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, SEI