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

APPEARANCES: (APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)

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

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

(PAGES 12369 THROUGH 12394, VOLUME 78A, TRANSCRIBED AND SEALED UNDER SEPARATE COVER.)

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

THE COURT: GOOD MORNING, COUNSEL. BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. MR. SIMPSON IS AGAIN PRESENT WITH HIS COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. DOUGLAS, MR. BAILEY. THE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED BY MISS CLARK AND MR. DARDEN. THE JURY IS NOT PRESENT. COUNSEL, JUST A COUPLE THINGS BEFORE WE BEGIN. THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT I HAD RECEIVED FROM THE DEFENSE A 1335 MOTION WHICH WE WILL DEEM FILED AS OF TODAY, MRS. ROBERTSON. AND MR. COCHRAN, ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE WE RESUME WITH THE JURY?

MR. COCHRAN: YES, YOUR HONOR, IF I MIGHT APPROACH THE PODIUM. THE COURT I BELIEVE RECEIVED A COPY OF A LETTER THAT WAS SENT TO MY OFFICE LAST NIGHT FROM MARK PARTRIDGE, THE LAWYER WHO WAS ON THE PLANE FROM CHICAGO TO LOS ANGELES WHO SAT NEXT TO MR. SIMPSON. I WOULD LIKE, BECAUSE I THINK IT IS RELEVANT, TO READ THIS LETTER INTO THE RECORD, IF I MIGHT. THE LETTER, YOUR HONOR, IS DATED JANUARY 30, 1995, SENT TO THE LAW OFFICES OF JOHNNIE L. COCHRAN, JR.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, MAY I OBJECT? THE LETTER SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. COUNSEL CAN SIMPLY FILE IT WITH THE CLERK AND MAKE IT A PART OF THE RECORD.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MR. COCHRAN: "ATTENTION PAT MC KENNA," YOUR HONOR, ONE OF THE INVESTIGATORS. "DEAR PAT: I WAS SURPRISED TO LEARN TODAY THAT I AM ONE OF THE WITNESSES THE PROSECUTION CLAIMS WAS NOT PREVIOUSLY DISCLOSED. ON THE FRIDAY MR. SIMPSON WAS ARRESTED I CALLED THE LAPD TO IDENTIFY MYSELF AS THE PERSON WHO SAT NEXT TO HIM ON HIS RETURN FLIGHT FROM CHICAGO TO LOS ANGELES. I BELIEVE I SPOKE TO A HOMICIDE DETECTIVE. I WAS TOLD THEY KNEW WHO WAS ON THE FLIGHT AND WOULD GET TO ME LATER. HE DID NOT ASK FOR MY ADDRESS OR PHONE NUMBER. "ON OCTOBER 6, 1994, RICHARD CROTSLY," CROTSLY, "AN LAPD DETECTIVE, CALLED ME. HE SAID HE HAD RECEIVED A WITNESS STATEMENT ABOUT ME FROM THE DEFENSE. I TOLD HIM MY STORY. HE TOLD ME TO SEND MY NOTES. HE GAVE ME THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT ROBBERY/HOMICIDE DIVISION ROOM 321, 150 NORTH LOS ANGELES STREET, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012. I SENT MY NOTES (THE SAME NOTES I SENT YOU) TO OFFICER CROTSLY IN EARLY DECEMBER, 1994. "THESE FACTS SEEM INCONSISTENT WITH MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROSECUTION'S CLAIMS ABOUT UNDISCLOSED WITNESSES OR WITNESS STATEMENTS. I THOUGHT I SHOULD BRING THIS TO YOUR ATTENTION IN CASE IT IS RELEVANT TO THE PROCEDURE IN THE CASE. "I ALSO WANT TO YOU KNOW THAT I AM SCHEDULED TO BEGIN A THREE- TO FOUR-WEEK TRIAL IN CHICAGO ON JUNE 5TH, 1995, AND WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE TO TESTIFY DURING THAT TIME. I AM AWAY FROM MY OFFICE UNTIL WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1ST, BUT CAN BE REACHED AT" AND HE GAVE HIS PHONE NUMBER, "SINCERELY, MARK PARTRIDGE." I WANTED TO READ THAT FOR THE RECORD, YOUR HONOR.

MS. CLARK: FOR THE RECORD ALSO, YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY SUCH THING.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WELL, THE REAL ISSUE -- I THINK PERHAPS MR. PARTRIDGE MISUNDERSTANDS THE ISSUE. THE ISSUE WAS, WAS THE JULY, 1994, STATEMENT THAT HE GAVE TO THE DEFENSE TURNED OVER TO THE PROSECUTION. THAT IS THE ISSUE.

MR. COCHRAN: WE THINK IT WAS, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: YES.

MS. CLARK: CERTAINLY NOT BY THE DEFENSE, THOUGH.

MR. COCHRAN: WE THINK IT WAS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, LET ME ASK YOU ONE OTHER QUESTION BEFORE WE START WITH THE JURY. DURING THE COURSE OF OUR DISCUSSION OF EXPERT WITNESSES NOW DESIGNATED BY THE DEFENSE, IF YOU RECALL, THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT ONE OF OUR JURORS HAS AS ONE OF HER PHYSICIANS ONE OF THE DOCTORS THAT IS NOW ON THE DEFENSE WITNESS LIST.

MR. COCHRAN: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SO I WANT YOU TO CONTEMPLATE THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THAT AND WE WILL DISCUSS IT TOMORROW.

MS. CLARK: OKAY.

MR. COCHRAN: WE HAVE, YOUR HONOR. WE WILL BE READY TO DISCUSS THAT WITH YOUR HONOR TOMORROW.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. JUST SO THE GROUNDRULES ARE CLEAR, COUNSEL, I'M GOING TO ADVISE THE JURY THAT I HAVE ALLOWED THE PROSECUTION A BRIEF REOPENING OF THEIR OPENING STATEMENT TO DEAL WITH THREE SPECIFIC ISSUES, AND THAT THERE IS AN ABSOLUTE TIME LIMIT OF TEN MINUTES. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMENT? ALL RIGHT. LET'S PROCEED. DEPUTY MAGNERA.

MR. COCHRAN: IS THE COURT GOING TO ADMONISH THE JURY REGARDING STATEMENTS OF COUNSEL?

THE COURT: YES, YES.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

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

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

MR. BAILEY: MIGHT WE APPROACH FOR A MINUTE, JUDGE?

THE COURT: WITH THE REPORTER, PLEASE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: WE ARE AT THE SIDE BAR. MR. BAILEY.

MR. BAILEY: I BELIEVE THAT THE PHOTOGRAPHERS WERE AGAIN PHOTOGRAPHING THE SCREENS OF THE COMPUTERS AND I WONDER IF YOU COULD DIRECT THEM NOT TO DO THAT.

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL. LET ME GIVE A DIRECTION TO THE STILL PHOTOGRAPHERS HERE IN THE COURTROOM. GENTLEMEN, YOU ARE NOT TO TAKE ANY PHOTOGRAPHS OF ANY OF THE COMPUTER SCREENS THAT ARE ON COUNSEL'S DESK OR IN THE BACK ROW HERE. UNDERSTOOD? MISS HAYSLETT, WOULD YOU MAKE SURE THAT ANY OTHER PHOTOGRAPHERS WHO COME INTO THE COURTROOM ARE SO ADVISED. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, GOOD MORNING.

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

THE COURT: THE COURT HAS GRANTED A PROSECUTION REQUEST TO REOPEN THEIR OPENING STATEMENT TO ADDRESS DEFENSE COUNSEL'S COMMENTS IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT REGARDING THREE WITNESSES WHO HAD NOT PREVIOUSLY BEEN DISCLOSED OR WHOSE STATEMENTS HAD NOT BEEN PREVIOUSLY DISCLOSED TO THE PROSECUTION BEFORE TRIAL, AS IS REQUIRED BY THE LAW. YOU ARE REMINDED, HOWEVER, THAT ANY STATEMENTS BY THE ATTORNEYS IN THIS CASE ARE NOT EVIDENCE AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED BY YOU AS SUCH. MISS CLARK, YOU HAVE TEN MINUTES.

OPENING STATEMENT (REOPENED)

BY MS. CLARK:

GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

MS. CLARK: MR. COCHRAN MADE SOME COMMENTS ABOUT -- FIRST OF ALL, I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT A VIDEOTAPE THAT HAS OUTTAKES OF THE DEFENDANT MAKING AN EXERCISE VIDEO, AND MR. COCHRAN MADE SOME COMMENTS TO YOU ABOUT THE DEFENDANT'S ALLEGED ARTHRITIC CONDITION. ACCORDING TO HIM THE DEFENDANT'S ARTHRITIC CONDITION BECAME ACUTE SOMETIME AFTER HE HAD PLAYED GOLF AND AFTER HE HAD BEEN SWINGING THE GOLF CLUB ON THE EVENING OF JUNE THE 12TH AT 10:00 P.M. HE SAID AT THAT POINT, AFTER THAT, THE ARTHRITIC CONDITION BECAME ACUTE. MR. COCHRAN TOLD YOU THAT THE DEFENDANT'S PHYSICAL CAPABILITIES ARE VERY LIMITED AS A RESULT OF THAT CONDITION. THE PROSECUTION WILL SHOW YOU EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. WE WILL SHOW YOU OUTTAKES OF AN EXERCISE VIDEOTAPE WHICH WAS MADE BY THE DEFENDANT ONLY TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE MURDERS. WE WILL SHOW YOU A PORTION OF THAT VIDEOTAPE TO DEMONSTRATE JUST WHAT THE DEFENDANT'S PHYSICAL CAPABILITIES REALLY WERE ON THE EVENING OF JUNE THE 12TH, 1994.

IN IT YOU WILL SEE THE DEFENDANT, JUST TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE MURDERS, THAT HE WEIGHED 215 POUNDS, WHICH IS WHAT HE WEIGHED FIFTEEN YEARS AGO, THAT THE DEFENDANT PRIDED HIMSELF IN THAT TAPE ON BEING IN GOOD PHYSICAL CONDITION. YOU WILL SEE HIM DOING PUSH-UPS. YOU WILL SEE HIM LIFTING HIS ARMS OVERHEAD, YOU WILL SEE HIM STRETCHING, REACHING, THROWING JABS AND UPPERCUTS AND HE DOES THAT FOR SEVERAL MINUTES IN THIS TAPE. YOU WILL SEE HIM DOING TRUNK TWISTS. AND THIS TAPE TOOK HOURS TO MAKE AND THAT HE CAME BACK AFTER THAT DAY, WENT BACK THE NEXT DAY AND SPENT A LOT MORE TIME DOING THAT VERY SAME THING. WE ARE GOING TO SHOW YOU THAT TAPE DURING THE COURSE OF THIS TRIAL. SECOND OF ALL, COUNSEL MADE REFERENCE TO THE FACT THAT -- TO A STATEMENT THAT HOWARD WEITZMAN, WHO WAS THEN THE DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY, WAS NOT PERMITTED TO BE PRESENT DURING THE INTERVIEW WITH THE POLICE OFFICERS ON JUNE THE 13TH. AND YOU WERE TOLD BY COUNSEL THAT THEY REFUSED, THE POLICE OFFICERS ACTUALLY REFUSED TO ALLOW MR. WEITZMAN TO REMAIN WITH THE DEFENDANT DURING THAT INTERVIEW. THAT IS COMPLETELY WRONG. AND IN FACT WHAT THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW IS THAT THE DETECTIVES ASKED MR. WEITZMAN TO STAY FOR THE INTERVIEW, BUT THAT HE DECLINED TO DO SO, STATING THAT HE WOULD PREFER TO GO OUT TO LUNCH AND THAT PRIOR TO THAT INTERVIEW HE HAD HAD APPROXIMATELY HALF AN HOUR ALONE WITH MR. SIMPSON TO TALK TO HIM, AFTER WHICH HE SAID, "GO AHEAD," WENT OUT TO LUNCH, AND THAT IS WHAT THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW. AND THAT WAS AFTER THE DETECTIVES INVITED HIM TO COME IN AND SIT DURING THE INTERVIEW WITH HIM. NOW, LASTLY, YOU HEARD MR. COCHRAN TALK TO YOU ABOUT A WITNESS NAMED MARY ANNE GERCHAS. NOW, HE TOLD YOU ABOUT THIS WITNESS, HE SAID IT WAS A VERY IMPORTANT WITNESS, HE DISCUSSED AT SOME LENGTH WHAT SHE WOULD TESTIFY TO, TELLING YOU THAT SHE CLAIMED TO HAVE SEEN FOUR MEN ON THE NIGHT OF THE MURDERS, AT LEAST TWO OF WHOM WERE HISPANIC, AT LEAST ONE OR TWO OF WHOM WERE WEARING A KNIT CAP, THAT SHE STATED SHE SAW THEM POSSIBLY RUNNING FROM THE AREA OF NICOLE SIMPSON'S CONDO ON THE NIGHT OF THE MURDERS. NOW, YOU WILL BE HEARING A LOT MORE ABOUT MISS GERCHAS DURING THE COURSE OF THIS TRIAL, BUT RIGHT NOW I AM JUST GOING TO ADDRESS A FEW POINTS THAT THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT MR. COCHRAN DIDN'T TELL YOU ABOUT. FOR EXAMPLE, SHE SPOKE TO HER FRIEND SHEILA CARTER THE DAY AFTER THE MURDERS OF RON AND NICOLE. SHE TOLD HER FRIEND, SHEILA CARTER, THAT SHE WAS NOT EVEN AT BUNDY ON THE NIGHT OF THE MURDERS. MARY ANNE GERCHAS HAD PLANNED TO GO AND LOOK FOR AN APARTMENT ON BRENTWOOD ON THE NIGHT OF THE MURDERS ON JUNE THE 12TH. THE NEXT DAY SHE SPOKE TO SHEILA CARTER AND SAID SHE DID NOT GO TO BRENTWOOD ON THAT NIGHT AND SHE WAS GLAD BECAUSE THERE HAD BEEN MURDERS COMMITTED THERE THE NIGHT BEFORE. BUT MISS CARTER IS ALSO GOING TO TELL YOU SOMETHING ELSE. IN ADDITION TO THE FACT THAT SHE WILL TELL YOU THAT MISS GERCHAS TOLD HER SHE DID NOT GO TO BRENTWOOD ON THE NIGHT OF THE MURDERS, SHE IS ALSO GOING TO TELL YOU SOMETHING VERY IMPORTANT ABOUT MISS GERCHAS' CREDIBILITY. SHE WILL TELL YOU ABOUT A STATEMENT WHICH PROVES THAT MISS GERCHAS IS ONE OF THESE PEOPLE WHO COMES OUT OF THE WOODWORK IN HIGH-PROFILE CASES SO THEY CAN GET INVOLVED. AND HERE IS WHAT MISS CARTER WILL TELL YOU: MISS GERCHAS WAS OBSESSED WITH THIS CASE AND SHE TALKED AS IF SHE KNEW THE DEFENDANT PERSONALLY. SHE SAID THAT MISS CARTER WOULD SEND HER TO THE STORE TO BUY EVERY ENQUIRER, EVERY STAR AND EVERY TABLOID PERTAINING TO THIS CASE, ANYTHING THAT TALKED ABOUT THE SIMPSON CASE. SHE WOULD READ IT ALL AND SHE WOULD SAVE IT AND TALK ABOUT THE CASE CONSTANTLY. BUT SHE SOMEHOW NEVER TOLD ANYONE THAT SHE HAD BEEN ON BUNDY ON THE NIGHT OF THE MURDERS UNTIL THE TIME THAT ROBERT SHAPIRO STARTED THE HOTLINE REQUESTING THAT ANYONE WITH INFORMATION COME FORWARD AND CALL THAT HOTLINE NUMBER. AND IT WAS RIGHT AROUND THAT TIME THAT HE PUT OUT THE HOTLINE NUMBER THAT MARY ANNE GERCHAS STARTED TO SAY, WELL, MAYBE I WAS DRIVING BY THAT AREA, MAYBE I DID SEE SOMETHING. MR. COCHRAN ACCUSED US OF NOT TELLING YOU ABOUT HER AND WE DIDN'T BECAUSE WE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT HER. AND IF YOU BELIEVE HER, SHE ASKED THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS IF THEY WOULD TELL US ABOUT HER AND THEY SAID THEY WOULD. SHE SPOKE TO ROBERT SHAPIRO AND SHAPIRO'S PEOPLE TOLD HER NOT TO TALK TO ANYONE ABOUT HER STATEMENT, AND WHEN THEY FINISHED TAKING HER STATEMENT, THEY TOLD HER THEY WEREN'T GOING TO USE HER AS A WITNESS. THEY SPENT HOURS INTERVIEWING HER BACK ON JULY 10TH AND JULY 12 OF 1994 AND THEY NEVER TOLD US ABOUT HER. NOW THAT JURY INSTRUCTION COUNSEL SHOWED YOU ABOUT CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES APPLIES TO ALL WITNESSES, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT MARY ANNE GERCHAS IS A KNOWN LIAR AND A SIMPSON CASE GROUPIE. THANK YOU FOR KEEPING AN OPEN MIND AND LISTENING TO ALL THE EVIDENCE.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY WE APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YES, PLEASE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: AT THE SIDE BAR, MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: I'M GOING TO OBJECT BECAUSE ALL KIND OF HEARSAY AND SHAPIRO AND SHAPIRO'S INVESTIGATOR SAID, PLUS MISS SHEILA CARTER. WE THE REPORTS, BUT IF THEY KNEW SO MUCH ABOUT THIS, THEY HAVEN'T GIVEN US ANYTHING REGARDING SHEILA CARTER, SO IT WORKS BOTH WAYS.

MS. CLARK: WELL, IT IS IMPEACHMENT.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I'VE GOT NO REPORTS ON SHEILA CARTER AND THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT HAS BEEN INTRODUCED.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE WILL TAKE UP THIS ISSUE LATER.

MR. COCHRAN: CAN I JUST SAY SOMETHING, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: SURE.

MR. COCHRAN: I THINK SHE GETS UP AND TALKS ABOUT HER AND ACCUSES OF ALL KIND OF STUFF. IF THAT IS A VIOLATION, YOUR HONOR, WE SHOULD DEAL WITH IT RIGHT NOW.

THE COURT: I THINK THIS IS A FOOTNOTE 11 PROBLEM, ISN'T IT?

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, MAYBE, BUT --

THE COURT: REFERRING TO FOOTNOTE 11 IN IZAZAGA.

MR. COCHRAN: YES, I THINK IT IS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE WILL TAKE IT UP. YOUR OBJECTION IS NOTED.

MR. COCHRAN: WHILE WE ARE UP HERE, SO I CAN SAVE SOME MORE TIME, I WANT TO NOW LODGE MY OBJECTION TO -- I WANT TO PHRASE THIS AS APPROPRIATELY AS POSSIBLE. WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY ASKED THE PEOPLE FOR AN ONGOING OBJECTION TO ALL OF THIS TESTIMONY WHICH WE BELIEVE IS CHARACTER ASSASSINATION, DEALING WITH CHARACTER, DEALING WITH THE INCIDENTS OF 1989, 1993, ANYTHING DEALING WITH ANY DOMESTIC DISCORD ISSUE, O.J. SIMPSON AND HIS WIFE. AND I WANT TO NOW LODGE THE OBJECTION TO WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS GOING TO BE THE 1989 INCIDENT.

MR. DARDEN: (NODS HEAD UP AND DOWN.)

MR. COCHRAN: IS THIS GOING TO BE SUCH, AT LEAST FOR THIS FIRST INCIDENT, BECAUSE I WANT TO APPROACH THE BENCH.

THE COURT: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT WE HAVE A CONTINUING OBJECTION AND I WANT TO DO IT IN A TACTFUL MANNER.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

MR. COCHRAN: WILL THE COURT LODGE AND NOTE MY OBJECTION?

THE COURT: I NOTE YOUR OBJECTIONS.

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, ALSO MAY I ASK FOR A POINT OF CLARIFICATION. I WASN'T SURE WHEN MISS CLARK SAID THAT SHE SPOKE TO ROBERT SHAPIRO, WHETHER SHE WAS REFERRING TO MISS GERCHAS OR THIS OTHER LADY.

MS. CLARK: MISS GERCHAS. AND WHEN WE CALL MISS GERCHAS WE WILL ASK ABOUT IT AND I HAVE -- I HAVE BEEN VERY CAREFUL TO DISCUSS ONLY WHAT I BELIEVE THAT IS -- WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE, EITHER THROUGH CROSS-EXAMINATION OR DIRECT OF THAT WITNESS.

THE COURT: WELL, WE CAN TAKE ALL OF THIS UP.

MR. SHAPIRO: I WILL TELL YOU AT THIS POINT IN TIME, I AM ABSOLUTELY AS CERTAIN AS I CAN BE THAT I HAVE NEVER SEEN THIS WOMAN IN MY LIFE.

MS. CLARK: GOES TO HER CREDIBILITY, COUNSEL. THAT IS WHAT I MEAN.

MR. COCHRAN: HOWARD WEITZMAN. SHE KNOWS WHAT HOWARD WEITZMAN IS GOING TO SAY ABOUT THIS. THE LAWYER IS GOING TO SAY HE GOES OFF TO LUNCH AND LEAVES HIS CLIENT?

MS. CLARK: GUESS WHAT? GUESS WHAT?

MR. COCHRAN: I DON'T BELIEVE IT.

MS. CLARK: BE REAL CAREFUL WHEN YOU SAY THAT.

MR. COCHRAN: I DON'T BELIEVE IT, UNLESS YOU GOT A TAPE.

THE COURT: WE WILL TAKE IT UP UNDER THE FOOTNOTE 11 ISSUES.

MR. BAILEY: HAVE YOU EXEMPTED ANY WITNESSES FROM THE RULE?

THE COURT: EXCLUSION RULE.

MR. COCHRAN: YEAH, THE FAMILY.

MR. BAILEY: NO, NO, PROFESSIONAL WITNESSES, POLICE.

THE COURT: OTHER THAN -- WELL, THERE IS A STANDARD EXCEPTION FOR THE INVESTIGATING OFFICERS.

MR. BAILEY: I AM WONDERING IF OUR INVESTIGATOR CAN COME AND GO WITHOUT BEING EXCLUDED.

MR. COCHRAN: I THINK OUR --

MR. BAILEY: EITHER THAT, OR IF THEY INTEND TO STAY DURING TESTIMONY, I THINK WE OUGHT TO HAVE A RECIPROCAL RULING.

MR. COCHRAN: I WILL MAKE A MOTION, IF THE COURT PLEASES, PAT MC KENNA AND PAVELIC, IF THAT IS ALL RIGHT WITH THE COURT.

THE COURT: ANY COMMENTS?

MS. CLARK: YES. THERE IS NO RECIPROCAL ON THE PART OF THE DEFENSE TO HAVE AN INVESTIGATING OFFICER PRESENT, AND IF THEY DO, THEN I WILL BE CROSS-EXAMINING ON THAT SHOULD HE BE CALLED AS A WITNESS, TO THE FACT THAT HE WAS PRESENT AND LISTENED TO ALL OF THE TESTIMONY BEFORE HE TOOK THE WITNESS STAND.

MR. BAILEY: THE SAME.

MR. COCHRAN: JUST A MOMENT. THAT IS NOT FAIR. LANGE AND VANNATTER ARE SITTING HERE THE WHOLE TIME. WE TALK ABOUT EVERYTHING BEING RECIPROCAL AND LET'S START TO MAKE IT RECIPROCAL.

MR. DARDEN: CAN I INTERRUPT FOR A MOMENT AND STEP OUTSIDE AND SEE IF THE WITNESS IS OUTSIDE SO THERE WON'T BE AN INTERRUPTION?

THE COURT: PLEASE.

MS. CLARK: THERE IS A STATUTORY EXCEPTION FOR THE INVESTIGATING OFFICERS IN THE CASE TO BE PRESENT. THAT IS DIFFERENT AND THAT IS FINE. THEY WANT TO HAVE HIM PRESENT, I'M JUST GIVING FAIR WARNING.

THE COURT: OKAY.

MS. CLARK: I INTEND TO CROSS-EXAMINE ON IT.

MR. COCHRAN: I DO --

MS. CLARK: I WOULD OBJECT AND I'M LODGING MY OBJECTION FOR THE RECORD.

THE COURT: KEEP YOUR VOICE DOWN.

MR. COCHRAN: WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WHAT'S FAIR AND I THINK IT IS FAIR THAT WE SHOULD HAVE OUR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS.

THE COURT: THOSE TWO INVESTIGATORS?

MS. CLARK: ONE FURTHER CLARIFICATION, YOUR HONOR, ALONG THIS LINE. WE HAVE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE EXPERTS THAT WE WILL BE CALLING TO TESTIFY AND I ASK LEAVE OF THE COURT TO ALLOW THEM TO OBSERVE THE TESTIMONY OF THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE WITNESSES.

THE COURT: YEAH. WE WILL TAKE THIS ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS, BUT I THINK BOTH SIDES CAN MAKE THAT REQUEST.

MS. CLARK: I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THEIRS ALSO.

MR. SHAPIRO: WE WILL BE IN AGREEMENT THAT ALL EXPERT WITNESSES --

MR. COCHRAN: I WILL AGREE WITH THAT, BUT I WOULD LIKE LENORE WALKER TO BE ABLE TO WATCH IT ON TELEVISION WHEREVER SHE IS.

THE COURT: I THOUGHT THAT WE DID THAT.

MS. CLARK: SURE.

MR. COCHRAN: I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE CLEAR, YOUR HONOR. YOU CAN'T BE TOO CAREFUL, JUDGE, ABOUT THESE THINGS.

THE COURT: SURE, WE CAN, AND WE ARE GETTING A FRESH START TODAY.

MR. COCHRAN: WE ARE. SHE AND I AGREED WE ARE NOT ATTACKING EACH OTHER. SHE WON'T BE UP TODAY ANYWAY; IT WILL BE CHRIS.

MS. CLARK: THAT IS WHY YOU SAID THAT.

MR. COCHRAN: I KNOW.

MR. COCHRAN: THANKS, JUDGE. I WILL MAKE MY MOTION NOW FOR THE EXCLUSION OF WITNESSES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

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

MR. COCHRAN: YES, YOUR HONOR. AS WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY INDICATED TO THE COURT, WE WILL AT THIS TIME ASK LEAVE OF COURT TO EXCLUDE ALL WITNESSES, SAVE THE INVESTIGATING OFFICERS LANGE AND VANNATTER, AND SAVE TWO INVESTIGATORS FROM THE DEFENSE, PAT MC KENNA AND BILL PAVELIC, AND ASK AND SAVE THE FAMILY, WITH THE EXCEPTIONS REGARDING THE FAMILY MEMBERS IN THIS MATTER. WE WOULD ASK THE COURT TO EXCLUDE ALL WITNESSES AND ADMONISH THOSE WITNESSES REGARDING DISCUSSING THEIR TESTIMONY AND ALSO REGARDING WATCHING TELEVISION OF THESE PROCEEDINGS WHICH WILL BE THE SAME THING AS DISCUSSING THEIR TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PEOPLE?

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

MS. CLARK: THE PEOPLE WOULD ASK THE COURT FOR THE SAME RULING WITH RESPECT TO ALL WITNESSES FOR BOTH SIDES.

MR. COCHRAN: I SAID ALL WITNESSES, YOUR HONOR.

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

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

(POTENTIAL WITNESSES EXCLUDED.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. DARDEN, MISS CLARK, ARE YOU READY TO CALL YOUR FIRST WITNESS?

MS. CLARK: YES, WE ARE, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. CALL YOUR FIRST WITNESS, PLEASE, AND IF YOU WOULD -- MAYBE WE DON'T NEED ALL THREE CHAIRS AT THE PEOPLE'S SIDE THIS WEEK. PERHAPS WE COULD GET RID OF ONE OF THE CHAIRS AND GIVE YOU A LITTLE MORE WORKING ROOM OVER BY THE PODIUM.

MS. CLARK: YES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MR. DARDEN: WHICH PODIUM WOULD YOU LIKE US TO USE OR DOES IT MATTER?

THE COURT: WELL, MY PREFERENCE AT THIS POINT IS YOUR PREFERENCE, MR. DARDEN. YOU ARE THE TRIAL LAWYER. BE MY GUEST. WHY DON'T YOU JUST MOVE IT OVER A COUPLE OF FEET, BECAUSE I WANT TO AVOID OUR OTHER PROBLEM IF WE CAN. THANK YOU.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DEPUTY JEX, CAN YOU HELP MISS CLARK GET RID OF THIS CHAIR? THANK YOU. MR. DARDEN, WHY DON'T YOU JUST SLIDE THOSE CHAIRS OVER JUST A LITTLE.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. DARDEN, WHO IS YOUR FIRST WITNESS?

MS. CLARK: SHARYN GILBERT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MS. CLARK: AS SHE APPROACHES THE WITNESS STAND, YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE HERE A 911 AUDIOTAPE. WE WOULD LIKE TO MARK IT PEOPLE'S 1 FOR IDENTIFICATION.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. PEOPLE'S 1 FOR IDENTIFICATION.

(PEO'S 1 FOR ID = 911 AUDIOTAPE)

PEOPLE'S CASE IN CHIEF

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS GILBERT, WOULD YOU STEP OVER HERE BY THE WITNESS STAND, PLEASE, BY THE COURT REPORTER. MRS. ROBERTSON.

SHARYN GILBERT, CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE PEOPLE, WAS SWORN AND TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:

THE CLERK: PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU MAY GIVE IN THE CAUSE NOW PENDING BEFORE THIS COURT, SHALL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD.

THE WITNESS: I DO.

THE CLERK: PLEASE BE SEATED AND STATE AND SPELL YOUR FIRST AND LAST NAMES FOR THE RECORD.

THE WITNESS: MY FIRST NAME IS SHARYN, SPELLED S-H-A-R-Y-N. LAST NAME IS GILBERT, G-I-L-B-E-R-T.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. DARDEN:

Q: GOOD MORNING, MISS GILBERT.

A: GOOD MORNING.

Q: MISS GILBERT, WHO DO YOU WORK FOR?

A: LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT.

Q: AND WHAT IS YOUR JOB TITLE?

A: I'M A POLICE SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE.

Q: AND ARE YOU ALSO A 911 OPERATOR AND DISPATCHER?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AND WERE YOU A 911 OPERATOR AND DISPATCHER ON JANUARY 1, 1989?

A: YES, I WAS.

Q: AND WERE YOU ON DUTY BETWEEN 3:00 AND FOUR O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING ON THAT DATE?

A: YES, I WAS.

Q: AND ON THAT DATE AND DURING THAT TIME PERIOD DID YOU RECEIVE A TELEPHONE CALL?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: NOW, WHERE WERE YOU PHYSICALLY LOCATED AT THAT TIME?

A: UMM, I BELIEVE I WAS SITTING ON CONSOLE 41. IT IS INDICATED ON MY -- THE CONSOLE THAT I WAS SITTING ON.

Q: OKAY. SO YOU ARE SITTING AT CONSOLE 41?

A: WHICH IS WHAT WE DETERMINE AS A PRIMARY POSITION AND PRIMARY IS 911.

Q: OKAY. NOW, IS CONSOLE 41 LOCATED IN A PRIVATE OFFICE?

A: NO, IT IS NOT.

Q: IS IT LOCATED IN A CUBICLE?

A: NO, WE DON'T SIT IN INDIVIDUAL CUBICLES. WE -- THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY FIVE CONSOLES SIDE-BY-SIDE ALL CONNECTED TOGETHER.

Q: I TAKE IT THAT THERE IS A TELEPHONE OF SOME KIND IN FRONT OF YOU?

A: UMM, EACH CONSOLE HAS ITS OWN TELEPHONE AND IT SETS TO THE LEFT OF EACH OPERATOR.

Q: AND ARE YOU PROVIDED WITH EARPHONES?

A: YES, WE HAVE HEADSETS, INDIVIDUAL HEADSETS.

Q: OKAY. AND ARE YOU ALSO PROVIDED WITH A KEYBOARD?

A: YES. WE HAVE TWO COMPUTER SCREENS AND A KEYBOARD FOR EACH CONSOLE.

Q: OKAY. IF YOU WILL, TAKE US THROUGH THE PROCESS AND PROCEDURE THAT OCCURS WHENEVER YOU RECEIVE A 911 TELEPHONE CALL.

A: OKAY.

Q: THE CALL COMES IN AND YOU ANSWER IT, CORRECT?

A: YES. UMM, WHEN YOU ARE PLUGGED IN, WE HAVE WHAT YOU CALL AN "IN" BUTTON THAT STAYS IN ALL THE TIME READY FOR A CALL TO -- WELL, YOU SAY DROP IN. AND WE HAVE AN INDICATOR ON THE PANEL TO THE LEFT THAT SHOWS THE ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER WHERE THIS CALL IS ORIGINATING FROM AND IT ALSO COMES IN ON MY COMPUTER SCREEN WHICH IS THE LEFT COMPUTER SCREEN CONSIDERED AS OUR STATUS SCREEN.

Q: OKAY. SO WHENEVER YOU RECEIVE A 911 CALL, A DISPLAY COMES UP ON THE CONSOLE THAT INDICATES THE ORIGIN OF THE TELEPHONE CALL?

A: YES.

Q: THE ADDRESS FROM WHICH THE TELEPHONE CALL ORIGINATED?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AND THAT SAME INFORMATION COMES UP ON ANOTHER SCREEN?

A: COMES UP ON OUR STATUS SCREEN.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE HERE A SINGLE-PAGE DOCUMENT. IT APPEARS TO BE SOME FORM OF A 911 DISPATCH -- DISPATCHER'S LOG. I HAVE PROVIDED MR. COCHRAN WITH A COPY. MAY IT BE MARKED PEOPLE'S 2?

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. PEOPLE'S 2 FOR IDENTIFICATION.

(PEO'S 2 FOR ID = 1-PG 911 DISPATCHER'S LOG)

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: MISS GILBERT, SHOWING WHAT YOU HAS BEEN MARKED AS PEOPLE'S 2 FOR IDENTIFICATION, DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT DOCUMENT?

A: YES, I DO.

MR. DARDEN: MAY I HAVE ONE MOMENT?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, I ALSO HAVE A COPY OF THE DOCUMENT ON THE ELMO MACHINE. MAY WE PROJECT IT ON THE SCREEN, PLEASE?

THE COURT: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, JUST A MOMENT BEFORE WE DO THAT. MAY WE APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I LET YOU SEE MY COPY?

THE COURT: SURE.

MR. COCHRAN: THE OBJECTION HAS TO DO WITH -- I NEED A LITTLE FURTHER FOUNDATION BEFORE HE PUTS IT UP THERE AS TO WHAT COMES OUT HERE BECAUSE DARDEN TOLD US IN OPENING STATEMENT THAT THEY WOULD BE TALKING ABOUT SHE WOULD BE SAYING THE FEMALE WAS BEING SLAPPED AND HEAR SLAPPING AND IT SAYS "FEMALE BEING BEATEN," AND I'M NOT SURE HOW THIS COMES IN. SHE TYPES THAT IN, THAT IS HER INTERPRETATION? WE NEED MORE FOUNDATION AS TO WHAT THIS IS, HOW THIS GETS IN HERE, THAT SORT OF THING, BEFORE HE PUTS IT UP ON THE SCREEN. HE KIND OF SKIPPED A COUPLE OF STEPS IT SEEMED TO ME.

THE COURT: PROBABLY A COUPLE OF FOUNDATIONAL QUESTIONS.

MR. DARDEN: AS TO WHAT?

THE COURT: WHAT THE FORM IS, HOW IT IS FILLED OUT. ONCE WE ESTABLISH THAT, PROBABLY TWO QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT. SUSTAINED.

MR. COCHRAN: I WILL OBJECT. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

MR. DARDEN: MAY I PROCEED, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YOU MAY.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: MISS GILBERT, WHAT IS --

THE COURT: HOLD ON. HOLD ON. TAKE IT DOWN.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: WHAT IS THE DOCUMENT MARKED PEOPLE'S 2 FOR IDENTIFICATION?

A: IT IS TERMED WHAT WE CALL AN INCIDENT FORMAT.

Q: HOW IS THAT FORM GENERATED?

A: ON MY SCREEN, WHICH IS THE SCREEN DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF ME, WE HAVE A FORMAT WHICH ALLOWS TO US CREATE AN INCIDENT BY THE COMPUTER BY INSERTING CERTAIN COMMANDS. AND I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A CORRECTION. IT SHOWS THAT I WAS ON CONSOLE 54. ON THE TOP LINE IT SHOWS THE TIME THAT I GOT THE CALL AND THE TOP -- THE TOP EXAMPLE HERE IS MY UPDATE, SO I NEED TO DROP DOWN TO THE BOTTOM. IT SHOWS -- THE TOP LINE SHOWS THE CALL CAME IN AT 3:58 AND IT HAS MY OPERATOR NUMBER. IT SHOWS THE CONSOLE THAT I WAS ON AND THE INCIDENT NUMBER CREATED.

Q: NOW, DOES THE -- DOES THE FORM ALSO PROVIDE A SPACE FOR YOU TO ADD COMMENTS?

A: YES, IT DOES.

Q: AND DID YOU ADD SOME COMMENTS TO THAT FORM IN THIS SITUATION?

A: YES, I DID. THAT -- THAT IS WHERE IT SHOWS IN --

MR. COCHRAN: ASKED AND ANSWERED, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: IT SHOWS AN UPDATE OF MY INCIDENT IN THE TOP EXAMPLE AND THAT WAS AFTER I ENTERED THE COMMENTS.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: OKAY. AND DID YOU ADD THOSE COMMENTS TO THIS FORM?

A: YES.

Q: AND THE COMMENTS THAT YOU ADDED TO THIS FORM, WERE THESE COMMENTS BASED ON YOUR PERCEPTION, YOUR HEARING?

A: YES, IT WAS.

MR. DARDEN: MAY I, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YOU MAY.

MR. DARDEN: ON THE SCREEN, LOOKING AT THE BOTTOM ONE-THIRD PORTION OF THE FORM, AND I'M GOING TO ASK MR. FAIRTLOUGH, CAN YOU ZOOM ME IN CLOSER?

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, WITH REGARD TO THIS EXHIBIT, THIS EXHIBIT HAS UNDERLINING DIFFERENT ON IT THAN WHAT HAS BEEN MARKED, AS I UNDERSTAND IT. HIGHLIGHTING, RATHER.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. SAME DOCUMENT.

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

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: I'M SORRY, MISS GILBERT. WHAT TIME DID YOU SAY YOU RECEIVED THE TELEPHONE CALL?

A: 3:58.

Q: 3:58 IN THE MORNING?

A: YES.

Q: AND DOES THE INCIDENT REPORT INDICATE THE ORIGIN OF THE TELEPHONE CALL?

A: NO. IT JUST SHOWS -- I HAVE THE ABILITY TO UPDATE IT AND I HAVE THE ABILITY TO UPDATE THE INCIDENT TYPE WHEN I FIRST GOT THE CALL I HAD IT AS AN UNKNOWN TROUBLE.

Q: OKAY. OKAY. SO THE CALL CAME TO YOU, RIGHT?

A: RIGHT. IT WAS AN OPEN LINE.

Q: OKAY. COULD YOU HEAR ANYTHING OVER THE OPEN LINE?

A: NO. AT THE BEGINNING, NO.

Q: OKAY. DID THE LINE REMAIN OPEN?

A: YES, IT DID.

Q: AND WHILE THE LINE WAS OPENED, AT ANY POINT IN TIME COULD YOU HEAR ANYTHING?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WHAT DID YOU HEAR?

A: AT FIRST I HEARD A FEMALE SCREAMING AND THAT IS WHEN I WENT BACK AND CHANGED MY INCIDENT TYPE FROM AN UNKNOWN TROUBLE TO A SCREAMING WOMAN.

Q: OKAY. AND DID YOU HEAR ANYTHING ELSE?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WHAT DID YOU HEAR?

A: I HEARD SOMEONE BEING HIT.

Q: YOU HEARD A NOISE THAT YOU ASSOCIATED WITH SOMEONE BEING HIT?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT DID YOU DO WITH THAT INFORMATION?

A: THAT IS WHEN I WENT BACK AND UPDATED IT TO -- IN THE FACT THAT I HEARD A FEMALE SCREAMING AND THEN I HEARD WHAT I THOUGHT WAS A SLAP. I WENT BACK AND UPDATED IT AS A FEMALE BEING BEATEN AT THE LOCATION, TO GIVE THE RESPONDING OFFICER AN INDICATION OF WHAT WAS GOING ON, THAT IT WAS NO LONGER AN UNKNOWN TROUBLE.

Q: IN FACT, YOU INDICATED THAT A FEMALE BEING BEATEN AT LOCATION COULD BE HEARD OVER THE TELEPHONE; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT WAS THE NEXT THING THAT YOU DID AFTER YOU UPDATED THE INCIDENT REPORT?

A: I BROUGHT UP THE NECESSARY FREQUENCIES TO BROADCAST IT BUREAU WIDE, AND FOR THE AIR UNIT, TO ASSIGN A UNIT.

Q: OKAY. AND DID YOU ASSIGN A UNIT?

A: AT THE TIME I DISPATCHED IT EITHER THERE WEREN'T ANY UNITS AVAILABLE OR I DID AN IMMEDIATE DISPATCH AND I JUST BROADCAST IT TO WEST L.A. UNITS.

Q: AND IS THERE SOMETHING CALLED A CALL PRIORITY OR A PRIORITY CODE IN TERMS OF DISPATCHING UNITS TO CERTAIN TYPES OF INCIDENTS?

A: YES, IT IS. IT IS INDICATED TO THE RIGHT -- FAR RIGHT YOU SEE A "C SLASH P" AND A "2 SLASH H," THAT MEANS CODE 2 HIGH, AND FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT THAT MEANS A HOT SHOT, THAT MEANS IMMEDIATE RESPONSE.

Q: YOU MENTIONED A MOMENT AGO THAT THE TELEPHONE LINE WAS LEFT OPEN; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: CAN YOU TELL US HOW LONG THAT LINE WAS LEFT OPEN?

A: WELL, I ONLY CAN GO BY MY INCIDENT THAT I CREATED THAT THE CALL CAME IN AT 3:58 AND I UPDATED IT AT 4:01, SO I STAYED ON THE LINE AT LEAST THREE TO FOUR MINUTES.

Q: OKAY. SO THE LINE WAS OPEN THEN THREE TO FOUR MINUTES?

A: YES.

Q: AND THE SCREAMS THAT YOU HEARD, YOU SAY THAT THOSE SCREAMS WERE THE SCREAMS OF A WOMAN?

A: IT SOUNDED LIKE A FEMALE TO ME.

Q: IT DIDN'T SOUND LIKE A MAN?

A: NO.

Q: COULD YOU TELL WHO WAS BEING HIT OR STRUCK OR SLAPPED?

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, THAT CALLS FOR SPECULATION. HOW COULD SHE TELL THAT?

THE WITNESS: NO, I COULDN'T.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. SHE INDICATED SHE COULDN'T TELL. THE ANSWER WILL STAND.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: ARE 911 CALLS RECORDED BY THE LAPD?

A: YES, THEY ARE.

Q: AND HAVE YOU LISTENED TO THE 911 CALL YOU RECEIVED AT 3:58 IN THE MORNING ON JANUARY 1, 1989?

A: YES, I HAVE.

Q: AND WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU LISTENED TO THAT TAPE?

A: APPROXIMATELY A WEEK AND A HALF AGO.

Q: AND WHEN YOU LISTENED TO THE TAPE A WEEK AND A HALF AGO, COULD YOU HEAR SLAPS OR STRIKES?

MR. COCHRAN: MOVE TO STRIKE, YOUR HONOR, AS CONCLUSIONARY IN FORM.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: I COULD IN REMEMBERING THE CALL. I COULD DETERMINE AFTER THE FIRST SCREAM, THEN I HEARD SOMEONE BEING HIT.

MR. DARDEN: OKAY. THANK YOU. WITH THE COURT'S PERMISSION, YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO PLAY THE 1989 911 TAPE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU HAVE THAT IDENTIFIED AS AN EXHIBIT?

MR. DARDEN: YES. IT HAS BEEN MARKED PEOPLE'S 1.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

(AT 10:11 A.M. PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT 1 FOR IDENTIFICATION, AN AUDIOTAPE, WAS PLAYED.)

THE COURT: EXCUSE ME, MR. DARDEN. WHY DON'T YOU STOP THAT AT THIS TIME.

(AT 10:12 A.M. THE PLAYING OF THE AUDIOTAPE ENDED.)

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: MISS GILBERT, IS THAT A TAPE-RECORDING OF THE TELEPHONE CALL YOU RECEIVED AT 3:58 A.M. ON JANUARY 1, 1989?

A: YES, IT IS.

Q: AND THERE IS MORE TO THE TAPE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN YOU LISTENED TO THE TAPE LAST WEEK, DID YOU HEAR YOUR VOICE ON THE TAPE?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: YOU TESTIFIED A MOMENT AGO THAT YOU DISPATCHED UNITS TO 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. IS THAT ON THE TAPE?

A: YES, IT IS.

Q: DID YOU INDICATE THAT YOU DISPATCHED UNITS TO 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM, APARTMENT B?

A: YES, IT IS INDICATED ON THERE.

Q: OKAY. COULD YOU EXPLAIN TO US WHY YOU INCLUDED THE APARTMENT B IN THE RECORD?

A: WHEN I FIRST CREATED THE INCIDENT I HAD NOT ERASED MY SCREEN PRIOR -- FROM A PRIOR CALL THAT I DETERMINED NOT TO DISPATCH ON AND HAD NOT ERASED THE APARTMENT NUMBER OUT OF THE FIELD. WHEN I WENT BACK AND HIT "ENTER" ON THE COMPUTER, IT ERASED EVERYTHING BUT THE CORRECT LOCATION THAT CAME UP ON THE A AND I, ON THE TELEPHONE CONSOLE.

Q: OKAY. NOW, WE HEAR OTHER VOICES, MALE VOICES, AND APPARENTLY OTHER DISPATCHERS IN THIS TAPE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: RIGHT.

Q: THOSE OTHER VOICES, THOSE MALE VOICES, THOSE DISPATCHERS, WHERE IS THAT NOISE ORIGINATING FROM?

A: FROM PEOPLE SITTING BESIDE ME. THERE IS PEOPLE THAT SIT BEHIND ME. ALSO, I HAD BROUGHT UP THE FREQUENCY TO BROADCAST THE CALL AND YOU ARE HEARING THE OTHER DIVISIONS THAT WERE ON THE AIR BECAUSE IT WAS AN OPEN LINE. AS LONG AS I HAD NOT HIT MY TRANSMIT BUTTON, THEN YOU WILL HEAR ALL THAT.

Q: AND THE COMMENTS YOU TYPED ON TO THE INCIDENT REPORT MARKED PEOPLE'S 2 FOR IDENTIFICATION, WHERE YOU INDICATE THAT YOU COULD HEAR A FEMALE BEING BEATEN, AT WHAT POINT IN THIS PROCESS DID YOU TYPE THAT INFORMATION ON TO THE REPORT?

A: AFTER I -- AFTER I HAD MADE MY INCIDENT AND MADE IT A SCREAMING WOMAN, AND HEARING IS JUST -- YOU GET EXCITED, YOU HEAR ALL OF IT AT ONE TIME AND I WENT BACK AND TYPED IT IN AFTER THAT, AFTER I HAD CREATED THE INCIDENT.

Q: OKAY. THIS IS WHILE THE TELEPHONE LINE IS OPENED?

A: YES, I LEFT IT OPENED.

Q: SO IT IS DURING THE TELEPHONE CALL THEN THAT YOU TYPED IN THE COMMENT ABOUT YOUR HEARING A WOMAN BEING BEATEN?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. DID THE CALLER EVER SPEAK TO YOU DIRECTLY?

A: NO.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU. THAT IS ALL I HAVE.

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

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: HE CAN LEAVE THAT UP, IF HE WOULD, THE ELMO.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. COCHRAN:

Q: GOOD MORNING, MISS GILBERT.

A: GOOD MORNING.

Q: I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU A FEW QUESTIONS IF I MIGHT. THE DATE OF THIS INCIDENT WAS BACK IN 1989; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: THAT WAS JANUARY 1ST?

A: YES.

Q: WAS THAT JANUARY 1ST, 1989, AT ABOUT 3:58 IN THE MORNING SO THAT WOULD BE NEW YEAR'S DAY MORNING; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: NEW YEAR'S DAY MORNING, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AS I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU HAVE INDICATED TO US, YOU RECEIVED THIS CALL THROUGH THE OPEN LINE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU WERE SITTING AT YOUR CONSOLE AND BEING 911, YOU STARTED TO PAY ATTENTION TO THAT CALL, TO LISTEN TO IT AND THEN YOU MADE SOME REACTION; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: RIGHT.

Q: NOW, FROM WHAT YOU TOLD MR. DARDEN, YOU NEVER HAD A CONVERSATION WITH ANY FEMALE AT THAT LOCATION AT 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND WHERE WE SEE "APARTMENT" UP THERE, THE -- TO THE RIGHT OF YOUR STATEMENT --

A: RIGHT.

Q: -- THAT WAS A MISTAKE BECAUSE YOUR PREVIOUS CALL HAD BEEN TO AN APARTMENT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: RIGHT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOUR BEST RECOLLECTION IS THAT THIS CONVERSATION LASTED BETWEEN 3:58 AND ABOUT FOUR O'CLOCK OR 4:01?

A: THE OPEN LINE.

Q: OPEN LINE?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT YOU WERE ABLE TO HEAR, IN OTHER WORDS?

A: RIGHT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND IN ORDER FOR YOU TO TRANSMIT AND TO GENERATE THE FORM THAT IS NOW UP ON THE SCREEN, YOU HAD TO TYPE SOMETHING, DID YOU NOT?

A: YES.

Q: AND AS WE LISTENED TO THAT TAPE, COULD WE HEAR YOU TYPING?

A: YES, YOU COULD.

Q: AND ARE YOU A PRETTY FAST TYPIST?

A: I DON'T KNOW. MAYBE.

Q: WELL, YOU HEARD YOUR -- THE TYPING IN THERE, DIDN'T YOU?

A: YES, RIGHT.

Q: AND SO THERE IS NO MISTAKING ABOUT IT, YOUR TYPING WAS NOT ANYBODY BEING STRUCK, WAS IT?

A: NO.

Q: AND SINCE YOU DIDN'T TALK TO ANYBODY, YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS BLOWS BEING PASSED BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE OR WHAT THE SITUATION WAS, DO YOU?

A: WHEN I TOOK THE CALL, WHEN IT CAME -- WHEN IT DROPPED IN AT THE VERY BEGINNING?

Q: YES, MA'AM.

A: AND THE WOMAN IS SCREAMING?

Q: YES, MA'AM.

A: THEN I HEARD THE HITS AT THE SAME TIME.

Q: BUT WHAT I'M ASKING YOU, YOU HADN'T TALKED TO ANYBODY SO YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT WAS TAKING PLACE AT THAT LOCATION, DO YOU?

A: NO, I DO NOT.

Q: YOU HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING THAT, DO YOU?

A: ONLY WHAT I HEARD. I HAVE TO CREATE AN INCIDENT ACCORDING TO WHAT I HEAR. EITHER WAY, I WAS SENDING THE POLICE AT THE BEGINNING AS AN UNKNOWN TROUBLE. SOMETHING WAS GOING ON AT THAT LOCATION THAT SOMEONE DIALED 911. OUR PROCEDURE IS ANYTIME YOU GET A CALL ON 911, WHETHER YOU HEAR ANYONE OR NOT, YOU HAVE TO SEND THE POLICE ON AN UNKNOWN TROUBLE.

Q: I UNDERSTAND. AND THAT IS EXACTLY THE POINT. IT WAS UNKNOWN TROUBLE TO YOU, RIGHT?

A: IN THE BEGINNING.

Q: RIGHT. YOU ARE DOWNTOWN AT 150 NORTH LOS ANGELES; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: RIGHT.

Q: AND YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IS HAPPENING ON -- BETWEEN ANY TWO OR THREE PARTIES AT THE LOCATION; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU HEAR CERTAIN THINGS; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: RIGHT.

Q: AND THEN BASED UPON WHAT YOU HEAR, YOU START TO TYPE INTO YOUR COMPUTER; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: DID I ALSO HEAR A LOT OF STATIC ON THAT LINE?

A: THE STATIC THAT YOU HEARD WAS WHEN I BROUGHT UP THE FREQUENCY TO BROADCAST TO THE OTHER UNITS. THAT IS THE TRANSMISSIONS FROM THE COMPUTER TO THE RADIO, NOT FOR THE TELEPHONE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO THE STATIC WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS GENERATED BY WHAT YOU DID IN BROADCASTING TO THE OTHER UNIT ON A POLICE FREQUENCY; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO WOULD DID HEAR STATIC, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: WE HEARD TYPING AND WE HEARD STATIC AND DURING THIS PERIOD OF TIME YOU MENTIONED, I BELIEVE AT SOME POINT, THAT YOU BECAME EXCITED AS YOU HEARD THIS; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT IS PART OF YOUR JOB, TO -- TO CREATE UNDER STRESS AND PRESSURE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: BECAUSE YOUR JOB IS TO TRY TO GET A UNIT OUT THERE AS FAST AS YOU CAN BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON, RIGHT?

A: RIGHT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO AT THE TIME THIS CALL HAD ENDED OR BY THE TIME THIS CALL HAD ENDED, YOU HAD NOT TALKED WITH ANYBODY AT 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM, HAD YOU?

A: NO.

Q: YOU SUBSEQUENTLY DISPATCHED A VEHICLE THERE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I SENT IT TO THE DIVISION.

Q: TO THE DIVISION?

A: YES.

Q: BY "THE DIVISION" WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WEST LOS ANGELES DIVISION?

A: RIGHT.

Q: THEY IN TURN WOULD DISPATCH A UNIT?

A: I WOULD HAVE ASSIGNED A UNIT. LIKE I SAID, EITHER THERE WAS NOT ONE AVAILABLE OR I DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO ASSIGN A UNIT TO GO INTO WHAT WE CALL DISPATCH MODE, SO I BROADCAST IT TO ANY WEST L.A. UNIT, THEREFORE ANY UNIT THAT WAS AVAILABLE, THEY HEARD THAT CALL, THEY SHOULD TAKE IT.

Q: THEY COULD THEN RESPOND TO THAT CALL?

A: EXACTLY.

Q: THAT WAS PART OF THE STATIC THAT WE HEARD WHEN YOU WANTED TO MAKE THAT KIND OF BROADCAST OVER THE FREQUENCY; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: RIGHT.

Q: MR. DARDEN ASKED YOU A QUESTION WITH REFERENCE TO OTHER THINGS ON THE TAPE. THE OTHER THINGS ON THE REST OF THIS TAPE ARE UNRELATED TO THIS INCIDENT; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: IN OTHER WORDS, THESE ARE OTHER CALLS? YOU WERE STILL GETTING OTHER CALLS?

A: NO, I WAS NOT GETTING OTHER CALLS. THERE WERE OTHER PEOPLE AROUND ME THAT WERE TALKING TO THEIR CALLER AND COULD BE HEARD. MY MICROPHONE WILL PICK IT UP.

Q: SO THE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE ON THE TAPE WERE UNRELATED TO THIS INCIDENT?

A: EXACTLY.

Q: BUT RELATED TO OTHER INCIDENTS BEING HANDLED BY YOUR COLLEAGUES WHO WERE THERE?

A: RIGHT.

Q: AS I UNDERSTAND THIS ROOM AT THE PARKER CENTER, IT IS A SITUATION WHERE YOU CAN PICK UP WHAT YOUR COLLEAGUES ARE DOING AND I PRESUME THEY CAN PICK UP WHAT YOU ARE DOING; IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?

A: THAT'S RIGHT.

Q: AND SO ON THAT TAPE WE CAN HEAR, FOR INSTANCE, SOME CONVERSATION ABOUT A MALE BLACK OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? IS THAT ONE OF YOUR COLLEAGUES?

A: THAT IS ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, AT SOME POINT YOU TYPE INTO AND YOU DESCRIBED FOR US THAT YOU TYPE INTO YOUR COMPUTER "FEMALE BEING BEATEN AT LOCATION COULD BE HEARD OVER THE PHONE," AND THAT WAS WHAT YOU CONCLUDED AFTER YOU HEARD THIS WOMAN SCREAMING; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER THERE WAS A MUTUAL FIGHT OR WHAT WAS GOING ON, DO YOU, AT THAT POINT?

A: NO, I DO NOT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO YOU -- WHAT YOU WROTE DOWN WAS WHAT YOU CONCLUDED AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: WHAT I CONCLUDED THAT I HEARD.

Q: THAT WAS BACK IN JANUARY OF 1989, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: YOU NEVER AT ANY TIME TALKED TO ANY OF THE PARTIES WHO WERE ACTUALLY AT THAT HOUSE?

A: NO.

MR. COCHRAN: JUST A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I HAVE JUST A MOMENT MORE, YOUR HONOR?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL AND THE DEFENDANT.)

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY, YOUR HONOR. NOTHING FURTHER FROM MISS GILBERT AT THIS POINT. THANK YOU, MA'AM.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN: JUST A FEW QUESTIONS, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: DON'T GO AWAY.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. DARDEN:

Q: MISS GILBERT, YOU CONCLUDED BACK ON JANUARY 1, 1989, THAT A WOMAN WAS BEING BEATEN AS YOU LISTENED IN ON THE TELEPHONE?

A: YES.

Q: AND SINCE -- YOU HAVE HEARD THAT TAPE AGAIN, THAT IS, SINCE 1989; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: HAVE YOUR CONCLUSIONS CHANGED?

A: NO, THEY HAVE NOT.

Q: MR. COCHRAN JUST ASKED YOU A MOMENT AGO IF THERE WAS INFORMATION OR OTHER INFORMATION ON THE TAPE THAT DID NOT RELATE TO THIS INCIDENT AND YOU SAID YES, CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. BUT YOU CAN HEAR ON THE TAPE YOUR DISPATCH TO ANY WEST L.A. UNIT; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: RIGHT.

Q: THAT IS A LITTLE FURTHER ALONG ON THE TAPE?

A: RIGHT.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

THE COURT: ANY RECROSS AS TO THAT?

MR. COCHRAN: YES. YES, JUST BRIEFLY, YOUR HONOR.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. COCHRAN:

Q: AND SO THAT IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR, MISS GILBERT, YOUR CONCLUSION ABOUT A PERSON BEING BEATEN WAS BASED UPON WHAT YOU HEARD AND YOU COULDN'T TELL WHO WAS STRIKING WHOM; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY KINDLY, MA'AM.

THE WITNESS: YOU ARE WELCOME.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS GILBERT, YOU MAY STEP DOWN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MR. DARDEN: MAY SHE BE EXCUSED, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YES.

MR. DARDEN: MAY I HAVE ONE MOMENT TO GRAB THE NEXT WITNESS?

THE COURT: YOU MAY.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, MAY WE APPROACH?

THE COURT: MISS CLARK.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, THE PROBLEM -- THE COURT CONFIGURATION -- WE ARE GOING TO BE PLEASANT TODAY ALL DAY. WHEN MISS CLARK GOES OVER AND TALKS TO THE INVESTIGATORS, YOU CAN TELL BY BODY LANGUAGE OF THE JUROR CLOSER TO HER IN RED, SHE IS TURNING, SHE IS TURNING LIKE THIS, IT IS SO CLOSE, WHATEVER MARCIA IS SAYING, IT IS A REAL PROBLEM, AND WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A PROBLEM DURING THIS TRIAL AND I WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT --

THE COURT: OKAY.

MR. COCHRAN: -- WHILE SHE WAS THERE BECAUSE YOU COULD SEE WHERE MARCIA WAS. I DIDN'T WANT HER BEND OVER, NO. 1, BUT NO. 2, IT POSES A REAL PROBLEM RIGHT THERE BECAUSE THEY WERE RIGHT THERE BY COUNSEL AND I THINK SOMEBODY -- SOMEBODY NEEDS TO BE MOVED OVER, BECAUSE IT IS EVEN HARD ON MARCIA.

THE COURT: WE WILL TALK ABOUT THAT. THEY ARE RIGHT.

MR. SHAPIRO: THEY ARE SITTING IN THE JURY BOX.

MS. CLARK: JUST WANT TO LET EVERYONE KNOW THAT WHAT I DID WAS I WILL DEMONSTRATE, (INDICATING), LIKE THAT IN HIS EAR SO THAT NO ONE COULD HEAR, BUT WHAT WE CAN DO IS PASS FOLDED NOTES.

THE COURT: LET'S JUST SLIDE THEM OVER.

MS. CLARK: THAT'S GOOD. OKAY.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. DARDEN, DO YOU WISH TO CALL YOUR NEXT WITNESS?

MR. DARDEN: YES, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU. THE PEOPLE CALL DETECTIVE EDWARDS, YOUR HONOR.

JOHN EDWARDS, CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE PEOPLE, WAS SWORN AND TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:

THE CLERK: PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU MAY GIVE IN THE CAUSE NOW PENDING BEFORE THIS COURT, SHALL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD.

THE WITNESS: YES, I DO.

THE CLERK: PLEASE BE SEATED. PLEASE STATE AND SPELL YOUR FIRST AND LAST NAME FOR THE RECORD.

THE WITNESS: JOHN EDWARDS, E-D-W-A-R-D-S.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. DARDEN:

Q: GOOD MORNING, SIR.

A: GOOD MORNING.

Q: SIR, ON JANUARY 1, 1989, WERE YOU EMPLOYED BY THE LAPD?

A: YES, I WAS.

Q: WHAT IS YOUR PRESENT RANK TODAY?

A: DETECTIVE, VAN NUYS HOMICIDE.

Q: OKAY. AND WHAT WAS YOUR RANK AND ASSIGNMENT ON JANUARY 1, 1989?

A: TRAINING OFFICER FOR WEST L.A. PATROL.

Q: OKAY. SO YOU WERE A PATROL OFFICER?

A: YES, I WAS.

Q: AT WEST L.A. DIVISION?

A: YES.

Q: DOES WEST L.A. DIVISION COVER BRENTWOOD?

A: YES, IT DOES.

Q: OKAY. NOW, DID YOU HAVE A PARTICULAR UNIT DESIGNATION ON JANUARY 1?

A: YES. I WAS 8 ADAM 69. I WAS ASSIGNED TO AN AREA AROUND CADILLAC AND LA CIENEGA.

Q: YOU SAY THAT YOU WERE A TRAINING OFFICER?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT IS A TRAINING OFFICER?

A: A TRAINING OFFICER TRAINS NEW RECRUITS OUT OF THE ACADEMY WHO ARE ASSIGNED TO THE FIELD IN THE VARIOUS ASPECTS OF POLICE WORK AND STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES OF POLICE DEPARTMENT.

Q: OKAY. AND WERE YOU ACCOMPANIED BY A ROOKIE TRAINEE?

A: YES, I WAS.

Q: WHO WAS THAT?

A: PATRISHA MILEWSKI.

THE COURT: HOW DO YOU SPELL THAT?

THE WITNESS: M-I-L-W-I-S-K-I, I BELIEVE. I HAVE THE SPELLING, IF YOU NEED IT.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: WERE ON YOU DUTY BETWEEN 3:00 AND 4:00 A.M. ON THAT DATE?

A: YES, I WAS.

Q: WERE YOU IN UNIFORM?

A: YES.

Q: WAS YOUR PARTNER IN UNIFORM?

A: YES, SHE WAS.

Q: DID YOU HAVE A POLICE VEHICLE?

A: YES.

Q: WAS THAT A PLAIN CLOTHES VEHICLE?

A: IT WAS A BLACK AND WHITE PATROL CAR.

Q: SO YOU HAD "LAPD, TO PROTECT AND TO SERVE" AND ALL OF THAT ON THE DOORS?

A: YES, IT DID.

Q: ON THAT DATE, AROUND FOUR O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING, DID YOU RECEIVE A RADIO CALL?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS AROUND 3:30 IN THE MORNING.

Q: OKAY. DO YOU KNOW THE EXACT TIME?

A: NOT REALLY, BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS SOMEWHERE AROUND 3:30, 3:40, SOMEWHERE IN THERE.

Q: OKAY. BUT YOU DID RECEIVE A RADIO CALL?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF THAT CALL?

A: IT WAS A 911 RADIO CALL AT 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM, WOMAN BEING BEATEN. THE OPERATOR COULD OVERHEAR IT, AND ACCORDING TO THE COMMENT, THE OPERATOR COULD OVERHEAR THE WOMAN BEING BEATEN ON THE PHONE.

Q: AND WHERE WERE YOU, IF YOU RECALL, WHEN YOU RECEIVED THAT RADIO CALL?

A: I WAS SOMEWHERE IN THE GENERAL AREA OF LA CIENEGA AND CADILLAC, ROBERTSON IN THERE, NEAR THE FREEWAY.

Q: AND DID YOU PROCEED TO 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: HOW LONG DID IT TAKE YOU TO GET THERE, IF YOU RECALL?

A: LESS THAN TEN MINUTES.

Q: OKAY. A MOMENT AGO YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU HAD A SPECIFIC OR PARTICULAR UNIT DESIGNATION; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: WERE YOU ALSO ASSIGNED A PARTICULAR OR SPECIFIC PATROL AREA?

A: YES, I WAS.

Q: WHAT WAS YOUR PATROL AREA?

A: IT WAS FROM BASICALLY VENICE BOULEVARD TO OLYMPIC AND BASICALLY ROBERTSON TO LA CIENEGA.

Q: SO 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM THEN WAS OUT OF YOUR NORMAL PATROL AREA?

A: YES, QUITE A WAYS.

Q: HAD YOU EVER BEEN TO 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM, THAT IS, PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 1989?

A: NO, I HAD NOT.

Q: HAD YOU EVER MET THE DEFENDANT HERE SEATED AT THE END OF COUNSEL TABLE?

A: NO, I HAD NOT.

Q: SO YOU AND YOUR PARTNER PROCEEDED TO THAT ADDRESS?

A: YES.

Q: TELL THE JURY WHAT HAPPENED NEXT.

A: WELL, WHEN I ARRIVED IN THE SUNSET/ROCKINGHAM AREA AND WENT INTO THE HILLS ON ROCKINGHAM, IT WAS -- IT WAS DARK, IT WAS MISTY, IT HAD BEEN RAINING EARLIER IN THE EVENING, AND AS I WENT BY THE FIRST PART OF THE ESTATE, I WAS NOT AWARE THAT THERE WAS A GATE ON ROCKINGHAM. I PASSED IT AND I ENDED UP ON THE NEXT GATE, WHICH I BELIEVE IS ON ASHFORD, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, AN ELECTRONIC GATE, AND I STOPPED MY BLACK AND WHITE PATROL CAR THERE AND NOTED THAT IT WAS A LOCKED SECURITY GATE WITH A LITTLE CALL BOX OUT FRONT WITH A BUTTON.

Q: DID YOU GET OUT OF THE CAR AT THAT TIME?

A: YES, I GOT OUT OF THE CAR AND PRESSED THE BUTTON AND WAITED FOR SOMEONE TO SPEAK TO ME AND A FEMALE CAME OVER THE SPEAKER, SAID SHE WAS THE HOUSEKEEPER, THAT HER NAME WAS MICHELLE, AND THAT SHE WANTED TO KNOW WHAT I WANTED. AND I SAID, WELL, I JUST RESPONDED THERE ON A 911 CALL, A WOMAN HAD BEEN BEATEN --

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, OBJECT. THIS IS HEARSAY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. COCHRAN: MOVE TO STRIKE AND THE JURY ADMONISHED.

MR. DARDEN: TIMELY OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, YOU ARE TO DISREGARD THE LAST STATEMENT REGARDING WHAT THE HOUSEKEEPER SAID. ALL RIGHT, MR. DARDEN.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: WHAT WAS YOUR RESPONSE TO THE HOUSEKEEPER?

A: I TOLD HER THAT I WAS THERE ON A 911 CALL, THAT A WOMAN HAD PLACED A 911 CALL AND SAID SHE WAS BEING BEATEN AND THE OPERATOR COULD HEAR HER BEING BEATEN OVER THE PHONE AND I NEEDED TO SEE AND TALK TO THE PERSON WHO MADE THAT CALL.

Q: OKAY. DID THE PERSON YOU SPOKE TO, MICHELLE, DID SHE ALLOW YOU ENTRY INTO THE COMPOUND OR ESTATE AT THAT POINT?

A: NO. ON THE CONTRARY, SHE SAID THAT THERE WAS NO PROBLEM THERE.

Q: WHAT DID YOU DO?

A: I TOLD HER I WAS NOT LEAVING UNTIL I SAW THE PERSON THAT MADE THE 911 CALL.

Q: WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

A: THEN A WOMAN CAME RUNNING OUT OF THE BUSHES TO MY LEFT, ACROSS THE DRIVEWAY. SHE WAS A FEMALE CAUCASIAN, BLOND HAIR. SHE WAS WEARING A BRA ONLY AS AN UPPER GARMENT AND SHE HAD ON DARK -- I BELIEVE IT WAS A DARK LIGHTWEIGHT SWEATPANTS OR NIGHT PAJAMA BOTTOM AND SHE RAN ACROSS AND COLLAPSED ON THE SPEAKER -- THE IDENTICAL KIND OF A SPEAKER POST ON THE INSIDE OF THE GATE. SHE COLLAPSED ON IT AND STARTED YELLING, "HE'S GOING TO KILL ME, HE'S GOING TO KILL ME." THEN SHE PRESSED THE BUTTON WHICH ALLOWED THE GATE TO OPEN AND THEN SHE RAN OUT AGAIN YELLING "HE'S GOING TO KILL ME."

Q: DID YOU HAVE A FLASHLIGHT WITH YOU AT THAT TIME?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WHAT WAS YOUR REACTION? HOW DO YOU REACT WHEN YOU SAW THIS WOMAN RUN OUT OF THE DARKNESS IN HER BRA AND NIGHT CLOTHES?

A: WELL, SHE -- SHE SEEMED TO BE EXHAUSTED.

MR. COCHRAN: MOVE TO STRIKE, YOUR HONOR, AS NONRESPONSIVE. WHAT WAS HIS REACTION?

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. THE JURY IS ORDERED TO DISREGARD THE LAST QUESTION AND ANSWER. MR. DARDEN, ASK THE QUESTION AGAIN, PLEASE.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: WHAT WAS YOUR RESPONSE WHEN YOU SAW THIS WOMAN RUNNING TOWARD YOU SCREAMING, "HE'S GOING TO KILL ME, HE'S GOING TO KILL ME"?

A: ILLUMINATED HER BRIEFLY WITH MY FLASHLIGHT AND THEN ILLUMINATED THE BUSHES AROUND HER OR NEAR HER AND AS MUCH OF THE HOUSE AS I COULD.

Q: DID YOU SEE ANYONE ELSE AT THAT TIME?

A: NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: WHAT WAS HER DEMEANOR AS SHE RAN TOWARD YOU SHOUTING, "HE'S GOING TO KILL ME, HE'S GOING TO KILL ME"?

A: SHE WAS HYSTERICAL.

Q: AND YOU SAY THAT SHE PUSHED THE BUTTON TO THE GATE?

A: WELL, SHE HAD PUSHED IT MORE THAN ONCE. SHE PUSHED IT THREE OR FOUR TIMES LIKE SHE WAS PANICKING. SEVERAL TIMES SHE KEPT PUSHING IT.

Q: DID THE GATE OPENED?

A: YES, IT OPENED, AND SHE RAN OUT TO ME. I DIDN'T ENTER.

Q: OKAY. WHAT HAPPENED WHEN SHE RAN OUT TO YOU?

A: SHE -- SHE CLUNG ON TO ME AND THEN MADE SEVERAL STATEMENTS TO ME AT THAT TIME.

Q: NOW, YOU SAY THAT SHE RAN TO YOU AND CLUNG TO YOU?

A: WELL, SHE COLLAPSED ON ME.

Q: SHE COLLAPSED ON YOU?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT WAS HER PHYSICAL DEMEANOR AND PHYSICAL APPEARANCE AT THAT TIME?

A: WELL, SHE -- SHE WAS WET. SHE WAS -- SHE WAS SHIVERING, SHE WAS COLD. I COULD -- I COULD FEEL HER -- HER BONES AND SHE WAS REAL COLD AND SHE WAS BEAT UP.

Q: AND AT SOME POINT DID YOU IDENTIFY THIS WOMAN?

A: YES.

Q: WHO WAS THIS WOMAN THAT YOU?

A: NICOLE SIMPSON.

Q: WHAT, IF ANYTHING, DID SHE SAY TO YOU AFTER SHE COLLAPSED?

A: SHE SAID, "HE'S GOING TO -- HE'S GOING TO KILL ME." I SAID "WELL, WHO IS GOING TO KILL YOU?" SHE SAID, "O.J."

Q: WHAT DID YOU SAY?

A: I SAID -- WELL, I WAS A LITTLE SURPRISED.

MR. COCHRAN: MOVE TO STRIKE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. OFFICER, IF YOU WOULD JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: ALL RIGHT. MR. DARDEN.

THE WITNESS: I SAID, "O.J. WHO? DO YOU MEAN THE -- THE FOOTBALL PLAYER, O.J. THE FOOTBALL PLAYER?" AND SHE SAID, "YES, O.J. SIMPSON, THE FOOTBALL PLAYER."

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: A MOMENT AGO YOU SAID AS YOU SAW THIS WOMAN NICOLE SIMPSON RUNNING TOWARD YOU, THAT SHE SEEMED HYSTERICAL; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: WAS SHE STILL HYSTERICAL WHEN SHE CLUNG ON TO YOU?

A: YES.

Q: WAS SHE HYSTERICAL WHEN SHE TOLD YOU THAT IT WAS O.J. SIMPSON?

A: YES.

Q: HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU HEAR HER SHOUT, "HE'S GOING TO KILL ME, HE'S GOING TO KILL ME"?

A: UMM, FOUR OR FIVE TIMES.

Q: WHAT, IF ANYTHING, DID YOU SAY TO MISS SIMPSON AFTER SHE TOLD YOU THAT THE PERSON WHO WAS GOING TO KILL HER WAS O.J. SIMPSON?

A: WELL, AT THAT POINT I WAS A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY --

MR. COCHRAN: MOVE TO STRIKE AS NONRESPONSIVE AGAIN, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. OFFICER, IF YOU WOULD LISTEN CAREFULLY TO THE QUESTION. ANSWER ONLY THE QUESTION THAT IS BEING ASKED OF YOU.

THE WITNESS: YES.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

MR. DARDEN: MAY I ASK ANOTHER QUESTION, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YOU MAY.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: WHAT WERE YOUR CONCERNS AT THAT POINT, DETECTIVE?

A: THAT IF SOMEONE WAS GOING TO KILL HER, THE PERSON MAY HAVE A WEAPON AND MAY COME OUT AT ANY SECOND.

Q: DID YOU ASK MRS. SIMPSON ANYTHING AT THAT POINT?

A: YES. I ASKED HER IF HE HAD ANY WEAPONS AND SHE SAID YES.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR -- OBJECT TO THE RESPONSE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DID SHE SAY WHAT KIND OF WEAPONS HE HAD?

A: SHE SAID HE HAD LOTS OF -- LOTS OF GUNS.

Q: YOU TESTIFIED A MOMENT AGO THAT YOU -- THAT YOU HAD IN YOUR HAND A FLASHLIGHT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU ILLUMINATE MRS. SIMPSON'S FACE AT ALL AT THAT TIME?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: NICOLE SIMPSON?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU NOTICE ANY INJURIES AT ALL ON HER FACE?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WHAT WERE THOSE INJURIES?

A: SHE HAD A CUT APPROXIMATELY ONE INCH, I BELIEVE, ON HER LEFT UPPER LIP. SHE HAD A SWOLLEN RIGHT FOREHEAD AND HER -- I BELIEVE HER LEFT EYE OR RIGHT EYE WAS STARTING TO BLACKEN, IT WAS SWOLLEN, AND SHE HAD SOME SORT OF AN IMPRINT OR SOME SORT OF A SWOLLEN MARK THAT YOU COULD SEE ON HER CHEEK. I BELIEVE THAT WAS ALSO ON THE RIGHT CHEEK. AND SHE HAD A HAND IMPRINT ON HER THROAT, ON THE LEFT SIDE OF HER THROAT.

Q: YOU SAW A HAND IMPRINT ON THE LEFT SIDE OF HER NECK?

A: JUST THE FINGERS MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, THAT HAS BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED.

MR. COCHRAN: THE QUESTION WAS ASKED AND ANSWERED. REPEATING THE SAME QUESTION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE ANSWER WILL STAND.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DID YOU ASK OR POSE ANY QUESTION TO NICOLE BROWN AT THAT TIME?

A: YES. I ASKED HER WHAT HAPPENED TO HER FACE.

Q: AND WAS SHE STILL HYSTERICAL AT THAT POINT?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT DID SHE SAY?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THAT, YOUR HONOR. HEARSAY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: SHE SAID THAT O.J. HAD SLAPPED HER, HIT HER WITH HIS FIST AND KICKED HER AND PULLED HER -- I THINK PULLED HER BY THE HAIR.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: WHAT HAPPENED NEXT, DETECTIVE?

A: I HAD MY PARTNER PUT HER UNIFORM JACKET ON HER BECAUSE SHE WAS SHIVERING SO BAD, AND HAD HER PLACED IN THE RIGHT REAR SEAT OF OUR PATROL VEHICLE.

Q: AND WHERE WAS YOUR PARTNER AT THAT POINT IN TIME?

A: AFTER NICOLE WAS PLACED IN THE RIGHT REAR SEAT OF THE PATROL VEHICLE, MY PARTNER GOT IN THE RIGHT FRONT SEAT OF THE PATROL VEHICLE AND I TOLD HER TO START TAKING A CRIME REPORT AND SHE GOT THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION REPORT, PUT IT ON A NOTEBOOK, AND AT THAT POINT NICOLE WAS REPEATING THINGS RAPIDLY.

Q: OKAY. NOW, YOU INDICATED EARLIER THAT THE GATE OPENED AFTER NICOLE HIT THE BUTTON FOUR OR FIVE TIMES?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: DID THE GATE CLOSE AFTER SHE EXITED THROUGH THE GATE?

A: YES, IT DID.

Q: DID YOU ENTER THE COMPOUND OR THE ESTATE AT THAT TIME?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: YOU REMAINED ON THE OUTSIDE?

A: YES.

Q: AND AS YOU PLACED NICOLE BROWN INTO THE POLICE VEHICLE, WAS SHE STILL HYSTERICAL?

A: OH, YES.

Q: WAS SHE STILL SHAKING?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID SHE SAY ANYTHING AT THAT TIME?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION, HEARSAY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DID SHE SAY ANYTHING AT THAT TIME, DETECTIVE?

A: YES. SHE MADE A SERIES OF SPONTANEOUS STATEMENTS PRIOR TO US ATTEMPTING TO ASK HER ANY QUESTIONS.

Q: WHAT DID SHE SAY?

A: SHE SAID, "YOU GUYS NEVER DO ANYTHING" SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT, THAT "YOU NEVER DO ANYTHING ABOUT HIM. YOU COME OUT. YOU HAVE BEEN OUT HERE EIGHT TIMES. YOU NEVER DO ANYTHING ABOUT HIM." AND SHE SAYS, "I WANT HIM ARRESTED. I WANT MY KIDS BACK. I WANT TO GO IN THE HOUSE."

Q: HAD YOU BEEN OUT TO 360 ROCKINGHAM, NORTH ROCKINGHAM, EIGHT TIMES PRIOR?

MR. COCHRAN: ASKED AND ANSWERED.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: NO, I HAD ONLY BEEN IN THE DIVISION FOR --

MR. COCHRAN: ASKED AND ANSWERED. HE ANSWERED THE QUESTION, YOUR HONOR. HE SAID "NO."

THE COURT: OVERRULED. HE CAN ANSWER THAT WAY.

THE WITNESS: I HAD ONLY BEEN IN THAT DIVISION FOR A VERY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME AND I HAD NEVER BEEN ON THAT STREET.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: AND DID YOU RESPOND TO NICOLE BROWN WHEN SHE SAID, "YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN OUT HERE EIGHT TIMES BEFORE AND YOU NEVER DO ANYTHING"?

A: NOT MUCH I COULD SAY ABOUT THAT, NO.

Q: WHAT HAPPENED NEXT, DETECTIVE?

A: I TOLD MY PARTNER TO HAND HER THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION REPORT AND WE ASKED -- AND I ASKED HER IF SHE WOULD SIGN A CRIME REPORT AGAINST O.J. SIMPSON. SHE SAID "YES." SHE GRABBED THE NOTEBOOK FROM MY PARTNER AND THE PEN AND SHE SIGNED HER NAME ON THE DOCUMENT WITHOUT EVEN LOOKING, AND AS FAST AS SHE COULD.

Q: WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

A: AND THEN I TURNED MY ATTENTION BACK TO THE GATE AS MY PARTNER WAS GETTING THE REST OF THE DETAILS FOR THE REPORT, AND I SAW MR. SIMPSON WALKING TOWARDS ME FROM THE HOUSE WEARING A BATHROBE.

Q: WHEN YOU SAY "MR. SIMPSON," YOU ARE REFERRING TO THE DEFENDANT SEATED HERE IN FRONT TODAY?

A: YES, O.J. SIMPSON, WEARING THE GRAY JACKET, SUIT JACKET.

THE COURT: INDICATING THE DEFENDANT. ALL RIGHT. MR. DARDEN, DO YOU HAVE MUCH MORE?

MR. DARDEN: YES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A 15-MINUTE RECESS. PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITION TO YOU. DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONG YOURSELVES, FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE OR ALLOW ANYBODY TO TALK TO YOU. THIS WILL BE A 15-MINUTE RECESS. AND I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO STEP BACK INTO THE JURY ROOM AND WE WILL RESUME AT ELEVEN O'CLOCK.

(THE JURY EXITS THE COURTROOM.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE, YOU CAN STEP DOWN.

THE WITNESS: THANK YOU.

(RECESS.)

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

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

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

THE COURT: BE SEATED, PLEASE. ALL RIGHT. BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. MR. SIMPSON IS AGAIN PRESENT WITH COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. DOUGLAS, MR. BAILEY, PEOPLE REPRESENTED BY MISS CLARK, MR. DARDEN. DETECTIVE JOHN EDWARDS IS ON THE WITNESS STAND. WE'VE BEEN REJOINED BY ALL MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL. GOOD MORNING, DETECTIVE EDWARDS. YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH. MR. DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DETECTIVE EDWARDS, I BELIEVE WHEN WE LEFT OFF, YOU HAD JUST TOLD US THAT YOU TURNED YOUR ATTENTION BACK TOWARD THE GATE AND THAT IT WAS THEN THAT YOU SAW THE DEFENDANT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND WHAT WAS THE DEFENDANT WEARING WHEN YOU SAW HIM?

A: HE WAS WEARING AN OPEN BATHROBE WITH A PAIR OF SHORTS, UNDERWEAR AND NO SHOES.

Q: AND DID YOU STILL HAVE YOUR FLASHLIGHT IN YOUR HAND?

A: YES. I ILLUMINATED HIM WITH THE FLASHLIGHT AS HE APPROACHED ME.

Q: YOU SHINED IT IN HIS DIRECTION?

A: YES.

Q: COULD YOU SEE HIS FACE AT THAT TIME?

A: YES.

Q: YOU COULD SEE THE DEFENDANT'S FACE?

A: YES. IT WAS O.J. SIMPSON.

Q: WERE YOU STILL OUTSIDE THE GATE?

A: YES, I WAS OUTSIDE THE GATE.

Q: AND THE DEFENDANT, WHICH SIDE OF THE GATE WAS HE ON?

A: HE WAS ON THE -- INSIDE THE GATE ON THE DRIVEWAY.

Q: SO THE GATE WAS BETWEEN YOU AND THE DEFENDANT?

A: YES.

Q: IS THERE A WALL OR A FENCE AT ALL AROUND THIS COMPOUND OR ESTATE?

A: YES, THERE IS.

Q: AND HOW HIGH IS THE WALL AND THE FENCE?

A: I THINK IT'S ABOUT SIX FEET FROM MY REMEMBERING IT. IT'S ABOUT SIX FEET HIGH.

Q: AND WHEN YOU SAW THE DEFENDANT, HE WAS WALKING; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: AND IN WHAT DIRECTION?

A: HE WAS WALKING DIRECTLY TOWARDS ME AND THE GATE.

Q: NOW, WHERE WAS NICOLE BROWN IN PROXIMITY TO YOU?

A: AS I WAS FACING THE GATE, SHE WAS TO MY RIGHT IN THE PATROL CAR WHICH WAS BEHIND THE WALL.

Q: SO YOU WERE BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND NICOLE BROWN; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: WHEN YOU SHINED YOUR FLASHLIGHT IN THE DIRECTION OF THE DEFENDANT'S FACE, DID HE SEEM ANGRY AT ALL?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THAT. CALLS FOR CONCLUSION, SPECULATION.

THE COURT: IT'S A LEADING QUESTION. WHY DON'T YOU REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: WHEN YOU SHINED YOUR FLASHLIGHT IN THE DEFENDANT'S DIRECTION, WHAT IF ANYTHING DID YOU NOTICE ABOUT HIS FACE?

A: HE SEEMED FURIOUS.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, THAT IS -- EVEN HE HAS TO LAUGH. I WOULD MOVE TO STRIKE THAT. EVEN COUNSEL HAS TO LAUGH ABOUT THIS. THE WITNESS IS TESTIFYING, NOT MR. DARDEN.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN: WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT QUESTION? IS THAT A LEGAL OBJECTION?

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: YOU SAW THE DEFENDANT'S FACE?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT WAS HIS DEMEANOR AT THAT TIME?

THE COURT: BETTER QUESTION.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: YOU ARE WELCOME.

THE WITNESS: HE SEEMED VERY FURIOUS.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DID HE SAY ANYTHING AT THAT TIME?

A: NO. HE WAS STILL APPROACHING THE FENCE.

Q: AND HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE HIS PACE OR HIS GAIT OR HIS WALK AT THAT TIME?

A: IT WAS RAPID AND DELIBERATE.

Q: TOWARD YOU?

A: TOWARDS ME.

Q: WERE YOU CONCERNED FOR YOUR SAFETY AT THAT POINT?

MR. COCHRAN: LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE AGAIN, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I ILLUMINATED HIS HANDS AND HIS WAISTLINE AREA --

MR. COCHRAN: MOVE TO STRIKE, NONRESPONSIVE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: -- FOR ANY POSSIBLE WEAPONS BECAUSE OF STATEMENTS MADE TO ME ABOUT HIM HAVING LOTS OF GUNS.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: AND DID YOU NOTICE THE DEFENDANT CARRYING A GUN AT THAT TIME?

A: I COULD SEE NO WEAPONS IN HIS HANDS AND HIS WAISTBAND WAS CLEARLY VISIBLE AND I SAW NOTHING IN HIS WAISTBAND AREA.

Q: WHAT HAPPENED NEXT, DETECTIVE?

A: THE DEFENDANT APPROACHED DIRECTLY TO ME AT THE GATE WHERE HE WAS ON ONE SIDE AND I WAS ON THE OTHER. WE WERE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY. THEN HE PEERED TOWARDS THE BLACK AND WHITE POLICE VEHICLE AND HE STARTED MAKING SOME STATEMENTS.

Q: NOW, WHEN YOU SAY THE DEFENDANT PEERED TOWARD THE BLACK AND WHITE POLICE VEHICLE, YOU ARE SAYING HE LOOKED TOWARD YOUR POLICE CAR?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHERE WAS NICOLE BROWN AT THAT TIME?

A: SHE WAS SEATED IN THE RIGHT REAR SEAT OF THE PATROL VEHICLE WITH THE DOOR CLOSED.

Q: AND WOULD THAT BE THE SIDE OF THE VEHICLE CLOSEST TO THE GATE?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU SAY THE DEFENDANT STARTED SAYING THINGS?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT WAS HIS TONE OF VOICE AS HE SAID THOSE THINGS?

A: EXTREMELY ANGRY AND LOUD AND RAPID.

Q: WHAT DID THE DEFENDANT SAY AT THAT TIME?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. HEARSAY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: HE SAID, "I DON'T WANT THAT WOMAN IN MY BED ANYMORE. I GOT TWO OTHER WOMEN. I DON'T WANT THAT WOMAN IN MY BED ANYMORE."

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: NOW, DID HE SAY THIS OR DID HE SHOUT IT OR --

A: HE SHOUTED IT I BELIEVE TWICE AND HE POINTED AT HER -- WELL, HE POINTED AT MY PATROL VEHICLE WHILE HE WAS MAKING THE STATEMENT.

Q: DID YOU REALIZE AT THAT TIME THAT THE WOMAN IN THE PATROL CAR, NICOLE BROWN, WAS THE DEFENDANT'S WIFE?

A: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: HER NAME WAS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: AT THAT TIME, YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: AND SO HE SHOUTED MORE THAN ONCE AT NICOLE?

A: YES.

Q: DID SHE RESPOND AT ALL?

A: SHE WAS -- I BELIEVE THE DOME LIGHT WAS ON IN THE PATROL VEHICLE AND SHE WAS TALKING TO MY PARTNER.

Q: OKAY. DID SHE APPEAR TO REACT AT ALL?

A: AT THAT POINT, I DIDN'T TURN AROUND AND LOOK BACK AT HER. I DID A SIDESTEP TO GET BETWEEN THE TWO OF THEM.

Q: DID YOU NOTE ANY REACTION AT ALL OR ANY RESPONSE TO THE DEFENDANT'S STATEMENT THAT, "I DON'T WANT THAT WOMAN IN MY BED ANYMORE. I HAVE TWO WOMEN"?

A: FROM THE VICTIM?

Q: FROM NICOLE, YES.

A: NO, I DON'T BELIEVE I DID.

Q: AND WHEN YOU SAY "VICTIM", ARE YOU REFERRING TO NICOLE?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU RESPOND TO THE DEFENDANT AFTER HE MADE THESE STATEMENTS REPEATEDLY?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WHAT DID YOU SAY TO HIM?

A: I TRIED TO MAKE EYE-TO-EYE CONTACT WITH HIM TO FOCUS HIM TO ME BECAUSE I WAS TALKING TO HIM, AND AFTER A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, I WAS ABLE TO GET HIM TO FOCUS ON ME AND --

Q: LET ME INTERRUPT YOU THERE. WHERE WAS THE DEFENDANT FOCUSED DURING THE MEANTIME?

A: ON THE REAR OF MY PATROL CAR.

Q: AND ONCE YOU WERE ABLE TO GET THE DEFENDANT TO FOCUS ON YOU, DID HIS DEMEANOR CHANGE AT ALL?

A: HE DID. HE SLOWED DOWN IN -- HIS TEMPERAMENT DROPPED DOWN ENOUGH TO WHERE I COULD TALK TO HIM.

Q: DID YOU AND HE HAVE A CONVERSATION AT THAT POINT?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT WAS THAT CONVERSATION?

A: I TOLD HIM THAT NICOLE HAD OBVIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES TO HER FACE AND THAT SHE SAID THAT HE HAD HIT HER AND I COULD SEE TRAUMA IN OPEN WOUNDS TO HER AND THAT SHE WANTED HIM ARRESTED AND I WAS GOING TO HAVE TO PLACE HIM UNDER ARREST FOR SPOUSAL BATTERY.

Q: NOW, YOU TESTIFIED A MOMENT AGO THAT HIS TEMPERAMENT HAD CHANGED?

A: IT HAD DROPPED ENOUGH TO WHERE HE WAS NOW LOOKING AT ME AND WE COULD -- IT APPEARED WE COULD COMMUNICATE.

Q: OKAY. AND DID HIS TEMPERAMENT AND DEMEANOR REMAIN THE SAME AS YOU TOLD HIM THAT NICOLE WANTED HIM ARRESTED FOR BEATING HER?

A: NO. IT FLARED UP BACK TO A VERY LOUD, FURIOUS, ANGRY MODE AGAIN.

Q: AND DID HE SAY ANYTHING AT THAT TIME?

A: HE SAID -- IF I REMEMBER, HE SAID, "I DIDN'T -- I DIDN'T HIT HER. I JUST -- I JUST PUSHED HER OUT OF THE BED," I BELIEVE.

Q: YOU DID WRITE A REPORT REGARDING THIS INCIDENT AT SOME POINT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND ARE YOU CERTAIN AS TO WHAT THE DEFENDANT SAID AT THAT POINT IN TIME?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU DESCRIBE THE DEFENDANT'S COMMENTS IN YOUR REPORT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND WOULD IT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION IF YOU WERE TO READ YOUR REPORT, THAT IS AS TO WHAT THE DEFENDANT SAID SPECIFICALLY AT THAT TIME?

A: YES.

MR. DARDEN: MAY I, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YOU MAY.

MR. DARDEN: I'LL SHOW THE PAGE TO COUNSEL. PAGE 3 OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT.

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

MR. DARDEN: MAY I APPROACH THE WITNESS, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YOU MAY.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: SHOWING YOU PAGE 3 OF A SUPPLEMENTAL POLICE REPORT, DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT PAGE?

A: YES. THIS IS MY HANDWRITING, THE REPORT I FILLED OUT IN 1989.

Q: AND DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO PARAGRAPH 4, WOULD YOU READ THAT TO YOURSELF, PLEASE?

A: YES (WITNESS COMPLIES).

Q: HAVING READ THAT, IS YOUR RECOLLECTION REFRESHED, OFFICER?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT DID THE DEFENDANT SAY AT THAT POINT IN TIME; THAT IS AFTER YOU TOLD HIM THAT NICOLE WANTED HIM ARRESTED?

A: HE SAID, "I DIDN'T BEAT HER. JUST PUSHED HER OUT OF THE BED AND NOTHING MORE."

Q: WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

A: THEN I TRIED TO EXPLAIN TO HIM AGAIN THAT I WAS GOING TO HAVE TO PLACE HIM UNDER ARREST FOR BEATING HIS WIFE, AND THEN HE MADE A -- HE MADE ANOTHER STATEMENT TO ME.

Q: WAS HE STILL ANGRY?

A: OH, YES.

Q: AND THIS NEXT STATEMENT, THE ONE YOU'RE ABOUT TO DESCRIBE, DID HE SPEAK IN A NORMAL TONE OF VOICE?

A: NO. HE WAS EXTREMELY AGITATED, ANGRY AND HE WAS YELLING.

Q: AND WHEN HE SPOKE TO YOU THE NEXT TIME, WAS HE YELLING THEN?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT DID HE SHOUT OR YELL AT THAT POINT?

A: HE MADE -- I BELIEVE IT WAS BASICALLY TWO STATEMENTS. ONE WAS, "THIS IS --" I BELIEVE, "THIS IS A FAMILY MATTER. YOU'VE BEEN UP HERE EIGHT TIMES BEFORE AND NEVER DID ANY -- ANYTHING BEFORE," AND THERE WAS ANOTHER STATEMENT. I CAN'T REMEMBER EXACTLY THE PHRASE, BUT HE EMPHASIZED THAT ONE.

Q: WELL, DID YOU INCLUDE THAT PHRASE IN YOUR SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WOULD IT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION TO SEE THE REPORT AGAIN?

A: YES. IT'S BEEN SIX YEARS. I'M AFRAID IT WOULD.

MR. DARDEN: PAGE 3.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I APPROACH? I'LL APPROACH WITH HIM.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, REFERRING THE WITNESS TO PAGE 3 OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT, PARAGRAPH 6.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DETECTIVE, LET ME HAND YOU PAGE 3 OF YOUR SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT. I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO READ PARAGRAPH 6 TO YOURSELF.

A: YES (WITNESS COMPLIES).

Q: HAVE YOU READ THE REPORT, DETECTIVE?

A: YES.

Q: IS YOUR RECOLLECTION NOW REFRESHED?

A: YES, IT IS.

Q: BY THE WAY, IN YOUR SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT, DID YOU INCLUDE THIS PARTICULAR COMMENT IN QUOTATION MARKS?

A: I BELIEVE I DID.

Q: WHAT DID THE DEFENDANT SAY AT THAT TIME?

A: HE SAID, "YOU'VE BEEN OUT HERE EIGHT TIMES BEFORE AND NOW YOU'RE GOING TO ARREST ME FOR THIS?" AND I REMEMBER HE EMPHASIZED "THIS". THEN HE SAID, "THIS IS A FAMILY MATTER." I BELIEVE HE SAID, "THIS IS A FAMILY MATTER," AND NOTHING MORE.

Q: AND DID YOU RESPOND AT THAT TIME?

A: YES. I BELIEVE I TOLD HIM AT THAT POINT THAT HE WAS GOING TO HAVE TO GET DRESSED AND I WAS GOING -- I WOULD PLACE HIM UNDER ARREST AND HE WAS GOING TO HAVE TO GET DRESSED AND COME TO THE STATION WITH ME WHEN MY SUPERVISOR ARRIVED.

Q: WHEN YOU TOLD THE DEFENDANT THAT HE WAS GOING TO BE ARRESTED, WERE YOU STILL ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE GATE?

A: OH, YES.

Q: AND WAS HE STILL ON THE INSIDE OF THE GATE?

A: YES.

Q: AND HAD HE OPENED THE GATE OR ALLOWED YOU ONTO THE PROPERTY AT THAT POINT?

A: NO.

Q: HAD YOU ASKED PERMISSION TO GO ONTO THE PROPERTY AT THAT POINT?

A: NO.

Q: YOU TOLD HIM TO GO GET DRESSED?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU ASK TO ACCOMPANY HIM BACK INTO THE HOUSE AS HE GOT DRESSED?

A: NO.

Q: DID THE DEFENDANT RETURN TO THE HOUSE?

A: YES, HE DID.

Q: AND WHAT WAS THE NEXT THING TO OCCUR? WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

A: THEN I TURNED AROUND TO SEE HOW THE REPORT WAS GOING WITH MY PARTNER AND NICOLE SIMPSON AND I REQUESTED MY SUPERVISOR TO RESPOND TO THE SCENE, AND THEN SUDDENLY I HEARD THE GATE OPEN AND I SAW SOMEBODY COME THROUGH THE GATE. IT WAS A FEMALE.

Q: COULD YOU DESCRIBE THIS WOMAN, PLEASE?

A: IT WAS EITHER A HISPANIC OR A FILIPINO LADY. I CAN'T REMEMBER, BUT SHE WENT DIRECTLY TO THE RIGHT REAR DOOR OF THE POLICE CAR.

Q: AND WHAT DID SHE DO WHEN SHE ARRIVED AT THE RIGHT REAR DOOR OF THE POLICE CAR?

A: SHE OPENED THE RIGHT REAR DOOR AND REACHED IN AND GRABBED NICOLE SIMPSON BY THE RIGHT ARM AND STARTED PULLING ON HER AND SAYING SOMETHING.

Q: WHAT DID SHE SAY?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS --

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. HEARSAY WHAT SHE SAID.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, CAN WE APPROACH?

THE COURT: SURE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: THIS IS ACTUALLY PRETTY GOOD. WE'VE ONLY HAD THREE SIDEBARS SO FAR.

MR. COCHRAN: WE'RE REALLY TRYING. WE'D LIKE TO TRY THIS CASE. IF I'M DOING PRETTY GOOD, MAYBE ON MONDAY, YOU'RE GOING TO LET US RETURN HAVING A LIFE.

THE COURT: MAYBE. OBJECTION IS HEARSAY. WE ARE AT SIDEBAR. MR. DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, WE EXPECT, IF THE WITNESS IS ALLOWED TO ANSWER, WOULD TESTIFY THAT THE WOMAN SAID, "NICOLE, DON'T DO THIS. COME INSIDE NOW," AS SHE PULLED HER OUT OF THE VEHICLE. THIS IS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE. THESE ARE WORDS OF COMMAND. IT IS NOT NECESSARILY OFFERED FOR A HEARSAY PURPOSE, BUT TO EXPLAIN THE OFFICER'S CONDUCT AND HIS SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT TO FOLLOW.

MS. CLARK: IT'S NOT FOR THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER ASSERTED.

MR. DARDEN: IT DOESN'T GO TO THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER ASSERTED.

MR. COCHRAN: IT'S HEARSAY. HE'S NOT GIVING YOU AN EXCEPTION. AND AGAIN, IT'S IRRELEVANT AND IMMATERIAL, NOT OFFERED FOR THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER ASSERTED. THEY CAN TESTIFY THAT MICHELLE WAS THERE OR WHATEVER, BUT THEY CAN'T GO INTO THAT STATEMENT. HOW CAN I CROSS-EXAMINE THAT?

THE COURT: AT THIS POINT, IT'S HEARSAY.

MR. DARDEN: IT'S NOT BEING OFFERED FOR THE TRUTH.

THE COURT: IS THIS MICHELLE ABUDRAHM?

MR. COCHRAN: YES.

MR. DARDEN: IT'S NOT BEING OFFERED FOR THE TRUTH.

THE COURT: THEN IT'S IRRELEVANT AND IMMATERIAL. OBJECTION SUSTAINED.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

MR. DARDEN: MAY I HAVE THE LAST QUESTION READ BACK?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY. MADAM REPORTER.

(THE QUESTION AND ANSWER WERE READ BY THE REPORTER.)

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: THE WOMAN CAME OUT OF THE GATE AND WENT TO THE PATROL CAR; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND YOU HEARD HER SAY SOMETHING?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND DID YOU RECOGNIZE THAT VOICE, THAT WOMAN'S VOICE AT THAT TIME?

A: YES.

Q: YOU HAD HEARD THE VOICE BEFORE?

A: YES. IT WAS THE WOMAN ON THE SPEAKER BOX THAT TOLD ME NOTHING WAS OCCURRING IN THE HOUSE.

Q: AND THIS WOMAN WAS PULLING ON NICOLE?

A: YES.

Q: DID SHE SPEAK WITH YOU PRIOR TO GOING OVER TO THE PATROL CAR AND GRABBING NICOLE AND PULLING ON HER?

A: NO, SHE DID NOT.

Q: WHAT DID YOU DO AT THAT POINT?

A: I WENT OVER AND GRABBED HER, PULLED HER AWAY FROM THE CAR AND CLOSED THE DOOR AFTER I SAW AND HEARD WHAT SHE WAS DOING.

Q: DID YOU GIVE HER ANY COMMAND AT THAT TIME?

A: YES. I ADVISED HER OF 148 OF THE PENAL CODE, INTERFERING WITH A POLICE OFFICER'S INVESTIGATION, AND I TOLD HER TO LEAVE.

Q: AND DID SHE LEAVE?

A: YES, SHE DID.

Q: NOW, DURING THE TIME THAT THIS WOMAN WAS PULLING ON NICOLE TRYING TO PULL HER OUT OF THE POLICE VEHICLE --

MR. COCHRAN: MOVE THE LAST STATEMENT BE STRICKEN, CONCLUSION OF COUNSEL.

THE COURT: PULLING ON HER. REPHRASE IT.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY IT BE STRICKEN?

THE COURT: REPHRASE IT, PLEASE.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: WHERE WAS THE DEFENDANT DURING THE TIME THAT THIS WOMAN WAS PULLING ON NICOLE?

A: HE WAS INSIDE THE HOUSE.

Q: WHAT HAPPENED NEXT, DETECTIVE?

A: AFTER SHE WENT BACK INSIDE THE HOUSE, APPROXIMATELY TWO MINUTES PASSED AND O.J. SIMPSON CAME BACK OUT, NOW DRESSED.

Q: THE DEFENDANT CAME BACK OUTSIDE THE HOUSE DRESSED?

A: YES.

Q: AND WERE YOU STILL ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE GATE AND THE WALL?

A: YES.

Q: AND WAS HE STILL ON THE INSIDE?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: DID THE DEFENDANT SAY ANYTHING AT THAT TIME?

A: YES. HE REAPPROACHED THE WALL -- THIS TIME, HE WAS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BRICK WALL ITSELF, THE BLOCK WALL, HE WASN'T NEAR THE GATE -- PEERED OVER THE WALL AND WE HAD A CONVERSATION AGAIN.

Q: WHAT IF ANYTHING DID THE DEFENDANT SAY AT THAT TIME?

A: HE SAID, "WHAT MAKES YOU SO SPECIAL? WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS? YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN OUT HERE EIGHT TIMES BEFORE AND NO ONE HAS EVER DONE ANYTHING LIKE THIS BEFORE," SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES.

Q: WHAT WAS YOUR RESPONSE?

A: I SAID I WAS GOING TO HAVE TO PLACE HIM UNDER ARREST AND THAT THE LAW REQUIRED ME TO PLACE HIM UNDER ARREST AND THERE WAS NO IF'S, AND'S OR BUT'S ABOUT IT.

Q: NOW, WHAT WAS THE DEFENDANT'S TONE OF VOICE, THAT IS DURING THIS PARTICULAR CONVERSATION?

A: WELL, AT THIS POINT, HE WASN'T QUITE YELLING AS MUCH, BUT HE WAS STILL VERY ANGRY AND HOSTILE.

MR. COCHRAN: MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST STATEMENT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MR. COCHRAN: TONE OF VOICE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: NOW, DID YOU TESTIFY EARLIER THAT YOU HAD ALREADY CONTACTED THE SUPERVISOR?

A: YES.

Q: HAD YOU ASKED THAT SUPERVISOR TO PROCEED TO 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND WHY DID YOU ASK THAT A SUPERVISOR BE SENT TO THE LOCATION?

A: BECAUSE I WAS GOING TO HAVE TO SOMEHOW EITHER GET INSIDE THAT HOUSE OR THE GATED AREA OR WAS GOING TO HAVE TO CONVINCE THE DEFENDANT TO COME OUTSIDE TO MAKE THE ARREST, AND I WAS BY MYSELF AND MY PARTNER. WE HAD AN INJURED VICTIM WITH US AND I JUST NEEDED ANOTHER PERSON TO HELP US.

Q: AND AT SOME POINT, DID YOU SEE A SECOND POLICE CAR?

A: YES. SERGEANT VINGER PULLED UP IN A SECOND PATROL CAR.

Q: AND WHERE WAS THE DEFENDANT AT THAT TIME?

A: HE HAD BEEN ENGAGED IN A CONVERSATION WITH ME PEERING OVER THE WALL NEXT TO THE PATROL CAR.

Q: SO YOU SAW THE PATROL CAR ARRIVE?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID YOU TURN YOUR ATTENTION AWAY FROM THE DEFENDANT AT ALL AT THAT TIME?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WHERE DID YOU TURN YOUR ATTENTION?

A: I WALKED OVER TO EXPLAIN TO THE SUPERVISOR WHAT WE NEEDED TO DO.

Q: AND WHEN YOU DID THAT, WHEN YOU WALKED OVER TO THE SUPERVISOR, WAS THE DEFENDANT STILL ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WALL?

A: NO. HE HAD WALKED AWAY FROM THE WALL.

Q: WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

A: AS I WAS EXPLAINING TO THE SUPERVISOR WHAT HAD TRANSPIRED AND WHAT WE NEEDED TO DO, I SAW A BLUE BENTLEY START UP, THE LIGHTS START UP, TURNED ON AND IT WENT OUT A DRIVEWAY THAT I WAS NOT AWARE WAS THERE. IT WENT OUT A DRIVEWAY ONTO ROCKINGHAM OUT ANOTHER GATE SIMILAR TO THE ONE I HAD BEEN STANDING IN FRONT OF AND THE VEHICLE WENT SOUTHBOUND ON ROCKINGHAM.

Q: AND HOW FAST WAS THAT VEHICLE GOING AS IT LEFT 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS AROUND 45 MILES A HOUR, SOMEWHERE IN THERE.

Q: WERE YOU AWARE THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS LEAVING?

A: I HAD NO IDEA THAT THERE WAS EVEN A GATE OVER THERE.

Q: SO YOU WERE SURPRISED TO SEE THE BENTLEY LEAVE THE PROPERTY?

A: YES, I WAS.

MR. COCHRAN: LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE.

THE COURT: THE ANSWER WILL STAND.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: HOW MUCH TIME ELAPSED BETWEEN YOUR TELLING THE DEFENDANT THE LAST TIME THAT HE WAS GOING TO BE PLACED UNDER ARREST AND YOUR VIEWING OF THE BENTLEY AS IT LEFT THE ROCKINGHAM ADDRESS?

A: ABOUT A MINUTE AND A HALF.

Q: WERE YOU IN YOUR CAR OR OUTSIDE YOUR CAR WHEN THE BENTLEY LEFT THE PROPERTY?

A: BOTH THE SUPERVISOR AND MYSELF WERE OUTSIDE OF BOTH VEHICLES WHEN THIS HAPPENED.

Q: SO WHAT DID YOU DO AT THAT POINT?

A: WE BOTH REENTERED OUR VEHICLES AND PURSUED THE DEFENDANT'S BENTLEY.

Q: DID YOU CATCH HIM?

A: NO.

Q: HE GOT AWAY?

A: YES, HE DID.

Q: DURING THAT PURSUIT, DID YOU EVER ACTIVATE THE RED LIGHTS ON YOUR PATROL CAR?

A: NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: DID YOU ACTIVATE THE SIREN AT ALL?

A: NO.

Q: BY THE TIME YOU GOT INTO YOUR POLICE VEHICLE AND STARTED YOUR ENGINE, COULD YOU STILL SEE THE DEFENDANT?

A: NO.

Q: COULD YOU SILL SEE HIS VEHICLE?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU ARREST THE DEFENDANT THAT DAY OR THAT NIGHT OR THAT MORNING?

A: NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: DID YOU EVER ARREST THE DEFENDANT?

A: PHYSICALLY? NO.

Q: WHERE WAS NICOLE; THAT IS WHERE WAS SHE DURING THE PURSUIT?

A: SHE WAS IN THE RIGHT REAR OF THE PATROL CAR WEARING MY PARTNER'S JACKET.

Q: NOW, I BELIEVE YOU TESTIFIED EARLIER THAT NICOLE SIGNED THE CRIME REPORT?

A: YES, SHE DID.

Q: AND WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF A VICTIM SIGNING A CRIME REPORT?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION, YOUR HONOR, WITHOUT FURTHER FOUNDATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF NICOLE HAVING SIGNED THE CRIME REPORT?

MR. COCHRAN: IT'S THE SAME QUESTION, SAME EXACT QUESTION.

MR. DARDEN: WHAT'S THE OBJECTION?

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. FOUNDATIONAL.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DID YOU HAVE A CRIME REPORT AT THE LOCATION?

A: YES.

Q: WAS THAT CRIME REPORT HANDED TO NICOLE?

A: YES.

Q: DID SHE SIGN IT?

A: YES, SHE DID.

Q: DID YOU SEE HER SIGN IT?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU SEE HER SIGNATURE ON THE DOCUMENT?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU RETAIN THAT DOCUMENT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WHAT -- STRIKE THAT. WHY DID YOU HAVE HER SIGN THE CRIME REPORT?

A: WELL, IN OUR 273.5, YOU DON'T REALLY HAVE TO HAVE THE SIGNATURE, BUT WE -- THIS WAS HER -- WHATEVER HER STATEMENT WAS TO US WHEN SHE SIGNED THE REPORT, THIS IS BY LAW WHAT SHE IS REPRESENTING AS THE TRUTH.

Q: YOU MENTIONED 273.5.

A: YES.

Q: WHAT WERE YOU REFERRING TO?

A: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, SPOUSAL BATTERY.

Q: PENAL CODE SECTION 273.5?

A: YES.

Q: YOU EARLIER TESTIFIED TO THE INJURIES THAT YOU SAW ON NICOLE'S FACE AND NECK, CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU OFFER HER ANY MEDICAL TREATMENT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WHAT DID YOU OFFER TO DO?

A: I OFFERED TO DRIVE HER TO AN EMERGENCY ROOM AND GET HER TREATED RIGHT THEN AND THERE.

Q: AND WHAT WAS HER RESPONSE?

A: SHE SAID SHE WANTED TO GO BACK TO THE HOUSE TO HER CHILDREN. SHE WANTED TO BE WITH HER CHILDREN.

Q: DID YOU ASK HER TO GO TO THE STATION?

A: I ASKED HER TO -- IF SHE WOULD GO -- IF I COULD DRIVE HER TO OUR PHOTO LAB DOWNTOWN AND TAKE PICTURES OF HER INJURIES.

Q: AND BY DOWNTOWN, DID YOU MEAN DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES, PARKER CENTER?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT DID SHE SAY?

A: SHE SAID NO, SHE WANTED TO GO HOME TO HER CHILDREN.

Q: DID YOU OFFER HER AN ALTERNATIVE; THAT IS TO HAVING HER GO DOWNTOWN TO TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS?

A: YES. I ASKED HER IF SHE WOULD GO TO WEST L.A. STATION AND HAVE POLAROID PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN OF HER REAL QUICKLY.

Q: AND WHAT DID SHE SAY?

A: SHE AGREED TO THAT.

Q: HAD YOU TAKEN HER TO PARKER CENTER, WOULD YOU HAVE TAKEN POLAROID PHOTOGRAPHS OF HER?

A: NO. I WOULD HAVE HAD A PHOTOGRAPHER TAKE PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHS OF HER INJURIES.

Q: AND WHY DID YOU WANT TO TAKE HER INITIALLY TO PARKER CENTER AS OPPOSED TO TAKING HER TO WEST L.A.?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THAT'S IRRELEVANT AND IMMATERIAL.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: WHY DID YOU WANT TO TAKE HER TO PARKER CENTER AS OPPOSED TO TAKING HER TO WEST L.A.?

A: BECAUSE I FELT HER INJURIES NEEDED TO BE DOCUMENTED PROPERLY ON FILM.

Q: YOU DIDN'T THINK A POLAROID PHOTO WOULD BE SUFFICIENT?

A: NO.

MR. COCHRAN: LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. THE ANSWER IS STRICKEN AS BEING LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALTHOUGH PERHAPS SELF-EVIDENT. I THINK THE JURY KNOWS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A POLAROID PHOTO AND A HARD FILM PHOTO.

MR. DARDEN: I AM SURE THEY DO.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DID YOU TAKE HER TO WEST L.A. STATION?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: DID YOU ATTEMPT TO PHOTOGRAPH HER INJURIES?

A: I PHOTOGRAPHED HER INJURIES MYSELF.

Q: AND WHAT KIND OF CAMERA DID YOU USE?

A: USED A POLAROID 600 I BELIEVE.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, I'M HOLDING IN MY HAND WHAT APPEARS TO BE THREE --

THE COURT: LET ME HAVE COUNSEL APPROACH WITHOUT THE REPORTER, PLEASE.

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, DURING THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL, I NEED TO TALK TO THE ATTORNEYS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT YOU WILL BE ABLE TO VIEW CERTAIN EVIDENCE. PRIMARILY, SOMETIMES IT HAS TO DO WITH SCHEDULING, AND IT'S EASIER FOR THE SIX OR EIGHT OF US TO WALK OVER THERE AND TALK RATHER THAN HAVE ALL 22 OF YOU CONSTANTLY GOING BACK AND FORTH. SO PLEASE BE PATIENT WHILE WE'RE DOING THAT, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE. ALL RIGHT. MR. DARDEN. THANK YOU. IF I CAN HAVE ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SURE.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE IN MY HAND WHAT APPEARS TO BE THREE POLAROID PHOTOGRAPHS. MAY THEY BE MARKED PEOPLE'S 3, 4 AND 5 FOR IDENTIFICATION?

THE COURT: THEY MAY.

(PEO'S 3 FOR ID = PHOTO/FRONT VIEW OF FACE OF NBS)

(PEO'S 4 FOR ID = PHOTO/SIDE VIEW OF FACE OF NBS) (PEO'S 5 FOR ID = PHOTO/SIDE VIEW OF NBS)

THE COURT: AND THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT COUNSEL HAVE SEEN THE PICTURES.

MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE SEEN THEM.

MR. DARDEN: MAY THE RECORD REFLECT AS WELL, YOUR HONOR, THAT I'VE INDICATED THE EXHIBIT NUMBERS IN THE BOTTOM CORNERS OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS ON THE REAR, ON THE REAR OF THE PHOTOGRAPH?

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: SHOWING YOU WHAT HAS BEEN MARKED AS PEOPLE'S 3, 4 AND 5 FOR IDENTIFICATION, DO YOU RECOGNIZE THESE PHOTOGRAPHS?

A: YES.

Q: ARE THESE THE PHOTOGRAPHS YOU TOOK ON THE MORNING OF JANUARY 1, 1989?

A: YES, THEY ARE.

Q: AND DO THEY FULLY AND FAIRLY AND COMPLETELY REPRESENT THE INJURIES YOU SAW THAT NIGHT?

A: NOT EVEN CLOSE.

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THAT, YOUR HONOR. OBJECTION. MAY WE APPROACH? I OBJECT TO THAT, ON THE RECORD TOO, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY WE HAVE THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS?

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: WHAT'S THE OBJECTION?

MR. COCHRAN: THE OBJECTION IS, HOW COULD HE SAY THAT? THESE PICTURES SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. THAT'S CONCLUSIONARY ON HIS PART. THESE PICTURES REFLECT WHAT HE TOOK.

THE COURT: RIGHT. WELL --

MR. COCHRAN: I OBJECT TO HIS ANSWER AND MOVE TO STRIKE HIS ANSWER. THIS DOESN'T FAIRLY REFLECT THAT HE TOOK THIS PICTURE? THIS WAS THE SAME PICTURE.

THE COURT: WELL, I THINK, MR. COCHRAN, THE BASIS OF YOUR OBJECTION IS YOU DISAGREE WITH THE ANSWER. YOU WILL BE ABLE TO TALK TO HIM ABOUT THAT ON CROSS-EXAMINATION. OBJECTION OVERRULED.

MR. COCHRAN: IT ISN'T ACTUALLY MY OBJECTION THAT I DISAGREE WITH THE ANSWER. THANKS, JUDGE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, THERE'S ONE QUESTION I HAD. IF THESE PICTURES DON'T REFLECT HOW SHE LOOKED, HOW CAN HE --

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION. OBJECTION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. YOU WILL ABLE TO DEAL WITH THAT ON CROSS-EXAMINATION.

MR. COCHRAN: I WILL. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, WE WOULD LIKE TO DISPLAY PEOPLE'S 3 FOR IDENTIFICATION ON THE ELMO IF WE MAY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. PEOPLE'S 3.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DETECTIVE, YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU A LASER POINTER; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, I DO.

THE COURT: AND BEING CAREFUL WHERE YOU POINT IT.

MR. DARDEN: IF IT PLEASE THE COURT, YOUR HONOR, CAN WE HAVE THE WITNESS STEP DOWN FROM THE WITNESS STAND --

THE COURT: YES.

MR. DARDEN: -- AND ASK HIM SOME QUESTIONS?

THE COURT: YES.

MR. DARDEN: BRING THE LASER POINTER WITH YOU. MR. FAIRTLOUGH.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: NOW, DETECTIVE, THESE ARE THE POLAROIDS YOU TOOK A LITTLE OVER SIX YEARS AGO; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT IS TRUE.

Q: YOU INDICATED EARLIER THAT THERE WAS A CUT ON HER LIP THAT YOU SAW?

A: YES. IT'S RIGHT THERE UNDERNEATH THE NOSE (INDICATING), APPEARED TO BE ABOUT ONE INCH IN LENGTH.

Q: AND YOU'VE POINTED THAT OUT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: WHAT OTHER INJURIES IF ANY DO YOU SEE DEPICTED IN THIS POLAROID PHOTOGRAPH?

A: THERE'S A BRUISE AND SWELLING HERE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE CHEEK (INDICATING) AND THERE'S A PATTERN AND SWELLING -- THERE'S SOME SORT OF A PATTERN RIGHT HERE THAT I COULDN'T QUITE MAKE OUT AND I WANTED THAT PHOTOGRAPHED, AND HER EYE IS SWOLLEN AND THE OTHER EYE IS STARTING TO SWELL JUST A LITTLE BIT. THIS ONE IS GETTING BLACK AND BLUE, AND DOWN AROUND HER NECK, THIS IS RED AND THERE'S FINGERPRINT -- FINGER INDENTATIONS ON THIS PART OF HER NECK, LEFT SIDE OF HER NECK. NONE OF THAT SHOWS UP ON THE POLAROID VERY WELL. I BELIEVE THERE'S ALSO A CUT ON THE INSIDE OF HER LIP THAT CORRESPONDS WITH THAT CUT, BUT IT'S NOT --

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, AT THIS POINT, MOVE TO STRIKE THAT. YOU CAN'T SEE THAT FROM THE PHOTOGRAPH.

THE COURT: HE'S TESTIFYING FROM HIS RECOLLECTION. YOU CAN COVER THAT ON CROSS-EXAMINATION. MR. DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN: PEOPLE'S 4, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DETECTIVE, THIS IS ANOTHER ONE OF THE POLAROID PHOTOGRAPHS YOU TOOK?

A: YES.

Q: IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES. THIS IS A DIFFERENT VIEW OF THE SAME VICTIM, DIFFERENT SHOT. IT'S THE CUT, THE SWOLLEN AND CONTUSION, BRUISE RIGHT HERE (INDICATING) AND THIS PATTERN IS STARTING TO LOOK A LITTLE BIT BETTER, BUT IT'S SWOLLEN AND RED. THERE'S A DEFINITE PATTERN TO IT AND THEN THIS -- THE BLACK AND BLUE MARKS HERE DON'T SHOW.

MR. DARDEN: PEOPLE'S 5, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: WHAT IS DEPICTED IN PEOPLE'S 5, DETECTIVE?

A: THIS IS THE FRONT OF WEST L.A. DESK WITH THE DESK OFFICER THERE, AND THIS IS NICOLE SIMPSON WEARING MY PARTNER'S FIELD JACKET (INDICATING). AND THESE ARE THE PANTS I WAS TRYING TO DESCRIBE, IS SORT OF A SWEATPANTS OR LIGHT PAJAMA BOTTOM, AND THIS MUDDY LEG IS FROM WHEN SHE HIT THE GROUND OUTSIDE WHEN SHE WAS THROWN OUT.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I MOVE TO STRIKE THAT, YOUR HONOR, MOVE TO STRIKE THAT.

THE COURT: THE LAST COMMENT, "THE MUDDY LEG IS WHEN SHE HIT THE GROUND OUTSIDE WHEN SHE WAS THROWN OUT," THAT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, YOU ARE TO DISREGARD THAT AS THERE'S NO FOUNDATION FOR THAT ANSWER AT THIS POINT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU.

MR. DARDEN: MAY I HAVE ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DETECTIVE, PLEASE RETAKE THE STAND. DETECTIVE, YOU DID PREPARE A FOLLOW-UP OR SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT IN THIS MATTER; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT IS CORRECT.

Q: AND DID YOU PREPARE THAT REPORT ON THE MORNING OF JANUARY 1, 1989?

A: NO. IT WAS ABOUT 30 DAYS LATER I BELIEVE.

Q: AND WHY DID YOU PREPARE A REPORT 30 DAYS AFTER THE INCIDENT?

A: THE CITY ATTORNEY OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES ASKED ME TO.

Q: AND DO YOU KNOW WHY HE ASKED YOU TO?

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, THAT CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. DARDEN: I'M ASKING IF HE KNOWS.

MR. COCHRAN: IRRELEVANT AND IMMATERIAL.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: A PROSECUTOR FROM THE LOS ANGELES CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ASKED YOU TO PREPARE A SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT?

A: YES. I RECEIVED A HANDWRITTEN NOTE FROM THE PROSECUTOR.

MR. COCHRAN: HEARSAY.

THE COURT: NO, HE CAN EMBELLISH SLIGHTLY. MR. DARDEN.

MR. COCHRAN: HE ANSWERED THAT ALREADY.

MR. DARDEN: MAY I HAVE ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DETECTIVE, AFTER YOU LEFT 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM WITH NICOLE, DID YOU EVER RETURN TO THE HOUSE?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WHEN?

A: RETURNED TWICE. I TOOK NICOLE HOME AFTER THE PHOTOGRAPHS AND THEN I HAD TO RETURN AGAIN.

Q: WHY DID YOU RETURN TO THE ADDRESS THAT THIRD TIME?

A: NICOLE HAD CALLED WEST L.A. STATION, SAID THAT O.J. SIMPSON HAD RETURNED. SO I DROVE BACK TO THE LOCATION.

Q: AND WHY DID YOU DRIVE BACK TO THE LOCATION?

A: TO TRY TO PLACE HIM UNDER ARREST FOR 273.5 OF THE PENAL CODE.

Q: SPOUSAL BATTERY?

A: YES.

Q: AND WAS HE THERE WHEN YOU RETURNED?

A: NO.

Q: THANK YOU.

MR. DARDEN: NOTHING FURTHER, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.

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

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN:

Q: GOOD MORNING, SERGEANT EDWARDS.

A: IT'S DETECTIVE EDWARDS.

Q: DETECTIVE EDWARDS.

A: GOOD MORNING.

MR. COCHRAN: COULD YOU PUT THAT LAST PARAGRAPH BACK UP FOR A SECOND ON THE ELMO, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YES. PEOPLE'S 5.

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

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S SERGEANT OR DETECTIVE?

A: DETECTIVE.

Q: DETECTIVE EDWARDS? ALL RIGHT. I DON'T WANT TO CALL YOU BY THE WRONG NAME. DETECTIVE, ARE THESE THE BLACK SWEATPANTS THAT YOU TOLD US ABOUT WHEN YOU DESCRIBED THEM EARLIER?

THE COURT: I WILL SUSTAIN THE COURT'S OWN OBJECTION. THAT'S NOT WHAT HE TESTIFIED TO.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU INDICATE SHE WAS WEARING SOME DARK SWEATPANTS IN YOUR TESTIMONY EARLIER?

A: YES, I BELIEVE I DID.

Q: DO THOSE SWEATPANTS LOOK DARK TO YOU OR DO THEY LOOK WHITE?

A: THE RIGHT LEG LOOKS PRETTY DARK.

Q: I'M TALKING ABOUT THE COLOR, SIR, OF THE SWEATPANTS. LOOK AT THE COLOR OF THE LEFT LEG THERE. IS THAT WHITE?

A: IT'S WHITE PANTS.

Q: THOSE ARE WHITE PANTS; ARE THEY NOT?

A: EXCEPT FOR THE RIGHT LEG.

Q: WELL, ANYTHING ON THE RIGHT LEG IS NOT THE ORIGINAL COLOR, IS IT, SIR?

A: THAT'S WHY I WAS HAVING A HARD TIME WITH THE COLOR. I REMEMBERED SOMETHING DARK ABOUT THE PANTS.

Q: I SEE. WELL, WITH REGARD TO YOUR RECOLLECTION OF THESE EVENTS, DETECTIVE -- THIS TOOK PLACE SIX YEARS AGO; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT IS CORRECT.

Q: AND WHEN -- AFTER THAT, YOU WROTE THESE REPORTS. YOU WROTE THE FIRST REPORT, REPORTS CONTEMPORANEOUS WITH THE EVENT ON OR BEFORE JANUARY 1ST; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND I UNDERSTAND YOU WROTE ANOTHER REPORT ABOUT 30 DAYS THEREAFTER; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND HAVE YOU HAD OCCASION TO REVIEW THOSE REPORTS IN THE RECENT PAST?

A: YES.

Q: AND HOW LONG AGO DID YOU REVIEW THE REPORTS?

A: I BELIEVE LAST WEEK.

Q: BEFORE THAT, WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU REVIEWED THESE REPORTS?

A: IT'S BEEN QUITE SOME TIME. MAYBE FOUR YEARS OR MORE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. ARE YOU AWARE THAT WITH REGARD TO THESE PROCEEDINGS, THAT MR. O.J. SIMPSON ENTERED A NO CONTEST PLEA AND RESOLVED THIS INCIDENT IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM? ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I FOUND OUT ABOUT IT LAST YEAR.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YOUR ANSWER IS YES, YOU'RE AWARE OF IT?

A: YES.

Q: AND ARE YOU AWARE THAT HE THEREAFTER WROTE LETTERS OF APOLOGY TO HIS WIFE REGARDING THIS INCIDENT? ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT?

MR. DARDEN: SAME OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THIS WITNESS' AWARENESS IS IRRELEVANT.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. I'LL ASK IT ANOTHER WAY, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ARE YOU AWARE THAT IN THIS CONNECTION, WITH REGARD TO THIS CASE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, THAT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON WANTED TO DROP THE CHARGES AGAINST HER HUSBAND?

MR. DARDEN: SAME OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT?

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THAT.

THE COURT: PLEASE, WITH THE COURT REPORTER.

MR. COCHRAN: CERTAINLY.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: HOW DO WE GET THIS IN, MR. COCHRAN, WITH THIS WITNESS?

MR. COCHRAN: WELL --

THE COURT: NO. I MEAN WITHOUT CALLING THE CITY ATTORNEY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

MR. DARDEN: I'LL CALL THE CITY ATTORNEY.

THE COURT: HOW DO YOU GET THIS IN WITH THIS GUY?

MR. COCHRAN: THIS GUY IS -- HERE'S WHY I THINK IT'S RELEVANT. THIS GUY GIVES US A LITANY OF STUFF, JUDGE, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN, HE KNOWS AND REMEMBERS WORDS SAID AND HE TELLS US HOW NICOLE WANTS TO COME TO THE STATION AND EVERYTHING. I'M JUST ASKING IS HE AWARE -- AND I CAN REPHRASE IT -- THAT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AFTER THIS SAID SHE WANTED TO DROP ALL THESE CHARGES. I'M JUST ASKING THE QUESTION. THAT'S WHAT SHE DID IN FACT, DROP THE CHARGES. SHE WISHED NOT TO PROSECUTE MR. SIMPSON. THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE APPARENTLY WENT AHEAD AND HOWARD WEITZMAN WORKED OUT A NO CONTEST PLEA. I THINK IT WOULD BE UNFAIR TO BE CUT OFF AFTER THEY'VE MADE ALL THIS HYPE OF THE TAPE. THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING.

MR. DARDEN: IT'S HEARSAY.

MR. COCHRAN: IT'S NOT HEARSAY.

MR. DARDEN: IT'S PURE UNADULTERATED HEARSAY. HE HEARD ABOUT IT LAST YEAR, OKAY. HOW CAN HE COME HERE AND -- I'LL CALL THE CITY ATTORNEY IF YOU WANT. YOU CAN TALK TO THE CITY ATTORNEY. I'LL INTRODUCE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DOCKET OF HIS PLEA IF YOU --

MR. COCHRAN: I'M NOT GOING TO ASK HIM TO DO THAT. ALL I AM ASKING IS TO CROSS-EXAMINE THIS MAN.

THE COURT: WELL, YOU CAN CROSS-EXAMINE HIM, YES. BUT WHAT HIS AWARENESS IS OF WHAT THE VICTIM LATER DID IS IRRELEVANT TO HIS TESTIMONY HERE.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, I THINK IT'S VERY RELEVANT, YOUR HONOR. IF SHE SAID SHE WANTED TO DROP THE CHARGES AND IF HE IS AWARE OF THAT, THAT'S VERY RELEVANT. AND HE'S BEEN ALLOWED TO TALK ABOUT ALL THESE THINGS AND NOW I CAN'T BRING OUT --

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, YOU CAN BRING IN THE CITY ATTORNEY OR OFFER IT. YOU CAN ASK FOUNDATIONAL QUESTIONS, WAS HE INVOLVED IN DISCUSSIONS REGARDING SETTLING THE CASE AND THAT SORT OF THING. YOU CAN ASK HIM THOSE FOUNDATIONAL QUESTIONS. IF THE ANSWER IS YES, HE'S AWARE OF THAT, THEN YOU CAN ASK. IF HE'S NOT AWARE OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS --

MR. COCHRAN: THEN I'LL PROCEED ON. THE OTHER THING I WANT TO DO WITH REGARD TO THIS WITNESS BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF TALK ABOUT THESE PICTURES, I WANT THE JURORS TO BE ABLE TO SEE THE PICTURES. IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO HAVING THE JURORS BE ABLE TO SEE THEM?

THE COURT: NO. WE'LL HAND THEM OUT IF YOU WANT TO.

MR. COCHRAN: I'LL ASK TO DO THAT.

THE COURT: WE'LL TAKE 10 MINUTES TO PASS THEM AROUND.

MR. DARDEN: BEFORE WE DO THAT, COULD YOU ADMONISH COUNSEL TO STOP TESTIFYING, YOU KNOW, LET THE WITNESS TESTIFY?

THE COURT: NO. I CUT HIM OFF. WE ARE HERE AT THE SIDEBAR. I HAVE TOLD HIM UNLESS HE LAYS SOME FOUNDATION, HE DOESN'T GET TO GO INTO IT.

MR. DARDEN: I DON'T WANT TO JACK HIM UP HERE RIGHT IN FRONT OF HIS WIFE, WHOM I ALSO LOVE.

MR. COCHRAN: WHEN HE WAS TALKING ABOUT TESTIFYING, I THOUGHT HE WAS TESTIFYING ABOUT HIMSELF.

THE COURT: COME ON GUYS.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: THANK YOU. MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I PROCEED, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YOU MAY.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: NOW, DETECTIVE EDWARDS, YOU DESCRIBED FOR US THAT MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON HAD GONE DOWN TO THE WEST LOS ANGELES STATION TO HAVE THESE POLAROID PICTURES TAKEN; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I DROVE HER THERE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU TOOK THESE PHOTOGRAPHS, DID YOU?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND WHEN YOU TOOK THESE PICTURES, YOU DID THE BEST YOU COULD TO TRY AND ACCURATELY DISPLAY HER INJURIES; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: THIS WASN'T THE FIRST TIME YOU HAD TAKEN POLAROID PICTURES, WAS IT?

A: NO.

Q: AND WERE YOU EXPERIENCED AT DOING THAT AT THAT TIME?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU TOOK THESE PICTURES AT WEST LOS ANGELES STATION, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: HOW MANY PICTURES DID YOU TAKE ALL TOGETHER?

A: THREE.

Q: AND THE THREE THAT WE SEE HERE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I'M GOING TO ASK THAT THE JURY BE ALLOWED TO SEE THESE PICTURES UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL AFTER I ASK A FEW MORE QUESTIONS, IF THE COURT PLEASES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: NOW, WITH REGARD TO THESE PICTURES, IT'S YOUR TESTIMONY THESE PICTURES DON'T ACCURATELY REFLECT HOW SHE LOOKED?

A: THAT'S TRUE.

Q: LET ME SEE IF I UNDERSTAND THIS. YOU TOOK THE CAMERA, YOU FOCUSED ON HER AND YOU TOOK THREE SHOTS; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND THESE ARE THE THREE SHOTS THAT YOU TOOK; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YES.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU FIRST OF ALL MARKED AS PEOPLE'S 1 FOR IDENTIFICATION. PEOPLE'S 1 IS A PHOTOGRAPH OF --

THE COURT: PEOPLE'S 3, 4 AND 5.

MR. COCHRAN: SORRY. ON THE BACK -- IT SAYS 1 ON THE FRONT. SORRY.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. PEOPLE'S 3 PURPORTS TO BE A PHOTOGRAPH OF A FEMALE. IS THAT A PHOTOGRAPH OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON?

A: YES.

MR. DARDEN: EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR. THAT'S PEOPLE'S 5.

MR. COCHRAN: FOR THE RECORD, 5. LOOKS LIKE A 3.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: IS THAT A PHOTOGRAPH OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON?

A: YES, IT IS.

Q: DID YOU TAKE THAT PHOTOGRAPH?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU PEOPLE'S 4 FOR IDENTIFICATION. IS THIS A PHOTOGRAPH OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON?

A: YES, IT IS.

Q: DID YOU TAKE THAT PHOTOGRAPH?

A: YES.

Q: AND PEOPLE'S 3 FOR IDENTIFICATION, IS THAT A PHOTOGRAPH OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU TAKE THAT PHOTOGRAPH?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: NOW, DID YOU EVER GO TO COURT TO TESTIFY IN THIS MATTER, ANY CRIMINAL PROCEEDING THAT TOOK PLACE?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU EVER AT ANY TIME HAVE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION WITH NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AS TO WHETHER OR NOT SHE WANTED TO PROCEED WITH THE CHARGES AGAINST HER HUSBAND?

A: NO.

Q: YOU DIDN'T TALK TO HER AFTER THIS?

A: NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: THE LAST TIME YOU TALKED TO NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON WITH REFERENCE TO THIS INCIDENT WAS ON WHAT DAY?

A: JANUARY 1ST, 1989.

Q: AND WHAT TIME OF DAY WAS THAT?

A: WHEN I TOOK HER HOME. IT WAS AROUND 6:00 I BELIEVE.

Q: 6:00 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU HAD OCCASION, DID YOU NOT, TO GET VERY CLOSE TO NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON ON THIS NIGHT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: WELL, SHE GRABBED ME AND HUNG ON TO ME, YES.

MR. DARDEN: EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR. COULD COUNSEL DIRECT HIS EXAMINATION FROM THE PODIUM?

MR. COCHRAN: I AM, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: YOU GOT VERY CLOSE TO HER; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT SHE HAD BEEN DRINKING THAT PARTICULAR NIGHT?

A: I DIDN'T SMELL ANY SIGNIFICANT ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ON HER BREATH. I DON'T BELIEVE I DID.

Q: I'M NOT ASKING ABOUT SIGNIFICANT ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE. DID YOU SMELL ANY ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ON HER BREATH?

A: NOT ENOUGH THAT I WOULD BE ABLE TO DETECT. I DON'T REMEMBER.

Q: I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT ANSWER, NOT ENOUGH. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

A: WELL, I CAN'T REMEMBER SMELLING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ON HER BREATH.

Q: SO THE ANSWER IS, YOU DON'T KNOW ONE WAY OR THE OTHER; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I JUST CAN'T REMEMBER SMELLING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ON HER BREATH.

Q: THE ANSWER IS, YOU DON'T KNOW AT THIS POINT, RIGHT?

A: OKAY. I DON'T KNOW.

Q: ALL RIGHT. THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE AT THIS POINT, IF THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE TIME, TO SHOW THE PHOTOGRAPHS.

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, IF YOU WOULD THEN HAND ALL THREE PHOTOGRAPHS TO JUROR NO. 1. ACTUALLY HAND IT TO OUR BAILIFF. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, AS YOU LOOK AT THE PHOTOGRAPHS, WOULD YOU PASS IT TO YOUR RIGHT. ACTUALLY TO YOUR LEFT. SORRY ABOUT THAT. JUROR NO. 1, WOULD YOU PASS THE PHOTOGRAPHS, AS YOU LOOK AT IT, PASS IT TO YOUR LEFT. THAT WAY, EVERYONE WILL SEE IT QUICKER. BUT TAKE YOUR TIME. PLEASE TAKE AS MUCH TIME AS YOU FEEL YOU NEED. AS YOU LOOK AT THE PHOTOGRAPH, PASS THE INDIVIDUAL PHOTOGRAPH, PLEASE. WE'LL GET USED TO THE PROCEDURE. BUT PLEASE TAKE AS MUCH TIME AS YOU FEEL YOU NEED TO LOOK AT THE PHOTOGRAPHS.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: I AM SORRY. LET'S JUST GO DOWN THE FRONT ROW, PLEASE, AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK AROUND TO THE CHEAP SEATS.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT ALL 22 OF OUR TRIAL JURORS AND ALTERNATES HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW PEOPLE'S 3, 4 AND 5. MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY. JUST ONE OR TWO MORE QUESTIONS BEFORE WE TAKE A BREAK.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: NOW, DETECTIVE EDWARDS, AFTER YOU TOOK THESE PHOTOGRAPHS THE JURY HAS JUST NOW SEEN, YOU LOOKED AT THEM; DID YOU NOT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND YOU HAVE THE ABILITY IF THE PICTURES DIDN'T SHOW SOMETHING YOU WANTED TO SHOW, YOU COULD TAKE ANOTHER PICTURE; COULD YOU NOT?

A: NO.

Q: YOU COULDN'T TAKE ANY MORE PICTURES?

A: I WAS OUT OF FILM.

Q: YOU MEAN TO TELL US THAT THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT ONLY HAD THREE SHOTS ON A POLAROID ROLL ON JANUARY 1ST, 1989 AT THE WEST LOS ANGELES STATION?

A: WAS OUT OF FILM IN THAT CAMERA.

Q: DID YOU GET -- THE POLAROID CAMERA, AS I RECALL IT, YOU PUT ANOTHER ROLL IN THERE AFTER THAT FINISHES; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: RIGHT. BUT SHE WANTED TO GO HOME.

Q: HOW LONG WOULD IT TAKE YOU, SIR, TO TAKE ANOTHER ROLL, SLIDE ANOTHER CONTAINER INSIDE THAT CAMERA?

A: SHE WANTED TO GO HOME TO HER CHILDREN AND IT WASN'T MY OPTION. I HAD TO COMPLY WITH HER.

Q: SO YOU DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO TAKE ANY MORE PICTURES. IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE TELLING US?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: YOU DID HAVE OTHER FILM AT THAT STATION?

A: I WOULD IMAGINE SOMEWHERE LOCKED UP IN THAT STATION, THERE WAS FILM.

Q: NOW, YOU DROVE HER BACK HOME; DID YOU NOT?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT STOPPED YOU FROM TAKING SOME PICTURES AT HER HOME WHEN SHE GOT BACK HOME WITH HER CHILDREN?

A: SHE WANTED -- I DIDN'T HAVE ANY OTHER FILM WITH ME. THAT PARTICULAR CAMERA WAS OUT OF FILM.

Q: WELL, THERE WAS OTHER FILM AT WEST LOS ANGELES STATION; ISN'T THAT CORRECT, SIR?

A: SHE WANTED TO LEAVE. SHE WANTED TO GO BACK TO HER CHILDREN.

Q: CAN YOU ANSWER MY QUESTION? WAS THERE OTHER FILM AT WEST LOS ANGELES STATION?

A: SOMEWHERE IN THAT STATION, I'M SURE THERE WAS OTHER FILM.

Q: AND YOU COULD HAVE GOTTEN THAT FILM; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: I COULD HAVE EVENTUALLY GOTTEN THE FILM, YES.

Q: YOU COULD HAVE PUT THAT FILM INSIDE THAT POLAROID CAMERA; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: YOU COULD HAVE TAKEN THAT CAMERA BACK TO ROCKINGHAM, RIGHT?

A: I COULD HAVE.

Q: AND YOU COULD HAVE TAKEN THE PICTURES THAT YOU CLAIM YOU NOW WANT; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: IF I WOULD HAVE IGNORED HER REQUEST, I COULD HAVE DONE ALL THOSE THINGS, THAT'S TRUE.

Q: YOU DID NOT DO THAT, DID YOU?

A: NO. I COMPLIED WITH HER REQUEST TO GO TO HER CHILDREN.

Q: BUT YOU WERE A POLICE OFFICER OUT THERE, AND THE REASON YOU TAKE PICTURES IS SO YOU CAN PRESERVE HOW THE PERSON LOOKED FOR YEARS LATER; ISN'T THAT CORRECT, SIR?

A: EXACTLY.

Q: AND YOU DIDN'T DO THAT ACCORDING TO YOUR TESTIMONY ALTHOUGH WE HAVE THESE PHOTOGRAPHS, RIGHT?

A: I DID IT TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY.

Q: ALL RIGHT.

MR. COCHRAN: CAN WE STOP AT THIS POINT? I'M NOT FINISHED WITH HIM YET.

THE COURT: 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 THE CASE AMONGST YOURSELVES, FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, DON'T ALLOW ANYBODY TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE CASE, DON'T PERFORM ANY DELIBERATIONS UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU. AND WE WILL RESUME BACK HERE AT 1:30. ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE EDWARDS, YOU ARE EXCUSED UNTIL 1:30. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, SIR.

(AT 12:05 P.M., THE NOON RECESS WAS TAKEN UNTIL 1:30 P.M. OF THE SAME DAY.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 1995 1:32 P.M.

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

APPEARANCES: (APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED, MR. GORDON ALSO BEING PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE.)

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

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

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

THE COURT: BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. MR. SIMPSON IS AGAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT WITH HIS COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. DOUGLAS, MR. BAILEY, MR. COCHRAN. THE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED BY MISS CLARK, MR. DARDEN, MR. GORDON. AND MR. COCHRAN, YOU SEEM TO BE STANDING AT THE PODIUM POISED TO SAY SOMETHING.

MR. COCHRAN: YES, YOUR HONOR. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE COURT TO GIVE THE JURY A LIMITING INSTRUCTION.

THE COURT: I HAD NEGLECTED TO REMIND THEM OF THAT.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU. WOULD THE COURT DO THAT BEFORE WE RESUME THIS AFTERNOON?

THE COURT: I WILL.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY.

THE COURT: ALSO, COUNSEL, I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROXIMITY OF OUR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS WITH THE ALTERNATE JURORS THERE, IF YOU COULD JUST ASK THEM TO SORT OF SCOOCH OVER SOME, AND WE CAN GET OUR ELMO OPERATOR AND EVERYBODY TO JUST SORT OF SCOOCH OVER JUST FOR APPEARANCES, I THINK IT LOOKS BETTER. ALL RIGHT. DEPUTY MAGNERA, LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

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

THE COURT: EVERYONE PLEASE HAVE A SEAT. ALL RIGHT. LET THE RECORD REFLECT WE HAVE NOW BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL. GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

THE JURY: GOOD AFTERNOON.

THE COURT: EARLIER IN OUR PROCEEDINGS I GAVE YOU INSTRUCTIONS THAT CERTAIN OF THE EVIDENCE THAT WOULD BE RECEIVED BY YOU WOULD BE RECEIVED FOR A LIMITED PURPOSE. THE TESTIMONY THAT YOU ARE HEARING REGARDING THIS 1989 INCIDENT IS ONE OF THOSE INCIDENTS THAT IS BEING RECEIVED FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE THAT I HAVE ALREADY INSTRUCTED YOU ON, AND YOU ARE TO MAKE NOTE THAT AS YOU LISTEN TO THIS EVIDENCE, IT IS FOR THAT LIMITED PURPOSE THAT I HAVE ALREADY INSTRUCTED YOU ON. ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE, EXCUSE ME, DETECTIVE EDWARDS, PLEASE.

JOHN EDWARDS, THE WITNESS ON THE STAND AT THE TIME OF THE NOON RECESS, RESUMED THE STAND AND TESTIFIED FURTHER AS FOLLOWS:

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON, DETECTIVE.

THE WITNESS: GOOD AFTERNOON.

THE COURT: YOU ARE REMINDED THAT YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH.

THE WITNESS: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, DO YOU WISH TO CONTINUE YOUR CROSS-EXAMINATION?

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

CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED)

BY MR. COCHRAN:

Q: GOOD AFTERNOON, DETECTIVE. WHEN WE BROKE AT LUNCH WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS POLAROID, AND I WANT YOU TO THINK BACK FOR US. THIS CAMERA THAT YOU HAD, DID YOU HAVE THAT CAMERA AT THE SCENE OF ROCKINGHAM BEFORE YOU WENT TO WEST LOS ANGELES?

A: NO, I GOT IT AT THE DESK.

Q: AT WEST LOS ANGELES STATION?

A: YES.

Q: YOU WERE ASSIGNED TO THAT STATION AT THAT TIME, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND THE TIME YOU GOT THAT CAMERA, HOW -- HOW MANY EXPOSURES OR HOW MANY -- WHAT WAS THE TOTAL NUMBER OF FILM THAT YOU HAD IN THAT CAMERA AT THAT TIME?

A: I -- I DON'T KNOW. I SHOT IT UNTIL IT WAS EMPTY.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, AND -- AND IN SHOOTING UNTIL IT WAS EMPTY, IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOU ONLY TOOK THREE SHOTS?

A: I BELIEVE I ONLY TOOK THREE.

Q: DO YOU RECALL TAKING A PHOTOGRAPH OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON WHILE SHE WAS STILL IN THE POLICE CAR?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE I EVER DID THAT.

Q: YOU DON'T RECALL ANY SUCH PHOTOGRAPH BEING IN EXISTENCE?

A: I'M PRETTY SURE I DIDN'T DO THAT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU HAVE ANY RECORD THAT WOULD REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION ON THAT?

A: I DON'T THINK I TOOK A PICTURE OF HER IN THE CAR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, AT SOME POINT YOU DESCRIBED FOR US THAT A YOUNG LADY OR A LADY BY THE NAME OF MICHELLE CAME OUT TO THE POLICE CAR AND STARTED HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND SO THAT WE ARE CLEAR, AS I UNDERSTAND IT AT THAT TIME, MR. SIMPSON WAS NOT OUTSIDE, YOU COULD NOT SEE HIM AT THAT POINT?

A: HE WAS NOT OUTSIDE IN MY VIEW.

Q: YOU WERE STILL OUTSIDE THE GATE AT THIS POINT, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND THIS LADY MICHELLE, CAN YOU DESCRIBE HER FOR US, PLEASE?

A: I BELIEVE SHE HAD DARK HAIR, SHE WAS ABOUT 5-4, AND I THINK SHE WAS FILIPINO, BUT I'M NOT REALLY SURE.

Q: YOU BELIEVE SHE WAS FILIPINO?

A: I'M NOT SURE. I KNOW SHE HAD A LONG LAST NAME THAT I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT IT WAS.

Q: WAS HER LAST NAME MICHELLE ABUDRAHM, A-B-U-D-R-A-H-M? DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION?

A: THAT MIGHT BE IT.

Q: DOES THAT SOUND ABOUT RIGHT TO YOU?

A: IT WAS "A" SOMETHING.

Q: DID SHE APPEAR TO SPEAK TO YOU WITH AN ACCENT?

A: SHE HAD AN ACCENT, YES, BUT SHE SPOKE ENGLISH.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU BELIEVE THAT SHE WAS FILIPINO, DID YOU?

A: WELL, NOT REALLY. I JUST CAN'T -- I DIDN'T ASK HER WHAT HER NATIONALITY WAS. IT WAS AT NIGHT AND I REALLY DON'T KNOW.

Q: WELL, NOW, YOU WERE OUT THERE OF COURSE IN RESPONSE TO THIS PHONE CALL. DID YOU OR YOUR PARTNER OR SERGEANT VINGER EVER INTERVIEW THIS MICHELLE ABUDRAHM?

A: JUST TO ADMONISH HER OF 148 OF THE PENAL CODE AND TELL HER TO LEAVE.

Q: LET'S GET BACK TO MY QUESTION NOW. WHEN YOU ADMONISHED HER, YOU TOLD HER TO LEAVE BECAUSE SHE WOULD BE INTERFERING, RIGHT?

A: THAT IS CORRECT.

Q: I'M ASKING YOU DID YOU INTERVIEW HER TO FIND OUT WHAT HAD HAPPENED, EITHER INSIDE OR OUTSIDE OF 360 ROCKINGHAM BEFORE YOU ARRIVED THERE?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: SO YOU DID NOT TAKE A STATEMENT AND AS FAR AS YOU KNOW NOT ONLY DID YOU NOT DO IT, BUT NEITHER DID YOUR BACK-UP SERGEANT OR YOUR TRAINEE PARTNER; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: NO, BECAUSE SHE WAS INSIDE THE GATE AFTER I TOLD HER TO LEAVE.

Q: YOUR ANSWER IS NO, YOU DIDN'T DO THAT?

A: NOBODY INTERVIEWED HER.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU -- WERE YOU AWARE THAT THERE WAS A SECOND WOMAN, ANOTHER WOMAN INSIDE THE HOUSE, A SO-CALLED NANNY?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: DID YOU EVER SEE ANOTHER WOMAN?

A: I DIDN'T SEE ANOTHER WOMAN, NO.

Q: YOU NEVER SAW HER OR TALKED WITH HER; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT IS CORRECT.

Q: NOW, BY THE WAY, YOU SAID WOULD YOU SPELL FOR US THE NAME OF YOUR PARTNER. SPELL IT FOR US NOW, WILL YOU PLEASE.

A: YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T LOOK IT UP TO SEE WHAT IT IS, BUT IT IS M-I-L-W-E-S-K-W-I, I BELIEVE.

Q: M-I-L-W-E-S-K-W-I?

A: YEAH, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, FIRST NAME PATRISHA.

Q: THAT IS CLOSE? ALL RIGHT. DID THIS OFFICER MILEWSKI, OR WHATEVER WE HAVE THERE, DID SHE EVER HAVE OCCASION TO, AS A FEMALE OFFICER, LOOK AT MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S BODY FOR ANY OTHER BRUISES OR INJURIES AT SOME POINT?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, UNLESS THE WITNESS WAS PRESENT.

MR. COCHRAN: HE CAN ANSWER YES OR NO IF HE KNOWS.

MR. DARDEN: HEARSAY.

MR. COCHRAN: IT IS NOT HEARSAY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. IF HE KNOWS.

THE WITNESS: I WAS NOT PRESENT DURING THAT.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. BUT YOU INSTRUCTED HER, DID YOU NOT, TO LOOK AT HER BODY, DID YOU NOT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, I DID.

Q: OKAY. TELL US WHAT YOU ASKED HER TO DO.

A: I ASKED HER TO GO TAKE HER INTO THE WOMEN'S BATHROOM THAT IS LOCATED IN THE LOBBY OF WEST L.A. STATION AND SEE IF SHE HAD ANY BRUISES OR MARKS ON HER BACK.

Q: AND DID YOU THEN SEE YOUR PARTNER, FEMALE PARTNER, THEN GO ALONG WITH MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON INTO A BATHROOM AREA?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU WEREN'T IN THAT ROOM OBVIOUSLY, WERE YOU?

A: NO, I WAS NOT IN THAT ROOM.

Q: THEN THEY CAME BACK OUT AT SOME POINT; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AFTER THIS WAS ALL OVER YOU HAD OCCASION TO WRITE OUT A REPORT, DID YOU NOT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND IN THAT REPORT YOU TALKED WITH YOUR PARTNER AS TO HER OBSERVATIONS, DID YOU NOT?

A: WELL, MY PARTNER WROTE THE REPORT AND I ASSISTED HER WITH IT, YES.

Q: SO YOU HAD OCCASION TO SEE HER REPORT AND YOU HAD HER RESPONSE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT SHE SAW ANY BRUISES ON NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S BODY, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: IT IS TRUE, IN FACT SHE DID NOT SEE ANY BRUISES?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THAT CALLS FOR HEARSAY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: THERE IS A REPORT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: IS SHE HERE TODAY IN THIS BUILDING, YOUR PARTNER?

A: NOT THAT I KNOW OF.

Q: YOU HAVEN'T SEEN HER?

A: NO.

Q: YOU STILL WORK WEST LOS ANGELES?

A: NO, VAN NUYS HOMICIDE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, DETECTIVE, SO THAT WE ARE CLEAR, I BELIEVE YOU INDICATED TO MR. DARDEN THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU ARRIVED AT THE SCENE SOMETIME AFTER 3:30 OR THEREABOUTS, AND IF I WERE TO INDICATE TO YOU THAT THE CALL THAT CAME TO DOWNTOWN FOR THE 911 WAS AT 3:58, WOULD THAT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION THAT YOU WERE THERE A LITTLE AFTER FOUR O'CLOCK?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: OR AT FOUR O'CLOCK; WOULD THAT BE CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: YOU ALSO TOLD US THAT YOU HAD HEARD IN THE TRANSMISSION THAT THE WOMAN CALLING THE 911 HAD SAID SHE WAS BEING BEATEN. YOU HEARD THAT, DID YOU?

A: NO. IT APPEARED ON A VIDEO SCREEN IN OUR CAR.

Q: WELL, ISN'T IT TRUE THAT WHAT APPEARED ON THE VIDEO SCREEN WAS THAT IT WAS THE COMMENTS OF THE TRANSCRIBER, THE PERSON WHO WAS WORKING DOWN AT PARKER CENTER?

A: THAT'S CORRECT. THAT IS WHAT I TESTIFIED TO. THAT IS WHAT WE WERE GIVEN AS A RADIO CALL.

Q: YOU DIDN'T SAY EARLIER TODAY THAT IT WAS YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE WOMAN WHO MADE THE CALL HAD SAID SHE WAS BEING BEATEN? DID YOU SAY THAT?

A: I CAN'T REMEMBER IF I SAID THAT OR NOT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. OKAY. WELL, AT ANY RATE, AS YOU THINK ABOUT IT NOW, AT NO TIME WERE YOU EVER TOLD BY ANYONE THAT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON OR ANY LADY INSIDE THAT HOUSE EVER TOLD ANYONE THEY WERE BEING BEATEN THROUGH THE TRANSCRIBER; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: AT THE TIME THAT I GOT THE RADIO CALL IT WAS JUST THAT A WOMAN WAS BEING BEATEN IN THE BACKGROUND.

Q: ALL RIGHT. THAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: SO LET'S ASSUME THAT YOU ARRIVED THERE AT SOME TIME AFTER 3:58. KNOWING THAT INFORMATION, CAN YOU NOW TELL THE JURY OR THE COURT AND THE JURY WITH BETTER PRECISION AS TO WHAT TIME YOU ACTUALLY ARRIVED?

A: NO, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHERE I STARTED FROM AND HOW LONG IT TOOK ME TO GET THERE UNLESS I HAD THE ARRIVAL TIME ON THAT DOCUMENT THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. JUST REFRESHING MY MIND, I THINK IT WAS UNDER TEN MINUTES, LIKE I TESTIFIED EARLIER.

Q: SO FROM WHATEVER TIME YOU GOT THE CALL, YOU THINK YOU GOT THERE FROM THE AREA YOU WERE NEAR LA CIENEGA OR WHATEVER, ABOUT TEN MINUTES?

A: I WOULD SAY IT WAS UNDER TEN MINUTES, BUT IT WAS AROUND THAT AREA.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO LET'S SAY THAT YOU WERE OUT THERE BY 4:15 A.M. AND THIS IS NEW YEAR'S DAY EARLY MORNING HOURS, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND HOW LONG WERE YOU THERE UNTIL YOU LEFT TO TAKE MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON DOWN TO THE WEST LOS ANGELES STATION TO HAVE THESE PICTURES TAKEN THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT?

A: PROBABLY SOMEWHERE AROUND EIGHT OR TEN MINUTES.

Q: SO IF YOU ARRIVED BY 4:15, WOULD YOU SAY BY 4:23, 4:25, YOU WOULD BE OUT OF THERE; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: 4:30, SOMEWHERE AROUND THERE.

Q: IN THAT GENERAL RANGE?

A: RIGHT.

Q: YOU DESCRIBED FOR US -- WAS IT RAINING THAT PARTICULAR NIGHT?

A: IT WAS A LIGHT MISTY RAIN IN THE HILLS PRETTY MUCH ONLY.

Q: WAS IT ALSO KIND OF MUDDY OUTSIDE?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU EVER AT ANY TIME GO INSIDE THE RESIDENCE AT ROCKINGHAM THERE AND LOOK AT ANY OF THE ROOMS OR AT ANY TIME GO INSIDE THE HOUSE?

A: I NEVER GOT PAST THE FRONT GATE.

Q: YOUR TESTIMONY IS THAT EVERYTHING YOU TESTIFIED ABOUT IN THIS EIGHT TO TEN MINUTES OCCURRED WITH YOU OUTSIDE THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT SHOWED MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON WITH THE APPARENT MUD OR WHATEVER ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE LIGHT-COLORED OR WHITE-COLORED PANTS SHE WAS WEARING, DID SHE HAVE THAT MUD ON THE PANTS WHEN YOU FIRST SAW HER?

A: YES, YES, SHE DID.

Q: AND THAT WAS ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HER BODY?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT WAS CONSISTENT WITH SOME OF THE MARKS OR INJURIES YOU SAW ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HER BODY ALSO?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: THAT SAME SIZE?

THE COURT: WHAT IS THE OBJECTION?

MR. DARDEN: THE QUESTION IS VAGUE, YOUR HONOR. HOW CAN HE TESTIFY TO WHAT INJURIES ARE CONSISTENT WITH MUD.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT IS NOT WHAT I ASKED.

MR. DARDEN: THAT IS WHAT YOU ASKED.

MR. COCHRAN: I WANTED TO BE CLEAR.

MR. DARDEN: MAKE IT CLEAR FOR ALL OF US.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I WILL PROCEED.

Q: THE -- YOU HAVE DESCRIBED FOR US THAT THIS MUD WAS ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE PANT LEG OF MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, RIGHT?

A: FROM THE WAIST DOWN.

Q: RIGHT. IT WAS ON THE RIGHT SIDE?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND DID SHE HAVE INJURIES ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HER FACE OR BODY?

A: YES, SHE DID.

Q: THE SAME SIDE AS WHERE THIS MUD WAS, RIGHT?

A: EXCEPT THAT THERE WAS NO MUD BETWEEN HER WAIST AND HER SHOULDERS.

Q: THAT IS NOT WHAT I ASKED YOU, OFFICER. I ASKED YOU IS IT THE SAME SIDE AS WHERE THE MUD WAS?

A: THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE FACE. SOME OF THE INJURIES WERE ON THE RIGHT SIDE, YES; SOME OF THEM WERE ON THE LEFT.

Q: I ASKED YOU WERE THERE INJURIES ON THE RIGHT SIDE?

A: THE SIDE OF HER TORSO, NO, JUST ON THE SIDE OF HER HEAD.

Q: WERE THERE INJURIES ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HER FACE, OFFICER?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, BY THE WAY, WHEN YOU TOOK HER BACK HOME, DID YOU EVER BOOK THESE PANTS INTO EVIDENCE SO WE COULD HAVE THEM TO LOOK AT THEM NOW?

A: NO.

Q: WHEN YOU WENT BACK HOME WITH MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, DID YOU GO INSIDE THE HOUSE AT THAT TIME?

A: NO.

Q: YOU JUST LET HER OUT AT THE GATE?

A: AT THE FRONT DOOR.

Q: THE FRONT DOOR OF WHAT?

A: THE -- THE HOUSE.

Q: SO YOU WENT INSIDE THE GATE THIS TIME?

A: I THINK WE DROVE TO THE FRONT GATE AND LET HER OUT, YES.

Q: WELL, THAT IS NOT CLEAR. THERE ARE GATES ALL AROUND THE PREMISES. DID YOU DRIVE INSIDE THE GATES UP TO A FRONT DOOR --

A: YES.

Q: -- PREMISES. DID YOU GO INSIDE?

A: NO.

Q: SO YOU LET HER OUT AND SHE JUST WENT INSIDE THE HOUSE?

A: HER -- THIS FEMALE CAME OUT, MICHELLE CAME OUT AND MET HER AND THEY WENT IN TOGETHER.

Q: SHE AND MICHELLE WENT INSIDE. YOU DIDN'T BOTHER GOING IN AT THAT POINT?

A: NO.

Q: WHEN YOU WENT IN THIS SECOND TIME DID YOU EVER SEE THE NANNY AT THAT TIME?

A: NO.

Q: NOW, THIS WAS THE MORNING AFTER NEW YEAR'S EVE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: IN TALKING TO MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON DID YOU DISCUSS WITH HER THE FACT THAT SHE HAD BEEN TO A PARTY THAT EVENING?

A: I ASKED HER.

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, THAT CALLS FOR HEARSAY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: YES.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: SHE INDICATED SHE HAD BEEN TO A PARTY; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AS YOU THINK ABOUT IT, YOU HAD LUNCHTIME TO THINK ABOUT IT, YOU RECALL, DON'T YOU, THAT SHE HAD BEEN DRINKING THAT NIGHT? DO YOU RECALL THAT NOW?

A: NO, THAT IS NOT IT -- NO, I DON'T.

Q: YOU DON'T RECALL THAT?

A: NO, I DON'T RECALL HER TO HAVE BEEN DRINKING.

Q: DID YOU WRITE THAT IN ANY OF YOUR REPORTS, SIR?

A: THAT SHE HAD BEEN DRINKING?

Q: YES, WHETHER OR NOT SHE HAD BEEN DRINKING?

A: I DON'T THINK I DID.

Q: DID YOU ASCERTAIN THAT BOTH SHE AND MR. SIMPSON HAD BEEN TO A NEW YEAR'S EVE PARTY?

MR. DARDEN: SAME OBJECTION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: YES.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AND DID YOU FIND OUT WHAT TIME THEY CAME HOME FROM THAT PARTY?

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, THIS CALLS FOR HEARSAY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: NO.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: THIS PART OF THE CONVERSATION THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT NOW, AT WHAT POINT DID YOU HAVE THIS CONVERSATION ABOUT THE PARTY AND WHAT HAPPENED EARLIER?

A: AT THE STATION.

Q: AT WEST LOS ANGELES STATION?

A: YES.

Q: IS THAT WRITTEN DOWN ANYWHERE?

A: NO.

Q: SO YOU JUST HAVE AN INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION OF THAT SIX YEARS LATER?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, WHEN YOU ASKED MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON WHETHER OR NOT SHE WANTED TO BE TAKEN FOR MEDICAL TREATMENT, IS IT MY UNDERSTANDING SHE INDICATED TO YOU THAT SHE WOULD SEEK HER OWN MEDICAL TREATMENT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT IS CORRECT.

Q: YOU DESCRIBED FOR US THAT YOU WERE JUST RECENTLY ASSIGNED TO THE WEST LOS ANGELES AREA PRIOR TO THIS INCIDENT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT IS CORRECT.

Q: AND YOU HAD NEVER BEEN TO THAT RESIDENCE BEFORE, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: YOU NEVER KNEW EITHER OF THESE PARTIES BEFORE THIS TIME, RIGHT?

A: THAT IS CORRECT.

Q: YOU NEVER HAD A CONVERSATION WITH MR. O.J. SIMPSON BEFORE THIS, RIGHT?

A: THAT IS CORRECT.

Q: YOU HAD NEVER SEEN HIM WHEN HE WAS ANGRY, IF HE WAS EVER ANGRY, HAD YOU?

A: NO, I HAD NEVER SEEN HIM ANGRY AT ALL.

Q: YOU HAD NEVER SEEN HIM HAPPY BEFORE?

A: I WOULD SEE HIM ON TELEVISION, IN FOOTBALL GAMES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

Q: WELL, I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT ON TELEVISION. I'M TALKING ABOUT IN PERSON, OFFICER. YOU HAD NEVER SEEN HIM AT A TIME IN PERSON WHEN HE WAS EITHER HAPPY OR SAD?

A: I HAD NEVER MET HIM BEFORE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO WITH REGARD TO ALL OF YOUR OBSERVATIONS ABOUT HIM BEING ANGRY OR HOSTILE OR WHATEVER, YOU HAD NEVER TALKED TO HIM BEFORE THIS PARTICULAR NIGHT, RIGHT?

A: I NEVER TALKED TO HIM, BUT I WOULD SEE HIM ON TELEVISION AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

Q: YOU NEVER TALKED TO HIM IN PERSON, OFFICER, BEFORE THAT NIGHT, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: YOU INDICATED THAT AT SOME POINT MR. SIMPSON SAID THAT THE POLICE HAD BEEN OUT THERE EIGHT TIMES BEFORE AND HADN'T DONE ANYTHING. DID YOU EVER HAVE OCCASION TO CHECK TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT IN THE LOGS OF WEST LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT THERE WERE EIGHT PREVIOUS CONTACTS, WRITTEN CONTACTS, FROM WEST LOS ANGELES TO THAT PARTICULAR RESIDENCE ON ROCKINGHAM?

A: NO. I JUST TOOK HIS WORD FOR IT.

Q: DID YOU JUST ANSWER MY QUESTION? DID YOU EVER CHECK THAT, SIR?

A: NO. I TOOK HIS WORD FOR IT. I NEVER CHECKED.

Q: YOU DIDN'T CHECK AND TO THIS DATE YOU STILL DIDN'T CHECKED, RIGHT?

A: TO THIS DATE I HAVEN'T CHECKED.

Q: IF OFFICERS FROM WEST LOS ANGELES STATION WOULD COME OUT ON A SOCIAL CALL TO STOP BY AND TALK FOOTBALL OR WHATEVER, THERE WOULDN'T BE A RECORD OF THAT, WOULD THERE?

A: I DON'T KNOW.

Q: WELL, IF AN OFFICER FROM THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT ASSIGNED TO WEST LOS ANGELES STOPPED BY ROCKINGHAM, SAW O.J. SIMPSON AND JUST STOPPED BY AND TALKED FOOTBALL WHEN THEY SAW HIM OUTSIDE, LET'S SAY, YOU WOULDN'T WRITE THAT DOWN, WOULD YOU, NORMALLY?

A: I DON'T KNOW. I HAVE NEVER DONE IT. I WOULDN'T KNOW.

Q: ARE YOU A DETECTIVE NOW, LAPD?

A: YES.

Q: HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN A POLICE OFFICER?

A: 24 AND A HALF YEARS.

Q: SO YOU KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT THE PROCEDURES, DON'T YOU?

A: YES.

Q: AND SOMEPLACE SOMETIME IN 24 YEARS YOU HAVE WORKED IN AN AREA WHERE YOU'VE HAD SOME FRIENDLY ENCOUNTER WITH SOMEBODY IN YOUR PARTICULAR BEAT AREA. AS A MATTER OF PROCEDURE AND YOUR TRAINING DID YOU AT THAT TIME HAVE OCCASION AND WERE YOU REQUIRED BY YOUR TRAINING TO WRITE THAT DOWN?

MR. DARDEN: I WOULD OBJECT TO THIS QUESTION. IT IS COMPOUND AND IT IS CONFUSING AND MR. COCHRAN HAS BECOME A WITNESS. HE IS TESTIFYING.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. OVERRULED. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION?

THE WITNESS: I THINK SO.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU.

Q: TRY TO ANSWER, PLEASE, SIR.

A: THERE WOULD BE A COUPLE OF WAYS TO LOG SOMETHING LIKE THAT. YOU JUST DROP BY SOMEONE'S HOUSE, EITHER GOING TO CODE 7, THAT MEANS TO EAT, YOU WOULD BE TAKING YOUR CODE 7 TIME OR YOUR EATING TIME TO VISIT THAT PERSON AND YOU MAY LOG IT AT THAT ADDRESS, OR AS AN OFFICER CALL, YOU WOULD LOG IT WHENEVER YOU WENT TO A BUSINESS OR A PERSON'S HOUSE FOR ANY REASON LIKE THAT.

Q: ANY OTHER WAYS THAT YOU MIGHT JUST STOP BY AND NOT LOG IT?

A: I WOULD IMAGINE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, WHEN YOU TALKED TO MR. SIMPSON, AT SOME POINT YOU HAVE DESCRIBED FOR US THAT HE HAD ON SOME SHORTS AND A ROBE AND YOU AT SOME POINT, AFTER TALKING WITH HIS WIFE, MADE A JUDGMENT THAT YOU WERE GOING TO PLACE HIM UNDER ARREST; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: THAT IS CORRECT.

Q: OKAY. NOW, AT THAT TIME HAD YOU SPOKEN WITH THIS LADY MICHELLE ABUDRAHM?

A: NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, AT THAT TIME DID YOU TALK TO MR. SIMPSON ABOUT WHAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE HAPPENED?

A: NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. BUT YOU MADE THE JUDGMENT HE WAS GOING TO BE PLACED UNDER ARREST AND YOU THEN TOLD HIM TO GO BACK IN THE HOUSE AND GET DRESSED, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: IS THAT NORMAL POLICE PROCEDURES?

A: FOR 273.5 --

Q: YES.

A: -- PENAL CODE ARRESTS? EXACTLY.

Q: YOU JUST TELL HIM TO GO IN, PUT YOUR CLOTHES ON AND COME BACK OUT HERE, RIGHT?

A: NO, I WAS GOING TO PLACE HIM UNDER ARREST.

Q: THE PROCEDURE. THE QUESTION WAS IS THAT NORMAL PROCEDURE, FOR YOU TO STAND ON ONE SIDE OF THE FENCE AND SAY, "I WANT YOU TO GO IN THE HOUSE, PUT YOUR CLOTHES ON AND COME BACK OUT HERE SO I CAN ARREST YOU"? IS THAT NORMAL PROCEDURE?

A: IT WAS A TACTICAL DECISION I HAD TO MAKE WITH JUST MY PARTNER, MYSELF AND AN INJURED VICTIM IN THE BACKSEAT.

Q: SO THAT WAS YOUR TACTICAL DECISION. NOW, YOUR TACTICAL DECISION WAS YOU WERE GOING TO DO THAT EVEN AFTER YOU WERE TOLD MR. SIMPSON HAD LOTS OF GUNS. HE WAS GOING TO GO IN THE HOUSE AND GET DRESSED AND YOU WERE STANDING OUT THERE AND WAITING?

A: EXACTLY.

Q: AT THIS TIME HAD YOU TOLD ANYBODY TO CALL SERGEANT VINGER FOR BACK-UP?

A: YES.

Q: HE ARRIVED AT SOME POINT SHORTLY THEREAFTER?

A: YES.

Q: SERGEANTS TRAVEL IN VEHICLES BY THEMSELVES? HE IS A ONE-PERSON CAR; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: SO HE THEN CAME BACK OUT, RIGHT?

A: RIGHT.

Q: NOW, AS I UNDERSTAND YOUR TESTIMONY, YOUR TESTIMONY THAT MR. SIMPSON LEFT OUT OF ONE OF THE GATES OF THIS PLACE AT 45 MILES PER HOUR?

A: HE WENT SOUTHBOUND ON ROCKINGHAM AT ABOUT 45 MILES AN HOUR, AS SOON AS HE LEFT THE GATE.

Q: WHAT SPEED WAS HE TRAVELING WHEN HE GOT OUTSIDE THE GATE?

A: I DON'T KNOW. HE WENT BY PRETTY FAST. I DIDN'T GET A REAL GOOD LOOK AT THE CAR. I WOULD SAY PROBABLY 15 TO 25 MILES AN HOUR.

Q: HAVE YOU EVER DRIVEN A BENTLEY BEFORE?

A: NO. I HAVE CHASED THEM.

Q: SO NOW LET'S SEE. YOU HAVE CHASED ONE, BUT YOU HAVEN'T DRIVEN ONE, RIGHT?

A: RIGHT.

Q: IT IS YOUR TESTIMONY THAT AS HE GOT OUTSIDE THE GATE THE BENTLEY WAS TRAVELING ON THE WAY OUTSIDE THE GATE 15 MILES PER HOUR?

A: RIGHT.

Q: THEN IT SOON GOT TO 45?

A: RIGHT.

Q: DID YOU AND SERGEANT VINGER BOTH GO IN PURSUIT?

A: RIGHT.

Q: DID YOU HAVE ANY COMMUNICATIONS SO THERE WERE OTHER VEHICLES IN THIS PURSUIT AT ALL?

A: WE SWITCHED TO SIMPLEX WHICH IS INTERNAL CAR-TO-CAR FREQUENCY AND WE BROADCAST THAT ON SIMPLEX.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WERE THERE ANY OTHER VEHICLES INVOLVED IN THIS SO-CALLED PURSUIT, SIR?

A: I THINK A TOTAL OF FIVE SEARCHING THE AREA ULTIMATELY, BUT I WAS THE ONLY ONE THAT WAS DIRECTLY TRYING TO CATCH UP WITH HIM.

Q: YOU WERE THE ONLY ONE SUPPOSEDLY FOLLOWING THE BENTLEY; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: RIGHT. EVERYBODY WAS FANNING OUT THROUGH -- THERE IS MULTIPLE SIDE STREETS AND WE WERE CHECKING THE SIDE STREETS.

Q: NOW, AFTER THIS INCIDENT YOU DESCRIBED FOR US THAT YOU MAY HAVE STAYED THERE EIGHT TO TEN MINUTES, YOU WENT TO WEST LOS ANGELES STATION, RIGHT?

A: WELL, WE ENDED UP DOWN AROUND BUNDY AND WILSHIRE IN AN ATTEMPT AND FROM THERE WE WENT TO WEST LOS ANGELES STATION.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON WAS IN THE VEHICLE WITH YOU?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO ULTIMATELY YOU GOT TO WEST LOS ANGELES STATION?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: WHAT TIME WAS THAT?

A: I DON'T KNOW. UMM, I WOULD GUESS SOMEWHERE AROUND FIVE O'CLOCK OR BEFORE 5:00.

Q: FIVE O'CLOCK A.M. THEREABOUTS?

A: RIGHT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. HOW LONG DID YOU STAY AT THE STATION?

A: JUST LONG ENOUGH TO GET THE CAMERA, TAKE THE THREE PHOTOGRAPHS, HAVE HER GO IN THE BATHROOM AND COME OUT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. COULD YOU ANSWER THIS QUESTION: HOW LONG DID YOU STAY AT THE STATION? CAN YOU TELL US THAT IN MINUTES, OFFICER?

A: I WOULD SAY ABOUT EIGHT TO TEN MINUTES.

Q: AND THEN YOU THEN -- WAS YOUR PARTNER STILL WITH YOU AT THIS POINT?

A: YES.

Q: THE TWO OF YOU THEN DROVE MISS SIMPSON BACK TO THE RESIDENCE OF ROCKINGHAM?

A: THAT IS CORRECT.

Q: THAT IS WHEN YOU DROPPED HER OFF?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID YOU STAY ANY TIME THERE OTHER THAN TO DROP HER OFF AND THEN YOU LEFT AGAIN; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: WE JUST LEFT.

Q: DID YOU EVER SEE ANY CHILDREN IN OR ABOUT THAT RESIDENCE THAT NIGHT?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO HAVE A FURTHER CONVERSATION WITH MR. SIMPSON THAT YOU HAVEN'T TOLD US ABOUT THUS FAR WHERE HE DESCRIBED TO YOU --

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, THIS CALLS FOR HEARSAY.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I FINISH THE QUESTION, YOUR HONOR?

MR. DARDEN: THE FORM OF THE QUESTION CALLS FOR HEARSAY.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I FINISH THE QUESTION, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: OVER HERE AT THE SIDE BAR WITH THE REPORTER, PLEASE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: OKAY. WE ARE AT THE SIDE BAR. SOUNDS LIKE A HEARSAY STATEMENT IS ABOUT TO COME IN HERE.

MR. COCHRAN: NO, NO. YOUR HONOR, THE QUESTION AGAIN I'M ASKING HIM, DID YOU EVER HAVE OCCASION TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH MR. O.J. SIMPSON WHERE HE DESCRIBED TO HIM THE EVENTS OF THE EVENING? THAT IS NOT HEARSAY YET. QUICK OBJECTION. I MEAN, I'M NOT ASKING THE HEARSAY YET. THAT IS NOT A HEARSAY QUESTION. THAT IS A YES OR NO.

MR. DARDEN: YOU ARE KIDDING ME.

MR. COCHRAN: ONE AT A TIME.

THE COURT: OKAY. YOU CAN ASK THAT QUESTION. YES OR NO.

MR. DARDEN: WILL HE DESCRIBE TO HIM THE EVENTS? COME BACK HERE.

THE COURT: NO. OVERRULED.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I HAVE THAT REREAD OR SHOULD I JUST RESTATE IT, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: STATE IT AGAIN.

MR. COCHRAN: CERTAINLY.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DETECTIVE EDWARDS, DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO HAVE A FURTHER CONVERSATION WITH MR. SIMPSON THAT YOU HAVEN'T TOLD US ABOUT THUS FAR WHEREIN HE DESCRIBED FOR YOU THE EVENTS OF THAT NIGHT AS REGARDS HE AND HIS WIFE? YOU CAN ANSWER THAT YES OR NO?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU HAVE ANY FOLLOW-UP CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. SIMPSON ON A DAY AFTER JANUARY 1ST, 1989?

A: NO.

Q: DO YOU KNOW AN OFFICER BY THE NAME OF FARRELL?

A: YES.

Q: AND WAS HE ONE OF THE OFFICERS WHO DID SOME INVESTIGATION ON THIS CASE?

A: HE IS THE ONE THAT FILED THE CASE AS A MISDEMEANOR.

Q: SO DID HE HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH THIS CASE?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT OF YOUR OWN INDEPENDENT KNOWLEDGE, WHETHER OR NOT OFFICER FARRELL HAD ANY FURTHER CONVERSATION WITH MR. SIMPSON?

A: JUST FROM WHAT FARRELL TOLD ME.

Q: WERE YOU ABLE TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT HE TALKED TO HIM?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, HEARSAY. DETECTIVE FARRELL WILL FOLLOW THIS OFFICER TO THE WITNESS STAND, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. IT IS IRRELEVANT.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WHEN YOU SAW MICHELLE ABUDRAHM OUT AT THE VEHICLE, IT IS YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOU RECOGNIZED HER VOICE AS THE PERSON WHO TOLD YOU THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG AT THE PREMISES THERE?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT WAS THERE ABOUT HER VOICE THAT MADE YOU RECOGNIZE IT?

A: IT WAS PROBABLY THE ACCENT OR SOMETHING, BUT I REALIZED IT WAS THE SAME PERSON FROM THE VOICE.

Q: WERE YOU ABLE TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS ANY -- STRIKE THAT. WERE YOU ABLE TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT ANY OF THE GROUNDS IN AND AROUND ROCKINGHAM WERE MUDDY ON THAT PARTICULAR EVENING, AS YOU CAME BACK TO THE RESIDENCE, OR AT ANY TIME?

A: THAT WHOLE MOUNTAIN AREA APPEARED TO BE WET.

Q: I PRESUME IT HAD RAINED OVER A PERIOD OF TIME THEN; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: RIGHT.

Q: THE POLAROID SHOTS THAT YOU TOOK AT WEST LOS ANGELES STATION, WAS THAT AFTER YOUR PARTNER HAD TAKEN MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON INTO THE BATHROOM AREA?

A: NO, IT WAS BEFORE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WAS THERE ANY EFFORT MADE TO TAKE ANY SHOTS OR PICTURES OF HER BODY IN THAT -- THAT YOUR PARTNER SAW?

A: WE WERE OUT OF FILM.

Q: WELL, WE WENT THROUGH THAT BEFORE, BUT THERE WAS FILM IN THAT STATION, WAS THERE NOT?

A: I WOULD IMAGINE SOMEWHERE IN THAT STATION THERE WAS FILM.

Q: ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. WAS THERE ANY EFFORT MADE TO GET ANY FILM SO THAT YOU COULD GET PICTURES OF HER BODY AS SOON AS YOUR PARTNER SAW THEM THAT NIGHT?

A: NO.

Q: IN FACT, YOU NEVER ASKED ANYBODY FOR ANY FILM, DID YOU, AFTER IT RAN OUT?

A: NO. SHE WANTED TO GO HOME TO HER KIDS.

Q: BUT YOU DIDN'T TAKE THE CAMERA HOME EITHER, DID YOU?

A: DIDN'T HAVE ANY FILM.

Q: OFFICER, YOU DIDN'T ASK ANYBODY FOR FILM?

THE COURT: I THINK WE HAVE BEEN OVER THIS ONE ALREADY.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT DOES SOUND FAMILIAR, YOUR HONOR, YES. I THINK I DID ASK THAT. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER OF THIS GENTLEMAN AT THIS POINT.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. DARDEN:

Q: DETECTIVE EDWARDS, YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU SAW SCRATCHES AND BRUISES ON NICOLE BROWN; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: YOU DIDN'T SEE ANY SCRATCHES ON THE DEFENDANT?

MR. COCHRAN: LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE AND IMPROPER REDIRECT EXAMINATION. I DIDN'T GO INTO THAT.

MR. DARDEN: YES, HE DID.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MR. COCHRAN: IMPROPER REDIRECT EXAMINATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DID YOU SEE ANY SCRATCHES ON THE DEFENDANT?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: DID YOU SEE ANY BRUISES ON THE DEFENDANT?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: DID YOU SEE A HANDPRINT AROUND HIS NECK?

A: NO.

Q: THE ONLY PERSON YOU SAW WITH SCRATCHES AND BRUISES AND SCRATCHES WAS NICOLE BROWN?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED, SUSTAINED, SUSTAINED. IT IS LEADING AND ARGUMENTATIVE AND SUGGESTIVE. CALM DOWN, GENTLEMEN.

MR. DARDEN: I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS THAT?

THE COURT: CALM DOWN, GENTLEMEN. THE ISSUE WAS WHETHER OR NOT YOU SAW ANY INJURIES ON THE DEFENDANT. THAT WAS A YES OR NO.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DID YOU ONLY SEE INJURIES ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF NICOLE BROWN'S BODY?

A: NO. IT WAS ON THE LEFT SIDE ALSO.

Q: YOU DESCRIBED A MOMENT AGO A PORTION OF THE CONVERSATION YOU HAD WITH NICOLE BROWN AT THE STATION; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S TRUE.

Q: DID YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL CONVERSATION WITH HER?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT WAS THAT ADDITIONAL CONVERSATION?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT AS HEARSAY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: WHAT AND WHERE. FOUNDATION. WHAT AND WHERE.

MR. DARDEN: AT WEST LOS ANGELES STATION.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: HAD TO DO WITH WHY THE ARGUMENT OCCURRED.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: SHE TOLD YOU WHY THE ARGUMENT OCCURRED?

A: YES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET ME SEE COUNSEL AT SIDE BAR.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: WE GOT A PROBLEM HERE, GUYS, BECAUSE, JOHNNIE, YOU WENT INTO THIS BUSINESS ABOUT TRYING TO ELICIT THE STATEMENT THAT THEY HAD BEEN AT A PARTY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, SO IS THAT WHAT WE ARE GOING FOR?

MR. DARDEN: YEAH. THAT'S RIGHT. LET'S FIND OUT WHY IT HAPPENED.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT IS FINE -- NO, THAT IS FINE WITH ME. YOU JUST OPENED IT UP, WALK RIGHT IN THE DOOR.

MR. DARDEN: SURE, SURE.

MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS ON RECROSS.

THE COURT: ALSO, BOTH OF YOU PEOPLE HAVE DONE SPEAKING OBJECTIONS, SO YOU ARE BOTH WARNED AGAIN.

MR. COCHRAN: ADMONISHED. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. YOU ARE ADMONISHED. REMEMBER THAT.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. MR. DARDEN, YOU MAY CONTINUE.

MR. DARDEN: MAY I HAVE ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

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

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: WHAT WAS THE ADDITIONAL CONVERSATION YOU HAD WITH NICOLE BROWN AT WEST L.A. STATION, DETECTIVE?

A: IT WAS -- SHE TOLD ME WHY THE ARGUMENT HAD OCCURRED THAT NIGHT.

Q: WHAT DID SHE TELL YOU?

A: SHE SAID THAT THERE WERE -- THERE WAS TWO OTHER WOMEN LIVING IN THE HOUSE AND THAT O.J. SIMPSON HAD SEX WITH ONE OF THEM PRIOR TO GOING TO BED THAT NIGHT WITH HER.

Q: IS THAT IN YOUR REPORT?

A: NO.

Q: WHY NOT?

A: BECAUSE RIGHT AFTER I FINISHED THE REPORT AND TURNED IT IN, I STARTED GETTING PHONE CALLS FROM THE NEWS MEDIA AND NEWSPAPERS AND I DIDN'T FEEL THAT IT WAS A RELEVANT PART OF THE REPORT OR THE CRIME AND IT WOULD JUST BE A SENSATIONALISM THING.

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

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: YOU SAW BOTH NICOLE BROWN AND THE DEFENDANT THAT NIGHT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: WHO WAS THE BIGGEST PHYSICALLY?

A: O.J. SIMPSON WAS ABOUT 6-1, 215 POUNDS, DIDN'T APPEAR TO HAVE AN OUNCE OF FAT ON HIM.

Q: HE SEEMED TO BE IN GOOD PHYSICAL CONDITION?

A: EXTREMELY GOOD.

Q: WHY DIDN'T YOU GO INTO THE HOUSE AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: WHY DIDN'T I GO?

Q: YEAH.

A: BECAUSE IT WAS AN OFFICER SAFETY PROBLEM WITH AN INJURED VICTIM IN THE REAR OF MY CAR AND I COULDN'T LEAVE MY PARTNER ALONE TO GO INTO A LOCKED FACILITY LIKE THAT, AND THERE WAS NO ANYBODY WHO COULD GET INTO HELP ME IN CASE I NEEDED SOMETHING.

Q: YOU INDICATED TO MR. COCHRAN THAT YOU HAD NEVER SEEN THE DEFENDANT ANGRY PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 1989; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND YET YOU TOLD US TODAY THAT HE APPEARED ANGRY TO YOU?

A: THAT IS CORRECT.

Q: WAS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT HIM PHYSICALLY THAT CAUSED YOU TO CONCLUDE THAT HE WAS ANGRY?

MR. COCHRAN: CALLS FOR SPECULATION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: YES. HIS -- HIS FACIAL DEMEANOR, HIS VOICE AND HE HAD -- VEINS WERE POPPING OUT RIGHT HERE ON THE UPPER PART OF HIS HEAD, ALONG THE SIDE OF HIS HEAD THERE, WERE VEINS PULSATING AND POPPING OUT, AND I HAD NEVER SEEN THAT BEFORE ON TELEVISION OR ANYTHING.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: SO YOU ASSOCIATED THAT WITH ANGER?

A: YES.

Q: YOU COULD HAVE ARRESTED THE DEFENDANT IN HIS UNDERWEAR HAD YOU WANTED TO?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION. LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE, YOUR HONOR. IMMATERIAL.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: YES.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: WHY DIDN'T YOU?

A: BECAUSE I KNEW THAT IF I TOOK O.J. SIMPSON, A PERSON OF THAT STATURE, TO THE STATION IN HIS UNDERWEAR THAT THERE WOULD BE REPERCUSSIONS BECAUSE THE MEDIA WOULD SHOW UP AND IT WOULD BE BLOWN OUT OF PROPORTION.

Q: YOU ALSO TOLD MR. COCHRAN THAT YOU DID NOT INDICATE IN THE REPORT THAT NICOLE BROWN WAS INTOXICATED?

A: THAT IS CORRECT.

Q: WAS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT HER DEMEANOR THAT NIGHT THAT CAUSED YOU TO BELIEVE THAT SHE WAS INTOXICATED?

A: NONE.

Q: HAVE YOU HAD TRAINING IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE?

A: YES, I HAVE.

Q: HAVE YOU HAD TRAINING IN THE PROFILE OF A --

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT TO THIS QUESTION. THIS IS IMPROPER. IMPROPER REDIRECT EXAMINATION AND IMPROPER QUESTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DID THE DEFENDANT APPEAR AFRAID AT ALL OF NICOLE BROWN TO YOU THAT NIGHT?

A: NO.

Q: DID SHE APPEAR TO BE AFRAID OF HIM?

MR. COCHRAN: ASKED AND ANSWERED, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: SHE APPEARED TO BE TERRIFIED.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: YOU DESCRIBED EARLIER ABOUT THE MUD ON NICOLE BROWN; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU SEE ANY MUD ON THE DEFENDANT?

A: NONE.

MR. DARDEN: MAY I HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

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

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DID NICOLE BROWN INDICATE TO YOU ANY REASON, OTHER THAN A DESIRE TO BE WITH HER CHILDREN, THAT IS, FOR HER NOT GOING DOWN TO PARKER CENTER?

A: THAT WAS IT. SHE JUST WANTED TO GET BACK TO HER CHILDREN.

Q: IS THAT WHAT SHE TOLD YOU AT WEST L.A. STATION?

A: YES.

Q: WHY DIDN'T YOU KEEP HER AT THE STATION?

A: SHE WANTED TO GET BACK TO HER CHILDREN.

Q: WAS SHE UNDER ARREST?

A: NO.

Q: HAD SHE VIOLATED ANY LAW?

A: NONE.

Q: WAS THERE ANY INDICATION THAT SHE HAD BEATEN UP THE DEFENDANT?

A: NO.

Q: AND YOU DID SPEAK TO THE DEFENDANT, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: HE DIDN'T TELL YOU THAT SHE BEAT HIM UP, DID HE?

A: NO, HE DID NOT.

Q: YOU DIDN'T BOOK HER PANTS INTO EVIDENCE?

A: NO. I PHOTOGRAPHED THEM.

Q: WHY DIDN'T YOU BOOK HER PANTS?

A: I FELT THE PHOTOGRAPH SIGNIFICANTLY DEPICTED WHAT HAD HAPPENED TO HER IN REGARDS TO THE PANTS.

Q: YOU TOLD MR. COCHRAN THAT THE DEFENDANT SAID THAT THE POLICE HAD BEEN OUT TO THE LOCATION EIGHT TIMES BEFORE?

A: YES.

Q: WERE YOU SURPRISED TO HEAR THAT FROM THE DEFENDANT?

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT TO THAT. IRRELEVANT AND IMMATERIAL WAS HE SURPRISED.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: WELL, YOU DIDN'T GO BACK TO THE STATION AND CHECK THE RECORDS TO SEE IF THE LAPD HAD BEEN TO THE HOUSE EIGHT TIMES BEFORE, DID YOU?

A: NO.

Q: WHY NOT?

A: BECAUSE I FELT THE DETECTIVE ASSIGNED TO THE CASE WOULD DO THAT. ONCE I PUT THAT STATEMENT IN THERE, I FIGURED IT WOULD BE PART OF HIS FOLLOW-UP.

Q: WHEN THE DEFENDANT TOLD YOU THAT THE POLICE HAD BEEN OUT TO THE HOUSE EIGHT TIMES BEFORE, DID HE TELL YOU THAT THEY HAD BEEN THERE ON SOCIAL CALLS?

A: NO. AS A MATTER OF FACT, I BELIEVE IT WAS THE SAME SORT OF THING.

MR. COCHRAN: THE QUESTION WAS ANSWERED. OBJECT AS ASKED AND ANSWERED.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MR. DARDEN: I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS THE ANSWER, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: I SAID OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: CAN WE HAVE THE QUESTION AND ANSWER READ BACK?

THE COURT: THE QUESTION IS: "WHEN THE DEFENDANT TOLD YOU THAT THE POLICE HAD BEEN OUT TO THE HOUSE EIGHT TIMES BEFORE, DID THEY TELL YOU THEY HAD BEEN THERE ON SOCIAL CALLS?" YES OR NO.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: WHAT WAS THE ANSWER, DETECTIVE?

A: YES, THE POLICE HAD BEEN OUT THERE BEFORE.

Q: DID HE TELL YOU THAT THEY HAD BEEN THERE ON SOCIAL CALLS?

A: OH, NO, THEY WERE THERE FOR THE SAME KIND OF AN INCIDENT.

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

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. COCHRAN:

Q: DETECTIVE EDWARDS, LET ME SEE IF I UNDERSTAND THAT LAST ANSWER. MR. SIMPSON TOLD YOU THAT THE POLICE HAD BEEN OUT EIGHT TIMES BEFORE FOR THE SAME KIND OF CALL? HE TOLD YOU THAT?

A: WHAT HE SAID WAS THAT --

Q: I'M ASKING THE QUESTION.

A: THEY HAD BEEN OUT THERE FOR THE SAME SIMILAR TYPE CALL, YEAH, BEEN OUT HERE BEFORE FOR THIS AND YOU NEVER DID ANYTHING BEFORE.

Q: MR. SIMPSON TOLD YOU -- LISTEN TO MY QUESTION, IF YOU MAY. DID MR. SIMPSON TELL YOU THAT THE POLICE HAD BEEN OUT EIGHT TIMES BEFORE ON CALLS INVOLVING THE SITUATION WHERE HE AND HIS WIFE HAD BEEN IN A FIGHT? HE TOLD YOU THAT?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID YOU WRITE THAT IN ANY REPORT?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT DID YOU SAY? IF I SHOWED YOU THE REPORT, CAN YOU SHOW ME WHERE YOU SAID THAT?

A: YES.

Q: I WILL READ IT TO YOU AND ASK YOU IF THIS IS WHAT YOU MEANT.

MR. DARDEN: CAN WE SHOW THE REPORT TO THE WITNESS FIRST, YOUR HONOR? BETTER YET, CAN I HAND MY COPY TO THE WITNESS?

MR. COCHRAN: THIS IS MY EXAMINATION I THINK AT THIS POINT.

THE COURT: THAT'S CORRECT. HE DOESN'T HAVE TO SHOW IT TO HIM TO CONFRONT HIM WITH IT. MR. COCHRAN.

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

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I HAVE JUST A SECOND, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WHILE I'M LOOKING FOR THAT PARTICULAR PAGE OR MR. DOUGLAS IS LOOKING FOR IT, MR. SIMPSON TOLD YOU, DID HE NOT, THAT YOU WERE THE ONLY ONE TO COME TO HIS HOUSE AND MAKE A BIG DEAL OF THIS? DID HE MAKE THAT STATEMENT TO YOU?

A: YES.

Q: AND AT THE TIME HE MADE THAT STATEMENT TO YOU, HE WAS AGAIN INSIDE THE FENCE AND YOU WERE OUTSIDE THE FENCE, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND YOU HAVE DESCRIBED FOR US THAT HE HAD A ROBE ON; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: UMM, DURING PART OF THIS INCIDENT HE HAD A ROBE ON.

Q: YOU DESCRIBED FOR THE JURY THAT AT ALL TIMES HE HAD A ROBE AND SOME SHORTS ON, SIR? DIDN'T YOU SAY THAT?

A: HE CAME BACK OUT DRESSED AFTER A PERIOD OF TIME.

Q: I'M TALKING ABOUT DURING THIS PART OF THE CONVERSATION, DETECTIVE, DID HE HAVE A ROBE AND SOME SHORTS ON?

A: RIGHT.

Q: YOU NEVER ON ANY OCCASION WENT OVER AND EXAMINED MR. SIMPSON'S BODY, DID YOU?

A: I WAS STANDING WITHIN A FOOT OF HIM. I COULD SEE HIM AND I HAD HIM ILLUMINATED. WE WERE LOOKING THROUGH A FENCE.

Q: CAN YOU DESCRIBE -- ANSWERING MY QUESTION NOW, DID YOU EVER GO OVER AND EXAMINE MR. SIMPSON'S BODY?

A: YOU MEAN GO INTO THE PROPERTY AND EXAMINE IT?

Q: YOU KNOW WHAT "EXAMINE" MEANS?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE WITNESS: YES. I EXAMINED HIM WITH MY FLASHLIGHT AS HE WAS STANDING IN FRONT OF ME FROM STANDING ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE FENCE AS HE WAS STANDING ON THE INSIDE.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AND YOU EXAMINED HIM AND, WHEN YOU EXAMINED HIM, DID YOU EXAMINE HIS BACK?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU EXAMINE HIS -- THE REAR PART OF HIS LEGS?

A: NO.

Q: THE PART OF HIS BODY COVERED BY THE ROBE, SIR?

A: NONE OF THE PART COVERED BY THE ROBE.

Q: NONE OF THE BODY WAS COVERED BY THE ROBE?

A: I SAID I DID NOT EXAMINE ANY OF THE PART THAT WAS COVERED BY THE ROBE.

Q: SO THERE WAS A PART -- WAS HE WEARING THIS ROBE AS A ROBE WOULD BE WORN, COVERING HIS ENTIRE BODY? WAS IT A LONG ROBE?

A: IT WAS OPEN, LOOSE AND OPEN IN FRONT.

Q: WAS IT A LONG ROBE?

A: YES, THREE-QUARTER LENGTH.

Q: WAS IT TIED AT THE WAIST?

A: NO, IT WAS OPEN.

Q: AND SO THE PART THAT YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SEE WOULD BE PART OF HIS CHEST, PART OF THE FRONT, PART -- AND ALL OF HIS BACK; IS THAT CORRECT, SIR?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: YOU COULD NOT SEE ANY OF THAT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I COULD SEE PART OF HIS CHEST, THE FRONT PART OF HIS LEGS, HIS UPPER LEGS, LOWER LEGS, HIS FEET, HIS HAND, HIS FACE AND HIS NECK, BUT I COULD NOT SEE THE BACK OR THE ARMS OR THE SIDES.

Q: THE OTHER PARTS OF HIS BODY YOU COULD NOT SEE AND DID NOT EXAMINE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: NOW, THIS CONVERSATION AT WEST LOS ANGELES STATION, IT IS YOUR TESTIMONY THAT MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON TOLD YOU THAT THIS ARGUMENT WAS OVER MR. SIMPSON HAVING SEX WITH ONE OF THE HOUSEKEEPERS?

A: NO, I DIDN'T SAY THAT.

Q: WHO DID YOU SAY HE HAD SEX WITH?

A: I DIDN'T SAY HE HAD SEX WITH ANYBODY. I SAID THAT SHE TOLD ME THAT HE HAD SEX WITH I BELIEVE IT WAS -- SHE DESCRIBED IT AS A PERSONAL SECRETARY. IT WAS TWO WOMEN THAT WERE LIVING IN THE HOUSE, AND HE HAD SEX WITH ONE OF THEM PRIOR TO THIS INCIDENT.

Q: DID SHE GIVE YOU THE NAME OF THIS PERSON?

A: NO. I DIDN'T ASK.

Q: DID YOU WRITE THAT DOWN ANYWHERE?

A: NO. I WASN'T GOING TO USE IT IN THE REPORT.

Q: DID YOU WRITE THAT DOWN ANYWHERE?

A: NO.

Q: AND WHEN YOU TELL US THAT TODAY, THAT IS FROM YOUR RECOLLECTION; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: AND DO YOU REMEMBER THE NAME OF THIS PERSON AT ALL?

A: I DIDN'T ASK ANY NAMES.

Q: AND THIS CONVERSATION WHEREIN SHE TOLD YOU THAT HE HAD SEX WITH A PERSONAL SECRETARY OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE, DID ANYBODY ELSE OVERHEAR THAT CONVERSATION OTHER THAN YOURSELF?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

Q: JUST THE TWO OF YOU, RIGHT?

A: MY PARTNER MAY HAVE OVERHEARD IT. I DON'T KNOW WHERE SHE WAS AT THE TIME.

Q: I'M ASKING AS FAR AS YOU KNOW JUST YOU AND MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, RIGHT?

A: MY PARTNER MAY HAVE OVERHEARD IT. I DON'T KNOW.

Q: WAS THAT AT WEST LOS ANGELES STATION?

A: YES.

Q: IN THE LOBBY THERE; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: NO. I BELIEVE IT WAS, UMM -- UMM, TOWARD THE FRONT DOOR AREA AS WE WERE LEAVING OR SOMEWHERE IN THAT AREA.

Q: WHAT ELSE DID SHE TELL YOU ABOUT THIS PARTY THEY HAD BEEN TO?

A: NOTHING.

Q: DID SHE TELL YOU THAT BOTH OF THEM HAD BEEN DRINKING THAT NIGHT?

A: NO. SHE DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING. I DIDN'T ASK IF THEY HAD BEEN DRINKING.

Q: I'M ASKING YOU WHAT SHE TOLD YOU, SIR. DID SHE TELL YOU THAT THEY HAD GOTTEN HOME AT ABOUT 3:30 FROM A PARTY NEW YEAR'S EVE?

A: I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT TIME SHE SAID SHE GOT HOME. I DON'T KNOW IF SHE DID TELL PEOPLE WHAT TIME THEY GOT HOME.

Q: SO YOU DON'T RECALL THAT, WHETHER OR NOT THAT HAPPENED?

A: I DON'T REMEMBER HER TELLING ME WHAT TIME THEY GOT HOME FROM A PARTY.

Q: DID SHE MENTION TO YOU THAT THE ARGUMENT HAD BEEN OVER SOME EARRINGS? DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: NO. SHE SAID IT WAS OVER SOMEBODY THAT WAS LIVING IN THE HOUSE.

Q: SHE NEVER MENTIONED TO YOU ANYTHING ABOUT ANY EARRINGS; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: NOT THAT I CAN RECALL.

Q: AND CERTAINLY YOU DIDN'T WRITE THAT DOWN, DID YOU?

A: NO.

Q: NOW, YOU DESCRIBED, IN RESPONSE TO ONE OF COUNSEL'S QUESTIONS, THAT YOU SAW VEINS PULSATING OUT OF MR. SIMPSON'S HEAD; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID YOU WRITE THAT DOWN IN YOUR REPORT ALSO SO YOU WOULD HAVE A RECOLLECTION OF THAT?

A: NOPE.

Q: YOU DIDN'T WRITE THAT DOWN EITHER, DID YOU?

A: NO.

Q: DO YOU RECALL MR. SIMPSON SAYING TO YOU THAT HE AND HIS WIFE HAD BEEN INVOLVED IN AN ALTERCATION AND HAD HAD KIND OF A MUTUAL WRESTLING MATCH? DO YOU REMEMBER HIM SAYING THAT?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE HE EVER SAID THEY HAD A WRESTLING MATCH. I THINK HE SAID HE PUSHED HER OUT OF THE BED, BUT HE DIDN'T BEAT HER. I DON'T REMEMBER HIM EVER USING THE WORD WRESTLING MATCH.

Q: YOU DON'T RECALL THE WORDS "WRESTLING MATCH"?

A: AS A MATTER OF FACT, I'M POSITIVE HE DIDN'T SAY THAT.

Q: YOU REMEMBER HE SAID HE PUSHED HER OUT OF THE BED?

A: RIGHT.

Q: YOU UNDERSTOOD SHE GOT THIS MUD WHEN SHE WAS PUSHED OUT OF THE BED?

A: NO.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AS I UNDERSTAND IT, AS AN EXPERIENCED OFFICER AT THAT TIME, YOU HAD ALMOST TWENTY YEARS OF EXPERIENCE, YOU CAME UPON THIS SCENE AND YOU SAW MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AND YOU DIDN'T IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION SPEAK TO ANY OTHER WITNESS OTHER THAN HER; IS THAT CORRECT?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. THAT ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: IS THAT RIGHT?

A: THAT IS INCORRECT. I TALKED TO MR. O.J. SIMPSON.

Q: WELL, LET'S TAKE IT ONE AT A TIME. YOU DIDN'T TALK TO MICHELLE ABUDRAHM, RIGHT?

A: OTHER THAN TO TELL HER TO GET AWAY FROM THE CAR.

Q: I'M TALKING ABOUT WITH REGARD TO THE INVESTIGATION. YOU DIDN'T TALK TO HER ABOUT THIS CASE, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: YOU DIDN'T GO IN AND TALK TO THE NANNY, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: YOU NEVER EVEN WENT INSIDE THE HOUSE, DID YOU?

A: NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: YOU DIDN'T GO LOOK TO SEE WHERE THIS MIGHT HAVE TAKEN PLACE, DID YOU?

A: NO.

Q: YOU TALKED TO MR. O.J. SIMPSON AND HE TOLD YOU, ACCORDING TO YOUR STATEMENT, THAT HE HAD PUSHED HER OUT OF HIS BED; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: BUT HE HADN'T BEAT HER, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND THEN BASED UPON THAT, YOU THEN DECIDED YOU WERE GOING TO PLACE HIM UNDER ARREST, RIGHT?

A: NO.

Q: WELL, YOU THEN MADE A DECISION, WHILE YOU WERE OUTSIDE THIS GATE, TO PLACE MR. O.J. SIMPSON UNDER ARREST; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE AROUND THERE THAT YOU TALKED TO?

A: I TALKED TO NICOLE SIMPSON AND I SAW HER.

Q: YOU SAW NICOLE SIMPSON. YOU KNOW, DO YOU NOT, SIR, THAT IF SOMEBODY GETS INTO A FIGHT, ON OCCASION THERE MAY BE BRUISES ON BOTH SIDES? YOU UNDERSTAND THAT, DON'T YOU, AS AN EXPERIENCED POLICE OFFICER?

A: OH, YES, YES.

Q: SO YOU TALKED TO NICOLE SIMPSON, YOU TALKED TO O.J. SIMPSON, BUT YOU HAD MADE YOUR DECISION, HAD YOU NOT, BEFORE YOU TALKED TO O.J. SIMPSON; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: YOU MADE YOUR DECISION AFTER ONLY TALKING WITH NICOLE SIMPSON; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND YOU DIDN'T TALK TO ANYBODY ELSE IN CONNECTION WITH THAT DECISION?

A: I DIDN'T TALK TO ANYBODY ELSE.

Q: AT THAT TIME HOW LONG HAD YOU BEEN A POLICE OFFICER?

A: ABOUT 19 AND A HALF YEARS.

Q: AND HAD YOU WORKED AS A DETECTIVE AT THAT TIME?

A: NO.

Q: YOU HAVE BECOME A DETECTIVE SINCE THAT TIME?

A: YES.

Q: YOU WERE A PATROLMAN AT THAT TIME?

A: YES.

Q: YOU HAD BEEN 19 YEARS ON PATROL?

A: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER OF THIS WITNESS, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

MR. DARDEN: JUST A FEW QUESTIONS, YOUR HONOR.

FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. DARDEN:

Q: YOU SPOKE TO NICOLE BROWN AND THEN YOU ARRESTED THE DEFENDANT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I PLACED HIM UNDER ARREST. PHYSICALLY I COULDN'T GET TO HIM.

Q: OKAY. WHAT WAS THE BASIS OF YOUR DECISION TO ARREST HIM?

A: HER STATEMENT OF HOW SHE WAS INJURED AND THAT I COULD SEE TRAUMA ON HER.

Q: DID THE LAPD HAVE A POLICY REGARDING SPOUSAL BATTERY CASES?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT POLICY RELATED TO WHEN TO ARREST A SUSPECTED WIFE BEATER; IS THAT CORRECT?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THIS QUESTION, YOUR HONOR. MAY WE APPROACH THE BENCH?

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION, PLEASE.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO APPROACH THE BENCH ON THIS AREA AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME.

THE COURT: REPHRASE THE QUESTION, PLEASE.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: YOU HAVE READ THE LAW REGARDING SPOUSAL ABUSE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND WERE YOU AWARE OF THE LAW AS IT STOOD IN 1989?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT DUTY, IF ANY, UNDER THE LAW, DID YOU HAVE TO ARREST THIS DEFENDANT ON JANUARY 1, 1989?

MR. COCHRAN: I'M GOING TO OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: UNDER 273.5 OF THE PENAL CODE AND 13700 OF THE PENAL CODE, I SHALL ARREST THAT PERSON. THERE IS NO IF, ANDS, BUTS ABOUT IT, WILLS OR MAYS, I SHALL ARREST THE DEFENDANT.

Q: YOU ARE REQUIRED UNDER THE LAW UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES TO ARREST?

A: UNDER THE PENAL CODE AND MY DEPARTMENT POLICY, ABSOLUTELY, I HAVE TO ARREST THAT PERSON.

Q: YOU TOLD MR. COCHRAN A MOMENT AGO THAT YOU DID NOT EXAMINE THE DEFENDANT UP CLOSE; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: JUST WITHIN ABOUT A FOOT OF THE FENCE BETWEEN US.

Q: HAD HE NOT RUN AWAY, WOULD YOU HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE HIM?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION, YOUR HONOR; ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: YES, I WOULD HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO EXAMINE HIM THOROUGHLY HAD HE NOT FLED THE SCENE.

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

THE COURT: THAT WAS A FEW QUESTIONS.

MR. DARDEN: I'M SORRY?

THE COURT: THAT WAS A FEW QUESTIONS.

MR. DARDEN: IN LEGALESE A FEW IS LIKE TEN OR FIFTEEN, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BUT FINALLY, DID HE COMPLAIN TO YOU OR SHOW YOU ANY INJURIES?

MR. COCHRAN: ASKED AND ANSWERED, YOUR HONOR.

MR. DARDEN: LAST QUESTION, JUDGE.

THE COURT: NO. THAT WAS A DIFFERENT QUESTION, SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DID HE COMPLAIN TO YOU OR SHOW YOU ANY INJURIES?

A: NO, HE DID NOT.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU. THAT IS ALL I HAVE.

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU.

FURTHER RECROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. COCHRAN:

Q: ONCE YOU MADE YOUR DECISION TO ARREST MR. O.J. SIMPSON, YOU DIDN'T ASK HIM ABOUT ANY INJURIES ANYWAY, DID YOU? YOU JUST WANTED TO TAKE HIM TO JAIL; ISN'T THAT RIGHT, SIR?

A: ABSOLUTELY.

Q: THAT IS THE SITUATION. YOU WEREN'T INTERESTED IN HIS WELFARE AT THAT POINT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I COULD SEE HE WAS NOT INJURED.

Q: YOU COULDN'T SEE ANYTHING -- STRIKE THAT. YOU HAD MADE A DECISION AND THAT IS WHAT YOU WERE GOING TO CARRY OUT; ISN'T THAT RIGHT, OFFICER?

A: UNDER THE PENAL CODE AND DEPARTMENT POLICY, HE WAS GOING TO JAIL FOR 273.5.

Q: RIGHT. AND AS YOU SAID, IF THE OTHER OFFICERS HAD BEEN OUT THERE SEVEN OR EIGHT TIMES, ISN'T THAT THE SAME LAW THAT YOU WERE UNDER ON JANUARY 1ST?

A: EXACTLY.

Q: THAT WOULD MEAN THAT SINCE HE WASN'T ARRESTED, NOTHING HAPPENED LIKE THAT; ISN'T THAT CORRECT? THAT IS NOT WHAT THE LAW IS; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: NOT NECESSARILY.

Q: NOT NECESSARILY. BUT YOU DON'T KNOW, DO YOU?

A: I DON'T KNOW AND NEITHER DO YOU.

Q: YOU DIDN'T BOTHER CHECKING, DID YOU?

A: NO.

Q: YOU THOUGHT THE SERGEANT WOULD CHECK THAT, DIDN'T YOU?

A: I THOUGHT THE SERGEANT OR THE DETECTIVE THAT WAS HANDLING THE CASE WOULD CHECK THAT, YES.

Q: YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THEY CHECKED THAT OR NOT, DO YOU?

A: AS FAR AS I KNOW, I DON'T KNOW.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU ARE EXCUSED. PLEASE DON'T DISCUSS YOUR TESTIMONY WITH ANY OTHER WITNESSES. MR. DARDEN, YOUR NEXT WITNESS, PLEASE.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE IN MY HAND WHAT APPEARS TO BE THE LAPD POLICY AS IT RELATED TO SPOUSAL ABUSE. IT IS THE POLICY THAT WAS IN EFFECT ON JANUARY 1, 1989. MAY IT BE MARKED PEOPLE'S 6 FOR IDENTIFICATION.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. PEOPLE'S 6.

(PEO'S 6 FOR ID = LAPD POLICY/SPOUSAL ABUSE)

MR. DARDEN: MAY I HAVE ONE MOMENT TO CHECK ON THE NEXT WITNESS?

THE COURT: PLEASE.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MS. CLARK: DETECTIVE FARRELL, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MRS. ROBERTSON.

MIKE FARRELL, CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE PEOPLE, WAS SWORN AND TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:

THE CLERK: PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU MAY GIVE IN THE CAUSE NOW PENDING BEFORE THIS COURT, SHALL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD.

THE WITNESS: I SO DO SWEAR.

THE CLERK: PLEASE BE SEATED AND STATE AND SPELL YOUR FIRST AND LAST NAME FOR THE RECORD.

THE WITNESS: MIKE FARRELL, M-I-K-E F-A-R-R-E-L-L.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. DARDEN:

Q: SIR, WERE YOU A POLICE OFFICER EMPLOYED BY THE LAPD ON JANUARY 3, 1989?

A: YES, I WAS.

Q: AND WHAT WAS YOUR ASSIGNMENT AT THAT TIME?

A: I WAS ASSIGNED TO WEST L.A. DETECTIVES ASSIGNED TO THE CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS DETAIL.

Q: AND DID THE CRIMES AGAINST PERSON DETAIL INCLUDE SPOUSAL BATTERY CASES?

A: YES, THEY DID.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU RESPOND TO 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM ON THE MORNING OF JANUARY 1, 1989?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: YOU WERE NOT A PATROL OFFICER AT THAT TIME?

A: THAT IS NOT -- I WAS NOT A PATROL OFFICER, NO.

Q: AND ON JANUARY 3, 1989, WERE YOU ASSIGNED A CASE INVOLVING NICOLE BROWN AND THIS DEFENDANT?

A: YES, I WAS.

Q: OKAY. AND WHO ASSIGNED YOU THAT CASE, IF YOU RECALL?

A: MY SUPERVISOR WAS DETECTIVE SERGEANT GLENN VARNER.

Q: AND WHAT IS THE NORMAL PROCEDURE FOR A DETECTIVE IN WEST L.A. DIVISION AFTER A CASE IS ASSIGNED TO THEM?

A: WELL, THIS CASE -- AFTER IT WAS ASSIGNED TO ME, MY SUPERVISOR EXPLAINED TO ME WHAT I SHOULD DO WITH IT AND ADJUDICATE IT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE BY INTERVIEWING THE VICTIM AND THE DEFENDANT, IF POSSIBLE.

Q: AND DID YOU INTERVIEW THE DEFENDANT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: DID YOU INTERVIEW HIM IN PERSON?

A: NO, I DID NOT. I INTERVIEWED HIM OVER THE TELEPHONE.

Q: DO YOU RECALL WHO CALLED WHO?

A: YES. I PHONED THE RESIDENCE.

Q: HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU PHONE THE RESIDENCE BEFORE YOU FINALLY SPOKE TO THE DEFENDANT?

A: ONCE. I BELIEVE I CALLED ON THE 3RD OF -- IN THE LATER MORNING, BEFORE THE AFTERNOON.

Q: OKAY. HAD SOMEONE ALREADY PREARRANGED A TIME WHEN THE TWO OF YOU WOULD SPEAK?

A: NOT THAT I RECALL. I JUST MADE MY PHONE CALL.

Q: OKAY. AND HE PICKED UP THE TELEPHONE?

A: YES. NICOLE SIMPSON PICKED UP THE PHONE.

Q: AND DID YOU NEXT SPEAK TO THE DEFENDANT?

A: AFTER I SPOKE WITH NICOLE, YES, I DID.

Q: OKAY. AND DID YOU RECOGNIZE THE DEFENDANT'S VOICE?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WAS IT A VOICE YOU HEARD BEFORE?

A: YES.

Q: WHERE HAD YOU HEARD THE DEFENDANT'S VOICE BEFORE?

A: NUMEROUS TIMES ON TELEVISION.

Q: AND DID YOU ASK THE DEFENDANT ABOUT THE OCCURRENCES OF JANUARY 1, 1989?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND WHAT DID HE SAY?

A: HE EXPLAINED TO ME THAT AFTER HE AND NICOLE RETURNED HOME AFTER A NEW YEAR'S EVE PARTY, THAT THEY WERE READY -- THEY WERE IN THEIR BEDROOM AND A VERBAL DISPUTE BROKE OUT BETWEEN THEM AND THAT THE DISPUTE GOT OUT OF HAND AND IT BECAME PHYSICAL. HE TOLD ME THAT IT TURNED INTO A MUTUAL TYPE WRESTLING MATCH AND THAT WAS BASICALLY IT; NOTHING MORE THAN THAT.

Q: DID YOU ASK THE DEFENDANT ABOUT THE INJURIES NICOLE BROWN SUSTAINED?

A: YEAH. I ASKED HIM ABOUT THE -- BECAUSE I HAD A PHOTOGRAPH THAT SHOWED INJURY TO HER FOREHEAD, AND I TOLD HIM THAT I LOOKED AT A PHOTOGRAPH THAT DEPICTED SOME INJURY TO NICOLE'S FOREHEAD AND HE SAID, "WELL, I KNOW. I WAS SURPRISED TO EVEN SEE THAT IT HAD OCCURRED BECAUSE OF THE INCIDENT."

Q: DID HE DENY CAUSING THOSE INJURIES?

A: NO, HE DID NOT.

Q: DID HE ADMIT CAUSING THOSE INJURIES?

A: YES, HE DID.

Q: DID YOU ASK THE DEFENDANT ABOUT THE 911 CALL TO THE POLICE?

A: NO, I DON'T THINK I ASKED HIM ANYTHING ABOUT THE PHONE CALL ITSELF, NO.

Q: OKAY. SO BASICALLY THEN ALL YOU ASKED HIM WAS WHAT HAPPENED?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: NOW, AFTER RECEIVING THIS INFORMATION FROM THE DEFENDANT, DID YOU WRITE A REPORT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: DID YOU INCLUDE IN THAT REPORT THE INFORMATION THE DEFENDANT GAVE YOU?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: DID YOU CONTINUE TO INVESTIGATE THE MATTER?

A: YES, I DID. I ASKED -- AFTER I DID THE INITIAL TELEPHONE INTERVIEW WITH THE DEFENDANT AND NICOLE, I TOLD NICOLE THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE HER IN PERSON, IF SHE CAN MAKE ARRANGEMENTS TO COME TO THE POLICE STATION. SHE AGREED AND SAID SHE WOULD COME DOWN THE NEXT DAY. SHE WOULD ALSO BRING HER TWO KIDS WITH HER, AND SHE DID COME DOWN AND MEET ME.

Q: OKAY. AND SO YOU DID MEET NICOLE BROWN?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WHAT DAY WAS THAT?

A: I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE 3RD -- THE 4TH, THE 4TH OF JANUARY, THE NEXT DAY.

Q: OKAY. AND WHAT INJURIES, IF ANY, DID YOU NOTICE ON HER FACE AND NECK AND HEAD AREA AT THAT TIME?

A: I JUST NOTICED SOME BRUISING ON HER FOREHEAD. THAT WAS ALL.

THE COURT: THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THE WITNESS INDICATED THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE FOREHEAD.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: AND DID YOU REINTERVIEW HER?

A: YEAH. I EXPLAINED TO HER WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN IN THIS CASE AND I ASKED -- I EXPLAINED TO HER THE PROCEDURES THAT WOULD HAPPEN. I REVIEWED THE ORIGINAL POLICE REPORT WITH HER AND ASKED HER TO REVIEW IT. WE REVIEWED IT TOGETHER. I ASKED HER, "DOES THIS ACCURATELY DEPICT WHAT HAPPENED OVER THE WEEKEND?" SHE SAID, "YES." I SAID, "IS THIS YOUR SIGNATURE ON THE REPORT?" SHE SAID, "YES, IT IS." AND THEN I EXPLAINED THAT I WOULD BE PRETTY -- PREPARING THE CASE FOR A PROSECUTING ATTORNEY.

Q: DID YOU REFER THE CASE TO THE L.A. CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND DO THEY HAVE A SPECIAL UNIT THAT HANDLES CASES LIKE THESE?

A: I BELIEVE THEY DO. I MET WITH THE SUPERVISING ATTORNEY THERE AND PROVIDED HER WITH THE INFORMATION.

Q: AND WHAT WAS THE SUPERVISING ATTORNEY'S NAME?

A: MARY CLARE MOLIDOR.

Q: YOU GAVE DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY MOLIDOR ALL THE REPORTS?

A: THAT IS CORRECT.

Q: DID YOU SHOW HER THE PHOTOGRAPHS?

A: YES, I DID.

THE COURT: HOW DO WE SPELL MOLIDOR?

THE WITNESS: I BELIEVE IT IS M-O-L-I-D-O-R.

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DO YOU RECALL THE DATE IN WHICH YOU TURNED OVER YOUR CASE FILE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE?

A: I BELIEVE IT MAY HAVE BEEN THE AFTERNOON OF THE 4TH OR THE MORNING OF THE 5TH. I DO NOT RECALL THE EXACT TIME.

Q: AND AFTER YOU REFERRED THE MATTER OVER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, DID YOU AGAIN SPEAK WITH THE DEFENDANT?

A: YES, I DID. HE PHONED ME AT MY DESK EARLY IN THE AFTERNOON. I BELIEVE IT WAS AFTER LUNCH.

Q: WAS THE CASE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT FILED?

A: YES, IT WAS.

Q: WHAT WAS FILED?

A: ONE COUNT OF SPOUSAL BATTERY. I BELIEVE IT IS 273(A) OF THE PENAL CODE. I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE.

MR. DARDEN: MAY I HAVE ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: SURE.

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

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: WHEN YOU SPOKE TO THE DEFENDANT ON THE TELEPHONE, JANUARY 5 -- THAT CALL WAS JANUARY 5, CORRECT?

A: THAT IS CORRECT.

Q: WHEN YOU SPOKE TO HIM ON THE TELEPHONE ON JANUARY 5, WHAT DID HE SAY?

A: WELL, MR. SIMPSON PHONED ME AND HE WAS INQUIRING ABOUT WHAT HIS CASE STATUS WITH HIS INCIDENT WAS. I EXPLAINED TO HIM THAT I HAD TURNED OVER THE ENTIRE CASE FILE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND A DECISION HAD NOT YET BEEN MADE AND MR. -- THE DEFENDANT AND I DID HAVE A CONVERSATION. HE DISCUSSED WITH ME HIS FEELINGS ABOUT THE MATTER. HE WANTED TO RELAY TO ME THAT HE WAS SORRY THAT THE POLICE HAD TO COME TO HIS RESIDENCE AND THAT ME AS A DETECTIVE HAD TO GET INVOLVED IN HIS PERSONAL PROBLEMS. AND HE WAS REALLY REMORSEFUL ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED THAT DAY AND THAT HE AND NICOLE WERE SEEKING -- WERE GOING TO SEEK COUNSELING TO RESOLVE THEIR FAMILY PROBLEMS, AND THAT I -- IF I COULD RELAY THAT TO THE CITY ATTORNEY WHEN THEY MAKE THEIR FINAL DECISION IN FILING THE CASE. I TOLD MR. SIMPSON I WOULD DO THAT, BUT I ALSO TOLD MR. SIMPSON THAT IT IS MOST LIKELY HE IS LOOKING AT A FILING FOR A CRIMINAL CHARGE AND THAT HE -- HE WOULD ONE DAY HAVE TO FACE UP TO WHAT HAPPENED AND WOULD HAVE TO ANSWER FOR IT.

Q: DO YOU RECALL HIM SAYING ANYTHING ELSE?

A: NO. THAT WAS -- IT WAS ACTUALLY A PLEASANT CONVERSATION. I DON'T RECALL ANYTHING ELSE.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU WRITE A REPORT IN THIS MATTER?

A: YES, I DID.

MR. DARDEN: I HAVE A REPORT HERE, YOUR HONOR, DATED FEBRUARY 8, 1989. DO YOU HAVE IT?

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. DARDEN, YOU HAVE A REPORT?

MR. DARDEN: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: FEBRUARY 8TH.

MR. DARDEN: YES.

THE COURT: '89.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: BEFORE I PROCEED WITH THE REPORT, DETECTIVE, DID THE DEFENDANT DESCRIBE FOR YOU OR MENTION TO YOU HOW NICOLE BROWN SUSTAINED THE INJURIES SHE SUSTAINED?

A: AGAIN, HE EXPLAINED THAT IT WAS A RESULT OF AN ARGUMENT THAT THEY HAD GOTTEN INTO THAT RESULTED IN A PHYSICAL ALTERCATION, MORE OF A MUTUAL TYPE WRESTLING MATCH AND NOTHING ELSE.

Q: DO YOU RECALL EVERYTHING THAT WAS SAID IN THE CONVERSATION?

A: I -- THAT IS THE MOST THAT I RECALL. UMM, IF I COULD LOOK -- IF I HAVE ANYTHING ELSE, I WOULD HAVE TO REFER TO THE REPORT.

Q: WOULD THAT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION?

A: YES.

MR. DARDEN: MAY I, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YOU MAY.

MR. DARDEN: I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW THE WITNESS THE REPORT DATED FEBRUARY 8, 1989, AND MR. COCHRAN HAS A COPY, AS I DO.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE, IF YOU WOULD JUST READ THAT TO YOURSELF, PLEASE.

THE WITNESS: (WITNESS COMPLIES.)

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: HAVE YOU READ THE REPORT, DETECTIVE?

A: YES.

Q: DOES IT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION?

A: YES, IT DOES.

Q: WHAT ELSE DID THE DEFENDANT SAY?

A: HE TOLD ME THAT HE WAS SORRY FOR WHAT HE DID TO NICOLE AND THAT HE DIDN'T MEAN TO HARM HER IN ANY WAY AND THAT HE WOULD SEEK COUNSELING WITH HER.

Q: DIDN'T HE ALSO TELL YOU THAT HE KNEW WHAT HE DID WAS WRONG?

A: YES, HE DID.

Q: ISN'T THAT WHAT YOU WROTE IN YOUR REPORT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: NOW, WHEN HE TOLD YOU THAT HE DIDN'T MEAN TO HARM HIS WIFE, DID HE ELABORATE ON THAT AT ALL?

A: NOT THAT I RECALL.

Q: HE DIDN'T DESCRIBE THE INCIDENT AS A MUTUAL WRESTLING MATCH IN THIS JANUARY 5 CONVERSATION, DID HE?

A: NO, HE DID NOT.

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

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DID HE ASK YOU NOT TO FILE THE CASE?

A: HE ASKED ME TO RELAY HIS FEELINGS ABOUT THE WHOLE MATTER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

Q: AND DID YOU DO THAT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: THE REPORT THAT YOU JUST READ DATED FEBRUARY 8, 1989, THAT REPORT WASN'T IN EXISTENCE WHEN YOU REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: NO. I, UMM, MAYBE NEED TO MAKE SOMETHING CLEAR ON THE REPORT. IT IS DATED 2/8/89. THAT MAY BE A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR. THE CASE WAS FILED ON JANUARY 30, 1989. I MAY HAVE TYPED THE -- I TOOK THE STATEMENT THAT HE GAVE ME THAT SAME DAY AND I MAY HAVE PUT THE WRONG DATE ON THERE. IT SHOULD BE -- I BELIEVE IT IS 1/8/89.

Q: OKAY. BUT HE DID APOLOGIZE FOR HIS CONDUCT?

A: YES, HE DID. HE WAS VERY CORDIAL ABOUT IT.

Q: OKAY. NOW, AFTER YOU REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, DID THEY GIVE YOU ANY FURTHER DIRECTIONS?

A: YES. AFTER, UMM, SOME TIME, THEY ASKED ME TO LOOK INTO THE OTHER INCIDENTS THAT WERE DESCRIBED BY NICOLE. SHE APPARENTLY TOLD THE OFFICERS WHO WERE RESPONDING TO HER HOME THAT THE POLICE HAD BEEN OUT THERE ON NUMEROUS OTHER TIMES AND THEY ASKED ME TO LOOK INTO THAT SITUATION.

Q: AND DID YOU LOOK INTO THAT SITUATION?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: DID YOU DETERMINE THAT THERE WERE OTHER SITUATIONS OR OCCASIONS WHEN LAPD OFFICERS WENT TO 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM?

A: YES, I DID. I INQUIRED WITH SOME OF THE MORE SENIOR OFFICERS AT WEST L.A. THAT HAD BEEN WORKING THE DIVISION FOR OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO OBJECT, NOT TOTALLY RESPONSIVE. "INQUIRED" MAY TEND TO BE HEARSAY. I AM NOT SURE OF THE RESPONSE AT THIS POINT.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. DARDEN: WHAT QUESTION?

THE COURT: THE QUESTION IS JUST A LITTLE OVERBROAD.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: WHAT ACTION, IF ANY, DID YOU TAKE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT OTHER POLICE UNITS OR OFFICERS HAD GONE TO ROCKINGHAM?

A: I SPOKE WITH SENIOR OFFICERS AT WEST L.A. AND ASKED THEM IF THEY HAD EVER BEEN TO THE LOCATION ON ROCKINGHAM IN THE PAST.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. DARDEN, I TAKE IT YOU ARE ABOUT TO LAUNCH INTO ANOTHER LINE OF INQUIRY AT THIS POINT?

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

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DID YOU DO ANYTHING ELSE --

THE COURT: EXCUSE ME, MR. DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN: YES?

THE COURT: I TAKE IT YOU ARE ABOUT TO LAUNCH INTO ANOTHER LINE OF INQUIRY AT THIS POINT?

MR. DARDEN: YES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OUR AFTERNOON RECESS THEN AT THIS POINT, IF YOU RECALL OUR SCHEDULE FOR TIME WE ACTUALLY GET STARTED AT 1:30. WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OUR BREAK UNTIL A QUARTER OF 3:00 BECAUSE IT TAKES THE SHERIFFS A HALF AN HOUR TO CYCLE THE JURORS. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE WILL TAKE OUR AFTERNOON RECESS FOR THIS AFTERNOON. WE WILL RESUME AT 3:15. REMEMBER MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU. DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE WITH ANYBODY, HAVE ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH ANYBODY OR DISCUSS THE CASE WITH ANYBODY. WE WILL SEE YOU BACK HERE AT 3:15. ALL RIGHT. WE ARE IN RECESS. DETECTIVE, WE WILL SEE YOU BACK HERE AT 3:15.

THE WITNESS: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

(RECESS.)

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE'VE BEEN REJOINED BY OUR PROSECUTORS. ALL RIGHT. MR. DOUGLAS, YOU HAD SOMETHING YOU WANTED TO BRING TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION BEFORE WE INVITE THE JURY TO JOIN US?

MR. DOUGLAS: I DID, YOUR HONOR. THERE WAS A LETTER THAT WAS TRANSMITTED TO THE COURT AND A COPY GIVEN TO COUNSEL CONCERNING OUR SUPREME INTEREST IN QUICKLY EXAMINING ITEMS OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. AS THE COURT IS AWARE, THE PEOPLE HAVE APPARENTLY NOW CONCLUDED THEIR TESTING ON ITEMS OF EVIDENCE. THERE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSIONS FROM MR. BLASIER, MR. SCHECK ALONG WITH MR. CLARK AND MR. HARMON, AND THERE HAS BEEN AN AGREEMENT THAT THE ITEMS MAY BE SHIPPED TO THE FORENSICS LABORATORY IN ALBANY, NEW YORK, OF DR. BARBARA WOLF, ONE OF OUR DOCTORS. WE HAVE NOT IN EARLIER OCCASIONS HAD A CHANCE TO PHYSICALLY TOUCH ANY OF THE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE, ANY OF THE SEROLOGICAL EVIDENCE MIND YOU. WE HAD NOT HAD A CHANCE TO TAKE OUR OWN PICTURES.

WE WERE HOPING THAT THIS CAN BE DONE SOON AND WE WERE SEEKING TO INTRODUCE THE PROTOCOL CONSISTENT WITH THAT WHICH WAS USED WITH CELLMARK SO THAT THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE PRESENT FOR CHAIN OF CUSTODY MATTERS. THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO OBSERVE THE CUTTING OR THE SPLITTING OF ANY SAMPLES. HOWEVER, THEY WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO WATCH THE ACTUAL TESTING SO THAT WE CAN MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF OUR TESTING METHODOLOGIES. I WANTED TO TRY TO GET SOME SORT OF CLOSURE ON THIS ISSUE SO THAT WE MAY QUICKLY BE ABLE TO GET THE ITEMS TAKEN BACK, TESTED AND THEN RETURNED BEFORE THEY BE USED IN THIS ACTUAL TRIAL. GIVEN THAT WE ARE CURRENTLY ON THE DOMESTIC DISCORD ASPECT OF THE TRIAL WHERE THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE IS LESS PROBATIVE OR EVEN NECESSARY, I WAS HOPEFUL THAT I COULD FASHION SOME RESOLUTION TODAY SO THAT WE HAVE THOSE ITEMS SENT OUT IN THE COMING DAYS.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: YES.

THE COURT: I DID RECEIVE A PHOTOCOPY OF A FAX LETTER AND I DON'T RECALL -- HOWEVER, THAT WAS EARLY IN THE MORNING AS WE WERE TRYING TO DEAL WITH OTHER MATTERS. MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR.

I SPOKE TO MR. DOUGLAS THIS AFTERNOON AND HE INFORMED ME AT A QUARTER TO 3:00 THAT HE WANTED TO ADDRESS THIS MATTER AT 3:15. I CALLED UPSTAIRS TO FIND OUT IF I COULD GET ROCK AND WOODY HERE BECAUSE THEY DID HAVE VERY SPECIFIC REQUESTS ABOUT THE PROCEDURES THEY WANTED TO HAVE EMPLOYED. UNFORTUNATELY, THEY ARE AT SID. THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE IT UNTIL TOMORROW. HOWEVER, I ASKED THAT THEY BE AVAILABLE FIRST THING IN THE MORNING TOMORROW TO ADDRESS IT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THAT SOUNDS REASONABLE. MR. DOUGLAS, I HAVE NOT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO READ THAT LETTER BECAUSE OF THE OTHER MATTERS WE HAD THIS MORNING.

MR. DOUGLAS: VERY WELL, YOUR HONOR. SO WE'LL TAKE IT UP IN THE MORNING?

THE COURT: FIRST THING.

MR. DOUGLAS: THANK YOU.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: GREAT. ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE ASK THE JURY TO JOIN US?

MR. COCHRAN: THE PROBLEM IS, I THINK OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION, WE SHOULD ADVISE THE COURT THAT AFTER WE FINISH THIS WITNESS, I THINK BEFORE THE NEXT WITNESS, MR. DARDEN HAS INDICATED IT WILL BE NECESSARY TO HAVE PERHAPS A 402 HEARING. WE MAY NOT HAVE MENTIONED THAT TO THE COURT. SO I WANTED TO LET THE COURT KNOW.

THE COURT: WHO IS THE NEXT WITNESS?

MR. DARDEN: RON SHIPP, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THAT'S RIGHT. OKAY.

MR. DARDEN: BUT THAT MAY REQUIRE A CHAMBERS CONFERENCE BEFORE WE GO ON THE RECORD.

MR. COCHRAN: WE CAN START OFF IN OPEN COURT.

THE COURT: I'M AWARE OF THE ISSUE. THANK YOU. DEPUTY MAGNERA, LET'S HAVE THE JURY, PLEASE.

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

THE COURT: THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. BE SEATED, PLEASE. ALL RIGHT. THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT ALL OF THE PARTIES ARE AGAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT. DETECTIVE FARRELL IS ON THE WITNESS STAND. DETECTIVE FARRELL, YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH. AND, MR. DARDEN, DO YOU WISH TO COMPLETE YOUR DIRECT EXAMINATION?

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. COCHRAN.

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

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. COCHRAN:

Q: GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. FARRELL.

A: GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNSEL.

Q: YOU ARE PRESENTLY ASSIGNED TO THE WEST LOS ANGELES DETECTIVE DIVISION; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT IS NOT CORRECT. I AM CURRENTLY ASSIGNED TO WEST TRAFFIC DIVISION.

Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU FORMERLY WORKED WEST LOS ANGELES DETECTIVES?

A: CORRECT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN IN THE WEST LOS ANGELES DIVISION ALTOGETHER?

A: APPROXIMATELY SEVEN YEARS.

Q: AND YOU ARE A SERGEANT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I'M A DETECTIVE.

Q: OKAY. AND BEFORE THAT, YOU WORKED AS A SERGEANT?

A: I WAS A PATROLMAN, TRAINING OFFICER.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND NOW YOU'RE WORKING AS A DETECTIVE?

A: THAT IS CORRECT. I AM A DETECTIVE SUPERVISOR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, IN CONNECTION WITH THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE MATTER WAS INITIALLY HANDLED BY AN OFFICER EDWARDS; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: AND YOU HAD OCCASION TO REVIEW HIS REPORTS OF JANUARY 1ST, 1989, THEN YOU STARTED HANDLING THE CASE AS THE DETECTIVE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND IN THAT CONNECTION, YOU WROTE SOME REPORTS ALSO; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU SHARED WITH US THAT IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION, YOU PREPARED A REPORT, AND IN THAT REPORT, MR. SIMPSON TALKED TO YOU OVER THE PHONE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT WAS THE DATE OF THAT? WAS THAT JANUARY 3RD OR THEREABOUTS?

A: YES.

Q: SO THE FIRST TIME YOU TALKED TO MR. O.J. SIMPSON, JANUARY THE 3RD, THAT WAS IN THIS PHONE CONVERSATION WHEN YOU CALLED HIS HOUSE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: HIS WIFE ANSWERED THE PHONE?

A: YES.

Q: AND THEREAFTER, YOU TALKED TO HIM?

A: CORRECT.

Q: NOW, IN THAT CONVERSATION, MR. SIMPSON ADVISED YOU THAT BOTH HE AND HIS WIFE HAD BEEN DRINKING AFTER COMING HOME FROM A PARTY; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES. THAT'S WHAT I RECALL.

Q: AND THEY HAD BEEN, AS FAR AS YOU KNEW, TO A NEW YEAR'S EVE PARTY; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU RECALL WHAT TIME HE INDICATED THEY CAME HOME FROM THIS PARTY, SIR?

A: NO, I DO NOT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND HE TOLD YOU THAT AFTER THAT, AFTER COMING HOME FROM THIS PARTY AND BEEN DRINKING, A VERBAL DISPUTE BROKE OUT. DID HE TELL YOU THAT?

A: YES.

Q: AND HE ADMITTED THAT IN THIS VERBAL DISPUTE, THERE WAS A PHYSICAL ALTERCATION THAT RESULTED IN KIND OF A MUTUAL WRESTLING TYPE OF ALTERCATION IS THE WORDS HE USED, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S HOW HE DESCRIBED IT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THAT HE TOLD YOU THEREAFTER THAT WHEN HE SAW HIS WIFE, HE WAS SURPRISED TO SEE A BUMP OR A BRUISE ON HER FOREHEAD; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: BY THE TIME YOU HAD THIS CONVERSATION WITH MR. SIMPSON, YOU OF COURSE HAD SOME POLAROID SHOTS; IS THAT CORRECT --

A: YES.

Q: -- TAKEN? DO YOU RECALL HOW MANY PICTURES THERE WERE?

A: THREE.

Q: AND THEY WERE OF MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON?

A: YES.

Q: AND WITH REGARD TO THE POLAROID CAMERA, DO YOU KNOW OR WAS THERE SUCH A CAMERA AT WEST LOS ANGELES STATION DURING THE EARLY DAYS OF JANUARY OF 1989?

A: I WOULD ASSUME SO. I HAVE NEVER USED ONE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU WOULD ASSUME THERE WAS. AND I PRESUME THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE OWNED BY THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT OR THE OFFICERS THEMSELVES OWN THEM.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND AS SUCH, THE FILM -- IF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES OWNED SUCH A POLAROID CAMERA, THE FILM WOULD GENERALLY BE ALSO OWNED BY THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, RIGHT?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: YOU CAN ASK HIM IF HE KNOWS.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: IF YOU KNOW.

A: I WOULD ASSUME SO.

Q: THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES DOES HAVE THE WHEREWITHAL TO BUY FILM, DON'T THEY?

A: I HOPE SO, YES.

Q: YES. AND THEY DID BACK IN JANUARY 1989; DID THEY NOT?

A: I BELIEVE SO, YES.

Q: THIS ISN'T ORANGE COUNTY. WE STILL --

THE COURT: NOT YET.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: NOT YET. WE STILL HAVE FUNDS, RIGHT?

THE COURT: IT MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THIS, MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: I'D BETTER HURRY UP SO I DON'T WANT TO CAUSE ANY FURTHER --

THE COURT: I THINK WE'VE TALKED ENOUGH ABOUT POLAROIDS.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AT ANY RATE, YOU WERE AWARE THAT THERE WERE FACILITIES FOR TAKING PICTURES OF INDIVIDUALS' INJURIES BACK IN JANUARY OF 1989 AT WEST LOS ANGELES STATION?

A: NOT FACILITIES THAT ARE DESIGNED TO TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS OF INJURIES. I -- WE PREFER TO HAVE THE VICTIM BE TRANSPORTED TO SID PHOTO LAB FOR PROPER PHOTOGRAPHIC TYPE THINGS BECAUSE THEY HAVE BETTER EQUIPMENT OBVIOUSLY.

Q: I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT I MEAN, WHERE YOU HAVE A SITUATION WHERE SOMEONE WAS NOT TRANSPORTED TO SID FOR PHOTOGRAPHS, YOU BECAME AWARE THAT THERE WAS AN ABILITY AT WEST LOS ANGELES STATION TO TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS?

A: I ASSUMED THAT SINCE I HAD THREE PHOTOGRAPHS GIVEN TO ME.

Q: AND YOU SAW THEM. ALL RIGHT. VERY WELL. NOW, IN YOUR CONVERSATION OF JANUARY THE 3RD WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT, YOU SPOKE ALSO WITH NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND I PRESUME, SIR, THAT YOU HAD NEVER MET WITH OR TALKED WITH EITHER OF THESE INDIVIDUALS, THAT IS EITHER NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON OR O.J. SIMPSON, UP TO THAT POINT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AND IN HER CONVERSATION WITH YOU, DID SHE TELL YOU WHAT --

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, TO THE FORM OF THE QUESTION. CALLS FOR HEARSAY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I FINISH THE QUESTION, YOUR HONOR? I WOULD LIKE TO FINISH THE QUESTION.

THE COURT: IT'S ASKING IF SHE SAID SOMETHING.

MR. COCHRAN: I WAS GOING TO PHRASE THE QUESTION IN A WAY THAT YOU MIGHT NOT FIND OBJECTIONABLE.

THE COURT: I WILL HEAR THE QUESTION.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO TRY TO DO.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: IN YOUR CONVERSATION WITH NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, WAS THE SUBJECT MATTER BROACHED OF WHAT -- WAS THE SUBJECT MATTER BROACHED OF WHAT CAUSED THIS ARGUMENT BETWEEN SHE AND HER HUSBAND IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS OF JANUARY THE 1ST OF 1989? YOU CAN ANSWER THAT YES OR NO.

A: SHE DID NOT GIVE ME DETAILS ABOUT WHAT ACTUALLY CAUSED THE ARGUMENT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, LET ME GET BACK TO MY QUESTION. WAS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THAT ARGUMENT, THE CAUSE OF THAT ARGUMENT DISCUSSED; YES OR NO?

A: NOT THAT I RECALL, NOT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF WHAT CAUSED THE VERBAL DISPUTE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU AT ANY TIME HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH DETECTIVE EDWARDS WHEREIN HE INDICATED TO YOU WHETHER OR NOT HE HAD BEEN TOLD WHAT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THAT ARGUMENT WAS?

A: NOT THAT I RECALL.

Q: AND YOU NEVER SAW ANY OF THE REPORTS, DID YOU, ANY OF DETECTIVE EDWARDS' REPORTS, THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE ARGUMENT?

A: I READ HIS FOLLOW-UP REPORT WHICH I REQUESTED. THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE ACTUAL FIGHT? NO, I DON'T RECALL SEEING ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO AS YOU SIT HERE NOW EVEN TODAY, YOU DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT CAUSED THIS ALTERCATION OR CONFRONTATION; IS THAT CORRECT, SIR?

A: NO, I DO NOT.

Q: ALL RIGHT, SIR. NOW, YOU THEN HAD OCCASION I GUESS AFTER THE JANUARY 3RD CONVERSATION, WHICH WAS THE FIRST ONE, TO HAVE A SECOND CONVERSATION WITH MR. O.J. SIMPSON?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND THE SECOND CONVERSATION WAS ON OR ABOUT JANUARY 5TH, 1989; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT CONVERSATION, MR. O.J. SIMPSON CONTACTED YOU; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT. HE CALLED ME AT MY DESK.

Q: AND OF COURSE, YOU RECOGNIZED HIS VOICE AGAIN; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YEP. YES, I DID.

Q: AND AT THAT TIME, HAD YOU COMPLETED YOUR INVESTIGATION INTO THIS PARTICULAR MATTER?

A: WELL, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, I HAD CLEARED THE CRIME. I IDENTIFIED THE INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE AND I BELIEVE I HAD ENOUGH TO PRESENT TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO SEEK A PROSECUTION.

Q: ALL RIGHT. BUT AS OF THE DATE JANUARY 5TH, 1989, THERE HAD BEEN NO DETERMINATION MADE AT THAT POINT WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY ATTORNEY WAS GOING TO FILE; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU SO INDICATE THAT IN YOUR REPORT?

A: YES.

Q: YOU COMPLETED YOUR PARTICULAR INVESTIGATION, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: AND IN THIS CONVERSATION THAT YOU HAD ON JANUARY 5TH, IS THIS THE CONVERSATION WHERE MR. SIMPSON VOLUNTARILY STATED TO YOU CERTAIN CONCERNS AND FEELINGS THAT HE HAD REGARDING THIS CASE?

A: YES.

Q: MR. SIMPSON TOLD YOU, DID HE NOT, THAT HE REGRETTED THE ENTIRE INCIDENT? IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: THAT HE WAS SORRY THAT YOU AS A POLICE OFFICER HAD TO GET INVOLVED IN HIS PERSONAL PROBLEMS?

A: YES.

Q: WENT ON TO CLAIM RESPONSIBILITY AND SAY THAT HE KNEW THAT HIS CONDUCT WAS WRONG. DID HE SAY THAT?

A: YES, HE DID.

Q: AND HE DIDN'T MEAN TO HARM HIS WIFE NICOLE. HE TOLD YOU THAT; DID HE NOT?

A: YES.

Q: HE WENT ON TO TELL YOU THAT HE PLANNED TO SCHEDULE BOTH HIMSELF AND NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON FOR COUNSELING; DID HE NOT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT HE HAD ASKED YOU TO COMMUNICATE THAT INFORMATION TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WHEN YOU TOOK THE CASE TO THEM FOR FILING OR WHATEVER; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: AND IN THAT CONVERSATION OF JANUARY 5TH, YOU TOLD HIM AT SOME POINT THAT YOU FELT THAT AT SOME POINT, HE HAD TO STAND UP AND ADMIT RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY ACTIONS THAT HE HAD TAKEN ON JANUARY 1ST; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND AS THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER, YOU ARE AWARE, ARE YOU NOT, THAT AT SOME POINT THEREAFTER, AFTER JANUARY 5TH, MR. SIMPSON DID IN FACT COME INTO A COURT, ENTERED A NO CONTEST PLEA AND RESOLVED THAT MATTER; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR HEARSAY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. HE IS THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER. DO YOU KNOW?

THE WITNESS: I NEVER SAW MR. SIMPSON IN COURT EVER.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WELL, YOU DIDN'T SEE HIM IN COURT, BUT YOU BECAME AWARE, DID YOU NOT, THAT THE MATTER WAS RESOLVED BY WAY OF A NOLO CONTENDERE PLEA BY MR. O.J. SIMPSON; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND AS THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER, YOU KNEW THAT MATTER WAS RESOLVED WITHOUT A TRIAL; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, LET'S BACK UP FOR A MOMENT. PRIOR TO MR. SIMPSON ENTERING THE NO CONTEST PLEA, DID MRS. NICOLE SIMPSON SEEK TO DROP ALL CHARGES AGAINST HIM?

A: WHEN I FIRST --

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION.

THE WITNESS: WHEN I FIRST MET HER ON THE 4TH --

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: WHAT'S THE OBJECTION?

MR. DARDEN: CAN WE APPROACH?

THE COURT: SURE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: WE ARE AT THE SIDEBAR. WHAT'S THE OBJECTION?

MR. DARDEN: 352 OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT, THAT SHE WANTED TO DROP THE CHARTS.

THE COURT: WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO DO THAT? THIS IS GOING TO BATTERED WOMAN'S SYNDROME EVIDENCE.

MR. COCHRAN: THANKS, JUDGE. THAT'S NOT FAIR.

THE COURT: I'M JUST CURIOUS WHY YOU WOULD OBJECT TO THAT.

MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE, THAT'S NOT FAIR. WE DON'T WANT THE COURT TO HELP THEM ANYMORE. THE POINT IS, IF THEY LEAD THIS WITNESS UP TO A PARTICULAR POINT, WE CAN GET THIS IN. I THINK IF HE'S PERMITTED TO GET THIS -- HE TALKED ABOUT ALL THE THINGS SHE DID, ALL THE THINGS SHE SAID. IF SHE WANTED TO DROP THE CHARGES -- THIS IS THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER. NOW I'M NOT PERMITTED TO DO IT?

MR. DARDEN: I WITHDRAW THE OBJECTION.

MR. COCHRAN: I DON'T WANT IT BASED, YOUR HONOR -- I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR EVEN THOUGH YOUR HONOR OVERRULED THEIR OBJECTION TO GIVE THE PEOPLE ADVICE. THAT'S VERY DISTURBING.

THE COURT: YOU'RE TRYING TO ASK HIM THE QUESTION.

MR. COCHRAN: I AM SAYING, HE DOESN'T NEED HELP FROM YOU.

THE COURT: THEY HAVE VALID REASONS TO GET IT IN.

MR. COCHRAN: I'M SAYING I DON'T WANT YOUR HONOR HELPING THEM. I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR.

THE COURT: JOHNNIE, I'M TRYING TO SAY, LISTEN, THERE'S NO DISPUTE, THAT IF HE PLED NOLO, WHY ARE WE FIGHTING ABOUT THAT? THERE'S NO DISPUTE THAT SHE TRIED -- SHE DIDN'T WANT TO GO FORWARD. SO WHY ARE WE FIGHTING OVER STUFF EVERYONE KNOWS?

MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO KNOW. THAT'S FINE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL. OBJECTION IS OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DO YOU HAVE THE QUESTION IN MIND? I CAN TRY TO PHRASE IT AGAIN.

A: CAN YOU PLEASE REPEAT IT?

Q: CERTAINLY, SIR. PRIOR TO MR. SIMPSON ENTERING A PLEA TO THIS MISDEMEANOR CHARGE OF 273.5 P.C., DID MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON INDICATE A DESIRE TO DROP ALL CHARGES AGAINST HER HUSBAND AND HAVE A CITY ATTORNEY HEARING?

A: WELL, WHEN I FIRST MET HER ON THE 4TH, SHE BROUGHT THE KIDS WITH HER AND I DISCUSSED WHAT HAPPENS WITH THESE TYPE OF CASES, AND I WANTED HER INPUT ABOUT HER FEELINGS TOWARDS PROSECUTION. AT THAT TIME, SHE SAID IF SHE COULD AVOID IT, SHE DOESN'T WANT TO PROSECUTE. BUT I TOLD HER THAT NO MATTER WHAT SHE TOLD ME, EVEN THOUGH SHE DIDN'T WANT TO PROSECUTE, I WOULD HAVE TO TAKE THE CASE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. THEN I DISCUSSED SOME OF THE OPTIONS THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY MAY DO, AND ONE OF THOSE IS THE CITY ATTORNEY HEARING. AND THEN AT THAT TIME, SHE SAID, "WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT. I THINK THAT WOULD BE NEAT."

Q: LET ME JUST BACK UP. IN YOUR REPORT, YOU SPELLED IT OUT. ON JANUARY 4TH, '89, YOU CONTACTED MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON. AT THAT TIME, SHE TOLD YOU SHE DID NOT WANT TO PROSECUTE, BUT WOULD WELCOME A CITY ATTORNEY HEARING. THAT'S AN INFORMAL HEARING AT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, RIGHT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: SIT AROUND WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY AND YOU DISCUSS THIS MATTER, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: AND SO THEREAFTER, YOU TOLD HER THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY COULD MAKE THEIR OWN JUDGMENT, THEY MAY WANT TO GO FORWARD WITH THE CHARGES WHETHER OR NOT SHE WANTED TO PROSECUTE OR NOT. IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID?

A: THAT IS CORRECT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND ULTIMATELY, WE KNOW THAT MR. SIMPSON DID ENTER THIS NO CONTEST PLEA TO THE MISDEMEANOR CHARGES, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: YOU WERE NOT IN COURT THAT DAY HOWEVER?

A: YES, I WAS.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO YOU DID SEE HIM ENTER THE PLEA?

A: NO. I NEVER SAW MR. SIMPSON. I BELIEVE I WENT WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY WHO WAS ROB PRINGLE AT THE TIME. I APPEARED IN COURT THAT DAY AND I BELIEVE -- I STAYED OUTSIDE. THEY KEPT ME OUTSIDE IN THE HALL. SO I NEVER -- THEY JUST TOLD ME WHAT HAPPENED.

Q: SO YOU WERE IN THE HALLWAY?

A: YEAH.

Q: OKAY. I UNDERSTAND. NOW, JUST BEFORE THE BREAK, MR. DARDEN WAS STARTING TO ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR INVESTIGATION ABOUT OTHER INCIDENTS INVOLVING ROCKINGHAM, AND THEN WE TOOK A BREAK; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: WHEN YOU TOOK THE BREAK, DID YOU GO UP AND TALK TO MR. DARDEN ABOUT THAT?

A: NO. WE JUST WENT UP TO THE OFFICE. I HAD A DRINK OF WATER.

Q: HE NEVER ASKED YOU WHAT THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS ARE GOING TO BE?

A: NO, HE DID NOT.

Q: HE DIDN'T SAY HE WAS GOING TO COME BACK AND NOT ASK YOU THOSE QUESTIONS?

A: NO, HE DID NOT.

Q: WHAT IF I ASKED YOU THOSE QUESTIONS?

A: I'LL ANSWER THEM.

Q: DO I WANT TO HEAR THE ANSWERS? I'LL STRIKE THAT. NOW, AT ANY RATE, YOU -- IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION AS ONE OF THE DETECTIVES, YOU TOLD US JUST PRIOR TO THE BREAK THAT YOU HAD OCCASION TO TALK WITH SOME OFFICERS AT THAT PARTICULAR STATION; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT. THE CITY ATTORNEY ASKED ME TO LOOK INTO POSSIBLE OTHER INCIDENTS UP AT THE RESIDENCE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO YOU TALKED TO SOME OFFICERS. HOW MANY -- JUST TELL ME IN NUMBER, HOW MANY OFFICERS DID YOU TALK TO ALTOGETHER?

A: I CAN'T RECALL. MAYBE 10.

Q: AND DID YOU TAKE ANY REPORTS FROM ANY OF THOSE OFFICERS?

A: I REQUESTED IF THEY HAD ANY INFORMATION, TO WRITE OUT A REPORT AND GIVE IT TO ME.

Q: AND YOU GOT A REPORT FROM ONE OFFICER; DID YOU NOT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND THAT OFFICER'S NAME IS MARK FUHRMAN?

A: THAT IS CORRECT.

Q: AND WAS THAT THE ONLY WRITTEN REPORT THAT YOU RECEIVED?

A: YES.

Q: AND MARK FUHRMAN WROTE YOU A REPORT ABOUT AN INCIDENT TO WHICH HE HAD ALLEGEDLY RESPONDED AT THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE BACK IN 1985; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: HE WROTE A LETTER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, YES.

Q: AND THE LETTER HE WROTE IN 1989 WAS REFERRED BACK TO AN ALLEGED INCIDENT IN 1985; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: AND WOULD I BE CORRECT IN ASSUMING THAT THAT WAS THE ONLY LETTER THAT WAS SENT TO THE CITY ATTORNEY IN CONNECTION WITH THE CASE OF JANUARY 1ST, 1989?

A: THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S WHAT I RECALL, YES.

Q: AND WITH REGARD TO YOUR SEARCH, DID YOU SEARCH ANY RECORDS TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THERE WERE ANY RADIO CALLS TO THAT LOCATION?

A: WHAT THE CITY -- ACTUALLY THE CITY ATTORNEY DID.

Q: I'M TALKING ABOUT YOU NOW, NOT THE CITY ATTORNEY. YOU.

A: OH, MYSELF? NO. ALLS I DID WAS CONTACT THE COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION OF LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO YOU DID NOT CHECK ANY RECORDS IN WEST LOS ANGELES REGARDING POSSIBLE CALLS THAT HAD TAKEN PLACE PRIOR TO JANUARY 1ST, 1989?

A: I DID MY NORMAL SEARCH OF THE COMPUTER.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU DIDN'T FIND ANY CALLS, RIGHT?

A: NOT ANY -- NONE OF THEM DOCUMENTED.

Q: BY "NONE OF THEM DOCUMENTED", THAT MEANS THEY WEREN'T IN THE COMPUTER, RIGHT?

A: POLICE REPORTS.

Q: THERE WERE NO POLICE REPORTS IN THE COMPUTER, RIGHT?

A: I COULDN'T FIND THEM.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU LOOKED FOR THEM. I MEAN YOU WERE DOING A DILIGENT JOB, WEREN'T YOU?

A: I TRIED.

Q: YOU WERE A RESPONSIBLE OFFICER AT THAT TIME, RIGHT?

A: YES, I AM.

Q: AND YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE TODAY, AREN'T YOU?

A: YES, I AM.

Q: OKAY. YOU KNOW HOW TO USE A COMPUTER?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: YOU DIDN'T FIND ANY POLICE REPORTS. AND THE ONLY OFFICER WHO STEPPED FORWARD TO WRITE A REPORT WAS THIS MARK FUHRMAN, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID YOU KNOW MARK FUHRMAN PRIOR TO THIS PARTICULAR TIME?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. WHAT'S THE RELEVANCY?

MR. COCHRAN: I'LL LINK IT UP.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: HE'S BEEN WORKING WEST L.A. AND WE ALL KNOW EACH OTHER AT WEST L.A.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: SO YOUR ANSWER IS YES, YOU KNEW HIM?

A: YES, I DID KNOW HIM.

Q: HOW DID YOU HAPPEN TO COME TO TALK WITH HIM?

A: WELL, HE IS -- HE WAS ONE OF THE SENIOR OFFICERS THERE. HE HAD MOST -- HE WAS ONE OF THE OFFICERS WHO HAD THE MOST TIME THERE, AND THE CITY ATTORNEY ASKED ME TO LOOK INTO THE PAST FIVE YEARS, AND HE HAD BEEN THERE AT LEAST FIVE YEARS.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO WHEN YOU TOLD US ABOUT TALKING TO 10 SENIOR OFFICERS, HE WOULD HAVE BEEN ONE OF THE 10 SENIOR OFFICERS; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: AND HE THEN WROTE THIS REPORT. AND WOULD THAT REPORT -- THE LETTER THAT HE WROTE AROUND THE MIDDLE OF JANUARY OF 1989, WAS THAT SENT TO YOU OR TO THE CITY ATTORNEY?

A: I BELIEVE HE GAVE ME THE ORIGINAL COPY OF IT AND I IN TURN GAVE IT TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

Q: AND YOU'RE STILL IN WEST LOS ANGELES NOW; ARE YOU NOT?

A: NO, I AM NOT.

Q: AND WHERE ARE YOU NOW?

A: I'M AT WEST TRAFFIC DIVISION.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WHEN DID YOU LEAVE THE WEST LOS ANGELES DIVISION?

A: DECEMBER OF 1990.

Q: YOU DESCRIBED WHEN YOU WERE TALKING TO MR. DARDEN THAT YOUR CONVERSATION WITH MR. SIMPSON WAS A PLEASANT ONE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: THE PHONE CONVERSATION, YES.

Q: WAS IT FAIRLY COMMON KNOWLEDGE AMONG WEST LOS ANGELES OFFICERS THAT ON OCCASION, SOME OF THEM WOULD IN FACT STOP BY MR. O.J. SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE ON A SOCIAL BASIS?

A: I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THAT.

Q: YOU HAD NOT DONE THAT YOURSELF?

A: NO, I HAVE NOT.

Q: BUT YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT ANY OF THE OTHERS, DO YOU?

A: NO.

Q: BUT WHEN YOU CHECKED THE COMPUTERS FOR ANY OTHER POLICE REPORTS OR ANY OTHER TRIPS THAT OFFICERS HAD MADE OUT TO THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE AFTER JANUARY 1ST, 1989, YOU COULD NOT FIND ANY OTHERS AFTER YOUR DILIGENT SEARCH; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: ALLS I WAS LOOKING FOR WAS DOCUMENTED --

Q: BEFORE JANUARY 1ST.

A: -- REPORTS.

Q: AND YOU COULD NOT FIND ANY DOCUMENTED REPORTS?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: RIGHT?

A: NOT RESPONSES BY POLICE OFFICERS BY -- VIA THE RADIO CALL. ONLY DOCUMENTED REPORTS EITHER BY MR. SIMPSON HIMSELF OR NICOLE. I DID NOT FIND ANY.

Q: OKAY. THAT WAS THE QUESTION.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY, SIR.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.

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

REDIRECT-EXAMINATION

BY MR. DARDEN:

Q: DETECTIVE, YOU INDICATED THAT DEFENDANT PLED NO CONTEST TO THE SPOUSAL BATTERY CHARGE?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: HE DIDN'T PLEAD GUILTY?

A: NO CONTEST.

Q: AND IN FACT, HE STRUCK A PLEA BARGAIN IN THIS CASE, DIDN'T HE?

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, MAY WE APPROACH?

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

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I THINK IT'S IMPROPER TO TALK ABOUT HE STRUCK A PLEA BARGAIN OR ENTERED A NO CONTEST PLEA. I MEAN WE ALL KNOW THAT A NO CONTEST PLEA IS TANTAMOUNT TO A GUILTY PLEA. SO COUNSEL MAKES IT SEEM LIKE A BIG DEAL, WHATEVER. I THINK THAT'S IMPROPER.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN, WHERE ARE WE GOING WITH THIS?

MR. COCHRAN: OFFER OF PROOF.

MR. DARDEN: WHO WANTS AN OFFER OF PROOF? HIM OR YOU?

THE COURT: WHERE ARE WE GOING WITH THIS?

MR. DARDEN: ARE WE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE TERMS OF HIS PROBATION? YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT. HE HAS STEPPED ON MY SHINED FERRAGAMO'S. YOU KNOW, I THINK HE SHOULD HAVE TO BUY ME ANOTHER PAIR OF FERRAGAMO'S.

THE COURT: COME ON GUYS. MR. DARDEN, I MEAN AT SOME POINT -- I MEAN WE'VE GOTTEN INTO THE PHYSICAL VIOLENCE, WE'VE GOTTEN INTO THERE'S A NO CONTEST PLEA. I MEAN ISN'T THAT ABOUT WHAT WE NEED TO HAVE HERE IN THIS INCIDENT? WE'VE ESTABLISHED WHAT IT IS THE PROSECUTION WANTED TO GET IN ON THIS INCIDENT. TO START GOING INTO NUANCES OF PLEA BARGAINING AND CONDITIONS OF PROBATION I THINK IS SORT OF GETTING BEYOND WHAT WE NEED TO HERE.

MR. DARDEN: I HAVE TO GO IN AND ASK HIM STUFF ABOUT REPORTS, STUFF LIKE THAT, AND I'LL --

THE COURT: WE'VE PRETTY MUCH GOTTEN THE INCIDENT. WE'VE GOT THE SCREAMING TAPE AND WE'VE GOTTEN THE NO CONTEST PLEA. I MEAN YOU GUYS ARE GETTING GREEDY.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S RIGHT, JUDGE. THEY'RE ALWAYS GREEDY I MIGHT SAY.

THE COURT: OKAY.

MR. DARDEN: CAN WE ADJOURN AFTER WE FINISH WITH THIS GUY?

THE COURT: WELL, WE HAVE TO HAVE A 402 ON THIS SHIPP PERSON.

MR. COCHRAN: YOU WANT IT TOMORROW?

MR. DARDEN: I'D RATHER WE RESOLVE WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS AFTERNOON AT SOME POINT.

THE COURT: I ASSUME WE ARE ABOUT TO FINISH WITH THIS GUY.

MR. DARDEN: YEAH.

THE COURT: I ASSUME THEN WE NEED TO TALK IN CHAMBERS ABOUT THIS OTHER PROBLEM. SO WE MIGHT WANT TO CALL IT A DAY AFTER THAT. WHY DON'T YOU WIND UP YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT REPORT TAKING AND SEARCHES.

MR. DARDEN: I HAVE ABOUT ONE MORE QUESTION. THEN WE CAN WRAP THIS UP.

THE COURT: AND I'LL DIRECT COUNSEL TO PAY FOR YOUR NEXT SHOE SHINE AS A SANCTION.

MR. DARDEN: SHOE SHINE? HE SHOULD BUY ME A NEW PAIR OF SHOES.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. MR. DARDEN, YOU MAY CONTINUE.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: YOU ALSO INDICATED THAT YOU HAD A PLEASANT TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH THE DEFENDANT, DETECTIVE?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WELL, YOU WEREN'T ABOUT TO ARREST HIM AT THAT TIME, WERE YOU?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU ASK HIM WHY HE FLED THE LOCATION ON JANUARY 1, '89?

A: YES, I DID. HIS RESPONSE WAS THAT HE WAS UPSET THAT THE POLICE WERE OUT THERE AND WEREN'T HAPPY THAT THE POLICE WERE OUT THERE AND THAT HE DECIDED -- THAT'S WHEN HE DECIDED TO LEAVE.

Q: AND YOU INDICATED TO MR. COCHRAN AND YOU TOLD MR. COCHRAN THAT YOU WERE ONLY SEARCHING FOR DOCUMENTED REPORTS.

A: CORRECT.

Q: CORRECT? YOU WERE SEARCHING FOR DOCUMENTED REPORTS IN YOUR SEARCH FOR OTHER SITUATIONS WHERE THE POLICE WENT TO ROCKINGHAM?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, THERE ARE OTHER TYPES OF REPORTS THAT OFFICERS FILL OUT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, THERE ARE.

Q: THEY HAVE LOGS; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: DAILY FIELD ACTIVITIES REPORTS, THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND WHAT TYPE OF INFORMATION WOULD A PATROL OFFICER INCLUDE ON A DAILY FIELD ACTIVITY REPORT?

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, THAT CALLS FOR SPECULATION. I THINK WE NEED FURTHER FOUNDATION. THAT QUESTION IS VAGUE.

THE COURT: NO. I THINK HE TESTIFIED THAT HE'S BEEN A PATROL OFFICER, WAS A TRAINING OFFICER. I THINK HE HAS SUFFICIENT FOUNDATION TO ANSWER WHAT THIS IS, SUFFICIENT EXPERIENCE.

THE WITNESS: THE REPORT ITSELF DOCUMENTS THE TIME THE RADIO CAR GETS THE CALL, ITS LOCATION, TYPE OF CALL AND WHEN THE CALL IS FINISHED AND WHAT THE OFFICER ACTUALLY DID AT THE LOCATION AND IT'S ALL DOCUMENTED IN THE OFFICER'S OWN WRITING.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: AND THAT DAILY FIELD ACTIVITY REPORT IS A REPORT COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM THE REPORT FILLED OUT BY DETECTIVE EDWARDS; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: THAT IS CORRECT

Q: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DAILY FIELD ACTIVITY REPORTS AND THE REPORT FILLED OUT BY DETECTIVE EDWARDS?

A: THE FOLLOW-UP REPORT FILLED BY DETECTIVE EDWARDS IS A CONTINUATION OF THE CRIME REPORT. THE DFAR'S THAT WE CALL IT, IS JUST A DAILY LOG OF ACTIVITIES THAT THE OFFICER DOES IN THE FIELD. IT'S NOT PART OF A CRIME REPORT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

Q: ARE DFAR'S OR DAILY FIELD ACTIVITY REPORTS COMPUTERIZED?

A: NOT THAT I KNOW.

Q: WERE THEY COMPUTERIZED BACK IN 1989?

A: I DON'T THINK SO. THEY WERE NOT.

Q: HOW MANY OFFICERS WERE THERE ASSIGNED TO WEST L.A. DIVISION BACK ON JANUARY 1, '89?

A: QUITE A FEW. AND THE EXACT NUMBER I DON'T KNOW. OVER A HUNDRED?

Q: IS THAT 100 PER SHIFT OR 100 --

A: I WISH IT WAS A HUNDRED PER SHIFT, BUT IT'S MAYBE ABOUT 30 OFFICERS PER SHIFT.

Q: 30 PATROL OFFICERS PER SHIFT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: AND EACH DAY, EACH PATROL OFFICER FILLS OUT A LOG?

A: IF THEY ARE ASSIGNED BY THEMSELVES, YES. BUT MOST OFFICERS IN THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT ARE ASSIGNED "A" CARS, THAT'S TWO MEN TO EACH PATROL CAR.

THE COURT: TWO OFFICERS.

THE WITNESS: TWO OFFICERS. I AM SORRY.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: SO HAD YOU GONE BACK AND SEARCHED ALL THE DFAR'S FOR THE FIVE YEARS PRIOR TO 1989, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN QUITE A JOB, RIGHT?

A: THAT IS CORRECT.

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION; LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE.

THE COURT: WELL, IT'S AN INNOCUOUS POINT.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN QUITE A JOB, RIGHT?

A: YES, IT WOULD HAVE.

Q: AND YOU WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE DONE A HAND SEARCH?

A: CORRECT.

Q: YOU ALSO INDICATED THAT NICOLE BROWN ASKED THAT YOU NOT PROSECUTE THE CASE?

A: YES.

Q: YOU'VE HAD TRAINING IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, HAVEN'T YOU?

A: YES, I HAVE.

Q: THAT'S NOT UNCOMMON, IS IT, FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS TO ---

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. DARDEN: MAY I BE HEARD, YOUR HONOR?

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

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN, I'M GOING TO SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION AT THIS POINT PRELIMINARILY UNLESS YOU CAN GIVE ME A FOUNDATION THAT THIS GUY HAS ENOUGH EXPERIENCE TO TESTIFY AS AN EXPERT WITNESS IN BATTERED WOMAN'S SYNDROME UNDER 13 -- WHAT IS IT? 1337. 1107.

MR. DARDEN: MR. GORDON WILL RESPOND.

MR. GORDON: YOUR HONOR, THE CROSS-EXAMINATION HAS RAISED A SPECIFIC MISCONCEPTION ABOUT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, BATTERED WOMAN'S SYNDROME, AND WE HAVE A RIGHT TO EXPLORE UNDER MC ALPIN, A SITUATION ALMOST IDENTICAL TO THIS IN WHICH --

THE COURT: I AGREE. BUT IF YOU HEARD WHAT I SAID, I THINK FOUNDATIONALLY YOU DON'T HAVE A WITNESS WHO'S QUALIFIED ON THE STAND TO TESTIFY TO THIS. I DON'T KNOW YET. MAYBE HE DOES.

MR. COCHRAN: THIS ISN'T THE WITNESS FOR THAT, YOUR HONOR. I MEAN AT THIS POINT, YOU JUST TOLD US TO GO BACK OUT THERE, THAT WE WERE BEING GREEDY, WE GOT EVERYTHING WE NEEDED. JUDGE, THIS IS NOT THE WITNESS FOR THIS. HE CAN'T LAY THE FOUNDATION. THIS WITNESS WORKS AT WEST LOS ANGELES TRAFFIC RIGHT NOW. WE WANT THE PATROL OFFICER IN PERSON --

THE COURT: LET'S SEE WHAT HE CAN TESTIFY TO. BUT IT MAY COME IN LATER. I DON'T KNOW.

MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE --

MS. CLARK: IS THAT A LEGAL OBJECTION, THEY'RE BEING GREEDY?

THE COURT: THAT'S A FORM OF 352. THAT'S A FORM OF 352. SINCE WE ALREADY GOT WHAT WE WERE GOING TO GET OUT OF THIS EVIDENCE, WE ARE WASTING TIME. THAT'S 352.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT IS GREEDY, 352, JUDGE.

THE COURT: THAT'S WHAT IT IS. I'M JUST MAKING AN OBSERVATION. FROM WHAT I HEARD FROM THIS GUY, HE DOESN'T HAVE THE FOUNDATION TO TESTIFY TO THIS. I'M WILLING TO HEAR.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. MR. DARDEN, YOU MAY CONTINUE.

MR. DARDEN: I'M SORRY. WAS THE OBJECTION SUSTAINED, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: THE OBJECTION IS SUSTAINED PENDING A FOUNDATION.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DETECTIVE FARRELL, WHAT TRAINING HAVE YOU HAD IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE?

A: BASIC ACADEMY TRAINING WHEN I FIRST CAME ON THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, ALSO IN-SERVICE TRAINING WITH THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

Q: AND DID YOU TAKE A COURSE?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: HOW MANY HOURS --

A: IT WAS A THREE-DAY IN-SERVICE TRAINING FOR ADVANCED FIELD OFFICERS, WHICH I BELIEVE TOTALED A 24-HOUR COURSE.

Q: AND HAVE YOU RESPONDED TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CALLS IN THE PAST?

A: YES, I HAVE.

Q: MANY?

A: QUITE A FEW, YES, SIR.

Q: HOW MANY WOULD YOU SAY?

A: SAY -- I COULD ONLY SAY HUNDREDS.

Q: AND HAVE YOU BEEN THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES IN THE PAST?

A: YES, I HAVE.

Q: HAVE YOU PARTICIPATED IN THE PROSECUTION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES IN THE PAST?

A: YES, I HAVE.

Q: HAVE YOU READ LITERATURE HAVING TO DO WITH DOMESTIC VIOLENCE?

A: YES, I HAVE.

Q: HAVE YOU READ LITERATURE HAVING TO DO WITH THE CAUSES AND EFFECTS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE?

A: YES, I HAVE.

Q: HAVE YOU SPOKEN TO VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE?

A: YES, I HAVE.

Q: AND HAVE YOU WATCHED THEM TESTIFY?

A: YES.

Q: HAVE YOU SPOKEN TO OTHERS WHO ARE PROFESSIONALS AND WHO ARE EXPERTS IN THE AREA OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE?

A: YES, I HAVE.

Q: AND HAVE YOU EVER TESTIFIED IN COURT AS AN EXPERT ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE?

A: I HAVE NEVER TESTIFIED AS AN EXPERT.

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

THE COURT: ANY RECROSS?

MR. COCHRAN: YES, YOUR HONOR, JUST A COUPLE QUESTIONS.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. COCHRAN:

Q: DETECTIVE FARRELL, WHEN YOU WERE ASKED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY TO TRY AND DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THERE HAD BEEN OTHER CALLS IN THE FIVE YEARS OR SO THAT PRECEDED JANUARY 1ST, 1989, DID THEY GIVE YOU KIND OF A BLANKET INSTRUCTION TO DO THE BEST THAT YOU COULD?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU IN THE COURSE OF TRYING TO CARRY OUT THEIR REQUEST, YOU DID THE BEST THAT YOU COULD; DID YOU NOT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU THEN REPORTED BACK TO THEM AFTER YOU HAD DONE THE BEST THAT YOU COULD; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND IN DOING THE BEST THAT YOU COULD, YOU GOT THIS ONE LETTER FROM MARK FUHRMAN; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY. I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN: NOTHING FURTHER, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT, DETECTIVE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I AM GOING TO EXCUSE YOU FROM FURTHER TESTIMONY. PLEASE DON'T DISCUSS YOUR TESTIMONY WITH ANYBODY ELSE EXCEPT THE ATTORNEYS IN THE CASE.

THE WITNESS: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. DARDEN, AS TO THE PEOPLE'S NEXT WITNESS?

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, BEFORE WE CALL THE NEXT WITNESS, I HAVE IN MY HAND HERE WHAT APPEARS TO BE A XEROX COPY OF A SINGLE-PAGE LETTER. IT IS DATED JANUARY 18, 1989. IT WAS DIRECTED TO THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES AND IT IS SIGNED BY DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN. MAY IT BE MARKED PEOPLE'S 7 FOR IDENTIFICATION?

THE COURT: PEOPLE'S 7.

(PEO'S 7 FOR ID = 1-PG DOC/DV STANDARDS)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. DARDEN, HOW DO YOU WISH TO PROCEED AT THIS POINT?

MR. DARDEN: I THINK WE SHOULD RESOLVE THE PRELIMINARY LEGAL ISSUE THAT WE HAVE TO RESOLVE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I HAVE A LEGAL ISSUE THAT I NEED TO RESOLVE BEFORE THE NEXT WITNESS CAN BE PRESENTED. AND GIVEN THE LATENESS OF THE HOUR THIS AFTERNOON, I'M GOING TO RECESS AS FAR AS YOU ARE CONCERNED THIS AFTERNOON. PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITION TO YOU; DON'T DISCUSS THE 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 UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU. HAVE A PLEASANT EVENING. WE'LL SEE YOU BACK HERE TOMORROW MORNING 9:00 O'CLOCK, AND WE'LL HAVE MORE WITNESSES FOR YOU. ALL RIGHT. SEE YOU TOMORROW. ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO ASK COUNSEL TO REMAIN. RISE FOR THE JURY, PLEASE.

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

THE COURT: COUNSEL, THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THE JURY HAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE COURTROOM. MR. DARDEN, THERE WAS A 402 ISSUE THAT WE NEEDED TO RESOLVE. I TAKE IT THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE PEOPLE'S NEXT WITNESS. WHAT'S THE ISSUE?

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, I RISE TO COME BEFORE THE COURT TO ASK --

THE COURT: CAN WE HAVE IT QUIET, PLEASE.

MR. DOUGLAS: -- TO ASK THAT THE PEOPLE MAKE AN OFFER OF PROOF AS TO WHAT AREAS THEY ARE GOING TO EXAMINE THE NEXT WITNESS, MR. RONALD SHIPP. I AM INFORMED, YOUR HONOR, THAT MR. SHIPP HAS MADE STATEMENTS SUGGESTING THAT HE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH MR. SIMPSON IN THE DAYS FOLLOWING THE INCIDENT --

THE COURT: YOU ARE SPEAKING ABOUT THE '89 INCIDENT?

MR. DOUGLAS: NO, YOUR HONOR. I'M SPEAKING ABOUT THE INCIDENT THAT GIVES RISE TO THESE CHARGES.

THE COURT: THE JUNE 12TH INCIDENT?

MR. DOUGLAS: THE DEATHS OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AND RONALD GOLDMAN. I'M INFORMED, YOUR HONOR, THAT SOME ASPECT OF THE ALLEGED CONVERSATION SUGGESTS THAT MR. SIMPSON AND MR. SHIPP HAD A CONVERSATION ABOUT SOME SORT OF POLYGRAPH OR THE TAKING OF A POLYGRAPH. THERE ARE ALLEGATIONS IN A BOOK ABOUT WHICH I'M AWARE THAT SUGGEST THAT MR. SIMPSON DISCUSSED SOME SORT OF A DREAM WITH MR. SHIPP. IS IT POSSIBLE, YOUR HONOR, MAY WE APPROACH TO CONTINUE THE REMAINING AREAS OF CONCERN?

MR. DARDEN: I DON'T SEE THE NECESSITY OF THAT. THIS ISN'T GOING TO BE AN ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT, YOUR HONOR. THE ISSUE IS GOING TO BE IN FRONT OF THE JURY. WE MAY AS WELL DO IT IN OPEN COURT.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S WHAT THE HEARING IS ABOUT. I THINK, YOUR HONOR -- HOW DOES HE KNOW ABOUT --

THE COURT: MR. DOUGLAS GETS TO ANSWER HIS ARGUMENT FOR HIMSELF.

MR. DOUGLAS: IF THE COURT PLEASE, I WOULD LIKE TO APPROACH SIDEBAR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WITH THE REPORTER, PLEASE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

MR. DARDEN: I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR THAT THEY GET TO READ LETTERS CRITICIZING US WHEN WE HAVE REAL LEGITIMATE EVIDENTIARY ISSUES AND WE HAVE TO COME TO SIDEBAR BECAUSE THEY'RE SCARED OF WHAT'S --

THE COURT: YOU GET TO COME TO SIDEBAR ALL THE TIME FOR SENSITIVE THINGS. COME ON. IF COUNSEL TELLS ME IT'S A SENSITIVE ISSUE, THE LEAST I CAN DO IS AFFORD THEM THE COURTESY OF FINDING OUT WHAT IT IS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. MAYBE I'LL AGREE AND MAYBE I WON'T.

MR. DOUGLAS: I'M NOT SURE, YOUR HONOR, IF MR. DARDEN IS EVEN GOING TO EXPLORE THE AREA OF POLYGRAPHS OR WHETHER HE INTENDS TO RAISE THE ISSUE.

THE COURT: EXCUSE ME?

MR. SHAPIRO: HE SAID SOMETHING ABOUT POLYGRAPH? I THOUGHT YOU SAID SOMETHING. I'M HEARING THINGS.

MR. DARDEN: I HAVEN'T STATED A POSITION YET.

THE COURT: CARL, YOU'RE INTERESTED IN THE PROBLEM WITH POLYGRAPH DISCUSSIONS AND DISCUSSION ABOUT A DREAM?

MR. DOUGLAS: ABOUT A DREAM. THERE'S A BOOK THAT HAS COME OUT, RAGING HEART BY SHEILA WILLER, AND THERE'S AN ALLEGATION THAT SIMPSON TOLD SOMEBODY THAT HE HAD A DREAM CONCERNING NICOLE'S DEATH; AND I SUSPECT THAT SHIPP IS THE PERSON WHO WILL SAY THAT THEY HAD THIS CONVERSATION, AND I SUSPECT THAT IT'S GOING TO COME FROM THE CONTEXT OF SIMPSON TELLING SHIPP WHY SIMPSON DIDN'T TAKE A POLYGRAPH.

THE COURT: OKAY. LET ME ASK YOU ONE OTHER QUESTION. DO WE NEED TO PUT ON THE RECORD THE RELATIONSHIP OF MR. COCHRAN TO MR. SHIPP IN CASE THERE'S ANY REMOTE POSSIBILITY OF SOME KIND OF CONFLICT OR -- I JUST BRING THAT UP BECAUSE YOU MIGHT WANT TO TELL HIM.

MR. DOUGLAS: I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY AT THIS POINT.

MR. DARDEN: IT'S PROBABLY -- WELL, IT'S YOUR RECORD. WELL, NO. ACTUALLY IT'S OUR RECORD TOO. YEAH, I THINK YOU PROBABLY OUGHT TO. YOU CAN PROBABLY DO IT THROUGH DECLARATION OR SOMETHING, BUT IT PROBABLY OUGHT TO BE IN THE FILE.

THE COURT: THERE OUGHT TO BE A KNOWLEDGEABLE WAIVER OF ANY PROBLEM. BUT IN ANY EVENT, WE'LL GET TO THAT POINT. WHAT IS MR. SHIPP GOING TO TESTIFY TO?

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, HE IS GOING TO TESTIFY THAT AT THE MEETING OF JUNE 13TH --

MR. SHAPIRO: HOLD ON A SECOND.

THE COURT:

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN: THE TESTIMONY WILL BE, SHIPP WILL TESTIFY ON JUNE 13TH, 1994 DURING THE EVENING HOURS, THE LATE EVENING HOURS, THAT HE WAS AT ROCKINGHAM, THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS PREPARING TO GO TO BED, WAS ABOUT TO WALK UP THE STAIRS AND THAT HE, SHIPP, WAS ABOUT TO EXIT THE FRONT DOOR, THAT AS HE WAS ABOUT TO LEAVE, THE DEFENDANT ASKED HIM TO WALK UPSTAIRS TO THE DEFENDANT'S BEDROOM, AND SHIPP COMPLIED. THEY WENT UPSTAIRS, THEY HAD A CONVERSATION. THE DEFENDANT ASKED SHIPP, "HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE FOR DNA EVIDENCE TO COME BACK?" SHIPP REPLIED, "TWO MONTHS." THE DEFENDANT TOLD SHIPP THAT THE POLICE HAD FOUND A GLOVE ON HIS PROPERTY AND THAT THE POLICE HAD ASKED HIM TO TAKE A POLYGRAPH. SHIPP REPLIES, "WELL, WHAT DID YOU SAY?" ACCORDING TO SHIPP, THE DEFENDANT CHUCKLED AND SAID, "HEY, TO BE TRUTHFUL, RON, MAN, I'VE HAD A LOT OF DREAMS ABOUT KILLING HER, AND I REALLY DON'T KNOW ABOUT TAKING THAT THING." NOW, WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE IN EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE IS THE DEFENDANT'S STATEMENT THEY HE HAD HAD LOTS OF DREAMS ABOUT KILLING THE VICTIM.

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, I NOTICE FOR THE RECORD MR. DARDEN APPEARS TO BE READING FROM A DOCUMENT REFLECTING A CONVERSATION WITH RON SHIPP. PERHAPS IT'S HIS WORK PRODUCT. I'VE NEVER RECEIVED ANY DOCUMENT FROM RON SHIPP THAT DISCUSSES ANY SUCH CONVERSATION. I PRESUME THAT IT'S SOME SORT OF ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT AND THAT'S WHY I'VE NEVER SEEN IT.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN: YES, HE IS CORRECT. IT IS MY WORK PRODUCT. NOW, AS FAR AS THE INFORMATION I JUST CONVEYED TO THE COURT, THIS IS INFORMATION I CONVEYED TO THE -- TO MR. COCHRAN SEVERAL DAYS AGO AND IT IS ALSO RECORDED, INCLUDED IN DISCOVERY PROVIDED DEFENSE COUNSEL ALREADY. THESE ARE MY NOTES OF THE TAPED INTERVIEW THAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR POSSESSION.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, IT'S TRUE HE TOLD ME ABOUT THE DREAMS, ALTHOUGH NOT WITH THE SPECIFICITY THAT WE WERE TALKING FULL CONVERSATION. IT WASN'T AS CLEAR AS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING NOW, CHRIS. BUT YOU DID TELL ME THAT SHIPP WOULD TESTIFY, THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT A DREAM AND WHAT HE SAID. BUT IT WAS NOT AS CLEAR AS HE DID NOW.

MR. DARDEN: BUT I DID TURN OVER THE DISCOVERY AS WELL AS SUPPLIED YOU WITH THE TAPE.

MR. COCHRAN: YES.

MR. DARDEN: OKAY.

MR. COCHRAN: FOR THE RECORD, I SHOULD TELL YOU THAT THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT SHIPP IS RELATED TO ME, MY FAMILY. SO I WANT TO JUST MAKE THAT CLEAR.

THE COURT: I THINK WE SHOULD JUST PUT IT ON THE RECORD THAT YOUR CLIENT IS AWARE OF THAT AND THAT HE DOESN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT.

MR. COCHRAN: YEAH.

THE COURT: I DON'T THINK THERE'S A CONFLICT. I DON'T THINK THERE'S A CONFLICT, BUT JUST IN AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION. WELL, WE HAVE TWO PROBLEMS HERE.

MS. CLARK: COUNSEL HAS TO BE REMOVED FROM THE CASE.

MR. COCHRAN: CAN I BE CONFLICTED OUT?

THE COURT: COUNSEL, LET'S GET SERIOUS HERE A SECOND. OBVIOUSLY, THESE ARE VERY SERIOUS QUESTIONS HERE REGARDING DISCUSSIONS OF POLYGRAPH BECAUSE THE ANSWER IS IN THE CONTEXT OF, "I DON'T KNOW IF I WANT TO TAKE A POLYGRAPH, BUT I'VE HAD DREAMS ABOUT KILLING HER."

MR. COCHRAN: CAN I SAY SOMETHING ELSE TO FRAME THE ISSUE MORE AND MAYBE THINK MORE ABOUT THIS OVERNIGHT? IN MR. SIMPSON'S STATEMENT, WE GET TO THIS PARTICULAR POINT WHERE THE OFFICER IS ASKING HIM TO TAKE A POLYGRAPH AND HE SAYS, "I THINK I'VE GOT TO ASK MY LAWYER," WORDS TO THAT EFFECT. THAT'S WHEN WEITZMAN IS DOWN THERE. WELL, HE ISN'T DOWN THERE. HE'S HAVING CAPPUCCINO, LUNCH.

SHAPIRO WRITES A LETTER SAYING, "OUR CLIENT WILL TAKE A POLYGRAPH."

THE COURT: WILL.

MR. COCHRAN: WILL. AND JUST -- WE'LL GET THE LETTER. MARCIA TELLS ME -- I SAY, IF YOU GUYS WANT TO GO IN THAT DOOR, WE'LL BE GLAD TO TALK ABOUT IT. MARCIA THEN TELLS ME THEY DON'T WANT TO GO IN THAT DOOR. THEN SHE HAS SOME STUFF -- I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY REPORTS EITHER, MARCIA.

MS. CLARK: THERE'S NO REPORT BECAUSE HE KNOWS ABOUT IT. IT WAS ON THE PHONE.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S NOT THE TEST, JUDGE. WE HAVE SOME GROUND RULES HERE.

THE COURT: THAT'S A DIFFERENT ISSUE. THE ISSUE WE ARE DEALING WITH RIGHT NOW IS MR. SHIPP AND WHETHER OR NOT THE STATEMENT COMES IN.

MR. COCHRAN: I JUST WANTED YOU TO KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT THE POLYGRAPH. IF THEY START TALKING ABOUT POLYGRAPHS, I THINK THE RULING YOU MAKE MAY BE APPLICABLE TO SOME OTHER STUFF ABOUT POLYGRAPHS. I JUST WANTED YOU TO KNOW EVERYTHING.

THE COURT: OKAY.

MS. CLARK: WE CAN'T GO INTO POLYGRAPHS. THERE'S AN EVIDENCE CODE SECTION ON THAT. AND PROOF DOES NOT GO TO ADMISSIBILITY.

MR. COCHRAN: HOW COULD YOU THEN GET IN A RESPONSE BY SOMEONE WHO TALKS ABOUT A POLYGRAPH? I THINK THAT'S THE PROBLEM THEY HAVE.

THE COURT: HAVE YOU GOT A CASE THAT SAYS THAT WE CAN GO INTO THE PERIPHERAL DISCUSSION ABOUT WHY TO TAKE A POLYGRAPH OR WHY NOT? HAVE YOU GOT A CASE THAT SAYS THIS IS ADMISSIBLE?

MR. DARDEN: THE REAL QUESTION HERE IS WHY WOULD IT BE INADMISSIBLE.

THE COURT: BECAUSE THERE IS A CODE SECTION THAT TALKS ABOUT SPECIFICALLY EXCLUSION OF POLYGRAPHS.

MR. DARDEN: YOU KNOW WHAT? THERE'S ALSO A HEFTY AMOUNT OF CASE LAW THAT SAYS HEY, THE MENTION OF THE POLYGRAPH AND RESULTS ARE INADMISSIBLE, BUT THE QUESTIONS POSED DURING POLYGRAPH QUESTIONS ARE ADMISSIBLE. SO THE ANSWER HERE OR THE RESPONSE BY THE DEFENDANT IS GOING TO BE ADMISSIBLE.

THE COURT: AND MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, CITE ME A CASE THAT SAYS IN THIS SITUATION IT'S ADMISSIBLE. SIMPLE QUESTION.

MR. DARDEN: DOES IT HAVE TO BE EXACTLY IN THIS SITUATION OR CAN IT --

THE COURT: NO, OF COURSE NOT. BUT YOU ARE THE PROPONENT OF IT. AND QUITE FRANKLY, I'M GOING TO BE LEERY OF ANYTHING THAT MENTIONS POLYGRAPH. SO DO YOU HAVE ANY AUTHORITY FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THIS?

MR. DARDEN: WE'LL GET SOME.

MS. CLARK: I THINK THE REAL ISSUE HERE -- I THINK, JUDGE, IF YOU EXCISE THE REFERENCE, THE REAL ISSUE HERE IS --

THE COURT: THEN THE MEANING GOES AWAY.

MS. CLARK: IT DOESN'T GO AWAY THOUGH. IN THIS CASE, IT DOESN'T. HE'S ADMITTING THAT HE'S HAD DREAMS OF KILLING HER. THE MEANING IS STILL THERE. AND YOU DON'T NEED REFERENCE TO THE POLYGRAPH TO GIVE IT MEANING. THAT'S ANOTHER THING. IF YOU DID, IF YOU DID, IF YOU EXCISED IT AND THEN LOST THE MEANING, THEN IT WOULD MAKE IT UNFAIR TO EITHER SIDE. BUT THIS IS -- THE MEANING REMAINS THE SAME. HE'S HAD DREAMS ABOUT KILLING NICOLE WHETHER IT'S IN REFERENCE TO TAKING A POLYGRAPH OR NOT.

THE COURT: IN OTHER WORDS, ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU ARE WILLING TO PUT IN ONLY THE BUSINESS ABOUT, "I'VE HAD DREAMS ABOUT KILLING NICOLE"?

MS. CLARK: THAT'S RIGHT. THAT'S ALL WE ARE ASKING FOR.

MR. DARDEN: CAN I READ THE STATEMENT AGAIN?

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. DARDEN: THE STATEMENT IS --

THE COURT: HE'S READING IT TO ME.

MR. DARDEN: THE STATEMENT IS, "HEY, TO BE TRUTHFUL, RON, MAN, I HAVE HAD A LOT OF DREAMS ABOUT KILLING HER." AND THEN IN THE NEXT SENTENCE, HE SAYS, "I REALLY DON'T KNOW ABOUT TAKING THAT THING."

MS. CLARK: SO YOU DON'T NEED THAT LAST STATEMENT.

MR. DOUGLAS: SO IT'S NOT WORK PRODUCT. IF HE'S QUOTING WHAT SOMEBODY TOLD HIM, THAT'S NOT WORK PRODUCT.

THE COURT: BUT HE'S SAYING -- WAIT, MR. DOUGLAS. LET'S NOT MIX APPLES AND ORANGES HERE BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT A TAPE RECORDING OF THIS INTERVIEW AND HE'S SAYING THOSE ARE HIS NOTES FROM THAT TAPE-RECORDING AND HOW HE PLANS ON PRESENTING IT. ALL RIGHT. I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT WHAT THAT IS. IF YOU HAVE THE STATEMENTS THAT SHIPP MADE AND THAT'S ALL THEY ARE GOING TO USE, IT'S NOT A DISCOVERY ISSUE. BUT I'LL TELL YOU, IT GIVES ME THE HEEBIE GEEBIES ANY TIME I SEE SOMETHING THAT SAYS POLYGRAPH. ALL I AM ASKING IS, BEFORE THIS COMES IN, I WANT TO SEE A CASE THAT GETS US INTO THE DOOR. AND PART OF THE PROBLEM IS, I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT'S COMING. SO I HAVEN'T EVEN THOUGHT ABOUT POLYGRAPH. I WAS NOT AWARE OF THIS STATEMENT OBVIOUSLY SINCE I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT. SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME AUTHORITY ON IT AND I WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THE PERIMETERS.

MR. COCHRAN: CAN WE DO IT TONIGHT? THAT'S WHY WE BROUGHT IT TO YOUR ATTENTION OBVIOUSLY. TO DARDEN'S CREDIT, HE TOLD ME ABOUT IT, THAT THIS WOULD BE A PROBLEM, AND I THINK THEY MAY NEED TO BRIEF THIS ISSUE. THEY'VE GOT ANOTHER WITNESS --

MS. CLARK: LET ME INQUIRE SINCE PROBABLY I'LL GET STUCK DOING THIS. IF WE EXCISE ALL REFERENCE TO THE POLYGRAPH --

THE COURT: HOW ABOUT IF YOU DO -- I MEAN DO YOU HAVE THE TAPE? CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT THE EXACT WORDS ARE THAT YOU ARE SEEKING AND WHAT ELSE YOU ARE GOING TO GET BESIDES THIS? HE'S OVER THERE ON THE 13TH?

MR. DARDEN: HE'S OVER THERE ON THE 13TH. THEY WERE HAVING A NORMAL CONVERSATION. THE DEFENDANT SAYS, "HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE FOR DNA EVIDENCE TO COME BACK?"

THE COURT: THAT SOUNDS OKAY.

MR. DARDEN: CONTINUE WITH THE INTERVIEW? OKAY. "I HONESTLY HAD NO IDEA, BUT I TOLD HIM TWO MONTHS."

MR. COCHRAN: SO HE'S LYING IN OTHER WORDS. SORRY. FORGIVE ME. I COULDN'T RESIST THAT. HE'S MY COUSIN. I CAN SAY THAT.

MR. DARDEN: "HE WAS TELLING ME ABOUT HIS INTERVIEW. HE DID NOT NAME THE DETECTIVES. HE DID NOT NAME THE DETECTIVES. HE DID NOT NAME YOU GUYS," MEANING VANNATTER AND LANG, "BUT HE SAID HE WAS INTERVIEWED BY DETECTIVES, AND, 'THEY ASKED ME TO TAKE A LIE DETECTOR TEST,' AND I REPLIED, 'WELL, WHAT DID YOU SAY?' AND HE KIND OF CHUCKLED, AND HE SAYS, 'QUOTE, HEY, TO BE TRUTHFUL, RON, MAN, I'VE HAD A LOT OF DREAMS ABOUT KILLING HER,' UNQUOTE."

MR. SHAPIRO: WHAT IS THE DATE OF THIS STATEMENT, CHRIS?

THE COURT: THE 13TH.

MR. DARDEN: AND HE SAYS HE REALLY DOESN'T KNOW ABOUT TAKING THAT THING. NOW, EARLIER I WROTE IT WAS ON THE 14TH I BELIEVE.

MS. CLARK: 15TH.

MR. DARDEN: THIS IS WHAT HE TELLS US ON JANUARY 21, 1994. THIS IS WHAT SHIPP TELLS US. IN ADDITION TO THAT, YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT THERE IS A SCENARIO DESCRIBED IN THIS BOOK --

THE COURT: RAGING HEART.

MR. DARDEN: YEAH. I DON'T KNOW IF -- YOU'LL FIND IT AROUND PAGE 9, SOMEONE THAT IS DESCRIBED AS LEO AND RON SHIPP AND IT DESCRIBES THIS SERIES OF EVENTS.

MR. COCHRAN: I DON'T WANT SHIPP TO BUY THAT BOOK. I DON'T WANT SHIPP TO BUY THAT TRASH, JUDGE, BUT LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING. THIS STATEMENT FROM SHIPP WAS TAKEN A LONG TIME AGO. THIS IS LIKE SOME RECENT FABRICATION. WE NEED TO ASK WHEN HE MADE THIS STATEMENT. WE NEED TO TELL HIM ABOUT THIS. SO YOU NEED TO HAVE THE WHOLE PICTURE. HE DIDN'T MENTION THIS WHEN HE FIRST TALKED TO HIM. THIS IS SOMETHING GIVEN JANUARY 21ST, 1995. SO YOU SHOULD HAVE THAT PERSPECTIVE.

THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND THAT. WELL, THEY'RE ENTITLED TO OFFER IT. WHETHER OR NOT IT'S GOT PROBATIVE VALUE AFTER YOU IMPEACH HIM WITH THAT, I DON'T KNOW.

MR. DOUGLAS: ONE OF THE PROBLEMS THOUGH IS, WHEN THE RESPONSE IS DESCRIBED, HE FIRST KIND OF CHUCKLES, AND IT CAUSES ONE TO -- CAUSES ME AS A CROSS-EXAMINER TO SEEK TO WANT TO EXPLORE THE SUBTLETY AND THE NUANCE OF WHAT SET OFF THE CHUCKLING; AND I CAN'T FAIRLY DO THAT WITHOUT GETTING INTO THE POLYGRAPH AND THE RESPONSE TO THE POLYGRAPH, WHAT CAUSED HIM TO CHUCKLE, IS HE CHUCKLING OUT OF MORBID HUMOR, IS HE CHUCKLING BECAUSE HE DIDN'T WANT TO TAKE A POLYGRAPH.

THE COURT: MR. DOUGLAS, LET ME ASK YOU THIS. DO YOU WANT THE FULL CONTEXT OF THIS?

MR. DOUGLAS: I DON'T. I DON'T WANT ANY OF IT.

THE COURT: YOU'RE MAKING AN OBJECTION TO THE WHOLE THING?

MR. DOUGLAS: CORRECT. BECAUSE YOU CAN NOT FAIRLY -- THE JURY CANNOT FAIRLY EVALUATE THE STATEMENT GIVEN THAT THERE'S A CHUCKLE, WHICH BELIES AT LEAST ARGUABLY, BUT COLORABLY BELIES THE STRENGTH OF THE TENOR OF THE WORDS; AND YOU CANNOT ADEQUATELY EXPLORE ALL OF THAT IN THE CONTEXT GIVEN.

THE COURT: WELL, LET'S DO THIS. THIS IS A SENSITIVE ISSUE. LET'S PUT ON THE RECORD THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE NEXT WITNESS TO MR. COCHRAN AND GET MR. SIMPSON'S AGREEMENT THAT HE HAS NO CONFLICT, ALL RIGHT? THEN WE WILL RETIRE FOR THE AFTERNOON. I WOULD LIKE TO RESEARCH THIS BECAUSE I HAVEN'T THOUGHT ABOUT POLYGRAPH IN CONSIDERATION OF THIS CASE. SO I NEED TO GO LOOK -- AND IF YOU HAVE ANY CASES -- AND, COUNSEL, IF YOU HAVE ANY CASES, YOU HAVE THE COURT'S FAX NUMBER. FAX THEM TO ME. AND, YOU KNOW, I'LL BE IN TOMORROW MORNING AT 6:00, AND I WILL PICK UP THE FAXES, ANYTHING YOU FAX ME TONIGHT, AND I'LL READ THE CASES AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT FIRST THING IN THE MORNING.

MR. DOUGLAS: ALSO FAX EACH OTHER?

THE COURT: ABSOLUTELY.

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR -- GO AHEAD, MARCIA.

MS. CLARK: I JUST WANTED TO INQUIRE BECAUSE ALL WE ARE GOING TO DO IS PUT IN THE INTERVIEW WITH THAT EXCISED. SO WHAT ISSUE IS THE COURT ASKING --

THE COURT: WELL, HE'S SAYING THAT THE PROBLEM IS, THE CONTEXT IS THEN TAKING THE CHALLENGE TO TAKE A POLYGRAPH.

MS. CLARK: THE BOTTOM LINE THEN, THE ISSUE IS WHETHER TO TAKE IT AWAY FROM THE REMARK ABOUT THE POLYGRAPH DEPRIVES IT OF MEANING OR UNFAIRLY DISTORTS --

THE COURT: YEAH. AND I HAVEN'T THOUGHT ABOUT THAT. NOBODY TELLS ME AHEAD OF TIME I'VE GOT TO THINK ABOUT IT.

MS. CLARK: BECAUSE YOU'RE THE JUDGE.

MR. DARDEN: YOU GUYS NEVER LET ME TALK IN CHAMBERS.

MR. SHAPIRO: ALSO, YOUR HONOR, MARCIA MENTIONED THERE WAS A WITNESS THAT I'M AWARE OF THAT KNOWS SOMETHING ABOUT THE POLYGRAPH. I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY REPORTS. I REALLY DO NOT KNOW WHAT SHE'S REFERRING TO. MAYBE I CAN GET DISCOVERY ON THAT.

MS. CLARK: WELL, IT'S REALLY NOT A SUBJECT MATTER OF DISCOVERY, BUT I'LL TELL COUNSEL.

MR. SHAPIRO: MAYBE YOU CAN TELL ME PRIVATELY.

MS. CLARK: MAYBE I CAN DO IT IN OPEN COURT.

MR. SHAPIRO: I WOULD LIKE TO BE TOLD.

MS. CLARK: I'LL TELL YOU.

THE COURT: TELL US NOW. TELL US NOW.

MS. CLARK: ON THE 15TH, WHEN WE RECEIVED THE LETTER FROM MR. SHAPIRO, WHICH HE INDICATED HE MIGHT CONSIDER TAKING A POLYGRAPH, MYSELF AND DAVID CONN, WHO WAS THEN PROSECUTING THE CASE, CALLED MR. SHAPIRO. WE HAD A CONVERSATION, THREE-WAY, AND WE ASKED HIM TO BRING HIS CLIENT IN FOR FURTHER QUESTIONING AND THEN WE WOULD ADMINISTER A POLYGRAPH IF EVERYBODY FELT LIKE DOING THAT.

MR. SHAPIRO SAID, "WELL, MY CLIENT IS VERY HEAVILY MEDICATED AND I REALLY DON'T KNOW IF IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO BRING HIM IN." AND THEN DAVID SUGGESTED THAT HE EASE HIM OFF THE MEDICATION SO THAT HE COULD COME IN FOR FURTHER QUESTIONING, AND MR. SHAPIRO SAID, "NO, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT. I'LL GET BACK TO YOU," AND THEN HE NEVER DID.

MR. SHAPIRO: NO, THAT'S NOT TRUE. WHAT I SAID TO MR. CONN WAS PRETTY CLEAR. THE FINAL THING -- YOU'LL SEE IT IN THE LETTER -- I SAID THE CONDITION WOULD BE THAT BOTH SIDES WOULD STIPULATE THAT IT IS ADMISSIBLE, AND MR. CONN SAID, "WE CAN'T DO THAT. THAT'S AGAINST THE POLICY." MY LETTER SPECIFICALLY AS I RECALL -- I HAVEN'T SEEN THIS LETTER IN MONTHS, BUT IN MY LETTER, I SAID HE WOULD CONSIDER IT IF THE RESULTS WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE.

MS. CLARK: BUT OUR CONVERSATION CAME AFTER THAT LETTER. THAT'S THE POINT. BUT --

THE COURT: BUT YOU ARE GOING TO OFFER THIS STATEMENT WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE TO POLYGRAPH?

MS. CLARK: RIGHT. RIGHT. THAT WAS OUR INTENT.

THE COURT: OKAY.

MR. DOUGLAS: IT HAMPERS MY ABILITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE.

THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. BACK ON THE RECORD. MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: HAVE YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO YOUR CLIENT ABOUT RONALD SHIPP?

MR. COCHRAN: YES, I HAVE, YOUR HONOR. HE HAS BEEN AWARE OF IT FOR SOME TIME. SO HE IS AWARE OF THAT. MAYBE I SHOULD JUST STATE FOR THE RECORD --

THE COURT: CERTAINLY, PLEASE.

MR. COCHRAN: -- THE SITUATION. YOUR HONOR, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE NEXT PEOPLE'S WITNESS IS MR. RONALD SHIPP, AND MR. SHIPP IS RELATED TO ME. HE IS A COUSIN. HIS FATHER IS THE FATHER OF MY COUSINS. HE HAS A DIFFERENT MOTHER. AND I SHARED THAT WITH MR. SIMPSON. AND AS SUCH, THERE'S A POTENTIAL CONFLICT, BUT I'VE SHARED THAT WITH MR. SIMPSON AND HE WAIVES THAT CONFLICT. BECAUSE OF THE POTENTIAL RELATIONSHIP, I WILL NOT QUESTION THIS PARTICULAR WITNESS HOWEVER.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. SIMPSON, IS THIS AGREEABLE TO YOU, THAT YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION TO MR. COCHRAN REMAINING AS YOUR COUNSEL DESPITE THE FACT THE PROSECUTION WILL BE CALLING A RELATIVE OF HIS AS A WITNESS?

THE DEFENDANT: YES. IT'S NO PROBLEM, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, YOU'VE BROACHED AN INTERESTING LEGAL ISSUE THAT I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT'S COMING AGAIN. THANK YOU. WE ARE WITHIN 10 MINUTES OF THE END OF THE BUSINESS DAY IN ANY EVENT. COUNSEL, IF YOU HAVE ANY CASES ON THE ISSUE, FAX THEM TO THE COURT AND I WILL PICK THEM UP TOMORROW MORNING. I WILL BE IN THE BUILDING TILL AROUND 6:00. ANYTHING ELSE, COUNSEL?

MR. DARDEN: WHAT TIME DO WE ADJOURN TOMORROW?

THE COURT: 9:00 O'CLOCK.

MR. DARDEN: NOT BEGIN. ADJOURN. 4:00 O'CLOCK OR 3:30?

THE COURT: 4:00 O'CLOCK.

MS. CLARK: WHEN IS THE 3:30 DAY?

THE COURT: THAT WAS THE DAY THE JUROR HAD TO GO TO A DOCTOR'S APPOINTMENT AT THE END OF THE DAY. WE'LL STAND IN RECESS UNTIL 9:00 O'CLOCK.

(AT 4:25 P.M., AN ADJOURNMENT WAS TAKEN UNTIL, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1995, 9:00 A.M.)

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

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

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

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 1995

VOLUME 78

PAGES 12395 THROUGH 12649, INCLUSIVE
(PAGES 12369 THROUGH 12394, INCLUSIVE, SEALED)

APPEARANCES: (SEE PAGE 2)

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

APPEARANCES:

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

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

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

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

I N D E X

INDEX FOR VOLUME 78 PAGES 12395 - 12649

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

DAY DATE SESSION PAGE VOL.

TUESDAY JANUARY 31, 1995 A.M. 12395 78
P.M. 12515 78
-----------------------------------------------------

PROCEEDINGS

PEOPLE'S CASE IN CHIEF 12418 78

OPENING STATEMENT BY MR. COCHRAN 12404 78 (REOPENED)

LEGEND:

MS. CLARK - MC
MR. HODGMAN - H
MR. DARDEN D
MR. KAHN - K
MR. GOLDBERG - GB
MR. GORDON - G
MR. SHAPIRO - S
MR. COCHRAN - C
MR. BAILEY - B
MR. UELMEN - U
MR. SCHECK - BS
MR. NEUFELD - N

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

CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

PEOPLE'S
WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS VOL.

GILBERT, SHARYN 12419D 12433C 12441D 12442C 78

EDWARDS, JOHN 12446D 12498C 78 (RESUMED) 12518C 12546D 12557C
(FURTHER) 12568D 12571C

FARRELL, MIKE 12574D 12597C 12614D 12626D 78

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

ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

PEOPLE'S
WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS VOL.

EDWARDS, JOHN 12446D 12498C 78 (RESUMED) 12518C 12546D 12557C
(FURTHER) 12568D 12571C

FARRELL, MIKE 12574D 12597C 12614D 12626D 78

GILBERT, SHARYN 12419D 12433C 12441D 12442C 78

EXHIBITS

PEOPLE'S FOR IN
EXHIBIT IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE

PAGE VOL. PAGE VOL.

1 - 911 AUDIOTAPE 12417 78

2 - 1-PAGE 911 12421 78
DISPATCHER'S LOG

3 - PHOTOGRAPH 12490 78
(FRONT VIEW OF FACE OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON)

4 - PHOTOGRAPH 12490 78
(SIDE VIEW OF FACE OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON)

5 - PHOTOGRAPH 12490 78
(SIDE VIEW OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON)

6 - 4-PAGE DOCUMENT 12572 78
(LAPD DOCUMENT "STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES
REGARDING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE")

7 - 1-PAGE DOCUMENT 12627 78
DATED JANUARY 18, 1989, SIGNED BY MARK FUHRMAN