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

APPEARANCES: (APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED,
MR. HODGMAN NOT BEING PRESENT.)

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

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

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

THE COURT: GOOD MORNING, COUNSEL.

MR. COCHRAN: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, YOU'VE EACH RECEIVED A PHOTOCOPY OF THE COURT'S RULING REGARDING REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS. MY APOLOGIES TO COUNSEL FOR THE COURT'S FAILURE TO FAX YOU A COPY EARLIER THAN TODAY. I EXPERIENCED A COMPLETE BREAKDOWN IN MY FAX PROGRAM AT HOME. I ATTEMPTED TO FAX THIS TO ALL PARTIES YESTERDAY AND WAS APPARENTLY OBVIOUSLY NOT ABLE TO DO SO. IF THE PARTIES WISH, I WILL GIVE THEM LEAVE TO REVIEW THE RULING, AND I WOULD -- COURT'S RULING ASKS FOR INPUT FROM BOTH PARTIES REGARDING OPENING STATEMENTS AND THE JURY INSTRUCTION.

MR. COCHRAN: YES, I'VE READ IT. I'M READY TO PROCEED, YOUR HONOR, IF I MIGHT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: I WOULD LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW IT MORE CAREFULLY, YOUR HONOR. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ITEMS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE UP WITH THE COURT AND HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONFER WITH COCOUNSEL CONCERNING THE COURT'S RULING.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU THINK YOU NEED?

MS. CLARK: I WOULD LIKE TO AT LEAST UNTIL 1:30 TO ADDRESS THESE MATTERS.

THE COURT: WELL, LET ME -- MISS CLARK, LET ME TELL YOU WHAT I THINK THE TWO ISSUES ARE THAT WE NEED TO RESOLVE THIS MORNING. YOU'VE SEEN THE COURT'S RULING AND THE COURT'S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY TO DISREGARD OPENING STATEMENT COMMENTS REGARDING THE WITNESSES THAT ARE LISTED ON PAGE 4.

MS. CLARK: UH-HUH.

THE COURT: THIS IS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT THAN THE INSTRUCTION THAT YOU REQUESTED. YOU REQUESTED AN INSTRUCTION DIRECTING THE JURY TO DISREGARD THE COMMENTS OF COUNSEL. I THINK THAT IS OVERBROAD, AND I THINK THE ONLY REMEDY IS TO MENTION OR TO ASK THE JURY TO DISREGARD DEFENSE COUNSEL'S REFERENCE TO THESE PARTICULAR WITNESSES OR IF THERE ARE ANY OTHERS YOU FEEL THAT HAD BEEN MENTIONED IN THE RECORD THAT WHOSE MENTION WAS INAPPROPRIATE.

MS. CLARK: I DON'T NECESSARILY TAKE ISSUE WITH THAT PART, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: DO YOU AGREE WITH THE LIST THE COURT HAS TAKEN FROM THE RECORD?

MS. CLARK: THAT'S ONLY -- WITH RESPECT TO THIS AREA, I WAS REVIEWING THE TRANSCRIPT LAST NIGHT AND I THOUGHT THAT THERE WERE MORE REFERENCES TO OTHER WITNESSES.

THE COURT: WELL, THAT'S WHY I ASKED FOR A DRAFT -- I SUGGEST -- I ASKED BOTH SIDES FOR A PROPOSED INSTRUCTION BECAUSE I WAS SEEKING PARTICULARITY WITH REGARDS TO THE COURT'S INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY. THIS IS -- THE LIST THAT I HAVE HERE ON PAGE 4 AS A RESULT OF MY GOING THROUGH THE RECORD LINE BY LINE NOTING WHERE THESE PERSONS HAD BEEN MENTIONED AND THEN COMPARING IT WITH THE WITNESS LIST THAT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN DISCLOSED.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD REGARDING THE WITNESS LIST.

THE COURT: CERTAINLY, MR. COCHRAN.

MS. CLARK: THERE ARE CERTAIN NOTABLE WITNESSES WHO ARE NOT MENTIONED THAT WE SPECIFICALLY DELINEATED TO THE COURT WHEN WE WERE LAST IN SESSION, EXPERT WITNESSES PROMISED BY THE DEFENSE ALTHOUGH NOT BY NAME WHO HAVE NEVER EVEN BEEN DISCLOSED BY NAME TO THE PROSECUTION SUCH AS AN EXPERT IN TIRE TRACKS, AN EXPERT IN SHOEPRINTS, AN EXPERT ON FINGER CUTS, AN EXPERT ON RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS. NONE OF THESE HAVE EVEN BEEN NAMED TO US. AND THEN AGAIN, THE STATEMENTS MADE BY COUNSEL CONCERNING ALLEGED CONCLUSIONS DRAWN BY EXPERTS DR. BADIN AND DR. LEE, WE HAVE NO REPORTS, WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT COUNSEL INTENDS TO PRESENT BY WAY OF THEIR TESTIMONY, HAVING HAD NO DISCOVERY. SO THERE ARE MANY MORE THAT I WOULD ADD TO THIS LIST AND THAT THE COURT IS AWARE OF WERE NOT DISCLOSED TO THE PROSECUTION IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM.

THE COURT: WELL, YOU'LL NOTICE THAT THE COURT'S ORDER INCLUDES THOSE SPECIFIC PERSONS, AND I MAKE REFERENCE TO THE TRANSCRIPT WHERE CERTAIN EXPERT TESTIMONY IS MENTIONED AND IT INCLUDES THE ONES THAT YOU'VE JUST LISTED NOW. AND I THINK THAT THE REQUIREMENT AT THIS POINT IS THAT THEY BE DISCLOSED SINCE OBVIOUSLY THERE HAS BEEN INDICATED AN INTENTION TO CALL THOSE PERSONS AS WITNESSES.

MS. CLARK: I DON'T -- WHERE DOES THE COURT INDICATE TO THE JURY THAT THOSE EXPERTS HAVE BEEN --

THE COURT: NO, NO. WE'RE NOT THERE YET. FLIP BACK TO PAGE 2 WHERE WE START WITH THE SECTION ON EXPERT WITNESSES. ALL RIGHT. FIRST FULL PARAGRAPH AFTER THE QUOTATION FROM THE CODE SECTION, THERE'S AN ORDER FROM THE COURT DIRECTING DISCLOSURE OF THESE PERSONS' REPORTS, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, AND IN ADDITION, OTHER EXPERTS MENTIONED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL AT THESE PARTICULAR PLACES IN THE TRANSCRIPT, WHICH INCLUDE THE ONES THAT YOU'VE JUST MENTIONED.

MS. CLARK: IS THIS PART OF WHAT THE COURT PROPOSES TO SAY TO THE JURY?

THE COURT: NO, BECAUSE I THINK WHAT I NEED TO DO FIRST IS DETERMINE WHO THESE PEOPLE ARE BECAUSE THEY MAY BE PERSONS ALREADY DISCLOSED TO YOU. BUT I'M CONCERNED -- MY CONCERN HERE IS ALSO THE REPORTS.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, YOUR HONOR --

MS. CLARK: THERE WERE PEOPLE WHO WERE NOT MENTIONED BY NAME TO THE JURY IN OPENING STATEMENT, THE -- THOSE WITNESSES -- THE PEOPLE ARE NOT AWARE OF WHO THESE EXPERTS MIGHT BE EVEN BY NAME.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, IF YOU READ THE FIRST SENTENCE, IT SAYS, "THE DEFENSE IS THEREFORE ORDERED TO IMMEDIATELY DISCLOSE," BLAH, BLAH BLAH, "AND THE IDENTITY OF THESE PERSONS."

MS. CLARK: I'M AWARE OF THAT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SO I ASSUME THAT THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TODAY. NOW, AFTER YOU'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO FIND OUT WHO THOSE PEOPLE ARE, THEN YOU CAN MAKE YOUR JUDGMENT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE COURT'S INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY.

MS. CLARK: THEN I'M UNABLE AT THIS TIME TO INDICATE TO THE COURT WHAT THE PEOPLE'S POSITION IS WITH RESPECT TO THIS RULING BECAUSE THERE'S INFORMATION WE STILL DON'T HAVE.

THE COURT: WELL, IT'S A RULING. AFTER YOU RECEIVE -- AFTER YOU'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK THAT OVER -- I'M GOING TO PROCEED TODAY. MY INCLINATION IS TO INSTRUCT THE JURY AS I'VE INDICATED TODAY AND TO MOVE ON WITH THE CASE. AND IF IT COMES TO LIGHT THAT THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE, I CAN ALWAYS INSTRUCT THE JURY AS TO OTHER PARTICULARS.

MS. CLARK: WELL, THERE'S ALREADY AN INDICATION OF THERE ARE WITNESSES NOT DISCLOSED TO US BY VIRTUE OF COUNSEL'S OPENING STATEMENT CONCERNING THOSE EXPERTS.

THE COURT: WE DON'T KNOW THAT YET.

MS. CLARK: I'M TELLING THE COURT --

THE COURT: I HAVE THE SUSPICION THAT THE TIRE TRACK PERSON IS PROBABLY DR. LEE.

MS. CLARK: SUSPICION IS CERTAINLY NOTHING --

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, IT'S NOT A SUSPICION. IT IS DR. HENRY LEE.

MS. CLARK: WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I FINALLY HEAR THIS TODAY THIS MORNING. THE PEOPLE ARE ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY, YOUR HONOR, NOT AN ASSUMPTION AND NOT A SUSPICION.

MR. COCHRAN: WE HAVE GIVEN --

MS. CLARK: WE HAVEN'T BEEN TOLD ANYTHING.

THE COURT: HOLD ON.

MS. CLARK: WE HAVEN'T SEEN A REPORT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I AGREE. AND, MISS CLARK, THAT'S WHY I ORDERED ITS IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE, WHICH IS TODAY.

MS. CLARK: AND I APPRECIATE THAT, YOUR HONOR, I REALLY DO. BUT I'M ASKING FOR THE COURT TO INFORM THE JURY THAT WE WERE NOT INFORMED OF ANY OF THAT EITHER. THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED TO US AS WELL. NOT JUST THESE WITNESSES, BUT THE EXPERTS AND WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO TESTIFY TO. WHY DO WE FIND OUT ONLY IN OPENING STATEMENT THAT MR. COCHRAN INTENDS TO CALL THESE EXPERT WITNESSES TO TESTIFY TO VARIOUS THINGS OF WHICH WE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE? THE CODE REQUIRES THEM TO DO SO. THOSE EXPERTS AS HE MENTIONED IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT, OF WHICH WE HAD NO DISCOVERY, AND ONLY NOW BASED ON THE COURT'S STATED SUSPICION DO WE HEAR THAT THAT'S WHO WAS GOING TO TESTIFY TO WHAT HE REPRESENTED TO THE JURY, FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER WHEN WE HEARD IT, THAT'S A BLATANT VIOLATION AS WELL. WE ARE ENTITLED TO KNOW --

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, YOUR HONOR --

THE COURT: HOLD ON. HOLD ON. MR. COCHRAN, YOU'LL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

MS. CLARK: WE WERE ENTITLED TO KNOW ABOUT THOSE WITNESSES JUST AS WE WERE ENTITLED TO KNOW ABOUT THE WITNESSES LISTED BY THE COURT IN ITS ORDER. THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING FOR THE COURT TO INCLUDE THEM IN THE ORDER. WHY WOULD THEY BE ANY DIFFERENT?

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET ME ASK ANOTHER QUESTION. WHAT IS YOUR POSITION ON YOUR REQUEST TO REOPEN AT THIS TIME?

MS. CLARK: THE PEOPLE STRENUOUSLY URGE THE COURT TO ALLOW US TO REOPEN. I WILL CITE TO THE COURT THE CIVIL CASE THAT I BROUGHT DOWN TO COURT THE OTHER DAY. I KNOW THE COURT ALREADY HAS IT THROUGH LEXIS. BUT IT DOES AUTHORIZE THE REOPENING OF OPENING STATEMENT. I WOULD LIKE FOR THE COURT TO SEE THAT AND WE WOULD LIKE TO REOPEN. THE COURT HAS REQUESTED A PROFFER AS TO WHAT WE WOULD ADDRESS IN THE OPENING STATEMENT --

THE COURT: YES.

MS. CLARK: AND WE WILL -- UNTIL MR. COCHRAN COMPLETES THE OPENING STATEMENT, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO KNOW THE ENTIRETY OF IT BECAUSE ALTHOUGH IT'S BEEN REPRESENTED TO US WE HAVE FULL AND COMPLETE DISCOVERY, WE OBVIOUSLY DO NOT. AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT OTHER SURPRISES ARE GOING TO BE FORTHCOMING FROM MR. COCHRAN. SO I'M NOT -- I CAN'T GIVE A COMPLETE PROFFER AS TO WHAT WE WOULD STATE AT THIS TIME.

THE COURT: WELL, AS TO THE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE LISTED IN THE COURT'S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION, AS TO THOSE LIMITED INDIVIDUALS, WHAT IS YOUR PROFFER?

MS. CLARK: WELL, WE DON'T HAVE A STATEMENT YET FROM MICHELLE. WE DON'T HAVE A STATEMENT FROM MARK PARTRIDGE. WE DON'T HAVE A STATEMENT FROM HOWARD WEITZMAN. WE DON'T HAVE A STATEMENT FROM SKIP TAFT. WE DON'T HAVE A STATEMENT FROM CHRISTIAN RIECHARDT. WE STILL DON'T HAVE DISCOVERY OF THEM. AND IN ORDER TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY IN RESPONSE, I NEED TO HAVE THOSE STATEMENTS.

THE COURT: MY RECOLLECTION IS, THAT IS A LIST OF PEOPLE WHOSE STATEMENTS WERE BELATEDLY GIVEN TO YOU AND/OR -- YES. THOSE STATEMENTS WERE GIVEN TO YOU, ALBEIT AT THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS AFTER THE FIRST DAY OF OPENING STATEMENT BY THE DEFENSE.

MS. CLARK: NO, YOUR HONOR. WE HAVE NEVER RECEIVED A STATEMENT FOR MICHELLE -- MARK PARTRIDGE I BELIEVE IS A ONE-PARAGRAPH REPRESENTATION THAT HE SPOKE TO DEFENSE COUNSEL, BUT NO PARTICULARS AS TO WHAT HE SAID. HOWARD WEITZMAN, WE HAVE NO STATEMENT. SKIP TAFT, NO STATEMENT. CHRISTIAN RIECHARDT, NO STATEMENT. THERE'S ONLY ONE WITNESS HERE FOR WHICH WE REALLY HAVE A STATEMENT. THAT'S MARY ANNE GERCHAS. AND WE ARE PUTTING TOGETHER A PROFFER AS TO HER AT THIS TIME. I BELIEVE THAT MR. DARDEN WILL BE BRINGING IT DOWN WITH HIM.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I RESPOND TO THOSE STATEMENTS SITUATION, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: WELL, HOLD ON JUST A MINUTE, MR. COCHRAN. I JUST WANTED TO SETTLE WHERE WE ARE AT THIS POINT. ALL RIGHT. MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: YES, YOUR HONOR, IF I MIGHT.

THE COURT: GOOD MORNING, SIR.

MR. COCHRAN: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. WE -- I JUST GOT YOUR HONOR'S ORDER THIS MORNING, PROPOSED ORDER, AND WE'VE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW IT. I WOULD LIKE TO FIRST OF ALL TURN OUR ATTENTION TO THE LIST OF WITNESSES THAT THE COURT PROPOSES TO TELL THE JURY ABOUT IN THE JURY INSTRUCTION, WHICH I THINK IS THE HEART OF YOUR HONOR'S PROPOSED ORDER OBVIOUSLY. WITH REGARD TO MARY ANN GERCHAS, MR. DOUGLAS HAS INDICATED THAT -- AND OUR POSITION IS AND WILL ALWAYS BE AND ABSOLUTELY IS THAT WHEN I READ THE NAME MARY ANN GERCHAS, I BELIEVED THAT THAT STATEMENT HAD BEEN TURNED OVER. IT IN FACT HADN'T, AND WE INDICATED THAT. WITH REGARD TO MICHELLE ABUDRAHM, THERE IS NO STATEMENT. WITH REGARD TO MARK PARTRIDGE, THE PROSECUTION, YOUR HONOR, HAD IN FACT BEEN GIVEN A PORTION OF HIS STATEMENT. IN FACT, IN A LETTER THAT HE WROTE AFTER A MEMO WHERE -- HE'S A LAWYER AS THE COURT IS AWARE. HE RETURNED BACK TO CHICAGO IF I RECALL -- AND I'LL TRY TO FIND THIS -- MR. PARTRIDGE WROTE A LETTER DETAILING HIS OBSERVATIONS OF MR. SIMPSON AND SENT A COPY TO THE PROSECUTION AND TO THE DEFENSE. MR. DOUGLAS TURNED OVER ANOTHER TWO PAGES I THINK AFTERWARDS. THEY HAD ALREADY BEEN NOTIFIED OF MR. PARTRIDGE AND HAD AN EARLIER STATEMENT, AND I BELIEVE THEY ALSO HAD HIS LENGTHY MEMO OF ABOUT WHAT HAD TAKEN PLACE. WITH REGARD TO HOWARD WEITZMAN, SKIP TAFT, THERE ARE NO STATEMENTS. THESE ARE BOTH LAWYERS, AND WE TRIED TO EXPLAIN THAT TO THE COURT. THERE ARE NO STATEMENTS. THERE IS NO SUBTERFUGE. THE COURT IS AWARE OF THE RELATIONSHIP WE WOULD HAVE WITH SKIP TAFT, A BUSINESS LAWYER THAT WE TALKED TO ON A DAILY BASIS. THERE IS NO REPORT.

THE COURT: WELL, THE PROBLEM, MR. COCHRAN, IS THAT NEITHER OF THESE PERSONS APPEAR ON YOUR WITNESS LIST.

MR. COCHRAN: AND I APPRECIATE THAT. BUT I'M SAYING THERE IS NO REPORT REGARDING THOSE TWO. WITH REGARD TO CHRISTIAN RIECHARDT --

THE COURT: BUT THE FACT THAT THEY WERE NOT PLACED ON THE WITNESS LIST, THERE'S NO NOTIFICATION TO THE OTHER SIDE THAT THEY ARE GOING TO BE WITNESSES, THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

MR. COCHRAN: AND I UNDERSTAND AND I INDICATE TO THE COURT THAT IS THROUGH INADVERTENCE AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR HONOR'S SANCTION ON THAT. WITH REGARD TO CHRISTIAN RIECHARDT, THEY HAVE INTERVIEWED CHRISTIAN RIECHARDT AT LENGTH. HE'S ON THE LIST. THEY INTERVIEWED HIM AT LENGTH WITH DOMINIC RUBALCAVA, THE LAWYER. THERE'S A TRANSCRIPT TO THAT EFFECT I BELIEVE AND WE HAVE NO STATEMENT, WE HAVE NO REPORT OF CHRISTIAN RIECHARDT. SO I GUESS WHAT I'M ASKING THE COURT WITH REGARD TO RIECHARDT -- I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PREJUDICE IS. WE HAVE NO REPORT. THEY KNOW ABOUT HIM. HE'S FAY RESNICK'S FORMER FIANCE'. YOU HEARD WHAT MR. DARDEN SAID. AND IT'S VERY INTERESTING, YOUR HONOR, HOW MR. DARDEN CAN IMMEDIATELY MAKE SOME STATEMENT MALIGNING CHRISTIAN RIECHARDT WHEN HE KNOWS EVERYTHING ABOUT HIM OR, FOR INSTANCE, WITH REGARD TO MARY ANN GERCHAS, WHEN THEY HEARD THE NAME, IT SEEMS THAT THEY ALREADY HAD KNOWN ABOUT HER. AND THE COURT WILL RECALL THAT WITH REGARD TO MARY ANN GERCHAS -- THIS IS NOT TO OBVIATE WHATEVER YOU FEEL IS PROPER. I'M PREPARED TO GO FORWARD AND ARGUE. MARY ANN GERCHAS HAD TRIED TO CONTACT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. THE COURT SHOULD READ THAT STATEMENT. SHE NOT ONLY TALKED TO PATTY FAIRBANKS IN THE D.A.'S OFFICE. SHE PUTS IN THE STATEMENT IF I RECALL THE PHONE NUMBER OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE THAT SHE CALLED.

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, THOUGH, THAT'S DANCING AROUND THE ISSUE. THE ISSUE IS, WAS THIS PERSON NAMED AS A WITNESS BY THE DEFENSE --

MR. COCHRAN: NO, SHE WAS NOT.

THE COURT: -- AND WERE THE STATEMENTS IN YOUR POSSESSION TURNED OVER PRIOR TO TRIAL. THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS NO.

MR. COCHRAN: SHE WAS NAMED. SHE WAS NAMED I BELIEVE AND THE STATEMENT WAS NOT TURNED OVER AS I INDICATED TO THE COURT.

THE COURT: THAT'S A VIOLATION OF THE DISCOVERY ORDER.

MR. COCHRAN: AND I APPRECIATE THAT, YOUR HONOR. BUT I THOUGHT THE COURT SHOULD HAVE ALL THE FACTS. AND I THINK WHAT IT DOES, IT GOES TO THE STATE OF MIND -- OUR STATE OF MIND. YOUR HONOR -- AND IF I CAN SAY THIS AGAIN. NO WAY IN THE WORLD -- WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD WE WANT TO WITHHOLD WITNESSES FROM THEM THAT YOU COULD POSSIBLY PRECLUDE DOWN THE ROAD? WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING TO DAMAGE MR. SIMPSON. IN THE EFFORT -- THIS IS A MASSIVE VOLUME OF WORK WITHOUT AN EXCUSE. WE WANT TO GET THIS CASE UNDERWAY. WE ARE NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING TO HARM THAT. WE WANT TO TRY THE CASE. WE'RE THE ONES WHO DID NOT WAIVE TIME AND WANT TO GET IT FORWARD. WE UNDERSTAND WE HAVE TO ALL ABIDE BY THE RULES, AND WE ACCEPT THAT. THE OTHER THING I THINK THAT THE COURT SHOULD LISTEN TO IS THAT THIS VIOLATION -- IN THE JURY INSTRUCTION, PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION, THE COURT SAID -- THE COURT PROPOSES THIS WAS VIOLATION OF THE LAW AND THE CAUSE OF THE TWO-DAY DELAY. WELL, THAT'S NOT COMPLETELY CORRECT BECAUSE AS YOU INDICATE LATER, PART OF THE CAUSE OF THE DELAY WAS THE ILLNESS OF D.A. WILLIAM HODGMAN. SO I THINK THE COURT NEEDS TO MODIFY THAT IN SOME WAY SO IT MORE ACCURATELY REFLECTS THE FACTS. IF THAT WAS THE ONLY CAUSE, PERHAPS WE COULD HAVE ARGUED ON FRIDAY OR WHATEVER. SO I THINK THAT -- I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO CONSIDER THAT. WITH REGARD TO THE EXPERTS, WE WILL COMPLY WHEREVER POSSIBLE, YOUR HONOR. WE DO NOT HAVE REPORTS YET BECAUSE MUCH OF -- THE REASON WE DON'T HAVE REPORTS, YOUR HONOR, IS BECAUSE OUR EXPERTS HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO ACTUALLY EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE. WE'RE MAKING A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT, TO BE ABLE TO EXAMINE THIS EVIDENCE IN THEIR LAB THAT THEY CAN THEN MAKE THE REPORT. WE KNOW GENERALLY FROM THEIR OBSERVATIONS WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO SAY. AND FOR COUNSEL TO SAY THAT THEY DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT DRS. BADIN AND DRS. LEE -- AND DR. LEE AND DR. WOLF WERE OUT HERE THE WEEK OF JUNE 12TH, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT IS AWARE. THE OTHER THING, AS THE COURT CORRECTLY POINTS OUT, IN THIS REOPENING OF THE OPENING STATEMENT, IT IS ILLOGICAL AT BEST AND I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE CONFUSING AT WORSE TO ALLOW THEM TO REOPEN TO TALK ABOUT MARY ANN GERCHAS, FROM THAT STANDPOINT. I THINK THAT IF YOU ADMONISH THE JURY TO DISREGARD IT, THEN THEY GET UP AND THEN TALK ABOUT HER, THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE, YOUR HONOR. THEN DO I GET A CHANCE TO RESPOND TO WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY? YOUR HONOR, WHAT'S HAPPENED IN THIS COURTROOM IS, THEY HAVE CONTINUALLY MALIGNED WITNESSES. AND THAT HAS AN INTIMIDATING EFFECT AND THAT IS WRONG. SO WHILE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE DEFENSE, LET'S TALK ABOUT THEM. OVER THIS WEEKEND, EVERY ONE OF THESE WITNESSES THAT WERE MALIGNED BY MR. DARDEN NOW HAVE LAWYERS; MARY ANN GERCHAS, CHRISTIAN RIECHARDT, RON FISCHMAN AND ROSA LOPEZ.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT TO THIS. NONE OF THIS IS RESPONSIVE.

THE COURT: HOLD ON. MISS CLARK, PLEASE.

MS. CLARK: NONE OF THIS IS RESPONSIVE TO THE COURT'S QUESTION.

THE COURT: I'M GOING TO INSTRUCT COUNSEL NOT TO INTERRUPT OTHER COUNSEL'S STATEMENTS. THIS COURT IS MORE THAN PATIENT. I ALLOW EACH SIDE TO COMPLETELY SAY WHAT IT IS THEY WANT TO SAY. I'M NOT GOING TO TOLERATE ANY MORE INTERRUPTIONS BY COUNSEL FROM EITHER SIDE. THAT'S A WARNING TO ALL COUNSEL. NEXT VIOLATION WILL BE DEALT WITH BY SANCTIONS, INCLUDING CONTEMPT.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I PROCEED YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: PLEASE.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU. YOUR HONOR, WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY IS, I THINK IT'S TOTALLY IMPROPER TO DO THOSE THINGS BECAUSE IT HAS AN EFFECT ON THESE WITNESSES AND I THINK IT'S TOTALLY UNFAIR. NOW, WHAT THE COURT IS GOING TO SEE IN THE COMING WEEKS, THESE LAWYERS WILL ALL BE ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE; AND IT HAS A PRONOUNCED EFFECT WHEN A DISTRICT ATTORNEY STANDS UP AND SAYS THAT AND DOES THAT IN OPEN COURT. AND I THINK THAT IS GERMAINE TO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AND TO PROCEDURES, YOUR HONOR. SO I WOULD JUST LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY, IF THE COURT WOULD ALLOW US, TO RESPOND TO THE PEOPLE'S REQUEST FOR THIS REOPENING. AS I SAID, I THINK THAT'S TOTALLY -- WOULD BE IMPROPER --

THE COURT: WELL, MR. COCHRAN, WHAT I ANTICIPATE DOING IS, AFTER I HEAR THE PROSECUTION'S PROFFER AS TO WHAT IT IS THEY WOULD GO INTO AND HOW IT IS THAT THEY WOULD APPROACH IT, THEN I'LL ALLOW YOU TO RESPOND TO THAT TO SEE IF IT'S APPROPRIATE.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. BECAUSE I THINK WHAT WE'VE SEEN SO FAR AGAIN IS TRIAL IN THE MEDIA. WHAT WE SAW IN COURT HERE, TO HAVE A WITNESS WHO'S NEVER BEEN BEFORE THIS COURT, I PRESUME BRANDED AS A CERTIFIED PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, YOUR HONOR, THAT'S OUTRAGEOUS. AND IF NOT -- WOULD NOT BE DONE EXCEPT UNDER THE AEGIS OF SOME KIND OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY HERE IN COURT. AND I THINK THAT'S UNFAIR. AND THE WITNESS THEN OBVIOUSLY HAD A GREAT EFFECT UPON HER. AND WHAT KIND OF MESSAGE DOES THAT SEND OUT TO OTHER WITNESSES, YOUR HONOR? FURTHERMORE, ALL THE THINGS THAT WERE INTRODUCED, YOUR HONOR, THE THINGS THAT WERE INTRODUCED WOULD PROBABLY NOT EVEN BE ADMISSIBLE FROM A STANDPOINT OF ATTACKING THIS LADY'S CREDIBILITY. SHE HAS SOME CIVIL LAWSUITS, HOW IS THAT RELEVANT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT ON JUNE 12TH OF 1994 AT ABOUT 10:45 IN THE EVENING, SHE SAW FOUR MEN RUNNING FROM THE VICINITY OF 875 SOUTH BUNDY? THAT'S GOING TO BE REALLY THE ISSUE, YOUR HONOR, ISN'T IT?

THE COURT: ABSOLUTELY.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S THE ISSUE. AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE OTHER THINGS THAT HAPPENED SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN AGAIN BECAUSE I'M JUST SAYING TO THE COURT THAT THIS IS HAVING A PRONOUNCED EFFECT, AND I KNOW THAT BECAUSE I'M BEING CONTACTED BY THESE PEOPLE.

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

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. YOUR HONOR, MAYBE I SHOULD SAY ONE OTHER THING. AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 1, I THINK IT WAS CLEAR, AS WE INDICATED TO THE COURT, THE OTHER WITNESSES THAT WERE TURNED OVER -- BECAUSE THE COURT HAD ORDERED MR. DOUGLAS TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION, AND WE SHOULD MAKE IT CLEAR THAT HE DID EXACTLY AS YOU HAD ASKED AND MAKE IT CLEAR ALSO THAT THIS HAS NOT BEEN HIS RESPONSIBILITY PRIOR TO JANUARY 2ND OF 1995.

THE COURT: OH, I THINK THE RECORD SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. MR. DOUGLAS DID INDICATE THAT THAT WAS HIS RESPONSIBILITY AS OF THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR.

MR. COCHRAN: YES. AND HE TOOK IT OVER. AND OF THAT LIST, OF THE TOTAL LIST THAT WE'VE HEARD SO MUCH ABOUT, YOUR HONOR -- AND WE DISPUTE MARK PARTRIDGE BECAUSE WE THINK THEY DID KNOW HIM AND HAD A STATEMENT FROM HIM -- THE ONLY TWO PEOPLE THAT WERE BASICALLY MENTIONED IN THE OPENING STATEMENT WERE MARY ANNE GERCHAS AND MICHELLE ABUDRAHM, AND APPARENTLY THERE IS NO REPORT THAT WE HAVE ON MICHELLE. YOUR HONOR -- AND THE OTHER THING THAT ALSO COMES TO MIND, MR. DOUGLAS REMINDS ME IS, THE COURT WILL RECALL THAT IN ONE OF HIS DIATRIBES, MR. DARDEN STOOD UP AND SAID, IF RON FISCHMAN TELLS THE TRUTH, HE'LL SAY THAT O.J. SIMPSON MADE A STATEMENT ABOUT GETTING SOMEBODY. NOW, YOUR HONOR, WE'VE NEVER SEEN ANY REPORT LIKE THAT. WE'VE NEVER SEEN ANY SUCH STATEMENT. SO WHEN HE MAKES THOSE KINDS OF STATEMENTS OR WHEN HE IMMEDIATELY HE KNOWS ABOUT MARY ANNE GERCHAS -- AND ANOTHER STATEMENT HE SAYS, IF YOU RECALL, IF MR. COCHRAN HAD ASKED ME, I WOULD HAVE TOLD HIM ABOUT THIS WITNESS OR THESE WITNESSES. HOW DOES HE KNOW THOSE THINGS, YOUR HONOR, IMMEDIATELY IF HE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THESE WITNESSES? I THINK THE COURT IN BEING EVEN-HANDED, WHICH YOU ARE, WOULD WANT TO INQUIRE ABOUT THAT.

THE COURT: WELL, I'VE ALREADY SANCTIONED THE PROSECUTION SEVERELY FOR THEIR TRANSGRESSIONS IN THE DISCOVERY PROCESS. AND THIS SANCTION PROCEEDING PROCESS I SUSPECT WILL CONTINUE THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL.

MR. COCHRAN: I CERTAINLY HOPE NOT AFTER TODAY, YOUR HONOR. IT WILL NOT -- IT WON'T BE NECESSARY. BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT I'M SAYING, HOW WOULD HE THEN BE IN A POSITION TO GIVE ME ADVICE ABOUT WITNESSES IF HE HAD KNOWN OR TO KNOW -- HAVE A STATEMENT ABOUT RON FISCHMAN IF HE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT RON FISCHMAN? I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT AND I DON'T THINK IT MAKES SENSE. SO I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO INQUIRE ABOUT THAT. TO CONCLUDE MY POINT THOUGH, OTHER WITNESSES THAT YOU ASKED MR. DOUGLAS TO PROFFER FOR THE COURT, WE DID THAT. AS MR. DOUGLAS HAS INDICATED, MANY OF THESE WITNESSES WERE OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION, PROBABLY NEVER BE CALLED. BUT SECONDLY, THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW ABOUT IT AND WE'VE DONE THAT. BUT NONE OF THOSE -- ALMOST NONE OF THOSE WITNESSES WERE MENTIONED IN THE OPENING STATEMENT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF GERCHAS AND MICHELLE ABUDRAHM, AS I SAID, REFERRING TO THE LIST AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 1, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: WELL, YOU DID MENTION GERCHAS, ABUDRAHM, PARTRIDGE, WEITZMAN, TAFT AND RIECHARDT IN YOUR OPENING COMMENTS.

MR. COCHRAN: RIGHT. I WAS REFERRING TO THE LIST AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 1. AND I DID IN FACT MENTION THE OTHERS. AND AS I SAID, THERE ARE NO REPORTS, BUT I DID IN FACT MENTION THEM. BUT I THINK AGAIN, YOUR HONOR, THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW -- THE PROSECUTION, YOUR HONOR, KNOWS ABOUT HOWARD WEITZMAN AND SKIP TAFT BECAUSE THEY WERE DOWN THERE WITH MR. SIMPSON AT THE TIME HE GAVE A STATEMENT. NOW, WE DON'T HAVE A STATEMENT AND IT WAS AN OVERSIGHT AND THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUT ON THE LIST. THESE ARE TWO LAWYERS. NOW, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK THE COURT IS GOING TO SHOOT ME OVER THAT. I MEAN I THINK THAT -- YOU MAY WANT TO.

THE COURT: DON'T TEMPT ME.

MR. COCHRAN: I DON'T THINK YOU ARE GOING TO SHOOT ME OVER THAT. AND CHRISTIAN RIECHARDT, YOUR HONOR, THEY KNOW ABOUT -- THEY EVEN INTERVIEWED HIM. THEY KNOW THAT'S FAY RESNICK'S BOYFRIEND. AND I THINK, AS I SAID, WITH MARK PARTRIDGE, THEY HAD A STATEMENT ON HIM. SO I THINK THE COURT SHOULD LISTEN TO US. I WOULD LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND SPECIFICALLY WHEN THEY'RE READY. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED, YOUR HONOR. LET ME JUST CLOSE BY SAYING, THE COURT CAN GIVE THESE PROPOSED SANCTIONS, AND YOU'VE DONE THAT FOR THE PROSECUTION. I MEAN IT SHOULD BE CLEAR THEY WERE SANCTIONED, AND YOU DID THAT, AND NOW YOU IMPOSE SANCTIONS UPON US. WE WILL PROCEED WITH THOSE. I THINK YOU SHOULD MAKE SOME ADJUSTMENT IN THE ORDER REGARDING THE DELAY. I THINK IT'S NOT FAIR TO SAY IT'S ONLY THE DEFENSE. BUT WE'RE THEN READY TO PROCEED, YOUR HONOR, AND I WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO PROCEED THIS MORNING. KEEP IN MIND, IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT SANCTIONS, HOW UNFAIR IT IS TO MR. O.J. SIMPSON, THAT, NUMBER ONE, THROUGH NO FAULT OF HIS, I COULDN'T RESPOND IMMEDIATELY WHEN THE PROSECUTORS WERE FINISHED ON TUESDAY. THE COURT DECLARED A RECESS. ON WEDNESDAY, I WAS ABLE TO START RESPONDING, AND WE HAD ALL THESE OBJECTIONS FROM THE PROSECUTION. THEN MR. HODGMAN GETS SICK. AND THURSDAY AND FRIDAY, WE'VE BEEN OFF. THE COURT SAYS BE READY AT 9:00 O'CLOCK. WE COME IN, WE GET THE ORDER ABOUT 8:30. WE'RE READY, READY AGAIN. I'VE BEEN READY FOR ABOUT NOW 10 DAYS TO GIVE THIS OPENING STATEMENT. NOW THE PROSECUTOR SAYS, GEE, JUDGE, WE NEED NOW UNTIL 1:30. I MEAN SOMETIME, AT SOME TIME, I SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO COMPLETE THE OPENING STATEMENT, JUDGE. AND I THINK THAT THAT ALSO HAS TAKEN THE FORM OF A SANCTION AND I THINK IT'S A SANCTION THAT IS NOT ONLY UPON THE DEFENSE, BUT DIRECTLY UPON MR. SIMPSON, AND I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO ALLOW US TO GO FORWARD AT THIS POINT.

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

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK. I THINK WHAT I'M MOST INTERESTED IN IS HEARING WHAT YOUR CONTEMPLATION IS OF YOUR PROFFER REGARDING THE REOPENING OF OPENING STATEMENT.

MS. CLARK: WHAT DO WE CONTEMPLATE DOING?

THE COURT: YEAH.

MS. CLARK: WE HAVE AMASSED INFORMATION ON SEVERAL OF THE WITNESSES MENTIONED BY MR. COCHRAN THAT ALLOWS US TO UNDERSTAND PRECISELY WHY HE HID THEM THE WAY HE DID, AND WE ARE GOING TO PREPARE THOSE REMARKS FOR THE COURT. WE HAVE BEEN ASSEMBLING THAT INFORMATION OVER THE WEEKEND, AND NOW THAT WE'RE FINALLY IN POSSESSION OF THE COURT'S RULING, WE WILL ADDRESS WHAT THE COURT ASKED US TO ADDRESS. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PUT THAT TOGETHER IN A FORM THAT WILL ALLOW ME TO SUCCINCTLY STATE FOR THE COURT WHAT THE POINTS ARE THAT WE INTEND TO ADDRESS WITH EACH WITNESS. I WOULD SIMPLY INDICATE THAT THE STATEMENT TAKEN FROM MARY ANNE GERCHAS MOST RECENTLY REFLECTS THE FACT THAT COUNSEL, COUNSEL ALONE WAS IN POSSESSION OF HER STATEMENT, THAT SHE ASKED COUNSEL TO TURN HER STATEMENT OVER TO THE PROSECUTION AND COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE NEVER DID. SHE INDICATES VERY SPECIFICALLY THAT SHE SPOKE TO MR. HOSTETLER, WHO WE KNEW TO BE ONE OF THE INVESTIGATORS FOR THE DEFENSE, AND SHE TOLD HIM THAT SHE WANTED THEM TO TURN THE STATEMENT OVER TO US. SO EVEN THE WITNESSES ASKED TO DO THAT AND DEFENSE WILLFULLY REFUSED TO DO SO.

THE COURT: WELL, MISS CLARK, YOU ARE ARGUING AN ISSUE AND RULING THAT THE COURT HAS ALREADY MADE. I'VE ALREADY MADE A FINDING ADVERSE TO THE DEFENSE. I'VE GRANTED A LARGE NUMBER OF THE SANCTIONS THAT YOU'VE REQUESTED. I AM GOING TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT A TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW OF DISCOVERY HAS OCCURRED AND HAS BEEN PART OF THE CAUSE OF THE DELAY. SO TO ARGUE THE BASIS FOR THE COURT'S RULING AT THIS POINT DOESN'T HELP ME A LOT. WHAT I NEED TO KNOW IS, ASSUMING I AM WILLING TO ALLOW YOU TO REOPEN, SINCE THIS IS A HIGHLY UNUSUAL REMEDY THAT YOU ASKED FOR AND THE FACT THAT THERE'S ONLY ONE CIVIL CASE THAT DEALS WITH THAT -- I HAVE NEVER SEEN A CASE ALLOWING REOPENING AFTER A DISCOVERY SANCTION HAS BEEN PROPOSED.

MS. CLARK: WHEN HAS THE COURT SEEN AN ABUSE -- BUT WHEN HAS THE COURT SEEN A VIOLATION THIS SEVERE?

THE COURT: YOU ARE ARGUING -- I'VE ALREADY RULED IN YOUR FAVOR, MISS CLARK. YOU DON'T NEED TO TELL ME HOW SEVERE IT IS. YOU DON'T NEED TO TELL ME WHAT THE BASIS IS. I THINK THE RULING SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.

MS. CLARK: IT DOES.

THE COURT: ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE NATURE OF THE COURT'S FINDING AS TO INTENT AND TACTICAL ADVANTAGE, WHICH IS AS HARSH A FINDING THAT THE COURT CAN MAKE UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. SO MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, IF I GRANT YOUR MOTION TO REOPEN, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO SAY TO THE JURY? THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE.

MS. CLARK: AND I'VE ASKED LEAVE OF THE COURT TO --

THE COURT: AND WHAT I WOULD ANTICIPATE YOU ARE GOING TO SAY IS THAT YOU ARE GOING TO TELL THE LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF OUR JURY, HAD THE PROSECUTION KNOWN OF THESE PERSONS, WE WOULD HAVE TOLD YOU ABOUT THEM, X, Y AND Z, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO PROVE. I THINK THAT'S ABOUT THE MAXIMUM PERIMETER THAT I WOULD ENTERTAIN, AND I STRESS THE WORD "ENTERTAIN". ALL RIGHT. AT THIS POINT THEN, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE PROCEED THEN WITH THE CONCLUSION OF MR. COCHRAN'S OPENING REMARKS. AND THAT AFTER THE LUNCH HOUR, YOU WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK AND ASK ME TO REOPEN, AND I'LL RULE AT THAT TIME BASED UPON YOUR PROFFER AFTER I HEAR MR. COCHRAN'S OBJECTIONS. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT SO WE CAN MAKE GOOD USE OF THE COURT TIME SINCE WE HAVE OUR JURORS SEATED READY, WILLING, ABLE TO GO. YOU WANT TO DISCUSS THAT WITH MR. DARDEN FOR A MOMENT?

MS. CLARK: MAY I ADDRESS THE COURT FURTHER CONCERNING THE EXPERT WITNESSES?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

MS. CLARK: MR. COCHRAN INDICATED JUST NOW THAT SOME OF THE EXPERTS HAVE NOT EVEN EXAMINED THE EVIDENCE, AND I FIND IT INCREDIBLE THAT ANY OFFICER OF THE COURT COULD STAND BEFORE A JURY AND REPRESENT WHAT CONCLUSIONS AND FINDINGS HAVE BEEN MADE WHEN THE EXPERTS HAVE NOT EVEN CONDUCTED AN EXAMINATION. THAT ASSERTION THAT THEY HAVE NOT EVEN EXAMINED THE EVIDENCE IS INCREDIBLE TO ME. IF THAT IS THE CASE, AND HE'S MADE REPRESENTATIONS AS TO WHAT THEIR FINDINGS ARE, I THINK THAT THERE'S A GREAT DEAL OF CREDIBILITY LOST WITH RESPECT TO THOSE WITNESSES. OBVIOUSLY IT'S GOING TO BE A BOOTSTRAP CONCLUSION. COUNSEL, WHO IS NOT AN EXPERT, CAN STAND UP AND TELL THIS JURY BEFORE AN EXAMINATION OF EVIDENCE IS CONDUCTED WHAT THE RESULT WILL BE, I FIND THAT REMARKABLE, AND I THINK THE JURY SHOULD BE INFORMED OF THAT FACT. I THINK THEY SHOULD BE TOLD, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, THAT'S AN INTERESTING POINT, BUT I DON'T KNOW THE FULL PERIMETERS OF WHAT IT IS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT UNTIL THE DISCLOSURES OF EXPERT WITNESS LISTS HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED AS I ORDERED TODAY. I CAN ALWAYS REINSTRUCT AND READMONISH THE JURY AT ANY TIME DURING THE COURSE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. YOU CAN ALSO BRING UP DURING THE COURSE OF YOUR CLOSING ARGUMENT THAT CONTRADICTION.

MS. CLARK: I AM AWARE OF THAT, YOUR HONOR. BUT THAT DOESN'T ADDRESS THE HARM THAT'S ALREADY BEEN CAUSED IN THAT COUNSEL HAS INDICATED TO THE JURY CERTAIN EXPERTS EXIST WHO WILL TESTIFY TO THE FOLLOWING, AND WE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE AND NO PRIOR DISCOVERY OF ANY -- NOT EVEN THEIR NAMES. ONLY THIS MORNING, BECAUSE THE COURT INDICATED IT HAD A SUSPICION ABOUT WHO THAT WAS, DID WE FIND OUT WHO THAT WAS. NOW HE TELLS US --

THE COURT: WELL, IT'S NOT A SUSPICION. IT'S JUST A LOGICAL CONCLUSION FROM WHAT WE ALREADY ALL KNOW ABOUT THE CASE.

MS. CLARK: OKAY. BUT THAT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH ANY DISCOVERY LAW THAT I AM AWARE OF.

THE COURT: THIS IS TRUE.

MS. CLARK: SO COUNSEL IS INDICATING NOW THAT HE IS GOING TO TESTIFY TO TIRE TRACKS AND TO SHOE PRINTS THAT WERE FOUND AT BUNDY, WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO REPORT, NO KNOWLEDGE AND NO INFORMATION THAT ANY SUCH TESTIMONY WOULD BE FORTHCOMING. THOSE SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE DISCOVERY SANCTIONS AS WELL. WITH RESPECT TO LENORE WALKER, I'M PARTICULARLY SURPRISED AND DISMAYED AT WHAT COUNSEL HAS REPRESENTED TO THIS COURT. COUNSEL REPRESENTED TO THIS COURT WHEN LAST WE WERE HERE THAT LENORE WALKER WAS ONLY ADDED TO -- WAS ONLY CONTACTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF TESTIFYING IN THIS MATTER IN JANUARY, WHAT, JUST A FEW DAYS BEFORE THE DISCOVERY HEARINGS OCCURRED. THAT'S FALSE. IT WAS STATED IN THE LOS ANGELES TIMES BY DR. LENORE WALKER HERSELF THAT SHE WAS RETAINED BY COUNSEL IN THE SUMMER OF '94 AND THAT SHE HAS SPOKEN TO THE DEFENDANT FOR HOURS IN PREPARATION FOR HER TESTIMONY. SO THE VIOLATION IS EVEN MORE FLAGRANT WITH RESPECT TO HER. AT LEAST THAT'S ACCORDING TO WHAT SHE SAID TO THE L.A. TIMES. SO COUNSEL HAS -- IS NOW CONTINUING TO PERPETRATE A FRAUD UPON THIS COURT, IS CONTINUING TO MAKE MISREPRESENTATIONS CONCERNING THE NATURE OF THE WITNESSES THAT THEY HAVE CONTACTED AND THEIR INVOLVEMENT IN THE CASE. HE IS STILL WITHHOLDING MORE INFORMATION. THERE ARE WITNESSES WHOSE NAMES WE STILL DON'T HAVE, AND OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE NO REPORTS. THAT'S A FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF THE LAW. AND NOW IT'S COMPOUNDED BY COUNSEL'S WILLFUL ASSERTIONS TO THE CONTRARY WHERE THE WITNESSES ARE TELLING US IN TERMS OF WHEN THEY WERE RETAINED. HOW CAN THAT POSSIBLY BE SWEPT UNDER THE RUG? THE JURY SHOULD BE TOLD ALL OF THIS.

THE COURT: TELL ME ABOUT THE L.A. TIMES INFORMATION ABOUT LENORE WALKER.

MS. CLARK: THAT'S AN ARTICLE IN THE L.A. TIMES TODAY I UNDERSTAND OR YESTERDAY. WAS IT YESTERDAY OR TODAY?

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

MS. CLARK: I HAVE IT UPSTAIRS. I BELIEVE IT'S IN THE SUNDAY TIMES, YOUR HONOR. AND IF THE COURT WOULD LIKE, I COULD HAVE IT BROUGHT DOWN.

THE COURT: I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT.

MS. CLARK: I WILL.

THE COURT: BUT BEFORE WE -- MR. COCHRAN, YOU INDICATED A DESIRE TO ADDRESS THAT SPECIFIC ISSUE?

MR. COCHRAN: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: I WOULD BE CURIOUS TO KNOW.

MR. COCHRAN: I THINK I READ THE ARTICLE. AND WHAT IT INDICATED -- FIRST OF ALL, IT SAID, IF I RECALL, DR. LENORE WALKER HAD KNOWN ME SINCE THE TIME I WAS ASSISTANT D.A. AND WORKED IN THIS OFFICE, IN THE D.A.'S OFFICE, THAT I HAD -- SHE AND GERALDINE BUTTS STAHLY HAD WORKED ON CASES THAT I HAD THE BATTERED WOMEN'S SYNDROME AS A DEFENSE IN OTHER MURDER CASES. I THINK IT ALSO INDICATED THAT SHE WAS CONTACTED I BELIEVE IN DECEMBER, BUT SHE WAS NOT RETAINED OR BROUGHT FORWARD ON THIS CASE, YOUR HONOR, UNTIL AFTER YOU RULED ON THE DOMESTIC DISCORD. IT DIDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. WE DIDN'T NEED HER UNTIL THAT POINT. WE DON'T HAVE A REPORT. IF THE COURT CHECKS YOUR HONOR'S RECORDS WHEN WE MADE AN APPLICATION FOR LENORE WALKER TO GO INTO THE JAIL TO SEE MR. SIMPSON ALONG WITH GERALDINE BUTTS STAHLY, WHO SAW HIM -- HAS NOT EVEN CONCLUDED -- SAW HIM AS LATE AS THIS PAST FRIDAY -- THE COURT WILL KNOW THE TIME SHE WENT TO SEE HIM. WE DON'T HAVE A REPORT AND SHE CAME ABOUT -- SHE IS ONLY RELEVANT, YOUR HONOR, AFTER YOU RULED ON THE DOMESTIC DISCORD. I'VE KNOWN HER FOR SOME TIME, BUT SHE WAS NOT RELEVANT IN THIS CASE UNTIL THAT TIME. SO I THINK -- I WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY -- SHE HAS PROBABLY TALKED TO -- I CALLED FIRST TIME IN THE FALL, BUT SHE DIDN'T GET INVOLVED IN THE CASE UNTIL AFTER THE DOMESTIC DISCORD. I KNEW HER EVER SINCE 19 -- SINCE THE 80'S.

MS. CLARK: I DON'T THINK --

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, LET ME ASK YOUR STAFF TO BRING DOWN THE L.A. TIMES ARTICLE, ALTHOUGH OBVIOUSLY THAT SOURCE IS HEARSAY.

MS. CLARK: IT'S RIGHT FROM THE WITNESS' MOUTH, YOUR HONOR. LET ME ALSO INDICATE THAT WITH RESPECT TO MARY ANN GERCHAS, IN HER STATEMENT TO US TAKEN MOST RECENTLY AFTER COUNSEL'S OPENING STATEMENT, SHE INDICATES THAT SHE TURNED OVER HER DAILY RUNNER, THAT'S A DAILY CALENDAR, TO COUNSEL.

THE COURT: I KNOW WHAT A DAILY RUNNER IS.

MS. CLARK: OKAY. AND THAT HAS NEVER BEEN TURNED OVER TO US. IN FACT, IT WAS NEVER EVEN MENTIONED THAT THEY HAD IT. SHE INDICATES THAT SHE TURNED IT OVER TO THEM AND THEY HAVE NEVER TURNED IT OVER.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WELL, I CAN SEE THIS IS GOING TO BE AN ON-GOING PROCEDURE HERE. MISS CLARK, HOWEVER, I THINK MY SUGGESTION, THAT AFTER THE DEFENSE HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDER REGARDING EXPERT WITNESSES, WE CAN REVISIT THE MATTER AGAIN, AND I CAN STILL REINSTRUCT THE JURY AT ANY TIME DURING THE COURSE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS REGARDING DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS.

MS. CLARK: THE PROBLEM IS THAT IN OUR PROFFER TO REOPEN, WE WOULD LIKE TO INCLUDE THOSE EXPERT WITNESSES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WELL, WHEN I HEAR THE PROFFER, I'LL RULE ON IT. BUT MY INCLINATION THIS MORNING IS TO GO FORWARD WITH THE JURY, HAVE MR. COCHRAN COMPLETE HIS OPENING STATEMENTS, THEN I'LL HEAR YOUR PROFFER AND WE'LL SEE WHERE WE ARE. ALL RIGHT?

MS. CLARK: CAN WE AT LEAST HAVE THE DEFENSE GIVE US THE NAMES OF THE WITNESSES THEY INTEND TO CALL AS TO THE MATTERS I DESCRIBED, THE TIRE TRACKS, THE SHOE PRINTS, THE FINGER CUT, THE RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS, THOSE MATTERS?

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THAT SEEMS TO ME TO BE A CLEAR INTENT TO CALL THESE PERSONS AS WITNESSES. SO I THINK THEIR IDENTITY NEEDS TO BE DISCLOSED OR SHOULD HAVE PREVIOUSLY BEEN DISCLOSED. MR. COCHRAN? I AGREE THAT HER REQUEST IS WELL TAKEN.

MR. COCHRAN: CERTAINLY, YOUR HONOR. WE WILL PREPARE THAT, YOUR HONOR, IF YOU GIVE US A FEW MINUTES.

THE COURT: WELL, WE WILL HAVE TO TAKE A 20-MINUTE BREAK JUST TO BRING THE JURY DOWN IN ANY EVENT.

MR. COCHRAN: SURE.

THE COURT: SO YOU AND MR. DOUGLAS CAN ACCOMPLISH THAT IN THAT 20 MINUTES.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, BEFORE WE GO OFF THE RECORD, CAN I HAVE A WITNESS ORDERED BACK?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

MR. DARDEN: CORA FISCHMAN.

THE COURT: AND, MR. DARDEN, WHEN DO YOU ANTICIPATE MISS FISCHMAN WILL BE NECESSARY?

MR. DARDEN: FEBRUARY 9, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ARE YOU CORA FISCHMAN?

MS. FISCHMAN: YES.

THE COURT: GOOD MORNING, MISS FISCHMAN.

MS. FISCHMAN: GOOD MORNING.

THE COURT: I'M GOING TO ORDER YOU TO RETURN TO THIS COURTROOM ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY THE 9TH, AT 9:00 A.M. WITHOUT FURTHER ORDER, NOTICE OR SUBPOENA. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE ORDER, MA'AM?

MR. RUBIN: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, YOUR APPEARANCE FOR THE RECORD?

MR. RUBIN: YES. ANDREW RUBIN. I WILL REPRESENTING MISS FISCHMAN.

THE COURT: GOOD MORNING, COUNSEL. GOOD TO SEE YOU AGAIN.

MR. RUBIN: GOOD TO SEE YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

MR. RUBIN: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: ONE OF HIS CLIENTS NAMED A CAT AFTER ME. MS. CLARK.

MS. CLARK: DID THE COURT INDICATE IT WANTED TO TAKE A RECESS? I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THE NAMES.

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN INDICATED HE AND MR. DOUGLAS WERE GOING TO CONFIRM AND PREPARE A LIST FOR YOU IN THE 20 MINUTES THAT IT TAKES TO BRING THE JURY DOWN. ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE THE JURY, DEPUTY MAGNERA. THANK YOU.

(RECESS.)

(PAGES 12144 THROUGH 12166, VOLUME 77A, TRANSCRIBED AND SEALED UNDER SEPARATE COVER.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. ALL THE PARTIES ARE PRESENT. MR. DOUGLAS, YOU HAD SOMETHING YOU WANTED TO SAY BEFORE WE START?

MR. DOUGLAS: I WOULD, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOUR HONOR, IN ADDITION TO THE COMMENTS AND TO THE OBJECTIONS THAT WE LODGED WITH THE COURT IN CHAMBERS, I WOULD LIKE TO ADD ONE MORE POINT THAT WAS JUST BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION RECENTLY, AND THAT IS, YOUR HONOR, OUR REVIEW OF SECTION 1054.5(B) DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZE A JUDGE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT A DISCOVERY VIOLATION BY DEFENSE COUNSEL, FOR EXAMPLE, MAY BE CONSIDERED BY THE JURY BEARING ON THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES. AND I THINK THAT THERE IS THE DANGER THAT THE LANGUAGE OF THE PROPOSED INSTRUCTION BY THE COURT GIVES SUCH A SUGGESTION, NOR DOES CASE LAW, YOUR HONOR, AUTHORIZE SUCH A JURY INSTRUCTION. INDEED, WE SUBMIT THAT IT WOULD BE COMPLETELY IRRATIONAL TO MAKE A CONNECTION BETWEEN A LAWYER'S DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS AND THE CREDIBILITY OF AN INDEPENDENT WITNESS. I THINK, YOUR HONOR, THAT THERE IS A DANGER BY SUCH A NEXUS TRIGGERING PROFOUND STATE AND FEDERAL VIOLATIONS, BOTH DUE PROCESS AND OF A SIXTH AMENDMENT NATURE. AND I WOULD URGE THE COURT TO STRIKE THAT CONNECTION IN THE COURT'S RULING. SECONDARILY, YOUR HONOR, I RESPECT -- THOUGH I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE WITH THE COURT'S FINDING THAT THE VIOLATION TO TURN OVER THE WITNESS STATEMENTS OF MISS GERCHAS WAS INTENTIONAL. I SUGGEST THAT THE -- THAT BEFORE THE COURT CAN PROPERLY MAKE SUCH A RULING, THAT IS, THAT THERE WAS AN INTENTIONAL VIOLATION TO GAIN TACTICAL ADVANTAGE, THAT THE COURT SHOULD MOST PROPERLY CONSIDER THAT ASPECT WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF A SWORN DECLARATION THAT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT MYSELF TO THIS COURT SO THAT THE COURT COULD THEN HAVE FACTS UPON WHICH THE COURT MIGHT MAKE SUCH A FINDING IF THE COURT IS RULING THAT A VIOLATION IS BEING IMPOSED AND A SANCTION IS BEING IMPOSED BASED ON THE COURT'S BELIEF THAT THERE WAS AN INTENTIONAL VIOLATION RATHER THAN AN INADVERTENT ACCIDENT AS WE CONTEND.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. DOUGLAS, I WILL GIVE YOU LEAVE TO FILE WHATEVER AFFIDAVIT YOU WISH; HOWEVER, THE COURT'S RULING WILL STAND AND THE COURT'S FINDING STANDS.

MR. DOUGLAS: VERY WELL.

THE COURT: THANK YOU. MISS CLARK, YOU ARE STANDING FOR A REASON?

MS. CLARK: NO. I SUBMITTED THE ARTICLE TO THE COURT OF DR. WALKER.

THE COURT: YES.

MS. CLARK: I HAVE ALSO BEEN INFORMED BY SEVERAL PEOPLE THAT SHE WAS ON -- EXCUSE ME -- I HAVE BEEN INFORMED BY SEVERAL PEOPLE THAT SHE WAS ON GOOD MORNING AMERICA THIS MORNING INDICATING THAT SHE HAD SOME FORTY-HOUR INTERVIEWS WITH MR. SIMPSON. IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT MR. SIMPSON IS IN COURT MOST OF THE DAY EVERY DAY, THAT WOULD PRECLUDE HER PHYSICAL CAPABILITY OF HAVING AMASSED THAT NUMBER OF HOURS, UNLESS SHE HAD BEEN RETAINED QUITE A LONG TIME AGO, AND ALL OF THIS FLIES IN THE FACE OF COUNSEL'S DIRECT ASSERTIONS TO THE COURT THAT SHE HAD RECENTLY BEEN RETAINED. IT HAS NOW BEEN EXPOSED TO BE AN ABSOLUTE FALSEHOOD AND I THINK THE ARTICLE AS WELL IN THE L.A. TIMES MAKES THAT CLEAR ALSO, THAT SHE WAS ACTUALLY CONTACTED THROUGH GERALDINE STAHLY IN THE SUMMER, WHICH THEN MAKES IT PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE TO HAVE AMASSED THAT NUMBER OF HOURS. SO I THINK THAT WHAT THE COURT HAS BEFORE IT IS FURTHER IMPEACHMENT OF DEFENSE COUNSEL'S MOST RECENT ASSERTIONS EVEN OF HAVING BEEN RECENTLY RETAINED.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, I HAVE BEFORE ME A PHOTOCOPY OF A PRESS RELEASE THAT MISS WALKER RELEASED ON -- EXCUSE ME -- DR. WALKER RELEASED JANUARY 26TH, AND THE PARAGRAPH, THE ENDING PARAGRAPH READS AS FOLLOWS:

"AS WE BEGAN TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE OVER THE PAST FIVE MONTHS, WHICH INCLUDED SOME FORTY HOURS OF EVALUATION OF O.J. SIMPSON, WE REALIZED THAT THE POTENTIAL FOR LONG-TERM HARM TO BATTERED WOMAN WAS PRESENT IF THE FACT PATTERNS AND SIGNIFICANCE OF BATTERING IN THIS CASE WERE MISINTERPRETED, DISTORTED OR OTHERWISE MISUSED BY EITHER SIDE." SO THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE BEEN EXAMINING THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PAST FIVE MONTHS I THINK IN FACT SUPPORTS YOUR POSITION THAT IN FACT THERE WAS A RELATIONSHIP PRIOR TO JUST LAST WEEK. HOWEVER, HAVING SAID THAT, THE DEFENSE WAS NOT IN A POSTURE TO KNOW WHETHER OR NOT TESTIMONY BY DR. WALKER WOULD BE RELEVANT UNTIL THE COURT RULED ON THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ISSUES, AT WHICH POINT THE COURT, HAVING ALLOWED TESTIMONY OF SOME INCIDENTS AND HAVING EXCLUDED TESTIMONY AS TO OTHERS, THEN CLEARLY SET THE ISSUE BEFORE THE JURY. SO I ACCEPT MR. COCHRAN'S REPRESENTATION THAT HE DID NOT FORMALLY MAKE A DETERMINATION WHETHER OR NOT TO CALL DR. WALKER UNTIL AFTER THE COURT'S RULING ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, BUT THAT ALSO CAUSES ME TO BELIEVE THAT IF THERE HAS BEEN FIVE MONTHS OF PREPARATION, THAT THERE OUGHT TO BE SOME NOTES AROUND.

MS. CLARK: EXACTLY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: AS I INDICATED TO YOU, WE WILL TAKE UP THE ISSUE OF EXPERTS AFTER YOU HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THE LIST THAT WAS GIVEN TO YOU IN CHAMBERS THIS MORNING BY COUNSEL.

MS. CLARK: AS I RECALL, MR. COCHRAN'S REPRESENTATIONS TO THE COURT, WHEN LAST WE CONFRONTED THIS ISSUE, MY UNDERSTANDING WAS, AND I'M SURE THE TRANSCRIPT WILL ALLAY ANY QUESTIONS WE HAVE ABOUT THIS, WILL RESOLVE THOSE QUESTIONS, I BELIEVE THE REPRESENTATION MADE WAS THAT SHE HAD NOT BEEN CONTACTED UNTIL EARLIER THAT WEEK.

THE COURT: WELL, COUNSEL, WE WILL GO BACK AND LOOK AT THIS AGAIN. WE HAVE ARGUED IT ENOUGH I THINK. THE RECORD IS CLEAR WHAT IS THERE. I WILL HAVE MY STAFF GO BACK THROUGH THE TRANSCRIPT AND SEE WHAT'S THERE, BUT I THINK MY OBSERVATION AS TO WHAT OCCURRED HERE IS PROBABLY ACCURATE.

MS. CLARK: THE COURT WAS NOT LEFT WITH THE IMPRESSION BY MR. COCHRAN THAT HE HAD JUST RECENTLY CONTACTED HER?

THE COURT: NO. I'M SAYING I ACCEPT MR. COCHRAN'S EXPLANATION THAT A FORMAL DECISION TO CALL HER AS A WITNESS WAS NOT MADE UNTIL AFTER THE COURT RULED ON THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ISSUES. I ACCEPT THAT AS BEING A REASONABLE EXPLANATION. ALL RIGHT. BUT THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT THERE OUGHT TO BE SOME REPORTS BACK THERE, I DON'T KNOW, BUT IT IS AN ISSUE THAT WE WILL ADDRESS LATER, AS I INDICATED TO YOU.

MS. CLARK: VERY WELL.

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I SAY ONE THING? WHILE YOU ARE ADDRESSING THAT, WOULD YOU ALSO ADDRESS THE FACT THAT DR. WALKER COULD NOT GET INTO THE JAIL WITHOUT YOUR ORDERS AND SHE NEVER SAW MR. SIMPSON UNTIL YOU DID THE ORDER.

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, I AM AWARE OF ALL THOSE THINGS AS WELL.

MR. COCHRAN: THE ORDERS WERE LIKE IN DECEMBER AND AFTER. YOU KNOW WHEN SHE SAW HIM. SHE SAW HIM WHEN HE WAS NOT IN COURT.

THE COURT: IT SEEMS TO ME YOU ARE AHEAD ON THIS ONE, MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: I WAS, BUT I WANTED YOU TO LOOK AT THAT. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. IN CHAMBERS, THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT, THAT COUNSEL DID SUGGEST TO ME THAT I INCLUDE IN MY ADMONITION TO THE JURY, MY INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY, SOME LANGUAGE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE FAILURE OF THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW OF DISCOVERY IS NOT EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS SUCH. I THINK THAT IS A GOOD SUGGESTION AND I WILL INCLUDE THAT IN THE INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY, BECAUSE THAT IS IN FACT THE STATE OF THE LAW. ALL RIGHT. DEPUTY MAGNERA, LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE.

MR. COCHRAN: DID YOUR HONOR MAKE A DECISION ABOUT THE SANCTIONS?

THE COURT: I MADE A DECISION. YES, I DID. I INDICATED I WOULD NOT DO THAT.

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, THE CREDIBILITY LANGUAGE IS GOING TO REMAIN?

THE COURT: YES.

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

THE COURT: EXCUSE ME, MR. COCHRAN, MR. DOUGLAS, WHY DON'T YOU BE SEATED UNTIL I FINISH INSTRUCTING THE JURY.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

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

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

THE COURT: EVERYBODY SEEMS TO BE SMILING TODAY. GOOD. ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY, I NEED TO ADVISE YOU OF CERTAIN THINGS. FIRST OF ALL, ONE OF THE ATTORNEYS HAS FALLEN ILL, MR. HODGMAN, AND HE IS NOT WITH US TODAY; HOWEVER, THE PARTIES HAVE ELECTED TO PROCEED IN HIS ABSENCE. ALSO, I NEED TO INSTRUCT YOU AND TO EXPLAIN TO YOU SOME OF THE REASONS FOR THE DELAY THAT WE HAVE HAD FOR OVER THE PAST TWO DAYS. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY, THE LAWS GOVERNING CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IN CALIFORNIA REQUIRE THAT EACH SIDE DISCLOSE AND GIVE TO THE OTHER SIDE THE NAMES OF THE PERSONS THEY INTEND TO PRESENT AS WITNESSES AND ANY WRITTEN RECORD OR RECORDING OF THE STATEMENTS MADE BY THESE WITNESSES. THE LAW ALSO REQUIRES THE DISCLOSURE OF ANY REAL OR TANGIBLE EVIDENCE. THESE DISCLOSURES MUST BE MADE BEFORE TRIAL IF THE WITNESSES OR EVIDENCE ARE THEN KNOWN. THESE LAWS EXIST TO PROMOTE THE ASCERTAINMENT OF TRUTH IN TRIALS, TO SAVE COURT TIME AND TO AVOID THE NECESSITY FOR FREQUENT INTERRUPTIONS AND POSTPONEMENTS. DURING THE COURSE OF THE OPENING STATEMENTS DEFENSE COUNSEL MENTIONED WITNESSES WHO HAD NOT PREVIOUSLY BEEN DISCLOSED TO THE PROSECUTION OR WHOSE WRITTEN STATEMENTS WERE NOT GIVEN TO THE PROSECUTION BEFORE TRIAL, AS REQUIRED BY LAW. THIS VIOLATION OF THE LAW -- THIS WAS A VIOLATION OF THE LAW AND ONE OF THE CAUSES OF THE TWO-DAY DELAY, INCLUDING THE ABSENCE OF MR. HODGMAN. KEEPING IN MIND THAT STATEMENTS BY THE LAWYERS ARE NOT EVIDENCE, YOU ARE DIRECTED TO DISREGARD THE COMMENTS OF DEFENSE COUNSEL DURING HIS OPENING STATEMENT AS THEY PERTAIN TO THE FOLLOWING POTENTIAL WITNESSES: MARY ANNE GERCHAS, MICHELLE ABUDRAHM, MARK PARTRIDGE, HOWARD WEITZMAN, SKIP TAFT, CHRISTIAN RIECHARDT. IF AND WHEN THESE WITNESSES ARE PRESENTED TO YOU DURING THIS TRIAL, YOU MAY CONSIDER THE EFFECT OF THIS DELAY IN DISCLOSURE, IF ANY, UPON THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESSES INVOLVED AND GIVE TO IT THE WEIGHT TO WHICH YOU FEEL IT IS ENTITLED. PLEASE NOTE, HOWEVER, AND THIS IS IMPORTANT, PLEASE NOTE THAT THE FAILURE OF THE DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEYS TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW IS NOT EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS SUCH BY YOU. ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE WILL NOW CONCLUDE THE DEFENSE OPENING STATEMENT. MR. COCHRAN, DO YOU WISH TO CONCLUDE YOUR REMARKS?

MR. COCHRAN: YES, I DO. THANK YOU VERY KINDLY, JUDGE ITO.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

OPENING STATEMENT (RESUMED)

BY MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE ITO, COLLEAGUES FOR THE DEFENSE, COLLEAGUES FOR THE PROSECUTION, GOOD MORNING AGAIN, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

MR. COCHRAN: THIS MORNING AGAIN I WILL BE ASSISTED BY MR. CARL DOUGLAS WITH REGARD TO SOME GRAPHICS THAT WE HAVE, AND BY MR. HOWARD HARRIS HERE ALSO WITH REGARD TO THE GRAPHICS. AS YOU WILL RECALL FROM OUR DISCUSSION LAST WEEK, IN DISCUSSING THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE CORONER'S OFFICE AND TALKED ABOUT WHAT WE EXPECT THE EVIDENCE TO SHOW REGARDING THEIR SHORTFALLS. WE HAVE SOUGHT TO REPLY TO THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP BY THE TWO PROSECUTORS IN THEIR OPENING STATEMENTS. AND I BELIEVE THAT AT THE END OF THE DAY WE HAD REACHED THE POINT WHERE I TOLD YOU WE WERE ABOUT TO DISCUSS THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THEIR HANDLING OF THIS MATTER. I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS THE MAIN INVESTIGATING AGENCY IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. THE TWO MAIN DETECTIVES ARE DETECTIVE PHILIP VANNATTER AND DETECTIVE TOM LANGE. THEY ARE FROM THE ROBBERY/HOMICIDE DIVISION AND THEY WERE ASSIGNED THIS CASE IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS OF JUNE 13, 1994. IN THE COURSE OF OUR DISCUSSION TODAY WE WILL BE TALKING ABOUT THE EVIDENCE WHICH WAS SEIZED OR COLLECTED AT THE SCENE OF BUNDY AND ALSO AT ROCKINGHAM. MAY WE HAVE THE FIRST GRAPHIC NOW. UNDER THIS SCENARIO, WE EXPECT TO BE TALKING ABOUT THE INTEGRITY OF THE EVIDENCE, THAT IS, WHETHER OR NOT THIS EVIDENCE IS CAPABLE OF YOUR BELIEF, WHETHER OR NOT IT IS EVIDENCE THAT IS CORRECT AND APPROPRIATE. HOW WAS IT COLLECTED? AND SO FOR THE GRAPHIC THERE, ALL THE EVIDENCE PICKED UP AT THE NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON CONDO AT THE TOP, THE EVIDENCE PICKED UP AT THE SIMPSON HOME ON ROCKINGHAM, THE EVIDENCE FROM THE BRONCO, ANY BLOOD, ALL WENT FIRST THROUGH THE LAPD THERE AND THEN ULTIMATELY FROM LAPD IT WAS SENT OUT TO THE VARIOUS LABS, BE IT THE FBI, CELLMARK OR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. THIS GRAPHIC SEEKS TO PUT THIS IN PERSPECTIVE. YOU CAN SEE THE LAPD THEN REMAINS A FOCAL POINT IN THEIR COLLECTION OF ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU ARE GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO LOOK AT. WE EXPECT THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THIS EVIDENCE THAT WAS COLLECTED AT THESE VARIOUS LOCATIONS THAT YOU HAVE JUST SEEN WAS CONTAMINATED, COMPROMISED AND ULTIMATELY CORRUPTED. IN THE COURSE OF THE EVIDENCE WE EXPECT TO SHOW THAT. NEXT. NOW, BRIEFLY LAST WEEK I SPOKE TO YOU ABOUT A DETECTIVE NAMED MARK FUHRMAN. MR. FUHRMAN AND HIS PARTNER, MR. PHILLIPS, WORKED WEST LOS ANGELES HOMICIDE, AND THEY ARE THE TWO DETECTIVES WHO FIRST WERE ASSIGNED TO THIS CASE BEFORE ROBBERY/HOMICIDE GOT INVOLVED. ROBBERY/HOMICIDE IS DOWNTOWN, I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW. THESE TWO DETECTIVES WORKED IN WEST LOS ANGELES WHERE THESE CRIMES HAD OCCURRED AND THEY WERE THE FIRST ONES TO ARRIVE AT THE SCENE. ALTHOUGH YOU DIDN'T HEAR ABOUT MR. FUHRMAN IN THE COURSE OF THE OPENING STATEMENT OF THE PROSECUTION, WE THINK HE WILL BE A KEY WITNESS IN THIS CASE. LET ME TELL YOU WHY I THINK HE WILL BE A KEY WITNESS. I BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT HE AND HIS PARTNER, DETECTIVE PHILLIPS ARRIVED AT THAT SCENE SOMETIME AFTER TWO O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING. THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THESE BODIES WERE FOUND SOMEWHERE AROUND 12:15 ON JUNE 13, 1994. AFTER ARRIVING AT THE SCENE MR. FUHRMAN DID A NUMBER OF THINGS. YOU SAW HIM IN ONE OF THE PICTURES LAST WEEK WHERE HE WAS POINTING DOWN AT ALLEGEDLY THE GLOVE AND THE CAP THAT WAS UNDER SOME SHRUBBERY, IF YOU RECALL. THAT WAS A PICTURE OF MR. FUHRMAN AT THAT POINT. YOU NOTICE THAT HE HAD -- HIS SHOES WERE NOT COVERED, THAT HE HAD WALKED IN THAT LOCATION AT THAT POINT WITHOUT SHOES BEING COVERED, THAT HE MADE A NUMBER OF DISCOVERIES AT THAT PARTICULAR POINT. THAT THERE WAS A PHOTOGRAPHER AT SOME TIME AT THAT SCENE, AT THE BUNDY LOCATION, THAT THIS PHOTOGRAPHER WAS THEN SUMMONED, ALONG WITH PHILLIPS, HIS PARTNER, AND VANNATTER AND LANGE, TO GO OVER TO THE ROCKINGHAM ADDRESS. WE EXPECT THE EVIDENCE WILL BE THAT PRESUMABLY THEY WERE GOING OVER THERE TO GIVE NOTICE TO MR. SIMPSON ABOUT THE DEATH OF HIS EX-WIFE AND PRESUMABLY THAT THE CHILDREN WERE IN POLICE CUSTODY AT THAT POINT. APPARENTLY THE PARTIES WERE NOT NOTIFIED OF EITHER MR. -- MRS. NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON OR THE GOLDMANS AT THIS POINT, BUT THEY WENT OVER TO O.J. SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE. YOU RECALL ALSO I TOLD YOU LAST WEEK THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAD PREVIOUSLY HAD CONTACT WITH THE SIMPSONS. HE HAD RESPONDED TO THE SO-CALLED 1985 INCIDENT. HE DIDN'T WRITE A REPORT AT THAT TIME, BUT IN 1989 HE WROTE A WRITTEN REPORT AND IN THAT REPORT HE TALKS ABOUT THE INCIDENTS OF -- THE '85 INCIDENT BEING INDELIBLY IMPRESSED UPON HIS MIND, SO HE DID HAVE CONTACT, HAD BEEN TO THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION. NOW, THE EVIDENCE I THINK WILL SHOW THAT HE WILL ALLEGE THAT THE REASON WHY HE WAS STILL LEADING DETECTIVE VANNATTER AND LANGE OVER TO THE ROCKINGHAM ADDRESS IS BECAUSE HE KNEW WHERE IT WAS, BUT I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL ALSO SHOW FROM DETECTIVE VANNATTER THAT HE, TOO, HAD ALSO WORKED IN WEST LOS ANGELES AND HE KNEW THE WAY OVER THERE. BUT AT ANY RATE I THINK YOU WILL FIND THAT THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT ALL FOUR OF THESE DETECTIVES, THIS IS PRIOR OF COURSE TO THE CORONER EVER BEING NOTIFIED, LEAVE THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE AND THEY GO OVER TO ROCKINGHAM. ONCE AT ROCKINGHAM DETECTIVE FUHRMAN OF COURSE -- NOW BY THIS TIME THE CASE IS NOW IN THE HANDS OF THE CAPABLE INDIVIDUALS FROM DOWNTOWN ROBBERY/HOMICIDE. HE CONTINUES TO PLAY AN INTEGRAL PART IN THIS CASE. I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT HE, IN LOOKING AT THE BRONCO -- NOW, IT IS STILL, BY ALL ACCOUNTS, I THINK STILL DARK OUTSIDE -- BUT IN LOOKING AT THE BRONCO IT IS NOW MAYBE GETTING CLOSE TO FIVE O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING, MAYBE LIGHT IS ABOUT UP, HE DISCOVERS WHAT HE BELIEVES IS A SPECK OF BLOOD ON THE DOOR. THIS IS DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. HE DISCOVERS SOME MORE BLOOD ALLEGEDLY DOWN TOWARD THE BOTTOM OF THE DOOR, THAT AT SOME POINT WHEN THESE OFFICERS CAN'T ROUSE ANYBODY AT THE LOCATION, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IS THE ONE WHO CLIMBS OVER THE WALL TO GO INTO THE PREMISES. ONCE IN THE PREMISES, HE IS THE ONE WHO INTERROGATES MR. KATO KAELIN, THAT HE IS THE ONE WHO ALSO, AFTER TALKING TO MR. KAELIN, GOES BACK AND FINDS THIS GLOVE, THE ALLEGED RIGHT GLOVE, AT ROCKINGHAM. WE HAVE NOW FOR YOU SOME VIDEO RELATING TO DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN, AND I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO LISTEN TO WHAT HE HAS TO SAY WITH REGARD TO THE GLOVE. NOW, IN FAIRNESS TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, THE QUESTION HE IS GOING TO ASK IS ABOUT THE GLOVE AND THEY TALK ABOUT THE GLOVE, BUT IN HIS RESPONSE, YOU WILL SEE HE AT SOME POINT TALKS ABOUT SEEING THEM AT THE FOOT OF MR. GOLDMAN. MR. HARRIS, SIR.

(A VIDEOTAPE WAS VIDEO PLAYED.)

MR. COCHRAN: YOU RECALL AND HEARD THE TESTIMONY THAT "I COULD SEE THEM DOWN AT HIS FEET," AND THE QUESTION WILL BE SEEKING TO ESTABLISH IN THIS TRIAL IS WHEN HE SAID HE SAW THEM DOWN AT THE FEET, WAS HE TALKING ABOUT TWO GLOVES AT THAT POINT? NOW, THIS DETECTIVE PLAYS A CRITICAL ROLE AS HE REMAINS AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION. YOU RECALL LAST WEEK I MENTIONED THAT WE EXPECT TO CALL A WITNESS BY THE NAME OF ROSA LOPEZ AT SOMEPLACE -- AT SOMEPLACE IN THE CASE. ROSA LOPEZ GIVES NEXT DOOR TO MR. SIMPSON. SHE IS A LADY WHO WAS EMPLOYED BY THE FAMILY THERE. SHE IS THEIR HOUSEKEEPER. AND THERE WILL, WE BELIEVE, BE TESTIMONY THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAD A CONVERSATION WITH ROSA LOPEZ ON THE EARLY MORNING HOURS, AFTER ABOUT 7:30, EIGHT O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING, ON JUNE 13, 1994, AND AT THAT TIME ROSA LOPEZ SHARED WITH HIM HER OBSERVATIONS THAT SHE HAD BEEN OUTSIDE THE NIGHT BEFORE AND THAT THE BRONCO VEHICLE PARKED THERE AT THE CURB AT ROCKINGHAM WAS PARKED THERE AT APPROXIMATELY 8:15, 8:30. IT WAS PARKED AT KIND OF A UNIQUE ANGLE. SHE HAD REASON TO REMEMBER THAT AS SHE WENT OUTSIDE TO WALK HER DOG. SHE WILL ALSO TESTIFY THAT SHE CAME BACK OUTSIDE TO WALK THAT SAME DOG AT ABOUT 10:20 P.M. SHE SAW THE BRONCO PARKED IN THAT SAME LOCATION AND IT HAD NOT BEEN MOVED, THAT THE NEXT MORNING, WHEN DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAD SPOKEN WITH HER, THE BRONCO WAS STILL PARKED AT THAT SAME ANGLE, AS THOUGH IT HAD NOT BEEN MOVED ALL NIGHT. SHE WILL SHARE WITH YOU WHAT, IF ANYTHING, SHE SAID TO THE DETECTIVE THAT MORNING. YOU WILL FIND OUT WHETHER OR NOT HE REDUCED ANY OF THIS CONVERSATION TO A REPORT, WHETHER OR NOT THAT REPORT WAS EVER FORWARDED TO ANYBODY, WHETHER HE TOLD ANY OF THE DETECTIVES ABOUT IT. WE EXPECT THAT SHE ALSO INDICATED TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN THAT MR. SIMPSON LEFT THE -- HIS RESIDENCE SOMEWHERE AROUND 9:00 -- NINE O'CLOCK, AND THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY THAT HE AND MR. KATO KAELIN WENT TO GET A MC DONALD'S HAMBURGER, THAT SHE WAS AWARE AND HEARD HIS VOICE WHEN HE LEFT AND SHE HEARD WHAT SHE BELIEVED TO BE PROWLERS DURING THIS PERIOD OF TIME AND BECAME QUITE FRIGHTENED. I EXPECT THAT SHE WILL ALSO TESTIFY THAT SHE HEARD MR. SIMPSON'S VOICE AT AROUND ELEVEN O'CLOCK, OR A LITTLE AFTER, AND WHEN SHE ALSO HEARD HIS VOICE HE APPEARED AS THOUGH HE WAS LEAVING AND SHE DID NOT HEAR ANY VOICE ANY MORE THAT PARTICULAR NIGHT. THAT AFTER MR. SIMPSON'S VOICE WAS NO LONGER HEARD, AFTER HE PRESUMABLY HAD LEFT THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE, THAT SHE HAD HEARD MEN'S VOICES BEGINNING AT ABOUT TWELVE O'CLOCK, LASTING UNTIL ABOUT THREE O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING. SHE WAS NOT ABLE REALLY TO FALL ASLEEP UNTIL PERHAPS FOUR O'CLOCK THAT MORNING AND WAS AWAKENED BECAUSE I THINK THE GARDENER CAME THAT MORNING. AND SHE ALSO HAD THIS CONVERSATION WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WHO CAME AND SHOWED HIS BADGE AND THEN CAME INSIDE OF HER HOUSE. SO WE THINK THAT IN TRUTH AND IN FACT DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN WILL PLAY A VERY, VERY CRITICAL ROLE IN THIS CASE REGARDING HIS TESTIMONY. NOW, LET'S GO BACK, IF WE ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE LAPD, AND LET'S LOOK AT THE STATEMENTS REGARDING THE CORONER. YOU WILL RECALL LAST WEEK I INDICATED TO YOU THAT THE CORONER'S OFFICE FOR SOME REASON WASN'T CALLED INITIALLY. THEY ARRIVED AT THE SCENE ALMOST TEN HOURS AFTER THESE BODIES HAD BEEN DISCOVERED. LET'S LOOK FOR A MOMENT, USING THE ELMO WITH MR. HARRIS, AT THE SEQUENCE OF WHAT TOOK PLACE, AND FOR THE RECORD, I WILL READ CERTAIN THINGS INTO THE RECORD FROM THE TRANSCRIPT, YOUR HONOR. THE UNDERLYING PORTIONS I WILL READ FOR THE RECORD. THIS PURPORTS TO BE, AND WE WILL ESTABLISH THAT AT THE TIME OF TRIAL, THIS IS A CONVERSATION THAT TOOK PLACE ON JUNE 13, 1994, AT ABOUT 6:49 IN THE MORNING, JUST BEFORE SEVEN O'CLOCK, AND IT IS A TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE DEPUTY CORONER, PAUL WILLIS, AND DETECTIVE PHILLIPS OF THE LAPD, PHILLIPS BEING FUHRMAN'S PARTNER.

"DETECTIVE PHILLIPS: I GOT A DOUBLE HOMICIDE THAT WE WANT TO LET YOU KNOW ABOUT. IT IS GOING TO BE -- THE PRESS IS GOING TO BE CRAWLING ON US LIKE ANTS WHEN THEY FIND OUT WHAT'S GOING ON.

"DETECTIVE PHILLIPS: THIS IS THE FIRST CALL AND WE GOT A LOT OF WORK TO DO YET, BUT WE NEED TO GET YOU GUYS ROLLING OUT HERE SO THAT WE CAN GET THESE BODIES WHICH ARE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET OUT HERE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE." IF I CAN DIGRESS FOR JUST A MOMENT. YOU WILL RECALL THAT HE IS SAYING FROM PHILLIPS TO THE CORONER'S OFFICE AT 6:49 FOR BODIES THAT WERE DISCOVERED BY THE POLICE AT 12:15 A.M. HE ALSO SAYS SOMETHING THAT I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT IS VERY INTERESTING WHEN HE SAYS THAT:

"WE CAN -- GET YOU ROLLING OUT HERE FOR THESE BODIES WHICH ARE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET." AND YOU WILL RECALL THAT WHEN I SPOKE TO YOU LAST WEEK ABOUT ELLEN ARRONSON AND DAN MANDEL WALKING PAST THIS LOCATION AT 10:25, NOT HEARING ANYTHING, NOT SEEING ANYTHING ON THE SIDEWALK DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF 875, AND YOU HAVE SEEN THE OTHER PHOTOGRAPHS, WHAT YOU COULD SEE FROM THAT SIDEWALK, AND IT IS CLEAR FROM HIS STATEMENT YOU COULD SEE THESE BODIES, AND OF COURSE THERE WAS ALL THE BLOOD AT THE SCENE. CONTINUING ON:

"WE'RE KIND -- WE KIND OF NOT FOLLOWING PROCEDURE, BUT WE ARE KIND OF ASKING A FAVOR, AND YOU KNOW, KIND OF WORK A LITTLE BIT ON THIS ONE." SO WE HAVE THE DETECTIVE AT THIS POINT, THEY ARE NOT FOLLOWING THEIR OWN PROCEDURES AND THEY ARE ASKING THE CORONER'S OFFICE TO DO THEM A FAVOR AND COOPERATE WITH THEM. THANK YOU. NEXT PAGE. PAGE 240, FOR THE RECORD, DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AGAIN STILL TALKING TO THE DEPUTY CORONER, MR. WILLIS.

"DETECTIVE PHILLIPS: WELL, YOU CAN SEE THEM, YEAH, FROM THE STREET HERE. THEY'RE -- THEY'RE A LITTLE OFF THE SIDEWALK HERE IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE, BUT THE PROBLEM IS WE'RE GOING -- WHEN THIS THING BREAKS WE ARE GOING TO HAVE NEWS FROM EVERYWHERE HERE. IT IS GOING TO BE A HIGH-PROFILE TYPE DEAL. IT IS THE -- IT IS THE EX-WIFE OF A VERY PROMINENT SPORTSCASTER OR SPORTS CELEBRITY." THEN HE IS ASKED A LITTLE BIT ABOVE, HE SAYS:

"OKAY. I'M GOING TO HAVE TO TRUST YOU ON THIS. IT IS O.J. SIMPSON'S EX-WIFE." THAT IS PHILLIPS TELLING THE CORONER AGAIN AND HE GOES ON TO SAY -- THE CORONER SAYS:

"OH, BOY. OKAY, UMM." AND PHILLIPS SAYS:

"AND HE IS IN CHICAGO." AND WILLIS SAYS:

"HE DOES NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS?" AND PHILLIPS SAYS:

"HE KNOWS NOW AND THAT IS WHAT IS GOING TO BREAK THIS THING WIDE OPEN." NEXT PAGE, PAGE 241, MR. HARRIS, SIR. NOW, MR. WILLIS HEARS THIS AND I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW HE IS THE CORONER, HE WANTS TO GET ROLLING, AND ON THIS PAGE, OKAY, PAGE 241, HERE IS WHAT WILLIS SAYS:

"OKAY, UMM, YOU WANT US ROLL OUT NOW?"

AND THEN DETECTIVE PHILLIPS SAYS:

"HOLD ON A SECOND. TOM, TOM." AND I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW WHEN HE SAYS, "TOM, TOM," I THINK IT IS DETECTIVE TOM LANGE. SO YOU ARE NOT CONFUSED, THERE ARE TWO TOM LANGS IN THIS CASE AND THERE IS THE TOM LANG ON THE SIDEWALK AND WHO SEES NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON ON THE SIDEWALK AND THERE IS DETECTIVE TOM LANGE AND HE SAYS:

"HOLD ON A SECOND. TOM, TOM, DO YOU WANT THE CORONER NOW?

"NO. "HOLD ON A SECOND. HOW LONG?

"OKAY. YOU ARE JUST GETTING THE FIRST CALL." AND PHILLIPS GOES ON TO SAY:

"WE WILL GIVE YOU A CALL BACK WHEN WE WANT THEM MOVED," PRESUMABLY MEANING THE BODIES, I SUPPOSE.

"DETECTIVE PHILLIPS: IT IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE ABOUT AN HOUR TO AN HOUR AND A HALF." SO HERE WE HAVE THEM CALLING MORE THAN SIX HOURS, THE VERY FIRST TIME, 6:49. THEN WHEN THE CORONER WANTS TO ROLL, SAYS, "DO YOU WANT US TO ROLL NOW," THEY THEN SAY, "MAYBE AN HOUR TO AN HOUR AND A HALF LATER."

MOVE TO THE NEXT PAGE PLEASE. ALL RIGHT. PHILLIPS SAYS:

"WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS I'M GOING TO GIVE THIS TO THE SUPERVISOR BECAUSE I'M LEAVING NOW." PHILLIPS SAYS:

"ALL RIGHT." WILLIS SAYS:

"AND TELL THEM, UMM, THAT YOU ARE GOING TO BE CALLING BACK ABOUT AN HOUR, AN HOUR AND A HALF." PHILLIPS SAYS:

"OKAY. AND AGAIN WE DON'T WANT THAT OUT." THAT ESSENTIALLY ENDS THE FIRST CONVERSATION. THEY PUT IT IN CONTEXT. LET'S SEE IF AND WHEN THEY CALL BACK. AND WE WILL PRESENT EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT AT ABOUT 8:08 IN THE MORNING ON JUNE 13, 1994, THERE WAS IN FACT A SECOND CONVERSATION BETWEEN DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AND A MR. RICHARD HEATH THEN OF THE CORONER'S OFFICE. DETECTIVE PHILLIPS SAYS:

"WE ALREADY GAVE YOU GUYS THE FIRST CALL SEVERAL HOURS AGO ON BUNDY.

"HEATH: YEAH.

"PHILLIPS: OKAY. CAN YOU GIVE ME AN ETA," AN ESTIMATED TIME OF ARRIVAL, "IF YOU STARTED ROLLING NOW?" SOME CONVERSATION WITH PHILLIPS -- WITH HEATH, RATHER, AND HEATH GOES ON TO SAY:

"YEAH, MY NAME IS HEATH, H-E-A-T-H, AND I COULD GIVE YOU APPROXIMATE ARRIVAL TIME OF DRIVING TIME FROM THE MAIN OFFICE IN ABOUT MAYBE ANOTHER FIFTEEN OR TWENTY MINUTES ADDED TO THAT." AND PHILLIPS SAYS:

"OKAY, SO YOU ARE TALKING -- TALKING A GOOD 45 MINUTES THEN?" DETECTIVE PHILLIPS:

"TO AN HOUR." NEXT PAGE, SIR. DETECTIVE PHILLIPS SAYS:

"YOU ARE NOT GOING TO ROLL THEN FOR AN HOUR?" AND MR. HEATH RESPONDS:

"NO, WE WILL BE THERE WITHIN 45 MINUTES TO AN HOUR." NOW, WE THINK THAT THIS EVIDENCE IS VERY IMPORTANT EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT STARTS RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS INVESTIGATION BY THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT. FIRST THEY HAVE ALREADY FAILED TO NOTIFY AND THEN WHEN THEY DO NOTIFY THEY HAVE GOT SO MUCH WORK TO DO YET THAT WE KNOW THAT THE CORONER'S OFFICE DOESN'T COME OUT THERE UNTIL -- THEY DON'T GET THE FINAL CALL UNTIL 8:08, SO WE KNOW PERHAPS ACCORDING TO THIS MAN, MR. HEATH, IT IS AT LEAST ONE HOUR OR SO AFTER THAT BEFORE THEY EVEN GET OUT TO THE SCENE. YOU'VE HEARD ME MENTION DETECTIVE VANNATTER WHO IS THE DETECTIVE IN CHARGE OF THIS SCENE, VERY EXPERIENCED DETECTIVE FROM ROBBERY/HOMICIDE. AND AS WITH ALL OF THE WITNESSES IN THIS CASE, THEIR CREDIBILITY WILL BE CHALLENGED AND WE WILL BE LOOKING VERY CLOSELY AT THEIR CREDIBILITY AND WHAT THEY DID THAT NIGHT AND HOW THEY CONDUCTED THEMSELVES. YOU MUST DO THAT ALSO WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER. DETECTIVE VANNATTER ON THIS PARTICULAR MORNING, AT ABOUT 10:45, SOUGHT A SEARCH WARRANT. THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW MR. SIMPSON WAS NOT IN LOS ANGELES; HE WAS IN CHICAGO. THE DETECTIVE HAD GONE OVER THE WALL FIRST BUT AFTER THEY SOUGHT A SEARCH WARRANT, THAT IS NOT RELEVANT, BUT WHAT IS RELEVANT IS THE CREDIBILITY OF THE DETECTIVE AND WHAT HE SAID TO THE JUDGE IN SEEKING TO GET THIS SEARCH WARRANT.

MR. HARRIS. AND WHAT IS THE NUMBER? WE SHOULD GIVE THE NUMBERS.

MR. HARRIS: THAT IS D-40.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. YOU WILL SEE IN THIS NUMBER --

MR. HARRIS: D-41.

MR. COCHRAN: -- D-41, A SEARCH WARRANT AND AFFIDAVIT AND YOU WILL SEE IT IS SIGNED BY PHILIP L. VANNATTER ON JUNE 13, 1994, AT 10:45 IN THE MORNING NOW, AND THIS IS AFTER THEY HAVE GONE OVER THE WALL, ET CETERA, AND THIS IS AN APPLICATION TO A JUDGE TO TRY AND GO INTO THE HOUSE AND SEARCH, A SWORN AFFIDAVIT.

MR. HARRIS: D-42.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. THIS ONE --

MR. HARRIS: D-43A.

MR. COCHRAN: PULL THAT UP.

MR. HARRIS: D-43B.

MR. COCHRAN: NOW, HERE IS WHAT THE DETECTIVE IN A SWORN AFFIDAVIT SAYS TO THE JUDGE TO GET THIS WARRANT.

"IT WAS DETERMINED SIMPSON HAD LEFT ON AN UNEXPECTED FLIGHT TO CHICAGO DURING THE EARLY MORNING HOURS OF JUNE 13, 1994." AND WE WILL INTRODUCE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THAT WAS A DIRECT MISREPRESENTATION AND UNTRUTH, THAT THE POLICE KNEW FROM KATO KAELIN AND THE CONVERSATION WITH ARNELLE SIMPSON THAT THEY HAD -- THAT MR. SIMPSON HAD BEEN ON A LONG-PLANNED TRIP TO CHICAGO.

MR. HARRIS: D-44, D-45.

MR. COCHRAN: AND HE INDICATES THAT HIMSELF, THAT BY INTERVIEWS OF SIMPSON'S DAUGHTER, THAT WOULD BE ARNELLE, AND A FRIEND, BRIAN KAELIN, HE WRITES THAT IS IN -- THAT IS WHAT IS IN THE WRITING TO THE JUDGE TO VERIFY THE FACT THAT O.J. SIMPSON HAS LIKE GONE ON THIS UNEXPECTED TRIP, LIKE RUN AWAY TO CHICAGO, AND HE USES THAT AS A REASON IN TALKING TO THE JUDGE.

MR. HARRIS: D-45A.

MR. COCHRAN: THE NEXT THING I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU IS THAT THAT IS THE STATEMENT FROM BRIAN GERARD KATO KAELIN. WHAT IS THAT NUMBER, SIR?

MR. HARRIS: D-45B.

MR. COCHRAN: NOW, THIS --

MR. HARRIS: AND C.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU. THIS STATEMENT FROM BRIAN GERARD KAELIN, YOU WILL NOTICE THIS STATEMENT WAS TAKEN BY THE POLICE JUNE 13, 1994, AT SIX O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING. WHEN I TOLD YOU THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WENT INTO HIS ROOM AND TALKED TO THIS MAN IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS AND SIMPSON -- THE STATEMENT IS SIMPSON TOLD HIM HE WAS GOING TO CHICAGO FOR HERTZ CORPORATION, SO THEY KNEW WHY HE WAS GOING TO CHICAGO, THEY KNEW IT WAS NOT AN UNEXPECTED TRIP, SO THIS WAS A LIE WHEN THEY WERE TALKING TO THE JUDGE AT THAT POINT.

MR. HARRIS: D-49, D-50.

MR. COCHRAN: THE NEXT ISSUE OF CREDIBILITY DEALS WITH THE DETECTIVES INDICATED TO THE JUDGE WHEN THEY WERE SEEKING THE SEARCH WARRANT THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE HUMAN BLOOD LATER CONFIRMED BY SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION PERSONNEL, BEING HUMAN BLOOD ON THE DRIVER'S HANDLE OF THE VEHICLE. WELL, THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THEY MAY HAVE CONFIRMED THAT AT SOME POINT MUCH, MUCH LATER, IF EVER, BUT THEY HAD NOT CONFIRMED IT AT 10:45. IT WAS NOT HUMAN BLOOD. THEY COULD NOT CONFIRM HUMAN BLOOD, SO THERE WAS ANOTHER MISSTATEMENT TO THE JUDGE AT THAT PARTICULAR POINT. NOW, IN ADDITION TO THAT, AND I WILL READ THESE FOR YOU, THE OTHER INACCURACIES OF SOME IMPORTANCE THAT WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW ARE AS FOLLOWS: THE DETECTIVES, IN SEEKING THIS PARTICULAR WARRANT, NEVER DISCLOSED TO THE JUDGE THE MANNER IN WHICH ENTRY WAS MADE. THAT IS, THEY HAD ALREADY CLIMBED OVER THE WALL. THEY NEVER BOTHERED TELLING THE JUDGE THAT.

AND FINALLY, THE FINAL INACCURACY THAT I THINK YOU WILL FIND OF SOME GREAT RELEVANCE, THE FACT THAT MR. SIMPSON HAD IN FACT BEEN CONTACTED BY DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AND HAD VOLUNTEERED TO COME HOME, TAKING AWAY FROM THE WARRANT ANY IMPLICATION THAT HE HAD SOMEHOW FLED THE SCENE. THAT WAS NEVER DONE. NOW, AGAIN, THIS IS THE EVIDENCE FROM THEIR FILES, AND BASED UPON WHAT THEIR LEAD INVESTIGATOR SAID TO A JUDGE. AND AT SOME POINT IN MY OPENING STATEMENT TODAY I WANT TO CHARACTERIZE FOR YOU HOW MR. SIMPSON CONDUCTED HIMSELF IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS OF JUNE 13 WITH THE WAY THAT THE DETECTIVES CONDUCTED THEMSELVES. THIS BRINGS US THEN TO A DISCUSSION OF THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE, AND YOU RECALL BRIEFLY THE OTHER DAY I TALKED TO YOU ABOUT WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW ULTIMATELY THIS WAS A PLACE OF THE GATHERING OF THE EVIDENCE AND WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO THE CRIME SCENE TO SECURE THIS AREA, THAT PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE WALKING THROUGH THE EVIDENCE, SHOULD NOT BE TRACKING UP THE EVIDENCE, SHOULD NOT BE TOUCHING THINGS WITHOUT GLOVES, SHOULD BE IN SOME WAY PROTECTED BECAUSE THIS EVIDENCE IS ALL VERY, VERY SENSITIVE. WE WOULD EXPECT THAT HOPEFULLY BY THE TIME OF TRIAL YOU WILL ACTUALLY HAVE SOME FOOTAGE FROM LOCAL TELEVISIONS OF HOW THE DETECTIVE AND HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE OUT THERE AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE IN FACT WEARING ANYTHING OVER THEIR SHOES. YOU HAVE ALREADY SEEN IN THE PROSECUTION'S OPENING STATEMENT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S SHOES AND HOW THEY EXISTED AT THE TIME. WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THIS SCENE WAS TRACKED AND TRAIPSED UP AND THE GATHERING OF EVIDENCE WAS A COMPLETE DISASTER, AND WE FEEL THAT THE EVIDENCE WILL BE SHOWN TO BE CONTAMINATED, COMPROMISED AND CORRUPTED, AS WE HAVE INDICATED TO YOU EARLIER. NOW, YOUR HONOR, BEFORE WE SHOW THIS NEXT GRAPHIC, I WANT TO SAY A WORD TO COUNSEL AND YOU MAY WANT TO USE YOUR SWITCH.

THE COURT: I HAVE ALREADY --

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO DIRECT THE PHOTOGRAPHERS NOT TO ATTEMPT TO TAKE PHOTOGRAPHY OF THE SCREEN IN THE COURTROOM.

MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE SPOKEN TO THE FAMILY OF MR. GOLDMAN BE AWARE WITH REGARD TO THIS PICTURE. THIS IS THE ONLY PICTURE THAT COULD IN ANY WAY CAUSE ANY CONCERN, BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO MOVE ON AT THIS POINT.

THE COURT: PLEASE.

MR. COCHRAN: THIS PURPORTS TO BE A PHOTOGRAPH OF MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY WHILE STILL AT THE SCENE OF THE BUNDY LOCATION AND YOU WILL NOTICE SEVERAL THINGS ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR PHOTOGRAPH. I BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW, FIRST OF ALL, THAT THE LADY WHOSE SHOES ARE THERE, THESE SHOES ARE UNCOVERED, SHE IS STANDING ON SOME KIND OF A WHITE SHEET OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE. YOU CAN SEE BLOOD ON THIS PHOTOGRAPH. SHE HAS NOTHING OVER HER SHOES AND SHE IS STANDING THERE. YOU SEE THE BODY AND YOU WILL SEE SOMETHING ELSE INTERESTING. YOU WILL SEE SOME GLOVES. THESE GLOVES WERE APPARENTLY -- THESE GLOVES HAVE BLOOD ON THEM AND THESE GLOVES HAVE NOW BEEN DROPPED ON MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY. THESE GLOVES, THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW, ARE TYPICAL OF THE KIND OF GLOVES THAT ARE USED AT THE SCENE TO PICK UP EVIDENCE OR TO COLLECT VARIOUS AND SUNDRY THINGS, AND YET YOU SEE THESE GLOVES NOW FOUND ON MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY IN THIS FASHION AND WE THINK THIS IS TYPICAL OF THE WAY THINGS WERE CONDUCTED AT THAT PARTICULAR LOCATION AT THAT TIME.

THE COURT: MR. HARRIS, WHAT WAS THAT?

MR. HARRIS: THAT WAS D-69.

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU. WE EXPECT, AS WE INDICATED LAST WEEK, TO SHOW THAT BASED AT THIS PARTICULAR CRIME SCENE AT BUNDY, THERE WILL BE A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT WE EXPECT THE EVIDENCE TO SHOW, THAT ONE OF WHICH IS THIS CRIME SCENE AND THE PATTERNS AT THE CRIME SCENE ARE CONSISTENT WITH A MAJOR STRUGGLE. MR. RON GOLDMAN'S BLOOD, AS I TOLD YOU, SHOULD BE ALL OVER THE PERPETRATOR, ESPECIALLY IN THE UPPER AND MIDDLE PARTS OF THE PERPETRATOR'S BODY. YOU WILL RECALL THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S DESCRIPTION THIS MORNING WHERE HE DESCRIBED THIS RATHER SMALL AREA WHERE MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY WAS FOUND, AND HE TALKED ABOUT A FENCE AND YOU HAVE SOME PICTURES WITH A TREE IN THE AREA. IT IS A VERY SMALL AREA. HE HAD TO GO OUTSIDE TO LOOK OUTSIDE THE FENCE TO SEE WHERE THE BODY WAS. IT IS A VERY SMALL AREA. I THINK YOU WILL FIND THAT IF THERE WAS THIS MAJOR CONFRONTATION, AND YOU RECALL LAST WEEK MR. GOLDMAN'S HAND, BUT I EXPECT THERE TO BE TESTIMONY THAT HIS HAND CAME IN BLUNT FORCE TRAUMA WITH ONE OF THE PERPETRATORS THERE AND THERE WOULD BE SOME MARK OR SOME INJURIES, IT WOULD SEEM, PLUS THERE ARE TREES, THIS FENCE AND THERE WAS A VIOLENT STRUGGLE. SO IF YOU RECALL THE PICTURES OF

MR. O.J. SIMPSON LAST WEEK, YOU WILL UNDERSTAND THAT WILL BE IMPORTANT EVIDENCE AS TO THE LACK OF ANY MARKS, BRUISES OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE. IN THE AREA -- WE EXPECT THE SCENE TO ALSO SHOW THAT IN THE AREA WHERE THESE MURDERS TOOK PLACE THERE ARE A NUMBER OF FOOTPRINTS IN A VERY SMALL AREA, WHICH MEANS THAT MOST LIKELY THE PERPETRATOR HAD TO BE THERE FOR A PERIOD OF TIME, THAT THERE WAS THIS PATTERN OF FIGHTING. I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL BE IN THIS CASE THAT MR. GOLDMAN'S BLOOD IS ON DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE LOCATION, WHICH MEANS THAT HE, TOO, WAS MOVING AROUND, SO THERE WAS THIS KIND OF A CONFRONTATION OR THIS FIGHT THAT WENT ON OVER A PERIOD OF TIME BECAUSE ONE IS FIGHTING FOR ONE'S LIFE, AND AS YOU KNOW, IT WAS A VIOLENT STRUGGLE IN WHICH HE ULTIMATELY WAS STABBED SOME 31 TIMES -- 30 TIMES. THE PROSECUTOR INDICATED TO YOU ALL THIS HAPPENED VERY FAST AND I THINK THAT YOU WILL SEE FROM THE EVIDENCE THAT THAT IS NOT EXACTLY CORRECT, GIVEN THE SITUATION WHEN ONE IS FIGHTING VALIANTLY FOR THEIR LIFE. THERE WAS SOME TESTIMONY LAST WEEK ABOUT CERTAIN BLOOD DROPS I THINK BY THE PROSECUTORS THAT WERE AT OR NEAR THE MANY FOOTPRINTS AND I THINK THAT YOU WILL FIND THAT IT WILL BE VERY UNUSUAL AND THAT IT WILL BE A REMARKABLE OCCURRENCE THAT THERE ARE ONLY FOUR DROPS OF BLOOD THAT THEY TALK ABOUT AND SO MANY, MANY FOOTPRINTS. FURTHER, WE WILL LOOK VERY CLOSELY DURING THE COURSE OF THIS TRIAL AT THE GLOVE, AT BOTH GLOVES. WE WILL LOOK AT THE GLOVE FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM, THE RIGHT GLOVE. WE WILL LOOK AT THE GLOVE FOUND AT BUNDY. AND WE WILL BE LOOKING TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE ANY CUTS ON THOSE GLOVES CONSISTENT WITH ANY CUTS OR ANYTHING ON MR. O.J. SIMPSON'S HANDS. WE EXPECT, AS I MENTIONED TO YOU LAST WEEK, THERE WILL BE FINGERPRINTS ON THE RAILINGS THAT ARE FRESH AT BUNDY AND WE THINK THAT THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THOSE FINGERPRINTS ARE NOT O.J. SIMPSON'S FINGERPRINTS. THAT THERE ARE HAIRS ON THE CAP, THE GLOVE AT BUNDY THAT ARE NOT O.J. SIMPSON'S. THAT THERE IS AT THE CRIME SCENE, I BELIEVE YOU RECALL WHEN THE PROSECUTORS WERE MAKING THEIR CASE LAST WEEK, THERE IS A TRIANGULAR PIECE OF PAPER SHOWN IN THE PHOTOGRAPH NEAR NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S HEAD THAT WAS NEVER SAVED, APPARENTLY, BY THE POLICE. WE DON'T HAVE THAT. OF COURSE YOU HAVE ALREADY SEEN AND THERE WILL BE A NUMBER OF OTHER PHOTOGRAPHS OF PEOPLE WITH UNPROTECTED SHOES STANDING IN AND ABOUT THE CRIME SCENE. THERE WILL OF COURSE BE ALSO PHOTOGRAPHS OF CRIMINALISTS WITHOUT PROPER HEAD COVERING AND GLOVES ACTUALLY INVOLVED IN COLLECTING AND SO I HOPE THIS GIVES YOU KIND OF A PREVIEW OF HOW THESE DETECTIVES COLLECTED EVIDENCE AND HOW THEY DEALT WITH THIS PARTICULAR SCENE, A SCENE THAT WOULD BE BEST VIDEOTAPED SO COULD YOU SEE EVERYTHING THAT TOOK PLACE, OTHER THAN JUST STILL PHOTOGRAPHS, A SCENE THAT WOULD BE BEST PRESERVED WHERE ONLY PEOPLE WHO HAVE THEIR REAL BUSINESS ARE THERE, NOT PEOPLE JUST WALKING AROUND AND TRAIPSING THROUGH THE EVIDENCE. YOU WILL HEAR A LOT ABOUT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF THIS TRIAL. NEXT WE WILL COME TO THE BRONCO. REMEMBER ALL THESE PIECES OF EVIDENCE GO FROM THE LOCATION, SUCH AS THE BUNDY, THROUGH LAPD, TO SOME OTHER PLACE, SO LET'S NOW LOOK AT THE BRONCO, WHAT WE CALL THE BRONCO TIMELINE. MR. DOUGLAS, WILL YOU PUT THE CHART UP, AND THEN MR. HARRIS. MR. HARRIS, THE NUMBER ON THE --

MR. HARRIS: D-62 AND THE CHART HAS ANOTHER NUMBER.

MR. DOUGLAS: THE CHART IS 206, YOUR HONOR.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, MR. HARRIS AND MR. DOUGLAS. NOW, YOU WILL SEE IN THE EXHIBIT UP ON THE BOARD, THE LARGE BOARD, THE VIDEO EXHIBIT, YOU WILL SEE A LADY AGAINST THE BRONCO. THAT IS THE BRONCO THAT WE HAVE -- WE HEAR A LOT ABOUT, AND THAT IS A PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN ON JUNE 13, 1994, AND YOU WILL SEE THE TOW TRUCK BEHIND THE BRONCO AND YOU WILL SEE THIS LADY UP APPARENTLY PEERING IN THE WINDOW OF THE BRONCO.

AND WE EXPECT TO SHOW THAT THIS BRONCO, WHICH YOU HEARD THIS IMPORTANT EVIDENCE, WAS NOT SECURE, THAT PEOPLE SUCH AS THIS LADY GRAPHICALLY ARE ALLOWED TO WALK UP, TOUCH IT, AND WHEN THAT BRONCO LEFT THAT LOCATION THERE WILL BE EVIDENCE THAT THERE WERE AT LEAST TWO COFFEE STAINS ON THE HOOD OF THE PARTICULAR BRONCO THAT WASN'T SECURED, THAT WASN'T PRESERVED, THAT IT WASN'T MADE SO THAT YOU COULD COUNT ON THAT EVIDENCE.

MR. HARRIS: THAT IS D-63.

THE COURT: DR. D, IS THAT YOU?

DR. DIMITRIUS: THAT IS MY COMPUTER, YOUR HONOR. I APOLOGIZE.

MR. HARRIS: D-64. D-65.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, MR. HARRIS. THE BRONCO WAS OF COURSE IMPOUNDED, THE 1994 FORD BRONCO, AND THIS IS THE LICENSE OF THAT PARTICULAR VEHICLE THAT YOU CAN SEE.

MR. HARRIS: D-66A AND D-66B.

MR. COCHRAN: WHEN THIS BRONCO WAS FIRST TAKEN AWAY IT WAS TAKEN TO A PLACE CALLED THE PRINT SHED, TO CHECK FOR FINGERPRINTS. YOU WILL SEE IN THIS FORM, THIS LARGE FORM, THIS IS A BLOW-UP OF THIS AREA. IN THE UPPER LEFT-HAND CORNER THERE IS AN INDICATION OF "PRINTS, EVIDENCE, GIVE SPECIAL CARE." THIS BOX IS APPARENTLY CHECKED AT THAT POINT AND YOU WILL SEE "RHD" AND THIS STANDS FOR "ROBBERY/HOMICIDE DIVISION." THAT IS WHERE THE DETECTIVES CAME FROM. SHE HAD CHECKED THIS SO THEY WILL BE GIVEN SPECIAL CARE AT THIS POINT. MR. HARRIS.

MR. HARRIS: D-68A,-68B.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. THERE WERE SOME SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS TO "TAKE THE BRONCO TO PRINT SHACK PAB ACROSS STREET OF PARKER CENTER AND THEY NOTE FOR US THAT "THERE ARE TWO COFFEE STAINS" ON THE HOOD, DISREGARD, NOT RELATED." YOU WILL HAVE TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THAT SHOULD BE DISREGARDED; HOWEVER, BECAUSE IF THIS VEHICLE WAS PROPERLY HANDLED, THERE IS A QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THOSE COFFEE STAINS WOULD EVEN BE THERE. MR. HARRIS.

MR. HARRIS: D-69, D-70.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT.

MR. HARRIS: D-71.

MR. COCHRAN: AFTER THE BRONCO HAD BEEN TO THE PRINT SHED, IT WAS THEN REMOVED AND TAKEN TO THE IMPOUND AT A PLACE CALLED VIERTEL'S, V-I-E-R-T-E-L-S, THE TOWING YARD HERE IN LOS ANGELES, AND YOU WILL SEE ITS IMPOUND AND YOU WILL SEE THE 1994 FORD BRONCO AGAIN, AND AGAIN THE LICENSE. MR. HARRIS.

MR. HARRIS: D-72 AND D-73.

MR. COCHRAN: LET'S SEE. WHEN THEY GOT THIS BRONCO AT VIERTEL'S, LET'S SEE IF THEY USED THIS SAME FORM. ROBBERY/HOMICIDE, RHD, THIS YOU SEE, AND YOU WILL SEE THAT THE CHECK WHERE THE PRINT OR EVIDENCE OR "GIVE SPECIAL CARE" IS NO LONGER CHECKED. THERE IS NOTHING THERE, NOTHING IN THAT LOCATION.

MR. HARRIS: D-74 AND D-75.

MR. COCHRAN: THIS WILL TELL YOU WHAT INSTRUCTIONS WERE GIVEN REGARDING THAT BRONCO AS EARLY AS JUNE 14, 1994, I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW. THE INSTRUCTIONS WERE:

"HOLD UNTIL RELEASED TO REP FROM HERTZ CORPORATION." AND I THINK THERE WILL BE EVIDENCE THAT THIS VEHICLE WAS ACTUALLY OWNED BY THE HERTZ CORPORATION. YOU WILL NOTICE THAT NO SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS WERE TAKEN. THIS VEHICLE WAS BEING HELD FOR RELEASE TO THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE HERTZ CORPORATION AT THAT POINT. OF COURSE THEN NOW WE ARE BACK TO THIS QUESTION THEN OF THE INTEGRITY OF THE EVIDENCE AND YOU HAVE THE BRONCO THERE GOING THROUGH LAPD AND ANYTHING OUT OF THE BRONCO. NOW, I WOULD LIKE TO WALK OVER, WITH THE COURT'S PERMISSION, TO MOVE A LITTLE CLOSER WITHOUT BLOCKING ANYONE WITH THE SO-CALLED BRONCO TIMELINE.

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

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I PROCEED, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YOU MAY. THANK YOU.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY. THIS IS THE SO-CALLED BRONCO TIMELINE AND LET'S SEE IF WE CAN PUT THIS IN PERSPECTIVE FOR YOU. THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY THAT THE LAPD ANNOUNCES THAT THE ROCKINGHAM SITE WAS, QUOTE-UNQUOTE, SECURED AND THERE WILL BE A MAJOR QUESTION REGARDING THAT AND THAT IS IN JUNE. WE KNOW THAT THERE WAS THE SEARCH OF THE BRONCO FOR BLOOD AND TRACE EVIDENCE ON JUNE 14TH. THEN WITHIN A DAY THEREAFTER, ON JUNE 15, 1994, THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO VIERTEL'S AND THAT IS THE TOWING YARD I JUST SPOKE TO YOU ABOUT AND THAT IS THE PLACE WHERE THERE WAS -- THE ONLY INDICATION WAS HOLD FOR RELEASE TO THE HERTZ CORPORATION. SO YOU CAN SEE IN JUNE WHAT TOOK PLACE. NOW WE KNOW AND WE EXPECT THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY THAT AS EARLY AS JUNE 15, THE DAY THAT VEHICLE, THE BRONCO, WAS TOWED TO VIERTEL'S, THERE WERE DOCUMENTS TAKEN OUT OF THE DRIVER'S SIDE POUCH. WE EXPECT THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY FROM A MAN BY THE NAME OF JOHN MERAZ, M-E-R-A-Z. MR. MERAZ WILL INDICATE THAT HE -- THEY ALL KNEW DOWN THERE THIS IS O.J. SIMPSON'S VEHICLE. THAT HE GOT INSIDE THAT VEHICLE AND GETTING INSIDE HE TOOK SOME RECEIPTS OR INVOICES, AND I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL BE THAT SOME OF THOSE RECEIPTS OR INVOICES WERE MADE OUT OR IN THE NAME OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON. SO I THINK YOU WILL FIND DURING THE COURSE OF THE EVIDENCE NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON ALSO DROVE THAT VEHICLE AND THIS WILL BE FURTHER EVIDENCE THAT SHE WAS IN THE VEHICLE, PERHAPS HAD GONE TO THE CLEANERS OR SOMEPLACE TO PICK UP SOME ITEM, BUT MR. MERAZ WILL TELL YOU THAT HE TOOK THESE ITEMS OUT OF THE DRIVER'S SIDE POUCH ON OR ABOUT JUNE 15, 1994. HE WILL SAY THAT HE PUT THOSE ITEMS BACK INTO THE BRONCO, BUT THE ITEMS WERE THEN SUBSEQUENTLY STOLEN OR TAKEN IN ANOTHER BURGLARY OF THIS PARTICULAR CAR THAT SUPPOSEDLY IS SECURE ON VIERTEL'S PROPERTY. THE UPSHOT OF IT IS THAT TODAY, SEVEN MONTHS PLUS LATER, WE DON'T HAVE ANY OF THOSE RECEIPTS. THEY HAVE BEEN STOLEN, THEY HAVE BEEN TAKEN, THEY ARE GONE FROM THIS SUPPOSED SECURE VEHICLE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE POLICE OR IN VIERTEL'S. AND SO THIS BRONCO TIMELINE SEEKS TO SPELL THAT OUT FOR YOU. YOU WILL NOTE IN GOING BACK THERE WE HAVE A SMALLER PICTURE OF THE WOMAN TOUCHING THE BRONCO. THAT IS STILL WHILE IT IS AT THE SCENE.

YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENED ON THE 14TH AND THEN THE 15TH AND THEN WE KNOW MR. MERAZ TAKES THE DOCUMENTS INITIALLY ON THE 15TH AND I THINK HE SAYS HE PUTS THEM BACK ALMOST IMMEDIATELY, WITHIN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. THEY ARE KIND OF LIKE SOUVENIRS, I SUPPOSE, IF YOU BELIEVE WHAT HE TELLS YOU, BUT VIERTEL'S DOES NOT REPORT THE REMOVAL OF THE DOCUMENT TO THE POLICE AND POLICE THE COMMISSION UNTIL JUNE 11, 1994, UNTIL ALMOST A MONTH LATER. THE OFFICIAL WORD COMES OUT THAT THESE DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN TAKEN AND THEY ARE MISSING AND OF COURSE THEY THEN START AN INVESTIGATION TO TRY AND FIND OUT WHERE THESE DOCUMENTS ARE. THIS BRONCO TIMELINE TALKS ABOUT THIS WHOLE PERIOD OF TIME WHEN WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THE BRONCO WAS IMPROPERLY STORED WITHOUT THE APPROPRIATE HOLD AND THEN WHEN IT WAS IMPROPERLY STORED THAT SOME BAD AND UNFORTUNATE THINGS HAPPENED WITH THE EVIDENCE HAVING BEEN LOST. NOW, YOU WILL SEE BETWEEN THIS PERIOD OF JUNE 15, THAT IS THE DATE THAT MERAZ GOT INSIDE WHEN IT WAS BROUGHT TO VIERTEL'S, AND AUGUST 26TH, DID NOT OBSERVE THE SPECIAL CARE RULE TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF BIOLOGICAL AND TRACE EVIDENCE. WE THINK THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY THAT THIS VEHICLE -- POSSIBLE FOR THIS VEHICLE, FOR ANY NUMBER OF PEOPLE TO GET IN AND OUT OF THAT VEHICLE AND THERE WAS NOT THE HOLD ON IT THAT IT HAD IN THE PRINT SHED, THEN LO AND BEHOLD ON AUGUST 26TH, DURING THE PERIOD OF AUGUST 26, 1994, AND SEPTEMBER 1ST, 1994, THERE WAS, DONE BY THE PROSECUTION, AN EXTENSIVE SEARCH OF THE BRONCO FOR BIOLOGICAL AND TRACE EVIDENCE AND THEY WENT BACK LOOKING FOR EVIDENCE TO USE DURING THIS TRIAL. YOU CAN SEE THIS IS FOR A VEHICLE THAT HAD BEEN TOWED THERE ON JUNE 15, SO WHAT IS THAT? TWO MONTHS PLUS? ALMOST TWO AND A HALF MONTHS. GO BACK. NOW, THEY ARE LOOKING FOR EXTENSIVE SEARCH FOR BIOLOGICAL AND TRACE EVIDENCE. THIS IS A VEHICLE THAT WE KNOW HAS BEEN BASICALLY IMPROPERLY STORED, THERE HAS BEEN AT LEAST ONE BURGLARY OR TRESPASS, AND MAYBE TWO, IF MR. MERAZ IS BELIEVED, YET THEY THEN GO BACK AND SEEK TO GET OUT OF THERE, AND THIS GOES INTO WHAT I HAVE TRIED TO DESCRIBE FOR YOU THERE, THE GRAPHIC OF THE INTEGRITY OF THE EVIDENCE, WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT EVIDENCE, WHERE IT GOES BEFORE IT GETS TO YOU AND WHO HAS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONTAMINATE IT OR COMPROMISE IT OR IN ANY WAY CORRUPT IT. THAT LEADS US TO THE POINT OF THIS INTEGRITY OF EVIDENCE BEING CONTAMINATED, COMPROMISED AND CORRUPTED, AND WE THINK THAT THE SAGA OF THE BRONCO ILLUSTRATES THIS CONCEPT OF THE EVIDENCE BEING CONTAMINATED, COMPROMISED AND CORRUPTED. THANK YOU.

NOW -- WE WILL NOW WITH YOUR PERMISSION TURN OUR ATTENTION NOW TO THIS WHOLE CONCEPT OF THE DISCUSSION OF DNA EVIDENCE AND THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT. I SUPPOSE THAT THERE IS A SAYING THAT YOU HAVE GARBAGE IN, YOU GET GARBAGE OUT, AND WE HAVE SEVERAL CHARTS THAT WE THINK WILL BE ILLUSTRATIVE OF THIS WHOLE CONCEPT OF DNA EVIDENCE AND WHAT IT ACTUALLY IS. MR. DOUGLAS IS PLACING A CHART ON THE BOARD, AND MR. HARRIS, DO YOU HAVE A LASER?

MR. HARRIS: NO, I DON'T.

MR. COCHRAN: AND WE PUT THE BLACK BOX UP BECAUSE AGAIN THIS DEALS ALSO WITH THE INTEGRITY OF EVIDENCE. NOW, WITH REGARD TO THIS PARTICULAR EXHIBIT, BEFORE I GET TO THAT, MISS CLARK, I WANT TO MAKE A FEW STATEMENTS AND I WILL LET YOU KNOW WHEN WE GET TO THAT. ALL RIGHT. NOWHERE I THINK WILL YOU FIND IN THIS CASE IS THE PROBLEM OF THE EVIDENCE BEING CONTAMINATED, COMPROMISED AND CORRUPTED, MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE AREA OF DNA TESTING. THIS IS, THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW, IS A VERY NEW AND POWERFUL TECHNOLOGY. IN THE PAST FIVE YEARS POLICE DEPARTMENTS AND CRIME LABS HAVE TRIED TO TRANSFER THIS DNA TEST THAT HAS BEEN USED FOR RESEARCH AND MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS AND APPLY IT TO CRIME SCENE SAMPLES. WE EXPECT ALL OF YOU WILL HEAR IN THE COURSE OF THIS, THE EVIDENCE, THIS TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY HAS NOT BEEN SIMPLE OR EASY, AND SO I WANT TO SHARE WITH YOU IN THE COURSE OF MY OPENING STATEMENT NOW SOME DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DNA TESTING FOR MEDICAL PURPOSES AND FORENSIC DNA TESTING ON CRIME SCENE SAMPLES. REMEMBERING AS WE -- IN THE GRAPHIC, THAT ALL EVIDENCE PASSES THROUGH FIRST THE LAPD'S HANDS. IF IT IS COMPROMISED WHEN IT STARTS, IT IS COMPROMISED WHEN IT COMES OUT. IF THE EVIDENCE WAS CONTAMINATED AT THE SCENE OR MISHANDLED BY THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT DNA TESTS ARE DONE AFTERWARDS, HOW MANY TIMES THEY ARE DONE OR WHICH LABORATORIES DID THEM, THE RESULTS WILL NOT BE RELIABLE WE CAN EXPECT THE EVIDENCE TO SHOW. NOW, TO UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM OF CONTAMINATION, ONE MUST UNDERSTAND, FIRST OF ALL, HOW SMALL THESE SAMPLES ARE, AND MR. DOUGLAS HAS GOTTEN AHEAD OF ME JUST A LITTLE BIT. LET'S GO BACK TO THE SMALL AMOUNTS OF DNA FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES TO ILLUSTRATE THIS FOR YOU. THIS IS A CHART THAT IS ENTITLED "SMALL AMOUNTS OF DNA FROM SPECKS OF BLOOD," AND WHAT WE HAVE IS A REGULAR SIZE PENNY HERE AT THE FAR LEFT, AND I WANT YOU TO BE ABLE TO COMPROMISE -- STRIKE THAT. I WANT YOU TO BE ABLE TO COMPARE A REGULAR SIZE PENNY WITH 20 NANOGRAMS OF DNA AND THAT AMOUNTS TO -- THOSE OF YOU WHO CAN SEE VERY WELL, I AM POINTING TO IT, ALMOST LIKE A PIN PRICK, 20 NANOGRAMS. MUCH OF THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE YOU WILL BE ASKED TO MAKE DECISIONS REGARDING IS ONE/TENTH OF THAT AMOUNT, ONE/TENTH OF THE 20 NANOGRAMS OR TWO NANOGRAMS, AN AMOUNT SO SMALL THAT YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE IT. THAT IS THE WHAT -- WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DEMONSTRATE WITH THIS CHART. THE PENNY, 20 NANOGRAMS, THE TWO NANOGRAMS, AN AMOUNT THAT YOU COULD NOT EVEN SEE WITH THE NAKED EYE. MR. DOUGLAS -- THAT EXHIBIT I WAS JUST REFERRING TO, YOUR HONOR, WAS --

MR. DOUGLAS: 207, YOUR HONOR.

MR. COCHRAN: NOW, MR. DOUGLAS.

MR. DOUGLAS: THIS IS EXHIBIT 210, YOUR HONOR.

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

MR. COCHRAN: WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW, AND INCLUDING THE LAST CHART THAT WAS TAKEN DOWN, THAT THESE SMALL MINUSCULE AMOUNTS OF DNA ARE VERY EASY TO SPREAD AROUND. THEY CAN GET ON YOUR CLOTHES, IN YOUR HAIR, TWEEZERS, SCISSORS, OTHER TOOLS, BE MOVED FROM ONE PLACE TO THE OTHER WITHOUT ANYONE SEEING OR KNOWING WHAT IS HAPPENING. THE -- THIS OF COURSE IS HOW YOU GET CONTAMINATION. NOW, DURING THE COURSE OF MY REMARKS TODAY AND THEN LAST WEEK, AND BEFORE THAT THE REMARKS OF THE PROSECUTORS, WE HAVE ALL STOOD AT THIS PARTICULAR PODIUM. IF I SNEEZED OR IF ANY SALIVA CAME OUT OR IF I SCRATCH MY HAIR AND ANY DANDRUFF WAS THERE OR IF I TOUCH THIS AND I HAD ANY BLOOD ON MY FINGER OR A SPLINTER THERE, IF MISS CLARK DID LIKEWISE, IF MR. DARDEN DID LIKEWISE, THEN OUR DNA WOULD BE ON THIS AREA. AND IF I TOOK A HANDKERCHIEF OUT AND WIPED THIS, THIS IS WHAT THEY DO IN LABS, THAT WOULD PICK UP THE VARIOUS DNA THAT IS HERE. YOU CAN'T SEE IT, THAT IS HOW SMALL IT IS UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. SO THAT GIVES YOU AN IDEA. IF WE WERE TO WIPE IT ACROSS HERE, OUR HANDKERCHIEF COULD NOW BE TAKEN TO THE LAB AND ALLEGEDLY TAKEN. IN FACT, SOME MEDICAL LABS DO IN FACT DO THIS AND IT IS DONE IN A LAB TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS ANY CONTAMINATION. THAT IS HOW THEY TEST IT TO SEE IF THERE IS ANY CONTAMINATION. IF YOU ARE TRYING TO SEE IF SOMEONE IS GOING TO BE COMPATIBLE FOR A PARTICULAR ORGAN TRANSPLANT, THEY CHECK TO SEE, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SEE THIS. IF I HAD BEEN THE ONLY ONE HERE, YOU MIGHT EXPECT TO FIND ONLY MY DNA, BUT IF MR. DARDEN AND MISS CLARK WERE HERE, YOU MIGHT EXPECT TO FIND THEIR DNA. IF MR. VANNATTER HERE SNEEZED, YOU MIGHT FIND HIS DNA, SO THERE IS ALL KIND OF WAYS IN WHICH WE HAVE THIS POSSIBLE CONTAMINATION. AND ONE OF THE PROBLEMS WITH THE TEST IS THAT IT CANNOT TELL ONE PERSON'S DNA FROM ANOTHER. THIS IS WHAT WE CALL -- AND I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL BE A MIXED SAMPLE. THERE IS QUITE A CONTROVERSY, WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW, ABOUT WHETHER SMALL MIXED SAMPLES CAN BE TESTED RELIABLY EVEN IF EVERYTHING ELSE IS DONE PROPERLY AND THERE IS NO CONTAMINATION, SO IF YOU ADD CONTAMINATION TO IT, THEN YOU CAN SEE WHAT THE PROBLEMS ARE. NOW, TO GIVE YOU A PERSPECTIVE -- THIS BOARD THAT I'M NOW GOING TO REFER TO IS THE SO-CALLED DNA TESTING TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER BOARD. WHAT WE WANT TO DEMONSTRATE HERE IS YOU WILL RECALL I SAID THAT OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST FIVE YEARS WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO HERE IS TO TRANSFER FROM NO MATTER WHAT WE USE IN MEDICAL RESEARCH AND TO EXCLUDE SUSPECTS PRIMARILY TO THE FIELD TO FORENSICS, TO CRIME SCENES, TO TRY AND MAKE IT WORK IN THAT SETTING.

THIS IS, AS I INDICATED TO YOU LAST WEEK, CYBERSPACE OR 21ST CENTURY TECHNOLOGY, AND I THINK YOU WILL FIND THE EVIDENCE WILL BE THAT THE COLLECTION PROCEDURES ARE 19TH CENTURY OR COVERED WAGON COLLECTION PROCEDURES AND THAT IS WHY IT IS SUCH A PROBLEM. AND SO IF YOU LOOKED AT THIS MEDICAL RESEARCH AREA, IN GENERAL YOU COULD EXPECT THAT IN THE MEDICAL FIELD THAT THERE ARE CLEAN SAMPLES, MORE THAN LIKELY IN A CLEAN MEDICAL LAB, THE BLOOD IS CAREFULLY TAKEN UNDER ANTISEPTIC CONDITIONS IN HOSPITALS, AND IN A FORENSIC SETTING DNA TESTING IS DONE BY DEFINITION GENERALLY AND DIRTY SAMPLES ARE TAKEN FROM CRIME SCENES, FROM SIDEWALKS, FROM CARPETS AND THEY ARE EXPOSED TO ALL SORT OF CONTAMINATION, THAT THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENT SOURCES, THAT THESE -- AS YOU KNOW ALREADY, THESE ARE MINUTE SPECKS OF BLOOD, THERE MAY BE SALIVA, THERE MAY BE SKIN, CELLS, DANDRUFF, AS I INDICATED TO YOU, EVEN A SPRAY OF A SNEEZE CAN CONTAMINATE THE FORENSIC SAMPLE. SO WHAT I WANT TO DO IN THIS SAMPLE, WE HAVE THESE CHARTS HERE, IS THAT IN COMPARING THE MEDICAL RESEARCH, COMPARE THE MEDICAL RESEARCH WITH THE FORENSIC AND SEE WHICH ONE IS MORE LIKELY TO BE RELIABLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. WELL, I THINK THAT THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT AS OPPOSED TO THE CLEAN SAMPLE AND THE DIRTY SAMPLES, IN THIS INSTANCE THE CLEAN SAMPLE IN THE MEDICAL LAB WILL BE FAR MORE RELIABLE, SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN RELY UPON. THE NEXT AREA WE WILL BE TALKING ABOUT IS GENERALLY IN A MEDICAL LAB YOU HAVE A GENEROUS SAMPLE SIZE, THE DOCTOR CAN HAVE WHATEVER SAMPLE SIZE HE USUALLY WANTS OR NEEDS. IN FORENSICS THE SAMPLE COMES GENERALLY IN VERY, VERY LIMITED MINUTE AMOUNTS AND IN WORKING WITH SUCH SMALL AMOUNTS OFTEN THE TEST CAN ONLY BE DONE ONCE. AND OF COURSE WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT IS -- IT IS HARDER TO PRODUCE RELIABLE RESULTS UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES. IN FACT, YOU WILL HEAR WE THINK IN THIS CASE, THAT MOST OF THE IMPORTANT DNA TESTS PERFORMED BY THE PROSECUTION WERE DONE WITH AMOUNTS OF DNA THAT WERE ACTUALLY BELOW THE PREFERRED AMOUNTS FOR RELIABLE TESTING. SO IF YOU TALK ABOUT THE MEDICAL RESEARCH LABS HAVING A GENEROUS SAMPLE SIZE AND THEN IN THE FORENSICS AREA HAVING MINUSCULE SAMPLE SIZE, AGAIN YOU CAN SEE THERE IS A HIGHER RISK OF CONTAMINATION IN THE MINUSCULE SAMPLE SIZE AND THAT BRINGS US DOWN TO THE UNMIXED SAMPLE FROM KNOWN SOURCES. AS YOU KNOW, AND MISS CLARK ALLUDED TO THIS IN HER STATEMENT, IN A MEDICAL SETTING YOU HAVE SAMPLES THAT YOU KNOW. IF YOU HAVE A LADY WHO IS GOING TO HAVE AMNIOCENTESIS, YOU KNOW WHO THAT IS. IF YOU HAVE A PERSON WHO IS GOING TO GIVE SOMEBODY ELSE A KIDNEY, YOU KNOW WHO THEY ARE, SO YOU HAVE KNOWN SOURCES THAT YOU ARE DEALING WITH, AND I THINK THAT MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE, I THINK YOU WILL SEE, DURING THE COURSE OF THE TESTIMONY. IN MEDICAL TESTING WE TAKE THESE UNMIXED SAMPLES FROM KNOWN PERSONS AND IN FORENSICS WE TAKE THESE SAMPLES IN VARYING AMOUNTS FROM UNKNOWN PEOPLE BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW WHO HAS WALKED OUT THERE, WHO HAS WALKED, WHO HAS SNEEZED, WHO HAS BLED, WHO HAS SCRATCHED THEIR HEAD. YOU DON'T KNOW OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. WE EXPECT YOU WILL HEAR IN THIS AREA THAT THE NEW FORMS OF DNA TESTING USED BY THE PROSECUTION IN THIS CASE ARE JUST NOT RELIABLE ENOUGH WHEN USING AND ANALYZING MIXTURES FROM UNKNOWN SOURCES AND THE KEY HERE BEING MIXED SAMPLES FROM UNKNOWN SOURCES. SO AGAIN, ONCE AGAIN ON FORENSICS, IN THE HIGHER RISK OF CONTAMINATION, THEN IN THE LAB, IN THE MEDICAL RESEARCH AREA, THERE IS GENERALLY MINIMAL HANDLING. THIS IS FAIRLY CLEAR AND STRAIGHTFORWARD. LESS HANDLING THAN AT THE SCENE WHERE YOU HAVE SOMEONE GOING OUT TRYING TO COLLECT SOMETHING. CONTRARY, AS I SAID, TO WHAT THE PROSECUTOR TOLD YOU LAST WEEK, THE EVIDENCE WILL BE IT IS NOT AS SIMPLE AS WIPING UP A SPILL IN YOUR KITCHEN. THIS TECHNOLOGY IS SO SENSITIVE, IT IS NOT THAT SIMPLE AT ALL. YOU AND I JUST SHOULDN'T GO OUT AND DO THIS. WE CAN DO IT IF WE WANTED TO USE THE SAME TECHNIQUE THEY USE WITH THE LAPD, BUT YOU WILL GET RESULTS THAT ARE ALL UNRELIABLE, SO BETWEEN MINIMAL HANDLING AND MULTIPLE HANDLING YOU CAN SEE AGAIN THAT THERE IS A HIGHER RISK OF CONTAMINATION WITH THE MULTIPLE HANDLING. ERROR RATES BETWEEN KNOWN -- AND THAT IS BECAUSE I THINK YOU WILL HEAR TESTIMONY THAT IN THE MEDICAL LABS THEY SUBJECT THEIR RESULTS AND THINGS TO TESTS. I MENTIONED THE WIPE TEST. IN LABS THEY DO THAT BECAUSE THEY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT CONTAMINATION IN THE LABS WHEN YOU GO TO THE DOCTOR. YOU WANT TO HAVE THE DOCTOR MAKE SURE HIS LAB IS CONTAMINATION FREE AS NEAR AS POSSIBLE. THAT BRINGS ABOUT CONFIDENCE AND THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE DONE, A WHOLE INDUSTRY BASED UPON. TRANSFERRING THIS TECHNOLOGY TO THE FORENSICS AREA, THE ERROR RATES ARE NOT NEARLY AS WELL KNOWN, AS I THINK YOU CAN SEE, SO AGAIN THERE IS A HIGHER RISK OF CONTAMINATION AND ERROR IN THIS AREA ALSO. I THINK YOU WILL FIND THAT IN THE COURSE OF THE TESTIMONY THAT THE LABS HAVE A HIGHER STANDARD FOR DOING DNA TESTING IN MEDICAL LABORATORIES, THEY ARE MUCH STRICTER ON THEMSELVES THAN THE STANDARD THAT FORENSICS AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENTS AND LABORATORIES ARE USING. AND SO YOU CAN SEE HOW IMPORTANT IT IS. IN ONE CASE, WHEN YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THESE HIGHER STANDARDS, YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT YOUR ORGANS WILL BE COMPATIBLE IF YOU WANT TO HAVE AN ORGAN TRANSFER OR OTHER AND THE OTHER YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT SOMEBODY'S FREEDOM, THEIR VIRTUAL LIFE, SO WE ARE GOING TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT UNDER THIS SCENARIO WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE NOT HIGHER CLINICAL LAB STANDARDS THAN YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT SOMEBODY AT THE HOSPITAL THAN YOU ARE WHEN YOU ARE CONCERNED WITH SOMEBODY ON TRIAL FOR THEIR VERY LIFE. GIVEN THE LOWER STANDARDS AND THE LACK OF TESTING AGAIN IN THIS AREA, AGAIN IN THIS AREA, IN FORENSICS, THERE IS A HIGHER RISK OF CONTAMINATION AND ERROR. I MENTIONED THIS EARLIER, BUT IN THE LABS THERE IS THIS RIGOROUS PROFICIENCY TESTING, AND OF COURSE I THINK YOU WILL FIND, AND THE TESTIMONY WILL BE, THAT IN FORENSICS VERY RARELY DO THEY DO ANY BLIND TESTING. NO OUTSIDE AGENCIES. THEY GIVE THEMSELVES EASY TESTS AND ALMOST NEVER TAKE BLIND EXTERNAL PROFICIENCY TESTS, AND THAT HAS A REAL BEARING ON THE OVERALL PROFICIENCY HERE. AND SO AGAIN, I THINK YOU WILL FIND THERE IS A HIGHER RISK OF CONTAMINATION AND ERROR IN THE FORENSICS AREA AGAIN.

AND FINALLY, WITH REGARD TO STATISTICAL CONTROVERSY IN THIS AREA, IN MEDICAL TESTING, USUALLY YOU ARE JUST TRYING TO SEE IF SOMEONE HAS INHERITED A COPY OF THE DISEASED GENE FROM THEIR PARENT OR WHATEVER, HAS THE CORRECT GENETIC TYPES FOR TRANSPLANTATION OF AN ORGAN, HAS BEEN INFECTED WITH A HARMFUL BACTERIA OR VIRUS. THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR, AND THERE IS NO ELABORATE STATISTICAL ESTIMATES ARE NEEDED TO GET RELIABLE TEST RESULTS FOR THAT. IN FORENSICS WE THINK YOU WILL HEAR TESTIMONY THAT THERE IS A BITTER AND COMPLICATED STATISTICAL CONTROVERSY REGARDING THIS ENTIRE AREA, DNA, SPECIFICALLY PCR, ABOUT A DNA MATCH AND WHAT A MATCH MEANS. AND WHILE WE ARE ABOUT IT, I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW, WHEN YOU HEAR THE PROSECUTOR TALKING ABOUT IT IS A MATCH, IT IS A MATCH, IT IS A MATCH, WHAT SHE REALLY MEANS TO SAY IS THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH -- THESE ARE NOT FINGERPRINTS -- CONSISTENT WITH SOMEONE ELSE'S GENOTYPE OR WITH THEIR BLOOD TYPE. SO WITH REGARD TO THIS WHOLE AREA OF STATISTICAL CONTROVERSY, AGAIN THE FORENSICS AREA, THE HIGHER RISK OF CONTAMINATION ERROR IN THIS AREA AGAIN. SO AS YOU LOOK AT THIS -- THIS CHART, YOU LOOK AT BLOOD ON BOTH SIDES OF THAT, YOU CAN SEE CLEARLY, AND I EXPECT THE EVIDENCE TO BE THAT BECAUSE OF THE DIRTY SAMPLES, THE MINUSCULE SAMPLE SIZE, THE MIXED SAMPLE FROM UNKNOWN SOURCES, THE MULTIPLE HANDLING, THE ERROR RATES NOT WELL-KNOWN, THE LOW LAB STANDARDS, THE EASY PROFICIENCY TESTING, AND THE MAJOR STATISTICAL CONTROVERSY, THAT IN ALL THOSE AREAS IN SEEKING TO TRANSFER THIS TECHNOLOGY TO FORENSICS IS FRAUGHT WITH ALL KIND OF PROBLEMS AND THIS IS A MUCH HIGHER RISK OF CONTAMINATION AND ERROR. NOW, WE EXPECT THAT DURING THIS HEARING YOU WILL HEAR SOME ASTRONOMICAL NUMBERS PRESENTED REGARDING THE DNA TEST RESULTS, AND THESE NUMBERS ARE PART OF WHAT I WAS TELLING YOU, THE STATISTICAL CONTROVERSY, WHETHER OR NOT THESE ARE ACCEPTED IN THE SCIENCE AND THESE NUMBERS ALSO ONLY ADDRESS GENE FREQUENCIES. THESE ARE NOT FINGERPRINTS. AND THE NUMBERS THAT YOU WILL HEAR, IF YOU HEAR THEM IN THIS CASE, HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ISSUE OF CONTAMINATION THAT WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT. THEY DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE ISSUE OF LABORATORY ERRORS. THEY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE ISSUE OF TAMPERING, WHETHER THE SAMPLE WAS TAMPERED WITH, AND THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH OTHER IMPORTANT DNA ISSUES WHICH YOU WILL HEAR ABOUT IN THE COURSE OF THIS CASE.

SPECIFICALLY UNDER THE DNA TESTING ASPECT, WE THINK THAT YOU WILL HEAR TESTIMONY IN THIS CASE ABOUT POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION, SO-CALLED PCR TESTING, AND I THINK YOU WILL FIND OUT IN HERE THAT THE VERY BEST MEDICAL AND RESEARCH LABS THAT DO PCR HAVE CONTAMINATION PROBLEMS. AND AS I MENTIONED TO YOU LAST WEEK, I THINK THAT YOU WILL HEAR, THAT THIS IS AN AREA THAT PRESENTS A REAL PROBLEM. WE EXPECT DURING THE COURSE OF OUR EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE TO SHOW THAT FROM THEIR OWN STUDIES THE LAPD'S LABORATORY IS A CESSPOOL OF CONTAMINATION. LOOKING AT THEIR OWN RECORDS AND THE TESTS THEY HAVE RUN WE WILL DEMONSTRATE FOR YOU WHAT THOSE RECORDS SHOW. WE EXPECT THEN IN THIS ENTIRE AREA THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THE CARELESS, SLIPSHOD NEGLIGENT COLLECTION, HANDLING AND PROCESSING OF SAMPLES BY BASICALLY POORLY TRAINED PERSONNEL FROM LAPD HAS CONTAMINATED, COMPROMISED AND CORRUPTED THE DNA EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE. AND YOUR HONOR, THIS MAY BE A GOOD SPOT, UNLESS YOU WANT ME TO GO FURTHER.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OUR RECESS FOR THE NOON HOUR. PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITION TO YOU. DO NOT DISCUSS THIS CASE AMONGST YOURSELVES, FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE. DON'T ALLOW ANYBODY TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE CASE. AND YOU ARE NOT TO PERFORM ANY DELIBERATIONS ON THE CASE UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE CASE. AND WE WILL RESUME AGAIN AT 1:30. ALL RIGHT. WE WILL STAND IN RECESS. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

(AT 11:55 A.M. THE NOON RECESS WAS TAKEN UNTIL 1:30 P.M. OF THE SAME DAY.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, JANUARY 30, 1995 1:35 P.M.

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

APPEARANCES: (APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)

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

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

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

THE COURT: BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. ALL COUNSEL ARE PRESENT EXCEPT FOR MISS CLARK. MR. DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN: SHE'S ON HER WAY DOWN, YOUR HONOR. IT'S HARD TO GET AN ELEVATOR AT THIS TIME.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, I'M REMINDED OF AN EXPERIENCE I HAD AS A YOUNG TRIAL LAWYER IN PASADENA. I RECALL TRYING A CASE IN JUDGE LADICK'S COURTROOM, BEING LATE IN A JURY TRIAL, AND JUDGE LADICK HAD THE JURY OUT SITTING IN THE BOX AS I WALKED IN LATE FROM LUNCH. AND HE NEVER SAID ANYTHING TO ME, BUT I GOT THE MESSAGE.

MS. CLARK: IT HAS HAPPENED TO ME, YOUR HONOR. I APOLOGIZE. WE HAD A LATE MEETING WHICH DELAYED LUNCH CONSIDERABLY, AND I DIDN'T EXPECT IT TO TAKE AS LONG AS IT DID.

THE COURT: WELL, KEEP THAT EXPERIENCE IN MIND. ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, LET ME BRING UP ONE MATTER BEFORE WE INVITE THE JURORS TO REJOIN US FOR THE CONTINUATION OF MR. COCHRAN'S OPENING STATEMENT. COUNSEL, WHEN YOU USE A VIDEOTAPE OR AN AUDIOTAPE DURING THE COURSE OF THE OPENING STATEMENTS OR ANYTIME DURING THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL AND THERE'S A TRANSCRIPT THAT'S AVAILABLE, I FORGOT TO ASK YOU FOR THE NORMAL STIPULATION, THAT THE COURT REPORTER NEED NOT ATTEMPT TO TAKE DOWN WHAT IS ON THE VIDEO OR AUDIOTAPE AT THAT TIME. AND, MR. COCHRAN, YOU DID USE THAT VIDEOTAPE DURING THE COURSE OF YOUR OPENING STATEMENT. IS THAT STIPULATION AGREEABLE TO YOU?

MR. COCHRAN: YES. I WOULD SO STIPULATE, THAT --

MS. CLARK: YES, SO STIPULATE.

MR. COCHRAN: -- SHE'S NOT TO TAKE THAT DOWN.

THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL. DEPUTY MAGNERA, LET'S HAVE THE JURY, PLEASE.

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

THE COURT: COUNSEL, PLEASE BE SEATED. ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

THE JURY: GOOD AFTERNOON.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. COCHRAN, DO YOU WISH TO CONTINUE YOUR OPENING REMARKS?

MR. COCHRAN: YES, I DO, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU VERY KINDLY.

OPENING STATEMENT (RESUMED)

BY MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE ITO AND COUNSEL, GANG, GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. I CAN MAKE A PROMISE TO YOU AT THIS TIME THAT I WILL FINISH THIS OPENING STATEMENT THIS AFTERNOON. BARRING ANY UNFORESEEN CALAMITIES, WE'LL BE FINISHED THIS AFTERNOON WITH THE OPENING STATEMENT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE, AND I ASK YOU AGAIN TO KEEP AN OPEN MIND. JUST BEFORE WE CONCLUDED LUNCH, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF DNA. AND WE STILL HAVE SOME MORE DNA TO TALK ABOUT. I HAVE TWO CHARTS NOW I WANT TO DISCUSS WITH YOU BRIEFLY. THEY'RE LABELED FOR THE RECORD, "PCR AMPLIFICATION CHARTS." AND WE'RE SEEKING TO EXPLAIN HOW THIS CONCEPT WORKS, THE POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION OR PCR. THIS TECHNOLOGY I'VE BEEN TALKING TO YOU ABOUT IS A FACET OF DNA TECHNOLOGY. PCR TESTS TAKE THESE VERY, VERY SMALL SAMPLES THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT -- AND NOW YOU'VE SEEN SOME OF WHICH YOU CAN NOT EVEN SEE -- AND THEY ARE AMPLIFIED UP, KIND OF A MOLECULAR XEROXING IF YOU WILL. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DEMONSTRATE HERE. WE EXPECT THE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT SCIENTISTS ARE NOT YET ABLE TO ACTUALLY EXAMINE THE SMALL AMOUNT OF DNA CONTAINED IN MINUTE SPECKS OF BLOOD. THEY MUST FIRST AMPLIFY THE DNA SO THERE'S ENOUGH OF IT TO EXAMINE. AMPLIFICATION OR AMPLIFYING DNA, AS I SAID, IS LIKE MOLECULAR XEROXING. YOU START WITH A SMALL AMOUNT OF DNA AND THEY GO THROUGH THESE VARIOUS CYCLES. EACH CYCLE DOUBLES THE AMOUNT OF DNA, AND THEY DO THIS 32 TIMES, THE EVIDENCE WILL BE, BEFORE THEY HAVE ENOUGH DNA TO EXAMINE. NOW, THIS FIRST CHART SHOWS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU HAVE A SINGLE PIECE OF DNA THAT IS THEN AMPLIFIED OR DOUBLED 32 TIMES. AND THEN IT GOES FROM THIS ONE FRAGMENT THAT YOU MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO EVEN SEE TO OVER FOUR BILLION FRAGMENTS, AS IS INDICATED ON THE PARTICULAR CHART. THAT IS THE MOLECULAR XEROXING MADE AS -- HOPEFULLY AS CLEAR AS WE CAN MAKE IT IN LIGHT OF WHAT WE EXPECT THE TESTIMONY TO BE. MR. DOUGLAS, WILL YOU MOVE -- WHAT'S THE NUMBER OF THAT CHART, MR. DOUGLAS?

MR. DOUGLAS: FOR THE RECORD, YOUR HONOR, THIS WAS NO. 208 AND THE NEXT IS 209.

MR. COCHRAN: NOW, REFERRING AND DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO NO. 209, WHICH IS AN AMPLIFICATION OF FOUR FRAGMENTS, NOW, THIS CHART SEEKS TO ILLUSTRATE FOR YOU WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THERE MAY BE A MIXTURE OF DNA IN THE SAMPLE, WHERE IT'S TALKING ABOUT MIXTURES -- AND YOU HEARD ME THIS MORNING TALK ABOUT THE WIPE TEST WITH THE HANDKERCHIEF ON THIS PARTICULAR PODIUM. THIS CHART SHOWS FOUR DIFFERENT FRAGMENTS OF DNA AT THE START. AND AFTER THIS MIXTURE, LIKE WE DID IN THE PREVIOUS CHART, IS AMPLIFIED UP, THERE WILL NOW BE OVER -- THE BOTTOM SHOULD BE 16 BILLION OR 17 BILLION FRAGMENTS. EXTRA FRAGMENTS OF DNA, THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW, COULD GET INTO THE SAMPLE IN ANY NUMBER OF WAYS, AND THAT'S ONE OF THE VICES OF THIS PARTICULAR SYSTEM AND ITS RELIABILITY; FROM SOMEONE COUGHING ON THE EVIDENCE, FROM FLECKS OF BLOOD WHICH MAY COME FROM ONE SAMPLE BEING PASSED ON TO ANOTHER SAMPLE, FROM SPECKS OF BLOOD THAT STICK TO A PAIR OF TWEEZERS IF THE TECHNICIAN IS USING THOSE OR SCISSORS, FROM SOMEONE SHEDDING DEAD SKIN CELLS ON TO THE EVIDENCE, FROM DANDRUFF, FROM ANY NUMBER OF THINGS. SO THE PROBLEM BECOMES, WHEN ONE SEEKS TO -- WHEN ONE HAS MORE THAN ONE SAMPLE AND THE AMPLIFICATION GETS INTO THE BILLIONS, WE STILL HAVE THIS SAME PROBLEM AS YOU LOOK AT THAT. THESE CHARTS -- WE EXPECT TO HAVE TESTIMONY FROM THE EXPERTS TO ADDRESS THESE CHARTS. WE HOPEFULLY USED THESE TODAY TO MAKE THIS PROCESS A LITTLE CLEARER TO YOU OF HOW THE PCR IS AMPLIFIED UP TRYING TO GET SOME RESULTS. AND EVEN WHEN YOU GET THE RESULTS, AS I INDICATED THIS MORNING, A MATCH DOESN'T MEAN LIKE A FINGERPRINT. IT MEANS CONSISTENT WITH GENERALLY, AND THERE CAN BE -- IF THE CONTAMINATION GETS IN THERE, THEN YOU CAN'T TELL ONE PERSON'S DNA FROM THE OTHER. AND WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT CHART. NOW, IN THIS CASE, TRYING TO CONCLUDE OUR DISCUSSION OF DNA SO EVERYBODY CAN WAKE UP AGAIN AND BE ALIVE AGAIN, THIS -- YOU HEARD A LOT ABOUT DNA AND YOU WILL HEAR A LOT ABOUT DNA EVIDENCE. THE PROSECUTION WILL UNDOUBTEDLY PRODUCE SOME OF THESE TECHNICIANS WHO COME IN FROM THE CRIME LAB WHO PERFORMED THE VARIOUS TESTS. AND YOU WILL RECALL THAT ON THIS PARTICULAR HIGH-PROFILE CASE, THEY DESIGNATED AS THE OFFICER IN CHARGE A MISS MAZZOLA, WHO IS A TRAINEE, WHICH THIS WAS ONLY HER THIRD CRIME SCENE. SHE WAS SUPERVISED BY A MR. FONG, WHO WAS HER SUPERVISOR THAT DAY. AND WE EXPECT THEIR TECHNICIANS WILL COME IN, TELL YOU WHAT THEY DID, THE VARIOUS TESTS THEY CONDUCTED AND CONCLUSIONS WHICH THEY HAVE DRAWN FROM THE TESTS. WE EXPECT TO PRESENT TESTIMONY HOWEVER SOMEWHAT CONTRARY, INCLUDING SOME OF THE PEOPLE I TOLD YOU ABOUT EARLIER, AND WE EXPECT THAT THE PEOPLE WE CALL WILL TELL YOU BASED UPON THEIR OBSERVATION AND THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIELD WHICH OF THESE TESTS RESULTS ARE RELIABLE AND WHICH ONES AREN'T GIVEN WHAT THE TECHNICIANS WILL TELL YOU THAT THEY DID. NOW, IN SUMMARY WITH REGARD TO THE DNA, WE WILL LOOK AT EACH ITEM, HOPEFULLY HAVE TESTIMONY REGARDING EACH ITEM, HOPEFULLY HAVE SOME TESTIMONY REGARDING WHICH ITEMS ARE RELIABLE, ARE NOT RELIABLE AND THEN GIVE YOU EVIDENCE BY WHICH YOU CAN MAKE A FINAL DECISION. YOU WILL RECALL I BELIEVE THAT MISS CLARK IN HER OPENING STATEMENT SAID THAT BLOOD CONSISTENT WITH NICOLE BROWN AND RON GOLDMAN WAS FOUND ON THE GLOVE THAT THIS DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WE TALKED ABOUT CLAIMS TO HAVE FOUND BEHIND MR. SIMPSON'S HOME. THAT GLOVE WILL BE UNDOUBTEDLY, THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW, ONE OF THE MOST HOTLY DISPUTED ITEMS IN THIS CASE. WHERE THE GLOVE WAS, HOW IT GOT THERE, WHERE IT CAME FROM WILL BE VERY IMPORTANT ISSUES. IN ADDITION TO THAT, THERE WILL BE A MAJOR DISPUTE IN CERTAIN OTHER AREAS. I THINK YOU WILL HEAR A LOT OF TESTIMONY ABOUT THIS SO-CALLED BLOOD FOUND IN THE BRONCO. YOU REMEMBER THE BRONCO TIME LINE. YOU WILL HEAR A LOT OF TESTIMONY ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE PROSECUTION'S CONTENTION THAT BLOOD CONSISTENT WITH -- NOT THEIR BLOOD, BUT CONSISTENT WITH GOLDMAN AND NICOLE FOUND INSIDE -- NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON INSIDE THE BRONCO, WHETHER OR NOT THIS FINDING IS TRUSTWORTHY. WE EXPECT THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THE POLICE TECHNICIANS WOULD USE UNRELIABLE PROCEDURES IN COLLECTING THIS, THEY MADE FUNDAMENTAL ERRORS IN CONDUCTING THESE TESTS AND THEN MISINTERPRETED THEIR OWN FINDINGS AS I INDICATED TO YOU EARLIER, THAT THE STAINS THAT THEY THINK ARE CONSISTENT WITH GOLDMAN AND NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON CONTAIN TINY AMOUNTS OF DNA, SO LITTLE, THEY CAN BARELY BE DETECTED. THIS DNA COULD ONLY BE FOUND USING THIS SUPER-SENSITIVE PROCEDURE WE TALKED ABOUT WHERE EVEN A SNEEZE COULD CONTAMINATE IT. SO EVEN IF THE TEST RESULTS WERE RIGHT, WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THE DNA COULD BE FROM A TINY AMOUNT OF CONTAMINATING DNA FROM THE CRIME SCENE FROM ANOTHER PERSON. FINALLY, IN THAT CONNECTION, WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THE DNA RESULTS THAT SUPPOSEDLY PUT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AND RON GOLDMAN IN THE BRONCO ARE NOT LIKE A FINGERPRINT AND A MATCH DOESN'T MEAN THAT. THEY DETECT CHARACTERISTICS IN THE DNA THAT MILLIONS OF PEOPLE HAVE, NOT CHARACTERISTICS THAT ARE UNIQUE TO ONE PARTICULAR PERSON. NOW, LET'S TALK ABOUT SOMETHING OTHER THAN DNA FOR A MOMENT. WHEN MR. SIMPSON CAME BACK FROM CHICAGO, I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL BE THAT HE CAME HOME IMMEDIATELY. HE CAME BACK VOLUNTARILY AFTER HEARING ABOUT HIS EX-WIFE'S DEATH. YOU HAVE HEARD SOME INDICATION ABOUT HIS DEMEANOR. ON HIS WAY BACK, THAT HE WENT -- CAME HOME, HE WAS ASKED BY THE POLICE TO COME DOWNTOWN, THAT HE WENT DOWNTOWN, THAT -- WITHOUT GIVING YOU WHAT THE STATEMENT WAS -- THAT HE COOPERATED FULLY AND THAT HE GAVE THE POLICE A STATEMENT, PERHAPS SOME 33 MINUTES, WHICH STATEMENT IS TAPE-RECORDED, THAT THE TWO DETECTIVES WHO INTERVIEWED HIM AT THE TIME WERE DETECTIVES LANGE AND VANNATTER. HE ANSWERED ALL THEIR QUESTIONS. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THAT INTERVIEW, THEY ASKED FOR A BLOOD SAMPLE. MR. SIMPSON WAS ONLY TOO PLEASED OR COOPERATIVE TO GO AND GIVE A BLOOD SAMPLE AT THAT TIME. AND IF I MIGHT STEP OVER A LITTLE CLOSER, THIS NEXT CHART -- MR. DOUGLAS, WHAT IS THIS CHART?

MR. DOUGLAS: NO. 205.

MR. COCHRAN: THIS CHART HOPEFULLY WILL GRAPHICALLY ILLUSTRATE WHAT TOOK PLACE. REFERRING TO 205, WE HAVE PARKER CENTER. THIS IS LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS DOWN AT 150 NORTH LOS ANGELES. THIS IS THE BUILDING IN WHICH MR. SIMPSON GAVE THIS STATEMENT TO THE TWO LEAD DETECTIVES FROM ROBBERY/HOMICIDE (INDICATING). HE WAS QUESTIONED AND HE ANSWERED THEIR QUESTIONS. THEREAFTER -- AND THAT'S THE BUILDING DEPICTED -- THERE'S THE LITTLE YELLOW CIRCLE DEPICTED THERE (INDICATING). THEREAFTER, THEY ASKED MR. SIMPSON TO GIVE SOME BLOOD. A TECHNICIAN THEN DREW SOME BLOOD FROM HIS ARM. WE THINK, ACCORDING TO THE TESTIMONY, IT WAS APPROXIMATELY EIGHT MILLILITERS OF BLOOD. THE TESTIMONY WAS BETWEEN 7.9 AND 8.1, WHICH I THINK IS EIGHT MILLILITERS OF BLOOD. NOW, WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW UNDER NORMAL POLICE PROCEDURES, IF THEY'D BEEN FOLLOWING THEIR OWN PROCEDURES, WHEN THE DETECTIVES HAD THIS BLOOD IN A VIAL, CERTAINLY MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD AT THAT TIME, THEY WOULD HAVE TAKEN IT OVER, ABOUT A THREE-MINUTE -- A VERY SHORT DRIVE AND BOOK IT AT A PLACE CALLED PIPER TECH. YOU WILL HEAR EVIDENCE ABOUT WHERE THEY BOOK THIS KIND OF EVIDENCE, WHERE THE REFRIGERATORS ARE AND THAT SORT OF THING, BOOK IT TO PRESERVE IT. YOU WILL HEAR THE IMPORTANCE OF PRESERVING THAT BLOOD. WE THINK THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE WILL SHOW THAT THE DETECTIVES DIDN'T TAKE THE BLOOD FROM SIMPSON AT ABOUT 2:30 ON JANUARY -- ON JUNE 13TH, 1994. THEY DIDN'T GO THIS VERY SHORT DISTANCE TO PIPER TECH AND BOOK IT. FOR SOME REASON, THEY CAME ALL THE WAY -- I GUESS THIS IS SOME 20 MILES OR SO -- FROM DOWNTOWN L.A. WITH THE BLOOD ON THEIR PERSON IN THIS VIAL, CAME ALL THE WAY OUT HERE TO THIS AREA CALLED BRENTWOOD, THE HOME OF O.J. SIMPSON, 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM AVENUE. AND WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW DETECTIVE VANNATTER, WHO HAD THIS BLOOD ON HIS PERSON, INSTEAD OF BOOKING IT AT PIPER TECH WHERE IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN, CARRIED THIS BLOOD AROUND FROM 2:30 UNTIL PERHAPS 5:20 IN THE AFTERNOON ON JUNE 13TH, 1994, WENT BACK TO MR. O.J. SIMPSON'S HOME. AND THERE, WE EXPECT THERE WILL BE SOME TESTIMONY THE BLOOD VIAL HE HAD BEEN CARRYING AROUND APPARENTLY IN HIS POCKET, HE THEN TURNED OVER TO MR. FONG, WHO IS A SUPERVISOR OF THIS OFFICER IN CHARGE, THE TRAINEE AT THE SCENE. AND THEN YOU WILL HEAR SOME INTERESTING TESTIMONY ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS WITH THAT BLOOD. THE BLOOD IS SUPPOSED TO BE NO. 17, BUT IT GETS BOOKED AS NO. 18 AT SOME POINT. NO. 18 YOU'RE GOING TO FIND IS A PAIR OF SNEAKERS. THAT SAME AFTERNOON, AT ROCKINGHAM, WE THINK YOU WILL HEAR TESTIMONY THAT DETECTIVE VANNATTER'S PARTNER, DETECTIVE LANGE, A MEMBER OF LAPD SOME 25, 27 YEARS, TALKS TO MR. SIMPSON AFTER MR. SIMPSON COMES BACK HOME, AND THEY ASK HIM, "WHAT SHOES WERE YOU WEARING LAST NIGHT," WORDS TO THAT EFFECT, AND THEY PICK UP A PAIR OF REEBOK TENNIS SHOES. AND I THINK YOU'LL FIND THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH WHAT KATO KAELIN HAD SAID HE WAS WEARING I THINK WHEN HE GOES TO MC DONALD'S TO GET THE HAMBURGER. THEY THEN TAKE THESE TENNIS SHOES. THE TENNIS SHOES ARE ULTIMATELY BOOKED AS NO. 18. BUT FOR A WHILE AT LEAST, THE BLOOD IS ALSO NO. 18. DETECTIVE LANGE I THINK WILL TESTIFY THAT HE TAKES THESE TENNIS SHOES AND HE TAKES THEM HOME FOR THE NIGHT. HE DOESN'T GO BACK DOWNTOWN AND BOOK THEM OR WHATEVER. HE TAKES THEM HOME AND BRINGS THEM BACK THE NEXT DAY, WHICH WOULD BE THE 14TH. SO THIS IS MISLABELED, THERE'S CONFUSION AS TO WHAT HAPPENS WITH THIS BLOOD AND WHO GETS IT. WE KNOW THAT THE NEXT MORNING, FUNG HAS THE BLOOD DOWNTOWN, AND COLLIN YAMAUCHI, ONE OF THE TECHNICIANS, TAKES ONE MILLILITER OF BLOOD OUT OF THIS PARTICULAR VIAL. SO THIS BLOOD -- THIS IS THE STRANGE SAGA OF THIS BLOOD AND WHY IT WAS CARRIED OUT HERE. WE EXPECT THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW EXACTLY THE EVENTS I JUST TESTIFIED TO OR JUST TOLD YOU ABOUT IN TESTIMONY. MR. DOUGLAS.

MR. DOUGLAS: NEXT, YOUR HONOR, IS EXHIBIT 211.

MR. COCHRAN: NOW, WITH REGARD TO EXHIBIT 211, THIS EXHIBIT SEEKS TO DEMONSTRATE FOR YOU AS BEST WE CAN USING THE PROSECUTION'S RECORDS. ALL WE CAN USE ARE THE RECORDS. THESE ARE THEIR RECORDS. THIS IS WRONG MAYBE BECAUSE THE RECORDS ARE WRONG. BUT DEFENDANT'S SAMPLE OFFERED VOLUNTARILY. WE TOLD YOU THAT. THAT IS MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD. I'VE ALREADY SHARED WITH YOU THAT HE HAD EIGHT MILLILITERS TAKEN ON JUNE 13. WE KNOW THAT THE DETECTIVE WALKS AROUND WITH IT FOR AT LEAST THREE HOURS OR SO BEFORE THE TECHNICIAN EVER GETS IT, ACCORDING TO THE RECORDS AS WE UNDERSTAND. SO YOU START WITH THE EIGHT MILLILITERS. WE KNOW THAT ON JUNE 14TH, I THINK THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY THAT COLLIN YAMAUCHI TOOK FROM FUNG ONE MILLILITER OF MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD. YOU HAVE TO -- WE'LL HAVE TO SUBTRACT THAT AT SOME POINT. WE KNOW THAT SEVEN DAYS LATER, MR. FLAGHERTY TOOK 1.5 MILLILITERS IN A TUBE, A SMALLER TUBE AS INDICATED HERE, ULTIMATELY RETURNED EIGHT MILLILITERS FROM THIS TUBE. SO WE KNOW THERE WAS .7 MILLILITERS USED OUT OF THE SMALLER TUBE THAT HAD BEEN TAKEN ON THE 21ST. THEN ON JUNE 25TH, COLLIN YAMAUCHI AGAIN PUT SOME BLOOD ON SOME THREADS FOR SOME PURPOSE AND HE USED ONLY .05 MILLILITERS AT THAT POINT ACCORDING TO OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THEIR EVIDENCE. THEN ON JUNE 27TH, MR. MATHESON, AGAIN, ANOTHER ONE OF THE TECHNICIANS, TOOK .75 MILLILITERS OF MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD, ALL FROM THE SAME TUBE. AND FINALLY, THE DEFENSE AT SOME POINT WERE GIVEN ONE MILLILITER OF THE BLOOD. AND WE KNOW THAT THERE'S SOME BLOOD LEFT IN THE SMALL TUBE AND WE KNOW THAT -- AND A RECENT MEASUREMENT IN JANUARY -- I THINK ON OR ABOUT JANUARY 4TH OF THIS YEAR, THERE WAS 1.8 MILLILITERS LEFT IN THE TUBE PLUS THE EIGHT MILLILITERS RETURNED FROM THE SMALLER TUBE. AND IF YOU SUBTRACT THESE PARTICULAR FIGURES -- AND I'VE DONE THAT -- SUBTRACT THE 1.0, THE .7, THE .05, THE .75, THE 1.0, YOU WILL HAVE 3.50 MILLILITERS OF BLOOD TAKEN. TO THAT, YOU HAVE TO ADD THE 1.8 LEFT AND THE .8 THAT WAS USED THERE OR 2.60. SO IF YOU ADD THE 2.60 TO THE 3.50, YOU WILL GET 6.10 MILLILITERS OF BLOOD. AND SO THIS CHART -- AND PERHAPS MAYBE WILL BE EXPLAINED TO US DURING THE TRIAL -- SHOWS THAT IF YOU STARTED WITH 8.0 MILLILITERS AND YOU USE 6.10 MILLILITERS, IT WOULD BE THEN 1.9 MILLILITERS MISSING ABOVE THE AMOUNT THAT'S LEFT, 1.90 MISSING. AND ONE OF THE THINGS WE WILL BE LOOKING AT IN THIS CASE IS WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT MISSING BLOOD AND WHERE IS IT. PERHAPS THERE ARE SOME RECORDS WE HAVEN'T SEEN THAT WILL EXPLAIN THAT. BUT THOSE ARE THE RECORDS AS WE UNDERSTAND IT, THAT THERE WILL BE 1.90 MILLILITERS OF MISSING BLOOD IN THAT CONNECTION. A BIT MORE ABOUT THIS CRIME SCENE AND WHAT HAPPENED. WE THINK YOU WILL SEE AND HEAR FROM THIS TRAINEE MAZZOLA AND WHAT SHE DID AT THAT SCENE, HOW SHE SOUGHT TO COLLECT THESE SAMPLES, DETECTIVE FUNG'S ROLE AT BOTH BUNDY AND AT BOTH -- ROCKINGHAM. I THINK YOU WILL BE ABLE TO THEN MAKE A DETERMINATION ABOUT WHAT TOOK PLACE OUT THERE ON THAT DATE. NOW, ONE OF THE OTHER KEY BITS OF EVIDENCE WE EXPECT IN THIS CASE WILL BE THE SOCKS THAT MISS CLARK TALKED TO YOU ABOUT IN HER OPENING STATEMENT. REMEMBER SHE TALKED ABOUT THE SOCKS? AND I THINK THAT WITH REGARD TO THE SOCKS, I BELIEVE WE HAVE A TIME LINE AND WE ALSO HAVE A GRAPHIC WITH REGARD TO THE SOCKS ALSO. MAY WE HAVE THE GRAPHIC AND THE NUMBER OF THE GRAPHIC?

MR. DOUGLAS: FOR THE RECORD, YOUR HONOR, THE CHART IS EXHIBIT 212.

MR. HARRIS: THE GRAPHIC IS D-84.

MR. COCHRAN: D-84. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. YOU WILL RECALL THERE WAS SOME TESTIMONY ABOUT THIS. I THINK THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY DURING THE COURSE OF THIS CASE THAT THIS IS THE MASTER BEDROOM IN MR. O.J. SIMPSON'S HOME AT ROCKINGHAM (INDICATING). THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY THAT THIS PLACE IS USUALLY METICULOUS AND SPOTLESS. YOU WILL NOTE THAT THE CARPET IS VERY, VERY LIGHT AND I THINK THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY THE CARPET IS EITHER WHITE OR VERY LIGHT THROUGHOUT, GOING UP THE STAIRWAYS, IN THE HALLWAYS AND VARIOUS OTHER PLACES. AND YOU WILL RECALL THAT -- IN THIS PICTURE, YOU'LL NOTICE THAT WHATEVER THIS STRAP IS ON THE BED IS HANGING DOWN ON THE BED. I THINK THERE'S ANOTHER PICTURE WHERE THAT STRAP HAS BEEN MOVED. AND OVER IN THE CENTER -- YOU'LL SEE IN THIS PICTURE, THE SECOND PICTURE (INDICATING) -- MR. HARRIS, WHAT IS THIS?

MR. HARRIS: D-85.

MR. COCHRAN: IN THIS PICTURE, YOU DON'T SEE THE STRAP HANGING DOWN. SO APPARENTLY IT'S BEEN MOVED. YOU WILL SEE A VIEW OF THESE SOCKS. THESE SOCKS APPARENTLY BALLED -- KIND OF -- PART OF THEM ROLLED UP AND THEN ON THIS CARPET OR RUG THAT'S AT THE FOOT OF MR. SIMPSON'S BED AND JUST IN FRONT OF THE FIREPLACE, THE ONLY ITEM YOU FIND THERE. HERE'S A CLOSE-UP VIEW --

MR. HARRIS: D-86.

MR. COCHRAN: -- OF THESE SOCKS WHICH WERE LOCATED THERE. AND THIS NOW IS JUNE 13TH, THE AFTERNOON HOURS AT THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE, THESE SOCKS ARE LOCATED. NOW, THE TIME LINE I THINK IS HELPFUL TO US AS WE CONSIDER AND LOOK AT THESE SOCKS. AGAIN, THESE SOCKS RECOVERED ON JUNE 13TH. WE TALKED ABOUT THAT. AND THEY'RE EXAMINED ON JUNE 13, AND THERE'S NO MENTION OF BLOOD ON THESE SOCKS ON JUNE 13TH. WE KNOW THAT MICHELE KESTLER, BASICALLY THE SUPERVISOR OF THE LAB OVER THERE AT LAPD, SHOWS THESE SOCKS -- THEY CAN'T REALLY EXAMINE THEM -- TO TWO OF OUR EXPERTS, DRS. MICHAEL BADIN AND DR. BARBARA WOLF. THEY SEE THE SOCKS ON JUNE 24TH. THAT'S WITHIN 11 DAYS OF THE SOCKS HAVING BEEN TAKEN BACK TO THE LAB. IT'S JUNE 24TH. AROUND THIS SAME TIME, I THINK ALSO IN JUNE, MISS MICHELE KESTLER I THINK MAKES SOME OBSERVATIONS OF THESE SOCKS AND AT SOME POINT SEES SOME FIBER OR SOMETHING ON THE SOCKS. SO THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY I BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW TO LOOK AT THESE SOCKS, TO BE ABLE TO OBSERVE THEM ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION. THEN WE THINK THAT ON JUNE 29TH, 1994, THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT KESTLER, MATHESON AND YAMAUCHI DO IN FACT INSPECT THE SOCKS. THAT'S THE THIRD DATE IN THE SAGA OF THE SOCKS. IT'S NOT UNTIL AUGUST 4TH, 1994 THAT ANYBODY IN THE LAPD LAB SEES A BLOODSTAIN ON THESE SOCKS FOR THE FIRST TIME. NOW, THESE ARE THE SAME SOCKS THAT YOU SEE UP HERE THAT ARE PICKED UP ON JUNE 13TH AND SEEN ON THE 13TH, SEEN ON THE 24TH, SEEN ON THE 29TH. BUT YET, IT'S AUGUST 4TH BEFORE A BLOODSTAIN IS SEEN ON THESE SOCKS FOR THE FIRST TIME. AND THAT'S NOT ALL. WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT ON OR ABOUT SEPTEMBER 22ND, 1994, THERE WAS -- WITHOUT TESTING ANY BLAME TO ANYONE -- A FALSE LEAD TO THE PRESS THAT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S DNA HAD BEEN FOUND ON ONE OF THESE SOCKS. THE PROBLEM WITH THAT FALSE LEAK WAS THAT NO DNA TESTS HAD YET BEEN PERFORMED. SO THEY HAD PREDICTED THE RESULTS BEFORE THE SOCKS HAD EVER BEEN TESTED FOR DNA. THEY WERE STILL IN FACT AT THE LAPD LAB WHERE THEY DON'T HAVE THE CAPACITY TO DO THIS. THEN THE SOCKS AFTER THAT LEAK ON THE 22ND I BELIEVE -- AND THAT LEAK WAS BY A LOCAL CHANNEL 4 REPORTER, WHO THEN RECONFIRMED THAT LEAK THE NEXT DAY, ABOUT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S DNA ON THESE SOCKS. THE SOCKS THEN WERE NOT EVEN SENT OUT FOR DNA TESTING UNTIL SEPTEMBER 26TH, SOME FOUR DAYS LATER. THEN OF COURSE, LO AND BEHOLD, ON NOVEMBER 17TH, 1994, THE LAB REPORTS, THEY FIND DNA ON THE SOCKS, NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S DNA ON THE SOCKS, JUST AS THEY HAD PREDICTED IN THIS FALSE LEAK ON SEPTEMBER 22ND. AND OF COURSE, THESE ARE THE SAME SOCKS WHERE NOBODY SAW ANY BLOOD AT ALL UNTIL AUGUST 4TH. AND THAT'S NOT ALL WITH REGARD TO THESE SOCKS. YOU WILL HEAR THAT THROUGHOUT, THERE ARE VERY, VERY SMALL AMOUNTS OF THESE NANOGRAMS THAT YOU SAW ON THE CHART ON THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE. THE NANOGRAMS FOUND ON THESE SOCKS IS MORE THAN 1400 NANOGRAMS, WHICH IS AS MUCH AS ALL THE OTHER BLOOD TESTED IN THIS ENTIRE CASE JUST ON THESE SOCKS. AND SO WE THINK THIS WILL BE -- THE EVIDENCE WILL BE, THIS WILL BE A HOTLY CONTESTED ITEM AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THESE SOCKS WERE CONSCIENTIOUSLY AND INTENTIONALLY TAMPERED WITH IN AN EFFORT, IN A RUSH TO JUDGMENT TO GET EVIDENCE ON MR. SIMPSON WHERE YOU HAVE THE RESULTS PREDICTED BEFORE THE SOCKS EVER ARE SENT OUT TO THE LAB AND THE AMOUNT OF THIS DNA BEING EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT OF ALL THE REST OF THE BLOOD FOUND IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT IN ADDITION TO THIS, YOU CAN SEE THIS AREA IS VERY, VERY, VERY LIGHT AROUND HERE. THERE'S NO BLOOD FOUND ON THIS CARPET OR ON THAT RUG THAT'S AT THE FOOT OF HIS BED, THAT THERE'S NO BLOOD FOUND ON THE LIGHT CARPET ON THE STAIRS, IN THE HALLWAY FLOOR ON THE WAY UP. BECAUSE THE COURT HAS INDICATED I BELIEVE THAT WE'LL HAVE A JURY VIEW IN THIS CASE, YOU WILL BE ABLE TO SEE FOR YOURSELF HOPEFULLY AT SOME TIME IN THE NEAR FUTURE THIS PARTICULAR AREA. YOU CAN SEE FOR YOURSELF EXACTLY HOW IT LOOKS AND WHAT TOOK PLACE. I SHOULD POINT OUT THAT THE LAPD DID IN FACT DO SOME SEROLOGY ON THESE SOCKS AT SOME TIME, BUT THEY DID NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY TO DO THE DNA THAT WAS PREDICTED. SO WE THINK THIS WILL BE SOMETHING THAT YOU WILL FIND OF SOME GREAT AMOUNT OF INTEREST AND WILL BE A MAJOR ITEM LITIGATED DURING THE COURSE OF THIS PARTICULAR HEARING. I MENTIONED TO YOU EARLIER AS WE LEAVE THE SOCKS AND WHAT TOOK PLACE THAT I WANTED TO BRIEFLY COMPARE WITH YOU THE CONDUCT OF O.J. SIMPSON WITH THE CONDUCT OF THE OFFICERS, THE LAPD OFFICERS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE FOR THIS GENERAL AREA OF JUNE 13TH. LET'S TAKE FIRST OF ALL MR. SIMPSON. WE EXPECT THE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT MR. SIMPSON IS IN CHICAGO ON A PREARRANGED LONG-STANDING TRIP FOR HERTZ TO PLAY GOLF, THAT HE GETS A CALL FROM DETECTIVE PHILLIPS IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS, THAT HIS WHOLE DEMEANOR AND EVERYTHING CHANGED OF COURSE, AND HE COMES BACK VOLUNTARILY. WHEN HE GETS BACK, HE COMES HOME AND HE MEETS WITH THE DETECTIVES. THEY ASK HIM TO COME DOWNTOWN. HE GOES DOWNTOWN AND HE MEETS WITH DETECTIVES WITHOUT ANY COUNSEL, THAT HE TALKS WITH THEM, THAT HE GIVES THEM BLOOD, DOES EVERYTHING THEY ASK HIM, THAT HE THEN COMES BACK HOME THAT AFTERNOON, JUNE 13TH IN THE AFTERNOON. MEANWHILE, THE DETECTIVES -- AND WE'LL START WITH DETECTIVE PHILLIPS -- DELAYED ALMOST 10 HOURS BEFORE THEY GET THE CORONER OUT THERE. AND WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THAT IN TRYING TO ESTABLISH THIS MAN'S INNOCENCE. THEY THEN GO FROM THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE TO ROCKINGHAM. ALL FOUR OF THEM, AS YOU KNOW, THEN CLIMB OVER THE WALL AND THEY MAKE THESE MISREPRESENTATIONS TO THE JUDGE. SO IN THEIR VERY FIRST CONTACT WITH THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM AT 10:45 ON JUNE 13TH, THEY DON'T TELL THE TRUTH THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW, BECAUSE, FIRST OF ALL, THEY KNOW HE'S ON A TRIP THAT WAS PLANNED, AND THEY SAY AN UNEXPECTED TRIP. WE HAVE SHOWN YOU THOSE THREE ITEMS EARLIER. THEY DON'T TELL THE JUDGE HOW THEY GET OVER THE WALL OR WHATEVER. SO THESE ARE THE THINGS THEY PUT IN A DECLARATION WHICH YOU'VE PREVIOUSLY SEEN ALREADY THAT DAY. THEY CONTINUE LOOKING AROUND IN A MASS TO FIND EVIDENCE. WE'VE TALKED ALREADY ABOUT HOW PEOPLE AT BOTH -- AT THE SCENE CERTAINLY AT BUNDY ARE TRAIPSING THROUGH THE EVIDENCE AND THAT SORT OF THING. THEY LATER THAT DAY AFTER MAKING CONTACT WITH MR. SIMPSON OR AT HIS HOME, THEY GO BACK DOWNTOWN WITH HIM. THEY QUESTION HIM, THEY TAKE HIS BLOOD. INSTEAD OF TAKING HIS BLOOD AND BOOKING IT LIKE THEY SHOULD HAVE IN THEIR OWN PROCEDURES, THEY TAKE THAT BLOOD AND COME SOME 20 MILES OR SO WEST BACK TO ROCKINGHAM, CARRY IT AROUND, SEIZE HIS TENNIS SHOES, DON'T BOOK THOSE UNTIL THE NEXT DAY, MISLABEL THE BLOOD -- IT'S TO BE 17. THEY LABEL IT 18. THE TENNIS SHOES -- THE SNEAKERS ARE 18. THESE ARE THE EXPERIENCED DETECTIVES IN THIS CASE. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS CASE AS THE CASE PROGRESSES, WE WANT YOU TO CHARACTERIZE HOW THEY CONDUCTED THEMSELVES AND HOW O.J. SIMPSON CONDUCTED HIMSELF IN MAKING A JUDGMENT IN THIS CASE ON WHETHER OR NOT THE PROSECUTION WILL EVER PROVE THIS CASE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. THERE WILL BE A NUMBER OF KEY WITNESSES IN THE CASE. WITHOUT GETTING INTO ANY OF THEM, ALL WITNESSES ARE IMPORTANT. I THINK ALL SIDES WILL AGREE THAT NO SIDE HAS A PRIORITY ON THE TRUTH, PRIORITY ON THE TRUTH. ALL WITNESSES SHOULD BE ACCORDED, AS THE COURT HAS INSTRUCTED YOU, IN LOOKING AT HOW YOU DETERMINE THE TRUTHFULNESS OF A WITNESS. YOU SHOULD DO THAT. THERE ARE OTHER MISCELLANEOUS POINTS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AT THIS POINT WITH REGARD -- ONE OF WHICH IS WITH THE 911 TAPE. THE TAPE I HAVE IN MIND NOW IS THE ONE FROM OCTOBER 25TH, 1993. I BELIEVE YOU HEARD TESTIMONY THAT ONE OF THE OFFICERS WHO CAME OUT AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME -- AND THIS IS THE TIME WHEN MANY OF YOU SAID DURING VOIR DIRE, YOU HAD HEARD THIS PARTICULAR TAPE, WHEN THERE'S NO PHYSICAL INJURY OR WHATEVER, THERE WAS A DOOR DAMAGED -- IT WAS ALREADY DAMAGED, BUT IT WAS DAMAGED SOME MORE. MR. SIMPSON AGREES TO FIX THAT DOOR. YOU WILL HEAR WHAT'S ON THAT TAPE WITH REGARD TO WHAT MR. SIMPSON HAS TO SAY AND WHAT MRS. SIMPSON HAS TO SAY ABOUT HER INTENT AND HER THOUGHT. AND I THINK WHAT YOU WILL FIND THE EVIDENCE TO SHOW, THAT THIS ARGUMENT, THE ENTIRE ARGUMENT ON OCTOBER 25TH, 1993 WAS OVER PICTURE FRAMES OF FORMER LOVERS OR LOVERS WHILE THEY WERE AWAY AND SEPARATED FROM EACH OTHER AND NOT HAVING BEEN REMOVED OR TAKEN OUT OF THE HOUSE AS THEY WERE STRIVING TO GET BACK TOGETHER, AS YOU KNOW, DURING THE LATTER PART OF 1993. AND ANOTHER AREA, IN LISTENING TO THE PROSECUTION'S OPENING STATEMENT, THERE WAS CERTAINLY A SUGGESTION THERE MAY BE SOME CONNECTION BETWEEN THE NOISES, THESE THUMPS ON THE WALL IF YOU WILL THAT WERE HEARD BY MR. KATO KAELIN SOMEWHERE AROUND 10:47 IN THE EVENING, THAT SOMEONE PRESUMABLY CLIMBING OVER THE FENCE -- THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY I THINK THERE IS A FENCE BACK THERE NEAR KATO'S ROOM -- AND ACCIDENTALLY DROPPING THE GLOVE WHERE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN CLAIMS THAT HE FINDS THAT GLOVE OF COURSE LATER ON IN THE MORNING. KEEP IN MIND THAT THERE WILL BE WE EXPECT TESTIMONY FROM ROSA LOPEZ ABOUT THE FACT THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE AND VOICES OVER IN THE SIMPSON COMPOUND 12:00 O'CLOCK ON UNTIL ABOUT 3:00 O'CLOCK SHE HEARS. IT'S NOT O.J.'S SIMPSON'S VOICE OUT THERE. SHE HEARS PEOPLE TALKING. SHE CAN'T GO TO SLEEP SHE SAYS. WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THIS WALKWAY, WHICH IS VERY, VERY NARROW, IS VERY, VERY NEAR WHERE SHE LIVES, KIND OF IN HER HOUSEKEEPER QUARTERS IN THE HOUSE RIGHT NEXT DOOR. WE EXPECT THE EVIDENCE TO BE THAT THE AREA WHERE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN CLAIMS THAT HE FOUND THIS PARTICULAR GLOVE IS AN AREA THAT HAS A NUMBER OF COBWEBS AND THINGS BACK THERE, WHICH ONE MIGHT INFER THAT PEOPLE HADN'T BEEN WALKING BACK THERE, HADN'T BEEN BACK THERE FOR A WHILE. I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL ALSO SHOW THAT ON THAT SIDE OF MR. SIMPSON'S HOME, IF MR. SIMPSON HAD WANTED TO COME HOME AND HIDE HIMSELF FROM ANYBODY OUTSIDE, THE LIMOUSINE DRIVER, THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO ENTRANCES TO HIS HOUSE ON THAT SIDE. THERE'S ONE DOOR THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT GOES INTO A LAUNDRY ROOM, AND OF COURSE THERE'S A DOOR INTO THE GARAGE, ALL ON THIS SIDE OF THE HOUSE (INDICATING). I'M MAKING THESE STATEMENTS BECAUSE I THINK THAT THIS IS WHAT THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW IN RESPONSE TO WHAT THE PROSECUTION HAS INDICATED. I THINK YOU WILL ALSO FIND THAT THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY THERE IS A GREAT AMOUNT OF VERY THICK SHRUBBERY ON TOP OF THAT FENCE THAT SEPARATES THE PROPERTY WHERE MISS LOPEZ LIVES AND WHERE MR. SIMPSON LIVES ON THAT DATE. AND I THINK YOU WILL HEAR TESTIMONY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT ANY OF THOSE TWIGS, LEAVES OR ANY OF THOSE ITEMS WERE EVER DISTURBED OR APPEARED TO BE DISTURBED AS THOUGH ANYBODY HAD CLIMBED ACROSS OR CLIMBED OVER THAT FENCE. NOW I WANT TO TURN OUR ATTENTION TO SOMETHING I ALLUDED TO THE LAST TIME. WE CALL IT THE TIME LINE. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE EXPECT TO SHOW DURING THE COURSE OF THIS TRIAL IS NOT ONLY DID MR. SIMPSON NOT COMMIT THESE BRUTAL MURDERS, BUT HE DID NOT, WOULD NOT, COULD NOT WITHIN THE TIME FRAME HAVE COMMITTED THESE PARTICULAR KILLINGS OUT OF THE WITNESSES THAT BOTH SIDES KNOW ABOUT THAT WE UNDERSTAND. AND WHAT WE HAVE IS A TIME LINE WITH A CHART AND TIME LINE WITH THE GRAPHICS WHICH WE WOULD LIKE TO CALL TO YOUR ATTENTION NOW. WHAT'S THE NUMBER?

MR. HARRIS: THAT IS D-87.

MR. COCHRAN: D-87. AND D-87 SO THAT YOU'RE CLEAR, THIS IS THE SIMPSON COMPOUND. THIS IS THE HOME ON ROCKINGHAM THAT YOU'VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT (INDICATING). THIS STREET OVER HERE IS THE -- CAN I GET THAT BACK? THANK YOU, MR. HARRIS, SIR. THIS STREET OVER HERE IS THE ASHFORD STREET WHERE ULTIMATELY ALLEN PARK WILL COME. THIS STREET OVER HERE IS THE ROCKINGHAM GATE WHERE THE BRONCO WOULD BE PARKED. THERE'S A GATE RIGHT HERE, AND THE BRONCO WAS PARKED RIGHT THERE (INDICATING). I INDICATED THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY ABOUT WHEN THE BRONCO COMES OUT, HOW IT IS A SHARP TURN RIGHT TO THAT LOCATION. AND OVER HERE, THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY WHERE KATO KAELIN'S VEHICLE WAS PARKED, AND IN SOME OF THE SUBSEQUENT PHOTOGRAPHS, I BELIEVE YOU WILL SEE THAT HIS VEHICLE IS PARKED HERE ON ASHFORD ALSO (INDICATING). THANK YOU, MR. HARRIS.

MR. HARRIS: THIS IS D-108A.

MR. COCHRAN: AND THIS IS THE BUNDY RESIDENCE OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, AND I BELIEVE THAT 875 BUNDY IS RIGHT THERE. THIS IS THE WALKWAY THAT DETECTIVE PHILLIPS TALKED ABOUT, RIGHT UP IN THAT WAY, A LOT OF SHRUBBERY AND THERE'S A GATE THERE (INDICATING). TESTIMONY WAS YOU RECALL OR HIS STATEMENT WAS YOU CAN SEE THE BODIES FROM THE STREET AND THE GATE WAS OPENED. AND I THINK YOU SAW SOME PICTURES FROM THE PROSECUTION DURING THEIR OPENING STATEMENTS. THIS IS BUNDY AND BUNDY -- AND THIS AREA IS A STREET THAT TRAVERSES NORTH AND SOUTH, NORTH BEING THIS WAY, SOUTH BEING THAT WAY, WEST BEING HERE AT THE TOP AS I UNDERSTAND IT (INDICATING). AND THIS IS THE AREA HERE WHERE THESE BODIES WERE FOUND. THIS IS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE. IT IS THE RESIDENCE WHICH SHE HAD PURCHASED YOU WILL RECALL WITH THE FUNDS THAT SHE HAD GOTTEN FROM THE MONEY THAT MR. SIMPSON HAD GIVEN HER BEFORE HE MARRIED AND SOME ADDITIONAL FUNDS THAT HE HAD GIVEN HER. SHE HAD MOVED THERE VOLUNTARILY. YOU HEARD THE APPROXIMATE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE TWO. MR. DOUGLAS, WHY DON'T YOU PUT YOUR -- THERE'S A -- NOW, BEFORE WE GO INTO THE TIME LINE -- WE'LL TALK MORE ABOUT THIS AND YOU'LL HEAR MORE ABOUT THIS WHEN WE DISCUSS SO-CALLED ALIBI TESTIMONY. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I EXPECT THE EVIDENCE TO SHOW IN THIS CASE IS THAT MR. SIMPSON DOES IN FACT HAVE AN ALIBI FOR HIS WHEREABOUTS ON THAT PARTICULAR NIGHT DURING THE CRITICAL TIME. YOU WILL RECALL THAT THE PROSECUTORS IN THEIR OPENING STATEMENT TALKED ABOUT A PERIOD OF TIME BETWEEN 9:45 AND ABOUT 11:00. SO OUR EVIDENCE HERE THIS AFTERNOON WILL TRACK THAT SAME PERIOD OF TIME, 9:45 P.M. UNTIL ABOUT 11:00 O'CLOCK P.M. AND YOU WILL RECALL THE TESTIMONY THAT YOU'VE HEARD SO FAR THAT MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON SPOKE TO HER MOTHER AND AN INDIVIDUAL AT THE MEZZALUNA RESTAURANT CERTAINLY IN THE AREA OF 9:42 OR THEREABOUTS, HAD TWO PHONE CALLS IN THAT PERIOD OF TIME. SO IT'S REASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT SHE CERTAINLY WAS ALIVE AT THAT PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME. SO THAT'S PROBABLY A VERY GOOD STARTING POINT. WHAT YOU HAVE ON THE BOARD -- AND THIS NUMBER, MR. DOUGLAS, WHAT IS THIS NUMBER AGAIN?

MR. DOUGLAS: 213.

MR. COCHRAN: THIS IS 213. THIS IS A SIDE-BY-SIDE VIEW OF EACH OF THESE RESIDENCES SIDE BY SIDE. WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS, WE'RE GOING TO START AT 9:45 AND IN EACH INSTANCE, FOR ROCKINGHAM AND FOR BUNDY, TELL YOU WHAT WE EXPECT THE EVIDENCE TO SHOW OF THE VARIOUS PARTIES AND WHERE THEY WERE. LET'S TAKE THE GRAPHIC ON THE BOARD. AND WHAT'S THAT NUMBER, MR. HARRIS?

MR. HARRIS: D-107.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU. AT 9:45 AT THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE, MR. SIMPSON'S, YOU'LL SEE IN THIS THING -- WE THINK THE EVIDENCE IS GOING TO SHOW THAT KATO KAELIN IS IN HIS QUARTERS, MR. O.J. SIMPSON IS IN HIS QUARTERS AND TO THE RIGHT HERE IS ROSA LOPEZ. AND YOU WILL SEE THIS AREA. LET ME JUST USE THIS AS AN EXAMPLE. HOLD IT THERE, MR. HARRIS. I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE -- ROSA LOPEZ LIVES RIGHT OVER IN THIS PART HERE. THAT THERE IS THIS SIDE OF THE HOUSE, LITTLE WALKWAY GOES RIGHT DOWN THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE BACK THIS WAY, AND THAT'S WHERE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN CLAIMS HE FOUND THE GLOVE IN THIS VERY, VERY SMALL AREA, LEADS BACK OUT HERE SOMEWHERE. AT 9:45 AT THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE, YOU SEE THE PARTIES WHO ARE THERE. MR. DOUGLAS HAS CHARTERED THAT ON THE CHART HERE. YOU CAN SEE IT IN BOTH PLACES. MR. HARRIS, NEXT.

MR. HARRIS: D-109.

MR. COCHRAN: AT 9:45 OR THEREABOUTS AT BUNDY, YOU WILL RECALL -- THIS IS THE RESIDENCE RIGHT THERE ON BUNDY. AND WE KNOW FROM EXPECTED TESTIMONY TO BE THAT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON HAD A PHONE CONVERSATION WITH HER MOTHER AND SOMEBODY AT THE MEZZALUNA RESTAURANT ABOUT HAVING THE GLASSES WHICH THE PARTY HAD LEFT AT MEZZALUNA. WE EXPECT SHE IS STILL VERY MUCH ALIVE AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME. MR. HARRIS.

MR. HARRIS: D-110.

MR. COCHRAN: WE'VE TAKEN THIS IN FIVE-MINUTE INTERVALS. AND OBVIOUSLY THESE INTERVALS -- BECAUSE YOU'RE DEALING WITH THE FIVE MINUTES -- IS NOT EXACT. THIS IS AS CLOSE AS WE CAN APPROXIMATE BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE AS WE NOW UNDERSTAND IT. AT 9:50, PARTIES IN THE SAME RELATIVE POSITIONS; ROSA LOPEZ, MR. SIMPSON, MR. KATO KAELIN STILL INSIDE HIS RESIDENCE. 9:50 --

MR. HARRIS: 111.

MR. COCHRAN: 111, SAME SITUATION WITH REGARD TO BUNDY.

MR. HARRIS: D-112.

MR. COCHRAN: 9:55. AGAIN, NOW, KEEP IN MIND THAT THE TESTIMONY WILL BE THAT ROSA LOPEZ AT ABOUT 8:15, BETWEEN 8:15 AND 8:30, HAS COME OUT, SHE'S SEEN THIS BRONCO PARKED THERE. SHE WALKED HER DOG SOMEWHERE BACK IN THIS AREA OVER HERE THAT I'M INDICATING WITH THE LIGHT AND SHE SEES THE BRONCO KIND OF PARKED SOMEWHAT ASKEW. AND 9:55, THIS IS THE RELATIVE POSITIONS THAT WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THE PARTIES AT ROCKINGHAM AT THAT TIME (INDICATING).

MR. HARRIS: D-113.

MR. COCHRAN: 9:55, NOTHING ELSE HAS CHANGED AT THE BUNDY SCENE AT THAT POINT. MR. HARRIS.

MR. HARRIS: D-114.

MR. COCHRAN: AT 10:00 O'CLOCK -- THIS IS AT ROCKINGHAM. AND AT 10:00 O'CLOCK, WHERE YOUR ATTENTION -- I THINK YOU WILL FIND THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY THAT THE BENTLEY -- OF COURSE, THAT MR. SIMPSON AND MR. KATO KAELIN HAD GONE TO GET THE MC DONALD HAMBURGERS, HAD PARKED IN THE YARD THERE, THAT KATO KAELIN HAS TAKEN HIS FOOD BACK TO HIS ROOM TO EAT, THEY'VE GONE SOMEWHERE AROUND 9:00 O'CLOCK, THEY GOT BACK SOMEWHERE AROUND 9:37, 9:37 TO 9:40, SOMEWHERE IN THAT AREA. THE BENTLEY WAS PARKED. MR. SIMPSON HAS EATEN HIS HAMBURGER. ROSA LOPEZ REMAINS AT THE SAME PLACE. WE'VE DRAWN IN, BASED UPON WHAT WE EXPECT THE TESTIMONY TO BE, THE CAR ON THE ASHFORD SIDE HERE, KATO KAELIN'S CAR. IT'S ALL IN BLACK THERE. YOU WILL SEE OF COURSE THE BRONCO. THAT'S AT 10:00 O'CLOCK, SAME AS WE EXPECT THE EVIDENCE TO SHOW, AT ROCKINGHAM.

MR. HARRIS: D-115.

MR. COCHRAN: AT BUNDY AT 10:00 O'CLOCK, WE EXPECT THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY THAT A MAN NAMED TOM LANG, SAME NAME AS THE DETECTIVE IN THIS CASE, BUT NOT THE DETECTIVE, A WITNESS, WE THINK WILL TESTIFY THAT HE'S OUT, AS SO MANY PEOPLE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD DO, WALKING HIS DOG DOWN HERE, A STREET DOWN HERE CALLED DOROTHY STREET. THIS IS HIS DOG, AND HE'S OUT WALKING THE DOG, AND THAT HE MAKES A STATEMENT TO THE POLICE, WHICH HE TELLS THE POLICE THAT HE SEES A LADY THAT FITS THE DESCRIPTION OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON WEARING SOMETHING, A BLACK -- SOME KIND OF A BLACK DRESS. THE DETECTIVE WHO TAKES THE STATEMENT DOWN, THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW, MISWRITES IT AND PUTS IT LIKE A WHITE FLOWING DRESS, BUT HE TELLS THEM BLACK DRESS I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW. THAT HE SEES FROM THIS LOCATION DOWN HERE, HE SEES THIS LADY WHOM HE BELIEVES IS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON EITHER TOUCHING OR IN SOME WAY EMBRACING SOMEONE AT A CAR PARKED AT THIS CURB RIGHT ABOUT IN THIS AREA HERE, AND HE IS SOUTH OF THEIR LOCATION AND HE SEES A GENTLEMAN AT THE CAR AND HE SEES NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON. HE ALSO SEES -- HE SEES A MAN DESCRIBED AS A HISPANIC GENTLEMAN STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK BEYOND WHERE NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AND THIS GENTLEMAN ARE, AND HE IS STANDING WITH HIS FISTS CLUTCHED, AND I'M INDICATING FOR THE RECORD, STARING DOWN AT MR. LANG. HE THINKS THIS MAN MAY BE ANGRY WITH HIM BECAUSE HIS DOG IS LOOSE OR WHATEVER. SO THAT'S MR. LANG AND THAT'S 10:00 O'CLOCK AT THAT -- AND THAT'S THE RESIDENCE HERE. THAT'S 10:00 O'CLOCK AT THE BUNDY STREET LOCATION. AND IF MR. LANG OF COURSE IS CORRECT, THEN NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON IS STILL ALIVE OF COURSE AT THAT POINT. 10:05 AT THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE, MR. SIMPSON HAS COME OUTSIDE THE HOUSE. MR. SIMPSON I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW AT SOME POINT MADE A TELEPHONE CALL SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 10:00 AND 10:05 TO HIS THEN GIRLFRIEND, PAULA BARBIERI, ON A PORTABLE PHONE THAT HE HAD IN THIS BRONCO. THERE WAS A PHONE CALL. HE WAS UNABLE TO HOOK UP WITH HER, BUT HE DID IN FACT MAKE THIS PHONE CALL. I THINK THERE WILL BE RECORDS OR WHATEVER TO THAT EFFECT. SO AT 10:05, THAT'S THE SITUATION THERE WITH KATO KAELIN STILL BEING IN HIS ROOM AND ROSA LOPEZ STILL BEING IN HER LOCATION.

MR. HARRIS: D-116.

MR. COCHRAN: 10:05, WE STILL HAVE THE SAME SITUATION AT THE BUNDY LOCATION. WE HAVE TOM LANG STILL AT THIS SAME APPROXIMATE LOCATION.

MR. HARRIS: 117.

MR. COCHRAN: AFTER MAKING THE PHONE CALL AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION, WE NOW HAVE MR. SIMPSON BACK INSIDE. MR. SIMPSON VERY OFTEN WILL SWING GOLF CLUBS, WHICH HE KEEPS ALL OVER THE PLACE, THE BENTLEY, IN THE GARAGE OR WHATEVER I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL BE, AND THAT HE SOMETIMES WILL CHIP -- THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE GOLFERS -- WILL CHIP OR SWING HIS FOUR WOOD OR THREE WOOD GENERALLY IN THIS DIRECTION OVER HERE WHERE THERE IS SOME SAND WHERE THE KIDS CAN PLAY AND THAT SORT OF THING (INDICATING). DURING THIS PERIOD OF TIME, MR. SIMPSON AT SOME POINT SWINGS HIS GOLF CLUBS OR WHATEVER, AT SOME POINT, THIS POINT LATER AND CHIPS. SO HE'S OUT IN THIS YARD AREA AFTER HAVING MADE THE CALL.

MR. HARRIS: THAT WAS D-118. D-119.

MR. COCHRAN: 10:10, NOT MUCH HAPPENING AT BUNDY THAT WE CAN TELL.

MR. HARRIS: D-120.

MR. COCHRAN: AFTER MR. SIMPSON HAS DONE THAT AND BEEN OUTSIDE MAKING HIS PHONE CALL, I THINK YOU WILL FIND THE RELATIVE POSITION OF THE PARTIES, SIMPSON BACK INSIDE THE RESIDENCE. THE EVIDENCE WILL BE, HE IS GOING TO CHICAGO. AT SOME POINT, HE HAS TO PACK, GET READY. KATO KAELIN IS IN HIS ROOM. ROSA LOPEZ IS STILL AT HER LOCATION AT THAT POINT, ALTHOUGH SHE'S JUST ABOUT TO LEAVE.

MR. HARRIS: D-121.

MR. COCHRAN: SAME SITUATION AT 10:15 AT THE BUNDY LOCATION.

MR. HARRIS: D-122.

MR. COCHRAN: THIS LOCATION AT ABOUT 10:15 TO 10:20, ROSA LOPEZ THEN COMES OUTSIDE OF HER LOCATION TO WALK HER DOG AGAIN. AND SHE COMES OUT THIS GENERAL AREA TO THE RIGHT HERE ON ROCKINGHAM (INDICATING) WHERE WE EXPECT THE TESTIMONY TO BE THAT ROSA LOPEZ SEES THE BRONCO STILL PARKED AT THE SAME CONFIGURATION, THE SAME LOCATION, JUST LIKE SHE HAD SEEN IT BETWEEN 8:15 AND 8:30. SHE SEES IT BETWEEN 10:15 AND 10:20, THE SAME LOCATION. AND THEN WE THINK SHE WILL ALSO TESTIFY SHE SAW THIS SAME BRONCO PARKED IN THE SAME MANNER, SAME LOCATION, SAME CONFIGURATION THE NEXT MORNING AFTER SHE HAD TALKED WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. AND THAT'S ROSA LOPEZ AT 10:20, THEREABOUTS AT ROCKINGHAM.

MR. HARRIS: D-123.

MR. COCHRAN: 10:20, CONTRARY TO WHAT YOU'VE BEEN TOLD I THINK BY THE EVIDENCE BY THE PROSECUTION, THAT THEY CAN DETERMINE DEATH BY THE PLAINTIVE WAIL OF A DOG, WE HAVE SOME LIVE WITNESSES, ELLEN ARRONSON AND DAN MANDEL -- THESE ARE TWO THAT I ALLUDED TO EARLIER -- WHO HAD BEEN APPARENTLY ON THIS DATE TO MEZZALUNA, AND THEY'RE WALKING HOME AND WALKING DOWN BUNDY FROM NORTH TO SOUTH AT ABOUT 10:20. THEY WALK NORTH TO SOUTH, THIS LOCATION AS I INDICATED HERE (INDICATING). THANK YOU, MR. HARRIS.

MR. HARRIS: D-124.

MR. COCHRAN: AT THE OTHER LOCATION, AT ABOUT 10:25, WE EXPECT THAT ROSA LOPEZ AT ROCKINGHAM CERTAINLY HAS GONE BACK INSIDE THE RESIDENCE NOW HAVING WALKED THE DOG, MR. SIMPSON INSIDE THE RESIDENCE, KATO KAELIN INSIDE THE RESIDENCE. AND WE HAVE NOW FOR THE FIRST TIME THE LIMOUSINE DRIVER, ALLAN PARK, COMES UP. AND IT'S INTERESTING -- IF YOU'LL BACK THAT UP A MINUTE, MR. HARRIS. IT'S INTERESTING AT THE 10:25 LOCATION, AND YOU WILL RECALL, BECAUSE I READ YOU THE TESTIMONY OF ALLAN PARK AT BOTH THE PRELIMINARY HEARING AND THE GRAND JURY, WAS THAT HE DIDN'T SEE OR DIDN'T LOOK TO SEE ANY OTHER CARS. MR. KATO KAELIN'S CAR WAS THERE. HE DIDN'T LOOK TO SEE IF THE BRONCO WAS DOWN THERE. AND YOU WILL HEAR EVIDENCE I'M SURE WITH REGARD TO WHETHER OR NOT -- WHAT ABOUT THE STREETS AT THAT TIME OF NIGHT, 10:25, 10:30 ON A SUNDAY IN BRENTWOOD, WHAT MIGHT YOU EXPECT TO HEAR, WHAT MIGHT -- WERE THERE LIGHTS ON, WHAT WOULD BE OBSERVABLE AT THAT LOCATION. I BELIEVE HOPEFULLY WE WILL BE ABLE TO GO OUT TO THESE SCENES AT NIGHT ALSO. SO WE HAVE KATO KAELIN'S CAR, ALLAN PARK'S LIMOUSINE, THE RELATIVE POSITIONS OF THE OTHER PARTIES. WE'LL GO ON BACK TO BUNDY.

MR. HARRIS: D-125.

MR. COCHRAN: BY THIS TIME, ACCORDING TO WHAT I EXPECT THE TESTIMONY TO BE, ELLEN ARRONSON AND DAN MANDEL HAVE CONTINUED WALKING SOUTH ON BUNDY, AND NOW THEY'RE RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE THERE AT BUNDY. NOW, THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS, WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW, IS THAT THEY WALKED THERE, THIS VERY SHORT DISTANCE, RIGHT TO THEIR RIGHT, IF THE CRIMES HAD OCCURRED, WOULD BE THESE BODIES WITH THE GATE OPEN WITH BLOOD FLOWING DOWN. DO YOU REMEMBER WHEN I READ THIS MORNING FROM PHILLIPS' TRANSCRIPT, WHEN HE WAS TALKING TO THE CORONER ABOUT THE NEED TO COME OUT HERE, THESE BODIES ARE RIGHT THERE, THEY CAN BE SEEN FROM THE SIDEWALK OR FROM THE STREET. SO THESE PEOPLE ARE IN A RATHER UNIQUE POSITION. AND I BELIEVE THAT THEIR TESTIMONY, THEY SAW NO BODIES, THAT SAW NO GATE OPENED AT THAT POINT. AND IT WAS APPROXIMATELY 10:25 WHEN THEY'RE WALKING AT THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION. SO THAT BECOMES -- THEY BECOME, AS WITH ALL WITNESSES, VERY IMPORTANT. THEY BECOME PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT WHEN THE PROSECUTION TRIES TO PRESENT A THEORY THAT THESE KILLINGS HAVE OCCURRED AT 10:15.

MR. HARRIS: D-126.

MR. COCHRAN: BACK AT 10:30, WHERE ROSA LOPEZ WENT BACK TO HER HOUSE, EVERYBODY ELSE IN THEIR SAME POSITIONS. ALLAN PARK IS STILL OUT WITH THE LIMOUSINE. IN FACT, PARK HAS AT SOME POINT GOTTEN OUTSIDE THE VEHICLE. THE TESTIMONY WILL BE HE'S SOMEWHERE OUT HERE ON THE ASHFORD SIDE OF THE RESIDENCE.

MR. HARRIS: D-127.

MR. COCHRAN: 10:30, I THINK WE NOW HAVE ROBERT HEIDSTRA, WHO WAS IN THIS ALLEY I DESCRIBED FOR YOU BEFORE, AN ALLEY THAT RUNS PARALLEL TO BUNDY. AND THIS WILL BE MEASURED FOR YOU, THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THIS ALLEY AND BUNDY THERE. BUT HE ALSO IS OUT WALKING HIS DOG ON THIS SUNDAY EVENING. HE'S WALKING IN THIS DIRECTION AGAIN APPARENTLY FROM NORTH TO SOUTH, AND IT'S ABOUT 10:30 THAT HE FIRST APPEARS.

MR. HARRIS: D-128.

MR. COCHRAN: 10:35, THE SITUATION IS STILL PRETTY MUCH THE SAME AT THIS POINT. THE LIMOUSINE DRIVER IS EARLY. THE ROLES OF THE VARIOUS PEOPLE APPEAR APPROXIMATELY THE SAME 10:35.

MR. HARRIS: D-129.

MR. COCHRAN: 10:35. NOW, YOU WILL RECALL THAT ELLEN ARRONSON AND DAN MANDEL HAVE WALKED PAST THIS LOCATION AT ABOUT 10:25, AND THEY DON'T SEE ANY BODIES OR GATES OR ANY BLOOD. NOW, THIS MAN, ROBERT HEIDSTRA IS IN THIS ALLEYWAY. I BELIEVE THE TESTIMONY WILL BE THAT AT 10:35 OR THEREABOUTS, HE HEARS SOME UNUSUAL THINGS. HE HEARS THE SOUND, HEY, HEY, HEY. HE HEARS I BELIEVE YOU WILL HEAR A GATE CLANG OR CLOSING. THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY THERE ARE GATES BACK THIS WAY AT THE NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON RESIDENCE IN ADDITION TO THE ONE IN THE FRONT (INDICATING); THAT HE HEARS THE SOUND OF MEN ARGUING I BELIEVE IS WHAT THE TESTIMONY WILL BE. FROM THIS LOCATION, HE CAN HEAR THIS. HE HEARS THIS GOING ON. HE HEARS THAT TO BE AT ABOUT 10:35 P.M. THAT'S AT THE BUNDY LOCATION. HE'S IN THE ALLEYWAY AND HE'S APPROXIMATELY PARALLEL TO THE BUNDY LOCATION EXCEPT HE'S IN THE ALLEYWAY OFF OF BUNDY. THIS IS AT 10:35.

MR. HARRIS: D-130.

MR. COCHRAN: WE KNOW THAT, ACCORDING TO THE TESTIMONY OF MR. PARK, AT SOME POINT, ABOUT 10:40 OR THEREABOUTS, HE PULLS THE LIMOUSINE AROUND. HE'S BEEN TRYING TO GET IN CONTACT WITH SOMEONE. HE PULLS AROUND UP TO THE ROCKINGHAM GATE, WHICH IS ON THIS SIDE AS OPPOSED TO THE ASHFORD GATE, WHICH IS ON THIS SIDE (INDICATING), AND THAT HE APPARENTLY GOES BACK. YOU KNOW, HAVING HEARD HIS TESTIMONY, READ IT, BOTH THE PRELIMINARY HEARING AND THE GRAND JURY, HE WAS NOT LOOKING FOR AND CAN NOT TELL US EITHER WAY WHETHER THE BRONCO WAS THERE OR NOT. HE GOES BACK TO THIS LOCATION, AND THAT'S ABOUT 10:40 OR THEREABOUTS ROCKINGHAM.

MR. HARRIS: D-131.

MR. COCHRAN: 10:40, WE HAVE MR. HEIDSTRA STILL IN THIS ALLEYWAY IN THIS AREA. THIS IS APPROXIMATELY THE TIME, AT 10:40 P.M. JUNE 13TH, THAT HE HEARS THIS CONFRONTATION SUPPOSEDLY WITH THESE MEN'S VOICES, SOUNDS, ET CETERA, DISTANCE THAT HE'S AWAY.

MR. HARRIS: D-132.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. AT 10:45, THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY I BELIEVE THAT ALLAN PARK IS UP TO THE GATE AT THIS POINT, THAT YOU SEE THE LOCATION OF THE OTHER PARTIES, THEIR LOCATION. HE'S CLOSER TO THE GATE WITH THE CAR RIGHT AT THE GATE. YOU SEE THE PARTIES -- THE POSITION OF THE OTHER PARTIES AT THAT TIME. HE'S MOVED HIS CAR BACK FROM DOWN AT THE ASHFORD GATE BACK AROUND. IT'S 10:45 OR THEREABOUTS.

MR. HARRIS: D-133.

MR. COCHRAN: 10:45, THIS IS THE JOURNEY OF MR. HEIDSTRA AS HE CONTINUES DOWN THIS ALLEYWAY. YOU SEE WHERE HE'S GOTTEN DOWN AS HE'S WALKING THE DOG. AND HE'S STILL WALKING PARALLEL TO THE RESIDENCE HAVING MADE THE OBSERVATIONS THAT I'VE SHARED WITH YOU EARLIER.

MR. HARRIS: D-134.

MR. COCHRAN: 10:50 OR THEREABOUTS, MR. SIMPSON, THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW, HAS COME OUTSIDE OF HIS RESIDENCE, HAS GONE OVER TO THE BENTLEY AT THAT POINT, LOOKED INSIDE THE BENTLEY. THIS LOCATION HERE, WHITE CAR, WHITE INDICATION THERE, THOSE ARE THE BENTLEY AT THAT LOCATION. SIMPSON IS OUTSIDE THE RESIDENCE. PARK IS OVER BY THE GATE. LOPEZ IS BACK IN HER RESIDENCE. KATO KAELIN IS STILL SOMEWHERE BACK IN HIS QUARTERS APPARENTLY AT THAT POINT.

MR. HARRIS: D-135.

MR. COCHRAN: 10:50, NOW AT THE BUNDY ADDRESS AND NO WITNESSES AT THIS PARTICULAR POINT.

MR. HARRIS: D-136.

MR. COCHRAN: 10:55, NOW HAVE MR. SIMPSON I THINK BENT OR DID WHATEVER HE WAS DOING IN THE AREA OF THE BENTLEY, GOING BACK OVER TOWARD HIS HOUSE, TO HIS HOUSE TO GET HIS LUGGAGE AND COME DOWN TO GET READY TO LEAVE. YOU HAVE KATO KAELIN COMING OUT PRESUMABLY BECAUSE HE'S HEARD WHATEVER NOISES. HE'S NOW OUTSIDE OF THE LOCATION. ALLAN PARK IS STILL OVER HERE. THERE IS SOME TESTIMONY THERE WILL BE SOME GOLF CLUBS OR WHATEVER OUT HERE IN THIS AREA OF THE YARD, IN THIS AREA HERE (INDICATING) ALL AT ROCKINGHAM. THIS IS APPROXIMATELY 10:55, JUST BEFORE 11:00.

MR. HARRIS: D-137.

MR. COCHRAN: THE SCENE REMAINS PRETTY MUCH THE SANE. ROBERT HEIDSTRA IS NOW OUT OF THE SCENE HERE AT BUNDY.

MR. HARRIS: D-138.

MR. COCHRAN: 11:00 O'CLOCK, ALLAN PARK IS LET IN. THE TESTIMONY I THINK WILL BE THAT HE STARTED TO LOAD THE LIMOUSINE UP, WHICH IS NOW INSIDE HERE (INDICATING). KATO KAELIN IS HAVING CONVERSATIONS WITH O.J. SIMPSON ABOUT A NOISE HE HEARD. HE'S TRYING TO GET A FLASHLIGHT TRYING TO TELL MR. SIMPSON ABOUT WHAT HE THINKS HE HEARD. MR. SIMPSON IS RUSHING AROUND AT THIS POINT. AT SOME POINT, HE GOES BACK OUT, GOES TO THE BRONCO AT SOME POINT, COMES BACK IN, GETS HIS LUGGAGE AND BRINGS HIS LUGGAGE DOWN, A NUMBER OF PIECES OF LUGGAGE WHICH YOU'LL HEAR ABOUT. AND ALL OF THESE PEOPLE IN AND AROUND 11:00 O'CLOCK AND THEREABOUTS ARE IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA HERE AS DEPICTED ON THIS EXHIBIT AT ROCKINGHAM. MR. HARRIS.

MR. HARRIS: D-139.

MR. COCHRAN: THE SITUATION REMAINS THE SAME AT BUNDY. AND SO AT BUNDY, THERE ARE NO OTHER WITNESSES AT THIS POINT. MR. HARRIS, IF YOU COULD GO BACK TO ROCKINGHAM AT 11:00 O'CLOCK.

MR. COCHRAN: KATO KAELIN'S CAR REMAINS IN THE SAME PLACE. THE LIMOUSINE IS NOW CLOSER IN THE ASHFORD GATE. THE BENTLEY IS STILL WHERE IT IS, THE BRONCO STILL WHERE IT IS. MISS LOPEZ IS IN HER RESIDENCE. KAELIN, MR. SIMPSON, AT OR AROUND THIS AREA WITH MR. PARK (INDICATING). AS I'VE INDICATED, THIS IS THE TIME THAT THEY'RE PREPARING TO GO ON THIS PRESCHEDULED TRIP TO THE AIRPORT TO GO TO CHICAGO. AROUND THIS TIME OR THEREABOUTS, MR. SIMPSON HAS COME OUT, GONE OUT TO THE BRONCO AND HE COMES BACK IN ALSO AT THAT POINT. NOW, I'VE TAKEN THIS FROM 9:45 UNTIL 11:00 O'CLOCK BECAUSE THAT'S THE TIME THE PROSECUTOR REFERRED TO AND TALKED TO, AND I THINK IT PROBABLY IS THE VERY APPROPRIATE TIME FOR US TO LOOK AT. IN DISCUSSING THIS, THIS PARTICULAR TIME LINE, TRIED TO DEMONSTRATE FOR YOU THE WITNESSES THAT WE EXPECT WILL BE CALLED, WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR PERIOD OF TIME. IN LISTENING TO THE PROSECUTION'S OPENING STATEMENT, THEY CLAIM THAT MR. SIMPSON LEFT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION, TRAVELED TO BUNDY, KILLED TWO PEOPLE WITH ONE KNIFE, HID THE KNIFE, HID THE BLOODY CLOTHES AND RETURNED TO ROCKINGHAM. HE DID ALL THIS AT ABOUT 10:00 OR 10:15 AND GOT BACK THERE AT 10:25 OR 10:30 OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE, IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, THAT'S WHAT THEIR THEORY WAS. WE THINK THAT THEY HAVE FURTHER, BASED UPON THEIR OPENING STATEMENT, COMMITTED THEMSELVES TO A THEORY THAT IN TRAVELING TO AND FROM BUNDY, MR. SIMPSON HAD USED THIS BRONCO THAT YOU'VE HEARD SO MUCH ABOUT. SO THEREFORE, WHEREVER THAT BRONCO WAS THAT NIGHT THEN, ACCORDING TO THEIR THEORY, THAT'S WHERE MR. SIMPSON WAS THAT PARTICULAR EVENING. WHAT WE TRY TO DEMONSTRATE FOR YOU AND WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW, THERE'S NOT THAT WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY, THERE'S NOT THE TIME WHICH THEY CAN PROVE THAT MR. SIMPSON COMMITTED THESE HORRIBLE CRIMES. THEY DON'T HAVE THE TIME, THE OPPORTUNITY NOR THE MOTIVE TO ESTABLISH THIS. WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT HE DID NOT, COULD NOT AND WOULD NOT COMMIT THESE PARTICULAR CRIMES. NOW, IN THE COURSE OF THIS TRIAL, YOU WILL HEAR TESTIMONY REGARDING DOMESTIC DISCORD, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IF YOU WILL ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED. I TOUCHED UPON THAT BRIEFLY THE OTHER DAY. WITHOUT BELABORING THE POINT, AS YOU HEAR THIS TESTIMONY, I ASK YOU, AS WITH ALL THE EVIDENCE, KEEP AN OPEN MIND, TO REMEMBER THAT THE INCIDENT JANUARY 1ST, 1989 WAS THE ASSAULTIVE INCIDENT THAT MR. SIMPSON TOOK BLAME FOR, WROTE LETTERS OF APOLOGY. AND YOU WILL RECALL THE TESTIMONY, WE EXPECT TO BE, SHE WAS NEVER STRUCK AFTER THAT IN A PHYSICAL SENSE AND THAT IN FACT HE MADE AN AGREEMENT REGARDING THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT, THAT IF THERE WAS ANY PHYSICAL TOUCHING, THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT WOULD BE VOID. AT ANY RATE, THAT WAS NEVER DONE. EXPECT TO SHOW THAT. THAT WITH REGARD TO THIS ENTIRE DOMESTIC DISCORD EVIDENCE, THAT THERE WILL BE -- AND I ASK YOU TO BEAR IN MIND IN MANY INSTANCES WHERE THERE ARE MORE THAN ONE PERSON PRESENT, PLEASE KEEP AN OPEN MIND UNTIL YOU'VE HEARD THE OTHER PEOPLE WHO WERE ALSO PRESENT AT THESE INCIDENTS SO YOU CAN MAKE A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THIS HAS ANY BEARING AT ALL, BECAUSE IF YOU FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE, IF YOU BELIEVE MR. SIMPSON COULD NOT HAVE DONE IT, THAT THIS TIME LINE IS SUCH THAT THERE'S NO TIME FOR HIM TO DO IT, NO INDICATION THAT HE COULD HAVE DONE THIS, THAT THE BRONCO WAS STILL THERE, WHATEVER, THEN THE CHARACTER EVIDENCE WILL MEAN ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, BECAUSE HOW COULD YOU THEN PREDICT THAT SOMEONE WHO GETS INTO A FIGHT WITH HIS WIFE IN 1989 WILL THEN KILL HER IN 1994. ONE AREA THAT I DID NOT COVER EARLIER IS THE SEARCHING DONE IN THIS CASE. THEY HAVE SEARCHED EVERYWHERE IN THIS CASE FOR WEAPONS AND/OR CLOTHES, AND I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL BE THAT THEY SEARCHED EVEN IN CHICAGO, IN THE FIELDS AND THE WOODED AREAS IN CHICAGO, ALL UP AND DOWN ROCKINGHAM AND BUNDY AND EVERY PLACE THEY POSSIBLY COULD. THEY WORKED VERY HARD ON THIS CASE BECAUSE IN THEIR RUSH TO JUDGMENT, THEY FIXED ON THIS ONE INDIVIDUAL, AND THAT'S WHAT THEY FOCUSED ON WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY DID. MISS CLARK IN HER OPENING STATEMENT SAID THAT MR. SIMPSON'S TIME WAS UNACCOUNTED FOR FROM 9:45 TO 11:00. I THINK YOU WILL FIND WHEN YOU HEAR THE EVIDENCE THAT WHEN HE SPOKE TO THE POLICE, HIS TIME IS NOT UNACCOUNTED FOR. THE TIME WILL BE ACCOUNTED FOR --

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR --

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I CONCLUDE, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: WHY DON'T YOU APPROACH THE BENCH WITH THE REPORTER, PLEASE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: WE ARE OVER AT SIDEBAR. MISS CLARK, YOU HAD AN OBJECTION.

MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR. COUNSEL DOESN'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THE PROSECUTION IS GOING TO PRESENT THAT STATEMENT. AND COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE CANNOT PRESENT IT BECAUSE IT'S HEARSAY AS TO THE DEFENDANT UNLESS HE CAN TELL THE JURY RIGHT HERE AND NOW MR. SIMPSON WOULD TAKE THE WITNESS STAND AND SO TESTIFY, UNLESS MR. COCHRAN --

MR. COCHRAN: I DON'T HAVE TO TELL THE JURY THAT HERE. YOU WANT TO KNOW EVERYTHING IN MY MIND. JUDGE, IT'S CLEAR -- YOU AGREE WITH THAT. JUDGE, I'M NOT GOING TO GO INTO THE STATEMENT. I'M JUST GOING TO SAY WHAT SHE SAYS, THIS TIME WAS UNACCOUNTED FOR. I'M PRIVILEGED TO SAY HE TALKED TO THE POLICE. ALL I AM SAYING IS, HE TALKED TO THE POLICE AND I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW HIS TIME IS ACCOUNTED FOR.

THE COURT: BUT THE INFERENCE "TALKED TO THE POLICE" IMPLIES THAT STATEMENT IS GOING TO COME IN. YOU CAN SAY THE EVIDENCE IS GOING TO SHOW WE ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO ACCOUNT FOR HIS TIME. IT'S A DIFFERENT STATEMENT THEN.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S ALL I'M TRYING TO SAY. I'M NOT GIVING A STATEMENT, JUDGE.

MS. CLARK: THEN I THINK THE REFERENCE TO THE POLICE SHOULD BE DELETED.

MR. DARDEN: I THINK WE SHOULD --

THE COURT: WE GET ONE GLADIATOR.

MR. COCHRAN: I'LL ADDRESS IT IN THAT FASHION, IF I MIGHT, SO WE CAN TRY TO --

MS. CLARK: ALSO, YOUR HONOR, WHILE WE ARE AT SIDEBAR -- I DID NOT WANT TO INTERRUPT MR. COCHRAN EARLIER, BUT HE MADE A BLATANT MISREPRESENTATION ABOUT THE NATURE OF MY OPENING STATEMENT IN TERMS OF TIME, REPRESENTING TO THE JURY THAT I SAID HE CAME BACK AT 10:15 OR 10:20, 10:30. I NEVER SAID ANY SUCH THING.

MR. COCHRAN: YOU SAID THE KILLING WAS AT 10:15 AND HE HAD TO RUSH BACK.

MS. CLARK: HE GOT BACK -- 10:45 IS WHEN I SAID HE CAME BACK.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S YOUR THEORY, OKAY.

MS. CLARK: THAT'S WHAT I SAID. I'M JUST SAYING -- TELLING THE JURY THE TRUTH.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, COULD WE HAVE THAT CORRECTED?

THE COURT: NO.

MS. CLARK: COUNSEL WAS ALLOWED TO MISREPRESENT MY STATEMENT.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, THEY REMEMBER WHAT YOU SAID AND THEY REMEMBER WHAT HE SAID. THEY KNOW THE DIFFERENCE. IF HE WANTS TO CORRECT THAT, HE'LL PROBABLY GO BACK NOW AND SAY MAYBE I MISSPOKE MYSELF ABOUT THIS.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I CONTINUE, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL. MR. COCHRAN, YOU MAY CONTINUE.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY. NOW, I THINK WHEN WE STOPPED, I WAS ADDRESSING THE ISSUE THAT WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT MR. SIMPSON'S TIME WILL BE ACCOUNTED FOR AND NOT UNACCOUNTED DURING THIS PARTICULAR PERIOD FROM 9:45 TO 11:00 O'CLOCK. IN LOOKING AT MY REMARKS THE LAST TIME I SPOKE TO YOU, I NOTICE THAT I MISSPOKE WHEN I SAID AT ONE POINT THAT DR. CARY MULLINS HAD WON I THINK I SAID THE NOBLE PEACE PRIZE, AND I THINK I MUST HAVE HAD DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING ON THE MIND WHEN I TALKED ABOUT HIM. HE WON THE NOBLE PRIZE FOR CHEMISTRY. BUT WHEN I WAS ADDRESSING YOU ABOUT THE PROSECUTION'S THEORY A FEW MOMENTS AGO IN THIS CASE, I RECALL THAT MISS CLARK HAD INDICATED THAT SHE BELIEVES THE TIME OF DEATH WAS 10:15 BASED UPON THE WAIL OF A DOG. AS TO THE TIME SHE ALLEGES THAT MR. SIMPSON GOT BACK TO THE PREMISES, THAT WILL BE UP TO HER TO PROVE AND I SUPPOSE THAT I SHOULDN'T SPECULATE WITH REGARD TO THAT. NOW, I WOULD LIKE NOW FOR MR. DOUGLAS TO BRING SOME CHARTS UP THAT RELATE TO CERTAIN JURY INSTRUCTIONS WHICH I THINK WILL BE VERY APPROPRIATE FOR YOU TO HAVE IN MIND AS WITH ALL OF THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS THAT THE COURT HAS GIVEN YOU WITH REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, HOW YOU'RE GOING TO GO ABOUT YOUR TASK OF RENDERING A DECISION NOW THAT YOU HAVE AN OVERVIEW OF THIS EVIDENCE. WE WILL HAVE FOUR CHARTS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO STEP DOWN AND --

MR. DOUGLAS: FIRST, YOUR HONOR, EXHIBIT 214.

MR. COCHRAN: NOW, THIS CHART IS 2.20, WHICH IS THE CALJIC -- THE JURY INSTRUCTION. I THINK YOU'VE ALREADY HEARD IT. AND THE REASON I WANTED TO POINT THIS OUT TO YOU AGAIN IS THAT WITH -- AS IN THIS CASE AND IN ALL CRIMINAL CASES, THIS IS KIND OF A GUIDE FOR YOU TO LOOK AT THE WITNESSES WHO GET ON THE WITNESS STAND TO HELP YOU IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT YOU FIND THAT PARTICULAR WITNESS TO BE CREDIBLE OR BELIEVABLE IF YOU WILL. AND THEY SET OUT CERTAIN THINGS THAT YOU MIGHT LOOK AT. YOU CAN LOOK AT THINGS LIKE THE ABILITY OF THE WITNESS TO REMEMBER OR TO COMMUNICATE ANY MATTER ABOUT WHICH THE WITNESS HAS TESTIFIED, CHARACTER AND QUALITY OF THE TESTIMONY OF THAT PARTICULAR WITNESS, THE DEMEANOR, HOW THAT WITNESS ACTS ON THE STAND, THE MANNER OF THAT TESTIMONY, EXISTENCE OR NONEXISTENCE OF A BIAS, DOES THE WITNESS HAVE ANY INTEREST OR BIAS IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE YOU LOOK AT. SO ATTITUDE OF THE WITNESS TOWARDS THIS ACTION WILL BE THINGS THAT YOU WILL LOOK AT. AND THE COURT HAS READ THIS TO YOU. THE CHARACTER OF THE WITNESS FOR HONESTY OR TRUTHFULNESS OR ANY STATEMENT PREVIOUSLY MADE OR WHATEVER. THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT I WOULD ASK YOU TO USE WITH REGARD TO REALLY TO ALL WITNESSES CALLED BY THE PROSECUTION OR THE DEFENSE. REMEMBER, NO SIDE HAS A CLAIM TO THE TRUTH IN THIS CASE AS WE GO ABOUT THIS SEARCH FOR TRUTH WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT. THE NEXT JURY INSTRUCTION, AND THAT IS NUMBER -- MR. DOUGLAS, THE NUMBER? WE WILL GET THE NUMBER, YOUR HONOR.

MR. DOUGLAS: 215.

MR. COCHRAN: NUMBER 215. AND NUMBER 215 IS THE SO-CALLED ALIBI INSTRUCTION. AND YOU WILL RECALL THAT I ASKED YOU IN VOIR DIRE A LONG TIME AGO THAT YOU WOULD NOT PUT ANY BAD CONNOTATION ON THE TERM "ALIBI" IF THAT'S WHAT THE LAW CALLED IT. THAT NO MATTER WHO IS CHARGED WITH A PARTICULAR OFFENSE, IF YOU WERE SOMEPLACE ELSE, CAN PRODUCE EVIDENCE THAT YOU WERE SOMEPLACE ELSE, THE LAW CALLS THAT AN ALIBI. AND ESSENTIALLY THIS INSTRUCTION SAYS THAT: THE DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE -- ACTUALLY WE'LL BE INTRODUCING OR EXPECT TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SHOWING THAT HE WAS NOT PRESENT AT THE TIME AND PLACE OF THE COMMISSION OF THE ALLEGED CRIMES IN THIS CASE FOR WHICH HE'S HERE ON TRIAL.

"IF, AFTER CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE EVIDENCE, YOU HAVE A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS PRESENT AT THE TIME THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED, YOU MUST FIND HIM NOT GUILTY." NOW, AGAIN, THIS INSTRUCTION IS IMPORTANT AS ALL THE REST. BUT THE ALIBI INSTRUCTION, IF WE ESTABLISH THE ALIBI TO YOUR SATISFACTION, HE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO AN ACQUITTAL UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES. I WOULD LIKE YOU TO THINK ABOUT THAT IN THE COMING MONTHS AS YOU LISTEN TO THIS EVIDENCE.

MR. DOUGLAS: EXHIBIT 216.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, MR. DOUGLAS. YOU WILL RECALL ALL THE EXAMPLES WE ASKED DURING VOIR DIRE AGAIN REGARDING DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. WELL, IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, THIS IS A CASE THAT WILL REST PRIMARILY ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. AND YOU KNOW WHAT THAT EVIDENCE IS. AND THERE'S A JURY INSTRUCTION THAT APPLIES TO THAT THAT'S EXTREMELY APPROPRIATE, AND I THINK -- I APPLAUD JUDGE ITO FOR HAVING GIVEN YOU THIS INSTRUCTION EARLY ON BECAUSE I THINK IT'S VERY, VERY IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO BE AWARE OF THIS AS YOU CONSIDER THIS EVIDENCE, ESPECIALLY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND HOW IT WILL BE APPLIED AT THE VERY END OF THIS PARTICULAR CASE. THIS IS PART OF THAT INSTRUCTION, AND THE RELEVANT PORTIONS WOULD BE AS FOLLOWS, THAT:

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

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

"ALSO, IF THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AS TO ANY PARTICULAR COUNT --" THERE ARE TWO COUNTS HERE.

"-- SUSCEPTIBLE TO TWO REASONABLE INTERPRETATIONS, ONE OF WHICH POINTS TO THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT AND THE OTHER TO HIS INNOCENCE, YOU MUST ADOPT THAT INTERPRETATION WHICH POINTS TO THE DEFENDANT'S INNOCENCE AND REJECT THAT INTERPRETATION WHICH POINTS TO HIS GUILT." SO IF AFTER YOU LISTEN TO THIS EVIDENCE, AS WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW, THAT YOU HAVE A BELIEF THAT MR. SIMPSON IS NOT OR DID NOT GO BACK OVER TO THAT LOCATION, GO TO THE LOCATION, THAT HE WAS NEVER BUNDY -- STRIKE THAT -- THAT HIS BRONCO NEVER LEFT THE PREMISES THAT NIGHT --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS ALL ARGUMENT.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, LET ME PHRASE IT A DIFFERENT WAY.

THE COURT: PLEASE.

MS. CLARK: THE BALANCE OF THE INSTRUCTION WAS NOT READ TO THE JURY.

MR. COCHRAN: I WAS GOING TO GET TO THAT. IF AFTER YOU'VE HEARD ALL THE EVIDENCE -- AND YOU KNOW WHAT CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS -- YOU WILL THEN BE IN A POSITION TO MAKE A JUDGMENT AS TO WHETHER IT APPLIES TO THIS PARTICULAR POINT, WITHOUT ARGUING WHAT IT IS NOW. WE'LL HAVE A CHANCE TO ARGUE IT AT A LATER TIME. THE POINT I WANTED TO MAKE AT THIS POINT IS FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS INSTRUCTION WOULD BE AS THE COURT HAS. AND LASTLY, AS MISS CLARK POINTED OUT:

"IF ON THE OTHER HAND, ONE INTERPRETATION OF SUCH EVIDENCE APPEARS TO YOU TO BE REASONABLE AND THE OTHER INTERPRETATION TO BE UNREASONABLE, YOU MUST ACCEPT THE REASONABLE INTERPRETATION AND REJECT THE UNREASONABLE." IT SEEMS REASONABLE, DOESN'T IT? THE POINT IS THAT YOU, NO ONE ELSE, WILL BE THE SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE JUDGES OF THE FACTS AND THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. THAT'S A DETERMINATION THAT YOU MUST MAKE, AND NO ONE CAN TELL YOU WHAT TO MAKE IN THAT REGARD. AND EACH OF YOU IN VOIR DIRE HAS PROMISED TO GIVE US YOUR INDIVIDUAL OPINION IN DOING THAT. AND THE LAST JURY INSTRUCTION --

MR. DOUGLAS: EXHIBIT 217, YOUR HONOR.

MR. COCHRAN: -- IS THE SO-CALLED PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, REASONABLE DOUBT, BURDEN OF PROOF INSTRUCTION. IT'S THE LAST INSTRUCTION I WANT TO LEAVE WITH YOU TODAY.

"A DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL ACTION IS PRESUMED TO BE INNOCENT UNTIL THE CONTRARY IS PROVED AND IN A CASE OF REASONABLE DOUBT WHETHER HIS GUILT IS SATISFACTORILY SHOWN, HE IS ENTITLED TO A VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY. THIS PRESUMPTION OF COURSE," AS YOU KNOW, "PLACES UPON THE PEOPLE THE BURDEN OF PROVING HIM GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT." AND:

"REASONABLE DOUBT HAS BEEN DEFINED AS FOLLOWS: IT IS NOT A MERE POSSIBLE OR IMAGINARY DOUBT BECAUSE EVERYTHING RELATING TO HUMAN AFFAIRS DEPENDING UPON -- THAT EVERYTHING RELATED TO HUMAN AFFAIRS IS OPEN TO SOME POSSIBLE OR IMAGINARY DOUBT. IT IS THAT STATE OF THE CASE WHERE AFTER THE ENTIRE COMPARISON AND CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE EVIDENCE LEAVES THE MINDS OF THE JURORS IN THAT CONDITION THAT THEY CANNOT SAY THEY FEEL AN ABIDING CONVICTION OF THE TRUTH OF THE CHARGE." NOW, THAT'S WHAT REASONABLE DOUBT IS IN THIS CASE, IN EVERY CASE. AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU AGAIN WERE AWARE OF THAT AS YOU LISTEN TO THIS CASE. THIS IS A MURDER CASE WITH TWO CHARGES, TWO COUNTS. THIS IS NOT A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASE. NOW, AS WE CONCLUDE FINALLY, AS I PROMISED YOU TODAY, I BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT -- MAY WE APPROACH, YOUR HONOR? MAY WE APPROACH?

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: WE ARE AT SIDEBAR. MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: I WAS GOING TO INDICATE THAT THERE WILL BE EVIDENCE OF SUSPICIOUS THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED TO MR. SIMPSON IN THE MONTH BEFORE THIS INCIDENT THAT I WAS GOING TO ALLUDE TO BRIEFLY NOW. I THOUGHT I WOULD TELL COUNSEL WHAT IT WAS. AND THEY ARE, ON MAY 8, ON HIS WAY DOWN TO ORANGE COUNTY, HE WAS SURROUNDED BY THREE DIFFERENT CARS. ONE PULLED BEHIND HIM, ONE PULLED RIGHT BESIDE, ONE PULLED IN FRONT OF HIM IN AN EFFORT HE THOUGHT TO CARJACK HIM. BUT HE HELD UP HIS CELLULAR PHONE AND FINALLY THESE PEOPLE SPED AWAY. THAT ON JUNE 11TH, AFTER BEING AT A CHARITABLE DINNER, HE CAME HOME AFTER HAVING HIS ALARM OFF, AND HE -- LEAVING WITH HIS ALARM OFF, HE FOUND HIS KITCHEN DOOR OPEN. AND FOR A CONSIDERABLE PERIOD OF TIME, HE HAD BEEN FINDING -- HAD BEEN RECEIVING NUMEROUS PHONE CALLS GENERALLY IN SPANISH OR A FOREIGN LANGUAGE, SO MUCH SO THAT ON JUNE 2ND, HE HAD REQUESTED AND HAD ARRANGED TO HAVE THIS STAR 69 PUT ON HIS PHONE THERE AT THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE SO YOU CAN FIND OUT WHO'S CALLING YOU. THESE ITEMS, I WAS GOING TO LAUNCH INTO THAT JUST BRIEFLY. I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT --

MS. CLARK: DOES COUNSEL INTEND TO PROVE ANY OF THE ABOVE WITHOUT CALLING MR. SIMPSON?

MR. COCHRAN: WE WILL BE CALLING KATHY RANDA, WHO IS ON EVERYBODY'S WITNESS LIST. SHE IS THE ONE WHO IN FACT ORDERED THE STAR 69. WITH REGARD TO THE INCIDENT DOWN IN ORANGE COUNTY, HE WENT ON DOWN THERE, TOLD YOUR STAR WITNESSES, THE BROWN'S, ABOUT HAVING BEEN ALMOST ABDUCTED OR CARJACKED.

MS. CLARK: YOU ARE SAYING --

MR. COCHRAN: LET ME FINISH -- CARJACKED OR -- AND WITH REGARD TO THE INCIDENT ON JUNE 11TH, WHEN HE CAME HOME, HIS CHILDREN -- BECAUSE HE TALKED TO EVERYBODY ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE DOOR OF THE KITCHEN WAS OPEN, SO THE CHILDREN ARE ALSO AWARE OF IT.

MS. CLARK: MORE HEARSAY.

THE COURT: IF THE CHILDREN ARE INDEPENDENTLY AWARE OF IT --

MR. COCHRAN: THEY ARE INDEPENDENTLY AWARE.

THE COURT: -- OTHER THAN STATEMENTS BY THE DEFENDANT, THEY CAN TESTIFY TO THE FACT OF -- WELL, MAYBE.

MR. DARDEN: WHERE IS THE DISCOVERY ON THAT?

MS. CLARK: WHERE IS THE DISCOVERY ON THAT?

MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE NO REPORT ON THAT.

MS. CLARK: ON WHAT THE KIDS SAW?

MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE NO REPORT ON THAT. I CAN TELL YOU WHAT THESE KIDS SAW, BUT I DON'T HAVE ANY DISCOVERY ON THAT.

MS. CLARK: WHY NOT?

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, WE LIVE IN A DIFFERENT WORLD. I DON'T HAVE DISCOVERY.

THE COURT: HOW ARE YOU GOING TO GET IN UNLESS YOUR CLIENT TESTIFIES ABOUT THE CARJACKING BECAUSE IT'S NOT AN ADMISSION.

MR. COCHRAN: THE CARJACKING I THINK --

THE COURT: THEY WOULD HAVE TO OFFER IT.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, HE DID APPROACH SOMEBODY AND TALK ABOUT IT, BUT I'M NOT SURE I CAN GET THAT PERSON -- AT A MALL IN ORANGE COUNTY. BUT I'M NOT SURE I CAN GET THAT PERSON.

THE COURT: WHY DON'T YOU STAY AWAY FROM THAT STUFF.

MR. DARDEN: STAY AWAY FROM ALL OF IT.

THE COURT: UNLESS YOU CAN --

MR. COCHRAN: EVEN ABOUT THE PHONE?

THE COURT: THE PHONE, STAR 69, KATHY RANDA, IF SHE'S THE ONE THAT ACTUALLY ORDERED THAT, SHE COULD TESTIFY TO THAT.

MS. CLARK: BUT SHE CAN'T TESTIFY TO WHY BECAUSE IT'S IRRELEVANT.

MR. COCHRAN: IT'S NOT IRRELEVANT.

THE COURT: SHE CAN TESTIFY THAT AT MR. SIMPSON'S REQUEST, IT GOT PUT ON THE PHONE. THAT'S ALL SHE CAN TESTIFY TO.

MS. CLARK: ACTUALLY, SHE CAN'T TESTIFY, YOUR HONOR, TO THE FACT IT WAS MR. SIMPSON'S REQUEST. THAT'S HEARSAY.

THE COURT: I'M SURE SHE CAN.

MS. CLARK: NO. WHAT I MEAN IS --

THE COURT: THERE'S AN EXCEPTION BECAUSE IT EXPLAINS WHY YOU DID SOMETHING, NON-HEARSAY PURPOSE.

MS. CLARK: RIGHT. BUT IN THAT CONTEXT THOUGH, WOULD SHE BE PERMITTED TO TESTIFY WHAT HE TOLD HER, AS TO --

THE COURT: NO.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. WE EXPECT ALSO THAT THERE WILL BE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY THAT A SHORT TIME BEFORE MR. SIMPSON WENT TO CHICAGO, ON SUNDAY EVENING, JUNE 12TH, I THINK ON OR ABOUT JUNE 2ND, HIS SECRETARY AT HIS REQUEST ORDERED THE STAR 69 FEATURE AT HIS REQUEST ON HIS PHONE, AND WE EXPECT THERE WILL BE ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY ABOUT THAT AND AS TO WHY THAT WAS. IN SUMMARY, AS YOU THEN LOOK AT ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, WE EXPECT THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT O.J. SIMPSON, AS YOU SEE HIM THERE, IS NOT A PERFECT HUMAN BEING. HE, LIKE ALL OF US, HAS MADE MISTAKES. OF COURSE, WE KNOW THERE'S ONLY ONE PERFECT PERSON WHO EVER WALKED THE EARTH. WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW HE'S NOT GUILTY OF THESE HORRIBLE CRIMES, THAT HE HAS BEEN BLESSED BOUNTIFULLY BY GOD AND HE'S SHARED HIS LARGESSE AND BLESSINGS WITH MANY, MANY PEOPLE; THAT IN THIS INSTANCE, THE PROSECUTOR'S THEORY THAT THERE WAS ONLY ONE MURDERER IS JUST A THEORY. WE EXPECT TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THERE WAS MORE THAN ONE KILLER, THAT THE PROSECUTOR'S THEORY WILL BE OVERCOME BY THE FACTS WHICH WE PRESENT. WE ALSO EXPECT THAT THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THE REASON THE PROSECUTION MAINTAINS THERE'S ONLY ONE KILLER IS THAT MR. SIMPSON -- WHO THEY WANT TO PORTRAY AS A STALKER, AND STALKERS DON'T COME IN PAIRS. IT COULD ONLY BE ONE PERSON UNDER THAT SCENARIO. THAT EX-HUSBANDS WHO ARE STALKERS DON'T COME IN PAIRS AND THAT'S WHY THEY'RE WEDDED TO THIS ONE MURDERER THEORY, EVEN CONTRARY TO WHAT THEIR OWN CORONER MAY VERY WELL INDICATE. I'VE SHARED WITH YOU ALSO THE FACT OF MR. GOLDMAN'S JOURNEY THAT EVENING WHEN HE CHECKED OUT AND WENT HOME, CHANGED CLOTHES AND EVERYTHING. SO I WILL NOT BELABOR THAT. EXPECT THERE WILL BE EVIDENCE ABOUT HOW YOU GET INTO 875 SOUTH BUNDY, WHEN ONE COMES UP AND RINGS THE BELL OR WHATEVER AND HOW YOU GET IN FROM THE HOUSE OR WHETHER THAT'S POSSIBLE, WHETHER SOMEBODY HAS TO LET YOU IN OR HOW YOU GET IN THE PARTICULAR RESIDENCE. I ALREADY TOLD YOU, WE EXPECT THERE WILL BE EVIDENCE OF THE SIZE OF THIS AREA. AND I THINK MISS CLARK HAS INDICATED AND I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW IT'S A VERY, VERY SMALL AREA, GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES. WE WILL SHOW THAT THE POLICE WHO CAME OVER TO BUNDY YOU WILL SEE WALKING THROUGH THAT SCENE WENT IN THAT HOUSE AND DIDN'T TAKE ONE PICTURE, PICTURE. THEY WENT IN THE HOUSE, THAT THEY FOUND CANDLES BURNING AND VARIOUS OTHER THINGS, THAT THE INVESTIGATION INSIDE THAT HOUSE WAS SHODDY AND SCARCE IF AT ALL UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. AND SO WHEN THIS CASE -- AS WITH MANY CASES, YOU WILL RECALL THAT WE TALKED TO YOU A LOT ABOUT TRUTH AND YOUR COMMON SENSE. DURING VOIR DIRE, I THINK WE -- ALL OF US TOLD YOU THAT WE WANTED YOU TO USE YOUR COLLECTIVE COMMON SENSE AND DON'T LEAVE IT OUTSIDE IN THE HALLWAY, TO BRING IT IN AND APPLY IT TO THE FACTS OF THIS PARTICULAR CASE. IN APPLYING THAT COMMON SENSE, AS I INDICATED TO YOU, YOU WILL LOOK AND YOU WILL BE ABLE TO SEE THIS SMALL AREA. YOU WILL SEE THE FIGHT THAT MR. GOLDMAN PUT UP. YOU WILL SEE THE INJURIES THAT HE SUSTAINED. YOU WILL HEAR THE TESTIMONY ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF BLOOD TO BE EXPECTED ON THE PERPETRATOR. YOU HAVE SEEN MR. SIMPSON'S BODY, THE LACK OF SCRATCHES THEREON. YOU WILL SEE AND YOUR COMMON SENSE WILL ADDRESS BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE THE ISSUE OF WHETHER ONE PERSON COULD KILL TWO PEOPLE UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WITHOUT HEARING SCREAMING AND A LOT OF RUNNING AND ALL SORT OF THINGS. WE EXPECT HOPEFULLY THAT THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE DEFENSE WILL HELP TO PROVIDE SOME ANSWERS TO THESE COMMON-SENSE QUESTIONS. WE EXPECT ALSO THAT YOU WILL HEAR FROM A WITNESS BY THE NAME OF PAULA BARBIERI. BOTH SIDES ARE AWARE OF HER. AND SHE WILL TESTIFY ABOUT HER RELATIONSHIP WITH MR. O.J. SIMPSON, SPECIFICALLY, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, BETWEEN THE PERIOD MAY OF 1992 AND MAY OF 1993 AND MAY OF 1994 TO THE PRESENT. THIS CASE REALLY BOILS DOWN TO A WHO DONE IT, THIS CASE IS ABOUT. IT'S NOT ABOUT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OR WHATEVER. IT'S ABOUT WHO KILLED THESE TWO PEOPLE AND THESE PARTICULAR HORRIBLE CRIMES. THE PROSECUTION WILL PROBABLY START OFF WITH DOMESTIC DISCORD EVIDENCE. AND THAT WITH ALL THE EVIDENCE, WE ASK YOU TO KEEP AN OPEN MIND. YOU KNOW THE CIRCUMSTANCES. YOU KNOW THERE ARE GENERALLY TWO SIDES TO EVERY SITUATION. WE CANNOT CALL OUR WITNESSES UNTIL WE GET OUR TIME IN THE PART OF THE CASE WHEN IT'S OUR TIME TO PUT THE WITNESSES ON. THAT'S WHY I'VE SPENT SO MUCH TIME IN THIS OPENING STATEMENT TO TRY TO DETAIL FOR YOU WHAT WE EXPECT THE EVIDENCE TO BE AND WHAT WE EXPECT TO SHOW. YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE FACT THAT SOMEONE HAS AN ALTERCATION WITH ONE'S WIFE IN 1989 IS NOT CAPABLE OF BEING PREDICTED WHETHER THAT PERSON WOULD KILL HER OR BE INVOLVED IN ANY OTHER FIGHTS OR WHATEVER.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. COCHRAN: AND SO I STARTED OFF BY INDICATING TO YOU THAT I THOUGHT THIS CASE WOULD BE A CASE WHERE WE WOULD ESTABLISH THERE WAS A RUSH TO JUDGMENT BY THE PROSECUTION, AND THEY WOULD HAVE THEORIES AND SPECULATION AND WE WOULD HAVE THE FACTS.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THIS IS ARGUMENT.

THE COURT: I ASSUME THESE ARE THE CONCLUDING REMARKS.

MR. COCHRAN: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU. THEY WOULD HAVE THEORIES AND SPECULATION AND WE WOULD HAVE THE FACTS.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I'M JUST TRYING TO CONCLUDE WHAT I WAS SAYING WHEN SHE INTERRUPTED ME. IN THIS INSTANCE, IN THIS CASE, BOTH SIDES ARE INTERESTED IN THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH. THAT'S WHAT A TRIAL REALLY IS. IT'S A JOURNEY FOR TRUTH, FOR YOU TO DETERMINE THE TRUE FACTS OF WHAT HAPPENED ON JUNE 12TH, 1994. WE SPENT A GREAT AMOUNT OF TIME IN SELECTING EACH OF YOU FOR THIS TASK BECAUSE IT WILL BE A VERY SIGNIFICANT TASK. AND IN TRUTH, I'M ALWAYS REMINDED OF SOMETHING THAT JAMES RUSSELL LOWELL SAID, THAT:

"TRUTH FOREVER ON THE SCAFFOLD WRONG FOREVER ON THE THRONE, YET THAT SCAFFOLD SWAYS THE FUTURE AND BEYOND THE DIM UNKNOWN STANDETH GOD WITHIN THE SHADOWS KEEPING WATCH ABOVE HIS OWN." IN THIS CASE, GOD KNOWS WHAT HAPPENED ON JUNE 12TH.

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

MS. CLARK: THIS IS ARGUMENT.

MR. COCHRAN: IT'S NOT ARGUMENT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: IT'S A CLOSING COMMENT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

MR. COCHRAN: GOD KNOWS WHAT HAPPENED ON JUNE 12TH, 1994. AND WE HOPE AFTER YOU'VE HEARD ALL THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, YOU CAN MAKE A RATIONAL DECISION AND YOU TOO WILL KNOW WHAT HAPPENED, AND YOU WILL KNOW THAT O.J. SIMPSON --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: HE CAN SAY THAT'S WHAT HE INTENDS TO PROVE, COUNSEL. HE CAN SAY THAT.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. YOU WILL KNOW THAT THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT O.J. SIMPSON, THAT MAN PICTURED OVER THERE, ON JUNE 12TH DID NOT KILL HIS WIFE, DID NOT KILL RONALD GOLDMAN, AND HE IS ENTITLED TO AN ACQUITTAL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR ATTENTION. MAY BE THE LONGEST OPENING STATEMENT IN THE HISTORY OF THIS BUILDING. I APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE AND THE FACT THAT YOU TOOK THE TIME TO LISTEN. THANK YOU.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. DEPUTY MAGNERA, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A BREAK. LET ME SEE COUNSEL WITHOUT THE REPORTER BEFORE WE DO THAT THOUGH.

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, WE NEED -- LADIES AND GENTLEMEN -- EXCUSE ME. MR. DOUGLAS, CAN YOU GRAB THAT FOR ME, PLEASE? ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE AT THAT PART OF THE TRIAL WHERE WE WILL NOW THIS AFTERNOON START THE PRESENTATION OF THE WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE TO YOU. AS I MENTIONED TO YOU, BEFORE WE ACTUALLY START THE PRESENTATION OF WITNESSES, WE NEED TO DO A LITTLE MOVING AROUND OF MATERIALS AND THINGS HERE IN THE COURTROOM. WE ARE GOING TO DO THAT. I EXPECT TO START WITH THE WITNESSES IN ABOUT HALF AN HOUR. SO I AM GOING TO EXCUSE YOU TO GO BACK UP TO THE LOUNGE. PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITION TO YOU; DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONG YOURSELVES, FORM ANY OPINIONS, DON'T TALK TO ANYBODY ABOUT IT, DON'T LET ANYBODY TALK TO YOU. SEE YOU BACK HERE IN ABOUT 30 MINUTES. ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO REMAIN.

(RECESS.)

THE COURT: WE DO NEED TO GO ON THE RECORD FIRST? MADAM REPORTER, ARE YOU READY TO GO?

REPORTER OLSON: YES.

THE COURT: DEPUTY MAGNERA, YOU CAN LET THE PUBLIC BACK IN.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE IT QUIET IN THE COURTROOM, PLEASE. ALL RIGHT. BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. MISS CLARK, MR. DARDEN. IS THERE AN OFFER REGARDING THE SUBSTANCE OF REOPENING OPENING STATEMENT?

MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR, THERE IS. THANK YOU. THE PEOPLE WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE RIGHT TO ADDRESS THE JURY WITH RESPECT TO, NO. 1, MARY ANNE GERCHAS.

THE COURT: WHAT DO YOU PROPOSE TO SAY -- WHAT WOULD YOU MENTION IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT REGARDING MISS GERCHAS?

MS. CLARK: COUNSEL FAILED TO GIVE US NOTICE THAT HE INTENDED TO CALL THIS WITNESS. DUE TO THE FACT THAT HE WILLFULLY WITHHELD THE INFORMATION, WE WERE UNABLE TO INVESTIGATE HER, BUT AS OF THIS DATE, IN THE LAST THREE DAYS, OUR INVESTIGATION HAS UNCOVERED THE FOLLOWING, AND I BELIEVE MR. DARDEN HAS ALREADY INDICATED TO THE COURT WHAT THAT WAS: THE $24,000 DEBT OWED TO THE MARRIOTT FOR STAYING AT THE HOTEL ON A BAD CREDIT CARD, THE TWENTY SOME ODD LAWSUITS PENDING AGAINST HER.

MS. LEWIS: 34.

MS. CLARK: 34, THANK YOU. 34 LAWSUITS PENDING AGAINST HER, HER FAILURE TO MAKE -- HER COMPLETE FAILURE TO MAKE MENTION OF THE ALLEGED OBSERVATIONS SHE MADE TO ANYONE FOR A PERIOD OF AT LEAST TWO TO THREE WEEKS AFTER THE MURDERS, THE FACT THAT SHE IS AN AVID O.J. FAN, HAS COLLECTED EVERYTHING CONNECTED WITH THIS CASE, ESPECIALLY ALL TABLOIDS, AND -- MAY I HAVE ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?

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

MS. CLARK: THIS INFORMATION IS COMING AT US SO QUICKLY IT IS HARD TO REMEMBER ALL OF IT. ESPECIALLY, I WANT TO APOLOGIZE TO THE COURT I HAD ABOUT THREE HOURS SLEEP BECAUSE OF CHILD PROBLEMS. THEY DIDN'T WANT TO SLEEP AND THEREFORE I DON'T GET TO EITHER. THE OTHER FACT IS THAT SHE TOLD OTHERS THAT SHE WAS NOT IN FACT LOOKING FOR A CONDOMINIUM IN THAT LOCATION THAT NIGHT, AND TOLD OTHERS OF THAT FACT, THAT SHE HAD NOT BEEN THERE. ALSO, THAT THERE ARE -- SHE HAS THREE VARIATIONS TO HER NAME AND IT LOOKS LIKE THREE DIFFERENT SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS. WITH RESPECT TO ROSA LOPEZ, I WOULD INDICATE TO THE COURT THAT ROSA LOPEZ GAVE -- THE STATEMENT EVEN SHE GAVE TO COUNSEL DOES NOT REFLECT THAT SHE GAVE ANY OF THE OBSERVATIONS CONCERNING THE BRONCO TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, YET THAT IS WHAT COUNSEL REPRESENTED; THEREFORE, WE DO NOT HAVE DISCOVERY OF THIS FURTHER STATEMENT THAT COUNSEL MUST BE IN POSSESSION OF. HER STATEMENT REFLECTS ONLY THAT SHE TOLD DETECTIVE FUHRMAN SHE HEARD SOME NOISES THAT NIGHT. THAT IS ALL SHE SAID. COUNSEL'S STATEMENT INDICATES QUITE DIFFERENTLY, THAT SHE HAD INDICATED TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN SHE HAD SEEN THE BRONCO THERE AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION AT 10:15. THAT IS NOT WHAT THE STATEMENT REFLECTS. AND WE WOULD ASK LEAVE OF THE COURT TO ADDRESS THE JURY WITH RESPECT TO ROSA LOPEZ' PRIOR STATEMENTS OF ANIMOSITY AND BIAS AGAINST NICOLE, THAT SHE HATED NICOLE. SHE MADE STATEMENTS TO OTHERS INDICATING THAT SHE LOVED O.J. AND WOULD DO ANYTHING FOR HIM AND WOULD TESTIFY TO ANYTHING FOR HIM. FURTHERMORE, THAT SHE MADE OTHER STATEMENTS TO OTHER PARTIES, INDICATING THAT SHE ALSO HAD NO AWARENESS OF ANY UNUSUAL EVENTS THAT TRANSPIRED THAT NIGHT AND THAT -- AND THAT HER STORY WAS SO INCREDIBLE THAT WHEN SHE ATTEMPTED TO SELL IT TO THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER THEY DECLINED TO PRINT IT. AND THAT WE WOULD HAVE TOLD THE JURY ABOUT ALL OF THESE THINGS, ABOUT THESE WITNESSES, HAD WE BEEN --

THE COURT: SO WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A TRIAL ABOUT THE CREDIBILITY OF THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER?

MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S FINE.

MS. CLARK: WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A TRIAL ABOUT THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES WHO ARE SO UNCREDIBLE THAT EVEN THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER WOULD NOT USE THEIR STORY.

THE COURT: THAT IS HARD TO BELIEVE.

MS. CLARK: THAT TELLS YOU HOW -- IT CERTAINLY TELLS THE COURT HOW UNCREDIBLE THAT WITNESS IS IF EVEN THEY DECLINED TO USE IT. AND THAT WE WOULD HAVE INFORMED THE JURY OF THOSE WITNESSES AND OF THOSE FACTS BUT WE WERE UNABLE TO DO SO BECAUSE COUNSEL WILLFULLY WITHHELD THEM. THIRDLY, WITH RESPECT TO THE RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS, THE CHRONIC AND ACUTE PHASE AS DESCRIBED BY COUNSEL, AGAIN THESE WITNESSES WERE NOT DISCLOSED TO US AND NO STATEMENTS WERE DISCLOSED TO US INDICATIVE OF THE POSSIBILITY THAT THEY WOULD BE CALLED FOR THE PURPOSES OUTLINED BY COUNSEL, AND HAD WE KNOWN, WE WOULD HAVE SHOWN THEM THE VIDEOTAPE OF THE WORKOUT TAPE MADE BY THE DEFENDANT TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE MURDERS AND WE WOULD LIKE TO SHOW THEM SOME OF THE OUTTAKES OF THAT VIDEOTAPE. AND FINALLY, TO CORRECT COUNSEL'S ENTIRELY MISLEADING -- MISREPRESENTATIVE STATEMENTS CONCERNING THE EAP MARKERS ON THE VICTIM'S BLOOD AND VICTIM'S THIGH AND ON HER NAILS. COUNSEL MISREPRESENTED THE NATURE OF THE REPORT TO THE JURY IN A MANNER THAT IS SO CONFUSING AND MISLEADING THAT IF WE HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THAT TESTIMONY IS FORTHCOMING, THE JURY WILL BE HOPELESSLY LOST. THE PROBLEM IS THAT WE HAVE A DIAMETRIC OPPOSITION BETWEEN THE REPORT AND WHAT WAS ACTUALLY SAID TO THE JURY BY MR. COCHRAN. THE REPORT INDICATED THAT THE B TYPE THAT CAME UP ON EAP MARKER WAS INCONSISTENT WITH ANY OF THE THREE PARTIES AND WENT ON TO STATE, WHICH IS WHAT MR. COCHRAN NEVER LET THE JURY KNOW, THAT THAT DID NOT RULE OUT NICOLE SIMPSON AS A POSSIBLE SOURCE BECAUSE HER TYPE BEING A BA, THIS IS A VERY LABILE MARKER, WHICH MEANS THAT IN ESSENCE THE A FALLS OFF WHEN THERE IS DEGRADATION, THAT THERE WAS IN FACT EVIDENCE OF DEGRADATION OF THIS BLOOD BECAUSE HER HAND WAS FOUND CLUTCHING HER NECK UNDER HER BODY WHERE THE BLOOD WAS WARM, VERY WET AND VERY SUBJECT TO DEGRADATION IN A RAPID MANNER, WHICH IS WHAT CAUSED THE DEGRADATION FROM BA TO B AND THAT IS WHAT THE REPORT REFLECTS. AND MOREOVER, COUNSEL DIRECTLY MISREPRESENTED THE CONCLUSION OF THE EXPERT WITH RESPECT TO THE BLOOD ON THE THIGH. THAT BLOOD INDICATED A FAINT A ACTIVITY. IT WAS A FAINT A ACTIVITY THAT IS INDICATIVE OF THE POSSIBILITY THAT IT WAS HER BLOOD, IT WAS CONSISTENT WITH HER, AND SO THE CONCLUSION WAS INCONCLUSIVE, NOT THAT IT WAS NOT CONSISTENT WITH HER AT ALL. SO RIGHT NOW THE JURY IS SITTING THERE HAVING BEEN TOTALLY MISLED AS TO THE NATURE OF THE FINDINGS, NOT ONLY THAT, AND MISLED AS TO THE CONTENTS OF THE REPORT BECAUSE COUNSEL EXCERPTED PORTIONS UNFAIRLY. I UNDERSTAND COUNSEL DOESN'T HAVE TO READ THE WHOLE REPORT, BUT IT SHOULD BE READ WITH RESPECT TO ALL OF THE CONCLUSIONS, NOT JUST THE ONE THAT SUITS COUNSEL WITH RESPECT TO THIS PARTICULAR ITEM OF EVIDENCE, AND THAT IS WHAT WAS UNFAIR. WE WOULD ASK LEAVE OF THE COURT TO INFORM THE JURY OF THE FACT THAT THEY WERE MISLED, THAT THE REPORT ACTUALLY STATES AS FOLLOWS, AND TO HIGHLIGHT ALL OF THE PORTIONS. AT THIS POINT, YOUR HONOR, COUNSEL'S STATEMENTS TO THE JURY HAVE CAUSED, BECAUSE OF THE NATIONAL TELEVISED NATURE OF THIS TRIAL, THE WHOLE COUNTRY HAS BEEN MISLED AS TO THE TRUTH. THE TRUTH HAS BEEN HIDDEN, HAS BEEN OBSCURED BY COUNSEL WILLFULLY. COUNSELS KNOWS THE TRUTH, COUNSEL KNOWS WHAT WE HAVE IN THIS BLOOD, COUNSEL KNOWS THAT THE PGM SUBTYPING HAS SHOWN THAT IT IS HER BLOOD, AND COUNSEL KNOWS THAT TESTS ARE ONGOING, THAT IT WILL FURTHER ESTABLISH THAT IT IS HER BLOOD UNDER HER NAILS AND ON HER THIGH, BUT WE HAVE A WHOLE NATION HOW WHO HAS BEEN MISLED AS TO THE NATURE OF THIS EVIDENCE. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, THAT THIS JURY HAS BEEN WILLFULLY MISLED AND BEEN MADE TO BELIEVE THAT THE CONCLUSIONS ARE DIAMETRICALLY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THEY REALLY WERE. SO WE WOULD ASK LEAVE OF THE COURT TO ADDRESS THE JURY WITH RESPECT TO THAT ITEM AS WELL.

THE COURT: LET ME ASK YOU THIS, MISS CLARK. LET'S TAKE IT FROM THE TOP. AS TO MISS GERCHAS, THERE IS THE CLAIM OF RIGHT TO REOPEN SINCE THERE WAS NO NOTICE GIVEN OF THIS PERSON'S STATEMENT. THIS IS THE PERSON WHO IS ALLEGED TO HAVE SEEN FOUR INDIVIDUALS IN THE VICINITY LEAVING THE SCENE ROUGHLY AT A TIME CONSISTENT WITH THIS PARTICULAR CRIME, SO OBVIOUSLY THIS IS AN IMPORTANT WITNESS IF THIS TESTIMONY PANS OUT. WHAT IN YOUR OFFER OF PROOF DO YOU BELIEVE SHOWS LACK OF CREDIBILITY AND WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE AS IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE? I MEAN, YOU HAVE GIVEN ME THE FACT THAT SOMEBODY HAS 34 PENDING LAWSUITS AGAINST THEM DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THEY ARE NOT A CREDIBLE PERSON. I MEAN, THEY COULD BE ALL CAR CRASHES FOR ALL WE KNOW. I DON'T KNOW.

MS. CLARK: RIGHT.

THE COURT: I MEAN, OTHER STATEMENTS THAT ARE INCONSISTENT, THAT SORT OF THING. I MEAN, THAT IS A DIFFERENT ISSUE. IT HAS TO GO DIRECTLY TO CREDIBILITY, OTHER BAD ACTS.

MS. CLARK: YES. I APPRECIATE THAT, YOUR HONOR. WITH RESPECT TO THOSE LAWSUITS, WE WILL BE CALLING WITNESSES TO TESTIFY TO THE FACT THAT THEY WERE FOR FRAUD, WHICH DOES GO DIRECTLY TO CREDIBILITY.

THE COURT: HOW MANY OF THESE LAWSUITS ARE ACTUALLY FINAL WITH JUDGMENTS RENDERED AGAINST MISS GERCHAS FOR FRAUD OR FRAUDULENT ACTIVITY, BECAUSE I'M NOT WILLING TO LITIGATE TWENTY OTHER LAWSUITS IF THERE ISN'T SOME VERDICT IN THEM.

MS. CLARK: WE COULD SIMPLY CALL THE PARTIES TO THE LAWSUIT TO INDICATE WHY THEY HAVE SUED HER. THEY WOULD INDICATE THAT I BELIEVE WITH RESPECT TO ALMOST ALL OF THESE LAWSUITS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, ALL 34, THEY ALL DEAL WITH FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATIONS IN THE OPERATION OF HER BUSINESS, AND --

THE COURT: WELL, DO WE KNOW HOW MANY OF THESE HAVE RESULTED IN VERDICTS?

MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY? I CAN'T HEAR YOU COUNSEL IS TALKING SO LOUD.

THE COURT: DO WE KNOW HOW MANY OF THESE CASES HAVE RESULTED IN VERDICTS?

MS. CLARK: I --

THE COURT: HAVE REACHED VERDICTS?

MS. CLARK: MAY I INQUIRE, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

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

MR. BAILEY: DOES YOUR HONOR MEAN JUDGMENTS?

THE COURT: JUDGMENTS, VERDICTS, SAME THING.

MR. BAILEY: DIFFERENT.

THE COURT: NOT FOR THIS PURPOSE.

MS. CLARK: BECAUSE COUNSEL HAS HAMSTRUNG US BY HIDING THIS WITNESS, WE HAVE NOT HAD A GREAT DEAL OF TIME TO COMPLETE THE INVESTIGATION, AND WE HAVE OBTAINED A LIST OF ALL OF THE -- THAT IS WHAT MR. DARDEN IS HOLDING RIGHT NOW -- A LIST OF ALL THE FILES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE AGAINST HER, BUT WE HAVE TO INVESTIGATE EACH AND EVERY ONE TO DETERMINE THE RESOLUTION OF EACH ONE. IF COUNSEL HAD GIVEN US THIS INFORMATION IN A TIMELY FASHION, YOUR HONOR, I COULD HAVE STOOD HERE BEFORE THE COURT AND EXPLAINED AND GIVEN THE ANSWERS TO ALL OF THIS A LONG TIME AGO, BUT IT HAS BEEN SEVEN MONTHS SINCE THEY TOOK THE STATEMENT AND WE JUST GOT THE NOTION OF HER EXISTENCE LAST WEEK.

THE COURT: WELL, MISS CLARK, THEN SINCE THESE REVELATIONS ON WEDNESDAY, YOU HAVEN'T SENT A LAW CLERK OVER TO THE CIVIL INDEX TO GO CHECK THE STATUS OF ALL THESE CASES?

MS. CLARK: WE ARE CHECKING MANY DIFFERENT -- WE ARE MAKING CHECKS ON ALL OF THE REPRESENTATIONS OF COUNSEL. THERE IS A LOT TO CHECK, YOUR HONOR, AND WITH ROSA LOPEZ AS WELL.

THE COURT: WOULDN'T YOU SAY THIS IS A RATHER KEY -- KEY PLACE WHERE YOU SHOULD FOCUS YOUR EFFORT?

MS. CLARK: IT IS ONE OF THEM, YES, AND WE HAVE BEEN. WE HAVE INVESTIGATORS OUT RIGHT NOW AND WE HAVE HAD. THAT IS ONE OF THE MANY AREAS REGARDING MISS GERCHAS THAT WE ARE INVESTIGATING, BUT THERE IS A LOT TO INVESTIGATE IN MISS GERCHAS, JUST -- A LOT, NOT TO MENTION THE THREE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS, THE THREE PHONY NAMES. THERE IS A LOT TO TALK ABOUT WITH THIS GIRL.

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

MS. CLARK: RIGHT IN FRONT OF US WE HAVE FOUR JUDGMENTS SHOWN AND WE HAVE ADDITIONAL PAPERWORK THAT WE ARE GOING THROUGH UPSTAIRS AS WE SPEAK.

THE COURT: SO WHAT ARE YOU ASKING FOR ME TO DO? TO DELAY THESE PROCEEDINGS UNTIL YOU COMPLETE YOUR INVESTIGATION?

MS. CLARK: I DON'T THINK IT IS ASKING FOR VERY MUCH TO ASK FOR SOME ADDITIONAL TIME TO BE ABLE TO PRESENT TO THE JURY AN OPENING STATEMENT THAT COMPRISES ALL OF THE FACTS, SINCE IT IS NOT OUR FAULT THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO INVESTIGATE THIS PERSON.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT ROSA LOPEZ. MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT HER NAME DOES APPEAR ON THE DEFENSE WITNESS LIST AND THAT YOU DID HAVE INFORMATION REGARDING HER PREVIOUSLY; IS THAT CORRECT?

MS. CLARK: YES. WE HAD LIMITED INFORMATION REGARDING HER. WE HAVE NEW REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY COUNSEL THAT INDICATE THAT THERE ARE OTHER STATEMENTS THAT WE ARE NOT IN POSSESSION OF. THE ACTUAL STATEMENT GIVEN TO US BY COUNSEL INDICATES THAT WHAT SHE TOLD DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WAS THAT SHE HEARD SOME NOISES LAST NIGHT. THAT IS ALL IT SAYS. COUNSEL MADE REPRESENTATIONS THAT SHE TOLD DETECTIVE FUHRMAN THAT SHE WAS OUT AT 10:15 AND SAW THE BRONCO ON ROCKINGHAM, THAT SHE WAS OUT EARLIER AT 8:30 AND SAW THE BRONCO ON ROCKINGHAM, THAT --

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

MS. CLARK: -- THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WAS IN POSSESSION OF ALL OF THESE FACTS AND ALL OF THOSE DETAILS WHEN IN FACT THEIR OWN WITNESS STATEMENT INDICATES ONLY THAT SHE TOLD DETECTIVE FUHRMAN SHE HEARD SOME NOISES LAST NIGHT, PERIOD. NO MENTION OF A BRONCO, NO MENTION OF BEING OUT WALKING HER DOG, NO MENTION OF SEEING THE BRONCO ANYWHERE.

THE COURT: WHEN DID YOU RECEIVE THIS --

MS. CLARK: THAT STATEMENT?

THE COURT: -- THIS STATEMENT?

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

MS. CLARK: SEPTEMBER 1, SO WHAT COUNSEL REPRESENTED AS HAVING BEEN STATED BY THIS WITNESS TO THE JURY IS NOT AT ALL WHAT WAS CONTAINED IN THE JURY STATEMENT THAT HE GAVE TO US.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. HERE IS ONE OF THE DIFFICULTIES, MISS CLARK. YOU ARE ARGUING ROSA LOPEZ. THIS IS THE FIRST ARGUMENT REGARDING ROSA LOPEZ FROM THE PROSECUTION POINT OF VIEW. SHE WAS NOT PART OF OUR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS MOTION, TO MY RECOLLECTION.

MS. CLARK: SHE WASN'T.

THE COURT: SHE WAS NOT.

MS. CLARK: NO, I KNOW. I KNOW, YOUR HONOR. WE HAD TO GO THROUGH THE TRANSCRIPT -- YOU HAVE TO -- YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU TELL US TO GO AND DO SOMETHING, IT DOESN'T JUST HAPPEN LIKE THAT. WE HAVE TO GO UP AND WE HAVE TO WORK, WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE TRANSCRIPT. WE WERE UP ALL NIGHT AND WHAT WE FOUND IS THAT WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THE TRANSCRIPT WE FOUND THAT THERE WERE MANY DIFFERENT STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO HER THAT WE DID NOT HAVE.

THE COURT: WELL, COUNSEL, HERE IS THE PROBLEM, WE TOOK OUR RECESS TO DO THAT. I ASKED YOU TO GO THROUGH THE RECORD AND FIND ALL OF THESE SANCTIONS -- ALL OF THESE DISCOVERY TRANSGRESSIONS THAT YOU COULD FIND. THE PROBLEM THAT THE COURT HAS IS I'M JUST THE REFEREE HERE. I'M NOT PRIVY TO WHAT INFORMATION EITHER SIDE HAS. YOU KNOW THE DETAILS OF YOUR CASE, YOU KNOW WHAT YOU HAVE IN DISCOVERY. I HAVE NO IDEA. I WENT THROUGH THE RECORD. I FOUND THE NAMES OF THE FOURTEEN WITNESSES WHOSE STATEMENTS WERE GIVEN OVER LAST WEDNESDAY. I WENT THROUGH THE RECORD AND FOUND THE EXPERT WITNESSES WHO HAD BEEN DISCUSSED THAT HAD NOT PREVIOUSLY BEEN DISCLOSED OR IT WAS UNCLEAR FROM THE RECORD WHO THEY WERE AND THOSE THAT YOU OBJECTED TO. NOW YOU ARE RAISING AN ADDITIONAL OBJECTION TO ROSA LOPEZ THAT HAS NOT BEEN LITIGATED AND YOU ARE RAISING A DIFFERENT OBJECTION TO THE -- MR. COCHRAN'S STATEMENTS REGARDING THE BLOOD -- THE EAP BLOOD TIMING, CORRECT?

MS. CLARK: YES.

THE COURT: NEITHER OF WHICH WAS DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY IN OUR SANCTIONS MOTION, CORRECT?

MS. CLARK: I DID OBJECT ON THE BLOOD BEFORE. I DID. WE WENT TO SIDE BAR AND I MADE AN OBJECTION FOR THE RECORD TO THE COURT CONCERNING THE MISLEADING NATURE OF COUNSEL'S REMARK. I AM ON THE RECORD WITH RESPECT TO THAT, YOUR HONOR, AT SIDE BAR, AND --

THE COURT: PART OF THE PROBLEM IS THAT WAS PART OF OUR SHOW AND TELL WHERE THAT WAS EXHIBITED TO YOU AND YOU HAD NO OBJECTION TO THAT EXHIBIT. THAT IS WHY I OVERRULED YOUR OBJECTION. THERE WERE TWO DAYS WHERE COUNSEL EXCHANGED EXHIBITS, SHOWED THEM TO EACH OTHER, AND IT WAS A LITTLE LATE IN THE MIDDLE OF COUNSEL'S OPENING STATEMENT TO THEN START LODGING OBJECTIONS TO AN EXHIBIT THAT BOTH SIDES HAD SEEN AND HAD WAIVED ANY OBJECTION TO.

MS. CLARK: I DIDN'T --

THE COURT: THAT IS THE PROBLEM.

MS. CLARK: BUT I DID NOT REALIZE THAT COUNSEL WAS GOING TO EXCERPT A HALF OF A SENTENCE, WHICH IS WHAT HE DID. I WOULD LIKE TO -- IF I MAY, YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW THE COURT. IF THE COURT DOESN'T REALIZE THERE IS A PARAGRAPH, COUNSEL TOOK OUT TWO LINES FROM THAT PARAGRAPH AND IT ACTUALLY IS -- I THINK THE COURT SHOULD SEE IT, I REALLY DO. I THINK IF THE COURT SEES IT, IT WOULD REALIZE I WAS MISLED. I THOUGHT THIS ENTIRE PARAGRAPH WAS GOING TO BE SHOWN. IF IT HAD BEEN, I WOULDN'T HAVE OBJECTED, BUT IT WASN'T. AS A MATTER OF FACT, ANOTHER THING THAT HAPPENED, YOUR HONOR, WAS THAT I WAS SHOWN THE FRONT PAGE OF THE CORONER'S TRANSCRIPT AND I BELIEVE THAT THAT ONE AREA WAS GOING TO BE HIGHLIGHTED FOR THE JURY ON THAT FRONT PAGE, AND LO AND BEHOLD IN FRONT OF THE JURY I SEE COUNSEL GOING AFTER PAGE AFTER PAGE AFTER PAGE WHICH I WAS NOT TOLD ABOUT. I DIDN'T BOTHER TO OBJECT BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANT TO INTERRUPT OPENING STATEMENT ANY MORE THAN I NEEDED TO, BUT AS A MATTER OF FACT, I WAS MISLED, BOTH WITH RESPECT TO THIS AND WITH RESPECT TO THE CORONER'S REPORT. COUNSEL PUT IN A LOT MORE OR IN THIS CASE A LOT LESS THAN WHAT I WAS LEAD TO BELIEVE HE WAS GOING TO DO.

THE COURT: WELL, MISS CLARK, LET ME ASK YOU THIS, THOUGH, AFTER WE SPENT TWO COURT DAYS DOING A SHOW AND TELL AND YOU WAIVED YOUR OBJECTIONS, I MEAN, HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO GO BACK AND NOW REVISIT THIS AND ALLOW YOU TO REOPEN OPENING STATEMENTS? BECAUSE SO FAR THE ONLY THING THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT REMOTELY APPROACH BEING ABLE TO REOPEN ON YOUR COMMENTS AS TO MISS GERCHAS AS TO JUDGMENTS AGAINST HER AND THE EXERCISE VIDEO CONTRAVENING THE ARTHRITIS EXPERTS, THAT HAD BEEN NOT BEEN PREVIOUSLY DISCLOSED, BUT ROSA LOPEZ IS AN OBJECTION JUST NOW BEING RAISED AND THE EAP IS SOMETHING, ALTHOUGH YOU DID RAISE THAT OBJECTION EARLIER, I THINK -- I THINK YOU HAVE WAIVED THAT OBJECTION, HAVING PASSED ON THE EXHIBIT.

MS. CLARK: I DIDN'T PASS ON THE EXHIBIT, YOUR HONOR. THAT IS THE PROBLEM. THAT IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO EXPLAIN TO THE COURT. NO. 1 THING, LET ME GET BACK TO ROSA LOPEZ. AS TO ROSA LOPEZ, SHE WAS MENTIONED BY COUNSEL TODAY.

THE COURT: NO, NO. IF YOU ARE REALLY WORRIED ABOUT THE EAP, LET'S QUIT JUMPING AROUND. TELL ME ABOUT THE EAP AND WHY YOU FEEL YOU WERE MISLED.

MS. CLARK: I THINK WHAT THE COURT DOESN'T REMEMBER IS WE WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE SHOW AND TELL ON FRIDAY AND COUNSEL ONLY SHOWED ME A TENTH OF WHAT THEY HAD. WE CAME BACK IN ON MONDAY AND AT THE 11TH HOUR, BEFORE WE WERE TO BEGIN OUR OPENING STATEMENT, COUNSEL SPRUNG TWENTY NEW BOARDS ON US AND THEN PULLED OUT THE REPORTS. THOSE REPORTS WERE NOT SHOWN TO ME ON FRIDAY. AND TO THE EXTENT THAT I WAS SHOWN THE REPORTS, THE CORONER AND THIS ONE, IT WAS -- I WAS MISLED AS TO WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO USE, AND ONLY WHEN IT WAS SHOWN BEFORE THE JURY DID I REALIZE WHAT HE INTENDED TO DO. I MADE THE OBJECTION AS TIMELY AS I POSSIBLY COULD; THE MOMENT HE DID IT. I WAS OVERRULED. NEVERTHELESS, I WAS MISLED, AND IF I SHOW THE COURT HOW THIS PARAGRAPH APPEARS, I THINK THAT THE COURT WILL UNDERSTAND WHY I WAS MISLED. YOU KNOW, COUNSEL POINTED TO THIS PORTION OF THIS -- OF ONE PARTICULAR RESULT ON THIS PAGE, AND I BELIEVED THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE FAIRLY EXHIBITED TO THE JURY IN CONTEXT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHY DON'T YOU READ IT FOR THE RECORD.

MS. CLARK: YOU KNOW WHAT, IF I COULD USE THE ELMO, I CAN SHOW IT AND READ IT AT THE SAME TIME.

THE COURT: BY GOLLY, LET'S DO THAT.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MS. CLARK: THE PART THAT I HAVE DRAWN, YOUR HONOR, THE BRACKET AROUND, THAT IS THE ITEM IN ISSUE.

"ITEM 84-A" IS THAT "84-B AND 118-A COULD NOT HAVE COME FROM NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, RONALD GOLDMAN OR O.J. SIMPSON; HOWEVER, NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON CANNOT BE EXCLUDED AS A SOURCE OF THE STAIN IN THE EAP. TYPE B OBSERVED ON THE ITEMS WERE DEGRADED FROM A TYPE B A." NOW, THERE WILL BE SUBSTANTIAL LITERATURE, YOUR HONOR, TO THE EFFECT THAT A TYPE BA FREQUENTLY DOES BREAK DOWN TO A TYPE B, AND THERE IS EVIDENCE OF DEGRADATION HERE THAT INDICATES THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT HAPPENED, BUT WHAT COUNSEL DID WAS HE TOOK THAT FIRST LINE AND DROPPED OFF THE REST AND THE REST OF IT IS VITAL TO THE CONCLUSION OF THE EXPERT.

THE COURT: AND WHAT WAS SHOWN TO YOU AS AN EXHIBIT?

MS. CLARK: THIS PAGE AND THAT PARAGRAPH WAS POINTED TO ME; NOT THAT ONE LINE, THAT ENTIRE PARAGRAPH.

MR. DOUGLAS: THAT IS NOT TRUE. WE SHOWED THE LASER DISK.

THE COURT: MR. HARRIS, IS HE AVAILABLE?

MR. DOUGLAS: HE TOOK IT WITH HIM.

MR. COCHRAN: WE WILL BE GLAD TO GET IT FROM HIM. SHALL I GET HIM BACK DOWN HERE?

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, WE WENT THROUGH ALL THE LASER DISKS AND WE ONLY HAD THE HIGHLIGHTED PORTION THAT WE SHOWED ON TWO BOARDS, ONE WITH THE COVER HIGHLIGHTED AND THEN PULLING OUT THE HIGHLIGHT. WE ONLY SHOWED THE LASER BOARD. ALL OF OUR PRESENTATION WAS SHOWN.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, I DON'T EVEN REMEMBER SEEING A LASER ON THIS. ALL I REMEMBER HAVING COUNSEL TELL ME WAS SHOWING ME A REPORT -- YOU KNOW, I WOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN COUNSEL TO SIDE BAR AND OBJECTED TO SOMETHING HAD I KNOWN WHAT HE WAS GOING TO DO. AS A MATTER OF FACT, I WOULD HAVE OBJECTED STRENUOUSLY AHEAD OF TIME HAD I REALIZE THAT HE WAS GOING TO TAKE ONE LINE OUT OF CONTEXT OUTSIDE OF A PARAGRAPH.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFICULTY I HAVE HERE. I MEAN, YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO LITIGATE IT AND NOW YOU WANT TO COME BACK AND DO IT AGAIN. THAT IS MY PROBLEM. WHERE IS MR. HARRIS?

MR. DOUGLAS: ON HIS WAY BACK TO THE OFFICE, YOUR HONOR.

MR. BAILEY: WE WEREN'T TOLD ANYTHING ABOUT THE LASER DISK WOULD BE USED IN REOPENING, SHOULD YOU PERMIT IT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, THIS IS REALLY SOMETHING THAT I CAN'T DEAL WITH THEN IF THE LASER DISK ITSELF, THE EXHIBIT THAT THEY SHOWED YOU, IS IN FACT GONE, BECAUSE I NEED TO MAKE A FACTUAL FINDING AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS SOME -- THAT YOU WERE MISLED IN SOME WAY AS TO WHAT IT WAS.

MS. CLARK: I WILL TELL YOU, YOUR HONOR, I DID NOT -- I DON'T RECALL SEEING A LASER DISK.

THE COURT: WELL, LET'S -- MISS CLARK, LET'S LOOK AT THE LASER DISK AND SEE WHAT IS THERE, BECAUSE THAT IS PRETTY MUCH FROZEN IN ITS STATE. YOU KNOW, THAT IS NOT EASY TO MANIPULATE, SO LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT IT. UNFORTUNATELY, WE PROBABLY WON'T BE ABLE TO SEE IT FOR QUITE SOME TIME SINCE MR. HARRIS IS ON HIS WAY. WE WILL HAVE TO CATCH HIM AND CALL HIM BACK.

MR. COCHRAN: WE MAY BE ABLE TO CATCH HIM.

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, I CAN REPRESENT TO THE COURT THAT WE DID NOT HAVE THE DOCUMENT HERE ON MONDAY, WE HAD ONLY THE LASER DISK, AND THE COURT REQUIRED THAT WE GO THROUGH AND SHOW EVERYTHING.

THE COURT: WHICH IS WHY, MR. DOUGLAS, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE LASER DISK.

MS. CLARK: BUT WHY WASN'T IT BEING SHOWN TO US ON MONDAY? WHY WAS IT ONLY BEING SHOWN ON FRIDAY? THIS IS VERY UNFAIR. THE DEFENDANT WAS REQUIRED TO SHOW ALL THEIR EXHIBITS ON FRIDAY. AS WE DID FOR THEM. WE SPRUNG NOTHING ON THEM. THEY CAME MARCHING IN ON MONDAY WITH TWICE AS MANY EXHIBITS AS WE WERE SHOWN ON FRIDAY. WE WERE EXPECTED TO ABSORB EVERYTHING IN A NANOSECOND AND COME UP WITH COGENT OBJECTIONS TO EACH AND EVERY ITEM. THAT IS VERY UNFAIR. THE PEOPLE WERE PUT AT A GREAT DISADVANTAGE AND HAVING TO ABSORB A GREAT DEAL IN A SMALL AMOUNT OF TIME AND COME UP WITH OBJECTIONS. I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE ALL THAT SURPRISING THAT I COULDN'T REMEMBER SEEING ONE OF ABOUT FIFTY NEW EXHIBITS THAT WAS THROWN AT ME MONDAY MORNING BEFORE OUR OPENING STATEMENTS WERE TO BEGIN, AND THAT ALONE SHOULD CAUSE THE COURT TO REALIZE THAT THE PEOPLE WERE PUT AT A DISADVANTAGE WITH RESPECT TO BEING ABLE TO MAKE INTELLIGENT OBJECTIONS TO ALL OF THE WEALTH OF NEW INFORMATION THAT WAS UNJUSTIFIABLY THROWN AT US AT THE 11TH HOUR. WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN MORE TIME AT THIS POINT.

THE COURT: DID YOU ASK FOR ANY ADDITIONAL TIME AT THAT POINT?

MS. CLARK: I DID AND THE COURT WAS -- I INDICATED TO THE COURT AT THE TIME, YOUR HONOR, THAT I DID NOT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE IT CAREFULLY, AND YOU ASKED ME TO IMMEDIATELY GO THROUGH BOARD BY BOARD AND EXHIBIT BY EXHIBIT WITH ABOUT TEN SECONDS FOR EACH. THERE REALLY WAS NOT A LOT OF TIME. THE COURT IS CONCERNED, I UNDERSTAND, ABOUT HAVING THE TIME OF THE JURY SPENT FRUITFULLY AND I'M MINDFUL OF THAT, AND I APPRECIATE THAT, AND THE COURT, YOU KNOW, WAS FEELING THE TIME CONSTRAINT, UNDERSTANDABLY SO, AND SO WAS I, BUT THE RESULT OF WHAT HAS BEEN MISCONDUCT BY COUNSEL IN FAILING TO TURN OVER EXHIBITS IN A TIMELY FASHION SHOULD NOT INURE TO THE PEOPLE'S DETRIMENT AS IT HAS BEEN AND I THINK THAT IS VERY UNFAIR.

THE COURT: SO YOU ARE SAYING THAT LAST MONDAY, THE 9TH -- EXCUSE ME, I'M SORRY, THE 23RD, JUST SO I CAN CHECK THE RECORD, IF I HAVE TO. ALL RIGHT. I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE UP THAT ISSUE UNLESS AND UNTIL I SEE THE ACTUAL LASER DISK EXHIBIT, WHICH HAS UNFORTUNATELY LEFT THE COURTROOM. THAT LEAVES ME WITH GERCHAS AND THE ARTHRITIS EXPERTS.

MS. CLARK: OKAY. WITH RESPECT TO THOSE WITNESSES WHICH WE -- THE COURT KNOWS WE WERE NOT INFORMED OF, EITHER THEIR NAMES OR THEIR STATEMENTS OR THEIR PROPOSED TESTIMONY, WE WOULD ASK LEAVE OF THE COURT TO ADDRESS THE JURY WITH RESPECT TO THE FACT THAT WE WERE NOT APPRISED OF THEIR INTENTION TO CALL SUCH WITNESSES, TO DESCRIBE THE DEFENDANT'S PHYSICAL CONDITION AT THE TIME OF THE MURDERS, AND THAT HAD WE KNOWN WE WOULD HAVE DISCUSSED THAT WITH THE JURY AT GREATER LENGTH, PUTTING ON THE EXERCISE TAPE. NOW, COUNSEL SHOWED US PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE DEFENDANT'S BODY THAT THEY INTENDED TO INTRODUCE, BUT THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS GAVE US ABSOLUTELY IN NOTICE THAT THEY WERE GOING TO BE PRESENTING TESTIMONY CONCERNING RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS.

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

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

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

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

MS. CLARK: FURTHERMORE, WITH RESPECT TO THE EXISTENCE OF HOWARD WEITZMAN, THAT WAS ANOTHER MATTER THAT WAS NOT TURNED OVER TO US IN DISCOVERY. THE NAME WAS NOT EVEN ON OUR WITNESS LIST. HAD WE KNOWN THAT THEY WOULD MAKE THESE REPRESENTATIONS TO THE JURY THAT MR. WEITZMAN WAS EXCLUDED FROM THE CONFERENCE ROOM, WE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ADDRESS THE JURY ON THE FACT THAT NOT ONLY DID THAT NOT HAPPEN, BUT THE OFFICERS ARE VERY WELL AWARE THAT WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF LAW. AS A MATTER OF FACT, IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS CONTAINED IN THE MIRANDA ADVISEMENT, THAT MR. WEITZMAN WAS IN FACT POINTEDLY INVITED IN WITH MR. SIMPSON, THAT HE DECLINED TO REMAIN WITH MR. SIMPSON, AND HIMSELF DECIDED TO LEAVE THE FACILITY, AND WE WOULD HAVE TOLD THE JURY ALL ABOUT THAT. WE WOULD HAVE EVEN MAYBE READ THE MIRANDA ADVISEMENT TO THE JURY SO THAT THEY CAN UNDERSTAND THIS IS AN OBLIGATION OF THE POLICE TO AFFORD ANYONE WHO APPEARS WITH HIS ATTORNEY THE RIGHT TO HAVE THE ATTORNEY PRESENT DURING QUESTIONING AND THAT MR. SIMPSON WAS SO ADVISED AND THAT HE ELECTED TO PROCEED WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF HIS ATTORNEY AND THAT THAT -- I MEAN, WE COULD HAVE DONE ALL OF THAT, BUT COUNSEL -- AS A MATTER OF FACT, WE HAVE THAT WAIVER ON TAPE. COUNSEL IS AWARE OF THAT, BUT YET COUNSEL DELIBERATELY CHOSE TO MAKE A STATEMENT THAT WAS FALSE TO THIS JURY CONCERNING MR. WEITZMAN. HAD WE KNOWN HE INTENDED TO DO SO AND HAD WE KNOWN MR. WEITZMAN INTENDED TO SO TESTIFY, WE WOULD HAVE PUT THAT BEFORE THE JURY. FURTHERMORE, ALL OF THE EVIDENCE WITH RESPECT TO THE CIRCLE OF BENEVOLENCE, THE CHARITY AND THE GIFT GIVING, WE HAVE NO DISCOVERY OF ANY OF THAT, YOUR HONOR, THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL WANTED TO PRESENT THAT, AND WITH RESPECT TO AT LEAST THE REPRESENTATION OF ANONYMOUS GIFT GIVING TO LINKS, WE BELIEVE THAT WE WILL HAVE EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT IT WAS -- THAT TO THE EXTENT MONEY WAS GIVEN, IT WAS NOT ANONYMOUSLY GIVEN, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO THE PRESENT TO THE JURY THAT THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT GIVEN TO CHARITY WAS MINUSCULE COMPARED TO THE AMOUNT OF NET WORTH THIS DEFENDANT HAD. AND SO WE WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COUNTER SOME OF THAT EVIDENCE WHICH WAS ALSO -- STILL HAS NOT BEEN TURNED OVER IN DISCOVERY, STILL ONLY KNOWLEDGE WE HAVE OF THAT IS THE REPRESENTATIONS OF COUNSEL IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT TO THE JURY.

THE COURT: UH-HUH.

MS. CLARK: FURTHERMORE, WITH RESPECT TO SKIP TAFT, I ALSO BELIEVE COUNSEL AGAIN -- THIS IS ANOTHER NAME THAT WAS NOT PUT ON THE DEFENSE WITNESS LIST FOR WHOM WE HAVE NO STATEMENT, BUT COUNSEL REPRESENTED THAT MR. TAFT WOULD TESTIFY CONCERNING THE CONTENTS OF A PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT. MAY I HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?

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

THE COURT: IS THERE ANY DISPUTE ABOUT THAT?

MS. CLARK: I BELIEVE THERE IS -- MAY I HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?

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

MR. COCHRAN: MR. BAILEY WILL RESPOND FOR US, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MS. CLARK: THERE WERE CERTAIN REPRESENTATIONS MADE WITH RESPECT TO WHAT SKIP TAFT WOULD TESTIFY TO IN THAT PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT, THAT HE WOULD TESTIFY TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING IT, THAT -- AND IT WAS REPRESENTED TO THIS JURY AS BEING ANOTHER ACT IN THE CIRCLE OF BENEVOLENCE, THAT IN FACT IT WAS A CIVIL COMPROMISE ATTEMPT AND NOTHING MORE BY THE DEFENDANT IN AN EFFORT TO PRESSURE NICOLE TO WITHDRAW HER SUPPORT FOR THE PROSECUTION OF THAT CASE. AND WE WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE JURY AS TO THE TRUTH OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH IT WAS WRITTEN.

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

MS. CLARK: THERE WAS SOMETHING ELSE, YOUR HONOR. I JUST CAN'T -- IT DOESN'T COME TO MIND AT THIS MOMENT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MS. CLARK: BUT THAT IS FOR STARTERS.

THE COURT: MR. BAILEY.

MR. BAILEY: IF IT PLEASE THE COURT, IN ASKING THIS COURT TO SET WHAT I THINK WOULD BE A PRECEDENT IN CRIMINAL CASES, THE PROSECUTION NOW WISHES TO ESCALATE THAT REMEDY TO A FULL BLOWN REBUTTAL OF THINGS THEY WISH THEY THOUGHT OF WHEN THEY GAVE THEIR OPENING STATEMENT. THEY KNEW BEFORE THEY OPENED THAT MR. SIMPSON INTENDED TO EXHIBIT HIS SCARRED AND TORN UP KNEE TO THE JURY AND CLAIM THAT HE WAS DISABLE TO A DEGREE. THEY HAD THE EXERCISE TAPE; THEY ELECTED NOT TO PLAY IT. NOW IN RETROSPECT IT SEEMS A BAD IDEA THAT THEY DIDN'T. SINCE YOU HAVE STRICKEN FROM OUR OPENING THE NAMES AND ANY SUMMARY OF WHAT THEY MIGHT SAY OF THE WITNESS' ENUMERATED IN YOUR ORDER, IT SEEMS TO BE MOST ANOMALOUS TO SILENCE US AND LET THE PROSECUTION GET UP AND TRASH THEM WITHOUT REBUTTAL, MAKING WILD STATEMENTS LIKE ROSA LOPEZ IS AN O.J. SIMPSON FAN WHEN SHE HAS NEVER MET HIM OR NICOLE. FURTHERMORE, ALL THIS CLAIM OF SURPRISE ON ROSA LOPEZ IS TOTALLY INCREDIBLE. YOU WILL RECALL THAT AS PART OF OUR OFFER OF PROOF, IN RESPONSE TO THE GOVERNMENT'S DEMAND TO YOU, WE CITED TWO PRELIMINARY INCIDENTS, BOTH OCCURRING ON THE 13TH, WHICH SHOWED BAD FAITH ON THE PART OF MARK FUHRMAN. ONE WAS THE GLOVE AND THE OTHER WAS SUPPRESSING A STATEMENT THAT ROSA LOPEZ HAD GIVEN HIM. IT WAS IN THE PAPERS, IT WAS FAXED TO THE GOVERNMENT ON SUNDAY, THE 8TH. IT WAS ARGUED ORALLY HERE AND IT WAS IN PART I GUESS THE BASIS FOR YOUR RULING, TOGETHER WITH THE ANTHONY CASE. MR. COCHRAN, LONG AFTER THE STATEMENT WAS TAKEN AND BEFORE THIS REPRESENTATION WAS MADE TO THE COURT, PERSONALLY WANTED TO VERIFY THAT SHE CLAIMED THAT SHE HAD MADE THOSE STATEMENTS TO FUHRMAN AND ON THAT BASIS WE ASSERTED IT TO YOUR HONOR. I NEVER HEARD IT DENIED IN THE COURSE OF THE WHOLE ARGUMENT. I DON'T THINK ROSA LOPEZ IS ANY PART OF ANY REOPENING. PERHAPS -- PERHAPS AS TO GERCHAS, IF SOME ADMISSIBLE INFORMATION CAN BE GOTTEN, THE COURT CAN NOW PERMIT THIS NOW THOROUGHLY TRASHED WOMAN WHO HAS NEVER HAD A DAY TO APPEAR, ALTHOUGH SHE HAS EXPRESSED AN INTEREST IN DOING THAT, TO BE IMPEACHED IF IN GOOD FAITH THEY CLAIM AND AS OFFICERS OF THE COURT THEY ASSURE YOU THAT THEY WILL PRODUCE ON THE WITNESS STAND UNDER OATH PEOPLE WHO WILL TESTIFY THAT SHE HAS MADE THE STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO HER -- I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT JUDGMENTS NOW OR CHECK CASES -- I'M TALKING ABOUT IMPEACHING STATEMENTS -- IF THOSE REPRESENTATIONS CAN BE MADE IN GOOD FAITH, PERHAPS YOUR HONOR MIGHT PERMIT THEM TO TALK ABOUT IT. I HAVEN'T HEARD ANOTHER THING IN ALL MRS. CLARK'S PRESENTATION THAT MAKES ANY SENSE AT ALL AS REOPENING AS A REMEDY FOR THE SANCTIONS AS PART OF THE SANCTIONS YOU HAVE IMPOSED. INSOFAR AS THE BLOOD EVIDENCE IS CONCERNED, WE HAVE AN ASSERTION OF FACT COULD NOT HAVE COME FROM NICOLE SIMPSON, AND IN AN ATTEMPT TO BAIL OUT BY SOMEBODY WHO OBVIOUSLY IS IN THE PROSECUTION'S CORNER SPECULATING THAT IF THE BLOOD WERE DEGRADED AB MIGHT HAVE SHOWN UP AS B AND THEREFORE THAT WOULD EXPLAIN IT WITHOUT BRINGING IN ANOTHER PARTY, IT WOULD SHOW THAT ON THE SCREEN, IT IS IN THE STATEMENT. IF WE HAD IT TO DO ALL OVER AGAIN, I DON'T THINK ANY COURT COULD COMPEL US TO LINK THE AUTHOR'S SPECULATION WITH HIS ESTABLISHED FACT AND THAT IS ALL THAT SECOND SENTENCE IS. WE PAY IT NO IMPORTANCE AT ALL AND WE DON'T THINK THAT IT IS GOING TO PAN OUT, BUT IN ANY EVENT, IN OPENING STATEMENT, WE ARE ENTITLED TO SHOW THE JURY THOSE AREA THAT FAVOR US. NOW, APART FROM MISS GERCHAS, I DON'T BELIEVE YOUR HONOR SHOULD PERMIT ANY OF WHAT HAS BEEN REQUESTED BY THE PROSECUTION. IT IS NOTHING MORE THAN A CHANCE TO COME BACK AND REBUT THE DEFENSE OPENING STATEMENT. THEY COULD HAVE HANDLED ALL OF THESE MATTERS BEFOREHAND IF THEY HAD THOUGHT ABOUT WHAT THEY WERE DOING AS CAREFULLY AS MR. COCHRAN DID WHEN HE LAID OUT HIS VERY DETAILED PRESENTATION.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: WITH RESPECT TO THE BLOOD ARGUMENT JUST GIVEN BY MR. BAILEY, HE DEMONSTRATES NOTHING BUT HIS IGNORANCE. AS A MATTER OF FACT, WHAT MR. MATHESON PUT IN THAT REPORT IS A MATTER OF ESTABLISHED SCIENCE. WE ARE TALKING HERE A MATTER THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF TREATISES THAT ARE MANY YEARS OLD. IT IS A KNOWN FACT THAT THE EAP MARKER IS VERY LABILE, THAT A BA DEGRADES TO A B VERY RAPIDLY, AND THE COURT CAN ENVISION IT. YOU HAVE FOUR BANDS IN THIS MARKER; HEAVY BAND, FAINT BAND, HEAVY BAND, FAINT BAND. THE FAINT BANDS ARE A, THE HEAVY BANDS ARE B. THE FAINT BAND, BEING A, DEGRADES FIRST. BA GOES TO B VERY RAPIDLY. IT IS A KNOWN THING WHICH IS WHY WHEN THERE IS EVIDENCE OF DEGRADATION AND YOU HAVE A B RESULT ON THE EAP, YOU CANNOT EXCLUDE THE BA AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THE JURY HAS BEEN COMPLETELY MISLED ABOUT, NOT TO MENTION THE FACT THAT AT LEAST ON THE THIGH MARKER WHERE COUNSEL TOLD THE JURY THAT IT EXCLUDED HER AS WELL, THERE WAS FAINT A ACTIVITY, SO I MEAN --

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, I'M NOT PREPARED TO REALLY MAKE A RULING AS TO THE BLOOD ISSUE UNTIL I SEE THE LASER DISK EXHIBIT TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS SOME REAL DANGER OF THE JURY HAVING BEEN MISLED THERE. I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR YOUR OBSERVATIONS ON MR. BAILEY'S ARGUMENT THAT YOU WERE AWARE THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE SOME ALLEGATION THAT MR. SIMPSON WAS UNABLE TO -- BECAUSE OF HIS ARTHRITIC CONDITION, UNABLE PHYSICALLY TO EVEN CONTEMPLATE COMMITTING THESE ACTS, WHY IT DIDN'T OCCUR TO YOU, KNOWING THAT, TO PLAY THE EXERCISE VIDEO DURING YOUR OPENING.

MS. CLARK: WHEN DID WE KNOW THAT, YOUR HONOR? WHEN DOES COUNSEL ALLEGE THAT WE KNEW THAT?

THE COURT: WHEN THE MOTION WAS MADE FOR THE DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO ADDRESS THE JURY DURING OPENING STATEMENTS AND TO EXHIBIT HIS SCARS.

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

MS. CLARK: WHICH WAS ON MONDAY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. BEFORE YOUR OPENING.

MS. CLARK: WHICH WE OBJECTED TO.

THE COURT: BEFORE YOUR OPENING STATEMENT.

MS. CLARK: THAT'S RIGHT, WHICH WE OBJECTED TO, BUT BEING ABLE TO SHOW A SCAR, WHICH IS WHAT MY ARGUMENT WAS TO THE COURT AT THE TIME, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DOCTORS WHO ARE GOING TO TESTIFY TO RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS. THERE IS WAS NO OFFER OF PROOF FORTHCOMING WITH RESPECT TO HOW THAT SCAR WAS GOING TO BE LINKED UP. I REPEATEDLY ARGUED TO THE COURT WHAT IS THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF SHOWING THE JURY A SCAR? BELIEVING THAT THAT IS ALL THAT THE DEFENSE WOULD DO, I ELECTED AT THAT TIME TO LET IT BE, BECAUSE I DID NOT THINK THAT COUNSEL -- NOR BECAUSE COUNSEL DID NOT GIVE US DISCOVERY. THIS IS THE PROBLEM WITH BEING SANDBAGGED, YOUR HONOR. COUNSEL NEVER GAVE US DISCOVERY OF THE FACT THAT THE DOCTORS WERE GOING TO BE RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS SPECIALISTS, WERE GOING TO COME FORWARD AND LINK UP THAT SCAR TO SOMETHING MEANINGFUL IN TERMS OF HIS PHYSICAL CAPABILITIES ON THAT DAY, AND COUNSEL DELIBERATELY AND WILLFULLY DID NOT INFORM THE COURT OR THE PROSECUTION OF HIS INTENT TO LINK UP THAT SCAR TO A DOCTOR'S TESTIMONY. NOW, HOW WAS I ABLE TO ANTICIPATE WHAT COUNSEL WAS GOING TO DO WHEN HE WILLFULLY WITHHELD THAT INFORMATION?

THE COURT: NOW, MISS CLARK, LET ME ASK YOU ONE OTHER THING. CAN YOU MAKE AN OFFER OF PROOF TO THE COURT THAT YOU WILL HAVE WITNESSES AS TO MISS GERCHAS WHO WILL TESTIFY TO INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS SUCH AS TELLING OTHER PERSONS THAT SHE WAS TRULY NOT THERE, THAT SHE WAS NOT IN FACT LOOKING FOR A CONDO OR APARTMENT IN THAT AREA, ANY OTHER SPECIFICS REGARDING CREDIBILITY SPECIFICALLY AS IT COMES TO THIS CASE?

MS. CLARK: YES.

THE COURT: TELL ME ABOUT THAT. YOU CAN MAKE THAT REPRESENTATION THAT YOU WILL HAVE THOSE WITNESSES?

MS. CLARK: YES, YES.

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

MS. CLARK: WITH RESPECT TO -- WITH RESPECT TO ROSA LOPEZ, I CAN ONLY INDICATE, YOUR HONOR, THAT WE WERE UNFORTUNATELY SANDBAGGED BADLY IN THAT RESPECT AS WELL. UPON READING THE TRANSCRIPT, I WAS STUNNED TO REALIZE THAT COUNSEL ATTRIBUTED MANY STATEMENTS TO HER THAT ALLEGEDLY WERE MADE TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN ON THE MORNING FOLLOWING THE MURDERS WHEN IN FACT HIS OWN STATEMENT INDICATES THAT ALL SHE SAID TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WAS SHE HEARD NOISES. IT TOOK AN EXTENSIVE AND EXHAUSTIVE REVIEW OF THE TRANSCRIPT TO REALIZE -- TO GO BACK TO FIND EXACTLY WHAT THOSE STATEMENTS WERE AND COUNSEL THEN REITERATED IT AGAIN TODAY TO THIS JURY, WHICH COMPOUNDED THE HARM IN HIS FAILURE TO TURN OVER THAT REPORT WHICH WE STILL DON'T HAVE. WE STILL HAVE NO STATEMENT INDICATING THAT.

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, THERE IS NO REPORT ABOUT THAT?

MR. COCHRAN: ABSOLUTELY NONE, YOUR HONOR. IF I MIGHT RESPOND?

THE COURT: HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THEN?

MR. COCHRAN: BECAUSE WE WENT AND TALKED TO THE WITNESS. WE TALKED TO HER. THEY HAD THE REPORT WHEN WE GOT THE REPORT, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS A KEY WITNESS OBVIOUSLY, JUDGE. THEY KNOW THAT SHE TALKED TO FUHRMAN THAT MORNING. DON'T THEY HAVE AN OBLIGATION -- DO WE HAVE TO DO THEIR JOB ALSO, JUDGE? DON'T THEY HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO GO TALK TO HER? I DID. THAT IS WHAT IS SO AMAZING. WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THEIR INVESTIGATION, JUDGE. WE ARE THE DEFENSE IN THIS CASE. WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THEIR INVESTIGATION. THIS IS UNPRECEDENTED, TO HAVE THEM WHINING AND MOANING. THIS IS OPENING STATEMENT. WE HAVEN'T EVEN STARTED THE TRIAL, JUDGE, AND ALL THIS EMOTIONAL VITRIOLIC AND EVERYTHING IS MISLED AND EVERYTHING THEY DO IS PERFECT AND EVERYTHING WE DO IS WRONG. AND WE ARE JUST DOING OUR JOB. JUDGE. IT IS ABSOLUTELY INCREDIBLE THAT ALL THESE EXHIBITS AND ALL THESE THINGS -- AND WANTS TO REHASH EVERYTHING WITH YOU. YOU HAVE RULED ON THE OTHER THINGS. WE HAVE TO RELITIGATE EVERYTHING OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN, YOUR HONOR, AND I DON'T THINK THAT IS FAIR. IT IS NOT FAIR TO MR. SIMPSON.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, I AM APPALLED -- YOU KNOW, DOES COUNSEL THINK IT IS HIS JOB TO MISLEAD AND TO SANDBAG AND TO IGNORE THE LAW AND TO FLAUNT THE LAW?

THE COURT: COUNSEL, I'M JUST ASKING FOR -- I JUST ASKED MR. COCHRAN FOR AN EXPLANATION. IS THERE A STATEMENT OF ROSE LOPEZ THAT CONTAINS THE -- ATTRIBUTES TO HER THE COMMENTS THAT MR. COCHRAN MADE TODAY AND THE DAY BEFORE?

MS. CLARK: RIGHT. THIS IS THEIR WITNESS.

THE COURT: THAT WAS MY QUESTION.

MS. CLARK: YEAH. THIS IS THEIR WITNESS AND WHEN THEY TAKE A FURTHER STATEMENT FROM A WITNESS THEY ARE OBLIGATED TO TURN THAT STATEMENT OVER AND AS WE ALWAYS HAVE. THERE HAVE BEEN MULTIPLE STATEMENTS FOR SOME WITNESSES IN OUR CASE AND THE PROSECUTION HAS NEVER BEEN DERELICT IN ITS DUTY, HAS ALWAYS FULFILLED THAT DUTY TO TURN ALL OF THEM OVER.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, HERE IS THE PROBLEM: THERE HAS BEEN A REPRESENTATION MADE TO ME THAT NO SUCH WITNESS STATEMENT WAS TAKEN.

MS. CLARK: NEVERTHELESS, OBVIOUSLY THE STATEMENTS WERE MADE, WEREN'T THEY, AND WE WERE GIVEN NO NOTICE OF THE FACT THAT THE WITNESSES MADE FURTHER STATEMENTS OF A MUCH DIFFERENT NATURE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHEN THAT WITNESS IS CALLED, WHEN THAT WITNESS IS CALLED, YOU MAY MAKE A NEW OBJECTION AND I WILL CONTEMPLATE PRECLUDING THAT WITNESS FROM TESTIFYING BASED UPON THE FACT THAT IT APPEARS THAT AT THE TIME OF OPENING STATEMENT THERE WAS A CLEAR INTENT TO DO THAT, THAT NO STATEMENT WAS IN EXISTENCE, THAT THAT PERSON -- THAT ADDITIONAL STATEMENT WAS NOT DISCLOSED. I HAVE ALREADY MADE FINDING AS TO OTHER WITNESSES THAT THIS FAILURE TO DISCLOSE WAS INTENTIONAL AND DELIBERATE. YOU CAN RENEW YOUR MOTION THEN, BUT AT THIS POINT I'M NOT GOING TO ENTERTAIN ANY FURTHER SANCTION AS TO ROSA LOPEZ.

MS. CLARK: WE WOULD NOT ASK THE COURT TO PRECLUDE HER TESTIMONY, YOUR HONOR. WE WOULD ASK THAT AN ADMONITION BE GIVEN CONCERNING HER TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THE COURT WILL RULE AS FOLLOWS: THE PROSECUTION WILL BE ALLOWED TO BRIEFLY REOPEN ITS OPENING STATEMENT. IT WILL BE ALLOWED TO GO INTO INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS, SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARD TO THIS CASE REGARDING MARY ANNE GERCHAS. THE PROSECUTION, BECAUSE THE DEFENSE DID NOT DISCLOSE THE IDENTITY AND NATURE OF EXPERT WITNESSES WHO WOULD BE TESTIFYING REGARDING ARTHRITIC CONDITION, MAY MERELY SAY THAT NOW THAT WE KNOW THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE AN ISSUE, WE ARE GOING TO SHOW YOU THIS VIDEOTAPE OR THESE OUTTAKES. THE PROSECUTION MAY MENTION THE FACT THAT HOWARD WEITZMAN WAS NOT -- HAVING NOT BEEN DISCLOSED, THAT THE INFORMATION THAT YOU HAVE, THE EVIDENCE YOU WILL PRESENT WILL BE THAT THAT WAS NOT IN FACT WHAT HAPPENED, THAT MR. WEITZMAN WAS IN FACT ALLOWED OR HOWEVER YOU FEEL THE EVIDENCE WILL COME OUT AS TO THAT. AS TO THE ALLEGATIONS OF MISLEADING THE JURY REGARDING THE EAP BLOOD TYPES, I'M GOING TO DEFER RULING ON THAT UNTIL I HAVE SEEN THE LASER DISK. I'M GOING TO SUSTAIN THE COURT'S OWN OBJECTION UNDER 352, UNDUE USE OF THE COURT'S TIME, AS TO THE CIRCLE OF BENEVOLENCE ARGUMENT AND THE TAFT PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT, BECAUSE THERE IS ANY SUBSTANTIAL -- THAT IS A MATTER OF INTERPRETATION THAT CAN BE DONE THROUGH THE EVIDENCE AND NOT THROUGH PRESENTATION OF ARGUMENT THROUGH OPENING STATEMENT. AND MISS CLARK, I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU A TEN-MINUTE TIME LIMIT ON THAT.

MS. CLARK: VERY WELL, YOUR HONOR, BUT WE ARE GOING TO NEED -- I WOULD LIKE FOR THE COURT TO -- I WOULD LIKE TO AWAIT THE PRESENTATION OF THE OPENING STATEMENT UNTIL WE KNOW THE COURT'S DECISION ON THE BLOOD ISSUE.

THE COURT: THAT IS A MUCH DIFFERENT ISSUE. THAT DOESN'T GO TO SANDBAGGING AT DISCOVERY. THAT GOES TO THE SHOW AND TELL ISSUE. THAT IS A DIFFERENT ISSUE.

MS. CLARK: BUT THE RESOLUTION IS THE SAME REALLY.

THE COURT: NOT REALLY.

MS. CLARK: WHAT OTHER RESOLUTION COULD THERE BE?

THE COURT: WELL, THAT IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ISSUE THAT I'M NOT GOING TO ENTERTAIN UNTIL I SEE THE LASER DISK. ALL RIGHT? BUT WE HAVE AN HOUR LEFT OF COURT TIME. THERE ARE OTHER SANCTIONS THAT I CAN IMPOSE BESIDES THAT, BUT I'M NOT CONVINCED THAT I NEED -- THAT A SANCTION IS APPROPRIATE IN THAT CASE.

MS. CLARK: WITH RESPECT TO THAT LASER DISK?

THE COURT: THAT'S CORRECT. I WANT TO SEE THE EXHIBIT ITSELF. IF THE EXHIBIT -- THIS IS MY THOUGHT ON THAT: IF THE EXHIBIT, ALTHOUGH HIGHLIGHTS ONE SECTION, IF THE REST OF THE SENTENCE IS VISIBLE AND THERE IS A COMPLETE SENTENCE AVAILABLE THAT WAS EXHIBITED FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME IN GREAT DETAIL TO THE JURY, IT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN MISLEADING IN THAT CONTEXT. AND MISS CLARK, PLEASE DON'T MISUNDERSTAND ME. I REALIZE THE PRESSURES THAT YOU ARE UNDER, BOTH PROFESSIONALLY AND OTHERWISE, AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THEM, BUT AT SOME POINT IN TIME WHEN WE HAVE OUR SHOW AND TELL AND WE MAKE RULINGS AND WE AGREE NOT TO -- WE WAIVE OBJECTION TO THINGS, THAT SHOULD BE THE END OF IT.

MS. CLARK: I APPRECIATE THAT, YOUR HONOR. I THINK THAT --

THE COURT: I AGREE WITH YOU THAT IS AN IMPORTANT PART. I AGREE WITH YOU THAT IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE, BUT I NEED TO SEE IT BEFORE I CAN RULE ON IT. I AM GIVING YOU SOMETHING THAT IS VIRTUALLY UNPRECEDENTED IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE I HAVE EVER SEEN, THE OPPORTUNITY TO REOPEN, BUT IT IS A SANCTION I THINK THAT IS AVAILABLE TO ME WITHIN THE SPIRIT OF 115, BUT THOSE ARE THE ONLY THREE ITEMS THAT I WILL ALLOW YOU TO REOPEN ON AND YOU HAVE A TEN-MINUTE TIME LIMIT.

MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. THAT'S FINE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. NOW, AFTER WE HAVE FINISHED THAT, THEN WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO PRESENT? I UNDERSTAND THERE IS A TAPE-RECORDING I NEED TO LISTEN TO.

MS. CLARK: YES.

THE COURT: WHAT IS THAT? TAPE-RECORDING OF WHAT?

MS. CLARK: LET ME DEFER.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.

MR. BAILEY: WHILE SHE IS DOING THAT, YOUR HONOR, TWO MATTERS: WE HAVE NOT SEEN ANY VIDEO OUTTAKES. WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEM BEFORE THE JURY DOES, AND I RESPECTFULLY SUGGEST, YOUR HONOR, THAT YOU MIGHT WISH TO REPEAT THE EXHORTATIONS THAT COUNSEL MADE ON THE OPENING DAY. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT PERSONALLY DIRECTED EPITHETS ADD ANY GRACE WHATSOEVER TO THIS PROCEEDING.

THE COURT: I WAS ACTUALLY -- MR. BAILEY, I THINK I HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME JUMPING ON THEM TODAY, SO I WAS WAITING FOR ONE OF YOU TO DO THAT SO I CAN JUMP ON YOU TO MAKE THE POINT, SO --

MR. BAILEY: WE PREFER THE HIGH ROAD.

THE COURT: -- I HAVE TO BALANCE MY EXCORIATIONS FROM TIME TO TIME.

MR. DARDEN: YOU WANTED SOME INFORMATION?

THE COURT: YES. MR. DARDEN, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW FROM YOU IS YOU INDICATED TO ME AT SIDE BAR OFF THE RECORD THAT YOU WERE GOING TO PRESENT APPARENTLY THE AUDIOTAPE OF THE 1989 OR 1985 911 CALL.

MR. DARDEN: YEAH, THE 911 CALL FROM 1989.

THE COURT: 1989?

MR. DARDEN: YES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. AND ALSO YOU INDICATED THAT IN THE COURSE OF THE REOPENED OPENING STATEMENT THAT YOU WERE GOING TO PRESENT OUTTAKES FROM AN EXERCISE VIDEO; IS THAT CORRECT?

MR. DARDEN: THAT'S CORRECT.

THE COURT: WHEN DID YOU RECEIVE THOSE OUTTAKES?

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

MR. DARDEN: WE RECEIVED THE OUTTAKES SOME DAYS AGO AND WE PRESSED THEM ON TO A LASER DISK YESTERDAY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WELL, LET'S SEE WHAT THEY ARE. LET'S SEE WHAT THEY ARE.

MR. DARDEN: ALSO, THERE IS A CUT VERSION OF THE ROY FIRESTONE INTERVIEW WHICH THEY HAVE NOT SEEN.

THE COURT: IT IS CALLED EDITED.

MR. DARDEN: EDITED.

MR. DOUGLAS: ANYTHING ELSE, YOUR HONOR?

MR. BAILEY: MR. COCHRAN --

MR. DARDEN: I ADVISED MR. COCHRAN OF THE FIRESTONE INTERVIEW, EDITED, EARLIER.

THE COURT: MR. BAILEY, YOU HAD A COMMENT?

MR. BAILEY: YES, YOUR HONOR. MR. COCHRAN HAS SUGGESTED TO ME, AND I ENDORSE THE NOTION THAT IN FAIRNESS TO A WITNESS WHO IS BEING BATTERED ALL OVER THE COURTROOM FOR MERELY HAVING THE UNPLEASANT EXPERIENCE OF BEING A WITNESS, THAT WE MIGHT HAVE A HEARING ON THESE ALLEGED IMPEACHING WITNESSES TO SEE IF THEY EXIST AND WHAT THEY REALLY SAY BEFORE THE JURY IS GIVEN THAT TAINT, WHICH CAN'T UNDO FOR THREE MONTHS. COULD THEY BE BROUGHT IN AND APPEAR BEFORE YOUR HONOR JUST LONG ENOUGH TO ASSURE US THAT THEY EXIST AND THEY HAVE SUCH TESTIMONY TO GIVE? PRETTY GOOD JOB HAS BEEN DONE ON MARY ANNE GERCHAS THUS FAR. WE ARE GOING TO FIND OUR WITNESSES GOING TO OTHER COUNTRIES PRETTY SOON.

THE COURT: I WILL THINK ABOUT THAT, BUT AT THIS POINT LET ME SEE THESE OTHER ITEMS. DO WE HAVE THE LASER DISK OF THE --

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: YES, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS A FULL CUE TAPE OF THE TEN-MINUTE SEGMENTS OF OUTTAKES.

MR. DARDEN: BEFORE WE PLAY THAT, CAN WE APPROACH WITHOUT THE REPORTER FOR A MOMENT?

THE COURT: SURE.

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

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE BEEN ADVISED THAT THE OUTTAKE MATERIAL IS STILL COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL, SO ITS RELEASED TO THE OUTSIDE VIDEO FEED WILL BE INTERRUPTED FOR THE PLAYING OF THIS ITEM.

MR. DARDEN: AS I UNDERSTAND IT, YOUR HONOR, THIS WILL LAST APPROXIMATELY TEN MINUTES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, IT IS TEN MINUTES AFTER 4:00 RIGHT NOW. I STILL NEED TO HEAR THE AUDIOTAPE, STILL NEED TO HEAR ARGUMENT, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, ON THAT. I DON'T THINK WE ARE GOING TO FINISH WITH THE JURY TODAY. MY INCLINATION IS TO SEND THEM OUT AT THIS POINT.

MR. BAILEY: I AGREE, YOUR HONOR.

MR. DARDEN: AS FAR AS THE AUDIOTAPE IS CONCERNED, I ASSUME IT IS THE SAME AUDIOTAPE THE COURT LISTENED TO REGARDING BACK WHEN WE DID THE MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING THE DV HEARING.

THE COURT: BY THE TIME WE FINISH THIS ARGUMENT ON THE OUTTAKES, OBJECTION WITH SPECIFICS, IT WILL BE 4:30. DEPUTY MAGNERA, WHY DON'T YOU CALL UP AND LET THE JURY LOOSE FOR THIS AFTERNOON. THANK YOU.

DEPUTY MAGNERA: YES, SIR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S SEE THE OUTTAKES.

(4:09 A VIDEOTAPE, OUTTAKES, WAS PLAYED.)

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: THERE IS A SECOND PART TO THIS CLIP.

(THE VIDEOTAPE CONTINUES PLAYING.)

(AT 4:19 P.M. THE PLAYING OF THE VIDEOTAPE CONCLUDED.)

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: THAT WAS THE END OF THE SEGMENT.

THE COURT: WHAT ELSE DO WE HAVE?

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: WE ALSO HAVE THE SEGMENT FROM THE ROY FIRESTONE INTERVIEW.

THE COURT: LET'S DO THAT.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: I WILL NEED TO CHANGE LASER DISKS.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: WHAT IS THE COPYRIGHT STATUS OF THIS MATERIAL?

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

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: YOUR HONOR, I'M NOT SURE AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

MR. BAILEY: NEWS BROADCAST, WASN'T IT? THERE IS NO COPYRIGHT ON A NEWS BROADCAST.

THE COURT: READY?

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: MAY I PROCEED?

THE COURT: SURE.

(AT 4:20 P.M. A VIDEOTAPE WAS PLAYED.)

(AT 4:21 P.M. THE PLAYING OF THE VIDEOTAPE CONCLUDED.)

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: THAT IS THE END OF THIS PARTICULAR SEGMENT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. HOW LONG IS THE AUDIOTAPE?

MR. DARDEN: A COUPLE MINUTES.

THE COURT: I'M SORRY?

MS. CLARK: A COUPLE MINUTES.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: YOUR HONOR, I'M REMOVING THE TAPE FROM AN EXHIBIT THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN SENT TO COURT. IT IS A TAPE LABELED "P-55."

MR. DARDEN: I SHOULD INDICATE THAT THE DISPATCHER WILL BE HERE TO TESTIFY AND SHE WILL AUTHENTICATE THE TAPE.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: IF I MAY HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR, I'M NOT QUITE FAMILIAR WITH THIS NEW TAPE DECK.

MR. BAILEY: WHILE HE IS SEARCHING FOR THE GOODS, YOUR HONOR, WHAT IS THIS REMEDIAL TO? OBVIOUSLY MR. DARDEN COULD HAVE PLAYED IT IN HIS OPENING AND DECIDED NOT TO.

THE COURT: NO, NO. THIS IS THE -- YOU OBJECTED AND LODGED AN OBJECTION AS TO TO THIS. THIS IS PART OF OUR 402 HEARING AS TO THE TAPE.

MR. BAILEY: OKAY. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH REOPENING?

THE COURT: I FIGURED SINCE WE ARE HERE, WE SENT THE JURY HOME, WE GOT ALL THE EQUIPMENT, WE MIGHT AS WELL LISTEN TO IT ALL AT ONE TIME.

MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE, ARE YOU GOING TO LISTEN TO US AT SOME POINT IN TIME ABOUT THE VIDEO?

MR. BAILEY: IS THE FIRESTONE TAPE ALSO SOMETHING COMING INTO EVIDENCE AND NOT FOR REOPENING?

MR. DARDEN: YES.

THE COURT: THE ONLY THING WE WATCHED FOR PURPOSES OF REOPENING IS THE WORKOUT TAPE.

MR. BAILEY: AS TO THAT, I ASSUME IF YOU PERMIT THEM TO DESCRIBE IT AND SHOW IT IN REOPENING, IT WILL BE ON A COMMITMENT THAT IT WILL BE INTRODUCED IN THE CASE IN CHIEF AND IT IS ADMISSIBLE FOR ALL PURPOSES AND NOT SOME LIMITED PURSUANCE?

THE COURT: I ASSUME SO.

MS. CLARK: DID YOU RELEASE THE JURY, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YES.

MS. CLARK: WERE THEY ADMONISHED?

THE COURT: YES, THEY WERE.

MS. CLARK: OKAY. I DON'T HEAR IT ANY MORE. THANK YOU.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: YOUR HONOR, WE BELIEVE WE SOLVED THE TECHNICAL PROBLEM. IT WAS A MISPLACED PLUG.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. PROCEED.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: ALL RIGHT. WE ARE READY TO PROCEED.

THE COURT: I NEED A LITTLE MORE VOLUME ON THAT.

(AT 4:25 P.M. AN AUDIOTAPE WAS PLAYED.)

(AT 4:28 PLAYING OF THE AUDIOTAPE CONCLUDED.)

MR. DARDEN: WE APPARENTLY TURNED THE VOLUME UP DURING THE MIDDLE OF THE SCREAMS. AS I SAID, THE DISPATCHER WILL BE HERE.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I CAN'T TELL. WHAT WAS THE PART HE WANTED TO HEAR?

MR. DARDEN: YOU WANTED TO HEAR THE TAPE.

MR. COCHRAN: IT IS NOT CLEAR, YOUR HONOR, WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO HEAR. DID WE PLAY THE WHOLE THING?

MR. DARDEN: NO, THERE IS MORE, THAT RELATES TO OTHER CALLS.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT HE SAID WE WERE GOING TO HEAR SLAPS.

MR. DARDEN: YOU WILL.

MR. COCHRAN: WHO IS GOING TO IDENTIFY AND AUTHENTICATE THAT? WHO DO THEY HAVE WHO WAS THERE THAT CAN IDENTIFY AND AUTHENTICATE SLAPS?

MR. DARDEN: THE DISPATCHER. AND IF YOU LISTEN TO THE TAPE, YOU CAN HEAR IT, TOO, AND AS I SAID, I THINK WE TURN THE VOLUME UP DURING THE MIDDLE OF THE SCREAM.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WELL, LET ME HEAR IT AT THE TOP THEN BECAUSE THAT IS ALL AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TAPE.

MR. COCHRAN: I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THAT AGAIN, YOUR HONOR. HOW CAN THE DISPATCHER TELL US THEY ARE SLAPS? SHE CAN'T DO THAT.

THE COURT: THAT IS WHY WE ARE HAVING A 402 HEARING, MR. COCHRAN.

MR. DARDEN: THAT'S WHY WE HAVE A JURY.

THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND THE POINT, COUNSEL, BUT LET'S LISTEN TO THE TAPE. SOME THINGS ARE --

MR. DARDEN: DID YOU HEAR THE SCREAMING, THOUGH?

MR. COCHRAN: I DIDN'T STAND UP AND WHINE AND MOAN WHEN HE MADE THAT STATEMENT, YOUR HONOR.

MR. DARDEN: I'M NOT WHINING AND MOANING, MR. COCHRAN.

THE COURT: NOW YOU ARE GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY. GENTLEMAN, REALLY THIS IS GETTING OUT OF CONTROL, AND LADIES, THIS IS GETTING OUT OF CONTROL GOING BACK AND FORTH. YOU CAN MAYBE THE SAME POINTS. YOU DON'T HAVE TO ENGAGE IN THE PERSONAL INVECTIVE. THERE IS ONLY ONE THING THAT REALLY IRRITATES ME. I'M VERY PATIENT, I LET YOU GUYS TALK A LOT, BUT THE THING THAT IRRITATES ME IS THE PERSONAL INVECTIVE. ALL RIGHT. LET'S HEAR IT FROM THE TOP.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: IT IS NEARLY REWOUND.

THE COURT: I'M SORRY?

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: IT IS NEARLY REWOUND.

THE COURT: OKAY.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

(AT 4:30 P.M. THE AUDIOTAPE WAS AGAIN PLAYED.)

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: SHALL I REPLAY THAT SEGMENT, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: LET ME ASK YOU THIS, MR. DARDEN: WHAT IS THE -- WHAT GENERATION TAPE IS THIS? IS THIS A FIRST GENERATION OFF THE LARGE 24-HOUR REEL-TO-REEL THAT LAPD HAS?

MR. DARDEN: IT IS A SECOND GENERATION TAPE, I BELIEVE, OFF THE REEL-TO-REEL.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: SHALL I PROCEED?

THE COURT: PLEASE.

(AT 4:31 P.M. THE AUDIOTAPE WAS AGAIN PLAYED.)

(AT 4:32 THE PLAYING OF THE AUDIOTAPE CONCLUDED.)

THE COURT: OKAY. I'VE HEARD THAT PART. THANK YOU.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I BE HEARD ON THAT, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: I'M SORRY?

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I BE HEARD ON THAT?

THE COURT: LET ME SEE EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE GOT AND LET'S DO ALL THE SHOW AND TELL AND THEN WE WILL TAKE THEM ONE AT A TIME. MR. HARRIS, SO GOOD OF YOU TO COME BACK.

MR. DARDEN: IN ANY EVENT, I SHOULD INDICATE TO YOU, WORKING WITH THE CONTROL WE WILL FILTER OUT SOME OF THE NOISE AND YOU WILL HEAR, AS THE DISPATCHER HEARD JUST LAST WEEK, AS DID OTHER DISPATCHERS HEAR, AS I DID HEAR AND OTHER PEOPLE IN THIS OFFICE, YOU WILL BE ABLE TO HEAR IT.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, I INDICATED I WANTED TO SEE ALL THE EXHIBITS FIRST.

MR. DARDEN: THAT IS IT.

THE COURT: MR. HARRIS IS NOW HERE WITH THE FAMOUS LASER DISK.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

(AT 4:34 P.M. THE LASER DISK WAS DISPLAYED.)

THE COURT: LET ME KNOW IF YOU ARE GOING TO BRING UP A VICTIM'S BODY AGAIN.

MR. HARRIS: I'M SORRY, THAT WAS A MISTAKE.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. HARRIS: THAT'S IT.

THE COURT: I HOPE THE DELAY PERSON CAUGHT THAT. ALL RIGHT. LET ME SEE THE ORIGINAL. DO YOU HAVE THE FULL REPORT WITHOUT THE EMPHASIZED PORTION, MR. HARRIS?

MS. CLARK: RIGHT HERE.

THE COURT: NO, NO.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, JUST SO WE UNDERSTAND THE PARAMETERS OF WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE, AS FAR AS THE QUESTION FOR REOPENING OF OPENING STATEMENTS BY THE PROSECUTION, THE ISSUE WAS THE COURT WANTED TO SEE THE WORKOUT TAPE, SO-CALLED OUTTAKES, THAT THE PROSECUTION WISHES TO PRESENT BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY REGARDING EXPERT WITNESSES REGARDING THE DEFENDANT'S ARTHRITIC CONDITION WERE NOT DISCLOSED TO THEM PRIOR TO THE OPENING STATEMENTS, THEN ALSO THE PROSECUTION WANTED LEAVE OF THE COURT TO COMPLETE THE PICTURES, QUOTE-UNQUOTE, FAR AS THE EAP BLOOD TYPE. AND I REVIEWED THE EXHIBIT JUST NOW, SO LET'S SETTLE THE ISSUE OF REOPENING OPENING STATEMENT AND THEN I WILL HEAR THE 402 OBJECTIONS TO THE EVIDENCE. MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: WORKOUT TAPE AND THE EAP ITEM.

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

MS. CLARK: I THOUGHT THAT WORKOUT TAPE WAS RESOLVED.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO SAY IN SUPPORT OF THE TAPE?

MS. CLARK: SUPPORT OF THE WORKOUT TAPE, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YES.

MS. CLARK: ONLY -- I THINK I HAVE --

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, THOSE TWO ITEMS, LASER DISK AND THE WORKOUT TAPE?

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. AND I WILL BE VERY BRIEF, YOUR HONOR. WITH REGARD TO THE WORKOUT TAPE, I MEAN, WE ALL SAW THE WORKOUT TAPE, AND I THINK THAT I WILL SUBMIT IT EXCEPT TO SAY THAT THERE WAS SOME PART, SOME MOMENT OF LEVITY ABOUT GIVING YOUR WIFE ROOM OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT IS RELEVANT TO ANYTHING AT ALL. THE LATTER PART WHERE MR. SIMPSON IS TALKING TO THE TRAINER APPARENTLY AND SAYING YOU HAVE TO GIVE YOUR WIFE ROOM OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, SOME STATEMENT WHEN THEY ARE MOVING THE ARM, I DON'T KNOW IF THE COURT NOTED THAT, I DON'T THINK THAT IS RELEVANT AND I THINK THAT COULD BE AMBIGUOUS AND MISCONSTRUED. THE --

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. COCHRAN: YOU CAN TURN THE AUDIO OFF AT THAT POINT IF YOU WANTED TO JUST SHOW IT. HOW WOULD YOU NEED THE AUDIO AT THAT POINT? IN ADDITION TO THAT, I STILL FAIL TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE SAID THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO DO THIS IN A RE-REOPENING WHICH THE COURT HAS ALREADY SAID IS SO UNUSUAL.

THE COURT: WELL --

MR. COCHRAN: LET ME ADD ONE THING, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SURE.

MR. COCHRAN: AS I INDICATED TO THE COURT BEFORE, ONE OF THE ADVANTAGES, AND I THINK THIS SEEMS TO GET LOST SO VERY OFTEN HERE, IS THAT WHO WOULD KNOW BETTER THAN O.J. SIMPSON THAT HE HAS RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS, IN ADDITION TO THE FACT THAT WE DO HAVE DOCTORS WHO HAVE TREATED HIM SO WE WOULD KNOW THAT, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS TAPE HELPS WITH THE RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS. HE TALKS ABOUT HIS KNEES, HE TALKS ABOUT THOSE THINGS. SO I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT, SO IF YOU DO THINK THAT IT IS RELEVANT AND SHOULD BE DONE, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT I THINK WE ARE STRETCHING IT, NO. 1, BUT SECONDLY, ANY CONVERSATION WITH REGARD TO YOUR WIFE OR GIVING YOUR WIFE ROOM OR WHATEVER THAT STATEMENT WAS, WE MAY WANT TO LOOK AT THAT AGAIN, I THINK THAT WOULD BE IMPROPER AND AMBIGUOUS AND WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE TO BE SHOWN TO THE JURY. THE OTHER ASPECT YOU ASKED ME TO ADDRESS WHICH IS WITH REGARD TO THE EAP BLOOD. AS THE COURT CAN SEE, IN THE SHOW AND TELL IT IS HOOKED INTO THE LASER DISK, PUT THE WHOLE -- WE PUT THE WHOLE EXHIBIT UP, TOOK OUT THE PORTION. THE COURT COULD SEE WHAT WE TOOK OUT. IT WAS SHOWN TO MISS CLARK AND IT WAS SHOWN TO EVERYBODY. THIS IDEA THAT THEY WERE RUSHING, THAT IS NOT TRUTH AT ALL. THEY WERE SHOWN THIS AND THEY LOOKED AT IT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE. THEY CONTINUED TO OBJECT. EVEN TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE, YOUR HONOR, THIS MORNING MISS CLARK HAS THIS SELECTED MEMORY. SHE HAD FORGOTTEN ABOUT THE FUHRMAN THING. OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION AGAIN TOLD YOU ABOUT FUHRMAN AND SHE RECALLED THAT AND SHE ARGUED ABOUT VANNATTER AND SAID SHE COULDN'T DO THAT AND YOU ALREADY RULED ON THAT. SHE WILL REARGUE EVERYTHING. I THINK THAT IS THE POINT WITH THE EAP. WE MADE THIS CLEAR AND IT IS ABSOLUTELY OUTRAGEOUS TO TALK ABOUT MISLEADING. WE DON'T HAVE TO ACCEPT THE FACTS THAT WHENEVER EVERYTHING POINTS AWAY FROM THEIR THEORY OF GUILT TOWARDS INNOCENCE. AND THEY WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT BEING DEGRADED, YOUR HONOR. THERE WILL BE A LOT OF EVIDENCE ABOUT POSSIBLE DEGRADING, BUT AGAIN, THAT IS THEIR -- THAT IS THEIR QUALIFIER, THAT IS THEIR SPECULATION. WE DON'T HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT. WE TOOK THE POINT THAT WAS MADE AT THAT POINT, IF THE COURT PLEASES, AND I THINK IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, FIRST OF ALL, WITH RESPECT TO THE VIDEOTAPE, I THINK THE STATEMENT THAT IS MADE BY MR. SIMPSON IS RELEVANT AND SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO REMAIN IN.

THE COURT: WELL, THAT GOES TO A DIFFERENT ISSUE. YOU KNOW, WHETHER OR NOT IT IS RELEVANT TO ISSUES OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND FLIPPANT COMMENTS MADE ABOUT SPOUSAL ABUSE, THAT IS A DIFFERENT ISSUE. YOU WANT TO USE IT TO REOPEN REGARDING ARTHRITIS. THAT IS WHAT YOU HAVE ASKED FOR AND NOT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. THE FIRST SEGMENT DEALS WITH A WORKOUT. THE SECOND SEGMENT CONTAINS I THINK THE COMMENT, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, SINCE THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I HAVE SEEN IT.

MR. DARDEN: YES.

MS. CLARK: YES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. IF THE ISSUE IS THE ARTHRITIS, AT THIS TIME I'M INCLINED TO ALLOW YOU TO USE THE FIRST SEGMENT ONLY.

MS. CLARK: FOR THE PRESENTATION?

THE COURT: FOR THE PRESENTATION. NOW --

MS. CLARK: WHY DON'T WE JUST TAKE THE SOUND OUT SINCE THE ISSUE IS THE ARTHRITIS FOR THE OPENING? WOULDN'T THAT RESOLVE IT?

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. COCHRAN: NO. MAY I BE HEARD?

THE COURT: SURE.

MR. COCHRAN: ABSOLUTELY NOT. WHERE HE TALKS -- WE WANT THE SOUND OUT BECAUSE HE SAID I'VE GOT THESE BAD KNEES, CAN'T USE THESE KNEES? WHAT IS THIS? I THINK THAT WOULD BE TOTALLY UNFAIR.

THE COURT: FIRST SEGMENT.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR --

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

MS. CLARK: THIS IS OUR CASE IN CHIEF, YOUR HONOR. COUNSEL CAN PUT THIS WHEREVER THEY WANT TO PUT IN WHEN IT IS THEIR TURN.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, HERE IS THE PROBLEM: SECOND SEGMENT CLEARLY HAS PROBLEMS WITH THAT STATEMENT. I'M NOT SAYING IT IS NOT COMING IN, BUT THAT IS NOT THE PURPOSE YOU NEED IT FOR THE OPENING STATEMENT.

MS. CLARK: RIGHT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SO YOU ARE ASKING FOR TOO MUCH TO GET THAT IN AT THIS POINT. THE FIRST SEGMENT SHOWS MR. SIMPSON DOING VARIOUS EXERCISES, STRETCHING. HE MENTIONED THE KNEES. THAT IS WHAT YOU NEED. THAT IS WHAT YOU WANT FOR YOUR OPENING STATEMENT. THAT IS WHAT YOU CAN HAVE.

MS. CLARK: IS THE COURT REQUIRING US TO USE SOUND?

THE COURT: THAT IS WHAT IT IS. YOU WANT A VIDEOTAPE, YOU TAKE IT THE WAY IT IS.

MS. CLARK: WE -- YOUR HONOR, IF WE DON'T WANT TO USE THE SOUND, IT IS EASY TO TAKE OUT. WE CAN SIMPLY --

THE COURT: BUT THEN IT IS A MISREPRESENTATION OF WHAT IS THERE, ISN'T IT?

MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY.

THE COURT: THEN IT IS A MISREPRESENTATION AS TO WHAT IT IS.

MS. CLARK: KIND OF LIKE WHAT COUNSEL DID, YOU MEAN?

THE COURT: DO YOU WANT TO USE IT OR NOT? YES OR NO? USE THE VIDEOTAPE, DON'T USE THE VIDEOTAPE, IT IS UP TO YOU. THE FIRST SEGMENT, THAT IS ALL I'M GOING TO ALLOW IS BECAUSE THAT IS ALL IT GOES TO IS THE ARTHRITIC CONDITION.

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

THE COURT: SURE.

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

MS. CLARK: OKAY. WE WILL USE IT.

THE COURT: OKAY. THE SECOND THING IS THE EAP, THE THING ON THE LASER DISK. I HAVE SEEN IT NOW. ANY OTHER COMMENT?

MS. CLARK: I THINK THE COURT CAN SEE HOW MISLEADING IT IS AND I ONLY WANTED TO INDICATE TO THE COURT THAT THE DEFENSE VIOLATED THE COURT ORDER REGARDING THE SHOW AND TELL SHOWING UP LATE WITH IT ON MONDAY. I DO NOT RECALL HAVING SEEN IT, BUT WE WERE HIT WITH SO MUCH AT THE LAST MINUTE AND AS A RESULT OF THE DEFENSE VIOLATION OF THE COURT'S ORDER AS TO WHEN THOSE EXHIBITS WERE SUPPOSED TO BE SHOWN TO US, WE WERE PRESSED IN OR EXAMINING A HUGE NUMBER OF EXHIBITS ALL AT THE LAST MINUTE WITH ABOUT SECOND FOR EACH ONE. THE RESULT OF A DEFENSE VIOLATION OF A COURT ORDER SHOULD NOT BE THAT THE PEOPLE ARE UNDER THE GUN AND HELD THEIR FEET TO THE FIRE. THAT SHOULD NOT BE THE RESULT. THE PEOPLE SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO EXAMINE THINGS IN A MORE LEISURELY FASHION. AND THE DEFENDANT IS SIMPLY PUSHING THE COURT AND PUSHING THE COURT IN ORDER TO GET THE COURT TO PUSH THE PROSECUTION UNFAIRLY IN ORDER TO GAIN MORE TACTICAL ADVANTAGE WHICH IS WHAT THEY DID EXACTLY WITH THE EXHIBIT AS WELL. IT IS A VERY CONSISTENT PATTERN HERE. WE HAVE A CONSTANT EFFORT TO SANDBAG AND TAKE THE PROSECUTION BY SURPRISE AND TRY AND MAKE THIS A TRIAL BY AMBUSH. THEY DON'T WANT THE TRUTH TO COME OUT. THEY WANT TO PUT A STRANGLEHOLD ON US SO THAT WE CANNOT MEET THEIR EVIDENCE AND MEET THEIR REPRESENTATIONS AND THAT IS WHY EVERYTHING IS BEING HIDDEN AND POPPED OUT AT THE LAST MINUTE, TOO MANY LAST MINUTE SURPRISES. AND NOBODY IS PERFECT, YOUR HONOR. YOU KNOW, IF WE MADE A MISTAKE, THEN I APOLOGIZE TO THE COURT. THAT IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN PEOPLE DO THINGS IN A HURRY. MISTAKES GET MADE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MISS CLARK. ALL RIGHT. THE COURT'S RULING -- I'M SORRY.

MR. COCHRAN: ONE THING TO THE COURT. THIS WAS ARGUED ON THE 23RD. THE COURT DIDN'T EVEN RULE ON THIS UNTIL THE 24TH I THINK YOU WILL FIND THE RECORD WILL SHOW.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, THE COURT'S RULING STANDS AS TO THE PROSECUTION MOTION TO REOPEN. THEY WILL BE ALLOWED TO REOPEN AS TO MISS GERCHAS, AS TO THE INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS. THEY WILL BE ALLOWED TO REOPEN TO SHOW THE FIRST SEGMENT OF THE WORKOUT VIDEOTAPE. THEY WILL BE ALLOWED TO REOPEN AS TO THE -- AS TO MR. WEITZMAN SINCE MR. WEITZMAN WAS NEITHER ON THE WITNESS LIST OR DISCLOSED PRIOR TO THE OPENING STATEMENTS. I AM GOING TO SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION TO REOPENING AS TO THE EAP BLOOD TYPE. ALL RIGHT. LET'S DISCUSS THEN IN THE OPENING STATEMENT -- EXCUSE ME -- THE PROSECUTION'S FIRST WITNESSES.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, CAN I SAY ONE THING TO THE COURT? WITH REGARD TO JUST ONE THING, MAY I ASK YOU A QUESTION?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY. CLARIFICATION, QUESTION?

MR. COCHRAN: QUESTION, QUESTION. THE QUESTION HAS TO DO WITH, YOUR HONOR, THE COURT INDICATED THAT HE WASN'T ON THE WITNESS LIST OR WHATEVER. I AM INDICATING TO THE COURT, HE WASN'T ON THE WITNESS LIST BUT FOR THE PROSECUTION TO MAKE THE STATEMENT I'M REPRESENTING TO THE COURT MR. WEITZMAN IS GOING TO SAY ALONG WITH MR. TAFT THAT HE WAS ASKED TO LEAVE AND WAS NOT ALLOWED IN THAT ROOM.

THE COURT: AND I ASSUME THAT THEY ARE GOING TO SAY --

MR. COCHRAN: THEY ARE GOING TO SAY THAT --

THE COURT: -- THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL MADE THIS REPRESENTATION TO YOU. WE ARE GOING TO PRESENT WITNESSES WHO ARE GOING TO TELL YOU THAT THAT IS NOT TRUE. THIS IS WHAT OUR EVIDENCE IS GOING TO SHOW. AND THAT IS ALL THEY ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO SAY. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE, BECAUSE WEITZMAN, IF THE COURT ALLOWS, IS GOING TO BE COMING IN, ALONG WITH SKIP TAFT AND OTHERS, WHO WILL SAY ACTUALLY WHAT HAPPENED.

THE COURT: I SUSPECT SO. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS CLEAR.

THE COURT: IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. AS TO THE ROY FIRESTONE TAPE, ANY COMMENT, MR. COCHRAN?

MR. COCHRAN: YES. WE ARE NOW TO THE TRIAL EVIDENCE, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: THAT IS CORRECT. TWO ISSUES WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE ARE THE 911 TAPE AND THE ROY FIRESTONE TAPE.

MR. COCHRAN: LET ME TAKE -- YOU ASKED ME ABOUT ROY FIRESTONE FIRST. LET ME TAKE ROY FIRESTONE FIRST. IT IS A TELEVISION INTERVIEW, YOUR HONOR, AND I'M NOT CLEAR FOR WHAT PURPOSE THIS IS OFFERED. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IF THEY ARE GOING TO CALL ROY FIRESTONE, I'M NOT SURE IF THEY ARE CALLING ROY FIRESTONE OR THEY ARE JUST PLAYING THE TAPE. IT SEEMS TO ME THEY WOULD HAVE TO CALL ROY FIRESTONE AS OPPOSED TO JUST PLAYING THE TAPE OR IS THERE GOING TO BE A COMBINATION THERE OF? MAY I ASK THAT QUESTION FIRST? WHAT RELEVANCE -- ARE YOU GOING TO PLAY A TAPE AND THAT IS ALL THAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN?

THE COURT: I DON'T KNOW. MR. DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN: I THINK THE TAPE IS SELF-AUTHENTICATING. I DON'T THINK I HAVE TO CALL ROY FIRESTONE. IT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. EITHER THAT IS O.J. SIMPSON OR IT IS AN IMPOSTER.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, THE PROBLEM IS HOW DO WE CROSS-EXAMINE THE TAPE? THAT TAPE IS CUT AFTER AN INTERVIEW. WHEN YOU GO -- IF THE COURT IS AWARE, WHEN YOU DO AN INTERVIEW -- I SHOULDN'T USE THAT AS AN EXAMPLE, SHOULD I, YOUR HONOR? FORGIVE ME, YOUR HONOR. WHEN ONE DOES AN INTERVIEW SOMETIMES THEY LAST LIKE FIVE DAYS OR WHATEVER, YOU KNOW. LET ME TELL YOU, JUDGE, THEY CUT THESE INTERVIEWS.

THE COURT: OH, MR. COCHRAN, YOU REALLY KNOW HOW TO HURT A GUY.

MR. COCHRAN: NO, YOUR HONOR. NO, NO, YOUR HONOR, NO. THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE, YOUR HONOR, WAS THAT THIS INTERVIEW IS CUT IN A PARTICULAR FASHION TO BE OVER, LET'S SAY, A 22-MINUTE PERIOD OF TIME IF HE HAS A HALF HOUR SHOW. WE CAN'T CROSS-EXAMINE THAT. I'M SURE MR. SIMPSON, AS HE SEES THAT INTERVIEW, WILL SAY, WAIT A MINUTE, THEY CUT THIS OTHER PART OUT THAT I SAID. IF WE HAVE ROY FIRESTONE -- OTHERWISE IT IS BASICALLY HEARSAY, A FORM OF HEARSAY. IF WE HAVE ROY FIRESTONE, I CAN ASK HIM DIDN'T MR. SIMPSON SAY SO AND SO IN ADDITION TO THAT? SO WE DON'T HAVE THAT. THAT IS MY FIRST OBJECTION TO THIS. I THINK AGAIN IT SEEMS LIKE IT IS MUCH TO DO ABOUT NOTHING, BUT IT SEEMS HERE IS AN INTERVIEW IN '89 WHERE THEY ARE GOING TO SHOW THE TAPE WITHOUT ROY FIRESTONE, AND JUDGE, I THINK WE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO HAVE MR. FIRESTONE AS PART OF THEIR CASE BECAUSE, OTHERWISE IT IS HEARSAY, I CANNOT CROSS-EXAMINE OR SHOW THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS PARTICULAR TAPE, AND I THINK THAT IS UNFAIR TO THE DEFENDANT. WE ARE DEPRIVED OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT IN THAT REGARD.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHAT ARE YOUR COMMENTS ON THE 911 TAPE?

MR. COCHRAN: 911 TAPE, YOUR HONOR, I WAS A LITTLE SURPRISED TO HEAR MR. DARDEN SAY HE IS GOING TO CLEAN THAT UP. NOW, HERE WE ARE --

MR. DARDEN: I DIDN'T SAY THAT.

MR. COCHRAN: CUT SOMETHING OUT OF.

MR. DARDEN: I DIDN'T SAY THAT EITHER.

MR. COCHRAN: DON'T TALK TO ME. YOUR HONOR, I'M TALKING ONLY TO THE COURT. I THOUGHT THAT MR. DARDEN SAID SOMETHING ABOUT CLEANING SOMETHING UP OR WHATEVER. WE DON'T WANT THAT TAPE ALTERED AND I'M TELLING YOU, YOUR HONOR, YOU I'M SURE YOU HEARD A LOT OF TAPES IN YOUR LIFE, AND FOR HIM TO HAVE GOTTEN UP AND SAID THOSE WERE SLAPS, I THINK THAT THAT IS GOING TO BE A MAJOR PROBLEM. I DON'T THINK THAT ANY DISPATCHER CAN TALK ABOUT THESE BEING SLAPS. I THINK WE HAVE A FURTHER HEARING REGARDING THAT PERSON'S QUALIFICATION BASED UPON THE TAPE THAT WE GAVE HEARD. I WOULD ASK THE COURT WHETHER OR NOT THIS COURT IS PREPARED TO ALLOW ANYBODY TO TESTIFY THOSE ARE SLAPS. CERTAINLY DIDN'T SOUND THAT WAY TO ME.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THE SCREAMING WOMAN IN THE BACKGROUND?

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, I DON'T -- OH, NO. I MEAN, IF THERE IS SOMEBODY WHO WAS SCREAMING, IF IT IS IDENTIFIED WITH THIS CASE WHEN YOU SAY YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT, I WOULD RATHER NOT HAVE THAT, OF COURSE, BUT I MEAN, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THEIR ORDER OF PROOF, IF THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO DO, BUT HE GOT UP AND TOLD THE JURY THEY WERE GOING TO PROVE SLAPS. I DON'T HEAR THAT. AND THEN HE TELLS US THAT THE DISPATCHER CAN HEAR IT, HE CAN HEAR IT AND HE IS GOING TO DO SOMETHING WITH IT TO MAKE IT CLEAR, AND I DON'T THINK THAT IS TRUE AT ALL. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE 403 HEARINGS, SO I DO OBJECT BASED ON THAT, YOUR HONOR, UNTIL IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS RELEVANT AND UNTIL IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS NOT SPECULATIVE. AND YOUR HONOR, I WANT YOU TO NOTE, I'M NOT ASKING TO REOPEN MY OPENING STATEMENT TO SAY HE MISLED THIS JURY. SOMETIME OR OTHER WE HAVE GOT TO TRY THIS CASE, DON'T WE?

THE COURT: BOY, I HOPE SO. MR. DARDEN, LET ME ASK YOU THIS: AS TO THE ROY FIRESTONE TAPE, I SEEM TO RECALL THAT I SUSTAINED OBJECTIONS TO THE DEFENSE USING A MONTAGE OF VIDEOTAPES WHICH I COULD TELL WERE THE CRIME SCENE AT BUNDY. I RECOGNIZE THE PERSONS WHO WERE THERE, BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHERE, WHEN, HOW AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE OUTTAKES, AND THERE IS A FOUNDATIONAL PROBLEM WITH IT THAT THE PROSECUTION ADVANCED AND I SUSTAINED THAT OBJECTION IN YOUR BEHALF. MR. COCHRAN RAISES THE SAME OBJECTION TO THE FIRESTONE VIDEOTAPE. IT IS APPARENT WHO IS THERE. IT IS MR. SIMPSON, IT IS MR. FIRESTONE AND THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT THE '89 INCIDENT. BUT THERE IS STILL AN AUTHENTICATION FOUNDATION THAT HAS TO BE LAID. IT IS NOT INHERENTLY SELF-AUTHENTICATING.

MR. DARDEN: I THINK THAT IT IS IN, YOUR HONOR, IN DISCOVERY AND DURING THE DV HEARING I PROVIDED THE COURT AND COUNSEL WITH A COMPLETE COPY OF THE PROGRAM, YOUR HONOR, AND THAT IS A PORTION OF THAT PROGRAM, AND SO WHATEVER CONCERN MR. COCHRAN MAY HAVE THEN REGARDING THE AUTHENTICATION OF THAT PARTICULAR TAPE, IT IS -- THERE IS NO ISSUE THERE AND YOU CAN'T CROSS-EXAMINE A VIDEOTAPE. THAT IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.

THE COURT: WELL, HERE IS THE PROBLEM, MR. DARDEN: THERE IS AN OBJECTION, THERE IS A FOUNDATIONAL OBJECTION IS WHAT I'M HEARING FROM MR. COCHRAN.

MR. DARDEN: WHAT IS THE OBJECTION? HE HAS THE COMPLETE PROGRAM AND I WANT TO PLAY A PORTION OF IT. I HAVE NO DUTY TO PLAY THE ENTIRE PROGRAM, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE FACT THAT IT IS NOT RELEVANT TO THESE PROCEEDINGS, AND SO I WANT TO PLAY FOUR MINUTES OF THAT PROGRAM THAT RELATES DIRECTLY FOR AN INCIDENT WHICH THE COURT HAS AGREED IS RELEVANT AND ADMISSIBLE IN THIS CASE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WELL, MR. DARDEN, LET'S ASSUME THAT I DON'T BUY THE ARGUMENT THAT IT IS SELF-AUTHENTICATING. WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE US?

MR. DARDEN: YOU ARE THE JUDGE. THAT IS WHERE IT LEAVES US. I SAY IT IS. I SAY THE EVIDENCE CODE WOULD LIKELY AGREE WITH ME. I MEAN, IT IS A PORTION OF A COMPLETE T.V. PROGRAM WHICH THE COURT HAS SEEN.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WELL, DO YOU WANT TO --

MR. DARDEN: WHICH MR. COCHRAN HAS SEEN.

THE COURT: I HAVE THE EVIDENCE CODE BEFORE ME. DO YOU WANT TO CITE ME TO A CODE SECTION THAT SAYS THAT VIDEOTAPES ARE SELF-AUTHENTICATING?

MR. DARDEN: NO, NO, I DON'T.

THE COURT: YOU PUT ME IN --

MR. DARDEN: IT IS LIKE ANY OTHER WRITING, OKAY? VIDEOTAPES, LIKE WRITINGS, CAN BE SELF-AUTHENTICATING. YOU HAVE THE DATE OF THE INTERVIEW RIGHT THERE. WE RECOGNIZE THE PEOPLE IN THE VIDEOTAPE. THEY ARE IDENTIFIED IN THE VIDEOTAPE, OKAY? WE KNOW THE DATE THAT IT WAS AIRED. WE KNOW IT IS A ESPN VIDEO.

THE COURT: I AGREE WITH YOU. I KNOW ALL THESE THINGS. THE PROBLEM IS THEY ARE OBJECTING.

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

MR. DARDEN: I'M HELPING THEM OUT. I AM TRYING TO SHOW THEM WHERE THEY ARE WRONG.

THE COURT: OKAY.

MR. DARDEN: LOOK AT THE VIDEOTAPE, THE CONTENT OF IT. YOU WANT TO KNOW WHO PRODUCED IT, YOU WANT TO KNOW THE DATE OF INTERVIEW, YOU WANT TO KNOW THE SUBJECT MATTER, YOU WANT TO KNOW THE NAME OF THE INTERVIEW AND INTERVIEWEE, IT IS ALL RIGHT THERE. WHAT CAN BE MORE AUTHENTICATING THAN THAT? IT IS RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF US.

THE COURT: WELL, ISN'T WHAT IS IN THERE, THE DATE ON IT, HEARSAY, UNTIL SOMEBODY AUTHENTICATES IT?

MR. DARDEN: NO. WOULD IT BE IN A LETTER? COULDN'T A LETTER BE SELF-AUTHENTICATING?

THE COURT: DEPENDS ON WHAT THE LETTER IS.

MR. DARDEN: DOES SOMEONE HAVE TO COME IN AND AUTHENTICATE THE DATE? I MEAN, THE LETTER SPEAKS FOR ITSELF, JUST LIKE THE VIDEOTAPE SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.

THE COURT: WE JUST CAN'T BRING IN LETTERS. SOMEBODY HAS TO TESTIFY WHO WROTE IT, WHOSE HANDWRITING IT IS.

MS. CLARK: EXCEPT IN THIS CASE.

MR. DARDEN: EXCEPT IN THIS CASE YOU DON'T NEED THAT BECAUSE YOU SEE THE FACES OF THE PERSONS WHO ARE SPEAKING. YOU SEE THE FACE OF THE PERSON WHO IS ASKING THE QUESTIONS. IF YOU WANT SOMEONE FROM ESPN IN HERE, FINE, OKAY. I MEAN THAT IS FINE. THAT IS NO PROBLEM. I WILL GET SOMEONE.

THE COURT: NO, IT IS NOT ME WHO WANTS IT. THEY ARE RAISING THE OBJECTION. I WOULD JUST AS SOON LEAVE ESPN PEOPLE AT HOME.

MR. DARDEN: SURE. I WILL GET A CLERK TO COME IN AND SAY THIS IS A PROGRAM THAT AIRED AT ESPN, THIS IS A T.V. PROGRAM, THIS IS OUR VIDEOTAPE, IT IS A TRUE COPY AND THAT IS THAT AND THAT IS ALL THAT IS REQUIRED UNDER THE LAW.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE TO THE SCREAMING WOMAN ASPECT, THE SLAPPING ASPECT OF THE SCREAMING WOMAN TAPE?

MR. DARDEN: WELL, I THINK THAT LAY PEOPLE CAN GIVE THEIR OPINIONS. I'M NOT GOING TO CUT THE TAPE OR ALTER THE TAPE SO THAT YOU CAN HEAR SLAPS. I'M SIMPLY GOING TO ADJUST THE DIALS ON THE TAPE-RECORDER HERE. IF THERE ARE NO SLAPS, THE JURY WILL FIGURE THAT OUT, BUT LET ME ADD THIS: YOU HAVE THE TAPE OF THE SCREAMING WOMAN, YOU HAVE THE -- YOU HAVE THE OPERATOR SAYING THAT THE CALL ORIGINATES FROM 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM AND YOU HAVE HER DISPATCHING POLICE CARS TO THAT LOCATION. YOU HAVE OFFICERS ARRIVING MOMENTS LATER, YOU HAVE NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON WHO HAS EVIDENCE -- PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, PHYSICAL PROOF OF HAVING BEEN SLAPPED, PLUS YOU HAVE HER SPONTANEOUS STATEMENTS, OKAY? AND I THINK THAT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I THINK, A, YOU ARE GOING TO HEAR SLAPS AS WE ADJUST THE KNOBS ON THE TAPE, BUT THEN AGAIN, THERE IS ALSO PHYSICAL PROOF THAT THE DEFENDANT SLAPPED HER. AND HE ADMITTED IT LATER ON. HE ADMITTED HARMING HER IN HIS LETTERS TO HER, SO WHAT IS THE ISSUE? WHAT IS THE PROBLEM, MR. COCHRAN?

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I RESPOND, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: BRIEFLY.

MR. COCHRAN: I WILL TELL HIM WHAT THE PROBLEM IS. THE PROBLEM IS THE EVIDENCE CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THAT IS THE PROBLEM, AND HEARSAY AND OTHER THINGS LIKE THAT. I MEAN, IT IS PRODUCTIVE TO TELL YOU THAT YOU ARE GOING TO HEAR SLAPS. HE HAS TOLD THE JURY THAT ALREADY. WE HAVE ALL HEARD THIS TAPE, AND YOU ARE NOT GOING TO HEAR SLAPS. IT IS A MATTER OF INTERPRETATION. WHAT I THINK WE SHOULD MAKE VERY CLEAR, YOUR HONOR, THAT COUNSEL NEEDS TO READ THE EVIDENCE CODE WITH REGARD TO THAT VIDEOTAPE AND REGARDING HIS ANALYSIS OF THAT. AND A LETTER, THAT IS NOT FOUNDATIONAL, AND I THINK WE STILL HAVE A PROBLEM AND I DON'T THINK YOU CAN JUST BRING A CLERK IN HERE. WE ARE GOING TO OBJECT IF HE BRINGS A CLERK IN HERE TO TRY TO LAY SOME FOUNDATION FOR THIS PARTICULAR TAPE. AS YOU CORRECTLY POINTED OUT, JUDGE, WHEN WE WERE SEEKING TO SHOW A TAPE WHICH EVERYBODY HAD SEEN AT THE SCENE, THE COURT KEPT THAT OUT ON VARIOUS GROUNDS, BUT IT WAS A MONTAGE. THESE THINGS ARE CUT, PASTED, PUT TOGETHER, AND IT IS A REAL PROBLEM IF WE DON'T HAVE THE PERSON WHO DID THE CUT AND PASTING, IF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE TRUTH AND GETTING THE FACTS OUT TO THE JURORS, IN WHICH THEY CLAIM THEY WANT TO DO, SO I WOULD -- I WOULD RESERVE FURTHER OBJECTION. AND I WAS REMINDED WHEN I RETURNED TO MY SEAT THAT WHAT COUNSEL HAD INDICATED WAS THAT THEY WERE GOING TO FILTER OR SOMETHING, USE THE WORDS "FILTER" WITH REGARDS TO THIS NOISE. WE ARE ENTITLED TO HAVE THAT TAPE JUST THE WAY IT IS, NOT ENHANCED, AND NOT FIDDLING WITH THE KNOBS, BUT THE WAY WE HEARD IT THERE, NOT SO THAT THEY CAN BRING UP SOMETHING TO TRY TO PROVE SOMETHING. FURTHER, THERE IS A FOUNDATIONAL PROBLEM WITH THAT TAPE. THE ADDRESS, I THINK IT WAS 360 ROCKINGHAM, APARTMENT B, AND THERE IS NO APARTMENTS AT THAT LOCATION AND THERE ARE NO APARTMENTS AT 360 ROCKINGHAM. I DON'T KNOW -- I'M NOT CLEAR ABOUT WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH REGARD TO THAT, BUT I THINK THAT THERE ARE SOME FURTHER FOUNDATIONAL THINGS. AND I APPRECIATE THE COURT -- THAT IS WHY WE HAVE THESE HEARINGS, BUT COUNSEL HAS NOT GIVEN YOU -- YOU ASKED HIM FOR A CASE, YOU ASKED HIM FOR A CITE WITH REGARD TO THE VIDEOTAPE, AND YOU KNOW THE PROBLEMS INHERENT WITH THIS TAPE, AND THEY HAVEN'T EVEN CALLED THEIR FIRST WITNESS YET, JUDGE, AND THESE ARE THE PROBLEMS THEY ARE HAVING WITH THIS EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. MR. DARDEN, I THINK YOU HAVE -- I ACCEPT YOUR OFFER OF PROOF THAT YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE THE DISPATCHER COME IN WHO WAS THE PERSON WHO TOOK THIS CALL, CORRECT?

MR. DARDEN: YES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. DARDEN: SHE WILL EXPLAIN, I'M SURE NOT TO MR. COCHRAN'S SATISFACTION, BUT I'M SURE TO EVERYBODY ELSE'S, AND SHE WILL AUTHENTICATE THE TAPE AND SHE WILL ALSO INDICATE THAT AS SHE LISTENED TO THE SLAPS AND THE BEATING THAT SHE TYPED INTO HER KEYBOARD THERE CONTEMPORANEOUSLY THAT FACT, THE FACT THAT SHE COULD HEAR THE WOMAN BEING BEATEN.

THE COURT: IS THAT PART OF OUR RECORD OF DISCOVERY? HAS THAT BEEN TURNED OVER TO THE DEFENSE?

MR. DARDEN: ABSOLUTELY, YOUR HONOR.

MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE NOT SEEN THAT, YOUR HONOR.

MR. DARDEN: HE SHOULD READ HIS DISCOVERY.

MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE NOT SEEN IT. FURTHERMORE, THE FACT --

MR. DARDEN: HE HASN'T READ IT.

THE COURT: HOLD ON. I'M TALKING TO MR. DARDEN RIGHT NOW, MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: I THOUGHT YOU ASKED ME.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. DARDEN: OF COURSE IT IS PART OF THE DISCOVERY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. DARDEN, ACCEPTING YOUR REPRESENTATION THAT YOU WILL HAVE THE DISPATCHER HERE WHO WILL AUTHENTICATE THE TAPE, I'M GOING TO OVERRULE THE OBJECTION AT THIS TIME.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: HOWEVER, THE TAPE APPEARS TO ME TO BE OVERLY LONG BECAUSE IT GOES ON TO OTHER THINGS AND OTHER INCIDENTS AND OTHER -- HOW FAR -- HOW FAR INTO THE TAPE DO WE GET THE ACTUAL DISPATCH OF THE UNIT?

MR. DARDEN: THAT PROCESS FROM THE TIME THAT YOU HEAR THE FIRST SCREAM UNTIL YOU HEAR THE DISPATCHER NOTIFYING POLICE UNITS.

THE COURT: ANY WEST L.A. UNIT, 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM CODE 2?

MR. DARDEN: RIGHT, IS ABOUT THREE MINUTES, AND THE PROBLEM HERE IS THAT THE DISPATCHER RECEIVES THE CALL, SHE HEARS THE SCREAMING, AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE LINE IS LEFT OPEN, OKAY, AND SO ALTHOUGH YOU MAY HERE OTHER DISPATCHERS COMING ON AND DISPATCHING OTHER UNITS TO OTHER LOCATIONS IN OTHER MATTERS, THE LINE IS LEFT OPEN AND THE DISPATCHER IS STILL LISTENING IN.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THE TAPE IS RELEVANT UP UNTIL THE POINT WHERE THE CAR IS DISPATCHED, BUT THERE IS A LOT OF EXTRANEOUS STUFF THAT IS GOING ON THERE, SO WHAT I'M TELLING YOU, I'M GOING TO LET YOU PLAY THE FIRST PART OF IT UP UNTIL WE GET TO THE ACTUAL DISPATCH OF THE CAR, BECAUSE I THINK THAT PRETTY MUCH ENDS THE RELEVANCE OF THE TAPE.

MR. DARDEN: YOU ARE SAYING ONCE THE CARS ARE DISPATCHED TO ROCKINGHAM, END THE TAPE?

THE COURT: RIGHT.

MR. DARDEN: FINE.

MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE A QUESTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: IS THE COURT ALLOWING THE DISPATCHER TO SAY SHE HEARD SLAPS? WE OBJECT TO THAT. I DON'T THINK YOU RULED ON THAT YET. HOW DOES SHE -- IS SHE ABLE TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION?

THE COURT: LET'S TALK TO HER WHEN SHE GETS HERE OUT OF THE PRESENCE.

MR. COCHRAN: I THINK ON VOIR DIRE I WOULD ASK COUNSEL NOT TO GO INTO THAT.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN, WHY DON'T YOU PULL UP THE SHEETS THAT YOU HAVE ON HER NOTES AND WE WILL TAKE A LOOK AT IT TOMORROW MORNING. ALL RIGHT.

MR. DARDEN: UH-HUH.

MR. COCHRAN: WHEN YOU HEAR THAT, YOUR HONOR, WHO WAS SLAPPING WHOM IN THAT TAPE?

THE COURT: I DON'T KNOW.

MR. DARDEN: LOOKS LIKE THE DEFENDANT WAS SLAPPING NICOLE. THAT MAY BE THE POINT IN TIME WHEN HE GRABBED HER AROUND THE NECK AND LEFT THE HAND IMPRINT. I DON'T KNOW.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THAT IS ENOUGH, COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. AS TO THE FIRESTONE TAPE, I'M GOING TO SUSTAIN THE FOUNDATIONAL OBJECTION SUBJECT TO FURTHER PROOF.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OKAY. TOMORROW MORNING THEN. SO THAT WE ARE CLEAR, TOMORROW MORNING AT 9:00 A.M. THE PROSECUTION WILL HAVE TEN MINUTES TO BRIEFLY REOPEN THEIR OPENING STATEMENT, THEN WE WILL PROCEED TO THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE.

MR. DARDEN: TEN MINUTES IN ADDITION TO ANY PORTION OF THE --

THE COURT: YES, IN ADDITION TO THE --

MR. DARDEN: -- EXERCISE VIDEO?

THE COURT: FOUR MINUTES OF VIDEOTAPE THAT IS RELEVANT.

MR. BAILEY: MAY WE SEE THE COURT AT THE BENCH FOR ONE MINUTE?

THE COURT: DO YOU WANT THE REPORTER?

MR. BAILEY: NO.

THE COURT: WE ARE IN RECESS.

MS. CLARK: JUST FOR THE RECORD, I WANT TO CLARIFY THE COURT'S RULING WITH RESPECT TO SUSTAINING THE DEFENSE OBJECTION TO ADDRESSING THE BLOOD. IS THE COURT MAKING A FINDING THAT THE DEFENSE POINT WAS NOT MISLEADING?

THE COURT: NO. I'M MAKING A FINDING THAT WE HAD TWO DAYS OF SHOW AND TELL, THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS MANY LAWYERS AVAILABLE, AT LEAST TWO, PERHAPS THREE WHO WERE ASSIGNED THE BLOOD EVIDENCE, THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE SHOW AND TELL WAS FOR COUNSEL TO LOOK AT THESE THINGS AND TO RAISE ANY OBJECTIONS. NO OBJECTION WAS RAISED. IT IS TOO LATE AT THIS POINT IN TIME TO ASK TO REOPEN AS TO THAT ISSUE. THAT IS THE REASON FOR THE COURT'S RULING.

MS. CLARK: BUT HOW WOULD WE HAVE KNOWN THAT HE WAS GOING TO --

THE COURT: YOU ARE JUST ASKING ME FOR THE RULING, COUNSEL; NOT ARGUING. ALL RIGHT. I WILL SEE COUNSEL AT SIDE BAR.

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

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

(AT 5:05 P.M. AN ADJOURNMENT WAS TAKEN UNTIL, TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 1995, 9:00 A.M.)

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

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

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

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

MONDAY, JANUARY 30, 1995

VOLUME 77

PAGES 12110 THROUGH 12368, 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 77 PAGES 12110 - 12368

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

DAY DATE SESSION PAGE VOL.

MONDAY JANUARY 30, 1995 A.M. 12110 77
P.M. 12223 77
-----------------------------------------------------

PROCEEDINGS

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS ON DEFENSE FOR 12110 77 FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY (RESUMED)

OPENING STATEMENT BY MR. COCHRAN 12176 77 (RESUMED)
(RESUMED) 12226 77

EXHIBITS

(NONE THIS VOLUME)