Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge

APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)

(Janet M. Moxham, CSR no. 4855, official reporter.)

(Christine M. Olson, CSR no. 2378, official reporter.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present with counsel, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Douglas, Mr. Bailey. The People are represented by Miss Clark, Mr. Hodgman, Mr. Darden. The jury is not present. Counsel.

MS. LEWIS: I'm here, too, Judge.

THE COURT: I'm sorry, Miss Lewis. I didn't see you. A few matters to take up before we resume with Mr. Gladden. We have two motions on this morning.

MR. DOUGLAS: I have a discovery.

THE COURT: And a discovery matter.

MR. DOUGLAS: May I be heard, your Honor?

THE COURT: Mr. Douglas.

MR. DOUGLAS: Thank you, your Honor. Good morning.

THE COURT: Good morning, counsel.

MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, I am aware that there has been a dispute or a question concerning the discoverability of an alleged sketch that was prepared by a witness whose name is Tom Lang. I am also aware now, having spoken with Mr. Hodgman last night, that his office was in fact in receipt in January of this year of that sketch, and for reasons that I am not quite clear on, chose not to turn it over to the Prosecution. I am also aware that that sketch was the subject of the 1054.07 hearing in chambers with the Court last night. I endeavored, your Honor, to review the witness list that the Prosecutors submitted on January the 5th of 1995. That was an updated list from the one that had been prepared in September of last year and Tom Lang was on that list as a Prosecution witness. As such, your Honor, I do not feel that there is a legal basis under 1054 of the penal code for there to be any argument that that sketch, having been received from a witness, was not immediately discoverable to the Defense, and I believe that there has been a violation of the discovery rules and that that document should have been turned over in January when it was first received. That is the first issue. The second issue concerns a witness, Steve Valerie, who we expect to call today on the witness stand. Mr. Valerie was a witness who was mentioned in the opening statement as being one of the passengers who sat directly across from Mr. Simpson in first class on the Chicago bound airplane who had the entire flight to observe Mr. Simpson's demeanor and who will testify that not only was he in a relaxed calm mood, but on various occasions during the flight he had occasion to look over at his hands and saw no injuries or other marks or bandages on his hands. Mr. Valerie told me, when Mr. Cochran and I spoke with him last night, that he spoke to law enforcement officers on or about September 15 of 1994 when he was in London, and there was a conversation with a particular officer, because they had contacted Mr. Valerie through Mr. Valerie's family who lived in Irvine. Shortly after the murders, your Honor, Mr. Valerie was seen on television on one of the network programs talking about his observations of Mr. Simpson that evening and he believes it was through those conversations that the District Attorney's office learned of his identity and then sought to talk with him. When he talked from London he was--he was a business school student at UCLA at the time and he was working in London for an American corporation. They spoke some about his observations on that day and he recalls specifically that there was an officer who spoke with him because his family lived in Irvine and the officer was from Irvine and there was some discussion about the both of them sharing the common home of Irvine, California. Since he was in London at that time there was an agreement that he would speak again with the officer upon his return to the states, and Mr. Valerie returned on September the 30th, and there was immediately at that time a message from the officer. And he recalls specifically calling the police department on either October the 1st, the next day, or on October the 3rd, that following Monday, and spoke with the officers for perhaps twenty to thirty minutes over the telephone as well. Both occasions he gave statements consistent with his initial observations, that there were no cuts or bruises on Mr. Simpson's hands and that he was at all time relaxed. I looked on my list again this morning, the January 5th list of the Prosecution, and Steve Valerie was a witness in January on the Prosecution's list. He was also a witness on the Defense list, as was Mr. Lang. Because he was a Prosecution witness, your Honor, I am of the opinion that there was similarly an obligation to turn over reports of any such conversations that occurred on September the 15th by telephone when he was in London and on either October the 1st or the 3rd where there was a much more lengthy and extensive conversation reaffirming the earlier observations he had made on June the 13th.

THE COURT: People.

MS. CLARK: May we have a moment, your Honor?

THE COURT: Certainly.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

THE COURT: I'm sorry, Mr. Douglas. Did Mr. Valerie indicate to you the name of the police officer to whom he spoke?

MR. DOUGLAS: The only recollection he had was as to the first conversation, that the officer lived in Irvine because they shared the Irvine thing. There was an earlier conversation with Detective Kilcoyne, and he was not sure that it was the same officer on the other two occasions, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. DOUGLAS: We do have Kilcoyne's report from June.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. HODGMAN: Good morning, your Honor.

THE COURT: Good morning.

MR. HODGMAN: Your Honor, as the Court is aware, I appeared before the Court yesterday and I will incorporate my previous remarks with regard to the information regarding Mr. Lang. I would submit that Mr. Lang was on the Defense witness list from an early point in time preceding January of `95. We did not intend to call Mr. Lang as a witness for reasons personal to ourselves, and as evidenced by our case in chief, he was not presented. So I would submit that Mr. Douglas' point is a difference without a distinction and I will simply incorporate my previous remarks with regard to whatever ruling the Court might make in this regard.

THE COURT: You concede, however, at this point, that Mr. Lang was on the Prosecution's witness list as of January 5?

MR. HODGMAN: He was.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. HODGMAN: With regard to the second point, your Honor, we are not in possession of any September statement or notes from Mr. Valerie. I will look into the matter. But I would submit that the same rationale applies, that this is a difference without a distinction in the sense that Valerie--I would have to check whether Valerie was on our January witness list, but he was certainly on the Defense witness list, I know that for a fact, so for the moment I will have to look into that for the Court before asserting 1054.07, possibly, or before I can better educate the Court as to what that issue is, but we do not have a statement from September of last year.

THE COURT: All right. Do you have a statement from October of last year?

MR. HODGMAN: We have something from October of last year, yeah. It appears to be some notes.

THE COURT: All right. Anything else?

MR. DOUGLAS: Briefly, your Honor. The test is not whether in actuality they are going to call him, which triggers their discovery obligations from October, your Honor. Certainly from October they did not know that they were not going to call Mr. Valerie. Certainly in January, your Honor, January 25th or 26th, I believe, he was still--Tom Lang was still on the Prosecutor's list. We have been given thousands of pages of documents of interviews from witnesses who they haven't called, so that is not the test, your Honor. That is all I want to say.

THE COURT: All right.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. HODGMAN: Your Honor, the only additional point I wish to make is simply to remind the Court of what it is already well aware, and that is the language of the statute; "Witnesses that the People or a party intends to call."

THE COURT: All right.

MR. HODGMAN: Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. The Court finds that the--both of these individuals, Valerie and Lang, were on the Prosecution's witness list as of January 5, 1995. As such, any statements that were in possession of the Prosecution at that time should have been turned over. The Court will direct that the notes from October of `94 of Mr. Valerie be disclosed to the Defense forthwith and also the sketch from January of 1995 from Mr. Lang be disclosed forthwith.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. HODGMAN: May we have a moment?

THE COURT: Certainly.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

THE COURT: All right. Next issue.

MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, since we are the proponent of the testimony of Lori Menzione, I would suggest that we would have the burden of justifying her admission.

THE COURT: I agree.

MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, Lori Menzione, on June the 12th, 1994, was an employee of Thomas Cook Travel Agency, which is now American Express Travel Agency. Sometime that morning she received a call from a Hertz representative, whom she knows from having had prior dealings, and was informed that there is a Mr. Simpson on the line that has a death request and needs to make an emergency change in his reservations. Subsequently there was another party put on the phone and then Mr. Simpson. We believe that was through a conference call that Mr. Simpson had made with either Cathy Randa or Skip Taft who had called Hertz to set up this conversation. And during the course of the subsequent conversation with Miss Menzione Mr. Simpson was attempting--the name was Orenthal Simpson. He was attempting to make new arrangements for the return flight to Los Angeles, having just been informed of the deaths of his former wife and another person. Miss Menzione, I can tell you as an Officer of the Court, would testify that during the course of her conversation with Mr. Simpson she heard a crash like sound in the background and Mr. Simpson said, "Hold on, hold on, hold on." She then heard a sound that she distinctly thought was the sound of water running. She will testify, your Honor, that the crash like sound that she heard was similar to a sound of someone wiping clean a table or something nearby and then things scattering, and that is the motion that she was using when she was trying to describe the nature of the sound that she heard. I spoke with her about it yesterday. She will say that after hearing the, "Hold on," she then heard water running and Mr. Simpson then returned to the phone and said, "I cut myself and I'm bleeding." And then there were further conversations that were made about trying to make arrangements about the death of his wife. There were conversations about his having two kids; one was nine, one was almost six. They were all conversations concerning Mr. Simpson's efforts to make arrangements for his return flight to Los Angeles. There is one argument that the People have suggested that there is no verification or ability to corroborate the fact that the Orenthal Simpson who Miss Menzione was speaking with was in fact Mr. OJ Simpson. I don't think that there is a great deal of stock in that particular argument, so I would like to focus my comments on the admissibility of that statement and why I feel that it is admissible. Certainly, your Honor, the conversation and the testimony about what she heard on the phone, that she heard a crash like sound over the phone, that she heard running of water, that Mr. Simpson had said, "Hold on, hold on," certainly that the crash like sound and the water running were percipient sounds that are admissible, irrespective of whatever word or conversations she may have had with the accused, so there is a threshold relevance clearly. There is a threshold basis to offer the admissibility of her testimony, and it becomes more relevant, your Honor, when the Court appreciates the context of her testimony with other facts that have already been before the jury and other facts still to come. As an Officer of the Court, your Honor, certainly the Court is aware that Kato Kaelin, Allan Park, Wayne Stanfield, Mike Norris, Mike Gladden, have all testified that they saw Mr. Simpson before--before and during the course of his Chicago flight and they noticed no cuts, no bruises, no bandages, no evidence of blood on his hands. I'm sure there will be the argument, well, they didn't look, but that goes to the weight rather than to the admissibility of the testimony.

As an Officer of the Court I will tell you that there will be other witnesses who will testify today. Howard Bingham, who was also on the flight and had a conversation with Mr. Simpson right next to his seat, Steve Valerie who was seated in first class across the aisle from Mr. Simpson and had occasion to observe him throughout the entire flight, and James Merrill who was the Hertz employee who picked up Mr. Simpson at the gate who traveled with him to the baggage claim area who will testify that he sat with him in the baggage claim area for fifteen or twenty minutes waiting for the bags to come, watching a relaxed but tired OJ Simpson greet some fans and bystanders, give autographs, shake hands and then driving Mr. Simpson from the airport to his hotel, helping him with his baggage, and that there was no cuts, no bruises, no bleeding on his hands as of that point. And now we have Mr. Simpson walking into the hotel and there has not been one witness who has perceived him that evening who noticed any cuts or bruises on his hands.

THE COURT: Counsel, counsel--

MR. DOUGLAS: We then have the testimony--

THE COURT: Counsel, I appreciate the relevance. I don't think you need to tell me more about that.

MR. DOUGLAS: I'm trying to corroborate, your Honor, why this evidence has indications of trustworthiness separate from the words that were spoken, which is part of my obligation under evidence code section 1252. Then we have, your Honor, he goes inside his hotel, and Dave Kilduff, who is a vice-president and regional manager of Hertz, sees Mr. Simpson outside the hotel, he is distressed. Mr. Kilduff is dropping off Hertz employees, and basically Mr. Simpson takes his car and Kilduff then drives Mr. Simpson to the airport. Kilduff will testify that as he was pulling up Mr. Simpson was distressed, he was crying, he had his hands up to his face and there was a bandage, there was bleeding and it was profuse. We then will have testimony--

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. DOUGLAS: We then have testimony of Mark Partridge who will confirm that there was a bandage on the middle finger of his left hand. Your Honor, I suggest to you there is independent corroboration that the statements that Mr. Simpson made, "I'm bleeding and I cut myself," are independently trustworthy. And your Honor, under evidence code section 1250, these statements go to the physical sensation of the declarant and there is a specific clause that says physical sensation includes the bodily health. The People have conceded that if Mr. Simpson were to have said, "I'm hurt and I cut myself" that would have been admissible. I argue the statement, "I'm bleeding and I cut myself" is also admissible and it is a distinction without difference. A statement of his physical bodily health is that I'm bleeding and I cut myself. A statement of physical sensation is that "I'm hurt and I cut myself." For all reasons of fairness and probative value and with the other corroboration that will be present, I suggest to the Court that those statements are an admissible exception to the hearsay rule and should be admitted.

THE COURT: Miss Lewis.

MS. LEWIS: Good morning, your Honor. Your Honor, I spoke with Ms. Menzione as well on Monday morning when she was, I believe, still in Chicago. The conversation that she had she made typed notes with regard to and those are appended to my brief, and it shows the conversation in some detail as she recalled it within a few days after the conversation itself, so that is certainly the most trustworthy representation of what the conversation was. In any event, she was transferred a call where some caller, some person presumably from Hertz, I believe, said that they had a Mr. Simpson on the line who needed help because of a death notification, needed help with reservations. That by itself of course is irrelevant and hearsay. She proceeded to talk to Mr. Simpson and had trouble finding his reservation within the computer system that she was using. So they had rather a lengthy time on the phone. During that time he sounded like he was moving around the room. At one point he said, "Hold on," put the phone down and she heard what sounded to her like a phone falling, a crashing noise. At any rate, he did, after a pause, come back on the phone and she said, "Are you all right?" And he said--and what she described back then--in a somber tone of voice, "Yes, I've cut myself and I'm bleeding." Something about "I was just notified that my wife was killed." And she said, "I'm sorry, was she ill?" And he said, "No, she was killed," something like that. Now, the problem with this is a very elementary one to begin with and that is that there was no foundation that that was Mr. Simpson who made the call. We can talk about what is reported in the press and we can try this case based upon what people to know based upon various press reports or we can resume our trial of this case as we are doing in a court of law and go by the rules of evidence. The rules of evidence require the quite elementary foundation that there be authentication of the declarants of the person making the statement, who in this case is a caller over the telephone. Miss Menzione told me on Monday that she had never spoken to OJ Simpson before that occasion. She didn't even realize until the middle of the call that she had presumably Mr. Simpson on the line when she finally put together the Orenthal with the OJ it wasn't until halfway through the call that she even thought that is who it might be. We have him saying that is who he was, but she has never spoken to him before then. She has never spoken to him since then. And as she told me Monday, she did not recognize his voice during that conversation, still does not recognize it, and still cannot swear from personal knowledge that that was his voice on the phone. So while Mr. Douglas breezes over this problem, I believe he does so because there is no answer from the Defense to this problem that they have presented. This is a basic and elementary foundational problem when you have a hearsay declaration made over the telephone. I will address only briefly the excited utterance exception, since Mr. Douglas has chosen not to rely on it. I did include it in my brief. It is clearly not an excited utterance because the--as the Court ruled earlier with regard to Denise Brown's statement when she learned of Nicole's death, that, "Oh, my God, he did it" or something like that, because she did not witness the murders themselves, there was no traumatic event to which she was a percipient witness. And that where the spontaneous utterance exception applies, and cutting one's self is certainly under the case law not a traumatic event that is going to cause someone to be extremely upset and agitated so that they say something spontaneously that that is trustworthiness, so it fails to qualify under the hearsay exception for a spontaneous statement. And the only other one I was looking to see, well, could it possibly be an expression of a--assuming they could cross that first foundational hurdle, which they can't, could it possibly be an indication of physical suffering of some kind? And it is not. He states that he cut himself. He doesn't even say that it hurt. And I'm not conceding at all that it would come in necessarily if he had said it hurt him, but the point of that exception is to allow in civil actions testimony as to pain and suffering, because that is always going to be a hearsay type of declaration that comes out to prove what somebody is feeling, since you can't otherwise prove what they are feeling, so it is a sensation and not the visible result they could testify to, because there is no other way that that could come in under the law without making an exception for it. And the final thing I want to point out, Mr. Douglas stands up here and says as an Officer of the Court he can represent that all of these witnesses saw no cut on Mr. Simpson's hands repeatedly throughout the time that he was on the flight and so forth. I don't see how he can--how he can look you in the face, your Honor, and say that and say that those are trustworthy when he knows that his client's own taped statement that Mr. Simpson made after returning from Chicago he says--he acknowledges that he cut himself in Los Angeles. He didn't remember how, but he remembered cutting himself, that he had cut himself, that he was bleeding. He said he was running around, didn't know how he did it. He had no explanation for how he cut himself, but he did acknowledge that he cut himself. And in fact when he was asked about Chicago, he said, "I think it was a cut--that I reopened the cut that I made in Los Angeles that I reopened." So how Mr. Douglas can get up here and say with all ethical presumption, as an Officer of the Court, that he believes that statement is trustworthy when he knows that his own client told the police that he had cut himself in Los Angeles, is galling, it is absolutely galling. So for that reason, because words out of the Defendant's own mouth under a calm voluntary Mirandized situation which was tape-recorded, because he acknowledges having cut himself in Los Angeles, all of these other supposed indicia where someone is supposed to notice whether someone has a cut on their hand and because they don't that assumes to prove that they don't have a cut, all of those indicia is rendered absolutely untrustworthy because the Court has the Defendant's statement, his admission out of his own mouth. So the first and foremost and the easiest basis upon which the Court can rule, which is the one frankly I feel the Court is bound to rule, and that is that there is no foundation that this caller was indeed Mr. Simpson, as we know the law requires.

THE COURT: Mr. Douglas. I'm concerned about two things. One, the inability to identify the person to whom she was speaking, and I'm concerned about the offer of proof regarding the indicia of reliability point raised by Miss Lewis concerning statements that your client made.

MR. DOUGLAS: First of all, your Honor, the witnesses will say that Mr. Simpson was not bleeding until after walking out of the hotel and then he was bleeding and that is the major cut that was on the top of Mr. Simpson's finger that witnesses will say they didn't see. Now, there were other cuts on other portions of his hand, but the major cut on the top of the middle finger of the left hand, witnesses will say was not bleeding and it was not seen until--Mr. Kilduff and Mr. Partridge were the first witnesses that would see and would testify about that cut and about the cut bleeding. In terms of the--the indication of who the person was on the phone, your Honor, certainly if the Court considers the totality of all of the other information in the case, as the Court must, there are sufficient indication of trustworthiness. One, we know it was a Hertz event. The witness will testify that she got a call from a woman she has dealt with in the past who is a Hertz employee.

THE COURT: Is there any record of this three-way phone conversation or any phone record contemporaneous with your client's hotel room?

MR. DOUGLAS: There are records, your Honor, of Mr. Simpson having called Mr. Taft. There are records of several calls that Mr. Simpson made to Cathy Randa. There are records of calls that were made to Mr. Merrill who was the person that had taken him to the airport and there were arrangements that were made and there were other calls that were made, your Honor--

THE COURT: No, Mr. Douglas. What I'm interested in, do you have phone records that show this call to Thomas Cook, now American Express?

MR. DOUGLAS: It wasn't a direct call from Mr. Simpson, your Honor. It was a call that was received from Hertz.

THE COURT: I understand that.

MR. DOUGLAS: And it was a call, your Honor, that Miss Menzione will say that when the Hertz person first came on to the phone and talked about there being this Mr. Simpson and an emergency and a need for a change, there was then another person on the phone first.

THE COURT: I'm asking--all right. Do you have--virtually every hotel charges for phone calls these days.

MR. DOUGLAS: I have records.

THE COURT: Do you have a record showing a phone call from your client's room to the Hertz person?

MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, that is not how it went. That is why I'm telling the Court, and if the Court will indulge me, there were calls that Mr. Simpson made to Cathy Randa. There has been testimony from Miss Simpson, Arnelle Simpson, that Miss Randa and Mr. Simpson had a practice of making three-way calls. When the Hertz call came through there was first another person on the phone and then Mr. Simpson came on the phone. Miss Menzione will say that at the conclusion of the call Mr. Simpson said, "Thank you, Cathy" to Miss Menzione, which suggests to me that certainly there was one indication or one occasion when there was a three-way call with Mr. Simpson having called Cathy Randa, she putting Simpson in touch with Hertz, Hertz then calling to Menzione and arrangements were made for travel. Clearly, your Honor, the arrangement for the reservation that was made was for the OJ Simpson who then had a ticket who then boarded that flight and who then sat in those seats. So I--

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. DOUGLAS: When they were asking about the nature of the emergency. There was discussion about my wife had just been killed. They had asked was it an accident? No, she had been killed. There was a discussion about his children. There was one 9 and there is one almost 6. these aspects of the conversation were reflected in the notes that Miss Menzione prepared that were attached with the motion. Who would have known, your Honor, other than OJ Simpson early on the morning of June the 13th, that there had been a death of an OJ Simpson that wasn't news in Chicago at that point, your Honor, that the caller had a child that was 9 and almost 6, that the caller wanted to make a particular flight from American Airlines? They tried to go to different airports, different airlines, but there was none that would get him into Los Angeles as quickly as the flight that was booked. I think, your Honor, there is sufficient indication that the caller was OJ Simpson, the name was Orenthal, the reservation was Orenthal. He was asked to spell the name Orenthal and during the course of the conversation she said, "Oh, you mean you are the movie guy?" "Yeah," and there was some reflection, during the course of the conversation, that she was speaking with the OJ Simpson.

THE COURT: So getting back to my question now, do you have a call from Cathy Randa to this Hertz person?

MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, I do not at present have records from Cathy Randa to Hertz.

THE COURT: Mr. Douglas, Orenthal is clearly a unique and distinctive name. The facts and circumstances indicate probably so. Do you have something independent of this conversation that can establish to me that the likelihood is this is the person?

MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, I do not have before me today Cathy Randa's phone records from June of `94. I do Mr. Simpson's telephone records from his hotel and I do have two calls that were made to Miss Randa's home before the first call that was made to Jim Merrill's cellular phone and he called Jim Merrill to pick him up to take him to the airport. I have three calls to Jim Merrill, but preceding those three calls were two calls to Cathy Randa.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. DOUGLAS: And that is all that I have at this time, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Do we have one of those computer travel agency printouts that gives us the time of the call and what arrangements were made?

MR. DOUGLAS: Miss Menzione does not have that, no, your Honor. But your Honor, before the call was made to the driver to come pick me up and take me back to the airport, there were two calls made to Cathy Randa. Certainly, your Honor, that supplies the indication. At the end of the call he says, "Thank you, Cathy" to Miss Menzione. She will testify to that.

THE COURT: All right. Is Miss Randa available?

MR. DOUGLAS: As a witness in the case?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: She is. Miss Menzione flew out here from Chicago. She is going back today and I would like to get her testimony on today.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. DOUGLAS: She leaves at 2:45 today.

THE COURT: Well, she knows how to change reservations.

MR. DOUGLAS: Probably so.

THE COURT: Counsel, I think Miss Lewis' point is well taken at this point regarding foundation, but there is not much more that needs to be done, but I'm indicating to you I need something a little more than what is there, because relating a conversation with somebody that you've never talked to before, I think you need something more than what you've got here.

MR. DOUGLAS: Even though there are independent confirming events during the course of the conversation that suggest only one person?

THE COURT: It is the foundation for the conversation itself.

MR. DOUGLAS: Very well, your Honor.

MS. LEWIS: Your Honor, I wanted just the Court to be aware of an additional circumstance.

THE COURT: Counsel, no. I've ruled and I've found an inadequate foundation at this point.

MS. LEWIS: All right. Your Honor, since the--if the Court--if the Court is moving on--

THE COURT: Yes.

MS. LEWIS: Since the People did file a 402 motion to bring this to the Court's attention, may the People have the first argument with regard to Christian Reichardt?

THE COURT: Yes.

MS. LEWIS: Your Honor, it appears, from all I can tell, that the Defense is attempting to introduce evidence regarding Faye Resnick's past drug usage and her intervention and alleged past problems with drugs through her ex-boyfriend Christian Reichardt. There is almost no testimony that Mr. Reichardt has to offer that I believe is admissible under the law. Under Hall, and the progeny that has come since then, all of the California Supreme Court cases during the 1990's which follow Hall all require that mere evidence of motive, even if there is also opportunity, those things are not alone sufficient to introduce evidence that some third party actually committed the crimes. This case law is well-established. In the Pride case the trial court kept out evidence that the husband of the murder victim had received $40,000 in life insurance money and remarried a year later, because the California Supreme Court said in that case where the Defendant was sitting on death row that that was insufficient evidence to raise a reasonable doubt that the Defendant committed the murders, as a matter of law. In the Alcala case, a paroled murderer, a known murderer was on parole was acting suspiciously in the area of the murders two days after the victim disappeared. The trial court kept that out. The California Supreme Court said insufficient evidence to raise a reasonable doubt. There was nothing linking him to the actual perpetration of the crime. In People versus Clark there was a third party connected with the case who had committed a murder by decapitation and in this case the murder was by decapitation. The Supreme Court said in that case--all of these cases the defendants are now sitting on death row. The California Supreme Court said in that case that is insufficient evidence to raise a reasonable doubt as to the Defendant's guilt. Now, in those--

THE COURT: Is decapitation, as a manner of killing, semi distinctive?

MS. LEWIS: California Supreme Court said that is insufficient. You would think so. I mean, that is similar m.o., but that is not enough. There has to be somebody actually--

THE COURT: As I recollect, that was multiple--

MS. LEWIS: Multiple decapitations.

THE COURT: --decapitations.

MS. LEWIS: I believe so. So there has to be evidence, there has to be a lot more evidence than the Defense could ever hope for here. No. 1, there has to be an identified third party. They can't just say some drug seller somewhere in the universe. There has to be some identified suspect as a third party. They don't have that. There has to be--to start with, there has to be motive and they have--they don't have that. They have a tortured argument that somehow because Faye Resnick may have had a minor drug habit, that would cause and warrant some Colombian drug lord to come murder her friend and someone is coming by her house at the time.

THE COURT: Well, let's--

MS. LEWIS: That stretches credulity.

THE COURT: Let's assume that it was a more than significant than minor drug problem. Let's assume that when friends who care for somebody take that person and put them into a drug program, I mean, that is more than minor.

MS. LEWIS: Suppose the person is an addicted person that they are about to fall down dead? There is no--

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MS. LEWIS: Miss Clark feels strong about this issue, as we all do, because the case law is clear in this area. I mean, there is no evidence here of anything other than this woman may have had a drug problem. There is no evidence that she owed money because of that problem. There is no evidence that she was involved in selling drugs. People--from what the Defense is speculating, it is absurdity, is absolutely absurd that somebody would go try--

THE COURT: How was Miss Resnick employed at the time?

MS. LEWIS: How was she employed at that time?

THE COURT: What was her source of income?

MS. LEWIS: Your Honor, I don't think that--

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys)

MS. LEWIS: I'm told that was Mr. Reichardt, her ex-boyfriend, who was supporting her at the time.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MS. LEWIS: On their own savings, their own money, but at any rate, your Honor, we are talking about, forgive the colloquial expression, about a nickel and dime habit of someone, and on the other hand we are talking about murder, and these things don't even logically necessarily link one to the other. And I have cited a case in my brief that talks about you don't draw speculative inferences from speculative inferences. I mean, those of us who like to get into detail can kind of get into detail and get into this stuff way off on the limb of a tree when the trunk of the tree is looking at it wondering what the heck we are doing standing out on the limb, and that is what the Defense is attempting to do with this supposed evidence of any drug dealing that would cause somebody to murder Faye Resnick's friend or even Faye Resnick. There is just simply--there is insufficient evidence. The third--the third obvious thing--I shouldn't say obvious, but the third thing that the California Supreme Court consistently requires before saying that there is any possibility that it might raise a reasonable doubt is an actual link to the murders of this named third party, evidence actually connecting, and that is where we can--the Defense would try to get into speculation, and based upon speculation, by trying to argue that there is more than one murderer, and therefore, if there is more than one murderer, maybe that was the drug seller, and even though we don't have a name of a person because Faye Resnick may have had a drug habit, it is likely to believe it was a drug seller. It is ridiculous, your Honor. There is just too many inferences and too much speculation. None of this evidence in this entire trial warrants finding that there is evidence actually linking anybody other than the Defendant, Orenthal James Simpson, to these murders. It is just not there. No matter how much Mr. Cochran and the other Defense team members would try and wave that spin in front of the jury, it just does not survive. There is just not evidence there. And the case law is clear, our California Supreme Court has spoken on this topic repeatedly over the 1990's current law, that that is insufficient. Now, in addition, your Honor, there is, in addition to that line of authority and that basic problem with the Defense attempt, there is of course the always present, whenever you have such inflammatory evidence or inflammatory spin on evidence, evidence code section 352. And here, according to our transcript of our interview with Mr. Reichardt, there is hardly a thing in there that isn't objectionable based on 352 grounds and relevancy. There is some discussion in there of a sexual encounter between Faye Resnick and Nicole. I don't know if the Defense is trying to elicit that or not. There is simply no relevance to that. It is unduly inflammatory. Even when we come back to the basic issue and the main issue of her drug use, that is inflammatory and irrelevant. It is likely to mislead and confuse this jury. It is there for no good reason than to try to sully the victims, make them look bad, make Nicole look bad because she had a friends who may have had a drug problem, and cast aspersions on the victims, all as a means to deflect attention away from the evidence showing Mr. Simpson is himself guilty and was the murderer.

THE COURT: Doesn't it show that Nicole Brown Simpson cared for her friend enough to get her into a drug program?

MS. LEWIS: And what is the relevance of that?

THE COURT: You say it is to sully the reputation of the victims. That didn't strike me that way.

MS. LEWIS: Well, their motives aside, it is what ends up coming out and what the evidence says that matters.

(Brief pause.)

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MS. LEWIS: That's right, your Honor. We don't want to have a mini trial as to Faye Resnick and her drug--potential past drug usage. I'm not sure to the extent that she has acknowledged drug usage, so I don't want to acknowledge any on her behalf. She certainly hasn't told me of any.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MS. LEWIS: That's right. There is no evidence of that anybody had any ill will toward her because of that drug habit, anybody that was likely to murder her. There is no evidence of any drug seller that had threatened her or to whom she owed money that was in town that night that was anywhere near the premises. There is nothing even to link up that motive. And even if you had that link, that link under the motive, you don't have the evidence of actual perpetration. All of that is still speculation. There is still no evidence actually linking such a hypothetical person to being the murderer and the person who killed those two innocent victims. So the--the Defense has gone far afield in trying to back door in, I guess, Mr.--or Miss Resnick's use of drugs through her ex-boyfriend. I see the Court has acquired a textbook. I will pause.

THE COURT: I just had a point of curiosity here.

MS. LEWIS: You know, on the other hand, there are a few things which we don't find objectionable, if the Defense would chose to put on Mr. Reichardt for those reasons alone, and that is that shortly before the murders the Defendant told Faye Resnick, and Miss Resnick repeated it to Christian Reichardt, that he was going to kill Nicole and she told him that before the murders occurred. So if the Defense wants to allow that hearsay when Mr. Reichardt comes in and testifies that Faye Resnick told him the Defendant said that, we would be happy to admit, we would be happy to allow them to question him with regard to the lengthy conversations the Defendant had over the two weeks preceding the murders with Faye Resnick and why when he was talking about why won't Nicole return my telephone calls, why won't she call him, where he appeared to be obsessed with her then, contrary to the image that the Defense is trying to portray that he was happy-go-lucky about them having broke up. And we also don't object to Mr. Reichardt acknowledging that Mr. Simpson gave him $5000 for doing a five-page I believe outline for a video of his. But, your Honor, the--the gravamen of this motion is that the Defense has failed to show any link of any third party with these murders as it is required to by our California Supreme Court and as it is required to under the law. Regardless of how they want to try this case in front of this jury, they are obliged to follow the law and they cannot do it in this regard.

THE COURT: Thank you, counsel. Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Good morning, your Honor.

THE COURT: Good morning.

MR. COCHRAN: Just briefly, your Honor. You have been very patient this morning listening to the lawyers, and so I'm not going to belabor this, but I think we should get the record straight on a couple of things. Miss Lewis speculates far too much about with what we expect to do. She didn't have the benefit of our conversation back in chambers which you now have with counsel, Mr. Darden and Miss Clark there. But let me just indicate that with regard to Dr. Reichardt, Dr. Christian Reichardt, he does have very, very relevant testimony. First of all, let's talk about demeanor. Dr. Reichardt spoke with our client, Mr. OJ Simpson, at about nine o'clock on June 12th, 1994, in a phone conversation which he would, I believe, testify about Mr. Simpson's demeanor, that he was calm, he was relaxed like he always was. That at that conversation they made a date to have dinner, along with Paula Barbieri, on the Wednesday preceding or succeeding that Sunday evening, so I guess that would be Wednesday, the 15th of June. He has had a long-standing relationship with Mr. Simpson. And for counsel to come and make these speculations based upon just a scintilla of knowledge is unfortunate because she would know this man is a chiropractic doctor and his lawyer has assured me he would he have made a lot more than $5,000 if he had been in his office for the work he did on a playboy video on how you conduct yourself on flights and how you avoid jet lag and things like that. We can quarrel about that. Mr. Simpson didn't give him anything. He was paid for what he did at the time, so we clearly have the demeanor. In addition to that, perhaps the Prosecution doesn't know, Dr. Reichardt spoke with Nicole Brown Simpson only about 4:30 or 5:00 on that afternoon. He also spoke with her, as I have indicated to the Court, on Friday evening. He was a friend of all the parties here involved. Now, it is interesting that Miss Lewis would speculate out loud about some relationship. The Court will recall that on the Defense side we have never said one bad thing about either of these victims and we will not do that. All the things that have come is from their own witnesses or from Faye Resnick in her book. We have never said anything bad and will not plan and will not do that during the course of this case. But with regard to the other aspect that she talks about--so clearly there is relevance to his testimony, and it seems as though in a search for truth it seems like there is their truth and there is the real truth.

So all we are saying is we have an absolute right to bring this man on. We will make that judgment of. With regard to Faye Resnick, that is what she is really worried about, your Honor, and that is why she goes to such extent and extreme. The Court has clearly pointed out we expect the evidence will show that Miss Faye Resnick had a breast enlargement surgery in March of 1994, that Dr. Reichardt told her at the time he was afraid for her getting back on medication, that she return to bingeing and using drugs. That is what I expect the evidence to show. And he knew you about her. This wasn't like any minor drug problem. He had been as the sober person through the Betty Ford clinic with this lady to try to help her stay straight, along with her minor child who resided with her, your Honor. But yet after she had this breast enlargement, sure enough, she returned to the use of drugs just as she feared. You asked a very appropriate question. She was not gainfully employed. She lived with him and he does not use drugs and would not give her any money for drugs. I would expect the testimony to be that and he will be adamant about that if he does in fact testify.

In addition to that, over a period of time her drug usage became so bad, your Honor, that on the Friday, the previous Friday, I think June the 3rd, it became so bad that they separated. She moved in or went over to Nicole Brown Simpson's house as a friend. He left, went to San Diego. She called him from Miss Brown Simpson's residence indicating she was staying there now. And he returned home on Sunday. She was still at Nicole Brown Simpson's residence. She would only come home during the day to change clothes or to get clothes, but she was residing at Nicole Brown Simpson's residence. We think this is very relevant because when I had Detective Lange on the stand there was some question about whether she moved in with Nicole Brown Simpson. I think we can show that through Christian Reichardt. More important is the fact that Nicole Brown Simpson was a very good friend of this lady and should never be maligned at all, they shouldn't even think about her being maligned, on Wednesday of that week, the 8th, the situation with Faye Resnick became so bad with her use of cocaine that her former husband, Paul Resnick, contacted Christian Reichardt, your Honor, said, "Look, it has gotten so bad, I'm concerned for Francesca, I'm concerned for her."

And Dr. Reichardt was supposed to go to a family gathering that evening and he didn't show up because they met at a restaurant out in Brentwood to talk about their approach. At this restaurant on June 8th was Nicole Brown Simpson, Paul Resnick and Christian Reichardt, all to discuss the drug problem, the serious drug problem of Faye Resnick. They talked about it. Faye Resnick was at a party that particular evening, the party that Dr. Reichardt was to attend, but he didn't attend that party. And at the dinner that they had it was determined they would--it was so serious that they would have an intervention that night, an intervention in which the family and friends would come together and say to this lady, you can't help yourself, we've got to help you get some help. And sure enough, it was agreed that later that evening at Dr. Reichardt's house that they would have this intervention, that Miss Resnick would come over, her former husband, Paul Resnick, would come by, and they in fact did at about eleven o'clock that evening. And as often happens, Faye Resnick was in denial. In fact, she denied using drugs, denied having any drugs in the house, and it was Miss Nicole Brown Simpson who went over, according to Dr. Reichardt, and showed where she was hiding a stash of cocaine at that point in that house. And they recovered it. I believe the understanding was that evening it was flushed down the toilet because everybody else there apparently was anti-drug except Faye Resnick. And it was determined at this point that she would go into exodus the very next day. And the record will reflect that Dr. Reichardt took her into exodus the very next day, which will be on Thursday, the 9th, and we know that in the from the records, your Honor. She remained in there for approximately two weeks and he continued--he paid for this, your Honor. Cost him $7,000. Even though at this point they were separated, he paid for this, as a friend, and Miss Nicole Brown Simpson had been a friend of this particular lady. Judge, when you buy drugs, you generally have to pay for them. They can talk about the speculation they what. This is axiomatic. And you can talk about a nickel and dime thing. This is far more than this. This is going on over a period of time, someone who has no gainful means of paying for these drugs, and those are absolutely the facts. You take that--and that is why--one of the reasons that we--let me state again for the record, we don't plan or want to call Sydney Simpson to the stand. All we have asked is to talk to her along with Miss Clark in an effort to try and ascertain and to do a stipulation why Sydney Simpson says that night Mommy's best friend calls and Mommy was crying thereafter. The Court will recall that. And then further, your Honor, the situation we have here is there is testimony from several witnesses that once these horrible crimes occurred, friends of all parties, Faye Resnick, Nicole Brown Simpson, everyone indicated and everyone said, and the Prosecution is aware of this, if OJ isn't guilty of this, then we are all in trouble. And there is testimony, for instance, with Dr. Reichardt, that he slept with a gun for several weeks or ten days after this happened. There was great fright and concern at exodus where Faye Resnick was when Christian Reichardt went to see her at the drug treatment facility. They thought this was a drug-related situation and that this was a pay back for not paying for these drugs. And all these people felt that exact same way. They all felt that way. And we think that is relevant and it certainly ties in. And so what I've tried now is to demonstrate to your Honor what I expect is relevant testimony that we can demonstrate, what you said to us in chambers, because in this case we are trying to move along at a pace where we don't forsake quality for speed. At the same time we are concerned about this jury, so we are making tactical decisions as we go along. We haven't made the final decision, although Dr. Reichardt is on our list for today, but certainly his testimony is relevant, certainly on the demeanor, and we think it is also relevant, your Honor, with regard to the other things I have indicated regarding Faye Resnick and her drug usage. And it is not particularly helpful to you to talk about these other things or to be worried about what we may be doing. Further, as I said, we don't plan to go into anything that is negative, and further, any hearsay statement we don't plan to elicit, as I mentioned to you back in chambers. Any hearsay statement made by Faye Resnick attributed to our client is double hearsay. In that same interview that Mr. Darden conducted Mr.--Dr. Reichardt was never on the phone at any time and didn't hear--he just heard what Faye Resnick was saying and he also told Mr. Darden that during this time that she was allegedly talking to Mr. Simpson she was high on drugs at that very time, and he had been working all day and came home and didn't want to hear what he considered nonsensical conversation.

So I promise not to be lengthy, but I thought I should make an effort to set the record straight. If you have any questions regarding this, I will be more than pleased to try and answer them.

THE COURT: Thank you, counsel.

MS. LEWIS: Your Honor, Mr. Cochran has just made my point perfectly. We have gotten off into an intrigue with regard to Faye Resnick and he still has failed to satisfy the requirements of the case law. Who was her dealer? Who did she owe money to? Did she owe money to anybody? Was the person bent out of shape? Was that person somebody who the Defense can identify? Was that person somebody that had an opportunity to kill her? I mean, he has still failed to go through and enumerate something, some evidence actually linking the perpetration of these crimes with anybody other than Mr. Simpson. And it is clear from all that he said, that none of that does, that it is all speculation. All it does is confuse and mislead the jury. And by the way, he mentioned that there is so much concern about some other murderer, as a matter of fact, it is my understanding that Mr. Kardashian's child was spending--was staying at Faye Resnick's house as late as February, so clearly that is just something he is shooting off at the mouth, and she still spends the night occasionally I am told. But all of this has become ridiculous, your Honor. It is far out on that little twig at the very end of a limb on a tree with a big trunk and that big trunk is all the evidence against Mr. Simpson. That little leaf sitting out there in the wind blowing in the wind is the Defense hope that they can somehow get the jury to believe that some drug seller is the one who actually committed murders. And your Honor, Mr. Cochran talked at length about that, but he also spoke about conversations over the phone. By the way, the conversations that Christian Reichardt had with Faye Resnick are clearly hearsay. I don't know why he thinks that would be admissible. At any rate, the conversations--

MR. COCHRAN: I didn't hear what she said.

THE COURT: He was just asking if you could repeat the last comment. He didn't hear that.

MS. LEWIS: Oh, the conversations that were had over the phone or the conversations that Mr. Reichardt had with Faye Resnick clearly are hearsay, regardless of what--whether Christian Reichardt heard the Defendant over the phone or if he was just speaking to Faye Resnick. At any rate, the--Mr. Cochran was also talking about conversation that Mr. Reichardt had with the Defendant allegedly at nine o'clock on June 12th, before the murders, and as further demeanor evidence. Well, I would submit that the likelihood of misleading or confusing the jury versus the probative value of somebody's demeanor as interpreted over a telephone weighs against that evidence coming in. Because to say how somebody sounded over the phone, without an opportunity to see their demeanor, their physical body language, in conjunction with that voice, disembodied voice on the telephone, is really virtually meaningless. Further, your Honor, in that regard, the Defense--I don't know, since I--well, I don't know if there has been discussion of this previously, but the Defense is treading on dangerous ground when they talk about Mr. Simpson's demeanor. They are getting into his character for peacefulness under the assumption that a murderer or that someone who does not commit murder acts peacefully up until the time of the murder. I didn't phrase that very well, but--

THE COURT: Miss Lewis, let's not launch into that issue. The issue before the Court right now is the Hall issue.

MS. LEWIS: All right. It is clear that nothing Mr. Cochran has said has identified any third party or has shown any link of evidence besides a motive of some unidentified third party. He has failed to satisfy the requirement. All of the case law that our California Supreme Court has repeatedly held with regard to Defendant's who are sitting on death row waiting to be executed repeatedly held that the trial Court's properly ruled to keep out that evidence because it didn't raise the reasonable doubt as to the Defendant's guilt when there was insufficient evidence linking any third party, and in those cases there was a known identified third party linking any third party to the actual murders themselves. Here all of the evidence shows and points to Mr. Simpson as being the person who murdered Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman. There has just been a failure, absolute dismal failure to show any of that actual evidentiary link which the case law requires.

THE COURT: Thank you, counsel.

MS. LEWIS: Your Honor--

THE COURT: I'm sorry. Mr. Cochran, is there something that is absolutely necessary? Normally proponent--

MR. COCHRAN: I consider--about one minute of absolute necessary things.

THE COURT: One minute.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor. In that regard, I just wanted to point out to the Court with regard to People versus Hall that where there is evidence of third party culpability would raise a reasonable doubt of--capable of raising a reasonable doubt of the minds of the jurors or the trier of fact, we be permitted to put that on. The question she raised is not our question. We have tried to link and show the Court what the evidence will be in that regard. It seems to me it is totally reasonable, under the circumstances, for a trier of fact to find that reasonable doubt, given the nature of what was happening, what happened that night and under these circumstances. And the Prosecution has a lot of theories, but the theories ofttimes are mangled by the facts of the case. And so I think--I just want to point that out to the Court. That is the crux of that particular issue, but it has nothing to do with Dr. Reichardt testifying. I think the Court will concede that there is an abundance of testimony that he could make. As to whether or not we would lunch into that area is the issue where we get to Hall. That is all I wanted to say, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. The issue here is the presentation of evidence of third party culpability. The California Supreme Court in People versus Hall, which is at 41 Cal. 3D, addressed this issue very succinctly and gave the trial court a great deal of guidance, and specifically the comments made by Justice Mosk at page 833 the California Supreme Court has followed that reasoning. Also in People versus Kaurish, K-A-U-R-I-S-H, 52 Cal.3D at 648, also as mentioned by counsel, People versus Clark at 37 Cal. 4th, People versus Pride at 3 Cal. 4th, and also the Justice Pro Tem's ruling in People versus Von Villas. These cases all indicate that before third party culpability evidence is admissible there must be evidence of motive, opportunity and direct or circumstantial evidence linking a third party to the commission of the crime. I find that there was, given the facts of this case, opportunity for a third party; however, I find that the offer of proof regarding motive to be highly speculative and I find the offer does not adequately address either direct or circumstantial evidence linking a third party to the scene. So the Court will sustain the motion in limine to testimony from Dr. Reichardt regarding drug usage by Faye Resnick. All right.

MR. COCHRAN: So that we are clear, your Honor, as to the demeanor, if the Court indicates he can--

THE COURT: Those other issues that we discussed, Dr. Reichardt's contemporaneous dealings with Mr. Simpson on the date in question, is clearly relevant.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Let's take a recess, 15, for the court reporter.

MR. DARDEN: May I just address the Court for fifteen seconds? I just heard Mr. Cochran mention the contents or apparently some conversations Mr. Reichardt had with Nicole Brown. I have not seen that in any discovery and he is their witness and I would like that, if at all possible. In addition, on the 1054 issue as it relates to Christian Reichardt, I have my notes, some notes, personal notes that I would like to hand to the Court on the 1054 issue, ex parte.

MS. LEWIS: 1054.07.

THE COURT: Hand it to Mrs.--

MR. DARDEN: 1054.07.

THE COURT: Hand to it Mrs. Robertson, please, and we will take 15.

MS. LEWIS: Thank you, your Honor.

(Recess.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present before the Court with his counsel. All right. Anything else we need to take up? All right. Let's have the jurors, Deputy Magnera.

(Brief pause.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Let the record reflect we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

THE COURT: Glad to see you are all still with us. My apologies to you for the late start. We had a number of legal issues that I had to take up out of your presence before we got restarted again this morning. All right. Mr. Michael Gladden, would you resume the witness stand again, please, sir.

Michael Gladden, the witness on the stand at the time of the evening adjournment, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:

THE COURT: And Mrs. Robertson, do you have those two exhibits available? All right. Good morning, Mr. Gladden.

MR. GLADDEN: Good morning.

THE COURT: You are reminded, sir, you are still under oath. Mr. Cochran, have you concluded your direct examination?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes, I have, your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Darden.

MR. DARDEN: Thank you, your Honor. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DARDEN

MR. DARDEN: Good morning, Mr. Gladden.

MR. GLADDEN: Good morning.

MR. DARDEN: Mr. Gladden, when you saw the Defendant, OJ Simpson here, he looked pretty much the way you expected him to look, right?

MR. GLADDEN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: You had seen him on television before?

MR. GLADDEN: Yes.

THE COURT: Mr. Gladden, would you pull the microphone a little closer to you.

MR. GLADDEN: (Witness complies.)

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. DARDEN: Was it your testimony that he looked like he was advertising jeans?

MR. GLADDEN: Yeah. I had seen an ad with him wearing basically the same thing he was wearing that day.

MR. DARDEN: I take it you have never seen OJ Simpson at home, at his home?

MR. GLADDEN: No.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. You didn't know him before that night?

MR. GLADDEN: No, I didn't.

MR. DARDEN: This was the first time you had ever met the Defendant?

MR. GLADDEN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: This was the first time you had ever been face to face with the Defendant?

MR. GLADDEN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: So you really can't tell us then how he normally behaves?

MR. GLADDEN: That's true.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. You can't tell us what his usual demeanor is, can you?

MR. GLADDEN: No.

MR. DARDEN: You never saw the Defendant carry any luggage?

MR. GLADDEN: I seen him trying to close a tall bag and I think he laid something on the cart after the other--after the limo driver had put a bunch of stuff on the cart.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. But you didn't see him carry any luggage, did you?

MR. GLADDEN: I really wasn't paying attention to that.

MR. DARDEN: So you didn't see him carry any luggage?

MR. GLADDEN: No.

MR. DARDEN: You didn't see him carry something over his shoulder?

MR. GLADDEN: I wasn't--after he gave me the autograph, Mike North came and asked me something then, so I really wasn't watching what he was doing.

MR. DARDEN: And after--well, strike that. When you got the autograph, you handed the Defendant a pad, a post-it that you showed us yesterday; is that right?

MR. GLADDEN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Did you also hand him an ink pen?

MR. GLADDEN: Yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: Did he take that ink pen out of your hand when you extended your hand?

MR. GLADDEN: No.

MR. DARDEN: Did he drop the ink pen?

MR. GLADDEN: No.

MR. DARDEN: Did he seem to have any trouble grasping the ink pen?

MR. GLADDEN: No.

MR. DARDEN: And he took that ink pen and he took that pad, right?

MR. GLADDEN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Did he have any trouble grasping the pad?

MR. GLADDEN: No.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Did he grimace in pain at all when he took the ink pen from you?

MR. GLADDEN: No.

MR. DARDEN: By the way, did you shake the Defendant's hand?

MR. GLADDEN: No, I didn't.

MR. DARDEN: He didn't extend his hand to you?

MR. GLADDEN: Well, he just took the autograph--the thing, autographed it and handed it back.

MR. DARDEN: Did you ever extend your hand to him as if to offer a handshake?

MR. GLADDEN: No. I just said "Thank you" and he said, "You are welcome."

MR. DARDEN: Did the Defendant have a cut on his left hand?

MR. GLADDEN: No, I didn't see one.

MR. DARDEN: Did you look at his left hand?

MR. GLADDEN: I mean, I didn't come up to him and start examining his hand. I just asked for an autograph.

MR. DARDEN: Well, did you see his left hand?

MR. GLADDEN: Yes, I seen both his hands.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Did you see both of his hands, his entire left and right hand?

MR. GLADDEN: Pretty much so.

MR. DARDEN: You saw the top of his hand, the palm?

MR. GLADDEN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: You saw the bottom of his hand?

MR. GLADDEN: Well, he held the thing like this when he signed it and just handed it back so--

MR. DARDEN: Did you see the bottom of his hand?

MR. GLADDEN: Not really that closely.

MR. DARDEN: Did you see the bottom of his hand?

MR. GLADDEN: No.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, when he says "Bottom"--

THE COURT: Excuse me, Mr. Darden. When you were saying "The bottom of your hand" and asking the question, you were rubbing the back of your left hand with the palm of your right hand.

MR. DARDEN: Exactly.

MR. DARDEN: Did you see the back of the Defendant's hand left?

MR. GLADDEN: Not when I was standing real close, no.

MR. DARDEN: Did you ever see the back of the Defendant's left hand?

MR. GLADDEN: When he got out of the limo I seen how big he was and I was like checking out how big his hands were and stuff.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Now, on October 7, 1994, you received a telephone call from LAPD Detective Richard Crotsly; is that correct?

MR. GLADDEN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And he read to you a written statement that you had given the Defense; is that right?

MR. GLADDEN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And he asked you whether or not you had observed the bottom of the Defendant's left hand, didn't he?

MR. COCHRAN: One minute, your Honor. I don't think I have seen this statement.

(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

MR. GLADDEN: Yes, he asked.

MR. DARDEN: And you told him that you had not seen the bottom or observed the bottom of the Defendant's hand that night, correct?

MR. GLADDEN: Right.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And when you referred or rather used the term "Bottom," you were referring to the back of the Defendant's hand, weren't you?

MR. GLADDEN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: You cannot tell this jury that the Defendant did not have a cut on his left hand when you saw him?

MR. GLADDEN: I can tell if he was bleeding or not.

MR. DARDEN: You can tell?

MR. GLADDEN: I mean, he asked me did I see any blood and I said no.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. You didn't see any blood on the Defendant?

MR. GLADDEN: No.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. You didn't see any blood on the back of his left hand?

MR. GLADDEN: No.

MR. DARDEN: Then again, you didn't see the back of his left hand, right?

MR. GLADDEN: Right.

MR. DARDEN: So you don't know whether the Defendant's--whether the back of the Defendant's finger or finger on the left hand was cut or not, do you?

MR. GLADDEN: No.

MR. DARDEN: Now, during the time that you were speaking to the Defendant, OJ Simpson--

MR. GLADDEN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: --were you standing up on the sidewalk?

MR. GLADDEN: No, I was at my van.

MR. DARDEN: Pardon me?

MR. GLADDEN: I was like near my van.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. All right. Were you on the sidewalk near your van?

MR. GLADDEN: No, on the outside of the van.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. But were you on the sidewalk?

MR. GLADDEN: No, I wasn't.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Where was the Defendant?

MR. GLADDEN: He was by the back of the limo.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Is that the only place you spoke to the Defendant?

MR. GLADDEN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Now, how did you describe the Defendant's demeanor yesterday?

MR. GLADDEN: Pretty calm, just taking his time.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Did he appear calm throughout your contact with him?

MR. GLADDEN: Yes, pretty much so.

MR. DARDEN: Was there ever a point during your contact with the Defendant that he did not appear calm?

MR. GLADDEN: No.

MR. DARDEN: Mr. Gladden, you work at a Vons Supermarket, don't you?

MR. GLADDEN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And that supermarket is located at 230--

MR. COCHRAN: Counsel--

MR. DARDEN: Excuse me. That supermarket is located on--

THE COURT: Hold on. Just the city is fine.

MR. DARDEN: Okay.

MR. DARDEN: The supermarket is located in the city of Santa Monica?

MR. GLADDEN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And what do you do there?

MR. GLADDEN: I work in the service deli.

MR. DARDEN: Were you there this past Monday, July 10th?

MR. GLADDEN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And while you were there Monday, July 10th, you were telling people about your observations of the Defendant that night, correct?

MR. GLADDEN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Was there a point during your contact with the Defendant that he lost his calm or was not calm?

MR. GLADDEN: No.

MR. DARDEN: During the time that you were speaking to the Defendant a car pulled up; is that right?

MR. GLADDEN: Not that I was aware of.

MR. DARDEN: Not that you are aware of?

MR. GLADDEN: There was cars coming and going all the time.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Do you remember a car pulling up and stopping and someone blowing a horn?

MR. GLADDEN: No, I don't recall that.

MR. DARDEN: You don't recall the Defendant becoming startled after someone blew a horn?

MR. GLADDEN: No.

MR. DARDEN: Do you know someone named Robert Driscoll?

MR. GLADDEN: No, I don't.

MR. DARDEN: Do you know a driver for Vons grocery named Robert?

MR. GLADDEN: No.

MR. DARDEN: Or Bob?

MR. GLADDEN: No.

MR. DARDEN: Did you have contact with a driver for Vons grocery on Monday, July 10th?

MR. GLADDEN: I mean I come in contact with drivers all the time. Usually--usually our loads come in on Tuesdays.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Did you have--did you have contact with a driver on Monday?

MR. GLADDEN: I'm not sure. I don't think so.

MR. DARDEN: Isn't it true, Mr. Gladden, that you told a driver for Vons grocery that while you were talking to the Defendant a vehicle pulled up?

MR. GLADDEN: No, that is not true.

MR. DARDEN: Did you tell anyone that?

MR. GLADDEN: I told nobody that.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Didn't you tell the driver from Vons grocery that a vehicle pulled up and the driver honked the horn?

MR. GLADDEN: No, I never have.

MR. DARDEN: And didn't you tell that driver that when the driver honked that horn the Defendant, OJ Simpson, almost jumped out of his skin?

MR. GLADDEN: I never said that.

MR. DARDEN: You never said that, Mr. Gladden?

MR. GLADDEN: No, I didn't.

MR. DARDEN: Did you tell someone, a driver for Vons grocery, that the Defendant appeared startled when he heard that horn?

MR. GLADDEN: No.

MR. DARDEN: Mr. Gladden, you asked for the Defendant's autograph because he was a celebrity; is that correct?

MR. GLADDEN: That's true.

MR. DARDEN: And you have asked other celebrities for their autographs, haven't you?

MR. GLADDEN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: How many celebrity autographs have you obtained?

MR. GLADDEN: Since I've been working there probably about three or four maybe.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. What other autographs have you obtained?

MR. GLADDEN: Cecil fielder.

MR. DARDEN: He is a baseball player?

MR. GLADDEN: Yes. And I got I think Steve Garvey. I got it for somebody else.

MR. DARDEN: He is a baseball player?

MR. GLADDEN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Who else?

MR. GLADDEN: And Lou Holtz was a football coach.

MR. DARDEN: Notre Dame's football coach, new coach?

MR. GLADDEN: He was out there practicing his golf swing.

MR. DARDEN: Somebody else?

MR. GLADDEN: OJ Simpson.

MR. DARDEN: You don't have any celebrity autographs from actresses?

MR. GLADDEN: (No audible response.)

MR. COCHRAN: Object to that, your Honor. Irrelevant and immaterial.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. GLADDEN: Tai Babalonia came in the store one time and I got her autograph.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. But for the most part, the celebrity autographs that you have are autographs from sports heroes, right?

MR. GLADDEN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. You watch a lot of sports, do you?

MR. GLADDEN: Yes, I do.

MR. DARDEN: Now, you told us yesterday what the Defendant was wearing when you saw him, correct?

MR. GLADDEN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Was he wearing socks, Mr. Gladden?

MR. GLADDEN: I have no idea.

MR. DARDEN: You didn't look down to see whether or not the Defendant was wearing socks?

MR. GLADDEN: He was wearing boots.

MR. DARDEN: Boots?

MR. GLADDEN: Kind of like--like dress boots or something like that, looked like.

MR. DARDEN: Can you describe those for us, please?

MR. GLADDEN: Kind of like tan color, like a baseball glove color.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Did you see the Defendant's ankle?

MR. GLADDEN: No.

MR. DARDEN: You can't tell us whether or not the Defendant was wearing socks at that time?

MR. GLADDEN: No, I can't.

MR. DARDEN: Now, after you obtained that autograph from the Defendant, he turned and he walked away; is that correct?

MR. GLADDEN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Now, at any time prior to that did the Defendant ever appear to you to be in pain?

MR. GLADDEN: No.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And as he turned and walked away, you watched him?

MR. GLADDEN: Well, Mike Norris walked toward me and he asked me what did he say when he asked about--if his son was still playing football, and I said I really didn't know.

MR. DARDEN: Let me stop you there. That is nonresponsive. Well, but you saw the Defendant walk away?

MR. GLADDEN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Did he have any trouble walking?

MR. COCHRAN: Calls for speculation, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. GLADDEN: No, not that I was aware of.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. You didn't notice anything unusual about the way the Defendant walked away, did you?

MR. GLADDEN: No.

MR. DARDEN: Now, did you see him walk over to the skycap station?

MR. GLADDEN: He was like kind of standing in between the skycap and like where the door was.

MR. DARDEN: And there is a trash can located between the doorjamb and the skycap station?

MR. GLADDEN: Yeah, there is.

MR. DARDEN: Is that right?

MR. GLADDEN: I think there is a couple of them like on each side.

MR. DARDEN: Did you see the Defendant place anything on top of that trash can?

MR. GLADDEN: No.

MR. DARDEN: You didn't see him place a bag on top of the trash can?

MR. GLADDEN: No.

MR. DARDEN: Did you see some golf clubs that night?

MR. GLADDEN: Not that I was aware of, no.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Did you see anyone take a golfing bag, golf club bag, out of the trunk of the limo?

MR. GLADDEN: No. I seen like a big black bag. I don't know what was in it.

MR. DARDEN: Was that black bag about four and a half feet tall?

MR. GLADDEN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And did you and Michael Norris leave the curb at the same time?

MR. GLADDEN: I think I pulled out before he did.

MR. DARDEN: Now, did you tell us yesterday that you saw the Defendant at the rear of the limousine?

MR. GLADDEN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And you saw him open up a bag?

MR. GLADDEN: No, I never said that.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. You didn't see the Defendant open up a bag?

MR. GLADDEN: No.

MR. DARDEN: Did you see him reach into a bag?

MR. GLADDEN: No.

MR. DARDEN: Did you see him remove anything from a bag?

MR. GLADDEN: No.

MR. DARDEN: You weren't looking at the Defendant's hands specifically to see if he had a cut on his hand?

MR. GLADDEN: No, I wasn't.

MR. COCHRAN: Asked and answered, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: You hadn't heard anything about Ron Goldman having been murdered at that point?

MR. COCHRAN: Beyond the scope of direct, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. GLADDEN: No.

MR. DARDEN: And you hadn't heard anything about Nicole Brown having been murdered at that point?

MR. GLADDEN: No, I hadn't.

MR. DARDEN: And so that the record is clear, your assessment of the Defendant's demeanor that night is based solely on the brief contact you had with him, right?

MR. GLADDEN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And that was the first time you ever met him?

MR. GLADDEN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Did you see the Defendant speak to the skycap?

MR. GLADDEN: No.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. DARDEN: Did you leave--strike that.

MR. DARDEN: Did you see the Defendant approaching the skycap?

MR. GLADDEN: No, I did not.

MR. DARDEN: Thank you. That is all I have.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Nothing further, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Gladden, thank you very much, sir. You are excused.

MR. COCHRAN: The next witness we will be calling, your Honor, is Mr. Howard Bingham.

THE COURT: All right.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Bingham, please stand at the podium there. Hold on just a second.

Howard L. Bingham, called as a witness by the Defendant, was sworn and testified as follows:

THE CLERK: Please raise your right hand. You do 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.

MR. BINGHAM: I do.

THE CLERK: Please have a seat on the witness stand and state and spell your first and last names for the record.

MR. BINGHAM: Howard Bingham. Howard, H-O-W-A-R-D, L. Bingham, B-I-N-G-H-A-M.

THE CLERK: Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Bingham, would you just sit back and pull the microphone close to you, please.

MR. BINGHAM: (Witness complies.)

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you very kindly.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN

MR. COCHRAN: Good morning, Mr. Bingham.

MR. BINGHAM: Hi ya, sir. How you doing?

MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Bingham, sir, what is your occupation?

MR. BINGHAM: I am a photographer.

MR. COCHRAN: And are you a world renown photographer?

MR. BINGHAM: The world's greatest.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And just so we are clear about that, have you recently published a thirty-year journey of Howard Bingham, your own personal book?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: And do you have an acquaintance with a man by the name of Mohammed Ali?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes, I do.

MR. COCHRAN: What about that acquaintance? How long have you been knowing him?

MR. BINGHAM: I have been knowing Ali ever since 1962. I have been all over the world with him and some say he is my best friend. I talk to him all the time everyday. I just left him the night before last. I had to come here.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You have come here pursuant to subpoena to testify; is that correct?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes. I was at the all-star game.

MR. COCHRAN: And in addition to being a--the best photographer in the world, do you have any other occupation?

MR. BINGHAM: Umm, yes. I am--I will be producing a movie with Sony and Sony home computers on Mohammed Ali's life which we just signed a few days ago.

MR. COCHRAN: Are you nervous today?

MR. BINGHAM: Very.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you have a slight speech impediment?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes, but that is no hindrance. I am here.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you very much for coming. Sir, are you acquainted with the gentleman over here, Mr. OJ Simpson?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes, I am.

MR. COCHRAN: About how long have you known Mr. Simpson?

MR. BINGHAM: I have been seeing and knowing him ever since about 1968 when he was at sc.

MR. COCHRAN: And so you came to know him there. Did you ever take pictures at that time?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes. That is how I met him. I am a photographer and I was at the games and in the locker rooms and just taking pictures at the--at the game here and there.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And as such would you say that he is an acquaintance of yours, somebody you have known over the years?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, Mr. Bingham, sir, I want to direct your attention back to the date of Sunday evening, June 12th, 1994. Did you have occasion to be at Los Angeles International airport on that evening?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you have occasion to leave Los Angeles to go someplace that evening?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And where were you going?

MR. BINGHAM: I was on the way to Chicago.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And why were you going to Chicago?

MR. BINGHAM: I--I had a meeting that Monday morning with Mohammed Ali and a friend of mine, John J. Hooker.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So do you remember what time your flight was due to leave that evening?

MR. BINGHAM: 11:45.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you remember about what time you got on the flight?

MR. BINGHAM: I'm always late, so it was about 11:30. It--11:40 maybe, 11:35 or 40, around there sometime.

MR. COCHRAN: By the way, were you flying first class?

MR. BINGHAM: No, I was not flying first class; coach.

MR. COCHRAN: You were in coach?

MR. BINGHAM: I was in coach, unfortunately.

MR. COCHRAN: Let me ask you this: Have you provided me with a copy of a boarding pass you had that particular night?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I would like to mark that as Defendant's next in order if the Court pleases.

THE COURT: I'm sorry, which?

THE CLERK: 1244.

THE COURT: 1244.

(Deft's 1244 for id = boarding pass)

MR. COCHRAN: May I approach, your Honor?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. COCHRAN: I have given counsel a copy and I would like to approach the witness.

MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Bingham, I would like to show you

(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

MR. COCHRAN: You have the original. Would you like to keep the original?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes, I would.

MR. COCHRAN: Let me show you a copy.

MR. BINGHAM: All right.

MR. COCHRAN: I will place this before you. Is this a fair and accurate copy of the boarding pass that you provided us with for your taking that flight, flight, I believe, 668, Chicago, on June 12th, at 11:45 P.M.?

MR. BINGHAM: It is.

MR. COCHRAN: And as I understand it, it also has your seat number, if we can make that out, on that night?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And what was your seat number?

MR. BINGHAM: On here it says 21E.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

MR. BINGHAM: I think. I don't have my glasses.

MR. COCHRAN: I don't know if you need them. Your Honor, I'm going to show this quickly to counsel and then--

THE COURT: I have think we have seen these before.

MR. BINGHAM: Right, that's right.

MR. COCHRAN: 21E?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes.

(Brief pause.)

MR. COCHRAN: Have you ever seen this diagram before, Mr. Bingham?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And I want you to look to your right there and there is an indication that you were back in row 21, and were you at the window seat?

MR. BINGHAM: I was in the--I was in the middle because what happened was I had the whole row. I was going to sleep that night.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So you had--

MR. BINGHAM: As a matter of fact, what happened was--okay. I'm sorry.

MR. COCHRAN: That is okay. You had 21E as depicted here?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, may I mark this as our next exhibit?

THE COURT: Yes, 1245.

MR. COCHRAN: 1245. I will put "1245" over here.

(Deft's 1245 for id = document)

MR. COCHRAN: So you were about to tell us that you had 21E, the middle seat; is that correct?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: But you worked it out so that you could get all three seats and go to sleep?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So the area where we have depicted on here, "Howard Bingham" with 21F and next to it is e and d, that is the row that you occupied that night?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes, it was.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay, sir. Now, after you got on this flight, as you have described for us, 11:30, 11:35, 11:40, did you have occasion to see someone else come on that flight?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: After that who was that person?

MR. BINGHAM: It was Mr. OJ Simpson.

MR. COCHRAN: And when you saw Mr. OJ Simpson, did you have any contact with him shortly thereafter?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Where was he in regard to where you were seated on the plane?

MR. BINGHAM: He was--he had--he had just entered the airplane and I saw him get on and so I had got up out of my seat and walked up to just say hello to him.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So you walked up from row 21 up to the first class area; is that correct?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, there is an area on this diagram--can you see it from there--that shows the first class area just generally, the front part of the plane. Is this the area in which you went?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And when you walked up there, did you have occasion to have a conversation with Mr. OJ Simpson?

MR. BINGHAM: I did.

MR. COCHRAN: What did you say to him, if anything?

MR. BINGHAM: I walked up there and I tapped him on the shoulder. He looked around at me and said, "Hey, Bingham, how you doing?"

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Did you have any further conversation?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes, I did. I was asking him where was he going and so he asked me where was I going, so I like to mention that I was going to Chicago.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. How long did your conversation last with Mr. Simpson?

MR. BINGHAM: A minute or so. After that the hostess had asked me to go back to my seat because we was about to leave.

MR. COCHRAN: The plane was about to take off?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes, the plane was about to take off.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, during this conversation that you had with Mr. Simpson, did you have occasion to look at him and look at his demeanor, how he appeared?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Can you describe for this Court and jury how Mr. Simpson appeared to you at that time? How did he seem?

MR. BINGHAM: He had seemed like the old OJ that I always see here and there. I see him all over east coast, New York, Florida, all over all the time with Ali sometimes and sometimes on my own because I'm all over, football games.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Did he seem relaxed to you?

MR. BINGHAM: He did.

MR. COCHRAN: While you were talking to him, did you have occasion to look at his hands at all?

MR. BINGHAM: Umm, I remember when I had walked up there he was sitting in the--in the middle of the seats there putting money or something in his pocket or something.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. He had some money in his pocket?

MR. BINGHAM: Which he had in his hand or something.

MR. COCHRAN: Let me see if I understand.

MR. BINGHAM: I don't know if it was going from one hand to another.

MR. COCHRAN: He had money in his hands?

MR. BINGHAM: Some kind of thing.

MR. COCHRAN: Something he was putting in his pocket?

MR. BINGHAM: Yeah.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you observe that?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: And when you saw that, could you see his hand? Let's say, first of all, could you see his left hand?

MR. BINGHAM: I saw his--I saw his--I saw his left and right hand.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And did you notice anything unusual about either his left or right hand?

MR. BINGHAM: I did not notice anything unusual.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you see any cuts on either his left or right hand?

MR. BINGHAM: I don't think so, no.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you see any blood on either his left or right hand?

MR. BINGHAM: I did not.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you see any blood on any of his clothing at that time?

MR. BINGHAM: I did not.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, after seeing him and talking to him briefly and when the stewardess told you that you had to return to your seat, did you return to your seat?

MR. BINGHAM: I did.

MR. COCHRAN: So that we are clear, you went back to the area of row 21; is that correct?

MR. BINGHAM: I did.

MR. COCHRAN: And then did you talk to Mr. Simpson at all during that flight any more?

MR. BINGHAM: No, I did not.

MR. COCHRAN: And you are both going to Chicago and when you got to Chicago did you have occasion to see him at all?

MR. BINGHAM: I did.

MR. COCHRAN: And where did you next see Mr. Simpson after the encounter you just told our jury about?

MR. BINGHAM: I saw him--the next time it was in the baggage area at the Chicago airport downstairs.

MR. COCHRAN: Was he met by some person, if you know?

MR. BINGHAM: There was an individual--there was a--there was a plan with him at the time I saw him because--

MR. COCHRAN: There was a man down there with him?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And did you say anything to him when you saw him down there at all?

MR. BINGHAM: I did.

MR. COCHRAN: Without going into it, did you have occasion to stay around that airport for awhile before you left to go downtown to Chicago?

MR. BINGHAM: I did.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And did Mr. Simpson leave before you left?

MR. BINGHAM: He did, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And who did he leave in the company of, if anyone?

MR. BINGHAM: With another guy. I don't know his name or anything.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Was that the same individual you just described before?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And when you saw Mr. Simpson downstairs, was that in the baggage area at O'Hare?

MR. BINGHAM: It was.

MR. COCHRAN: Were you at O'Hare airport?

MR. BINGHAM: O'Hare airport.

MR. COCHRAN: And when you saw him there was his demeanor the same as it had been when you saw him--

MS. CLARK: Objection, leading.

MR. COCHRAN: Counsel is correct.

MR. COCHRAN: How did Mr. Simpson appear to you when you saw him down in the baggage area before he left?

MR. BINGHAM: It was the same as I always see him, you know.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you very, very much for coming today, Mr. Bingham. We appreciate it. Nothing further at this point.

THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark.

(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK

MS. CLARK: Mr. Cochran just said he would give Mr. Darden your book if I said "No questions."

MR. BINGHAM: Thank you. I will leave now.

MS. CLARK: It will be very, very, very brief, sir. All right. Now, you have been seeing the Defendant off and on in your travels for many years, correct?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes, I have.

MS. CLARK: Have you ever socialized with him, sir?

MR. BINGHAM: No, not really.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Did you ever visit him in his home?

MR. BINGHAM: No, I have not.

MS. CLARK: Has he ever visited you in your home?

MR. BINGHAM: He has not.

MS. CLARK: Have you ever gone out to dinner with him?

MR. BINGHAM: I have not.

MS. CLARK: Or lunch?

MR. BINGHAM: I have not. I have--I have--I have--I was at events where he was at lunch, you know, with Ali, and so he was in the audience.

MS. CLARK: You are talking about a big--

MR. BINGHAM: In a big--hundreds of people.

MS. CLARK: --auditorium. Okay?

MR. BINGHAM: Not alone, no.

MS. CLARK: Not alone?

MR. BINGHAM: No.

MS. CLARK: On those occasions, sir, were you seated at the same table with him or just in the same room?

MR. BINGHAM: Same room and up front because I was always with Ali and so--

MS. CLARK: So all the big people sit up front?

MR. BINGHAM: Not all the time.

MS. CLARK: But sometimes?

MR. BINGHAM: Yeah, sometimes.

MS. CLARK: Okay. He would be there, too?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes.

MS. CLARK: But you were not alone together on those occasions, correct?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes.

MS. CLARK: They were public events?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes, right.

MS. CLARK: On all occasions when you saw the Defendant, would it be fair to say, sir, that you saw him only in public?

MR. BINGHAM: Most of the time, yes.

MS. CLARK: Was there any occasion when you saw him in private? What I mean by that is alone in a room where there was no one else around?

MR. BINGHAM: There have been times, say, like I remember we was in Florida and I saw him in the--in the--in the bar area, hotel bar area.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Again that is a public area, yeah, too?

MR. BINGHAM: Yeah, yeah, right.

MS. CLARK: There was a bartender?

MR. BINGHAM: Over to the side, yes.

MS. CLARK: Okay. What I mean is alone in a room where there was no one else?

MR. BINGHAM: No.

MS. CLARK: Never happened?

MR. BINGHAM: No, never.

THE COURT: Excuse me.

MS. CLARK: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: Mr. Bingham, if you would you, would you allow Miss Clark to finish asking you the question before you start to answer, because the court reporter is having a hard time because you are both trying to talk at the same time.

MR. BINGHAM: I shall.

THE COURT: Okay. You will get out of here a lot quicker if we do it that way.

MR. BINGHAM: Thank you.

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Now, your book, does it attempt to depict the different side of Mohammed Ali?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes, it is.

MS. CLARK: And so there is one aspect of Mohammed Ali that you see in public; is that correct?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of that question. Assumes a fact not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE COURT: You can answer the question.

MS. CLARK: You can answer.

MR. BINGHAM: Now?

MS. CLARK: It is okay, yes, you can answer the question. Do you remember it?

MR. BINGHAM: No.

MS. CLARK: Okay. I will do it again. Your book attempts to depict the different aspects of Mohammed Ali, correct?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes.

MS. CLARK: As he behaves privately and as he behaves publicly; is that a fair statement?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Now--

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MS. CLARK: I'm sorry. Thank you. Sorry, sir.

MS. CLARK: Now, when you got on the plane in Los Angeles was the Defendant the last person to board?

MR. BINGHAM: I don't know if he was the last, but he was one of the last.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And when you went up to see him he was seated in first class; is that correct, sir?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes, he was.

MS. CLARK: I want to show you a couple of pictures and see if you recognize what I'm showing you. Okay?

(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, I have photographs that I have shown to Mr. Cochran. I would like to show them to the witness. Mark the first one People's next in order, 503.

THE COURT: 503.

(Peo's 503 for id = photograph)

MS. CLARK: I think that is right.

MS. CLARK: All right, sir. Showing you People's 503, can you tell us if you recognize in general that as the appearance of the inside of the plane?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes, it is.

MS. CLARK: Does that look like first class, sir?

MR. BINGHAM: It does.

MS. CLARK: Let me see if I can get this on the elmo so the jury can see it, too, your Honor.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: All right. And that is where you--you walked up to that area to speak with the Defendant; is that right, sir?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes.

THE COURT: Mr. Bingham, there is a monitor right to your right there.

MR. BINGHAM: Thank you.

THE COURT: Mr. Wooden, I think we need the Styrofoam overhead. Yes. Thank you. Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Now, do you see the blue seats farther to your rear? Can you see on your monitor, sir?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes, yes.

MS. CLARK: You don't have to twist around there. Do you see the blue seats to the rear of the first class seating, sir?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes, I see them.

MS. CLARK: Is that where you were seated?

MR. BINGHAM: Unfortunately it was that night. Can I say something?

MS. CLARK: Did you have the whole row to yourself, sir?

MR. BINGHAM: I did.

MS. CLARK: Now, you had--okay. You told us, sir, that you spent about one minute with the Defendant at that point?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes, it was around there, a minute, a minute and a half, half minute. I don't know. I wasn't timing, but it was fast.

MS. CLARK: And was there a stewardess that works in first class who was there at the time?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes, there was.

MS. CLARK: Was she the one that told you to have a seat because they were going to take off?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes.

MS. CLARK: First class has its own bathroom, doesn't it, sir?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes, it does.

MS. CLARK: And I'm going to show you another photograph--well, another couple photographs. People's 504, your Honor.

(Peo's 504 for id = photograph)

MS. CLARK: Let me show you first close up, sir, and ask you--you have sat in first class before, haven't you?

MR. BINGHAM: Normally I do.

MS. CLARK: This was an exception this night?

MR. BINGHAM: I have a lot of phone calls that said, "Bingham, you in coach?"

MS. CLARK: How did that happen?

MR. BINGHAM: What?

MS. CLARK: That they put you in coach?

MR. BINGHAM: No. What happened was it was at night and so I had a whole row and so I just went to sleep.

MS. CLARK: So that it was okay?

MR. BINGHAM: It was for me because I rest.

MS. CLARK: Okay.

MR. BINGHAM: But I had a lot of phone calls that next afternoon--that next morning that I was on the opening statements said, "Bingham, you are cheap."

MS. CLARK: World class photographer sitting in coach; is that right?

THE COURT: World's greatest.

MR. BINGHAM: Right, I'm sorry. You are a smart man, Judge.

MS. CLARK: All right. I'm showing you what appears to be a door on the left-hand side of the seating and I'm going to direct your attention--your attention to that area for my following questions. This appears to be first class, does it not?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes, it is.

MS. CLARK: You are familiar with what that looks like?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And the door that I'm pointing to on the left, sir, is that a bathroom door?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes, I think so. I think it is from here. I cannot see the side.

MS. CLARK: Let me show you another picture that might be a little bit better.

MR. BINGHAM: Uh-huh.

MS. CLARK: People's 505, your Honor.

THE COURT: 505.

(Peo's 505 for id = photograph)

MS. CLARK: Mr. Bingham, if I can show you People's 505, a little bit closer view of that door in conjunction with the other photograph taken from a different perspective.

MR. BINGHAM: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Does it appear to be a lavatory door, sir?

MR. BINGHAM: It is.

MS. CLARK: Thank you. If I may show it to the jury, your Honor, I mean on the elmo.

THE COURT: Yes.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: Mr. Bingham, for the benefit of the jury, sir, can you tell us, we were just discussing the door to the left--this is in first class, correct?

MR. BINGHAM: Right.

MS. CLARK: Okay. You are facing--there is that white arrow there?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Is that white arrow pointing to the door?

MR. BINGHAM: It is.

MS. CLARK: That is a lavatory door, correct?

MR. BINGHAM: It is.

MS. CLARK: And in People's 505--People's 505, sir, on the right-hand side of this photograph we are facing from the other direction, is that the first class lavatory door on the right-hand side?

MR. BINGHAM: It is.

MS. CLARK: All right. Thank you, sir. Now, that was a redeye flight, was it not, sir?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes.

MS. CLARK: So you slept through it, right?

MR. BINGHAM: Most of the flight.

MS. CLARK: And how long a flight was it?

MR. BINGHAM: It was under four hours I think.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And did you--had you planned to sleep through that flight, sir?

MR. BINGHAM: I always would like to. Sometimes I cannot.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And that night you did?

MR. BINGHAM: Most of it I did, yes.

MS. CLARK: Were the lights dimmed on that redeye?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes, sure.

MS. CLARK: Isn't that pretty usual, when you are on a redeye flight they dim all the lights?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Because people like to sleep?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the last part, your Honor; speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: All right. So you did not see the Defendant throughout the entire flight, correct?

MR. BINGHAM: I did not.

MS. CLARK: Now, do you recall what the Defendant was wearing when you went up to see him in first class for that one-minute conversation?

MR. BINGHAM: I do not, no, no.

MS. CLARK: Did you ever happen to notice whether he was writing anything or signing any autographs at that time?

MR. BINGHAM: I did not see him signing any autographs. He was alone and he was doing something--putting some money in his hand or something like that. I don't know exactly what.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And was he standing or was he seated at the time you spoke to him?

MR. BINGHAM: He was actually sitting in the--sitting on the middle seats in the middle at that time.

MS. CLARK: So he was already sitting down when you saw him?

MR. BINGHAM: Not all--not all the way down, but on the middle.

MS. CLARK: On the armrest?

MR. BINGHAM: On the armrest in the middle, yes.

MS. CLARK: Okay.

MR. BINGHAM: Thank you.

MS. CLARK: And which hand was it that he put into his pocket, if you know?

MR. BINGHAM: I didn't see him put his hands into his pocket. I just saw him do something with his hands.

MS. CLARK: Do something with?

MR. BINGHAM: Yeah, right. He had some money in it. I don't know.

MS. CLARK: Was he taking his hand out of his pocket?

MR. BINGHAM: I did not see that.

MS. CLARK: Would it be fair to say, sir, you weren't paying particularly close attention to his hands?

MR. BINGHAM: I was--no, I was not. No, I was not.

MS. CLARK: You weren't expecting to see any injury any cuts on him, were you, sir?

MR. BINGHAM: I was not looking for anything.

MS. CLARK: Right. You weren't looking for any and then you saw him again in Chicago, correct?

MR. BINGHAM: I did.

MS. CLARK: And at that time, sir, did you spend a long time talking to him?

MR. BINGHAM: A while, while he was waiting on his bags and I was waiting on my luggage.

MS. CLARK: How long is a while, sir?

MR. BINGHAM: A few minutes. A couple minutes, so what happened was--okay, yes.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And at that time were you paying close attention to his hand or trying to observe--

MR. BINGHAM: No, I was not.

MS. CLARK: Trying to make any observation--that is all right. I will just stop. He knows. So you weren't looking to see if he was injured particularly; is that true?

MR. BINGHAM: I did not.

MS. CLARK: All right. So you and the Defendant are not close personal friends; would that be a fair statement?

MR. BINGHAM: Right.

MS. CLARK: You are acquaintances, correct?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And if there was some subtle difference in the way he was acting on that particular night, you would not detect it; would that be a fair statement?

MR. BINGHAM: I don't know. I just know how he was with me. Hi, Bingham, how you doing, you know, like that.

MS. CLARK: If he was putting on act to try and cover up what was going on inside, if he was feeling differently than he appeared, you wouldn't know that, would you?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of the question. Calls for--

THE COURT: Sustained.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MS. CLARK: You could only tell us what you were able to observe, correct?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes.

MS. CLARK: You saw how he behaved outwardly; is that a fair statement?

MR. BINGHAM: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Don't know what he was feeling inside?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of that question.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: You can answer that.

MR. BINGHAM: What is that now?

MS. CLARK: You can answer that.

MR. BINGHAM: What was that?

MS. CLARK: You don't know what he was feeling inside, do you, sir?

MR. BINGHAM: I'm not a psychiatrist or a psychologist.

MS. CLARK: Thank you very much, Mr. Bingham.

MR. BINGHAM: Thank you.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN

MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Bingham, if Mr. Simpson was acting that night, he had been acting that same way since 1968; is that right?

MR. BINGHAM: He was the same to me. Whenever I see him, he knows me because of Ali, "Hey, Bingham," asks me about Ali.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Thank you very much for coming and give our best to the champ.

MR. BINGHAM: I shall.

THE COURT: Miss Clark, any redirect?

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MS. CLARK: No. Thank you, your Honor. I have nothing further.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Bingham, thank you very much for coming in, sir.

MR. BINGHAM: Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Cochran, your next witness, please.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes, your Honor. The next witness is Mr. Steve Valerie. We are ready to proceed.

THE COURT: All right.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Valerie, would you stand at the podium there, please, and face the clerk.

Stephen Valerie, called as a witness by the Defendant, was sworn and testified as follows:

THE CLERK: Please raise your right hand. You do 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.

MR. VALERIE: I do.

THE CLERK: Please have a seat on the witness stand and state and spell your first and last names for the record.

MR. VALERIE: Stephen Valerie, S-T-E-P-H-E-N V-A-L-E-R-I-E.

THE CLERK: Thank you.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you very kindly.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN

MR. COCHRAN: Good morning, Mr. Valerie.

MR. VALERIE: Good morning.

MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Valerie, did you fly back into Los Angeles last night to be here to testify with us today?

MR. VALERIE: I sure did.

MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Valerie, I want you to look at the gentleman to my left over here, Mr. OJ Simpson. Had you ever seen him in person prior to June 12th of 1994?

MR. VALERIE: Never.

MR. COCHRAN: On that date, on June 12th of 1994, did you have occasion to board an American Airlines flight 668 from Los Angeles to Chicago?

MR. VALERIE: That is correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And before we get to that, what is your present occupation or avocation?

MR. VALERIE: I just graduated from a MBA program at UCLA.

MR. COCHRAN: UCLA?

MR. VALERIE: Correct.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And at that time--in June of `94, were you a student at UCLA at that point?

MR. VALERIE: Correct. Just completed my first year.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, in that connection do you remember approximately what time it was that you boarded this particular flight, 668?

MR. VALERIE: I boarded just right as they were closing the gate, so I would say probably at about 11:40.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. When you boarded the flight were you seated in either coach or in first class?

MR. VALERIE: I was upgraded to first class and sat in seat 4A.

MR. COCHRAN: When you were upgraded you use your stickers?

MR. VALERIE: Correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Frequent traveler?

MR. VALERIE: Absolutely.

MR. COCHRAN: They take your coach ticket and you are able to buy your way into first class?

MR. VALERIE: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. May I approach, your Honor, 1245?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. COCHRAN: I want you to take a quick look--have you ever seen this diagram before, 1245?

MR. VALERIE: I saw it on the opening statements.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. And in that connection the front part of the plane up here is first class; is that correct?

MR. VALERIE: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And there is an area here that generally puts you in row 5--I guess that is row 5. at any rate, let me--strike that, your Honor. What row did you occupy that night in first class?

MR. VALERIE: I sat in what they number row no. 4. in fact, it was the second row on that side of the plane and the third row from Mr. Simpson's side.

MR. COCHRAN: Let me see if I can understand this. This was a super 80 plane. In that plane there is two seats on each side of first class in one aisle?

MR. VALERIE: Correct.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You can turn back.

MR. VALERIE: (Witness complies.)

MR. COCHRAN: In that connection did you sit in a window seat or in an aisle seat?

MR. VALERIE: I sat in the window seat.

MR. COCHRAN: So your seat number was what?

MR. VALERIE: 4A.

MR. COCHRAN: And Mr. Simpson then would be across the aisle from you in which seat, if you recall?

MR. VALERIE: 4D.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, when you first got on the plane did you see Mr. Simpson at that time?

MR. VALERIE: When I first got on the plane, no. I entered first.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

MR. VALERIE: Was standing organizing my bags, putting them in the overhead and then saw him enter right after I did.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You saw Mr. Simpson enter a short time after you did?

MR. VALERIE: Correct.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. When you first saw him, did you recognize him?

MR. VALERIE: Sure, immediately.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And after he first entered did you have occasion to observe him at that point?

MR. VALERIE: I observed him pretty much from the moment he entered the flight.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Tell us what you observed about him at the time as you saw him enter the flight.

MR. VALERIE: Umm, I noticed first off that obviously he came on board last. I had expected I would be the last on board. So he came on and I looked back and he--I think others in the first class and also in the cabin class noticed him, so everyone was--had his eyes gazed upon Mr. Simpson. And I proceeded to take my seat and he put his--one of his bags in the overhead compartment and shook--then the gentleman sitting behind me in seat 5B that would be acknowledged--said hello to him and they knew each other, it seemed like, from their conversation. It was a brief conversation. They shook hands, and the flight attendant, you know, motioned that it was time to sit down, time to get ready for take off, and so I also believe right before take off Mr. Simpson asked for a glass of water and that was brought out to him before take off.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, you made all these observations from your location there at 4A primarily, right?

MR. VALERIE: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And when Mr. Simpson first entered, can you describe--and as he was interacting with the other passengers--can you describe for the jury his mood, how he appeared to you?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor, no foundation.

MR. COCHRAN: How he appeared?

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. VALERIE: He was very pleasant, smiling. I noticed his clothing was very well-pressed. Looked very sharp. In fact, I was looking--particularly just because of his celebrity from his Hertz commercials and the fact that he was so late on board, I was looking to see if he was sweating and he looked absolutely normal. His flight--his clothing was very well pressed and he sat down, and umm, looked over actually a couple times at the beginning and then later on in the flight and smiled and seemed very approachable.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You mentioned his clothes were neatly pressed. Do you have a recollection--can you--the best you can now, describe for this jury how he was dressed in your best recollection.

MR. VALERIE: Sure. He was wearing, to my recollection, a button-down shirt with long sleeves with a T-shirt underneath. He had some kind of cotton pants on. You know, either khaki or light blue or something. He was wearing leather loafers with leather mesh on the front portion of the shoe. He wasn't wearing any socks that evening. And hair was trim. I mean, he--

MR. COCHRAN: That is what you recall about him; is that correct?

MR. VALERIE: Correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you know--strike that. Now, you made these observations again from--from your seat in 4A; is that correct?

MR. VALERIE: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And at some point the stewardess told you to or the first--strike that. The flight attendant is probably a more appropriate statement, your Honor. The flight attendant suggested that everybody should get in their seats because the flight would be taking off; is that correct?

MR. VALERIE: That's correct. Mr. Simpson was the only one really standing at that point. And so it was--it was just a quick getting ready for take off so everyone take their seats.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So after a period of time the flight did in fact take off; is that correct?

MR. VALERIE: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you, for a period of time after you were airborne, have occasion to observe Mr. Simpson additionally?

MR. VALERIE: Yes. I--after take-off I was awake for probably about I would estimate a little over an hour of the flight, of the three and a half our flight, I positioned myself actually facing him using the fuselage of the plane as a backrest, if you will.

MR. COCHRAN: Let me see if I can explain that.

MR. VALERIE: Sure.

MR. COCHRAN: When you say using the fuselage of the plane, if you are seated--so I can use this demonstration, your Honor--if you are seated and this is the pilot up here, you would normally be sitting straightforward; is that correct?

MR. VALERIE: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And Mr. Simpson, as I understand it, would be over to your right on the window seat; is that correct?

MR. VALERIE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: You are demonstrating for us how you moved around so you can see Mr. Simpson?

MR. VALERIE: Rotate like this. I leaned about this angle and had my feet up, elevated the--I elevated the leg rest of the other seat, as well as mine, so I would have just a little bit more leg room so in that position had a pretty clear view of Mr. Simpson throughout the flight.

MR. COCHRAN: So for the record, your Honor, he has indicated he turned his body I guess to the left.

MR. COCHRAN: So his back would be against the window behind you?

MR. VALERIE: Correct.

MR. COCHRAN: You had a clear view toward where Mr. Simpson was seated?

THE COURT: Actually it looks to me like you are turning to the right at a 40 to 45-degree angle facing diagonally is what it appears to me.

MR. COCHRAN: You know what, I think you are right. Moving to the right 45 degrees. Thank you, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: From that vantage point then were you able to see Mr. Simpson?

MR. VALERIE: Yes, I was.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

MR. VALERIE: And observed him--

MR. DARDEN: Objection, nonresponsive.

THE COURT: Sustained. Ask another question.

MR. COCHRAN: I will ask another question.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, from that vantage point what did you observe, if anything, about Mr. Simpson? Tell us what you saw in your own words.

MR. VALERIE: The first thing I noticed was before take-off he was asked to put his bag underneath his seat and he put that bag, a small black leather duffel bag, underneath the seat directly in front of him before take-off. After we took off he pulled the--that same bag out and put it on the empty passenger seat next to him and proceeded to open that bag up and pulled out a manila envelope--I'm sorry, not an envelope--a manila folder with a document inside. Why I call it a document, I was able to see that it was a double-spaced typed document on white paper, eight-and-a-half-by-11, and it looked--it was loose-leaf, so he proceeded to read that document at the point at which I was observing him.

MR. DARDEN: I'm going to object to leading.

MR. COCHRAN: Asking him what happened.

MR. DARDEN: No foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled. Ask him what happened next.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Okay, your Honor, I will do that.

MR. COCHRAN: What happened next?

MR. VALERIE: He proceeded to read that, sipped on his water, and it was pretty uneventful really. I mean, we were just flying on a redeye flight. He again, because of my position--

MR. DARDEN: Object as nonresponsive, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Next question.

MR. COCHRAN: All right, certainly. Mr. Valerie, as you watched Mr. Simpson from this vantage point, did you have occasion to look at his face?

MR. VALERIE: I sure did.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you see any bruises or cuts or abrasions on his face at that point?

MR. VALERIE: None whatsoever.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you have occasion from this vantage point you have described for us to look at Mr. Simpson's hands?

MR. VALERIE: I did.

MR. COCHRAN: And what, if anything, did you see with regard to his hands?

MR. VALERIE: Umm, I viewed Mr. Simpson's hands at that time looking for championship ring. Given he is a famous professional player, that was the motivation for my looking at his hands. I didn't see anything unusual, no Band-Aids, no large abrasions or anything to that effect.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you see any cuts at all?

MR. VALERIE: I didn't see any.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you see any blood on his hands?

MR. VALERIE: No blood.

MR. COCHRAN: By the way, you said you were looking for a championship ring. Is that like a Superbowl ring?

MR. VALERIE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Something of that nature? Did you see one at that time?

MR. VALERIE: No, I did not.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And so you had a pretty clear unobstructed view of Mr. Simpson as you were looking and making these observations; is that correct?

MR. VALERIE: That's correct. His left hand would have been the hand I saw closest and best view of.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And I don't recall whether or not--did he ever take a book out of his bag that you were describing?

MR. VALERIE: I saw the book out. I didn't actually see him take that out. I saw it out on the seat.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And with regard to these papers that you say, the double-spaced papers that he was reading, could you tell what that was?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, calls for speculation.

MR. COCHRAN: I'm asking if he could tell.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: Could you tell what that was? You can answer that.

MR. VALERIE: Yes. I could not tell what it was, no.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. But it was something he was apparently reading; is that correct?

MR. VALERIE: Correct.

MR. COCHRAN: What you have told us about now, did this take place during the first hour or so of the flight that you have described for us?

MR. VALERIE: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. At some point, Mr. Valerie, did you go to sleep that night?

MR. VALERIE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And at that time was there anything else that you observed about Mr. Simpson that you haven't told us about during this hour period of time regarding how he appeared to you and his mood?

MR. VALERIE: No. He--like I said, he glanced over occasionally and smiled in a friendly manner on a couple of occasions.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. When he first got on the plane and you said he was interacting with other passengers, how would you describe him at that point when he first got on the plane?

MR. VALERIE: Jovial. He came on, met--like I said, shook hands with the gentleman behind me and then another gentleman came up from the cabin class and greeted him and had a short word with him as well. Again seemed to know--they seemed to know each other.

MR. COCHRAN: The gentleman who came up from the cabin class, did you see him just go out of this courtroom a short time before you came in?

MR. VALERIE: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So at some point he went to sleep; is that correct?

MR. VALERIE: (No audible response.)

MR. COCHRAN: Strike that. At some point you went to sleep?

MR. VALERIE: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And did you awaken prior to arriving in Chicago?

MR. VALERIE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And when you woke up, were you still able to see Mr. Simpson?

MR. VALERIE: Correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you know--did you ever at any point see the pilot, the captain of that plane, Wayne Stanfield, come out and interact with Mr. OJ Simpson?

MR. VALERIE: I did not witness that, no.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And when you awakened did you see Mr. Simpson?

MR. VALERIE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Where was he at that time?

MR. VALERIE: Seated in the same seat, 4D.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Did you--what was he doing at the time you awakened?

MR. VALERIE: Umm, just preparing for landing. You know, buckling seatbelts and putting the seat forward and the like.

MR. COCHRAN: You were getting close to landing at that point?

MR. VALERIE: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So then thereafter the plane of course landed safely?

MR. VALERIE: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: You were at O'Hare airport, right?

MR. VALERIE: (No audible response.)

MR. COCHRAN: Yes?

MR. VALERIE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And then after you landed, can you describe for the jury who got up first to proceed out the door of that plane and describe that for us.

MR. VALERIE: We landed, taxied to the gate and the first person to the front of the aisleway was Mr. Simpson and I followed him directly afterwards. We were asked to wait just behind the door that they were going to open, obviously for safety reasons, and so Mr. Simpson stood in front of me waiting to deplane.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, as Mr. Simpson stood in front of you, did he have--if you recall, was he carrying any bag at this point?

MR. VALERIE: Yeah. He had his--his garment bag over his right shoulder, which is the side I really couldn't see well. His left shoulder was to me as we were going to deplane on the left side of the plane.

MR. COCHRAN: Was there a strap on that garment bag, if you recall?

MR. VALERIE: Yes. It was over his shoulder.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. What color was that bag?

MR. VALERIE: It was a darker color. I didn't really see. That was the one that he stowed overhead.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. That was over the right shoulder and then what about the--did you see any other bag?

MR. VALERIE: Yeah. Then the second bag that he had with him in the seat and he had that positioned over his shoulder carrying it with the two straps in his hand hanging over his back, and that was closest to me.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. For the record, the witness is indicating a left--his left hand with the bag over his left shoulder.

THE COURT: Yes. Thank you.

MR. COCHRAN: Is that correct? Thank you, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: You indicated that was closest to you?

MR. VALERIE: (No audible response.)

MR. COCHRAN: Were you standing right behind Mr. Simpson?

MR. VALERIE: Yes, I was.

MR. COCHRAN: From that vantage point could you see Mr. Simpson's left hand or part of his left hand?

MR. VALERIE: Umm, I could have. I wasn't looking specifically at his hand at that point.

MR. COCHRAN: Could you see his right hand at all?

MR. VALERIE: No.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So you were very close to him at this point; is that correct?

MR. VALERIE: Yeah.

MR. COCHRAN: Did the two of you have any conversation or interaction at that point?

MR. VALERIE: Yeah. I made a brief comment to him when he smiled and I think in a groggy state acknowledged me.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. He seemed groggy at this point?

MR. VALERIE: Yeah. I think we were all pretty groggy at 4:30 in the morning.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. The plane was landing at about 4:30?

MR. VALERIE: Yeah.

MR. COCHRAN: And at that point what did you say, if anything?

MR. VALERIE: I said to him, "Better be careful, someone might think you are going to be doing a commercial." The way his pose was and the fact that he was first to get off, it looked like he was ready to get off that flight. He looked--I made that comment in jest.

MR. COCHRAN: And did he say anything in response to that?

MR. VALERIE: He smiled and indicated, "Yeah, I'm here to see Hertz" or something to that effect. I didn't have a clear memory really of what he said back to me because right at that moment the door flew open and we were walking down, so I was just walking with him and thought I may even get another word with him, so I was pretty much close to him walking out the--the gangway there and into the terminal. And then immediately he was greeted by a gentleman at the gate.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

MR. VALERIE: Where we both actually stopped to readjust our bags and he shook hands with whoever greeted him and said hello and the like.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So that was some gentleman that met Mr. Simpson and was that your last contact with him that day?

MR. VALERIE: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: You didn't see him any further after that point?

MR. VALERIE: We actually walked in tandem through the Chicago O'Hare terminal until he veered off to go to baggage claim. I was connecting on a flight to Washington D.C.

MR. COCHRAN: So you were catching another flight and your baggage was going through?

MR. VALERIE: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Was there any other conversation between the two of you as you walked in tandem until he veered off?

MR. VALERIE: None. He was talking to the other gentlemen.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, there were three of you basically; is that correct?

MR. VALERIE: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, did you have occasion to talk with an investigator from the Los Angeles Police Department by the name of Crotsly on or about October 5th of 1994?

MR. VALERIE: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And have you ever seen a copy of his report before today?

MR. VALERIE: I saw it earlier this morning.

MR. COCHRAN: This is the first time?

MR. VALERIE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And--I would like to approach, your Honor, just place it before him and ask the witness to read it.

MR. DARDEN: I will object, foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled. Just show it to him at this point and see if he recognizes it.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes, your Honor.

MR. DARDEN: It is leading, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: Would you take a look at that report and see whether or not that refreshes your recollection or you recognize the words thereon, the conversation with an investigator by the name of Crotsly, c-r-o-t-s-l-y?

MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, the witness hasn't indicated he cannot recall.

THE COURT: Overruled. The question was do you recognize this document?

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. DARDEN: He has never seen it before.

THE COURT: Whether the content is hearsay or not is another issue.

MR. VALERIE: Yes, I do.

MR. COCHRAN: You recognize this conversation as a copy of your conversation with Detective Crotsly?

MR. VALERIE: It is a summary of the statements I gave to Detective Crotsly.

MR. COCHRAN: When you talked to the detective were you trying to be as accurate as you could?

MR. VALERIE: Yes, I was.

MR. COCHRAN: Was this a telephonic conversation?

MR. VALERIE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: By the way, do you remember whether or not--did the detective read you a statement prior to talking to you that day? Did he read any statement?

MR. VALERIE: That I had made earlier?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes.

MR. VALERIE: Umm, he read some portion of it. He did not read an entire transcript. He was referring, I believe, to the shoes on that second occasion, so he wanted to just read how I described the shoes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Did you describe the shoes for this detective in October?

MR. VALERIE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And what was your description of the shoes?

MR. VALERIE: Umm, my description was that they were leather European-looking loafers with black or dark blue leather and the mesh leather in the front top panel of the shoe.

MR. COCHRAN: They appeared to be loafers of some kind?

MR. VALERIE: Correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you have occasion to describe for the detective Mr. Simpson's appearance and his clothing?

MR. VALERIE: Can you repeat that question, I'm sorry?

MR. COCHRAN: Did you have occasion during this conversation with Detective Crotsly to describe Mr. Simpson's appearance, how he appeared to you on that evening?

MR. VALERIE: Yeah, the same general thing I have said here today and I have said all along.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. May I have just a second more, your Honor?

THE COURT: Certainly.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel and the Defendant.)

MR. COCHRAN: Now--this will be it, your Honor. You had not seen Mr. Simpson that night at 11:15, had you?

MR. VALERIE: (No audible response.)

MR. COCHRAN: You had not seen him at 11:15 P.M. on that Sunday night, had you?

MR. VALERIE: No, I had not.

MR. COCHRAN: You hadn't seen him at eleven o'clock that night?

MR. VALERIE: No, I had not.

MR. COCHRAN: You had not seen him at 10:45, had you?

MR. VALERIE: I did not see him at 10:45.

MR. COCHRAN: Didn't see him until 11:40 or thereabouts?

MR. VALERIE: That is correct.

MR. COCHRAN: That is what you have told us here today?

MR. VALERIE: Yes, I have.

MR. COCHRAN: You told us the truth here today?

MR. VALERIE: Yes, I have.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you very kindly for coming.

THE COURT: Mr. Darden.

MR. DARDEN: How long are we going to go, your Honor?

THE COURT: About four minutes. Do you want to start now or do you want to start after lunch?

MR. DARDEN: If it is okay with you, I would like to start after lunch, your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Valerie, I'm going to order you to come back then at 1:30 and we will resume with your cross-examination by Mr. Darden. You can step down now, Mr. Valerie. Ladies and gentlemen, please remember all of my admonitions. Don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, do not anybody maybe to communicate with you with regard to the case. We will stand in recess until 1:30. And we will be in session today until 6:00.

MR. COCHRAN: May we approach, your Honor?

(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)

(At 11:57 A.M. the noon recess was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the same day.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; THURSDAY, JULY 13, 1995 1:35 P.M.

Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge

APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)

(Janet M. Moxham, CSR no. 4855, official reporter.)

(Christine M. Olson, CSR no. 2378, official reporter.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record. All right. All parties are again present. All right.

MR. SHAPIRO: May we approach?

THE COURT: Sure.

(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Let the record reflect that we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

THE COURT: Mr. Valerie, would you resume the witness stand, please.

Steve Valerie, the witness on the stand at the time of the lunch recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:

THE COURT: All right. Good afternoon, Mr. Valerie.

MR. VALERIE: Hi.

THE COURT: You are reminded, sir, you are still under oath. Mr. Darden.

MR. DARDEN: Thank you, your Honor.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DARDEN

MR. DARDEN: Good afternoon, Mr. Valerie.

MR. VALERIE: Hello.

MR. DARDEN: Sir, what do you do for a living?

MR. VALERIE: Recent graduate of the Enderson School of Management at UCLA and currently on vacation.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. You were on vacation back in June of 1994, weren't you?

MR. VALERIE: Uh, just about to, yeah. I was at a--I was studying at Georgetown on an executive program there for a month.

MR. DARDEN: And what city do you live?

MR. VALERIE: I guess these days, Irvine would be my address.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Now, you--when you saw the Defendant, you paid special attention to him, didn't you?

MR. VALERIE: Uh, did you say when I saw the Defendant? Is that what you said?

MR. DARDEN: Yeah.

MR. VALERIE: Okay. I didn't hear you. Yeah. I sure did.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And you don't usually look at everyone you meet as closely as you looked at the Defendant, correct?

MR. VALERIE: Depends on the circumstances.

MR. DARDEN: Well, when you meet other people--well, strike that. Well, when you see people in passing, do you look at them to see if they're sweating or not?

MR. VALERIE: Sure.

MR. DARDEN: So whenever you see someone, you look to see if they're sweating?

MR. VALERIE: When I see someone, I look--I look at them, and you might notice sweating if that were the case.

MR. DARDEN: Well, you testified this morning that you looked at Mr. Simpson specifically to see if he was sweating; is that right?

MR. VALERIE: And in this case, that's correct.

MR. DARDEN: And you hadn't heard anything about Nicole Brown's murder at that point, right?

MR. VALERIE: No.

MR. DARDEN: You hadn't heard anything about Ron Goldman having been murdered at Bundy, right?

MR. VALERIE: No.

MR. DARDEN: Well, why did you look at Mr. Simpson to see if he was sweating?

MR. VALERIE: Specifically because one of the few things I know about his celebrity is the fact that he did a commercial where he ran through an airport to catch his flight, and that is the reason why I specifically looked at Mr. Simpson, given that I expected I would be the last person to board that might. I was using the telephone outside the gate and asked the attendant to let me know when the last possible moment for me to board was. So she waived over to me and I got on. So I was startled when someone got on after me, especially someone that was a celebrity.

MR. DARDEN: But to answer my question, Mr. Valerie, why did you look specifically at Mr. Simpson to see if he was sweating?

MR. VALERIE: The specific reason was, I imagined him having to probably run through the airport like his commercials and imagined he would be sweating. It was a summer evening, it was warm and I was heated let's say. It's a warm plane. The environment on airplane's warm. I actually looked at him to see wow, did he--he must have been running through the airport is what I imagined. So I was looking at him and I actually noticed he looked very sharp.

MR. DARDEN: Did you consciously think to yourself, wow, I wonder if OJ Simpson is sweating?

MR. VALERIE: Can you repeat that question?

MR. DARDEN: I mean, did you actually think to yourself, I wonder if OJ Simpson is sweating?

MR. VALERIE: No. The thought that came across my mind was that he looked very fresh. I was surprised about that.

MR. DARDEN: You spoke to a Defense investigator on June 17, 1994; is that correct?

MR. VALERIE: I think that was a Thursday?

MR. DARDEN: But you spoke to a Defense investigator in June of 1994?

MR. VALERIE: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Right? And you were shown a copy of a typewritten statement, your statement to that Defense investigator; is that correct?

MR. VALERIE: That is not correct.

MR. DARDEN: You haven't seen a copy of your statement to Defense investigator William Pavelic?

MR. VALERIE: Oh, the Defense investigator?

MR. DARDEN: Yes.

MR. VALERIE: Yeah, I guess I did see it yesterday.

MR. DARDEN: And who showed that statement to you?

MR. VALERIE: Johnnie Cochran.

MR. DARDEN: And where were you when Johnnie Cochran showed you that statement?

MR. VALERIE: In his office.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And that was yesterday evening?

MR. VALERIE: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And what time was that?

MR. VALERIE: Approximately 8:45 P.M.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And how long had you been at Mr. Cochran's office, sir, yesterday evening?

MR. VALERIE: Uh, I had been there probably 40 minutes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And how did you get there?

MR. VALERIE: I drove myself there.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And when Mr. Cochran showed you that statement, did you read it?

MR. VALERIE: Actually I didn't. I glanced at it, but I didn't bother to read it.

MR. DARDEN: Let me hand you a single-page document and ask you if that is a copy of the statement Mr. Cochran showed you.

MR. VALERIE: It appears to be, yes.

MR. DARDEN: Did you indicate to the Defense investigator--well, strike that. Where in that statement to the Defense investigator does it state that you looked at Mr. Simpson for the specific purpose of determining whether or not he was sweating?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, just a moment. I would object to the form of that question. Assumes that that question was asked.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. DARDEN: Well, when you spoke to the Defense investigator, did you try to be honest?

MR. VALERIE: This is a summary of what I said. It's not the actual transcript. We spoke for, my estimates, were probably about 45 minutes. So if that's all that was written, then I would imagine it would have been much longer for that much time.

MR. DARDEN: Well, is it your testimony that you told Mr. Pavelic that you looked at Mr. Simpson specifically to see if he was sweating?

MR. VALERIE: Yes, that is correct.

MR. DARDEN: And is that contained in the statement here?

MR. VALERIE: No, it is not.

MR. DARDEN: When you looked at the statement yesterday with Mr. Cochran--and you pointed that out to him I take it?

MR. VALERIE: No. I didn't--I didn't--like I said, I didn't read that statement. They just said, "These were what was--what were taken from you." I glanced at them, I noticed the key points and moved on.

MR. DARDEN: I'm sorry. With Johnnie?

MR. VALERIE: That is correct.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. You know Mr. Cochran on a first name basis?

MR. VALERIE: And Carl was there.

MR. DARDEN: Carl Douglas?

MR. VALERIE: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. So you refer to Mr. Cochran as Johnnie and Mr. Douglas as Carl?

MR. VALERIE: That's how they asked me to refer to them and I said they can call me Steve.

MR. DARDEN: And you spoke to a--you spoke to Mr. Pavelic, the Defense investigator, on June 23; is that correct?

MR. VALERIE: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: And did you speak to Mr. Pavelic, the Defense investigator, in person?

MR. VALERIE: No. It was via telephone.

MR. DARDEN: And how long did you speak to Mr. Pavelic at that time?

MR. VALERIE: Uh, again, I'm not clear on the dates. You said the 23rd. What day--what day was that? Was that the same conversation as that record has? Was it that conversation you're referring to?

MR. DARDEN: Well, the first piece of paper I showed you shows the date of June 17th; is that correct?

MR. VALERIE: June 17th. Okay.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. That was the first time you spoke to Mr. Pavelic?

MR. VALERIE: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And you spoke to him again on the telephone; is that correct?

MR. VALERIE: I believe so, yes.

MR. DARDEN: And you spoke to him about six days after the first conversation, correct?

MR. VALERIE: Okay.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. About June 23, 1994?

MR. VALERIE: I don't remember the specific date. Yes, I had a second conversation with him.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And you didn't tell Mr. Pavelic anything about looking at OJ Simpson specifically to see if he was sweating or not, did you?

MR. VALERIE: Uh, frankly, I don't remember what the second specific conversation was about or if it was any different from the first time. I think all the way through this, I've stated the exact same facts. And so I think he asked me questions again in more detail, but I certainly don't remember a year later what--what the second conversation was verbatim.

MR. DARDEN: And you actually spoke to the LAPD, a detective from the LAPD on June 16, 1994, correct?

MR. VALERIE: Uh, I think that's correct.

MR. DARDEN: Okay.

MR. VALERIE: I don't have a counter in front of me. So--

MR. DARDEN: Well, you spoke to Detective Kilcoyne?

MR. VALERIE: Yes. I--I called him in fact.

MR. DARDEN: And why did you call Detective Kilcoyne?

MR. VALERIE: Uh, because by that time, it had come out that Mr. Simpson was--was implicated or had some possible connection to the case, and so I wanted to let it be known that he was on board this flight. I wasn't sure if that had been communicated to anybody. So I had called up and they passed me onto this detective. I didn't know his name at the time.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. You wanted to make sure that the LAPD had all the information you had--

MR. VALERIE: Correct.

MR. DARDEN: --relative to Mr. Simpson on the flight to Chicago from LAX, right?

MR. VALERIE: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And did Mr.--well, did John and--Johnnie and Carl show you a copy of an LAPD statement yesterday?

MR. VALERIE: Uh, yes. One statement because I made two.

MR. DARDEN: Okay.

MR. VALERIE: And they showed me one.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And the one statement that they showed you, was it a handwritten--

MR. VALERIE: That is correct.

MR. DARDEN: --copy of a statement? Yes?

MR. VALERIE: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And this contains the information you gave the LAPD on June 16, right?

MR. VALERIE: Correct.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And--

MR. VALERIE: The summary again.

MR. DARDEN: And where in the statement if at all does it show that you told the LAPD that you looked at Mr. Simpson for the specific purpose of, you know, trying to find out, to see whether or not he was sweating?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of that question again, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. DARDEN: Well, you told the detectives everything you knew and saw, right?

MR. VALERIE: That's correct. And that is not--everything I knew and saw is not contained in this--in this handwritten photocopy document.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. You didn't tell the detective that Mr. Simpson was sweating when you saw him, did you?

MR. VALERIE: Uh, yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: You did?

MR. VALERIE: No. I'm sorry. I did--I said he wasn't sweating is what my statement was.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Where does it--well, strike that. You told the detective that Mr. Simpson was not sweating?

MR. VALERIE: I said--the wording I used was, he looked very calm, cool and collected. His clothes were very freshly pressed and looked very well kept in--into the flight. I noticed no sweat.

MR. DARDEN: And you added on the end "I noticed no sweat."

MR. VALERIE: You know, you probably have this--the tape-recorded statement. So if you want to pull that up, I'm happy to go through it with you. This is not though a copy of what I said. This is someone's summary and about a paragraph.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. What tape-recorded statement?

MR. VALERIE: I was talking to a police investigator. There was a beeping sound. So something was on tape I assume.

MR. COCHRAN: May I talk to Mr. Darden?

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

MR. DARDEN: Mr. Valerie, when you spoke to the LAPD on June 16 and when you spoke to Mr. Pavelic on June 17 and also on July 23, 1994, you didn't tell them anything about a garment bag, did you?

MR. VALERIE: Uh, did I tell them anything about a garment bag.

MR. DARDEN: Yeah. Did you tell Mr. Pavelic about seeing the Defendant with a garment bag?

MR. VALERIE: We only discussed--we didn't really discuss--how do I say this? We discussed the bag that was in full view. Uh, he put a bag originally on the flight.

MR. DARDEN: I'm sorry. But the question is, did you discuss with Mr. Pavelic on June 17 anything about a garment bag?

MR. VALERIE: I think so. I don't remember.

MR. DARDEN: Is that contained in the statement prepared by the Defense investigator dated June 17?

MR. COCHRAN: Object again to the form of the question.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.

MR. VALERIE: If you want to bring that here, I'll see if it says that. I don't remember.

(Brief pause.)

MR. VALERIE: In this--in this statement, it just talks about the--

MR. DARDEN: But the question is, is there anything in the statement about a garment bag?

MR. COCHRAN: May I object to that, your Honor? Object to the form of that question because it's vague with regard to--

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.

MR. VALERIE: In this summary that I have before me, it does not mention the garment bag.

MR. DARDEN: And in the June 23 conversation you had with Mr. Pavelic, you didn't mention anything to him about a garment bag, did you?

MR. VALERIE: Again, I believe I did mention it, yes.

MR. DARDEN: All right. Have you seen Mr. Pavelic's report dated June 23, 1994?

MR. VALERIE: Yes, I saw it. I didn't read it verbatim.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. You saw it when?

MR. VALERIE: Uh, last night I believe.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Is this a copy of it?

MR. VALERIE: No. This--this I haven't seen before.

MR. DARDEN: Is that a single page document dated June 23, 1994?

MR. VALERIE: Yes, it is.

MR. DARDEN: And does it bear the name William Pavelic at the top?

MR. VALERIE: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: Is your name on that document?

MR. VALERIE: Yes, it is.

MR. DARDEN: Is there any mention in that document of your having told Mr. Pavelic that day about a garment bag?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of that question again, your Honor.

THE COURT: Rephrase the question.

MR. DARDEN: Is the term "Garment bag" mentioned in that document?

MR. VALERIE: No.

MR. DARDEN: How about duffel bag?

MR. VALERIE: How about any bag?

MR. DARDEN: Okay. How about the word "Sweat"?

MR. VALERIE: It has--this document has nothing describing the flight at all. This is something else.

MR. DARDEN: And in fact, that document addresses the fact that he spoke to you on June 17, doesn't it?

MR. VALERIE: Correct.

MR. DARDEN: Does that document say anything about any amendments to your June 17 statement?

MR. VALERIE: It does not.

MR. DARDEN: Does it clarify at all your June 17 statement?

MR. VALERIE: Uh, does not.

MR. DARDEN: And when you spoke to the LAPD on June 16, you didn't mention anything about garment bags, did you?

MR. COCHRAN: Asked and answered, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: Did you?

MR. VALERIE: Can you repeat the question?

MR. DARDEN: You didn't mention anything to the LAPD on June 16 about garment bags, did you?

MR. VALERIE: I believe I did when I described when he came on. But it wasn't central to the fact that I wasn't bag counting. I was--the bag issue came up relative to what I saw him do with the bag he had available to him.

MR. DARDEN: Mr. Valerie, did you mention anything to the LAPD about garment bags on June 16?

MR. COCHRAN: Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: Yes or no?

MR. VALERIE: I don't remember.

MR. DARDEN: Is there anything contained in the June 16 LAPD statement which is before you that mentions a garment bag?

MR. COCHRAN: Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. DARDEN: The first time you mention anything about the Defendant having sweat or not having any sweat on him was on October 5; is that correct?

MR. VALERIE: Uh, no, that's not correct.

MR. DARDEN: Well, who did you tell about that--who did you talk about the Defendant not having any sweat on him--

MR. COCHRAN: Asked and answered.

MR. DARDEN: --first?

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. VALERIE: Uh, it's--to everyone I've spoken to, both police investigator and Bill Pavelic.

MR. DARDEN: Well, if you told Mr. Pavelic about that, do you know why it's not contained in either of those two Defense--

MR. COCHRAN: Objection. Speculative.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.

MR. DARDEN: At any event, Mr. Valerie, when you got on the airplane, Mr. Simpson came on after you did; is that correct?

MR. VALERIE: He came on after me, that's correct.

MR. DARDEN: You paid particular attention to him, right?

MR. VALERIE: I did, yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. You looked at his hair, did you?

MR. VALERIE: Sure.

MR. DARDEN: Yes?

MR. VALERIE: I did.

MR. DARDEN: You looked at his face?

MR. VALERIE: Absolutely.

MR. DARDEN: And you paid particular attention to his hair and his face, right? Is that right?

MR. VALERIE: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Was there something about Mr. Simpson's hair that intrigued you--

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of that question.

MR. DARDEN: --that night?

THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer the question.

MR. VALERIE: No more than anybody else's hair.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Or everybody else's hair. And you looked at his hand, right?

MR. VALERIE: Later on in the flight, yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Are you a football fan?

MR. VALERIE: Uh, marginally.

MR. DARDEN: Do you follow football?

MR. VALERIE: Not really.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And why did you--

MR. VALERIE: I watch an occasional game.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And why did you look at Mr. Simpson's hand later on in the flight?

MR. VALERIE: Uh, I was looking specifically for a championship ring.

MR. DARDEN: Did you know at that time that Mr. Simpson has never won a NFL championship?

MR. VALERIE: I did not know at that time.

MR. DARDEN: You testified this morning that at some point during the flight, that you turned to your right and put your feet up in the chair?

MR. VALERIE: Over to the--so it crossed over into the--the front--the front of the seat next to me.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And prior to that, you had your--you had placed your feet on the footrest?

MR. VALERIE: Well, prior to that was takeoff, and the footrest isn't allowed to be up. So my feet were placed on the floor in front of me.

MR. DARDEN: Did you tell Mr. Pavelic on June 17 that you had turned to your right to look at the Defendant during the flight?

MR. VALERIE: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Is that contained in a statement there dated July 17?

MR. VALERIE: No, it's not.

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of the question again.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. VALERIE: No, it is not.

MR. DARDEN: And is it contained in that statement dated June 23?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form. I would like the Court to see that particular statement.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. VALERIE: No, it's not.

MR. DARDEN: And is that contained in the report from the LAPD dated June 16, 1994?

MR. VALERIE: No, it is not.

MR. DARDEN: And you did speak to Detective Crotsley from the LAPD on October 5, 1994; is that correct?

MR. VALERIE: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: And you saw that report over lunch today?

MR. VALERIE: Yeah. That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: It's not contained in that report either, is it?

MR. VALERIE: Uh, again, I didn't read it in full detail. It didn't appear to be.

MR. DARDEN: So is today the first time that you've ever told anyone, Mr. Valerie, that you turned to your right to face the Defendant during the flight?

MR. VALERIE: No, it is not.

MR. DARDEN: You told us this morning that you remained awake on the airplane for approximately one hour; is that correct?

MR. VALERIE: That's an estimate. I'd say between--it could be maybe a little bit longer than that. And I woke up also later--once or twice during the flight.

MR. DARDEN: So the only opportunity you had to see and view the Defendant during the flight was during that first hour; is that correct?

MR. VALERIE: That is correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of that.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: But you told Mr. Pavelic on June 17 that you looked at Mr. Simpson throughout the flight; is that correct?

MR. VALERIE: Uh, again, the exact wording, I don't particularly remember.

MR. DARDEN: Well, would it refresh your recollection to look at Mr. Pavelic's statement dated June 17?

MR. VALERIE: No, because that is only a summary like I've said throughout this. This is not any quotes of what I've said here.

MR. DARDEN: Well, directing your attention to paragraph 3 of that statement dated June 17, doesn't that statement indicate or rather state that you watched Mr. Simpson throughout the flight?

MR. COCHRAN: I object. I object to the from of that question. I would like the Court to see the document.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: Mr. Valerie?

MR. VALERIE: The word used here was Mr. Simpson--"Mr. Valerie stated that he looked at Mr. Simpson throughout the flight because of his prominence." Uh, what that statement probably represents is the fact that throughout the flight during the periodic periods when I woke up, I looked over and viewed him.

MR. DARDEN: Well--

MR. VALERIE: If that's not what's communicated there, that's what indeed was meant by that.

MR. DARDEN: The statement doesn't indicate that you looked at Mr. Simpson periodically during the flight, does it?

MR. VALERIE: Uh, does not.

MR. DARDEN: The statement says, quote, "Mr. Valerie stated that he looked at Mr. Simpson throughout the flight because of his prominence," unquote; is that correct?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, object. He's been consistent throughout.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: Is that correct?

MR. VALERIE: The quote you're citing is from that document. That is not a quote that's attributable to me.

THE COURT: All right. Let's move on.

MR. VALERIE: That is a summary.

MR. DARDEN: And you told us this morning that during the--during that one-hour period that you--you saw the Defendant reading something?

MR. VALERIE: That is correct.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And did you watch the Defendant read throughout the entire flight?

MR. VALERIE: In the moments that I watched him, I viewed him reading the document.

MR. DARDEN: Well, you just read this June 17th statement again, right? Is that correct?

MR. VALERIE: Uh-huh. That is correct.

MR. DARDEN: And would you agree that this statement is inconsistent with what you've just told us here in court?

MR. COCHRAN: Object, your Honor. Object to the form of that question.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. DARDEN: Mr. Valerie, doesn't the statement state at paragraph 4, quote, "Mr. Valerie stated that throughout the flight, Mr. Simpson was reading documents which he removed from a black duffel bag," unquote? Did I read that accurately?

MR. VALERIE: Yes, I guess you did.

MR. DARDEN: Was Defendant reading during that entire flight, Mr. Valerie?

MR. VALERIE: I can only attest to what I viewed during the flight and during my observations of him other than the moments I saw him before take--before--before takeoff and upon landing, my views of him were reading the document. At least he was looking at it. I didn't notice if he was reading. I mean, I don't know if he was really reading or not, right?

MR. DARDEN: Well, this morning, you testified that he was reading.

MR. COCHRAN: Argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. DARDEN: Well, did you testify this morning, sir, that he was reading?

MR. VALERIE: His pose appeared to be reading and that's what I would be doing if I were looking at a document.

MR. DARDEN: And you told us this morning that you couldn't tell exactly what the document was; is that correct?

MR. VALERIE: In terms of the subject of the document?

MR. DARDEN: In terms of the identification.

MR. VALERIE: I think I described it in pretty good detail.

MR. DARDEN: Okay.

MR. VALERIE: Other than the subject of the document, I described what I saw.

MR. DARDEN: What was the subject of the document?

MR. VALERIE: I don't know.

MR. DARDEN: Didn't you tell Mr. Pavelic that the document was a movie script?

MR. VALERIE: I said it was double-spaced typed on white 8-1/2 by 11 paper and that the documents I've seen that are double-spaced like that appeared to be--I said actually a legal document, okay, or he said, could it potentially have been a script, and I said, yeah or something like that.

MR. DARDEN: So you told Mr. Pavelic that the Defendant was reading a movie script?

MR. VALERIE: No, I did not. He interjected that, could it have been a movie script. I said yes, it was some document--all I described and attested to was the fact that it was a double-spaced typed document on 8-1/2 by 11 loose-leaf paper.

MR. DARDEN: Well, doesn't this statement dated June 17, 1994 state, "Mr. Valerie opined that OJ was reading a movie script"?

MR. VALERIE: That--

MR. COCHRAN: Could he finish that statement?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: I'm sorry?

MR. COCHRAN: I said did you complete the statement?

THE COURT: Is that the complete statement in the--

MR. DARDEN: Okay. The statement states, your Honor, quote: "Mr. Valerie opined that OJ was reading a movie script, dot, dot, dot, dot, and he could see that the document was written in a double-spaced format," unquote. Is that what the statement says?

MR. VALERIE: That's what the statement says and that is inconsistent with what I said.

MR. DARDEN: Well, did you read a portion of that document? Did you yourself read a portion of the document you say is the--Mr. Simpson--

MR. VALERIE: No, I could not read the document or its subject content.

MR. DARDEN: Were you close enough to read it?

MR. VALERIE: No. I was close enough to describe what I've described to you.

MR. DARDEN: Now, you were seated on one side of the plane and Mr. Simpson was seated on the other side; is that correct?

MR. VALERIE: That is correct.

MR. DARDEN: And after the plane took off, did the pilot lower the cabin lights?

MR. VALERIE: The main cabin lights, that's correct.

MR. DARDEN: And the first class area, first class passenger area was relatively dark or dim?

MR. VALERIE: The--other than Mr. Simpson's light illuminating him and his seat.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. But you weren't close enough to read the document?

MR. COCHRAN: Objection, your Honor. That--objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. DARDEN: Well--

MR. DARDEN: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. DARDEN: During your June 16, 1994 interview with Detective Kilcoyne, didn't you tell him that you were close enough to read Simpson's script or contract which he read throughout the trip?

MR. VALERIE: No, I did not.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Showing you again this June 16, 1994 handwritten LAPD report, is that indicated in the report three-quarters down at the bottom of the page?

MR. VALERIE: It's stated, "He was close enough to read Simpson's script or contract." That's what is worded here. What is implied is that I was able to make out that it was some kind of document, script or contract, and that's--if that's not what is understood from this second-hand document, I'll make it clear that that's what is my testimony.

MR. DARDEN: By the way, is there anything in either of the three documents that I've handed you, the June 23 and June 17 documents from William Pavelic, the Defense investigator, the LAPD report by Detective Kilcoyne, is there anything in those documents that indicates that they are summaries of conversations that those persons had with you?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, object to the form of that question. It's argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer.

MR. VALERIE: Uh, not that I see here, no.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Now, you were kept in a room upstairs on the 19th floor, is that right, today?

MR. VALERIE: When?

MR. DARDEN: Today.

MR. VALERIE: No. I went up there and just had something to eat and I've been down here in the hallway.

MR. DARDEN: They have food up there?

MR. VALERIE: They do.

MR. DARDEN: And were you in that room along with Michael Gladden?

MR. VALERIE: I don't know. I don't know who Michael Gladden is.

MR. DARDEN: Were you in that room with other persons who have testified today for the Defense and who are waiting to testify?

MR. VALERIE: Uh, other than Howard Bingham who I recognized from the flight and also the gentleman who sat behind me, Gary Adelson was up there. I don't know him. I recognized those two, but I don't know them, and--and they were up in the room. In fact, they were up in another room. I didn't sit with them. I sat and had something to eat and a cup of coffee out in a common area table.

MR. DARDEN: The shoes that you saw Mr. Simpson wearing that night, they weren't boots, were they?

MR. VALERIE: No.

MR. DARDEN: And they weren't tan in color, were they?

MR. VALERIE: No, they were not.

MR. DARDEN: By the way, did you ever have a discussion with Mr. Gladden, with Michael Gladden regarding his description of the shoes the Defendant wore that night?

MR. VALERIE: As I just stated before, I don't know who Michael Gladden is.

MR. DARDEN: The shoes you saw the Defendant wearing that night were loafers, weren't they?

MR. VALERIE: That is correct.

MR. DARDEN: And they were black, weren't they?

MR. VALERIE: My recollection is black or dark blue.

MR. DARDEN: And when you testified this morning, you said that those black or dark blue loafers were European; is that correct?

MR. VALERIE: I said they looked, appeared European.

MR. DARDEN: When--when you spoke to Detective Crotsley on October 5, 1994, you said those were black or blue loafers, were Italian loafers, didn't you?

MR. VALERIE: Italian style, that's correct. That's the word I used back then.

MR. DARDEN: Is there some reason that today you used the word "European" as opposed to "Italian"?

MR. VALERIE: Uh, just trying to be more precise to help you out.

MR. DARDEN: Well, you mean to help Johnnie and Carl out, don't you?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the from of that question, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. VALERIE: I didn't get a good chance to--

THE COURT: Hold on. Hold on. There's no question pending.

MR. DARDEN: Did you have a good opportunity to see the shoes the Defendant wore that night?

MR. VALERIE: Can you repeat the question?

MR. DARDEN: I said, were you given a fair opportunity to see the shoes that the Defendant wore that night?

MR. VALERIE: Yeah. Quite a good amount, yes.

MR. DARDEN: Did you look at the Defendant's shoes as carefully as you looked at his face and his hair and his clothing?

MR. VALERIE: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: You looked at his feet?

MR. VALERIE: I did.

MR. DARDEN: You paid particular attention to the Defendant's feet?

MR. VALERIE: Yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: And why did you do that?

MR. VALERIE: Because I was--I noticed the shoes and I noticed he wasn't wearing socks with the shoes. That's what my recollection of that evening was. It was just an observation along with all the other observations I made.

MR. DARDEN: I'm sorry. Did you say the Defendant wasn't wearing socks?

MR. VALERIE: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: How do you know that?

MR. VALERIE: Uh, because my eyesight is good and--with corrected vision, and as I know you're wearing a blue suit, he was wearing no socks.

MR. DARDEN: Did you think that was odd or unusual?

MR. VALERIE: Absolutely not. They fit the decor of what he was wearing.

MR. DARDEN: Well, if you didn't consider that odd or unusual, why then did you pay attention to that fact?

MR. VALERIE: As I paid attention to everything else that evening.

MR. DARDEN: I assume that you approved of the clothing the Defendant wore. I mean--

MR. COCHRAN: Object. That's irrelevant and immaterial.

THE COURT: Sustained. It is.

MR. DARDEN: I'm sorry. What kind of pants did you say the Defendant was wearing?

MR. VALERIE: Uh, cotton pants. Not denim. You know, brush cotton or something. I'm not specific on the apparel terminology.

MR. DARDEN: Oh, the pants weren't denim?

MR. VALERIE: No. Not jeans anyway.

MR. DARDEN: They weren't jeans?

MR. VALERIE: They were not jeans.

MR. DARDEN: They weren't Levis?

MR. VALERIE: Levis is a brand. I don't know what brand they were.

MR. DARDEN: You told us this morning that the Defendant was given some water by the flight attendant; is that correct?

MR. VALERIE: That's correct. Had ice in it.

MR. DARDEN: I'm sorry?

MR. VALERIE: Had some ice in it.

MR. DARDEN: You saw the Defendant--I'm sorry. You saw the flight attendant retrieve some water and bring it to the Defendant?

MR. VALERIE: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And when was that exactly?

MR. VALERIE: My recollection of that was actually right before takeoff.

MR. DARDEN: Okay?

MR. VALERIE: But I said--I worded it "Recollection" because it could have been right after takeoff. That--the timing of that I really don't know, but I did notice he had water very--certainly within the first 15 minutes of that flight.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And when you saw the flight attendant bring the Defendant some water, did she bring him that water in a cup or a glass?

MR. VALERIE: It was a small clear plastic cup.

MR. DARDEN: And after the flight attendant brought the Defendant that water in that clear plastic cup, did you see her return with the bottle of water?

MR. VALERIE: No, I did not, or I didn't notice it.

MR. DARDEN: You didn't notice that?

MR. VALERIE: Uh, no. She also served me a drink. So--I mean, I wasn't really paying attention to who was ordering what drink as we--after flight.

MR. DARDEN: Didn't you see the flight attendant bring Mr. Simpson water on three or four occasions?

MR. VALERIE: Not--I didn't witness three or four occasions, no.

MR. DARDEN: Do you recall the flight attendant's name?

MR. VALERIE: No.

MR. DARDEN: Did she tell you her name?

MR. VALERIE: I've never met her other than that flight. But no, I've never seen her. I don't know her name. I wouldn't even be able to pick her out.

MR. DARDEN: And then again, you slept most of the flight; is that correct?

MR. VALERIE: Uh, of the three and a half hour flight, I slept probably about I would say two hours, maximum two and a half hours, but in a--not in a consistent sleep. It was on and off.

MR. DARDEN: And during those moments that you were awake, which must have been what, an hour to hour and a half?

MR. VALERIE: Uh-huh.

MR. DARDEN: Is that right?

MR. VALERIE: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: Were you looking at the Defendant throughout that hour or one-and-one-half hour period?

MR. VALERIE: Uh, my most intense observations of Mr. Simpson were in the first hour. After that, I mean, I--things really didn't change much from my perspective in that I saw what he looked like, saw what he wore and made the observations that I've stated to you and the police investigators.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. So your observations of the--well, strike that. You would describe your observations of the Defendant as intense observations; is that right?

MR. VALERIE: As what type of observations?

MR. DARDEN: Intense.

MR. VALERIE: Intense.

MR. DARDEN: Yes.

MR. VALERIE: Relative to how I may observe some other not as famous individual, I would say yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Now, did you see the Defendant go to the rest room?

MR. VALERIE: I only saw him go once.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. You didn't see the Defendant go to the rest room four or five times during the flight?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. VALERIE: I did not see him. I stated I saw him once get up to go to the bathroom.

MR. DARDEN: Did you ever see the Defendant retrieve a pair of socks and put them on?

MR. VALERIE: No, I did not.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Did you ever see him change his clothes at all?

MR. VALERIE: No, I did not.

MR. DARDEN: Did you ever see the Defendant change from tan boots to black or blue Italian loafers?

MR. VALERIE: No, I did not.

MR. DARDEN: Has anyone shown you a pair of Italian loafers?

MR. VALERIE: No, they have not.

MR. DARDEN: Mr. Cochran or Mr. Douglas didn't show you a pair?

MR. VALERIE: They did not.

MR. DARDEN: Can I have one moment? I'm almost finished, your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes.

(Brief pause.)

MR. DARDEN: When you went to sleep, Mr. Simpson was still awake; is that correct?

MR. VALERIE: That is correct.

MR. DARDEN: And when you woke up, Mr. Simpson was still awake; is that correct?

MR. VALERIE: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: And what time did that plane leave--land in Chicago, Pacific time?

MR. VALERIE: Again, I've been told 4:35. I don't recall exactly. And 4:35, I guess that would be Chicago time. But again, I wasn't paying particular attention to the time at that point.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And Chicago is two hours ahead of us here in Los Angeles?

MR. VALERIE: Still is.

MR. DARDEN: Thank you, your Honor. Thank you, Mr. Valerie.

MR. VALERIE: Thank you, Mr. Darden.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Just a few questions.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN

MR. COCHRAN: With regard to not wearing socks, you went to UCLA for how long? A couple years?

MR. VALERIE: Two years, business school.

MR. COCHRAN: It's fairly common to see people who hang out on the west side wear casual clothes with no socks on and loafers?

MR. VALERIE: Fairly common, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: You see that a lot at UCLA, don't you, and Westwood?

MR. VALERIE: You see it generally I think all over the area.

MR. COCHRAN: Not only in California, and other states also?

MR. VALERIE: I guess it depends on the weather. It was summertime and it was warm.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, you have talked to either Defense investigators or the police on at least four occasions that you've been asked about here today; is that correct?

MR. VALERIE: Yes. Two--two police investigators and twice with Mr. Pavelic.

MR. COCHRAN: And let's--let me make sure of the chronology. As I understand it, the first authorities you spoke to in this case were to the LAPD, Detective Kilcoyne before you ever talked to any Defense investigators; isn't that right?

MR. VALERIE: That actually is not correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Who did you talk to first as far as authority?

MR. VALERIE: I phoned up the very next--uh, it would have been Tuesday morning Washington D.C. time, probably about 7:00 A.M. so would have been placed at 4:00 A.M. or so in Los Angeles. I phoned up to let someone know at the LAPD that I indeed sat next to Mr. Simpson that flight and that he was in Chicago to let them know that. I wasn't--where I was living, I didn't have a TV, I didn't have a lot of access to information. Just heard the news secondhand and made that phone call.

MR. COCHRAN: Well--I'm sorry.

MR. VALERIE: Yeah. The person who answered the phone said, you know, I should call back another time, that no one was really around to take the information, no investigator, and gave me a number to call back. So that was my first contact.

MR. COCHRAN: So the first call was then on the 14th, correct?

MR. VALERIE: Uh, or Tuesday.

MR. COCHRAN: Or was that the 13th?

MR. VALERIE: Tuesday, whatever that Tuesday was.

MR. COCHRAN: That Tuesday will be the 14th. Okay. What you were doing, you were calling the police to try to assist them in case they didn't know where Mr. Simpson was; is that correct?

MR. VALERIE: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: Objection. That's leading.

THE COURT: It is.

MR. COCHRAN: I'll ask it another way. You're right.

MR. COCHRAN: Why were you calling the police on Tuesday the 14th?

MR. VALERIE: To forward information to the fact that I was with Mr. Simpson on a flight and give them that information. I--

MR. COCHRAN: And then thereafter, you had occasion to speak to a police officer by the name of Kilcoyne, and that was the 16th; is that correct?

MR. VALERIE: That is correct. I phoned him.

MR. COCHRAN: You called him also; is that right?

MR. VALERIE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And as I understand it, the statement you gave Detective Kilcoyne--

MR. COCHRAN: And may I approach with all these statements?

MR. DARDEN: Actually, can I get my copies, your Honor?

THE COURT: Sure.

MR. DARDEN: Thank you, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Now can I approach? With regard to these statements--

MR. COCHRAN: And we'll do this quickly, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: With regard to Detective Kilcoyne, you gave these statements on or about June 16th, 1994; is that correct?

MR. VALERIE: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And in all the statements that you've given in this case, have you been consistent with what you've told this jury here today?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Calls for a conclusion.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. VALERIE: That is correct. I've been very consistent.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And with regard, sir, to the statement written up by Kilcoyne, this was a telephonic interview; is that correct?

MR. VALERIE: That is correct.

MR. COCHRAN: He didn't send you a copy of this statement, did he?

MR. VALERIE: No, he did not.

MR. COCHRAN: And is this statement that counsel has been referring to, the June 16th statement, is that a complete and verbatim transcript of what you said to him at that time?

MR. VALERIE: No. It is definitely not.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And when you talked with Mr. Pavelic on June 17th, the second statement, which is in kind of letter form, is that statement a correct and verbatim copy of what you said to Mr. Pavelic at that time?

MR. VALERIE: No, it is not. It is a summary.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. These are summaries. Both are summaries. And then, counsel was referring to a statement of June 23rd, `94 which--what is that? Why don't you look at it and see what that is. Is that a statement at all or what is that?

MR. VALERIE: It refers to a--the second conversation I had when the press found out who I was, and I wanted to ask to see if I was breaking any rules of the court or any other laws by making a statement to the press.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

MR. VALERIE: It was in particular relation to what had been publicly broadcast about the flight attendant saying he had his hand in his bag.

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor. This is hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, at any rate--

THE COURT: Excuse me. The jury is to disregard that comment, that last comment.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: With regard to this June 23rd statement, it's addressed to somebody named bonnie, isn't it?

MR. VALERIE: That is correct. Bonnie Barron.

MR. COCHRAN: It's not even addressed to you, is it?

MR. VALERIE: No.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, in fact, on that statement, at the top part, it says "From, to, subject, date." You're not even mentioned at the top, are you?

MR. VALERIE: No. I'm only mentioned in the text.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And again, that is basically a letter to bonnie, right?

MR. VALERIE: That is correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, the final statement to--from Detective Croxley of--taken from you October 5th, 1994, look at that statement and see whether or not that's a verbatim statement of what you said to Detective Croxley.

MR. VALERIE: I spoke with Detective Croxley probably 35 or 40 minutes and this has probably about 40 total words in this thing. So I'd be speaking rather slow if this were the verbatim document.

MR. COCHRAN: So that's not the whole--that's a summary again; is that right?

MR. VALERIE: Absolutely.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, you mentioned that you had some concern about violating the Court's rules. Have you been offered money to testify in this case?

MR. VALERIE: Yes, I have, on a number of occasions.

MR. COCHRAN: On how many occasions have you been offered money?

MR. VALERIE: Three specific times.

MR. COCHRAN: And how much--by whom were you offered money the first time?

MR. VALERIE: By whom?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes. Which companies?

MR. VALERIE: Individual or company?

MR. COCHRAN: Which company?

MR. VALERIE: Television show? I don't remember the order. The three companies were Current Affair, Hard Copy and Inside Edition.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, let's take them in reverse--

THE COURT: Alphabetical order.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes. I was going to say in order of there terribleness, but I won't say that.

MR. COCHRAN: Let's take them, as the Court says, in alphabetical order. And I guess that would be Current Affair?

MR. VALERIE: Current Affair, $10,000.

MR. COCHRAN: And let's see. The next one would be Hard Copy. How much did they offer you?

MR. VALERIE: $6,000.

MR. COCHRAN: The last would be is it Inside Edition?

MR. VALERIE: That's correct. 3,000.

MR. COCHRAN: How much did they offer you?

MR. VALERIE: $3,000.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you take any money from any of those people at all?

MR. VALERIE: I did not.

MR. COCHRAN: You did not sell your story at all in this case; is that correct, sir?

MR. VALERIE: I did not.

MR. COCHRAN: And why didn't you sell your story in this case?

MR. VALERIE: I didn't feel it was appropriate in that I expected I might be a witness in this case and didn't think it's very good to compromise the story, someone might think that you tainted the story to get a sum of money.

MR. COCHRAN: And have you come here and told us the truth today?

MR. VALERIE: Yes, I have.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you very kindly.

THE COURT: Mr. Darden, anything further?

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. DARDEN: No questions, your Honor. Thank you, sir.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Valerie, thank you very much, sir. You're excused.

MR. VALERIE: Thank you.

MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, Defense call James Merrill to the stand.

Jim Merrill, called as a witness by the Defendant, was sworn and testified as follows:

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Merrill, come forward, please, stand over, please, next to Mr. Douglas. Please face Mrs. Robertson.

THE CLERK: Raise your right hand, please. You do 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?

MR. MERRILL: I do.

THE CLERK: Please be seated on the witness stand and state and spell your first and last names for the record.

MR. MERRILL: Jim Merrill.

THE CLERK: May we have the spelling, please?

MR. MERRILL: Jim, J-I-M, Merrill, M-E-R-R-I-L-L.

THE CLERK: Thank you.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. DOUGLAS

MR. DOUGLAS: Mr. Merrill, good afternoon.

MR. MERRILL: Good afternoon.

MR. DOUGLAS: Sir, what is your occupation?

MR. MERRILL: Work for the Hertz corporation.

MR. DOUGLAS: And, sir, how long have you worked for Hertz?

MR. MERRILL: Just under two years.

MR. DOUGLAS: What do you do for Hertz, sir?

MR. MERRILL: I'm in the corporate sales department, sales representative.

THE COURT: Excuse me, Mr. Merrill. Pull the microphone a little closer to you there.

MR. MERRILL: Sure.

THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Douglas.

MR. DOUGLAS: Mr. Merrill, is it the practice of Hertz corporation to hold a function each year?

MR. MERRILL: Yes, it is.

MR. DOUGLAS: What sort of function is that?

MR. MERRILL: We like to have a golf outing once a year.

MR. DOUGLAS: Was such a function held this year?

MR. MERRILL: Yes, it was.

MR. DOUGLAS: When was that?

MR. MERRILL: That was this prior Monday. That's where I got the sunburn.

MR. DOUGLAS: Was that golf tournament held last year?

MR. MERRILL: Yes, it was.

MR. DOUGLAS: What was the date of the tournament?

MR. MERRILL: June 13th.

MR. DOUGLAS: At the golf tournament, what sorts of people does Hertz introduce or bring forward?

MR. MERRILL: Typically what we like to do is bring a celebrity to help entertain the clients that we do have in town for the golf outing.

MR. DOUGLAS: And what sorts of clients come for the festival?

MR. MERRILL: People who have a purchasing decision in the companies that we do business with.

MR. DOUGLAS: What role, sir, did you play last year with that golf tournament?

MR. MERRILL: Last year, I was asked to pick up Mr. Simpson at the airport when he flew in that morning.

MR. DOUGLAS: When did you first learn, sir, that Mr. Simpson would be coming to Chicago?

MR. MERRILL: Approximately a month before he came into town.

MR. DOUGLAS: And, sir, what sort of arrangement did you make to pick him up?

MR. MERRILL: I personally didn't make the arrangements. Those were made by Casey Tomasine back at my office.

MR. DOUGLAS: Did there come a time, sir, when you were involved with actually picking him up?

MR. MERRILL: Yes, there was.

MR. DOUGLAS: What was--what was the caring in that regard?

MR. MERRILL: I was to pick up a Lincoln town car in the morning and go over to the airport and pick him up at the gate.

MR. DOUGLAS: And did you do so?

MR. MERRILL: Yes, I did.

MR. DOUGLAS: Were you with anyone?

MR. MERRILL: Yes, I was.

MR. DOUGLAS: Whom else were you with?

MR. MERRILL: Bombay shah.

MR. DOUGLAS: And what role did you play in that process and what role did Mr. Shah play?

MR. MERRILL: My role was to meet Mr. Simpson at the gate and escort him to the car and then to the hotel. Mr. Shah's role was to watch my car as I was--as I was meeting Mr. Simpson at the gate.

MR. DOUGLAS: And what time, sir, did the flight come in?

MR. MERRILL: Flight came in at 5:34.

MR. DOUGLAS: That's Chicago time?

MR. MERRILL: That's Chicago time.

MR. DOUGLAS: And did you go to the gate?

MR. MERRILL: Yes, I did.

MR. DOUGLAS: Did you have occasion to meet Mr. Simpson?

MR. MERRILL: Yes, I did.

MR. DOUGLAS: Can you describe for me his demeanor when he came off of the airplane?

MR. MERRILL: Very relaxed, looked a little tired, happy, friendly, cordial.

MR. DOUGLAS: Was he carrying any luggage?

MR. MERRILL: Yes, he was.

MR. DOUGLAS: How many pieces?

MR. MERRILL: He had two pieces.

MR. DOUGLAS: Can you describe the two pieces for me, please?

MR. MERRILL: He had a black garment bag and a black duffel bag.

MR. DOUGLAS: Mr. Merrill, looking first at a document--at a bag that's exhibit 1065--

MR. MERRILL: Uh-huh.

MR. DOUGLAS: --do you recognize this, sir?

MR. MERRILL: Yes, I do.

MR. DOUGLAS: And how do you recognize it?

MR. MERRILL: The initials on the front of the bag.

MR. DOUGLAS: The O.J.S.?

MR. MERRILL: The O.J.S., correct.

MR. DOUGLAS: And does that appear to be similar to the garment bag that you saw him with on that day?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: Looking at what is marked as exhibit 1064, do you recognize that, sir?

MR. MERRILL: Yes, I do.

MR. DOUGLAS: And what is that?

MR. MERRILL: That is a black duffel bag.

MR. DOUGLAS: And does that appear to be consistent with the bag that you saw him carrying that day?

MR. MERRILL: Yes, it does.

MR. DOUGLAS: When you first met Mr. Simpson, did you shake his hand?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: And what did you and he then do?

MR. MERRILL: At that point, we proceeded down to the baggage claim area.

MR. DOUGLAS: When you got to the baggage claim area, what did you do there?

MR. MERRILL: There we sat down on a bench, conversed and waited for the bags to arrive.

MR. DOUGLAS: While you were waiting for the bags to arrive, did anything happen?

MR. MERRILL: Yes. Many people were coming out of the--or coming down the hallway which we were in and conversing with Mr. Simpson, shaking hands, asking for autographs.

MR. DOUGLAS: You saw people coming down and introducing themselves to Mr. Simpson?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: You say they were shaking his hands?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: They were asking for autographs?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: Was he complying?

MR. MERRILL: Yes, he was.

MR. DOUGLAS: What was his demeanor when he was doing that?

MR. MERRILL: Umm, again, very cordial, happy.

MR. DOUGLAS: Would you estimate the number of people who came and interacted with Mr. Simpson that morning while waiting for his luggage?

MR. MERRILL: Good estimate would be 15 to 20.

MR. DOUGLAS: And you were nearby while he interacted with all of them?

MR. MERRILL: I was right next to him.

MR. DOUGLAS: Was there anything unusual about the manner in which he interacted with those people?

MR. MERRILL: None.

MR. DOUGLAS: Did there come a time, sir, when Mr. Simpson's bags arrived on the baggage carousel?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: And what happened then?

MR. MERRILL: Mr. Simpson stood up to go get his golf bag, and I grabbed the garment bag and the duffel bag and followed him.

MR. DOUGLAS: And where did he place the--withdrawn. Was Mr. Shah in a car waiting somewhere close by?

MR. MERRILL: Yes, he was.

MR. DOUGLAS: And what occurred then?

MR. MERRILL: Well, he picked up his bag from the carousel, we proceeded out the door and to the car where Mr. Shah was waiting.

MR. DOUGLAS: And what if anything happened to the golf bag?

MR. MERRILL: The golf bag was placed in the back of the town car.

MR. DOUGLAS: And what if anything happened to the other bags?

MR. MERRILL: The other bags were placed in the backseat of the town car.

MR. DOUGLAS: Okay. Did Mr. Shah go with you on your travel leaving the airport?

MR. MERRILL: No, he did not.

MR. DOUGLAS: What did he do?

MR. MERRILL: Mr. Shah took the Hertz bus back to the Hertz operations.

MR. DOUGLAS: Did you then drive Mr. Simpson?

MR. MERRILL: Excuse me?

MR. DOUGLAS: Did you then drive Mr. Simpson?

MR. MERRILL: Yes, I did.

MR. DOUGLAS: And where was he seated?

MR. MERRILL: Mr. Simpson was seated to my right in the front seat.

MR. DOUGLAS: Now, did O'Hare make arrangements for the lodging of guests who were attending the golf festival on June the 13th?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: And what hotel was Mr. Simpson scheduled to stay at?

MR. MERRILL: The--it was Howard Johnson O'Hare Plaza Hotel.

MR. DOUGLAS: And how far of a distance was the hotel from the airport?

MR. MERRILL: Not far. Within five miles.

MR. DOUGLAS: What was the driving time on that morning?

MR. MERRILL: Approximately I would say seven to 10 minutes.

MR. DOUGLAS: While you and he were driving in your car, did he ever have occasion to ask you to put on the news?

MR. MERRILL: No, he did not.

MR. DOUGLAS: Were you listening to anything on the radio?

MR. MERRILL: I had a radio station on. I don't recall what it was. It was a music station.

MR. DOUGLAS: During the course of you and he driving together to the airport--I'm sorry--to the hotel, what did you and he do?

MR. MERRILL: Oh, we just--we were talking about how bad the weather was, it was raining, and we were concerned about the fact that we may not be able to play golf that afternoon. We discussed--

MS. CLARK: Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. DOUGLAS: Did you and he discuss arrangements for his travel to the actual tournament later that morning?

MR. MERRILL: Yes, we did.

MR. DOUGLAS: Was there a discussion as to what would be done with the golf bag that was then in the trunk?

MR. MERRILL: No, there was not.

MR. DOUGLAS: Upon arriving at the airport--I'm sorry--at the hotel, what happened then?

MR. MERRILL: When we pulled up to the hotel, we--I parked the car in front, we exited the car and Mr. Simpson took his bags, his--this bag and the duffel bag and the golf clubs stayed in the trunk. We entered the hotel and went up to the reception desk and--

MR. DOUGLAS: If he was coming for the golf tournament, why were the glove clubs remaining in his car with his checking into the hotel?

MR. MERRILL: Because we were going to be getting together to play golf later that morning.

MR. DOUGLAS: Were you going to be taking him from the hotel to the golf tournament?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: Did he express any hesitance with leaving the golf clubs inside your trunk when you drove away?

MR. MERRILL: None. No.

MR. DOUGLAS: Did he suggest that you should not open the trunk or go into the bag?

MR. MERRILL: No.

MS. CLARK: Objection. That's hearsay.

THE COURT: Answer is stricken. Jury is to disregard.

MR. DOUGLAS: What happened when you walk into the hotel?

MR. MERRILL: We walked up to the reception area or the front desk, and Mr. Simpson was being checked in and there was a couple people that also asked for autographs if I remember correctly.

MR. DOUGLAS: And did he comply?

MR. MERRILL: Yes, he did. Yes, he did.

MR. DOUGLAS: What happened next?

MR. MERRILL: After that, I wrote down my cellular number and my home phone number on my business card, handed it to Mr. Simpson. We both talked about how we were hoping that the weather would become nicer and walked him to the elevator, shook hands and discussed about getting back together later that morning.

MR. DOUGLAS: Did you see Mr. Simpson anymore that day after he got into the elevator?

MR. MERRILL: No, I did not.

MR. DOUGLAS: Now, you had a chance to see Mr. Simpson when he first came off of the airplane?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: You had a chance to see him for the time while you waited for the bags to come?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: About how much time did it take for the bags to come did you say?

MR. MERRILL: Approximately 10 minutes.

MR. DOUGLAS: You had a chance to see Mr. Simpson while you and he were inside your car traveling to his hotel?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: You had a chance to see Mr. Simpson while he interacted with--

MS. CLARK: Objection. This is all leading, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. DOUGLAS: Did you have a chance to see Mr. Simpson as he interacted with the guests at the hotel?

MR. MERRILL: Yes, I did.

MR. DOUGLAS: During the entire time that you interacted with Mr. Simpson that morning, did you notice anything unusual about his hands?

MR. MERRILL: No, I did not.

MR. DOUGLAS: Did you notice any cuts on the middle finger of his left hand?

MR. MERRILL: No.

MR. DOUGLAS: I'm going to show you a photograph that is People's exhibit 123, and you can look on the monitor to your right.

MS. CLARK: Objection.

THE COURT: I'm sorry. I didn't hear you.

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. Sorry. Objection.

THE COURT: What's the objection?

MS. CLARK: This photograph is irrelevant for the time frame posed.

THE COURT: Which exhibit is this?

MR. DOUGLAS: 123, your Honor.

MS. CLARK: Photograph taken June 13th in the afternoon.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MERRILL: There's no picture.

THE COURT: Mr. Douglas. Mr. Merrill.

MR. DOUGLAS: Looking at the picture that is exhibit 123 shown on the monitor there, do you see what appears to be some sort of mark on Mr. Simpson's finger?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: During the time that you saw Mr. Simpson when he came off of the airplane and baggage claim and in the car and in the hotel, did you have occasion to see such a mark on his finger?

MR. MERRILL: No.

MR. DOUGLAS: When--thank you. When Mr. Simpson picked up his bags, you say that he personally picked up a golf bag?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: You picked up the garment bag and the duffel bag?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: Do you have occasion to recall whether or not there was another garment bag like a Louis Vuitton bag?

MR. MERRILL: I don't know. I don't recall.

MR. DOUGLAS: Okay. There could have been, but you didn't notice?

MR. MERRILL: I didn't notice, no.

MR. DOUGLAS: After seeing Mr. Simpson enter the elevator at the hotel, did you have occasion to talk to him again?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: And approximately what time that morning did you talk to him again?

MR. MERRILL: 8:25.

MR. DOUGLAS: And how did he contact you?

MR. MERRILL: He contacted me by my cellular phone.

MR. DOUGLAS: Now, have you been kind enough to bring your cellular phone records with you from Chicago?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, I would like to have marked as Defendant's next in order a two-page document from cellular one?

THE COURT: 1246.

(Deft's 1246 for id = phone records)

MR. DOUGLAS: I've shown it to counsel.

MR. DOUGLAS: Looking at exhibit--

THE COURT: 1246.

MR. DOUGLAS: --1246, do you recognize that exhibit, sir?

MR. MERRILL: Yes, I do.

MR. DOUGLAS: And what is that exhibit?

MR. MERRILL: That's my cellular one phone bill.

MR. DOUGLAS: And for what dates are shown?

MR. MERRILL: From June 9th through June 22nd.

MR. DOUGLAS: And do you see on there any notations for incoming calls that may have been received on June the 13th?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: And what is the time of the first incoming call?

MR. MERRILL: 8:25 A.M.

MR. DOUGLAS: Now, did you receive any phone calls on your cellular phone that morning before the call to Mr. Simpson?

MR. MERRILL: No.

MR. DOUGLAS: When Mr. Simpson called you at 8:25, can you say something about what his demeanor was?

MR. MERRILL: He was very desperate. He sounded very upset, confused, very frantic.

MR. DOUGLAS: And did he have any request of you?

MR. MERRILL: Oh, yeah. Yeah. He wanted me to come pick him up as quickly as I could.

MR. DOUGLAS: Now, sir, just so we have some time frame in mind--

MR. MERRILL: Uh-huh.

MR. DOUGLAS: --how much time had passed between your seeing him in the elevator and your receiving the call?

MR. MERRILL: Approximately two hours.

MR. DOUGLAS: How long did that first telephone call last?

MR. MERRILL: About 15 seconds.

MR. DOUGLAS: And was there an occasion for him to call you again?

MR. MERRILL: Yes, there was.

MR. DOUGLAS: How much time passed between the first time that he called and the second time?

MR. MERRILL: Seven minutes.

MR. DOUGLAS: Seven minutes?

MR. MERRILL: Seven minutes.

MR. DOUGLAS: And, sir, what occurred during the second phone call?

MR. MERRILL: He was asking me where I was.

MS. CLARK: Objection. Hearsay.

MR. DOUGLAS: Subsequent conduct only, your Honor. Not for the truth.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor--

THE COURT: No. That's--asking where you were doesn't do that. Sustained. Jury is to disregard it.

MR. DOUGLAS: How far away from the Chicago Plaza Hotel were you when you received the first call?

MR. MERRILL: About 20 to 25 miles.

MR. DOUGLAS: And between the--how much driving time was that?

MR. MERRILL: Depending on traffic, anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour.

MR. DOUGLAS: And between the first call that you received and the second call, had you made arrangements to return to the hotel?

MR. MERRILL: Yes. I was in my car.

MR. DOUGLAS: How long did the conversation last for the second call?

MR. MERRILL: Again, it was very quick. Probably less than 30 seconds.

MR. DOUGLAS: And can you describe his demeanor then?

MR. MERRILL: Yes. Again, it was very, very hurried, very frantic, confused, desperate.

MR. DOUGLAS: Did there come a time that he called you a third time?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: And what time was that third call?

MR. MERRILL: Two minutes later.

MR. DOUGLAS: And what was his demeanor during the third call?

MR. MERRILL: The third call was probably the most desperate.

MR. DOUGLAS: How so?

MR. MERRILL: Well, he--he--I was--at this point, I was very concerned. I had no idea what had happened. So I asked the question what had happened. I told him I was very concerned. He at that point--

THE COURT: All right. Hold on there. Next question.

MR. DOUGLAS: When he was talking to you, did you notice anything different in his voice?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: What did you notice?

MR. MERRILL: It was cracking. Umm, he sounded like he was crying.

MR. DOUGLAS: And how long did the third telephone call last?

MR. MERRILL: The third phone call lasted approximately a minute.

MR. DOUGLAS: I'd like to show you what has previously been marked as exhibit 490, which is a telephone record from Mr. Simpson's hotel room at the O'Hare Plaza Hotel. And looking at that document, do you see on there the phone number of the cellular phone that you were carrying with you that morning?

MR. MERRILL: Yes, I do.

MR. DOUGLAS: And how many times do you see your phone number listed there?

MR. MERRILL: Three times.

MR. DOUGLAS: Did there come a time when you arrived at the Plaza Hotel?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: And before I ask you that, how much time elapsed between Mr. Simpson's first call to you and the third call to you?

MR. MERRILL: Approximately 20 minutes.

MR. DOUGLAS: Can you check your records to verify?

MR. MERRILL: Sure. (The witness complies.) between the first call and the third call?

MR. DOUGLAS: Correct.

MR. MERRILL: Nine minutes.

MR. DOUGLAS: So he called you three times in nine minutes?

MR. MERRILL: That's correct.

MR. DOUGLAS: And the third call you say you thought he was crying?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: What did you do when you reached the hotel?

MR. MERRILL: When I reached the hotel, again, I parked the car out front. I ran inside to try to contact or try to locate Mr. Simpson.

MR. DOUGLAS: And was he inside?

MR. MERRILL: No, he was not.

MR. DOUGLAS: Without saying what occurred, did you speak with someone at the hotel about where he might have been?

MR. MERRILL: Yes, I did.

MR. DOUGLAS: After that conversation, did you attempt to look for him outside?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: Did you find out that he was there?

MR. MERRILL: He was not outside.

MR. DOUGLAS: Did you have a conversation with someone associated with Hertz about his whereabouts?

MR. MERRILL: Yes, I did.

MR. DOUGLAS: Who was that person?

MR. MERRILL: John Johnson.

MR. DOUGLAS: Without telling us what he said, what did you do after that conversation?

MR. MERRILL: I hopped in the car and sped to O'Hare to try to put the clubs on the flight.

MR. DOUGLAS: So you tried to catch his flight at the airport for the golf clubs?

MR. MERRILL: Yes, I did.

MR. DOUGLAS: There came a time I imagine when you reached the airport?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: And did you attempt to put the golf clubs on the flight that he was taking back to Los Angeles?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: Were you successful in putting the clubs on that flight?

MR. MERRILL: No.

MR. DOUGLAS: Did the clubs have to go on a different flight?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: To Los Angeles?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: Did there come a time when you spoke with him again about the clubs?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: Mr. Simpson I'm asking.

MR. MERRILL: Mr. Simpson, yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: And what day was that?

MR. MERRILL: That was the following day, Tuesday.

MR. DOUGLAS: Do you know the approximate time?

MR. MERRILL: Approximately 11:00 in the morning.

MR. DOUGLAS: Did you call him or did he call you?

MR. MERRILL: He called me.

MR. DOUGLAS: And during that conversation, did you give him the claim check for the bags, the claim check number for the bags to pick up in Los Angeles?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: Did you speak with him anymore after that conversation?

MR. MERRILL: After that conversation, no.

MR. DOUGLAS: Now, Mr. Merrill, you are testifying here because you've been served with a subpoena?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: And how did you travel out here?

MR. MERRILL: Traveled by plane.

MR. DOUGLAS: And were your flight arrangements made by the Defense?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: And have you been staying in a local hotel while in Los Angeles?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: And have those arrangements been made for you by the Defense?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: One moment.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. DOUGLAS: When Mr. Simpson called you on June the 14th, did he call to thank you?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. DOUGLAS: When he called you on June the 13th, there were other things that he spoke to you about other than the golf clubs?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DOUGLAS: Now, he had been scheduled to play in a golf tournament that day, correct?

MR. MERRILL: On Monday.

MR. DOUGLAS: The earlier day.

MR. MERRILL: Right.

MR. DOUGLAS: And because of the emergency, he was unable to play?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: And you had been the Hertz contact person concerning making arrangements for the golf tournament?

MR. MERRILL: As far as OJ was concerned, yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: Correct. So when he called you, did he talk to you about the tournament?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. DOUGLAS: One moment, your Honor.

THE COURT: Certainly.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. DOUGLAS: Mr. Merrill, did there come a time on June the 16th of 1994 when you gave a statement to police officers concerning your observations?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: And was that about 5:30 in the evening?

MR. MERRILL: Approximately.

MR. DOUGLAS: And did there come a time on June 23rd that you spoke with an investigator for the Defense?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: And who was that person?

MR. MERRILL: Pat McKenna.

MR. DOUGLAS: Have you had occasion to speak with Mr. McKenna since then?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: On approximately how many times?

MR. MERRILL: Oh, approximately half a dozen times.

MR. DOUGLAS: Did some of those conversations involve arrangements for your travel to testify?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: Did some of those conversations involve arrangements for your travel to testify if needed at a preliminary hearing?

MS. CLARK: Objection. This is all hearsay, leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. DOUGLAS: Did there come--was there an occasion when you met with lawyers representing Mr. Simpson?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: When was that?

MR. MERRILL: Approximately two and a half months ago.

MR. DOUGLAS: And with whom did you meet?

MR. MERRILL: Mr. Bailey.

MR. DOUGLAS: Have you and I spoken before today?

MR. MERRILL: Yes, we have.

MR. DOUGLAS: When was the first time?

MR. MERRILL: The first time was last--last week. I'm going to guess Wednesday, Wednesday or Thursday.

MR. DOUGLAS: And that was concerning a hearing about your being subpoenaed to come out here?

MR. MERRILL: Correct.

MR. DOUGLAS: And you and I have had occasion to talk yesterday?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: And earlier today?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: One moment, your Honor.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. DOUGLAS: Nothing further, your Honor.

MS. CLARK: Do you want to--

THE COURT: Let's take our break at this point. All right. Mr. Merrill, you can step down. You are ordered to come back in 15 minutes. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take our mid-afternoon recess. Remember all my admonitions to you. We'll stand in recess for 15 minutes.

(Recess.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. And we're going to go to 6:15, correct? All right. Let's have the jury.

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. The record should reflect we've been rejoined by all members of our jury panel. Mr. Merrill, would you resume the witness stand, please. All right. Good afternoon again, Mr. Merrill. You are reminded, sir, you are still under oath. And, Miss Clark, you may commence your cross-examination.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK

MS. CLARK: Good afternoon, Mr. Merrill.

MR. MERRILL: Good afternoon, Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: All right. You indicated, sir, that you learned of the Defendant's planned attendance of this golf tournament one month prior?

MR. MERRILL: Correct.

MS. CLARK: When did you learn of the time of the flight arrival?

MR. MERRILL: I would say approximately five days before.

MS. CLARK: And you learned of that from Hertz?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MS. CLARK: You did not have any conversation with the Defendant's personal secretary?

MR. MERRILL: No, I did not.

MS. CLARK: Now, the flight arrived in Chicago at 5:34, that was Chicago time, correct?

MR. MERRILL: Correct.

MS. CLARK: And that would have been 3:34 in the morning our time?

MR. MERRILL: Correct.

MS. CLARK: Did you have any idea whether the Defendant had slept on the flight over or not?

MR. MERRILL: No.

MR. DOUGLAS: Calls for speculation, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled. Answer will stand.

MS. CLARK: And did you know whether the Defendant had been up since 5:30 to 6:00 A.M. the previous morning playing golf?

MR. MERRILL: No.

MS. CLARK: Now, according--I believe in your testimony, you indicated that the Defendant carried two pieces of luggage with him off the plane?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And those were a black garment bag and a black duffel bag?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And the black garment bag, would you describe that a little further for us?

MR. MERRILL: Umm, it looked like it probably would hold one or two suits. It had the initials on the front, silver in color.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Do you recall describing it earlier as being a black leather bag?

MR. MERRILL: No, I do not. I think I described the duffel bag as being leather.

MS. CLARK: Okay. You don't recall describing the duffel bag as being black leather?

MR. MERRILL: No.

MS. CLARK: Would it refresh your memory, sir, if I were to show you a report prepared apparently by Defense investigators on July the 3rd, 1994?

MR. MERRILL: Yes. Sure.

MS. CLARK: All right, sir. I'm going to direct your attention to the portion of this page where it says James Merrill. That's you, right?

MR. MERRILL: Uh-huh. That is me.

MS. CLARK: And the part that's highlighted here.

MR. MERRILL: Huh, okay.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Does that refresh your recollection, sir?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And did you in fact tell the Defense investigators that you were--you observed the Defendant to be carrying a black leather garment bag over his shoulder and a small black carry-on bag in his left hand?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And is that indeed what you recall, sir?

MR. MERRILL: Uh, I think there might have been some confusion on that. I remember seeing the black duffel bag. The garment bag, I had no idea what that was made of.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Do you have any independent recollection of that today, sir?

MR. MERRILL: Well, it was a year ago. So not as fresh as it was obviously last year.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Now, you gave that statement to the Defense investigator back on June the 23rd, correct?

MR. MERRILL: Correct.

MS. CLARK: And that was 1994?

MR. MERRILL: That was 1994.

MS. CLARK: All right. And so your memory, would you say it was fresher then than it is now of the events that transpired on June the 13th?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MS. CLARK: So when you gave the description of a black garment bag as being a black leather garment bag, that was your freshest recollection of what you saw?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And when you saw the Defendant, he was carrying then the black duffel bag in his left hand?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And I think you indicated for Mr. Douglas earlier that this appeared to be that bag, correct?

MR. MERRILL: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: So he was carrying this in his left hand and a garment bag over his right shoulder?

MR. MERRILL: Over his shoulder.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Merrill, would you allow Miss Clark to finish asking her question before you start to answer just so the court reporter--

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

THE COURT: Like we just did. Also, Miss Clark, would you identify the item that you just showed to Mr. Merrill?

MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor. People's--excuse me. Defense 1064, the duffel bag, which the witness has indicated appears to be.

MS. CLARK: And I'm going to show you 1065, sir. If you could tell us if this appears to be the garment bag you were referring to when you were describing it to Mr. McKenna, the Defense investigator, back on June 23rd, 1994?

MR. MERRILL: That appears to be it, yes.

MS. CLARK: And was this the bag that he was carrying over his right shoulder, sir?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Kind of as I am now (Indicating)?

MR. MERRILL: Correct.

MS. CLARK: For the record, I have my hand up bent at the elbow of my right shoulder with a duffel bag behind my shoulder behind my back.

THE COURT: Garment bag. Yes.

MS. CLARK: Garment bag. Thank you.

MS. CLARK: Now, at the time you saw him carrying this, sir, was it empty like this?

MR. MERRILL: No.

MS. CLARK: Appeared to be full?

MR. MERRILL: Yes. It appeared to have one suit in it.

MS. CLARK: Could you tell if it had one or two suits in it?

MR. MERRILL: Uh, hard to tell.

MS. CLARK: And with respect to this duffel bag, was it empty like it is now?

MR. MERRILL: No.

MS. CLARK: Appear to be full?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Was there any other bag that he was carrying, sir?

MR. MERRILL: Those were the only two that he had with him when he got off the plane that I recall.

MS. CLARK: When he came towards you after he got off the flight, he was--you met him at the gate, correct?

MR. MERRILL: I met him as he exited the plane.

MS. CLARK: Okay. You watched him walk toward you?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Did he appear to limp?

MR. MERRILL: Uh, not that I noticed. I noticed that he was--had--a little bow-legged, but that's about it.

MS. CLARK: Okay. That--I mean, I'm not talking about the shape of his legs.

MR. MERRILL: Right.

MS. CLARK: I'm just saying the manner in which he walked.

MR. MERRILL: No, I didn't notice a limp.

MS. CLARK: Did he appear to be grimacing in pain as he carried the garment bag over his right shoulder and the duffel bag in his left hand?

MR. MERRILL: Not that I remember, no.

MS. CLARK: When you first met with him, you shook hands, correct?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Shook his right hand?

MR. MERRILL: Shook his right hand.

MS. CLARK: And his left hand was gripping the duffel bag?

MR. MERRILL: Right. Right. He put the garment bag into his left hand.

MS. CLARK: Okay. So you could not see his left hand as it was obscured carrying the duffel bag?

MR. MERRILL: At that point, yes.

MS. CLARK: And then you went over to the baggage claim area, correct?

MR. MERRILL: Correct.

MS. CLARK: You sat next to each other?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MS. CLARK: What side of him did you sit on if you recall?

MR. MERRILL: I sat on his left side.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And when you were sitting on his left side, you were speaking to him and you were looking at him; is that correct?

MR. MERRILL: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Were you looking down to look at what his left hand was doing?

MR. MERRILL: No. I wasn't focusing on the left hand, no.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And people came over to ask for his autograph, correct?

MR. MERRILL: Correct.

MS. CLARK: And he signed with what hand?

MR. MERRILL: With his right hand, if I remember correct.

MS. CLARK: Now, he interacted with each of those people that asked for his autograph?

MR. MERRILL: Yes, he did.

MS. CLARK: How long did he interact with each of those people?

MR. MERRILL: Oh, maybe 30 seconds each.

MS. CLARK: Right. Just long enough to say hi, sign?

MR. MERRILL: Right. How are you? There was a few other people--a few people that lingered longer, but that's about it.

MS. CLARK: And during that time, sir--you were in an airport, correct?

MR. MERRILL: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Lots of people around.

MR. MERRILL: Actually, I've never seen O'Hare as unfull as I did at that point. It was awfully early.

MS. CLARK: Okay. But you said 15 to 20 people came up to him.

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Okay. So there were at least 15 or 20 people around?

MR. MERRILL: Oh, yeah.

MS. CLARK: Were there more than that around?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Can you estimate for us how many people were around?

MR. MERRILL: In the baggage claim area itself? Oh, boy. Maybe 75, 100.

MS. CLARK: Okay.

MR. MERRILL: It's a guesstimate.

MS. CLARK: So 75 to a hundred people were around at the time, correct?

MR. MERRILL: Correct.

MS. CLARK: He's a celebrity; isn't that right?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And he was a spokesperson for Hertz corporation, correct?

MR. MERRILL: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And he's one of the celebrities that you advertise as being in the golf tournament. It's a draw for your company, isn't it?

MR. MERRILL: That's right.

MS. CLARK: And spokespeople are paid to be affable and charming and look good and present a good public image on behalf of Hertz, aren't they?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MS. CLARK: That's his job, correct?

MR. MERRILL: Correct.

MS. CLARK: And if he didn't do that, he wouldn't be very good, would he?

MR. DOUGLAS: Objection. Speculation, argumentative.

THE COURT: Over--sustained.

MS. CLARK: Now, when you were at the baggage claim area, you sat there you said for about 10 minutes?

MR. MERRILL: Approximately, yes.

MS. CLARK: And during that time, people were coming up, asking for autographs, et cetera, correct?

MR. MERRILL: Correct.

MS. CLARK: And basically, were they coming up and doing that for the entire 10 minutes that you were with him?

MR. MERRILL: Yeah. Basically from the point we sat down.

MS. CLARK: So you really didn't have any time alone with him. Is that a fair statement?

MR. MERRILL: Not at that point, no.

MS. CLARK: Now, when the baggage arrived on the carousel--

MR. MERRILL: Uh-huh.

MS. CLARK: --what was--what was it that he picked up from that area?

MR. MERRILL: Umm, he walked over and picked up the golf bag.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And was that the only item that came?

MR. MERRILL: That was the only item I saw. I was carrying his other bags. I didn't--I just noticed the big black golf bag.

MS. CLARK: And when you say that you were carrying the other bags, what other bags were you carrying?

MR. MERRILL: I was carrying the garment bag and the duffel bag.

MS. CLARK: Okay. When you say the garment bag, you refer to people--Defense 1065, the one I just showed you, the black garment bag?

MR. MERRILL: Correct.

MS. CLARK: And the duffel bag, the black one I just showed you, Defense 1064?

MR. MERRILL: Correct.

MS. CLARK: You did not see any small dark knapsack type bag?

MR. MERRILL: I did not.

MS. CLARK: And you said that the Defendant picked up the golf clubs, sir?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MS. CLARK: He didn't ask for you to do it?

MR. MERRILL: No.

MS. CLARK: Have you ever picked up golf clubs before, sir?

MR. MERRILL: Many times.

MS. CLARK: Do you play golf?

MR. MERRILL: Yes, I do. Not very good.

MS. CLARK: Pardon?

MR. MERRILL: Not very good, but I play.

MS. CLARK: All right. I'd like for you to pick up these golf clubs for me. Tell us how heavy that is.

MR. MERRILL: I'd say 25, 30 pounds, maybe more.

MS. CLARK: Can you pick it up? Can you tell us how the Defendant carried it on June the 13th, 1994?

MR. MERRILL: He put it on his back and carried it out the door.

MS. CLARK: Did he have that strap over his shoulder?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Now, that particular bag, sir--

MS. CLARK: And it's been marked, hasn't it?

THE COURT: Yes. This is the Swiss army brand.

MS. CLARK: Defense 1063?

THE COURT: 1063.

MS. CLARK: Of the three bags that you've described, that golf bag there, sir, and the garment bag, 1065, and the duffel bag, 1064, which one was the heaviest?

MR. MERRILL: I would say the duffel bag.

MS. CLARK: The duffel bag was the heaviest?

MR. MERRILL: The best of my memory. The heaviest of three bags?

MS. CLARK: Yes.

MR. MERRILL: Oh, well, the golf bag.

MS. CLARK: Okay. So the Defendant carried the heaviest bag; is that right?

MR. MERRILL: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And when he carried that bag, he carried it out to your car?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MS. CLARK: How far was your car from where you--he picked up the golf bag at the carousel?

MR. MERRILL: Oh, I would say 50--well, 75 to a hundred feet.

MS. CLARK: 75 to a hundred feet he carried that golf bag?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Did he limp during the carrying of that golf bag?

MR. MERRILL: Not that I noticed, no.

MS. CLARK: Did he complain about pain in his arms or his shoulder as he carried that golf bag 75 to a hundred feet?

MR. MERRILL: No.

MS. CLARK: And did he put that golf bag into the trunk of the car?

MR. MERRILL: He handed it to Bombay who helped him put it in the trunk.

MS. CLARK: So there was someone standing by there ready to load up the luggage in the trunk?

MR. MERRILL: Correct.

MS. CLARK: But the Defendant carried that golf bag by himself without asking for your assistance?

MR. MERRILL: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And he gave you the lighter bags to carry, correct?

MR. MERRILL: He didn't give them to me. I picked them up as he walked up to the carousel.

MS. CLARK: Because he went to pick up the golf clubs himself?

MR. MERRILL: Correct.

MS. CLARK: Didn't ask you to do that, carry the golf clubs?

MR. MERRILL: No. No.

MS. CLARK: All right. Now, you've indicated you drove him to the hotel; is that correct?

MR. MERRILL: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: You were driving?

MR. MERRILL: I was driving.

MS. CLARK: So you were not watching him. You were watching the road. Is that a fair statement?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And there was a third person in the car, shah Bombay?

MR. MERRILL: No.

MS. CLARK: It was just the two of you?

MR. MERRILL: It was just he and i.

MS. CLARK: And you had the radio on?

MR. MERRILL: It wasn't blaring, but yes, it was on.

MS. CLARK: I meant, there was music on?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MS. CLARK: You were listening to music?

MR. MERRILL: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: All right. So were you trying to see if he had any injuries to his hands, his face, cuts or bruises?

MR. MERRILL: No.

MS. CLARK: You had no idea that there had been two murders committed the night before?

MR. MERRILL: Absolutely, no. Absolutely not.

MS. CLARK: And you had no reason to believe that he was injured for any reason at that time?

MR. MERRILL: No.

MS. CLARK: So as you were driving the car and I presume watching the road, correct?

MR. MERRILL: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: You had very limited opportunity to observe his hands or his face. Would that be a fair statement?

MR. MERRILL: Well--

MR. DOUGLAS: Argumentative, vague, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. It's vague. Rephrase the question. It's also compound.

MS. CLARK: All right. You were driving the car and you were watching the road. Is that a fair statement?

MR. MERRILL: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Were you looking to see whether--the details of his hands, his fingers or his face?

MR. DOUGLAS: It's compound, your Honor.

THE COURT: It is.

MS. CLARK: Okay. I'm sorry. Were you looking to see the details of his fingers?

MR. MERRILL: No.

MS. CLARK: Were you looking to see if he was injured?

MR. MERRILL: No.

MS. CLARK: Now, I think you were asked by Mr. Douglas whether you recall seeing a Louis Vuitton garment bag in his possession that day?

MR. MERRILL: Correct.

MS. CLARK: How big is a garment bag usually, sir?

MR. MERRILL: Umm, well, it depends on what you buy. Some of them are large. Can be four feet, three and a half to four feet in length and others are short, basically the size of a coat, of a jacket.

MS. CLARK: And the length of a jacket, what was that? About two, three feet?

MR. MERRILL: Approximately, yeah.

MS. CLARK: All right. So the smallest it could be would be about three feet. Would that be a fair statement, short in length?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And you said you did not recall seeing a Louis Vuitton garment bag in the Defendant's possession on that day?

MR. MERRILL: Not that I recall, no.

MS. CLARK: And you also did not recall seeing any cuts or bruises on the Defendant's hand that day?

MR. MERRILL: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And now, I'm going to show you a photograph that Mr. Douglas showed you.

MS. CLARK: Carl, do you have it? Oh, it's there.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark you put up People's--

MS. CLARK: That is--

THE COURT: Is it 120--

MS. CLARK: --3? 123.

THE COURT: 123.

MS. CLARK: All right, sir. We are showing you People's 123 again. Let me ask you a couple questions about that. First of all, the cut that you see there, do you think it's as long as an inch?

MR. MERRILL: It looks like it, yes.

MS. CLARK: Could it be as small as half an inch?

MR. MERRILL: Umm, he's got pretty big hands. I don't know. Maybe.

MS. CLARK: Now, if you didn't notice a garment bag that's at least three feet high--

MR. MERRILL: Uh-huh.

MS. CLARK: --do you think you would notice a little half inch cut on someone's finger?

MR. DOUGLAS: Objection. Argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Let me ask you something else then, sir. This photograph that you see before you here was taken in the afternoon of June the 13th.

MR. MERRILL: Uh-huh.

MS. CLARK: Looking at this photograph, can you tell us whether that is the reopened cut that had been suffered on June the 12th?

MR. MERRILL: Well, I'm not a doctor. I--

MR. DOUGLAS: Objection. Speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained. Foundation.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MS. CLARK: Okay. Thanks, Howard.

MS. CLARK: All right. You can't tell us whether there were any cuts on his finger on June the 12th, just that you didn't see any, correct?

MR. MERRILL: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: You indicated he called you again then in the morning of June the 13th. After you dropped him off at the hotel, you heard back from him again at 8:25 Chicago time, correct?

MR. MERRILL: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: That would have been 6:25 California time; is that right?

MR. MERRILL: Correct.

MS. CLARK: And how long was it after you dropped him off that you got that first call?

MR. MERRILL: Oh, approximately two hours.

MS. CLARK: And how long did you speak to him that first time?

MR. MERRILL: That first time was very short. 15 seconds.

MS. CLARK: Let me back up for a minute, sir. When you were at the airport with the Defendant and you said all those people came over and asked him for his autograph, did he show any difficulty in signing the autographs?

MR. MERRILL: Not that I saw, no.

MS. CLARK: And this golf tournament, this is part--was this part of his contract? This is an obligation that he had to Hertz corporation?

MR. DOUGLAS: No foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: If you know, sir, was the Defendant back in June of `94 under contract with Hertz corporation?

MR. MERRILL: I'm really not sure--

MR. DOUGLAS: Based on hearsay, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer the question.

MR. MERRILL: Umm, I assume so. I assume so. That's really out of my hands.

MR. DOUGLAS: Move to strike.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: Is the appearance at golf--that annual golf tournament an obligation that he has to Hertz corporation to the best of your knowledge?

MR. MERRILL: To the best of my knowledge, I would say yes.

MS. CLARK: All right. I'm sorry. The first phone call you had with the Defendant at 8:25, he called you on your cell phone?

MR. MERRILL: On my cellular phone.

MS. CLARK: How long was that telephone conversation?

MR. MERRILL: 15 seconds.

MS. CLARK: And the second call was how long?

MR. MERRILL: A little longer. Maybe 30 seconds.

MS. CLARK: All right. And the third call, you said it was about a minute, correct?

MR. MERRILL: Oh, yeah. About a minute.

MS. CLARK: And that's approximate?

MR. MERRILL: Approximate.

MS. CLARK: You said that the Defendant was increasingly sounding frantic and desperate and upset?

MR. MERRILL: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: The Defendant is an actor; is he not, sir?

MR. DOUGLAS: Argumentative, your Honor.

THE COURT: Rephrase the question.

MS. CLARK: Do you know that the Defendant has been in various movies?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And you've seen him in those movies; have you not?

MR. MERRILL: I've seen a few.

MS. CLARK: And you've seen him on television, haven't you?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MS. CLARK: He's an actor by profession; is he not?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Had you ever seen the Defendant before that day, sir?

MR. MERRILL: Never. Except on TV.

MS. CLARK: Except on TV, right. Not on a personal level, correct?

MR. MERRILL: No.

MS. CLARK: You have no way of knowing whether the frantic and desperate manner in which he behaved was an act or for real, do you?

MR. DOUGLAS: Calls for speculation, your Honor, argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MERRILL: I have no way of knowing, no.

MS. CLARK: And would you not--let me ask you something, sir. If a man whose ex-wife had just been killed was acting nonchalant and blasé, wouldn't you find that suspicious?

MR. DOUGLAS: Objection. Argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: You spoke to him again on June the 14th?

MR. MERRILL: Correct.

MS. CLARK: And he called you?

MR. MERRILL: Yes, he did.

MS. CLARK: Where did he call you?

MR. MERRILL: He called me at my office in Des Plaines, Illinois.

MS. CLARK: Now, you had never met him before June the 13th; is that correct?

MR. MERRILL: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Did it strike you as odd that he called you back on June the 14th?

MR. MERRILL: In a way, yes.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

THE COURT: Mr. Merrill, what city is your office in?

MR. MERRILL: Des Plaines, Illinois.

THE COURT: All right. Would you spell that for the court reporter, please.

MR. MERRILL: Sure. D-E-S, capital P-L-A-I-N-E-S.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. MERRILL: Sure. I hope I got that right.

MS. CLARK: Nothing further. Thank you, Mr. Merrill.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Douglas, any redirect?

MR. DOUGLAS: Yes, your Honor, thank you.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. DOUGLAS

MR. DOUGLAS: Mr. Merrill, you--would you have described your interaction with Mr. Simpson before dropping him off at the hotel as pleasant?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. DOUGLAS: How would you describe your interaction with Mr. Simpson prior to your dropping him off at the hotel?

MR. MERRILL: It was pleasant, relaxed.

MR. DOUGLAS: Had he been short with you?

MR. MERRILL: No.

MR. DOUGLAS: Had he been rude to you?

MR. MERRILL: Not at all, no.

MR. DOUGLAS: Had he showed any anger towards you?

MR. MERRILL: No.

MR. DOUGLAS: Had he rushed you?

MR. MERRILL: No.

MR. DOUGLAS: Had he shown any impatience towards you at all?

MR. MERRILL: No.

MR. DOUGLAS: When Mr. Simpson called you after you dropped him off at the hotel, was he short?

MR. MERRILL: Very.

MR. DOUGLAS: Was he impatient?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: Was he insistent of you?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: Was he rushing you?

MR. MERRILL: Very, yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: Was he calling you repeatedly?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: When Mr. Simpson called you the next day, he apologized for his brusqueness, didn't he?

MR. MERRILL: Yes, he did.

MR. DOUGLAS: He apologized for having rushing you, didn't he?

MR. MERRILL: Yes, he did.

MR. DOUGLAS: When he spoke with you on the 13th, did he tell you why he was so short?

MR. MERRILL: He--I had asked the question--

MS. CLARK: Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. DOUGLAS: When Mr. Simpson called and apologized on the next day, did he offer an explanation as to his unusual conduct the prior day?

MR. MERRILL: He basically--

MS. CLARK: Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Yes. Sustained.

MR. DOUGLAS: He wasn't as short with you on the 14th as he had been when he spoke to you on the phone the 13th?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained. I think we got the point that he called to apologize.

MR. DOUGLAS: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. DOUGLAS: Now, golf tournaments that Hertz gives frequently have executives attend?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: There are celebrities that also come?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: And it is expected that the participants will then play a round of golf?

MR. MERRILL: That's correct.

MR. DOUGLAS: Hertz solicits the assistance of others to help the celebrities and the other attendees?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: They have caddies to help on the golf course?

MR. MERRILL: That's correct.

MR. DOUGLAS: They have assistants to pick up--

MS. CLARK: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. DOUGLAS: Do they have assistants to pick up the luggage from the cars?

MR. MERRILL: Yes. When we--when we arrive at the outings, there's always people there to remove the bags and set them up on the cart so you just basically go in and have fun.

MR. DOUGLAS: So when Mr. Simpson placed the golf clubs into your car at the airport--

MR. MERRILL: Uh-huh.

MR. DOUGLAS: --that probably would have been the last time that he touched those bags himself?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. DOUGLAS: What's the practice of Hertz? The practice of Hertz have their corporate spokesperson reach into the trunk to pull out his own golf bag?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Irrelevant, calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DOUGLAS: You may answer.

MR. MERRILL: No.

MR. DOUGLAS: What is the practice of Hertz?

MR. MERRILL: Well, it depends on the golf course. But we want our people to show up and not have to do any work, to have some fun. We have people that will meet them curbside to pull the golf clubs out of the bag if need be and set them up on the cart.

MR. DOUGLAS: And that is true of participants in the tournament?

MR. MERRILL: Correct.

MR. DOUGLAS: And that's certainly true of the primary spokesperson who is attending?

MR. MERRILL: Absolutely.

MR. DOUGLAS: Now, there were several occasions when you were with Mr. Simpson as he was interacting with others?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: He would sign autographs?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: He would sign auto--would he sign autographs by holding something in his hand?

MR. MERRILL: Well, he would have to hold a piece of paper in his hand obviously to write it.

MR. DOUGLAS: So there would be the opportunity for you to watch the act of him signing the autographs?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: Was there ever an occasion when you consciously averted your eyes from watching his hands as he was signing autographs?

MR. MERRILL: I was watching a lot of things.

MR. DOUGLAS: You didn't ignore his hands, did you?

MR. MERRILL: No, I did not.

MR. DOUGLAS: But there was nothing about his hands that drew any attention to you?

MS. CLARK: Well, objection. That's leading.

THE COURT: Rephrase the question.

MR. DOUGLAS: Sure.

MR. DOUGLAS: Was there anything about his hands that drew your attention?

MR. MERRILL: Just the fact that they're big.

MR. DOUGLAS: You did notice that he has pretty large hands?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: You watched him shaking hands?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: You watched him signing?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS: You saw no cuts?

MR. MERRILL: I saw no cuts.

MS. CLARK: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: All right. The answer will stand because it's testimony we've previously heard. Hint.

MR. DOUGLAS: One moment, your Honor.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. DOUGLAS: Nothing further. Thank you, Mr. Merrill.

THE COURT: Miss Clark, anything further?

MS. CLARK: Yes, very briefly.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK

MS. CLARK: Sir, in that June 14th phone call in which the Defendant apologized to you--

MR. MERRILL: Uh-huh.

MS. CLARK: --you'd never met him before June the 13th; is that right?

MR. MERRILL: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: You're not buddies?

MR. MERRILL: No.

MS. CLARK: You didn't owe him anything?

MR. MERRILL: No.

MS. CLARK: He didn't owe you anything?

MR. MERRILL: No.

MS. CLARK: Right.

MR. MERRILL: Apology was nice.

MS. CLARK: It was nice, but not expected, was it?

MR. MERRILL: No.

MS. CLARK: You were pretty surprised by that, weren't you?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And a man whose ex-wife has just been murdered calls to apologize to you for being impatient, didn't that strike you as a little odd?

MR. DOUGLAS: Argumentative, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MERRILL: I--yes, I guess.

MS. CLARK: And he also talked to you about picking up his golf clubs in that same conversation; is that correct?

MR. MERRILL: I--yes, we did have the conversation. It was initiated by me however.

MS. CLARK: And then he followed it up though, asked you a couple questions about it, didn't he?

MR. MERRILL: I told him that I wasn't able to get the golf clubs on that flight and that they did go on the following flight, and I offered the information on the baggage claim ticket.

MS. CLARK: Actually, didn't you actually tell him you were sorry that you couldn't get them to the airport on time, but that you had sent them?

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And then he asked, no, are they being--you asked if he had gotten them, and he said no, are they being delivered; isn't that right?

MR. MERRILL: He had asked whether they were being delivered, whether I had made arrangements for them to be delivered after they had arrived in L.A., and I told him no, I--I got them to L.A. And that was basically all I did.

MS. CLARK: And that was on the afternoon of June the 14th?

MR. MERRILL: On the 14th, correct.

MS. CLARK: And do you know whether he immediately left his house to pick them up?

MR. DOUGLAS: No foundation, speculation, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: All right. Now, you indicated it seemed odd that someone who didn't know you would call to apologize the following day under those trying circumstances for being impatient, correct?

MR. DOUGLAS: Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: It's foundational.

THE COURT: But that's the third time we've heard the question.

MS. CLARK: As someone who saw the Defendant immediately before and immediately after the discovery of the murders, your testimony about his demeanor would be very important; wouldn't you agree?

MR. DOUGLAS: Argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MERRILL: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And he would have an interest in being very nice to someone whose testimony could be so important to him?

MR. DOUGLAS: Argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: I have nothing further.

FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. DOUGLAS

MR. DOUGLAS: He called you, Mr. Merrill, to apologize to you, correct?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DOUGLAS: You can answer.

MR. MERRILL: Correct.

MR. DOUGLAS: And then you told him about the arrangement that you had made for his golf bag, correct?

MR. MERRILL: Correct.

MR. DOUGLAS: Nothing further.

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: I have nothing further.

THE COURT: Mr. Merrill, thank you very much sir. You're excused.

MR. MERRILL: Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. Why don't you take your cup with you there so we don't mix them up. All right. And, Mr. Douglas, you have some exhibits up here that Mr. Merrill has.

MR. DOUGLAS: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Shapiro, who is your next witness?

MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you very much, your Honor. With the Court's permission, we'd like to call Mr. Raymond Kilduff.

THE COURT: I'm sorry. I didn't catch the last name.

MR. SHAPIRO: Raymond Kilduff, K-I-L-D-U-F-F.

THE COURT: And, Miss Clark, can we grab the golf bag here?

MS. CLARK: Yes.

THE COURT: Mr. Wooden, would you grab that for us, please.

MS. CLARK: Can we approach briefly, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes. Miss Clark, Mr. Cochran.

(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Kilduff, good afternoon. Would you stand right there, please, and face Mrs. Robertson.

Raymond Kilduff, called as a witness by the Defendant, was sworn and testified as follows:

THE CLERK: Raise your right hand, please. Raise your right hand. You do 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?

MR. KILDUFF: I do.

THE CLERK: Please have a seat in the witness stand and state and spell your first and last names for the record.

MR. KILDUFF: Ray Kilduff.

THE CLERK: Have a seat, please. Can we have the spelling of your name?

MR. KILDUFF: I'm sorry. Spelling of my name? K-I-L-D-U-F-F.

THE CLERK: Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. Would you just sit back and pull the microphone close to you, please. Thank you. Mr. Shapiro.

MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SHAPIRO

MR. SHAPIRO: Good afternoon, Mr. Kilduff.

MR. KILDUFF: Good afternoon.

MR. SHAPIRO: How are you?

MR. KILDUFF: Good.

MR. SHAPIRO: You've been waiting for two days to get on the witness stand here.

MR. KILDUFF: Yes, I have.

MR. SHAPIRO: We apologize for the delays. You are from Chicago?

MR. KILDUFF: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: And are you employed there?

MR. KILDUFF: Yes, I am.

MR. SHAPIRO: What is your employment, sir?

MR. KILDUFF: The Hertz corporation.

MR. SHAPIRO: Were you employed in the Hertz corporation on June the 13th of 1994?

MR. KILDUFF: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: Is that date of any particular significance to you?

MR. KILDUFF: Yes, it is.

MR. SHAPIRO: And what is the significance?

MR. KILDUFF: It was the date that Mr. Simpson came to town for the golf tournament.

MR. SHAPIRO: And what is--what was your job at Hertz on the 13th?

MR. KILDUFF: Division vice president, central division sales.

MR. SHAPIRO: And what does that consist of?

MR. KILDUFF: It consists of, I handle 17 states for the sales, the corporate side of the business. In this particular case, we bring in our corporate customers from that area to a golf outing annually.

MR. SHAPIRO: And did you have a particular duty in bringing customers to the outing?

MR. KILDUFF: Yes, I did.

MR. SHAPIRO: And what was your duty on that morning?

MR. KILDUFF: Basically, ultimately I'm responsible for it all coming together.

MR. SHAPIRO: And did you have occasion to be in the area of a hotel where your guests were staying?

MR. KILDUFF: Yes, I did.

MR. SHAPIRO: What hotel is that?

MR. KILDUFF: The O'Hare plaza.

MR. SHAPIRO: At some time in the morning, did you see Mr. OJ Simpson there?

MR. KILDUFF: Yes, I did.

MR. SHAPIRO: Where was he when you first saw him?

MR. KILDUFF: Sitting outside on a bench.

MR. SHAPIRO: What time was it?

MR. KILDUFF: Approximately about 8:45 to 8:50, somewhere in that.

MR. SHAPIRO: Would you describe for the ladies and gentlemen of the jury how he appeared?

MR. KILDUFF: When I drove up, I saw Mr. Simpson sitting out there. I was surprised, one, because I thought he was asleep. He was obviously distraught. Once I pulled up, his hands were in his--put his hands in his face like there was something wrong. I walked out--got out of the car first, went up, introduced myself. I had met Mr. Simpson two times prior, and told him I was from the Hertz corporation, asked if he remembered me. And at that point, he stated he needed to get to the airport.

MR. SHAPIRO: And did you respond to him after he said, "I need to get to the airport"?

MR. KILDUFF: Yes, I did. At the same time though, I had three individuals with me, John Johnson, who is my boss, Jack Raynard, who is a customer, and Jim Hoye, who is a customer. John got out of the car and said, "Juice, what's going on?"

MR. DARDEN: Objection. This is hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SHAPIRO: The people that were in your car, did they get out of the car?

MR. KILDUFF: Yes, they did.

MR. SHAPIRO: And did anyone approach Mr. Simpson?

MR. KILDUFF: Yes, they did.

MR. SHAPIRO: And did--was there some conversation?

MR. KILDUFF: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did Mr. Simpson respond in any way?

MR. KILDUFF: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: Do you recall what his response was?

MR. KILDUFF: Yes. He said--

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SHAPIRO: Do you recall what his demeanor was when he responded? Was this to Mr. Johnson?

MR. KILDUFF: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: What was his demeanor?

MR. KILDUFF: Upset.

MR. SHAPIRO: What was his tone?

MR. KILDUFF: Frantic.

MR. SHAPIRO: And at that time, was--did you make an offer to Mr. Simpson?

MR. KILDUFF: Yes, I did.

MR. SHAPIRO: And what was that?

MR. KILDUFF: To take him to the airport.

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Hearsay, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled. What was the offer?

MR. KILDUFF: To take him to the airport.

MR. SHAPIRO: And did he respond?

MR. KILDUFF: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: What was his response?

MR. KILDUFF: He asked me to take him--

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Hearsay, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did he get in the vehicle?

MR. KILDUFF: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: What part of the vehicle did he get in?

MR. KILDUFF: Passenger front seat.

MR. SHAPIRO: And you were the driver?

MR. KILDUFF: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: Was there anyone else in the vehicle?

MR. KILDUFF: No.

MR. SHAPIRO: How far--did you take him to the airport?

MR. KILDUFF: Yes, I did.

MR. SHAPIRO: And did you ascertain what flight he was on?

MR. KILDUFF: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: And did you make any calls to see what time that flight would be taking off?

MR. KILDUFF: Two. One to--

MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. You made two calls?

MR. KILDUFF: Uh-huh.

MR. SHAPIRO: And after making those calls, did you ascertain whether or not you would be able to make an earlier flight than Mr. Simpson had scheduled?

MR. KILDUFF: I was not aware of any earlier flight Mr. Simpson had scheduled.

MR. SHAPIRO: What flight were you trying to make?

MR. KILDUFF: 9:15.

MR. SHAPIRO: Were you able to make that flight?

MR. KILDUFF: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: On the way to the airport, would you describe Mr. Simpson's demeanor?

MR. KILDUFF: Very much the same. Very upset.

MR. SHAPIRO: What was his tone of voice in the car?

MR. KILDUFF: Upset.

MR. SHAPIRO: Was he making any type of sounds?

MR. KILDUFF: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: What type of sounds was he making?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. KILDUFF: He was moaning. Basically he repeated a statement several times.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did that statement express some type of distress?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. That's hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SHAPIRO: What did that statement convey to you?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. It's hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did you have an occasion to observe anything unusual about Mr. Simpson's hands?

MR. KILDUFF: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: And what did you observe?

MR. KILDUFF: That it was cut and bleeding.

MR. SHAPIRO: Which hand did you observe that on, do you recall?

MR. KILDUFF: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: Which one was that?

MR. KILDUFF: The left.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did you notice any type of bandage on that hand?

MR. KILDUFF: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: What type of bandage did you notice?

MR. KILDUFF: It was a regular, you know, type of Band-Aid. I'm not sure.

MR. SHAPIRO: And would you describe to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury the hand, the bandage and the blood that you observed?

MR. KILDUFF: When I--Mr. Simpson was sitting against the wall, it was very sunny. I could actually see into the bandage because it was loose and it was very bloody. I could see the entire gauze area covered in blood.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did you get Mr. Simpson to the airport?

MR. KILDUFF: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: And did he leave your presence?

MR. KILDUFF: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: Were you contacted by anyone--who were the first per--people to contact you regarding what you observed regarding Mr. Simpson?

MR. KILDUFF: The Chicago police.

MR. SHAPIRO: And when did they contact you?

MR. KILDUFF: The--three days later, I believe the 16th.

MR. SHAPIRO: How many people--did you talk to someone eventually at the Chicago police?

MR. KILDUFF: Yes. The LAPD.

MR. SHAPIRO: And how many people did you talk to?

MR. KILDUFF: Two.

MR. SHAPIRO: And for how long a period of time did you talk to them?

MR. KILDUFF: For about 45 minutes.

MR. SHAPIRO: And did you tell them substantially what you've told us here and told the jury today?

MR. KILDUFF: Not in this detail.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did you later talk to anyone from police departments?

MR. KILDUFF: Yes. Mr. Hodgman and I believe he had five or six policemen.

MR. SHAPIRO: Five or six policemen?

MR. KILDUFF: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: And where was this?

MR. KILDUFF: In my offices.

MR. SHAPIRO: So Mr. Hodgman came to Chicago with five or six police?

MR. KILDUFF: Correct. It was a mixture of Chicago and LAPD.

MR. SHAPIRO: And did you have an interview with them?

MR. KILDUFF: Yes, I did. With Mr. Hodgman.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did Mr. Hodgman tape-record this interview?

MR. KILDUFF: Not to my knowledge.

MR. SHAPIRO: Were notes taken of this interview?

MR. KILDUFF: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: And did you explain to Mr. Hodgman and the five or six police officers what occurred and what your observations were?

MR. KILDUFF: Yes, I did.

MR. SHAPIRO: And was that substantially what you've told this jury?

MR. KILDUFF: Very close.

MR. SHAPIRO: Have you seen a report that was prepared as a result of that interview?

MR. KILDUFF: Yes, I have.

MR. SHAPIRO: And in that report, did that summarize what your statements were to this jury today?

MR. KILDUFF: As a summary, yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you. Nothing further.

THE COURT: Miss Clark. Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Darden.

MR. DARDEN: Thank you, your Honor.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DARDEN

MR. DARDEN: Good afternoon, sir.

MR. KILDUFF: Good afternoon.

MR. DARDEN: I'm sorry. What is your position with Hertz corporation?

MR. KILDUFF: Division vice president, central division sales.

MR. DARDEN: Are you responsible for sales over how many states?

MR. KILDUFF: 17.

MR. DARDEN: So you're an executive with Hertz?

MR. KILDUFF: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And the Defendant here was the spokesperson for Hertz?

MR. KILDUFF: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Have you had any meetings at Hertz about your testifying in this case?

MR. KILDUFF: No.

MR. DARDEN: Not one?

MR. KILDUFF: Not meetings. I've had conversations.

MR. DARDEN: Have you had conversations with your higher-ups?

MR. KILDUFF: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Hertz corporation is concerned about his image; isn't that correct?

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. Irrelevant. May we approach?

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.

MR. KILDUFF: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And Mr. Simpson is a spokesperson for your company, right?

MR. KILDUFF: Mr. Simpson was.

MR. DARDEN: If I understand your testimony correctly, Mr. Kilduff, when you drove up to the hotel that morning, the Defendant was seated outside; is that correct?

MR. KILDUFF: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: And when you first saw him, his hands weren't up to his face, were they?

MR. KILDUFF: When I first saw him, at some point--no, I don't believe they were. At some point though while I was driving, I don't remember exactly when, he did put his hands in his face.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Are you sure that he didn't put his hands to his face until you began to approach him?

MR. KILDUFF: That's possible.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Isn't it true that he didn't put his hands up to his face until you said to him, "Remember me"?

MR. KILDUFF: No.

MR. DARDEN: Did you ever tell anybody that?

MR. KILDUFF: Not to my recollection.

MR. DARDEN: Did you tell Bill Hodgman that in Chicago?

MR. KILDUFF: As I stated, not to my recollection.

MR. DARDEN: And the cut that you saw on the Defendant's finger that day--

MR. KILDUFF: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: --you say there was a bandage on that cut?

MR. KILDUFF: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And the bandage was loose, wasn't it?

MR. KILDUFF: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And the bandage was so loose that you could see the cut?

MR. KILDUFF: Correct. I could see in.

MR. DARDEN: Do you know whether or not the Defendant left the bandage loose so that you could see the cut?

MR. KILDUFF: I would have no idea.

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: It does.

MR. DARDEN: Were you surprised that the Defendant had a cut on his finger?

MR. KILDUFF: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: And were you surprised that the bandage on the finger was loose as opposed to being tightly wrapped around the cut?

MR. KILDUFF: I actually didn't think about that. I was more surprised that Mr. Simpson was sitting outside there because I knew he was supposed to be asleep.

MR. DARDEN: The bandage that you saw was not a Band-Aid; is that correct?

MR. KILDUFF: I thought it was a Band-Aid.

MR. DARDEN: You testified a little while ago about having seen gauze on his finger; is that correct?

MR. KILDUFF: Yes, I did. I meant the inside part of the Band-Aid, the gauze part of a regular Band-Aid.

MR. DARDEN: And how big was that Band-Aid?

MR. KILDUFF: I thought fairly large.

MR. DARDEN: And what is fairly large?

MR. KILDUFF: About like that (Indicating).

MR. DARDEN: I'm sorry. Show me again.

MR. KILDUFF: About like that (Indicating). In fact, I thought that it possibly could be two. I remember thinking that because I thought it was, you know, like one of the very large sized Band-Aids.

MR. DARDEN: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: Mr. Darden, he made a gesture that I was not able to see. Can you give me an estimate?

MR. KILDUFF: About an inch and a half.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Now, at some point, you saw the Defendant fumble around with his bag, a black leather bag; is that correct?

MR. KILDUFF: That is correct.

MR. DARDEN: And where was the Defendant at that time?

MR. KILDUFF: Sitting on the bench.

MR. DARDEN: And you could see inside that bag, couldn't you?

MR. KILDUFF: Yes, I could.

MR. DARDEN: Have you spoken to Mr. Merrill about his observations of the contents of that black leather duffel bag?

MR. KILDUFF: No.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. By the way, does this look like the bag to you?

MR. KILDUFF: That's very similar.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Defendant's 1064, your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes. Thank you.

MR. DARDEN: The bag was not full, was it?

MR. KILDUFF: No.

MR. DARDEN: In fact, the bag was relatively empty, wasn't it?

MR. KILDUFF: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And that surprised you, didn't it?

MR. KILDUFF: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Do you know what happened to the contents of the bag?

MR. KILDUFF: No.

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Speculation?

MR. SHAPIRO: Yes.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. DARDEN: Well, you did talk to Mr. Merrill about his observations of the contents of the bag when he picked the Defendant up at the airport; is that correct?

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, your Honor. Assumes a fact not in evidence.

THE COURT: Rephrase the question.

MR. DARDEN: Well, did you talk to Mr. Merrill or have you ever spoken to Mr. Merrill about his observations of the contents of that black bag?

MR. KILDUFF: No. Not the contents.

MR. DARDEN: Have you spoken to him on the issue of whether or not the bag appeared full to him when he picked up the Defendant at the airport?

MR. KILDUFF: No.

MR. DARDEN: Have you spoken to Mr. Merrill about the weight of the black duffel bag at the time that he picked the Defendant up at the airport?

MR. KILDUFF: I don't recall.

MR. DARDEN: At any event, when you looked inside the bag that morning, the bag appeared empty?

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection.

MR. DARDEN: Is that right?

MR. SHAPIRO: Misstates the evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. DARDEN: It was empty for the most part; is that right?

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. Still misstates the evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: Well, how empty or how full was it?

MR. KILDUFF: There were several items in there, but it for the most part was empty.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Now, the Defendant got into your car; is that right?

MR. KILDUFF: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: And you took him to the airport?

MR. KILDUFF: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And on the way to the airport, were you able to observe his ankles and his feet?

MR. KILDUFF: No.

MR. DARDEN: Did you ever look at the Defendant's ankles?

MR. KILDUFF: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Was he wearing socks?

MR. KILDUFF: No, he was not.

MR. DARDEN: He was not wearing socks?

MR. KILDUFF: No.

MR. DARDEN: And the color of his shoes, what color were the shoes?

MR. KILDUFF: Black.

MR. DARDEN: They weren't tan?

MR. KILDUFF: Not to my recollection.

MR. DARDEN: Were the shoes boots?

MR. KILDUFF: No, they were not.

MR. DARDEN: They were loafers?

MR. KILDUFF: Loafers.

MR. DARDEN: Did they appear to be Italian loafers?

MR. KILDUFF: They appeared to be.

MR. DARDEN: And when you arrived at the airport, the Defendant got out of your vehicle; is that right?

MR. KILDUFF: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Did you know that the Defendant has arthritis?

MR. KILDUFF: I did not know at the time.

MR. DARDEN: Was there anything about the Defendant's demeanor that day that caused you to think that he had arthritis?

MR. KILDUFF: No.

MR. DARDEN: Other than the cut that you saw on his finger, did he appear to be suffering from any physical disability that you saw at that time?

MR. KILDUFF: No.

MR. DARDEN: What did the Defendant do after he got out of your vehicle?

MR. KILDUFF: I handed him his bags, told him what gate to go to, and he left, went through the doors to his gate.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And when he left your vehicle, he didn't walk, did he?

MR. KILDUFF: He walked, but it was swiftly.

MR. DARDEN: Didn't he run?

MR. KILDUFF: No, he did not.

MR. DARDEN: You were interviewed by a Defense investigator; is that right?

MR. KILDUFF: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Have you seen that statement?

MR. KILDUFF: I've seen the statement that was given to La Fall and Barris.

MR. DARDEN: Didn't you tell that Defense investigator that the Defendant ran into the airport?

MR. KILDUFF: No.

MR. DARDEN: I'm looking for a clean copy, your Honor. Your Honor, if there's no objection, if I could just show the witness my copy and show him the last sentence.

MR. SHAPIRO: I'll stipulate that in the supplemental report is the word "Ran." It says they stopped the car, OJ had--

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. SHAPIRO: I was going to stipulate.

THE COURT: They're not willing to stipulate. Proceed.

MR. DARDEN: Mr. Kilduff, let me show you a copy of a document. It's two pages. Do you see your name on that document?

MR. KILDUFF: Yes, I do.

MR. DARDEN: That's Raymond David Kilduff?

MR. KILDUFF: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: And has your birthday and social security number and stuff like that?

MR. KILDUFF: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Was this a statement that was shown to you last night?

MR. KILDUFF: Actually not last night. I received it probably a week ago.

MR. DARDEN: Okay.

MR. KILDUFF: Or Friday. I got it Friday.

MR. DARDEN: And you read that one week ago?

MR. KILDUFF: Friday I read it.

MR. DARDEN: If I could direct your attention to the next page. Would you take a look at the last sentence of the statement that is attributed to you in this document?

MR. KILDUFF: I see it.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Doesn't that statement state that you told the Defense investigator the Defendant got out of your vehicle and ran into the airport?

MR. KILDUFF: That's what that says. That's not what happened though. He walked quickly. He did not run.

MR. DARDEN: Well, when you received this document a week ago, did you notify the Prosecution that there was an error in this statement?

MR. KILDUFF: No, I did not.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. DARDEN: Thank you, sir.

THE COURT: Mr. Shapiro.

MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you very much, your Honor.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SHAPIRO

MR. SHAPIRO: After your two interviews with the police from Chicago and Los Angeles, were you ever notified that you would be called as a witness for the Prosecution in this case?

MR. KILDUFF: No.

MR. SHAPIRO: You're here under subpoena?

MR. KILDUFF: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: And you're here because you have been required to and have told the truth in your testimony?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. It's leading, your Honor.

MR. KILDUFF: Yes.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SHAPIRO: How sure are you that on June the 13th, on the way to the airport, that you saw our client, Mr. Simpson, in your vehicle and that he had a finger that was bandaged and that blood was coming through?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Compound and it's leading.

THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer the question.

MR. KILDUFF: The way the question was stated, it wasn't in my vehicle. When he was outside, I saw, and there's no doubt in my mind that I saw it outside the O'Hare plaza.

MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you very much. Nothing further. Thank you for coming all this way.

MR. DARDEN: Just two questions, your Honor.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DARDEN

MR. DARDEN: Mr. Kilduff, it wasn't the cut on the Defendant's finger that drew your attention, was it?

MR. KILDUFF: No. It was the blood on the bandage.

MR. DARDEN: Thank you. That's all.

MR. SHAPIRO: Nothing further.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Kilduff, thank you very much, sir. You are excused.

MR. COCHRAN: We next call--

MR. DARDEN: May we confer a moment before we call the next witness, just for a couple minutes?

THE COURT: All right. Deputy long, why don't you grab the cup there.

MR. DARDEN: Oh, I'm sorry, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, one of the jurors needs a pen.

MR. SHAPIRO: One of the jurors was trying to get my attention.

THE COURT: No. The jurors are trying to summon the bailiff, that they have run out of another pen.

MR. SHAPIRO: That's a good sign, Judge.

THE COURT: Well, I notice I think one of our jurors has six notebooks. All right. Mr. Cochran, Mr. Darden, are we ready to proceed?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes, we are, your Honor. Mr. Mark Partridge, if the Court pleases.

THE COURT: Mr. Partridge, come forward, please.

Mark Partridge, called as a witness by the Defendant, was sworn and testified as follows:

THE COURT: Please face the clerk.

THE CLERK: Raise your right hand, please. You do 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?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I do.

THE CLERK: Please have a seat in the witness stand and state and spell your first and last names for the record.

MR. PARTRIDGE: Mark Partridge, P-A-R-T-R-I-D-G-E.

THE COURT: Mr. Partridge, would you sit back in the chair and pull the microphone close to you, please. Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you very kindly, your Honor.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN

MR. COCHRAN: Good afternoon, Mr. Partridge.

MR. PARTRIDGE: Hello.

MR. COCHRAN: And can you speak right into that microphone for us?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Partridge, what is your occupation?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I'm a lawyer.

MR. COCHRAN: And how are you trained? What law school did you attend?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I went to Harvard law school.

MR. COCHRAN: And when did you graduate from Harvard law school?

MR. PARTRIDGE: 1981.

MR. COCHRAN: And what kind of law do you practice?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I do trademark and copyright law.

MR. COCHRAN: Where is your office?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I'm in Chicago with the firm of Patterson, McCauliff.

MR. COCHRAN: And do you practice trademark law with that firm in Chicago?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes, I do.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, you have come to California to testify in this matter from Chicago; is that right?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And you're testifying pursuant to subpoena, aren't you?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I understand there's a subpoena. I have agreed to testify.

MR. COCHRAN: You agreed to come forward, and you're here today according to that; is that correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: How long have you been in California?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I came on Tuesday.

MR. COCHRAN: Would you like to go home soon?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I would very much.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. We'll see what we can do about that. Now, I would like to direct your attention to the date of Monday, June 13th of 1994. Remember that particular date?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you have occasion to be on a flight from Chicago to Los Angeles, American Airlines flight 1691?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: And why were you on that particular flight?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I was coming to Chicago for depositions in one of my cases.

MR. COCHRAN: Coming to Chicago or--

MR. PARTRIDGE: I'm sorry. Coming to Los Angeles.

MR. COCHRAN: You're not usually a witness, are you?

MR. PARTRIDGE: No, I'm not.

MR. COCHRAN: You're usually on the other end, right?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Not as much fun, is it?

MR. PARTRIDGE: No.

MR. COCHRAN: May I approach, your Honor?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, I want to, your Honor, approach the American Airlines simulated super 80 jet airliner and ask to mark this as Defendant's next in order.

THE COURT: 1247. This is the chart regarding American Airlines flight 1691.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you very kindly, your Honor.

(Deft's 1247 for id = chart)

MR. COCHRAN: I want to just ask you, have you ever seen this before?

MR. PARTRIDGE: No, I have not.

MR. COCHRAN: Can you just step down for just a second, see if you can familiarize yourself with this?

MR. COCHRAN: This purports to be--if I might indicate, your Honor, purports to be a super 80 jet. This part here is first class in the front of the plane. Your Honor, this is right behind first class, what was called the bulkhead.

MR. COCHRAN: I want to direct your attention to this diagram once you see it and ask you whether or not you can point out generally where your seats were or seat was on that plane, Chicago to Los Angeles.

MR. PARTRIDGE: I was in this seat (Indicating). I guess that's 9E.

MR. COCHRAN: And 9E is a window seat; is that correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: It was next to an emergency exit door.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Do you see what purports to be an emergency exit door on this Defendant's 1247?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Uh-huh.

MR. COCHRAN: And you recall that; is that correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And on that flight, what was the--do you know the name of the passenger who was in 9D?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. That was Mr. Simpson.

MR. COCHRAN: That was the gentleman in this case over there, Mr. Orenthal James Simpson?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And he sat next to you, did he?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You can resume your seat, sir.

MR. PARTRIDGE: (The witness complies.)

MR. COCHRAN: Now--

MR. PARTRIDGE: Excuse me.

MR. COCHRAN: What time approximately did this plane leave Chicago to come to Los Angeles?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Approximately 9:00 in the morning.

MR. COCHRAN: And did you get on the plane first or did Mr. Simpson get on the plane?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I was on the plane first.

MR. COCHRAN: Then he came in and sat next to you?

MR. PARTRIDGE: He came in after I had been seated awhile, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. And you've already described for us you were in the right side bulkhead seat; is that right?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, when Mr. Simpson came on the plane, did you recognize who he was?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Had you ever met him before that time?

MR. PARTRIDGE: No. Never.

MR. COCHRAN: Can you describe for this jury how Mr. Simpson appeared to you when you first saw him come in the plane and have a seat next to you?

MR. PARTRIDGE: When I first saw him, he was dressed in a blue jean outfit.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

MR. PARTRIDGE: Stone-washed blue jean shirt and stone-washed blue jean pants. And he came back to the seat next to mine. He was there. Also, there was another woman who had the same seat assignment. So the two of them stood together for some time before he took the seat and before it was sorted out who would have which seat.

MR. COCHRAN: So as I understand it, there was some confusion as to who had that seat, 9D?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Both--

MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Simpson or the other lady?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. Both of them apparently had the same seat assignment, and the stewardess sorted that out after a few minutes.

MR. COCHRAN: So it was worked out after a while and then Mr. Simpson sat there; is that correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And what did you notice about him? How did he appear to you to be at that point?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Well, at first, he seemed to be upset.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And how did you--what about him made you believe that he was upset at that point?

MR. PARTRIDGE: At that point, he seemed rushed and a bit agitated.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. At some point, did he take his seat?

MR. PARTRIDGE: He did, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And as he sat down next to you, describe for the jury how he appeared to you to be from your visual observations at that point.

MR. PARTRIDGE: Well, he sat next to me, he had--he sighed heavily and looked up, closed his eyes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And to you, it appeared as he was upset at that point?

MR. PARTRIDGE: That was my reaction, that he was upset about something.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, did the stewardess--you know when you take off on these planes, sometimes the stewardess sits in these seats and sits backwards?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. There was a jump seat just in front of where Mr. Simpson was sitting.

MR. COCHRAN: And was there a stewardess in that seat just prior to the takeoff?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes, there was.

MR. COCHRAN: And did she say something to Mr. Simpson?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. She said something to the effect of, "Bad way to start the week."

MR. COCHRAN: And did he respond?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes, he did.

MS. CLARK: Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: The fact that he responded will stand. Next question.

MR. COCHRAN: He did respond to that statement; is that correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes, he did.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Did you see him at some point make a request for some water?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. He asked for water.

MR. COCHRAN: Did the stewardess accommodate?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. She was in the jump seat. She undid her seatbelt and harness and got up and got him a glass of water.

MR. COCHRAN: And then what happened after that?

MR. PARTRIDGE: She got--also got him a bottle of water, and he drank the water. She sat back down, and then the flight was in the process of taking off.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, you were sitting right next to him and you had an opportunity to observe him during this time frame; is that correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, at some point, the plane took off and you're now in the air heading from Chicago to Los Angeles. Did you continue to have occasion to observe Mr. Orenthal James Simpson?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Can you tell us what you observed as you occupied seat 9E and he was in 9D?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Well, the next thing that happened after the takeoff was that he asked for the telephone. And the stewardess helped him get the telephone that was--I believe it was in the seat behind--that I was sitting in because we were in the bulkhead. There was not a telephone there. So she helped him get the telephone from the seat back, and he made a telephone call.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now--and you were sitting real close, and did you hear at least his part of the telephone conversation?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I could hear some of the telephone call.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Now, did he make more than one phone call during the course of--

MR. PARTRIDGE: During the course of the flight, he made quite a few phone calls.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you have occasion to look at Mr. Simpson's hands as you sat there next to him on this flight?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Did I see his hands? Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And describe for the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what you observed if anything regarding his hands. See any Band-Aids at any point?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Well, initially, I saw that there was a cut on his--the knuckle of his left hand (Indicating).

MR. COCHRAN: Is that the--you're pointing to the knuckle of the left hand. This middle finger that I'm holding up here?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. It was the knuckle of his ring finger.

MR. COCHRAN: And you could observe that?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I could see that, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And did you see anything else with regard to that at that point?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Well, at that point, no. Later I saw that it was wrapped in what appeared to me to be a paper towel from the rest room.

MR. COCHRAN: The time you saw him, did you ever see a Band-Aid or gauze or anything around there?

MR. PARTRIDGE: No. Only the paper towel.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, did you at some point say something to Mr. Simpson?

MR. PARTRIDGE: After he made the first phone call and continued to sigh, I said something to him again like--

MS. CLARK: Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: I would like to make an offer of proof regarding this aspect of it. Let me--let me ask another question foundationally.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you make a statement to him with regard to what was happening in his life, what was happening to him at that point?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I did make a statement to him, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And in that statement, did you inquire about--

MS. CLARK: Objection. Hearsay.

MR. COCHRAN: Let me finish the question.

MR. COCHRAN: --inquire about what was happening with him? You can't tell us the statement quite yet.

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, may I ask one further--

THE COURT: Let me see you at sidebar with the court reporter.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: All right. We're over at the sidebar. Where are we going with this?

MR. COCHRAN: All I want to indicate, your Honor--let me just make an offer of proof if I can. Your Honor, what happened was--what I hope to elicit is that--okay. Okay. Mr. Partridge said something to the effect of: "Tough way to start a Monday. "Mr. Simpson said a friend or close friend was dead. He may have just--he may have said, `I just found out a close friend was dead.' "He told me it was his ex-wife, said he loved her, said he was in shock. `I don't know what to think.'" and I think this certainly comes in under these circumstances as state of mind of him when he makes this statement, exception to the hearsay rule. So that's why I wanted to make that initial offer of proof. I don't plan to go into lengthy--this conversation goes on for a very long time as Miss Clark knows. I think this initial statement however is an exception to the hearsay rule as many of the others would be, but I don't plan to elicit them.

MS. CLARK: I thought we already litigated this. 1250 does not apply to this situation unless the Defense intends to switch their alibi to mental Defense. Then we can litigate state of mind. But this statement is self-serving hearsay, and with a statement like that, you can certainly understand why we have the hearsay rule. But there's nothing admissible and the 1250 proffered basis is completely uncalled for in this case. Of course, the fact that he says "Close friend," can we stipulate that's the best friend that Sidney referred to that Mommy was crying about having fought with earlier?

MR. COCHRAN: I'm serious about this. So what I'm trying to indicate, your Honor, is, I think that, first of all, one doesn't have to have a--where one has an alibi Defense and where the Prosecution puts on all this evidence trying to show that Mr. Simpson is either faking or acting or something like that, this becomes very relevant and the state of mind. That's why it's appropriate. They've spent all this time with every witness he is acting again or faking or not meaning this. I mean that's what their whole theory is. These statements show part of what he's going through by the time he gets on the plane. He doesn't know this man from Adam. So my offer of proof, I should--I should be allowed to elicit this. And I don't plan to go into all the statements, but that this is entirely appropriate.

THE COURT: All right. The objection will be sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: For all this?

THE COURT: Yep.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

MR. COCHRAN: Let me see if I can rephrase it. You made a statement to Mr. Simpson?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: And without telling us what you said to him, did he respond? And you can answer that yes or no.

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes, he did.

MR. COCHRAN: And in his response, did that give you some idea what had happened in his life or information he just received?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So you then had an idea of what was going on in Mr. Simpson's life at that point; is that right?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And with regard to his state of being upset or distressed, did that condition continue on as you moved westward towards Los Angeles?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you have further conversations with Mr. Simpson?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: And did the subject matter of those conversations relate to someone who was very near and dear to him who had been killed or murdered?

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. This is hearsay.

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Counsel is testifying for the witness.

THE COURT: Sustained. Answer is stricken. Proceed.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. The subject matter of these conversations dealt with what was troubling with Mr. Simpson; is that right?

MS. CLARK: Same objection.

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. That's right.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: Did that continue to occupy much of the conversation that you had with him on your flight west?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: You can answer that.

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes, it did.

MR. COCHRAN: And how long was that flight coming west?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Four hours approximately.

MR. COCHRAN: And during this period of time, did you see whether or not Mr. Simpson drank any of the water he was given at the outset, any additional water?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. He drank water throughout the flight.

MR. COCHRAN: And do you have an estimate of how much water he drank?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Probably a small avian bottle and he may have had a second.

MR. COCHRAN: Possibly two?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you see him go to the rest room during any of this time frame?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. He went to the rest room two or three times.

MR. COCHRAN: Did the subject matter of any children that Mr. Simpson--

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: Let me finish the question.

MS. CLARK: Hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: Can I finish it?

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Did Mr. Simpson continue to appear distressed and distraught as you described?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes, he did.

MR. COCHRAN: And can you describe or give the jury a word picture as you watched him, sitting next to him, of how he appeared to you to be without giving us any conversation?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Well, as I said, he sighed heavily several times. He made a number of phone calls as I said. It seemed to me that he was trying to get information about--

MS. CLARK: Objection. Hearsay and speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained. Next question.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, in the course of these phone calls, you could hear at least his side of the conversation; could you not?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I could hear some of what he said, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And after these phone conversations, did you get an impression that additional information was coming to him based upon what you heard him say without telling us what he said?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. In the course of your conversation with Mr. Simpson, did he tend to discuss with you greater details after these phone conversations?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. PARTRIDGE: As the flight went on, I learned more details from the things he told me, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So after a while, without telling us what it was, you had an impression of what had taken place in this man's life--

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: --at that time?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, did the subject matter--did you at some point tell him what your occupation was?

MR. PARTRIDGE: No, I did not. Well, let me correct that. He asked me, and I confirmed that I was a lawyer.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Were you acting like a lawyer, looking like a lawyer?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Perhaps. I had legal documents with me that I was working on.

MR. COCHRAN: And at some point, did you have occasion to give or loan Mr. Simpson a pen, fountain pen?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I did, yes. He asked to borrow my pen.

MR. COCHRAN: Did he during this flight--strike that. Did the condition of his being upset and distressed continue during the flight?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes, it did.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, you had never met Mr. Simpson before that time, had you?

MR. PARTRIDGE: No, I had not.

MR. COCHRAN: You know that one of his occupations, professions has been, he's an actor. Do you understand that?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I understand that, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Did he appear to you to be acting as you observed him there?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: You may answer?

MR. PARTRIDGE: No. I thought the way he was behaving was very sincere.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, even though he appeared to be very distressed and upset, did someone approach him and ask him for an autograph that you observed?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. During the flight, someone passed him a note asking for an autograph.

MR. COCHRAN: And did he respond to that?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. He took the paper and gave the gentleman an autograph.

MR. COCHRAN: What was the paper that it came on?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I believe it was an airplane cocktail napkin.

MR. COCHRAN: As he did that, did he still appear to you to be upset and distraught?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. That was consistent throughout.

MR. COCHRAN: And did that trigger some sort of a thought in your mind when this happened?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes, it did. I thought what a nice man this was to be doing this, having heard what I had heard about the tragedy that was affecting his life.

MR. COCHRAN: At some point, you reached Los Angeles International Airport?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Had the state of distress and distraughtness that you talked to us about, had that remained throughout the entire flight?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. It was consistent through the flight as I said.

MR. COCHRAN: Did it come time for you all to get off of that flight?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And do you recall whether or not who--which of you got up first to leave that particular flight, 1691?

MR. PARTRIDGE: He was up first and got ahead of--ahead of me in the "U" leading out of the plane.

MR. COCHRAN: From the "U" leading out of the plane, did he at some point turn around and say something to you?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Well, there were several people--

MS. CLARK: Objection. Hearsay.

MR. COCHRAN: You can answer that yes or no.

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Could you see his lips as he was in front of you?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And did he thank you at this point for your help?

MR. PARTRIDGE: He turned back, and what I could see him saying was thank you.

MR. COCHRAN: Did he then leave the plane?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes, he did.

MR. COCHRAN: And as he left that plane, did you see him anymore that day?

MR. PARTRIDGE: No, I did not.

MR. COCHRAN: I presume you went on about your business that day, did you?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I did, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And you didn't see him when he left at that point, right?

MR. PARTRIDGE: No. As I said, he was ahead of me in the line leading out of the plane and I didn't see him when I was off the plane.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you at some point--

MR. COCHRAN: Can I have just one second, your Honor?

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. COCHRAN: Now, you described for us how the conversation went while you were on the plane and the information that you gathered over the period of the flight, and you've told us that you're a lawyer?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And based upon those kinds of things, did you at some point feel that you should give Mr. Simpson some advice? You can answer that yes or no.

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And did you at some point give him some advice?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And what advice if any did you give him?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: I would like to be heard on that, your Honor. I think I can phrase it another way, but I would like the Court to hear a brief offer regarding that.

THE COURT: All right. We are going to take a 10-minute recess at this point in any event. I'll hear you over at sidebar. Mr. Partridge, you can step down. Come back in 10 minutes. Ladies and gentlemen, we're just going to take a brief comfort break, 10 minutes, and then be back in session. Let me see counsel.

(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Let's have the jury, please. And counsel, we'll go up to 5:45.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay, your Honor. When I finish this next witness, I want to approach the bench with counsel for just a second, when she finishes her cross-examination.

THE COURT: All right.

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Let the record reflect we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Mr. Partridge, would you resume the witness stand, please. Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you very kindly, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, Mr. Partridge, sir, when Mr. Simpson came on the plane, do you have a recollection of any of the bags, if he was carrying more than one bag, that he had with him at that time?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I remember that he brought back to the seat with him a black duffel or athletic bag, a leather bag.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

MR. PARTRIDGE: And I also recall that he had a Louis Vuitton garment bag.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And you recall the Louis Vuitton bag was--what happened to the Louis Vuitton bag on that flight if you know?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I don't remember the Louis Vuitton bag very well. It was left in the first class section.

MR. COCHRAN: Like in one of those storage closets, something like that?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, sir--do you recall any other bags at this point?

MR. PARTRIDGE: No.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

MR. PARTRIDGE: The only one he brought back to the seat as I remember was the black leather bag.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And did I ask you if you had any recollection of how he was dressed on that occasion?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. I said he was wearing a blue jean shirt and pants.

MR. COCHRAN: I see the Court is shaking his head yes. All right. Now, after this was all over and you were in Los Angeles, did you at any point after the 13th of June make an attempt to contact a police agency here in Los Angeles?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: Will you tell us what you did?

MR. PARTRIDGE: On the Friday after the flight, I called the Santa Monica Police, I was staying in Santa Monica, and I was referred to another phone number which I understood to be the LAPD number, and I called that number.

MR. COCHRAN: And did you--did you--you called the LAPD number, and were you able to make contact with any police officers at that point from LAPD?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I spoke to someone. I don't know the name of the person, I didn't get the name, and I explained that I had been on the flight, sat next to Mr. Simpson.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And without going any further, did they send somebody out right away to take a statement from you?

MR. PARTRIDGE: No, they did not.

MR. COCHRAN: Did anybody take a statement from you at all based upon that conversation, that conversation that you made on Friday?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Based on that conversation, I don't believe so, no.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, at some point, you had occasion and you did in fact make some contact with the Defense; is that correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. That's right.

MR. COCHRAN: And at some point--in fact, you had a meeting in Chicago with Mr. F. Lee Bailey, the gentleman to my immediate left here; is that right?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: And did you at some point have occasion to speak with a Detective Croxley of the LAPD?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. In October of `94, I was called by someone who identified himself as Officer Croxley.

MR. COCHRAN: And he never saw you personally. It was a telephonic interview?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. It was by telephone.

MR. COCHRAN: How long did that conversation last if you know approximately?

MR. PARTRIDGE: It was fairly brief. 10 to 15 minutes.

MR. COCHRAN: Did he ever send you a copy of that statement at all?

MR. PARTRIDGE: No. I never saw a statement based on that.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, in connection with the--your conversation with Mr. OJ Simpson on the morning of June 13th, 1994, beginning at about 9:15 in the morning, did you have occasion to write any notes with regard to the things that the two of you talked about?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Two days later, on the 15th, I made notes of what I could recall from the flight.

MR. COCHRAN: And are they fairly lengthy notes?

MR. PARTRIDGE: They're fairly lengthy. They're a bit sketchy, but they're fairly long.

MR. COCHRAN: How many pages did those notes turn out to be?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I think the typed notes are six pages.

MR. COCHRAN: And the handwritten notes are about eight pages?

MR. PARTRIDGE: That sounds about right.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you at some point share those notes with both sides in this lawsuit, both sides in this case?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. After I reached the Defense, someone at Mr. Shapiro's office, I was called by an investigator, Mr. Pavelic as I recall, and I sent him a copy of my notes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And did you also--

MR. PARTRIDGE: And then after I spoke with Mr. Croxley, I offered him the same notes and eventually sent him those notes as well.

MR. COCHRAN: So both sides were provided with these notes; is that right?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I did that, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Now, in your testimony here today and in your willingness to come out pursuant to a subpoena, you tried to share with us what happened on that particular morning?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I've tried to, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And have you sold your story to any kind of publication prior to testifying here today?

MR. PARTRIDGE: No.

MR. COCHRAN: Have you shared your published notes with anybody prior to your testimony here?

MR. PARTRIDGE: The only person--people I've provided my notes to have been the Defense and the Prosecution.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Is there a particular reason why you--

MR. PARTRIDGE: And my father.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, that's a definite exception. We understand that. Is there any reason why you have not sold your testimony or sold your statement to anyone prior to your testimony?

MR. PARTRIDGE: It's my feeling that the details of the flight should come out in court rather than coming out in the media.

MR. COCHRAN: Is that what you've done here today for the ladies and gentlemen of the jury?

MR. PARTRIDGE: That's what I've tried to do.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you very kindly.

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Good afternoon.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK

MS. CLARK: Good afternoon, Mr. Partridge.

MR. PARTRIDGE: Hello.

MS. CLARK: Now, the notes that you're talking about with Mr. Cochran, those were eight pages of handwritten notes that you wrote on June the 15th; is that correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes, that's right.

MS. CLARK: Mr. Simpson had not been charged with any crime as of June the 15th, had he?

MR. PARTRIDGE: As far as I know, that's right. He had not.

MS. CLARK: Yet, you sat down and wrote down eight pages of detailed notes in your own handwriting; is that correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: That's right. Yes, I did.

MS. CLARK: And those notes were all about your observations--

MR. COCHRAN: Just a moment, your Honor. Object to what those notes were all about.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: --your observations of your interaction with Mr. Simpson on the early morning flight on June the 13th, correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: That's right, yes.

MS. CLARK: And then you copyrighted those notes, didn't you, Mr. Partridge?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I put a copyright notice on the notes later when I was asked to send them to people.

MS. CLARK: As a matter of fact, isn't it true that each and every page of those eight pages bears this--bears this logo that I'm going to show you now on the left side of the page, happens to be page 2?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. That's right. Each--I put that on each page.

MS. CLARK: I would like to show the ladies and gentlemen of the jury that logo that was put on each page of these eight pages of handwritten notes.

MR. COCHRAN: We have no objection to marking the notes and showing the jury the notes also if you'd like.

MS. CLARK: I just want to mark this logo, your Honor, if I may.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MS. CLARK: Thank you.

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: I'm trying to make it lighter a little bit, your Honor. He's hard to see. All right. And for the record, I'm going to see if we can print this out. That's better.

MS. CLARK: That's the copyright that you put on your notes; is that correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: It's a notice of copyright, yes.

MS. CLARK: And that shows a little c and a circle, 1994 and "Partridge, all rights reserved"?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And that's on each of the eight pages of notes that you took concerning your observations of Mr. Simpson on June the 13th?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. That's right.

MS. CLARK: And you wrote these on June the 15th, correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I wrote them on June the 15th. I didn't put that notice on them on June the 15th.

MS. CLARK: You put that notice down later, correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And on June the 13th, you also gave the Defendant your card, didn't you, sir?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes, I did.

MS. CLARK: You're not a criminal lawyer, are you?

MR. PARTRIDGE: No.

MS. CLARK: You gave him that card so that he would contact you later; is that right?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I gave him the card in case anything of the flight turned out to be important for him.

MS. CLARK: And you thought your observations of his conduct on June the 13th might be important; is that correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I thought it was possible, yes, that it might be--how he behaved on the flight might be important.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Now, what does that mean when you copyright something, sir? You're a copyright lawyer.

MR. PARTRIDGE: Well, when you cop--when you write something, it's immediately covered by copyright. I put the notice on in an effort to prevent people from copying the notes that I sent them to in an effort to prevent them from being distributed without my consent.

MS. CLARK: Doesn't it also mean that you have a financial interest in the privacy of that matter that you copyright?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I don't understand your question.

MS. CLARK: Well, people copyright books, don't they?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Certainly.

MS. CLARK: So that no one else can copy that book and sell it and make a profit on it except the author and the publisher, right?

MR. PARTRIDGE: If that's what the author chooses, yes.

MS. CLARK: Isn't that usually what the author chooses, Mr. Partridge?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to what the author usually chooses.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. PARTRIDGE: I would say very often, the author chooses to sell the notes or their book or whatever they have chosen to copyright.

MS. CLARK: Right. And they copyright their writings so that no one else can profit from what they've written; isn't that right, sir?

MR. PARTRIDGE: That would be the case in some instances I would assume, yes.

MS. CLARK: Now, you say you called the police on June the 17th and you referred to LAPD, correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: That's what I understand, yes.

MS. CLARK: And you told them that you had sat on a plane with a Defendant on the morning of June the 13th as he came back to Los Angeles, correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Do you have any idea how many hundreds of clues they were investigating?

MR. COCHRAN: I object to the form of the question. Counsel is testifying.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Do you have any idea--do you yourself have any personal knowledge of how many clues they were investigating?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I have no idea.

MS. CLARK: Could have been hundreds, right?

MR. PARTRIDGE: It could have been, yes.

MS. CLARK: Or how many witnesses they were trying to interview. You have no idea how many?

MR. PARTRIDGE: No, I don't know how many.

MS. CLARK: Could have been hundreds; is that right?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Could have been.

MS. CLARK: And you had no idea where Mr. Simpson was on the evening of June the 12th, did you?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I didn't know where he was, no.

MS. CLARK: You had never met him?

MR. PARTRIDGE: No, I had never met him.

MS. CLARK: And the first time you ever met him was on June the 13th from that flight from Chicago to Los Angeles; is that correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes, that's right.

MS. CLARK: And during that flight from Chicago to Los Angeles, you were observing him very carefully; were you not?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Reasonably so, yes.

MS. CLARK: And that's why you were able to write eight pages of handwritten notes, correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I wrote eight pages of what I remembered from the flight. I tried to remember as much as I could.

MS. CLARK: Because--and you knew--and you were making those close observations because you knew about the murders of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman, correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: That's not completely correct. No, I didn't.

MS. CLARK: No, you were not observing him closely because you knew about the murders?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of that question, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MS. CLARK: You made very careful observations of Mr. Simpson's conduct; is that correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I would say reasonably so, yes.

MS. CLARK: And of his physical condition, correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And you were doing so at least in part because you had learned of the murders of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown, correct?

MR. COCHRAN: Same objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. PARTRIDGE: I can't answer that yes or no. It's not completely correct. It's partially correct.

MS. CLARK: It's partially correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MS. CLARK: That was part of the reason you were observing him very closely, correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Partially so, yes. By that, I mean, some of that I knew and some of that I didn't know.

MS. CLARK: You knew that something big had happened, correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I knew that his ex-wife was dead initially, and during the course of the flight, I learned that she had been killed, and toward the end of the flight, I learned that another person, a man, had been killed as well.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And so you learned early in the flight that his ex-wife was dead, correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And that fact knowing--and you knew it was a recent event; is that right?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. I understood it had just happened.

MS. CLARK: And that caused you to pay very close attention to his physical condition and his demeanor, correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: It caused me to pay attention to him. But mostly, what it caused me to do is be, I don't know, concerned about the situation.

MS. CLARK: And that concern caused you to observe him very closely, correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: As I said, reasonably so, yes.

MS. CLARK: And you observed at that time, because you were observing him closely, that there was a cut on the middle finger of his left hand; is that right?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I remember that it was a cut on the knuckles of his left hand and I recall that it was the ring finger or middle finger.

MS. CLARK: And there was no bandage on that finger the first time you saw it, correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I'm sorry. I said ring finger. I'm getting mixed up here.

MS. CLARK: Middle.

MR. PARTRIDGE: I mean middle finger. Yes.

MS. CLARK: Right. And there was no bandage on that finger the first time you saw it, correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: The first time I noticed it, there was no Band-Aid. That's right.

MS. CLARK: And it was not bleeding, was it?

MR. PARTRIDGE: It was not--I didn't see any blood, no.

MS. CLARK: Later, you saw him wrap it in a paper towel, correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MS. CLARK: So at the first observation of it, it was not bleeding, and then later on, it seemed to be bleeding; is that right?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I never saw any blood.

MS. CLARK: Didn't you tell the police that you saw blood seeping through the paper towel after he had wrapped it with a paper towel?

MR. PARTRIDGE: No. I never said I saw blood seeping through the paper towel.

MS. CLARK: Let me show you a copy of your statement, sir.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

MS. CLARK: All right, sir. I'm showing you a form that says "Statement form" on it. Do you see your name in the upper left-hand corner?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes, I do.

MS. CLARK: Mark Partridge?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Date of interview, October 6th, 1994?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Now, I'm going to direct your attention to the page that contains the narrative and show you this paragraph that I'm pointing to here I've previously shown to counsel.

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Do you see the statement there?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And does that statement indicate that you told Detective Croxley that the Defendant had wrapped a paper towel from the rest room around the finger because blood was leaking out?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I don't know that that statement indicates that that's what I said. That's what is stated here.

MS. CLARK: You have no recollection of ever saying that?

MR. PARTRIDGE: No, I didn't say that.

MS. CLARK: Then is it your testimony that you never saw that finger bleeding on June the 13th?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I never saw any blood. That's right. I saw that the finger was cut and somewhat raw, but I didn't see any blood coming from it.

MS. CLARK: Did you see whether there was more than one cut on that finger?

MR. PARTRIDGE: It looked--looked to be kind of a jagged raw cut. I couldn't really say if it was more than one or if it was just a rough cut that was--as opposed to a sharp straight cut.

MS. CLARK: So you could not tell whether it was more than one cut? Yes or no?

MR. PARTRIDGE: As I recall, it says I described. I could not tell if it was more than one cut.

MS. CLARK: Thank you. And if it was more than one cut, you could not tell whether both cuts were received at the same time, correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: That's certainly correct.

MS. CLARK: And the notes that we're speaking of, you gave those notes to the Defense first; is that right?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes, I did.

MS. CLARK: You did not give those notes to the Prosecution until Detective Croxley contacted you in October; is that right?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. I gave them to the Prosecution after I was contacted by Officer Croxley.

MS. CLARK: In fact, that wasn't until December of 1994; isn't that right, sir?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I sent them to Officer Croxley in early December, yes.

MS. CLARK: Now, you indicated, sir, that someone asked the Defendant for an autograph during the flight; is that right?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And he gave it to them, didn't he?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And you indicate that the Defendant drank water throughout the flight?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And that one of the first things he did when he got on the plane was ask for water; is that right?

MR. PARTRIDGE: That was one of the first things, yes.

MS. CLARK: And then after the plane took off, he immediately requested a telephone; is that right?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. That's right.

MS. CLARK: And the first phone call he made, could you hear who he made that phone call to?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to as hearsay, your Honor. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Sidebar, please.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: Off the record.

(A discussion was held at the bench, not reported.)

MR. COCHRAN: I objected, your Honor. I think that this is still hearsay, and he can't tell who the call was to I don't think.

MS. CLARK: Yes, he can.

MR. COCHRAN: Maybe he can, maybe he can't.

MS. CLARK: He can. Let me tell the Court. He indicates the first call was to someone named Skip.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. COCHRAN: So?

MS. CLARK: As in Taft.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. CLARK: His lawyer.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. CLARK: That's it.

THE COURT: The problem--let me ask you this though.

MR. SHAPIRO: No.

THE COURT: All right. Okay. It is--and your objection is hearsay?

MR. COCHRAN: Well, yeah. Hearsay. Also, in addition to that, you know, no proper foundation for this. How does he know who it is?

MS. CLARK: He heard it. All he is going to--

MR. COCHRAN: How did it get to Bob before the jury?

THE COURT: Johnnie, you were this close, if he had a phone record.

MR. COCHRAN: We want to get closer. We're going to get closer. I understand you left the door open. I understand that. So we're having--

THE COURT: I can't make it any plainer than that, can I?

MR. COCHRAN: No. I'm not quarreling with that.

THE COURT: All right. Let's go. It is an admission.

MR. COCHRAN: Skip?

THE COURT: Yeah.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. Proceed.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.

MS. CLARK: And you indicate after the plane took off, he immediately requested a telephone, correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: That's right.

MS. CLARK: The stewardess brought him a phone, did she?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MS. CLARK: The first call, were you able to hear who he was speaking to?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I heard a name, yes.

MS. CLARK: And the name was?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I wasn't able to hear. I heard a name.

MS. CLARK: And the name was?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Skip.

MS. CLARK: And approximately how long did he speak to this person named Skip?

MR. PARTRIDGE: That particular call was quite brief. I would say a minute.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And I take it you've somewhat followed this case; have you not, sir?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Somewhat, yes.

MS. CLARK: Have you heard the name of an attorney named Skip Taft?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I have heard that name.

MS. CLARK: And have you learned whether or not he was the Defendant's attorney?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of that question, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Do you know?

MR. COCHRAN: Well, object to the from of that question as to--object to the form of the question, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: It's vague.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: Do you know whether he was the Defendant's attorney back on June 13th of 1994?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I don't know. I have an understanding.

MS. CLARK: And what is that understanding, sir?

MR. PARTRIDGE: My understanding--

THE COURT: Hold on. Hold on.

MR. COCHRAN: Just a moment. That's irrelevant and immaterial.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: How many calls on that flight did you hear the Defendant make to someone named Skip?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I only remember the name once. But he did--he did mention at one point that he had been trying to reach his office and his lawyer and his mother and his house.

MS. CLARK: Objection. This is nonresponsive.

THE COURT: Sustained. All right. Next question.

MR. PARTRIDGE: I'm sorry.

MS. CLARK: You're a lawyer, aren't you, Mr. Partridge?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Have you ever tried cases, Mr. Partridge?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to this. That's argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: Have you ever tried cases?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I have, yes.

MS. CLARK: You know the rules of evidence, don't you, sir?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I object to this.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: Don't you?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I try to know them.

MS. CLARK: You know what a nonresponsive answer is, don't you, sir?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, object to this.

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: And you know when there's no question pending, you're not supposed to be offering any answers; isn't that correct, sir?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Now, you offered us the opinion, sir, that the Defendant did not appear to you to be acting, correct? Do you recall that?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MS. CLARK: You'd never met him before the date of June the 13th; isn't that right?

MR. PARTRIDGE: That's right.

MS. CLARK: You never visited his home in Rockingham?

MR. PARTRIDGE: No.

MS. CLARK: You never met his ex-wife Nicole Brown, did you?

MR. PARTRIDGE: No.

MS. CLARK: You never met Ron Goldman, did you?

MR. PARTRIDGE: No.

THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel. These questions aren't necessary. He's established his first acquaintanceship with him was on the flight.

MS. CLARK: You're not a psychiatrist, are you?

MR. COCHRAN: Object, your Honor. He's a lawyer. He may be a psychiatrist too.

THE COURT: We don't know. Not likely. Proceed.

MR. PARTRIDGE: No.

MS. CLARK: You don't know what the Defendant's relationship was with his ex-wife, do you?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, object to that.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.

MS. CLARK: But you do know the Defendant is an actor, correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I understand that he is sometimes an actor, yes.

MS. CLARK: And you knew that on June the 13th and when you were on the flight with him; did you not?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I don't think I did know that.

MS. CLARK: You did not know he was an actor at that time?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I only knew that from the Hertz commercials.

MS. CLARK: You had not seen any movies he had been in?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I don't think so.

MS. CLARK: And based on that flight that you took on June the 13th, your only contact with him, do you think that you can offer us a confident opinion as to whether or not he was acting on that date?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to that, your Honor. That's argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Now, sir, you told us about these detailed notes that you took, eight handwritten pages, correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I--

MS. CLARK: Do you recall?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I did say that I took notes, yes.

MS. CLARK: And you just told us I believe a few questions ago that you only recall one phone call made to Skip by the Defendant; is that right?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I only recall the name once. I think, yes.

MS. CLARK: All right. I am going to show you page 6 of your notes.

MR. PARTRIDGE: Okay.

MS. CLARK: See if that refreshes your memory as to whether or not there was one call or more than one call to this person named Skip.

MR. PARTRIDGE: Okay. Yes, it does.

MS. CLARK: And how does that refresh your recollection, sir?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Well, these are my notes taken, made at the--shortly after I--and I referred to more than one call from someone named Skip. So yes, there was more than one call.

MS. CLARK: More than one, sir? Isn't it true in your notes, you say several times?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. Several.

MS. CLARK: Given the fact that June the 13th was the only time you had ever seen the Defendant, I gather then that you will--you have never seen the Defendant when he's angry?

MR. COCHRAN: Object. I object to the form of that question, your Honor. Given the facts of this case, it's beyond the scope, improper--

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Goes to foundation, your Honor.

THE COURT: We've established this is the first time he's seen him.

MS. CLARK: All right. You have nothing to compare his conduct on June the 13th to; is that correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: No prior conduct on his part, no, that's correct.

MS. CLARK: Nor since; is that correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And you spoke, sir, on direct of the tragedy that affected his life on that day?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Do you recall that?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Did you reflect also on the tragedy that affected the life of Ron Goldman--

MR. COCHRAN: Object. Argumentative.

MS. CLARK: --or his family?

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.

MS. CLARK: I'd like to mark the printout of the witness' copyright, People's next in order, 506.

THE COURT: 506.

(Peo's 506 for id = copyright)

MS. CLARK: I have nothing further.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN

MR. COCHRAN: Now--

MR. COCHRAN: May I approach, your Honor, Mr. Partridge?

THE COURT: Yes, you may.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Mr. Partridge, I would like to approach and I'd like to show you the eight pages of the handwritten notes that you made on June 15th, 1994, and I would like to ask you whether or not those notes reflect your handwriting.

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes, they do.

MR. COCHRAN: And since we're not copyright lawyers in this courtroom, would you tell us what is the effect of your writing this little C and "1994, M. Partridge, all rights reserved"?

MR. PARTRIDGE: My intent was to prevent other people from copying these notes without my permission. I was sending them off to people and I didn't want them released to the media or anyone else without my consent.

MR. COCHRAN: And as a trademark or copyright lawyer, you knew how to protect those particular notes; isn't that correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: This is one of the things that one can do.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

MR. PARTRIDGE: And that's why I did it.

MR. COCHRAN: And you've never tried to sell those notes, have you?

MR. PARTRIDGE: No.

MR. COCHRAN: In fact, you were one of the few people in this case who's tried to protect their notes; isn't that--

MS. CLARK: Objection.

MR. COCHRAN: That's correct. Let me rephrase that.

MR. COCHRAN: In fact, as a trademark copyright lawyer, you knew how to protect those notes, right?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I knew this was one thing I could do to try to prevent them from being copied without my consent.

MR. COCHRAN: And although you had occasion to send these notes to Detective Croxley I think you said in December of 1994, you had called the Prosecution in this case first; isn't that correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I'd called the police first.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. The police agencies.

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, a few other questions if I might. Are you aware that the person Skip Taft that Miss Clark was asking about is Mr. Simpson's long-time friend and business lawyer of 20 plus years? Are you aware of that?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I was not aware of that.

MR. COCHRAN: You're still not aware of that, are you?

MR. PARTRIDGE: No.

MR. COCHRAN: Are you aware that they share office space together?

MR. PARTRIDGE: No.

MR. COCHRAN: Are you aware they own property together?

MR. PARTRIDGE: No.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, Miss Clark, in response to the fact that you called the Santa Monica Police Department on the Friday after your flight and then you then were directed to the L.A. Police Department, asked you some questions about whether you knew how many people might be interviewed by the Los Angeles Police Department. Remember those questions?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Suppose that with regard to all of the people who were interviewed by the Los Angeles Police Department, you were the only person in the world who sat next to him on the flight back from Chicago; isn't that correct?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Argumentative and leading.

THE COURT: Well, "suppose," sounds like a hypothetical question. You want to ask a direct question?

MR. COCHRAN: Let me rephrase that.

MR. COCHRAN: Were you the only person in the world--

MR. COCHRAN: Let me just get closer, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: Were you the only person in the world to sit in seat 9E on flight 1691 on June 13th, 1994 from Chicago to Los Angeles on American Airlines when OJ Simpson sat in seat 9D?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes, I am.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you. Nothing further.

MS. CLARK: I just wanted to ask one question, please.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK

MS. CLARK: And when you sat in that seat, sir, did you happen to observe--you said you observed what the Defendant was wearing. Did you also observe what he had on his feet?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, object to that. That's beyond the scope of my examination.

THE COURT: It is. Sustained.

MS. CLARK: May I ask to take him as my witness for this one question?

THE COURT: One question.

MS. CLARK: One question.

MS. CLARK: Tell us what he was wearing on his feet, sir.

MR. PARTRIDGE: He had black leather loafers.

MS. CLARK: What kind?

MR. COCHRAN: She said one question, your Honor. That's two.

THE COURT: That's two.

MS. CLARK: Okay.

THE COURT: What kind?

MR. PARTRIDGE: They were sort of woven black leather loafers. The leather was woven.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MS. CLARK: Socks?

THE COURT: No. That's three.

MR. COCHRAN: That's three. Objection.

THE COURT: That's three. It will never end.

MS. CLARK: Know. It will. That's all I wanted to ask.

THE COURT: I thought we asked this already of this witness.

MS. CLARK: No.

MR. COCHRAN: Objection.

MS. CLARK: We didn't. Last question, your Honor, promise.

MR. COCHRAN: Objection.

MS. CLARK: Last question.

THE COURT: It's beyond the scope. I've allowed you to go beyond. We've established what he had on his feet. All right. Mr. Partridge, thank you very much, sir, you're excused.

MR. PARTRIDGE: Thank you.

THE COURT: Next witness.

MR. COCHRAN: May I approach.

THE COURT: Yes.

(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. Ladies and gentlemen, we were scheduled to go through to 5:45 today. And rather than start a new long witness, I think we'll take a break at this point rather than have to start up again tomorrow morning. Remember all my admonitions to you; don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, do not allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. All right. You all have a pleasant evening. See you bright and early tomorrow morning, 9 o'clock.

THE COURT: All right. We'll be in recess.

(At 5:40 P.M., an adjournment was taken until, Friday, July 14, 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 Thursday, July 13, 1995

Volume 186 pages 36593 through 36722, inclusive

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

APPEARANCES:

Janet M. Moxham, CSR #4588 Christine M. Olson, CSR #2378 official reporters

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, Alan Yochelson and Darrell S. Mavis, Brian R. Kelberg, and Kenneth E. Lynch, 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 Peter Neufeld, Esquire Robert D. Blasier, Esquire William C. Thompson, Esquire

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

I N D E X

Index for volume 186 pages 36593 - 36722

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