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

APPEARANCES: (APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)

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

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

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, COUNSEL.

MR. COCHRAN: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.

MR. SHAPIRO: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.

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. BAILEY, MR. BLASIER. THE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED BY MISS CLARK AND MR. DARDEN. COUNSEL, SO THE RECORD IS CLEAR, WE ARE IN THE MIDST OF OPENING STATEMENTS BY THE DEFENSE, THE PROSECUTION HAVING COMPLETED THEIR OPENING STATEMENTS.

AND AT THE CONCLUSION OF YESTERDAY'S PROCEEDINGS THE DEFENSE MADE CERTAIN DISCLOSURES TO THE PROSECUTION PERTAINING TO CERTAIN WITNESSES WHO WERE MENTIONED AND/OR ALLUDED TO DURING THE COURSE OF THE DEFENSE OPENING STATEMENT, AND THE PROSECUTION ASKED FOR LEAVE TO -- ACTUALLY AT THE COURT'S SUGGESTION THE PROSECUTION ACCEPTED LEAVE OF THE COURT TO EVALUATE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT DISCLOSURE AND TO REPORT BACK TO THE COURT THIS MORNING. AND SO THE RECORD IS ALSO CLEAR, YESTERDAY EVENING AT APPROXIMATELY 10:30 IN THE EVENING I RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM THE ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY, FRANK SUNDSTEDT, AT MY HOME, ADVISING ME OF THE SUDDEN ILLNESS OF MR. HODGMAN WHO WAS THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY ASSIGNED OR WHO WAS HANDLING THE DISCOVERY ISSUE AND THE OBJECTIONS TO THE OPENING STATEMENT BY MR. COCHRAN. MISS CLARK, WHAT IS THE POSITION OF THE PEOPLE THIS MORNING?

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, AT THE COURT'S DIRECTION, LAST NIGHT WE ATTEMPTED TO GO AND EVALUATE WHAT EXACTLY HAD OCCURRED IN COURT AND ATTEMPTED TO ADDRESS THE EGREGIOUS ISSUES OF MISCONDUCT. WE WERE WORKING UNTIL APPROXIMATELY 1:30 IN THE MORNING AND WE WERE DOING IT WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF THE ASSISTANCE OF MR. HODGMAN WHO WAS TAKEN TO THE HOSPITAL AT I BELIEVE APPROXIMATELY 6:00 P.M., WHICH DID HAMPER OUR PREPARATION. WE ARE GOING TO BE READY TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED BY THE CONDUCT OF COUNSEL. IF WE COULD HAVE AN ADDITIONAL PERIOD OF TIME UNTIL 1:30 THIS AFTERNOON, WE WILL HAVE SOMETHING IN WRITING FOR THE COURT ADDRESSING EACH OF THE ISSUES OF MISCONDUCT COMMITTED BY COUNSEL, AND WE DID ATTEMPT TO HAVE IT READY FOR THE COURT THIS MORNING, BUT HAVING WORKED UNTIL 1:30 IN THE MORNING LAST NIGHT, WE SIMPLY COULD NOT COMPLETE IT IN TIME.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ASSUMING THE PROSECUTION'S WRITTEN OBJECTIONS ARE SUBMITTED TO THE COURT TODAY AT 1:30, WHAT IS YOUR POSITION AS FAR AS CONTINUING THE OPENING STATEMENTS AND PROCEEDING IN THE ABSENCE OF MR. HODGMAN?

MS. CLARK: THAT WILL DEPEND ON THE COURT'S RULING ON OUR MOTION, YOUR HONOR, AND WHEN WE -- WE WILL BE REQUESTING CERTAIN THINGS OF THE COURT, AND DEPENDING ON THE COURT'S DECISION WITH RESPECT TO THOSE REQUESTS IN OUR MOVING PAPERS, THEN WE WILL KNOW WHAT OUR POSITION IS IN THAT REGARD.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ARE YOU IN A POSITION TO TELL ME WHAT REMEDIES YOU ARE GOING TO BE SEEKING?

MS. CLARK: NOT AT THIS TIME, YOUR HONOR. THAT IS BEING PREPARED AS WE SPEAK. WE HAD -- WE DID AN EXHAUSTIVE SEARCH THROUGH THE RECORD, AMONG OTHER THINGS -- SO THE COURT WILL KNOW HOW SOME OF OUR TIME WAS TAKEN UP, WE DID AN EXHAUSTIVE SEARCH THROUGH THE RECORD FOR ALL OF THE REPRESENTATIONS OF DEFENSE COUNSEL CONCERNING THEIR COMPLIANCE WITH DISCOVERY ORDERS, AND THERE WERE NUMEROUS, NUMEROUS REPRESENTATIONS BY THE DEFENSE OF FULL AND COMPLETE DISCLOSURE, WHICH HAVE OF COURSE BEEN PROVEN TO BE FALSE, AND WE HAD TO CITE THOSE TO THE COURT, AS WELL AS THE NUMEROUS LETTERS THAT WE HAVE SENT TO THE DEFENSE WHICH WERE NOT ANSWERED IN A TRUTHFUL MANNER, AS WELL AS THE COURT ORDERS THAT WERE ISSUED WHICH WERE WILLFULLY VIOLATED BY THE DEFENSE. SO WE HAVE HAD TO COMPILE QUITE A BIT OF MATERIAL TO DEMONSTRATE TO THE COURT THE MISCONDUCT OF THE DEFENSE, IN ADDITION OF COURSE TO THE MOST RECENT.

THE COURT: I HAVE TO TELL YOU, WHAT I'M INTERESTED IN IS KNOWING WHAT THE PROSECUTION'S POSITION WILL BE WITH REGARDS TO EACH OF THE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS THAT OBJECTION WAS MADE TO, EACH OF THE WITNESSES THAT WERE DISCLOSED IN THE LAST FEW DAYS, AND THE LINE OF ARGUMENT OR DEFENSE THAT WAS OBJECTED TO OR THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS OBJECTED TO. I NEED TO KNOW WHAT THE PEOPLE'S POSITION IS WITH REGARDS TO EACH ONE OF THOSE DISCREET ITEMS, BECAUSE EACH IS DIFFERENT, EACH HAS A DIFFERENT DATE OF DISCLOSURE AND EACH HAS DIFFERENT RELEVANCE TO THE CASE, SOME OF WHICH IS HARD FOR THE COURT TO EVALUATE WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT YOUR SPECIFIC POSITION WILL BE ON THAT.

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

MS. CLARK: WE --

THE COURT: CAN YOU GIVE ME PERHAPS AN EXPLANATION UNDER WHAT SCENARIO, UNDER WHAT SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES THE PROSECUTION WOULD BE WILLING TO GO FORWARD AND COMPLETE THE OPENING STATEMENTS TODAY?

MS. CLARK: WELL, I APPRECIATE THE COURT'S DIRECTION, NO. 1, AS TO WHAT THE COURT DESIRES WITH RESPECT TO EACH WITNESS AND THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE IN ARGUMENT. IN ORDER TO ADDRESS IT IN THAT KIND OF SPECIFICITY, THOUGH, WE ARE GOING TO NEED TO ADDRESS THE COURT WITH MORE THAN ONE LAWYER BECAUSE WE HAVE OUR LAWYERS WORKING ON SEPARATE AREAS, AND ORDINARILY, IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE ONE-LAWYER RULE, WE WOULD HAVE ALL OF THEM FUNNEL THEIR INFORMATION TO ONE. IF THE COURT WOULD LIKE US TO RESPOND WITH THAT SPECIFICITY, WE WOULD ASK LEAVE OF THE COURT TO HAVE AN EXCEPTION TO THE RULE, BECAUSE THERE IS NO WAY THAT WE CAN BE READY WITH ONE LAWYER TO PRESENT ALL OF THAT AT 1:30. EITHER THAT OR TO ALLOW US A LITTLE ADDITIONAL TIME. BUT WITH RESPECT TO EACH WITNESS OR GROUPS OF WITNESSES, THERE WILL BE -- THE COURT -- I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE COURT IS SAYING. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN THE NATURE OF THE SANCTION. I DO APPRECIATE THAT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: WELL, WHAT I'M ASKING IS SINCE I HAVE A JURY -- THERE IS A VERY PRACTICAL REASON FOR MY QUESTION. I HAVE GOT A JURY IN THE WAITING ROOM RIGHT NOW SITTING THERE, AND IF THERE IS ANY POINT TO KEEPING THEM HERE, IS THERE -- WHAT IS THE SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES THAT YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO GO FORWARD WITH THE OPENING STATEMENTS AND CONCLUDE AT LEAST MR. COCHRAN'S OPENING STATEMENT?

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

THE COURT: SURE.

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

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I ADDRESS THE COURT AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME?

THE COURT: HOLD ON. CERTAINLY. I THOUGHT YOU WANTED TO TALK WHILE SHE IS TALKING TO MR. DARDEN.

MR. COCHRAN: NO, AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME.

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

THE COURT: MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU. THE SANCTIONS THAT WE WILL BE REQUESTING WILL BE ADMONITIONS TO THE JURY WITH RESPECT TO SOME WITNESSES, PRECLUSION WITH RESPECT TO OTHERS AND WE NEED A CONSENSUS AMONG US AS TO WHICH SANCTION FOR WHICH WITNESSES AND THAT IS WHY IT IS DIFFICULT TO ADDRESS THE COURT. I UNDERSTAND --

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

MS. CLARK: THERE ALSO WILL BE ISSUES OF CONTINUANCE REQUIRED IN ORDER TO ADDRESS THE NEW DISCOVERY, AS WELL AS THE REQUEST TO REOPEN THE PEOPLE'S OPENING STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE ARGUMENTS POSED BY COUNSEL.

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MS. CLARK: AND I APPRECIATE THE COURT'S POSITION. IT NEEDS TO KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH THE JURY. THESE ISSUES ARE GOING TO TAKE A LITTLE WHILE TO RESOLVE, BUT DEPENDING ON THE COURT'S RULING WITH THAT -- ON THOSE VARIOUS ISSUES, WE WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE RESUMPTION OF OPENING STATEMENT, BUT WE DO -- I THINK WE NEED TO PRESENT THIS TO THE COURT FOR RESOLUTION BEFORE WE RESUME WITH THE OPENING STATEMENT. I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW LONG THAT IS GOING TO TAKE, BECAUSE WE ARE PRESENTED WITH A MYRIAD -- MYRIAD ISSUES TO ADDRESS.

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

MR. COCHRAN: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. YOUR HONOR, FIRST OF ALL, THOSE OF US ON THE DEFENSE ARE VERY SORRY ABOUT MR. HODGMAN'S ILLNESS AND WE WISH HIM A SPEEDY RECOVERY. WE ARE ALSO REPRESENTING MR. O.J. SIMPSON, A MAN WE BELIEVE IS ABSOLUTELY INNOCENT, AND THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT, SO WE HAVE TO KIND OF BALANCE THAT. CERTAINLY, AS I INDICATED TO THE COURT EARLIER, IF THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH MR. HODGMAN BEING HERE AND THAT WILL CAUSE THE PEOPLE SOME PROBLEMS, WE ARE WILLING TO WAIT A COUPLE OF DAYS ON THAT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF PROCEEDING WITH THE EVIDENCE.

BUT YOUR HONOR, I NEED HARDLY REMIND THIS COURT, WITH REGARD TO OPENING STATEMENTS, THAT WE WERE READY TO PROCEED WITH OPENING STATEMENTS ON TUESDAY AFTERNOON AFTER THE PEOPLE CONCLUDED AT 3:30 AND BECAUSE OF A GLITCH WHICH WAS NO FAULT -- AN ACCIDENTAL GLITCH, BUT CERTAINLY NO FAULT OF MR. SIMPSON'S, THE COURT TOOK A RECESS AT THAT TIME AND WE WEREN'T ABLE TO FINISH OUR OPENING STATEMENTS. WE ACCEPTED THAT LIKE WE DO ALL THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED HERE. FINALLY YESTERDAY I WAS ABLE TO MAKE MY OPENING STATEMENT. AND I WILL BE VERY INTERESTED IN THEIR MOTION. AS USUAL, THEY TEND TO BE TOTALLY JUDGMENTAL, TALKING ABOUT MISCONDUCT. THERE IS NO MISCONDUCT IN THIS CASE. THEY CAN'T STAND THE TRUTH. I INDICATED THAT BEFORE. IF COUNSEL GETS UP AND IF YOU LOOK VERY CLOSELY AT THAT OPENING STATEMENT I GAVE YESTERDAY AND WE TALKED ABOUT LET'S SAY THE BLOOD UNDER NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S FINGERNAILS, THAT IS NOT ANYTHING THEY TOLD THEM, SO THE FACT THEY ARE UPSET -- THIS IS THE SAME GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN ASKING FOR A CONTINUANCE. IF A DEFENDANT HAD DONE THIS, ASKING FOR A CONTINUANCE AND THEN HAVE ALL THESE THINGS AND CONTINUE TO ASK FOR A CONTINUANCE, EVERYONE WOULD BE VERY SUSPICIOUS, BUT HERE IT IS PROSECUTION WHO IS CONTINUALLY DOING THIS SO. ALL I'M ASKING AND WHAT MR. SIMPSON ASKS IS THAT WE BE ALLOWED TO COMPLETE THE OPENING STATEMENT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. IT IS UNPRECEDENTED TO HAVE MY OPENING STATEMENT INTERRUPTED ALL OF THESE TIMES, TO HAVE THEM -- TALK ABOUT GETTING UP AND GIVING A FURTHER OPENING STATEMENT. THEN DO I GET TO REBUT THAT? THEY CANNOT SHUT ME UP, YOUR HONOR. I'M GOING TO TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THIS CASE. I'M GOING TO COMPLY WITH THE RULE. WE MAKE A MISTAKE, WE WILL TALK ABOUT THAT, BUT IF YOU LOOK THROUGH THAT TRANSCRIPT, THE THINGS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT ARE THINGS THAT WE EITHER DISCLOSED TO THEM OR THINGS I KNOW ABOUT THAT I HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO TELL THEM ABOUT. THEY CANNOT GET INSIDE MY HEAD AND THEY MIGHT AS WELL UNDERSTAND THAT. YOU RECALL ONCE BEFORE I SAID THEY ARE CONSTANTLY TRYING TO SHACKLE ME FROM THE STANDPOINT OF ADDRESSING THE ISSUES. THE COURT HAS ALREADY INDICATED TO THESE JURORS WHAT BOTH COUNSEL SAY IS NOT EVIDENCE AND IF WE DON'T PROVE SOMETHING OR IF WE FALL SHORT OF THAT, THE REMEDY SAYS THE JURORS SAY YOU SAID YOU WERE GOING TO DO THIS AND YOU DIDN'T DO THAT. YOU HAVE TOLD THEM HOW MANY TIMES THAT IT IS NOT -- OPENING STATEMENT IS NOT EVIDENCE.

AND I NOTICE MISS CLARK INADVERTENTLY KEPT USING THE WORDS "ARGUMENT" YOU RECALL WHEN THEY WERE GIVING THEIR OPENING STATEMENT, MAKING ALL OF THESE OUTRAGEOUS SPECIOUS CLAIMS ABOUT O.J. SIMPSON, CONTINUING TO TARNISH HIS REPUTATION. WE SAT HERE AND LISTENED TO THAT, AS WE HAVE BEEN DOING FOR SEVEN YEARS -- SEVEN MONTHS. THEY TALK ABOUT ALL THIS MOUND OF EVIDENCE. WE DIDN'T OBJECT. WE TRIED TO CONDUCT OURSELVES AS PROFESSIONALS UNTIL THE VERY END WHEN YOUR HONOR HAD TO ASK MISS CLARK TO SIT DOWN FOR BEING SO ARGUMENTATIVE. THOSE ARE THE FACTS. WE WENT THROUGH THAT YESTERDAY. THEY ASSIGNED MR. HODGMAN TO TRACK MY OPENING STATEMENT WHERE HE OBJECTS THIRTEEN TIMES, ABOUT ELEVEN OF WHICH WERE OVERRULED AND BUT -- AND I TOLD THEM AT THE TIME THEY ARE NOT GOING TO THROW US OFF WITH THAT KIND OF TACTIC, YOUR HONOR. NOW THEY WANT STILL A FURTHER DELAY. SO WE NEED TO PUT THIS IN PERSPECTIVE AS TO WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE. WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO CONCLUDE OUR OPENING STATEMENT AND GET TO THE CASE. JUDGE, AS SOMEBODY WISE INDICATED, THIS IS THE PEOPLE'S CASE. THEY MADE THIS JUDGMENT BACK ON JUNE 16 TO CALL FOR THIS MAN'S ARREST ON JUNE 17. THEY HAVE THE ENTIRE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, I PRESUME. THEY HAVE 8000 PERSONS. THEY HAVE THE THIRD OR FOURTH LARGEST POLICE DEPARTMENT IN THIS COUNTY, AND THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S INVESTIGATORS. THEY HAVE 900 LAWYERS. THEY SAID THEY WERE READY TO GO. THEY HAVE ALL OF THAT ON THEIR SIDE AND YET THEY ARE GOING TO COME WHIMPERING INTO THIS COURT AND CLAIMING THEY DIDN'T KNOW SOMETHING OR THEIR INVESTIGATORS DIDN'T KNOW SOMETHING BECAUSE I HAVE A THEORY IN MY HEAD OR A FACT IN MY HEAD ABOUT THIS MAN'S PHYSICAL CONDITION OR SOMETHING THEY DIDN'T WHAT TO HEAR. SO WE HAVE TO PUT IT IN PERSPECTIVE AND THEY WANT TO CALL THAT MISCONDUCT. IT IS NOT MISCONDUCT AT ALL. BOTH OF THEM HAVE BEEN TRYING CASES FOR TWENTY SOME YEARS. I GUESS AS BOB PHILIBOSIAN, WHO WAS A FORMER PROSECUTOR, SAID LAST NIGHT, THIS IS MUCH TO DO ABOUT NOTHING. HE SAID HE TRIED CASES FOR TWENTY YEARS, AS YOU DID, AND NEVER HAD A REPORT FROM THE DEFENSE AND NOW THEY WANT TO GET IN OUR BRIEFCASE. THEY WOULD LIKE TO COME HOME WITH US IF THEY COULD. THEY CAN'T DO THAT. THE LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT. THE FORMER DISTRICT ATTORNEY SAYS THAT AND EVERYBODY SAYS THAT AND WE NEED TO GET DOWN TO IT. THIS IS A STALL, YOUR HONOR. LET ME FINISH MY OPENING STATEMENT. WHY ARE THEY SO AFRAID OF ME ADDRESSING THIS JURY AND TELLING THE TRUTH? THAT IS ABOUT WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT AND THAT IS ALL I WANT TO DO, IS COMPLETE MY OPENING STATEMENT.

YOU ARE THE ARBITER AND YOU KNOW YESTERDAY WE WERE TOTALLY RESPECTFUL. EVERY TIME THERE IS AN OBJECTION WE APPROACH THE BENCH. AND WHEN THE COURT GIVES SOME DIRECTIONS, I FOLLOW THOSE DIRECTIONS. I DON'T GO BEYOND THAT. I WAS NOT NEARLY, NEARLY AS ARGUMENTATIVE AS BOTH OF THEM WERE IN THEIR OPENING STATEMENTS, ABSOLUTELY NOT. AND YOUR HONOR -- BECAUSE IF I HAD, YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN CALLING ME ON IT, BUT AT THE END YOU HAD TO HAVE HER SIT DOWN, SO LET'S GET TO WHERE THIS REALLY IS. IT IS NOT ABOUT PERSONALITIES. AND WHAT THIS CASE IS ABOUT IS TRYING TO GET A FAIR TRIAL FOR THIS MAN HERE AND HE SHOULDN'T SUFFER BECAUSE OF THEIR TACTICS AND THEIR STALL TACTICS, AND THAT IS WHAT THIS BOILS DOWN TO. SO WE ARE READY TO PROCEED. AND QUITE FRANKLY I WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE AS YOU'VE ALSO SAID, AND I WANT TO END ON THIS NOTE, THIS ALSO IS ABOUT THESE 22 CITIZEN VOLUNTEERS, AND YESTERDAY WHEN THEY CAME OUT, OR THE DAY BEFORE YESTERDAY WHEN THEY CAME OUT, YOU SAID "I HOPE THIS IS THE LAST TIME I WILL HAVE TO APOLOGIZE TO YOU FOR NOT STARTING ON TIME" AND THEN YOU CAUGHT YOURSELF AND SAID, "BUT I KNOW IT WON'T BE," SO NOW WE GOT TO APOLOGIZE AGAIN TODAY ALL BECAUSE OF THESE DELAYS, AND THE DELAYS ARE FROM THEM. I AM READY TO GO. YOU BASICALLY WOULD BE READY TO GO. THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY READY TO GO. THIS IS THEIR CASE. WHO IS NOT READY TO GO? THE PEOPLE. WHO IS IT WHO WANTS TO LIKE CONTINUE TO CURTAIL WHAT I CAN SAY TO THE JURY? THE PEOPLE. AND IT IS THEIR CASE, JUDGE. AS I SAID THE OTHER DAY, THEY DON'T WANT TO HEAR THE TRUTH IN THIS CASE, BUT THE TRUTH WILL COME OUT, AND WHEN YOU PUT IT IN COUNTER POSITION, JUDGE, FOR THE LAST TWO OR THREE WEEKS THEY HAVE BEEN ON A PUBLIC RELATIONS CAMPAIGN TO TAR AND BESMIRCH THIS MAN.

MR. DARDEN: I OBJECT AT THIS POINT. ISN'T THE ISSUE HERE WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE GOING TO GO TO 1:30? ISN'T THAT THE ONLY ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT?

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I FINISH, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: THANK YOU, MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY, YOUR HONOR. WHENEVER I'M TALKING, YOUR HONOR, THEY WANT TO STOP ME FROM TALKING.

MR. DARDEN: I HAVE WORK TO DO, SO I CAN DO THIS OR GO UPSTAIRS.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN, I AM HEARING FROM ONE COUNSEL AT A TIME. MISS CLARK IS THE ONE ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE.

MR. COCHRAN: NOTHING COULD BE MORE GRAPHIC THAN EXACTLY WHAT YOU JUST SAW. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THIS CASE. AND IT IS NOT PERSONAL BETWEEN ME AND MR. DARDEN OR MISS CLARK. THIS IS WITH OUR CLIENT. THEY WENT ON THIS PUBLIC RELATIONS MEDIA BLITZ TO TAR THIS MAN. FINALLY, YOUR HONOR, AFTER SEVEN MONTHS, YESTERDAY SOMEBODY SPOKE UP FOR O.J. SIMPSON. ALL ACROSS THIS COUNTRY IN THE BYWAYS AND HIGHWAYS THEY HEARD ANOTHER SIDE OF WHAT THIS EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE AND THEY CAN'T TAKE IT AND THAT IS NOT FAIR. NOW, WHAT ABOUT HIM? I MEAN, HE WOULD LOVE TO ADDRESS IT, BUT WE ARE NOT GOING TO LET HIM, BUT ON WHAT IT FEELS LIKE TO BE THE ONE WHO HAS BEEN THE OBJECT OF ALL THE THINGS THEY HAVE DONE TO HIM AND THEY THEN HAVE THE TEMERITY, THE UNMITIGATED GALL TO COME IN HERE AND COMPLAIN THAT, GEE, THEY HAVE SOMEHOW BEEN SABOTAGED AND THEY ARE THE ONE WHO BROUGHT THE CASE, YOUR HONOR. SO LET'S GET THIS OPENING STATEMENT COMPLETED. LET'S GET TO THE EVIDENCE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. LET'S TRY TO PUT IT INTO PERSPECTIVE AND LET'S CONDUCT OURSELVES LIKE LAWYERS. WE WON'T BE TRYING TO INTERRUPT THEM. WE DIDN'T INTERRUPT THEM WHEN THEY WERE GIVING THEIR OPENING STATEMENT. I WON'T BE STANDING UP WHEN HE IS TALKING LIKE THAT. THEY SHOULD CONDUCT THEMSELVES LIKE LAWYERS AND BE PROFESSIONAL AND LET'S GET THIS DONE.

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION, THOUGH. THE ISSUE RIGHT NOW IS WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE GOING TO TRAIL OVER UNTIL 1:30 TO DETERMINE WHAT THE PEOPLE'S POSITION IS GOING TO BE, AND OBVIOUSLY WE ARE IN THE UNUSUAL POSITION WHERE MR. HODGMAN HAS TAKEN ILL, HE IS IN THE INTENSIVE CARE UNIT. I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY THEY ARE ENTITLED TO SOME RELIEF, IF NOTHING ELSE, JUST TO REGROUP. SECONDLY, THE DEFENSE DID MAKE DISCLOSURE YESTERDAY OF A NUMBER OF WITNESSES AND TURNED OVER WITNESS STATEMENTS THAT WERE DATED IN AUGUST AND JULY OF LAST YEAR THAT THEY WERE NOT AWARE OF, AND MR. DOUGLAS FORTHRIGHTLY INDICATED THAT AN ERROR HAD BEEN MADE IN NOT TURNING THOSE OVER, SO THE PROSECUTION IS IN THE SITUATION WHERE ONE OF THE THREE LEAD PROSECUTORS HAS TAKEN ILL, STILL IS IN THE HOSPITAL, AND YOUR SIDE HAS CONCEDED THAT IT WAS A MISTAKE NOT TO TURN THOSE ITEMS OVER TO THEM. THEY ARE ENTITLED TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO EVALUATE WHAT WAS TURNED OVER LATE. THEY ARE ENTITLED TO ASK THIS COURT FOR SANCTIONS. THEY ARE ALSO ENTITLED TO REEVALUATE THEIR POSITION IN LIGHT OF THE ABSENCE OF MR. HODGMAN. I'M GOING TO GIVE THEM THE TIME UNTIL 1:30 TO DO THAT.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I RESPOND TO THAT? AND I STARTED MY REMARKS BY SAYING, YOUR HONOR, I'M VERY SYMPATHETIC TO MR. HODGMAN.

THE COURT: WE ALL ARE.

MR. COCHRAN: HE IS A WONDERFUL PERSON AND THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT, AND AS I SAID, WE ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. YOUR HONOR, I WANT TO PUT ONE THING IN PERSPECTIVE. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT LIST -- FIRST OF ALL, THE LIST CAME ABOUT --

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, WHY DON'T WE SAVE THE DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT IS ON THE LIST.

MR. COCHRAN: CAN I MAKE A RESPONSE TO ONE THING YOUR HONOR SAID IF YOU ALLOW ME, PLEASE?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

MR. COCHRAN: YOU HAD INDICATED ON THE LIST THAT THERE WERE A NUMBER OF DISCLOSURES THAT WERE LATE. I THINK WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT LIST, THE LIST CAME ABOUT BECAUSE YOU HAD ASKED MR. DOUGLAS TO MAKE SURE -- MR. DOUGLAS ONLY BECAME THE EVIDENCE COORDINATOR, I CAN SAY THIS --

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, I UNDERSTAND THAT.

MR. COCHRAN: RIGHT.

THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND MR. DOUGLAS' COMMENTS TO ME. I RECALL THEM VERY CLEARLY.

MR. COCHRAN: I WANTED TO POINT OUT TO THE COURT THERE ARE VERY FEW WITNESSES ON THAT LIST, IF ANY, THAT I ALLUDED TO IN OPENING STATEMENT, MANY OF WHOM WON'T EVEN I DON'T THINK BE CALLED, BUT AGAIN, I THINK IT WAS JUST A QUESTION --

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, WE WILL TAKE THIS UP --

THE COURT: NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. I LISTENED TO ONE SIDE VERY CAREFULLY, VERY PATIENTLY, THEN YOU GET TO RESPOND. I'M GOING TO GRANT YOUR REQUEST TO 1:30, MISS CLARK.

MR. DARDEN: ON THAT NOTE, YOUR HONOR, MAY I BE EXCUSED?

THE COURT: NO. BE SEATED, PLEASE.

MR. DARDEN: THEY WANT ME TO WRITE THE MOTION.

THE COURT: BE SEATED, MR. DARDEN, WILL YOU PLEASE. THANK YOU. MR. COCHRAN, HAVE YOU CONCLUDED YOUR COMMENTS?

MR. COCHRAN: NOT YET, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: WOULD YOU PLEASE.

MR. COCHRAN: OKAY, I WILL. THANK YOU VERY KINDLY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THIS IS GOING TO BE A LONG TRIAL.

MR. COCHRAN: I DON'T THINK SO, YOUR HONOR. IF THEY WOULD LEARN TO FOLLOW YOUR RULES I THINK IT WOULD NOT BE. ALL I WANT TO SAY AND JUST CONCLUDE --

THE COURT: WELL, MR. COCHRAN, DON'T BAIT THEM UNNECESSARILY IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO.

MR. COCHRAN: I'M NOT BAITING THEM, YOUR HONOR. I MEAN THEY ARE ADULTS; NOT CHILDREN. OKAY. BUT I WON'T BAIT THEM.

MR. DARDEN: DO WE HAVE TO SIT HERE AND LISTEN TO THIS ALL MORNING?

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN, PLEASE, PLEASE.

MR. COCHRAN: LET ME CONCLUDE JUST BY SAYING --

THE COURT: WOULD YOU BE SEATED, SIR. THANK YOU. MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, WE WILL BE -- THE POINT I WAS JUST TRYING TO MAKE IN RESPONSE TO YOUR HONOR'S STATEMENT, I THINK YOU WILL SEE WHEN YOU SEE THE WITNESS LIST THAT VERY FEW OF THOSE WITNESSES WERE ALLUDED TO IN THE OPENING STATEMENT. THE LIST CAME ABOUT BECAUSE YOU HAD INSTRUCTED US TO GET ON TOP OF THAT.

THE COURT: THE PROBLEM IS THAT BY CONCEDING THAT VERY FEW ON THAT LATE DISCLOSED LIST WERE MENTIONED, THE FACT THAT THEY ARE MENTIONED AT ALL AND LATELY DISCLOSED IS AN ISSUE THAT THE PROSECUTION IS ENTITLED TO LITIGATE.

MR. COCHRAN: IF THEY WANT TO MAKE THAT ISSUE THAT IS FINE, YOUR HONOR, BUT WHAT I'M SAYING TO YOU IS THAT WE CAN ADDRESS THAT IN QUICK ORDER I THINK. I THINK WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT IT IS MUCH TO DO ABOUT NOTHING AND THAT IS THE THING I WANTED TO POINT OUT TO THE COURT SO THAT WE CAN GET ON WITH IT. THANK YOU FOR BEING PATIENT AND LISTENING, YOUR HONOR. I APPRECIATE THAT VERY MUCH.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE RECESS UNTIL 1:30? MR. DARDEN?

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

THE COURT: I ALSO HAVE TO TAKE UP THE DNA DISCOVERY ISSUE THAT MR. BLASIER AND MR. HARMON I THINK ARE GOING TO ADDRESS. ANYTHING ELSE, MR. DARDEN?

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, I SEE THAT EVERY TIME THE JURY COMES IN THAT THE DEFENSE HAS PICTURES OF MR. SIMPSON AND THEIR BOARDS TURNED TO FACE THE JURY SO THAT THEY CAN READ THEM AS THEY WALK THROUGH THE JURY BOX. AND I WOULD ASK THAT THE DEFENSE BE DIRECTED TO TURN THEIR BOARDS AROUND, AS WE HAVE.

THE COURT: THAT IS PROBABLY TRUE. BOTH SIDES NEED THE COURT'S PERMISSION BEFORE THEY PUT UP ANY DISPLAYS WHILE THE JURY IS HERE. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

MR. COCHRAN: I THINK IT IS UP FROM LAST NIGHT. THE JURORS HAVEN'T SEEN IT; THEY HAVEN'T BEEN IN HERE.

THE COURT: A STANDING RULE WILL BE NO EXHIBITS WILL BE DISPLAYED UNTIL THE COURT IS IN SESSION AND THE COURT HAS GIVEN PERMISSION FOR THAT TO BE POSTED.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

MR. DARDEN: ON THE ISSUE OF DISCOVERY, YOUR HONOR, AND I DON'T DESIRE TO ARGUE THE ISSUE OF DISCOVERY AT THIS TIME, BUT I WANT TO MAKE THE RECORD PERFECTLY CLEAR, AND WE WILL SHOW THIS THIS AFTERNOON WHEN WE DISCUSS THE ISSUE, AND THAT IS THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE MENTIONED YESTERDAY, PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT ON THEIR WITNESS LIST, PEOPLE WHOSE WITNESS STATEMENTS HAVE NEVER BEEN TURNED OVER TO US AS THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN. WHEN WE OBJECTED WE GOT NO RELIEF. HAD WE KNOWN ABOUT SOME OF THESE WITNESSES, WE COULD HAVE INFORMED COUNSEL THAT THEY ARE HEROIN ADDICTS, THIEVES, FELONS, AND THAT ONE OF THESE WITNESS, ONE OF THEIR SO-CALLED MATERIAL WITNESSES IS THE ONLY PERSON I HAVE EVER KNOWN TO BE A COURT CERTIFIED PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. LET ME, BEFORE I EXCUSE YOU, MR. DARDEN, LET ME ALSO ADVISE COUNSEL THAT THERE IS A STANDING ORDER BY BOTH SUPERVISING JUDGES IN THIS BUILDING THAT NO PRESS CONFERENCES WILL BE HELD ON THE 9TH FLOOR. APPARENTLY WE HAVE A MISUNDERSTANDING BY COUNSEL IN THIS CASE WHO HAVE CONDUCTED INTERVIEWS OR GRANTED INTERVIEWS TO MEMBERS OF THE PRESS HERE ON THE 9TH FLOOR. JUST SO THERE IS NO MISUNDERSTANDING, THERE ARE TO BE NO PRESS INTERVIEWS ON THE 9TH FLOOR CONDUCTED BY COUNSEL. THE REASON FOR THAT IS THIS IS A HIGH SECURITY FLOOR, IT CREATES CONGESTION, IT IS A SECURITY PROBLEM, IT INTERFERES WITH OTHER COURTS, IT INFLUENCES OTHER WITNESSES AND JURORS ON OTHER CASES, AND THERE IS A STANDING ORDER AGAINST THAT. THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT HAS REPORTED TO ME SEVERAL INSTANCES WHERE THE SUPERVISING JUDGE'S ORDERS HAD BEEN VIOLATED. I AM JUST PUTTING COUNSEL ON NOTICE THAT DEPARTMENT 100 WILL BE CONDUCTING CONTEMPT HEARINGS IF THIS OCCURS AGAIN, SO PLEASE FOLLOW THE SUPERVISING JUDGE'S ORDER IN THAT REGARD. WE DO HAVE A FIRST FLOOR PRESS CONFERENCE AREA SET ASIDE FOR THAT PURPOSE.

MR. DARDEN: MAY I BE EXCUSED?

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN, YOU ARE EXCUSED. ALL RIGHT. MR. BLASIER, MR. HARMON.

MR. BLASIER: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. WE HAVE PROVIDED A LETTER TO THE PROSECUTION AND TO THE COURT REQUESTING ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY WITH RESPECT TO PHOTOGRAPHS OF SOME OF THE EVIDENCE AND WOULD YOU LIKE -- WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO COVER THOSE ONE AT A TIME?

THE COURT: I HAVE READ THE LETTER, COUNSEL. I UNDERSTAND YOU ARE ASKING FOR USABLE LARGE SEEABLE PHOTOGRAPHS.

MR. BLASIER: CORRECT, YOUR HONOR. THE PHOTOGRAPHS I DID NOT PROVIDE TO THE COURT. I HAD DR. GERDES FAX ME A COPY OF SOME OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT I REFERRED TO IN MY LETTER, AND I MIGHT POINT OUT THAT THESE PHOTOGRAPHS CONTAIN EIGHT TESTING STRIPS IN THE SIZE OF ABOUT MY PICTURE ON MY DRIVER'S LICENSE, SO THEY ARE SIMPLY NOT USABLE IN THE FORM THAT WE HAVE BEEN GIVEN THEM AND WE WOULD LIKE COPIES THAT ARE THE SAME SIZE AS THE COPIES THAT THEY WILL BE USING IN THEIR TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: MR. HARMON. GOOD MORNING, SIR.

MR. HARMON: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. AS WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN, NOTHING IS AS SHORT OR AS SIMPLE AS IT SEEMS.

THE COURT: BOY, THERE IS AN UNDERSTATEMENT.

MR. SHAPIRO: EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR, MAY I BE EXCUSED FOR THIS ALSO?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

MR. HARMON: THERE ARE ACTUALLY TWO CATEGORIES OF ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN REQUESTED. THE SECOND CATEGORY INVOLVES PROFICIENCY TESTS AND THOSE COPIES -- BETTER COPIES WILL BE MADE OF THEM. THE FIRST CATEGORY I THINK IS MUCH MORE INTERESTING BECAUSE IT REALLY TIES IN WITH WHAT THE COURT IS STRUGGLING WITH TODAY. AT THE SAME TIME THIS COURT IS CONSIDERING ALLEGATIONS OF SERIOUS INTENTIONAL MISCONDUCT BY THE DEFENSE IN DISCOVERY, THE DEFENSE HAS THE TEMERITY TO ASK FOR SOMETHING THAT THEY ALREADY HAVE. I THINK TO ILLUSTRATE THE ABUSIVE EXTENT OF THE DISCOVERY IN THE DNA CONTEXT, I JUST SELECTED ONE OF THE DAYS IN THE LIFE OF GARY SIMS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THAT DIRECTLY ADDRESSES THE NATURE OF THE REQUEST AND WHY THIS COURT HAS TO DRAW THE LINE AT SOME POINT AT THE SAME TIME THE COURT HAS RECOGNIZED THAT THE LINE HAS BEEN CROSSED BY THE DEFENSE IN OTHER DISCOVERY AREAS. I JUST SELECTED OCTOBER 27 BECAUSE IT SEEMED TO BE THE LONGEST DAY FOR GARY SIMS. HE STARTED WORK AT ABOUT TEN O'CLOCK THAT MORNING. HE DID A FULL DAY'S WORK ON THE DNA TEST RESULTS IN THIS CASE. AND I THINK THE COURT NEEDS TO APPRECIATE, AND THE COURT HAS HEARD A LITTLE BIT ABOUT DNA. WE REALIZE THAT EVERY TEST HAS THE POSSIBILITY OF EXCLUDING SOMEBODY IF THEY DESERVE TO BE EXCLUDED. IF THEY ARE NOT EXCLUDED, THEY WILL BE INCLUDED. SO AT THE SAME TIME THAT MR. SIMS WAS ANALYZING VOLUMES AND VOLUMES OF EVIDENCE ON THIS CASE, TO ACCEPT WHATEVER RESULTS CAME OUT OF IT AND IF MR. SIMPSON WAS GOING TO BE EXCLUDED AND EXONERATED AND SHOWN TO BE INNOCENT, SO BE IT, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE RESULT THAT WAS PRODUCED. AT THE SAME TIME THAT HAPPENED THE COURT HAD PROPERLY INSTITUTED SOME SORT OF RECIPROCAL VISITATION BY DR. BLAKE, AND DR. BLAKE IS THE KEY FIGURE IN THIS DISCOVERY REQUEST, SO GARY SIMS WORKED ALL DAY ANALYZING EVIDENCE ON THIS CASE, AND AS WAS THE NORM -- AND I THINK WHAT HE DID THAT DAY IS ALSO VERY INTERESTING.

THAT WAS THE DAY, COINCIDENTALLY, THAT THE SOCK THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF GREAT DISCUSSION WAS EXAMINED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE LAB AND ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT THEY PRODUCED SHOWS THAT THERE IS NO SINISTER ACTIVITY ABOUT THAT SOCK. IT IS AN INFRARED VIDEO THAT SHOWS ONLY ONCE YOU KNOW THERE IS BLOOD ON THE SOCK AND YOU HAVE VISUALLY EXAMINED IT AND YOU HAVE DONE PRESUMPTIVE TESTS, NOT ONLY DOES THAT JUST TELL WHERE YOU SOME OF THE STUFF IS, YOU NEED TO DO INFRARED PHOTOGRAPHY TO SEE OTHER THINGS ONCE YOU REALIZE THAT SOCK HAS BLOOD ALL OVER IT. SO THAT IS WHAT MR. SIMS DID THAT DAY, PREPARED THAT EVIDENCE, PREPARED THE VIDEOTAPE, CAREFULLY DOCUMENTED THINGS AND THE DOCUMENTATION TAKES HOURS AND HOURS. AND THEN WHO SHOWS UP AT 7:45 THAT NIGHT, BUT DR. BLAKE. YOU HAVE TO APPRECIATE THAT DR. BLAKE HAS A BUSINESS AND A LIFE OF HIS OWN, SO HE OFTEN DOESN'T SHOW UP DURING THE DAY, HE SHOWS UP AT NIGHT, WHICH MEANS MR. SIMS HAS TO WORK HIS FULL DAY AND THEN ON INTO THE NIGHT WITH DR. BLAKE. THEY SPENT FIVE HOURS GOING OVER ITEMS, UNPACKAGING ITEMS, DOCUMENTING ITEMS AND TAKING, IN MANY INSTANCES, SIMULTANEOUS PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE VERY SAME THINGS, AND NOW THOSE SIMULTANEOUS PHOTOGRAPHS ARE WHAT IS IN ISSUE AT THIS TEST. THIS IS THE SAME DR. BLAKE THEY HAVE HIDDEN BEHIND THE ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE, AND THIS IS THE SAME DR. BLAKE WHO HAS ALWAYS TESTIFIED IN OPPOSITION TO THE TWO DEFENSE WITNESSES IN THIS CASE, DR. MULLIS AND DR. GERDES. THESE ARE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WERE TAKEN OF THE SAME ITEMS. THE DEFENSE HAS MADE NO SHOWING, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO HIDE DR. BLAKE. HE HAS NEVER BEEN MENTIONED IN THE OPENING STATEMENT, THAT HIS PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SAME ITEMS THAT WE'VE GIVEN THEM, WHAT THEY CALL INADEQUATE COPIES, ARE INSUFFICIENT FOR HIS PURPOSES. HE HAS SEEN THEM HIMSELF, HE HAS TAKEN PHOTOGRAPHS OF THEM. IN FACT, I THINK WHAT IS IRONIC ABOUT THE NATURE OF THEIR REQUEST AND THE INVISIBLE DR. BLAKE, WHO HAS BEEN SHIELDED BY THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE, IS THAT IN MANY INSTANCES, WHEN DR. BLAKE VIEWED THESE ITEMS, HE INTERPRETED THEM AND CALLED THOSE RESULTS ODDLY -- AND THOSE RESULTS IN EVERY INSTANCE CONCUR WITH THE PROSECUTION EXPERTS RESULTS. SO HERE WE HAVE AN INVISIBLE WITNESS WHO HAS HIS OWN PHOTOS OF THE VERY SAME ITEMS WHO HAS CONCURRED IN MANY INSTANCES VERBALLY WITH THE RESULTS THAT THE PROSECUTION LAB HAS PRODUCED AND THEY JUST SAY WE WANT YOU TO PROVIDE BETTER PHOTOS AND THEY HAVE NEVER DEMONSTRATED THAT THERE IS ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE PHOTOS THAT THEY HAVE TAKEN OF THE VERY SAME ITEMS.

COINCIDENTALLY, AS THE COURT IS AWARE, THE DEFENSE HAS NEVER OBTAINED ANY OF THE PHYSICAL BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE TO DO ANY OF THE TESTING THEMSELVES. DR. BLAKE CAN SHOW UP THERE ANY TIME WITH THE PHOTOS THAT HE HAS TAKEN OF THE ITEMS THAT THEY HAVE REQUESTED WE PROVIDE NEW PHOTOS. HE WAS JUST THERE LAST NIGHT. HE CAN SHOW UP THERE ANY TIME TO SEE THESE THINGS, TO COMPARE HIS PHOTOS WITH THE ORIGINAL PHOTOS AND SEE IF THERE IS ANY DISCREPANCY. I THINK WE'VE COMPLIED WITH IT. THE CONSUMPTION OF TIME THAT IT TAKES DR. -- OR THE DOJ TO ACCOMMODATE DR. BLAKE HAS TAKEN DAYS AND DAYS WORTH OF VALUABLE LABORATORY TIME FROM THIS CASE AND OTHER CASES THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SERVICES WHILE, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, THIS CASE GOES ON RAPIDLY TO TRIAL. SO THE DEFENSE SIMPLY HASN'T SHOWN THAT THEY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING. IN FACT, IT IS CLEAR, IF YOU LOOK AT THESE VOLUMINOUS NOTES, THEY HAVE THEIR OWN COPIES, THEIR OWN ORIGINAL PHOTOS OF THESE VERY SAME ITEMS, SO I THINK IT IS TIME TO DRAW THE LINE. MR. COCHRAN WANTS TO GO TO TRIAL. WE WANT TO GO TO TRIAL, TOO. WE WANT THE WORLD TO SEE THIS. DR. BLAKE HAS SEEN THIS. DR. BLAKE HAS SEEN THESE THINGS BEFORE WE HAVE SEEN THEM, SO I THINK THE COURT SHOULD SAY IT IS TIME. MR. COCHRAN WANTS TO GO TO TRIAL, WE WANT TO GO TO TRIAL AND THERE IS NO BASIS FOR ANY ADDITIONAL BURDENSOME REQUEST.

MR. BLASIER: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS A DISCOVERY REQUEST FROM OUR SIDE, NOT MR. HARMON'S REQUESTS FOR DR. BLAKE'S MATERIALS. THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT RESULT FROM THESE TESTS ARE THE BEST EVIDENCE OF THE TEST RESULTS THEMSELVES. THIS IS NOT LIKE WE ARE TAKING A PICTURE OF A PIECE OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, LIKE A PIECE OF CLOTHING THAT WILL THEN BE BROUGHT INTO COURT. THESE PHOTOGRAPHS ARE WHAT THE PROSECUTION WILL BE RELYING ON IN GIVING THEIR INTERPRETATIONS OF THE TEST RESULTS. THERE IS A LOT OF CONTROVERSY IN THE DQ-ALPHA TESTING AREA ABOUT THE INTENSITIES OF DOTS, WHETHER DOTS ARE APPARENT OR NOT. DIFFERENT EXPERTS WILL LOOK AT THE SAME PHOTOS AND GIVE YOU GIVE INTERPRETATIONS OF WHETHER THERE ARE DOTS THERE OR NOT AND IT IS NOT OUT PHOTOGRAPHS THAT THEY ARE GOING TO BE USING WHERE THEY HAVE THEIR EXPERTS; IT IS THEIR PHOTOS. THAT IS GOING TO BE WHAT THEY WILL BE RELYING ON. THEY ARE NOT BRINGING THE TEST STRIPS IN, BECAUSE THEY FADE VERY QUICKLY, SO BECAUSE THESE ARE SOURCE MATERIALS, WE CERTAINLY ARE ENTITLED. THE EXPERTS ARE GOING TO RELY ON THEM AND WE ARE GOING TO BE CROSS-EXAMINING THEM ABOUT THEIR PICTURES.

THE COURT: HASN'T DR. BLAKE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THESE PHOTOGRAPHS, TO LOOK AT THE TEST RESULTS, MAKE HIS OWN PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SAME THING?

MR. BLASIER: WELL, DR. BLAKE, IT IS TRUE, HAS TAKEN PICTURES OF THE TESTING STRIPS HIMSELF, BUT THAT IS OUR WORK PRODUCT MATERIAL. WE HAVE NOT MADE A DECISION WHETHER DR. BLAKE WILL TESTIFY OR NOT. AT A POINT IN TIME WHERE WE DECIDE THAT HE WILL, WE WILL MAKE AVAILABLE EVERYTHING THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO MAKE. BUT IT IS THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT THEY TOOK THAT THEY ARE GOING TO BE USING. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE RELYING ON DR. BLAKE'S PHOTOGRAPHS; THEY ARE GOING TO BE RELYING UPON THEIR OWN AND WE ARE GOING TO BE RAISING SIGNIFICANT QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW THEY INTERPRET THEIR OWN PHOTOGRAPHS. WE ARE ENTITLED TO THOSE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

MR. HARMON: CAN I JUST BRIEFLY RESPOND, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: THAT IS NOT THE WAY IT WORKS.

MR. HARMON: ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, I THINK THE DEFENSE HAS ALREADY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY NOT ONLY TO LOOK AT THESE THINGS IN THEIR STATE, THEY HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THEIR OWN PHOTOGRAPHS, COMPARE THEIR OWN PHOTOGRAPHS. THE DEFENSE HAS BEEN GIVEN SMALLER COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL PHOTOGRAPHS. I THINK THE PROSECUTION HAS ALREADY FULLY COMPLIED. THE REQUEST IS DENIED.

MR. BLASIER: YOUR HONOR, MAY I ASK FOR ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION?

THE COURT: SURE.

MR. BLASIER: WE HAVEN'T BEEN PROVIDED WITH SMALLER PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE DQ-ALPHA TESTING STRIPS. THAT RELATED TO THE LAST REQUEST WHEN I ASSUME MR. HARMON SAID HE WOULD COMPLY WITH. ALL WE HAVE BEEN PROVIDED WITH ARE XEROX COPIES AND NONE OF THE EXPERTS HERE WILL TELL YOU THAT THEY CAN MAKE ANY KIND OF AN ASSESSMENT FROM XEROX COPIES OF PHOTOGRAPHS.

THE COURT: MR. HARMON.

MR. HARMON: YOU SEE, THIS IS THE POINT. DR. BLAKE HAS NEVER TESTIFIED FOR A DEFENDANT IN A CASE LIKE THIS.

THE COURT: I AM JUST INTERESTED IN THE PHOTOS.

MR. HARMON: I THINK IT IS THE POINT. THEY WANT TO PREVENT -- THEY WANT TO SHIELD THEIR WITNESSES, GERDES AND MULLIS, FROM THE TRUTH, AND THE TRUTH IS, THIS IS THE DANGER THAT WE TRIED TO POINT OUT TO THEM ON THE MOTION TO QUASH. THEY HIRED THE MOST EXPERIENCED FORENSIC SEROLOGIST WITH PCR DQ-ALPHA AND WE HAD TO COMPLY WITH THESE BURDENSOME REQUESTS TO HAVE GARY SIMS WORK UNTIL 2:00 OR 3:00 IN THE MORNING AT THE TIME WHEN THIS COURT WAS GOING TO CUT OFF OR THERE WAS A SERIOUS CONCERN ABOUT CUTTING OFF TESTING, SO NOW WE HAVE DONE ALL THAT, HE HAS TAKEN ALL THESE PICTURES. HE HAS PICTURES OF ALL THESE STRIPS. HE HAS PICTURES OF THE SAME THINGS WE HAVE PICTURES. THEY ARE AS REAL AND SCIENTIFIC AND SOUND AS THE PICTURES WE HAVE. AND NOW TO FURTHER BURDEN US AND SHIELD THEIR EXPERTS FROM THE TRUTH, THAT IS THE PERSON WHO TOOK THE PICTURES AND SAW IT AND CONCURS IN OUR RESULTS, AND THEY WANT TO FORCE US TO GIVE -- TO GIVE NEW PICTURES OVER. WE HAVE SATISFIED THAT. HE HAS SEEN IT AND HE HAS HIS OWN PICTURES OF IT. AND I WOULD SUGGEST IF THIS COURT IS GOING TO SERIOUSLY ENTERTAIN ANY OF THIS ABUSIVE DISCOVERY REQUEST, THAT THE COURT PUT THE BURDEN ON THEM TO HAVE DR. BLAKE COME OUT OF HIDING AND TESTIFY THAT THERE IS SOME DEFICIENCY IN HIS PHOTOS AND WE WILL DO IT ON A PHOTO BY PHOTO BASIS. WE HAVE WASTED VALUABLE DAYS -- WELL, I MEAN I THINK THE LEGAL PROCESS CALLS FOR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: NO, NO.

MR. HARMON: IT IS REAL EASY TO SAY JUST GIVE IT TO THEM, BUT I DON'T THINK THE PROCESS CALLS FOR THAT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: NO. WHAT STRUCK ME, MR. HARBOR, IS I CAN SEE MYSELF HAVING TO START ANOTHER ONE OF THESE HEARINGS AND HAVING TO LOOK AT ALL OF THESE PHOTOS.

MR. HARMON: IF THE PROCESS CALLS FOR THAT, WE MAY HAVE TO DO THAT, YOUR HONOR. I THINK IT IS REAL SIMPLE TO SAY GIVE HIM NEW COPIES. WE HAVE SHUT DOWN THE STATE LAB TO SATISFY DR. BLAKE'S SCHEDULE. YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE EVER DONE LAB WORK --

THE COURT: MR. HARMON, YOU ARE MISINTERPRETING THE COURTS "OH-VEY" REACTION.

MR. HARMON: SURE. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT I DIDN'T MISINTERPRET IT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OKAY.

MR. HARMON: BUT THEY HAVEN'T SHOWN THAT THEY HAVE BEEN DEPRIVED OF ANYTHING, AND THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN DO THAT IS TO BRING BLAKE OUT OF HIDING AND PUT HIM UP THERE AND THEY ARE NOT GOING TO DO THAT.

THE COURT: OKAY.

MR. BLASIER: VERY BRIEFLY, WHEN THE EXPERTS ARE CALLED, THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE THE PICTURES AND WE WILL BE ENTITLED TO REVIEW THEM. I JUST WANT TO SAVE SOME TIME BECAUSE WE MAY WANT TO MAKE BLOWUPS OF THE PICTURES, AND IF WE DON'T GET THEM UNTIL THE WITNESS TESTIFIES, IT IS GOING TO CAUSE A TIME DELAY.

THE COURT: THE ISSUE IS ACCESS, DISCLOSURE, KNOWLEDGE. YOU HAVE HAD THAT. THE REQUEST IS DENIED. WE ARE IN RECESS UNTIL 1:30.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

(AT 10:36 A.M. THE NOON RECESS WAS TAKEN UNTIL 1:30 P.M. OF THE SAME DAY.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 1995 1:50 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.)

(PAGES 11974 THROUGH 11989, VOLUME 76A, 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. GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNSEL. BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. MR. SIMPSON IS AGAIN PRESENT WITH HIS COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. DOUGLAS, MR. BAILEY, MR. BLASIER, PEOPLE REPRESENTED BY MISS CLARK AND MR. DARDEN. WE ALSO HAVE MS. WITHEY PRESENT WITH US. MS. WITHEY, DO YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER BUSINESS BEFORE THE COURT?

MS. WITHEY: NO, YOUR HONOR, THANK YOU.

THE COURT: THANK YOU FOR COMING IN. ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, DO YOU HAVE ANY WORD FOR THE RECORD AS TO THE STATUS OF MR. HODGMAN?

MS. CLARK: NOT AT THIS TIME, YOUR HONOR. AS FAR AS I KNOW AT THIS POINT, MR. HODGMAN HAS BEEN REMOVED TO ANOTHER HOSPITAL. HE'S STILL DOING WELL. FINAL WORD AS TO HIS CONDITION?

THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND HE'S BEEN MOVED TO A MAJOR CARDIAC UNIT.

MS. CLARK: THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHEN DO YOU -- HAS YOUR OFFICE GIVEN YOU ANY INDICATION AS TO WHEN WE MIGHT BE GETTING AN UPDATE AS TO HIS CONDITION AND WHEN HE MIGHT BE ABLE TO REJOIN US?

MS. CLARK: NO. I HAVE NO INDICATION OF THAT AT THIS TIME AND I PROBABLY WILL NOT EVEN BY THE CONCLUSION OF TODAY'S PROCEEDINGS.

THE COURT: WHAT'S THE STATUS OF YOUR POSITION AS FAR AS PROCEEDING IN HIS ABSENCE?

MS. CLARK: AFTER WE ADDRESS THE COURT WITH RESPECT TO THE DISCOVERY MATTERS AND THE MISCONDUCT ISSUES, I THINK WE'LL BE IN A BETTER POSITION TO ASSESS THAT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MS. CLARK: MYSELF AND MR. DARDEN WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS YOU ON THESE MATTERS, YOUR HONOR. THEY ARE NUMEROUS, AND THE COURT'S REQUEST IS SOME VERY SPECIFIC STATEMENTS CONCERNING WHAT WE DESIRE WITH RESPECT TO EACH OF THE ITEMS, EACH OF THE WITNESSES AND EACH OF THE STATEMENTS THAT WERE IMPROPERLY MADE BY COUNSEL. EXCUSE ME. I FIND IT -- I MUST SHARE WITH THE COURT THAT I FEEL VERY OUTRAGED AT COUNSEL'S STATEMENTS EARLIER THIS MORNING CONCERNING HIS REPRESENTATIONS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO PREVENT HIM FROM TELLING THE TRUTH, AND THAT IS SUCH A FALSEHOOD. IF MR. COCHRAN WERE STANDING UP AND TELLING THE JURORS THE TRUTH AND HAD NOT HIDDEN HIS WITNESSES FROM US WILLFULLY IN VIOLATION OF THIS COURT'S ORDER, WE WOULD NOT BE BEFORE THE COURT TODAY AND OPENING STATEMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN CONCLUDED AND THE WITNESS WOULD HAVE BEEN ON THE WITNESS STAND. UNFORTUNATELY, BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THIS MISCONDUCT, WHICH IS EGREGIOUS AND FLAGRANT AND NOT THE MINOR VIOLATION THAT HE ATTEMPTS TO REPRESENT TO THIS COURT, HE'S ATTEMPTING TO SWEEP IT UNDER THE RUG, CLAIM IGNORANCE AND USE MR. DOUGLAS AS A SACRIFICIAL LAMB, AND THAT IS ABSOLUTELY INAPPROPRIATE. COUNSEL SHOULD BEAR THE BRUNT OF HIS OWN MISCONDUCT, WHICH IS WILLFUL AND DELIBERATE AND INTENTIONAL AND IT IS IN EFFECT A THUMBING OF HIS NOSE AT THIS COURT'S ORDER. IT IS -- YES, IT'S COUCHED IN NICE SMILES AND INGRATIATING REMARKS, BUT THAT SHOULD NOT DECEIVE THE COURT AND I'M SURE IT DOESN'T. WHAT LIES BEHIND IT IS A WILLFUL DESIRE TO FLOUT THE LAW, AND IT VIOLATES THE LAW AND IT VIOLATES US BOTH LEGALLY AND MORALLY. LEGALLY, IT'S A VIOLATION OF 1054 IN BOTH SPIRIT AND LETTER OF THAT LAW. LEGALLY, IT IS IN VIOLATION OF THIS COURT'S DIRECT ORDER TO COUNSEL, AND MORALLY, IT'S A VIOLATION OF THE JURORS' RIGHT TO THE TRUTH. THEY'VE BEEN LIED TO, THEY'VE BEEN DECEIVED, THEY'VE GOTTEN HALF TRUTHS FROM COUNSEL. HE HAS DELIBERATELY SHOWN THEM ITEMS THAT WERE TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT, GIVEN THEM HALF TRUTHS, GIVEN THEM ACTUALLY PIECES OF STATEMENTS THAT LED TO A DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED REPRESENTATION OF WHAT REALLY WHAT WAS BEING STATED. AND COUNSEL IS TELLING THE COURT, "OH, THAT'S NO BIG DEAL. IF I MISLEAD THEM, THEN THE PEOPLE CAN COME BACK IN CLOSING ARGUMENT AND READDRESS ALL THE WRONG." COUNSEL KNOWS VERY WELL THAT WE CANNOT BECAUSE THIS IS -- OUR CLOSING ARGUMENTS ARE MONTHS DOWN THE LINE AND WELL HE KNOWS IT. COUNSEL HAS VERY CAREFULLY AND VERY CYNICALLY WEIGHED THE RISKS AND THE BENEFITS OF HIS MISCONDUCT AND HE HAS RIGHTFULLY ASSURED HIMSELF THAT THE RISKS, IF ANY AT ALL, ARE FAR OUTWEIGHED BY THE BENEFIT. THESE JURORS HAVE NOW HEARD STATEMENTS AND REPRESENTATIONS OF COUNSEL ABOUT WITNESSES THAT THE PEOPLE WERE NEVER INFORMED OF, THAT THE PEOPLE COULD HAVE ADDRESSED IN THEIR OPENING STATEMENT AND EVEN COULD HAVE CALLED IN THEIR CASE IN CHIEF IN ORDER TO SHOW THE JURORS THE KIND OF WITNESSES THAT WILL COME FORWARD IN A CASE LIKE THIS FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GAINING CELEBRITY. AND MR. COCHRAN WILLFULLY WITHHELD THEIR NAMES KNOWING THAT WHAT HE WAS GOING TO DO WAS CLOAK THEM WITH A FALSE AURA OF CREDIBILITY BEFORE THIS JURY AND SANDBAG THE PEOPLE SO THAT WE WERE UNAWARE OF THEM AND UNABLE TO ADDRESS THEM IN OUR OPENING STATEMENT. HE MADE STATEMENTS CONCERNING WITNESSES THAT MIGHT NEVER APPEAR BECAUSE OF FEAR, THEREBY CLOAKING A WITNESS WITH CREDIBILITY WHO WOULD NEVER APPEAR PROBABLY BECAUSE OF FEAR OF EXPOSURE BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT TELLING THE TRUTH. INSTEAD, NOW HE'S CREATED IDEAS AND NOTIONS IN THE MINDS OF THESE JURORS THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT WILL NOT COME FORWARD, THAT WOULD BE HOLDING THE TRUTH EXCEPT FOR THE FEAR OF HARASSMENT. AND THAT IS NOT TRUE. THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF THAT WHATSOEVER. IN FACT, WE HAVE WITNESSES COMING OUT OF THE WOODWORK WHO KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THE CASE CLAIMING TO KNOW SOMETHING JUST SO THEY CAN GET INVOLVED. SO COUNSEL HAS COMMITTED NUMEROUS ACTS OF MISCONDUCT. AND FOR HIM TO TURN TO US AND SAY WE'RE TRYING TO GET INTO HIS MIND AND WE'RE TRYING TO PREVENT THE TRUTH FROM COMING OUT IS OUTRAGEOUS, IS DISGUSTING AND IS APPALLING TO ME AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT. HE KNOWS THAT IS NOT THE CASE. AND TO ALLOW THAT KIND OF STATEMENT TO BE MADE -- AND IN ESSENCE, THAT IS THE STATEMENT THAT HE MADE TO THIS JURY -- IS WORSE THAN APPALLING. IT IS NO LONGER JUST A FEAR, YOUR HONOR, THAT THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL IS GOING TO BE DAMAGED. IT IS A REALITY. IT HAS BEEN DAMAGED. IT'S NOT DAMAGED BEYOND REPAIR BECAUSE IF CERTAIN ADMONITIONS ARE MADE, CERTAIN SANCTIONS ARE UNDERTAKEN AND WE ARE ABLE TO PRESENT THE WITNESSES, THE TRUTH WILL COME OUT BECAUSE OUR CASE IS STRONG. AND I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT OUR CASE. WHAT I AM WORRIED ABOUT IS THE WAY THESE JURORS ARE BEING MANIPULATED SO CYNICALLY. THEY'RE BEING TOLD, FOR EXAMPLE, "WHY DIDN'T THE PEOPLE TELL YOU ABOUT THIS WITNESS? WHY DIDN'T THE PEOPLE TELL YOU ABOUT THAT WITNESS?" THERE'S A REAL SIMPLE ANSWER FOR THAT. THEY HID THOSE WITNESSES. HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO TELL THE JURY ABOUT WITNESSES THEY NEVER TOLD US ABOUT, WITNESSES THAT THE COURT ORDERED THEM TIME AND TIME AGAIN TO DIVULGE AND WILLFULLY THEY TOLD THIS COURT THEY HAD NO SUCH WITNESSES. SEVEN MONTHS OLD THESE STATEMENTS ARE. SEVEN MONTHS OLD THESE NAMES ARE. AND ONLY ON THE VERY DAY OF HIS STATEMENT TO THE JURY DO WE FIND THEM OUT AND AT THE CLOSE OF THE DAY NO LESS. MR. DARDEN WILL ADDRESS THAT FURTHER. I AM GOING TO ADDRESS THE COURT SOLELY ON ONE ASPECT AT THIS POINT, AND THAT IS THAT WE ARE GOING TO ASK THE COURT AT FIRST BLUSH, BEFORE OPENING STATEMENTS ARE RESUMED, TO ADMONISH THE JURY, TO TELL THE JURY THAT THEY ARE TO DISREGARD THE STATEMENTS MADE NOT BY MR. COCHRAN CONCERNING THE WITNESSES THAT WERE NOT -- THAT WERE IMPROPERLY WITHHELD FROM THE PROSECUTION AND TO ADMONISH THE JURY IN EFFECT THAT THE WITHHOLDING OF THAT INFORMATION WAS MISCONDUCT, WAS IN VIOLATION OF A COURT ORDER AND IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW THAT REQUIRES BOTH SIDES TO EXCHANGE THEIR WITNESSES AND THEIR STATEMENTS. THE OTHER PROBLEM IS THAT, YOUR HONOR, I KNOW THE DEFENSE IS ARGUING, "WELL, WE GAVE THEM THE NAMES OF THE WITNESSES." YES. THEY GAVE US NO ADDRESS, THEY GAVE US NO PHONE NUMBER AND THEY GAVE US NO STATEMENT. HAVING A BLANK NAME ON A LIST OF 200 GIVES US NO CLUE AS TO WHAT THAT PERSON MIGHT SAY AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY SHOULD BE HIGH PRIORITY IN TERMS OF OUR INVESTIGATION. THEY STAND BEFORE THIS COURT REPEATEDLY SAYING RIDICULOUS THINGS LIKE, OH, THERE IS 900 LAWYERS IN THE D.A.'S OFFICE. YEAH. THERE'S ALSO 80,000 CASES IN THE D.A.'S OFFICE. BELIEVE IT OR NOT, THEY'RE NOT ALL WORKING ON SIMPSON NOR CAN THEY. AND THERE MAY BE 9,000 OFFICERS, BUT GUESS WHAT? THEY'RE NOT ALL WORKING ON THE SIMPSON INVESTIGATION EITHER. THEY CAN'T. EVERYBODY IS WAY OVERLOADED. WE HAVE TO PRIORITIZE. AND FOR THEM TO GIVE US A NAME WITH NO ADDRESS, NO PHONE NUMBER AND NO STATEMENT ON A LIST OF 200 THAT CONTAINS A LOT OF BUNK THAT WE KNOW THEY'RE NOT GOING TO CALL IS DISINGENUOUS AND A FRAUD UPON THIS COURT. WE COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE INVESTIGATED THESE PEOPLE. AND TO GIVE US THESE LATE STATEMENTS IS OUTRAGEOUS MISCONDUCT CONDUCT. SO WE ASK THAT THE JURY BE INFORMED OF THAT FACT, THAT COUNSEL'S REMARKS THAT RELATE TO THE MENTIONING OF THOSE WITNESSES EITHER BY NAME OR BY CONTENT OF THEIR STATEMENT, THAT THEY ARE ORDERED TO DISREGARD THEM BECAUSE THEY WERE MENTIONED IN DEROGATION OF A COURT ORDER. WE ARE ALSO ASKING THAT THE COURT ADMONISH THE JURY CONCERNING THE REPRESENTATIONS OF COUNSEL ABOUT WITNESSES THAT MAY NOT APPEAR DUE TO FEAR, THAT THERE'S -- THERE IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. SUCH REMARKS MADE BY COUNSEL WERE IMPROPER AND THEY ARE STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD AND THE JURY SHOULD BE ORDERED TO DISREGARD THEM. FURTHERMORE, THE PEOPLE WILL BE REQUESTING SOME ADDITIONAL TIME TO CONDUCT INVESTIGATION ON THE NUMEROUS WITNESSES THAT WE HAVE JUST BEEN GIVEN AT THE CLOSE OF OPENING STATEMENT DAY YESTERDAY AS WELL AS THE DAY BEFORE. AND SHOULD THE COURT GRANT US THE CONTINUANCE IN WHATEVER AMOUNT OF TIME THAT IT DOES, WE WOULD ASK THAT THE COURT TO INFORM THE JURY AS TO THE REASON FOR THE NECESSITY OF THAT CONTINUANCE, THAT IT WAS NECESSITATED BY COUNSEL'S MISCONDUCT IN FAILING TO TURN OVER THE INFORMATION THAT IT WAS ORDERED TO TURN OVER BY THE COURT. MR. DARDEN WILL ADDRESS THE COURT ON THE REMAINING REQUESTS WE HAVE PERTAINING SPECIFICALLY TO EACH WITNESS AND TO OUR REQUEST TO REOPEN THE OPENING STATEMENT.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN. GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, GOOD AFTERNOON. MANY OF THE WITNESSES DISCLOSED TO US BY THE DEFENSE THE PAST TWO DAYS ARE WITNESSES WHOSE STATEMENTS HAD NOT BEEN GIVEN TO US ON ANY PRIOR OCCASION. AND THE FIRST IS MARY ANNE GERCHAS. AND AS THE COURT WILL RECALL, MR. COCHRAN TOLD THE JURY THAT MARY ANNE GERCHAS SAW FOUR MEN RUNNING FROM THE SCENE OF THE KILLINGS ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE 12. WE HAVE NEVER BEEN GIVEN ANY DISCOVERY RELATIVE TO THAT WITNESS, THAT IS UNTIL YESTERDAY, AND THAT WAS GIVEN TO US AFTER MR. COCHRAN ALREADY MADE COMMENTS REGARDING THIS WITNESS BEFORE THE JURY. THIS IS OBVIOUSLY A MATERIAL WITNESS ONE WOULD THINK. THAT IS IF ONE COULD BELIEVE HER TESTIMONY. MR. DOUGLAS HAD THIS STATEMENT IN HIS POSSESSION. THE DEFENSE HAS HAD THE STATEMENT IN THEIR POSSESSION FOR SEVERAL MONTHS.

THE COURT: SINCE JULY.

MR. DARDEN: SINCE JULY. THEY COULD HAVE GIVEN IT TO US BACK IN JULY. THEY COULD HAVE GIVEN IT TO US BACK IN DECEMBER WHEN THEY WERE SQUAWKING ABOUT OUR DISCOVERY PROBLEMS AND WHILE THEY WERE ASKING THE COURT TO SANCTION US, BUT THEY DIDN'T DO THAT. THEY DIDN'T DO THAT THROUGHOUT THAT FIVE-MONTH PERIOD IN 1994. AND IN DECEMBER, WHEN THE COURT BEGAN TO ATTEMPT TO SET A DATE FOR OPENING STATEMENTS IN THIS CASE, THE DEFENSE DIDN'T TURN OVER THIS STATEMENT. AND WHEN THEY LEARNED THE EXACT DAY THAT OPENING STATEMENTS WOULD BEGIN, THEY DIDN'T TURN IT OVER. AND WHEN MR. COCHRAN'S OPENING STATEMENT WAS DELAYED A DAY, THEY DIDN'T TURN IT OVER. AND WHEN THEY CAME INTO COURT TO BEGIN MR. COCHRAN'S STATEMENT, PRIOR TO THAT STATEMENT THAT MORNING, THEY DIDN'T TURN IT OVER. AND THERE'S ONLY A FEW REASONS THAT THEY DIDN'T. FIRST, THEY KNEW THAT HAD THEY TURNED OVER THIS STATEMENT THIS LATE IN THE GAME, THE COURT WOULD HAVE PRECLUDED THEM FROM UTILIZING THE STATEMENT IN OPENING STATEMENT. THE COURT WOULD HAVE SANCTIONED THEM AS THEY DID US. AND THEY WERE ALSO AWARE THAT HAD THE PROSECUTION KNOWN ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR WITNESS, WE WOULD HAVE DISCREDITED HER. WE HAVE ONLY KNOWN OF THIS WITNESS 24 HOURS, AND ALREADY WE KNOW SHE HAS NINE LAWSUITS PENDING. AND THE D.A.'S OFFICE IN OUR BAD CHECK SECTION, THERE ARE $10,000 APPROXIMATELY IN BAD CHECKS THAT RELATE TO THIS PERSON. SHE HAS DEFRAUDED THE J.W. MARRIOTT CORPORATION OF $23,000 BY STAYING IN THEIR HOTEL AND NOT PAYING FOR IT. AND THERE IS MUCH MORE, MUCH, MUCH MORE REGARDING THIS WITNESS, BUT WE NEED TIME TO INVESTIGATE THIS WITNESS, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: WHAT'S YOUR REASONABLE ESTIMATE AS TO HOW LONG YOU NEED TO INVESTIGATE INTO THE BACKGROUND OF MISS GERCHAS SINCE PEOPLE VERSUS JACKSON AT 15 CAL. APP. 4 1197, PAGE 1203 INDICATES THAT WHAT THE REMEDY IS, HAVING A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO REBUT OR IMPEACH? SO WHAT ARE WE SPEAKING OF IN TERMS OF INVESTIGATION TO ADEQUATELY BE PREPARED TO REBUT AND/OR IMPEACH THAT TESTIMONY OR THAT PROFFER OF TESTIMONY? THAT'S THE ISSUE.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, WE ARE CONCERNED THAT PERHAPS THIS WITNESS IS NOT THE PERSON SHE CLAIMS TO BE, THAT SHE IS NOT THE PERSON -- SHE IS NOT THE REAL MARY ANNE GERCHAS. THERE IS A HINT THAT PERHAPS SHE IS NOT THAT PERSON, AND WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. AND SHE IS SUCH A CRITICAL WITNESS APPARENTLY TO THE DEFENSE THAT I BELIEVE IT WOULD TAKE APPROXIMATELY 30 DAYS TO CAREFULLY SEARCH OUT THE BACKGROUND OF THIS INDIVIDUAL.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENT AS TO THIS WITNESS?

MR. DARDEN: WELL, IN ADDITION TO THE SANCTIONS MENTIONED BY MISS CLARK A MOMENT AGO AND IN ADDITION TO A 30-DAY CONTINUANCE TO CAREFULLY INVESTIGATE THIS WITNESS' BACKGROUND, I WOULD ASK THAT THE COURT STRIKE ANY REFERENCE TO THIS WITNESS FROM MR. COCHRAN'S OPENING STATEMENT AND ADVISE THE JURY THAT THE COURT IS DOING SO BECAUSE OF MR. COCHRAN'S WILLFUL AND FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF THE RULE OF DISCOVERY. IN ADDITION, I THINK THAT THE PREJUDICE THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE SUFFERED AS A RESULT OF THIS FLAGRANT VIOLATION, THIS WILLFUL VIOLATION, THIS EGREGIOUS CONDUCT, THAT THE PREJUDICE IS SO EXTREME, I BELIEVE THAT THE PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REOPEN THEIR OPENING STATEMENT.

THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE ANY AUTHORITY FOR THAT PROPOSITION?

MR. DARDEN: THERE IS NO -- THERE IS NO CASE LAW DIRECTLY ON POINT, YOUR HONOR. HOWEVER, THE COURT DOES HAVE DISCRETION IN TERMS OF THE ORDER OF PROOF; AND UNDER 1054.5(B), THE COURT HAS THE DISCRETION AND THE RIGHT TO ORDER ANY LAWFUL REMEDY OR LEGAL REMEDY AVAILABLE TO RECTIFY THE HARM CAUSED US BY THE DEFENSE IN THIS CASE. BUT TO REOPEN WOULD BE ONLY FAIR.

THE COURT: HOW DOES THAT DOVETAIL THE 1093 SETTING THE ORDER OF TRIAL? DO I HAVE THE DISCRETION UNDER 1093 TO ALTER THAT TO ALLOW YOU TO REOPEN?

MR. DARDEN: I BELIEVE SO, YOUR HONOR. 1093 SAYS THAT:

"THE PROCEEDINGS SHALL PROCEED IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE COURT." WE ASK THAT THE COURT ALLOW US A SECOND OPPORTUNITY. THERE IS NO LAW AGAINST IT. IT IS NOT OUR FAULT THAT WE'RE IN THIS POSITION. BACK IN DECEMBER, YOU ORDERED US TO PROVIDE THE DEFENSE WITH DISCOVERY. YOU LITERALLY FORCED US TO WORK 48 HOURS STRAIGHT ALMOST TO COMPLY WITH THAT DISCOVERY ORDER. YOU TOLD US TO HAVE DISCOVERY TO THE DEFENSE BY 5:00 O'CLOCK ON A FRIDAY AFTERNOON, AND WE WORKED AND WE COMPLIED. HAD WE COME INTO COURT AND DID WHAT THEY DID AND TRY TO PULL SOMETHING LIKE THIS? OUR CONDUCT BACK IN DECEMBER, WHICH, AS I RECALL, THE COURT AGREED WAS NOTHING MORE THAN NEGLIGENT, WASN'T NEARLY AS EGREGIOUS AS WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THIS CASE. AND IN RESPONSE TO OUR MISTAKE AND HONEST MISTAKE AT THAT, THE COURT GUTTED THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE EVIDENCE IN TERMS OF HOW IT COULD BE PRESENTED IN THE CASE. THE COURT PRECLUDED US FROM CALLING WITNESSES IN THE ORDER THAT WE WANTED TO CALL THOSE WITNESSES SO THAT NOW THE DEFENSE HAS A HAND SO DEEP IN OUR POCKET AT THIS POINT THAT THEY'RE LITERALLY DICTATING THE ORDER IN WHICH THE WITNESSES WILL BE CALLED BY THE PROSECUTION. SUCH SANCTIONS OUGHT TO FLOW BOTH WAYS, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: WELL, THAT'S WHY IT'S CALLED RECIPROCAL DISCOVERY.

MR. DARDEN: THAT'S WHY IT'S CALLED RECIPROCAL DISCOVERY AND THAT'S WHY IT'S A TWO-WAY STREET AND THE WATERS SHOULD FLOW BOTH WAYS AND IN BOTH DIRECTIONS. WE HAD TO DO IT. I WOULD LIKE TO PUT MY HAND IN MR. COCHRAN'S POCKET AT THIS POINT. IT'S ONLY FAIR. HE CREATED THIS SITUATION. HE DIDN'T HAVE TO ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN. THE NEXT WITNESS IS DR. KARY MULLIS, AN APPARENT DNA EXPERT ON PCR. PRIOR TO THE OPENING STATEMENT, WE RECEIVED NO STATEMENT OR REPORT REGARDING THIS WITNESS. I HAVE NOT HAD A LOT OF TIME TO SEARCH ALL THE DOCUMENTS GIVEN THE EVENT OF YESTERDAY EVENING.

THE COURT: WAS DR. MULLIS ON ANY OF THE WITNESSES' LISTS FOR THE KELLY HEARING?

MS. CLARK: I DON'T HAVE THE KELLY HEARING LIST WITH ME.

MR. DARDEN: WELL, ONE OF THE THINGS WE DID WITH REGARD TO THE DNA HEARING AND THE WITNESS LIST IS THIS. AFTER THEY ALLEGEDLY WAIVED THEIR KELLY-FRYE, WE UPDATED OUR WITNESS LIST TO INCLUDE THE PEOPLE WE INTENDED TO CALL ON THE DNA ISSUE. THIS DOCTOR IS NOT ON ANY NON-KELLY-FRYE WITNESS LIST. AND EVEN SO, WE HAVE NEVER RECEIVED ANY REPORT OR ANY STATEMENT RELEVANT TO WHAT THIS DOCTOR WOULD TESTIFY TO. WE REQUIRE TIME TO INVESTIGATE THIS WITNESS' BACKGROUND. I DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT HIM, BUT I UNDERSTAND HE IS A VERY CONTROVERSIAL FIGURE IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. WE NEED TIME TO GATHER TRANSCRIPTS OF HIS PRIOR TESTIMONY. WE NEED TIME TO REVIEW THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE, TO REVIEW HIS BACKGROUND AND HIS TRAINING. AS THE COURT IS AWARE, THAT CAN BE VERY DIFFICULT TO DO. NOT ANYONE AND NOT JUST EVERYONE CAN PERFORM A TASK LIKE THIS AS IT RELATES TO A SCIENTIST SUCH AS DR. MULLIS, AND IT IS GOING TO TAKE TIME. IT'S GOING TO TAKE ABOUT 30 DAYS. WE WOULD ASK THAT THE COURT IN ADDITION TO THE ADMONITION INSTRUCT THE JURY TO DISREGARD ANY MENTION OF THIS WITNESS. WE WOULD ASK THE COURT TO ALLOW US TO REOPEN OUR OPENING STATEMENT. AS TO DR. RON FISCHMAN, YOUR HONOR, WE ARE SOMEWHAT ACQUAINTED WITH DR. FISCHMAN. IN FACT, I'VE MET DR. FISCHMAN. BUT UNFORTUNATELY, I DIDN'T HAVE A SUBPOENA ON ME WHEN I MET HIM. I DID, HOWEVER, CAUSE A SUBPOENA TO BE ISSUED FOR DR. FISCHMAN'S APPEARANCE IN THIS CASE. WE HAVE BEEN ATTEMPTING TO SERVE DR. FISCHMAN AND TO SPEAK WITH DR. FISCHMAN SINCE DECEMBER 14. WE BELIEVE THAT IF DR. FISCHMAN WERE HONEST AND CALLED TO TESTIFY AND TESTIFIED HONESTLY, WE BELIEVE THAT HE WOULD TESTIFY THAT AS NICOLE BROWN LEFT THE RECITAL ON JUNE 12, HE OVERHEARD THIS DEFENDANT SAYING, "I'M GOING TO GET HER. I'M GOING TO TEACH HER A LESSON," AND WORDS ALONG THOSE LINES. AND SO WE HAVE TELEPHONED HIM AND WE HAVE GONE TO VISIT HIM AND WE HAVE ATTEMPTED TO SERVE HIM. AND ON JANUARY 19TH, 1995, OUR INVESTIGATORS WERE OUTSIDE DR. FISCHMAN'S HOME. THEY MET, THEY TOLD HIM THEY WERE THERE TO SERVE HIM WITH A SUBPOENA, AND HE TURNED AND HE RAN, AND HE RAN BACK INSIDE HIS HOUSE AND HE LOCKED THE DOOR AND HE WOULDN'T COME OUT. AND THE INVESTIGATORS PLACED A SUBPOENA IN THE MAILBOX AND SHOUTED THROUGH THE WINDOW, "DR. FISCHMAN, CONSIDER YOURSELF SERVED." WELL, DR. FISCHMAN SHOULD HAVE BEEN HERE YESTERDAY OR HE SHOULD HAVE CALLED THE PROSECUTION TO BE PLACED ON CALL, AND HE HAS DONE NEITHER. THE DEFENSE HAS A STATEMENT FROM DR. FISCHMAN. WE DON'T HAVE IT. WE SHOULD GET IT. WE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TIME TO INVESTIGATE DR. FISCHMAN. AND THERE ARE OTHER PROBLEMS WITH DR. FISCHMAN. WHEN THE DEFENDANT WAS ARRESTED ON JUNE 17, THERE WAS A PRESCRIPTION OF XANAX, A DEPRESSANT, IN HIS BLACK BAG. THE MEDICATION APPARENTLY WAS PRESCRIBED TO DR. FISCHMAN'S MOTHER. I DON'T KNOW WHY IT'S IN THE DEFENDANT'S BAG. BUT IT'S ISSUES LIKE THAT AND THE ISSUE OF THE RECITAL THAT HAS TO BE REVIEWED AND INVESTIGATED. IT'S GOING TO TAKE TIME TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUE OF DR. RON FISCHMAN, AND I WOULD ASK FOR THE SAME SANCTIONS, THE SAME SANCTIONS BE IMPOSED AS IT RELATES TO DR. FISCHMAN AS WE REQUESTED WITH REGARD TO MULLIS, GERCHAS AND THE OTHER WITNESSES. DR. LENORE WALKER IS A DIFFERENT ISSUE. THE DEFENSE SERVED US WITH HER CV ON JANUARY 24, BUT THEY HAD NOT PROVIDED US WITH ANY STATEMENTS OR ANY REPORTS AS THEY ARE REQUIRED TO DO UNDER THE LAW.

THE COURT: WELL, YOU HEARD MR. COCHRAN'S EXPLANATION THAT SHE HAD JUST BEEN RETAINED, WAS IN THE PROCESS OF INTERVIEWING THE DEFENDANT, PREPARING A REPORT. SO I ASSUME IT'S NOT THERE YET.

MR. DARDEN: NEVERTHELESS, MR. COCHRAN REPRESENTED TO THE JURY THAT DR. WALKER WAS GOING TO FORM A CERTAIN CONCLUSION AND TESTIFY TO THAT CONCLUSION. SO APPARENTLY MR. COCHRAN IS AWARE OF WHAT MISS WALKER IS GOING TO SAY OR DR. WALKER -- I AM SORRY -- AS TO WHAT DR. WALKER IS GOING TO TESTIFY TO. BUT MR. COCHRAN ALSO INDICATED THAT DR. WALKER HAD INTERVIEWED THE DEFENDANT AND THAT SHE HAD CONDUCTED PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS. WELL, THAT'S DISCOVERABLE. IT'S DISCOVERABLE UNDER WOODS VERSUS SUPERIOR COURT AT 25 CAL. APP. 4TH 178. THAT STUFF EXISTS. IF MR. COCHRAN KNOWS ENOUGH ABOUT DR. WALKER TO TELL THE JURY WHAT SHE'S GOING TO TESTIFY TO AND IF TESTING RESULTS EXIST, IF ACTUAL TESTS EXIST, IF THERE ARE INTERVIEWS WITH THE DEFENDANT, WE HAVE A RIGHT TO ALL OF THAT. AND THAT'S CLEAR I BELIEVE IN THE LAW. IN ADDITION, MR. COCHRAN HAS PLACED THE DEFENDANT'S MENTAL STATE AND PSYCHOLOGICAL STATE AT ISSUE IN THIS TRIAL AND BEFORE THIS JURY. AND I BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE A RIGHT TO ACCESS -- TO HAVE ACCESS TO THIS DEFENDANT FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING, AND THAT'S AN ISSUE WE'LL TAKE UP AGAIN IN A COUPLE OF DAYS. AT ANY EVENT, IT WILL TAKE TIME TO PREPARE FOR DR. WALKER. AND THE COURT MIGHT ALSO RECALL THAT WHEN MR. COCHRAN WAS ARGUING TO THE JURY, THAT HE MENTIONED THAT DR. WALKER WAS WATCHING, WATCHING US ON TELEVISION. SO I ASSUME DR. WALKER HAS SOME NOTES, AND APPARENTLY SHE COMMUNICATED HER OPINIONS AND CONCLUSIONS TO MR. COCHRAN, WHICH MR. COCHRAN COMMUNICATED TO THE JURY. WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO THAT. WE MAKE THE SAME REQUEST WITH REGARD TO SANCTIONS. STRIKE IT, TELL THE JURY TO IGNORE IT, TELL THE JURY THAT MR. COCHRAN AND THE REST OF THE DREAM TEAM HAVE VIOLATED SOME VERY, VERY BASIC AND FUNDAMENTAL DISCOVERY RULES. THE NEXT WITNESS IS MICHELLE ABUDRAHM. SHE WAS MR. SIMPSON'S MAID APPARENTLY. AND ACCORDING TO MR. COCHRAN, NICOLE ONCE SLAPPED HER, NICOLE BROWN. AND I'VE HEARD OF THIS INCIDENT AND I BELIEVE THAT I'VE SEEN REPORTS -- SOME REPORT THAT RELATES TO THIS INCIDENT. I KNOW I'VE READ IT IN THE TABLOIDS. AND SO WE ARE SOMEWHAT AWARE OF THAT WITNESS. BUT OUR CONCERN HERE IS THAT PERHAPS MR. COCHRAN HAS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. THIS IS HIS WITNESS. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO HER STATEMENT. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DISCOVERY AS IT RELATES TO THIS WITNESS, AND IF THE COURT WOULD ORDER THE DEFENSE TO TURN OVER THAT STATEMENT TO US IMMEDIATELY. AND I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE IT AT THIS POINT, DO WE?

THE COURT: I THINK YESTERDAY, YOU WERE GIVEN A STATEMENT FROM JUNE OF '94 FROM THIS WITNESS. THAT'S ON THE RECORD AT PAGE 11921.

MR. DARDEN: OKAY. YOUR HONOR, IT'S OUR RECOLLECTION THAT THAT IS MERELY A COPY OR IS IT A COPY OF A STATEMENT THE POLICE TOOK. BUT OUR CONCERN IS THIS. IF THE DEFENSE HAS MORE INFORMATION, AN ADDITIONAL STATEMENT, ADDITIONAL NOTES AS THEY RELATE TO THIS WITNESS, WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THEM. AND IF THEY DON'T HAVE THEM, WE WOULD LIKE THEM TO STAND BEFORE THE COURT AND REPRESENT THAT THEY DON'T HAVE THEM AND THAT THEY KNOW THEY DON'T HAVE THEM. IF THEY INTERVIEW THIS WITNESS SUBSEQUENT TO OUR INTERVIEW OF THE WITNESS, WE WANT THE NOTES. AND IF THEY INTERVIEW THE WITNESS SUBSEQUENT TO OUR WITNESS AND IF THEY FAILED TO TAKE NOTES, WE WOULD LIKE THE COURT TO ORDER THEM TO REDUCE THE CONVERSATION TO WRITING. THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO TAKE ORAL STATEMENTS, DECLINE TO COMMIT THEM TO WRITING AND THEN HIDE THEM FROM THE PROSECUTION. WHETHER ANY ADDITIONAL SANCTIONS SHOULD BE IMPOSED HERE I THINK DEPENDS ON THE CONTENT OF ANY SUBSEQUENT STATEMENT THIS WITNESS MAY HAVE PROVIDED THE DEFENSE. THEN THERE'S JOE STELLINI. THIS WITNESS APPARENTLY WAS AT THE TRIST RESTAURANT. HE IS A DEFENSE WITNESS. WE RECEIVED NO STATEMENT, NO REPORT, NO NOTICE, NO INFORMATION REGARDING MR. STELLINI FROM THE DEFENSE PRIOR TO THE OPENING STATEMENT. WE MAKE THE SAME REQUEST, THAT THE COURT ORDER THE JURY TO DISREGARD ANY REFERENCE TO MR. STELLINI OR ANY REFERENCE TO ANYTHING MR. STELLINI MIGHT TESTIFY TO. HE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO TESTIFY IN THIS CASE UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT THE WITNESSES WHO WERE INCLUDED ON THE DEFENSE WITNESS LIST AND WHOSE STATEMENT WAS PROVIDED IN A TIMELY MANNER AND IN A LAWFUL MANNER AND UNTIL THOSE PEOPLE, THOSE WITNESSES ARE EXHAUSTED. THE SAME SANCTION YOU IMPOSED ON US, YOUR HONOR, THAT SHOULD APPLY TO HIM, MR. STELLINI, AND IT SHOULD APPLY TO THE REST OF THEM.

THE COURT: SO YOU ARE ASKING THAT THE COURT ORDER THAT HIS -- ANY TESTIMONY BY MR. STELLINI BE DELAYED UNTIL THE OTHER WITNESSES ON THE PREVIOUS AUGUST AND DECEMBER WITNESS LIST HAVE BEEN CALLED?

MR. DARDEN: YES, YOUR HONOR. AND I THINK THAT SHOULD APPLY TO EACH OF THE WITNESSES WE WERE AMBUSHED BY YESTERDAY AND THE DAY BEFORE. THEN THERE'S DR. BADEN. WE ARE AWARE OF DR. BADEN. WE ARE AWARE THAT HE WAS PRESENT ON JUNE 17TH. HE APPEARED BEFORE THE GRAND JURY. WE ASKED HIM WHAT HAPPENED IN MR. KARDASHIAN'S HOUSE JUST BEFORE THE DEFENDANT FLED. HE TOLD US THAT THE DEFENDANT FLED AS SOON AS HE HEARD THAT THE POLICE WERE ON THEIR WAY TO ARREST HIM. BUT WE DIDN'T ASK DR. BADEN ABOUT ANY TESTING OR THE RESULTS OF ANY TEST. WE DID NOT ASK HIM ABOUT HIS EXPERT OPINION REGARDING BLOOD OR PATHOLOGY. AND IT WAS MADE CLEAR TO US THAT SUCH TOPICS WERE OFF LIMITS, THAT HE WAS A DEFENSE EXPERT, AND THAT TO INQUIRE IN THOSE AREAS WOULD BE TO VIOLATE THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE, AND WE HONORED THAT. WHAT MR. COCHRAN HAS TOLD US THAT DR. BADEN WILL TESTIFY THAT THE PERPETRATOR SHOULD HAVE BEEN DRENCHED IN BLOOD. IT WOULD SEEM TO US THAT DR. BADEN HAS REVIEWED CERTAIN ITEMS AND OBJECTS, HE HAS PERHAPS CONDUCTED SOME TESTS, HE HAS RENDERED AN OPINION. WE WOULD LIKE THOSE REPORTS, WE WOULD LIKE THAT OPINION. AND THERE HAS TO BE ONE BECAUSE AS I UNDERSTAND THE RULES IN OPENING STATEMENT, COUNSEL IS NOT ALLOWED TO INFORM THE JURY OF EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION THAT THEY DO NOT IN GOOD FAITH AND REASONABLY BELIEVE WILL BE HEARD FROM THE WITNESS STAND OR IN OPENING COURT OR RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE. IF MR. COCHRAN OR THE REST OF THE DREAM TEAM HAVE HAD ORAL CONVERSATIONS WITH DR. BADEN REGARDING HIS CONCLUSIONS AND OPINIONS, THEN I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO ORDER THEM TO REDUCE THESE CONVERSATIONS TO WRITING AND THAT THEY DO IT NOW IMMEDIATELY. WE WOULD ASK THAT THE COURT IMPOSE THE SAME SANCTIONS, THE SANCTIONS WE MENTIONED EARLIER; STRIKE IT FROM THE RECORD, TELL THE JURY TO DISREGARD IT AND IGNORE IT, TELL THE JURY THAT THE DEFENSE, THE DREAM TEAM, AMERICA'S FINEST DEFENSE ATTORNEYS, TELL THE JURY THAT THESE LAWYERS HAVE COMMITTED MISCONDUCT, THEY HAVE DECEIVED THE COURT AND THAT THEY HAVE VIOLATED THE BASIC AND FUNDAMENTAL RULES OF DISCOVERY AND THAT THEY HAVE IMPINGED UPON THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL. NEXT IS CHRISTIAN RIECHARDT. HE IS FAYE RESNICK'S EX-FIANCE. SHE DUMPED HIM AND HE'S OUT TO GET HER. THAT'S FINE. I HAVE INTERVIEWED MR. RIECHARDT MYSELF WITH THE USE OF A COURT STENOGRAPHER IN THE PRESENCE OF HIS ATTORNEY, MR. DOMINIC RUBALCAVA, AND WE HAVE TURNED THAT OVER TO THE DEFENSE. IF THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT. IF THERE WERE ADDITIONAL CONVERSATIONS NOT REDUCED TO WRITING, WE WOULD ASK THAT THE COURT ORDER THE DEFENSE TO REDUCE THOSE CONVERSATIONS TO WRITING. IF THE DEFENSE INTENDS ONLY TO RELY ON INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED BY THE PROSECUTION AND BY THE LAPD, THEN THAT'S FINE. BUT THEY SHOULD STAND BEFORE THE COURT AND INFORM THE COURT OF THAT. IF THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO, THEN THERE'S NO SURPRISE NECESSARILY AS TO MR. RIECHARDT. BUT I WILL SAY THIS. AND THAT IS THAT NO STATEMENT HAS EVER BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE DEFENSE AS IT RELATES TO MR. RIECHARDT. IN ADDITION, MR. RIECHARDT IS NOT ON THE DEFENSE WITNESS LIST. SO MAYBE I JUMPED THE GUN ON THIS ONE, SHOULD STRIKE IT, AND HE SHOULD MOVE TO THE BACK OF THE LINE. AND WE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO AS THE DEFENSE HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO DO TO US IN THIS CASE. WE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO LET THEM KNOW WHEN THEY CAN CALL THIS WITNESS. THERE IS DR. BARBARA WOLF AND DR. GERDES.

THE COURT: TAKE THEM ONE AT A TIME.

MR. DARDEN: AND DR. LEE. AND WE CAN SAY THE SAME THING ABOUT EACH OF THESE EXPERTS; AND THAT IS THAT WE HAVE NO REPORTS OR STATEMENTS FROM THESE WITNESSES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DR. WOLF, DR. GERDES AND --

MR. DARDEN: DR. LEE.

THE COURT: LEE.

MR. DARDEN: I THINK I ALREADY INDICATED THAT WE HAVE NOTHING FROM DR. BADEN.

THE COURT: I THOUGHT YOU HAD ONE REPORT FROM DR. LEE ALREADY.

MS. CLARK: ONLY AS IT PERTAINS TO THE ENVELOPE.

MR. DARDEN: YES, ONLY AS IT PERTAINS TO THE ENVELOPE.

THE COURT: WELL, THAT'S ONE.

MR. DARDEN: WELL, WE HEARD YESTERDAY THAT HE WAS THE FOREMOST CRIME SCENE EXPERT, THE BEST IN THE WORLD AND HE WAS GOING TO TESTIFY ABOUT THE CRIME SCENE. WHERE IS THE REPORT? WHERE IS THE OPINION? WE REQUIRE IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE OF THESE EXPERT WITNESS REPORTS. WE WOULD ASK THAT THE SANCTIONS ALREADY MENTIONED REQUESTED BY US AS THEY RELATE TO OTHER WITNESSES APPLY TO THESE WITNESSES AS WELL. AND THEN THERE IS THE ENVELOPE, YOUR HONOR, THE ENVELOPE THAT MR. COCHRAN WAIVED IN FRONT OF THE JURY YESTERDAY, THE ENVELOPE WHICH CONTAINS AN UNSPECIFIED KNIFE AS I UNDERSTAND IT. I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT'S INSIDE THE ENVELOPE. I HAVE SEEN THE REPORT. I HAVE NOT SEEN THE ITEM, BUT THE DEFENSE HAS SEEN THE ITEM. WE HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OR INFORMATION AS TO WHERE THE ITEM CAME FROM, HOW IF IT WAS RECOVERED, WHO HANDLED IT, WHO HANDED IT WHERE AND WHEN, HOW IT GOT THERE. WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THIS ITEM EXCEPT WHAT WE KNOW FROM DR. LEE'S REPORT. BUT THE DEFENSE KNOWS EVERYTHING ABOUT IT AND THEY APPARENTLY INTEND TO INTRODUCE IT AS EVIDENCE IN THIS TRIAL. IF THAT IS THE CASE, YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW THE TRUE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THIS PARTICULAR OBJECT. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW HOW IT WAS RECOVERED, HOW THE COURT WAS CONTACTED. WE HAVE A RIGHT I BELIEVE TO KNOW ALL THE DETAILS SURROUNDING THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, AND WE REQUIRE IMMEDIATE DISCOVERY AS IT RELATES TO THIS ITEM. AND I WOULD SUGGEST TO THE COURT THAT THE DISPLAY OF THAT OBJECT YESTERDAY WAS JUST ONE OF MANY FLAGRANT VIOLATIONS OF THIS COURT'S RULES AND ORDERS. THIS COURT ORDERED US TO GIVE EACH SIDE THE OPPORTUNITY TO VIEW ANY EXHIBITS THAT MIGHT BE INTRODUCED BEFORE THIS JURY DURING OPENING STATEMENT. WE DIDN'T GET THAT OPPORTUNITY. MR. COCHRAN JUST PULLS IT OUT, WAVES IT IN FRONT OF THE JURY.

THE COURT: THAT WAS NOT EXHIBITED TO YOU DURING OUR TWO SHOW AND TELL SESSIONS?

MR. DARDEN: I HAVE NEVER SEEN IT BEFORE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

MR. DARDEN: AND I HAD NO KNOWLEDGE THAT IT WAS ABOUT TO BE PRESENTED TO THE JURY. BY THE TIME I SAW IT, IT WAS IN FULL VIEW OF EVERYONE IN THE ROOM AS I RECALL. THE JURY SHOULD BE ORDERED TO DISREGARD ANY VIEWING OF THAT ITEM. THEY SHOULD BE ORDERED NOT TO SPECULATE AS TO THE CONTENT OF THAT ITEM OR THE WEIGHT TO BE ATTACHED TO IT. THE JURY SHOULD BE INFORMED THAT THIS WAS A LOW BLOW AND A CHEAP SHOT AND THAT IT IS GROSS MISCONDUCT, A SERIOUS VIOLATION OF THE COURT'S DIRECTIVES AND ORDERS. MR. COCHRAN MENTIONED YESTERDAY THAT CERTAIN WITNESSES WILL TESTIFY ABOUT THE DEFENDANT PLAYING CARDS ON JUNE 12 AND THAT HE SUFFERED SOME ACUTE ATTACK OF ARTHRITIS I BELIEVE, SOME FORM OF ARTHRITIS. WELL, IT IS APPARENT THAT MR. COCHRAN INTENDS TO CALL THESE WITNESSES TO TESTIFY. WELL, WHO ARE THESE WITNESSES? WHERE ARE THEIR STATEMENTS? WHERE DO THEY LIVE? WE DON'T EVEN HAVE THE NAMES. WE WOULD LIKE THAT INFORMATION. WE REQUIRE IMMEDIATE DISCOVERY AND THE JURY SHOULD BE ADVISED THAT THE DEFENSE IS UP TO CHEAP TRICKS AND THAT THEY'RE IN VIOLATION OF THE COURT'S RULES AND THAT THE DISPLAY OR RATHER THE MENTION OF THIS CARD GAME, THE MENTION OF THESE WITNESSES IS A FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF THE COURT'S ORDER. THE DEFENSE ALSO REFERRED TO TWO DOCTORS WHO THEY SAY EXAMINED THE DEFENDANT. WHO? WHERE ARE THE REPORTS? WHERE ARE THE STATEMENTS? WHERE ARE THE TEST RESULTS? WE DIDN'T GET ANY OF THAT. WE DIDN'T GET NOTICE.

THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE THE CITE TO THE RECORD, WHERE THAT IS IN THE TRANSCRIPT?

MS. CLARK: I'LL GET IT.

MR. DARDEN: MISS CLARK WILL SEARCH THE TRANSCRIPT.

THE COURT: I'M JUST WONDERING IF YOU HAD IT.

MS. CLARK: I DID.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MOVE ON, MR. DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU. AS IT RELATES TO THOSE TWO DOCTORS, YOUR HONOR, UNTIL WE KNOW WHO THEY ARE, HOW THEY SPECIALIZE OR IN WHAT AREAS THEY SPECIALIZE IN, UNTIL WE GET THE DISCOVERY, IT'S DIFFICULT TO SEEK A PARTICULAR SANCTION. BUT I'LL SAY THIS. I CAN NOT IMAGINE, I CAN NOT UNDERSTAND WHY ANYONE IN A CASE LIKE THIS, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE SUPPOSED QUALITY AND ABILITIES OF THESE DEFENSE LAWYERS, WHY ANYONE WOULD WANT TO HIDE AN EXPERT WITNESS IN A CASE LIKE THIS. IT'S JUST UNFAIR, IS MIND BOGGLING. HOWARD WEITZMAN AND SKIP TAFT WERE MENTIONED YESTERDAY. IF THERE'S BEEN A CONVERSATION WITH MR. WEITZMAN AND MR. TAFT, WE WOULD LIKE THAT STATEMENT. WE WOULD LIKE THAT CONVERSATION REDUCED TO WRITING. WE WOULD LIKE DISCOVERY. ANY MENTION OF THESE TWO GENTLEMEN SHOULD BE STRICKEN, THE JURY SHOULD BE ADMONISHED, THEY SHOULD BE ADVISED TO DISREGARD COUNSEL'S COMMENTS REGARDING THESE TWO WITNESSES. NEXT --

THE COURT: HOW DO YOU SUGGEST I DEAL WITH THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT ISSUE THAT'S OBVIOUSLY GOING TO BE RAISED IN RESPONSE?

MR. DARDEN: I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THERE IS AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE ISSUE IN THIS SITUATION. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. DARDEN: WE KNOW THEY HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY. AND WHATEVER MR. COCHRAN HAS SAID SO FAR CERTAINLY OUGHT TO OPERATE AS SOME FORM OF WAIVER AS TO SOME OR ALL OF ANY CONVERSATIONS.

THE COURT: JUST A FEW LEGAL ISSUES HERE.

MR. DARDEN: JUST A FEW.

THE COURT: GO AHEAD.

MR. DARDEN: MR. COCHRAN REFERRED YESTERDAY TO AN UNSPECIFIED DOCTOR WHO WOULD TESTIFY THAT THE DEFENDANT'S CUT, ONE OF THE CUTS OR MAYBE BOTH ON HIS LEFT HAND IS CONSISTENT WITH A KNIFE CUT.

THE COURT: I THINK HE SAID INCONSISTENT.

MR. DARDEN: INCONSISTENT. I'M SORRY. THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN. WELL, WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHO THAT PERSON IS. WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE HIS REPORT. WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT QUALIFICATIONS HE HAS TO FORM SUCH AN OPINION. THAT SHOULD BE STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD AS WELL. THAT'S AN EXPERT WITNESS. COUNSEL KNEW THAT THIS PERSON WOULD BE TESTIFYING. AND, YOU KNOW, AS I SAT THERE YESTERDAY, DAY BEFORE WATCHING MR. COCHRAN, I NOTICED THAT HIS OPENING STATEMENT, MOST OF IT WAS TYPED. HE HAD TIME TO TYPE IT, TO TYPE OUT THAT OPENING STATEMENT, AND IT WAS A VERY FINE OPENING STATEMENT. AND I'M ALWAYS PROUD OF MR. COCHRAN WHENEVER I SEE HIM IN COURT, YOUR HONOR. I LOVE HIM. I JUST DON'T LIKE TO GO UP AGAINST HIM. BUT IF HE HAD TIME TO TYPE HIS OPENING STATEMENT, THEN HE HAD TIME TO TURN IT OVER. AND I'M DISAPPOINTED IN MR. COCHRAN. I'M DISAPPOINTED THAT HE HASN'T TURNED OVER THAT INFORMATION TO US BECAUSE JUST THIS PAST WEEKEND, MR. COCHRAN AND I HAD A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION ON SUNDAY EVENING, AND WE DISCUSSED DISCOVERY ISSUES. I DISCUSSED WITH HIM ISSUES AND INFORMATION WHICH HE COULD NOT OTHERWISE LEARN OR OBTAIN UNTIL THE FOLLOWING MONDAY OR TUESDAY. AND I ADVISED HIM OF THESE THINGS SO THAT HE WOULD KNOW THAT THEY WERE IN EXISTENCE SO THAT HE WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED. AND SO I'M SURPRISED TO STAND HERE TODAY BEFORE THE COURT, YOUR HONOR, AND I'M DISAPPOINTED IN MR. COCHRAN. I WOULD THINK THAT HE WOULD RETURN TO ME THE SAME PROFESSIONAL COURTESY. AND THE COURT WILL RECALL THAT WE HAVE BEEN ORDERED TO TURN OVER TO THE DEFENSE LITERALLY WITHIN 24 HOURS OR ONE BUSINESS DAY THE NAME OF ANY POTENTIAL WITNESS AS WELL AS THE STATEMENT AS WELL AS THE TAPE OF THAT STATEMENT AS WELL AS A TRANSCRIPT IF A TRANSCRIPT EXISTS. THESE ARE THE RULES THAT THE COURT HAS SET FOR THE PROSECUTION IN THIS CASE, BUT NO RULES HAVE BEEN SET APPARENTLY FOR THE DEFENSE. OR IF RULES HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR THE DEFENSE FOR SOME REASON -- AND I THINK I KNOW WHAT THAT REASON IS -- THEY DON'T FEEL AS IF THEY HAVE TO LIVE UP TO THOSE RULES OR TO FOLLOW THOSE RULES. APPARENTLY THEY FEEL THAT THEY'RE ABOVE THE RULES. THIS CONDUCT IS OUTRAGEOUS. MR. COCHRAN NEXT DESCRIBED AN UNSPECIFIED GENTLEMAN WHO WOULD TESTIFY TO HAVING HAD AN AFFAIR WITH NICOLE BROWN. I DON'T KNOW WHO THAT INDIVIDUAL IS. I AM CONFIDENT THAT IT WON'T BE MR. MARCUS ALLEN BECAUSE I TRAVELED TO KANSAS CITY AND I WAS PRESENT WITH THREE POLICE DETECTIVES WHEN MR. ALLEN TOLD US HE NEVER HAD AN AFFAIR WITH DENISE -- RATHER WITH NICOLE BROWN. AND SO IF IT IS MR. MARCUS ALLEN OR IF IT IS SOME OTHER PERSON, WE WOULD LIKE THE DISCOVERY, YOUR HONOR. WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE IDENTITY OF THAT PERSON. MIND YOU THAT WE DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO PROVE TO BE RELEVANT IN THIS CASE ANYWAY. BUT IN THE EVENT THAT IT DOES, COUNSEL HAS DRAGGED THIS INFORMATION IN FRONT OF THE JURY IN AN ATTEMPT TO SOIL THE REPUTATION OF THE DECEASED VICTIM. AND THAT'S FINE. THAT HAPPENS IN COURT. BUT WE HAVE A RIGHT TO THAT INFORMATION, TO THE NAME OF THAT INDIVIDUAL AND TO THAT STATEMENT, THAT INDIVIDUAL'S STATEMENT. AND IF THEY THINK THEY CAN JUST SIT THERE AND TALK TO THESE PEOPLE ON THE TELEPHONE OR IN PERSON AND NOT REDUCE THEIR CONVERSATIONS TO NOTES OR THEY THINK THEY CAN REDUCE THIS INTERVIEW TO NOTES AND THEN NOT TURN THEM OVER, WELL, THAT'S NOT THE LAW. THAT'S NOT THE LAW IN THIS STATE. AND YOU CAN'T SANDBAG THE OPPOSITION THAT WAY. AND I UNDERSTAND MR. COCHRAN WHEN HE STANDS HERE AND TELLS US HOW HE'S THE ONLY ONE INTERESTED IN THE TRUTH IN THIS CASE. AND I APPRECIATE THAT. BUT I WOULD SUGGEST TO THE COURT THAT THIS CONDUCT AS IT RELATES TO THE DISCOVERY IN THIS CASE IS COMPLETELY INCONSISTENT, COMPLETELY INCONSISTENT WITH ANY DESIRE TO DETERMINE THE TRUTH OR TO HAVE THE JURY DETERMINE THE TRUTH. AND I WOULD LIKE THE JURY TO KNOW THE TRUTH REGARDING THE MURDER OF THESE TWO PEOPLE, YOUR HONOR, WIN OR LOSE, AS LONG AS THE TRUTH COMES OUT. BUT THE TYPE OF CONDUCT EXHIBITED BY THE DEFENSE THESE PAST COUPLE OF DAYS AND OVER THE PAST SEVERAL MONTHS -- I MEAN THEY HAD THE AUDACITY TO STAND HERE AND DEMAND THAT YOU SANCTION US ALL THE WHILE KNOWING THAT THEY HAD STATEMENTS, STATEMENTS FROM MATERIAL WITNESSES THAT THEY TOOK FOUR, FIVE AND SIX MONTHS PRIOR, AND THEY KNEW THEY HAD THEM, THEY KNEW THEY HADN'T TURNED THEM OVER AND THEY STOOD HERE AND ASKED YOU TO SANCTION US. THE GALL. THE COURT SHOULD IMPRESS UPON THE DEFENSE THAT THE RULES APPLY TO THEM. IT DOESN'T JUST APPLY TO THE POOR CIVIL SERVANT LAWYERS ON THE OTHER SIDE. IT APPLIES TO THE DREAM TEAM TOO AND TO THE DREAM DEFENDANT. IT ISN'T FAIR. WHAT THEY'VE DONE IN THIS COURTROOM THE PAST COUPLE DAYS IS NOT FAIR. I HAVE NEVER EVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THIS. MR. COCHRAN NEXT MADE REFERENCE TO TIRE TRACKS AND ANOTHER TRAIL OF FOOTPRINTS.

THE COURT: LET'S TAKE THOSE ONE AT A TIME.

MR. DARDEN: IT IS APPARENT TO US BASED ON HIS COMMENTS YESTERDAY THAT THEY HAVE AN EXPERT. AND MAYBE THAT EXPERT IS DR. LEE OR MAYBE IT'S SOME OTHER PERSON WHO HAS REVIEWED THIS ISSUE ON BEHALF OF DEFENSE. WHOEVER THAT PERSON IS, MR. COCHRAN HAS INDICATED THAT THEY WILL PROBABLY BE TESTIFYING IN THIS TRIAL OR THAT THEY WILL BE. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW WHO THEY ARE. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO ANY STATEMENTS THEY'VE MADE, ANY TESTS THAT THEY'VE CONDUCTED, ANY CONCLUSIONS THAT THEY'VE DRAWN. WE HAVE THAT RIGHT. AND THIS ISN'T JUST SOME RIGHT THAT JUST CAME TO US MONDAY OR ON JANUARY 1, 1995. THIS IS A RIGHT WE'VE HAD FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS. AND MR. DOUGLAS AND MR. UELMEN AND MR. COCHRAN HAVE STOOD BEFORE THE COURT AND TOLD THE COURT THAT, "WE UNDERSTAND --" THIS IS WHAT THEY SAID. "WE UNDERSTAND OUR RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THE RULES AND LAWS OF DISCOVERY." AND YET, THEY'VE CHOSEN TO IGNORE THOSE RULES AND THOSE LAWS AND THE COURT'S ORDER. IF THEY HAVE EXPERTS, REPORTS OR STUDIES OR ANYTHING NOT GIVEN BY THEM TO US, ANY PHOTOGRAPHS, ANYTHING RELIED UPON THE EXPERT THEY INTEND TO CALL, WE HAVE A RIGHT TO HAVE THAT. AND THIS EXPERT, IF THERE IS SUCH AN EXPERT, SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO TESTIFY IN THESE PROCEEDINGS UNTIL THE END, YOUR HONOR, UNTIL THE END, AND THE JURY SHOULD BE ADMONISHED, INSTRUCTED TO DISREGARD. MR. COCHRAN'S COMMENTS REGARDING THIS WITNESS IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT --

THE COURT: SO YOU HAVE THE SAME COMMENT AS FAR AS THE TIRE TRACKS AND THE FOOTPRINTS?

MR. DARDEN: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. DARDEN: NEXT, MR. COCHRAN MENTIONED DINO -- AND I APOLOGIZE IF I MISPRONOUNCE THE LAST NAME -- BUCOLLA, B-U-C-O-L-L-A. AND THIS RELATES TO HIS OBSERVATIONS AT THE RED ONION, AN INCIDENT WHICH WAS DESCRIBED IN OUR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE MOTION.

THE COURT: IS THIS ONE OF THE INDIVIDUALS IN THE CAR?

MR. DARDEN: YES. WE RECEIVED A STATEMENT I BELIEVE YESTERDAY REGARDING THIS GENTLEMAN.

THE COURT: THAT WAS NOT ONE OF THE STATEMENTS YESTERDAY.

MS. CLARK: YESTERDAY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: IT'S NOT ON MY LIST OF ITEMS TURNED OVER.

MR. DOUGLAS: I COULD EXPLAIN, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: MR. DOUGLAS.

MS. CLARK: IT WAS RECEIVED AFTER COURT SESSION LIKE 5:00 O'CLOCK.

MR. DARDEN: YES. AS THEY WERE RUNNING TO THE ELEVATOR, "HERE, HAVE SOME MORE DISCOVERY." THEY GAVE US TWO REPORTS JUST THAT WAY YESTERDAY.

MR. DOUGLAS: THAT'S NOT CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.

MR. DARDEN: WAIT YOUR TURN, MR. DOUGLAS.

THE COURT: WE'LL GET THERE. MR. DARDEN, WHAT IS THE DATE ON THIS WITNESS STATEMENT?

MR. DARDEN: I BELIEVE IT IS -- WELL, WHY DON'T THE COURT INQUIRE OF MR. DOUGLAS IF YOU DON'T MIND. I DON'T HAVE IT IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE.

THE COURT: BUT YOU HAVE NOW A STATEMENT FROM MR. BUCOLLA --

MR. DARDEN: YES.

THE COURT: -- REGARDING THAT INCIDENT?

MR. DARDEN: YES. I BELIEVE IT'S DATED, IF YOU WOULD INQUIRE.

THE COURT: NO. I'LL FIND OUT SOON ENOUGH.

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

THE COURT: NO, I DON'T RECALL THIS PERSON BEING MENTIONED IN OPENING STATEMENT OR ANY ISSUE.

MR. COCHRAN: IT WAS NOT.

MR. DARDEN: THEN HE SHOULD JUST BE REQUIRED TO MOVE TO THE BACK THEN, AND I THINK MR. COCHRAN SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM MENTIONING HIM IN THE EVENT THAT HE INTENDS TO. MAY I HAVE ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY. MADAM REPORTER, HOW ARE YOU DOING?

THE COURT REPORTER: FINE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO GO ANOTHER 15.

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

MR. DARDEN: WE RECEIVED A NUMBER OF STATEMENTS ON JANUARY 25, YOUR HONOR. MR. BUCOLLA'S STATEMENT WAS ONE. WE RECEIVED A STATEMENT REGARDING MR. JASON WOOD, AND WE WILL SEEK NO SANCTION AS IT RELATES TO JASON WOOD. WE INTERVIEWED HIM. WE'RE ACQUAINTED WITH HIM. AND THE REPORT WE RECEIVED WAS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW, AND SO WE WILL SEEK NO SANCTION. BUT WE WILL ASK THE COURT, HOWEVER, TO ASK THE DEFENSE DO THEY HAVE INFORMATION IN ADDITION. MAY I HAVE ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

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

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, THE PAGE NUMBER FOR THE CARD PLAYING THAT YOU WANTED IS 11890.

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

MR. DARDEN: NEXT, YOUR HONOR, THERE'S RONALD TAYLOR. WE RECEIVED THIS STATEMENT ON JANUARY 25TH. HE WAS ON THEIR AUGUST 31 WITNESS LIST. HOWEVER, THEY WAITED UNTIL JANUARY 25TH TO GIVE US A STATEMENT. THERE WAS PAUL SOLENSHINE, S-O-L-E-N-S-H-I-N-E.

THE COURT: HOLD ON. ALL RIGHT. PAUL SOLENSHINE, THE RHEUBAN'S EMPLOYEE.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, I STAND CORRECTED. WE DID RECEIVE AN EARLIER STATEMENT ON TAYLOR. DON'T TALK TO ME, OKAY? WE DID NOT RECEIVE A STATEMENT ON PAUL SOLENSHINE UNTIL JANUARY 25. AS I INDICATED, HE WAS ON THE AUGUST 31 WITNESS LIST. HOWEVER, NO STATEMENT WAS PROVIDED. THE SAME APPLIES TO ROSITA RHEUBAN, R-H-E-U-B-A-N. WE REQUIRE TIME TO INVESTIGATE THE CONTENT OF THEIR STATEMENTS AND DETERMINE IF THEY HAVE INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THESE PROCEEDINGS. THEY SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO CALL THESE WITNESSES.

THE COURT: ARE THE PEOPLE INTENDING ON PRESENTING ANY OF THE ITEMS SEIZED FROM MR. COWLING'S AUTOMOBILE?

MR. DARDEN: WE HAVE NOT YET MADE THAT DECISION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. DARDEN: THEY SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM CALLING MR. SOLENSHINE AND MISS RHEUBAN UNTIL THE CONCLUSION OF THEIR CASE AND UNTIL WE HAVE BEEN GIVEN A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO INVESTIGATE THEIR BACKGROUNDS AND THE CONTENT OF ANY STATEMENT THEY MIGHT GIVE. NEXT, THERE IS THE STATEMENT OF TONY PARKER GIVEN TO US ON JANUARY 25. WE HAD NO PRIOR DISCOVERY REGARDING THIS WITNESS. WE REQUIRE ADDITIONAL TIME TO INVESTIGATE THE CONTENT OF HIS STATEMENT AS WELL AS HIS BACKGROUND. WE WERE GIVEN A STATEMENT OR RATHER KEVIN WHELAN'S STATEMENT, AND HE CLAIMED TO HAVE GOTTEN THE DEFENDANT'S AUTOGRAPH ON JUNE 12, 1994 AT 11:20. YOU WOULD THINK THAT HE MIGHT BE A MATERIAL WITNESS TO THE DEFENSE. AND I'M SURE THEY SAW IT THAT WAY, AND HE WAS ON THEIR AUGUST 31 WITNESS LIST, BUT THEY DIDN'T TURN THAT STATEMENT OVER TO US UNTIL JANUARY 25TH, SIX MONTHS AFTER THE HOMICIDES. YESTERDAY, MR. COCHRAN MENTIONED -- OR STRIKE THAT. ON JANUARY 25, WE RECEIVED A STATEMENT FROM NARINDEN SINGH REGARDING THE POSSIBILITY OF A TAPE OF SOME KIND AT THE MEZZALUNA RESTAURANT. THIS PERSON WAS ON THE AUGUST 31 WITNESS LIST. WE RECEIVED THAT PERSON'S STATEMENT ON JANUARY 25, 1995. AND NEXT IS ALEX CASTILLO. HE HAS SOME INFORMATION REGARDING A BEEPER OR PAGER, AND HE WAS ON THE DEFENSE AUGUST 31 WITNESS LIST, BUT IT WAS NOT UNTIL JANUARY 25, 1995 THAT WE RECEIVED A STATEMENT OR A REPORT. MAY I HAVE ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

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

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, TIME AND TIME AGAIN, THE PROSECUTION STOOD BEFORE THE COURT, ADVISED THE COURT THAT THE DEFENSE WAS PLAYING FAST AND LOOSE WITH THE DISCOVERY RULES, WITH THE EVIDENCE. EACH TIME A MEMBER OF THE DREAM TEAM STEPPED TO THE PODIUM AND ADVISED THE COURT TO WHAT THEY THOUGHT THE LAW REQUIRED, THEY ADVISED THE COURT THAT THEY HAD NO DISCOVERY, THEY HAD NO REPORTS OR THEY DIDN'T INTEND TO CALL THE WITNESS OR THAT THEY HAD NO DUTY TO TURN OVER RELEVANT AND MATERIAL INFORMATION, STATEMENTS FROM MATERIAL WITNESSES THAT THEY KNEW FROM DAY ONE THEY WOULD WANT TO CALL IN THIS TRIAL, AND THEY DID THAT TIME AND TIME AGAIN. MR. DOUGLAS DID IT JUST LAST WEEK ON JANUARY 20. THE COURT MAY RECALL -- AND THIS IS AT VOLUME 73 AT PAGE 11319 WHERE MR. DOUGLAS INFORMED THE COURT:

"CERTAINLY, YOUR HONOR, THE COURT UNDERSTANDS OUR OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE DISCOVERY ACT AND CERTAINLY, YOUR HONOR, WITH THIS FINE COLLECTION OF LAWYERS, WE UNDERSTAND OUR OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE DISCOVERY ACT." AND I THINK THEIR UNDERSTANDING, YOUR HONOR, WAS PROBABLY CORRECT; AND THAT IS THAT THEY HAD A DUTY TO TURN OVER THE STATEMENTS OF THESE MATERIAL WITNESSES. AND I THINK THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT. I THINK THE LAW IS PRETTY CLEAR THERE. I THINK MR. UELMEN STATED IT RATHER SUCCINCTLY AND CLEARLY WHEN HE SAID IN CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE THESE WHERE TRIAL HAS ALREADY BEGUN, EACH PARTY HAS A DUTY TO TURN OVER TO THE OTHER PARTY DISCOVERABLE MATERIAL IMMEDIATELY. AND MR. UELMEN SAID TO THE COURT:

"YOUR HONOR, IMMEDIATE MEANS IMMEDIATE. IT MEANS NOW. IT MEANS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE." AND THAT, AS I RECALL, WAS THE COURT'S UNDERSTANDING OF THE TERM. WELL, WE'VE BEEN IN TRIAL SINCE SEPTEMBER AS I UNDERSTAND IT. WELL, IT IS THAT SECTION OF THE DISCOVERY RULES THAT APPLIES TO THESE DEFENDANTS OR TO THIS DEFENDANT AND THESE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS. THEY SHOULD HAVE TURNED OVER THIS INFORMATION TO US IMMEDIATELY, BUT THEY DIDN'T. THEY WANTED TO SANDBAG US. HAD THEY TURNED THE INFORMATION OVER TO US LAST WEEK OR AT CHRISTMAS OR ON DECEMBER 14, AS WE DID -- THE COURT WILL RECALL THAT ON DECEMBER 14, WE TURNED OVER DISCOVERY TO DEFENSE AND YOU HAD TO PULL THEM OFF THE CEILING. IT'S SIX WEEKS LATER NOW. THE SANCTIONS THE COURT IMPOSED ON US BACK ON SEPTEMBER 23RD AND EARLIER ARE STILL IN EFFECT. THEY'VE HAD SIX WEEKS TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION; AND IN THAT SIX WEEKS, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY DID IN TERMS OF AN INVESTIGATION. BUT IN THAT SIX WEEKS, THEY CERTAINLY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO THINK ABOUT THE ISSUE OF DISCOVERY. I MEAN THEY FILED A 40-PAGE BRIEF ON THE SUBJECT. THEY ARGUED IT TO THE COURT DAY AFTER DAY. THEY UNDERSTAND THE LAW AND THEY UNDERSTAND THE RULES. THEY KNOW THAT THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO TURN OVER DISCOVERY TO US AFTER MR. COCHRAN HAS MENTIONED THE CONTENT OF THAT DISCOVERY BEFORE THE JURY ALREADY. THEY KNOW THAT THEY HAVE A DUTY TO TURN OVER INFORMATION TO US IMMEDIATELY. BUT THEY DIDN'T DO THAT. THEY DIDN'T DO IT LAST YEAR, THEY DIDN'T DO IT LAST MONTH, THEY DIDN'T EVEN DO IT THE MORNING BEFORE MR. COCHRAN BEGAN HIS OPENING STATEMENT. AND THAT'S OUTRAGEOUS. THAT'S OUTRAGEOUS. AND THEY DIDN'T DO IT BECAUSE THEY KNEW THAT HAD THEY DONE IT, YOU WOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED MR. COCHRAN TO POISON THE MINDS OF THESE JURORS WITH HEARSAY ON TOP OF HEARSAY WITH THE CONTENT OF STATEMENTS GIVEN HIM BY WITNESSES WHO ARE COMPLETELY UNRELIABLE AND WHOSE BACKGROUND I AM SURE THAT IF MR. COCHRAN KNEW OR WAS AWARE, HE WOULD NOT HAVE EVEN MENTIONED THEM. WHEN THE VOTERS IN THIS STATE PASSED PROPOSITION 115, THERE WAS A CLEAR MANDATE, AND THAT MANDATE WAS, NO MORE SANDBAGGING, NO MORE SLEAZY TRIAL TACTICS, NO MORE ABUSE OF THE PROCESS OR OF THE SYSTEM OR OF THE COURTS. AS THE COURT ALREADY ALLUDED TO EARLIER, DISCOVERY BECAME A TWO-WAY STREET. I DON'T KNOW WHY THE DREAM TEAM CAN'T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THAT OR GRASP THAT OR WHY THEY DON'T WANT TO FOLLOW THE RULES. I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY HAVE A CELEBRITY CLIENT AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS ALLEGEDLY THE BIGGEST MURDER CASE EVER. BUT THE RULES DON'T STOP JUST FOR THIS CASE. THE RULES APPLY TO THIS CASE. HAD WE DONE WHAT THEY DID, I SHUDDER TO THINK WHAT THE COURT WOULD HAVE DONE TO OUR CASE, BECAUSE EVEN DESPITE OUR INNOCENT AND NEGLIGENT MISTAKES IN TERMS OF DISCOVERY, YOU'VE GUTTED OUR CASE TO SOME EXTENT. YOU'VE DISMANTLED IT IN MANY RESPECTS.

THE COURT: REARRANGED IT.

MR. DARDEN: YOU REARRANGED IT ALL RIGHT. AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S FAIR. BUT THE BELL HAS ALREADY BEEN RUNG, YOUR HONOR, AND THE SHOT HAS ALREADY BEEN FIRED. AND ONCE THE SHOT IS FIRED -- AS MR. DE BLANC STATED LAST NIGHT ON TELEVISION, ONCE THE BULLET IS OUT THE GUN, YOU CAN'T GET IT BACK.

THE COURT: YOU HAD TIME TO WATCH TELEVISION LAST NIGHT?

MR. DARDEN: I HEARD ABOUT IT. I HEARD ABOUT IT, YOUR HONOR. I MISSED THE ENTIRE NBA SEASON UP TO THIS POINT, AND I AM UPSET ABOUT THAT. BUT THE PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL JUST LIKE MR. SIMPSON DOES, AND WE HAVE A RIGHT TO PLAY ON A LEVEL FIELD; AND THAT FIELD IS SUPPOSED TO BE LEVEL AND SUPPOSED TO BE BALANCED. WELL, THERE IS A TERRIBLE INBALANCE NOW, AND THIS INBALANCE IS BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE DREAM TEAM'S REFUSAL, THEIR INTENTIONAL AND WILLFUL DISREGARD FOR SOME VERY BASIC AND FUNDAMENTAL RULES OF DISCOVERY. THIS IS THEIR FAULT THAT THE FIELD IS NO LONGER A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD. IT'S THEIR FAULT THAT THINGS ARE OUT OF BALANCE. AND I WANT THE COURT TO UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS NOT, YOU KNOW, SO MUCH MR. COCHRAN'S OPENING STATEMENT THE OTHER DAY. HE DID WHAT I FIGURED HE WOULD DO. HE'S A GOOD LAWYER. THEY SAY HE'S THE BEST. HE'S A FRIEND OF MINE. I'M PROUD TO HAVE HIM AS A FRIEND OF MINE. BUT I'M DISAPPOINTED IN HIM. BUT I WANT MR. COCHRAN TO KNOW, MR. SIMPSON TOO TO KNOW THAT WE'RE NOT JUST HERE PLAYING GAMES EITHER. WE MAY JUST BE CIVIL SERVANTS AND BLUE COLLAR LAWYERS, YOUR HONOR, BUT WE INTEND TO WIN THIS CASE. BUT THE ONLY WAY WE'RE GOING TO WIN AND THE ONLY WAY WE CAN FULLY AND FAIRLY PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCESS WOULD BE IF THE COURT RECTIFIED THIS INBALANCE. AND I BELIEVE THE COURT MUST, BECAUSE THIS PROBLEM AND THIS ISSUE, IT'S MORE THAN JUST AN AFFRONT TO THE PROSECUTION. IT IS AN ATTACK ON THE INTEGRITY OF THIS COURT. THEY VIOLATED YOUR RULES, NOT JUST MINE, NOT JUST THE LEGISLATURE'S. NOT JUST THE RULES OF COURT, BUT YOUR RULES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THE LEGISLATURE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS, MR. DARDEN. YOU KNOW THAT.

MR. DARDEN: THANKS FOR POINTING THAT OUT TO ME, YOUR HONOR. WE WOULD ASK THAT THE COURT ADMONISH THE JURY AND WE WOULD ASK AS WELL THAT WE BE GRANTED A BRIEF CONTINUANCE SO THAT WE CAN FULLY ASSESS WHAT HAS HAPPENED, SO THAT WE CAN INVESTIGATE THE BACKGROUNDS AND THE INFORMATION PROVIDED TO US IN COURT THESE PAST COUPLE OF DAYS. AND WE THINK WE HAVE A RIGHT TO THAT. I THINK WE HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO THAT. THE CODE SECTION SPEAKS TO THE REMEDIES THE COURT CAN PROVIDE IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS WHERE THERE EXISTS SUCH A FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF THE CODE, AND WE WOULD ASK THAT THE COURT ALLOW US TO REOPEN OUR OPENING STATEMENT --

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

MR. DARDEN: -- AND TO CORRECT THE INBALANCE TO MAKE THE PLAYING FIELD LEVEL AGAIN. I'M SURE MR. SIMPSON DIDN'T PLAY ON LOPSIDED PLAYING FIELDS BACK WHEN HE WAS IN THE NFL. I MEAN THERE WERE 11 GUYS ON EACH SIDE. IT WAS FAIR. OF COURSE, THEY HAD MR. SIMPSON ON THEIR TEAM. I JUST WANT A FAIR SHOT. WE JUST WANT A FAIR TRIAL. THIS AIN'T ALL ABOUT JUST WINNING AND LOSING. IT'S ABOUT FAIRNESS. IT'S ABOUT JUSTICE. I'M STARTING TO SOUND LIKE COCHRAN, AREN'T I? ALTHOUGH THERE IS LITTLE CASE LAW OR NO CASE LAW ON THE ISSUE OF REOPENING AN OPENING STATEMENT, THERE IS CASE LAW ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF REOPENING CLOSING ARGUMENTS.

THE COURT: I'M FAMILIAR WITH THOSE CASES. I WAS LOOKING FOR ONE THAT DEALT WITH OPENING STATEMENTS.

MR. DARDEN: SO WAS I, AND I WAS LOOKING FOR THAT CASE UNTIL 2:15 THIS MORNING, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: I KNOW ALL ABOUT REOPENING ARGUMENT, COUNSEL.

MR. DARDEN: AND I WOULD THIS AS WELL.

THE COURT: LET ME REPHRASE THAT. I KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

MR. DARDEN: AND I KNOW THAT THE COURT KNOWS THE COURT HAS DISCRETION IN TERMS OF THE ORDER OF PROOF, IN TERMS OF THE ORDER OF PROCESSES HERE IN THIS CASE. AND I WOULD SAY SOMETHING ELSE, YOUR HONOR, ABOUT WHAT HAS HAPPENED HERE. WE HAVE SOMETHING IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CALLED THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT. IT'S ETHICS. AND I'M NOT HERE TO ACCUSE MY DISTINGUISHED COLLEAGUES OF BEING UNETHICAL, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT IF I MAY TO THE COURT THAT THERE EXISTS IN THE STATE BAR RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT SECTION 65220 ENTITLED SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE. AND THAT SECTION INDICATES THAT:

"A MEMBER OF THE BAR SHALL NOT SUPPRESS EVIDENCE, THAT THE MEMBER OR THE MEMBER'S CLIENT HAS A LEGAL OBLIGATION TO REVEAL OR TO PRODUCE." AND THERE'S ALSO SECTION 5-200, SUBSECTION B, WHICH STATES THAT:

"MEMBERS OF THE BAR SHALL NOT SEEK TO MISLEAD THE JUDGE OR THE TRIER OF FACT." WHAT HAS HAPPENED HERE OVER THESE PAST MONTHS HAS BEEN MISLEADING. WE'VE BEEN MISLED. I BELIEVE THE COURT HAS BEEN MISLED. THERE'S CLEAR INDICATION, A CLEAR INDICATION THAT THEY HAVE SUPPRESSED EVIDENCE, INFORMATION THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE TURNED OVER TO THE PROSECUTION. AND I'M NOT SAYING, HEY, YOU SHOULD CALL THE STATE BAR OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I'M NOT SAYING THAT. THESE ARE MY FRIENDS. BUT I DO THINK THAT THEY HAVE COMMITTED A FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF THE DISCOVERY RULES AND THEY HAVE CAUSED THE PEOPLE TO SUFFER EXTREME PREJUDICE. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO UNRING THE BELL? HOW ARE YOU GOING TO GET BACK THE BULLET ONCE IT'S ALREADY FIRED? THEY BROUGHT THIS ON THEMSELVES. WE DIDN'T DO IT TO THEM. WE WOULD LIKE A FAIR TRIAL, A FAIR SHOT AT PRESENTING TO THIS JURY THE TRUTH. WE'RE NOT GETTING THAT AND WE WON'T GET IT AS LONG AS THEY ARE ALLOWED TO PLAY FAST AND LOOSE WITH THE RULES. MAY I HAVE ONE MOMENT?

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN, MAYBE THIS WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE TIME TO TAKE A COURT REPORTER RECESS.

MR. DARDEN: FINE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE'LL TAKE 15.

(RECESS.)

THE COURT: BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. ALL PARTIES ARE AGAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT. MR. DARDEN, DO YOU WISH TO CONCLUDE YOUR COMMENTS?

MR. DARDEN: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: YOU HAD GONE THROUGH A NUMBER OF ITEMS.

MR. DARDEN: YES.

THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER SPECIFIC ITEMS? AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THE SPECIFICITY OF YOUR COMMENTS TO THE COURT.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. I JUST HAVE A FEW BRIEF COMMENTS, IF I MAY. WE WOULD JUST LIKE THE COURT TO KNOW THAT WE FEEL THAT WE HAVE A RIGHT AND WE FEEL OUR POSITION IS SUPPORTED BY THE LAW, BUT WE FEEL THAT YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO PRECLUDE THE TESTIMONY OF SOME OF THE WITNESSES WHOSE STATEMENTS WERE GIVEN TO US JUST RECENTLY OR WHOSE STATEMENTS HAVEN'T BEEN GIVEN TO US BUT WHOSE TESTIMONY WAS MENTIONED IN FRONT OF THIS JURY. AND WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR PRECLUSION AND WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR PRECLUSION BECAUSE WE WANT TO SEE THE TRUTH. WE WANT THE TRUTH TO COME OUT IN THIS TRIAL. WE COULD ASK FOR CONTEMPT, WE COULD ASK THE COURT TO HOLD THE DEFENSE IN CONTEMPT, BUT WE ARE NOT ASKING THAT. WE ARE NOT ASKING THAT AT ALL. WE ARE NOT ASKING TO REPORT ANYBODY TO THE BAR. WE ARE NOT DOING ANY OF THAT. ALL WE ARE DOING HERE TODAY IS ASKING THE COURT TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD. NOW, JUST BEFORE I LEFT OUT OF HERE FOR THE BREAK MR. BAILEY MENTIONED TO ME THAT PERHAPS WHAT I REALLY WANT IS A MISTRIAL. I DON'T WANT A MISTRIAL. I LIKE THE TWELVE JURORS WE HAVE. I LIKE OUR CASE. I LIKE OUR CHANCES. WE DON'T WANT A MISTRIAL, YOUR HONOR. WE WANT TO SEE THE TRUTH. WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THESE PROCEEDINGS CONTINUE. AND MY DISTINGUISHED COLLEAGUE, MR. BAILEY, ALSO ASKED ME BEFORE WE BROKE IF I FELT A NEED TO RUN AWAY, AND I WANT MR. BAILEY TO UNDERSTAND THAT I'M NOT GOING ANYWHERE, WE ARE NOT GOING ANYWHERE. WE ARE IN SEARCH OF THE TRUTH AND WE ARE GOING TO FIND IT. WE HAVE FOUND IT. WE WANT THE JURY TO FIND IT. WE ARE GOING TO STAY RIGHT HERE, MR. BAILEY. WE ARE GOING TO FINISH THIS TRIAL. WE JUST NEED A LITTLE TIME TO REPAIR SOME OF THE HARM CAUSED BY THE MISCONDUCT OF YOUR COLLEAGUES AND YOURSELF. WE JUST WANT A FAIR SHOT AT IT, YOUR HONOR; NOTHING MORE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. DARDEN, LET ME ASK YOU THIS: ONE OF THE REMEDIES THAT YOU ARE ASKING FOR IS FOR THE COURT TO ADVISE THE JURY THAT I AM STRIKING FROM THE RECORD MR. COCHRAN'S COMMENTS CONCERNING CERTAIN WITNESSES WITH REGARD TO CERTAIN ISSUES, THEN YOU WERE ALSO ASKING FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO REOPEN. ARE THOSE IN THE ALTERNATIVE OR IN THE CONJUNCTIVE?

MR. DARDEN: IN THE CONJUNCTIVE.

THE COURT: BECAUSE IT DOESN'T SEEM TO MAKE SENSE IF I'M GOING TO STRIKE IT AND THEN YOU COME BACK AND TALK ABOUT IT. SORT OF DEFEATING THE PURPOSE. SEEMS TO ME TO BE MILDLY ILLOGICAL. THEY SEEM TO BE IN CONFLICT.

MS. CLARK: UH-HUH. IF THE COURT -- I'M SORRY.

THE COURT: JUST AN OBSERVATION.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, THAT IS WHY I HAD --

THE COURT: EXCUSE ME, COUNSEL, ONE --

MS. CLARK: WE INDICATED TO THE COURT WE WERE GOING TO PRESENT ON THIS BECAUSE WE JUST DIDN'T HAVE THE TIME TO FUNNEL IT TO ONE.

THE COURT: THANK YOU, MISS CLARK. JUST AN OBSERVATION. ALL RIGHT. MR. DARDEN, HAVE YOU CONCLUDED YOUR COMMENTS?

MR. DARDEN: YES, I HAVE, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU.

THE COURT: THEN I HAVE BEFORE ME 27 SPECIFIC ITEMS.

MR. DARDEN: IF I COULD INDICATE, BECAUSE THE COURT MAY HAVE MORE, I DON'T KNOW IF THE COURT DID A SEARCH OF THE TRANSCRIPT ON ITS OWN, BUT THAT IS ALL THAT WE COULD PULL OUT IN THE SHORT TIME THAT WE HAD.

THE COURT: I THINK 27 IS PLENTY FOR TODAY.

MR. DARDEN: OKAY. WE WILL GET ANOTHER 27 FOR TOMORROW, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. MR. DOUGLAS, GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR.

MR. DOUGLAS: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR. YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO BEGIN DEALING WITH SOME OF THE DISCOVERY CONCERNS RAISED AND MR. COCHRAN WOULD LIKE TO DEAL WITH SOME OF THE SANCTIONING ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED. YOUR HONOR, AT THE OUTSET OF THIS TRIAL THE COURT REMINDED ALL COUNSEL THAT THE EYES AND THE EARS OF THE WORLD WOULD BE WATCHING US TODAY. IT IS MY SINCERE HOPE, YOUR HONOR, TO BRING DIGNITY TO THE PROFESSION THAT I LOVE, SO I WILL NOT DIGNIFY THE OFTEN VILE, INSIDIOUS AND LONG-WINDED COMMENTS BY MY COLLEAGUE BY RESPONDING IN KIND. YOUR HONOR, I HAVE KNOWN CHRISTOPHER DARDEN FOR WELL OVER TEN YEARS AND HE HAS REFERRED IN FACT TO ME AND TO MY OFFICE THE PARENTS OF A YOUNG MAN WHO WAS ONCE SHOT AND KILLED WHILE GOING HOME FROM SCHOOL, SO I CANNOT FATHOM THAT HE WOULD HAVE ENTRUSTED THAT FAMILY IN MY CARE IF HE BELIEVED THAT I OR MY COLLEAGUES WERE AS DISHONEST AND AS UNETHICAL AS HE HAS INFERRED. YOUR HONOR, HE COMES TO YOU SEEKING EQUITY. HE COMES TO YOU ASKING ABOUT BASIC FAIRNESS. AS THE COURT IS AWARE, THERE IS A CONCEPT IN EQUITY CALLED CLEAN HANDS AND THAT CONCEPT SAYS THAT ONE CANNOT SEEK EQUITY WITHOUT DOING EQUITY IN KIND. AND I SUBMIT TO THE COURT THAT BEFORE MR. DARDEN COMES AND SEEKS EQUITY THE TRUE RECORD SHOULD BE CONSIDERED SO THAT THE COURT CAN WEIGH AND PROPERLY BALANCE A RESPONSE, GIVEN THE CURRENT STATE OF THE FULL RECORD. YOUR HONOR, IN SEPTEMBER OF 1994 THE PROSECUTORS GAVE THE DEFENDANTS A LIST OF 214 NAMES. ON JANUARY THE 6TH OF 1995 THE PROSECUTORS GAVE THE DEFENDANTS 207 ADDITIONAL NAMES. FIVE MORE WERE ADDED THE FOLLOWING WEEK; THREE MORE WERE ADDED AFTER THAT; TWO MORE WERE ADDED SINCE THEN. THE FIRST OF HIS COMPLAINTS WERE BASED ON THE THOUGHT THAT THE DEFENSE HAD SOMEHOW DUMPED NAMES WITHOUT ADDRESSES OR PHONE NUMBERS ON THE PROSECUTION AND HOW UNFAIR THAT WAS TO THE PROSECUTION. I GIVE THIS COURT AT THIS TIME THE NAMES OF ART SHAFFMAN, BHARAT SHAW, JOSEPH PERULLI, ELISA PEREZ, CINDY PATTERSON, BRET LOBNER, MARK LEON, RAY KILDUFF, BO JACKSON, CARLOS HERNANDEZ, RICHARD GONZALEZ, DON DETZLER, CAROL DIPRIMA, JAY SWELL, VITO BOFFA, NICOLAS BOLLAS, DONNA ESTES, GARY KAWAKAWI, AMANDA DARLING, PATRICK -- PATRICIA FOY, DAVID PRESTHOLT, CRUZ PRIEGO, R. RINCH, RODNEY SHELTON, NORMAN SMITH, JOHN STEWART, MARK STORFER, JAN VAN POBEL, PHILLIP VAN SAUN, TONY WAYBRIGHT, CHRISTINE WOLFORD AND CHARLOTTE WORD AS JUST SOME EXAMPLES OF NAMES GIVEN TO THE DEFENSE WITHOUT ADDRESSES OR PHONE NUMBERS. THAT COMMENT, YOUR HONOR, THAT THE DEFENSE HAD TO TRY TO FIND OUT WHO THESE PEOPLE WERE, TRY TO LOCATE THEM AND TRY TO IDENTIFY THEM. THEY WERE NAMES THAT WERE ON THE PEOPLE'S PROSECUTION LIST.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. DOUGLAS, IF YOU WILL AT THE CONCLUSION OF TODAY'S PROCEEDINGS GIVE A COPY OF THE LIST THAT YOU JUST READ TO THE COURT REPORTER.

MR. DOUGLAS: IT HAS BEEN DONE, YOUR HONOR, ALREADY, THANK YOU.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, WOULD THE COURT DO THIS AS WELL, ASK MR. --

THE COURT: NO, THANK YOU, MR. DARDEN. I WILL HEAR COUNSEL'S ARGUMENT.

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, THE FACT THAT THEY DON'T KNOW WHO WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WHEN WE MAY OBLIQUELY INFER THAT THERE IS A CERTAIN WITNESS THAT MIGHT SAY CERTAIN THINGS DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE HAVE COMMITTED MISCONDUCT. THERE IS NO CASE AUTHORITY THAT THEY CAN CITE, BECAUSE THERE IS NO CASE TO SUGGEST THAT ATTORNEYS HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO CREATE DISCOVERABLE NOTES OR MEMOS BASED ON CONVERSATIONS WITH THEIR CLIENT OR BASED ON CONVERSATIONS WITH RETAINED EXPERTS. YOUR HONOR, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS RETAINED MANY EXPERTS TO TALK ABOUT DNA ISSUES, TO TALK ABOUT BLOOD ISSUES, TO TALK ABOUT OTHER ISSUES, BUT AMONG THE 22,000 PAGES OF DOCUMENTS THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED IN THIS CASE THERE IS NOT ONE HANDWRITTEN NOTE FROM MARCIA CLARK, FROM CHRISTOPHER DARDEN, FROM WILLIAM HODGMAN.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. COUNSEL SPECIFICALLY TOLD US THAT HE WAS NOT INTERESTED IN OUR HANDWRITTEN NOTES. SPECIFICALLY THAT WAS AN AGREEMENT HE HAD WITH MR. HODGMAN. HE IS NOW MISREPRESENTING TO THE COURT THE AGREEMENT.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, I WILL HEAR YOUR COMMENTS IN REBUTTAL. THANK YOU, MR. DOUGLAS.

MR. DOUGLAS: FROM JONATHAN FAIRTLOUGH, FROM SCOTT GORDON, FROM LYDIA BODIN OR FROM ANY OTHER ATTORNEY, CHERI LEWIS, MISS KAHN OR ANYONE ELSE WHO HAS OBVIOUSLY HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH OTHER WITNESSES. AS WELL, YOUR HONOR, THERE HAVE BEEN AT LEAST TWELVE DNA EXPERTS THAT HAVE BEEN NOTICED BY BOTH SIDES, KARY MULLIS, I STRONGLY BELIEVE WAS ONE OF THE NAMES THAT WERE INCLUDED IN OUR LIST OF EXPERTS THAT THEY ARE AWARE OF, AND I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ONE DNA REPORT FROM ANY OF THESE EXPERTS BASED ON TESTIMONY THAT THEY INTEND TO OFFER IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. SO WE ARE TALKING ABOUT FAIRNESS, BUT WE MUST ALSO REMEMBER THAT BOTH SIDES MUST HAVE CLEAN HANDS. THE CASE, YOUR HONOR, BEGAN BACK IN JUNE OF THIS YEAR. WE HAVE ENLISTED SEVERAL ATTORNEYS WHO WORK OUT OF DIFFERENT OFFICES. AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER WE HAVE USED SEVEN DIFFERENT -- SIX DIFFERENT INVESTIGATORS THAT WERE INVOLVED IN DIFFERENT PIECES OF INVESTIGATION. THEY DID NOT ALWAYS WORK IN CONCERT, THEY DID NOT ALWAYS SHARE THEIR WORK PRODUCT WITH EACH OF THE OTHER INVESTIGATORS OR WITH EACH OF THE OTHER ATTORNEYS. ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT WERE TURNED OVER YESTERDAY WAS A WITNESS STATEMENT OF MARY ANNE GERCHAS. THAT WITNESS STATEMENT WAS OBTAINED BY AN INVESTIGATOR WITH WHOM I PERSONALLY HAVE NEVER SPOKE. THAT IS AN INVESTIGATOR WHO BASICALLY HAS DONE LIMITED WORK ON THIS CASE, AND UNBEKNOWNST TO ME, ONE OF THE JOBS THAT HE PERFORMED WAS TO INTERVIEW AND TO OBTAIN A STATEMENT OF MARY ANNE GERCHAS. I REPRESENT AS AN OFFICER OF THIS COURT THAT THE FIRST DAY THAT I PERSONALLY BECAME AWARE OF THE EXISTENCE OF HIS STATEMENT BETWEEN OF MISS GERCHAS WAS MOMENTS BEFORE I TOOK THE PODIUM YESTERDAY WHEN MR. COCHRAN GAVE ME A COPY AND I ASKED YOUR CLERK TO MAKE COPIES SO THAT I CAN READ MYSELF. CERTAINLY, YOUR HONOR, I RECOGNIZED, IF YOU WILL, YESTERDAY THAT THAT WAS A VIOLATION TO HAVE NOT TURNED THAT STATEMENT OVER, BUT IF THE COURT WERE TO READ THAT STATEMENT, THE COURT WOULD SEE THAT MISS GERCHAS HAD CONTACTED THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND SPOKE TO PATTY FAIRBANKS IN THAT OFFICE, THAT MISS FAIRBANKS TOLD MISS GERCHAS THAT I'M TALKING LONG DISTANCE TO A PSYCHIC SO THAT I WILL HAVE TO CALL YOU BACK, THAT IN HER DESPAIR MISS GERCHAS CONTACTED THE POLICE DEPARTMENT GIVING THEM INFORMATION THAT WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THE JURY YESTERDAY, THAT MISS GERCHAS' NAME, ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER WERE INCLUDED ON THE WITNESS LIST THAT WE PROVIDED IN AUGUST OF 1994. SO CERTAINLY, YOUR HONOR, WHILE THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A PROBLEM WITH OUR PHYSICALLY TURNING OVER HER STATEMENT, THE SURPRISE, THE ABSOLUTE SHOCK AND AMAZEMENT THAT HAS BEEN OFFERED HERE IS SOMEWHAT OVERBLOWN. FOR EXAMPLE, YOUR HONOR, NOT ONLY DID WE GIVE THE NAME OF ROSA LOPEZ, WE GAVE HER ADDRESS AS BEING A LOCATION DIRECTLY NEXT DOOR TO WHERE MR. SIMPSON LIVED. NOT ONLY DID WE GIVE HER NAME AND HER ADDRESS, BUT WE GAVE HER STATEMENT AS WELL. DESPITE HAVING HER NAME, HER ADDRESS, HER TELEPHONE NUMBER AND A STATEMENT, THERE WAS NO REPRESENTATIVE FROM EITHER THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE OR THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT TO INTERVIEW ROSA LOPEZ --

THE COURT: SHE IS NOT ONE OF THE INDIVIDUALS UNDER DISPUTE HERE.

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, I AM SIMPLY, BY ANALOGY, HOPING TO OFFER TO THE COURT THAT THE PROTESTATIONS OF PREJUDICE ARE PERHAPS NOT IN GOOD FAITH, BECAUSE THOUGH THEY HAD THE VERY IMPORTANT INFORMATION, ROSA LOPEZ, THEY NEVER SAW FIT TO GO AND INTERVIEW HER UNTIL MONDAY EVENING WHEN MR. BAILEY STOOD UP AND EXPLAINED TO THIS COURT THE SIGNIFICANCE OF HER TESTIMONY. I OFFER THAT TO SAY, YOUR HONOR, THAT YES, THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME FACIAL VIOLATIONS OF THE CODE; HOWEVER, BEFORE THE COURT BELIEVES THAT THERE HAS BEEN DIRE PREJUDICE YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE EQUITY, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE CLEAN HANDS AND THAT IS WHAT I SEEK TO OFFER TO THE COURT. NOW, YOUR HONOR, THERE HAS IN FACT BEEN A LIST GIVEN YESTERDAY BECAUSE THE COURT MADE IT VERY CLEAR ON MONDAY THAT I WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH -- I'M SORRY, ON TUESDAY -- MONDAY WHEN I GAVE THE NAMES OF SUPPLEMENTAL WITNESSES I TOLD THE COURT THAT THESE WERE THE STATEMENTS THAT WERE ATTACHED AND THERE WERE, I BELIEVE, SEVERAL NAMES AND SIX STATEMENTS THAT WERE ATTACHED. THERE WAS ONE NAME IN PARTICULAR, SCOTT MATSUDA THAT THE PEOPLE KNEW ABOUT AND THAT THEY KNEW THAT THERE HAD BEEN A STATEMENT OF AND THAT STATEMENT WAS NOT IMMEDIATELY FORTHCOMING BECAUSE IT WAS NOT ATTACHED IN THAT PACKET. I THEN MADE A CALL AND THE NEXT DAY THAT NAME AND THAT STATEMENT WAS GIVEN TO THE PEOPLE. IT WAS ON TUESDAY THAT THE COURT DIRECTED ME SPECIFICALLY TO GO THROUGH MY ENTIRE RECORDS AND TO MAKE SURE THAT I HAVE COMPLETELY SATISFIED MYSELF, THAT I HAVE GONE THROUGH AND FOUND OUT EVERYTHING THAT HAS NOT BEEN TURNED OVER AND WE DID AN EXHAUSTIVE PROCESS, YOUR HONOR, AND WE FOLLOWED THROUGH WITH THE COURT'S WARNINGS AND THE COURT'S DIRECTIONS AND THAT WAS HOW WE WERE ABLE TO FIND OUT THAT THERE WERE TWELVE STATEMENTS THAT HAD FALLEN THROUGH THE CRACK. TWELVE STATEMENTS OUT OF HUNDREDS OF NAMES THAT WERE GIVEN BY THE PROSECUTION AND HUNDREDS OF NAMES THAT WERE PROVIDED BY THE DEFENSE. NOW, YOUR HONOR, OF THESE TWELVE INDIVIDUALS, WHOM STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN PREPARED, THERE ARE FIVE WHOM I REASONABLY EXPECT THAT I WILL BE OFFERING TESTIMONY AT TRIAL. THEREFORE, YOUR HONOR, WHEN THE COURT CONSIDERS THE PROPRIETY OF A SANCTION, THE COURT SHOULD DO SO WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF REALITY. IT DOESN'T MAKE MUCH JUSTICE OR FAIRNESS TO CRY OUT NUMBERS OR TO CALL OUT NAMES WITHOUT KNOWING IN ACTUALITY THE IMPACT THAT IS GOING TO HAVE ON THIS TRIAL. AND YOUR HONOR, IT CANNOT BE IGNORED THAT THIS IS JANUARY 26, THE START OF THE BEGINNING OF THE CASE. IT IS A DAY WHEN TYPICALLY IN PREPARATION FOR THE TRIAL THE LAWYERS HUDDLE TOGETHER, THE LAWYERS REVIEW THE STATE OF THE RECORD, THE LAWYERS REVIEW THE STATE OF ALL OF THE PRETRIAL ARGUMENTS AND RULINGS AND GET TOGETHER AND DECIDE WHOM WE NOW REASONABLY EXPECT TO CALL, AND WE DID THAT. AND EVEN ON DOING THAT, YOUR HONOR, WE OMITTED THE NAME OF RON FISCHMAN, WE OMIT THE NAMES OF CHRISTIAN RIECHARDT, AND THOSE NAMES WILL BE SOON ADDED, BUT THE PEOPLE HAVE ADDED NAMES THIS VERY WEEK AND WE ARE ALREADY BEGINNING. THEIR CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN TODAY, PERHAPS WILL BE TOMORROW, BUT THEY, TOO, HAVE STILL ADDED NAMES. YOUR HONOR, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE FIVE INDIVIDUALS WHOM WE REASONABLY BELIEVE THAT WE ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO CALL, IT IS MY OPINION THAT ONLY TWO OF THOSE NAMES ARE NAMES THAT ARE UNKNOWN TO THE PROSECUTION. AND YOUR HONOR, THEY TALK ABOUT HOW THEY HAVE BEEN SANDBAGGED, YET IN 24 HOURS THEY HAVE ATTEMPTED TO ASSASSINATE THE CHARACTER OF MARY ANNE GERCHAS, ONE OF OUR WITNESSES, BY SUGGESTING ALLEGATIONS THAT ARE TOTALLY UNTRUE. AND YOUR HONOR, MR. COCHRAN WILL DEAL WITH THAT MORE WHEN HE COMES UP, BUT YOUR HONOR, THERE IS A TREMENDOUSLY AFFECTIVE WHEEL THAT IS ALREADY IN PLACE CALLED THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THERE IS ANOTHER COG IN THAT WHEEL CALLED THE LOS ANGELES DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AND ALTHOUGH THEY MAY HAVE BEEN GIVEN SHORT TIME TO ADEQUATELY INVESTIGATE SOME OF THE NAMES, THEY HAVE DONE A PRETTY GOOD JOB IN 24 HOURS, AND I DARE SAY THEY WILL BE ABLE TO DO A MUCH BETTER JOB IN THE TWO MONTHS' TIME IT IS GOING TO TAKE AT A MINIMUM BEFORE WE BEGIN CALLING ANY WITNESSES ON THE DEFENSE. YOUR HONOR, IF THIS WERE THE FIRST DAY OF THE DEFENDANT'S CASE AND WE WERE THEN INTENDING TO CALL MARY ANNE GERCHAS OR RON FISCHMAN OR CHRISTIAN RIECHARDT I WOULD NOT BE MAKING THE SAME ARGUMENTS TO THIS COURT BECAUSE I WOULD RECOGNIZE THAT THERE WOULD REALLY BE A CLEAR PREJUDICE. BUT WHEN WE HAVE 400 NAMES ON A WITNESS LIST AND WHEN WE HAVE A SIX-MONTH TRIAL ESTIMATE AND WHEN WE HAVE THE EXPECTATION THAT THERE WILL BE DOZENS AND SCORES OF WITNESSES CALLED, I ALSO BELIEVE THIS COURT MAY FASHION A MORE EQUITABLE SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM, A MORE EQUITABLE RESPONSE TO OUR MISTAKES, RECOGNIZING THAT THESE LAWYERS WHOM YOU ALSO KNOW, WHOM YOU ALSO HAVE SOME ADMIRATION FOR AND RESPECT FOR, WHOM YOU ALSO BELIEVE, WOULD NOT MALICIOUSLY OR IN BAD FAITH ATTEMPT TO SANDBAG OR DO ALL OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN ALLEGED. I THINK CERTAINLY, YOUR HONOR, YOU DON'T COME INTO THIS POSITION IN A VACUUM AND CERTAINLY I THINK YOU CAN UNDERSTAND, GIVEN THE MASSIVE SIZE OF THIS CASE, GIVEN THE COMPLEXITY OF ISSUES, GIVEN ALL OF THE WITNESSES WHO WILL BE CALLED, THAT IT IS LIKELY THAT THINGS FALL THROUGH THE CRACKS. NOW, YOUR HONOR, THE PEOPLE STOOD UP HERE IN DECEMBER AND TRIED TO TELL YOU ALL OF THE REASONS WHY THEY MADE CERTAIN MISTAKES AND THE COURT SAID THAT THE CODE REQUIRED THAT THEY IMMEDIATELY DISCLOSE AND THAT THEY HADN'T DONE SO IMMEDIATELY AND THAT THE COURT THEN ISSUED A SANCTION WHICH THE COURT FELT WAS APPROPRIATE. I THINK THE COURT SHOULD DO THE SAME SORT OF BALANCING TODAY, BECAUSE ON DECEMBER THE 14TH, OR WHENEVER THAT HEARING WAS, OPENING STATEMENTS WERE DUE TO BEGIN THE FOLLOWING MONTH. WE HAVE AT LEAST TWO MONTHS NOW BEFORE WE ARE EVEN GOING TO CALL ANY OF THE DEFENDANT'S WITNESSES. YOUR HONOR, MARY ANNE GERCHAS IS A NAME, AS I SUGGEST, THAT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY KNEW OF. HER STATEMENT TAKEN IN JULY GIVES THE NAME OF PATTY FAIRBANKS OR PATTY FAIR SOMETHING, CLEARLY SUGGESTING THAT SHE HAD HAD CONTACT WITH SOMEONE IN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. MICHELLE ABUDRAHM, WHO IS ANOTHER NAME ON OUR LIST WITH A STATEMENT TURNED OVER YESTERDAY, IS ALSO A PERSON WITH WHOM THEY ARE AWARE. THEY HAVE INTERVIEWED OTHER WITNESSES ABOUT THE FAIR -- ABOUT MISS ABUDRAHM AND ABOUT THE ALLEGATIONS THAT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON STRUCK HER PRIOR TO HER LEAVING THE SIMPSON HOME. JOEL PITCOFF, WHO WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF FORD, IS A WITNESS WHO WE INTEND TO CALL WHO IS PROBABLY UNKNOWN TO THE PROSECUTION, AND ON THAT ONE I WOULD ACCEPT THE SANCTION OF ALLOWING THEM TO ADEQUATELY PROVIDE OR PERFORM BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION AND BACKGROUND RESEARCH AND TRY TO CHALLENGE THE STRENGTH OF THE NUMBERS THAT HE IS GOING TO OFFER AND REQUIRE US TO WAIT AND RECEIVE PERMISSION FROM THIS COURT BEFORE WE MENTION HIS NAME OR BEFORE WE CALL MR. PITCOFF AS A WITNESS IN THIS CASE. KEVIN WHELAN, THE COURIER, IS ANOTHER PERSON WHO WE RESPECTFULLY BELIEVE WAS IN FACT UNKNOWN TO THE PEOPLE AND SIMILARLY IT WOULD BE MEASURED AND PROPER FOR THE COURT TO IMPOSE THAT SORT OF A SANCTION.

MARK PARTRIDGE IS THE FIFTH OF THE NAMES THAT I GAVE WITNESS STATEMENTS FOR YESTERDAY WHOM WE DO INTEND TO CALL, BUT YOUR HONOR, WHEN I REVIEWED MY LIST THIS MORNING, I SAW THAT THERE WAS A ONE-PAGE STATEMENT OF MR. PARTRIDGE THAT WAS TURNED OVER IN AUGUST. WHAT I TURNED OVER YESTERDAY WAS TWO ADDITIONAL PAGES, SO THEREFORE THEY CANNOT COMPLAIN TO THIS COURT THAT THEY DID NOT KNOW MR. PARTRIDGE AND THAT THEY WERE NOT AWARE OF WHAT EVIDENCE HE WOULD OFFER IN THIS CASE. SO IT WOULD NOT BE PROPER OR FAIR TO INCLUDE HIM WITH THE OTHER FOUR NAMES. RON FISCHMAN, YOUR HONOR, IS A FRIEND OF MR. SIMPSON. WHEN WE GO DOWN TO LOOK UP OR GO DOWN TO COUNTY JAIL AND HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. SIMPSON AND WE TAKE NOTES DURING THOSE CONVERSATIONS AND WE WILL ASK HIM ABOUT WHAT WOULD RON FISCHMAN SAY AND RON FISCHMAN MAY MAKE CERTAIN COMMENTS OR MR. SIMPSON MAY MAKE CERTAIN COMMENTS ABOUT WHAT HE BELIEVES RON FISCHMAN WILL SAY OR JOE STELLINI WILL SAY OR LOUIS MARKS WILL SAY, YOUR HONOR, WHEN WE ARE THINKING ABOUT CALLING WITNESSES WEEKS OR MONTHS IN ADVANCE, WE DO NOT HAVE TIME TO SPEND ON LIMITED RESOURCES, AND THEY ARE IN FACT LIMITED, FOR INVESTIGATOR TIME. AND THERE ARE TWO INVESTIGATORS NOW ONLY WORKING ON MR. SIMPSON'S BEHALF ON A FULL-TIME BASIS TO TRY TO TRACK DOWN FRIENDLY FAVORABLE WITNESSES WHOM WE WILL NOT CALL FOR AT LEAST THE NEXT TWO MONTHS OR SO. AND THEREFORE, BECAUSE WE DO NOT WANT TO BE SANCTIONED BY PRECLUSION, WE THEN PUT THEIR NAMES ON THE WITNESS LIST, AND SOMETIMES, YOUR HONOR, WE PUT THE NAMES ON THE WITNESS LIST BEFORE WE EVEN HAVE A COPY OF THE ADDRESS OR THE TELEPHONE NUMBER BECAUSE WE EXPECT REASONABLY AND FAIRLY THAT THEY WILL BE CALLED AS WITNESSES AND THAT BY THE TIME IT IS RELEVANT AND NECESSARY WE WILL BE ABLE TO PROVIDE CONTINUING DISCOVERY, BECAUSE IT IS IN FACT A CONTINUING PROCESS. YOUR HONOR, THERE ARE OCCASIONS WHEN WE HAVE INTERVIEWED OR SPOKEN WITH -- MR. COCHRAN WOULD SPEAK TO, FOR EXAMPLE, HENRY LEE, BARBARA WOLF, MICHAEL BADEN. THESE ARE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE ON THEIR WITNESS LIST, THEY ARE AWARE OF THE NAMES, AND I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE CITED A CASE THAT ARGUES THAT WHEN A LAWYER SPEAKS TO AN EXPERT ABOUT SOMETHING THAT THE LAWYER MAY SAY IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT OR ABOUT A PROPER RESPONSE TO THE SUGGESTIONS IN THE PEOPLE'S OPENING THAT BY THAT CONVERSATION ALONE HE IS REQUIRED TO REDUCE THAT CONVERSATION TO A DISCOVERABLE DOCUMENT AND THEN IMMEDIATELY TURN IT OVER TO THE OTHER SIDE. THAT IS NOT THE OBLIGATIONS EVEN UNDER PROP 115 OR THE U.S. CONSTITUTION OR THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION, YOUR HONOR, BECAUSE THIS MAN STILL HAS FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS THAT STILL SURVIVE EVEN PROP 115. YOUR HONOR, THEY TALK ABOUT NOT KNOWING ABOUT DR. KARY MULLIS, THE NOBEL PRIZE WINNER. I REPRESENT TO THE COURT THAT DR. MULLIS WAS A WITNESS IN THE WINN CASE, A CASE WHERE MR. ROBERT BLASIER WAS A DEFENSE ATTORNEY IN, A CASE WITH SOME OF THE SAME DNA ISSUES AND A CASE WHICH MR. BLASIER WON AND THE COURT DECIDED THAT DNA WAS NOT ADEQUATELY RELIABLE TO BE ADMITTED INTO A CRIMINAL CASE. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IS AWARE OF THAT, AND YOUR HONOR, I BELIEVE THAT IF MR. DARDEN WERE TO CHECK WITH MR. WOODY CLARK AND MR. ROCK HARMON, THAT HE WOULD LEARN THAT THEY HAVE ATTEMPTED TO OBTAIN MR. MULLIS' TESTIMONY IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE, THAT INDEED MR. HARMON SOUGHT TO BE INTRODUCED AS A SPECIAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY IN THAT CASE TO HELP CROSS-EXAMINE SOME OF THE DEFENDANT'S EXPERTS, SO FOR THEM TO SAY THAT LO AND BEHOLD THEY DIDN'T KNOW THAT, THEY ARE SURPRISED, I SUGGEST TO THE COURT IS NOT TOTALLY WITH GOOD FAITH.

THE COURT: MR. DOUGLAS, IS DR. MULLIS ON YOUR WITNESS LIST?

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE JUST LOOKED FOR TODAY AND HE WAS ON THE LIST THAT WE GAVE IN OCTOBER OF COMPLYING BACK AND FORTH WITH WHO OUR DNA EXPERTS OUR. HE WAS NOT PLACED ON OUR SUPPLEMENTAL LIST, BUT HE WILL, BUT THAT LIST, YOUR HONOR, OF DNA EXPERTS RESPONDED TO THEIR LIST OF DNA EXPERTS. IT WAS TURNED OVER TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY. MR. CLARK, MR. HARMON AND MISS KAHN ARE AWARE OF EACH OF THEM.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WAS HIS CV EXCHANGED IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR AGREEMENT?

MS. CLARK: NO.

MR. DOUGLAS: MY UNDERSTANDING IS, YOUR HONOR, AND MR. SCHECK IS NO LONGER HERE IN COURT, HOPEFULLY HE IS WATCHING ON A TELEVISION WITH HIS FAMILY IN NEW YORK CITY, BUT IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING, YOUR HONOR, THAT BOTH SIDES HAVE NOW MUTUALLY EXCHANGED RESUMES OF EACH OF THE DNA EXPERTS BUT THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING SECONDHAND FROM MR. SCHECK. THERE IS A SUGGESTION, YOUR HONOR, THAT BARBARA WOLF WAS A SURPRISE. MISS WOLF'S NAME, HER ADDRESS, HER TELEPHONE NUMBER, WERE PROVIDED IN AUGUST OF 1994. AGAIN WE HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH MISS WOLF. WE DO NOT REDUCE THOSE CONVERSATIONS DOWN IN WRITTEN FORM. THERE ARE NO REPORTS FROM BARBARA WOLF CONCERNING HER TESTIMONY OR HER CONCLUSIONS OR HER FINDINGS IN THIS CASE. THERE ARE NO REPORTS FROM DR. MICHAEL BADEN CONCERNING HIS TESTIMONY, HIS CONCLUSIONS OR FINDINGS IN THIS CASE. THERE ARE NO REPORTS FROM DR. HENRY LEE WHO IS IN FACT THE PREEMINENT BLOOD SPLATTER EXPERT IN AMERICA, CONCERNING HIS CONCLUSIONS, HIS FINDINGS OR HIS IMPRESSIONS IN THIS CASE.

WE ARE AWARE, IF ANY SUCH REPORT IS GENERATED, THAT IT IS DISCOVERABLE AND WE WILL DO SO. YOUR HONOR, MR. WEITZMAN IS AN ATTORNEY THAT MR. COCHRAN HAS KNOWN FOR THIRTY YEARS. I HAVE ENJOYED THE PLEASURE OF HIS COMPANY FOR TEN AND I CALL HIM ON THE PHONE AT HOME IF I NEED TO. WHEN I SAY, "HOWIE, TELL ME ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED AT THE JAIL" AND HE SAYS, "THEY TOLD ME I HAD TO LEAVE," I DO NOT THINK LAW OR THE CODE REQUIRES THAT I PUT THAT IN A WRITING AND TURN IT OVER TO THE OTHER SIDE. SKIP TAFT HAS BEEN MR. SIMPSON'S PERSONAL BUSINESS ATTORNEY FOR OVER TWENTY YEARS. WHEN HE TELLS ME THAT THE POLICE OFFICERS TOLD HIM THAT THEY HAD TO LEAVE WHEN MR. SIMPSON WAS BEING INTERVIEWED, THAT IS NOT A CONVERSATION THAT I WOULD PUT DOWN IN WRITING. WHETHER OR NOT THE DISCLOSURE OF THE ENVELOPE WAS A PROPER FUNCTION TO PRESENT TO THE JURY IS NOT REALLY A DISCOVERY ISSUE, YOUR HONOR, IS NOT REALLY A DISCOVERY ISSUE THAT IS PROPERLY A 402 ISSUE, BUT REMEMBER, WHAT HAPPENED WAS MR. HODGMAN STOOD UP, MR. COCHRAN WALKED OVER, TOLD HIM WHAT HE WAS GOING TO DO, GIVING HIM THE BENEFIT OF HIS INFORMATION, ALLOWING HIM TO LODGE AN OBJECTION. IT WAS LODGED. SIDE BAR WAS APPROACHED. THE MATTER WAS RESOLVED AND HE MOVED ON.

THERE IS SOME QUESTION ABOUT THE STATEMENT OF DINO BUCCOLLA. YOUR HONOR, MR. BUCCOLLA'S NAME WAS GIVEN ON MONDAY AND THE COURT ASKED ME DO I -- DO YOU EXPECT ME TO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS NO REPORT? AND I SAID "YES" AND THERE WAS NO REPORT. BUT ON JANUARY 24, IN PART BECAUSE HIS HONOR GAVE THOSE WORDS TO ME, I HAD MY INVESTIGATOR INTERVIEW MR. BUCCOLLA. THAT INTERVIEW TOOK PLACE ON JANUARY 24TH AND THE DOCUMENT WAS FAXED TO OUR COURTROOM FAX AT 4:16 P.M. THAT DAY. WHEN I RECEIVED THAT DOCUMENT, YOUR HONOR, RATHER THAN LEAVING THE COURTROOM, I WENT UPSTAIRS MYSELF TO THE 18TH FLOOR AND HANDED THAT DOCUMENT TO CHERI LEWIS, MAKING SURE THAT I COULD DO EVERYTHING THAT I COULD, IN THE FACE OF THE SLINGS AND ARROWS THAT WERE SLUNG MY WAY, TO SHOW MY GOOD FAITH, TO SHOW THAT I'M TRYING TO PLAY FAIR, AND TO OBVIATE ANY ACCUSATIONS THAT I HEARD THIS AFTERNOON. THE PREJUDICE, YOUR HONOR, THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE SUGGESTED IS JUST NOT TRUE. BEFORE 1992, YOUR HONOR, THERE WAS NO RECIPROCAL DISCOVERY, YET THERE WERE MURDER CASES, THERE WERE ROBBERY CASES, THERE WERE SHOPLIFTING CASES, THERE WERE DRUNK DRIVING CASES WHERE THE PEOPLE WOULD OPEN UP THEIR ENTIRE FILE AND THE DEFENDANTS WOULD GIVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

SO FOR THESE HISTRIONICS TO GO ON AND FOR THERE TO BE THE SUGGESTION THAT THIS IS THE MOST EGREGIOUS WRONG IN THE HISTORY OF JURISPRUDENCE IS LAUGHABLE, CLEARLY LAUGHABLE. ONLY SINCE 1992 WHEN THE PEOPLE OF THIS STATE, NOT THE LEGISLATURE, THOUGHT IN THEIR WISDOM TO IMPOSE ON THE DEFENDANTS THE REQUIREMENTS OF PROP 51 (SIC) HAVE THOSE REQUIREMENTS BEEN IN PLACE. AND DEFENSE LAWYERS IN THIS STATE ARE CONTINUING TO WRESTLE WITH THE IMPLICATIONS OF THAT LAW. WE ARE CONTINUING TO WEIGH AND TO BALANCE OUR OBLIGATIONS TO A LAW THAT WE FEEL IS UNJUST AND OUR PRIMARILY OBLIGATIONS TO OUR CLIENT WHO HAS AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION, AND YOUR HONOR, IF IT MEANS THAT WE WEIGH IN FAVOR OF SELF-INCRIMINATION AND THAT THOSE INTERESTS ARE MORE PROFOUND AND THAT THOSE INTERESTS ARE THE STRONGEST AND AS A RESULT WE MUST BE PRECLUDED FROM OFFERING THE TESTIMONY OF THOSE WITNESSES UNTIL THE END OF THE DEFENSE CASE, SO BE IT.

THE COURT: MR. DOUGLAS, AS A FORMER LONG-TIME FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, THIS SCHEME OF RECIPROCAL DISCOVERY IS NOT UNKNOWN TO YOU AND IT IS WELL-SETTLED IN THE LAW GIVEN TO US BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, THAT THESE SCHEMES ARE NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, I'M NOT ARGUING THAT THE SCHEMES ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, BUT I ARGUE THAT AS A DEFENSE LAWYER I MUST CONSTANTLY DAILY WRESTLE WITH THE INTERNAL CONFLICT WITHIN ME OF RESOLVING A LAW THAT I FEEL IS UNFAIR, A LAW THAT I FEEL IS UNJUST, BUT A LAW THAT I AM COMPELLED TO FOLLOW. AND THERE ARE CONFLICTS, YOUR HONOR, THAT ARE OCCURRING ACROSS THE DEFENSE OFFICES IN THIS STATE, IN PUBLIC DEFENDER OFFICES EVERYWHERE. NO ONE WHO REPRESENTS A MAN ACCUSED OF A CRIME, PARTICULARLY A MURDER CASE, ENJOYS COMPLYING WITH THAT LAW, BUT WE MUST AND WE TRY TO. YOUR HONOR, I RECOGNIZE THAT IT IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE SOLELY. I RECOGNIZE THE WISDOM OF THE COURTS. I DO NOT ARGUE THAT I SHOULD NOT OR MUST NOT COMPLY WITH THE RULE, EVEN THOUGH I FEEL IT UNJUST, AND I DO COMPLY, YOUR HONOR, BUT I OFFER TO THE COURT THAT WHEN THE COURT MEASURES AND BALANCES AND WEIGHS EVERYTHING, WHEN THE COURT DOES EQUITY, WHICH IS INDEED ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT ROLES OF A JUDGE, THAT THE COURT BALANCE THE EQUITY OF THE PREJUDICE TO THE DEFENDANTS AND THE REAL PREJUDICE, NOT JUST THE PUFFED UP SOUFFLE OF PREJUDICE THAT WE HAVE HEARD THIS AFTERNOON, BUT THE REAL PREJUDICE AGAINST REASONABLE SOLUTIONS TO A CLEAR AND UNDERSTANDABLE MISTAKE.

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNSEL.

MR. COCHRAN: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR. OF ALL THE LAWYERS WHO HAVE ADDRESSED YOUR HONOR THIS AFTERNOON, I'M GOING TO TRY AND BE THE SHORTEST, IF I CAN. I'M SURE YOU WILL BE VERY PATIENT AND LISTEN TO US AS ALWAYS. I'M GOING TO TRY NOT TO RAISE MY VOICE, YOUR HONOR, BECAUSE I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE ALWAYS TRY TO CONDUCT OURSELVES AS PROFESSIONALS, EVEN IN THE FACE OF SOME RATHER UNTOWARD ATTACKS. BUT I ASK THE COURT TO REMEMBER THAT IN THE PROSECUTION'S PRESENTATION MR. DARDEN, MY GOOD FRIEND MR. DARDEN -- AND I AM REMINDED THAT MY WIFE IS PRESENT IN COURT HERE TODAY, AS THE COURT KNOWS, AND DURING THE BREAK -- I SAID -- INTRODUCED HER TO CHRIS DARDEN AND CHRIS SAYS, "I AM YOUR HUSBAND'S GOOD FRIEND." AND I TELL MY WIFE, "I CERTAINLY HOPE THAT YOU DON'T LOVE ME LIKE HE DOES, BECAUSE I THINK I MIGHT BE IN TROUBLE." BUT I WANT TO POINT OUT TO THE COURT THAT WITH REGARD TO MR. DARDEN AND SOME OF THIS HISTRIONICS WE HAVE HEARD OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS, MR. DARDEN IS THE SAME PERSON THAT STOOD BEFORE YOU AND TOLD YOU THAT IF WE INTERROGATED ANY POLICE OFFICER LIKE MARK FUHRMAN WITH ANY RACIAL SLURS IT WOULD SO POLLUTE -- WE COULD NOT PURSUE RACIAL ANIMUS. IT WOULD SO POLLUTE THIS JURY THAT THEY COULDN'T GET A FAIR TRIAL. THEIR WHOLE CASE WOULD FALL APART. REMEMBER THAT? THESE PEOPLE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND TO PUT IT IN PERSPECTIVE. THEY ARE THE SAME PEOPLE WHO BROUGHT YOU THAT WHICH -- WHICH IS NOT GOING TO BE TRUE AND I THINK EVERYBODY AGREES WITH THAT. COUNSEL MADE A NUMBER OF STATEMENTS IN THEIR OPENING STATEMENT AND I THINK WE SHOULD PUT THINGS IN PERSPECTIVE ABOUT OPENING STATEMENTS, YOUR HONOR. YOU HAVE SAID ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS AND I SAID -- WE ALL SAID WHEN WE GOT UP, OPENING STATEMENTS ARE NOT EVIDENCE, WHAT WE EXPECT TO PROVE, WHAT WE EXPECT TO PROVE IN GOOD FAITH. IF YOU DON'T PROVE THAT, THEN YOU SUFFER THE SLINGS AND ARROWS THAT OCCURS WITH THAT. FOR THEM TO STAND HERE AND TALK ABOUT THAT THEY HAVE SUFFERED, THERE IS AN UNEVEN PLAYING FIELD, YOUR HONOR, FOR THE FIRST TIME IN SEVEN MONTHS YESTERDAY SOMEBODY WAS ABLE TO GET UP AND SAY SOMETHING ON BEHALF OF MR. SIMPSON. AND THAT IS ALL THAT TOOK PLACE. ALL I DID WAS TRY TO ADDRESS WHAT THEY HAD SAID, YOUR HONOR AND--

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION. THIS IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE MATTER BEFORE THIS COURT AND MR. COCHRAN HAS ALREADY ADDRESSED THE COURT.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, MISS CLARK, PLEASE, I HAVE -- WHEN WE ARE HERE OUTSIDE OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY, I WILL HEAR THE COMPLETE COMMENT OF COUNSEL, PLEASE, WITHOUT OBJECTION. YOU WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR, AGAIN. WITH REGARD TO THIS -- I TRIED TO ADDRESS THE THINGS THEY SAID IN THEIR OPENING STATEMENT, AND I FELT THEY SAID A NUMBER OF OUTRAGEOUS THINGS THAT THEY COULDN'T PROVE BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION, BUT I DIDN'T STAND UP -- I DIDN'T COME CRYING TO YOU THAT NIGHT AND SAID, LOOK, JUDGE, HE KNOW, HE CAN'T PROVE THOSE THINGS, HE CAN'T PROVE THOSE THINGS OF DOMESTIC DISCORD HE TALKED ABOUT, THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE -- BECAUSE WE DON'T TRY CASES THAT WAY, JUDGE. I WILL JUST WAIT UNTIL I GET MY CHANCE TO TELL THE JURY WHAT I THINK AND THEN I WILL DEAL WITH THE EVIDENCE. IT IS THE EVIDENCE THAT WE WILL BE TALKING ABOUT IN THIS CASE. NOW, CERTAINLY FOR ANYONE TO STAND HERE AND SAY THAT AFTER 32 YEARS OF PRACTICE THAT I WOULD IN ANY WAY JEOPARDIZE MY REPUTATION OR DO SOMETHING UNTOWARD IN A CASE, I WOULD NEVER DO THAT. I WOULD NEVER EVER DO THAT. WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE -- AND I WOULDN'T STAND UP AS MISS CLARK DID AND TELL THE JURY THAT ALLAN PARK SAYS HE SAW A BRONCO PARKED THERE. I DIDN'T JUMP ON THAT. I JUST CAME BACK AND READ WHAT HE SAID. I DON'T HAVE TO CALL ANYBODY A LIAR. I THINK IN THIS CASE THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH THEM. THEY ALWAYS WANT TO LABEL EVERYBODY. I WOULD MUCH PREFER READING THE TESTIMONY AND THEN I THINK IT MAKES IT CLEAR. THAT IS WHAT I THINK WE WILL BE DOING OR TRYING TO DO. NOW, THEY MAKE A BIG THING ABOUT ALL THE THINGS THAT I SAID AND IT TURNS OUT, JUDGE, WITH REGARD TO THE THINGS I TALKED ABOUT YESTERDAY, THAT DAN MANDEL AND ELLEN ARRONSON, VERY WELL-KNOWN TO THEM, THEY HAVE ALL THE REPORTS. THEY TALKED TO THEM, WE HAD TALKED TO THEM. TOM LANG, THEY TALKED TO HIM, WE HAD TALKED TO HIM. MR. DOUGLAS POINTS OUT ROSA LOPEZ, THEY TALKED TO HIM, WE HAD TALKED TO HIM. MR. DOUGLAS HAS EXPLAINED THE SITUATION WITH MARY ANNE GERCHAS, AND I APOLOGIZE TO THE COURT FOR THAT. CERTAINLY I HAD THOUGHT THAT HAD BEEN TURNED OVER. THE LAST THING IN MY MIND TO TRY TO DO THAT. BUT I WANT TO TELL THE COURT SOMETHING ABOUT THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF COUNSEL AND WHY WE NEED TO BE PROFESSIONAL. DURING THE BREAK WE RECEIVED A CALL IN THIS COURTROOM FROM MARY ANNE GERCHAS' LAWYER. SHE WAS SO DISTRAUGHT, SHE IS TOTALLY DISTRAUGHT AT HAVING BEEN CALLED A THIEF ON TELEVISION BY MR. DARDEN -- HE SHOULD BE REAL HAPPY THAT HE MADE THESE STATEMENTS WITHIN THIS COURTROOM. HER LAWYERS ARE INCENSED. THIS WOMAN IS VERY, VERY, VERY UPSET. SHE SAYS IT'S ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE AND WHAT SHE SAID IS THE TRUTH. I MEAN, IT IS IRONIC AND OUTRAGEOUS THAT THEY WOULD DO THAT. IT SEEMS TO ME THEN THAT WHENEVER THEY STAND UP TO TALK, JUDGE, IT HAS TO BE CHARACTER ASSASSINATION, WHETHER IT IS O.J. SIMPSON, WHETHER IT IS MARY ANNE GERCHAS, WHETHER IT IS AT THE END OF THIS MORNING WHERE HE STANDS UP AND SAYS EVERYBODY ON OUR LIST IS A LIAR, A THIEF OR A FELON. ISN'T THAT INTERESTING, JUDGE, THAT ANYBODY THAT THEY DON'T CALL, YOU KNOW, BECOMES SOME VERY BAD PERSON. I DON'T THINK YOU CONDUCT YOURSELF THAT WAY AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT HOW WE APPEAR AND HOW THIS SYSTEM APPEARS AROUND THE COUNTRY. NOW, MORE SPECIFICALLY, I HAVE INDICATED TO THE COURT ABOUT MARY ANNE GERCHAS AND THE COURT -- MR. DOUGLAS HAS TALKED ABOUT KARY MULLIS. THERE IS NO CONFUSION THERE. THERE IS NO CONFUSION WITH THE PEOPLE REGARDING CORA AND RON FISCHMAN. THEY KNOW ALL THESE PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY ALL RAN AROUND TOGETHER, YOUR HONOR. AND IF WE INADVERTENTLY LEFT THEIR NAME OFF, WE APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. I ASSUMED THOSE NAMES HAD BEEN TAKEN CARE OF. MY JOB HAS NOT BEEN THAT ASPECT OF IT. I AM NOT TRYING TO SHY AWAY FROM IT, BUT EVERYBODY HAS RESPONSIBILITIES AND ROLES, AND SO CAN'T DO EVERYTHING, BUT WE WANT TO ADHERE TO THAT. CERTAINLY IT IS OUTRAGEOUS FOR ANYONE TO SAY THAT WE THINK WE ARE ABOVE ANYTHING. I PRACTICED LAW IN THE COURTS OF THIS COUNTY FOR 32 OR 33 YEARS. I AM THE BLUE COLLAR LAWYER THAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT, EXCEPT YOU SEE I WAS ON THAT SIDE FOR ALMOST HALF THE TIME AND I'VE BEEN OUT HERE EARNING A LIVING THE REST OF THE TIME. AND SO I UNDERSTAND BOTH SIDES. I UNDERSTAND. NOW, ONE OF THESE DAYS WHEN THEY GET UP ENOUGH NERVE AND COME ON THIS SIDE, THEY WILL UNDERSTAND, JUDGE, THAT IT IS TOUGH WHEN YOU HAVE TO RUN YOUR OWN PRACTICE.

MS. CLARK: I WAS THERE.

MR. COCHRAN: AND MARCIA WAS THERE FOR A SHORT TIME, YES, SHE WAS, TO HER CREDIT, BUT NOT AS LONG AS WE'VE BEEN HERE AND SHE'D UNDERSTAND WHAT MR. DOUGLAS WAS TRYING TO SAY -- AND I WANT TO CLARIFY THIS IS -- AS BEING A LITTLE OLDER AND LITTLE CALMER, THAT THERE IS THIS PHILOSOPHICAL THING, AND I WANT TO POINT IT OUT TO YOUR HONOR, AND YOU -- THE OTHER DAY WE HAD THIS CONVERSATION -- WE TALKED ABOUT DEFENSE LAWYERS AND THEIR ROLE AND YOU SAID YOU HAVE BEEN A DEFENSE LAWYER. WHEN I GO TO THE JAIL AND I TALK TO MY CLIENT, AND HE TELLS ME SOMETHING, I DON'T HAVE ANY OBLIGATION TO TELL THEM THAT, JUDGE. IF I KNOW THAT HE HAS RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS, IF I KNOW THAT HE HAD TROUBLE SHUFFLING CARDS ON JUNE 12, THERE IS NO REPORT ON THAT, JUDGE. AS MR. DOUGLAS SAYS, IF I TALKED TO HOWARD WEITZMAN, WHOM I HAVE KNOWN FOR THIRTY YEARS, WE REPRESENTED MICHAEL JACKSON TOGETHER, IF I TALK TO HIM AND I KNOW WHAT HE AND SKIP TAFT WILL SAY, THERE IS NO REPORT ON THAT. I DON'T THINK YOU'D REQUIRE THAT, IN THE MIDST OF EVERYTHING ELSE, TO SIT DOWN AND WRITE A REPORT REGARDING THAT. NOW, THEY KNOW HOWARD WEITZMAN WAS DOWN THERE. THEY KNOW SKIP TAFT WAS THERE. THIS IS NO SURPRISE, JUDGE. WHAT HAPPENED, JUDGE, YESTERDAY -- AND I WANT YOU TO PUT THIS IN -- IN PERSPECTIVE, WAS FINALLY SOMEBODY FROM THE DEFENSE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO STAND UP AND TELL THE FACTS AS WE UNDERSTOOD THEM. IF THEY DON'T LIKE THOSE FACTS, THEY SAY THEY FEEL IT'S -- IT IS UNFAIR. JUDGE, IF WE DON'T PROVE THOSE FACTS, THEN THEY ARE ALL THE BETTER FOR IT. THEY BENEFIT FROM THAT. NOBODY IS TRYING TO SANDBAG THEM. FOR MONTHS THEY TALKED AND TRIED THIS MAN IN THE PRESS. YOU KNOW, TALK ABOUT UNCLEAN HANDS, TO VILIFY SOMEBODY LIKE THIS MAN AND EVEN TO STAND HERE TODAY, YOUR HONOR, AND REFER TO HIM AS A DREAM DEFENDANT. YOUR HONOR, WHO WOULD EVER WANT TO BE A DEFENDANT? THAT'S A -- THAT'S A -- IS IF EVER THERE WAS AN OXYMORON, YOUR HONOR, THAT MAY BE IT, ISN'T IT? A DREAM DEFENDANT? I MEAN, WHO WANTS TO BE A DEFENDANT? BUT THAT'S TO MALIGN ALL OF US AND WE DON'T TAKE IT PERSONALLY BECAUSE MR. DARDEN SAYS HE LOVES ME, SO SINCE HE LOVES ME --

MR. DARDEN: AND I DO.

MR. COCHRAN: -- I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT PERSONALLY. BUT JUDGE, GO ON AND LOOK AT THE REST OF THE LIST. JOE STELLINI IS A FRIEND OF THE DEFENDANT. THERE IS NO REPORT, WE HAVE NOT INTERVIEWED JOE STELLINI. WE DON'T HAVE UNLIMITED RESOURCES LIKE THEY HAVE, YOUR HONOR. MICHAEL BADEN. MICHAEL BADEN AND BARBARA WOLF CAME OUT HERE THE WEEK OF THESE MURDERS, IF THE COURT PLEASE. THEY WENT OVER -- AND THERE IS A LETTER WHERE MR. SHAPIRO OFFERED -- THEY OFFERED TO HELP THE LAPD AND THE CORONER'S OFFICE HELP SOLVE THIS CRIME WHICH WAS -- WHICH WAS REJECTED. THEY WENT OVER TO THE LAB. THEY WENT OVER AND LOOKED AT THESE EXHIBITS. THEY KNEW ABOUT THEM FROM THE BEGINNING, JUDGE. THEY WERE THERE LIKE JUNE 15. THEY KNOW ABOUT IT. THE ONE REPORT FROM HENRY LEE THAT YOU KNOW ABOUT, WE TURNED THAT OVER. I MEAN, WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER REPORTS. NOW, I MEAN, I CAN'T MAKE -- THESE ARE BUSY MEN. HENRY LEE IS THE FOREMOST BLOOD SPLATTER CRIME SCENE FORENSIC EXPERT IN THE COUNTRY. AND SO THEY MIGHT NOT LIKE WE HAVE HENRY LEE ON THE SIDE, BUT THAT'S NOT THE REASON TO BAR US. THEY KNOW ABOUT IT. THE SAME THING WITH KARY MULLIS. IF HE WINS THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE AND THEY DON'T HAVE HIM, THEY MAY NOT LIKE THAT, BUT THAT DOESN'T LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD, JUDGE. THEY KNOW ABOUT IT.

THE COURT: I DON'T THINK HE WON THE PEACE PRIZE. I THINK THAT WAS --

MR. COCHRAN: YOU KNOW, JUDGE, I SAID THAT. I'M GOING TO MAKE THAT CLEAR. THE NOBLE PRIZE FOR CHEMISTRY. I HAD DR. KING ON THE MIND YESTERDAY WHEN I WAS SAYING THAT WHO DID WIN THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE.

THE COURT: LINUS PAULING WON THOSE. NEVER MIND. NEVER MIND.

MR. COCHRAN: NOW, YOU WOULD KNOW THOSE FACTS, TOO. I'M NOT SURPRISED, JUDGE. IS HE ON OUR WITNESS LIST YET?

MR. DOUGLAS: NOT YET.

MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. WE PUT HIM ON OUR LIST. I WILL LET YOU KNOW -- IF WE PUT HIM ON YOUR LIST, JUDGE, I'LL LET YOU KNOW.

THE COURT: IF HE APPEARS, I WILL BE AMAZED.

MR. COCHRAN: THEN YOU WILL BE AMAZED. I THINK SO, JUDGE. YOUR HONOR -- TO CONTINUE, YOUR HONOR, IN A SERIOUS VEIN, SO -- SO WITH REGARD TO MICHAEL BADEN, HENRY LEE AND BARBARA WOLF, THEY ARE ALL OUT HERE THE FIRST WEEK, JUDGE. WHAT ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT? THERE ARE NO REPORTS. I'M TELLING YOU THERE ARE NO REPORTS. THESE ARE OUR EXPERTS. I DON'T HAVE ANY REPORTS. WHEN WE GET REPORTS, I WILL MAKE SURE AND MR. DOUGLAS WILL MAKE SURE THAT YOU GET THOSE REPORTS.

THE COURT: HOW ABOUT THE ENVELOPE?

MR. COCHRAN: I WALKED OVER TO YOUR HONOR'S CLERK AND I SAID MAY I HAVE -- MAY I GET THIS ENVELOPE -- THE ENVELOPE EARLIER, AND THEN I ASKED MR. DOUGLAS TO GET IT. BEFORE I FINISHED DOING ANYTHING, I WAS OVER HERE, I WALKED OVER TO MR. HODGMAN AND I SAID LET ME MAKE AN OFFER OF PROOF TO YOU. I'M NOT GOING TO TRY TO OPEN THIS. WHAT I WAS SEEKING TO TRY TO DO -- AND YOU'LL HAVE TO MAKE THE JUDGMENT ON THIS -- I AM A TRIAL LAWYER, AND THIS IS A COURT'S EXHIBIT, SO IT'S NOT ANYTHING I HAD. I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY. AND I MADE THE OFFER OF PROOF THERE. WHAT I WAS SEEKING TO TRY AND DO WAS USE THIS AS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE PEOPLE'S RUSH TO JUDGMENT. NOW, I KNOW THEY WOULDN'T LIKE ME TO USE THOSE WORDS, JUDGE, BUT THEY CAN'T STOP ME FROM USING THOSE WORDS, AND THAT WAS ANOTHER EXAMPLE, AS I TRIED TO DEMONSTRATE WITH THE FINGERNAILS AND WITH THE OTHER THINGS THAT THEY DIDN'T BOTHER CHECKING UP ON. WHEN MR. HODGMAN SAID, WELL, I LIKE TO APPROACH THE BENCH, WE APPROACHED THE BENCH. YOU AT FIRST, AS YOU RECALL -- I WILL TELL YOU WHAT YOU DID -- YOU AT FIRST FELT IT WAS APPROPRIATE. WHEN YOU INQUIRED FURTHER AS TO WHETHER THEY HAD SOME REPORT, WHICH APPARENTLY MR. HODGMAN SAID THEY DIDN'T HAVE, WHICH I DIDN'T HAVE EITHER AND I THOUGHT THEY PROBABLY HAD IT, YOU SAID, WELL, IF THEY DON'T HAVE THAT REPORT, MR. COCHRAN, YOU CAN'T DO IT, AND WE HAVE PUT IT BACK. WE NEVER TALKED ABOUT IT. NOW, THAT GETS BLOWN ALL OUT OF PROPORTIONS AND WE STILL DON'T KNOW UNTIL -- HIS SPECULATION. HE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT IS IN THAT ENVELOPE. LET ME MAKE THAT CLEAR. I DON'T THINK HE KNOWS. IF HE DOES, THAT IS SOMETHING ELSE THEY KNOW THAT WE DON'T -- THEY CLAIM THEY DON'T KNOW, BUT WE HAVE NEVER SAID WHAT'S IN THAT ENVELOPE, NEVER, AND WE DIDN'T YESTERDAY AT ALL AND THE JURORS DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT. SO WITH REGARD TO THIS MAN'S PHYSICAL CONDITION, HE'S OUR CLIENT. I KNOW ABOUT HIS PHYSICAL CONDITION. DOCTOR HUIZENGA IS ON THE LIST. WHEN WE GET A REPORT FROM DR. HUIZENGA OR FROM HIS RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS SPECIALIST, RHEUMATOLOGIST, I GUESS HE'S CALLED, YOUR HONOR, WE WILL BE THE FIRST TO BRING THAT FORWARD TO YOU. MR. DARDEN GETS UP HERE AND SAYS I MENTIONED DINO BUCCOLLA. I NEVER MENTIONED DINO BUCCOLLA ONE TIME. NEVER MENTIONED HIM IN OPENING STATEMENT AT ALL. YOU HAD TO POINT THAT OUT AND I NEVER DID THAT. SO LET ME JUST END MY REMARKS BY SAYING AND ASKING YOUR HONOR TO DO THE RIGHT THING WITH REGARD TO THIS. BILL HODGMAN IS SOMEBODY THAT I HAVE A GREAT AMOUNT OF RESPECT FOR, AS I HAVE INDICATED, AND I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT HIS PHYSICAL CONDITION AND I HOPE THAT HE WILL GET WELL SOON AND I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT AND I HAVE DISCUSSED THAT WITH OUR CLIENT. BUT TALK ABOUT SANCTIONS. WHEN HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A CASE, JUDGE, WHERE FIRST OF ALL THEY GET UP AND MAKE AN UNFETTERED OPENING STATEMENT TO OUR JURY. BECAUSE WE WANT TO BE PROFESSIONAL WE DIDN'T OBJECT UNTIL THE VERY END WHEN IT BECAME ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. BECAUSE OF EVENTS BEYOND OUR CONTROL, I COULDN'T START THAT DAY. WE HAD TO LEAVE. THE JURORS GOT TO GO HOME THAT NIGHT. WE CAME BACK THE NEXT DAY AND I GOT MY CHANCE TO MAKE THE OPENING STATEMENT, IN WHICH THE THINGS THAT I SAID I EXPECT TO PROVE, THINGS THAT I KNOW FROM MY CLIENT. I DON'T THINK THAT THEY CAN CHANGE THAT OR TALK ABOUT LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD. BECAUSE APPARENTLY THEY FELT THE JOB THAT I DID MADE THEM NERVOUS AND UPSET THE NEXT DAY WE SAW -- SAW THESE HISTRIONICS AND SO THEY NOW WANT YOU TO CARVE OUT SOME NEW LAW. THEY HAVE NO CASES THAT CITE THIS, AND YOU HAVE A LOT OF DISCRETION, JUDGE. THEY WANT TO CARVE OUT SOMETHING TO GIVE THEM LIKE ANOTHER OPENING SO THAT THEY CAN GET BACK UP AND TALK. WELL, THEN DO I GET A CHANCE TO RESPOND TO THAT? I MEAN, THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. EVERYTHING THAT WE DID, WE HAVE DONE IN GOOD FAITH. WE WANT TO TRY THIS CASE AS MUCH AS THEY DO. AND IN FACT YOU RECALL I HAVE SAID FOR THE LAST TEN DAYS, LET'S STOP ALL THIS POSTURING AND LET'S GET THIS CASE ON THE WAY. THE FINAL THING I WANT TO SAY IS THIS: THAT IT IS RARELY PRODUCTIVE OF GOOD TO MALIGN CITIZENS. AS YOU KNOW, I'M -- I AM A BIG FIGHTER FOR JURORS AND FOR WITNESSES. AND FOR MR. DARDEN TO STAND HERE AND SAY THAT CHRISTIAN RIECHARDT -- REINHART -- RIECHARDT, RATHER, WAS DUMPED BY FAYE RESNICK IS PERHAPS THE GREATEST BIT OF HYPERBOLE I HAVE EVER HEARD. THAT IS SO FAR FROM THE TRUTH. IT STRAINS CREDULITY. IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. HE PUT HER OUT BECAUSE SHE WAS USING DRUGS AND AFTER SHE USED DRUGS SO BADLY, AND IN THAT FIVE OR SIX-DAY PERIOD, HE WAS THE ONE WHO HELP PUT HER IN A DRUG TREATMENT PLACE.

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, AS INTERESTING AS THAT CONVERSATION ABOUT THAT PROBABLY IS AND PROBABLY WILL BE LATER --

MR. COCHRAN: SURE.

THE COURT: -- MY INTEREST IS IN THE PEOPLE'S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS. THEY HAVE ASKED ME TO TELL THE JURY THAT I'M STRIKING FROM YOUR COMMENTS AND FOR THEM TO IGNORE YOUR REFERENCES TO THESE VARIOUS WITNESSES AND ITEMS THAT THEY HAVE DISCUSSED. THEY HAVE ASKED ME TO ADMONISH THEM THAT THE MENTION OF THOSE WAS NOT APPROPRIATE BECAUSE THE PROSECUTION WAS ENTITLED TO KNOW OF THOSE WITNESS STATEMENTS OR THE IDENTITY OF THOSE WITNESSES BEFORE THE OPENING STATEMENT WAS MADE, AND THEY ARE ASKING FOR A THIRTY-DAY CONTINUANCE. SO I WOULD LIKE YOUR OBSERVATIONS ON THE VARIOUS SANCTIONS THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS REQUESTED.

MR. COCHRAN: LET ME DO THAT. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. AND THE ONLY REASON I WAS TALKING ABOUT RIECHARDT, I JUST FELT YOU HAVE -- YOU HAVE TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT SOMETIME. THERE IS A MAN -- HE IS A DOCTOR, JUDGE. HE IS OUT THERE HAVING THE SLINGS AND ARROWS -- WE CAN TAKE IT, BUT IT IS NOT FAIR TO THESE OTHER PEOPLE TO GO THROUGH CHRISTOPHER DARDEN'S -- I KNOW HE LOVES THEM, TOO, BUT WE CAN TAKE IT BETTER. JUDGE, WITH REGARD YOUR -- TO THE THIRTY DAYS, I THINK AGAIN, YOUR HONOR, IT IS ALMOST LIKE THEY ARE KIDDING ABOUT THIRTY DAYS. YOUR HONOR, WE WERE AT THE -- THEY HAVEN'T EVEN CALLED THEIR FIRST WITNESS.

YOU KNOW, YOU ARE VERY OPTIMISTIC AND SO AM I GENERALLY. I WOULD LIKE TO THINK THE DEFENSE IS GOING TO START WITHIN TWO MONTHS, PROBABLY MORE LIKE THREE MONTHS. JUDGE, BY THAT TIME THEY WILL HAVE TIME TO INVESTIGATE EVERYTHING. THEY'VE GOT THE LAPD, THEY'VE GOT THE D.A.'S OFFICE, THEY'VE GOT EVERYTHING. THEY GOT ALL THIS INFORMATION THEY SUPPOSEDLY GOT ON MARY ANNE GERCHAS, SUPPOSEDLY, WHICH APPARENTLY ISN'T TRUE, AND THEY CAN HAVE ALL THE TIME THEY WANT TO INVESTIGATE IT, AND AS MR. DOUGLAS SAYS, WE ARE NOT TRYING TO PLAYING ANY GAMES, AND TO SHOW THAT, THEY CAN HAVE AS MUCH TIME AS THEY WANT. I DON'T MIND IF WE CAN CALL HER AS A WITNESS, CALLING HER WHATEVER TIME YOU SAY. PLAY BY THE RULES. I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM. WE MADE A MISTAKE WITH REGARD TO HER. WITH REGARD TO THE OTHER WITNESSES, JUDGE, THEY'RE -- THEY'RE -- I DON'T THINK THEY CAN SHOW THERE WERE ANY MISTAKES. I THINK THAT THEY KNEW ABOUT KARY MULLIS. THEY KNEW -- I MEAN, THEY SAY TO ME THAT I SAY THAT HE HAS, UMM -- THAT THIS MAN SUFFERS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS. THOSE ARE THE FACTS AND I WILL BE ABLE TO PROVE THAT. WHAT DO WE STRIKE BASED ON THAN THAT? THEY DON'T LIKE THE TRUTH AND THEY WANT TO TRY TO CHANGE IT AROUND. TALKING ABOUT A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD, SO AS I LISTEN TO IT, I DIDN'T SEE -- AND I TRIED TO GO THROUGH THE LIST OF WITNESSES, UMM -- UMM, I MENTIONED RON FISCHMAN AND THEY KNEW -- THEY KNOW ABOUT RON FISCHMAN. WE HADN'T TURNED THAT REPORT OVER. THEY -- WE -- CHRIS RIECHARDT, THEY KNEW ABOUT CHRIS RIECHARDT, JUDGE, BECAUSE THEY'VE INTERVIEWED HIM. THEY'VE INTERVIEWED HIM. WE DON'T HAVE A REPORT, I DON'T THINK, FROM CHRISTIAN RIECHARDT. WE DON'T HAVE A REPORT. AND WE DON'T HAVE A REPORT FROM FISCHMAN SO WE HAVE NOTHING TO TURN OVER. THEY KNOW ABOUT LENORE WALKER, JUDGE. IN FACT, LET ME RESPOND TO THAT ON LENORE WALKER. WITH REGARD TO LENORE WALKER, WE GOT A SPECIAL ORDER, SHE WENT TO THE JAIL OVER TWO WEEKENDS. SHE HAS NOT FINISHED HER EXAMINATION, AS I INDICATED TO THE JURORS. WE DON'T HAVE A REPORT FROM HER AND WE DON'T HAVE ONE EITHER FROM GERALDINE BUTTS STAHLY EITHER WHO IS HER ASSOCIATE BECAUSE THEY WERE DUE TO GO TO THE JAIL LAST WEEKEND TO FINISH THEIRS REPORTS. THEY HAVEN'T FINISHED THEM, OR FINISHED THE TESTING. SO AGAIN, THAT'S NOT ANYTHING. WE TRIED TO GIVE THEM THE CV AND WE HAVE DONE WHAT WE COULD ON THAT. WITH REGARD TO MICHELLE ABUDRAHM, THEY KNEW ABOUT MICHELLE ABUDRAHM. JOE STELLINI THERE IS NO REPORT.

SO JUDGE, THE SANCTIONS THEY ARE ASKING ARE FAR OUT OF LINE WITH WHAT -- WHAT SHOULD TAKE PLACE. I THINK WE ARE IN A SIMILAR POSITION THAN WHAT THEY WERE. AND WHAT I AM TRYING TO INDICATE TO YOU THAT WE HAVE NOT DONE ANYTHING INTENTIONALLY, WE WOULD NOT DO THAT. WE ARE JUST TRYING TO GET WHAT WE KNOW WE CAN PROVE BEFORE THIS JURY AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE TIME AND THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE HAD TO DO THAT. AND SO I WOULD ASK THE COURT NOT TO TRY TO COME BACK AND THEN GUT MY OPENING STATEMENT BY TRYING TO PICK OUT THINGS THAT WE SAID. IT IS THE SAME SITUATION. IF WE DON'T PROVE THOSE THINGS, THE PROBLEM COMES WITH THAT. WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT BECAUSE IN AN OPENING STATEMENT I MAKE A STATEMENT BELIEVING THAT THEY HAVE MARY ANNE GERCHAS' TESTIMONY AND THEY DON'T HAVE IT, WHEN THEY SHOULD HAVE, BECAUSE OF -- OF THE STATEMENT OF ITSELF, IN THAT STATEMENT IF YOU LOOK AT IT, HAS THE D.A.'S PHONE NUMBER. MARY ANNE GERCHAS SAYS SHE HAS THE D.A.'S PHONE NUMBER FROM PATTY FAIRBANKS WHO SHE PUTS ON HOLD AND SHE ELLS ABOUT CALLING THE THESE POLICE DEPARTMENTS. AND THIS IS AN INVESTIGATOR I NEVER MET IT AND I RECEIVED THAT REPORT WITHIN THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS BEFORE THE ARGUMENT.

SO I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT IT, WHAT I THINK YOU SHOULD DO IS PUT IS IN THE SAME POSITION THAT YOU PUT THE PROSECUTION IN WHEN THEY WERE FACED WITH THIS SAME SITUATION IN DECEMBER AND WHAT'S IS FAIR FOR THEM IS FAIR FOR US. WE WOULDN'T ASK ANY MORE OR ANY LESS. IT DOESN'T GO TO MY OPENING STATEMENT. JUDGE, MUCH OF WHAT YOU HAVE SEEN OVER THE LAST COUPLE DAYS, MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT, IS TO TRY TO KEEP ME FROM GETTING BACK UP BEFORE THAT JURY. THERE IS AN ULTIMATE SANCTION TODAY. NOW, I BELIEVE THAT BILL HODGMAN IS SICK, BUT EVERYTHING THAT HAS HAPPENED WHEN MR. HODGMAN -- WHEN MR. DARDEN KEPT TALKING AND SAYING THE SAME THING SIX OR SEVEN TIMES, I THOUGH HE WAS FILIBUSTERING AND OBVIOUSLY IT WAS SO I COULDN'T TALK TO THIS JURY TODAY. BUT ULTIMATELY, JUDGE, NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO, I GET TO FINISH TALKING TO THIS JURY. THAT IS NOT A SANCTION THEY CAN IMPOSE. I GET TO GET BACK UP THERE AND THEY ARE NOT GOING TO LIKE THAT, SO THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ABOUT, SO I ASK YOU TO BE FAIR IN THAT AND BE FAIR LIKE I THOUGHT YOU WERE IN POSING TO THEM. IF WE SLIPPED UP TELLING YOU, IT WAS NOT INTENTIONAL. WE WOULD NOT DO THAT. AND IF WE SLIPPED UP, THE SAME SANCTIONS THEY GOT IN DECEMBER SHOULD PERTAIN TO US, AND IF THAT HAPPENS, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OPENING STATEMENT. I HAVEN'T MISLED ANYBODY. IF CHRISTIAN RIECHARDT --

THE COURT: WELL, THE PROBLEM IS I CAN'T REALLY IMPOSE THE SAME SANCTION AT THIS POINT BECAUSE PART OF THE SANCTION WAS I TOLD THEM THEY COULD NOT USE CERTAIN WITNESSES IN THEIR CASE IN CHIEF UNTIL THEY HAD COMPLETED THEIR ORIGINAL WITNESS LIST AND THEY COULD NOT MENTION IT IN OPENING STATEMENT, WHICH AS FAR AS MR. DARDEN IS CONCERNED, I ESSENTIALLY TOOK THE HEART OUT OF HIS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ARGUMENT BECAUSE HE WAS NOT ABLE TO MENTION THREE OR FOUR OTHER INCIDENTS THAT FILL IN CERTAIN TIME GAPS. I ASSUME THAT'S THE ARGUMENT HE IS ABOUT TO JUMP UP AND MAKE.

MR. COCHRAN: WHEN YOU SAY "TAKE THE HEART OUT OF IT," I --

THE COURT: WELL, THAT IS HIS ARGUMENT.

MR. COCHRAN: YES.

THE COURT: I AM ASKING YOU TO RESPOND TO THAT.

MR. COCHRAN: YES, WELL, I WILL. I THINK, THAT YOUR HONOR, WITH REGARD TO THAT --

THE COURT: SO I CAN'T GIVE YOU OR I CAN'T IMPOSE UPON YOU THE SAME SANCTION.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, YOU CAN -- I THINK THE THRUST OF IT, THOUGH, JUDGE, ISN'T IT, IS THAT THEY WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TRY AND CHECK THESE THINGS OUT. I THINK -- FOR INSTANCE, CHRISTIAN RIECHARDT, THEY ALREADY KNOW ABOUT IT. WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A REPORT. THAT IS MAYBE A BAD EXAMPLE. THEY KNOW ABOUT HIM, THEY ALREADY HAVE A REPORT AND MAYBE THAT'S A BAD EXAMPLE. THE ONLY ONE THAT I CAN REALLY FIX ON, BECAUSE THEY KNOW ABOUT RON FISCHMAN, IS MAYBE MARY ANNE GERCHAS AND I'M JUST SAYING TO YOUR HONOR THAT IN 24 HOURS THEY'VE DONE ALL THIS WORK SUPPOSEDLY ON HER. THE REST OF THE PEOPLE, JUDGE, THEY KNEW ABOUT AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY REPORTS ON THEM, SO I DON'T KNOW WHERE -- WHERE WE GO FROM THERE TO SAYING -- ADMONISHING THIS JURY REGARDING THIS. YOU ADMONISHED THEM. EVEN AFTER I DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO TALK TO THEM FOR A WHOLE EVENING, WHEN THEY CAME IN YESTERDAY YOU STARTED OFF BY SAYING "WHAT COUNSEL SAYS IS NOT EVIDENCE" AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IT IS; IT IS NOT EVIDENCE. SO YOU KNOW, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE EVIDENCE. THE CASE WILL ULTIMATELY BE -- WHY ARE THEY SO AFRAID? THE CASE WILL ULTIMATELY BE DECIDED. WE WANT TO UPHOLD ALL THE RULES LIKE EVERYONE ELSE, BUT WHY ARE THEY SO WORRIED ABOUT THAT, JUDGE? ULTIMATELY IT IS GOING TO BE THE EVIDENCE THAT THIS CASE IS DECIDED UPON AND THAT IS ALL THAT I WANTED US TO GET BACK TO. THE REST OF THESE WITNESSES, IN SUMMARY, THEN IS THAT THEY KNEW ABOUT THEM, WE DON'T HAVE ANY REPORTS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MARY ANNE GERCHAS, THAT I CAN SEE AS I LOOK AT THE LIST, AND I THINK THAT THE SANCTIONS ARE WAY OUT OF LINE WITH WHERE WE ARE AND HAVING UNDERSTOOD WHAT YOUR SANCTIONS WERE BACK THEN, BUT TO DEAL WITH WHERE WE ARE AT THIS POINT. WITH REGARD TO MARY ANNE GERCHAS, THIS IS A WITNESS THAT GAVE A STATEMENT. I DON'T KNOW HER. I HAVE A STATEMENT FROM HER. THE INVESTIGATORS TALKED TO HER AND THAT'S HOW IT CAME TO ME. I ASSUME THEY HAD IT AND I WASN'T AWARE THEY DIDN'T, AND AGAIN, I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S ANY REASON THAT MR. SIMPSON SHOULD HAVE TO SUFFER OR THESE JURORS WOULD HAVE TO BE TOLD, OH, GEE, IT'S NOT EVIDENCE, BUT JUST DISREGARD THAT, IT IS NOT EVIDENCE, AND YOU KNOW -- JUDGE, IF WE DO IT BASED UPON THAT, I COULD COME BACK TOMORROW AND SAY TO YOU, JUDGE, I WANT YOU -- I WANT TO LOOK AT THE TRANSCRIPT FOR ALL THE TIMES MISS CLARK WAS ARGUMENTATIVE THAT I DIDN'T OBJECT, BECAUSE AS AN OFFICER OF THIS COURT AND A GENTLEMAN I DIDN'T WANT TO DO THAT. THAT IS LIKE RUNNING BACK -- DOING SOMETHING LIKE THAT, I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. I WANT TO GET THIS TRIAL ON. I WANT TO FINISH MY OPENING STATEMENT SO THAT THEY CAN CALL THEIR FIRST WITNESSES. AND SO WHAT I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO DO IS FASHION SOMETHING THAT IS REASONABLE. YOU ARE WISE AND THESE SITUATIONS IT CALLS FOR A WISE DECISION. WHERE WE HAVE DONE SOMETHING IN GOOD FAITH, AND I WILL CONCLUDE BY SAYING THIS, JUDGE, WHAT I CERTAINLY DON'T REFER TO OURSELVES AS THE DREAM TEAM, JUST A COLLECTION OF LAWYERS WHO ARE TRYING TO DO THE BEST WE CAN FOR OUR CLIENT, AND THAT IS ALL WE ARE DOING. AND MR. DARDEN CAN REFER TO THIS DERISIVELY OR ANYWAY HE WANTS TO, BUT WE'RE JUST TRYING TO DO OUR JOB AND IN THAT, JUDGE, WE ARE TRYING TO REPRESENT OUR CLIENT TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITY AND I THINK YOU KNOW WE WOULD NEVER INTENTIONALLY MISLEAD THIS COURT. WE WOULD NOT DO THAT. I WOULD NOT DO THAT. I KNOW MY REPUTATION MEANS FAR TOO MUCH TO ME AND THIS CASE IS NOT THE LAST CASE OF MY CAREER AND SO WE DON'T HAVE THE OBSESSION THAT SOME SEEM TO HAVE ABOUT THIS CASE. WE WANT TO TRY THIS CASE. WE THINK WE ARE GOING TO WIN THIS CASE, BUT WE ARE NOT OUT HERE TRYING TO WIN THIS CASE AT ALL COSTS. WE ARE TRYING TO DO IT METHODICALLY AND DO THE JOB THAT WE ARE PAID TO DO, AND THAT'S WHAT WE EXPECT TO DO, ETHICALLY AND MORALLY, YOUR HONOR. AND ALL I ASK YOU TO DO IS TO ALLOW US -- REMEMBER THAT PART OF THE SANCTIONS HAVE ALREADY BEEN THE DELAYS, THE INTERMINABLE DELAYS IN MY OPENING STATEMENT IN GETTING BACK TO THAT JURY. ALLOW ME TO GET BACK TO THAT JURY WITHOUT ANY REAL UNNECESSARY DELAY. IF THE COURT FELT THAT THERE WAS SOME PROBLEM WITH REGARD TO BILL HODGMAN, OBVIOUSLY WE WANT TO LISTEN TO THAT. I MEAN, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I AM SENSITIVE TO AND I HAVE TALKED TO MR. SIMPSON ABOUT THAT. HE WANTS TO PROCEED AS FAST AS HE CAN. I'M SENSITIVE TO THAT. BUT WITH REGARD TO THESE OTHER THINGS, JUDGE, IF YOU LOOK AT IT WHEN IT IS REDUCED DOWN, YOU KNOW THINGS THAT I KNEW BECAUSE MY CLIENT TOLD ME, I DON'T HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO DO THAT, AND I HOPE I PUT THE ENVELOPE AND THE ANOTHER THINGS IN PERSPECTIVE, SO I WOULD ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THAT YOUR HONOR HAS FOR ME AT THIS POINT.

THE COURT: WELL, YOU ARE OBJECTING TO THE THIRTY-DAY CONTINUANCE THAT MR. DARDEN HAS SUGGESTED?

MR. COCHRAN: YES.

THE COURT: OKAY.

MR. COCHRAN: YES, YOUR HONOR. I THINK THAT IS -- THAT IS FAR, FAR TOO LONG. WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO FOR THIRTY DAYS? JUDGE, WE HAVE A JURY THAT HAS BEEN SEQUESTERED. THEY HAVE WASTED ANOTHER WHOLE DAY TODAY. I DON'T HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT, BUT THOSE ARE THE FACTS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, BRIEFLY, PLEASE, AND LET ME ASK YOU A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS BEFORE WE LAUNCH INTO THIS. DO YOU CONCEDE THAT DR. MULLIS WAS ON THE DNA LIST FOR THE DEFENSE?

MS. CLARK: YES, I DO. HE WAS ON THE KELLY-FRYE LIST AND HIS DELETION IN THE TRIAL LIST LED US TO BELIEVE THAT HE WAS NOT GOING TO BE CALLED AT TRIAL AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM THAT IS POSED, IS THAT WE WERE JUST BEGINNING TO PREPARE FOR THE KELLY-FRYE AND THEN MATTERS WERE TRANSPIRING AT A RAPID PACE. WE CEASED PREPARATION WHEN IT APPEARED THAT THERE WAS NOT GOING TO BE A KELLY-FRYE HEARING AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH HIM, BUT IT IS NOT NEARLY AS EGREGIOUS AS THE OTHERS BECAUSE WE DID HAVE SOME NOTICE OF HIS EXISTENCE FOR THE DEFENSE. LET ME INDICATE TO THE COURT THAT WITH RESPECT TO THE THIRTY DAYS, I BELIEVE IT WAS THE DEFENSE WHO INDICATED AT THE COURT'S REQUEST PRIOR TO THIS WHEN THEY WANTED TIME TO INVESTIGATE WITNESSES THAT THEY CLAIMED THEY WERE GIVEN LATE NOTICE OF, ALTHOUGH THEY GOT THEM FAR IN ADVANCE OF THE LAST HOUR OF OPENING STATEMENT, THEY ASKED FOR SIX WEEKS. THEY THOUGHT THAT WAS A REASONABLE TIME FOR INVESTIGATION, AS DID THE COURT. WE ARE ASKING FOR LESS, EVEN THOUGH WE WOULD BE, UNDER A PARITY OF REASONING, ENTITLED TO THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME FOR REASONABLE INVESTIGATION.

WE ARE NOT OBSESSED WITH THIS CASE, YOUR HONOR, BUT I WONDER ABOUT THE DEFENSE OBSESSION BECAUSE THEIR DESPERATE TACTICS IN THROWING ETHICS OUT THE WINDOW AND BEHAVING AS THEY HAVE IS EVIDENCE OF CLEARLY THE OPPOSITE OF WANTING THE FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE THAT WE ARE ENTITLED TO IN THIS CASE. THERE SHOULD BE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT. THIS CONDUCT SHOULD NOT BE MINIMIZED THIS WAY. MR. COCHRAN IS VERY PERSUASIVE, VERY TALENTED, VERY CHARISMATIC, BUT I'M SORRY, YOUR HONOR, IN THIS CASE HE IS WRONG. HE HAS DONE WRONG. THIS IS NOT THE WAY TO BEHAVE. THIS IS NOT ETHICAL CONDUCT OR BEHAVIOR. AND AS I TOLD THE COURT, HE GLIBLY STANDS UP TO SAY, WELL, THE PEOPLE CAN ADDRESS IT ALL IN CLOSING ARGUMENT. NO, NO. SEE, IT'S TOO LATE, BECAUSE BY THEN, YOUR HONOR, THERE WILL HAVE BEEN MONTHS OF TIME FOR WHATEVER THAT JURY HAS PICKED UP THAT WILL NEVER BE ADDRESSED IN TRIAL. THOSE WITNESSES THAT MR. COCHRAN REFERRED TO THAT MAY NEVER BE CALLED OUT OF SOME KIND OF FEAR THAT HE'S THINKING OF OR WITNESSES THAT NEVER APPEAR AT ALL, THAT AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN REPRESENTED IN FRONT OF THIS JURY, THEY WILL HAVE THAT WITNESS IN THE BACK OF THEIR MIND AND THAT MAY BE ENOUGH TO PERSUADE THE ONE. ANY KIND OF RELIEF THAT THE COURT GRANTS US AT THIS POINT MAY STILL NOT BE ENOUGH, BECAUSE THE DAMAGE MAY BE INDELIBLE AT THIS POINT AFTER HAVING MENTIONED ALL THESE PEOPLE THAT HE HIMSELF KNOWS HE IS IN DANGER OF NOT ULTIMATELY BEING CALLED BECAUSE ONCE THEY ARE INVESTIGATED IT IS DETERMINED THEY HAVE RECORDS, THEY HAVE FELONY RECORDS. THESE ARE PEOPLE THAT REALLY WILL NOT WITHSTAND THE SCRUTINY, THEY KNOW IT. THE DEFENSE KNOWS IT. AND THE WILFULNESS OF THEIR TACTIC IN DELAYING THE DISCOVERY IS SHOWN BY VIRTUE OF ONE SIMPLE FACT. EARLY ON IN THESE PROCEEDINGS THE DEFENDANT THROWS UP THE NAME OF FRANK CHIUCHIOLO FROM HAPPY CAMP. THIS WAS A MAN WHO CAME FORWARD TO SAY HE SAW TWO WHITE BURGLARS LEAVING THE HOME OF NICOLE BROWN. IT WAS THEN DISCOVERED THAT HE HAD COME FORWARD TO OFFER FALSE INFORMATION ON OTHER FAMOUS CASES AND HIS CREDIBILITY WAS EXPLODED, AS IT DESERVED TO BE. AND THE DEFENSE REALIZED THAT THEN THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO SHIELD, HIDE THEIR WITNESSES TO PREVENT THE EXPOSURE THAT WOULD SHOW THEM TO BE AS INCREDIBLE AS THEY ARE, AND THAT IS WHAT THEY HAVE DONE IN THIS CASE, SO IT IS A VERY WILLFUL THING, AND IT IS NOT A MINOR THING. THIS IS A MAJOR FORM OF MISCONDUCT THAT HAS OCCURRED AND I DON'T WANT MR. COCHRAN TO MINIMIZE IT THIS WAY. IT IS MAJOR. AND IF WE LACK -- LET ME JUST CONTRAST IT FOR A MOMENT, BECAUSE I KNOW WHAT THE COURT IS GOING TO SAY, OKAY? THEIR STATEMENTS WERE TAKEN FOUR, FIVE --

THE COURT: HOW AM I GOING TO RULE?

MS. CLARK: WHAT?

THE COURT: NEVER MIND.

MS. CLARK: COUNSEL WANTS TO COMPARE THE GRAVITY OF THEIR MISCONDUCT TO WHAT OCCURRED WITH THE PEOPLE, AND LET ME CONTRAST THE TWO. THE STATEMENT TURNED OVER BY THE PEOPLE WERE TWO AND THREE WEEKS LATE. THE STATEMENTS TURNED OVER BY THE DEFENSE WERE FOUR, FIVE AND EVEN SEVEN MONTHS LATE. WE WERE SANCTIONED FOR THAT FOR JUST TWO OR THREE WEEKS AND NOW THEY ARE FIGHTING THE SANCTION FOR FOUR, FIVE, EVEN SEVEN MONTHS FOR MATERIAL WITNESSES, OBVIOUSLY WITNESSES THEY THINK ARE VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE MR. COCHRAN IS OUTLINING THEIR TESTIMONY TO THE JURY. AND WHEN YOU ALSO LOOK AT IT IN THIS CONTEXT, YOUR HONOR, OUT OF THE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PAGES THAT WE HAVE TURNED OVER, DOZENS OF VIDEOTAPES, DOZENS OF AUDIOTAPES, WE HAVE -- WE WERE SLOW TO TURN OVER -- BY THAT I MEAN TWO TO THREE WEEKS, A FEW PAGES OF DISCOVERY, COMPARED TO WHAT THEY DID. WE HAD SEVENTY PAGES OF DISCOVERY, YOUR HONOR, UNTIL THE LAST TWO OR THREE DAYS. NOW, THEY HAVE DOUBLED THE AMOUNT OF DISCOVERY IN THE LAST TWO OR THREE DAYS. WHAT THAT SHOWS THIS COURT IS NOT ONLY THAT THE GRAVITY IS VERY SEVERE, THAT THE MISCONDUCT IS VERY SERIOUS, BUT THAT IT IS NOT INADVERTENT AND CANNOT BE CLAIMED TO BE. YOU DON'T OVERLOOK OVER HALF YOUR CASE AND THAT IS WHAT THEY CLAIM TO BE DOABLE. I DON'T BELIEVE IT. I DON'T BELIEVE IT. MR. COCHRAN IS AN EXCELLENT LAWYER. HE KNOWS WHAT THEY INTEND TO USE. HE KNOWS WHAT HE INTENDS TO TELL THIS JURY. HIS STATEMENT WAS TYPED AND IT WAS PREPARED, AND HE CANNOT COME BEFORE THE COURT AND TELL US THAT HE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THESE WITNESSES BEFORE OR WAS UNAWARE OF THEIR STATEMENTS. AND THE FACT THAT MR. JONES -- EXCUSE ME -- MR. DOUGLAS CAN STAND UP BEFORE THIS COURT AND SAY -- AND TRY TO EXCUSE THE MISCONDUCT BY SAYING, WELL, THIS WASN'T ALWAYS THE LAW, THAT MAKES IT EVEN MORE EGREGIOUS, BECAUSE WHAT HE IS INDICATING IS A DESIRE TO THWART THE LAW, A DESIRE BASED UPON HIS OWN BELIEF AS TO WHAT HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO AS DEFENSE COUNSEL. UNFORTUNATELY THE VOTERS OF THIS STATE HAVE SPOKEN. THEY SAY WE WILL NOT COUNTENANCE ANY MORE OF THIS HIDE THE BALL STUFF, THIS SHELL GAME DURING THE COURSE OF A CRIMINAL TRIAL. WE WANT BOTH SIDES TO AIR THEIR WITNESSES SO EVERYBODY CAN HAVE FULL AND COMPLETE INVESTIGATION, AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH WHAT DEFENSE COUNSEL HAS DONE. THEY ARE TRYING TO PREVENT US FROM DOING OUR JOB. I WANT MR. COCHRAN TO GET UP TO SPEAK TO THIS JURY AS LONG AS HE WANTS TO. I DON'T WANT TO STOP HIM FROM TALKING. I WANT THIS OPENING STATEMENT TO GET GOING AND TO GET COMPLETED. I WANT HIM TO BE ABLE TO PUT ON EVERY WITNESS HE DESIRES. ALL I ASK IS THE ABILITY FOR THE PEOPLE TO INVESTIGATE THESE WITNESSES SO THAT THE JURY GETS THE WHOLE TRUTH, SO THAT WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW THE JURY WHO THESE PEOPLE REALLY ARE, AND WHEN THESE PEOPLE ARE HIDDEN FROM OUR INVESTIGATORS, WE CANNOT LET THE JURY DOES NOT GET THE TRUE PICTURE WHO HAVE THEY REALLY ARE. I WOULD NOT BE DOING MY JOB IF DEFENSE COUNSEL WERE PERMITTED TO TROT A PARADE OF WITNESS UP TO THAT WITNESS STAND, AND WERE I TO SIT BACK AND SAY WHAT IS YOUR NAME, WHAT TIME IS IT TODAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, I SHOULD BE FIRED FOR THAT. IT IS OUR JOB TO SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH AND IT IS OUR JOB TO SHOW THIS JURY THE REAL CREDIBILITY OF WHO THESE PEOPLE ARE, WHAT THESE WITNESSES REALLY ARE, AND IF THIS JURY DOESN'T GET TO SEE THAT THEY ARE DEPRIVED OF THE TRUTH, AND IF THEY ARE DEPRIVED OF THE TRUTH THE PEOPLE OF THIS STATE ARE DEPRIVED OF JUSTICE, AND I CANNOT ALLOW THAT. THAT IS NOT MY JOB. MY JOB AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PEOPLE IS TO SEE THAT THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN, THAT ANY WITNESS WHO IS CALLED IS GIVEN THOROUGH AND COMPLETE EXAMINATION. AND WHAT THEY ARE ATTEMPTING TO DO HERE IS PREVENT MARY ANNE GERCHAS -- WHO NOW CLAIMS THAT SHE CALLED OUR OFFICE -- THIS IS NOT A WOMAN WHOSE CREDIBILITY IS UNSULLIED, AND IF SHE DID CALL THE OFFICE, WHICH COUNSEL KNOWS BECAUSE COUNSEL HAD THE SAME PROBLEM, WE HAVE ALL GOTTEN THOUSANDS OF CALLS FROM EVERY TOM, DICK AND HARRY THAT WANTS TO GET INVOLVED IN THIS CASE. IF THE PERSON DOESN'T PURSUE IT, SOMETIMES THEY DON'T GET REACHED AGAIN, BUT I THINK IT IS VERY INTERESTING THAT THEY SAY THAT. ARE WE SUPPOSED TO NOW SAY THAT THE LAWYERS CAN RELY ON THE WITNESSES TO GIVE DISCOVERY? IS SHE SUPPOSED TO GIVE HER DISCOVERY TO US? SOMEHOW HE IS PUTTING THE OBLIGATION ON HER TO COME FORWARD. NO, THE OBLIGATION IS NOT ON THE WITNESS TO TURN THEIR STATEMENTS IN. THE OBLIGATION IS NOT ON THE D.A.'S OFFICE TO GO BEGGING FOR THE DEFENSE WITNESSES TO COME AND TALK TO US. THE OBLIGATION IS FOR THE DEFENSE TO GIVE US WHAT THEY'VE GOT, THE SAME AS IT IS FOR TO US GIVE THEM WHAT WE HAVE GOT. AND WE HAVE DONE SO DILIGENTLY AT EVERY BEND AND TURN. WE HAVE NOT ATTEMPTED TO AVOID IT IN ANY WAY. NOW, I THINK THAT WHAT THE COURT SHOULD KNOW IS THAT MR. DOUGLAS' POSITION VIS-A-VIS THE LAW, VIS-A-VIS HIS REQUIREMENTS IN TERMS OF TURNING OVER DISCOVERY, TAKING REPORTS AND REDUCING STATEMENTS TO WRITING IS WRONG, A HUNDRED PERCENT WRONG. IT IS SO WRONG THAT PREVIOUS COURTS HAVE FOUND THAT CONDUCT TO BE CONTEMPTUOUS. I CITE THE COURT TO THE CASE OF IN RE SERRA, S-E-R-R-A, 484 FED.2D 948. THE COURT HELD THAT A DEFENSE ATTORNEY SHOULD BE HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR ASKING AN EXPERT TO REFRAIN FROM WRITING A REPORT IN ORDER TO AVOID DISCOVERY. ALSO CITE THE COURT TO SANDEFFER VERSUS SUPERIOR COURT, 18 CAL.APP. 4TH 672. IT CAUTIONED AGAIN THE ATTORNEY NOT TO DIRECT AN EXPERT TO AVOID WRITING A REPORT IN ORDER TO AVOID DISCOVERY. COUNSEL HAS DELIBERATELY DONE AN END RUN AROUND THE DISCOVERY LAWS BASICALLY BY TRYING TO GET THEIR DISCOVERY FROM THE MOUTH OF THEIR CLIENT. HERE, MR. SIMPSON, GO CALL RON FISCHMAN. TELL US WHAT HE SAID, AND THEN THEY GO AND ASK MR. SIMPSON. I MEAN, THAT IS A VERY CLEAR GAME, BUT IT CERTAINLY DOES NOT SERVE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND IT DOES NOT COMPORT WITH THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER OF THE LAW UNDER 1054. WE LOVE THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE HENRY LEE FOR AN EXPERT, BUT IF HE IS SUCH A GREAT EXPERT, HE IS SO WELL RENOWN, AND I UNDERSTAND HE IS, HOW COULD HE NOT -- HOW COULD HE NOT HAVE WRITTEN A REPORT WITH RESPECT TO ALL OF THE WORK THAT COUNSEL HAS TOLD US HE HAS PERFORMED IN THIS CASE AND WILL TESTIFY TO HERE? NO REPORT. HE HAS BEEN ON THE CASE SINCE DAY ONE, WE ARE ALL AWARE OF THAT, AND TO TELL US NOW THAT HE HAS NO REPORT TO OFFER US, THAT DR. BADEN HAS NO REPORT TO OFFER US, THAT SYLVIA WOLF HAS NO REPORT TO OFFER US, THIS IS UNBELIEVABLE. YOU KNOW, THIS CONDUCTING NOT BE MINIMIZED, SHOULD NOT BE MINIMIZED. WE HAVE -- WE HAVE BEEN PLACED IN A VERY -- IT IS A VERY UNFAIR POSITION THAT WE ARE PLACED IN. I THINK THAT THE GOAL OF A TRIAL IS FOR THE TRUTH TO EMERGE AND IT IS NOT FOR A LAWYER TO HOLD IN HIS HEAD INFORMATION THAT HE OR SHE MAY USE TO AMBUSH THE CASE WITH, AND THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE HERE. IT IS A TRIAL BY AMBUSH. THAT IS THE STRATEGY. THE PEOPLE WOULD REQUEST, NO. 1, THAT THE COURT ADMONISH THE JURY WITH RESPECT TO COUNSEL'S MISCONDUCT, AS I HAVE INDICATED EARLIER. NO. 2, IF THE COURT IS NOT INCLINED TO STRIKE THE COMMENTS, THE OFFENSIVE COMMENTS BY MR. COCHRAN -- AND LET ME INDICATE ABOUT THAT ENVELOPE, HE WAVED IT IN FRONT OF THAT JURY AND EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM SAW IT, AND WE ALL KNOW, WE ALL KNOW THAT AFTER THE PRELIMINARY HEARING WHAT OCCURRED THERE. EVERYBODY KNOWS ABOUT THE ENVELOPE. EVERYONE ON THE JURY SAID SO. MR. COCHRAN KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING. THAT JURY SAW WHAT HE WAS DOING AND THAT WAS A SET-UP, AS SURE AS I'M STANDING HERE, BECAUSE HE KNEW THAT HE WAS GOING TO SURPRISE US WITH THAT, A SURPRISE TACTIC THAT WE WOULD OBJECT TO AND THAT THE JURY WOULD THEN SEE THE OBJECTION AND MAYBE CONCLUDE THAT WE WERE TRYING TO HIDE EVIDENCE WHEN IN FACT WHAT HAS HAPPENED IS WE HAVE BEEN HIDDEN FROM. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IS IN THE ENVELOPE. WE HAVEN'T SEEN THE REPORT. COUNSEL KNOWS BETTER THAN WE DO. THEY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE WAVING AROUND. WE DON'T EVEN KNOW. ALL WE ARE ASKING IS LET US KNOW. WE WANT TO KNOW. WE WANT TO KNOW WHAT THEIR WITNESSES HAVE TO SAY. WE WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE EVIDENCE IS. IS THAT ASKING SO MUCH? UNDER 1054 IT IS NOT ASKING ANYTHING THAT WE ARE NOT ENTITLED TO. THAT IS ALL WE ASK FOR. AND UNDER 1054 THERE ARE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF SANCTIONS THAT ARE ALLOWED UNDER THE LAW, AND MR. COCHRAN IS AWARE OF THAT. AND IF THE COURT IS NOT INCLINED TO STRIKE THE OFFENSIVE COMMENTS, THEN THE PEOPLE WOULD REQUEST THAT WE BE ALLOWED TO REOPEN TO ADDRESS THOSE MATTERS, BUT THAT IS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ADMONITION, AND THAT AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF OPENING STATEMENT THAT WE BE PERMITTED TO A CONTINUANCE IN ORDER TO INVESTIGATE ALL OF THESE WITNESS THAT WERE JUST RECENTLY THROWN AT US AT THE CONCLUSION OF MR. COCHRAN'S OPENING STATEMENT REMARKS YESTERDAY. I THINK IT IS ONLY -- THE ALTERNATIVES THAT I HAVE POSED TO THE COURT I THINK ARE THE ONLY WAY THAT THE PEOPLE CAN BE MADE WHOLE. WE ARE NOT BEING HYSTERICAL HERE. WE ARE SIMPLY ASKING FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO OUR JOB. THAT IS ALL WE ARE ASKING.

THE COURT: HOW WOULD I JUSTIFY GRANTING YOU A THIRTY-DAY CONTINUANCE IF WE ALL AGREE THE PEOPLE'S CASE IN CHIEF IS PROBABLY GOING TO TAKE BETWEEN TWO AND THREE MONTHS TO PRESENT? DOESN'T THAT GIVE YOU ADEQUATE TIME TO GO OUT AND PREPARE TO REBUT OR TO IMPEACH THESE WITNESSES, THESE TWELVE OR FOURTEEN WITNESSES WHO HAVE JUST BEEN DISCLOSED?

MS. CLARK: WELL, WE ARE TIED UP IN TRIAL. WE CAN'T GET INVOLVED IN THE INVESTIGATION. THAT IS THE SAME GAME THAT HAS BEEN PLAYED THROUGHOUT THIS CASE. WE ARE TIED UP IN COURT WITH DAYS AND DAYS OF JURY SELECTION. WE HAVE TO BE OUT THERE, TOO. WE CAN'T JUST SEND PEOPLE OUT TO DO THINGS FOR US WITHOUT GUIDING THE INVESTIGATION, BECAUSE WE KNOW WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR. MAY I HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?

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

MS. CLARK: YES. I DON'T THINK THAT THE PEOPLE'S CASE IS GOING TO TAKE TWO OR THREE MONTHS, NOT EVEN CLOSE.

THE COURT: PROMISE?

MS. CLARK: YEAH. I MEAN, I WOULD LIKE TO, BUT I REALLY DON'T THINK IT IS GOING TO TAKE THAT LONG, YOUR HONOR, SERIOUSLY. I THINK THAT THE PEOPLE'S CASE MIGHT WELL BE WRAPPED UP IN FOUR TO SIX WEEKS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENT?

MS. CLARK: IF THE COURT WOULD LIKE, I THINK I HAVE OTHER CASE AUTHORITY CONCERNING THE ABILITY OF THE COURT TO GRANT US THE OPENING -- THE REOPENING OF THE STATEMENT.

THE COURT: THAT IS KIND OF AN ESOTERIC QUESTION. I THINK THERE ARE TWO OTHER CASES THAT I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO FIND IN LEXIS, BUT IN OTHER STATES.

MS. CLARK: I HAVE A CALIFORNIA CASE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET ME ASK YOU ANOTHER QUESTION. THAT IS REALLY AN ESOTERIC ISSUE ABOUT REOPENING. WHAT KIND --

MS. CLARK: THIS CASE IS RIGHT ON POINT.

THE COURT: WELL, AFTER AN ABUSE OF DISCOVERY IT IS RIGHT ON POINT, REOPENING?

MS. CLARK: IT IS NOT TO ADDRESS ABUSE OF DISCOVERY, IT IS TO ADDRESS SOMETHING ELSE, BUT IT DOES INDICATE THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN REVERSIBLE ERROR TO DENY THE ABILITY TO REOPEN THE OPENING STATEMENT.

THE COURT: THAT IS A THING A TRIAL COURT NEVER WANTS TO HEAR. MISS CLARK, LET ME ASK YOU THIS, THOUGH: WHAT KIND OF ADMONITION WOULD BE APPROPRIATE HERE?

MS. CLARK: I THINK I INDICATED EARLIER WHAT --

THE COURT: I'M TALKING SPECIFICS, WORDS.

MS. CLARK: DIDN'T I?

THE COURT: JUST TO PICK OUT EACH ONE OF THESE INDIVIDUAL THINGS AND TELL THEM DISREGARD THESE COMMENTS? TO SAY DURING THE COURSE OF THE OPENING STATEMENT BY DEFENSE COUNSEL THIS WITNESS WAS LISTED, THIS PERSON WAS MENTIONED, THIS PERSON, DISREGARD ALL THAT? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE ASKING ME TO DO?

MS. CLARK: THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE --

THE COURT: AND THEN SAY THE REASON FOR THIS IS BECAUSE WE HAVE RULES OF DISCOVERY, THAT IS DISCLOSURE OF WITNESSES, BECAUSE THEY WERE DISCLOSED AND IT WAS A SURPRISE TO THE PROSECUTION, THEY DON'T GET TO TALK ABOUT IT IN THEIR OPENING STATEMENT AND THAT IS THE REASON FOR THE DELAY? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE ASKING ME TO DO?

MS. CLARK: I WOULD LIKE -- MAY I HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR? WE HAVE TO --

THE COURT: YOU ARE ASKING ME TO DO THINGS. I WANT TO KNOW SPECIFICS. WHAT ARE YOU ASKING ME TO DO?

MS. CLARK: IF THE COURT WOULD ACTUALLY FRAME THE LANGUAGE OF THE ADMONITION, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO DO THAT, IF THE COURT COULD GIVE US -- WELL, IT IS KIND OF LATE ALREADY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WELL, BEFORE YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTION, LET ME ASK YOU THE QUESTION THAT IS MORE PRESSING ON MY MIND, IS WHAT IS THE CONDITION OF MR. HODGMAN THIS AFTERNOON?

MS. CLARK: WE DON'T HAVE FINAL WORD AND WE WILL NOT HAVE FINAL WORD AS TO WHEN HE IS GOING TO BE AVAILABLE TO COME BACK. WE WON'T HAVE THAT TODAY.

THE COURT: DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA WHEN HE IS GOING TO BE RELEASED? I SAW COLLEEN WILLIAMS REPORTING A PRESS COVERAGE DOWN AT THE HOSPITAL.

MS. CLARK: I BELIEVE THE DOCTORS HELD A PRESS CONFERENCE, BUT I HAVE NO IDEA.

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

MS. CLARK: WITH RESPECT TO THE ADMONITION, YOUR HONOR, WHAT THE PEOPLE WOULD REQUEST IS THAT THE JURY BE ADMONISHED AS FOLLOWS: THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL HAS COMMITTED SERIOUS ACTS OF MISCONDUCT, THAT THEY ARE TO VIEW VERY CAREFULLY THE OPENING STATEMENTS, THEY ARE NOT EVIDENCE AND THAT TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY FAIL TO FULFILL THE PROMISES MADE IN AN OPENING STATEMENT, ANY STATEMENTS MADE SHOULD BE DISREGARDED BECAUSE THEY DO NOT CONSTITUTE EVIDENCE.

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

MS. CLARK: THEY SHOULD BE --

THE COURT: THAT INVITES THEM TO SPECULATE THAT THE WHOLE THING WAS BAD.

MS. CLARK: THAT WHAT WHOLE THING WAS BAD?

THE COURT: DON'T I HAVE TO BE MORE SPECIFIC THAN THAT? BECAUSE CERTAINLY NOT ALL OF MR. COCHRAN'S OPENING STATEMENT IS IN DISPUTE OR THE PROPRIETY OF IT.

MS. CLARK: WELL, YOUR HONOR, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO -- WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE A BREAK SO THAT I CAN FRAME THEN SOMETHING MORE SPECIFIC. I CAN'T AT THIS TIME. BUT THEY DO NEED TO BE ADMONISHED CONCERNING COUNSEL'S MISCONDUCT. THEY NEED TO BE ADMONISHED TO DISREGARD COUNSEL'S STATEMENT CONCERNING THE WITNESSES WHO WILL NOT APPEAR OUT OF FEAR. THAT WAS A TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE COMMENT, VERY IMPROPER AND THE VERY -- VERY PREJUDICIAL, AND THE PEOPLE SHOULD -- THE JURORS SHOULD BE ADMONISHED TO TOTALLY DISREGARD THAT. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO THAT EFFECT. AND THEN WE SHOULD ASK COUNSEL AT THIS TIME --

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, I AM AWARE OF YOUR 1335 REQUEST.

MR. COCHRAN: YES.

MS. CLARK: WE ARE ENTITLED -- WE CAN LITIGATE THAT LATER.

THE COURT: AS SOON AS I RECEIVE A MOTION AND APPLICATION.

MS. CLARK: UH-HUH. WE ALSO WOULD REQUEST THAT THE DEFENSE SIT DOWN WITH MR. COCHRAN AND REVIEW THE BALANCE OF HIS OPENING STATEMENT TO DETERMINE IF THERE ARE ANY MORE WITNESSES HE INTENDS TO MENTION THAT THEY HAVE SOMEHOW MAGICALLY FORGOTTEN TO GIVE US DISCOVERY OF, AND WE ALSO ASK THAT THE CONSIDER TO ORDER THEM TO REDUCE TO WRITING ALL OF THESE REPORTS THEY CARRY AROUND IN THEIR HEAD WITH RESPECT TO THE WITNESSES THAT ARE CIVILIAN, AS WELL AS THE EXPERTS WHO THEY INTEND TO CALL. AND WE HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE RESUMPTION OF OPENING STATEMENT, PROVIDED IT BEGINS WITH THE COURT'S ADMONITION TO THEM.

THE COURT: DO YOU WANT MR. HODGMAN TO BE HERE?

MS. CLARK: I WOULD DEFINITELY PREFER THAT MR. HODGMAN BE HERE, YOUR HONOR. AND I'M GOING TO HAVE TO FIND OUT HOW LONG IT IS GOING TO BE. THAT I DON'T KNOW.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MS. CLARK: I FEEL LIKE IT IS UNFAIR OF ME TO MAKE A REQUEST TO WAIT FOR HIS RETURN IF I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS, AND SO I'M GOING TO HAVE TO ASK LEAVE OF THE COURT TO GET FURTHER INFORMATION BEFORE I MAKE ANY REQUEST ALONG THOSE LINES, EITHER WAY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MS. CLARK: I MEAN, IF HE DOESN'T COME BACK FOR TWO WEEKS, IS THAT FAIR? THAT IS NOT FAIR TO DEFENSE. AND SO I SHOULD REALLY FIND OUT HOW LONG WE ARE TALKING ABOUT BEFORE I ASK FOR ANYTHING.

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, YOU HAVE A PLAINTIVE LOOK ON YOUR FACE.

MR. COCHRAN: NOT LIKE THE PLAINTIVE WAIL. IF THE PRESS IS BEING TOLD ON MR. HODGMAN'S CONDITION THROUGH PRESS CONFERENCES AND THINGS AND WHY DON'T THEY TAKE A BREAK AND THEN THEY CAN CALL AND FIND OUT.

MS. CLARK: BECAUSE THE PRESS ISN'T BEING TOLD WHEN HE IS GOING TO BE RELEASED.

MR. COCHRAN: I THINK SHE SHOULD MAKE AN EFFORT TO TRY AND FIND OUT.

MS. CLARK: WELL, WE WILL.

THE COURT: WHY DON'T YOU TAKE FIVE MINUTES. MY COURT REPORTER TELLS ME SHE IS OUT OF PAPER, SO LET'S TAKE FIVE MINUTES. WHY DON'T YOU MAKE A PHONE CALL UPSTAIRS, AND THIS IS NOT A RECESS, SO EVERYBODY STAY IN PLACE.

MS. CLARK: I HAVE ASKED TO BE BEEPED AS SOON AS THEY FIND OUT.

THE COURT: WE DON'T TURN ON BEEPERS IN THE COURTROOM, DO WE?

MS. CLARK: MY BEEPER ISN'T WITH ME, SO THAT IS OKAY. MY BEEPER IS UPSTAIRS. THEY WERE GOING TO CALL ME, SO I'M SUPPOSED TO GET A CALL THE MINUTE THEY FIND OUT.

THE COURT: MISS ROBERTSON, WHAT INFORMATION DID YOU RECEIVE FROM THE EVERY PRESENT MISS FAIRBANKS.

THE CLERK: SHE INDICATED THAT MR. -- SHE INDICATED THAT HE WAS HEALTHY AND HIS DOCTOR ANTICIPATED HE WOULD BE RELEASED SOME TIME NEXT WEEK, THAT HIS WIFE WAS REQUESTING THAT HE HAVE AN ADDITIONAL TIME OFF PERIOD. BASICALLY THAT WAS WHAT MISS FAIRBANKS RELATED TO ME ON THE PHONE.

MS. CLARK: SO HE IS GOING TO REMAIN IN THE HOSPITAL UNTIL NEXT WEEK?

THE CLERK: BASICALLY THAT IS WHAT MISS FAIRBANKS INDICATED OVER THE PHONE. SHE DIDN'T GIVE ME --

MS. CLARK: I HAD ASKED AS SOON AS WE HAD KNOWLEDGE THAT WE BE CALLED AND THEY DID. THANK YOU, GUYS. SO THAT IS ALL WE KNOW RIGHT NOW, IS THAT HE WILL BE BACK SOME TIME NEXT WEEK, AT LEAST RELEASED, BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHEN HE WILL COME BACK YET.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. IN LIGHT OF THAT --

DEPUTY MAGNERA: YOUR HONOR, ONE MOMENT. MISS CLARK.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: MISS CLARK?

MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR. FIRST OF ALL, MISS FAIRBANKS ASKED ME TO INFORM YOU THAT THE EVER PRESENT MISS FAIRBANKS IS HERE. SHE HAS GOTTEN WORD FROM THE PRESS COVERAGE THAT THEY WILL NOT STATE EXACTLY WHEN MR. HODGMAN IS GOING TO BE RELEASED. THE DOCTORS WOULD NOT GIVE A DEFINITE DATE. AND AS FOR HIS RETURN, IT IS UNCERTAIN AS TO WHETHER IT WILL BE THE BEGINNING PART OF NEXT WEEK OR THE END OF NEXT WEEK.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. IN LIGHT OF MR. HODGMAN'S ABSENCE, WHEN WILL YOU BE PREPARED TO GO FORWARD IN HIS ABSENCE? CAN YOU BE PREPARED TOMORROW TO GO FORWARD?

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

MS. CLARK: WITH OPENING STATEMENTS OR WITH EVIDENCE?

THE COURT: THE WHOLE ENCHILADA. I ASSUME MR. COCHRAN -- HE INDICATED HE HAD ONE OTHER SEGMENT OF THE CASE THAT HE WANTED TO TALK ABOUT AND I ASSUME, ALTHOUGH THAT IT WILL BE A RATHER LARGE PART, I ASSUME IT IS NOT THE WHOLE DAY, SO I WOULD ASSUME THAT HE WOULD CONCLUDE HIS OPENING STATEMENT IN THE MORNING AND THAT WE WOULD PROCEED TO WITNESSES IN THE AFTERNOON, ASSUMING WE STARTED AT A NORMAL HOUR.

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

MS. CLARK: MAY I HAVE A MOMENT?

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

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, I UNDERSTOOD -- THE COURT HAS NOT INDICATED ANY RULING SO FAR ON THE PEOPLE'S REQUEST FOR A CONTINUANCE TO DEAL WITH THE DISCOVERY THAT WAS JUST DUMPED ON US OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF DAYS.

THE COURT: I'M ASKING YOU WHEN WILL YOU BE ABLE TO DO THAT? I'M MINDFUL OF MR. HODGMAN'S ABSENCE. I'M MINDFUL OF THE FACT THAT HE IS A CRITICAL MEMBER OF THE PROSECUTION TEAM. I FRANKLY WILL NEED TIME TO GO THROUGH MY NOTES, TO COMPARE THE RECORD, BECAUSE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, AS I INDICATED, MY RECOLLECTION IS WE TALKED ABOUT 26 SPECIFIC ITEMS OF DISCOVERY AND/OR WITNESSES, SO THIS IS NOT SOMETHING I FEEL COMFORTABLE RULING FROM THE BENCH UPON, SO I PROBABLY WILL NOT BE PREPARED TO RULE UPON YOUR REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS UNTIL PROBABLY LATE TOMORROW IS MY PROBLEM, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT I WANT TO DRAG THE JURY DOWN TO SIT AROUND AND WAIT ALL DAY AGAIN. I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION.

MS. CLARK: WHAT WE COULD DO IS LET -- THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT MR. HODGMAN WILL RETURN ON MONDAY. IF FOR THE PURPOSE OF HAVING HIM PRESENT FOR OPENING STATEMENT WE COULD DO THAT ON MONDAY, BUT THEN -- WHAT I THOUGHT WE COULD DO IS SEVER THE ISSUES OF THE OPENING STATEMENT BEING COMPLETED AND THEN THE REQUEST FOR A CONTINUANCE.

THE COURT: WELL, YOU HAVE DUMPED A RATHER LARGE NUMBER OF THINGS IN MY LAP. IT ALSO IS GOING TO REQUIRE ME TO GO BACK THROUGH AND READ MR. COCHRAN'S OPENING STATEMENT AGAIN.

MS. CLARK: UH-HUH.

THE COURT: TO GO THROUGH THE RECORD TO SEE WHAT IS MENTIONED AND WHERE, SO THIS IS NOT SOMETHING I'M GOING TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH BETWEEN NOW AND FIVE O'CLOCK.

MS. CLARK: NO, AND YOUR HONOR, THIS IS FROM THE DEFENSE. THIS IS NOT FROM THE PEOPLE, BUT --

THE COURT: YOUR REQUEST, THOUGH.

MS. CLARK: WELL, IT IS OUR REQUEST.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MS. CLARK: NECESSITATED BY. ANYWAY, WHY NOT -- IF WE COULD HAVE IT GO OVER TO MONDAY FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPLETING OPENING STATEMENTS AND AT THE CONCLUSION OF OPENING STATEMENTS WOULD THAT GIVE THE COURT TIME TO RULE ON THE PEOPLE'S REQUEST AND THAT WAY WE WOULD KNOW WERE WE STAND?

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET ME JUST ASK MR. COCHRAN ONE QUESTION.

MR. COCHRAN: YES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I'M CONTEMPLATING GOING OVER UNTIL MONDAY. THAT WILL GIVE ME TIME TO REVIEW THIS, MAKE MY RULING, AND WE CAN FIND OUT DEFINITIVELY WHEN MR. HODGMAN WILL BE BACK. MY INCLINATION, THOUGH, IS TO DIRECT THE PEOPLE TO BE READY TO PROCEED. IF I RULE THAT CERTAIN SANCTIONS ARE APPROPRIATE, BUT THAT WE ARE GOING TO CONCLUDE THE OPENING STATEMENTS, THAT YOU BE READY TO PROCEED IMMEDIATELY, MR. COCHRAN, AND ASSUMING THAT WE PROCEED ON MONDAY, THAT THE PROSECUTION ALSO BE READY TO CALL WITNESSES MONDAY AFTERNOON.

MR. COCHRAN: I WILL BE READY. I AM READY NOW, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND THAT. I AM READY, TOO.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT WILL BE FINE AND I AM READY, AND MAKE NO MISTAKE, IT IS THE PEOPLE'S MOTION, NOT OURS. THE ONE THING I WOULD LIKE TO SAY, YOUR HONOR, WITH REGARD TO --

THE COURT: WELL, THE SITUATION -- THE CREATION OF THE SITUATION, THOUGH, I THINK RESTS ON THIS SIDE OF THE TABLE, AS MR. DOUGLAS CONCEDED THAT THESE STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED.

MR. COCHRAN: YES, WE HAVE SAID THAT. WE JUST SAID THAT IT WAS INADVERTENT. THE POINT IS, YOUR HONOR --

THE COURT: I COMPLIMENTED MR. DOUGLAS FOR BEING UP FRONT.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT IS THE KIND OF LAWYER THAT HE IS, YOUR HONOR, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT ON THE OTHER SIDE.

THE COURT: THE CREATION OF THE PROBLEM --

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY IS THIS, THOUGH. I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST TO THE COURT, I WOULD RATHER NOT HAVE MARCIA CLARK DRAFTING -- I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE ADDITIONAL TIME. I WOULD RATHER NOT HAVE HER DRAFTING ANYTHING THAT RELATES TO US.

THE COURT: I'M GOING TO SUGGEST THAT BOTH SIDES SUBMIT BY TEN O'CLOCK TOMORROW MORNING ANY ADMONITION TO THE JURY THEY FEEL IS APPROPRIATE.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. I THINK THAT IS FAIR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE WILL STAND IN RECESS. 9:00 A.M. MONDAY. BE PREPARED TO GO.

MS. CLARK: SUBMIT THE ADMONITION TOMORROW?

THE COURT: 10:00 A.M.

(AT 4:55 P.M. AN ADJOURNMENT WAS TAKEN UNTIL, MONDAY, JANUARY 30, 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 76

PAGES 11941 THROUGH 12109, 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 76 PAGES 11941 - 12109

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

DAY DATE SESSION PAGE VOL.

THURSDAY JANUARY 26, 1995 A.M. 11941 76
P.M. 11990 76
-----------------------------------------------------

PROCEEDINGS

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS ON DEFENSE FOR 11941 76 FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY

EXHIBITS

(NONE THIS VOLUME)