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 before the Court with his counsel, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Scheck, Mr. Neufeld. The People are represented by Miss Clark, Mr. Darden and Mr. Gordon. The jury is not present. And we are in the midst of argument concerning two matters, one a discovery issue, and secondly, the admissibility of various scientific testing. Mr. Neufeld, at the conclusion of yesterday's court date you indicated there was something--some factual assertion you needed to make for the record.

MR. NEUFELD: Yes. Thank you, your Honor. Just dealing with the sanction part. I'm not going to be dealing with the other part at this moment.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, Mr. Goldberg mentioned that Mr. Matheson was present at the examination that occurred on April 2nd, 1995, but that he wasn't there in the room the entire time. As you will see from his notes, if you've had a chance to look at them, he was there actually observing them when they were looking at the socks through the microscope and when they were taking the photographs through the microscope. In that regard, your Honor, the other fact which needs to be brought to your attention is that when Gary Sims testified they wanted to do the same thing, photo micrographs of the sock that had never been turned over to the Defense, and at that time, your Honor, you said that the issue was--is whether both sides had access to the piece of evidence and were allowed to conduct their own photographic examination. "If that is the case, then since Dr. Blake could have done it and didn't do it, there is no harm, there is no surprise, and I will allow them to introduce the micro"--I'm sorry--"The photo micrographs on a moment's notice," and that was your decision at page 30134 when Mr. Sims was testifying.

THE COURT: Symmetry is a dangerous thing to argue, isn't it, in this situation?

MR. NEUFELD: Well, I think, your Honor, since it involved photo micrographs of the same item of evidence, I just thought I would bring that to the Court's attention.

THE COURT: All right. If you are arguing for me to be consistent, then I think you are arguing against your position, but go ahead. Go ahead.

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, I also just wanted to bring to the Court's attention that in Mr. Sims' third report which was delivered and signed on April 6th of 1995, contained his experiment conducted during the months of January, February and March, as well, and there was no requirement that the reports be prepared shortly or at the same time that the experiment was actually conducted. Most importantly, your Honor, Professor MacDonnell is here if the Court has any questions for him concerning the chronology concerning when he wrote a report, when he first presented this information or his observations on April 2nd to the lawyers, his business trip to Sweden to teach the Swedish Police institute. He is here. He can answer any questions, so you know, to clear up any--any concerns that the Court might have.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr. Neufeld. All right. Let's address the other issue.

MS. CLARK: Thank you. Good morning, your Honor.

THE COURT: Good morning, counsel.

MS. CLARK: I'm mindful of the fact that the Court requested of us to submit suggestions for other possible sanctions, other than preclusion, due to the discovery violations. I would like to set that aside at this time, if I may, because the People firmly believe that the material should be excluded on other grounds completely, so the Court need not waste its time on fashioning a sanction that would be appropriate for the violation that has occurred here. And if I may, I would like to turn our attention to that.

THE COURT: Yes.

MS. CLARK: As the Court can see from the papers that the People have already filed, the Defense proposes to admit the examination conducted of the sock on which they see the powdery substance that lies underneath the cut-out for the stain that was attributed to Nicole Brown. The problem with that--the admissibility of that particular evidence is manyfold. First and foremost, although chain of custody ordinarily is a matter that goes to weight, it can arise or point out, at times go to such a great and severe degree that we are talking about an item that should not be admitted because it is weightless. In this case in particular we have that very situation. We have a sock that has been manipulated by the Prosecution experts, by the Defense experts ad nauseam for the past year. It is critical to the Defense position and to the significance of the evidence that they claim to have seen, which by the way is disputed by our experts. I should tell the Court that as a threshold matter. We have a report forthcoming to the Court, I have a draft of it in front of me, but in any case, setting that to one side, it is critical to their position that what they claim to have seen underneath the cut-out stain on the sock for Nicole Brown have been there prior to all of the testing and prior to the cut-outs and prior to the manipulation of the sock. Because if it is not, then you have nothing, you have no evidence and the sock has now been so materially altered by all of the manipulations that it has undergone as a result of all the testing, not to mention the testing engaged in by the Defense itself, that you have a situation where the current condition of the sock bears no relationship to the condition of the sock at the relevant point in time. Let me just give the Court some idea of all that has gone on. The socks were collected from the bedroom of the Defendant on June the 13th, 1994. At that time they were found in a crumpled condition on the rug and were immediately placed--they were lying together. I meant they were stretched out.

THE COURT: I have a pretty clear picture in my mind what the photograph looks like.

MS. CLARK: Yes, I'm sure you do, we have seen it so many times.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. CLARK: And they placed it into a paper bag, both socks into one paper bag, where it was kept in a frozen condition for a period of time. On August the 4th pheno testing was conducted of that very stain at the ankle and also of another stain at the toe, I believe of the other sock. Already we have an alteration, not to mention the jostling that has occurred of those socks up until that find, in the process of collection, movement and storage. Greg Matheson began actual testing on the sock in September, `94, and he conducted a further pheno test and then cut a snippet, cut the hole I think that is in issue here. On October 4th, 1994, Gary Sims--

THE COURT: Miss Clark, forgive me for interrupting you.

MS. CLARK: I don't need to do this?

THE COURT: We have had in the record a long chronology of all of the handlings, testings, et cetera, et cetera, of these two items.

MS. CLARK: All right.

THE COURT: Item 13, a and b.

MS. CLARK: Yes. I won't further document.

THE COURT: You don't need to recite it for me, and I think it is contained in the record--

MS. CLARK: It is.

THE COURT: --a fair representation as to what has happened to the socks.

MS. CLARK: All right. Thank you, your Honor. So we know that the observation that is reported by the Defense is not until April of `95. Now--now, the only--the only materiality for the observation made in April of `95 would be if you could show that that condition existed back in August of `94. That can never be shown, and in fact, the opposite inference is the logical one to draw. Furthermore, there is a separate issue here and that is the fact that the manner in which the Defense seeks to prove that the powder underlying the cut-out stain was done by pheno testing. The Court has ruled that phenolphthalein testing results are inadmissible when they are positive, unless there is confirmatory testing. There was no confirmatory testing on that powdery substance. Let me point out a couple of things in that regard on a logical basis. The powdery substance that they see underneath the cut-out could very well have been caused by the friction of the sock sides itself rubbing together after the stain was dried. Very simply. Could have been caused also by merely cutting out the stain and also could have been the Defendant's blood as he took the sock off. We will never know. The Defense has conducted a pheno test. They have arrived at a positive. We don't know whose that is. If it is in fact the Defendant's blood that is found underneath that cut-out, then what relevance is it in terms of planting? It has the opposite inference to be drawn. But in any case, the Court has taken the position, with respect to the admissibility of phenolphthalein tests when they are positive, and the position was that that is inadmissible, so that is a separate reason for the admissibility of that particular evidence. Thirdly, there is a three-prong test that was set forth for the admissibility of this type of experimental evidence which is really what this is and it was set forth in People versus Bonin. Under People versus Bonin they must first show that the testing is relevant. The cases that we have cited to the Court make it clear that you have very broad discretion in determining relevancy, but they have upheld the exercise of that discretion in excluding evidence under the abuse of discretion standard. There are two major problems that I see with the relevancy in this issue. First of all, they have to rely upon the efficacy of their own testing that states that the drying time for the blood on those socks would have been fifteen minutes. The People are not aware of any underlying documentation concerning what the conditions of those experiments were. There is no showing, however, in the record, and here is the--

THE COURT: You are saying that the conditions under which the experiment took place are not documented in any of the notes that you have been given? Is that what you are saying?

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

MS. CLARK: Right. We have some documentation, we have some notes. We don't know exactly what kind of socks. Obviously that is very important. We don't know exactly whether they are exactly like the socks in evidence. More importantly, though, you are talking about an experiment here that can never be relevant because the number of variables that would--that we have in the set of circumstances leading up to the deposition of the sock in the bedroom can never be duplicated because they cannot be precisely known. Of greatest importance, and most gravely, is the Defense assertion that fifteen minutes is somehow the arbitrary time chosen for the time lapse between the commission of the murders and the arrival at home when the socks are removed.

They can never prove that. No one can ever prove that. And the fact of the matter is that it could very easily have been done within ten minutes. After the murders are committed it takes the Defendant four minutes to drive home, another two to three minutes to get into his house. We have him in the bedroom taking those socks off then in seven to eight minutes. How can the Defense prove it happened otherwise? They cannot. And so their assumption implicit here that there was fifteen minutes for the socks to dry is false. But above and beyond that, how any experts can set forth in papers, as Mr. MacDonnell did, that he can conduct an experiment that exactly duplicates the humidity of that night, the heat of the body of the wearer of the socks, the sweating and perspiration that would have been engendered in the vigorous exercise involved in the murder of these two young people that would also have kept the blood wetter, and then the conditions under which he drove back to the--to the house and then removed the socks, perhaps with a wet hand, with a bloody hand that would also have made the socks bloodied and cannot duplicate the amount of time in between and no showing that the material of the sock that they used for the experiment is even the same. And furthermore, there is no showing that the Defense has any theory as to whether the blood on that ankle area was deposited by airborne spatter, by transfer swiping along an already puddle of blood at the crime scene or even swiping next to her body. We don't know if it is a swipe, if it is a spatter. We just don't know what kind of pattern that really is. Moreover, we don't know how much blood was initially deposited on that sock and they can't know. So how did they conduct this experiment? They just kind of made it up as they went along. Picked fifteen minutes, they figured that was a reasonable amount of time, and then decided that that experiment was going to indicate that the socks had to have been dried by the time they were deposited on the floor, which is nonsense. They can't make those assertions. They make a series of assumptions to arrive at a conclusion that is itself unreasonable. Now, if more rationally we look at the very real possibility that the socks were still wet when taken off by Mr. Simpson, then you have an obvious transfer right there, just by the socks lying on top of each other. A logical and a rational and a reasonable interpretation of the evidence, as opposed to this tortured, twisted logic that leads us to a conclusion that is--that is defamatory it is so false. I don't think that we can allow the jury to be subjected to the kind of tortured and twisted thinking that is involved in the conclusions drawn from this irrelevant experiment. The second prong--so I mean we have a problem with relevance because of the assumptions made concerning the drying time. Of course there is also the problem on a fundamental gut level, your Honor, that there is no evidence that anyone planted anything on the socks, and by that I mean I'm not asking the Court to exclude it on a bootstrap argument. Their argument is bootstrapped because is there any indication in the evidence that there was something wrong with these socks and the manner in which they were packaged that would tend to indicate that they were tampered with? The answer is resoundingly no. Has there ever been any testimony or indication that someone went to the freezer where they should have been and they were found somewhere else? Has there ever been any testimony indicating that they went to the back and found the seals tampered with? No. Has there ever been any indication that someone was seen carrying the socks who had no authorization to be in possession of them? No. These are the kind of things, this is the kind of evidence that might under certain circumstances tend to indicate that maybe, maybe something happened untoward with the socks, but there is nothing like that in this case, nothing at all. So now what you have is an observation made long after the fact, a year--a year later almost after their collection, which is totally irrelevant. The second prong of the test deals with substantial similarity of the material circumstances, and again we cited cases to the Court dealing with this aspect, and the tests in this case. I think I've already indicated the numerous problems that you have, the variables that can never been pinned down to make a an experiment of the type performed by the Defense relevant or substantially similar, the problem with the amount of blood, the same fabric, the perspiration of the wearer, the ambient temperature and humidity and was the blood used--did it contain a preservative or anticoagulant. None of these things--none of these things can be determined. I'm talking about the powdery substance underneath the cut-out. We just don't know the answers to any of those questions. And so in this kind of situation the Court has addressed the issue in the Andrews case and that is a case that we did cite to the Court and I think it is particularly relevant because actually the Andrews case had a much more on point experiment than this one is, and that was a civil case in which a plaintiff fell out of a chair in the Defendant's store.

THE COURT: That is the case where they turn around and determine different angles to see how you fall over.

MS. CLARK: Right.

THE COURT: I am familiar with the case.

MS. CLARK: Right. But at least, your Honor, the Court is aware, they had the identical chair. We don't even have that here. We don't have any showing that we have identical socks. In fact, I will tell the Court that we tried to find identical socks and couldn't because they are of such unique quality. And the Court has seen--I think probably felt them, but the material of them is so light and so slick we went out looking all over Beverly Hills and couldn't find socks exactly like those in evidence. So I mean just to let Court know that no mean feat in this case. Ordinarily--no pun intended, feet--but ordinarily duplicating of socks would not be so difficult. In this case it really is. These are unique, unusual quality socks. Now we have to make many more assumptions in this case than they did in the Andrews case. We have to make assumptions concerning the degree of sweat that the Defendant would have had.

THE COURT: I think you mentioned that.

MS. CLARK: Okay. So I'm done with that. The third prong of the test deals with the undue consumption of time, and here we have extremely strong concerns, and let me indicate to the Court what will transpire if this evidence is admitted. If this evidence is admitted, not only will the Defense go into testing with respect to EDTA testing and that kind of expert testimony, but the People on rebuttal will then be--not to mention extensive cross-examination by the People of their experts, but that goes without saying--in rebuttal the People will be now required to call to testify Gary Sims, Greg Matheson, Peter De Forest and two other EDTA experts yet to be determined, to set straight the record. To set straight the jury so that they will understand that what they've been given is a lot of false, misleading and confusing claptrap. But that will take weeks of extra time, and I don't think I'm exaggerating at all in saying this, your Honor, because I have reviewed the materials from the Defense. I have reviewed what Agent Martz will be required to say concerning EDTA. I know how long it is going to take to elicit that testimony more clearly after direct. I think the cross may well be a lot longer than direct in that case, just on a technical basis so the jury will understand what he is really saying and not saying. And then they are going to be calling Dr. Rieders and Dr. Rieders' cross-examination, I can promise the Court, will have to be lengthy because of the assumptions he makes and the false--

THE COURT: But aren't we talking right now about an experiment on how long it takes for blood to dry and the potential for transfer from one side of the sock to the other while in an unused position? I mean, that is what we are talking about.

MS. CLARK: Yes.

THE COURT: EDTA issues are different issues.

MS. CLARK: They are and yet when they want to prove that there is preservative in blood taken from the sock, it is going to be necessary for them to show that in order to draw the inference they want the jury to draw. You know what I mean? They are going to have to put on something about EDTA on the sock stain that was tested for Nicole's blood in order to make the finding really more relevant; otherwise you just find some powder in there, it could be the Defendant's blood, it could be Nicole Brown Simpson's. They want the jury to infer that it is Nicole's blood and they want the jury to further infer that it was planted and that is why it was found there, so I mean, it really does come into it as well. And I agree with the Court. I mean, the primary thing is that, but when you understand the 352 undue consumption of time, you have to consider all the ramifications of admission.

THE COURT: I think the presence of EDTA is a completely different issue.

MS. CLARK: In any case, even if EDTA is not admitted, let's assume they don't call any experts concerning EDTA, I can promise the Court that at least the three scientists I have named will be required to testify to explain what they saw. And among the observations that they will impart to the jury is the fact that they completely dispute Mr. MacDonnell's characterization of what he saw, so I mean, there is a lot of real fundamental problems with this, in addition to the very glaring legal issues that I have pointed out to the Court concerning the admissibility of this evidence. And we urge the Court to exclude it on the grounds that it is not only not productive and undue consumption of time, but much more than that, is really an attempt by the Defense to subvert justice. We are talking about evidence that is not only misleading and confusing, but downright deceptive, and we urge the Court not to allow them to engage in this deception with this jury.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Neufeld.

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

THE COURT: Good morning.

MR. NEUFELD: Umm, apparently Miss Clark has forgotten the fact that certain matters can be proved through direct evidence and certain matters can also be proved through indirect or circumstantial evidence. It has been the Defense position in this case that blood was planted on the sock and just because we can't produce evidence or an eyewitness who was there when this planting occurred does not mean that we are precluded from bringing it through circumstantial evidence. I think the key issue here was articulated by Miss Clark in her first remarks when she said the evidence is that what was on the inside of the opposite side of the sock directly beneath the ankle stain was powder. That was the testimony of their expert, Gary Sims. That was his opinion, that it was blood, but it was powdered blood; it wasn't a transfer stain. All we want to do is call an expert, all right, who will say he looked at the same phenomena, what Gary Sims described as powdering--as powdered blood, and will say that Gary Sims is mistaken, it is not powder, it is a wet transfer stain, it is blood which has bonded, adhered to the sock in a wet form before it dried. That is a critical point. It is a critical contradiction to the testimony and position offered by the Prosecution's witness, Gary Sims, in this case. The Court cannot be expected, nor can the jury be expected to take as conclusive fact one witness' opinion as to what he observed underneath the microscope on the inside of the opposite side of the sock directly beneath that ankle stain. That would be absurd. That is why we have an adversary system. We are allowed to call witnesses who disagree with the conclusions of their expert. That is all we want to do here. And when you think about that comparison, your Honor, think about the fact that Gary Sims is first and foremost a serologist. He is not an expert on the non-serological aspects of bloodstain interpretation. You have before you, because it was given to the Prosecution in this case, a copy of Professor Herbert MacDonnell's CV. There is no question he is the nation's, if not the world's leading authority on bloodstain interpretation. He has written the three major textbooks which serve as the standard for this particular discipline throughout the world. His books have been translated into different languages and are used in thirty or forty different countries. When he--after he did his examination and he presented his results to us, he immediately took off to give a presentation and teaching course to the government police department of the nation of Sweden--of the kingdom of Sweden. This is who the witness is. They are afraid of hearing from the foremost authority in the country on this particular subject. It is a question of fact for the jury whether what was observed on that sock was powder, which doctor--which Professor MacDonnell disputes. He says it wasn't powder and it is not powder. And one can, if you are an expert on bloodstains and its characteristics, distinguish between dry flaking, which transfers after the fact, and wet blood which bonds to the sock itself. That will be his testimony and there is no surprise about that because that is exactly what it says in his report which was given to the Prosecution. He states on page 1 of the July 11th report in paragraph--in item no. 2: "The inside of the sock directly opposite the cut-out portion also exhibited areas of transfer staining. These stains are on the surface of the fibers as well as in the grooves between the fibers. Many of these stains dried resulting in a, quote, `build up appearance.'" as the nation's leading expert on bloodstain interpretation, what Professor MacDonnell will testify to and what he has said in his report is that what you saw under the microscope with Gregory Matheson sitting there watching them take these pictures is a wet stain transfer on the opposite side of that sock. That directly contradicts the expert testimony of Gary Sims, the serologist called by the Prosecution in this case.

That is what we are talking about here. There are photo micrographs that were taken at that time. They have been turned over to the People. The photo micrographs will be used and exhibited to the jury to corroborate Professor MacDonnell's conclusion and they will be shown to the jury to demonstrate exactly what he did see. It is not powder, it is not flaking, it is wet stain that adhered, that bonded to the surface of the sock on the inside of the other side. So they put the issue in controversy. They made the suggestion through Gary Sims that this was never a transfer stain, that obviously the blood had dried on the ankle while it was being worn. And Professor MacDonnell's testimony will directly controvert that factual assertion by the People. That is why he is being called. So this stuff about powder is their position, it is not a fact which has been resolved yet by the jury. We are taking a contrary position and that is why we are calling the expert. So I think there is no question that it is relevant. I think it is very persuasive and very powerful evidence. And if Miss Clark is that concerned about the search for the truth, she would certainly want the jury to hear this evidence from the nation's premier authority on this subject. Let's see. The second point they make, which is the presumptive tests that is were done, you know, from looking at Mr. Matheson's notes that certain presumptive tests were done that day and the results of those presumptive tests are actually described in Mr. Matheson's notes. In the first place, your Honor, we are not talking about a different stain here. It is Professor MacDonnell's position that this is the same stain that moves right through from one side of the sock to the other side of the sock. That is what he is testifying to. And your Honor has already ruled, if there is corroborative testing done on a particular stain, then the fact that it is this witness' opinion that it is blood is admissible. He will say it is the same--the same blood source that created the stain on the outside just moved right through, seeped right through into the other side of the sock. That will be his expert opinion. Furthermore, your Honor, on the issue of presumptive tests, and on these particular stains, Gary Sims already testified to the reddishness that he saw on that same surface, the opposite side of the inner side. That is what Miss Clark was referring to. Only Mr. Sims said that it is dried blood that was powder. That was admissible. So once he has already described what is on that other surface is dried blood, what we are saying is it is not dry blood powder, that it is wet blood that dried on the surface of the socks. So that fact that it is blood is already out there for the jury. The question is was it powder when it got there in its dry form or was it, as Professor MacDonnell will demonstrate to the jury with compelling photographs and 25 years of experience of doing more bloodstain interpretation than anybody else alive on the planet, that it was not dried powder, that it was in fact a wet transfer stain. So the whole notion of the presumptive test issue is irrelevant in this particular instance. Now, separate and apart from what Professor MacDonnell observed under the microscope and giving his expert opinions as to the significance of what he observed, there is a separate question, and that is sock drying, how long it takes for blood to dry. Professor MacDonnell is not testifying simply on the basis of the notes that were turned over to the Prosecution. He is testifying on the basis of twenty year's experience running institutes all over the world where the students have to do drying experiments on a variety of different types of fabrics; some very, very shear, some much bulkier than the socks in question, but all kinds of fabrics. In fact, in his own laboratory book which we will produce in Court, he will show that one of the experiments he requires all the students to do is the drying time of blood, various amounts of blood, on various different types of fabric. These kinds of experiments he has been doing in case work and teaching and are described in his books for twenty years. There is nothing new or unique to it when he testifies or gives an opinion in this case. He is not simply relying on an impromptu experiment he may have done on June 6th. It is the whole experience he has accumulated after twenty years of doing this kind of work when he gives his expert opinion. Secondly, your Honor, with respect to the--this suggestion by the Prosecution that an experiment has to exactly replicate the conditions, that is not the law. The law requires some kind of substantial similarity, your Honor, and I would simply point out that on numerous occasions in this case the Prosecution has offered experiments in front of the jury which couldn't possibly exactly replicate, it is not possible at all.

For instance, when Gregory Matheson was on the witness stand and he wanted to refute the notion that one and a half ml was missing, he went back to his laboratory that night and he tried to reconstruct how much blood might be lost if you made five or six withdrawals. You may recall that, your Honor, and of course he said I don't remember what kind of pipette exactly was used to withdraw it in certain of the withdrawals and I can't tell you the exact amounts, but given the experiment I did last night, this is how much blood was lost through the transactions. Well, that is an experiment without a report, without the notes, and certainly could not replicate all the different withdrawals that were made from that blood vial over a several-month period of time. Another example, your Honor. The Prosecution, over Defense objection, brought out a new pair of Aris gloves. There is no question, your Honor, that the Aris gloves that Mr. Simpson was asked to try on could not in any way replicate exactly the size of the gloves in evidence as they were on June 12th. That is an unknown fact, all right? In fact, Mr. Rubin even testified that there is some degree, there is some range of variation even within extra large gloves, so that is another instance where an experiment was allowed to be conducted in front of the jury where you could not get exact replication, and we are not saying that exact replication is essential and that is not what we have here either. Another example--

THE COURT: What do we have?

MR. NEUFELD: Well, what we have here are two things, your Honor. Most importantly, it is not even the experiment of June 6th. Most importantly is Professor MacDonnell's body of knowledge accumulated over twenty years in experiments with students, experiments on dozens of different cases in which he can estimate as an expert what is the approximate drying time of--of a smear of blood on socks, whether it is air-dried as opposed to being worn on the ankle, and he will give an opinion based on that. To the extent that they can challenge that opinion, I believe that goes to the weight, not to its admissibility. I believe he will be able to lay the proper foundation when he testifies to show that he has the requisite experience and expertise to render that opinion.

THE COURT: All right. I don't doubt the doctor's credentials, experience, et cetera, et cetera, but we are talking now about similarity, substantial similarity of conditions. Miss Clark, in her argument, raised a number of issues, such as the nature of the fabric itself, the amount of liquid used in the experiment, the porosity of the particular material, the humidity under which the exam was conducted and the actual situation here, the perspiration of the individual involved, the ambient heat, the heat of the body. She raised a number of issues--

MR. NEUFELD: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: --that you have not addressed regarding similarity of conditions.

MR. NEUFELD: I will be more than happy, your Honor. First of all, those are all points, I believe, which frankly go to weight rather than admissibility, just as they do when we challenged Greg Matheson's assertion about how much blood was lost, just as we do when Vannatter testifies to the driving time from Bundy to Rockingham without replicating the same traffic patterns as existed on that night, just as we do when we challenge a glove experiment involving a new glove other than the actual gloves recovered in this case. But just to show some similarity, a substantial similarity, your Honor, let me address each of those points. First of all, Professor MacDonnell, who is an expert, as I said, in bloodstain interpretation, can estimate, based on the amount of blood staining that is still left on the socks, approximately how much blood was swiped onto those socks initially. And by the way, the testimony will be not that it is a drop at all, but it is actually a swipe, a smear, if you will, rather than a drop on the surface of those socks. No. 2, what is interesting about the similarity of the socks, he used very shear synthetic socks for the June 6th experiment, but as I said earlier, he has done, you know, hundreds of experiments on various shear material and blood in the drying time over the 20-year--25-year career that he has had in this particular field. What is fascinating is the admission made by Miss Clark that they were unable to get the exact same pair of socks, and you may recall just how, and I believe her word was, how light and slick the surface was of those socks. Well, the lighter and slicker that surface, the shorter the drying time in fact, so if anything, what Professor MacDonnell will be able to testify to as an expert, that his experiments, if anything, engender longer drying times than the drying time for the sock in question. We are not suggesting we had the exact same socks; we don't, but he will show that, first of all, with a synthetic sock, as opposed to a sock made of cotton, since synthetics are a plastic, the actual fibers themselves don't absorb the blood and so the drying time is much quicker than it would be, for instance, with cotton, with a natural fiber which can absorb the blood, and the lighter and slicker the fabric, as in this case, the shorter the drying time, so he has done a range of experiments so he will be able to testify to what that range is and how these socks would fall within that range of drying times, even without replicating it. Very often an expert witness cannot directly replicate conditions so what he tries to do is bracket it and give an opinion based on the various experiments and wealth of knowledge that he has, even though it is not the same exact. That is all Professor MacDonnell will do in this situation.

THE COURT: The reason I asked the question regarding material, because in my review of the notes and the report there is no determination regarding the determination of what material was selected, how it was selected and how it is similar to the sock here. There is nothing in the materials that gives the Court any clue. And I think just for the--for the record, we ought to mark as a Court's exhibit for this--

MR. NEUFELD: Certainly.

THE COURT: --discussion the package that you provided to the Court yesterday.

(Court's 17 for id = packet of documents)

MR. NEUFELD: What I will do, your Honor, is I can get that additional information on the experiment for you. The other thing I can also do is actually probably produce the socks themselves. But the point I'm trying to make is that although the socks that Professor MacDonnell used are shear and light, they are not as light nor as slick as the actual socks in this case. So if anything, his drying results are actual--from the experiment he did on June 6th are longer, generate longer drying times than it would on the socks in this case, and that will be his expert testimony. That is the point. But I will certainly provide that information for the Court. The other important thing, your Honor, is that when he gives that opinion in his report, the opinion in his report simply says that based on experiments. That is not simply referring to the experiment of June 6th. That is simply based--based on, as I said, experiments that he has conducted over a 20-year period both with his students and in cases on hundreds, if not thousands, of different types of textiles under, you know, all kind of conditions. He has a body of knowledge from those experiments which enable him to give an expert opinion as to the drying time. But I will be more than happy to furnish the additional information for the Court and the socks themselves, because they have been retained. The blood experiment was not--was not contained--did not contain a preservative or anticoagulant. He simply withdrew his own blood and put it onto the sock, so that answers that question. As I said, your Honor, I don't think there is any way one can ever replicate all ambient temperatures and anything else that may have happened.

THE COURT: Was there any attempt at all?

MR. NEUFELD: In this particular experiment?

THE COURT: In this particular experiment?

MR. NEUFELD: Can you just wait one second.

THE COURT: Sure.

(Discussion held off the record between Mr. Neufeld and Professor MacDonnell.)

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, Professor MacDonnell did not try and manipulate the conditions for that experiment. He said it was approximately seventy degrees and in an environment where there may have been eighty percent humidity. But as I said, he simply--he is not stating that as a scientific fact. All right. The point, your Honor, is--and as Professor MacDonnell can explain as well, perhaps better than me if I haven't communicated it effectively, is that the experiment that he did is not the primary basis for his opinion about drying times. It is just something he did, as I mentioned earlier, as an impromptu thing after he came and made his presentation to us on June 3rd, the day before he left for Sweden. He went back home and he just did it and he made notes on what he did and I had asked him to produce every single note that he had regarding the subject matter of his testimony here and so he produced those notes. But I think the experiment is relevant again because he simply wanted to produce a range of values, so he took very extreme conditions, your Honor, extreme conditions as to the amount of blood that was used and how it was put on the sock and under what conditions it was put on the sock. I don't believe that the actual temperature at which the experiment was conducted is--is at issue as to the experiment's admissibility, and I believe that Professor MacDonnell will be able to lay the proper foundation to have those experimental results introduced. But as I said a moment ago, your Honor, even that experiment is not essential for Professor MacDonnell to render his opinion as to drying times on shear fabric such as the fabric in question in this case. Let me just make sure that I have covered every other point.

THE COURT: Let me ask you one other question.

MR. NEUFELD: Certainly, your Honor.

THE COURT: The report indicates that the blood had to be, quote, teased into the fabric. In other words, apparently had to be pressed or manipulated or somehow pushed into the fabric to get it to adhere. In this situation we have what appears to be either a blood drop, which I can see, given the nature of the injuries that the victims suffered, you are saying it is a smear?

MR. NEUFELD: It is a smear and Professor MacDonnell will testify it is a smear.

THE COURT: So you are saying maybe one of the victims grabbed at the socks or something like that and smeared--

MR. NEUFELD: I'm not saying the victims grabbed a sock. It is the position of the Defense, your Honor--

THE COURT: I understand that, but let's just say the perpetrator's socks--

MR. NEUFELD: I'm not saying that, your Honor. I'm saying that that blood was put on those socks long after June 13th.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. NEUFELD: What there is no question about, and what Professor MacDonnell will testify to, it is not a drop, it is not spatter, it is a smear, it is a deliberate smear on the socks and there is no question about that.

THE COURT: Why shouldn't I be concerned that under this experiment with this sock that the material had to be manipulated to get the blood to adhere?

MR. NEUFELD: Oh, no, no, no. It didn't have to. If you look at the note in fact for that experiment on June--just one moment, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sure.

MR. NEUFELD: It is not in the report; it is in the June 6th experiment. What he did on spot 1, as opposed to spot 2--in spot 2 he didn't tease it in. In spot 1 he deliberately put in more and more blood. He put in quantitatively a lot more blood in spot 1 when he teased it in because he deliberately wanted to saturate it to an extreme. Remember I told you he is now doing a experiment to show if I take the most extreme conditions, a lot more blood, to soak in as much blood as possible, so don't just swipe it and make a smear, but instead let's take the blood and almost sort of knead it in like bred or something into the material to make sure it gets all the way through to the other side of the sock and even comes out the other side of the sock on to a glass table so there is actually blood on the glass table that that sock is in. That is why he is teasing it. He is deliberately teasing it. If he didn't do that, if you look at experiment no. 2 in the notes where he says that the human blood was simply swiped over the surface, in that instance he didn't do any teasing at all and he records the drying time for that stain.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Neufeld, let me ask you one other question.

MR. NEUFELD: Sure.

THE COURT: Do you have the citation in the transcript for Mr. Matheson's testimony regarding his observations regarding the powder, what he termed as powder and blood?

MR. NEUFELD: It is not Mr. Matheson's; Mr. Sims.

THE COURT: I'm sorry, Mr. Sims.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: Just in a minute we are going to pull it right up for you. I think it is also in his notes.

THE COURT: No. I would like to see what was presented to the jury in the form of testimony.

MR. NEUFELD: Sure.

THE COURT: Because basically what you have here is two issues: One, whether or not the stain--the stain inside the sock is powder, residue and/or a transfer stain. Issue no. 1. Issue no. 2, is there substantial similarity for the drying experiment? Those are the two issues.

MR. NEUFELD: They are two separate issues I think.

THE COURT: Two separate issues.

MR. NEUFELD: Right.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

THE COURT: All right. What is Dr. MacDonnell's schedule at this point?

MR. NEUFELD: Well, what I would propose, your Honor, is, first of all, since then the micro photographs were turned over last week, the notes were turned over. I would propose, if they need an additional day, that could he stick around until tomorrow to testify or he could testify on Friday morning. He is leaving for Canada a week from Friday for two weeks. So I would very much like to get him in. I think what this is really about is trying to have some more time to prepare cross-examination of Professor MacDonnell, and if that is the case and we can't do it tomorrow and we can't do it Friday morning, Professor MacDonnell will come back early next week, but it is very important to us that he be able to testify at about this time in the case, because, as Mr. Cochran has pointed out, we are trying to move the Defense case along very, very quickly, and we would like to wrap this up in the next couple of weeks.

THE COURT: Yes. All right. Well, why don't you get me the mention in the transcript regarding Mr. Sims. Let me know what Dr. MacDonnell's schedule is. I will take the matter under submission until I have the opportunity to reread the transcript regarding Mr. Sims' testimony.

MR. NEUFELD: You don't need Mr. Sims' testimony? I can give it to you later today.

THE COURT: What I would like to do is finish Mr. Meraz this morning.

MR. NEUFELD: And then decide this.

THE COURT: Perhaps decide this over the lunch hour.

MR. NEUFELD: So you can have the jury come back in, may we step out and look in the computer so that we can generate this without wasting the Court's time.

THE COURT: What will happen is I will have one of my law clerks then pull up the transcript to make it available for me to review this afternoon.

MS. CLARK: May I just respond briefly to Mr. Neufeld, and I mean very briefly? I want to get to Meraz, too.

THE COURT: I think I've heard the argument and I have read the points and authorities.

MS. CLARK: You have and I'm talking about something I have not stated in response to what Mr. Neufeld has represented to the Court.

THE COURT: What issue?

MS. CLARK: Concerning the stain on the sock and the--the appearance of the powder.

THE COURT: Well--

MS. CLARK: It is important that they be able to establish that that powder comes from that cut-out stain.

THE COURT: I understand. Counsel, I understand.

MS. CLARK: It doesn't match.

THE COURT: I understand there is a factual assumption that one belongs to the other. I understand that.

MS. CLARK: Right, but I don't even think that Mr. MacDonnell is going to assert that the powder was in the same configuration as the cut-out.

THE COURT: Well, we can't know that, can we, since it was cut-out and then tested.

MS. CLARK: No. What I'm saying is that the powder underlying the cut-out could match the cut-out so that we would know what was--you know what I mean? Does this make--

THE COURT: I think I have a picture.

MS. CLARK: All right.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

MS. CLARK: All right.

THE COURT: All right. All right. Let me know when you--

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, I have the cite. More than one, but a starting point will be page--

THE COURT: Counsel, if you would, do you have the photographs, the micro photographs of this particular location, because you did give me--

MR. NEUFELD: Xeroxes.

THE COURT: --Xerox copies from which I can tell exactly nothing.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. NEUFELD: Yes. I will give you the micro photographs that we intend to offer in evidence. What you should know is, is that it will be the Professor's testimony that when you do this micro photograph you are zooming into a very small area and that he saw similar phenomena--

THE COURT: I understand.

MR. NEUFELD: --you know, in a larger area.

THE COURT: If you recollect, we got to see this phenomena under the stereomicroscope with the jury.

MR. NEUFELD: All right.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

THE COURT: All right. Give that information to Mrs. Robertson. We need to clear for the jury.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. Let's bring the jury down.

(Recess.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Scheck.

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

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. The record should reflect all the parties are again present. The jury is not present. Counsel, anything else we need to take up before we invite the jurors to rejoin us?

MR. COCHRAN: Not from the Defense, your Honor.

MS. CLARK: I just want to make sure the Court is aware that we have forthcoming motions on other discovery. We gave that to the Court this morning. I just wanted to make sure the Court knew that was coming.

THE COURT: Ask me if I am surprised. All right. Let's have the jurors.

(Brief pause.)

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

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

THE JURY: Good morning.

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

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

THE COURT: You are reminded that you are still under oath. Would you state your name again for the record.

THE COURT: All right. Just sit back and pull the microphone close to you, please.

MR. MERAZ: (Witness complies.)

THE COURT: All right. Good morning, Mr. Meraz.

MR. MERAZ: Good morning.

THE COURT: You are reminded, sir, that you are still under oath. Mr. Cochran, you may continue with your direct examination.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you very kindly, your Honor. And good morning ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. COCHRAN

MR. COCHRAN: Good morning, Mr. Meraz.

MR. MERAZ: Good morning.

MR. COCHRAN: Sir, yesterday we were talking about your role in picking up the Bronco vehicle on June 15, 1994. Do you recall that?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, I do.

MR. COCHRAN: And I want to, if I can, get a clear picture of the number of times that you had occasion to get inside that particular vehicle. Are you with me on that?

MR. MERAZ: Umm, no.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. I'm going to ask you a series of questions that I'm trying to elicit at least the number of times that you had occasion to get inside the driver's side or driver's compartment of the Bronco. Okay?

MR. MERAZ: Okay.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, yesterday you described for us that when you went to the print shed before you moved this vehicle, did you have occasion to get inside the vehicle at that time?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And at that time, when you looked at that time, that would be the first time you got inside that vehicle, did you see blood inside that vehicle any place?

MR. MERAZ: No, I did not.

MR. COCHRAN: And the first time that you got inside that vehicle can you describe for the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if you can, and paint a word picture for us of how you got inside the vehicle the first time at the print shed?

MR. MERAZ: I pulled the car out of the print shed, pulled it out, and as I pulled the car out, I had to get into the passenger side or driver's side, excuse me, driver's side of the vehicle, and I had half my body in and half my body out.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Why don't you, if the Court would allow, step down. This is time no. 1, as I understand it. Why don't you, if the Court would allow, using the seat there as the driver's compartment, and if you can demonstrate it for the jurors, show us how you stepped in, if you can. You may step down from the stand if you need to.

MR. MERAZ: I walked from my truck over to the vehicle, to the white Bronco. I went over to--I opened the door. As I opened the door, I put one hand on the steering wheel, and as I put that hand on the steering wheel I kind of did this, (Indicating), checked the steering, saw that it was locked. The reason I did that is so that--a lot of times if you tow a vehicle the steering wheel will break, it will cause you to hit another car going out, and this is the reason I did that. As I came out, I checked the emergency brake and that was it.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So that is time no. 1?

MR. MERAZ: That is no. 1.

MR. COCHRAN: And when you were inside that vehicle on that occasion, it is your testimony you didn't see any blood, right?

MR. MERAZ: I didn't see any blood.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you see any black or dark gray print powder at that time?

MR. MERAZ: No, I did not.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Were there any keys in that vehicle at that point?

MR. MERAZ: I didn't see any keys.

MR. COCHRAN: And I presume the door to that car was opened, as you described it? You just opened the door; is that right?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, the car was unlocked.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now then, you have described for us driving to Viertel's on Temple. Do you recall that?

MR. MERAZ: I recall that, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Let me ask you this: Did you make any kind of communication or did you call ahead to Viertel's and tell them whether or not you were coming and which vehicle you were bringing there?

THE COURT: I think we have covered this yesterday.

MR. COCHRAN: Did we, your Honor? I know there was a stop. May I just ask one question, your Honor, for clarification.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. MERAZ: I radioed in just before I got ready to leave.

MR. COCHRAN: With regard to that radioing in, did you make any kind of announcement what car you were bringing there?

MR. MERAZ: I had advised the shop that I was in tow with OJ Simpson's car.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, at that time, to the best of your estimation, how many employees did Viertel's have on Temple Street back on June 15 of 1994?

MR. MERAZ: I would say fifty employees. I might be off by two.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So then you got to Viertel, as we recall yesterday, and you parked that vehicle at a point called T-3; is that correct?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: I would like, your Honor, if I might, to mark as the Defense next exhibit, counsel, I believe you have seen this, 12--

THE COURT: 1254.

MR. COCHRAN: 1254, your Honor.

(Deft's 1254 for id = photograph)

MR. COCHRAN: Counsel has seen this and may I approach just for a moment?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, I have an overhead photograph of what purports to be of Viertel's with some numbers, T-1 through T-5 on them. And I'm going to ask you to take a look at that and tell us whether or not--the witness, your Honor, is indicating he left his glasses and I presume he needs them. May I go back and get them from someone?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. The witness now has his glasses.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: Now you have your glasses and I'm going to ask you to take a look at this next exhibit, Defendant's 1254, and describe for the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what is depicted in that photograph.

MR. MERAZ: This is a picture of the yard at Viertel's automotive, described in T-1, T-2, T-3, T-4 and T-5.

MR. COCHRAN: Can you briefly share with us what those different numbers are. What is T-1? What is depicted in T-1?

MR. MERAZ: T-1, if a car is going to be left in the yard a length of time, it is put up there, or if it is drivable, if it has keys, it is put up into T-1. T-2 is basically an evidentiary hold where they hold cars for prints inside.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay.

MR. MERAZ: T-3 is the main yard. That is where all the vehicles come in if they are wrecked. If there is a hold on it, a lot of times we keep them there. T-4, basically cars, if they don't have wheels on them, we basically put them there. T-5, which is directly facing the freeway, they put cars with no wheels on there.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Your Honor, I would like--I don't know if we can do this with the elmo, but I would like to demonstrate this for the jury.

THE COURT: I think we can.

MR. COCHRAN: Let's see if we can. I will ask Mr. Harris to share this with everyone.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, you can look down. There is a monitor to your right. It might be a little bit easier for you.

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Is that what you just described? The jury can now see the various areas of T-1, T-2, T-3 and T-4 and T-5.

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right, sir. Would you show us, if you can, when you drove onto this lot on this June 15th date with the Bronco in tow, you told us yesterday you parked it at T-3; is that correct?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Can you just show us generally, and we can get a pointer for you, where on 1254 did you park the Bronco vehicle?

MR. MERAZ: I parked it right in the middle of the lot which is T-3.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. You see that arrow that is on the screen?

MR. MERAZ: The arrow is off.

MR. COCHRAN: Can you direct the arrow in which direction to go and we will try to find it.

MR. MERAZ: Come down. No, come up, come up. Right. Now, go a few inches, right--right there, right in there, (Indicating). You went too far. Right there is where I put the car.

MR. COCHRAN: That is where you put the car?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, can we print that out?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And we will put the initials of "J.M." For John Meraz.

MR. COCHRAN: That is where you put the Bronco when you took it on the 15th and what time of day was that?

MR. MERAZ: It was after eleven o'clock in the morning when I originally picked the car up.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Now, so that we are clear, and I want to make sure--the Court will obviously indulge us on this--I want to address the witness with regard to 1253. We will keep this up for a moment. Yesterday you told us about this form, this vehicle investigation form, and I want to approach, if I can, your Honor, again. And in looking at this form I notice there are two places at the top that has something saying "Hold." In the left upper corner is an indication, your Honor, "Prints/evidence, give special care." There is a box there. Was that box on the form that you had on June 15th? Was that box ever checked?

MR. MERAZ: No, it wasn't.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Is there another box further over that is partially obscured on this form by a paper--by the whole puncher, there is a hole, "Impounded hold" there?

MR. MERAZ: I briefly see it. A little "X" right there on the hold.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And with regard to that, did you have some conversation with the officer who signed this particular form about whether or not there was any special care holds on this particular vehicle?

MR. MERAZ: I asked the officer three times if there was a hold on this car for prints, if there was a hold or okay to release. He stated to me there is no hold--excuse me. He stated there is a hold but there is no hold for prints. He says, no, there is a hold on it. If Hertz comes to pick the vehicle up, it is okay to release to them, but they have to go through robbery division to get it.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. That was as of June 15th that it could be released to Hertz if they came to pick it up, although they had to go through robbery/homicide; is that right?

MR. MERAZ: That's right.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, on this form then, 1253, there is an indication on here "Hold until released to a representative from Hertz corporation, RHD robbery/homicide handling"; is that correct?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you print that in or did someone else print that in?

MR. MERAZ: The officer did that.

MR. COCHRAN: Is name is H-A-R-O, Haro?

MR. MERAZ: Haro.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you write anything else on this portion of the form?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, I did. On the right-hand side of the impound I put the license number of the vehicle. On the left-hand side I put where I had put the car, in T-3.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Your Honor, if I might just show this also at this point?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: 1253, and we will come back to that. Let's put 1253 on the elmo.

(Brief pause.)

MR. COCHRAN: Now, the portion--let's start at the top, Mr. Harris. The portion you and I were just talking about at the top in the upper left-hand corner where it says "Prints/evidence, give special care," there was no--that box was not checked, was it?

MR. MERAZ: That box was not checked, no.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, I want you to--the box we were talking about a moment ago, so it is clear for the jury, is over to the right where there is a copy made over, your Honor, a hole for--from a hole puncher. Can you find that, Mr. Harris? Move to your left. Straight up. All right.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, there is a box there. Under that it says some kind of hold, does it not?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And is that what you are alluding to, hold for Hertz?

MR. MERAZ: That right there indicates to me that the car is held for robbery/homicide and if the owner is to pick it up, they would be sent to robbery/homicide to get a release from them.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And who was this vehicle registered to, if you know, sir?

MR. MERAZ: I was told by the officer that the vehicle belonged to Hertz rent-a-car.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Mr. Harris, let's come down on the form and we will look at the portions that Mr. Meraz wrote in his own hand. Now, you described for us a moment ago that you wrote the license number of this particular vehicle; is that correct? Can you show us where that is with the arrow?

MR. MERAZ: Come on down with the arrow. Whoa. Right there, yes, (Indicating).

MR. COCHRAN: Where it indicates on 1253, 3CWS788 you wrote that; is that correct?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And then you also indicate you wrote the letter and word "T-3"?

MR. MERAZ: On the left-hand side of that with a circle around it.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. All right. And then below that the officer whose name is in this form is Haro, Officer Haro, h-a-r-o, right?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, we can go back to the large exhibit, 1234.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, when you got to the location, you described for us yesterday there were a number of employees around. When you got there, describe for us how many people--how many employees came around you as you put that vehicle in T-3, if you recall?

MR. MERAZ: Umm, it could have been about ten employees there waiting for me.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. They were waiting for you?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And did you have some conversation with them or any of these employees about whose vehicle this was?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And by virtue of that conversation did you all look--look at the vehicle more closely?

MR. MERAZ: I don't quite follow you.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you have occasion to discuss whether or not there is any substance on this vehicle by virtue--in the conversation with these employees?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And what did you talk about?

MR. MERAZ: Well, the media news people had stated there was blood all over the car.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So based upon your hearing that, what did you do, if anything?

MR. MERAZ: I got curious.

MR. COCHRAN: When you got curious, what did you do?

MR. MERAZ: I looked to see if there was any blood in the vehicle.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you see any at that point?

MR. MERAZ: I did not.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, again, now when you got to the place and you unhooked the vehicle, did you have occasion to get back inside that vehicle again?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: Again, we will only do it if it is different than the way you got in the first time. This is time no. 2, can you describe for us, first of all, how you got inside the vehicle on the second occasion?

MR. MERAZ: I did the same thing. I got in the vehicle, put both hands on the steering wheel. I had one portion of my leg into the seat, the other portion of my leg facing out. I extended out like this, (Indicating), looking into the vehicle. I was curious to see if there was any blood.

THE COURT: Indicating looking over his right shoulder.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you recall whether or not you looked at the console area?

MR. MERAZ: I looked all over the car. By meaning "All over the car," I looked in the front of the car.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And did you see any blood at that point?

MR. MERAZ: I didn't see any.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you look at the steering wheel?

MR. MERAZ: Steering wheel was right in front of me. I didn't see any there either.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you recall looking at the floor of the vehicle? Did it look like as though the floor or the carpet on the floor had been modified in any way, Mr. Meraz?

MR. MERAZ: The floor mat had been cut at the print shed, so there was no floor mat.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Did you see anything else that looked different about that vehicle other than the floor mat being apparently missing?

MR. MERAZ: No.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, that was time no. 2 that you were inside that particular vehicle; is that correct?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, while you were in the vehicle during time no. 2, did you notice any kind of receipts or vouchers at that point at all?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: Describe for the jury again what you noticed and where these receipts were.

MR. MERAZ: The door was opened, which is the driver's side, the side that I was in, opened the door. There is a side pocket. There is a couple of receipts in there.

MR. COCHRAN: A side pocket on the driver's side of the Bronco?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And what, if anything, did you do with regard to those receipts?

MR. MERAZ: I took them out of the car. I showed them to the employees.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, why did you take them out of the car?

MR. MERAZ: I guess status, who the man was.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, meaning Mr. OJ Simpson?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. So how many receipts did you take out of the door of the car?

MR. MERAZ: Two.

MR. COCHRAN: And did you have occasion to look at those receipts?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: Can you describe for the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what those receipts said?

MR. MERAZ: One beared the name of OJ Simpson on a tuxedo, the other beared the name of Nicole Simpson, address, other miscellaneous stuff on there.

MR. COCHRAN: What were these documents? Were they from a cleaners? What were they for?

MR. MERAZ: Cleaners.

MR. COCHRAN: You saw these yourself and how many were there altogether?

MR. MERAZ: There was two.

MR. COCHRAN: And you read them and you saw both names of Mr. Simpson and Mrs. Simpson; is that right?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: So you took them out of the car during the second time you were inside that vehicle; is that right--

MR. MERAZ: (No audible response.)

MR. COCHRAN: --at T-3?

MR. MERAZ: You want to repeat that again, please?

MR. COCHRAN: Sure. Let me see if I can say it again. You took these items out of the Bronco during the second time that you were inside that Bronco when you were at the point T-3 at Viertel's?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. And then what did you do with them at that point?

MR. MERAZ: I put them in my shirt, showed them around to the employees.

MR. COCHRAN: How many employees would you say you showed them to?

MR. MERAZ: I have no--no actual count.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And so you kept them in your shirt pocket for a while?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Now, after you dropped that car off at T-3 and after you had taken these two receipts from a cleaners--by the way, do you recall in your mind where that cleaners was located?

MR. MERAZ: Somewhere in Westwood. I don't know the name of it.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Then after that, what did you do? Did you stay there or did you go out on a call?

MR. MERAZ: I went on another call after that.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Then when you left the premises was the Bronco still parked generally where you indicated on 1254?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And was it still opened at that point?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, before you leave, let me ask you a couple of questions about the area at T-3. Who has access to vehicles parked there at T-3 in that particular open lot?

MR. MERAZ: When you say who has access--

MR. COCHRAN: Well, what--do the employees--you described there were maybe fifty employees at Viertel's at that time. Do the other employees have access to that lot? Can they go on that lot? Can they enter it and enter the cars that are there?

MR. MERAZ: They can wander through whatever they want. That same lot there, you have the public that comes in. You have other tow outfits that come in there to pick up cars.

MR. COCHRAN: So this is an area where a number of people come in and out; is that correct?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. And is there anybody who polices or stops you from coming in there or anything of that nature at T-3?

MR. MERAZ: Well, they have a lot guy there and a lot of times he is either too busy to handle everybody and a lot of time they will wander in and a lot of time they get caught and asked to get out.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, you described for us that you had worked there for some 25 years; is that correct?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And your experiences over this period of time--you are testifying regarding your experiences over the 25 years or so you worked there?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Now--all right. Now, then at some point you told us you went out on a call and that call was unrelated to this--to Mr. OJ Simpson's vehicle, right?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. And how long were you on this call before you came back, if you recall?

MR. MERAZ: Umm, quite a few hours.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Did you have some further contact with the Bronco vehicle on that date of June 15th, 1994?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And about what time of day was that?

MR. MERAZ: About 5:00, 5:10, somewhere in there.

MR. COCHRAN: In the afternoon of the same day?

MR. MERAZ: In the afternoon, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you have occasion then to see that vehicle shortly after five o'clock on June 15th?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Where was the vehicle at that point?

MR. MERAZ: Well, it had been moved from T-3 over to T-2.

MR. COCHRAN: So now if we look at 1254, again in the center there looks like a white building. That is T-2. Is that where it had been moved to?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And for the record, Mr. Harris has put a magenta, I guess, arrow on T-2.

MR. COCHRAN: That is the building it had been moved into?

MR. MERAZ: That is the building.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you know who moved that vehicle to that T-2 area?

MR. MERAZ: No, I don't.

MR. COCHRAN: So between the time you left and the time you got back the vehicle was not where you left it in T-3, it was now in T-2?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Did you have occasion to go into T-2 and do something with regard to that vehicle?

MR. MERAZ: When I returned at about 5:05, 5:10, somewhere in there, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Tell us what happened, what you did?

MR. MERAZ: I decided to put the papers back into the vehicle.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. These are the two--

MR. MERAZ: Two--two vouchers.

MR. COCHRAN: Two vouchers? We will call them vouchers that you had?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: You decided to put them back; is that correct?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you put them back in the vehicle?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: When you put them back in the vehicle was that vehicle parked inside of T-2, was it still opened or unlocked?

MR. MERAZ: It was unlocked.

MR. COCHRAN: And what did you do? Did you open the door?

MR. MERAZ: I opened the door.

MR. COCHRAN: And tell us what you did.

MR. MERAZ: I opened the door, put them in the side post and walked away from there.

MR. COCHRAN: Was anybody else around at that point?

MR. MERAZ: No, nobody else.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You put the vouchers back where you had gotten them?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Why did you bring them back and put them back?

MR. MERAZ: I have no idea. I just put them back.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, can you just tell us generally where in T-2 was the vehicle parked at that point?

MR. MERAZ: Just about right there where that indication of T-2, where the circle is, is where it was put in.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Your Honor, we can use--use 1254 for identification at this point and then in the area where it is marked T-2, inside that building is where the Bronco was parked.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And when you looked--when you put the receipts back in that--vouchers back in the Bronco after--shortly after 5:00 on June 15th, at that point did you see any blood inside that vehicle?

MR. MERAZ: I didn't see any. Of course I just went in and opened the door and I didn't see any blood.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Did you see any powder as though there had been any fingerprinting of that vehicle at that point?

MR. MERAZ: The car was never printed.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You didn't see any powder?

MR. MERAZ: I didn't see no powder.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. All right. After that, after you put the receipt back, did you have occasion to have any contact with the owner of Viertel's lot after that?

MR. MERAZ: I went on a call.

MR. COCHRAN: Another call?

MR. MERAZ: Another call. I returned back 5:00, 5:30, somewhere in there. I was due to get off at 6:00 and management called me in at about 5:40.

MR. COCHRAN: When you went into management, who were you talking to?

MR. MERAZ: To Bob Jones.

MR. COCHRAN: Is he the--who is Bob Jones?

MR. MERAZ: Bob Jones is the manager of the establishment.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Who else was present during this conversation?

MR. MERAZ: It was just him and i.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You had a conversation?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Was the subject matter of that conversation these vouchers or these receipts that you had taken?

MR. MERAZ: I was asked about them, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And were you--you had shown these receipts or vouchers to other employees, had you not?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, when you talked to your--he was your boss, was he?

MR. MERAZ: Manager, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Your manager at that time?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, possible.

MR. COCHRAN: How long had he been your manager?

MR. MERAZ: Umm, I really don't know.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

MR. MERAZ: It is--more than five years.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. More than five years?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Had you been there longer than he had?

MR. MERAZ: He had a couple of years, a few years more than I did.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So you had known him for a period of time; is that correct?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Had you had some relationship with a family member of his?

MR. MERAZ: Not with him.

MR. COCHRAN: With a family member of his?

MR. MERAZ: Not a family of his, but the owner of the establishment of Viertel's.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And the owner is some other person; is that right?

MR. MERAZ: Yes. That is the owner that owns Viertel's automotive.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Had you had a relationship with the owner's daughter?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: And when was that?

MS. CLARK: Objection, relevance, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: I can link it up.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: When was the relationship?

MR. MERAZ: The relationship started back in--during the Olympics. The Olympics were in `84.

MS. CLARK: Objection, relevance.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: The relationship started in 1984 or thereabouts.

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: How long did that relationship continue, if you recall?

MR. MERAZ: Until 1991.

MR. COCHRAN: About seven years?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: What was that relationship--was this with the owner's daughter?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Did that relationship end at some point?

THE COURT: I think we just established that.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes, and I was--that was foundational, your Honor. When it ended. The question was, your Honor, when it did end.

MR. COCHRAN: How did that relationship end with the owner's daughter?

MR. MERAZ: Well, when we broke up the relationship of her and I living together, umm, we were still seeing each other up until `82 and then we broke off permanent and she had to work--I had to work there so it was like I had to watch what I had to do.

MS. CLARK: Objection again, relevance.

THE COURT: Overruled. Goes to bias.

MR. COCHRAN: Did the ending--was it a pleasant ending, sir?

MR. MERAZ: In my opinion, no, it wasn't a pleasant ending. She had to work there and I had to continue to work there.

MR. COCHRAN: Both of you continued to work at that location after that?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: That is the man that owns this particular business?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Bob Jones works for the owner, right?

MR. MERAZ: He is the manager, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. In the course of your conversation with Mr. Jones, did he ask you a question about these vouchers or these receipts?

MR. MERAZ: He asked me about the vouchers, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And what did you tell him, if anything?

MR. MERAZ: I denied it.

MR. COCHRAN: You lied to him?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: And why did you lie to him?

MR. MERAZ: I was on thin ice and no matter what I said he was going to come down on me.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. When you say you were on thin ice, what do you mean by that?

MR. MERAZ: Well, a few days prior to this I had said a few words--

MS. CLARK: Objection, hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: Some incident occurred a few days before?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Had it involved you and Mr. Jones?

MR. MERAZ: No.

MR. COCHRAN: Or some other employee?

MR. MERAZ: Some other employee there.

MR. COCHRAN: And had you talked to him about that incident? Had you been called on the carpet regarding that incident?

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor, calls for hearsay, relevance.

THE COURT: It is leading. Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

MR. COCHRAN: There had been some incident that preceded this; is that correct?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. And so after you talked to him, you denied having removed these receipts or vouchers. Tell us what happened after that.

MR. MERAZ: He asked me--he said to me, he says that he had had word from other employees there that I had taken these papers out of the car and I denied it. I says, "I don't know anything about it." He says, well--he says, "I have this information." I says, "Well, whatever you got, I don't know what you are talking about." And he asked me to empty my pockets out.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Did you do that at that point?

MR. MERAZ: No, I refused to.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Then what happened after that?

MR. MERAZ: He said I was suspended.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, at that point, when you were talking to him, what time of evening was this on June 15th?

MR. MERAZ: Ten to 6:00.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Had you replaced those vouchers or receipts back into the Bronco at that point?

MR. MERAZ: They were already replaced back into the vehicle.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. But you still wouldn't let him look into your pockets?

MR. MERAZ: Right.

MR. COCHRAN: After that he suspended you?

MR. MERAZ: After that he suspended me, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: That is June 15th?

MR. MERAZ: June 15th.

MR. COCHRAN: Right before six o'clock in the afternoon?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. After you were suspended, what happened after that?

MR. MERAZ: Well, it was a nightmare to me, I mean, working there all those years.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

MR. MERAZ: I got home.

MR. COCHRAN: So you were suspended as of that date; is that correct?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Thereafter did you have occasion to go back to that lot on or about June 17th, 1994, two days later?

MR. MERAZ: Yes. He called me, I believe it was Thursday, which would be the 16th.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

MR. MERAZ: And said that him and myself and Bob Jones and Mr. Viertel's would be in conference.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. There would be three of you in conference?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. When was that? Was there a meeting set up at that point?

MR. MERAZ: Yes. This was for the 17th of June.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And did you--did you appear on the 17th of June?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: And do you recall--and tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury about what time it was that you got there on the 17th of June.

MR. MERAZ: It might have been about 10:30 in the morning.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. When you got there, where did you go, if you recall?

MR. MERAZ: I went directly to bob's office, but prior of me going to bob's office I had noticed that the Bronco had been moved again.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, the Bronco--you told us about it being at the point of T-3. You told us where it was generally at T-2. Now, it had been moved for a third time since it was at Viertel's; is that right?

MR. MERAZ: That's right.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you know who had moved it?

MR. MERAZ: No, I was there.

MR. COCHRAN: Can you--if Mr. Harris puts that arrow up there, can you show us the third parking place for the Bronco, if he moves the arrow down. Still in the T-2 area, right?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

MR. MERAZ: Okay. That is where it was the first time. The second time, if you will move that arrow to my left. Keep going. It was--no. Now go--basically the same location as to where the marking of T-2 is, but directly across.

MR. COCHRAN: Across from--

MR. MERAZ: Across from where the--the orange letter is in there, T-2. Right in there is where it was put in, (Indicating).

MR. COCHRAN: This is--is that heading north? Is that north?

MR. MERAZ: That would be the west side of the building.

MR. COCHRAN: West side of the building? All right. Your Honor, can we put a mark there and put "J.M." This point would be the point where the third--the third parking space of the Bronco, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. COCHRAN: 1254, I believe.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, at that time did you have occasion to go with Mr. Jones and someone else to that vehicle at that point?

MR. MERAZ: Well, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Tell us what happened.

MR. MERAZ: After we had discussed the things in Bob Jones' office, Viertel walked out, I walked out and Bob walked out, all three of us walked out of there to go look into the Bronco.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And prior to your walking to this point on 1254, the parking place of the Bronco, you had had a conversation with the owner of Viertel's and Bob Jones and yourself; is that right?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: How long did that conversation last?

MR. MERAZ: Fifteen to twenty minutes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And after--after that conversation you then walked out of the office over to T-2; is that right?

MR. MERAZ: Well, bob's office is basically in T-2.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

MR. MERAZ: So we walked out of his office.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Now, before we get to the Bronco, with regard to T-2, is--T-2 you have described for the cars that are in there. That is a place where cars are placed where there is some kind of a hold or for some special care?

MR. MERAZ: Yes. Normally 99, a hundred percent of the cars that are towed that have an evidentiary hold on the vehicles, hold for prints or further investigation, they are normally put in there, kept away from the public.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. That is a more secure facility than T-3?

MR. MERAZ: It is supposed to be secured.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Well, is it in actuality? Was it secured?

MS. CLARK: Objection, calls for speculation.

MR. COCHRAN: I'm asking.

MS. CLARK: Conclusion.

THE COURT: Rephrase the question.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Based upon your experience and having worked there for a period of time, tell us about the security regarding at T-2 in that particular building.

MR. MERAZ: Describe it or--

MR. COCHRAN: Yes. Describe it, sir, and how it worked.

MR. MERAZ: Well, cars coming in, you've got the front door that if somebody comes in, there is a button that is raised that lifts the gate up. On the back end of the garage the mechanics work there. On the side, which would be on the east side of the building, there is a door there where the driver's room is. There is a door there. A lot of times a lot of customers would come in there. Not being escorted, they would come through there, catch us napping there, eating lunch or whatever, and we say, "What are you doing here?" "Well, I come to use the toilet."

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So would the fifty or so employees at Viertel's, would they have access to T-2 also, that area?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Objection. That again calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: Could they just come in and out?

MR. MERAZ: Well, anybody could come in and go out.

MR. COCHRAN: And that is T-2 also?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, with regard to the vehicle and where it was parked, tell us what happened with regard to that, between you, Bob Jones and Viertel?

MR. MERAZ: I walked out of bob's office and we were walking in T-2 towards the Bronco. Viertel came with us. Bob came with--he was standing next to me. There was two detectives that were in the building, but in the portion of where the drivers eat is where the detectives were. Bob said, "There's two detectives" and Viertel went one way and Bob and I continued going toward the Bronco.

MR. COCHRAN: Is that to kind of throw off the detectives?

MR. MERAZ: Exactly.

MS. CLARK: Objection, speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Ask the jury to--

MR. COCHRAN: Well--

THE COURT: Wait.

MR. COCHRAN: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: The jury is to disregard the last question and answer.

MR. COCHRAN: Why did you do that?

MR. MERAZ: Well, Bob didn't want to make it obvious that we were going towards the Bronco.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

MS. CLARK: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained. The answer is stricken. The jury is to disregard.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

MR. COCHRAN: At any rate, did you have some conversation with Bob about how you would get to that Bronco?

MR. MERAZ: Well, we when were going to the Bronco we didn't think the detectives would be in there.

MS. CLARK: Objection again. Calls for speculation, "We."

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

THE COURT: The answer is stricken.

MR. COCHRAN: At any rate, you got to the Bronco at some point; is that correct?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: When you got there were there any detectives around the vehicle at that point?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: When you got there the detectives were around that vehicle?

MR. MERAZ: No.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And did you have occasion to get inside the vehicle or to look inside the vehicle at that point?

MR. MERAZ: I opened the door to the Bronco.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, is this--which time is this? This is time number?

MR. MERAZ: Fourth time.

MR. COCHRAN: The fourth time?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. The vehicle is still unlocked?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Describe for us what you did when you opened the vehicle.

MR. MERAZ: I opened the door and Bob says to me like, "Hurry up," because of the detectives being there. And I said--

MS. CLARK: Objection. Same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained. The answer is stricken in its entirety. The jury is to disregard. Ask another question.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. After you opened the door--don't tell us what Bob said. You opened the door and then what happened?

MR. MERAZ: I opened the door. I said, "They are not there."

MR. COCHRAN: What do you mean they are not there? What are you talking about?

MR. MERAZ: Referring to the papers that I had removed from there--from the Bronco.

MR. COCHRAN: The papers that you had put back in there?

MR. MERAZ: Exactly.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And you didn't see them at that point; is that right?

MR. MERAZ: I didn't see them in there, no.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you know who had taken them after you put them back?

MR. MERAZ: No, I don't.

MS. CLARK: Objection. That calls for speculation that anyone took them.

THE COURT: Sustained. Tardy, though. Go ahead.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you go back to the same area where you placed these vouchers back yourself?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: And did you see them there at that location?

MR. MERAZ: No, I did not.

MR. COCHRAN: Had they been there when you last left that vehicle on June 15th in the afternoon?

MR. MERAZ: They were last there, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: They were not there now; is that right?

MR. MERAZ: They were not there now.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, after that, after you didn't see these vouchers there, what happened after that, sir?

MR. MERAZ: Bob and I walked back to his office.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, at that point you were on suspension; is that correct?

MR. MERAZ: Well, he called it investigating is what he called it.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Then after you--after your conversation with him on the 17th were you still on suspension or was your status changed?

MR. MERAZ: I was going to go on vacation and he knew I was going to go on vacation. He says, well--

MS. CLARK: Objection, hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

MR. COCHRAN: You were about to go on vacation you just told us?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Let me ask you this: Without telling us what Bob Jones said, at that point did you go on vacation?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: Were you being paid for the time on vacation, if you know?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So you went on vacation? You had this paid vacation coming, right?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And while you were out on vacation did you have occasion to come back to Viertel's sometime in or around June 11th of 1994?

MR. MERAZ: I returned back July 11th.

MR. COCHRAN: Did I say June 11th?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: I meant July 11th, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: On or about July 11th, 1994? Tell us what happened on July 11th.

MR. MERAZ: I was due back July 11th and I had called on a Friday prior to July 11th and I wanted to take an extra week of vacation, and while Bob had me on the telephone he says, "Oh, by the way, I need to talk to you."

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Did you make arrangements to come down and see Mr. Bob Jones after that?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And when--do you recall when you came in on that date?

MR. MERAZ: I went back July 11th.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And what time of the day was that, if you recall?

MR. MERAZ: It was about 10:30, eleven o'clock in the morning.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And did you come to Bob Jones' office?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you recall whether or not you saw the Bronco at all on that day?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, I seen the Bronco.

MR. COCHRAN: And where--was it parked in the same point as we indicated there, 1254, with the magenta arrow there?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Still the same place now?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Did you go over to it on that occasion?

MR. MERAZ: No. I didn't go to the Bronco, no.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You went to Bob Jones' office?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And did you have a conversation with him?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: And did your employment status change as of that day?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, it did.

MR. COCHRAN: And what happened to you?

MR. MERAZ: I was terminated.

MR. COCHRAN: And have you worked there since that date at all?

MR. MERAZ: No, I haven't.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, I notice that you have two lawyers with you today, and have you brought some kind of a lawsuit against Viertel's?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, I did. I filled a wrongful termination.

MR. COCHRAN: And are these gentleman who are seated back over to my right, are they representing you in that lawsuit?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, they are.

MR. COCHRAN: That matter is still pending now; is that right?

MR. MERAZ: Still pending, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, on any of the occasions when you had occasion to either tow the car or be around the car, did you have occasion to look at or make note of the physical condition of this particular car?

MR. MERAZ: Are we--the Bronco?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes, the Bronco we are talking about when you first picked it up at the print shed.

MR. MERAZ: There was an inventory that was made of the vehicle on the date I picked it up.

MR. COCHRAN: That would have been on June 15th; is that correct?

MR. MERAZ: That is correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you fill that inventory out or did someone else?

MR. MERAZ: I had started the impound sheet there.

MR. COCHRAN: Is that on the form that I previously showed you, 1253?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And, umm--

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. COCHRAN: If I might approach again, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: This is a copy of 1253 I will place before you. Is there a place on here where you can show us where you started the inventory of that vehicle?

MR. MERAZ: I didn't start the inventory. I started the impound sheet.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. All right. Was there a place for an inventory of the vehicle, though?

MR. MERAZ: Yes. On the middle of the--of the impound sheet there is an inventory of the vehicle. Indicates "Seat front," so forth.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Did you have occasion to look at that particular vehicle to see whether or not it had any kind of damage?

MR. MERAZ: When I towed it in the vehicle had no damage at all.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You made a visual observation to determine that yourself?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, I did. And for me to sign my name on this, I have to go through that vehicle and inspect it myself and then put my signature. Any damage done to that vehicle I'm responsible for.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you do that in this case?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: And you didn't see any damage; is that correct?

MR. MERAZ: I didn't see any damage at all.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. At any time later did you ever see any damage to that particular vehicle at all?

MR. MERAZ: There was no damage on that vehicle when I left it there.

MR. COCHRAN: When you last dealt with it; is that right?

MR. MERAZ: That's right.

(Brief pause.)

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

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

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I need to perhaps mark I think two paragraphs, 1254-A, the printout, and I think there is also a 1254-B, if the Court pleases.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: One last question.

THE COURT: One is T-2 location no. 1 and one is T-2 location no. 2, correct?

MR. COCHRAN: That is correct, your Honor. Thank you.

(Deft's 1254-A for id = photograph/printout)

(Deft's 1254-B for id = photograph/printout)

MR. COCHRAN: You indicated that based upon this inventory, whatever, you didn't see any damage to the vehicle and--other than the--what you have described for us where the carpeting was cut out on the driver's side; is that right?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Very well. I have nothing further of this witness.

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK

MS. CLARK: Good morning, Mr. Meraz.

MR. MERAZ: Good morning.

MS. CLARK: Now, as you stated, sir, when Mr. Jones first confronted you with having taken those receipts from the Bronco, you lied, didn't you?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And you told him you took nothing from the Bronco, didn't you?

MR. MERAZ: He asked me about the papers.

MS. CLARK: And you said you did not take them?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: But you had?

MR. MERAZ: This is true.

MS. CLARK: And you put them in your pocket?

MR. MERAZ: Shirt.

MS. CLARK: Shirt pocket, yes?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And then later on--and then he asked you to remove the contents of your pocket, didn't he?

MR. MERAZ: He did.

MS. CLARK: And you refused?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And you refused because you had those receipts in your shirt pocket, didn't you?

MR. MERAZ: No, I didn't.

MS. CLARK: But you refused to empty your pocket for him, didn't you?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And after you lied to Bob Jones and you refused to remove the contents of your pockets, he suspended you; isn't that right?

MR. MERAZ: Suspended me, yes.

MS. CLARK: Now, when you went back to the Bronco on June the 17th you went with Mr. Viertel and you went with Mr. Jones; isn't that right?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Now, again on that date you were confronted by Mr. Viertel about having taken something from the Bronco, correct?

MR. MERAZ: Correct.

MS. CLARK: And you lied again, didn't you?

MR. MERAZ: No, I didn't.

MS. CLARK: When Mr. Viertel confronted you at first on June the 17th and asked you if you took something from the Bronco you said you did not?

MR. MERAZ: That is not true.

MS. CLARK: Mr. Meraz, let me remind you--well, let me first ask you something else. Before you came to this trial, to this courtroom today and yesterday, you testified at a pretrial hearing, didn't you?

MR. MERAZ: Correct.

MS. CLARK: And at that hearing you testified about many of the same things you've testified here in court to, correct?

MR. MERAZ: Correct.

MS. CLARK: I'm going to show counsel page 5389.

MR. COCHRAN: Which one?

MS. CLARK: 5389.

MR. COCHRAN: I think I have different numbers, your Honor. May I walk over there?

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

MS. CLARK: May the record reflect I'm showing it to Mr. Meraz' attorneys as well as to Mr. Cochran.

THE COURT: Yes. Proceed.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Proceed.

MS. CLARK: I'm going to show you the page of a transcript--before I do, it is your testimony at this point that when you went in to see Mr. Viertel and Mr. Jones on June the 17th and they asked you again whether you took anything from the side pocket of the Bronco, you said no, you continued to lie?

MR. MERAZ: That is not true.

MS. CLARK: Do you recall them showing you statements written out by other employees who saw you with those receipts taken from the Bronco?

MR. MERAZ: I remember them showing them to me, yes.

MS. CLARK: And do you also recall, sir, that it was only after they showed you that written statement that said they saw you with the receipt that you took out of the Bronco that you admitted that it was true?

MR. MERAZ: That is not true. That is not true.

MS. CLARK: All right. Mr. Meraz, do you recall being asked the following questions at the pretrial hearing in this matter, page 5389. "You phoned Viertel two days later on June the 17th, did you not? "Answer: Correct. "Question: On that date you met with Mr. Richard Viertel and Bob Jones; is that correct? "Answer: That's true. "Question: And once again on that date you were asked by Mr. Viertel this time if you had removed any items from the Ford Bronco; is that correct? "Answer: That's correct. "And at first you denied taking anything out of the Bronco; isn't that right? "Answer: That is not true. "At first you denied taking anything from the Ford Bronco, did you not? "Answer: At first, yes."

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I don't think that is impeaching. The answer is confusing.

THE COURT: Overruled. Question. Do you have a question?

MS. CLARK: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Now, do you recall at first denying it to Mr. Viertel and then admitting it only after he showed you written statements of the other employees who saw you holding the receipts that you stole from the Bronco?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, may I--

THE COURT: Rephrase the question.

MR. COCHRAN: May I show something to counsel, in fairness?

MR. MERAZ: That is misleading there.

MS. CLARK: I'm asking a question, sir.

MS. CLARK: Do you remember that, sir?

MR. COCHRAN: Okay.

MR. MERAZ: It didn't happen.

MS. CLARK: It didn't happen?

THE COURT: Hold on. There is an objection.

MR. COCHRAN: I have an objection, your Honor. I would like to show the Court something on the record with regard to the transcript.

THE COURT: Miss Clark. Show it to Miss Clark first.

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

THE COURT: All right. Proceed.

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

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I have an objection with regard to this.

THE COURT: Noted. Thank you. Proceed.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

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

THE COURT: Proceed.

MS. CLARK: Then it is your testimony that when you testified at the pretrial hearing you did not admit that you initially lied to Mr. Viertel again on June the 17th?

MR. MERAZ: When Mr. Hodgman questioned me I had told him--

MS. CLARK: The answer requires yes or no, Mr. Meraz.

MR. COCHRAN: May the witness be allowed to answer?

THE COURT: We all don't get to talk at the same time.

MR. COCHRAN: May the witness be allowed to finish his answer?

THE COURT: He is allowed to finish his answer.

MR. MERAZ: When Mr. Hodgman talked to me--

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. This is nonresponsive.

THE COURT: I don't know if it is or not. I haven't heard the question.

MS. CLARK: It requires a yes or no.

THE COURT: No, it doesn't. He is entitled to explain his answer. Mr. Meraz, answer the question, please.

MR. MERAZ: When Mr. Hodgman asked me the same question that you had asked me, we were talking about Bob Jones, that I had lied to him, and then he came right back and asked me the same thing that you did. I said no, I never lied to Bob or Viertel on the second day, so I never did.

MS. CLARK: So it is your testimony now that you only lied on the first day; is that right?

MR. COCHRAN: Object on the form of the question now. That is argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: Is that your testimony, sir?

MR. MERAZ: I lied to Bob.

MS. CLARK: Is that your testimony?

MR. MERAZ: That is my testimony.

MS. CLARK: And your testimony is currently that you did not lie again to Mr. Viertel and Mr. Jones on the 17th? Is that your testimony?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: But nevertheless, you do recall being shown written statements of your fellow employees who said they saw you with the receipts that you stole from the Bronco?

MR. MERAZ: I never read those statements.

MS. CLARK: You saw them, didn't you?

MR. MERAZ: Well, they were papers shown to me like this.

MS. CLARK: But you claim you didn't read them?

MR. MERAZ: I didn't read them. No, I didn't.

MS. CLARK: But it was after you were shown those statements that you submitted a statement admitting to having taken the papers out of the Bronco; isn't that right?

MR. MERAZ: That is not right.

MS. CLARK: Did you see the statement that you wrote out for Mr. Viertel?

MR. MERAZ: Excuse me?

MS. CLARK: Did you see the statement that you wrote out for Mr. Viertel?

MR. MERAZ: That I wrote out for Viertel?

MS. CLARK: Yes.

MR. MERAZ: I don't remember me writing a statement to Viertel.

MS. CLARK: You don't recall that? All right. We have time. I'm going to pull that up and show you and I'm going to ask you to identify that. Is that your handwriting?

MR. MERAZ: Okay.

MS. CLARK: Come you, don't recall Mr. Viertel, however, asking you to furnish him with a written statement concerning your position in this matter?

MR. MERAZ: I don't recall that.

MS. CLARK: You don't recall that?

MR. MERAZ: I don't recall ever me signing any statement.

MS. CLARK: You don't recall ever signing a statement concerning your theft of the receipts from the Bronco?

MR. MERAZ: I don't recall that, unless you got something.

MS. CLARK: Oh, you mean you will change your testimony if I show you something?

MR. MERAZ: That is not what I'm saying.

MS. CLARK: What is your testimony, sir? Did you write something out like that or not?

MR. MERAZ: I don't recall myself doing that.

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

MS. CLARK: Now, when you went to the Bronco on the 17th and looked in the side pocket where you said--where you claimed you had put the receipt back, they were not there, correct?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And in fact they never did turn up again; isn't that correct?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And these attorneys, these two attorneys that are sitting here are representing you in your wrongful termination suit?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: You need two attorneys for that, do you, sir?

MR. COCHRAN: I object to that. Improper question.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: So you are looking to get some money out of Viertel for what you claim to be a wrongful termination; is that right?

MR. MERAZ: Not necessarily true.

MS. CLARK: You are not seeking money?

MR. MERAZ: (No audible response.)

MS. CLARK: You are not seeking money in your wrongful termination suit, are you, Mr. Meraz? Is that it?

MR. MERAZ: If it come my way, yes, I will take it.

MS. CLARK: Have you filed legal papers in your wrongful termination suit, Mr. Meraz?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And do those legal papers ask for money from Viertel's for being wrongfully fired?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, assume facts a not in evidence. There may be other things that are asked.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MERAZ: I haven't seen any dollars signs on those papers yet because I don't know what we are suing for.

MS. CLARK: Don't those pleadings indicate that you are going to be asking for monetary damages in some amount, if not currently known, then an amount that will be determined at a later time?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: So you expect to get money, do you not?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: From the wrongful termination suit?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, Mr. Meraz. And if you testify here in court today that you took those receipts and you kept them and you never put them back in the Bronco, you will lose that suit, won't you, Mr. Meraz?

MR. COCHRAN: Objected to, your Honor. That is a legal conclusion.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MS. CLARK: In isn't it true, Mr. Meraz, that your lawyers are sitting here to make sure that you never admit to having put those papers back in the Bronco, that you never admit to stealing those papers?

MR. COCHRAN: I object to the form of the question.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained to the form of the question. The jury is to disregard the implication of that question.

MS. CLARK: Mr. Meraz, are you concerned that if you admit to us here today that you stole those receipts from the Bronco and never put them back, that you will lose your wrongful termination suit?

MR. MERAZ: I didn't take them.

MS. CLARK: Could you please answer my question.

MR. MERAZ: I didn't take them.

MS. CLARK: You did take them out of the Bronco, sir, didn't you?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: You did put them in your pocket, didn't you?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And when you were asked on that very same day that you took them out of the Bronco and put them in your pocket, to empty your pockets, you refused, didn't you?

MR. MERAZ: I sure did.

MS. CLARK: Thank you. Are you concerned, sir, that if you admit that you never put those receipts back in the Bronco that you will lose your wrongful termination suit?

MR. COCHRAN: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MERAZ: I didn't quite follow. Do you want to repeat that again, please.

MS. CLARK: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Are you concerned that if you admit that you took those receipts out of the Bronco and never returned them you will lose your wrongful termination suit?

MR. MERAZ: All I know is that I put those papers back in there.

MS. CLARK: Can you answer my question, sir?

MR. MERAZ: I assume, yes.

MS. CLARK: Now, when you picked up the Bronco on June the 15th you picked it up from the print shed; is that correct?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And the print shed is a big tin building that is enclosed that has doors that close off; isn't that correct?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And there is a guard shack in which a police officer is posted to guard the vehicles kept in that print shack; isn't that right?

MR. MERAZ: I have never seen a guard there.

MS. CLARK: Didn't you just testify on direct that you spoke to the guard and told him who you were and he let you in?

MR. MERAZ: The guard shack is across the street at 150 North San Pedro. That is where the guard shack is.

MS. CLARK: And you had to make contact with the person in that guard shack in order to get to the print shed; isn't that right?

MR. MERAZ: I was directed to get there.

MS. CLARK: Didn't you make--didn't you have to make contact with the person in the guard shack to be let into the print shed, sir?

MR. MERAZ: Most of the time when we arrive.

MS. CLARK: I'm asking about June the 15th?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Thank you. And the Bronco was inside the print shack, wasn't it?

MR. MERAZ: Away from the guard shack, yes.

MS. CLARK: It was inside the print shack, wasn't it?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Now, when you saw that Bronco for the first time on June the 15th you noticed that a floor mat had been missing, correct?

MR. MERAZ: Correct.

MS. CLARK: Which caused you to conclude, as you testified on direct, that evidence had already been removed from the Bronco at the print shack, correct?

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: Misstates the evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And as a matter of fact, aren't you also aware that blood had already been removed by Dennis Fung on June the 14th at the print shack?

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

THE COURT: Sustained. Foundation.

MS. CLARK: You did not see the Bronco on the 14th; is that correct?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: You did not see the Bronco on the 13th either; is that correct?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: When you went over to the Bronco, sir, can you describe to us how you opened the door?

MR. MERAZ: Which time are you asking me on this?

MS. CLARK: I'm talking about the first time you saw it on the 15th.

MR. MERAZ: Hum, I backed the car out, brought it out, got out from the driver's side of the tow truck and walked up to it.

MS. CLARK: Okay. You walked up to the Bronco for the purpose of preparing the hookup; is that right?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And you were going to leave some paperwork in the car as well, weren't you?

MR. MERAZ: I never left any paperwork in the car.

MS. CLARK: Never put any paperwork inside the car?

MR. MERAZ: Never did.

MS. CLARK: What did you do when you first approached the Bronco itself?

MR. MERAZ: When I pulled it out?

MS. CLARK: You indicated to us on direct, sir, that you went over and went inside the Bronco in some manner when it was in the print shack?

MR. MERAZ: I didn't go into the--into the Bronco in the print shack; it was when I brought it out.

MS. CLARK: So you first hooked it up and pulled it out of the print shack?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And you did not open the driver's door at all while it was inside the print shack; is that right?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: After you pulled it out of the print shack you then went into the Bronco itself?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And did you do that by entering through the driver's side door?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And you used your left hand to open the handle?

MR. MERAZ: Might have used my right hand.

MS. CLARK: Is that what you do when you go to the driver's side of a door?

MR. COCHRAN: Object, your Honor, to the form of the question. He answered the question. Object.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: Just picture what you did. You went over to the driver's side of the car to open the door. Do you have a picture in your mind of the way that handle looked?

MR. MERAZ: I have a picture of it, yes.

MS. CLARK: What kind of handle is it, Mr. Meraz?

MR. MERAZ: Oh, it is a handle where you stick your hand and pull up on it and it pulls out.

MS. CLARK: Okay. You used your right hand to open it?

MR. MERAZ: Left.

MS. CLARK: Left hand.

MR. MERAZ: Correction, left.

MS. CLARK: And when you used your left hand to open the door, that driver's side door, you didn't see any blood on the door?

MR. MERAZ: When I opened it?

MS. CLARK: Right.

MR. MERAZ: I looked at the door.

MS. CLARK: And did you see any blood?

MR. MERAZ: I didn't see any.

MS. CLARK: Did you ever see any blood on the driver's side of that door?

MR. MERAZ: I didn't see any blood. I didn't see any.

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

MS. CLARK: All right. Then you got inside and you put both hands on the steering wheel; is that right?

MR. MERAZ: I had both hands on the steering wheel, yes.

MS. CLARK: And did you touch the console area, that is the armrest between the passenger and the driver's side?

MR. MERAZ: I don't think I did.

MS. CLARK: Did you look at the console area?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Did you look carefully at the console area, sir?

MR. MERAZ: I took a glance of it.

MS. CLARK: Well, you got into the car again on the second occasion, correct?

MR. MERAZ: Correct.

MS. CLARK: On that same day?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: June the 15th we are talking about, right?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And you looked at the console area specifically again that second time you got into the Bronco on June the 15th?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And you looked carefully because you were looking for blood; is that right?

MR. MERAZ: That's right.

MS. CLARK: Have you ever testified before that you were looking carefully for blood?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of that question, your Honor. That is unfair. Maybe he wasn't asked that question. That is unfair.

THE COURT: Sustained. It is a speaking objection.

MS. CLARK: Did you ever tell your lawyers or anyone else, before you came to court or met with Mr. Cochran, that you were specifically looking carefully for blood in that car?

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MERAZ: That I was specifically looking for blood?

MS. CLARK: Right.

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Who was the first person you told that you were specifically looking carefully for blood when you got into the Bronco on June the 15th?

MR. MERAZ: The employee there at the yard.

MS. CLARK: At Viertel's?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Let me show you again the--

THE COURT: 1254.

MS. CLARK: 1254, your Honor, Defense 1254.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: I believe this is 1254-B.

MS. CLARK: Is it b?

MS. CLARK: Do you see the marker called T-3?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: I notice you had to put your glasses on, Mr. Meraz. Do you use them for driving?

MR. MERAZ: For reading.

MS. CLARK: Only reading?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: I also noticed that you are using them to look at the monitor, correct?

MR. MERAZ: (No audible response.)

MS. CLARK: Are you unable to see the marker T-3 without your glasses, sir?

MR. MERAZ: If I got up here and looked, oh, I could see it. From there to there I could look at it. From here close up I can't see. That is why I have them. Care to look?

MS. CLARK: Mr. Meraz, what color is that marker, T-3?

MR. MERAZ: That marker right there that you are just pointing at right now?

MS. CLARK: Yeah.

MR. MERAZ: Pinkish color.

MS. CLARK: Pinkish?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: You are colorblind, aren't you, Mr. Meraz?

MR. COCHRAN: Object, your Honor. That is magenta or pink. I object to the form of that question.

MS. CLARK: Aren't you?

MR. MERAZ: I don't think I am.

MS. CLARK: Do you think that is pink?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, that is argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: Are you talking about the arrow or are you talking about the dot that is marked T-3?

MR. MERAZ: About the arrow which is what you wanted, right?

MS. CLARK: No, I said the dot, T-3.

MR. MERAZ: That is green.

MS. CLARK: All right.

MR. COCHRAN: Just a moment, your Honor. I think that is unfair.

THE COURT: Speaks for itself.

MS. CLARK: When you first pulled the Bronco over to the area marked as T-3, was that because somebody told you to leave I there until they made space in T-2?

MR. MERAZ: No.

MS. CLARK: Sir, isn't it true that there was a Mr. Sal Gutierrez there waiting to move it into the secure area known as T-2 and that they had to make room for it, that is why you left it there in T-3?

MR. MERAZ: Sal or Saul, which he is called there at the yard, I told him that I would leave it there and he could do whatever he want with it later.

MS. CLARK: You don't know how quickly he moved it into T-2 because you left; isn't that true?

MR. MERAZ: That's true.

MS. CLARK: You left immediately after you pulled into T-3; isn't that true?

MR. MERAZ: Fifteen, ten minutes alter I might have left.

MS. CLARK: When you came back after going on the out call the car was in T-2, the secure area; isn't that right?

MR. MERAZ: When I came back, yes, it was in T-2.

MS. CLARK: And T-2 is the area where you keep cars that are to be held for evidentiary hold; isn't that right sir?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Regardless of what is on that paperwork, this car was in that area, wasn't it?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: I want to show you some photographs, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: May I see those?

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

MS. CLARK: Now, you indicated, did you not, sir, that you could not see any print dust on the car at all, correct?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And now again you were looking very carefully for that print dust; is that right?

MR. MERAZ: You could see it, if it is obvious. If it is on the car, you could see it.

MS. CLARK: You know what it looks like; is that right?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Were you looking carefully for print dust that day?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And you didn't see any, correct?

MR. MERAZ: I didn't see any.

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

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, I have here a photograph I would ask to be marked People's next in order.

THE COURT: 528.

MS. CLARK: 528?

THE COURT: Yes.

(Peo's 528 for id = photograph)

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

THE COURT: Proceed.

MS. CLARK: Showing you People's 528, can we zoom in? First of all, wait. Let's back up for a second. You recognize the location that is shown in this photograph, sir? That is the print shack, isn't it?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, it is.

MS. CLARK: And you recognize that car, of course? That is the Bronco, isn't it?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And that is where you picked up the Bronco on June the 15th, isn't it?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And in fact that was the position it was in when you hooked it up to your tow truck and pulled it out, correct?

MR. MERAZ: Correct.

MS. CLARK: Zoom in.

MS. CLARK: What do you see there on the door, Mr. Meraz?

MR. MERAZ: Powder.

MS. CLARK: Like print dust?

MR. MERAZ: Looks like print dust, yes.

MS. CLARK: That is the print dust that you didn't see when you picked it up on June the 15th from the print shack where it is shown in this photograph?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: I would like to print the close-up, your Honor, and ask that it be marked People's 528-A.

THE COURT: 528-A.

(Peo's 528-A for id = photograph)

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

MS. CLARK: Now, you also indicate, sir, that there were no keys to the Bronco when you saw it on June the 15th, correct?

MR. MERAZ: Correct.

MS. CLARK: In fact, there never were any keys that you saw that went to that Bronco, were there?

MR. MERAZ: I didn't see any.

MS. CLARK: In fact, sir, were you aware of the fact that on June the 14th officers had to use a slimjim to break into the car?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I object to the form of that question. Improper, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained. The objection is foundation, counsel.

MR. COCHRAN: Foundational.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: You indicate that you had to examine the car carefully for any damage, correct?

MR. MERAZ: Correct.

MS. CLARK: And any damage would also include any kind of evidence of tampering or break-in of that car, correct?

MR. MERAZ: Damage that is obvious is what we indicate, able to see with the eye.

MS. CLARK: So if there is some minor scratches or dings on the car that are very small, that is not noted as damage, correct?

MR. MERAZ: Dents and scratches.

MS. CLARK: If there are minor scratches, do you note that on the form?

MR. MERAZ: Scratches, dents and scratches, that comes on that category.

MS. CLARK: When you do that, do you attempt to find out whether any of those scratches were perhaps put on there by law enforcement personnel in the course of dealing with the car?

MR. MERAZ: (No audible response.)

MS. CLARK: Wouldn't that be important to know?

MR. MERAZ: There wasn't any dent scratches that I noticed.

MS. CLARK: That you noticed?

MR. MERAZ: Right.

MS. CLARK: So the condition that you see the Bronco in in this photograph, People's 528--you can back out--that is the condition in which you saw it; is that correct, sir?

MR. MERAZ: When I pulled it out of there, correct.

MS. CLARK: Can we go back into the handle.

MS. CLARK: You indicated to us a couple of minutes ago that this was a pull handle; isn't that right?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Is that a pull handle, sir?

MR. MERAZ: One you go up and come out. Evidently not from that. Push a button. I was wrong.

MS. CLARK: You were wrong about the print dust, too, weren't you, sir?

MR. MERAZ: I see the print there--the powder there, yeah. I see that now.

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

MS. CLARK: Of course you weren't wearing your glasses on that date when you went to hook up the car, were you?

MR. COCHRAN: Assumes a fact not in evidence, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MERAZ: I had them, yes.

MS. CLARK: Were you wearing them?

MR. MERAZ: To make out the impound sheet, yes.

MS. CLARK: Were you wearing them when you examined the car carefully for blood, as you've testified?

MR. MERAZ: I wasn't wearing them, no.

MS. CLARK: Were you wearing them when you examined the car to look for print dust?

MR. MERAZ: No.

MS. CLARK: Now, did you attempt to ascertain whether any officers had been required to use a slimjim to open the locked door of that Bronco on June the 14th in order to more accurately fill out your impound sheet?

MR. MERAZ: I don't believe I had asked how they got in.

MS. CLARK: Did you ever find out?

MR. MERAZ: No. I wasn't there long enough.

MS. CLARK: I'm sorry?

MR. MERAZ: I wasn't there long enough.

MS. CLARK: You weren't where long enough?

MR. MERAZ: To find out how they got into it.

MS. CLARK: How long would you have to be there to find out how long--how they got into it?

MR. COCHRAN: Calls for speculation, your Honor.

THE COURT: Let's move on. (Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

THE COURT: Miss Clark, do you have much more?

MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor, I do. Thank you.

MS. CLARK: All right. You've also testified, sir, that you saw some blood in the Bronco, correct?

MR. MERAZ: Correct.

MS. CLARK: We are showing you a photograph now. I think it has been previously marked, your Honor, on the board, but in an abundance of caution I'm going to ask that--

THE COURT: 529.

(Peo's 529 for id = photograph)

MS. CLARK: I would ask you first to look at this photograph without your glasses, sir, People's 529 and tell us if you see any blood?

MR. MERAZ: I see blood up on top, 22. Somewhere down there where 23 is, 21 I don't see any down there. Yes, I do. I see it now.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Are you aware that these photographs were taken--

MR. COCHRAN: Objected to, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Foundation, your Honor. It is already in the evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Do you see that blood there on the door, sir?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Do you know when these photographs were taken?

MR. MERAZ: I have no idea.

MS. CLARK: If they were taken on June the 14th--

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: --that they were taken on June the 14th, sir, before you got to the Bronco on June the 15th, would you admit that you are mistaken about seeing no blood in the Bronco?

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: Argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MERAZ: I didn't see any blood.

MS. CLARK: You are not telling this jury that there was no blood inside the Bronco, are you? You are just telling them you didn't see it?

MR. MERAZ: Telling them I didn't see any blood.

MS. CLARK: And you don't recall seeing the blood that you now see in this photograph?

MR. COCHRAN: Assumes a fact not in evidence, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE COURT: I didn't see that in there.

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

MS. CLARK: People's 530, your Honor. Again I think this is marked on a board already as well.

(Peo's 530 for id = photograph)

MS. CLARK: Tell us if you can see any blood in this photograph, sir?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, I do.

MS. CLARK: Do you see the blood by 31 and 30 there?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, I do.

MS. CLARK: And do you know that these photographs were taken on June the 14th?

MR. MERAZ: No, I don't.

MS. CLARK: But you didn't see this blood either?

MR. MERAZ: I didn't see this either.

MS. CLARK: Were you attempting to look at that particular area, that is, the console area between the driver's and the passenger's seat?

MR. MERAZ: The view I had from the steering wheel half in, half out looking in, is the view I had.

MS. CLARK: All right. So you never looked at the console; is that right?

MR. COCHRAN: Misstates the evidence, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MS. CLARK: Okay.

MS. CLARK: Well, you tell us, sir. Did you look carefully at the console area on the passenger side to see if there was blood?

MR. MERAZ: I had a view of the console.

MS. CLARK: Did you have a view of the passenger side of the console area that is shown in this photograph on June the 15th?

MR. MERAZ: On the right hand side, no, no.

MS. CLARK: Now, on June the 15th, the first time you got into the Bronco, you stated to us that you got in the driver's side?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And you were partially in?

MR. MERAZ: Partially in, yes.

MS. CLARK: And you touched the steering wheel with both hands?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And you checked the emergency brake?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And how did you do that?

MR. MERAZ: With my left hand. I pulled it out.

MS. CLARK: And you did not see any floor mat there, correct?

MR. MERAZ: There was no floor mat, no.

MS. CLARK: Did you sit in the passenger seat, sir?

MR. MERAZ: Half in, half out. Half my body in and out.

MS. CLARK: What were you doing in the passenger side of the car?

MR. MERAZ: I was hanging onto the steering wheel at an angle--you mean the passenger side?

MS. CLARK: Right.

MR. MERAZ: Oh, I wasn't on the passenger side, no, I'm sorry.

MS. CLARK: You only got on the driver's side?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: As a matter of fact, of all three times that you went to the Bronco, you only got to the driver's side of the car; is that correct?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Has it ever happened in your experience, sir, that a car is towed and taken into police custody for which there are no keys?

MR. MERAZ: A lot of times.

MR. COCHRAN: Object, your Honor. That is--

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MERAZ: A lot of times cars come in with no keys.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: And when the cars come in with no keys, you can't lock them, correct?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Because then you couldn't get back to the car, correct?

MR. MERAZ: Correct.

MS. CLARK: And this car was never locked, correct, at least when you saw it?

MR. MERAZ: When I saw it it was never locked.

MS. CLARK: Now, when you got into the Bronco on the first occasion, sir, were you bleeding?

MR. MERAZ: I don't think I was, no.

MS. CLARK: When you got into the car on the second occasion, sir, were you bleeding?

MR. MERAZ: No.

MS. CLARK: And when you got into the car on the third occasion were you bleeding?

MR. MERAZ: No.

MS. CLARK: And when you opened the door to look at the side driver's side pocket with Mr. Jones and Mr. Viertel, were you bleeding?

MR. MERAZ: No.

MS. CLARK: Now, when you looked inside the car on any of the three occasions that you looked, did you notice that the dome lightbulb was missing?

MR. MERAZ: Never paid any attention to it.

MR. COCHRAN: Assumes a fact not in evidence, your Honor. Move to strike.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: Did you ever notice the dome lightbulb underneath the passenger seat of that car?

MR. COCHRAN: Assumes a fact not in evidence, objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: You looked inside the car; is that correct?

MR. MERAZ: Correct.

MS. CLARK: Did you ever see the dome lightbulb anywhere in the car other than--let me ask--did you see the dome lightbulb for that car--by the dome lightbulb, I mean the interior dome lightbulb for that car--anywhere around the floor area of the car?

MR. MERAZ: I wasn't looking for it.

MS. CLARK: Was your answer no then, you didn't see it?

MR. MERAZ: I wasn't looking for it. I--I didn't see it. I wasn't looking for it.

MS. CLARK: It is your job, as you testified earlier, to make some record of the condition of the Bronco, correct?

MR. MERAZ: Correct.

MS. CLARK: And so if the dome light is missing, dome lightbulb is missing from the interior of the car, it would be your job to make a note of that, correct?

MR. COCHRAN: Assumes a fact not in evidence, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: If there is something--

THE COURT: Rephrase the question.

MS. CLARK: Okay.

MS. CLARK: If there is something missing or unusual about the condition of the car, whether it is exterior or interior, it is your job to note that, isn't that correct, and make note of it?

MR. MERAZ: When we make those of vehicles that are towed in, we make notes of radio, hubcaps and damage is on a vehicle. Very rare does anybody pay any attention to light dome.

MS. CLARK: How about if the dome light cover is missing as well as the lightbulb, would that be something that you would take note of?

MR. COCHRAN: Assumes a fact not in evidence, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MERAZ: No.

MS. CLARK: You wouldn't take note of that?

MR. MERAZ: Unless I noticed it.

MR. COCHRAN: Object again, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

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

MS. CLARK: I have a photograph--I have a photograph I would like marked People's 5--

MR. COCHRAN: No objection to marking, but I would like to approach, your Honor, as to the date that photograph was taken. Foundation.

THE COURT: Side bar with the court reporter, please.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, my objection to the photograph is I think that photograph was taken, according to Mr. Scheck, in August or something like that, so it is unfair. I don't know what the condition was. This was June 15th. That wasn't taken by that point. It would be unfair to ask him.

MS. CLARK: No one--someone took that dome light cover or lightbulb off. In fact, it was first discovered by the police when they took the passenger seat out of the car. There is testimony that will be elicited. And I will submit it is subject to a motion, ask the Court receive it subject to a motion to strike. We will lay the foundation for it.

THE COURT: Miss Clark, aren't we wasting a lot of time with this particular aspect, because tow truck drivers aren't going to pay any attention to the inside lights of a car. I'm not saying it is ridiculous, but it is not likely that a tow truck driver is going to pay attention to the dome lights in the car, whether or not they burned out or taken out. They are just interested in the damage that would come from towing.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, the removal of a dome light cover--we are not just talking about a burned out lightbulb here.

THE COURT: I understand.

MS. CLARK: A missing piece.

THE COURT: You can ask him if he noted it, yes or no.

MS. CLARK: Okay.

THE COURT: Then sometime later you will be able to put in the photograph.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, your Honor--

MS. CLARK: But--

THE COURT: He said, "I inspected this car--"

MR. COCHRAN: Yeah. Can I--

THE COURT: --"For blood."

MR. COCHRAN: I asked for this appearance and I just want to indicate--and I agree with you, your Honor, but the other point, we don't know when that was taken. This car was so insecure, isn't that also relevant?

THE COURT: All I'm saying is she can ask did you happen to see if the dome light was there.

MR. COCHRAN: I think we have asked that already.

THE COURT: He said he didn't pay any attention to that.

MR. COCHRAN: That is the point.

THE COURT: But if you ever see blood in a car and the car is moving, the wind in the car blows blood up into the back. I mean, people look at headliners for blood in cars all the time. It is not an uncommon experience if you tow these things. But you don't get to use the photograph with this witness.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Okay.

MS. CLARK: Sir, let me ask you a question about--you indicated you did not notice whether the dome light cover and lightbulb was missing from the interior of the Bronco when you saw it on June the 15th, correct?

MR. MERAZ: Correct.

MS. CLARK: And I take it that when you went back to the Bronco on June the 17th with Mr. Viertel and Mr. Jones, you also made no effort to examine the interior of the Bronco to see whether or not the dome light cover and lightbulb were missing correct?

MR. MERAZ: Correct.

MS. CLARK: Nevertheless, when you opened the car door this light came on, correct?

MR. COCHRAN: Assumes a fact not in evidence, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

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

MR. MERAZ: I don't know if a light came on or not. I don't know.

MS. CLARK: Well, you opened that car door three different times on June the 15th; is that right?

MR. MERAZ: Correct.

MS. CLARK: And you do not recall whether or not a light came on when you opened the door?

MR. MERAZ: I don't recall.

MS. CLARK: Sir, are you aware that this Bronco has no manual control for the interior dome light so that if you want to make sure it doesn't go on when you open the door you have to take out the lightbulb?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the question.

THE COURT: Sustained, sustained, sustained.

MS. CLARK: Are you aware of how the interior lightbulb of the Bronco works, sir?

MR. MERAZ: Never driven a Bronco.

MS. CLARK: And you made no particular effort to see how this one operated, correct?

MR. COCHRAN: Asked and answered, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MERAZ: No keys.

MS. CLARK: And you never did have any keys for that Bronco, correct?

MR. MERAZ: As far as I know there was no keys.

MS. CLARK: Now, when you saw the Bronco inside the T-2 area, that is an enclosed area, correct?

MR. MERAZ: Correct.

MS. CLARK: That is interior, correct?

MR. MERAZ: Building.

MS. CLARK: And on--okay. The first time you went into the Bronco at Viertel's it was in T-3; is that right?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And the second time you went into the Bronco at Viertel's it was in T-2, correct?

MR. MERAZ: Correct.

MS. CLARK: And the third time that you went to the Bronco was with Mr. Viertel and Mr. Jones inside T-2 as well, correct?

MR. MERAZ: (No audible response.)

MS. CLARK: Or was that the fourth time?

MR. MERAZ: That was the fourth time.

MS. CLARK: So at least two of the three times that you went into the Bronco at Viertel's it was an inside enclosed area; isn't that right?

MR. MERAZ: Three of the times, yes, or two of the times.

MS. CLARK: Yeah. There were three times at Viertel's that you went into the Bronco?

MR. MERAZ: Correct.

MS. CLARK: Actually, you went into the Bronco the first time in T-3, correct?

MR. MERAZ: Right.

THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel. Wait, wait, wait. Mr. Cochran did start off the examination first time print shed, so let's not get our numbers mixed up here.

MS. CLARK: Right.

MS. CLARK: Okay. When you went into the Bronco in the print shed, you had pulled it outside already, correct?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: All right. Now, when you got to Viertel's you went into it again at T-3?

MR. MERAZ: Correct.

MS. CLARK: And then when you came--that is when you took the receipts out of the Bronco?

MR. MERAZ: Correct.

MS. CLARK: And then when you came back from your call you went back to the Bronco when it was already in T-2; is that right?

MR. MERAZ: That's right.

MS. CLARK: And at that point it was your testimony that you went back to the Bronco when it was inside T-2 to return the receipts; is that right?

MR. MERAZ: That's right.

MS. CLARK: And you had to make sure that you had returned the receipts to the same place you took them from, correct?

MR. MERAZ: Correct.

MS. CLARK: And so you opened the door and you put them back in the side pocket; is that right?

MR. MERAZ: Correct.

MS. CLARK: And you don't remember whether or not there was a light that illuminated the interior of the car or not?

MR. COCHRAN: Asked and answered, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MERAZ: I wasn't looking for a light.

MS. CLARK: You weren't looking for blood either, were you, sir? You were looking for receipts?

MR. COCHRAN: Asked and answered, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MERAZ: The press had stated earlier that there was blood all over this vehicle and I was curious.

MS. CLARK: So you were making a careful inspection for blood?

MR. COCHRAN: Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MERAZ: Me and the other employees that were there.

MS. CLARK: But you didn't see any of the blood I showed you in the photographs, correct?

MR. MERAZ: No, I didn't see that, correct.

MS. CLARK: You are aware that Officer Thompson testified that he saw blood in the Bronco, correct?

MR. COCHRAN: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained, sustained, sustained.

MS. CLARK: Have you been following this trial on television, sir?

MR. MERAZ: I look at it, yes.

MS. CLARK: And you have been following it since the trial began in January; isn't that right?

MR. MERAZ: Off and on, yes.

MS. CLARK: And you have seen other witnesses whose testimony has dealt with the appearance of the interior of the Bronco, haven't you?

MR. MERAZ: Not all the time, no.

MS. CLARK: Some of them?

MR. MERAZ: Some of them.

MS. CLARK: How about the officers who testified yesterday, Officer Thompson who saw the interior of the Bronco?

MR. COCHRAN: Just a moment. I object to this, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained, sustained. It is compound.

MS. CLARK: Did you see the testimony of Officer Thompson who testified in this courtroom yesterday?

MR. MERAZ: No, I didn't.

MS. CLARK: Did you see Officer Thompson in this court building yesterday?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And did you discuss with him the nature of your testimony?

MR. MERAZ: No.

MS. CLARK: Did you hear what he had to say about his testimony?

MR. MERAZ: Until after I had testified.

MS. CLARK: And after you testified--when after you testified yesterday?

MR. MERAZ: It was on the news.

MS. CLARK: And you watched it on the news, didn't you?

MR. MERAZ: Basically it was just a bit. Not all of it; just a bit.

MS. CLARK: On the news it told--

MR. COCHRAN: Just a moment, your Honor. I object. That is hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

THE COURT: I think the jury recollects what was testified to yesterday. Let's move on.

MS. CLARK: All right. Now, those two receipts that you talk about, do you recall testifying to the dates of those receipts, sir?

MR. MERAZ: Not the date; not.

MS. CLARK: Uh-huh. And what was the month?

MR. MERAZ: March.

MS. CLARK: Of 1994?

MR. MERAZ: This is true.

MS. CLARK: For both of them, correct?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Now, when was the first time that you met with the Defense involved in this case, sir?

MR. MERAZ: The first time?

MS. CLARK: Yes.

MR. MERAZ: I believe before I was going to come to testify, sometime in October.

MS. CLARK: Yes. And do you recall having a meeting with Defense investigators in this case on August 28th?

MR. MERAZ: August 28th?

MS. CLARK: Yes.

MR. MERAZ: Sure, yes.

MS. CLARK: And they came to your house, didn't they, sir?

MR. MERAZ: They sure did.

MS. CLARK: And at that time you had no attorneys present; isn't that right?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And after you had that meeting with Defense investigators in your house, you met with the lawyer for the--one of the lawyers for the Defendant, Mr. Jerry Uelmen; isn't that correct?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And you met with Mr. Uelmen in his office; isn't that right?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And at that time you had two lawyers present for you; isn't that correct?

MR. MERAZ: Correct.

MS. CLARK: Were they the same lawyers who are present in court today?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And at that time you had begun your lawsuit against Viertel for unlawful termination, correct?

MR. COCHRAN: Assumes a fact not in evidence, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Now, on August 28th, when you met--at the time you met with the Defense investigators, you indicated to us you had no lawyers present, correct?

MR. MERAZ: Correct.

MS. CLARK: And prior to August 28th have you ever had a lawyer before?

MR. COCHRAN: That is irrelevant and immaterial, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: After--at the point when you met with Mr. Uelmen--strike that. Between August 28th and the meeting you had with Mr. Uelmen sometime after August 28th, you hired some lawyers; is that correct?

MR. MERAZ: Correct.

MS. CLARK: You hired three lawyers; isn't that right?

MR. MERAZ: Three lawyers? No.

MS. CLARK: Were there not?

MR. MERAZ: Two.

MS. CLARK: You only hired two lawyers?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And that was the first time you had ever hired lawyers; isn't that right?

MR. COCHRAN: Object. That is the same question, your Honor. Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: How did you find those lawyers, sir?

MR. COCHRAN: That is irrelevant and immaterial.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: May I approach? I have an offer.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Did you consult with Mr. Uelmen as to who you should bring in as your lawyers in this case?

MR. MERAZ: I don't think I did.

MS. CLARK: You are not sure?

MR. MERAZ: No, I don't think that was discussed.

MS. CLARK: You don't recall discussing who you should hire to represent you?

MR. MERAZ: No. We didn't discuss that.

MS. CLARK: Do you recall discussing that with the Defense investigators, sir?

MR. MERAZ: I might have with the investigators discussed it because I didn't have a lawyer. I was on the verge of getting lawyers then.

MS. CLARK: And the Defense in this case helped you to find some lawyers?

MR. COCHRAN: Objection to that. Absolutely wrong. Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Let me see counsel at the side bar with the court reporter, please.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: Miss Clark, what is your offer of proof?

MR. COCHRAN: What is your offer of proof? What is this?

MS. CLARK: No. This was questioning that we began with a pretrial hearing, but as he has already conceded, it is pretty evident he got advice from the Defense about hiring lawyers who helped him with the wrongful termination but for which he would not have pursued it in the manner he has. And it is just to show bias.

THE COURT: No, no. I let you bring it in regarding bias.

MS. CLARK: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: And if there is an indication that he was steered to certain attorneys by somebody connected with the Defense, I agree that that goes to bias, but what is the answer going to be? He said he discussed who he should hire with the Defense?

MS. CLARK: Right.

THE COURT: Investigator?

MS. CLARK: Right, right.

THE COURT: But isn't that in the record at this point?

MS. CLARK: That is in the record.

THE COURT: Okay. Isn't that pretty much it?

MS. CLARK: Yeah.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. CLARK: And then after that he hired lawyers.

MR. COCHRAN: Let me indicate this: Bob Shapiro and I, as far as we know we have never talked to this guy about any lawyers. We didn't refer these two guys. That is a very unfair impression. I don't know what she is talking about.

THE COURT: You can clean it up.

MR. COCHRAN: I want to ask these lawyers. I think these lawyers have a right, too. They--they--I don't know who these guys are, where they came from. It has nothing to do with this, I will indicate that, and I think that that is why they wanted to approach, and if I can go over and ask him--

MR. SHAPIRO: I have never seen either of these gentlemen before this case and I don't know who they are.

MS. CLARK: Wait a minute. This is a big Defense team. I'm not saying Mr. Cochran or Mr. Shapiro recommended these guys. In fact, I think I can in good faith say they would not; they would have hired Mr. Hack.

THE COURT: Miss Clark, let's not waste any more time.

MR. COCHRAN: That was funny.

THE COURT: Did he discuss with the Defense investigator the hiring of attorneys in this case? Yes, he did. That is already in the record.

MS. CLARK: That it is.

THE COURT: All right. Then let's move on.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark, you get to ask that one last question and then move on.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: All right. So you discussed retaining attorneys with the Defense investigators back in August of 1994, correct?

MR. MERAZ: Had I discussed this with the attorneys that came over to the house? Are you asking me that or what?

MS. CLARK: No. I'm asking you, you indicated that your first meeting with the Defense in this case was August 28th, 1994, when investigators for the Defense went to your house, correct?

MR. MERAZ: Correct.

MS. CLARK: And when they went to your house one of the things you discussed is your hiring lawyers to represent you in your wrongful termination suit against Viertel's?

MR. MERAZ: I was trying to get some lawyers.

MS. CLARK: Right. And they discussed that matter with you, correct?

MR. MERAZ: No, they did not discuss that.

MS. CLARK: Let me read your testimony back to you, sir. Here is my question to you. I am reading it from the computer. "Do you recall discussing that with the Defense investigators, sir? "Answer: I might have with the investigators discussed it because I didn't have a lawyer. I was on the verge of getting lawyers then."

MR. MERAZ: That's correct. That's correct.

MS. CLARK: All right. So you discussed the matter with the Defense investigators in this case, correct?

MR. COCHRAN: That is not what he is saying, your Honor. Misstates--

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And after that discussion you hired some lawyers, correct?

MR. MERAZ: After that, yes.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And then you appeared in court to testify at a pretrial hearing in this matter, correct?

MR. MERAZ: Correct.

MS. CLARK: And at that hearing you had three lawyers in court representing you; isn't that right?

MR. MERAZ: Well, they are partners.

MS. CLARK: There were three of them?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And these are two of the three in court today here, correct?

MR. MERAZ: Correct.

MS. CLARK: Now, you did not discuss the subject matter of who to hire to represent with you Mr. Cochran or Mr. Shapiro, did you?

MR. MERAZ: I did not.

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

(Brief pause.)

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

MS. CLARK: May I have a moment, your Honor? I have a photograph that I would like to mark.

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

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, People's next in order, 5--

THE COURT: 32.

MS. CLARK: --32, thank you.

(Peo's 532 for id = photograph)

MS. CLARK: Sir, I'm going to show you a photograph, People's 532. Do you recognize what you see there?

MR. MERAZ: I see a white Bronco.

MS. CLARK: Right. Does that look like the same white Bronco that belonged to the Defendant that you towed on June the 15th?

MR. MERAZ: It is a white Bronco.

MS. CLARK: If you can see the license plate would that help you to identify it?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: All right. Let's zoom in.

MS. CLARK: Do you see the license plate, sir?

MR. MERAZ: (No audible response.)

MS. CLARK: May the record reflect that the witness has removed the impound sheet to compare the license plate number.

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Are they the same?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Does that Bronco appear to be in the same condition as when you saw it on June the 15th?

MR. MERAZ: (No audible response.)

MS. CLARK: And 17th?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of that question based upon what this picture is. That is not fair.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MERAZ: You are asking me if it is--

MS. CLARK: Yeah. Does that appear to be in the same condition as when you saw it on June 15th and June 17th?

MR. COCHRAN: Objection, your Honor. You can't see the whole car.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MERAZ: I--

MS. CLARK: From what you can see?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And you are aware he--do you know when this photograph was taken?

MR. MERAZ: I have no idea. It looks like some other yard. It is not Viertel's yard.

MS. CLARK: Have you ever heard of keystone?

MR. MERAZ: I have heard of them, yes.

MS. CLARK: Are you aware that this photograph was taken at the keystone impound yard in August of 1994?

MR. MERAZ: I am not aware of that, no.

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

MS. CLARK: All right, sir. Let me ask you something. As an OPG, this is an official police garage, you have a certain responsibility towards the vehicles that you are storing, correct?

MR. MERAZ: Correct.

MS. CLARK: And one of those responsibilities is to make sure that evidence is not disturbed; isn't that correct?

MR. MERAZ: Correct.

MS. CLARK: And any car that may have been used in a crime is itself evidence; isn't that correct?

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MERAZ: Correct.

MS. CLARK: That means everything inside that car is evidence as well; isn't that correct?

MR. MERAZ: Correct.

MS. CLARK: And it is your job as an employee for an OPG not to disturb evidence; isn't that right?

MR. MERAZ: Correct.

MS. CLARK: And when you removed those receipts from the door of the Bronco, you were tampering with evidence; isn't that right?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of the question, your Honor. I object. It is argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled, overruled.

MR. MERAZ: Correct.

MS. CLARK: Now, that T-2 area that we discussed earlier, the enclosed area, that is the secure area of the yard, correct?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And by "Secure" that means that members of the public cannot just walk into it, correct?

MR. MERAZ: Unless they have to go to the bathroom, there is a facility in there. A lot of times they were let in to go in there.

MS. CLARK: But that means--but first a member of the public who was going into Viertel's has to go through--has to show their identification at a window; isn't that right?

MR. MERAZ: A lot of time a lot of them--they drive in, come in through the side door.

MS. CLARK: And then someone has to hit them in, though, don't they?

MR. COCHRAN: Can he finish his answer?

THE COURT: Yes, he is entitled.

MS. CLARK: I'm sorry, I do not mean to cut off your answer.

MS. CLARK: What were you saying?

MR. MERAZ: A lot of time they would honk their horn. If it was an unmarked police car, they would honk. If a driver was coming in, they would honk their horn to come in. A lot of the times a lot of the public would do the same thing, right, right.

MS. CLARK: Where would they drive into?

MR. MERAZ: T-3.

MS. CLARK: I'm not talking about T-3.

MR. MERAZ: You are talking about T-2?

MS. CLARK: That's right.

MR. MERAZ: Unless the dispatcher there at the desk, if he knew the individual coming in, he would open up the cure.

MS. CLARK: Otherwise he doesn't; isn't that correct?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: You have to--if he doesn't know you, as a member of law enforcement or some other person that he knows is to be permitted to go into that area, you have to show identification; isn't this right?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of the question, some other--speculation as to what the dispatcher knows.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MS. CLARK: Unless someone is a police officer wearing a uniform with a badge, the people that walk up to the area of T-2 have to show identification to get in; isn't that right?

MR. MERAZ: A lot of time, yes.

MS. CLARK: And they have to have authorization to get in; isn't that right?

MR. MERAZ: You want to rephrase that over again to me, please?

MS. CLARK: If a member--if I walk up to that--that area that allows for entry into T-2 and I just say I just want to walk in, they are not just going to let me in, are they, Mr. Meraz?

MR. MERAZ: No.

MS. CLARK: I have to have a good reason? I have to have some kind of authorization to get in; isn't this right?

MR. MERAZ: This is true.

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

MS. CLARK: Now, is it your testimony that that the receipts that you took out of the side door of the Bronco were laundry dry cleaning receipts?

MR. MERAZ: They were vouchers from a visa. They weren't laundry. They were--evidently they had gone to the cleaners and this is what they paid on.

MS. CLARK: And they used a visa to pay; is that right?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, yes.

MS. CLARK: And so you actually read these receipts then, didn't you?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And it showed that they paid--that Mr. And Mrs. Simpson paid for dry cleaning using a visa voucher?

MR. MERAZ: Using--

MS. CLARK: Excuse me. A visa card in March of 1994?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And do you recall the items of clothing that were being cleaned?

MR. MERAZ: One was for a tuxedo and the other one was for a woman's dress. I assume a woman's dress.

MS. CLARK: Like a gown?

MR. MERAZ: A dress, yes.

MS. CLARK: Is there a--there is a laser beam that you cross when you drive into the lot; isn't that true, sir?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, T-3.

MS. CLARK: So any member of the public that drove in through T-3 would have--would trip that laser beam; isn't that right?

MR. MERAZ: Yes and no.

MS. CLARK: How no?

MR. MERAZ: A lot of times they had it off because the gates were open, because they were moving cars. A lot of the people would walk in without triggering out the laser thing coming through there.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Now, as far as T-2 goes, let's point out for the ladies and gentlemen of the jury--do we have a laser light. I'm going to point out an area on this exhibit, sir. Where my light is, isn't that the door that the public would use to walk in to gain admission to T-2?

MR. MERAZ: That is the side entrance to Viertel where you go and claim your vehicle.

THE COURT: All right. That is the side entrance. Appears to be the southeast corner of the building.

MS. CLARK: Yes.

MR. MERAZ: On Temple Street.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, sir. Maybe we can circle that area and do a printout.

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

MS. CLARK: All right, sir. Now, you admit to us today--admitted to us today that you stole something from the Defendant's car, didn't you?

MR. MERAZ: I didn't steal.

MS. CLARK: You took those receipts out of the Defendant's car, didn't you?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Now, you understand, sir, that taking--did anyone give you permission to take those receipts out of the Defendant's car?

MR. MERAZ: No.

MS. CLARK: And taking something without permission is theft, isn't it, sir?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I object to the form of the question.

THE COURT: Sustained, sustained.

MS. CLARK: Are you aware that taking something without permission is theft?

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

THE COURT: Sustained. Missing a few elements.

MS. CLARK: Okay.

MS. CLARK: Are you aware, sir, that taking something out of a car without permission and keeping it is theft?

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

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: Improper statement of the law.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Can I get the penal code?

MS. CLARK: What is your understanding of stealing, Mr. Meraz?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I object. This is irrelevant and immaterial.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MERAZ: My opinion of stealing?

MS. CLARK: Yeah. What do you think stealing is?

MR. MERAZ: If I took something that belonged to you and kept it and not returned it, that is stealing.

MS. CLARK: All right. And that would be a crime; isn't that right?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Now, someone, Mr. Meraz, took those credit card receipts out of Mr. Simpson's car; isn't that right, without permission?

MR. MERAZ: Somebody walked out with them without permission.

MS. CLARK: Answer my question, Mr. Meraz.

MR. COCHRAN: Just a moment. I object.

THE COURT: Hold on. Hold on. That is not an appropriate way to ask a question. Ask your next question.

MS. CLARK: My question to you, Mr. Meraz, is you took the credit card receipts out of the side pocket of Mr. Simpson's Bronco on June 15th; isn't that correct?

MR. MERAZ: This is true.

MS. CLARK: And you did that without his permission; isn't that correct?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Now, if, Mr. Meraz--now you claim today that you put them back; isn't that right?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of the question, "Claimed today."

THE COURT: Rephrase the question.

MS. CLARK: You have told us that you put those credit card receipts back; isn't that right?

MR. MERAZ: I have always claimed that.

MS. CLARK: I understand.

MR. MERAZ: Yes. That is my statement, yes.

MS. CLARK: But those credit card receipts never were found again; isn't that right?

MR. MERAZ: Correct.

MS. CLARK: And you have never been charged--now, Mr. Simpson is the victim of that theft; isn't that right?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Isn't he?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And you have never been charged with the crime of theft for taking those receipts out of the Bronco, have you?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Sir, is it your understanding that the--that the Defendant declined to bring charges against you so you would come in here and testify?

MR. COCHRAN: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. I need to talk to counsel at the side bar. With that, I think we will take our recess at this point. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our recess for the morning session. Please remember all of my admonitions to you. Don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, form any opinions about the case, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you. Let's have it quiet, please. Or allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. We will stand in recess until 1;15. Mr. Meraz, you may step down. You are ordered to come back at 1:30.

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

(At 12:06 P.M. the noon recess was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the same day.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, JULY 19, 1995 1:15 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 in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present before the Court with counsel. Well, maybe it will be a lot shorter if we do it this way. All right. Counsel, on the issue regarding the blood splattering and blood testing, Mr. Neufeld, you provided to the Court certain citations to the transcript regarding whether or not there was testimony regarding soaking through to the other side. The citation that you gave me, 27766 through 27767, does not support that.

However, the Court in its own examination of the transcript found other references to the same type of testimony regarding whether or not opposite the main cutout, whether or not there was any evidence of soaking through. I'm not confident in the citations that you've given to me, and I'm going to examine the transcript myself because I have found on my own other references. So I want to have a complete record. And I didn't have time over the lunch hour to complete reading the transcript, reviewing Mr. Sims' testimony. We have to break early today at 4 o'clock to allow for a juror dental appointment. So hopefully at 4 o'clock, I'll be able to resume looking at the transcript. So in other words, I'm not prepared to rule because I haven't found everything I need in the transcript.

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, would it make sense though at least that I--for scheduling purposes, to have Dr.--I'm sorry--Professor MacDonell stick around until 5:00 or--you want to--are you going to address the issue you think at 5 o'clock this afternoon?

THE COURT: I hope to be able to get to it. Because, for example, if you look at the pages that you cited to me--

MR. NEUFELD: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: --27766 through 67, none of those pages address that particular issue.

MR. NEUFELD: Yes, it--I believe it addresses the powdering.

THE COURT: The powdering, yes. But the issue is, does it soak through and did he find any evidence--

MR. NEUFELD: Oh, what he's saying there is that all he did find is that it didn't soak through, but there was--there is powder. And then in the other references--

THE COURT: That's my point though. The record here that you cited to me doesn't have both parts of this discussion. All you've got is powder references. That doesn't help me. The issue is--isn't the issue, is there a soak through from one side to the other?

MR. NEUFELD: Right. And he says actually on the same page where he says powder--

THE COURT: But, counsel, my point is, I don't have both pieces in front of me. And having to take the time to go through the transcript to find both pieces, I didn't have time over the lunch hour. Because I recollected that testimony as well.

MR. NEUFELD: Right.

THE COURT: But I needed to find it, and you didn't give it to me.

MR. NEUFELD: I appreciate that. I apologize.

THE COURT: All right. So give me another half hour to look at it.

MR. NEUFELD: All right.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Let's continue with Mr. Meraz, please.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, was there something--we resolved the objection, didn't we? So I've concluded here?

THE COURT: Which--where were we? We were at--I'm sorry. Refresh my recollection as to where we were.

MS. CLARK: There was an objection when I asked if he believed that Mr. Simpson had declined to prosecute and thus protected him from theft charges, and that was my last question. So--

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Cochran has now joined us.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes. I was in the hall.

THE COURT: As I indicated, we'll take that objection up when we come back from lunch. We're there now. The objection regarding Miss Clark's question as to whether or not Mr. Simpson's decision to waive any Prosecution of Mr. Meraz should be allowed regarding evidence of bias.

MS. CLARK: And my question, as I framed it in that regard, was carefully framed, that is to refer to this witness'--

THE COURT: In your own opinion?

MS. CLARK: In my--artful as far as I'm concerned--was simply--was narrowly directed towards the witness' belief that as to whether or not Mr. Simpson had declined to prosecute, and that goes to bias. That's what--artful as in the eye of the beholder, but that was the intent.

MR. COCHRAN: I won't comment on the artful aspect of it. But just the fact of--

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, could we have the witness excused for this, please?

THE COURT: No.

MR. COCHRAN: May I proceed, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes, please.

MR. COCHRAN: For substance, your Honor, just quickly, is, I think that the prejudicial effect far outweighs any alleged probative value. And if I might just briefly indicate to the Court in my understanding of what transpired. First of all, nobody from LAPD ever has talked for obvious reasons--

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. This is why I think the witness should be excluded.

THE COURT: He's out. Excuse me. I'm sorry. Mr. Meraz, would you step out, please. Thank you.

(The witness exited the courtroom.)

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes, your Honor. As I understand it, nobody from LAPD has talked with Mr. Simpson obviously about any desires he may or may not have, vis-à-vis any Prosecution of some misdemeanor in this matter. In that regard, I did in fact receive several phone calls or--from Detective Kelly--Kelly Muldorfer asking me about whether or not we had any interest in this. And as I recall, my indication was look, we're involved in a--it was after this matter started trial. I said, "We're involved in a rather serious matter. I have no interest in talking about that or pursuing that and neither does my client at this point," having interest in--being concerned about that. He didn't need to be occupied with this. And--

MR. DARDEN: Almost exactly what you said.

MR. COCHRAN: Very well. I'm always very credible. So he's given me some statement about this. And let me read what Muldorfer says I said and see if she's credible. Let's see.

THE COURT: Well, she's on your witness list.

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

MR. COCHRAN: Well, I don't--she says: "Mr. Cochran says Simpson was not cooperative, was pleading for his life in court right now."

MS. CLARK: That's not all she said.

MR. COCHRAN: So the facts and the essence of what she says is basically correct. I didn't have time really to be bothered with this, your Honor, and we were--I was talking to her in the evenings after court. But the point was, nobody ever talked to Mr. Simpson. I did in fact mention it to him. I said, look, I don't want to be bothered with that. My issue is in fighting my case.

THE COURT: But isn't the issue though whether or not Mr. Meraz is aware of the fact that your client has no interest in pursuing a criminal Prosecution of him for the taking of items from his car and--isn't that the issue?

MR. COCHRAN: Perhaps. But I'm not sure whether he's aware of that or not. I haven't discussed that with him. As I said, I talked to Muldorfer, and that's pretty much it, your Honor.

THE COURT: But it's Mr. Meraz' understanding, not your client's understanding that's at issue here.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, that's probably true. That's probably true. But I think that--again, I think that it's so tenuous, your Honor. I mean, I don't know what the response is going to be. Perhaps we can have an offer because these questions--you know, if there's a question of what's artfully phrased, perhaps we can have some offer that's going to be regarding this because I think it wastes a lot more time.

MS. CLARK: I thought it was pretty--

THE COURT: All right. I agree that whether or not somebody is going to prosecute somebody or request Prosecution for somebody clearly goes to the issue of bias. How do you propose to frame the question?

MS. CLARK: I thought that I phrased it in that manner before. Let me find out, your Honor. I intended to ask him whether he believes that Mr. Simpson declined to prosecute.

THE COURT: All right. Then I'd ask you to rephrase that since it's not Mr. Simpson who's declined.

MS. CLARK: Is that--I'm sorry?

THE COURT: I'd ask you to rephrase that since it's not actually Mr. Simpson who has declined.

MS. CLARK: I think--all right. You would prefer that I phrase it as Mr. Cochran declined to prosecute?

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

MS. CLARK: Have I understood the Court correctly, that you would like me to phrase it as Mr. Cochran declined?

MR. COCHRAN: Well, I would rather not phrase it at all.

THE COURT: I understand. But I think clearly it goes to the issue of bias. The issue is whether or not Mr. Meraz is aware that the Defendant has expressed no interest in pursuing criminal Prosecution.

MS. CLARK: Right. And not whether even that's true or not, but whether he believes that.

THE COURT: That's the issue.

MS. CLARK: Right.

THE COURT: So you can ask him, are you aware or do you believe or is it your understanding that the Defendant has expressed no desire to prosecute?

MS. CLARK: As opposed to decline to prosecute?

MR. COCHRAN: The only problem with that, that misstates it, your Honor. The conversations with me, they never talked with Mr. Simpson at all.

THE COURT: All right. The Defense--his attorney has expressed no interest in pursuing criminal Prosecution.

MS. CLARK: As opposed to decline to prosecute? All right.

MR. COCHRAN: You're talking about the attorney?

THE COURT: The attorney.

MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Simpson--they never talked to Mr. Simpson.

THE COURT: Representing--that Mr. Cochran has expressed no interest in pursuing Prosecution.

MS. CLARK: Okay.

THE COURT: All right. And then you're going to wind this up? That's the last question?

MS. CLARK: Can I have a moment?

MR. DARDEN: Can I have placed on the record, your Honor, the names of the next two witnesses?

THE COURT: I'm sorry. Who are the next two witnesses?

MR. COCHRAN: I believe they will be Richard Walsh and I think Willie Ford.

MR. DARDEN: That will take up the rest of the afternoon?

MR. COCHRAN: If we're leaving at 4:00, I would suspect it will, although we have one other witness too and maybe Muldorfer, Bill St. John. We'll have another witness.

MR. DARDEN: Mr. Ford and Detective Muldorfer are in the building. Mr. Ford and Muldorfer, they're on 18.

THE COURT: All right. Let's have the jurors, please.

MS. CLARK: There's one other item that I meant to mark with Mr. Meraz that will be very brief. But I'm--

THE COURT: You're done.

MS. CLARK: I am really. May I also ask, your Honor, for leave to address the Court on the issue of perhaps holding a 402 with testimony concerning the matters taken up this morning. I don't know when the Court would like to address that, but--

MR. NEUFELD: Which part, Miss Clark?

MS. CLARK: We have Mr. Sims, Mr. Matheson and Mr. De Forest present, who would actually welcome the opportunity to address the Court on their observations and subject matter that we took up this morning.

THE COURT: But the issue is really, has an appropriate offer been made and does the transcript support the relevance of the issue. That's really what I need to decide.

MS. CLARK: Well, but that doesn't go to the substantive similarity issue with the experiments and all the rest of it.

THE COURT: I thought we discussed that already, counsel. Let's have the jury, please. All right. Mr. Douglas, could you summon Mr. Meraz, 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. 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: All right. Let's have Mr. Meraz resume the witness stand.

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

THE COURT: Mrs. Robertson, do we have a fresh cup of water? Mr. Meraz, would you come forward, please. All right. Mr. Meraz, good afternoon.

MR. MERAZ: Good afternoon.

THE COURT: Mr. Meraz, sir, you are reminded that you are still under oath. Miss Clark, you may conclude your cross-examination.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: You are welcome.

MS. CLARK: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MS. CLARK

MS. CLARK: Mr. Meraz, we earlier discussed the fact--discussed the existence of a piece of paper in which you wrote down that you admitted to taking paper out of the Defendant's car and that you also indicated in that statement that you put them back in the car and you indicated you had no memory of writing such a document or signing it, correct?

MR. MERAZ: Correct.

MS. CLARK: I have here a document that has been given to counsel sometime ago.

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

MR. HIRSCH: Can I see it, please?

MS. CLARK: I'd ask that this document be marked People's next in order. 533 is it?

THE COURT: 533.

(Peo's 533 for id = document)

MS. CLARK: Let me show you first, Mr. Meraz, and ask you if you recognize the signature and the handwriting on this document.

MR. MERAZ: I remember, yes.

MS. CLARK: Is that your handwriting, sir?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, it is.

MS. CLARK: Is that your signature, sir?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Do you recognize the date of June the 17th, 1994 on this document?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, I do.

MS. CLARK: And this document was signed by you after you had been shown the signed statements of other employees who stated they saw you showing them the receipts; isn't that correct?

MR. COCHRAN: Objection. Misstates the evidence. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MERAZ: No, it's not true.

MS. CLARK: It's not true that you wrote this out after you were shown the signed statements of other employees who said they saw you with the receipts you stole from Mr. Simpson's Bronco?

MR. COCHRAN: Objection to the use of the word "Stole," your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase--

MS. CLARK: Took from Mr. Simpson's Bronco without his permission?

MR. MERAZ: It's not true.

MS. CLARK: What is your testimony as to when you signed this document, sir?

MR. MERAZ: I signed those documents--they asked me to sign a document on that recall. They asked me to sign it, state the fact that I had put the papers back in it, and that's what they wanted from me. It was after they showed me those--I signed those willingly that I had put those papers back.

MS. CLARK: And it was before you were shown the signed statements of the other employees?

MR. COCHRAN: That assumes a fact not in evidence. He didn't say he was shown the statements.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MERAZ: It was after the fact that they had talked to me and discussed everything with me they wanted me to write that.

MS. CLARK: And was it after the fact that they confronted you with the fact that other employees had reported seeing you with the receipts you took from the Defendant's Bronco without his permission?

MR. MERAZ: I signed that when everything was all done and they had talked to me. I had signed those, and they come up to me. And the reason I signed those papers was because of the fact that I had to clear myself up, and that's why I signed that.

MS. CLARK: And, Mr. Meraz, you signed this after you went to the Bronco, looked in the side pocket and saw that there were no receipts there, correct?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: In fact, after everyone saw the receipts that you claim to have put back were not there, correct?

MR. COCHRAN: I object to the form of "Everyone," your Honor. That's--

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Mr. Viertel and Mr. Jones were with you; isn't that right?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And they also in your company looked at the side door pocket where you were looking and pointing to them, correct?

MR. MERAZ: That's not correct. There was two of us, not three.

MS. CLARK: Who was with you?

MR. MERAZ: Bob Jones and myself.

MS. CLARK: And you pointed to Bob Jones the area of the side pocket where you claimed to have put those receipts, correct?

MR. MERAZ: Correct.

MS. CLARK: And they were not there, correct?

MR. MERAZ: Correct.

MS. CLARK: And it was after that point that they confronted you with the statements of other employees at Viertel's who said they saw you with the receipts, correct?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form "Confronted," your Honor. Vague.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MERAZ: That's not correct.

MS. CLARK: So you--

THE COURT: All right. I think we've established that point now.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Then after you were confronted with these statements of other employees and after you went to the door of the Bronco and saw that the receipts you claim to have put back were not there, you signed this statement; is that correct?

MR. MERAZ: Correct.

THE COURT: All right. This is 533 on the elmo?

MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor.

MS. CLARK: And it says: "I, John J. Meraz, took some paper out of OJ's car and put them back in the car on June 17th, 1994." Correct?

MR. MERAZ: Correct.

MS. CLARK: Sir, is it your understanding that Mr. Cochran as of April of this year has expressed no interest in pursuing a prosecution against you for theft?

MR. MERAZ: As far as I know, nobody has.

MS. CLARK: And is it your belief that Mr. Cochran has declined to pursue any prosecution of you for theft?

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MERAZ: I was told that nobody was going to file charges.

MS. CLARK: And were you also told that Mr. Cochran expressly declined to pursue the prosecution of you for theft?

MR. COCHRAN: That's hearsay, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MERAZ: Again, I was told that they weren't going to file charges on me.

MS. CLARK: And when you say "They," you mean the Defense, Mr. Cochran?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Correct?

MR. COCHRAN: I object to that--object to the form of that question.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: I object to the form of that question.

THE COURT: Yes, that is. The answer is stricken. Rephrase the question.

MS. CLARK: When you say filed charges, sir, do you mean they declined to pursue a prosecution of you for theft from the Defendant's Bronco? Is that your understanding?

MR. COCHRAN: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MERAZ: From the way I was told is that they weren't going to file charges on me, is what I was told.

MS. CLARK: And when you say "They," who are you referring to?

MR. MERAZ: I'm referring to Mr. Cochran.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, sir.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you very kindly, your Honor.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN

MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Meraz, a few questions if I might.

MR. COCHRAN: Let's put that back up just a second, Mr. Fairtlough, please.

THE COURT: This is 533.

MR. COCHRAN: 533, your Honor. Thank you very much.

MR. COCHRAN: With regard to exhibit 533, is that what you told this jury here today, that you took these papers out of the car and put them back in that car?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Is that what you've been telling and saying all along to everybody who is listening in this case?

MR. MERAZ: To everybody, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And is that the truth?

MR. MERAZ: That's the truth.

MR. COCHRAN: When you took the papers from the car, you kept them that day and you put them back in that car that same day; is that right?

MR. MERAZ: This is true.

MR. COCHRAN: And so you didn't permanently deprive the owner of those particular papers; is that correct?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MERAZ: That's true.

MR. COCHRAN: You put them back, right?

MR. MERAZ: Put them back assuming that they were still there.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And then you didn't find them later; is that right?

MR. MERAZ: Couldn't find them later.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, you remember Miss Clark was asking you some questions from the transcript, and you said she was confused in her answer? Do you recall that? She read a transcript of a conversation with Mr. Hodgman. Remember that?

MR. MERAZ: Oh, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. I want to read what she read and I want to read where she stopped. All right?

MR. MERAZ: Okay.

MR. COCHRAN: If I might, your Honor. Counsel knows what page.

THE COURT: What page?

MR. COCHRAN: This is page 5389, your Honor, beginning at line 7. I want to read it all the way through for--to clear it up if I might. "Question:"

MS. CLARK: Object to the editorial, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. Jury is to disregard it.

MR. COCHRAN: "Question:" may I proceed?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: "Question: And once again on that date, you were asked by Mr. Viertel this time had you removed any items from the Ford Bronco; is that correct? "Answer: That's correct. "Question: And at first, you denied taking anything out of the Ford Bronco; isn't that right? "Answer: That is not true." That's the same thing you told us here; isn't that correct?

MR. MERAZ: That's true.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. "Question: At first, you denied taking anything from the Ford Bronco; did you not? "Answer: At first, yes. "Question: So at first, you lied again, this time to Mr. Viertel and to Mr. Jones; isn't that correct? "Answer: I don't quite follow you on that statement, what you were saying. You were saying two things. I denied it to Bob the day I was in there. I did not deny it to Viertel." Did you so testify?

MR. MERAZ: That's my statement, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And that's what you told this jury also, isn't it?

MR. MERAZ: This is true.

MR. COCHRAN: "Question: Isn't it a fact, Mr. Meraz, that you only admitted taking those items after you were shown some written statements from other employees at Viertel's? "Answer: That's not true." Did you so testify?

MR. MERAZ: True. That's true.

MR. COCHRAN: And that's the same thing you told this jury here; isn't that correct?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: May I proceed, your Honor, same exhibit?

THE COURT: Please.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, I want to ask you a few more questions if I might, Mr. Meraz. With regard to this Bronco vehicle that you towed there, when you arrived at Viertel's on June 15 sometime after 11 o'clock in the morning of that date, did you see--ever see any other Viertel employees in and around the Bronco vehicle after you arrived there?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Compound, vague.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. COCHRAN: Certainly, your Honor.

THE COURT: Compound.

MR. COCHRAN: When you got to Viertel's, did you see any other Viertel employees there?

MR. MERAZ: When I pulled into the yard, they were waiting for me out there in the yard.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And how many were waiting for you?

MR. MERAZ: 10. 10 employees.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, with regard to these 10 employees, did you see whether or not any of them ever looked inside that Bronco?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Vague.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MERAZ: Well, the door was open. The driver's side of the door was open. So they all had access to see what was in the Bronco.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

MS. CLARK: Objection. Motion to strike. Nonresponsive.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: And did you ever observe whether or not any of them looked inside the Bronco?

MR. MERAZ: There was so much commotion going on because everybody was so enthused of looking at the Bronco.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And why were they enthused at looking at the Bronco?

MR. MERAZ: Uh, maybe it was because it was OJ Simpson's car and the way the media press had put it out to be like.

MR. COCHRAN: And what did the media press put it out to be?

MR. MERAZ: Said it had all kinds of blood inside the car and they were all looking for blood.

MR. COCHRAN: And did you see any blood on that occasion?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MERAZ: I didn't see any blood at all.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, I'm going to show you this photograph which counsel showed you, put 529 on the elmo, and I'll ask you specifically regarding this photograph.

MR. COCHRAN: Move that in.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, Miss Clark asked you some questions about this particular photograph, exhibit 529. Do you recall that?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And in looking at that photograph, you described that you saw some spots on the inside of that door of that vehicle, right?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, on the date when you were inside that vehicle on June 15th, on these three occasions, did you ever see those spots that are depicted in 523 there inside that vehicle?

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. This is bad faith.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you ever see those spots in that vehicle at that time?

MR. MERAZ: No, I did not.

MR. COCHRAN: And you have--Miss Clark intimated you have some problems with your sight. Do you have any problem seeing those spots there?

MR. MERAZ: No. No, I don't.

MR. COCHRAN: And she also indicated you were color blind. Are you color blind?

MR. MERAZ: No, I don't think so.

MR. COCHRAN: And when you referred to that marker as being pink, does that appear pink to you?

THE COURT: Arrow.

MR. MERAZ: The arrow?

MR. COCHRAN: I think she used marker, but--

THE COURT: Arrow.

MR. COCHRAN: The arrow?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Appear pink to you?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And you could tell the difference between pink and green; could you not?

MR. MERAZ: Yes. The round things were green.

MR. COCHRAN: And the arrow that you see up on the screen now?

MR. MERAZ: Is pink.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, I want to ask you specifically, you were asked some questions, some other questions about some marks on the door.

MR. COCHRAN: I want to place this on the elmo, your Honor, 528-A. You can move that back.

MR. COCHRAN: Can you see that?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Apparently looks like some dark powder in and around the driver's door of the Bronco?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: When you picked that Bronco up from the print shed on June 15th, 1994 somewhere around 11 o'clock or thereabouts on that date, do you recall seeing the door of the Bronco in that condition where you saw any black print powder or brown or dark gray print powder on the vehicle?

MR. MERAZ: No, I didn't.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, you said you worked for Viertel's for some 25 years?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And have you seen print powder on cars before?

MR. MERAZ: A lot of times.

MR. COCHRAN: And you know what print powder looks like?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, the representation was, this picture was taken I think she said on June 14th. You didn't see the car on the 14th, did you?

MR. MERAZ: No. I didn't see it on the 14th.

MR. COCHRAN: You saw it on the 15th?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Did the side door of that car appear that way on the 15th when you picked it up as you recall, your honest opinion?

MR. MERAZ: My honest opinion that I can recall, I did not see that.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, she asked you some questions also about dome lights and things. Do you recall any--looking or seeing any dome lights in that car at all?

MR. MERAZ: I wasn't looking for--

MR. COCHRAN: Do you recall when you opened the Bronco of whether or not there are lights down near the running board or the floorboard of the car? Do you recall that?

MR. MERAZ: I can't really recall if the light was on or if the light was off or if there was a lightbulb. I can't honestly say that there was--

MR. COCHRAN: I'm sorry.

MR. MERAZ: That there was--

MR. COCHRAN: Is that something you weren't paying attention to?

MR. MERAZ: I wasn't paying attention to it.

MR. COCHRAN: And you did not drive that vehicle, did you?

MR. MERAZ: No keys.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, she also asked you a question about looking at the console. On any of the three occasions that you stepped inside that particular vehicle, did you ever look at the console over to the right of the driver's compartment and look at the console?

MR. MERAZ: Briefly. Just a glance.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And when you glanced over to the right of the console, did you ever see any blood at that time?

MR. MERAZ: I'd have seen the blood.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you see any blood?

MR. MERAZ: No, I didn't.

MR. COCHRAN: And, Mr. Meraz, you were actually looking for blood; isn't that correct?

MR. MERAZ: This is correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And you knew what blood looked like before June 15th of 1994; isn't that correct?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: You also pointed out to us that the floor mat was missing; isn't that correct?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Is there any doubt in your mind at all that when you looked inside that vehicle on those three occasions, that you did not see any blood inside that vehicle?

MR. MERAZ: I didn't see any blood. I'd have known.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, you were asked some questions about your lawyers. You understand you have an absolute constitutional right in this country still to have lawyers?

MR. MERAZ: This is true.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, Miss Clark asked you some questions about these fine lawyers who are here. Who referred these lawyers or these lawyers to you? Tell the jury.

MR. MERAZ: My fiancee worked with another woman at her place, and she got them through her, and that's how I got them.

MR. COCHRAN: Did anybody from the Defense, Mr. Shapiro, myself, Mr. Scheck, Mr. Neufeld, Mr. Blasier, Mr. Douglas, did any of us ever at any time refer you to a lawyer?

MR. MERAZ: No. Not at no time.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. These lawyers came through your fiancee; is that correct?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And why did you get lawyers at that time?

MR. MERAZ: I was hammered--being hammered very hard by the press because of I towing the Bronco and they made me look out to be like a mobster, that I ransacked the car and I did this. I never did it.

MR. COCHRAN: So you got a lawyer?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, to protect myself.

MR. COCHRAN: Is that what lawyers are supposed to do?

MR. MERAZ: That's what a lawyer's supposed to do.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you ransack the inside of the Bronco?

MR. MERAZ: No. No.

MR. COCHRAN: You took two vouchers; is that correct?

MR. MERAZ: Two vouchers.

MR. COCHRAN: And you returned those vouchers?

MR. MERAZ: I returned those vouchers back.

MR. COCHRAN: When was the last time you saw those vouchers?

MR. MERAZ: Last time I seen them was the 15th of June at about 5:00, 5 o'clock in the afternoon when I put them back in there. I've never seen them since.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you know who took them?

MR. MERAZ: No, I don't. I wish I did.

MR. COCHRAN: You didn't take them?

MR. MERAZ: No.

MR. COCHRAN: Have you tried to profit from your knowledge of this case by selling your story to programs like hard copy or current affair?

MR. MERAZ: No, I haven't.

MR. COCHRAN: You have not done that?

MR. MERAZ: No, I haven't.

MR. COCHRAN: You're not writing a book, are you?

MR. MERAZ: No. No.

MR. COCHRAN: You're maintaining a lawsuit, trying to get your job back or get some compensation?

MR. MERAZ: Yes. This is true. It's true.

MR. COCHRAN: Have you told this jury the truth about what happened on June 15th of 1994?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, I have.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you have any ax to grind in this case one way or the other?

MR. MERAZ: No.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you think testifying in this case is going to help you get your job back at Viertel's? You don't think that, do you?

MR. MERAZ: I doubt that very much.

MR. COCHRAN: And you are here pursuant to a search warrant--strike that. You are here pursuant to--you are here pursuant to a subpoena to testify; isn't that correct?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: We never issued a search warrant for you, did we? We issued a subpoena for you; is that right?

MR. MERAZ: That's right.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor. I have nothing further.

THE COURT: Thank you, counsel.

MS. CLARK: This is People's 528. People's 528, your Honor.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK

MS. CLARK: When I showed you this photograph on cross-examination just a short time ago, Mr. Meraz, you conceded that that looked like print dust on the door, correct?

MR. MERAZ: From where I am, yes.

MS. CLARK: Well--

MR. MERAZ: Looking at the picture, yes.

MS. CLARK: Let's zoom in.

MS. CLARK: Does that help you, sir?

MR. MERAZ: It helped me before.

MS. CLARK: And does it help you now?

MR. COCHRAN: Asked and answered, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: Does that look like print dust to you?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, it does.

MS. CLARK: And when I cross-examined you earlier this morning, sir, you conceded that this was the print shack where you recovered the Bronco from on June the 15th, correct?

MR. MERAZ: Well, it very well could be the print shed.

MS. CLARK: Would you like to change that testimony now, sir--

MR. MERAZ: No, I wouldn't.

MS. CLARK: --to indicate you're unsure?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, that's argumentative.

THE COURT: It is. Rephrase the question.

MS. CLARK: When you answered the question earlier this morning, you told us that that was the print shack from which you recovered the Bronco on June the 15th, didn't you?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, I did.

MS. CLARK: Do you want to change that testimony now, sir?

MR. MERAZ: I don't want to change anything.

MS. CLARK: That is the print shack from which you recovered the Bronco then on June the 15th, isn't it, sir?

MR. MERAZ: I'm saying now it looks like it.

MS. CLARK: You're saying now it looks like it. You're unwilling now to say that it is?

MR. MERAZ: Could well be the print shed.

MS. CLARK: So, Mr. Meraz, are you going to change your testimony from this morning and say could well be or are you going to stick with the testimony you gave us this morning and say it is?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, that's argumentative.

THE COURT: It is. Rephrase the question.

MS. CLARK: Does that look like the print shack, sir, from which you recovered the Bronco on June the 15th?

MR. MERAZ: It could well be the print shed.

MS. CLARK: How many times have you been in that print shack over the years that you worked for Viertel's?

MR. MERAZ: Several times.

MS. CLARK: Several?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: You've been there 20 years?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: How many times per week did you go to that print shack?

MR. MERAZ: It would vary. Sometimes I wouldn't go. Sometimes I would.

MS. CLARK: Give us an average.

MR. MERAZ: An average?

MR. COCHRAN: Can he finish his answer, your Honor?

MR. MERAZ: Could well be four or five times a year.

MS. CLARK: Four or five times a year?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: You go to the print shack?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: You are an official police garage?

MR. COCHRAN: Objection to that tone of voice.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: You're an official police garage, are you not, Viertel's?

MR. MERAZ: At least when I was there, yes.

MS. CLARK: Yes. And official police garages recover cars and vehicles from that print shack on a fairly regular basis, don't they, sir?

MR. MERAZ: Not true.

MS. CLARK: You would only go there four or five times a year?

MR. MERAZ: Myself.

MS. CLARK: Yourself. All right. Let's assume that's true. Four or five times a year for 20 years.

MR. COCHRAN: I object. Just a moment. Argumentative, your Honor.

THE COURT: It is.

MR. COCHRAN: That's also beyond the scope of redirect examination.

THE COURT: It is not. It's not.

MS. CLARK: Five times--five times a year for 20 years, correct? So you've been to that print shack at least a hundred times; isn't that right?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, that assumes a fact not in evidence, that it was there 20 years ago.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.

MR. MERAZ: Well, 20 years ago--

MS. CLARK: This is the problem with speaking objections, your Honor.

THE COURT: It is. Proceed.

MS. CLARK: Has Mr. Cochran now informed you how you should answer the question, sir?

MR. COCHRAN: Objection. That's argumentative, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Would it be fair to say that you've been in that print shack about a hundred times, Mr. Meraz?

MR. MERAZ: I couldn't give you a count. I'm just giving you a number per year.

MS. CLARK: And would it be fair to say that all tolled, you've been in that print shack over a hundred times?

MR. MERAZ: First of all, I don't know when it existed there.

MS. CLARK: Can you answer the question?

MR. MERAZ: Repeat it again, please.

MS. CLARK: During the time you've been employed at Viertel's, would it be fair to say that over the entire time you've been employed there, you've been in that print shack at least a hundred times?

MR. MERAZ: For me to say over a hundred times, I can't honestly say that because I really don't know.

MS. CLARK: How about 80, Mr. Meraz?

MR. MERAZ: I can't give you a number because I really don't know. I'm being honest with you.

MS. CLARK: Was June the 15th the last time you were in the print shack?

MR. MERAZ: That was the last time, yes.

MS. CLARK: It was certainly not the first?

MR. MERAZ: It wasn't the first, no.

MS. CLARK: And that looks like the print shack that's in this photograph, doesn't it, sir?

MR. MERAZ: It could well be, yes.

MS. CLARK: And the dust and the dirt that you saw in the driver's side door looks like print dust, doesn't it, sir?

MR. MERAZ: It looks like it, yes.

MS. CLARK: And when you were confronted with this photograph and during cross-examination this morning, you admitted that you were wrong when you testified earlier that you did not see print dust on the door of the Bronco?

MR. COCHRAN: Misstates the evidence, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: Improper.

MS. CLARK: Do you recall that?

MR. MERAZ: I recall that, yes.

MS. CLARK: Do you wish to change that too now, sir?

MR. MERAZ: I wish not to change anything.

MS. CLARK: Do you admit now that still that you were wrong about not seeing print dust on the door of the Bronco?

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained. Let's move on.

MS. CLARK: May I have one moment, your Honor?

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: Do you know someone by the name of Mark Laski?

MR. MERAZ: Excuse me?

MS. CLARK: Do you know someone by the name of Mark Laski?

MR. MERAZ: Not Laski, no.

MS. CLARK: A limousine driver, Mr. Meraz.

MR. MERAZ: I don't know a limousine driver.

MS. CLARK: You don't know any limousine drivers?

MR. MERAZ: No.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, this is beyond the scope.

THE COURT: It is.

MS. CLARK: Thank you. I have nothing further.

MR. COCHRAN: One last question.

FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN

MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to this photograph counsel was asking you about, that photograph was allegedly taken on the 14th of June. You didn't see that white Bronco on the 14th; is that correct? You didn't see the white Bronco on June 14th, 1994, did you?

MR. MERAZ: No. I didn't see it on the 14th.

MR. COCHRAN: You saw it on the 15th; is that correct?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: All you can tell Miss Clark and this jury is how it appeared to you on June 15th; is that correct?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And with regard to this garage being an OPG, are the other drivers--Viertel's have other drivers who also came to the print shed, not shack?

MR. MERAZ: Through the years, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And with regard to that, you weren't the only one that went there; is that correct?

MR. MERAZ: This is true.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. I have nothing further.

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Nothing further, your Honor.

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

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you very kindly, your Honor.

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

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Cochran, do you have your next witness en route?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes, your Honor. It's Mr. Walsh.

THE COURT: What is Mr. Walsh's first name, Mr. Cochran?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes, your Honor. I'm sorry.

THE COURT: Mr. Walsh's first name?

MR. COCHRAN: Richard Walsh, your Honor.

THE COURT: Richard.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you.

(Brief pause.)

MR. COCHRAN: He's coming right down, your Honor.

THE COURT: And is Mr. Walsh your witness?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes, your Honor. He's outside. Apparently he went back upstairs. So apparently he's on his way back down.

MR. DARDEN: May we approach for a moment without the reporter?

THE COURT: Sure.

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

Richard Walsh, called as a witness by the Defendant, was sworn and testified as follows:

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Walsh, would you face the clerk, please.

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. WALSH: Yes.

THE CLERK: Please be seated on the witness stand and state and spell your first and last names for the record.

MR. WALSH: Richard Walsh, R-I-C-H-A-R-D W-A-L-S-H.

THE CLERK: Thank you.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN

MR. COCHRAN: Good afternoon, Mr. Walsh.

MR. WALSH: Good afternoon.

MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Walsh, you look familiar. I saw you on a video or something?

MR. WALSH: Yes, you have.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

MR. WALSH: Been watching TV for a day.

MR. COCHRAN: What is your occupation, sir?

MR. WALSH: I wrote, choreographed and co-hosted the OJ Simpson workout.

MR. COCHRAN: And when did you do that, sir?

MR. WALSH: We did that in May 1994.

MR. COCHRAN: And prior to your writing it and co-hosting it, did you have occasion to go out and meet with or talk with OJ Simpson about his role in this particular exercise video?

MR. WALSH: Yes. For several months prior to that.

MR. COCHRAN: And you were doing this for what entity or what company?

MR. WALSH: Playboy was the producers and the backers.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And they asked you to help with this; is that correct?

MR. WALSH: Correct. They saw me in--on July 4 of 1993, I had a cable exercise TV show, and they happened to see me and had me in and talked about the idea and the concept and they hired me then. We actually made the contract in early 1994.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And is that your occupation, to--as a fitness expert?

MR. WALSH: Not a fitness expert. I'm a fitness instructor. In my opinion, an expert is somebody who is an Md. Or Ph.D. in the exercise field. And I happen to just be a fitness instructor. I've been doing that for 16 years. I've done a number of video projects, TV shows and so forth. But on the video projects and TV shows that we--that I'm involved with, we always make sure we hire an expert who is either an Md. Or Ph.D., and he critiques every move I do and every word I say, and those are the experts.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, so that when you--you met with OJ Simpson regarding this particular project; is that correct?

MR. WALSH: Correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you become aware in meeting with Mr. Simpson of any physical limitations that he had?

MR. WALSH: A few. Quite a few.

MR. COCHRAN: What did you become aware of?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Calls for hearsay, your Honor.

THE COURT: Foundation.

MR. COCHRAN: How--in the course of your meeting with Mr. OJ Simpson, did you have occasion to talk with him about any physical limitations that he had? You can answer that yes or no.

MR. WALSH: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And did you have occasion--in writing this video, did you have to write it in such a way that there were things to be performed that he could do in that video?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Leading, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. COCHRAN: Certainly, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: In writing the video, did you have to take into account Mr. OJ Simpson's physical limitations, if any?

MR. WALSH: Did I have to or did I?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes. Did you?

MR. WALSH: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: And why did you do that?

MR. WALSH: Well, when we began, the first time I met him, we discussed his situation, his injuries.

MR. DARDEN: I'm going to object, your Honor. This is hearsay.

THE COURT: It is. Sustained. Ask another question.

MR. COCHRAN: Certainly.

MR. COCHRAN: When you first met him, did you have occasion to learn about some injuries that he had?

MR. WALSH: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: It calls for hearsay.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, he can answer that yes or no.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: So you learned about some injuries that he had, right?

MR. WALSH: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. And were these injuries that he had, were they restricted to any particular part of his body? Can you answer that yes or no?

MR. WALSH: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And can you describe for the jury what you observed regarding Mr. Simpson's body and/or injuries?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor. He is not an expert.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: You may answer.

MR. WALSH: Excuse me. Umm, well, he was sitting when I met him, and then he was a little concerned about the type of--

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained. It is.

MR. COCHRAN: Describe for us the injuries that you became aware.

MR. DARDEN: Objection to the form of the question.

THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer the question. What kind of injuries did you become aware of?

MR. WALSH: Umm, his knee, his hand, shoulder. Can I keep going?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. WALSH: He talked about a sore lower back.

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Wait, wait.

MR. WALSH: Can I keep going?

THE COURT: What did you personally become aware of through your own observations?

MR. WALSH: Well, initially, he was sitting. And so when--

THE COURT: Well, I assume this relationship went on through making the video.

MR. WALSH: Well, I thought we were talking about the first time.

THE COURT: No.

MR. WALSH: Okay.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. You can kind of save some time and tell us all the things you became aware of.

MR. WALSH: Okay. I became aware eventually of his knee, his back, his lower back in particular, his shoulder. He also spoke of some ankle problems.

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Hearsay, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. Answer is stricken.

MR. COCHRAN: Which portion? The last part?

THE COURT: Ankle.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay.

THE COURT: But it's in the other record from Dr. Huizenga.

MR. COCHRAN: Sure. Sure.

MR. COCHRAN: Did--at any point, did you ever notice any other parts that you actually noticed of his body?

MR. WALSH: When he stuck out his hand to shake hands.

MR. COCHRAN: And what did you notice about that?

MR. WALSH: Well, his hand was half like--looked like it was half closed.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you find that unusual?

MR. WALSH: I thought it was unusual.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, after you had this initial contact over a period of time with Mr. Simpson, did you have any doubt as to whether or not he was the right candidate for this video?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: Was there any question in your mind about whether OJ Simpson was the candidate for this, proper candidate?

MR. DARDEN: It's irrelevant, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. WALSH: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: And what were your doubts, sir, if any?

MR. WALSH: I thought he was too physically limited to be the co-host with me.

MR. COCHRAN: And why did you think that?

MR. WALSH: Because I knew the type of tape that I was making needed, you know, not somebody real, real physically fit, but it needed someone who had the ability to at least be mobile laterally, forward and back up, using upper body muscle groups and so forth.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you notice anything about Mr. Simpson's ability to move laterally or from side to side?

MR. WALSH: It was--it was pretty limited.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, was there--now, at some point, despite your reservations about Mr. Simpson's abilities here, did you proceed with the project with him?

MR. WALSH: Yes, we did.

MR. COCHRAN: And this particular video that we've seen or seen parts of, that was shot during the month of May of 1994?

MR. WALSH: Correct. The actual shooting day of the--most of the video that you've seen has been on May 27th of--excuse me--May 25th, 1994. We tried to shoot the exercise segment in one day.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And any particular reason why you tried to shoot the exercise segment in one day?

MR. WALSH: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And why was that?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Irrelevant, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE COURT: You can answer the question.

MR. WALSH: Tried to shoot in one day because through the course of preparing for the video, we didn't know if, one, if he would make it, and, two, if he did make it, would he be available to work the next day. Can I continue on about rehearsals?

THE COURT: No. Next question.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So you had this concern. So you tried to do it all in one day?

MR. WALSH: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Did you want to prescribe any kind of rehearsals so you would have a practice day one day and then do it the next day?

MR. WALSH: I had rehearsal schedules for the group behind me, there were four people behind OJ and I, and then rehearsal schedules--OJ and I got together once or twice.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Now, did OJ ever come dressed and participate in any rehearsals regarding this video?

MR. WALSH: No.

MR. COCHRAN: And did you ascertain why not?

MR. WALSH: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Why?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, let me ask it this way. Did--did you ever request Mr. Simpson to come for a dress rehearsal as it were?

MR. WALSH: Did I just--

MR. COCHRAN: Ask him to do it?

MR. WALSH: No. I just assumed that he would show up ready to exercise.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And did he show up?

MR. WALSH: He showed up.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. When he showed up, how was he dressed?

MR. WALSH: Street clothes.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you have a conversation with him as to why he was in street clothes?

MR. WALSH: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: You did? And did the subject matter of that concern his physical limitations if any?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. What--describe for this jury what you saw when you saw OJ show up for the dress rehearsal.

MR. WALSH: What I saw or what I said?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes. What you saw and what you observed.

MR. WALSH: I saw him dressed in street clothes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And what did you say.

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Irrelevant and it's hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: So you--did you have a conversation with OJ Simpson at that point?

MR. WALSH: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And in relation to May 25th, when was this dress rehearsal?

MR. WALSH: I may be wrong, but I think it was May 24th, the day before.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And at any rate, did Mr. Simpson participate in the dress rehearsal on May 24th or whatever date it was?

MR. WALSH: Not really.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

MR. WALSH: He--

MR. COCHRAN: What did he do, if anything?

MR. WALSH: He watched a little bit. He tried on the clothes that he was going to wear the next day. He kind of moved a little bit, but that was about it. I mean, very--almost to the point of not really. Hardly at all.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, on May 25th or thereabouts, did you then come back and assemble the group to shoot the particular video?

MR. WALSH: That was the first day of shooting.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And with regard to that, do you do something unusual when you--before you start a workout and before you're going to be on camera? Do you do something unusual for yourself?

MR. WALSH: You're letting out all my secrets here. Yes, I do.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, if you can tell us, and I guess everybody will know soon. What do you do before you start?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: I'll link it up.

THE COURT: You can answer the question.

MR. WALSH: Okay. Usually when I'm about to do a video project or a TV project and the outfit usually is a tank top or a leotard of some type, if you've ever been on a TV set or a video set or a movie set, there's these big lights and there's these reflector boards, and holding these reflector boards and lights down are big sandbags. And I always walk over to the sandbags right before I'm about to shoot, and I grab a couple of them and I start lifting like this (Indicating), and it gives you kind of a false size of your arms. It makes the arms a little bit bigger, makes the veins come out so that when we go out on the set and begin filming, you look a little bit--as the word would be--pumped up.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So when you were making a motion with your hands, as though you were doing curls with these bags?

MR. WALSH: Right. I was doing curls with the sandbags.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And while you were doing the curls on this particular date of May 25th, did OJ Simpson come over to where you were?

MR. WALSH: Yes, he did.

MR. COCHRAN: And describe what you observed at that point.

MR. WALSH: Well, he first asked what I was doing, and I told him, "This is a secret. You don't tell anybody this. This is my own secret." And so he grabbed a couple of the bags, and I told him about how it makes the arms look bigger. And he was standing with no back support, and I was doing curls and, you know, I'm not a strong man, but the bags probably weighed anywhere from 20 to 30 pounds, and I was doing a good amount of repetitions. And he's putting his hand--and much to my surprise, he couldn't even lift it. He couldn't do one bicep curl.

MR. COCHRAN: And how many curls were you doing with these--when you talk about reps, "Reps" stands for repetitions; is that correct?

MR. WALSH: Repetitions, correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And how many--

THE COURT: Excuse me. Mr. Walsh, if you would, would you allow Mr. Cochran to finish asking you the question before you start to answer. The reason is, the court reporter tries to take down the testimony and can only take one person at a time. All right. So take a breath, let him finish answering the question. That way, we don't have to do too many reps.

MR. WALSH: And I'm sure she can see from the videotape that I'm a man of many words.

THE COURT: Yes. Proceed.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: With regard to the--these reps, how many of these reps did you do, sir?

MR. WALSH: Probably about 20.

MR. COCHRAN: And how many did you see OJ Simpson do, if any?

MR. WALSH: I didn't see him do any. He got about halfway up and then he needed a little assistance.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, in the course of your preparing or shooting the video that day, did you ever have occasion to either touch or bump into Mr. Simpson at all?

MR. WALSH: There was one situation. It was at a break, whether they're relighting or redoing cameras or whatever it was, and they asked us to stay on the floor, stay in our spots because, as you saw the videotape, each person has a spot and--

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor. Pardon me, sir. This is nonresponsive.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, this is--he's responding seems to me.

MR. DARDEN: The question called for a yes or no answer.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. COCHRAN: You may proceed, sir.

MR. WALSH: Okay. So everybody has a spot. And so you kind of stay right there. And all of a sudden, I looked at OJ, and he was kind of coming at me like he was carrying a football, kind of like this (Indicating), which is kind of just moving slow. And as he got near me like he--I just kind of took my elbow like a football player would and kind of hit him, but very, very lightly.

MR. COCHRAN: And when you--you struck his body at that point?

MR. WALSH: Like his elbow or shoulder or arm or something like that.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you see his reaction when that happened?

MR. WALSH: He started literally flying. I mean not flying in the air, but he started jumping around and hobbling and he started screaming, "My knee, my knee."

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled. Proceed.

MR. WALSH: So he started--

THE COURT: Wait, wait. Next question. This is not a narrative. This is question and answer.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

THE COURT: Ask the next question.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. At that point--this happened during a break on the set that day; is that correct?

MR. WALSH: Not necessarily at a break. Just in-between shots, in-between takes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And did he--as you observed Mr. Simpson, did he seem to be kidding at that point with you?

MR. WALSH: I think he was kidding--

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: Did he seem to be kidding with you at that point?

MR. WALSH: He was kidding up to that point, and then as I gave him a little elbow bump, he was no longer kidding. This is--

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, with regard to this video, we saw some video here in court over the course of the last couple of days. And were there times between the video when there were breaks while you reset up and started over various things?

MR. WALSH: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And do you recall what, if anything, Mr. Simpson would do during these breaks, during the times when the camera wasn't on? Do you recall, was there a chair for him or anything of that nature?

MR. WALSH: Towards the end, there was a chair for him.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Describe that for the Court and the jury, what you observed.

MR. WALSH: Well, towards the end, when the chair came out, it was after one situation. But--

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Well, we'll get back to that situation. Tell us about the chair.

MR. WALSH: Okay. When the chair came out, we kind of were on a set, might have been lifted, I don't know, 12, 14 inches off the ground. It was a hardwood floor. So gives you the feeling of being inside a gym or inside a fitness studio. And when we would take a break toward the end of the day, because it was somewhere around a 12- or 14-, maybe even a 15-hour day of doing this, they would put a chair right up there so he wouldn't even have to walk down, and, you know, they would slap some ice bags on him.

MR. COCHRAN: And where would--ice bags?

MR. WALSH: Ice bags.

MR. COCHRAN: And where would these ice bags be placed?

MR. WALSH: Definitely the knee. I think I even saw one time on the shoulder.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you recall seeing that?

MR. WALSH: Yes. Definitely the knee, and I think they had one that they were even rubbing on his shoulder, his arm or something.

MR. COCHRAN: And this would be between the shots?

MR. WALSH: This would be--right. As we were--we would do things, a run-through. And as you saw on the video, any time it came to push-ups, we did three rounds. And so when you got to the push-ups, that was end of round 1. And you'd do round 1 two or three or four times; and when you work with me, you do it as many times as you possibly can because we shoot it with three cameras, and I think we might even have used a fourth camera in some shots. And the more footage you have, it makes editing a little more difficult, but gives you an opportunity to have better production, better quality video in case you missed a shot.

MR. COCHRAN: And that's when you get down to the finished product; isn't that correct?

MR. WALSH: Correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, during the course of this day that you've described where you're trying to shoot all in one day, was there a period of time where you could not do anything for an hour or two period of time?

MR. WALSH: We had one problem. I'd rather not get into that, the actual nature of the problem. But there was a situation where we had to take about a two-hour break.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And during that two-hour break, was there a problem with Mr. Simpson?

MR. WALSH: Yeah. He had mentioned--

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Hearsay, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, with regard to Mr. Simpson's physical abilities, did you notice any difference in him after a two-your cool down period of time? Can you tell us about--you can answer that.

MR. WALSH: He had mentioned that if--

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You have to tell us what you observed.

MR. WALSH: Okay. I observed as we began, he could hardly function.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, you're talking about after the two-hour period of time?

MR. WALSH: Correct.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Describe for us the difference between when you stopped and when you started some two hours later in your own words.

MR. WALSH: I know what it was. But do you want me just to say what it was or--

MR. COCHRAN: Tell us what it was.

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Rephrase the question, counsel.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Would you describe for us in your own words what you observed with Mr. Simpson after you started up after this two hours.

MR. WALSH: Okay. In the beginning, prior to the two hours, he was a little bit more mobile. You know, not near as mobile as, you know, like a lot of the people who are in the video. But after the two-hour break, he was very, very tight.

MR. COCHRAN: And how did this tightness manifest itself, if you can describe that for us?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Competency.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. WALSH: Sometimes when muscles are warm and loose when you're exercising, you sit for a while, like sometimes even if you get off an airplane or out of your car after a long ride and you get up, you're very stiff and very tight. And that was what I observed.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, you didn't see Mr. Simpson the day after he shot this video, did you, the day after the 26th of May, did you?

MR. WALSH: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you see him? Did you notice anything about how he appeared on that date?

MR. WALSH: I didn't spend a lot of time speaking with him that day.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, at the end of the day, at the end of the time you finished this particular shoot, can you describe for us again your observations of him and his appearance at that time and how he appeared to you?

MR. WALSH: Relieved. I mean, exhausted and relieved. I think everybody was pretty tired at the end of that day.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, with regard to this video, you of course have seen the finished product that was merchandised; is that correct?

MR. WALSH: I have seen the finished product, right.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. And there were also some rough cuts or some--

MR. WALSH: Out-takes.

MR. COCHRAN: --out-takes; is that correct? And in that connection, I would like you--prior to your coming to the stand today, I asked you to show us or to look at a particular portion of the video which I don't think we've seen this part. I don't want to spend much time for the jury, but is there a particular portion where you are doing some stretching exercises?

MR. WALSH: Correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And does this stretching exercises show Mr. Simpson attempting to stretch?

MR. WALSH: Correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And I'm going to ask now--

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I think--I'm going to find out if this has been marked. This is part of the exhibit 124 I believe, your Honor.

MR. HARRIS: 124.

MR. DARDEN: I understand it wasn't. I'll take Howard's word for it.

THE COURT: As will i.

MR. COCHRAN: Exhibit number 521, your Honor.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. COCHRAN: Is this cued up, Mr. Harris?

MR. COCHRAN: All right. I'm going to ask you and the jury to take a look at a particular portion of exhibit 521, which is one of the People's exhibits, and I'm going to ask you some questions about it.

MR. DARDEN: Is that without the volume, your Honor?

THE COURT: No. It's with the sound.

MR. COCHRAN: Just like it was when Mr. Kelberg played it.

THE COURT: With the sound. Proceed.

(At 2:21 P.M., People's exhibit 521, a videotape, was played.)

MR. COCHRAN: What are we seeing now?

MR. WALSH: Just doing some stretches for the lower back and lats and warm up.

THE COURT: 1550.

MR. COCHRAN: 1550.

MR. WALSH: Here it is I think.

MR. COCHRAN: Can you stop it there?

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, what, if anything, happened when he tried to do this particular exercise we're demonstrating now?

MR. WALSH: He has an inability to stretch this position. What we're doing is extending the--as you can see from the people behind him, we're extending the left hamstring with the heel on the floor and the toe up as we prepare to do the activity so we can loosen the hamstring, loosen the lower back and avoid pulled muscles. He cannot seem to bend either the left or right knee. And part of writing this, I used some of his injuries and wrote alternative ways of working out. If you think about the people in the world, everybody may have a shoulder problem, an elbow problem, a knee problem. It doesn't exclude them from exercising. There should be alternative ways of exercising. That's something I try to bring to the forefront in this video.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So you were aware of these limitations and tried to write that into it; is that correct?

MR. WALSH: Right. This was a hamstring stretch from a standing position that we're going to put him in.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Your Honor, so the record is clear, we're at 15:51:43 at this point where we've stopped it.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And you tell us how much further this should go, this goes on, this particular stretch aspect.

MR. WALSH: Do you mind if I let it go for like an hour?

MR. COCHRAN: Well, no. Maybe--I don't think the Judge and jury would like that. So we'll go just as long as it's relevant.

MR. WALSH: All right.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. We'll proceed now. Can I stop right there?

MR. COCHRAN: There's a lady who seems to be in very good shape right behind Mr. Simpson. Is she doing it the way you would want a particular participant to do it?

MR. WALSH: She's doing that the correct way.

MR. COCHRAN: And then you have to characterize that with the way Mr. Simpson is doing it?

MR. WALSH: Right.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You may continue on.

MR. WALSH: I think that's the end of the stretching portion. Yeah. We're going into push-ups here.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, there are I presume other stretching scenes which are pretty illustrative of what we just saw; is that right?

MR. WALSH: I believe so.

MR. COCHRAN: Where it would further indicate the problems he was having on that date?

MR. WALSH: I believe so.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Well, I don't want to bore the jury. So I'm going to skip down to something else. Is that all right with you?

MR. WALSH: It's fine with me.

MR. COCHRAN: Is it fine with you, your Honor?

THE COURT: Perfect.

MR. COCHRAN: I knew you'd say that. (At 2:25 P.M., the playing of the videotape was concluded.)

MR. COCHRAN: I want to now--in addition to this video, and we've seen a lot of this particular video in the aerobics part of it, was there also a part where Mr. Simpson sits behind a desk and talks about kind of sedentary exercises and things like that?

MR. WALSH: Right. There's a scene from an office, a simulated office where part of the tape, the first half hour of the tape or 30 minutes, whatever it was, was aerobic activity, and the second half hour of the tape was little segments of things you can do to stay loose or physically fit a little bit while you're in the office or on an airplane or a hotel room or so forth.

MR. COCHRAN: And we're going to ask Mr. Harris to cue up--first of all, I think the airplane scene, your Honor, I'm not sure, your Honor, this has been marked yet. This is not marked. So I'd like to mark this as the Defendant's next in order if the Court pleases.

THE COURT: All right. Is this the commercial video itself?

MR. COCHRAN: I think this is part of the commercial video, yes, your Honor. The next two will be.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. COCHRAN: That will be 1255?

THE COURT: 1255.

MR. COCHRAN: We'll make this 1255. All right.

(Deft's 1255 for id = videotape)

MR. COCHRAN: And I'm going to ask you to take a look at 1255, this particular portion of the video and tell us what is taking place.

MR. WALSH: Okay.

(At 2:26 P.M., Defendant's exhibit 1255, a videotape, was played.)

MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, this is irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: As far as Richard, who is he talking about?

MR. WALSH: Me.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And then you then proceed to do some exercises where you're standing?

MR. WALSH: Correct.

MR. COCHRAN: On the plane?

MR. WALSH: Correct.

(At 2:29 P.M., the playing of the videotape was concluded.)

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And did you write the portion that Mr. Simpson gave there also?

MR. WALSH: I wrote the exercise.

MR. COCHRAN: You wrote the exercises? And when you talked to Mr. Simpson about his participation in the video, did he want to participate in this kind of video as opposed to the aerobics kind?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: You can't answer that. All right. Now, there was still a further one--

MR. COCHRAN: And Mr.--I'll ask him to find that. All right. He's going to try to get the last segment, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: With regard--you mentioned earlier there was a scene in a simulated office; is that correct?

MR. WALSH: Correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And what is depicted in this scene at the simulated office, if you recall?

MR. WALSH: I recall he did a bunch of exercises that you can do. Most of them are from stretching positions that you could do if you were in a coat and tie in the office where you wouldn't really perspire a lot. And sometimes sitting for extended periods of time, again, makes you feel tired and groggy. And if you implement a few of these exercises when you're in your office, you tend to be a little bit more awake and have a little bit more life about you.

MR. COCHRAN: And did you write this also?

MR. WALSH: The exercise I did.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. The exercise you did?

MR. COCHRAN: And with regard to that, if Mr. Harris can get to it and shortly.

MR. COCHRAN: How long is that aspect? How long is that one?

MR. WALSH: That one, if I remember, I think that might have been the longest of all. It might have been four minutes.

MR. COCHRAN: About four minutes?

MR. WALSH: About four minutes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, with regard to other anecdotal information, did you have any other particular anecdotes or any other things that occurred during the course of this day with Mr. Simpson? We've talked about the chair, sitting on the chairs and the ice.

MR. WALSH: Right.

MR. COCHRAN: The bags. Any other anecdotal things of that nature?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. The question is vague.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Did anything else happen with regard to Mr. Simpson that you observed and his physical limitations on that day?

MR. WALSH: Not that I can recall right now.

MR. COCHRAN: We're still getting there, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: The--with regard to the other people who participated in this video, there were some ladies in the background?

MR. WALSH: Two women.

MR. COCHRAN: And two men?

MR. WALSH: Two men.

MR. COCHRAN: Plus yourself? Now, were those people fairly physically fit?

MR. WALSH: The women were in pretty good shape as were the men. But due to the nature of the concept of the video, which was, we were going to target the men's market--and one study that I saw indicated that as many as 50 percent of the men in America are sedentary. So we didn't want to come back with a real hard-hitting video nor did we want to come in with a video where everybody was in great shape. And so the men were kind of what we called an every-day man.

MR. COCHRAN: Every-day man?

MR. WALSH: Like an every-day man, not bad shape, not great shape.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

MR. WALSH: In fact--well, go ahead.

MR. COCHRAN: The women were in better shape than the men, weren't they?

MR. WALSH: The women were in a little bit better shape.

MR. COCHRAN: And the women--may be a sensitive subject. What was the general age of the women in that video?

MR. WALSH: I would say--no disrespect to them, but I would say they were 30 to 35.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And with regard to you, you were kind of the leader of that video, right?

MR. WALSH: Correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And at the time this video was shot last May, were you just a tick under 40?

MR. WALSH: It's a lot under 40.

MR. COCHRAN: Were you 39?

MR. WALSH: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Is that a lot under 40?

MR. WALSH: Yeah.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So you were just under 40. All right. And the other men who were in the video, they were approximately--

MR. WALSH: Actually I take that back. I was 38.

MR. COCHRAN: 38? All right. You're 39 now?

MR. WALSH: No. I'm 40 now. We shot in May.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, with regard to the other men in the video, approximately how old were they?

MR. WALSH: Once again, I would say 33 to 40.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. I think Mr. Harris has this now. And would you take a look at this and tell us what we're looking at.

(At 2:34 P.M., Defendant's exhibit 1255, a videotape, was played.)

MR. COCHRAN: All right. I think we got the idea.

(At 2:26 P.M., the playing of the videotape was concluded.)

MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to this particular--did you again write this--write the exercises for Mr. Simpson?

MR. WALSH: Yes. Once again, I kind of routined the exercise program with the doctor's sale of approval, always.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And you got the doctor's approval before you did it; is that right?

MR. WALSH: On every one of that--I'll repeat it every time if you need me to. But just so you know, that the expert did approve everything I wrote, and there were many changes.

MR. COCHRAN: On the plane situation, again, the travel situation, did Mr. Simpson participate in helping to write that because he traveled so much?

MR. WALSH: He may have had some of the speaking parts he may have put in on his own.

MR. COCHRAN: Some ad-libs?

MR. WALSH: Sure. And maybe put in a little bit of it. I did the actual exercises, and where the dialogue came from may have been put in by him, may have been put in by another writer.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, you have come here to testify today pursuant to subpoena, is that correct, or request from the Defense?

MR. WALSH: Yes, I have.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And you've talked to the Prosecution before this; have you not?

MR. WALSH: Yes, I have.

MR. COCHRAN: And you cooperated with them when they came to talk to you?

MR. WALSH: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: Did they tape-record that statement?

MR. WALSH: Yes, they did.

MR. COCHRAN: They tape-recorded it?

MR. WALSH: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: When was that you talked to them?

MR. WALSH: I don't remember the date, but I remember Kato Kaelin was on the stand, because we were watching that from my house.

MR. COCHRAN: And they came out to see you, and who came out to talk to you?

MR. WALSH: I believe it was Dana Thompson and one other gentleman.

MR. COCHRAN: And they tape-recorded your statement?

MR. WALSH: Yes, they did.

MR. COCHRAN: Very well. Thank you very kindly. I have nothing further at this point, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Darden. And, Mr. Darden, we're going to break at a quarter till.

MR. DARDEN: I might--I don't have to be finished by then, do I?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DARDEN

MR. DARDEN: Good afternoon, sir.

MR. WALSH: Good afternoon.

MR. DARDEN: You've been talking an awful lot about Mr. Simpson in your experience with him during the shooting of that video, haven't you?

MR. WALSH: Umm, I have done some--I also--can I continue?

MR. DARDEN: Is the answer yes?

MR. WALSH: Yes, with an explanation.

MR. DARDEN: Well, you've been on Geraldo twice?

MR. WALSH: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: I couldn't hear. What?

THE COURT: Geraldo.

MR. COCHRAN: No wonder I couldn't hear.

MR. DARDEN: The guy back there, Geraldo Rivera, you've been on his show twice?

MR. WALSH: Correct. Correct.

MR. DARDEN: Someone named Richard Prayger?

MR. WALSH: Umm, yes.

MR. DARDEN: Inside edition?

MR. WALSH: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: American journal?

MR. WALSH: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Any other tabloid television program?

MR. WALSH: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: What others?

MR. WALSH: I believe extra magazine also, but I need to explain also why.

MR. DARDEN: Well, did you get paid going on those shows?

MR. WALSH: No. And maybe a--a--like an after--what's it called--union payment, but I have a contract to make appearances to promote the tape. So part of my contract states I have to make 10 appearances to promote the exercise tape.

MR. DARDEN: And is this--

MR. WALSH: My reason for being on there was to talk about the exercise tape.

MR. DARDEN: Is this considered one of those appearances to promote the tape?

MR. COCHRAN: Object, your Honor. I object to that.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. WALSH: Actually I don't even know if the tape is out anymore. To be honest with you, I'll tell you what happened. Playboy has sold the tape to some other people and I have no idea if the tape is out. I haven't spoke with them for a long time.

What I understand was, the major outlets did not take it. So to the best of my knowledge--and I did have a call the other day where they could get their hands on the tape, and my answer is, I have no idea. So I don't think it's on the market. So you have not seen me on TV for I think--maybe Geraldo was the last time I was on, because that's when the tape switched hands and it never ended up in the markets. So I don't need to go on anymore.

MR. DARDEN: And you've also given a number of interviews to journalists, right, news journalists?

MR. WALSH: Newspaper? Correct.

MR. DARDEN: You gave an interview to the Los Angeles Times?

MR. WALSH: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Now, this was your first time meeting the Defendant; is that right?

MR. WALSH: First time was, yes, early `94.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. This was the first time you'd ever worked out with him, that is during the latter part of May 1994?

MR. WALSH: No. We worked out in an office in Playboy in Beverly Hills in it's either late March or April. It wasn't a strenuous workout, but it was a--we kind of went through a little bit of what we would be doing.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Okay. Now, when you began your testimony today, you said that you weren't an expert, correct?

MR. WALSH: I am not an expert.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And you said an expert would be someone with a Ph.D.?

MR. WALSH: Or an Md. Who specializes in the fitness field.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Someone like Dr. Huizenga, for instance?

MR. WALSH: I think Dr. Huizenga specializes in internal medicine.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. So someone who was a team physician for the Los Angeles Raiders wouldn't qualify as an expert in your mind; is that correct?

MR. COCHRAN: Object. Argumentative. Objection. Argumentative.

THE COURT: It's irrelevant.

MR. DARDEN: At any event, you don't hold yourself out as an expert, right?

MR. WALSH: I do not.

MR. DARDEN: You're not a doctor?

MR. WALSH: No, I'm not.

MR. DARDEN: What degrees do you hold?

MR. WALSH: None. I'm just literally a fitness instructor.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And prior to your joining Mr. Simpson on this Playboy video, you were on cable?

MR. WALSH: I was on cable.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And what cable network were you on?

MR. WALSH: Prime ticket, prime network across the United States.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And you were doing a fitness show?

MR. WALSH: Exercise--half hour exercise TV show.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And is that something that you still do?

MR. WALSH: No. It is not on at the moment.

MR. DARDEN: You shot the aerobics segment of this video in one day.

MR. WALSH: Correct.

MR. DARDEN: And when you say one day, you don't mean just in eight hours, correct?

MR. WALSH: Correct.

MR. DARDEN: It actually took you what? 15 hours, 16 hours to shoot this video?

MR. WALSH: I don't know the exact time, but it was pretty high. Yeah, it was right up in that area.

MR. DARDEN: And Mr. Simpson was present at the beginning of the video?

MR. WALSH: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And he was present at the end; is that correct?

MR. WALSH: Yes, he was.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And you described for us already some of his limitations, correct?

MR. WALSH: Correct.

MR. DARDEN: And when you saw Mr. Simpson, you recognized those limitations, right? You recognized the fact that he had some limitations, right?

MR. WALSH: When I saw him--

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Well, when you saw him on the 27th or 26th rather.

MR. WALSH: 25th, the day of the shooting?

MR. DARDEN: Okay.

MR. WALSH: Right. Sure. I knew of his limitations by that point.

MR. DARDEN: And you were concerned that he might not be able to make it through the video?

MR. WALSH: Right.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. He might not be able to make it through the shooting, right?

MR. WALSH: Yeah. In fact, I somewhat prepared for that.

MR. DARDEN: But he did make it, didn't he?

MR. WALSH: Yes, he did.

MR. DARDEN: You were surprised that he made it, correct?

MR. WALSH: Towards the end of the day, I wasn't anymore.

MR. DARDEN: He convinced you that he could do it as the day went on; is that correct?

MR. WALSH: He convinced me that he would be able to do it, correct.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Now, throughout the day, you--you and the Defendant did a number of exercises, right?

MR. WALSH: Correct.

MR. DARDEN: Did push-ups?

MR. WALSH: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: You saw the Defendant make punching motions?

MR. WALSH: Yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: And what do you call this thing where you twist your trunk all the way around?

MR. WALSH: That would just be like a lower back abdominal strengthening.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. He did that. He--what other kinds of exercises did the Defendant do that day?

MR. WALSH: We did a lot of, you know, movements as you saw, forward and backward movements, lateral movements. We did bending from the waist, bending from the knees. We did shoulder movements. We did lats and backs. We did some bicep curls. We really covered--when you write a tape, something the doctor insisted that I put in the tape is you train balance. And all that simply means is, if we're going to work the bicep, we have to work the tricep. If we're going to work the quad, you have to work the hamstring. You have to train a joint balance. Otherwise, you'd have a discrepancy in strength and flexibility about the joint. So there are many times when I'd write something down and we would tape me doing it, send it to the doctor, and he would send it back with suggestions and corrections and so forth. So we did every muscle, not every muscle for the body, but we did cover the body pretty much from head to toe at entry level position.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And Mr. Simpson did all of that?

MR. WALSH: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Now, Mr. Simpson was able to lift his arms over his head, correct?

MR. WALSH: Correct.

MR. DARDEN: He was able to lift his body up on his toes and on his hands and do push-ups, correct?

MR. WALSH: Correct.

MR. DARDEN: He was able to stand on his toes?

MR. WALSH: Right. We have a point where we--it's a slow movement up and down because it activates the calf and Achilles tendon, which is a common injury in running and jogging and exercise.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And despite his limitations, he was able--able to extend his legs in sort of a runner's stance?

MR. WALSH: Like the hamstring--the calf stretch and the hamstring stretch, yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And he was able to bend his knees?

MR. WALSH: Sure.

MR. DARDEN: In a standing position, he was able to bend his knees?

MR. WALSH: Right. From the one you saw, the standing hamstring stretch.

MR. DARDEN: So he just did a number of exercises that day, right?

MR. WALSH: We did quite a few as you saw on the tape.

MR. DARDEN: Now, there was a point around 7:00 or 8:00 clock that night when you became especially concerned as to whether or not the Defendant could complete the video; is that correct?

MR. WALSH: One part in particular when we restarted after that two-hour break.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And you were concerned at that time that he might not finish, right?

MR. WALSH: It was--it was put to me that--I wanted to do another run through in each area.

MR. DARDEN: All right. So the answer is yes to my question?

MR. WALSH: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And you did something to help motivate the Defendant; is that correct?

MR. WALSH: Yeah. Yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: To get him going, right? You issued a challenge?

MR. WALSH: Yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: You helped him set a goal, right?

MR. WALSH: You bet.

MR. DARDEN: And that's because you figured in your own mind, if you could help him set a goal, issue a challenge, he would try to--he would try to reach that goal, right?

MR. WALSH: Yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: You said something to the Defendant, didn't you?

MR. WALSH: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: What did you say to him?

MR. WALSH: I don't know exactly the word, but I said something to the effect that--well, let me start by saying this. We started to--we wanted to do all three rounds. And OJ said, "Listen, I'm good for one round. I've been sitting for a couple of hours."

MR. DARDEN: Okay. But tell me what you said.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, can he finish the answer, respond to the question?

THE COURT: No. It's nonresponsive though.

MR. DARDEN: What did you say to the Defendant to motivate him and to help him set a goal?

MR. COCHRAN: I object as hearsay, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. DARDEN: State of mind, your Honor. Explains subsequent conduct.

MR. COCHRAN: Hearsay, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, this next question and answer is limited in preface only to explain the subsequent conduct, not for the truth of what was said.

MR. DARDEN: What did you say to the Defendant to motivate him and to help him set a goal?

MR. WALSH: Okay. After the first round, we got to push-ups. I kept--I got back on my feet. I started walking and I looked at him and I said something to the effect that--again, I don't know the exact words, but something to the effect that, "Geez, too bad you're not tough enough to make it through this." And I just kept walking or something along that lines to try to motivate him or kind of tease him a little bit that, you know, "I'm plenty strong enough to keep going. It's too bad you're not," and--

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And so what did the Defendant say after you teased him a little bit?

MR. WALSH: He kind of looked at me and something to the effect, he said something like, "Let's go. Let's do it," something along those lines. Again, I don't know the exact words.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And you'd already been exercising something like 12 hours; is that correct?

MR. WALSH: That's no problem for me. Yes.

MR. DARDEN: You understand that in this case, we're concerned as to what happened within a matter of several seconds?

MR. COCHRAN: I object to the form of that question, your Honor. Irrelevant and immaterial.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. So the Defendant said something like or words to the effect of, "Let's go, let's go, come on," right?

MR. COCHRAN: That misstates--misstates.

THE COURT: The jury heard what the statement was.

MR. DARDEN: All right. And did you and the Defendant again begin exercising shortly thereafter?

MR. WALSH: Right.

MR. DARDEN: And during the exercise, did you continue to say things to the Defendant?

MR. WALSH: I kind of needled--

MR. DARDEN: You can answer that yes or no.

MR. WALSH: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Did you needle him?

MR. WALSH: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Did you challenge him?

MR. WALSH: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And did he respond to those challenges?

MR. WALSH: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And isn't it true that the more you needled this Defendant and challenged this Defendant, the more he was fine?

MR. WALSH: Yes. But I need to explain something about that. When you're--when you're hosting a show or an exercise tape like this, there has to be a certain amount of energy and kind of playing along with the audience and the people, and that's very important. That's part of every show and every activity that I'm involved--everything I host is kind of like, you know, you kind of lead them along, you gear them along, you motivate them. You know, it's like a coach sitting there saying, "Come on, you can do it," things along those lines. So yes, the answer to your question is correct. But because OJ and I were the only two speaking people in the tape, it was important that I kind of direct things at him. It wouldn't make a lot of sense to turn to one of the people behind me whose names you don't know or hear about and start talking with him.

MR. DARDEN: Is this a good time to break, your Honor?

THE COURT: It is. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we'll take our mid-afternoon break. Remember all my admonitions to you. We'll back in session at 3 o'clock. Mr. Walsh, you can step down. Come back in 10 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. All parties are again present. Let's have the jury, 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. Let the record reflect we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury. Mr. Richard Walsh, would you resume the witness stand, please. And, Mr. Darden, you may continue with your cross-examination.

MR. DARDEN: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. DARDEN: Mr. Walsh, during these exercises, the Defendant was able to extend fully pretty much all of his major muscle groups; is that right?

MR. WALSH: Correct.

MR. DARDEN: Let me show you one brief segment.

MR. COCHRAN: Which one is this, counsel?

MR. DARDEN: This is from--

THE COURT: Which exhibit is this from?

MR. DARDEN: This is 16:42:44 from the out-takes.

THE COURT: Out-take video. The out-take video.

MR. DARDEN: That will be 124 I believe from exhibit 521.

(At 3:10 P.M., People's exhibit 521, a videotape, was played.)

MR. DARDEN: What do we see here, Mr. Walsh? Narrate this for us.

MR. WALSH: We're walking in place right--we're walking in place right now doing some straight arm movements, working the anterior deltoid.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. He is extending his--both arms completely, fully and completely; is that correct?

MR. WALSH: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: He's also extending his--both legs to the rear; is that right?

MR. WALSH: Correct. One at a time.

MR. DARDEN: Bending his knees. Now, what is he doing?

MR. WALSH: We're doing some punching, movements of--incorporating upper body muscle groups.

MR. DARDEN: He is twisting his upper body completely?

MR. WALSH: Correct.

MR. DARDEN: And he's punching out?

MR. WALSH: Right.

MR. DARDEN: Now, he's punching up?

MR. WALSH: Right.

MR. DARDEN: Hands in a fist?

MR. WALSH: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Let me show you another portion from that same exhibit, 15:49:46. What is he doing here?

MR. WALSH: Extending arm over head, short lever, long lever.

MR. DARDEN: And he's extending his arm completely in front of him and over his head?

MR. WALSH: Correct.

MR. DARDEN: And that requires the use of the major muscle groups in the shoulder and the back, right?

MR. WALSH: Shoulder, back, arms, lats, correct.

MR. DARDEN: Let me show you another segment, 15:48:45. He is able to extend his arms outward fully?

MR. WALSH: Right. We're going arms over head like this (Indicating), bringing it down forward, extending down to warm up a little bit.

(At 3:12 P.M., the playing of the videotape was concluded.)

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And you did warm up a little bit; is that right?

MR. WALSH: Yes, we did. Part of the--any type of activity always should include a warm-up, and on our tape, of course, it was a three to five minute warm-up.

MR. DARDEN: And I think it was your finding that after watching the Defendant warm up, that the more he warmed up, the more limber he appeared; is that correct?

MR. WALSH: That is correct.

MR. DARDEN: The more he warmed up, the more he could do; is that right?

MR. WALSH: Correct.

MR. DARDEN: And he could do things easier, right?

MR. WALSH: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Now, there were times during this taping when you yourself felt a little winded; is that right?

MR. WALSH: No. I don't think so in all honesty. I mean, I may have been a little bit tired. Mostly tired of talking maybe, but physically, no.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Is it more difficult to exercise and talk than it is to just exercise?

MR. WALSH: You bet.

MR. COCHRAN: I object to the form.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. WALSH: Yes, it is. In fact, the project I'm hired for mostly, I'm hired hosting projects because of my mouth, not because of anything else. In fact, when Playboy hired me, they hired me because they said, "Though you're in shape, you have the appearance that people could look at you and say, `geez, I could look like that,' as opposed to someone who is so physically fit, they could--`I'll never be able to look like that.'" so it's kind of a back-handed compliment.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. At any event--and you do talk, Mr. Walsh--but it is more difficult to exercise and talk while exercising?

MR. WALSH: Tremendous amount. Tremendous.

MR. DARDEN: It takes a lot more aerobic--

MR. WALSH: Conditioning.

MR. DARDEN: --effort. Conditioning. And that's what the Defendant did in this case, right? He exercised and he talked during those exercises?

MR. WALSH: Right. When you see the tape, it would be like compared to a football game. I would be the play-by-play man, and then he would be the color commentator. He throws in the tidbits and I throw in the foundation types.

MR. DARDEN: You know, to get back to those occasions when you would challenge the Defendant and motivate him and help him set a goal--

MR. COCHRAN: I object to that question. I object to the form of that question.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: Compound.

MR. DARDEN: You concluded at some point that the Defendant was really a gamer; is that right?

MR. WALSH: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. That's the word you used, "Gamer"?

MR. WALSH: I believe so.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And what did you mean by that?

MR. WALSH: Well, towards the end of the day--we had been going a long time. The two girls behind me were very physically fit and used to this type of activity. Nobody is used to 12-hour days of exercise. They were. Two men behind me, young men in their 30's, they were beat. I mean they were gone. And they're in better shape, at least in my opinion, than OJ was, and there are times I thought he was not going to be able to finish many times. I talked with Playboy prior to shooting, not able to get him better prepared for it, and somehow, you know, when "Action" was said, he somehow dug down and was able to pull it out.

MR. DARDEN: He was able to do it once the camera came on, correct?

MR. WALSH: Uh-huh. Yeah.

MR. COCHRAN: I object to the form of that question. It has nothing to do with the camera.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: Once you began shooting, the Defendant somehow found the energy and made the effort to do the exercises that you wanted him to do; is that right?

MR. WALSH: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: And he managed to do them the way that you wanted him to do those exercises?

MR. WALSH: Pretty much so, yeah.

MR. DARDEN: Let me just show you a clip from 16:45:38.

(At 3:15 P.M., People's exhibit 521, a videotape, was played.)

MR. DARDEN: What's going on here?

MR. WALSH: Getting ready to do push-ups.

(At 3:16 P.M., the playing of the videotape was concluded.)

MR. DARDEN: Now, in that video clip we just saw of the Defendant doing push-ups--

MR. WALSH: Correct.

MR. DARDEN: --right, his back was straight, correct?

MR. WALSH: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: He did it in the appropriate manner?

MR. WALSH: Yes. I'd say so.

MR. DARDEN: And there was one point in that video where the Defendant was sort of challenging you, wasn't he?

MR. WALSH: Probably.

MR. DARDEN: You looked a little winded there; wouldn't you agree?

MR. WALSH: He was dreaming. I wasn't--no. I think he was kidding, go along with the theme of exercise video or a show, kind of the motivation type stuff.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Now, when the video session was over--and I'm sorry. How long did it take?

MR. WALSH: I don't know the exact number of hours. I wouldn't be surprised if it took 15 hours.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Now, would that be 15 hours of actual taping?

MR. WALSH: No. Wouldn't be 15 hours of actual taping, but what it would be would be 15 hours that day on the set. You know, you do break for lunch, you do have breaks in-between run-throughs. You do have breaks for camera reasons or any other problem, but it's quite a bit of exercise.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And after you completed the shooting for that day--

MR. WALSH: Right.

MR. DARDEN: --after about 15 hours, did you discuss with the Defendant his performance that day?

MR. WALSH: I did in leaving.

MR. DARDEN: Did you ask him how he was able to do that?

MR. COCHRAN: This is hearsay, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. DARDEN: May I have one moment, your Honor?

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

MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, this is a question posed to the Defendant.

MR. COCHRAN: I couldn't hear.

MR. DARDEN: It's not offered for the truth of the matter stated.

THE COURT: Let me see counsel without the court reporter, please.

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

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Proceed.

MR. DARDEN: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. DARDEN: Mr. Walsh, at the end of that session that day, you asked the Defendant how he was able to complete the workout that day, correct?

MR. WALSH: Yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: What did he say?

MR. WALSH: Again, I don't know the exact wording he used. I believe it was something to the effect that, he said, "It's like--it's like Sunday," or, "Just like game day," or something like that, referring to the days when he played football. I believe that was the wording.

MR. DARDEN: The Defendant said it was like game day?

MR. WALSH: Something like that, yeah.

MR. DARDEN: And in fact, he went on to explain to you what he meant by that term, correct?

MR. WALSH: No. He just kind of let it go like that. You know, kind of like, you know, referring to the old Sundays when it was time to put the helmet on.

MR. DARDEN: That's something that he said?

MR. WALSH: Yes. I believe so.

MR. DARDEN: Well, what did he say in that regard?

MR. WALSH: I remember finishing--

MR. COCHRAN: I'm sorry. I didn't hear the question.

THE COURT: What did he say in that regard.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you.

MR. WALSH: We finished it. And remember, we were going to do one run through. And after a little kind of coaxing him, we went through the whole aerobic segment one last time. This was in the, you know, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th hour, wherever it was where we finished. And I have to admit, I was amazed that the man was able to do it. I looked and said, "How were you able to do that," because he was dead set on stopping after the first round, and that's when he made that comment.

MR. DARDEN: The comment being that it's like game day?

MR. WALSH: Like game day.

MR. DARDEN: And the Defendant told you at that time that back when he played in the NFL, during those days, that he'd be a wreck all week, correct?

MR. COCHRAN: Objection, your Honor. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. WALSH: Not at that time.

MR. DARDEN: Oh, he told you something like that at a later time?

MR. WALSH: No. An earlier time.

MR. DARDEN: Well, when was it that he told you that?

MR. COCHRAN: It's hearsay, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. WALSH: It was during that--when I mentioned we had that break, and we really had to spend two hours of virtually doing nothing and we were just kind of sitting around discussing--you know, discussing football days, discussing other stuff, golf and things like that.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And what did he say to you at that time about being a physical wreck in the NFL?

MR. WALSH: Umm, mentioning that, you know, you'd wake up Monday morning and feeling pretty beat up, you know, kind of sometimes lasts throughout the week. And again, I don't know exactly the words used, but it was something referring to--and this wasn't the first time I've heard this. I know several NFL football players who've kind of mentioned the same thing. So--

MR. DARDEN: Well, you had a conversation with one of my investigators on March 22, 1995; is that correct?

MR. WALSH: I don't know. Could I see the transcript?

MR. DARDEN: You spoke to my investigator, Dana Thompson?

MR. WALSH: Yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: And that conversation was recorded?

MR. WALSH: That was recorded.

MR. DARDEN: Would it refresh your recollection to look at a transcript of the conversation you had with Mr. Thompson?

MR. COCHRAN: May I see it, your Honor?

MR. WALSH: I would.

THE COURT: Yes.

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

MR. DARDEN: Let me show you page 6. Let me--I'm going to ask you to read it to yourself first of all. I'm going to direct your attention to paragraph 2.

MR. WALSH: (The witness complies.) Just the yellow, right?

MR. DARDEN: Yes. Just paragraph 2.

MR. WALSH: Correct. That's pretty much everything I said.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Does that refresh your recollection as to what you said?

MR. WALSH: Umm, yeah. I mean, that's kind of the way I answered, right.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Okay. Well, the Defendant told you that it was like game day, right?

MR. WALSH: Right.

MR. DARDEN: And he told you about being in the NFL, right?

MR. WALSH: Right.

MR. DARDEN: He told you about being a physical wreck throughout the week?

MR. WALSH: Right.

MR. DARDEN: And then he told you despite any physical ailments or limitations he felt he might have during the week, he was always able to play on Sunday, right?

MR. WALSH: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: He told you that he got up for game day, right?

MR. WALSH: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: He got up for the challenge?

MR. WALSH: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Let me just show you a couple more excerpts, and I'll be finished, Mr. Walsh.

THE COURT: 16:44:27?

MR. DARDEN: Yes.

(At 3:24 P.M., People's exhibit 521, a videotape, was played.)

MR. DARDEN: He's sort of bending his knees there?

MR. WALSH: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Some lateral movement there?

MR. WALSH: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And that doesn't mean that he can play in the NBA, right?

MR. WALSH: No way.

MR. DARDEN: But he does have some lateral movement?

MR. WALSH: Right.

MR. DARDEN: You mentioned a few moments ago that the Defendant made it all the way through the entire last--

MR. WALSH: All three rounds.

(At 3:25 P.M., the playing of the videotape was concluded.)

MR. DARDEN: Okay. How long did each round last?

MR. WALSH: Oh, I would say somewhere in the vicinity of nine minutes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And how many times did you do each segment?

MR. WALSH: Throughout the day total?

MR. DARDEN: Yeah.

MR. WALSH: Boy, I would probably say we did each round I'd say three times each at least and then the last run-through. So three times each, I'd say maybe four times each.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Now, would you agree this Defendant could--Mr. Simpson, he could exert himself physically for two or three minutes at one time?

MR. WALSH: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: I would like to show you another excerpt. You and the Defendant had a number of brief conversations throughout the day; is that right?

MR. WALSH: Yeah. I would imagine so.

MR. DARDEN: Let me show you 16:42:44.

(At 3:25 P.M., People's exhibit 521, a videotape, was played.)

MR. DARDEN: And before we start running this, what's the Defendant doing in this still?

MR. WALSH: Looks like we're just reaching up in the air.

THE COURT: 15:48:54.

MR. WALSH: We're either reaching up--

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Now, in this segment, his arms are fully extended in front of him; is that right?

MR. WALSH: Yes. It appears so.

THE COURT: That's at 16:42 that we started.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Nothing about that clip that would--

MR. COCHRAN: I object to counsel's characterization, fully extended arms. Object to the characterization.

THE COURT: Overruled. Mr. Darden.

MR. DARDEN: I'll withdraw the question. Continue, please.

THE COURT: Hold it. Hold it a second. Hold it. Cut the audio.

MR. DARDEN: It's the audio portion we're interested in, your Honor.

THE COURT: It's already been played three times now. Proceed.

MR. DARDEN: Not with this witness. I have questions about the audio portion.

THE COURT: Sidebar with the court reporter, please.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: We've already played this three times now.

MR. DARDEN: Who played it three times?

THE COURT: You've played it once already.

MR. DARDEN: Brian played it yesterday during--the full length, throughout the entire video.

THE COURT: You've played it once.

MR. DARDEN: Who played it?

THE COURT: Today you did.

MR. DARDEN: This audio portion about the wife?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: I haven't played that.

MR. COCHRAN: Absolutely.

THE COURT: Yes, we did.

MR. COCHRAN: We heard it.

THE COURT: Give your offer. This witness has something specific?

MR. DARDEN: Well--

THE COURT: What's he going to say?

MR. DARDEN: He is going to say he thought it was in poor taste. He's going to say he was surprised to hear it. He's going to say that wasn't the subject of the conversation. He's going to say he made two such comments like that that day.

THE COURT: All right. His opinion is irrelevant.

MR. COCHRAN: It's irrelevant, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. You can--wait.

MR. DARDEN: In addition, it wasn't scripted, it wasn't part of the script. It was ad-libbed. This is a freebee by the Defendant.

MR. COCHRAN: It's been played already. State of mind?

MR. DARDEN: We are trying to convict the guy. We're not here to hold his hand, Judge. He made the statement and I want to ask the witness about the statement, was it part of the script, was it ad-libbed was he expecting it.

MR. COCHRAN: Objection. They played it already. It's cumulative. We went through this yesterday. In addition to that, his state of mind is not important. They've done it previously, your Honor.

THE COURT: We've played it twice.

MR. DARDEN: What am I supposed to do; ask him questions about that part? Well, I can handle it. I'm a big guy.

THE COURT: All right. Thanks.

MR. COCHRAN: I'll be objecting.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: Thank you, counsel. Proceed.

MR. DARDEN: Mr. Walsh, at one point during the video, the Defendant made a comment, something to the effect of, "If you hit your wife, you can just blame it on the video."

MR. COCHRAN: I object to the form of that question, your Honor. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Rephrase the question. I don't think that's entirely accurate.

MR. DARDEN: At one point in the video, did the Defendant state, quote, "I'm telling you, you just got to get your space in if you're working out with the wife, if you know what I mean. Then you can always blame it on working out"? Do you recall the Defendant saying that?

MR. WALSH: Yes, I do.

MR. DARDEN: And did the Defendant ever mention anything or something about hitting your wife during the--

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

MR. DARDEN: --video?

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. WALSH: No, he never did.

MR. DARDEN: When he mentioned something about getting your space in when you're working out with your wife, was that scripted, was that part of the script for this video?

MR. WALSH: No.

MR. DARDEN: You weren't expecting the Defendant to say that, were you?

MR. WALSH: Not at all.

MR. DARDEN: Did you respond to him after he said that?

MR. WALSH: I don't--I know what I responded in my mind.

MR. DARDEN: And in your mind, how did you respond?

MR. COCHRAN: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. DARDEN: Did he make that comment only once that day?

MR. WALSH: No.

MR. DARDEN: He made it another time?

MR. WALSH: Made it twice.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. What was the second comment that he made along those lines?

MR. COCHRAN: Hearsay, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. WALSH: I think it was something along the same--same line of that.

MR. DARDEN: And the date that this occurred was what? May 20--

MR. WALSH: May 25th.

MR. DARDEN: Had you met the Defendant's wife, ex-wife at that time?

MR. WALSH: No, I had never met.

MR. DARDEN: You had never met Nicole Brown?

MR. WALSH: No.

MR. DARDEN: You and the Defendant wrestled at some point?

MR. WALSH: Not wrestle, no.

MR. DARDEN: All right. Was there some type of physical contact that you had with the Defendant other than what you've already described?

MR. WALSH: Not that I recall.

MR. DARDEN: Okay.

MR. DARDEN: If I can have one moment.

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

MR. WALSH: Mr. Darden, if there's a chance, I would like to bring up something.

THE COURT: No. Hold on.

MR. DARDEN: May I approach and confer with the witness for a moment, your Honor?

THE COURT: Not at this point.

MR. DARDEN: Okay.

MR. DARDEN: Are you familiar with the term called "Adrenaline factor"?

MR. WALSH: I sure am.

MR. DARDEN: That's a term you've used before?

MR. WALSH: I don't know if I used it. I mean, I'm familiar with it. I wouldn't say that I could explain to you what it's all about, but I am familiar with it.

MR. DARDEN: Well, you were interviewed by Art Harris of CNN on January 31, 1995, right?

MR. WALSH: I don't re--I don't know. I mean--it may have been. I remember doing a CNN interview.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Did you mention something about the adrenaline factor in that interview?

MR. WALSH: I don't recall. I may have, but I don't recall.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Do you have an understanding of that term?

MR. WALSH: I understand what it means. Of course.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. What does it mean?

MR. COCHRAN: Objection. Irrelevant and immaterial at this point given foundation, your Honor.

THE COURT: Foundation. Sustained.

MR. DARDEN: That's all.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes, your Honor. Just a few questions.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN

MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Walsh, with regard to the day that you spent with Mr. Simpson, the limitations that you had found before the video started, did you find those same limitations at the end of the day?

MR. WALSH: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: In fact, the problems you described for this jury with his knees, his ankle, his shoulder, some of those problems at the end; is that correct?

MR. WALSH: Correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And the fact that Mr. Darden asked some questions about him being a gamer or whatever of that fact is, you are aware of the fact that Mr. Simpson had not played a pro football game for more than 15 years prior to May 25th, 1994; isn't that correct?

MR. WALSH: Correct.

MR. COCHRAN: In fact, you were very surprised at his lack of mobility when you bumped into him and he almost fell over; isn't that right?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. This is all leading.

THE COURT: It is.

MR. COCHRAN: Let me phrase it another way, please, your Honor. Thank you.

MR. COCHRAN: You were very surprised at how Mr. Simpson reacted to when you bumped into him; isn't that--

MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, let me rephrase it again.

MR. COCHRAN: Were you surprised when Mr. Simpson almost fell over when you bumped into him when he was acting like he was holding a ball?

MR. WALSH: Yes, I was.

MR. COCHRAN: And why were you surprised with that?

MR. WALSH: I just didn't think it was--that I touched him that hard or bumped him that hard that he would react the way he did.

MR. COCHRAN: And the fact that he's a gamer and he was able to complete these exercises on that particular date, did you ever see him go back over those 20- or 25-pound bags? Was he ever able to do one curl with those bags?

MR. WALSH: No.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to the times you appeared on these various shows--and I didn't get all the names, but the shows that you did--

MR. WALSH: Right.

MR. COCHRAN: --why were you appearing on these shows?

MR. WALSH: Well, it's--any time you have a book, any time you have a movie, any time you're promoting a project for sale, whether it be a video or movie, and you see all the people go out and have to promote their movie or their book or their video, that is crucial. That is the way products are sold to the public when you're trying to sell something along those lines. That is my reason for going on these shows.

MR. COCHRAN: And when you went on these shows, did you still tell the truth as you've told this jury today about Mr. Simpson's limitations and about how this video took place? Did you tell the truth?

MR. WALSH: Yeah. I haven't changed the story or--since June the 13th, but--I haven't said anything different since June the 13th.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to this video, you mentioned this video was an entry-level workout; is that correct?

MR. WALSH: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: So basically all of us in this room should be able to do this, the members of the jury, and if we wanted to borrow your video on a Saturday and do this, we could basically get out and try to do that; is that right?

MR. WALSH: I would think so, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And that's entry level, right?

MR. WALSH: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. If we're in some kind of reasonable shape, we could try to do it and do it, right?

MR. WALSH: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And I know with your help, we could do it even better, right?

MR. WALSH: Much better.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, were you surprised at OJ's physical limitations when you first encountered him in this case?

MR. WALSH: Much--very much.

MR. COCHRAN: And why was that? Why were you so surprised?

MR. WALSH: Well, I had never had met OJ before the time at the Playboy office. And, you know, after his football days, I really don't have any--I don't remember anything else he did. I don't remember ever seeing him. I don't ever remember meeting him, anything like this. So the first time I met him, there's this man who used to run down the field is now all beat up. It was just a--I was a little surprised this was Playboy's choice for a fitness video.

MR. COCHRAN: You thought they made a mistake; isn't that right?

MR. WALSH: I definitely did.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to the times, as you described for this jury that at times after this two-hour break that you described, you described for the jury that Mr. Simpson would be seated in a chair with ice packs on his body. Do you recall that?

MR. WALSH: Correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And so that we're clear, that was after the two-hour hiatus that was taken?

MR. WALSH: This was after the two-hour hiatus.

MR. COCHRAN: And did you see him in that chair on more than one occasion during breaks or during times you were setting up again?

MR. WALSH: I recall seeing him two times. When there was a break, I would be going about a million things going on, but I recall passing by twice.

MR. COCHRAN: And when you would see him on these two occasions, did he have the ice bags on some portion of his body?

MR. WALSH: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And at times that Mr. Simpson wasn't able to function well during that video, would it be correct that the cameras would focus on other members of the audience, the people in the back, and that sort of thing?

MR. WALSH: Right. What you--

MR. DARDEN: Objection. This is leading, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Certainly, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: Were there times when other members of the entourage, if I can use that word, were focused on by the camera?

MR. WALSH: Right. We used a three-camera shoot. That's why you see the three blocks. And I know there's, for the most part, one on me the entire time, many cases, one on OJ and I or just OJ and then maybe one master shot or picking out someone from the back.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And times when he couldn't do exercises, would anything happen with regards to this particular camera shot?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. WALSH: I really don't know if the camera operator would switch elsewhere, if he would just stay on him. Because we had three cameras and we know in editing, we could go somewhere else, if he'd just stay on him until he regrouped and got back in the flow of it.

MR. COCHRAN: And were there times when he needed to regroup, Mr. Simpson?

MR. WALSH: Yeah. I remember times seeing him where he--part of it had to do with he didn't know the routine, that we would be going right and he would start going left, and--but you just keep going. You don't cut because I know that the camera in editing will fix it.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, Mr. Darden asked you some questions about lateral movement. And seeing Mr. Simpson's lateral movement, you saw he had a great problem moving from side to side; isn't that correct?

MR. DARDEN: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: You can answer that.

MR. WALSH: It was a difficult movement for him to maneuver, right.

MR. COCHRAN: And that's the lateral movement, the one from side to side?

MR. WALSH: Correct.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. I was--not very gracefully, but I was demonstrating. That was for the record. I was demonstrating that for the court reporter, that lateral movement. Thank you. I have nothing further. Thank you.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DARDEN

MR. DARDEN: You know, Mr. Cochran never played in the NFL. But, Mr. Walsh, when the Defendant almost fell over, as you described it, you don't know whether or not he was just faking that, do you?

MR. COCHRAN: I object, your Honor. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. WALSH: No, I don't.

MR. DARDEN: You don't know if he was just putting on an act?

MR. WALSH: No, I don't.

MR. DARDEN: And you say that you thought Playboy made a mistake when they picked OJ Simpson to co-star with you in this exercise video?

MR. WALSH: Yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: But he surprised you, didn't he?

MR. WALSH: Yes, he did.

MR. DARDEN: He was a lot better at this than you ever thought he would be, correct?

MR. WALSH: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. That's all.

FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN

MR. COCHRAN: Lastly, he was a lot better at finishing this project despite his physical limitations than you thought he would ever been that; isn't that correct?

MR. WALSH: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Thank you.

THE COURT: Mr. Walsh, thank you very much, sir. You are excused. Next witness. Deputy Bashmakian, you want to grab that?

(Brief pause.)

MR. COCHRAN: And, Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes. Thank you. Mr. Willie Ford.

THE COURT: Mr. Ford.

MR. FORD: Good morning.

THE COURT: Good afternoon again. Mrs. Robertson.

Willie Ford, 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. FORD: Yes, ma'am.

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

MR. FORD: My name is Willie Ford, W-I-L-L-I-E F-O-R-D.

THE CLERK: Thank you.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you very kindly.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN

MR. COCHRAN: Good afternoon, Mr. Ford.

MR. FORD: Good afternoon.

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

MR. FORD: I'm a photographer for the city of Los Angeles.

MR. COCHRAN: And for how long have you been employed as a photographer for the city of Los Angeles?

MR. FORD: Approximately 13 years.

MR. COCHRAN: And are you presently assigned to a particular department within the city of Los Angeles?

MR. FORD: Yes. I'm assigned to LAPD SID scientific division.

MR. COCHRAN: LAPD scientific division?

MR. FORD: Scientific investigation division.

MR. COCHRAN: How long have you been so assigned?

MR. FORD: 13 years.

MR. COCHRAN: And as such, you go out to crime scenes and you take pictures, do you?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And, your Honor, may we approach just a moment with the reporter just for a second?

THE COURT: Without the reporter.

MR. COCHRAN: Without the reporter first. 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. Proceed.

MR. COCHRAN: Now--

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Ford, sir, in connection with your duties with the Los Angeles Police Department and specifically as a photographer for the special investigations division, did you have occasion on or about June 13th of 1994 to go to 360 North Rockingham?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And was that--that's in connection with your duties with the LAPD?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And who did you go there with, if anyone, on that date?

MR. FORD: With my boss, David Adkins.

MR. COCHRAN: David Adkins?

MR. FORD: Adkins. Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. And how did the two of you get to that location?

MR. FORD: We drove.

MR. COCHRAN: And where did you drive from?

MR. FORD: From Parker Center.

MR. COCHRAN: And you arrived out at Rockingham at some point?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And what time did you arrive at that location, if you--

MR. FORD: According to the crime scene log, it was 3:10.

MR. COCHRAN: About 3:10 in the afternoon?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And prior to your testimony here today, you've had occasion to review the crime scene log; have you not?

MR. FORD: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, prior to--since June 13th, you've seen the crime scene log?

MR. FORD: No, sir. I was told by the detective on the case that that was on the log.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Which detective told you that?

MR. FORD: I think it was--I think it was Haro, Detective Haro.

MR. COCHRAN: Haro, h-a-r-o?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. He told you that you--the crime scene log indicated that you checked in about 3:10 at Rockingham?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Does that comport generally with your recollection of the time you left downtown and the time it should have taken you to drive from Parker Center to Brentwood?

MR. FORD: Repeat that question again?

MR. COCHRAN: Certainly, sir. Does the 3:10 time comport generally with the time that you knew you left Parker Center and drove west to Brentwood to 360 north Rockingham? Was that about the time you think you should have gotten there?

MR. FORD: I didn't review that, the time that I left. I just noticed that the time that we got there was 3:10 according to the log.

MR. COCHRAN: According to what Haro told you on the log; is that right? All right. Is that a yes?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay, sir. Now, when you got there, did you encounter and talk to some LAPD detective outside the Rockingham location regarding the reasons why you were there?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And which detective did you talk with?

MR. FORD: That was Detective Harper.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You talked to Detective Harper. And you met him outside of Rockingham, did you?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And did Detective Harper give you some instructions or tell you what he wanted you to do with regard to that location?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And what was that?

MR. FORD: To videotape the personal property of Mr. Simpson outside--from outside as well as the interior of his home, starting outside first.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And so your idea, your role was to videotape all the personal property, both outside and inside Mr. Simpson's residence; is that correct?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And in accordance with that, you've been doing your job for about 13 years?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And you do your job well, don't you?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: You try to do the best you can, don't you?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And on this particular date, you were there to follow the instructions that you were given; is that correct?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: So did you start this task by the use of some sort of a video camera?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And can you tell us what kind of video camera you were using on that date?

MR. FORD: It was a VHS RCA camcorder, full size.

MR. COCHRAN: Camcorder?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Camcorder? All right. You can look through the little finder and you see what you're shooting?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And what you were trying to do in going through the exterior and interior of the house was to shoot anything that was out; isn't that correct?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And your instructions were to shoot any and all objects that were out and any and all clothes that were out--

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: --when you were there, right?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Leading. Motion to strike.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: Isn't that right?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, you started outside; is that correct?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Then you came inside the house; is that right?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to this VHS--this--was it you say RCA? What kind of camera was it?

MR. FORD: RCA.

MR. COCHRAN: RCA, VHS camcorder, looking through the viewfinder, you saw like a time on that viewfinder, didn't you?

MR. FORD: There is a time on that.

MR. COCHRAN: Right.

MR. FORD: But this particular day, I wasn't paying attention to it.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. There was a time. But you found out at some time afterwards, that the time that was on that viewfinder was one hour behind the actual time; isn't that right?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: So if the time showed 3 o'clock on the viewfinder, it was actually 4:00 clock; is that right?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And that was because of--it hadn't been changed because of daylight savings time?

MR. FORD: Right.

MR. COCHRAN: All right, sir. So you--if we were to look at a video of this, we will see a time, and we have to add one hour to that; isn't that right?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. To get the correct time. All right. Yes?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So you started outside and then you went inside; is that correct?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you talk to any other detectives about what you were going to shoot other than Harper?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Who else did you talk to?

MR. FORD: Detective Haro.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. You talked to Harper outside, right?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And then when you got inside, did you talk to Detective Haro, h-a-r-o?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And with regard to Mr. Simpson's house, you shot first downstairs, is that correct, with your camera?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And then--did you shoot all the rooms downstairs?

MR. FORD: Repeat the question.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you go in each of the rooms downstairs of the Rockingham residence?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: You tried to go in each room; is that right?

MR. FORD: I did.

MR. COCHRAN: And you used your video camera in each room, right?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. And you're an experienced photographer, right?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Then at some point, you concluded and finished shooting downstairs; is that right?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And when you did that, did you go upstairs?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And when you went upstairs, again, your role was the same as when you talked to Harper and Haro; was to try to shoot or pick up everything that was out; isn't that correct?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And you tried to do a good job again with that, didn't you?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So did you come up those stairs up towards Mr. Simpson's bedroom?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And then at some point, did you go inside Mr. Simpson's bedroom?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And did you shoot the top of his bed?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor. This is leading.

THE COURT: It is.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Let me just--let me ask it another way.

MR. COCHRAN: You got to Mr. Simpson's bedroom at some point, didn't you?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And when you got to his bedroom, did you see any socks on the floor at the foot of his bed?

MR. FORD: No.

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor. Leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: You didn't see any socks, did you?

MR. FORD: No.

MR. COCHRAN: If you had seen any socks there, you would have shot them with the camera, wouldn't you, if they were out on the floor, wouldn't you? You would have taken a photograph of those, wouldn't you?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Because that was part of your task, wasn't it?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, and you shot all that bedroom and you shot--did you go into the closets and shoot the closets also?

MR. FORD: Yes, if it was open.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Any door that was open. In fact, Mr. Ford, sir, your instructions were to shoot everything except that you were not to go inside drawers and pull them open; isn't that correct?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Everything else that was out was what you were supposed to shoot, right?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And you proceeded to do that, right?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, while you were upstairs, you shot I presume with cameras--and you went in each of the bedrooms upstairs also?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Now, if I were to now show you a copy of this video, you can tell us whether or not you shot this; is that right?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Counsel is aware of this, your Honor. This is exhibit 1068, is the videotape. I'd like now to--let me say a word to Mr. Harris before we start, your Honor. I don't want to spend the entire day going all the way through. I want to get right to the important part.

MR. DARDEN: Is this going to begin at the beginning? May I confer for a moment?

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

MR. COCHRAN: Okay, your Honor. I wanted to save some time because we're getting close to 4 o'clock. I'm going to ask Mr. Harris to start this video at the beginning, and then we'll stop it after I lay a foundation, then go upstairs. Very well. Mr. Harris, thank you. This is, your Honor, for the record exhibit 1068.

(At 3:51 P.M., Defendant's exhibit 1068, a videotape, was played.)

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, where this--you see that--

MR. COCHRAN: Well, Mr. Harris, back up a little bit. Okay. Let's back it up to the outside.

MR. COCHRAN: You see that--

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Stop it there, Mr. Harris. Thank you.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Do you see where it says 6-13-94? That was the date; is that correct?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And where it says 2:13 P.M., that should be 3:13 P.M., right?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, is this the outside of the residence?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And was this shot by you?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And this--was this shot after your initial conversation with Detective Harper?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And then after you shot this, the exterior, you then went inside, right, of the premises?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. All right. Mr. Harris, why don't we then move inside.

MR. FORD: This--

MR. DARDEN: Can we take this off the screen while we get to that point?

MR. COCHRAN: All right. I want to move to--Mr. Darden and I agreed we would move, to save some time, to going up the stairs. I want to get to going up the stairs.

MR. DARDEN: Can we start at the top of the stairs?

MR. COCHRAN: We'll start at the bottom of the stairs.

MR. DARDEN: Can we start at the top of the stairs, your Honor?

THE COURT: It's his case. He can start where he wants in the videotape. You can play whatever you want that's left.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, you within a few minutes--while we're getting to that, sir, within a few minutes after your arrival at about 3:10, you then commenced shooting the video; isn't that correct?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And that was indicated on that by showing like 3:14 or thereabouts, right?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: I think we're ready again now, your Honor. May I proceed?

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now--

THE COURT: All right. This is at 3:07.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, is this the--do you recognize this as being the stairway leading upstairs to Mr. Simpson's home?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And that would be about 4:08 P.M. on June 13th, 1994?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. This was shot by you; isn't that right?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And this was one of the bedrooms, the children's bedrooms at the location?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, you're now entering--it's about 4:13 P.M. you're now entering--is this Mr. Simpson's bedroom area?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And you took a photograph of a blanket there and an easy chair?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You continued on in that room. And you walked into this room; did you not?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And you remember seeing this couch in that room?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Remember the fireplace in that room?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, stop right there.

MR. COCHRAN: You stood right in that room; isn't that correct?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And you shot toward the fireplace at that time; isn't that correct?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Simpson's bed was to the right; was it not?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: About 4:13 in the afternoon; is that right?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: You walked in that room--you see that--stop again. You took a photograph of something on top of the bed, is that correct, that was out?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: What are those? Do you remember what those were?

MR. FORD: It looked to me like belt or tie.

MR. COCHRAN: Maybe suspenders or something like that?

MR. FORD: Maybe.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. It was something on top of the bed; is that correct?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And you shot that, did you?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now--

MR. COCHRAN: Back up a little bit.

MR. COCHRAN: You continued to shoot, did you, now?

MR. FORD: This is going forward. You said back up?

MR. COCHRAN: Yeah. Well, he's going--

MR. COCHRAN: Go ahead and back it up. All right. Stop it there.

MR. COCHRAN: You see that carpet there or that rug right in front of the bed?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: You saw that rug that particular day; did you not?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And in fact, you walked past that rug when you went into the other room, into the bathroom area, didn't you?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Any socks on that rug that day, Mr. Ford?

MR. FORD: No.

MR. COCHRAN: You didn't videotape any and there were none there; is that correct?

MR. FORD: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: It's 4:13 P.M., about that time on June 13th, 1994 that you walked through there, right?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And if there had been socks there, you would have taken photographs of them or video, correct?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You can move it on, please.

MR. COCHRAN: There's another shot. Now, you're basically--you're shooting from the foot of that bed; is that correct?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: At that point, you're right on that particular--that rug or carpet there; isn't that correct?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: The foot of the bed. You didn't see any socks or anything else there, did you?

MR. FORD: No.

MR. COCHRAN: Then from that point--

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, Mr. Harris.

MR. COCHRAN: From that point, you went on into an alcove area where there's kind of bureau I guess we can call it? A vanity I think you'd call it.

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: In Louisiana, it's called a bureau. But I guess it's a vanity in California. All right. You saw that?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And that's a fair and accurate portrayal? You didn't open any drawers, did you?

MR. FORD: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: But you shot everything that was out. Now, that was Mr. Simpson's closet, right?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you go inside that closet?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: You shot in there also?

MR. FORD: Yes.

(At 3:57 P.M., the playing of the videotape was concluded.)

MR. COCHRAN: In other words, you tried to do everything that you were instructed--you--there is additional parts to the video; is that correct?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And you shot everything?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And because the time is late and the court would like for me to get close to wrapping this up right at 4 o'clock, I'm not going to show the rest of it.

MR. FORD: Okay.

MR. COCHRAN: But if we were to show this to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, it would be a fair and accurate portrayal of the way these items appeared when you were there on June 13th after 3:10 in the afternoon; isn't that correct?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: You didn't take anything out and move it to be photographed? You didn't do that, did you?

MR. FORD: No.

MR. COCHRAN: Just shot what you saw; is that right?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: You didn't make up anything, you didn't add anything or subtract anything, right?

MR. FORD: No.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So now you continued this shoot and you went into the closet area?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Then did you also go into the bedroom area?

MR. FORD: Yes.

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

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. COCHRAN: I'm sorry, your Honor. Excuse me.

MR. COCHRAN: So you--you continued on into the bathroom area, did you?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And you took photographs up there; is that right?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes? And then thereafter, you came--you came out. And did you continue shooting after you came downstairs?

MR. FORD: No.

MR. COCHRAN: You concluded. Was that the last room that you shot?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And so you finished your shooting somewhere right after 4:15 or so on that particular date?

MR. FORD: I would say yes.

MR. COCHRAN: In that approximate time period; is that right?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: 4:15?

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Your Honor, this might be a good point if we might.

THE COURT: All right. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our recess for the afternoon. Mr. Ford, you may step down. You are ordered to return, sir, tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock.

MR. FORD: Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, please remember all of 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. Also, do not allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. I understand that you were advised earlier today that one of our bailiffs, one of our deputy sheriff's who had served with us, Deputy Geuvjehizian, was unfortunately shot and killed yesterday. He went to investigate a prowler at his next-door neighbor's home and was unfortunately shot and killed. And this afternoon--as we affectionately knew him, Deputy G12. And Department 103 will stand in recess this afternoon in his honor. Thank you.

(At 4:00 P.M., an adjournment was taken until, Thursday, July 20, 1995, 9:00 A.M.)

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

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

The People of the State of California,)

Plaintiff,)

Vs.) No. BA097211)

Orenthal James Simpson,)

Defendant.)

Reporter's transcript of proceedings Wednesday, July 19, 1995

Volume 190 pages 37645 through 37810, 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 190 pages 37645 - 37810

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

Day date session page vol.

Wednesday July 19, 1995 A.M. 37645 190

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

LEGEND: Ms. Clark-mc Mr. Hodgman-h Mr. Darden d Mr. Kahn-k Mr. Goldberg-gb Mr. Gordon-g Mr. Shapiro-s Mr. Cochran-c Mr. Douglas-cd Mr. Bailey-b Mr. Uelmen-u Mr. Scheck-bs Mr. Neufeld-n

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

CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

DEFENSE witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.

Meraz, John 190 (Resumed) 37691C 37739MC

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

ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

WITNESSES direct cross redirect recross vol.

Meraz, John 190 (Resumed) 37691C 37739MC

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

EXHIBITS

COURT'S for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.

17 - Packet of documents 37676 190 37676 190

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

PEOPLE'S for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.

528 - Photograph 37763 190 of a side view of the exterior on a white Bronco automobile

528-A - photograph 37765 190 of a close-up view of the exterior door on a white Bronco automobile (Computer printout)

529 - Photograph 37769 190 of the interior of the driver's door in an automobile

530 - Photograph 37771 190 of the interior console area in an automobile

531 - Photograph (Not marked on the record) Of the interior ceiling light in an automobile

532 - Photograph 37798 190 of a white Bronco automobile in the keystone parking garage

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

DEFENSE for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.

1254 - Aerial photograph 37696 190 of Viertel's lot

1254-A - photograph 37738 190 of a close-up view of section T-2(1) In Viertel's lot (Computer printout)

1254-B - photograph 37738 190 of a close-up view of section T-2(2) In Viertel's lot (Computer printout)

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

Reporter's transcript of proceedings Wednesday, July 19, 1995

Volume 190A pages 37811 through 37970, inclusive

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

CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

DEFENSE witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.

Meraz, John 190A (Resumed) 37825MC 37833C 37848MC (Further) 37855C

Walsh, Richard 37859C 37895D 37937C 37944D 190A (Further) 37945C

Ford, Willie 37947C 37895D 37937C 37944D 190A (Further) 37945C

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

ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

WITNESSES direct cross redirect recross vol.

Ford, Willie 37947C 37895D 37937C 37944D 190A (Further) 37945C

Meraz, John 190A (Resumed) 37825MC 37833C 37848MC (Further) 37855C

Walsh, Richard 37859C 37895D 37937C 37944D 190A (Further) 37945C

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

EXHIBITS

PEOPLE'S for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.

533 - 1-Page document 37825 190A described as a statement of John Meraz dated June 17, 1994

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

DEFENSE for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.

1255 - Videotape 37917 190A of the Defendant exercising