|
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1995 11:33 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: ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, COUNSEL. MR. COCHRAN: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THE DEFENDANT IS AGAIN PRESENT 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, EARLIER THIS MORNING THE COURT DIRECTED THE DEFENSE TO PROVIDE THE COURT AND THE PROSECUTION COUNSEL A COPY OF THE AUDIOTAPE OF AN INTERVIEW OF WITNESS ROSA LOPEZ. AND THE COURT HAS RECEIVED A MICRO CASSETTE TAPE WHICH I'M GOING TO MARK COURT'S EXHIBIT NEXT IN ORDER. THE CLERK: 4. THE COURT: COURT'S EXHIBIT 4. (COURT'S 4 FOR ID = MICRO CASSETTE TAPE/INTRVW W/R. LOPEZ) THE COURT: AND BOTH SIDES HAVE BEEN PROVIDED WITH A STANDARD CASSETTE COPY OF THIS INTERVIEW. THE RECORD SHOULD ALSO REFLECT THAT MOMENTS AGO COUNSEL FOR BOTH SIDES AND THE COURT IN CHAMBERS LISTENED TO THE TAPE-RECORDING OF THIS PARTICULAR INTERVIEW. ALL RIGHT. ANY COMMENT BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH THE DIRECT EXAMINATION OF ROSA LOPEZ ON THE 1335 CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION? MR. COCHRAN: I THINK THE COURT WANTED TO QUERY OF MR. PAVELIC REGARDING ANY NOTES THAT HE MAY HAVE HAD. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. IS MR. PAVELIC OUTSIDE? (BRIEF PAUSE.) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. KARDASHIAN, WOULD YOU ASK HIM TO JOIN US, PLEASE. (BRIEF PAUSE.) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. PAVELIC IS AGAIN BEFORE THE COURT. MR. PAVELIC, YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH. MR. PAVELIC, YOU CAN JUST STAND RIGHT THERE AT THE -- ALL RIGHT. MR. PAVELIC, YESTERDAY AFTERNOON YOU ADVISED THE COURT THAT THERE WAS A -- YOU TAPE-RECORDED THE FIRST STATEMENT, WHICH WAS JULY, AND YOU INDICATED THAT THERE WERE NOTES WITH REGARDS TO THIS. WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THOSE NOTES. MR. PAVELIC: I BELIEVE THAT I INDICATED THAT I WOULD CHECK AND SEE WHETHER OR NOT I HAVE ANY NOTES, NOT ONLY PERTAINING TO THE ISSUE AT HAND, BUT OTHER NOTES. WHENEVER I TOOK A STATEMENT AND REDUCED IT TO A MEMO, I WOULD DESTROY THE NOTES THAT I WOULD TAKE AT THE SCENE, OVER THE PHONE OR IN PERSON. THE COURT: SO YOU HAVE EXAMINED YOUR OFFICE AND YOUR RESIDENCE AND YOU HAVE NO ROUGH NOTES WITH REGARDS TO ANY OF THE STATEMENTS THAT YOU HAVE TAKEN WITH REGARD TO THIS CASE? MR. PAVELIC: THAT IS CORRECT, SIR. ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING THAT I HAD I WOULD FAX TO VARIOUS ATTORNEYS AND I DO NOT HAVE ANY NOTES PERTAINING TO ANY OF THE INTERVIEWS. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. PAVELIC. MS. CLARK: COULD THE COURT INQUIRE WHEN THOSE NOTES WERE DESTROYED, YOUR HONOR, DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE -- THE COURT: MR. PAVELIC, WHEN WERE THOSE NOTES DESTROYED? MR. PAVELIC: THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN DESTROYED ON THE SAME DAY THAT I PUT OUT THE MEMO. MS. CLARK: IF THE COURT PLEASE COULD INQUIRE IF IT WAS HIS HABIT AND CUSTOM ALWAYS TO DESTROY NOTES AS SOON AS THE MEMO WAS COMPLETED, THEN WHY DID HE REPRESENT TO THE COURT YESTERDAY THAT HE THOUGHT HE HAD NOTES? THE COURT: MR. PAVELIC? MR. PAVELIC: I HAVE SAVED ONE NOTE FROM AN INTERVIEW THAT I CONDUCTED WITH MR. ERNESTO RIVAS AND SCOTT MATSUDA AND THE ONLY REASON THAT I SAVED THOSE NOTES, THE ORIGINAL NOTES, IS BECAUSE I HAD SOME STREETS, ADDRESSES, POSITION OF POLICE VEHICLES, THAT WERE PRESENT ON BUNDY ON JUNE 13, 1994. THE COURT: AND THOSE ARE THE ONLY NOTES THAT YOU KEPT? MR. PAVELIC: THOSE ARE THE ONLY NOTES THAT I KEPT. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MS. CLARK: COULD THE COURT ALSO INQUIRE WHY IT WAS THAT MR. PAVELIC DID NOT REMEMBER WHAT HIS HABIT AND CUSTOM WAS YESTERDAY AND NOW HE REMEMBERS? THE COURT: THERE IS A DISCREPANCY, MR. PAVELIC. CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT? MR. PAVELIC: I BELIEVE THAT IF YOU LOOK AT MY TESTIMONY YESTERDAY, THAT I WAS NOT ONLY REFERRING TO THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE INVOLVING ROSA LOPEZ, BUT ALL NOTES, AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE FILE THAT I HAD TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE ARE NO NOTES. I DID SO IN GOOD FAITH AND I DID NOT FIND ANY. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. PAVELIC. MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, COULD YOU ASK HIM WHETHER OR NOT HE TOLD ANYBODY AT ALL ABOUT THIS TAPE OF ROSA LOPEZ? MS. CLARK: THAT IS IRRELEVANT. THE COURT: WELL, MR. PAVELIC, WHEN DID YOU FIRST TELL ANY COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE THAT THIS TAPE WAS IN EXISTENCE? MR. PAVELIC: WHEN I SAW THE TESTIMONY OF MR. CARL DOUGLAS YESTERDAY, IT WAS OBVIOUS TO ME THAT I DID NOT INFORM HIM OF THE TAPE, NOR DID I INFORM ANY OF THE OTHER ATTORNEYS. THAT WAS THE ONLY TIME THAT I WAS INVOLVED IN ANY TAPE-RECORDING, TAKING A STATEMENT THAT WAS TAPE-RECORDED. I IMMEDIATELY COMPLETED A REPORT IN REGARDS TO THE INTERVIEW. I SUBMITTED MY MEMO TO THE ATTORNEYS AND I PUT THE TAPE ALONG WITH TWO OR THREE HUNDRED OTHER TAPES THAT I HAD, MOST OF THEM, IF NOT ALL OF THEM, PROVIDED BY THE PROSECUTION. MS. CLARK: PERHAPS THE COURT CAN INQUIRE WHETHER COUNSEL EVER ASKED MR. PAVELIC IF HE HAD TAPES OR NOTES. THE COURT: DID YOU HEAR THE QUESTION, MR. PAVELIC? MR. PAVELIC: YES, I DID, SIR. I DON'T SPECIFICALLY RECALL BEING ASKED ABOUT A TAPE. I HAD BEEN INFORMED AND ASKED REGARDING THE STATEMENTS AND NOTES THAT I KEPT OR THAT I DID IN THIS PARTICULAR INVESTIGATION. MY RESPONSE WAS THAT I HAVE ALWAYS SUBMITTED MY MEMOS IN A TIMELY MANNER AND THAT I DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT I SUBMITTED. MS. CLARK: THEN HIS STATEMENT TO THE COURT TODAY IS THAT NO ONE EVER ASKED HIM IF HE HAD ANY TAPES? THE COURT: IS THAT CORRECT? MR. PAVELIC: I SAID I DON'T RECALL. I AM NOT SAYING THAT I WAS NOT ASKED THAT. I JUST DO NOT RECALL, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, AT THIS POINT I THINK WE WILL VISIT THE FURTHER DISCOVERY ISSUES AT A LATER TIME, AS I SUGGESTED. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. PAVELIC. MS. CLARK: CAN WE JUST ASK -- MR. PAVELIC: THANK YOU. MS. CLARK: -- ASK THE COURT TO ASK MR. PAVELIC ONE MORE QUESTION, PLEASE. THE COURT: WHICH IS? MS. CLARK: DOES HE HAVE ANY NOTES ON COMPUTER, THAT WERE PUT ON TO COMPUTER AND WHERE IS THE REST OF THE INTERVIEW OF ROSA LOPEZ? THE COURT: DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION? MR. PAVELIC: NO, I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION. THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE ANY OF THESE -- ANY OF THESE INTERVIEWS CURRENTLY HELD WITHIN ANY MEMORY FUNCTION OF ANY COMPUTER? MR. PAVELIC: NO, YOUR HONOR, I DO NOT. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. DARDEN: WITH REGARD TO COURT'S EXHIBIT 4, THE TAPE THE COURT JUST MARKED, WOULD THE COURT INQUIRE OF MR. PAVELIC IF THAT IS THE ORIGINAL CASSETTE TAPE OR IS IT A COPY? MR. PAVELIC: THAT IS THE ORIGINAL CASSETTE TAPE FROM THE INTERVIEW THAT I CONDUCTED ON JULY 29, 1994. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. NOW, YOU INDICATED THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF TAPE-RECORDINGS THAT YOU TURNED OVER JUST RECENTLY. YOU SAID THE MAJORITY OF WHICH WERE PROVIDED ORIGINALLY BY THE PROSECUTION, CORRECT? MR. PAVELIC: I SAID MAJORITY, IF NOT ALL. LET ME QUALIFY THAT. I BELIEVE ALL OF THOSE TAPES ARE TAPES THAT WE RECEIVED AS PART OF DISCOVERY DISCLOSURE FROM THE PROSECUTION. THE COURT: SO FAR AS YOU KNOW THIS IS THE ONLY TAPE-RECORDING THAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR POSSESSION THAT CONCERNS ANY OF THE WITNESSES IN THIS CASE? MR. PAVELIC: THIS IS THE ONLY TAPE-RECORDING THAT I HAVE IN MY POSSESSION, SIR, PERTAINING TO ANY OF THE WITNESSES. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, THERE IS STILL THE ISSUE OF THE AUGUST 18TH INTERVIEW WITH ROSA LOPEZ FOR WHICH WE OBVIOUSLY HAVE NO TAPE. WOULD THE COURT INQUIRE OF MR. PAVELIC IF HE TAPED THAT INTERVIEW OR WAS IT IN FACT THE SECOND INTERVIEW OR WAS IT SOME REDACTION OF AN EARLIER INTERVIEW? THE COURT: WELL, YES. MR. PAVELIC, DID YOU TAPE-RECORD IT? MR. PAVELIC: THE ONLY REASON, YOUR HONOR, I TAPE-RECORDED MISS LOPEZ IN THE FIRST INTERVIEW IS BECAUSE IT WAS A ONE-ON-ONE. I DID NOT HAVE A PARTNER WITH ME AND THAT IS THE REASON WHY I TAPE-RECORDED. AT THE SECOND INTERVIEW, IF YOU WOULD LOOK AT THE STATEMENT OR THE MEMO, MR. JOHN MC NALLY WAS PRESENT WITH ME AND THERE WAS NO NEED FOR ME TO TAPE-RECORD IT. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. PAVELIC. MR. PAVELIC: THANK YOU. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK. MS. CLARK: MAY I HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: CERTAINLY. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.) THE COURT: MISS CLARK. MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT HAS HEARD THE TAPE AND HAS HEARD THE NATURE OF THE INTERVIEW CONDUCTED. I HAVE NEVER HEARD ANYTHING LIKE THAT. I HAVE NEVER HEARD A WITNESS BASICALLY COACHED AND TOLD WHAT TO SAY THROUGH EVERY BEND AND TURN. MRS. LOPEZ GAVE VERY LITTLE INPUT INTO THAT INTERVIEW. BASICALLY IT IS AN INTERVIEW OF MR. PAVELIC. THE COURT: MISS HAMBURGER, WOULD YOU AND YOUR CLIENT STEP OUT. I JUST NOTICED THAT YOU WERE OUT THERE. THANK YOU. (ROSA LOPEZ EXITS THE COURTROOM.) THE COURT: MISS CLARK. MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF INCONSISTENCIES IN THAT TAPE, IN THAT TAPED INTERVIEW, NOT THE LEAST OF WHICH IS THE FACT THAT SYLVIA, WHO IS MENTIONED IN THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF JULY 29, IS NEVER MENTIONED IN THE ACTUAL INTERVIEW THAT WE HAVE ALL LISTENED TO. FURTHERMORE, THE FACT THAT THERE IS A CONVERSATION THAT THE -- THAT MS. LOPEZ ALLUDES TO HAVING OVERHEARD AT TEN O'CLOCK BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND SOME OTHER PERSON, THAT NEVER APPEARED IN HER DIRECT TESTIMONY. THAT IS JUST TWO OF MANY GLARING INCONSISTENCIES. EVEN THOUGH THE DIRECT TESTIMONY HAS GONE FAR PAST THE POINT OF TEN O'CLOCK NOW, AND I WILL BE VERY INTERESTED TO HEAR IF MR. COCHRAN NOW GOES BACK TO THAT POINT AND TRIES TO CLEAR ALL THAT UP, BUT NEVERTHELESS, WE NEED TO HAVE THIS TAPE TRANSCRIBED AND EXAMINED BECAUSE WE ARE IN THE -- NOW WE ARE PUT IN THE POSTURE BY THE DEFENSE ARROGANCE, BY THEIR CONTEMPT FOR THE COURT'S AUTHORITY AND THE COURT'S ORDER, WE ARE PUT IN THE POSTURE NOW OF HAVING A SUBSTANTIAL BODY OF IMPEACHMENT THAT WE MUST DO WITH ROSA LOPEZ, THAT WE MUST CONFRONT HER WITH ON THIS CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION, AND WE HAVE TO BE PREPARED FOR IT, BECAUSE THE DEFENSE HAS ASSURED US THAT SHE WILL BE GONE. I HAVE ASSURED THE COURT THAT SHE WILL BE GONE ONLY IF THE DEFENSE WANTS HER TO BE GONE, NEVERTHELESS, AFTER I THINK WE CONCLUDE CROSS-EXAMINATION, THEY WILL CONCLUDE THEY WANT HER TO BE GONE. WE THEREFORE NEED TO PREPARE FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION AND WE CANNOT EFFECTIVELY CROSS-EXAMINE HER TO THE EXTENT THAT IS REQUIRED SO THAT THE JURY WILL GET THE FULL MEASURE OF HER LACK OF CREDIBILITY, UNLESS WE ARE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO PREPARE, THE OPPORTUNITY THAT THE DEFENSE HAS CONTEMPTUOUSLY REFUSED TO ALLOW US. I THINK THIS IS UNBELIEVABLE WHAT I HAVE SEEN AND TO HEAR THIS TAPE WAS -- WAS JUST -- I'M SPEECHLESS. I'M SPEECHLESS TO THINK -- I'M SPEECHLESS, I KNOW, THAT TELLS YOU SOMETHING. I HAVE NEVER -- I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THIS. YOU KNOW, SHE WAS HANDED A SCRIPT AND MR. PAVELIC GOT ON THE TAPE AND SPOKE ALMOST NONSTOP FOR FIFTEEN TO TWENTY MINUTES GETTING HER TO AFFIRM, YES, YES, YES, YES. NO ON VERY MINOR INCONSEQUENTIAL MATTERS. AND I MIGHT ADD ALL IN ENGLISH. DURING NO TIME DID SHE INDICATE SHE COULDN'T UNDERSTAND ANYTHING. AT NO TIME DID SHE TELL HIM TO SLOW DOWN OR EXPLAIN ANYTHING. SHE CORRECTED HIM ON MINOR MATTERS OF NO SIGNIFICANCE, BUT THEREFORE INDICATING THAT SHE UNDERSTOOD VERY WELL WHAT HE HAD TO STAY TO HER IN ENGLISH, AND HE SPOKE RAPIDLY. THE COURT: WELL, MISS CLARK, WHETHER OR NOT A WITNESS FEELS MORE COMFORTABLE IN THEIR NATIVE LANGUAGE OR ENGLISH WHEN THEY ACTUALLY TESTIFY HERE IN COURT UNDER THESE RATHER TRYING CIRCUMSTANCES IS A FACTOR THAT IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE AT THIS POINT. THE QUESTION IS, NOW THAT YOU HAVE THE TAPE, YOU'VE HEARD IT ONCE UP IN YOUR OFFICE AND YOU HEARD IT ONCE WITH THE COURT HERE IN CHAMBERS WITH OPPOSING COUNSEL, THE TAPE IS APPROXIMATELY TWELVE OR FIFTEEN MINUTES IN LENGTH, I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU NEED AN EXACT WORD FOR WORD TRANSCRIPT OR FOR 770 PURPOSES. HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU NEED TO PREPARE TO REVIEW THIS AND PREPARE YOUR NOTES AND TO BE ABLE TO CONFRONT THESE ITEMS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION? (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.) MS. CLARK: IN ORDER TO ADEQUATELY CONFRONT AND CROSS-EXAMINE MISS LOPEZ WE NEED TO CONFRONT HER WITH EACH AND EVERY LEADING QUESTION THAT SHE WAS ASKED, AND AS THE COURT HEARD, THERE WERE A TAPE FULL OF THEM. WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO CONFRONT HER WITH EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE, SO THOSE NEED TO BE TRANSCRIBED IN ORDER TO CONFRONT HER ADEQUATELY. WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO CONFRONT AND CROSS-EXAMINE THAT IS BEING DENIED BY THE DEFENSE MISCONDUCT, SO WE NEED A CHANCE TO PREPARE FOR THIS AND SO WE DO NEED A TRANSCRIPT OF THIS IN ORDER TO ADEQUATELY CONFRONT HER AND LET HER ANSWER FOR US WHAT HER REAL THOUGHT WAS. LET'S NOT FORGET THAT ALSO THERE WERE NOTES TAKEN OF THIS INTERVIEW, NOTES THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY IMPEACHING, I AM SURE NOTES THAT PROBABLY PRECEDED THIS INTERVIEW THAT HAD TO DO WITH WHAT SHE REALLY HAD TO SAY BEFORE SHE WAS COACHED INTO SAYING WHAT THE DEFENSE WANTED TO HEAR. AND NOW MR. PAVELIC, WHO YESTERDAY TOLD THE COURT THAT HE HAD NOTES OF HER INTERVIEW, COMES TO COURT TODAY AND HAS THE NERVE TO TELL THIS COURT THAT HE HAS A HABIT AND CUSTOM OF DESTROYING ALL NOTES, A HABIT AND CUSTOM THAT HE CONVENIENTLY DIDN'T MENTION UNTIL THIS MORNING. THERE IS VERY LITTLE CREDIBILITY TO MR. PAVELIC'S ASSERTIONS AND SO WE DON'T HAVE THE ADDITIONAL MATERIAL WE SHOULD HAVE. THE COURT: MISS CLARK, LET'S REFOCUS ON WHERE WE ARE. WE ARE IN THE MIDST OF DIRECT EXAMINATION DURING A CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION. YOU HAVE NOW BEEN GIVEN A TAPE-RECORDING WHICH IS THE COMPANION OF THE REPORT THAT YOU HAVE FROM JULY 29TH STATEMENT. MS. CLARK: BUT IT IS NOT A COMPANION BECAUSE IT IS SO DIFFERENT. THE COURT: MISS CLARK, IT IS A COMPANION BECAUSE IT IS THE SAME DATE. I'M NOT EDITORIALIZING OR FORMING AN OPINION. I'M JUST SAYING THAT THE TWO GO TOGETHER SO YOU HAVE BOTH ITEMS. MS. CLARK: THE REPORT -- LET ME PUT IT THIS WAY, YOUR HONOR -- THE COURT: MISS CLARK, PLEASE. MISS CLARK, MISS CLARK. MISS CLARK, PLEASE, THIS IS A VERY SIMPLE QUESTION: HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU NEED TO PREPARE AND REVIEW THIS TAPE TO PROCEED WITH YOUR CROSS-EXAMINATION? MS. CLARK: WELL, MR. COCHRAN HAS INDICATED THAT HE HAS GOT A FEW MINUTES LEFT ON DIRECT, RIGHT? THE COURT: CORRECT. MS. CLARK: SO HE IS ALMOST DONE. THE COURT: CORRECT. MS. CLARK: THAT MEANS WE ARE CONFRONTING THE ISSUE OF OUR CROSS-EXAMINATION RIGHT AWAY. THE COURT: CORRECT. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.) THE COURT: BUT I ASSUME THAT THIS TAPE AND THIS PARTICULAR STATEMENT IS NOT THE SOLE BASIS OF YOUR CROSS-EXAMINATION. MS. CLARK: NO, BUT IT IS IN SUBSTANCE, ESPECIALLY THE INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN THE WRITTEN STATEMENT AND THE TAPE AND THE INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN THOSE TWO AND THE THIRD STATEMENT ON AUGUST 18TH AND THE INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN THOSE THREE ITEMS AND HER TESTIMONY AS GIVEN IN COURT YESTERDAY. AND WHAT WILL BE THE BALANCE OF WHATEVER SHE GIVES TODAY, SO THERE IS -- YES, THE TAPE PLAYS VERY FOCAL PART IN ALL OF THAT, YOUR HONOR. WE HAVE NOW ADDED A BODY OF IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE AND WE NEED TO GET IT TRANSCRIBED SO WE CAN CONFRONT HER PROPERLY WITH IT FOR 770 PURPOSES. SO WE NEED A STENOGRAPHER. WE ARE GOING TO NEED THE AFTERNOON TO DO THAT. I CAN APPRECIATE THE COURT'S CONCERN IN THE TIME FACTOR, BUT DON'T LOOK AT US, YOUR HONOR. YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T PUT THE COURT IN THIS POSITION. THE COURT: OH, MISS CLARK, BELIEVE ME, I'M NOT PUTTING THE ONUS ON YOU AT THIS POINT. I JUST ASKED YOU A VERY SIMPLE QUESTION, HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU NEED, KNOWING THAT I'VE GOT A SEQUESTERED JURY THAT WAS BROUGHT TO COURT YESTERDAY AND SPENT THEIR WHOLE DAY HERE AND GOT TO GO HOME? MS. CLARK: I AM MINDFUL OF THAT YOUR HONOR. HAD THE DEFENSE NOT DENIED US THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET THE DISCOVERY THE COURT ORDERED -- THE COURT: WELL, THE LONGER WE STAND HERE TALKING ABOUT IT, THE LONGER IT WILL BE BEFORE WE ACCOMPLISH ALL THIS. WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS I'M GOING TO ORDER ALL PARTIES TO RETURN -- I'M SORRY. MR. COCHRAN: MAY I BE HEARD? THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, I FORGOT TO ASK THE OTHER SIDE. MR. COCHRAN. MR. COCHRAN: JUST BRIEFLY, YOUR HONOR. WITH REGARD TO THE -- THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT, AND WITHOUT EDITORIALIZING AND GETTING INTO IT, THE TAPE WAS TURNED OVER BY MR. PAVELIC. THEY HAD THE TAPE THIS MORNING BY 9:30. IT IS A TWELVE-MINUTE TAPE. THEY HAVE HEARD -- WE HAD FROM 9:30 TO ABOUT 11:00, 11:15. THEY DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WITH IT. WHATEVER TIME THEY NEED, YOUR HONOR -- THE COURT: WELL, THE DIFFICULTY HAS BEEN GETTING IT COPIED IS ONE OF THE DIFFICULTIES. MR. COCHRAN: BUT THEY WERE ABLE TO LISTEN TO THE TAPE, YOUR HONOR. THE TAPE IS VERY, VERY SIMPLE AND TO THE POINT. OBVIOUSLY THEY DON'T LIKE THE CONTENTS OF THE TAPE. THIS TAPE IS AN ACTUAL TAPE OF THE CONVERSATION. THE MEMO THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO THEM FOR THE 29TH AND THE 18TH ARE MEMOS THAT WERE SENT TO BOB SHAPIRO. WHATEVER THEY NEED TO DO, YOUR HONOR, WE ARE READY TO PROCEED WITHOUT ALL THE EDITORIALIZING. THE TAPE WILL SPEAK FOR ITSELF AS TO WHETHER THIS WITNESS IS CONSISTENT. WE THINK SHE IS ENTIRELY CONSISTENT. WE THINK THE FACT, AS YOU POINTED OUT, THE INTERVIEW WAS CONDUCTED IN ENGLISH, AND SPANISH IS HER PRIMARY TONGUE, THAT WILL GO PERHAPS TO THE WEIGHT. BUT THE POINT I WANTED TO MAKE IS ALL OF THIS FLOOR SHOWING FOR THE CAMERAS AND ALL OF THESE ALLEGATIONS, YOUR HONOR, I WANT TO REMIND THE COURT OF ONE THING, WITHOUT WASTING YOUR TIME. WHEN THE THING CAME UP ABOUT SCOTT KENNEDY'S VIDEO AND WE NEEDED IT RIGHT DURING THE TRIAL, THEY HAD HAD IT SINCE JUNE. WE DIDN'T GO CRYING TO YOU, SAYING, JUDGE, THEY HAD THIS SINCE JUNE, HOLD THEM, DO ALL THESE BAD THINGS TO THEM. WE SAID WE WANT THAT TAPE. I SET ABOUT TO GET IT. THEY CAME AND PRODUCED IT AFTER I HAD GOTTEN IT FROM MR. SCOTT KENNEDY. WE PROCEEDED WITH THIS EVIDENCE AND CONTINUED WITH THIS TRIAL. WE WANT TO GO ON WITH THE TRIAL, JUDGE. ONE SIDE WANTS TO GO ON WITH THE TRIAL AND ONE SIDE ALWAYS WANTS TO DELAY AND HAVE A STOP AND THEY ARE ALWAYS CRYING AND COMPLAINING. NOW THEY ARE ENTITLED TO THIS AND THEY HAVE GOT IT. PAVELIC UNDER OATH -- AND THAT IS THE SITUATION. NONE OF US KNEW ABOUT THIS SITUATION AND THAT IS THE SITUATION. WE ARE GOING TO DEAL WITH THE OTHER DISCOVERY ISSUES, I THINK TOMORROW AFTERNOON. I WOULD LIKE TO COMPLETE DIRECT EXAMINATION AND I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THEM PROCEED WITH THEIR CROSS, HOWEVER LONG IT IS GOING TO TAKE. THAT IS ALL I WANT TO DO. WE HAVE THE LUNCH HOUR TO LISTEN TO IT AGAIN AND EVEN IF IT IS ONLY TWELVE MINUTES, THEY HAVE GOT ALL THE DIRECT EXAMINATION, IT IS NOT GOING TO CAUSE A PROBLEM. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO TRANSCRIBE THE TAPE. WE HAVE GOT THE DIRECT EXAMINATION OF YESTERDAY AND THE DIRECT EXAMINATION AND THE TWO REPORTS FROM THE 29TH AND 18TH AND THEY HAVE GOT THE TAPE WHICH OF COURSE CAN BE TRANSCRIBED BY THE TIME WE GET TO THAT, YOUR HONOR. WE WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED, IF AT ALL POSSIBLE. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, I'M GOING TO DIRECT ALL PARTIES TO RETURN HERE AT TWO O'CLOCK. MISS CLARK, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO MAKE YOUR BEST EFFORTS TO GO OVER THE TAPE. I DON'T THINK YOU NEED A WORD FOR WORD TRANSCRIPT TO PROCEED FOR 770 PURPOSES. I THINK WHAT YOU CAN DO IS LISTEN TO THE TAPE, TAKE DOWN WHAT THE ANSWER IS, JUST WRITE DOWN WHAT THE ANSWERS ARE AND THE ONES THAT YOU FIND ARE INCONSISTENT, BUT LET'S SEE WHAT YOU CAN DO BETWEEN NOW AND TWO O'CLOCK. AND IN THE MEANTIME I ASSUMED THAT YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE ONE OF YOUR STAFF MEMBERS -- ONE OF YOUR STENOGRAPHERS ATTEMPT TO MAKE A TRANSCRIPT, CORRECT? MS. CLARK: WE WILL DO OUR BEST EFFORTS, YOUR HONOR. THAT IS DIFFICULT. THE ANSWERS ARE SIMPLE. THEY ARE YES AND NO. ACTUALLY, THEY ARE ALL YES, SO WE NEED TO TRANSCRIBE THE QUESTIONS. THE COURT: NO, I UNDERSTAND, BUT I'M ASKING YOU TO DO YOUR BEST BECAUSE I WANT TO PROCEED THIS AFTERNOON, IF AT ALL POSSIBLE. MS. CLARK: WE WILL DO OUR BEST. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE WILL STAND IN RECESS. TWO O'CLOCK. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. (BRIEF PAUSE.) MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE, CAN WE APPROACH, PLEASE? THE COURT: MISS CLARK, MR. COCHRAN. (A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED.) (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:) (AT 11:56 A.M. THE NOON RECESS WAS TAKEN UNTIL 2:00 P.M. OF THE SAME DAY.) LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1995 2:10 P.M. DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE APPEARANCES: (APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED.) (JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR NO. 4855, OFFICIAL REPORTER.) (CHRISTINE M. OLSON, CSR NO. 2378, OFFICIAL REPORTER.) (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNSEL. MY APOLOGIES FOR THE DELAY. I WAS JUST PUTTING THE FINISHING TOUCHES ON THE COURT'S COPY OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE TAPE. MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY. WE DIDN'T HEAR THAT. THE COURT: I WAS JUST PUTTING THE FINISHING TOUCHES ON THE COURT'S TRANSCRIPTION OF THE TAPE. ALL RIGHT. WHAT'S OUR PROGRESS, MISS CLARK? MS. CLARK: I WOULD LIKE TO INDICATE TO THE COURT THAT OVER THE NOON HOUR, AS SOON AS WE SENT THE TAPE OVER TO BE TRANSCRIBED, I LISTENED TO AN ADDITIONAL COPY OF IT, AND IT WAS -- THERE WAS MORE MATERIAL IN THE TAPE THAN I REALIZED EVEN IN THE FIRST TWO LISTENINGS. AND I WANT TO INDICATE TO THE COURT THAT I WAS VERY ANGRY EARLIER THIS MORNING, BUT I MEANT NO DISRESPECT TO THE COURT. I HOPE THE COURT UNDERSTANDS THAT, THAT MY IRE IS DIRECTED TOWARDS THE DEFENSE ONLY AND I MEANT NO OFFENSE. THE COURT: NO. I NEVER TOOK YOUR UMBRAGE AS DIRECTED TOWARDS ME CERTAINLY. MS. CLARK: NO, CERTAINLY NOT. AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE ABSOLUTELY SURE THAT IF THERE WAS ANY MISUNDERSTANDING THERE, I WANTED TO CLEAR THAT UP. BUT UPON REVIEWING THE STATEMENTS -- THE COURT: AND IN FACT, BEFORE WE PROCEED ANY FURTHER, LET ME GIVE TO -- MR. DARDEN, WOULD YOU APPROACH, AND MR. SHAPIRO, LET ME GIVE YOU A TRANSCRIPT OF THE TAPE-RECORDING THAT I'VE PREPARED OVER THE LUNCH HOUR. MS. CLARK: AND OUR TRANSCRIPT SHOULD BE PREPARED IN HALF AN HOUR AS WELL. SO WE'LL HAVE LOTS OF TRANSCRIPTS. BUT -- THE COURT: I THINK YOU'LL LIKE MINE. MS. CLARK: YOU THINK WE'LL LIKE YOURS? I'M SURE WE WILL. I WANTED TO POINT OUT TO THE COURT THAT IN ADDITION TO THIS TAPE ITSELF, WHICH NOW THE INTERNAL INCONSISTENCIES AS WELL AS THE INCONSISTENCIES WITH EACH STATEMENT AS WELL AS THE INCONSISTENCIES WITH HER DIRECT TESTIMONY AND THE INCONSISTENCIES WITH OTHER WITNESSES WHO WILL TESTIFY IN THIS CASE OUR NUMEROUS, ARE GLARING AND ARE OF MAJOR SIGNIFICANCE TO HER TESTIMONY AND HER CREDIBILITY. AND SO WE FIND OURSELVES BASICALLY PLACED BEHIND THE EIGHT BALL BY THE MACHINATIONS OF THE DEFENSE AND UNABLE TO PROCEED WITH EFFECTIVE CROSS-EXAMINATION THIS AFTERNOON. AS THE COURT IS AWARE, HAVING BEEN A TRIAL ATTORNEY FOR QUITE SOME TIME, WHEN YOU HAVE THIS NUMBER OF STATEMENTS BY A KEY WITNESS, IT IS IMPORTANT TO TRACK EACH AND EVERY INCONSISTENCY BOTH LOGICAL AND LITERAL IN ORDER TO IN EFFECT CREATE A FLOW CHART SO THAT THE CONFRONTATION WITH THE INCONSISTENCIES CAN BE EFFECTIVE AND CLEAR. AND BECAUSE THE DEFENSE HAS PUT US IN THIS POSITION, WE ARE NOW BEING ESSENTIALLY RUSHED INTO A CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT IS GOING TO BE HALF AS EFFECTIVE AS IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN HAD THEY COMPLIED WITH THE LAW. THE COURT: IN OTHER WORDS, YOU MEAN YOU FEEL YOU'VE BEEN SANDBAGGED AGAIN? MS. CLARK: WELL, WE HAVE. I DON'T FEEL IT. WE CLEARLY HAVE. AND BY THIS THIRD TIME, THE TACTIC OF DELAY IS CLEARLY TO GAIN ADVANTAGE AND THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT IT BEING ANYTHING LIKE INADVERTENCE. SO I WOULD LIKE TO INDICATE -- I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER THE COURT THIS. AS A SANCTION -- BECAUSE I KNOW WE WON'T ADDRESS THAT ACTUALLY UNTIL TOMORROW, BUT THIS SANCTION COULD BE ENGAGED -- COULD BE ACTUALLY ADOPTED BY THE COURT TODAY. AS A SANCTION, THE PEOPLE ASK THE COURT TO TERMINATE THE CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION BECAUSE ON THE VERY THINNESS OF RECORDS, THE COURT GENEROUSLY GRANTED THE DEFENSE REQUEST TO HAVE THIS CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE SECTION 1335. THE DEFENSE HAS NOT ONLY ABUSED THE GENEROSITY THE COURT HAS GIVEN IT, BUT IT HAS SHOWN CONTEMPT FOR THE DIRECT ORDER OF THE COURT CONCERNING DISCOVERY MATTERS, NOT ONCE, BUT THREE TIMES NOW. AND THESE ARE NOT TRIVIAL MATTERS. THESE ARE NOT MATTERS OF FORM. THIS IS NOT A QUESTION OF A COUPLE WEEKS TOO LATE. THIS IS NOT A QUESTION OF IMPEACHMENT ON A TRIVIAL OR PERIPHERAL MATTER. THIS IS KEY IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE ON A KEY DEFENSE WITNESS DELIBERATELY WITHHELD FOR EIGHT MONTHS AND DENIED BEING IN THE POSSESSION OF THOSE -- OF THE DEFENSE UNTIL WE REQUIRED THE INVESTIGATOR TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH, WHOSE TESTIMONY I MIGHT ADD UNDER OATH, AS THE COURT HAS SEEN, IS SUSPICIOUSLY INCONSISTENT ON IMPORTANT KEY POINTS. BECAUSE OF THE EGREGIOUSNESS OF THESE VIOLATIONS THAT GO TO THE VERY HEART OF THE DEFENSE CASE, THE PEOPLE ARE ASKING THE COURT TO TERMINATE THE CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION AND TO CONSIDER THAT IF THE PEOPLE HAD ENGAGED IN SUCH GROSS MISCONDUCT EVEN ONCE, WHAT WOULD THE COURT HAVE DONE. THE COURT WOULD SERIOUSLY CONSIDER I'M SURE THE SANCTION OF PRECLUSION OF THE WITNESS' TESTIMONY AT ALL, AND THE COURT WOULD BE WELL JUSTIFIED IN DOING THAT. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE PEOPLE DO NOT REQUEST THAT SANCTION BECAUSE WE FEEL THAT WE WOULD BE PREJUDICED BY THAT AS WELL. THE PEOPLE WANT THE JURY TO HEAR FROM ROSA LOPEZ, ESPECIALLY WITH THE WEALTH OF REBUTTAL MATERIAL THAT WE HAVE. BUT I THINK THE COURT SHOULD SERIOUSLY CONSIDER TERMINATING ITS GENEROUS OFFER TO THE DEFENSE OF A CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION AND REQUIRE THE WITNESS TO TESTIFY IN ORDER AS ALL OTHERS IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY IN THE DEFENSE CASE WHERE SHE BELONGS. THE COURT: MISS CLARK, LET ME ASK YOU THIS THEN. SINCE YOU RAISE THE POSSIBILITY, YOU SUGGEST THAT THE PROSECUTION WANTS MISS LOPEZ TO TESTIFY FOR THE JURY -- BEFORE THE JURY AND THAT YOU HAVE A WEALTH OF IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE AVAILABLE TO YOU, THEN SHOULDN'T WE THEN PROCEED WITH HER IN FRONT OF THE JURY? MS. CLARK: THAT'S EXACTLY THE POINT. WE NEED TIME. WE NEED TIME TO ORGANIZE AND COLLATE EVERYTHING. THE COURT: THEN I MISUNDERSTOOD. WHEN YOU SAY, "WE HAVE A WEALTH OF IMPEACHMENT." I THOUGHT THAT THAT MEANT THAT YOU WERE -- HAD ANALYZED THAT, HAD EVALUATED IT AND WERE PREPARED TO GO FORWARD WITH IT. MS. CLARK: NO, YOUR HONOR. AND THE COURT RAISES AN EXCELLENT POINT. IT'S NOT ENOUGH TO SIMPLY READ A STATEMENT OF A WITNESS THAT WILL IMPEACH THE DEFENSE WITNESS. ONE HAS TO ASSIMILATE IT, ONE HAS TO DETERMINE ITS SIGNIFICANCE AND WHAT ARE THE KEY POINTS AND WIDOW THE WHEAT FROM THE CHAFF SO TO SPEAK. YOU CAN'T JUST READ A REPORT AND THEN BE PREPARED TO USE IT AGAINST A WITNESS IN CROSS-EXAMINATION AS THE COURT WELL KNOWS. CROSS-EXAMINATION REQUIRES VERY CAREFUL STRATEGY AND TACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS THAT PRECLUDE A MERE READING OF A REPORT AND ITS USE ON CROSS-EXAMINATION. AND ESPECIALLY WITH THE NUMBER OF INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS THIS WITNESS HAS, WE HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF WORK TO DO TO IMPEACH HER. IN ESSENCE, ALL WE'RE REALLY ASKING FOR IS THE VERY MINIMUM SANCTION OR THE MINIMUM GRANT OF A CONTINUANCE, WHICH IS THE GENERAL POSTURE WE'RE IN WHEN A DISCOVERY VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED. NOW, THIS IS A VERY FLAGRANT AND EGREGIOUS, I THINK THE MOST EGREGIOUS I'VE EVER SEEN IN MY PRACTICE, VIOLATION OF THE LAW BY A DEFENSE ATTORNEY. AND ALTHOUGH WE COULD ASK FOR WITNESS PRECLUSION, WE HAVEN'T ASKED FOR THAT AND WE WILL NOT ASK FOR THAT. BUT WE DO ASK THAT THE COURT TERMINATE -- MS. LEWIS: MISS LOPEZ IS HERE. MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, COULD WE ASK MISS LOPEZ WAIT OUTSIDE? THE COURT: YES. I AM SORRY. I THOUGHT SHE HAD STEPPED OUT ONCE BEFORE. MR. DARDEN: SHE CAME BACK. MS. CLARK: I BELIEVE SHE JUST CAME BACK IN. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. (ROSA MARIA LOPEZ LEFT THE COURTROOM.) THE COURT: MISS CLARK. MS. CLARK: THANK YOU. WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR THE PRECLUSION. WHAT WE ARE ASKING FOR IS THAT SHE BE -- THAT THE CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION BE TERMINATED AND THAT SHE BE CALLED IN THE DEFENSE CASE IF AND WHEN THEY DECIDE TO CALL HER, AT WHICH POINT WE WILL HAVE HAD THE TIME TO PREPARE FOR HER TESTIMONY, EXACTLY THE SAME KIND OF TIME THAT THE DEFENSE DEMANDED WITH RESPECT TO SOME VERY TRIVIAL WITNESSES, AND THEY DEMANDED SIX WEEKS TO INVESTIGATE AND PREPARE FOR THOSE WITNESSES. ALL WE ARE ASKING IS THAT THE WITNESS BE PLACED BACK INTO THE DEFENSE CASE WHERE IT BELONGS IN FRONT OF THE JURY WHICH WILL GIVE US THE TIME TO ASSIMILATE AND ORGANIZE A CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT WILL BE EFFECTIVE AND WILL PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE TO A FAIR TRIAL. I THINK THAT THE COURT HAS SEEN AN ABUSE OF ITS GENEROSITY, AN ABUSE OF ITS PATIENCE AND AN ABUSE OF ITS -- OF THE INTEGRITY AFFORDED TO THE DEFENSE. IT IS NO LONGER JUSTIFIED. THEIR CONDUCT -- THEIR MISCONDUCT HAS BECOME SO EGREGIOUS THAT I THINK THE COURT HAS TO NOW REVIEW ITS PAST GENEROSITY WITH THE DEFENSE. AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THE COURT IS AWARE OF ALL THE CONTRADICTIONS CONCERNING THIS WITNESS' AVAILABILITY AND HER WILLINGNESS TO COME TO COURT AND I THINK THAT THE CONTROL THAT THE DEFENSE HAS OVER HERE IS MANIFEST. IF FOR NO OTHER REASON, THE LEADING NATURE OF THE STATEMENTS GIVEN BY THE WITNESS IN THE INTERVIEW THAT WAS BASICALLY NOTHING MORE THAN A COACHING SESSION BY MR. PAVELIC INDICATES THE DEGREE OF CONTROL THEY HAVE OVER THIS WITNESS. SHE WILL APPEAR WHEN THEY WANT HER TO. SHE DOESN'T WANT TO GO BACK TO SALVADOR AND IT'S VERY, VERY CLEAR THAT IF SHE IS PLACED BACK INTO THE DEFENSE CASE, THERE WILL BE NO RISK SUFFERED. THE ONLY WAY MISS LOPEZ WILL NOT APPEAR IS IF THE DEFENSE DESIRES NOT TO HAVE HER APPEAR. THE PEOPLE WANT TO SEE HER APPEAR, BUT IN THE APPROPRIATE TIME. I WOULD INDICATE TO THE COURT THAT JUST ON LISTENING TO THE TAPE TODAY -- AND REALIZE, YOUR HONOR, THAT WE HAVE TRIPLED THE NUMBER OF STATEMENTS THIS WITNESS GAVE IN 24 HOURS. AND THE COURT IS ASKING US TO BE PREPARED TO CROSS-EXAMINE WITH WHAT IS GOING TO AMOUNT TO A TRIPLING OF THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THIS WITNESS, NOT TO MENTION THE SIGNIFICANCE THAT HAS NOW BEEN BROUGHT TO BEAR ON PREVIOUS WITNESSES THAT WE'VE SPOKEN TO THAT HAD NO SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE. FOR EXAMPLE -- THE COURT: SUCH AS? MS. CLARK: SUCH AS THE SYLVIA ISSUE. THIS IS A GLARING ONE. WE HAD A TIP CONCERNING MISS LOPEZ FROM SOMEONE NAMED SYLVIA. WHEN WE WENT TO SPEAK TO HER, WE HAD NO IDEA OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT WITNESS BECAUSE WE WERE NOT GIVEN THE JULY 29TH STATEMENT. WE HAD NO IDEA THAT ROSA LOPEZ WAS CLAIMING TO HAVE BEEN WITH THAT WITNESS AND THAT THAT WITNESS WOULD CORROBORATE HER OBSERVATION OF THE BRONCO AT 8:30, WHICH IS A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF HER TESTIMONY. ONLY YESTERDAY DID WE FIND OUT THAT THEY ARE ONE AND THE SAME AND THAT THERE WERE ALLEGATIONS MADE REGARDING WHAT SYLVIA WOULD TESTIFY TO, WHICH ARE FALSE AND PROVABLY FALSE. SO THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH WITHHOLDING OF DISCOVERY. NOW WE HAVE INFORMATION -- AND THERE ARE WITNESSES THAT ARE ENGENDERED BY THE LATE DISCOVERY THAT HAVE TO BE -- THAT HAVE TO BE INTERVIEWED, STATEMENTS HAVE TO BE GENERATED AND THEY HAVE TO BE COLLATED AND PLACED IN THE APPROPRIATE PLACE IN THE CROSS-EXAMINATION, WHICH I ASSURE THE COURT WILL BE LENGTHY. WE NEED THE TIME TO ADEQUATELY PREPARE FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT WE HAVE BEEN DEPRIVED OF BY THE DEFENSE. AND THE DEFENSE GETTING UP TO URGE THE COURT TO CUT OFF OUR TIME IN THE MANNER THAT THEY HAVE DONE THIS MORNING IS REPREHENSIBLE BECAUSE IT IS THEIR MISCONDUCT THAT HAS PUT US IN THIS POSITION. WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO EFFECTIVELY CROSS-EXAMINE IN ORDER TO GIVE THE JURY THE TRUTH. AND WHAT THE DEFENSE IS TRYING TO DO IS CURTAIL THE SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH, IS TO CUT OFF THE JURY'S KNOWLEDGE OF THIS WITNESS AND TO GIVE THEM HALF A LOAF SO THAT ALL THEY CAN SEE IS THE SIDE THE DEFENSE WANTS TO PRESENT AND NOT TO SEE THE SIDE THAT BASICALLY NEGATES EVERYTHING SHE SAYS. AS WE ALL KNOW -- I MEAN, YOU CAN HEAR ONE SIDE -- AND BASICALLY THE ONE SIDE WE'RE HEARING IS MR. PAVELIC TALKING AND THEN YOU HEAR WHAT THIS WITNESS REALLY HAS TO SAY, AND IT'S SHOCKING. BUT THIS IS A SHOCKING TRUTH THAT THE JURY NEEDS TO HEAR AND WILL NOT HEAR EFFECTIVELY IF THE PEOPLE ARE DENIED THE RIGHT TO PREPARE THEIR CROSS-EXAMINATION IN A COHESIVE MANNER AND PRESENT IT IN THE MOST EFFECTIVE MANNER POSSIBLE. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOTHING LESS IMPORTANT HERE THAN THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AND TO AN EFFECTIVE AND INTELLIGENT SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH INSTEAD OF THE OBSCURING NATURE AND DISTORTING NATURE OF THE TRUTH THAT HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THIS JURY BY THE DEFENSE AND WHICH THE DEFENSE DESIRES TO PROPOUND FURTHER VIA THE TESTIMONY OF ROSA LOPEZ AND THE CURTAILMENT OF THE PEOPLE'S CROSS-EXAMINATION. THE COURT: HOW MUCH TIME ARE YOU ASKING FOR TO PREPARE? MS. CLARK: WE ARE ASKING TO PRESENT CROSS-EXAMINATION ON FRIDAY, ASSUMING THE COURT DENIES THE REQUEST TO TERMINATE THE CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION. THE COURT: WELL, I'M JUST CURIOUS AS TO HOW LONG YOU THINK YOU NEED TO PREPARE. MS. CLARK: I MEAN, THAT'S A MINIMUM. THAT'S RUSHING IT. THE COURT: TODAY BEING THE 28TH. OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENT, 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: NO, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. COCHRAN. MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: GOOD AFTERNOON. MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, IN THIS INSTANCE, IT IS VERY INTERESTING TO HEAR MISS CLARK AGAIN USE ALL OF THESE TERMS AND SHE TALKS ABOUT TRUTH AND ALL THAT SORT OF THING. YOUR HONOR, YESTERDAY, SHE STOOD BEFORE YOU AS AN OFFICER OF THIS COURT AND INDICATED TO THE COURT THAT THERE WAS A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN THE JULY 29TH STATEMENT, THAT SHE TOLD YOU THAT THERE WAS NO MENTION THAT THE BRONCO HAD BEEN AT THE CURB AT 8:30 AND STILL IN THE MORNING. SHE SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT. MS. CLARK: THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAID. MR. COCHRAN: ABSOLUTELY THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID, YOUR HONOR. AND I WANT TO READ SOMETHING. "MISS LOPEZ STATED THAT THE LAST TIME SHE HEARD O.J. TALKING WAS APPROXIMATELY 11:00 O'CLOCK HOURS. SHE IS ADAMANT THAT FROM THE MOMENT SHE FIRST OBSERVED THE BRONCO AT APPROXIMATELY 8:30 HOURS UNTIL THE FOLLOWING DAY, THE BRONCO WAS NOT MOVED." NOW, IN HER HASTE TO CASTIGATE YESTERDAY -- THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT SHE SAID. SHE SAID THAT WAS THE MAJOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN -- THE COURT: MISS CLARK, IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE DON'T INTERRUPT COUNSEL. MR. COCHRAN: THE MAJOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AUGUST 18TH STATEMENT AND THE JULY 29TH STATEMENT WAS THE FACT SHE HAD MENTIONED THAT THAT WAS GOING TO BE SOME GREAT IMPEACHMENT. THE COURT: WELL, MR. COCHRAN, LET ME FOCUS YOU ON WHAT CONCERNS ME. AND FORGIVE ME FOR INTERRUPTING YOU, BUT THE PROBLEM WE HAVE THOUGH IS, WE STARTED THE PROCEEDINGS YESTERDAY WITH MR. DOUGLAS TELLING ME THAT THERE WERE NO NOTES AND NO TAPE RECORDINGS OF ANY OF THESE STATEMENTS. MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S CORRECT, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: THAT STATEMENT WAS ECHOED BY YOURSELF TO THIS COURT -- MR. COCHRAN: YES. THE COURT: -- WHEN YOU SAID THERE WERE NO NOTES AND NO TAPE RECORDING. WE FIND OUT AT THE CONCLUSION OF YESTERDAY THERE MAY BE NOTES AND THERE CERTAINLY IS A TAPE RECORDING. SO THE REASON WE'RE HERE AND HAVING THIS DELAY IS BECAUSE OF THE LATE DISCLOSURE OF THIS TAPE RECORDING. SO ANY DIFFERENCES OR SUBTLETIES BETWEEN THE TWO STATEMENTS OR THE WRITTEN STATEMENTS ARE INTERESTING. WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE AS SIGNIFICANT AS MISS CLARK SAID, I DON'T KNOW. THE REASON WE'RE IN THIS DIFFICULTY THOUGH IS BECAUSE OF THIS BELATED DISCLOSURE OF THIS TAPE RECORDING. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE PROBLEM AND THE DELAY. MR. COCHRAN: YES. MAY I ADDRESS THAT, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: PLEASE. MR. COCHRAN: THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE -- AND I APPRECIATE THE COURT'S INDULGENCE, BUT IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO HAVE SOMEBODY STAND UP AND MAKE THESE BALD-FACE ACCUSATIONS THAT ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG AND EVERYBODY KNOWS THEY'RE WRONG. SO I FELT AT LEAST COMPELLED AT LEAST FOR MY CLIENT TO ADDRESS THAT. BUT I WILL FOCUS, AS THE COURT HAS ASKED ME TO DO, IN THAT REGARD. YOUR HONOR, WHEN MR. DOUGLAS STOOD UP YESTERDAY AND INDICATED TO THIS COURT AS AN OFFICER OF THIS COURT THAT HE -- THERE WAS NO TAPE RECORDING AS FAR AS HE KNEW, HE WAS BEING ABSOLUTELY HONEST. AND NEITHER DID I KNOW. YOUR HONOR, IF WE KNEW ABOUT THE TAPE RECORDING, WE WOULD HAVE ABSOLUTELY HAD IT PRESENT, IF WE KNEW ABOUT THE OTHER REPORT. WE ARE THE ONES, IF THE COURT PLEASES, WHO BROUGHT TO YOUR HONOR'S ATTENTION YESTERDAY MORNING THAT THE STATEMENT THAT I WAS WORKING FROM, THE JULY 29TH STATEMENT, WAS DIFFERENT FROM THE AUGUST 18TH STATEMENT. AS I'VE INDICATED, THAT THIS WAS A CHORE THAT MR. DOUGLAS INHERITED AFTER THE FIRST OF THIS YEAR. WHEN WE BROUGHT THAT TO YOUR HONOR'S ATTENTION, YOU SAID WE HAD TO MAKE DISCLOSURE. WE DID THAT. WHEN MR. PAVELIC CAME DOWN AND SAID HE HAD DISCOVERED THIS TAPE, WE SAID, OBVIOUSLY TELL THE COURT THAT. WE DID NOT KNOW THAT. AS HE TOLD YOU THIS MORNING UNDER OATH, HE HAD NOT TOLD US THAT. THE COURT: LET ME TELL YOU WHAT CONCERNS ME ABOUT MR. PAVELIC. WHEN I FIRST ASKED HIM, ARE THERE ANY TAPE RECORDINGS OR NOTES, HE SAID THESE ARE THE ONLY TWO STATEMENTS. THEN AT MISS CLARK'S URGING AND OVER -- AND WITH SOME RELUCTANCE BY THE COURT, I PUT HIM UNDER OATH AND I GOT A DIFFERENT ANSWER. MR. COCHRAN: I WAS HERE AND MY INTERPRETATION WAS THIS, YOUR HONOR. HE INDICATED THESE ARE THE ONLY TWO STATEMENTS. BUT THEN YOUR HONOR ASKED HIM A DIFFERENT QUESTION. YOUR HONOR ASKED HIM WHEN HE WAS UNDER OATH, ARE THERE ANY -- THE COURT: WELL -- MR. COCHRAN: LET ME COMPLETE, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: SURE. GO AHEAD. MR. COCHRAN: I THINK THE INDICATION WAS, ARE THERE ANY TAPE RECORDINGS. IF YOU'LL LOOK AT THAT, I THINK THAT'S MY RECOLLECTION, AND HE SAID, YES, THERE IS. AND WE WERE JUST AS SHOCKED AS YOU WERE AT THAT POINT. I THINK THAT WAS THE POINT THAT HE INDICATED. I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THAT, THAT'S MY RECOLLECTION OF IT. YOU ASKED HIM SOME QUESTION ABOUT ANY OTHER STATEMENTS. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. AN IMPRECISE QUESTION BY THE COURT, A GREAT FAILING OF MINE. MR. COCHRAN: WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO -- CAN WE LOOK AT IT, YOUR HONOR? BECAUSE I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THAT. I THINK THAT -- THE COURT: THE COURT'S QUESTION WAS: "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." THEN MISS CLARK ASKED ME TO PLACE HIM UNDER OATH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. THEN I ASKED HIM DIRECTLY: "DO YOU HAVE ANY TAPE RECORDINGS OF ANY STATEMENTS? AND MR. PAVELIC: "I TAPE-RECORDED THE FIRST STATEMENT, WHICH WAS THE JULY STATEMENT." MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S WHAT HE SAID. AND THAT WAS MY TOTAL RECOLLECTION. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT YOU'D ASKED HIM AND WHAT YOU DID. NOW, YOU CAN DEFER DIFFERENT THINGS WITH REGARD TO THAT. THE COURT: WELL, IT WAS NOT IN THE SPIRIT OF WHAT I ASKED HIM. MR. COCHRAN: WELL, YOUR HONOR, I'M NOT STANDING UP HERE NOW TO ADDRESS WHAT MR. PAVELIC DID. WE ALL SAW AND HEARD WHAT HE SAID. WE WERE SURPRISED. NOW, YOU CAN IMAGINE THAT I WASN'T PARTICULARLY PLEASED EITHER WITH HEARING MR. PAVELIC HAD A TAPED STATEMENT THAT I HAD NEVER HEARD, THAT THIS WITNESS HAD NEVER EVER SEEN OR HEARD. I WASN'T PARTICULARLY HAPPY ABOUT THAT, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: WELL, MR. COCHRAN, WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW IS, WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF A 1335 -- MR. COCHRAN: YES. THE COURT: -- DIRECT EXAMINATION BY YOURSELF WITH THE PROSECUTION SAYING BECAUSE OF THIS LATE DISCLOSURE, WE NEED ADDITIONAL TIME TO PREPARE FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION. DO YOU FIND THAT TO BE AN UNREASONABLE POSITION BY THE PEOPLE? MR. COCHRAN: YES, I DO, AND THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS. THE COURT: AND WHY IS THAT? MR. COCHRAN: ABSOLUTELY. FIRST OF ALL, WE HAVE VERY EXPERIENCED LAWYERS ON THE OTHER SIDE. YOUR HONOR, THEY HAVE KNOWN ABOUT THE ORIGINAL STATEMENT SINCE SEPTEMBER 1ST WHEN SARA CAPLAN AND JERRY UELMEN TURNED OVER ALL THE DOCUMENTS. THEY HAVE KNOWN ABOUT ROSA LOPEZ SINCE THAT TIME. FOR INSTANCE, THEY TALK ABOUT THIS CLUE THAT LED THEM TO SYLVIA. MISS LOPEZ -- WE HAD INDICATED THAT TO THE COURT. WE'VE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING ABOUT THIS CLUE. AND BASICALLY, YOUR HONOR, THEY HAVE KNOWN ABOUT THIS. AND TO SHOW YOU THE POWER OF THE PROSECUTION AND TO TALK ABOUT THEIR EFFORTS AT INTIMIDATION, THEY HAVE THE SAL -- AT THE CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION, THEY HAVE HER EMPLOYERS SITTING HERE IN COURT YESTERDAY. NOW, WHAT DOES THAT SAY TO PEOPLE ALL ACROSS AMERICA WHO SAY THEY'RE GOING TO BE FAIR ABOUT SOMETHING? THEY CAN'T BE CALLED AT A CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION. WHY DO YOU THINK THEY WERE HERE? THEN AT THE END OF THE DAY, MR. DARDEN SAYS, "YOUR HONOR, I WANT TO HAVE A WITNESS ORDERED BACK," ORDERED BACK IN A CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION OF ROSA LOPEZ. THEY THEN BRING IN THIS SYLVIA. SO WITHIN ONE DAY, THEY HAVE ALL OF THE WITNESSES HERE. AND THEN THEY WOULD STAND HERE AND TELL YOU -- THE COURT: MY INTERPRETATION WAS THAT THEY WERE GOING TO SAY, "DO YOU KNOW THIS PERSON?" MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S FINE, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: "DID YOU SAY THIS -- ANYTHING LIKE THIS TO THIS PERSON?" HAVING BEEN IN THAT CHAIR BEFORE, I UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON. MR. COCHRAN: WELL, I'VE BEEN IN THAT CHAIR ALSO, YOUR HONOR, BUT I THINK THAT THERE MAY BE TWO INTERPRETATIONS FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN IN THAT CHAIR. I THINK ALSO -- THE COURT: I FIND THAT -- I FIND THAT TO BE A PLAUSIBLE GUESS AS TO WHY THEY WERE HERE. MR. COCHRAN: IT CERTAINLY WAS. BUT LET ME -- LET ME SAY THIS AS ONE THAT'S BEEN IN THAT CHAIR ALSO THE SAME TIME YOUR HONOR WAS. REMEMBER -- THE COURT: NO. YOU WERE SUPERVISING ME IN THAT CHAIR. MR. COCHRAN: WELL, I DIDN'T WANT TO SAY THAT. I WASN'T GOING TO SAY THAT, YOUR HONOR. YOUR HONOR, WITH REGARD TO THAT, IF YOU PLEASE, YOU -- THE COURT: YOU DID AN EXCELLENT JOB, MR. COCHRAN. MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: YOU'RE WELCOME. MR. COCHRAN: BUT WITH REGARD TO THAT, YOUR HONOR, IN THAT OFFICE, YOU KNOW THESE WITNESSES AREN'T JUST SITTING UP THERE ALL DAY -- SYLVIA IS NOT UP THERE ALL DAY BY HERSELF NOT BEING INTERVIEWED BY THE INVESTIGATORS AND WHAT'S HAPPENING. WHAT I'M POINTING OUT TO YOU, IF THE COURT DEEMS THAT THEY NEED SOME TIME -- THESE ARE EXPERIENCED LAWYERS. MR. DARDEN HAD A BOOK FULL OF INFORMATION TO TRY AND CROSS-EXAMINE MISS LOPEZ. ALL WE'RE SAYING IS, WE WANT TO GO AHEAD. JUDGE, THEY TALK OUT OF BOTH SIDES OF THEIR MOUTH EVERY DAY. ON FRIDAY EVENING, THEY SAID TO YOU, "LET'S GO BEFORE THE JURY." THEN THEY CHANGED THAT FOR WHATEVER REASON. THEN WHEN THEY COME IN MONDAY MORNING, THEY HAVE A MOTION, SAY, "WELL, WE WANT A CONDITIONAL EXAM." NOW MISS CLARK STANDS BEFORE YOU AND SAYS, "WELL, WE REALLY WANT IT BEFORE THE JURY," BUT THEY'LL NEVER REALLY CALL HER BECAUSE THEY'VE GOT ALL THIS GREAT CROSS-EXAMINATION. THAT'S WHAT THEY ALWAYS SAY, JUDGE. THROUGHOUT THEIR ENTIRE CASE FROM THE TIME THEY HAVE THIS RUSH TO JUDGMENT, ALL THEY DO IS TALK. WE WANT THEM TO PRESENT THE EVIDENCE. AND IF THE COURT FEELS THAT THESE LAWYERS, WHO ARE EXPERIENCED COUNSEL, NEED SOME TIME FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION, THEN SO BE IT. BUT IT SEEMS TO ME WHEN MR. DARDEN STARTED ON FRIDAY, YOUR HONOR, SPENT THE BETTER PART OF THE AFTERNOON ON INSIGNIFICANT ISSUES WITH MISS LOPEZ, WHO THEN THE COURT RULES THAT SHE'S A WITNESS WHO IS GOING BACK TO EL SALVADOR. AND THEN WE COME BACK HERE MONDAY, AND INSTEAD OF HER GOING BEFORE THE JURORS, WHICH WE ALL THOUGHT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN WHEN WE LEFT HERE AT 6:30 OR 7:00, WE THEN REVERSE FIELDS. WE COME BACK AND NOW WE START OUR CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION. THE COURT GOT THAT DONE. THEN NOW BECAUSE OF THE FACT OF THE TAPE AND EVERYTHING, THEY CANNOT PROCEED UNTIL FRIDAY. YOUR HONOR, THAT IS JUST UNHEARD OF IN A CASE WHERE WE HAVE 21 JURORS AND NOT TO MENTION -- NOT ONLY THE JURORS. WE HAVE ROSA LOPEZ, JUDGE. AND LET ME JUST FOCUS ON HER FOR A MOMENT. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT SOMETIMES THE -- MY WORTHY ADVERSARIES ARE TOTALLY INSULATED FROM WHAT HAPPENS OUT IN THE WORLD. THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO ARE WATCHING THIS CASE. AND WE HAVE TO TRY TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT. AND ROSA LOPEZ IS INNOCENT OF ANY WRONGDOING, IF AT ALL, AND TO HAVE HER MALIGNED BY THE PROSECUTION FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSES I THINK IS OUTRAGEOUS. MANY PEOPLE BELIEVE SHE'S A VERY, VERY CREDIBLE WITNESS. BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT MARCIA CLARK THINKS. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT CHRIS DARDEN THINKS. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT CHERI LEWIS THINKS. IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, IT'S WHAT THOSE 12 PEOPLE THINK OVER THERE. AND THAT'S WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO GET THEIR BIG SURPRISE. WHEN PEOPLE SEND IN FLOWERS FOR ROSA LOPEZ, OFFER HER JOBS, SEND HER MONEY IN, THAT'S BECAUSE THEY UNDERSTAND AND THEY HAVE SEEN HER TESTIMONY AND OBSERVED HER. WHEN MISS CLARK STANDS HERE AND TALKS ABOUT HER BEING UNTRUTHFUL, SHE IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG. WHETHER YOU LOOK AT THE STATEMENT, YOUR HONOR, THAT PAVELIC SENDS TO SHAPIRO ON THE 29TH WHERE SHE TALKS ABOUT THE BRONCO BEING THERE FROM 8:30 TO THE NEXT MORNING, WHERE YOU LOOK AT THE STATEMENT OF AUGUST 18TH, SHE TALKS ABOUT THE BRONCO BEING THERE FROM 8:30 UNTIL THE NEXT MORNING AND TALKING TO FUHRMAN THEREAFTER, WHERE YOU LOOK AT THE TAPE WHERE THEY TALK ABOUT THE BRONCO BEING THERE UNTIL THE NEXT MORNING. JUDGE, THEY HAVE A PROBLEM. AND THE REASON WHY THEY ARE GOING THROUGH ALL THESE MACHINATIONS -- THEY'RE NOT FOOLING ANYBODY -- IS BECAUSE THIS IS A PROBLEM WITH THEM. AND I SHOULD TELL YOU ALSO THAT BECAUSE OF THE CONDUCT, OF THE WAY THEY CONDUCT THEMSELVES TOWARDS WITNESSES, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OTHER WITNESSES OUT THERE, JUDGE, WHO KNOW THAT BRONCO WAS THERE WHO ARE AFRAID TO COME FORWARD, A NUMBER OF OTHER WITNESSES WHO UP AND DOWN ROCKINGHAM AS WE'RE SITTING HERE RIGHT NOW WHO KNOW THAT BRONCO WAS THERE, WHOSE EMPLOYERS WILL NOT LET THEM COME FORWARD AND TESTIFY, SOME OF WHO ARE UNDOCUMENTED, AND AS A TRAVESTY BECAUSE WE ARE FACED WITH THAT SITUATION, YOUR HONOR, IN THE FACE OF A MAN WHO WE BELIEVE HAS BEEN WRONGFULLY ACCUSED. AND SO -- MR. DARDEN: WHAT'S THE ISSUE HERE, YOUR HONOR? MS. CLARK: IS THIS A PRESS CONFERENCE? THE COURT: WAIT, WAIT. COUNSEL, PLEASE. MR. COCHRAN. MR. COCHRAN: SO IF THERE IS VEHEMENCE ON BOTH SIDES, YOUR HONOR, YOU CAN FULLY UNDERSTAND IT. BUT BACK TO THE FOCAL POINT, IS THIS. MR. DARDEN: WHAT'S THE ISSUE? MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, COULD YOU ASK THEM -- MAY I COMPLETE MY STATEMENT? I TRIED NOT TO INTERRUPT THEM. THE COURT: PLEASE. MR. DARDEN: HE'S BEEN GOING ON AN HOUR, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: MR. DARDEN, PLEASE. MR. COCHRAN. MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU. THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE, YOUR HONOR, WAS, WE WANT TO CONDUCT AND COMPLETE THIS CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION. SOMEWHERE ALONG THE WAY, AS I ASKED THE COURT TO CONSIDER, THE JURORS TO CONSIDER ROSA LOPEZ, WHO WAS SUPPOSED TO LEAVE FOR EL SALVADOR WAS IT LAST NIGHT? THE COURT: SATURDAY. MR. COCHRAN: THE RESERVATIONS WERE MOVED. SHE'S GOT TO GO BACK TO THE OTHER STATE FIRST. AND, JUDGE, YOU KNOW, SHE IS THE ONE WHO PROMISED YOU. SHE DOES NOT WANT TO BE HERE. SHE'S NOT ASKING TO BE HERE. SHE WONDERS, "WHY, BECAUSE I SAW SOMETHING, DO I HAVE TO BE DRUGGED THROUGH THIS AND MY NAME SULLIED BY THESE PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO DO BUT TALK?" AND SO I THINK THAT'S REALLY UNFAIR, YOUR HONOR. AND I JUST THINK SOMEBODY NEEDS TO SPEAK UP FOR ROSA LOPEZ AND CERTAINLY FOR O.J. SIMPSON WHO IS THE ONE ON TRIAL HERE, AND THAT'S WHY WE ENTRUST THE FAIRNESS TO YOUR HONOR. IF THEY'RE ENTITLED TO SOME TIME, YOU KNOW THE COMPETENCE OF THESE LAWYERS FOR THE PROSECUTION. YOUR HONOR, THEY ARE READY TO PROCEED WITH THEIR PROSECUTION. I SPOKE TO MR. DARDEN BEFORE MISS CLARK CAME DOWN, AND HE SAID THEY WERE TYPING UP THE TRANSCRIPT. YOU HAD ALREADY DONE THE TRANSCRIPT WHILE THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT IT. THERE IS A TRANSCRIPT. HOW MUCH MORE DO THEY WANT FROM THIS TRANSCRIPT? ALL THEY'VE GOT TO DO IS PLAY THE TAPE. LET'S ALL LISTEN TO THIS TAPE SINCE THEY THINK IT'S SO IMPEACHING. LET'S LISTEN TO THE TAPE AND SEE HOW -- WHAT IT DOES FOR HER. LET'S PLAY IT FOR THE JURY. IF THEY'RE SO WORRIED ABOUT IT, I'LL GIVE THEM AN OFFER RIGHT NOW, LET'S PLAY IT FOR THE JURY. I'M SAYING, LET'S PUT ROSA LOPEZ UP THERE, LET'S COMPLETE THIS EXAMINATION. WHAT THEY WANT TO DO, JUDGE, BY BRINGING THE SALINGER'S HERE, BY BRINGING SYLVIA HERE, BY TRYING TO PROLONG THIS, THEY WANT HER TO RUN AWAY. YOU MADE A FINDING THAT SHE WOULD -- THAT SHE WANTS TO LEAVE, AND SHE DOES. AND IF YOU TALK TO HER NOW -- AND I'M GOING TO ASK YOU BEFORE YOU MAKE A DECISION FINALLY TO TALK TO HER LAWYER. MR. JONES IS NOT HERE, BUT MISS HAMBURGER IS HERE. TALK TO HER LAWYER ABOUT HER PRESENT STATE OF MIND. SHE DEFINITELY FIGURES INTO THIS. AND FACTOR IN THE COMPETENCE OF THESE LAWYERS AND THE FACT THEY'RE ALREADY READY. THEY'VE KNOWN ABOUT THIS WITNESS SINCE AUGUST 18TH. AND THEN TO COME AND TELL YOU -- TODAY IS TUESDAY, JUDGE, FEBRUARY 28TH -- TO TELL YOU THEY NEED UNTIL MARCH 3RD IS JUST ABSOLUTELY BEYOND BELIEF. AND YOU TALK ABOUT CREDIBILITY. IT'S THE SAME KIND OF CREDIBILITY THAT HAD MISS CLARK STAND UP YESTERDAY AND SAID THE JULY 29TH STATEMENT DIDN'T TALK ABOUT THE BRONCO BEING THERE OVERNIGHT. THAT'S IN HER DREAMS. IT'S THERE EVERY PLACE, EVERY TIME AND FUHRMAN IS THERE EVERY PLACE AND EVERY TIME AND THEY KNOW THAT FUHRMAN CAME TO SEE HER THE NEXT DAY. SO WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO DO ABOUT THAT? IT'S LIKE THE OTHER WITNESSES THEY WANT TO AVOID. THEY DON'T WANT TO -- THEY DON'T WANT TO -- DON'T KNOW HOW TO DEAL WITH IT. SO WOULD THE COURT, BEFORE YOU MAKE A FINAL DECISION, AT LEAST TALK TO MISS HAMBURGER WITH REGARD TO -- SOMEBODY OTHER THAN MYSELF SHOULD SPEAK FOR MISS ROSA LOPEZ. YOU'VE BEEN FAIR ABOUT THAT AND I WOULD ASK YOU TO DO THAT AGAIN AND PERHAPS MISS LOPEZ ALSO. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET ME HEAR FROM MISS CLARK AND THEN I'LL HEAR FROM MISS HAMBURGER. ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, WOULD YOU FOCUS YOUR COMMENTS ON HOW MUCH TIME IS REASONABLY NECESSARY TO EVALUATE THIS TRANSCRIPT, THE TAPE AND THEN ADD THAT INTO YOUR CROSS-EXAMINATION MIX, BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY THE ISSUE I NEED TO ADDRESS. MS. CLARK: AND IT REALLY IS. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.) MS. CLARK: WE'RE NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT A STATEMENT AND A TAPED TRANSCRIPT, TAPE TRANSCRIPT. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE WITNESSES WHOSE TESTIMONY BECOMES RELEVANT AND IMPORTANT AS A RESULT OF THAT ABOUT WHICH THIS WITNESS HAS TO BE CROSS-EXAMINED, WITH WHICH THIS WITNESS HAS TO BE CONFRONTED. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE TESTIMONY OF THE SALINGER'S, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE TESTIMONY OF SYLVIA, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE DIRECT TESTIMONY ALREADY OF ROSA, WHICH IS INCONSISTENT WITH EACH OF THE STATEMENTS SHE'S GIVEN AND THE TAPED TRANSCRIPT THAT WE HAVE AS WELL AS NUMEROUS OTHER WITNESSES. WE'RE -- THIS IS NOT A LITTLE THING. THIS IS A BIG THING, AND I'M SENSITIVE TO THE ISSUES OF WITNESS INCONVENIENCE. I DEAL WITH IT EVERY DAY. WE ALL DO AS PROSECUTORS. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT YOUR HONOR'S VERY FAMILIAR WITH, PROSECUTORS HAVE TO DEAL WITH CONSTANTLY. AND ROSA LOPEZ IS LIVING BETTER RIGHT NOW THAN SHE MAY EVER HAVE IN HER LIFE. AND SO WHAT -- AND COUNSEL KNOWS IT'S TRUE. HE KNOWS VERY WELL IT'S TRUE. SHE'S NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM BEING INCONVENIENCED. AND WHAT WE -- AND FOR HIM TO SAY IT'S OUTRAGEOUS FOR US TO PREPARE FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION IS THE D'AUTRE THAT THIS COURTROOM HAS BEEN SUBJECTED TO AND THIS COURT HAS BEEN SUBJECTED TO. IT IS NOTHING SHORT OF APPALLING. ALL HE WANTS TO DO IS PREVENT THE CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT HIS WITNESS IS GOING TO BE SUBJECTED TO. BUT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNTS THAT HAVE BEEN ENGENDERED BY THIS NEW INFORMATION WHICH IS, AS I'VE TOLD THE COURT, TRIPLED IT, TRIPLED THE CROSS BECAUSE IT'S BROUGHT IN A NUMBER OF OTHER WITNESSES. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. NOW, HAVING SAID THAT -- MS. CLARK: I'VE ASKED THE COURT FOR THE VERY LEAST AMOUNT OF TIME THAT WE CAN POSSIBLY PREPARE IN. I'VE ASKED THE COURT FOR THE VERY MINIMUM AMOUNT. YOU KNOW, I MEAN, IF WE WERE THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS, WE WOULD BE STANDING HERE ASKING THE COURT FOR SIX WEEKS, WHICH IS WHAT THEY DID. I'M NOT ASKING THE COURT FOR THAT. I DID ASK THE COURT TO TERMINATE THE CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION. I THINK THAT'S AN APPROPRIATE SANCTION AND I THINK THAT'S THE APPROPRIATE THING TO DO IN LIGHT OF THE WITNESS' INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS AND THE BEHAVIOR THAT SHE'S EXHIBITED TO THIS COURT. THE COURT DOESN'T NEED TO TALK TO MISS HAMBURGER. THE COURT HAS HEARD FROM THIS WITNESS HERSELF ABOUT HER STATE OF MIND AND ALL OF THE INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS AND BEHAVIOR. AND WHEN COUNSEL TALKS ABOUT THE HARASSMENT BY THE PRESS, THIS IS A WITNESS WHO'S PULLING ON THE SKIRT OF THE REPORTER FROM COURT T.V., "OH, I LIKE YOU." THE COURT: WELL, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT POINT ALREADY. MS. CLARK: YEAH. OKAY. I AM SORRY, YOUR HONOR. THERE'S NOTHING ABOUT THIS WITNESS THAT SHOULD CAUSE -- GIVE ANYONE CAUSE ABOUT HER WILLINGNESS, HER DESIRE, HER ANXIOUSNESS TO HELP THE DEFENSE IN ANY WAY POSSIBLE AND SAY ANYTHING SHE CAN. SO -- THE COURT: CAN YOU GIVE ME ANY BETTER -- OTHER THAN THE GENERALITIES THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, CAN YOU GIVE ME ANY OTHER REASON WHY IT IS YOU NEED ALL THE WAY TO FRIDAY TO EVALUATE THE TRANSCRIPT OF THIS TAPE AND THE TAPE RECORDING? MS. CLARK: FIRST OF ALL, YOUR HONOR, WE'RE ONLY TALKING TWO DAYS FOR SOMETHING THAT MOST ATTORNEYS WOULD BE REQUESTING WEEKS TO DO. THE COURT: NO. THREE DAYS. MS. CLARK: WELL, IT'S CLOSE TO THAT. I THINK THAT'S VERY LITTLE TIME. I THINK IT'S REALLY -- IT'S EXTRAORDINARILY REASONABLE OF THE PEOPLE GIVEN THE NATURE OF THE NEW INFORMATION THAT WE'VE GOT AND THE IMPEACHING NATURE OF THE TAPE AND THE STATEMENT. AND I'VE BEEN I THINK VERY SPECIFIC TO THE COURT. WE HAVE FOUND INCONSISTENCIES SUCH AS DEFENSE COUNSEL POSTURES ABOUT THE FACT THAT SHE WAS CONSISTENT. NO. IN THE JULY 29TH STATEMENT, SHE STATES IN THE STATEMENT: "MISS LOPEZ STATED THAT AT APPROXIMATELY 10:15 TO 10:20, SHE TOOK HER DOG FOR A WALK AND FIVE MINUTES LATER, SHE RETURNED TO HER RESIDENCE. MISS LOPEZ STATED THAT THE LAST TIME SHE HEARD O.J. TALKING WAS AT APPROXIMATELY 11:00 O'CLOCK. SHE IS ADAMANT THAT FROM THE MOMENT SHE FIRST OBSERVED THE BRONCO AT ABOUT 8:30 UNTIL THE FOLLOWING DAY, THE BRONCO WAS NOT MOVED." NOWHERE IN THIS STATEMENT IS A SPECIFIC MENTION OF SEEING THE BRONCO AT 10:15. MIRACULOUSLY IN THE AUGUST 18TH INTERVIEW, THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS MADE: "AT APPROXIMATELY 10:15 TO 10:20, MISS LOPEZ TOOK HER DOG FOR A WALK, AND FIVE MINUTES LATER, SHE RETURNED TO HER RESIDENCE. DURING THIS TIME, MISS LOPEZ AGAIN OBSERVED O.J. SIMPSON'S BRONCO TO BE PARKED IN THE SAME POSITION NEAR THE ROCKINGHAM GATE." I CALL THAT A MATERIAL CONFLICT. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.) MS. CLARK: NOW, WHAT THE COURT HEARD IN LISTENING TO THE TAPE IS THAT THERE WAS NO MENTION OF SYLVIA. YET, A REPORT PURPORTING TO BE PREPARED FROM THE INTERVIEW OF THE SAME DATE, JULY 29TH, HAS IN IT THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH: "SHORTLY AFTER HER -- 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 OF 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." MIRACULOUSLY IN THE AUGUST 18TH STATEMENT, THAT PARAGRAPH DISAPPEARS. WE ARE TALKING MATERIAL HUGE INCONSISTENCIES THAT NEED TO BE EXPLORED WITH ALL THE WITNESSES THAT PERTAIN TO THESE OBSERVATIONS. THE COURT: BUT THAT -- ISN'T THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN EXPLORE LOGISTICALLY AFTER THIS PERSON HAS COMPLETED THEIR DIRECT EXAMINATION, AFTER YOU'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK MISS LOPEZ ABOUT THESE THINGS, CONFRONTED HER WITH THEM SO TO SPEAK? I MEAN, THE INCONSISTENCIES OR THE APPARENT INCONSISTENCIES ARE THERE AND ARE APPARENT TO YOU; ARE THEY NOT? MS. CLARK: THOSE ARE. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE WITNESSES WHOSE STATEMENTS GO TO THESE ISSUES? HOW CAN I CONFRONT HER WITH THE WITNESSES' STATEMENTS IF WE HAVEN'T COLLATED THEM AND PREPARED ALL OF THEM? I MEAN, YOU KNOW, YOUR HONOR, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO TO THREE DAYS TO PULL OUT WITNESSES AND THEIR STATEMENTS AND INCONSISTENCIES IN-BETWEEN THESE STATEMENTS AND THE TAPED TRANSCRIPT THAT WOULD REQUIRE ORDINARILY WEEKS TO DO. THE COURT: BUT CANNOT MISS LOPEZ ONLY BE CONFRONTED WITH HER INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS RATHER THAN INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS BY OTHER PEOPLE? MS. CLARK: CANNOT -- WOULDN'T IT BE MORE EFFECTIVE SINCE WE ARE -- APPARENTLY THE DEFENSE INSISTS ON REPRESENTING TO THE COURT THAT SHE WON'T BE HERE, WOULDN'T IT BE EFFECTIVE CROSS-EXAMINATION TO CONFRONT HER WITH THE EXISTENCE OF THESE OTHER WITNESSES AND PROBE HER RELATIONSHIP TO THEM? THE COURT: YOU CAN, BUT YOU CAN'T -- NOT WITH THEIR HEARSAY STATEMENTS OBVIOUSLY. MS. CLARK: MAYBE THAT'S NOT NECESSARY. BUT WE NEED -- THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT, YOUR HONOR. THERE ARE A LOT OF TACTICAL DECISIONS TO BE MADE. THERE'S A LOT OF PREPARATION THAT GOES INTO THIS. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S ASSUME THAT I SMILE FAVORABLY ON SOME OF YOUR REQUESTS FOR A CONTINUANCE. WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO IN THE MEANTIME? I WOULD ASSUME THAT WE COULD COMPLETE AT LEAST THE DIRECT EXAMINATION TODAY OF ROSA LOPEZ. IS THAT CORRECT, MR. COCHRAN? ARE YOU PREPARED TO CONCLUDE THAT? MR. COCHRAN: YES. I'M READY TO PROCEED RIGHT NOW, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: LET'S ASSUME THAT WE CAN COMPLETE THE DIRECT. WHAT DO YOU PROPOSE WE DO TOMORROW AND THURSDAY? MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, I DON'T THINK THAT THE PEOPLE SHOULD BE IN THE POSITION OF HAVING TO PROPOSE ANYTHING GIVEN THE FACT THAT IT'S THE DEFENSE MISCONDUCT THAT PUT US IN THIS POSITION. THE COURT: NO. I WAS ABOUT TO INVITE YOU TO SAY, WELL, PERHAPS WE OUGHT TO CONCLUDE THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DETECTIVE LANGE. MS. CLARK: BUT HOW CAN WE BE IN TWO PLACES AT ONE TIME? THE COURT: WELL, I MEAN, WE'VE GOT, ACCORDING TO THE L.A. TIMES, 43 PEOPLE IN THE D.A.'S OFFICE WORKING FULL-TIME ON THIS CASE. MS. CLARK: HOW MANY OF THEM ARE THE LEAD PROSECUTORS IN THE CASE? THERE'S ONLY TWO. WE'RE THE ONES THAT ARE GOING TO BE INVOLVED -- WE ARE THE ONES THAT -- THE COURT: I DIDN'T BELIEVE IT EITHER. MS. CLARK: I DON'T KNOW. I MEAN THAT MUST BE -- NEVER MIND. THE COURT: OKAY. I MEAN, SERIOUSLY, WE HAVE TO MAKE A CHOICE HERE. SOMEBODY'S GOT TO PREPARE THIS. BUT WE HAVE A TRIAL AND WE HAVE A SEQUESTERED JURY. SO I'VE GOT TO DO WORK WITH THE JURY. THAT'S WHERE WE ARE. MS. CLARK: BUT BASICALLY, YOUR HONOR, THE PEOPLE ARE STILL BEING PUNISHED FOR DEFENSE MISCONDUCT. YOU KNOW, HOW IS THIS FAIR? HOW IS THAT FAIR? YOU KNOW, WE'RE THE ONES PUT BEHIND THE EIGHT BALL BY THEIR MISCONDUCT AND THE COURT THEN WANTS TO -- TO HAVE OUR EFFORTS IN THE PREPARATION OF CROSS-EXAMINATION WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN CUT BACK TO NOT 10 PERCENT OF WHAT THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN BY THEIR MISCONDUCT. I MEAN, YOU -- THE DEFENSE IS -- IT'S THE DEFENSE'S GREED -- THE COURT: SO IN OTHER WORDS, YOU ARE ASKING FOR A COMPLETE CONTINUANCE UNTIL FRIDAY. IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE ASKING FOR? MS. CLARK: THAT'S CORRECT, YOUR HONOR. THAT'S CORRECT. OR I HAVE OFFERED THE COURT AN OPTION THAT WILL ABSOLUTELY PUT THE JURY BACK IN THIS COURTROOM READY TO GO TOMORROW, AND THAT IS TO TERMINATE THE CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION, WHICH IS EXACTLY -- YOU KNOW, EXACTLY WHAT I THINK SHOULD HAPPEN HERE. IT'S WHAT THEY DESERVE. IT WILL NOT CURTAIL THEIR ABILITY TO PRESENT THE DEFENSE. THE WITNESS WILL BE HERE AND WE WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PREPARE FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION. IT ANSWERS ALL PROBLEMS. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MR. COCHRAN: JUST A FEW LAST WORDS IF I MIGHT. THE PEOPLE NEVER CAN ACCEPT THE COURT'S RULING. YOU'VE RULED THIS CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION. THEY COULDN'T ACCEPT THAT. THEY STILL DON'T WANT TO ACCEPT IT. EVERY OPPORTUNITY, THEY TRY TO CHANGE THAT. IT SEEMS TO ME TO BE TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE AND I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO -- TO -- TO NOT DO THAT. THAT SEEMS TO BE INAPPROPRIATE. IT SEEMS ALSO, YOUR HONOR, THAT THIS IS -- WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, YOUR HONOR, SO THAT WE'RE PERFECTLY CLEAR, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A 12-MINUTE TAPE. THE COURT: 15. MR. COCHRAN: WELL, 15 MINUTES. IT SEEMED MORE LIKE 12, BUT THE FIRST PART IS ADMONITIONS AND "I'M NOT THREATENING YOU" OR WHATEVER. 15 -- YOU'VE DONE THE TAPE. SO 15-MINUTE TAPE. YOUR HONOR, HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE A LAWYER 15-MINUTE -- A TAPE THAT TRACKS A JULY 29TH STATEMENT TO PREPARE THAT? WHETHER THEY'VE GOT 43 PEOPLE WORKING UP THERE OR 15 OR 20, THERE ARE PLENTY AND AMPLE PEOPLE TO DO THIS CROSS-EXAMINATION. THEY'RE ALREADY PREPARED ON THIS. THIS IS THE ONLY THING ADDED, IS 15 MINUTES OF TAPE. AND SO DO WHAT YOU THINK IS REASONABLE, BUT I WOULD ASK YOU BEFORE YOU MAKE YOUR DECISION, THAT NOT MAKE IT BASED ON THE MACHINATIONS OF CLIMATE AND THIS UNREASONABLE ESTIMATE. IT SEEMS TO ME IF THE COURT WOULD LISTEN TO MISS HAMBURGER AND MISS LOPEZ, SHE HAS A REAL -- SHE HAS A REAL -- SHE IS THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST IN THIS AND I WOULD ASK YOU ONCE AGAIN TO DO THAT. AND I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THIS STATEMENT -- COUNSEL TRIES TO GO THROUGH THIS STATEMENT AND PICK OUT CERTAIN PORTIONS OF IT OR WHATEVER. I THINK WHAT SHE HAS TO POINT OUT, THIS IS PAVELIC'S STATEMENT. SO SHE'S GOING TO HAVE A REAL DIFFICULT TIME IMPEACHING ROSA LOPEZ ON PAVELIC'S STATEMENT. SHE CAN ASK HER QUESTIONS. BUT SHE'S GOT TO ASK PAVELIC ABOUT WHAT HE WROTE AND WHAT HE -- AFTER THE CONVERSATION. THAT'S WHAT IT'S ABOUT, AND THEY SEEM TO FORGET THAT, YOUR HONOR. THEY DO NOT HAVE A STATEMENT SIGNED BY ROSA LOPEZ. THEY HAVE A VOICE ON THIS TAPE. AND THEY CAN PLAY THE TAPE AS I'VE INVITED THEM. NO FOUNDATIONAL PROBLEMS AT ALL. PLAY THE TAPE. AND SO -- BUT WOULD YOU PLEASE LISTEN TO MISS HAMBURGER AND MISS LOPEZ BEFORE YOU RULE AS TO WHAT'S APPROPRIATE, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DEPUTY BROWNING, CAN I HAVE MISS HAMBURGER, PLEASE. (MISS HAMBURGER IS NOW PRESENT.) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON. MISS HAMBURGER, WOULD YOU APPROACH, PLEASE. ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNSEL. WE'VE HAD A FEW DEVELOPMENTS TRANSPIRE, AS YOU KNOW, OVER THE LAST TWO DAYS. THE DEFENSE HAS TURNED OVER A TAPE RECORDING OF A STATEMENT MADE BY YOUR CLIENT, ROSA LOPEZ, IN JULY OF LAST YEAR, AND THAT TAPE RECORDING WAS TURNED OVER LATE THIS MORNING AND A TRANSCRIPT WAS JUST PROVIDED BY THE COURT TO COUNSEL FOR BOTH SIDES. THE PROSECUTION HAS ASKED FOR A CONTINUANCE OF THE 1335 UNTIL FRIDAY MORNING SO THAT THEY CAN EVALUATE THE TAPE-RECORDED STATEMENT AND CORRELATE IT WITH ALL THE OTHER EVIDENCE THAT HAS BEEN ENGENDERED -- EXCUSE ME -- HAS BEEN CREATED BY THIS SITUATION. I AM PROBABLY NOT GOING TO GRANT THE CONTINUANCE UNTIL FRIDAY. I AM PROBABLY GOING TO GRANT A CONTINUANCE UNTIL THURSDAY FOR THIS REASON. I DO NOT BELIEVE WE CAN COMPLETE THIS CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION IN ONE ADDITIONAL DAY. I THINK WE'RE GOING TO GO LONGER THAN AN ADDITIONAL DAY. AND I'M THEREFORE GOING TO BE ORDERING YOUR CLIENT TO RETURN BACK HERE AT 9:00 O'CLOCK ON THURSDAY MORNING, THE 2ND OF MARCH. AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR CLIENT IS VERY RELUCTANT TO STAY. THE COURT HAS ALREADY THROUGH THE CLERK MADE ARRANGEMENTS TO CHANGE HER PLANE RESERVATIONS FOR HER FLIGHT OUT OF TOWN. SO I MAINTAIN MY BELIEF THAT SHE IS IN FACT GOING TO LEAVE THE JURISDICTION. MY ALTERNATIVE IS THAT IF SHE DOES NOT ACCEPT MY ORDER TO RETURN ON MARCH THE 3RD AT 9:00 A.M., THEN AS A -- HAVING ALREADY DETERMINED THAT SHE IS A MATERIAL WITNESS, I WILL HAVE TO REQUIRE HER TO POST A SUBSTANTIAL BOND. ALL RIGHT. DO YOU WANT TO DISCUSS THAT WITH YOUR CLIENT? MS. HAMBURGER: MAY I, PLEASE, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: PLEASE. MR. DOUGLAS: MARCH 2ND? THE COURT: MARCH 2ND, WHICH IS THURSDAY. MS. HAMBURGER: MAY I HAVE 10 MINUTES? THE COURT: ABSOLUTELY. THE REASON FOR THAT, COUNSEL -- LET ME JUST EXPLAIN TO COUNSEL. I THINK, MISS CLARK, THAT YOU'RE ENTITLED TO A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF TIME, AND PERHAPS OVERNIGHT IS NOT ENOUGH. BUT I DON'T BELIEVE WE ARE GOING TO COMPLETE THIS CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION IN ONE ADDITIONAL DAY. AND IF WE GO TO FRIDAY, THEN WE'RE GOING TO DRIBBLE OVER INTO SATURDAY AND SUNDAY, AND I HAVE OTHER COMMITMENTS SATURDAY THAT I CAN'T BREAK. SO THAT'S THAT. MS. CLARK: AND THE COURT IS CORRECT. ONE DAY WILL NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO COMPLETE THE EXAMINATION. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SO I PROPOSE THAT WHAT WE DO IS COMPLETE THE EXAMINATION OF -- WE WILL TAKE A 10-MINUTE RECESS FOR MISS HAMBURGER TO SPEAK TO MISS LOPEZ. WE'LL COMPLETE THE DIRECT EXAMINATION THIS AFTERNOON AND THEN WE'LL STAND IN RECESS. HOWEVER, I DO WANT COUNSEL BACK THE NEXT FEW DAYS TO HASH OUT SOME OF THE DISCOVERY THINGS THAT WE HAVEN'T GONE THROUGH, TAKE CARE OF SOME OF THE OTHER BUSINESS WE HAVE WITH DEAN UELMEN TOMORROW. WE CAN DO THOSE THINGS WITHOUT THE JURY. MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, JUDGE. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. 10 MINUTES. MS. CLARK: THANK YOU. (RECESS.) (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:) MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, WE ARE GOING TO ASK FOR -- MISS HAMBURGER ASKED FOR THREE MORE MINUTES. THE COURT: OKAY. (BRIEF PAUSE.) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE'RE WAITING FOR MISS HAMBURGER AND HER CLIENT. MR. COCHRAN, I BELIEVE MISS HAMBURGER WILL BE IN MOMENTARILY. ALL RIGHT. LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION WHILE WE ARE AWAITING -- MR. COCHRAN: SURE, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: -- COUNSEL FOR MISS LOPEZ. WHAT IS THE DEFENSE POSITION ON THE COURT MAKING A DETERMINATION UNDER 1332 THAT MISS LOPEZ IS A MATERIAL WITNESS AND REQUIRING HER TO POST BOND? MR. COCHRAN: WELL, OUR POSITION IS, YOUR HONOR, THAT WOULD BE TERRIBLY UNFAIR. I THINK -- AS I ADDRESSED IN MY REMARKS, YOUR HONOR, I THINK THAT THIS IS A LADY WHO CAME FORWARD VOLUNTARILY. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S ASSUME THAT YOU THINK IT'S TERRIBLY UNFAIR. IF SHE'S UNWILLING, HOW DO I SECURE HER ATTENDANCE HERE ON THURSDAY? MR. COCHRAN: WELL, I CAN ONLY HARKEN BACK TO FRIDAY EVENING WHEN SHE DID NOT WANT TO BE HERE. SHE WANTED TO LEAVE THAT WEEKEND, SATURDAY NIGHT IF YOU RECALL. SHE SEEMED TO HAVE A GREAT AMOUNT OF RESPECT FOR YOUR HONOR, AND IF YOU RECALL, SHE PROMISED THAT SHE WOULD COME BACK FOR YOU. THE COURT: OF COURSE, I ALSO PROMISED TO BE FINISHED. MR. COCHRAN: BUT YOU PROMISED TO BE FINISHED. SO MAYBE THERE IS A LITTLE CREDIBILITY PROBLEM NOW THAT HAS ARISEN. BUT I THINK THAT SHE CONTINUES TO HAVE RESPECT FOR THIS COURT BECAUSE SHE BELIEVES THIS COURT IS FAIR AND I THINK THAT IT'S GOING TO REQUIRE YOU ASKING. SHE HAS BEEN -- AT LUNCH TIME TODAY, SHE SAID, "WHY IS THIS HAPPENING TO ME? I'M JUST A WITNESS. I WAS JUST THERE. I JUST SAW WHAT I SAW," AND SHE SAYS, "I WANT TO GO HOME." CONTRARY TO WHAT THE PROSECUTION THINKS, BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT OUT IN THE REAL WORLD, THIS LADY WANTS TO LEAVE AND SHE IS SINCERE ABOUT THAT. SHE WANTS TO GET ON WITH HER LIFE. AND SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT -- I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO TALK TO HER. BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE TERRIBLY UNFAIR, JUDGE. IN ADDITION TO THIS CASE -- THE COURT: BUT THE CONSEQUENCE IF I DON'T DO THAT AND IF I ORDER HER TO COME BACK WITHOUT POSTING A BOND AND SHE DISAPPEARS, YOU LOSE HER. MR. COCHRAN: YEAH. I THINK WHILE WE ARE WAITING FOR THEM TO COME IN, I WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO MY COLLEAGUE. BUT I THINK -- I JUST -- YOU KNOW -- WELL, I WANT TO TALK TO MY CLIENT REALLY IS WHAT I WANT TO DO. THE COURT: THAT'S A TACTICAL DECISION. MR. COCHRAN: I WANT TO TALK TO MY CLIENT. BUT I THINK, JUDGE, WE JUST DON'T WANT TO BE PART OF THAT. I MEAN, THAT JUST SEEMS SO EGREGIOUS WHERE -- SHE'S A WITNESS. SHE'S A PERSON WHO SAW SOMETHING, WHO'S COME DOWN HERE. IT'S NOT HER FAULT AND I JUST HAVE A LITTLE TROUBLE WITH THAT. THE COURT: WELL, BELIEVE ME, I'M RELUCTANT TO THROW WITNESSES INTO CUSTODY TOO. MR. COCHRAN: PLUS SHE DOESN'T HAVE ANY MONDAY. AND SO THAT'S ANOTHER PROBLEM. AND PEOPLE ALWAYS WANT TO SEND THINGS IN. AND CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, THAT BEFORE I LET HER SPEND ONE NIGHT, I WOULD POST IT PERSONALLY. BUT I JUST -- I HAVE A REAL PROBLEM WITH THIS. MAY I TALK TO MR. SIMPSON? (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL AND DEFENDANT.) MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, WOULD YOU CARE TO HAVE US ADDRESS THE 1332 ISSUE? THE COURT: WELL, COUNSEL, THEY'RE CONSULTING WITH THEIR CLIENT. ALL RIGHT. MISS HAMBURGER, WHY DON'T YOU COME ON UP. LET ME JUST ALLOW MR. COCHRAN TO CONCLUDE CONFERRING WITH HIS CLIENT, BUT DON'T GO AWAY. (BRIEF PAUSE.) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON, MISS HAMBURGER. MS. HAMBURGER: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR. THE SAD PART OF ALL OF THIS ARE MY CLIENT'S FEELINGS JUSTIFIABLY. I HAVE SPOKEN TO MY CLIENT. SHE HAS AGREED TO ONLY ONE THING, AND I HOPE YOU WILL ALLOW HER TO DO THIS, YOUR HONOR. SHE HAS AGREED, IF YOU WILL ALLOW HER, TO ADDRESS YOU DIRECTLY. WOULD YOU GIVE HER PERMISSION TO DO THAT? THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. CERTAINLY. MS. HAMBURGER: THANK YOU. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET THE RECORD REFLECT THE PRESENCE OF OUR CERTIFIED SPANISH INTERPRETER, WHOSE NAME IS? THE INTERPRETER: CECILE, C-E-C-I-L-E, CERDA, C-E-R-D-A, SPANISH LANGUAGE INTERPRETER, OATH ON FILE. THE COURT: THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. MISS LOPEZ, WOULD YOU COME FORWARD, PLEASE. ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON AGAIN, MA'AM. LET ME HAVE THE INTERPRETER INTERPRET FOR YOU. MS. LOPEZ: GOOD AFTERNOON. THE COURT: MISS LOPEZ, YOUR ATTORNEY HAS INDICATED THAT YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO ME AGAIN. AND I HAVE EXPLAINED TO YOUR ATTORNEY THAT WE'VE HAD ANOTHER DELAY IN OUR PROCEEDING. I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH DETAIL YOUR ATTORNEY TOLD YOU, BUT THE DELAY IS BASED UPON THE FACT THAT THE PROSECUTION WAS GIVEN A TAPE RECORDING OF YOUR FIRST INTERVIEW ONLY THIS MORNING AND THEY WANT SOME TIME TO LISTEN TO THE TAPE RECORDING, TO PREPARE A TRANSCRIPT OF THAT RECORDING AND TO EVALUATE IT BEFORE ASKING YOU QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT YOU SAID ON JULY THE 29TH, 1994. THEY ASK THAT I DELAY THIS PROCEEDING UNTIL FRIDAY, BUT I FEEL A DELAY UNTIL THURSDAY IS SUFFICIENT TIME FOR THEM TO ACCOMPLISH THESE THINGS. YOUR ATTORNEY HAS INDICATED THAT YOU WISH TO TALK TO ME ABOUT THIS. MS. LOPEZ: YES, YOUR HONOR. I WANT TO TELL YOU THAT I WAS VERY HONEST WITH YOU. YOU TOLD ME COME BACK ON MONDAY, AND I CAME ON MONDAY. AND I WAS VERY HONEST WITH MY ATTORNEY, WITH ANY ONE OF THEM. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME. I CAME FROM VERY FAR TO FINISH WITH THIS. AND TODAY AND ON THURSDAY, I'M GOING TO BE TOLD ANOTHER DAY. AND I AM VERY SICK, SIR. I DON'T EAT EVERY DAY, SIR, I AM NOT SLEEPING VERY WELL, SIR (IN ENGLISH). I'M NOT SLEEPING VERY WELL AND I'M GOING TO TELL YOU, THIS IS NOT MY FAULT TO WORK CLOSE TO MR. SIMPSON, TO HAVE SEEN AND TO HAVE HEARD. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS LOPEZ, I KNOW THAT THIS IS NOT YOUR FAULT. THIS DELAY IS THE -- THE CAUSE OF THIS DELAY IS THE FAILURE TO TURN OVER THE TAPE-RECORDED STATEMENT TO THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE PROSECUTION. THAT IS THE REASON FOR THE DELAY. I APOLOGIZE TO YOU FOR THAT. HOWEVER, IN FAIRNESS TO BOTH SIDES IN THIS LAWSUIT, IT IS NECESSARY FOR ME TO ORDER YOU TO COME BACK ON THURSDAY MORNING. AND THE REASON I HAVE PICKED THURSDAY IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE FINISH THIS PROCEEDING THIS WEEK. I APOLOGIZE TO YOU FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. AS PART OF THE SANCTION FOR FAILING TO TURN OVER THE TAPE, I AM GOING TO ORDER COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT TO PAY FOR YOUR HOTEL THROUGH THURSDAY. THROUGH THURSDAY. AND I UNDERSTAND MY CLERK HAS ALREADY CONTACTED YOUR TRAVEL AGENT AND THAT YOUR -- THE TICKET AND RESERVATIONS THAT YOU HAD ARE FULLY REFUNDABLE AND TRANSFERRABLE TO ANOTHER FLIGHT. WHAT WE WILL DO TODAY, WE WILL FINISH THE QUESTIONING BY MR. COCHRAN, AND THEN I'LL ORDER YOU TO COME BACK ON THURSDAY TO COMPLETE THIS. MS. LOPEZ: I AM VERY TIRED. I WANT TO GO REST, SIR. I DON'T WANT ANY MORE QUESTIONS. THANK YOU (IN ENGLISH). THE COURT: YOU ARE WELCOME, MA'AM. ALL RIGHT. MISS LOPEZ, I AM SORRY. I HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION. FORGIVE ME. I HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION. MISS LOPEZ, DO YOU UNDERSTAND MY ORDER TO RETURN HERE ON THURSDAY MORNING AT 9:00 O'CLOCK? MS. LOPEZ: YES, SIR, I UNDERSTAND. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. COCHRAN, YOU'RE TO MAKE THE ARRANGEMENTS. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE ORDER, SIR? MR. COCHRAN: YES, I DO, YOUR HONOR. YES. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THAT'S THE ORDER. ALL RIGHT. I THINK WE'LL CALL IT A DAY AS FAR AS MISS LOPEZ IS CONCERNED TODAY. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU. THE COURT: IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE WE CAN CONCLUDE? MS. HAMBURGER: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: AND, COUNSEL, I'M GOING TO ORDER YOU TO BE HERE THURSDAY MORNING AS WELL, 9:00 O'CLOCK. MS. HAMBURGER: DEFINITELY. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: THANK YOU. MR. COCHRAN: MAY WE APPROACH? THE COURT: YES, PLEASE. (A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED.) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT, COUNSEL. THANK YOU. WE HAVE SCHEDULED TOMORROW AFTERNOON PREVIOUSLY MOTIONS REGARDING DISCOVERY COMPLIANCE, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ALL THE DEFENSE INVESTIGATORS HERE SO WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT WE CONCLUDE THOSE MATTERS. WE ALSO HAVE THE PEOPLE'S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY OF EXPERT STATEMENTS DISCLOSURE, ET CETERA ET CETERA. THAT WILL BE AT 1:30. I WANT TO MEET WITH THE LAWYERS IN CHAMBERS TOMORROW MORNING AT 9:00 O'CLOCK. ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE STAND IN RECESS? THANK YOU, COUNSEL. ANOTHER INTERESTING DAY. THANK YOU, MADAM INTERPRETER. INTERPRETERS, YOU ARE ORDERED TO RETURN THURSDAY MORNING AT 9:00 O'CLOCK. THANK YOU. MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. (AT 3:30 P.M., AN ADJOURNMENT WAS TAKEN UNTIL, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1, 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
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1995 PAGES 16555 THROUGH 16623, 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: MAYA Z. HAMBURGER, ESQUIRE I N D E X INDEX FOR VOLUME 96 PAGES 16555 - 16623 ----------------------------------------------------- DAY DATE SESSION PAGE VOL.
TUESDAY FEBRUARY 28, 1995 A.M. 16555 96 PROCEEDINGS
MOTION RE CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION 16555 96 LEGEND:
MS. CLARK - MC ----------------------------------------------------- CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
DEFENSE (1335)
PAVELIC, 16557 (EXAMIMED BY THE COURT) 96 ----------------------------------------------------- ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
DEFENSE (1335)
PAVELIC, 16557 (EXAMIMED BY THE COURT) 96 EXHIBITS
COURT'S FOR IN
4 - MICRO CASSETTE TAPE 16556 96 16618
|