. MISS LOPEZ, WOULD YOU COME FORWARD, PLEASE. ALL RIGHT. WOULD YOU STAND OVER HERE BY THE INTERPRETER, PLEASE. ROSA MARIA LOPEZ, CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE DEFENDANT, WAS SWORN AND TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS: THE CLERK: PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND TO BE SWORN. YOU DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU MAY GIVE IN THE CAUSE NOW PENDING BEFORE THIS COURT SHALL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD. THE WITNESS: YES. THE CLERK: PLEASE HAVE A SEAT ON THE WITNESS STAND. STATE AND SPELL YOUR FIRST AND LAST NAME FOR THE RECORD. THE WITNESS: ROSA MARIA LOPEZ. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON, MISS LOPEZ. THANK YOU FOR STAYING. THE WITNESS: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR. MR. COCHRAN. MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN: Q: GOOD AFTERNOON, MISS LOPEZ. A: GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR. Q: MISS LOPEZ, WHERE WERE YOU BORN? A: IN EL SALVADOR. Q: WHAT IS YOUR NATIVE LANGUAGE? A: SPANISH. Q: AND DO YOU UNDERSTAND AND SPEAK SOME ENGLISH? A: (IN ENGLISH) JUST A LITTLE. Q: AND IN THE COURSE OF YOUR EXAMINATION HERE TODAY WOULD YOU PREFER TO SPEAK WITH US IN SPANISH OR ENGLISH? A: SPANISH. Q: NOW, YOU DESCRIBED FOR US THAT YOU WERE BORN IN EL SALVADOR. HOW FAR DID YOU GO IN SCHOOL IN EL SALVADOR? MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT. THE COURT: IT BECOMES VERY RELEVANT, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION. THE WITNESS: FOURTH GRADE. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AND DID YOU ATTEND ALL OF THOSE FOUR YEARS? A: NO. Q: AND WHY WAS IT THAT YOU QUIT SCHOOL AFTER ONLY FOUR YEARS OR PART OF FOUR YEARS? MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: BECAUSE MY PARENTS WERE VERY POOR AND THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY -- TO BUY ME BOOKS -- NOTEBOOKS AND PENCILS. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: HOW OLD WERE YOU WHEN YOU QUIT SCHOOL? MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: I WOULD SAY TEN YEARS OLD. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AND DID YOU START WORKING AT TEN YEARS OF AGE? MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, LEADING. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AT WHAT AGE DID YOU START TO WORK? MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: I WORKED AFTER -- FROM NINE YEARS OLD ON. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AND WHAT KIND OF WORK WERE YOU DOING AT NINE YEARS OLD? MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: ON THE FIELD -- ON THE FIELD WITH MY PARENTS I WOULD PLANT CORN, BEANS AND RICE. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AND THIS WAS IN WHAT COUNTRY? A: IN EL SALVADOR. Q: HOW MANY CHILDREN -- HOW MANY BROTHERS AND SISTERS DID YOU HAVE, MISS LOPEZ? MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: SIX GIRLS AND FOUR BOYS. THE COURT: JUST SO COUNSEL IS AWARE, BECAUSE THIS IS A 1335 AND NOT BEING ABLE TO PREDICT THE SCOPE ENTIRELY AT THIS POINT, I'M GOING TO BE RATHER BROAD AS FAR AS RELEVANCY IS CONCERNED, BUT UNDERSTANDING THAT WHEN IT COMES TO THE OFFER OF THE CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION BEFORE THE TRIER OF FACT, IT WILL BE EDITED IF I FIND CERTAIN AREAS TO BE IRRELEVANT, BUT SINCE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT IS BEING PRESERVED, IN ESSENCE I'M GOING TO BE RATHER BROAD ON RELEVANCE, JUST TO LET YOU KNOW. MR. DARDEN: MY ONLY CONCERN AT THIS POINT IS THAT IF I FAIL TO OBJECT AT THIS TIME THE COURT WILL CONSIDER THAT A WAIVER. THE COURT: NO, NO. MR. DARDEN: NO? THE COURT: I WILL TAKE YOUR STANDING OBJECTIONS TO BACKGROUND -- I WILL TAKE IT AS A STANDING OBJECTION TO BACKGROUND QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. PROCEED. MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. Q: OF THE TEN CHILDREN HOW DID YOU FALL? WERE YOU THE YOUNGEST, THE OLDEST OR WHAT? A: IN THE MIDDLE. Q: NOW, WHEN YOU ATTENDED SCHOOL, HOW FAR WAS SCHOOL FROM YOUR HOME? THE COURT: THIS IS PRETTY FAR AFIELD. MR. COCHRAN: THIS IS THE LAST QUESTION IN THIS AREA. THE INTERPRETER: CAN I GIVE THE ANSWER? THE COURT: YES, PLEASE. THE WITNESS: 34 MILES AWAY. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AND HOW WOULD YOU GET TO SCHOOL EACH DAY? A: WALKING. Q: NOW, ONCE YOU STARTED TO WORK, AS YOU INDICATED, AT NINE OR TEN YEARS OF AGE, HOW MANY YEARS HAVE YOU WORKED IN YOUR LIFE? A: ABOUT FIFTY YEARS. Q: SO FROM THE TIME YOU QUIT SCHOOL, HAVE YOU CONTINUED TO WORK UP UNTIL TODAY'S DATE UNTIL 1995? MR. DARDEN: IT IS LEADING. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: YES. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: NOW, AT SOME POINT YOU LEFT EL SALVADOR AND YOU CAME TO THE UNITED STATES; IS THAT CORRECT? A: YES. Q: AND WHEN WAS THAT? A: IN 1969. Q: AND HAVE YOU CONTINUED TO LIVE IN THE UNITED STATES SINCE 1969? A: YES. Q: AND HAVE YOU RETURNED TO EL SALVADOR DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME, DURING THE LAST 25 OR 26 YEARS? A: YES. Q: DO YOU OWN ANY LAND OR PROPERTY IN EL SALVADOR? A: THE HOUSE MY SON LEFT ME. Q: NOW, WITH REGARD TO YOUR SON, HOW MANY CHILDREN HAVE YOU HAD IN YOUR LIFE, MISS LOPEZ? A: SEVEN. Q: AND DID ALL SEVEN OF THOSE CHILDREN SURVIVE CHILDBIRTH? MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, THAT IS SO IRRELEVANT. MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, LINK IT UP WITH REGARD TO THE CHILDREN. THE COURT: PLEASE. THE INTERPRETER: I DIDN'T HEAR THE RULING OF THE COURT. THE COURT: SHE CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION. THE WITNESS: ONLY FOUR LIVING. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. AND OF THE FOUR CHILDREN WHO I GUESS SURVIVED CHILDBIRTH, HOW MANY OF THOSE CHILDREN ARE ALIVE NOW? A: ONLY TWO. Q: AND WHAT HAPPENED TO THE OTHER TWO CHILDREN? A: THEY KILLED THEM. THE 15-YEAR OLD GIRL THAT I HAVEN'T -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO HER SINCE THE WAR, AND MY SON WAS A PILOT, HE WAS A FLIER AND THE GUERILLAS SHOT HIM DOWN. Q: WAS HE A HELICOPTER PILOT OF SOME KIND? A: YES, HE WAS A LIEUTENANT. Q: AND THERE IS A WAR THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR SOME TIME IN YOUR COUNTRY? A: YES. Q: WITH REGARD FOR THE FOUR CHILDREN, WHEN YOU CAME TO THE UNITED STATES IN 1969, DID YOU BRING ALL FOUR OF THE CHILDREN HERE? A: NO, I ONLY BROUGHT TWO. Q: AND ARE THOSE TWO CHILDREN STILL LIVING WITHIN THE UNITED STATES NOW? A: YES. Q: AND THE OTHER TWO WHO LOST THEIR LIVES REMAINED IN EL SALVADOR? A: YES. Q: NOW, WITH REGARD TO YOUR SON WHO WAS KILLED AS A HELICOPTER PILOT, DO YOU HAVE SOME PLANS WITH REGARD TO HIM AND HIS BURIAL? MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE INTERPRETER: I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T HEAR. MR. COCHRAN: YES. Q: AS REGARDS YOUR SON, THE HELICOPTER PILOT WHO WAS KILLED IN THE WAR, DO YOU HAVE SOME PLANS REGARDING HIS BURIAL? A: WELL, TO DO AS HE ASKED ME TO DO, TO BUY HIM A TOMB AND PUT HIS NAME ON IT AND BUY HIM A HELICOPTER AS HE ASKED ME BECAUSE I NEVER HAD TIME TO DO SO. Q: WAS THAT WORD "TOMB"? DID YOU SAY "TOMB"? A: TOMB, YES. Q: AND THE HELICOPTER THAT YOU WOULD PURCHASE, IS THIS A FULL-SIZED HELICOPTER? DESCRIBE THE HELICOPTER WOULD YOU PLEASE. A: THE -- THE -- HIS CO -- CO-WORKERS AT THE AIR FORCE HAVE A -- MAKE A SMALL METAL HELICOPTER FOR HIM TO DECORATE HIS TOMB. Q: ALL RIGHT. ONCE YOU CAME TO THE UNITED STATES, AFTER A PERIOD OF TIME DID YOU BECOME A RESIDENT ALIEN? DID YOU BECOME DOCUMENTED AT SOME POINT? A: YES. Q: WHEN WAS THAT, IF YOU RECALL? A: I DON'T REMEMBER SPECIFICALLY BUT I THINK IT WAS '88 OR '89. Q: NOW, YOU DESCRIBED FOR US EARLIER THAT WHEN YOU FIRST STARTED WORKING AT NINE OR TEN YEARS OF AGE YOU WORKED IN THE FIELDS AND WHEN YOU LIVED IN EL SALVADOR IS THAT ALWAYS THE KIND OF WORK YOU DID? DID YOU WORK IN THE FIELDS OR DID DO YOU SOME OTHER KIND OF WORK? A: NO, I WORKED AS A HOUSEKEEPER. Q: AND FOR HOW MANY YEARS IN EL SALVADOR DID YOU WORK AS A HOUSEKEEPER? A: IT WAS FOR A LONG TIME. I DON'T REMEMBER. Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, ONCE YOU CAME TO THE UNITED STATES AND AFTER 1969, WHAT KIND OF WORK DID YOU DO AT THAT TIME, MA'AM? A: HERE? Q: YES, IN THE UNITED STATES. A: (IN ENGLISH) HOUSEKEEPER. THE INTERPRETER: HOUSEKEEPER. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: I WOULD LIKE NOW TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO APPROXIMATELY 1992 OR THEREABOUTS. WERE YOU WORKING AS A HOUSEKEEPER IN 1992? A: YES. Q: AND AT SOME POINT DID YOU GO TO WORK FOR A FAMILY BY THE NAME OF THE SALINGERS? A: YES. Q: DO YOU RECALL WHEN THAT WAS, APPROXIMATELY? A: I THINK I STARTED WITH THEM IN '92. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND HOW LONG DID YOU WORK FOR THE SALINGERS, IF YOU RECALL? A: JANUARY 6 I WAS -- I COMPLETED THREE YEARS AND I STARTED INTO THE FOURTH. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND DID YOU -- DO YOU STILL WORK FOR THE SALINGERS NOW? A: NO. Q: AND AT SOME POINT DID YOU LEAVE THEIR EMPLOY? A: YES. Q: AND WHEN WAS THAT? A: FEBRUARY 10TH, '95. Q: PRIOR TO LEAVING THE SALINGERS, HAD YOU ASKED FOR SOME TIME OFF WORK? A: WELL, THEY OWE ME A WEEK'S VACATION AND I ASKED THE LADY IF SHE COULD GIVE ME TWO AND SHE SAID NO. Q: AND WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THAT, IF ANYTHING? A: SHE SITS DOWN IN THE DINING ROOM AND SHE SAID WE HAVE TALKED, THAT -- MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, THIS IS A NARRATIVE. THE WITNESS: SHE WAS -- SHE WAS LETTING ME -- SHOW WAS LETTING ME -- TRYING TO LET ME KNOW THAT WITH ALL THE PRESSURE THAT I HAD OR THAT WAS -- MR. DARDEN: THIS IS HEARSAY. THIS IS NONRESPONSIVE TO THE QUESTION, YOUR HONOR. STRICKEN, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: I'M SORRY? MR. DARDEN: IS IT STRICKEN? THE COURT: IT IS NONRESPONSIVE, YES. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU SAT DOWN AND HAD A CONVERSATION ON OR ABOUT IS IT FEBRUARY 6TH WITH MISS SALINGER? MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. THAT IS LEADING, ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE. MR. COCHRAN: FOUNDATIONAL UNTIL THE NEXT QUESTION. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU HAD A CONVERSATION WITH MISS SALINGER IN HER LIVING ROOM, WAS IT? A: IN THE DINING ROOM. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHAT HAPPENED DURING THAT CONVERSATION? A: WE TALKED AND WE HAVE DECIDED THAT IF YOU ARE GOING TO TAKE OFF, YOU CAN GO FOR SOME TIME UNTIL ALL OF THIS PRESSURE IS OVER WITH. Q: AND WHEN -- WHAT PRESSURE WERE YOU REFERRING TO AT THAT POINT? A: TO ALL THE REPORTERS THAT WOULD COME OVER TO THE HOUSE. Q: AND THE HOUSE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WHERE THE SALINGERS LIVED IS LOCATED WHERE? A: 348 NORTH ROCKINGHAM. Q: AND WERE THE REPORTERS IN AND AROUND 348 ROCKINGHAM OF SOME CONCERN TO YOU? A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.) Q: IN JANUARY AND FEBRUARY OF 1995? A: YES. Q: AND IF YOU KNOW, WAS IT OF SOME CONCERN TO THE SALINGERS THE REPORTERS WHO WERE AROUND? MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, HEARSAY AND SPECULATION. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE SALINGERS WHERE THEY EVER EXPRESSED SOME CONCERN ABOUT THE REPORTERS IN AND AROUND 348 ROCKINGHAM? MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. IT IS LEADING AND IT CALLS FOR HEARSAY. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ARE YOU AWARE OF HOW THE SALINGERS FELT ABOUT ANY REPORTERS WHO MAY HAVE BEEN AROUND THE LOCATION? MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE. THE COURT: OVERRULED. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ARE YOU AWARE -- THE INTERPRETER: I'M SORRY, YOUR HONOR, CAN I HAVE THE QUESTION READ BACK? THE COURT: YES. IS THERE ANY DISPUTE ABOUT THIS? MR. DARDEN: YES. THE COURT: THAT THE SALINGERS WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE PRESS CONFERENCE? MR. DARDEN: YES. THE COURT: MADAM REPORTER, WOULD YOU READ THE QUESTION BACK, PLEASE. (RECORD READ.) THE WITNESS: THEY FELT BAD. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU CAN ANSWER THIS YES OR NO. DID YOU EVER HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE SALINGERS WITH REGARD TO THE REPORTERS WHO CAME AROUND 348 ROCKINGHAM IN THE MONTHS OF JANUARY AND FEBRUARY OF 1995? A: NO. Q: NOW, AT -- DO YOU KNOW THE GENTLEMAN OR DO YOU KNOW WHO THIS GENTLEMAN IS TO MY LEFT SEATED NEXT TO MR. SHAPIRO HERE? I HAVE MY HAND ON HIS SHOULDER. A: MR. O.J. SIMPSON. Q: ALL RIGHT. WHERE DO THE SALINGERS LIVE IN RELATION TO MR. O.J. SIMPSON'S HOME, IF YOU KNOW? A: THEY ARE NEIGHBORS. Q: AND YOU DESCRIBED FOR US THAT YOU WORKED FOR THE SALINGERS A LITTLE MORE THAN THREE YEARS. DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME DID YOU EVER MEET OR TALK WITH MR. O.J. SIMPSON? A: ONE TIME. Q: AND WHEN WAS THAT? A: MRS. SALINGER ASKED ME TO TALK TO MR. SIMPSON BECAUSE, UMM, SHE WANTED HER GRANDCHILDREN TO SIGN A -- THEY WANT HIM TO SIGN A -- UMM, A -- SOME FOOTBALLS. Q: FOR THE GRANDCHILDREN, FOR THE SALINGERS' GRANDCHILDREN? A: YES, FOR JOSH, BILLING. Q: THAT IS THE NAMES OF THE TWO GRAND CHILDREN? A: JOSHUA, DILLON. Q: WAS THERE MORE THAN ONE GRANDCHILD? A: YES. Q: WHAT WAS THE NAME OF THE OTHER GRANDCHILD? A: GRABBY BILLING. I DON'T KNOW. Q: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU KNOW HOW TO SPELL THAT FOR THE RECORD? A: I WRITE IT AS IN SPANISH, GABRIEL. MR. COCHRAN: THAT IS -- THE COURT: GABRIEL? THE WITNESS: YES, YES. MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. Q: NOW, WITH REGARD TO THESE TWO GRANDCHILDREN, JOSH AND GABRIEL, DID YOU IN SOME WAY TRY TO GET THE FOOTBALLS AUTOGRAPHED BY MR. SIMPSON? A: THE CHILDREN WENT TO HIM. I JUST TOOK HIM UP TO THE GATE AND THEN THEY WENT INSIDE WITH MR. SIMPSON. Q: DID HE AUTOGRAPH THE FOOTBALLS FOR THEM? THE INTERPRETER: I'M SORRY? Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DID HE AUTOGRAPH THE FOOTBALLS FOR THEM? A: YES, AND THE CHILDREN WERE VERY HAPPY, YES. Q: OTHER THAN THIS ONE TIME WHEN MR. SIMPSON AUTOGRAPHED SOME FOOTBALLS FOR THE TWO GRANDCHILDREN FOR THE SALINGERS, DID YOU EVER TALK TO HIM OR KNOW HIM OR BECOME HIS FRIEND? A: NEVER. Q: YOU KNEW HE LIVED NEXT DOOR, HOWEVER; IS THAT CORRECT? A: YES. Q: NOW, YOU HAVE TWO CHILDREN THAT YOU DESCRIBED FOR US WHO LIVE IN LOS ANGELES, DO THEY? IS THAT CORRECT? A: YES. Q: AND DO YOU ALSO HAVE ANY GRANDCHILDREN? A: TWO GIRLS. Q: WHEN HAD YOU WORKED HERE IN THE UNITED STATES WOULD YOU EVER SEND ANY MONEY ANY OTHER PLACE? MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT, YOUR HONOR. MR. COCHRAN: I WILL LINK IT UP. THE COURT: OVERRULED. MR. DARDEN: MAY WE HAVE AN OFFER OF PROOF? THE COURT: OVERRULED. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU MAY ANSWER. A: I SEND IT TO EL SALVADOR WHEN I STILL HAD MY OTHER CHILDREN THERE. Q: DID YOU EVER ASSIST ANY OF YOUR OTHER RELATIVES TO COME FROM EL SALVADOR TO THE UNITED STATES? MR. DARDEN: ALSO IRRELEVANT, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: MY SISTER. I BROUGHT MY SISTER OVER. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. NOW, I WOULD LIKE TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION, MISS LOPEZ, TO THE DATE OF JUNE 12, 1994. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT PARTICULAR DATE? A: YES. Q: DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT DAY OF THE WEEK THAT WAS? A: SUNDAY. Q: AND ON SUNDAY, JUNE 12, 1994, WERE YOU WORKING FOR THE SALINGERS AT THAT POINT? A: YES, SIR. Q: AND IF YOU RECALL, WERE THE SALINGERS AT HOME OR IN THE UNITED STATES AT THAT TIME? A: THEY WERE IN EUROPE. Q: AND DID YOU WORK ON THAT PARTICULAR SUNDAY, JUNE 12? A: YES. Q: AND WAS ANYONE ELSE AT HOME WITH YOU ON THAT PARTICULAR DATE, IF YOU RECALL? A: THEY JUST LEAVE ME THERE TAKING CARE OF THINGS BY MYSELF. Q: ALL RIGHT. WHAT WERE YOUR DUTIES ON THAT PARTICULAR SUNDAY? WHAT KIND OF THINGS WERE YOU DOING AT THE SALINGER HOME ON SUNDAY, JUNE 12, 1994? A: WELL, BECAUSE IT IS A SUNDAY AND IT IS MY DAY OFF, AND SHE DOESN'T PAY ME A WHOLE LOT FOR MY DAY OFF, SHE ONLY GIVES ME $25.00, I DO VERY LITTLE. I CLEAN THE KITCHEN AND I TAKE CARE OF THE DOG, FEMALE CONNOTATION, AND THAT IS WHAT I DO, TAKE CARE OF THE DOG. Q: ALL RIGHT. THAT IS WHAT YOU DID ON JUNE 12, 1994? A: YES. Q: AND WHAT KIND OF DOG IS THIS? A: (IN ENGLISH) GOLDEN LAB -- GOLDEN RETRIEVER, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I DON'T KNOW. Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, DO YOU RECALL WHETHER OR NOT IN THE EVENING HOURS OF JUNE 12, 1994, AT ABOUT FIVE O'CLOCK, DID YOU EVER HAVE OCCASION TO DO ANYTHING WITH THE DOG THAT AFTERNOON? MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. THAT IS LEADING, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: REPHRASE THE QUESTION. MR. COCHRAN: THAT WASN'T LEADING. THE COURT: REPHRASE THE QUESTION. MR. COCHRAN: CERTAINLY, YOUR HONOR. Q: DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO EVER TAKE THE DOG OUT OF THE HOUSE AFTER ABOUT FIVE O'CLOCK ON JUNE 12, 1994? MR. DARDEN: SAME OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WITH REGARD TO THIS GOLDEN LABRADOR RETRIEVER, DID YOU DO ANYTHING WITH THAT DOG ON THAT PARTICULAR DAY? MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. WITHDRAWN. THE WITNESS: SHE -- SHE GETS FED AT 5:00 IN THE AFTERNOON AND THEN SHE IS TAKEN OUTSIDE, SIR. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU FEED HER AT FIVE O'CLOCK ON THIS PARTICULAR DATE, SUNDAY, JUNE 12? A: YES. Q: AND AFTER YOU FED HER AT 5:00, WHAT TIME, IF YOU RECALL -- DID YOU TAKE HER OUT AT FIVE O'CLOCK ON THAT PARTICULAR DAY? A: AT 7:00. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WITH REGARD TO THE SALINGER'S HOME, CAN YOU TELL THE COURT GENERALLY WHERE YOU TOOK THE DOG? WHICH PART OF THE SALINGER'S PROPERTY DID YOU TAKE THE DOG AT THAT TIME? MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE, THAT SHE TOOK THE DOG OUT. MR. COCHRAN: I'M ASKING WHICH PART OF THE PROPERTY. THE COURT: I WILL ALLOW THE QUESTION. MR. DARDEN: IT IS CRITICAL, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND. SHE CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION. MR. COCHRAN: YOU MAY ANSWER. THE INTERPRETER: I HAVE TO TRANSLATE FIRST. THE WITNESS: I TOOK HER TO THE BACK, TO THE BACKYARD. MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE, IF I CAN -- I NEED TO MOVE THIS AROUND, YOUR HONOR, IF I MIGHT. (BRIEF PAUSE.) THE COURT: MR. DOUGLAS, DO YOU WANT TO GIVE US A HAND HERE? MR. DOUGLAS: YES, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: TRY NOT TO KILL THE INTERPRETER. MR. DOUGLAS: YES, YOUR HONOR. (BRIEF PAUSE.) MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I AM ADVISED ON THE LASER, I THINK WE HAVE THE LOCATION. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT PUT ON THE SCREEN. MR. DARDEN: MAY WE SEE IT BEFORE THE WITNESS SEES IT, YOUR HONOR? MR. COCHRAN: I THINK COUNSEL HAS SEEN IT, CERTAINLY. THE COURT: LET'S SEE IT ON COUNSEL'S MONITOR BEFORE WE DO THIS. (BRIEF PAUSE.) MR. DARDEN: IS IT BEING SHOWN TO THE WITNESS NOW? CAN WE SEE IT? I WOULD JUST LIKE A CHANCE TO SEE THE EXHIBITS BEFORE THE WITNESS SEES THEM, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. (BRIEF PAUSE.) MR. DARDEN: OKAY. THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN. MR. COCHRAN: MAY I PROCEED? Q: ALL RIGHT. MISS LOPEZ, DO YOU WEAR EYEGLASSES? A: YES, SIR. Q: DO YOU HAVE YOUR EYEGLASSES WITH YOU TODAY? A: NO. Q: ARE YOU ABLE TO SEE CLEARLY ON THE MONITOR THERE BEFORE YOU? A: NO. Q: DO YOU NEED TO BORROW SOME EYEGLASSES OF SOME KIND? A: OF COURSE. MR. COCHRAN: HOW ABOUT SOMEBODY NEAR HER AGE? AND I'M LOOKING FOR MR. BLASIER. MAY I HAVE JUST A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR? I THINK MR. BAILEY -- (BRIEF PAUSE.) MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WOULD YOU TRY THESE TWO PAIR AND SEE IF THESE TWO GLASSES HELP YOU. A: (IN ENGLISH) I LOST MY EYES SO I CAN'T SEE ANYTHING WITH THOSE. I CAN'T DISTINGUISH WHERE MY HOUSE IS IN THAT SMALL PORTION. MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. LET ME SHOW YOU A LARGER BOARD. THE COURT: MAYBE SHE CAN STEP DOWN AND TAKE A LOOK AT THE BIG SCREEN. WOULD THAT HELP? MR. COCHRAN: LET ME TRY THIS, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. (BRIEF PAUSE.) MR. BAILEY: YOUR HONOR, MY GLASSES WORKED FINE THIS MORNING. CAN I SHOW HER HOW TO USE THEM? THE COURT: BE MY GUEST. AS SOON AS MR. COCHRAN CLEARS HIS EXHIBITS. (BRIEF PAUSE.) MR. COCHRAN: WHERE WOULD YOUR HONOR LIKE US TO PLACE THIS? THE COURT: I WOULD LIKE IT PLACED SO THAT MR. SHULMAN CAN GET A SHOT OF IT. MR. COCHRAN: PUT IT UP HERE AND HAVE HER LOOK FROM THAT POINT. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. (BRIEF PAUSE.) MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, THE DIAGRAM WITH THE PHOTOGRAPH ON THE SCREEN, CAN WE HAVE IT DESCRIBED AND MARKED? MR. COCHRAN: YES. THE COURT: MR. HARRIS. MR. COCHRAN: THE DIAGRAM ON THE SCREEN, MR. HARRIS? MR. HARRIS: THAT IS LASER DISK DISPLAY D-108. THE COURT: D-108. MR. HARRIS: D-108-B. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MADAM INTERPRETER, CAN I GET YOU TO STAND ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. THE INTERPRETER: YES. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHERE I CAN GO. THE COURT: SORRY. THIS IS RATHER UNUSUAL. (BRIEF PAUSE.) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. HARRIS, THE CLERK ADVISES ME THAT WE WILL HAVE TO MAKE THAT DEFENSE 1044. YOU WILL HAVE TO PRINT THAT AT 1044. MR. HARRIS: YES, YOUR HONOR. (DEFT'S 1044 FOR ID = PHOTO/LASER PRINT) MR. COCHRAN: NOW, YOUR HONOR, 1044 WAS IT? THE COURT: YES. MR. COCHRAN: I WOULD LIKE TO MARK THIS BOARD WHICH PURPORTS TO BE AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE ROCKINGHAM PROPERTIES AND ALSO THE BUNDY PROPERTY AS DEFENDANT'S NEXT IN ORDER, WHICH WILL BE D-1045? THE COURT: 1044 OR 1045. MR. COCHRAN: THE ONE ON THE SCREEN IS 44, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: THE ONE ON THE SCREEN IS 44. THIS WILL BE 1045. (DEFT'S 1045 FOR ID = AERIAL PHOTO/ROCKINGHAM) MR. COCHRAN: 1045. Q: NOW, MISS LOPEZ, CAN YOU -- YOU HAVE TO STEP DOWN. CAN YOU -- WITH THE COURT'S PERMISSION? THE COURT: YES. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: CAN YOU LOOK AT THE PROPERTY ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE OF DEFENDANT'S 1045 AND SEE IF YOU RECOGNIZE THIS PROPERTY? A: YES. I HAD THE DOG UP HERE, (INDICATING). MR. COCHRAN: FOR THE RECORD, YOUR HONOR, SHE HAS INDICATED IN A BACK PORTION OF A RESIDENCE. SHE HAS POINTED TO SOME GRASSY AREA. THE COURT: APPEARS TO BE THE LAWN AREA ON THE SIDE BEHIND 348. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. SHOW US WHERE 348 IS, THE PLACE WHERE YOU WORKED, THE SALINGERS. A: OVER HERE, (INDICATING). Q: SHOW US THE HOUSE, PLEASE. A: THIS IS THE HOUSE, (INDICATING). Q: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU HAVE A PARTICULAR AREA OF THAT HOUSE IN WHICH YOU LIVED, MA'AM? A: RIGHT HERE. HEIGHT HERE, (INDICATING). MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, SHE IS INDICATING TOWARD I GUESS THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE ON A WING HERE, APPARENTLY, SHE HAS POINTED AS THE PLACE WHERE YOU RESIDED. Q: IS THAT CORRECT? MR. DARDEN: CAN WE HAVE THE -- THE WITNESS: YES. MR. DARDEN: CAN WE HAVE THE WITNESS INDICATE THAT ON THE DIAGRAM, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: UMM, THERE WASN'T AN ANSWER. THE INTERPRETER: I'M SORRY, YOUR HONOR, I DIDN'T GET IT TRANSLATED YET. THE COURT: MR. DARDEN, I WOULD SUGGEST IF YOU WANT TO DO THAT ON CROSS-EXAMINATION WITH THE LASER DISK, SINCE IT IS THE SAME THING, YOU CAN PUT A MARK ON THERE, BUT SHE POINTED FOR THE RECORD AND I DID SEE WHERE SHE POINTED. MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN. MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU. Q: NOW, CAN YOU SHOW US WHILE YOU ARE UP AT THE BOARD THERE? CAN YOU SHOW US -- THE COURT: LET'S JUST ASK ONE QUESTION. MR. FURTH, YOU ARE GETTING IN THE WAY OF MR. SHULMAN. YOU ARE GOING TO NEED TO SLIDE BACK. THANK YOU. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: CAN YOU SHOW US WHERE MR. O.J. SIMPSON LIVED? A: (INDICATING). MR. COCHRAN: FOR THE RECORD, SHE HAS IDENTIFIED 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM, YOUR HONOR. THE WITNESS: HERE, ALL OF THIS HOUSE, ALL OF THIS HOUSE. THIS IS THE GARAGE, THE KITCHEN, AND THEN THE DINING ROOM OR LIVING ROOM, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, (INDICATING). MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. MOTION TO STRIKE THE SECOND PART OF THE ANSWER. IT IS NONRESPONSIVE. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: THAT IS HIS HOUSE? A: YES. MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. YOU MAY RESUME YOUR SEAT. YOU MAY RESUME THE STAND. THE WITNESS: (WITNESS COMPLIES.) Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: NOW, IF I MIGHT ASK, YOUR HONOR, WHY DON'T YOU TAKE ANOTHER LOOK THROUGH THOSE GLASSES AND SEE WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN PICK OUT ANYTHING ON THE MONITOR ALSO? THE COURT: I'M SORRY, MISS LOPEZ, DID YOU SAY IT IS VERY HOT OR VERY HARD? THE WITNESS: (IN ENGLISH) HARD. THE COURT: DURO, SI? THE INTERPRETER: VERY HARD. THE COURT: HARD, DURO, YES? THE WITNESS: NOW I DO BECAUSE THERE IS A SMALL GREEN LIGHT. I CAN SEE. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. WILL YOU DIRECT HIM WHERE TO PUT THE -- MR. HARRIS WILL MOVE THAT SMALL GREEN LIGHT. CAN YOU SHOW AND TELL HIM WHERE TO PUT THE GREEN LIGHT AS TO THE SALINGERS HOME? A: (IN ENGLISH) YES. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. COCHRAN, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO MOVE. MR. COCHRAN: YES. THE WITNESS: (IN ENGLISH) RIGHT HERE, (INDICATING). THE COURT: NOW YOU ARE IN OUR PROJECTOR THERE. MR. COCHRAN: I CAN'T SEE HER EITHER, YOUR HONOR, AT THIS POINT. THE WITNESS: (IN ENGLISH) RIGHT THERE. THE INTERPRETER: RIGHT THERE. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: IS THAT THE SALINGER'S HOME? A: YES, SIR. Q: ALL RIGHT. CAN YOU POINT OUT OR DIRECT MR. HARRIS TO YOUR HOME, WHERE YOU LIVED WHEN YOU RESIDED WITH THE SALINGERS? A: WHERE THE LITTLE LIGHT IS RIGHT NOW, (INDICATING). MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, SHALL WE MARK THAT? THE COURT: YES. MR. COCHRAN: MR. HARRIS, CAN YOU DO THAT? (BRIEF PAUSE.) THE COURT: MISS LOPEZ, IS THAT THE LOCATION WHERE THE ARROW IS POINTING? THE WITNESS: YES, SIR. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: THAT IS WHERE YOU RESIDED, AND SO THAT WE ARE CLEAR, MR. SIMPSON'S HOME WAS THE HOME TO THE LEFT ON THE PICTURE; IS THAT CORRECT? A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.) MR. COCHRAN: MR. HARRIS? THE WITNESS: WHERE THE LIGHT IS RIGHT NOW, YES. MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. MAY WE MARK THAT ALSO, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: YES. MR. COCHRAN: THAT IS ON 1044, YOUR HONOR. Q: NOW, SO THAT WE ARE ALSO CLEAR, WHEN YOU TOOK THE DOG OUT IN THE EARLY EVENING HOURS OF JUNE 12, YOU POINTED TO AN AREA WHERE YOU TOOK THE DOG APPARENTLY BEHIND THE HOUSE. CAN YOU SHOW US AGAIN BY ARROW WHERE THAT WAS? A: WHERE THE ARROW IS RIGHT NOW. Q: ALL RIGHT. THAT AREA BACK THERE? A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.) MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. CAN WE MARK THAT, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: YES. THE WITNESS: YES. THE INTERPRETER: YES. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. APPROXIMATELY WHAT TIME WAS IT WHEN YOU TOOK THIS DOG IN THAT AREA DEPICTED THERE ON DEFENDANT'S 1044? MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, ASKED AND ANSWERED. MR. COCHRAN: FOUNDATIONAL AGAIN, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: AROUND 7:00, 7:10. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. AND THEN AFTER THAT HOW LONG WERE YOU OUT IN THE BACK PART OF THE HOUSE, IF YOU RECALL, WITH THE DOG? A: ABOUT TWENTY MINUTES BECAUSE I PLAY WITH THE DOG. Q: ALL RIGHT. WAS THIS PART OF YOUR DUTIES ON SUNDAY? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THEREAFTER, AFTER YOU FINISHED PLAYING WITH THE DOG, WHERE DID YOU NEXT GO, MISS LOPEZ? A: TO MY ROOM. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THAT IS IN THE FRONT PART OF THE SALINGER'S RESIDENCE; IS THAT CORRECT? A: YES. Q: AND NOW APPROXIMATELY HOW LONG DID YOU STAY IN YOUR ROOM AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME, IF YOU RECALL? A: WELL, I JUST STAYED THERE BECAUSE I DON'T -- I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO DO. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THEN DID THERE COME A TIME WHEN YOU WENT OUTSIDE THE HOUSE AGAIN. MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, THAT IS LEADING. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: I WENT OUTSIDE OF MY HOUSE AT 8:15. MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. YOUR HONOR, MAY WE APPROACH FOR JUST A MOMENT? MAY WE APPROACH JUST A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: YES. WITH THE REPORTER OR WITHOUT? MR. COCHRAN: NO, WITHOUT THE REPORTER. (A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED.) (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS LOPEZ, I'M GOING TO TAKE A TEN-MINUTE RECESS TO CHANGE COURT REPORTERS RIGHT NOW. I HAVE TO CHANGE COURT REPORTERS AND I HAVE TO GIVE THE INTERPRETER A REST, SO WE WILL START AGAIN IN ABOUT TEN MINUTES. ALL RIGHT. WE WILL BE IN RECESS FOR TEN MINUTES. (RECESS.) (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. ALL PARTIES ARE PRESENT. MISS LOPEZ? MS. LEWIS: IN THE JURY ROOM I BELIEVE, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: LET'S HAVE MISS LOPEZ BROUGHT OUT, PLEASE. MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, MAY WE APPROACH AGAIN? THE COURT: SURE. MISS CLARK. (A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED.) THE COURT: MADAM REPORTER, MAY I HAVE YOU HERE BRIEFLY, PLEASE? (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: WE'RE OVER HERE AT SIDEBAR. MR. COCHRAN, EARLIER BEFORE WE ASKED THE COURT REPORTER TO STEP OVER HERE, BEFORE SHE DROPPED HER MACHINE, YOU WERE GOING TO TELL US THAT YOU -- APPARENTLY YOU RECEIVED A PHONE CALL REGARDING THE QUALITY OF THE TRANSLATION? MR. COCHRAN: I GOT A FAX INDICATING FROM -- THIS IS FROM SKIP TAFT'S OFFICE -- THAT THE INTERPRETER WAS TERRIBLE AND SHE WAS INTERPRETING EVERYTHING INSTEAD OF TRANSLATING. "WE THINK IT MIGHT BE HARMFUL TO ROSA'S TESTIMONY. PLEASE TELL J.C." I HADN'T NOTICED, BUT THE ANSWERS SEEM TO BE ABOUT WHAT WE HAD EXPECTED. I ALSO HEARD FROM MR. BLASIER DURING THE BREAK, SOME PEOPLE WHO SPEAK SPANISH ON THE 12TH FLOOR HAD SAID WE'RE STILL HAVING A PROBLEM WITH -- EVEN THOUGH IT'S A DIFFERENT INTERPRETER, I THOUGHT I SHOULD BRING IT TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION. I WOULDN'T ASK THE COURT TO DO ANYTHING AT THIS POINT, BUT THE COURT SPEAKS APPARENTLY SOME SPANISH, AND WE CAN MONITOR THIS. APPARENTLY IT HAS TO DO WITH SALVADOREAN DIALECT OR SOMETHING. I DON'T KNOW. I JUST WANTED TO ALERT EVERYBODY OF THE PROBLEM. THE COURT: IF YOU RECALL, WE GOT THIS INTERPRETER SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE SHE WAS BORN IN EL SALVADOR AND IS FAMILIAR WITH THE DIALECT, AND SHE IS THE BEST SALVADOREAN-BORN COURT INTERPRETER WE HAVE AVAILABLE. AND IF YOU'RE -- NOT THAT THIS REALLY MEANS ANYTHING, BUT, YOU KNOW, KNOWING A LITTLE SPANISH IN THIS SITUATION IS DANGEROUS. BUT AS THE CHAIR OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF COURT INTERPRETERS, I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE PROBLEMS. AND THE PROBLEM THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH, MOST PEOPLE DON'T KNOW THERE ARE 60 MAJOR DIALECTS OF THE SPANISH LANGUAGE. SO ONLY PERSONS WHO SPEAK OTHER DIALECTS LISTENING TO THIS MAY HAVE AN IDEA WHAT THE PROBLEM IS. I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM. BUT IT'S A GOOD THING WE HAVE A VIDEO AND AUDIO RECORD OF THIS. SO IF THERE'S ANY DISPUTE, WE CAN RESOLVE IT AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME IF NECESSARY. SO FAR, I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING THAT SOUNDED OUT OF ORDER. WE'LL PUT THAT ON THE RECORD. MS. CLARK: LET ME INDICATE ALSO, YOUR HONOR, I HAVE SOMEONE PRESENT IN THE COURTROOM FLUENT IN SPANISH WHO HAS BEEN LISTENING FOR ACCURACY AND HAS INDICATED THAT THIS IS A LOT BETTER THAN THE INTERPRETER WE WERE USING YESTERDAY. THIS ONE IS REALLY TRANSLATING AND NOT INTERPRETING AS WAS OCCURRING YESTERDAY. ESSENTIALLY, I ALSO SPEAK SPANISH, AND IT APPEARS TO ME THAT IT IS MUCH MORE ACCURATE AND LITERAL IN THE TRANSLATION THAN IT WAS PREVIOUSLY. AND THIRDLY, UNLIKE YESTERDAY, WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY COMPLAINTS AS FAR AS ACCURACY. MR. DARDEN: BEFORE WE GO BACK, IF I CAN INQUIRE, HAS THE COURT BEGUN THINKING WHAT WE WILL DO WITH MISS LOPEZ OVERNIGHT? THE COURT: YES. I'VE CONTEMPLATED THAT, BUT WE'LL GET TO THAT AT 4:30. MR. COCHRAN: SINCE YOU ACCUSE US OF DOING EVERYTHING, REMEMBER, THE JUDGE SAID HE WAS GOING TO PUT HER UP AND WE SAID WE WOULD TRY TO DO THAT. REMEMBER, THE COURT SAID HE WOULD PROVIDE -- THEY CALLED IN ABOUT THAT. MS. CLARK: ABOUT -- MR. COCHRAN: THE JUDGE SAID THE COURT WOULD PROVIDE ACCOMMODATIONS. WHEN I WALKED UP, I ASKED THE COURT -- I KNOW YOU WEREN'T HERE, BUT I SAID, WELL, JUDGE WE'LL TRY TO MAKE SURE SHE GETS SOME ACCOMMODATIONS AND NOBODY SHOULD TALK ABOUT THAT. REMEMBER THAT, JUDGE? MS. CLARK: I WASN'T HERE. THE COURT: OKAY. MR. COCHRAN: IS THAT RIGHT, JUDGE? MR. DARDEN: I DIDN'T AGREE TO THAT. THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN VOLUNTEERED TO TAKE CARE OF THOSE ARRANGEMENTS. MR. COCHRAN: I UNDERSTAND. MR. DARDEN: WHAT WERE THE ACCOMMODATIONS? THE COURT: AT A NICE HOTEL. MR. COCHRAN: WE AGREED I WOULD DO IT. THE COURT AGREED TO DO IT SO NOBODY WOULD MAKE A BIG THING OF IT. MR. DARDEN: I HEARD YOU GUYS TALKING ABOUT IT. WHAT WERE THE ACCOMMODATIONS? I STILL THINK I HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW. THE COURT: YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW, AND UNFORTUNATELY -- OFF THE RECORD. (A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED.) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO. MR. COCHRAN: WE'RE READY TO GO. THE COURT: LET'S GO. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:) THE COURT: BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. ALL PARTIES ARE AGAIN PRESENT. ROSA LOPEZ IS ON THE WITNESS STAND. GOOD AFTERNOON AGAIN, MISS LOPEZ. THE WITNESS: GOOD AFTERNOON. THE COURT: YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH. AND, MR. COCHRAN, YOU MAY CONTINUE WITH YOUR DIRECT EXAMINATION. AND I FORGOT TO IDENTIFY OUR COURT REPORTER FOR THE RECORD. MADAM, YOUR NAME? MR. COCHRAN: INTERPRETER. THE COURT: INTERPRETER. THE INTERPRETER: ALICIA LUPER GALLANT, AND I HAVE AN OATH ON FILE. MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU. THE COURT: I AM SORRY. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: GOOD AFTERNOON, MISS LOPEZ. A: GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR. Q: WHEN -- JUST BEFORE WE TOOK OUR BREAK, I WAS ASKING YOU WHAT HAPPENED NEXT AND I BELIEVE YOU SAID THAT AT 8:15, YOU DID SOMETHING. DO YOU RECALL THAT? A: I WENT OUTSIDE TO THE STREET BETWEEN 8:00 AND 8:15 APPROXIMATELY. Q: ALL RIGHT. WHEN YOU SAY APPROXIMATELY, WERE YOU WEARING A WATCH THAT PARTICULAR EVENING, IF YOU RECALL? A: NO, SIR. Q: AND WITH REGARD TO THE TIMES THAT VARIOUS THINGS THAT HAPPENED THAT EVENING, DO YOU -- CAN YOU TELL THE COURT AND JURY HOPEFULLY HOW YOU KNEW WHAT TIME IT WAS AT VARIOUS TIMES? MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. THAT QUESTION IS COMPOUND SINCE IT CALLS FOR FUTURE EVENTS, PAST EVENTS IN LIFE. THE COURT: OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION. THE WITNESS: BECAUSE I SAW THAT CLOCK THAT I HAVE ON MY NIGHT TABLE BY MY BED. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AND WHEN YOU SAW THAT CLOCK, DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT TIME IT HAD? A: 8:05, 8:10, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND AT THAT TIME, YOU WERE STILL INSIDE THE HOUSE? A: YES. Q: AND WAS IT AFTER THAT THAT YOU WENT OUTSIDE THE HOUSE AFTER YOU SAW THE CLOCK? MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. LEADING. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. AND AFTER YOU SAW THE CLOCK AT 8:05 OR 8:10, WHAT HAPPENED THEN? A: I WENT TO THE STREET. Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, I WANT -- IF WE CAN USE DEFENDANT'S 1044 THERE BEFORE YOU -- AND BY THE WAY, DO YOU HAVE SOME GLASSES NOW THAT ASSIST YOU IN BEING ABLE TO SEE? A: YES, SIR (IN ENGLISH). Q: AND WHERE DID YOU GET THOSE GLASSES? A: MY -- MY ATTORNEY, FEMALE CONNOTATION, LET ME BORROW THEM. Q: AND YOUR GLASSES ARE NOT HERE TODAY? A: NO. Q: ALL RIGHT. SO USE THOSE GLASSES AND LOOK AT DEFENDANT'S 1044 ON THE MONITOR THERE AND CAN YOU -- MR. HARRIS WILL USE THE LITTLE ARROW. AND CAN YOU SHOW US -- WHAT PART OF THE PROPERTY DID YOU GO TO AFTER 8:10 OR P.M. ON JUNE 12TH, 1994? A: IN THE MONITOR HERE, IT'S NOT -- THE GATE -- THE SALINGER'S HOUSE IS NOT SHOWN VERY WELL IN THE MONITOR HERE. Q: ALL RIGHT. THE GATE OF THE SALINGER'S HOUSE, WAS IT AT THE FRONT PART OF THE PROPERTY? A: ROCKINGHAM, YES. Q: IT WAS ON ROCKINGHAM? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND SO -- AND ROCKINGHAM IS THE STREET OUT FRONT; IS THAT CORRECT? A: YES. Q: AND LOOK AGAIN AT THE MONITOR AND SEE IF YOU SEE THE LITTLE GREEN THING AND SEE IF YOU -- A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. IS THAT ROCKINGHAM? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. THE GATE OF THE SALINGER'S HOME, WOULD THAT BE TO THE RIGHT OR TO THE LEFT AS YOU SIT THERE LOOKING AT IT? A: AS I SEE IT HERE, IT'S TO MY RIGHT. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND SO IT'S NOT SHOWN IN THAT PARTICULAR PHOTOGRAPH; IS THAT CORRECT? A: NO. Q: DO YOU RECALL WHETHER OR NOT YOU -- DID YOU GO OUTSIDE THAT GATE? MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. THAT'S LEADING. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WHAT DID YOU DO WITH REGARD TO THE FRONT PART OF THE PROPERTY? WHERE DID YOU GO, IF YOU CAN TELL US THAT? A: IF THERE WAS IN FRONT OF THE GATE -- IF THERE WAS A GATE IN FRONT BY THE ENTRANCE OF THE DRIVER, THAT'S WHERE I STOOD. Q: AND WHAT STREET WOULD YOU BE STANDING ON AT THAT POINT? A: ON ROCKINGHAM. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND DO YOU RECALL, MISS LOPEZ, HOW LONG YOU REMAINED OUT AT THAT LOCATION OUT IN FRONT OF THE SALINGER'S HOME ON ROCKINGHAM, HOW LONG YOU STAYED THERE? A: ABOUT FIVE MINUTES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHILE YOU WERE OUT THERE OUT ON ROCKINGHAM, DID YOU EVER HAVE OCCASION TO SEE ANY CARS PARKED ON ROCKINGHAM? MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. THAT'S LEADING, YOUR HONOR. MR. COCHRAN: IT'S NOT LEADING. THE COURT: OVERRULED. MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU SEE ANY CARS PARKED, THAT'S NOT LEADING. THE WITNESS: THERE WAS A WHITE -- THERE WAS A WHITE CAR, A BRONCO. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. AND WHERE WAS THIS WHITE BRONCO PARKED AT THE TIME YOU SAW IT? A: AT 360 ROCKINGHAM. Q: I WANT TO SHOW YOU AN EXHIBIT THAT'S BEEN PREVIOUSLY MARKED. MR. COCHRAN: IF I MIGHT FOR THE RECORD, YOUR HONOR, THIS IS PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT, YOUR HONOR, 62-A AND B SPECIFICALLY I'LL ASK HER TO TAKE A LOOK AT, AND I'LL PUT IT ON THE BOARD HERE, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. AND, MR. COCHRAN, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO USE THE PODIUM BECAUSE THE MICROPHONE -- WE'RE HAVING DIFFICULTY PICKING YOU UP AS FAR AS THE TAPE IS CONCERNED. MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT, YOUR HONOR. MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, BEFORE WE SHOW THE PHOTOGRAPHS, THEY ARE LEADING AND THEY INDICATE POSITIONS AND THE LIKE WHICH THE WITNESS HAS NOT TESTIFIED TO. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I THINK WE NEED SOME FOUNDATIONAL QUESTIONS. MR. COCHRAN: CERTAINLY, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: I'LL SUSTAIN THAT AS A FOUNDATIONAL OBJECTION. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WITH REGARD TO -- MR. DARDEN: CAN THE RECORD REFLECT THAT THE WITNESS IS STARING AT THE PHOTOGRAPHS? THE COURT: SHE'S LOOKING IN THAT DIRECTION, YES. MR. COCHRAN. BUT WE HAVE A VIDEOTAPE OF ALL OF THIS. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: MISS LOPEZ, WITH REGARD TO THIS BRONCO THAT YOU DESCRIBED FOR US, WHAT COLOR WAS IT? A: WHITE. Q: AND DID YOU NOTICE ANYTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT THAT BRONCO AS IT WAS PARKED AT THE CURB? MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: CAN YOU DESCRIBE FOR THE COURT HOW THE BRONCO WAS PARKED? A: A LITTLE BIT CROOKED. Q: AND CAN YOU DESCRIBE WHAT PORTION OF THE BRONCO WAS CROOKED? A: I THINK IT WAS THE BACKSIDE. Q: AND IS THERE A GATE ON THE ROCKINGHAM SIDE OF MR. SIMPSON'S PROPERTY? A: YES. Q: AND WAS THIS -- THIS BRONCO VEHICLE THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT, WAS IT PARKED ANYWHERE NEAR THE CURB NEAR THAT GATE? MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS LEADING. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. SUSTAINED. MR. DARDEN: IS HE GOING TO LEAD THE WITNESS? THE COURT: I'VE SUSTAINED IT, MR. DARDEN. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: LET ME ASK IT THIS WAY. WHERE WAS THE BRONCO PARKED IN RELATION TO THE PARK ON ROCKINGHAM STREET? A: A LITTLE -- A LITTLE BIT IN FRONT OF THE GATE. MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, MAY I NOW SHOW THE WITNESS 62-A? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. MS. LEWIS; OBJECTION. MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. MS. CLARK: NOT SUFFICIENT FOUNDATION. MR. COCHRAN: MAY WE JUST HAVE ONE OF THEM AT A TIME, NOT ALL THREE OF THEM? THE COURT: MR. DARDEN. MR. DARDEN: I BELIEVE I WAS IN THE PROCESS OF OBJECTING. THE COURT: BEFORE YOU WERE RUDELY INTERRUPTED BY YOUR COCOUNSEL? MR. DARDEN: THAT'S CORRECT, ONCE AGAIN. MS. CLARK: I AM SORRY. THAT WAS INARTFUL OF ME. MR. DARDEN: BUT THERE'S STILL INSUFFICIENT FOUNDATION. DESCRIPTION OF THE VEHICLE, AN EXACT LOCATION IN WHICH IT IS PARKED, WHICH SIDE OF THE STREET, HOW SHE CAN IDENTIFY A PARTICULAR VEHICLE. LOTS OF FOUNDATIONAL ISSUES REMAIN. MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, SPEAKING OBJECTIONS. YOU WARNED COUNSEL ABOUT THAT. THE COURT: BUT I DON'T HAVE A JURY HERE. MR. COCHRAN: STILL BREAKING RULES, BAD HABITS, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: THAT'S TRUE. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: NOW, WITH REGARD TO THIS WHITE BRONCO THAT YOU SAID WAS PARKED A LITTLE BIT ASKEW, HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THAT BRONCO BEFORE THAT PARTICULAR DAY? A: A LONG TIME. Q: OKAY. AND IF YOU WERE TO -- IF THE COURT -- CAN YOU SEE THIS DEFENDANT'S 1045 HERE? CAN YOU SEE THAT FROM WHERE YOU ARE? A: YES. Q: AND IF YOU NEED TO PUT YOUR GLASSES ON, WHY DON'T YOU DO THAT. A: NO. Q: ALL RIGHT. CAN YOU TELL US OR STEP DOWN AND SHOW US, SHOW THE COURT IN WHICH DIRECTION -- A: CAN YOU -- DO YOU GIVE ME PERMISSION, SIR? THE COURT: YES. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. A: IT WAS OVER HERE, RIGHT HERE (INDICATING). MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, SHE'S INDICATING AN AREA RIGHT INSIDE THE GATE. THE COURT: YES. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: IN WHICH DIRECTION WAS THE BRONCO HEADED, IF YOU CAN SHOW US? WHICH WAY WAS THE BRONCO HEADED? A: UP ROCKINGHAM WAY. Q: UP ROCKINGHAM WAY? MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE, IF THE COURT PLEASES, TO ASK QUESTIONS REGARDING 62-A. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: CAN YOU SEE FROM WHERE YOU ARE ON WHAT'S BEEN MARKED PLAINTIFF'S 62-A AND B? A: NO. NOT VERY WELL. Q: ALL RIGHT. CAN YOU PUT YOUR GLASSES ON, STEP DOWN? A: YES, BUT I HAVE TO GO DOWN, SIR. THE COURT: YES, YOU MAY. THE WITNESS: THANK YOU. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: I WANT YOU, FIRST OF ALL, TO LOOK AT 62-A. CAN YOU LOOK AT 62-A HERE? A: YES. Q: DOES THAT PHOTOGRAPH APPEAR TO YOU TO REFLECT THE WAY THE BRONCO WAS PARKED ABOUT 8:15 ON JUNE 12TH, 1994? MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, THAT'S LEADING. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. SUSTAINED. THE QUESTION IS, WHAT DOES THIS DEPICT. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WHAT DOES 62-A DEPICT TO YOU? A: THE CAR IS PARKED CROOKED. Q: ALL RIGHT. WOULD YOU LOOK AT 62-B? A: THE SAME. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WOULD YOU LOOK AT 62-D? A: THIS ONE? Q: YES. A: YES. Q: AND THEN LOOK AT 62-E. A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU MAY RESUME THE STAND. A: OKAY. THANK YOU. Q: NOW, MISS LOPEZ, WHEN YOU WERE LOOKING AT THE VEHICLE ON THAT PARTICULAR NIGHT, IS THAT THE WAY THE VEHICLE APPEARED TO YOU? MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. VAGUE AS TO TIME. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: YES, SIR. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. NOW, AFTER YOU SAW THIS WHITE BRONCO PARKED AS YOU'VE DESCRIBED -- THE COURT: EXCUSE ME, MR. COCHRAN. BEFORE YOU GO ANY FURTHER, MR. PAVELIC JUST CAME IN. I ASKED HIM -- I ASKED THE BAILIFFS TO ASK HIM TO REMAIN OUTSIDE. MR. COCHRAN: FINE, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: TELL US WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THAT. A: I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND, SIR. Q: OKAY. I'M SORRY. AFTER YOU SAW THE BRONCO AS YOU'VE DESCRIBED IT HERE, TELL US WHAT YOU DID NEXT, IF ANYTHING. A: I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ASK. Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU WERE OUT -- WHERE WERE YOU WHEN YOU SAW THE BRONCO? A: ON THE STREET. Q: ALL RIGHT. DID THERE COME A TIME WHEN YOU LEFT THE STREET AND WENT SOMEPLACE ELSE? A: TO MY ROOM. Q: AND THAT'S BACK TO THE SAME ROOM YOU DESCRIBED ON 1044 THERE? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW AFTER -- AFTER THAT, AFTER YOU WENT BACK TO YOUR ROOM, TELL US WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THAT, IF YOU RECALL. A: AFTER I WENT BACK TO MY ROOM? Q: YES. AFTER YOU WENT BACK TO YOUR ROOM. A: I STARTED TO WATCH TELEVISION. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND AFTER YOU WATCHED TELEVISION FOR A WHILE, DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO GO BACK OUTSIDE AT ANY TIME AFTER THAT? DO YOU RECALL? MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. IT'S LEADING. SHE SAID SHE ONLY WATCHED FOR AWHILE. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: I WENT OUTSIDE A LITTLE AFTER 10:00. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. NOW, BEFORE YOU WENT OUTSIDE AT 10:00 O'CLOCK, DID YOU -- BEFORE YOU WENT BACK OUTSIDE AFTER 10:00 O'CLOCK, DID YOU EVER HEAR ANYTHING OR SEE ANYTHING IN OR AROUND MR. SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE AFTER YOU WENT BACK TO YOUR ROOM AFTER 8:15? MR. DARDEN: THAT'S LEADING, YOUR HONOR. MR. COCHRAN: NO, IT'S NOT. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE INTERPRETER: I DIDN'T HEAR THE RULING OF THE COURT. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE INTERPRETER: OVERRULED? I AM SORRY. CAN I -- THE COURT: BEFORE YOU WENT BACK OUTSIDE AT 10:00 O'CLOCK, DID YOU HEAR -- EVER HEAR ANYTHING OR SEE ANYTHING AROUND MR. SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE? THE WITNESS: AT 10:00 AT NIGHT? THE COURT: AT ANY TIME AFTER YOU WENT BACK TO YOUR BEDROOM. THE WITNESS: A LITTLE -- AROUND 9:00, A LITTLE AFTER 9:00, I SAW MR. SIMPSON THAT LEFT IN THE BLACK CAR WITH ANOTHER PASSENGER. I DON'T KNOW WHO. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. AND DID YOU SEE WHERE MR. SIMPSON WENT AFTER 9:00 O'CLOCK IN THIS BLACK CAR? A: HE WAS GOING DOWN ROCKINGHAM LIKE LOOKING FOR SUNSET. Q: ALL RIGHT. WHICH DIRECTION WOULD THAT BE IF HE CAME -- WHICH GATE -- STRIKE THAT. WHICH GATE DID HE COME OUT OF? A: THE ROCKINGHAM. Q: AND DID YOU SEE WHAT GATE -- WHICH WAY HE TURNED ON ROCKINGHAM? A: TO THE LEFT. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND DID YOU LOSE SIGHT OF HIM AT THAT POINT? A: YES, BECAUSE HE WENT DOWN THE STREET. Q: AND THE PASSENGER WHO WAS IN HIS CAR, DO YOU KNOW WHO THAT PASSENGER WAS? A: NO, I DIDN'T SEE IT. Q: AND WAS THAT -- A: I DIDN'T SEE HIM. Q: OKAY. WAS THAT -- I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU, WAS THAT A MAN OR A WOMAN? A: I DIDN'T SEE IT. I JUST SAW THE BLOND HAIR OR YELLOW HAIR. Q: BLOND HAIR? A: BLOND. Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, AFTER THIS HAPPENED, DID ANYTHING ELSE HAPPEN AFTER THAT THAT WAS OF AN UNUSUAL NATURE? MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. THAT'S LEADING. THE COURT: OVERRULED. ANYTHING ATTRACT YOUR ATTENTION. MR. COCHRAN: I'LL RESTATE THE QUESTION. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AFTER THAT, DID ANYTHING ELSE ATTRACT YOUR ATTENTION? A: WELL, AROUND 9:30 OR BEFORE, I HEARD STEPS AND I WAS IN MY BEDROOM AND I DON'T KNOW WHICH WAY THEY WERE GOING. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WERE ON THE SALINGER'S SIDE OF THE PROPERTY OR ON MR. SIMPSON'S. Q: AND CAN YOU DESCRIBE FOR THE COURT THESE STEPS, HOW THEY SOUNDED? A: LIKE JUST A REGULAR SHOE, SHOES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND DID YOU -- WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE ANYONE WALKING EITHER ON THE SALINGER'S PROPERTY OR MR. SIMPSON'S PROPERTY? A: NO. Q: AND WHAT DID YOU DO WHEN YOU HEARD THESE FOOTSTEPS? MR. DARDEN: THIS MUST BE NONRESPONSIVE. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. HOLD ON. MADAME INTERPRETER, DID YOU CATCH MOST OF THAT? THE INTERPRETER: YES. THE WITNESS: I WAS AFRAID BECAUSE AT THAT TIME, THE SALINGER'S DIDN'T HAVE A FENCE OR BLOCK WALL OVER THERE, AND I -- I WENT BACK REALLY FAST INSIDE TO MY BEDROOM AND I -- I WAS -- I DUCKED DOWN LIKE THIS BECAUSE I WAS REALLY AFRAID AND THEN I CAME BACK UP (INDICATING). Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. WHEN YOU SAY YOU DUCKED DOWN -- MR. DARDEN: MOTION TO STRIKE. THAT'S NONRESPONSIVE. THE COURT: NO. THE QUESTION WAS, "WHAT DID YOU DO?" "I WAS AFRAID. I LOOKED DOWN AND I DUCKED DOWN." THAT IS RESPONSIVE TO THE QUESTION. NEXT QUESTION. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DESCRIBE FOR THE COURT HOW YOU DUCKED DOWN, WHERE YOU WERE. A: I BENT OVER A LITTLE BIT LIKE THIS, YOUR HONOR (INDICATING), AND I CLOSED THE WINDOW WITH MY HAND VERY, VERY SLOWLY SO NOT TO MAKE ANY NOISE SO THAT THEY WOULDN'T HEAR ME. NO WINDOW (IN ENGLISH). THE CURTAIN. Q: ALL RIGHT. IS THERE A WINDOW -- IN THE PLACE WHERE YOU LIVE IN THE SALINGER'S HOME, IS THERE A WINDOW THAT FACES OUT ON MR. SIMPSON'S PROPERTY? A: WELL, I SEE IT FROM MY BEDROOM WINDOW, BUT IT'S ON THE SIDE. Q: AND WHICH SIDE DOES THAT WINDOW FACE, IF YOU RECALL? A: TO THE SIDE WHERE THE -- MR. SIMPSON'S GATE IS ON ROCKINGHAM. Q: CAN YOU LOOK AGAIN, USE YOUR GLASSES, AND LOOK AT THE MONITOR THERE? CAN YOU SEE THAT WINDOW NEAR THE ARROW WHERE YOU LIVE? A: YES. Q: AND WHICH WINDOW IS THAT? THE ONE DISPLAYED THERE BY THE ARROW? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, AFTER YOU DUCKED DOWN AND YOU WERE AFRAID, WHAT ELSE HAPPENED? WHAT HAPPENED NEXT? A: I HEARD AGAIN THAT A CAR CAME BY AND I HEARD WHEN THEY SHUT THE DOOR AND I HEARD THAT MR. SIMPSON TALKED TO SOMEBODY FOR A FEW SECONDS? Q: ALL RIGHT. AND DID YOU RECOGNIZE MR. SIMPSON'S VOICE? MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. THE WITNESS: YES. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: HAD YOU HEARD HIS VOICE -- MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. MOTION TO STRIKE. NO FOUNDATION. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. LET'S GO BACK. NO FOUNDATION. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: BEFORE THIS DATE OF JUNE 12TH OF 1994, HAD YOU EVER HEARD MR. SIMPSON'S VOICE BEFORE? A: MANY TIMES, BECAUSE HE PLAYED WITH HIS CHILDREN IN THE YARD WITH NICOLE AND THEY TALKED IN THE YARD. Q: AND SO DID YOU HEAR MR. SIMPSON'S VOICE WHEN THIS CAR CAME BACK AS YOU'VE DESCRIBED? A: YES. Q: AND DID YOU RECOGNIZE THAT VOICE? A: YES. Q: AND WHERE WERE YOU WHEN YOU HEARD MR. SIMPSON'S VOICE? A: IN MY BEDROOM. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND DO YOU KNOW ABOUT WHAT TIME OF EVENING THAT WAS AT THAT TIME? A: MORE OR LESS 15 TO 10:00 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. Q: NOW, BEFORE THAT, DID YOU EVER HEAR THESE FOOTSTEPS ANYMORE THAT YOU'VE DESCRIBED FOR US EARLIER? A: NO. Q: WERE YOU STILL AFRAID AFTER YOU HEARD MR. SIMPSON'S VOICE? A: NO. NO. I FELT SAFER WHEN I FELT THAT HE CAME BACK. Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW AFTER THAT, WHAT NEXT HAPPENED AFTER THAT, AFTER YOU HEARD MR. SIMPSON'S VOICE, IF YOU RECALL? A: WELL, BY THEN, IT WAS 10:00 AND I HAD TO TAKE THE DOG BACK OUTSIDE. Q: IS THIS THE GOLDEN RETRIEVER THAT YOU'VE DESCRIBED FOR US? A: YES, SIR. Q: AND CAN YOU DESCRIBE FOR THE COURT AGAIN WHERE YOU TOOK THE DOG ON THIS OCCASION? A: I TOOK HER IN FRONT OF ROCKINGHAM. Q: WERE YOU -- WAS THERE A GATE ON THE SALINGER'S PROPERTY IN FRONT OF ROCKINGHAM? A: NO. Q: AND CAN YOU DESCRIBE FOR US WHERE YOU TOOK THE DOG ON THIS OCCASION? AND IF YOU WANT TO REFER TO THE MONITOR, YOU CAN SHOW US ON THAT. A: I WOULD HAVE TO STAND, YOUR HONOR, BECAUSE -- THE COURT: SURE. MR. COCHRAN: I'LL TAKE THIS DOWN, YOUR HONOR, AND WE'LL REFER TO 1045, IF THE COURT PLEASES. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: CAN YOU POINT OUT FOR THE COURT -- A: RIGHT HERE. THERE'S A BIG TREE RIGHT HERE AND HERE, AND OVER HERE. THE DOG WALKED ALL OVER THIS AREA (INDICATING). THE COURT: INDICATING THE FRONT LAWN AREA OF THAT RESIDENCE. MR. COCHRAN: OF 1045 SOUTH -- THE COURT: YES. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: NOW, I WANT TO ASK YOU, WERE YOU WEARING A WATCH AT THIS POINT AT ALL? A: NO, SIR. Q: AND YOU DESCRIBED THIS AS BEING SOMEWHERE AROUND 10:00 O'CLOCK. HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT? A: I SAID A LITTLE AFTER 10:00 BECAUSE I SAW THE CLOCK IN MY BEDROOM, AND IT WAS 10:00. Q: ALL RIGHT. AFTER YOU SAW THE CLOCK IN YOUR BEDROOM, DID YOU DO ANYTHING INSIDE THE HOUSE BEFORE YOU CAME OUTSIDE? A: YES, SIR. Q: CAN YOU DESCRIBE FOR US WHAT THINGS YOU DID BEFORE YOU CAME OUTSIDE? AND TELL US EACH THING THAT YOU DID. A: I PUT A LITTLE BIT OF WATER TO BOIL FOR SOME TEA. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND AFTER YOU DID THAT -- DID YOU DRINK THE TEA AT THAT POINT? A: NO. Q: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU DO ANYTHING ELSE INSIDE THE HOUSE BEFORE YOU WENT OUTSIDE? A: I TOOK OFF THIS COLLAR THAT THEY PUT ON THE DOG BECAUSE SHE BITES HERSELF. AND I LOOKED FOR THE LEASH AND I PUT THE LEASH ON THE DOG AND I WENT OUTSIDE. Q: WHEN YOU SAID THE DOG WOULD BITE ITSELF OR YOU MADE A MOTION WITH YOUR HANDS, CAN YOU DESCRIBE WHAT THE DOG WOULD DO AND WHY THE DOG HAD THIS COLLAR ON? A: THE GENTLEMAN SAYS THAT SHE HAS ALLERGIES AND SHE BITES HERSELF ALL OVER WHEN THEY TAKE AWAY THAT COLLAR. Q: ALL RIGHT. SO YOU TOOK THIS COLLAR OFF BEFORE YOU WENT OUTSIDE? A: YES, SIR. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THEN YOU DESCRIBED FOR US THAT YOU FOUND THE LEASH. AND CAN YOU TELL US WHERE YOU FOUND THIS LEASH, WHERE THE LEASH WAS? A: YES. Q: AND WHAT, IF ANYTHING, DID YOU DO WITH THE LEASH? A: I PUT IT ON THE DOG AND I TAKE HER OUT. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU'VE DESCRIBED FOR US THE AREA WHERE YOU WENT WHEN YOU TOOK THE DOG OUT. DID YOU -- DO YOU RECALL -- STRIKE THAT. WHEN YOU WENT OUTSIDE WITH THE DOG AFTER LEAVING YOUR ROOM, DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO LOOK AT THE STREET ON ROCKINGHAM STREET? A: YES. THE INTERPRETER: YOUR HONOR, CAN I INQUIRE? I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND. THE COURT: YES, YOU MAY. THE WITNESS: OH, YOU COULD SEE THE STREET JUST FINE. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AND YOU COULD SEE ROCKINGHAM FROM THE LOCATION YOU DESCRIBED FOR US IN THE SALINGER'S YARD; IS THAT CORRECT? MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. LEADING. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WELL, HOW -- WHERE WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE THE STREET FROM? A: WHERE THE DOG WAS CLOSE TO THE TREE. Q: AND WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE THIS BRONCO VEHICLE? A: YES. MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. THE ANSWER IS STRICKEN. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE ANY CARS PARKED OUT THERE ON ROCKINGHAM THERE? A: YES. Q: AND WHAT CAR DID YOU SEE PARKED OUT THERE, IF ANY? MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: THE BRONCO. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AND IF I WERE TO SHOW YOU AGAIN 62-A, ET CETERA, PLACE IT BACK UP HERE -- MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. NO FOUNDATION. OBJECTION. THIS IS LEADING. MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, WAIT A MINUTE. MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. FOUNDATION. OBJECTION. THIS IS LEADING. MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR -- MR. DARDEN: SAVES US SOME -- MR. COCHRAN: IT'S SAD, YOUR HONOR. IT'S SAD. WHICH OF THE TWO ARE WE GOING TO HAVE? BOTH OF THEM? MS. CLARK: IT'S MAGIC. HIS LIPS NEVER MOVED. THE COURT: I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE EITHER SHORTLY. MS. CLARK: SORRY, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: TWICE IN THE SAME SESSION, COUNSEL. MR. DARDEN: I HAVE A RIGHT TO OBJECT, CORRECT, YOUR HONOR? I WOULD LIKE TO ASSERT THIS RIGHT NOW. NO FOUNDATION. IT'S LEADING. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WITH REGARD TO -- THE COURT: ON THE FOUNDATIONAL PART OF IT. MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WHEN YOU LOOKED AND YOU SAW THIS BRONCO, CAN YOU TELL THE COURT WHETHER OR NOT THE BRONCO APPEARED TO BE PARKED IN THE SAME WAY IT WAS PARKED WHEN YOU SAW IT AT 8:15 THAT NIGHT? MR. DARDEN: IT'S LEADING, YOUR HONOR. OBJECTION. THE COURT: OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION. THE WITNESS: YES, YOUR HONOR. MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. AND, YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW 62-A AT THIS POINT. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED 62-A, B, D AND E. AND I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO LOOK IF YOU CAN SEE THOSE, STEP DOWN WITH THE COURT'S PERMISSION. THE COURT: YES. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AND AGAIN, I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO LOOK -- WHEN YOU SAW THIS BRONCO VEHICLE PARKED AT THE CURB AT ROCKINGHAM, DID IT APPEAR AS IT APPEARS THERE IN THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS 62-A, B, DID AND E WHEN YOU SAW IT AFTER 10:00 CLOCK ON JUNE 12TH, 1994? MR. DARDEN: LEADING, YOUR HONOR. OBJECTION. THE COURT: OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION. THE WITNESS: YES, SIR. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU MAY RESUME YOUR SEAT. NOW, MISS LOPEZ, IF YOU KNOW, ABOUT HOW LONG WERE YOU OUTSIDE WITH THE DOG BEFORE YOU NEXT WENT SOMEPLACE ELSE? A: A VERY SHORT TIME. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU WATCHED THE DOG AND YOU HAD HIM ON A LEASH DURING THIS PERIOD OF TIME, DID YOU? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHEN YOU LEFT -- AT THAT POINT, DID YOU GO SOMEPLACE ELSE? A: NO. I WENT BACK INSIDE MY HOUSE. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHEN YOU LEFT TO GO BACK INSIDE YOUR HOUSE, WAS THE BRONCO STILL PARKED AT THE CURB THE SAME WAY YOU HAD SEEN IT EARLIER? MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: YES. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AND THEN YOU WENT BACK INSIDE YOUR HOUSE, AND WHERE DID YOU GO AT THAT POINT INSIDE THE HOUSE? A: TO MY BEDROOM. Q: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU GO TO YOUR BEDROOM AT THAT POINT? MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. ASKED AND ANSWERED. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: I PUT THE COLLAR BACK ON THE DOG, I TAKE OFF THE LEASH AND I LEAVE HER THERE AND THEN I JUST GO BACK INTO MY BEDROOM. MR. DARDEN: NONRESPONSIVE, YOUR HONOR. MOTION TO STRIKE. THE COURT: OVERRULED. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AND AFTER YOU DID THIS AND YOU WENT TO YOUR BEDROOM, WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THAT? WHAT DID YOU NEXT DO? MR. DARDEN: ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE. IT'S LEADING. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: WATCHED T.V. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU KNOW ABOUT HOW LONG YOU WATCHED TELEVISION BEFORE SOMETHING ELSE HAPPENED? MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. ASSUMES SOMETHING ELSE HAPPENED. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION. MR. COCHRAN: CERTAINLY, YOUR HONOR. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU WATCH TELEVISION FOR A PERIOD OF TIME? A: YES. Q: AND DO YOU KNOW ABOUT HOW LONG YOU WATCHED TELEVISION? A: NO. Q: ALL RIGHT. AT SOME POINT LATER THAT EVENING, DID YOU EVER HEAR ANY MORE VOICES? MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. IT'S LEADING, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. DID ANYTHING ELSE ATTRACT YOUR ATTENTION. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. DID ANYTHING ELSE ATTRACT YOUR ATTENTION -- MR. COCHRAN: SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD QUESTION TO ME. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DID ANYTHING ELSE ATTRACT YOUR ATTENTION LATER THAT EVENING? A: YES. Q: AND DO YOU KNOW WHEN THAT WAS, APPROXIMATELY WHEN THAT WAS, MA'AM? A: ABOUT 11:00 P.M., I HEARD THE VOICE AND I COULDN'T DISTINGUISH WHAT MR. SIMPSON WAS SAYING. BUT I HEARD THE VOICE, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT HE SAID. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHERE WERE YOU WHEN YOU -- MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THAT'S NONRESPONSIVE. MR. COCHRAN: IT'S RESPONSIVE. MR. DARDEN: HE ASKED WHEN THAT WAS, APPROXIMATE TIME. MR. COCHRAN: SHE SAID 11:00 O'CLOCK. MR. DARDEN: I THINK WE HAVE FOUR LINES OF DIALOGUE AFTER THAT. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. MR. COCHRAN: WHAT PORTION, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: IT'S STRICKEN, THE PART THAT'S NOT RESPONSIVE AFTER 11:00 O'CLOCK. WHEN WAS THAT, THEN WHAT WAS THAT. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AT 11:00 O'CLOCK, YOU HEARD SOME CONVERSATION. WILL YOU TELL US WHAT WAS THAT THAT YOU HEARD AT THAT POINT? A: I DIDN'T HEARD WHAT WAS SAID. I JUST HEARD THAT THEY TALKED. Q: AND YOU HEARD MR. SIMPSON'S VOICE, DID YOU? A: YES. Q: DID YOU RECOGNIZE ANY OTHER VOICES THAT YOU HEARD THAT NIGHT AT THAT TIME? A: NO. NO. Q: ALL RIGHT. WHAT HAPPENED AFTER YOU HEARD MR. SIMPSON'S VOICE? WHAT HAPPENED NEXT? A: THEN EVERYTHING WAS QUIET. Q: AND AFTER EVERYTHING WAS QUIET, WHERE WERE YOU INSIDE YOUR HOUSE, INSIDE THE SALINGER'S HOUSE? A: AT THAT TIME, I'M ALWAYS IN MY BEDROOM ALL THE TIME. Q: NOW, AFTER THAT, DID SOMETHING ELSE DRAW YOUR ATTENTION AFTER YOU HAD HEARD MR. SIMPSON'S VOICE AND AFTER A PERIOD OF TIME PASSED? MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THE WITNESS HAS TESTIFIED THAT EVERYTHING WAS QUIET AFTER. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DID THERE COME A TIME WHEN THINGS WEREN'T QUIET IN AND AROUND THE -- YOUR RESIDENCE OR MR. SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE? MR. DARDEN: THAT'S LEADING, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: OVERRULED. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DID THERE COME A TIME? A: ABOUT 12:00 MIDNIGHT, I HEARD THAT -- MEN THAT WERE TALKING ON THE ROCKINGHAM SIDE AND HIS DOG, I DON'T KNOW WHAT HIS NAME IS, THAT IT'S A BLACK DOG WAS BARKING A LOT. Q: WHAT TIME WAS THIS? A: ABOUT 12:00 MIDNIGHT. Q: AND DO YOU KNOW THAT DOG'S NAME? A: NO, SIR. Q: IS THAT MR. SIMPSON'S DOG? MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THE WITNESS: YES, SIR. MR. DARDEN: HOW DOES SHE KNOW MR. SIMPSON'S DOG? MR. COCHRAN: SHE LIVED NEXT DOOR FOR THREE YEARS. SO I THINK SHE PROBABLY -- MS. CLARK: I AM SORRY, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE ANSWER WILL STAND. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU HEARD THE DOG BARKING? A: HE BARKED AND HE CRIED, SIR. Q: AND HOW LONG DID YOU HEAR THIS DOG BARKING, IF YOU RECALL? A: ABOUT A QUARTER TO 1:00, ABOUT 15 TO 1:00. Q: AND THESE VOICES THAT YOU HAD HEARD THAT YOU SAID WERE NEAR ROCKINGHAM, HOW LONG DID THOSE VOICES CONTINUE? A: I DIDN'T PAY ATTENTION BECAUSE I WASN'T INTERESTED IN -- IN -- I'M NOT INTERESTED IN WATCHING THE TIME. I DIDN'T SEE THE CLOCK. MAYBE 12:30, 12:40. I DON'T -- I DON'T KNOW. Q: ALL RIGHT. SO TO BE CLEAR, YOU FIRST HEARD THE VOICES ABOUT MIDNIGHT? MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, WE ARE CLEAR. THIS IS LEADING. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: YES. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AND TO THE BEST OF YOUR RECOLLECTION, WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU HEARD THESE VOICES ON THIS EARLY MORNING? A: AROUND 12:30 I THINK. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND AT THE TIME THAT YOU LAST HEARD THESE VOICES ABOUT 12:30, DO YOU RECALL WHETHER OR NOT THE DOG WAS STILL BARKING DURING THIS TIME? A: YES. Q: AND CAN YOU TELL US WHETHER OR NOT YOU EVER SAW ANY PERSONS OUTSIDE NEAR ROCKINGHAM WHEN YOU HEARD THESE VOICES? A: I WAS VERY SCARED AND I WASN'T ABOUT TO OPEN MY WINDOW WHEN I FIRST HEARD THE STEPS, THE FOOTSTEPS. I DON'T -- Q: YOU DIDN'T HEAR -- MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. THAT'S NONRESPONSIVE, YOUR HONOR. MOTION TO STRIKE. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REASK THE QUESTION. THE ANSWER IS STRICKEN. MR. COCHRAN: CERTAINLY. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU EVER -- WHEN YOU HEARD THESE MEN'S VOICES ABOUT 12:00 MIDNIGHT, DID YOU EVER LOOK OUTSIDE AND SEE ANY MEN OUTSIDE NEAR ROCKINGHAM? MR. DARDEN: IT'S COMPOUND. THE COURT: ASSUMES THAT IT'S MEN TOO. MR. COCHRAN: I THOUGHT SHE SAID MEN. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WHEN YOU HEARD THESE VOICES OUTSIDE, DID YOU EVER LOOK OUTSIDE AND SEE ANYONE? A: NO. Q: DID YOU EVER LOOK OUTSIDE AND SEE THE DOG AT ANY TIME AFTER YOU HEARD THE DOG START TO BARK? A: NO, BECAUSE I HAD MY CURTAINS CLOSED. I DON'T LOOK OUTSIDE. Q: ALL RIGHT. CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT HOW LONG THE DOG CONTINUED TO BARK, IF YOU KNOW? MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS ASKED AND ANSWERED. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: FOR A LONG TIME, SIR. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. NOW, DID YOU CONTINUE TO REMAIN AWAKE DURING THIS PERIOD OF TIME OR DID YOU FALL ASLEEP OR WHAT HAPPENED? A: I -- I FELL ASLEEP LATER. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND CAN YOU TELL THE COURT WHAT TIME IT WAS THAT YOU FELL ASLEEP THAT PARTICULAR NIGHT? A: I DIDN'T SEE THE CLOCK, WHAT TIME I FELL ASLEEP. Q: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT TIME IT WAS WHEN YOU FELL ASLEEP AT ALL? MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. ASKED AND ANSWERED. THE COURT: OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER. THE WITNESS: ABOUT 2:00 IN THE MORNING, 2:00 A.M. I THINK. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. YOU WEREN'T LOOKING AT YOUR CLOCK AT THAT POINT? A: NO, SIR. Q: ALL RIGHT. WHEN YOU FELL ASLEEP, DO YOU REMEMBER WHETHER OR NOT THE -- THERE WAS ANY NOISE FROM THE DOG BARKING AT 360 ROCKINGHAM JUST BEFORE YOU FELL ASLEEP, IF YOU REMEMBER? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, AFTER YOU FELL ASLEEP SOMETIME AFTER 2:00 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING, DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT TIME YOU WOKE UP ON MONDAY, JUNE 13TH, 1994? A: I GOT UP ABOUT 8:00 IN THE MORNING BECAUSE THE GARDENERS CAME. THAT'S WHAT TIME THE GARDENERS COME. Q: AND DO THE GARDENERS COME -- DO THEY COME EVERY MONDAY AT THAT TIME BACK IN JUNE OF 1994? A: THEY -- THEY COME 15 MINUTES EARLIER OR LATER, AND -- BUT THEY'RE THERE AT 8:00 O'CLOCK AND THEY MAKE A LOT OF NOISE WITH THE BLOWER. Q: AND THE BLOWER SOUND AWAKENED YOU; IS THAT CORRECT? A: NO. WELL, I GOT UP, YOU SEE, BECAUSE THE GARDENERS WERE ALREADY THERE. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND AFTER YOU GOT UP, DID SOMEONE COME TO YOUR DOOR AT SOME POINT THAT MORNING? MR. DARDEN: THIS IS LEADING, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: SOMEBODY RANG THE DOORBELL. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AND THIS -- THE DOORBELL THIS PERSON RANG, DO YOU KNOW OR CAN YOU DESCRIBE FOR THE COURT WHERE THAT WAS IN RELATION TO YOUR -- WHERE YOU LIVED, THE PORTION OF THE HOUSE THAT YOU OCCUPIED IN THE SALINGER'S HOME? A: IT'S AT THE DOOR WHERE THE -- THE OWNERS OF THE HOUSE GO IN. Q: ALL RIGHT. ARE YOU ABLE -- IF YOU LOOK AT THE MONITOR AGAIN, ARE YOU ABLE TO FIND THAT DOOR AT ANYPLACE ON THE MONITOR THERE ON DEFENDANT'S 1044? A: THIS IS WAY TOO SMALL, SIR. I CAN'T SEE THAT. Q: ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. SO WHEN SOMEONE WAS AT THE DOOR, WHAT DID YOU DO? A: I OPENED THE DOOR. WELL, NO. EXCUSE ME. FIRST I ASKED WHO IS IT, WHO IS IT. Q: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU REMEMBER -- A: AND HE SAID, "I AM LOS ANGELES POLICE." Q: AND COULD YOU SEE -- A: "I AM A POLICEMAN FROM LOS ANGELES." Q: ALL RIGHT. COULD YOU SEE THIS PERSON AT THAT POINT? A: THEN I OPENED THE DOOR. Q: ALL RIGHT. WHEN YOU OPENED THE DOOR, WHAT DID YOU SEE, IF ANYTHING? DID YOU SEE A MALE OR FEMALE? A: A MALE. Q: AND AT THAT POINT, DID YOU HAVE SOME CONVERSATION WITH THIS PERSON? A: HE TOLD ME, "I'M DETECTIVE MIKE FUHRMAN." Q: WELL, JUST A MOMENT. DID HE SAY -- COULD YOU SAY THAT NAME AGAIN? A: I CAN'T PRONOUNCE IT VERY WELL. Q: ALL RIGHT. A: YOU CAN PRONOUNCE IT BETTER THAN I CAN. MR. COCHRAN: MAY WE APPROACH JUST A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR? (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) MR. COCHRAN: THE ONLY REASON I WANTED TO APPROACH THE BENCH, IT SEEMED TO ME SHE SAID MARK FUHRMAN. THE INTERPRETER SAID MIKE FUHRMAN. WE WERE LISTENING. SO I THINK -- THE COURT: THAT'S WHAT THE INTERPRETER SAID, BUT I THOUGHT THE WITNESS SAID "MARK." WHY DON'T YOU GO BACK AND CLARIFY THAT. MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. MR. DARDEN: ARE WE JUST KILLING TIME OR SOMETHING HERE OR WHAT? MR. COCHRAN: WE ARE KILLING TIME WITH ALL YOUR OBJECTIONS. THE COURT: HOW LATE DO YOU WANT TO GO? MR. DARDEN: JUDGE, IF YOU KNEW WHAT I KNEW, YOU WOULD JUST WANT TO GO ALL NIGHT ON THIS. BUT, YOU KNOW -- THE COURT: I'M PROBABLY GOING TO QUIT AT 4:30. MR. DARDEN: I'M HOPING MY INVESTIGATORS WILL GET IN HERE BECAUSE I MAY -- THE COURT: WHEN WE QUIT AT 4:30, WE'LL BRING PAVELIC IN AND PUT ON THE RECORD THAT EVERYTHING HAS BEEN TURNED OVER. MS. CLARK: WE ARE ASSUMING FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE. THE COURT: YES. AND WE KNOW -- MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE -- THE COURT: -- THEY'VE BEEN TWICE BURNED NOW. MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE, CAN I SAY SOMETHING? LET ME SAY SOMETHING. MS. CLARK: NO. PLEASE, NOT NOW. MR. COCHRAN: AFTER YOU MAKE THESE STATEMENTS, THEN YOU WANT TO WALK AWAY, AND I'M NOT GOING TO LET YOU DO THAT. THERE IS -- WHEN YOU HAVE I SUPPOSE EIGHT, NINE, 10 LAWYERS, YOU TRY TO MAKE SURE YOU GET EVERYTHING. THE COURT: LET'S NOT ARGUE THIS POINT NOW. MS. CLARK: AND I'M LESS THAN SYMPATHETIC. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. MRS. LOPEZ, WHEN THIS POLICE OFFICER IDENTIFIED HIMSELF TO YOU, CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT NAME HE GAVE YOU? THE WITNESS: MARK FRAMEMAN. HE TOLD ME MARK FRAMEMAN. THE COURT: THANK YOU. MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AND WHAT DID HE SAY TO YOU AFTER HE SAID HIS NAME WAS MARK FUHRMAN? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY. THE COURT: OVERRULED. MR. COCHRAN: COUNSEL -- THE COURT: MISS CLARK. MS. CLARK: I APOLOGIZE, YOUR HONOR. MR. DARDEN: I HAD MISS LEWIS IN THIS SITUATION, YOUR HONOR. THEY BOTH OBJECTED. MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, I'M WHISPERING IN HIS EAR. MR. DARDEN: THERE'S AN OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY. THE COURT: DOESN'T LOOK TERRIFIC. MR. COCHRAN, WOULD YOU CONTINUE, PLEASE. MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WHAT DID THIS INDIVIDUAL SAY TO YOU AFTER THAT, MA'AM? A: HE IDENTIFIED WITH A SMALL PLAQUE. MR. DARDEN: NOT RESPONSIVE, YOUR HONOR. MOTION TO STRIKE. MR. COCHRAN: IT'S RESPONSIVE, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: OVERRULED. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: HE IDENTIFIED WITH WHAT? A: WITH A THING -- HE IDENTIFIED HIMSELF WITH SOMETHING IN HIS HAND. Q: WAS IT A BADGE? MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. THAT'S LEADING. THE WITNESS: YES. MR. DARDEN: MOTION TO STRIKE. THE COURT: THAT WAS LEADING. MR. COCHRAN: WELL, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IT WAS. THE COURT: NO. YOU SAID WAS IT A BADGE. YOU CAN ASK HER TO DESCRIBE WHAT IT WAS. MR. DARDEN: IS IT STRICKEN? THE COURT: IT'S STRICKEN, BUT I KNOW WHAT THE NEXT QUESTION AND ANSWER IS GOING TO BE. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WOULD YOU DESCRIBE WHAT IT WAS THAT HE HAD IN HIS HAND? A: IT WAS LIKE A LITTLE -- LIKE WHEN ONE HAS A DRIVER'S LICENSE, LIKE SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THE INTERPRETER: YOUR HONOR, INTERPRETER'S COMMENT. THE COURT: YES. THE INTERPRETER: WHEN SHE SAID A LITTLE PLAQUETA, PERHAPS I SHOULD HAVE INTERPRETED A BADGE INSTEAD OF A SMALL -- THE COURT: WELL, PLAQUETA -- I HEARD THE WITNESS SAY PLAQUETA, AND WE CAN INVITE DR. REINARF FROM UCLA TO TELL US WHAT PLAQUETA IS. THANK YOU. WE'LL PROCEED. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: CAN YOU DESCRIBE THIS PLAQUETA ANYMORE FOR US? A: THAT IT HAD HIS NAME ON IT. Q: DID IT HAVE ANY PICTURES ON IT, PICTURES? A: I DIDN'T NOTICE. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND AFTER THAT, TELL US WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THAT. A: WELL, BECAUSE I CAN SEE -- I CAN SEE FINE OUTSIDE, BUT HE COULD NOT SEE ME WELL INSIDE. Q: AND WHAT HAPPENED? A: BECAUSE IT'S A METAL DOOR. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THEN DID SOMETHING HAPPEN WITH REGARD TO THAT? A: YES. HE TOLD ME, "LADY OR WOMAN, I DON'T SEE YOUR FACE." Q: AND THEN WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THAT? A: I SAID, "EXCUSE ME. I WILL OPEN THE DOOR FOR YOU RIGHT NOW." Q: ALL RIGHT. AND DID YOU OPEN THE DOOR AT THAT POINT? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND AFTER YOU OPENED THE DOOR, WHAT HAPPENED THEN? A: HE ASKED ME IF I WAS THE OWNER OF THE HOUSE. Q: AND WHAT DID YOU RESPOND? A: I SAID NO. Q: AND THEN WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THAT? A: I SAID, "I'M THE HOUSEKEEPER." AND HE SAID, "WHAT IS YOUR NAME?" Q: AND WHAT DID YOU SAY? A: I SAID ROSA LOPEZ. Q: ALL RIGHT. WHEN YOU WERE TALKING TO HIM, WAS HE WRITING ANY OF THIS DOWN? A: NO. Q: ALL RIGHT. AFTER YOU GAVE HIM -- AFTER YOU GAVE HIM YOUR NAME, WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THAT? A: HE ASKED ME FOR PERMISSION TO GO TO THE BACKSIDE OF THE HOUSE. Q: AND CAN YOU LOOK AGAIN AT THAT MONITOR OR YOU MIGHT HAVE TO STEP DOWN AND SHOW US -- STRIKE THAT. DID YOU GIVE HIM PERMISSION TO GO TO THE BACKSIDE OF THE HOUSE? A: YES, I DID, BECAUSE IT WAS THE POLICE. Q: AND DID HE LEAVE THE DOOR AND GO SOMEPLACE AT THAT POINT? A: HE WENT TO THE BACK OF THE HOUSE. Q: AND WOULD THE BACK OF THE HOUSE, WOULD THAT BE THE AREA IN WHICH YOU HAD WALKED THE DOG EARLIER IN THE EVENING, IN THE REAR PORTION OF THE SALINGER'S RESIDENCE? A: YES. Q: DID YOU GO BACK THERE WITH THIS MAN AT THAT POINT? A: NO. Q: DO YOU KNOW, IF YOU KNOW, WAS HE WITH ANYONE ELSE AT THIS POINT OR WAS HE BY HIMSELF IF YOU COULD TELL? A: HE WAS WITH ANOTHER PERSON. Q: WAS THAT A MALE OR A FEMALE? A: MALE. Q: AND WHERE WAS THIS -- WHERE WAS THIS MAN WHO WAS WITH HIM? A: HE SAID HE WAS ANOTHER POLICEMAN. Q: AND WHEN YOU GAVE THEM PERMISSION TO GO IN THE BACKYARD THERE, DID THEY LEAVE YOUR SIGHT AT SOME POINT? A: YES. WELL, THEY WENT TO THE BACK AND I DIDN'T FOLLOW THEM. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND DID -- AT SOME POINT THEREAFTER, DID THEY COME BACK, HAVE FURTHER CONVERSATION WITH YOU? MR. DARDEN: THAT'S LEADING, YOUR HONOR. MR. COCHRAN: SHE CAN ANSWER THAT YES OR NO. IT'S FOUNDATIONAL. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: THE FIRST MAN WHO KNOCKED ON MY DOOR CAME BACK. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. AND DID YOU HAVE A FURTHER CONVERSATION WITH HIM AT THAT POINT? A: YES. Q: CAN YOU TELL US WHAT YOU SAID AND WHAT HE SAID? A: HE SAID, "THANK YOU VERY MUCH," AND AT THAT TIME, I SAID -- AND THEN HE SAID TO ME, "TELL THE GARDENERS THAT IF ANYTHING STRANGE THAT THEY FIND IN THE YARD OR -- NOT TO TOUCH, CALL THE POLICE" (IN ENGLISH). Q: ALL RIGHT. DID HE SAY ANYTHING ELSE TO YOU AT THAT POINT? A: AFTER THAT, BECAUSE I HAD SEEN SO MANY POLICE OFFICERS AND SO MANY CAMERAS AND SO MANY THINGS, I ASKED, "WHAT HAPPENED? WHAT'S HAPPENING?" AND HE SAID, "SOMETHING HORRIBLE HAS HAPPENED ON THE OTHER SIDE." AND I ASKED HIM, "IS MR. SIMPSON DEAD OR WOUNDED," AND HE SAID NO. Q: AND WHAT HAPPENED THEN? A: AND THEN I SAID -- AND THEN HE SAID, "WHY?" "BECAUSE LAST NIGHT, VERY LATE, I HEARD VOICES. I HEARD MEN THAT WERE TALKING IN THE BACK OF THE YARD." Q: YOU TOLD THIS DETECTIVE THAT? A: YES, SIR. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHEN YOU TOLD HIM THAT, WHAT DID HE SAY, IF ANYTHING? A: AND HE ASKED ME IF I HAD HEARD A WOMAN SCREAMING OR SCREAMS OF A WOMAN AND VOICES, WOMEN VOICES. Q: AND WHAT DID YOU SAY, IF ANYTHING? A: I SAY -- I SAID NO, THEY WERE MEN. AND HE ASKED ME IF IT WAS MR. SIMPSON'S VOICE. Q: WHAT DID YOU SAY? A: I SAID NO, I DON'T KNOW. Q: AND THEN WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THAT? A: AND AFTER THAT, HE TOLD ME, "WE ARE GOING TO SEND THE POLICE SO THAT YOU CAN GIVE TESTIMONY TO THE POLICE." Q: AND AFTER HE TOLD YOU THAT, DID ANY POLICE OFFICER FROM THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT EVER COME OUT TO INTERVIEW YOU AFTER THAT? A: I'M STILL WAITING FOR THEM TELL HIM. Q: NOW, THIS INTERVIEW WITH THIS DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN, WHAT TIME OF MORNING WAS THAT, IF YOU RECALL? A: ABOUT 8:30. Q: AND THAT'S ON WHAT DATE? MONDAY, JUNE 13TH? A: JUNE THE 13TH, ON MONDAY. Q: AND WHILE YOU WERE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION WITH THIS GENTLEMAN, WERE THE GARDENERS STILL THERE AT THAT POINT? A: YES. Q: AT ANY POINT WHILE YOU WERE TALKING WITH THIS INDIVIDUAL, DID YOU EVER SEE HIM WRITE DOWN ANY NOTES OF ANY KIND? A: HE DIDN'T WRITE ANYTHING DOWN. Q: DID YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER CONVERSATION WITH HIM AFTER HE TOLD YOU THAT SOMEONE WOULD BE COMING TO INTERVIEW YOU FROM THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT? MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. THAT'S ASKED AND ANSWERED. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: THEY NEVER CAME BACK. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: NOW, YOU SAID THAT AT SOME POINT, YOU SAW POLICE OFFICERS IN AND AROUND THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE; IS THAT CORRECT? A: THERE WERE A LOT OF POLICE. Q: WERE THESE LIKE -- CAN YOU DESCRIBE THESE CARS? WERE THEY BLACK AND WHITE CARS? A: YES, AND THEN THE OTHER ONES THAT ARE ALL ONE COLOR TOO. Q: NOW, DID YOU EVER HAVE OCCASION ON MONDAY, JUNE 13TH TO GO OUT TO ROCKINGHAM AND SEE WHETHER OR NOT THERE WERE ANY VEHICLES PARKED OUT THERE AT THE CURB ON ROCKINGHAM NEAR MR. SIMPSON'S HOME? A: THERE WERE MANY CARS PARKED THERE, YES. Q: DID YOU SEE THE BRONCO AT ANY TIME THAT DAY? A: IT WAS STILL PARKED RIGHT THERE. Q: YOU SAY IT WAS STILL PARKED RIGHT THERE. IF YOU WERE TO LOOK WITH THE COURT'S PERMISSION AGAIN AT 62-A B, D AND E, WHEN YOU SAW THE BRONCO ON JUNE 13TH, 1994, WAS IT PARKED IN THE SAME WAY THAT YOU HAD SEEN IT THE NIGHT BEFORE AT 10:00 O'CLOCK? A: YES. MR. COCHRAN: MAY WE APPROACH, YOUR HONOR, WITH THE REPORTER? (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: WE'RE OVER AT THE SIDEBAR. MR. COCHRAN. MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE A FEW MORE QUESTIONS. IT'S ABOUT 4:30. THE POINT I WANTED TO MAKE WAS, WITH REGARD TO -- AS MR. DOUGLAS REPRESENTED -- AND I WANTED TO GET CLARIFICATION OF THE COURT'S RULING. I REFERRED TO THE AUGUST 18TH STATEMENT APPARENTLY TURNED OVER TO THE PROSECUTION. I'M NOT GOING INTO THINGS THAT HAPPENED JUNE 29TH, BUT YOU SAID SOMETHING ABOUT CROSS-EXAMINATION OR WHATEVER. SO I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS RELEVANT OR IMPORTANT TO HER OBSERVATION AND THINGS WE ARE TRYING TO GET OUT. SO I'M TRYING TO GET CLARIFICATION OF THAT. I WANT TO FIGURE OUT WHETHER OR NOT ON DIRECT I SHOULD GO INTO THAT. IS THE COURT PRECLUDING US OR NOT? I'M NOT CLEAR ON THAT. THE COURT: WHY DON'T WE TAKE A RECESS AS FAR AS THE WITNESS IS CONCERNED. LET ME READ MY NOTES HERE REAL QUICK. MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, IS THERE ANY CHANCE THE COURT WOULD ALLOW ME TO START CROSS-EXAMINATION IF ONLY FOR FIVE MINUTES? MR. COCHRAN: I'M NOT FINISHED. THE COURT: HE'S NOT DONE YET. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT I SHOULD ALLOW HIM TO GO INTO THE 7-29 STATEMENT AT THIS POINT. MS. CLARK: OUR REQUESTED SANCTION INCLUDED THAT. OBVIOUSLY IF WE GO INTO IT ON CROSS-EXAMINATION -- THAT WAS THE ISSUE I ARGUED THOUGH. THE COURT: UH-HUH. MS. CLARK: THAT WAS ONE OF THE SANCTIONS REQUESTED BY THE PEOPLE, THAT THEY NOT BE PERMITTED TO GO INTO IT ON DIRECT. THE COURT POINTED OUT TO US THAT IF WE GO INTO IT ON CROSS, THEY MAY HAVE THE RIGHT TO GO INTO IT ON REDIRECT. AND THAT'S TRUE. SO I THINK AT THIS TIME, IF THE COURT DID AGREE WITH THAT ASPECT OF THE SANCTION, THAT THIS SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED THEN, TO GO INTO IT ON DIRECT AT THIS POINT. THE COURT: ACTUALLY, WHAT I THINK I SAID, I DON'T NEED TO VISIT IT UNLESS AND UNTIL WE GET TO THE OFFER. MS. CLARK: THIS IS ALSO TRUE. MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SO HOW WOULD WE WORD IT AT THIS POINT? MS. CLARK: MY REQUEST WOULD BE THAT WE PRECLUDE COUNSEL FROM GOING INTO IT ON DIRECT AND THAT WE WILL SEE WHAT HAPPENS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION. THE COURT: HOW IS THAT A REASONABLE SANCTION? MS. CLARK: HOW IS THAT A REASONABLE -- THE COURT: SANCTION. YEAH. YOU'RE ASKING ME TO IMPOSE IT NOW. HOW IS THAT A REASONABLE SANCTION? MS. CLARK: BECAUSE OF THE LATE DISCOVERY, THEY SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM USING A STATEMENT AS PART OF A CONSISTENT STATEMENT TO BUTTRESS THIS WITNESS' CREDIBILITY, WHICH IS WHAT THEY WILL DO. THE COURT: NO. BUT IF YOU GO INTO IT ON CROSS-EXAMINATION -- MS. CLARK: THEN THAT'S A DIFFERENT STORY. THE COURT: YEAH. BUT SEE, WHEN YOU USE IT AS A PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT, IT ONLY COMES IN IF THERE'S BEEN PRIOR OR SUBSEQUENT INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS. SO THE SANCTION YOU'RE ASKING FOR IS REALLY MEANINGLESS. THE POINT I'M MAKING IS, THE SANCTION YOU'RE ASKING FOR APPEARS TO BE ILLOGICAL IF YOU INTEND ON GOING INTO THAT 7-29 CONVERSATION ON CROSS. MS. CLARK: I AGREE AND WE DON'T KNOW AT THIS TIME. THE COURT: WELL, WE ARE AT THE END OF THE COURT DAY. MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S WHY I APPROACHED THE BENCH. MS. CLARK: WELL, FIRST OF ALL, THE PEOPLE ALSO PRESENT AN ARGUMENT THAT IT IS NOT A PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT BECAUSE IT IS NOT MADE AT A POINT IN TIME BEFORE -- THE COURT: FORGIVE ME FOR INTERRUPTING YOU, BUT LET ME ASK MR. COCHRAN, WHERE DO YOU INTEND ON GOING WITH THIS? MR. COCHRAN: I WANTED TO WAIT, AS YOU SAID, UNTIL WE ACTUALLY CROSSED THAT BRIDGE AND I WANTED TO THINK ABOUT IT ALSO. AS I INDICATED TO THE COURT, FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THIS PARTICULAR WITNESS, WE HAVE NOT INTERVIEWED HER. ACTUALLY, HE HAVEN'T INTERVIEWED HER, WE DON'T HAVE ANY REPORTS FOR HER NOR DOES PAVELIC. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SYLVIA. AND I DON'T -- AS MR. DOUGLAS REPRESENTED, AT THIS POINT, I WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO THINK ABOUT THAT AND SEE IF THERE'S A POSSIBILITY I WON'T GO INTO IT. BUT I HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IT. THE COURT: OKAY. MR. DARDEN? MR. DARDEN: WHAT PLANS DO YOU HAVE FOR MISS LOPEZ TONIGHT? THE COURT: WELL, I AM GOING DO ASK COUNSEL TO MAKE THE SAME ARRANGEMENTS AS LAST NIGHT, AND WE WILL HAVE HER BACK HERE TOMORROW FRESH AND READY TO GO AT 9:00 O'CLOCK. MR. DARDEN: I'M CONCERNED THAT, YOU KNOW, THESE PLUSH ACCOMMODATIONS THAT ARE BEING PROVIDED FOR HER MIGHT INFLUENCE HER TESTIMONY. I DON'T SEE WHY COUNSEL CAN'T -- WELL, YOU'RE RICH. YOU'RE USED TO THIS, MR. BAILEY. I'M NOT AND SHE ISN'T EITHER. SO I DON'T KNOW WHY SHE HAS TO STAY -- MR. BAILEY: MAY THAT BE STRICKEN? THE COURT: NO, IT WON'T BE STRICKEN, BUT I'M NOT CONCERNED -- MR. DARDEN, I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT WHERE SHE'S STAYING. I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT SHE COMES BACK TOMORROW. MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I UNDERSTAND -- THIS IS REALLY -- YOU HAD SAID YOU WOULD PROVIDE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR HER. I SAID JUDGE, IT WILL BE EASIER, IF YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION, NO COMMENT ON IT, WE'LL TRY TO PROVIDE -- MAKE SURE SHE HAS ACCOMMODATIONS, SHE DOESN'T LEAVE. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE DID. NOW THEY'RE COMPLAINING ABOUT THAT. MR. DARDEN: SO I CAN'T OBJECT? FIRST OF ALL, I NEVER AGREED TO THAT. BUT I UNDERSTAND THE COURT'S POSITION ON THAT AND I'M NOT ARGUING ABOUT THAT. BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW, ........ IS A LITTLE EXCESSIVE, OKAY. THE COURT: WAIT TILL YOU SEE WHERE THE JURY IS. MR. DARDEN: BUT BEYOND THAT, I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT MAYBE WE SHOULD REQUIRE MISS LOPEZ TO POST A BOND. THE COURT: WELL, LET ME JUST MAKE AN OBSERVATION, MR. DARDEN. IF YOU START CRITICIZING A WITNESS IN FRONT OF THIS JURY ABOUT THE QUALITY OF THE HOTEL ACCOMMODATIONS, I THINK THAT ARGUMENT WILL FALL ON DEAF EARS. JUST A PRACTICAL COMMENT. MR. COCHRAN: AND YOU WILL RECALL, YOUR HONOR, THE REASON WHY SHE WAS MOVED. WE HAD HAD HER IN BELLE AGE, WHERE ALL EXPERTS STAY. THE REASON WE CHANGED, A CAMERA CREW HAD SPOTTED HER THAT MORNING. I THOUGHT OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION -- THE LAST THING SHE SAID WAS THAT SHE DIDN'T WANT TO BE CHASED BY PHOTOGRAPHERS. THIS IS MUCH TO DO ABOUT NOTHING AGAIN. THE COURT: WE'LL TAKE OUR RECESS THEN UNTIL TOMORROW MORNING, 9:00 O'CLOCK. I'M GOING TO HAVE THE JURY BROUGHT BACK AT 1:30 BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO FINISH THIS. MR. DARDEN: I NEED A WITNESS ORDERED BACK AND THE WITNESS IS ON THE WAY DOWN THE ELEVATOR RIGHT NOW. THE COURT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND, MR. COCHRAN, YOU'LL MAKE ARRANGEMENTS FOR ONE ADDITIONAL NIGHT? MR. COCHRAN: YES, I WILL. MR. DARDEN: I THINK YOU SHOULD BE DOING THIS. I MEAN -- MR. COCHRAN: IF HE WANTS TO DO IT -- MR. DARDEN ALWAYS MAKES ALL THESE THINGS -- I WANT YOU TO DECIDE. I WOULD LIKE YOU TO RULE ON IT. WOULD YOU PLEASE RULE ON IT SO WE DON'T HAVE TO HEAR A BUNCH -- MR. DARDEN: WILL THE COURT PUT SYLVIA UP WHEN WE NEED TO PUT HER UP OVER AT ........? THE COURT: WE'LL SEE. THANK YOU. (TEXT DELETED UPON ORDER OF THE COURT.) (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS LOPEZ, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, BACK ON THE RECORD. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE OUR RECESS FOR THE AFTERNOON AT THIS TIME. MISS LOPEZ, WE'RE NOT FINISHED YET. UNFORTUNATELY, THE OTHER SIDE STILL HAS TO ASK YOU QUESTIONS. MR. COCHRAN HAS NOT FINISHED ASKING YOU QUESTIONS. I'M GOING TO ORDER YOU TO COME BACK TOMORROW MORNING AT 9:00 O'CLOCK. MR. COCHRAN WILL MAKE ARRANGEMENTS FOR YOU FOR THE EVENING. COME BACK HERE TOMORROW MORNING AT 9:00 O'CLOCK. ALL RIGHT? THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. YOU MAY STEP DOWN. THE WITNESS: CAN I SAY SOMETHING? THE COURT: SURE. THE WITNESS: I HAVE MY TICKETS PURCHASED FOR TOMORROW AT 11:00 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT THAT GETS CHANGED. THE WITNESS: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY. I APPRECIATE IT. MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: YES. MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE HERE SYLVIA GUERRA, G-U-E-R-R-A. WOULD THE COURT KINDLY ORDER HER BACK FOR 9:00 CLOCK TOMORROW MORNING? THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS GUERRA, DO YOU UNDERSTAND ENGLISH? MS. GUERRA: YES. THE COURT: YOU ARE ORDERED TO RETURN HERE AT 9:00 O'CLOCK. THANK YOU, MA'AM. ALL RIGHT. MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, WOULD YOU ALSO ORDER MISS LOPEZ NOT TO DISCUSS HER TESTIMONY WITH ANYONE EXCEPT HER LAWYERS OR AGENTS? THE COURT: YES. I FORGOT TO ADVISE YOU, MISS LOPEZ, PLEASE DON'T DISCUSS YOUR TESTIMONY WITH ANY OTHER PERSON OTHER THAN THE ATTORNEYS IN THE CASE. THANK YOU, MA'AM. MR. DARDEN: CAN WE ORDER HER NOT TO CONTACT OR ATTEMPT TO CONTACT MISS GUERRA? THE COURT: NO. IT'S NOT NECESSARY. ALL RIGHT. MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S RIDICULOUS. MR. DARDEN: YOU WON'T THINK IT'S RIDICULOUS TOMORROW, MR. COCHRAN. THE COURT: MISS LOPEZ, YOU MAY STEP DOWN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MA'AM. AND, MR. COCHRAN, DID YOU FIND OUT THE TRAVEL ARRANGEMENTS? AND WE'LL HAVE TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS FOR THAT. MR. COCHRAN: OKAY, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: I'LL HAVE MY CLERK MAKE ADJUSTMENTS FOR US. LET'S HAVE MR. -- CAN WE HAVE MR. PAVELIC BROUGHT IN? MS. HAMBURGER, I'M GOING TO ORDER YOU TO RETURN TOMORROW MORNING AS WELL, 9:00 O'CLOCK, WITH CLIENT IN TOW. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MADAM INTERPRETER. MS. HAMBURGER, DO YOU WANT TO ESCORT YOUR CLIENT OUT? MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, DOES THE INTERPRETER NEED TO BE ORDERED BACK? THE COURT: YES. MADAM INTERPRETER, TOMORROW MORNING AT 9:00 O'CLOCK. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. CAN WE HAVE MR. PAVELIC, PLEASE. MS. CLARK: I GUESS WE DON'T NEED THE INTERPRETER FOR MR. PAVELIC. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. SHULMAN, THANK YOU. MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, ARE WE CONFINED TO THE STATEMENT AND NOTES OF ROSA LOPEZ? THE COURT: WELL, THAT'S WHAT I'M MOST INTERESTED IN AT THIS POINT. LET'S JUST KEEP THE INQUIRY DOWN SPECIFICALLY TO WHAT OUR 1335 THAT WE'RE IN THE MIDST OF RIGHT NOW, AND WE CAN MOVE ON TO OTHER THINGS AT ANOTHER TIME. WE ONLY TRY TO DO 53 THINGS AT A TIME HERE. MS. CLARK: ONLY. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. PAVELIC, GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR. WOULD YOU COME FORWARD. MR. PAVELIC, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT YOU'VE BEEN THE INVESTIGATOR FOR THE DEFENSE FOR THE PAST SEVERAL MONTHS, CORRECT? MR. PAVELIC: SINCE JUNE 14TH, YES, SIR. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY STATEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE OR ANY REPORTS OR ANY NOTES REGARDING THIS WITNESS ROSA LOPEZ, OTHER THAN THE TWO STATEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN TURNED OVER? MR. PAVELIC: OTHER THAN THE TWO STATEMENTS, NO. MS. CLARK: EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR. I WOULD ASK THESE STATEMENTS BE MADE UNDER OATH. HE'S NOT AN OFFICER OF THE COURT. THE COURT: WELL, HE IS HERE MAKING REPRESENTATIONS TO ME. DO YOU HAVE A LICENSE AS A PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR? MR. PAVELIC: I WORK UNDER A PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR'S LICENSE. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THEN I'LL HAVE TO HAVE HIM PUT UNDER OATH THEN. WILLIAM GEORGE PAVELIC, CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE DEFENSE, WAS SWORN AND TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS: THE CLERK: RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, PLEASE. YOU DO 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? MR. PAVELIC: I DO. THE CLERK: PLEASE STATE AND SPELL YOUR FIRST AND LAST NAMES FOR THE RECORD. THE COURT: NO. YOU CAN STAY RIGHT THERE. MR. PAVELIC, YOU CAN JUST STAY RIGHT THERE. MR. PAVELIC: WILLIAM GEORGE PAVELIC, P AS IN PAUL A-V AS IN VICTOR E-L-I-C AS IN CHARLES. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WITH REGARDS TO THE WITNESS ROSA LOPEZ, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT YOU CONDUCTED TWO INTERVIEWS OF HER? MR. PAVELIC: YES, SIR. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. AND WE NOW HAVE REPORTS THAT ARE DATED JULY 29TH AND WHAT IS IT, AUGUST THE 18TH? MR. PAVELIC: THAT'S ABOUT RIGHT. YES, SIR. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ARE THERE ANY OTHER NOTES WITH REGARDS TO INTERVIEWS OF ROSA LOPEZ? MR. PAVELIC: WHEN YOU SAY NOTES, I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN. THE COURT: ANY ROUGH NOTES, ANYTHING YOU WROTE DOWN, ANYTHING HANDWRITTEN? MR. PAVELIC: I MAY POSSIBLY HAVE SOME NOTES IN REGARDS TO THE STATEMENT I TOOK. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU HAVE ANY TAPE-RECORDINGS OF ANY STATEMENTS? MR. PAVELIC: I TAPE-RECORDED THE FIRST STATEMENT, WHICH WAS THE JULY STATEMENT. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. PAVELIC, WHERE ARE THESE NOTES AND TAPE RECORDINGS? MR. PAVELIC: I BELIEVE THAT IT'S EITHER IN THE OFFICE OR AT MY RESIDENCE. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. TOMORROW MORNING, I'M GOING TO ORDER YOU TO COME TO COURT WITH THOSE ITEMS. MR. PAVELIC: I SHOULD DO MY BEST TO GET THOSE ITEMS. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. NO. DON'T DO YOUR BEST. HAVE THEM HERE TOMORROW. MR. PAVELIC: I SHALL HAVE THEM HERE TOMORROW, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: THANK YOU. MR. PAVELIC: YOU'RE WELCOME. THE COURT: TOMORROW MORNING, 9:00 O'CLOCK. COUNSEL, WE WILL STAND IN RECESS. WE'LL TAKE THIS MATTER UP AT 9:00 O'CLOCK. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, ALL. (AT 4:44 P.M., AN ADJOURNMENT WAS TAKEN UNTIL, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY, 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, ) REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1995 PAGES 16370 THROUGH 16554, INCLUSIVE APPEARANCES: (SEE PAGE 2)
JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR #4588 APPEARANCES:
FOR THE PEOPLE: GIL GARCETTI, DISTRICT ATTORNEY
FOR THE DEFENDANT: ROBERT L. SHAPIRO, ESQUIRE
JOHNNIE L. COCHRAN, JR., ESQUIRE
GERALD F. UELMEN, ESQUIRE ALSO PRESENT: CARL JONES, ESQUIRE I N D E X INDEX FOR VOLUME 95 PAGES 16370 - 16554 ----------------------------------------------------- DAY DATE SESSION PAGE VOL.
MONDAY FEBRUARY 27, 1995 A.M. 16370 95 PROCEEDINGS
MOTION RE CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION 16370 95
MOTION SHORTENING TIME RE PITCHESS 16392 95 MOTION RE 1054.7 16406 95 LEGEND:
MS. CLARK - MC ----------------------------------------------------- CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
DEFENSE (1335)
LOPEZ, ROSA 16459C 95 ----------------------------------------------------- ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
DEFENSE (1335)
LOPEZ, ROSA 16459C 95
PAVELIC, 16552 (EXAMIMED BY THE COURT) 95 EXHIBITS
DEFENSE (1335) FOR IN
1044 - PHOTOGRAPH OF 16480 95
1044-A - PHOTOGRAPH OF AN OVERVIEW OF ROCKINGHAM
1045 - POSTERBOARD WITH 16481 95
|