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

APPEARANCES: (APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED,
KELLI SAGER, ESQUIRE AND RON
OLSEN, ESQUIRE ALSO APPEARING.)

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

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

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, WE HAVE THREE MATTERS TO TAKE UP BEFORE WE BEGIN THE DEFENSE OPENING STATEMENT. FIRST, IF I CAN HAVE ONE REPRESENTATIVE FROM EACH SIDE APPROACH THE BENCH, I HAVE A NEW REPORT FROM ROD ENGLERT REGARDING APPARENTLY THE SOCKS. ALL RIGHT. THE SECOND MATTER IS TO HEAR FROM COURT T.V., AN EXPLANATION AS TO THE PROBLEM REGARDING THE VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT RULE 980. AFTER I HEAR THAT EXPLANATION AND MAKE A RULING WHETHER OR NOT THE TELEVISION CAMERA WILL STAY OR GO, I WILL THEN CONDUCT A HEARING WITH JUROR NO. 1492, THE AFFECTED JUROR, TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT KNOWING THAT HER IMAGE HAS BEEN BROADCAST, THAT HER ANONYMITY HAS BEEN COMPROMISED, WHETHER OR NOT IT WILL CAUSE ANY IMPACT UPON HER ABILITY TO SIT AS A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TRIAL JUROR AND WHETHER OR NOT HER FRAME OF MIND WILL BE AFFECTED. MISS SAGER, FIRST OF ALL, LET ME APOLOGIZE TO YOU FOR THE PERSONAL INCONVENIENCE TO YOU. I UNDERSTAND YOU WERE ON VACATION IN COLORADO.

MS. SAGER: I WAS, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: BUT THIS IS CERTAINLY NOT MY DOING.

MS. SAGER: I UNDERSTAND THAT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR A SPECIFIC EXPLANATION FROM COURT T.V. AND WHOEVER WHO IS IN COURT AS TO HOW THIS HAPPENED.

MS. SAGER: CERTAINLY, YOUR HONOR. WITH THE COURT'S PERMISSION I WOULD LIKE TO DEFER FOR A MOMENT TO RON OLSON WHO WANTS TO MAKE A STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF COURT T.V. AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COURT AND ANSWER ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS THAT YOUR HONOR HAS.

THE COURT: GOOD MORNING, MR. OLSEN.

MR. OLSEN: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. MAY IT PLEASE BE COURT, ON BEHALF OF COURT T.V., AT THE VERY OUTSET, I WANT TO APOLOGIZE TO THIS COURT FOR THE MISTAKE THAT WAS MADE. IT WAS ALSO NECESSARY FOR US TO APOLOGIZE TO THE DEFENDANT, THE DEFENSE TEAM, THE PROSECUTION, THE REST OF THE MEDIA THAT IS DEPENDENT UPON COURT T.V., AND INDEED THE VIEWING PUBLIC ITSELF, FOR CAUSING THIS HEARING AND INTERRUPTING THIS PROCEEDING. IT WAS AN ERROR, A REGRETTABLE ERROR, A HIGHLY REGRETTABLE ERROR THAT WE BELIEVE WILL NOT HAPPEN AGAIN. IT HAPPENED, YOUR HONOR, AS A RESULT OF A SCAN OF THE CAMERA REACHING SUFFICIENTLY FAR AROUND TO CATCH THE ALTERNATE JUROR MOMENTARILY. THAT WAS AN ERROR WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN CAUGHT AND WASN'T. AGAINST OVER 30,000 HOURS OF COURT T.V. TIME WITHOUT A GLITCH, YOUR HONOR, THIS MOMENTARY BLOTCH IS A VERY BIG STAIN AND ONE THAT THE PRESIDENT OF COURT T.V. IS DEDICATED TO REMEDY AND DEDICATED TO PREVENTING FROM A REPEAT. THE RESPONSES THAT WERE MADE WHEN THIS WAS NOTICED, YOUR HONOR, WERE IMMEDIATE AND WERE TAKEN INSTINCTIVELY AND WITHOUT HESITATION. IMMEDIATELY THIS COURT WAS PUT ON NOTICE AND PROVIDED WITH A DUB OF THE MOMENT THAT CAPTURED THE ALTERNATE JUROR. IMMEDIATELY THE REST OF THE MEDIA WAS PUT ON NOTICE AND REQUESTED NOT TO REBROADCAST ANY PORTION OF THAT. NOW, THOSE RESPONSES DO NOT IN ANY WAY ERASE THAT ERROR, YOUR HONOR, BUT I HOPE THEY WILL REASSURE THE COURT OF THE INADVERTENCE OF THE ERROR AND OF THE INTEGRITY OF THE COURT T.V. PERSONNEL WHO ARE INVOLVED. THE STEPS THAT HAVE BEEN TAKEN, YOUR HONOR, AS A RESULT OF A REEXAMINATION OF A SYSTEM UNDER THE DIRECTION THAT MR. BRILL HIMSELF AND CYNTHIA GLOZIER AND THE TECHNICAL CONSULTANT, SCOTT SHULMAN -- MISS GLOZIER AND SCOTT SHULMAN ARE AVAILABLE TO THE COURT THIS MORNING IF THE COURT WISHES TO PURSUE IT DIRECTLY WITH THEM -- BUT AS A RESULT OF THEIR REEXAMINATION OF ALL OF THE STEPS THAT COULD BE TAKEN TO REASSURE THE COURT AND RAISE THE CONFIDENCE LEVEL OF EVERYBODY INVOLVED THAT THIS CANNOT BE REPEATED, THREE -- FOUR VERY FUNDAMENTAL STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN OR WILL BE TAKEN. FIRST, WITH THE COURT'S PERMISSION AND DIRECTION, A CURTAIN WILL BE PLACED UNDER THE CAMERA. THAT CURTAIN WILL PREVENT ANY SHOWING OF ANYBODY BELOW THE CURTAIN, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE SWING OF THE CAMERA. IT WILL PREVENT ANY HUMAN ERROR. THIS WAS HUMAN ERROR. SECONDLY, YOUR HONOR -- AND I HAVE A DRAWING OF HOW THAT WOULD LOOK IF THE COURT WOULD LIKE. SECONDLY, YOUR HONOR, A DIRECT DEDICATED LINE HAS NOW BEEN PUT IN PLACE, IT IS RIGHT NOW IN PLACE, BETWEEN THE PHOTOGRAPHER RUNNING THE CAMERA AND THE KILL ROOM THAT WILL KILL, UPON REVIEW, ANY MISTAKE IN THE FUTURE. THAT WILL BE A DIRECT COMMUNICATION LIKE DEDICATED ONLY TO THAT LINK, THAT COMMUNICATION LINK. THIRD, YOUR HONOR, THERE IS WITHIN THE KILL ROOM ITSELF, A NEW OPERATOR AND AN ADDITIONAL OPERATOR. THE NEW OPERATOR, YOUR HONOR, IS THE MOST EXPERIENCED OPERATOR THAT EXISTS. THE PERSON, FOR INSTANCE, WHO DID THE RODNEY KING TRIAL. THE PERSON IS A NEW YORK LAWYER AND A REPORTER AND WILL BE DEDICATED ONLY TO REVIEWING THE DELAY.

THE COURT: THAT IS QUITE A COMBINATION.

MR. OLSEN: SCARES ME, TOO. IT IS DESIGNED TO SCARE EVERYBODY ELSE. IN ADDITION, YOUR HONOR, A SECOND PERSON HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE KILL ROOM THAT IS A CALIFORNIA LAWYER. BOTH HAVE NO TASK OTHER THAN TO REVIEW THIS. FOURTH, YOUR HONOR, THE CAMERA OPERATOR, AS I THINK THE COURT WAS AWARE, WAS NOT THE NO. 1 CAMERA OPERATOR YESTERDAY. HE HAD A MEDICAL PROBLEM, CHRIS BANCROFT. THAT IS BEYOND HIM NOW, WE ARE THANKFUL, AND HE IS BACK WITH THE CAMERA IF THE COURT PERMITS THE CAMERA TO GO FORWARD IN THIS PROCEEDING. I DON'T THINK THERE IS A CHANCE THAT THIS KIND OF ERROR CAN BE REPEATED. I WOULD HOPE THAT THE COURT WILL APPRECIATE THAT WHEN IT WAS -- WHEN IT DID OCCUR, THERE WASN'T ANY CONSULTING OF ME OR ANY OF THE OTHER LAWYERS INVOLVED. INSTINCTIVELY THE COURT T.V. PERSONNEL PUT THIS COURT ON NOTICE AND DID THE BEST TO LIMIT THE MISTAKE THAT WAS MADE. I KNOW THIS COURT HAS TAKEN EXTRAORDINARY MEASURES TO ASSURE A FAIR TRIAL FOR THE DEFENDANT, TO ALLOW ALL PARTICIPANTS FAIR PARTICIPATION AND MEANINGFUL ACCESS TO THE PUBLIC IN ACCORD WITH THE CALIFORNIA POLICY FAVORING THE CAMERA IN THE COURTROOM. WE ALSO KNOW THAT THAT POLICY WAS PUT IN JEOPARDY BY THIS ERROR. WE WOULD ASK THE COURT FOR A SECOND CHANCE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT COURT T.V. IS AS DEDICATED TO CARRYING OUT ITS RESPONSIBILITY AS I KNOW YOUR HONOR AND THE LAWYERS IN THIS COURTROOM ARE IN CARRYING OUT THEIR RESPONSIBILITY. AS YOUR HONOR SAID ON MONDAY, THE DEFENDANT IS ON TRIAL, NO DOUBT, FOREMOST IMPORTANCE, BUT ALSO THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IS ON TRIAL. WE BELIEVE THAT WITH A SECOND CHANCE THAT JUSTICE SYSTEM GETS A SECOND CHANCE. THE PUBLIC HAS SEEN IN THIS CASE EVERYTHING BUT THE EVIDENCE, EVERYTHING BUT YOUR HONOR'S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RULES AND PROCEDURES THAT ASSURE A FAIR TRIAL. WE URGE THE COURT TO FORGIVE THE MISTAKE, ALLOW THE CAMERA TO CONTINUE TO REPORT THESE PROCEEDINGS. I AGAIN OFFER THE COURT ACCESS TO THE TECHNICAL PERSONNEL IF THERE IS ANY QUESTION THAT IS BEYOND MY COMPETENCE.

THE COURT: WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW SPECIFICALLY WHAT THE PRODUCER PLANS TO DO AS FAR AS RETRAINING, REINSTRUCTING THE PERSONNEL WHO ARE INVOLVED IN THIS, THE SPECIFICS.

MR. OLSEN: YES. I THINK MISS SAGER HAS TAKEN AN INTEREST IN THIS, NOT ONLY BECAUSE OF HER ASSOCIATION WITH COURT T.V., BUT WITH THE ENTIRE POOL. THERE HAS BEEN, AS I SAID, STEPS TAKEN TO ADD A SECOND PERSON IN THE KILL ROOM. THERE HAS BEEN TAKEN STEPS FOR DIRECT COMMUNICATION AND THERE WILL BE THE PHYSICAL INTERRUPTION CURTAIN IF THAT IS PERMITTED BY THE COURT. IN ADDITION, I THINK MISS SAGER HAS OTHER STEPS THAT SHE MIGHT BE ABLE TO APPRISE THE COURT OF.

MS. SAGER: I WOULD LIKE TO ECHO MR. OLSEN'S REMARKS AND AGAIN APOLOGIZE TO THE COURT ON BEHALF OF COURT T.V. IT WAS AN UNFORTUNATE SERIES OF ERRORS THAT LED TO THIS RESULT, ALL OF WHICH I THINK CAN BE MIXED WITH THE STEPS THAT MR. OLSEN HAS SUGGESTED.

THE COURT: WHAT CONCERNS ME, THOUGH, IS THAT IT WAS A SERIES OF ERRORS; IT WAS NOT JUST ONE ERROR.

MS. SAGER: I UNDERSTAND, YOUR HONOR, AND PART OF THAT, AS I UNDERSTAND WHAT HAPPENED, THE REMOTE CAMERA WAS TESTED REPEATEDLY TO SEE WHAT THE SCOPE OF THE CAMERA ANGLE WOULD BE, BUT EVIDENTLY WHEN THOSE TESTS WERE DONE IT WASN'T KNOWN, OR IT WAS AT LEAST NOT COMPLETED, THAT THE PODIUM WOULD BE MOVED TO RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE JURY BOX FOR THE OPENING STATEMENTS. AND SO WHEN THE CAMERA WAS ATTEMPTING TO CAPTURE COUNSEL STANDING RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE JURY BOX FOR OPENING STATEMENTS, USING THE WIDE ANGLE LENS THAT THEY WOULD NORMALLY USE TO CAPTURE COUNSEL STANDING AT THE PODIUM OR THE WITNESS BOX, CAPTURE THE WITNESS, THE ANGLE WAS SLIGHTLY TOO WIDE AND CAPTURED ONE OF THE JURORS WHO ARE SITTING IN FRONT OF JURY BOX. AND HAD THE EXPERIENCED CAMERA OPERATOR BEEN ON DUTY YESTERDAY, HE EVIDENTLY HAD BEEN AWARE OF THAT, BUT BECAUSE HE WAS NOT AVAILABLE A LESS EXPERIENCED CAMERA OPERATOR DOING THAT FOR THE FIRST TIME WITH THE PODIUM MOVED IN A POSITION WHERE HE HAD NOT TESTED IT WAS NOT AWARE THAT THAT ANGLE WOULD CAPTURE A PORTION OF A JUROR'S FACE, AND IMMEDIATELY UPON RECOGNIZING THAT DID SWING THE CAMERA AWAY.

THE COURT: HAVE YOU VIEWED THE ACTUAL TAPE? IT IS NOT JUST A PORTION OF THE FACE.

MS. SAGER: I HAVE VIEWED THE TAPES, YOUR HONOR, YES. THE SECOND ERROR WHICH CAN BE FIXED IS THAT THAT OPERATOR, IMMEDIATELY RECOGNIZING THE ERROR, TRANSMITTED OVER HIS HEADSET TO A PERSON UP IN THE PRESS ROOM THAT A JUROR HAD BEEN CAUGHT, BUT THAT PERSON WAS NOT THE PERSON WITH THE KILL SWITCH. THE DIRECT LINK WAS NOT BETWEEN THE CAMERA OPERATOR AND THE PERSON WITH THE KILL SWITCH. AND BY THE TIME THE PERSON IN THE PRESS ROOM COULD COMMUNICATE IT TO THE WOMAN RUNNING THE KILL SWITCH, IT WAS TOO LATE. THAT CAN ALSO BE FIXED AND HAS BEEN FIXED, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, ALREADY THIS MORNING, SO THAT THE CAMERA OPERATOR IN THE COURTROOM WILL HAVE A DIRECT AUDIO LINK UP WITH THE PEOPLE IN THE KILL SWITCH ROOM WHO ARE SEPARATE FROM THE PRESS ROOM SO THAT INSTANTLY UPON NOTICING AN ERROR THEY CAN FIX IT. THE THIRD PROBLEM, WHICH ALSO IS BEING FIXED, IS THE WOMAN WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF THE KILL SWITCH YESTERDAY EVIDENTLY HAD NOT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO VIEW THE COURTROOM AND WAS NOT AWARE THAT THERE WERE JURORS SITTING IN FRONT OF THE JURY BOX.

THE COURT: ISN'T THAT -- IN MANAGING A SITUATION LIKE THIS, ISN'T THAT A PRETTY CRITICAL THING, THAT THE PERSON -- PERSONNEL INVOLVED ARE ADEQUATELY TRAINED AND INSTRUCTED?

MS. SAGER: AND I CAN'T APOLOGIZE ENOUGH TO THE COURT OR TO THE PARTIES FOR THAT ERROR HAVING HAPPENED.

THE COURT: SO HOW AM I HOW ASSURED THAT THE PERSONS WHO ARE NOW WORKING THE SWITCH ARE ADEQUATELY STRAINED AND INSTRUCTED? I DON'T HAVE A HIGH LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE IN THAT.

MS. SAGER: AND I UNDERSTAND THE COURT'S CONCERN. THE TECHNICAL PART OF IT, WHICH WILL SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF RELYING SOLELY ON HUMAN ERROR WHICH IS THE FLAG SCREEN THAT MR. OLSEN MENTIONED, IN ADDITION TO ALL OF THESE HUMAN CHECKS, HAVING ADDITIONAL PEOPLE IN THE KILL SWITCH ROOM WHO ARE TRAINED WITH A VIEW OF THE ROOM AND UNDERSTAND THE LAYOUT AND KNOW WHERE THE JURORS ARE SEATED AND POSSIBLY OF EVEN SEEING THE JURORS IN PERSON SO THEY COULD RECOGNIZE THEM. THE TECHNICAL PART OF IT WHICH WILL HOPEFULLY ELIMINATE ANY NEED FOR RELYING SIMPLY ON HUMAN CHECKS IS TO ADD THE SCREEN UNDERNEATH THE CAMERA SO THAT IT SIMPLY CANNOT CAPTURE ANYTHING BELOW THE EDGE OF COUNSEL TABLE, BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENED WAS THE CAMERA ANGLE COULD BE WIDE ENOUGH THEN THAT SOMEONE STANDING AT THE PODIUM, AS MISS CLARK WAS YESTERDAY, YOU COULD CAPTURE THE ENTIRETY OF THE PERSON STANDING THERE AND THAT IS HOW THE JUROR WAS CAPTURED. WITH THE SCREEN YOU WOULD ONLY BE ABLE TO CAPTURE PART OF THE PERSON STANDING AT THAT PODIUM OR THE EDGE OF THE TABLE. THE CAMERA SIMPLY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO CAPTURE ANYTHING BELOW A CERTAIN POINT. AND ONE OF THE TECHNICIANS HAS DRAWN A DIAGRAM WHICH WE CAN SHOW TO THE COURT TO EXPLAIN HOW THAT CAN BE DONE SO THAT THERE IS NO CHANCE THAT THE CAMERA CANNOT CAPTURE IT ANY MORE THAN IT COULD SWING DOWN LOW ENOUGH TO CAPTURE ANYONE ELSE.

THE COURT: WOULDN'T A SIMPLE REMEDY BE TO HAVE A SINGLE STATIC SHOT?

MS. SAGER: YOUR HONOR, I THINK THAT IS AN EXTREME REMEDY THAT IS NOT NECESSARY BECAUSE WE CAN TECHNOLOGICALLY CONTROL IT TO ALLOW THE CAMERA TO VIEW A WITNESS AT THE WITNESS STAND OR COUNSEL AT THE PODIUM, AND SIMPLY LIMITING TO THAT RANGE OF VISION ELIMINATES THE PROBLEM OF CAPTURING THE JURORS BY ALLOWING THE VIEWING PUBLIC AND THE MEMBERS OF THE MEDIA WHO WANT TO WATCH AND EVALUATE THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESS, THE DEMEANOR OF COUNSEL, TO CAPTURE BOTH OF THOSE THINGS. AND IT IS CERTAINLY A VERY UNFORTUNATE INCIDENT WHICH I THINK CAN BE FIXED, BUT I ALSO THINK IT WOULD BE UNFORTUNATE IF THE COURT WERE TO REACT BY, IN ESSENCE, PUNISHING ALL THE MEDIA, NOT ONLY THE BROADCAST MEDIA, BUT THE PRINT MEDIA WHO RELY ON THE VIDEO FEED IN ORDER TO ACCURATELY REPORT THE PROCEEDINGS, AND THE VIEWING PUBLIC. AND I RECEIVED A LETTER JUST THIS MORNING WHICH I SUBMITTED TO THE COURT AND I UNDERSTAND WAS GIVEN TO COUNSEL FROM A LAW PROFESSOR CONCERNED ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE JUDGE WAS CONSIDERING TERMINATING ELECTRONIC COVERAGE BECAUSE OF ITS IMPORTANCE TO THE VIEWING PUBLIC AND THE UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE PROCESS WORKS. AND I THINK THE TECHNOLOGICAL FIXES THAT HAVE BEEN OFFERED BY COURT T.V. ARE SUFFICIENT TO SOLVE THESE PROBLEMS, AND CERTAINLY EVERYONE HAS LEARNED A VERY VALUABLE LESSON HERE. WE ARE DEALING WITH HUMAN BEINGS; THEY MAKE MISTAKES. AND AS COUNSEL HAVE AND THE MEDIA HAVE IN THE PAST, THE COURT HAS IN EVERY INSTANCE GEARED ITS RESPONSE PROPORTIONATELY TO SOLVE WHATEVER THE PROBLEM WAS THAT HAS OCCURRED OR WHATEVER COUNSEL HAS DONE THAT IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF WHAT THEY ARE PERMITTED TO DO. AND I WOULD HOPE IN THIS INSTANCE THE COURT WOULD SIMILARLY ACT TO SIMPLY RESTRICT WHAT NEEDS TO BE RESTRICTED TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM, WHICH CAN BE DONE, AND NOT PULL THE PLUG ON THE CAMERAS OR OTHERWISE PENALIZE THE PRESS AND THE PUBLIC FROM VIEWING THIS TRIAL.

MR. OLSEN: WITH THE COURT'S PERMISSION, I WOULD LIKE TO FURTHER ANSWER THE COURT'S INQUIRY REGARDING THE LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE IN THE KILL ROOM. I THINK IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN PERSPECTIVE, YOUR HONOR, THERE HAS BEEN A 30,000-HOUR RECORD IN THE PAST. THE MOST EXPERIENCED KILL OPERATOR IS NOW IN THE KILL ROOM, WAS NOT YESTERDAY. THIS IS THE NEW YORK LAWYER REPORTER THAT I REFERRED TO. I THINK THE COURT MIGHT EVEN WISH TO TALK TO THAT PERSON, BUT I THINK THAT IS THE LEVEL OF ADDED CONFIDENCE, IN ADDITION TO PUTTING A SECOND HUMAN BEING IN TO FURTHER PROTECT AGAINST THAT KIND OF HUMAN ERROR IN THE FUTURE, SO WE WILL PUT IN THE MOST EXPERIENCED AND ADD A SECOND PERSON.

THE COURT: I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM MISS GLOZIER.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: GOOD MORNING, MISS GLOZIER. CYNTHIA, CORRECT?

MS. GLOZIER: YES, SIR.

THE COURT: GOOD MORNING.

MS. GLOZIER: GOOD MORNING.

THE COURT: HOW ARE WE GOING TO REMEDY THIS?

MS. GLOZIER: BASICALLY, YOUR HONOR, WE WOULD LIKE TO APOLOGIZE TO MR. SIMPSON AND TO THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA.

THE COURT: MISS GLOZIER, LET ME START OUR DISCUSSION WITH THIS: I VERY MUCH ADMIRE YOUR COURAGE AND CANDOR FOR IMMEDIATELY BRINGING THIS TO MY ATTENTION. THAT WAS OF THE UTMOST HIGHEST LEVEL OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS ON YOUR PART. THE QUESTION IS HOW DO WE AVOID THIS IN THE FUTURE? AND MY CONCERN IS HOW ARE YOU GOING TO RETRAIN OR TRAIN YOUR STAFF OR PERSONNEL TO AVOID IT? THAT IS MY CONCERN. AND I WANT TO KNOW WHAT SPECIFIC MEASURES ARE TAKEN. THE FACT THAT YOU'VE GOT THE MOST EXPERIENCED KILL SWITCH PERSON UP THERE NOW DOESN'T INSTILL IN ME A HIGH LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE, BECAUSE THAT PERSON, TO MY UNDERSTANDING, HAS NOT BEEN IN THE COURTROOM AND CANNOT UNDERSTAND THE PHYSICAL LAYOUT THAT WE HAVE HERE AND OPERATING WITH THIS RATHER UNIQUE CAMERA ANGLE, WHICH WAS MY IDEA IN THE FIRST PLACE WHICH I'M BEGINNING TO REGRET TODAY.

MS. GLOZIER: OUR MOST EXPERIENCED DELAY OPERATOR IS KRISTIN JEANNETTE MYERS AND SHE HAS BEEN IN THIS COURTROOM.

AN UNIDENTIFIED MAN: SHE IS IN THE COURTROOM RIGHT NOW.

MS. GLOZIER: SHE HANDLED THE KILL SWITCH ON THE RODNEY KING CASE. SHE HAS A GREAT DEAL OF EXPERIENCE IN THIS. AND WE ALSO HAVE ANOTHER PERSON WHO IS -- WHO IS FLYING IN FROM NEW YORK WHO ALSO HAS HAD SIMILAR EXPERIENCE TO KRISTIN.

MS. SAGER: IF I CAN INTERJECT, YOUR HONOR, MISS MYERS WAS NOT THE OPERATOR IN THE ROOM YESTERDAY.

MS. GLOZIER: NO, SHE WASN'T. THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN WITH COURT T.V. SINCE THE VERY BEGINNING. WE HAVE NOT HAD A PROBLEM WITH THIS IN THE PAST. THE ERROR YESTERDAY WAS AS MUCH MY ERROR AS IT WAS OUR OPERATOR'S. I WAS IN THE TRUCK AND I WAS WATCHING THE FEED AND I MISSED IT. WE WERE VERY LUCKY TO HAVE A WONDERFUL PERSON ON THE CAMERA WHO REALIZED WHAT HAD HAPPENED, WHO CALLED US AND WE IMMEDIATELY CALLED THE COURT. WE WILL NOT LET THIS HAPPEN AGAIN. WE WILL NOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN AGAIN.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MISS GLOZIER. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MISS SAGER, MR. OLSEN.

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

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

THE COURT: VIEWS OR OBSERVATIONS.

MR. COCHRAN: YES, YOUR HONOR. MR. SHAPIRO WILL GIVE OUR OBSERVATIONS, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: GOOD MORNING, COUNSEL.

MR. SHAPIRO: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. OUR CONCERN HAS ALWAYS BEEN IN THIS CASE FOR A FAIR TRIAL AND WE WERE CONCERNED THAT MEDIA COVERAGE COULD AND WOULD INTERFERE WITH THAT RIGHT. AS A RESULT OF THAT, WE HAVE LOST MANY JURORS, WE'VE HAD TO HAVE JURORS SEQUESTERED, AND YESTERDAY WE SUFFERED A VERY DEVASTATING SETBACK. AT THE TIME THAT WE WERE TO GET UP AND ANSWER THE PROSECUTION'S OUTLINE OF THEIR CASE, WE NOT ONLY WERE DEPRIVED OF THAT VERY IMPORTANT MOMENT, BUT ALSO WE WERE FACED WITH A SITUATION WHERE THE JURY HAD TO ABRUPTLY BE INTERRUPTED AND GO HOME UNDER A GREAT CLOUD THAT SOMETHING WAS GOING ON, AND THAT HAS CAUSED US IRREPARABLE HARM. THE JURY HAS HAD THE ENTIRE EARLY EVENING AND NIGHT TO CONTEMPLATE THE REMARKS MADE BY THE PROSECUTORS AND ALSO TO THINK ABOUT WHY THESE PROCEEDINGS WERE INTERRUPTED SO ABRUPTLY, AND IT IS VERY ADMIRABLE THAT EVERYBODY APOLOGIZES, THAT IT WAS A MISTAKE AND THAT IT WAS A GOOD FAITH MISTAKE, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT OUR CONCERN IS A MUCH MORE SELFISH ONE. WE ARE CONCERNED WITH ONE PERSON AND ONE PERSON ONLY; O.J. SIMPSON WHO IS ON TRIAL FOR HIS LIFE. AND WHEN HIS RIGHTS ARE INTERFERED WITH THE WAY THEY WERE YESTERDAY, WE ARE SERIOUSLY CONCERNED. AND IT IS VERY NICE TO THINK OF POTENTIAL REMEDIES SO IT WON'T HAPPEN AGAIN, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW WE CAN EVER RESTORE WHAT WAS TAKEN AWAY FROM HIM YESTERDAY TO THIS JURY WHO IS GOING TO SIT IN JUDGMENT OF HIM. AND WE HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT THIS. AS THE COURT KNOWS, WE COLLECTIVELY HAVE ALWAYS ADVOCATED THE RIGHT TO HAVE THE PUBLIC VIEW OUR COURT PROCEEDINGS AND TO HAVE IT AIRED SO THAT PEOPLE COULD REALLY SEE WHAT OUR LEGAL SYSTEM IS ABOUT. BUT EVERYTHING IN LAW IS BALANCING AND THE COURT MUST BALANCE MR. SIMPSON'S RIGHTS AGAINST ALL THESE OTHER RIGHTS THAT HAVE BEEN SO ELOQUENTLY PUT FORWARD BY MISS SAGER AND MR. OLSEN. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ANSWER IS. WE ARE ASKING THE COURT TO CERTAINLY ALLOW OUR RESPONSE AND OUR OPENING STATEMENT TO BE HEARD, BUT WE EVEN HAVE A GREATER CONCERN AND WE ADDRESSED THAT YESTERDAY. WE HAVE SOME WITNESSES WHO HAVE BEEN INTIMIDATED BY THE MEDIA. WE HAVE SOME WITNESSES WHO ARE NOW VERY RELUCTANT TO COME TO COURT. WE HAVE SOME WITNESSES WHO DON'T WANT TO HAVE THEIR FACE ON TELEVISION. AND WE WOULD ASK THE COURT TO ALLOW OUR WITNESSES, AS A REMEDY, TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THEIR TESTIMONY WILL BE AIRED IF THE COURT ALLOWS CAMERAS BACK INTO THE COURTROOM.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: I WILL HEAR FROM THE PEOPLE.

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

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

THE COURT: MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, IT IS THE PEOPLE'S POSITION THAT IT WOULD BE IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE AND THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE FOR THE DEFENDANT AS WELL -- EXCUSE ME -- I'M LOSING MY VOICE -- TO PERMIT COVERAGE -- TELEVISION COVERAGE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. THE PEOPLE WOULD URGE THE COURT, IF IT CHOOSES TO DO SO, THAT IT DO SO EQUALLY AND COMPLETELY. THE PEOPLE'S WITNESSES HAVE ALSO BEEN INTIMIDATED BY THE MEDIA. THE PEOPLE'S WITNESSES AS EQUALLY INTIMIDATED BY THE PROSPECT OF APPEARING ON NATIONAL TELEVISION WHEN THEY TESTIFY, BUT THEY HAVE BEEN INFORMED IT IS A FACT OF LIFE, THAT IF THERE IS COVERAGE, THERE WILL BE COVERAGE OF THEIR TESTIMONY AS WITH ALL OTHER WITNESSES. I THINK THERE SHOULD BE NO DIFFERENT RULE FOR THE WITNESSES FOR THE DEFENSE THAN THERE IS FOR THE PEOPLE'S WITNESSES. SO THE PEOPLE DO URGE THE COURT TO CONTINUE THE COVERAGE SO THAT THE PEOPLE OF THIS STATE, AS WELL AS OF THIS COUNTRY, CAN OBSERVE THE JUDICIAL PROCESS.

THE COURT: WHAT IS THE REASON FOR YOUR CHANGE IN POSITION FROM YESTERDAY?

MS. CLARK: YESTERDAY THE PEOPLE WERE CONCERNED THAT THE DEFENSE BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE JURY IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE PEOPLE'S CASE, BECAUSE WE APPRECIATED THE SITUATION ALLUDED TO TODAY BY MR. SHAPIRO, THAT THE DEFENSE WOULD WANT TO GET UP AND IMMEDIATELY ADDRESS THEM. THEY ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT AUDIENCE IN THIS CASE. BUT THE DEFENSE ELECTED NOT TO DO SO IF THERE WAS NOT COVERAGE.

MR. SHAPIRO: THAT IS A MISSTATEMENT, JUDGE.

MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY IF I HAVE MISSTATED. IT APPEARED THAT THE DEFENSE -- THAT IS THE WAY TO -- I DON'T MEAN TO MISCHARACTERIZE. ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT THE PEOPLE WERE IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENSE BEING ALLOWED TO ADDRESS THE JURY IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE PEOPLE'S STATEMENT. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT IT IS ANYWHERE NEAR THE DEVASTATING IMPACT THAT COUNSEL HAS REPRESENTED TO THE COURT TODAY. IT IS GOING TO BE A LENGTHY TRIAL. I KNOW THAT THE JURORS WILL BE ABLE TO KEEP OPEN MINDS, HAVE KEPT OPEN MINDS AND ARE EAGERLY ANTICIPATING THE REMARKS OF MR. COCHRAN, WHO IS A VERY ABLE ATTORNEY. I THINK THAT THIS IS ACTUALLY NOT A CHANGE IN POSITION SO MUCH AS IT IS IF WE ARE CONSIDERING THE BROAD PICTURE. THE PEOPLE DO FAVOR AND URGE THE COURT TO CONSIDER CONTINUING THE TELEVISED COVERAGE.

THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

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

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I SAY ONE THING?

THE COURT: ONE THING, MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: MAYBE TWO.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, I THOUGHT WE HAD --

THE COURT: I THOUGHT WE HAD A ONE-LAWYER RULE.

MR. COCHRAN: THIS IS KIND OF A LITTLE DIFFERENT SEGUE.

THE COURT: WE HAVE A SEGUE EXCEPTION.

MR. COCHRAN: THIS IS THE SEGUE EXCEPTION, YOUR HONOR. THE SEGUE EXCEPTION AND IT IS MORE ABOUT OPENING STATEMENTS. I JUST WANTED TO INDICATE THAT WITH REGARD TO THE OPENING STATEMENT, I JUST WANTED THE RECORD TO BE CLEAR THAT WE WERE READY TO PROCEED. AS THE COURT WAS AWARE, I HAD AN EXHIBIT UP THERE. MISS CLARK DIDN'T REALIZE IT WHEN YOUR HONOR SAID WE WERE GOING TO TAKE A RECESS. WE WEREN'T GOING TO STAND OUT HERE AND TALK TO OURSELVES IS THE FIRST THING I WAS GOING TO SAY. AND THE SECOND THING, YOUR HONOR, WE WANTED AN EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN WITNESSES WHO ARE CONCERNED, AND THIS COURT HAS THAT DISCRETION. IF A WITNESS IS CONCERNED ABOUT HAVING THEIR FACE SHOWN, THE COURT CAN MAKE THAT EXCEPTION. WE DIDN'T ASK FOR THAT ONLY FOR OURSELVES. MISS CLARK MISCONSTRUES AGAIN. WE ARE JUST SAYING THAT WE WANT YOU TO HAVE THAT DISCRETION AND WE KNOW OF SOME WITNESSES FROM OUR SIDE WHO WOULD LIKE THAT. WE ARE JUST SAYING THAT WOULD APPLY EQUALLY TO THEM. WE WEREN'T ASKING ONLY FOR THE DEFENSE.

THE COURT: WELL, CLEARLY THE DISCRETION TO LIMIT TELEVISION COVERAGE OF A PARTICULAR WITNESS IS WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT. THE COURT WILL CERTAINLY TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE WISHES OF THE PARTIES AND THE WISHES OF THE WITNESSES. THAT IS IN THE COURT'S DISCRETION. THANK YOU.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: WELL, THE COURT HAS HAD THE BENEFIT OF A NIGHT'S SLEEP ON THE ISSUE. THE COURT HAS, FOR THE RECORD, VIEWED THE VIDEOTAPE ON EIGHT OCCASIONS. THE ALTERNATE JUROR IN QUESTION, NO. 1492, IS CLEARLY VISIBLE AND EASILY IDENTIFIABLE. THIS IS A CLEAR VIOLATION OF RULE 980 SUB (B) SUB (2) WHICH SAYS:

"CLOSE UP PHOTOGRAPHY OF JURORS IS PROHIBITED," UNQUOTE, AND THIS IS ONE OF THE VERY MOST IMPORTANT RESTRICTIONS OF OUR ELECTRONIC MEDIA COVERAGE IN THE COURTROOM, FOR OBVIOUS REASONS THAT I DON'T THINK I NEED TO EXPLAIN HERE. THIS WAS A CLEAR AND OPEN VIOLATION OF RULE 980. THIS WAS A RESULT OF THE FAILURE OF THE CAMERA PERSON TO APPRECIATE THE SWING OF THE CAMERA, FAILURE OF THE TIME DELAY MONITOR, AND IT APPEARED TO BE A FAILURE OF TRAINING, SUPERVISION OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS. I ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION THAT THIS WAS AN INADVERTENT AND NON-INTENTIONAL VIOLATION OF RULE 980. I FIND THAT THERE WAS NO BAD FAITH INVOLVED, NO ATTEMPT TO CIRCUMVENT THE COURT'S RULES REGARDING MEDIA COVERAGE. THE COURT NOTES THAT THE USUAL CAMERA PERSON WAS NOT PRESENT IN THE COURTROOM AND WE HAD A SUBSTITUTE IN THAT PERSON'S STEAD. AS I MENTIONED TO MISS GLOZIER, I COMPLIMENTED HER ON HER CANDOR AND PROFESSIONALISM, SOMETHING THAT IS REFRESHING TO THIS COURT. THE CAMERA PERSON IS TO BE COMPLIMENTED. AND WHAT IS HIS NAME, MISS GLOZIER.

MS. GLOZIER: CHRIS GAZETTA.

THE COURT: MR. GAZETTA IS TO BE COMPLIMENTED FOR THIS IMMEDIATE REPORT OF THIS TRANSGRESSION TO HIS SUPERIORS. THE COURT T.V. MANAGEMENT IS TO BE COMMENDED FOR THEIR IMMEDIATE REPORT TO THE COURT. WITHIN MINUTES OF THE TRANSGRESSION BECOMING APPARENT, THERE WAS IMMEDIATE COOPERATION WITH THE COURT'S INQUIRY ABOUT PROVIDING A VHS COPY OF THE OFFENDING OUTTAKE. ACTUALLY, IT WASN'T AN OUTTAKE BECAUSE; IT WAS BROADCAST. THE REMEDY WILL BE AS FOLLOWS: THE COURT WILL DIRECT THE COURT T.V. TO TAKE A SINGLE SET STATIC SHOT UNLESS AND UNTIL FURTHER PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS ON THE CAMERAS ARE IN PLACE. THE COURT HAD ALREADY DECIDED TO DIRECT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A DIRECT OPEN LINE BETWEEN THE CAMERA PERSON AND WHAT I WOULD CALL THE BLEEPER PERSON. APPARENTLY THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN PUT IN PLACE. AND I'M GOING TO DIRECT COURT T.V. AND THEIR STAFF TO INTENSIVELY RETRAIN AND REORIENT THEIR PERSONNEL ASSIGNED TO THIS PARTICULAR CASE. THE COURT IS NOW GOING TO TAKE A PUBLIC RECESS AND ASK THE BAILIFF TO BRING THE JURORS DOWN AND I'M GOING TO ASK FOR TWO REPRESENTATIVES FROM EACH SIDE TO MEET WITH ME IN CHAMBERS AND I'M GOING TO TALK TO JUROR NO. 1492 AND I'M GOING TO SHOW HER THE VIDEOTAPE SO SHE IS AWARE OF THE NATURE OF THE DISCLOSURE AND THE RATHER FLEETING MOMENT THAT IT IS. I'M GOING TO INQUIRE OF HER IF THIS WILL HAVE ANY IMPACT UPON HER ABILITY TO SIT AS A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TRIAL JUROR ON THIS CASE. I WOULD URGE THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE NEWS MEDIA TO NOT OVERLY IDENTIFY JUROR NO. 1492 AND HER DESCRIPTION, WHICH HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PAST, SO THAT HER IDENTITY IS STILL KEPT CONFIDENTIAL. ALL RIGHT. DEPUTY MAGNERA, LET'S HAVE THE JURORS BROUGHT DOWN AND LET'S ANTICIPATE STARTING DEFENSE OPENING STATEMENT AT FIVE MINUTES AFTER 10:00. ALL RIGHT. CAN I HAVE TWO REPRESENTATIVES INSIDE WITH THE COURT REPORTER.

(AN CONFERENCE WAS HELD IN CAMERA, TRANSCRIBED AND SEALED UNDER SEPARATE COVER.)

(RECESS.)

(PAGES 11751 THROUGH 11755, VOLUME 75A, TRANSCRIBED AND SEALED UNDER SEPARATE COVER.)

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S SEE A WIDE STATIC SHOT.

THE COURT: IS THAT AS WIDE AS YOU GO?

MR. BANCROFT: YES. THAT WOULDN'T SHOW THE JURORS IF THE LAWYERS WERE THERE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. DOUGLAS, IF I COULD ASK YOU TO TAKE THAT DOWN BECAUSE I NEED TO TALK TO THE JURORS JUST BRIEFLY.

MR. DOUGLAS: VERY WELL.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. MR. SIMPSON IS AGAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT WITH HIS COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. SCHECK, MR. BAILEY, MR. DOUGLAS. THE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED BY MISS CLARK, MR. DARDEN AND MR. HODGMAN. THE JURY IS NOT PRESENT. COUNSEL, BEFORE WE RESUME WITH THE JURY, I THOUGHT I WOULD ADVISE YOU OF TWO THINGS:

I'M GOING TO ADVISE THE JURORS AS TO THE NATURE OF THE DELAY THAT WE HAD YESTERDAY, WHAT CAUSED IT, AND GIVE THEM MY REASSURANCES THAT THAT DIFFICULTY WILL NOT OCCUR AGAIN. ALSO TO ADVISE YOU THAT IT IS MY INTENTION FROM TIME TO TIME TO INSPECT THE JURY FACILITIES, EITHER ON THEIR HOLDING PEN UPSTAIRS OR AT THE FACILITY WHERE WE HAVE THEM HOUSED, TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING IS OKAY, AND I WILL ADVISE YOU AHEAD OF TIME BEFORE I DO THAT, BUT JUST TO LET YOU KNOW I INTEND ON DOING THAT FROM TIME TO TIME. ALL RIGHT. DEPUTY MAGNERA, LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE. I'M SORRY. MR. DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN: BEFORE YOU BRING THE JURY OUT WOULD THE COURT CONSIDER AGAIN GIVING THE 1.02 INSTRUCTION INDICATING TO THE JURORS STATEMENTS OF COUNSEL --

THE COURT: THAT IS PART OF MY STANDARD. NOT REREADING, BUT JUST REMINDING THEM OF THAT FACT.

MS. CLARK: WITH REGARD TO THE EXHIBITION OF THE DEFENDANT'S KNEES, WOULD THE COURT ALSO ADVISE THE JURY THAT THAT EXHIBITION IS NOT EVIDENCE?

THE COURT: THAT'S UNDERSTOOD AND I'M SURE MR. COCHRAN WILL MENTION THAT TO THE JURORS AT THE TIME HE THINKS THAT IS APPROPRIATE, AND HE HAS ALSO I'M SURE ADVISED THE STAFF AS TO WHEN THAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN.

MR. COCHRAN: I MISSED THE LAST THING, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: AS TO THE EXHIBITION OF THE KNEES.

MR. COCHRAN: CERTAINLY, YOUR HONOR. IT IS NOT EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: ALSO, THE FACT THAT YOU WILL HAVE TO GIVE THE BAILIFFS ADVANCE NOTICE.

MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE TALKED TO DEPUTY MAGNERA, YOUR HONOR. WE ARE PREPARED ON THAT. YOUR HONOR, ONE THING, IF I COULD. THERE IS A MARK ON HIS MIDDLE FINGER ALSO.

THE COURT: THE ONE THAT WAS DISPLAYED BY THE PROSECUTION YESTERDAY?

MR. COCHRAN: YES.

MR. DARDEN: THERE WILL BE A 352 OBJECTION TO THAT. WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE OF A SCAR ON HIS FINGER TODAY?

MR. COCHRAN: OH, I THINK I WILL LINK IT UP, YOUR HONOR.

MR. DARDEN: IS THAT AN OFFER OF PROOF, "I THINK I WILL LINK IT UP"?

THE COURT: IT IS AN OFFER OF PROOF. THANK YOU. LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE.

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. BE SEATED. GOOD MORNING AGAIN, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

THE COURT: THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT WE HAVE NOW BEEN REJOINED BY ALL OF OUR TRIAL JURORS. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, LET ME JUST GIVE YOU A BRIEF EXPLANATION AS TO WHAT OCCURRED LATE YESTERDAY AFTERNOON JUST TO PUT YOUR MIND AT EASE AND SO THAT YOU DON'T SPECULATE AS TO WHAT THE PROBLEM WAS YESTERDAY. YESTERDAY AFTERNOON THE TELEVISION CAMERA THAT IS MOUNTED ABOVE YOU SWUNG AND INADVERTENTLY TOOK A PHOTOGRAPH OF ONE OF THE JURORS IN OUR CASE, AND THAT WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION AND WHAT I NEEDED TO DO WAS IMMEDIATELY GET FROM THE PERSONNEL OPERATING THE CAMERA AN EXPLANATION AS TO HOW THAT OCCURRED AND TO FIND OUT WHAT MEASURES WOULD BE NECESSARY TO PREVENT THAT FROM HAPPENING IN THE FUTURE. BECAUSE IF YOU RECALL WHEN WE STARTED THIS TRIAL, I TOLD EACH OF YOU -- I GAVE YOU EACH MY PROMISE THAT YOU WOULD NOT BE PHOTOGRAPHED OR IN ANY WAY REPRESENTED TO THE PUBLIC BY WAY OF PICTURE, AND SO I WAS VERY CONCERNED BY THAT REPORT, SO I HAD TO TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION AND THAT IS WHY I FELT IT WAS NECESSARY FOR ME TO STOP THE PROCEEDINGS UNTIL I COULD BE ASSURED THAT THE PROBLEM WOULD NOT REOCCUR. I HAVE DISCUSSED THE MATTER WITH THE JUROR WHOSE PICTURE WAS TAKEN AND WE HAVE RESOLVED THE FACT THAT THERE APPEARS TO BE NO PROBLEM AT THIS POINT. IT WAS LESS THAN A SECOND THAT THE JUROR WAS ACTUALLY DEPICTED, SO IT WAS A RELATIVELY MINOR TRANSGRESSION, BUT IT WAS SOMETHING THAT I FELT IT WAS SERIOUS ENOUGH AS FAR AS YOUR WELFARE IS CONCERNED THAT I HAD TO TAKE THE TIME TO DO IT. SO I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT I WAS INTERESTED IN YOUR WELFARE AT THE TIME AND I'M SURE YOU UNDERSTAND THE NEED. UNFORTUNATELY IT ALSO STOPPED MR. COCHRAN FROM IMMEDIATELY BEGINNING HIS OPENING STATEMENT, AND ON BEHALF OF THE COURT AND THE COURT T.V., I APOLOGIZE TO DEFENSE COUNSEL FOR THAT DELAY. ALL RIGHT. WE WILL NOW START WITH THE OPENING STATEMENT MADE BY THE DEFENSE. LET ME JUST REMIND YOU THAT ANY STATEMENTS MADE BY THE ATTORNEYS DURING THE COURSE OF THEIR OPENING STATEMENTS OF COURSE IS NOT EVIDENCE AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED BY YOU AS SUCH. IT IS MERELY AN EXPLANATION AS TO WHAT THEY INTEND TO PROVE OR WHAT THEY THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW YOU DURING THE COURSE OF THIS TRIAL. MR. COCHRAN, ON BEHALF OF MR. SIMPSON, ARE YOU PREPARED TO PROCEED?

MR. COCHRAN: I AM READY TO PROCEED, YOUR HONOR, AND THANK YOU VERY, VERY KINDLY.

OPENING STATEMENT

BY MR. COCHRAN:

GOOD MORNING, JUDGE ITO, MY COLLEAGUES ON THE RIGHT HERE, THE PROSECUTORS, TO MY COLLEAGUES ON THE DEFENSE SIDE, TO THE BROWN FAMILY, THE SIMPSON FAMILY, TO THE GOLDMAN FAMILIES. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, GOOD MORNING TO YOU.

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

MR. COCHRAN: AS THE COURT INDICATED YESTERDAY, I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE HAD THIS OPPORTUNITY ABOUT 3:30 TO ADDRESS YOU, AND IT IS MY OPPORTUNITY AND IT IS MY HONOR AND PRIVILEGE ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENSE AND OUR DEFENSE TEAM, AS IT WERE, TO STAND BEFORE YOU NOW AND ADDRESS YOU IN WHAT IS CALLED OPENING STATEMENT. NOW, THE OPENING STATEMENT IS NOT OPENING ARGUMENT, BUT IT IS JUST THAT, OPENING STATEMENT. IF YOU HAVE HAD OCCASION TO GO TO A MOVIE, YOU KNOW THAT THERE IS SOMETHING CALLED THE PREVIEWS OF COMING ATTRACTIONS, AND THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE -- IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE A GUIDE, A ROADMAP, IF YOU WILL, WHAT WE EXPECT THE EVIDENCE TO SHOW. AS AN OFFICER OF THIS COURT AND IN THE COURSE OF MY REMARKS THIS MORNING, AND MAYBE THIS AFTERNOON, I WOULD EXPECT TO TELL YOU AS HONESTLY AND AS FORTHRIGHTLY AS I CAN WHAT I EXPECT THE EVIDENCE TO BE. AS THE COURT HAS SO APPROPRIATELY INDICATED, WHAT I SAY IS NOT EVIDENCE; IT IS JUST TO AID YOU AND GUIDE YOU. AND I HOPE YOU WILL REMEMBER SOMETHING ELSE THE JUDGE SAID TO YOU LAST NIGHT. YOU HEARD THE PROSECUTOR'S OPENING STATEMENT YESTERDAY. THE SAME ADMONITION APPLIED TO THEM -- THOSE WERE NOT FACTS -- THAT YOU KEPT AN OPEN MIND, BECAUSE YOU PROMISED TO DO THAT THROUGHOUT. WE STARTED THIS PROCESS OF TRIAL BACK ON SEPTEMBER 26, 1994. THAT WAS THE FIRST DAY WE ALL MET, WHEN YOU CAME DOWN TO THE JURY ROOM UP ON THE 11TH FLOOR, AND HERE WE ARE NOW SEVERAL MONTHS LATER IN THIS SEARCH FOR JUSTICE. YOU HEAR A LOT ABOUT THIS TALK ABOUT JUSTICE. I GUESS DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING SAID IT BEST WHEN HE SAID THAT INJUSTICE ANYWHERE IS A THREAT TO JUSTICE EVERYWHERE, AND SO WE ARE NOW EMBARKED UPON THIS SEARCH FOR JUSTICE, THIS SEARCH FOR TRUTH, THIS SEARCH FOR THE FACTS. EACH OF YOU MADE A NUMBER OF PROMISES IN THE COURSE OF THE VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION, WHICH IS BASICALLY UNPRECEDENTED AND DUE MAINLY TO THE LARGESSE OF JUDGE ITO IN UNDERSTANDING THE POSSIBILITY OF MEDIA TAINT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS CASE. SO WE KNOW A LOT ABOUT YOU AT THIS POINT AND WE -- OF COURSE ALL SIDES ARE VERY, VERY PLEASED WITH THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE AGREED TO SERVE AS JURORS, TO GIVE US YOUR TIME, TO LEAVE YOUR LIVES, TO BE SEQUESTERED AS IT WERE. THAT IS A REMARKABLE SACRIFICE. ABRAHAM LINCOLN SAID IT BEST WHEN HE SAID THAT THE HIGHEST ACT OF CITIZENSHIP IS JURY SERVICE. AND YOU ARE EMBARKED UPON THAT JURY SERVICE, BUT IT DOESN'T STOP WITH JUST COMING DOWN AND TAKING NOTES. IT DOESN'T STOP WITH THE INCONVENIENCE OF BEING AWAY FROM YOUR FAMILIES. WHEN IT STOPS IS WHEN YOU, IF YOU CAN, RENDER A VERDICT IN THIS CASE AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT VERDICT REFLECTS THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, A VERDICT RENDERED DEVOID OF SYMPATHY FOR OR PASSION AGAINST MR. SIMPSON OR ANY SIDE OF THIS CASE. YOU MADE THESE PROMISES AND BOTH SIDES ARE MINDFUL OF THOSE PROMISES AND WE KNOW THAT YOU ARE GOING TO KEEP THOSE PROMISES. CICERO SAID THAT HE WHO VIOLATES HIS OATH PROFANES THE DIVINITY OF FAITH ITSELF. AND OF COURSE WE KNOW THAT YOU WILL LIVE UP TO YOUR PROMISES AND BE FAIR AND KEEP AN OPEN MIND AND DECIDE THIS CASE NOT ON SPECULATION, NOT ON CONJECTURE, NOT ON SURMISE, BUT BASED UPON THE FACTS. YOU THEN AS JURORS ARE THE CONSCIENCE OF THIS COMMUNITY. YOUR VERDICTS SET THE STANDARDS OF WHAT WE SHOULD HAVE AND WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN IN THIS COMMUNITY. YOU HAVE THIS RARE OPPORTUNITY, IT SEEMS TO ME, TO BE A PARTICIPANT IN THIS SEARCH FOR JUSTICE AND FOR TRUTH, AND IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, HOPEFULLY BY APRIL OF THIS YEAR, I'M OPTIMISTIC STILL, YOU WILL BE ABLE TO RENDER PERHAPS THE MOST IMPORTANT DECISION OF YOUR LIVES. AND SO WE WANT YOU TO KEEP YOUR MINDS OPEN AND FRESH SO THAT YOU CAN RENDER THAT DECISION IMPARTIALLY TO BOTH SIDES SO THAT PEOPLE ALL ACROSS THE WORLD CAN SAY THIS SYSTEM WORKS, THIS WAS A FAIR TRIAL, THESE WERE FAIR PEOPLE. SO THANK YOU IN ADVANCE AGAIN FOR YOUR SERVICE, FOR THE VERDICT THAT YOU ARE LIKELY TO RENDER, AND FOR ALL THE THINGS THAT YOU ARE DOING HERE FOR US.

MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, THE COURT KNOWS ME AND I KNOW MR. COCHRAN KNOWS ME. I HAVE TO INTERJECT AT THIS POINT. THIS IS ARGUMENT.

THE COURT: I THINK THOSE WERE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS THAT WERE SIMILAR IN NATURE TO THE PROSECUTION'S OPENING REMARKS. I THINK MR. COCHRAN HAS JUST CONCLUDED HIS OPENING REMARKS.

MR. HODGMAN: I TRUST SO, YOUR HONOR.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT IS EXACTLY CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.

MR. HODGMAN: AGAIN I HESITATE TO INTERRUPT ANOTHER LAWYER'S OPENING STATEMENT, BUT I SIMPLY WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS TYPE OF STATEMENT WAS CEASING. THANK YOU, MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. HODGMAN. I WAS JUST ABOUT TO COMPLIMENT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ON THEIR OPENING STATEMENT YESTERDAY. MAYBE I WILL TAKE THAT OUT NOW. I WAS ABOUT TO SAY THEY DID A THOROUGH JOB AS FAR AS THEY WENT, BUT THEY ARE ADVOCATES, AND ALL OF US, AS YOU WILL SEE TODAY, HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO TELL YOU THE WHOLE TRUTH OF THESE FACTS. SO IN THE COURSE OF MY STATEMENT TODAY LET ME SHARE WITH YOU SOME OF THE THINGS THEY DIDN'T TELL YOU YESTERDAY AND WE WILL HAVE TO WONDER WHY THEY DIDN'T DO THAT. THIS, THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE WE BELIEVE WILL SHOW THAT O.J. SIMPSON IS AN INNOCENT MAN WRONGFULLY ACCUSED. MR. DARDEN SAID YESTERDAY THAT IN RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA, AND SOMEPLACE IN GEORGIA PEOPLE WERE ASKING QUESTIONS. WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO THINK THAT IN MY HOMETOWN OF SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA, MY MOTHER-IN-LAW IN NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, AND OTHER PLACES THROUGHOUT THIS COUNTRY, THAT THEY ARE ASKING WHY DID MR. DARDEN SPEND ALL THAT TIME ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IF THIS IS A MURDER CASE? WHY DID HE DO THAT? AND THEN WHEN HE GAVE YOU THIS ANSWER, HE WAS GOING TO ANSWER THE QUESTION FOR ALL OF AMERICA. THAT IS A LITTLE PRESUMPTUOUS, DON'T YOU THINK, BECAUSE THE ANSWER OF O.J. SIMPSON'S GUILT OR INNOCENCE CAN ONLY BE DETERMINED BY YOU IF YOU ARE ABLE TO DO IT. NONE OF US WERE OUT THERE ON JUNE 12, 1994. WE CAN ONLY DEAL WITH THE WITNESSES AS THEY WERE. AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THIS CASE, THE PROSECUTION'S CASE, BASED UPON WHAT WE HEARD AND THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW, THIS CASE IS ABOUT A RUSH TO JUDGMENT, AN OBSESSION TO WIN AT ANY COST AND BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THE PROSECUTION IN THIS CASE HAS ENLISTED THE SERVICES OF MANY, MANY POLICE AGENCIES ACROSS THE UNITED STATES, THE FBI, MANY LOCAL POLICE AGENCIES. THEY HAVE GONE AROUND THE WORLD TALKING TO WITNESSES. BUT THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THEY FAILED TO GO NEXT DOOR TO MR. SIMPSON'S HOUSE AND TALK TO A WITNESS THAT THEY KNEW ABOUT WHO PROVIDED HIM WITH AN ALIBI, AND THERE ARE OTHER WITNESSES LIKE THAT AND WE WILL HAVE TO ONLY ASK OURSELVES WHY. LET ME JUST BRIEFLY TALK ABOUT THE WITNESSES THAT THEY DIDN'T TALK ABOUT YESTERDAY AND THEY DIDN'T TELL YOU ABOUT. THERE IS A LADY WHO LIVES NEXT DOOR AND WORKS NEXT DOOR TO MR. SIMPSON'S HOME ON ROCKINGHAM. THIS LADY WAS INTERVIEWED AS FAR BACK I THINK AS JULY. SHE INDICATED ESSENTIALLY THAT ON THIS NIGHT IN QUESTION SHE CAME OUT TO WALK HER DOG ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. SHE KNEW MR. SIMPSON, SHE KNEW HIS VOICE, SHE KNEW THE BRONCO. SHE HAD SEEN IT PARKED THERE MANY TIMES. SHE WILL INDICATE THAT WHEN SHE CAME OUT AND WALKED HER DOG, AT ABOUT EIGHT O'CLOCK, THAT BRONCO WAS PARKED AT THE CURB THERE AND IT WAS PARKED IN KIND OF A UNIQUE ANGLE SO THAT SHE NOTICED IT, WITH -- THE REAR WHEELS WERE A LITTLE BIT FURTHER FROM THE CURB. AND WHEN YOU GO OUT THERE -- AND I THINK THE COURT WILL PROBABLY SHARE WITH YOU AT SOME POINT YOU ARE GOING TO GET A CHANCE TO GO OUT TO EACH OF THESE SCENES TO SEE FOR YOURSELF THESE AREAS -- WHEN YOU COME OUT OF THE ROCKINGHAM GATE AND YOU MAKE YOUR TURN, THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW, IT IS A QUICK TURN, SO YOU CAN'T LINE THE CAR UP QUITE LIKE YOU WOULD LIKE TO. BUT THIS LADY WILL TESTIFY THAT SHE WAS OUT WITH HER DOG AND SAW THAT BRONCO PARKED AT THAT PARTICULAR ANGLE AT ABOUT EIGHT O'CLOCK, 8:30 ON JUNE 12, 1994, SUNDAY EVENING. SHE WILL INDICATE TO YOU THAT SHE HEARD MR. SIMPSON'S VOICE AT OR ABOUT THE TIME HE AND MR. KATO KAELIN WENT TO MC DONALD'S TO GET THE HAMBURGER. THAT SHE COULD HEAR BECAUSE HER QUARTERS ARE RIGHT ACROSS THE FENCE THERE. THAT AFTER HE LEFT SHE HEARD SOMETHING VERY STRANGE. SHE HEARD A PROWLER THAT SHE DESCRIBED OUT THERE IN THE YARD WITH LIKE HARD SOLE SHOES AND SHE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THIS PROWLER IS WHAT HER STATEMENT WAS. SHE RELAXED WHEN SHE HEARD MR. SIMPSON RETURN BACK, COULD HEAR HIS VOICE BACK OVER IN THE YARD. SHE WAS CONCERNED BECAUSE THE PEOPLE SHE WORKS FOR WERE OUT OF TOWN AT THIS TIME. SHE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THIS PROWLER, AND WE WILL TALK ABOUT THAT MORE LATER. SHE WENT ABOUT HER BUSINESS AND THEN SHE HEARD MR. SIMPSON'S VOICE AGAIN ABOUT ELEVEN O'CLOCK. SHE COULD HEAR HIS VOICE AT THAT TIME AS THOUGH HE WAS LEAVING. WE KNOW THAT IS CORRECT BECAUSE HE WAS LEAVING TO GO ON A TRIP TO CHICAGO, A PRE-PLANNED TRIP, AND THEN SHE DIDN'T HEAR HIS VOICE ANY MORE. ONE OF THE IMPORTANT THINGS THAT SHE TELLS US IS THAT AFTER MR. SIMPSON HAD LEFT, AFTER ELEVEN O'CLOCK, SHE HEARD MEN'S VOICES OVER ON THE SIMPSON PROPERTY BETWEEN TWELVE O'CLOCK UP UNTIL ABOUT 2:30 OR THREE O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING. SHE HEARD THESE MEN'S VOICES OVER THERE TALKING AND SHE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON. I HOPE I TOLD YOU THAT WHEN SHE CAME OUT TO WALK HER DOG AT 10:15 THAT SAME NIGHT SHE LOOKED AT THE BRONCO AND THE BRONCO WAS PARKED EXACTLY THE SAME WAY AT THAT CURB, SAME WAY. WHEN SHE SAW THE BRONCO THE NEXT MORNING IT WAS PARKED IN THAT SAME SPOT, THE SAME PLACE. AND ONE OF THE MOST UNIQUE THINGS ABOUT THIS LADY IS THE FACT THAT THE MORNING OF JUNE 14, THAT MONDAY MORNING, POLICE OFFICERS CAME OVER TO HER RESIDENCE AND ASKED HER WHAT SHE HAD HEARD AND TO PUT HER ON ALERT THAT IF SHE FOUND ANY WEAPONS OR IF THE GARDENERS FOUND ANY WEAPONS, TO LET THEM KNOW, AND SHE CAN IDENTIFY THAT OFFICER AS DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN. DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN WILL PLAY AN INTEGRAL PART IN THIS CASE FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS. NOW, IT IS VERY INTERESTING THAT THE PROSECUTION NEVER ONCE MENTIONED HIS NAME YESTERDAY. IT IS LIKE THEY JUST WANT TO HIDE HIM, BUT THEY CAN'T HIDE HIM, HE IS VERY MUCH A PART OF THIS CASE. WE CAN ONLY ASK OURSELVES WHY DIDN'T THEY MENTION HIM? I THINK THAT ANSWER WILL BECOME VERY CLEAR TO YOU AS THE CASE PROGRESSES. SHE WILL IDENTIFY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AS THE PERSON WHO CAME OVER AND SPOKE WITH HER AND SHE TOLD HIM AT THAT TIME ABOUT HER OBSERVATIONS, ABOUT HEARING THIS PROWLER AND ABOUT THE FACT THAT SHE HEARD THESE VOICES THAT WENT ON UNTIL ABOUT THREE O'CLOCK BECAUSE SHE COULDN'T GO TO SLEEP UNTIL ABOUT 4:00 AND WHEN SHE WOKE UP IT WAS LIKE 7:30 OR 8:00 AND HE WAS THERE SHOWING HIS BADGE THROUGH THE DOOR. AND SHE SAW HIM ON TELEVISION AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, SO THAT IS HOW SHE COULD IDENTIFY HIM. HE SAID THAT SOMEBODY FROM THE LAPD WILL GET BACK TO YOU, BUT THEY NEVER CAME BACK. THEY NEVER CAME BACK AT ALL BECAUSE THERE IS A RUSH TO JUDGMENT HERE. THERE IS ANOTHER WITNESS, MARYANNE GERCHAS, A VERY INTERESTING LADY, HAS HER OWN BUSINESS, AND ON THIS PARTICULAR NIGHT IN JUNE OF 1994, JUNE 12 AGAIN, SHE WANTED TO FIND A PLACE IN THE WEST LOS ANGELES BRENTWOOD AREA. SHE DROVE HER CAR AFTER SHE CLOSED UP HER BUSINESS ON SUNDAY EVENING AND WENT TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, WENT TO MASS AND WENT AND PARKED HER CAR AND SHE CAME OVER THERE ON BUNDY. VERY INTERESTING. BEFORE I TELL YOU WHAT SHE HAS TO SAY, LET ME TELL YOU HER CONTACT WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT. THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT MARYANNE GERCHAS, AFTER SHE BECAME AWARE THAT WHAT SHE HAD SEEN HAD SOME GREAT RELEVANCE TO THIS CASE, STARTED CALLING THE POLICE. SHE KEPT BEING TRANSFERRED AND TRANSFERRED AROUND, COULDN'T GET ANYBODY REALLY TO TALK TO HER.

FINALLY WHEN SHE FINALLY REACHED A POLICE OFFICER, THEY TOLD HER WE'VE GOT THAT CASE ALL WRAPPED UP AND THEY DIDN'T WANT TO HEAR FROM ANYBODY ELSE, AND THEN LO AND BEHOLD SHE CALLED THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, SPOKE TO A PERSON WHOSE NAME WILL BE REVEALED DURING THE TESTIMONY, AND SHE DIDN'T FEEL SHE WAS TREATED QUITE APPROPRIATELY. IN FACT, SHE WILL SAY THAT THE PERSON PUT HER ON HOLD AND SAID, "EXCUSE ME, I'M TALKING TO A PSYCHIC RIGHT NOW AND I WILL GET BACK TO YOU." I GUESS IT WAS PART OF THAT HOTLINE THEY HAD. SO IT SEEMS THEY WERE MORE INTERESTED IN TALKING TO A PSYCHIC THAN TALKING TO HER. SO ULTIMATELY SHE CALLED THE DEFENSE AND WE TALKED TO HER, WALKED WITH HER OUT AT THE SCENE. HERE IS WHAT SHE WILL TESTIFY ABOUT. THAT ON JUNE 12, 1994, SOME TIME AFTER 10:30 IN THE EVENING, SHE IS WALKING DOWN BUNDY, SHE IS LOOKING -- IT IS A WARM NIGHT, SHE SAYS, AND SHE IS LOOKING FOR PLACES THAT HAVE SIGNS UP TO RENT OR TO LEASE, THAT MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S CONDO, YOU RECALL, IS ON ONE SIDE OF THE STREET, THE WEST SIDE, AND SHE IS ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE STREET. AND AT ABOUT 10:45 P.M. SHE SEES FOUR MEN WHO COME WITHIN TEN FEET OF HER, TWO OF WHICH, GENTLEMEN, APPEARED TO BE HISPANIC, I THINK THE OTHERS ARE CAUCASIANS, SEVERAL OF WHICH I BELIEVE HAVE KNIT CAPS ON THEIR HEADS. THE TWO WHO ARE BEHIND APPARENTLY HAVE SOMETHING IN THEIR HANDS THEY ARE CARRYING. SHE THINKS THEY MAY BE UNDERCOVER POLICE, SHE DOESN'T KNOW. THEY GET INTO AN UNMARKED CAR AND THEY SPEED AWAY AND SHE SEES THEM. AND THAT IS WHAT THIS LADY WAS TRYING TO TELL THE POLICE, TRYING TO TELL THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, TRYING TO TELL ANYBODY WHO WOULD LISTEN, BUT THEY DIDN'T WANT TO LISTEN, BECAUSE THEY MADE THEIR DECISION IN THIS RUSH TO JUDGMENT. THERE ARE OTHER WITNESSES, THAT I WON'T BOTHER YOU RIGHT NOW BECAUSE WE WILL TALK ABOUT THEM LATER ON IN THE COURSE OF THE OPENING STATEMENT, THAT BEAR UPON THAT EVENING, BUT WE WILL JUST SAY TWO OF THEM BECAUSE IT SETS THE STAGE FOR MANY OF THE REMARKS MISS CLARK MADE YESTERDAY. YOU RECALL THAT IN HER OPENING STATEMENT, QUITE WELL DONE, MISS CLARK KEPT TELLING YOU THAT SHE HAD TO FIX THE TIME OF DEATH IN THIS CASE AT ABOUT, WHAT DID SHE SAY, ABOUT 10:15. SHE HAD TO MAKE IT 10:15 AND SHE MADE IT BASED UPON A DOG'S WAIL AND THIS IS THE FIRST CASE YOU WILL EVER HEAR WHERE THE PROSECUTION'S THEORY IS THAT YOU HAVE GOT TO DETERMINE THE TIME OF DEATH BY A DOG'S WAIL, IN THIS MOST SCIENTIFIC OF ALL CASES, AND THERE IS A REASON WHY SHE WANTS THAT, BECAUSE SHE WANTS TO GIVE ENOUGH TIME FOR HER THEORY ABOUT O.J. SIMPSON TO WORK. BUT WE WILL PRODUCE FOR YOU -- AND HOPEFULLY ALL THESE WITNESSES WILL BE AVAILABLE. AS YOU ARE WELL AWARE, THESE WITNESSES ARE AFRAID. IT COULD BE BECAUSE OF ALL THE MEDIA ATTENTION. AND WHAT I SAY TO YOU IS WHAT THESE WITNESSES HAVE SAID TO US AT THIS POINT. TWO PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN TO MEZZALUNA RESTAURANT, THE SAME RESTAURANT, MR. DAN MANDEL AND MISS ELLEN ARRONSON, THEY HAVE BEEN ON A BLIND DATE, LIKE THEIR FIRST DATE, AND THEY ARE WALKING HOME. THEY WALK HOME AND THEY COME RIGHT DOWN BUNDY ALSO. IT IS VERY INTERESTING, AS THEY WALK DOWN BUNDY, THEY WALK ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE STREET RIGHT PASSED 875, NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE, AND THEY WALK PASSED THERE, AND IT IS INTERESTING, BECAUSE AS YOU SAW FROM THOSE PICTURES -- AND WE ALL APOLOGIZE YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THOSE PICTURES AND CERTAINLY TO THE FAMILY AND WE WANT TO BE AS CAREFUL AS WE CAN WITH THOSE PICTURES -- BUT IF YOU SAW THOSE PICTURES, YOU COULD SEE WITH THE GATE OPEN AND YOU WALK RIGHT PASSED, THE SIDEWALK COMES RIGHT DOWN AND THE BODIES WERE VERY VISIBLE WITH THE GATE OPEN. THEY DIDN'T SEE ANY GATE OPEN OR ANY BODIES OR ANYTHING AND IT WAS LIKE 10:25, 10:25 AT THAT POINT, SO WHAT DOES THAT DO TO THEIR THEORY ABOUT 10:15 AND THE DOGS? WHO ARE WE GOING -- WELL, I WON'T BE ARGUING THAT TO YOU. AT ANY RATE, THERE WILL BE EVIDENCE THAT AT 10:25 THAT PEOPLE WHO WALK PASSED, WHO HAVE NO AX TO GRIND, HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CASE, WHO THEY KNOW ABOUT AND WE KNOW ABOUT, DON'T SEE ANY CRIME HAVING BEEN COMMITTED. THERE ARE OTHER WITNESSES WHO ARE GOING TO TESTIFY THEY DON'T HEAR ANY DOG BARKING AT 10:15 OR NO PLAINTIVE WAIL, WHATEVER THAT MEANS. SO IN THIS INITIAL PHASE OF THE OPENING STATEMENT WHAT I'VE TRIED TO SHARE WITH YOU IS THAT ALL OF US, IT SEEMS TO ME, HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO SHARE WITH YOU AND BE AS HONEST AND FORTHRIGHT AS WE CAN. IN THAT CONNECTION YOU WILL RECALL THAT MISS CLARK YESTERDAY TALKED ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS ABOUT THE LIMOUSINE DRIVER AND WHAT HE SAW. YOU RECALL SHE SAID TO YOU THAT THE LIMOUSINE DRIVER, WHEN HE CAME AND LEFT TO TAKE MR. SIMPSON TO THE AIRPORT, SHE TOLD YOU THAT HE DID NOT SEE THE BRONCO PARKED THERE. THAT IS NOT EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID IN HIS TESTIMONY AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING AND THE GRAND JURY AND I WOULD LIKE TO READ THAT TO YOU IF I MIGHT. HE SAYS THIS QUESTION:

"DID YOU MAKE AN EFFORT TO LOOK AND SEE IF THERE WERE ANY CARS THERE?

"ANSWER: I LOOKED TO THE RIGHT TO SEE IF THERE WERE ANY CARS COMING DOWN THE STREET.

"WELL, I'M ASKING YOU IF YOU LOOKED" --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, THIS IS TAKEN FROM A DIFFERENT PORTION OF THE PRELIMINARY HEARING TRANSCRIPT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MS. CLARK: IT IS MISLEADING.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I PROCEED, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU. "DID YOU MAKE AN EFFORT TO LOOK AND SEE IF THERE WERE ANY CARS THERE?

"ANSWER: I LOOKED TO THE RIGHT TO SEE IF THERE WERE ANY CARS COMING DOWN THE STREET.

"WELL, I'M ASKING YOU IF YOU LOOKED, MADE AN EFFORT TO SEE IF THERE WAS A CAR PARKED?

"ANSWER: NO. THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN A CAR THERE AND YOU DIDN'T SEE IT?

"CORRECT."

NOW, THAT IS UNDER OATH BEFORE THE GRAND JURY. NOW, LET'S LOOK AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING. WHAT HE SAYS THERE, THE SECOND TIME THIS MAN TESTIFIED:

"THEN DID YOU LEAVE?

"YES.

"WHAT GATE DID YOU LEAVE FROM?

"THE ROCKINGHAM GATE.

"AND WHICH WAY DID YOU GO ON ROCKINGHAM AS YOU EXITED THE GATE?

"I MADE A LEFT."

YOU WILL HAVE TO PICTURE THAT AS HE IS COMING OUT OF THE GATE HE IS IN THE DRIVER'S COMPARTMENT, HE IS GOING TO MAKE A LEFT; THE BRONCO WOULD BE TO THE RIGHT.

"AND WHICH WAY DID YOU GO ON ROCKINGHAM AS YOU EXITED THE GATE? "I MADE A LEFT.

"QUESTION: DID YOU LOOK TO SEE WHETHER ANY CARS WERE PARKED ON THE RIGHT AS YOU FACED THE DRIVEWAY OF ROCKINGHAM OUTSIDE THE RESIDENCE?

"ANSWER: I DIDN'T LOOK TO SEE.

"YOU WEREN'T LOOKING AT THE PARKED CARS?

"ANSWER: YEAH.

"YOU WERE LOOKING TO SEE IF THERE WAS TRAFFIC?

"ANSWER: YES, OF COURSE."

SO I USE THOSE EXAMPLES EARLY ON TO TALK ABOUT OUR CONTENTION THAT THERE IS THIS RUSH TO JUDGMENT IN THIS CASE, THAT WHEN MISS CLARK SAID YESTERDAY THAT THEY DID EVERYTHING THEY COULD TO EXCLUDE MR. SIMPSON, WE ARE GOING TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE TRAILS THAT THEY DIDN'T PURSUE OR DIDN'T GO DOWN TODAY. WE ARE ALSO GOING TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THIS EVIDENCE, WHAT WE CALL THE LACK OF INTEGRITY OF MUCH OF THE PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE. YOU SAW YESTERDAY SOME PICTURES OF THE -- OF THIS CRIME SCENE, AND THE CRIME SCENE WAS CERTAINLY BLOODY, WE ALL ACKNOWLEDGE THAT, BUT I THINK YOU WILL FIND THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THE LAPD, IN ITS INFINITE WISDOM IN THIS CASE, ASSIGNED A TRAINEE NAMED MAZZOLLA WHO WAS THE OFFICER IN CHARGE OF COLLECTING THIS EVIDENCE. THIS WAS HER THIRD CRIME SCENE. AND CONTRARY TO WHAT YOU HEARD YESTERDAY FROM MISS CLARK, OUR EXPERTS -- AND WE HAVE A NUMBER OF EXPERTS THAT WE WILL CALL TO TESTIFY. IN FACT, ONE OF OUR EXPERTS IS NAMED DR. KARY MULLIS. LET ME TELL YOU WHO DR. KARY MULLIS IS. DR. KARY MULLIS IS A DNA EXPERT. HE IS THE MAN WHO INVENTED PCR, POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION. HE IS THE MAN WHO RECEIVED THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE FOR THIS INVENTION. AND HE WILL COME IN HERE AND TELL YOU ABOUT THIS EVIDENCE, HOW SENSITIVE IT IS AND HOW THESE POLICE DEPARTMENTS ARE NOT TRAINED IN THE COLLECTION AND USE OF IT, THAT THIS IS BY ALL ACCOUNTS, 21ST CENTURY CYBERSPACE TECHNOLOGY THAT IS USED BY THESE POLICE DEPARTMENTS WITH COVERED WAGON TECHNOLOGY.

AND SO WHEN MISS CLARK TELLS YOU YESTERDAY THAT IT IS POSSIBLE -- LIKE COOKING OR DOING SOMETHING LIKE THAT, SHE SAID SHE WASN'T AN EXPERT, AND I AGREE NOW ON THAT AT LEAST -- SHE IS AN EXPERT LAWYER, BUT NOT IN THIS AREA -- THE EXPERTS WILL SAY THAT IS JUST NOT TRUE. AND SO THE COLLECTION OF THE EVIDENCE BECOMES VERY, VERY, VERY IMPORTANT IN THIS CASE. AND SO, YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY WERE TRYING TO HIDE FUHRMAN YESTERDAY -- THERE WERE A COUPLE OF PICTURES YESTERDAY OF AN OFFICER LEANING DOWN POINTING AT THE GLOVE AND THE CAP AND EVERYTHING AND YOU NOTICE THAT THEY TALKED ABOUT IT, THAT WAS OFFICER FUHRMAN. NEVER BOTHERED TO MENTION HIS NAME, NEVER BOTHERED WITH THAT. AND SO WE HAVE THEN THIS CONCEPT OF THE PROSECUTION'S THEORIES. YOU HEARD MR. DARDEN STAND UP AND TELL YOU HIS THEORY OF HOW THIS HAPPENED, AND THE THEORY IS ONLY GOOD UNTIL THE FACTS COME ALONG AND MAKE CLEAR TO YOU WHAT ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE. AND SO WE THINK THAT IF YOU KEEP AN OPEN MIND YOU WILL BE ABLE TO DEAL WITH THESE THEORIES AND THEN APPLY THE FACTS, WHICH IS YOUR JOB AS THE SOLE EXCLUSIVE JUDGES OF THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE. NOW, MR. DARDEN, WHEN HE ADDRESS YOU YESTERDAY, SPENT A LONG PERIOD OF TIME TALKING ABOUT MR. O.J. SIMPSON'S MARRIAGE TO MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AND HE SPENT A LOT OF TIME AND HE TOLD YOU A NUMBER OF THINGS. HE TOLD YOU HOW, FOR INSTANCE, THAT THIS WAS LIKE A TERRIBLE MARRIAGE AND THAT ALL KIND OF BAD THINGS HAPPENED, AND THESE PEOPLE WERE TOGETHER SEVENTEEN YEARS AND IT WAS JUST -- JUST TERRIBLE ALL SEVENTEEN YEARS. I THINK YOU WILL FIND THAT IS NOT EXACTLY TRUE. HE TOLD YOU HOW MR. SIMPSON WAS IN, HOW DO YOU DESCRIBE IT, AN UGLY MOOD ON JUNE 12, 1994. HE TOLD YOU ALSO THAT MR. SIMPSON CAME THERE WITH SOME FLOWERS, BUT WE WILL FORGIVE HIM FOR THAT. MR. SIMPSON DIDN'T COME WITH FLOWERS. THE TESTIMONY WILL BE HE WAS THERE, HE LEFT AND WENT AND GOT THE FLOWERS AND THEN CAME BACK. BUT LET ME TRY TO SHOW YOU GRAPHICALLY MR. SIMPSON WITH HIS DAUGHTER. AND YOUR HONOR, I AM NOW REFERRING TO A PHOTOGRAPH AND I NEED TO CHECK WITH MY COLLEAGUES, AND I BELIEVE THIS WILL BE DEFENDANT'S 1, IF THE COURT WOULD ALLOW, WHICHEVER.

THE COURT: DEFENSE 1.

MR. COCHRAN: DEFENSE 1. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS A PHOTOGRAPH OF MR. O.J. SIMPSON AND HIS SWEET LITTLE DAUGHTER, SYDNEY BROOK SIMPSON, SHORTLY AFTER THIS CONCERT AT PAUL REVERE HIGH SCHOOL. THIS PICTURE WAS TAKEN, AND I THINK YOU WILL EVEN SEE THE DATE, 6/12/94. THIS PICTURE WAS TAKEN BY A DR. RON FICHMAN WHO WAS AT THAT PARTICULAR RECITAL. THEY WERE ALL FRIENDS. HE WILL TELL YOU THAT SINCE MR. DARDEN WASN'T THERE, HE HAS GOT HIS FACTS ALL WRONG. O.J. SIMPSON, ACCORDING TO THE TESTIMONY, WAS NOT IN ANY UGLY MOOD. HE TALKED TO RON FICHMAN, HE WAS THERE TO SEE HIS CHILD, AND YOU WILL HEAR THAT HE CAME BACK TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FROM NEW YORK CITY WHERE HE WAS ON BUSINESS, HE WAS OUT OF TOWN ALMOST ALL THAT WEEK, SPECIFICALLY TO TRY AND COME TO THIS RECITAL. HE HAD TO LEAVE RIGHT AFTER THIS TO GO TO CHICAGO. HE WAS ALREADY BACK EAST IN NEW YORK. AND WE WILL PRODUCE A FRIEND WHO TOLD HIM WHY DON'T YOU JUST SAY BACK HERE, AND MR. SIMPSON TOLD HIM "I MISSED MY DAUGHTER'S FIRST COMMUNION BECAUSE I WAS OUT OF TOWN ON BUSINESS, SO I WANT TO GO TO THIS DANCE RECITAL" AND THAT IS WHAT HE DID. DOES THAT LOOK LIKE HE IS IN AN UGLY MOOD THERE? AND YOU WILL SEE THE TWO OF THEM THERE AT THAT POINT. WHEREVER WE CAN WE ARE GOING TO BRING TO YOU THE FACTS VERSUS THEIR SPECULATIONS AND THEORIES WITH THIS MAN.

THEY DON'T KNOW THIS MAN. WITH THE EVIDENCE, YOU WILL KNOW HIM, BY THE CONCLUSION OF THIS CASE. AND SO MR. DARDEN KIND OF APOLOGIZES AT THE END AND SAYS THIS ISN'T CHARACTER ASSASSINATION, YOU KNOW, WHEN SOMEBODY SAYS THAT. WHO SAID IT WAS CHARACTER ASSASSINATION? BECAUSE HE KNEW THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS. SO AT THE VERY END WHEN HE SAID IT WASN'T CHARACTER ASSASSINATION, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HE HAD DONE FOR AN HOUR TO O.J. SIMPSON. HE IS NOT CHARGED WITH ANY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. THIS IS A MURDER CASE. AND IN THEY PURSUIT TO WIN THEY ARE TRYING TO DREDGE UP SOME THEORY TO GIVE YOU A MOTIVE, BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE A MOTIVE FOR THIS AND THESE PARTICULAR CRIMES. AND WHO IS TO SAY THAT THOSE FOUR MEN WE SAW RUNNING FROM THE AREA OF 875 HADN'T FOLLOWED MR. RON GOLDMAN THERE, AS OPPOSED TO LOOKING FOR MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON?

MR. HODGMAN: EXCUSE ME, COUNSEL. YOUR HONOR, I INTERJECT ONCE AGAIN ON THE GROUNDS PREVIOUSLY STATED. THIS IS ARGUMENTATIVE. THIS IS NOT A RECITATION OF EVIDENCE. WE HAVE GONE BEYOND THE NORMAL SCOPE OF OPENING STATEMENT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THE OBJECTION IS OVERRULED AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU, MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. GOT A LITTLE SIDETRACKED THERE. LET ME SEE. I THINK I WAS INDICATING TO YOU WHO IS TO SAY, BASED UPON THE FACTS IN THIS CASE AND THE EVIDENCE, THAT THOSE FOUR MEN THAT MARYANNE GERCHAS WILL TESTIFY ABOUT HADN'T FOLLOWED MR. RON GOLDMAN TO THAT LOCATION? ANOTHER THING THAT HAPPENED YESTERDAY THAT IS NOT TRUE THAT THEY TOLD YOU, MISS CLARK TOLD YOU THAT MR. RON GOLDMAN CHECKED OUT OF WORK AND HE WAS GOING TO COME OVER AND DO A FAVOR FOR MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON TO BRING THE GLASSES, AND SHE DESCRIBED FOR YOU HOW HE WAS DRESSED. I THINK SHE SAID WITH SOME WHITE SHIRT AND BLACK PANTS OR WHATEVER AND THAT HE THEN CAME OVER TO THE RESIDENCE. YOU SAW THOSE PICTURES, AS TERRIBLE AS THEY WERE. HE WAS IN SOME JEANS AND SOME KIND OF SHOES THAT ARE FAR DIFFERENT. AND THE EVIDENCE WILL BE HE WENT HOME, DROPPED OFF A BOOK, CHANGED CLOTHES BEFORE HE CAME TO NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON. BUT THE REASON THAT YOU WEREN'T TOLD THOSE FACTS IS BECAUSE IT IS IMPORTANT THEY KEEP THIS 10:15 TIME. THEY HAVE GOT TO KEEP EVERYTHING SQUASHED IN THERE SO THEY COULD TELL YOU, OH, HE HAD PLENTY OF TIME TO COMMIT THIS CRIME. WHEN WE CONCLUDE TODAY YOU ARE GOING TO SEE THERE WAS NO TIME TO COMMIT THIS CRIME.

AND SO TO WRAP UP THIS PART ABOUT THE SO-CALLED CHARACTER ASSASSINATION OR WHATEVER, WHAT I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO, AS WITH ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, IS TO KEEP AN OPEN MIND UNTIL YOU'VE HEARD BOTH SIDES. THEY MAY TRY TO BRING OUT INCIDENTS ABOUT THIS MARRIAGE. AND THESE PEOPLE DID DIVORCE IN 1992, AND UNFORTUNATELY IN OUR SOCIETY THERE ARE FAR TOO MANY DIVORCES. PEOPLE DON'T ALWAYS GET ALONG AND WE SOMETIMES GET DIVORCED. SOME OF YOU PROBABLY HAVE GOTTEN DIVORCED AND IT IS UNFORTUNATE WHEN THAT HAPPENS. BUT I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO KEEP AN OPEN MIND, BUT I THINK PERHAPS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING ABOUT THIS WHOLE AREA IS THIS AS A RESPONSE TO MR. DARDEN: THERE IS AN EXPERT IN THE UNITED STATES WHOSE NAME IS DR. LENORE WALKER. SHE IS BY ALL ACCOUNTS THE NO. 1 EXPERT IN AMERICA ON THE FIELD OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. SHE HAS BEEN CALLED BY SOME THE MOTHER OF THE BATTERED WOMEN'S SYNDROME. NOW, THEY DIDN'T TALK ABOUT THIS YESTERDAY, BUT LENORE WALKER WILL BE A WITNESS FOR THE DEFENSE, AND I WANT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT HER AND HER TESTIMONY, BECAUSE I THINK IT WILL BE RELEVANT AS WE TALK ABOUT MR. DARDEN AND WHAT HE HAS TO SAY ON THIS AREA.

WE KNOW THAT MR. DARDEN IS NOT AN EXPERT IN THIS AREA; HE IS A LAWYER CONVEYING THE FACTS AS HE UNDERSTOOD THEM, BUT HE WASN'T THERE. DR. LENORE WALKER, THIS NO. 1 EXPERT IN AMERICA, PERHAPS IN THE WORLD, IN THIS CONCEPT, HAS SEEN AND INTERVIEWED AND TESTED MR. SIMPSON. SHE HASN'T CONCLUDED ALL THE TESTING YET, BUT SHE WILL TESTIFY TO YOU ABOUT THE RESULTS OF THOSE TESTS WHEN SHE IS COMPLETED, BUT SHE HAS AND DOES HAVE SOME FEELINGS ABOUT THIS CASE AND ABOUT MR. DARDEN'S REMARKS. IN FACT, AS AN EXPERT SHE IS PERMITTED TO WATCH MR. DARDEN AND SHE WATCHED HIM YESTERDAY AND SHE WAS KIND ENOUGH TO SHARE WITH ME LAST NIGHT WHAT HER THOUGHTS WERE.

MR. DARDEN: I WOULD OBJECT, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS ARGUMENT.

MR. HODGMAN: MAY WE APPROACH?

MR. COCHRAN: I'M GOING TO TELL WHAT THE EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE.

MR. DARDEN: THAT IS NOT WHAT HE SAID. HE SAID HE IS GOING TO OFFER TO THE JURY MISS WALKER'S FEELINGS ABOUT MY SPECIFIC COMMENT YESTERDAY. MY OPENING STATEMENT WAS NOT EVIDENCE, YOUR HONOR. MISS WALKER OUGHT TO CONFINE HER OPINIONS TO THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE, AND THIS IS ARGUMENTATIVE AND IT HAS BEEN ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THE OBJECTION IS OVERRULED.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. DR. WALKER, ALONG WITH A NUMBER OF US IN THE COURTROOM WHEN MR. DARDEN WAS SPEAKING YESTERDAY, FELT THAT IT IS OFFENSIVE TO WOMEN TO SAY THAT THEY NEVER HAD A JOB.

THE COURT: THIS IS ARGUMENT.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. VERY WELL. YOU ARE RIGHT, YOUR HONOR, AND LET ME REPHRASE.

THE COURT: IF SHE WAS GOING TO TESTIFY AS TO HER ANALYSIS OF MR. SIMPSON OR WHAT HER TESTIMONY IS GOING TO BE, THAT IS ONE THING. COMMENTARY ABOUT MR. DARDEN IS SOMETHING ELSE.

MR. COCHRAN: YOU ARE ABSOLUTE RIGHT, AND LET ME RESTATE THAT IN A POSITIVE WAY, YOUR HONOR. WITH REGARD TO MR. DARDEN'S STATEMENTS YESTERDAY, YOU RECALL MR. DARDEN SAID THAT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON NEVER HELD A JOB AND HE WANTED TO PAINT THIS PICTURE OF HER BEING TOTALLY UNDER CONTROL AND BEING CONTROLLED BY O.J. SIMPSON, AND UNDER HIS THUMB AND THAT SORT OF THING. WELL, I THINK THAT SOME OF US WOULD FEEL THAT SOMEBODY WHO RAISES TWO CHILDREN, WHO IS AN EXCELLENT MOTHER, THAT IS A PRETTY MAJOR JOB, BEING A HOMEMAKER, AND WE WILL TALK ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT NICOLE SIMPSON WAS A BARBIE DOLL THAT WOULD JUST MAKE IN THEIR OWN MOLD, BECAUSE EVEN IN DARDEN'S STATEMENT HE SAID THIS WAS A STRONG TOUGH LADY AND I THINK YOU WILL FIND THAT IS WHAT THE EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE. BUT WITH REGARD TO THIS WHOLE ASPECT OF BATTERING, IN THIS CASE LET ME SAY UP FRONT THAT MR. SIMPSON IS NOT PROUD AT ALL OF THE FACT THAT HE AND HIS WIFE GOT INTO AN ALTERCATION AND SHE WAS STRUCK ON JANUARY 1ST, 1989. HE IS NOT PROUD OF THAT. IN FACT, IN THE COURSE OF THIS EVIDENCE YOU ARE GOING TO SEE PERHAPS THREE LETTERS THAT HE WROTE APOLOGIZING TO HIS WIFE, BUT WHAT MR. DARDEN AND WHAT THE EVIDENCE HASN'T SHOWN YOU SO FAR WAS THAT FROM 1989, JANUARY 1ST, 1989, HE MADE A BIG THING OUT OF THAT, FROM THAT DAY FORWARD, TO THE PRESENT DATE, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT O.J. SIMPSON EVER STRUCK HIS WIFE AGAIN. YOU SHOULD NEVER STRIKE YOUR WIFE, BUT EVEN WHEN HE MADE A MISTAKE ON JANUARY 1ST, '89, HE PAID HIS DEBT FOR THAT. HE WENT TO COURT AND HE PLED NOLO CONTENDERE. HE PLED NO CONTEST FOR THAT. HE WAS SENTENCED TO COMMUNITY SERVICE AND HE REPAID HIS DEBT. NOW, THEY WANT TO RETRY HIM, I SUPPOSE. THEY DON'T TELL YOU THAT AFTER THAT THERE IS NOT ANY TOUCHING. IN FACT, O.J. SIMPSON DID SOMETHING ELSE. AFTER THAT INCIDENT HE WAS SO CONTRITE THAT HE HAD A PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT WITH NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON. THEY GOT A DIVORCE, WHAT HER SHARE WOULD BE, AND HE WENT AND HE HAD HIS LAWYER PUT IN WRITING, WHICH WAS LATER SIGNED BY HER, THAT IF I EVER STRIKE YOU AGAIN THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT IS VOIDABLE, AND UNTIL THE DATE OF HER DEATH THAT AGREEMENT WAS NEVER MADE VOID OR VOIDABLE. NOW, THOSE ARE THE FACTS. AND SO WHEN DR. WALKER COMES AND TESTIFIES TO YOU SHE WILL TALK ABOUT THE FACT THAT LIFE THREATENING VIOLENCE USUALLY PRECEDES A HOMICIDE INCIDENT AND SHE DOES NOT FIND THAT IN THIS CASE. SHE WILL, I BELIEVE, TESTIFY THAT ACCORDING TO THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE, APPROXIMATELY TWO AND ONE-HALF MILLION WOMEN ARE BATTERED IN THIS COUNTRY EVERY YEAR, AN INTOLERABLE SITUATION. STATISTICS INDICATE, HOWEVER, THAT BETWEEN 1200 AND 4000 OF THOSE WOMEN ARE KILLED. THAT IS 1200 TO 4000 OF THE TWO AND ONE-HALF MILLION BATTERED. DR. WALKER WILL TESTIFY THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO USE THESE STATISTICS TO PROVE THAT ANYBODY WHO ALLEGEDLY BATTERS BECOMES A MURDERER. YOU MIGHT LIKEN IT TO AN EXAMPLE OF SMOKING. SOMEBODY MAY GET LUNG CANCER. THE FACT THAT THEY GET LUNG CANCER MAY MEAN THEY SMOKE AND MAY NOT, BUT IF YOU SMOKE, I CAN'T AUTOMATICALLY PREDICT YOU ARE GOING TO GET LUNG CANCER. AND SO THIS IS NOT A PREDICTABLE SCIENCE, ACCORDING TO THE LADY WHO IS THE MOTHER OF THIS PARTICULAR AREA, AND ALTHOUGH DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS A VERY, VERY SERIOUS PROBLEM IN THIS COUNTRY, THE LEVEL OF VIOLENCE IN THIS CASE, THE PATTERN IS ATYPICAL. ATYPICAL MEANS UNTYPICAL OF THOSE RELATIONSHIPS WHERE A LETHAL INCIDENT OFTEN OCCURS. FOR INSTANCE, STALKERS DON'T GO ALL ACROSS THE UNITED STATES WORKING DOING COMMERCIALS, SHOOTING MOVIES, HAVING A NEW GIRLFRIEND AND GOING ON WITH THEIR LIFE AND DOING ALL THE THINGS YOU ARE GOING TO FIND THIS EVIDENCE IS ABOUT. THEY DON'T HAVE A NEW GIRLFRIEND BY THE NAME OF PAULA BARBIERI WHO YOU HAVE BEEN VERY SERIOUS ABOUT FROM THE TIME -- FROM APRIL OF 1992 TO APRIL OF 1993 UNTIL NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON ASKED TO RECONCILE AND GET BACK TOGETHER. SHE DID IT IN THIS WAY:

SHE SENT TO MR. SIMPSON, AMONG OTHER THINGS, A VIDEO OF THEIR MARRIAGE, A VIDEO OF THE BIRTH OF THEIR CHILDREN, ACCOMPANIED BY A LONG LETTER SPELLING OUT HOW MUCH SHE WANTED TO GET BACK WITH THIS FAMILY. NOW, I THINK YOU WILL FIND THAT IS NOT STALKING. MR. SIMPSON'S RESPONSE WAS WE HAVE HAD PROBLEMS IN THE PAST, I HAVE A GIRLFRIEND NOW, I'M HAPPY, LET'S TAKE OUR TIME ABOUT THIS. BUT SHE PURSUED. SHE FOLLOWED UP ON THAT. SHE PURSUED. SHE WANTED TO MOVE BACK TO ROCKINGHAM. SHE DIDN'T LIKE THE HOUSEKEEPER THERE. SHE WANTED TO FIRE HER. MICHELLE IS HER NAME. AND ULTIMATELY SHE GOT INTO AN ALTERCATION AND STRUCK MICHELLE. HE DIDN'T WANT TO FIRE MICHELLE. ULTIMATELY MICHELLE DID LEAVE AFTER BEING STRUCK. IT WAS HER WHO PURSUED THIS IN MAY OF 1993 UNTIL MAY OF 1994. AND WHEN MR. DARDEN TALKED TO YOU YESTERDAY, HE DIDN'T MENTION THAT AND WE WILL CONCLUSIVELY PROVE THAT TO YOU SO THAT WHEN DR. WALKER TALKS TO YOU ABOUT STALKERS DEMONSTRATE OBSESSIVE BEHAVIOR, THAT CONCENTRATES ON CONTROLLING THE WOMAN AT ALL TIMES AND IS INCONSISTENT WITH MAKING A NEW LIFE, BEGINNING A NEW RELATIONSHIP WITH A WOMAN SUCH AS PAULA BARBIERI, TRAVELING AWAY FROM HOME ON BUSINESS ASSIGNMENTS. ALL OF THOSE THINGS GO AGAINST ANY IDEA OF STALKING THAT THEY WOULD HAVE YOU ALSO BELIEVE IN THIS CASE. DR. WALKER WILL ALSO TELL YOU THAT THERE IS A MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A WEALTHY PERSON WHO GIVES GIFTS, SOMEONE WHO USES MATERIAL POSSESSIONS TO GAIN POWER, AND SO THE PROSECUTION WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE THAT IF MR. SIMPSON GIVES NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON A GIFT, SOMETHING THAT HE BOUGHT AND PAID FOR, NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OF THE TESTIMONY THAT WILL COME OUT IN THIS CASE. BEFORE MR. SIMPSON EVER GOT MARRIED TO HIS WIFE HE BOUGHT HER A CONDOMINIUM IN SAN FRANCISCO AND PAID $500,000 FOR IT AND GAVE IT TO HER FREE AND CLEAR IN HER NAME SO SHE COULD HAVE MONEY UP TO $3,000 A MONTH. HE NEVER EVER SAW ANY OF THAT MONEY, WANTED ANY OF THAT MONEY. THERE WHERE NO STRINGS ATTACHED. THIS IS BEFORE THEY GOT MARRIED. AND LATER ON IN THIS DISCUSSION I'M GOING TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT WHAT I CALL HIS CIRCLE OF BENEVOLENCE, THOSE WHO HAVE COME WITHIN THE AMBIT AND THAT SPHERE OF O.J. SIMPSON AND HIS PHILANTHROPIC LARGESSE, WHAT HE HAS DONE FOR THEM, AND THERE ARE MANY OTHER THINGS. THIS $500,000 CONDO FREE AND CLEAR. HE GAVE HER SOME MORE MONEY TO BUY THE CONDO ON BUNDY. THESE ARE ALL HER OWN SEPARATE THINGS WHILE THEY ARE STILL SEPARATED. HE ASKED FOR NO CONTROL. SHE HAD HER OWN BANK ACCOUNTS. HE GAVE HER $4,000 A MONTH FOR FOOD AT THE HOUSE AND HE PAID ALL OF THE BILLS WHEN THEY WERE TOGETHER. LET ME TALK ABOUT THIS CIRCLE OF BENEVOLENCE WHILE WE ARE ON IT RIGHT NOW. IT EXTENDED NOT JUST TO MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, BUT TO HER FAMILY, TO MR. LOU BROWN. HE HELPED HIM BECOME A HERTZ LICENSEE AT THE RITZ CARLTON IN LAGUNA BEACH FOR SEVEN YEARS. THE SISTERS, DOMINIQUE, PAID THE TUITION FOR DOMINIQUE FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS AT USC UNTIL SHE DROPPED OUT. PAID THE TUITION FOR TONYA, THE OTHER SISTER, FOR SAN DIEGO STATE FOR A YEAR OR SO UNTIL SHE DROPPED OUT. THERE IS A COUSIN, ROTH BAUER, WHO WORKED FOR SEVEN YEARS IN MR. O.J. SIMPSON'S CHICKEN FRANCHISE, PIONEER CHICKEN FRANCHISES. THE MOTHER JUDITHA WAS A TRAVEL AGENT. HE GAVE HER HIS BUSINESS AND ENCOURAGED HIS FRIENDS TO DO LIKEWISE. THIS MAN HAD A GREAT RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS IN-LAWS. HE DID WONDERFUL THINGS FOR HIM, TOOK THEM ALL ON TRIPS, PAID THEIR WAY, TOOK THEM ALL OUT TO DINNER, THEY WOULD GO TO HAWAII AND CABO SAN LUCAS. THIS IS THE SAME MAN THAT MR. DARDEN WAS TALKING TO YOU ABOUT. MR. DARDEN SAYS SHE NEVER WORKED. O.J. SIMPSON ENCOURAGED HER TO BECOME A DECORATOR. SHE BECAME A DECORATOR. HE HELPED HER GET JOBS FROM HIS FRIENDS. SHE REDECORATED THE ROCKINGHAM HOUSE TO THE TUNE OF ONE-HALF MILLION DOLLARS AND HE PAID HER, HIS PAID HIS OWN WIFE A FEE TO DECORATE THE HOUSE. THIS MAN THAT DARDEN WAS TALKING ABOUT, THIS MAN GIVES $5,000 EVERY YEAR TO THE ANGEL CITY LINKS, THE INNER CITY BLACK ORGANIZATION, AND THE ONLY CONDITION OF HIS GIFT EVERY YEAR IS IT HAS TO BE ANONYMOUS, THAT HE DOESN'T WANT THEM TO KNOW HE DOES THIS. THE THING THAT HE IS PERHAPS PROUDEST ABOUT ARE THESE THINGS, TWO THINGS THAT I'M GOING TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT. NO. 1 WAS HIS MOTHER EUNICE SIMPSON. AS SOON AS SHE WAS ABLE HE BOUGHT HER A HOUSE. SHE STILL LIVES IN THAT HOUSE IN SAN FRANCISCO. THIS IS A MAN 47 YEARS OLD WHO GREW UP IN THE POOR AREAS OF SAN FRANCISCO IN POTRERO HILLS, BUT HE NEVER GOT -- HE BECAME RICH AND FAMOUS, BUT HE DIDN'T FORGET, SO THAT TO THIS DAY HE BUYS THE UNIFORMS FOR THE KIDS AT THE POTRERO HILL GYMNASIUM WHERE THE KIDS GO TO WORK OUT. HE STILL DOES THAT EVEN RIGHT NOW EVEN WHILE IN HIS JAIL CELL. BOUGHT HIS MOTHER'S HOUSE. YOU WILL HEAR ABOUT THOSE KIND OF THINGS. AND THE SECOND THING HE IS MOST PROUD ABOUT IS THAT HE HAD A CHILD WHO DROWNED AT A YOUNG AGE, AND THAT IS ALWAYS A TRAGEDY, YOU WILL HEAR EVIDENCE ABOUT THAT, AND THE PRONOUNCED AFFECT THAT IT HAD ON HIM, AND AFTER THAT HE BECAME INVOLVED IN ALL THESE KIND OF PEDIATRIC ENDEAVORS AND HE HAS PARTICIPATED IN RAISING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS FOR CAMP GOOD TIME, FOR KIDS WHO HAVE CANCER. HE IS VERY PROUD ABOUT THAT AND THERE IS TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE ABOUT THAT. PEOPLE WHO KNOW HIM, NOT PEOPLE WHO SPECULATE ABOUT HIM, WILL COME IN AND TESTIFY ABOUT THOSE THINGS. AND SO WHEN DR. WALKER TELLS YOU THAT FOR A WEALTHY PERSON TO GIVE GIFTS DOESN'T MEAN YOU ARE EXERCISING ANY CONTROL. ONE OF THE SISTERS NEEDED SOME MONEY, UP TO $5,000, AND HE GAVE IT TO THE SISTER AND HER BOYFRIEND AND THE CONDITION WAS DON'T TELL NICOLE. THAT IS A LOT OF CONTROL, ISN'T IT? SO WHEN YOU HEAR ABOUT THEORIES, I'M GOING TO TELL YOU ABOUT THE FACTS. SO YOU WILL HEAR FROM DR. WALKER AND YOU WILL HEAR ULTIMATELY ABOUT THE BATTERY OF TESTS AND I THINK YOU WILL FIND THAT SHE WILL SAY THAT IN LOOKING AT O.J. SIMPSON AND INTERVIEWING HIM, IN LOOKING AT HIM, AT THIS POINT SHE FINDS NO EVIDENCE OF ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER AND I THINK YOU WILL FIND THAT BECOMES VERY IMPORTANT IN THIS CASE. AND UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS NO JANEY COME LATELY. THIS IS THE LEADING LADY IN AMERICA WHO TESTIFIES IN THESE KIND CASES WHERE A BATTERED WOMAN SHOOTS AND KILLS HER HUSBAND, SO THIS IS AN AREA WHERE OBVIOUSLY YOU WILL GET A CHANCE TO SEE HER QUALIFICATIONS AND HER ABILITY AS SHE GOES ABOUT THIS. NOW, BACK TO MR. DARDEN'S DISCUSSION, HE TELLS YOU A NUMBER OF THINGS AND I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS AT LEAST SOME OF THEM WITH YOU NOW. WE HAVE ALREADY COVERED THE SO-CALLED UGLY MOOD BY SHOWING YOU THE PHOTOGRAPH. WE HAVE COVERED THE ASPECT OF THE FLOWERS BECAUSE MR. SIMPSON DID GET FLOWERS, BUT HE WENT OUT AND GOT THOSE FLOWERS. WE WILL COVER THE ASPECT -- LET ME TALK TO YOU ABOUT MR. SIMPSON AT THAT PARTICULAR RECITAL. I HAVE TOLD YOU HOW HE CAME BACK TO CALIFORNIA SPECIFICALLY TO GO TO THAT RECITAL, THAT HE HAD COME INTO PAUL REVERE AT FIVE O'CLOCK AND SAW HIS EX-WIFE AND HE HAD TO GET HIS TICKET AND TAKE HIS TICKET BACK TO THE PERSON AT THE DOOR, THAT HIS DAUGHTER WAS 30 OF SOMETHING ON THE PROGRAM, AND YOU HAVE BEEN TO PROGRAMS WHERE THE CHILD IS GOING TO COME UP AND THERE IS PROBABLY A HUNDRED PEOPLE THERE AND YOUR CHILD IS 99TH AND SHE WAS LIKE 30 SOMETHING, AND SHE WAS AT THE VERY END, AND AS A PARENT YOU SIT THERE AND YOU ARE REALLY PROUD OF THE YOUNGSTERS AND YOU DO THAT. AS THE PROGRAM WAS GOING HE REMEMBERED THAT HE DIDN'T HAVE ANY FLOWERS WHEN HE FIRST GOT THERE AND HE WAS SITTING -- HE WAS TWO SEATS AWAY FROM HIS EX-WIFE, MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON. HE WASN'T STARING AT ANYBODY. HE WASN'T GLARING AT ANYBODY. HE WASN'T JEALOUS ABOUT ANYTHING. IN FACT, YOU WILL HEAR THE CONVERSATION THAT HE HAD WITH RON GOLDMAN. HE WAS STILL IN THE GROUP, THERE WAS A GROUP OF THEM WHO RAN AROUND TOGETHER IN BRENTWOOD, AND O.J. SIMPSON WAS COMMISERATING WITH RON GOLDMAN ABOUT HIS PROBLEMS HE WAS HAVING. PLEASE FORGIVE ME. RON FICHMAN, EXCUSE ME. I HEARD THOSE SOUNDS, I'M SORRY ABOUT THAT. RON FICHMAN, HE IS THE MAN WHO TOOK THIS PICTURE HERE. HE WAS TALKING ABOUT HIS PROBLEMS WITH CORA FICHMAN AND THE GROUP THAT RAN AROUND TOGETHER. THE TESTIMONY WILL BE THAT HE WAS SAYING I'M GLAD TO BE OUT OF IT, I'M BACK WITH PAULA. AND WAS HE BACK WITH PAULA? YES, HE IS BACK WITH PAULA. THE NIGHT BEFORE -- BEFORE THIS TRIAL IS OVER, WE WILL HAVE ANOTHER PICTURE, BUT THIS PICTURE WILL DO FOR NOW. BY THE WAY, MR. DOUGLAS IS GOING TO HELP US BECAUSE THERE ARE GRAPHICS AND THINGS. I HOPE YOU WILL BEAR WITH US. THANK YOU, MR. DOUGLAS. YOUR HONOR, YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY SEEN THIS PICTURE. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE THIS AGAIN?

THE COURT: NO.

MR. COCHRAN: WE WILL CALL THIS -- THIS IS --

THE COURT: I THOUGHT WE HAD AGREED THAT IT WOULD BE DEFENSE 1.

MR. COCHRAN: 2?

THE COURT: 2, 3, 4.

MR. COCHRAN: I THINK THE CLERK HAS NOW CHANGED, YOUR HONOR. FOR NOW WE WILL CALL IT DEFENSE 2.

THE COURT: AND MRS. ROBERTSON WILL EXPLAIN TO ME THE ERROR OF MY WAYS AT LUNCHTIME.

MR. COCHRAN: YOU ARE IN CHARGE.

THE COURT: NO, I'M NOT.

MR. COCHRAN: THEN THIS IS THEN 201 AND NO. 201 IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF O.J. SIMPSON. THIS PHOTOGRAPH, THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY, WAS TAKEN ON JUNE 11, ON SATURDAY JUNE 11. THAT IS A CHARITABLE FUND-RAISER, I THINK $25,000, BY THE WAY, FOR THE BENEFIT OF ISRAEL AND THAT IS O.J. SIMPSON THERE. AND ON THAT NIGHT, SATURDAY JUNE 11, HE WENT WITH HIS GIRLFRIEND, PAULA BARBIERI, WHO HAD PICKED HIM UP AT THE AIRPORT ON FRIDAY EVENING, JUNE 10TH, WHEN HE CAME BACK FROM WORKING IN THE EAST FROM NEW YORK AND THEY SPENT THAT TIME TOGETHER AND THEY WENT OUT SATURDAY EVENING. SO THIS PICTURE AGAIN IS GRAPHIC EVIDENCE OF O.J. SIMPSON AND WHO HE REALLY IS. IT SEEMS TO US AS I SAID, THERE IS ANOTHER PICTURE OF PAULA BARBIERI WITH HIM THERE THAT WE DON'T HAVE YET, BUT WE WILL. NOW, MR. DARDEN TALKED A LOT ABOUT MISS SIMPSON BEING WEAK AND THAT HE EXERCISED ALL THIS CONTROL OVER HER AND PICKED HER FRIENDS. THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON IS A VERY STRONG INDEPENDENT WOMAN, VERY ATTRACTIVE AND A WONDERFUL WOMAN, AND THE ONE THING THEY NEVER HAD ARGUMENTS ABOUT WERE THOSE BEAUTIFUL CHILDREN, AND THEY BOTH LOVED THOSE BEAUTIFUL CHILDREN, AND THAT WAS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT, IT SEEMS, TO BOTH OF THEM. THAT SHE PICKED AND CHOSE HER OWN FRIENDS, THAT O.J. SIMPSON OR NO ONE ELSE COULD TELL HER WHO HER FRIENDS WERE TO BE. SHE HAD WHATEVER FRIENDS SHE WANTED, SHE DID WHATEVER SHE WANTED. HE TELLS YOU ABOUT TWO INCIDENTS WHERE HE ALLEGES THERE IS STALKING. LET ME TELL YOU THE FACTS AND THE TRUE FACTS ABOUT THOSE INCIDENTS BACKED UP WITH WITNESSES. THERE IS A MAN IN LOS ANGELES NAMED JOE STELLINI WHO OWNS A RESTAURANT ON THE WEST SIDE OUT ON PICO, HE'S A GOOD FRIEND OF O.J. SIMPSON'S, AND THEY WENT OUT TO DINNER ONE NIGHT AND WHILE OUT TO DINNER THEY BECAME AWARE OF MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON IN THEIR PARTY. THIS IS A TIME WHEN THEY WERE SEPARATED. AND THEY HAD AN AGREEMENT GENERALLY THAT IF ONE OR THE OTHER CAME IN WHILE THEY WERE THERE, THE PERSON WHO WAS THERE FIRST WOULD LEAVE OR WHATEVER, THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY PROBLEMS. THE INCIDENT REGARDING JOE STELLINI HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON OR HER PARTY. HE WAS OUT TO DINNER. THEY MIGHT FREQUENT THE SAME KIND OF PLACES. YOU WILL HEAR FROM JOE STELLINI AND YOU WILL SEE THERE IS NOT ANY INCIDENT ABOUT ANY STALKING. THE OTHER INCIDENT WAS ABOUT MEZZALUNA. I BELIEVE THERE WAS AN INCIDENT WHERE THEY WERE BOTH AT THIS RESTAURANT, MRS. SIMPSON'S PARTY HAD ALREADY BEEN SEATED WHEN HE CAME IN, AND AGAIN YOU WILL HEAR FROM THESE PARTIES WHO WILL TELL YOU THAT THESE WERE NOT ANY STALKING INCIDENTS. IF YOU LIVE IN BRENTWOOD AND THERE ARE RESTAURANTS IN THAT AREA AND YOU GO OUT TO DINNER A LOT, YOU ARE GOING TO RUN INTO EACH OTHER. AND THERE WAS NO HOSTILITY, NO STALKING, NO JEALOUSY, NO NOTHING. AND SO HE TRIES TO PAINT O.J. SIMPSON AS A JEALOUS MAN. LET ME TELL YOU WHAT THE EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE ABOUT THAT. YOU HEARD ABOUT THIS INCIDENT OF KEITH ZLOMSOWITCH, I'M SURE, WHO IS A WITNESS WHO IS GOING TO BE CALLED. MR. DARDEN DESCRIBED IT. AND REMEMBER HE SAID YESTERDAY, WELL, HE DIDN'T PUNCH OUT NICOLE AND HE DIDN'T PUNCH OUT KEITH, OR WORDS TO THAT EFFECT. HE CERTAINLY DIDN'T. WHAT HAPPENED WAS MR. SIMPSON, IN ONE OF THESE INCIDENTS, HAD SEEN HIS EX-WIFE OUT, THEY WENT OUT DANCING AFTERWARD, AND HE STOPPED BY HER HOUSE AFTERWARDS TO TRY TO TALK TO HER. HE WOULD GO BY ON OCCASION. AND THE EVIDENCE WILL BE THAT WHEN THEY FIRST BROKE UP, HE IS ADVISED IN JANUARY OF 1992 THAT SHE WANTED A DIVORCE. IN JANUARY AND APRIL OF 1992 IT WAS HARD ON HIM. HE HAD KNOWN SOMEBODY FOR SEVENTEEN YEARS AND HE DIDN'T WANT TO LOSE HER. HE LIKES FAMILY. HE LEARNED THAT FROM HIS MOTHER AND HE LIKES THAT. HE HAS THIS FAMILY AND HE LOVES HIS CHILDREN AND HE DIDN'T WANT TO LOSE HIS WIFE. BUT SOMETHING HAPPENED IN APRIL OF 1992, AS SOON AS THAT HE BECAME AWARE THAT SHE HAD A BOYFRIEND, FROM THAT POINT ON HIS INTERESTS CHANGED AND HE WENT ON, AND WHEN HE SAW WHAT HE SAW WITH KEITH AND MRS. SIMPSON, HE THEN WENT ON WITH HIS LIFE WITH PAULA. THAT IS WHEN IT STARTED, IN APRIL OF 1992. AND SO WHAT HAPPENED WAS HE WASN'T PEERING IN ANY WINDOWS. HE CAME TO THE FRONT DOOR TO TRY TO SEE HIS WIFE AND HE LOOKED IN AND HE SAW HIS WIFE MAKING LOVE TO A GENTLEMAN ON THAT COUCH. NOW, ACCORDING TO CHRIS DARDEN, WOULDN'T YOU EXPECT THAT HE WOULD JUST BLOW UP, BECOME BALLISTIC? HE WENT HOME, THE EVIDENCE WILL BE, HE CAME BACK THE NEXT DAY TO TALK TO MRS. SIMPSON ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE KIDS WERE UPSTAIRS AND WHAT HE SAW THEM DOING HE DIDN'T THINK WOULD BE APPROPRIATE IF ONE OF THE KIDS CAME DOWNSTAIRS. SO WHEN HE CAME BACK ON THE NEXT DAY OF THIS INCIDENT HE SAW KEITH I THINK SITTING ASTRIDE MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, GIVING HER A MASSAGE OR SOMETHING IN HER SHOULDERS. O.J. SIMPSON TALKED TO BOTH OF THEM, SHOOK KEITH'S HAND, WENT ON HIS WAY AND SAID ESSENTIALLY, LOOK, I DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD BE DOING THIS IN FRONT OF THE KIDS OR WHATEVER. THEY DIDN'T TELL YOU THAT KEITH ZLOMSOWITCH MOVED IN WITH NICOLE THAT SUMMER, BUT O.J. SIMPSON WAS BACK WITH PAULA. IT DIDN'T BOTHER HIM. HE KNEW SHE WAS THERE, THAT KEITH WAS THERE. WAS HE STALKING? WAS HE JEALOUS? WAS THAT A RAGE? I THINK NOT.

SO AGAIN, I WANT YOU TO TAKE THESE FACTS AND LOOK AT THEM. BUT THERE IS AN EVEN MORE PAINFUL INCIDENT PROBABLY THAT TELLS YOU THAT HE IS NOT JEALOUS. HE HAS A VERY CLOSE FRIEND, SOMEBODY WHO IS VERY NEAR AND DEAR TO HIM, THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW, WHO HAD A RELATIONSHIP WITH NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON BECAUSE SHE TOLD HIM SO WHEN THEY GOT BACK TOGETHER, AND THIS GENTLEMAN TOLD HIM SO, AND IT WAS HURTFUL, BUT HE NEVER SAID A HARSH WORD TO HER OR THIS GENTLEMAN. HE DIDN'T GO BALLISTIC, HE DIDN'T DO ANY OF THESE THINGS. IN FACT, YOU KNOW WHAT HE DID? HE LET THIS GENTLEMAN GET MARRIED AT HIS ROCKINGHAM HOUSE AFTER LEARNING THAT THIS GENTLEMAN HAD BEEN INTIMATE WITH HIS WIFE. THAT IS WHAT O.J. SIMPSON DID ON THAT OCCASION. YOUR HONOR, MAY I APPROACH A MINUTE?

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

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A TEN-MINUTE RECESS. LOVE THE TIE, LOVE THE SUSPENDERS. LET'S TAKE A TEN-MINUTE RECESS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. LET'S STEP BACK IN THE JURY ROOM AND WE WILL RESUME IN TEN MINUTES.

(RECESS.)

(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. ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL ARE AGAIN PRESENT. THE JURY IS NOT PRESENT. COUNSEL, WE WILL TAKE UP AT NOON -- APPARENTLY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE HAS RECEIVED SEVERAL COMMENTS THAT APPARENTLY JURORS ARE VISIBLE IN THE REFLECTION OFF OF THE BAILIFF CUBICLE THERE. I HAVE LOOKED AT THE VIDEOTAPE. IT DOES NOT APPEAR APPARENT TO ME, BUT I ONLY TOOK ABOUT THIRTY SECONDS TO LOOK AT IT. WE WILL LOOK INTO IT AT NOON.

MR. COCHRAN: WE CAN PUT A CLOTH THERE BUT WE HAVE A SECURITY CONCERN.

THE COURT: NO. WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS TAKE HAIRSPRAY SO THAT IT WON'T REFLECT IS WHAT I'M GOING TO DO, BUT RATHER THAN HAVE EVERYBODY MOVE WHILE I HAIRSPRAY IT -- ALL RIGHT. DEPUTY MAGNERA, LET'S HAVE THE JURORS. MR. COCHRAN, IF YOU WANT TO SLOP OVER A COUPLE OF MINUTES THERE, BUT CLOSE TO 12:00.

THE COURT: CONCLUDE YOUR THOUGHT.

MR. DARDEN: WOULD YOU INQUIRE OF MR. COCHRAN AS TO HIS TIME ESTIMATE.

THE COURT: MY GUESS IS --

MR. DARDEN: I MEAN YOU KNOW --

THE COURT: IF I HAD TO GUESS, THAT WAS THE INTRODUCTION.

MR. COCHRAN: IT WILL BE THIS AFTERNOON. WE ARE WORRIED ABOUT WITNESSES? WE ARE LEAVING AT 3:30 TODAY, JUDGE? I WILL MAKE SURE I WILL FINISH BEFORE THEN.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. HERE ARE THE JURORS.

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

THE COURT: THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT WE HAVE BEEN REJOINED BY ALL OF OUR JURORS. COUNSEL, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, BE SEATED, PLEASE. THANK YOU.

MR. COCHRAN: JUST ONE SECOND.

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, DO YOU WISH TO CONTINUE?

MR. COCHRAN: YES, I DO, YOUR HONOR. CAN I HAVE JUST ONE SECOND? I'M TRYING TO PICK UP THE LAST THOUGHT.

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WANTED TO TRY AND PICK UP WHERE WE LEFT OFF. TO CONCLUDE THOSE REMARKS ABOUT THIS FRIEND, I THINK THAT SPEAKS VOLUMES ABOUT MR. SIMPSON'S STABILITY, HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS EX-WIFE. I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL ALSO SHOW THAT IN ABOUT MAY OF 1992 MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON CAME OVER TO THE ROCKINGHAM HOUSE AND SAID SHE HAD FOUND A BOYFRIEND, SOMEBODY DIFFERENT THAN KEITH WHERE THE INCIDENT WAS APRIL OF 1992, AND ASKED MR. SIMPSON FOR SOME ADVICE. HE OF COURSE KNEW AT THAT POINT THAT IT WAS OVER AND HE WAS BACK WITH PAULA AND WENT ON WITH HIS LIFE, AS I SAID, UNTIL SUCH TIME AS IN 1993 SHE DECIDED SHE WANTED TO GET BACK TOGETHER AT THAT POINT. NOW, TO CLEAR UP -- I WANT TO ALWAYS KEEP THE FAITH WITH YOU ABOUT BEING AS ACCURATE AS I CAN. THE TWO INCIDENTS THAT THEY TALKED ABOUT, THE ONE INCIDENT INVOLVING THE MAN JOE STELLINI WAS AT MEZZALUNA AND THE OTHER INCIDENT WAS A RESTAURANT CALLED TRYST AND IN BOTH INCIDENTS THERE WAS NO PROBLEM, NO FIGHT, AND IN FACT AT THE TRYST INCIDENT I BELIEVE IT WAS -- MEZZALUNA INCIDENT -- MR. SIMPSON WENT HOME WITH HIS WIFE THAT NIGHT, SO THAT THIS WAS NOT ANY INCIDENT WHERE THEY WERE STALKING OR FIGHTING, ANYTHING LIKE THAT. THERE WAS NO OBSESSIVE BEHAVIOR. I HOPE TO PUT THOSE IN SOME KIND OF PERSPECTIVE. MR. DARDEN TALKED IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT ABOUT APRIL, 1985, INCIDENT IN WHICH SOME DAMAGE WAS DONE TO A VEHICLE, AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE TESTIMONY WILL BE THAT WAS NOT ANY INCIDENT IN 1985 BECAUSE MISS NICOLE WAS PREGNANT, HAD A C-SECTION LATER IN THAT YEAR AND THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY SITUATION LIKE THAT. THEY DID HAVE SOME DISCUSSION APPARENTLY MAYBE IN '86 OR IN '84, SOME DAMAGE DONE TO A CAR AND SHE WAS NOT IN THAT CAR. SHE WAS NOT STRUCK ON THAT OCCASION, SO I THINK YOU WILL FIND THAT INCIDENT OF NOT GREAT CONSEQUENCE. MR. DARDEN TALKED ABOUT THE 1993 911 TAPE THAT YOU'VE HEARD SO MUCH ABOUT AND I THINK EVEN HE CONCEDED YESTERDAY THAT IN THAT SITUATION, ALTHOUGH YOU COULD HEAR MR. SIMPSON'S VOICE, HE WAS ANGRY, MR. SIMPSON NEVER LAID A HAND ON HIS WIFE, NEVER CALLED HER A NAME. AND I THINK THE IMPORTANT THING ABOUT A TRIAL IS THAT FINALLY YOU ARE GOING TO GET TO HEAR ALL OF THIS TAPE AND WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO HEAR, MR. DARDEN DIDN'T TELL YOU THIS YESTERDAY, IS THAT THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ON THIS 911 TAPE AND HE ALLUDED TO THE FACT THAT MR. SIMPSON COULDN'T GET OUT OF HIS MIND WHAT HE HAD SEEN BACK ON APRIL, 1992. WELL, NOW, FIRST OF ALL, MOST OF US MIGHT HAVE A PROBLEM GETTING THAT PICTURE OUT OF OUR MIND OF SEEING YOUR WIFE MAKING LOVE TO SOMEONE ELSE, BUT AT ANY RATE, THIS WASN'T THE REASON FOR THE ARGUMENT. WHAT HAD HAPPENED WAS, AND THE FACTS WILL BE, THAT WHEN THEY STARTED TRYING TO GET BACK TOGETHER AGAIN IN '93, THEY HAD AN AGREEMENT THAT THEY WOULD TAKE THE PICTURES OF THEIR BOYFRIENDS AND GIRLFRIENDS OUT OF -- PUT THEM AWAY, BASICALLY, WHICH SEEMED TO BE A REASONABLE REQUEST, AND THERE WAS A DISPUTE BECAUSE WHEN MISS BROWN SIMPSON WOULD EVER SEE PAULA BARBIERI'S PICTURE, SHE WAS VERY UPSET ABOUT THAT, AND MR. SIMPSON, ON THIS DATE, I BELIEVE, SAW A PICTURE OF SOMEBODY THAT SHE HAD DATED DURING THE TIME THEY HAD BEEN SEPARATED AND HE SAID, GEE, WHAT IS FAIR FOR ME WILL BE FAIR TO YOU AND THEY GOT INTO THIS CONVERSATION THAT WENT OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. AT SOME POINT THERE WAS JUST A VERBAL CONVERSATION, IT ESCALATED, AND TEMPERS FLARE AND THAT SOMETIMES HAPPENS WITH MARRIED COUPLES. THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT BUT SOMETIMES IT HAPPENS. HE CAME OVER TO HER HOUSE AND HE DID IN FACT KICK A FRENCH DOOR. THE EVIDENCE WILL BE THE DOOR WAS ALREADY BROKEN AND HE FIXED IT BUT HE NEVER AT ANY TIME STRUCK HIS WIFE DURING THIS PERIOD OF TIME AND WHAT HE WAS SAYING -- AT SOME POINT SHE SAYS, "O.J., O.J., BE QUIET, WHAT ABOUT THE KIDS?" AND HE SAYS, ESSENTIALLY, "YOU WEREN'T THINKING ABOUT THE KIDS AND BEING QUIET WHEN YOU WERE ON THE COUCH WITH KEITH." I THINK YOU WILL HEAR THIS ON THE TAPE. SO YOU PUT IT THIS PERSPECTIVE. AND THE IMPORTANT POINT TO MAKE IS THAT NOBODY WAS EVER INJURED DURING THIS PERIOD OF TIME AND IN FACT THERE IS A TAPE-RECORDING AND A TRANSCRIPT OF SOME POLICE OFFICERS WHO CAME OUT AND TALKED WITH THESE PARTIES AND IN THAT TAPE YOU WILL GET A CHANCE TO HEAR WHAT MISS BROWN SIMPSON THOUGHT ABOUT THAT INCIDENT AND THEY ALSO TALKED TO O.J. WHO WAITED THERE FOR THEM, HE AGREED TO FIX THIS DOOR, AND THEY WENT ON WITH THEIR LIVES AND WENT ON AND CONTINUED DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME TO GET ALONG. THIS WAS A TIME THEY WERE BACK TOGETHER. YOU SHOULD NOTE THAT MR. SIMPSON, BECAUSE OF HOW HE HAS CONDUCTED HIS LIFE AND THE THINGS HE HAS DONE IN HIS LIFE, HAS BEEN ABLE TO AMASS SOME ASSETS. NOT BAD FOR A YOUNG MAN, A SPINDLY LEG YOUTH FROM SAN FRANCISCO WHO SUFFERED WITH RICKETS, WHO HAD TROUBLE WALKING, WAS CARED FOR BY HIS MOTHER, WHO GREW UP TO BECOME THE GREATEST RUNNING BACK IN THE HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE. AND SO BECAUSE OF THAT AND HIS COMMERCIAL ENDORSEMENTS AND THINGS, HE IS ABLE TO HAVE SEVERAL HOMES. HE HAS A HOME IN NEW YORK, AND THE EVIDENCE WILL BE THAT IN AUGUST OF EACH YEAR, BECAUSE OF HIS COMMITMENTS WITH NBC, HE WOULD GO AND LIVE IN NEW YORK. HE WOULDN'T TRY TO CONTROL MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON. SHE WOULD DO WHAT SHE WANTED HERE. EVEN DURING '93 HE WAS LIVING IN NEW YORK FROM AUGUST TO JANUARY, MAYBE AFTER THE SUPERBOWL, FROM AUGUST TO JANUARY HE WOULD BE BACK THERE AT HIS NEW YORK HOUSE. HE ALSO HAD A HOUSE IN LAGUNA BEACH IN ORANGE COUNTY AND THE ONE THING THAT I FORGOT TO TELL YOU ABOUT THE CIRCLE OF BENEVOLENCE, HE ASSISTED HIS WIFE IN BUYING A CONDO IN LAGUNA FOR HERSELF SEPARATE FROM HER HOUSE, SO WHEN SHE WAS AT ROCKINGHAM SHE HAD TWO CONDOS IN HER OWN NAME, ONE IN LAGUNA, ONE IN SAN FRANCISCO SHE IS GETTING MONEY FROM AND LIVING IN ROCKINGHAM. THEY DIDN'T TELL YOU ABOUT THAT. HE ALSO HAD BOUGHT SOME PROPERTY IN CABO SAN LUCAS WHERE HE HAD PLANNED TO BUILD. ALL OF THE THINGS THAT HE WAS DOING WAS ABOUT THE FAMILY, KEEPING THE FAMILY TOGETHER, DOING THINGS WITH IN-LAWS AND WITH FRIENDS AND WITH THE CHILDREN, SO I THINK YOU WILL HEAR EVIDENCE ABOUT THE FACT THAT HE WAS AWAY GREAT PERIODS OF TIME. AND WHILE I'M ABOUT THAT, LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT THE KIND OF SCHEDULE THIS MAN HAD. YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO SEE HIS CALENDAR YET, BUT AT SOME POINT HOPEFULLY WE WILL. IF YOU WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT MR. O.J. SIMPSON'S DAILY CALENDAR FROM JANUARY TO JUNE OF 1994, YOU WOULD FIND A MAN THAT IN JANUARY WAS OUT OF TOWN AND PROBABLY STILL LIVING IN NEW YORK ALMOST EVERY DAY, BUT HE WAS OUT OF NEW YORK BECAUSE HE WAS TRAVELING. SOME OF WHO KNOW THIS IS SUPERBOWL WEEK, YOU CAN IMAGINE HE WAS IN ATLANTA THAT WEEK BECAUSE THAT IS WHERE THE SUPERBOWL WAS LAST YEAR. THE EVIDENCE WILL BE THAT THIS WAS A TIME THAT HE AND HIS WIFE WERE TRYING TO MAKE IT, THAT HE TOOK SOME FAMILY MEMBERS, THE BROWNS FROM GERMANY, TO THE SUPERBOWL IN ATLANTA, PAID FOR ALL OF THEM, GOT THEM 50-YARD SEATS AND TOOK THEM TO ALL THE BIG PARTIES THAT WERE GOING ON THIS WEEK. HE WAS AGAIN OUT OF TOWN DURING ALL OF THAT PARTICULAR MONTH. IF YOU LOOK AT HIS CALENDAR, AND THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY, THAT IN FEBRUARY HE SPENT A LOT OF TIME IN CABO SAN LUCAS, HE WAS THIS NASHVILLE, IN ST. LOUIS, IN MIAMI, IN MIAMI AGAIN INVOLVED IN CHARITABLE WORK. FEW DAYS WILL YOU FIND HE WAS HE HERE IN LOS ANGELES. IF YOU LOOKED AT MARCH YOU WILL FIND THAT HE WAS IN NEW YORK, HE WAS DOING BRYANT GUMBLE'S CHARITABLE GOLF TOURNAMENT IN ORLANDO, FLORIDA. BACK IN NEW YORK AGAIN. HE WAS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY DOING VARIOUS AND SUNDRY THINGS. YOU GOT TO THE MONTH OF APRIL, HE WAS BACK IN CABO. FROM THERE HE CAME BACK TO LOS ANGELES. THEN HE WENT TO PUERTO RICO. THE EVIDENCE WILL BE THAT AS SOME YOU KNOW, HE IS AN ACTOR, A WOULD-BE ACTOR, AND THAT HE MADE THIS MOVIE FROGMAN DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME IN PUERTO RICO, AGAIN VERY MUCH OUT OF CALIFORNIA. AND IN MAY, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SOME THINGS THAT HE CAME TO DO FOR HIS CHILDREN -- AND BY THE WAY, AGAIN TALKING ABOUT THE KIND OF THINGS THAT HE WOULD DO AT ROCKINGHAM -- AND YOU WILL SEE THIS PLACE AT ROCKINGHAM -- ON MAY 22ND HE HAD A SCHOOL PICNIC AT ROCKINGHAM. HE HAD A NUMBER OF KIDS -- AND I THINK THAT IS FOR THE SUNSHINE PRESCHOOL. THAT IS WHERE HIS SON JUSTIN WENT. IT WAS A FUND-RAISER FOR THIS SCHOOL AND THEY HAVE ALL THESE KIDS AND ALL THE PEOPLE WOULD COME TO HIS HOUSE AT ROCKINGHAM TO RAISE MONEY FOR THE SCHOOL. ON MAY 22ND HE DID THAT AND NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON WAS THERE, AND EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD AGREED IN MAY, EARLIER THAT MONTH IN MAY AND HE WAS NOW BACK WITH PAULA, WHEN NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON GOT SICK THE WEEK OF MAY 15, 1994, SHE HAD PNEUMONIA, O.J. SIMPSON WAS THE ONE THAT TOOK HER SOUP AND TRIED TO NURSE HER BACK TO GET HER BACK ON HER FEET EVEN THOUGH THEY AGREED THEY WEREN'T GOING TO BE TOGETHER ANY MORE. YOU HEARD TESTIMONY WITH REGARD TO THAT AND HE CONTINUED OF COURSE BEING IN AND OUT OF TOWN. IN JUNE OF 1994 HE HAD HAD AND HAD TAKEN HIS TWO CHILDREN, SYDNEY AND JUSTIN -- AND LET ME SAY SOMETHING AT THIS POINT. MR. SIMPSON HAS TWO OTHER CHILDREN THAT HE'S EQUALLY PROUD OF. THE MINORS CANNOT BE HERE OBVIOUSLY FOR OBVIOUS REASONS, BUT HE HAS TWO OTHER CHILDREN THAT HE'S EQUALLY PROUD OF AND THEY ARE HERE IN COURT TODAY AND THERE IS ARNELLE SIMPSON OVER THERE AND JASON SIMPSON SITTING BETWEEN HIS TWO SISTERS, CARMEN DURIO AND MISS SHIRLEY BAKER, AND THE BALANCE OF THE FAMILY, AND YOU HAVE MET MISS EUNICE SIMPSON ALREADY.

SO HE ON MAY 5TH ATTENDED A PEDIATRICS AIDS AFFAIR, AGAIN HIS INTEREST IN CHILDREN AND AIDS AND CHARITABLE WORK, ALONG WITH PAULA AND HE TOOK THE TWO YOUNGER CHILDREN, A REAL FINE DAY, AND THAT WAS ON THAT SUNDAY. ON THAT TUESDAY HE LEFT TO GO TO WASHINGTON D.C. AGAIN HE LEFT TOWN, HE HAD TO WORK. ON WEDNESDAY HE WAS WORKING FOR HERTZ IN WASHINGTON D.C. ON THURSDAY HE IS IN CONNECTICUT WORKING AGAIN AT ONE OF HIS BOARD MEETINGS, HE IS ON THESE VARIOUS BOARDS, SOME CHARITABLE, SOME PROFITABLE, HOPEFULLY. HE WAS IN CONNECTICUT. ON FRIDAY -- THURSDAY NIGHT HE WAS IN NEW YORK WITH HIS FRIEND BENDER AND HE HAD WORKED AND HE WOULD TRY TO PLAY GOLF DURING THESE PERIODS OF TIME. YOU RECALL I MENTIONED THAT MR. BENDER SUGGESTED, "YOU ARE GOING TO BE IN CHICAGO ON TUESDAY OR MONDAY NIGHT, STAY OVER." HE CAME HOME FOR THE RECITAL. AND WHEN YOU SEE HIS CALENDAR, YOU WILL SEE, IT IS PLANNED ALL THE WAY OUT, FAR BEYOND JUNE, OF COURSE, OF 1994. BUT IT GIVES YOU A SENSE OF THIS MAN, THIS MAN'S LIFE, WHAT HE HAD BEEN ABLE TO DO WITH HIS LIFE AND WITH HIMSELF. I POINT OUT THESE THINGS TO YOU BECAUSE I THINK AS YOU LOOK AT ALL OF THE INCIDENTS THAT MR. DARDEN TALKED ABOUT, THAT PUTS THEM INTO PERSPECTIVE. THIS IS NOT A CASE ABOUT DOMESTIC ABUSE. THIS IS A MURDER CASE. THIS IS A MURDER CASE ABOUT WHO DID THESE HORRIBLE CRIMES. THAT IS GOING TO BE YOUR DECISION, NOT TO THINK THAT O.J. SIMPSON IS A BAD GUY OR A GOOD GUY FOR THAT MATTER, BUT TO GET A PICTURE OF HIM, I THINK THAT YOU WILL AGREE WITH ME THAT AFTER YOU HEAR THE FACT YOU WILL HAVE A CLEARER PICTURE. NOW, ABOUT THE 19 -- WE TALKED ABOUT THE 1993 INCIDENT, I THINK WE DID, AND I THINK THAT IS -- THOSE ARE THE MAIN INCIDENTS THAT MR. DARDEN TALKED ABOUT. ONE THING I WANTED TO POINT OUT TO YOU IS THAT THERE WILL BE, I BELIEVE, TESTIMONY THAT AS THESE PARTIES GOT A DIVORCE, AS SO OFTEN HAPPENS, MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON HAD HER DEPOSITION TAKEN AND SHE HAD MADE A STATEMENT DURING THAT DEPOSITION WITH REGARD TO WHETHER HE EVER PHYSICALLY STRUCK HER AFTER THE '89 INCIDENT, AND IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO HEAR WHAT THAT IS. MARK FUHRMAN BECOMES EVEN MORE RELEVANT IN THIS CASE AS WE GO ALONG AND DISCUSS IT, BECAUSE HE WAS THE OFFICER WHO SUPPOSEDLY RESPONDED, HE SAYS, IN '85. THERE IS ANOTHER INCIDENT THAT -- THE INCIDENT INVOLVING THE BAT AND MERCEDES WAS NOT IN '85 BECAUSE SHE WAS PREGNANT, BUT HE WRITES A REPORT FOUR YEARS LATER IN '89 SAYING HE HAD AN INDELIBLE IMPRESSION OF MR. O.J. SIMPSON, AND IN COMING TO THAT LOCATION, AN INDELIBLE IMPRESSION, SO WE WILL HAVE TO PURSUE THAT INCIDENT AND WHETHER OR NOT THIS REPORT HE WROTE FOUR YEARS LATER AND WHETHER OR NOT IT IS ACCURATE AND IT WAS NOT DONE CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH THE INCIDENT. MR. DARDEN ALSO SAYS THAT THIS WAS NOT A TABLOID PROSECUTION. THAT IS INTERESTING. HE USED THOSE WORDS, DIDN'T HE? HE SAID, FIRST OF ALL, THIS WASN'T CHARACTERIZATION ASSASSINATION AND WHICH WE NOW KNOW IT WAS, AND HE SAYS THIS IS NOT A TABLOID PROSECUTION. WELL, I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL BE THAT AFTER THIS BOOK THAT YOU'VE HEARD ABOUT FROM HIS SO-CALLED FRIEND, FAYE RESNICK, STARTED COMING OUT, THAT IS WHEN THE PEOPLE STARTED GETTING ALL THESE WITNESSES WHO WANTED TO COME FORWARD TO TALK ABOUT THESE INCIDENTS. SO WHETHER OR NOT IT IS A TABLOID PROSECUTION IS NOT FOR ME TO SAY; IT IS GOING TO BE FOR YOU TO SAY. LET ME SAY THIS ABOUT FAYE RESNICK --

MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT MR. COCHRAN. YOUR HONOR, ONCE AGAIN, MY OBJECTION HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY NOTED.

THE COURT: I CAUTIONED MR. COCHRAN ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE JUST ABOUT TO LAUNCH INTO BECAUSE THAT PERSON IS NOT ON THE WITNESS LIST, AND WHEN YOU SAY "LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT SOMEBODY," I'M CONCERNED.

MR. HODGMAN: AND --

MR. COCHRAN: THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT --

THE COURT: WELL, I THINK WE SHOULD HEAR THESE OBJECTIONS AT THE SIDE BAR.

MR. COCHRAN: LET'S DO IT WITHOUT THE REPORTER. I THINK WE CAN RESOLVE IT. MAY WE?

THE COURT: PLEASE.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE REPORTER.

THE COURT: NO.

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

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. LET'S RESUME, PLEASE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OH, EXCUSE ME, SIR. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. EXCUSE ME. I TALKED JUST BRIEFLY ABOUT THIS WITNESS, FAYE RESNICK, AND YOU MAY OR MAY NOT HEAR FROM HER. SHE IS ON OUR WITNESS LIST. THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY -- WE MAY CALL HER FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS.

MR. HODGMAN: OBJECT, YOUR HONOR. IF THERE IS ONLY A POSSIBILITY --

THE COURT: COUNSEL, OVERRULED.

MR. COCHRAN: THE REASON WHY I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW IT WILL BE RELEVANT TO YOU IS THAT ON OR ABOUT JUNE 3RD OF 1994, FAYE RESNICK, WHO HAD HAD A LONG TIME RELATIONSHIP WITH A DR. KRISTIN REICHARDT, WHOM WE WILL DEFINITELY BE CALLING, THEY HAD BEEN LIVING TOGETHER FOR A LONG TIME, AND BECAUSE OF HER DRUG USAGE, BECAUSE OF THE FACT SHE WAS FREEBASING COCAINE, HE PUT HER OUT LITERALLY, THEY BROKE UP.

THEY RAN IN THIS CIRCLE OUT THERE IN BRENTWOOD. AND WHEN SHE WAS PUT OUT ON JUNE 3RD, WHICH I THINK WAS A FRIDAY, SHE THEN MOVED OVER AND LIVED WITH NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON. BECAUSE THEY WERE FRIENDS, THEY WOULD GO OUT AT NIGHT. THESE WERE ALL OF -- THE EVIDENCE WILL BE THESE LADIES WOULD GO OUT TWO, THREE, FOUR NIGHTS A WEEK AND STAY OUT UNTIL FIVE O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING. NOBODY WAS CONTROLLING THESE WOMEN. THERE IS A GROUP OF THEM AND YOU WILL HEAR ABOUT IT, THEY GO OUT DANCING, THEY WOULD DO WHATEVER THEY WOULD DO, AND WE KNOW FAYE RESNICK WAS USING DRUGS DURING THIS PERIOD OF TIME. IT GOT SO BAD THE EVIDENCE WILL BE THAT ON JUNE 8TH, 1994, THEY HAD WHAT WE CALL AN INTERVENTION, THAT NICOLE AND KRISTIN REICHARDT AND HER FORMER HUSBAND, PAUL RESNICK, ALL GOT TOGETHER TO TRY AND CONVINCE HER THAT SHE HAD TO GO INTO A DRUG TREATMENT FACILITY CALLED EXODUS, AND ON THE 8TH OF JUNE --

MR. HODGMAN: EXCUSE ME, COUNSEL. I'M SORRY ONCE AGAIN. YOUR HONOR, YOU HAD ASKED US OR GAVE US LEAVE TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES --

THE COURT: OVERRULED. PLEASE BE SEATED.

MR. HODGMAN: -- DURING THE NOON HOUR.

THE COURT: PLEASE BE SEATED.

MR. HODGMAN: VERY WELL.

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

MR. COCHRAN: GOES INTO A DRUG TREATMENT FACILITY ON JUNE 8TH AND SHE REMAINS THERE AND SHE IS THERE ON JUNE 12, AND I THINK YOU WILL HEAR FROM THE EVIDENCE THAT SHE IS ONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT CALLED MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE 12, PERHAPS AFTER NINE O'CLOCK, THAT PARTICULAR NIGHT, FROM THIS DRUG TREATMENT FACILITY. WE WILL BE TALKING ABOUT THAT AND HER ROLE IN THIS WHOLE DRAMA. TO CONCLUDE THEN, WHAT I HAVE TRIED TO DO IN THIS OPENING STATEMENT, TO LAY OUT FOR YOU THE FACT THAT IN ALMOST EVERYTHING YOU HEAR IN THIS CASE THERE ARE TWO SIDES, THAT AS JURORS I'M SURE YOU ARE NOT GOING TO RUSH TO JUDGMENT, THAT THIS SHOULD NOT BE A CASE ABOUT CHARACTER ASSASSINATION. AND I HOPE YOU WILL KEEP AN OPEN MIND UNTIL YOU HEAR ALL OF THE EVIDENCE AS IT RELATES TO WHO MR. SIMPSON IS. NOW, SHIFTING OUR ATTENTION NOW TO THE DISCUSSION, AND A VERY ABLE DISCUSSION OF MISS MARCIA CLARK YESTERDAY, IT SEEMED TO ME, AS YOU SUMMARIZED WHAT SHE HAD TO SAY TO YOU, THAT HER ARGUMENT BROKE DOWN OR -- WELL, IT WAS ARGUMENT AT THE END -- BUT HER OPENING STATEMENT BROKE DOWN INTO A DISCUSSION OF TIMELINE AND SO-CALLED EVIDENCE TRAILS. LET ME, FIRST OF ALL, TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE CONCEPT OF THE TIMELINE. WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT -- AND LET ME TELL YOU WHAT SHE DIDN'T TELL YOU ABOUT. SOME OF THIS WE COVERED SO I WON'T BE REDUNDANT, BUT THERE ARE WITNESSES LIKE THE LADY WHO LIVED NEXT DOOR TO MR. SIMPSON. THERE IS A MR. TOM LANG THAT SHE KNOWS ABOUT AND DIDN'T TELL YOU ABOUT WHO ON THIS PARTICULAR NIGHT, JUNE 12, 1994, WAS WALKING HIS DOG ON THE STREET CALLED DOROTHY STREET RIGHT DOWN THE WAY FROM MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S CONDO AT 875. THAT FROM HIS VANTAGE POINT JUST A SHORT DISTANCE ON THE CORNER HE LOOKED UP AND HE SAW A LADY THAT HE BELIEVED WAS MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON EMBRACING SOMEONE AT A VEHICLE AT THE CURB AND BEHIND MISS SIMPSON HE SAW A MAN THAT HE DESCRIBED AS HISPANIC OR CAUCASIAN STANDING WITH HIS HANDS CLENCHED STANDING THERE LOOKING AS THOUGH HE WAS ANGRY. AND HE DIDN'T KNOW WHY THIS MAN WAS LOOKING LIKE THIS, AND THIS IS ABOUT TEN O'CLOCK ON JUNE 12, WHETHER HE WAS ANGRY -- MR. LANG DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER HE WAS ANGRY BECAUSE HIS DOG WAS LOOSE OR WHAT, BUT AGAIN, THIS IS WHAT I EXPECT HIS TESTIMONY TO BE, THIS IS AT TEN O'CLOCK, AND HE SEES A LADY THAT HE BELIEVES IS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AT THAT POINT. I TALKED TO YOU BRIEFLY BEFORE ABOUT ELLEN ARRONSON AND DAN MANDEL WHO SHE DIDN'T TALK TO -- SHE HAS TALKED TO THEM BUT SHE DIDN'T TALK TO THEM YESTERDAY -- AS THEY WALK PAST THIS PLACE RIGHT AT ABOUT 10:25 OR THEREABOUTS. AND THERE IS ANOTHER WITNESS WHOSE NAME IS ROBERT HEIDSTRA AND ROBERT HEIDSTRA IS IN AN ALLEY ONE STREET OVER, BUT WHEN YOU GO OUT THERE YOU WILL BE ABLE TO SEE HOW WELL YOU CAN HEAR LATE AT NIGHT, ESPECIALLY ON A SUNDAY NIGHT, AT THIS LOCATION. MR. HEIDSTRA, ACCORDING TO HIS STATEMENTS, IS WALKING IN THIS ALLEY. NOW IT IS ABOUT 10:35 OR 10:40. AS HE WALKS PARALLEL TO WHERE THE BUNDY RESIDENCE IS, HE WILL BE THEN LOOKING WEST, HE HEARS SOUND OF LIKE ARGUING AND HE HEARS SOMEONE OR A VOICE SAY, "HEY, HEY, HEY," AND HE HEARS THE SOUND OF A FENCE CLOSING AND HE CONTINUES ON WALKING HIS DOG. NOW, THIS IS AT 10:40 OR THEREABOUTS AND YOU KNOW THEN AT 10:45 MARYANNE GERCHAS SEES THESE FOUR MEN RUNNING FROM 875 DOWN TOWARD HER DIRECTION AND SHE BELIEVES THEY ARE COMING AFTER HER AT THAT POINT. IN HER STATEMENT TO YOU YESTERDAY MISS CLARK TALKED TO YOU A LOT ABOUT ALLAN PARK AND I READ YOU SOME OF HIS TRANSCRIPTS, SOME OF HIS TESTIMONY THAT YOU DIDN'T HEAR ABOUT, AND I THINK THERE WILL BE CONSIDERABLY MORE WITH REGARD TO MR. PARK. AND MR. KATO, KATO KAELIN, AN INTERESTING MAN, AND I THINK THAT IT WILL BE INTERESTING WHEN YOU HEAR FROM MR. KATO KAELIN ABOUT MR. SIMPSON AND HOW HE APPEARED THAT NIGHT. JUST BEFORE WE WRAP UP FOR LUNCH, I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW YOU THAT IN ORDER TO BELIEVE THAT O.J. SIMPSON COMMITTED THESE HORRIBLE MURDERS, YOU WOULD HAVE TO BELIEVE THAT HE CAME BACK FROM BACK EAST WHERE HE HAD BEEN WORKING TO COME TO HIS DAUGHTER'S RECITAL, ATTENDED THAT RECITAL. YOU SEE HIS PICTURE THERE. HE WAS HOME GETTING READY FOR A TRIP TO CHICAGO THAT HAD BEEN LONG PRE-PLANNED, THAT HE WAS HUNGRY, AND THE EVIDENCE WILL BE THAT HE DIDN'T HAVE ANY DOLLAR BILLS OR $20.00 BILLS, THAT HE ASKED TO BORROW SOME MONEY FROM KATO KAELIN. KATO KAELIN GAVE HIM THIS MONEY AND HE WENT AND HAD A BIG MAC. YOU WOULD HAVE TO BELIEVE THAT HE WAS PLANNING TO KILL HIS WIFE EITHER BEFORE HE GOT THIS BIG MAC OR THEN WENT AND GOT THE BIG MAC, BUT KATO KAELIN WILL DESCRIBE THAT HE WAS DRESSED IN SOME KIND OF SWEAT CLOTHES AND SOME TENNIS SHOES. THAT IF YOU FOLLOW THE PEOPLE'S CASE YOU WOULD HAVE TO BELIEVE THAT HE THEN CAME HOME AND SAID, GEE, I THINK WHAT I WILL DO IS I WILL GO OVER AND KILL MY WIFE NOW AND I THINK I WILL TAKE THESE TENNIS SHOES OFF AND PUT ON SOME DRESS SHOES, SOME HARD-SOLED SHOES AND CHANGE CLOTHES KNOWING HE IS GOING TO BE LEAVING SHORTLY TO GO TO THE AIRPORT, AND THEN YOU WOULD HAVE TO BELIEVE THAT TO BELIEVE THEIR THEORY AND TO MAKE THEIR THEORY WORK THEY SPENT ALL THIS TIME TALKING ABOUT THE PLAINTIVE WAIL OF A DOG BECAUSE THEY HAVE GOT TO MAKE THIS AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE AT 10:15. WE KNOW THAT THAT IS NOT CORRECT BASED UPON THE FACTS THAT YOU'VE HEARD. TO CONCLUDE, ISN'T IT INTERESTING THAT IN ALL OF THE DISCUSSION YESTERDAY BY THESE TWO VERY EXCELLENT LAWYERS THEY NEVER ONCE MENTIONED THEIR CORONER, DR. GOLDEN. HE IS ANOTHER MYSTERIOUS MYSTERY WITNESS THEY DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT. AND WHEN WE COME BACK THIS AFTERNOON, LET'S TALK ABOUT WHY THE PROSECUTION DOESN'T WANT YOU TO KNOW ABOUT DR. GOLDEN AND LET'S TALK ABOUT WHEN MISS CLARK SAYS, WELL, YOU CAN'T REALLY FIX THE TIME OF DEATH HERE WITH ANY PRECISION. WE WILL HAVE TESTIMONY FROM ONE OF THE LEADING PATHOLOGISTS IN THE UNITED STATES, MICHAEL BADEN, WHO HAS ALSO WORKED FOR THE L.A. COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WHO WAS WRITTEN A BOOK ABOUT JOHN BELUSHI'S DEATH. HE WAS ABLE TO PINPOINT THE TIME OF DEATH TO WITHIN ONE HOUR, AND YET IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THE CORONER WAS NOT CALLED FOR TEN HOURS AFTER THESE BODIES WERE FOUND, OR EIGHT HOURS, AND THEY GOT OUT THERE AFTER ABOUT TEN HOURS, VIOLATING THE STATE LAW. WE ARE PRECLUDED FROM PINPOINTING THIS AND THEY HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT IT IS ABOUT A DOG'S WAIL WHEN A MAN'S LIFE IS AT STAKE. WE WILL PICK UP AFTER LUNCH, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THANK YOU, MR. COCHRAN. ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE WILL STAND IN RECESS FOR THE JURY UNTIL 1:30. LET ME SPEAK TO COUNSEL AFTER THE JURY HAS DEPARTED. ALL RIGHT. LET'S CLEAR THE COURTROOM, PLEASE.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: MR. OLSEN, WOULD YOU REMAIN, PLEASE. MR. BANCROFT, WOULD YOU REMAIN, PLEASE.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

(THE JURY EXITS THE COURTROOM AND THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, THE JURY HAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE COURTROOM. MR. HODGMAN, DO YOU WANT TO MENTION SPECIFIC LANGUAGE THAT YOU ARE OBJECTING TO WAS ARGUMENTATIVE IN OPENING STATEMENTS?

MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, THERE WAS SO MUCH THAT WAS ARGUMENTATIVE IN NATURE THAT IT IS HARD TO REALLY EVEN IDENTIFY SPECIFIC PORTIONS RIGHT NOW. AGAIN, YOUR HONOR, THERE WAS RANK HEARSAY THAT WAS REFERRED TO, THERE WAS -- AND I THINK THE COURT ITSELF CAN RECOGNIZE AN ARGUMENTATIVE OPENING STATEMENT WHEN IT HEARS ONE. AS I INDICATED TO THE COURT AT SIDE BAR, I HESITATE TO EVER OBJECT WHEN DEFENSE COUNSEL -- WHEN DEFENSE COUNSEL IS MAKING AN OPENING STATEMENT, OR EVEN MAKING AN ARGUMENT. AN ARGUMENT OBVIOUSLY IS A DIFFERENT PHASE OF THE CASE AND A DIFFERENT CONTEXT; HOWEVER, IN OPENING STATEMENT THERE ARE CERTAIN PARAMETERS, AND IT WAS ONLY WITH GREAT RESTRAINT THIS MORNING THAT I EVEN STOOD TO OBJECT WHEN I DID. AND MY OBJECTIONS ARE NOTED IN THE RECORD AT PORTIONS WHERE I FELT WE HAD GONE FAR BEYOND THE BOUNDS, FAR BEYOND THE BOUNDS OF WHAT IS PERMISSIBLE IN OPENING STATEMENT. AND I WOULD SIMPLY ASK --

THE COURT: WHY DON'T YOU JUST GIVE ME TWO OR THREE SPECIFICS.

MR. HODGMAN: VERY WELL. YOUR HONOR, I'M GOING TO ASK FOR A CAVEAT TO ONE SPEAKER RULE. MR. GOLDBERG HAD TAKEN SOME NOTES FOR ME.

THE COURT: WELL, THAT IS WHY WE HAVE THE ONE SPEAKER RULE. YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING THE OBJECTION, MR. HODGMAN, SO YOU NEED TO BE SPECIFIC ON WHAT YOUR OBJECTION IS.

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

MR. HODGMAN: VERY WELL, YOUR HONOR. MAY WE BE HEARD ON THIS ISSUE RIGHT AFTER WE RETURN FROM LUNCH? AND I WILL GO THROUGH AND I WILL ADDRESS FOR THE COURT THOSE PORTIONS WHICH I BELIEVE TO BE ARGUMENTATIVE OR HEARSAY. AND WHAT I'M ASKING FOR, YOUR HONOR --

THE COURT: COUNSEL, ONE OF THE REASONS I'M GIVING YOU A REAL TIME TRANSCRIPT HERE IS SO THAT YOU CAN SEE THIS STUFF IN FRONT OF YOU, SO MR. HODGMAN, I REALIZE THE LENGTH OF THE OPEN STATEMENTS, SO I WILL GIVE YOU LEAVE TO DO THAT. BUT MR. COCHRAN, I WILL CAUTION YOU THAT THE LAST SEVERAL COMMENTS AT THE END OF YOUR STATEMENT ABOUT DR. GOLDEN AND WHY THE PROSECUTION ARE NOT CALLING HIM, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, A LOT OF THAT IS ARGUMENTATIVE THE WAY IT IS PHRASED. THE FACT THAT YOU ARE GOING TO SAY WE ARE GOING TO CALL THE WITNESSES TO SAY THIS WASN'T DONE AND THE STOMACH CONTENTS, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, THERE IS A MORE REASONABLE WAY OF SAYING THAT. I MEAN, MR. HODGMAN'S COMMENTS IN MANY RESPECTS ARE PROBABLY WELL TAKEN AND I'M CONCERNED ABOUT HOW YOU ARE GOING TO GET THAT DEPOSITION IN OVER THE HEARSAY OBJECTION.

MR. COCHRAN: IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT, I CAN RECALL, I SAID THAT SHE GAVE A DEPOSITION AND PERHAPS YOU WILL HEAR ABOUT THAT, BUT I THINK THERE IS SOME OTHER THINGS THAT WE CAN DO IN THAT REGARD BECAUSE THERE IS A DIVORCE DECREE.

THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE OTHER WAYS WE CAN GET THAT IN.

MR. COCHRAN: I THOUGHT ABOUT WHAT I'M SAYING.

THE COURT: OKAY.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT IS WHY WE MOVED ON AND NOT ONLY -- IF I DON'T THINK I CAN GET SOMETHING IN, I'M NOT GOING TO DO IT.

THE COURT: MR. HODGMAN, YOU COME BACK WITH YOUR SPECIFICS.

MR. HODGMAN: WELL, I WAS GOING TO RECOMMEND TO THE COURT NOW, LET'S SEE IF WE CAN ADDRESS SOME OF THIS RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE WHAT IS DONE IS DONE. WHAT THE JURY HAS HEARD, THE JURY HAS HEARD. I WILL COME BACK WITH MORE SPECIFICS, BUT WE CAN'T UNRING THE BELL. WHAT I WAS ASKING THE COURT FOR AND AM RESPECTFULLY ASKING THE COURT FOR IS THE VERY CAUTION THAT YOU ARE GIVING, BECAUSE I DON'T INTEND TO BE SILENT THIS AFTERNOON IF I HEAR HEARSAY OR ARGUMENT, AND I AM JUST GIVING FAIR NOTICE TO COUNSEL RIGHT NOW. AND I CAN COME BACK -- WE WERE GOING INTO DR. GOLDEN, AND I AGREE WITH THE COURT, THAT WAS SOUNDING AWFULLY ARGUMENTATIVE TO ME WHEN WE WERE ADDRESSING THE FAYE RESNICK ISSUE THIS MORNING AND THE NATURE THAT WENT DOWN, VERY ARGUMENTATIVE IN NATURE. THE DEPOSITION, RANK HEARSAY. THOSE ARE A FEW EXAMPLES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: WELL, THE FAYE RESNICK STUFF CAME AROUND TO THE FACT THAT IT IS CLOSE IN TIME WITH THE PERSONS DEPARTING AND IT WAS BROUGHT BACK INTO A CONTEXT. THAT WAS APPROPRIATE.

MR. HODGMAN: YES, BUT YOUR HONOR, COUNSEL WAS --

THE COURT: IT WAS ON THE EDGE. IT WAS ON THE EDGE, THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT.

MR. HODGMAN: BUT IN ADDITION, YOUR HONOR, LET'S PUT IT THIS WAY: I MEAN, COUNSEL IS DISINGENUOUS WITH REGARD TO --

MR. BAILEY: THAT WORD MEANS LIAR.

MR. COCHRAN: WE DON'T USE THAT WORD.

MR. HODGMAN: ANOTHER WAY OF PUTTING IT, MR. COCHRAN IS REAL CLEVER. HE IS ABLE COUNSEL AND HE WAS ABLE TO DANCE AROUND IT, BUT YOUR HONOR, WE MAY OR MAY NOT CALL FAYE RESNICK. IN LIGHT OF THE FACT WE HAD JUST BEEN AT SIDE BAR AND THE WAY THAT WAS DANCED AROUND, YOUR HONOR, THAT IS SIMPLY NOT FAIR. THERE WAS NO INDICATION WHETHER THEY ARE GOING TO CALL HER OR NOT, BUT IT ALLOWED SOME SEMBLANCE OF A SEGUE INTO GETTING THAT INFORMATION BEFORE THE JURY AT THIS TIME. THAT IS EXTREMELY PREJUDICIAL.

THE COURT: WELL, IT IS A DANGEROUS PLACE TO BE FOR THE DEFENSE, FOR THEM TO SAY WE MAY CALL HER AND NOT CALL HER THAN FOR THE PROSECUTION TO SAY WE ARE NEVER GOING TO CALL HER. MR. COCHRAN DID DANCE AROUND, THOUGH. HE DIDN'T LAND ON IT.

MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, MY POINT IS --

THE COURT: YOU ARE BEING CAUTIONED HERE.

MR. COCHRAN: I WAS GOING TO DANCE AROUND IT ANYWAY, YOUR HONOR, BECAUSE IT IS AN AREA THAT WE HAVEN'T MADE A FINAL DECISION.

THE COURT: THERE ARE MANY LAND MINES.

MR. COCHRAN: THERE ARE MANY LAND MINES IN THIS AREA AND WHAT I INDICATED TO THE COURT, THAT WE HAVE, HOWEVER, TALKED WITH CHRISTIAN RIECHARDT WHO KNOWS AN AWFUL LOT AND HE WILL BE TESTIFYING. I DON'T KNOW WHAT COUNSEL IS TALKING ABOUT. THAT INTERVENTION IS VERY WELL. SHE WAS LIVING AT MISS BROWN'S HOME. SHE HAD THE INTERVENTION ON THE 8TH. FAYE RESNICK CONTINUED TO CALL. HE WAS WORRIED I WAS GOING TO BRING OUT SOMETHING ABOUT RELATIONSHIPS. I'M GOING TO DO THAT.

THE COURT: WE ARE WAITING FOR THE TELEPHONE CALL AT NINE O'CLOCK IS WHERE IT EVENTUALLY WOUND UP.

MR. COCHRAN: WHICH WAS VERY RELEVANT THAT NIGHT.

THE COURT: TAKE A LOOK AT YOUR COMPUTER, TAKE IT WITH YOU, TELL ME WHAT IS THERE. MR. COCHRAN, I AM CAUTIONING YOU AT THIS POINT, WE ARE SLIDING HERE.

MR. COCHRAN: I WILL TRY TO GET BACK ON POINT. I WILL NOT FOLLOW MISS CLARK YESTERDAY.

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, MAY I RESPOND ON BEHALF OF MR. COCHRAN?

THE COURT: NO, NOT ON BEHALF OF MR. COCHRAN.

MR. SHAPIRO: MAY I MAKE SOME OBSERVATIONS?

THE COURT: ONE ARGUMENT, ONE LAWYER. WE ALREADY CUT THE OTHER LAWYER OFF.

MR. COCHRAN: CAN I SAY ONE THING, YOUR HONOR? THEY DID HAVE THREE PEOPLE INTERRUPTING ME, COUNSEL DID, YOUR HONOR, BUT IT IS OKAY, THEY ARE ALL GOOD FRIENDS, THEY ARE WHISPERING, BUT I THINK ONE OF THEM SHOULD INTERRUPT ONE AT A TIME.

THE COURT: I AGREE.

MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, WE WILL ADDRESS THIS AGAIN AT 1:30, BUT MAY COUNSEL AND I APPROACH ON AN ISSUE THAT I THINK THE COURT NEEDS TO ADDRESS REGARDING SOME PUBLIC RECORDS?

THE COURT: SURE.

MR. HODGMAN: THANK YOU.

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

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

(AT 12:10 P.M. THE NOON RECESS WAS TAKEN UNTIL 1:30 P.M. OF THE SAME DAY.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 25, 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: GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNSEL. MR. HODGMAN, YOU HAD SOME COMMENT?

MR. HODGMAN: YES, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND GOOD AFTERNOON. YOUR HONOR, THE COURT ASKED ME TO EXAMINE THE RECORD OVER THE LUNCH HOUR FROM THIS MORNING WITH REGARD TO PORTIONS OF MR. COCHRAN'S --

THE COURT: HOLD ON. THERE HE IS RIGHT BEHIND YOU.

MR. HODGMAN: THERE YOU ARE. I THOUGHT MR. COCHRAN WAS HIDING FROM ME AND PERHAPS HE SHOULD. I SEE HIM NOW. AND, YOUR HONOR, LET ME SAY THIS. I WAS ABOUT TO SAY, YOU ASKED ME TO EXAMINE THE RECORD FOR INSTANCES OF INAPPROPRIATE REMARKS FOR AN OPENING STATEMENT. I'M GOING TO MAKE THE PEOPLE'S POSITION ABSOLUTELY CLEAR, YOUR HONOR, THIS AFTERNOON WITH REGARD TO WHEN OBJECTIONS ARE LIKELY TO BE POSED BECAUSE I WANT TO GIVE MR. COCHRAN FAIR NOTICE. WHAT WE HEARD IN LARGE PART THIS MORNING WAS NOT AN OPENING STATEMENT, BUT WHAT COULD VERY WELL PASS FOR ARGUMENT, AND IF GIVEN IN ARGUMENT, WOULD NOT BE OBJECTIONABLE. BUT THIS MORNING -- AND AS I STATED TO THE COURT, I AM RELUCTANT IN ANY CASE TO INTERFERE WITH OPPOSING COUNSEL'S OPENING STATEMENT. IT WAS WITH GREAT RESTRAINT THIS MORNING THAT I DID OBJECT TO A NUMBER OF CLEARLY OBJECTIONABLE REMARKS MADE BY MR. COCHRAN. I WILL HIGHLIGHT THOSE IN JUST A FEW MOMENTS. HOWEVER, YOUR HONOR, WHAT THE PEOPLE ARE SEEKING THIS AFTERNOON IS, FIRST OF ALL, AN ADMONITION TO MR. COCHRAN NOT TO ENGAGE IN ARGUMENT IN THE GUISE OF AN OPENING STATEMENT. SECONDLY, WITH REGARD TO VARIOUS PASSAGES, WHICH I WILL HIGHLIGHT AND PINPOINT FOR THE COURT IN JUST A MOMENT, I'M GOING TO BE ASKING FOR A MOTION TO STRIKE, AND IN ADDITION, AN ADMONITION TO THE JURY TO DISREGARD SUCH STATEMENTS BECAUSE NOT ONLY ARE THEY NOT EVIDENCE, BUT IMPROPER REMARKS FOR AN OPENING STATEMENT AND THE JURY SHOULD BE SO ADVISED. IN ADDITION, YOUR HONOR, AFTER I ADDRESS THE OPENING STATEMENT ISSUE, I HAVE AN ADDITIONAL ISSUE TO RAISE WITH REGARD TO DISCOVERY BECAUSE IT APPEARS WE ARE ABOUT TO REVISIT THE EVENTS OF MONDAY TO SOME DEGREE. I WILL BEGIN, YOUR HONOR, BY STATING GENERALLY, MANY OF MR. COCHRAN'S REMARKS WERE IN THE FORM OF RHETORICAL QUESTIONS. MANY OF HIS REMARKS WERE IN THE FORM OF A PERSONAL ATTACK ON MY COLLEAGUES, MISS CLARK AND MR. DARDEN. SUCH REMARKS ARE NOT FITTING NOR ARE THEY APPROPRIATE IN AN OPENING STATEMENT, ABSOLUTELY 100 PERCENT NOT FITTING, NOT APPROPRIATE. LET ME GIVE YOU JUST A FEW EXAMPLES. AND I HAVE TO CITE TO THE REFERENCE THAT WE WERE GIVEN OFF THE DISK THAT THE COURT REPORTERS WERE ABLE TO PROVIDE US. FOR INSTANCE -- AND I CITE TO WHAT APPEARS TO BE 0553 OF THIS MORNING'S TRANSCRIPT WHERE THE DEFENSE ARGUES THAT THIS CASE IS ABOUT A RUSH TO JUDGMENT, AN OBSESSION TO WIN AT ANY COST BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. YOUR HONOR, SUCH A REMARK IS FITTING FOR ARGUMENT PERHAPS, NOT FITTING FOR AN OPENING STATEMENT. CLEARLY THAT IS OUTSIDE THE BOUNDS. AND AGAIN, YOUR HONOR, I --

THE COURT: WELL, MR. HODGMAN, HOW DOES THAT COMPARE TO MR. DARDEN'S ARGUMENT THAT THE ISSUE IS THAT YOU HAVE TO ESTABLISH THE RELATIONSHIP AND THAT THE PERSON WHO IS GUILTY OF THIS CRIME IS A WIFE BEATER, BATTERER, CONTROLLER, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH? SOUNDS LIKE THE SAME ARGUMENT TO ME.

MR. HODGMAN: WELL, DOES THE COURT INTEND TO MAKE AN EQUITY CALL? I'M SIMPLY POSING TO THE COURT --

THE COURT: NO. THE PROBLEM, MR. HODGMAN -- HERE'S THE PROBLEM. EACH SIDE HAS TO PRESENT WHAT THEIR THEORY OF THE CASE IS. THAT INVOLVES SOME TYPE OF SHORT EXPLANATION AS TO WHAT THAT ARGUMENT IS GOING TO BE AND, "HERE'S THE EVIDENCE THAT'S GOING TO BACK UP OUR THEORY OF THE CASE." THAT'S OPENING STATEMENT.

MR. HODGMAN: AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, YOUR HONOR. AND YOU STATED THAT LINE HAD BEEN CROSSED.

THE COURT: YES.

MR. HODGMAN: AND I WOULD SUBMIT TO THE COURT BASED ON WHAT WE HEARD THIS MORNING, THAT LINE GOT CROSSED VERY, VERY EARLY ON.

THE COURT: MR. HODGMAN, LET ME DO THIS. AND PLEASE FORGIVE ME FOR INTERRUPTING YOU AGAIN, BUT WE DID DISCUSS THIS ALSO INFORMALLY. MY SUGGESTION IS THAT WE DO THIS. BECAUSE WE HAVE TO BREAK EARLY FOR ONE OF THE JUROR'S MEDICAL APPOINTMENTS THIS AFTERNOON, LET ME LET YOU PUT THESE MATTERS ON THE RECORD WHEN WE CONCLUDE. LET ME JUST CAUTION AT THIS TIME MR. COCHRAN -- BECAUSE I DID MENTION TO HIM THAT I FELT WE WERE ABOUT TO CROSS OVER THE LINE INTO ARGUMENT -- YOU CAN TELL THEM WHAT THE THEORY IS. MR. HODGMAN, THEY ARE ENTITLED TO SAY, "THE PROSECUTION HAS INDICATED THIS IS THEIR THEORY OF THE CASE AND HOW THEY'RE GOING TO PROCEED," AND HE'S ENTITLED TO SAY, "THIS IS WHAT WE ARE GOING TO PRESENT TO COUNTER THAT," AND HE GETS TO EXPLAIN HOW THEY PLAN TO DO THAT. NOW, I AGREE WITH YOU THAT EVALUATING IT AND TELLING -- SAYING THAT YOUR CASE IS TRASH FOR THIS REASON OR THAT REASON, THAT GETS INTO ARGUMENT. I AGREE. I WILL BE MORE -- MY FEELING WAS THAT THE DEFENSE GAVE BOTH MR. DARDEN AND MISS CLARK WIDE LEEWAY IN ARGUING -- IN PRESENTING THEIR OPENING STATEMENTS, ALL RIGHT?

MR. HODGMAN: BUT WHAT THE DEFENSE DIDN'T DO YESTERDAY, YOUR HONOR, WAS ENGAGE IN RHETORICAL ATTACKS UPON OPPOSING COUNSEL SUCH AS, YOU KNOW, "WHY DIDN'T MR. DARDEN TELL YOU ABOUT THIS YESTERDAY, WHY DIDN'T MISS CLARK STATE SOMETHING ELSE YESTERDAY?"

THE COURT: I AGREE.

MR. HODGMAN: ARGUMENTATIVE AND --

THE COURT: I AGREE.

MR. HODGMAN: OKAY.

THE COURT: SO WHAT CAN BE SAID IS THAT, "THE PROSECUTION DID NOT COMPLETE -- DID NOT GIVE YOU A COMPLETE PICTURE. WE ARE GOING TO ADD THIS PIECE, THIS PIECE AND THIS PIECE FOR A CLEAR PICTURE." I THINK MR. COCHRAN CAN PHRASE IT THAT SIMPLY WITHOUT REFERRING TO WHAT THE PROSECUTION SAID.

MR. HODGMAN: OKAY. WE HAVE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE. AND I RAISE THIS NOW, AND I WILL DETAIL THESE OBJECTIONS MORE CLEARLY AT A TIME SUGGESTED BY THE COURT. BUT TIME AND TIME AGAIN, MR. COCHRAN STATED THIS MORNING, "AND YOU WOULD HAVE TO BELIEVE AND YOU WOULD HAVE TO BELIEVE AND THEN YOU WOULD HAVE TO BELIEVE" TIME AND TIME AGAIN, WHICH AGAIN, YOUR HONOR, THIS GOES TO ARGUMENT, NOT TO OPENING STATEMENT. OPENING STATEMENT IS SUPPOSED TO BE A RECITATION OF THE EVIDENCE THAT THEY EXPECT TO PRODUCE. AND WHAT YOU HAVE CLEARLY IS ARGUMENT. THIS IS ENTIRELY INAPPROPRIATE LANGUAGE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, I HAVE CHOSEN TO CAUTION MR. COCHRAN. I CAN TELL IN HIS RESPONSE TO ME THAT HE TAKES MY CAUTION SERIOUSLY, ALTHOUGH I'M BEGINNING TO FEEL LIKE THE RODNEY DANGERFIELD OF JUDGES THESE DAYS. IN FACT, I'LL HAVE TO CALL BARRY LANGBERG LATER TODAY. BUT, MR. COCHRAN, YOU WILL TAKE SERIOUSLY MY CAUTION.

MR. COCHRAN: ABSOLUTELY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: I JUST WANT TO GET THE BALL ROLLING TODAY BECAUSE WE HAVE A SHORT COURT DAY.

MR. HODGMAN: I AGREE WITH YOU. THE ONLY REASON I RAISE THIS NOW IS SO WE CAN HAVE APPROPRIATE OPENING STATEMENT THIS AFTERNOON. IN REFERENCE TO HEARSAY, I LODGED MY OBJECTION THIS MORNING. I TRUST THAT THE COURT AND COUNSEL UNDERSTAND THE BASIS FOR THAT. I WOULD POINT OUT AS WELL THAT BASED UPON THE RECORD PRODUCED THUS FAR IN THIS CASE, THAT REFERENCE TO MARK FUHRMAN BY NAME SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE BASED UPON -- NO. I AM REFERRING TO PAGE 11479 OF THE RECORD. THIS IS MONDAY, JANUARY 23RD. THE COURT STATES:

"I AM PRECLUDING THE DEFENSE FROM MAKING MENTION OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN DURING THE COURSE OF THEIR OPENING STATEMENT SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE FACT OF THE LATE TURNING OVER OF OTHER STATEMENTS OF KATHLEEN BELL TODAY."

THE COURT: WHAT HAPPENED --

MR. HODGMAN: I THOUGHT THAT WAS PRETTY CLEAR.

THE COURT: WHAT HAPPENED, LATER IN THE RECORD, THERE WAS A REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION. I INDICATED THAT THEY COULD NOT MENTION DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IN THE CONTEXT OF KATHLEEN BELL. THEY COULD MENTION HIS PARTICIPATION IN THE INVESTIGATION. HOWEVER, NOT IN THE -- THEY COULD NOT IN OPENING STATEMENT MENTION THE KATHLEEN BELL ASPECT.

MR. HODGMAN: VERY WELL.

THE COURT: THERE WAS A LATER CLARIFICATION IN THE RECORD.

MR. HODGMAN: VERY WELL, YOUR HONOR. I WILL STAND BY THE CLARIFICATION. THERE'S ONE LAST POINT THAT I WILL RAISE IN GREATER DETAIL THIS AFTERNOON -- I KNOW THE COURT WANTS TO MOVE ALONG -- AND THAT IS THE DISCOVERY ISSUE. I CAN POINT OUT TWO NAMES IN PARTICULAR THIS MORNING THAT WERE MENTIONED IN THE DEFENSE OPENING STATEMENT; MARYANNE GERCHAS AND JOE STELLINI. THESE ARE NAMES WHICH ARE ON THE DEFENSE WITNESS LIST. BUT THE WAY MR. COCHRAN REFERRED TO THESE WITNESSES THIS MORNING, IT WAS EVIDENT THAT THESE WITNESSES HAVE BEEN INTERVIEWED, THAT THERE HAVE TO BE STATEMENTS OUTSTANDING SOMEPLACE. NOW, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THIS OVER THE PAST COUPLE DAYS. THE DEFENSE IS SUPPOSED TO DISCOVER WITNESS STATEMENTS TO THE PEOPLE AND --

THE COURT: I HAVE IN MY NOTES THESE ARE ITEMS AS WELL THAT I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT.

MR. HODGMAN: I SHARE THE COURT'S CONCERN, YOUR HONOR. I SHARE THE COURT'S CONCERN FOR THIS REASON. BECAUSE, AS WE HAVE STATED THROUGHOUT THESE PROCEEDINGS GOING BACK TO LATE JUNE AND EARLY JULY IN MUNICIPAL COURT AND SUPERIOR COURT --

THE COURT: MR. HODGMAN, PLEASE FORGIVE ME. I RECOGNIZE IT AS A DISCOVERY ISSUE. WE'LL TAKE IT UP AS SOON AS WE GET THE JURORS ON THEIR WAY AT 3:30. THEN WE'LL HAVE A FULL HOUR THAT WE CAN SIT AND TALK ABOUT THIS. I AM CONCERNED AND I DO RECOGNIZE IT AS A DISCOVERY ISSUE AND I'M GOING TO MAKE FURTHER INQUIRY.

MR. HODGMAN: VERY WELL, YOUR HONOR. WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS THE PROSPECTIVE ASPECT THIS AFTERNOON WHEN MR. COCHRAN SPEAKS. WHAT ELSE ARE WE GOING TO HEAR ABOUT? THE PEOPLE ARE BEING DENIED THEIR RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL, YOUR HONOR. THAT IS WHAT'S OCCURRING. THIS IS SURPRISE. THE COURT SEES THE ISSUE. THE COURT SEES AND SENSES OUR CONCERN. IT IS HAPPENING IN OPENING STATEMENT, AND THE PEOPLE HAVE NOT RECEIVED RECIPROCAL DISCOVERY. I THINK THAT IS EVIDENT TO THE COURT. THE PEOPLE ARE NOT GETTING THEIR FAIR SHOT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, MAY I SEND THE WITNESSES HOME?

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN?

MR. COCHRAN: I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY A GOOD IDEA. THEY'VE CUT INTO MY TIME. I HAVE TO SPEED UP NOW.

MR. DARDEN: WE HAVEN'T TAKEN 10 MINUTES OUT OF MR. COCHRAN'S TIME. WHAT TIME WOULD YOU LIKE THEM BACK TOMORROW?

THE COURT: 9:00 O'CLOCK. WHAT DID THAT MEAN, MR. DARDEN?

MS. CLARK: TALKING TO THEM, TELLING THEM 9:00 O'CLOCK.

MR. DARDEN: MY LAW CLERKS, YOUR HONOR.

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT WE'VE BEEN REJOINED BY ALL MEMBERS OF OUR JURY. BE SEATED, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, AT THIS TIME, WE WILL RESUME WITH MR. COCHRAN'S OPENING STATEMENT. PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THE OPENING STATEMENTS BY THE ATTORNEYS ARE NOT EVIDENCE. MR. COCHRAN.

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

OPENING STATEMENT (RESUMED)

BY MR. COCHRAN:

GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

THE JURY: GOOD AFTERNOON.

MR. COCHRAN: WHEN WE BROKE THIS MORNING, WE HAD JUST GOTTEN TO THE POINT OF DISCUSSING THE CORONER WHO PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED IN THIS MATTER, DR. GOLDEN; AND I THINK I ALLUDED TO THE FACT THAT, IN THE COURSE OF THE OPENING STATEMENT YESTERDAY, WE DIDN'T HEAR HIS NAME. AND WE EXPECT THAT HE WILL IN FACT BE CALLED IN THIS CASE EITHER -- IF THE PEOPLE DON'T CALL HIM, WE WILL. AND I THINK YOU WILL HEAR EVIDENCE TO THE EFFECT THAT YOU CAN IN FACT DETERMINE THE TIME OF DEATH WITH GREATER PRECISION THAN YOU HEARD YESTERDAY. THAT IF ONE IS QUALIFIED, ONE CAN LOOK AT THE STATE OF RIGOR MORTIS, STATE OF LIVIDITY OF THE BODY, STATE OF THE TEMPERATURE OF THE BODY AND ALSO THE AMBIENT TEMPERATURE, USE THINGS LIKE THE STOMACH CONTENTS. IN THIS CASE, THERE WAS A MAJOR PROBLEM. DR. GOLDEN'S TESTIMONY IS THAT HE WOULD PLACE THE TIME OF DEATH BETWEEN 9:00 AND 12:00 O'CLOCK. NOW, BETWEEN 9:00 AND 12:00 O'CLOCK, YOU NOW HAVE HEARD ENOUGH OF THE EVIDENCE TO UNDERSTAND THAT 12:00 O'CLOCK, MR. SIMPSON WAS IN THE AIR. AT 9:00 O'CLOCK, THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY, AS YOU'VE HEARD, AS TO WHERE HE WAS AT HIS HOUSE. SO WE ARE -- WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH REGARD TO TRYING TO FIX THE TIME OF DEATH. AND YOU HEARD THE PROSECUTION'S THEORY YESTERDAY ABOUT THE TIME OF DEATH BEING ABOUT 10:15. YOU'VE HEARD FROM ME THIS MORNING THAT THE DEFENSE ADVANCES THE THEORY THAT THAT'S CLEARLY WRONG BASED UPON THE WITNESSES THAT YOU'VE HEARD. NOW, WITH REGARD TO DR. BADIN, WHO IS OUR EXPERT -- AND I SHOULD TELL YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HIM. DR. MICHAEL BADIN IS A FORMER FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST, THE CHIEF MEDICAL EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF NEW YORK. HE RESIDES IN NEW YORK. AS I SAID, HE HAS WORKED FOR THE L.A. COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN THE PAST. HE'S CONSIDERED ONE OF THE FOREMOST FORENSIC PATHOLOGISTS IN AMERICA. HE CAME TO -- THE EVIDENCE WILL BE THAT HE CAME TO LOS ANGELES SHORTLY AFTER MR. SIMPSON'S RETURN FROM CHICAGO AND IN FACT WENT TO THE L.A. COUNTY CORONER'S OFFICE THAT WEEK, THE WEEK OF JUNE 13TH. AND IT WAS AFTER DR. MICHAEL BADIN'S CONFERENCES WITH DR. GOLDEN AND HIS SUPERIOR ALONG WITH DR. BADIN'S COLLEAGUE, DR. BARBARA WOLF, THAT THE CORONER'S OFFICE WROTE A LETTER TO MR. HODGMAN WITH AN AMENDMENT TO THE CORONER'S REPORT THEY FILED. AND I WOULD LIKE AT THIS TIME TO TURN OUR ATTENTION TO THE GRAPHICS. THIS IS A LETTER THAT IS DIRECTED TO OUR COLLEAGUE, MR. WILLIAM HODGMAN. YOU'LL SEE MR. WILLIAM HODGMAN THERE. AND AS WE PROCEED --

MR. HARRIS: D-88.

MR. COCHRAN: -- IT WILL BECOME CLEARER.

MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, EXCUSE ME. MAY WE --

THE COURT: MR. HODGMAN.

MR. HODGMAN: I HAVE AN OBJECTION TO INTERPOSE. I WISH TO APPROACH AT SIDEBAR.

THE COURT: WITH THE REPORTER.

MR. HODGMAN: AND I WOULD LIKE THIS STRICKEN FROM THE SCREEN FOR A MOMENT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S HOLD THAT, MR. HARRIS.

MR. HODGMAN: THANK YOU.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. BILL?

MR. HODGMAN: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: AT SIDEBAR.

MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT TO THIS ON THE GROUNDS OF HEARSAY. THIS IS PURE HEARSAY, THIS LETTER. AND THE OBJECTION CAN BE INTERPOSED AT TRIAL WITH REGARD TO THIS, BUT AT THE MOMENT, THIS IS PURE HEARSAY.

THE COURT: WHAT IS THIS LETTER? I CAN'T TELL.

MR. COCHRAN: I AM SORRY, YOUR HONOR. WE WENT OVER THIS BEFORE WE DID ARGUMENT, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS A LETTER. AND WHAT I'M GOING TO DO -- LETTER SENT TO BILL HODGMAN IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS. IT BECAME PART OF THE CORONER'S REPORT. THEY MADE 16 CHANGES AFTER THEY MET WITH MICHAEL BADIN. THAT'S WHAT THE EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE. THIS LETTER HIGHLIGHTS THOSE CHANGES, LIKE THEY DIDN'T KEEP THE STOMACH CONTENTS. THIS IS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR RECORD SIGNED BY THE MEDICAL EXAMINER. WE TALKED ABOUT IT. WE PRESENTED IT TO THEM EARLY LAST FRIDAY.

THE COURT: THIS WAS PART OF THE SHOW AND TELL?

MR. COCHRAN: YES. IT WAS PART OF THE SHOW AND TELL, YES, IT WAS.

MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, THE COURT DOESN'T RECALL SEEING IT. THIS IS NOT A PART OF THE OFFICIAL RECORD OF THE CORONER'S OFFICE. IT IS A LETTER THAT WAS SENT TO ME DETAILING CERTAIN THINGS. IT'S NOT A PART OF ANY OFFICIAL RECORD. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO LITIGATE THIS WHEN THE TIME COMES.

MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE, WE WANT TO USE THIS. IF THEY DON'T CALL HIM, WE WANT TO USE THIS. WHEN WE TALKED TO DR. MIKE BADIN AND DR. WOLF, THEY POINTED OUT ALL THESE THINGS THEY HADN'T DONE. THIS LETTER CAME FROM THE MEDICAL EXAMINER. IT CAME TO BILL HODGMAN. THEY KNEW ABOUT IT. WE ARE GOING TO USE IT. THIS IS PART OF THEIR BUSINESS RECORDS, OFFICIAL RECORD, OFFICIAL ADDENDUM TO THE CORONER'S REPORT, JUDGE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET ME SEE IT. DO YOU HAVE THE ORIGINAL OR A COPY?

MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE TO GET A COPY.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: IS SOMEBODY GETTING ME A COPY OF THIS?

MR. COCHRAN: YES. IT MAY NOT BE THE ORIGINAL. BUT I ASKED FOR A COPY.

THE COURT: I DON'T RECALL HAVING SEEN THIS.

MR. COCHRAN: WE DID HAVE IT ON THE BOARD. IT HAS 16 POINTS. IT CAME AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE CORONER'S REPORT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I'VE READ THE LETTER, WHICH IS A THREE-PAGE LETTER DATED JULY 28, 1994. I DO RECALL HAVING SEEN SOME OF THESE SPECIFIC ITEMS.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO PRESENT.

MR. HODGMAN: MY POINT IS, YOUR HONOR, THIS LETTER WILL BE THE SUBJECT OF LITIGATION. WITH REGARD TO OPENING STATEMENT TODAY, COUNSEL CAN STATE, "YOU WILL HEAR EVIDENCE," BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH WITH REGARD TO A NUMBER OF POINTS. BUT TO TREAT THIS -- WHICH IS PURE RANK HEARSAY -- IN OPENING STATEMENT IS INAPPROPRIATE AND BEYOND THE PROPER SCOPE OF OPENING.

MR. COCHRAN: THEY THINK IF THEY MAKE THESE OBJECTIONS, YOUR HONOR, THEY'LL THROW ME OFF. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO THROW ME OFF. I'VE BEEN DOING THIS 33 YEARS. IT DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE. BY CONTINUALLY OBJECTING, THEY ONLY HURT THEMSELVES WITH THIS JURY. I ONLY WANT TO USE THIS LETTER TO TRY TO COUCH MY STATEMENTS THIS AFTERNOON, IN THAT VEIN.

THE COURT: THIS PARTICULAR DOCUMENT, I THOUGHT THIS WAS ON A DIFFERENT DISPLAY.

MR. COCHRAN: WHAT YOU SAW WAS -- LET ME TELL YOU WHAT IT IS, YOUR HONOR, AND YOU WILL RECALL THIS NOW. THEY JUST -- THEY SHOWED THE WHOLE DOCUMENT THAT YOU COULD HARDLY READ. THEY PUT UP I THINK MR. HODGMAN'S NAME. THEN I ASKED THEM TO GO IMMEDIATELY TO THE 16 POINTS. THAT'S THE WHOLE THING. AND I'M GOING TO SAY, "THIS IS WHAT WE EXPECT THE EVIDENCE TO SHOW." I'M NOT MISLEADING THE JURY TALKING ABOUT THIS. IF THEY'RE GOING TO OBJECT TO EVERY ONE OF OUR EXHIBITS WHICH WE WENT OVER, WE'LL BE HERE FOREVER.

MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS DIFFERENT. I INFORMED THE COURT THIS AFTERNOON AND I INFORMED COUNSEL THAT IF SOMETHING IS ARGUMENTATIVE, I WILL OBJECT. IF SOMETHING IS HEARSAY, I WILL OBJECT. I TRIED TO GIVE EVERYONE FAIR NOTICE.

THE COURT: MY RECOLLECTION THOUGH IS, WE HAD ALREADY GONE OVER THIS PARTICULAR ITEM IN OUR SHOW AND TELL.

MR. COCHRAN: WE DID, JUDGE.

MR. SCHECK: EVERY POINT WAS PUT UP ON THAT SCREEN.

MR. COCHRAN: EVERY ONE.

THE COURT: NOW THAT I READ IT, I RECOGNIZE THE POINTS.

MR. COCHRAN: IT'S NOT FAIR, JUDGE, FOR HIM TO KEEP DOING THIS. WE WENT THROUGH EVERYTHING. IF THEY'RE GOING TO REARGUE EVERYTHING WE'VE ALREADY DONE, THAT'S NOT FAIR.

MR. HODGMAN: I DON'T INTEND TO DO THAT, MR. COCHRAN. I DON'T. I INTEND TO MAKE OBJECTIONS WHEN APPROPRIATE. AND, YOUR HONOR, I HAVE STATED I DON'T INTEND TO JUMP UP AND DOWN, BUT --

THE COURT: MR. HODGMAN, AT THE SHOW AND TELL, WE DID GO THROUGH THESE POINTS. WE'VE ALREADY LITIGATED THIS. OBJECTION IS OVERRULED.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

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

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY. MAY WE PROCEED WITH THE EXHIBIT?

THE COURT: YES.

MR. HODGMAN: VERY WELL, YOUR HONOR. I WITHDRAW THE OBJECTION.

THE COURT: THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. MR. HARRIS.

MR. COCHRAN: AS I WAS INDICATING TO YOU, I THINK THAT THIS IS A LETTER TO MR. HODGMAN. AND YOU CAN MOVE TO THE NEXT ONE, MR. HARRIS.

MR. HARRIS: THAT WAS D-89, THE HIGHLIGHT. THAT'S D-90.

MR. COCHRAN: IT'S AN EFFORT TO MAKE IT CLEARER FOR YOU.

MR. HARRIS: D-91. THAT WAS D-91A. THIS IS D-91B.

MR. COCHRAN: YOU CAN NOW SEE WHAT'S HAPPENED HERE. THE LETTER -- THE LINES HAVE BEEN BLOWN UP SO YOU CAN SEE IT MORE CLEARLY. YOU WILL BE ABLE TO SEE THEM YOURSELF. YOU DON'T HAVE TO READ THOSE I DON'T THINK.

MR. HARRIS: D-92A. D-92B. D-93A.

MR. COCHRAN: THIS ONE -- IF I MIGHT STOP FOR A MOMENT. THIS WOULD BE ONE THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT, AND I WOULD LIKE TO READ THIS.

"THE STOMACH CONTENTS OF MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON WERE NOT SAVED." AND THEN YOU WILL HEAR TESTIMONY DURING THE TRIAL THAT IF -- THE PROPER PROCEDURE FOR ANY CORONER'S OFFICE IN THE UNITED STATES -- THEY WANTED TO DETERMINE WITH SOME ACCURACY TIME OF DEATH WOULD BE TO SAVE THE STOMACH CONTENTS. IN THIS CASE, THE CORONER'S OFFICE THREW THOSE STOMACH CONTENTS AWAY. WE WILL NEVER HAVE THOSE. YOU MAY PROCEED, MR. HARRIS, PLEASE.

MR. HARRIS: THAT WAS D-93B. D-94A. D-94B.

MR. COCHRAN: THIS HAS TO DO WITH MISLABELING OF A SAMPLE WITH MR. GOLDMAN. YOU MAY MOVE ON, MR. HARRIS.

MR. HARRIS: D-95A. D-95B.

MR. COCHRAN: ANOTHER MISLABELING OR INADVERTENCE. MOVE ON, MR. HARRIS, PLEASE.

MR. HARRIS: D-96A. D-96B.

MR. COCHRAN: THIS HAS TO DO WITH A PROCEDURE WHICH WAS VIOLATED BY THE CORONER'S OFFICE WHICH THEY ACKNOWLEDGE IN THIS LETTER. AFTER BEING SEPARATELY DRIED, THE PANTIES AND DRESS WERE WRAPPED TOGETHER RATHER THAN SEPARATELY. MR. HARRIS. THANK YOU.

MR. HARRIS: D-97A. D-97B.

MR. COCHRAN: THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE MEDIA, THE EVER PRESENT MEDIA. WE'LL MOVE ON.

MR. HARRIS: D-98A. D-98B.

MR. COCHRAN: THIS IS AN INTERESTING ONE, WITH REGARD TO A RECOMMENDATION THAT IT WILL BE DESIRABLE TO FORM A RESPONSE TEAM ON COMPLEX CASES BY ADDING A PATHOLOGIST, CRIMINALIST AND A CORONER'S PHOTOGRAPHER TO THE CORONER'S INVESTIGATOR AND TRANSPORT PERSONS CONTEMPORANEOUSLY ASSIGNED TO RESPOND.

MR. HARRIS: D-98A. D-99B.

MR. COCHRAN: THIS ONE CALLS TO YOUR ATTENTION ALSO THAT THE CORONER'S OFFICE RESPONSE TEAM WAS NOT ALLOWED ACCESS TO THE DECEDENTS BY LAPD UNTIL APPROXIMATELY 10 HOURS AFTER THE LAPD'S ARRIVAL AT THE SCENE. THAT WILL BECOME WE THINK IMPORTANT IN THE EVIDENCE, AND WE WILL SHARE WITH YOU A TRANSCRIPT OF A CONVERSATION BETWEEN ONE OF THE DETECTIVES IN CHARGE WHEN THE CALL WAS FIRST MADE AND ASKING THEM NOT TO COME OUT AT THAT TIME. OUR EXPERTS WILL TESTIFY THAT IF ONE WANTED TO DETERMINE THE TIME OF DEATH, THE CORONER'S OFFICE NEEDS TO BE CALLED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO RESPOND TO THE SCENE. MR. HARRIS.

MR. HARRIS: D-100A. D-100B.

MR. COCHRAN: MR. HARRIS, YOU MAY MOVE ON.

MR. HARRIS: D-101A. D-101B.

MR. COCHRAN: MR. HARRIS.

MR. HARRIS: D-102A. D-102B.

MR. COCHRAN: A FLUOROSCOPIC WOULD HAVE BEEN DESIRABLE. APPARENTLY WAS NOT DONE IN THIS CASE.

MR. HARRIS: D-103A. D-103B.

MR. COCHRAN: INDICATION THAT PHOTOGRAPHIC PRINTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT RATHER THAN LAPD, THE CORONER'S OFFICE BEING AN AGENCY OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES.

MR. HARRIS: D-104A. D-104B.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT, MR. HARRIS.

MR. HARRIS: D-105A AND D-105B.

MR. COCHRAN: MR. HARRIS.

MR. HARRIS: D106A AND D-106B.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU, MR. HARRIS. WE FINISHED THAT ONE. NOW, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, AS I INDICATED TO YOU, WHAT YOU'VE JUST SEEN AND WHAT WE EXPECT TO BE THE EVIDENCE IS THAT THOSE ARE BASICALLY AMENDMENTS TO THE CORONER'S REPORT BROUGHT ABOUT AFTER THIS CONVERSATION AND MEETING BETWEEN THE L.A. COUNTY CORONER, WHO DID THE AUTOPSY HERE, DR. GOLDEN, HIS BOSS, DR. LAKSHMANAN, AND THEN OUR EXPERTS. NOW, WE EXPECT THAT WHEN DR. BADIN IS CALLED TO TESTIFY IN THIS CASE, HE'LL MAKE A NUMBER OF FINDINGS BECAUSE HE WAS THERE, HE WAS ABLE TO REVIEW ALL THESE RECORDS. AND WE EXPECT THE EVIDENCE TO SHOW -- WHILE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT CORONERS -- THAT HE WILL TESTIFY THAT THE INJURIES AND BRUISES ON MR. RONALD GOLDMAN'S HANDS INDICATE THAT HE HAD STRUCK HIS ASSAILANT, AND YET THERE -- AND THERE WAS A FIGHT, A MAJOR FIGHT PRIOR TO HIS DEATH, THAT PROPER FORENSIC PROCEDURES WERE TO PRESERVE THE STOMACH CONTENTS OF THE DECEASED, AS I INDICATED TO YOU. THAT IN THIS CASE, THERE WAS NO RAPE OR SEMEN KIT ANALYSIS PERFORMED. AND WE WOULD EXPECT THAT HE WOULD -- THE EXPERT WOULD TESTIFY THAT A SEMEN RAPE KIT ANALYSIS IS STANDARD PROCEDURE FOR CORONER'S OFFICES IN THE UNITED STATES AT THIS TIME IN JUNE OF 1994. HE WILL ALSO TESTIFY I BELIEVE THAT THE CLOSER TO THE TIME OF DEATH ONE TAKES THE TEMPERATURE OF A VICTIM, THE LIVER MORTIS AND THEIR RIGOR MORTIS, THE LIKELIHOOD OF AN ACCURATE RESULT INCREASES. AND THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT. HE WILL SAY ALSO I BELIEVE THAT THE KILLINGS WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF LOSS OF BLOOD. AND OF COURSE, YOU'VE SEEN THAT. THAT EVIDENCE OF WHICH WOULD BE EXPECTED TO BE ON THE PERPETRATOR AND WOULD HAVE EXPECTED THE PERSON WHO COMMITTED THESE HORRIBLE CRIMES WOULD BE COVERED WITH BLOOD. DR. BADIN, ALONG WITH HIS COLLEAGUE ALSO, DR. WOLF, EXAMINED HISTOLOGY SAMPLES AND POINTED OUT TO THE CORONER'S OFFICE A BRUISING OF THE BRAIN THAT DR. GOLDEN HAD MISSED. THEY POINTED OUT SOME FINDINGS THAT THEIR CORONER'S OFFICE HAD ACTUALLY MISSED, AND THEY ADVISED THEM AND LET THEM KNOW. THERE WAS A SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT FILED REGARDING THAT ALSO. DR. BADIN, AS THE EXPERT, WILL TESTIFY THAT THE L.A. COUNTY CORONER'S OFFICE VIOLATED THEIR OWN PROCEDURES IN PERFORMING THESE TWO AUTOPSIES. HE WILL INDICATE FURTHER THAT THE AUTOPSY FINDINGS IN THIS CASE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE STRUGGLE THAT RESULTED IN HAND-TO-HAND COMBAT, THAT MR. GOLDMAN DID IN FACT BLEED PROFUSELY AND HE BLED SLOWLY AND THAT HE WAS STANDING THROUGH MOST OF THIS; AND THAT IN HIS OPINION, THE PERPETRATOR WOULD BE COVERED WITH MR. GOLDMAN'S BLOOD. HE ALSO -- DR. BADIN WILL TESTIFY THAT THERE ARE BLOOD DROPS ON THE BACK OF MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AND THERE WERE NO SWABS TAKEN. IN FACT, WHEN THE BODY WAS MOVED AND TAKEN TO THE LAB, THOSE BLOOD DROPS, WHICH VERY WELL MAY HAVE BEEN OF THE PERPETRATOR, WERE WIPED OFF OR WASHED OFF, NEVER PRESERVED. AND SO WHAT I EXPECT THE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THROUGH OUR TESTIMONY AND THROUGH CROSS-EXAMINATION AS I'VE INDICATED, THAT CORONER'S INVESTIGATORS WHO CAME TO THAT SCENE ALSO DIDN'T WEAR ANY COVERING OVER THEIR SHOES, THAT WE EXPECT YOU WILL BE ABLE TO SEE THIS SCENE WAS TRACKED THROUGH AND TRAIPSED THROUGH BY THE CORONER'S PEOPLE JUST AS IT HAD BEEN BY THE LAPD PEOPLE. AND AT SOME TIME IN THIS TRIAL, WE HOPE TO HAVE SOME GRAPHIC VIDEO EVIDENCE OF THAT FACT TOO SO YOU CAN SEE FOR YOURSELF. IN SHORT, FROM OUR STANDPOINT, FROM THE DEFENSE STANDPOINT IN WANTING A FAIR TRIAL, BEING ABLE TO DEFEND OUR CLIENT, THE ACTIONS OF THE CORONER'S OFFICE HAS OBVIOUSLY MADE EVERYONE'S JOB AND SPECIFICALLY THE DEFENSE'S JOB MUCH MORE DIFFICULT; THAT WHEN THE LAPD FAILED TO NOTIFY THE CORONER'S OFFICE FOR 10 HOURS, VIOLATING THE STATE LAW, IT MADE EVERYBODY'S JOB MORE DIFFICULT. DR. GOLDEN, WHEN HE TESTIFIES AND AS HE TESTIFIED AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, WAS ASKED QUESTIONS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE COULD HAVE BEEN TWO KNIVES USED IN THESE TWO KILLINGS, WILL INDICATE THAT SOME OF THE WOUNDS ON THESE TWO VICTIMS ARE CONSISTENT WITH A DOUBLE-EDGE KNIFE, SOME ARE CONSISTENT WITH A SINGLE-EDGE KNIFE OR BLADE. SO IT WOULD BE CONSISTENT THAT PERHAPS TWO KNIVES WERE USED, AND I THINK THAT WE CAN EXPECT THAT FROM HIS TESTIMONY EITHER BY THE PEOPLE OR BY US IF HE IS CALLED TO SO TESTIFY. IN ADDITION TO DR. MICHAEL BADIN, WE WILL HAVE FOR YOU TO TESTIFY DR. HENRY LEE, THE FOREMOST FORENSIC CRIME SCENE ANALYST IN AMERICA. HE IS HEAD OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT LAB. HE WILL BE HERE TO SHARE WITH YOU HIS FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO THIS CRIME SCENE AND WHAT TOOK PLACE AT THAT CRIME SCENE AND THE CONTAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE THEREOF. NOW, WITH REGARD TO THE OPENING STATEMENT YESTERDAY, AS I SAID, YOU WERE TOLD THAT IN THIS CASE, THE CORONER'S OFFICE COULDN'T DO ANY BETTER THAN THREE HOURS. AND I THINK THE EVIDENCE WE ARE GOING TO SHOW YOU SHOWS THEY COULD HAVE DONE AN AWFUL LOT BETTER, AND WE'LL HAVE OTHER CASES TO CITE FOR THAT. I'VE COVERED WITH YOU THIS MORNING THE QUESTION OF THE TIME LINE. WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT AT THE VERY END AGAIN. MISS CLARK TALKS ABOUT A TRAIL OF BLOOD WHERE THERE IS NO TRAIL, AND WE WILL EXPECT TO HAVE EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT, WHEREAS SHE TOLD YOU YESTERDAY TIME AND TIME AGAIN THAT THEY WERE LOOKING FOR MATCHES TO EXCLUDE, TO EXCLUDE, TO EXCLUDE, THAT WHAT SHE DID NOT TELL YOU IS THAT THERE ARE TRAILS THAT LEAD TOWARD INNOCENCE AND THEY WERE NOT PURSUED. LET ME GIVE YOU SOME EXAMPLES BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE THAT I EXPECT TO PRODUCE IN THIS TRIAL. THERE IT IS. AND I'LL GO THROUGH THIS LIST FOR YOU. I EXPECT THE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS BLOOD UNDER MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S FINGERNAILS THAT CAME BACK A TYPE B, EAP GENETIC MARKER, AND THAT DOES NOT MEET THE GENETIC PROFILE OF MR. SIMPSON, MR. GOLDMAN OR MISS BROWN; SOME OTHER PERSON. THAT THERE WAS BLOOD FOUND ON MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S THIGH, AND THAT CAME BACK ALSO TO TYPE B. THERE WAS, AS YOU MIGHT IMAGINE IN THIS CASE, ALL KINDS OF EVIDENCE COMING FORWARD, PEOPLE THAT WANT TO VOLUNTEER THINGS. THERE WAS A KNIFE FOUND SHORTLY AFTER THESE KILLINGS, AND THE BLOOD ON ONE OF THE KNIVES FOUND ALSO WAS THIS TYPE B, SIMILAR TO THE BLOOD THAT WAS FOUND UNDER MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S FINGERNAILS. YOU WOULD EXPECT THAT BLOOD TO BE OF THE PERPETRATOR SINCE IT'S NOT HERS. WE WILL IN A SHORT TIME SHOW YOU A GRAPHIC OF SEVERAL THINGS IN THAT CONNECTION. THERE WERE IDENTIFIABLE FINGERPRINTS WHICH NOT MATCH AND DON'T MATCH MR. O.J. SIMPSON OR ANY OF THE POLICE OFFICERS THERE. AND THIS BECOMES RELEVANT WE THINK BECAUSE THE CONTENTION OF THE PROSECUTION IS, ONE OF THE GLOVES WAS LOST IN THIS STRUGGLE SUPPOSEDLY. THERE'S IDENTIFIABLE PALM PRINTS. THERE'S NO MATCH TO MR. O.J. SIMPSON. OUR EXPERTS WILL TESTIFY THERE ARE DIFFERENT PATTERNS OF SHOE IMPRINTS AT THIS SCENE INDICATING PERHAPS MORE THAN ONE PERSON. NO MENTION OF THAT THUS FAR. WE EXPECT THAT TO BE THE TESTIMONY. THERE ARE NO HAIRS ON THE BUNDY GLOVE THAT ARE MATCHED TO MR. O.J. SIMPSON. THERE ARE NEGROID HAIRS ON THE KNIT CAP AT BUNDY THAT DO NOT MATCH MR. O.J. SIMPSON. THE PROSECUTION HAS NEVER TO THIS DATE DONE ANY DNA TESTS AS WE KNOW -- AS FAR AS WE KNOW RATHER ON THE BUNDY GLOVE. TESTING HAS BEEN SLOW. THAT WHEN THE INVESTIGATORS ARRIVED AT THE SCENE OF THESE DOUBLE MURDERS -- SHE TALKED TO YOU ABOUT SOMEBODY NAMED DETECTIVE RISKE. WELL, RISKE MAY HAVE BEEN THE OFFICER WHO CAME THERE, BUT THIS CASE WAS ASSIGNED TO PHILLIPS AND FUHRMAN. THIS WAS THEIR CASE. THIS IS WEST LOS ANGELES HOMICIDE, PHILLIPS AND FUHRMAN, THAT IT WAS TRANSFERRED FROM THEM BECAUSE OF THE HIGH-PROFILE NATURE OF THE CASE TO ROBBERY/HOMICIDE THEREAFTER. PHILLIPS AND FUHRMAN CONTINUED TO PLAY AN ACTIVE ROLE IN THIS CASE. YOU WILL HEAR VERY, VERY LITTLE ABOUT AN OFFICER RISKE. BUT ONE OF THE INTERESTING THINGS THAT I THINK YOU'LL FIND ABOUT THIS CRIME SCENE IS THE DEARTH OR LACK OF ANY PHOTOGRAPHS, EXAMINATION OR INVESTIGATION INSIDE THAT HOUSE. I DON'T THINK YOU WILL FIND ONE PHOTOGRAPH FROM INSIDE THAT HOUSE. THERE WILL BE SOME EVIDENCE THAT THE OFFICERS WHO ARRIVED AT THAT SCENE SHORTLY AFTER FINDING THESE BODIES FOUND A PARTIALLY MELTING CUP OF ICE CREAM FROM BEN AND JERRY'S. WE DON'T HAVE THAT. I DON'T KNOW -- THERE WERE NO PICTURES TAKEN OF IT. SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY WAY OF SEEING HOW MUCH WAS MENTIONED. WE'RE PRECLUDED FROM THAT AT THIS POINT. THIS WAS FOUND NEAR THE BACK OF THE RESIDENCE OF THE BUNDY HOME. YOU HEARD A LOT YESTERDAY ABOUT BLOOD DROPS AT BUNDY. YOU COULD TELL THERE ARE OBVIOUSLY THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS DROPS OF BLOOD AT THAT SCENE. MISS CLARK TALKED TO YOU ABOUT FIVE BLOOD DROPS. WHAT WE EXPECT THE EVIDENCE TO SHOW, THE BLOOD DROPS THAT THEY FOUND HAD VERY, VERY LITTLE DNA. IN THE GRAPHICS SOON, I WILL TRY TO DEMONSTRATE FOR YOU THE AMOUNT OF THE DNA FOUND IN THESE BLOOD DROPS, WHICH MEANT THAT THESE BLOOD DROPS, ACCORDING TO OUR EXPERTS, WERE EITHER OLD OR DEGRADED, CONTAMINATED BY PEOPLE WHO COLLECTED THEM AND TESTED THEM. AND OF COURSE, THE BLOOD DROPS AT BUNDY ARE IN AN AREA WHERE MR. SIMPSON AND HIS CHILDREN HAVE OBVIOUSLY BEEN ON MANY OCCASIONS. THERE WERE TIRE TRACKS IN THE BACK OF THE HOUSE WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN MATCHED TO ANY OF MR. O.J. SIMPSON'S VEHICLES. NOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE EXPECT TO SHOW DURING THE COURSE OF THIS -- OUR PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE IS THAT THERE WAS IN FACT A MAJOR STRUGGLE AND MR. GOLDMAN FOUGHT VALIANTLY. HE WAS APPARENTLY PHYSICALLY FIT, 5/10 AND 170 PLUS. HE WAS STABBED A NUMBER OF TIMES, PERHAPS 30, AND THERE WAS BLOOD ON HIS HANDS AND ARMS. HE HAD A NUMBER OF DEFENSIVE WOUNDS. AND THE EXPERTS WILL TESTIFY THAT YOU WOULD EXPECT THAT THE PERPETRATOR'S -- THAT MR. GOLDMAN'S BLOOD WOULD BE ALL OVER THE PERPETRATOR'S CLOTHES, HAIR, ALL OVER HIS BODY. IN FACT, HE WOULD BE SATURATED WITH MR. GOLDMAN'S BLOOD. AND OF COURSE, UNDER THE PROSECUTION'S THEORY, THE PERPETRATOR WAS DRIVING THAT BRONCO THAT NIGHT. THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF GOLDMAN'S OR NICOLE SIMPSON'S BLOODSTAINS INSIDE THAT BRONCO OF THE AMOUNT THAT YOU WOULD EXPECT GIVEN THIS SITUATION; THAT THE PATTERN OF BLOOD THAT THEY TALKED ABOUT YESTERDAY, SMALL, SMALL, VERY SMALL PATTERN OF BLOOD IN THAT VEHICLE IS VERY CONSISTENT WITH WHAT I EXPECT YOU WILL HEAR IN A STATEMENT MADE BY MR. SIMPSON. NOW, MISS CLARK WENT ON YESTERDAY AND SAID THAT WITH REGARD TO THE DNA EVIDENCE -- SHE TALKED A LITTLE ABOUT DNA. SHE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT OR MAKE A DISTINCTION FOR YOU BETWEEN THE RFLP, THE RESTRICTION FRAGMENT LENGTH POLYMORPHISM OR POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION, PCR, WHICH OUR EXPERT BASICALLY INVENTED IT. BUT I THINK WHAT YOU'LL FIND IS, THIS IS VERY, VERY SENSITIVE EVIDENCE THAT IS THEN XEROXED UP, MELITURICALLY XEROXED. AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT A LITTLE MORE LATER. WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THE PATTERN -- BEFORE I TELL YOU THAT, I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL ALSO SHOW THAT ON THE STEERING COLUMN OF THE BRONCO, ITEM NUMBER 29 OF PEOPLE'S EXHIBITS -- I DON'T THINK YOU WERE TOLD THIS YESTERDAY -- THAT THEY DID NOT TALK ABOUT A DNA MIXTURE CONSISTENT WITH, CONSISTENT WITH, NOT NECESSARILY A MATCH, CONSISTENT WITH MR. SIMPSON AND SOMEONE OTHER THAN NICOLE OR RONALD GOLDMAN, SOME OTHER PERSON. WITH REGARD TO ROCKINGHAM, MR. SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE, AGAIN, I EXPECT THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY THAT MR. SIMPSON DID IN FACT CUT HIS FINGER AT SOME PLACE WHERE I'M POINTING NOW, NEAR THE END OF HIS MIDDLE FINGER, AND HE SO TOLD THE POLICE THAT EVENING, JANUARY 13, AND THAT HE WENT OUT -- HE DID IT EITHER AS HE WAS ABOUT TO LEAVE OR WHEN HE WENT OUT TO THE BRONCO TO GET HIS CELLULAR PHONE. THAT WHAT I THINK YOU'LL FIND AND WHAT I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW IS THAT THE REASON THERE WAS NO BLOOD COMING UP THE STAIRS -- AND THIS CARPET IN THIS HOUSE, I THINK YOU'LL FIND THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW, IS LARGELY WHITE, LARGELY VERY LIGHT. IF YOU HAVE A JURY VIEW, YOU WILL BE ABLE TO SEE FOR YOURSELF. THEY DIDN'T FIND ANY BLOOD OTHER THAN WHAT YOU SAW OUTSIDE AND JUST IN THAT ENTRYWAY. I THINK YOU'LL FIND THAT LEADS TOWARDS THE KITCHEN. AND UNDOUBTEDLY, THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY WITH REGARD TO THAT INJURY, IF ANY, OCCURRING BEFORE HE EVER LEFT FOR CHICAGO. THERE WILL BE, AS I UNDERSTAND THE EVIDENCE, NO TRACE OF BLOOD ON THE WHITE CARPET UPSTAIRS OR ON THE STAIRS OR UPSTAIRS, NO TRACE OF BLOOD ON THE WHITE CARPET OF ANY BLOODY SHOES, NO TRACE OF BLOOD ON THE WHITE CARPET OF ANY BLOODY PANTS OR SHIRTS AND NO TRACE OF BLOOD ON THIS WHITE CARPET FROM ANY BLOODY SOCKS. THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THE -- IN AN EFFORT TO FIND ANY EVIDENCE NOT TO EXCLUDE, BUT TO INCLUDE MR. SIMPSON, THEY SEARCHED EVERYWHERE IN THE AREA IN LOS ANGELES. THEY SEARCHED IN CHICAGO. THEY SEARCHED EVERYWHERE THEY POSSIBLY COULD THINK, AND THEY DID NOT FIND ANY WEAPON OR ANY CLOTHES BECAUSE MR. SIMPSON, THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW, DID NOT HAVE IT. THEY TOOK APART TRAPS AND PIPES FROM HIS SINK, SHOWERS AND PLUMBING AND SEARCHED EVERYWHERE FOR THESE VARIOUS THINGS. THE EVIDENCE WILL ALSO SHOW THAT WITH REGARD TO MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON --

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION. MAY WE APPROACH?

THE COURT: MR. HODGMAN?

MR. HODGMAN: YES, YOUR HONOR. MAY WE APPROACH?

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE ARE AT THE SIDEBAR. I THOUGHT WE WERE NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE PHENO TESTING.

MR. COCHRAN: I DIDN'T TALK ABOUT IT. I SAID --

MR. HODGMAN: YES. YOUR HONOR, THE POINT IS, WE HAD THE PRESUMPTIVE TEST EVIDENCE, WHICH WAS EXCLUDED AS THE COURT WILL RECALL, AND NOW COUNSEL RAISES IT. THAT IS PATENTLY UNFAIR.

MR. COCHRAN: WHAT I THOUGHT I WAS TRYING TO SAY WAS THAT THEY SEARCHED THE HOUSE. I DIDN'T SAY WHAT HAPPENED.

THE COURT: NO.

MR. COCHRAN: THEY SEARCHED THE PIPES.

THE COURT: YOU MENTIONED SINKS AND TRAPS.

MR. COCHRAN: I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT ANY PHENO TESTING. I JUST SAID SEARCH.

THE COURT: NO. FAIR IS FAIR HERE, BECAUSE THEY HAD PRESUMPTIVE TESTING FOR BLOOD, AND I TOLD YOU NOT TO USE -- TOLD THEM NOT TO USE IT AT YOUR REQUEST, AND IT'S NOT FAIR FOR YOU TO BRING THAT UP.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I -- WILL THE COURT ALLOW ME TO SAY THERE WAS PHENO TESTS TAKEN TO EXPLAIN THAT?

MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, WE ASK FOR A MOTION TO STRIKE AND ADMONISHMENT TO THE JURY. THAT IS IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE COURT'S ORDER.

MS. CLARK: SO ADVISE THE JURY THAT THE PEOPLE WERE PRECLUDED FROM MENTIONING THE EXISTENCE OF POSSIBLE PHENO TESTS WITH THE SINK AND THE SHOWER.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THERE'S A REQUEST FOR A COMFORT BREAK.

MR. COCHRAN: I THOUGHT SHE SAID YESTERDAY THEY LOOKED AT THE PIPES IN OPENING STATEMENT.

THE COURT: NO. NO. REMEMBER, I TOLD THEM NOT TO.

MR. COCHRAN: ABOUT THE PHENO TESTING BECAUSE OF OTHER THINGS. I DIDN'T SAY -- I DON'T WANT TO MISLEAD THE JURY. IF THE COURT WILL ALLOW ME TO SEE IF I CAN CLEAR IT UP. IF I DON'T -- I'M NOT TRYING TO MISLEAD ANYBODY ON THIS OBVIOUSLY. I'M TRYING TO POINT OUT THEIR SEARCH, YOUR HONOR, IN THIS HOUSE FOR BLOOD THROUGHOUT. THAT'S ALL I'M TRYING TO DO.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WELL, WHY DON'T YOU CLEAR IT UP BY SAYING THE PROSECUTION DID DO PRESUMPTIVE TESTS.

MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. FOR BLOOD. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT.

MR. HODGMAN: DO YOU RECALL WHERE IT WAS FOUND?

MR. COCHRAN: NO.

MS. CLARK: IN THE DRAIN OF THE SHOWER AND IN THE DRAIN OF THE SINK IN HIS BATHROOM; ALSO ON HIS BATHROOM FLOOR.

MR. COCHRAN: BUT THEY DID DO PRESUMPTIVE TESTS -- I'LL SAY THEY WERE PERMITTED TO --

THE COURT: WHY DON'T YOU JUST SAY THERE WAS A PRESUMPTIVE TEST THAT CAME BACK POSITIVE, BUT THEN, "WE'LL DISCUSS WHAT THAT MEANS IN THE EVIDENCE."

MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S FINE.

MR. SHAPIRO: CAN WE GO ONE STEP FURTHER AND SAY WE HAVE EXPERT TESTIMONY THAT WILL TESTIFY -- DR. HENRY LEE WILL TESTIFY THAT IF THEY WENT TO EVERY SHOWER AND DRAIN IN THE UNITED STATES, YOU WOULD GET POSITIVE RESULTS?

THE COURT: NO. FAIR IS FAIR. WE'VE PRECLUDED THEM FROM BRINGING THAT UP IN FRONT OF THE JURY. JUST TELL THEM IT'S THERE, WE'LL DISCUSS IT LATER.

MR. HODGMAN: I THINK IT WOULD ONLY BE FAIR GIVEN THE INVESTIGATIVE NATURE OF THE CASE TO STATE THERE WAS A POSITIVE PHENO TEST FOR SUBSTANCE WHICH COULD INCLUDE BLOOD.

MR. COCHRAN: YEAH. THAT'S FAIR. NO PROBLEM.

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, WE'RE MISSING ONE OF OUR JURORS, COMFORT BREAK. GO BACK, TAKE YOUR SEATS, AND WHEN THEY COME BACK, WE'LL RESUME.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

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

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I SHOULD POINT OUT THAT THE PEOPLE IN THEIR INVESTIGATION DID IN FACT CHECK THE -- I THINK THE SINK AREA AND THE SHOWER AREA, SOME AREAS IN THE BATHROOM FOR -- THE BATHROOM FLOOR FOR AREAS -- FOR INDICATION THERE MAY BE BLOOD IN THOSE AREAS. SOME OF THOSE TESTS CAME BACK POSITIVE. THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY -- THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY WITH REGARD TO THIS ENTIRE AREA AS TO THOSE TESTS AND WHAT OTHER THINGS WILL TEST POSITIVE FOR. THE COURT WILL AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME ALLOW THIS TO BE DISCUSSED. NOW --

MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR --

THE COURT: THAT'S FINE. PROCEED.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. WITH REGARD TO MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, WHICH I WAS ABOUT TO TALK ABOUT, THE TESTIMONY -- WE BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE WILL BE THAT BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF HER INJURIES, A LOT OF BLOOD CAME FORTH, SO THAT THE PERPETRATOR WOULD IN ALL LIKELIHOOD BE COVERED AND SOAKED AGAIN WITH HER BLOOD. WE THINK THIS WILL BECOME IMPORTANT AGAIN WHEN YOU DETERMINE THE ABSENCE OR LACK OF BLOOD CERTAINLY WITH REGARD TO MR. SIMPSON, NOT PERHAPS REGARDING THE PERPETRATORS OF THIS OFFENSE. MISS CLARK YESTERDAY TALKED ABOUT A MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARING BLACK BAG. WE EXPECT THERE WILL BE VIDEOS IN THIS CASE THAT THE BLACK BAG I PRESUME SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT WAS WHAT MR. SIMPSON BROUGHT BACK WITH HIM FROM CHICAGO. HE CAN BE SEEN CLEARLY IN THAT VIDEO WITH THAT BLACK BAG. AND I BELIEVE IT WAS IN POLICE CUSTODY. CERTAINLY AT ONE POINT, I KNOW THEY HAD IT IN THEIR CUSTODY. SO IT DIDN'T SEEM TO US A BIG MYSTERY. BUT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE AS IT DEVELOPS. BUT WE ARE NOT AWARE OF ANY MISSING BLACK BAG THAT MR. SIMPSON HAS OR WHATEVER. SO LOOKING AT THE EVIDENCE AT ROCKINGHAM THEN, THERE'S THIS ROCKINGHAM GLOVE THAT IS SUPPOSEDLY FOUND IN AN AREA THAT YOU SAW SOME PICTURES ABOUT YESTERDAY. MR. SIMPSON'S HOME HAS A VERY, VERY NARROW PATHWAY ON THE SIDE OF HIS HOUSE. YOU SAW THE PICTURES OF THESE -- OF THIS GLOVE. IT WAS ON TOP OF SOME LEAVES. THERE WILL BE NO TESTIMONY AS I UNDERSTAND IT ABOUT ANY BLOOD DROPS LEADING TO AND FROM THAT. THEN, AS I EXPECT THE EVIDENCE TO SHOW, THERE'S A FENCE RIGHT UP THERE CLOSE BY THIS BLOOD DROP. THIS PATHWAY LEADS BASICALLY TO A BACKYARD AREA THAT'S KIND OF BASICALLY ENCLOSED. I THINK THERE'S MAYBE A GATE ON ONE SIDE. I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO COME IN THE HOUSE ON THAT SIDE -- AND YOU'LL SEE THIS WHEN YOU GO OUT THERE -- THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO DOORS ON THAT SIDE THAT SOMEBODY COULD GO RIGHT INSIDE THE HOUSE WITHOUT CLIMBING OVER A FENCE OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE. YOU WILL SEE THE EVIDENCE. AND AGAIN, YOU WILL BE THE ONE WHO CAN HELP MAKE THOSE FACTS. BUT WITH REGARD TO THIS GLOVE WHICH WAS -- AND THEN AGAIN, I THINK -- LET ME TRY TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT FOR YOU. THIS GLOVE WAS NOT FOUND BY THEM OR THE OFFICERS OR WHATEVER. THIS GLOVE WAS FOUND BY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. HE FOUND IT, HE THEN INDIVIDUALLY TOOK THESE OTHER OFFICERS BACK THERE SUPPOSEDLY TO SEE IT. THEY SUPPOSEDLY BROUGHT A PHOTOGRAPHER OVER THERE TO TAKE PICTURES OF IT. ALTHOUGH YOU DIDN'T HEAR THAT YESTERDAY, THOSE ARE THE FACTS AS I UNDERSTAND THEM. AS I SAID, THERE'S NO BLOOD TRAIL TO THESE LEAVES. THE LEAVES DON'T APPEAR TO BE DISTURBED. THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF ANY HAIRS, FIBERS ON THIS FENCE. AND THERE WAS TESTIMONY -- WILL BE TESTIMONY I BELIEVE THAT THERE WERE COBWEBS IN THIS AREA BEYOND THIS GLOVE. PRESUMABLY, ONE COULD INFER NOBODY HAD BEEN BACK THERE FOR SOME PERIOD OF TIME TO KNOCK THOSE COBWEBS DOWN. WITH REGARD TO THIS GLOVE, THERE'S ALSO ON THIS GLOVE A CAUCASIAN HAIR ON THIS GLOVE THAT DOES NOT MATCH THE HAIR OF EITHER NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON OR RON GOLDMAN. AND MISS CLARK TOLD YOU YESTERDAY THAT HAIR SAMPLES ARE COLLECTED. AND WHO COLLECTS THEM ARE IMPORTANT. I ALLUDED TO THIS BRIEFLY, BUT WE THINK THAT THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THE NOBLE PEACE PRIZE WINNER WHO INVENTED THIS TECHNOLOGY WILL TELL YOU IT IS OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE HOW THIS IS COLLECTED BECAUSE OF THE SENSITIVE NATURE, HOW VERY SMALL. YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE SOME OF THESE SAMPLES. YOU'LL HEAR THAT TESTIMONY FROM DR. CARY MULLIS. YOU WILL ALSO HEAR TESTIMONY FROM DR. JOHN GURTIS, ANOTHER LEADING EXPERT FROM DENVER WHO WE EXPECT WILL COME AND TESTIFY. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT ANY ATTEMPT TO -- IN THE EVIDENCE TO MAKE IT SEEM AS THOUGH PCR TECHNOLOGY AND DNA AND RFLP IS EASY TO UNDERSTAND. IT'S VERY COMPLEX. I THINK FROM BOTH SIDES, WE WANT TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO MAKE THIS AS CLEAR AS POSSIBLE. I THINK THAT YOU WILL HEAR TESTIMONY -- AND I ASK YOU OF COURSE TO KEEP AN OPEN MIND UNTIL YOU HEAR THE EXPERTS ON BOTH SIDES, AND I THINK YOU'LL GET A CLEAR PICTURE OF THIS PARTICULAR EVIDENCE. I MENTIONED BEFORE THIS CRIME SCENE AND THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO WERE ALLOWED TO WALK THROUGH THERE, MANY WITH JUST THEIR SHOES ON WALKING RIGHT THROUGH THE BLOOD. SOME HAD THOSE LITTLE BOOTIES ON. SOME HAD GLOVES, SOME DIDN'T HAVE GLOVES. PICKING UP THE EVIDENCE, THIS WILL BECOME VERY RELEVANT, IMPORTANT TO YOU AS YOU HEAR FROM THE EXPERTS ABOUT THE CONTAMINATION ASPECT OF THIS AND WHAT IT MEANS AND HOW EASY IT IS, A SNEEZE, A TOUCH, WHATEVER FOR THIS EVIDENCE TO BECOME CONTAMINATED. YOU WILL HEAR ABOUT THIS NEW TECHNOLOGY. YOU WILL HEAR ALSO THAT THE EXPERT WHO INVENTED IT DOESN'T BELIEVE IT'S BEING PROPERLY AND APPROPRIATELY APPLIED AND IT'S NOT READY PERHAPS IN A FORENSIC SENSE TO BE USED; THAT IS TO BE USED AT A CRIME SCENE AND THEN BROUGHT TO COURT. MISS CLARK TALKED TO YOU YESTERDAY ABOUT THE MEDICAL USES OF IT. SHE TALKED ABOUT AMNIOCENTESIS. THAT WAS NICE. BUT IN AN AMNIOCENTESIS, YOU HAVE KNOWN INDIVIDUALS. YOU KNOW WHO THE FATHER AND THE MOTHER ARE, AT LEAST YOU'D BETTER KNOW WHO THEY ARE. WHEN YOU TAKE THE FLUID, YOU DO THAT IN A LAB, A CLEAN SETTING, NOT LIKE A CRIME SCENE OR WHATEVER. YOU WILL HEAR THE DISTINCTION, AS I SAID BEFORE, THIS 21ST CENTURY CYBERSPACE TECHNOLOGY USED BY PEOPLE POORLY TRAINED IN THE FIELD USING LIKE 19TH CENTURY TECHNIQUES TO COLLECT IT. MISS CLARK MENTIONED TO US YESTERDAY ABOUT JURASSIC PARK. THIS IS NOT A MOVIE. YOU CAN'T -- IT WOULD BE FANTASY TO THINK THAT YOU COULD TAKE AND MAKE DINOSAURS FROM DNA. NOBODY HAS DONE THAT. THAT'S A MOVIE, IT'S NOT REAL LIFE. SHE TALKED TO US ABOUT CZARS IN RUSSIA AND THAT SORT OF THING. IT'S ONE THING TO LOOK FOR BONES. THERE IS TECHNOLOGY THAT YOU HEAR ABOUT THAT WAS NOT USED IN THIS CASE. IT'S A DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGY ALL TOGETHER, SOME KIND OF SEQUENTIAL DNA TESTING CALLED MITOCHONDRION. I WON'T BORE YOU WITH THE TERM, BUT THAT'S NOT USED. BUT THE EXPERT WILL TELL YOU IT'S NOT RELEVANT TO THE PROCEEDING HERE, WHAT WAS DONE HERE. SO WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM THAT EVERY EFFORT WAS MADE TO EXCLUDE MR. SIMPSON, WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE. YOU ARE ASKED TO KEEP AN OPEN MIND. WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT WHEN TEST RESULTS POINTED AWAY FROM MR. SIMPSON, THEY CONCLUDED SOMETHING MUST BE WRONG WITH THE TEST. OUR EXPERTS WILL TELL YOU THAT THERE ARE HUGE INTERPRETATION PROBLEMS WITH MANY OF THE TESTS PERFORMED IN THIS CASE. THIS IS PARTICULARLY TRUE WHERE THERE ARE MIXED SAMPLES CONTAINING BLOOD OR OTHER BIOLOGICAL MATERIAL FROM MORE THAN ONE PERSON. WE EXPECT TO SHOW THAT THE RESULTS OF SOME OF THE TESTS IN THIS CASE ARE SO AMBIGUOUS THAT TWO DIFFERENT SCIENTISTS WILL COME TO TWO DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS, BUT THE SAME RESULTS. AS I SAID EARLIER, GIVEN MR. SIMPSON'S STATEMENT TO THE POLICE, THE EVIDENCE OF ANY BLOOD IN THE BRONCO IS FAR MORE CONSISTENT WE BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW WITH MR. SIMPSON'S INNOCENCE THAN ANY GUILT, AND THE FACT THAT THERE'S ALMOST NO BLOOD OF ANYONE ELSE, IF ANY, IN THAT BRONCO IS JUST THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU WOULD EXPECT IF SOMEBODY COMMITTED A CRIME AND USED THAT VEHICLE AS A MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION. NOW, TO CONCLUDE THEN WITH REGARD TO MY DISCUSSION OF MISS CLARK'S OPENING STATEMENT, A NUMBER OF THINGS WERE SAID TO YOU YESTERDAY. AND JUDGE ITO AT THE END OF THE DAY ASKED YOU TO KEEP AN OPEN MIND. AS I THOUGHT ABOUT THIS CASE LAST NIGHT, I WAS CONCERNED JUST FOR A MOMENT, BECAUSE I THOUGHT ABOUT, WE DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO TALK TO THEM YET THROUGH CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND OUR CONTROL. BUT WHAT QUICKLY CAME TO MY MIND WAS THE FACT THAT THE JURY THAT WE'VE TRIED TO WORK AND PICK SINCE SEPTEMBER THAT'S BEEN SO PATIENT WOULD KEEP AN OPEN MIND. AND I AM SURE YOU WILL DO THAT, AND THAT'S ALL WE ARE ASKING. NOT ONLY FROM LAST NIGHT TO TODAY, BUT UNTIL YOU HEAR THE END OF THE CASE, BECAUSE YOU REMEMBER WHAT WE SAID AND PART OF WHAT I'M SAYING TO YOU TODAY IS THAT THE CASE WON'T BE OVER UNTIL YOU'VE HEARD ALL THE EVIDENCE AND SUMMATIONS BY THE LAWYERS. AND ALL OF YOU HAVE SAID THAT WOULD BE UNFAIR TO MAKE UP YOUR MIND BEFORE THAT, AND I THINK BOTH SIDES WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. IN HER CONCLUSION YESTERDAY, SHE INDICATED THAT -- SOMETHING ABOUT IT WAS DEVASTATING, PROOF OF SOMETHING OR OTHER IF YOU REMEMBER. IT SEEMS TO ME, AS I THOUGHT ABOUT WHAT SHE SAID, THE FACT THERE IS NO BLOOD WHERE THERE SHOULD BE BLOOD IS DEVASTATING EVIDENCE OF INNOCENCE. AND WE'LL BE TALKING MORE ABOUT THIS; THAT THE FACT OF BLOOD VOLUNTARILY GIVEN BY A DEFENDANT, MYSTERIOUSLY DISAPPEARS WHEN IT SHOULD BE THERE IS DEVASTATING EVIDENCE THAT SOMETHING IS WRONG. AND FINALLY, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE FACT THAT BLOOD MYSTERIOUSLY APPEARS ON VITAL PIECES OF EVIDENCE AND IT IS PREDICTED WHAT THE RESULTS WILL BE REGARDING DNA WHEN THAT EVIDENCE IS STILL IN THE POLICE LAB IS DEVASTATING EVIDENCE OF SOMETHING FAR MORE SINISTER. NOW, LET'S TURN OUR ATTENTION AGAIN, IF WE COULD, TO THE LASER DISK SHOWINGS. LET ME START THIS PART OF THE PRESENTATION QUICKLY BY SHOWING YOU AGAIN SOME TRAILS THAT LEAD TO INNOCENCE THAT WEREN'T PURSUED BY THE PROSECUTION TEAM. AND, YOUR HONOR, I WILL BE MOVING AHEAD. CALL OUT THE NUMBER IF YOU CAN. BEFORE WE DO THAT, MR. DOUGLAS, CAN YOU RETRIEVE THE ENVELOPE? MAY WE JUST HAVE A SECOND, YOUR HONOR?

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

MS. CLARK: MAY WE APPROACH?

THE COURT: YES, WITH THE COURT REPORTER, PLEASE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: AT THE SIDEBAR. I ASSUME THAT THIS IS THE ENVELOPE?

MR. COCHRAN: YES. WE'RE TRYING TO NOT INVOLVE YOU IN THESE PETTY THINGS. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SHOW AND TELL. MY OFFER OF PROOF IS, I AM GOING TO BE DEMONSTRATING HOPEFULLY, AS I JUST SAID, TWO OR THREE THINGS WHICH I THINK POINTS ESSENTIALLY TO OUR CLIENT'S INNOCENCE AND IN A FORENSIC REALM, INESCAPABLY. AND I AM GOING TO SAY THAT THERE'S AN ENVELOPE THAT WILL BE OPENED DURING THE COURSE OF THIS TRIAL THAT'S BEEN IN THE CLERK'S POSSESSION. I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT OUT. I'M NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING. THAT'S ALL I WAS GOING TO DO. I DON'T HAVE TO TELL THEM ANYTHING. THAT'S ALL I AM GOING TO DO.

THE COURT: YOU'RE NOT PLANNING ON OPENING IT?

MR. COCHRAN: NO. I'M NOT GOING TO OPEN IT. I AM NOT THE ONE TO OPEN IT.

MR. SHAPIRO: IT'S IN THE COURT'S CUSTODY.

MR. COCHRAN: CHAIN OF CUSTODY. I GOT THIS FROM THE CLERK HERE. THAT'S ALL. JUST --

MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR --

THE COURT: MR. HODGMAN.

MR. HODGMAN: -- WHAT IS THIS? THIS IS A COMPLETE SURPRISE, OPENING STATEMENT BY AMBUSH. WHAT ABOUT DISCOVERY?

MR. COCHRAN: WHAT DO YOU MEAN?

THE COURT: YOU HAVE THE REPORTS OF THIS.

MS. CLARK: WE'VE NEVER SEEN IT. WE HAVEN'T BEEN ALLOWED TO SUBJECT IT TO OUR TESTS. HE NEVER TOLD US THEY WERE GOING TO PRODUCE THE ENVELOPE. COUNSEL KNOWS VERY WELL THE IMPACT OF THIS. THAT'S WHY HE'S DOING IT.

THE COURT: ONE ARGUMENT PER SIDE.

MS. CLARK: I AM SORRY.

MR. HODGMAN: WHAT DO YOU INTEND TO DO WITH THIS?

MR. COCHRAN: MY OFFER OF PROOF IS, I ASKED DEIRDRA EARLIER -- I'VE NEVER SEEN WHAT'S IN THERE EITHER, JUDGE. I WAS GOING TO INDICATE, FROM TALKING TO MR. SHAPIRO, HE JUST FINALLY TOLD ME JUST RECENTLY BY THE WAY WHAT'S IN THAT ENVELOPE. AND I'M NOT GOING TO OPEN IT. ALL I'M GOING TO INDICATE TO THE JURY IS, THAT ALONG WITH SOME OTHER EVIDENCE THAT POINTS AWAY FROM OUR CLIENT'S GUILT, THAT THIS EVIDENCE IN THIS ENVELOPE WILL BE OPEN AT SOME POINT IN THIS TRIAL. I BELIEVE THAT IT POINTS AWAY FROM -- TOWARDS HIS INNOCENCE. I'M NOT GOING TO OPEN IT.

THE COURT: MR. HODGMAN, YOU HAVE THE REPORTS REGARDING THE CONTENTS OF THIS ENVELOPE, CORRECT?

MR. COCHRAN: YES.

MR. HODGMAN: YES, WE DO, YOUR HONOR, AND WE DON'T INTEND TO INTRODUCE ANYTHING ABOUT THE KNIFE OR ANYTHING.

THE COURT: BUT SEE, THEY'RE ENTITLED TO BRING IN THE FACT THAT THE POLICE WERE LOOKING FOR THIS PARTICULAR WEAPON, THEY WENT ON THIS LONG SEARCH AND THEY COULDN'T FIND IT. IT WAS PRESENT IN A PLACE WHERE -- I MEAN YOU'VE READ THE REPORT, CORRECT?

MR. HODGMAN: YEAH.

THE COURT: YOU KNOW WHERE IT WAS FOUND?

MR. HODGMAN: NO. THAT IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE REPORT, YOUR HONOR. IT WAS ONLY THE DR. LEE EXAMINATION AS WITNESSED BY THE SPECIAL OR THE EXPERT APPOINTED BY THE COURT, DAVID SUGIYAMA. THERE WAS NOTHING ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF THAT.

MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE NO PROBLEM NOT SAYING WHERE IT WAS FOUND. IT'S NOT RELEVANT. I AM NOT GOING TO TRY TO SHOW WHERE IT'S FOUND. THIS IS A COURT'S EXHIBIT AT THIS POINT. I MEAN WE'RE UP HERE AGAIN --

THE COURT: I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION YOU HAD THE REPORT FROM JUDGE WONG AS TO WHERE IT WAS FOUND.

MR. HODGMAN: WE DO NOT KNOW WHERE IT WAS FOUND, YOUR HONOR. WE HAVE NO IDEA WHERE IT WAS FOUND. WE HAVE SUGIYAMA'S REPORT. THAT'S IT. AND I DOUBLE-CHECKED BY GOING BACK TO THE CLERK. THAT'S THE ONLY THING WE HAVE.

THE COURT: OKAY.

MR. COCHRAN: I PRESUME I HAVE THE SAME THING. THIS IS COURT'S EXHIBIT 1 WE RECEIVED. THIS IS THE COURT'S EXHIBIT. I CAN'T PICK UP THE COURT'S EXHIBIT AND TELL THEM WHAT IT IS. I'M NOT GOING TO OPEN IT. I'M NOT GOING TO VIOLATE THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY. I INDICATED TO YOU WHAT I WAS GOING TO ALLUDE TO. THEY KEEP TRYING TO STOP ME, JUDGE. I WOULD LIKE TO FINISH TODAY.

THE COURT: OKAY. MR. HODGMAN.

MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, WITH REGARD TO THIS, WE STILL DO NOT KNOW WHAT'S IN THERE. WE DO NOT KNOW FOR A FACT.

THE COURT: WELL, YOU KNOW FROM SUGIYAMA'S REPORT, DR. LEE'S REPORT WHAT IT IS.

MR. HODGMAN: IF THIS IS INDEED THE SAME ENVELOPE. WE DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT.

THE COURT: THERE'S ONLY ONE ENVELOPE.

MR. COCHRAN: I GOT IT FROM DEIRDRA.

MR. HODGMAN: WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF THIS? THE COURT HAS JUST MADE REFERENCE TO A REPORT FROM THE SPECIAL -- FROM SPECIAL MASTER WONG, WHICH WE HAVE NEVER SEEN.

THE COURT: I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION YOU HAD THAT, THAT THE DEFENSE TURNED OVER A COPY OF THAT TO YOU.

MR. HODGMAN: I HAVEN'T SEEN IT.

THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTION TELLING HIM WHERE IT CAME FROM?

MR. SHAPIRO: YES. NOT AT THIS TIME.

MR. HODGMAN: COUNSEL ADMITS THAT THEY HAVE TO DISCLOSE THIS INFORMATION. THERE'S NO SUCH REPORT. I WENT TO THE COURT --

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, THE PROBLEM IS, IT IS ALSO A DISCOVERY ISSUE TOO. IF YOU INTENDED ON USING IT, YOU NEED TO HAVE DISCLOSED JUDGE WONG'S REPORT TO THE PEOPLE BY THIS TIME, DON'T YOU THINK?

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, I THINK -- LET ME SAY WHAT I THINK ABOUT THAT. I THINK WHEN WE ARE GOING TO USE IT. ALL I WAS GOING TO SAY IS, WE ARE GOING TO OPEN THIS IN COURT DURING SOME TIME DURING THE TRIAL.

THE COURT: BUT SEE, YOU'VE EXPRESSED AN INTENTION TO USE IT. IF YOU HAVEN'T TURNED OVER JUDGE WONG'S REPORT YET, WE HAVE A DISCOVERY PROBLEM.

MR. SHAPIRO: JUDGE, WE JUST FOUND OUT FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT ANY KNIFE. THIS WAS GOING TO BE DONE AS POTENTIAL REBUTTAL EVIDENCE. WE HAD NO OBLIGATION TO TURN OVER ANYTHING THAT IS POTENTIAL REBUTTAL EVIDENCE TO WHAT THEY WOULD SAY. THEY HAVE NOW SAID THAT, CONTRARY TO WHAT WE HEARD AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, THAT THEY WENT OUT AND BOUGHT A KNIFE, THAT THEY SHOWED IT TO THE CORONER, THAT THE CORONER MADE A COMPARISON AND THAT IT WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE WOUNDS, THAT THEY'VE NOW ABANDONED THAT THEORY. WE JUST HEARD THAT FOR THE FIRST TIME HERE TODAY. YOU TALK ABOUT NOT GETTING DISCOVERY --

THE COURT: I DIDN'T HEAR THAT TODAY FROM MR. HODGMAN.

MR. SHAPIRO: HE SAID IT --

MR. HODGMAN: I'M STATING --

THE COURT: THEY HAVEN'T SAID ANYTHING TODAY.

MR. SHAPIRO: NO. HE JUST SAID IT UP HERE.

MR. HODGMAN: WE ARE NOT CALLING WATTENBERG. WE'RE NOT CALLING CAMACHO. NOTHING WAS SAID IN OPENING STATEMENT. WE'VE ALLUDED TO THAT I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES.

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, I AM GOING TO PRECLUDE YOU FROM USING THIS IN OPENING STATEMENT AT THIS POINT BECAUSE I THINK IF YOU ARE INTENDING ON USING THIS, YOU NEED TO HAVE DISCLOSED IT AT THIS POINT.

MR. COCHRAN: LET ME JUST -- I DON'T WANT TO ARGUE AFTER YOU'VE RULED, BUT CAN I SAY ONE THING? WITH REGARD TO THIS, I WASN'T GOING TO USE IT AT ALL. I WAS GOING TO ALLUDE TO IT.

THE COURT: BUT ALLUDING TO IT AND USING IT ARE THE SAME THING.

MR. COCHRAN: CAN I MENTION THAT, "THERE IS EVIDENCE IN THE COURT'S POSSESSION WHICH YOU WILL BECOME AWARE OF"? I DON'T HAVE TO HOLD IT. I DON'T CARE ABOUT THAT.

THE COURT: SAME THING. THAT'S THE SAME THING.

MR. SHAPIRO: CAN MR. COCHRAN TELL THE JURY --

THE COURT: ONE GLADIATOR.

MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR --

MR. COCHRAN: CAN I TALK?

MR. HODGMAN: MR. COCHRAN, YOU MAY. LET ME JUST POINT OUT, YOU CONSTANTLY ADMONISH US, MR. COCHRAN, ABOUT ARGUING AFTER A RULING, AND IT APPEARS YOU ARE ABOUT TO ARGUE AFTER A RULING.

MR. COCHRAN: I'M JUST TRYING TO GET SOME INSTRUCTION FROM THE COURT. THAT'S ALL I'M TRYING TO DO.

THE COURT: I'M GOING TO GIVE THIS BACK TO MRS. ROBERTSON.

MR. COCHRAN: BACK IN THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY. THEN I THINK I SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO TALK ABOUT THE POLICE WENT OUT AND SEARCHED THE ENTIRE HOUSE FOR A KNIFE AND WEAPONS AND NEVER FOUND ONE AS FAR AS I KNOW, NEVER FOUND ONE, BUT LOOKED EVERYWHERE SUPPOSEDLY.

THE COURT: YOU CAN ARGUE THAT. NOT ARGUE THAT. YOU CAN SAY THE EVIDENCE WILL PROVE THAT.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: IF YOU WILL ALLOW THE COURT REPORTER TO CHANGE PAPER SO SHE CAN FINISH THE REST OF THE AFTERNOON.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: THANK YOU, MADAM REPORTER. MR. COCHRAN, YOU MAY CONTINUE.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. JUST BEFORE WE GET THE DISJOININGS. I JUST WOULD INDICATE TO YOU, I EXPECT THERE WILL BE EVIDENCE, AS I INDICATED TO YOU SOMEWHAT ALREADY, THERE WAS AN INTENSIVE SEARCH OF MR. SIMPSON'S HOME LOOKING FOR ANY KIND OF A WEAPON, PRESUMABLY A KNIFE OF ANY KIND. AND I THINK DURING THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL, THERE WILL BE EVIDENCE THAT WILL BECOME VERY RELEVANT TO YOU WITH REGARD TO THIS ENTIRE AREA AND THE PEOPLE'S THEORY WITH REGARD TO THOSE ITEMS. NOW I'LL MOVE ON, YOUR HONOR, TO THE REPORT DEALING WITH THE FINGERNAIL CLIPPINGS.

MR. HARRIS: D-1A.

MR. COCHRAN: I HAD TALKED TO YOU EARLIER ABOUT THIS ANALYZED EVIDENCE REPORT. AND THIS IS THE ACTUAL REPORT OF THE SUBSTANCE FOUND UNDER MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S FINGERNAILS.

MR. HARRIS: THAT WAS D-1B. C. I AM SORRY. D-1C.

MR. COCHRAN: 84A AND 84B. I THINK THE 18A IS A TYPO, COULD NOT HAVE COME FROM NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, RONALD GOLDMAN OR O.J. SIMPSON AS I INDICATED TO YOU EARLIER. MR. HARRIS.

MR. HARRIS: D-2A AND WE HAVE TO --

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, THERE IS A NEXT PHOTOGRAPH COMING UP. MAY I JUST HAVE ONE SECOND?

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

MR. COCHRAN: I'VE ASKED MISS CLARK FOR SOMETHING.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MS. CLARK: I WOULD LIKE TO APPROACH, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: DO YOU NEED THE REPORTER?

MS. CLARK: YES.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: MR. HODGMAN.

MS. CLARK: SORRY, YOUR HONOR. I WAS TRYING TO READ IT ON THE SCREEN. THE OBJECTION IS TO THIS PASSAGE. I THOUGHT COUNSEL WAS GOING TO USE THE ENTIRE PARAGRAPH. IT'S VERY MISLEADING. THE VERY NEXT LINE IS A QUALIFIER. WHAT COUNSEL HAS DONE IS EXCERPTED -- YEAH. WHAT COUNSEL HAS DONE IS EXCERPTED ONE LINE FROM THE REPORT THAT WOULD APPEAR TO EXCLUDE NICOLE BROWN WHEN IN FACT WHAT GRAY MATHESON STATED IS, THIS MARKER DEGRADES QUICKLY, ESPECIALLY IN LIQUID POOLS OF BLOOD AND THAT IT COULD BE HERS, BUT THAT THE MARKER DEGRADES QUICKLY.

THE COURT: HERE'S THE PROBLEM. WE HAD TWO DAYS OF SHOW AND TELL FOR THIS PURPOSE.

MS. CLARK: I UNDERSTAND. I THOUGHT HE WAS GOING TO SHOW THE ENTIRE PARAGRAPH.

MR. SCHECK: I SAW THE ACTUAL REPORT. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS --

THE COURT: NO. ONE PERSON.

MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE, AS THE COURT INDICATES, WE HAD TWO DAYS OF THIS. WE ACTUALLY WENT THROUGH AND SHOWED THEM EVERYTHING THAT WE HAD. AND NOW WE'RE HERE LIKE LAST TIME. THEY WANT TO LITIGATE EVERYTHING. MISS CLARK DIDN'T NOTICE IT. THE YOUNG MAN, MR. GOLDBERG, CAME RUNNING UP SAYING THOSE THINGS. WE ARE JUST TRYING TO PROCEED. WE'RE DOING WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT DOING, JUDGE. WE'RE TRYING TO. THEY'RE OBJECTING TO EVERYTHING THAT YOU'VE ALREADY RULED ON. THEY JUST GOT ON ME ABOUT THAT ONE MINUTE AGO, AND I SHUT UP.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, I APOLOGIZE TO THE COURT, BUT I THOUGHT WHAT I REMEMBERED WAS THAT HE WAS GOING TO SHOW THE ENTIRE PARAGRAPH. NO OBJECTION TO THAT BECAUSE IT'S FAIR AND IN CONTEXT. BUT THIS IS VERY MISLEADING. IT'S IN DIRECT CONTRAVENTION TO WHAT THE EXPERT CONCLUDED. THAT'S NOT WHAT HE SAID AT ALL.

THE COURT: OBJECTION IS OVERRULED. WE HAD A CHANCE TO LITIGATE THIS. IF THERE'S ANY DEFECT, IT'S BEEN WAIVED AT THIS POINT.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. SINCE THERE IS A RECORD, YOUR HONOR, MR. DOUGLAS HAS INDICATED TO ME I NEED TO READ THE GRAPHICS INTO THE RECORD. I'M NOT SURE THAT OUR COURT REPORTER IS GETTING ALL THIS. ITEM 84A AND 84B -- IT SAYS 18A, WHICH I UNDERSTAND IS A TYPO -- COULD NOT HAVE COME FROM, QUOTE, NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, RONALD GOLDMAN OR O.J. SIMPSON. NOW, THERE IS ANOTHER -- THE NEXT ONE COMING UP, I WANT -- I WAS GOING TO ASK MISS CLARK. YOUR HONOR, YOU MAY WANT TO HIT YOUR KILL SWITCH ON THIS NEXT ONE JUST BRIEFLY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. COCHRAN: THIS NEXT PHOTOGRAPH IS WHAT I ALLUDED TO EARLIER AS THE BLOOD ON MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S BACK, AND IT'S AN INDICATION THAT -- THE TESTIMONY IS FROM OUR EXPERT THAT THIS BLOOD ON HER BACK IN THAT POSITION WAS IN FACT NEVER PRESERVED NEITHER BY THE LAPD NOR THE CORONER'S OFFICE AND WAS IN FACT WIPED OFF AND NEVER PRESERVED OR SAVED. THANK YOU, MR. HARRIS. TO CONCLUDE THEN MISS CLARK'S OPENING STATEMENT. I WOULD LIKE NOW TO MOVE TO A DISCUSSION OF WHAT I EXPECT THE EVIDENCE TO SHOW, VIS-A-VIS, THE DEFENSE IN THIS MATTER. YOU MAY HAVE ASKED YOURSELF, HEARING THIS EVIDENCE THUS FAR, WHO THEN IS O.J. SIMPSON. THAT'S AN ANSWER THAT WILL COME HOPEFULLY DURING THE COURSE OF THIS TRIAL. I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT HE IS A 47-YEAR OLD MAN, FATHER OF FOUR. IN MANY RESPECTS, HE'S THE LIVING EMBODIMENT OF THE AMERICAN DREAM. I THINK YOU WILL HEAR TESTIMONY IN EVIDENCE ABOUT CERTAIN OTHER THINGS YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT O.J. SIMPSON THAT MAY BECOME RELEVANT DURING THESE PROCEEDINGS. THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY THAT O.J. SIMPSON SUFFERS WITH CHRONIC RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS FROM ONE OF THE LEADING RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS DOCTORS IN THE COUNTRY, AND THAT WHEN HE'S IN REMISSION, HE CAN FUNCTION FAIRLY WELL. BUT WHEN HE'S IN THE ACUTE PHASE, HE HAS GREAT TROUBLE FUNCTIONING. WE EXPECT THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY THAT ON THE DATE OF JUNE 12TH, MR. SIMPSON WAS INVOLVED IN THE ACUTE PHASE OF HIS RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS; AND ON THAT DATE, AFTER HE HAD PLAYED GOLF, THE PROBLEMS WITH HIS HANDS WAS SO SEVERE, HE COULD NOT SHUFFLE THE CARDS WHEN HE PLAYED GIN RUMMY AT THE COUNTRY CLUB THAT AFTERNOON. WE EXPECT THAT IS THE EVIDENCE THAT WILL BE ADDUCED. YOU WILL HEAR FROM SEVERAL OF HIS DOCTORS WHO ARE ON OUR WITNESS LIST WHO WILL FURTHER BUTTRESS THE FACT HE WAS IN AN ACUTE PHASE OF THIS RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS SHORTLY AFTER HE CAME INTO CUSTODY. MR. SIMPSON HAD SURGERY IN WHICH SOME LYMPH NODES WERE REMOVED. THESE LYMPH NODES WERE CAUSED BY THE RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS, WHICH CONTAINED WHITE BLOOD CELLS. IN ADDITION TO THAT, I ALLUDED TO THE FACT EARLIER THAT HE WAS PERHAPS THE GREATEST RUNNING BACK IN THE HISTORY OF THE NFL WITH ALL KINDS OF RECORDS. BUT YOU PAY A PRICE. AND IN THE EVIDENCE, WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT PRICE THAT HE PAID. ON HIS LEFT KNEE, HE'S HAD FOUR SURGERIES. WE EXPECT YOU WILL HEAR FROM HIS DOCTOR ABOUT THE EFFECT OF THOSE FOUR SURGERIES, ABOUT THE EFFECT OF WHAT HE HAS IN ADDITION TO THE CHRONIC OR ACUTE RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS, HE HAS OSTEOARTHRITIS IN HIS LEGS. THE EVIDENCE WILL BE, HE SUFFERS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS IN BOTH OF HIS WRISTS. AND SO THINGS ARE NOT AS THEY ALWAYS SEEM. AND AS YOU SEE HIM SITTING THERE NOW, HE DOES IN FACT HAVE PROBLEMS WITH MOVEMENT. THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY THAT HE PLAYS GOLF, THAT HE CAN NO LONGER PLAY TENNIS, THAT WHEN HE PLAYS GOLF, HE ALWAYS HAS TO USE A GOLF CART. HE CAN'T WALK 18 HOLES. I EXPECT THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY THAT HE'S PERHAPS ONE OF THE ONLY FEW PEOPLE IN THE WORLD WHO IS ABLE TO USE A GOLF CART AT PEBBLE BEACH BECAUSE HIS DOCTOR HAD TO WRITE SUCH A LETTER. AND SO I WOULD LIKE -- I WOULD LIKE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT FOR YOU, THE EXTENT OF HIS KNEES AND SAY TO YOU THAT WHAT NO NFL NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYER WANTS TO HEAR, THAT MOTHER NATURE AND FATHER TIME HAS TAKEN ITS TOLL. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY CAN'T MOVE AROUND, BUT I THINK THERE WILL BE EVIDENCE OF LIMITATIONS NOW IMPOSED UPON HIM BY VIRTUE OF HIS CAREER, BY VIRTUE OF THESE INDICES THAT HE SUFFERS. YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE AT THIS POINT TO HAVE MR. SIMPSON COME OVER TO THE JURY SO I CAN DEMONSTRATE THE PROBLEM WITH HIS KNEES. DEPUTY MAGNERA.

(THE DEFENDANT COMPLIES.)

THE COURT: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN IN THE BACK ROW, IF YOU WANT TO STAND UP, FEEL FREE TO DO SO.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, FOR THE RECORD SO -- THE COURT CAN'T SEE IT, BUT MR. SIMPSON IS DEMONSTRATING FOR THE JURORS, DEMONSTRATING FOR THE JURORS HIS LEFT KNEE; AND I THINK THERE'S INDICATION THAT THERE ARE SCARS GOING UP AND DOWN SIDEWAYS AND THERE'S ONE BEHIND THE KNEE, ONE IN FRONT, I THINK INDICATING AT LEAST FOUR SURGERIES ON THAT PARTICULAR KNEE. WHILE YOU ARE HERE, MR. SIMPSON, I WOULD LIKE FOR -- YOUR HONOR, TO BE ABLE TO SHOW HIS MIDDLE FINGER OF HIS LEFT HAND, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: I CAN'T MARK IT AS AN EXHIBIT, BUT AT LEAST I CAN DO WHAT THE COURT ALLOWS ME TO DO. CAN I SHOW THE MIDDLE FINGER OF HIS LEFT HAND?

THE COURT: LET ME CAUTION THE PHOTOGRAPHERS TO USE EXTREME CAUTION.

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

THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

MR. COCHRAN: IN ADDITION TO WHAT YOU'VE JUST SEEN WITH REGARD TO HIS LEFT KNEE AND THE CONDITION I TOLD YOU ABOUT, MR. SIMPSON IS DYSLEXIC. HE SUFFERED WITH DYSLEXIA ALL OF HIS LIFE. YOU KNOW WHAT THAT IS; WHERE HE TENDS TO -- READING, THINGS GET REVERSED AND TRANSPOSED AND BACKWARDS. DESPITE ALL OF THAT, AS I'VE SAID, YOU SEE WHAT HE'S DONE WITH HIS LIFE. I THINK THE NEXT AREA WE'LL DEAL WITH, MR. DOUGLAS WILL PUT THE DIAGRAMS UP. YOU'VE HEARD AND WILL HEAR TESTIMONY THAT ON THE EVENING OF JUNE 12TH, 1994, MR. SIMPSON HAD A TRIP PLANNED TO CHICAGO, ILLINOIS ON AMERICAN AIRLINES. THE PLANE WAS DUE TO LEAVE AT ABOUT 11:45, AND IN FACT IT DID LEAVE AROUND THAT TIME. MR. SIMPSON HAD GOT TO THE AIRPORT, GOT ON THE PLANE. MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YOU MAY.

MR. COCHRAN: AND WHAT WE SEEK TO ILLUSTRATE HERE IS HIS DEMEANOR, ALL THE PEOPLE ON THE PLANE AND THEIR RELEVANCE TO THIS PARTICULAR CASE. WE EXPECT THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY THAT HE WAS ONE OF THE LAST PEOPLE TO BOARD THE PLANE THAT PARTICULAR EVENING HEADED EAST TO GO TO CHICAGO, THAT HE TOOK A SEAT -- HE WAS FORTUNATE TO BE SITTING IN FIRST CLASS -- AND THAT SITTING VERY CLOSE TO HIM WAS A YOUNG MAN BY THE NAME OF STEVE VALLE, WHO I BELIEVE YOU WILL HEAR TESTIMONY. STEVE VALLE WAS VERY IMPRESSED THAT HE WAS SITTING NEXT TO O.J. SIMPSON. SO HE HAD OCCASION TO WATCH MR. O.J. SIMPSON, WATCH HIS HANDS, AND HE'LL TELL YOU HE DIDN'T SEE ANY MAJOR CUTS ON HIS HANDS OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE; THAT HE OBSERVED HIS DEMEANOR, OBSERVED HOW HE ACTED, OBSERVED HOW HE HANDLED HIMSELF DURING THAT PARTICULAR TIME. THAT THERE WAS A MAN ON THIS FLIGHT BY THE NAME OF HOWARD BINGHAM, A MAN FAMOUS IN HIS OWN RIGHT, MOHAMMAD ALI'S PERSONAL PHOTOGRAPHER, LIVES HERE IN LOS ANGELES; THAT HOWARD BINGHAM WAS ON HIS WAY TO SEE MOHAMMAD ALI. HE LEFT HIS SEAT BACK HERE AND WALKED UP AND HAD A CONVERSATION WITH MR. O.J. SIMPSON. HE TOO WILL COME IN AND TELL YOU HOW MR. SIMPSON APPEARED ON JUNE 12TH, 1994 11:45 TO THE TIME THAT FLIGHT GOT THERE IN CHICAGO. AND THERE ARE OTHERS, AS YOU MIGHT IMAGINE, WHO HAD SEEN HIM. PARTICULAR INTEREST, THERE'S A CAPTAIN OF THIS FLIGHT, CAPTAIN WAYNE STANSFIELD, WHO FOUND OUT THAT O.J. SIMPSON WAS FLYING TO CHICAGO, AND HE CAME OUT OF THE COCKPIT. YOU KNOW, YOU ALWAYS WORRY WHEN YOU SEE THE PILOT COME OUT. WHEN YOU SEE THE PILOT COMING OUT OF THE COCKPIT, YOU ASSUME THAT MEANS THERE ARE A COUPLE OTHERS FLYING THE PLANE. SO HE CAME OUT AND HE GOT MR. O.J. SIMPSON'S AUTOGRAPH ON THE FLIGHT LOG. SO HE HAD A CHANCE TO SEE HIS HAND, HAD A CHANCE TO OBSERVE HIM. HE SIGNED AUTOGRAPHS AS HE GOT OUT OF THE LIMOUSINE FOR THE SKYCAPS. REMEMBER HE HAD GOTTEN SOME MONEY TO GIVE THE SKYCAPS MONEY. THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY THAT HE HAD $10 OR WHATEVER. THE SKYCAP HAD NO CHANGE, AND HE GAVE HIM THAT OF COURSE. AND YOU WILL HEAR ABOUT THIS FLIGHT. YOU WILL HEAR ABOUT THIS MAN'S DEMEANOR, HEAR ABOUT HOW HE HANDLED HIMSELF, HOW PEOPLE WATCHED HIM DURING THIS PERIOD OF TIME. MR. VALLE ESPECIALLY WAS LOOKING AT HIS HANDS BECAUSE HE THOUGHT THAT O.J. SIMPSON WOULD HAVE A CHAMPIONSHIP RING ON HIS HANDS. HE HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT HIM, WATCH HIM, OBSERVE HIM AS DID HOWARD BINGHAM, WHO KNEW HIM BEFORE THIS TIME, AS DID THE PILOT AND AS DID ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE WHO CAME IN CONTACT WITH HIM. THANK YOU, MR. DOUGLAS. THE NEXT GRAPHIC WHICH WE THINK WILL BE RELEVANT TO YOU AND, OF COURSE, IN THE PRESENTATION OF THE EVIDENCE -- AT THIS TIME, YOU CAN SEE FROM THE GRAPHICS -- YOUR HONOR, WE'RE NOT GIVING THE NUMBERS.

MR. DOUGLAS: THE FIRST ONE WAS 203. THIS IS 204.

MR. COCHRAN: REFERRING TO NUMBER 204 -- AND YOU CAN SEE THE LEGEND IS GOING FROM EAST TO WEST AT THIS TIME. THIS IS AFTER, THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW, MR. SIMPSON HAS BEEN TOLD THAT HIS EX-WIFE HAS BEEN FOUND MURDERED. YOU WILL SEE THE DIFFERENCE IN THIS MAN'S DEMEANOR AND HOW HE REACTED AND HOW HE HANDLED HIMSELF FROM THE TIME HE GOT THAT CALL FROM DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AND FOUND OUT THAT HIS EX-WIFE HAD BEEN MURDERED AND HOW HE REACTED, WHAT HE SAID; HIS CONCERN ABOUT HIS CHILDREN, HOW HE CALLED AND TRIED TO GET THE FIRST FLIGHT OUT OF CHICAGO, HOW THEY HAD A FLIGHT TOO LATE FOR HIM AT 10:00 O'CLOCK OR SOMETHING. HE INSISTED ON AN EARLIER FLIGHT. HE WANTED TO COME DIRECTLY BACK TO LOS ANGELES AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER THIS CONVERSATION. HE MADE CALLS WHILE ON THE WAY BACK FROM CHICAGO TO LOS ANGELES TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT HAD HAPPENED. WE'LL BE CALLING CERTAINLY MORE THAN ONE WITNESS ON THAT FLIGHT. IT'S VERY INTERESTING, SITTING RIGHT NEXT TO O.J. SIMPSON ON THIS FLIGHT BACK WAS A LAWYER BY THE NAME OF MARK PARTRIDGE. MARK PARTRIDGE SAT WITH HIM THE ENTIRE TIME. HE WILL COME IN HERE -- HE'S A LAWYER IN CHICAGO -- AND TELL YOU ABOUT THIS MAN'S DEMEANOR. ONE OF THE INTERESTING THINGS ABOUT THIS I THINK YOU'LL FIND IS, WE'RE AWARE MR. SIMPSON HAD NO CUTS ON HIS HAND, KNUCKLE AREA THAT ANYONE SAW THAT WE KNOW OF GOING. WHEN HE CAME BACK, HE HAD A CUT, WHICH YOU JUST SAW REMNANTS OF, ON HIS KNUCKLE IN THE MIDDLE FINGER. MR. PARTRIDGE SAW THAT. AND THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY THAT IN THE HOTEL ROOM IN CHICAGO, THERE WAS A BROKEN GLASS, SHARDS OF GLASS IN THAT HOTEL ROOM. THERE WAS BLOOD ASSOCIATED WITH THAT GLASS AND WITH THE TOWEL THEREIN. HIS WHOLE DEMEANOR, AS YOU MIGHT EXPECT, HAD CHANGED. HE SUFFERED A TERRIBLE LOST. HE TOOK THE FIRST FLIGHT BACK FROM CHICAGO HERE. WE THINK THAT MARK PARTRIDGE ALONG WITH OTHER PEOPLE WHO MAY BE CALLED ARE VERY, VERY RELEVANT IN THE COURSE OF THIS CASE. NOW, AS DEPRESSED AS HE WAS, PEOPLE WHO CAME IN CONTACT WITH HIM STILL DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT HIS TRAGEDY. PEOPLE WOULD STILL COME UP TO HIM, ASK HIM FOR AUTOGRAPHS DURING THIS PERIOD OF TIME. BUT HE DID GET BACK TO LOS ANGELES SOMETIME THAT DAY, AND HE WENT, WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW, DIRECTLY TO HIS HOME ON ROCKINGHAM WHERE HE WAS, FIRST OF ALL, PLACED IN HANDCUFFS. THEN THEY WERE TAKEN OFF AND THEN HE WAS ASKED IF HE WANTED TO COME DOWNTOWN TO TALK TO THE POLICE -- MAYBE NOT ASKED -- TOLD TO COME DOWN TO TALK TO THE DETECTIVES IN THIS CASE, VANNATTER AND LANGE. HE VOLUNTARILY DID THAT. HE GOT A LAWYER THERE BY THE NAME OF HOWARD WEITZMAN, ONE OF THE MORE PROMINENT LAWYERS HERE IN LOS ANGELES, AND HIS BUSINESS LAWYER SKIP TAFT. WHEN HE CAME HOME, THERE WERE NO POLICE AT THE AIRPORT. HE CAME BACK HOME, HE WENT DOWNTOWN. THEY TALKED TO HIM IN THE CAR ON THE WAY DOWNTOWN; AND WHEN THEY GOT DOWNTOWN --

MR. HODGMAN: EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR. I THINK THE COURT KNOWS THE OBJECTION I HAVE IN MIND. IF NOT, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO APPROACH.

MR. COCHRAN: HE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY.

MR. HODGMAN: WELL, COUNSEL, I'VE BEEN AROUND A LITTLE BIT TOO. WE CAN HAVE AN OFFER OF PROOF OR I'LL STATE MY OBJECTION NOW.

THE COURT: WHY DON'T YOU APPROACH WITHOUT THE REPORTER, PLEASE.

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

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

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY, YOUR HONOR. SORRY FOR THE INTERRUPTION AGAIN. WHEN MR. O.J. SIMPSON, AS I SAID, RETURNED HOME AT HIS RESIDENCE, HE WENT DOWNTOWN WITH THE POLICE DETECTIVES. HE HAD TWO LAWYERS WHO FOLLOWED HIM DOWNTOWN, HOWARD WEITZMAN, NOTED LAWYER, AND HIS BUSINESS LAWYER, MR. SKIP TAFT. WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT MR. SIMPSON GOT DOWNTOWN -- HIS TWO LAWYERS WILL TESTIFY OR AT LEAST ONE OF THEM WILL THAT HE WAS TOLD -- THEY WERE TOLD BY THE POLICE THAT THEY COULD NOT BE PRESENT WHEN MR. SIMPSON WAS INTERVIEWED. AND MR. SIMPSON -- THAT -- AND THE EVIDENCE WILL BE, IF THAT HAPPENED, THAT'S WRONG, WILL BE A VIOLATION -- BUT MR. SIMPSON WENT AHEAD AND TALKED TO THE POLICE WITHOUT DISCUSSING ANY CONTENTS WITH HIS LAWYERS NOT IN THE ROOM AND AWAY. THEY WENT SOMEPLACE ELSE UNTIL THIS INTERVIEW, 33 MINUTES, HAD CONCLUDED. WE EXPECT THAT'S WHAT THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW IN THAT REGARD. IN THIS CONNECTION, WE EXPECT THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY IN EVIDENCE FROM A NUMBER OF WITNESSES OF THINGS THAT HAPPENED THAT WEEK, NOT THE LEAST OF WHICH WILL BE A GENTLEMAN BY THE NAME OF AL COWLINGS. WE EXPECT THAT MR. COWLINGS, A VERY DEAR FRIEND OF MR. SIMPSON'S, WILL TESTIFY, ALONG WITH OTHERS, ABOUT THE EVENTS THE DATE OF JUNE 17TH, 1994, THE LOW-SPEED PURSUIT THAT YOU ALL INDICATED YOU'VE HEARD SO MUCH ABOUT. I EXPECT THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY ABOUT THAT, THAT WHEN MR. COWLINGS SPOKE TO THE POLICE, THEY WERE HEADED NORTH ON THE 405 BACK TO MR. SIMPSON'S HOME; THAT ON THAT PARTICULAR DATE, AMONG OTHER THINGS, MR. SIMPSON HAD BEEN HEAVILY MEDICATED AFTER THE FUNERAL THAT WEEK, THAT HE WROTE SOME LETTERS, THAT HE CALLED HIS FIRST WIFE, MARGUERITE SIMPSON, AMONG OTHERS, AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS AND THAT HE INSISTED TO THOSE WHO WOULD LISTEN THAT THE EVENTS OF THE WEEK --

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. HEARSAY.

THE COURT: NOT OFFERED BY AN ADVERSE PARTY, COUNSEL.

MR. COCHRAN: LET ME REPHRASE THAT. HE HAD A NUMBER OF CONVERSATIONS WITH PEOPLE WHO WERE VERY CLOSE TO HIM THAT WEEK. AND I EXPECT THE EVIDENCE WILL BE THAT YOU WILL HEAR WHAT HE WAS SAYING, WHAT HIS STATE OF MIND WAS, WHAT TRIGGERED THIS LOW-SPEED PURSUIT. I EXPECT YOU WILL HEAR FROM MR. COWLINGS THEY HAD GONE DOWN TO ORANGE COUNTY TO HIS WIFE'S GRAVE AND THAT WHEN THE POLICE ENCOUNTERED HIM HEADING NORTH ON THE 405, THEY WERE HEADING BACK TO THE ROCKINGHAM ADDRESS AND THAT HE IN FACT ENDED UP THERE. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WOULD LIKE NOW TO TURN TO IS A PHOTOGRAPH I WOULD LIKE TO ALERT COUNSEL TO.

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

MR. COCHRAN: MR. HARRIS. THE NEXT EXHIBIT IS A PHOTOGRAPH OF MR. RONALD GOLDMAN'S HANDS. AND YOU WILL SEE AND YOU'VE HEARD, I'VE INDICATED TO YOU THAT THERE WILL BE EXPERT TESTIMONY FROM A FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST THAT THE BRUISES THERE ARE INDICATIONS THAT MR. GOLDMAN'S HANDS AND FISTS CAME IN CONTACT WITH THE PERPETRATOR, THAT THERE WAS BLUNT FORCE TRAUMA AND THAT HE WAS ABLE TO STRIKE HIS ASSAILANT. THERE WILL BE OTHER TESTIMONY WITH REGARD TO OTHER WOUNDS ON HIS HAND. I THINK THAT'S RELEVANT BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE NEXT TO HAVE -- MR. HARRIS, MOVE TO THE NEXT PHOTOGRAPHS. WHAT'S THE NUMBER ON THAT ONE?

MR. HARRIS: THAT WAS D-13.

MR. COCHRAN: D-13. WHEN MR. SIMPSON RETURNED TO LOS ANGELES ON JUNE 13TH, THE PICTURES YOU ARE ABOUT TO SEE NOW ARE PICTURES TAKEN OF HIS BODY --

MR. HARRIS: D-14.

MR. COCHRAN: -- ON JUNE 15, 1994 AND JUNE 17TH. THESE FIRST ONES ARE FROM JUNE 15TH, WHICH WAS A WEDNESDAY. THAT'S MR. SIMPSON. AND I WANT YOU -- HOLD THAT A MINUTE, MR. HARRIS. I WANT YOU TO LOOK AT MR. SIMPSON'S FACE IN THIS PICTURE, RATHER LOOKING MORE MOROSE. LOOK AT HIS FACE IN THE PHOTOGRAPH WITH HIS DAUGHTER SIDNEY. WHAT'S THE NUMBER? NUMBER 200. AND THIS PHOTOGRAPH HERE, I EXPECT THAT THE EVIDENCE WILL BE, THERE ARE NO BRUISES ON HIS FACE OR ON HIS BODY. THIS PICTURE WAS TAKEN ON JUNE 15TH, 1994. MR. HARRIS, WILL YOU GO TO THE NEXT PHOTOGRAPH, PLEASE.

MR. HARRIS: THAT WAS D-15. D-16 IS COMING UP.

MR. COCHRAN: D-16, ANOTHER SHOT OF MR. SIMPSON'S BODY.

MR. HARRIS: D-18. D-19. D-20. D-21. D-22.

MR. COCHRAN: RIGHT HAND AND PART OF THE FOREARM.

MR. HARRIS: D-23.

MR. COCHRAN: THE LEFT HAND.

MR. HARRIS: D-24. D-25.

MR. COCHRAN: NOW, THIS PHOTOGRAPH -- THE TESTIMONY WILL BE, THIS PHOTOGRAPH WAS TAKEN ON FRIDAY, JUNE 17TH, AND WE THINK THAT THE INDICATION THAT BLOOD HAD BEEN TAKEN FROM HIM THAT DAY BY ONE OF HIS DOCTORS I TALKED TO YOU ABOUT, HIS ARTHRITIC DOCTOR AND HIS OTHER DOCTORS, HIS OSTEOARTHRITIC DOCTOR AND ALSO HIS ORTHOPOD HAD TAKEN BLOOD FROM HIM THAT DAY. THIS IS A PICTURE OF HIS RIGHT ARM. THIS IS MR. SIMPSON'S BACK.

MR. HARRIS: 26.

MR. COCHRAN: MR. SIMPSON'S FACE AND TEETH.

MR. HARRIS: 27. D-28.

MR. COCHRAN: PICTURE OF -- REVEALING PICTURE OF MR. SIMPSON, HOWEVER, TO SHOW HIS ENTIRE BODY.

MR. HARRIS: D-29.

MR. COCHRAN: MR. SIMPSON'S HAND. ON JUST ON D-30, YOU CAN SEE THAT KIND OF CIRCULAR MARK THERE WHICH YOU SAW A FAINT MARK THERE. WE EXPECT THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY WITH REGARD TO THAT PARTICULAR MARK THERE ON HIS MIDDLE FINGER, THAT THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY AMONG THE DOCTORS ON OUR WITNESS LIST THAT THIS IS IN NO WAY A KNIFE CUT, THAT IS MORE CONSISTENT WITH SOME GLASS OR SOME SHARDS OF GLASS HAVING MADE THAT PARTICULAR CUT.

MR. HARRIS: D-31. D-32. D-33. D-34. D-35.

MR. COCHRAN: IS THAT IT? ALL RIGHT. NOW, TO CONCLUDE THIS PARTICULAR PORTION OF OUR DISCUSSION, WE EXPECT THERE WILL BE OTHER EVIDENCE OF DEMEANOR AND PICTURES. WE EXPECT THAT, ALTHOUGH WE'VE HEARD THE POLICE WANTED TO EXCLUDE MR. SIMPSON, THAT WHEN THEY TALKED TO HIM ON THE 12TH, I DON'T THINK YOU'LL SEE ANY PICTURES TAKEN OF HIS BODY EXCEPT THE ONE PICTURE SHE SHOWED YOU YESTERDAY OF HIS HAND. BUT WE WANTED YOU TO KNOW THAT THERE ARE OTHER PICTURES THAT'S PART OF -- AS OUR PART OF THE CASE, WE HAVE THESE PICTURES. WE WANTED TO SHARE THEM WITH YOU. NOW, YOUR HONOR, I'M NOW ABOUT TO TURN MY ATTENTION TO THE LAPD AND ITS LAB. IT MAY BE -- I DO NOT NOW BELIEVE, WITH ALL THE INTERRUPTIONS, I'M GOING TO BE ABLE TO FINISH TODAY AS MUCH AS I WANTED TO. WHATEVER YOUR HONOR'S PLEASURE IS. THERE IS -- THIS NEXT PORTION IS FAIRLY LENGTHY.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, I'LL LEAVE IT TO YOUR PROFESSIONAL DISCRETION. DO YOU THINK THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE BREAKING POINT?

MR. COCHRAN: YES. LET ME JUST TAKE ONE LOOK, YOUR HONOR.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. COCHRAN: I THINK THAT IT IS. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE JUST A COUPLE STATEMENTS. I THINK THAT IT IS. IF I MIGHT.

THE COURT: PROCEED.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY, YOUR HONOR. SORRY I'M NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO FINISH TODAY, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. BUT YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS CASE TO BOTH SIDES. WE HAD A NUMBER OF INTERRUPTIONS AND SORRY IT'S TAKEN LONGER. I'M SURE YOU EXPECT NOTHING LESS FROM EITHER SIDE OF THE LAWYERS -- ON EITHER SIDE IN THIS CASE. TOMORROW, WE'LL COME BACK AND WE WILL START TALKING ABOUT THE POLICE INVESTIGATION. WE'LL GO THROUGH SOME CHARTS WHICH HOPEFULLY WILL MAKE THE WHOLE SUBJECT OF DNA A LITTLE LESS COMPLEX AND CONFUSING. WE WILL TALK ABOUT THE SO-CALLED EVIDENCE FLOW IN THIS CASE. ONE OF THE FACTORS, WE'LL START AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE POLICE INVESTIGATION AND WORK OUR WAY THROUGH TO DETERMINE WHAT THEY DID AND HOW THEY DID IT AND HOW IT IMPACTS UPON THIS CASE. THE IMPORTANT PIECE OF INFORMATION THAT WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW, HOWEVER, IS THAT ALL OF THIS EVIDENCE COLLECTED, WHETHER AT BUNDY OR ROCKINGHAM OR WHEREVER, WENT THROUGH THE LAPD LAB, AND WE EXPECT TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE THAT -- FROM THEIR OWN RECORDS -- THAT LABORATORY IS A CESSPOOL OF CONTAMINATION, NOT UP TO SPEED, NOT UP TO STANDARD. WE THINK WE CAN CONCLUSIVELY INDICATE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF THE TESTIMONY IN THIS CASE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND I WOULD ASK YOU TO KEEP AN OPEN MIND UNTIL TOMORROW UNTIL WE HAVE A CHANCE TO FINISH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, AS FAR AS THE JURY IS CONCERNED THEN, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OUR RECESS FOR THE AFTERNOON. PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITION TO YOU; DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONG YOURSELVES, FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, DON'T TALK TO ANYBODY ABOUT THE CASE NOR ALLOW YOURSELF TO BE APPROACHED OR SPOKEN TO WITH REGARD TO THE CASE. AND WE WILL RESUME AGAIN HOPEFULLY WITH THE CONCLUSION OF THE OPENING STATEMENTS TOMORROW MORNING AT 9:00 O'CLOCK. AS SOON AS THE OPENING STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN CONCLUDED, I ANTICIPATE THAT WE WILL BE CALLING THE FIRST WITNESSES TOMORROW MORNING WITHIN MOMENTS AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF THE OPENING STATEMENTS. WE WILL JUST TAKE A RECESS LONG ENOUGH TO TAKE DOWN THE EASELS AND THINGS AND START WITH THE ACTUAL PRESENTATION OF THE WITNESSES' TESTIMONY FOR YOU TOMORROW. ALL RIGHT. HAVE A PLEASANT EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. COUNSEL, LET ME ASK YOU TO STAY BEHIND BECAUSE WE NEED TO PUT A FEW THINGS ON THE RECORD BEFORE WE CONCLUDE FOR THE AFTERNOON. ALL RIGHT. LET'S CLEAR THE COURTROOM.

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, BE SEATED, PLEASE. THE RECORD WILL REFLECT THE JURY HAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE COURTROOM. COUNSEL, I THINK WE HAVE A COUPLE OF DISCOVERY MATTERS WE NEED TO TAKE UP BEFORE WE RECESS. I HAD BEEN UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THERE HAD BEEN A DISCLOSURE OF THE REPORT FROM JUDGE WONG. APPARENTLY I'M MISTAKEN.

MR. COCHRAN: I THINK MR. SHAPIRO WILL ADDRESS THAT.

MR. SHAPIRO: IF WE ARE DIRECTED TO GIVE IT TO THE PROSECUTION, WE WILL. WE BELIEVE THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE USED IN REBUTTAL, AND UNDER THE RULES OF DISCOVERY, WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO TURN IT OVER AT THIS TIME.

THE COURT: WELL, THE ONLY COMPLICATION IS, THERE WAS AN INDICATION OF INTENT TO USE IT IN OPENING STATEMENT WHICH --

MR. SHAPIRO: NO. IT WASN'T AN INTENT TO USE IT IN OPENING STATEMENT. IT WAS AN INTENT TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS AN ITEM THAT WAS LISTED ON A SEARCH WARRANT TO BE SEIZED AND THAT WE WERE GOING TO INDICATE FURTHER INCOMPETENCE ON THE PART OF LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT THAT ITEM WAS OVERLOOKED AND WAS LATER RECOVERED BY A SPECIAL MAGISTRATE AND MASTER APPOINTED BY YOUR HONOR, JUDGE WONG. SO IT'S REALLY --

THE COURT: SO YOU ARE SAYING --

MR. SHAPIRO: -- GOING TO BE USED FOR IMPEACHMENT.

THE COURT: THIS IS COMING IN AS IMPEACHMENT AFTER THE PROSECUTION HAS PRESENTED ITS SEARCHING OFFICERS?

MR. SHAPIRO: YES.

THE COURT: MR. HODGMAN, AS TO THAT ITEM?

MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, I SHARE THE COURT'S REACTION IN TERMS OF ROLLING THE EYES. FIRST OF ALL, THERE IS ONLY ONE REPORT WHICH HAS BEEN AVAILABLE TO THE PROSECUTION. THE COURT KNOWS THAT. I DOUBLE-CHECKED AS RECENTLY AS TWO WEEKS AGO JUST TO BE SURE.

THE COURT: I WAS MISTAKEN IN MY ASSUMPTION THAT HAD BEEN TURNED OVER BECAUSE I RECALL SOME REPORT HAVING BEEN TURNED OVER TO YOU WITH REGARD TO THAT. SO I ASSUMED -- MY MISTAKE.

MR. HODGMAN: THE PROBLEM IS, YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE WHAT OCCURRED THIS AFTERNOON, AND THAT IS VERY, VERY PREJUDICIAL TO THE PEOPLE. I DON'T THINK I NEED TO EXPLAIN THAT ANY FURTHER IN TERMS OF THAT DEMONSTRATION FOR DRAMATIC EFFECT, PREJUDICIAL EFFECT TO THE PEOPLE. WE'RE GOING TO ASK THAT THE COURT ADMONISH THE JURY TO DISREGARD THAT, ASK ANY REFERENCE TO IT BE STRICKEN, THAT DEFENSE NOT BE ALLOWED TO PRODUCE OR UTILIZE THAT ITEM IN ANY FASHION WHATSOEVER. AND, YOUR HONOR, WE WILL BE ASKING IN ADDITION IN A LITTLE BIT OF TIME TO TALK ABOUT DISCOVERY. EXCUSE ME. I NEED TO SLOW DOWN MYSELF A LITTLE BIT, YOUR HONOR. GIVE ME JUST A MOMENT.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. HODGMAN: YESTERDAY OR THE OTHER DAY, THE COURT HAD TO TAKE A DEEP BREATH. ALLOW ME TO TAKE ONE TOO.

THE COURT: I TOOK A DEEP BREATH AND THEN DECIDED TO TAKE A RECESS AND DECIDED I SHOULD GO HOME.

MR. COCHRAN: WE NOTICED, YOUR HONOR.

MR. SHAPIRO: WE DON'T HAVE THAT OPTION, DO WE?

MR. COCHRAN: WE CAN'T DO THAT.

THE COURT: I DON'T KNOW.

MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, THE COURT IS ABSOLUTELY ACCURATE IN THE SENSE THAT WE HAVE SOME DISCOVERY ITEMS OF CONCERN THAT DESERVE DISCUSSION THIS AFTERNOON. IN COUNSEL'S OPENING STATEMENT TODAY, THERE HAS BEEN REFERENCE -- I HAVE A LAUNDRY LIST HERE, BUT THAT LAST REFERENCE --

THE COURT: LET'S DEAL WITH THEM ONE AT A TIME. I HAVE A NUMBER OF WITNESSES THAT WERE MENTIONED THAT I HAVE CONCERN ABOUT. BUT LET'S DEAL WITH THE ENVELOPE AND ITS CONTENTS AND THE RECORDS RELATING TO IT. WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE? WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE SPECIFICALLY TO MR. SHAPIRO'S ARGUMENT THAT -- I AGREE WITH YOU, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE ENVELOPE'S USE DURING THE COURSE OF OPENING STATEMENT. BUT WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE TO MR. SHAPIRO'S ARGUMENT THAT SINCE IT WAS GOING TO BE PRESENTED AS AN IMPEACHMENT ITEM -- AND UNFORTUNATELY -- WELL, YOU KNOW FROM THE REPORT WHAT THE ITEM IS, FROM DR. LEE'S AND DR. SUGIYAMA'S REPORT AS TO WHAT THE ITEM IS. SO THAT'S NOT ADMISSIBLE.

MR. HODGMAN: WE KNOW WHAT THE ITEM IS, YOUR HONOR. BUT AS FAR AS THE STATED PURPOSE, I MEAN, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I BELIEVE OCCURRED ON SHAKING SANDS THIS AFTERNOON. WE ARE GOING TO ASK FOR A HEARING WITH REGARD TO UTILIZATION OF THE ENVELOPE AND CONTENTS OF THE ENVELOPE, AND WE CERTAINLY ASK OR WHAT I REQUESTED THUS FAR IS AN ADMONITION TO THE JURY.

THE COURT: LET ME ASK YOU THIS, MR. HODGMAN. JUST AS FAR AS THE ENVELOPE AND ITS CONTENTS, YOU KNOW WHAT IT IS. WE KNOW THAT IT WAS AN ITEM SOUGHT BY THE POLICE SEARCH WARRANT AND THEY DID NOT IN FACT RECOVER IT.

MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, WE DON'T KNOW THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE RECOVERY OF THAT ITEM.

THE COURT: I KNOW.

MR. HODGMAN: AND TO STATE --

THE COURT: NO. MR. HODGMAN, I'M STATING A KNOWN FACT. YOU KNOW WHAT IS IN THE ENVELOPE FROM THE REPORT FROM THE TWO DOCTORS OR THE CRIMINALIST AND THE DOCTOR. YOU KNOW THERE'S AN ITEM THAT WAS ORIGINALLY SOUGHT OR SOMETHING SIMILAR TO IT WAS SOUGHT IN THE SEARCH WARRANT, CORRECT?

MR. HODGMAN: I KNOW THAT ITEMS LIKE THAT. THAT PARTICULAR ITEM, YOUR HONOR, I DON'T KNOW THE SOURCE. I DON'T KNOW THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE RECOVERY.

THE COURT: LET'S ASSUME WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING.

MR. HODGMAN: I CAN'T MAKE THAT ASSUMPTION, YOUR HONOR. I DON'T KNOW UNTIL WE GET DISCOVERY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE RECOVERY OF THAT ITEM. I MEAN, WE ARE COMPLETELY IN THE DARK. AND WHAT YOUR HONOR -- AGAIN, I'M GOING TO --

THE COURT: HERE'S THE POINT. THE POINT THOUGH, THEY'RE SAYING THEY DON'T HAVE TO DISCLOSE IT BECAUSE IT'S IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE, THAT IT'S GOING TO COME DURING THE COURSE OF THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE POLICE OFFICERS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO CALL SERVING THE SEARCH WARRANT WHO SEIZE THE EVIDENCE. WHAT'S YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT?

MR. HODGMAN: MY RESPONSE, YOUR HONOR --

THE COURT: THAT'S THE ISSUE.

MR. HODGMAN: IT HAS BEEN DISCLOSED. WE WANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A HEARING ON THIS AND LITIGATE IT. MY POSITION RIGHT NOW IS THAT ITEM SHOULD BE SIMPLY SUPPRESSED. NOW, WE HAVE A STATED PURPOSE FROM COUNSEL THIS AFTERNOON, BUT THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FORTHCOMING IN AN OPENING STATEMENT, NOT AT ALL, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: MR. SHAPIRO, I'M CONCERNED THOUGH THAT YOU'VE SORT OF WAIVED CERTAIN CONFIDENTIALITY AS TO WHAT IT IS BY ITS USE OR ATTEMPTED USE IN OPENING STATEMENT; WOULDN'T YOU AGREE?

MR. SHAPIRO: NO, YOUR HONOR. I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE. THERE WAS NEVER ANY INTENTION TO OPEN IT. THE ONLY INTENTION WAS TO TELL THE JURY SOMETHING VERY SIMPLY; THAT THE POLICE HAVE NOT DONE A PROPER JOB INVESTIGATING THIS CASE. AND IT STARTED AT THE BEGINNING AND IT WENT TO THE END. AND EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD TWO SEARCH WARRANTS TO SEARCH A LOCATION AND TO LOOK FOR A PARTICULAR ITEM AS DIRECTED BY TWO JUDGES, THAT THEIR INCOMPETENCE WAS SO GROSS THAT THEY OVERLOOKED A POTENTIAL KEY ITEM OF EVIDENCE; AND WE WILL POINT THAT OUT AS IMPEACHING EVIDENCE OF THE OFFICERS WHO WERE IN CHARGE OF THE SEARCH. WE WERE NOT GOING TO OPEN IT, WE WERE NOT GOING TO DESCRIBE ITS CONTENTS, WE WERE NOT GOING TO MENTION WHERE IT CAME FROM. WE WERE SIMPLY GOING TO SAY THAT THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT HAD DIRECTIONS FROM TWO JUDGES TO LOOK FOR SOMETHING.

THE COURT: WELL, THE VALUE IN NOT HAVING TO DISCLOSE SOMETHING THAT'S BEING USED FOR IMPEACHMENT PURPOSES IS OBVIOUS. THE PROBLEM IS, YOU'VE CREATED A PROBLEM BY BRINGING THE ENVELOPE OUT. I AGREE THAT MR. HODGMAN'S ENTITLED TO A HEARING BEFORE THE ITEM IS ACTUALLY OPENED, AND WE WILL HAVE THAT HEARING AT THE TIME THAT THE DEFENSE INTENDS TO PRESENT THAT, PRIOR TO THEN.

MR. SHAPIRO: WE WOULD ALSO ASK THE COURT TO INQUIRE WHAT GROUNDS THERE ARE FOR THE PEOPLE TO SUPPRESS AN ITEM OF IMPEACHMENT.

THE COURT: THEY'VE ASKED FOR A HEARING.

MR. SHAPIRO: ON WHAT GROUNDS?

THE COURT: WELL, I HAVE NO IDEA. I AM SURE BETWEEN NOW AND TWO MONTHS FROM NOW WHEN IT'S ACTUALLY PRESENTED --

MR. SHAPIRO: NO. IT MAY BE PRESENTED AS EARLY AS TOMORROW, DEPENDING ON WHAT WITNESSES THEY CALL.

THE COURT: COULD BE. WE'LL SEE. WELL, PRIOR TO ITS PRESENTATION, WE WILL HOLD A HEARING OUTSIDE OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY AS TO WHAT -- THEY ARE ENTITLED TO KNOW WHAT IT IS BEFORE YOU USE IT TO PREPARE THEIR WITNESSES.

MR. SHAPIRO: THEY ALREADY KNOW WHAT IT IS. THEY'VE ALREADY STATED THAT.

THE COURT: NOW, AS TO THE NAMES -- SO THE ISSUE WILL REMAIN UNRESOLVED UNTIL THE MATTER ACTUALLY COMES UP FOR PRESENTATION BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S THE TIME TO LITIGATE THAT ISSUE. BUT YOU ARE ON NOTICE THAT IT'S THERE.

MR. HODGMAN: WE ARE ON NOTICE THAT IT IS THERE, BUT WE ARE STILL COMPLETELY IN THE DARK, THE PEOPLE ARE COMPLETELY IN THE DARK AS TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE RECOVERY. WE MAY KNOW WHAT IT IS, YOUR HONOR, BUT COUNSEL HAS INFORMATION AND IS MAKING ILLUSIONS THIS AFTERNOON --

THE COURT: MR. HODGMAN, LET ME SUGGEST YOU DO THIS THOUGH. MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW ON IMPEACHMENT IS, THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE IT UNTIL THEY WANT TO USE IT IF IT'S IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE. IF YOU HAVE SOME EVIDENCE OUT OF THE LAW OF DISCOVERY THAT'S CONTRARY TO THAT, LET ME KNOW TOMORROW. IF YOU'VE GOT SOME CASES TO THE CONTRARY, LET ME KNOW.

MR. SHAPIRO: ALSO, PERHAPS IT MIGHT HELP MR. HODGMAN THAT THIS ITEM WAS NOT RECOVERED BY US, BUT IT WAS RECOVERED BY A RETIRED JUDGE AT THE COURT'S DIRECTION.

MS. CLARK: ON WHOSE BEHEST? HOW DID THE JUDGE KNOW TO GO OUT THERE?

MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, WE ARE STILL UNAWARE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF WHERE, WHEN THIS ITEM WAS RECOVERED. WE DON'T KNOW. THE PEOPLE HAVE NEVER KNOWN. COUNSEL APPARENTLY KNOWS, AND IT WAS -- THAT WHOLE ARRANGEMENT WAS DONE AT THE REQUEST OF THE DEFENSE.

THE COURT: MR. HODGMAN, IT'S OBVIOUSLY A DISCOVERY ISSUE. THE QUESTION IS, ARE YOU ENTITLED TO KNOW ABOUT THEIR IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE BEFORE THEY PRESENT IT, UNTIL JUST BEFORE THEY PRESENT IT. MY READING OF THE LAW OF DISCOVERY IS, THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS NO, IF IT'S IMPEACHMENT. IF YOU HAVE SOME AUTHORITY TO THE CONTRARY, LET ME KNOW TOMORROW. ALL RIGHT. I'VE DIRECTED MR. COCHRAN -- I GAVE THE ENVELOPE BACK TO MRS. ROBERTSON, DIRECTED HIM NOT TO USE IT IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT. THAT'S WHERE WE STAND.

MR. HODGMAN: AND WITH REGARD TO THAT, YOUR HONOR, AGAIN, WE REPEAT OUR REQUEST FOR AN ADMONITION TO THE JURY.

THE COURT: NO. YOU DON'T NEED TO REPEAT IT. THANK YOU.

MR. HODGMAN: VERY WELL.

THE COURT: OKAY. LET'S GO TO --

MR. HODGMAN: WITNESSES.

THE COURT: I AM SORRY. MR. COCHRAN, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SPELL THOSE NAMES FOR ME.

MR. COCHRAN: WHICH ONE, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: GOTCHAS.

MR. COCHRAN: MARYANNE GERCHAS? I THINK IT'S MARYANNE GERCHAS, G-E-R-C-H-A-S, YOUR HONOR, I BELIEVE.

THE COURT: WHEN YOU BRING UP SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THE COURT REPORTER WOULD BE THRILLED IF YOU SPELL IT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

MR. COCHRAN: I WILL.

THE COURT: MR. DOUGLAS, ARE YOU GOING TO ADDRESS THESE DISCOVERY ISSUES REGARDING WITNESSES?

MR. DOUGLAS: I'M GOING TO TRY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. DOUGLAS: THE COURT IS WELL AWARE THAT WE HAVE BEEN WORKING DILIGENTLY IN THIS MATTER. THE COURT IS EQUALLY AWARE THAT THE WORK IN THIS CASE HAS BEEN DIVIDED AMONG A COUPLE OF OFFICES AND INVESTIGATORS, ET CETERA. IT PERHAPS IS REGRETTABLE THAT I STAND BEFORE THIS COURT, THAT WE HAVE NOT COORDINATED ALL OF OUR DEFENSE EFFORTS AS WELL AS I WOULD HAVE LIKED BEFORE THIS POINT. I SAY THAT BECAUSE, YOUR HONOR, I HAVE SOME DOCUMENTS THAT I DO INTEND TO GIVE OVER TO THE PEOPLE. AS THE COURT HAS ENCOURAGED BOTH LAST NIGHT AND BEFORE, I HAVE HAD A LAW CLERK WORKING FROM MID MORNING ON YESTERDAY PREPARING TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTS AND ANY WITNESS STATEMENTS ON THIS MATTER.

THE COURT: ONE OF THE ITEMS I FORGOT TO DO THIS MORNING WAS TO ASK FOR YOUR REPORT THIS MORNING.

MR. DOUGLAS: AND THAT IS WHAT I AM DOING RIGHT NOW, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MY MISTAKE.

MR. DOUGLAS: BY WAY OF BACKGROUND, JUST SO I CAN LEND SOME SCOPE TO WHAT OUR EFFORTS HAVE INVOLVED, I HAVE IN MY OWN OFFICE 16 NOTEBOOKS OF DIFFERENT WITNESS STATEMENTS. THEY ARE PRIMARILY STATEMENTS THAT WERE PROVIDED BY DISCOVERY GIVEN ME BY THE PEOPLE. THERE WERE THEN EFFORTS BY MY INVESTIGATORS TO INTERVIEW SOME OF THOSE WITNESSES AT VARIOUS OCCASIONS, AND THERE HAVE BEEN LEADS THAT HAVE BEEN DERIVED FROM THOSE INTERVIEWS. AT VARIOUS TIMES, THERE HAVE BEEN FIVE DIFFERENT INVESTIGATORS WORKING IN VARIOUS ASPECTS ON THIS CASE REPORTING NOT ONLY TO MY OFFICE, BUT TO MR. SHAPIRO'S OFFICE AS WELL. THE NORMAL PROCESS HAS BEEN THAT DUPLICATE COPIES OF ALL INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS BE SUBMITTED BOTH TO MR. SHAPIRO'S OFFICE AND TO OUR OFFICE AS WELL. THE NORMAL PROCESS HAS BEEN THAT I HAVE WORKED VERY CLOSELY WITH MISS SARA CAPLAN, MR. SHAPIRO'S OFFICE, MUTUALLY COORDINATING DIFFERENT DISCOVERY, MUTUALLY COORDINATING THE PREPARATION OF DIFFERENT DEFENSE WITNESS LISTS AND COMPARING WHAT ITEMS WOULD COMPLY WITH THE DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF DISCOVERY CONSISTENT WITH OUR INTERPRETATION OF OUR OBLIGATION UNDER THE DISCOVERY ACT. I AM PREPARED AT THIS TIME -- BECAUSE THERE HAS NOW BEEN WHAT I HOPE IS A FINAL SEARCH OF ALL NAMES THAT WERE ON OUR WITNESS LIST, NOT ONLY ON THE RECENT WITNESS LIST, BUT ALSO ON THE LIST THAT WAS PREPARED IN AUGUST OF 1994. AND WE WENT THROUGH EACH OF THOSE 16 BOOKS, YOUR HONOR, AND WE WENT THROUGH AND PULLED ANY DEFENSE REPORTS. AND THIS AFTERNOON, I HAD MISS CAPLAN COMPARE ALL OF THE REPORTS THAT WERE SIFTED THROUGH AND TAKEN OUT OF MY NOTEBOOKS WITH THOSE DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED TO THE PEOPLE. I HAVE A STACK OF -- NOT A STACK. I HAVE PROBABLY 12 REPORTS, 13 INCLUDING THE REPORT OF MR. -- I WILL REPRESENT TO THE COURT AS AN OFFICER OF THIS COURT THAT MISS GERCHAS' STATEMENT I SEE FOR THE FIRST TIME ONLY FIVE MINUTES AGO. IT IS A COPY OF A STATEMENT THAT WAS TAKEN JULY OF 1994. YOUR HONOR, I ACKNOWLEDGE AND I ANTICIPATE THAT THERE WILL BE STRENUOUS EFFORTS TO IMPUNE BOTH MY PERSONAL INTEGRITY AND THE INTEGRITY OF THE DEFENSE TEAM. I TELL THIS COURT, LOOKING THE COURT STRAIGHT IN THE EYE WITH ALL SERIOUSNESS, THAT IT HAD BEEN AN OVERSIGHT AND I AM EMBARRASSED BY IT AND I TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY. IT IS MY OBLIGATION AS THE COORDINATOR OF THE EVIDENCE TO BE BETTER ON TOP OF THE WITNESS FLOW AND THE PREPARATION OF STATEMENTS AND REPORTS. IT IS MY BLAME AND MY BLAME ALONE AND I TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY. I AM REMINDED BY MR. COCHRAN THAT MISS GERCHAS IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHOM THE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN AWARE OF BECAUSE, AS IS AT LEAST OUR UNDERSTANDING, MISS GERCHAS WAS -- HAD CONTACTED BOTH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. HOWEVER, YOUR HONOR, I ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY BECAUSE HER NAME WAS ADDED TO OUR LIST IN JULY -- I AM SORRY -- IN AUGUST. THERE WAS A STATEMENT THAT WAS TAKEN APPARENTLY FROM AN INVESTIGATOR WHO WE DO NOT WORK HAND IN HAND WITH EACH DAY. IT DOES NOT EXCUSE IT, YOUR HONOR, AND I SEEK NOT TO EXCUSE IT. I AM ONLY OFFERING AN EXPLANATION. I AM PROVIDING TODAY A STATEMENT OF MARYANNE GERCHAS, AND THAT IS A STATEMENT THAT IS SIGNED BY HER FULLY WITHIN THE -- BOTH THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER OF THE DISCOVERY ACT, FULLY A DOCUMENT THAT WE WERE OBLIGED TO TURN OVER IN AUGUST OF 1994. I AM ALSO TURNING OVER A STATEMENT OF MISS MICHELLE ABUDRAHM, WHICH IS DATED JUNE 24TH OF 1994. THIS IS A SECOND STATEMENT THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN TURNED OVER IN AUGUST. BUT SHE IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS THE FORMER MAID OF MR. SIMPSON WHO WAS STRUCK BY NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON WHO THEY ARE FULLY AWARE OF. THEY HAVE BEEN INTERVIEWING DIFFERENT WITNESSES ABOUT THE INCIDENTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES GIVING RISE TO MISS BROWN SIMPSON STRIKING MICHELLE ABUDRAHM. SO THEY ARE AWARE OF HER EXISTENCE.

THE COURT: MR. DOUGLAS, COULD YOU SPELL THE NAME FOR ME, PLEASE?

MR. DOUGLAS: SURE, YOUR HONOR. A-B-U-D-R-A-H-M. I AM TURNING OVER, YOUR HONOR, A STATEMENT BY -- OF A RACHEL BERMAN WHO IS AN EIGHT YEAR OLD WHO ACCOMPANIED THE SIMPSON CHILDREN AND NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, A PERSON WHOM THEY ARE AWARE OF. SHE ACCOMPANIED THEM TO BEN AND JERRY'S IF YOU WILL AND SHE ACCOMPANIED THEM TO MEZZALUNA. SHE IS AN EIGHT YEAR OLD. HER NAME WAS GIVEN ONLY THIS MONDAY ON OUR SUPPLEMENTAL WITNESS LIST.

THE COURT: WHAT'S THE DATE OF THAT STATEMENT?

MR. DOUGLAS: THAT STATEMENT IS DATED JUNE 20TH, 1994, YOUR HONOR. HER MOTHER'S NAME HAS BEEN ON OUR WITNESS LIST. THE STATEMENT OF THE MOTHER WAS EARLIER GIVEN. WE DECIDED ONLY THIS WEEK TO ADD THE CHILD ON OUR WITNESS LIST. I AM TURNING OVER A STATEMENT DATED JULY 31 OR DATED AUGUST THE 1ST CONCERNING A JULY 31 INTERVIEW OF AN ALEX CASTILLO, WHOM MISS CAPLAN INFORMS ME WAS NOT PREVIOUSLY TURNED OVER.

THE COURT: AND WHAT IS MR. CASTILLO'S RELEVANCE?

MR. DOUGLAS: MR. CASTILLO WAS AN EMPLOYEE, MEZZALUNA RESTAURANT. AND HE GIVES TESTIMONY OR INFORMATION CONCERNING A SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT BY DETECTIVE TOM LANGE SUGGESTING THAT HE HAD GIVEN MR. GOLDMAN A BEEPER AND DENYING SAME. I AM TURNING OVER AN AUGUST 2 --

THE COURT: LET ME JUST CLARIFY. IS THIS THE BRENTWOOD MEZZALUNA OR BEVERLY HILLS?

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

THE COURT: WHICH?

MR. DOUGLAS: THIS IS THE BRENTWOOD MEZZALUNA. I'M SORRY. I AM TURNING OVER A STATEMENT OF NARINDEN, N-A-R-I-N-D-E-N, SINGH, S-I-N-G-H. MR. SINGH IS THE OWNER OF A NEWSSTAND ACROSS THE STREET FROM MEZZALUNA. HE IS ON OUR WITNESS LIST. IT IS SIMPLY TALKING ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF A VIDEO CAMERA AT HIS NEWSSTAND. HE IS ON THE WITNESS LIST AS JUST A PRECAUTION.

THE COURT: WHAT IS THE DATE OF THAT STATEMENT?

MR. DOUGLAS: AUGUST THE 2ND, 1994. I AM TURNING OVER A REPORT FOR KEVIN WHELAN, W-H-E-L-A-N. THE REPORT IS DATED AUGUST THE 3RD, 1994. HE WORKS AS A DISPATCHER WITH NETWORK COURIER SERVICES, WHO SPEAKS ABOUT A COURIER HAVING CALLED THE DISPATCH AND SAYING THAT THE COURIER HAD OBTAINED AN AUTOGRAPH OF O.J. SIMPSON ON JUNE THE 12TH, 1994 AT 11:20 P.M. AND THE STATEMENT IS, "YOU'LL NEVER GUESS WHOSE AUTOGRAPH I GOT. O.J.'S." I AM TURNING OVER A STATEMENT, YOUR HONOR, DATED JULY 14TH, 1994 OF A TONY PARKER. AS THE COURT WILL RECALL, I DID NOT KNOW ON MONDAY WHO TONY PARKER WAS. AS THE COURT WILL FURTHER RECALL, I TURNED TO MISS CAPLAN, AND SHE DIDN'T KNOW WHO HE WAS. THIS IS A STATEMENT THAT COMES FROM ONE OF OUR INVESTIGATORS. MR. PARKER IS THE OWNER OF A WHITE 1973 INTERNATIONAL SCOUT FOUR-WHEEL DRIVE WHICH WAS PARKED ON BUNDY NORTH OF DARLINGTON ON JUNE THE 11TH THROUGH JUNE THE 13TH, 1994. I AM TURNING OVER, YOUR HONOR, A TWO-PAGE DOCUMENT GIVEN FROM MARK PARTRIDGE. MR. PARTRIDGE IS THE --

THE COURT: THE LAWYER REFERRED TO BY MR. COCHRAN.

MR. DOUGLAS: CORRECT, YOUR HONOR. DATED JUNE 27, 1994. AND THERE'S A FAX COVER SHEET DATED JUNE 25, 1994. I AM TURNING OVER A REPORT FROM MISS ROSITA RHEUBAN, R-H-E-U-B-A-N, DATED AUGUST 21ST, 1994. SHE IS CONNECTED WITH RHEUBAN MOTORS, WHICH WAS ONE OF THE IMPOUND YARDS I THINK THAT IS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE CONCERNING A.C. COWLINGS' BRONCO.

THE COURT: WHAT'S THE DATE OF IT?

MR. DOUGLAS: AUGUST THE 23RD, 1994. I AM TURNING OVER ANOTHER REPORT FOR PAUL SONENSHINE, S-O-N-E-N-S-H-I-N-E, DATED AUGUST 16TH, 1994 CONCERNING AN INTERVIEW THAT HE HAD. HE IS AN EMPLOYEE OF RHEUBEN'S IMPOUND YARD, AND HE TALKS ABOUT THE FACT THAT MR. COWLINGS' BRONCO WAS LEFT IN AN UNSECURED LOCATION. I AM TURNING A REPORT OVER DATED JULY 20, 1994 OF MR. THOMAS TALERINO, T-A-L-E-R-I-N-O, WHO TALKS ABOUT THE FACT THAT HE WAS ROLLER SKATING ON JUNE THE 12TH, 1994 ON BUNDY AND HE SEES A MAN HIDING IN THE BUSHES NEAR 877 SOUTH BUNDY WHO WAS NOT THE DEFENDANT. I AM TURNING OVER A REPORT OF DR. RONALD -- MR. RONALD TAYLOR DATED JUNE 22, 1994, WHO RESIDES IN CHICAGO, WHO SAID THAT MR. TAYLOR HAD OCCASION ON JUNE 13TH TO SEE O.J. SIMPSON. WHEN MR. TAYLOR ARRIVED -- WHEN MR. SIMPSON ARRIVED IN CHICAGO, THAT HE SHOOK HIS HANDS, EXCHANGED A FEW PLEASANTRIES, OBSERVED HIS HANDS AND DID NOT SEE ANY SCRATCHES OR CUTS AND HOW MR. SIMPSON WAS VERY FRIENDLY AND GRACIOUS, BUT APPEARED TIRED FROM THE FLIGHT. I AM TURNING OVER A REPORT DATED JULY 19, 1994 FROM MR. JASON WOOD, WHO APPARENTLY WORKED FOR AIR TOUCH CELLULAR LOCATED IN IRVINE AND WHO HAPPENED TO CALL MR. SIMPSON ON HIS CELLULAR PHONE ON JUNE 17TH, 1994. I AM ALSO TURNING OVER A REPORT OF A MR. JOEL PITCOFF, P-I-T-C-O-F-F, DATED AUGUST 24TH, 1994. MR. PITCOFF IS A RESEARCH AND ANALYST, MANAGER OF THE FORD MOTOR COMPANY, AND THIS IS THE REPORT TESTIFYING OR STATING THAT FOR THE 10-MONTH PERIOD FROM OCTOBER '93 THROUGH JULY '94, 26,688 FORD BRONCOS WERE SOLD NATIONALLY, 20,012 WERE SOLD IN THE FIRST SEVEN MONTHS OF 1994.

THE COURT: HOW MANY WHITE ONES?

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, THIS REPORT DOES NOT BREAK DOWN THE NUMBER OF WHITE ONES. AND THOSE ARE THE STATEMENTS THAT I CAN SAY NOW WITH A STRONGER DEGREE OF CONFIDENCE ARE ALL STATEMENTS THAT ARE DISCOVERABLE THAT ARE OBLIGATED TO BE TURNED OVER. AS I SAY, YOUR HONOR, I TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY FAILURES TO HAVE FULLY COMPLIED WITH.

THE COURT: MR. DOUGLAS, HOW DO YOU SUGGEST I DEAL WITH THE OBJECTIONS THAT I'M GOING TO HEAR FROM THE PROSECUTION AS SOON AS I FINISH PEELING THEM OFF THE CEILING?

MR. DOUGLAS: I SUSPECT, YOUR HONOR, THAT THE BEST WAY TO DEAL WITH THESE OBJECTIONS, ONE, IS TO STRONGLY ADMONISH THE DEFENSE, AS YOU PROBABLY WILL DO. I THINK A SECOND APPROPRIATE OBJECTION WOULD BE THAT WHEN WE GET TO THE DEFENDANT'S CASE, WHICH WILL BE LIKELY IN TWO MONTHS IF NOT LONGER, THAT YOU ASK THE PEOPLE FOR THE STATUS OF THEIR INVESTIGATIVE EFFORTS AS TO THESE PARTICULAR WITNESSES. THAT IF THE PEOPLE CAN MAKE A SHOWING THAT THEY HAVE FAILED OR BEEN UNABLE TO FULLY COMPLETE ANY INVESTIGATION AS TO ANY OF THESE INDIVIDUALS AFTER HAVING TWO MONTHS OR MORE TO DO SO, THAT WE BE REQUIRED TO CALL THESE WITNESSES TOWARDS THE END OF OUR CASE. I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE A SANCTION THAT WOULD BE MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE SANCTION THAT WAS EARLIER IMPOSED ON THE PROSECUTOR, BUT I THINK THAT MY LEARNED COLLEAGUES MIGHT HAVE SOME OTHER THOUGHTS IN THAT REGARD.

MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, ONE VOICE PER ISSUE.

THE COURT: YEAH.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. DOUGLAS: AS I SAID EARLIER, YOUR HONOR, SINCE JANUARY 1ST OF THIS YEAR, I HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING THE EVIDENCE, FOR MAKING SURE THAT DISCOVERY HAS BEEN FULLY COMPLIED WITH. CERTAINLY, THIS TURNING OVER OF DOCUMENTS TODAY REFLECTS A BREACH IN THE PROCESS. IT IS ONE THAT PREDATES MY CURRENT ROLE, BUT ONE THAT I ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR BECAUSE SOMEBODY HAS TO. I THINK HOWEVER, YOUR HONOR, WHEN YOU TAKE THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, GIVEN THE SCOPE AND THE MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, GIVEN THE NUMBER OF WITNESSES ON BOTH INDIVIDUALS' WITNESS LISTS, GIVEN THE TIME AND THE CARE AND THE EFFORT THAT HAS OBVIOUSLY BEEN PLACED INTO THIS CASE BY BOTH SIDES, THAT THE COURT SHOULD FASHION ANY SANCTION, IF AT ALL, THAT IS MEASURED, THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COURT'S KNOWLEDGE THAT THESE ARE LAWYERS WHO DON'T PLAY GAMES, WHO DON'T PLAY FAST AND LOOSE WITH THE RULES, WHO PERHAPS BOTH SIDES HAVE MADE MISTAKES AND ERRORS. I SEE MR. DARDEN SMILING.

MR. DARDEN: I'M NOT.

MR. DOUGLAS: BOTH SIDES HAVE MADE MISTAKES. WE ARE ALL HUMAN. I AM NOT PERFECT, BUT THERE IS NO BAD FAITH, AND I AM SURPRISED AS ANYONE THAT THERE WERE THESE NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS THAT HAD NOT BEEN TURNED OVER PREVIOUSLY.

THE COURT: I HAVE TO SAY, MR. DOUGLAS, I'VE HAD LONG EXPERIENCE WITH MR. HODGMAN. I'VE KNOWN HIM AS A COLLEAGUE, AS A TRIAL LAWYER, AND I'VE NEVER SEEN THE EXPRESSIONS ON HIS FACE THAT I'VE SEEN TODAY. MR. HODGMAN, WHY DON'T YOU TAKE A FEW DEEP BREATHS, AND WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT THIS. BUT I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT MY SUGGESTION TO YOU IS GOING TO BE AS FOLLOWS: THIS IS A RATHER WIDE RANGE OF WITNESSES WHO COVER A RATHER WIDE RANGE OF TOPICS AND A WIDE RANGE OF ISSUES, AND I HAVE TO DEAL WITH THESE EACH INDIVIDUALLY BECAUSE THEY'RE EACH IN A DIFFERENT POSTURE. ONE OR TWO OF THESE MIGHT BE JUSTIFIED IN AN EXPLANATION, DECIDING TO ADD THEM ON THE WITNESS LIST, TURN OVER THE STATEMENT AFTER SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, THE COURT'S RULING ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. SOME OF THESE OTHERS THOUGH CLEARLY GO TO WHO DONE IT ISSUES. SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, TALERINO, WHO WAS ROLLER SKATING ON BUNDY THAT EVENING. OBVIOUSLY THAT'S A DIFFERENT POSTURE. I'M GOING TO SUGGEST TO YOU THAT YOU GO OVER THIS LIST, GO OVER THOSE INDIVIDUAL STATEMENTS WHICH YOU HAVE WHICH I'M NOT PRIVY TO AND SEE WHICH ONES -- WHAT SANCTIONS YOU SEEK AS TO WHICH DELAY IN DISCOVERY AND PRESENT THAT TO ME IN THE MORNING.

MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, I'M GOING TO ASK FOR A LITTLE BIT MORE. YOU KNOW, IT'S -- IT WAS CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT THIS MORNING TO HAVE THE RESUMPTION OF TELEVISED COVERAGE OF THIS CASE. THE COURT'S INTEREST AS I'M SURE -- AT LEAST CERTAIN PARTIES -- WAS THAT THIS WOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR AMERICA, LAW STUDENTS, LAW PROFESSORS AND PERHAPS EVEN PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD TO SEE HOW THE SYSTEM OPERATES IN AMERICA. I AM SORRY TO SAY THAT WE HAVE A HORRIBLE BREAKDOWN. AND WHILE I APPRECIATE MR. DOUGLAS FALLING ON HIS SWORD THIS AFTERNOON, I THINK HE MINIMIZES THE CONSEQUENCES AND THE DEPTH OF WHAT HAS OCCURRED HERE TODAY. YOUR HONOR, IF THE PEOPLE, IF THE PEOPLE ON THE DAY OF OPENING STATEMENT WERE TO UNLOAD DISCOVERY DATED JUNE, JULY, AUGUST OF THIS YEAR, I CAN ONLY, I CAN ONLY IMAGINE THAT THE SANCTIONS AGAINST THE PEOPLE WOULD BE SEVERE. I DON'T INTEND TO MINIMIZE THIS AND I ENCOURAGE THE COURT, DO NOT MINIMIZE THIS AT ALL. YOUR HONOR, IT IS NOT ONLY WHAT WAS TURNED OVER THIS AFTERNOON, WHICH WE WILL NEED TIME AND PERHAPS MORE THAN OVERNIGHT TO EXAMINE. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS AND EVALUATE IT IN LIGHT OF OTHER EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND THAT. MR. HODGMAN, THAT'S WHY I WAS SUGGESTING THAT PERHAPS YOU OUGHT TO TAKE THE TIME TO CAREFULLY EVALUATE WHAT YOU HAVE THERE, AND IF YOU WANT TO COME BACK ANOTHER DAY, THURSDAY OR FRIDAY, TO ARGUE THE ISSUE OF SANCTIONS, WE CAN TAKE IT UP THEN. I'M JUST OFFERING THAT OPPORTUNITY TO YOU BECAUSE I THINK THAT WOULD BE A MORE EFFICIENT WAY TO DEAL WITH IT.

MR. HODGMAN: WELL, I AGREE THAT SOME TIME IN ORDER FOR US TO EVALUATE WOULD BE A MORE EFFICIENT WAY TO DEAL WITH IT. BUT, YOUR HONOR, WE DO NOT WANT TO PROCEED WITH EVIDENCE UNTIL WE'VE HAD NOT ONLY AN OPPORTUNITY TO VIEW THIS DISCOVERY, BUT THE REMAINING ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN ALLUDED TO IN MR. COCHRAN'S OPENING STATEMENT. I CAN GO THROUGH A LAUNDRY LIST RIGHT NOW, BUT, YOUR HONOR ---- THIS IS A FILE. THIS -- UP UNTIL TODAY, THIS IS THE EXTENT OF THE DEFENSE DISCOVERY TO THE PEOPLE. UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW, THERE IS SUPPOSED TO BE RECIPROCAL DISCOVERY. THAT'S PART OF PLAYING FAIR. THAT'S PART OF PLAYING THE GAME FAIR. THE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SEVERELY PREJUDICED TODAY, YOUR HONOR, SEVERELY PREJUDICED. THIS CONDUCT IS OUTRAGEOUS AND UNBELIEVABLE. NOW, IN MR. COCHRAN'S STATEMENT THIS AFTERNOON, WE HAVE REFERENCE TO STATEMENTS FROM JOE STELLINI, HOWARD WEITZMAN, SKIP TAFT, RON FICHMAN. WE HAVE A NUMBER OF WITNESSES LIKE THAT. ON TOP OF THAT, WE HAVE A MYRIAD OF REPRESENTATIONS AS TO THE DEFENDANT'S PHYSICAL CONDITION. WITH REGARD TO DYSLEXIA. WHERE IS THE REPORT? ARTHRITIS OF SEVERAL DIFFERENT VARIETIES. WHERE ARE THE REPORTS? AN EXPERT REGARDING SHOES. WHERE ARE THE REPORTS? POTENTIAL EVIDENCE REGARDING TIRE TRACKS. WHERE ARE THE REPORTS? THE CUT ON HIS FINGER. HE INTENDS TO PRESENT EXPERT TESTIMONY, HE SAID IT THIS AFTERNOON, WITH REGARD TO THE NATURE OF THAT CUT AND A POSSIBILITY OF WHERE THE DEFENDANT GOT IT. WHERE IS THE REPORT? MR. COCHRAN REFERS TO OTHER PHOTOS APPARENTLY OTHER THAN WHAT HAS BEEN DISCLOSED TO THE PEOPLE. WHERE ARE THE PHOTOS? HE TALKS ABOUT HAVING AN EXPERT TESTIFY THAT TRAUMA ON RON GOLDMAN'S HAND IS CONSISTENT WITH A CERTAIN SCENARIO. WHERE ARE THE REPORTS? WE HAVE ALL SORTS OF TEST RESULTS APPARENTLY CONDUCTED BY THE DEFENSE THAT HAVE NOT BEEN FORTHCOMING. WE HAVE REFERENCE TO MISS WALKER WHO HAS BEEN GIVING INFORMATION TO THE DEFENSE. AND I REALIZE SHE'S JUST RECENTLY RETAINED. BUT MR. COCHRAN IS REFERRING TO FINDINGS, TO DATA, TO OTHER MATERIAL THAT HAS NOT BEEN DISCLOSED TO THE PEOPLE. WE HAVE REFERENCE TO TESTIMONY OF DR. BADIN AND DR. LEE. WHERE ARE THE REPORTS? THE PEOPLE DON'T HAVE THEM, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS SUPPOSED -- THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A FAIR PROCEEDING. WHERE ARE THE REPORTS? THERE ARE WITNESS STATEMENTS WHICH HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO US WHICH HAVE REDACTIONS. WE ARE GOING TO BE ASKING THE COURT FOR A HEARING WITH REGARD TO THE NATURE OF THE REDACTIONS SO WE CAN DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS PROPER TO EVEN HAVE THOSE REDACTIONS. YOUR HONOR, THERE IS A MYRIAD OF ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ACTS OF THE DEFENSE TODAY, AN ABSOLUTE MYRIAD OF ISSUES. THE PEOPLE NEED SOME TIME TO DIGEST THIS. I REALIZE THIS COMES AT A DIFFICULT TIME IN THE PROCEEDINGS, BUT I DON'T THINK IN THE HISTORY OF JURISPRUDENCE HAVE WE EVER HAD ANYTHING OCCUR LIKE WHAT HAPPENED TODAY IN THIS COURTROOM.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. DOUGLAS, WOULD YOU ADDRESS THE ADDITIONAL ISSUES THAT MR. HODGMAN RAISES, THAT --

MR. DOUGLAS: CERTAINLY, YOUR HONOR. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO MR. HODGMAN -- AND HE IS A COLLEAGUE WHOM I RESPECT -- HE HAS NEVER PRACTICED LAW AS A DEFENSE LAWYER UNDER PROP 115. THERE IS A NEW WAY TO PRACTICE LAW THESE DAYS. AND THAT WAY IS, SINCE REPORTS ARE DISCOVERABLE, YOUR HONOR, REPORTS ARE NOT AUTOMATICALLY WRITTEN. PERHAPS THE WAY THAT HE'S ACCUSTOMED, WHENEVER YOU TALK TO A DOCTOR, A DOCTOR WRITES A REPORT AND TURNS IT OVER AND THEN IT'S DISCOVERABLE. YOUR HONOR, WHEN I TALK TO MICHAEL BADIN AND MICHAEL BADIN GIVES ME SOME IDEA FOR OPENING STATEMENT OR TALKS ABOUT WHAT IS HIS THEORY OF THE CASE, WE ARE NOT DOING IT WRITING FAXES BACK AND FORTH. WE TALK OVER THE TELEPHONE AND WE PRESENT EVIDENCE. MR. COCHRAN HAS BEEN TRYING CASES FOR 33 YEARS. HE DOESN'T NEED TO HAVE A REPORT IN ORDER TO SAY SOMETHING IN OPENING STATEMENT. I CAN CALL HOWARD WEITZMAN, WHO IS A COLLEAGUE OF MINE ON ANOTHER CASE, AND ASK HIM, "MR. WEITZMAN, DID THEY TELL YOU TO LEAVE THE ROOM IN THAT INTERVIEW," AND HE SAID, "YES," AND, "CAN I CALL YOU AS A WITNESS," AND HE SAYS, "YES," AND THERE IS NO REPORT. I CAN TALK TO MY CLIENT ABOUT A DEAR, DEAR FRIEND, JOE STELLINI, AND SAY, "WHAT WOULD JOE STELLINI SAY," AND HE WILL TELL ME THAT JOE STELLINI SAID THAT THERE WAS NOTHING GOING ON, AND I PUT HIS NAME ON THE WITNESS LIST AND THERE IS NO REPORT. YOUR HONOR, I WILL FALL ON MY SWORD, BUT I OBJECT TO THE INSINUATION THAT I AM DOING SOMETHING UNTOWARD. I ACKNOWLEDGE, YOUR HONOR, THAT I AM NOT PERFECT. I ACKNOWLEDGE, YOUR HONOR, THAT I HAVE DONE SOMETHING WRONG. I STAND BEFORE THIS COURT CHASTE, AND I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT. BUT I HAVE BEEN A LAWYER FOR 15 YEARS AND I TAKE MY OBLIGATION SERIOUSLY AND I TAKE THE ACCUSATIONS OF THE PEOPLE VERY SERIOUSLY. I DO NOT PRACTICE LAW THAT WAY. I ACKNOWLEDGE WHEN I'M WRONG, BUT THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY MALICIOUSNESS. THIS IS NOT THE MOST PREPOSTEROUS THING IN JURISPRUDENCE. THIS IS A MISTAKE. THIS IS A FUNCTION OF DEALING WITH HUNDREDS OF WITNESSES AND GOING TO TRIAL IN SEVEN MONTHS. THIS IS A FUNCTION OF THERE BEING 12 LAWYERS, 5 INVESTIGATORS, 22,000 PAGES OF EVIDENCE. THESE ARE SLIPS THROUGH THE PROVERBIAL CRACK. I ACCEPT IT AND I ACKNOWLEDGE IT, BUT I OBJECT STRONGLY TO ANY IMPUNING OF MY INTEGRITY OR THE INTEGRITY OF ANY LAWYERS ON THIS TEAM. THANK YOU.

MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR --

THE COURT: MR. HODGMAN, HOW DO YOU SUGGEST WE PROCEED AT THIS POINT? SINCE THE BALL SEEMS TO BE IN YOUR COURT, YOU ARE THE AGGRIEVED PARTY, HOW DO YOU WANT TO PROCEED?

MR. HODGMAN: I AM THE AGGRIEVED PARTY. THE PEO -- WELL, I AM NOT, YOUR HONOR. THE PEOPLE ARE.

THE COURT: YOU ARE REPRESENTING THE AGGRIEVED PARTY.

MR. HODGMAN: I CERTAINLY DO. AND THE PEOPLE ARE DEEPLY AGGRIEVED. YOUR HONOR, FIRST OF ALL, WE WILL PROVIDE TO THE COURT A CASE THAT SAYS THE DEFENSE CANNOT CIRCUMVENT DISCOVERY LAWS IN THE MANNER SUGGESTED BY MR. DOUGLAS. THERE IS A CASE ON POINT. WE WILL PROVIDE IT TO THE COURT. WE'LL LET THE COURT SPEAK FOR ITSELF. AS FAR AS MR. DOUGLAS GOES --

THE COURT: WELL, THAT WAS PART OF MY, YOU EXPECT ME TO BELIEVE THAT COMMENT FROM THE DAY BEFORE.

MR. HODGMAN: I'M SORRY?

THE COURT: NEVER MIND.

MR. HODGMAN: OH, I -- IN FACT, I RECALL, YES, YOUR HONOR. YES. I THINK THE COURT IS FAMILIAR WITH THE CASE. YOUR HONOR, HOW DO WE PROCEED? WE DON'T PROCEED AT THIS POINT, BECAUSE WE NEED AN OPPORTUNITY TO DEAL WITH WHAT HAS BEEN UNLOADED ON US.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, WHAT WE ARE DOING, WE ARE BREAKING EARLY TODAY BECAUSE OF THE JUROR'S OBLIGATION. LET ME SUGGEST THAT WE DO THIS. DO TAKE THE EVENING HOURS TO EXAMINE WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU. DO PREPARE WHATEVER LETTER BRIEF YOU FEEL IS APPROPRIATE. OBVIOUSLY FAX A COPY TO COUNSEL. I THINK SOME OF THESE WITNESSES OBVIOUSLY -- FOR EXAMPLE, THE BERMAN CHILD, I THINK YOU ARE AWARE OF BECAUSE I RECALL SEEING SOMETHING ABOUT THAT SOMEWHERE IN THE -- SOME OF THESE THINGS MAY NOT BE EGREGIOUS ERRORS OF DISCOVERY. SOME OF THEM MAY BE VERY FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS WITH THE PEOPLE'S CASE THAT YOU MAY NOT FEEL COMFORTABLE GOING FORWARD WITHOUT HAVING SOME SUBSTANTIAL INVESTIGATION DONE. I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT WHAT I'M ASKING YOU TO DO IS TAKE A FEW DEEP BREATHS, EVALUATE WHAT YOU HAVE, EVALUATE THE RECORD FROM TODAY AND THEN COME TO ME WITH A PROPOSAL AS TO HOW WE PROCEED TOMORROW MORNING.

MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR --

THE COURT: I JUST THINK IT'S A MORE EFFICIENT WAY TO DO THIS.

MR. HODGMAN: WE WILL DO THAT. WHAT CONCERNS ME IS WHAT WE DON'T HAVE, WHAT WE HAVE NOT BEEN GIVEN. THE COURT IS FAMILIAR WITH THE LAW. THE COURT A COUPLE DAYS AGO STATED, "YOU EXPECT ME TO BELIEVE THAT." NOW, YOUR HONOR, THIS IS JUST A QUESTION OF FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS AND FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS TO THE PEOPLE. THE PEOPLE TOO -- WE HAVE --

THE COURT: MR. HODGMAN, I UNDERSTAND THE POINT YOU'RE MAKING. AND WHAT I'M SUGGESTING TO YOU IS THAT IN A COHERENT WITNESS BY WITNESS, ITEM BY ITEM, YOU DETERMINE WHAT YOUR POSITION IS. BECAUSE THE SANCTIONS FOR FAILURE OR DELAYING DISCOVERY ARE OFTEN TIMES VERY SEVERE. AND IF YOU RECALL IN OUR DISCUSSION FROM YESTERDAY OR THE DAY BEFORE, YOUR FIRST POSITION WAS PRECLUSION, WHICH IS THE LAST STEP THE COURT CAN TAKE AFTER HAVING EXHAUSTING -- AFTER HAVING EXHAUSTED ALL LESSER REMEDIES. SO I WANT YOU TO BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT HOW YOU DO THAT BECAUSE IF I PRECLUDE SOMETHING AND THE COURT OF APPEAL OR SOMEBODY ELSE DECIDES THAT I'VE ABUSED MY DISCRETION, OFTEN TIMES THAT'S REVERSIBLE ERROR. AND THERE ARE ENOUGH LAND MINES IN THIS CASE ALREADY. SO LET ME SUGGEST THAT COURSE OF ACTION TO YOU.

MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, IN ADDITION TO WHAT THE COURT SUGGESTS, WE WILL REVIEW MR. COCHRAN'S STATEMENT THIS AFTERNOON.

THE COURT: I UNDERSTOOD THAT THAT WAS PART OF YOUR COMMENT.

MR. HODGMAN: VERY WELL. BECAUSE WE WILL BE ASKING FOR AN ORDER THAT ANY SUCH REPORTS BE PRODUCED AND FORTHWITH.

THE COURT: WHICH IS WHY YOU HAVE THE REAL TIME AND I SUSPECT YOU MAY UNPLUG YOUR COMPUTER AND TAKE IT HOME WITH YOU TONIGHT.

MR. HODGMAN: IT MAY BE A LONG TIME BEFORE WE GET HOME TONIGHT, YOUR HONOR. YOUR HONOR, WE WILL DO AS YOU SUGGEST. WE WILL REPORT BACK IN THE MORNING. I EXPECT IT'S GOING TO BE A VERY LONG NIGHT. I ALSO ANTICIPATE --

THE COURT: THEY'RE ALL LONG NIGHTS, MR. HODGMAN.

MR. HODGMAN: WELL, THEY ARE. BUT THIS ONE IS GOING TO BE ESPECIALLY LONG. AND, YOUR HONOR, BEFORE WE CAN PROCEED ANY FURTHER, WE NEED TO EVALUATE THIS AND WE NEED -- WELL, YOUR HONOR, LIKE I SAID, A PANDORA'S BOX OF DISCOVERY ISSUES HAS JUST BEEN CRACKED OPEN THIS AFTERNOON. WE'RE GOING TO NEED TIME TO EVALUATE.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, JUST AS A PRECAUTION, I'M GOING TO DIRECT DEPUTY MAGNERA TO HAVE THE JURORS BROUGHT OVER AT 10:00 RATHER THAN 9:00 SO AT LEAST WE HAVE A RUNNING START TO LOOK AT THESE ISSUES TO SEE HOW WE FRAME THEM.

MS. CLARK: I APPRECIATE THE COURT'S OPTIMISM. 10:00 O'CLOCK MAY BE EARLY, BUT --

THE COURT: I'M ALWAYS OPTIMISTIC.

MR. HODGMAN: I KNOW, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ANY COMMENT FROM MR. COCHRAN, MR. SHAPIRO ON THE DISCOVERY ISSUE? MR. DOUGLAS, I AM SORRY. YOU'RE THE DISCOVERY SWORD MAN.

MR. DOUGLAS: NOTHING FURTHER, YOUR HONOR, THANK YOU.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE WILL STAND IN RECESS AS FAR AS COUNSEL ARE CONCERNED UNTIL 9:00 O'CLOCK. AND MISS CHILDS, CAN I SEE YOU, PLEASE? MISS CHILDS.

MS. CLARK: I WAS GOING TO RAISE THE ISSUE OF THE LENORE WALKER PRESS CONFERENCE.

THE COURT: I WAS UNAWARE OF THAT.

MS. CLARK: THAT'S WHY I WAS GOING TO INFORM THE COURT. I UNDERSTAND THAT LENORE WALKER INTENDS TO HAVE A FULL PRESS CONFERENCE THIS AFTERNOON CONCERNING THE REASONS FOR HER INVOLVEMENT IN THIS CASE. AND I THINK THE COURT SHOULD BE AWARE OF THAT BECAUSE IT'S A QUESTIONABLE ETHICS IN CONDUCT AND I THINK IT MIGHT BE -- I THOUGHT IT SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION.

THE COURT: WELL, THAT PERSON IS NOT PRESENTLY WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT. SO I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S ANYTHING I CAN DO ABOUT THAT OR WOULD BE INCLINED TO AT THIS POINT. THANK YOU FOR ADVISING ME.

MS. CLARK: IT IS DEFENSE COUNSEL'S WITNESS. PERHAPS THE COURT WOULD LIKE TO ADVISE DEFENSE COUNSEL OF THE ADVISABILITY OF A PRESS CONFERENCE OF THAT NATURE. BUT PERHAPS NOT. I JUST THOUGHT YOU SHOULD KNOW.

THE COURT: THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

(AT 4:00 P.M., AN ADJOURNMENT WAS TAKEN UNTIL THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 1995, 9:00 A.M.)

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

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

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

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 25, 1995

VOLUME 75

PAGES 11729 THROUGH 11940, INCLUSIVE

APPEARANCES: (SEE PAGE 2)

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

APPEARANCES:

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

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

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

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

I N D E X

INDEX FOR VOLUME 75 PAGES 11729 - 11940

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

DAY DATE SESSION PAGE VOL.

WEDNESDAY JANUARY 25, 1995 A.M. 11729 75
P.M. 11831 75
-----------------------------------------------------

PROCEEDINGS

OPENING STATEMENT BY MR. COCHRAN 11761 75
(RESUMED) 11841 75

EXHIBITS

(NONE THIS VOLUME)