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

APPEARANCES: (APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED;
ALSO APPEARING, CARL HENRY, ESQUIRE,
REPRESENTING CARL JONES, ESQUIRE,
REPRESENTING MARGUERITE THOMAS.)

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

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, COUNSEL.

MR. SHAPIRO: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: MATTER OF PEOPLE VERSUS O.J. SIMPSON. MR. SIMPSON IS NOW PRESENT AGAIN BEFORE THE COURT WITH HIS COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. DOUGLAS, MR. BAILEY. THE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED BY MISS CLARK, MR. DARDEN AND MR. HODGMAN. WE HAVE A NUMBER OF MATTERS TO TAKE UP BEFORE WE BEGIN THE PRE-INSTRUCTIONS AND OPENING STATEMENTS. COUNSEL, THE FIRST MATTER IS THE MOTION TO QUASH THE SUBPOENA FOR MARGUERITE SIMPSON THOMAS. MR. JONES IS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE PURPORTED WITNESS.

MR. HODGMAN: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. I WILL BE ADDRESSING THAT MATTER ON THE PART OF THE PEOPLE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. HENRY: CARL HENRY, YOUR HONOR, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ATTORNEY JONES, IF HE IS REQUIRED TO TESTIFY.

MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, WITH REGARD TO THAT MATTER, FIRST OF ALL, I WILL NOT BE SEEKING TO EXAMINE MR. JONES. I SPOKE TO HIM YESTERDAY, AND FOR PURPOSES OF THE RECORD, I DON'T THINK THAT IS NECESSARY; HOWEVER, WE WILL BE ASKING THAT THIS MATTER GO OVER TO FEBRUARY THE 1ST AT 4:00 P.M. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE JURY PROCEEDINGS FOR THE DAY.

THE COURT: AND WHY IS THAT?

MR. HODGMAN: WHY IS THAT? BECAUSE BASICALLY IN AN EFFORT TO BE ABLE TO RESOLVE THE SITUATION MORE EXPEDITIOUSLY THAN WITH A FULL BLOWN HEARING. AND I HAVE BEEN SPEAKING WITH MR. JONES. I AM GOING TO BE HANDLING THIS MOTION ON THE PART OF THE PEOPLE AND IT MAY BE THROUGH PROFFERS WE CAN SIMPLY GET THIS RESOLVED BY THIS COURT IN A MORE EXPEDITIOUS FASHION.

THE COURT: MR. JONES?

MR. JONES: YOUR HONOR, WE DID SPEAK YESTERDAY, SUNDAY. I WAS WORKING.

THE COURT: JOIN THE CROWD.

MR. JONES: I HAD REQUESTED A FRIDAY. THAT WAS INCONVENIENT FOR THE PEOPLE. AND SO WE ARRIVED AT THE FOUR O'CLOCK SETTING AS A COMPROMISE, IF THAT IS CONVENIENT TO THE COURT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THEN WE WILL --

MR. JONES: I WOULD ESTIMATE, EXCUSE ME FOR INTERRUPTING, THAT I DO HAVE ONE WITNESS AND I WOULD ESTIMATE APPROXIMATELY 45 MINUTES TOTAL FOR THE MOTION, WHICH WOULD CARRY US TO 4:45 OR THEREABOUTS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THEN ON THE PROSECUTION REQUEST, THIS MATTER WILL BE CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY THE 1ST AT 4:00 P.M. AND THE BENCH WARRANT -- EXCUSE ME -- THE BODY ATTACHMENT PREVIOUSLY ISSUED AND HELD WILL BE CONTINUED TO BE HELD UNTIL THAT DATE AND TIME.

MR. JONES: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL. COUNSEL, WE WILL HAVE SOME OTHER ITEMS REGARDING INSTRUCTIONS. MISS ROBERTSON.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE COURT AND THE CLERK.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, ON THE PROPOSED INSTRUCTIONS, PRE-INSTRUCTIONS THAT THE COURT IS GOING TO GIVE, I JUST WANTED TO PUT A FEW THINGS ON THE RECORD. THE COURT'S INSTRUCTIONS INCLUDE 4.50 CALJIC ALIBI, WILL INCLUDE CONFLICTING EXPERTS, WEIGHING CONFLICTING TESTIMONY, WHICH ASSUMES THAT THE DEFENSE WILL BE PRESENTING A DEFENSE. SO NOT WAIVING -- I UNDERSTAND THAT BY AGREEING TO THOSE INSTRUCTIONS YOU ARE NOT WAIVING YOUR RIGHT TO MAKE AN 1118.1 MOTION, BUT ASSUMING WE GET TO THAT POINT, I TAKE IT THAT IS AGREEABLE TO THE DEFENSE?

MR. COCHRAN: THAT IS AGREEABLE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ALSO, NO PARTY OFFERED 2.0 OR 2.61, DEFENDANT NOT TESTIFYING AND ANY ASSUMPTION OR INFERENCE TO BE DRAWN FROM THAT FACT. WHAT IS THE DEFENSE POSITION ON THAT AT THIS TIME?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, AT THIS POINT -- WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR THAT INSTRUCTION AT THIS POINT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OBJECTIONS THE COURT NEEDS TO RULE UPON CONCERNING THE EXHIBITS, PROPOSED EXHIBITS FOR THE OPENING STATEMENTS, CORRECT? ALL RIGHT. EXCUSE ME JUST A SECOND. MR. HILL.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE COURT AND THE LAW CLERK.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. DOUGLAS, ARE YOU GOING TO HANDLE THIS MATTER?

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, YES, MAY WE APPROACH ON THIS MATTER?

THE COURT: SURE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: OKAY. MR. DOUGLAS.

MR. DOUGLAS: MY OBJECTIONS, OR THE REASON THAT I'M APPROACHING IS TWO-FOLD: ON THE ONE HAND, I WOULD LIKE TO LODGE OBJECTIONS TO SOME OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT THE PROSECUTION INTENDS TO USE IN THEIR OPENING STATEMENT. AND SECONDLY, I WOULD LIKE TO APPROACH TO ADVISE THE COURT THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE, PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF OUR OPENING STATEMENT, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PROSECUTION TO REVIEW ALL OF OUR GRAPHICS AND TO REVIEW SOME OF OUR BOARDS. REGRETTABLY, ALL OF OUR GRAPHICS AND SOME OF OUR BOARDS WERE NOT COMPLETED BY LAST FRIDAY WHEN WE HAD THE MUTUAL EXCHANGE. THERE WERE SOME CHANGES THAT WE MADE ON SOME OF THEM. THERE WERE SOME THAT WERE ADDED, THERE HAS BEEN SOME FINE TUNING THAT OCCURRED EVEN LAST NIGHT. AND I DO NOT WANT TO NOT GIVE THE PEOPLE THE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW OUR BOARDS. PERHAPS AN HOUR WOULD BE TIME.

THE COURT: I HAVE THE FEELING, MISS CLARK, THAT YOU WILL GET US TO THE LUNCH HOUR JUST WARMING UP. THAT IS A GOOD SUGGESTION, THAT WE LOOK AT THOSE OVER THE LUNCH HOUR.

MS. CLARK: WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO IN THE MEANTIME?

THE COURT: THEIR EXHIBITS WE ARE GOING TO LOOK AT.

MS. CLARK: I WOULD LIKE TO LOOK AT THEM BEFORE WE STAND UP. I THINK THAT -- YOU KNOW, I WOULD LIKE TO RESOLVE WHAT IS GOING TO BE PRESENTED TO THE JURY, IF WE COULD, BEFORE WE BEGIN OPENING STATEMENTS, BECAUSE I THINK IT IS -- FIRST OF ALL, WE ARE GOING TO WIND UP JUST DOING ARGUMENT ON WHAT OURS ARE? THE COURT NEEDS TO SEE BALANCE HERE. THIS IS REAL UNFAIR, YOUR HONOR. WHEN I TALKED TO MR. DOUGLAS SATURDAY THERE WERE ABOUT TWENTY LESS EXHIBITS THAN THEY BROUGHT IN HERE, AND WE WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE AN EXHIBIT EXCHANGE AHEAD OF TIME SO THAT WE WOULD KNOW WHAT WE WERE CONFRONTING. NOW BY SANDBAGGING US AT THE LAST MINUTE THEY ARE JUMPING AND THROWING --

THE COURT: SO YOU WANT TO SEE THEM BEFORE YOU MAKE THE OPENING STATEMENT?

MS. CLARK: I SURE DO, AND THAT IS WHAT THE COURT INTENDED WHEN IT ASKED FOR THE EXHIBIT EXCHANGE AHEAD OF TIME.

MR. DOUGLAS: SO THE COURT UNDERSTANDS, THE EXHIBITS ARE DEMONSTRATIVE WHICH ARE GOING TO BE USED TO ILLUSTRATE PORTIONS OF OPENING STATEMENT THAT ARE GIVEN.

THE OPENING STATEMENTS ARE GOING TO BE GIVEN WHETHER OR NOT THE EXHIBITS ARE HERE OR NOT HERE, SO I'M NOT SURE, ALTHOUGH I DON'T WANT TO PRECLUDE MISS CLARK FROM KNOWING WHAT OUR BOARDS ARE, I'M JUST TRYING TO BALANCE THE COURT'S TIME AND TIME THAT IS AVAILABLE, BUT WHETHER OR NOT A PARTICULAR PICTURE, FOR EXAMPLE, IS OBJECTIONABLE OR NOT DOESN'T MEAN THAT MR. COCHRAN OR WHOMEVER IS SPEAKING IS GOING TO ALTER --

THE COURT: LET'S TAKE THIS FROM THE TOP. SINCE THE PROSECUTION GOES FIRST, WHAT ARE YOUR OBJECTIONS TO THE PEOPLE'S EXHIBITS?

MR. DOUGLAS: MY OBJECTION TO THE PEOPLE'S EXHIBITS? TWO AREAS, AND THAT DEALS WITH PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE CRIME SCENE.

THE COURT: OKAY.

MR. DOUGLAS: AS I RECALL, THERE ARE FIVE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE VICTIM SIMPSON, ONE TAKEN OUTSIDE THE YELLOW TAPE AS IF IT WERE TAKEN FROM THE STREET AREA AND IT LOOKS DOWN THE WALKWAY AND SHOWS THE BODY LAYING THERE. THERE WAS ANOTHER PICTURE THAT IS TAKEN PERHAPS MIDWAY THROUGH THE WALKWAY AND A CLOSER VIEW OF THE SAME SCENE. THERE IS ANOTHER PICTURE TAKEN WHICH IS AGAIN A CLOSER VIEW OF THE SAME SCENE. I BELIEVE THERE IS A FOURTH PICTURE TAKEN WHICH IS AGAIN A CLOSE-UP OF THE SAME SCENE. THERE IS THEN A FIFTH PICTURE TAKEN WHICH IS FROM ABOVE LOOKING DOWN AT THE HEAD SHOWING ALL OF THE BLOOD. I RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS A MURDER CASE AND I RECOGNIZE THAT THERE ARE DEAD BODIES IN MURDER CASES; HOWEVER, I DO BELIEVE IT PRUDENT FOR THE COURT TO EXERCISE SOME DISCRETION IN LIMITING THE NUMBER AND THE GRAPHICNESS AND ELIMINATING THOSE PICTURES THAT ARE FAR MORE GRAPHIC. THERE ARE AT LEAST THREE OR FOUR, I THINK THREE, PERHAPS FOUR, PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE GOLDMAN BODY. AGAIN I REALIZE THAT THIS IS A MURDER CASE AND THERE IS PROBATIVE VALUE TO EXPLAINING THE LOCATION OF THE BODIES. THERE ARE OTHER DIAGRAMS THAT THEY ARE GOING TO OFFER WHERE THERE WILL BE A SKETCH SHOWING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO BODIES, WHERE THEY ARE OUTLINED, TO WHICH I DO NOT OBJECT. BUT I DO NOT THINK THERE IS THE NEED FOR FOUR DIFFERENT PHOTOGRAPHS TO BE USED AT THIS POINT. I THINK IT CUMULATIVE. I THINK IT MORE THAN PROBATIVE. I WAS WILLING, FOR EXAMPLE, TO ACCEPT THE FIRST PICTURE FOR THE OVERVIEW AND THE THIRD PICTURE OF MISS SIMPSON. I WAS WILLING, FOR EXAMPLE, TO ACCEPT TWO OF THE FOUR PICTURES OF MR. GOLDMAN, BUT I DO NOT THINK, IN FAIRNESS TO THE DEFENDANT, THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE THE CUMULATIVE NATURE OF ALL OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS. THEY ARE ON GRAPHICS. THEY CAN EASILY BE SCANNED OR VOIDED.

THE COURT: EXCUSE ME.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: COUNSEL, WE ARE IN SESSION.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. DOUGLAS: THEY ARE ON GRAPHICS, THEY ARE ALL BAR CODED SO THAT THEY CAN VOID 1 OR VOID 50, DEPENDING ON THE COURT'S RULING, BUT I DO THINK THE COURT SHOULD EXERCISE SOME DISCRETION.

THE COURT: WELL, IT IS HARD FOR ME TO DO THAT WITHOUT LOOKING AT THEM. ALL RIGHT. SO YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT ROUGHLY PERHAPS NINE PHOTOS THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS SHOWN YOU THAT YOU OBJECT TO, CORRECT?

MR. DOUGLAS: YES. I DON'T OBJECT TO THEM AS A THRESHOLD MATTER. I WOULD OBJECT TO SIX OF THE NINE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, CAN YOU BRING THOSE UP AND SHOW THEM TO ME?

MS. CLARK: IN SOME FORM I CAN. THIS IS WEIRD. WE HAVE -- WE HAVE THEM READY TO BE SCANNED IN, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN, FOR THE SCREEN, BUT THEY ARE TINY. WHAT I HAVE IS A REPRESENTATION TO SHOW THE COURT RIGHT NOW IS A VERY TINY THING.

THE COURT: I HAVE A MONITOR SCREEN HERE. I CAN LOOK AT IT.

MS. CLARK: OH, GREAT. LET'S DO THAT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MS. CLARK: LET ME SAY TO THE COURT, BEFORE I ACTUALLY ADDRESS THE COURT COMPLETELY ON THEM, THAT THERE ARE MANY, MANY MORE PHOTOGRAPHS AT THE CRIME SCENE THAT ARE FAR MORE GRUESOME THAN WHAT WE HAVE USED. WE TOOK THE MOST CONSERVATIVE VIEW THAT WE COULD. AND WHAT WE DID IS WE TOOK DIFFERENT POSITIONS SO THE JURY COULD SEE THE JUXTAPOSITION OF THE VICTIM AT THE CRIME SCENE, THE CORRELATION OF ALL OF THE EVIDENCE TO THEM, SO LET ME LET THE COURT LOOK AND TALK MORE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, LET ME ADVISE OUR EVIDENCE PRESENTATION PEOPLE THAT THERE IS AN OBJECTION TO PERHAPS TEN OF THE EXHIBITS THAT THE PROSECUTION WISHES TO PRESENT DURING THE COURSE OF OPENING STATEMENTS. I NEED TO VIEW THOSE HERE ON MY MONITOR SCREEN. WHAT DO YOU SUGGEST I DO AS FAR AS -- BECAUSE THESE ARE NOT FOR DISSEMINATION AT THIS POINT. CAN WE ACCOMPLISH THAT, MR. REITER?

MR. REITER: YES. DO COUNSEL NEED TO SEE THEM AS WELL ON THEIR MONITOR?

THE COURT: I BELIEVE SO.

MR. REITER: THEN THEY CAN BRING THEM UP WHENEVER THE PROSECUTION IS READY AND IT WILL JUST BE ON THOSE THREE MONITORS.

THE COURT: FINE.

MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, DO YOU WANT THOSE ON THE TABLE MONITORS AS WELL?

MR. BAILEY: WE CAN SHUT THOSE DOWN.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I'M ALSO GOING TO DIRECT THE STILL PHOTOGRAPHERS NOT TO ATTEMPT TO TAKE ANY PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE COURT'S MONITOR, AS WELL AS THE T.V. CAMERA.

MR. REITER: JUDGE ITO, WE WILL HAVE TO CUT THE VIDEO FEED OFF FROM YOUR SWITCH.

MR. HODGMAN: AND JUDGE, WITH REGARD TO THE TABLE MONITORS, YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE THAT REALLY NEEDS TO SEE THEM?

THE COURT: CORRECT.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I SEE WHAT APPEARS TO BE AN ALLEYWAY IN THE BACK OF THE BUILDING. IS THIS A TEST PHOTO?

MS. CLARK: IT SHOULD NOT BE SHOWN UP THERE, RIGHT.

THE COURT: THAT IS CORRECT.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHAT IS THE PEOPLE'S IDENTIFICATION NUMBER OF THIS PHOTOGRAPH?

MS. CLARK: PEOPLE'S I.D. NO. P-40.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. NEXT. WHAT IS THE PEOPLE'S IDENTIFICATION NUMBER?

MS. CLARK: P-35.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. DOUGLAS: I OBJECT TO THAT ONE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. NEXT. WHAT IS THE NUMBER?

MS. CLARK: P-113.

THE COURT: 113?

MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: NEXT.

MS. CLARK: P-44.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MS. CLARK: AND HERE IS ONE THAT I THINK -- I'M NOT SURE WHETHER WE TALKED ABOUT IT SATURDAY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. NEXT.

MS. CLARK: THAT IS P-417.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. NEXT.

MS. CLARK: LET ME JUST MAKE SURE, YOUR HONOR.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, IS THERE ANY PARTICULAR REASON WE NEED TO HEAR THIS ARGUMENT AT SIDE BAR?

MS. CLARK: NOT THAT I KNOW OF.

THE COURT: 352 OBJECTION ESSENTIALLY.

MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT.

THE COURT: I HAVE HEARD THE OBJECTION OF THE DEFENSE. AS TO THESE FIVE ITEMS, MR. DOUGLAS, YOU INDICATED THERE IS NO OBJECTION TO PEOPLE'S 417, WHICH IS THE PHOTOGRAPH OF MR. SIMPSON'S HAND, CORRECT?

MR. DOUGLAS: THAT'S CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SO THE OBJECTIONS ARE TO THE OTHER FOUR. MISS CLARK, I WILL HEAR YOUR ARGUMENT AS TO PEOPLE'S 40.

MS. CLARK: PEOPLE'S, I'M SORRY, 40?

THE COURT: 40.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MS. CLARK: YES. WITH RESPECT TO PEOPLE'S 40, LET ME FIRST PREFACE MY REMARKS WITH THIS, YOUR HONOR. WE HAD SHOWN MR. DOUGLAS --

THE COURT: EXCUSE ME.

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, WHEN I WAS SHOWN THE PHOTOGRAPHS ON FRIDAY I WAS SHOWN A LARGER SERIES OF PHOTOGRAPHS. GIVEN THAT THIS IS THE ONE PHOTOGRAPH OF AN EXTENDED SERIES THAT THEY ARE GOING TO OFFER, I WILL NOT OBJECT TO THAT ONE.

THE COURT: PEOPLE'S 40?

MR. DOUGLAS: CORRECT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. PEOPLE'S 35.

MR. DOUGLAS: I DO OBJECT TO THAT ONE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR. ACTUALLY THIS IS A FAR LESS GORY PHOTOGRAPH THAN MANY, MANY, MANY OF THE OTHERS THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE, AND THE VALUE OF IT UNDER 352 IS CLEARLY SHOWN, THE PROBATIVE VALUE THAT IS. WE ARE SHOWING EVIDENCE IN ITS RELATIONSHIP LOCATION, NATURALLY SPEAKING, TO THE VICTIM, THE MANNER IN WHICH THE SPACIAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THEM, AND THE POSITION OF THE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE IN RELATION TO THE VICTIM SO THAT WE CAN SHOW HOW CLOSE AND NARROW THE AREA IS, THE POSITIONS OF EACH OF THE VICTIMS AND THE POSITION OF THE EVIDENCE VIS-A-VIS THOSE VICTIMS. AND THE COURT CAN SEE THAT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IS BEING POINTED TO IN THAT PHOTOGRAPH, SO THE PROBATIVE VALUE CLEARLY OUTWEIGHS ANY PREJUDICIAL EFFECT. I WOULD LIKE TO CITE THE COURT AS WELL TO THE CASE OF PEOPLE VERSUS PRIDE, 3 CAL.4TH 195.

THE COURT: WHICH STANDS FOR WHAT PROPOSITION, MISS CLARK?

MS. CLARK: FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF A VIDEOTAPE AND --

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

MS. CLARK: EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR.

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

MS. CLARK: AND PEOPLES VERSUS SIMS, 5 CAL.4TH, 405. BOTH OF THESE CASES I CITED TO THE COURT PRIOR TO SIMS ADDRESS VIDEOTAPES AS WELL AS GRUESOME PHOTOS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING RELEVANT FACTS IN THE CASE. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE THE PEOPLE HAVE WEEDED OUT NUMEROUS PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WERE EXTREMELY GRAPHIC IN NATURE IN FAVOR OF THE MORE MINIMALIST APPROACH OF TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WERE THE LEAST GRAPHIC IN NATURE, BUT STILL CONVEYED THE MESSAGE IN AN EVIDENTIARY SENSE TO INDICATE WHAT WE NEEDED TO IN TERMS OF THE INFORMATION THAT WE ARE TRYING TO GIVE TO THE JURY. SO THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT THE COURT SEES IS EVEN LESS THAN WHAT MR. DOUGLAS WAS SHOWN ON FRIDAY BECAUSE MR. DOUGLAS INDICATED THERE WOULD BE OBJECTIONS TO TOO MANY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT THE PEOPLE FELT WERE NOTHING MORE THAN ILLUSTRATIVE OF IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND CERTAINLY NOT UNDULY GRAPHIC. BUT WE EVEN CUT BACK FROM THAT SO WHAT THE COURT IS SEEING HERE IS THE MOST MINIMUM, IS THE VERY BAREST MINIMUM THAT THE PEOPLE NEED TO SHOW TO EXPLAIN TO THE JURY WHERE EVIDENCE WAS LOCATED AND WHERE THE VICTIMS WERE FOUND, IN WHAT POSITION AND IN WHAT RELATIONSHIP TO EACH OTHER.

THE COURT: MR. DOUGLAS IS OBVIOUSLY GOING TO ARGUE THAT WE COULD DEPICT THAT BY A DIAGRAM WITHOUT HAVING A BLOODY CRIME SCENE PHOTO.

MS. CLARK: WE REALLY CAN'T. THIS CRIME SCENE IS VERY DIFFICULT TO DEPICT, EVEN IN PHOTOGRAPHS, AND WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A JURY VIEWING FOR THAT REASON, BUT PHOTOGRAPHS ARE CERTAINLY BETTER THAN A DIAGRAM. WE TRIED TO DEPICT IT IN A DIAGRAM AND IT DOESN'T EXPLAIN AND IT DOESN'T SHOW THE JURY CLEARLY ENOUGH WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO CONVEY TO THEM. AND THERE IS NOTHING THAT IS MORE EXPLANATORY, NOTHING MORE READILY ACCEPTABLE OR UNDERSTANDABLE TO A JURY THAN A PHOTOGRAPH. THAT IS WHY WE'VE HAD THEM. THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THEM. DIAGRAMS CAN ONLY CONVEY SO MUCH, BUT THE ACTUAL ITEM ITSELF, THE PHOTOGRAPH OF IT, IS MUCH MORE INFORMATIVE, IS SIMPLY MORE INFORMATIVE THAN A DIAGRAM. WE DO ATTEMPT TO USE DIAGRAMS AS WELL, BUT IT SIMPLY DOES NOT HAVE THE FORCE AND IMPACT THAT A PHOTOGRAPH DOES. THAT IS WHY COUNSEL IS OBJECTING TO IT. THAT IS EXACTLY THE POINT, YOUR HONOR. IF A DIAGRAM WAS AS GOOD AS A PHOTOGRAPH OR WAS THE SAME AS A PHOTOGRAPH, COUNSEL WOULDN'T OBJECT TO THE PHOTOGRAPHS. THE POINT IS THAT THE PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO EXPLAIN SOMETHING TO THE JURY AND WE NEED TO DO IT IN THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY POSSIBLE.

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

MS. CLARK: NOT ONLY THAT, YOUR HONOR, I WILL SAY THIS: THE PHOTOGRAPHS WE ARE USING ARE REALLY THE MOST MINIMAL IN TERMS OF GRAPHIC IMPACT. NEVERTHELESS, THE PEOPLE'S POSITION IS THAT WE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO SHOW PHOTOGRAPHS FAR MORE GRAPHIC THAN THAT BECAUSE IT IS RELEVANT TO MALICE AND TO INTENT WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY WHAT THE PEOPLE HAVE TO PROVE IN THIS CASE, SO THIS IS THE VERY MOST MINIMAL IMPACT. WE ALSO HAVE SHOWN IN --

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, WOULD YOU ADDRESS PEOPLE'S 113, THE PHOTOGRAPH OF RONALD GOLDMAN.

MS. CLARK: THAT IS TRULY -- I DON'T KNOW WHY -- I WONDER IF THE DEFENSE IS REALLY STILL OBJECTING TO THAT. THAT IS THE ONLY DEPICTION OF THAT VICTIM.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MS. CLARK: AND IT IS A FAR OFF SHOT. IT IS ABOUT AS MINIMAL AS WE CAN POSSIBLY GET.

THE COURT: WELL, IT IS NOT FAR OFF. IT IS A FULL FRAME.

MS. CLARK: IT IS FULL FRAME BUT THERE ARE CLOSER SHOTS THAT COUNSEL IS AWARE OF THAT WE COULD HAVE USED AND DID NOT, SO I'M GOING TO ASK TO SEE IF COUNSEL STILL OBJECTS TO THIS. IT IS THE ONLY DEPICTION THAT WE HAVE.

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, IF MISS CLARK IS SAYING TO THE COURT THAT THAT WILL BE THE ONLY PHOTOGRAPH OF MR. GOLDMAN OR OF THE GOLDMAN BODY THAT SHE IS GOING TO BE USING IN HER OPENING, I RESPECT THAT AND I WOULD ALLOW THAT ONE PHOTOGRAPH TO BE USED.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. DOUGLAS: BUT I DO THINK, YOUR HONOR, THAT THE EXHIBIT P-35, AS WELL AS EXHIBIT P-44, ARE FAR MORE PREJUDICIAL --

THE COURT: HOLD ON. LET ME HEAR HER COMMENTS.

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, THERE ARE OTHER PHOTOGRAPHS THAT I WAS REMINDED. THAT IS ANOTHER QUESTION.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, PEOPLE'S 44. WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE OF THIS PARTICULAR PHOTOGRAPH? WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE AND NECESSITY OF THIS PHOTOGRAPH?

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

MS. CLARK: WITH RESPECT TO P-44, WE HAVE -- PART OF THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, VERY IMPORTANT EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE ARE THE BLOODY SHOEPRINTS. THERE IS ONE SET OF BLOODY SHOEPRINTS LEAVING THE SCENE OF THE CRIME GOING BACK TO THE REAR ALLEY AND THE BLOOD THAT THE DEFENDANT STEPPED IN TO CREATE THOSE BLOODY SHOEPRINTS IS VERY IMPORTANT EVIDENCE. WE NEED TO SHOW, WITH RESPECT TO THIS PHOTOGRAPH, WE SHOW NOT ONLY THE BLOOD THAT WAS STEPPED IN, ALONG WITH SHOEPRINTS THAT ARE DEPICTED IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH, BUT THE CLOSENESS OF THE ENVELOPE TO THE BODY, SO IT IS A PERSPECTIVE SHOT SHOWING THE -- SHOWING AGAIN AN ARRAY OF EVIDENCE, NOT JUST ONE THING, SO THIS IS A DIFFERENT VIEW SHOWING A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE AND SHOWING DIFFERENT EVIDENCE, VIS-A-VIS THE BODY. AND ALSO I WOULD INDICATE THAT P-44 SHOWS THE BACK OF THE VICTIM, WHICH IS FAR LESS PREJUDICIAL THAN THE VIEW FROM THE FRONT, SO NONE OF THESE ARE DUPLICATIVE. EVERYTHING -- EVERY SINGLE PHOTOGRAPH THAT I HAVE TALKED ABOUT SHOWS A DIFFERENT VIEW OF EACH OF THE VICTIMS WITH DIFFERENT ITEMS OF EVIDENCE THAT WE ATTEMPT TO DEPICT AND DEMONSTRATE CERTAIN INFORMATION TO THE JURY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. DOUGLAS, YOUR RESPONSE.

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, I RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS A MURDER CASE AND WITH MURDER CASES THERE ARE DEAD BODIES. I DO THINK, HOWEVER, THAT THE COURT NEEDS TO BALANCE THE PREJUDICIAL IMPACT, THE EMOTIONAL SENSE THAT MANY OF THESE PICTURES WILL ENGENDER IN THE JURY. CERTAINLY I THINK IT INTERESTING THE REASON WHY THE PEOPLE WOULD RATHER HAVE A PHOTOGRAPH THAN A DRAWING, AND I WILL REPRESENT TO THE COURT THAT THERE ARE DRAWINGS WHICH SHOW THE INTERRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO VICTIMS AND IT IS VERY CAPABLE FOR MISS CLARK OR WHOMEVER TO DESCRIBE BASED ON THAT SCHEMATIC DRAWING WHERE THE ENVELOPE WAS, FOR EXAMPLE, WHERE A GLOVE WAS FOUND OR WHATEVER. I THINK THE REASON WHY THEY WANT TO SHOW THE PHOTOGRAPH IS TO -- IS TO GIVE SOME EMOTIONAL TEXTURE TO THE JURY, TO MR. SIMPSON'S DETRIMENT, AND I OBJECT TO THAT, AND I THINK, YOUR HONOR, THAT BOTH PICTURES P-35 AND P-44 ARE CUMULATIVE WHEN TAKEN TOGETHER. BOTH SHOW A VIEW FROM ABOVE NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, BOTH SHOW HER LAYING IN A FETAL POSITION WITH THEIR BEING BLOOD FLOWING DOWN THE WALKWAY. I THINK CERTAINLY EITHER PICTURE IS ADEQUATELY CAPABLE OF EXEMPLIFYING THE SETTING THAT MISS CLARK WISHES TO OFFER AND I DO NOT THINK IT NECESSARY THAT BOTH BE OFFERED INTO EVIDENCE OR USED IN OPENING STATEMENT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MAY I SEE 35 AND 44 IF I COULD AGAIN, PLEASE.

MS. CLARK: OKAY. AND I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COURT, IF I MAY, AFTER THE COURT HAS SEEN THEM.

THE COURT: IT SORT OF WORKS --

MS. CLARK: THERE IS SOMETHING ELSE THE COURT NEEDS TO BEAR IN MIND.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, COUNSEL, PLEASE.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET ME SEE 44. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THE OBJECTIONS WILL BE OVERRULED. BOTH OF THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS, 35 AND 44, DEPICT DIFFERENT ITEMS AT THE CRIME SCENE. IT IS CLEAR TO THE COURT THAT THE KEY ISSUES, AT LEAST AS THE CRIME SCENE IS CONCERNED, IS THE COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE AND WHERE THAT EVIDENCE WAS, SO THE OBJECTIONS ARE OVERRULED.

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO, IF NOT MORE, OTHER PHOTOGRAPHS THAT ARE GOING TO BE OFFERED, WHICH IS PART OF A VIDEO GRAPHIC. THEY ARE, IN PARTICULAR, PHOTOGRAPHS OF CRIMINALIST FUNG AND MAZZOLLA USING THE PHENO PROCESS ON THE DRAIN IN MR. SIMPSON'S BATHROOM, IN THE SHOWER, AND PARTICULARLY ON THE BASIN IN HIS BATHROOM. I REMIND THE COURT OF THE COURT'S EARLIER RULING THAT THE PHENO TESTING IN AND OF ITSELF WOULD NOT BE ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE UNLESS THERE WAS FURTHER CORROBORATION THAT WAS GOING TO BE OFFERED AS IT CONCERNS THE DRAIN IN THE SHOWER, AS IT CONCERNS THE DRAIN IN THE BASIN, I DO NOT RECALL THERE BEING ANY PRESUMPTIVE OR SUPPLEMENTAL TEST TO CORROBORATE THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD IN BOTH OF THOSE LOCATIONS. AS THE COURT IS AWARE, HAIRSPRAY, LEMON JUICE, FRUIT JUICE, A HOST OF DIFFERENT OTHER MATTERS THAT ARE CERTAINLY INNOCENT ARE CAPABLE OF REGISTERING A POSITIVE SHOWING ON A PHENO TEST AND WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE IS YOU WILL HAVE, FOR EXAMPLE, A VIDEO PICTURE OF THE BATHROOM HONING IN ON THE DRAIN, AND DISSOLVING FROM THAT WILL BE A PHOTOGRAPH OF FUNG SHOWING A Q-TIP LEANING DOWN AT THE DRAIN PIPE AND A SIMILAR PRESENTATION OF A PHOTOGRAPH OF MR. FUNG LEANING DOWN AT THE BASIN IN THE BATHROOM. I THINK CONSISTENT WITH THE COURT'S EARLIER RULINGS THOSE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS OR ANY DEPICTIONS THAT SHOW THE PHENOTYPING THAT IS NOT CORROBORATED BY OTHER TESTING METHODOLOGY SHOULD NOT BE OFFERED IN THE OPENING STATEMENTS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ARE THERE ANY OTHER OBJECTIONS TO THE PEOPLE'S EXHIBITS?

MR. DOUGLAS: NO, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK?

MS. CLARK: I UNDERSTAND THE COURT'S RULING TO BE THAT LUMINOL WOULD NOT BE ADMISSIBLE.

THE COURT: THAT IS MY RECOLLECTION.

MS. CLARK: THE PHENO TEST IS A DIFFERENT STORY. THAT HAS BEEN ADMISSIBLE FROM I CAN'T TELL HOW MANY YEARS AGO. IT IS LIMITED IN TERMS OF ITS VALUE OF WHAT BOTH SIDES CAN ARGUE. IT INDICATES THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD. THAT IS ALL IT DOES. WE ARE NOT SAYING IT DOES ANY MORE THAN THAT. AND THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT COUNSEL IS COMPLAINING OF ARE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PINK COLOR ON THE PHENO STICK THAT INDICATES THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD IN TWO AREAS -- THREE AREAS ACTUALLY IN THE DEFENDANT'S BATHROOM.

THE COURT: ARE THESE STILL PHOTOS -- EXCUSE ME, MISS CLARK. FORGIVE ME FOR INTERRUPTING YOU. ARE THESE STILL PHOTOS OR VIDEO?

MS. CLARK: I THINK WE HAVE CUT OUT ALL OF THE VIDEO THAT WE WERE USING. THESE ARE STILL PHOTOGRAPHS THAT COUNSEL HAS HAD IN DISCOVERY FOR A VERY LONG TIME, MY UNDERSTANDING, SO IT REALLY PERTAINED TO LUMINOL AND NOT THE PHENO TEST. I THOUGHT THERE WOULD BE NO PROBLEM WITH THIS.

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, THE PROBLEM IS THAT 99 PERCENT OF ALL HOMES IN AMERICA, IF THERE WAS A PHENO TESTING ON THEIR SHOWER DRAINS OR BATHROOM BASINS WOULD REGISTER POSITIVE FOR THE PRESENCE SOME OF SORT OF BLOOD. AND THE PROBLEM IS IN THIS CASE THERE HAS NOT BEEN AND THERE WILL BE NOT, AS FAR AS I CURRENTLY AM AWARE, ANY SUPPLEMENT FOLLOW-UP TESTIMONY SUGGESTING THAT IN FACT BASED ON FURTHER TESTING OF BOTH THE SHOWER DRAIN AND FURTHER TESTING OF THE BATHROOM BASIN WE NOW BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS BLOOD THAT WAS RECENTLY WASHED DOWN THAT BASIN, AND THEREFORE, YOUR HONOR, YOU HAVE ANOTHER 352 PROBLEM. THEY ARE GOING TO SIMPLY TRAIPSE AROUND ON THE SCREEN THAT THERE IS A GENTLEMAN DOING A PHENOTYPE AND THEY ARE NOT GOING TO CORROBORATE THAT OR SUPPLEMENT THAT WITH OTHER TESTIMONY, EXPERT OR OTHERWISE, TO SHOW THAT AFTER THIS PHOTOGRAPH WAS TAKEN WE TOOK OUT THE PIPES, WE TESTED THE PIPES AND WE SAW IN FACT THAT THERE WAS BLOOD AND IN FACT THIS BLOOD IS RECENT BLOOD AND NOT BLOOD THAT WAS THERE FROM A DAY EARLIER OR A WEEK EARLIER OR A MONTH EARLIER. SO I THINK, YOUR HONOR, GIVEN ITS PRESENT FORM, IT IS TERRIBLY MISLEADING IN THE OPENING STATEMENT AND I WOULD URGE THE COURT TO EXCLUDE IT.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: WELL, YOUR HONOR, I WOULD NOT OBJECT TO GOING BACK TO COUNSEL'S HOUSE RIGHT NOW AND TESTING THE DRAINS TO SEE IF THAT IS POSSIBLE, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT EVERYONE'S HOUSE DRAINS WILL TEST POSITIVE FOR THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD AT ANY GIVEN TIME. HOWEVER, WE HAVE HEARD COUNSEL'S ARGUMENT. THAT IS THE LIMITATIONS OF THE TEST, HE IS CORRECT, THAT WE CANNOT SAY WHEN IT WAS DEPOSITED. HOWEVER, WHEN YOU HAVE TRACES OF THIS BLOOD AND THAT IS WHAT THERE WAS, THERE IS NO FURTHER TESTING THAT CAN BE DONE, THERE ISN'T THAT MUCH. IT WASHES DOWN WITH WATER. THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF WASHING IT DOWN THE DRAIN, IS TO WASH IT AWAY, SO THERE IS TRACES OF BLOOD IN THE SHOWER IN THE BATHROOM AND THERE WAS A TRACE OF BLOOD ON THE FLOOR AS WELL. COUNSEL'S ARGUMENT GOES TO THE WEIGHT AND NOT THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THIS EVIDENCE AND COUNSEL IS FULLY ENTITLED TO ARGUE EVERYTHING THAT HE JUST HAS TO THE JURY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, MY LEARNED COLLEAGUE, MR. UELMEN, REMINDED ME THAT A PHENO TEST IS THE SAME AS A LUMINOL TEST. IT IS A PRESUMPTIVE TEST. IT IS NOT A TEST THAT CORROBORATES THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD. AND SINCE IT IS A PRESUMPTIVE TEST, IT IS SUSCEPTIBLE TO ALL OF THE DANGERS OF MISINTERPRETATION THAT A LUMINOL TEST WOULD BE PROBLEMATIC WITH, AND THEREFORE, YOUR HONOR, BY ANALOGY, THE REASONING THAT THE COURT HAD HELD WITH THE LUMINOL TEST SHOULD HOLD FIRM FOR THE PHENO TEST. THERE WERE SOME AREAS, YOUR HONOR, WHERE THERE IS A PHENO TEST DONE OF BLOOD ON THE FOYER, TO WHICH I'M NOT OFFERING AN OBJECTION BECAUSE THERE WAS INDEPENDENT COLLECTION AND INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION OF THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD. NOT SO WITH THE BATHROOM DRAIN, NOT SO WITH THE BATHROOM BASIN. AND THEREFORE I AM LIMITING MY OBJECTION AT THIS PHASE TO THOSE TWO AREAS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, THE PROBLEM WITH THE DILEMMA YOU PRESENT TO THE COURT IS THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT CONDUCTING ANOTHER 402 HEARING AS TO THIS ISSUE, WHICH I AM NOT INCLINED TO DO AT THIS POINT TODAY.

COUNSEL, MY INCLINATION IS TO DIRECT THE PROSECUTION NOT TO USE THOSE TWO ITEMS IN OPENING STATEMENT SUBJECT TO A 402 HEARING ON THE PHENO TESTING. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S THE COURT'S ORDER. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER SHOW AND TELL OBJECTIONS WE NEED TO RESOLVE?

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

MR. DOUGLAS: NONE BY THE DEFENSE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. NOW, THE PROSECUTION INDICATES THAT THEY HAVE NOT HAD COMPLETE ACCESS TO YOUR EXHIBITS FOR OPENING STATEMENTS, MR. DOUGLAS. ARE THOSE EXHIBITS PRESENT IN COURT?

MR. DOUGLAS: THEY ARE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL OF THEM.

MR. DOUGLAS: GRAPHICALLY AND IN BOARD FORM.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THEN I WOULD SUGGEST THAT IT WOULD PROBABLY BE A BETTER USE OF THE COURT'S TIME TO TAKE A BRIEF RECESS AND ALLOW COUNSEL TO LOOK AT THESE ITEMS AND THEN LODGE ANY SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS. ALL RIGHT. WE WILL STAND IN RECESS THEN FOR TWENTY MINUTES.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, CAN WE HAVE THE MONITOR PEOPLE TURN ON COUNSEL'S MONITORS SO THAT THEY CAN --

THE COURT: YES.

MR. DOUGLAS: CAN YOU TURN OFF THE FEED?

(RECESS.)

(MR. SCHECK AND MR. UELMEN NOW BEING PRESENT.)

THE COURT: BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. ALL PARTIES ARE AGAIN PRESENT, WITH MR. SCHECK AND MR. UELMEN JOINING THE DEFENSE TEAM. COUNSEL, I'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO -- MISS CLARK, YOU HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE DEFENSE EXHIBITS. DO YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS?

MS. CLARK: NUMEROUS, YOUR HONOR. THE FIRST OBJECTION I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IS I AM APPALLED AT THE CONDUCT OF THE DEFENSE IN WITHHOLDING DISCOVERY.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, IF I COULD ASK YOU TO USE THE PODIUM, PLEASE. THANK YOU.

MS. CLARK: THE CONDUCT OF THE DEFENSE IS ABSOLUTELY APPALLING, YOUR HONOR. JUST TODAY WE WERE GIVEN, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PAGES -- I'M GOING TO HOLD IT UP TO THE COURT -- OF DISCOVERY. THESE WERE STATEMENTS THAT WERE TAKEN ON JUNE 27 AND -- SOME OF THEM, AND JULY. WE ARE HERE, IT IS NOW JANUARY 23RD, AND ONLY TODAY DID WE RECEIVE DISCOVERY OF THESE STATEMENTS. THE DEFENSE HAS BEEN YELLING AND SCREAMING AT US FOR NOT TURNING OVER DISCOVERY WITHIN TWO WEEKS OF HAVING RECEIVED IT AND THEY NOW HAVE HAD THINGS FOR SIX AND SEVEN MONTHS AND ARE JUST TURNING IT OVER. THERE IS A VIDEOTAPE THAT THEY HAVE HAD TO HAVE HAD IN THEIR POSSESSION SINCE JUNE 13 THAT I WAS JUST SHOWN ON THE MONITOR TODAY. THE COURT HAS ORDERED THE DEFENSE TO TURN OVER DISCOVERY IN A TIMELY FASHION, JUST AS IT HAS ORDERED THE PEOPLE TO COMPLY WITH THE SAME ORDER. WE HAVE MADE NUMEROUS REQUESTS OF THE DEFENSE ON AND OFF THE RECORD TO PLEASE TURN OVER DISCOVERY AND TURN OVER STATEMENTS. THEY SAID THEY HAD NOTHING. THOSE WERE LIES AND THESE STATEMENTS PROVE THAT THEY WERE LIES BECAUSE THESE STATEMENTS WERE TAKEN IN JUNE AND JULY. AND YET AS RECENTLY AS JANUARY THEY WERE SAYING THAT THEY HAD NO FURTHER DISCOVERY TO GIVE US AND THAT THEY WERE IN FULL COMPLIANCE. CLEARLY THEY WERE NOT. THEY WERE NOT IN FULL COMPLIANCE BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION, EITHER WITH RESPECT TO THE EXHIBITS NOR WITH RESPECT TO THE VIDEOTAPES THAT THEY HAD, NOR WITH RESPECT TO WITNESSES STATEMENTS THAT WERE TAKEN. THIS IS -- I CAN'T -- I'M ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED. I AM SHOCKED AT THIS KIND OF CONDUCT. YOU KNOW, HOW COULD THEY WITHHOLD ALL THIS MATERIAL AND CLAIM -- AND YET COME INTO COURT AND CLAIM TO THIS COURT ON THE RECORD THAT THEY WERE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DISCOVERY ORDER? THEY NOT ONLY ARE IN NONCOMPLIANCE, BUT THEY ARE IN WILLFUL NONCOMPLIANCE AND THEY HAVE MADE MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATIONS TO THE COURT AND COUNSEL IN THIS MATTER. HOW CAN THE PEOPLE POSSIBLY GET A FAIR TRIAL WHEN THE DEFENSE HAS WILLFULLY WITHHELD INFORMATION PREVENTING US FROM PREPARING THE CASE AND AT THE LAST MINUTE SPRINGS THINGS ON US KNOWING FULL WELL THAT THEY WERE IN NONCOMPLIANCE? THIS IS WILLFUL NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT ORDER AND A WILLFUL DESIRE TO DEPRIVE THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WITH THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL. THE PEOPLE OBJECT TO ALL OF THIS, NOT TO MENTION SPECIFICALLY OBJECTIONS TO MANY OF THE EXHIBITS, BUT I THINK THIS NONCOMPLIANCE IS SOMETHING THAT REALLY HAS TO BE DEALT WITH. AND I WILL BE HONEST WITH THE COURT. YOU KNOW, I HAVE NEVER SEEN THIS KIND OF CONDUCT ON THE PART OF DEFENSE COUNSEL BEFORE; NEVER.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, MAY I SEE THAT LIST, PLEASE.

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, MAY I RESPOND?

THE COURT: NO.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, I HAVE REVIEWED WHAT APPEARS TO BE LABELED A DEFENSE SUPPLEMENTAL WITNESS LIST WHICH APPEARS TO CONTAIN CERTAIN WITNESS STATEMENTS AND A LONG CV FOR DR. LENORE WALKER. WHAT REMEDY ARE YOU ASKING FOR?

MS. CLARK: MAY I --

THE COURT: AS FAR AS THE DISCOVERY ISSUES ARE CONCERNED?

MS. CLARK: MAY I CONFER, YOUR HONOR?

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

MS. CLARK: WE WOULD REQUEST THAT THE DEFENSE BE PRECLUDED FROM CALLING THOSE WITNESSES, AS IS REQUIRED BY THE PENAL CODE SECTION 1054, ET SEQ., FOR WILLFUL NONCOMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDERS. I WOULD ALSO CITE TO THE COURT DEFENSE COUNSEL'S RESPONSE TO THE PEOPLE'S MOTION MADE IN DECEMBER FOR SANCTIONS FOR NONCOMPLIANCE AND IN THAT MOTION THE DEFENSE FILED ON DECEMBER 30TH IT STATED THAT:

"THE DEFENSE HAS FULLY COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENT TO DISCLOSE WITNESSES AND STATEMENTS," AND THAT IS NOT OBVIOUSLY THE CASE. I WOULD ASK THE COURT FURTHER TO ORDER THAT COUNSEL TURN OVER ALL OF THE STATEMENTS AND ALL THE INVESTIGATION THAT THEY HAVE PREPARED TO DATE TODAY NOW BEFORE WE BEGIN OPENING STATEMENTS, AND FURTHER, THAT THERE BE TO MENTION OF ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THIS LATE DISCOVERY IN THE OPENING STATEMENTS TODAY.

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

MS. CLARK: THAT INCLUDES OF COURSE VIDEOTAPES, PHOTOGRAPHS, ANY OTHER GRAPHIC DEPICTIONS THEY INTEND TO USE. OBVIOUSLY THE VIDEOTAPE WHICH WAS TURNED OVER ONLY TODAY, WHICH THEY HAVE HAD FOR QUITE SOME TIME, IS AN EXAMPLE OF THAT SORT OF THING. THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT THE COURT SEES RIGHT HERE BLOWN UP ON THE BOARD WERE NEVER SHOWN TO THE PROSECUTION, SO WE WOULD ASK THAT ALL OF THAT BE TURNED OVER FORTHWITH BEFORE WE BEGIN OPENING STATEMENTS AND THAT THERE BE NO MENTION OF ANYTHING THAT THEY'VE TURNED OVER TODAY OR WILL TURN OVER, PURSUANT I HOPE TO THE COURT'S ORDER, IN THE OPENING STATEMENTS AS WELL.

THE COURT: MR. DOUGLAS.

MS. CLARK: MAY I ALSO INCLUDE, YOUR HONOR, ANY TAPES OF INTERVIEWS THAT WERE CONDUCTED AS WELL.

MR. DOUGLAS: FIRST OF ALL, YOUR HONOR, THE COURT IS MINDFUL THAT THE OBLIGATIONS OF A DEFENDANT UNDER THE STATE'S DISCOVERY RULES DIFFER FROM THOSE OF THE PROSECUTION. HOWEVER, LET ME MAKE A COUPLE OF THINGS PERFECTLY CLEAR. WE HAVE CONTINUALLY BEEN REFOCUSING AND RESTRATEGIZING THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHOM WE INTEND TO CALL FOR TRIAL. MANY OF THE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE BEEN ADDED ON OUR SUPPLEMENTAL WITNESS LIST ARE DECISIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE ONLY SINCE THE COURT'S RULINGS ON THE DOMESTIC DISCORD MOTION, AS WELL AS THE COURT'S RULINGS ON THE FUHRMAN MOTION. YOU WERE GIVEN A PACKET TODAY, YOUR HONOR, AND MISS CLARK MADE CLEAR TO HOLD UP THE PACKET, BUT THAT PACKET CONTAINED 34 NAMES, SIX WITNESS STATEMENTS, AND 34 PAGES OF THE RESUME OF AN ILLUSTRIOUS EXPERT, DR. LENORE WALKER, WHO ONLY ON SUNDAY HAD PRELIMINARILY COMPLETED HER REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE AND HAD COMMITTED TO WORKING ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENSE IN THIS CASE. SHE HAS NOT YET EVEN AUTHORED A FINAL REPORT. WE HAVE NOT YET, FOR EXAMPLE, SEEN ANY OF THE DATA. AS THE COURT IS AWARE, DR. WALKER VISITED MR. SIMPSON WITHIN THE LAST MONTH, THREE WEEKS FOR SURE, AND THE DECISION TO CALL DR. WALKER HINGED ON THE COURT'S RULING ON THE DOMESTIC DISCORD, ON THE COURT'S RULING OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF DR. DUTTON, AND AFTER CONSULTING WITH DR. WALKER THIS WEEKEND ONLY WERE THOSE DECISIONS MADE. SECONDLY, YOUR HONOR, IN TERMS OF THE DISCOVERY OF VIDEOTAPES OR THAT KIND OF THING, WHEN WE ASKED IN THE BEGINNING OF THIS CASE FOR NEWS REPORTS OR FOR HOSPITAL RECORDS OR ITEMS THAT WERE EQUALLY AVAILABLE TO EITHER SIDE, THE PROSECUTION'S RESPONSE, QUITE POINTEDLY, AND THE COURT AGREED, WAS IF IT WAS A NEWSPAPER AND YOU CAN SUBPOENA THE PAPER, YOU CAN DO IT YOURSELF, AND THEREBY WE DID DO IT OURSELVES. WE WENT OUT ON OUR OWN AND SIMPLY OBTAINED NEWS DOCUMENTS OR NEWS FOOTAGE THAT WE DECIDED TO USE IN OUR OPENING STATEMENT. YOUR HONOR, WE WORKED IN THE OFFICE, TEN OF US, UNTIL TWO O'CLOCK -- 1:30 -- UNTIL TWO O'CLOCK THURSDAY NIGHT GOING THROUGH THESE GRAPHICS, TRYING TO MAKE SOME DECISIONS, AND THOSE DECISIONS WERE NOT YET COMPLETED. YOUR HONOR, I WAS IN THE OFFICE --

THE COURT: COUNSEL, WE ARE MIXING APPLES AND ORANGES HERE. I'M INTERESTED IN THE DISCOVERY ISSUE FIRST, WHY THIS LIST IS NOW BEING MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PROSECUTION THIS MORNING, FIRST OF ALL, AND THEN SECONDLY, WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE TO THE PROSECUTION'S REQUEST THAT I PRECLUDE THE TESTIMONY OF EVERYBODY WHO IS ON THIS LIST FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S PREVIOUS DISCOVERY ORDER? THAT IS THE ISSUE. I'M NOT INTERESTED IN THESE CHARTS RIGHT NOW.

MR. DOUGLAS: VERY WELL, YOUR HONOR. DECISIONS -- I SPEAK TO THE CHARTS BECAUSE DECISIONS ON WITNESSES THAT WE WERE GOING TO OFFER IN EVIDENCE WERE NOT FINALIZED UNTIL THIS VERY WEEKEND. WE HAVE BEEN SPENDING THE BULK OF OUR TIME RUNNING DOWN THE OVER 350 NAMES THAT WE HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE PROSECUTION'S LIST. NOW, YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE ATTEMPTED TO TRY AND INTERVIEW WITNESSES THAT ARE ON THEIR LIST, BUT THAT IS NOT DISCOVERABLE UNDER THE DISCOVERY RULES. WHEN WE ARE INTERVIEWING THEIR WITNESSES FOR IMPEACHMENT PURPOSES, THAT IS NOT DISCOVERABLE. THESE ARE NAMES THAT WERE ADDED THAT WERE NOT ON THE PROSECUTION'S LIST, THAT WERE DECIDED AFTER THE CRITICAL RULINGS ON DOMESTIC DISCORD AND ON THE FUHRMAN MOTION AND WERE DECIDED AFTER TALKING WITH LENORE WALKER AND THOSE INDIVIDUALS THAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO PROVIDE SOME CONTEXT, IF YOU WILL, TO SOME OF THE ALLEGATIONS THAT THE COURT IS GOING TO ALLOW TO BE ADMITTED. AND THEREFORE, YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE FULLY COMPLIED WITH THE DEFENDANT'S OBLIGATIONS IN THE DISCOVERY ACT.

IF THE COURT WILL RECALL, ASSUMING WE HAVE PRESENTED THESE 34 NAMES TODAY, THERE IS STILL AT LEAST AN ADDITIONAL TWO MONTHS, EVEN UNDER THE MOST CONSERVATIVE OF ESTIMATES, FOR THE PEOPLE TO GO ABOUT DOING THEIR WORK ATTEMPTING TO INTERVIEW WITNESSES THAT ARE ON OUR LIST. ONE THING THAT IS INTERESTING, HOWEVER, AND YOU HEAR ALL THE SCREAMING AND ALL THE PROTESTATIONS BY MISS CLARK, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THERE ARE NAMES ON OUR FIRST LIST THAT WE SUBMITTED AUGUST OF 1994 WITH ADDRESSES, WITH PHONE NUMBERS, WHO WERE NEVER CONTACTED BY ANYONE ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION. EVEN UP UNTIL THIS VERY DAY WE ARE CONTINUING TO MAKE DECISIONS, WE ARE FULLY COMPLYING WITH ALL OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CODE. NOW, AS FOR SANCTIONS, YOUR HONOR, I THINK IT VERY IRONIC THAT THE PEOPLE WOULD STAND HERE AND SEEK THE SANCTION OF EXCLUSION, THE ULTIMATE SANCTION THAT THE COURT IS EMPOWERED TO IMPOSE, GIVEN ALL OF THE EQUITIES OF THIS CASE, GIVEN THE BACKGROUND OF THIS CASE, GIVEN THE FACT THAT WHEN WE WERE GIVEN A LIST OF 206 NAMES ON JANUARY THE 6TH ON A TRIAL THAT WAS DUE TO START TWO WEEKS LATER, OUR ONLY SANCTION THAT WE WERE SEEKING WAS SIMPLY GIVE US MORE TIME, REQUIRE THEM TO NOT OFFER THESE NAMES IN OPENING STATEMENT, REQUIRE THAT THEY CHANGE THE ORDER OF PROOF AND PUT THE PROOF AT THE END SO THAT WE WOULD HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO ADEQUATELY PREPARE AND RESPOND TO THIS EVIDENCE. I DARE SAY THAT WE HAD THE POSSIBILITY OF SEEKING THE ULTIMATE SANCTION OF EXCLUSION, BUT WE DID NOT GO THAT ROUTE. I WOULD URGE THE COURT TO NOT GO THAT ROUTE HERE. I THINK, YOUR HONOR, GIVEN WHERE WE ARE IN THE CASE ON THE FIRST DAY OF OPENING STATEMENT --

THE COURT: WE MAY NOT GET THERE TODAY.

MR. DOUGLAS: WELL, ON THE FIRST DAY SCHEDULED FOR OPENING STATEMENT, AND THE DEFENSE HAS SUPPLEMENTED THEIR LIST OF 34 ADDITIONAL NAMES, THAT THE PROSECUTION IS NOT UNDULY PREJUDICED, THAT THE PROSECUTION WILL HAVE MORE THAN ADEQUATE TIME. THEY HAVE THE ENTIRE 8000-MAN POLICE FORCE -- MAN AND WOMAN POLICE FORCE OF THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT AT THEIR DISPOSAL. THEY HAVE THE 600 LAWYERS EMPLOYED BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

THE COURT: 900.

MR. DOUGLAS: 500.

THE COURT: 900.

MR. DOUGLAS: THEY HAVE FAR MORE RESOURCES THAN WE, YOUR HONOR. THOUST PROTEST TOO MUCH WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE EQUITIES THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE. AND CERTAINLY I DON'T THINK, YOUR HONOR, THAT THE SANCTION OF EVEN EXCLUDING THESE NAMES FROM OUR OPENING STATEMENT IS ONE THAT HAS TO BE IMPOSED.

AND WITH THE EXCEPTION OF DR. WALKER, WHO I THINK MR. COCHRAN PERHAPS MAY LIKE TO MENTION IN HIS OPENING, I AM NOT SURE EVEN THAT THERE IS EVEN GOING TO BE AN ATTEMPT TO DISCUSS THESE PARTICULAR WITNESSES, PERHAPS AS WELL WITH MISS BELL, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THERE IS MUCH OF AN ATTEMPT TO OFFER THESE WITNESSES DURING THE OPENING STATEMENT, BUT EVEN IF THAT IS THE CASE, IT WOULD NOT BE A FAIR SANCTION, GIVEN THE POSTURE THAT WE'VE HAD IN THIS CASE, GIVEN THAT WE ARE ON THE FIRST DAY SCHEDULED FOR OPENING STATEMENT, GIVEN THAT THIS IS A CASE WHERE EVEN THE PROSECUTION ESTIMATES THAT THEIR CASE IS GOING TO TAKE AT LEAST EIGHT WEEKS, IF NOT LONGER. THERE IS ADEQUATE TIME FOR THEM TO PREPARE. THEY HAVE NOT EVEN DONE WORK ON OTHER WITNESSES WHOM WE GAVE THEM BACK IN AUGUST, YOUR HONOR, AND I DON'T THINK THAT THEIR PROTESTATIONS SHOULD BE TAKEN WITH ANY GREAT WEIGHT BY THIS COURT.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, WE NEED TO SUPPLEMENT -- MR. HODGMAN HAD CONTACT WITH MR. DOUGLAS AND I THINK THE COURT NEEDS TO BE MADE AWARE OF IT.

THE COURT: MR. HODGMAN, BRIEFLY.

MR. HODGMAN: YES, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU. ONCE I STOOD BEFORE THIS COURT AND INDICATED I WAS SLOW TO ANGER. IT COMES A LITTLE MORE QUICKLY THIS MORNING. YOUR HONOR, I HAD TO BRACE MR. DOUGLAS TO EVEN GET THE LIST THAT IS BEFORE THE COURT. WHEN WOULD THE PEOPLE GET THAT? AFTER I HAD SEEN PHOTOGRAPHS WHICH OBVIOUSLY HAD BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR SOME TIME AND OBVIOUSLY THEY ANTICIPATED USING AND I SEE THIS, WHERE IS OUR DISCOVERY? WHERE IS THE RECIPROCITY OF DISCOVERY? AND IT WAS ONLY THEN THAT THIS WITNESS LIST COMES UP. AND YOUR HONOR, WHEN WOULD WE HAVE SEEN IT HAD I NOT ASKED MR. DOUGLAS, ASKED THE DEFENSE FOR THAT INFORMATION?

THE COURT: HOW FIRM ARE THE PEOPLE IN THEIR REQUESTING PRECLUSION AS A SANCTION?

MR. HODGMAN: VERY FIRM. JUST ONE MOMENT. EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR.

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

MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, WE WILL WITHDRAW THE REQUEST FOR PRECLUSION ON THE CONDITION THAT THE COURT WILL ENTERTAIN THIS: THAT THE SANCTIONS REGARDING OUR WITNESS ORDER, WHEN WE PROVIDED OUR WITNESS LIST WELL IN ADVANCE OF TRIAL, BE LIFTED. THAT IS WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE FROM THIS.

THEY CAN CALL THEIR WITNESSES IN THEIR CASE, IF THEY WISH, BUT REMOVE FROM US THE SANCTION THAT THE COURT IMPOSED IN TERMS OF WHEN WE PROVIDED A WITNESS LIST WELL OVER A MONTH BEFORE TODAY'S DATE, WELL OVER A MONTH. AND EVEN THEN, YOUR HONOR, I DON'T INTEND TO REARGUE THIS, BUT THE WITNESS LIST ASPECT WAS ACTUALLY MORE OF A FORM OVER SUBSTANCE TYPE THING. HOWEVER, THAT IS WHAT THE PEOPLE PROPOSE. IN ADDITION, I WOULD LIKE TO SIMPLY STATE THAT MR. DOUGLAS ADDRESSED ASKING US TO GO OUT AND OBTAIN NEWS FOOTAGE, NEWS VIDEO AND THE LIKE FOR THEM. WE ARE NOT INVESTIGATORS FOR THE DEFENSE. THEY HAD ACCESS TO IT. THE DEFENSE IS -- AND THE DISTINCTION IS, YOUR HONOR, THEY'VE ELECTED TO UTILIZE IT. THEY HAVE COLLECTED IT AND NOW THEY INTEND TO USE IT. WHERE IS THE RECIPROCITY OF DISCOVERY? THIS IS BEING DROPPED ON US ON THE MORNING OF OPENING STATEMENT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. HODGMAN, LET ME ASK YOU THIS: OF THESE 34 NAMES, SEVERAL OF THESE NAMES ARE VERY FAMILIAR TO ME. OTHERS I HAVE NO IDEA WHO THEY ARE. FOR EXAMPLE, I'M ACQUAINTED WITH WILLIE WILLIAMS AND DR. WALKER OF COURSE. BUT AS TO EACH OF THESE, I MEAN ARE YOU RAISING A BLANKET OBJECTION TO ALL OF THESE? CERTAINLY YOU KNOW WHO SOME OF THESE PEOPLE ARE, YOU HAVE ANTICIPATED WHAT THEIR TESTIMONY IS GOING TO BE. THEIR APPEARANCE ON THE DEFENSE LIST IS CERTAINLY NOT A SURPRISE.

MR. HODGMAN: WELL, I'VE BEEN SURPRISED IN MORE THAN ONE WAY SO FAR THIS MORNING, YOUR HONOR, BUT RIGHT NOW THE COURT --

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, IS THIS YOUR ONLY COPY OF THIS? MR. DOUGLAS, HOW MANY COPIES OF THIS PACKAGE DO YOU HAVE?

MR. DOUGLAS: I HAVE AN EXTRA ONE, YOUR HONOR.

MR. HODGMAN: THANK YOU, MR. DOUGLAS.

THE COURT: LET ME JUST HAVE MY -- CHRIS.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE COURT AND THE LAW CLERK.)

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

THE COURT: MR. HODGMAN, WHILE I AM WAITING FOR THAT PHOTOCOPY, DOESN'T MR. DOUGLAS' ARGUMENT, THOUGH, THAT THESE DECISIONS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT TO CALL THESE WITNESSES, HINGE UPON THE COURT'S IN LIMINE MOTION RULINGS AND OBVIOUSLY THEIR STRATEGY CHANGED IN LIGHT OF THE COURT'S RULINGS?

MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, I KNOW THE COURT HAS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY ITSELF TO ASK OF THIS. WHEN I LOOK AT A MEMO DATED JUNE 27, 1994, WHICH DID NOT, AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, HINGE IN ANY FASHION, HAVE ANY NEXUS WITH THE COURT'S HEARINGS OR RULING, AND WE GET THIS TODAY, I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT TO THINK.

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

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, LET ME INDICATE THAT UNDER THAT THEORY WE WOULD NOT HAVE HAD TO DISCLOSE ANY OF THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE WITNESSES TO THE DEFENSE UNTIL AFTER THE COURT RULING EITHER. I MEAN, IF WE ARE GOING TO WAIT TO GIVE DISCOVERY OF WITNESSES THAT MAY BE USED BY EITHER SIDE UNTIL THE COURT MAKES A RULING, THEN I SUSPECT THAT THERE WOULD BE A LOT MORE WITNESSES THAT THE PEOPLE WOULD NOT HAVE HAD TO DISCLOSE, NOR WOULD THE COURT HAVE IMPOSED ANY SANCTION FOR LATE DISCLOSURE, THAT THAT SIMPLY -- THE ARGUMENT PROFFERED BY MR. DOUGLAS IN THAT REGARD IS -- SHOULD BE UNAVAILING, BECAUSE IF THEY HAVE THESE WITNESSES, THEY KNOW THESE ISSUES ARE IN ISSUE AND THESE ARE PEOPLE THAT THEY MAY CALL IN TRIAL OR INTEND TO CALL IN TRIAL AND WE SHOULD HAVE DISCOVERY OF THEM AND THEN THEY SHOULD NOT BE CALLED BASED UPON THE COURT'S RULING.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, WHO ARE YOU SURPRISED BY ON THIS LIST? LET'S TAKE THE FIRST NAME.

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, CAN I OFFER AN EXPLANATION TO EACH OF THEM?

THE COURT: I JUST WANT TO FIND OUT WHO WE ARE FIGHTING OVER. THIS IS AN INDIVIDUAL WITNESS BY WITNESS DETERMINATION.

MR. DARDEN: I'M SORRY, YOUR HONOR. CAN WE GET MORE THAN ONE COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT?

THE COURT: SURE. MR. DARDEN, WHY DON'T YOU APPROACH AND LET ME GIVE YOU A COUPLE OF EXTRA COPIES HERE.

MR. DOUGLAS: COULD WE AS WELL, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: SURE.

MS. CLARK: CAN WE HAVE TIME TO READ THIS, PLEASE? WE CAN'T STAND ON ONE FOOT AND ADDRESS THE COURT. CAN WE GET FIFTEEN OR TWENTY MINUTES TO READ THIS AND SEE WHAT WE HAVE HERE? THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH THIS. WE ARE SURPRISED BY THIS. WE SEE NAMES WE NEVER RECOGNIZED.

THE COURT: THAT IS A SIGNAL RIGHT THERE. IF YOU DON'T RECOGNIZE THE NAME -- LET'S TAKE IT FROM THE TOP. LET'S SEE HOW MUCH PROGRESS WE CAN MAKE.

MS. CLARK: BUT WE NEED TO READ IT FIRST, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, YOU HAVE IT RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU. KATHLEEN BELL, NO. 1. NOT A SURPRISE, CORRECT?

MS. CLARK: THERE IS NO WITNESS STATEMENT.

THE COURT: THERE IS A WITNESS STATEMENT. IF YOU READ THE PACKAGE, THERE IS A WITNESS STATEMENT BY HER. THERE IS A REPORT FROM MR. PAVELIC REGARDING A TELEPHONE CALL FROM KATHLEEN BELL IN THE PACKAGE. IS THAT A SURPRISE TO YOU?

MS. CLARK: I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT IS. I CAN'T TELL UNTIL I SEE IT.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MS. CLARK: THIS IS REDACTED.

THE COURT: YES, IT IS.

MS. CLARK: WELL, WE NEED TO BE HEARD ABOUT THAT. I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS IN THE -- THEY HAVE BLACKED SOME PORTIONS OF THIS STATEMENT OUT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. HAVE YOU SEEN THIS STATEMENT BEFORE? YES OR NO?

MS. CLARK: I HAVE NEVER SEEN IT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SO THAT IS A SURPRISE TO YOU? THAT IS A RHETORICAL QUESTION, IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT BEFORE.

MR. DOUGLAS: CERTAINLY THE WITNESS ISN'T A SURPRISE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OBVIOUSLY THE WITNESS IS NOT A SURPRISE. ANOTHER STATEMENT BY THE WITNESS THAT THEY HAVE NEVER SEEN BEFORE IS A SURPRISE ON TODAY'S DATE.

MR. DOUGLAS: VERY WELL.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. RACHEL BERMAN.

MR. DOUGLAS: THERE IS NO STATEMENT.

MS. CLARK: SO THEY ARE NOT EVEN GIVING US A STATEMENT ON RACHEL BERMAN.

MR. DOUGLAS: THERE IS NO STATEMENT.

THE COURT: DO YOU KNOW WHO --

MS. CLARK: THEN HOW DO YOU KNOW YOU ARE GOING TO CALL HER?

THE COURT: COUNSEL, PLEASE. WHO IS RACHEL BERMAN?

MR. DOUGLAS: SHE IS THE DAUGHTER OF A NEIGHBOR AND FORMER FRIEND WHO ACCOMPANIED THE CHILDREN TO THE RECITAL ON THE NIGHT OR THE DAY OF THE MURDER.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. IS THIS NAME KNOWN TO THE PROSECUTION?

MR. DOUGLAS: PAT BERMAN, THE MOTHER, IS ON THEIR WITNESS LIST, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: IS THIS NAME KNOWN TO THE PROSECUTION?

MS. CLARK: NO, I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH RACHEL BERMAN.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DINO BUCCOLLA. AND MY APOLOGIES FOR ANYBODY'S NAME I MISPRONOUNCE. DO YOU KNOW WHO THAT PERSON IS?

MS. CLARK: THAT IS TOTALLY UNFAMILIAR WITH ME.

MR. DOUGLAS: IT GOES DIRECTLY TOWARD DOMESTIC DISCORD RULING AND A WITNESS WHO WILL CONTRADICT ALLEGATIONS PROFFERED BY THE PEOPLE.

THE COURT: WHICH INCIDENT?

MR. DOUGLAS: THE RED ONION INCIDENT.

MR. DARDEN: DO WE HAVE A STATEMENT?

MS. CLARK: NO STATEMENT IN HERE.

MR. DOUGLAS: THERE IS NO STATEMENT.

THE COURT: SO YOU KNOW THESE PEOPLE ARE RELEVANT BUT YOU HAVE NO STATEMENTS BY THEM?

MR. DOUGLAS: CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: YOU HAVE NO REPORTS TO TURN OVER?

MR. DOUGLAS: CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: DO YOU EXPECT ME TO BELIEVE THAT?

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, IT IS THE TRUTH. YOUR HONOR, THERE ARE --

THE COURT: HOW CAN YOU HAVE NO STATEMENT, NO RECOLLECTION, NO RECORDATION OF WHAT THESE PEOPLE SAY?

MR. DOUGLAS: FOR EXAMPLE, YOUR HONOR, IF MR. SIMPSON TELLS ME THAT THERE IS A CERTAIN PERSON WHO KNOWS ABOUT A CERTAIN INCIDENT AND I CALL THE PERSON UP AND TAKE NOTES OF THAT PERSON AND I ADD HIS NAME TO THE LIST WITNESS, THAT IS NOT DISCOVERABLE STATEMENT GENERATED BY THAT INTERVIEW. THERE IS NO INVESTIGATOR WHO HAS INTERVIEWED DINO BUCCOLLA WHO HAS A STATEMENT THAT I WOULD TURN OVER TO THE PEOPLE. MY STATEMENT OR MY ROUGH NOTES ARE MY ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT, YOUR HONOR, RESPECTFULLY.

THE COURT: BUT ACTUALLY TAKING WITNESS STATEMENTS IS A DIFFERENT ISSUE.

MR. DOUGLAS: TAKING A WITNESS STATEMENT IS WHEN I WRITE DOWN WHAT HE SAYS AND HE SIGNS IT, FOR EXAMPLE. THAT IS NOT -- THERE IS NO SUCH STATEMENT IN EVIDENCE OR IN OUR POSSESSION.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I SAY ONE THING?

MS. CLARK: I BELIEVE THERE IS A CASE RIGHT ON POINT CONCERNING THIS.

THE COURT: YES, THERE IS.

MS. CLARK: AND COUNSEL IS INCORRECT IN HIS STATEMENT OF LAW AND HIS OBLIGATION TO DISCLOSE.

THE COURT: I AM AWARE OF IT.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, WHEN THE COURT RULED ON THE DOMESTIC DISCORD, ATTORNEYS THEN WENT TO INTERVIEW MR. SIMPSON ABOUT THE COURT'S RULING. ATTORNEYS THEN WENT TO DISCOVER OR TO IDENTIFY INDIVIDUALS WHOM THEY INTEND TO OFFER OR WHO THEY REASONABLY INTEND TO OFFER IN RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S RULINGS. WE HAVE -- WITH DINO, DINO HAS NOT BEEN INTERVIEWED BY ANY LAWYER, BUT I'M JUST SAYING, FOR EXAMPLE, WE TRIED AS SOON AS WE MADE A DECISION, BASED ON THE COURT'S RULING, TO IDENTIFY INDIVIDUALS SUCH AS MR. BUCCOLLA WHO WE REASONABLY INTEND TO CALL AS WITNESS, BECAUSE MR. SIMPSON SAYS THIS PERSON IS SOMEONE THAT WE CAN CALL WHO IS GOING TO CONTRADICT SOMETHING ELSE THAT THEY ARE GOING TO SAY AND THAT NAME WAS ADDED TO THE LIST. THAT IS WHY THERE IS A NAME ADDED TO THE LIST. THERE IS NOT AN ADDRESS FOR HIS NAME AND THERE IS AN OFFICE PHONE NUMBER.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. RANDY ENGLAND.

MS. CLARK: I HAVE NEVER HEARD THIS NAME BEFORE EITHER. IS THERE A REPORT ON THIS? THERE IS NO REPORT HERE.

THE COURT: NO.

MS. CLARK: THERE IS NOT EVEN A STATEMENT.

MR. DOUGLAS: HE IS A PERSON IN THEIR NOTES, YOUR HONOR, WHO THEY HAD ON THEIR LIST CONCERNING THE TRYST INCIDENT.

MS. CLARK: MR. DARDEN, WHO HAS BEEN INVESTIGATING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE MATTERS, DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THAT NAME.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. DOUGLAS: HE WAS A WITNESS WHO WAS IN TRYST.

THE COURT: WAS MR. ENGLAND LISTED IN ANY OF THE PROSECUTION'S DOCUMENTS?

MR. DOUGLAS: HE WAS NOT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. NANCY GENNUSA.

MR. DARDEN: BEFORE WE LEAVE MR. ENGLAND, YOUR HONOR, WE DON'T HAVE A TELEPHONE NUMBER NOR DO WE HAVE AN ADDRESS.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, THE LIST IS APPARENT TO ME AS WELL. ALL RIGHT. NANCY GENNUSA. WHO IS THIS PERSON? FIRST OF ALL, IS THE -- ARE THE PEOPLE ACQUAINTED WITH THIS PERSON?

MS. CLARK: NO, WE ARE NOT, YOUR HONOR.

MR. DOUGLAS: SHE IS A LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE WORKING OUT OF THE PROPERTY DIVISION.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHAT IS HER ROLE IN THIS?

MS. CLARK: WHERE IS THE STATEMENT?

MR. DOUGLAS: WE HAVE NOT INTERVIEWED HER, YOUR HONOR. SHE IS AN LAPD EMPLOYEE.

THE COURT: WHAT IS HER INVOLVEMENT IN THE CASE?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. DOUGLAS: WE BELIEVE THAT SHE IS ONE OF THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY WITNESSES, BUT WHAT WE ARE DOING, YOUR HONOR, SO THE COURT ALSO UNDERSTANDS, IS IN OUR EFFORTS TO BE OVERLY INCLUSIVE WE ARE TAKING NAMES THAT MAY HAVE BEEN ON THE PROSECUTOR'S LIST, SUCH AS MISS GENNUSA, AND ADDING THEM TO OUR LIST IN THE EVENT THAT THE PROSECUTION WITHDREW THEIR NAMES, SUCH AS 83 PERCENT OF THE NAMES THAT WERE WITHDRAWN, WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE --

THE COURT: COUNSEL, YOU ARE WASTING MY TIME AT THIS POINT. I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHO THESE PEOPLE ARE.

MR. DOUGLAS: VERY WELL.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LARRY GLORIOSO.

MR. DOUGLAS: ALL I KNOW IS HE IS AN LAPD EMPLOYEE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: WHY IS HIS TESTIMONY POTENTIALLY RELEVANT?

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

THE COURT: LET ME ASK PEOPLE IF THEY ARE ACQUAINTED WITH THIS NAME.

MS. CLARK: YES, THE PEOPLE ARE ACQUAINTED WITH THIS NAME.

THE COURT: OKAY. THEN WE WILL PASS THIS ONE. RICHARD GREEN.

MS. CLARK: BUT THIS IS THE FIRST WE EVER HEARD THAT THE DEFENSE INTENDS TO CALL HIM.

MR. DOUGLAS: MR. GREEN IS AN EMPLOYEE OF VIERTEL'S, YOUR HONOR. THERE IS NO STATEMENT. HE HAS NOT BEEN INTERVIEWED.

MS. CLARK: AND WE HAVE NEVER HEARD OF HIM.

THE COURT: DR. H. RANGE HUTSON.

MR. DOUGLAS: DR. HUTSON WAS ONLY RETAINED LAST EVENING, YOUR HONOR. HE IS A CUT EXPERT. HE WILL TESTIFY ABOUT THE --

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MS. CLARK: ABOUT?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

THE COURT: SUSIE KEHOE.

MR. DOUGLAS: SHE IS A PERSONAL FRIEND OF THE DEFENDANT, MR. SIMPSON, AND NICOLE'S.

MS. CLARK: STATEMENT? NEVER HEARD OF HER.

MR. DOUGLAS: NONE HAS YET BEEN TAKEN.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DAVID KEITH.

MR. DOUGLAS: A PERSONAL FRIEND OF THE DEFENDANT. NO STATEMENT HAS EVER BEEN TAKEN.

THE COURT: TAWNY KITAEN.

MR. DOUGLAS: MR. KEITH IS A WITNESS TO THE TRYST INCIDENT. TAWNY KITAEN IS A PERSONAL FRIEND OF THE DEFENDANT. NO STATEMENT HAS BEEN TAKEN.

THE COURT: ARE THE PEOPLE ACQUAINTED WITH TAWNY KITAEN?

MS. CLARK: WELL, WE KNOW THE NAME, BUT THERE IS OBVIOUSLY NO STATEMENT. THEY HAVE NO ADDRESS. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT SHE WOULD BE RELEVANT TOO.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. STEVE LEEDS.

MR. DOUGLAS: STEVE LEEDS IS AN INDIVIDUAL THAT IS KNOWN TO THE BROWN FAMILY.

MS. CLARK: THE FIRST TIME WE HAVE HEARD THIS NAME. AND WHAT IS SHE RELEVANT TO? EXCUSE ME, HE. THERE IS NO STATEMENT HERE.

THE COURT: LOUIS MARKS.

MR. DOUGLAS: LOUIS MARKS IS THE FRIEND OF MR. SIMPSON WHO OWNED A RESIDENCE IN NEW YORK CITY. THAT IS ONE OF THE INCIDENTS THAT THE COURT ALLOWED ADMISSION OF.

THE COURT: I DON'T RECALL A NEW YORK CITY INCIDENT.

MR. DARDEN: I RECALL A NEW YORK CITY INCIDENT IN 1977, AS I RECALL, WHERE THE DEFENDANT BEAT NICOLE, BUT YOU EXCLUDED THAT INCIDENT.

MR. DOUGLAS: CHARACTER WITNESS THEN. HE HAS NOT BEEN INTERVIEWED. THERE IS NO STATEMENT THAT WE HAVE IN OUR POSSESSION.

MR. DARDEN: DID COUNSEL SAY HE'S A CHARACTER WITNESS?

MR. DOUGLAS: CORRECT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ED MC CABE.

MR. DOUGLAS: DID THE COURT SKIP SCOTT MATSUDA?

THE COURT: I DID THAT INADVERTENTLY. TELL ME ABOUT SCOTT MATSUDA.

MR. DOUGLAS: SCOTT MATSUDA IS AN EMPLOYEE OF WESTEC SECURITY. WE HAVE NOT INTERVIEWED HIM. THERE IS NO STATEMENT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR, WE ARE FAMILIAR WITH THAT NAME.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ED MC CABE.

MR. DOUGLAS: ED MC CABE CONCERNS ONE OF THE INCIDENTS ON DOMESTIC DISCORD THAT THE COURT ALLOWED THE ADMISSION. THERE IS NO STATEMENT.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. DOUGLAS: THERE IS A STATEMENT IN THAT FILE. JANUARY 17 IS THE STATEMENT.

MS. CLARK: WHERE IS THE STATEMENT?

MR. DOUGLAS: IT IS IN THE PACKET. JANUARY 17.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT --

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, THERE IS AN ENTIRE FIRST PARAGRAPH BLACKED OUT IN THIS STATEMENT.

THE COURT: THAT IS ANOTHER ISSUE, COUNSEL.

MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT.

THE COURT: SERGEANT MERRIN, WEST L.A. WATCH COMMANDER, I TAKE IT, OR THE AWC.

MR. DOUGLAS: I'M SORRY?

THE COURT: ASSISTANT WATCH COMMANDER. LIEUTENANTS ARE WATCH COMMANDERS. I TAKE IT YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THIS NAME, MISS CLARK.

MR. DOUGLAS: FROM A CLUE THAT WE GOT FROM THE PEOPLE'S DISCOVERY.

MS. CLARK: SERGEANT MERRIN?

MR. DOUGLAS: YES.

MS. CLARK: NO, I HAVE NEVER HEARD THIS NAME.

MR. DOUGLAS: THERE IS A CLUE CONCERNING THE PEOPLE'S DISCOVERY AND HIS NAME WAS ADDED AS A PRECAUTION.

MS. CLARK: I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT COUNSEL IS TALKING ABOUT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. TONY PARKER.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THIS NAME, TONY PARKER?

MS. CLARK: NO, YOUR HONOR, AND I DON'T THINK THERE IS A STATEMENT HERE EITHER.

MR. DOUGLAS: THERE IS NOT A STATEMENT, YOUR HONOR. CAN WE COME BACK TO THAT ONE?

THE COURT: YES. ALL RIGHT. DR. HARVEY PALEY.

MR. DOUGLAS: YES, YOUR HONOR. THAT CONCERNS AN INCIDENT THAT WAS MENTIONED IN THE DISCOVERY MATERIALS --

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. DOUGLAS: AND THE COURT EXCLUDED IT LAST WEEK, BUT WE ARE LEAVING HIM ON AS A PRECAUTION. THERE WAS A MATTER CONCERNING RECORDS --

THE COURT: YES, YES, OKAY. THAT ONE IS A WHO KNOWS. OKAY. CLAUDINE RATCLIFFE.

MR. DARDEN: WAIT A MINUTE. ARE YOU THINKING OF DR. ALPERT AND THE 1986 INCIDENT?

MR. DOUGLAS: THERE WAS A HEARING IN FRONT OF JUDGE OUDERKIRK LAST WEEK.

THE COURT: THIS IS A SUBPOENA ON RECORDS.

MR. DOUGLAS: YES.

THE COURT: YES, THIS IS A PRECAUTION. ALL RIGHT. CLAUDINE RATCLIFFE.

MR. HODGMAN: WE ARE FAMILIAR WITH MISS RATCLIFFE. DO YOU HAVE A STATEMENT ON HER?

MR. DOUGLAS: NO, WE HAVEN'T INTERVIEWED HER.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ROLF ROKAHR.

MR. DOUGLAS: HE IS AN LAPD PHOTOGRAPHER, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: I RECALL SEEING HIS NAME IN ONE OF THE MOTIONS RECENTLY.

MR. DOUGLAS: JUST RECENTLY.

THE COURT: TRACIE SAVAGE.

MR. DOUGLAS: THERE IS A DECISION TO ADD HER TO THE WITNESS LIST TO AUTHENTICATE CERTAIN THEORIES THAT WE ARE OFFERING.

THE COURT: TO AUTHENTICATE THEORIES?

MR. DOUGLAS: SHE IS GOING TO AUTHENTICATE A REPORT THAT SHE GAVE.

THE COURT: AN INFAMOUS REPORT?

MR. DOUGLAS: CORRECT.

THE COURT: I TAKE IT THIS IS NO SURPRISE TO THE PROSECUTION?

MS. CLARK: THAT THEY ARE GOING TO CALL TRACIE SAVAGE? YES, THIS IS A SURPRISE.

THE COURT: YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH MISS SAVAGE AND THE ISSUE THEY ARE GOING TO RAISE?

MS. CLARK: YES.

THE COURT: LAWRENCE SCHILLER.

MR. DOUGLAS: FRIEND OF THE DEFENDANT.

MR. DARDEN: CAN WE HAVE AN ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER?

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN, WE WILL TAKE THAT UP. THE ISSUE IS IS IT A SURPRISE TO YOU AND DO THEY GET TO USE THAT IN THEIR OPENING STATEMENT.

MS. CLARK: PERHAPS THE COURT SKIPPED LAWRENCE SCHILLER.

MR. DOUGLAS: CHARACTER WITNESS.

MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY, UNKNOWN TO THE PEOPLE.

THE COURT: RON SHIPP.

MR. DOUGLAS: ON THE PEOPLE'S WITNESS LIST, YOUR HONOR.

MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. DOES THE DEFENSE HAVE ANY STATEMENT FROM HIM?

MR. DOUGLAS: NO, WE DID NOT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DR. GERALDINE STAHLY.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. DOUGLAS: GERALDINE BUTTS STAHLY IS AN ASSISTANT TO DR. WALKER.

MS. CLARK: I NEED TO ASK THE COURT INDULGE US, YOUR HONOR. WITH RESPECT TO MATSUDA, COUNSEL INDICATED THAT THERE WAS NO INTERVIEW. WE KNOW THAT THERE WAS BY INVESTIGATOR PAVELIC.

MR. DOUGLAS: I WILL CHECK THEN.

MS. CLARK: WE DO NOT HAVE A REPORT OF THAT INTERVIEW AND THE INTERVIEW WAS CONDUCTED MONTHS AGO.

MR. DOUGLAS: I WILL CHECK.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHAT ABOUT DR. STAHLY. ARE YOU ACQUAINTED WITH THAT NAME, MR. DARDEN?

MR. DARDEN: NO, YOUR HONOR.

MR. DOUGLAS: SHE DEALS WITH THE DOMESTIC DISCORD ISSUE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MARK STEVENS.

MR. DOUGLAS: HE IS THE TRAINER OR FORMER TRAINER OF MR. SIMPSON AND WE RECENTLY DECIDED TO ADD HIS NAME.

THE COURT: PHYSICAL TRAINER, PERSONAL FITNESS TRAINER?

MR. DOUGLAS: CORRECT.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, ARE YOU ACQUAINTED WITH THAT NAME?

MS. CLARK: NO, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. OFFICER THOMPSON, WEST L.A.

MR. DOUGLAS: I'M NOT SURE OF HIS ROLE, YOUR HONOR, BUT SEVERAL LAWYERS GOT TOGETHER TO DEVELOP THIS LIST AND WE ADDED IT AS A PRECAUTION.

THE COURT: ARE YOU ACQUAINTED WITH THIS NAME?

MS. CLARK: NO, I AM NOT, YOUR HONOR, BUT WITH RESPECT TO MARK STEVENS, I AM REMINDED THAT THERE WAS -- DETECTIVE LANGE INFORMS ME THAT THERE WAS A BRIEF STATEMENT TAKEN, BUT NOT AS IT PERTAINS TO HIS INVOLVEMENT WITH THE DEFENDANT. IT PERTAINED TO HIS OWNERSHIP OF THE GYM.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DR. JUSTIN UKO.

MR. DOUGLAS: HE WAS JUST RETAINED, YOUR HONOR. HE IS IN THE PROCESS OF BEING RETAINED, MORE PROPERLY. HE HAS NOT BEEN FORMALLY RETAINED, BUT AS A PRECAUTION WE ADDED HIS NAME RIGHT NOW.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. TONI VALENZUELA.

MR. DOUGLAS: THERE IS A STATEMENT OF MR. VALENZUELA ATTACHED. WE ADDED HIM NOW ONLY AS A PRECAUTION. IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER IN FACT HE WILL BE CALLED AS A WITNESS.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK?

MS. CLARK: I HAVE NEVER HEARD IT BEFORE TODAY. THIS IS THE FIRST. AND OF COURSE PORTIONS OF THESE STATEMENTS ARE BLACKED OUT AS WELL.

THE COURT: ANOTHER ISSUE. ALL RIGHT. BETHY VAQUERANO.

MR. DOUGLAS: THERE IS A STATEMENT INCLUDED IN THE PACKET FROM DECEMBER THE 8TH, YOUR HONOR. DEALS WITH CHARACTER MATTERS AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MR. SIMPSON AND HIS FORMER WIFE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, ARE YOU ACQUAINTED WITH THIS NAME?

MS. CLARK: NO, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DR. LENORE WALKER. I TAKE IT YOU ARE ACQUAINTED WITH DR. WALKER OR HER BODY OF WORK AT LEAST?

MS. CLARK: WELL, WE KNOW WHO SHE IS, BUT OF COURSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT, IF ANYTHING, SHE HAS DONE ON THIS CASE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. BUT GIVEN MR. DOUGLAS' REPRESENTATION THAT SHE WAS RECENTLY RETAINED, HAS NOT YET COMPLETED A REPORT, I THINK THAT IS THE STATUS -- WE UNDERSTAND THE CONTEXT OF HER INVOLVEMENT HERE?

MS. CLARK: UH-HUH.

MR. DOUGLAS: CORRECT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. CHIEF WILLIE WILLIAMS. I THINK WE ARE ALL ACQUAINTED WITH HIM. AND MR. DOUGLAS, DO YOU HAVE A SIGNIFICANT OFFER OF PROOF THAT WOULD CAUSE CHIEF WILLIAMS TO BE A RELEVANT WITNESS TO THIS CASE?

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, WE DID IT AS A PRECAUTION. IT IS LIKELY HE WILL NOT BE CALLED BUT I DID NOT WANT TO BE PRECLUDED.

THE COURT: OKAY. PAUL WILLIS.

MR. DOUGLAS: HE IS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE COUNTY CORONER'S OFFICE. THERE HAS BEEN NO STATEMENT AND THERE IS NO INTERVIEW.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: SURPRISE. WE DON'T KNOW WHO HE IS. NEVER SEEN THE NAME BEFORE.

THE COURT: DR. BERNARD YUDOWITZ.

MR. DOUGLAS: HE'S A DOCTOR WHOM WE HAVE ONLY RECENTLY RETAINED WHO HAS NOT YET FINALIZED A REPORT.

MS. CLARK: WITH RESPECT TO WHAT?

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. -- I TAKE IT, MISS CLARK, YOU ARE NOT ACQUAINTED WITH DR. YUDOWITZ?

MS. CLARK: NOT AT ALL.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MS. CLARK: THERE ARE ONLY A FEW -- IT WOULD BE EASIER TO COUNT THE NAMES THAT WE ARE FAMILIAR WITH ON THIS LIST THAN THE ONES THAT WE ARE NOT, NOT TO MENTION THE ADDITIONAL FACT OF REPRESENTATIONS OF COUNSEL THAT NO REPORTS WERE PREPARED ALTHOUGH INTERVIEWS WERE CONDUCTED. THERE IS A CASE DIRECTLY ON POINT REGARDING THAT.

THE COURT: THAT IS A DIFFERENT ISSUE.

MS. CLARK: RIGHT.

THE COURT: THE ISSUE AT THIS POINT IS WHAT SANCTIONS ARE APPROPRIATE AT THIS STAGE IN THE PROCEEDING.

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

MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, WITH REGARD TO SANCTIONS, WHETHER IT BE CHARACTERIZED AS A SANCTION OR JUST SOMETHING REASONABLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PEOPLE ARE ASKING FOR A WEEK'S CONTINUANCE.

THIS WAS THRUST UPON US, AND ONLY UPON REQUEST, TODAY. WE WENT TO SEE -- WE WANT TO SEE WHAT ELSE THEY'VE GOT. WE'VE GOT TO CHECK THIS OUT, YOUR HONOR. I MEAN, TO GET THIS TODAY IS JUST SHOCKING TO ME. WE WOULD LIKE A WEEK'S CONTINUANCE SO THAT WE CAN DIGEST THIS, TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT WE'VE GOT AND THEN BE ABLE TO REACT ACCORDINGLY.

MS. CLARK: NOT ONLY THAT, YOUR HONOR, BUT --

THE COURT: WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. MR. HODGMAN, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I HAVE ON MY CHECKLIST OF THINGS TO DO HERE IS THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE ONE COUNSEL PER SIDE PER ISSUE ON THESE MATTERS FROM HENCEFORTH. TOO BAD I DIDN'T GET THERE FIRST TODAY. MR. COCHRAN, GOOD MORNING, SIR.

MR. COCHRAN: GOOD MORNING TO YOU, YOUR HONOR. HAVING SAID THAT, PERHAPS I SHOULD SIT DOWN, SINCE YOU HAVE ONE COUNSEL PER SIDE. I GUESS I'M GOING TO BE TWO HERE. I WAS GOING TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF THE CONTINUANCE, BUT PERHAPS THAT IS NOT NECESSARY AT THIS POINT.

THE COURT: NO. MR. HODGMAN, YOU ARE ASKING FOR SOMETHING RELATIVELY UNUSUAL AT THIS POINT. DO YOU WANT TO ELABORATE AS TO WHY YOU FEEL THE PEOPLE SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO A GOOD CAUSE CONTINUANCE TODAY?

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

MR. HODGMAN: YES, YOUR HONOR. AS WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER, MAY I HAVE JUST A MOMENT WITH COUNSEL? I HAVE SOME THINGS I WOULD LIKE TO SAY, BUT LET'S MAKE SURE WE GET IT ALL.

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

THE COURT: MR. HODGMAN.

MR. HODGMAN: THANK YOU FOR INDULGING ME, YOUR HONOR. YOUR HONOR, WE ARE ASKING FOR A CONTINUANCE BECAUSE IT IS REASONABLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND WE ARE OFFERING THAT AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO PERHAPS MORE SEVERE SANCTIONS THAT THE COURT MAY ENTERTAIN VIS-A-VIS THE DEFENSE. THE PROBLEM IS EXACERBATED, YOUR HONOR, BECAUSE -- FIRST OF ALL, LET ME SAY THIS: WHEN THERE IS A FAILURE OF DISCOVERY, ONE OF THE AVAILABLE SANCTIONS IS A CONTINUANCE TO ALLOW THE PARTY WHO IS HARMED A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO CHECK OUT WHAT THEY HAVE JUST BEEN -- WHAT THEY HAVE JUST DISCOVERED. IN ADDITION, THE PROBLEM IS EXACERBATED THIS MORNING BECAUSE WE ALREADY KNOW FROM REPRESENTATIONS FROM MR. DOUGLAS, OR LACK OF KNOWLEDGE ON THE PART OF MR. DOUGLAS, THAT THERE IS OTHER INFORMATION THAT THEY POSSESS THAT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN FORTHCOMING WITH. WE HAVE ASKED TODAY TO HAVE ALL WITNESS STATEMENTS, ANYTHING THEY'VE GOT TURNED OVER. THEY HAVE GOT PHOTOGRAPHS, THEY GOT VIDEO, THEY HAVE STATEMENTS. MR. DOUGLAS ALLUDES TO PERHAPS INVESTIGATOR'S NOTES. THE PROBLEM IS, YOUR HONOR, WHAT ELSE DO THEY HAVE THAT ISN'T EVEN ON THIS LIST? THE PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW. IT IS APPARENTLY THERE. THE PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW AND THAT IS ONE REASON WE ARE ASKING FOR A CONTINUANCE, SO THAT WE CAN FLUSH OUT WHATEVER IT IS THEY HAVE. AND THEN SECONDLY, WE HAVE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO DEAL WITH WHATEVER THEY HAVE. I MEAN, TO SPRING THIS ON -- ON THE DATE OF OPENING STATEMENT IS SIMPLY NOT FAIR.

THE COURT: WELL, MR. HODGMAN, LET ME ASK YOU THIS: MY GUESS IS THAT THE PROSECUTION WILL TAKE AT LEAST TWO TO THREE MONTHS TO PRESENT THEIR CASE IN CHIEF. THAT IS A LONG TIME BETWEEN NOW AND THE DEFENSE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THEIR CASE.

ISN'T THAT -- GIVEN THE RATHER IFFY NATURE OF SOME OF THESE PEOPLE, THE REPRESENTATIONS AS TO WHO THEY ARE, ISN'T THAT SUFFICIENT TIME FOR THE PROSECUTION TO INTERVIEW THESE PEOPLE OR AT LEAST EVALUATE WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN THERE, ASSUMING I GRANT A PRECLUSION OF USE OF SURPRISE WITNESSES FOR PURPOSES OF OPENING STATEMENT BY THE DEFENSE?

MR. HODGMAN: OKAY. PERHAPS FOR SOME OF THE WITNESSES, YOUR HONOR. HOWEVER, AGAIN, DISCOVERY IS SUPPOSED TO BE A RECIPROCAL PROCESS. WE ARE HERE ON THE DATE OF OPENING STATEMENT AND AS THE DEFENSE --

THE COURT: THERE IS NOTHING MAGIC ABOUT TODAY. IT COULD BE TOMORROW.

MR. HODGMAN: ONLY IN THIS SENSE, THOUGH. ONLY IN THIS SENSE. THE DEFENSE HAS RELIED UPON THE DISCOVERY WHICH WE -- AS THE COURT IS AWARE, YOU HAVE HEARD THE NUMBERS ALL TOO OFTEN WHICH WE HAVE CHURNED OUT ON AN UNPRECEDENTED BASIS. WE COME TO COURT DISADVANTAGED BECAUSE OF INFORMATION WHICH WE SHOULD HAVE HAD THAT HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO IT COULD AFFECT HOW WE PRESENT OUR CASE. IT COULD AFFECT, BECAUSE IF DISCOVERY IS AN ENGINE FOR DETERMINING THE TRUTH, THERE MAY BE INFORMATION THAT IS OF RELEVANCE, OF VITAL RELEVANCE TO HOW WE PROCEED WITH OUR CASE. WE ARE HERE TODAY TO PROCEED WITH A STATEMENT OF THEORY, A RECITATION OR SYNOPSIS OF EVIDENCE THAT WE ANTICIPATE PRESENTING, AND WE ARE HAMSTRUNG BY THE FACT THAT PERHAPS PART OF THE AVAILABLE TRUTH, WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO US, HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN TO US. I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THIS WITNESS LIST AND IN A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME WE CAN DEAL WITH THIS. WHAT I'M MORE CONCERNED ABOUT AND WHAT I'M ASKING THE COURT FOR RIGHT NOW IS AN ORDER FOR THE DEFENSE TO DISGORGE WHATEVER ELSE THEY HAVE. THERE APPEARS TO BE SOME CONFUSION THAT THEY ARE NOT EVEN SURE WHAT THEY HAVE AT THIS MOMENT, BUT IT IS VERY APPARENT, AND I THINK THE COURT REALIZES, THEY HAVE MORE THAN WHAT THEY HAVE TURNED OVER TODAY. AND AT THE VERY LEAST I'M LOOKING AT TWO AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN SOME TIME BEFORE, PHOTOGRAPHS WHICH HAVE BEEN IN THE POSSESSION OF THE DEFENSE, WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN TURNED OVER TO THE PEOPLE. THERE HAS BEEN A VIDEOTAPE SHOWN THIS MORNING WHICH HAS BEEN IN THE POSSESSION OF THE DEFENSE FOR GOD KNOWS HOW LONG WHICH HAS ONLY BEEN DISCLOSED TO THE PEOPLE THIS MORNING.

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

MR. HODGMAN: AND I AM REMINDED, SOME OF THIS INFORMATION ABSOLUTELY PERTAINS TO OUR OPENING STATEMENT, SO YOUR HONOR --

THE COURT: SUCH AS? WHY DON'T YOU BRING ME INTO THAT CONTEXT WITH YOUR COMMENTS. HOW DOES THIS -- HOW DOES THIS LATE DISCLOSURE IMPACT YOUR OPENING STATEMENT?

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

MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, THERE IS A VIDEOTAPE OF THE CRIME SCENE. I DID NOT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE IT DURING THE BREAK BECAUSE I WAS DEALING WITH MR. DOUGLAS AND OTHER ISSUES, BUT I AM ADVISED THERE IS A VIDEOTAPE OF THE CRIME SCENE WHICH I HAVE NOT SEEN WHICH COMES AS A COMPLETE SURPRISE TO THE PROSECUTION THIS MORNING, AND APPARENTLY IT HAS BEEN IN POSSESSION OF THE DEFENSE AND HAS NEVER BEEN TURNED OVER, AND YET THIS MORNING THE DEFENSE, OR TODAY OR WHEN WE GET TO IT, THE DEFENSE WANTS TO BE ABLE TO UTILIZE THAT TAPE. WE HAVEN'T HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO EVEN SEE IT UNTIL TODAY. WE COULD HAVE -- EVEN LAST WEEK WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL TO US. BUT IN TERMS OF POSING OBJECTIONS, IN TERMS OF ANTICIPATING DEFENSE REMARKS IN OPENING STATEMENT, IN TERMS OF PLOTTING OUR OWN OPENING STATEMENT ITSELF, WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THIS. THERE IS AN AFFECT, THERE IS A DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN WHAT THEY HAVE WITH WITHHELD AND WHAT WE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE DONE OR WHAT WE CAN OR CANNOT DO TODAY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. HODGMAN, IS YOUR PRIMARY OBJECTION THE VIDEOTAPE AT THIS POINT? I MEAN, THE CRIME -- THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS HERE, AS I CAN SEE THEM, IS THERE ANYTHING SURPRISING TO YOU ABOUT THOSE ITEMS?

MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, WITH REGARD TO THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS, THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS ARE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS. WHAT SURPRISES ME IS THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE BEEN IN THE POSSESSION OF THE DEFENSE AGAIN FOR WHO KNOWS HOW LONG AND YET WE SEE THEM TODAY. THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WE CAN DEAL WITH. THE VIDEOTAPE IS A DIFFERENT ISSUE AND I HAVE NOT EVEN HAD AN OPPORTUNITY -- BECAUSE DURING THE BREAK THAT THE COURT AFFORDED US, THERE WERE A NUMBER OF ISSUES THAT BECAME VERY, VERY -- THAT AROSE, LET'S PUT IT THAT WAY.

THE COURT: THAT IS WHY I HAD ASKED -- THAT IS WHY I HAD SCHEDULED TWO PREVIOUS SHOW AND TELLS.

MR. HODGMAN: AND WE SHOWED UP FRIDAY AND WE SHOWED, WE TOLD, AND MR. DOUGLAS INDICATED THAT THERE WOULD BE A FEW THINGS AND I HAVE A LIST OF THINGS THAT HE SAID WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE AS OF LAST WEEK, AND WE HAD NO RECIPROCITY IN THAT EXCHANGE. THEY HAVE COME IN WITH A MULTITUDE OF HARD BOARD, EXHIBITS THAT THEY WISH TO USE, AND I AM PUTTING JUST OBJECTIONS, TECHNICAL OBJECTIONS THAT SHOULD BE MADE THAT WE HAVE NEVER EVEN SEEN BEFORE, BUT OF CRITICAL IMPORTANCE TO OPENING STATEMENT ARE THE WITNESS STATEMENTS. THE WITNESS STATEMENTS WHICH AGAIN WE HAVE -- THEY EXIST OR THEY DON'T EXIST. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THEY HAVE THAT THEY HAVE NOT GIVEN US -- WHAT THEY HAVE GIVEN US THIS MORNING WE HAVE JUST BECOME AWARE OF THIS MORNING, YOUR HONOR. SO IT IS A MATTER OF FAIRNESS. IT HAS AN IMPACT ON WHAT WE INTEND TO DO. THE TRUTH OR PART OF THE TRUTH HAS BEEN HIDDEN FROM US BY THE DEFENSE.

THE COURT: AND YOU THINK IT WOULD TAKE YOU A WEEK TO EVALUATE THIS AND MAKE IT RIGHT?

MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, WE ARE ASKING FOR A REASONABLE CONTINUANCE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. I WOULD SAY AT LEAST A WEEK TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT WE'VE GOT. WHAT CONCERNS ME IS WHAT WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED. AND I DON'T KNOW -- I CAN'T ADDRESS THAT UNTIL WE RECEIVE IT FROM THE DEFENSE. I CAN ONLY ASK THE COURT TO ORDER THE DEFENSE TO DISGORGE WHAT THEY HAVE SO WE CAN HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO EVALUATE IT.

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

MR. COCHRAN: GOOD MORNING AGAIN, YOUR HONOR. ALWAYS A PLEASURE TO APPEAR. YOUR HONOR, IF I MIGHT JUST SAY THIS: I'VE USED THIS WORD BEFORE, BUT I AM ABSOLUTELY APPALLED THAT THE PROSECUTION WOULD COME HERE AND CLAIM THEY ARE NOT READY FOR TRIAL. THEY ARE TALKING ONCE MORE ABOUT THIS AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE AND NOW THEY ARE READY FOR TRIAL. THEY SEE A FEW CHARTS FROM US AND THEY BECOME FRIGHTENED AND WANT TO RUN AWAY AND HIDE FOR A WEEK. YOUR HONOR, MR. SIMPSON IS NOT GOING TO WAIVE TIME. MAY I MAKE THIS SUGGESTION? WE ARE ALL TRIAL ATTORNEYS HERE. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET INSIDE MY HEAD AS TO WHAT I CAN SAY TO THIS JURY OR MY THEORY. THE PUNDITS CAN SPECULATE, BUT THEY DON'T KNOW, YOUR HONOR. MR. DOUGLAS CORRECTLY POINTED IT OUT. HOW SURPRISED ARE THEY, YOUR HONOR, THAT WE PUT ON A LIST KATHLEEN BELL? WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT HER, AND THE COURT IS AWARE, SINCE THE PITCHESS MOTION. THAT IS NOT A SURPRISE. MANY OF THE OTHER WITNESSES, YOUR HONOR, LIKE DINO BUCCOLLA, WE HAVEN'T TALKED TO HIM YET, BUT WE TALKED TO OUR CLIENT. THE THINGS THEY ARE SAYING ABOUT THE RED ONION ARE FLAT OUT NOT TRUE. WHAT WE SAY, MR. SIMPSON, WHO ELSE WAS PRESENT? HE SAYS DINO BUCCOLLA AND THE OTHERS. YOU TALK TO THEM. OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION, YOUR HONOR, WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS PUT A LIST TOGETHER AS YOU SAW. MANY OF THESE PEOPLE MAY OR MAY NOT BE CALLED, BUT WE TRY TO DO THAT BASED UPON WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT. I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO SITTING DOWN WITH MY GOOD FRIEND BILL HODGMAN OR MR. DOUGLAS DO IT RIGHT AWAY AND GOING THROUGH THESE AND THEN THERE IS A DISGORGING OF DISCOVERY THAT THEY THINK THEY ARE ENTITLED TO. BUT THE POINT IS, YOUR HONOR, THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE PRIVY TO WHAT IS IN OUR HEADS, WHAT WE THINK HAPPENED. THEY HAVE THEIR THEORY; WE HAVE FACTS. WE BELIEVE -- AND THEY KNOW THE FACTS JUST LIKE WE -- LIKE WE SHOULD KNOW THEM, AND THE FACT THAT WE HAVE AN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH, YOUR HONOR, FIRST OF ALL, UNTIL WE SIT DOWN -- AS THE COURT WAS A FORMER TRIAL LAWYER -- UNTIL WE SIT DOWN OVER THIS WEEKEND AND WORK ALL NIGHT THURSDAY NIGHT AND FRIDAY NIGHT AND THEN MAKE A DECISION AS TO WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO, IT DIDN'T EVEN BECOME RELEVANT. BUT I DON'T SEE HOW THEY ARE PREJUDICED BY AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS. THEY HAVE THEM THEMSELVES.

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, THE ONLY REAL OBJECTION THAT I HERE COMING FROM THE PROSECUTION IS THE NAMES ON THE WITNESS LIST THAT THEY ARE NOT ACQUAINTED WITH AND THE VIDEOTAPE SEQUENCE THAT WAS JUST EXHIBITED TO THE PROSECUTION THIS MORNING. THAT IS WHAT I'M HEARING.

AND I HAVE TO TELL YOU MY INCLINATION AT THIS POINT IS TO DENY THE MOTION TO CONTINUE, BUT TO PRECLUDE YOU FROM USING IN YOUR OPENING REMARKS ANY OF THE STATEMENTS MADE BY ANY OF THE WITNESSES THAT WERE UNKNOWN TO THE PROSECUTION PRIOR TO TODAY AND NOT TO USE THEM UNTIL THEY'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY -- THE SAME OPPORTUNITY THAT YOU HAVE FOR INTERVIEWING THE WITNESSES. THAT IS MY INCLINATION.

MR. COCHRAN: IN YOUR OWN WISDOM, YOUR HONOR, I CERTAINLY CAN LIVE WITH THAT. LET ME FIRST ENDORSE THE FIRST PART OF YOUR INCLINATION NOT FOR A CONTINUANCE, AND WITH REGARD TO THE OTHER PEOPLE --

THE COURT: BUT I AM GOING TO AFFORD THE PROSECUTION TIME OVER THE LUNCH HOUR TO SIT DOWN AND GO FRAME BY FRAME OVER THAT VIDEO THAT YOU HAVE JUST BROUGHT IN, BECAUSE I SAW IT FLASHING BY, TOO, AND IT APPEARED TO ME TO BE A COMPOSITE OF SEVERAL DIFFERENT TYPES OF FOOTAGE.

MR. COCHRAN: AND YOUR HONOR, CERTAINLY I THINK THAT IS ABSOLUTELY REASONABLE, AND ALTHOUGH THE WORLD AWAITS THE OPENING STATEMENTS, I THINK --

THE COURT: I DON'T CARE ABOUT THAT. I DON'T FEEL THE PRESSURE OF TIME.

MR. COCHRAN: I WAS SAYING THE SAME THING AND I DON'T THINK WE DO EITHER FROM OUR OWN POINT. IF THEY NEED SOME ADDITIONAL TIME TO LOOK AT THE GRAPHICS, IT IS THEIR CRIME SCENE, YOUR HONOR, SO HOW BIG A SURPRISE COULD THIS BE TO THEM? SO WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THAT. AND I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST ON THE DISCOVERY ISSUES, IF YOU ALLOW US BY THE END OF DAY, MR. HODGMAN WILL BE SATISFIED WITH REGARD TO EVERYTHING WE HAVE. WE WILL HAVE EACH OF THE INVESTIGATORS DOWN HERE TO MAKE SURE THERE IS NO REPORT WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT AND WE CAN DISCUSS THAT.

THE COURT: THERE IS ONE HYBRID PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE HERE. CERTAINLY THE PROSECUTION IS NOT SURPRISED TO SEE THE NAME KATHLEEN BELL, BUT THEY ARE PERHAPS SURPRISED TO SEE A NEW STATEMENT OR STATEMENTS OF HER OR ABOUT HER. THAT IS THE ONLY HYBRID ISSUE THAT WE HAVE.

MR. COCHRAN: WE WILL ADDRESS THAT ISSUE, YOUR HONOR, ALSO, AND ALSO I THINK THERE IS ANOTHER MOTION TODAY THAT MR. BAILEY WILL BE HANDLING THAT WILL BEAR ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, IT SEEMS TO ME ALSO, IF WE CAN LEAVE THIS WITH THE COURT.

THE COURT: I HAVE ON MY AGENDA WHAT I CALLED FUHRMAN 2, WHICH IS NEW ARGUMENT ON THAT ISSUE OR YOUR NEW OFFER OF PROOF ON THAT ISSUE.

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. JUST SO WE ARE CLEAR, THE COURT'S RULING IS AS FOLLOWS -- AND I'M GOING TO ACCEPT KATHLEEN BELL BECAUSE I WANT TO HEAR THE ARGUMENT AS TO OTHER THE PART.

THE DEFENSE MAY USE IN THEIR OPENING STATEMENT MR. GLORIOSO, MR. MATSUDA, DR. PALEY, CLAUDINE RATCLIFFE, ROLF ROKAHR, TRACIE SAVAGE, RON SHIPP, MARK STEVENS AND DR. LENORE WALKER. THE REMAINDER THE NAMES ON THE WITNESS LIST MAY NOT BE USED BY THE DEFENSE IN THEIR OPENING STATEMENT OR REFERRED TO UNTIL THE PROSECUTION HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONDUCT REASONABLE INVESTIGATION AS TO THESE PERSONS WHO ARE JUST NOW DISCLOSED THE MORNING SCHEDULED FOR OPENING STATEMENTS. THIS LIST WILL BE MARKED AS COURT'S EXHIBIT 1 FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS MORNING'S HEARING.

MR. COCHRAN: FINE, YOUR HONOR. WE UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

(COURT'S 1 FOR ID = DEF SUPPLEMENTAL WIT LIST)

MS. CLARK: WITH RESPECT TO MR. MATSUDA, I THINK -- LET ME REMIND THE COURT THAT THERE WAS AN INTERVIEW CONDUCTED OF HIM BY MR. PAVELIC SOME MONTHS AGO AND IT HAS NOT BEEN EVER TURNED OVER TO THE PROSECUTION.

THE COURT: HOW DO WE KNOW THAT?

MS. CLARK: BECAUSE WE ASKED MR. MATSUDA. WE CONTACTED WESTEC AND THEY INFORMED US THAT THERE WAS PROBABLY MORE THAN ONE INTERVIEW AND IT OCCURRED SOME TIME AGO, IT WAS LENGTHY IN NATURE, AND THERE IS NO REPORT THAT HAS EVER BEEN TURNED OVER TO US.

MR. COCHRAN: I AM NOT AWARE OF IT AND WE WILL GET MR. PAVELIC AVAILABLE TO THE COURT AND WE WILL HAVE A MEETING BETWEEN MR. HODGMAN OR MR. DOUGLAS AND SOLVE THE PROBLEM.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, AT THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS TODAY I WILL SIT DOWN WITH YOU, DEFENSE COUNSEL, COURT REPORTER, AND WE WILL GO THROUGH THESE ISSUES ONE AT A TIME FOR DISCOVERY PURPOSES. WE WILL CONCLUDE THIS THIS AFTERNOON.

MS. CLARK: THE PROBLEM, YOUR HONOR, IS THERE MAY HAVE BEEN -- THERE MAY BE ISSUES THAT WE WANT TO ADDRESS IN OUR OPENING STATEMENT PERTAINING TO SOME OF THESE WITNESSES, PARTICULARLY THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE WITNESSES, AND HOW CAN WE POSSIBLY DO SO EFFECTIVELY IF WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THEY SAID? COUNSEL HAS REFUSED TO TURN OVER ANY STATEMENTS MADE BY THEM. WE ONLY TODAY DISCOVERED THEIR NAME AND THEY HAVE NOT EVEN REDUCED A LOT OF THOSE STATEMENTS TO WRITING, WHICH THE COURT KNOWS THE IMPROPRIETY OF THAT, SO HOW CAN WE PRESENT AN OPENING STATEMENT WITHOUT KNOWING WHO THESE PEOPLE ARE WHICH WE MAY WANT TO ADDRESS?

MR. COCHRAN: CAN WE HAVE A MEETING FIRST AND THEN WE CAN ARGUE IT AFTERWARD?

MS. CLARK: WE DON'T NEED TO GET INTO COUNSEL'S HEAD, AS COUNSEL HAS INDICATED. WE HAVE NO DESIRE TO DO SO. PRIVACY ISSUES ARE BEING RESPECTED HERE.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU.

MS. CLARK: YOU ARE WELCOME. BUT WE DO NEED TO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE, SO WE HAVE TO ADDRESS THE OPENING STATEMENT AND WE CANNOT MEANINGFULLY MAKE AN INTELLIGENT DECISION WITHOUT KNOWING THAT COUNSEL HAS DEPRIVED US OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO. NOT ONLY THAT, BUT THE VIDEOTAPE -- THE COURT SEES THERE ARE A LOT OF ISSUES OF FOUNDATIONAL SHOWINGS CONCERNING TIMING. COUNSEL IS SPRINGING ALL OF THESE EXHIBITS ON US AT THE LAST MINUTE. AND I INDICATED TO THE COURT THERE IS ONE WE STILL HAVE NOT YET SEEN THAT IS NOT EVEN PRESENT IN COURT YET THAT CONTAINS A LOT OF MISREPRESENTATIONS OF FACT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S BRING UP THE VIDEOTAPE. DO WE HAVE THE VIDEOTAPE AVAILABLE?

MR. HARRIS: YES.

THE COURT: CAN WE DO THAT FRAME BY FRAME AND SCENE BY SCENE?

MR. HARRIS: YES.

MR. DOUGLAS: SCENE BY SCENE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: HOW MANY ARE THERE IN THE SEQUENCE?

MR. HARRIS: THERE ARE SEVERAL, ACTUALLY.

THE COURT: HOW MANY IS SEVERAL? AND CAN WE HAVE YOU STATE AND SPELL YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.

MR. COCHRAN: HOWARD HARRIS, YOUR HONOR, H-A-R-R-I-S.

THE COURT: I ASKED HIM TO DO THAT.

MR. COCHRAN: I'M SORRY.

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

MR. HARRIS: HOWARD HARRIS.

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. BAILEY: FOR THE RECORD, YOUR HONOR, THESE ARE COMPOSITES OF NEWS CLIPS THAT ARE ON LASER DISKS AND BEING BROUGHT UP IN SEGMENTS BY A BAR CODE READ.

THE COURT: MR. BAILEY, WHAT IS THIS FIRST SEQUENCE?

MR. SCHECK: THIS FIRST SCENE IS DETECTIVE VANNATTER -- DETECTIVE LANGE, I'M SORRY, WALKING DOWN THE STEPS AT BUNDY AND THE TWO PEOPLE ON THE TOP STEPS ARE MEMBERS OF THE CORONER'S OFFICE; THE ONE IN THE WHITE SUIT FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE, THE MAN IN THE BLUE SUIT FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE, AND BOTH BODIES, AS BEST I CAN TELL, ARE STILL THERE.

THE COURT: WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TIME MARK AT THE BOTTOM?

MS. CLARK: HOW DOES COUNSEL KNOW WHO THOSE PEOPLE ARE?

MR. SCHECK: BECAUSE I HAVE LOOKED THROUGH THE DISCOVERY.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, PLEASE DON'T INTERRUPT ME.

MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY.

MR. BAILEY: THAT IS A COUNTER AND IT DEALS WITH MINUTES, SECONDS AND FRAMES.

MR. SCHECK: OF THIS TAPE.

MR. BAILEY: THERE ARE THIRTY FRAMES PER SECOND ON THE VIDEOTAPE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

THE COURT: AND WHAT IS THIS SEQUENCE?

MR. SCHECK: IN THIS SEQUENCE THE TWO INDIVIDUALS FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE WHO WERE PREVIOUSLY UP ON THE STEPS ARE BEGINNING TO TAKE AWAY A BODY. DETECTIVE LANGE YOU SAW THERE, AND THEN THE MAN WHO CROSSED THE SCENE FROM THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE TO THE LEFT IS MR. FUNG. HE IS CARRYING A PAPER BAG THAT CONTAINS EVIDENCE. ON THE BOTTOM SCREEN, WITH HER BACK, TO YOU IS ANDREA MAZZOLLA.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. NEXT SEQUENCE.

MR. SCHECK: THAT IS MR. FUNG WITH THE YELLOW EVIDENCE CARDS IN HIS HAND THAT HE IS PLACING DOWN BEFORE THEY TAKE PICTURES, PRESUMABLY AFTER THE MEASUREMENTS. THOSE ARE DETECTIVES WALKING THROUGH THE CRIME SCENE.

MR. BAILEY: YOUR HONOR, TO CLARIFY ONE POINT, YOU ASKED ABOUT THE DIGITS. THOSE WERE IMPOSED AS PART OF THE NEWS COMPANY'S WORK. THEY WERE ON THERE WHEN WE GOT THEM. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING THAT THE DEFENSE INCLUDED.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. SCHECK: THIS IS A SUBSEQUENT TIME SEQUENCE, IT APPEARS TO US. AGAIN THESE ARE DETECTIVES WALKING THROUGH THE CRIME SCENE AND THE CAMERA DOES A CLOSE-UP, AND IF YOU SEE AND LOOK VERY CAREFULLY, THAT IS A YELLOW TICKET 107 REPRESENTING ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT PICTURES WERE TAKEN OF. THAT IS IT. SHOW THE STILL AFTERWARDS JUST TO BE SURE. THESE WE HAVE SHOWN TO THE PROSECUTION BEFORE. THESE ARE STILL PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN OFF TELEVISION. HIT THE NEXT ONE. THAT IS A STILL PHOTOGRAPH THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE PROSECUTION. THAT IS THE WOMAN FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE NEXT TO, AT THIS POINT MR. GOLDMAN, AND THOSE ARE GLOVES ON HIS BODY AND THAT WAS SHOWN TO THE PROSECUTION. THEY SAW THAT PREVIOUSLY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHAT IS THE PEOPLE'S OBJECTION TO THE USE OF THIS IN OPENING STATEMENT?

MS. CLARK: THE PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE, YOUR HONOR, IS WITH THE MISLEADING NATURE OF IT. WE DON'T KNOW WHEN EACH VIDEO WAS SHOT -- I MEAN, WHAT TIME OF DAY. WE DON'T KNOW WHO THE PEOPLE ARE IN THE PHOTOGRAPH. AND THE WAY THAT THE VIDEO SEGMENTS ARE PUT TOGETHER, IT IS HARD TO TELL WHICH CAME FIRST AND WHICH REALLY CAME SECOND. IT IS VERY MISLEADING AND VERY CONFUSING AND THERE IS NO FOUNDATIONAL -- THERE IS NO AUTHENTICATION IN TERMS OF TIME AS TO WHEN IT WAS DONE, WHEN EACH SEGMENT WAS SHOT. THAT IS ALSO THE OBJECTION, BY THE WAY, I MAY AS WELL PUT THEM ALL OUT THERE, TO THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE UNIFORMED OFFICER WALKING UP THE WALK ALSO. WE DON'T HAVE ANY INDICATION AS TO WHEN THAT OCCURRED. I THINK I KNOW WHAT THE DEFENSE IS GOING TO ARGUE AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM, THAT IT WILL BE VERY MISLEADING. THERE NEEDS TO BE AT LEAST -- THERE HAS TO BE SOME FOUNDATIONAL SHOWING AS TO WHEN THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS WERE TAKEN AND WHEN THE VIDEOS WERE SHOT IN ORDER TO MAKE THEM RELEVANT AND NON-MISLEADING TO THE JURY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. HARRIS, ON YOUR CATALOGUE OF DEFENSE EXHIBITS THERE, WHAT WAS THE SEQUENCE THAT YOU JUST SHOWED US?

MR. HARRIS: THOSE WERE JUST CRIME SCENE VIDEOS.

THE COURT: BUT I NEED TO BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY THEM FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE RECORD.

MR. HARRIS: I'M SORRY. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN NO. 51, 52, 54 -- 54, 55 AND 56, AND WE ALSO SHOWED YOU A SERIES OF STILLS, 57, 58, 59 AND 60.

MS. CLARK: I THINK WHAT WE NEED, YOUR HONOR, THESE ARE EXCERPTS FROM A LARGER TAPE SO COUNSEL -- I MEAN THE DEFENSE HAS TAKEN PORTIONS OF A LARGER TAPE OUT OF THE CONTEXT OF THE ENTIRE TAPE AND WE NEED TO SEE THE ENTIRE TAPE IN ORDER TO PLACE IT BACK IN CONTEXT TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE FLOW OF EVENTS WAS AND WHEN THE EVENTS DEPICTED IN THAT VIDEO TRANSPIRED.

THE COURT: WELL, THAT WOULD MEAN THAT ANY ONE OF YOUR CRIME SCENE PHOTOGRAPHS, I WOULD HAVE TO SEE ALL 200 OF THE CRIME SCENE PHOTOGRAPHS TO PUT THEM IN PERSPECTIVE. ISN'T THAT THE SAME THING?

MS. CLARK: NO. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WHEN EVENTS TRANSPIRE, AND IN ORDER TO PUT IT IN CONTEXT, THAT IS THE ONLY WAY WE ARE GOING TO KNOW.

THE COURT: WELL, I ASSUME THAT DURING THE COURSE -- OBVIOUSLY THE ISSUE OF THE QUALITY OF THE COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE IS CLEARLY AN ISSUE IN THIS TRIAL, AND I ASSUME THAT DURING THE COURSE OF THE OPENING STATEMENT MR. COCHRAN, OR WHOEVER IT IS WHO IS GOING TO MAKE THE OPENING STATEMENT, WILL TELL US THE SEQUENCE IN WHICH THESE EVENTS OCCURRED.

MS. CLARK: WELL --

THE COURT: AS THEIR OFFER TO THE JURY, THIS IS WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO PROVE, I ASSUME.

MS. CLARK: I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN ASSUME THAT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: WELL --

MS. CLARK: IT CAN BE JUST SHOWN AS -- IT COULD EASILY BE USED TO SHOW OFFICERS WALKING AROUND THE CRIME SCENE AND SAYING LOOK HOW THEY ACTED AT THE CRIME SCENE WITHOUT EVER REALLY SAYING IT, AND THE PROBLEM IS THAT WE NEED SOME GOOD FAITH OFFER OF PROOF TO INDICATE THEIR KNOWLEDGE AND ABILITY TO DEMONSTRATE, FOUNDATIONALLY SPEAKING, THAT THERE IS A -- THAT THERE IS A TIME CERTAIN WHEN THE VIDEO WAS ACTUALLY SHOT.

THE COURT: MR. SCHECK.

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, I THINK I GAVE A NARRATIVE. I CAN SIT DOWN WITH THEM. THE WAY I FIGURED OUT WHEN THOSE THINGS OCCURRED IS I LOOKED AT THE DISCOVERY, I LOOKED AT THE POLICE REPORTS. MR. LANGE WAS THERE. HE KNOWS THE ORDER IN WHICH PEOPLE ARRIVED. WE KNOW WHEN THE REPORTS SAY THE CORONER ARRIVED. WE KNOW AT THE TIME ROUGHLY THE BODIES WERE MOVED. WE KNOW WHEN MR. FUNG WAS TAKING OUT HIS THINGS TO MEASURE. AND THAT IS HOW I WAS ABLE TO GIVE THIS NARRATIVE, AND THAT IS HOW WE ARE GOING TO PROVE IT UP.

MS. CLARK: THAT WOULD NOT BE ENOUGH TO MAKE IT ADMISSIBLE, THOUGH.

MR. SCHECK: THAT IS HOW WE ARE GOING TO AUTHENTICATE IT.

THE COURT: AND MR. SCHECK, DO YOU HAVE THE PHOTOGRAPHERS WHO TOOK THESE PHOTOS, THESE VIDEOS AND WHO CAN TESTIFY TO THE FOUNDATION FOR THESE THINGS?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. SCHECK: IF NECESSARY TO CALL THEM, IF THAT IS NECESSARY FOR THE FOUNDATION. I WOULD ASSUME DETECTIVE LANGE IS GOING TO SAY THAT IS WHAT HE DID AND THAT IS HIM, BUT IF NECESSARY, WE CAN CALL THE PHOTOGRAPHERS WHO TOOK THE PICTURES.

MS. CLARK: WE CAN'T RESOLVE THE TIMING ISSUE WITH DETECTIVE LANGE. THAT IS WHY WE NEED THE PHOTOGRAPHER.

MR. SCHECK: I THINK WE CAN. HE FILLED OUT THE REPORTS. WE KNOW WHEN THE CORONERS WERE THERE. WE KNOW THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS. WE KNOW WHEN MR. FUNG ARRIVED. WE KNOW WHEN THE BODIES WERE MOVED. WE KNOW WHEN THINGS WERE PUT DOWN. IF IT WILL MAKE THINGS EASIER, YOUR HONOR, WE WILL ELIMINATE THE LAST STILL PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE UNIFORM FELLOW BECAUSE THAT WE WOULD PROBABLY ONLY BE ABLE TO CONNECT UP IN TERMS OF TIME FROM THE PERSON WHO TOOK THE PICTURE, SO WE WILL TAKE THOSE OUT, BUT THE OTHER ONES ARE ABSOLUTELY UNDERSTANDABLE FROM THE PEOPLE WHO DID THE CRIME SCENE, WHO DID THE COLLECTION, WHO WERE THERE, WHO MADE OUT THE REPORTS. AND I HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT JUST IN LOOKING AT THE PICTURES THEY WILL KNOW WHAT THEY DID.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, THE PROBLEM IS THAT DETECTIVE LANGE WAS WORKING AT THE TIME. HE WASN'T THERE LOOKING AT HIS WATCH AND TAKING NOTES AT THE TIME THAT HE WAS DOING WHAT HE IS DEPICTED IN THE VIDEO AS DOING. AND WE NEED SOMEONE WHO WAS SHOOTING IT TO BE ABLE TO TELL US WHAT TIME THAT WAS THAT IT WAS BEING SHOT, AND OBVIOUSLY THAT IS GOING TO BE VERY IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF THE AUTHENTICATION OF THAT VIDEO AS BEING RELEVANT TO THE ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL. THERE IS A FOUNDATIONAL GAP HERE. COUNSEL CAN'T TAKE THE WITNESS STAND AND SAY I FIGURED IT OUT FROM POLICE REPORTS, BECAUSE EVEN THE DETECTIVE WHO WAS THERE CAN'T BE PRECISE AS TO EXACTLY WHEN HE WAS DOING WHAT WAS SHOWN IN THE VIDEO.

THE COURT: WELL, COUNSEL, ISN'T THE ISSUE, THOUGH, THAT THE COURT HAS TO RESOLVE FOR THE PURPOSE OF OPENING STATEMENTS, WHETHER OR NOT THE USE OF THESE EXHIBITS WOULD SOMEHOW BE FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR OR FUNDAMENTALLY MISLEADING TO THE TRIER OF FACT? AND IT IS THE THEORY OF THE DEFENSE, I SUSPECT, AND FORGIVE ME MR. COCHRAN FOR TRYING TO GET IN YOUR THOUGHT PROCESS --

MR. COCHRAN: EVERYBODY ELSE IS, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: BUT I MEAN IT IS NO SECRET THAT THE DEFENSE INTENDS TO VIGOROUSLY CHALLENGE THE QUALITY OF THE COLLECTION OF THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE. I SUSPECT THAT GIVEN WHAT I KNOW OF THESE ATTORNEYS, AND THE ATTORNEYS ON BOTH SIDES, IS THAT THEY WILL BE ABLE TO LAY A FOUNDATION FOR THE DATE, TIME AND PLACE THAT THESE VIDEOTAPES WERE TAKEN. I ASSUME THAT THAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. AND I DON'T SEE ANY FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PHOTOGRAPH THAT IS TAKEN AT THE CRIME SCENE BY DETECTIVES BY PHOTOGRAPHERS FOR THE LAPD OR THE NEWS PEOPLE WHO WERE ACROSS THE STREET VIDEOTAPING.

MS. CLARK: THE DIFFERENCE IS -- FIRST OF ALL, I THINK WE CAN'T MAKE THE ASSUMPTION THAT COUNSEL WILL LAY A FOUNDATION. WE DON'T KNOW. THERE HAS NOT BEEN AN OFFER OF PROOF AS TO HOW THEY INTEND TO DO THAT, OTHER THAN TO SAY THAT DETECTIVE LANGE SHOULD KNOW WHEN HE DID THINGS, BUT DETECTIVE LANGE, WHO WAS WORKING AT THE TIME, CANNOT SAY WITH ANY PRECISION WHEN CERTAIN THINGS OCCURRED. NO. 2, IT IS A VERY DIFFERENT SITUATION --

THE COURT: WELL, COUNSEL, LET ME ASK YOU THIS: NO. 1, THE FIRST SEQUENCE IS DETECTIVE LANGE WITH TWO CORONERS PERSONS THERE. WE KNOW WHEN THE CORONERS GOT THERE, SO WE KNOW IT IS AT LEAST HOW MANY HOURS AFTER THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED?

MR. COCHRAN: TEN.

THE COURT: TEN HOURS.

MR. COCHRAN: AT LEAST.

THE COURT: AND WE KNOW THAT THEY ARE STANDING THERE AT THE TOP OF THE STEPS AND THAT THERE APPEARS TO STILL BE A BODY AT THE BOTTOM OF THE STEPS, SO WE KNOW THAT THE BODY HAS NOT BEEN TRANSPORTED YET. THAT GIVES US A RELATIVELY GOOD TIME FRAME, I WOULD THINK. THEN WE HAVE THE CORONER WITH MR. FUNG AND MISS MAZZOLLA THERE AT THE CRIME SCENE. SINCE WE KNOW THE CORONER DIDN'T GET THERE UNTIL TEN HOURS AFTER THE BODIES WERE DISCOVERED, THAT ALSO --

MS. CLARK: NO, EIGHT HOURS AFTER.

THE COURT: AND WE KNOW WHEN MAZZOLLA AND FUNG GOT THERE, WE KNOW THAT IT IS AFTER THAT POINT IN TIME, AND THEY APPEARED TO BE DOING SOMETHING. I DON'T KNOW WHAT ARGUMENT OR WHAT OFFER OF PROOF MR. COCHRAN IS GOING TO MAKE TO THE JURY AS A RESULT OF THAT, BUT AT LEAST WE HAVE SOME FIX. AND THEN I SAW DETECTIVES WALKING THROUGH -- APPEARED TO BE WALKING THROUGH THE CRIME SCENE, APPEARED TO BE -- I CAN'T REMEMBER THE NAME OF THE DETECTIVES, BUT I RECOGNIZE WHO THEY WERE.

MR. COCHRAN: ROGERS AND VANNATTER.

THE COURT: I'M SORRY?

MR. COCHRAN: ROGERS AND VANNATTER.

THE COURT: AND THERE APPEARS TO BE AN EVIDENCE TAG DOWN AT THE BOTTOM OR A PHOTO TAG DOWN AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SEEP, SO WE KNOW WHEN THE PHOTOGRAPHER WAS USING THOSE TO TAKE PICTURES. DOES THAT GIVE US A REASONABLY ACCURATE TIME FRAME TO EVALUATE WHAT IS THERE?

MS. CLARK: NO, IT DOESN'T.

THE COURT: WHY NOT?

MS. CLARK: THE REASON IT DOESN'T, BECAUSE CRIMINALIST FUNG WAS AT BUNDY MORE THAN ONCE. THEY HAD TO GO BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THE SCENES. WE DON'T KNOW HOW LONG THE CORONER WAS THERE BEFORE -- HOW LONG THEY WAITED AFTER THEY GOT THERE BEFORE THEY DID ANYTHING.

THE COURT: UH-HUH.

MS. CLARK: WE DON'T -- THERE IS A WHOLE LOT OF ISSUES THERE, SO WE DON'T KNOW WHEN THE COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE OCCURRED VIS-A-VIS THE ARRIVAL OF THE CORONER OR THE REMOVAL OF THE BODY BY THE CORONER. NO, IT DOESN'T RESOLVE ANYTHING, YOUR HONOR, BECAUSE THERE IS A LOT THAT IS GOING ON AT THAT SCENE. IT DOESN'T. AND THAT IS WHY WE NEED TO GET THE GET THE PHOTOGRAPHER AND SEE IF THERE IS SOME RECORD TO INDICATE EXACTLY WHEN IT WAS TAKEN. BECAUSE WHAT COUNSEL HAS INDICATED TO THE COURT GIVES NOTHING MORE THAN A ROUGH ESTIMATE AS TO, WELL, IT HAD TO BE AFTER EIGHT O'CLOCK. THAT IS ALL IT DOES. THAT IS ALL IT DOES. IT DOESN'T TELL YOU WHETHER IT WAS BEFORE 10:00, AFTER 10:00, BEFORE NOON, AFTER NOON; NONE OF IT.

THE COURT: WELL, WHEN WERE YOUR CRITICAL EVIDENCE SAMPLES COLLECTED?

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

MS. CLARK: THERE WAS COLLECTION AT ROCKINGHAM AT 7:00 AND THEN COLLECTION BEGAN AT BUNDY AT 10:00 TO 10:15. YOU SEE THE PROBLEM?

THE COURT: SO WHAT REMEDY ARE YOU ASKING FOR WITH RESPECT SPECIFICALLY TO THE VIDEOTAPE? MR. SCHECK HAS INDICATED HE WOULD WITHDRAW THE STILLS.

MS. CLARK: WITH RESPECT TO THE VIDEOTAPE, THE PEOPLE ONLY ASK TO SEE THE ENTIRE VIDEOTAPE AND TO TALK TO THE PHOTOGRAPHER, GET A STATEMENT FROM THE PHOTOGRAPHER INDICATING WHAT TIME IT WAS WHEN THAT VIDEOTAPE BEGAN, AND THEN A REAL TIME COUNTER TO SHOW THE ENTIRE EXTENT OF THE FOOTAGE.

THAT WILL RESOLVE THE ISSUE AND WE WILL KNOW EXACTLY WHEN IT WAS TAKEN AND THERE WILL BE NO ISSUE OF MISLEADING OR CONFUSING THE JURY, WHICH IS WHAT THE PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT.

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, IS THIS VIDEO FROM ONE SOURCE OR MULTIPLE SOURCES?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. COCHRAN: THE BEST I CAN TELL, YOUR HONOR, IT IS FROM ONE SOURCE, AND I WOULD HAVE TO CHECK TO MAKE SURE SO I CAN BE CLEAR.

THE COURT: IT APPEARS TO BE A NEWS PHOTOGRAPHER FROM ACROSS THE STREET.

MR. COCHRAN: I THINK THAT IS WHERE IT IS FROM, YOUR HONOR. THE THING THAT IS SO AMAZING ABOUT THE ENTIRE THING, WHAT COUNSEL IS TALKING ABOUT, YOUR HONOR, DOESN'T GO TO ADMISSIBILITY. SHE MAY ARGUE THAT REGARDING WEIGHT, BUT CLEARLY THIS IS ADMISSIBLE. THIS IS HER CRIME SCENE. YOU KNOW, YOUR HONOR, IF THIS CRIME SCENE HAD BEEN CONDUCTED PROPERLY THEY WOULD HAVE A COMPLETE VIDEOTAPE OF EVERYTHING, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE THAT AND THAT IS ONE OF THE PROBLEMS, SO I THINK TO ARGUE ABOUT WHAT SECOND THIS TOOK PLACE -- BUT YOUR HONOR IS CORRECT, THERE ARE LOGS TO WHEN PEOPLE CAME. DETECTIVE LANGE IS AN EXPERIENCED DETECTIVE. HE KNOWS WHEN HE GOT THERE. DETECTIVE VANNATTER KNOWS WHEN HE WALKED THROUGH THAT SEEN WITH I GUESS ROGERS, AND WE WILL BE ABLE TO DO THIS. AND WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS NOT ADMISSIBILITY AND NOBODY IS TRYING TO MISLEAD THE JURY. THIS IS THEIR SCENE. I MEAN, WE'RE GOING TO, AS THE COURT HAS INDICATED, HAVE SOME OTHER THINGS TO TALK ABOUT IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA, BUT I THINK WE ARE WILLING TO COOPERATE. THEY HAVE SEEN IT. SHE WANTS TO SEE THE WHOLE THING, SHE CAN SEE IT OVER THE LUNCH HOUR, BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ADMISSIBILITY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. COCHRAN, WHERE IS THE FULL VIDEOTAPE?

MR. COCHRAN: IT IS NOW ON -- THIS IS VERY TECHNICAL, YOUR HONOR. IT IS NOW ON SOME KIND OF A LASER DISK. MAY I INQUIRE?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. COCHRAN: MR. WHITNEY OF FTI, WHO HAS ASSISTED US WITH ALL OF THIS, YOUR HONOR, INDICATES HIS HEADQUARTERS IS IN SAN FRANCISCO. THE FULL VIDEOTAPE IS IN SAN FRANCISCO. HE PUT IT ON THIS LASER DISK AND IT WAS FLOWN DOWN.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DOES THE NEWS ORGANIZATION HAVE A SECOND COPY OR THE ORIGINAL COPY HERE IN LOS ANGELES, I ASSUME?

MR. COCHRAN: I ASSUME THEY WOULD, BUT YOU KNOW, I WILL HAVE TO CALL AND ASK. I WILL HAVE TO FIND OUT, YOUR HONOR.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, THE ORIGINAL IS A VIDEOTAPE AND THEY CUT IT AND PUT IT ON TO A LASER DISK.

THE COURT: I REALIZE THAT.

MS. CLARK: YOU KNOW ABOUT THAT.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, THAT IS WHY I'M ASKING, WHERE IS THE ORIGINAL.

MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT.

THE COURT: IF IT IS ONE OF THE LOCAL NEWS STATIONS, PERHAPS WE COULD GET THAT MESSENGERED OVER HERE OVER THE LUNCH HOUR, WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND PUT IT IN CONTEXT AND SEE WHAT IS THERE.

MR. COCHRAN: WE CAN TRY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THE PROBLEM, MR. COCHRAN, I HAVE, THOUGH, THIS IS A DISCOVERY ISSUE AND THE PROSECUTION WAS ENTITLED TO KNOW ABOUT THIS.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT, AND I THINK YOU CAN APPRECIATE THIS, AND HAVING MADE A LOT OF OPENING STATEMENTS YOURSELF YOU KNOW THE SITUATION, WE HAVE THINGS IN OUR SO-CALLED ARSENAL, IF YOU DECIDE NOT TO USE IT -- I MEAN, THAT IS THEIR CRIME SCENE. I AM NOT GOING TO GIVE THEM STUFF THAT WE ARE NEVER GOING TO USE. NOW WE ARE MAKING IT AVAILABLE. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. WE WILL MAKE AN EFFORT OVER THE LUNCH HOUR TO TRY AND GET IT. THE OTHER ONE THAT WE USE IS IN SAN FRANCISCO, SO THAT MEANS THAT IT WILL BE HERE BY LATE TONIGHT OR TOMORROW, BUT WE WILL TRY TO FIND OUT OVER THE LUNCH HOUR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, WE WILL STAND IN RECESS UNTIL 1:30.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY WE APPROACH JUST FOR A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: LET ME SEE COUNSEL AT THE SIDE BAR WITHOUT THE REPORTER.

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

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, 1:30.

(AT 12:11 P.M. THE NOON RECESS WAS TAKEN UNTIL 1:30 P.M. OF THE SAME DAY.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, JANUARY 23, 1995 1:35 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. MR. SIMPSON IS AGAIN PRESENT WITH COUNSEL, MR. UELMEN, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. DOUGLAS, MR. BAILEY, PEOPLE REPRESENTED BY MS. CLARK, MR. DARDEN, MR. HODGMAN. MR. COCHRAN, WHAT'S THE STATUS OF THE VIDEOTAPE?

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE -- EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR. IF THE COURT PLEASES, WE HAVE A VIDEOTAPE THAT WAS DELIVERED FROM OUR OFFICE. HOWEVER, THERE'S ONLY ONE COPY. THIS IS NOT OBVIOUSLY THE ONE THAT WAS IN SAN FRANCISCO. WE HAVE NOT HAD THE CHANCE TO LOOK AT THIS ONE, AND I JUST OFFERED TO MR. HODGMAN IF WE COULD GET A VCR AT SOME PLACE, WE WOULD LOOK AT IT TOGETHER AND THEN MAYBE GET A COPY FOR THEM. AND I CANNOT REPRESENT THIS HAS EVERYTHING ON IT, BUT I KNOW IT CERTAINLY HAS PART OF IT AND CERTAINLY A START. WE ALSO BY SOME SORT OF EXPRESS MAIL ARE HAVING THE ONE FROM SAN FRANCISCO DELIVERED HERE AND IT WILL BE HERE THIS AFTERNOON ALSO.

THE COURT: SO YOU'RE SUGGESTING THAT WE TAKE A LOOK TO SEE IF THIS IS IT, BUT WE'RE NOT CERTAIN?

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, I'M SUGGESTING THAT WE LOOK AT THIS ONE AND THEN WE DON'T HAVE TO STOP THE PROCEEDINGS WHILE WE DO THAT, SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF THE TEAM LOOK AT THIS, AND THEN IF THIS DOESN'T INCLUDE EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE SEEKING TO USE IN OPENING STATEMENT, THE OTHER ONE WILL BE HERE HOPEFULLY THIS AFTERNOON.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. COCHRAN: AND I'M ADVISED THAT IT WOULD BE ONLY ONE SMALL ITEM IF ANY THAT'S NOT ON HERE. SO PERHAPS WE CAN LOOK AT IT AT SOME POINT.

THE COURT: WHAT SMALL ITEM MIGHT THAT BE?

MR. COCHRAN: MR. BLASIER RECALLS SOME MEMORY THAT THERE MAY BE ONE SCENE WITH THE TWO DETECTIVES WALKING THAT'S NOT ON HERE. THAT WAS THE ONE THING. BUT WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO COMPARE IT, YOUR HONOR. IT WAS JUST DELIVERED DOWN HERE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHAT'S THE PROSECUTION'S RESPONSE TO THIS? DO WE HAVE THE FACILITIES WITH OUR SYSTEM HERE TO LOOK AT THIS VIDEOTAPE? ALL RIGHT. MY TECHNICAL ADVISERS FROM TRIAL PRESENTATIONS TELLS ME WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO LOOK AT THE VIDEOTAPE HERE.

MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, I'LL BE THE SPOKESMAN FOR THIS ISSUE. WITH REGARD TO THIS, YOUR HONOR, IT STILL STRIKES ME WE HAVE A COUPLE PROBLEMS. WE HAVE AN AUTHENTICATION PROBLEM BECAUSE WHAT MR. COCHRAN IS SAYING IS THAT THIS IS THEIR COPY. THEY ADMIT IT IS INCOMPLETE. MR. SCHECK INFORMED ME WHEN I CAME DOWN TO COURT THAT THIS TAPE DOES NOT CONTAIN EVERYTHING. SO WE NEED TO KNOW, ONE, IS THE TAPE THAT WE ULTIMATELY VIEW, IS IT PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED, IS IT EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED, AND SECONDLY --

THE COURT: LET ME JUMP AHEAD. WHAT'S THE RUNNING TIME OF THIS TAPE, MR. SCHECK OR MR. BLASIER?

MR. BLASIER: I THINK 20 MINUTES, 25 MINUTES. I JUST FAST FORWARDED THROUGH IT TO SEE IF EVERYTHING IS ON IT. I THINK EVERYTHING MAY BE ON THERE. THERE MAY BE ONE SHORT CLIP THAT WAS MISSING. I JUST LOOKED THROUGH IT VERY QUICKLY SO I COULD GET DOWN HERE WITH IT.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S MR. BLASIER FOR THE RECORD.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, I THINK WE'VE SPENT 20 MINUTES ARGUING ABOUT IT. WHY DON'T WE JUST TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND SEE WHAT'S THERE. I AM SORRY?

MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, IF I MAY, MR. BLASIER, IS THIS TAPE A COMPILATION OF DIFFERENT TAPED SEGMENTS? WOULD YOU ANSWER THAT FOR ME?

MR. BLASIER: I THINK IT MIGHT BE. I BELIEVE IT'S CNN OUTTAKES AND I THINK THIS IS THE FORM THAT WE GOT IT IN. WE HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING TO IT. SO THIS IS THE FORM WE GOT IT IN I BELIEVE.

MR. BAILEY: YOUR HONOR, I WENT TO SAN FRANCISCO TWICE AND HELPED EDIT THIS TAPE. IT IS A COMPILATION.

MR. BLASIER: THE STUFF ON THE LASER DISK IS A COMPILATION. I DON'T THINK THE TAPE IS.

MR. HODGMAN: THEN THE QUESTION IS, YOUR HONOR, A COMPILATION FOR WHAT SOURCE --

THE COURT: WELL, MR. HODGMAN, IF THEY CAN'T TELL ME WHAT IT IS EXACTLY YET -- I'VE HEARD SLIGHTLY CONFLICTING THINGS. LET'S JUST TAKE A QUICK LOOK AT IT, LET'S RUN IT FOR FIVE MINUTES. IF IT APPEARS TO BE A COMPILATION OF THINGS, THEN I AGREE, WE'VE GOT A FOUNDATION PROBLEM. BUT LET'S SEE WHAT IT IS RATHER THAN SPEND THE NEXT 20 MINUTES ARGUING ABOUT IT. ALL RIGHT. CAN TRIAL PRESENTATIONS PLAY THIS TAPE FOR ME?

MR. REITER: THE VIDEOTAPE PLAYER IS ON COUNSEL TABLE, YOUR HONOR. THEY CAN PUT IT IN AND PLAY IT FOR YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

(VIDEOTAPE WAS PLAYED.)

THE COURT: LET ME JUST ASK, MR. BLASIER, ARE THERE ANY AT ALL DEPICTIONS OF THE BODIES DURING THE COURSE OF THIS VIDEOTAPE?

MR. BLASIER: I'M NOT SURE, JUDGE. THERE MAY BE A VERY SHORT CLIP OF THAT. ACTUALLY, THERE IS A CLIP, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THERE IS?

MR. BLASIER: YES. THERE MAY BE A COUPLE ACTUALLY.

(VIDEOTAPE WAS PLAYED.)

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, WE WILL TRY -- IF WE CAN LET YOU KNOW WHEN THERE MAY BE SOMETHING, LET YOU KNOW AND TRY TO STOP IT AT THAT POINT.

(VIDEOTAPE WAS PLAYED.)

MR. BLASIER: YOUR HONOR, WE MAY WANT TO STOP AT THIS POINT AND APPROACH.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

MR. COCHRAN: BOB HAD INDICATED TO ME THERE'S APPARENTLY A PORTION COMING UP WHERE A BODY WAS TAKEN OUT. IT'S JUST NOW BEEN COVERED. THERE'S A PORTION WHERE APPARENTLY A BODY IS DRUG OUT. I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO SHOW IT. YOU CAN SEE IT, FINE, BUT I WANTED YOU TO BE AWARE OF IT.

MS. CLARK: WHY DON'T WE JUST WATCH THE JUDGE'S MONITOR.

THE COURT: I CUT THE VIDEO FEED GOING OUT OF THE COURTROOM.

MS. CLARK: I UNDERSTAND -- I'VE BEEN INFORMED THAT THERE WAS ALREADY A PICTURE OF RON GOLDMAN'S BODY THAT WAS BROADCAST.

MR. BLASIER: THIS IS PART OF THE INTERVIEW. YOU CAN SEE IT IN THE BACKGROUND. IT'S ALREADY BEEN AIRED.

MS. CLARK: I THOUGHT THE COURT HAD ORDERED IT NOT TO BE AIRED.

THE COURT: SOMETHING THAT WE HAD HERE IN COURT?

MS. CLARK: YES. WHEN WE WERE SHOWING THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WE WERE GOING TO BE ASKING TO ADMIT, SOMEBODY PICKED UP RONALD GOLDMAN'S BODY.

THE COURT: HOW?

MS. CLARK: I DON'T KNOW. I DO NOT KNOW. BUT ONE OF THE NEWSPAPER PEOPLE TOLD ME, AND THEY WANTED MY COMMENT.

MR. BLASIER: YOU HAVE TO ALMOST LOOK FOR IT TO SEE. BUT ONCE YOU SEE IT, YOU CAN SEE WHAT THEY'RE DOING WHILE ROGERS IS GIVING AN INTERVIEW.

MR. COCHRAN: YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT'S COMING UP. SHE'S TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE. THAT'S SOMETHING I DON'T KNOW.

THE COURT: WELL, WE'LL WORRY ABOUT THAT IN A SECOND. I WANT YOU TO STAY UP HERE.

MR. HODGMAN: SHOULD WE TURN OFF OUR MONITORS?

THE COURT: LET'S HAVE THE REMAINDER OF THE VIDEOTAPE, PLEASE.

(VIDEOTAPE WAS PLAYED.)

MR. SCHECK: MY RECOLLECTION OF THIS IS, IT'S JUST INTERVIEWS WITH PEOPLE. IF YOU WANT TO FAST FORWARD IT, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S ANY MORE CRIME SCENE.

THE COURT: FAST FORWARD TO WHAT?

MR. SCHECK: TO THE END OF THE TAPE.

THE COURT: WE'RE STILL MISSING THE DETECTIVES WALKING THROUGH THE SCENE, AREN'T WE?

MR. BLASIER: IT MAY NOT BE --

MR. SCHECK: THE TWO SHOTS THAT I THINK WERE MISSING ARE THE DETECTIVES WALKING -- THE PHOTOGRAPHER TOUCHING THE MAILBOX, AND IN ONE OF THOSE SCENES, MR. FUNG IS PUTTING DOWN THE YELLOW MARKERS. THAT'S NOT ON THIS TAPE. THAT'S ON THE ONE IN SAN FRANCISCO.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. SCHECK: THIS ONE IS IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER.

MS. CLARK: WE NEED THE ONE IN SAN FRANCISCO.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. BLASIER, WOULD YOU INSTRUCT THE OPERATOR TO STOP THE TAPE, PLEASE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THAT'S PART ONE OF THE VIDEOTAPE. I SUPPOSE WE NEED TO MARK THAT FOR IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES FOR PURPOSES OF THIS HEARING. MR. GLASIER, CAN YOU MAKE A PHOTOCOPY FOR THE COURT FOR IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES OF THAT TAPE?

MR. BLASIER: I'M ASSUMING WE CAN HAVE THAT. MY NAME IS BLASIER BY THE WAY.

THE COURT: BLASIER. I AM SORRY. AND, MR. COCHRAN, APPARENTLY THE REMAINDER OF THE VIDEOTAPE, THE OTHER VIDEOTAPE IS APPARENTLY STILL IN SAN FRANCISCO?

MR. COCHRAN: POSSIBLY, YOUR HONOR. I WAS JUST TALKING TO MR. WHITNEY ABOUT THAT. I'M GOING TO TRY TO MAKE SOME CALLS AND MAKE SURE -- APPARENTLY THERE'S TWO. I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE CAN MAKE THE OTHER ONE AVAILABLE. I'M GOING TO ANSWER THE COURT SHORTLY ON THAT. MAY I HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, IT MAY BE ON THE 12TH FLOOR.

THE COURT: I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT THAT AT THIS POINT. BUT YES, MADAM CLERK, LET'S HAVE THE -- WHEN SUBMITTED -- NOT A PHOTOCOPY -- A DUB OF THIS VIDEOTAPE AS COURT'S EXHIBIT NEXT IN ORDER, 2, FOR THIS HEARING.

(COURT'S 2 FOR ID = DUB OF VIDEOTAPE)

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, WHAT'S THE LATEST ON THE SAN FRANCISCO?

MR. COCHRAN: MR. WHITNEY INDICATES THE TAPE IS IN SAN FRANCISCO. HE ALSO BELIEVES THERE MAY BE ONE OTHER TAPE WITH THE MISSING SCENES BACK AT THE OFFICE. AND IF THE COURT WOULD ALLOW HIM -- IT WOULD SAVE SOME TIME -- HE'LL GO BACK TO THE OFFICE NOW AND TRY TO SEE IF HE CAN FIND IT AND CUE IT UP AND TRY TO COME BACK AND FIND THAT IF HE CAN. HE KNOWS WHAT TO LOOK FOR.

THE COURT: WELL, BEFORE YOU RUSH OFF TO DO THAT, LET ME TELL YOU WHAT THIS TELLS ME. GIVEN WHAT APPEARS NOW TO BE VARIOUS SOURCES FOR THESE DIFFERENT VIDEO OUTTAKES, THIS APPEARS TO BE A MONTAGE OF VIDEO PICTURES FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES, THAT I'M NOT PERSUADED THAT WE HAVE AN ADEQUATE FOUNDATION AS FAR AS TIME IS CONCERNED.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME.

THE COURT: WELL, NOW IS THE TIME.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, WHAT I WOULD INDICATE ON THAT IS THIS. FIRST OF ALL, THE COURT CAN SEE THERE'S A LOT OF MATERIAL ON THE TAPE THAT WE HAVE HERE WHICH WOULD BE BASICALLY IRRELEVANT AND IMMATERIAL. SO WHAT HAPPENED IS, WE TOOK THE PARTS THAT WE THOUGHT WERE APPROPRIATE. IT'S AN ACCURATE AND TRUE COPY AS YOU CAN SEE. WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS GIVE THE COURT THE ACCURATE AND TRUE COPIES TAKEN BY NEWS ORGANIZATIONS OF WHAT HAPPENED CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH THE EVENT. AND SO I THINK CLEARLY, WHAT I'VE ALWAYS ARGUED, THIS IS ADMISSIBLE FROM THE STANDPOINT SHOWING WHAT HAPPENED IF WE WANTED TO ARGUE THAT CERTAIN THINGS WERE SHOWN IN THESE PHOTOGRAPHS WITH REGARD TO THE COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE BY LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVES AND THE CORONER'S OFFICE. SO WHAT I'VE ARGUED FROM THIS MORNING IS THAT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT BECOMES A QUESTION NOT OF ADMISSIBILITY, BUT OF WEIGHT. AND IT SEEMS THAT MISS CLARK HAD AN OBJECTION THIS MORNING THAT WE COULDN'T DETERMINE WHEN THESE THINGS WERE DONE, WHEN THEY WERE TAKEN. WELL, YOU WILL NOTICE ON THE TAPE THAT WAS SHOWN THIS AFTERNOON THE INDIVIDUALS BEING LOGGED IN AS THEY CAME IN. WE CAN LOOK AT THE LOG AND DETERMINE THE TIME. WE KNOW WHAT TIME THE CORONERS GOT THERE. SO WE KNOW WHAT TIME THE BODIES WERE TAKEN AWAY AND THAT SORT OF THING. I THINK WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DEMONSTRATE ON THESE TAPES WAS THE COLLECTION PROCEDURES, AS THE COURT RIGHTLY SAID THIS MORNING. IT WOULD BE NICE IF THAT ALL WAS ON ONE GROUP OF TAKES. APPARENTLY THAT'S NOT SO. AND WE WOULD LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW YOU THE OTHER TAPE. THESE ARE NOT ANYTHING THAT WE IN ANY WAY HAVE CHANGED AROUND OR WHATEVER. WE'RE JUST TRYING TO DEMONSTRATE AT THAT SCENE ON JUNE 13TH WHILE DETECTIVES VANNATTER AND LANGE AND DETECTIVE ROGERS WAS AT THAT SCENE, THESE THINGS TOOK PLACE. SO THAT I THINK THAT FROM LAYING A FOUNDATION, CLEARLY WE CAN PINPOINT AND AFFIX THE TIME IT SEEMS.

THE COURT: BUT THE PROBLEM WITH THIS VIDEOTAPE IS, OBVIOUSLY STARTS AND STOPS. IT TAKES THE -- I RECALL AT LEAST THREE DIFFERENT VANTAGE POINTS. SO OBVIOUSLY THE TAPE HAD TO STOP. THEN THE CAMERA PERSON HAD TO MOVE TO ANOTHER LOCATION, START THEIR FILM AGAIN. SO WE HAVE NO IDEA IN WHAT TIME SEQUENCE THESE THINGS HAPPENED.

MR. COCHRAN: YES, YOUR HONOR --

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, LET ME TELL YOU THE OTHER THING THAT CONCERNS ME, AND PERHAPS YOU CAN ADDRESS YOUR REMARKS TO THIS. THESE VIDEOTAPES OBVIOUSLY WERE GENERATED JUNE THE 13TH, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG THAT YOU HAVE HAD THESE IN YOUR POSSESSION; BUT CLEARLY, THE EVIDENCE COLLECTION PROCESS HAS BEEN A MAJOR FOCUS OF THE DEFENSE ALL ALONG. I THINK WE ALL AGREE WITH THAT. IT WAS YOUR OBLIGATION TO PUT TOGETHER THIS ITEM AND SHOW IT TO THE PROSECUTION IN A TIMELY MANNER, WHICH HAS NOT OCCURRED. SO MY INCLINATION AT THIS POINT IS, SINCE THE PROSECUTION RAISES THE OBJECTION, MY INCLINATION IS TO RULE THAT YOU CAN NOT USE THIS VIDEOTAPE MONTAGE IN THE COURSE OF YOUR OPENING STATEMENTS AND YOU MAY NOT USE IT UNTIL YOU'VE SHOWN THESE VIDEOTAPES TO THE PEOPLE. I ALSO AM NOT GOING TO GRANT THEIR MOTION TO CONTINUE.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. I LIKE THE LAST PART. LET ME ADDRESS JUST THE FIRST PART JUST BRIEFLY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, AS THE COURT KNOWS -- THE COURT MAYBE HAS NEVER BEEN A DEFENSE LAWYER.

THE COURT: OH, I HAVE.

MR. COCHRAN: THEN YOU WILL UNDERSTAND THIS CLEARLY I THINK. YOUR HONOR, IN THIS SITUATION -- AND I'M VERY MINDFUL OF PROPOSITION 115. BUT AS THE COURT KNOWS, A DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL CASE DOESN'T HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING AND YOU'VE SAID THAT TO THE JURORS AND THAT'S WHAT THE LAWS ARE. IN THIS CASE, WE WANT TO ANTICIPATE MANY THINGS THAT THE PROSECUTION IS GOING TO DO AND ARGUE AND THAT SORT OF THING. SO OUR JOB FROM THE VERY BEGINNING IN DEFENDING THIS MAN IS TO GATHER AS MUCH EVIDENCE AS WE CAN. YOUR HONOR, THERE'S NO OBLIGATION IT SEEMS TO ME IF WE GOT THAT TAPE OR IT CAME IN OUR POSSESSION LET'S SAY IN AUGUST TO SHARE IT AT THAT TIME WITH THE PROSECUTION. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ISSUES ARE GOING TO BE. AT SUCH TIME AS WE NOW KNOW WHERE WE'RE GOING, WHAT THEIR THEORY IS -- THEY SAID TO YOU IN THIS COURT LAST WEEK, "FOR THE FIFTH TIME, WE ARE GOING TO CHANGE OUR STRATEGY OR CHANGE OUR THEORY." THE COURT WILL RECALL THAT BYPLAY WITH MR. DARDEN. NOW, LET'S ASSUME NOW THEY FINALLY SETTLE ON SOMETHING THEY WANT TO GO FORWARD WITH. NOW, THAT MEANS NOW WE NOW HAVE TO SAY, "OKAY, GUYS, LET'S GET GEARED UP. LET'S GO BACK AND DO IT." WITH THAT THOUGHT IN MIND, WE THEN TRY TO PUT THIS TOGETHER.

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, THAT PART OF YOUR DEFENSE AND THAT PART OF THEIR CASE HAS NEVER CHANGED. THEY HAVE ALWAYS WANTED TO PRESENT FORENSIC EVIDENCE REGARDING WHAT WAS COLLECTED AT THE CRIME SCENE AND YOU'VE ALWAYS WANTED TO ATTACK THE PROCESS AND THE INTEGRITY AND THE RELIABILITY OF THAT EVIDENCE. THAT HASN'T CHANGED.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT HAS NOT CHANGED, YOUR HONOR. HOWEVER, HOW WE ATTACK AND WHAT WE DO WITH IT, YOU KNOW, MAY CHANGE. AS YOU CAN APPRECIATE, THERE WAS A LOT OF SOUL SEARCHING WITH REGARD TO THE DNA HEARING AND HOW WE LOOK AT THAT AND THAT SORT OF THING. THIS EVIDENCE HELPED US THROUGH THAT ABSOLUTE -- THROUGH THAT PARTICULAR PART OF IT. BUT AT SOME POINT, WE HAVE TO MAKE A POSITION THAT OKAY, NOW, HERE'S HOW WE WANT TO GO FORWARD. AND THAT'S WHAT WE DID. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THE COURT UNDERSTANDS OUR THINKING FROM THAT STANDPOINT. JUDGE, THIS IS NOT ANY BIG SURPRISE. THIS IS THEIR CRIME SCENE, JUDGE. THE WITNESSES DEPICTED IN THE CRIME SCENE ARE THESE GENTLEMEN SEATED HERE. THIS IS THEIR CASE. AND SO WE JUST HAVE PICTURES OF WHAT THEY WERE DOING. SO I DON'T SEE THAT THERE'S SURPRISE OR THEY'RE IN ANY WAY PREJUDICED. AS ALWAYS, YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO SHARE WITH THEM WHAT WE HAVE AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME. AND I THINK -- REASONABLE MINDS CAN DIFFER AT WHAT POINT THE DEFENSE HAS TO REVEAL THESE THINGS, BECAUSE THIS ISN'T LIKE ANY BIG SURPRISE TO THE PROSECUTION. THEY'RE THE ONES THAT ARE OUT THERE DOING THESE THINGS.

THE COURT: WELL, MR. COCHRAN, HERE'S THE PROBLEM THOUGH. WE ALL AGREED ON A SCHEDULE, AND YOUR CLIENT -- AS IS HIS RIGHT -- HAS INSISTED ON GOING TO TRIAL AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE DATE, AND WE'VE HONORED THAT REQUEST. WE ORIGINALLY HAD OUR OPENING STATEMENTS SCHEDULED FOR LAST THURSDAY. AND THESE EXHIBITS ARE JUST NOW BEING PUT TOGETHER. SO I THINK THERE'S SIGNIFICANT DELAY ON THE DEFENSE PART IN GETTING THIS THING TOGETHER.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, I THINK WHAT WILL HAPPEN -- LET ME JUST -- FOR A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR. IF WE HAD THE OPENING STATEMENTS ON THURSDAY, THIS ARGUMENT HAPPENING TODAY WOULD HAVE BEEN WEDNESDAY. I MEAN THAT'S WHAT I THINK I AM SAYING TO YOUR HONOR. I UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION OF THE MATTER. I MEAN, WITH REGARD TO TURNING OVER THINGS FROM THE DEFENSE, YOUR HONOR, WE -- THEY ARE NOT IN A POSITION WHERE WE NEED TO HELP THEM WITH THEIR CASE. THIS IS --

THE COURT: I AGREE.

MR. COCHRAN: -- THEIR CRIME SCENE, JUDGE, AND THE LAW -- I DON'T THINK THE LAW HAS GONE THAT FAR WHERE THEY MAKE US DO THAT. SO WHAT I'M SAYING, IN THIS INSTANCE, HOW CAN THEY STAND HERE IN GOOD CONSCIENCE AND SAY TO YOU, "WE'RE SURPRISED BY THIS CRIME SCENE." NOW, I CAN UNDERSTAND YOUR ARGUMENT -- YOUR STATEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE MONTAGE, BUT HOW CAN THEY SAY THEY'RE SURPRISED BY THEIR OWN CRIME SCENE? THEY'VE GOT ALL THE WITNESSES HERE.

THE COURT: WELL, MR. COCHRAN, HERE WE ARE, WE ARE SCHEDULED TO BEGIN OUR OPENING STATEMENTS TODAY. AND AS I HAVE SAID, I DON'T FEEL ANY PRESSURE TO HAVE TO START TODAY. I COULD START TOMORROW, I COULD START NEXT MONTH. IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE TO ME. BUT WE DID HAVE IT SCHEDULED. WE DON'T EVEN HAVE THE COMPLETE SET OF VIDEOTAPES THAT COMPRISE THIS MONTAGE OF VIDEO SCENES. SO WE CAN'T EVEN PROCEED AT THIS POINT TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE PROSECUTION'S OBJECTION IS VALID. SO MY INCLINATION AT THIS POINT IS TO SAY, IF YOU WANT TO PROCEED TODAY, PROCEED WITHOUT THE VIDEOTAPE.

MR. COCHRAN: LET ME JUST HAVE -- LET ME JUST SUGGEST ONE THING TO YOU. MR. WHITNEY SAID HE WILL GO BACK TO THE OFFICE. IT WILL TAKE ABOUT 20 MINUTES. IF THE COURT WOULD ALLOW HIM THEN TO CALL BACK AND SEE IF HE IS ABLE TO FIND SOMETHING. AT LEAST WE'LL GET THE BALANCE OF THE TAPE. WE HAVE THE OTHER MOTIONS AT THIS POINT ANYWAY. SO WE WILL NOT LOSE TIME. WILL THE COURT ALLOW US THAT?

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. HAVE YOUR STAFF DO THAT.

MR. COCHRAN: WE'LL DO THAT AND GET BACK TO THE COURT AS SOON AS HE GETS BACK TO THE OFFICE, AND WE CAN THEN CONCLUDE THIS MATTER, IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: WE HAVE A FEW MORE MATTERS TO CONCLUDE AS WELL. ALL RIGHT. THEN WE WILL PUT THE USE OF THE VIDEOTAPE ON HOLD UNTIL WE FIND OUT THE EXISTENCE, THE WHEREABOUTS OF THE SECOND OR THIRD VIDEOTAPE. ALL RIGHT. MR. DOUGLAS, I HAVE HERE A MOTION, EX PARTE MOTION, THREE-PAGE MOTION. DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THAT NOW?

MR. DOUGLAS: MR. COCHRAN.

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THE --

MR. COCHRAN: CAN I GET A COPY --

THE COURT: SURE.

MR. DARDEN: IS THAT ANOTHER EX PARTE MOTION, YOUR HONOR?

MR. COCHRAN: IT'S NO LONGER EX PARTE NOW. IT'S NOT EX PARTE. IT WAS FILED UNDER SEAL I GUESS BASICALLY.

THE COURT: MY COPY OF THE MOTION INDICATES A COPY WAS SERVED ON THE PROSECUTION.

MR. COCHRAN: IT WAS NOT.

THE COURT: THEN WHY DON'T YOU SHARE IT WITH MR. HODGMAN AND MISS CLARK.

MR. COCHRAN: THIS WAS JUST FILED THIS MORNING.

MS. CLARK: I UNDERSTAND THE PRESS WAS GIVEN A COPY OF IT HOWEVER.

MR. COCHRAN: NOT BY US.

MS. CLARK: YES, BY YOU.

MR. COCHRAN: NO.

THE COURT: NO. BY THE COURT. BY THE COURT.

MS. CLARK: WE HAVE NEVER SEEN IT.

THE COURT: WELL, MISS CLARK, WHEN I LOOKED AT THE -- FORGIVE ME. BUT WHEN I LOOKED AT THE MOTION, THERE'S A PROOF OF SERVICE THAT INDICATES IT WAS SERVED JANUARY 20. NOW -- SEE, I HAVE TO RELY ON THAT --

MS. CLARK: YEAH. I AGREE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. BEFORE YOU START CASTIGATING ME.

MS. CLARK: NO. NO. THE PEOPLE WOULD NEVER DO THAT.

MR. COCHRAN: GET IN LINE, YOUR HONOR. IT'S OKAY TODAY, YOUR HONOR. YOU WILL BE IN GOOD COMPANY HOWEVER.

THE COURT: PART OF THE JOB.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. COCHRAN, DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS YOUR MOTION?

MR. COCHRAN: I THINK --

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. COCHRAN: NOW MAY I ADDRESS IT, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, WHAT HAPPENED, AS I UNDERSTAND, THIS MORNING, THIS MOTION WAS FILED BY MS. SHAUN SNIDER CHAPMAN OF OUR OFFICE. WE SOUGHT TO FILE IT UNDER SEAL BECAUSE OF SECURITY CONCERNS. AND APPARENTLY THE PROSECUTION WAS NOT GIVEN ONE. IT SAYS EX PARTE AND FILED UNDER SEAL ON THE MOTION. I THINK IT WAS HANDED TO YOUR HONOR'S CLERK. IT WAS THEN APPARENTLY --

THE COURT: EXCUSE ME. MR. HODGMAN, MISS CLARK, DO YOU HAVE A PHYSICAL COPY OF THIS?

MS. CLARK: NO.

THE COURT: I HAVE ONE EXTRA. THANK YOU.

MR. COCHRAN: AS I UNDERSTAND THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS, THE COURT FELT IT WAS NOT A PROPER MOTION FOR EX PARTE AND IT WAS RELEASED TO THE PRESS.

THE COURT: I ASSUMED IT WAS NOT EX PARTE BECAUSE YOUR PROOF OF SERVICE ON THE BACK INDICATES IT WAS SERVED ON THE PROSECUTION.

MR. COCHRAN: BUT IT SAYS UNDER SEAL. WE THOUGHT IT WAS UNDER SEAL. BUT THE PRESS HAD ASKED ME ABOUT IT. BASICALLY WHAT WE ARE SEEKING HERE IS, BASED UPON SOME SECURITY CONCERNS, YOUR HONOR, MR. SIMPSON BEING IN CUSTODY, WE ASKED THE COURT IF, NUMBER ONE, MR. SIMPSON COULD PARTICIPATE BY GIVING A BRIEF PORTION OF THE OPENING STATEMENT AND; TWO, THAT DURING THE COURSE OF THE BALANCE OF THE OPENING STATEMENT, THERE MAY BE TIMES AND WILL PROBABLY BE TIMES WHERE I WOULD LIKE MR. SIMPSON TO BE ABLE TO APPROACH THE JURY TO DEMONSTRATE CERTAIN THINGS THAT I THINK ARE VERY RELEVANT IN THE COURSE OF THAT OPENING STATEMENT. THE ONLY WAY THAT WE CAN APPROPRIATELY DISCUSS THIS -- AND THE LATTER PART HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PEOPLE -- WOULD BE TO CLEAR THAT WITH YOUR HONOR AND YOUR HONOR'S BAILIFF, AND THAT'S THE THOUGHT WITH WHICH THIS WAS DONE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. HODGMAN, DO YOU WANT TO RESPOND TO THESE TWO ISSUES?

MR. HODGMAN: I DO, YOUR HONOR.

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

MR. HODGMAN: MISS CLARK WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THAT.

MS. CLARK: I'LL ADDRESS THIS BRIEFLY, YOUR HONOR. FIRST OF ALL, LET ME INDICATE THAT THEIR FAILURE TO SERVE US IS FURTHER INDICATION OF THE DEFENSE ATTEMPT TO HAVE THIS BE A TRIAL BY AMBUSH. WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPRISED OF THIS MOTION LONG AGO AND THEIR FAILURE TO SERVE US IS I THINK AN EGREGIOUS ACT ON THEIR PART. FURTHERMORE, WHAT THIS IS REALLY IS JUST AN ATTEMPT TO ASK THE COURT'S LEAVE TO ALLOW THE DEFENDANT TO TESTIFY WITHOUT BEING CROSS-EXAMINED, AND THERE IS NO SUCH RIGHT I DON'T THINK ANYWHERE IN THE COUNTRY IN OPENING STATEMENT OR PERHAPS EVEN IN THE WORLD. THERE IS NO AUTHORITY CITED IN THIS MOTION, AND OF COURSE THERE COULD NOT BE BECAUSE THERE IS NO LAW, THERE IS NO CASE NOR HAS THERE EVER BEEN A CASE IN WHICH SUCH A THING HAS BEEN ALLOWED UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES PROPOSED BY COUNSEL. IF MR. SIMPSON WOULD LIKE TO TESTIFY, WE WOULD BE DELIGHTED TO CROSS-EXAMINE HIM AND TO HEAR HIS TESTIMONY AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME. BUT COUNSEL'S MOTION IS SIMPLY AN EFFORT TO HAVE HIM PRESENT TESTIMONY TO THE JURY WITHOUT BEING CROSS-EXAMINED, AND THERE IS NOTHING THAT ALLOWS HIM TO DO SO UNDER THE LAW. MAY I HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?

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

MS. CLARK: I WOULD PARENTHETICALLY ADD ALSO, YOUR HONOR, THAT, WHAT IS THE RELIABILITY OF HAVING MR. SIMPSON TODAY DEMONSTRATE FOR US HIS PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS THAT WOULD NOT -- IF HE INDEED HAS ANY PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS TODAY, HOW DOES THAT BEAR ON WHAT HIS CAPABILITIES WERE ON JUNE THE 12TH? THERE IS NO BEARING. AND SIMPLY ALLOWING HIM TO GET UP AND DO PHYSICAL DEMONSTRATIONS WITHOUT BEING CROSS-EXAMINED, WITHOUT ALLOWING US TO HAVE A DOCTOR EXAMINE HIM TO DETERMINE WHAT HIS STATUS IS TODAY VERSUS WHAT IT WAS THEN, THERE'S JUST NO RELIABILITY TO THE DEMONSTRATION PROFFERED BY COUNSEL. SO I WOULD INDICATE FOR ALL THE ABOVE REASONS, I CAN'T SEE HOW THIS COULD EVER BE PERMISSIBLE, HOW THIS COULD EVER BE A PROPER THING TO DO. THE PEOPLE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE COURT TO DENY THIS REQUEST.

THE COURT: WELL, ISN'T IT OFTEN TIMES COMMON PLACE IN OUR TRIAL COURTS FOR DEFENDANTS TO EXHIBIT CERTAIN TATTOOS OR PHYSICAL MARKS OR SOMETHING ABOUT THEIR PERSON THAT IS NON-TESTIMONIAL?

MS. CLARK: WHEN THEY HAVE FOUNDATIONAL SHOWING TO BACK IT UP PURSUANT TO TESTIMONY. FOR EXAMPLE, IF THEY HAVE A DEFENDANT WHO HAS A TATTOO THAT WAS NOT DESCRIBED BY AN IDENTIFICATION WITNESS, THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE, IF HE COULD LAY THE FOUNDATION THAT HE HAD THE TATTOO BACK ON THE DATE IN QUESTION. BUT WE'RE NOT AT THE POINT OF TAKING TESTIMONY, YOUR HONOR. WE'RE NOT IN THE TRIAL. WE'RE NOT TAKING EVIDENCE. THIS IS AN OPENING STATEMENT. THIS IS A REQUEST TO TAKE EVIDENCE IN THE OPENING STATEMENT, AND THAT'S NOT PERMISSIBLE, AND THERE'S NO FOUNDATION THAT THEY'RE GOING TO LAY WITH RESPECT TO EVIDENTIARY FOUNDATIONS IN THE OPENING STATEMENT. IT'S JUST ARGUMENT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. COCHRAN, WHAT'S THE NATURE OF THE EXHIBITION THAT YOU ARE CONTEMPLATING?

MR. COCHRAN: CERTAINLY --

MS. CLARK: MAY I ALSO INDICATE, HE'S ALSO PROPOSING TO DO AN INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT TO THE JURY. THAT'S ANOTHER REQUEST TO TAKE EVIDENCE, TO TESTIFY BEFORE THE JURY WITHOUT BEING CROSS-EXAMINED. THERE'S NO RELIABILITY TO WHAT THE DEFENSE OFFERS TO DO IN THIS CASE, IN THIS REQUEST WITH RESPECT TO THEIR PROFFER OF PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS, AND THEY'RE BASICALLY ASKING FOR A RIGHT OF ALLOCUTION. ALL OF WHAT THEY -- AND EVERYTHING THAT THEY WANT TO DEMONSTRATE TO THE JURY COULD BE DONE THROUGH PHOTOGRAPHS AND IS GOING TO BE DONE AS I UNDERSTAND IT, FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN, THROUGH PHOTOGRAPHS. SO THAT WOULD BE MUCH MORE RELEVANT THAN WHAT THE DEFENDANT LOOKS LIKE TODAY. I'M NOT SAYING -- I'M NOT CONCEDING THAT THEY ARE RELEVANT. BUT AT LEAST THEY'RE CLOSER IN TIME TO THE EVENTS IN QUESTION THAN WE ARE TODAY AND I CAN'T SEE WHAT THE RELEVANCE IS OF ANY OF IT.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I ANSWER YOUR QUESTION NOW?

THE COURT: BRIEFLY. YES. THANK YOU.

MR. COCHRAN: THIS IS MY TIME -- YOUR HONOR, WITH REGARD TO THIS -- FIRST OF ALL, THE FACT THAT COUNSEL HAS NEVER HEARD OF A DEFENDANT GIVING OPENING STATEMENT, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN. IT HAS IN FACT HAPPENED IN THE PAST. THE COURT HAS INDICATED TO US THAT TWO LAWYERS OR TWO PERSONS FROM EACH SIDE COULD IN FACT GIVE STATEMENTS. WE'LL START WITH THAT EXACT POINT. AND MR. SIMPSON HAS BEEN MADE AWARE OF THE LIMITATIONS OF OPENING STATEMENT. THE COURT WILL INSTRUCT THE JURORS THAT WHAT MISS CLARK SAYS IN OPENING STATEMENT OR WHAT MR. DARDEN SAYS IN OPENING STATEMENT IS NOT EVIDENCE, AND SO WE'RE NOT TRYING TO PRECLUDE THEM. IT SEEMS LIKE THEY'RE ALWAYS TRYING TO PRECLUDE US FROM DOING SOMETHING, YOUR HONOR. AND THEY TALK ABOUT THEY'RE IN THE SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH. WHAT I'VE ASKED -- AND I SPELLED IT OUT QUITE CLEARLY. MR. SIMPSON UNDERSTANDS THE RULES OF EVIDENCE FROM THAT STANDPOINT. I THINK HE HAS THE RIGHT TO DO THAT, AND THEY HAVE NO CASE SAYING HE CAN'T DO THAT. THE OTHER POINT IS THAT THEY'RE NOT EVEN INVOLVED IN THAT. IT SEEMS -- IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. AND SHE'S WORRIED ABOUT FOUNDATIONAL ASPECTS, YOUR HONOR. AS AN OFFICER OF THIS COURT AND MR. SIMPSON APPROACHES THE JURY, AND LET'S ASSUME ARGUENDO, THAT HE SHOWS THE JURY SOME SCARS ON HIS ARM, THAT HE CAN'T RAISE HIS ARM ABOVE A CERTAIN LIMIT. I THINK THE COURT CAN UNDERSTAND CLEARLY I WOULDN'T ASK THAT TO BE SHOWN IF THOSE SCARS DIDN'T COME FROM THE TIME HE PLAYED FOOTBALL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, IF HE HAS SOME PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS. CLEARLY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS THAT EXISTED LONG BEFORE JUNE 12TH OF 1994. SO AGAIN, YOUR HONOR, EVERYTHING THAT COMES UP, THEY WANT TO KNOW EVERYTHING THAT WE KNOW. CERTAIN THINGS, YOUR HONOR, THEY'RE NOT ENTITLED TO KNOW. THEY BROUGHT THIS CASE. THEY MADE THIS DECISION, YOUR HONOR, AND THEY HAVE TO LIVE WITH SOME OF THESE THINGS. AND SO WHAT WE DID THIS MORNING WAS TO TRY AND PUT IT BEFORE YOUR HONOR, WHICH IS THE PROPER PLACE. THESE ARE MATTERS OF SECURITY MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE, AND YOU ARE THE ONE THAT MAKES THAT DECISION. SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SEEKING TO DO.

THE COURT: WOULD YOU GIVE ME A LITTLE MORE EXPLANATION AS TO EXACTLY WHAT TYPE OF DEMONSTRATION OF YOUR CLIENT'S PHYSIQUE THAT YOU WISH TO BE MADE?

MR. COCHRAN: DOES THE COURT WANT ME TO BE BODY SPECIFIC?

THE COURT: YES. I MEAN, WHAT'S RELEVANT TO THIS CASE THAT THE JURY NEEDS TO SEE AT THIS POINT AND HOW DOES THAT DIFFER FROM A PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE DURING THE COURSE OF AN OPENING STATEMENT?

MR. COCHRAN: I WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT -- AND I WOULD RATHER DO IT AT SIDEBAR IF I CAN.

THE COURT: SURE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: AT THE SIDEBAR.

MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING US TO COME UP HERE. AGAIN, I MAKE THIS OFFER OF PROOF TO THE COURT. THERE WILL BE -- THEY HAVE THE NAME OF A DOCTOR, FOR EXAMPLE, WHO IS AWARE THIS MAN HAD SURGERY, THIS MAN HAS HAD CHRONIC RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS. IN ADDITION TO THAT, HE HAS PROBLEMS WITH HIS KNEES. HE CANNOT -- HE HAS GREAT PROBLEMS EVEN WALKING. YOU'VE SEEN HIM GET UP, THAT SORT OF THING. THIS IS VERY RELEVANT. HE'S HAD FOUR SURGERIES ON HIS KNEES. THIS HAS TO DO WITH -- UNDER THE PROSECUTION'S THEORY, THEY'RE GOING TO SAY, THE PERSON WHO COMMITTED THIS HAS TO BE PRETTY PHYSICALLY AGILE, HAS TO BE MOVING PRETTY QUICKLY TO DO ALL THESE THINGS WITHIN THE TIME FRAME. PART OF THE EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE THAT HE CANNOT DO THOSE THINGS, AND I HAVE MEDICAL EVIDENCE -- WITNESSES ARE GOING TO BE HERE, AND I THINK I SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO SHOW THIS. THAT'S ALL I WANT TO DO. THERE'S A SECURITY CONCERN --

THE COURT: YOU'RE JUST CONCERNED WITH THESE SCARS ON HIS KNEES?

MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ABOUT, SCARS ON HIS KNEES, SHOULDER, SCARS ON HIS KNEES. THAT'S ALL. OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE TO TELL YOU ABOUT IT. I DON'T WANT THE BAILIFF'S TO --

THE COURT: SCARS ON HIS KNEES?

MS. CLARK: THEY HAVE A PICTURE OF THE SCARS ON HIS KNEES.

MR. COCHRAN: WE DON'T.

MS. CLARK: YES, THEY DO. I'VE SEEN THEM.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, THE ISSUE IS, IS THIS NON-TESTIMONIAL? AND I ASSUME YOU'RE GOING TO BACK THIS UP WITH EVIDENCE?

MR. COCHRAN: I'M GOING TO BACK THIS UP. THAT'S WHAT I AM TRYING TO SAY.

THE COURT: YOU HAVE WITNESSES TO TESTIFY ABOUT THIS?

MS. CLARK: FIRST OF ALL, DEFENSE HAS THOUGHT ABOUT THIS FOR SOMETIME. WE GET HIT WITH THIS AT THE LAST MINUTE. WE DIDN'T SEE THE MOTION UNTIL FIVE MINUTES AGO. WE HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND, TO GIVE THE COURT AUTHORITY TO THE CONTRARY. THIS IS ENTIRELY IMPROPER. FIRST OF ALL, THIS DEFENDANT IS NOT IN PRO PER. SO HE'S NOT ENTITLED TO ADDRESS THIS JURY UNLESS THE COURT --

THE COURT: COUNSEL, AT THIS POINT, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE DEMONSTRATION, SHOWING THE JURY SCARS ON HIS KNEES.

MS. CLARK: AND THAT CAN BE DONE WITH A PHOTOGRAPH, WHICH THEY'VE ALREADY SHOWN US. MR. DOUGLAS SHOWED IT TO US ON FRIDAY. THEY HAVE PHOTOGRAPHS THEY CAN INTRODUCE FOR THAT PURPOSE. WHAT THEY ARE ASKING TO DO IS TESTIMONIAL IN NATURE BECAUSE IT'S BASICALLY GOING TO BE USED TO INFER HE COULD NOT DO CERTAIN THINGS ON JUNE THE 12TH, AND THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY FOLLOW AT ALL.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MS. CLARK: JUDGE, CAN I REPLY? YOU KNOW SOMETHING? IT'S NOT FAIR. COUNSEL SIDESWIPES US, AMBUSHES US, AND THEN HE COMPLAINS WHEN WE WANT A CHANCE TO ADDRESS --

THE COURT: WE WON'T GET TO THEIR OPENING STATEMENT TODAY IT SEEMS PRETTY CLEAR TO ME. SO I'LL GIVE YOU UNTIL TOMORROW MORNING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, WE NEED A CHANCE -- WE'RE IN COURT.

THE COURT: I KNOW.

MS. CLARK: WHEN ARE WE GOING TO HAVE TIME TO PREPARE ON IT?

THE COURT: TONIGHT WHEN I'M PREPARING ON ALL OF THESE THINGS.

MS. CLARK: WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT THE COURT'S RULING IS ON THIS. SO WE NEED TO --

THE COURT: YOU WANTED AN OFFER OF WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL. THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THE COURT HAS HEARD AT SIDEBAR THE OFFER OF PROOF AS TO THE NATURE OF THE DEMONSTRATION THAT WOULD BE MADE. THE PROSECUTION HAS ASKED FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THIS MOTION SINCE THEY JUST BECAME AWARE OF IT LATE THIS MORNING. IT SEEMS TO ME BY LOOKING AT THE CLOCK TODAY THAT WE WILL NOT GET TO THE DEFENSE PART OF THE OPENING STATEMENT TODAY. SO I'LL GIVE COUNSEL FOR THE PROSECUTION LEAVE UNTIL TOMORROW MORNING TO RAISE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE SUGGESTION MADE BY THE DEFENSE.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, WE APPRECIATE THAT. THE PROBLEM IS THAT WE DON'T -- HOW CAN WE PROCEED WITH OPENING STATEMENTS OURSELVES WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THE DEFENSE IS GOING TO BE PERMITTED TO DO? THE DEFENSE COMPLAINS ABOUT WE'RE ALWAYS ASKING TO PRECLUDE THEM FROM DOING SOMETHING. WE'RE NOT. WE ARE ASKING FOR A FAIR AN ORDERLY TRIAL IN WHICH THE PEOPLE'S RIGHTS ARE NOT BEING ABROGATED BY THESE LAST MINUTE AMBUSHES WHERE THEY'RE MAKING REQUESTS -- NOW THEY'VE MADE A MOTION THAT WE'VE NEVER SEEN BEFORE AND THEY WANT US TO BE ABLE TO RESPOND IMMEDIATELY TO IT. THE COURT'S GIVING US UNTIL TOMORROW. WE APPRECIATE THAT. BUT WE CERTAINLY CANNOT PLAN OUR STRATEGY WITHOUT KNOWING HOW THAT RULING IS GOING TO GO. THIS IMPACTS ON US, AND I THINK THAT COUNSEL --

THE COURT: WELL, COUNSEL, YOU'RE AWARE THAT WHEN DEFENDANTS MAKE PRESENTATIONS THAT ARE TESTIMONIAL IN NATURE, THEY'RE SUBJECT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION. THAT SEEMS TO BE PRETTY WELL SETTLED. NORMALLY IT'S THE PROSECUTION THAT'S HERE ASKING FOR NON-TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE TO BE PRESENTED SUCH AS PHYSIQUES, PHYSICAL INJURY, THAT SORT OF THING AS BEING NON-TESTIMONIAL.

MS. CLARK: BUT THAT'S DURING A TRIAL, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS DURING OPENING STATEMENT.

THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND.

MS. CLARK: THIS IS NOT THE TIME FOR ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE, AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM WE HAVE.

THE COURT: WELL, COUNSEL, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOUR SHOWING PHOTOGRAPHS OF ONE OF THE VICTIM'S BODIES AND THE DEMONSTRATION THAT'S SUGGESTED BY MR. COCHRAN? WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE? THEY'RE BOTH PRESENTATION OF WHAT WILL PROBABLY BE EVIDENCE AT TRIAL. THE ISSUE IS, IS THERE SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR ABOUT IT.

MS. CLARK: YES.

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

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS --

THE COURT: WELL, COUNSEL, I'VE ALREADY TOLD YOU I'LL HEAR THE ARGUMENT TOMORROW MORNING. I'M GIVING YOU LEAVE UNTIL TOMORROW MORNING.

MS. CLARK: I CAN ONLY REITERATE THAT --

THE COURT: NO. YOU DON'T NEED TO REITERATE IF I'VE ALREADY HEARD IT.

MS. CLARK: WELL, YOU HAVEN'T HEARD THIS.

THE COURT: AS SOON AS YOU SAY, "I WANT TO REITERATE" --

MS. CLARK: YOU'RE RIGHT. I USED THE WRONG WORD.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MS. CLARK: COUNSEL -- AS THE COURT IS AWARE, COUNSEL ALREADY HAS PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE INJURY THAT THEY'VE SHOWN --

THE COURT: COUNSEL, YOU ARE ARGUING THE MOTION NOW. I'VE SAID I'LL HEAR THE ARGUMENT TOMORROW MORNING.

MS. CLARK: VERY WELL, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: IF YOU WANT TO RAISE IT AGAIN -- IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL AT THIS POINT.

MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. ALL I'M ASKING -- I WON'T ADDRESS IT ANY FURTHER.

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

MS. CLARK: ALL I WAS ASKING WAS THAT THE COURT ISSUE -- GIVE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO KNOW THE RULING BEFORE WE ARGUE -- BEFORE WE GIVE OPENING STATEMENT, BEFORE THE PEOPLE GIVE OPENING STATEMENT. THE COURT'S AWARE OF THAT REQUEST.

THE COURT: DID YOU HEAR WHAT I SAID ABOUT TWO MINUTES AGO?

MS. CLARK: I'M SURE I HEARD EVERYTHING THE COURT SAID.

THE COURT: OKAY. OKAY. LET ME TAKE A DEEP BREATH HERE. ALL RIGHT. MR. COCHRAN, HAVE WE RECEIVED ANY WORD FROM YOUR OFFICE REGARDING THE WHEREABOUTS OF THE SECOND OR THIRD VIDEOTAPES?

MR. COCHRAN: NO, YOUR HONOR. I EXPECTED IT WOULD TAKE THEM ABOUT 20 MINUTES. WE'RE A LITTLE SHORT OF THAT. THEY'RE GOING TO CALL THE CLERK AS SOON AS THEY GET TO THE OFFICE, AND THEN I'LL LET YOUR HONOR KNOW AS SOON AS WE GET WORD.

THE COURT: THEN LET'S TAKE UP THE DEFENSE PROFFER OF EVIDENCE REGARDING IMPEACHMENT OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. MR. BAILEY.

MR. BAILEY: IF IT PLEASE THE COURT, IN YOUR RULING, YOU SUGGESTED THAT THERE WAS CLEAR RELEVANCE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAD CONFRONTED MR. SIMPSON AND HIS THEN EITHER FIANCE' OR WIFE IN 1985.

THE COURT: A VERY UNIQUE SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES HERE.

MR. BAILEY: RIGHT. AND THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS SOME PROFFER OF EVIDENCE THAT WOULD MAKE HIS BIAS RELEVANT SINCE THE BIAS WAS INHERENT IN HIS STATEMENT. WE HAVE GIVEN YOU SEVERAL EXAMPLES --

THE COURT: MR. BAILEY, MAYBE I FAILED TO COMMUNICATE THE IMPORT OF MY RULING. WHAT I'M INDICATING TO YOU, THAT IT'S AN UNUSUAL FACTUAL SITUATION, THAT YOU HAVE A DETECTIVE WHO HAD CONTACT WITH BOTH THE VICTIM AND THE DEFENDANT IN 1985 --

MR. BAILEY: UH-HUH.

THE COURT: -- THAT CROSSES PATHS WITH THEM AGAIN IN 1989 --

MR. BAILEY: UH-HUH.

THE COURT: -- AND THEN CROSSES PATHS WITH THEM AGAIN ON JUNE THE 12TH OR 13TH OF 1994. THAT'S UNUSUAL. THEN YOU HAVE THE PROFFERED STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN BELL, WHICH TOUCHES ON RACIAL BIAS, DISAPPROVAL OF INTERRACIAL COUPLES AND WILLINGNESS TO FABRICATE PROBABLE CAUSE. SO I AGREE IT'S RELEVANT. I AGREE IT'S RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE OF RACIAL ANIMUS, IT'S RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE OF WILLINGNESS TO FABRICATE PROBABLE CAUSE, IT'S RELEVANT TO RACIAL PREJUDICE AS WELL. THE ISSUE THEN BECOMES, ONCE WE HAVE THAT, HOW DO WE GET TO HOW IT'S RELEVANT TO THIS CASE GIVEN THE DETECTIVE'S ACTIVITIES ON THIS CASE. THAT'S THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE.

MR. BAILEY: LET ME START AT A FUNDAMENTAL POINT.

THE COURT: IN OTHER WORDS, HOW DO I MAKE THAT BRIDGE FROM THIS TO WHAT YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO PROVE REGARDING DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

MR. BAILEY: AGAINST THE FRUSTRATIONS OF OUR EARLY EXCURSIONS, YOUR HONOR, THIS TASK IS LIFTED FROM YOUR SHOULDERS BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT IN THE SECOND DISTRICT WHERE IT CLEARLY RULED THAT TO ELIMINATE ANY QUESTIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION OF A RELEVANT WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION RELATING TO HIS RACIAL BIAS AGAINST A PERSON OR A RACE OF WHICH HE IS A MEMBER WOULD BE FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL ERROR PER SE WITH NO DISCRETION. SO IF YOU START FROM THAT POINT AND THEN ASSUME, AS I THINK YOU SHOULD BASED ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, THAT WITHOUT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, THERE IS NO POSSIBLE WAY TO GET INTO EVIDENCE THAT GLOVE CLAIMED TO MATCH THE ONE FOUND AT THE SCENE, CLAIMED TO HAVE THE BLOOD OF THE MURDER VICTIMS ON IT WHICH ALLEGEDLY WAS LOCATED BY FUHRMAN IN AN ALLEY BETWEEN A CHAIN LINK FENCE AND THE DEFENDANT'S HOUSE ON HIS PREMISES ON THE MORNING OF THE 13TH, YOU ANTICIPATE THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WILL BE A WITNESS. WE ARE ENTITLED TO ATTACK THE CREDIBILITY OF ANY WITNESS WHOSE TESTIMONY TENDS TO INCRIMINATE THE ACCUSED. IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE HAVE TOLD YOU IN OUR PAPERS AND PERHAPS THE FIRST TIME THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN THEN WENT ON WITHIN HOURS TO SUPPRESS VITAL EVIDENCE TENDING TO EXCULPATE THE DEFENDANT BECAUSE HE INTERVIEWED AND ASKED QUESTIONS OF ONE ROSA LOPEZ, WHO LIVES NEXT DOOR, WHO SAW THE DEFENDANT'S BRONCO AT ITS PARKING SPOT ON ROCKINGHAM BETWEEN 10:15 AND 10:20 THAT NIGHT, HE REPORTED IT TO NO ONE, THERE ARE NO REPORTS ABOUT IT, AND SHE HAS NEVER BEEN INTERVIEWED BY THE PROSECUTION AS OF LAST NIGHT. SO IF HE SUPPRESSED EVIDENCE AND CLAIMED TO FIND INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE, I THINK WE HARDLY NEED GO FURTHER BEFORE WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK HIM, "AND BY THE WAY, HAVEN'T YOU SAID ON PAST OCCASIONS THAT YOU ARE IN FAVOR OF GENOCIDE?" BECAUSE WHAT HE REALLY SAID WAS, "LET'S PUT THEM ALL IN A PILE AND BURN THEM ALL." AND I HAVEN'T HEARD THAT COME FROM ANYONE SINCE ADOLF HITLER. THAT'S A PRETTY EXTREME STATEMENT. NOT ONLY THAT; MR. FUHRMAN AS OF THIS MORNING INVOKED THE JURISDICTION OF GOOD MORNING AMERICA TO MAKE PUBLIC AND TRUCULENT STATEMENT ABOUT THE TRIAL PLANS AND AMMUNITION OF MY COLLEAGUES FROM THE PROSECUTION AS TO HOW THEY WILL DECIMATE THE WITNESS WHO CLAIMS SHE HEARD HIM SAY THESE THINGS AFTER SHE TRIED TO FIX HIM UP WITH A WOMAN WHO HAD GONE OUT WITH A BLACK MAN. THIS WAS AN OUTBURST. SO I CANNOT IMAGINE A CLEARER CASE OF THE DEFENSE HAVING AN ABSOLUTE AND INALIENABLE, INDELIBLE, IRREVOCABLE RIGHT TO SMASH INTO ANY PERSON SO LOW LIFE AS TO MAKE THOSE UTTERANCES AND THEN TO PROCEED TO THE WITNESS STAND AND ATTEMPT TO INCRIMINATE FOR MURDER THROUGH THESE DEFALCATIONS AND SPORULATION A MEMBER OF THE AFRICAN AMERICAN RACE. THERE COULD BE NO CLEARER CASE. BUT THE ANTHONY CASE, YOUR HONOR, IT SEEMS TO ME MAKES IT VERY CLEAR TO THE COURT THAT ANY ELIMINATION OR LIMITATION -- BECAUSE IN ANTHONY, ONE RACIAL BIAS QUESTION WAS ALLOWED, THE SECOND ONE WAS EXCLUDED. AND THAT WAS HELD TO BE A VIOLATION NOT OF CALIFORNIA, BUT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, RELYING ON DAVIS V. ALASKA, A 1974 CASE IN WHICH CHIEF JUSTICE BERGER JOINED BY SIX OTHER JUSTICES CONDEMNED ANY LIMITATION ON RACIAL BIAS QUESTIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION. I DON'T SEE ANY WIGGLING ROOM. AND WHILE I WAS HAPPY TO PUT TOGETHER THE PROFFER THAT YOU ASKED FOR IN YOUR RULING, YOUR HONOR, SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU ASKED FOR IT, I DON'T THINK IT WAS NECESSARY. I THINK ONCE FUHRMAN HITS THE STAND WITHOUT ANY WARNING TO ANYBODY AS TO WHAT WE'RE UP TO, WE'RE ABLE TO ASK HIM, "DON'T YOU HATE BLACK PEOPLE AND HAVEN'T YOU SAID SO ON MANY OCCASIONS AND PARTICULARLY THIS OCCASION AFTER YOU LEARNED THAT THIS DEFENDANT HAD A ROMANTIC ENTANGLEMENT WITH A CAUCASIAN WOMAN?" I BELIEVE THAT CROSSES THE BRIDGE AND I BELIEVE IT CROSSES IT IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT CAN NEVER BE TORN DOWN. I THINK BEYOND THE ANTHONY CASE, THERE'S NOWHERE ELSE TO LOOK. CERTAINLY THIS IS AN AREA CARVED OUT WHERE JUDICIAL DISCRETION HAS BEEN PINCHED DOWN TO THE POINT WHERE IT MAY NOT EXIST, EXCEPT IN CASES OF RANK ABUSE WHEN THERE WAS NO POSSIBLE RELEVANCE TO THE PERSON'S BIAS AS IT RELATED TO HIS TESTIMONY. BUT THE BIAS OF THIS WITNESS AGAINST THIS DEFENDANT IN PARTICULAR AND HIS RACE IN GENERAL COULD WELL EXPLAIN A NUMBER OF FALSE STATEMENTS ON HIS PART, WHICH WE'RE GOING TO TELL THE JURY HE'S MADE. WE'RE NOT TRYING TO PROVE THAT HE PLANTED ANYTHING BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE TO. WE'RE SIMPLY SAYING, IF THE ONLY EVIDENCE YOU HAVE THAT THIS GLOVE CAME FROM O.J. SIMPSON'S HOME IS DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN, THAT ISN'T ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO CONVICT A RAT, LET ALONE A HUMAN BEING. AND I THINK THAT'S A FAIR ARGUMENT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE. AFTER ALL, THERE'S ANOTHER PRINCIPAL AT PLAY HERE, IF IT PLEASE THE COURT. THIS IS THE PEOPLE'S WITNESS. THE PEOPLE ARE ESTOPPED TO COMPLAIN THAT HAVING BEEN PUT ON NOTICE IN 1981 THAT THIS FELLOW HAD TERRIBLE RACIST FEELINGS, TERRIBLE FEELINGS, HE COULDN'T CONTROL HIS VIOLENCE AGAINST PEOPLE HE WAS ARRESTING, THEY FOUND THAT HE NOT ONLY WAS GOOD ENOUGH TO STAY ON AS AN LAPD DETECTIVE, BUT PROMOTED HIM IN THE PROCESS. AND CERTAINLY, IF MRS. BELL WAS HEARING HIS RACIST FEELINGS IN 1985 AND 1986, SOMEONE IN THE DEPARTMENT WAS HEARING IT AND THEY WERE TERRIBLY INSENSITIVE TO LEAVE HIM WITH A BADGE AND A GUN KNOWING HOW HE FELT IN THIS CITY AND THE TURMOIL IT SUFFERED. DOES THE COURT HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AS TO THE PROFFER?

THE COURT: NOT AT THIS POINT, COUNSEL.

MR. BAILEY: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: MISS LEWIS.

MS. LEWIS: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR. I WAS IMPRESSED BY MR. BAILEY'S DRAMA AND EMPHASIS AND FINGER POINTING, BUT THAT DOES NOT TAKE THE PLACE OF AN OFFER OF PROOF OF EVIDENCE, WHICH IS WHAT THIS COURT RULED WAS REQUIRED. MR. BAILEY ALSO JUST NOW APPARENTLY WAS SEEKING TO RELITIGATE THE MOTION ITSELF, AND THAT WAS TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE. THE OFFER OF PROOF THAT THE DEFENSE GIVES THE COURT WITHIN THEIR MOTION IS PROOF OF SPECULATION. THERE IS SIMPLY NOTHING IN HERE. FURTHER, THEY GO BEYOND AND THEY NOW ARE CLAIMING THAT THE BRONCO WAS MOVED; BECAUSE OF INCONSISTENT TESTIMONY EARLY ON AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, THAT THE DEFENDANT'S FORD BRONCO IS MOVED. THIS IS A BRAND NEW ALLEGATION ARISING OUT OF HOLE CLOTH, OUT OF DEFENSE SPECULATION, OUT OF THE DREAM OF THE DEFENSE TEAM THAT SOMETHING COULD COME UP TO DIVERT THE JURY'S ATTENTION IN A VERY SERIOUS WAY. THE COURT SAW THE DEMONSTRATION -- I SHOULDN'T SAY DEMONSTRATION -- BUT THE EFFECT OF THE RACIAL ARGUMENT, AS IT HAPPENS, WHEN IT CAME OUT THROUGH MR. DARDEN FOR THE PROSECUTION AND MR. COCHRAN FOR THE DEFENSE. THE COURT SAW FOR ITSELF HOW VERY INFLAMMATORY THAT GETS VERY EASILY. THE COURT RULED ON THESE AREAS, RULED UNDER 352 THAT THE 1981 LAWSUIT WAS TOO REMOTE TO BE REASONABLY RELEVANT HERE, THAT THE JOSEPH BRITTON MATTER WAS TOO REMOTE TO BE REASONABLY RELEVANT HERE. THE COURT --

THE COURT: NO. I SAID THE BRITTON MATTER WAS SPECULATIVE BECAUSE THERE WAS NO DIRECT EVIDENCE OF ANY MISCONDUCT OR ANY EXPRESSION OF RACIAL ANIMUS, NOT THAT IT WAS REMOTE.

MS. LEWIS: THANK YOU. AND I OVERSTATED IT WHEN I SAID THAT IT WAS TOO REMOTE TO BE RELEVANT SINCE IT WAS PURELY SPECULATION, AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO BACK THAT EITHER. BUT IN THIS SITUATION, THE COURT'S RULING WAS ABSOLUTELY CLEAR TO ME, HAVING READ IT. IT WAS DETAILED IN FIVE PAGES. AND WHAT WAS CLEAR IS THAT THE DEFENSE -- FOUR AND A HALF. WHAT WAS CLEAR WAS THAT THE COURT WAS REQUIRING OF THE DEFENSE SOME OFFER OF EVIDENCE THAT THIS DETECTIVE MOVED EVIDENCE, WHETHER IT BE THE GLOVE OR ANY OTHER EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: BUT THE ARGUMENT HAS CHANGED AND SHIFTED. THE ARGUMENT HAS NOW -- IS NOW GONE -- SEE, THE INTERESTING THING IS, THE WAY THIS ALL PLAYED OUT BECAUSE IT STARTED OUT AS A MOTION IN LIMINE BY THE PROSECUTION TO LIMIT THIS. SO ESSENTIALLY, YOU FRAMED THE ISSUE AS YOU WANTED IT, WHICH WAS THE ALLEGATION PUBLISHED IN A MAGAZINE BACK EAST THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAD PLANTED THE EVIDENCE. SO THAT WAS THE POINT OF YOUR OFFENSIVE IN THIS CASE. THE RESPONSE THAT I GOT THIS MORNING FROM THE DEFENSE IS THAT THEY ARE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE ENTITLED TO CROSS-EXAMINE AS TO RACIAL ANIMUS. AND THEY CITE TWO CASES THAT APPEAR TO BE CONTROLLING.

MS. LEWIS: I'M NOT AWARE OF THE SECOND CASE. BUT OF COURSE, THEY CITED THE ANTHONY P. CASE, WHICH I, AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT, BROUGHT TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T EVEN ABLE TO LOCATE THAT DURING THEIR EARLIER RESPONSE. THE ANTHONY P. CASE, YOUR HONOR, I BELIEVE IS DISTINGUISHABLE HERE. IN THAT CASE, IF THE COURT RECALLS, ALL THE DEFENSE TRIED TO DO WAS TO CROSS-EXAMINE IN THAT ONE AREA, AND THAT WAS IT. APPARENTLY, THERE WERE NO OTHER AVENUES OPEN TO THE DEFENSE. AND THAT'S BECAUSE, AS THE COURT SAID ON PAGE 506 COMES TO MIND IN THAT CASE, IN RE ANTHONY P., THAT THE ENTIRE CASE RESTED ENTIRELY ON THE CREDIBILITY OF THE COMPLAINING VICTIM, WHO WAS THE VICTIM OF WHAT FACTUALLY APPEARED TO BE A SEXUAL BATTERY. SO THERE WAS NO CORROBORATION, NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE TO CORROBORATE, NO OTHER WITNESSES WHO SAW THE EVENT OR EVEN SAW HER RUN FROM THE EVENT. AND WHEN YOU HAD A ONE-ON-ONE CREDIBILITY CONTEST, THE ANTHONY P. COURT FELT IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO ALLOW THAT. THE SITUATION WE HAVE HERE IS VASTLY DIFFERENT. WE HAVE ABUNDANT EVIDENCE OTHER THAN THE GLOVE AT ROCKINGHAM, WHICH THE COURT IS AWARE OF AND WILL HEAR MORE OF AS TIME GOES BY AND AS THE TRIAL EVOLVES AND CERTAINLY BY THE TIME OPENING STATEMENTS ARE COMPLETED. BUT THIS IS NOT A SITUATION WHERE THIS IS THE SOLE WITNESS, THE VICTIM, THE COMPLAINING WITNESS. THIS IS NOT A SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE THE CREDIBILITY OF THE ENTIRE CASE AND THE ENTIRE BASIS OF EVERY ELEMENT OF THE CHARGES IN THAT CASE WHERE ALL OF THAT IS COMING FROM THE MOUTH OF ONE PERSON TESTIFYING FROM THE WITNESS STAND. THIS IS A CASE WHERE, AS THE COURT KNOWS, THERE'S GOING TO BE -- I DON'T WANT TO SAY HUNDREDS, BUT THERE'S GOING TO BE LOTS AND LOTS OF WITNESSES GOING TO VARIOUS DIFFERENT TYPES OF EVIDENCE. AND THE 352 ANALYSIS STILL APPLIES HERE; THAT IT IS SOMETHING THAT REQUIRES DEEP CONSIDERATION AND IT DOES NOT BEHOOVE THE COURT TO ALLOW THE DEFENSE TO RECAST THE TRUE FRAMEWORK OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S TESTIMONY IN TRYING TO TURN IT INTO A CREDIBILITY CONTEST AS IF HE WERE INDEED -- INDEED AS IF HIS CREDIBILITY WERE AT STAKE IN THE SAME WAY THAT IT WAS FOR THAT COMPLAINING VICTIM AND SOLE WITNESS IN THE ANTHONY P. CASE. THEY'RE TRYING TO TWIST THE FACTS OF THIS CASE TO FIT THAT. BUT IN REALITY, THEY DON'T. THIS CASE IS NOT THAT CASE. NOW, THE COURT MENTIONED A SECOND CASE THEY CITED IN SUPPORT OF -- AND I'M NOT SURE. THEY DO CITE ALONG WITH ANTHONY P., WHICH WE PROVIDED THE COURT WITH, LARRY E. VERSUS SUPERIOR COURT. THAT CASE HAD TO DO WITH A PITCHESS MOTION. AND THE PROSECUTION THERE HAD ARGUED THAT THE PERSONNEL RECORDS OF A POLICE OFFICER NOT NAMED AS A VICTIM IN THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT BE DISCOVERABLE, AND THE COURT OF APPEAL, I BELIEVE IT WAS, HELD OTHERWISE. THAT WAS FOR PURPOSES OF A PITCHESS MOTION, WHICH, AS THE COURT IS WELL AWARE, A PITCHESS MOTION GOES TO DISCOVERY; AND THE ONLY GROUND FOR DISCOVERY OR THE ONLY REQUIREMENT IS THAT IT BE REASONABLY LIKELY TO LEAD TO ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE. BUT EVEN IN THIS CASE ITSELF, I THINK THE COURT IN HERE NOTES THAT THEY'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT EVIDENCE THAT WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE AT TRIAL. THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT SIMPLY A DISCOVERY MATTER. AND IN THIS CASE, THE COURT INDEED DID REVIEW THE PERSONNEL DOCUMENTS THAT WERE PROVIDED TO IT. AND I BELIEVE MARK FUHRMAN'S ATTORNEY REQUESTED THE COURT DO THAT. THE COURT DID IT. AND SO IN LIMITED RESPECT, IT LOOKED INTO THE MATTER, DETERMINED THERE WAS NOTHING RELEVANT FROM THOSE RECORDS; AND INDEED THERE WAS NOT. AND THE BOTTOM LINE, YOUR HONOR, IS THAT IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE TO ALLOW THE DEFENSE TO GO ON A FISHING EXPEDITION RAISING AN INFLAMMATORY ISSUE OF RACIAL ANIMOSITY IN FRONT OF THE JURY WHEN THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT NEXUS, TO PROVIDE THAT NEXUS TO BEGIN WITH. AND WE DO DOVETAIL BACK INTO THE THIRD PARTY CULPABILITY CASE LAW, WHICH REQUIRES SOME EVIDENTIARY LINK PRIOR TO THERE BEING ANY RELEVANCE TO MOTIVE OR OPPORTUNITY EVIDENCE. SO THEY HAVE FAILED TO COMPORT WITH THAT, YOUR HONOR. AND MR. BAILEY, ALTHOUGH HE MAY BE ELOQUENT AND PERHAPS PERSUASIVE TO A TRIER OF FACT, CERTAINLY SHOULD NOT BE PERSUASIVE TO THIS COURT BECAUSE THE COURT HAS BEHIND IT ALL OF THE LAW AND ALL OF THE FACTS IN THIS AREA. AND THE COURT HAS DONE A VERY CAREFUL AND REASONED ANALYSIS, AND I CERTAINLY APPRECIATED THE CAREFULNESS AND THE RULING WHICH THE COURT CAME FORTH WITH WHICH SHOWED THAT THE COURT HAD CAREFULLY THOUGHT OUT THE ISSUE. AND THE DEFENSE HAS SIMPLY FAILED TO DO WHAT THE COURT DECIDED IT WOULD ALLOW; AND THAT WOULD BE A LAST-MINUTE OFFER. IF THEY HAD SOME TRUE EVIDENCE, LET THEM COME FORWARD WITH IT. IT'S SORT OF PUT UP OR SHUT UP. AND THE DEFENSE FRANKLY HAS NOT DONE THAT. THEY HAVE NOT PUT UP, SO THEY SHOULD SHUT UP.

THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL. MR. BAILEY.

MR. BAILEY: I SHOULD JUST EXPLAIN, YOUR HONOR, THAT THE OTHER JUVENILE CASE WE CITED WAS IN RESPONSE TO THEIR CLAIM THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO ASK DETECTIVE FUHRMAN ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE 1985 INCIDENT, WHICH WAS OBVIOUSLY AN EFFORT TO PROTECT HIM FROM CROSS ABOUT THAT INCIDENT. THE SECOND CASE SAYS YOU CAN'T DO THAT. YOU CAN'T PULL AN OFFICER BACK ONCE HE WAS INVOLVED, SAY YOU ARE NOT GOING TO TESTIFY AND THEN PROTECT HIM FROM DISCOVERY AND OTHER REMEDIES. AND AS TO THE LATTER REMARK OF COUNSEL, WE'RE ALWAYS TOLD WE ARE ON A FISHING EXPEDITION. IF EVER THERE WAS A CASE WHERE AN 1800 POUND MARLIN WAS HOOKED, GAFFED AND IN THE BOAT, THIS IS SUCH A CASE.

THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. AS TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, I'M GOING TO PRECLUDE THE DEFENSE FROM PURSUING THAT LINE DURING THE COURSE OF OPENING STATEMENTS FOR THIS REASON: BECAUSE OF THE TURNING OVER TODAY OF OTHER STATEMENTS MADE BY KATHLEEN BELL, WHO IS THE GENESIS OF THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. HOWEVER, AFTER THE PROSECUTION HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REINTERVIEW OR REEXAMINE THOSE STATEMENTS, I WILL ALLOW CROSS-EXAMINATION ON THAT ISSUE.

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, SO THAT THE RECORD IS CLEAR, WHEN YOU SAY YOU'RE GOING TO ALLOW CROSS-EXAMINATION ON THAT ISSUE, IS THAT THE ISSUE OF RACIAL BIAS OR ANIMUS AS A WHOLE OR ON THE 1985 --

THE COURT: RACIAL BIAS AS TO THE STATEMENT BY KATHLEEN BELL AS IT RELATES TO THIS PARTICULAR CASE.

MR. BAILEY: I DON'T WANT TO BE A POLICEMAN, BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE ONE LAWYER, ONE ISSUE RULE START AT 1:30, IT PROBABLY SHOULD START --

MS. LEWIS: WELL, IN THAT CASE, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE RULING AS WELL --

THE COURT: YES.

MS. LEWIS: -- YOUR HONOR, AND THAT IS THAT THE DEFENSE --

THE COURT: I AM PRECLUDING THE DEFENSE FROM MAKING MENTION OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN DURING THE COURSE OF THEIR OPENING STATEMENT SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE FACT OF THE LATE TURNING OVER OF THE OTHER STATEMENTS OF KATHLEEN BELL TODAY. HOWEVER, I FIND THE ISSUE OF RACIAL ANIMOSITY TO BE SOMETHING THAT THEY'RE ENTITLED TO CROSS-EXAMINE ON.

MS. LEWIS: AND, YOUR HONOR, THAT STILL DOES NOT QUITE CONCLUDE THE COURT'S RULING WITH REGARD TO KATHLEEN BELL IN TERMS OF THE 352 ASPECT, OF ITS REMOTENESS.

THE COURT: NO. I DON'T FIND IT TO BE REMOTE. I THINK -- I ALREADY RULED ON THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE.

MS. LEWIS: SO THAT THE COURT IS SATISFIED THAT THE DEFENSE CAME UP WITH AN OFFER OF PROOF OR THE COURT IS CONCERNED FRANKLY ABOUT IN RE ANTHONY P.?

THE COURT: NO. WE'VE SWITCHED -- THE THEORY HERE ON THE DEFENSE SIDE CHANGED. IT'S NO LONGER AN ISSUE OF PLANTING EVIDENCE. IT'S THE RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE ON RACIAL ANIMUS. SEE, THAT'S THE INTERESTING THING ABOUT HOW THIS WHOLE THING DEVELOPED. IT DEVELOPED AS A PROSECUTION MOTION IN LIMINE. NORMALLY IT'S THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, HOW IS RACIAL ANIMOSITY --

THE COURT: COUNSEL, I'M NOT GOING TO HEAR IT AGAIN. I'VE RULED. MY RULING IS IN THE RECORD. IT SHOULD BE CLEAR AT THIS POINT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

MR. COCHRAN: THEY'RE ON THE WAY BACK, YOUR HONOR, WITH THE TAPES. I ASKED THEM TO COME BACK IMMEDIATELY. THEY SHOULD BE HERE VERY SHORTLY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHILE WE ARE WAITING FOR THAT THEN, COUNSEL, I HAVE ISSUED AN ORDER REGARDING COURTROOM CONDUCT. HAVE COUNSEL RECEIVED A COPY OF THIS, MRS. ROBERTSON? WOULD YOU MAKE A HALF DOZEN COPIES FOR EACH SIDE, PLEASE?

THE BAILIFF: I'VE GOT SOME EXTRA.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: COUNSEL, I WOULD APPRECIATE IF YOU WOULD DISCUSS THE COURT'S ORDER WITH ANY PARTISANS ON EITHER SIDE.

MR. COCHRAN: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THE COURT WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY EXHIBITIONS OF OPINION OR REACTION TO ANY OF THE WITNESSES OR EVIDENCE THAT IS PRESENTED. THERE WILL BE NO TALKING IN THE AUDIENCE WHILE COURT IS IN SESSION. THE BAILIFFS ARE AUTHORIZED TO REMOVE ANY PERSON THAT THEY SEE TALKING IN THE COURTROOM WHILE COURT IS IN SESSION. THE COURT WILL NOT ALLOW ANY SYMBOLS OR STATEMENTS SUPPORTING EITHER SIDE SUCH AS T-SHIRTS, BUTTONS OR OTHER VISIBLE FORMS OF SUPPORT OR COMMUNICATION. ATTEMPTS TO COMMUNICATE WITH MEMBERS OF THE JURY OF COURSE ARE STRICTLY PROHIBITED. ALL ELECTRONIC DEVICES SUCH AS TELEPHONES, PAGERS AND ALARM WATCHES SHALL BE TURNED OFF WHILE IN THE COURTROOM. ANY DEVICE GOING OFF, THE SHERIFF'S ARE TO CONFISCATE. ANY QUESTIONS?

MR. COCHRAN: AT LEAST FROM OUR STANDPOINT, YOUR HONOR, WE WILL MAKE SURE EACH MEMBER OF THE DEFENSE GETS IT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE PEOPLE?

MS. CLARK: NO, YOUR HONOR. NO QUESTIONS. WE WILL DISTRIBUTE THIS TO THE PROSECUTION SIDE AS WELL.

THE COURT: THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, WHILE WE ARE WAITING, LET ME TELL YOU THE GROUND RULES OF OUR TRIAL WHEN WE ACTUALLY -- IF AND WHEN WE EVER GET STARTED. ONE LAWYER ADDRESSES THE COURT PER SIDE PER OBJECTION, PER ISSUE. THERE WILL BE NO EXCEPTIONS TO THIS. YOU MAY TAKE TIME IF YOU WISH TO CONSULT WITH YOUR COLLEAGUES. THE COURT WILL BE GENEROUS IN GRANTING YOU LEAVE TO DO THAT. THERE WILL BE NO SPEAKING OBJECTIONS. OBJECTIONS WILL BE HANDLED AT THE SIDEBAR AS IS APPROPRIATE. ALSO, WE WILL BEGIN PROMPTLY ON TIME EACH DAY EVERY DAY. THAT MEANS THAT AT 9:00 O'CLOCK, EVERYBODY IS IN THEIR PLACE AND READY TO GO, NOT THAT THEY'RE WANDERING IN AT 9:00 O'CLOCK. WE WILL BE STARTING AT 9:00 O'CLOCK AND WE WILL BE STARTING AT 1:30, AND THERE WILL BE NO EXCEPTIONS TO THAT RULE. ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, ANYTHING ELSE WE NEED TO DISCUSS BEFORE THE VIDEOTAPE SHOWS UP?

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I SAY ONE THING IF I MIGHT, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT THE DEFENSE WILL ASK THE COURT TO CONSIDER? WE CERTAINLY SUBSCRIBE TO THE RULES THAT YOUR HONOR SET FORTH. AND THE FIRST RULE, ONE LAWYER SPEAKS FOR EACH SIDE, I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE THAT ONCE YOU RULE, THAT WE LEAVE IT AT THAT AND THAT WE DON'T CONTINUE TO REARGUE THESE MOTIONS. THAT YOU RULE AND THE LAWYER FOR EACH SIDE -- BOTH SIDES WILL THEN SIT DOWN. I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER THAT TO THE PROSECUTION.

THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER ISSUE? ALL I SEE LEFT IS THE VIDEOTAPE ISSUE REGARDING OPENING STATEMENTS, THEN THE COURT'S PREINSTRUCTIONS AND OPENING STATEMENTS.

MS. CLARK: WE NEED TO ADDRESS THE OBJECTIONS THAT WE HAVE TO THOSE EXHIBITS, THOSE FEW EXHIBITS WE WERE SHOWN BY THE DEFENSE ON FRIDAY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, WHY DON'T YOU USE THE PODIUM.

MS. CLARK: BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO STAY OFF CAMERA. YOU ASKED ME WHY I'M NOT. SO -- WITH RESPECT TO THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT -- DEFENSE PROPOSES TO USE A PHOTOGRAPH OF CLAUDIA RATCLIFFE STANDING NEAR THE BODIES. IS THAT WITHDRAWN AS WELL? THERE WAS SOME STILLS THAT DEFENSE INDICATED THEY WITHDREW. I DON'T KNOW IF THIS WAS ONE OF THEM.

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

MR. SCHECK: JUST THE POLICE OFFICER WALKING DOWN --

MS. CLARK: SO THERE WOULD BE AN OBJECTION TO THAT ONE.

THE COURT: THAT IS WHAT, A PHOTOGRAPH OF WHAT?

MS. CLARK: CLAUDIA RATCLIFFE STANDING NEAR THE BODIES.

THE COURT: AND WHO IS CLAUDIA RATCLIFFE?

MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY, YOUR HONOR. SHE'S A CORONER'S INVESTIGATOR.

THE COURT: WAS SHE THE YOUNG LADY DEPICTED IN THE VIDEOTAPE THAT WE JUST SAW?

MS. CLARK: SHE WAS.

THE COURT: WHAT'S THE BASIS FOR YOUR OBJECTION TO THE PHOTOGRAPH OF MS. RATCLIFFE BY THE BODY?

MS. CLARK: WE WOULD OBJECT THAT IT IS IRRELEVANT AND ASK FOR AN OFFER OF PROOF.

THE COURT: WELL, COUNSEL, THIS IS OPENING STATEMENT.

MS. CLARK: I UNDERSTAND.

THE COURT: WHAT DOES THE PHOTOGRAPH DEPICT? DO WE HAVE THAT AVAILABLE FOR THE COURT TO LOOK AT?

MR. SCHECK: IT'S A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE WOMAN FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE STANDING IN HER SHOES WITH GLOVES ON TOP OF MR. GOLDMAN'S JEANS, A PHOTOGRAPH THAT THEY TURNED OVER TO US.

MS. CLARK: MAY I HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: NO. I RECALL THE PHOTOGRAPH.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: NO. I RECALL THE PHOTOGRAPH.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

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

MR. COCHRAN: WHILE THEY'RE -- MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR? I HAVE AN OFFER --

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

THE COURT: COUNSEL, YOU SHOULD BE WEARY OF THE INCREDIBLE INSENSITIVITY OF THOSE MICROPHONES.

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

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, IF I MIGHT ADDRESS THE COURT. TO SAVE TIME, YOUR HONOR, I WILL WITHDRAW THE REQUEST TO USE THE VIDEOTAPE DURING THE OPENING STATEMENT. I WAS INDICATING TO THE PROSECUTION THAT I NOW UNDERSTAND FROM TALKING TO MY OFFICE THERE IS A GOOD LIKELIHOOD IT IS IN SAN FRANCISCO AND WON'T BE HERE UNTIL LATER THIS AFTERNOON. RATHER THAN DELAY THESE PROCEEDINGS, SO WE CAN PROCEED, WE'LL CROSS THAT BRIDGE, MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO THEM. AND THEY KNOW WE HAVE IT, THEY'LL HAVE A COPY AND WE'LL DEAL WITH IT IN EVIDENCE.

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

MR. COCHRAN: CERTAINLY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, THEN THAT LEAVES ONLY THE INSTRUCTIONS TO PROCEED WITH BEFORE OPENING STATEMENTS.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, I HAVEN'T ADDRESSED OUR OBJECTIONS TO THE EXHIBITS WE WERE SHOWN ON FRIDAY, AND THEN WE HAVE OBJECTIONS TO ALL OF THE -- ABOUT 20 BOARDS THAT THEY PRODUCED --

THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE OBJECTIONS TO ALL OF THESE?

MS. CLARK: NOT ALL OF THEM.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHAT ARE YOUR OBJECTIONS?

MS. CLARK: WITH RESPECT TO -- I'M PREPARED RIGHT NOW TO ADDRESS WHAT WE OBJECT TO WITH RESPECT TO THE EXHIBITS SHOWN US ON FRIDAY; AND THAT IS THE PICTURE OF THE DEFENDANT AND SIDNEY AT THE RECITAL ON JUNE THE 12TH.

THE COURT: WHAT'S THE BASIS OF THAT OBJECTION?

MS. CLARK: UNDER -- WE WOULD HAVE NO OBJECTION TO A DEPICTION OF THE DEFENDANT ALONE. BUT WE THINK THAT DEPICTING HIM WITH SIDNEY IS IRRELEVANT, AND UNDER 352, WE WOULD ASK THAT THE COURT LIMIT THE PRESENTATION OF THE PHOTOGRAPH TO JUST THE DEFENDANT. WE CAN SEE HOW THE DEFENDANT'S DEPICTION MAY BE RELEVANT, BUT THAT WOULD BE ALL.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHAT ELSE ARE YOU OBJECTING TO?

MS. CLARK: DEFENDANT'S CALENDAR PAGES, JANUARY TO JUNE. WE -- JANUARY TO MAY, HAS NO RELEVANCE TO THESE PROCEEDINGS.

THE COURT: WHAT ELSE?

MS. CLARK: THE REST, WE HAVE TO ADDRESS WHAT WE SEE IN THE BOARDS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHICH ONE OF THE BOARDS?

MS. CLARK: MAY I HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: SURE.

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

MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, MAY WE APPROACH?

THE COURT: I THOUGHT THESE WERE OBJECTIONS TO THESE BOARDS HERE. I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH.

MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR. WE HAVE JUST FOR THE FIRST TIME SEEN THEM THIS MORNING. I HAD FIVE MINUTES TO LOOK AT THEM DURING A BREAK IN THE PROCEEDINGS, AND WE NEED TO CONFER FOR A MOMENT TO PRESENT OUR OBJECTIONS BECAUSE THESE WERE JUST PRESENTED TO US.

THE COURT: WELL, COUNSEL, THEY'VE BEEN HERE ALL DAY. THEY WERE HERE ALL THROUGH THE LUNCH HOUR. I'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK THROUGH THEM ALL. I MEAN CAN WE DO THIS -- JUST GO THROUGH ONE AT A TIME, SEE IF YOU OBJECT TO IT.

MS. CLARK: YES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. NUMBER ONE, TOP BOARD. WHERE'S THE EASEL THAT YOU ARE GOING TO USE TO PRESENT THESE THINGS, MR. DOUGLAS?

MR. DOUGLAS: SORRY, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: WHERE IS THE EASEL YOU WERE GOING TO USE TO PRESENT THE BOARDS HERE? SET ONE UP SO I CAN SEE THESE THINGS.

MR. DOUGLAS: VERY WELL.

THE COURT: MADAM REPORTER, YOU WANT TO SWITCH?

THE COURT REPORTER: NO, YOUR HONOR.

MS. CLARK: APPARENTLY, YOUR HONOR, THERE'S YET ANOTHER EXHIBIT THAT'S JUST BEING PRODUCED FOR THE FIRST TIME. WE HAVE NOT --

MR. COCHRAN: MR. DOUGLAS DID TELL THEM.

MS. CLARK: I JUST WAS TOLD ABOUT IT THIS MORNING. I'VE NEVER SEEN IT.

THE COURT: LET'S START WITH THIS ONE.

MS. CLARK: WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE RELEVANCE OF THIS COULD POSSIBLY BE.

THE COURT: THAT APPEARS TO BE A LARGE BLOWUP COLOR PHOTOGRAPH, APPEARS TO BE OF MR. SIMPSON AND FOUR OTHER INDIVIDUALS. WHAT'S THE RELEVANCE OF THIS?

MR. COCHRAN: THE RELEVANCE, YOUR HONOR, OF THIS IS -- IF I MIGHT, THIS IS MR. SIMPSON. THIS PHOTOGRAPH WILL BE EVIDENCE -- THIS PHOTOGRAPH WAS TAKEN SATURDAY EVENING, JUNE 11TH, JUST PRIOR -- THERE WILL BE A LOT OF EVIDENCE BY THE PROSECUTION ABOUT MR. SIMPSON, THINGS HE WAS DOING ON OR AROUND THE 11TH AND 12TH. THIS IS -- AND WITHOUT GOING INTO DETAIL REGARDING THE OFFER OF PROOF, THIS IS WHERE HE WAS THE NIGHT BEFORE. WE TALKED ABOUT EVIDENCE DOCUMENTING WHO HE WAS WITH, AND THE PEOPLE WHO HE WAS WITH ARE IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH WE JUST OBTAINED TODAY, BLOWN UP NOW AND BROUGHT TO COURT. WE ADVISED MISS CLARK ABOUT IT WHEN WE FOUND OUT THIS MORNING AND WE'RE NOW PRESENTING IT, AND AS AN OFFICER OF THIS COURT, I WILL LINK THIS UP ALONG WITH THE OTHER EVIDENCE IN THE CASE.

MS. CLARK: LINK IT TO WHAT?

MR. COCHRAN: RELEVANT ISSUES AS I UNDERSTAND THEM.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. NEXT ARE THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS.

MS. CLARK: THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH, YOUR HONOR, IS AN ISSUE OF REPRESENTATIVENESS. IT'S CLEAR THAT THERE ARE TARPS ON THE GATES, AND WE KNOW THAT THEY WERE NOT PLACED ON THOSE GATES UNTIL SOME TIME AFTER THE EVENTS IN QUESTION. AND THERE IS AN ISSUE OF SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES AS TO WHETHER THIS IS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE RENDITIONS THAT WERE IN EXISTENCE AT THE TIME OF THE MURDERS.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I THINK THAT COUNSEL IS SAYING ESSENTIALLY THERE HAS BEEN NO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE. I THINK AGAIN, THE EVIDENCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DEALS WITH SEEMS TO BE WEIGHT IF ANYTHING, NOT ADMISSIBILITY. THESE ARE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS. THEY HAVE THEIR OWN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS. THAT'S THE SITUATION.

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, DO YOU KNOW WHEN THOSE AERIAL SHOTS WERE TAKEN?

MR. COCHRAN: GIVE ME JUST A SECOND, YOUR HONOR. I'LL CONFER WITH MR. BAILEY. IF IT'S NOT AUGUST, I'LL LET YOU KNOW.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. NEXT.

MS. CLARK: THE GATES ARE NOT CHANGED.

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SECOND AREA.

MS. CLARK: IS THAT THE SAME --

THE COURT: COUNSEL, WHAT I NEED IS ONE PERSON TO PRESENT -- MISS CLARK, WHY DON'T YOU STEP BACK. WE NEED TO MAKE A RECORD. THE COURT REPORTER CAN'T HEAR YOU TALK ABOUT THE EXHIBITS. WHY DON'T YOU STEP BACK TO COUNSEL TABLE. PERHAPS WE COULD HAVE MR. DOUGLAS HOLD THESE UP. WHY DON'T YOU TURN THE EASEL AROUND. MISS CLARK, WHY DON'T YOU STEP BACK, PLEASE. WHY DON'T YOU TURN THE EASEL AROUND, MR. DOUGLAS, SO COUNSEL CAN SEE IT AND I CAN SEE IT. PERFECT.

MR. DOUGLAS: THIS NEXT BOARD, YOUR HONOR --

THE COURT: SOCK TIME LINE. MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: WELL, YOUR HONOR, THE CHART IS MISLEADING. AS TO JUNE 13TH, 24TH AND 29TH, THERE IS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CHART THE INDICATION NO BLOOD WAS FOUND. THAT ASSUMES THAT THEY WERE LOOKING FOR BLOOD ON THOSE DATES. THEY WERE NOT. THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THERE WAS NO EXAMINATION FOR BLOOD.

MR. DOUGLAS: THAT, YOUR HONOR, IS GOING MORE TO THE WEIGHT THAN ADMISSIBILITY OF THE BOARD.

MS. CLARK: WELL, ACTUALLY IT GOES BEYOND THAT. IT GOES TO ADMISSIBILITY WHEN THEY ARE ATTEMPTING TO ASSERT SOMETHING FOR WHICH THERE -- IT WOULD BE ONE THING IF THERE WAS SOME INDICATION THAT THEY WERE SUBMITTED FOR SEROLOGICAL TESTING, AND THEN IT WOULD BE AN ISSUE. BUT THERE WAS NONE. AND COUNSEL IS AWARE OF IT. IN DISCOVERY, THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT TO LOOK FOR BLOOD UNTIL AUGUST 4TH. SO SAYING THERE WAS NO BLOOD FOUND ATTEMPTS TO INFER SOMETHING THAT THERE CAN BE NO PREDICATE FOR, THERE CAN BE NO FOUNDATION FOR, THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH FOR --

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, THE SOCKS THAT WERE LOCATED AT THE FOOT OF THE BED IN MR. SIMPSON'S BEDROOM WERE EXAMINED ON THE 13TH, WERE EXAMINED BY CRIMINALISTS ALONG WITH DRS. BADEN AND WOLF AND WERE ASKED FOR THE THIRD TIME ON THE 29TH. THERE WAS NEVER ANY NOTATIONS ON ANY OF THE DOCUMENTS FOR THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD ON THOSE SOCKS UNTIL THE 4TH OF AUGUST, AND THAT IS WHAT IS REFLECTED ON THE CHART. THOSE ARE TRUE STATEMENTS THAT CAN BE SPUN ON CROSS-EXAMINATION OR ON REDIRECT, HOWEVER THEY CHOOSE TO SPIN THEM. BUT THE BOARD IS ACCURATE.

MS. CLARK: THE PROBLEM IS, THEY'RE MISLEADING THE JURY, YOUR HONOR. THEY'RE TRYING TO INFER -- THEY'RE TRYING TO GET THE JURY TO INFER THERE WAS SEARCH FOR BLOOD AND THEY CAME UP WITH NONE. THAT NEVER OCCURRED. IF THERE WAS NO SEARCH, THEN OF COURSE NO BLOOD WAS FOUND, BUT THAT DOESN'T PROVE ANYTHING. IF YOU HAVEN'T LOOKED, OF COURSE, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO FIND ANY, AND THAT'S MISLEADING.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. NEXT ITEM.

MR. BAILEY: YOUR HONOR RAISED THE TIME OF THE TAKING OF THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS?

THE COURT: YES.

MR. BAILEY: I TOOK THEM IN EARLY AUGUST.

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

MR. DOUGLAS: THIS WAS A PHOTOGRAPH OF MR. SIMPSON AND HIS DAUGHTER SIDNEY AT THE RECITAL. THERE WERE SUGGESTIONS MADE IN VARIOUS OFFERS OF PROOF DURING THE DOMESTIC DISCORD AND OTHER HEARINGS THAT MR. SIMPSON WAS NEVER ABLE TO SEE HIS DAUGHTER AND IN FACT WAS NEVER ABLE TO PRESENT THE FLOWERS TO HER. THIS IS GOING TO BE A PHOTOGRAPH CONTRADICTING THAT DIRECTLY.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK. I THINK YOU'VE ALREADY MADE YOUR OBJECTION TO THAT PHOTOGRAPH.

MS. CLARK: MAY I? I THINK I HAVE AN ADDITIONAL STATEMENT TO MAKE ABOUT IT NOW THAT I HEAR COUNSEL'S OFFER OF PROOF. IF I MAY.

THE COURT: SURE.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, COUNSEL'S OFFER OF PROOF MAKES IT CLEARLY IRRELEVANT. WE ARE NEVER GOING -- WE ARE GOING TO DO THE OPPOSITE ACTUALLY. WE ARE GOING TO ESTABLISH THROUGH EVIDENCE THAT HE DID SEE HIS DAUGHTER, HE DID GIVE HER FLOWERS, THERE WAS CONTACT. WE ARE GOING TO ESTABLISH THAT THROUGH MORE THAN ONE WITNESS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. NEXT MATTER.

MS. CLARK: SO THERE'S NO ISSUE THAT REQUIRES THAT PHOTOGRAPH TO BE SHOWN.

MR. DOUGLAS: THIS IS ANOTHER BOARD, YOUR HONOR, WHICH WE WILL CONTEND REFLECTS THE AMOUNT OF BLOOD THAT WAS TAKEN FROM MR. SIMPSON AND PLACED IN A BLOOD VIAL. IT WILL ACCOUNT, AS BEST AS OUR RECORDS CAN CONFIRM, THE OCCASIONS WHEN BLOOD WAS REMOVED AND IT WILL SUGGEST, AS FAR AS OUR RECORDS ARE CONCERNED, AND WHAT WE INTEND TO OFFER TO THE JURY, THAT THERE IS BLOOD UNACCOUNTED FOR.

MS. CLARK: AND BY THIS -- MAY I?

THE COURT: YES.

MS. CLARK: AND BY THIS CHART, COUNSEL IS ATTEMPTING TO ARGUE THAT 2.6 MILLILITERS IS UNACCOUNTED FOR OR .8 IS UNACCOUNTED FOR?

MR. BAILEY: 1.8.

MS. CLARK: I FIND IT CONFUSING TO DISPLAY THEN BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO INDICATE THAT 2. -- I DON'T KNOW. IT'S HARD TO -- BUT THAT'S NOT --

MR. DOUGLAS: IT'S NOT A QUESTION WHETHER THE BOARD IS UNDULY PREJUDICIAL. AFTER WE LISTEN TO OPENING STATEMENT, WE'LL UNDERSTAND IT CLEARLY.

MS. CLARK: MAYBE THE PROBLEM THAT I HAVE, YOUR HONOR, IS THAT I DON'T WANT -- I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THE JURY NOT BE CONFUSED AND MISLED. THERE ARE ASSERTIONS THERE -- THE PROBLEM IS, YOUR HONOR, THAT WE HAVE ASSERTIONS OF PRESUMPTION WITH RESPECT TO THOSE NUMBERS. THAT IS UNTRUE. I BELIEVE THAT ALL OF THE EXPERTS HAVE STATED IN THEIR REPORTS, AND THEY HAVE BEEN VERY CLEAR, THAT THE AMOUNT USED WAS ABOUT, WAS APPROXIMATE, WAS JUST ABOUT. AND WITH RESPECT TO THE ASSERTION OF EIGHT MILLILITERS, THAT ISN'T BORNE OUT BY THE TESTIMONY EITHER. NURSE PERATIS, WHO TOOK THE BLOOD, INDICATED HE WAS UNSURE PRECISELY HOW MUCH. IN HIS TESTIMONY, HE'S NOT AWARE -- HE THINKS HE FILLED THE TUBE UP. HE COULDN'T GIVE A PRECISE NUMBER AS TO HOW MUCH HE TOOK. HE GAVE AN ESTIMATED RANGE I BELIEVE. SO COUNSEL'S CHART IS MISLEADING IN DEROGATION OF THE FACTS.

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, THE WITNESS TESTIFIED THAT THE AMOUNT OF BLOOD HE COLLECTED WAS BETWEEN 7.9 AND 8.1. WE ARE TRIAL LAWYERS AND WE CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THAT IF WE MAKE REPRESENTATIONS THAT WE ARE NOT ABLE TO SUPPORT, WE DO IT AT OUR OWN PERIL. THAT IS NOT A QUESTION OF RELEVANCE OR ADMISSIBILITY OF THIS BOARD. THAT IS A QUESTION THAT THEY WILL SEEK TO CONTRADICT IN TRIAL.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, WHERE IS IT IN THE -- DO YOU KNOW OFFHAND WHERE IN THE PRELIMINARY HEARING TRANSCRIPT WE HAVE THAT TESTIMONY REGARDING HOW MUCH BLOOD WAS TAKEN?

MS. CLARK: I'M GOING TO LOCATE IT RIGHT NOW, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU.

MR. DOUGLAS: MS. CLARK, NO OBJECTION TO THIS BOARD?

MS. CLARK: NO OBJECTION TO THAT BOARD.

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

MR. COCHRAN: FIRST ONE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: A MAP OF LOS ANGELES.

MS. CLARK: I FIND IT LIGHTLY PREJUDICIAL, BUT NO.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MS. CLARK: RIGHT. NO OBJECTION.

MR. DOUGLAS: AMERICAN AIRLINES BOARD.

MS. CLARK: NO OBJECTION.

MR. DOUGLAS: THIS IS A BOARD ENTITLED BRONCO TIME LINE. WHAT WE AGAIN ARE SEEKING TO DISPLAY BY THIS BOARD, WHICH WILL BE NARRATED BY MR. COCHRAN DURING HIS OPENING STATEMENT, IS OUR BELIEF THAT CERTAIN THINGS OCCURRED ON CERTAIN DATES AS IT CONCERNS THE BRONCO. WHETHER THERE IS A DISPUTE FACTUALLY THAT SOMETHING DID OR DID NOT OCCUR ON THE DATES ALLEGED WILL BE QUESTIONS FOR THE JURY TO ULTIMATELY DECIDE.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK?

MS. CLARK: MAY I SEE IT? NO OBJECTION.

MR. DOUGLAS: YOU DON'T OBJECT TO THIS ONE?

MS. CLARK: NO OBJECTION.

MR. DOUGLAS: THE OTHER ONE?

MS. CLARK: NO OBJECTION.

MR. DOUGLAS: THERE ARE SEVERAL CALENDARS, YOUR HONOR, FROM JANUARY 1994 TO JUNE 1994. WE UNDERSTAND OUR OBLIGATION TO PROPERLY AUTHENTICATE AND LAY THE PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THE INTRODUCTION. WE BELIEVE IN GOOD FAITH THAT WE WILL PROVIDE THE NECESSARY LINK-UPS TO JUSTIFY THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EACH OF THESE DOCUMENTS, AND THAT IS WHY IT'S DISPLAYED ON BOARDS. THEY WILL ALSO BE SHOWN ON THE OVERHEAD AS WELL.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK?

MS. CLARK: THAT WASN'T AN OFFER OF PROOF. I THOUGHT THAT COUNSEL WAS GOING TO MAKE AN OFFER OF PROOF.

THE COURT: WHAT'S THE RELEVANCE OF THESE ITEMS?

MR. DOUGLAS: BECAUSE, YOUR HONOR, THEY ARE VERY RELEVANT TO SHOW A CERTAIN COURSE OF CONDUCT INCONSISTENT WITH CERTAIN SUGGESTIONS THAT MR. SIMPSON IS A STALKER, THAT MR. SIMPSON HAD CERTAIN PREOCCUPATIONS, AND THIS WILL BE VERY IMPORTANT TO DISPEL FOR ONCE AND FOR ALL THAT PARTICULAR NOTION IN THE WEEKS AND THE MONTHS LEADING TO JUNE THE 12TH. THEY'VE HAD THIS CALENDAR FOR MONTHS.

THE COURT: IS THIS MR. SIMPSON'S HANDWRITING ON THIS CALENDAR?

MR. DOUGLAS: CATHY RANDA'S, YOUR HONOR, WHO IS A WITNESS ON BOTH INDIVIDUALS' WITNESS LIST.

THE COURT: CATHY RANDA BEING HIS PERSONAL ASSISTANT WHO MAINTAINS HIS RECORDS, CALENDAR --

MR. DOUGLAS: FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS SHE HAS, YES.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, THAT IS A REPRODUCTION. THAT IS NOT THE ORIGINAL. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, CATHY RANDA ADMITTED THAT'S A REPRODUCTION SHE CREATED. SO WE HAVE ISSUES OF AUTHENTICITY. FURTHERMORE, IT'S BEEN THE DEFENSE'S CONTENTION ALL ALONG THAT THIS IS IRRELEVANT. MR. UELMEN HAS REPEATEDLY SO ARGUED, THAT THIS IS IRRELEVANT, THAT THIS WHOLE CALENDAR IS IRRELEVANT AND --

THE COURT: WELL, WHAT IS YOUR ARGUMENT REGARDING THAT THIS IS A REPRODUCTION, QUOTE, UNQUOTE?

MS. CLARK: WELL, THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS RECENTLY CREATED, NOT CREATED AT THE TIME. SO IT'S GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT FOR COUNSEL TO ESTABLISH THE AUTHENTICITY OF THIS DOCUMENT LET ALONE ITS RELEVANCE GIVEN THE FACT THAT WE HAVE A STATEMENT OF THE WITNESS WHO RECREATED IT THAT SHE WAS THE ONE WHO CREATED IT AND THAT SHE IS NOT IN POSSESSION OF THE ORIGINAL.

MR. DOUGLAS: IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, YOUR HONOR, THAT MR. SHAPIRO TURNED OVER THE ORIGINAL TO MR. DARDEN. THE PEOPLE HAVE THE ORIGINAL THEMSELVES.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN. BREAKING MY OWN RULE.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. I FINALLY GET A CHANCE TO SPEAK.

THE COURT: YOU ARE WELCOME. GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNSEL.

MR. DARDEN: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR. YOUR HONOR, IN THE GRAND JURY, CATHY RANDA TESTIFIED THAT SHE HAD GIVEN THE ORIGINAL CALENDAR TO AN ATTORNEY FOR MR. SIMPSON AND THAT SHE THEN WENT ABOUT CREATING OR RECREATING A SECOND CALENDAR. AND THAT SECOND CALENDAR WAS SEIZED FROM MR. SIMPSON'S OFFICE PURSUANT TO A SEARCH WARRANT. THIS IS THE RECREATION. I DO BELIEVE THAT THE -- THAT EITHER THE PROSECUTION OR JUDGE CZULEGER HAS THE ORIGINAL CALENDAR, BUT THIS IS NOT THE ORIGINAL CALENDAR AND IT IS NOT ACCURATE -- IT IS NOT AN ACCURATE RECREATION OF THE ORIGINAL CALENDAR. BUT STILL, THERE IS AN ISSUE OF RELEVANCY, AND I DON'T SEE IT.

THE COURT: MR. DOUGLAS, I'M CONCERNED THAT THIS IS NOT THE ORIGINAL.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, COULD YOU HEAR FROM MR. SHAPIRO SINCE YOU BROKE THE RULE THAT ONE TIME?

THE COURT: SINCE MR. SHAPIRO IS THE ONE WHO ACTUALLY HAD CUSTODY OF THE DOCUMENT. MR. SHAPIRO, GOOD AFTERNOON.

MR. SHAPIRO: YES, YOUR HONOR. I WAS SERVED WITH A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS. I CALLED MR. DARDEN ON THE PHONE. I TOLD HIM I DIDN'T HAVE THEM, BUT I WOULD ATTEMPT TO LOCATE THEM. IN THE MEANTIME, REPRODUCTIONS HAD BEEN MADE OF THE ORIGINAL, WHICH I TOLD HIM I HAD AND WHICH HE TOLD ME HE HAD. AT THAT POINT IN TIME, ATTORNEY MEL SACHS DELIVERED TO ME UNDER SEAL THE ORIGINAL DIARY. I BROUGHT IT TO YOUR HONOR UNDER SEAL BECAUSE I DID NOT THINK IT WAS PROPER FOR MR. DARDEN, WHO WAS THEN OSTENSIBLY IN CHARGE OF THE AL COWLINGS INVESTIGATION AND WHO IS OPERATING UNDER SOME TYPE OF WALL OF SEPARATION, TO HAVE THIS. YOUR HONOR THEN DIRECTED ME TO TAKE THE MATTER UP WITH JUDGE CZULEGER, WHICH I DID. JUDGE CZULEGER TOOK CUSTODY OF IT AND TURNED IT OVER TO MR. DARDEN AND SENT ME A NOTICE THAT HE HAD DONE SO.

MR. DARDEN: THAT STILL ISN'T THE ORIGINAL CALENDAR. THE ORIGINAL CALENDAR HAS OTHER NOTATIONS REGARDING BIRTHDAYS AND THINGS AND GIRL'S NAMES AND STUFF LIKE THAT, AND THIS ISN'T IT.

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, FIRST OF ALL, THIS IS THE OPENING STATEMENT. AND AGAIN, IF THERE ARE AREAS THAT MR. DARDEN HAS WITNESSES TO THAT THIS CALENDAR IS INCORRECT AND DOES NOT PROPERLY DEPICT MR. SIMPSON'S SCHEDULE IN THE MONTHS OF JANUARY THROUGH JUNE, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN BE BROUGHT UP. I THINK A SIMPLE QUESTION CAN BE ASKED; WHETHER OR NOT A CALENDAR WAS TURNED OVER BY ME TO JUDGE CZULEGER AND IF JUDGE CZULEGER RELEASED THAT CALENDAR TO MR. DARDEN AND IF IN FACT THAT IS A PHOTOCOPY OF A CALENDAR OR THE ORIGINAL OF A CALENDAR, AND WE SHOULD PUT THIS MATTER TO REST.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN: THAT IS NOT A PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORIGINAL CALENDAR. AND AS FAR AS AUTHENTICATION IS CONCERNED, THE LAST TIME I SAW CATHY RANDA, SHE WAS TAKING THE FIFTH. AND SO I DON'T KNOW HOW COUNSEL INTENDS TO AUTHENTICATE ANY OF THE CALENDARS AT THIS POINT ACTUALLY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DOES THE PROSECUTION HAVE IN ITS POSSESSION THE ORIGINAL OR AN ORIGINAL CALENDAR SIMILAR TO THIS?

MR. DARDEN: EITHER WE HAVE IT OR JUDGE CZULEGER HAS IT.

MR. SHAPIRO: THAT WAS THE SIMPLE QUESTION, YOUR HONOR.

MR. DARDEN: I SAID THAT.

THE COURT: WAIT.

MR. SHAPIRO: I'M NOT GOING TO ARGUE. THANK YOU. THAT'S THE QUESTION WE NEEDED ANSWERED.

MR. DARDEN: THAT IS NOT A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN, THE QUESTION IS, WHO HAS THE ORIGINAL DIARY? WHERE IS IT?

MR. DARDEN: EITHER WE HAVE IT OR JUDGE CZULEGER HAS IT, OKAY. AND IF WE HAVE IT, WE'LL -- I'M SURE SOMEONE IS UPSTAIRS NOW LOOKING FOR IT. SO BRING IT DOWN, FELLOWS, IF IT'S THERE, AND WE CAN RESOLVE THAT ISSUE. BUT THERE'S STILL THE ISSUE OF RELEVANCY. BUT THAT ISN'T A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL CALENDAR.

THE COURT: OKAY.

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, THE REMAINING BOARDS -- THERE IS A LEGEND FOR OUR TIME LINE TO WHICH THERE IS NO OBJECTION. THERE ARE THEN JURY INSTRUCTIONS TO WHICH I DO NOT BELIEVE THERE'S AN OBJECTION, ONE ON CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES.

MS. CLARK: WITH RESPECT TO THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS, YOUR HONOR, THERE WILL BE NO OBJECTION PROVIDING WE CAN READ THEM, MAKE SURE THEY ARE NOT ALTERED.

MR. DOUGLAS: THEY'RE CONSISTENT WITH THE COURTS RULING, MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: I JUST WANT A CHANCE TO READ IT IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES, STANDARD 220.

MS. CLARK: WAIT. CAN I READ IT?

THE COURT: COUNSEL, I THINK WE WILL MOVE ON. I DON'T -- YOU'LL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMPARE IT. ASSUMING THE TEXT TO BE ACCURATE, DO YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTION?

MS. CLARK: NO.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. DOUGLAS: THE NEXT IS PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, BURDEN OF PROOF, REASONABLE DOUBT WITH THE MORAL CERTAINTY LANGUAGE STRICKEN. NEXT IS ALIBI. AND THE LAST ONE, YOUR HONOR, IS SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE GENERALLY OR SUFFICIENCY OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE GENERALLY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ANY OBJECTIONS TO THAT?

MS. CLARK: I THOUGHT THAT WAS A TWO-PAGE INSTRUCTION. DID IT GET CONDENSED?

THE COURT: NO. THERE IS A SECOND PAGE THAT GOES ON TO TALK ABOUT 2.01, SUFFICIENCY OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. THAT'S PAGE 2. THAT'S 2.01, COUNSEL.

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMENT, MISS CLARK?

MS. CLARK: WITH RESPECT TO THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES, YOUR HONOR, THE BOARD PROFFERED BY COUNSEL DOESN'T CONFORM TO THE ALTERATIONS REQUESTED BY THE COURT.

THE COURT: WHAT DOES IT INCLUDE THAT I STRUCK?

MS. CLARK: I BELIEVE "OR AFFIRMATION".

THE COURT: THAT'S A DETAIL THAT'S INCONSEQUENTIAL AT THIS POINT. WE MAY HAVE WITNESSES WHO MAY TESTIFY UNDER AFFIRMATION. ALL RIGHT. IS THE MATTER SUBMITTED?

MR. DOUGLAS: YES, YOUR HONOR.

MR. DARDEN: YOU WANT SOME MORE INFORMATION ON THE ISSUE OF BLOOD OR HOW MUCH BLOOD THE NURSE TOOK? YOU WANTED THE PRELIM TRANSCRIPT PAGE NUMBER?

THE COURT: YES.

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, ONE OTHER CHART THAT WE PROVIDED A HARD COPY FOR; DERELICTIONS, DISTORTIONS AND DECEPTIONS. SHE HAS A HARD COPY OF IT AND I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S AN OBJECTION. I'M NOT SURE.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK?

MS. CLARK: I DO NOT BELIEVE THERE IS.

THE COURT: THERE'S NO OBJECTION TO IT?

MS. CLARK: MAY I HAVE A MOMENT?

THE COURT: SURE.

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

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, DOES MR. DARDEN HAVE THE ORIGINAL CALENDAR FROM UPSTAIRS THAT HE CAN COMPARE OUR CHARTS WITH?

MS. CLARK: I AM SORRY?

THE COURT: I DON'T KNOW. WE NEED TO FINISH THE FIRST ISSUE ABOUT THE DERELICTION, ET CETERA, EXHIBIT.

MS. CLARK: NO OBJECTION.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. DOUGLAS: I WONDERED WHETHER MR. DARDEN WAS ABLE TO COMPARE THE ORIGINAL COPY, THE ORIGINAL OF THE CALENDAR TO THE BOARDS THAT ARE PRESENTED.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN, DO YOU NOW HAVE A PHOTOCOPY OF IT NOW?

MR. DARDEN: I HAVE A PHOTOCOPY OF THE CALENDAR. I CAN'T SEE --

THE COURT: COUNSEL, LET ME MAKE IT EASY FOR YOU. IS THE MATTER SUBMITTED?

MR. DOUGLAS: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUBMITTED?

MS. CLARK: I AM SORRY. ON WHAT?

THE COURT: ON ALL YOUR OBJECTIONS?

MS. CLARK: NO, YOUR HONOR, WE'RE NOT -- NO, WE HAVEN'T. WITH RESPECT TO THE CALENDAR ISSUE, I THINK MR. DARDEN HAS SOMETHING TO ADD. WITH RESPECT TO THE DERELICTIONS ISSUE, LET ME WITHDRAW MY KNOWN OBJECTION, SIMPLY STATE WE OBJECT, IT'S ARGUMENTATIVE. IT'S NOT AN OPENING STATEMENT EXHIBIT. IT'S AN ARGUMENT EXHIBIT.

THE COURT: I HAVEN'T SEEN IT YET. WHERE IS IT?

MS. CLARK: WE WOULD ASK THE COURT --

MR. DOUGLAS: IT WAS FAXED OVER HERE. WE GAVE A COPY OF IT BEFORE.

MS. CLARK: LET ME LOOK THROUGH MY STUFF. IN THE MEANTIME, LET ME GIVE THE COURT THE PAGE OF THE NURSE'S TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MS. CLARK: AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, THE MATTER WAS ADDRESSED ON PAGE 25.

THE COURT: WHAT VOLUME?

MS. CLARK: VOLUME -- AND IN THE GRAND JURY --

THE COURT: I NEED THE VOLUME IN THE PRELIMINARY HEARING. AND WOULD YOU HAVE MISS SCALINAS FIND THAT FOR ME, PLEASE.

MS. CLARK: I'M GOING TO GET THE VOLUME.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, WHAT WAS THE NAME OF THE WITNESS?

MS. CLARK: I DON'T KNOW. T-H-A-N-O P-E-R-A-T-I-S. I AM SORRY. DID YOU WANT THE GRAND JURY OR NOT?

THE COURT: YES, PLEASE.

MS. CLARK: PAGE 371.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU HAVE THAT HANDY SO YOU CAN TELL ME WHAT THAT IS?

MS. CLARK: I HAVE BOTH OF THEM HANDY. WOULD YOU LIKE --

THE COURT: PLEASE.

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, I BELIEVE THAT THE ISSUE WAS RAISED MORE THAN ONE TIME IN THE PRELIM. IF THE COURT WOULD ALLOW -- BEFORE FINALLY RULING ON THAT PARTICULAR CHART, I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO ALLOW COUNSEL OVERNIGHT TO RETURN TO THE OFFICE AND OBTAIN OUR CITES SO THAT WE CAN ADEQUATELY --

THE COURT: COUNSEL, LET ME GIVE YOU MY TEMPORAL PROGNOSTICATION AT THIS POINT. IT APPEARS TO ME WE WILL NOT GET TO OPENING STATEMENTS TODAY BECAUSE I INTEND TO PREINSTRUCT, WHICH WILL TAKE APPROXIMATELY HALF AN HOUR. IT'S ALSO GOING TO TAKE US 20 MINUTES TO GET THE JURY DOWN HERE PHYSICALLY. SO I DON'T SEE US ACTUALLY LAUNCHING INTO OPENING STATEMENTS TODAY. SO, COUNSEL, AT THIS POINT, I'M WILLING TO TAKE UNDER SUBMISSION THE ARGUMENT REGARDING THE EXHIBIT WITH THE BLOOD SAMPLES, AND I'M READY TO RULE ON THE OTHER OBJECTIONS. ANY OTHER COMMENT? ALL RIGHT. AS TO THE PHOTOGRAPH OF CLAUDIA RATCLIFFE, THE OBJECTION IS OVERRULED. AS TO THE PHOTOGRAPH OF MR. SIMPSON AND HIS DAUGHTER SIDNEY AT THE RECITAL, OBJECTION IS OVERRULED. AT THE -- AS TO THE CALENDAR JANUARY THROUGH JUNE, THE OBJECTION IS SUSTAINED PENDING -- THAT'S A TENTATIVE RULING. COUNSEL CAN COMPARE THE ORIGINAL WITH WHAT'S THERE TO SEE IF THERE ARE ANY MATERIAL DISCREPANCIES. BUT SINCE THESE EXHIBITS ARE NOT THE ORIGINAL AND RECREATIONS, OBJECTION IS SUSTAINED. AS TO THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS, THE OBJECTION IS OVERRULED. AS TO THE SOCK TIME LINE, THE OBJECTION WILL BE SUSTAINED. THE "NO BLOOD FOUND" LANGUAGE IS ARGUMENTATIVE AND ASSUMES FACTS THAT ARE NOT IN EVIDENCE. AND AS I INDICATED, THE COURT WILL RULE TOMORROW MORNING ON THE BLOOD SAMPLE ISSUE ONCE COUNSEL HAVE ISOLATED THE TRANSCRIPT THAT'S RELEVANT.

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, WITH RESPECT TO THE SOCK TIME LINE --

THE COURT: YES.

MR. DOUGLAS: AND THE COURT HAD SOME CONCERN ABOUT THE LANGUAGE, "NO BLOOD FOUND."

THE COURT: IF YOU DELETE THAT LANGUAGE, THAT IT IS AN ACCURATE STATEMENT OF WHAT'S GOING TO --

MR. DOUGLAS: WHAT IF WE WERE TO PUT NO BLOOD OBSERVED?

THE COURT: HOW ABOUT IF YOU COVER IT UP COMPLETELY?

MR. DOUGLAS: VERY WELL, YOUR HONOR. WE'LL DO THAT.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. DOUGLAS: I'M REMINDED BY MR. SCHECK, YOUR HONOR, THAT THERE IS A DOCUMENT, OFFICIAL REPORT THAT SAYS NO BLOOD OBSERVED. COULD WE SHOW THAT TO YOU TOMORROW TO PERHAPS PERSUADE THE COURT THAT IT WOULD BE PROPER AND ACCURATE TO HAVE THAT LANGUAGE?

THE COURT: AS TO THAT ONE POINT IN TIME.

MR. DOUGLAS: CORRECT, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY WE WON'T GET TO THESE THINGS TODAY.

MR. COCHRAN: WITH REGARD TO THE CALENDAR, YOUR HONOR, IF THE COURT MAY ALLOW US AN OPPORTUNITY BEFORE WE LEAVE TO COMPARE IT WITH MR. DARDEN'S -- PERHAPS MR. DARDEN AND I COULD CONFER WITH EACH OTHER.

THE COURT: LET'S NOT DO THAT NOW, COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: I DON'T KNOW. JUST STANDING. THAT'S IT.

THE COURT: OKAY. WELL, COUNSEL, AT THIS POINT -- I HATE TO ASK THIS QUESTION. I SHOULDN'T ASK. YOU'RE RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, THE COURT IS GOING TO STAND IN RECESS THEN FOR 20 MINUTES. I WILL DIRECT THE SHERIFF'S BAILIFF TO BRING THE JURY DOWN. I'M GOING TO PREINSTRUCT, AS I INDICATED, AND THEN AT THAT TIME, WE WILL RECESS FOR THE DAY AND BEGIN OPENING STATEMENTS BY THE PEOPLE PROMPTLY AT 9:00 O'CLOCK TOMORROW MORNING. NO. I TAKE THAT BACK. BECAUSE I STILL HAVE TO RULE ON SOME OF THESE GISMO PROBLEMS WE HAVE HERE. 10:00 O'CLOCK WITH THE JURY, BECAUSE I FIGURE THIS IS PROBABLY 15 MINUTES WORTH OF ARGUING. SO KNOWING THIS GROUP, PROBABLY AN HOUR. ALL RIGHT. LET'S TAKE 20 MINUTES. LET'S BRING THE JURY DOWN, PLEASE.

(RECESS.)

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

THE COURT: WHERE DID YOU GO? WHY DON'T YOU APPROACH PLEASE, MISS CLARK, AND LET ME GIVE YOU ONE EXTRA COPY.

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

THE COURT: BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. ALL THE PARTIES ARE AGAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT WITH COUNSEL. MR. DOUGLAS, YOU HAD ONE LAST COMMENT?

MR. DOUGLAS: I HAD, YOUR HONOR -- I HAVE TWO. DURING THE BREAK, WE HAD OCCASION TO SPEAK WITH CATHY RANDA, WHO HAS BEEN MR. SIMPSON'S TRUSTED EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS. MISS RANDA WAS ABLE TO PROVIDE VERY CLEAR INSIGHT INTO THE KEEPING AND THE CREATING OF CALENDARS, WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT OF THIS EARLIER PROCEEDING TODAY. THE EVIDENCE IS, YOUR HONOR, AND I CAN OFFER AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT THAT WE WILL PRESENT EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT MISS RANDA MAINTAINED TWO DUAL CALENDARS. THERE WAS ONE THAT SHE WOULD MAINTAIN FOR HER OWN WHERE THERE WOULD BE OCCASIONS THAT THERE WOULD BE WRITING THROUGH OR SCRIBBLING OR WRITING OVER, AND THERE WAS A SECOND THAT SHE WOULD MAINTAIN FOR MR. SIMPSON. AND HIS COPY, WHICH IS REFLECTED ON THE BOARDS THAT WE WERE TRYING TO OFFER, WAS THE CLEAN COPY. SHE DID NOT WANT TO BURDEN MR. SIMPSON WITH ALL OF THE SCRATCH-OUTS OR ANY OF THE CHANGES THAT IN FACT WOULD BE GOING ON IN HIS BUSY SCHEDULE. THEREFORE, YOUR HONOR, THERE ARE TWO ORIGINALS, EACH OF WHICH WE BELIEVE ARE ADMISSIBLE WE CAN OFFER AND TESTIFY TO THE EVENTS THAT MR. SIMPSON WAS ENGAGED IN OVER THE COURSE OF VERY RELEVANT PERIODS OF TIME. AS THE COURT IS AWARE, WE ARE TRYING TO REBUT CERTAIN ALLEGATIONS THAT THERE WAS AN OBSESSIVENESS, THAT THERE WAS A RISE IN TENSION OCCURRING IN THE WEEKS AND THE MONTHS PRIOR TO JUNE 12TH. WE HOPE THROUGH THE OFFERING OF THIS CALENDAR TO BE ABLE TO SUGGEST TO THE JURY THAT IN FACT MR. SIMPSON WAS A BUSY MAN, THAT HE WAS TRAVELING, THAT HE WAS DOING OTHER THINGS AND THAT HE IS NOT THE SORT OF ANIMAL THAT THE PEOPLE ARE ATTEMPTING TO PORTRAY. WE ARGUE, YOUR HONOR, THAT THIS CALENDAR WILL SATISFY ALL AUTHENTICATION AND FOUNDATIONAL EVIDENCE. AND IF IT OCCURS THAT WE ARE LEFT AT THE TIME OF MISS RANDA'S TESTIMONY WHERE SHE IS UNABLE TO PROPERLY AUTHENTICATE THIS CALENDAR, IT IS THE DEFENDANT WHO WILL SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES, IT IS THE DEFENDANT WHO WILL SUFFER THE SLINGS AND THE ARROWS OF THE JURY OR LOSE WHATEVER CREDIBILITY THERE MIGHT BE THROUGH THE OFFERING OF ANTICIPATED EVIDENCE THAT WILL NOT ULTIMATELY BE ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE. THAT'S THE FIRST POINT, YOUR HONOR. THE SECOND POINT, CURIOUSLY, I WAS THE VICTIM, IF YOU WILL, OF TREMENDOUS ANIMUS THIS MORNING THAT I'M SURE DID VIOLENCE TO MY GOOD NAME, TO MY MOTHER AND MY FAMILY ACROSS THE COUNTRY ABOUT HOW I WAS SANDBAGGING THE PROSECUTION THROUGH MY FAILURE TO PROVIDE COPIES OF EVERY BOARD OR EVERY GRAPHIC THAT WE HAD INTENDED TO INTRODUCE AT TRIAL. LO AND BEHOLD, I WAS GIVEN ABOUT FIVE MINUTES BEFORE NOON SOME BOARDS THAT ARE THE COROLLARY OF THE SANDBAGGING, IF YOU WILL. THERE ARE BOARDS THAT THE PEOPLE SEEK TO INTRODUCE, AND I WAS ABLE TO PERSUADE THEM AS TO THE WISDOM AGAINST SEEKING TO INTRODUCE AT LEAST TWO OR THREE OTHERS. BUT I HAVE FOUR, YOUR HONOR; AND THERE ARE OBJECTIONS THAT I LODGED AS TO THE FOUR. THE FIRST WOULD BE WHAT IS TITLED A CHRONOLOGY. AND, YOUR HONOR, THERE ARE ARGUMENTATIVE DESCRIPTIONS OF DIFFERENT EVENTS IN THIS CHRONOLOGY AND THERE ARE SOME EVENTS INCLUDED THAT THE COURT HAS RULED ARE INADMISSIBLE. AND FOR THESE REASONS, I THINK IT IS FAR MORE PREJUDICIAL THAN PROBATIVE THAT THIS BOARD BE ADMITTED. FOR EXAMPLE, IN 1986, THERE'S A REFERENCE TO THE VICTORIA BEACH INCIDENT. THAT IS AN INCIDENT THAT THE COURT HAS RULED IS NOT ADMISSIBLE.

THE COURT: NO. THAT'S NOT CORRECT. WHAT I RULED IS THAT BECAUSE OF THE LATE DISCLOSURE, IT CANNOT BE USED DURING THE COURSE OF OPENING STATEMENTS.

MR. DOUGLAS: I STAND CORRECTED, YOUR HONOR. THEREFORE, IT SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BE USED ON THE BOARD IN OPENING STATEMENT.

MR. DARDEN: MAY I INTERRUPT FOR ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR? THESE BOARDS ARE NOT IN EXISTENCE YET. THEY ARE NOT HERE. I'M READY TO DO MY OPENING STATEMENT AS IT RELATES TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, AND THIS ISN'T EVEN AN ISSUE AT THIS POINT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THEN I WOULD SUGGEST IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE OFFERING THESE, MR. DARDEN, THAT WE NOT -- WHAT IS YOUR PURPOSE OF GIVING THIS TO MR. DOUGLAS AT THIS POINT?

MR. DOUGLAS: HE TOLD ME HE WAS GOING TO USE THEM IN HIS OPENING, YOUR HONOR.

MR. DARDEN: I WAS SANDBAGGING, YOUR HONOR. I APOLOGIZE.

MR. DOUGLAS: I STAND SANDBAGGED, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ANY RESPONSE TO MR. DOUGLAS' COMMENTS REGARDING THE DUAL CALENDAR ISSUE, MR. DARDEN?

MR. DARDEN: YES, YOUR HONOR. I THINK THE GRAND JURY TRANSCRIPT WILL SPEAK FOR ITSELF. IT WAS HERE A LITTLE WHILE AGO. I'LL HAVE IT BACK HERE TOMORROW MORNING. AS I RECALL, MISS RANDA TOLD THE GRAND JURY THAT SHE HAD THE ORIGINAL CALENDAR. SHE TURNED THAT OVER TO A LAWYER, AND THEN SHE MADE A SECOND COPY OR ATTEMPTED TO MAKE A SECOND COPY FROM THE FIRST. IT'S NOT A XEROX COPY. IT'S A HANDWRITTEN COPY. SO SHE OBTAINED ANOTHER CALENDAR BOOK. IN ADDITION, AS I RECALL, THERE'S ACTUALLY A THIRD CALENDAR WHICH IS TYPED AND WHICH IS SIMILAR TO THIS ONE, BUT WAS FOUND IN MR. COWLING'S BRONCO AS I RECALL AT THE END OF THE CHASE. SO THERE'S ACTUALLY THREE CALENDARS. AND THAT IS NOT THE ORIGINAL.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. DOUGLAS: I DON'T THINK ANYMORE NEED BE SAID.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THE OBJECTION WILL BE SUSTAINED. THERE'S TOO MUCH CONTROVERSY ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR CALENDAR FOR ME TO FEEL COMFORTABLE GOING FORWARD WITH IT IN ITS PRESENT STATE. ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, THEN NOW I'M GOING TO INVITE THE JURY FINALLY TO JOIN US TODAY FOR THE PURPOSES OF PREINSTRUCTING THEM AS WE HAD DISCUSSED EARLIER IN THE CASE. BEFORE I BEGIN THE PRE-INSTRUCTION, LET ME JUST MAKE A COMMENT TO COUNSEL.

MS. CLARK: I AM SORRY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, WE ARE ALL ACQUAINTED WITH EACH OTHER OVER MANY LONG YEARS. I KNOW THIS COURT HAS BEEN COLLEAGUES WITH A MAJORITY OF COUNSEL HERE AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER. I KNOW THAT MR. COCHRAN HAS PROBABLY SUPERVISED TWO-THIRDS OF THE LAWYERS IN THIS COURTROOM TODAY AT SOME POINT IN TIME.

MR. COCHRAN: YES, YOUR HONOR. I LEARNED THE ERROR OF MY WAYS A LONG TIME AGO.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, THIS IS A SERIOUS COMMENT IF YOU DON'T MIND. MY POINT IS THAT WE'RE ALL ACQUAINTED WITH EACH OTHER EITHER PERSONALLY OR BY REPUTATION. I THINK WE ALL KNOW AND RESPECT EACH OTHER ON THE BASIS OF OUR PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE AND PRIOR ACQUAINTANCESHIP. I EXPECT TO SEE A VERY HARD-FOUGHT BATTLE. IF TODAY'S PROCEEDING JUST TO GET TO THE OPENING STATEMENTS IS ANY INDICIA OF THAT, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO SEE ONE OF THE HARDEST FOUGHT LEGAL BATTLES IN MY RECOLLECTION CERTAINLY. I ANTICIPATE THAT BOTH SIDES WILL SPEND A LOT OF TIME WALKING ON THE EDGE OF THE LEGAL ENVELOPE HERE, AND BELIEVE ME, I WILL DO EVERYTHING I CAN TO KEEP YOU FROM GOING OVER THAT EDGE. I EXPECT TO SEE A DEMONSTRATION OF ABSOLUTELY FABULOUS LAWYERING SKILLS, BUT I ALSO EXPECT TO SEE ABSOLUTE PROFESSIONALISM IN THIS ENDEAVOR. I WANT YOU ALL TO REMEMBER BEFORE WE START THIS CASE THAT YOUR CONDUCT HERE WILL HAVE AN IMPACT NOT ONLY UPON THE WELFARE OF YOUR RESPECTIVE CLIENTS, BUT UPON THE IMAGE OF OUR PROFESSION FOR MANY YEARS TO COME. THOSE WHO SAY THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM ITSELF IS ON TRIAL MAY BE CORRECT IN THAT OBSERVATION. IF YOU RECALL, WHEN WE STARTED THIS TRIAL, I INVITED EACH COUNSEL IN TO CHAMBERS TO CHAT WITH ME. I INDICATED TO YOU THAT I EXPECTED AT THE END OF THIS TRIAL, THAT WE WOULD ALL GO OUT AND HAVE DINNER TOGETHER ON ME AND THAT WE WOULD ALL BE PROFESSIONALS AND BE ABLE TO DEAL WITH EACH ACCORDINGLY, AND THAT INVITATION IS STILL OPEN AND I ANTICIPATE WILL STILL BE OPEN AT THE CLOSE OF THIS TRIAL.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MS. CLARK: ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR HONOR.

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

THE COURT: LET'S HAVE THE JURORS JUST TAKE THE LAST TWO AVAILABLE SEATS, PLEASE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

(THE JURY ANSWERED COLLECTIVELY, "GOOD AFTERNOON.")

THE COURT: FIRST OF ALL, I HOPE THIS WILL BE THE LAST TIME THAT I HAVE TO APOLOGIZE TO YOU FOR KEEPING YOU WAITING SO LONG, BUT I SUSPECT THAT WON'T BE TRUE IN THIS CASE. FOR YOUR INFORMATION, I HAD PLANNED ON STARTING WITH YOU THIS MORNING AT 10:00 O'CLOCK. CERTAIN ISSUES WERE RAISED BEFORE ME THAT I HAD TO DEAL WITH, AND AS HAS BEEN MY EXPERIENCE UNFORTUNATELY, MANY OF THESE THINGS TOOK LONGER TO DEAL WITH THAN I HAD ORIGINALLY ANTICIPATED. HAD I KNOWN THAT WE WOULD BE THIS LATE GETTING STARTED WITH YOU TODAY, I WOULD NOT HAVE BROUGHT YOU IN TODAY. BUT WE'RE HERE, AND I WOULD LIKE TO USE AS MUCH OF THE COURT TIME AS WE HAVE AVAILABLE TO AT LEAST GET STARTED WITH SOME OF THE PRELIMINARIES. NOW, WHAT WILL HAPPEN TODAY IS, I AM GOING TO GIVE YOU SOME PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS ON THE LAW THAT APPLIES TO THIS CASE. NOW, WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO, AS SOON AS I FINISH DOING THAT IS, WE WILL RECESS FOR THE DAY, AND THEN TOMORROW MORNING AT 10:00 O'CLOCK, WE WILL START WITH THE OPENING STATEMENTS BY THE LAWYERS AND THEN PROCEED TO THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE. NOW, WHAT I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU TODAY ARE PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS. THIS IS SORT OF MY EFFORT TO GIVE YOU A GAUGE OR RULE BY WHICH YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE AS IT IS PRESENTED TO YOU. I'M REQUIRED BY THE LAW TO STATE TO YOU THE LAW THAT APPLIES TO THIS CASE HERE IN OPEN COURT. HOWEVER, IT'S ALSO MY PERSONAL POLICY TO MAKE THESE INSTRUCTIONS AVAILABLE TO YOU IN THE JURY ROOM WHEN YOU DO YOUR DELIBERATIONS IN WRITTEN FORM. SO I ENCOURAGE YOU EACH TO LISTEN VERY CAREFULLY TO MY INSTRUCTIONS ON THE LAW. HOWEVER, YOU NEED NOT TAKE ANY DETAILED NOTES AS TO THEIR CONTENTS SINCE THEY WILL BE AVAILABLE TO YOU IN THEIR EXACT WRITTEN FORM IN THE JURY ROOM.

(READING.)

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY:

IT IS MY DUTY TO INSTRUCT YOU ON THE LAW THAT APPLIES TO THIS CASE. THE LAW REQUIRES THAT I READ THESE INSTRUCTIONS TO YOU. YOU WILL HAVE THESE INSTRUCTIONS IN WRITTEN FORM IN THE JURY ROOM TO REFER TO DURING YOUR DELIBERATIONS.

YOU MUST BASE YOUR DECISION ON THE FACTS AND THE LAW.

YOU HAVE TWO DUTIES TO PERFORM. FIRST, YOU MUST DETERMINE THE FACTS FROM THE EVIDENCE RECEIVED IN THE TRIAL AND NOT FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE. A "FACT" IS SOMETHING PROVED DIRECTLY OR CIRCUMSTANTIALLY BY THE EVIDENCE OR BY STIPULATION. A STIPULATION IS AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ATTORNEYS REGARDING THE FACTS.

SECOND, YOU MUST APPLY THE LAW THAT I STATE TO YOU TO THE FACTS AS YOU DETERMINE THEM AND IN THIS WAY ARRIVE AT YOUR VERDICT AND ANY FINDING YOU ARE INSTRUCTED TO INCLUDE WITH YOUR VERDICT.

YOU MUST ACCEPT AND FOLLOW THE LAW AS I STATE IT TO YOU WHETHER OR NOT YOU AGREE WITH THE LAW. IF ANYTHING CONCERNING THE LAW SAID BY THE ATTORNEYS IN THEIR ARGUMENTS OR AT ANY OTHER TIME DURING THE TRIAL CONFLICT WITH MY INSTRUCTIONS ON THE LAW, YOU MUST FOLLOW MY INSTRUCTIONS.

YOU MUST NOT BE INFLUENCED BY PITY FOR A DEFENDANT OR BY PREJUDICE AGAINST HIM. YOU MUST NOT BE BIASED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT BECAUSE HE HAS BEEN ARRESTED FOR THIS OFFENSE, CHARGED WITH A CRIME OR BROUGHT TO TRIAL. NONE OF THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IS EVIDENCE OF GUILT AND YOU MUST NOT INFER OR ASSUME FROM ANY OR ALL OF THEM THAT HE IS MORE LIKELY TO BE GUILTY THAN INNOCENT.

YOU MUST NOT BE INFLUENCED BY MERE SENTIMENT, CONJECTURE, SYMPATHY, PASSION, PREJUDICE, PUBLIC OPINION OR PUBLIC FEELING. BOTH THE PROSECUTION AND THE DEFENDANT HAVE A RIGHT TO EXPECT THAT YOU WILL CONSCIENTIOUSLY CONSIDER AND WEIGH THE EVIDENCE, APPLY THE LAW AND REACH A JUST VERDICT REGARDLESS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

YOU MUST DECIDE THIS CASE SOLELY UPON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED HERE IN THE COURTROOM. YOU MUST COMPLETELY DISREGARD ANY PRESS, TELEVISION, RADIO OR OTHER MEDIA REPORTS THAT YOU MAY HAVE READ, SEEN OR HEARD CONCERNING THIS CASE OR THE DEFENDANT. THESE REPORTS ARE NOT EVIDENCE AND YOU MUST NOT BE INFLUENCED IN ANY MANNER BY SUCH PUBLICITY.

YOU ARE NOT TO DISCUSS AMONG YOURSELVES OR WITH ANYONE ELSE ANY SUBJECT CONNECTED WITH THIS TRIAL. YOU ARE NOT TO FORM OR EXPRESS ANY OPINION ON THE CASE UNTIL THE CASE IS SUBMITTED TO YOU FOR YOUR DELIBERATIONS IN THE JURY ROOM.

YOU MUST COMPLETELY DISREGARD ANY PRESS, TELEVISION, RADIO OR OTHER MEDIA REPORTS THAT YOU MAY HAVE READ, SEEN OR HEARD CONCERNING THIS CASE OR THE DEFENDANT. YOU MUST NOT READ OR LISTEN TO ANY ACCOUNTS OR DISCUSSIONS OF THE CASE REPORTED BY NEWSPAPERS OR OTHER NEWS MEDIA.

YOU MUST NOT MAKE ANY INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF THE FACTS OR THE LAW OR CONSIDER OR DISCUSS FACTS AS TO WHICH THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. THIS MEANS, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT YOU MUST NOT ON YOUR OWN VISIT THE SCENE, CONDUCT EXPERIMENTS OR CONSULT REFERENCE WORKS OR PERSONS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

PRIOR TO AND WITHIN 90 DAYS OF YOUR DISCHARGE, YOU MUST NOT REQUEST, ACCEPT, AGREE TO ACCEPT OR DISCUSS WITH ANY PERSON RECEIVING OR ACCEPTING ANY PAYMENT OR BENEFIT IN CONSIDERATION FOR SUPPLYING ANY INFORMATION CONCERNING THE TRIAL.

YOU HAVE A DUTY TO IMMEDIATELY REPORT TO THE COURT ANY ACT OF JUROR MISCONDUCT THAT YOU SEE, HEAR OR LEARN. YOUR FAILURE TO DO SO IS MISCONDUCT IN AND OF ITSELF. IF YOU ARE UNCERTAIN WHETHER A PARTICULAR ACT IS MISCONDUCT, YOU SHOULD REPORT THE ACT AND ALLOW THE COURT TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION.

YOU MUST PROMPTLY REPORT TO THE COURT ANY INCIDENT WITHIN YOUR KNOWLEDGE INVOLVING ANY ATTEMPT BY ANY PERSON TO IMPROPERLY INFLUENCE ANY MEMBER OF THE JURY.

IF ANY RULE, DIRECTION OR IDEA IS REPEATED OR STATED IN DIFFERENT WAYS IN THESE INSTRUCTIONS, NO EMPHASIS IS INTENDED AND YOU MUST NOT DRAW ANY INFERENCE BECAUSE OF ITS REPETITION. DO NOT SINGLE OUT ANY PARTICULAR SENTENCE OR ANY INDIVIDUAL POINT OR INSTRUCTION AND IGNORE THE OTHERS. CONSIDER THE INSTRUCTIONS AS A WHOLE AND EACH IN LIGHT OF THE OTHERS.

THE ORDER IN WHICH THE INSTRUCTIONS ARE GIVEN HAS NO SIGNIFICANCE AS TO THEIR RELATIVE IMPORTANCE.

STATEMENTS MADE BY THE ATTORNEYS DURING THE TRIAL ARE NOT EVIDENCE, ALTHOUGH IF THE ATTORNEYS HAVE STIPULATED OR AGREED TO A FACT, YOU MUST REGARD THAT FACT AS CONCLUSIVELY PROVED.

IF AN OBJECTION IS SUSTAINED TO A QUESTION, DO NOT GUESS WHAT THE ANSWER MIGHT HAVE BEEN. DO NOT SPECULATE AS TO THE REASON FOR THE OBJECTION.

DO NOT ASSUME TO BE TRUE ANY INSINUATION SUGGESTED BY A QUESTION ASKED A WITNESS. A QUESTION IS NOT EVIDENCE AND MAY BE CONSIDERED ONLY AS IT ENABLES YOU TO UNDERSTAND THE ANSWER.

DO NOT CONSIDER FOR ANY PURPOSE ANY OFFER OF EVIDENCE THAT WAS REJECTED OR ANY EVIDENCE THAT WAS STRICKEN BY THE COURT. YOU MUST TREAT IT AS THOUGH YOU HAD NEVER HEARD IT.

YOU MUST DECIDE ALL QUESTIONS OF FACT IN THIS CASE FROM THE EVIDENCE RECEIVED IN THIS TRIAL AND NOT FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE.

YOU MUST NOT MAKE ANY INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF THE FACTS OR THE LAW OR CONSIDER OR DISCUSS FACTS AS TO WHICH THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. THIS MEANS, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT YOU MUST NOT ON YOUR OWN, AS I INDICATED, VISIT THE CRIME SCENE, CONDUCT EXPERIMENTS OR CONSULT REFERENCE WORKS OR OTHER PERSONS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

YOU MUST NOT DISCUSS THIS CASE WITH ANY OTHER PERSON EXCEPT A FELLOW JUROR, AND YOU MUST NOT DISCUSS THE CASE WITH A FELLOW JUROR UNTIL THE CASE IS SUBMITTED TO YOU FOR YOUR DECISION, AND THEN ONLY WHEN ALL JURORS ARE PRESENT IN THE JURY ROOM.

EVIDENCE CONSISTS OF THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES, WRITINGS, MATERIAL OBJECTS OR ANYTHING PRESENTED TO THE SENSES AND OFFERED TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OR NONEXISTENCE OF A FACT.

EVIDENCE IS EITHER DIRECT OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL. DIRECT EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE THAT DIRECTLY PROVES A FACT WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF AN INFERENCE. IT'S EVIDENCE, WHICH BY ITSELF, IF FOUND TO BE TRUE, ESTABLISHES THAT FACT.

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE, IF FOUND TO BE TRUE, PROVES A FACT FROM WHICH AN INFERENCE OF EXISTENCE OF ANOTHER FACT MAY BE DRAWN. AN INFERENCE IS A DEDUCTION OF FACT THAT MAY LOGICALLY AND REASONABLY BE DRAWN FROM ANOTHER FACT OR GROUP OF FACTS ESTABLISHED BY THE EVIDENCE.

IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT FACTS BE PROVED BY DIRECT EVIDENCE. THEY MAY BE PROVED ALSO BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OR BY A COMBINATION OF DIRECT EVIDENCE AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

BOTH DIRECT EVIDENCE AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ARE ACCEPTABLE AS A MEANS OF PROOF. NEITHER IS ENTITLED TO ANY GREATER WEIGHT THAN THE OTHER.

HOWEVER, A FINDING OF GUILT AS TO ANY CRIME MAY NOT BE BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE UNLESS THE PROVED CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT ONLY, ONE, CONSISTENT WITH THE THEORY THAT THE DEFENDANT IS GUILTY OF THE CRIME, BUT, TWO, CANNOT BE RECONCILED WITH ANY OTHER RATIONAL CONCLUSION.

FURTHER, EACH FACT WHICH IS ESSENTIAL TO COMPLETE A SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT MUST BE PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. IN OTHER WORDS, BEFORE AN INFERENCE ESSENTIAL TO ESTABLISH GUILT MAY BE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, EACH FACT OR CIRCUMSTANCE UPON WHICH SUCH INFERENCE NECESSARILY RESTS MUST BE PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

ALSO, IF THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AS TO ANY PARTICULAR COUNT IS SUSCEPTIBLE OF TWO REASONABLE INTERPRETATIONS, ONE OF WHICH POINTS TO THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT AND THE OTHER TO HIS INNOCENCE, YOU MUST ADOPT THAT INTERPRETATION WHICH POINTS TO THE DEFENDANT'S INNOCENCE AND REJECT THAT INTERPRETATION WHICH POINTS TO HIS GUILT.

IF, ON THE OTHER HAND, ONE INTERPRETATION OF SUCH EVIDENCE APPEARS TO YOU TO BE REASONABLE AND THE OTHER INTERPRETATION TO BE UNREASONABLE, YOU MUST ACCEPT THE REASONABLE INTERPRETATION AND REJECT THE UNREASONABLE.

CERTAIN EVIDENCE WILL BE ADMITTED FOR A LIMITED PURPOSE.

AT THE TIME THIS EVIDENCE IS ADMITTED, YOU WILL BE ADMONISHED THAT IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED BY YOU FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN THE LIMITED PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT IS ADMITTED.

DO NOT CONSIDER SUCH EVIDENCE FOR ANY PURPOSE EXCEPT THE LIMITED PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT IS ADMITTED.

NEITHER SIDE IS REQUIRED TO CALL AS WITNESSES ALL PERSONS WHO MAY HAVE BEEN PRESENT AT ANY OF THE EVENTS DISCLOSED BY THE EVIDENCE OR WHO MAY APPEAR TO HAVE SOME KNOWLEDGE OF THESE EVENTS OR TO PRODUCE ALL OBJECTS OR DOCUMENTS MENTIONED OR SUGGESTED BY THE EVIDENCE.

EVERY PERSON WHO TESTIFIES UNDER OATH IS A WITNESS. YOU ARE THE SOLE JUDGES OF THE BELIEVABILITY OF A WITNESS AND THE WEIGHT TO BE GIVEN THE TESTIMONY OF EACH WITNESS.

IN DETERMINING THE BELIEVABILITY OF A WITNESS, YOU MAY CONSIDER ANYTHING THAT HAS A TENDENCY IN REASON TO PROVE OR DISPROVE THE TRUTHFULNESS OF THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

THE EXTENT OF THE OPPORTUNITY OR THE ABILITY OF THE WITNESS TO HEAR, SEE OR OTHERWISE BECOME AWARE OF ANY MATTER ABOUT WHICH THE WITNESS HAS TESTIFIED;

THE ABILITY OF THE WITNESS TO REMEMBER OR TO COMMUNICATE ANY MATTER ABOUT WHICH THE WITNESS HAS TESTIFIED; THE CHARACTER AND QUALITY OF THAT TESTIMONY; THE DEMEANOR AND MANNER OF THE WITNESS WHILE TESTIFYING; THE EXISTENCE OR NONEXISTENCE OF A BIAS, INTEREST OR OTHER MOTIVE; EVIDENCE OF THE EXISTENCE OR NONEXISTENCE OF ANY FACT TESTIFIED TO BY THE WITNESS; THE ATTITUDE OF THE WITNESS TOWARD THIS ACTION OR TOWARD THE GIVING OF TESTIMONY; A STATEMENT PREVIOUSLY MADE BY THE WITNESS THAT IS CONSISTENT OR INCONSISTENT WITH THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESS; THE CHARACTER OF THE WITNESS FOR HONESTY OR TRUTHFULNESS OR THEIR OPPOSITES; AN ADMISSION BY THE WITNESS OF UNTRUTHFULNESS.

DISCREPANCIES IN A WITNESS' TESTIMONY OR BETWEEN HIS AND HER TESTIMONY AND THAT OF OTHERS, IF THERE ARE ANY, DO NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THE WITNESS SHOULD BE DISCREDITED. FAILURE OF RECOLLECTION IS A COMMON EXPERIENCE. INNOCENT MISRECOLLECTION IS NOT UNCOMMON. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT TWO PERSONS WITNESSING AN INCIDENT OR TRANSACTION OFTEN WILL SEE OR HEAR IT DIFFERENTLY. WHETHER A DISCREPANCY PERTAINS TO A FACT OF IMPORTANCE OR ONLY TO A TRIVIAL DETAIL SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN WEIGHING ITS SIGNIFICANCE.

A WITNESS WHO IS WILLFULLY FALSE IN ONE MATERIAL PART OF HIS OR HER TESTIMONY IS TO BE DISTRUSTED IN OTHERS. YOU MAY REJECT THE WHOLE TESTIMONY OF A WITNESS WHO HAS WILLFULLY TESTIFIED FALSELY AS TO A MATERIAL POINT UNLESS, FROM ALL THE EVIDENCE, YOU BELIEVE THE PROBABILITY OF TRUTH FAVORS HIS OR HER TESTIMONY IN OTHER PARTICULARS.

YOU ARE NOT BOUND TO DECIDE AN ISSUE OF FACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TESTIMONY OF A NUMBER OF WITNESSES WHICH DOES NOT CONVINCE YOU AS AGAINST THE TESTIMONY OF A LESSER NUMBER OR OTHER EVIDENCE WHICH APPEALS TO YOUR MIND WITH MORE CONVINCING FORCE. YOU MAY NOT DISREGARD THE TESTIMONY OF THE GREATER NUMBER OF WITNESSES MERELY FROM CAPRICE, WHIM OR PREJUDICE OR FROM A DESIRE TO FAVOR ONE SIDE AGAINST THE OTHER.

YOU MUST NOT DECIDE AN ISSUE BY THE SIMPLE PROCESS OF COUNTING THE NUMBER OF WITNESSES WHO HAVE TESTIFIED ON THE OPPOSING SIDES. THE FINAL TEST IS NOT IN THE RELATIVE NUMBER OF WITNESSES, BUT IN THE CONVINCING FORCE OF THE EVIDENCE.

YOU SHOULD GIVE THE TESTIMONY OF A SINGLE WITNESS WHATEVER WEIGHT YOU THINK IT DESERVES. HOWEVER, THE TESTIMONY BY ONE WITNESS WHICH YOU BELIEVE CONCERNING ANY FACT IS SUFFICIENT FOR THE PROOF OF THAT FACT. YOU SHOULD CAREFULLY REVIEW ALL THE EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE PROOF OF SUCH FACT DEPENDS.

EVIDENCE WILL BE INTRODUCED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SHOWING THAT THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED ACTS OTHER THAN THAT FOR WHICH HE IS ON TRIAL.

SUCH EVIDENCE, IF BELIEVED, WILL NOT BE RECEIVED AND MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED BY YOU TO PROVE THAT THE DEFENDANT IS A PERSON OF BAD CHARACTER OR THAT HE HAS A DISPOSITION TO COMMIT CRIMES.

SUCH EVIDENCE WILL BE RECEIVED AND MAY BE CONSIDERED BY YOU ONLY FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF DETERMINING IF IT TENDS TO SHOW:

THE EXISTENCE OF INTENT, WHICH IS A NECESSARY ELEMENT OF THE CRIME CHARGED; THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO COMMITTED THE CRIME, IF ANY, OF WHICH THE DEFENDANT IS ACCUSED; A MOTIVE FOR THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME CHARGED; OR A CHARACTERISTIC, METHOD, PLAN OR SCHEME IN THE COMMISSION OF ACTS SIMILAR TO THE METHOD, PLAN OR SCHEME USED IN THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE IN THIS CASE WHICH WOULD FURTHER TEND TO SHOW THE EXISTENCE OF THE INTENT WHICH IS A NECESSARY ELEMENT OF THE CRIME CHARGED; THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO COMMITTED THE CRIME, IF ANY, OF WHICH THE DEFENDANT IS ACCUSED OR A CLEAR CONNECTION BETWEEN THE OTHER ACT AND THE ONE OF WHICH THE DEFENDANT IS ACCUSED SO THAT IT MAY BE INFERRED THAT IF THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED THE OTHER ACTS, THE DEFENDANT ALSO COMMITTED THE ACTS -- EXCUSE ME -- ALSO COMMITTED THE CRIMES CHARGED IN THIS CASE.

FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE FOR WHICH YOU MAY CONSIDER SUCH EVIDENCE, YOU MUST WEIGH IT IN THE SAME MANNER AS YOU DO ALL OTHER EVIDENCE IN THE CASE.

YOU ARE NOT PERMITTED TO CONSIDER SUCH EVIDENCE FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE. WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PRECEDING INSTRUCTION, SUCH OTHER ACTS PURPORTEDLY COMMITTED BY THE DEFENDANT MUST BE PROVED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE. YOU MUST NOT CONSIDER SUCH EVIDENCE FOR ANY PURPOSE UNLESS YOU ARE SATISFIED THAT THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED SUCH OTHER ACTS.

THE PROSECUTION HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING THESE FACTS BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE.

"PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE" MEANS EVIDENCE THAT HAS MORE CONVINCING FORCE AND GREATER PROBABILITY OF TRUTH THAN THAT OPPOSED TO IT. IF THE EVIDENCE IS SO EVENLY BALANCED THAT YOU ARE UNABLE TO FIND THAT THE EVIDENCE ON EITHER SIDE OF AN ISSUE PREPONDERATES, YOUR FINDING ON THAT ISSUE MUST BE AGAINST THE PARTY WHO HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING IT. YOU SHOULD CONSIDER ALL OF THE EVIDENCE BEARING UPON EVERY ISSUE REGARDLESS OF WHO PRODUCED IT. MOTIVE IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF THE CRIME CHARGED AND NEED NOT BE SHOWN. HOWEVER, YOU MAY CONSIDER MOTIVE OR LACK OF MOTIVE AS A CIRCUMSTANCE IN THIS CASE. PRESENCE OF MOTIVE MAY TEND TO ESTABLISH GUILT. ABSENCE OF MOTIVE MAY TEND TO ESTABLISH INNOCENCE. YOU WILL THEREFORE GIVE ITS PRESENCE OR ABSENCE, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE WEIGHT TO WHICH YOU FIND IT TO BE ENTITLED. AN ADMISSION IS A STATEMENT MADE BY THE DEFENDANT OTHER THAN AT HIS TRIAL WHICH DOES NOT BY ITSELF ACKNOWLEDGE HIS GUILT OF THE CRIMES FOR WHICH SUCH DEFENDANT IS ON TRIAL, BUT WHICH STATEMENT TENDS TO PROVE HIS GUILT WHEN CONSIDERED WITH THE REST OF THE EVIDENCE.

YOU ARE THE EXCLUSIVE JUDGES AS TO WHETHER THE DEFENDANT MADE AN ADMISSION, AND IF SO, WHETHER SUCH STATEMENT IS TRUE IN WHOLE OR IN PART. IF YOU SHOULD FIND THAT THE DEFENDANT DID NOT MAKE THE STATEMENT, YOU MUST REJECT IT. IF YOU FIND THAT IT IS TRUE IN WHOLE OR IN PART, YOU MAY CONSIDER THAT PART WHICH YOU FIND TO BE TRUE. EVIDENCE OF AN ORAL ADMISSION OF THE DEFENDANT SHOULD BE VIEWED WITH CAUTION. NO PERSON MAY BE CONVICTED OF A CRIMINAL OFFENSE UNLESS THERE IS SOME PROOF OF EACH ELEMENT OF THE CRIME INDEPENDENT OF ANY ADMISSION MADE BY HIM OUTSIDE OF THIS TRIAL. THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO IS ALLEGED TO HAVE COMMITTED A CRIME IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF THE CRIME. SUCH IDENTITY MAY BE ESTABLISHED BY AN ADMISSION. IN DETERMINING THE WEIGHT TO BE GIVEN AN OPINION EXPRESSED BY ANY WITNESS, YOU SHOULD CONSIDER HIS OR HER CREDIBILITY, THE EXTENT OF HIS OR HER OPPORTUNITY TO PERCEIVE THE MATTERS UPON WHICH HIS OR HER OPINION IS BASED AND THE REASONS, IF ANY, GIVEN FOR IT. YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO ACCEPT SUCH OPINION, BUT SHOULD GIVE IT THE WEIGHT, IF ANY, TO WHICH YOU FIND IT TO BE ENTITLED. A PERSON IS QUALIFIED TO TESTIFY AS AN EXPERT IF HE OR SHE HAS SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE, SKILL, EXPERIENCE, TRAINING OR EDUCATION SUFFICIENT TO QUALIFY HIM OR HER AS AN EXPERT ON THE SUBJECT TO WHICH HIS OR HER TESTIMONY RELATES. A DULY QUALIFIED EXPERT MAY GIVE AN OPINION ON QUESTIONS IN CONTROVERSY AT A TRIAL. TO ASSIST YOU IN DECIDING SUCH QUESTIONS, YOU MAY CONSIDER THE OPINION WITH THE REASONS GIVEN FOR IT, IF ANY, BY THE EXPERT WHO GIVES THE OPINION. YOU MAY ALSO CONSIDER THE QUALIFICATIONS AND CREDIBILITY OF THE EXPERT.

YOU ARE NOT BOUND TO ACCEPT AN EXPERT OPINION AS CONCLUSIVE, BUT SHOULD GIVE TO IT THE WEIGHT TO WHICH YOU FIND IT TO BE ENTITLED. YOU MAY DISREGARD ANY SUCH OPINION IF YOU FIND IT TO BE UNREASONABLE. IN EXAMINING AN EXPERT WITNESS, COUNSEL MAY PROPOUND TO HIM OR HER A TYPE OF QUESTION KNOWN IN THE LAW AS A HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION. BY SUCH A QUESTION, THE WITNESS IS ASKED TO ASSUME TO BE TRUE A SET OF FACTS AND TO GIVE AN OPINION BASED UPON THAT ASSUMPTION. IN PERMITTING SUCH A QUESTION, THE COURT DOES NOT RULE AND DOES NOT NECESSARILY FIND THAT ALL THE ASSUMED FACTS HAVE BEEN PROVED. IT ONLY DETERMINES THAT THOSE ASSUMED FACTS ARE WITHIN THE PROBABLE OR POSSIBLE RANGE OF THE EVIDENCE.

IT IS FOR YOU, THE JURY, TO FIND FROM ALL THE EVIDENCE WHETHER OR NOT THE FACTS ASSUMED IN A HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION HAVE BEEN PROVED. IF YOU SHOULD FIND THAT ANY ASSUMPTION IN SUCH QUESTION HAS NOT BEEN PROVED, YOU ARE TO DETERMINE THE EFFECT OF THAT FAILURE OF PROOF ON THE VALUE AND WEIGHT OF THE EXPERT OPINION BASED UPON THE ASSUMED FACTS. IN RESOLVING ANY CONFLICT THAT MAY EXIST IN THE TESTIMONY OF EXPERT WITNESSES, YOU SHOULD WEIGH THE OPINION OF ONE EXPERT AGAINST THAT OF ANOTHER. IN DOING THIS, YOU SHOULD CONSIDER THE RELATIVE QUALIFICATIONS AND CREDIBILITY OF THE EXPERT WITNESSES AS WELL AS THE REASONS FOR EACH OPINION AND THE FACTS OR OTHER MATTERS UPON WHICH IT WAS BASED. A DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL ACTION IS PRESUMED TO BE INNOCENT UNTIL THE CONTRARY IS PROVED, AND IN CASE OF A REASONABLE DOUBT WHETHER HIS GUILT IS SATISFACTORILY SHOWN, HE IS ENTITLED TO A VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY. THIS PRESUMPTION PLACES UPON THE PROSECUTION THE BURDEN OF PROVING HIM GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. REASONABLE DOUBT IS DEFINED AS FOLLOWS: IT IS NOT A MERE POSSIBLE DOUBT BECAUSE EVERYTHING RELATING TO HUMAN AFFAIRS IS OPEN TO SOME POSSIBLE OR IMAGINARY DOUBT.

IT IS THAT STATE OF THE CASE WHICH, AFTER THE ENTIRE COMPARISON AND CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE EVIDENCE, LEAVES THE MINDS OF THE JURORS IN THAT CONDITION THAT THEY CANNOT SAY THEY FEEL AN ABIDING CONVICTION OF THE TRUTH OF THE CHARGE. IN THE CRIMES CHARGED IN COUNTS 1 AND 2, THERE MUST EXIST A UNION OR JOINT OPERATION OF ACT OR CONDUCT AND A CERTAIN MENTAL STATE IN THE MIND OF THE PERPETRATOR. UNLESS SUCH MENTAL STATE EXISTS, THE CRIME TO WHICH IT RELATES IS NOT COMMITTED. THE MENTAL STATE REQUIRED IS INCLUDED IN THE DEFINITION OF THE CRIMES SET FORTH ELSEWHERE IN MY INSTRUCTIONS. THE DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE WILL INTRODUCE EVIDENCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SHOWING THAT HE WAS NOT PRESENT AT THE TIME AND PLACE OF THE COMMISSION OF THE ALLEGED CRIME FOR WHICH HE IS HERE ON TRIAL. IF, AFTER CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE EVIDENCE, YOU HAVE A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS PRESENT AT THE TIME THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED, YOU MUST FIND HIM NOT GUILTY. THE DEFENDANT IS ACCUSED IN COUNTS 1 AND 2 OF HAVING COMMITTED THE CRIME OF MURDER, A VIOLATION OF PENAL CODE SECTION 187.

EVERY PERSON WHO UNLAWFULLY KILLS A HUMAN BEING WITH MALICE AFORETHOUGHT IS GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF MURDER, IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 187 OF THE PENAL CODE. IN ORDER TO PROVE SUCH CRIME, EACH OF THE FOLLOWING ELEMENTS MUST BE PROVED:

1. A HUMAN BEING WAS KILLED.
2. THE KILLING WAS UNLAWFUL.
3. THE KILLING WAS DONE WITH MALICE AFORETHOUGHT.

"MALICE" MAY BE EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. MALICE IS EXPRESS WHEN THERE IS MANIFESTED AN INTENTION UNLAWFULLY TO KILL A HUMAN BEING.

MALICE IS IMPLIED WHEN:

1. THE KILLING RESULTED FROM AN INTENTIONAL ACT,
2. THE NATURAL CONSEQUENCE OF THE ACT ARE DANGEROUS TO HUMAN LIFE, AND
3. THE ACT WAS DELIBERATELY PERFORMED WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE DANGER TO AND WITH CONSCIOUS DISREGARD FOR HUMAN LIFE.

WHEN IT IS SHOWN THAT A KILLING RESULTED FROM THE INTENTIONAL DOING OF AN ACT WITH EXPRESS OR IMPLIED MALICE, NO OTHER MENTAL STATE NEED BE SHOWN TO ESTABLISH THE MENTAL STATE OF MALICE AFORETHOUGHT.

THE MENTAL STATE CONSTITUTING MALICE AFORETHOUGHT DOES NOT NECESSARILY REQUIRE ANY ILL WILL OR HATRED OF THE PERSON KILLED.

THE WORD "AFORETHOUGHT" DOES NOT IMPLY DELIBERATION OR THE LAPSE OF CONSIDERABLE TIME. IT ONLY MEANS THAT THE REQUIRED MENTAL STATE MUST PRECEDE RATHER THAN FOLLOW THE ACT. ALL MURDER WHICH IS PERPETRATED BY ANY KIND OF WILLFUL, DELIBERATE AND PREMEDITATED KILLING WITH EXPRESS MALICE AFORETHOUGHT IS MURDER OF THE FIRST DEGREE.

THE WORD "WILLFUL" AS USED IN THIS INSTRUCTION MEANS INTENTIONAL.

THE WORD "DELIBERATE" MEANS FORMED OR ARRIVED AT OR DETERMINED UPON AS A RESULT OF CAREFUL THOUGHT AND WEIGHING OF CONSIDERATIONS FOR AND AGAINST THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION. THE WORD "PREMEDITATED" MEANS CONSIDERED BEFOREHAND. IF YOU FIND THAT THE KILLING WAS PRECEDED AND ACCOMPANIED BY A CLEAR, DELIBERATE INTENT ON THE PART OF THE DEFENDANT TO KILL WHICH WAS THE RESULT OF DELIBERATION AND PREMEDITATION, SO THAT IT MUST HAVE BEEN FORMED UPON PREEXISTING REFLECTION AND NOT ON A SUDDEN HEAT OF PASSION OR OTHER CONDITION PRECLUDING THE IDEA OF DELIBERATION, IT IS MURDER OF THE FIRST DEGREE. THE LAW DOES NOT UNDERTAKE TO MEASURE IN UNITS OF TIME THE LENGTH OF THE PERIOD DURING WHICH THE THOUGHT MUST BE PONDERED BEFORE IT CAN RIPEN INTO AN INTENT TO KILL WHICH IS TRULY DELIBERATE AND PREMEDITATED. THE TIME WILL VARY WITH DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS AND UNDER VARYING CIRCUMSTANCES. THE TRUE TEST IS NOT DURATION OF TIME, BUT RATHER THE EXTENT OF REFLECTION. A COLD, CALCULATED JUDGMENT AND DECISION MAY BE ARRIVED AT IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, BUT A MERE UNCONSIDERED AND RASH IMPULSE, EVEN THOUGH IT INCLUDE AN INTENT TO KILL, IS NOT SUCH DELIBERATION AND PREMEDITATION AS WILL FIX AN UNLAWFUL KILLING AS MURDER OF THE FIRST DEGREE. TO CONSTITUTE A DELIBERATE AND PREMEDITATED KILLING, THE SLAYER MUST WEIGH AND CONSIDER THE QUESTION OF KILLING AND THE REASONS FOR AND AGAINST SUCH CHOICE AND, HAVING IN MIND THE CONSEQUENCES, HE DECIDES TO AND DOES KILL. MURDER OF THE SECOND DEGREE IS THE UNLAWFUL KILLING OF A HUMAN BEING WITH MALICE AFORETHOUGHT WHEN THERE IS MANIFESTED AN INTENTION UNLAWFULLY TO KILL A HUMAN BEING BUT THE EVIDENCE IS INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH DELIBERATION AND PREMEDITATION. MURDER IS CLASSIFIED INTO TWO DEGREES, AND IF YOU SHOULD FIND THE DEFENDANT GUILTY OF MURDER, YOU MUST DETERMINE WHETHER YOU FIND THE MURDER TO BE OF THE FIRST OR SECOND DEGREE. IF YOU FIND THE DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE GUILTY OF MURDER OF THE FIRST DEGREE, YOU MUST THEN DECIDE IF THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE IS TRUE OR NOT TRUE: THE DEFENDANT HAS IN THIS PROCEEDING BEEN CONVICTED OF MORE THAN ONE OFFENSE OF MURDER IN THE FIRST OR SECOND DEGREE.

THE PROSECUTION HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE TRUTH OF A SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE. IF YOU SHOULD HAVE A REASONABLE DOUBT AS TO WHETHER A SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE IS TRUE, YOU MUST FIND IT TO BE NOT TRUE. TO FIND THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE, REFERRED TO IN THESE INSTRUCTIONS AS MULTIPLE MURDER CONVICTIONS, IS TRUE, IT MUST BE PROVED:

THE DEFENDANT HAS IN THIS CASE BEEN CONVICTED OF AT LEAST ONE CRIME OF MURDER OF THE FIRST DEGREE AND ONE OR MORE CRIMES OF MURDER OF THE FIRST OR SECOND DEGREE. IN YOUR DELIBERATIONS, THE SUBJECT OF PENALTY OR PUNISHMENT IS NOT TO BE DISCUSSED OR CONSIDERED BY YOU. THAT IS A MATTER WHICH MUST NOT IN ANY WAY AFFECT YOUR VERDICT OR AFFECT YOUR FINDING AS TO THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE ALLEGED IN THIS CASE. IT IS ALLEGED IN COUNTS 1 AND 2 THAT IN THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME CHARGED, THE DEFENDANT PERSONALLY USED A DEADLY OR DANGEROUS WEAPON.

IF YOU FIND SUCH DEFENDANT GUILTY OF THE CRIME THUS CHARGED, YOU MUST DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT SUCH DEFENDANT PERSONALLY USED A DANGEROUS OR DEADLY WEAPON IN THE COMMISSION OF SUCH CRIMES. A DEADLY OR DANGEROUS WEAPON MEANS ANY WEAPON, INSTRUMENT OR OBJECT THAT IS CAPABLE OF BEING USED TO INFLICT GREAT BODILY INJURY OR DEATH.

THE TERM "USED A DEADLY OR DANGEROUS WEAPON" AS USED IN THIS INSTRUCTION MEANS TO DISPLAY SUCH WEAPON IN AN INTENTIONALLY MENACING MANNER OR INTENTIONALLY TO STRIKE OR HIT A HUMAN BEING WITH IT.

THE PROSECUTION HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE TRUTH OF THIS ALLEGATION. IF YOU HAVE A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT IT IS TRUE, YOU MUST FIND IT TO BE NOT TRUE. THE ATTITUDE AND CONDUCT OF JURORS AT ALL TIMES IS VERY IMPORTANT. YOU ARE NOT TO DISCUSS AMONGST YOURSELVES OR WITH ANY OTHER PERSON ANY SUBJECT CONNECTED WITH THIS TRIAL. YOU ARE NOT TO FORM OR EXPRESS ANY OPINION ON THE CASE UNTIL THE CASE IS SUBMITTED TO YOU FOR DELIBERATIONS IN THE JURY ROOM. REMEMBER THAT YOU ARE NOT PARTISANS OR ADVOCATES IN THIS MATTER. YOU ARE THE IMPARTIAL JUDGES OF THE FACTS. YOU WILL BE GIVEN NOTEBOOKS AND PENCILS FOR YOUR USE DURING THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL. YOU ARE TO LEAVE THEM ON YOUR SEAT WHEN YOU LEAVE EACH DAY AND AT EACH RECESS. YOU WILL BE ABLE TO TAKE THEM INTO THE JURY ROOM FOR YOUR DELIBERATIONS.

A WORD OF CAUTION ABOUT NOTE-TAKING: YOU MAY TAKE NOTES; HOWEVER, YOU SHOULD NOT PERMIT NOTE-TAKING TO DISTRACT YOU FROM THE ONGOING PROCEEDINGS. REMEMBER YOU ARE THE JUDGES OF THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESSES.

FURTHER, NOTES ARE ONLY AN AID TO MEMORY AND SHOULD NOT TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION. A JUROR WHO DOES NOT TAKE NOTES SHOULD RELY UPON HIS OR HER INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION OF THE EVIDENCE AND NOT BE INFLUENCED BY THE FACT THAT OTHER JURORS DO TAKE NOTES. NOTES ARE FOR THE NOTE-TAKER'S OWN PERSONAL USE IN REFRESHING HIS OR HER RECOLLECTION OF THE EVIDENCE. FINALLY, SHOULD ANY DISCREPANCY EXIST BETWEEN A JUROR'S RECOLLECTION OF THE EVIDENCE AND HIS OR HER NOTES, HE OR SHE MAY REQUEST THAT THE REPORTER READ BACK THE RELEVANT PROCEEDINGS, AND THE TRIAL TRANSCRIPT MUST PREVAIL OVER THE NOTES. THE PURPOSE OF THE COURT'S INSTRUCTIONS IS TO PROVIDE YOU WITH THE APPLICABLE LAW SO THAT YOU MAY ARRIVE AT A JUST AND LAWFUL VERDICT. WHETHER SOME OF THE INSTRUCTIONS APPLY WILL DEPEND UPON WHAT YOU FIND TO BE THE FACTS. DISREGARD ANY INSTRUCTION WHICH APPLIES TO FACTS DETERMINED BY YOU NOT TO EXIST. DO NOT CONCLUDE THAT BECAUSE AN INSTRUCTION HAS BEEN GIVEN THAT I AM EXPRESSING AN OPINION AS TO THE FACTS. I DO NOT INTEND BY ANYTHING THAT I SAY OR DO OR BY ANY QUESTIONS THAT I MAY ASK OR BY ANY RULING THAT I MAY MAKE DURING THE COURSE OF THIS TRIAL TO INTIMATE OR TO SUGGEST TO YOU WHAT YOU SHOULD FIND TO BE THE FACTS OR THAT I BELIEVE OR DISBELIEVE ANY OF THE WITNESSES WHO TESTIFY HERE IN COURT.

IF ANYTHING THAT I DO OR SAY SEEMS TO SO INDICATE, YOU WILL DISREGARD IT AND FORM YOUR OWN OPINION. ALL RIGHT.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THIS CONCLUDES MY PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS TO YOU ON THE LAW AS IT APPLIES TO THIS CASE. WE ARE GOING TO STAND IN RECESS NOW UNTIL TOMORROW MORNING AT 10:00 O'CLOCK WHEN WE WILL PROCEED TO THE OPENING STATEMENTS BY THE ATTORNEYS. ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, WHY DON'T YOU BE SEATED, PLEASE. ALL RIGHT. LET'S EXCUSE THE JURY, PLEASE.

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

THE COURT: COUNSEL, BE SEATED, PLEASE. ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, I THINK TOMORROW MORNING, WE HAVE FINAL CONSIDERATION OF THE JURY -- VIEW OF MR. SIMPSON'S -- DEFENDANT'S DOCUMENTS TO THE JURY, OPENING STATEMENT AND -- FINAL RESOLUTION OF OBJECTIONS REGARDING EXHIBITS, AND WE SHOULD PROCEED TO OPENING STATEMENT. I ANTICIPATE THE JURY WILL BE HERE BY 9:00 O'CLOCK. SO IF WE CONCLUDE THE FINAL RULINGS ON OBJECTIONS, THEN WE'LL PROCEED TO OPENING STATEMENT. ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE?

MR. DARDEN: YES, YOUR HONOR, IF I MAY.

MR. COCHRAN: CAN WE DO IT AT SIDEBAR, PLEASE? MAY I SAY ONE THING BEFORE? YOUR HONOR, WITH REGARD TO A NUMBER OF MOTIONS THAT WE PREVIOUSLY BROUGHT, DEAN UELMEN IS HERE. WE WANT TO OBVIATE RENEWING THOSE OBJECTIONS. WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOME SORT OF STIPULATION THAT OBJECTIONS MADE AT PRETRIAL WOULD BE LODGED AT TRIAL AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME, AND WE WANT TO WORK OUT THE BEST WAY TO DO THAT SO THE RECORD IS PRESERVED. YOU MAY WANT TO THINK ABOUT THAT OVERNIGHT.

THE COURT: I WAS JUST WAITING FOR YOU TO DO THAT.

MR. COCHRAN: OKAY.

THE COURT: YOU WANT TO ASK THAT THERE BE A STANDING OBJECTION TO THE COURT'S IN LIMINE RULINGS THAT YOU OBJECTED TO?

MR. COCHRAN: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ANY COMMENT BY THE PEOPLE?

MS. CLARK: I DON'T KNOW HOW WE COULD POSSIBLY -- THERE HAVE BEEN SO MANY OBJECTIONS TO SO MANY DIFFERENT ITEMS THAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, IF THEY DON'T REOBJECT ON THE RECORD, THEN THEY WAIVE IT FOR PURPOSES OF APPEAL. SO THEY HAVE TO REOBJECT. SO IT'S A MATTER OF TAKING THE TIME. YOU'RE ASKING IF THERE CAN BE STANDING OBJECTIONS TO ALL THE COURT'S IN LIMINE RULINGS THAT WERE ADVERSE. YOU'RE NOT OBJECTING TO THOSE THAT WEREN'T.

MR. COCHRAN: CERTAINLY.

THE COURT: THEY HAVE TO RENEW THOSE OBJECTIONS.

MS. CLARK: MAY I RESPOND?

THE COURT: YOU WANT TO CONTEMPLATE THAT?

MS. CLARK: YES. MAY I?

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. DARDEN: OUR INFORMATION IS, THE 17TH FLOOR RECEIVED A CALL AT 11:40 THIS AFTERNOON FROM SAMMY MOORE. I'VE GOT THE TELEPHONE NUMBER. HE IS INQUIRING AS TO WHY YOU MENTIONED HIS NAME IN OPEN COURT AND HE IS INQUIRING AS TO WHO THE TWO BLACK MEN WERE THAT WENT TO A FEMALE FRIEND'S HOME LOOKING FOR HIM. SO HE LEFT A TELEPHONE NUMBER. I HAVE SHOWN IT TO MR. COCHRAN.

THE COURT: GIVE THAT TO MRS. ROBERTSON. I'LL HAVE HER CONTACT DEPUTY DOWNS. ALL RIGHT, COUNSEL.

MS. CLARK: EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR. WAS THE BAILIFF HANDED A NOTE BY ONE OF THE JURORS ON THE WAY OUT?

THE COURT: YES, HE WAS.

MS. CLARK: SHOULD WE --

THE COURT: I'LL LOOK AT IT AND I'LL LET YOU KNOW TOMORROW MORNING. DEPARTMENT JACKS INDICATED IT'S NO BIG DEAL. COUNSEL, TOMORROW MORNING.

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: MR. DOUGLAS.

MR. DOUGLAS: WE'RE ALMOST FINISHED. IS IT AT ALL POSSIBLE -- BECAUSE IT IS LIKELY THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE THE VIDEOTAPES THAT ARE IN SAN FRANCISCO AVAILABLE IN THE MORNING. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT WE MIGHT REVISIT THE WISDOM OR THE SCOPE OF THE COURT'S EARLIER RULING AS TO THOSE CRIME SCENE BLIPS IF WE WERE ABLE TO PROVIDE THOSE VIDEOTAPES TO THE PROSECUTION?

THE COURT: IF YOU CAN PROVIDE IT TO THEM AND THEY WITHDRAW THEIR OBJECTION, YES.

MR. DOUGLAS: VERY WELL. ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, TOMORROW MORNING, 9:00 A.M. SHARP. THAT MEANS WE ARE ALL SEATED, READY TO GO AT 9:00 O'CLOCK.

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, BEFORE WE LEAVE --

THE COURT: MR. SCHECK.

MR. SCHECK: FIRST OF ALL, FOR THE RECORD, THERE WAS A SET OF DNA DISCOVERY MATERIALS THAT WERE HERE LONG AGO, AND IT TURNED OUT THAT TWO OF THE AUTORADS THERE WERE NEVER TURNED OVER TO DEFENSE. THE PROSECUTION HAS COPIES AND THEY AGREED TO LET US HAVE THOSE. SO I WAS INFORMED I SHOULD PUT THAT ON THE RECORD. THE SECOND THING --

THE COURT: MR. SCHECK, LET ME HAND THEM TO YOU. JUST IDENTIFY THEM FOR THE RECORD SO WE UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS THE COURT HAS GIVEN TO YOU.

MR. SCHECK: YES.

MR. DARDEN: MAY WE HAVE MR. SCHECK INDICATE WHO AGREED?

MR. SCHECK: MR. CLARK.

THE COURT: WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THOSE AUTORADS FOR ME?

MR. SCHECK: FOR THE RECORD AND FOR MR. DARDEN'S ASSISTANCE, MR. CLARK AND I HAVE BEEN EXCHANGING LETTERS NOW FOR THE LAST 15 TO 20 DAYS ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF SLOT BLOTS, WHICH ARE TESTS TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF HUMAN DNA IN A PARTICULAR SAMPLE, AND THESE WERE TURNED OVER. THE PROSECUTION HAS COPIES. WE DON'T -- THEY WERE WITH THE COURT. AND SLOT BLOTS IN QUESTION IS ONE THAT IS MARKED S 101394. THAT WOULD BE THE CELLMARK NUMBER. A SECOND ONE IS S 102094. THEN THERE IS S 092994, ANOTHER, S 101394, ANOTHER S 080194 AND ANOTHER THAT APPEARS TO BE AGAIN S 081694.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. SCHECK: THE OTHER THING THAT I SHOULD BRING TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION SINCE I KNOW -- IN TERMS OF SCHEDULING -- IS THAT MR. HARMON AND I HAVE SERIOUS DISAGREEMENT ABOUT DNA DISCOVERY. THE QUESTION IS, WHEN CAN WE GET THE COURT'S ATTENTION? I HAZARD THAT -- I WILL PUT IT IN WRITING, SUBMIT THE ISSUES TO THE COURT TOMORROW MORNING. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT RESOLVED. IT HAS TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE OBLIGATED TO TURN OVER TO US ACTUAL COPIES OF THE TEST RESULTS FROM DOJ. AND I WILL WRITE YOU A LETTER. BUT WHAT I'M BASICALLY ASKING IS CAN WE FIND A HALF HOUR AT SOME POINT --

THE COURT: MR. SCHECK, IF IT TAKES YOU HALF AN HOUR TO EXPLAIN WHAT IT IS YOU'RE --

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, BE NICE TO MR. SCHECK. HE GOT SLAMMED IN THE L.A. TIMES BECAUSE OF THAT.

THE COURT: YEAH. PUT IT IN A LETTER.

MR. SHAPIRO: HE'S REALLY TRYING.

MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE, HE WAS ONLY KIDDING.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, WE'LL STAND IN RECESS. THANK YOU FOR AN ENTERTAINING DAY.

(AT 5:00 P.M., AN ADJOURNMENT WAS TAKEN UNTIL TUESDAY, JANUARY 24, 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

MONDAY, JANUARY 23, 1995

VOLUME 73

PAGES 11333 THROUGH 11560, INCLUSIVE

APPEARANCES: (SEE PAGE 2)

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

APPEARANCES:

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

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

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

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

ALSO PRESENT: CARL JONES, ESQUIRE
CARL HENRY, ESQUIRE

I N D E X

INDEX FOR VOLUME 73 PAGES 11333 - 11560

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

DAY DATE SESSION PAGE VOL.

MONDAY JANUARY 23, 1995 A.M. 11333 73
P.M. 11429 73
-----------------------------------------------------

PROCEEDINGS

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA (RESUMED) 11333 73
(MARGUERITE THOMAS)

DISCUSSION RE PROPOSED (RESUMED) 11335 73 PRE-INSTRUCTIONS

DISCUSSION RE PROPOSED EXHIBITS 11336 73

DISCUSSION RE DEFENSE DISCOVERY 11364 73
DISCUSSION RE VIDEOTAPE 11429 73
DISCUSSION RE EX PARTE MOTION 11449 73 RE DEFENDANT'S STATEMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION DURING OPENING STATEMENTS

DISCUSSION RE PROFFER OF EVIDENCE 11465 73 RE IMPEACHMENT OF FUHRMAN

DISCUSSION RE OBJECITONS TO 11483 73 OPENING STATEMENTS AND EXHIBITS (RESUMED)

PRE-INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY 11523 73

EXHIBITS

COURT'S (DISCOVERY) FOR IN
EXHIBIT IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE

PAGE VOL. PAGE VOL.

1 - DEFENSE SUPPLEMENTAL 11410 73
WITNESS LIST

2 - DUB OF VIDEOTAPE 11439 73