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 EFFO