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. BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. MR. SIMPSON IS AGAIN PRESENT WITH COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. BAILEY, MR. UELMEN. THE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED BY MISS LEWIS, MR. DARDEN. THE MATTER IS HERE FOR VARIOUS MOTIONS. COUNSEL, I DISCUSSED WITH YOU INFORMALLY AT THE SIDE BAR YESTERDAY, OR THE DAY BEFORE, THE COURT'S INTENTION TO PRE-INSTRUCT THE JURY PRIOR TO OPENING STATEMENTS, AND IF YOU WOULD SUBMIT TO THE COURT ON TUESDAY, THE 17TH, ANY PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS THAT YOU WISH, AND I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT YOUR OPINION IS OF CALJIC 2.90, IN LIGHT OF PEOPLE VERSUS FREEMAN AND OF COURSE VICTOR VERSUS NEBRASKA, THE MORAL EVIDENCE ASPECT TO THE REASONABLE DOUBT INSTRUCTION, SO LET ME KNOW WHAT YOUR POSITION IS ON THAT. ALL RIGHT. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE MOTION TO QUASH THE SUBPOENA ON MARGUERITE THOMAS. AND MR. JONES, GOOD MORNING, COUNSEL.

MR. JONES: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. YOUR HONOR, I RECEIVED THIS MORNING THE OPPOSITION FROM THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. I HAVE NOT HAD A CHANCE TO READ IT, MUCH LESS STUDY IT. INITIALLY I WOULD MOVE TO STRIKE IT AS BEING UNTIMELY FILED AND HAVE THE COURT DECIDE THE ISSUE ON MY MOVING PAPERS UNOPPOSED. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, I WOULD HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE PEOPLE'S REQUEST FOR A CONTINUANCE. I AM CONCERNED THAT IF I MAKE THE MOTION IT WILL CREATE ADDITIONAL PROBLEMS FOR ME, AS WELL AS OTHER ALLEGATIONS THAT I AM PROCRASTINATING OR STALLING.

MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE, WE HAVE NO OBJECTION. WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO A BRIEF CONTINUANCE TO ALLOW MR. JONES AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW OUR RESPONSIVE PAPERS, SO LONG AS IT IS FAIRLY BRIEF, SINCE WE ARE ABOUT TO GIVE OPENING STATEMENTS NEXT WEEK.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WELL, HE WAS ASKING IF IT WOULD BE YOUR MOTION, SINCE YOU FILED THIS TODAY.

MS. LEWIS: IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WE DID FAX A COPY TO MR. JONES LAST NIGHT.

MR. JONES: YOUR HONOR, I WORKED AND BILLED UNTIL SEVEN O'CLOCK. NOTHING ARRIVED BY THAT TIME, 7:00 P.M.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MS. LEWIS: WE WERE --

THE COURT: WELL, THEN ON THE COURT'S MOTION, SINCE NOBODY WANTS TO DO IT, SINCE I ALSO JUST RECEIVED THIS REPLY THIS MORNING AT APPROXIMATELY 8:45, I WOULD LIKE TO READ IT AS WELL, AND MY -- ONE OF MY PEPPERDINE LAW CLERKS BROUGHT IN AN ARTICLE FOR ME TO READ THAT I HAVE NOT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO READ EITHER WITH REGARDS TO THAT ISSUE. SO MR. JONES, WHAT DATE IS CONVENIENT TO YOUR CALENDAR?

MS. CLARK: I WOULD LIKE TO RESOLVE THIS NEXT WEEK, YOUR HONOR.

MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, ACTUALLY IF MR. JONES' SCHEDULE PERMITS, IT COULD BE SOMETHING PERHAPS THAT COULD BE RESOLVED THIS AFTERNOON.

MR. JONES: YOUR HONOR, WE FILED OUR MOTION TEN DAYS IN ADVANCE, ACCORDING TO THE COURT POLICY, SO THAT THE PEOPLE WOULD HAVE AMPLE TIME TO RESPOND. AT 9:15 THIS MORNING ON THE DATE OF THE MOTION I THINK IS -- IT IS INAPPROPRIATE TO ASK US TO RESPOND ANYTIME TODAY.

NEXT WEEK IS A PROBLEM. MAY WE APPROACH WITH THE REPORTER, BUT AT THE BENCH?

THE COURT: WELL, MR. JONES, YOU AND I ARE WELL-ACQUAINTED. I KNOW THE DYNAMICS OF YOUR PRACTICE. IF YOU TELL ME YOU HAVE A PROBLEM, YOU DON'T HAVE TO EXPLAIN IT TO ME. I ACCEPT THAT REPRESENTATION.

MR. JONES: I DO HAVE A PROBLEM, YOUR HONOR, AND STARTING THE 24TH JUDGE HORAN HAS ORDERED ALL COUNSEL TO BE THERE FOR THE SO-CALLED BRYANT FAMILY DEATH PENALTY CASE. I AM RELUCTANT TO SET ANYTHING DURING THAT PERIOD. THAT IS WHY I AM RELUCTANT TO MAKE THE MOTION.

THE COURT: HOW ABOUT THE 23RD?

MR. JONES: FINE.

MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, I DO WANT TO MAKE THE COURT AWARE THAT IT IS OUR POSITION THAT THE DECLARATION CONTAINED WITHIN MR. JONES' MOTION IS --

THE COURT: LET'S NOT ARGUE IT. YOU WILL SAY IT NOW AND THEN I WILL HAVE TO HEAR IT AGAIN.

MS. LEWIS: I'M NOT GOING TO GO INTO LENGTH, YOUR HONOR. I JUST WANT TO MAKE THE COURT AWARE THAT WE WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE DECLARANT WITH REGARD TO THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THAT DECLARATION, AND I BELIEVE THAT IS MR. JONES.

MR. JONES: I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO BEING CROSS-EXAMINED BY THE PEOPLE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THEN THE 23RD AT NINE O'CLOCK. THE MOTION TO QUASH THE SUBPOENA ON MARGUERITE THOMAS, ON THE COURT'S OWN MOTION THAT WILL BE RESCHEDULED FOR THAT TIME. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

MR. JONES: YOUR HONOR. MAY I APPEAR WITH COUNSEL DURING THE TIME THAT I AM BEING CROSS-EXAMINED?

THE COURT: YES, YOU MAY.

MR. JONES: THANK YOU.

MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, I ASSUME THAT THE BENCH WARRANT THAT THE COULD, FOR TECHNICAL REASONS, ISSUED AND HELD UNTIL TODAY WILL BE CONTINUED AND HELD UNTIL THAT DATE?

THE COURT: THAT'S CORRECT. SO ORDERED. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. NEXT WE HAVE THE PEOPLE'S MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN.

MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, MAY I BE HEARD BRIEFLY?

THE COURT: YES.

MS. LEWIS: PRIOR TO THAT MOTION I BELIEVE WE NEGLECTED TO MOVE INTO EVIDENCE THE PEOPLE'S EXHIBITS THAT WERE INTRODUCED OR MARKED AT LEAST DURING THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HEARING WHICH TOOK PLACE OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS, SO I WOULD, ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE, MOVE INTO EVIDENCE I BELIEVE IT IS PEOPLE'S 1 THROUGH 10.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ANY OBJECTION?

MR. UELMEN: NO OBJECTION.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THEY WILL BE RECEIVED.

(PEO'S 1 THRU 10 = IN EVID)

MS. LEWIS: IN ADDITION, THERE IS FORTHCOMING TO THE COURT VERY SHORTLY THE NOTEBOOK WHICH WE HAD PROMISED THE COURT. WHAT IS THE COURT'S PLEASURE? SHOULD THAT BE MARKED PEOPLE'S 11?

THE COURT: YES.

(PEO'S 11 FOR ID = NOTEBOOK)

MS. LEWIS: I WOULD ALSO MOVE THAT INTO EVIDENCE, SO TO SPEAK, FOR PURPOSES OF THIS MOTION.

THE COURT: WELL, LET'S HOLD OFF ON THAT UNTIL WE SEE WHAT IT IS.

MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, THERE WERE INDEED I BELIEVE A COUPLE OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RELATED DISCOVERY MATTERS REMAINING AT THE END OF THE DAY YESTERDAY. DOES THE COURT WISH --

THE COURT: WE WILL TAKE UP THE MISCELLANEOUS DISCOVERY MATTERS. WE STILL HAVE -- AFTER WE FINISH WITH THE FUHRMAN MOTION, WE HAVE ARGUMENT -- I INDICATED I WOULD HEAR ARGUMENT AND ISSUE RULINGS TODAY ON THE JUROR ISSUES THAT WE HAD DISCUSSED IN CHAMBERS AND THEN TAKE UP ANY MISCELLANEOUS DISCOVERY MATTERS THAT ARE STILL HANGING, SO IT IS ON THE AGENDA FOR TODAY.

MS. LEWIS: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

MR. UELMEN: YOUR HONOR, I THINK WE NEED MR. COCHRAN BEFORE WE BEGIN THIS MOTION. HE WILL BE PARTICIPATING AS CO-COUNSEL.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. UELMEN: WE MAY HAVE ASSUMED THAT THE JONES MOTION WAS GOING TO BE HEARD.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THEN WE WILL STAND IN RECESS UNTIL MR. COCHRAN IS ABLE TO REJOIN US.

(RECESS.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE NOW HAVE MR. COCHRAN WITH US.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR HONOR. I APOLOGIZE FOR BEING LATE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I WILL HEAR FROM THE PEOPLE.

MS. LEWIS: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR, AND GOOD MORNING AGAIN. YOUR HONOR, I WILL BE ADDRESSING THE BULK OF OUR MOTION THIS MORNING. AT THE CONCLUSION OF MY REMARKS MR. DARDEN WILL BE ADDRESSING A SPECIFIC AREA WHICH HE WANTS TO TALK TO THE COURT ABOUT FOR A FEW MINUTES AFTER I CONCLUDE MY REMARKS. NOW, YOUR HONOR, EARLY ON IN THIS CASE THE DEFENSE PLANTED THE IDEA, THE WISH, FRANKLY, THAT A DETECTIVE WITH THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT PLANTED EVIDENCE, THE GLOVE AT ROCKINGHAM. NOW, THAT OF COURSE IS AN INFLAMMATORY ACCUSATION, THAT A POLICE DETECTIVE WOULD PLANT A GLOVE, AND IT MADE HOT NEWS AND THE DEFENSE, IN MONTHS GONE PASSED, ALTHOUGH NOT RECENTLY IN MONTHS GONE PASSED, THEY REITERATED AND REINFORCED THIS NOTION, THIS IDEA, THIS WISH OF THEIRS REPEATEDLY WITHIN THE MEDIA, SO IT HAS ALREADY CAUSED A GREAT DEAL OF TURMOIL TO THE DETECTIVE INVOLVED. NOW, THE TROUBLE WITH THIS WISH, AND I'M NOT CALLING IT A THEORY BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EVEN RISE TO THE LEVEL OF A THEORY, THE TROUBLE WITH THIS WISH, THIS DREAM OF THE DEFENSE TEAM, IS THAT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT THEORY. MOREOVER, ALL OF THE EVIDENCE KNOWN TO THE PROSECUTION REFUTES ANY SUCH THEORY. YOUR HONOR, IN THE -- I WANT TO ADDRESS ONE POINT AND THEN QUICKLY MOVE ON. IN THE DEFENSE RESPONSE BRIEF THE DEFENSE MAKES THE WILD ACCUSATION, PLANTS THE IDEA IN THE COURT'S MIND PERHAPS THAT THE IDENTIFICATION OF CERTAIN OFFICERS WHO ARRIVED AT THE CRIME SCENE PRIOR TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S ARRIVAL, WELL KNOWN ONLY TO, QUOTE, GOD AND THE PROSECUTION, CLOSE QUOTE, AND THAT WAS SIMPLY INFLAMMATORY RHETORIC. IN FACT, THE IDENTIFICATION OF THOSE OFFICERS, THEIR NAMES, AS WELL AS THE TIMES OF THEIR ARRIVALS AT THE CRIME SCENE AT BUNDY, AS WELL AS THE TIMES AND NAMES AND ARRIVAL TIMES AND NAMES OF THE FOUR DETECTIVES, INCLUDING DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, ARE ALL RECORDED ON THE CRIME SCENE LOG WHICH WAS DISCOVERY NUMBER 00038 PROVIDED TO THE DEFENSE AT THE INCEPTION OF THE CASE, SO THE DEFENSE HAS KNOWN FOR MONTHS THE IDENTITY OF NOT ONLY THE FIVE OFFICERS I PARTICULARLY REFER TO IN OUR BRIEF, BUT THE OTHER OFFICERS, AND THERE WERE OTHE ARRIVED PRIOR TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S ARRIVAL AS WELL. NOW, THAT IS JUST THE SORT OF INFLAMMATORY RHETORIC AND ANALYZATION AGAINST THE PROSECUTION THAT THE DEFENSE HAS DONE, FRANKLY, WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUE ON WHETHER THIS POLICE DETECTIVE PLANTED THIS GLOVE AT ROCKINGHAM. NOW, YOUR HONOR, BECAUSE THE THRUST OF OUR MOTION BASICALLY IS GOING TO BE UNDER SECTION 352, AND OF COURSE THE COURT HAS TO DO A WEIGHING PROCESS IN EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE, THE COURT NEEDS THE CONTEXT TO EVALUATE THAT EVIDENCE. I WANT TO RECAP THE EVIDENCE INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S RECOVERY OF THE GLOVE AND AS -- INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO THE THREE AREAS UNDERLYING THIS MOTION WE ARE BRINGING TODAY. AND THAT EVIDENCE STARTS BASICALLY WITH KATO KAELIN WHO AS WE ALL KNOW BY THIS TIME WAS A FRIEND OF THE DEFENDANT'S LIVING RENT FREE IN THE DEFENDANT'S -- ONE OF THE DEFENDANT'S THREE GUEST HOUSES AT ROCKINGHAM. AND WE KNOW THAT LATER IN THE EVENING, AT APPROXIMATELY 10:10 IN THE EVENING ON JUNE 12, KATO KAELIN, AFTER HAVING GOTTEN FOOD MUCH EARLIER IN THE EVENING WITH THE DEFENDANT, WAS BACK IN HIS ROOM AND HE WAS TALKING ON THE PHONE WITH A FRIEND NAMED RACHEL FERRARA. THEY HAD TALKED ON THE PHONE FOR PERHAPS A HALF AN HOUR WHEN KATO SUDDENLY HEARD, KNOCK, KNOCK KNOCK, (MS. LEWIS POUNDING ON PODIUM), THAT KIND OF THUMPING NOISES AND FELT SOMETHING AS A VIBRATION OR MOVEMENT SIGNIFICANT WITH IT.

IN FACT, IT WAS SUCH A STRONG FEELING THAT IT CAUSED THE WALL TO SHAKE TO THE POINT OF MOVING A PICTURE THAT WAS ON THE WALL TO ALMOST COME OFF THE WALL AND THIS IS THE WALL OF THE GUEST HOUSE WHERE KATO RESIDES. NOW, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT WALL THERE IS A PATH THAT IS ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE WALL. NOW, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT PATH IS A CHAINLINK FENCE WHICH SURROUNDS BASICALLY THE PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY. SO KATO WAS CONCERNED AND STARTLED BY THIS EVENT. HE ASKED HIS FRIEND RACHEL WHETHER THERE HAD BEEN AN EARTHQUAKE. SHE INDICATED THAT SHE HADN'T FELT ANYTHING, SO HE SPOKE WITH RACHEL FOR A COUPLE OF MORE MINUTES, GOT OFF THE PHONE WITH HER AND WENT OUT TO INVESTIGATE. HE WENT OUTSIDE WITH A FLASHLIGHT THAT HE HAD. NOW, MEANTIME, WHEN THAT WAS HAPPENING, A LIMOUSINE DRIVER NAMED ALLAN PARK HAD PULLED UP A LIMOUSINE TO THE GATE, TO THE ASHFORD GATE AT THE DEFENDANT'S ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE, BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY ARRANGED THAT THAT LIMOUSINE DRIVER WOULD PICK UP THE DEFENDANT AND TAKE HIM TO THE AIRPORT, AND THE LIMOUSINE DRIVER HAD BEEN THERE AT THE GATE FOR SOME TIME RINGING THE BUZZER, THE INTERCOM SYSTEM WHICH RINGS INTO THE MAIN HOUSE, BECAUSE HE WAS SUPPOSED TO PICK UP THE DEFENDANT.

NOW, THERE HAD BEEN NO RESPONSE. MR. PARK SAW THAT THERE WAS NO LIGHT THAT HE COULD SEE IN THE BOTTOM OF THE HOUSE. HE SAW ONE LIGHT ON I BELIEVE AT THE UPSTAIRS PORTION OF THE HOUSE, BUT HE HAD BECOME CONCERNED BECAUSE HE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE PICKING UP THE DEFENDANT TO TAKE HIM TO THE AIRPORT, YET NO ONE WAS HOME. SO ALLAN PARK CALLED HIS BOSS TO GET INSTRUCTIONS AND HIS BOSS BASICALLY SAID WAIT FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME LONGER AND THEN LEAVE IF HE DOESN'T SHOW UP. WELL, SHORTLY THEREAFTER, JUST A COUPLE OF MINUTES AFTER ALLAN PARK TALKED TO HIS BOSS ON THE TELEPHONE THAT WAS IN THE LIMOUSINE THAT HE WAS DRIVING, HE LOOKED INTO THE ROCKINGHAM ESTATE AND HE SAW TWO IMPORTANT THINGS: HE SAW KATO KAELIN COMING OUT OF THE GUEST HOUSE WITH A FLASHLIGHT. HE ALSO, IN A DIFFERENT VICINITY, SAW A SIX-FOOT TALL 200-POUND AFRICAN AMERICAN WALK QUICKLY TOWARD THE MAIN DOOR OF THE HOUSE AND GO INTO THE HOUSE. AND AS AN ASIDE, WE KNOW FROM THE TESTIMONY OF KATO KAELIN THAT THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO HAD KEYS TO THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE WERE THE DEFENDANT, HIS DAUGHTER, ARNELLE SIMPSON, AND THE MAID. NOW, WHEN MR. PARK SAW THE 200-POUND SIX-FOOT AFRICAN AMERICAN PERSON ENTER THE HOUSE, HE CONTINUED TO RING THE INTERCOM, AND WITHIN APPROXIMATELY TWENTY TO THIRTY SECONDS LONGER OF RINGING THE INTERCOM THE DEFENDANT ANSWERED THE TELEPHONE, THE TELEPHONE LEADING TO THE INTERCOM AT THE GATE. THE DEFENDANT SAID HE HAD OVERSLEPT. CLEARLY HE HAD JUST ENTERED THE HOUSE. NOW, KATO STARTED AN ATTEMPT TO INVESTIGATE THE NOISE THAT HE HEARD; HOWEVER, MR. SIMPSON WAS EAGER, THE DEFENDANT WAS EAGER TO GET TO THE AIRPORT BECAUSE HIS FLIGHT WAS GOING TO BE LEAVING SHORTLY, AND CONSEQUENTLY, KATO, WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LIMOUSINE DRIVER, ALLAN PARK, AND THE DEFENDANT LOADED THE DEFENDANT'S BAGS INTO THE LIMOUSINE AND EVENTUALLY LEFT. AT THAT POINT KATO WENT BACK INTO THE GUEST HOUSE. HE WAS ALONE ON THE ESTATE WITH A SMALL FLASHLIGHT. THE NOISE HAD SCARED AND ALARMED HIM, BUT THE PATHWAY WHICH I MENTIONED A MOMENT AGO BEHIND HIS GUEST HOUSE IS OVERGROWN WITH BUSHES AND THIS WAS AT NIGHTTIME AND IT WAS DARK SO HE DIDN'T WANT TO INVESTIGATE FURTHER ON HIS OWN. NOW, AS WE KNOW, AT APPROXIMATELY MIDNIGHT THAT NIGHT ON JUNE 12 OR THE WEE MORNING HOURS OF JUNE 13, THE BODIES OF THE VICTIMS, NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AND RONALD GOLDMAN WERE DISCOVERED AT NICOLE'S RESIDENCE ON BUNDY. THOSE BODIES, AS THE COURT WILL RECALL, WERE DISCOVERED BY A NEIGHBOR WHO WENT, IN ESSENCE, SEARCHING FOR THE OWNER OF THE BLOODY-PAWED AKITA THAT THE COURT HAS I BELIEVE HEARD ABOUT BEFORE. NOW, ALMOST IMMEDIATELY, WITHIN A FEW MINUTES AFTER THE DISCOVERY OF THE BODIES, THE POLICE WERE NOTIFIED AND THE POLICE OF COURSE RESPONDED IMMEDIATELY. NOW, THERE WERE SEVERAL OFFICERS WHO WERE FIRST ON THE SCENE. AMONG THEM WERE WITH OFFICER ZEIGLER, OFFICER GLORIOSO, THERE WAS A SERGEANT THERE, A PATROL SERGEANT THERE, AND THERE WERE SEVERAL OTHER OTHERS, ALL OF THESE KNOWN TO THE DEFENSE MANY MONTHS AGO. THEY ALL ARRIVED AT THE CRIME SCENE FIRST. A COUPLE OF THEM LEFT TO GO DOOR KNOCKING RESIDENCES. OTHERS STAYED TO MAINTAIN THE SECURITY AND THE PERIMETER OF THE CRIME SCENE SINCE IT WAS A DOUBLE HOMICIDE. DETECTIVE RON PHILLIPS OF WEST L.A. DIVISION WAS THE FIRST DETECTIVE TO BE NOTIFIED AND HE WAS ASSIGNED THE CASE. HE TELEPHONED DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN TO TELL HIM ABOUT THE HOMICIDE AND DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WAS INITIALLY ASSIGNED WITH DETECTIVE PHILLIPS TO THE CASE. DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AND DETECTIVE FUHRMAN DECIDED TO GET TOGETHER AT WEST L.A. STATION TO PICK UP THE APPROPRIATE DETECTIVE CAR AND THEN DROVE OUT TOGETHER TO THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE. THEY ARRIVED AT THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE AT APPROXIMATELY 2:05, SOMEWHERE IN THE VICINITY OF TWO HOURS AFTER THE DISCOVERY OF THESE BODIES, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY FOR PURPOSES OF THIS MOTION, AFTER THE PRESENCE OF NUMEROUS POLICE OFFICERS AND A POLICE SERGEANT AT THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE. NOW, WHEN DETECTIVE FUHRMAN ARRIVED AT THE CRIME SCENE HE SAW WHAT THE OTHER OFFICERS WHO WERE THERE HAD SEEN AND WHAT DETECTIVE PHILLIPS SAW, AND THAT IS A FEW ITEMS AT THE FEET OF RONALD GOLDMAN. AND YOUR HONOR, I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT THIS CRIME SCENE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WHERE BOTH OF THE VICTIMS' BODIES LAY IS A VERY SMALL AREA. THIS IS NOT -- THESE MURDERS TOOK PLACE IN A VERY SMALL LOCATION. AND I THINK THE COURT EVENTUALLY WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DETERMINE THAT, BUT I DO WANT TO MAKE THAT REPRESENTATION FOR THIS HEARING, THAT IT WAS A VERY SMALL AREA, SURPRISINGLY SMALL. NOW, AT THE FEET OF RONALD GOLDMAN DETECTIVE FUHRMAN SAW, AS WELL AS OTHER OFFICERS WHO HAD PRECEDED HIS ARRIVAL, A LEFT-HANDED BULKY MAN'S GLOVE. THEY ALSO SAW A WHITE ENVELOPE WHICH CONTAINED THE GLASSES WHICH MR. GOLDMAN WAS DROPPING OFF THERE AT NICOLE'S RESIDENCE. THEY ALSO SAW THE DARK WATCH CAP, BUT IN PARTICULAR THEY SAW, FOR PURPOSES OF THIS MOTION, THEY SAW THE LEFT-HANDED BULKY MAN'S GLOVE THERE AT THE FEET OF RONALD GOLDMAN. THEY ALSO SAW AND DETECTIVE FUHRMAN ALSO SAW BLOODY SHOEPRINTS LEADING AWAY FROM THIS SMALL AREA WHERE BOTH THE BODIES LAY AND OF COURSE HE TOOK NOTE OF THOSE. NOW, RELATIVELY SHORTLY AFTER THE ARRIVAL THOSE TWO DETECTIVES, THEY LEARNED THAT ROBBERY/HOMICIDE DIVISION OF THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT WOULD BE INDEED TAKING OVER THE CASE, AND AS THE COURT IS AWARE, BUT I'M NOT SURE OTHERS ARE SO AWARE, ROBBERY/HOMICIDE IS REALLY A MISNOMER BECAUSE THAT DIVISION OF LAPD HANDLES A VARIETY OF COMPLEX OR HIGH-PROFILE CASES. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO REALLY WITH HOMICIDES THAT ARE COMMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF A ROBBERY. THAT IS NOT THE THRUST OF THE UNIT. SO THEY ARE NOTIFIED THAT ROBBERY/HOMICIDE WOULD BE TAKING OVER THE CASE. AND WHAT THEY DID, WHAT MARK FUHRMAN IN PARTICULAR DID WAS TO WAIT THERE WITH DETECTIVE PHILLIPS. HE ALSO SPOKE, WHILE HE WAS THERE, TO A DETECTIVE LIEUTENANT SPANGLER AND THEY TALKED ABOUT WHAT THEY WERE SEEING AND WAITED FOR THE ARRIVAL OF DETECTIVES VANNATTER AND LANGE WHO WERE THE INVESTIGATING OFFICERS WHO TOOK OVER THE CASE. ONE OF THEM ARRIVED AT 4:00 A.M. AND THE OTHER AT APPROXIMATELY 4:30 A.M. BY THE WAY, YOUR HONOR, DURING THE ENTIRE TIME THAT MARK FUHRMAN WAS AT THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE HE WAS WEARING STANDARD DETECTIVE ATTIRE. HE WAS WEARING A SPORT COAT AND SLACKS. IT WAS A JUNE NIGHT HERE IN LOS ANGELES AND HE HAD NO OVERCOAT ON, NO TRENCH COAT ON, NOTHING THAT COULD CONCEAL A BULKY ITEM. AFTER DETECTIVES VANNATTER AND LANGE ARRIVED, ALL FOUR OF THE DETECTIVES PROCEEDED IN TWO CARS OVER TO ROCKINGHAM. AS THE COURT IS WELL AWARE, THEY EVENTUALLY MADE ENTRY ONTO THE GROUNDS OF ROCKINGHAM AND THE FIRST PERSON THEY CONTACTED THERE WAS KATO WHO WAS BACK IN HIS GUEST ROOM APPARENTLY ASLEEP. THEY COULD SEE HIM THROUGH THE BLINDS. THEY KNOCKED ON HIS DOOR AND INQUIRED ABOUT THE DEFENDANT'S WHEREABOUTS. KATO DIRECTED THEM UP TO A COUPLE OF GUEST HOUSES BEYOND, THAT IS TO THE QUARTERS OR THE RESIDENCE, I SHOULD SAY, WHERE ARNELLE SIMPSON WAS STAYING. NOW, AT THAT POINT IN TIME, BECAUSE ROBBERY/HOMICIDE DIVISION HAD TAKEN OVER THE CASE, THE INVESTIGATING OFFICERS IN THE CASE WERE DETECTIVES LANGE AND VANNATTER. IN ADDITION, DETECTIVE PHILLIPS IS A SENIOR DETECTIVE TO DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN, SO THOSE THREE SENIOR OFFICERS, THE TWO INVESTIGATING OFFICERS AND THE SENIOR OFFICER BETWEEN DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AND DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, PROCEEDED ON FOR THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THEY WERE THERE AND THAT IS TO IDENTIFY THE LOCATION OF THE DEFENDANT.

NOW, BECAUSE THEY DID NOT KNOW WHO KATO KAELIN WAS AND BECAUSE THEY HAD JUST LEFT THE SCENE OF THIS VICIOUS, BRUTAL, BLOODY, DOUBLE MURDER, 2.1, I BELIEVE IT IS, MILES AWAY AT BUNDY, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN REMAINED IN KATO'S ROOM TO SPEAK WITH HIM A LITTLE BIT TO GET A FEEL FOR WHETHER THIS PERSON WAS AN OKAY PERSON WHO WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THERE, WHAT WAS GOING ON. SO HE DID. HE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH KATO KAELIN, AND DURING THAT TIME DETECTIVE FUHRMAN NOTICED A PILE OF CLOTHING ON THE FLOOR IN KATO'S ROOM. HE ASKED KATO WHETHER THAT WAS THE CLOTHING, INCLUDING A PAIR OF SHOES THAT WAS THERE, THAT KATO HAD WORN THE NIGHT BEFORE AND KATO CONFIRMED THAT IT WAS. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN ASKED KATO IF HE COULD LOOK AT THE CLOTHING AND KATO SAID SURE. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN PICKED UP THE SHOES, IN PARTICULAR, AND LOOKED AT THEIR SOLES. THEY WEREN'T BLOODY AND THE FOOTPRINTS DIDN'T APPEAR TO MATCH THE FOOTPRINTS HE HAD SEEN AT THE CRIME SCENE. NOW, DURING THE COURSE OF THAT CONVERSATION DETECTIVE FUHRMAN ASKED KATO IF HE HAD EXPERIENCED ANYTHING UNUSUAL THE NIGHT BEFORE. KATO SAID, YES, AT THE APPROXIMATE TIME I MENTIONED EARLIER, HE HEARD THIS STRANGE THUMPING ON THE WALL TO HIS GUEST HOUSE AND HE SAW THE PICTURE MOVE ALMOST OFF THE WALL AND HE THOUGHT IT WAS AN EARTHQUAKE BUT IT HADN'T BEEN.

THE COURT: CAN WE ISOLATE THE TIME MORE PRECISELY BY PHONE RECORDS?

MS. CLARK: THE TIME THAT HE HEARD THE THUMP? THE PHONE CALL THAT WAS IN PROGRESS, YOUR HONOR, WAS LOCAL, BUT WE HAVE -- WHAT WE DO HAVE IS WE HAVE THE STATEMENT OF KATO KAELIN CORROBORATED BY THE PERSON HE WAS ON THE PHONE WITH AT APPROXIMATELY 10:45 TO 10:50. WE ALSO FIX IT BY INFERENCE WITH THE PHONE RECORDS IN POSSESSION OF -- PHONE RECORDS CONCERNING THE PHONE CALL MADE BY ALLAN PARK TO HIS BOSS AND HIS BOSS BACK TO HIM. THOSE CELL PHONE RECORDS HELP TO FIX THE TIME, AND IT IS APPROXIMATELY 10:50.

THE COURT: MISS LEWIS.

MS. LEWIS: THE FRIEND WHO KATO WAS ON THE PHONE TALKING TO, RACHEL FERRARA, TESTIFIED AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING AS WELL. NONE OF THESE FACTS WHICH I HAVE JUST MENTIONED TO THE COURT, NOR ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO MENTION, ARE A SURPRISE TO ANYONE. THERE IS NO MYSTERY TO THESE, AS THE DEFENSE PROCLAIMED THERE WAS IN THEIR RESPONSE BRIEF. NOW, DURING THE COURSE OF THIS CONVERSATION, AS I MENTIONED, THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WAS HAVING WITH KATO, KATO ALERTED HIM TO THIS EARTHQUAKE-LIKE SOUND AND TOLD HIM THE DIRECTION THAT IT WAS COMING FROM, SO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, LIKE ANY GOOD, CONSCIENTIOUS POLICE OFFICER IN ANY TOWN IN THIS COUNTRY SHOULD DO, DID WHAT HE SHOULD DO AND THAT WAS TO GO AND INVESTIGATE THAT SOUND, THAT NOISE, THAT VIBRATION THAT KATO HAD HEARD. SO HE WENT TO THE AREA BEHIND KATO'S GUEST HOUSE, AND ALTHOUGH HE HAD ONLY A SMALL FLASHLIGHT THERE, HE COULD SEE SOMEWHAT. IT WAS DARK AND OVERGROWN. HE WALKED DOWN THE PATHWAY, AND AT A POINT DOWN THE PATHWAY HIS HEART STARTED TO POUND AND IT STARTED TO POUND BECAUSE HE SAW WHAT HE REALIZED WAS PROBABLY THE RIGHT-HANDED MATE TO THE BULKY MEN'S LEATHER GLOVE THAT HE HAD SEEN AT THE CRIME SCENE AT BUNDY A SHORT TIME BEFORE ONLY TWO MILES AWAY. AT THAT POINT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN RETURNED TO THE OTHER DETECTIVES AND ALERTED THEM TO WHAT HE HAD FOUND AND TOOK EACH OF THE DETECTIVES IN TURN OUT TO SEE THE GLOVE FOR THEMSELVES. THE GLOVE EVENTUALLY WAS COLLECTED BY A CRIMINALIST, DENNIS FUNG, AND OF COURSE TAKEN INTO THE CUSTODY OF THE EVIDENCE -- THE PROPERTY DEPARTMENT AT LAPD. NOW, THIS NOTION OF THE DEFENSE THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN COULD HAVE SOMEHOW PLANTED THIS GLOVE, AS I INDICATED EARLIER, IS TOTALLY REFUTED BY ALL OF THE EVIDENCE. THE TIMING, AS THE COURT MADE INQUIRY WITH REGARD TO, THE TIMING OF THE LIMOUSINE -- FIRST KATO HEARING THIS THUMPING NOISE RIGHT AGAINST HIS WALL, OF GOING OUT TO INVESTIGATE WITH A FLASHLIGHT JUST A FEW MINUTES LATER, OF THE LIMOUSINE DRIVER, ALLAN PARK, SEEING HIM COME OUT AT THAT TIME AND SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THAT SEEING WHO WAS CLEARLY THE DEFENDANT GOING INTO THE FRONT OF HIS HOUSE, ALL OF THAT EVIDENCE CLEARLY DIRECTS ITSELF TO THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT DROPPED THAT GLOVE BEHIND KATO KAELIN'S GUEST HOUSE. THE DEFENSE THEORY THAT IT WAS PLANTED FAILS TO ACCOUNT FOR THAT EARTHQUAKE LIKE THUMPING AND THAT NOISE.

THE COURT: HOW DO YOU ACCOUNT FOR IT?

MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, THIS MAY NOT BE AN APPROPRIATE TIME TO REVEAL THE PROSECUTION'S THEORY OF THE CASE IN ALL RESPECTS. TO THE EXTENT WE NEED TO DO SO FOR PURPOSES OF THIS MOTION, WE WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT. I CAN APPRECIATE THE COURT'S QUESTION. DOES COURT FEEL IT IS TRULY GERMANE TO THIS PROCEEDING, TO THIS MOTION WE ARE HERE FOR?

THE COURT: IT IS AN OBVIOUS QUESTION AT THIS POINT, BUT I WILL HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY, AND IF IT IS STILL A QUESTION IN MY MIND, I WILL ASK.

MS. LEWIS: MAY I HAVE JUST A MOMENT?

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

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, IF THE COURT DESIRES TO MAKE FACTUAL INQUIRY INTO THIS MATTER, I WILL ADDRESS THAT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COURT. PLEASE LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU ARE INTERESTED.

THE COURT: WELL, I WILL HEAR THE ARGUMENT, AND IF I STILL THINK I NEED TO KNOW WHAT YOUR THEORY IS AS TO WHAT EXPLAINS THE EARTHQUAKE, I WILL ASK.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: IT JUST SEEMED AN APPROPRIATE QUESTION TO ASK AT THAT POINT. MISS LEWIS.

MS. LEWIS: WELL, I WILL SAY TO THE COURT, AND I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANY DISPUTE, THAT THAT -- THE NOISE WAS CAUSED BY THE DEFENDANT THERE DROPPING THE GLOVE, AND I THINK THAT IS THE OBVIOUS INFERENCE FROM ALL OF THIS EVIDENCE AND I THINK I MENTIONED THAT ALREADY, AND THAT IS, THAT THE DEFENDANT INDEED HIMSELF DROPPED THE GLOVE AS HE WAS TRYING TO SECRETLY COME BACK ON TO HIS PROPERTY SO THAT NOBODY WOULD SEE HIM ENTERING. SINCE HE LATER LIED AND SAID HE HAD BEEN SLEEPING, THAT WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH SOMEBODY SEEING HIM ENTERING. AS IT HAPPENS, ALLAN PARK DID SEE HIM ENTER, SO THAT ATTEMPTED EFFORT OF HIS TO SUPPRESS HIS ENTRY DIDN'T WORK. NOW, WITH REGARD TO THE MOTION AT HAND, YOUR HONOR, THAT IS ONE POINT TO BE MADE, THAT THE TIMING, ALL OF THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE DEFENDANT INDEED BEING THE PERSON WHO DROPPED THE GLOVE BACK THERE AND IS INCONSISTENT AND HAS NO EVIDENTIARY BASIS FOR SUPPORTING DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAVING -- PLACING THE GLOVE BACK THERE. IN ADDITION, YOUR HONOR, THERE IS THE OBVIOUS -- THE OBVIOUS THING TO NOTE, AND THAT IS THAT THE NUMEROUS OTHER OFFICERS THERE AT THE CRIME SCENE, INCLUDING THE POLICE SERGEANT, DID NOT SEE A SECOND GLOVE ANYWHERE AT THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE. THEY SAW A LONE GLOVE, A SINGLE GLOVE AT THE FEET OF RONALD GOLDMAN. A THIRD POINT IN THIS REGARD, YOUR HONOR, IS THAT THE OFFICERS AND THE SERGEANT AND THE OTHER DETECTIVES, INCLUDING DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, HIS PARTNER, ALL -- EXCUSE ME -- INCLUDING DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S PARTNER, ALL SAW DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WHEN DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WAS AT THE CRIME SCENE. HE WASN'T THE INVISIBLE MAN, ABLE TO GO ABOUT AND LOOK AND FIND THINGS ON HIS OWN. HE WAS PRESENT. WHEN HE WAS PRESENT THERE WERE NUMEROUS OTHER OFFICERS PRESENT THERE AS WELL, SO THE DEFENSE THEORY PRESUPPOSES THAT HE WAS SOMEHOW ABLE TO REMOVE EVIDENCE WHICH NONE OF THESE OTHER OFFICERS WHO HAD BEEN THERE, SOME OF THEM FOR TWO HOURS BEFORE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN ARRIVED, WERE ABLE TO SEE.

A FOURTH POINT IN THIS REGARD, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, YOUR HONOR, IS THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WAS WEARING NO CLOTHING WHICH WOULD SUPPORT BEING CAPABLE OF CARRYING AWAY UNNOTICED A BULKY MAN'S GLOVE SUCH AS THE ONE THAT WAS FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM. AN ADDITIONAL POINT TO BE MADE IN THIS REGARD, YOUR HONOR, IS THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S LOOKING, SCRUTINIZING THE SOLES OF THE SHOES OF KATO KAELIN TO SEE IF THEY APPEARED -- IF THEY WERE BLOODY OR IF THEY APPEARED TO MATCH THE BLOODY FOOTPRINT AT THE CRIME SCENE, THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH A PREORDAINED PLAN OR IDEA OR EFFORT OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN TO SOMEHOW PLANT EVIDENCE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT. THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH A DETECTIVE WHO IS SEARCHING FOR THE TRUTH AND INDEED THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WAS DOING. THIS NOTION OR THIS WISH OF THE DEFENSE ALSO DOES NOT ADDRESS THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IN THE CASE, AND OF COURSE I'M NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE DNA RESULT NOW, BUT IT SEEMS TO ACCOUNT FOR THOSE RESULTS AND FOR THE REMAINING SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IN THE CASE, ALL OF WHICH WE ALSO BELIEVE POINTS TO THE DEFENDANT AS THE PERPETRATOR. ANOTHER POINT TO MAKE IN THIS REGARD, YOUR HONOR, IS THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN NEVER LEFT THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE UNTIL HE WAS IN THE COMPANY AGAIN OF DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AND IN THE OTHER CAR, DETECTIVES VANNATTER AND LANGE. THERE WAS NO OPPORTUNITY FOR HIM TO TAKE THE GLOVE OVER TO ROCKINGHAM. HE WAS PRESENT AT BUNDY AND STAYED THERE AND THERE ARE NUMEROUS OTHER OFFICERS THERE WHO ALL SAW HIM THERE UNTIL THE OTHER DETECTIVES ARRIVED AND THEY WENT OVER TOGETHER AND HE WAS IN THEIR PRESENCE AND IN THEIR COMPANY WHEN THEY ALL WENT ON TO THE ROCKINGHAM ESTATE AND APPROACHED KATO'S ROOM AND SO FORTH. FINALLY, YOUR HONOR, TO ACCEPT THIS WISH OR THIS DREAM OF THE DEFENSE THAT THE DETECTIVE PLANTED EVIDENCE, ONE WOULD HAVE TO ASSUME THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WOULD BELIEVE THAT NONE OF THESE OTHER OFFICERS OR THE POLICE SERGEANT OR THE DETECTIVES HAS SEEN A SUPPOSED SECOND GLOVE THERE AT BUNDY. HE WOULD HAVE TO BELIEVE IN HIS OWN MIND THAT NONE OF THESE OTHER OFFICERS HAD SEEN THAT. SO IN ADDITION TO THERE BEING SIMPLY NO EVIDENCE OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S HAVING REMOVED ANYTHING FROM THE CRIME SCENE, ALL OF THE INDICATIONS AND ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IS TO THE CONTRARY AND REALLY CONCLUSIVELY REFUTES THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN COULD HAVE POSSIBLY, HAD HE SO DESIRED, REMOVED ANYTHING, ESPECIALLY SOMETHING SO BULKY AS A GLOVE FROM THE CRIME SCENE. NOW, IN THIS REGARD, YOUR HONOR, THERE IS A BODY OF CASE LAW REGARDING WHAT WE REFER TO AS THIRD PARTY CULPABILITY WHICH IS DIRECTLY ANALOGOUS TO THE SITUATION WE HAVE HERE. THAT CASE LAW ADDRESSES WHEN ONE CAN PUT ON EVIDENCE OF SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE DEFENDANT COMMITTING THE CRIME. NOW, HERE THE DEFENSE HAS NOT GONE SO FAR AS TO ACCUSE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN OF COMMITTING THESE MURDERS. THEY HAVE, HOWEVER, ACCUSED HIM OF ATTRIBUTING TO THE DEFENDANT'S POSSESSION HIGHLY INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE AND THE DEFENDANT'S CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION, SINCE IT WAS FOUND ON HIS PROPERTY, RATHER THAN ON HIS PERSON, BUT THEY HAVE ACCUSED HIM OF DOING SOMETHING THAT IS HIGHLY INCRIMINATING TO THE DEFENDANT. IN THOSE CASES REGARDING THIRD PARTY CULPABILITY, THE SUPREME COURT BACK IN HALL IN 1986, AND IN ALL OF THE SUBSEQUENT CASES SINCE HALL, INCLUDING SEVERAL CASES THROUGHOUT THE 1990'S, AND IN THESE CASE -- CASES WERE DEATH PENALTY CASES WHERE THE SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED THE PENALTY OF DEATH. IN THESE CASES THEY ALL HELD THAT THE TRIAL COURT IN EACH OF THOSE INSTANCES POSSIBLY EXCLUDED FROM EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE OF MERE MOTIVE OR OPPORTUNITY TO COMMIT THE CRIME ON A THIRD PARTY. WHAT MAKES THAT DIRECTLY ANALOGOUS IN THIS INSTANCE, YOUR HONOR, IS THAT THAT WOULD BE THE MOST CRITICAL SITUATION WHERE IF THE APPELLATE COURTS FELT IT APPROPRIATE TO ALLOW IN EVIDENCE OF MOTIVE OF A THIRD PERSON, IT WOULD CERTAINLY BE IN THE AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MURDERS THEMSELVES AND OF COURSE THE CRITICAL IMPORTANCE OF THAT IS NO MORE, UMM, HIGHLIGHTED THAN IT IS IN A DEATH PENALTY CASE WHERE THE COURT IS AFFIRMING A CONVICTION OF DEATH ON A DEFENDANT. SO BY ANALOGY, YOUR HONOR, IN THIS INSTANCE IF THE COURT SAID, AND THEY HAVE SAID CONSISTENTLY THROUGHOUT MANY YEARS NOW, THAT EVIDENCE OF MERE MOTIVE OR OPPORTUNITY IS INSUFFICIENT AS A MATTER OF LAW BASICALLY TO RAISE A REASONABLE DOUBT, THEN CERTAINLY IT APPLIES IN THIS SITUATION AS WELL. WHAT THE COURTS HAVE SAID CONSISTENTLY, THE APPELLATE COURT, IS THAT IT REQUIRES SOME EVIDENTIARY LINK LINKING THAT THIRD PERSON TO THE CULPABILITY AND THAT IS THE EVIDENTIARY LINK THAT FAILS ABYSMALLY HERE. AND THE DEFENSE CAN POINT TO AND HAS POINTED TO NO EVIDENTIARY LINK, ANY WAY, ANY EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THIS NOTION THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WAS ABLE TO AND DID REMOVE THE GLOVE FROM ROCKINGHAM, THE ONE THAT WAS FOUND -- EXCUSE ME, THE GLOVE FROM BUNDY, THE ONE THAT WAS FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM. NOW, IN THE RESPONSIVE BRIEF, YOUR HONOR, THE DEFENSE ATTEMPTS TO CHARACTERIZE THIS AREA, THIS WHOLE ISSUE, AS BEING CENTRAL TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S CREDIBILITY AND THEY HAVE LISTED AREAS THAT I WON'T ADDRESS AT THIS TIME WITH REGARD TO THEIR STATEMENT THAT HIS CREDIBILITY IS IMPORTANT, BUT THIS IS NOT REALLY ABOUT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S CREDIBILITY. THIS HAS BEEN AN ATTACK, AND WHAT THE DEFENSE SEEKS TO DO AT TRIAL, WILL BE AN ATTACK ON HIS CHARACTER BECAUSE NONE OF THE AREAS WHICH THE DEFENSE HAS LISTED IN THEIR RESPONSIVE PLEADING ARE AREAS WHERE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S CREDIBILITY IS REALLY VERY IMPORTANT. THEY ARE ALL AREAS WHERE THERE IS OTHER CORROBORATION AND THEY ARE AREAS WHERE THERE IS SIGNIFICANT IMPEACHMENT AVAILABLE IF THERE IS SOMETHING TO IMPEACH THAT IS IN THE FORM OF DIRECT IMPEACHMENT WITH OTHER OFFICERS, OTHER WITNESSES, OTHER EVIDENCE, BESIDES THE VERY COLLATERAL AND REMOTE EVIDENCE THAT I'M GOING TO GET TO IN A MINUTE THAT THE DEFENSE SEEKS TO USE HERE. NOW, IN THIS REGARD I THINK THE FACT THAT THIS IS NOT TRULY A CREDIBILITY ISSUE WITH REGARD TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IS HIGHLIGHTED BY THE FACT THAT IN THEIR RESPONSE BRIEF THE DEFENSE BRIEF FAILS TO SET FORTH THE DETECTIVE'S RECOVERY OF THE GLOVE AT ROCKINGHAM AS A CREDIBILITY ISSUE. THEY MANAGE TO COME UP WITH A LIST OF THINGS THAT THEY FEEL HIS CREDIBILITY IS IMPORTANT TO, BUT THEY DON'T TALK ABOUT THE CREDIBILITY IN FINDING THE GLOVE AND THAT IS BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT DISCLAIMING THAT HE WALKED DOWN THAT PATHWAY, SAW THE GLOVE, SHOWED THE GLOVE TO THE OTHER DETECTIVES AND THAT THAT GLOVE WAS RECOVERED FROM ROCKINGHAM. THEY ARE NOT SAYING THAT HE IS LYING ABOUT THAT AND I THINK THAT IS HIGHLIGHTED BY ITS ABSENCE OF THE CREDIBILITY ON THAT AREA IN THEIR RESPONSE BRIEF. WHAT THEY ARE SAYING IN THAT REGARD IS THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN PLANTED THAT EVIDENCE, NOT THAT HE LIED ABOUT RECOVERING IT FROM THERE, SO THE PLANTING OF THAT EVIDENCE, YOUR HONOR, GOES TO HIS CHARACTER, NOT TO HIS CREDIBILITY, PER SE. IT IS REALLY A CHARACTER ATTACK, ACCUSING HIM OF DOING SOMETHING AND THEN PERHAPS LYING AT SOME POINT TO COVER IT UP, BUT THE THRUST AND THE HEART OF THEIR ACCUSATION IS THAT HE --

THE COURT: MY RECOLLECTION OF THE RESPONSE WAS THAT NOT ONLY IS IT RELEVANT TO THE GLOVE, BUT IT IS RELEVANT TO THESE OTHER EIGHT ISSUES OR NINE ISSUES THAT THEY LIST IS MY RECOLLECTION OF WHAT WAS ARGUED.

MS. LEWIS: IF THAT IS TRUE, YOUR HONOR, THEN I DO HAVE TO APOLOGIZE TO THE COURT. IT WAS NOT LISTED AMONG THE --

THE COURT: I MEAN, THAT IS THE WAY I UNDERSTOOD THE ARGUMENT THAT THE DEFENSE WAS MAKING.

MS. LEWIS: WELL, NEVERTHELESS, YOUR HONOR, WHETHER THEY ADDRESS IT IN THEIR RESPONSE BRIEF OR NOT IN THOSE TERMS, THE FACT REMAINS THAT IT IS NOT IN ACTUALITY A CREDIBILITY ARGUMENT. IT IS IN ACTUALITY A CHARACTER ATTACK, THIS ACCUSATION THAT HE PLANTED THE GLOVE. THAT HAS TO DO WITH HIS CHARACTER.

NOW, I'VE CITED CASES AND TREATISES IN MY REPLY BRIEF, YOUR HONOR, THAT I WON'T BORE THE COURT WITH AT THIS TIME. THEY SET FORTH, HOWEVER, IN WITKIN NOTES, A COUPLE OR ONE MORE THING WITH REGARD TO COLLATERAL IMPEACHMENT, AND THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE HERE. WE HAVE IMPEACHMENT THAT DOES NOT GO DIRECTLY TO AN ISSUE OF GUILT. WE HAVE SUPPOSED IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE OR ALLEGED IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE THAT GOES TO THE CREDIBILITY OF A WITNESS AND IT DOESN'T EVEN GO DIRECTLY TO THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS. IT GOES ONLY INDIRECTLY BY INFERENCE. NOW, I THINK AT THIS POINT I NEED TO DISCUSS THE AREAS THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, YOUR HONOR, BECAUSE THE COURT OF COURSE, IN ADDITION TO THE FACTUAL CONTEXT, HAS TO LOOK AT THE AREAS THAT THE DEFENSE WE ANTICIPATE WILL SEEK TO IMPEACH WITH AND DETERMINE WHETHER THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF THAT EVIDENCE INDEED OUTWEIGHS THE PREJUDICIAL EFFECT AND THE OTHER CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 352. NOW, ACTUALLY AT THIS POINT IN TIME, YOUR HONOR, I THINK I WILL GO THROUGH THE POINTS RAISED BY THE DEFENSE IN THEIR RESPONSE BRIEF, AND THERE ARE ELEVEN OF THEM THAT THEY MAKE, PRIOR TO TURNING TO THE EVIDENCE THAT THEY ARE SPECIFICALLY SEEKING TO BE EXCLUDED FROM BEING INTRODUCED. I DO WANT TO GO POINT BY POINT AS TO HOW CREDIBILITY IS NOT AN ISSUE WITH REGARD TO EACH OF THESE AREAS. MAY I HAVE JUST A MOMENT WITH COUNSEL, YOUR HONOR?

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

MS. LEWIS: FIRST, YOUR HONOR, THE DEFENSE IN THEIR RESPONSIVE BRIEF INDICATES THEY FEEL DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S ACCOUNT OF HIS 1985 ENCOUNTER WITH THE SIMPSONS WHEN THEY ARE MARRIED, HIS CREDIBILITY IS IMPORTANT IN THAT REGARD. THAT IS THE ONE AREA -- AND THEY DO LIST IT FIRST I HAVE NOTICED -- THAT IS THE ONE AREA WHERE THERE MAY BE SOME MERIT TO THAT; HOWEVER, THERE IS THE TESTIMONY OF SERGEANT MARK DAY, WHO IS CURRENTLY AN LAPD SERGEANT WHO WAS THEN THE WESTEC SECURITY OFFICER WHO INDEED ARRIVED AT THAT SCENE DURING THE 1985 INCIDENT PRIOR TO THE ARRIVAL OF THE POLICE, AND HIS REPORT DETAILING HIS RECOLLECTION CORROBORATES MOST OF WHAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN ALSO RECALLS FROM THAT INCIDENT. SO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN --

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

MS. LEWIS: I'M TOLD, YOUR HONOR, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IS NOT GOING TO TESTIFY AS TO THAT. WE ARE NOT GOING TO UTILIZE HIM AS A WITNESS WITH REGARD TO THIS 1985 INCIDENT, SO HIS CREDIBILITY IS NOT AT ISSUE AT ALL WITH REGARD TO THAT. THE SECOND -- THE SECOND AREA THAT THE DEFENSE SETS OUT IN THEIR RESPONSE BRIEF IS THE DETECTIVE'S MOTIVE FOR WRITING AND THE ACCURACY OF THE ACCOUNT OF THE 1985 INCIDENT. THAT OF COURSE GOES BY THE WAYSIDE SINCE THE DETECTIVE IS NOT GOING TO BE TESTIFYING ABOUT IT. THAT IS SUBSUMED WITHIN THE FIRST ONE. THERE WILL BE NO ISSUE OF HIS CREDIBILITY IN THIS REGARD. THE THIRD AREA OF INQUIRY THAT THE DEFENSE THINKS IS GOING TO BE ELICITED FROM DETECTIVE FUHRMAN OR ASKED OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IS HIS MOTIVE AND ROLE IN GOING TO THE DEFENDANT'S ROCKINGHAM ESTATE. NOW, THAT MOTIVE AND HIS STATE OF MIND WERE ADDRESSED AND TESTIFIED TO EXTENSIVELY DURING THE PRELIMINARY HEARING AND DURING OTHER SEARCH AND SEIZURE ISSUES OF THIS COURT -- ISSUES, AREAS THAT WERE BEFORE THIS COURT. HIS STATE OF MIND AND THIS WHOLE AREA WAS IMPORTANT OR RELEVANT PERHAPS, PERHAPS, TO THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE ISSUES, BUT IT IS NOT RELEVANT AND HAS NO APPLICABILITY TO THE CRIME BEFORE THE JURY. HIS MOTIVE -- DETECTIVE'S MOTIVES IN GOING TO ROCKINGHAM, THIS IS NOT A SUBJECT WHICH THE DEFENSE IS ENTITLED TO RELITIGATE IN FRONT OF THE JURY, YOUR HONOR. THOSE ARE QUESTIONS OF LAW WHICH THE MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE DECIDED AND WHICH THIS COURT DECIDED IN THE NUMEROUS MOTIONS THAT WERE BROUGHT BEFORE IT, SO THAT IS SIMPLY NOT AN AREA OF INQUIRY WHICH SHOULD BE ALLOWED DURING TRIAL, HENCE, THE DETECTIVE'S CREDIBILITY IN THAT REGARD IS OF NO IMPORT, SINCE IT IS NOT SOMETHING HE WOULD BE TESTIFYING TO. THE ONLY AREA WHERE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WILL BE TESTIFYING IS TO HIS CONVERSATION WITH KATO AND SUBSEQUENT GOING BACK BEHIND THE AREA TO WHERE THE GLOVE WAS LOCATED. THE NEXT THING THAT THE DEFENSE TALKS ABOUT IS DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S DESCRIPTION OF THE FORD BRONCO AS IT WAS PARKED OUTSIDE OF THE ROCKINGHAM ESTATE. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WILL NOT BE TESTIFYING TO THAT. MOREOVER, THERE ARE NUMEROUS WITNESSES WHO SAW THAT. THERE ARE PHOTOGRAPHS WHICH THE DEFENSE INDEED INTRODUCED AT THE 1538.5 HEARING IN MUNICIPAL COURT. THERE IS AN ABUNDANT EVIDENCE ON THAT. AND AS FAR AS ANY DISPUTE INTO THE POSITION OF THE ANGLE OF THE CAR, THERE ARE NUMEROUS WITNESSES WHO SAW IT, AND WHO, IF ANY OF THOSE TESTIFIED, THEY WILL NOT BE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. HE IS NOT GOING TO BE TESTIFYING WITH REGARD TO THAT.

NO. 5 ON THEIR LIST IS DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S ACCOUNT OF THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS AT ROCKINGHAM ON JUNE 13 AND THE ACCOUNTS OF OTHER WITNESSES AND RECORDS. WELL, AGAIN THE DETECTIVE IS NOT GOING TO BE TESTIFYING TO ANY SEQUENCE OF EVENTS AT ROCKINGHAM, AND EVEN IF HE WERE, ANY DISCREPANCIES SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. THAT IS AN ISSUE -- THE DISCREPANCY IS OF ITSELF, IF IT IS MATERIAL TO THE TRIER OF FACT, OF IMPEACHMENT VALUE. THERE IS NOTHING IN DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S CREDIBILITY IN THAT REGARD, BEYOND THE MERE DESCRIPTION, IF THERE WERE A MATERIAL DISCREPANCY, BUT AGAIN, THIS IS AN AREA WHERE THIS DETECTIVE IS NOT GOING TO BE TESTIFYING. THE DETECTIVE'S DISCOVERY OF THE APPARENT BLOOD ON THE BRONCO AND THE BLOOD DROPS ON THE DRIVEWAY, THESE WERE PHOTOGRAPHED. THERE WILL BE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE INTRODUCED AT TRIAL WITH REGARD TO THESE. THIS IS NOT AN AREA WHERE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WILL BE TESTIFYING OR WHERE HIS CREDIBILITY WILL BE AT ISSUE.

THE COURT: HE IS NOT GOING TO TESTIFY AS TO THAT?

MS. CLARK: NO.

MS. LEWIS: NO, YOUR HONOR. HE WAS NOT THE FIRST -- HE WAS NOT THE PERSON WHO NOTICED THOSE BLOOD DROPS, YOUR HONOR, SO HE WILL NOT BE TESTIFYING TO THEM. MAY I HAVE JUST A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

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

MS. LEWIS: WITH REGARD TO THE CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE DETECTIVE AND KATO KAELIN IN KATO'S ROOM, KATO KAELIN WILL BE TESTIFYING TO THAT CONVERSATION, AND HE INDEED, IN HIS TESTIMONY AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, INDICATED THAT THE DETECTIVE DID INDEED PICK UP THE SOLES OF KATO'S SHOES AND LOOK AT THEM. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S -- THE NEXT ITEM LISTED IN THE DEFENSE BRIEF IS THE DETECTIVE'S ACCOUNT OF HIS PARTICIPATION OF THE EXECUTION OF THE SEARCH WARRANTS AT ROCKINGHAM. HE WILL NOT BE TESTIFYING TO EXECUTION OF THE SEARCH WARRANTS AT ROCKINGHAM. AND THERE WERE NUMEROUS OTHER OFFICERS INVOLVED IN THE EXECUTION OF THOSE SEARCH WARRANTS. THE NEXT ITEM WHICH THE DEFENSE LISTS IN ITS RESPONSE BRIEF IS DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S FAILURE TO RECORD HIS ACTIVITY AT ROCKINGHAM. AS THE COURT IS WELL AWARE, THIS CASE WAS TAKEN OVER BY ROBBERY HOMICIDE DIVISION. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN MADE A FEW NOTES WHILE AT BUNDY WHICH HE SUBSEQUENTLY TURNED OVER TO ROBBERY DIVISION. HE WAS NO LONGER AT THAT POINT AN INVESTIGATING OFFICER ON THE CASE, CONSEQUENTLY, THERE WAS NO REASON FOR HIM TO TAKE NOTES AT ROCKINGHAM. TO THE EXTENT THAT THAT FAILURE TO TAKE NOTES AT ROCKINGHAM HAS ANY IMPEACHMENT VALUE, THE MERE FAILURE IS WHAT IS IMPEACHING, BUT AGAIN, YOUR HONOR, THIS IS NOT AN AREA WHERE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IS GOING TO BE TESTIFYING AND THEREFORE HIS CREDIBILITY IS NOT AT ISSUE IN THIS AREA. HIS -- THE NEXT THING THE DEFENSE ITEMIZES IN THEIR BRIEF IS HIS ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE OR WHAT THE DEFENSE ACCUSES IS THE LACK OF PROPER PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE IN THE CASE. NOW, THIS JUST GOES TO THE DEFENSE GENERAL ACCUSATION WHICH WE ARE EXPECTING WITH REGARD TO A LOT OF WITNESSES, THAT THERE WERE PROBLEMS WITH THE EVIDENCE. THAT IS CLEARLY ONE OF THEIR THEORIES IN ATTACKING THE PROSECUTION'S CASE. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAD NO ROLE OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR COLLECTING OR PRESERVING ANY OF THE EVIDENCE. HE WAS NOT AN INVESTIGATING OFFICER. AND FINALLY, YOUR HONOR, THE DEFENSE FEELS THAT THE DETECTIVES -- OR CLAIM THAT THE DETECTIVE'S CREDIBILITY IS IMPORTANT INSOFAR AS HE USED THE WORD "THEM" WHEN HE WAS BEING CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR. UELMEN DURING THE PRELIMINARY HEARING. THAT CROSS-EXAMINATION WAS -- THEY WERE TALKING, IF THE COURT LOOKS AT IT IN CONTEXT, ABOUT THE GLOVE AND OTHER ITEMS AT THE FEET OF RONALD GOLDMAN AND THERE HAD BEEN SEVERAL QUESTIONS REGARDING THE GLOVE ITSELF. THERE HAD BEEN TESTIMONY FROM DETECTIVE FUHRMAN THAT AT THE FEET OF RONALD GOLDMAN WAS NOT ONLY THE GLOVE, BUT THE DARK-COLORED WATCH CAP, THE WHITE ENVELOPE. AND DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WHEN HE TESTIFIED AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, THINKING OF THE WATCH CAP, THE GLOVE WHICH HAD BEEN PART OF THE EARLIER TESTIMONY, SAID "THEM." WELL, MR. UELMEN CONTINUED ON IN NORMAL CROSS-EXAMINATION, BECAUSE THAT WAS NOT A SIGNIFICANT STATEMENT ON DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S PART AND IT WASN'T TAKEN TO BE SUCH BY THE DEFENSE AT THE TIME. ALTHOUGH IT WAS SLIGHTLY AMBIGUOUS, THE DEFENSE FAILED TO QUESTION HIM FURTHER ABOUT THAT. THAT WAS SIMPLY NOT SOMETHING IMPORTANT. WHEN IT CAME TIME FOR THE PITCHESS MOTION, HOWEVER, YOUR HONOR, THE DEFENSE WENT OVER WITH A FINE TOOTH COMB TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANYTHING THAT THEY COULD BOOTSTRAP INTO AN ALLEGATION WHICH WOULD ENCOURAGE THE COURT TO GRANT THE PITCHESS MOTION. SO THAT SIMPLE STATEMENT OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S WAS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT AND WAS OVERBLOWN.

NOW, YOUR HONOR, THERE ARE THE THREE AREAS OF INQUIRY WHICH WE ARE SEEKING TO PRECLUDE THE DEFENSE FROM GETTING INTO, AND TO RECOUNT THOSE FOR THE RECORD, ONE IS THE 14-YEAR WORKERS COMPENSATION LAWSUIT THAT THE DETECTIVE FILED AGAINST THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES. SPECIFICALLY IN THAT REGARD THERE WERE REPORTS FROM TWO CITY-HIRED PSYCHIATRISTS ATTRIBUTING CERTAIN RACIAL, RACIST STATEMENTS TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WHEN HE WAS IN THE THROWS OF THIS HOTLY CONTESTED LITIGATION AGAINST THE CITY. WITH REGARD TO THAT, THE DEFENSE HAS MADE NO OFFER OF PROOF, FRANKLY, AND THEY HAVE MADE NO OFFER OF PROOF THAT EITHER OF THESE DOCTORS, I'M NOT SURE IF IT IS HOCHMAN OR HOCKMAN AND DR. KOEGLER, WHETHER EITHER OF THESE DOCTORS HAVE ANY RECOLLECTION OF THESE STATEMENTS THEY WROTE IN THEIR LETTERS MANY, MANY YEARS AGO AND THAT THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO TESTIFY TO THEM. THE LETTERS OF COURSE BY THEMSELVES ARE INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY AND THE LETTERS ARE CONTAINED WITHIN LENGTHY -- THE PARTICULAR QUOTES ATTRIBUTED TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN ARE CONTAINED WITHIN LENGTHY EVALUATIONS THAT GO FOR QUITE SOME TIME. DR. HOCHMAN'S LETTER I BELIEVE IS 14 PAGES. DR. KOEGLER IS EIGHT. THE SECOND AREA OF INQUIRY WHICH WE ARE SEEKING THE COURT TO ADDRESS IN ITS RULING IS THE -- IS SUPPOSED TESTIMONY FROM A WOMAN NAMED KATHLEEN BELL WHO CLAIMED IN AUGUST OF 1994 TO HAVE SUDDENLY REMEMBERED A VERY INFLAMMATORY RACIAL STATEMENT THAT SHE CLAIMS DETECTIVE FUHRMAN MADE EIGHT YEARS EARLIER. NOW, APPARENTLY THIS WOMAN HAS INDICATED THAT THIS WAS THE ONLY TIME IN HER LIFE SHE HAD CONTACT WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, YET SHE REMEMBERS THIS INFLAMMATORY STATEMENT. AND FRANKLY, YOUR HONOR, HER -- HER CREDIBILITY OF COURSE IS AT ISSUE ANYWAY ON THIS. IT IS SUSPECT BECAUSE OF HAVING READ SOMETHING HAPPENING EIGHT YEARS AGO, BUT HER REACTION, WHICH HAS BEEN REPORTED TO IT OF CRYING WHEN SHE HEARD IT IS A VERY STRANGE ALLEGATION. WHEN I HEAR AN ALLEGATION OF RACISM, I GET ANGRY; I DON'T CRY. IT IS JUST A VERY STRANGE AND BIZARRE BEHAVIOR ON THIS WOMAN'S PART, SO HER TESTIMONY IS IMMEDIATELY SUSPECT. SHE INDICATED THAT SHE OVERHEARD THIS STATEMENT WHILE SHE AND DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WERE AT A MARINE RECRUITING QUARTERS, MARINE RECRUITING OFFICE AT I GUESS WHAT CAN BE CALLED A STRIP MALL IN REDONDO BEACH. THIS WOMAN APPARENTLY WAS -- HAD TO DO WITH A REAL ESTATE OFFICE THERE IN THE SAME STRIP MALL AND FROM WHAT -- IN READING BETWEEN THE LINES, IT APPEARS THAT SHE WAS HANGING AROUND THE MARINES, SO ON THIS ONE OCCASION SHE SEEMS TO RECOLLECT NOW EIGHT YEARS LATER THAT THIS STATEMENT THAT SHE CLAIMS TO HAVE HEARD, IF SHE HEARD IT AT ALL, WAS ATTRIBUTED TO THIS PARTICULAR DETECTIVE WHO SHE DIDN'T SEE FOR THE NEXT EIGHT YEARS. IN ADDITION, YOUR HONOR, THE PROSECUTION HAS AT LEAST TWO AND LIKELY THREE MARINES WHO WERE THERE AT THE RECRUITING STATION AT THE TIME WHO SAID THAT NO SUCH REMARK WAS MADE. AND I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE FOR THE COURT THAT ONE OF THOSE MARINES WAS A HEAVY, TALL, BODY BUILDER, AFRICAN AMERICAN. NOW, ON ITS FACE THE ABSURDITY OF BELIEVING THAT MARK FUHRMAN MADE A RACIST STATEMENT IN FRONT OF A TALL BURLY AFRICAN AMERICAN, IT IS JUST CRAZY, SO THAT AGAIN MAKES KATHLEEN BELL'S STATEMENT HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS. THE THIRD AREA THAT WE ARE ADDRESSING IN THIS MOTION, YOUR HONOR, IS WITH REGARD TO ACTIVITY OF A JOSEPH BRITTON WHICH OCCURRED IN 1987, AND IN 1987 JOSEPH BRITTON WAS ATTEMPTING, WITH THE USE OF A BUTCHER KNIFE, TO ROB A JAPANESE MAN, AS IT HAPPENED, THE JAPANESE AMERICAN MAN AT AN ATM, WHEN HE WAS INTERRUPTED WITH A COHORT. WHEN HE WAS INTERRUPTED IN THAT REGARD BY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AND HIS PARTNER AND THAT THAT INTERRUPTION INVOLVED -- AS A RESULT RESULTED IN AN OFFICER-INVOLVED SHOOTING WHEN DETECTIVE -- EXCUSE ME -- WHEN JOSEPH BRITTON ATTEMPTED TO FLEE FROM THE OFFICERS AND BRANDISHED THIS BUTCHER KNIFE.

NOW, JOSEPH BRITTON PLED GUILTY TO THE ROBBERY, WHICH IS OBVIOUS TO THE COURT AND MAYBE NOT TO OTHER PEOPLE, IS A FELONY, AND HE ADMITTED THE USE OF A DANGEROUS AND DEADLY WEAPON, IN THIS CASE A KNIFE, IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDING THAT WAS BROUGHT AGAINST HIM IN THAT REGARD. NOW, THIS IS ANOTHER AREA WHERE THERE HAS BEEN A FAILURE OF AN OFFER OF PROOF FROM THE DEFENSE AND WHERE THE EVIDENCE THAT IS KNOWN WITH REGARD TO JOSEPH BRITTON SHOWS IT TO BE VERY WEAK AND LACKING IN PROBATIVE VALUE. MR. BRITTON, IN ADDITION TO HAVING BEEN AN ARMED ROBBER WHO WAS SUCCESSFULLY INTERRUPTED DURING THAT ROBBERY, SUFFERED ANOTHER ROBBERY CONVICTION, A FELONY, AROUND THE SAME TIME PERIOD, I BELIEVE IT WAS A FEW MONTHS LATER, AND I HAVE THE CASE NUMBERS IF THERE IS ANY QUESTION ABOUT THAT. SO MR. BRITTON'S CREDIBILITY WOULD BE HIGHLY SUSPECT IF THAT ALONE WERE THE SITUATION AND HE WERE TO COME IN AND TESTIFY WITH REGARD TO SOME MOVING OF EVIDENCE, BUT THAT IS NOT EVEN ALL THAT THE COURT HAS TO CONSIDER IN THIS REGARD. ALSO IN THIS REGARD MR. BRITTON, IN HIS OWN DEPOSITION, DESCRIBES THE MAN WHO HE BELIEVES SHOT HIM AS HAVING RED HAIR AND A MUSTACHE, AND THOUGH HE MAY BE ONE OF THE FEW THAT I AM AWARE OF, IT IS A FACT THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAS NEVER IN HIS CAREER AS A POLICE OFFICER HAD A MUSTACHE AND HE CERTAINLY DOESN'T HAVE RED HAIR, AS THE COURT HAS SEEN, AND NEVER HAD RED HAIR. IN ADDITION TO THAT, JOSEPH BRITTON, WHEN HE WAS INTERVIEWED ON CBS EVENING NEWS ON OCTOBER 12, AND WE APPENDED TO OUR BRIEF A COPY OF THAT SCRIPT, INDICATED THAT HE CAN'T SAY THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN MOVED ANY EVIDENCE, MOVED THAT KNIFE, AND THE ALLEGATION WITH REGARD TO THAT IS THAT JOSEPH BRITTON CLAIMS HE THREW THE KNIFE WHEN HE WAS RUNNING AND IT WAS MOVED FROM THE LOCATION WHERE HE THREW IT TO HIS FEET. THE OFFICERS INVOLVED IN THE SHOOTING FOUND IT AT HIS FEET WHEN HE DROPPED IT AFTER HAVING BEEN SHOT. BUT JOSEPH BRITTON ON CBS EVENING NEWS INDICATED TO THE COUNTRY THAT HE COULDN'T SAY THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN DID THAT, NOR COULD HE SAY THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN MADE A RACIST REMARK TO HIM. SO WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE THAT THE DEFENSE WOULD HAVE TO SEEK TO IMPEACH IN THIS REGARD? IT APPEARS TO US, YOUR HONOR, THAT THE DEFENSE IS JUST ATTEMPTING TO INQUIRE INTO THESE THINGS TO CAST A SUSPICION, TO RAISE REASONABLE DOUBT, WHEN THERE REALLY IS NOTHING BEHIND IT AND NOTHING TO SUPPORT IT. ALL RIGHT. THERE IS A LOT OF AREAS FOR THE COURT OF COURSE TO CONSIDER UNDER SECTION 352, AND I WOULD LIKE TO GO OVER THEM INDIVIDUALLY.

ONE OF THOSE AREAS THAT THE COURT HAS TO CONSIDER IS WHETHER PUTTING ON ALL THIS COLLATERAL EVIDENCE WOULD NECESSITATE AN UNDUE CONSUMPTION OF THE COURT'S TIME, AND IT WOULD WITH REGARD TO EACH OF THESE INCIDENTS. WITH REGARD TO THE CITY-HIRED PSYCHIATRIST, THERE WOULD BE EXTENSIVE -- ASSUMING THAT THE DEFENSE CAN EVEN REPRESENT THAT THEY ARE WILLING AND ABLE TO TESTIFY, THERE WOULD OF COURSE BE EXTENSIVE EXAMINATION OF THEM. THE PEOPLE, THE PROSECUTION MIGHT CHOOSE TO CALL DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S PSYCHIATRIST WHO INTERVIEWED HIM BACK IN THE SAME TIME PERIOD AND WE WOULD OPEN A WHOLE AREA OF INQUIRY WHICH IS TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE, TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE TO THE ISSUES BEFORE THIS JURY WITH REGARD TO WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED THE MURDERS OF THESE TWO VICTIMS. IF KATHLEEN BELL TESTIFIES OF COURSE WE WILL PUT ON THE MARINES WHO REFUTE HER TESTIMONY. ALL OF THAT TAKES AN UNDUE CONSUMPTION OF TIME. AND OF COURSE IF JOSEPH BRITTON TESTIFIES HE WILL BE IMPEACHED WITH THESE AREAS I HAVE JUST INDICATED, HIS STATEMENT BEFORE THE COUNTRY ON THE NATIONAL NEWS THAT HE CAN'T SAY MARK FUHRMAN MOVED ANY EVIDENCE AND THAT HE CAN'T SAY MARK FUHRMAN MADE ANY RACIAL SLUR, BECAUSE HE DIDN'T. IN ADDITION, WE WOULD SEEK TO IMPEACH JOSEPH BRITTON WITH HIS -- WITH BOTH OF HIS ROBBERY CONVICTIONS, THE ATTEMPTED CONVICTION, AS WELL AS THE OTHER ROBBERY CONVICTION, SO THAT WOULD NECESSITATE A CASTRO HEARING WITH REGARD TO THAT HEARING. IN ADDITION, YOUR HONOR, WERE THE DEFENSE SUCCESSFUL IN ALL OF THIS REGARD, THE PEOPLE, THE PROSECUTION WOULD LIKELY PUT ON CHARACTER EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, VARIOUS AFRICAN AMERICANS, THE AFRICAN AMERICAN SERGEANT AND AFRICAN AMERICAN DETECTIVE WITH WHOM HE REGULARLY PLAYS BASKETBALL AND NUMEROUS OTHER AFRICAN AMERICANS WHO KNOW MARK FUHRMAN WELL AND KNOW THAT HE IS NOT A RACIST AND WOULD NOT MAKE THESE KIND OF RACIAL SLURS THAT THE DEFENSE IS ALLEGING THAT HE MADE MANY YEARS AGO. ANOTHER AREA, AND THE -- AN OBVIOUS AREA IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE WITH REGARD TO THESE THREE AREAS FOR THE COURT TO CONSIDER IS THE REMOTENESS OF THE EVIDENCE AND THAT IS WHAT REALLY BRINGS HOME THE LACK OF PROBATIVE VALUE IN THESE AREAS IN PARTICULAR. THAT WORKERS COMPENSATION LAWSUIT WAS FOURTEEN YEARS AGO, 1981, FOURTEEN YEARS AGO NOW. ONE OF THE DOCTOR'S LETTERS IS IN 1982, THIRTEEN YEARS AGO. THAT EVIDENCE IS EXTREMELY REMOTE. THE KATHLEEN BELL ALLEGATION THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IS THE ONE WHO HEARD THESE SUPPOSED REMARKS THAT CAUSED HER TO CRY RATHER THAN BECOME ANGRY, THAT ALLEGATION HAPPENED SHE SAYS IN 1985 OR 1986. THAT WAS EIGHT OR NINE YEARS AGO. THE JOSEPH BRITTON ATTEMPTED ARMED ROBBERY HAPPENED EIGHT YEARS AGO, SO ALL OF THESE AREAS ARE EXTREMELY REMOTE WHEN IT COMES TO CREDIBILITY. NOW, IN THIS REGARD, AS THE COURT KNOWS, THE LEGISLATURE, IN ENACTING THE PITCHESS STATUTES, MADE A DETERMINATION OF A FIVE-YEAR CUT OFF FOR POLICE OFFICER PERSONNEL FILES TO BE DISCOVERABLE TO THE DEFENSE AND THEY SAID BASICALLY THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT NEED NOT MAINTAIN PERSONNEL FILES OF A POLICE OFFICER BEYOND FIVE YEARS BECAUSE AT THAT POINT IN TIME ANYTHING WITHIN THEM IS NO LONGER RELEVANT, EVEN FOR DISCOVERY PURPOSES. AND THE COURT OF APPEAL, IN THE CASE CITED IN OUR BRIEF, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, I BELIEVE, HELD THAT -- HELD THAT THE LEGISLATURE DETERMINED THAT AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT BEYOND FIVE YEARS IS NOT RELEVANT. SO THIS ATTEMPT BY THE DEFENSE, SHOULD THEY ATTEMPT CROSS-EXAMINATION ON THIS -- IN THIS AREA -- ON ANY OF THESE AREAS, IS REALLY AN ATTEMPT TO GET AROUND WHAT IS ALMOST AND CAN ALMOST BE CONSIDERED A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THE PITCHESS AREA.

NOW, YOUR HONOR, THE THREE AREAS WHICH WE HAVE ADDRESSED ARE THOSE THAT THIS MOTION SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSES. WE ALSO, AS PART OF THIS MOTION, WOULD ASK THE COURT TO PRECLUDE THE DEFENSE FROM ASKING DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WHETHER HE HARBORS RACIAL HOSTILITY TOWARD AFRICAN AMERICANS. OF COURSE IF THAT WERE ALLOWED, WHAT THIS MOTION SEEKS TO DO IS PRECLUDE THEM FROM IMPEACHING WITH THESE AREAS THAT WE HAVE DESCRIBED IN OUR BRIEF, BUT THAT AREA OF INQUIRY ITSELF IS SO INCREDIBLY VOLATILE, YOUR HONOR, AND IS SO REMOTE FROM ANY OF THE ISSUES AT THIS TRIAL THAT ITS PREJUDICIAL EFFECT FAR OUTWEIGHS ANY PROBATIVE VALUE, BECAUSE AS I INDICATED, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IS NOT GOING TO BE TESTIFYING WITH REGARD TO THESE OTHER AREAS WHICH THE DEFENSE SEEMS TO FEEL HIS CREDIBILITY IS AT ISSUE ON. IT IS NOT, BECAUSE HE WILL NOT BE TESTIFYING THERE. IN REGARD TO WHETHER THE DEFENSE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO INQUIRE INTO THAT AREA, ALTHOUGH IT WAS NOT CONTAINED WITHIN THE DEFENSE RESPONSE BRIEF, I DO FEEL AN OBLIGATION, AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT, TO MAKE THE COURT AWARE OF A CASE CALLED IN RE ANTHONY P. IT IS A 1985 COURT OF APPEAL CASE AT 167 CAL.APP.3D 502. IN THAT CASE, YOUR HONOR, THERE WAS A 17-YEAR OLD AFRICAN AMERICAN DEFENDANT, A 15-YEAR OLD WHITE VICTIM. THERE WAS A PETITION SUSTAINED AGAINST THAT AFRICAN AMERICAN JUVENILE FOR A CHILD MOLESTATION AND BATTERY. IN THAT CASE THE DEFENDANT AND THE VICTIM WENT TO THE SAME HIGH SCHOOL. THE DETECTIVE TESTIFIED THAT THE DEFENDANT APPROACHED HER AND ASKED HER FOR A DATE AND THAT SHE REFUSED AND SHE CLAIMS THAT THE DEFENDANT AT THAT POINT GRABBED HER IN VARIOUS SEXUAL AREAS OF HER BODY AND SHE FLED FROM HIM AND SAW A SCHOOLMATE AND ASKED FOR HIS HELP. THE SCHOOLMATE TESTIFIED THAT SHE APPROACHED HIM AND WAS NERVOUS, BUT THERE WERE NO OTHER WITNESSES -- THERE WERE NO WITNESSES TO THE ENCOUNTER ITSELF BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND THE VICTIM, NONE AT ALL, NOR WERE THERE ANY WITNESSES TO THE VICTIM'S HAVING RUN AWAY, SO IT WAS A ONE-ON-ONE CREDIBILITY CONTEST, CROSS-RACIAL BETWEEN THE VICTIM AND THE DEFENDANT. AND IN FACT THE COURT OF APPEAL IN THAT CASE SAID, AND I QUOTE FROM PAGE 506:

"THE ENTIRE CASE AGAINST APPELLANT HINGED ENTIRELY ON THE CREDIBILITY OF ONE WITNESS, DEBORAH M, WHO WAS THE VICTIM." THE COURT OF APPEAL HELD IN THAT CASE, YOUR HONOR, THAT:

"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REFUSING THE DEFENSE TO PURSUE A LINE OF INQUIRY WITH REGARD TO WHETHER THE VICTIM HARBORED FEELINGS OF RACIAL ANIMOSITY," AND INDEED THE COURT OF APPEAL REVERSED THE SUSTAINING OF THE PETITION ON THAT GROUND. I WOULD NOTE IT WAS DIVISION 7. YOUR HONOR, THAT SITUATION IS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE HAVE HERE. ALTHOUGH -- DOES THE COURT WISH ME TO ALLOW THE -- DOES THE COURT WISH ME TO ALLOW THE COURT AN OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE A LOOK BEFORE I CONTINUE?

THE COURT: ACTUALLY, THIS IS I THINK AN APPROPRIATE TIME TO TAKE A COURT REPORTER RECESS, SO WE WILL TAKE FIFTEEN.

(RECESS.)

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS LEWIS. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE REVIEWED IN RE ANTHONY P.

MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, IN THAT CASE THE DEFENSE APPARENTLY HAD NO INFORMATION WITH REGARD TO RACIAL HOSTILITY AND SO THEY WERE REALLY IN A BLIND SITUATION. HERE THE DEFENSE HAS FULLY, APPARENTLY FROM ALL WE AS THE PROSECUTION CAN TELL, HAS FULLY INVESTIGATED DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AND THE BEST THEY HAVE APPARENTLY MANAGED TO COME UP WITH THIS OLD, REMOTE, INFLAMMATORY EVIDENCE WHICH HAS INCREDIBLY WEAK PROBATIVE VALUE. AND I JUST WANT TO REITERATE TO THE COURT A COUPLE OF THINGS. ONE IS THAT IT IS COLLATERAL, TO START WITH, AND THE CASES HAVE SAID THAT IT DOES NOT DENY EFFECTIVE CROSS-EXAMINATION TO A DEFENDANT TO PRECLUDE THE DEFENSE FROM INTRODUCING EVIDENCE THAT GOES ONLY TO THE WEIGHT OF DIRECT TESTIMONY. AND THIS EVIDENCE IS NOT ONLY COLLATERAL BECAUSE IT IS COLLATERAL ON THE AREA OF IMPEACHMENT, IT IS EVEN A FURTHER STEP REMOVED, BECAUSE EVEN ON THAT AREA YOU HAVE TO LEAP FROM INFERENCE TO INFERENCE. YOU HAVE TO LEAP FROM THE INFERENCE THAT RACIAL STATEMENTS THAT WERE MADE FOURTEEN YEARS AGO, EVEN EIGHT YEARS AGO, YOU HAVE TO LEAP FROM THAT INFERENCE THAT THAT SUPPLIES A MOTIVE THAT WOULD ACTUALLY CAUSE A DETECTIVE TO LIE DURING HIS TESTIMONY OR TO DO ANYTHING TO HARM THE PERSON BECAUSE OF THIS REMOTE, ANCIENT STATEMENTS THAT HE MADE. SO IT IS INCREDIBLY REMOTE TO ALL OF THE ISSUES AT HAND AND INCREDIBLY COLLATERAL TO ALL OF THE ISSUES AT HAND AND THAT IS CERTAINLY UNLIKE THE ANTHONY P. CASE WHERE IT WAS CENTRAL -- THAT VICTIM'S CREDIBILITY, SINCE THERE WAS ZERO CORROBORATION, WAS CENTRAL TO THE CASE. NOW, YOUR HONOR, IN THE DEFENSE RESPONSE BRIEF, THE DEFENSE INDICATES THAT THIS MOTION IS NOT RIPE FOR RESOLUTION. ONE THING WE ARE SEEKING FROM THIS COURT IS THE PRECLUSION OF GETTING INTO AN AREA OF WHETHER OR NOT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IS A RACIST. THIS IS NOT A TRIAL ON DETERMINING WHETHER THESE STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO HIM MANY YEARS AGO ARE GOING TO BE USEFUL IN TERMS OF THE JURY'S ASSESSMENT OF WHETHER OR NOT DEFENDANT SIMPSON COMMITTED THESE MURDERS. IT IS EXTREMELY COLLATERAL IN THAT SENSE AS WELL. NOW, ALONG THOSE LINES WE NEED A RULING FROM THIS COURT. WE ARE ASKING FOR A RULING FROM THIS COURT THAT THE DEFENSE BE PRECLUDED FROM ASKING THE DETECTIVE CURRENTLY THESE QUESTIONS ABOUT RACISM AND WHETHER HE IS A RACIST. THEY ARE UNDULY PREJUDICIAL, PARTICULARLY UNDER ALL OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE HAVE HERE. THEY HAVE ALREADY MALIGNED HIM EXTENSIVELY WITHIN THE MEDIA AND THAT MALIGNMENT HE WILL SUFFER WITH AND CARRY WITH HIM THE REST OF HIS LIFE. I WANT TO REMIND THE COURT THAT THE EVIDENCE CODE DOES ASK THAT THE COURT PROTECT WITNESSES FROM HARASSMENT, AND WHEN THAT DETECTIVE TESTIFIES IN THIS COURTROOM, THE COURT WILL HAVE THE POWER AND THE ABILITY TO HEED EVIDENCE CODE 765 AND PROTECT THAT WITNESS FROM THE TYPE OF HARASSMENT HE HAS HAD TO UNDERGO IN THE MEDIA AND THROUGH THE PRESS BECAUSE OF THESE GROUNDLESS BASELESS DEFENSE ACCUSATIONS WITH REGARD TO THE GLOVE. NOW, YOUR HONOR, THE FINAL AREA UNDER SECTION 352 CONCERNS THE PREJUDICIAL EFFECT OF THE EVIDENCE. IT IS SELF-EVIDENT TO A CERTAIN EXTENT OF COURSE WHEN SOMEONE ISSUES THE "N" WORD OR ANY OTHER RACIAL EPITHET IN FRONT OF ANYBODY, AND ESPECIALLY IN FRONT OF A MEMBER OF THAT MINORITY GROUP, IT HAS AN INFLAMMATORY EFFECT THAT IS INCOMPARABLE, AND TO THAT SPECIFIC ISSUE MR. DARDEN WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COURT, AND I THINK I WILL CONCLUDE MY COMMENTS AT THIS TIME.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MISS LEWIS. MR. DARDEN, GOOD MORNING.

MR. DARDEN: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. YOUR HONOR, I THINK THE BEST INDICATIONAL EVIDENCE OF JUST HOW INFLAMMATORY THE USE OF THIS WORD IS IS A FACT THAT IT APPEARS THAT MR. COCHRAN AND I, THE ONLY TWO BLACK LEAD LAWYERS ON EACH SIDE OF THE COUNSEL TABLE, ARE SOMEHOW DRAGGED INTO THIS ISSUE TO ARGUE THE ISSUE TO THE COURT, AND I THINK THAT MAY BE DUE IN SOME PART TO THE FACT THAT IF ANYONE SHOULD SLIP AND SAY OR UTTER THE WORD, IT IS PROBABLY BETTER TO HAVE A BLACK PERSON DO IT, BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE A WHITE PERSON DO IT, IF A WHITE MALE TAKES THE WITNESS STAND AND THAT WORD IS UTTERED IN THIS COURTROOM, IT WILL OFFEND EVERY BLACK JUROR ON THIS CASE. IT WILL OFFEND ME, IT WILL OFFEND MR. COCHRAN, IT WILL OFFEND MR. SIMPSON, IT WILL OFFEND THE AFRICAN AMERICAN REPORTERS IN THIS COURTROOM AND IT WILL OFFEND THE PUBLIC AND ANY OTHER AFRICAN AMERICAN WITHIN EARSHOT OF THAT WORD. IT IS A DIRTY FILTHY WORD. IT IS NOT A WORD THAT I ALLOW PEOPLE TO USE IN MY HOUSEHOLD. I'M SURE MR. COCHRAN DOESN'T. AND THE REASON WE DON'T IS BECAUSE IT IS AN EXTREMELY DEROGATORY AND DENIGRATING TERM BECAUSE IT IS SO PREJUDICIAL AND SO EXTREMELY INFLAMMATORY THAT TO USE THAT WORD IN ANY SITUATION WILL EVOKE SOME TYPE OF EMOTIONAL RESPONSE FROM ANY AFRICAN AMERICAN WITHIN EARSHOT OF THAT WORD. I SPOKE TO DEAN UELMEN EARLIER THIS MORNING AND I ASKED HIM -- I SAID, "DEAN, ARE YOU GOING TO USE THE "N" WORD DURING ARGUMENT TODAY?" HE SAID, "NOPE, NOT ME."

WELL, IF DEAN UELMEN DOESN'T WANT TO UTTER THE WORD AND IF HAD COCHRAN DOESN'T UTTER THE WORD OR ALLOW OTHERS TO USE THAT WORD IN HIS HOUSEHOLD, AND I CERTAINLY DON'T, WHY THEN SHOULD WE ALLOW THAT WORD IN USE IN THIS COURTROOM? ESPECIALLY IN A CASE LIKE THIS WHERE IT HAS NO PROBATIVE VALUE. IT IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. IT WAS CREATED AND DESIGNED TO DO ONE THING, AND THAT IS TO DEMEAN PEOPLE, TO STRIP PEOPLE OF THEIR HUMANITY, TO EVOKE AN EMOTIONAL RESPONSE. YOUR HONOR, WHEN YOU USE THAT WORD YOU ARE USING FIGHTING WORDS. WHEN YOU USE THAT WORD IN THE PRESENCE OF AN AFRICAN AMERICAN YOU ARE ASKING THAT AFRICAN AMERICAN FOR A REACTION. IT IS A CALL TO ARMS. IT IS A TEST. IT IS A TEST OF EVERY AFRICAN AMERICAN WHEN THEY HEAR THAT WORD AND THE TEST IS WHERE DO YOU STAND? ON WHICH SIDE OF THE LINE DO YOU STAND? BECAUSE WHEN THAT WORD IS USED IN THE PRESENCE OF AN AFRICAN AMERICAN, AN AFRICAN AMERICAN HAS AN OBLIGATION TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, TO SAY SOMETHING. AN AFRICAN AMERICAN HAS A DUTY, IN MOST SITUATIONS TO CONFRONT, TO CONFRONT THE DECLARANT. IT IS THE FILTHIEST, DIRTIEST, NASTIEST WORD IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. IT HAS NO PLACE IN THIS CASE OR IN THIS COURTROOM. IT WILL DO NOTHING TO FURTHER THE COURT'S ATTEMPT AT SEEKING THE TRUTH IN THIS CASE. IT WILL DO ONE THING. IT WILL UPSET THE BLACK JURORS, IT WILL ISSUE A TEST, IT WILL GIVE THEM THE TEST AND THE TEST WILL BE WHOSE SIDE ARE YOU ON? THE SIDE OF THE WHITE PROSECUTORS AND THE WHITE POLICEMEN OR ON THE SIDE OF THE BLACK DEFENDANT AND HIS VERY PROMINENT AND BLACK LAWYER? THAT IS WHAT IT IS GOING TO DO. EITHER YOU ARE WITH THE MAN OR YOU ARE WITH THE BROTHERS. THAT IS WHAT IT DOES. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IT DOES. NO ONE, NO AFRICAN AMERICAN CAN HEAR THAT WORD WITHOUT GETTING UPSET. YOU HEAR IT IN THE MOVIES; IT UPSETS YOU. PEOPLE DON'T LISTEN TO RAP MUSIC, BLACK PEOPLE, BECAUSE THEY DON'T LIKE THAT WORD. THEY DON'T LIKE THE USE OF THAT WORD, AND IF YOU SEARCH BLACK LIGATURE TODAY, BLACK MAGAZINES, YOU WILL SEE LETTERS, WRITERS AND ARTICLES AND PEOPLE ASKING WHY THAT WORD IS USED, WHY DOES THAT WORD EXIST? WHY WOULD ANYBODY WANT TO USE IT? WHY WOULD ANYBODY WANT TO RAP ABOUT IT? WHY WOULD ANYBODY WANT TO WRITE ABOUT IT? WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO REPEAT IT OR SAY IT? THE WORD HAS NO PLACE IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. IT HAS NO PLACE IN THIS COURTROOM. YOU SHOULDN'T LET THEM USE IT. I'M NOT GOING TO SAY THE WORD. WE ALL KNOW WHAT THE WORD IS. IF MR. COCHRAN USES THAT WORD TODAY I'M GOING TO BE OFFENDED, AND IT IS PROBABLY THE THIRD OR FOR THE TIME THIS WEEK THAT I HAVE BEEN OFFENDED, BUT I CAN'T HELP BUT BE OFFENDED. HOW CAN THE JURY HELP BUT BE OFFENDED? DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IS GOING TO PLAY A VERY, VERY SMALL ROLE IN THIS CASE. THIS WASN'T HIS CASE. HE WAS NOT THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER OR THE LEAD INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN THIS CASE. HE WENT TO ROCKINGHAM WITH FOUR OTHER DETECTIVES OR THREE OTHER DETECTIVES AND HE JUST HAPPENED TO FIND AN ITEM. PURE HAPPENSTANCE. PURE LUCK ON THE PART OF THE POLICE AND CERTAINLY ON THE PART OF THE PROSECUTION. HE JUST HAPPENED TO FIND A GLOVE. ONE ITEM. THE MAN FINDS ONE ITEM AMONGST SIX OR SEVEN OR 800 OTHER ITEMS COLLECTED BY THE POLICE IN THIS CASE AND NOW WHEN THE MAN IS CALLED TO THE WITNESS STAND WE ARE GOING TO GO FIFTEEN YEARS BACK OR FOURTEEN YEARS BACK AND ASK HIM IF HE EVER MADE A RACIAL SLUR, REPEATED A RACIAL EPITHET? WHY? WHAT IS THE POINT OF THAT WHEN THE DETECTIVE IS GOING TO PLAY SUCH A SMALL ROLE IN THIS CASE? THERE IS NO LEGAL PURPOSE. THERE IS NO VALID OR LEGITIMATE PURPOSE. BUT MR. COCHRAN AND THE DEFENSE, THEY HAVE A PURPOSE IN GOING INTO THAT AREA AND THE PURPOSE IS TO INFLAME THE PASSIONS OF THE JURY AND TO ASK THEM TO PICK SIDES NOT ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE. AND THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE AGAINST THIS DEFENDANT IS OVERWHELMING. THERE IS A MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE POINTING TO THIS DEFENDANT'S GUILT. BUT WHEN YOU MENTION THAT WORD TO THIS JURY OR TO ANY AFRICAN AMERICAN, IT BLINDS PEOPLE. IT WILL BLIND THE JURY, IT WILL BLIND THEM TO THE TRUTH. THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO DISCERN WHAT IS TRUE AND WHAT IS NOT. IT WILL AFFECT THEIR JUDGMENT, IT WILL IMPAIR THEIR ABILITY TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL. IT WILL CAUSE EXTREME PREJUDICE TO THE PROSECUTION'S CASE. YOU KNOW, AND WE DO HAVE A RIGHT, YOUR HONOR, AND I KNOW THE COURT IS WELL AWARE OF IT AND I DON'T HAVE TO EDUCATE THE COURT ON THIS POINT, BUT WE HAVE A RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL JUST LIKE THE DEFENDANT HAS. WE ARE NOT RUNNING AROUND OR TALKING ABOUT OR SEEKING TO INTRODUCE TO THE JURY THE NOTION THAT THIS DEFENDANT HAS A FETISH FOR BLOND-HAIRED WHITE WOMEN. THAT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE. THAT WOULD INFLAME THE PASSIONS OF THE JURY. IT WOULD BE OUTRAGEOUS. THE USE OF THAT WORD IN THIS CASE IS OUTRAGEOUS. THE USE OF THAT WORD WILL INFLAME THE PASSIONS OF THE JURY. THIS ISN'T A RACE CASE. MR. COCHRAN WANTS TO PLAY THE ACE OF SPADES AND PLAY THE RACE CARD, BUT THIS ISN'T A RACE CASE. WE SHOULDN'T ALLOW HIM TO PLAY THAT CARD. WE SHOULDN'T ALLOW HIM TO PLAY THAT CARD IF WHAT WE ARE REALLY INTERESTED IN IS PLAYING BY THE RULES, FINDING OUT JUST WHAT HAPPENED AT BUNDY AND IF WE ARE REALLY INTERESTED IN SEARCHING FOR THE TRUTH. YESTERDAY I HANDED TO THE COURT SOME ARTICLES AND XEROXED COPIES OF A COUPLE OF CHAPTERS FROM A COUPLE OF BOOKS, AND THEY INCLUDED ANDREW HACKER'S TWO NATIONS, AND IF I MIGHT, I WOULD LIKE TO DIRECT THE COURT'S ATTENTION TO PAGE 43 OF TWO NATIONS AND READ INTO THE RECORD A PARTICULAR QUOTE, AND I WOULD LIKE TO READ THIS QUOTE BECAUSE I THINK THIS QUOTE FAIRLY DESCRIBES THE IMPACT AND EFFECT THE HEARING OF THIS WORD HAS AND WILL HAVE ON ANY AFRICAN AMERICANS ON THE JURY. WITH REGARD TO THIS "N" WORD HACKER WRITES:

"WHEN A WHITE PERSON VOICES IT, IT BECOMES A KNIFE WITH A WHETTED EDGE. NO BLACK PERSON CAN HEAR IT WITH EQUANIMITY OR IGNORE IT AS SIMPLY A WORD. THIS WORD HAS THE FORCE TO PIERCE, TO WOUND, TO PENETRATE AS NO OTHER HAS. THERE HAVE OF COURSE BEEN TERMS LIKE 'KIKE' AND 'SPIC' AND 'CHINK'" AND I HAVE USED THOSE WORDS AND I APOLOGIZE FOR USING THOSE TERMS, YOUR HONOR, "BUT THESE ARE LESS FREQUENTLY HEARD TODAY AND THEY LACK THE SAME EMOTIONAL IMPACT. SOME NON-ETHNIC TERMS COME CLOSER, SUCH AS 'SLUT' AND 'FAG' AND 'CRIPPLE.' YET THE "N" WORD STANDS ALONE WITH THIS POWER TO TEAR AT ONE'S INSIDES. IT WILL REVEAL THAT WHITES HAVE NEVER CREATED SO WRENCHING AN EPITHET FOR EVEN THE MOST BEKNIGHTED MEMBERS OF THEIR OWN RACE. IT IS A PERSISTENT REMINDER THAT YOU ARE STILL PERCEIVED AS A DEGRADED SPECIES OF HUMANITY, A LEVEL TO WHICH WHITES CAN NEVER DESCEND." MR. COCHRAN WOULD LIKE TO ASK A WHITE POLICE OFFICER IF HE EVER USED THAT WORD AND AFTER THAT WHITE POLICE OFFICER TESTIFIES THERE WILL BE OTHER WHITE MALE POLICE OFFICERS, AND BY THE TIME THOSE OTHER OFFICERS TESTIFY THEY WILL -- THE JURY WILL HAVE HEARD THIS WORD, THEY WILL BE UPSET, THEY WILL HAVE BECOME EMOTIONAL, AND AS SOON AS MR. COCHRAN WORKS THEM UP INTO THAT EMOTIONAL FRENZY HE WOULD LIKE TO GET THEM INTO, AS SOON AS HE DOES THAT AND THE NEXT WHITE POLICE OFFICER TAKES THE WITNESS STAND, THE JURY IS GOING TO PAINT THAT WHITE POLICE OFFICER WITH THE SAME BRUSH MR. COCHRAN PAINTED DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. AND THERE BEGINS THE DECLINE OF THE PROSECUTION'S CASE, A VERY GOOD CASE I MIGHT ADD.

THIS WORD HAS NO PLACE IN THIS COURTROOM AND IT SHOULD NOT BE HEARD BEFORE THE JURY. I KNOW THE COURT PROBABLY HAS HAD ITS OWN EXPERIENCE WITH RACIAL EPITHETS. IN MY VIEW, AND I HAVEN'T SEARCHED FOR EMPIRICAL DATA ON THIS ISSUE OR READ ANY STUDIES ON THIS ISSUE, BUT I BELIEVE AND THIS CERTAINLY APPLIES TO ME AND IT APPLIES TO FRIENDS OF MINE WHO ARE ALSO AFRICAN AMERICANS, I BELIEVE THAT WHEN WE HEAR THIS WORD CERTAIN IMAGES COME TO MIND, PERHAPS NOT THEN, BUT PERHAPS LATER. IT ALWAYS CAUSES ME TO REFLECT ON THE FIRST TIME I WAS EVER CALLED THAT WORD. I REMEMBER IT TODAY AS CLEAR AS A BELL AND IF YOU READ SOME OF THE ARTICLES I HANDED THE COURT YESTERDAY, YOU WILL SEE THAT THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE, OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE INTERVIEWED AND DOCUMENTED IN THOSE STUDIES AND REPORTS, OLD PEOPLE, OLDER THAN YOU, SIXTIES AND SEVENTIES, AND IN THE SIXTIES AND SEVENTIES, AND THEY ALL REMEMBER THE DAY, THE FIRST TIME SOMEBODY USED THAT WORD. I REMEMBER THE FIRST TIME. I'M SURE MR. COCHRAN REMEMBERS THE FIRST TIME. AND WHENEVER I REFLECT BACK ON THAT, THAT EXPERIENCE, I FIND IT EXTREMELY UPSETTING AND I PROBABLY APPEAR TO BE GETTING A LITTLE UPSET RIGHT NOW AS I ADDRESS THE COURT. IT IS PROBABLY THE MOST NEGATIVE EXPERIENCE I HAVE EVER HAD IN MY LIFE.

AND WHEN THE JURY HEARS THAT WORD FROM A WHITE POLICE OFFICER, THEY ARE GOING TO REFLECT ALSO I THINK ON THE MOST NEGATIVE EXPERIENCE IN THEIR LIFE, AND I THINK THAT THIS -- OR RATHER THE FIRST TIME THAT THEY HEARD THAT WORD WILL PROBABLY BE THE MOST NEGATIVE EXPERIENCE AND I THINK THEY ARE GOING TO BECOME EMOTIONAL. ANOTHER THING HEARING THAT WORD CAUSES BLACK PEOPLE TO DO, AFRICAN AMERICANS TO DO, IS IT CAUSES -- IT CAUSES YOU TO CHANGE YOUR FOCUS. IT DIVERTS YOUR ATTENTION. IF WE REALLY WANT THE JURY'S ATTENTION FOCUSED ON THE EVIDENCE AND ON THE LEGAL AND FACTUAL ISSUES, THE IMPORTANT LEGAL AND FACTUAL ISSUES INHERIT IN THIS CASE, WE SHOULDN'T LET THEM HEAR THIS WORD, BECAUSE IF THEY HEAR THIS WORD THEY ARE GOING TO FOCUS THEIR ATTENTION ON THE ISSUE OF RACE. THEY ARE GOING TO BE MORE CONCERNED WITH WHETHER MARK FUHRMAN IS A RACIST THAN THEY ARE WITH WHETHER THERE WAS ANY WAY, ANY POSSIBILITY, ANY CHANCE, ANY THEORY OFFERED BY THE DEFENSE TO ESTABLISH THAT MARK FUHRMAN PLANTED EVIDENCE. THAT WILL BE A FOREGONE CONCLUSION. THEY CAN JUST CHECK THAT ONE OFF. HE MUST HAVE DONE IT, HE IS A RACIST. THAT IS WHAT MR. COCHRAN WANTS THE JURY TO DO, SKIP THE EVIDENCE, FORGET THE DIRECT EXAMINATION AND THE CROSS-EXAMINATION AND THE REAL FACTUAL POINTS ESTABLISHED IN THE CASE. THE JURY IS GOING TO FIND THIS CASE ON THE BASIS OF RACE. THEY ARE GOING TO BE PREOCCUPIED WITH RACE. AFTER ALL, MR. SIMPSON IS AN AFRICAN AMERICAN AND SO IS MR. COCHRAN. THE USE OF THIS WORD CAUSES PEOPLE TO DIVERT THEIR FOCUS FROM THE REAL IMPORTANT ISSUES IN FRONT OF THEM. IT CAUSES PEOPLE TO FOCUS SOLELY ON THE ISSUE OF RACE AND THAT IS THE REASON THAT WE DON'T USE IT. NOW, I'M SURE THAT MR. COCHRAN OR DEAN UELMEN WILL STEP TO THE PODIUM AND THEY WILL SAY, JUDGE, YOUR HONOR, YOU CAN ALWAYS ISSUE SOME LIMITING INSTRUCTION. YOU CAN SAY TO ALL THE BLACK JURORS HERE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE USE OF THE "N" WORD HAS BEEN INTRODUCED IN THIS CASE FOR A LIMITED PURPOSE AND THIS IS THE PURPOSE AND DON'T CONSIDER IT FOR ANY OTHER REASON. THAT IS POINTLESS. IT IS A WASTE OF PAPER AND A WASTE OF THE COURT'S TIME BECAUSE YOU CAN'T IGNORE IT. ONCE THAT WORD IS IN FRONT OF YOU, YOU CAN'T IGNORE IT. I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO IGNORE THIS WORD OVER THE LAST WEEK WHEN I SUDDENLY FOUND MYSELF INVOLVED IN THIS NASTY LITTLE ISSUE, ARGUING THIS ISSUE, THE USE OF THE "N" WORD IN THIS CASE. WELL, IT POSES AN IMPORTANT MORAL QUESTION FOR ME PERSONALLY BECAUSE MY BELIEF IS, HEY, IF YOU SEE A RACIST, LET'S TATTOO IT ON HIS FOREHEAD SO EVERYBODY KNOWS WHEN THEY MEET THE GUY THAT, HEY, HE IS A RACIST. AND I AM NOT SAYING MARK FUHRMAN IS A RACIST, BECAUSE I HAVE MET MARK FUHRMAN AND I HAVE TALKED TO MARK FUHRMAN. AND I HAVE LOOKED AT THESE RECORDS, AND WHAT I SEE IN THE RECORD IS THAT IN 1981 AND 1982 MARK FUHRMAN SUFFERED FROM STRESS. HE SUFFERED FROM THE SAME KIND OF STRESS THAT LOTS OF POLICE OFFICERS SUFFER FROM, NOT JUST WHITE POLICE OFFICERS, BUT BLACK POLICE OFFICERS AS WELL. I THINK THE RECORDS ARE CLEAR THAT DURING THOSE DAYS THAT MARK FUHRMAN HAD BEEN SHOT AT FOR NO REASON OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT HE WAS AN LAPD OFFICER. HIS FRIEND HAD BEEN SHOT AT, HIS COLLEAGUES HAD BEEN KILLED. PEOPLE WOULD SPIT ON HIM JUST BECAUSE HE WORE A BLUE UNIFORM. PEOPLE HAD DIRECTED RACIAL EPITHETS TOWARD HIM. HE HAD JUST COME BACK FROM VIETNAM WHEN HE JOINED THE LAPD. HE WAS SUFFERING FROM STRESS AND IT HAS TO BE STRESSFUL TO BE A POLICE OFFICER IN THE CITY OF L.A. I MEAN, GEEZ, THE STUFF THAT IS GOING ON IN THIS CITY IN THE LAST FIVE TO SIX YEARS, I CAN'T IMAGINE ANYBODY THAT WOULD WANT A JOB LIKE THAT, BUT SOME DO AND THEY OUGHT TO BE COMMENDED. BUT THE POINT I'M ATTEMPTING TO MAKE IS THAT THERE IS NO LIMITING INSTRUCTION THAT THE COURT CAN GIVE TO ORDER THE JURY OR TO CAUSE THE JURY TO PLACE THE USE OF THIS TERM INTO SOME PERSPECTIVE OTHER THAN THE ONE THEY HAVE ALWAYS PLACED IT IN AND THAT IS AT THE TOP OF THE LIST, NO. 1. NO. 1 IN THE CATEGORY OF THE MOST OFFENSIVE EMOTIONAL TERMS IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. IT IS THE PROSECUTION'S POSITION THAT IF YOU ALLOW MR. COCHRAN TO USE THIS WORD AND TO PLAY THIS RACE CARD, NOT ONLY DOES THE DIRECTION AND THE FOCUS OF THE CASE CHANGE, BUT THE ENTIRE COMPLEXION OF THE CASE CHANGES. IT IS A RACE CASE THEN. IT IS WHITE VERSUS BLACK, AFRICAN AMERICAN VERSUS CAUCASIAN, US VERSUS THEM, US VERSUS THE SYSTEM. IT IS NOT A SIMPLE ISSUE THEN OF SIMPLE GUILT OR INNOCENCE OR PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. IT BECOMES AN ISSUE OF COLOR. WHO IS -- YOU KNOW, WHO IS THE BLACKEST MAN UP HERE? WHO ARE THE REAL BROTHERS? WHO ARE -- WHO REALLY REPRESENTS THE AFRICAN AMERICAN INTERESTS IN THIS CASE? IT CHANGES TO ALL KIND OF OTHER THINGS. THE JURY -- THE JURY WILL FORGET ABOUT THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE. ALL THEY WILL THINK ABOUT IS FRAME-UP, FRAME-UP, FRAME-UP. THERE WON'T BE ANY EVIDENCE OF ANY FRAME, THAT THIS DEFENDANT WAS FRAMED BY ANY MEMBER OF THE LAPD. YOU KNOW, THEY MAY MAKE A WEAK ATTEMPT AT PROVING A FRAME-UP, BUT THERE WON'T BE ANY EVIDENCE. ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS MENTION THE WORD, SAY TO MARK FUHRMAN, HEY, DID YOU EVER USE THAT "N" WORD AND HE WILL SAY YEAH AND IT IS OVER, HE MUST HAVE PLANTED THE GLOVE. IN DIRECT EXAMINATION AND EVEN IN CROSS-EXAMINATION AND IN ALL MATTERS RELATED TO THE ISSUE, I BELIEVE, OF WHETHER EVIDENCE MIGHT BE ADMITTED AT TRIAL, THE EVIDENCE HAS TO BE RELEVANT, AND I THINK ALL EVIDENCE IS SUBJECT TO AN EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 352 OBJECTION. OKAY. DOES THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF THE EVIDENCE OR IS THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF THE EVIDENCE OUTWEIGHED BY THE PREJUDICIAL EFFECT? IS THERE SUBSTANTIAL PREJUDICE? AND I THINK MR. GOLDBERG YESTERDAY ALLUDED TO THE FACT THAT IT IS EVEN AND THIS ISN'T EVEN -- WHAT DID MR. GOLDBERG SAY? IF IT IS EVEN -- I BELIEVE WE WIN IF IT IS EVEN. BUT IN THIS SITUATION THE PREJUDICE THAT WILL FLOW TO THE PEOPLE'S CASE BECAUSE OF THE INFLAMMATORY NATURE OF THAT WORD IS BEYOND -- BEYOND SUBSTANTIAL PREJUDICE. IT IS EXTREME PREJUDICE. IT IS PREJUDICE AT THE MOST EXTREME. WE CAN'T WIN, NO MATTER WHAT, BECAUSE NOW WE ARE TRYING A RACE CASE. WE ARE NOT TRYING O.J. SIMPSON AND WE ARE NOT TRYING THE ISSUE OF WHETHER HE KILLED TWO PEOPLE ON BUNDY ON JUNE 12. WE ARE TRYING A RACE CASE. AND EVERYTHING, EVERY PIECE OF EVIDENCE, EVERY WITNESS, EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS IN THIS CASE BEYOND THAT IS GOING TO SOMEHOW BE AFFECTED BY THE JURY'S PERCEPTION OF THAT WITNESS' ETHNICITY AND COLOR AND THE REAL ISSUES IN THIS CASE ARE GOING TO BE PAINTED, GLOSSED OVER, MISSED BY THE JURY AND COMPLETELY IGNORED.

NOW, THE COURT MAY WELL THINK, WELL, MR. DARDEN, THIS IS AN AWFUL EXTREME ARGUMENT THAT YOU ARE MAKING, BUT IT IS TRUE. THAT IS WHAT THIS WORD DOES, YOUR HONOR. THAT IS WHAT THIS WORD DOES. AND TO COME FROM A WHITE POLICE OFFICER, THAT JUST EXACERBATES EVERYTHING. WHAT HAPPENED TO MARK FUHRMAN FOURTEEN YEARS AGO UNDER THE -- UNDER THE CONDITIONS IN WHICH THESE STATEMENTS WERE ALLEGEDLY MADE, WHILE SUFFERING APPARENTLY FROM SOME FORM OF STRESS, A POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS AND AFTER HIS WIFE LEFT HIM, IT IS UNFAIR. IT IS UNFAIR TO INTRODUCE THE STATEMENTS IN THIS CASE. THEY ARE INHERENTLY UNRELIABLE AND IT IS UNFAIR TO ALLOW MR. COCHRAN TO PLAY THE RACE CARD AND MAKE AND TURN THESE PROCEEDINGS INTO A RACE CASE. IF I HAVEN'T STRENUOUSLY OBJECTED ALREADY TO THE NOTION THAT THIS WORD SHOULD NOT BE ADMITTED IN THE COURT, THEN LET ME MAKE IT CLEAR; I DO. ALL THE PROSECUTION WANTS IN THIS CASE IS A FAIR SHOT, A FAIR TRIAL. WE JUST WANT EVERYBODY TO PLAY BY THE RULES, AND WHEN WE DON'T PLAY BY THE RULES AND WHEN THERE IS A PERCEPTION THAT WE DON'T PLAY BY THE RULES, THE COURT SANCTIONS US, DEAN UELMEN BERATES US AND WE DO WHAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO DO. THE RULES DON'T REQUIRE THE COURT TO ALLOW THE USE OF THIS WORD INTO THIS COURTROOM OR TO HAVE THIS WORD UTTERED INTO THIS COURTROOM. AND WE STRONGLY URGE THE COURT, AND RESPECTFULLY SO, THAT THE COURT NOT ALLOW THAT WORD, THAT IT NOT BE UTTERED IN THIS COURTROOM.

THE COURT: THANK YOU, MR. DARDEN. ALL RIGHT. MR. COCHRAN, IN DEFERENCE TO YOUR SCHEDULE --

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I SAY A WORD BEFORE?

THE COURT: I WAS ABOUT TO SAY WE ARE GOING TO STAND IN RECESS.

MR. COCHRAN: I WOULD LIKE TO SAY OR START AT THIS POINT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, JUDGE ITO. I HAVE A FUNERAL TO ATTEND TODAY, BUT THERE IS FEW THINGS IN LIFE MORE IMPORTANT THAN ATTENDING THE FUNERAL OF SOMEONE WHO IS DEPARTED WHERE YOU HAVE BEEN ASKED TO SPEAK, BUT I WOULD BE REMISS WERE I NOT AT THIS TIME TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO MY GOOD FRIEND, MR. CHRIS DARDEN. HIS REMARKS THIS MORNING ARE PERHAPS THE MOST INCREDIBLE REMARKS I'VE HEARD IN A COURT OF LAW IN THE 32 YEARS I HAVE BEEN PRACTICING LAW. HIS REMARKS ARE DEMEANING TO AFRICAN AMERICANS AS A GROUP. AND SO I WANT, BEFORE I GO TO THIS FUNERAL, TO APOLOGIZE TO AFRICAN AMERICANS ACROSS THIS COUNTRY. NOT EVERY AFRICAN AMERICAN FEELS THAT WAY. IT IS DEMEANING TO OUR JURORS TO SAY THAT AFRICAN AMERICANS WHO HAVE LIVED UNDER OPPRESSION FOR 200 PLUS YEARS IN THIS COUNTRY CANNOT WORK WITHIN THE MAINSTREAM, CANNOT HEAR THESE OFFENSIVE WORDS. AFRICAN AMERICANS LIVE WITH OFFENSIVE WORDS, OFFENSIVE LOOKS, OFFENSIVE TREATMENT EVERY DAY OF THEIR LIVES, BUT YET THEY STILL BELIEVE IN THIS COUNTRY. AND TO SAY THAT OUR JURORS, BECAUSE THEY HEAR THIS OFFENSIVE WORD -- EVERY DAY THAT PEOPLE CALL, THAT THEY INTERACT WITH PEOPLE, WE HAVE HEARD THIS IN THE QUESTIONNAIRES -- TO SAY THEY CAN'T BE FAIR IS ABSOLUTELY OUTRAGEOUS FOR THE PROSECUTION TO STAND HERE AND OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS TO PRESENT CHARACTER ASSASSINATION AGAINST THIS MAN, UNFOUNDED, BOGUS CHARGES AFTER CHARGE AFTER CHARGE, THEN TO WITHDRAW SEVENTEEN OF THOSE CHARGES, FOR THEM TO HAVE THE TEMERITY, THE UNMITIGATED GALL TO COME INTO THIS COURTROOM AND TALK ABOUT FAIRNESS. WHAT WE ARE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT THIS AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR, IS WORDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF MARK FUHRMAN. WHAT I WANT TO SHARE WITH YOU ARE THE THINGS THAT THIS MAN SAID, NOT WHAT WE MADE UP, WHAT HE SAID, WHAT HE TOLD PEOPLE. AND I AM ASHAMED THAT MR. DARDEN WOULD ALLOW HIMSELF TO BECOME AN APOLOGIST FOR THIS MAN, TO JUSTIFY THE FACT HE IS A POLICE OFFICER. BEING A POLICE OFFICER IS TOUGH. BEING A LAWYER IS TOUGH. BEING A JUDGE IS TOUGH. THAT DOESN'T MAKE YOU USE RACISM. YOU CAN'T JUSTIFY THAT IN A CIVILIZED SOCIETY. TO TRY AND PRETEND THAT RACISM DOESN'T EXIST IN THIS COUNTRY IS TO BURY ONE'S HEAD IN THE SAND. IT IS THE HEIGHT OF NAIVETE. NOBODY WANTS TO INTRODUCE RACE INTO THIS CASE, YOUR HONOR, BUT AS MR. DARDEN HAS POINTED OUT, RACE PLAYS A PART OF EVERYTHING IN AMERICA. WHAT HAS HAPPENED WITH AFRICAN AMERICANS, WE HAVE TRIED TO RISE ABOVE THAT BECAUSE WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE RACISTS IN THIS COUNTRY, BUT YET WE STILL LOVE THIS COUNTRY BECAUSE WE HAVE HELPED BUILD THIS COUNTRY, SO I AM PROUD TO BE AN AFRICAN AMERICAN. BUT I DON'T WEAR THAT. I AM ALSO A LAWYER. I AM A LAWYER WHO HAPPENS TO BE AN AFRICAN AMERICAN, BUT I WILL NOT ALLOW MYSELF TO BE USED UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES TO BECOME AN APOLOGIST FOR PEOPLE WHO USE RACIST STATEMENTS IN THE PAST, TO MALIGN OTHER AFRICAN AMERICANS, TO SAY THAT I'M SOME EXPERT TO COME HERE AND TESTIFY AS AN EXPERT AS TO WHAT BLACK PEOPLE THINK IN AMERICA. ALL ACROSS AMERICA TODAY, BELIEVE ME, BLACK PEOPLE ARE OFFENDED AT THIS VERY MOMENT, AND SO I HAVE TO SAY THIS WAS UNCALLED FOR, IT IS UNWARRANTED AND MOST UNFORTUNATE FOR SOMEBODY THAT I HAVE A LOT OF RESPECT FOR -- AND PERHAPS HE HAS BECOME TOO EMOTIONAL ABOUT THIS. BUT LET'S STEP BACK AND SEE WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE. WHAT THE PROSECUTION SEEKS TO DO, YOUR HONOR, IS TO PRESCRIBE THE DEFENSE. IF YOU LISTEN CAREFULLY TO MISS LEWIS, AND SHE DID A FINE JOB THIS MORNING, IT WAS ALMOST AS THOUGH SHE SWITCHED PLACES WITH DEAN UELMEN. SHE TALKED TO YOUR HONOR ABOUT INCIDENTS THAT WERE TOO OLD, THE INCIDENTS -- THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO TRY THESE INCIDENTS SEPARATELY, YOU WOULD HAVE THESE SEPARATE TRIALS, HOW UNFAIR IT WOULD BE TO THE PEOPLE. THEY DIDN'T WORRY ABOUT THAT WHEN THEY PUT OUT THIS LAUNDRY LIST OF 50 INCIDENTS GOING BACK SEVENTEEN YEARS TO TRY AND MALIGN THIS MAN. WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT? OUR JURY IS SEQUESTERED. WHY DO THEY DO THAT? BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO SHAPE PUBLIC OPINION. WHATEVER MERIT THEY GOT IN THE LAST TWO DAYS, THEY ALWAYS HAVE A WAY OF SELF-DESTRUCTING. THEY WIPED IT ALL AWAY TODAY BY THEIR CONDUCT AND YOU WILL SEE THAT. THE JURY WILL BE IN ON THAT FACT, NOT OUR JURY, THE JURY THEY HAVE BEEN TRYING TO COURT, THE JURY OF PUBLIC OPINION, BY THAT VERY OFFENSIVE SPEECH THAT WE'VE HEARD. NOW, IN THIS REMARK -- AND WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO HERE TODAY, ALL WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS TAKE A WITNESS WHO IS A WITNESS OF THE PROSECUTION. YOUR HONOR, WE DIDN'T CREATE MARK FUHRMAN. WE TAKE WITNESSES THE WAY WE FIND THEM. WE DIDN'T TELL HIM TO GO TO THE DOCTOR AND SAY ALL THOSE THINGS THAT I WILL SHARE WITH YOU THIS AFTERNOON. WE DIDN'T TELL HIM TO SAY THOSE THINGS IN FRONT OF KATHLEEN BELL. WE DIDN'T TELL HIM TO GET INVOLVED IN THE SHOOTING WITH MR. BRITTON. AND I WANT TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO PUT THE PROSECUTION ON NOTICE THAT AS THEY ARE CONTINUING THEIR INVESTIGATION OF MR. SIMPSON, WE ARE DAILY GETTING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT MR. FUHRMAN, AND THEY SHOULD BE NOTICED THAT IF THERE IS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION COMING, WE WILL GIVE IT TO THEM AS WE GET IT, AND THEY SHOULD BE VERY MUCH AWARE OF THAT. AND SO YOUR HONOR, I HOPE I HAVE INITIALLY EXPRESSED HOW I FEEL ABOUT THIS. IT IS HARD TO REMAIN CALM IN THE FACE OF WHAT WE HAVE JUST HEARD, ESPECIALLY WHEN ONE HAS DEDICATED ONE'S LIFE TRYING TO RISE ABOVE RACISM, TO TRY ACT IN A PROFESSIONAL MANNER AT ALL TIMES. YOU ARE TRYING NOT TO INTERJECT ONE'S PERSONAL FEELINGS. AND SO WHEN HE TALKS ABOUT MR. COCHRAN IS GOING TO DO THIS, HE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO. ALL WE ARE GOING TO DO IS CONDUCT THIS CASE FAIRLY AND HONESTLY. AND THE FINAL THING I WOULD LIKE TO SAY BEFORE WE TAKE OUR BREAK, YOUR HONOR, IT SEEMS TO ME SOMEBODY NEEDS TO SAY TO THESE PROSECUTORS THAT THE FACT THAT THEY ARE PROSECUTORS DOESN'T MEAN THEY ARE ALWAYS RIGHT. THEY DON'T HAVE ANY PRIORITY ON THE TRUTH. AND THE ARROGANCE THEY HAVE EACH SHOWN IN STANDING UP HERE AND TALKING ABOUT THIS MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE AND THEN COME WHINING BACK TO YOU SAYING, WELL, GEE, WE CAN'T GET A FAIR TRIAL BECAUSE JURORS ARE GOING TO BE THROWN OFF BY ONE WORD, HOW PREPOSTEROUS IS THAT? YOU WILL NOT BE SWAYED BY THAT. AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT PROFESSIONAL LAWYERS DON'T TALK IN TERMS OF WE'VE GOT ALL THIS EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM, THEY WITHDRAW IT THE NEXT DAY. THEY ARE MOUTHING. IF THEY'VE GOT SO MUCH EVIDENCE, LET THEM PRODUCE IT IN COURT AND STOP TALKING ABOUT IT AND LET'S ALL PLAY BY THE RULES, LET'S PLAY BY THE FAIR RULES HERE. AND ALL WE WANT TO DO IS HAVE OUR FAIR OPPORTUNITY. THEY, YOUR HONOR, DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO PRESCRIBE OUR CROSS-EXAMINATION AND WHAT THEY WOULD DO OUT OF TACTICS IS MARK FUHRMAN HAS BEEN A CENTRAL PERSON IN THIS CASE, BUT IN LISTENING TO IT THIS MORNING, YOUR HONOR, ALL OF A SUDDEN HE IS A VERY, VERY MINOR PLAYER IN THIS CASE. THEY WOULDN'T EVEN CALL HIM IF THEY DON'T WANT TO. THEY DON'T WANT TO CALL DR. GOLDEN. BUT YOUR HONOR, THEY ARE LEFT AND STUCK WITH THESE WITNESSES. WE DIDN'T CREATE THEM. AND WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY AND A DUTY TO VIGOROUSLY CROSS-EXAMINE. WHEN WE RETURN THIS AFTERNOON I WILL ASK LEAVE OF COURT TO CONTINUE MY REMARKS AND SHARE THEM WITH DEAN UELMEN. I APPRECIATE YOUR ALLOWING ME TO DO THIS BEFORE I ASK LEAVE TO GO TO THE FUNERAL.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, WE WILL STAND IN RECESS, ANTICIPATED RESUME -- MR. COCHRAN, HOW DOES 1:45 SOUND?

MR. COCHRAN: 1:45 WILL BE BETTER, JUDGE.

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.

MR. GORDON: CAN WE APPROACH ON THE NOTEBOOKS?

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. SHAPIRO, MR. GORDON, DO YOU WANT TO JOIN ME HERE, PLEASE.

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

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

(AT 12:02 P.M. THE NOON RECESS WAS TAKEN UNTIL 1:30 P.M. OF THE SAME DAY.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; FRIDAY, JANUARY 13, 1995 1:55 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: BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. HE'S AGAIN PRESENT WITH HIS COUNSEL, PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED. THE MATTER IS HERE ON THE PEOPLE'S MOTION IN LIMINE. HOWEVER, WE'RE WAITING FOR MR. DARDEN TO REAPPEAR. COUNSEL, ANY OTHER COMMENTS REGARDING THE EVIDENCE PRESENTATION PROGRAM SYSTEM THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE SETTING UP TOMORROW MORNING?

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, THE PEOPLE ARE UNABLE TO ADDRESS THAT. MR. HODGMAN, WHO WAS PRESENT --

THE COURT: I WONDER IF HE LEFT YOU WITH ANY COMMENTS OR ANY FINAL WORD.

MS. CLARK: WE HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO COMMUNICATE BECAUSE WE HAD TO ATTEND ANOTHER APPOINTMENT THAT I BELIEVE MR. DOUGLAS WAS AT AS WELL. SO WE ARE NOT PREPARED TO ADDRESS THAT.

THE COURT: HOW ABOUT IF YOU GIVE MR. DARDEN'S OFFICE A CALL AND ASK HIM TO JOIN US. ALL RIGHT. MR. SHAPIRO, MS. LEWIS, WOULD YOU APPROACH FOR A MOMENT, PLEASE.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I APPROACH?

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

(MR. DARDEN IS NOW PRESENT.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT WE'VE BEEN REJOINED BY MR. DARDEN. ALL RIGHT. MR. COCHRAN, DO YOU WISH TO CONTINUE YOUR REMARKS?

MR. COCHRAN: I'M GOING TO YIELD MY REMARKS FOR THE TIME BEING TO MR. UELMEN, AND I WILL CONCLUDE AFTER HE'S FINISHED.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. UELMEN: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE TO SAY, WHEN MR. DARDEN ASKED ME IF I WAS GOING TO USE THE "N" WORD, MY IMMEDIATE REACTION WAS, AFTER THE TROUBLE I HAD FOR USING THE "F" WORD, THERE'S NO WAY I'M GOING TO STEP INTO THAT ONE. ONE OF MY MOTHER'S FRIENDS ACTUALLY CALLED AND SUGGESTED THAT I SHOULD HAVE MY MOUTH WASHED OUT WITH SOAP. THERE REALLY IS A FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MOTION IN LIMINE LIMITING THE EXAMINATION OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AND THE MOTION THAT YOUR HONOR NOW HAS UNDER CONSIDERATION DEALING WITH ALL OF THE CHARACTER EVIDENCE RELATING TO MR. SIMPSON; AND THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE IS THAT WHAT IS BEING ATTEMPTED HERE IS AN ATTEMPT TO LIMIT CROSS-EXAMINATION. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT KEEPING OUT EVIDENCE FROM A CASE IN CHIEF. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT PUTTING LIMITS ON THE EXTENT TO WHICH A WITNESS WILL BE CROSS-EXAMINED IN THE COURSE OF THIS TRIAL. AND THAT DIFFERENCE I THINK IS THE REAL REASON THAT THIS MOTION IS PREMATURE. WE DON'T KNOW YET WHAT THE DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WILL BE. WE HEARD SOME INTIMATIONS AND TALK ABOUT LAWYER'S DREAMS AND WISHES, THE DREAMS OF THE PROSECUTION TO ATTEMPTING TO LIMIT SOMEHOW DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S TESTIMONY SO THEY CAN SCOOT HIM IN HERE AND HAVE HIM UP HERE FOR TWO MINUTES AND DESCRIBE HOW HE FOUND THE GLOVE AND LEAVE. MY REACTION WAS, "NOT IN YOUR DREAMS." THERE IS GOING TO BE A LOT OF THE ISSUES THAT THE PROSECUTION INDICATED DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WOULD NOT BE TESTIFYING ABOUT THAT WILL BE RELEVANT CROSS-EXAMINATION WITH RESPECT TO HIS DIRECT TESTIMONY NO MATTER HOW RESTRICTED THAT TESTIMONY IS. AND AS LONG AS WE'RE BOTH PUTTING EACH OTHER ON NOTICE, WE'LL PUT THE PROSECUTION ON NOTICE THAT EVEN IF THEY SUCCEED IN SO DRASTICALLY LIMITING THE TESTIMONY OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, HE WILL MAKE ANOTHER APPEARANCE IN THIS CASE BEING CALLED AS A HOSTILE WITNESS BY THE DEFENSE BECAUSE HE HAS A LOT OF RELEVANT TESTIMONY TO OFFER WITH RESPECT TO THE BRONCO AUTOMOBILE, THE POSITION OF THAT AUTOMOBILE, WHETHER THAT AUTOMOBILE WAS ENTERED AND MOVED BEFORE IT WAS TOWED AWAY FROM THE SCENE, LOTS OF QUESTIONS THAT ARE GOING TO COME UP WITH RESPECT TO HOW EVIDENCE WAS CONTAMINATED IN TERMS OF THE PARADE OF OFFICERS WHO WENT FROM ONE SCENE TO THE OTHER. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IS GOING TO BE A CRUCIAL WITNESS WITH RESPECT TO A LOT OF EVIDENCE IN THIS TRIAL, AND MR. COCHRAN IS GOING TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE WAYS IN WHICH THAT TESTIMONY WILL BE RELEVANT. BUT THE IMPORTANT POINT IS, WE DON'T KNOW YET WHAT HIS DIRECT TESTIMONY WILL BE. SO WE CAN'T REALLY DEFINE AT THIS POINT IN ADVANCE WHAT THE RELEVANCE OF PARTICULAR CROSS-EXAMINATION WILL BE. IT'S ALSO ALARMING THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE MOTION IS BASED ON SOME SORT OF PROGNOSTICATION OF WHAT THE DEFENSE STRATEGY IS GOING TO BE IN THIS CASE, AND WE WOULD SUGGEST THAT THAT INCLUDES A LOT OF ASSUMPTIONS THAT ARE APPARENTLY BASED ON READING THE SPECULATION IN THE TABLOIDS AND NOT BASED ON READING ANY OF THE TRANSCRIPTS OF THE RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THIS CASE IN TERMS OF WHAT IS ON THE RECORD WITH RESPECT TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. I AGREE WITH THE PROSECUTION THAT IT IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE TIME TO REVEAL PROSECUTION STRATEGY NOR IS IT AN APPROPRIATE TIME TO REVEAL DEFENSE STRATEGY, BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT YOUR HONOR NEEDS TO KNOW THAT STRATEGY IN ORDER TO RULE ON THIS MOTION, WE HAVE IN OUR RESPONSE LAID OUT 11 DIFFERENT WAYS IN WHICH THE CREDIBILITY OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WILL BE IN ISSUE IN THIS CASE. AND THE RESPONSE OR THE MOTION ITSELF AND THE ULTIMATE REPLY TO OUR RESPONSE MAKES A LOT OF ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT WHAT THE PEOPLE'S EVIDENCE IS GOING TO SHOW AS WELL IN THEIR STATEMENT THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE DEFENSE THEORY REGARDING DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, THAT HE DELIBERATELY PLANTED THIS GLOVE, THEY KNOW WHAT THIS THEORY IS AND THEY CAN SHOW YOU IN ADVANCE THAT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY THAT THE EVIDENCE WILL EVER SUPPORT THIS THEORY. AND THAT SIMPLY ASSUMES THAT THE OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS THAT THEY HAVE COLLECTED IN THE COURSE OF THEIR INVESTIGATION ARE NOT GOING TO BE REFUTED IN ANY WAY, THAT THEY'RE NOT REFUTABLE, THAT THEY CONCLUSIVELY WILL PROVE THAT THIS COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED. AND I THINK IN THE PAPERS ITSELF RELATED TO THIS MOTION, WE'VE BEEN TREATED TO A COUPLE OF EXCELLENT EXAMPLES OF HOW FALLIBLE THAT CLAIM IS, WHAT THE REALITY IS IN TERMS OF HOW THE EVIDENCE CAN AT THIS POINT CONCLUSIVELY SHOW ANYTHING. IN THE ORIGINAL MOTION, THE PEOPLE ASSERTED THAT THE PHOTOGRAPHER WHO FINISHED PHOTOGRAPHING THE SCENE BEFORE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN EVER ARRIVED DID NOT SEE OR PHOTOGRAPH A SECOND GLOVE ANYWHERE AT THE CRIME SCENE; AND THAT IS BASED ON A FACTUAL ASSERTION IN THEIR STATEMENT OF FACTS THAT LAPD PHOTOGRAPHER RALPH ROKAR RESPONDED TO THE CRIME SCENE, TOOK NUMEROUS PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE AREA AROUND THEM INCLUDING PHOTOGRAPHS OF A SINGLE DARK LEATHER GLOVE AND HE COMPLETED ALL OF HIS OVERALL PHOTOGRAPHY AT THE CRIME SCENE BEFORE DETECTIVES PHILLIPS AND FUHRMAN ARRIVED ON THE SCENE. WELL, OUR RESPONSE TO THAT WAS, OF COURSE, WE HAVEN'T MET RALPH ROKAR YET. HE DID NOT TESTIFY AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING. HE HAS NOT GIVEN SWORN TESTIMONY IN ANY PART OF THIS CASE YET. SO HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT HE IS GOING TO SAY WITH RESPECT TO WHEN HE ARRIVED OR WHAT PICTURES HE TOOK OR FROM WHAT VANTAGE POINTS THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS WERE TAKEN? AND THEN IN THE REPLY, WE FIND A VERY INTERESTING FOOTNOTE ON PAGE 12, FOOTNOTE 3 IN THEIR REPLY TO OUR RESPONSE, WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS:

"IN OUR MOTION, WE ALSO INDICATED THAT THE CRIME SCENE PHOTOGRAPHER ARRIVED AND PHOTOGRAPHED THE SCENE PRIOR TO DETECTIVES PHILLIPS' AND FUHRMAN' JOINT ARRIVAL. THIS WAS ERRONEOUS.

"THE PHOTOGRAPHER ERRED IN HIS RECOLLECTION OF THE TIME OF HIS ARRIVAL AT BUNDY WHEN HE WAS INTERVIEWED TELEPHONICALLY FIVE AND A HALF MONTHS AFTER THE MURDERS ON NOVEMBER 22ND.

"WE HAVE SINCE OBTAINED THE PHOTOGRAPHER'S LOG FOR JUNE 13TH AND HAVE LEARNED THAT HE ARRIVED AT BUNDY AT 2:50 A.M. THIS LOG IS TWO PAGES AND WAS PROVIDED TO THE DEFENSE ON JANUARY 5TH, 1995," ONE WEEK AGO. AND I CAN ATTEST, YOUR HONOR, THAT THROUGH BOTH INFORMAL REQUESTS AND FORMAL MOTIONS, WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GET HOLD OF THE PHOTOGRAPHER'S LOG FOR SIX MONTHS, AND IT WAS JUST DELIVERED LAST WEEK. AND WHAT IT SHOWS IS THAT THE ALLEGATION IN THE OPENING MOTION IS UNTRUE. SO UNTIL WE GET RALPH ROKAR ON THE WITNESS STAND AND HEAR UNDER OATH THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH ALL OF THE PICTURES WERE TAKEN, WE REALLY DON'T KNOW TO WHAT EXTENT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIMS OF THE DEFENSE OR THE THEORY OF THE DEFENSE, WHATEVER THAT THEORY MIGHT BE, WITH RESPECT TO THE CREDIBILITY OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. THE SECOND EXAMPLE WE HAVE IS THE ALLEGATION THAT FIVE DIFFERENT UNIFORMED OFFICERS AND A SERGEANT OF THE LAPD ALSO EXAMINED THE CRIME SCENE AND THEY TOO DID NOT SEE A SECOND GLOVE. NOW, I WAS ACCUSED OF INFLAMMATORY RHETORIC IN SUGGESTING THAT THE IDENTITY OF THESE DETECTIVES OR UNIFORMED OFFICERS WAS KNOWN BUT TO GOD AND THE PROSECUTION BECAUSE WE'RE TOLD THAT ALL YOU HAD TO DO IS FLIP BACK TO OUR EARLIER STATEMENT OF FACTS, AND YOU'LL FIND THEIR NAMES LISTED. AND OF COURSE, THERE'S NO REFERENCE TO THE MOVING PAPERS ITSELF TO IDENTIFYING THESE OFFICERS AS THE OFFICERS WHO WOULD TESTIFY THAT THEY EXAMINED THE SCENE AND SAW ONLY ONE GLOVE. NOT ONE OF THESE POLICE OFFICERS TESTIFIED AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING NOR HAVE THEY TESTIFIED IN ANY SUBSEQUENT MOTION OR PROCEEDING IN THIS CASE. SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO TESTIFY TO WITH RESPECT TO WHAT THEY OBSERVED AND WHEN THEY OBSERVED IT. IT'S INTERESTING IF WE'RE GOING TO LEARN THAT EACH OF THE UNIFORMED OFFICERS WHO ARRIVED AT THE BUNDY SCENE IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS OF JUNE 13TH DID THEIR OWN LITTLE INVESTIGATION OF THE CRIME SCENE, BECAUSE WE OF COURSE ARE GOING TO CONTEND THAT HAVING AS MANY AS 50 POLICE OFFICERS WHO APPEAR ON THAT LOG AS GOING TO THE BUNDY SCENE, HAVING EACH OF THEM TRAIPSING THROUGH THE EVIDENCE AND EXAMINING WHAT WAS THERE CREATED THE PRECISE PROBLEMS THAT THE PROSECUTION IS GOING TO HAVE IN THIS CASE WITH THE OVERWHELMING CONTAMINATION OF EVIDENCE AND THE UNRELIABILITY OF THAT EVIDENCE AS A RESULT IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO WERE WALKING THROUGH THE SCENE AND DISTURBING THE EVIDENCE BEFORE IT WAS ACTUALLY COLLECTED AND DOCUMENTED. BUT THE REAL POINT IS, WELL, NONE OF THESE OFFICERS HAVE YET TESTIFIED. SO WE DON'T KNOW AT THIS POINT WHETHER THE DEFENSE THEORY OR THEORIES OF THE CASE ARE GOING TO BE SUPPORTED OR CHALLENGED BY THE EVIDENCE AT ALL. I THINK IT'S INTERESTING TO NOTE AT LEAST ONE OF THESE OFFICERS DOESN'T EVEN APPEAR ON THE PROSECUTION WITNESS LIST AT THIS POINT. SO FOR HIM TO BE RELIED ON IN THE MOVING PAPERS IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS RAISES SOME QUESTIONS IN TERMS OF WHETHER THEY'RE EVEN GOING TO PRODUCE SWORN TESTIMONY FROM THAT OFFICER. THE SECOND POINT I WANT TO ADDRESS IS THE ATTEMPT IN THIS CASE TO ANALOGIZE TO THE RULE OF LAW IN PEOPLE VERSUS HALL. SOMEHOW, THE PROSECUTION SUGGESTS THE THEORY OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN PLANTING A GLOVE, IF INDEED THAT'S GOING TO BE A THEORY PRESENTED BY THE DEFENSE IN THIS CASE, IS ANALOGOUS TO SUGGESTING THAT SOME THIRD PARTY COMMITTED THE CRIME AND THAT THE ONLY EXPLANATION FOR SUCH CONDUCT BY A POLICE OFFICER WOULD BE THAT HE WAS TRYING TO FRAME AN INNOCENT PERSON. AND THE DIFFICULTY WITH THAT ATTEMPTED ANALOGY IS THAT ONCE AGAIN, IT MAKES SOME VERY FAR-OUT ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT WHAT MIGHT MOTIVATE AN OFFICER TO ACTUALLY PHYSICALLY PLANT EVIDENCE. AND WE SUGGESTED IN OUR PAPERS THAT THERE MAY BE A NUMBER OF PLAUSIBLE MOTIVATIONS FOR A DETECTIVE SUCH AS FUHRMAN TO WANT TO DISTURB THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE. FIRST, THAT HE MAY HAVE BEEN ANGRY THAT HE HAD BEEN KICKED OFF THE CASE. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WAS NOT JUST A TAG-ALONG POLICE OFFICER IN THESE PROCEEDINGS. HE WAS IN CHARGE OF THIS INVESTIGATION. HE WAS THE FIRST DETECTIVE, HOMICIDE DETECTIVE TO ARRIVE AT THE BUNDY SCENE AND TAKE CHARGE OF THE INVESTIGATION; AND VERY SHORTLY THEREAFTER, HE WAS TOLD HE WAS OFF THE CASE. HE WAS BEING REASSIGNED. SECONDLY, THERE MAY HAVE BEEN MOTIVATION TO WANT TO APPEAR SOMEHOW AS THE HERO THAT SOLVED THE CASE. I MEAN, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IS THE DETECTIVE WHO CLAIMS HE SAW THE BLOOD SPOT ON THE BRONCO, HE WENT OVER THE WALL AND THEN HE QUESTIONED KATO KAELIN AND THEN HE FOUND THE KEY PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT BROKE THE CASE. THAT'S QUITE A ROLE FOR A DETECTIVE TO PLAY WHO HAS BEEN PULLED OFF THE CASE AND REASSIGNED. AND THIRDLY, HE MAY HAVE BEEN MOTIVATED SIMPLY BY WANTING TO PROVIDE PROBABLE CAUSE SO THAT A SEARCH WARRANT COULD BE OBTAINED TO GO INTO THE HOUSE AND LOOK FOR OTHER EVIDENCE. SO THE SCENARIO THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE TRIED TO PAINT OF THIS THEORY LEAVES OUT A LOT OF OTHER VERY PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATIONS THAT HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH PEOPLE VERSUS HALL. PEOPLE VERSUS HALL SAYS THAT EVIDENCE OF THIRD-PARTY CULPABILITY IS ADMISSIBLE IF IT CAN RAISE A REASONABLE DOUBT. ACTUALLY, THE HALL DECISION REJECTED THE MENENDEZ, ARLINE LINE OF CASES THAT PRECEDED IT THAT SET AN EVEN HIGHER THRESHOLD BEFORE THAT EVIDENCE COULD BE ADMITTED. BUT THAT'S NOT THE KIND OF EVIDENCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS SIMPLY QUESTIONING DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IN AREAS THAT RELATE TO HIS CREDIBILITY. AND THERE IS NO STANDARD, NO CASE THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T ASK A QUESTION OF A WITNESS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION UNLESS THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION WOULD RAISE A REASONABLE DOUBT. THAT ISN'T THE STANDARD FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS. THE STANDARD IS THE STANDARD OF RELEVANCY THAT IS CONTAINED IN SECTION 210 OF THE EVIDENCE CODE THAT SAYS:

"RELEVANT EVIDENCE MEANS EVIDENCE INCLUDING EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO THE CREDIBILITY OF A WITNESS OR HEARSAY DECLARANT HAVING ANY TENDENCY IN REASON TO PROVE OR DISPROVE ANY DISPUTED FACT THAT IS OF CONSEQUENCE OR SUBSEQUENCE TO THE DETERMINATION OF THE ACT." THAT IS THE TEST OF WHAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN CAN BE ASKED ON CROSS-EXAMINATION; IF IT HAS ANY TENDENCY IN REASON TO PROVE OR DISPROVE WHETHER DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IS A CREDIBLE, BELIEVABLE PERSON. NOW, WITH RESPECT TO THE VARIOUS WAYS IN WHICH THE CREDIBILITY OF A WITNESS CAN BE CHALLENGED, WE RELY OF COURSE ON SECTION 780 OF THE EVIDENCE CODE WHICH LAYS OUT ALL OF THE WAYS THAT WOULD "HAVE A TENDENCY IN REASON," AGAIN USING THE SAME LANGUAGE AS SECTION 210, "TO PROVE OR DISPROVE THE TRUTHFULNESS OF A WITNESS' TESTIMONY." AND AMONG THOSE ENUMERATED THEORIES OR BASES OF ATTACKING THE CREDIBILITY OF A WITNESS ARE THE EXISTENCE OR NONEXISTENCE OF A BIAS, INTEREST OR OTHER MOTIVE AND HIS ATTITUDE TOWARD THE ACTION IN WHICH HE TESTIFIES OR THE GIVING OF TESTIMONY. NOW, WITH RESPECT TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, OUR CONTENTION IS THAT WE ARE TALKING HERE ABOUT A WITNESS WITH AN ATTITUDE. IN FACT, YOU COULDN'T HAVE MORE PERSUASIVE EVIDENCE OF THAT ATTITUDE THAN THE LETTER THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WROTE IN 1989 GIVING HIS ACCOUNT OF WHAT HAPPENED WHEN HE FIRST MET THE DEFENDANT IN 1985. AND WHAT DID HE SAY ABOUT THAT MEETING? HE SAID IT WAS INDELIBLY IMPRESSED ON HIS MEMORY. HE COULD REMEMBER FOUR YEARS LATER IN PRECISE DETAIL EVERY WORD THAT WAS SPOKEN IN THAT ENCOUNTER. AND THAT IS SOMETHING WE WANT TO EXPLORE WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, JUST WHY THAT WAS INDELIBLY IMPRESSED ON HIS MEMORY, JUST WHAT HIS IMPRESSION WAS OF MR. SIMPSON AND WHETHER THOSE SAME THOUGHTS WERE GOING THROUGH THIS DETECTIVE'S MIND ON THE EVENING OR ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 13TH WHEN HE LED THE CONTINGENT OF DETECTIVES GOING TO MR. SIMPSON'S HOME TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION. NOW, WITH RESPECT TO THE 352 ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER THE PREJUDICIAL IMPACT OF THIS EVIDENCE WOULD OUTWEIGH ITS PROBATIVE VALUE, ONCE AGAIN, WE WANT TO EMPHASIZE THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ANALYSIS OF THE 352 QUESTION PRESENTED HERE WITH RESPECT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AND THE 352 QUESTION PRESENTED TO THE COURT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO KEEP OUT EVIDENCE OF BAD CHARACTER. FIRST OF ALL, THE ELEMENT OF PREJUDICE ASSUMES TOTALLY DIFFERENT DIMENSIONS WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE PREJUDICIAL IMPACT OF EVIDENCE ADMITTED AGAINST A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT WHOSE FATE IS GOING TO BE DECIDED BY THE JURY THAT HEARS THAT EVIDENCE. AND OF COURSE, THE PREJUDICE THAT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT IS THAT THIS EVIDENCE WILL BE IMPROPERLY USED IN ORDER TO CONVICT SOMEONE OF A CRIME. NOW, WITH RESPECT TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, THE ONLY ISSUE THE JURY IS GOING TO BE DECIDING WITH RESPECT TO HIM IS WHETHER OR NOT THEY SHOULD BELIEVE HIS TESTIMONY. AND TO SUGGEST THAT SOMEHOW THE PEOPLE WILL BE IRRETRIEVABLY PREJUDICED BECAUSE A JUROR DECIDES THEY WILL NOT CREDIT HIS TESTIMONY IS A WHOLE DIFFERENT DIMENSION OF PREJUDICE. AND THAT'S PRECISELY THE REASON WE BELIEVE THIS EVIDENCE IS RELEVANT, THAT A JURY THAT IS SIZING UP THE CREDIBILITY OF THIS WITNESS SHOULD KNOW ABOUT THIS EVIDENCE IN ORDER TO MAKE A RATIONAL INTELLIGENT JUDGMENT, THAT EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT BE WITHHELD FROM THEM IN TERMS OF DECIDING WHETHER DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IS A CREDIBLE OR BELIEVABLE PERSON. THE ELEMENTS OF THE UNDUE CONSUMPTION OF TIME ALSO TAKES ON A DIFFERENT DIMENSION BECAUSE WE ARE NOT TALKING AT THIS POINT ABOUT LITIGATING EACH OF THESE ALLEGATIONS OR CHARGES. WE ARE SIMPLY TALKING ABOUT CROSS-EXAMINATION. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WHETHER THESE QUESTIONS CAN BE PUT TO THE WITNESS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION. AND IT MAY BE HE HAS AN EXPLANATION OF THESE INCIDENTS AND EVENTS THAT WILL END THE MATTER AND WE WON'T EVEN NEED TO TALK ABOUT ANY COLLATERAL IMPEACHMENT. BUT YOUR HONOR CAN ADDRESS THE QUESTION OF COLLATERAL IMPEACHMENT IF AND WHEN IT COMES UP. BUT AT THIS POINT, THE ONLY QUESTION THAT YOUR HONOR HAS TO ADDRESS IS WHETHER THE DEFENSE SHOULD BE LIMITED IN ITS CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THIS WITNESS BASED ON SECTION 352. AND FINALLY, I WANT TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF REMOTENESS BECAUSE THE PEOPLE HAVE MADE A SUGGESTION THAT SOMEHOW THE FIVE YEARS' PITCHESS LIMITATION ON GOING BACK INTO THE RECORDS OF A POLICE OFFICER CREATES SOME SORT OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, SOME SORT OF TEST OF RELEVANCY THAT PROHIBITS ANY INQUIRY INTO EVENTS THAT ARE MORE THAN FIVE YEARS OLD. THE IMPETUS OF THE FIVE-YEAR LIMITATION IN PITCHESS WAS REALLY TO NOT BURDEN POLICE DEPARTMENTS WITH THE NECESSITY OF MAINTAINING RECORDS FOR MORE THAN A FIVE-YEAR PERIOD. IT DOES NOT PURPORT TO SET UP A TEST OF RELEVANCY. THE TEST OF RELEVANCY IS WHAT IS IN THE EVIDENCE CODE; AND THAT IS SIMPLY WHETHER THIS EVIDENCE HAS A TENDENCY IN REASON TO SUGGEST THAT --

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. UELMEN: -- A TENDENCY IN REASON TO SUGGEST THAT OFFICER FUHRMAN'S TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT BE BELIEVED AND UNDER SECTION 352, WHETHER THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF A PARTICULAR QUESTION IS OUTWEIGHED BY ITS POTENTIAL PREJUDICIAL IMPACT OR THE RISK OF UNDUE CONSUMPTION OF TIME. THERE OF COURSE IS AN IRONY HERE IN THE CONTEXT OF CHALLENGING MR. SIMPSON'S CREDIBILITY. THE PROSECUTION FEELS IT APPROPRIATE TO GO BACK 17 YEARS AND REQUIRE HIM TO EXPLAIN THINGS THAT HAPPENED 17 YEARS AGO, BUT THAT WE SHOULD NOT EXHAUST THE MEMORY OF A POLICE OFFICER BEYOND A FIVE-YEAR LIMITATION. AND OF COURSE, THERE'S NO BASIS IN LAW OR FACT FOR ANY SUCH ASSERTION. THE RELEVANCE OF THESE EVENTS -- AND MR. COCHRAN WILL GO INTO MORE DETAIL WITH RESPECT TO THE PARTICULAR EVIDENCE THAT WE THINK IS RELEVANT -- IS OF COURSE THAT IT IS PRECISELY CONTEMPORANEOUS WITH THE DEFINING EVENT THAT WE BELIEVE ESTABLISHES MR. FUHRMAN'S ATTITUDE AND HIS BIAS IN THIS CASE; AND THAT EVENT IS HIS ENCOUNTER WITH MR. SIMPSON IN 1985. AND IF, CONTEMPORANEOUS WITH THAT EVENT, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IS MAKING STATEMENTS ABOUT HIS ATTITUDES TOWARD BLACK PEOPLE, IF HE IS MAKING STATEMENTS ABOUT HIS ATTITUDES TOWARDS INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE, WE BELIEVE THOSE ARE ATTITUDES THAT AFFECTED HOW HE DESCRIBED THAT INCIDENT IN 1989 AND INDEED AFFECTED HIS CONDUCT AND HIS ACTIVITY ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 13TH, 1994. WITH THAT, I WILL TURN THE PODIUM OVER TO MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, DEAN UELMEN, AND GOOD AFTERNOON, JUDGE ITO, AND COLLEAGUES. YOUR HONOR, FOLLOWING UP ON WHAT MR. UELMEN SO ELOQUENTLY INDICATED, I WILL JUST AGAIN POINT TO EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 718. AND I CERTAINLY DON'T HAVE TO REMIND THIS COURT OF THIS, BUT UNDER THAT SECTION, IT TALKS ABOUT, UNDER 718, "IF THE EXISTENCE OR NONEXISTENCE OF A BIAS, INTEREST OR OTHER MOTIVE." IT TALKS ABOUT HIS ATTITUDE, A WITNESS' ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE ACTION IN WHICH HE TESTIFIES OR TOWARDS THE GIVING OF TESTIMONY. AND IN THIS PRESENTATION I'M GOING TO MAKE NOW, I WANT TO JUST ADDRESS WITH THE COURT SOME OF THE EVIDENCE THAT WE THINK IS VERY IMPORTANT AND VERY RELEVANT THAT BEARS UPON THE ATTITUDE OF THIS PARTICULAR WITNESS WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT. YOU KNOW, YOUR HONOR, IT'S VERY INTERESTING THAT A WITNESS WHO WAS SO INVOLVED IN THIS CASE FROM THE STANDPOINT OF BEING, AS I SAID, THE FIRST OFFICERS ON THE SCENE, PHILLIPS AND FUHRMAN -- HE MAKES THE OBSERVATION ALLEGEDLY OF THE BRONCO, HE'S THE ONE WHO IS SEEN IN THE PICTURES POINTING TOWARDS EVIDENCE, HE IS THE ONE WHO ALLEGEDLY GOES OVER TO ROCKINGHAM TO SHOW THE WAY TO VANNATTER, HE'S THE ONE THAT IS SO PHYSICALLY FIT THAT HE CLIMBS OVER THE WALL, HE'S THE ONE WHO ENGAGES KATO KAELIN, HE'S THE ONE WHO HAS THIS RUSH OF ADRENALIN AS HE GOES BACK DOWN THIS DARK PATH AS WE SAT WITH STILLED ATTENTION AS HE MADE THIS AMAZING DISCOVERY AND THEN WENT BACK ONE BY ONE AND SHOWED ALL THE OTHER OFFICERS, THIS IS THE SAME MAN THAT THEY NOW SAY IS INSIGNIFICANT IN THIS CASE, THEY WOULD RATHER NOT CALL HIM. NOW, WHY WOULD THE PROSECUTION COME HERE AND SAY THAT TO YOUR HONOR, AN EXPERIENCED JURIST? WELL, ONE OF THE REASONS MIGHT BE, IF WE TAKE THE DECLARATION OF KATHLEEN BELL, WHOM THEY'VE MALIGNED -- NOW THIS IS A LADY, A WITNESS WHO HAS NO AX TO GRIND IN THIS AT ALL, WHO COMES FORWARD VOLUNTARILY. SHE DOESN'T PREFER ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER. SHE DOESN'T KNOW O.J. SIMPSON. SHE JUST SPELLS OUT SOMETHING BECAUSE SHE SEES WHAT SHE BELIEVES IS A WRONG. LET ME SHARE WITH YOU, JUDGE, WHAT SHE HAS TO SAY THAT WE THINK IS VERY RELEVANT AND BEARS ON THIS MAN'S ATTITUDE AND IN SPECIFIC GOES BACK TO MR. FUHRMAN'S ENCOUNTER WITH O.J. SIMPSON AND HIS WIFE BACK IN 1985. SHE SAYS THAT:

"I WAS INTRODUCED TO MARK FUHRMAN BY A MARINE CORPS RECRUITER. DURING OUR INITIAL CONVERSATION, MARK FUHRMAN TOLD ME HE WAS A FORMER MARINE AND CURRENTLY A LOCAL POLICE OFFICER.

"DURING OUR CONVERSATION, MARK FUHRMAN STATED THAT HE WOULD PULL OVER ANY VEHICLE THAT WAS OCCUPIED BY A BLACK MAN AND A WHITE WOMAN.

"I THEN ASKED HIM, 'WHAT IF YOU DON'T HAVE A GOOD REASON TO PULL THEM OVER?' "MR. FUHRMAN THEN STATED, 'I'D MAKE ONE UP.'

"I THEN ASKED FUHRMAN, 'WHAT IF THE TWO PEOPLE ARE IN LOVE?'

"FUHRMAN THEN APPEARED TO BE DISGUSTED WITH ME AND STATED, IF I HAD MY WAY, THEY WOULD TAKE ALL THE --'" AND I'LL USE THE WORD BECAUSE I'M QUOTING HIM --

"'--ALL THE NIGGERS, PUT THEM TOGETHER IN A BIG GROUP AND BURN THEM.'

"I BECAME VISIBLY UPSET, BEGAN TO CRY AND LEFT THE OFFICE." AND TO MS. CHERI LEWIS, WHO DID A FINE JOB IN HER PRESENTATION, SOME PEOPLE WOULD CRY WHEN YOU'RE TOLD THAT A PERSON HAS AN ATTITUDE IN THIS DAY AND AGE, THEY WOULD PUT A RACIAL GROUP TOGETHER IN A GROUP AND BURN THEM. SOME PEOPLE MIGHT GET MAD. SOME PEOPLE MIGHT GET DISGUSTED. SOME PEOPLE MIGHT CRY. THIS LADY CRIED. BUT SHE WAS MALIGNED BECAUSE SHE CRIED BECAUSE OF HER SENSITIVITY. AND SHE WENT ON TO SAY:

"I DO HEREBY DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT." SHE GOES ON. AND THIS LADY CAME FORWARD VOLUNTARILY. NOW, YOUR HONOR, WE THINK THAT'S VERY RELEVANT. AND SPECIFICALLY, IN 1985, THIS DETECTIVE FUHRMAN COMES OUT IN AN ALLEGED ENCOUNTER INVOLVING MR. SIMPSON AND HIS WIFE. MR. SIMPSON IS AN AFRICAN AMERICAN. HIS WIFE IS CAUCASIAN. THIS OFFICER DOESN'T WRITE A REPORT THEN, JUDGE. FOUR YEARS LATER, HE WRITES A REPORT IN 1989 WHERE HE SAYS THIS EVENT MADE AN INDELIBLE IMPRESSION UPON HIM. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO ASK ABOUT HIS ATTITUDES, ABOUT HIS MOTIVE, ABOUT HIS INTEREST, ABOUT HIS BIAS. BUT THAT'S NOT ALL, JUDGE. LET'S LOOK AT SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS THIS MAN HAS SAID AND HOW IT BEARS UPON THIS EVIDENCE. THIS IS A GENTLEMAN WHO THEY TALK ABOUT BEING A POLICE OFFICER. AND WE KNOW POLICE WORK IS TOUGH WORK. BUT AS I SAID EARLIER, MUCH OF THE WORK IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IS TOUGH, JUDGE. WE'RE IN IT, WE GET PAID WELL FOR WHAT WE DO, AND IF WE CAN'T BE IN IT, WE TRY TO GET OUT. NOW, THIS OFFICER DID IN FACT TRY TO GET OUT BECAUSE -- AND I WOULD LIKE TO ALLUDE, SO COUNSEL WILL HAVE IT, TO THE REPORT OF DR. HOCHMAN. NOW, THIS REPORT IS DATED DECEMBER 16, 1981 AND IT REGARDS MARK FUHRMAN. AND I'LL SKIP THE IRRELEVANT PORTIONS AND LET'S GET TO ON PAGE 8. HERE'S WHAT HE TOLD DR. HOCHMAN, JUDGE, IN AN EFFORT --

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, I'M SORRY. I OBJECT TO COUNSEL READING ANY FURTHER FROM THIS DOCUMENT. THE COURT HAS THE DOCUMENT AS AN EXHIBIT. MR. COCHRAN ONLY NEEDS TO REFER THE COURT TO THE SPECIFIC SECTION, PAGE THAT HE WOULD LIKE THE COURT TO REVIEW AT THIS POINT. AND I FURTHER OBJECT TO THE USE OF THAT -- OF THE "N" WORD IN THESE PROCEEDINGS. IT'S UNNECESSARY. IT'S ABSOLUTELY UNNECESSARY.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I PROCEED, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: PROCEED.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. IN HIS OCCUPATIONAL HISTORY, HE TELLS THE DOCTOR:

"HE WAS IN THE MARINES FROM 1970 TO 1975. DURING HIS LAST SIX MONTHS, HE," QUOTE -- AND I'M QUOTING HIM -- THESE ARE NOT MY WORDS. I'M QUOTING HIS WORDS, MR. DARDEN. "GOT TIRED --"

MR. DARDEN: PLEASE ASK COUNSEL NOT TO DIRECT HIS COMMENTS TO ME, YOUR HONOR.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I -- I WAS INTERRUPTED, YOUR HONOR. MAY I START OVER AGAIN?

THE COURT: WELL, PLEASE DIRECT YOUR COMMENTS TO THE COURT.

MR. COCHRAN: I WILL, YOUR HONOR. AND I CERTAINLY WAS LOOKING AT YOUR HONOR. DURING HIS LAST SIX MONTHS, HE, QUOTE:

"GOT TIRED OF HAVING A BUNCH OF MEXICANS AND NIGGERS THAT SHOULD BE IN PRISON TELLING HIM THEY WEREN'T GOING TO DO SOMETHING. HE DID NOT LIKE THE VOLUNTARY MILITARY. HE DID WELL IN THE MARINES AND WAS PROMOTED." THE REPORT OF COURSE GOES ON. IT TELLS ABOUT HIS ATTITUDE TOWARD HIS WORK.

"HE WAS TRANSFERRED AND WORKED A FOOT BEAT FOR THE CENTRAL DIVISION DOWNTOWN L.A. HE DESCRIBES THIS WORK AS," QUOTE, AGAIN, HIS WORDS:

"MORE SLIMES AND MORE ASS HOLES." THAT'S HOW HE DEALT AND SAW THE PUBLIC THAT HE DEALT WITH. HE WENT ON TO SAY THAT:

"IN THIS WORK, THAT HE WOULD BE," QUOTE, "RECKLESS. HE DID NOT EVEN CARE IF HE DIED. HE SAID THAT IF ANYONE RESISTED HIS ARREST," QUOTE, "THEY WENT BACK UNCONSCIOUS," END QUOTE.

"HE WAS AFRAID THAT HE WOULD KILL SOMEONE IF HE CONTINUED TO WORK THE STREETS. HE RECALLS CHOKING, KICKING AND PUNCHING A MAN AFTER HE WAS UNCONSCIOUS.

"IN ANOTHER INCIDENT --"

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, SOME OF THOSE INCIDENTS -- THAT IS A RATHER LENGTHY REPORT.

MR. COCHRAN: I'M NOT GOING TO READ ALL OF THEM, YOUR HONOR. JUST --

THE COURT: WE'RE INTERESTED IN ISSUES THAT GO TO BIAS AND CREDIBILITY.

MR. COCHRAN: I CERTAINLY WILL TRY TO DO THAT. HE WENT ON TO DESCRIBE IN THIS ONE INCIDENT A MAN WHO WAS ON PCP WHEREIN HE BROKE THE MAN'S ELBOWS, SAYS THE OTHER POLICEMEN WERE STANDING AROUND WATCHING HIM. AFTERWARDS, HE WONDERED WHAT HE WAS DOING. SO HE GOES ON IN A WHOLE PATTERN OF THESE THINGS. HE DESCRIBES HIMSELF AS, QUOTE, A NEANDERTHAL WHO WOULD CHARGE A GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT WILL NOT MOVE.

MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, EXCUSE ME. THERE IS AN OBJECTION TO THIS. THIS IS NOT PART OF THIS MOTION. THIS IS ONLY INFLAMMATORY. THE COURT --

THE COURT: WE'RE BEYOND THE RELEVANT POINT.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT, YOUR HONOR. AND I'LL MOVE ON TO WHAT I THINK SURELY THE COURT WILL FIND RELEVANT. NOW, BASICALLY I WAS TRYING TO GIVE THE COURT SOME BACKGROUND AS TO WHAT THIS REPORT SAID. THE IMPORTANT THING IS THE DISCUSSION --

THE COURT: COUNSEL, I READ THE ENTIRE REPORT ONCE FOR THE PITCHESS MOTION. I'VE READ IT AGAIN FOR THIS. SO I'VE READ IT SEVERAL TIMES.

MR. COCHRAN: VERY WELL, YOUR HONOR. THEN WE GET DOWN TO WHAT I'M SURE WE CAN ALL AGREE THEN IS VERY RELEVANT. THE DOCTOR SAYS:

"THE MOST NOTABLE PSYCHIATRIC FINDING IS WHAT APPEARS TO BE A PRE-EXISTING PERSONALITY DISORDER MARKED BY THE TENDENCY ON THIS PATIENT'S PART TO OVEREMPHASIZE HIS OWN MERITS AND TO DISPARAGE OTHERS. GENERALLY, PEOPLE WITH THIS PERSONALITY CON --"

MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, BUT THE OBJECTION CONTINUES.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, THIS IS THE DOCTOR'S OPINION. THIS IS NOT STATEMENTS BY THIS PERSON. SO A PSYCHIATRIC ANALYSIS, THAT'S HEARSAY. IT'S NOT ADMISSIBLE FOR THESE PURPOSES.

MR. COCHRAN: IT IS HEARSAY, YOUR HONOR. BUT I THINK -- THE REASON I THOUGHT THAT I COULD READ THIS PARTICULAR PORTION IS BECAUSE IT BEARS UPON THIS PERSON'S ATTITUDE WITH REGARD TO AFRICAN AMERICANS AND OTHERS, HIS ATTITUDE TOWARD THE GENERAL PUBLIC, HIS ATTITUDE OF HOW HE'S SEEN. AND I THINK THAT IF THE COURT WILL ALLOW ME JUST TO CONCLUDE THIS SENTENCE, I'LL MOVE ON FROM THIS DOCTOR'S REPORT IF I MIGHT.

THE COURT: WELL, I'VE READ IT, COUNSEL.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. YOU HAVE READ THAT. FINE, YOUR HONOR. WELL, THEN THAT BRINGS US, IF THE COURT PLEASES, TO DR. KOEGLER'S REPORT. DR. KOEGLER'S REPORT, AS THE COURT IS AWARE, NOVEMBER OF 1982. AND TO GET TO THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THAT REPORT, MR. DARDEN THIS MORNING TALKED ABOUT THE ASPECT OF THIS MAN HAVING SUCH A TOUGH LIFE AND HIS WORK AND THAT SORT OF THING. AND I THINK I SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO READ THIS ABOUT HIS LIFE AND HIS DIVORCE AND ALL THE BAD THINGS THAT HAPPENED TO HIM. HERE'S WHAT HE SAYS IN THAT REGARD. AND THEY OPENED THE DOOR. SO I THINK THAT I SHOULD BE ABLE TO RESPOND.

MS. LEWIS: EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR. THERE IS AN OBJECTION. MR. DARDEN'S COMMENTS WERE JUST GENERALLY DIRECTED TOWARD POLICE OFFICERS AND HIS KNOWLEDGE OF POLICE OFFICERS WORKING IN THE FIELD. THERE IS CERTAINLY NO OPENING OF THE DOOR OF THIS PARTICULAR DETECTIVE'S BACKGROUND IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER EXCEPT WITH REGARD TO THE PARTICULAR STATEMENTS THAT HE IS ALLEGED TO HAVE MADE.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, HE SAID -- MR. DARDEN SPOKE ABOUT WHAT A TOUGH LIFE HE HAD AND HE HAD BEEN SHOT AT AND HE GOT A DIVORCE AND ALL THOSE THINGS, AND I WANT TO INDICATE TO THE COURT WHAT HE HAD TO SAY WITH REGARD TO HIS WIFE AND THAT LIFE JUST BRIEFLY.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, WELL, WAIT A MINUTE. WHY DON'T YOU TELL ME WHAT PAGE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT ON THE DOCTOR'S --

MR. COCHRAN: THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 2, OF DR. KOEGLER'S REPORT, YOUR HONOR, AT THE LAST PARAGRAPH STARTING WITH "PRIOR".

THE COURT: I DON'T SEE THIS AS RELEVANT TO THIS ISSUE.

MR. COCHRAN: VERY WELL, YOUR HONOR. I WOULD LIKE THE COURT TO THEN TAKE A LOOK AT ON PAGE 2, PARAGRAPH 3, IF THE COURT WILL AGREE THAT WOULD BE RELEVANT.

THE COURT: THIS IS DR. KOEGLER'S LETTER?

MR. COCHRAN: THIS IS DR. KOEGLER, YES.

THE COURT: PARAGRAPH 3 ON PAGE 2?

MR. COCHRAN: PAGE 2, YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ISN'T THAT WHAT YOU READ ALREADY?

MR. COCHRAN: NO. THAT WAS DR. HOCHMAN.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. IN THIS PARTICULAR POINT, DR. KOEGLER SAYS:

"HE TRACES HIS FEELINGS ABOUT VIOLENCE TO HIS EXPERIENCES IN THE MARINES. HE WAS SENT TO VIETNAM AND WAS IN SAIGON TOWARD THE END OF THE WAR." QUOTE, "'I LOVED IT IN THE MILITARY. YOU KNEW WHAT YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO DO, AND IF YOU DID IT, THEY REWARDED YOU,' END QUOTE.

"1970 TO 1975, HE WAS IN THE MARINES AND SAYS THAT HE ENJOYED IT UNTIL THE LAST YEAR. THEN HE SAYS, QUOTE, 'THERE WERE THESE MEXICANS AND NIGGERS, VOLUNTEERS, AND THEY WOULD TELL ME THEY WEREN'T GOING TO DO SOMETHING.'" I THINK THE COURT HAS READ THE REPORT AS YOU'VE INDICATED AND YOU THEN HAVE A PICTURE. I DON'T WANT TO BELABOR THIS, BUT JUST TO POINT OUT, THE EVIDENCE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE BEARS CLEARLY UPON THE 11 ITEMS THAT WE HAVE LISTED. AND I WOULD JUST SAY IN PASSING, WITH REGARD TO THE BRITTON INCIDENT, THAT, AS I UNDERSTAND WHAT MR. BRITTON HAS INDICATED -- AND HE IS -- AND SO THEY'VE NOT MADE IT CLEAR TO YOUR HONOR, THERE IS A CIVIL LAWSUIT PENDING WHEREIN THE CITY WAS SUED --

THE COURT: AFTER A MISTRIAL, YES.

MR. COCHRAN: RIGHT AFTER A MISTRIAL. IT'S GOING TO BE TRIED AGAIN IN APRIL. SO ALTHOUGH THAT THE JURY WASN'T ABLE TO AGREE AT FIRST, THE ALLEGATIONS ARE, ACCORDING TO MR. BRITTON -- AND I DON'T THINK HE MAKES ANY BONES ABOUT THE FACT THAT HE WAS CONVICTED OF A ROBBERY -- BUT WHAT HE CONTENDS WAS THAT HE WAS WRONGFULLY SHOT AND THAT THERE WERE ONLY TWO OFFICERS WHO SHOT, THAT WAS DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AND HIS PARTNER, AND THAT SOME EVIDENCE, A KNIFE, WAS MOVED CLOSER TO HIS BODY FROM WHERE HE DROPPED IT. HE'S NOT SURE WHICH OF THE TWO DID IT. AND IT WAS ONE OF THOSE TWO, AND THEY'RE BOTH DEFENDANTS AS I UNDERSTAND THE TESTIMONY.

NOW, I EARLIER SAID TO THE PROSECUTION, THIS IS, AS WITH THEIR CASE, AN ON-GOING MATTER AND THERE WILL CONTINUE TO BE OTHER EVIDENCE, OTHER INSTANCES OF A MORE CURRENT VARIETY THAT WE WILL SHARE WITH THEM AS SOON AS THE INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN COMPLETED. THE PROSECUTION IN THEIR PRESENTATION SPENT FAR TOO MUCH TIME ON THE GLOVE, THE PLACING OF THE GLOVE, THE MOVING OF THE GLOVE. WHAT I WOULD CHOOSE TO DO IS TO TALK WHY WE SHOULD NOT BE PRESCRIBED IN OUR CROSS-EXAMINATION. THROUGHOUT ALL, THEY'VE TRIED TO PREDICT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO. THIS MOTION IS PREMATURE. MR. DARDEN DOESN'T KNOW WHAT I'M GOING TO DO AS YOU COULD TELL THIS MORNING WHEN HE GETS ALL EMOTIONAL ABOUT THAT. HE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO. THAT'S THEIR PROBLEM, AND WE ARE NOT GOING TO TELL THEM WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO. IT'S THEIR CASE, AND WHEN WE GET TO OUR CASE, WE'LL DEAL WITH IT, YOUR HONOR. BUT CERTAINLY WITH REGARD TO THESE ITEMS, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, THE 1985 INCIDENT, WHO COULD ARGUE THAT WHEN THIS ENCOUNTER WAS HAD AND THE REPORT WAS WRITTEN SOME FOUR YEARS LATER, THAT'S VERY, VERY RELEVANT. SO I THINK WITH 1 AND 2, THE COURT CAN SEE EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN THAT REGARD. AND THEN WITH NUMBER 3, THE CREDIBILITY OF THE ACCOUNT, OF THE REASONS WHY THESE DETECTIVES WENT TO THE HOME. CERTAINLY WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE AT THIS POINT, YOUR HONOR. YOU RULED ON THAT. BUT I WOULD SAY THIS. THAT IT'S ABSOLUTELY RELEVANT IN THE SITUATION WHERE -- DETECTIVE VANNATTER SAID THAT HE WORKED WEST LOS ANGELES, KNEW THAT AREA. WHY THEN DID FUHRMAN AND PHILLIPS HAVE TO GO OVER TO THE RESIDENCE? I THINK THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ISSUES OF POSSIBLE IMPEACHMENT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. IF HE WORKED THERE, YOU DIDN'T NEED ANY GUIDE OVER THERE. REMINDS ME OF THE STORY, HOW MANY LAPD DETECTIVES DOES IT TAKE TO NOTIFY THE NEXT OF KIN? APPARENTLY ALL FOUR OF THEM, BECAUSE THEY ALL WENT OVER THERE, YOUR HONOR, AND FOR WHATEVER REASON THEY DID. THE CREDIBILITY OF THIS DESCRIPTION OF THE POSITION OF THE DEFENDANT'S FORD BRONCO; AGAIN, THIS IS AN IMPORTANT WITNESS. AND WHETHER THAT VEHICLE WAS PARKED ASKEW AND AT WHAT TIME, WAS THAT VEHICLE MOVED BY SOME OFFICER, WAS IT LOCKED, WHO GOT IN THERE AND WHO MOVED IT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WHETHER OR NOT THE VEHICLE WAS SECURE AT THE TIME. AND THOSE ARE ALL I MEAN REAL ISSUES IN THIS CASE, JUDGE, THAT WE WILL BE LITIGATING MOST VIGOROUSLY. THE DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE ACCOUNT OF THIS PARTICULAR OFFICER REGARDING THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS AT THE ROCKINGHAM ADDRESS. AS THE COURT IS AWARE, THAT WE'RE NOW AWARE OF THE WESTEC OFFICERS WHO ARRIVED AND THAT SORT OF THING. SO THAT WE HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO GO INTO THEIR CREDIBILITY AND THEIR TESTIMONY UNDER OATH WITH REGARD TO THOSE EVENTS, WHAT LED THEM THERE AND WHAT HAPPENED WHEN THEY GOT THERE. DID THEY GO THERE MORE THAN ONE TIME THAT MORNING? THOSE WILL BE THINGS WE WILL BE QUERYING, YOUR HONOR. AND THEN OF COURSE THE CREDIBILITY OF THE TESTIMONY REGARDING THE DISCOVERY OF THE SPOTS OF BLOOD SUPPOSEDLY ON THE FORD BRONCO AND THE DRIVEWAY OF ROCKINGHAM. TO HEAR THE PROSECUTION, OF COURSE, THAT'S NO LONGER IMPORTANT AND THEY WOULDN'T EVEN BOTHER TALKING ABOUT THAT. THE SEARCH OF KATO KAELIN'S ROOM AGAIN IS A QUESTION OF THIS MAN'S CREDIBILITY. HE IS THERE TO NOTIFY MR. SIMPSON. FIRST THING HE DOES IS START LOOKING THROUGH CLOTHES, LOOKING AT MR. KATO KAELIN'S EYES, LOOKING AT HIS SHOES. HOW DOES THAT BEAR UPON NOTIFYING ANYONE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES? BUT YET THAT IS THE SAME OFFICER, THE SAME OFFICER WHO NO LONGER WANTED TO BE A POLICE OFFICER. AND I SHOULD POINT OUT THAT THOSE ARGUMENTS THAT HE MADE TO TRY TO GET OUT OF BEING A POLICE OFFICER WERE ALL REJECTED BY THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES. WHAT DOES THAT TELL US? HE SAYS:

"I HAVE THESE TERRIBLE PROBLEMS. I WANT TO GET OUT." THEY SAY:

"YOU'RE LYING. WE'RE NOT LETTING YOU OUT. YOU ARE GOING TO REMAIN A POLICE OFFICER." IS CREDIBILITY AT ISSUE, YOUR HONOR? I THINK SO. SO THE CREDIBILITY OF HIS ACCOUNT, OF HIS PARTICIPATION, THE EXECUTION OF THESE SEARCH WARRANTS, NOT THE SEARCH WARRANT ITSELF, BUT THE CREDIBILITY OF THE INFORMATION GIVEN, YOUR HONOR, WE ARE PERMITTED TO GO INTO THOSE FACTS. WE'VE SEEN WITH THE OTHER WITNESSES THERE'S BEEN A RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE TRUTH, AND WE ARE PERMITTED IT SEEMS TO ME TO LOOK AT THOSE ITEMS, OF THE RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE TRUTH FROM ANY OF THESE WITNESSES WHO HAVE DONE THAT. AND THEN BECAUSE OF HIS FAILURE TO RECORD, RECORDS WE HEAR FROM MISS LEWIS THIS MORNING, HE HAD SOME BRIEF NOTES. WELL, THIS IS THIS IMPORTANT WITNESS THEY PARADE OUT. HE HAS ONLY BRIEF NOTES OR LACK OF NOTES OR VERY FEW NOTES? IF IT WAS NOT HIS CASE ANYMORE, WHAT WAS HE DOING OVER THERE? WHY WAS HE THE ONE TAKING THE ACTIVE ROLE? VANNATTER DIDN'T BECOME ACTIVE UNTIL MUCH LATER IT SEEMED IN THE DAY IF THE COURT PLEASES. HIS ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY, THE FAILURE OF THE OFFICERS TO FOLLOW PROPER TECHNIQUES TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE WITHOUT CONTAMINATION. AND AGAIN, WITHOUT AGAIN GOING INTO THE EVIDENCE, YOU WILL SEE PICTURES OF THE VARIOUS OFFICERS AT THE SCENE, PICTURES OF MARK FUHRMAN AROUND THIS CRITICAL EVIDENCE. THE QUESTION IS, HAS THAT EVIDENCE BEEN MOVED? CAN WE DEMONSTRATE FOR THIS COURT AND FOR THIS JURY THAT EVIDENCE, CERTAINLY OTHER THAN THE GLOVE, HAD BEEN MOVED, THE SCENE HAS BEEN TAMPERED WITH, THAT PEOPLE HAVE WALKED THROUGH BLOOD MAKING FOOTPRINTS? CAN WE SHOW THOSE THINGS? I THINK WE CAN SHOW THOSE THINGS. I THINK HE AGAIN BECOMES VERY, VERY IMPORTANT IN THAT REGARD BECAUSE HE'S ONE OF THE FIRST ONES THERE. AND HIS TESTIMONY AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, REFERRING TO THE GLOVES AT THE BUNDY SCENE AS "THEM". AND IT'S INTERESTING. MISS LEWIS AGAIN, BEING HONEST ABOUT IT, SAYS THERE'S AMBIGUITY THERE. THERE'S AMBIGUITY. HE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE GLOVES. BUT HE SAYS "THE GLOVES" AND HE SAYS "THEM". NOW, SHE SAYS, WELL, GEE, PROFESSOR UELMEN DIDN'T GO INTO THAT. BUT, YOUR HONOR, HE WAS THE PROSECUTION WITNESS. IF THERE WAS AMBIGUITY, WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY IS IT TO CLEAR IT UP? IT'S THEIR RESPONSIBILITY. NOT MR. -- NOT PROFESSOR UELMEN'S. SO IT WASN'T HIS OBLIGATION. BUT THAT'S AGAIN SOMETHING WE WOULD OBVIOUSLY BE LOOKING AT. AND SO WHEN THE COURT TIES THOSE VARIOUS INCIDENTS INTO 718 OF THE EVIDENCE CODE, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT WHAT THE PROSECUTION IS SEEKING TO DO IS TO PRESCRIBE US IN ADVANCE, TO STOP US IN ADVANCE FROM CROSS-EXAMINATION. AND THE COURT UNDERSTANDS THE VERY IMPORTANCE OF CROSS-EXAMINATION. WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS THE ABILITY TO TRY TO GET A FAIR TRIAL. AND THIS COURT ALWAYS HAS HAD THAT CONCERN AND HAS ALSO DEMONSTRATED THAT CONCERN, THAT BOTH SIDES GET A FAIR TRIAL. YOU HAVE BEEN PATIENT, OFTEN TIMES BEYOND BELIEF AS THE LAWYERS HAVE GONE ON AND ON. AND I'M MINDFUL OF THAT AS WE GET CLOSE TO 3:00 O'CLOCK. BUT AT THE TIME, CROSS-EXAMINATION IS NOT ONE OF THESE THINGS WHERE I DON'T THINK -- I THINK THIS COURT WOULD WANT TO DEPRIVE ANYONE OF, CERTAINLY IN ADVANCE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. AND AS DEAN UELMEN HAS SAID, IT IS THE HEIGHT OF IRONY AND HYPOCRISY TO SPEND TWO DAYS ON GOING BACK IN THIS MAN'S LIFE 17, 18 YEARS AGO ON THINGS HE COULD HARDLY EVEN REMEMBER, MYSTERIOUS PEOPLE WHO APPEAR ALL OF A SUDDEN WITHOUT BEING CHECKED, FROM THIS KIND OF TABLOID PROSECUTION, WHERE THEY GET THEIR WITNESSES FROM HARD COPY, COME IN AND MAKE A NATIONAL DISPLAY AND THEN HAVE TO WITHDRAW 18 OF THOSE WITNESSES. I MEAN IT'S OUTRAGEOUS. AND THEY WANT TO TALK ABOUT BEING FAIR. FAIR WORKS BOTH WAYS. FAIR WORKS BOTH WAYS. AND WHAT WE MEAN BY FAIRNESS, WE WANT THE ABILITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE THESE WITNESSES. SO IF THEY HAVE A KEY WITNESS, THEY CAN'T HIDE THAT WITNESS. THIS IS A MOTION TO HIDE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, AND HE CAN'T BE -- HE CAN'T HIDE, JUDGE, YOUR HONOR. HIS WORDS ARE OUT THERE. AND THAT BRINGS ME TO WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT THIS MORNING AGAIN JUST BRIEFLY. WE TAKE THE FACTS THE WAY WE FIND THEM. WE'RE ON THE EVE OF TRIAL. IT'S TIME TO STOP TALKING AND POSTULATING. LET'S GO TO TRIAL. ON THE ONE HAND, THEY WANT TO TELL YOU WHAT MOUNTAINS OF EVIDENCE THEY HAVE. ON THE OTHER HAND, OUT THE OTHER SIDE OF HIS MOUTH, HE SAYS, BUT GEE, IT WON'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE BECAUSE THESE PEOPLE CAN'T BE FAIR, MALIGNING THESE PEOPLE. I MEAN IN THE COOL LIGHT OF DAY, WE SEE ERRORS IN HIS CASE IN THAT REGARD. THAT WAS WRONG TO DO. THAT WE CAN ALL BECOME EMOTIONAL, BUT AS OFFICERS OF THIS COURT, I HOPE WE CAN ALL REMEMBER TO BE PROFESSIONAL. WE HAVE TO DECIDE THIS CASE BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE. WE DIDN'T MAKE THESE FACTS UP. AND THEIR JOB IS TO SEEK JUSTICE. OUR JOB IS TO DEFEND OUR CLIENT, AS THE COURT IS AWARE. AND IN THE PURSUIT OF JUSTICE WE'RE CAUGHT UP WITH, SOMETIMES WE LOSE SIGHT OF OUR PERSPECTIVE. THERE WILL BE LIFE AFTER SIMPSON FOR ALL OF US. I THINK WE NEED TO ALL REMEMBER THAT. SO, YOUR HONOR, I THINK THAT THESE INCIDENTS THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT BEAR UPON THE CREDIBILITY OF THIS OFFICER'S TESTIMONY. NOT JUST ABOUT THE GLOVE, BUT BEARS UPON HIS ATTITUDES, HIS BELIEFS, HIS THOUGHT PROCESSES. AND THAT SHAPES HOW HE TESTIFIES. IF HE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THE PEOPLE HE SERVES, WE HAVE A RIGHT TO BRING THAT OUT. AND THEY HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT BECAUSE THAT'S THE TESTIMONY, IF HE TESTIFIES TO THAT. IF THEY DON'T CALL HIM, WE'LL CALL HIM BECAUSE HE HAPPENED TO BE THERE. AND THEY CAN'T HIDE HIM UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. AND THAT'S ALL WE ARE TRYING TO DO AND THAT'S WHAT THIS MOTION IS ABOUT. SO I WOULD URGE YOUR HONOR -- AND OF COURSE, I THANK YOUR HONOR FOR ALLOWING US THIS OPPORTUNITY TO THOROUGHLY DISCUSS THIS. THIS IS NOT BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION A 352 PROBLEM. AND ONE FINAL THING THAT I THINK THAT I MUST ADDRESS. PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS THROWING OUT THIS THING ABOUT USING THE RACE CAR AND THAT SORT OF STUFF. I'M NOT ABOUT TO USE ANY RACE CAR. ALL THE DEFENSE IS TRYING TO DO IS GET JUSTICE FOR OUR CLIENT. THAT'S ALL WE ARE TRYING TO DO. AND WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE RACE CAR, HOW OUTRAGEOUS IS IT TO SAY THAT I'M NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT MR. SIMPSON'S FETISH FOR BLOND WHITE WOMEN THAT WAS SAID IN THIS COURT A LOT? DID I HEAR THAT? THAT'S OUTRAGEOUS. IF THIS MAN LOVED SOMEBODY WHO WAS PURPLE, IN AMERICA, HE HAS THE RIGHT TO GET MARRIED TO THAT PERSON. HIS FIRST WIFE WAS AFRICAN AMERICAN. THAT'S THE BEAUTY OF AMERICA. THAT'S WHY PEOPLE HAVE DIED, BECAUSE YOU CAN DO WHAT YOU WANT SUPPOSEDLY. EVEN IN THIS SOCIETY THAT'S NOT PERFECT, YOU HAVE THAT RIGHT. THAT'S ALL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR HONOR.

MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, MISS CLARK WILL BE MAKING COMMENTS IN REBUTTAL TO THE DEFENSE RESPONSE, AND I BELIEVE MR. DARDEN WISHES TO MAKE SOME COMMENTS IN CONCLUDING REBUTTAL.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MS. CLARK: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, COULD WE HAVE A COUPLE MOMENTS, PLEASE?

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. I'M CONCERNED FIRST OF ALL AND WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS COUNSEL'S REMARKS CONCERNING THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE ABOUT THE CHARACTERIZATION OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S REMOVAL, QUOTE, UNQUOTE, REASSIGNMENT, BEING PULLED OFF THE CASE. THIS HAS BEEN NOW PRESENTED TO THIS COURT AS THOUGH SOME TERRIBLY PREJUDICIAL AND DAMAGING THING WAS DONE TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IN THAT THE CASE WAS REASSIGNED TO THE DETECTIVES FROM ROBBERY-HOMICIDE DIVISION. THIS COURT KNOWS, AS I KNOW THAT COUNSEL IS AWARE, THAT SUCH REASSIGNMENTS HAPPEN ON A DAILY, IN FACT ALMOST HOURLY BASIS; THAT THERE WILL BE INITIAL OFFICERS ON THE SCENE, THAT THE CASE WILL THEN BE ASSIGNED TO ONE DIVISION OR ANOTHER AND THAT WHEN THE CASE SEEMS TO BE COMPLEX OR OF A CERTAIN NATURE, ROBBERY-HOMICIDE OR MAJOR CRIMES TAKES OVER. IT IS A ROUTINE OCCURRENCE, NOTHING UNUSUAL IN IT. AND TO HYPOTHESIZE BASED ON SOMETHING LIKE THAT THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WOULD THEN FEEL SO OUTRAGED AT THE REASSIGNMENT, THAT HE WOULD BE MOVED TO COMMIT A FELONY IS NOTHING SHORT OF RIDICULOUS AND APPALLING, AND IT IS TYPICAL OF THE KIND OF FLIGHTS OF FANTASY ABOUT POSSIBLE MOTIVE THAT THE DEFENSE TAKES OFF ON, TYPICAL OF THE GROUNDLESS AND YET INFLAMMATORY RHETORIC THAT HAS BEEN PROFERRED BY THE DEFENSE AND WOULD BE PROFFERED BEFORE THIS JURY IF THEY ARE PERMITTED TO DO SO IN AN EFFORT TO DISTRACT THEM FROM THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE. AND THAT IS WHAT THE PEOPLE ARE SEEKING TO AVOID. IF WHAT WE WANT, YOUR HONOR, IS TO HAVE A JURY THAT WILL MAKE A RATIONAL AND INTELLIGENT DECISION BASED ON EVIDENCE AND NOT AN IRRATIONAL AND EMOTIONAL DECISION BASED ON IRRELEVANT AND REMOTE INFORMATION THAT IS UNRELIABLE, THEN WE MUST BE VERY, VERY CAREFUL ABOUT WHAT IS PERMISSIBLE MATERIAL FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION. AS THE COURT IS AWARE I'M SURE, PEOPLE VERSUS HALL APPLIES TO THE ANALYSIS REGARDLESS OF THE NATURE OF THE MOTIVE. THE ANALYSIS REMAINS THE SAME. WHETHER THE MOTIVE IS TO PLANT EVIDENCE BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT IS OF A PARTICULAR RACE OR BECAUSE HE IS ANGRY AT HAVING BEEN TAKEN OFF A CASE, THE MOTIVE IS THE SAME -- THE MOTIVE REGARDLESS OF WHAT IT IS, THE ANALYSIS REMAINS THE SAME, AND PEOPLE VERSUS HALL APPLIES. AND IT APPLIES VERY WELL IN THIS CASE FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS. NUMBER ONE, AS A GENERAL PROPOSITION, THE COURT I KNOW IS AWARE THAT MERE MOTIVE ALONE IS INSUFFICIENT TO CHARGE ANYONE WITH ANYTHING. IF ALL WE HAD WAS THE -- WAS THE WIFE OF A MAN MURDERED AND THE MAN HAD NO ALIBI, THAT'S ALL WE HAD, AND WE COULD PROVE THAT HE REASONABLY THREATENED HER OR THEY HAD AN ARGUMENT, WE HAVE MOTIVE, BUT WE HAVE NOTHING ELSE. HE COULD NOT BE CHARGED. WE COULD NOT BRING CHARGES. AND IF THAT WERE THE CASE, THERE WOULD BE NO CASE. BUT THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT THE DEFENSE INTENDS TO DO HERE. THEY PRESENT WHAT THEY DEEM TO BE EVIDENCE OF MOTIVE IN THIS CASE, WHICH WE DISPUTE AS WELL, BUT EVIDENCE OF MOTIVE NONETHELESS IN THEIR OPINION, AND WITHOUT ANY DEMONSTRATION OF OPPORTUNITY OR POSSIBILITY, PHYSICAL CAPABILITY IN THIS CASE, THEY SEEK TO HAVE THIS EVIDENCE ADMITTED BEFORE THE JURY, KNOWING FULL WELL THAT IT'S AN INFLAMMATORY -- THE INFLAMMATORY NATURE OF THE EVIDENCE WILL DISTRACT, WILL CONFUSE, WILL DISTORT THIS CASE AND PREVENT THE JURY FROM FOCUSING ON THE EVIDENCE. AND THAT IS THE INTENT. AND THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS THAT THERE IS A PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY THAT THEY ARE NOT ADDRESSING. NOT ONCE DURING THE DEFENSE PRESENTATION HAS THIS COURT SEEN THE DEFENSE PROFFER ANYTHING IN THE NATURE OF AN OFFER OF PROOF AS TO HOW THEY INTEND TO DEMONSTRATE THAT SUCH AN ACT AS THE ONE THAT THEY ARE ALLEGING COULD HAVE BEEN COMMITTED. NOT ONCE. THAT'S A VERY NOTABLE ABSENCE BECAUSE THEY'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY NOW ALL AFTERNOON TO PRESENT TO YOUR HONOR WHAT EVIDENCE OR WHAT THEORY THEY WILL PRESENT -- THEY WILL PROCEED ON TO DEMONSTRATE THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO WHAT THEY ALLEGE. IN FACT, HE DID NOT. I AGREE WITH MR. COCHRAN VERY WHOLEHEARTEDLY. I AM VERY EAGER TO GET ON WITH THE EVIDENCE BECAUSE THE POSTURING AND THE REPRESENTATIONS CONTINUALLY MADE ABOUT WHAT CAN BE DONE AND WHAT MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED AND WHAT COULD HAVE HAPPENED ARE REALLY REACHING THE OUTER LIMITS OF FLIGHTS OF FANTASY. AND WHEN WE FINALLY DO PRESENT EVIDENCE, I'M SURE THAT MUCH OF THE POSTURING THAT THE COURT HAS SEEN FROM THE DEFENSE CONCERNING WHAT THEORIES THEY'D LIKE TO PURSUE ARE GOING TO FALL BY THE WAYSIDE BECAUSE REALITY WILL SIMPLY PREVENT IT. NOW, WITH RESPECT TO THEIR ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING THE 1985 INCIDENT, COUNSEL WOULD LIKE TO MAKE MUCH OF THE FACT THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN REMEMBERS SO VIVIDLY THE INCIDENT IN WHICH HE SAW THE DEFENDANT WITH A BASEBALL BAT AND NICOLE IN A MERCEDES, SEATED IN A CAR WHERE THE WINDSHIELD WAS COMPLETELY SHATTERED AND THE DEFENDANT ADMITTED THAT HE HAS DONE SO. NOW, THAT IS A SITUATION THAT ANY NORMAL PERSON WOULD FIND INDELIBLY IMPRESSED ON THEIR MEMORY. I THINK FOR MOST OF US -- I KNOW FOR MYSELF, YOUR HONOR, IF I WERE TO HAVE MET A CELEBRITY AND SIMPLY SHAKEN THEIR HAND OR GOTTEN THEIR AUTOGRAPH, WHICH IS AN ORDINARY THING, YOU KNOW, THAT MIGHT BE THE ORDINARY KIND OF INTERACTION THAT SOMEONE WOULD HAVE WITH A CELEBRITY, YOU WOULD REMEMBER IT FOREVER. BUT TO CONFRONT A CELEBRITY IN SUCH A SITUATION AFTER SUCH OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT HAS BEEN COMMITTED, I THINK THAT ANYONE WOULD REMEMBER THAT. THAT WOULD NEVER LEAVE THEIR MEMORY BECAUSE YOU DO NOT EXPECT SOMEONE OF SUCH RENOWN TO BEHAVE IN SUCH AN OUTRAGEOUS MANNER. AND TO SOMEHOW DRAW SOME NEGATIVE INFERENCE FROM THE FACT THAT AS A NORMAL HUMAN BEING, HE'S IMPRESSED AND REMEMBERS SOMETHING THAT IS SO MEMORABLE IS ABSURD. YOU WOULD EXPECT ANY PERSON TO REMEMBER SOMETHING THAT SHOCKING. AND OF COURSE, HE DID. BUT WHETHER HE DID OR NOT IS IRRELEVANT. HE WON'T TESTIFY TO THAT PARTICULAR INCIDENT. WE HAVE SOMEONE ELSE WHO APPEARED ON THE SCENE BEFORE HE DID AND WAS PERCIPIENT TO MANY MORE OBSERVATIONS THAN HE WAS.

THE COURT: BUT ISN'T THE POINT THE FACT THAT HE WAS PREVIOUSLY ACQUAINTED WITH BOTH OF THE DEFENDANT AND THE VICTIM? ISN'T THAT THE POINT?

MS. CLARK: I THINK THAT IS THE POINT THAT THEY ARE ATTEMPTING TO MAKE WITH THAT, YOUR HONOR. AND IN THAT CONNECTION, LET ME SAY THIS.

THE COURT: I AGREE WITH YOU; THAT IF I WERE TO HAVE MET MR. SIMPSON UNDER JUST ABOUT ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, I WOULD REMEMBER THAT. I MEAN I DON'T FIND THAT PART OF IT IMPLAUSIBLE. BUT IT IS THE FACT THAT THEY WERE PREVIOUSLY ACQUAINTED IS THE ISSUE.

MS. CLARK: AND IT WAS A BRIEF ACQUAINTANCE THOUGH. AND I THINK THAT WHAT'S REALLY KIND OF INTERESTING ABOUT THAT IS THAT EVEN THOUGH HE DID APPEAR ON THE SCENE, HE WROTE NO REPORT, HE DID NOT ATTEMPT TO FORCE THE PROSECUTION OF THE MATTER, HE DID NOT INVOLVE HIMSELF IN ANY WAY THAT WOULD INDICATE THAT HE HAD A BIAS TOWARDS MR. SIMPSON. QUITE THE OPPOSITE. IT WAS ONLY AFTER THE CITY ATTORNEY SOLICITED HIS OPINION IN 1989 THAT HE SAID, "WELL, I DO REMEMBER THIS." AND THE FACT THAT IT WAS INDELIBLY IMPRESSED ON HIS MEMORY, OF COURSE BEING HUMAN. BUT IF THAT INCIDENT WERE SOMETHING THAT INDEED CAUSED HIM TO BE BIASED AGAINST MR. SIMPSON, THEN WE WOULD HAVE SEEN SOME CONDUCT AT THE TIME INDICATIVE OF THAT STATE OF MIND. BUT WE DIDN'T. AND THAT'S WHAT IS SO INTERESTING ABOUT THE DEFENSE ARGUMENT AT THIS TIME. WE HAVE STATEMENTS THAT WERE OF COURSE REPEATEDLY READ INTO THE RECORD BY COUNSEL IN THE ATTEMPT TO PUBLISH AND REPUBLISH INFLAMMATORY INFORMATION. BUT WHAT WE ARE NEGLECTING TO PAY ATTENTION TO IS THE FACT THAT YES, THERE IS A CONTEXT FOR THESE STATEMENTS, YES, THE MAN WAS UNDER STRESS, YES, HE WAS SPEAKING TO PSYCHIATRISTS, NOT THE OUTSIDE WORLD, HE WAS SPEAKING IN AN EFFORT TO GET DISABILITY, TO GET RELIEF FROM A STRESS-RELATED JOB. BUT THIS WAS 15 YEARS AGO OR NEARLY 15 YEARS AGO, YOUR HONOR. IT WAS A DISCRETE AND A REMOTE TIME PERIOD IN THAT DETECTIVE'S LIFE. IF THE ALLEGATION -- IF THE STATEMENTS -- THESE ARE SELF-REPORTED STATEMENTS BY THE WAY. THIS IS NOT WHAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE SAYING ABOUT HIM, YOUR HONOR. HE IS SELF-REPORTING THAT HE IS STRESSED OUT AND HE DOESN'T LIKE HIMSELF, HE DOESN'T LIKE WHERE HE'S AT. BUT THAT WAS 15 YEARS AGO. I THINK ALL OF US HAVE GONE THROUGH A LOT OF CHANGES IN OUR LIVES. WHERE OUR HEADS WERE 15 YEARS AGO MAY HAVE AND VERY LIKELY DOES HAVE NO BEARING ON WHERE THEY ARE TODAY.

DETECTIVE FUHRMAN REPORTED 15 YEARS AGO TO A CERTAIN STATE OF MIND. SINCE THAT TIME, WE HAD NO REPORTS OR OBSERVATIONS BY THIRD PARTIES OF ANY CONDUCT BY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN CONSONANT WITH RACISM OR BIAS. IN FACT, WHAT'S NOTABLE ABOUT KATHLEEN BELL'S STATEMENT IS THAT SHE CAME FORWARD TO NO ONE AND SAID NOTHING ABOUT THIS UNTIL THE CASE HAPPENED, AT WHICH POINT SHE SAW AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE FAMOUS, AS SO MANY HAVE FROM BOTH SIDES OF THIS CASE. IT IS A DEFINITE -- IT'S A PROBLEM WITH THIS CASE THAT BOTH SIDES HAVE TO BE WARY OF, ALL SIDES HAVE TO BE WARY OF. THERE'S SO MUCH FAME AND NOTORIETY ATTACHED TO IT THAT PEOPLE WILL INJECT THEMSELVES WHERE PROBABLY THEY SHOULD NOT. AND I THINK KATHLEEN BELL MAY WELL BE ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE. NEVERTHELESS, IT'S INTERESTING TO NOTE SHE MADE NO COMPLAINTS AND SAID NOTHING ABOUT THESE ALLEGED REMARKS BY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN UNTIL AFTER THIS CASE CAME OUT, AND SHE DID NOT MAKE -- I THINK IT'S ALSO VERY INTERESTING HOW CONVENIENTLY SHE MAKES THOSE REMARKS FIT IN WITH THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, AN INTERRACIAL COUPLE AND WHATNOT. BUT THAT'S ALL RIGHT. IF KATHLEEN BELL IS ULTIMATELY CALLED TO THE WITNESS STAND FOR ANY REASON, WE CAN TAKE UP HER CREDIBILITY AT THAT TIME, AND THEN THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW WHAT I THINK HER CREDIBILITY REALLY IS. NEVERTHELESS, WHAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE HERE IS A VERY DISCREET WOMAN IN TIME THAT IS REMOTE AND WE HAVE NOTHING IN-BETWEEN THAT SHOULD INDICATE -- THAT SHOULD BE THERE TO CORROBORATE WHAT THE DEFENSE IS ALLEGING MR. -- DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S STATE OF MIND IS. AND BY THAT, I MEAN THIRD-PARTY OBSERVATIONS OF MORE RECENT NATURE. THIS IS A POLICE OFFICER WHO'S OUT IN THE STREET AND OUT IN THE PUBLIC EVERY DAY. IN THAT CASE, YOU WOULD EXPECT PEOPLE TO BE COMING FORWARD TO SAY, "HE'S BEEN DOING THIS, HE'S BEEN SAYING THAT, I'VE SEEN HIM DO THIS AND I'VE HEARD HIM SAY THAT." BUT WE HAVE NONE OF IT. AND MR. COCHRAN OBLIQUELY REFERRED TO SOME INFORMATION HE'S GOT, AND WITH THE DISCOVERY ORDERS THAT HAVE BEEN ISSUED FROM THIS COURT, THE FACT THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED NOTHING IS VERY ALARMING TO ME. IF MR. COCHRAN IS IN POSSESSION OF SUCH INFORMATION, IT'S LONG OVERDUE TO BE TURNED OVER TO THE PROSECUTION. I SUSPECT THAT HE DOES NOT. AND IN THAT CASE, WHAT THE COURT SHOULD ASK ITSELF, WHAT IS THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF THESE SELF-REPORT STATEMENTS MADE IN A WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIM 15 YEARS AGO WITHOUT ANY INDEPENDENT CORROBORATION OR ANY MORE RECENT EVENT TO SOMEHOW CONNECT IT UP TO THE PRESENT TIME? THAT'S WHAT WOULD MAKE IT PROBATIVE IF ANYTHING COULD. BUT INSTEAD, WE DON'T HAVE THAT. AS THE COURT IS WELL AWARE, ANY DEFENDANT WHO TAKES THE WITNESS STAND WHO HAS A PRIOR CONVICTION THAT IS REMOTE, 15 YEARS AGO WITH NO INTERVENING CRIMINAL CONDUCT UPDATING THAT 15-YEAR OLD CONVICTION, COULD NOT BE IMPEACHED WITH IT BECAUSE THE COURT WOULD RIGHTFULLY FIND IT WOULD BE UNDULY PREJUDICIAL TO IMPEACH THE DEFENDANT WITH WHAT MAY HAVE SIMPLY BEEN ABERRANT PERIOD IN HIS LIFE. IF IN EFFECT, WE ARE PERMITTING THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WITH THIS INFORMATION, WE ARE AFFORDING OUR WITNESSES FEWER RIGHTS THAN WE ARE OF THE DEFENDANTS, AND THAT SEEMS COMPLETELY UNFAIR. MOREOVER, WHAT WE HAVE IN ADDITION -- WELL, I AM SORRY. LET ME INTERRUPT MY -- I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE DEFENSE ARGUMENTS CONCERNING THE COMPARISON TO 1101(B). THERE IS SIMPLY NO COMPARISON TO THE 1101(B) MOTION. FIRST OF ALL, LET ME INDICATE THIS. MR. COCHRAN HAS REPEATEDLY STATED THAT 17 OR 18 INCIDENTS WERE THROWN OUT BY THE PROSECUTION OR PRESENTED TO THIS COURT AND THEN WITHDRAWN. THAT'S NOT THE CASE. THE DEFENSE MADE A MOTION IN ADVANCE OF OUR LISTING OF ANY OF THE EVENTS THAT WE INTENDED TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION AND SOUGHT TO LIMIT THE EVIDENCE THAT WE WOULD ADMIT CONCERNING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. IN RESPONSE TO THEIR MOTION, WE SAID WE HAVE THE FOLLOWING LIST OF ITEMS. WE GAVE FULL AND FAIR DISCLOSURE TO THE DEFENSE OF EVERY POSSIBLE EVENT THAT MAY OCCUR, EVERY POSSIBLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT MAY BE USED, WHETHER IT IS FOR THE PEOPLE'S CASE IN CHIEF, FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE DEFENSE WITNESSES OR ON REBUTTAL TO THE DEFENSE CASE OR FOR THE FOUNDATION FOR EXPERT TESTIMONY. THERE ARE MANY USES TO WHICH THIS EVIDENCE CAN BE PUT. BUT THE COURT WANTED US TO CONFINE -- THE COURT WANTED US TO EDIT THE LIST, TO PRESENT IT WITH SIMPLY WHAT WE WOULD BE ASKING TO PRESENT IN OUR CASE IN CHIEF, WHICH IS WHAT WE DID. BUT TO INFER FROM THAT SOMEHOW THAT WE WERE PRESENTING EVIDENCE TO THIS COURT THAT WE NEVER INTENDED TO PRESENT ULTIMATELY IS FALSE, IS MISLEADING. ALL OF THAT EVIDENCE MAY VERY WELL COME OUT. IN FACT, I'M SURE MUCH OF IT WILL AT ONE POINT OR ANOTHER THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL. AND HAD WE NOT GIVEN THE DEFENSE NOTICE OF ALL OF THE ITEMS THAT WE WERE SEEKING TO ADMIT FOR WHATEVER PURPOSE, WE WOULD BE HELD REMISS AND MR. UELMEN WOULD ONCE AGAIN CASTIGATE US FOR MISCONDUCT. AND I DON'T EVEN WANT TO GIVE HIM MORE CAUSE FOR THAT. SO WE GAVE THEM FULL AND COMPLETE NOTICE IN ORDER TO AVOID THAT VERY THING; THAT HE CANNOT COMPLAIN THAT THEY HAVE BEEN SURPRISED. NOW, WITH RESPECT TO 1101(B) AS COMPARED TO THE 15-YEAR OLD CONDUCT OR STATEMENTS BY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, LET ME SAY THIS.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, LET ME JUST GIVE YOU A LITTLE GUIDANCE HERE. I CONSIDER THE COMPARISON OF THE TWO ISSUES TO BE APPLES AND ORANGES.

MS. CLARK: OKAY. THEN I DON'T HAVE TO --

THE COURT: IT'S IRONIC, BUT IT'S APPLES AND ORANGES.

MS. CLARK: OKAY. WE HAVE -- YES. AND THE COURT HEARD YESTERDAY A LENGTHY -- THERE'S LENGTH TO THE INCIDENTS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. IT'S NOT JUST AN INCIDENT 17 YEARS AGO ALLEGED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT. IT'S A PATTERN OF CONDUCT DATING BACK TO 17 YEARS AGO. WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WE HAVE THE EXACT OPPOSITE SITUATION. WE HAVE ONE SET OF STATEMENTS MADE BY HIM IN A CONFINED SITUATION 15 YEARS AGO WITH NOTHING AFTER THAT. AND SO IT CANNOT BE COMPARED JUST ON THAT BASIS ALONE. BUT I WON'T BELABOR THE POINT. THEN I WILL MOVE ON. COUNSEL MADE SEVERAL MISREPRESENTATIONS CONCERNING THE ROLE OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IN THIS MATTER. COUNSEL ATTEMPTS TO MAGNIFY HIS ROLE IN THIS CASE IN ORDER TO GIVE MORE LATITUDE TO THE ARGUMENT THAT HE THEREFORE MUST NECESSARILY BE IMPEACHED AND THAT IMPEACHMENT OF HIM IS COLLATERAL.

THE COURT: LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION AT THIS POINT, THOUGH. IN RAISING THE ISSUE OF WHAT THE SCOPE OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S TESTIMONY IS GOING TO BE, THE ISSUE THAT COMES UP IN MY MIND IMMEDIATELY IS, HOW BROAD IS THAT SCOPE GOING TO BE, AND THE ARGUMENT BY THE DEFENSE THAT PERHAPS THIS MOTION IS PREMATURE WOULD PERHAPS BE WELL TAKEN BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW AT THIS POINT EXACTLY WHAT IT IS DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IS GOING TO TESTIFY TO, AND THE SCOPE OF CROSS-EXAMINATION WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE SCOPE OF WHAT IT IS THAT YOU PRESENT. I MEAN THAT'S PRETTY STANDARD. SO IF YOU PUT HIM ON FOR A WHOLE LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS, WE MAY GET INTO A WHOLE LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION. BUT I DON'T KNOW AT THIS POINT.

MS. CLARK: RIGHT. AND I THINK THAT WAS A VERY WELL TAKEN POINT BY THE DEFENSE AS WELL, YOUR HONOR. THAT IS SOMETHING WE WILL NOT -- WE DO NOT ANTICIPATE THAT THERE WILL BE A GREAT DEAL OF TESTIMONY FROM DETECTIVE FUHRMAN BECAUSE IN TRUTH, HIS ROLE WAS SMALL. BY THE TIME HE PROCEEDED TO ROCKINGHAM, IT WAS THE CASE OF ROBBERY-HOMICIDE DIVISION. HE MADE SOME OBSERVATIONS AND SPOKE TO KATO KAELIN, AND THAT'S ABOUT THE EXTENT OF IT. HE DID NO FOLLOW-UP INVESTIGATION. HE CONDUCTED NO INTERVIEWS OF ANY OTHER WITNESSES BESIDES KATO KAELIN. AND WE KNOW THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF WITNESSES IN THIS CASE. THE FOLLOW-UP INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN VOLUMINOUS. LAPD HAS BEEN INUNDATED WITH THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF PAGES OF DISCOVERY, NONE OF WHICH WAS GENERATED BY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAS THE ONE LIMITED ROLE OF TAKING THE OFFICERS FROM BUNDY TO ROCKINGHAM, MAKING SOME OBSERVATIONS FOR THE LIMITED TIME HE WAS THERE, AND THEN IT WAS OVER.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THEN RATHER THAN DANCE AROUND THE BARN FOR THE NEXT HOUR, LET ME ASK YOU THESE TWO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.

MS. CLARK: YES, SIR.

THE COURT: LET'S ASSUME THAT PERHAPS THE PSYCHOLOGIST'S REPORTS OR THE PSYCHIATRIC REPORTS ARE REMOTE AND NOT DIRECTLY GERMAINE TO THE ISSUES. THE ALLEGATION AS TO THE GLOVE HAS BEEN CLEARLY RAISED.

MS. CLARK: YES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THE BRITTON CASE CONTAINS THE SAME ALLEGATION. NOW, THE ISSUE IS ALSO, THE EVIDENCE CODE SECTION THAT BOTH SIDES HAVE REFERRED TO IS EMBODIED IN CALJIC 220, WHICH I HAVE TO READ TO THE JURY, CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES, WHICH THEY WILL GET THE SAME LANGUAGE: THAT THE JURY, IN DETERMINING THE BELIEVABILITY OF A WITNESS, MAY CONSIDER ANYTHING THAT HAS A TENDENCY IN REASON TO PROVE OR DISPROVE, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, ONE OF WHICH IS THE EXISTENCE OR NON-EXISTENCE OF A BIAS, INTEREST OR OTHER MOTIVE OR THEIR ATTITUDE TOWARDS TESTIFYING, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. HAVING SAID THAT, THE STATEMENT TO KATHLEEN BELL WOULD TEND TO STATE A BIAS THAT FITS THIS CASE. SO LET'S ASSUME THAT I'M NOT PARTICULARLY THRILLED WITH THE FIRST EVENT, THE WORKERS' COMP CLAIM, BECAUSE IT'S GENERALIZED. AND YOU CAN'T ATTACK THAT ON A CREDIBILITY BASIS BECAUSE SOMEBODY WHO SAYS, "I'M BIASED IN THESE POLITICALLY CORRECT TIMES," THAT'S AN HONEST STATEMENT. I DON'T SEE THAT THAT NECESSARILY GOES TO CREDIBILITY. BUT THE OTHER TWO GO TO BIASES OR CREDIBILITY. AND THEY'RE SPECIFICALLY CLOSE ENOUGH TO THIS CASE TO MAKE THEM PLAUSIBLY RELEVANT. SO AT THIS POINT, MY INCLINATION IS TO TELL YOU I THINK THIS MOTION IS AT THIS POINT PREMATURE SINCE I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT SCOPE. BUT IF THE ALLEGATIONS ARE RAISED THAT I THINK ARE GOING TO BE RAISED, WE MAY GET INTO THIS.

MS. CLARK: RIGHT. THEN PERHAPS -- LET ME POSE SOMETHING ELSE TO THE COURT BECAUSE I CERTAINLY DO APPRECIATE THE COURT'S POSITION HERE.

THE COURT: I MEAN I WOULD LIKE TO LISTEN TO MORE OF THIS, BUT --

MS. CLARK: NO, YOU DON'T NEED TO. I KNOW. WE CAN GET ON WITH OTHER THINGS. LET ME JUST RAISE THEN ONE FURTHER POINT IN THAT REGARD. WITH RESPECT TO WHAT NEEDS TO BE SHOWN, EVEN THOUGH 220 DOES SPEAK OF BIAS, THAT IS CORRECT, IT IS STILL SUBJECT TO LIMITATIONS OF 352.

THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND THAT. LET ME GIVE YOU ANOTHER THOUGHT HERE. LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE BRITTON ISSUE, I DON'T WANT TO TRY THAT CASE HERE. AND IF THE DEPOSITION -- UNLESS I SEE A BETTER OFFER OF PROOF -- AND FROM WHAT I SAW, IF IT STANDS -- IF THE STATE OF THE EVIDENCE IS THE SAME AFTER DETECTIVE FUHRMAN TESTIFIES AND MR. BRITTON CANNOT SAY HOW IT WAS THAT THE KNIFE HAPPENED TO GO FROM THE BUSHES TO HIS FEET, THEN WE GET INTO A SPECULATIVE AREA, WHICH UNDER THE CASE LAW IS NOT NECESSARILY ADMISSIBLE FOR IMPEACHMENT PURPOSES.

MS. CLARK: RIGHT.

THE COURT: SO WE MAY BE THERE. BUT IT IS CLOSE ENOUGH TO LOOK AT. BUT THE OFFER OF PROOF IS PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE TO BE BETTER THAN WHAT IT IS.

MS. CLARK: YES. OKAY. AND THAT WAS MY SECOND POINT, YOUR HONOR, WAS WITH RESPECT TO THE --

THE COURT: SO I AGREE WITH YOU, THERE'S A 352 PROBLEM THERE. BUT THE ALLEGATION IS CLOSE ENOUGH TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE THAT I'VE GOT TO AT LEAST LISTEN TO WHAT THEIR OFFER OF PROOF IS WHEN WE GET THERE.

MS. CLARK: I AGREE. I AGREE. THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO ASK THE COURT; TO DEFER UNTIL A PRIMA FACIE CASE WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE DEFENSE OR AN OFFER OF PROOF THAT COULD BE SUBSTANTIATED WITH EVIDENCE. AND THEN WE'LL BE IN A DIFFERENT POSTURE. IF THE DEFENSE CAN ACTUALLY PROVE --

THE COURT: BUT WE'RE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH THE BELL DECLARATION, BUT THERE APPEARS TO BE A PRIMA FACIE CASE.

MS. CLARK: WELL, NO. LET ME ADDRESS THAT THEN, YOUR HONOR, IF I MAY. WITH RESPECT TO THE BELL STATEMENT, STILL AGAIN, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THEIR REQUEST TO ADMIT EVIDENCE OF MOTIVE TO DO AN ACT THAT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH IN ANY -- EVEN BY WAY OF OFFER OF PROOF COULD PHYSICALLY HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED.

WHAT I'M ASKING THE COURT TO DO IS TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING: THAT BEFORE IT -- THIS COURT CONSIDERS ADMITTING EVIDENCE OF KATHLEEN BELL'S STATEMENT, THAT THE DEFENSE BE REQUIRED TO AT LEAST PRESENT PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE THAT WHAT THEY ALLEGE TO HAVE BEEN DONE BY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN COULD ACTUALLY HAVE BEEN DONE, BECAUSE AT THIS POINT WE DON'T EVEN HAVE AN OFFER OF PROOF LET ALONE EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, THAT'S A BASIC RELEVANCY FOUNDATION THAT HAS TO BE SHOWN. BUT THAT BRINGS ME BACK TO MY AGREEMENT WITH COUNSEL, THAT I THINK THE MOTION AT THIS POINT IS PREMATURE.

MS. CLARK: OKAY. AND THE PEOPLE CONCUR. THE PEOPLE CONCUR.

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

MS. CLARK: COUNSEL RAISES A GOOD POINT, YOUR HONOR. THERE'S ONLY ONE PROBLEM WITH THE DEFERRAL OF THIS EVIDENCE; IS WHAT CAN BE STATED -- MADE PUBLIC IN OPENING STATEMENT? IS THE DEFENSE GOING TO BE PERMITTED TO MAKE THESE STATEMENTS, TO MAKE REPRESENTATIONS CONCERNING THESE EVENTS IN OPENING STATEMENT?

THE COURT: WELL, LET'S ASK THEM. DO THEY PLAN TO MENTION THIS?

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: COUNSEL, THE COURT REPORTER INDICATES SHE'S READY FOR A BREAK. SO LET'S TAKE 15. AND WE'LL RESUME AT 3:30.

MR. COCHRAN: AFTER WE RESUME THIS MATTER -- SINCE IT APPEARS WE'RE WINDING DOWN, WHAT ELSE ARE WE GOING TO TAKE UP THIS AFTERNOON?

THE COURT: I WANT TO TALK TO COUNSEL IN CHAMBERS ABOUT SOME JURY ISSUES I HOPE.

MS. CLARK: I'D BETTER RUN UPSTAIRS AND GET MY STUFF.

(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. COUNSEL, THE ISSUE IS POSED WHETHER OR NOT -- WHAT THE POSTURE OF THE DEFENSE WOULD BE.

MR. COCHRAN: AT THIS POINT, YOUR HONOR, DEFENSE HAS HAD OCCASION TO STOP AND THINK ABOUT IT. WE THINK CERTAINLY THE DECLARATION OF KATHLEEN BELL CERTAINLY GOES BEYOND ANY THEORY BEYOND ANY GLOVE. I THINK IT GOES TO BIAS AND INTEREST. IT FITS THESE FACTS AS THE COURT HAS INDICATED, WHICH WE SHOULD NOT BE PRECLUDED FROM USING IN THIS DECLARATION THAT STATES THAT SHE IS A WITNESS. WE DON'T KNOW WHY SHE'S NOT GOING TO BE CALLED. SHE'S VOLUNTEERED TO COME FORWARD. WE THINK AT A MINIMUM, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE KATHLEEN BELL AS A WITNESS ON OUR WITNESS LIST AND DISCUSS HER TESTIMONY. I DON'T SEE ANY -- THE PROBLEM HERE IS PROSCRIBING AREAS. I UNDERSTAND IF THERE'S SOME PROBLEM ABOUT THAT. BUT THIS IS A WITNESS WHO WE THINK WE'VE SHOWN WHY SHE'S RELEVANT. THERE ARE FACTS WHICH UNDER THAT -- SO WE PROPOSE THAT. WE'RE WILLING TO WAIT AND SEE AS THE TRIAL DEVELOPS.

MS. CLARK: WELL, I DON'T SEE WHY THAT'S IN ANY DIFFERENT POSTURE OTHER THAN THE OTHER THINGS, YOUR HONOR. I MEAN COUNSEL IS ASKING TO ADMIT THE TESTIMONY OF KATHLEEN BELL TO --

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, LET ME SAY THIS. MR. COCHRAN APPEARS TO HAVE CONCEDED THAT HE WILL NOT GO INTO THE WORKERS' COMP ISSUE OR THE BRITTON ISSUE IN OPENING STATEMENT. THE ONLY THING HE'S ARGUING THAT IS PLAUSIBLE THAT HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO GO INTO IS THE BELL STATEMENT. SO WHY DON'T WE JUST ADDRESS THE SPECIFICS OF THAT PARTICULAR STATEMENT, AS TO WHY YOU THINK THAT THAT WOULD NOT BE ADMISSIBLE FOR IMPEACHMENT PURPOSES.

MS. CLARK: WELL, IT'S THE SAME ISSUE, YOUR HONOR. TO PROVE WHAT? COUNSEL SEEKS TO IMPEACH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WITH THE TESTIMONY OF KATHLEEN BELL TO PROVE WHAT?

THE COURT: WELL, IT PROVES ANIMUS TOWARD INTERRACIAL COUPLES AND THE WILLINGNESS TO FABRICATE PROBABLE CAUSE TO STOP SOMEBODY. THAT'S WHAT IT SHOWS.

MS. CLARK: AND HOW DOES THAT RELATE TO THE PROFFERED TESTIMONY IN THIS CASE? THAT'S THE POINT.

THE COURT: WELL, WE HAVE AN INTERRACIAL COUPLE HERE, AND THE ALLEGATION IS THAT PART OF THIS EVIDENCE IS SOMEHOW FABRICATED OR PLANTED.

MS. CLARK: THAT'S THE PROBLEM. THAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH THE DEFENSE POSTURE, YOUR HONOR. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THAT. THERE IS NO PRIMA FACIE CASE ESTABLISHED. IT IS PHYSICALLY AN IMPOSSIBILITY WHAT THEY ARE ALLEGING. AND THAT IS WHY I'M ASKING THE COURT TO DEFER ITS RULING AT THIS TIME WITH RESPECT TO --

THE COURT: WELL, IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY HAD THE STATEMENT OF THE PHOTOGRAPHER HELD UP.

MS. CLARK: BUT WE HAVE OTHER STATEMENTS, YOUR HONOR, THAT WILL PROVE IT TO BE A PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY AS WELL. THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH ASKING THE COURT TO RULE IN A BLIND. AT THIS POINT, ALL WE HAVE ARE RATHER INFLAMMATORY ACCUSATIONS MADE BY COUNSEL IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE. AND MR. COCHRAN HAS MISREPRESENTED THE EVIDENCE TO THE COURT EVEN TODAY. MR. COCHRAN REPRESENTED TO THE COURT THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WHEN QUESTIONED ON CROSS-EXAMINATION DURING THE PRELIMINARY HEARING SAID GLOVES, PLURAL. HE DID NOT. THE RECORD REFUTES IT.

MR. COCHRAN: I SAID "THEM".

MS. CLARK: ALSO GLOVES, COUNSEL. AND "THEM" WAS MADE IN THE CONTEXT OF OTHER EVIDENCE. AND AT THE TIME, EVEN MR. UELMEN, WHO WAS CONDUCTING THE CROSS-EXAMINATION, SAW NO SIGNIFICANCE IN THAT STATEMENT BECAUSE IT WAS ALL IN THE CONTEXT OF DISCUSSING ALL OF THE EVIDENCE, AMONG IT, A SINGLE GLOVE AT THE FOOT OF RONALD GOLDMAN. IN HINDSIGHT, COUNSEL DECIDED TO PULL ONE ITEM OUT OF CONTEXT AND TO EXAGGERATE IT IN ORDER TO MAKE AN INFLAMMATORY ACCUSATION. BUT IN FACT, THE ACCUSATION HAS NO BASIS IN PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OR IN PHYSICAL REALITY. AND THAT IS WHY ASKING THE COURT TO RULE IN FAVOR OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THIS EVIDENCE IN A BLIND IS UNFAIR AND UNREASONABLE. WHAT THE COURT NEEDS TO DO IS TO REQUIRE COUNSEL TO ESTABLISH A PRIMA FACIE CASE AT WHICH POINT, IF THEY HAVE DONE SO, WE WILL ALL BE IN A VERY DIFFERENT POSTURE TO RETHINK THE APPLICABILITY OR ADMISSIBILITY OF THAT TESTIMONY. BUT AT THIS TIME, COUNSEL HAS BEEN EVEN UNWILLING TO MAKE AN OFFER OF PROOF TO SHOW THE COURT HOW IT INTENDS TO ESTABLISH A PRIMA FACIE CASE LET ALONE PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE. WE CANNOT PROCEED TO ENGAGE IN DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WHAT IS ADMISSIBLE AND NOT WHEN THE PREDICATE OR THE GOAL OF THE CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT IS STATED BY COUNSEL IS INCAPABLE OF PROOF. IF COUNSEL AVERS THAT IT IS CAPABLE OF PROOF AND HAS A WAY OF PROVING IT AND DOES SO, THEN THAT'S DIFFERENT. THAT'S FINE. BUT AT THIS TIME, THE REQUEST TO ADMIT THAT EVIDENCE IS PREMATURE. AND WHAT WE ASK THE COURT TO DO IS DEFER ITS RULING UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE DEFENSE MAKES A PRIMA FACIE CASE.

THE COURT: THAT'S WHAT I AM DOING. I'M DEFERRING MY RULING. THE ISSUE IS WHETHER OR NOT IT'S APPROPRIATE TO BE MENTIONED IN OPENING STATEMENT. I ASKED -- WHAT MY QUESTION THEN WAS, WHAT DO YOU PROPOSE TO DO, AND MR. COCHRAN IS INDICATING THAT'S WHAT HE PROPOSES TO DO. HOWEVER, I SUSPECT HE WOULD ACCEPT DIRECTION FROM THE COURT ON THAT ISSUE. SO THAT'S YOUR POINT, CORRECT?

MS. CLARK: YES. MY POINT IS THAT I ASK NONE OF IT BE MENTIONED IN OPENING STATEMENT, THAT THE COURT RULE AT THE TIME THAT A PRIMA FACIE CASE IS ESTABLISHED. AND AFTER -- YOU KNOW -- THE PEOPLE'S CASE WILL DEMONSTRATE CERTAIN PHYSICAL REALITIES TO WHAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN OR ANY OFFICER COULD OR COULD NOT DO, CERTAIN PHYSICAL REALITIES WITH RESPECT TO THE SMALLNESS OF THE CRIME SCENE, CERTAIN PHYSICAL REALITIES WITH RESPECT TO THE OFFICERS WHO WERE PRESENT. IT IS A FACT THAT OFFICERS WERE NOT TRAIPSING THROUGH THIS CRIME SCENE CONTAMINATING THE EVIDENCE. IT IS A FACT THAT --

THE COURT: WELL, MISS CLARK, LET ME ASK YOU THIS. I'M MORE INTERESTED IN WHAT'S FAIR FOR OPENING STATEMENTS, WHICH IS HOPEFULLY SOONER THAN LATER.

WOULD IT THEN BE FAIR IF I PROSCRIBE THE DEFENSE FROM GOING INTO FUHRMAN'S BACKGROUND, THAT I PROSCRIBE YOU FROM MENTIONING FUHRMAN IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT?

MS. CLARK: WE'LL ACCEPT THAT.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, YOUR HONOR, I DON'T THINK THIS SHOULD BE LIKE A HORSE TRADING THING --

THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND THAT.

MR. COCHRAN: I WOULD LIKE --

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS WHAT'S FAIR HERE UNTIL WE GET TO AN EVIDENTIARY POINT WHERE I HAVE --

MR. COCHRAN: I UNDERSTAND, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: -- WHERE I HAVE A FACTUAL BASIS TO MAKE A RULING ON WHETHER OR NOT THIS COMES IN. THE POINT BEING THAT IF I'M GOING TO PROSCRIBE YOU FROM GOING AFTER -- MENTIONING PROBLEMS WITH FUHRMAN, WHETHER OR NOT IT IS THEN FAIR TO PROSCRIBE THE PROSECUTION FROM MENTIONING FUHRMAN IN THEIR OPENING STATEMENT.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, I THINK SO, YOUR HONOR. I THINK THIS WHOLE MOTION AS DESCRIBED IS AN ATTEMPT TO HIDE. YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE INTERESTED IN THE TRUTH, WHY IS ALL OF A SUDDEN THE PROSECUTION TRYING TO HIDE EVERYTHING? THAT'S THE THING THAT AMAZES ME. WE'RE NOT TRYING TO PROSCRIBE THEM. ARE THEY SO WORRIED ABOUT WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY? ALL OF A SUDDEN, I BECOME THIS FOCUS WHERE I HAVE SOMETHING I AM GOING TO DISPLAY TO PEOPLE THAT'S GOING TO JUST CUT THROUGH THE HEART OF THEIR CASE? THEY'RE SO WORRIED ABOUT PROSCRIBING, YOUR HONOR, I FEEL SHACKLED ALL OF A SUDDEN. AND I DON'T LIKE FEELING SHACKLED. I WANT TO BE FREE.

MS. CLARK: COUNSEL LOOKS PRETTY FREE TO ME. LET ME INDICATE THIS. COUNSEL HAS FILED NUMEROUS MOTIONS IN LIMINE TO HIDE THINGS, TO KEEP THINGS FROM THE PUBLIC, TO KEEP THINGS FROM THE JURY. AND THE LATEST MOTION IN LIMINE CONCERNING THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS A CLASSIC CASE IN POINT. THE DEFENSE HAS BEEN ATTEMPTING TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE, HAS BEEN ATTEMPTING TO KEEP AWAY EVIDENCE FROM THE JURY, HAS BEEN ATTEMPTING TO LIMIT THE EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE BY THE PROSECUTION. BUT FOR THEM TO COMPLAIN THAT THE PEOPLE SIMPLY ARE ASKING FOR FAIRNESS IN TERMS OF WHAT IS IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE, WHAT IS VIABLE IMPEACHMENT ON AN OFFICER WHO DOES HAVE A LIMITED ROLE IN THE CASE THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO MAGNIFY NOW FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSE IS A VERY UNFAIR ACCUSATION TO MAKE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MS. CLARK: BUT I WOULD --

THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE MORE TO SAY?

MS. CLARK: MAYBE NOT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MS. CLARK: I'M GOING TO SIT DOWN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

MS. LEWIS: MAY WE CONFER JUST A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: SURE.

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

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, IS IT NECESSARY TO MARK THE ARTICLES I HANDED THE COURT YESTERDAY AS EXHIBITS FOR PURPOSES OF THE HEARING?

THE COURT: YES. WE WILL MARK THEM FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS HEARING.

(PEO'S 1 FOR ID = ARTICLE/"TWO NATIONS")

(PEO'S 2 FOR ID = ARTICLE/"SIGNIFICANCE OF RACE")

MR. DARDEN: AND MOVE THEM INTO EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: ANY OBJECTION?

MR. COCHRAN: NO. I DON'T THINK THE COURT NEEDS THEM, BUT THAT'S FINE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THIS IS THE ONE MAIN UNRESOLVED PROBLEM OF OUR SOCIETY. AND FOR THOSE OF US WHO GREW UP IN THE 60'S AND HAD HOPED THIS WAS GOING TO GO AWAY, IT'S A BIG DISAPPOINTMENT TO STILL HAVE TO READ THIS STUFF. YES, I WILL MARK THESE AS PROSECUTION EXHIBITS FOR PURPOSES OF THIS HEARING.

(PEO'S 1 AND 2 = IN EVIDENCE)

THE COURT: THE COURT'S RULING IS AS FOLLOWS: THE COURT DETERMINES THAT THE RULINGS AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE AS TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, THAT THE MOTION AT THIS POINT IS PREMATURE. THE COURT WILL TAKE UNDER SUBMISSION ITS RULING ON WHETHER OR NOT EITHER SIDE WILL BE ALLOWED TO DISCUSS DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S ROLE IN THEIR OPENING STATEMENT. I WANT TO THINK ABOUT THAT ONE. ALL RIGHT. MR. BAILEY.

MR. BAILEY: JUST ONE POINT, YOUR HONOR. IT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME WHETHER THE NON-MENTION OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN MEANS THAT A POLICE OFFICER CAN BE SUBSTITUTED OR WHETHER ALL MENTION OF THE LOCATION OF THE ALLEGED FINDING OF THE GLOVE BE SUBLITERATED.

THE COURT: I HAVEN'T CONTEMPLATED THE FULL RANGE OF THAT ISSUE YET.

MR. BAILEY: I WAS INVITING YOUR HONOR'S ATTENTION TO THE DISTINCTION.

THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND.

MR. COCHRAN: I PRESUME MY LEARNED COLLEAGUE IS SAYING ALSO THAT IT WOULD BE UNFAIR FOR US TO BE PROSCRIBED AND FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO USE OTHER OFFICERS TO TRY TO SAY THE SAME THING TO THE JURY. SO IT SHOULD HAVE EQUAL INQUIRY. I'M SURE THE COURT HAS THAT IN MIND. AS IT TURNS OUT -- EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR. WE DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO RESPOND TO MISS CLARK. I WAS RESTRAINING -- I SAT HERE BECAUSE IT WAS HER LAST TIME TO SPEAK. BUT AT SOME POINT, SINCE SHE STARTED ARGUING THE MOTION, WE WILL BE ABLE TO DISCUSS THAT WITH THE COURT; CAN WE NOT?

MS. CLARK: WELL, YOUR HONOR, AS I UNDERSTAND THE RULES OF COURT, COUNSEL BROUGHT --

THE COURT: NO. WHAT HAPPENED IS, THERE WAS A MOTION IN LIMINE THAT I'VE RULED IS PREMATURE. THE ISSUE THEN BECOMES, AS A BRAND NEW ISSUE, AS TO WHAT THE PEOPLE GET TO TALK ABOUT IN OPENING STATEMENTS. I THINK EITHER SIDE CAN BE HEARD ON THAT. BUT I THINK I'VE HEARD --

MR. COCHRAN: I'M JUST SAYING I DID NOT WANT TO BE HEARD ON IT NOW. AND I'M NOT -- BUT AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME, IF THE COURT DEEMS IT APPROPRIATE, WE WOULD LIKE TO SHARE SOME THOUGHTS. SHE GOT A CHANCE TO.

MS. CLARK: WELL, THE PEOPLE ACTUALLY WOULD LIKE TO SHARE FURTHER THOUGHTS WITH THE COURT ABOUT -- WE REALLY DIDN'T ADDRESS THAT, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT INDICATED SOMETHING SHOULD BE DONE ABOUT THE OPENING STATEMENT. BUT I WOULD ASK LEAVE OF THE COURT TO SUBMIT PROPOSITIONS IN TERMS OF WHAT BOTH SIDES SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO ADDRESS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. FILE SOMETHING ON TUESDAY.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: I'M SURE YOUR MINIONS WILL BE HAPPY TO HAVE THIS TASK FOR THE WEEKEND. ALL RIGHT. THEN IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE WE NEED TO DO ON THE RECORD, I WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO COUNSEL ABOUT SOME OF THE JURY ISSUES IN CHAMBERS. AND, COUNSEL, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE ON MY CALENDAR EXCEPT FOR ANTICIPATED OPENING STATEMENTS THURSDAY. AND I INDICATED TO YOU THAT I ANTICIPATE RULING TUESDAY ON THE MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, AND HOPEFULLY TUESDAY, BUT PERHAPS WEDNESDAY. THERE ARE SOME REMAINING SMALL DISCOVERY ISSUES. DO WE NEED TO RESOLVE THOSE ON THE RECORD? ANY OTHER CONTROVERSY? I'M JUST TRYING TO SET THE SCHEDULE FOR NEXT WEEK.

MR. UELMEN: WE FILED A MOTION TODAY, YOUR HONOR, FOLLOWING UP ON YOUR HONOR'S REQUEST THAT OBJECTION TO THE MENTION OF NEW WITNESSES IN OPENING STATEMENT --

THE COURT: RIGHT.

MR. UELMEN: -- SHOULD BE FILED. WE FILED A FORMAL LIST INDICATING THAT THERE WERE I BELIEVE OVER 200 NEW WITNESSES ON THE WITNESS LIST.

THE COURT: THERE WAS ALSO A MOTION TO EXCLUDE WITNESSES.

MR. UELMEN: YES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I GUESS WE WILL HAVE TO TAKE THAT UP THEN.

MR. SHAPIRO: WE ALSO, YOUR HONOR, FILED ANOTHER MOTION TODAY REGARDING WHAT WITNESSES WILL BE ALLOWED TO BE IN COURT.

MS. CLARK: HE ALREADY SAID THAT.

THE COURT: WHY DON'T WE CALENDAR THOSE THEN FOR WEDNESDAY AT 9:00 O'CLOCK.

MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU, JUDGE.

MS. LEWIS: AND ALONG WITH THAT MOTION, MR. UELMEN INDICATED HE FILED A LIST, BUT I BELIEVE YOUR HONOR ALSO WOULD REQUIRE A SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE AS PART OF THE ORDER, IS THE WAY I READ THE MINUTE ORDER.

THE COURT: WELL, I HAVEN'T READ THE MOTION YET. SO I'M SURE THAT WILL BE IT. DEAN UELMEN, I THINK YOU'RE STARTING YOUR TENOR AT STANFORD NEXT WEEK?

MR. UELMEN: YES, SIR.

THE COURT: GOOD LUCK.

MR. UELMEN: I'LL STILL BE HOVERING IN THE BACKGROUND.

THE COURT: I SUSPECTED SO. THEN, COUNSEL, WE WILL STAND -- AND THE COURT WILL BE HERE PRESENT, PHYSICALLY PRESENT ON TUESDAY IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT NEEDS TO COME UP.

MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY. I COULDN'T HEAR THE COURT.

THE COURT: I'LL BE HERE TUESDAY IF ANYTHING COMES UP.

MR. COCHRAN: WE'RE NOT DUE IN COURT ON TUESDAY? EXPECT THE OPENING STATEMENT ON THURSDAY?

MS. CLARK: WHAT ABOUT THE WALK THROUGH?

THE COURT: WE HAVE -- WE'LL HAVE THE SET UP PHYSICALLY TOMORROW, AND YOU'LL HAVE ALL DAY TUESDAY TO PLAY WITH THE GIZMOS. AND I ASSUME THAT YOU CAN INFORMALLY ADVISE EACH OTHER OF YOUR OPENING STATEMENT EXHIBITS, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. AND IF THERE'S ANY CONTROVERSY, AS I INDICATED, I WILL BE HERE TUESDAY, OR NEED BE, WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON, AND WE CAN LITIGATE ANY CONTROVERSY OVER OPENING STATEMENT EXHIBITS, WHICH THERE WILL BE NONE.

MR. COCHRAN: SAY THAT AGAIN, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: THERE WILL BE NO CONTROVERSY.

MR. COCHRAN: NO EXHIBITS?

THE COURT: NO CONTROVERSIES.

MR. COCHRAN: PREGNANT WITH THE NOTION --

THE COURT: NO CONTROVERSIES. WE'RE ALL EXPERIENCED COUNSEL HERE AND WE KNOW WHAT FLIES AND WHAT DOESN'T. THAT WAS JUST MY OPTIMISTIC THINKING AS USUAL. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. HAVE A NICE WEEKEND.

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, MAY I SEE THE COURT IN CHAMBERS?

THE COURT: WE HAVE TO GO INTO CHAMBERS AND TALK ABOUT OUR JURY MATTER.

(PROCEEDINGS HELD IN CAMERA, TRANSCRIBED AND SEALED UNDER SEPARATE COVER.)

(AT 4:20 P.M., AN ADJOURNMENT WAS TAKEN UNTIL, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18, 1995, 9:00 A.M.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

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

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, )
)
PLAINTIFF, )
)
) VS. ) NO. BA097211
)
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, )
)
)
DEFENDANT. )

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

FRIDAY, JANUARY 13, 1995
VOLUME 70

PAGES 10935 THROUGH 11095, INCLUSIVE
(PAGES 11077 THROUGH 11095, SEALED)

APPEARANCES: (SEE PAGE 2)

JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR #4588
CHRISTINE M. OLSON, CSR #2378 OFFICIAL REPORTERS

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE PEOPLE: GIL GARCETTI, DISTRICT ATTORNEY
BY: MARCIA R. CLARK, WILLIAM W.
HODGMAN, CHRISTOPHER A. DARDEN,
CHERI A. LEWIS, ROCKNE P. HARMON,
GEORGE W. CLARKE, SCOTT M. GORDON
LYDIA C. BODIN AND HANK M.
GOLDBERG, DEPUTIES
18-000 CRIMINAL COURTS BUILDING
210 WEST TEMPLE STREET
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012

FOR THE DEFENDANT: ROBERT L. SHAPIRO, ESQUIRE
SARA L. CAPLAN, ESQUIRE
2121 AVENUE OF THE STARS
19TH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067

JOHNNIE L. COCHRAN, JR., ESQUIRE
BY: CARL E. DOUGLAS, ESQUIRE
SHAWN SNIDER CHAPMAN, ESQUIRE
4929 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
SUITE 1010
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90010

GERALD F. UELMEN, ESQUIRE
ROBERT KARDASHIAN, ESQUIRE
ALAN DERSHOWITZ, ESQUIRE
F. LEE BAILEY, ESQUIRE
BARRY SCHECK, ESQUIRE
ROBERT D. BLASIER, ESQUIRE

ALSO APPEARING: CARL JONES, ESQUIRE

I N D E X

INDEX FOR VOLUME 70 PAGES 10935 - 11095

-----------------------------------------------------

DAY DATE SESSION PAGE VOL.

FRIDAY JANUARY 13, 1995 A.M. 10935 70 P.M. 11007 70
-----------------------------------------------------

PROCEEDINGS

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA 10936 70
(MARGUERITE THOMAS)

MOTION IN LIMINE RE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN 10942 70

EXHIBITS

PEOPLE'S (1101B) FOR IN
EXHIBIT IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE

PAGE VOL. PAGE VOL.

1 THROUGH 10 - 10940 70

11 - THREE (3) BINDERS 10940 70
AND A VIDEOTAPE

-----------------------------------------------------

PEOPLE'S (IN LIMINE) FOR IN
EXHIBIT IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE

PAGE VOL. PAGE VOL.

1 - ARTICLE 11070 70 11071 70
"TWO NATIONS" BY ANDREW HACKER

2 - ARTICLE 11070 70 11071 70
"THE CONTINUING SIGNIFICANCE OF RACE; ANTIBLACK DISCRIMINATION IN PUBLIC PLACES" BY JOE R. FEAGIN