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. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Neufeld, Mr. Blasier. The People ever represented by Miss Clark, Mr. Darden, Miss Kahn. The jury is not present. Counsel, anything we need to take up before we invite the jurors to join us?

MR. NEUFELD: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Neufeld.

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you. Your Honor, I just received a few moments ago an order signed by you regarding the sock drying experiment, presence of blood on sock interior discovery violations, and I think I need a little bit of clarification, your Honor. First of all, on page 2 of your order you referred to the glove drying experiment and I believe--

THE COURT: I'm sorry. Sock drying experiment.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. I understand, and please correct me if I am mistaken, is you are not precluding Professor MacDonell from testifying. What you are saying is that he cannot testify to the results of that experiment that he did at this time based on the information that you have. With regard to presence of blood on sock interior, you refer to the description given by Mr. Sims in part of the testimony but there is no reference to the other portions where he said that he saw a red/brown substance but it is powder coming from, you know, fibrils, as opposed to a transfer stain. My question is, even without referring to the presumptive testing, the expert who is the nation's leading authority in bloodstain interpretation is entitled to give his opinion, but are you saying that at this point he can't refer to the presumptive tests? You see, that is why I need some clarification.

THE COURT: He can say that there is a red something over there.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay.

THE COURT: He can't refer to the tests.

MR. NEUFELD: He can't refer to the presumptive tests until there is some kind of corroboration?

THE COURT: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Umm--fine. And third is I would like to schedule--and you heard what the problem is about him leaving for Canada--can I schedule him for early next week, which would still give them ample opportunity?

THE COURT: All right. Because the scope of his testimony at this point is that in the interior of the sock there appears to be a red substance period.

MR. NEUFELD: And he will describe that red substance and what characteristics it has.

THE COURT: I assume.

MR. NEUFELD: Yeah. Also, as you know, you also received a copy of his July 15th report regarding the glove shrinkage experiment which was done on the Aris gloves that were--the same gloves in fact that Mr. Darden used in an experiment in this courtroom with Mr. Simpson--so he will be referring to that as well. And that is basically the testimony, as well as any just, you know, generalized blood splatter interpretation. But we want to schedule him, that is all, so the delay that you are allowing the People based on the totality of these circumstances is what? Can we call him Tuesday?

THE COURT: I don't know. It depends on what I hear from the People.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay.

MR. NEUFELD: You mean at this moment? Okay.

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor. As we informed the Court earlier--as we informed the Court earlier with respect to the glove drying experiment, this is a motion that will be filed I believe today. I would be more apologetic about the late filing of these motions were it not for the fact that we just received the reports and had no idea that the--Mr. MacDonell was going to attempt to testify to matters contained therein, but that motion is forthcoming. With respect to the timing of his testimony, I still don't think we have an adequate offer of proof as to what the parameters of his testimony will be. His report, I believe now that counsel has said that he will testify to the appearance of what he says is a transfer on sock a and that he will also testify to generalized blood spatter interpretation. Well, there are no reports of any findings he made on any blood spatter at the crime scene in this case or at Rockingham, and if that is going to be the subject matter of his testimony, we need to have a 402 on that. Although counsel may characterize Mr. MacDonell as a leading authority in blood spatter interpretation, he, as the Court and I think the jury will see, is far from the most renown or the most revered, and I think that his conclusions will need to be reviewed by this Court under 402 before being submitted to the jury. So perhaps a more definite offer of proof needs to be made before the People can determine when they will be ready.

THE COURT: But the question posed by Mr. Neufeld is a matter of scheduling at this point, and if you want to challenge these matters, both on discovery bases and 402 bases, then we ought to set some time aside to do that. Mr. Neufeld's suggestion is perhaps Monday. How does that strike you?

MS. CLARK: Well, we have to file the motion on the glove. I think that will impact as well, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sounds to me like perhaps we ought to take up the 402 and 352 issues on the glove, since he will be the person testifying to this, the discovery issues and everything else all on Monday. How does that sound?

MS. CLARK: That sounds fair.

MR. NEUFELD: The only question is this: If we are about to embark on EDTA witnesses, and it is possible that both witnesses, Miss Clark may be able to assess as well, may go over to Monday in which case I would do it Tuesday. I'm just trying to be realistic here.

MS. CLARK: That is fine with me. Monday or Tuesday. I'm not wedded to that as long as everyone has time to get ready and get up to speed on all these issues, because they are substantial.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. CLARK: I have heard also, your Honor--well, I would request of counsel there are apparently other notes that Mr. MacDonell has made of his observations and experiments that we have never received. I'm not worried about the sock at this point, but I am concerned that there are reports concerning other observations or conclusions that he has made, notes and reports that counsel refers to, but we have never seen to this date. And so if there are any--are there any other notes or reports concerning the subject matter of his testimony or the subject matter for which he was contacted by the Defense to do experimentation or investigation, the People formally make another request that it be turned over.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Neufeld, any comment on that last request?

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, I think we are well advised of what our obligations are in terms of discovery in this case and we will certainly comply with it and I believe we have complied with it with respect to Professor MacDonell. So we are saying Tuesday then I guess?

THE COURT: No, we are shooting for Monday.

MR. NEUFELD: We are shooting for Monday.

THE COURT: Shooting for Monday with the possibility we will dribble over until Tuesday.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Blasier.

MR. BLASIER: Good morning, your Honor.

THE COURT: Good morning.

MR. BLASIER: We intend to call Dr. Frederick Rieders as our first EDTA witness after the witness that is currently on the stand. I heard I think on the television last night that the Prosecution was going to make some sort of a motion to either preclude him or delay him. They haven't told me that. They have known I have been working on this issues. I think we need to decide that now. If we are going to make some sort of challenge to that, we would like to know that. We have two experts here from the east coast.

THE COURT: Well, let me ask you this: At this point, Mr. Cochran, how much more do you have with Mr. Ford?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I would think that I don't have very much of Mr. Ford, your Honor. Perhaps no more than fifteen or twenty minutes with Mr. Ford.

THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark, how much do you have on Mr. Ford?

MS. CLARK: Brief. Mr. Darden is going to handle this witness I think.

MR. DARDEN: Thirty minutes.

THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark, what is the Prosecution's position on is it Dr. Rieders?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, I just received notice of this change in developments late last night and I'm--I'm very--I'm really outraged at the manner in which this Defense has proceeded. It is a trial by ambush, according to the Defense, and let me just indicate to the Court procedurally what has transpired that leads me to this position. Dr. Rieders, we were informed would testify at some point, but it was at the end of a series of witnesses who have now been skipped over by counsel. Mr.--Dr. Rieders was added to the witness list, as best I can tell, formally on July 17th. That is this Monday. That is the same day we received his report. Now, the Court perhaps--I don't know if the Court has seen the report. I don't think that it has.

THE COURT: No.

MS. CLARK: It is a two-page report and yet the conclusions are very complex, they are very serious. If Dr. Rieders truly intends to testify to the positions he has adopted in that report, the cross-examination will have to be extensive and the preparation time needs to be a little more than two days before he is called.

And the Defense deliberately put him on the witness list--let me indicate to the Court, as of July 15th he wasn't even on the scheduled list of witnesses. As of July 18th, which is Tuesday, he was scheduled to testify after seven other witnesses that have now been jumped over. The Defense is deliberately attempting to force us into a position where we are unprepared to effectively cross-examine this witness. The People are requesting of the Court--this witness has had the reports of Agent Martz which is what he did. He didn't do any testing himself. He reviewed the report of testing conducted by Agent Martz and then issued a report of his opinion of those results. And those opinions are highly questionable and require vigorous cross-examination, because what the attempt is here is to mislead and confuse the jury to such a degree that they will oversimplify and falsify the true nature of the findings by Agent Martz. This witness did not do the testing to which he plans to testify. In fact, he cannot do that testing and never has, yet he purports to be able to interpret the results in a manner that will be highly inflammatory, also highly misleading.

If he is called to testify first from a substantive point of view, for the benefit of the jury, your Honor, the jury will be completely misled and confused. At which point if Agent Martz is ever--you know, the Defense cannot completely refuse to call Agent Martz because they have no foundation for the testimony of Dr. Rieders at all, but if they--if they delay in the calling of Agent Martz, the issue will become so confusing and so misleading to the jury that he may never be able to sort it out so they understand what really transpired and what the test results really mean. So there are--I have like a two-fold objection. One, for the benefit of the jury in terms of their understanding of the testimony. Two, for the benefit of the jury in terms of our ability to effectively confront and cross-examine the witness which we have been deprived of the opportunity of doing by a doctor who has refrained from writing a report until a day or two before he takes the witness stand, based on reports he received at the end of February. I cannot think of a reason why a doctor would review reports that are not that voluminous, thirty, forty pages, at the end of February, I'm sure drew conclusions at least by the end of March, and not write a report until three to four months later. I think it is scandalous what has occurred here. I think it is a very deliberate attempt to try this case by ambush and to prevent the People from adequately meeting this testimony.

THE COURT: What remedy are you seeking, Miss Clark?

MS. CLARK: Initially the People seek preclusion of his testimony completely and we object on the grounds, the discovery violation and the obvious subterfuge involved in turning over a report that had to have been ready to prepare months ago, two days before they intend to call him. Additionally, I remind the Court of the context in which this appears and that is that his name is added to the witness list only on Monday and deliberately put down below a bunch of--

THE COURT: Which witness list are we talking about?

MS. CLARK: The Defense calls us at 7:45 P.M. on July 18th to tell us that Dr. Rieders would testify after the following witnesses--

THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark, let me clarify my question. Dr. Rieders is a name--the name Dr. Rieders has been mentioned--

MS. CLARK: Yeah.

THE COURT: --a number of times throughout this trial--

MS. CLARK: Yeah.

THE COURT: --during the blood testimony, so it is--when was Dr. Rieders placed on the master Defense witness list?

MS. CLARK: In March.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. CLARK: Wait. He was--I'm sorry, your Honor. Let me take that back. Dr. Rieders was on the main list in October and he was added again in March, so yes, it is a name that is known to us, but a name without a report is virtually worthless. How do we know what he is going to address? In fact, I will tell the Court that it is very misleading because due to the fact that he does not perform and cannot perform effectively the kind of testing involved in EDTA detection, we were of the opinion that he would testify--we didn't know what he would testify to, but we certainly could not anticipate it would be EDTA since he is not an expert as far as the operation of the--the conducting of the testing in that particular area. Yeah, and then, umm--

THE COURT: So I should expect an initial competency challenge?

MS. CLARK: Oh, yes. Oh, yes. There is going to be substantial 402's that have to be conducted prior to his testimony. I was in the process of trying to prepare paperwork to that effect, and believing that I had ten witnesses to go before him, thought that there would be the opportunity to do so. I should also indicate to the Court that from a substantive point of view, as Miss Kahn points out, Agent Martz is necessary to lay the foundation for Dr. Rieders. This is not a situation like Dr. Lakshmanan and Dr. Golden, because the tests performed by Agent Martz, Dr. Rieders cannot perform, I believe never has performed, so--

THE COURT: Well, that is an interesting issue in and of itself, but let's get to the issue of how much--let's assume--let me ask you this. How much time do you need to effectively prepare to cross-examine Dr. Rieders?

MS. CLARK: Given the fact that I'm required to be in Court everyday on the other witnesses and I have other witnesses that I am scheduled to cross-examine--

THE COURT: Are you going to be cross-examining Dr. Rieders?

MS. CLARK: Probably.

THE COURT: Not Mr. Harmon or Mr. Clarke?

MS. CLARK: No, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MS. CLARK: No.

THE COURT: Or Mr. Kelberg?

MS. CLARK: Or Mr. Kelberg.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. CLARK: I'm wearing out my welcome with Mr. Kelberg. I got to kind of save him up. And I might indicate, too, that Dr. Maltz has disappeared from the list, so I don't know--I need to know from counsel when he is going to appear, but that is another matter.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. CLARK: I would ask leave of the Court for two weeks or the end of the Defense case, whenever that is.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Blasier.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, this is a rather blatant and outrageous attempt of the Prosecution to try to control our order of proof. Let me state a little bit of chronology here. Dr. Rieders has been an issue in this case since the beginning of the year. We had a whole hearing with Mr. Harmon talking about his improper contacts with Dr. Rieders. They have known that he is--

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Blasier, let's cut to the chase. The issue is the turning over of a report two days before you are going to call him.

MR. BLASIER: The report was turned over on Monday. There is no legal requirement that Dr. Rieders even write a report. He did not perform any tests. All he did was analyze their data. I feel like I've had a guest come to my house unexpected, stay three weeks uninvited and then they start complaining about the food. We don't have to have a report from Dr. Rieders. We did one, given all the folderol that we have gone through about experts not having reports. The conclusions are exactly what they thought they were when Mr. Harmon described our flicker of hope. They know what the issues are. Agent Martz knows what the issues are. I met with him last week in Washington. He told me what he thought our experts were going to same. They aren't that far apart, quite frankly. Both experts are going to say their are indications of EDTA on the sock and on the back gate. Where they divert is in terms of whether you could quantify that. They have known about Dr. Rieders. They contacted me yesterday about talking to him. I said we could do that. We were kind of short on time at that point. They know what the issues are--

THE COURT: What is Dr. Rieders going to say about--about the levels?

MR. BLASIER: He is going to say that their method is not capable of quantifying, first of all, how much is actually there, but more importantly, how much should there be given the nature of the samples being exposed to the environment being stored for eight months, because the FBI didn't do any validation studies to demonstrate how much EDTA are you likely to lose given the manner in which this evidence was collected and preserved. So he is going to say that their method is inadequate to do that.

THE COURT: How are you going to lay a foundation for this?

MR. BLASIER: Dr. Rieders has been working with EDTA since 1950.

THE COURT: No. The fundamental foundation.

MR. BLASIER: Testifying to Agent Martz' reports? The Court advised us several times during the Prosecution's case that we can't control their order of proof. They decided to call all of their LAPD witnesses who did their testing after they called the people from Cellmark, after they called the people from DOJ. We objected to that. You properly told us not our decision, it is their decision, they can tie it up later. I'm assuming they are not going to argue that their own agent's test results are invalid. He didn't tell me that. He stands by his test results. That is all that Dr. Rieders is going to testify about. Dr. Lakshmanan never wrote a report. He testified not only before Dr. Golden, but in place of Dr. Golden. Collin Yamauchi was switched on their witness list until the end of the--until after Dr. Cotton and Gary Sims had testified.

THE COURT: You are not answering my question, Mr. Blasier. I sat through the whole trial so far. I know what has happened so far. You don't need to tell me. I just had a foundational question. How are you going to lay a foundation to have this guy testify to this stuff?

MR. BLASIER: I'm going to have him look at Agent Martz report and findings and have him testify about those. I can do it on a hypothetical basis and then I'm going to call Agent Martz to authenticate them.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Just a question.

MR. BLASIER: Okay.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, I think that we need to have assurance of counsel that Agent Martz will be called, because if not, we--

THE COURT: Well, then I'm sure you will call him.

MS. CLARK: Well, no. Then I will ask to strike all of Dr. Rieders' testimony, but the jury, having already heard about a bunch of confusing and unsupportable conclusions, may then be so confused I will be required to. That is a different story. I don't want to be put in that position and I think that counsel should be admonished that some very serious sanctions--

THE COURT: Miss Clark, I'm just raising the issue. I'm concerned about the foundation for this testimony. We'll see. That was an intellectual curiosity question.

MS. CLARK: All right.

THE COURT: All right. Now, Mr. Blasier does raise the point that we have been talking about Dr. Rieders and the issue of EDTA for a long time and we know what the issues are. I mean, it was apparent to me what the issues were.

MS. CLARK: Sure. You know in a general sense, yes. Did we know about EDTA? Yes, we did. Did we know for sure that Dr. Rieders was going to testify to that? No. That is why Mr. Harmon was attempting to find out why his name came up in that context in a circle of chemists I guess that were talking about it. And actually as far as I understood it, determined that he couldn't be called to testify because he doesn't do the testing. His lab is incapable. And so we thought he was basically there, as many of their witnesses are, as just fodder. Their witness list is fat and replete with witnesses that they will never call and never intend to call. I'm not actually accusing them of anything nefarious in that regard. I'm just saying that there are many like that and I assumed that Dr. Rieders was one of them because his lab doesn't do the testing. It is one thing to see, even if you assumed that we believed that he would be called, that there are issues here, but that doesn't mean that we understand what his conclusions will be and how the--

THE COURT: I haven't seen the report. Does the report say that yes, you can use this testing procedure to determine the presence of EDTA?

MS. CLARK: It doesn't say to the contrary. What Mr. Blasier has just represented to the Court is not contained in his report. That offer of proof is the first time I've heard that he intends to so testify. That is not in his report. In his report all he--all he states is basically that in his opinion the components that were identified in--in the--this gets very complicated, but this has to do with the detection of ions, a parent ion and then there are--there is a daughter spectrum of ions, and why there are no sons, I don't know, but anyway, it is daughter--daughter ions. In the testing of the evidence bloodstains, and in Agent Martz' own unpreserved blood, we find there is a parent and one daughter ion but not the full spectrum of daughter ions, meaning that it could be EDTA or any other compound about that same parent and daughter ion which there could be hundreds of, but that result cannot be confirmed to be EDTA unless you have the full daughter spectrum which does show up in the reference blood samples. That is the bottom line. Now, what Dr. Rieders does is say in my opinion you call it EDTA when you find one parent ion and one daughter ion even though you can't see the whole daughter spectrum. That is essentially what his report says. His report says nothing.

THE COURT: Sounds to me like you are ready.

MS. CLARK: I understand this, but I am not ready to cross-examine, your Honor, but believe me, I just read this report. We got--we got one court day to prepare on this? They have had months to prepare on all of ours. I mean, where is the fairness? It is ridiculous and a serious issue. This is a key focal issue in this case and the Defense drops it on us with one court day to prepare and then deliberately does this shell game with their order of witnesses to make sure we can't prepare. Yes, I have read about EDTA. Big deal. That doesn't mean I am ready to cross-examine a report that I have just received one court day. No one would require a lawyer to go forward on one court day on issues of such magnitude--well, maybe someone would, but on an issue of such complexity. It wouldn't be fair, it simply wouldn't, when the Court is aware that the Defense has had months to prepare for the smallest of our scientific witnesses, and I don't mean that in terms of length as much as in terms of simplicity or complexity of issues. This is very complex. But that is all his report says. It says nothing about the inadequacy of the testing procedures utilized by the FBI. It says nothing about the degradation of EDTA in samples are maintained or stored in certain ways. What Mr. Blasier just represented to the Court we have no notice of at all. I mean, this is worse than I imagined, far worse, because he intends to get up there and ambush us again and blind side us with all kinds of conclusions and opinions that are contained in no report for which we have no 402. What was the point of having a discovery statute under prop 115 if they come in and play this game again? And that is what they are doing.

THE COURT: Well, I think one of the products of this is likely to be a complete revision of 1054.

MS. CLARK: I would not be surprised. In fact, I intend to put my shoulder into the effort, if there is one, but I would indicate to the Court at very very least, if the testimony is not precluded, that the People be given ten days to prepare on this, and I don't think that is asking a whole lot when we know that the Defense has had months to prepare on the very smallest of scientific issues in the People's case. And all I really am just asking for the Court not to give the Defense the windfall benefit of their own tactics.

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier, what is Dr. Rieders' schedule?

MR. BLASIER: He is in town. I don't know.

THE COURT: His availability?

MR. BLASIER: I have not checked with him. He is available now.

THE COURT: Where is he from?

MR. BLASIER: Maryland or Philadelphia.

THE COURT: All right. Why don't you check with his schedule.

MR. BLASIER: Well, your Honor, may I respond?

THE COURT: All right.

MR. BLASIER: They know what these issues are. They know exactly what they are.

THE COURT: They do, but they just got the report. This is a key issue and it is a highly complex area and to drop a report a couple of days before you are going to cross-examine an expert, if the shoe were on the other foot, I would be peeling you off the ceiling right now.

MR. BLASIER: Lakshmanan was on for eight days. He didn't write anything down.

THE COURT: Counsel, counsel, that doesn't work. Find out his schedule. Let's have the jury.

(Brief pause.)

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

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

THE JURY: Good morning.

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

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

THE COURT: All right. Just sit back. Pull the microphone close to you, sir. All right. Good morning, Mr. Ford.

MR. FORD: Good morning.

THE COURT: Mr. Ford, 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.

DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. COCHRAN

MR. COCHRAN: Good morning, Mr. Ford.

MR. FORD: Good morning.

MR. COCHRAN: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Ford, when we recessed yesterday we were talking about I believe having shown you the video of the upstairs bedroom of Mr. OJ Simpson that you never at any time while were up in that bedroom saw any socks at the foot of Mr. OJ Simpson's bed; is that correct?

MR. FORD: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And with regard to that, I would like to show you a photograph--put a photograph on the elmo, your Honor, People's exhibit no. 167. And I would like to approach the witness. I'm showing it to Mr. Darden. It is one of the experts.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And I would like to show this to the witness. Mr. Ford, I want you to take a look at that photograph. And first of all, do you recognize that photograph as being Mr. Simpson's bedroom?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And do you see those scraps or whatever they are on the bed there?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And do you see in that photograph what appears to be some socks at the foot of that bed?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And on the carpet; is that right?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And is it--strike that. Did you at any time ever see any socks at the foot of Mr. Simpson's bed when you were in that room at about 4:12 or 4:13 on June 13, 1994?

MR. FORD: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: So you never saw what is depicted in that photograph, right?

MR. FORD: Right.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you. Your Honor, I would like to--

THE COURT: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: --put it on the elmo and ask some other questions. Mr. Harris I think is getting the video also. (Brief pause.)

MR. COCHRAN: Now, Mr. Ford, sir, is that the photograph I just showed you?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And the condition of the--that carpet with the socks thereon, it is your testimony that at no time while you were in that room did you ever see those socks on that carpet; is that correct?

MR. FORD: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, can you pull the photograph back a little bit so we can show the--little more.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to those straps that are on the bed there, you did in fact see those in the video; is that correct?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So that we are clear, when you walked in that particular room, sir, you walked right across that carpet, did you not?

MR. FORD: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: And because you took a shot that we--I'm going to have Mr. Harris pull up in a minute--you were at the foot of the bed shooting toward the headboard of that bed; is that correct?

MR. FORD: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And that was before, as I understand it, you went into the area that was described I think yesterday as a vanity or some kind of area where you--bureau or vanity; is that right?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And then as I understand it, after you did the shot of the bedroom, you did this vanity area, you took some shots in the bathroom; is that right?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Simpson's closet, right?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And then that was--that ended your shooting of the interior of the house; is that correct?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And then did you and Mr. Adkins leave shortly after that?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And do you have--have you referred to the log and determined what time you left the premises that day?

MR. FORD: Yes. Approximately 4:30.

MR. COCHRAN: You left at about 4:30 in the afternoon?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: You know that from checking the log; is that correct?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So as best we can tell you got there about 3:10, you did your work expeditiously and you left about 4:30; is that correct?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And when you left, where did you go at that point, sir?

MR. FORD: Back to the Parker Center photo lab.

MR. COCHRAN: Went back downtown to your photo lab?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: With that particular video; is that correct?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, when you got back, did you look at the video right away when you got back downtown on June 13th?

MR. FORD: No.

MR. COCHRAN: When is the next time you looked at that video, the video that you shot on June 13th, 1994, sir?

MR. FORD: The first time I was called to testify a few months ago.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. That was--I'm not sure I have the date. I have a copy of the transcript. I'm not sure I have the date.

MR. DARDEN: March 31st.

MS. CLARK: March 31st.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you visit me at around March 31st; is that correct?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: That was at a time that you testified at a hearing in this case?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: You saw the video prior to that particular hearing?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And so between June 13th and March 31st, 1995, you had not seen the video?

MR. FORD: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: In fact, you had never seen it; is that correct?

MR. FORD: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: In other words, you did your job and took it back and who did you give it to when you got back to Parker Center?

MR. FORD: Detective Haro I think it was.

MR. COCHRAN: You gave to it Haro?

MR. FORD: I think so.

MR. COCHRAN: Haro was the detective who had given you these instructions about what to do inside the place there; is that correct?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: In fact, Haro told you, did he not, to take pictures of even things on the wall, didn't he?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: You did that also, right?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: What he said essentially was to photograph everything inside of the house, including pictures on the wall?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, what did Haro tell you?

MR. FORD: To videotape all of his effects that were out, including pictures on the wall.

MR. COCHRAN: And you tried to do that, didn't you, sir?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: That is what we see in the finished product of your particular work; is that right?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, with regard to your testimony here today, you had occasion to meet with Mr. Christopher Darden on Monday of this week; is that correct?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: That would have been on--today being July 20th--that would have been on a Monday, July 17th?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And did you meet with Mr. Darden in this particular building?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And did you meet with him around one o'clock in the afternoon?

MR. FORD: I think so.

MR. COCHRAN: And who else was present, if anyone, during that meeting?

MR. FORD: Cheri Lewis.

MR. COCHRAN: This is the lady to my immediate right, Miss Cheri Lewis?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And the two of them were there?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Who else was present?

MR. FORD: I think there was another person by the name of David Wooden.

MR. COCHRAN: David Wooden, is that the young man who has been here--have you seen him in court these last couple days you have been here?

MR. FORD: Yes, I have.

MR. COCHRAN: He is someone that works on the Prosecution team?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And who else was present?

MR. FORD: That is all I can recall right now.

MR. COCHRAN: So you met about one o'clock and how long did you meet? How long altogether did you meet starting at one o'clock on July 17th, 1995?

MR. FORD: It was just a few minutes. Most of that time was spent waiting in the office.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You met--what time did you meet finally, if you recall?

MR. FORD: I think it was between the time court was out to lunch and the time that you had to come back in.

MR. COCHRAN: So you met over the lunch hour?

MR. FORD: Uh-huh.

MR. COCHRAN: You've got to answer out loud.

MR. FORD: Yes. I'm sorry, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Met over the lunch hour?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Didn't you stay here until four o'clock that day?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Was Miss Lewis in court that day or did you stay and meet with her after Mr. Darden left?

MR. FORD: After that we didn't meet. I was just standing by to be called.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So let me see. You came here at about one o'clock; is that right?

MR. FORD: Umm--

MR. COCHRAN: Tell me what time you came.

MR. FORD: I would say during the lunch hour. I think the meeting in the office was around about 1:00.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And how long did that meeting last?

MR. FORD: About ten, fifteen minutes, I think. I would guess.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And that was all you talked and that was when Mr. Darden was with Miss Lewis; is that right?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you meet with either Mr. Darden or Miss Lewis or any other member of the Prosecution team after that, after that meeting on Monday around the lunch hour?

MR. FORD: Just as they were coming back and forth from court while I'm standing by.

MR. COCHRAN: And what happened when they were coming back and forth from court? Did you talk about--

MR. FORD: Basically just say hi and we were sitting here watching television.

MR. COCHRAN: What were you watching on television?

MR. FORD: Basically the trial proceeding here.

MR. COCHRAN: You were watching the trial upstairs in the D.A.'s office?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: You know that witnesses are precluded from watching television in this case or watching this trial?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: That there is an order by his Honor Judge Ito for lay witnesses not to watch the trial? Are you aware of that?

MR. DARDEN: Objection to "Lay witness," your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: Are you aware of that?

MR. FORD: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: The District Attorney's office provided you with a television in the D.A.'s office for you to watch television on Monday?

MR. FORD: They didn't provide it especially for me, but it was there.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, I mean, there is a television in the room where you as a witness were being kept?

MR. FORD: This was not a room just for witnesses. It was just--

MR. COCHRAN: The room--I'm sorry. Go right on.

MR. FORD: Sitting in an office where there was a television.

MR. COCHRAN: There was an office with a television and was that television turned on?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And you sat there and you watched the television of these proceedings; is that correct?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Anybody tell you that you were not supposed to watch television?

MR. FORD: No.

MR. COCHRAN: Per the Judge's order?

MR. FORD: No.

MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Darden never told you that?

MR. FORD: No.

MR. COCHRAN: Miss Lewis never told you that?

MR. FORD: No.

MR. COCHRAN: So would I be correct in assuming that you watched television Monday afternoon from about the time you came at lunchtime until you left at about four o'clock?

MR. FORD: Basically that's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And since no one from the Prosecution team told you that you weren't supposed to watch television you have watched the proceedings in this case at other occasions; isn't that correct?

MR. FORD: (No audible response.)

MR. COCHRAN: Isn't that right?

MR. FORD: In--in the Simpson case you mean?

MR. COCHRAN: Yeah, Simpson case, this case?

MR. FORD: Yes, I have.

MR. COCHRAN: In fact, over at the police department you work in SID, there are a lot of televisions on, aren't there?

MR. FORD: No.

MR. COCHRAN: There aren't televisions on in the SID division?

MR. FORD: No.

MR. COCHRAN: When have you watched television at other occasions? At home?

MR. FORD: We have a television set, but we don't watch the television of the trial as it is going on. There has only been times when we had our own people from SID that we would watch a little bit of that and that is it.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, if there has been testimony from others from SID that the television set is on when, let's say, Mr. Collin Yamauchi is on--

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor. That misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

THE COURT: Let's move on. We have established this.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. I would like to, if the Court would allow me, to briefly approach.

THE COURT: No. Let's proceed.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. All right. Your Honor, just one other follow-up question?

THE COURT: Sure.

MR. COCHRAN: With regard to watching television in this case, you have watched it on occasions at work; is that correct?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And you watch it on occasion at home also; is that correct?

MR. FORD: No.

MR. COCHRAN: You haven't watched it at home; just only at work?

MR. FORD: Right.

MR. COCHRAN: Here in the D.A.'s office?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And when you were up in the D.A.'s office watching television on Monday, were--was there other witnesses in this office where you were?

MR. FORD: Umm, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And what was the name of that witness or those witnesses?

MR. FORD: I don't know.

MR. COCHRAN: How many witnesses were in there with you?

MR. FORD: Umm, the one witness--when you say "Witness," these are people to be called?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes, sir, to be called?

MR. FORD: Dieter, a fellow photographer of mine.

MR. COCHRAN: Is that Rokahr?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Rokahr?

MR. FORD: Uh-huh.

MR. COCHRAN: Is was in there with you?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Was he watching also?

MR. FORD: Very briefly.

MR. COCHRAN: Same television you were watching?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And sir, with regard to--you were here yesterday also; is that correct?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Prior to being called yesterday in the afternoon were you in this same office upstairs?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Were you watching television again at that time?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Counsel, I think we have exhausted this area.

MR. COCHRAN: Very well, your Honor. I will move on.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, Mr. Ford, when you left the Rockingham address and it was about 4:30, you and Mr. Adkins left together; is that correct?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you come in a particular vehicle and then you left together; is that correct?

MR. FORD: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Then you went back downtown?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And with regard to this video that you turned over to Detective Haro, did you give it to Haro on that same date, June 13th?

MR. FORD: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: When did you give it to Haro?

MR. FORD: The very next day.

MR. COCHRAN: That would be on June 14th?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Where did you see Detective Haro when you turned the tape over?

MR. FORD: Third floor Parker Center RHD.

MR. COCHRAN: And from the time you turned it over to him on the 14th, you never saw it again until March 31st; is that correct?

MR. FORD: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Then as I understand your testimony, on March 31st you then had occasion to review the tape prior to your coming to this courtroom to testify at a hearing; is that right?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: How many times did you watch the tape at that time?

MR. FORD: Once.

MR. COCHRAN: And after March 31st, when you viewed the tape, did you have occasion to view it again prior to your testimony here starting yesterday afternoon?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And when was that?

MR. FORD: Monday.

MR. COCHRAN: And that was during this time that you were up in Mr. Darden's office?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, when you were upstairs in the D.A.'s office were you in Mr. Darden's office?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: When you were watching television was that in Mr. Darden's office?

MR. FORD: I think so.

MR. COCHRAN: And so that is where the television set was; is that right?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So you and Mr. Rokahr were in his office actually?

MR. FORD: No.

MR. COCHRAN: Where were you?

MR. FORD: Mr. Rokahr--I only saw him in passing.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Where was Mr. Rokahr watching television?

MR. FORD: He was in--I don't know whose office it was. It is one of the offices where the secretary is sitting.

MR. COCHRAN: But there was a television set there, hum--

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: --also? All right. So now when you then met with Mr. Darden and Miss Lewis, did you go through the entire video or just look at part of it or what?

MR. FORD: Just parts of it.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Tell us what parts of the video you looked at.

MR. FORD: Basically the same part that was just shown.

MR. COCHRAN: Just the parts involving the missing socks?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Objection to "Missing socks," your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: Let me rephrase it.

MR. COCHRAN: The part where you didn't see any socks?

MR. FORD: Exactly.

MR. COCHRAN: That was the only part you looked at?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Who played the tape for you at that time?

MR. FORD: Umm, I don't recall who was--I think it was Cheri Lewis operating the machine.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And then.

MR. DARDEN: I didn't hear the last part of the answer.

MR. FORD: Operating the machine.

THE COURT: Operating the machine.

MR. COCHRAN: Miss Cheri Lewis was operating the machine? Is that what you said?

MR. FORD: I think so.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, as you watched this portion of the tape involving the socks that you didn't see there, was there some conversation with Mr. Darden at that point?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Did Mr. Darden ask you whether or not you had ever seen the socks on that particular day?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Objection, hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, may I rephrase.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Seek to rephrase it.

MR. COCHRAN: Was there ever any discussion with Mr. Darden where you were there of whether or not you saw any socks on the date of June 13th, 1994?

MR. DARDEN: Same objection.

MR. COCHRAN: You can answer that yes or no.

MR. DARDEN: Same objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: You can answer that.

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: That subject matter came up?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And were you--in responding to any questions that were asked of you, were you honest and forthright in your responses?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Would I be correct in assuming that you have been honest and forthright in your responses here also?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: You have no ax to grind in this case, do you?

MR. FORD: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Now--may I have a second, your Honor, regarding the video?

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to the testimony of others from the Special Investigations Division, LAPD, do you know Andrea Mazzola? Do you know who she is?

MR. FORD: (No audible response.)

MR. COCHRAN: Do you know who she is?

MR. FORD: Yes, I know who she is.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you know who Mr. Dennis Fung is?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: I think I asked you before briefly--this is foundational, your Honor--you had occasion--at least television sets were on when members of SID were testifying, right?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. With regard to the recovery of evidence in this case, are you aware of Andrea Mazzola's testimony?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: May I finish the question, your Honor?

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: May I finish the question, your Honor?

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, do you know what Andrea Mazzola testified about as to the time that she and Dennis Fung picked these socks up?

MR. DARDEN: 352. It is his witness, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: Are you aware of the time that she testified under oath in this courtroom as to the time she picked these socks up on June 13th, 1994?

MR. FORD: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: You have not talked to her about it?

MR. FORD: No.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you see her testimony in that regard?

MR. FORD: No.

MR. COCHRAN: I want to show you then a log in evidence here.

(Brief pause.)

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

THE COURT: Yes.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor.

(Brief pause.)

MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, there is an objection, 352 objection.

THE COURT: What exhibit is this?

MR. COCHRAN: This is exhibit 1051, your Honor. It is a log.

MR. DARDEN: I would object to counsel's further description of this item, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: This is an exhibit, your Honor. I can refer to what this is.

THE COURT: 1091?

MR. COCHRAN: 1091, your Honor, and I would like to approach the witness with this exhibit, if I may.

THE COURT: You may.

MR. COCHRAN: I want to approach.

MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, may we be heard? 352 as to this witness.

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

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: Let's see. 13.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes.

THE COURT: Navy blue.

MR. COCHRAN: The testimony is an offer of proof Mazzola testified, and Fung, that everything except for items 15 and 16 were picked up sequentially, sequentially in order. They wrote them down. The time was between 4:40--because they were picked up downstairs where the foyer is, 4:30, and then they went upstairs. They went upstairs together. And then item 14, your Honor, was picked up, the bloodstain, or something like that, in the bathroom, was picked up at 4:40. And it was between those times, I want to bring that out, and in fact I want to be able to show a video of Mazzola's testimony and also I can show you Fung's testimony. We have done this before. And I should be able to ask him whether or not--this is the issue of whether or not at this particular time, between 4:30 and 4:40--they have their testimony. They have already testified before the Court. This is nothing I'm making up. And this backs it up, because Peter Neufeld--I will show you the transcript. Peter Neufeld asked her sequentially--

THE COURT: No, I am with you. How are you going to ask this witness?

MR. COCHRAN: I'm going to ask him whether or not he was aware of this, that she also had testimony that between 4:30 and 4:40 these socks were picked up after he left. After he left, your Honor. I'm showing him the video if I have to.

THE COURT: I don't think that is a proper question.

MR. COCHRAN: Why is that not a proper question?

THE COURT: He has testified he hasn't talked to her, he hasn't discussed it with her and has no knowledge of what the testimony is.

MR. DARDEN: And this is not his log, okay, and so we are giving this witness someone else's log.

MR. COCHRAN: We have used these logs all the time. If he has seen this log--

THE COURT: But Johnnie, wait a minute. Ask this guy are you aware of this testimony and to play it is to say--all it is is argument. That what it is. It is not a proper question at this time.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, I respectfully disagree with that, your Honor. The Prosecution has done this all the time.

THE COURT: Like what?

MR. COCHRAN: Kelberg asked every witness, you know, what Dr. Lakshmanan said over here and so and so, but putting hypotheticals before the witness.

THE COURT: Those are expert witnesses. This guy is not testifying as an expert.

MR. COCHRAN: I think that this man says that they looked at TV, I think I should have a right, if he has ever seen the log--

THE COURT: You can ask him if he has seen it.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you. I want to ask you then, if he has seen the log, then I can ask him based upon this log he saw some other log at the time?

MR. DARDEN: I don't even think it is--I don't think Mr. Cochran is evenly acting in good faith to even show this witness a criminalist log. He is not a criminalist.

THE COURT: All right. I'm sustaining the initial objection that it is--what you are planning to do is argument at this point.

MR. COCHRAN: Right.

THE COURT: Because it is already in the record what Mazzola and Fung testified to. You can ask him if he has seen this log and knows.

MR. COCHRAN: Guidance from the Court. Can I ask this man if he is aware--can I ask him these questions? Are you aware that Andrea Mazzola testified under oath that these socks were picked up between 4:30 and 4:40 and information was kept on the log sequentially except items 15 and 16, you know?

THE COURT: You can ask him--you can ask him did you discuss this with Andrea Mazzola? Did you watch her testimony? Are you aware of her testimony? You can't lead into all the other things that she testified to without a foundation.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And he can't add into that times and things like that.

MR. SHAPIRO: Can we have--may I confer for one second?

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. COCHRAN: This possibility, your Honor. My learned colleague informs me that why can't we ask him to look at the testimony of Andrea Mazzola and ask him if she so testified would she be correct and would she be wrong? They have done this with other witnesses. If she testified and she picked these things up between 4:30 and 4:40 after he had left, after he had taken this video, would she be correct or would she be lying?

MR. DARDEN: No, we have not. In fact, there were some rare attempts, I think on both sides, to introduce testimony that way and each time the objections were sustained. I mean, come on, we all went to law school. We know this is improper, your Honor.

THE COURT: You can ask him if he is familiar with the log. You can ask him if he has discussed the testimony of Mazzola or if he is aware of her testimony, but without any other foundation I'm not going to let you go into any of this now.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. Proceed.

MR. COCHRAN: May I proceed? There is conversation going on, your Honor.

(Brief pause.)

MR. COCHRAN: Now, Mr. Ford, I want to approach you, and first of all, I want to show you a log and ask you if you have ever seen this log which is--

THE COURT: 1091.

MR. COCHRAN: --Defense 1091. Thank you, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: And place this before you and if you need some explanation regarding what that is, I will be glad to try and explain.

MR. FORD: No, I haven't seen this log.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Did you ever at any time have occasion to watch any of the testimony of Andrea Mazzola when she testified here in court under oath regarding the times that she picked up certain items at Rockingham?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. FORD: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you ever at any time have occasion to talk with Andrea Mazzola regarding her testimony?

MR. FORD: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you talk to her on the date of June 13th, 1994?

MR. FORD: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: You have not talked to her at all?

MR. FORD: Not at all.

MR. COCHRAN: With regard to Dennis Fung, have you had occasion to talk with Dennis Fung regarding times that he collected items at Rockingham on June 13th, 1994?

MR. FORD: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you talk to Dennis Fung on June 13th, `94?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And you talked to him while you were still out at the scene?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And with regard to the types of items that he picked up, allegedly picked up on that date, did you have occasion to talk to him about those items?

MR. FORD: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you talk to Mr. Fung around the time you first got there or near the time that you were leaving?

MR. FORD: No.

MR. COCHRAN: You can answer that yes or no.

MR. FORD: That is no.

MR. COCHRAN: You did not talk to him when you first got there?

MR. FORD: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you talk to him near the time that you were leaving?

MR. FORD: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you talk to him during the time that you were there?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: What part of the house were you in when you talked to him?

MR. FORD: Different parts of the house.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you talk to him when you were downstairs then?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you talk to him when you were upstairs?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: What time upstairs did you talk to him?

MR. FORD: I have no idea.

MR. COCHRAN: You have no idea what time it was?

MR. FORD: No. This was not a conversation.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, you talked to him but it was not a conversation?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you ask him any questions?

MR. FORD: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Did he ask you any questions?

MR. FORD: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: The time when you talked to Mr. Fung or there was conversation with Mr. Fung, who else was present?

MR. FORD: I would say my boss and Detective Haro, they were in the vicinity.

MR. COCHRAN: In the vicinity?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: But you can give us no idea of the time?

MR. FORD: I couldn't tell you any exact time.

MR. COCHRAN: If you were to look at that video again can you tell us where you were in the house at the time you were talking to Mr. Fung?

MR. FORD: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, let me see if I can refresh your recollection.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. DARDEN: I'm going to object, your Honor, improper foundation to refresh his recollection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

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

MR. COCHRAN: I want you to take a look at this video and I'm going to ask you if you talked to Fung during any of these points, if I might. Did you talk to Detective Luper about items you had photographed?

MR. FORD: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: You didn't at all?

MR. FORD: No.

MR. COCHRAN: Not that day or ever?

MR. FORD: Not ever.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, we are referring to exhibit no. 1068, your Honor, Defense.

MR. COCHRAN: I think Mr. Harris has 1068 now.

(At 10:04 A.M., Defense exhibit 1068, a videotape, was played.)

MR. COCHRAN: I want to ask you some questions regarding this. Again, this is about 4:08 and you are going up the stairs; is that correct?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, this conversation that--whatever you said to Mr. Fung or whatever he said to you, which would be hearsay, did it take place while you were on the stairs there going up?

MR. FORD: It might have.

MR. COCHRAN: You don't know now?

MR. FORD: No.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

(The videotape continues playing.)

MR. COCHRAN: There again you are shooting the photographs on the wall or the pictures on the wall; is that correct?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Per the instructions. Did it take place in that room there?

MR. FORD: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: In the children's rooms?

MR. FORD: No.

MR. COCHRAN: The answer was no?

MR. FORD: No.

(The videotape continues playing.)

MR. COCHRAN: Did it take place in that room there?

MR. FORD: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: That is about 4:09 P.M., right?

MR. FORD: Yes.

(The videotape continues playing.)

MR. COCHRAN: Did you talk to him in that room?

MR. FORD: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Who is that in the background of that photograph?

MR. FORD: Looks like Detective Haro and my boss, David Adkins.

MR. COCHRAN: Haro and Adkins?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Was Dennis Fung in any of these photographs?

MR. FORD: No.

(The videotape continues playing.)

MR. COCHRAN: Did you talk to him in that room?

MR. FORD: Not in that room. To my best recollection I would say it would be in that hallway just prior to this scene here.

MR. COCHRAN: Just prior to this scene?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: If we can back it up again and you tell us when.

MR. FORD: I was in the hallway.

MR. COCHRAN: I want you to look at the thing and try to show us where you were, sir.

MR. FORD: Where the pictures on the wall--about right there.

MR. COCHRAN: Right in this area?

MR. FORD: Uh-huh.

MR. COCHRAN: Let's stop it here. During this area right here, (Indicating)?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Let's stop it. Stop it, Mr. Harris.

MR. COCHRAN: So it is your testimony that you believe that you had a conversation or there were some words spoken between you and Mr. Fung?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: At that location?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you have that written in any report anywhere?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you ever testify about that before?

MR. FORD: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: When is the first time you told anybody about that, this alleged conversation that took place in that hallway there at about 4:11 on June 13th?

MR. FORD: I haven't told anybody about it.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you talk to Mr. Darden about that on Monday when you were up here, or Tuesday?

MR. FORD: No.

MR. COCHRAN: You never told anybody about that? We are hearing it for the first time; is that right?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Who was present when you had this conversation or talk with Mr. Fung?

MR. FORD: I would say--

MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, can we remove the image?

MR. COCHRAN: I'm going to continue it on.

THE COURT: The record should reflect that Mr. Ford has testified at a point on the tape that is 3:11 P.M. proceed.

MR. COCHRAN: You can proceed.

MR. COCHRAN: Who else was present during this time at about 4:11 P.M. on June 13th?

MR. FORD: My boss, David Adkins, and Detective Haro was in the area.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. When they are standing close by? However, were they aware--

MR. FORD: I have no idea. I'm looking through the view finder of the camera. All I know, they were upstairs with me.

MR. COCHRAN: You were actually focusing on what you were shooting; is that correct?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: So you were not aware of where everybody was at that point; is that correct?

MR. FORD: Exactly.

MR. COCHRAN: When you continued on this particular photograph as you went into the bedroom--

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: --come to that in just a moment, Mr. Simpson's bedroom--

(The videotape continues playing.)

MR. FORD: I think there is another conversation at this point also.

MR. COCHRAN: You think there was some conversation or some words spoken?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: At about point here at about 4:12 here with Mr. Fung?

THE COURT: All right. This is what appears to be the first bathroom entering Mr. Simpson's bedroom suite.

MR. COCHRAN: Is that correct?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, may I have a moment?

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

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to--this is Mr. Simpson's part of his bedroom suite; is that correct?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you have any conversation with Mr. Fung during that time?

MR. FORD: No. Mr. Fung is gone at this time.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, at 4:13, whatever conversation you had, at the time that you were in that bedroom, it is your testimony that Dennis Fung was gone at that point?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you discuss with Mr. Fung or have you discussed with Mr. Fung as to the time he told this jury that he went upstairs on that date?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: I'm asking.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: Have you discussed that with him?

MR. FORD: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you ever see his testimony in that regard?

MR. FORD: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you ever review any log regarding the time he was upstairs?

MR. FORD: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, may we approach on one other matter?

THE COURT: All right. Without the reporter.

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

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: Madam reporter.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I asked Mr. Blasier to pull this up. I will read this for the record as an offer of proof. "Question by Mr. Goldberg: In this case I take it that the number in the photograph also corresponds to the number--to the item number that was eventually assigned; is that correct. "Answer: Yes. "Question: Approximately what time was item no. 12 collected?" Item no. 12, your Honor, is the blood spots in the foyer. "Answer: That was collected at approximately 4:30. "Question: All right. Now, after collecting item no. 12 did you go upstairs in the location? "Answer: Yes, I did. "Question: Do you recall what was the next item of evidence that you collected? "Answer: The next item was a pair of socks in the master bedroom." So your Honor, the testimony, so that it is clear--I didn't have Dennis Fung before. That Dennis Fung said he went upstairs after collecting the items downstairs. They collected the items downstairs in the foyer at 4:30 and so we know also from the log--

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. COCHRAN: --that the spots or whatever in the bathroom were collected at 4:40. The socks were collected between 4:30 and 4:40. Take that along with the testimony of Mazzola things were logged sequentially at the time they happened, with the exception of the 15 and 16, the things that were outside, the tags or whatever--

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. COCHRAN: --I have a good faith to ask him if Dennis Fung indicated he went upstairs and collected the socks after 4:30 would he be wrong or not telling the truth?

THE COURT: I will sustain the objection as being argumentative. That is argumentative, counsel. That is argument.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. While we are up here, on scheduling, I asked Bob to come up for two reasons because we don't want to have any delays in this case so can we shift gears. I'm almost finished. Can we shift gears now with regard to the witnesses? He has argued it so I will ask you to listen to him on scheduling so we can move forward on this case.

MR. BLASIER: Dr. Rieders has a medical--he has a heart problem. He was hospitalized recently. He has a medical appointment next Wednesday. He is leaving for Vienna the following Monday. He can come back this Monday. I will--I told Lisa Kahn, who I'm dealing with on this issue, that I would make him available to talk to her right now with Agent Martz. They will know what the issues are. They can prepare. They will have all the time until Monday to prepare and we will call him Monday and we will call Martz after.

MS. CLARK: That doesn't give us nearly enough time.

MR. BLASIER: Lisa Kahn told me last night that Miss Clark was very well aware of the issues, was really prepared on that.

MS. CLARK: That is the biggest bald face lie we have heard yet in this case. Miss Kahn cannot make that representation; it is not true.

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: I am not prepared for Dr. Rieders, your Honor.

THE COURT: I don't need the characterization as people lying and that sort of thing. I don't think that is appropriate. Let's see. Today is the 20th. If he has to leave on the--

MR. BLASIER: He has to leave on Tuesday to get back for his medical appointment on Wednesday.

THE COURT: And then he is leaving for where?

MR. BLASIER: Vienna the following Monday for a week, but we should be done by then.

MS. CLARK: I can't imagine how you guys are going to be done by then, given the number of witnesses.

MR. BLASIER: Well, that is what we want to do.

THE COURT: They may be short witnesses or no witnesses.

MS. CLARK: Yeah.

MS. CLARK: I would only ask that the Court require the testimony to come at the end of the case, whenever that is, and that would probably be when he will be back from Vienna.

MR. COCHRAN: Can I comment on that, your Honor? I don't think so. And the Court is aware--

THE COURT: Let's do this. Let's do this. Give me a copy of the report. I will look at it and see how complex it is and we will see--

MS. CLARK: The problem is--

MR. COCHRAN: Today?

THE COURT: Yes.

MS. CLARK: I should give the Court then also Agent Martz' reports because Dr. Rieders' report is short and it is obviously a lot less than he is prepared to testify to.

THE COURT: Give me both of these things and I will look at them over the noon hour.

MR. COCHRAN: The reason I'm bringing this up, we are trying not to run out of witnesses. Make sure Mulldorfer is here.

MR. DARDEN: These are your witnesses. You make sure they are here. I can't police them for you and make sure they don't watch TV I'm not accepting that responsibility.

MR. COCHRAN: Let me also bring up--

MR. DARDEN: So I'm going to please ask Mr.--

THE COURT: I'm sure that will come out on cross-examination.

MR. COCHRAN: That is the violation of your order up in their office.

THE COURT: This guy is on the line, whether or not he is one of the witnesses that is included here.

MR. COCHRAN: On the line, your Honor?

MS. CLARK: Let me remind counsel while we are here that Mr. Meraz admitted watching television. I'm going to ask for a jury admonition concerning his testimony and his credibility as a result of that, not to mention other witnesses that I know will be called.

THE COURT: Let's proceed. Let's proceed.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

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

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

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

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you very kindly, your Honor. I apologize to the Court.

MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Ford, with regard to this indication about seeing or talking to Dennis Fung at some point, that video camera you had had some kind of audio capacity, did it not?

MR. FORD: Yes, it did.

MR. COCHRAN: So--and the audio was on, was it not?

MR. FORD: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: You had it turned off?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And why did you have it turned off?

MR. FORD: I was told to turn it off.

MR. COCHRAN: Who told you to turn it off?

MR. FORD: I think it was Detective Harper.

MR. COCHRAN: Harper told you to turn it off?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: So then if Fung said to you and you said something to him, if the audio had been on we could pick that up, couldn't we?

MR. FORD: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Before--you were told before you started shooting to turn that off?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you turn--did you keep it turned off during the entire time?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And when you spoke with Mr. Darden and Ms. Lewis on Monday, did you talk to them about Dennis Fung appeared in that hallway at some point?

MR. DARDEN: Objection.

MR. COCHRAN: 4:12 or 4:13?

MR. DARDEN: This is hearsay, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: Did the subject matter of Dennis Fung being in the hallway of Mr. Simpson's house at about 4:12 or 4:13 come up in your conversation at any time with Mr. Darden or Miss Lewis, the subject matter?

MR. DARDEN: Same objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer the question.

MR. FORD: I don't--

MR. COCHRAN: You never discussed it with them at all at any time?

MR. FORD: No, no.

MR. COCHRAN: Never prior to today; is that right?

MR. FORD: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Do you have any other videotape of any of the proceedings that took place that day--

MR. FORD: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: --with you today? You do not?

MR. FORD: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Very well. I have nothing further at this point, your Honor. I would ask leave of the Court to approach at the appropriate time on another matter.

THE COURT: Mr. Darden.

MR. DARDEN: Thank you, your Honor.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DARDEN

MR. DARDEN: Good morning, sir.

MR. FORD: Good morning.

MR. DARDEN: You were called to testify in this case by Mr. Cochran; is that right?

MR. FORD: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: And the D.A.'s office assisted Mr. Cochran in getting you here to testify; is that right?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: You are a Defense witness, do you understand that, Mr. Ford?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Object. He is a witness by the Court, your Honor, not a Defense witness.

THE COURT: That is not true. Proceed.

MR. DARDEN: Do you understand, Mr. Ford, that it isn't my responsibility to tell you what to do or not to do?

MR. COCHRAN: Object, your Honor.

THE COURT: Rephrase the question.

MR. DARDEN: Your only involvement in this case is the fact that you shot this video; is that correct?

MR. FORD: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: You didn't go to Bundy, correct?

MR. FORD: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: You didn't see the bodies at Bundy?

MR. FORD: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: When you arrived at Rockingham you didn't collect any evidence, did you?

MR. FORD: That's right.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. You are not a criminalist, are you?

MR. FORD: No, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Dennis Fung isn't a personal friend of yours, is he?

MR. FORD: No, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Mazzola?

MR. FORD: No.

MR. DARDEN: All you did was go out to Rockingham and shoot this video?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of that question, your Honor, "All you did."

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: That is argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: Is that all you did, sir?

MR. FORD: That is all I did.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Now, you didn't go to Rockingham to videotape evidence, did you?

MR. FORD: This is correct.

MR. DARDEN: You didn't go to Rockingham to videotape the collection process, did you?

MR. FORD: That's right.

MR. DARDEN: You didn't go to Rockingham to videotape Fung, right?

MR. FORD: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: Or Mazzola?

MR. FORD: That's right.

MR. DARDEN: Or the detectives?

MR. FORD: Right.

MR. DARDEN: You didn't go to Rockingham to record conversations, did you?

MR. FORD: That's right.

MR. DARDEN: Tell the jury, Mr. Ford, why did you go out to Rockingham that day?

MR. FORD: I was called by the request of the detectives at the Rockingham location to videotape all the personal effects of Mr. Simpson, just in case when they are getting ready to lock up--

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the--

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. FORD: --they are getting ready to lock up the location, just in case any of the items were reported missing, and the tape was never to be used as evidence; it was only a record to show what was there when LAPD finished their investigation, and to leave.

MR. DARDEN: When Mr. Cochran asked you if you were there to shoot anything and everything, that was true, correct?

MR. FORD: That was true.

MR. DARDEN: You were there to shoot valuables, right?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: You were there to document the way the house looked after LAPD completed a search; is that correct?

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: Is that correct?

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. FORD: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: And that is something you've told us?

THE COURT: Hold on.

MR. DARDEN: I'm sorry. I thought you said "Overruled."

THE COURT: I did. Proceed.

MR. DARDEN: And that is something you've told Mr. Cochran, isn't it?

MR. FORD: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: And Mr. Cochran asked you that when you were up here on the witness stand?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: You went there for administrative purposes only; is that correct?

MR. COCHRAN: Object. Conclusionary, your Honor. Calls for a conclusion.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. DARDEN: Well, you didn't go there to assist in any criminal investigation, did you?

MR. FORD: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: Or in any criminal prosecution, right?

MR. FORD: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: You weren't there as an agent of the D.A.'s office were you, Mr. Ford?

MR. FORD: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: Now, you told us a moment ago that you went there to videotape the property to show how it looked after LAPD completed a search?

MR. FORD: Exactly.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I object to the form of that question and move to strike.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: Is that what you did?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Did you videotape the property to show the way it looked after the search--

MR. COCHRAN: Object, your Honor.

MR. DARDEN: --was completed?

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: After the search was completed, sir?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: In response to Mr. Cochran's questions, you told us about the instructions you were given; is that right?

MR. FORD: Repeat the question again.

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

THE COURT: Overruled. That was the word used.

MR. DARDEN: In response to Mr. Cochran's questions you told us about the instructions you were given at the scene?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. You were instructed to only videotape a room after it had been searched; is that right?

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. FORD: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: You were instructed to videotape a room only after it had been possessed by the criminalist, correct?

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. FORD: That was correct.

MR. DARDEN: And that is why we don't see socks in these photographers; isn't that correct, Mr. Ford?

MR. COCHRAN: Object, your Honor. Object as hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: May we approach, your Honor?

THE COURT: No. Have a seat, counsel.

MR. FORD: That's correct, sir.

MR. DARDEN: You don't know what was in that room before you arrived that day, do you?

MR. COCHRAN: Calls for speculation, your Honor.

MR. FORD: That's right.

MR. DARDEN: You can't testify to what was inside or not inside that room prior to your entry into the room with that camera, right?

MR. COCHRAN: Speculation, your Honor. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. FORD: This is correct.

MR. DARDEN: Do you know someone named Mr. Wilson?

MR. FORD: Art Wilson. I mean Mike Wilson?

MR. DARDEN: Yes.

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: He is a photographer, right?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir, he is.

MR. DARDEN: He's a photographer just like you; is that right?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: He is a crime scene photographer?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: You saw Mr. Wilson at Rockingham that afternoon, didn't you?

MR. FORD: Yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: You saw him there with a camera, didn't you?

MR. FORD: Yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: You saw him there taking pictures?

MR. FORD: I didn't see him taking pictures but I saw him.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. You didn't see Mr. Wilson take any pictures at all that afternoon?

MR. FORD: No.

MR. DARDEN: So if Mr. Wilson took any pictures, then he took those pictures before you arrived?

MR. COCHRAN: Object, your Honor, as speculation.

MR. DARDEN: Is that correct?

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. COCHRAN: Objection.

MR. DARDEN: Do you know why videotapes are made of locations in residences after they are searched?

THE COURT: I think we have already covered that.

MR. DARDEN: Okay.

MR. DARDEN: You told us this morning about your conversation with myself and Miss Lewis?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Did you also have a conversation with Mr. Cochran?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And did you have a conversation with Mr. Neufeld?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And you had a conversation with both of these men right here in the courtroom, didn't you?

MR. FORD: Yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: You were seated in the front row?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Mr. Neufeld was seated to your left?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Mr. Cochran was seated to your right?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: They had you hemmed up in there in that front row; is that right?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the question "Hemmed up," your Honor.

THE COURT: Rephrase.

MR. COCHRAN: Counsel knows that is improper.

THE COURT: The jury is to disregard that last question.

MR. DARDEN: In any event, you were seated between Mr. Cochran and Mr. Neufeld?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And you were watching the video we just saw here--

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: --in court? They were asking you questions, correct?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And you told Mr. Neufeld at that time, didn't you, that you only shot rooms after they were processed by the criminalist?

MR. COCHRAN: Object, your Honor, that is hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: That is no secret, is it?

MR. FORD: No secret.

MR. DARDEN: Let's talk about the camera you used. That was an RCA video camera?

MR. FORD: Yes, it was.

MR. DARDEN: You don't own that camera, do you?

MR. FORD: No, sir.

MR. DARDEN: In fact, that camera was requisitioned from property division at the LAPD; is that correct?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: That was a camera that had been stolen or taken off a drug dealer or something?

MR. COCHRAN: Objection, leading and suggestive.

THE COURT: Cross. Rephrase.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. That wasn't a camera that had been purchased by the department, was it?

MR. FORD: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: Okay.

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

THE COURT: That says something about our budget, doesn't it?

MR. DARDEN: I'm sorry, were you going to break at 10:30?

THE COURT: I was hoping you were going to finish.

MR. DARDEN: Well, I'm going to finish about 11:00, I think, if I continue.

THE COURT: All right. We will take a recess. I want to see counsel at the side bar with the court reporter, please. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our mid-morning recess. Please remember all my admonitions to you. And we will see you back here in about fifteen. Mr. Ford, you can step down, and we will see you pack here in about fifteen minutes. Let me see counsel at the side bar with the court reporter.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: We are over at the side bar. Mr. Cochran, I want to apologize to you for appearing a little short with you. I think perhaps my tone was not appropriate in the last session. I am impatient today because this photographer testified to a very limited--we are spending a lot of time talking about this and I'm exasperated. My apologies for taking it out on you.

MR. COCHRAN: I accept the Court's apology.

THE COURT: Having said that, though, Mr. Darden, let's move this along. I think you've made the point that his instructions were to take it after the room had been cleared. That is the point.

MR. DARDEN: I just have to go into some timing issues.

THE COURT: I'm trying to get him to wind this up.

MR. COCHRAN: I accept your apology.

MR. DARDEN: Plus I needed a recess.

THE COURT: I did, too. That is the only reason we took it.

MR. DARDEN: Okay.

THE COURT: But let's--there is not a lot more.

MR. DARDEN: I got ten minutes with the guy.

MR. COCHRAN: I'm just trying to figure out now--I'm trying not to run out of witnesses. I'm not going to make a decision over the lunch hour on Rieders.

THE COURT: Johnnie, the bottom line, they are going to get, you know, time to prepare. That is what is going to happen. My concern is Rieders' schedule.

MR. COCHRAN: I'm trying to get some instructions to get some witnesses here.

MS. CLARK: We have one requested to bring in Detective Lange, Mulldorfer. You want Haro?

MS. CLARK: It is Harper that directed the video.

THE COURT: All right. We are going to go off record at this point. You guys argue about scheduling.

(Discussion held off the record.)

(Recess.)

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

THE COURT: Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Let's have the jury, please.

(Brief pause.)

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

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. The record should reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Ladies and gentlemen, when we concluded this morning just, before we took our break, it may have seemed to you that I was a little annoyed with the lawyers, and I want you to know that it is just an expression of my being in a bad mood today and the fact that I wanted to speed up the pace a little. And you should not consider that as my expression of any displeasure with the lawyers themselves and you should ignore any expressions of what appears to be judicial attitude on my part. All right. Mr. Cochran, Mr. Darden. All right. Mr. Ford is again on the witness stand. And Mr. Darden, you may conclude your cross-examination.

MR. DARDEN: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: You are welcome.

MS. CLARK: Message received.

MR. DARDEN: Message received.

MR. DARDEN: When we left off you were telling us that--well, you didn't see any socks on the carpet, right?

MR. FORD: That's right.

MR. DARDEN: Now, in the videotape that you shot--well, strike that. Let me show you a copy of what has been marked as People's 167.

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

MR. DARDEN: That will be the photograph of the socks on the--

THE COURT: All right. This is People's 167.

MR. DARDEN: Socks on the carpet.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Now, if you will, Mr. Ford, can you help us--well, let's see if there is a way that we can sort of mark the spot in the photograph where these socks are located. Do you see the patterns on the rug there?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Can you see the arrow there?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: All right. It is not an arrow yet. Okay. Starting at the top of the rug, that would be the area closest to the fireplace, how many patterns down from the top of the rug are the socks located?

MR. FORD: Looks to me about the fifth pattern down, if you count the border.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. So the border is one.

MR. FORD: Uh-huh.

MR. DARDEN: Number two?

MR. FORD: Two.

MR. DARDEN: Three?

MR. FORD: Go one more. Three, four.

MR. DARDEN: Okay.

MR. FORD: Right there, (Indicating).

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Now, starting from the bottom of the photograph here, which would be to the left of the carpet as you face the fireplace, how many patterns to the right of that edge would you say the socks are located?

MR. FORD: Five.

MR. DARDEN: Starting with the border as one?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Okay.

MR. FORD: Three, four. Right there, (Indicating).

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Can we print this, your Honor, 167?

THE COURT: 167-A?

MR. DARDEN: Yes.

(Peo's 167-A for id = photograph)

MR. DARDEN: And now let's go back to the video you shot and let's go to the bedroom. While we wait for Mr. Fairtlough, you already told us that you don't own the camera that you used, right?

MR. FORD: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And it does have a timer?

MR. FORD: Yes, it does.

MR. DARDEN: Were you paying any attention at all to the timer in the video camera?

MR. FORD: No, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Was time an issue for you that day?

MR. FORD: No.

MR. DARDEN: Did it matter to you at all whether the time in the view finder was correct or incorrect?

MR. FORD: No, it didn't.

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

THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer.

MR. FORD: No, it didn't. It didn't matter.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. So you have told us that the time is one hour off; is that right?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Let's take a look at the video for a moment.

THE COURT: All right. This is Defense exhibit 1068.

MR. DARDEN: 1068.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay.

THE COURT: Starting at 3:13.

(At 11:00 A.M., Defense exhibit 1068, a videotape, was played.)

MR. DARDEN: So you are entering the bedroom, right?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

(The videotape continues playing.)

MR. DARDEN: Stop.

MR. DARDEN: Well, the tracking isn't real great on this system, but you have seen this video before; is that right?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Looking at the--at that shot, the shot of the rug and the edge of the bed, the one we just saw here--

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: --at 3:13, this shot does not include the portion of the rug that is closest to the bed and below the fifth pattern as you described it, correct?

MR. FORD: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. So if there was anything at all on that rug, you would not have picked it up in that video shot there, right.

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

THE COURT: Rephrase the question. Rephrase the question.

MR. DARDEN: You didn't pick up anything in this video shot below the second pattern; is that right?

MR. FORD: (No audible response.)

MR. DARDEN: I will ask Mr. Fairtlough to go back for you.

MR. FORD: It looks closer to the third pattern; that's correct.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. The socks that we saw in 167-A, they were located around the fifth pattern; is that right?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. We will stop there.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. You were telling us about the time--the timing on the video camera and you said it is an hour off?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. But you don't know that for a fact, right?

MR. FORD: Not for a fact.

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

THE COURT: Rephrase the question.

MR. DARDEN: Well, when you were being asked questions by Mr. Cochran, you told us that someone told you the camera was an hour off, correct?

MR. FORD: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: So you were relying on that other person, right?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: In fact, you don't know if the camera is an hour off, right?

MR. COCHRAN: Calls for speculation, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: Correct?

MR. FORD: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: You don't know if the camera is an hour and five minutes off?

MR. FORD: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: Because you never set the timer on this camera, did you?

MR. FORD: No, I didn't.

MR. DARDEN: Is it your job to set the timer on this camera?

MR. FORD: Only by request.

MR. DARDEN: Anybody make that request of you?

MR. FORD: No.

MR. DARDEN: Did anybody ask you to check the timer in the view finder to make sure it matched with the time on your watch?

MR. FORD: No, they didn't.

MR. DARDEN: Daylight savings time, that occurs around April, doesn't it?

MR. FORD: I believe so.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. We all adjust our watches, right?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Did anybody adjust that video camera in April around daylight savings time?

MR. FORD: I don't think so.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Do you know how to correct the time on that video camera?

MR. FORD: Yes, I do.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. But you didn't, did you?

MR. FORD: No, I didn't.

MR. DARDEN: That is because it wasn't important to you?

MR. FORD: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: And even though someone told you that the camera was off by an hour, have you ever attempted to determine whether or not the minutes depicted in the view finder were incorrect or correct?

MR. FORD: No. Just checking with the crime scene log, that is all.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. You have to rely on the crime scene log?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: You haven't even seen the crime scene log?

MR. FORD: Just a copy of it.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. You have seen a copy of it; is that right?

MR. FORD: Yeah, check-in list.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. So then that regard you are relying on what someone else wrote on the crime scene log?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Because you didn't write on the crime scene log?

MR. FORD: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: You didn't write the time on that log?

MR. FORD: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: An officer wrote the time on that log?

MR. FORD: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: When you arrived at the scene?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Actually it wasn't when you arrived at the scene; it was when you approached the gate at Rockingham, right?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And if that officer's watch was off, then the time--

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor--that is speculation, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. DARDEN: In any event, the officer didn't ask you for the time before writing the time down on the crime scene log, did he?

MR. FORD: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: And so would it be fair to say that you cannot tell the jury how much or how far off the timing is on this video?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I object. It assumes a fact not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. FORD: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: But you can tell the jury, however, that the timing is off?

MR. FORD: Yes, I can.

MR. DARDEN: Now, you did see Mr. Fung at some point upstairs; is that right?

MR. FORD: Yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: And you had a conversation with him?

MR. FORD: In passing, yes.

MR. DARDEN: There were words exchanged?

MR. FORD: Words exchanged.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Did you go into each and every room in that house?

MR. FORD: Yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: Did anyone ever tell you that you were prohibited from going into any room in the house?

MR. COCHRAN: Hearsay, your Honor. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled. Goes to his instructions.

MR. FORD: That I was prohibited from going into any room?

MR. DARDEN: Yes.

MR. FORD: No, they didn't.

MR. DARDEN: Did anyone ever tell you that you could not watch any particular procedure being performed by any criminalist?

MR. FORD: No, they didn't.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. You told us that one of the detectives told you not to include any audio?

MR. FORD: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: Did you think that was unusual?

MR. FORD: No.

MR. COCHRAN: Object, your Honor. It is irrelevant and immaterial what he thought.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. FORD: No, it is not unusual.

MR. DARDEN: Why not?

MR. FORD: A lot of time they don't want any sound picked up in the background when we are videotaping.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. But you weren't there to videotape sound anyway; only things, correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Object. That is leading and suggestive, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: This is cross.

MR. COCHRAN: Suggestive.

MR. FORD: This is correct.

MR. DARDEN: Can I have one moment, your Honor? (Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. DARDEN: Now, was there a point in time that you began to enter the master bedroom?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And at that time did you see Fung?

MR. FORD: No. I heard him.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Where was he?

MR. FORD: He was in the master bedroom.

MR. DARDEN: And did you enter the room at that time?

MR. FORD: No, I didn't.

MR. DARDEN: Did you ask him something at that time?

MR. FORD: No.

MR. DARDEN: Did he ask you something?

MR. FORD: Yes, he did.

MR. DARDEN: And did you respond verbally?

MR. COCHRAN: Hearsay, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: Did you respond verbally?

MR. FORD: Yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: You did what Mr. Fung asked you to do?

MR. FORD: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: Assumes a fact not in evidence, that he asked him to do something.

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

MR. DARDEN: Did Mr. Fung ask you to do something?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And you did that?

MR. FORD: Yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: Where did you go at that point?

MR. FORD: To the next bedroom.

MR. DARDEN: And that would be the bedrooms that Mr. Cochran as described as being the children's rooms?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And did you--and you videotaped those rooms?

MR. FORD: Yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: And did you see Mr. Fung again?

MR. FORD: He was passing back and forth going downstairs and coming back upstairs as I was videotaping, so I saw him in passing. It wasn't a stop and talk to one another.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Well, how about the point in time after you videotaped the first children's room, one of the children's rooms?

MR. FORD: When I--I think I was coming out of the first children's room doing the photographs on the wall in the hallway--

MR. COCHRAN: Object to any further statement, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled. He can finish the answer.

MR. FORD: And he saw a video light.

MR. COCHRAN: Object to this, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. All right. Ask next question.

MR. DARDEN: Can I have a moment, your Honor?

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

MR. DARDEN: Is there a light on the video camera?

MR. FORD: Yes, there is.

MR. DARDEN: And you were walking toward the master bedroom door; is that right?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Did that light illuminate the doorway?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And was it at that time that Mr. Fung said something to you?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: That is when he asked you to do something?

MR. FORD: Yes. He says, "I'm not ready."

MR. COCHRAN: Just a moment, your Honor. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Hold on. Sustained.

MR. DARDEN: Okay.

MR. DARDEN: But he did ask you to do something?

MR. COCHRAN: Asked and answered.

MR. FORD: Yes, he did.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: What did you do after Mr. Fung asked you to do something?

MR. FORD: I went into the next bedroom.

MR. DARDEN: Did you do what Mr. Fung asked you to do?

MR. COCHRAN: Object, your Honor. I object. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. FORD: What was the question again?

MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, can I--

THE COURT: Did you do what Mr. Fung asked you to do? Yes or no?

MR. FORD: Yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: There is an issue of subsequent conduct in response, your Honor.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. DARDEN: May I ask the question?

THE COURT: No. Proceed.

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

MR. DARDEN: Okay. After you did what Fung told you to do, which was--well, strike that. After you did what Fung told you to do, did you return to the bedroom?

MR. FORD: I returned to the hallway.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. By the way, was there anything unusual about--in your mind about what Mr. Fung asked you to do.

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. FORD: No, there was nothing unusual.

MR. DARDEN: Nothing sinister about that?

MR. FORD: No, sir.

MR. DARDEN: You returned to the bedroom?

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

MR. DARDEN: You returned to the master bedroom after--

MR. FORD: I was going toward the master bedroom.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Did you have the video camera in your possession at that time?

MR. FORD: Yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: Did you see Mr. Fung at that time?

MR. FORD: I probably saw him pass by me before I turned the video camera back on.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Did you see him exit the master bedroom?

MR. FORD: Yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: By the way, did you see any brown paper bags in the house that afternoon?

MR. FORD: Yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: Did you see any in the master bedroom?

MR. FORD: I don't recall. I probably did, but I don't recall.

MR. DARDEN: Did you see Mr. Fung carrying any brown paper bags that afternoon?

MR. FORD: I did.

MR. DARDEN: Do you recall where he was?

MR. FORD: Not exactly. He was in the house.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And so was it after you saw Mr. Fung exit the master bedroom that you went into the room to videotape?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Now, at that point in time did Mr. Fung do anything to stop you from going into the room to videotape?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. At this point in time--

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: Well, you told us that you saw Mr. Fung exit the room and go somewhere, right?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Then you went into the room and videotaped, right?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. At this particular point in time, did he do anything to stop you from going into the room?

MR. FORD: No.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Did you and he speak to each other as you entered the room to videotape at that point in time?

MR. FORD: Just in passing, yes.

MR. DARDEN: Did you see anyone in the house that day plant any evidence?

MR. FORD: Say that again.

MR. DARDEN: Did you see anybody plant any evidence?

MR. FORD: No, I didn't.

MR. DARDEN: Now, you are not a sworn police officer, are you?

MR. FORD: I'm not.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And you live in this community, don't you?

MR. FORD: Yes, I do.

MR. DARDEN: You are under oath. You understand that?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: If you saw a police officer violating the law, planting evidence, doing anything wrong, anything wrong at all while inside that house, would you tell us?

MR. FORD: Yes, I would.

MR. DARDEN: You would tell Mr. Cochran, wouldn't you?

MR. FORD: Yes, I would.

MR. DARDEN: You would tell Judge Ito?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: The jury?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Did you see any police officer do anything wrong inside that house that day?

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: Conclusionary.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: Did you?

MR. FORD: No, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Did you see Mr. Fung do anything that you thought was inappropriate that day?

MR. FORD: No, I didn't.

MR. DARDEN: Now, you told us that you testified back on March 31st, right?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And Mr. Cochran was here when you testified?

MR. FORD: Yes, he was.

MR. DARDEN: And Mr. Cochran asked you questions during that hearing?

MR. FORD: Yes, he did.

MR. DARDEN: When was the next time you spoke to Mr. Cochran, that is after March 31st, 1995?

MR. FORD: Umm, I think it was Tuesday.

MR. DARDEN: Tuesday of this week?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: When Mr. Cochran spoke to you he asked you questions, right?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Did you respond to all those questions?

MR. FORD: Yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: Were you honest with him?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Being honest with this jury?

MR. FORD: Yes, I am.

MR. DARDEN: Are you telling the truth?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Did you ever see Dennis Fung gather or collect any evidence that day?

MR. FORD: Not gathering, no.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And you weren't there to watch him do that, were you?

MR. FORD: No, I wasn't.

MR. DARDEN: Okay.

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

MR. DARDEN: When you were in my office the other day watching TV--in my office, right?

MR. FORD: I think that is your office. Patty--

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Are you talking about--you were with Patty Jo Fairbanks?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Patty Jo Fairbanks and you were watching TV, right?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Had you had any word or any order or any directive from Mr. Cochran at all that you should not watch TV?

MR. FORD: No.

MR. DARDEN: Now, you were in my office at some point, right?

MR. FORD: Yes, I was.

MR. DARDEN: And you watched some television, right?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And when you watched television in my office you watched a portion of this video we just saw, right?

MR. FORD: Exactly.

MR. DARDEN: We didn't watch cartoons and other stuff?

MR. FORD: That's right.

MR. DARDEN: We didn't watch the trial, did we?

MR. FORD: No.

MR. DARDEN: During the time that you were watching the trial I take it you were watching me down here in court?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: I wasn't up there with you?

MR. FORD: Right.

MR. DARDEN: I couldn't stop you from watching TV at the time, could I?

MR. FORD: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Object, your Honor, axiomatic.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. DARDEN: Thank you. I'm sorry, did we mark this 167-A already.

THE COURT: Yes, 167-A.

MR. DARDEN: Thank you.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you very kindly, your Honor.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN

MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Ford, again sir, we won't keep you much longer and you will be able to go back to your duties. You were asked a series of questions by Mr. Darden and he showed you that video again and I want to ask you now to look right at this jury and tell them when you walked into that bedroom, OJ's bedroom at about 4:12 or 4:13 in the afternoon, did you see any socks on that carpet at the foot of the bed?

MR. FORD: No, I didn't.

MR. COCHRAN: You walked right over that carpet; isn't that correct?

MR. FORD: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And sir, we can put all the dots we want or arrows on that carpet and we can move five spots in or whatever, but you were there and you saw that carpet, didn't you?

MR. FORD: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: And you didn't see any socks on there, did you?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. This is leading, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: You didn't see any socks, did you?

MR. FORD: No, I didn't.

MR. COCHRAN: You are telling us the truth; is that correct?

MR. FORD: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: You know with regard to your role there, your role was important and that is why you are paid by the city of Los Angeles; isn't that correct?

MR. FORD: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: What you went out there to do was for civil liability purposes; is that correct? You took some photographers of the exterior and interior of Mr. OJ Simpson's residence, right?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor. Objection to the photographs.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: Let me strike "Photographs." And you took a video of the exterior and interior of Mr. Simpson's residence; isn't that right, sir?

MR. FORD: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: How long have you been employed by the city of Los Angeles?

MR. FORD: 13 years.

MR. COCHRAN: And you planned to do this the rest of your working life, don't you?

MR. FORD: (No audible response.)

MR. COCHRAN: This job with the city of Los Angeles?

MR. FORD: Perhaps.

MR. COCHRAN: I mean, you like this job, don't you?

MR. FORD: It is a pretty exciting job, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: You don't want to lose this job, do you?

MR. FORD: No, I don't.

MR. COCHRAN: You did your job well on that day; isn't that correct?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And you are just here to tell us what you recall from that date; isn't that right, sir?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now let's go back for a moment. So we are clear that you never saw any socks on that carpet, you have described for us that you left the location by 1630 or 4:30 in the afternoon; is that correct.

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor.

MR. FORD: That's correct.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: And you have seen--I would like to approach, your Honor, and show him People's 158, the log--this--you have had occasion to see this log indicating the time that you left the location on that date, have you not?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Take a look and start with the 1630 and see "Ford" there.

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: That is the log you refer to and 1630 is 4:30 in the afternoon; isn't that right?

MR. FORD: Yes, it is.

MR. COCHRAN: And let's see if we can find when you arrived there. You got there--let's see if we can move up and find Ford again. You came with your boss?

MR. FORD: Right there, (Indicating).

MR. COCHRAN: And you are pointing to a place where it says 1510?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: It says you arrived at 1510 and left at 1630; is that correct?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, that was logged and put down by some police officer; is that correct?

MR. FORD: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: You don't think that police officer would make those times up, do you?

MR. FORD: No.

MR. COCHRAN: Just create those times out of whole cloth? You wrote down the time?

THE COURT: Sounds like argument to me.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you think so, your Honor? Let me see if I can phrase it another way.

MR. DARDEN: Can he come back over here and phrase it, your Honor?

MR. COCHRAN: I will just stay here.

MR. COCHRAN: With regard to these times on here, you have no reason to believe the officers weren't accurate at the time they wrote those times down; isn't that correct?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, leading, speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled, overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: You can answer that, yes.

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: They were accurate as far as you know, right?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Because in fact, Mr. Ford, you know that you got there about 10:10 because in looking through the view finder of this RCA camcorder, you know that you started shooting sometime shortly after 3:10, isn't--

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. What time did you start shooting with this RCA camcorder on that particular date, sir?

MR. FORD: Shortly after I checked in.

MR. COCHRAN: Shortly after 3:10, right?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: So specifically you weren't there--isn't it correct that there was a police officer assigned there at the gate to log people in at this crime scene? Isn't that right?

MR. FORD: This is correct.

THE COURT: All right. Counsel, forgive me, but it is a very simple issue that now we have asked Mr. Ford, by my count, ten times, were there any socks? And he has said ten times no and we established what time he got there, according to the log. He talked about the camcorder.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

THE COURT: And Mr. Ford has told us that this is all the truth.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

THE COURT: So since we've all heard it three or four times now, perhaps we could wind this up.

MR. COCHRAN: All right, your Honor. Certainly. I will try to do that. Let me ask a few more questions, if the Court pleases.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, Mr. Ford, with regard to your role there, though, you never saw any evidence collected that date; isn't that correct?

MR. FORD: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: That was not your job, right?

MR. FORD: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: You went to do your job and primarily your job was focusing on this view finder, right?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: By the way, with the RCA camcorder, with the Court's permission, when you looked through the view finder, you could see the time and date in there, couldn't you?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Is there a way, if you wanted, you could disconnect that?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Press a little button?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: You never did that?

MR. FORD: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Before the detective told you to cut off the sound, did you have the sound on?

MR. FORD: I think it was. It was connected.

MR. COCHRAN: And you had nothing to hide that day, did you?

MR. FORD: No, I didn't.

MR. COCHRAN: If you hadn't been told anything, you would have left the sound on, wouldn't you?

MR. FORD: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And the sound would have picked up anybody coming and going or any voices, right?

MR. FORD: Right.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, you were asked some questions about talking with myself and Mr. Neufeld on Monday of this week. Do you recall that?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: We just asked you what had happened; isn't that correct?

MR. FORD: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And you responded and told us; is that right, sir?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, in the video you did video these blood drops in the foyer, did you not?

MR. FORD: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: You took pictures of that?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor. This is beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, may I be heard on that with regard to that?

THE COURT: It is beyond to scope.

MR. COCHRAN: May I ask one other question with regard to the question and it will become clear to the Court?

THE COURT: One other question.

MR. COCHRAN: Right.

THE COURT: One other question.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, you had indicated that you did not--you told us already you didn't really see any evidence collected, right? You told us that?

MR. FORD: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: You told us that you weren't focusing on any items that might be collected there that particular day, right?

MR. FORD: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: But you did in fact focus on and photograph some blood drops in the foyer area; isn't that correct?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: Isn't that correct?

MR. FORD: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And also downstairs you did not focus in the video on a glove that had been placed by some detective on a table downstairs?

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: Well--

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. DARDEN: Motion to strike.

THE COURT: Assumes facts not in evidence.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, may I show the video--may the Court indulge me a moment?

MR. DARDEN: Show a very limited portion.

THE COURT: Those two portions.

MR. COCHRAN: Sure. Thank you, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to--

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

(At 11:40 A.M., Defense exhibit 1068, a videotape, was played.)

MR. COCHRAN: I will show two areas.

MR. COCHRAN: By the way--back that up. Back it up a little further. Back it up. Now stop.

THE COURT: All right. Starting at 2:32 on the tape which is 1068 appears to be the foyer, entry foyer.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. That is where you photographed the blood spots; is that correct?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: I want to show you a person--move on a little forward at this point, Mr. Harris. Can you move on forward. There is a lady--stop right there. Do you know who that lady is?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Who is that lady?

MR. FORD: Marsalis.

MR. COCHRAN: Would that be Mazzola?

MR. FORD: Mazzola.

MR. COCHRAN: Or as Mr. Neufeld says, Mazzoler?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: But that is Miss Mazzola?

MR. FORD: Yes, it is.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Sir. All right. That was about 3:33, about an hour before you left there, right, at this point?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

(The videotape continues playing.)

MR. COCHRAN: He is going to point with the pointer, your Honor.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. COCHRAN: While we are waiting with that, your Honor, let me ask another question to save some time. With regard to--Mr. Darden asked you some questions about this camera. We have already gone into the log and the Court didn't want us to do--and we know when you started shooting. And with regard to that, who was it who told you that the camera was an hour off and related back to daylight savings time?

MR. FORD: I don't know the person's name. It was a detective working on the case from RHD.

MR. COCHRAN: Detective working from where?

MR. FORD: RHD.

MR. COCHRAN: It was a police officer who told you that?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Told you it was one hour off, right?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: You believed that?

MR. FORD: Right.

MR. COCHRAN: That was consistent with everything else you saw there, right?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you remember that detective's name at all?

MR. FORD: It might have been Haro. I don't know. I had gotten it secondhand through my boss.

MR. COCHRAN: You don't know who it was exactly?

MR. FORD: Not exactly. Just somebody from RHD.

MR. COCHRAN: Haro is the person you turned the tape back over to, right?

MR. FORD: I think so.

(Brief pause.)

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I will ask a few more questions. He is still trying get to the glove part. I apologize for the delay.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. COCHRAN: May we approach on one question while we are doing that?

THE COURT: Sure.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you.

THE COURT: Without the reporter.

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

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Harris, do we have the part of the tape located?

MR. HARRIS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor. Let me show you another portion of the tape. (The videotape continues playing.)

MR. COCHRAN: This is when you were downstairs in one of those rooms; is that correct?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Excuse me. The tape is at 2:50 P.M.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Thank you, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: That would be 3:50; is that right?

THE COURT: Well, no. The tape--let's say what the tape reflects.

MR. COCHRAN: I am asking him, your Honor. That was the next question.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Stop right there.

MR. COCHRAN: Can you see--can you zoom in on it? On that particular table there somebody has placed a glove on that table. Do you see that?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. COCHRAN: When you shot this particular shot at about, according to the tape, 2:50 on 6/13/94, you saw a glove there at that point; is that correct?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: That glove hadn't been picked up or seized or anything, had it? It was just like that?

MR. FORD: Exactly.

MR. COCHRAN: Just shot it, right?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you know whether or not that glove was seized and taken into police custody after that?

MR. FORD: No, I don't.

MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, objection.

MR. COCHRAN: I'm asking.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you know that?

MR. FORD: No, I don't.

MR. COCHRAN: But you did take a shot of that; is that correct, sir?

MR. FORD: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: That is part of what you were doing as you went about your job of shooting any and everything that you saw that was out, right?

MR. FORD: That's right.

MR. COCHRAN: If the sock had been out when you were up there in that bedroom, you would have shot those, too, correct?

MR. FORD: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: You didn't shoot them because they weren't there?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: You didn't shoot them because they weren't there when you were up there, right, the socks?

MR. FORD: No, sir, no, I didn't.

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

THE COURT: Yes.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. COCHRAN: Excuse me just a second, your Honor.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. COCHRAN: With regard to that glove that was there, did some police officer say anything to you about that glove?

MR. FORD: No, no, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And you only saw this one glove there at that location?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Do you know how it got there?

MR. FORD: No, I don't.

MR. COCHRAN: Was Detective Haro in and around there at the time?

MR. FORD: I think he was.

MR. COCHRAN: Did somebody tell you specifically to take a photograph--take the video of that glove?

MR. DARDEN: Object, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled. Goes to the instructions he was given.

MR. FORD: Not specifically.

MR. COCHRAN: And as I recall your testimony from cross-examination, you never saw Mr. Fung with any bags upstairs, right? You saw bags in the house; is that right?

MR. FORD: (No audible response.)

MR. COCHRAN: Is that your testimony?

MR. FORD: From time to time I saw him with his tools that he works with. It might have been some bags, I don't know.

MR. COCHRAN: But you don't recall, do you?

MR. FORD: Not really.

MR. COCHRAN: Because when you are shooting the video you are looking in the camera; is that right?

MR. FORD: Yes, I am.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you very kindly, your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Darden.

MR. DARDEN: Just a couple minutes.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DARDEN

MR. DARDEN: How many times can you say that you didn't see the socks, Mr. Ford? You didn't see the socks, right?

MR. FORD: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: Okay, geez.

THE COURT: That is 11.

MR. DARDEN: That is not 11, that is 21.

MR. DARDEN: Mr. Ford, you didn't videotape the glove found outside, the one found on the outside of the house; is that correct?

MR. COCHRAN: Assumes a fact not in evidence that that is correct.

THE COURT: Overruled. You didn't photograph any socks outside, did you--I mean gloves outside?

MR. FORD: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And the socks that you have seen in the photograph, do you know how much those socks cost?

MR. COCHRAN: Object, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. That is irrelevant.

MR. DARDEN: You didn't videotape the blood on the driveway?

MR. FORD: No, I didn't.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And when you were videotaping the area near the glove, there is a lamp next to that glove, correct?

MR. FORD: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: Did that appear to be an expensive lamp to you?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I object. Irrelevant and immaterial.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Tiffany lamp?

MR. FORD: I don't know what it is called, but pretty lamp.

MR. DARDEN: Crystal?

MR. FORD: Was it made out of crystal?

MR. DARDEN: Yeah.

MR. FORD: I don't know.

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

MR. DARDEN: Expensive pieces of crystal, I'm told. Did you notice any expensive--

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. DARDEN: Did you notice any expensive pieces of crystal on that lamp, right? Did you?

THE COURT: Do you know anything about tiffany lamps, counsel?

MR. DARDEN: Me?

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

THE COURT: It looked like a nice lamp?

MR. FORD: Yes.

THE COURT: We will leave it at that.

MR. DARDEN: All right.

MR. DARDEN: And the glove, the glove you saw there, was that an Aris Isotoner glove?

MR. FORD: I--I don't know.

MR. DARDEN: Would you notice that the glove was a large and not an extra large?

MR. FORD: Didn't enter my mind.

MR. DARDEN: All right. Did you see the mate to that glove?

MR. FORD: No, sir.

MR. DARDEN: You don't know how that glove got there, do you?

MR. FORD: No, sir.

MR. DARDEN: You don't know who owned that glove, do you?

MR. FORD: No.

MR. DARDEN: Did you think it was unusual that there would be a glove there, only one glove, rather, there?

MR. FORD: No.

MR. DARDEN: And just so it is clear, there are crystal objects directly next to the glove in the video also, right? Do you recall that?

MR. FORD: I don't know--yeah, there are some objects there, looks like crystal.

THE COURT: Counsel, I think the jury saw the videotape for a significant period of time and they know what was on that end table at the end of the couch.

MR. DARDEN: I will stop if he will stop.

MR. COCHRAN: One last question, your Honor.

FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN

MR. COCHRAN: Are you aware that Detective Luper took that glove from Mr. Simpson's closet?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: May I seek to rephrase it?

THE COURT: He testified he has no idea how it got there. Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: May I ask one other question in that regard?

THE COURT: You can call Detective Luper if you want.

MR. COCHRAN: Call Luper. All right. We will call Luper. Thank you very much.

THE COURT: Anything else?

MR. DARDEN: No.

MR. COCHRAN: No questions.

THE COURT: Mr. Ford--

MR. FORD: Thank you.

THE COURT: Thank you. All right. You have a nice day.

MR. DARDEN: May we approach before the next witness comes in?

THE COURT: Yes. Let's get our next witness down here, though.

MR. DOUGLAS: Outside, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Cochran, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Darden, Miss Clark.

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

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, let me ask you just to step back into the jury room for just a few moments and I need to take up something out of your presence on the record.

(The jury exits the courtroom and the following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: The jury has withdrawn from the courtroom. Apparently we have a dispute as to the order of the witnesses and who is ready to do what. Next witness that the Defense wishes to call is Miss Guarin; is that correct?

MR. COCHRAN: That is correct, your Honor. We would like to call Miss Guarin to the stand and what I would like to point out to the Court is we have indicated to the Prosecution, much better than they ever did for us, your Honor, the number of witnesses we expected to call. And in the course of our trying our case the way we want to we give them the names. If we opt not to call a particular witness, then we take that witness off. We give them enough witnesses, more than enough. Much more than we got. With regard to Gigi Guarin, she has been on the list and she is now necessitated because of your Honor's inclination to push Dr. Rieders back and Mr. Martz--Agent Martz. If this happens, I ask Mr. Douglas to go and try and line up some witnesses that we were not going to have available today.

THE COURT: Is agent Marks available?

MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Blasier's order of proof.

MS. CLARK: He is here right now.

MR. COCHRAN: He will have to decide the way he wants to do that, but I am just indicating to the Court that you have said many, many times we have a right to call our witnesses in the order that we want to. And so I had Mr. Douglas rummage around trying to find witnesses, and at this point I understand that we brought Gigi Guarin in. We had her come in immediately. I understand that agent Mull--police officer Mulldorfer is in the building, and if I inquire for a moment, I will talk to Mr. Douglas about the rest of the day.

MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, just an hour ago--

THE COURT: Hold on. Hold on.

MR. COCHRAN: We are going to get Detective Tom Lange and trying to get Detective Haro and I imagine Detective Luper here, so if we can get those we can fill out the day, but it is necessitated by virtue of the fact that the Court--Mr. Blasier is supposed to be up moving with witnesses at this point. And so now we're--and because we don't want to waste time in this case, we are trying to use--fill in with witnesses that we expect to call later on in the case. At this point, and as the Court can tell, many of them are police officers and the Court knows they will have some relevant testimony and they will not be long. But as to whether or not some of the other witnesses--I just wanted to point out to the Court, we told the People, we have given them the notice and we are moving ahead. Now, if we decide not to call a particular witness on a particular date, I will always tell them that. And you know--and I want to point out to this Court again, just briefly, about two weeks before the People rested Mr. Darden stood in this Court and gave me a list of five so-called domestic discord witnesses. Miss Clark came down and said we are not calling any more of those witnesses. We didn't cry or run off--we didn't make a big hubbub about that, your Honor. We just moved on. And that is all I'm asking to do. I want to put these witnesses on and move on. The problem we are having is if we are not going to be able to call Rieders tomorrow, we are going to be out of the so-called civilian witnesses that we would otherwise call, and I want to make the Court aware of that.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Darden.

MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, just an hour ago Mr. Cochran told me they wanted Detective Mulldorfer down here, and I sent my clerk upstairs to get the file on, Detective Mulldorfer and Meraz and that whole mess. Now, they are telling us they don't want her here. Detective Mulldorfer has been in this courthouse waiting to testify for Mr. Cochran for three days, your Honor.

THE COURT: No. Mr. Cochran just said that he was going to get to Mulldorfer probably after Guarin is what I just heard.

MR. DARDEN: I heard that six or seven times a day for the past three days and so has Detective Mulldorfer.

MR. COCHRAN: That is not true.

MR. DARDEN: In addition, they gave us a list that included Ernesto Rivas and Scott Matsuda from Westec, Dale St. John, and a whole slew of other people. None of the people that have been mentioned to us as being witnesses for this week have included Detective Lange or Detective Luper. This is new.

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

MR. DARDEN: And as to the Detective Haro is not on the subpoena--

THE COURT: The issue is Gigi Guarin.

MR. DARDEN: The issue is fairness, I think, but as far as Gigi Guarin is concerned, we have never gotten an offer of proof from the Defense. We don't know what she would testify to or not.

THE COURT: Well, Miss Guarin has testified on other--at other hearings. We know who she is. She has been the housekeeper of Mr. Simpson for a couple of years. There is a multiplicity of things that she can testify to. I mean, she is present in the household. Her presence or absence on June the 12th was one of the issues that that is been brought up. Even the location of her bedroom in the proximity to the door in the back is an issue in the case. I mean, there is a whole--there is a jillion and one things she can tell us.

MR. DARDEN: That's right, and half a jillion things she can tell us are inadmissible, irrelevant, prejudicial and shouldn't be presented before this jury and that is why we would like an offer of proof.

THE COURT: But there is a jillion things she can testify to that I can think of.

MR. DARDEN: And there is a half a jillion--I don't disagree with the Court on that, but I would like an offer of proof, just like Mr. Cochran's next to last question to the last witness--

THE COURT: The only real issue is whether or not it is any surprise that she is coming and it is not a surprise to me.

MR. DARDEN: I would like an offer of proof if we can.

MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Douglas will represent, your Honor.

THE COURT: Hold on. I'm sorry, Mr. Cochran, I'm talking to Mr. Darden.

MR. DARDEN: Are we going into the June 28th search warrant for instance?

MS. CLARK: That is what she testified to.

MR. DARDEN: That is what she testified to before.

THE COURT: No, I understand.

MR. DARDEN: It is not relevant. Are we going into that? Are we going into that?

THE COURT: I don't think so.

MS. CLARK: June 28th.

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

MS. CLARK: Is that counsel--

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: With regard to June 28th? I think it is very relevant. Let me just indicate to the Court what I think--why I think it is relevant. First of all, I have indicated at side the bar, and I gave the Court an offer of proof which the Court indicated was entirely appropriate. To expand upon that, in addition to the other items we've talked about, I think June 28th is also very relevant, your Honor. She was present, if you recall, at this other hearing, and I think it is very relevant to this jury if on June 28th these police officers are sitting around Mr. Simpson's family room watching videos of frogman and she is--and they can't turn the TV off or adjust it after that, I think that is very relevant with regard to their attitude--their attitudes they have in the case. As we have indicated with every witness, when there is any--any issue, when there is a question, we have, unlike the Prosecution, approached the bench and asked the Court when we get to that point and that is all we do.

MR. DARDEN: Is that what he did when he asked a question? Is that what he did when he asked a question about Detective--

THE COURT: Counsel, we are not going to be back and forth on this. I think Miss Guarin, because of her position with Mr. Simpson's household, can offer relevant testimony as to multiplicity of issues. It is not a surprise that she has come. We will take her testimony--we will start her testimony at one o'clock.

MR. DARDEN: As to any testimony--

THE COURT: As to June 28th, that is a different issue.

MR. COCHRAN: When I get to that point, your Honor, I would like to approach and make an offer of proof on the record.

THE COURT: There are a lot of things she can tell us about.

MR. DARDEN: May I inquire of the Court and may I ask the Court to assist us in asking Mr. Cochran who will he be calling after--

MR. COCHRAN: Mulldorfer.

THE COURT: What is just heard is Mulldorfer, Luper, Haro and Lange. That is what I heard.

MR. DARDEN: None of these people are under subpoena. Haro is on vacation.

THE COURT: I assume Mulldorfer and Detective Lange.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Lange and Luper are not on their three-day witness list and we object to that.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. COCHRAN: They are on the list. Mr. Douglas--can we hear from Mr. Douglas on this discovery?

THE COURT: No, no.

MR. COCHRAN: Tell me--

THE COURT: No. Detective Luper's name just came up. He will be here to say what was your instruction to Mr. Ford? Detective Lange could be called for any number of reasons. He was not released. He was subject to recall. All right. We will stand in recess--

MS. CLARK: He was not on the list, your Honor, so we didn't have him ready.

THE COURT: Detective Lange can pop up at any point in time to clarify what goes, since he is one of the investigating officers. All right. We will stand in recess, one o'clock.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you.

(At 11:50 A.M. the noon recess was taken until 1:00 P.M. of the same day.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; THURSDAY, JULY 20, 1995 1:02 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. Defendant is again present before the Court with his counsel, People are represented. The jury is not present. All right. Counsel, anything we need to take up before we start with the next witness?

MR. COCHRAN: Couple things.

MR. BLASIER: Scheduling for Dr. Rieders.

THE COURT: Yes. I did review the reports, including all of the liquid chromatograph tracings from the FBI. I evaluated the literature that was there. It is a relatively complex issue. Dr. Rieders is available what? Monday?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

THE COURT: How long do you anticipate the direct examination for his testimony?

MR. BLASIER: Two to three hours. Maybe less. Same with Agent Martz.

THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Well, the problem is, your Honor, that regardless of the length of the direct examination, it can be very brief and entirely misleading and confusing. I anticipate that it will be. And that means that the cross-examination will have to be extensive and detailed.

THE COURT: But don't we have a pretty fundamental difference in the types of results that the parts per million that you're likely to get in a reference sample is a gazillion parts per million whereas these trace amounts are significantly less? I mean, isn't that something that's relatively simple to cross-examine on?

MS. CLARK: One would think, wouldn't one? I did too when I first looked at it, and I spoke to Agent Martz about that, and I thought, show him the graph, show him the chart. It should be really apparent. But from what I am told, there are a lot of machinations that can occur. Comparing relative quantities on different days, which should not be done, but which we know the Defense intends to do. And we will have 402 motions on their charts which are misleading and confusing because what they will attempt to do is compare amounts that are quantified and--amounts that are quantified on one day to amounts that are quantified on another day to show relative degrees that they will attempt to assert prove the presence of EDTA, not just the kind that may be present in all of us right now as we sit here at a low level, but the kind of amount that would be indicative of coming from the preservative ii. And the problem that is engendered by that is that it is inappropriate to do so for a number of reasons, not the least of which that is on any given day that the column will register high or low depending on how it's been used that particular day. Furthermore, the method of testing employed by Agent Martz was not meant to be for the purpose of precise quantification.

THE COURT: Well, Miss Clark, let's assume that I agree with you that it is a complex scientific process. The question is, today is the 20th of July. Why can't you be ready by the 24th of July?

MS. CLARK: Because that gives me exactly a half day on Friday to prepare and tonight.

THE COURT: Yeah. But professional attorneys are paid to work 24 hours a day when they're in trial.

MS. CLARK: And I would be glad to approach sidebar to explain to the Court why the weekend is unavailable to me. But--

THE COURT: Well, is there somebody else on your team who can do this?

MS. CLARK: No, your Honor.

THE COURT: Why not? I mean, you have several lawyers who are very skilled, very knowledgeable.

MS. CLARK: At this point in time, I'm the one designated to do this. And I anticipated that we would have more time than this because it looked from the scheduling of things that he would be coming up at the very earliest, late next week after Agent Martz testified. They have now completely rearranged the order, and not only that, but decided not to call Agent Martz until afterwards. Now, Agent Martz is available. He could testify today, but they refuse to call him. That's their trial strategy. But it's--when they use their trial strategy to deliberately prevent us from being prepared to cross-examine, that's another matter, and that's what they have done. And so perhaps--see, the Defense has indicated that Dr. Rieders will not be available until August 2nd if he's not called to testify on Monday. And I don't see any problem with Dr. Rieders testifying on August 2nd. I don't see what the problem is.

THE COURT: No. I thought it was longer than that.

MR. BLASIER: It's longer than that.

MS. CLARK: When is it?

MR. BLASIER: He's leaving the 30th to go to Vienna for a week. Your Honor, the Prosecution was advised last Saturday that we were calling Martz and Rieders this week. I can't believe that Miss Clark says she's ready for Martz, but she's not ready for Rieders.

MS. CLARK: Oh, come on. I think--that's so obvious, it doesn't even bear addressing. You know, Agent Martz is going to be an honest witness who's going to testify truthfully to the results. That's a little easier--

THE COURT: Miss Clark, earlier today I cautioned you about personal attacks.

MS. CLARK: Okay. I'm sorry, your Honor.

THE COURT: I've warned you already. Sanction is $250. Don't leave court without writing a check.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, Dr. Rieders would be available then I take it on the 7th of August; is that correct?

MR. BLASIER: I don't know what his plans are for coming back from Vienna. We anticipate being done by the 7th of August. I want to call him Monday because of his health.

THE COURT: All right. Counsel, approach with the court reporter, please.

(Pages 38124 through 38133, volume 191-A, transcribed and sealed under separate cover.)

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

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. Mr. Cochran, are you prepared to call the Defense's next witness?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes, we are, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Let's have the jury, please.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, while we are waiting for the witness, when Detective Mulldorfer comes to testify, before testifying, we have a motion in limine.

THE COURT: All right.

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

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Mr. Cochran, you may call your next witness.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you very, very kindly, your Honor. We'll next call Miss Josephine, Gigi, Guarin, your Honor. Miss Guarin, come forward.

Josephine Guarin, called as a witness by the Defendant, was sworn and testified as follows:

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?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I do.

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

MS. GUARIN: My name is Josephine, J-O-S-E-P-H-I-N-E, Guarin, G-U-A-R-I-N.

THE CLERK: Thank you.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN

MR. COCHRAN: Good afternoon.

MS. GUARIN: Good afternoon.

MR. COCHRAN: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

MR. COCHRAN: Miss Guarin, are you nervous?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I am.

MR. COCHRAN: Is this the second time you've ever had to testify in your life?

MS. GUARIN: Actually this is my third time. I appeared before in the grand jury.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. But this is the third time in connection with this case?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And you're a little bit nervous, are you?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I am.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Well, just relax, okay, and kind of sit back, and if you can pull the microphone a little closer and speak right into that for us, will you? All right. Now, Miss Guarin, how are you employed presently?

MS. GUARIN: I was Mr. Simpson housekeeper.

MR. COCHRAN: And Mr. Simpson, you're speaking of the gentleman over here to my far left, Mr. OJ Simpson (Indicating)?

MS. GUARIN: Yes. Yes, he is.

MR. COCHRAN: And approximately when did you start to work for Mr. OJ Simpson, ma'am?

MS. GUARIN: Umm, April of 1994.

MR. COCHRAN: And you succeeded another housekeeper at the time you came in, did you?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And were you working full-time from April of 1994 on?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I do.

MR. COCHRAN: And are you still employed at the Rockingham residence now?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I do.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, during the time that--let's talk about the period of April of 1994 to June of 1994. Did you work on a full-time basis for Mr. Simpson during that time?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I am.

MR. COCHRAN: And what was your regular work schedule during that period of time, Miss Guarin?

MS. GUARIN: I work Monday through Friday.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And would you normally have weekends off?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I do.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, during that period of time, was Mr. Simpson always at home during that period of time or would he be out of town a lot?

MS. GUARIN: He's out of town a lot of time. The whole month of April, he is out of town.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So when you first started working for him, he was out of town pretty much that entire month?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And do you know, Miss Guarin, where he was during that time period?

MS. GUARIN: He's in Puerto Rico.

MS. CLARK: Objection. Speculation, hearsay.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, I'll lay a foundation.

THE COURT: All right. Proceed.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You became aware that Mr. Simpson was out of town or out of the country during the month of April?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, he is.

MR. COCHRAN: And how did you--you were aware of what he was doing while he was out of town?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, he is--I--

MR. COCHRAN: And what was he doing?

MS. GUARIN: He's filming--

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Excuse me. I'm sorry. Who's handling the witness here?

MR. DARDEN: I am.

THE COURT: All right. Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you.

MR. COCHRAN: Before Mr. Simpson left in April of 1994, did you have some conversation with him about where he was going?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I have.

MR. COCHRAN: And when he was out of town, he would let you know where he was going to be; is that correct?

MS. GUARIN: Yes. He will call me where he is.

MR. COCHRAN: And on occasion during the month of April, did Mr. Simpson call you from some location?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, he is.

MR. COCHRAN: And when he called you during this period of time, did you ascertain during the course of these phone conversations where he was? You can answer that yes or no.

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And when he called--have you ever received phone calls from like overseas or long distance before?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled. Counsel, let me see you both at sidebar without the court reporter.

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

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

MR. COCHRAN: May I proceed, your Honor?

THE COURT: Please.

MR. COCHRAN: So where was Mr. Simpson during much of the month of April of 1994?

MS. GUARIN: He is in Puerto Rico.

MR. COCHRAN: And was he shooting a movie at that time?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, he is.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So your contact with Mr. Simpson during the month of April while he was out of the country would be how? How would you talk to him during that time frame?

MS. GUARIN: He will call me from time to time to check how I'm doing.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So you would talk on the telephone; is that correct?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, what about now during the month of May of 1994, how was Mr. Simpson's schedule during the month of May of 1994, Miss Guarin?

MS. GUARIN: He's in and out.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. When you say in and out, what does that mean?

MS. GUARIN: He's out of town or he's in town, he's doing a video or the frogman, the movie.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. This same movie that he had been shooting in Puerto Rico, was some of that shot in the United States also?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And did the shooting continue in the month of May of 1994?

MS. GUARIN: Uh-huh. Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: You've got to answer out yes.

MS. GUARIN: I'm sorry.

MR. COCHRAN: And were you aware that he also was involved in some kind of a video, exercise video during the month of May of 1994?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And during those periods of time, would there be nights when Mr. Simpson was not at home?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Did he travel quite a bit then during that time frame we're talking about?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, do you recall a time during the month of May of 1994 that Mr. Simpson had occasion to go to palm springs?

MS. GUARIN: He go to palm spring on memorial weekend.

MR. COCHRAN: And do you recall with whom did he go to palm springs on memorial weekend, if you know?

MS. GUARIN: With Miss Paula Barbieri.

MR. COCHRAN: With Paula Barbieri?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And prior to that, when you first started working for Mr. Simpson in April, first part of April of 1994, did you have occasion to meet Miss Nicole Brown Simpson?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I do.

MR. COCHRAN: And was there a period of time that the two of them were together?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And did you see them together?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And where did you see them together during this time in April of 1994?

MS. GUARIN: In Rockingham residence.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Would you see them at any other location?

MS. GUARIN: No.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to that, did you continue to see them together during part of the month of May of 1994?

MS. GUARIN: Around first week of March--umm, first week of May.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And they continued to be together during that time frame?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Did there some come a time when they were no longer together during the month of May of 1994?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Speculation, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: You can answer that, please.

MS. GUARIN: Can you repeat the question, please?

MR. COCHRAN: Certainly. I'll be glad to. Did there come a time when you didn't see Mr. Simpson in the company of Mrs. Nicole Brown Simpson sometime during the month of May of 1994?

MS. GUARIN: I didn't see her like after mother's day, something like that.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Sometime after mother's day of 1994?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And was that--was it after that that you then saw Mr. Simpson with Miss Paula Barbieri?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I do.

MR. COCHRAN: During the time that you saw Miss Nicole Brown Simpson with Mr. Simpson, did you see Paula Barbieri with him during that same time frame?

MS. GUARIN: No.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You saw her after they were no longer seeing each other; is that right?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Objection. That's leading.

THE COURT: It is. I'll allow it to stand though. Move on.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, we talked about April and May and Mr. Simpson's travel schedule. Were you aware of whether or not during the month of June, whether or not he left town during any portion of that time?

MS. GUARIN: Can you repeat the question, please?

MR. COCHRAN: Certainly. We've talked about Mr. Simpson traveling during the month of April, traveling during the month of May, and now I wanted to ask you at least during the first part of June, are you aware of whether or not Mr. Simpson had occasion to leave town during the month of June?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Do you know where he went?

MS. GUARIN: I know he went to New York, to Virginia and I don't know where--and I know that he's going to Chicago on that Sunday, I think that's June the 12th.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. How did you know he was going to go to Chicago on Sunday, June 12th, ma'am?

MS. GUARIN: Because I need to make in my schedule with his schedule because I need to be at the house whenever he's out of town at nighttime.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So that--would you adjust your schedule around Mr. Simpson's travel schedule?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I do.

MR. COCHRAN: And was that one of the reasons why you knew generally when he was leaving town, when he would come back, when he was leaving? Is that right?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I do.

MR. COCHRAN: And would that--would his travel schedule affect your duties around the Rockingham residence?

MS. GUARIN: Sometimes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And would you adjust your travel schedule to accommodate times when Mr. Simpson was going to be away out of town?

MS. GUARIN: Yes. I need to make my schedule with his schedule so that there is no conflict on our schedule.

MR. COCHRAN: So you try to work it out; is that correct?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, with regard to Mr. Simpson, let's go back to the months of April and part of May of 1994, certainly in late April and early May. Are you aware of whether or not Mr. Simpson spent any nights away from home over at the home of Miss Nicole Brown Simpson?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Hearsay.

MR. COCHRAN: I'm asking yes or no, yes or no to that question, your Honor. Foundation.

THE COURT: All right. You can answer the question.

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I do.

MR. COCHRAN: And--

THE COURT: Foundation.

MR. COCHRAN: Foundational, yes, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: And would you explain to the Court and to the jury what would happen, how you would--would you have contact with Mr. Simpson when he was away at night?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I do.

MR. COCHRAN: And would you describe for us in your own words what would happen? How would you have contact with Mr. Simpson in the evening? We're talking about the month of May and early--the month of April and early May.

MS. GUARIN: Okay. Umm, there is some phone calls that coming from Rockingham. And if there's important, I need to relay the information to Mr. Simpson. So I will call Miss Simpson house, Nicole, and give the message to her and I will--sometimes I'll talk to Mr. Simpson there.

MR. COCHRAN: So would there be occasions when you would get messages for Mr. Simpson and you would then have to call him over at Nicole Brown Simpson's house?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And when you did that, the occasions that you talked to Mr. Simpson were late in the evening and late at night?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And in discussing with him where he would be that night, have you had occasion--you became aware that he was spending the night over at her house?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. That calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Well, when you would call him, when you would call Mr. Simpson late at night, would you find him at some particular location?

MS. GUARIN: I will call Miss Simpson's residence. If Mr. Simpson is not there, I will ask her where she is--where he is.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. And on occasion, when you would call there, would Mr. Simpson be there?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, he is.

MR. COCHRAN: And if he was there, you talked to him on the phone?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: If he wasn't there, would you leave a message for him?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. This is leading.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, what would you do if--

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: Let me rephrase it, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: You may answer that.

MS. GUARIN: I'll leave the message to her. I will tell her to please call me at the Rockingham address.

MR. COCHRAN: And on occasion thereafter, if you left a message for him, would you get calls back from Mr. Simpson?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: He would then call back?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, he will.

MR. COCHRAN: And when he called back, did he say where he was sometimes?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And would he indicate on occasion that he was calling from Miss Nicole Brown--

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, during the time that you've worked for Mr. Simpson, you've had occasion to go into his closet, have you not, and seen his clothes closet?

MS. GUARIN: That's part of my job.

MR. COCHRAN: And could you describe for us Mr. Simpson's habits regarding his clothes? Can you tell this Court and jury something about that, please?

MS. GUARIN: He wants everything in order and he's neat in putting everything in place so that he know where to get it when he needs it.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. He's neat in putting everything in place?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And with regard to--let's assume--let's say that--are you aware that Mr. Simpson played golf?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I do.

MR. COCHRAN: And when he would come back home from playing golf, would he sometimes have some arrangement with you about the clothes that he played in, played golf in?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Would you describe that for the Court and jury, please.

MS. GUARIN: He wear--the clothes that he used to wear from playing golf, he will put it on the chair inside his closet. It means it need to be washed.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And how would he fix those clothes, the clothes that were presumably dirty clothes?

MS. GUARIN: It would be arranged on the top of the chair nicely, sometimes folded nicely or hanging there nicely.

MR. COCHRAN: And you knew that--when you saw these clothes either folded or hanging nicely, what did you take that to mean?

MS. GUARIN: It means that I need to check if I need to wash them or check I need to wash them or put it back on the things, on the hanger on the closet.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, as you took care of Mr. Simpson and the house, did you ever see him leave clothes all strewn around the floor or around his bed or things of that nature?

MS. GUARIN: Never. I never see him do that.

MR. COCHRAN: You mentioned that in his closet--with regard to his clothes--do you know what color coordinated means? Do you know what color coordinated means?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Can you tell us and describe for us how those clothes were arranged in his closet?

MS. GUARIN: He wants everything, all the whites will be together. All the white clothes will be together, the same color on the same--they're altogether at the same line, and all the gold pants are altogether and the denims are altogether.

MR. COCHRAN: What about his shoes? Did he have any particular arrangement for his shoes in his closet?

MS. GUARIN: All the shoes that he use, what he wear is on the floor under the--under his closet where his pants hang on, and on--also, there is a shelf on the top of the closet that he can put his shoes there.

MR. COCHRAN: How would you describe his closet? How did it seem?

MS. GUARIN: It's big.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. In addition to being big, how did the clothes appear as they were in that closet?

MS. GUARIN: Everything is arranged properly and he wants it the way it is. Folded nicely, clothes are on the same place that he wants to see it.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. What about when he would take off clothes? And would he have a habit of taking off clothes and just leave them off the hangers while you were there?

MS. GUARIN: When he--when he wear clothes and he doesn't like it, he will put it back on the hanger and put it in the same place where he got it.

MR. COCHRAN: So he wouldn't leave clothes laying around; is that correct?

MS. GUARIN: No.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, during this time frame, you've described for the Court and jury that Mr. Simpson was traveling a lot, and I presume on occasion, he would leave the Rockingham residence; is that correct?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Have you ever been around when Mr. Simpson was leaving to go on a trip?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Can you describe for the ladies and gentlemen of the jury how Mr. Simpson would--what you observed as he would leave to go on trips?

MS. GUARIN: He's always rushing.

MR. COCHRAN: And describe that for us. What would he be doing?

MS. GUARIN: He's always--the limo is already there, the one who will pick him up. It still going to here for a long time because he just goes to start putting all her things together on the last minute.

MR. COCHRAN: You've observed this yourself?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I do. Sometimes I will help him packing all the things that he needs.

MR. COCHRAN: And waiting until the last minute, would that require him to do something? Was he rushing around?

MS. GUARIN: He's rushing around taking--doing everything on the last minute.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Did you ever talk to him about that?

MS. GUARIN: Yes. He's always late. I will tell him that, "Dale is here. He's already waiting outside." He says, "Tell him I will be there soon," but dale's going to wait for a long time before he will come down.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And when you say "Dale," are you referring to a limousine driver?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: By the name of Dale St. John?

MS. GUARIN: I know his name is dale. I don't know his last name.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So this particular habit of Mr. Simpson, will he always be running late?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Leading.

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Motion to strike. Never mind. Withdrawn.

THE COURT: Thank you. Proceed.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you withdraw it?

MR. DARDEN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you answer?

MS. GUARIN: Can you repeat the question, please?

MR. COCHRAN: Certainly. Okay. Would Mr. Simpson always be running late on these trips?

MS. GUARIN: Yes. Always.

MR. COCHRAN: The limousine driver would have to wait for him?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, at times when Mr. Simpson, when he was running late, would his habit for picking up his clothes change at all or would it remain the same? Describe that for the jury.

MS. GUARIN: Remain the same. He will--after he put everything in his suitcase, he will making sure that everything is in proper place, that he never leave anything out.

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

THE COURT: Sure.

(Brief pause.)

MR. COCHRAN: I would like to approach, your Honor. I'm not sure these photographs are in evidence, your Honor. So just in case, I'll show them to counsel. We've all seen them. Your Honor, I would like to mark--this may be one of the exhibits, but I'll--out of an abundance of caution, I'll mark this as a Defense exhibit if I might.

THE CLERK: 1256.

THE COURT: 1256.

MR. COCHRAN: 1256?

MR. COCHRAN: I've show it to counsel. I'll put 1256 on the back. I would like to approach the witness, your Honor.

THE COURT: You may.

MR. COCHRAN: Counsel has now seen this.

MR. COCHRAN: I want to show you what has now been marked as exhibit 1256, Miss Guarin. Can you take a look at that photograph, please? And I'll ask you some questions after you've seen it.

THE COURT: It appears to be identical to what was it, 167?

MR. COCHRAN: It may be, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: You've now looked at this?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Can I proceed, your Honor?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. COCHRAN: With regard to this particular photograph, do you recognize the room depicted in this photograph?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, it is.

MR. COCHRAN: And what room--whose room is this?

MS. GUARIN: That's Mr. Simpson room.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And that's the room that you worked in during this time frame we've been talking about?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: If I were to put this on the elmo--I'm going to ask you some questions about it.

(Brief pause.)

MR. COCHRAN: Now, you can look down at the monitor there. With regard to that photograph that's now on the elmo, at any time during the time you worked for Mr. Simpson, have you ever seen him leave any socks on the rug or on that carpet in his room at any time, out like that?

MS. GUARIN: No.

MR. COCHRAN: There appear to be some kind of straps on his bed or across the bed. At any time, have you ever at any time ever seen Mr. Simpson leave and leave any straps or anything like that on his bed in that fashion?

MS. GUARIN: No.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, during the time that you worked for Mr. Simpson as his housekeeper, did he have and use a cellular telephone on occasion?

MS. GUARIN: Yes. Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And other than the cellular telephone, was there a cordless telephone at all in that house at all?

MS. GUARIN: No.

MR. COCHRAN: Have you on occasion seen Mr. Simpson use this cellular telephone?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And will you describe for the Court and jury where and what places would you see him use or talk on the cellular telephone?

MS. GUARIN: Around the pool hall--pool area and around the front yard.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And did you ever see him use the cellular phone inside the house?

MS. GUARIN: No.

MR. COCHRAN: You had telephones inside the house?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, this cellular phone that Mr. Simpson would use around the pool area or in the front part of the mouse, was that cellular phone capable of being put in either one of his cars?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And have you had occasion to see that same cellular phone inside of his Bronco?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And you could then remove it from the Bronco?

MS. GUARIN: He will move it to the Bentley.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, you've seen the Bronco before; have you not?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I do. Uh-huh. Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you ever drive the Bronco yourself?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: You've driven it yourself on occasion?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to the Bronco, can you describe for the Court and jury on what streets, if any, the Bronco would normally be parked?

MS. GUARIN: It will park on Ashford. Sometimes in Rockingham.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. These are things you observed yourself; is that correct?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I--

MR. COCHRAN: Now, did you have occasion to speak with Mr. OJ Simpson on the evening hours of June 12th of 1994?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I do.

MR. COCHRAN: And would you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what time did you have occasion to speak with Mr. Simpson on that same evening?

MS. GUARIN: I call him from Knotts Berry Farm around 8:00 o'clock that Sunday night.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You were at Knotts Berry Farm?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I do.

MR. COCHRAN: And who were you at Knotts Berry Farm with?

MS. GUARIN: With my family.

MR. COCHRAN: And you were having a nice time I presume?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And in that connection, you called Mr. Simpson?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I do.

MR. COCHRAN: At the time you called Mr. Simpson, did you know whether or not he would be leaving town that night?

MS. GUARIN: I know he is leaving town that night.

MR. COCHRAN: There had some prearrangement regarding his schedule?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Did you make some request of Mr. Simpson when you called at about 8:00 o'clock on June 12th, 1994? You can answer that yes or no.

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I do.

MR. COCHRAN: You called him; is that correct?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I do.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And what did you ask Mr.--

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, may we approach, approach on this limited portion?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: We are over at sidebar.

MR. COCHRAN: Judge, I just want to ask--I promised to approach the bench. I want to ask her--as an offer of proof, she will indicate she was at Knotts Berry Farm with her family having a good time. She called Mr. Simpson and asked could she continue to stay out. There was a show she wanted to see. She knew he was going to leave town before she would come home. Mr. Simpson told her, "No, it's not necessary. You can enjoy the show, enjoy your family." That's it. State of mind exception. I want to elicit that, but wanted to ask her--

THE COURT: No. What you can ask is: "What was your purpose in calling?" "To get permission to stay later at Knotts Berry Farm. "Thank you. "Was that your purpose? "Yes. "And did you stay later? "Yes, I did."

MR. DARDEN: Of course, it's not going to come out that way. It's not a very artfully phrased question, Judge. That question like--that leaves the door open for all kinds of stuff.

THE COURT: I don't know why we asked all these questions about how neat he is because you're just going to argue, well, this was an unusual day. So you're right.

MR. COCHRAN: They can argue any way they want to.

THE COURT: It cuts both ways.

MR. COCHRAN: So it does.

THE COURT: But we all know that Gigi wasn't there that night. Okay. So this is--if she's at Knotts Berry Farm having a good time, well, good for her.

MR. DARDEN: I just don't want to hear Mr. Simpson's comments. That's my only concern.

MR. COCHRAN: While we are here, may I ask about another area? I found out--by the way, another subject. Barry Scheck is going to call Mulldorfer next. I understand we are also going to have Luper. There will be like one question. But we can't get Haro. We can't get Haro. We told you that before. Here's my offer of proof. After June 12th, that on June 28th--here's what I would seek to elicit. She was home on June 28th. She was working at the house. The police came to the gate, wanted to come in. Of course, she knew they had a search warrant. They do not frequently get a search warrant at all. Further, they asked her to leave the house. Then they told her, okay--she said, "I can't leave." Then they allowed her to remain in the kitchen area and then they asked her to play this video, frogman video for them. 10, 12 officers and detectives were sitting around in the family room, bar area watching the TV screen. The reason she had to do this was because they didn't know how to turn it on. And the Court will recall she's testified about that before. She had seen a preview of this video before. She went to the kitchen where she was instructed to go. I just want to bring that out. I think it's important again to show the action of these officers. I think it's probative on a number of levels and I think also, the officers will deny some of those--they will deny doing this. So I'm asking leave of the Court to elicit just those questions. That's the area I am going to go into.

MR. DARDEN: Well, you know, I strenuously object to that. You know, one of the things we've tried to do in this case, we've cut our case back. We're trying to end it.

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Darden, what is your specific objection?

MR. DARDEN: It's irrelevant.

MR. COCHRAN: I think it's very relevant. I think these officers indicated--it goes to the state of mind of these officers like Haro. It goes to show exactly what happened here, your Honor. They indicated that they didn't do this. We think the evidence shows they did. We have a legitimate issue here. This will take me three or four questions, artfully phrased questions. I think it's probative. They talk about cutting their case back. Your Honor, we've been up only a week and a half. They were six months. And I expect--I'm telling you, I'm going to finish in another week and a half.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. DARDEN: Can I just add one last thing? This is collateral impeachment. That's all it is. And it's June 28th, and they collected, you know, biological evidence and everything two weeks before, Judge. But we've got to--

THE COURT: All right. I think that it's a very tangential issue. I think that it's really not relevant to the direct issues here. I agree it is collateral impeachment. Under 352, I'll sustain the objection to that area of inquiry on June 28th. All right. Let's go.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you very kindly, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: Now--

THE COURT: I'm sorry. Have we got everybody? Yes. Proceed.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, I think I was asking you about this conversation with Mr. Simpson on June 12th of 1994, and you described for us, as I recall, that you called him about 8:00 o'clock in the evening; is that correct?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I do.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you request of Mr. Simpson at that time permission to remain at Knotts Berry Farm?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. This is hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: The form of the question, your Honor?

THE COURT: I'm sorry?

MR. DARDEN: Hearsay, the form of the question.

MR. COCHRAN: Let me--I'll rephrase it, your Honor.

THE COURT: Yeah. Rephrase it.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you obtain permission from Mr. Simpson to stay with your family at Knotts Berry Farm and have a good time on the evening of June 12th, 1994 after 8:00 o'clock?

MR. DARDEN: Hearsay, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I do.

MR. COCHRAN: And was that your request?

MS. GUARIN: Yes. My request.

MR. COCHRAN: He didn't call you, you called him, right?

MS. GUARIN: I called him from Knotts Berry Farm.

MR. COCHRAN: Now--and you did not talk with Mr. Simpson--after you got permission to stay at Knotts Berry Farm, you didn't talk with Mr. Simpson anymore that particular evening, did you?

MS. GUARIN: No, I did not.

MR. COCHRAN: And when did you next come to work, come back to work at Rockingham?

MS. GUARIN: I came back Monday morning.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So you were not home or not at Rockingham at 9:00 o'clock, 10:00 o'clock, 11:00 o'clock, midnight on June 12th; is that right?

MS. GUARIN: No, I'm not.

MR. COCHRAN: And part of that time, you're still out at Knotts Berry Farm having a nice time with your family, right?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I--

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, when you spoke with Mr. Simpson at about 8:00 o'clock on June 12th, 1994, can you describe for the ladies and gentlemen of the jury and the Court how Mr. Simpson's voice seemed, how he appeared at that time?

MS. GUARIN: Is the same thing--is the same OJ that I used to talk to. He's the same person every time I talk to him, the same mood, same everything.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Did he sound like he was acting to you?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor.

MS. GUARIN: No.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. GUARIN: No.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Did the answer get in, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes, it did.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You say he sounded like the same OJ?

MS. GUARIN: Yes. The same OJ

MR. COCHRAN: And that's who you're referring to, is OJ?

MS. GUARIN: Yes. Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And when you said "The same OJ," what do you mean by that?

MS. GUARIN: He's the same--you know, same joyful, you know, you can--easy to talk to, can say anything that you want to say to her--to him, you know. The same person, the same person that I always talk to. There's no difference at all.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you very much for coming today.

THE COURT: Mr. Darden.

MR. DARDEN: Yes, your Honor. Can I have one moment?

THE COURT: Certainly.

MR. DARDEN: Can we have a moment?

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

THE COURT: I'm going to--excuse me. I'm going to take a recess for just a minute. I've got a piece of equipment down here that's driving me nuts. All right. Folks, let me ask you just to step back in the jury room. One of our electronic pieces down here is buzzing on me.

MR. COCHRAN: May we approach one moment?

THE COURT: Sure. And we'll call you back out as soon as I take care of this problem. Miss Guarin, you can step down. However, don't go anywhere.

(Recess.)

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

THE COURT: Back on the record. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.

MR. COCHRAN: I have a couple questions if I may. I had a question at the conclusion of that.

THE COURT: You have a couple questions of Miss Guarin?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes.

THE COURT: See, when I give recesses, then you guys think of more questions.

MR. COCHRAN: Just a couple more, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. COCHRAN: And I also wanted to, at the appropriate time, ask leave of Court to address the issue of the scope of cross, which I think is appropriate before we do things around the jury. So when you feel that's appropriate--two more questions. And you want to do that now?

MR. DARDEN: What is the area? I can tell you if I intend to go into it.

THE COURT: Well, we've got a pretty--

MR. DARDEN: Wide range.

THE COURT: You tell me. I mean, where are you going with this?

MR. COCHRAN: Where am I going with this? Well, where I'm going is that I would ask that counsel be limited to the scope of the direct examination, and--

THE COURT: As to what area?

MR. COCHRAN: If he exceeds that--I think as to all areas. I think--for instance, let's take, for instance, the showing of the frogman video. I was precluded from bringing out the fact that these 10 police officers sat there and watched the frogman video on the 28th. If he wants to show that now, I think that I'm able to go into that.

THE COURT: He wants to show the frogman video now?

MR. COCHRAN: I don't know. I mean, if they decide they want to do that, then I think I have the right to go into that. I think the Court would agree with me on that. So I'll wait and see. I just want to approach the bench--

THE COURT: The testimony that Mr. Simpson was in Puerto Rico making the frogman video doesn't bring then in the frogman video.

MR. COCHRAN: Oh, I agree with that. But they were back there showing it. So I can only go by what they were doing back here, your Honor. So I'm just noting for the record our agreement is to approach the bench and I'll ask him to abide by that also. I have just a couple more questions.

THE COURT: All right. Let's have the jury, please.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor. Can she go back up, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes. The record will also reflect that the modem that was going bad is no more singing to you. Also, Mr. Cochran, the photograph that you marked with Miss Guarin is actually an identical photograph to People's 167. So I don't see there's any--

MR. COCHRAN: Shall I just--shall I withdraw it, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yeah. I don't see any reason--we'll just agree on the record now that it's identical to 167 because I don't want to burden Mrs. Robertson with any more photographs than we have to.

MR. COCHRAN: I will agree and I'm willing to stipulate to withdraw it, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Is that agreeable to the People?

MS. CLARK: I'm sorry, your Honor.

THE COURT: That the Defense withdraw the photograph that they marked since it's identical to 167.

MS. CLARK: Sure.

THE COURT: Okay.

(Deft's 1256 for id = withdrawn)

THE COURT: All right. Miss Guarin, why don't you go ahead and take a seat.

(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. The record should reflect we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. And, Mr. Cochran, you have a few concluding questions?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes, I do, your Honor. Thank you very much.

MR. COCHRAN: Miss Guarin, just a couple other questions. Again, during the time frame that you worked for Mr. Simpson at the home, can you describe for the Court and jury the time on the evenings that Mr. Simpson would be home that he would normally go to bed at night?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. GUARIN: Usually, on his room, around 9:00 o'clock or earlier at night.

MR. COCHRAN: 9:00 o'clock P.M. or earlier?

MS. GUARIN: Uh-huh. Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And what time would he normally get up in the morning?

MS. GUARIN: He usually get up at 7:00.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. What about on days when he's going to play golf?

MS. GUARIN: Usually when I wake up at 7:00 o'clock in the morning, he's not there anymore. He's playing golf already.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So when you would wake up at 7:00, he would already be gone?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, he is.

MR. COCHRAN: And you became aware afterwards that he had played golf and had left early that morning?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: So he would be early to bed, early to rise?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to Mr. Simpson, did you ever see any pills around your house called juice plus pills?

MS. GUARIN: There is some.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You saw those at the house?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And did you ever make any special kind of drinks for Mr. Simpson?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I do.

MR. COCHRAN: What kind of drinks would you make?

MS. GUARIN: It's a carrot and celery juice.

MR. COCHRAN: And how often would you make carrot and celery juice for him?

MS. GUARIN: Every day.

MR. COCHRAN: Would he drink it?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you know why he was drinking carrot and celery juice?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled, but I need a foundation here.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

MR. COCHRAN: You--when you first came and started working for Mr. Simpson, did you have any instructions on making this celery and carrot juice?

MR. DARDEN: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled. Did you receive instructions on how to make it?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I do.

THE COURT: And from whom did you get that?

MS. GUARIN: From Michelle.

MR. COCHRAN: And that was the previous housekeeper?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Who was there before you came?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And then you learned how to make--did you make this in a blender?

MS. GUARIN: On a juice extractor.

MR. COCHRAN: A juice extractor?

MS. GUARIN: Uh-huh.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And then he would drink it every day?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: How much would he drink?

MS. GUARIN: A glass of--a glass of carrot and celery juice.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. How big--hold the glass up. Show us how big the glass was for the Judge.

MS. GUARIN: Like the beer--beer mug cup, something like that (Indicating).

MR. COCHRAN: The size of a beer mug cup?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And you'd make that every day?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And do you know why he was taking that carrot and celery juice?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Speculation.

MR. DARDEN: And that too.

THE COURT: Sustained. Foundation. I don't know that--

MR. COCHRAN: I understand, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. COCHRAN: I'm with you.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you ever have any conversation with Mr. Simpson as to why he would drink this carrot and celery juice? You can answer that yes or no.

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And were you aware of whether or not Mr. Simpson suffered with any kind of condition, physical condition?

MS. GUARIN: I know he has arthritis.

MR. COCHRAN: Arthritis?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And how do you know that?

MS. GUARIN: The way he walks sometimes.

MR. COCHRAN: And you could see that?

MS. GUARIN: Yes. The way he walk and sits.

MR. COCHRAN: And was the taking of the carrot and celery juice in any way related to this condition of arthritis?

MR. DARDEN: Same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: If you know.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Do you know why he drinks carrot and celery juice?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: Very well. I have nothing further of Miss Guarin. Thank you.

THE COURT: Mr. Darden.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DARDEN

MR. DARDEN: Good morning or afternoon.

MS. GUARIN: Good afternoon.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. We met before?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, we do.

MR. DARDEN: You and I, we met in the grand jury?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And that was the first conversation we ever had?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And we haven't had one since?

MS. GUARIN: No.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And you are--what is your position in the Simpson household?

MS. GUARIN: I'm Mr. Simpson housekeeper.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And you became his housekeeper in April of 1994?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And do you recall the date?

MS. GUARIN: Maybe second week--around after April 10th, something like that.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Something around the second week of April?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And the murders--

MS. GUARIN: But--but prior to that, I worked like on Monday just to start if I will--just a trainee, if I will like the job or not.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. All right. So after you began as a housekeeper around April 10 or in mid-April, the Defendant left and he went to Puerto Rico, right?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, he is.

MR. DARDEN: He left right after you were hired as a housekeeper?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And then he was--was he back in May?

MS. GUARIN: I think he's back April, the last day of April.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And after he returned, he stayed home for a day or so?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And then he was back on the road; is that right?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Going to many different cities to play in golf tournaments and other types of appearances?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And so is it fair to say that he was gone most of the time?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, he is.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. So you really get to see very little of Mr. Simpson or you did, right?

MS. GUARIN: I would see him from--every time that he is in town.

MR. DARDEN: But he was out of town most of the time?

MS. GUARIN: Mostly.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And so during that time period between mid-April and June 12, you really didn't see a whole lot of the Defendant, did you?

MS. GUARIN: When he's at home, I will see him.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Well, how many--

MS. GUARIN: But he's--in May, he's in and out of, you know, the house.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Now, you told us that normally you would have to be at the house any time the Defendant was out of town; is that right?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I do.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. If he spent the night out of town, you were supposed to be at 360 Rockingham, correct?

MS. GUARIN: I don't need to be there at the daytime I need to be there at the nighttime. He just wants somebody at nighttime in his house.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Well, on the night of June 12th leading to June 13, you called the Defendant, right?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And you knew he had to catch a red eye flight to Chicago?

MS. GUARIN: I know that he's leaving town that night.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And you knew you were supposed to be there that night, correct?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I do.

MR. DARDEN: And the Defendant told you you didn't have to go there, right?

MS. GUARIN: No.

MR. COCHRAN: Objection, your Honor. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. GUARIN: No.

MR. DARDEN: Well, you didn't go to Rockingham that night, did you?

MS. GUARIN: No, I did not.

MR. DARDEN: And the Defendant was your employer, right?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, he is.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And had he insisted that you go there, you would have gone, right?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, object to the form of the question.

THE COURT: Sustained. Calls for speculation.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Well, you asked permission--

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. You asked permission to stay out at Knotts Berry Farm?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: Did you ask permission to stay out there all night?

MS. GUARIN: I asked--

MR. DARDEN: Is that yes or no?

MR. COCHRAN: Well, she can respond to the question, your Honor.

THE COURT: She can answer the question.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you.

MS. GUARIN: I asked Mr. Simpson if I can watch the show with my family that night and come back the next day in the morning, and he said yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Now, you arrived at Rockingham the next morning; is that right?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: And you arrived there at--you arrived there at about 10:00 o'clock in the morning?

MS. GUARIN: Somewhere 9:00 to 10:00, around that area.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And you were interviewed by a police officer; is that correct?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: And you were interviewed by a female police officer?

MS. GUARIN: A female police officer and a man police officer.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And you told that police officer that you had talked to the Defendant the night before at 8:00 o'clock, right?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And you told that police officer that the Defendant told you not to--

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, if he's reading from a report, can I see it, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Well, I'm not reading from a report, your Honor.

THE COURT: Is there a report regarding this?

MR. DARDEN: There's an F.I. card that Mr. Cochran has had for 11 months.

MR. COCHRAN: I would like to see it. I don't have it here.

THE COURT: Would you show Mr. Cochran the F.I. card, please.

MR. DARDEN: And you told that police officer that--

MR. COCHRAN: May he hold off just a minute while I read it?

THE COURT: Yes.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Proceed.

MR. DARDEN: And you told that police officer that the Defendant had told you that you didn't have to come back that night, correct?

MS. GUARIN: I told the police officer that I talk to Mr. Simpson that night and I ask him permission if I can stay out and come back that morning.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. That's what you told the police officer?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: Have you seen a small card called an F.I. card, a field identification card?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I object to the form of that. The cards aren't given to witnesses, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. DARDEN: I'm asking the witness if she has seen the card, your Honor.

THE COURT: Right.

MR. DARDEN: You know Mr. Cochran, don't you?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I do.

MR. DARDEN: You've been interviewed by Mr. Cochran, haven't you?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: Let me show you a card, a field identification card.

MR. DARDEN: What is People's next in order, your Honor?

THE COURT: I'm sorry? 534.

MR. DARDEN: I'm sorry?

THE COURT: 534.

(Peo's 534 for id = F.I. card)

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Now, let me show you what has been marked People's 534. I would ask you to take a moment and read it to yourself and read both sides, please.

(The witness complies.)

THE COURT: All right. Miss Guarin, have you read the other side, the other side?

MS. GUARIN: It's only my address and nothing.

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Darden.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Now, did Mr. Cochran show you a Xerox copy of that card?

MS. GUARIN: No.

MR. DARDEN: No one has ever showed you a Xerox copy of that card?

MS. GUARIN: No.

MR. DARDEN: Do you know what that card is?

MS. GUARIN: No. This is first time I saw this card.

MR. DARDEN: Well, when you were speaking to the police officer, did you notice that the police officer was writing?

MS. GUARIN: Yes. She just asked my name and took the plate number of my car.

MR. DARDEN: Is that all she--

MS. GUARIN: And she asked me--and I asked her if I can get in the house, and she told me no.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Let me stop you there. She only asked you your name; is that right?

MS. GUARIN: Yes. Where do I live, my address and she take--she write my plate number of my car.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Now, what you're doing right now is, you're looking at that card, right?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And by looking at that card, it's helping you to recall all the things that she asked you, correct?

MS. GUARIN: Yes. My phone number.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And does this card have your phone number on it?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, it is.

MR. DARDEN: Does it have your weight and your height on it?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, it is.

MR. DARDEN: Does it have your birthday on it?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Does it have your place of birth on it?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Does it have your California driver's license number on it?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And did you show her your driver's license?

MS. GUARIN: I don't recall that I saw it. Maybe I did.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Well, looking at the driver's license number on it in the upper left-hand corner, is that the driver's license number?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And does it also indicate what you wore that day?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And does it indicate that you have a nickname of Gigi?

MS. GUARIN: Yes. That's how they call me.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And this is all information that the officer obtained--well, most of that information was obtained from you, right?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: This is what you told the officer?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And on the back of the card, it also has a description of what you told her regarding your conversation with the Defendant, right?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Doesn't mention anything about Knotts Berry Farm, does it?

MR. COCHRAN: I object to the form of the question, your Honor. It's argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. DARDEN: This is cross.

MR. DARDEN: Does the card mention anything about Knotts Berry Farm?

MS. GUARIN: No.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. But all the other information on this card is accurate, isn't it?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, it is.

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

THE COURT: Overruled. It is. Actually, would you reask that question, please.

MR. DARDEN: Well, is all the other information on this card consistent with what you told the officer?

MS. GUARIN: I told the officer that--

MR. DARDEN: May I have a yes or no answer to that?

MR. COCHRAN: May she answer that? May she answer?

THE COURT: All right. Was it consistent?

MS. GUARIN: My--the information about myself is consistent.

THE COURT: Yes. Thank you. Next question.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Now, the card also indicates that the time at which you spoke to the officer was 1000 hours; is that right?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. 10:00 o'clock in the morning?

MS. GUARIN: Might be.

MR. DARDEN: You didn't tell the officer anything about Knotts Berry Farm, did you?

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. GUARIN: She didn't ask me.

MR. DARDEN: So you didn't tell her?

MS. GUARIN: Yeah. Because she did not ask me.

MR. DARDEN: So the first time you told anything about Knotts Berry Farm was when you told Mr. Cochran?

MS. GUARIN: No.

MR. DARDEN: Who did you tell first?

MS. GUARIN: About Knotts Berry Farm? Nobody asked me about Knotts Berry Farm. They just asked me if I talked to Mr. Simpson that night, and I told them that I call him from Knotts Berry Farm.

MR. DARDEN: You told the police officer that?

MS. GUARIN: I did not tell the police officer because they did not ask me. They just ask me, "When was the last time you talked to Mr. Simpson?" I told them around 8:00 o'clock that night. They didn't ask me where I am.

MR. DARDEN: Now, you are--you take care of Mr. Simpson's clothing, right?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I do.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And during the month of June 1994, he owned sweat clothes, didn't he?

MS. GUARIN: Sweat clothes?

MR. DARDEN: Yeah. Like sweatpants and sweat shirts?

MS. GUARIN: I don't recall that he has. Oh, the things that I prepare for him, his golf pants that he usually wear and denims.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Well, it's your job to make sure all the clothes are lined up in the closet by color, right?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: To make sure everything in that closet is neat, correct?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: To make sure all of his clothing is clean, right?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: You do all the washing, correct?

MS. GUARIN: Yes. Not all of it because some of his clothes need to bring to the cleaner. So--some of his clothes need to bring to the cleaner. Not all of his clothes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. With the exception of the clothes that have to be--that have to go to the cleaners, you wash those other clothes, right?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I do.

MR. DARDEN: And you're telling us you don't know whether or not he owned black sweatpants?

MS. GUARIN: I did not see any black pants there.

MR. DARDEN: You've never seen any black sweatpants?

MS. GUARIN: No.

MR. DARDEN: Never ever?

MS. GUARIN: Never.

MR. DARDEN: Have you ever seen the Defendant wearing black sweats in any video?

MS. GUARIN: No. I never watch the video. Only the frogman video that I watch.

MR. DARDEN: Well, if the Defendant owned black or cotton--strike that--the Defendant owned black sweatpants, you would know about it, wouldn't you?

MS. GUARIN: I did not see him wearing that black sweatpants. So I cannot say that--I saw him. So I don't--

MR. DARDEN: Well, did you ever see any in the closet?

MS. GUARIN: I didn't see--

MR. COCHRAN: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. GUARIN: I didn't see anything in his closet.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. So you don't know whether he owns any or not?

MR. COCHRAN: Objection. Asked and answered, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: Do you know whether or not the Defendant owns--

MS. GUARIN: I don't recall if he has some or not.

MR. DARDEN: He might have some?

MS. GUARIN: I don't know.

MR. COCHRAN: Objection. Calls for speculation, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained. But the answer will stand, "I don't know." The answer was, "I don't know." So the answer will stand.

MR. DARDEN: Now, you still work at 360 North Rockingham?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I do.

MR. DARDEN: You still work for the Defendant?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I do.

MR. DARDEN: And his family is staying there now?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. You watch the trial on television sometimes?

MS. GUARIN: I only watch the trial when his family is on the--

MR. DARDEN: Okay.

MS. GUARIN: On the--

MR. DARDEN: Witness stand?

MS. GUARIN: Witness stand.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And have you spoken to any member of his family about your testimony?

MS. GUARIN: No.

MR. DARDEN: Now, you saw a photograph, People's 167, a few minutes ago. Do you remember that photograph?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I do.

MR. DARDEN: You saw straps on the bed?

MS. GUARIN: There's something on the bed.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Did you notice what was on the bed?

MS. GUARIN: Can I see it, please?

THE COURT: Mrs. Robertson.

MR. DARDEN: I have a copy of 167. Can I approach?

THE COURT: Yes.

MS. GUARIN: Okay.

MR. DARDEN: Those are straps, right, on the bed, suspenders?

MS. GUARIN: I don't know if this is suspender or strap from the bag it look like. You cannot say--you can't say if this is suspender or a strap from the bag because there is some warnings that you can--something like that.

MR. DARDEN: Well, how many different straps or suspenders or straps from a bag do you see on the bed?

MS. GUARIN: This is I think one. Look like only one.

MR. DARDEN: Well, do you see something that's brown and something else that's black?

MS. GUARIN: Yeah. There's like a black something. I don't know.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Now, Mr. Simpson wears suspenders with his tuxedo, doesn't he?

MS. GUARIN: I don't know.

MR. DARDEN: He owns suspenders, doesn't he?

MS. GUARIN: I usually only see the belt, but I did not see him wearing suspender.

MR. DARDEN: You don't know whether he owns a pair of suspenders or not?

MS. GUARIN: I--

MR. COCHRAN: Asked and answered, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: Is that correct?

MS. GUARIN: Can you repeat the question, please?

MR. DARDEN: You don't know whether or not he owns a pair of suspenders?

MS. GUARIN: I did not see some of it in his closet. So I don't know if he owns them.

MR. DARDEN: Are you aware that the Defendant wore a tuxedo to an event that Saturday night?

MS. GUARIN: I'm not there. So I cannot say that he's wearing a tuxedo or not.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And you've told us that it would be unusual for the Defendant to leave any of his clothing out; is that right?

MS. GUARIN: Yes. He will put everything back where he get it.

MR. DARDEN: So if he left his suspenders out from Saturday night, that would be unusual, wouldn't it?

MR. COCHRAN: Well, calls for speculation, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.

MR. DARDEN: When was the last time prior to June 12 that you cleaned the house?

MS. GUARIN: Almost every day.

MR. DARDEN: From top--

MS. GUARIN: Friday.

MR. DARDEN: You clean the house Friday?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: You clean every room in the house Friday?

MS. GUARIN: I have a sequence of cleaning the house. One day I will clean the family room, portion of the house, portion by portion because I cannot do everything in one day. So there is a day that I will do sequence things so that I know everything is clean.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And Mr. Simpson is a very meticulous man, isn't he?

MS. GUARIN: Yes. But on his bedroom, I need to do it every day when he is in town.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. All right. And so--

MR. DARDEN: Can I have one moment, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

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

MR. DARDEN: So did you also clean his bathroom every day?

MS. GUARIN: Yes. When he is in town, I need to do it every day.

MR. DARDEN: And you clean that on Friday; is that correct?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I do.

MR. DARDEN: And so had there been blood on the floor of the Defendant's bathroom that Friday, you would have cleaned that up, correct?

MS. GUARIN: I usually clean his bathroom. So I will clean it.

MR. DARDEN: You wouldn't leave--you wouldn't leave bloodstains on the bathroom floor, would you?

MS. GUARIN: I never see bloodstain. So I don't know how to answer that question because I always clean the bathroom.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. There were no bloodstains on the floor when you left that Friday; is that correct.

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

THE COURT: Sustained. It's vague.

MR. COCHRAN: Vague.

THE COURT: Vague as to location.

MR. DARDEN: I'm sorry?

THE COURT: Vague as to location.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. There were no bloodstains on the bathroom floor when you left that Friday; is that correct?

MR. COCHRAN: That is vague, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. GUARIN: Yes. Thursday.

MR. DARDEN: What time did you leave the house on Friday?

MS. GUARIN: Approximately 9:30 or 10:00 that night.

MR. DARDEN: 9:30 or 10:00 that night?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And was the Defendant at home when you left?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, he is.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And did you return to the house Saturday?

MS. GUARIN: No, I did not.

MR. DARDEN: Did you return to the house on Sunday?

MS. GUARIN: No, I did not.

MR. DARDEN: So if there was blood on the master bathroom floor on Monday morning, you can't tell us how that blood got there, correct?

MR. COCHRAN: Monday morning, your Honor?

THE COURT: Monday morning.

MR. COCHRAN: He said Monday morning?

THE COURT: Monday morning.

MR. COCHRAN: Calls for speculation, your Honor. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. GUARIN: Can you repeat the question, please?

MR. DARDEN: Okay. You can't tell us how the blood--the blood that was discovered Monday morning was found there; is that correct?

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

MR. DARDEN: It's item 14, your Honor.

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

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. DARDEN: You can't tell us how the blood that was found on that bathroom floor Monday morning got there, can you?

MS. GUARIN: No, I did not.

MR. DARDEN: You weren't bleeding, were you?

MS. GUARIN: I'm not.

MR. DARDEN: You weren't bleeding that Friday, correct?

MS. GUARIN: No, I'm not.

MR. DARDEN: Now, prior to leaving--strike that. Is there some reason that you leave so late or left so late there that Friday night?

MS. GUARIN: Because Mr. Simpson that Friday just got back from a trip, that Friday. So I need to prepare dinner for him before I will leave and--leave the house, clean before I go to take my day off because--

MR. DARDEN: All right. So you would--you'd make sure everything was clean?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: You'd make sure all the laundry was done and folded?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: You wouldn't leave for the weekend and leave wet laundry in the washing machine, would you?

MS. GUARIN: No, I will not.

MR. DARDEN: Let me show you a video, just a small portion.

THE COURT: Which exhibit are we talking about, counsel?

MR. COCHRAN: May I see the video, your Honor?

MR. DARDEN: A small portion of 1068, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: May I?

MR. DARDEN: The laundry or the washing machine scene, the same video we've been looking at all day.

MR. COCHRAN: Can I see what he's showing?

THE COURT: Mr. Wooden, do you have that cued up?

MR. WOODEN: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

(At 2:32 P.M., People's exhibit 1068, a videotape, was played for counsel.)

THE COURT: All right. This is part of Mr. Ford's videotape?

MR. DARDEN: Yes, your Honor. May I have one second?

THE COURT: All right. Proceed.

MR. DARDEN: Let me just show you a small portion of this video. Please look at the monitor.

(At 2:34 P.M., People's exhibit 1068, a videotape, was played for the witness.)

MR. DARDEN: This is 3:01 P.M. on the tape. Okay. Okay. Stop there. Okay.

MR. DARDEN: You didn't leave that in the washing machine, did you?

MS. GUARIN: No, I did not.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Did you notice what the clothing items were in there?

MS. GUARIN: It's not here. So no.

MR. DARDEN: You want to see it again?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Inside and on the top?

MS. GUARIN: Okay.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. There's a pair of panties in there; is that right?

MS. GUARIN: That basket that on the top of the laundry--

MR. DARDEN: Yes.

MS. GUARIN: --that belongs to Arnelle.

MR. DARDEN: Okay.

MS. GUARIN: Maybe Arnelle did some laundry before--after I left because that basket belong to her. So maybe that's her clothes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. That basket wasn't there when you left?

MS. GUARIN: No.

(At 2:36 P.M., the playing of the videotape was concluded.)

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Good. Now, you told us that the Defendant was always rushing around; is that right?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, he is.

MR. DARDEN: And--and so--and you also told us that whenever he rushed around, he also put everything in place before leaving?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: So is it your testimony that he would risk missing an airplane to put his bedroom back in order?

MR. COCHRAN: Objection. Just a moment. I object to the form of that question. That's argumentative, your Honor.

THE COURT: Rephrase the question.

MR. DARDEN: Would the Defendant risk missing a plane so that he could put his bedroom back in order?

MR. COCHRAN: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. DARDEN: If you know, has the Defendant ever missed an airplane because he was at home placing his bedroom back in order?

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. GUARIN: I don't--I don't know that he miss any airplane.

MR. DARDEN: Now, you told us how you clean the house on Friday. Let me ask you this. Had there been blood in the foyer--you know--you know what a foyer is in the--

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: I'm sorry. Had there been blood there on the floor in the foyer, you would have cleaned that up, correct?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And you cleaned that area Friday, didn't you?

MS. GUARIN: Prior to that, I did not clean it on Friday, but I clean the foyer area on that week.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And you didn't see any blood at that time, did you?

MS. GUARIN: No, I did not.

MR. DARDEN: Had there been blood there, you would have cleaned that blood up, correct?

MS. GUARIN: If there is, I will clean it. But I didn't see anything.

MR. DARDEN: And you didn't see any blood when you left around 9:00 or 9:30 that Friday night; is that correct?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, what's People's next in order?

THE COURT: 535? 535.

MR. DARDEN: I have a photograph--two photographs. I would like to mark one 536 and one 535, and I will show these to Mr. Cochran.

(Peo's 535 and 536 for id = photographs)

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

MR. DARDEN: Mr. Cochran has a question, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: One of the times he wants to approach the bench.

MR. DARDEN: I don't want to approach, Judge. I'm ready to go.

THE COURT: Are you asking to approach?

MR. COCHRAN: May we approach, your Honor?

THE COURT: All right.

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

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: Counsel, let's proceed.

MR. DARDEN: May I place this on the elmo?

THE COURT: Why don't you show it to the witness first, see if you can lay a foundation for it.

MR. DARDEN: Let me show you the photograph that's been marked People's 536. It's a photograph depicting a photograph. Do you recognize the two people shown in the photograph?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I do.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. One of those people, is that Nicole Brown?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: The Defendant?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And is that a--I'm sorry, ma'am. Well, strike that. That's a photograph you've seen before?

MS. GUARIN: I never see this photograph. Never.

MR. DARDEN: You've never seen that photograph before?

MR. COCHRAN: Asked and answered. She just answered it.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: Well, whenever you would do cleaning, you would clean his entire room, correct?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And you'd clean up those things I have in my room called dust bunnies? You make sure there wasn't a lot of dust and stuff around?

MR. COCHRAN: I object to what he has in his room, your Honor. That's his room.

THE COURT: It's not surprising, but it's irrelevant. Mr. Darden.

MR. DARDEN: I'm a bachelor, your Honor.

MR. DARDEN: You would make sure there were no--that there wasn't an excessive amount of dust in the bedroom, correct?

MS. GUARIN: Yes. Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And you'd look underneath the bed and make sure everything was clean, right?

MR. COCHRAN: Assumes facts not in evidence, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: Your Honor--

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. DARDEN: You would clean underneath the bed, right?

MS. GUARIN: I never clean underneath the bed. Never clean--

MR. DARDEN: You never ever cleaned underneath the bed?

MS. GUARIN: I'll just vacuum the side of the bed, but I will not look and clean what's under the bed.

MR. DARDEN: You never looked underneath the bed to see if the Defendant's shoes were perhaps underneath the bed?

MS. GUARIN: No, because I know his habit. He will put everything in place and he never leaves his shoes or whatsoever under the bed. So I will not look anything under the bed.

MR. DARDEN: Do you recognize this photograph, 536, as showing a portion of the Defendant's bed?

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. GUARIN: I don't know that picture. I didn't see it.

MR. COCHRAN: I'm talking about the bed part of it.

MS. GUARIN: Yeah, I saw the bed.

MR. DARDEN: All right. That's the Defendant's bed?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Can I show the picture?

THE COURT: Not at this point.

MR. DARDEN: Well, during the times that you vacuum around the edge of the bed, did you ever locate a picture of Nicole on the floor?

MS. GUARIN: No, I did not.

MR. DARDEN: Did you ever locate a picture of the Defendant and Nicole on the floor around the bed?

MS. GUARIN: No, I did not. I didn't see any picture.

THE COURT: All right. Counsel, let me see you without the reporter.

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

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. Let's move on.

MR. DARDEN: When you left that Friday night, did you leave by walking down the Rockingham driveway?

MS. GUARIN: No.

MR. DARDEN: Where was your car parked that night?

MS. GUARIN: At Ashford.

MR. DARDEN: On Ashford on the street?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: It wasn't parked up against the garage door?

MS. GUARIN: Against the garage, no.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And Ashford, that's where the Defendant usually parked the Bronco; is that correct?

MS. GUARIN: It's a big--yeah, he usually park it by there.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. When you left Friday night, the Defendant's Bronco wasn't parked on Rockingham, was it?

MS. GUARIN: I did not see it in Rockingham.

MR. DARDEN: But he was home when you left, correct?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, he's home.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Do you know where the Defendant buys his socks?

MS. GUARIN: What? Excuse me?

MR. DARDEN: Where does Mr. Simpson buy his socks?

MS. GUARIN: I don't know. I don't ask him where he buy his socks.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Now, you say you spoke to the Defendant that Sunday night at 8:00 P.M.?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: Oh, by the way, you told us that the Defendant went to palm springs on memorial day; is that correct?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And he didn't go there with Paula Barbieri. He went there to meet her; is that correct?

MS. GUARIN: I don't know--I know they are together on memorial weekend, but I don't know if he drive by himself or he will meet Paula there. All I know, they are together.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Well, do you know whether or not he and Paula Barbieri had a big fight in palm springs?

MR. COCHRAN: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.

MR. DARDEN: Well, did you ever have a--discuss with the Defendant his relationship, personal relationships?

MR. COCHRAN: Objection. Goes beyond the scope of my examination.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. GUARIN: Discussing his relationship, no.

MR. DARDEN: So you wouldn't know--

MR. COCHRAN: I object to this question, your Honor, based upon she said she wouldn't know.

THE COURT: Overruled. She's indicated she didn't discuss his personal relationships.

MR. DARDEN: Did you know the Defendant in 1989?

MS. GUARIN: No.

MR. DARDEN: Did you know him in October of 1993?

MS. GUARIN: No.

MR. DARDEN: I just have a few more questions, your Honor. If I could have one moment.

(Brief pause.)

MR. DARDEN: As part of keeping the house clean, you would--you would clean all the pictures, right? You'd dust the pictures off?

MS. GUARIN: Sometimes if they need to be dust, I will do that.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Now, you understand that the jury had a jury view of 360 North Rockingham; is that correct?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I do. I'm there.

MR. DARDEN: Now, you made some additions or some changes--

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I object to the form of that question. May we approach?

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. DARDEN: Is that due to foundation or--

THE COURT: I'm going to sustain the objection at this point.

MR. DARDEN: Is that to any questions regarding the jury view prep--should I come up with--

THE COURT: With the court reporter.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: We're over at the sidebar. Mr. Darden, what's up? What are you going to do with this?

MR. DARDEN: Nothing, your Honor. What we're going to do with it, it's obvious that in preparation for the jury view, this witness changed the photographs around in the house. In fact, they changed the photographs between the time that Cheri Lewis visited the day before and the actual jury viewing. In addition, so that Mr. Cochran knows where we're going, I want to ask her about the changes that were made to the house days after the murder. I believe some pictures were changed then. It's our understanding that on the night of the murders, Nicole's pictures were on the wall leading up the stairway and other parts of the house, but that after the murders, they changed them, they put Paula Barbieri's in. And if you want a good faith offer of proof, Miss Clark is here. She visited the house on June 13th. And so she can--

THE COURT: Are we going to get to cross-examine Marcia Clark?

MR. COCHRAN: Put her up there. I want to get her up there. This is beyond the scope. It's irrelevant and immaterial to what happened. This is 352, your Honor. Counsel is grabbing at straws, and I think the Court can see that this is appropriately sustained, and they want to bring some offspring or something--how would Miss Clark know what is there before June 12th? So--your Honor, this is preposterous. This is beyond the scope.

MR. DARDEN: I thought even the Court concluded during the jury view that there had been changes.

MR. COCHRAN: No. The Court said--

THE COURT: Wait, wait, wait. Only one of us gets to talk. Wait, wait.

MR. DARDEN: I'm only talking to you.

THE COURT: Wait. When I say wait, everything stops. All right. One person at a time. Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, first of all, the Court concluded that furthermore, with regard to the jury view, you recall, you said to the jurors don't look at any of the pictures, they're irrelevant and immaterial. Then some of the jurors looked at the pictures. Anybody who supposedly looked at the pictures is no longer here, as I have in mind Mr. Gene Knox, who they started arguing about that day in the yard. Remember?

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. COCHRAN: Knox or whatever his name was. Michael Knox. This is irrelevant and immaterial, your Honor, absolutely, and I would ask the Court under 352 to move on. We've got a couple other witnesses we would like to resolve.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. DARDEN: It goes to her bias, your Honor.

THE COURT: It does go to her bias, but this way exceeds the scope. If you want to recall her during your rebuttal, you're entitled to do that. But at this point, it's way beyond.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: But we may want to talk to her out of the presence because it's--that's a pretty volatile issue, as to changing the location, at whose instruction.

MR. COCHRAN: They have no--

THE COURT: That's pretty volatile.

MR. DARDEN: We'll let Miss Lewis handle that when we take the break.

THE COURT: I'll sustain a scope objection at this point. Let's go.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. Proceed.

MR. DARDEN: When you spoke to the Defendant on that night on the telephone, how long did your conversation last?

MS. GUARIN: Like maybe a minute.

MR. DARDEN: About one minute?

MS. GUARIN: Maybe, something like.

MR. DARDEN: So it was a very brief conversation, correct?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And you did most of the talking during that conversation?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. That's because you were the one making the request; is that correct?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: So you didn't have a lot of time to assess his demeanor over the telephone, correct?

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: Is that correct?

MS. GUARIN: Can you repeat the question, please?

MR. DARDEN: You didn't have a lot of time to assess his demeanor while you were talking to him over the telephone, correct?

MS. GUARIN: I can--I know that he's the same--the same way that I usually talk to. So even if it's a short time or long time, he's the same person that I usually talk to.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. So he sounded like the same person that you usually talk to?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: But obviously you couldn't see his facial expression at the time, right?

MR. COCHRAN: I'll object to that, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: Right?

MS. GUARIN: You cannot see his face expression, but you can see how--you can hear how he talk.

MR. DARDEN: And obviously you didn't know what he was thinking at the time, correct?

MR. COCHRAN: Objection, your Honor. That's speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. When you returned to Rockingham the next morning around 10:00 o'clock, you weren't allowed to go onto the property; is that correct?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. But you were allowed to stand out front; is that right?

MS. GUARIN: In front of the property, no. The police officer told me right away that I cannot get in. I said why. Because I see the--

MR. DARDEN: Okay.

MR. DARDEN: Is that okay?

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. So you didn't see the police when they recovered items from the back of the house.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, beyond the scope. Far beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. GUARIN: Excuse me?

MR. DARDEN: Did you see the police recover an item of evidence behind the house?

MS. GUARIN: Recover item of evidence inside--

MR. COCHRAN: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. GUARIN: Excuse me. Can you repeat the question?

MR. DARDEN: Did you see the police recover an item of evidence from behind the house?

MS. GUARIN: I see--I saw some action in and out of the house. There's some people coming in and out and I saw a big van outside the property.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Just one last question or two. With regard to the Defendant's bed, would he leave his bed unmade when he got out of it?

MS. GUARIN: He will.

MR. DARDEN: Is that right?

MS. GUARIN: Unmade, yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. He would leave it unmade so that you could make it; is that right?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And is that what you normally did?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And would he--strike that. And after taking a shower, would he always hang up the towel on the rack?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: He wouldn't leave a towel laying around on the edge of the bathtub, would he?

MS. GUARIN: No.

MR. DARDEN: He wouldn't leave a towel on the floor, would he?

MS. GUARIN: No.

MR. DARDEN: That wouldn't be normal for him, would it?

MS. GUARIN: He will hang it on the door of the shower room.

MR. DARDEN: Now, when you talked to the Defendant on the phone that night, he didn't complain to you about his arthritis, did he?

MS. GUARIN: On June 12?

MR. DARDEN: Yes.

MS. GUARIN: No.

MR. DARDEN: He didn't tell you that he was in pain, did he?

MS. GUARIN: No, he did not.

MR. DARDEN: By the way, did you ever go behind the house, that is behind the--behind Arnelle's room and Kato's room?

MS. GUARIN: I go--sometimes.

MR. DARDEN: You go back there sometimes?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Is there an air conditioning unit back there?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Now, if you follow the pathway behind the house, does it lead to an area where there is dirt and grass and stuff?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, this is way beyond the scope of direct.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. DARDEN: That's all. Thank you.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran, anything more?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes. Yes, your Honor. Very, very brief. May I?

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. COCHRAN: Just a few questions if I might, your Honor.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN

MR. COCHRAN: With regard to this card that Mr. Darden showed you, the field interrogation card, you answered just the questions the police officer asked you; isn't that correct?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I do.

MR. COCHRAN: And you told this police officer the truth; is that correct?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I do.

MR. COCHRAN: And if the police officer had asked you if you were at Knotts Berry Farm or where you were, you would have told him, right?

MS. GUARIN: I would tell them where I am.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And if the officer had asked you if you asked permission to stay out and not come home that night, you would have told them that, right?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Leading, your Honor.

THE COURT: It is. Mr. Gordon, keep your voice down, would you, please.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to the clothes that were in the hamper, I saw some--

MR. COCHRAN: Excuse me, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: --I saw some panties--

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: I saw some parties in and around the washing machine. Mr. Simpson never wore any panties around that house, did he?

MS. GUARIN: No.

MR. COCHRAN: And you know that those clothes and that hamper, that was Arnelle's clothes; isn't that correct?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, they are.

MR. COCHRAN: And Arnelle would wash her clothes inside the house there; isn't that correct?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And would Kato Kaelin also wash his clothes in the house also?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, does Mr. Simpson shave every day as far as you know?

MS. GUARIN: I think, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to--you were asked some questions about cleaning the house, and I believe you indicated to Mr. Darden that you had kind of a routine. You'd clean various parts of the house on various days in the week; is that correct?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: With regard to the foyer area of the Rockingham residence, do you recall on what days of the week that you cleaned that foyer area prior to the time you left on Friday, June the 10th?

MS. GUARIN: I mop it maybe around Tuesday or Wednesday.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Tuesday or Wednesday, earlier in the week?

MS. GUARIN: Yes. Early in the week.

MR. COCHRAN: And you had not cleaned that area after that; is that correct?

MS. GUARIN: I just sweep it, not mopping it.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, on Friday night, you said that Mr. Simpson had come back home from out of town?

MS. GUARIN: Yes. Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And you stayed there to prepare dinner?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And did he have a guest there that night?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Who was that guest?

MS. GUARIN: Paula.

MR. COCHRAN: Paula Barbieri?

MS. GUARIN: Yes. Paula Barbieri.

MR. COCHRAN: Did they have dinner that night?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Were they still there together when you left?

MS. GUARIN: Paula need to leave because she is going to attend like prayer meeting, something like that.

MR. COCHRAN: What kind of meeting?

MS. GUARIN: Prayer meeting.

MR. COCHRAN: Prayer?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Prayer like--like in--like as in prayer?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. She was leaving for a prayer meeting?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

THE COURT: We have an interpreter in the jury here. Proceed.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you. Is that so? Excuse me, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: What time did Paula leave for this prayer meeting?

MS. GUARIN: Before I--

MR. DARDEN: Objection.

MR. COCHRAN: What time did Paula leave for the prayer meeting?

THE COURT: It's irrelevant, really.

MR. COCHRAN: No. I want to know from the standpoint of sequence, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. What time did she leave, if you know?

MS. GUARIN: Before I left that night.

MR. COCHRAN: So you left at 9:30 and Paula had left for the prayer meeting before that.

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Is that right?

MS. GUARIN: Yes. After dinner.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Now, with regard to--you have a room in the premises there. Your room is downstairs; is that correct?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. This exceeds the scope.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, I--just one or two questions just in this area.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you.

MR. COCHRAN: Your room is downstairs, correct?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, Miss Guarin, is there a door to the side of the house right near your room?

MS. GUARIN: Yes. In-between the laundry room and my room.

MR. COCHRAN: And is there--can you come in on that side of the house if you have a key and get in that door?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And what kind of key is needed to get in that door?

MS. GUARIN: Master key.

MR. COCHRAN: And how many master keys were there in June of 1994?

MS. GUARIN: There's only two.

MR. COCHRAN: And who had those master keys?

MS. GUARIN: I have one and Mr. Simpson have one.

MR. COCHRAN: And if you had a master key, you could come inside that door; is that right?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you ever have occasion to talk with Westec at all when you were going to be off and Mr. Simpson would be out of town?

MS. GUARIN: No, I didn't. I--

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Exceeds the scope.

THE COURT: It does. Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor. I think that's all I have at this point. Thank you very much.

THE COURT: Anything else, Mr. Darden?

MR. DARDEN: One second.

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

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DARDEN

MR. DARDEN: Let's go back to cleaning habit for one moment. Had you seen a spill or spot on the floor, you would have cleaned that up; is that right?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I would.

MR. DARDEN: That's all. Thank you.

MR. COCHRAN: I have nothing further of Miss Guarin. May she be excused?

THE COURT: All right. Thank you very much, Miss Guarin. You are excused.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. Let's take our mid-afternoon break at this point. Ladies and gentlemen, please--oh, Miss Guarin, you're excused. Thank you. All right. Remember all my admonitions to you. We'll take about 15, okay?

(Recess.)

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

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. I see we have Detective Luper.

MS. LEWIS: Your Honor, I think--

THE COURT: I'm sorry?

MS. LEWIS: Miss Mulldorfer is their next witness I think.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. LEWIS: She's been waiting around for three days. She's here.

THE COURT: I couldn't ignore the tie. All right. Let's have the jury, please.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, motion?

THE COURT: Oh, I'm sorry. All right. Mr. Scheck.

MR. SCHECK: Yes, your Honor. I have a motion in limine with respect to Deputy Mulldorfer's testimony. We intend to call her for a very limited purpose, and that is to establish that she was conducting an investigation of possible violation of OPG rules, that during the course of her investigation, she determined that there was a system for logging, who goes in and out the area where the Bronco was being held, that information came to her attention that several detectives and officers had been in and out, but were not logged in. She went to--she could not ascertain who those individuals were. She did ascertain that an SID person, Mr. Fung, had gone in and out. She then had a conversation with Mr. Fung concerning the times he went in and out.

THE COURT: But that is not logged.

MR. SCHECK: I'm sorry?

THE COURT: That is not in the log?

MR. SCHECK: There was no log of who went in and out. That's the point that I want to establish from her; that she had a report that certain officers and detectives--this is--came in and out. She couldn't ascertain who those were. The only person she asked was Detective Vannatter, and that she did ascertain that Mr. Fung had been in and out and that she asked Mr. Fung what he did, and then he gave a statement to her that on July 6th he went to the Bronco, looked at it to refresh his memory for Court and did not remove anything from it, which was a prior inconsistent statement that I'm seeking to introduce in terms of Mr. Fung's testimony.

THE COURT: What did he testify to on direct?

MR. SCHECK: Mr. Fung testified that on July 6th, he went to the Bronco at the request of Miss Clark for purposes of seeing whether or not there were stains on the con--the door sill of the Bronco, that--and he then performed a presumptive test. I'm sure you don't forget that. That got us into some trouble on that ruling. And he testified that he performed a presumptive test on a stain from that Bronco at that time. And I asked him specifically--

THE COURT: All right. And what did he say that's inconsistent to Detective Mulldorfer?

MR. SCHECK: Well, what he said to Detective Mulldorfer was that he went there just to refresh his memory for Court, he didn't remove anything from the vehicle. And I asked him during the course of questioning whether he removed anything for purposes of performing the presumptive test, which of course, he had to do, which he said yes. So those are the points.

THE COURT: So in other words, all you want to get from Detective Mulldorfer is, a, she conducted an investigation as far as the security there and determined that there was no system for logging in officers in and out?

MR. SCHECK: They had a system, but they didn't follow it. That was her conclusion. And that there were various people in and out of there she couldn't run down. She ran down Fung. She spoke to Fung.

THE COURT: But how did she determine there was various people who came in and out?

MR. SCHECK: She got information from Mr. Jones, who had brought her in that, to quote her report, that several people, officers and detectives, had been in and out, but they hadn't been logged in. She attempted to find out who those individuals were, and the only person that she inquired about that to, she tells me is Detective Vannatter. And that was it.

THE COURT: All right. I'll hear from the People.

MR. SCHECK: And the point of this ruling is that I'm not going into anything about Mr. Meraz and what he said and the reasons that the city attorney did have or didn't have for bringing this--a complaint against Mr. Meraz and all that stuff that's been gone into. If they choose to bring it on the rebuttal case--but that's not the purpose of bringing her here.

THE COURT: Mr. Darden.

MR. DARDEN: Well, we have a couple of objections, your Honor. First of all, as to anything Mr. Jones may have told Detective Mulldorfer, that's hearsay. That's hearsay and it's being offered for the truth of the matter stated. Counsel is offering that hearsay statement to establish that there were multiple persons that went in and out of the Bronco. That's hearsay. And Detective Mulldorfer did attempt to run that down and she determined that that was not true. And she also determined I believe that Bob Jones had no basis in fact for making that statement as well. And in any event, that's clearly hearsay, we object to that and he shouldn't be allowed to go into it. As far as the impeachment of Dennis Fung is concerned, Dennis Fung did not tell Detective Mulldorfer that he just went to the Bronco on July 6 to refresh his recollection. That's not what he said. He said he went there to refresh his memory for Court, but he didn't say that that was the only reason. He never said that was the only reason. This is not--that statement is not in any way inconsistent with anything Dennis Fung said here on the witness stand.

In addition, on the issue of whether or not Mr. Fung removed anything from the Bronco on July 6, we agree that he told Mulldorfer that he did not remove anything on July 6, but he also told the jury that he did not. He told the jury that he only did a presumptive test, that he did not take any samples, that he did not remove any physical evidence. That is not inconsistent. There was no inconsistency there and counsel should be precluded from dragging that hearsay into the case. As far as the issue of the reasons for the investigation, counsel is going to ask the witness if she conducted an investigation of possible violation of OPG rules. Well, I think I have a right to go into what those violations were, what triggered that investigation. And what triggered that investigation is Mr. Meraz, an employee, a thief and someone who admitted to having lied when confronted with having removed things from the Defendant's Bronco. We should be allowed to go into that. They can't just ask these questions and then expect us not to go into the issues, to develop the issues and allow the jury to--

THE COURT: But let's assume you ask the question then on cross-examination what was the genesis of the investigation. It was the allegation that one of the employees, a John Meraz, removed items from the Bronco automobile; is that correct? Is that what the question and answer is likely to be and doesn't that pretty much cover it?

MR. DARDEN: It's cross-examination, your Honor.

THE COURT: Doesn't that pretty much cover what's relevant?

MR. DARDEN: I don't think it pretty much covers it at all because I think we have to get down to specific issues, you know, and how they relate--

THE COURT: Theft of items from a car that's supposed to be held in some type of security. That's pretty clear, isn't it?

MR. DARDEN: Yes. That's clear to me.

THE COURT: All right. Two questions.

MR. DARDEN: And can I interject this as well? Why is this even relevant? Why is this detective's investigation days, okay, days, many, many days well beyond July 6 let alone June 13 or June 14, why is this even relevant? Why are we wasting our time on this? This doesn't prove or disprove or establish any material fact that this jury needs to have before it to determine--

THE COURT: The whole point Mr. Scheck is trying to establish is that multiple persons and persons unknown had access to the Bronco and that it was in an unlocked state for a significant period of time. I think that's the point.

MR. DARDEN: That's all hearsay, your Honor. Mulldorfer wasn't there. She doesn't work there. The only way she would know that is if someone told her. And in fact, I don't think Mr. Scheck knows that. And what he's going to do is interject that notion into this trial by innuendo. There's no proof that multiple persons accessed that Bronco. That is beyond what Mr. Meraz has already told us.

THE COURT: All right. Well, do you concede--I'm assuming you're not conceding the inconsistency of any statement by Mr. Fung, but if it were an inconsistent statement, then Detective Mulldorfer you'll concede is competent to testify to any statements by Mr. Fung to her?

MR. DARDEN: If the Court finds them inconsistent, yes, with his testimony.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. DARDEN: And if she's going to testify to anything, that ought to be it.

THE COURT: Mr. Scheck.

MR. SCHECK: The--

THE COURT: What concerns me about Mr. Darden's argument is that Detective Mulldorfer's opinions are based upon hear--upon statements from other persons, and is she competent to testify as to who had access to that--

MR. SCHECK: Well, I don't--

THE COURT: Wouldn't it be Bob Jones?

MR. SCHECK: Well, it seems to me, your Honor, that what she ascertained during the course of her investigation is that they had a system for logging in names.

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. SCHECK: But that system was not implemented--

THE COURT: Then if I use that analogy though, then Detective Lange is able to give his opinion as to who committed this homicide.

MR. SCHECK: No. I think this is simply an investigation--she's going to testify that they ought to have a system in place, they had a system in place--

THE COURT: You want to trade? No. I'm concerned about the competence to testify that other people had access--

MR. SCHECK: Then it's by inference. The point is is that she was able to ascertain that there is a system of logging that is there to be followed and it was not followed in this instance. Mr. Fung was not even logged in on this system and there's no dispute that he went to the vehicle twice during the course of this. And my point is simply, following up what the Court indicated, is I want to establish what the rules and procedures are for storage of these vehicles, what systems were in place, what systems were not followed in terms of logging people in and out to establish access of several people or possibly a multiplicity of people and that she had information that--that there were other people besides Fung, it was her responsibility to try to track them down and she could not. And he's free to establish by asking her who did you make inquiry with to try to find out who these people were and are you satisfied that you established it was no one. I don't object to him going into that in terms of the scope of the direct. My concern is--I don't even mind him asking her whether she was there as of one or two questions as the Court indicates is part of her investigation. She was investigating a few things. The rules, were the rules followed for storing the vehicle properly, and as part of that, whether or not a permittee, Mr. Meraz, had violated a rule by committing a theft. That was all part of this investigation.

THE COURT: He's not a permittee. He's an agent of the permittee.

MR. SCHECK: Good. She told me something--I'm only going on what she said. And--but my point is simply this. I'm not going into the whole investigation of Meraz and everything else.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. SCHECK: That's my concern.

THE COURT: But let's get back to the more fundamental question though. She is an investigator who interviewed witnesses.

MR. SCHECK: Yes.

THE COURT: So you're saying she should be able to come in and give us opinions based upon hearsay.

MR. SCHECK: Well, I think she's competent to come in, and it's nonhearsay testimony for her to establish, a, what the rules are, b, what systems were in place.

THE COURT: All right. Let's assume she's an expert in the area of OPG garages. So she can testify to the rules and regulations that are required. Let's assume--I take that as--I accept that. But whether or not those rules were followed, she only knows that on the basis of talking to other people, nothing that she witnessed or is competent to testify herself to.

MR. SCHECK: Well, I don't think that--that--Fung wasn't recorded in. We know that the log of--she was able to ascertain that no log was kept.

THE COURT: Do you have the log?

MR. SCHECK: There was no log. That's the point.

THE COURT: All right. That's something she can testify to; did she go there, did she ask to see the log, was the log produced, there was no log.

MR. SCHECK: That's right.

THE COURT: "Is that a violation of OPG procedure? "Yes, it is. "Thank you very much. Goodbye."

MR. SCHECK: Well, and the final thing--and the additional point and--the additional point is: "Did you ascertain whether or not there were individuals who were--who did go to that vehicle who were not logged in," whether there was information. "Did you attempt to investigate that?"

MR. DARDEN: Well, if there is no log, how can she possibly ascertain that--

THE COURT: Wait, wait, wait. I'm discussing this with Mr. Scheck.

MR. SCHECK: I'm only trying to get from her what she heard and what she did in terms of trying to--and I think it's--it's--

THE COURT: You got it.

MR. SCHECK: --admissible for the fact it was said. No. She was told that officers and detectives were seen going in and out of the vehicle. She then conducted an investigation to determine who. He's free to bring out what she did and didn't do. She went to Detective Vannatter. She spoke with him. As far as I understand, that's all she did. And that's--it came to her attention that there were unaccounted for people, which is a violation of the rules. That's within the purview of her investigation.

THE COURT: All right. You're going one leap too far here. You can put in that she's in charge of investigating OPG garages. She can testify to the rules and regulations. She can testify that she went to Viertel's to see what the logging process was. It's your representation that she's going to testify that there was no logging system in place?

MR. SCHECK: That there was one in place, but it wasn't followed. In other words, there was nothing recorded on the logs.

THE COURT: And that she examined the logs--

MR. SCHECK: Well, I have to ask her that specifically. But she--I'm going on her report and what she just told me.

THE COURT: All right. Did we subpoena the log?

MR. DARDEN: Of course not.

THE COURT: Wait. Mr. Darden, please. I'm going to--

MR. DARDEN: You asked a question.

THE COURT: No. This will go a lot quicker if I get to talk to one person at a time. Do you have the log?

MR. SCHECK: I don't believe we have a log. I don't know whether there was a log or not. She indicated there was no logs in, one way or the other.

THE COURT: No logs period. She will say there is no log.

MR. SCHECK: She'll testify to an absence of the record. I can ascertain that.

MR. DARDEN: If we can bring her in.

THE COURT: Let's bring her in.

MR. DARDEN: While we wait--

THE COURT: No. Wait a minute.

MR. SCHECK: The last question I intend to ask her is, was she ever--was she in the Bronco, did she look in the console area and did she notice any blood.

THE COURT: Personal knowledge. Not a problem.

MR. SCHECK: Right.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Detective Mulldorfer is here. Come on forward, detective. All right. Mr. Scheck, you want to ask Detective Mulldorfer what she had?

(Brief pause.)

MR. SCHECK: Detective Mulldorfer informs me that there was--they have forms for logging people in. There's a system set up if they would use it, but she ascertained that they didn't use it and they didn't log anybody in.

THE COURT: How is this record kept? Is it a loose-leaf notebook or what?

DET. MULLDORFER: They have a--I believe they just have a--similar to that or a clipboard with paper with lines, the names, division, just real basic information. That is the way--there was no log.

MR. SCHECK: There's a form--so there's a form, but not a log. There's a form for--

THE COURT: And none were kept at the relevant time in question or for a specific time period, because I assume that once this was brought to their attention, they started a log.

DET. MULLDORFER: They did.

THE COURT: At what point--detective, at what point did they start complying with the log requirement?

DET. MULLDORFER: On August 29th is the first entry of their log that they now keep. August 29th, 1994.

THE COURT: So to your knowledge, there's no log entries between June 14--

MR. SCHECK: 15.

THE COURT: --15 and August 29?

DET. MULLDORFER: I didn't--I asked--I just asked them if they had anything logged in for that vehicle, if they logged in any of the people that went in to look at the vehicle, and they said no, they didn't log anyone in relative to that vehicle.

THE COURT: And who told you that?

DET. MULLDORFER: Mr. Jones.

THE COURT: All right. Detective, why don't you go ahead and have a seat. All right. Mr. Scheck, do you have any other comment?

MR. SCHECK: No. That's--I'm just seeking the Court's guidance into whether they can go into--

THE COURT: Mr. Scheck, I think you can establish the point that no log was kept, but I don't think Detective Mulldorfer is the person who is going to be able to do that for you.

MR. SCHECK: Well--

THE COURT: Because her--the basis of her information is what Bob Jones told her. But that's hearsay.

MR. SCHECK: Then we'll take it a step at a time.

THE COURT: I'm sorry?

MR. SCHECK: In other words, we'll take it a step and a witness at a time. I can certainly establish that she had a conversation without telling us the content with respect to who went in and out.

MR. DARDEN: That's hearsay also.

MR. SCHECK: It's not.

THE COURT: No. That she conducted an investigation as to who had access to the Bronco, sure, she can tell us that. That's the whole reason she's here. All right. As far as Detective Mulldorfer is concerned then, what I will allow is, who she is, what she does, what her responsibilities were regarding OPG garages, that there are rules and regulations that govern OPG garages, which includes keeping a log, and that she conducted an investigation over at Viertel's. I think she is--I think the Prosecution is entitled to bring out the fact that this investigation, the genesis of this was John Meraz and that situation and that during the course of this investigation--it's your representation that she actually looked in the Bronco?

MR. SCHECK: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. She can testify to what she saw or did not see there and she can testify to who she interviewed with regards to the procedures and she can testify to the statement by Mr. Fung.

MR. DARDEN: She can't testify as to conclusions--

THE COURT: No.

MR. DARDEN: Okay.

THE COURT: That's hearsay. What somebody else told her about the log is hearsay. And if she didn't see the log and examine it herself--but Bob Jones is the person who has to come in and say that this log was kept in this manner or not kept in this manner, depending on what the answer might be.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. How about the fact that she sought a criminal filing of Mr. Meraz?

THE COURT: That's neither here nor there at this point. Because then we're going to have to drag in the city attorney to tell us why they didn't charge Mr. Meraz and that's--

MR. DARDEN: I mean, just the fact that she recommended a filing, we can handle that in two questions.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I don't intend to bring it out. If they think that's relevant, they can bring it on in their rebuttal case. That is extremely complicated and I think unfairly prejudicial. There--

THE COURT: Well, I will see--let's see how it goes in the context of what's elicited on direct.

MR. SCHECK: Well, that's the whole reason for bringing this motion because I don't want to go into all that. I think it's a diversion from--

THE COURT: I don't want to go into it either. I just told you what I'm going to allow.

MR. SCHECK: Okay.

THE COURT: All right. But they are entitled to ask a few questions; what was the reason you were there to conduct this investigation, period.

MR. SCHECK: Absolutely. No problem.

THE COURT: All right. Let's go.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, could she be declared an adverse witness?

THE COURT: Why?

MR. SCHECK: Well--

THE COURT: I think it's premature--

MR. SCHECK: All right.

THE COURT: --at this point.

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

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Let the record reflect we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. And, Mr. Scheck, you may call the Defense's next witness.

MR. SCHECK: Defense calls Detective Mulldorfer.

Kelly Mulldorfer, called as a witness by the Defendant, was sworn and testified as follows:

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?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes.

THE CLERK: Please be seated on the witness stand and state and spell your first and last names for the record.

DET. MULLDORFER: My name is Kelly Mulldorfer, that's K-E-L-L-Y M-U-L-L-D-O-R-F-E-R.

THE CLERK: Thank you.

THE COURT: Mr. Scheck.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SCHECK

MR. SCHECK: Detective Mulldorfer, what is your present position?

DET. MULLDORFER: I'm a detective for the Los Angeles Police Department.

MR. SCHECK: And where are you assigned now?

DET. MULLDORFER: I'm currently assigned to legal affairs division.

MR. SCHECK: And in July of 1994, what was your assignment?

DET. MULLDORFER: I was assigned to commission investigation division, enforcement section.

MR. SCHECK: And is that the--what's known as the LA police commission?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes. It's part of the police commission.

MR. SCHECK: And as part of your assignment at the LA police commission in July of 1994, did you have any jurisdictions over what are known as OPG, official police garages?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And were you assigned to conduct an investigation of--at the Viertel's garage in July of 1994?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: July 13th in particular?

DET. MULLDORFER: July 13th.

MR. SCHECK: And this investigation embraced the violation of OPG rules concerning storage of vehicles?

DET. MULLDORFER: That was part of the investigation, yes.

MR. SCHECK: And the other part of the investigation concerned an allegation of theft against Mr. Meraz?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. This is leading.

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes.

THE COURT: Overruled. It's foundational.

MR. SCHECK: Now, are there rules, official rules governing how official police garages are supposed to store vehicles?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes, there are.

MR. SCHECK: And--

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I would like to put on the elmo Defense 1253, the impound form.

THE COURT: Yes. Do you have a copy of that for Detective Mulldorfer?

MR. SCHECK: I think she has one with her.

THE COURT: Do you recognize the document?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Scheck.

MR. SCHECK: Now, I'd like to go up to the upper left-hand corner to the box which is entitled "Give special care." Now, that box entitled "Give special care," what's the significance of that box, detective?

DET. MULLDORFER: That box is generally marked with an "X" or a checkmark to let the garage know that it's supposed to be handled differently than the other cars.

MR. SCHECK: All right. And is the term "Hold" the one that's used, hold for different purposes?

DET. MULLDORFER: Well, a hold can be placed on a vehicle without it being an evidentiary hold.

MR. SCHECK: All right. And the significance of an evidentiary hold is what for purposes of subsequent action by the police department?

DET. MULLDORFER: A vehicle that's held for evidence or given an evidentiary hold is placed into a--the evidentiary hold area of the official police garage that they're required to maintain.

MR. SCHECK: All right. And is that because there are certain restrictions that are supposed to be placed on anyone going into that vehicle--

MR. DARDEN: This is leading, your Honor. Objection.

THE COURT: It is.

MR. SCHECK: Are there restrictions that are supposed to be placed by the official police garage on access to the vehicle if that box is checked off, to give special care?

MR. DARDEN: Same objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DET. MULLDORFER: You--I'm sorry. Could you ask that again?

MR. SCHECK: Sure. Is there--are there restrictions, are there rules that an official police garage is supposed to follow if the "Special care" box is checked off?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And what are those rules?

DET. MULLDORFER: One rule is that it has to be placed into an area cornered off from the other area. It has to be a covered--covered area free from rain and wind and snow and things that might interfere with whatever evidence is in the car, on the car like prints or something.

MR. SCHECK: And that would include blood within the car?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: That would include trace evidence within the car?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: What about access by people? What are the rules with respect to access by people if the "Give special care" box is checked?

DET. MULLDORFER: It limits the access to the--to police and scientific investigation of the tow--the people that work at the tow yard should not enter that area or touch the vehicle in any way.

MR. SCHECK: What about going inside the vehicle?

DET. MULLDORFER: No. Not unless they're directed by LAPD personnel to do so.

MR. SCHECK: In terms of who goes--who is allowed into a vehicle if it's being held for evidentiary purposes, is there some kind of rules that are supposed to be followed with respect to making records of who can go in and out?

DET. MULLDORFER: They're supposed to maintain a log of people that go into the vehicle and remove property or remove something from the vehicle. There should be a notation either on the--either on a log that they have generated themselves or on the records for the vehicle. They have a--each vehicle has a card, and they also make notations on that card so they can go to it and see what went on with that vehicle.

MR. SCHECK: All right. So either through the card or through a log, there's supposed to be some paperwork indicating who went into a vehicle that is being held for possible evidentiary purposes when the "Give special care" box is checked?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, when you were assigned the investigation of Viertel's, did you attempt to ascertain how many people had been in and out of Mr. Simpson's Bronco?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Did you attempt to ascertain whether or not any records had been kept?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Did you attempt to ascertain whether Viertel's had a system in place which they could have used to record who went in and out of the Bronco?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Did Viertel's have such a system?

DET. MULLDORFER: No.

MR. SCHECK: No. In your report, did you indicate that they did have such a system?

MR. DARDEN: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled. Go ahead.

DET. MULLDORFER: They--they--they had the system by virtue of the ability to do it. In other words, they could have put that notation on the card. They could have--they do have a log that they keep for people that go into any vehicle and remove property. They didn't make any of those notations regarding this vehicle.

MR. SCHECK: And in the course of your investigation, did you ascertain for the first time when a log began to be kept as to who would be going in and out of the Bronco?

DET. MULLDORFER: On August 29th, 1994, they began a more accurate log.

MR. SCHECK: Well, prior to August 24th you said, was there any log--

DET. MULLDORFER: 29th. August 29th.

MR. SCHECK: August 29th? Was there any log about who went in and out of that Bronco?

DET. MULLDORFER: I was told that there was not.

MR. SCHECK: Now, did you have a conversation--who is Bob Jones?

DET. MULLDORFER: He's a general manager of Viertel's.

MR. SCHECK: All right. And without telling us what he said, did you have a conversation with him about the number of people--

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: --that might have gone in and out of the Bronco?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Based on his investigation?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And did you attempt to ascertain how many people had gone in and out of the Bronco?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And who else did you talk to besides Mr. Jones?

DET. MULLDORFER: About who had gone in and out of the vehicle?

MR. SCHECK: Yes.

DET. MULLDORFER: I spoke to Detective Vannatter.

MR. SCHECK: All right. And did there come a time when you conducted an interview with Dennis Fung about the Bronco?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And did Mr. Fung tell you that he had gone to the Bronco on July 6th?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And did you ascertain that there was no record of Mr. Fung going to the Bronco on July 6th?

DET. MULLDORFER: Viertel's didn't have a record of that.

MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh. And did Mr. Fung tell you that the reason he went to the Bronco on July 6th was to refresh his memory for Court?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes. I believe so.

MR. SCHECK: He didn't tell you that he had been sent by Miss Clark--

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Did Mr. Fung tell you--

MR. DARDEN: Same objection.

MR. SCHECK: Different question.

MR. DARDEN: And it's leading, your Honor.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor--

THE COURT: Let's hear the question.

MR. SCHECK: Did Mr. Fung tell you that he did not remove anything from the Bronco, not a bloodstain or anything?

MR. DARDEN: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DET. MULLDORFER: He said he didn't remove anything that day.

MR. SCHECK: Now, Miss Mulldor--Detective Mulldorfer, did there come a time when you yourself inspected the Bronco?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And who were you with?

DET. MULLDORFER: I was with Mr. Jones.

MR. SCHECK: And do you recall which day this was?

DET. MULLDORFER: No, I don't.

MR. SCHECK: But it would be sometime in the month of July?

DET. MULLDORFER: It was sometime between the time that I got the investigation, which would have been July 13th, and when they began their log.

MR. SCHECK: All right. And when you went into the Bronco, did you inspect the side-pocket panels on both the driver's side and the passenger side?

DET. MULLDORFER: I looked into the side-door panel, yes.

MR. SCHECK: On the driver's side?

DET. MULLDORFER: Both sides.

MR. SCHECK: Both sides. And did you look in the direction and see the console?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. And when you looked at the console, do you remember seeing any blood there?

DET. MULLDORFER: I wasn't looking for that, so I wouldn't--I don't recall if I did and I don't recall if I didn't.

MR. SCHECK: Well, when you looked at the console, do you remember seeing any blood there?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DET. MULLDORFER: No. I don't have any specific recollection.

MR. SCHECK: I have nothing further.

THE COURT: Mr. Darden.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DARDEN

MR. DARDEN: Detective, are you telling us that there was no blood on the console?

DET. MULLDORFER: No.

MR. DARDEN: You weren't investigating the issue of whether or not there was blood on the console; is that correct?

DET. MULLDORFER: That was not the focus of my investigation.

MR. DARDEN: The focus of your investigation was Mr. Meraz, correct?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: You had learned that he had stolen some items from the Defendant's vehicle, correct?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And the items that you learned about were credit receipts; is that right?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Your investigation was focusing on the theft of items of paper?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Your investigation wasn't focused on biological evidence, was it?

DET. MULLDORFER: No.

MR. DARDEN: You weren't investigating the issue of whether or not Dennis Fung tested the Bronco on July 6th for blood or bloodstains?

DET. MULLDORFER: No.

MR. DARDEN: As a matter of fact, you never asked him if he conducted a presumptive test for blood on the Bronco on July 6th, did you?

DET. MULLDORFER: No, I never did.

MR. DARDEN: You didn't ask Dennis Fung anything, anything at all about any biological tests he may have performed on the Bronco on July 6th, correct?

DET. MULLDORFER: Correct.

MR. DARDEN: Did you tell Dennis Fung what the focus of your investigation was?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: And you told him it was about the theft of paper?

DET. MULLDORFER: I asked him specifically about the receipts.

MR. DARDEN: And when you asked him if he had taken anything from the Bronco, you were asking him if he had taken any documents; is that right?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence, what she told him.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: And that was the entire focus of your conversation with him; is that right?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And was that interview conducted over the telephone?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes, it was.

MR. DARDEN: Did you call him?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: Did you know Dennis Fung prior to that--

DET. MULLDORFER: No.

MR. DARDEN: And you identified yourself as a police officer?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And he had to take your word for that, didn't he?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: You could have been a reporter for all he knew, right?

DET. MULLDORFER: That's possible.

MR. DARDEN: You don't know whether or not Dennis Fung was holding back on the information that he had, do you?

MR. SCHECK: Objection. Move to strike.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. DARDEN: Did you attempt to ascertain whether or not Mr. Fung had been in the Bronco on June 14?

DET. MULLDORFER: June 14th?

MR. DARDEN: Yes.

DET. MULLDORFER: No. I never asked--I don't believe I asked him about that.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Your investigation focused on what happened to the Bronco after it arrived at Viertel's, correct?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. It didn't focus on anything having to do with the Bronco and what may have been done with it while it was at the print shed, right?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes. I specifically didn't touch on that area.

MR. DARDEN: During your investigation, did you speak to Mr. Meraz?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Your investigation didn't reveal any breach in security at the print shed?

DET. MULLDORFER: No.

MR. DARDEN: OPG rules require a special--that vehicles marked "Special handling" be kept in a certain area at Viertel's; is that correct?

DET. MULLDORFER: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: And the area has to be cornered off?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And the area has to be covered?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And free from rain and wind and snow?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: What date was that you recall you saw the Bronco at Viertel's?

DET. MULLDORFER: I don't recall. It was very early in my investigation.

MR. DARDEN: But you saw the vehicle inside a structure; is that right?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And that structure was covered, wasn't it?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: That structure was cornered off?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes, it was.

MR. DARDEN: That structure was free from rain?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And wind?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And snow?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: That vehicle was being kept in a secured area; is that correct?

DET. MULLDORFER: Fairly secure.

MR. DARDEN: Well, it was secure from the public, correct?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes, it was.

MR. DARDEN: Now, Mr. Meraz was an employee of Viertel's; is that right?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And so what we're really talking about here is an issue of employee theft, aren't we?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: There is no OPG rule that would preclude Mr. Meraz from being inside that structure, is there?

DET. MULLDORFER: No.

MR. DARDEN: And when you saw the Bronco inside that shed, was it roped off?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes, it was.

MR. DARDEN: When you looked inside the Bronco, you weren't looking for blood?

DET. MULLDORFER: No.

MR. DARDEN: You weren't looking for evidence that might connect the Defendant to a murder?

DET. MULLDORFER: No.

MR. DARDEN: You were only looking to see if the credit slips that you had heard about were inside the Bronco, right?

DET. MULLDORFER: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: And that was it?

DET. MULLDORFER: That's it.

MR. DARDEN: Now, you've told us that the impound form is not marked "Special handling," correct?

DET. MULLDORFER: Correct.

MR. DARDEN: If that vehicle had been delivered to Viertel's on the--had the vehicle been delivered to Viertel's and then placed in that secure area within an hour of its arrival at Viertel's, would that be in conformance with OPG rules?

DET. MULLDORFER: Well, they have--they can place it there themselves or the--or a phone call can have the vehicle placed there.

MR. DARDEN: The main thing is that it was stored there; is that correct?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And it was stored there?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Thank you. That's all.

THE COURT: Mr. Scheck.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SCHECK

MR. SCHECK: Detective Mulldorfer, when you spoke to Mr. Fung, you told him you were a detective from the LA police commission?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Was there any doubt in your mind that he didn't think you were a member of the press?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. That's speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Did he answer your questions fully?

DET. MULLDORFER: I was satisfied with his answers.

MR. SCHECK: Did you inquire about a visit he had to the Bronco on an occasion other than July 6th?

DET. MULLDORFER: I believe I asked him how many time--how many times he'd been to Viertel's and on what dates.

MR. SCHECK: And did you get the details of what he did on those occasions?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DET. MULLDORFER: I asked him if--while he was at the vehicle or in the vehicle or whatever he was doing there, if he removed or noticed the paperwork that I was interested in.

MR. SCHECK: Did you ascertain that on June 28th, he removed a shovel and a towel and a plastic bag?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. This calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: What did you ascertain about June 28th? You opened up--

MR. DARDEN: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Did you attempt to find out the particulars of what he did on his visits to the vehicle?

DET. MULLDORFER: No.

MR. SCHECK: No?

DET. MULLDORFER: No. I--I only asked him if--while he was at the vehicle or in the vehicle, if he noticed or removed any of the paperwork that I was interested in. That--that was the--the crux of what I asked him.

MR. SCHECK: Well, in your investigation, did you not note down the details of precisely what he did on his searches or his visits to the vehicle?

DET. MULLDORFER: Regarding the visit on the 28th where he removed the property, that--that information was gleaned from the property report that I got from Detective Vannatter.

MR. SCHECK: You mean you didn't ask him about what he removed on the 28th?

DET. MULLDORFER: No.

MR. SCHECK: You don't know?

DET. MULLDORFER: No. I asked him--

THE COURT: The answer was no. Excuse me. Hold on. Proceed.

MR. SCHECK: Yes?

THE COURT: No. There's no question pending, counsel.

MR. SCHECK: I'm sorry?

THE COURT: There's no question--

MR. SCHECK: Did you ask him what he removed on the 28th?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer that yes or no. Did you ask him?

DET. MULLDORFER: Not in that form, but yes, I did ask him.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, Mr. Darden asked you questions about the purpose of your investigation. Now, wasn't one of the purposes of your investigation to determine whether or not Viertel's had adequate security for the holding of vehicles for purposes of evidentiary investigations?

DET. MULLDORFER: Initially, that was one of the rules we were looking at.

MR. SCHECK: And there's--that's covered by rule 14 and rule 12?

DET. MULLDORFER: Board rule 12, yes, having to do with evidentiary vehicles.

MR. SCHECK: And you came to a conclusion--

MR. DARDEN: Objection to the form of the question.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Did you make--did you recommend that Viertel's be closed down because--

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained. Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Were--from your investigation of the measures taken to hold the vehicle at Viertel's for purposes of evidentiary investigation, were their procedures adequate?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Calls for conclusion, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. DARDEN: May we approach?

THE COURT: No.

MR. SCHECK: Mr. Darden asked you questions about protection that this vehicle had from rain and sleet and other environmental elements. You remember that?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: What about people? Are there not regulations in place to limit the number of people that can enter a vehicle that is being held for possible trace evidence investigation?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And would you not agree that one of the key protections when you're holding a vehicle for future criminalistic investigation is to keep a record of who goes in the vehicle?

DET. MULLDORFER: It would be helpful.

MR. SCHECK: It would be helpful, would it not, when trying to do subsequent tests on biological evidence recovered from such a vehicle?

MR. DARDEN: I'm going to object. Exceeds the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DET. MULLDORFER: I'm sorry. Could you repeat--

MR. SCHECK: Would it not be helpful to know who had access to the vehicle if one is going to be conducting future criminalistic tests such as PCR, DNA tests?

MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, this is outside the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DET. MULLDORFER: Well, I don't know what those tests involve, but it would have been helpful to me to know who had been in the vehicle.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. And if one is conducting trace evidence investigations of a vehicle--

MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: --would it not be helpful to know what people might have been in it?

DET. MULLDORFER: Well, I guess. Again, I don't know what those tests are. I don't know what they involve.

MR. SCHECK: Would it be just fair to say that from your point of view in terms of conducting an investigation of the security system at Viertel's, without knowing the details of these future tests, it's important to have records of who goes in and out?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And you did the best you could with what you had to determine who went in and out?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: But the only person that you were able to find out about was Mr. Fung?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: But you did have conversations with others attempting to find out whether other people had access to that vehicle?

DET. MULLDORFER: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Thank you.

THE COURT: Mr. Darden.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DARDEN

MR. DARDEN: Detective, you're not an expert in PCR?

DET. MULLDORFER: No.

MR. DARDEN: DNA?

DET. MULLDORFER: No.

MR. DARDEN: Conducting investigations for trace evidence?

DET. MULLDORFER: No.

MR. DARDEN: You ever swatched a bloodstain?

DET. MULLDORFER: Never.

MR. DARDEN: You have no expertise in any of these areas, do you?

DET. MULLDORFER: No, I do not.

MR. DARDEN: Thank you.

THE COURT: Detective, thank you very much. Next witness.

MR. COCHRAN: Detective Luper. May we approach, your Honor?

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

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

MR. DARDEN: Can we go on the record on this?

THE COURT: No.

MR. COCHRAN: May we proceed, your Honor?

THE COURT: Let's proceed.

MR. COCHRAN: The Defense will next call Detective Luper.

THE CLERK: Raise your right hand, please.

Adalberto Luper, 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?

DET. LUPER: I do.

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

DET. LUPER: Yes, ma'am. My first name is Adalberto, A-D-A-L-B-E-R-T-O, last name's Luper, L-U-P-E-R.

THE CLERK: Thank you.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN

MR. COCHRAN: Good afternoon, Detective Luper.

DET. LUPER: Good afternoon, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Nice tie.

DET. LUPER: Thank you, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, Detective Luper, you're a member of the Los Angeles Police Department, are you?

DET. LUPER: I am, yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And how long have you been so employed, sir?

DET. LUPER: 23 years, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And you're presently assigned to the robbery/homicide division?

DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And, Detective Luper, are you one of the investigators assigned to the case?

DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And when were you first assigned to this case?

DET. LUPER: I was assigned on January 13th, probably around 8:00 o'clock in the morning.

MR. COCHRAN: Is that January 13th or June 13th?

DET. LUPER: June 13th. I apologize.

MR. COCHRAN: Is that June 13th of 1994?

DET. LUPER: That's correct, yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And do you work--have you worked on this case basically since that time along with Detectives Lange, who is in court with us, and Vannatter?

DET. LUPER: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: All right, sir. I just want to ask you just questions on four quick areas, and we'll be in and out hopefully. We saw a video taken by Mr. Willie Ford earlier today in which a glove, apparently a brown glove was on a table in the Simpson residence. Have you ever seen that?

DET. LUPER: Yes, I have, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And can you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury how that brown glove got on that table?

DET. LUPER: That brown glove got on the table when--right after I had arrived and Detective Vannatter had left the scene and left me in charge of the scene, I went upstairs, and during the course of my search of Mr. Simpson's bedroom and his master closet, the big walk-in closet, I located a singular glove that was located in a chest of drawers. I secured it and kept it with me and it was inadvertently put on a stand downstairs I believe and it was in the living room area.

MR. COCHRAN: And so inadvertently, you put it on the table and it was left there; is that correct?

DET. LUPER: That's correct, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And then Mr. Ford came along and just photographed it; is that right?

DET. LUPER: Yes. Later on in the afternoon.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And you've seen that. So we were talking about the same glove, downstairs, right?

DET. LUPER: That's correct, yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: All right, sir. Now, in the course of your duties in this case, sir--and you told us about June 13th--you had occasion to search through Mr. Simpson's premises and at some point go into the bedroom; is that correct?

DET. LUPER: That's correct, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And did you at some point have occasion to go into the bathroom?

DET. LUPER: I did, yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And in the bathroom area, did you have occasion to look inside a hamper that's located in Mr. Simpson's bathroom there?

DET. LUPER: I did, yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And did you have occasion to take some clothes out of that hamper?

DET. LUPER: I did, yes, sir.

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

DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And in fact, the clothes were taken out of the hamper and they were kind of like put on the bathtub area; is that correct?

DET. LUPER: Somewhere. Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. They had been in the hamper and per your instructions, you had them taken out of the hamper; is that correct?

DET. LUPER: No, not per my instructions. I removed them myself.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. So you removed the clothes yourself?

DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: You took them and you looked through the hamper and took them all out, did you?

DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And after you took these clothes out of the hamper, you had some photographs taken of them?

DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: So the photographs we've seen are of the clothes after they were taken out of the hamper; is that correct?

DET. LUPER: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Were any of those clothes that were in that hamper seized at all?

DET. LUPER: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you have occasion to also look into Mr. Simpson's closet, the main closet off the bedroom?

DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And did you look--you looked through the clothes and Mr. Simpson's clothes that were located therein, did you?

DET. LUPER: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And were any of those clothes seized at all?

DET. LUPER: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you recall that at some point, Detective Lange had a pair of tennis shoes, Reebok tennis shoes? Were you there when that happened?

DET. LUPER: No, sir, I was not.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So at least the time that--you left before Lange left; is that correct?

DET. LUPER: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So what time did you leave that day? Do you recall?

DET. LUPER: I left around 6:30, 6:35 in the evening.

MR. COCHRAN: Before Detective Lange left?

DET. LUPER: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And at least when you left, you had not seized any of the clothes located inside the Simpson residence, right?

DET. LUPER: The only item that was seized at my direction were the socks.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, with regard--other than that, you hadn't seized anything else?

DET. LUPER: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So you didn't seize any clothes taken out of the hamper?

DET. LUPER: That's correct, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: You didn't seize any clothes from the closets?

DET. LUPER: That's correct, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And the brown glove that you had on the table that you had inadvertently left on the table downstairs, did you do anything regarding the brown glove?

DET. LUPER: Yes, sir. That particular item, after a conversation I had with Detective Lange and Vannatter, was returned to the location I had recovered it from.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. In other words, what you did with it, you took it back upstairs; is that right?

DET. LUPER: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay, sir. Now, what time did you arrive at the location that day, detective?

DET. LUPER: It was about 12:10, 12:15 in the afternoon, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, in connection with your investigation of this case, did you have occasion to go to Chicago, Illinois?

DET. LUPER: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And when did you go to Chicago?

DET. LUPER: I went--

MR. COCHRAN: Well, let me ask you this. Did you go to Chicago on more than one occasion?

DET. LUPER: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Let's talk about the first time you went to Chicago.

DET. LUPER: All right. You want to know when I--

MR. COCHRAN: Yeah. When was that, sir?

DET. LUPER: I left I believe it was June--June 15th and returned June 17th of 1994.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So you left on Wednesday and you came back around that Friday; is that correct?

DET. LUPER: Friday evening. Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And were you accompanied by any other police officers, Los Angeles police officers when you went there?

DET. LUPER: My partner, Cliff Lefall.

MR. COCHRAN: Cliff Lefall?

DET. LUPER: Yeah. L-e-f-a double l.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And in the course of the time you spent in Chicago, you were investigating on this case also; were you not?

DET. LUPER: That's correct, yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And on or about June 17th, did you have occasion to go to Chicago Police Department laboratory?

DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And did you at that point take custody of some items that were in the possession of the Chicago Police Department?

DET. LUPER: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And among those items, did you take custody of a broken glass?

DET. LUPER: I did. Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And did you take custody of some bedding?

DET. LUPER: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you take custody of a towel?

DET. LUPER: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you see some red spots on that towel?

MR. DARDEN: Objection.

MR. COCHRAN: Red spots.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you see red spots on the towel?

DET. LUPER: I never personally examined the items that were recovered. No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you--you've seen photographs of those items, have you?

DET. LUPER: I did. Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And you've seen the items themselves, haven't you?

DET. LUPER: I have not seen the items at all other than the photographs.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, in looking at the photographs, you saw there was some red substance on the towels; did you not?

MR. DARDEN: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, now, with regards to these items that were picked up in Chicago, tell us what else you picked up in Chicago at that time regarding to this case? Well, strike that. Let me ask you this. You picked up towels?

DET. LUPER: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: You picked up a broken glass?

DET. LUPER: That's correct, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Picked up some bedding?

DET. LUPER: That's correct, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And there have been photographs taken of those various items, have there?

DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And have you--these items are all kept in a box now somewhere at SID or LAPD?

DET. LUPER: I believe so, yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Have you seen these items in the recent past at all?

DET. LUPER: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: When's the last time you saw those items that you brought back on June 17th?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Assumes a fact not in evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. COCHRAN: Have you ever seen those items since you brought them back on June 17?

MR. DARDEN: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DET. LUPER: No, sir, I have not.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Well, then tell us what you did. You picked them up in Chicago Police Department, the laboratory, right?

DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes.

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

DET. LUPER: Hand-carried them back to Los Angeles and booked them into the crime lab property room at piper tech.

MR. COCHRAN: The piper tech here downtown Los Angeles?

DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And have you seen them since that time?

DET. LUPER: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: So what day did you book them into piper tech?

DET. LUPER: That would have been the 17th or the 18th of June of 1994.

MR. COCHRAN: After you got back here?

DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Any other items in that box that you haven't told us about in our questioning here?

DET. LUPER: I don't believe--I believe you've covered most of the items. Yes, sir. But as to specific items other than what you just mentioned, no, I don't have a recollection of.

MR. COCHRAN: And those items as far as you know today are still over at piper tech?

DET. LUPER: I believe that Detective Lange picked them up for your purposes I believe.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, he did bring them a couple days ago for us to take a look at them?

DET. LUPER: I believe so. Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Are they still here or are they back over there? Do you know?

DET. LUPER: I believe they're still here, sir.

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

THE COURT: Certainly.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

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

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. COCHRAN: Nothing further of this witness at this point.

THE COURT: People.

MR. DARDEN: Yes, your Honor.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DARDEN

MR. DARDEN: Detective, what time did you say you arrived at 360 North Rockingham?

DET. LUPER: It was between 12:15 and 12:20 in the afternoon.

MR. DARDEN: And you met Detective Vannatter; is that correct?

DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: And where were you when you met Detective Vannatter initially?

DET. LUPER: I believe I arrived prior to his arrival and he arrived a few minutes later, and we met out by the front door or right in the foyer. I don't recall exactly where.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. You searched the house that afternoon; is that correct?

DET. LUPER: Yes, I did, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Are you acquainted with Willie Ford, a photographer or videographer from SID?

DET. LUPER: I am, yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And you saw him there that afternoon; is that correct?

DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Did he arrive sometime after 3:00 o'clock?

DET. LUPER: Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: You mentioned during your direct testimony that you saw some socks somewhere in the house?

DET. LUPER: I did. Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Is that right? Socks that you caused to be seized?

DET. LUPER: Yes, sir, I did.

MR. DARDEN: Did you see those socks before Mr. Ford arrived?

DET. LUPER: Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Do you recall what time of the day it was that you first saw those socks?

DET. LUPER: It was between 12:30 and 12:40 that afternoon.

MR. DARDEN: You saw those socks when you went upstairs into the Defendant's bedroom; is that right?

DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: And you told us that you opened a drawer and you recovered a glove, right?

DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: You didn't have to--I'm sorry. You didn't have to open a drawer to locate those socks, did you?

DET. LUPER: No, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Where were those socks, detective?

DET. LUPER: Those socks were located at the foot of the bed in plain view.

MR. DARDEN: They were just laying there?

DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Are you sure of that, detective?

DET. LUPER: Positive.

MR. DARDEN: Why did you seize those socks?

DET. LUPER: Well, there's two reasons I seized them. One, they were--they appeared to be out of place to me based on what I had seen in the bathroom, for example, was fairly neat. And the second was, I felt based on the fact that they were out of place, that it would be just advisable to pick them up.

MR. DARDEN: You said the bathroom was neat?

DET. LUPER: I'm sorry, sir?

MR. DARDEN: You said the bedroom was relatively neat?

DET. LUPER: Relatively neat. Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Let me show you 167, if you would take a look at your monitor there.

DET. LUPER: All right, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Is that where the socks were when you saw them?

DET. LUPER: Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: And when you first saw those socks, did you disturb them at all?

DET. LUPER: No, sir.

MR. DARDEN: You left them right there?

DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Thank you. Now, when you first entered the residence, you saw some blood spots in the foyer; is that correct?

DET. LUPER: I did, yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: And with regard to the glove, you conducted a search of the Defendant's closet in the master bedroom?

DET. LUPER: That's correct, yes.

MR. DARDEN: And where was it that you found that single glove?

DET. LUPER: It was located in--there was two chest of drawers located in Mr. Simpson's walk-in closet, and it would have been the one located against the east wall, I believe it would have been the south side of the master closet.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And you only found one such glove; is that right?

DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: You didn't find a mate for that glove?

DET. LUPER: No, sir, I did not.

MR. DARDEN: And you thought that was significant, didn't you?

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

DET. LUPER: I'm sorry?

THE COURT: You can answer the question.

DET. LUPER: Yes, I did feel it was significant.

MR. DARDEN: And why is that?

DET. LUPER: Well, based on--

MR. COCHRAN: I object to the form. It's irrelevant and immaterial.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DET. LUPER: Based on the information I had and the fact that the only information I had as far as gloves were concerned was one that had been recovered, I didn't know another one had been recovered, I just felt that it was a wise thing to seize it, hold on to it and show it to the investigating officers and let them make the final determination as to whether it should be booked or not.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. A glove had been seized at Rockingham? Was that your information?

DET. LUPER: Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Had you visited the Bundy scene at that point?

DET. LUPER: I had been at the Bundy scene, yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Had you viewed the bodies?

DET. LUPER: Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Did you know whether or not the glove seized at Bundy and the one seized at Rockingham were matching gloves?

DET. LUPER: No. I had no clue.

MR. COCHRAN: Objection. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DET. LUPER: I had no clue to that, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Now, the glove that you removed from the Defendant's chest, was that an Aris glove?

DET. LUPER: I don't believe so. It may have been, but I'm not too sure.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. But it was a size large glove, wasn't it?

DET. LUPER: Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Not an extra large, but a large, correct?

DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: And you thought the glove was significant, so you kept it in your possession, right?

DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: And then you went downstairs?

DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Why did you place that glove on the table?

DET. LUPER: Well, I knew that there was blood spots or what appeared to be blood splats--blood spots at the--in the foyer, and I was just trying to look for additional spots on the wood floor, and there appeared to be several going--trailing from the foyer and past to the den area. And in trying to examine them, I put my notebook down on the floor as well as the glove on that--on the little table there to take a better look at it. That's all.

MR. DARDEN: And that glove was videotaped by Mr. Ford as it lay on that table, correct?

DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: And that glove was also photographed by the crime scene photographer, Mike Wilson; is that correct?

DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: In fact, there was a crime scene photographer at Rockingham that day, right?

DET. LUPER: He was there when I arrived. Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: And so he was there at least three, three and a half hours before Willie Ford arrived; is that correct?

DET. LUPER: Minimum, yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: And the photograph you just saw here a few minutes ago, People's 167, the photograph of the sock in the bedroom, that was taken by the photographer, wasn't it?

DET. LUPER: It certainly was. Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Was there any question, any doubt in your mind, sir, that those socks were there when you walked up the stairs around 12:15 or so that day?

DET. LUPER: No question in my mind, no, sir.

MR. DARDEN: As a matter of fact, you directed the photographer to take certain photographs; is that right?

DET. LUPER: I did, yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: And that included the photograph you just saw, 167?

DET. LUPER: Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Who requested the video recorder with Mr. Ford?

DET. LUPER: I'm sorry, sir. I didn't understand the question.

MR. DARDEN: Well, did you ask Mr. Ford or someone to come out and videotape the premises?

DET. LUPER: One of the detectives, Detective Harper, who was at the scene, came to me and suggested--

MR. COCHRAN: I object to what was suggested, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. The question is who requested it.

DET. LUPER: Detective Harper did, sir.

MR. DARDEN: And so you knew that someone was going to come out and videotape the premises, right?

DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: And the purpose of having that purpose come out was not to assist in the crime scene investigation, was it?

DET. LUPER: That's correct, sir.

MR. DARDEN: And wasn't to assist in the prosecution of this Defendant or anyone else; is that correct?

DET. LUPER: That's correct, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Why was that person called out?

DET. LUPER: He was called out for--in the event there was civil litigation down the line and--or allegations of theft or breakage of valuables.

MR. DARDEN: You wanted to make sure that you documented the condition of the premises as it was when you left; is that right?

MR. COCHRAN: Leading and suggestive, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Did you direct Mr. Ford in terms of where to shoot or videotape?

DET. LUPER: No, sir, I did not.

MR. DARDEN: Do you know whether or not the socks were collected prior to Mr. Ford's arrival inside the master bedroom?

DET. LUPER: They were collected prior to Mr. Ford's arrival upstairs in my presence.

MR. DARDEN: Do you recall who collected those socks?

DET. LUPER: It was Mr. Fung.

MR. DARDEN: Now, you've testified regarding this issue before; is that correct?

DET. LUPER: At a motion, yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: You testified here in this courtroom on March 31, 1995; is that right?