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

APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted, Maya Hamburger, also appearing on behalf of Marguerite Thomas.)

(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. The Defendant is again present before the Court with counsel, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Thompson. And we have Miss Hamburger here this morning for the witness. The People are represented by Miss Clark, Mr. Darden and Mr. Gordon. All right. Good morning, Miss Hamburger. How are you today?

MS. Hamburger: Good morning, your Honor. Maya Hamburger representing Marguerite Thomas. Mrs. Thomas was scheduled for today, your Honor, and Mr. Darden and I agreed to postpone her appearance until July 12th, with the Court's permission.

THE COURT: All right. Then the previously issued body attachment will remain issued and held until Wednesday, July 12, 9:00 A.M. thank you, counsel.

MS. Hamburger: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Thompson, do you have a matter?

MR. THOMPSON: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: What is that?

MR. THOMPSON: Good morning. We need to briefly revisit the issue of the statistics to be presented in connection with the DNA mixtures, and earlier this week the Court directed the Prosecution to let us know what their intentions were with regard to these statistics and particularly whether they were intending to present likelihood ratio statistics which are a novel form of statistical presentation on this matter. Yesterday--late yesterday Mr. Clarke let us know that the Prosecution does indeed intend to present likelihood ratio statistics, that they are intending to present them next Tuesday through their witness, Dr. Bruce Weir, and that the Defense will not be given a final copy of Dr. Bruce Weir's report until late next Monday. This revelation raises three issues that I would like to raise and discuss with the Court at this--at this point. The first issue is whether the Prosecution should be allowed to present novel unprecedented form of statistical evidence on mixtures at this juncture in the case, given the posture of the evidence and given the Court's previous rulings on this subject. The second issue is the need for a 402 hearing in the event that the Court entertains letting the Prosecution establish the admissibility of this new kind of statistical evidence. We feel very strongly that a 402 hearing is required and we need to discuss briefly the scope and parameters of such a hearing. The third issue is the need by the Defense for more time. The fact that we are getting the final report the night--essentially the night before the Prosecution intends to present this new evidence just simply does not give us enough time to prepare. We have received a preliminary report from Dr. Weir, but it does not include data or calculations; it makes citations. It says that it is a calculational approach based on scientific articles which are not cited. They don't give us the citations to the article. We have been unable to find them. And we will need--regardless of whether have we have a 402 hearing or not, we will need additional time to prepare and we would like a week. And so those are the issues. I can take them in any order that you please.

THE COURT: Do you need to say more about them?

MR. THOMPSON: Well, I am prepared now to give you an argument on the first point as to why we feel that the Prosecution should simply be precluded from presenting this kind of evidence. We think the--we have no objection, your Honor, to the presentation of aggregate statistics in the form recommended by the national research council, which we have discussed earlier in this case. It is a very simple form of statistical calculations which simply adds up the frequency of all the genotypes that would match with the mixture. We have no objections to at all. We think it is simple and easy to understand. We have a series of very strong objections which we stated in our papers and in previous arguments. But basically our position is that the effort to present a novel form of statistical analysis on the mixtures at this point should be precluded in light of the Court's previous rulings and the posture of the evidence in this case. When the Court ruled in may that the Prosecution must present statistics on these mixtures, I think everybody contemplated that they would be frequency statistics which were the same sorts of statistics present on all the other DNA evidence.

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Thompson, let me perhaps give you insight into the Court's thinking on this. And are you aware of any appellate case that addresses the admissibility of likelihood ratios in a criminal Prosecution case anywhere in the United States?

MR. THOMPSON: None at all.

THE COURT: The only three likelihood ratio cases, reported cases nationwide, deal with likelihood ratios in paternity cases, which is obviously not the situation we are dealing with here.

MR. THOMPSON: I agree completely.

THE COURT: Mixtures, et cetera, et cetera.

MR. THOMPSON: Yes. If I understand you correctly, you are saying you view this as an unprecedented matter. We do as well.

THE COURT: I think it is from beyond novel to being unique.

MR. THOMPSON: Yes.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. THOMPSON: All right. So if I--

THE COURT: And I made a ruling back in June that I think was pretty clear.

MR. THOMPSON: All right. So it sounds like your thinking coincides with ours, that the Prosecution should simply be precluded from presenting statistics in the likelihood ratio form at this juncture.

THE COURT: Well, I think at the very minimum, if they insist on proceeding with that, I think we need a 402 hearing out of the presence of the jury.

MR. THOMPSON: All right. Well, let's proceed to that. In the event we have such a hearing, the Defense would intend to call one and possibly two witnesses in order to explain why we feel statistics presented in that form are inappropriate as a scientific and statistical matter on the one hand, and on the other hand, why this form of statistical presentation is likely to be grossly misleading to the jury. I estimate we would need approximately two hours of expert testimony to establish those points.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. THOMPSON: But we--in order to prepare for such a hearing we need more time than overnight after getting the final report which shows what the Prosecution is going to present, so we would like to put it off for a week, if possible.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Miss Clark, good morning.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor. We find ourselves in this unique posture because the Defense has insisted on doing something that is scientifically unsound, and that is to apply frequency ratios to a mixture. That is not done in scientific circles. It is not an accepted scientific practice to assign numbers to bloodstain mixtures.

THE COURT: Isn't that what the NRC report recommends at page 69?

MS. CLARK: No, not as to mixtures it doesn't. Yes, it says that we should assign frequencies to type results, but I don't believe there is any place I have ever seen in the NRC report where it specifically says that mixtures should be reported with numbers. And the problem is, if you want to do something scientifically unsound as to put a number to a mixture stain, then the most scientifically acceptable or accurate method of doing so is to assign it a likelihood ratio. We understand the Court's concern, because it is something unusual. The circumstances are themselves.

THE COURT: You agree it is unique?

MS. CLARK: I do, absolutely.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. CLARK: That is why we are more than happy to present Dr. Weir's testimony to the Court. I think it is entirely appropriate. There is no question about that.

THE COURT: Well, counsel, what I indicated to Mr. Thompson is that if you feel that that is the way it needs to be presented, then I think what we are looking at is a 402 hearing.

MS. CLARK: And I--the People aren't arguing with that. The question is the timing, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, when would your expert be available? When is Dr. Weir available?

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

MS. CLARK: Wednesday. We had anticipated presenting his testimony on Wednesday and so he has arranged to be here on that date. And I--we all don't want to take the jury's time up.

THE COURT: I know, but we may have to, but seeing as how we avoided a eight-week--six to eight-week Kelly-Frye hearing, you know, maybe a day or two out, we can take them to Disneyland or something. I'm sure we can find something for them to do.

MS. CLARK: Yeah.

THE COURT: All right. But my other concern, though, is I think that since this is a novel issue, because the Court's research indicates that likelihood ratios have not been presented in any criminal Prosecution that I have been able to find, at least at the appellate level. There may be some on a trial court level, but I'm not aware of any at this point, but I am willing to look and see.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Yeah. We will present to the Court everything that we gather on this and I'm sure Dr. Weir is aware of where that has been presented before.

THE COURT: The issue is also timing because I think the Defense is entitled to see Dr. Weir's report and know what literature he is referring to and then have reasonable time to prepare.

MS. CLARK: Of course.

THE COURT: So that is something that--I would ask that Mr. Harmon and Mr. Thompson, while we are continuing with the glove evidence, confer as to availability of their witnesses knowing that if the Prosecution wants to present likelihood ratios we will probably need a 402 hearing.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Umm--

THE COURT: And it sounds to me like half a day to a day because we are talking about statistical methodology is what we are talking about.

MS. CLARK: Right. That does sound right, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. CLARK: Then question I have is if we turn over the report, and I understand we can do so Monday afternoon, if we present the testimony on Wednesday for the 402, wouldn't that be sufficient time for the Defense to read the reports and be ready to cross-examine Dr. Weir and present their testimony?

THE COURT: Could be.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Okay. I will just wait and see.

THE COURT: All right. Why don't--let me have Mr. Thompson and Mr. Harmon consult since they are both here today and just find out schedules and who is available what days and then we will take from it there.

MS. CLARK: Okay.

THE COURT: All right. Next issue is the Defense motion for an evidentiary hearing, and Miss Clark, you had left Court yesterday, but Mr. Dershowitz was here, and given the conflict the schedules, it was his proposal that the Defense be allowed to make their argument, which he estimated fifteen minutes or so, today, allow you to hear the argument and then respond next week, as I understand as you are requesting.

MS. CLARK: At what time would they propose to do that?

THE COURT: Sometime today, sometime this morning.

MS. CLARK: This morning?

THE COURT: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Oh.

THE COURT: That was discussed with Mr. Dershowitz and Mr. Darden yesterday afternoon in chambers at the conclusion of the Court day.

MS. CLARK: Well, if they--if we recess in time, I can respond today, too. We were going to present a responsive declaration. I don't know if that is, umm--

THE COURT: Well, let me ask Mr. Darden. Mr. Darden, how many more witnesses do you have this morning?

MR. DARDEN: Well, we would like to recall Mr. Rubin back to the stand for a short while. Mr. Acosta is enroute to testify. We would like to call Miss Redfern or Mr. Aguilera sometime this morning, time permitting.

THE COURT: All right. So you have enough witnesses to fill up the morning?

MR. DARDEN: (No audible response.)

THE COURT: Well, then I think we ought to hear the argument now and proceed with the witnesses after we hear the argument on this motion.

MS. CLARK: Okay.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. DERSHOWITZ: Thank you, your Honor. I will try to keep the argument brief in light of the--

THE COURT: I think Mr. Bailey wanted to say something to you.

MR. DERSHOWITZ: All right.

MR. BAILEY: If it please the Court, a little before ten o'clock central daylight time this morning Officer Rodney Tilley of the Panama City Police Department approached Marianne Barbieri, the mother of Paula Barbieri whose name has surfaced in this case, and as a messenger, allegedly for Detective Tom Lange, said, "Now that the relationship between Mr. Simpson and your daughter has changed, would you find out if she would like to talk to us?" Miss Barbieri has hired a lawyer, made it known to the Prosecution that she can be reached through her lawyer, and only that way, and we would like to make this a matter of record, because if it happens again, we will ask for sanctions. I am in touch with her on a regular basis. There is no change in the relationship. It is every bit as strong as it was on June 12, 1994, and we would ask that she not be surreptitiously approached by the police. Thank you.

THE COURT: Thank you, counsel.

MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, may I inquire of Mr. Bailey, is Mrs. Gerchas a witness on your witness list? I'm sorry, Mrs. Barbieri, is she a witness for the Defense?

MS. CLARK: I have never heard that name included as a witness for the Defense.

MR. BAILEY: She has not been included so far.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And we are familiar with Florida State law as it relates to witnesses and depositions in criminal cases and we will act accordingly.

THE COURT: All right. But the contact with her is to be through her counsel if she is represented by counsel. All right. That goes without saying. All right. Mr. Dershowitz.

MR. DERSHOWITZ: Good morning. Thank you very much, your Honor, for accommodating my schedule. I will trial to keep it very brief knowing that the jury is out this morning. We are very concerned about the possible specter of a mistrial hanging over this very lengthy trial. The Defendant, O.J. Simpson, has the right to have his case decided by this jury and not some subsequent jury. Yesterday's incidents and events make it as clear as any events could ever make it why the Prosecution would benefit if they had a second opportunity to try this case. If the Prosecution had a second opportunity, if they could do what we when were kids we called a do-over, obviously they would try this case rather differently. I doubt that we would see O.J. Simpson being asked to try on his gloves. I doubt that we would see Dennis Fung being called as a witness. That is precisely why the double jeopardy clause, both under the United States constitution and in its more expansive view, under California law, gives the Prosecution simply one shot, not another chance. And we are very concerned, because we are down to two alternate jurors, that the Prosecution in one respect has a no lose scenario that they may be attempting. Namely, that they are trying to reshape the jury to its advantage by striking jurors selectively and they know that the worse case scenario is that there will be a mistrial, and if there is a mistrial they get to try the case a second time. That is precisely what the double jeopardy clause prevents the state from doing. Therefore, we, in an effort to prevent this from occurring, make two motions: One, that no further jurors be struck for any reason whatever, and that as part of that motion, at this point this time, as part of that motion, that once jurors are down to a number like 14, 13, 12, in the context of a case like this, that the standard of removing jurors is no longer good cause under California law. It rises to manifest necessity. That is, the Supreme Court of California, in a series of cases, Davis, Larios, 1970 genre era cases, made it very, very clear that there is a difference between the criteria for striking a single juror and striking a jury, and that when you get close to the line that by striking a single juror you may be requiring that a new jury come in, that the standard is elevated, the standard becomes not good cause, but manifest necessity.

Indeed several cases in the California Supreme Court make it clear that there are really three very different standards. One standard before jeopardy attaches for recusing a juror for cause, another standard while jeopardy has already attached for removing an individual juror when there is no likelihood that the removal of that individual juror may result in a mistrial, and a very different and highly elevated standard when the removal of a single juror or a series of jurors may result in a mistrial. And we think that this Court should have and should from now on certainly be using a manifest necessity standard rather than a good cause standard for striking any jurors. And we suggest and propose and move that in the event there are any further jury problems, particularly problems of individual juror disqualification, that the Court hold those in abeyance until such time as the case--case has reached its final point, the Judge has instructed the jury and the jury is going into deliberate. At that point either side could then move to have a juror removed for good cause and if the issue then certainly simply is the substitution of one juror for another, rather than the dismissal of a jury, then the Court can go back to a good cause standard, rather than the manifest necessity standard. So that is the prophylactic motion that we are making, the preventive motion that we are making to assure that this jury decides this case, because statistically there is always the possibility that there could be death, there could be injury, there could be illness, there could be family problems that are beyond the control of the Court. What's unique about this case, your Honor, is that the ten jurors that have been disqualified up to not--not a single one, well possibly one, but more than one, has been disqualified for what would be the conventional reasons listed by the California Supreme Court as constituting good cause in the context of manifest necessity. They have not been traditional cases of illness or death or family problems, more in the area of juror misconduct problems which we believe are in the areas of law, which the Court has said dismissal of jurors on mistake of law does not constitute manifest necessity. So that is step 1 of our motion. And the second step is a rather more delicate one, and that is, your Honor, we move that in the event this jury does not reach a verdict, for whatever reason, whether it be a hung jury or a dismissed jury or if it achieves a verdict of guilty, which we hope and pray it will not, that we ask now for a ruling that we can have an evidentiary hearing which we would like to begin preparing for, at which we can summon the various personnel who have been involved in the disqualification and recusal of jurors. Because we believe that there is a basis on the record for our suspicion that the Prosecution has targeted jurors, has selectively investigated jurors in an effort to shape the jury to its liking. And that, too, is not proper under the double jeopardy and due process clauses of the constitution. And so we would like to know in each case for each juror that was removed what the basis for the investigation was, who commenced the investigation, what the sources of the information were. We would also like to know whether there was information on the record about other jurors, jurors who the Prosecution felt were to their liking which was not brought to the attention of the Court, because as we argued early on in time, the structural problems of the way in which jurors are monitored in this jurisdiction create a real potential for prosecutorial abuse. We have no investigative resources. We don't have access to the Sheriff's Department. The Sheriff's Department is state action, it is law enforcement. We worry very much that the Sheriff's Department can be consciously or unconsciously a conduit to the Prosecution of information about juror attitudes, a conduit of information about potential misconduct which then can be selectively invoked. And if there has been any selective invocation of allegations of misconduct favorable to the Prosecution, we think we are entitled to make a record on that and if necessary bring it to the attention of an Appellate Court. As your Honor is aware, the issue of double jeopardy is an issue that can be presented to the Appellate Court on a writ of prohibition and can serve as a barrier to a subsequent trial because jeopardy has attached. And as the courts of California have said repeatedly, once jeopardy has attached, if a jury verdict is not reached, that is legally tantamount to an acquittal in the absence of consent by the Defendant, which is not forthcoming, or manifest necessity which we believe would not exist in this case if there were a mistrial caused by jurors being insufficient in number to render a verdict in this case. So your Honor, we ask for those two remedies. We have in the past asked for another remedy, namely, we believe and we have believed from the very beginning, that the structural issue, namely, the Sheriff's Department law enforcement state action of a prosecutorial--with a prosecutorial bent, being the people supervising the jury, being the conduit to your Honor, being the conduit to the Prosecution, raises structural problems, and we have believed from the very beginning that social workers, neutral officials of the court, not law enforcement personnel, should be the conduit, should be the people supervising the jury in this case. We renew that request. But the primary request that we are making here today, and I will simply finish with this, is the two that I have previously alluded to, a ruling that there be no further disqualification at this point of time of any jurors without a showing of manifest necessity, that such issues be put off until the end of the trial. And that in the event that there is less than a verdict of acquittal, other than a verdict of acquittal in this case, we ask for an evidentiary hearing to be held so that we can establish a record of juror targeting, that we can establish a record of how the Prosecution may have taken advantage of the potential for abuse that exists in this system. If there are no further questions, your Honor, I made my point.

THE COURT: Thank you. Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor. Of all of the motions made by the Defense, I find this one the most offensive, groundless and baseless. This was a motion filed deliberately for inflammatory effect. It has no law in its support. It has no facts in its support. This is a scurrilous attempt to inflame the community, if not the very jury itself. It may be constitutionally protected speech, your Honor, but constitutionally protected does not mean moral, does not mean ethical and does not mean truthful. And the groundless, baseless, inflammatory allegations contained in this motion are the lowest tactics I have seen yet in this case. The Defense knows precisely why each of the jurors were excused. They know precisely where the information came from. They know the procedure that has been imposed by this Court in terms of juror investigation. And all investigations are conducted by this Court, not by the Prosecution and not by the Defense. And Mr. Dershowitz does not know how the information came to light about juror 353? Why? Doesn't he talk to Mr. Cochran? Mr. Cochran brought out the anonymous letter sent to his office, the phone calls made to his office, because they were targeting juror 353 for months. We all know this.

MR. COCHRAN: There was no anonymous letter sent to my office, your Honor. This is wrong.

THE COURT: There was no letter.

MR. COCHRAN: No letter.

MS. CLARK: Mr. Cochran showed me the phone logs from his office, your Honor.

THE COURT: No, sir.

MS. CLARK: And Mr. Cochran, don't be disingenuous with the Court. It is very clear that they wanted that juror excused for quite a long time. And for Mr. Dershowitz to stand before this Court and make such allegations that the Prosecution is targeting jurors is simply offensive and unethical and unsupported in any facts. And the Defense posture, their very premise is absurd that we would like to try this case again because we would try it differently. We would not call Mr. Fung. I would like for Mr. Dershowitz, a law professor, to explain to us how we could put on evidence without proving someone critical in the chain of custody? How do we present evidence without showing the jury how it came into the police custody? Mr. Fung collected it. Now, how do we present that evidence without calling him? If Mr. Dershowitz has an idea, I would sure like to hear it. I heard no stipulation from the Defense concerning chain of custody. I think it is our burden. Their premises is absurd. But I will offer Mr. Dershowitz one thing. I would like to direct the Court to the remark made by Mr. Dershowitz in which he stated that he thought we would try the case differently, and I quote, "I doubt that we would see O.J. Simpson being asked to try on his gloves." The People so stipulate. And if that is what the Defense is offering in the context of this motion, we are glad to accept. Now, the premise is already ridiculous from a legal point of view. No further jurors be excused for any reason at all? Is that so? If Mr. Dershowitz were to know of a juror presently seated who said he is guilty and nobody is going to convince me otherwise, I've got my mind made up, where is his argument then? You think Mr. Dershowitz would stand before this Court and say that very thing? Not on your life. It is legally absurd. There is no legal precedent for it. Not only that, but Mr. Dershowitz takes the concept of manifest necessity and stands it on its head. Manifest necessity has never been a standard employed in the context of juror excusals, your Honor. Manifest necessity is used as a shield, not a sword. Manifest necessity permits a retrial where otherwise jeopardy would have attached; not the reverse. Mr. Dershowitz has the law standing on its head. And the case of Illinois versus Summerville, which discussed manifest necessity, discussed it in the context of the defective indictment, an indictment so defective that the charges could not be understood, the elements could not be understood, and so the case was set aside, although jeopardy had already attached, and manifest necessity was invoked to permit the retrial where ordinarily it would not have been permitted. That is where manifest necessity belongs, not in the context of juror excusal. Mr. Dershowitz cannot point this Court to any legal authority to justify invoking some new standard because we have some special Defendant. There is a standard that applies to everyone, everyone, all defendants, and all prosecutions in this state, and that is good cause and this is not a different case and this is not some special case. This is a murder trial where these jurors are going to be held to the same standard they are in every other trial. Good cause is our standard and that is the standard we live by. And when good cause is shown, as it was in each and every instance in this case, then they must be excused. And Mr. Simpson does not get some higher standard for the jurors he likes or doesn't like. Now, with respect to the jurors that were excused, at no time has the Prosecution made any effort to seek out information as to any particular juror. In each and every instance members of the public have come forward to this Court or to the Prosecution, and in the event that they have come to the Prosecution, we have turned it over to the Court. Many of the instances the information came directly to the Court and then had to be investigated.

The Court fulfilled its obligation, as it is required to under the law, and as we are very well aware, under Bergner and its progeny, when any indication of juror misconduct is brought to the attention of the Court it is obligated, it is mandatory language in those cases--I know the Court is aware of that--that you shall investigate. You cannot refrain from doing so. And it has only been when the misconduct has been so egregious that it was clear that the jurors could not be deemed to be fit jurors, either because of contradictory information in the questionnaire based on what we later learned was not--we learned it was later proven not to be true, or because of conduct on this very jury. With respect to the excusal of juror 1489, several jurors came forward to this Court to complain. That was not one person complaining. Counsel will have--would it seem that the Prosecution is funneling information here and going out and digging up information on these people. Nothing would be further from the truth. And the Court staff that--that the Court has doing the investigation is nothing more than responsive, reactive. The deputies involved in the investigation are given information from the public and required to investigate it. So this motion is in derogation to reality. It is in derogation of the truth and of the facts. We have ten jurors thus far excused; five at the behest of the Defense. I think that that probably speaks volumes right there. The Court is aware of the procedures that it has imposed in this case, and to even entertain this thing that doesn't even--shouldn't even be dignified with the title of "Motion," I don't think I have ever seen law practiced this way. These are--these--these are really baseless allegations. The declarations filed by Mr. Cochran have absolutely no merit and I mean they have no relevance. Brenda Postel makes some remark about some remarks made to her by some other deputy that has nothing to do with the allegations they are making. They have--I mean, I eagerly awaited what was going to be in their declarations. When I finally saw it I was shocked. There is nothing there. There is nothing there. So the Court really has to ask itself why is such a motion being made? Is it true that the Defense really wants to avoid a mistrial? Is that true? I wonder. I really wonder. I think it is the Defense that is looking for a mistrial in this case, your Honor, and I think that this is nothing more than pointing fingers at everybody else to avoid the light of suspicion that should be appropriately cast on this side of counsel table, on the Defense side of counsel table. This is a baseless motion. This is a lawless motion. This is a factless, evidentiaryless motion. It should be not only denied, but I think that counsel should be admonished against making such deliberately inflammatory motions. It is irresponsible and it is unethical.

THE COURT: Thank you, counsel.

MR. DERSHOWITZ: Your Honor, I'm new to this courtroom, but I will tell you right now I am not under any circumstances ever, while I stand up here today, going to respond to any of the ad homonyms. I simply am not going to play that game. I am simply going to just talk to the merits of the issue. Having said that, I would urge the Court to read the case of People versus Larios which is in direct support for our proposition that once the juror number gets down to the critical point where a mistrial may have to be declared, the legal criteria is manifest necessity, legal necessity. Let me read to the Court one paragraph: "The fact that a juror's actions or beliefs would provide good cause for his replacement if an alternate were available does not mean that this is legal necessity for a mistrial where no alternate is available." The Compton case as well certainly suggests the sliding standard and the sliding standard makes enormous sense. If the Court has the luxury of a large number of alternate jurors, then good cause--

THE COURT: I have no luxury.

MR. DERSHOWITZ: Unfortunately that luxury no longer exists. And so we are at a point where manifest necessity must be the criteria. Let me respond directly to the question put, "What if we were to find a juror that said we believe O.J. Simpson is guilty?"--an unlikely event, I think, after yesterday's proceedings--but if we were to find such a juror, it would be our choice and our choice alone whether or not to seek a mistrial. And that is what Larios said precisely. If the Judge were to impose a mistrial, if the Prosecution were to seek a mistrial, at that point jeopardy would attach. As the Court said in a series of opinions, uniquely within the Defendant's mind and the Defendant alone, it is his tactical decision whether or not to risk a second trial, whether he has the resources for a second trial, whether he has the emotional wherewithal to sit through a second trial. And the United States Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court do not balance equally. The Defendant is entitled to make these tactical decisions; the Prosecution is not. This is not a level playing field under the double jeopardy clause. The Prosecution is not allowed to make tactical decisions preferring a second trial to a first one. The Defendant is entitled to make precisely those very tactical decisions. Now, Miss Clark talks about tactical decisions that she might make. She challenges the Defense to ask how possibly this case could have been tried without the primary fact witness, Dennis Fung, being called. Well, we learned very well from the Prosecution.

Look at what they did with Dr. Golden. They figured out a way of getting around calling Dr. Golden and they would try to figure out a way of getting around calling Dennis Fung. That is precisely why rehearsals are not permitted by the Prosecution in criminal trials. On Broadway plays open in New Haven and in Boston to see how they run. In courts of law one time is all you get. The Prosecution has had its time. May I formally correct the record, when I referred to "His gloves," obviously I was talking about the Prosecution's theory that they are his gloves. The evidence yesterday proved dramatically that they are not his gloves. As far as our basis for this motion, the basis is very clear. If your Honor didn't see, everybody else in the country saw Marcia Clark walking out after one of the jurors was disqualified giving another Prosecutor a thumbs up sign. We have an affidavit here that Mr. Darden told Mr. Cochran "We got your boy." We have evidence in the record that the LAPD is currently investigating for the Prosecution witness'--I'm sorry--jurors who are now sitting. The Prosecution may deny that. That is why we have hearings, precisely to resolve these kind of disputes. If and when this case gets to an Appellate Court, your Honor, they are not going to be able to take Marcia Clark's word on the fact that there were no investigations ongoing. They will want to see a record made. They will want to see witnesses sworn under oath. They will want to see evidentiary rulings, evidentiary conclusions. Deference will be obviously accorded to your Honor's findings. We are aware of that and we want a hearing at which we can call our witnesses, they can call their witnesses. We don't have to exchange ad homonyms. The facts will prevail. If the facts go our way, we will win. If the facts go their way, they will win. That is why we have evidentiary hearings. Your Honor--excuse me one second. Well, I have to repeat what one of my co-counsel says--I was not here and I can't make this representation--but a very respected reporter said that Marcia Clark left the court after the juror was disqualified, quote, "In a dance step." Now, I'm not sure the Court wants to take judicial notice of the level of happiness the Prosecution has expressed, but there is no question--and your Honor, I'm at a disadvantage here because although I have read every word of all the sealed transcripts regarding the disqualification of every single juror, because they are sealed I am not free to make arguments in public that I would make if we have an evidentiary hearing, and on the basis of sealed records, about the method by which jurors have been selectively disqualified in this case. And the fact that five may have been jurors who were favorably disposed, according to the Prosecution, to the Defense and five, according to the Prosecution, favorably disposed to them, does not enter into the double jeopardy considerations. Your Honor, I do have to acknowledge that this is in many respects a case of first impression. We have found no case anywhere in the United States where we've had a situation of twelve alternate jurors, ten of whom are disqualified for reasons that are not traditional reasons, and then we get down to two with a potential for a mistrial.

Courts have not had to consider, except the two cases that I have mentioned, the intimate relationship and subtle relationship between good cause disqualification of individual jurors and manifest necessity as the criteria for avoiding the rigors of double jeopardy. But when your Honor thinks about it, as a simple matter of common sense, and as I say supported by Compton and supported by Larios, that sliding scale exists. And that if this Court were, for example, God forbid, to get to a situation where it was down to the last juror, say, it was down to twelve jurors and there were to be then an issue of potential recusal of that juror, surely my distinguished opponent would acknowledge that at that point the criteria is not good cause. The criteria at that point is manifest necessity. That is the holding of Larios; not dictum. That is the holding of that case. And so as a matter of simple logical extension, most of these cases deal, A, with short trials. B, in most of these cases it is the Defendant who is seeking the mistrial and the Prosecution who is seeking not to have a mistrial. When you have a situation relatively unique in American jurisprudence, a lengthy trial of this kind, twelve alternates, and then we get to a situation where nonetheless we may have a mistrial, over the strong objection of the Defendant, manifest necessity becomes the constitutional criteria, both as a matter of California law and as a matter of federal constitutional law. And in order to determine manifest necessity we have to know on the record what happens and we don't have a full enough record at this point--I will concede and acknowledge and assert that my opponent is correct, at this point in time we don't know everything that happened. That is precisely why we are seeking a hearing. We are not calling our opponents names. We are simply seeking a hearing. And that is the way I would like the record to remain. We are respectfully seeking an evidentiary hearing at which we can call our witnesses in order to establish that if this jury gets below twelve it will not have been the result of manifest necessity. If that is true, double jeopardy applies, Mr. Simpson is deemed innocent and he cannot be retried. Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. DERSHOWITZ: May I have one moment with my counsel before I conclude?

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. DERSHOWITZ: Your Honor, just one further point. We do not want our silence to be taken as an acknowledgment in reference to juror 353 that Miss Clark's characterization of the grounds upon which that disqualification occurred is true. We dispute that. We, because the record has been sealed, are not right now in a position to publicly dispute that, but we will file a sealed statement as to what our position is on 353, 1427 and 1489. We have very strong views about the relationship between the disqualification of those three jurors and why the disqualification of 1489 was not an appropriate disqualification, not under good cause, not under manifest necessity. We need not litigate that at this time, but we do not want our silence in any way to be taken as an acknowledgment that we accept the characterizations of Miss Clark. Thank you very much, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel.

MS. CLARK: Very briefly, your Honor, if I may?

THE COURT: Very.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor. I appreciate it. People versus Larios has been miscited by counsel and mischaracterized by counsel. People versus Larios measures the entire proceeding, not any single excusal. It looks through the entire record to determine whether or not good cause was established for the excusal of the jurors in general, with respect to each and every one, and then overall whether there was manifest necessity for the mistrial. And that is where Larios stands. Larios at no point says that manifest necessity is the standard by which each individual juror must be excused. And Larios goes actually to a separate issue which is whether a mistrial should or should not be declared. And in that vein counsel is also incorrect. Counsel cites to the Court the fact that only the Defense can choose to provoke--or choose to have a mistrial. It is true that only the Defense can make the motion for a mistrial; however, the Defense cannot declare the mistrial. The Defense cannot determine or provoke the mistrial. And there are cases right on point that state that even where the Defense creates a ruckus in the courtroom, where the Defendant has attacked his lawyer in the courtroom or attacked a witness in the courtroom, with a deliberate point being to provoke a mistrial, that the Court is within its discretion to refuse to give them the benefit of their--of their misconduct. It is within the Court's discretion to declare the mistrial. The courts decide when a mistrial should be granted. We have not reached a point yet where we have to make a decision whether we should proceed with fewer than twelve, but I can tell this Court that it will be certainly my position that we should. I have no desire to see this case go to retrial. I have no desire to see this case go through a mistrial. I want a verdict out of this jury. And I know that I speak on behalf of all of my colleagues on the Prosecution, we want this jury to reach a verdict. That is what we want. And if that means that at some point we have to come--we have to decide to accept fewer than twelve, we will make that decision at that time, but with a very strong leaning in favor of going along with that, because that is not what we want. Mr. Dershowitz, in the course of saying we are not going to call our opponents names, does that very thing. I love that kind of disingenuous stuff. Let's be honest. That is what he is doing. And he is going to cite a reporter's hyperbole that I did some dance step. That is nonsense. The reporters have to sell stories. They are good writers. It is fun to read, some of them. All right. I see the Court rolling its eyes. That doesn't apply to all, but some are. I enjoy reading them. They have to sell copy. It sounds a lot more exciting to hear that the Defense said that the Prosecution is out there dancing than it does to say Miss Clark walked out and seemed to have a smile on her face. Oh, boy, that is real fun. So they've got to write something that is going to grab People's attention. And we're going to cite that to the Court as a basis for saying that the Prosecution is targeting jurors? That is fine. Let me also then add to the record Mr. Cochran's beaming face laughter and laughter at the excusal of juror no. 353. Let me also add to the record Mr. Cochran's negative remarks about the few remaining white jurors on this panel.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I resent that. I resent that.

MS. CLARK: No, no. Mr. Cochran really cannot afford to resent that. That is what he put in his declaration.

THE COURT: Wait, wait, wait. Mr. Cochran, have a seat. I will deal with this.

MR. COCHRAN: I don't--

THE COURT: I don't think that is necessary, Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Let me address it in the context of the motion, your Honor. Mr. Cochran put into his motion a declaration--

THE COURT: I don't think you can honestly believe that I would ever consider extrajudicial commentary, newspapers, the sources of information that would cause this Court to take any action, at least in this context.

MS. CLARK: Then I won't--I will not mention that again. I was referring to Mr. Cochran's declaration--

THE COURT: All right.

MS. CLARK: --in which he cites an offhand remark made privately in jest between Mr. Darden and Mr. Cochran as a basis. That alone, that declaration alone, tells you that this has no merit, there is no substance to these allegations. But the Court is in possession of all of the facts. The Court knows, as the Defense knows, too--Mr. Dershowitz perhaps himself doesn't know, but the rest of his team is very well aware how the information came to light in this case. They are very well aware of who reported what, what transpired in chambers, what the Court's rulings were, what the investigations turned up. They know that. That is what makes this motion so hollow, so empty. And none of the cases cited by counsel is at all on point or should cause the Court to alter a standard that has been in place in California for many, many years. The bottom line of this motion is that it is okay when you excuse jurors we don't like, but we don't want you to excuse the jurors that we do like. That is what this motion is about by the Defense. You can only excuse jurors when we say it is okay. Obviously that is not standard, there is nothing legal about that. There is no precedent for it and there is no logic to it. And that is basically where this motion stands.

THE COURT: Thank you, counsel.

MR. DERSHOWITZ: Your Honor, just one second please. I know your Honor read the Larios decision. I can't believe that Miss Clark was actually citing that case, because that case involved one juror, not many jurors, and the Court made exactly the statement that I said it made about one juror, when that one juror becomes the critical juror. So the law in California, your Honor, is clearly on our side. This is not a case where the issue is shaping jurors by the Defense. This is a case where the Defense, before the last three jurors were disqualified, filed the motion making precisely the same point. All we've done now is elaborate on that motion, including what was done since that period of time. So our motion was made even before the last three jurors were disqualified. We were concerned about this from the very earliest point in time. Our concern has only been enhanced. And we will provide the Court, as I said, with a sealed argument regarding the last three jurors which we think support our position. Thank you very much, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. This is a fascinating situation with starting a trial with twelve alternates. I mean that is something highly unusual, even in this courthouse. I spoke to Judge Pounders the other day, who tried the two and a half year McMartin case, and he tried that case with six alternates, and I was criticized by some of my colleagues for having started this case with twelve alternates, for having too many people, and that it would increase the cost of sequestration enormously, which was fascinating in and of itself, that discussion. But I have never seen a situation where individual jurors have been the subjects of such great public scrutiny. And that is one of the interesting aspects of this case that we will have to think about when this case is all over. All right. Counsel, I'm going to take your motion under submission. I will read the declarations that have yet to be filled and I will issue a ruling as soon as that has been completed. All right. Let's have the jurors. I'm sorry, there is one other matter. Mr. Darden, you indicated you wished to reopen with Mr. Rubin?

MR. DARDEN: Yes, your Honor. I believe I indicated that in chambers late yesterday afternoon.

THE COURT: What area are you going to go into?

MR. DARDEN: Shrinkage primarily.

MR. COCHRAN: May I be heard, your Honor? Thank you, your Honor. Two things: I would like if we could have an offer of proof with regard to the opening, your Honor. The word "Shrinkage" is not particularly revealing, as the Court has inquired in the past, and in the list of Mr. Witnesses that Mr. Darden indicated--we may not get to it today--but I have a problem with one of the witness, Miss Redfern, who may have been on the witness list. But in the discussion about domestic discord, if the Court recalls, I don't think the Court was ever asked to deal with that particular issue, and I think that we would at a minimum have a right to a 402 hearing on that particular--the subject matter of her testimony. So before he recalls her or announces her name, I would ask the Court to allow us that and I could ask for an offer of proof as to why Rubin was being recalled. I thought we were finished with him with the exception of our brief conversation in chambers after court yesterday, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. As to the issue of recalling Mr. Rubin, what is your time estimate on the recall?

MR. DARDEN: Fifteen minutes of direct.

THE COURT: All right. I will allow it.

MR. DARDEN: And on the issue of Redfern, your Honor, can we--can we argue that issue then today? That is our 1101(B) motion.

THE COURT: Yes, I think you need to.

MR. DARDEN: Fine.

THE COURT: Because all the eighty odd incidents that were presented to the Court back in I believe, January, the Court--I mean we had an extensive hearing and argument, and my recollection the Court issued an eight or nine-page ruling on that issue, and this is not an incident that I am familiar with. Mr. Gordon.

MR. GORDON: You are absolutely correct. And when we had done that motion we had indicated to the Court that we were still receiving information with regard to various incidents that were occurring, and upon receipt of any information we would provide the Defense with those reports in discovery and place those witnesses on the witness list, which we did with these witnesses in that addendum and indicated to the Court that if we came up with any further incidents that were not known to us at the time that we litigated that motion, that we would, A, attempt to see that they conform within the Court's ruling, and B, that--make the Court aware at that time we sought to introduce them and that is exactly what we have done with this addendum, indicated to the Court where they fit within the Court's ruling. And no. 2, out of courtesy to the Defense, they have already been given over in discovery and put on the witness list back in April, and we bring it to the Court's attention, but these witness were discovered post-litigation of that motion or they certainly would have been included within that motion.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: One other problem, your Honor. There was an indication yesterday the People had filed a motion in this domestic discord area. I have not received a copy of it, it was never received in here, and I have not seen it, was not received in my office, and I have not received it and I have not seen the motion.

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

THE COURT: All right. At this point--

MR. COCHRAN: I have now been handed a copy. I will try to read it, but we will be busy with other things.

THE COURT: Who do you have, Mr. Darden, after Mr. Rubin?

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

MR. DARDEN: I believe that Mr. Acosta will be here by the time we complete the additional testimony from Mr. Rubin.

THE COURT: All right. Who is Mr. Acosta?

MR. DARDEN: He is one of the incidents that you approved under 1101(B).

THE COURT: Which incident?

MR. DARDEN: The limousine driver.

THE COURT: I recollect. And what do you have after that?

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

MR. DARDEN: We are attempting to locate Mr. Aguilera, Victoria Beach incident.

THE COURT: Yes. All right. I am familiar with that one.

THE COURT: All right. Then we will proceed with recalling Mr. Rubin, then we will go to Mr. Acosta, and I think Mr. Cochran is entitled to a reasonable amount of time to read your motion, go over the reports before responding to whether or not that will be included, these additional incidents. All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.

MR. DARDEN: I should indicate that I'm going to be using the Defendant's golf bag briefly with the witness.

MR. COCHRAN: May we have an offer of proof regarding that, your Honor?

THE COURT: For what purpose?

MR. DARDEN: Golf gloves size.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, may we have a further offer of proof regarding that, because as the Court recalls yesterday, that Mr. Darden continued to talk. During the process you had allowed certain things and he added some things and I was objecting and the Court did sustain some of those objections, but this so-called demonstration by ambush can and does very frequently backfire. But in order to obviate that, may we hear what the latest Prosecution demonstration is going to be this morning?

THE COURT: Are we just going to bring out the golf bag and see what size golf gloves are in the golf bag?

MR. DARDEN: Absolutely.

THE COURT: We are not doing any other demonstrations with Mr. Simpson?

MR. DARDEN: Not today, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, your Honor, is that a representation? I'm just trying to find out where we are going.

THE COURT: All right. That doesn't seem inappropriate. All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have a jurors, 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. 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: My apologies for having kept you in the small room for so long this morning. Some matters came up that I needed to discuss with the attorneys and it took us a little longer than I thought it was going to. And we will get right back to the witnesses. All right. Mr.--ladies and gentlemen, the Prosecution has requested permission from the Court to recall Mr. Rubin for a few brief questions. So Mr. Rubin, would you--since we released you as a witness, we will have to have Mrs. Robertson reswear you. Mrs. Robertson.

Richard Rubin, recalled as a witness by the People, having been previously sworn, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:

THE CLERK: Please raise your right hand. You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this court, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God.

MR. RUBIN: I do.

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

MR. RUBIN: It is Richard Rubin, R-U-B-I-N.

THE COURT: Mr. Darden.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. DARDEN

MR. DARDEN: Good morning, Mr. Rubin.

MR. RUBIN: Good morning.

MR. DARDEN: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

MR. DARDEN: Mr. Rubin, yesterday you told us that you were involved for several years in the design and manufacture of leather gloves; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, it is.

MR. DARDEN: You consider yourself an expert in gloves?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I do.

MR. DARDEN: Now, yesterday after the demonstration you stated while on the witness stand that ordinarily the Defendant's hands--

MR. COCHRAN: Object to this as asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: Should have fit into the gloves; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: What did you mean by that?

MR. RUBIN: The gloves in the original condition would easily go onto the hands.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I object to this. Speculation. I object.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RUBIN: Would easily go onto the hands of someone of Mr. Simpson's size.

MR. DARDEN: The gloves you saw yesterday, did they appear to be in their original condition?

MR. RUBIN: No, they did not.

MR. DARDEN: And what was different about them?

MR. RUBIN: The primary difference was the fact that due to the tremendous amount of liquid that had been on the gloves for a certain period of time, the gloves appeared to be shrunken in size from their original condition.

MR. COCHRAN: I object to this response, your Honor. Could the Court allow us a brief time at side bar?

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: The liquid you are referring to, is that blood?

THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel.

MR. RUBIN: I'm not a technical--

THE COURT: Hold it. He is not qualified to answer that question.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, your Honor.

MR. DARDEN: So the gloves appeared to have shrank somewhat?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. How much?

MR. COCHRAN: I object to that, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: Calls for speculation, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RUBIN: It would appear, based upon my knowledge of what would occur when gloves are subjected to liquid such as water, that gloves could shrink approximately 15 percent from its original size.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And the gloves that you saw here in court yesterday, did they appear to have shrank approximately--

MR. COCHRAN: Leading and suggestive, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. DARDEN: What percentage of shrinkage, if any, did you notice?

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RUBIN: Since I didn't personally try the gloves on at any point in time, I would estimate the shrinkage of approximately 15 percent.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I move to strike that. No foundation for this response, if the Court pleases.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: You could be more precise if you were to try the gloves on?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I could.

MR. DARDEN: Now, you also told us yesterday that you felt that the Defendant's hand was what size? What size did you say?

MR. RUBIN: Between a large in some styles and an extra large in other styles.

MR. DARDEN: In your review of his hand size he is an extra extra large?

MR. RUBIN: No.

MR. DARDEN: Are you certain of that?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And the gloves we had here in court yesterday, the Rockingham and the Bundy glove, were they designed to fit snugly?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, they were.

MR. DARDEN: Were they designed to stretch?

MR. RUBIN: All leather gloves have some stretch.

MR. DARDEN: What size would you say the gloves are now today, that is, in their present condition?

MR. COCHRAN: Calls for speculation, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. He said he hasn't tried them on.

MR. DARDEN: Okay.

MR. DARDEN: Now, you told us that Mr. Simpson's hand size was large to extra large--strike that. Let me show you a golf bag. I believe this is Defendant's 1053, your Honor. Do you play golf at all?

MR. RUBIN: On rare occasion.

MR. DARDEN: You have been out to the golf course?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I have.

MR. DARDEN: Do golfers tend to wear gloves?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, they do.

MR. DARDEN: Are golfing gloves designed to fit snugly on the hand?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, they are.

MR. DARDEN: For the record, your Honor, I'm opening the outer bag.

MR. DARDEN: Mr. Rubin, if you will, could you step down from the witness stand.

MR. RUBIN: (Witness complies.)

MR. DARDEN: Can you look into the golf bag and tell us whether or not there is a compartment that contains golf balls?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Are there also golfing gloves in that bag?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: How many gloves?

MR. RUBIN: Three.

MR. DARDEN: I'm going to ask you to retake the witness stand, if you will, please, and take the gloves with you.

MR. RUBIN: (Witness complies.)

MR. DARDEN: What size of those gloves, sir?

MR. RUBIN: (No audible response.)

MR. DARDEN: By the way, before you do that, the first glove you have in your hand is what brand?

MR. RUBIN: Actually it appears like a palm tree. I think it might actually belong to one of the Polo Club Country Clubs where it was made especially for them.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I move to strike as not responsive to the question.

THE COURT: Sustained. The answer is stricken.

MR. DARDEN: Does that glove have a palm tree embroidered on it?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, it does.

MR. DARDEN: Is it white in color?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, it is.

MR. DARDEN: Does it appear to be worn?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, may that glove be marked People's 3--

THE COURT: Let's actually make this 1053--Defense 1053-A.

MR. DARDEN: Okay.

THE COURT: Since it is coming out of 1053.

(Deft's 1053-A for id = golf glove)

MR. DARDEN: Okay.

MR. DARDEN: You are trying the glove on, are you?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I am.

MR. DARDEN: Is there a size indication somewhere on that glove marked 1053-A?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, it says PXL.

MR. DARDEN: PXL. And if you will take another glove, please.

THE COURT: Is that a left or right hand glove?

MR. RUBIN: It is a left hand glove.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. DARDEN: Could you describe that second glove for the record, please.

MR. RUBIN: This is actually a Footjoy golf glove with at logo FJ on the patch.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. It is also leather?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, it is.

MR. DARDEN: Is it white in color?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, it is.

MR. DARDEN: Are you trying that glove on?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Is there a size indication anywhere on that glove?

MR. RUBIN: This glove is marked CXL.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And the third glove, could you tell us the name of the manufacturer of that glove?

MR. RUBIN: There is a running dog on this. I think this logo is that of Slazenger.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I will move to strike, your Honor, without a further foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, may the third glove be marked 1053-C and the second 1053-B.

THE COURT: Yes. The comments after by Mr. Rubin after "It has a running dog on it," that remainder of the answer is stricken as speculation.

MR. DARDEN: Okay.

(Deft's 1053-B for id = golf glove)

(Deft's 1053-C for id = golf glove)

MR. RUBIN: I found on the button the name Slazenger in another location.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And that glove, would you try that glove on.

MR. RUBIN: (Witness complies.) Yes.

MR. DARDEN: There is a size indication anywhere on that glove?

MR. RUBIN: RXL.

MR. DARDEN: Now, having placed each of those gloves on your hand--

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I have.

MR. DARDEN: --and irrespective of the sizing indication contained in each of the gloves, can you tell us what size those gloves are?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I object without a further foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RUBIN: These gloves are extra large.

MR. DARDEN: Not double extra large?

MR. RUBIN: No.

MR. DARDEN: And is this morning the first time that you have ever seen those gloves?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Right here on the witness stand?

MR. RUBIN: Right here.

MR. DARDEN: On the issue of double extra large gloves, what percentage of the population, if you know, would fit a double extra large glove?

MR. RUBIN: Less than one percent.

MR. DARDEN: And that one percent of the population, would you expect them to share some common physical characteristics in terms of size, physical size?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, this calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained. I don't think there is a foundation for this.

MR. DARDEN: Okay.

MR. DARDEN: Well, when you were with Aris Isotoner you produced double XX large gloves?

MR. RUBIN: Small quantity.

MR. DARDEN: And why did you only produce a small quantity?

MR. RUBIN: There was no consumer demand for the product.

MR. DARDEN: And when there is no consumer demand, does that mean that there is no one out there wearing double extra large gloves?

MR. RUBIN: Very few.

MR. DARDEN: Yesterday I asked you whether or not wearing latex gloves might impede someone's ability to place a pair of leather gloves on their hands. Do you recall that question?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I do.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And you said you had never tried to place latex gloves on or didn't place gloves on top of the latex gloves?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. But you did that last night; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: And you tried on a pair of gloves?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Yes?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: That was after you put the latex gloves on?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And the pair of gloves that you tried on, were they your own gloves?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I'm going to object to this. I wasn't present. I would like to approach, if the Court please.

THE COURT: Overruled. Mr. Darden.

MR. DARDEN: Thank you.

MR. DARDEN: The gloves that you placed on on top of the latex gloves last night, were they your own gloves?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, they were.

MR. DARDEN: And what effect, if any, did the latex gloves on your hand have in terms of your ability to place your own gloves on?

MR. COCHRAN: Before he answers that, your Honor, I would like to object.

THE COURT: Noted.

MR. COCHRAN: Discovery.

THE COURT: Noted. Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you.

MR. RUBIN: I had more difficulty in getting the personal gloves onto my hand with the latex glove on my hand than I normally would.

MR. DARDEN: Now, leather gloves do have some degree of elasticity to them; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, it is.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And when we say elasticity in the context of leather gloves, what are we talking about?

MR. RUBIN: In the process of producing leather for the glove industry, a fat liquor type material is put into the leather which creates elasticity. Over time, when people move their hands back and forth or when the gloves get wet, that fat liquor really creates elasticity and it is part of the tannage process to make gloves fit better.

MR. DARDEN: So when gloves get wet what effect or impact does that have on the elasticity?

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RUBIN: What happens when gloves get wet, the water or whatever it is that actually wets the glove absorbs small amounts of the fat liquor which creates shrinkage. Over time, as the gloves try naturally, the gloves actually can come back very close to its original shape, but they will never come back to the original size, because once a certain percentage of the fat liquor disappears, the glove loses a little of it's elasticity.

MR. DARDEN: So then, Mr. Rubin, is there a way to manipulate the gloves we have here in evidence, the Rockingham and the Bundy glove, so that they can return to their original size and shape?

MR. RUBIN: These gloves will never return to the original size and shape in the condition they are in currently.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. How close can we get them to their original size and shape.

MR. COCHRAN: I object. That calls for speculation, your Honor. I don't mean to make a speaking objection, but it is speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. DARDEN: Do you know or do you have an opinion as to how close we can get these gloves back to their original condition?

MR. COCHRAN: Speculation, your Honor. He doesn't know how large they were originally.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. DARDEN: You have seen gloves wet before; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: Many times.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. You live back east in New York, do you?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: It snows there?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: You wear gloves in the summer--I mean, in the winter?

MR. RUBIN: In the winter, yes.

MR. DARDEN: You don't wear them in June?

MR. RUBIN: No, I do not.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. They get wet in the winter, don't they?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, they do.

MR. DARDEN: And after the winter has come and gone you do put your gloves in storage, do you?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And you take them out of storage to put them on again the following winter; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. You have done that many times?

MR. RUBIN: Many times.

MR. DARDEN: And on those occasions are the gloves in the same condition as they were when you purchased them?

MR. RUBIN: When they were purchased?

MR. DARDEN: Yes.

MR. RUBIN: From the time they are purchased over time--

MR. COCHRAN: Just a moment. I object to this hypothetical, your Honor. It depends. There is too many factors that are missing just in that scenario.

MR. DARDEN: Is this a standing objection?

MR. COCHRAN: Okay.

THE COURT: Have a seat, Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RUBIN: From the time the gloves are initially purchased, at that point in time they are in their largest possible condition. Over time, if they get wet and dry naturally, they will gradually get slightly smaller. Now, what I mean by "Smaller" is not necessarily 10 or 15 percent if they are drenched in some type of liquid. Traditionally in the normal use of a dress glove, the glove might be exposed to some snow or rain or a car handle, something like that where it would get wet, and then it would gradually dry and it might lose two, three percent of its size. It wouldn't be a tremendous amount of size, but if you were to drench the gloves and have them dry naturally, that is where you would get the 10 to 15 percent shrinkage.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. After having handled gloves that had shrank some two to three percent because of moisture and the like, have you attempted to manipulate those gloves to get them as close to their original form as possible?

MR. RUBIN: I have.

MR. DARDEN: On how many occasions?

MR. RUBIN: It is really part of the process of just wearing the gloves again. The glove eventually loosens up and retains pretty much its original shape.

MR. DARDEN: You told us also that you have manufactured gloves, correct?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I have.

MR. DARDEN: You have designed gloves?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I have.

MR. DARDEN: And in designing gloves do you take into consideration this factor of that shrinkage due to moisture?

MR. RUBIN: Not really.

MR. DARDEN: Well, do you assess or evaluate what might happen to a pair of gloves if they become wet?

MR. RUBIN: If the gloves are constructed properly from the beginning, the fact that they might shrink two to three percent or even five percent wouldn't really have an effect on the consumer that was using them.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. How about 15 percent?

MR. RUBIN: That could have effect.

MR. DARDEN: Well, based on your own personal experience with gloves and the fact that you have designed gloves and manufactured them and considered what happens to gloves when they get wet--

MR. COCHRAN: Object, your Honor.

THE COURT: I haven't heard a question yet. Did you not hear the question?

MR. COCHRAN: I couldn't hear the question.

THE COURT: Would you restate the question, please.

MR. DARDEN: Mr. Rubin, given your expertise in manufacturing and designing gloves, your own personal experience with wet gloves, your own personal experience in trying to manipulate gloves back into their original position after they have been wet, do you have an opinion as to how close we can come to reshaping the Bundy and Rockingham glove back to their original condition?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I object. That question was asked before, your Honor. I object to the form of that question.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RUBIN: I don't think that those gloves in that condition could get back closer to ninety, ninety percent of its original size at this point in time.

MR. DARDEN: You said ninety percent?

MR. RUBIN: Approximately ninety percent.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. May I have one moment, your Honor?

THE COURT: Certainly.

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

MR. DARDEN: You talked about fat liquor a few minutes ago, Mr. Rubin. What exactly is fat liquor?

MR. RUBIN: Fat liquor is a chemical that is put into the tanning process to give the leather the stretch and elasticity in the finished product.

THE COURT: How do you spell the "Liquor" part?

MR. RUBIN: L-I-q-u-o-r.

THE COURT: The same as--

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Mr. Rubin, when you measure gloves, do you measure glove size from palm to finger?

MR. RUBIN: No, we do not.

MR. DARDEN: How do you measure glove size?

MR. RUBIN: Around the hand, right below the knuckle area, around the body of the hand.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. You have never measured Mr. Simpson's hand?

MR. RUBIN: No, I have not.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Now, you told us yesterday as well that these leather light gloves are no longer in production; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: Do you know whether or not Aris Isotoner has any in stock?

MR. RUBIN: I can't actually say that I know for sure that they have any of the original version in their possession.

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

MR. DARDEN: And the size extra large, how many inches around the hand would constitute a glove hand that is a size extra large?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I object to the question without further foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RUBIN: It would be in the range of nine and a half, nine and three quarters to ten and a quarter, depending upon the style, the lining.

MR. DARDEN: And a large glove, what size of hand would fit into a large glove?

MR. RUBIN: Nine, between nine to nine and a half.

MR. DARDEN: And so then a hand that can fit into an extra large glove may be able to fit into a large glove as well; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: Yes. As I actually said yesterday, you could actually get anything from a size medium through an extra large possibly onto the hand of someone who really should wear an extra large, but they would be most comfortable with an extra large.

MR. DARDEN: Now, you watched the demonstration yesterday; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: And you are an expert in gloves?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Was there anything about that demonstration that caused you to conclude that the Defendant--

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I object to the form of the question; argumentative.

THE COURT: Hold on.

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

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. DARDEN: You saw the Defendant's hands yesterday?

THE COURT: Let me see counsel with the reporter, please.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: Over at the side bar. Mr. Darden, I think you were about to ask this witness is there anything about the way that he put on the gloves that seemed unusual to you or something like that, which counsel, the jurors got to see what went on.

MR. DARDEN: Okay, okay.

MR. COCHRAN: Judge, that question--

THE COURT: And I'm sure that when we come to final argument I'm sure you will trot out the videotape.

MR. COCHRAN: I will be trotting it out, too.

THE COURT: I'm sure you will.

MR. COCHRAN: But Judge, Judge--

THE COURT: I'm sustaining the objection.

MR. COCHRAN: Very well.

MR. DARDEN: Can we have one moment?

MR. COCHRAN: Judge, I need a couple minutes.

(Discussion held off the record.)

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

MR. DARDEN: Anyway, I need him to put the gloves on and tell us what size they are now.

MR. COCHRAN: Who?

MR. DARDEN: Him.

THE COURT: Are you going to do that with or without latex gloves?

MR. COCHRAN: Wait a minute, Judge.

MR. DARDEN: With latex gloves for him.

MR. COCHRAN: Judge--

MS. CLARK: He can size them.

MR. COCHRAN: We object to that question. He can't tell us what size they are. I mean this is--

MR. DARDEN: What are you talking about?

MR. COCHRAN: He has been gone since 1990 from this place. We are allowing in all this stuff. He is going to tell us. The size says extra large. That is speculation. He can try them on.

MR. DARDEN: We have gotten gloves out of O.J.'s master bedroom and out of his drawer and they are all extra large, some are actually large, but we will get into this later.

MR. COCHRAN: I love when you guys get into stuff.

THE COURT: At this point the Court sustains the objection to the last question. Yes, you can have him try on the gloves.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take a break at 10:30. I need to change the reporters. You realize we have been here on the record since nine o'clock.

THE COURT: Mr. Darden.

MR. DARDEN: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. DARDEN: Mr. Rubin, because the gloves we have here in court today, and that is the Rockingham and Bundy glove, because those gloves are designed to fit snugly, is there a particular way that they ought to be put on?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to that, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. DARDEN: Is there an appropriate way that they should be put on?

MR. COCHRAN: I object to that, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. DARDEN: You have seen people place gloves on their hands many times; is that right?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I have.

MR. DARDEN: Have you noticed that there is a common manner which gloves are placed on the hand?

MR. COCHRAN: I object to that, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. I think it is a matter of common sense. Let's not waste the jury's time with this.

MR. DARDEN: In any event, Mr. Rubin, I ask that you take a look at the gloves recovered at Bundy and Rockingham and place them on your hand and give us an indication as to what size you believe the gloves now are?

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: Let me hand you item 9, the Rockingham glove. And this is People's 164-A, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. That is the right hand glove. Mr. Darden.

MR. DARDEN: What size would you say that glove is now?

MR. COCHRAN: I object to the question as to what size it is.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RUBIN: As is, in this condition right now, this is a little bit above a large, but well below an extra large at this point in time.

THE COURT: Miss Clark, do you want to assist Mr. Darden?

MR. DARDEN: Let me show you People's 77, LAPD item 37, the Bundy glove. Is there any point to having Mr. Rubin change latex gloves at this point?

THE COURT: I think at this point, no.

MR. RUBIN: Okay. For starters, the lining in this particular glove has been dislodged. I can't get my hand in it at all.

MR. DARDEN: Okay.

MR. RUBIN: I would have to get a pen or something. One of the fingers, where the lining is actually tacked to the end of the finger, is broken away.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, is there a question?

THE COURT: No.

MR. DARDEN: Last question, your Honor.

MR. DARDEN: That is, Mr. Rubin with regard to the golfing gloves that you looked at here this morning, are the size of those gloves consistent with the size of the Defendant's hand, in your opinion?

MR. RUBIN: These particular gloves?

MR. DARDEN: Yes.

MR. RUBIN: Yes, they should fit him.

MR. DARDEN: Thank you. Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. We are going to take--you are still subject to cross-examination. So we are going to take a recess at this time, ladies and gentlemen, for fifteen minutes. Please remember all my admonitions. Mr. Rubin, you can step down. Return in fifteen minutes.

MR. RUBIN: May I take these off?

THE COURT: Yes, you can take those off.

(Recess.)

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

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record. All parties are again present. Mr. Darden, is there something?

MR. DARDEN: Yes, your Honor, there is something.

THE COURT: What is that?

MR. DARDEN: You know, I don't talk much, your Honor. I haven't asked a lot of questions over the last several weeks, but I need to reopen again, just ask a few more follow-up questions with Mr. Rubin.

THE COURT: Again?

MR. DARDEN: Again.

THE COURT: What's your offer?

MR. DARDEN: During the break, Mr. Rubin turned one of the gloves inside out, and it appears that the lining in the fingers were knotted and that that might have impeded--

THE COURT: Knotted?

MR. DARDEN: Knotted.

THE COURT: May I see that, please?

MR. DARDEN: In any event, the lining did not extend all the way through the fingers as they normally would, which might have provided an excuse or impediment for the Defendant not to be able to place his hand all the way into the glove.

THE COURT: Well, you don't have to tell me what the significance is, but I would like to see what it looks like. Mr. Rubin, would you turn the glove inside out for me so I can see that?

MR. DARDEN: Mr. Rubin has been--Mr. Rubin during the break turned the glove inside out and noticed it at that time. And I think--Mr. Rubin, did you--

THE COURT: Which glove is this, Mr. Rubin?

MR. RUBIN: The left.

MR. DARDEN: 77? Mr. Rubin, did you replace any of the lining into the fingers during the break?

MR. RUBIN: No.

THE COURT: Why don't you just put it on the bag there, and I can see.

(The witness complies.)

MR. RUBIN: Basically, the fingers are not in the fingers to the point you can put this hand into the lining. So you couldn't get your hand in the glove all the way (Indicating).

THE COURT: All right. It appears--Mr. Darden, you said it was knotted. It appears to me that it's merely--that the fingers--the lining portion of the fingers is merely out of the fingers themselves, not knotted.

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: Not knot situation, your Honor. Yes, the lining is out of the fingers.

THE COURT: Well, knotting implies something significantly more sinister than merely the lining not being in the fingers.

MR. DARDEN: Not to me. But I understand the distinction, your Honor. In any event, the lining was out.

THE COURT: So you're going to ask the question of Mr. Rubin: "Over the recess, did you have the opportunity to turn the glove inside out to see what if there's a problem with the lining? "Answer: Yes, I did. "Question: What was that? "The lining is pulled out of the fingers. "What problem does that create? "It makes it hard to get your hand in." Three questions, right?

MR. DARDEN: Four. Let's make it five just to be safe.

THE COURT: Five questions. Mr. Cochran.

MR. DARDEN: Just five.

MR. COCHRAN: May Mr. Shapiro address this, because he has some relevant questions, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, yesterday when Mr. Darden informed us before the break that he was going to ask Mr. Simpson to try on the gloves, he showed the gloves to myself and Mr. Cochran. He asked--he allowed us to look at them. He asked us to do that with rubber gloves on. I put the gloves on each hand. Mr. Cochran put it on. There was no obstruction. I put the glove on. After the Court broke last night, the Court allowed us an opportunity to further examine the gloves. We did that with Dr. Baden, myself and Mr. Simpson; and at that time, Dr. Baden took the glove, turned it inside out, took out the lining to make a visual comparison of the lining. So I can tell this Court as an Officer of the Court that when I put the glove on right before Mr. Simpson did, there was no obstruction. And if there is any obstruction now, it resulted from the glove being turned inside out and examined after the Court session yesterday which I told Mr. Rubin and Mr. Cochran. Is that correct, sir?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you, your Honor. Just one moment, please.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, we're not the ones that created an obstruction inside the glove if there was one created last night. At any event, the witness was before the jury and he was unable to place his hand through the glove to give us an assessment as to the size of the glove at this present time. So he ought to be allowed to do that.

MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, I think clearly at this point in time, that the demonstration has been done and that clearly this glove has been subject to examination after the fact that has changed the condition of the glove and also stretched it out.

MR. DARDEN: I'm not asking to have Mr. Simpson put the glove on today. We intend to secure an original pair and have him put those on at a later date. I just want the witness here to be able or allowed to tell the jury the size of the glove in its present state today.

THE COURT: All right. Then all you want to do then is have Mr. Rubin replace the lining--

MR. RUBIN: I can't get the lining back in without some instruments. It could take me some time. Maybe I'd get lucky. I'll try.

MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, I think the record should indicate that Mr. Rubin did have these gloves on this morning.

THE COURT: No.

MR. DARDEN: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: I agree this dislodging of the lining is not attributable to your client since it appears this glove has been handled several times since.

MR. COCHRAN: Can the jury be instructed regarding that, your Honor?

THE COURT: No, because this obstruction has not been shown to the jury yet. But what we can do is have Mr. Rubin see if he can replace the lining appropriately and tell us what size this glove is. That he can do.

MR. COCHRAN: I object again.

THE COURT: Noted.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: This is becoming part of my 1026 proceeding.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, there's another issue. May Mr. Thompson address the Court?

THE COURT: Certainly.

MR. THOMPSON: Your Honor, it appears we're at an impasse on the timing of the 402 hearing on the mixture statistics. The Prosecution has proposed that we do it next Wednesday. My proposal is that we do it a week from Monday. The reason that Wednesday is bad is, I have an appearance in another matter in another court on that morning, and also I don't feel that gives us enough time to prepare. The Prosecution has just provided us with a reference to the scientific authority on which Dr. Weir is preparing these reports. It's a rather lengthy book of over 200 pages full of dense statistical formulas. We apparently will be able to get that book only this weekend, perhaps tomorrow, but it's going to take some time for our experts to look through this book, to compare it with Dr. Weir's report, which we're not going to get until Monday evening apparently; and having a single day, Tuesday, to prepare for a 402 hearing is just not enough. So I'm asking for more time than that and preferably through the weekend until the next Monday.

THE COURT: Well, excuse me. Let me finish this discussion. Mr. Harmon.

MR. HARMON: Well, if you recall, your Honor, this was their request to force us to do these mixture calculations, and now they claim they want to contest the way that we've done them, which was the issue all along. We'd be happy to drop the whole mixture statistical calculation just so they don't have to prepare. But we are getting to the end of the case. That is merely one reference among many of the references that's in Dr. Weir's report or the initial draft report. So if we lose the hearing, then we don't calculate the frequency mixture or the mixture estimates. I just point that out as an observer in this event. So--we are running out of court days that the Prosecution case will take and we have tried to structure the last witnesses in a way that makes sense to conclude this case, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Thompson, would you provide me with a copy of the--of Dr. Weir's draft report so I can have some feeling for what it is that we're talking about, and then I'm going to ask both sides to give me a list of the availability of the experts that they anticipate for the 402. I'll make my own assessment as to how difficult this is to understand and prepare for and take into consideration the availability of both sides' witnesses and I'll set the day.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Dr. Weir will be available Tuesday and Wednesday and--

THE COURT: Well, find out his extended availability.

MR. HARMON: Okay.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, the other related point is, Gary Sims will be back here in anticipation of testifying on wed--on Tuesday rather. The report that covers the results that he'll be presenting, I'll be delivering that to the Court Monday morning. Dr. Blake has already reviewed many of those results. I understand he has an appointment today or tomorrow to re-review them. So I just want to alert the Court. And we've talked to Mr. Neufeld about this, that the most substantive result is one that the Defense tried to elicit themselves on cross-examination about 117, and you sustained my objection at that point. So it would appear that these results are not something that they intend to challenge, and we'd like to proceed with Mr. Sims' testimony on Tuesday. I had been advised a couple days ago that Mr. Neufeld or Mr. Scheck might not be here Tuesday, and I just advise you that. We intend to proceed whether they're here or not because they're part of the team. So that's just a little heads up, your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: May I be heard in that regard, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: That's one of the problems I've been saying consistently. Mr. Harmon has been on vacation for a couple weeks now and perhaps he hasn't been down here. But I've been saying consistently, we have lawyers spread out around the country. Mr. Scheck and Neufeld, as far as I know, are both in New York. We need time for that. For him to tell us on Friday at 11:00 o'clock he's going to bring in a witness in on Tuesday that either one or both of them will be working together on, we need a little more time, your Honor. And we've said--I've been saying consistently to the Court I need to know this in advance. It violates our three-day rule among other things and so we can move right ahead, there would be no delays because you said you don't want a delay. So we need a little more time than that.

THE COURT: Well, what is the availability of Mr. Scheck and Mr. Neufeld? And this is a case in progress. So this should take legal precedence over anything else, any other engagements that they have.

MR. COCHRAN: It should, your Honor. But the Court is aware they live in New York and they've been out here for about six months off and on. And so I have to speak with them, your Honor. But we have a three-day rule and I'm hearing this now. It violates that rule. So we need a little more time. Obviously, we're going to try to accommodate the Court's schedule, but we need a little more time in that regard. They both are--

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, that--perhaps Mr. Cochran was on vacation when Miss Clark announced on Tuesday morning what the next sequence of witnesses will be.

MR. COCHRAN: I was not on vacation. It changes every day. The order changes every day.

MR. HARMON: That hasn't changed.

THE COURT: Wait. Counsel, only one of you gets to talk at a time.

MR. HARMON: That hasn't changed. What I have just described is consistent with Miss Clark's--if the transcript will bear us out. And we haven't just announced this today. Mr. Neufeld was advised two days ago. So two plus two is four. And I think we're well in compliance with the three-day rule.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, let me say this, your Honor. The Prosecution has changed their list of witnesses on a daily basis. In fact, they told us last week we'd see something else. We were going to have hair and trace next or Bodziak next. We're not clear what we're having. I have a list from Mr. Darden now. It doesn't have anything at all about Gary Sims on it. But at any rate, if we're given a chance to speak with Mr. Scheck and Neufeld, I'll report back to the Court. But I'm just saying that could be a problem, and that's why I wanted to bring it to the Court's attention.

THE COURT: All right. I'm aware it may be a problem. All right.

MR. THOMPSON: And, your Honor, I will need some time to contact experts and find the scheduling information, and perhaps I could notify the Court later this afternoon.

THE COURT: That will be fine. And you have the Court's fax number?

MR. THOMPSON: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. All right. Mr. Rubin.

MR. RUBIN: I'm having some difficulty. Can you give me just one or two more minutes here?

THE COURT: Sure. Does your current company make gloves as well?

MR. RUBIN: Wallets.

THE COURT: Wallets. Good.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: That's doing it the hard way.

MR. RUBIN: The lining is slightly torn away at the back. It was torn anyway. But the lining is now inserted into the glove.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, may we have some indication--because he did in fact say something about, "I can't get this on," that I don't want it to be at our detriment. So I would ask the Court to have some clarifying questions or whatever in that regard. The Court can ask a clarifying question.

THE COURT: All right. Do we want to stipulate that between the time that Mr. Simpson tried the glove on in front of the jury, that it was examined by Mr.--by counsel for the Defendant and by Dr. Baden?

MR. COCHRAN: And it was further examined according to the clerk by Mr. Rubin this morning before court started.

MR. DARDEN: Not true.

MR. COCHRAN: Somebody looked at it from the Prosecution side. We can ask the clerk to come out.

MR. DARDEN: Not true.

MR. COCHRAN: May we ask Deirdre, your Honor? I would like the stipulation to include everybody who looked at the glove and examined it.

THE COURT: And, Mr. Rubin, what size is that glove now?

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

THE COURT: We don't have a jury in front of us, do we?

MR. RUBIN: Right now?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. RUBIN: This is actually closer to a large than an extra large at this point.

THE COURT: Mrs. Robertson, this morning, with regards to the two evidentiary gloves, were they inspected by anybody?

THE CLERK: The gloves?

THE COURT: Yes.

THE CLERK: They were just turned over when I got them out of the closet.

THE COURT: All right. She indicates no. All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please. And, Mr. Rubin, why don't you just remain seated.

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

THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Let the record reflect we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Mr. Richard Rubin is again on the witness stand undergoing direct examination. Mr. Rubin, you are reminded, sir, you are still under oath. Mr. Darden, you may conclude your redirect examination.

MR. DARDEN: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. DARDEN: Mr. Rubin, just before the break, you testified that you could not extend your hand through the glove marked exhibit 77; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

THE COURT: And, ladies and gentlemen, I should tell you, Mr. Rubin did testify that he could not get his hand into the left-hand glove. Over the evening hours out of your presence, the glove was examined by a number of people with the Court's permission, and the glove was turned inside out and was examined. So that explains how the lining is dislodged from the fingers. All right. Mr. Darden.

MR. DARDEN: And have you attempted as best you could to replace the lining in its proper position?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I have.

MR. DARDEN: And you can extend your hand into the glove now?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I can.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And you have the glove on?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I do.

MR. DARDEN: And what size is the glove now today?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, my continuing objection to this speculation.

THE COURT: Noted. Overruled. You can answer the question.

MR. RUBIN: It's closer to a size large than an extra large.

MR. DARDEN: But when manufactured and purchased, it was an extra large?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, it was.

MR. COCHRAN: Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: Thank you.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran.

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

THE COURT: You're welcome, sir.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN

MR. COCHRAN: Good morning, Mr. Rubin.

MR. RUBIN: Good morning, Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: I thought you were leaving yesterday.

MR. RUBIN: So did I.

MR. COCHRAN: In fact, I guess the events--

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: I haven't ask any questions, your Honor.

THE COURT: Ask a question, Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: May I ask a question?

MR. COCHRAN: As you were leaving yesterday, did you say something to Mr. Simpson?

MR. DARDEN: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RUBIN: I wished him the best of luck.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes. And at that time, you thought you were going back to New York; is that right?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: You live in New York, New Jersey area, do you, sir?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You're still with us, and just briefly, I'd like to ask you some questions. Now, as I understand your testimony, you last worked for the Aris glove manufacturers back in about July 1990; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And in your present work, you're not working with gloves per se now, are you?

MR. RUBIN: No, I'm not.

MR. COCHRAN: So I'd be correct then that you for the last five years or so have been doing some other kind of work; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And with regard to golf gloves, have you ever worked in golf gloves, the manufacture of golf gloves?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I have.

MR. COCHRAN: And when was that?

MR. RUBIN: 1990 and prior.

MR. COCHRAN: And that was--Aris makes golf gloves also?

MR. RUBIN: On occasion, yes, they have.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. But with regard to the three sets of golf gloves--

MR. COCHRAN: If I can get them, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: I saw them over here.

THE COURT: Just lost Mrs. Robertson. Deputy Magnera--Mrs. Robertson, we need the golf gloves.

MR. COCHRAN: With regard to these three golf gloves which you were asked about on re-re-redirect examination, you never worked for any of these companies, did you, the companies that made these particular gloves?

MR. RUBIN: I actually was involved with one of the companies that made one of the gloves, but I did not work for that company.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So the answer to my question is, you did not work for any of these companies, right?

MR. RUBIN: No, I did not.

MR. COCHRAN: And do you play golf?

MR. RUBIN: On a rare occasion.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And have you ever purchased a golf glove?

MR. RUBIN: No. I just took them out of inventory.

MR. COCHRAN: No. No, I want--did you report that?

MR. RUBIN: It's part of the perks.

MR. COCHRAN: I understand. So with regard to taking them out of inventory, you are aware as a golfer, a sometime golfer that golf gloves are worn very, very tightly; isn't that correct?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And you're aware also, aren't you, if you were a golfer that after you've played with a set of golf gloves for more than one or two rounds, you discard them because they become loose; isn't that correct?

MR. RUBIN: Not necessarily.

MR. COCHRAN: How many times--how many rounds of golf have you played in the last year?

MR. RUBIN: One or two.

MR. COCHRAN: So you're not--you don't play much golf, do you?

MR. RUBIN: No, I don't.

MR. COCHRAN: In the last five years, how many rounds of golf have you played?

MR. RUBIN: 10.

MR. COCHRAN: So in this new job, you don't play much golf, do you?

MR. RUBIN: Not at all.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So you're not an expert in that area, are you?

MR. RUBIN: As far as golf gloves or playing golf?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes. I'm talking about the usage of golf gloves while playing golf.

MR. RUBIN: I am extremely knowledgeable concerning the usage of golf gloves, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: You are. And is it your testimony that golfers use golf gloves indefinitely and play as many rounds as they want with a set of golf gloves and never throw them away?

MR. RUBIN: No. That's not true.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And, in fact, golf gloves are--they fit very tightly, don't they, sir?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And that's one of the requirements as you swing the golf club; isn't that correct?

MR. RUBIN: Correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And once they lose or they stretch and they lose that tightness, you generally discard them; isn't that correct?

MR. RUBIN: Correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Golf gloves aren't very expensive, are they, sir?

MR. RUBIN: You want to know the prices of those golf gloves?

MR. COCHRAN: Yeah. Do you know them?

MR. RUBIN: Those gloves range from--

MR. COCHRAN: This glove here, how much is this glove?

MR. RUBIN: That was most likely a gift, but--

MR. COCHRAN: Well, isn't that speculation?

MR. RUBIN: --in general--

MR. COCHRAN: Wait a minute. How do you know that?

MR. RUBIN: Because of the logo on the tab. That glove was not necessarily sold. That most likely, it was given away as a gift.

MR. COCHRAN: You can tell this jury by looking at this tag this golf glove was most likely a gift? You can tell us that?

MR. RUBIN: It could very well be. Most of the times they're custom made, they're usually part of promotions or benefits during golf outings, et cetera. It could have been a gift. The other two are traditionally purchased.

MR. DARDEN: Excuse me, your Honor. Which glove is counsel referring to?

MR. COCHRAN: And for the record, counsel is correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Which one are we talking about, sir? I'll let you tell us.

MR. RUBIN: The one with the palm tree on it.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes. Do you know what company makes this?

MR. RUBIN: No, I do not.

MR. COCHRAN: So you have--you have not seen any sales records. You don't know if Mr. Simpson or anyone else bought this, do you?

MR. RUBIN: I do not.

MR. COCHRAN: That's just rank speculation, isn't it, on your part?

MR. RUBIN: Correct.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, with regard to this particular insignia, you had said that--and I'm trying to--the one with the palm tree that you called it had a "PXL" thereon; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And do you know what the "PXL" stands for?

MR. RUBIN: I do not know what the "P" stands for. I believe the "XL" stands for the size.

MR. COCHRAN: Are you aware that the "P" stands for palm extra large? Are you aware of that?

MR. RUBIN: I've never heard that terminology.

MR. COCHRAN: Would you be surprised at that?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: You'd be surprised?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: As an expert in the field, you'd be surprised if somebody walks in this courtroom and says that this golf glove here with the palm tree thereon, that they make a palm extra large. You would be surprised at that, would you?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I would.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, let's look at the other one, that you said there was a--there was a "CXL" on the Footjoy I think; is that right?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And do you know what the "C" stands for?

MR. RUBIN: I believe it actually stands for cadet extra large.

MR. COCHRAN: You think that's what it stands for?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And what is your basis for that information?

MR. RUBIN: Traditionally, in the manufacturing of all gloves, the finger length is pretty specifically normal based upon the size of the hand. But on occasion, they make some production with a slightly smaller finger length which is indicated by a "C" or used under the terminology, called cadet.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Have you ever worked at Footjoy?

MR. RUBIN: No.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And you've never checked any records with regard to whether or not this particular glove that I have in my hand with the "FJ" on--as a logo thereon was purchased by Mr. Simpson or anyone else, do you?

MR. RUBIN: No.

MR. COCHRAN: And you're not sure what the "C" stands for, but you believe it stands for cadet, extra large?

MR. RUBIN: I believe so.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, with regard to the third glove we've been talking about that has--it looks like some kind of a running animal.

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Is that your indication? But it has something saying Slazenger.

MR. RUBIN: Slazenger.

MR. COCHRAN: S-l-a-z-e-n-g-e-r. With regard to that--

MR. DARDEN: I'm sorry. Can we get the exhibit number, your Honor?

MR. COCHRAN: Certainly, counsel. 1053-C, counsel.

MR. COCHRAN: With regard to 1053-C, again, you have no information, you haven't talked to this company, have you?

MR. RUBIN: No, I haven't.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And with regard to the "RXL," do you know what the "R" stands for?

MR. RUBIN: If I had to speculate, it would be regular XL.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. But that's speculation, isn't it?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, it is.

MR. COCHRAN: Because you haven't checked that out, have you?

MR. RUBIN: No.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, with regard to golf gloves, they're not lined either, are they?

MR. RUBIN: No, they're not.

MR. COCHRAN: So they're not--they're designed to fit snugly for use in golfing; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And prior to yesterday's demonstration by Mr. Simpson, were you ever shown these golf gloves by the Prosecutors?

MR. RUBIN: No, I was not.

MR. COCHRAN: When were you first shown these golf gloves?

MR. RUBIN: When they came out of the bag.

MR. COCHRAN: This morning?

MR. RUBIN: When I took them out of the bag right here.

MR. COCHRAN: In court? But you at some point were told you were going to be asked to stay over, weren't you, from New York?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: When were you told that?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Irrelevant, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RUBIN: I guess it was approximately an hour or so after court closed yesterday.

MR. COCHRAN: Were you still upstairs talking about what had happened down here?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And you were asked to stay over until today; is that correct, sir?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And you want to go home, don't you?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Of course he wants to go home.

MR. COCHRAN: You want to go home, don't you?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I do.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. We'll try to get you out of here. All right. Now, with regard to your staying over, you spent some time talking with the District Attorneys about your testimony today; isn't that correct?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And who did you talk to?

MR. RUBIN: I spoke primarily with Mr. Darden.

MR. COCHRAN: And who else was there? Tell us all the people who were there.

MR. RUBIN: Mr. Darden, Bill Hodgman, David Wooden. There were also some officers.

MR. COCHRAN: Some investigators of the D.A.'s office?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Did you ever see the D.A., Mr. Gil Garcetti? Poked his head in also, did he?

MR. RUBIN: He put his head in the door once.

MR. COCHRAN: He came in too, didn't he?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And this meeting started what time?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. COCHRAN: This conference, were you all together?

MR. DARDEN: Same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: When you all got together, what time was it?

MR. RUBIN: I think it was approximately quarter to 6:00.

MR. COCHRAN: And that get together lasted how long?

MR. RUBIN: Approximately an hour and 15 minutes.

MR. COCHRAN: And you were finished at what time?

MR. RUBIN: Approximately 7:00 o'clock.

MR. COCHRAN: And did you come back again this morning and have some further conversation?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: And what time did you get back here this morning?

MR. RUBIN: 7:30.

MR. COCHRAN: 7:30 A.M.?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And--now, first, let's back up for a moment. In the hour and 15-minute meeting that you had last night, whose office was that in?

MR. RUBIN: Mr. Darden's.

MR. COCHRAN: And so were there any other D.A.'s, Deputy D.A.'s you can tell us about who were present other than the ones you told us; Mr. Wooden, Bill Hodgman, the District Attorney himself stuck his head in? Anybody else that you can recall?

MR. RUBIN: I don't--I don't remember all their names. There were people in the hallway--

MR. COCHRAN: People all around?

MR. RUBIN: People all around.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Did you see this gentleman here somewhere around?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And this gentleman by the--for the record, his name is Scott Gordon. You saw him around?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you see the lady in the middle, Miss Marcia Clark, anywhere around?

MR. RUBIN: I saw her walk by the hallway. She didn't come in the office.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And there were other people, you just don't know their names; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: I just don't remember their names.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. I understand, Mr. Rubin. And then you returned this morning by prearrangement I presume at 7:30 A.M.; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And where did you go and--where did you talk and meet this morning?

MR. RUBIN: In Mr. Darden's office.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And the meeting started at 7:30?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, it did.

MR. COCHRAN: And tell us who was present at 7:30 this morning when you started that meeting.

MR. RUBIN: Mr. Darden, Mr. Hodgman, this gentleman here (Indicating).

MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Scott Gordon?

MR. RUBIN: Yes. Primarily it.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Anybody else come in during that meeting?

MR. RUBIN: Mike Stevens.

MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Mike Stevens is one of the District Attorney senior investigators?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

MR. RUBIN: I think Tom Lange came in.

MR. COCHRAN: LAPD Detective Tom Lange?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Anybody else that you recall?

MR. RUBIN: There were some other people passing back and forth, but I don't remember their names.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And that meeting started at 7:30, and how long did it last?

MR. RUBIN: Until about quarter to 9:00.

MR. COCHRAN: So right before court?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: So again, you met then about another hour and 15 minutes more?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And during that time, you talked about your testimony that you would be giving here today; is that correct, sir?

MR. RUBIN: No.

MR. COCHRAN: You didn't talk about your testimony at all?

MR. RUBIN: Not at all.

MR. COCHRAN: You didn't discuss which questions Mr. Darden had typed up to ask you?

MR. RUBIN: Oh, you mean today's testimony?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes, sir.

MR. RUBIN: Yes, we discussed today's testimony.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You talked about today's testimony?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: That's one of the reasons you were having that meeting, wasn't it?

MR. RUBIN: Correct.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And he told you what he was going to be asking you; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right, sir. Now, then you came down here to court shortly before 9:00 o'clock, is that correct, to take the stand?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And you were told, were you not, that you were going to be asked--

THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Is there something going on we need to know about back there?

(Brief interruption due to the noise in the audience.)

THE COURT: All right. Proceed, Mr. Cochran. Sorry for the interruption.

MR. COCHRAN: No problem, your Honor. No problem.

MR. COCHRAN: You were told during the course of these two meetings of an hour and 15 minutes length each that you would be asked some questions about the golf clubs, is that correct, items 1053 I guess A, B and C?

MR. RUBIN: It was mentioned that that might occur.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So you were aware of that; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay, sir. Now, let's go back for a moment, and with regard to the two gloves that you have tried on for us--and you shared with us you worked for a period of time prior to 1990 for Aris, and when you left, you were vice president of some kind; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: I was vice president, general manager of Aris Isotoner when I left.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And those gloves, when they were made between the period we talked about, 1982 to 1992, were they in some way shrink-proof?

MR. RUBIN: No.

MR. COCHRAN: Did they have some kind of treatment to keep them from shrinking?

MR. RUBIN: No.

MR. COCHRAN: The manufacturer? Not at all?

MR. RUBIN: Not at all.

MR. COCHRAN: And so the--if a person then bought gloves presumably to wear in the winter in the eastern part of the United States, it would be anticipated those gloves would get wet; isn't that correct?

MR. RUBIN: It would happen on occasion.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. On occasion, they would become wet; is that right? And with regard to that leather, is that one reason why the fat liquor is--became a part of the process in preparing these gloves?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And the reason why the fat liquor was used was to diminish the amount of shrinkage; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: It was more so to have the leather retain its memory and create an elastic capability versus the shrinkage.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So elastic capability, which means that it can stretch; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So that if gloves, sir--and these gloves cost a lot of money, didn't they? They were--they were beyond the $20 average you told us about, leather gloves; is that right?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: So if you bought a pair of gloves in the winter of `90 and they got wet and you put them away, you'd expect to be able to use those gloves again in the winter of `91; isn't that correct?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And your product--you don't make a product that just because they get wet or have some precipitation, that you throw them away at the end of each use. They're not usable gloves. They're not one time usable gloves, are they?

MR. RUBIN: They are not disposable.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. These gloves are to last a long time. That's one of the things you pride yourself on; isn't that correct?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And they're made in such a fashion so they are supposed to be elastic and they come back for use; isn't that correct, sir?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, are you--as an expert, do you know--assume hypothetically these gloves were purchased in 1989 or in 1990, and let's assume they were worn during the winter, during that time, rain and snow. You can't tell this jury how much those gloves shrunk during that period of time, can you?

MR. RUBIN: I cannot.

MR. COCHRAN: You have no way of knowing that, do you?

MR. RUBIN: I have no way of knowing how much liquid or rain or snow or whatever, you know, elements went onto the product and actually how they were dried.

MR. COCHRAN: So you have no way of knowing that?

MR. RUBIN: I do not.

MR. COCHRAN: It would be rank speculation again if you told us that, wouldn't it?

MR. RUBIN: I wouldn't speculate on something like this.

MR. COCHRAN: You wouldn't do that, would you?

MR. RUBIN: No, I would not.

MR. COCHRAN: And those gloves we have been talking about, the two gloves, item no. 9, LAPD number, and I think item no. 77, those gloves are--especially one of them is used. It has some--it's worn in the palm area, isn't it?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: There's like a hole or something in that palm area; isn't that correct?

MR. RUBIN: It appears that way.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And so that indicates to you those gloves have been used over a period of time; isn't that correct?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, it does.

MR. COCHRAN: And so you can't tell us anything about the history of those gloves from `89, `90, `91, `92, `93, `94, whatever, can you?

MR. RUBIN: No, I cannot.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, with regard to any liquid that you said you saw on these gloves now, you have not and you do not and cannot measure any liquid that may or may not be on those gloves, can you?

MR. RUBIN: I don't have that capability.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. I understand that. And so when you've given us these estimates of the size of these gloves or whatever, that's just your best estimate, is that correct, regarding these gloves?

MR. RUBIN: After trying them on?

MR. COCHRAN: Yeah. Trying them on.

MR. RUBIN: Excuse me?

MR. COCHRAN: Your best estimate?

MR. RUBIN: It's my estimate based upon my experience of--in the manufacturing process, I would continually try on all production of all sizes to check quality control.

MR. COCHRAN: I understand that. You also told us this morning and also yesterday that your gloves were manufactured in such a way that whether a person was a medium or large or extra large, they should be able to fit the same glove. Did you say that?

MR. RUBIN: What I said specifically was that a person with a size large to extra large hand could get a size medium glove on his hand. That would not be--it would not be comfortable, but it would actually stretch enough to possibly go over his hand. That's what I said.

MR. COCHRAN: That's because the gloves have elasticity; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: Especially at the initial point of purchase.

MR. COCHRAN: Uh-huh. So that if those gloves now are large under your scenario, someone should be able to fit those on, isn't that correct, someone who wears an extra large?

MR. RUBIN: No. These gloves have actually decreased in size due to the amount of fat liquor that had been absorbed by certain liquids. So these gloves can never get back to the original size at this point in this specific condition.

MR. COCHRAN: And you have made that judgment by looking at them, is that correct, regarding the fat liquor?

MR. RUBIN: I have made the judgment by putting the glove on, comparing it to what I would normally compare a size large or extra large. And the glove is now closer to a large than it was an extra large initially. And I'm going on the assumption that it was clearly, truly an extra large when it was produced.

MR. COCHRAN: And that's the assumption because you saw an extra large tab in there; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. And that could have been wrong in the first place, couldn't it?

MR. RUBIN: Well, in this particular glove, it's not wrong because inside the glove, when the lining was torn away, I did see the "XL" stamping that I had mentioned yesterday along with the other markings.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, that's assuming that was right at the time it was made in the factory, isn't it?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And you have no way of knowing. You weren't there when it was made, were you?

MR. RUBIN: I spent an awful lot of time there, but I would definitely not want to commit that I was there when these gloves were made.

MR. COCHRAN: I don't think you would. All right. So you're just relying upon whatever insignia is therein; isn't that correct, sir?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to these gloves, under your scenario then, these gloves have elasticity; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, they do.

MR. COCHRAN: And you've tried them on yourselves; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And you tried them on yesterday at a break where Mr. Shapiro and I and you and Mr. Darden stood at this table and tried on those gloves; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: That's incorrect. I never tried on these gloves. I never put on the latex gloves. All I did was look at the gloves.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You looked at them. But I'm saying, you saw us try them on?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: You then watched, right?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: You stood there in this courtroom, saw Mr. Shapiro and I both try on those gloves with latex gloves on our hands. Didn't you see that?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And you and the lady who testified before you, Miss Vemich, stood here and watched that; isn't that correct?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And the first time you've actually tried the gloves on is today; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And all the time that you saw and observed these gloves--didn't you, yesterday? You saw those gloves yesterday? You've got to answer out loud, sir.

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And had you seen them before that time?

MR. RUBIN: In person, no.

MR. COCHRAN: Yeah. Had you seen pictures of them before?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I had.

MR. COCHRAN: In fact, you had given a report to the District Attorney; isn't that correct? You had been interviewed regarding--

MR. RUBIN: Over the telephone, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Right. You had been interviewed regarding your observations?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And at no time ever prior to the demonstration of Mr. Simpson yesterday before this jury, you never talked to them about any shrinkage, had you?

MR. RUBIN: Shrinkage was discussed, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: You talked shrinkage--you talked to Mr. Darden about shrinkage?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: You talked to Mr. Darden about shrinkage?

MR. RUBIN: We discussed the possibility of shrinkage to a slight degree and that the gloves could be refurbished close to original size depending on the amount of--I didn't get into the technical details with him, but we were aware that the gloves had been saturated with something and not reworked or reconditioned for almost a year.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, when was that conversation?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor. Irrelevant.

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: When was that conversation?

MR. RUBIN: Prior to--I believe it had actually occurred here in the courtroom when we were looking at the gloves, and for the first time, we saw how crumpled they were and how short the fingers appeared.

MR. COCHRAN: That was yesterday. Is that what you're saying?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. But when you testified yesterday before Mr. Simpson was asked to put on those gloves, you never testified about any shrinkage, did you?

MR. RUBIN: I was never asked about any shrinkage.

MR. COCHRAN: Can you answer my question? You never testified about any shrinkage, did you?

MR. RUBIN: No, I didn't.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And today's the first time you ever talked about shrinkage in connection with this case in court; is that right?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And did you talk about that last night in the meeting that you had upstairs where District Attorney Mr. Garcetti stuck his head in the door? Did you talk about that at that time?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you talk about that this morning--

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: --when you had the hour and 15 minute meeting this morning with the parties?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, you testified briefly about this aspect of taking gloves off and how you take gloves off. Recall being asked a question about that?

MR. RUBIN: I do not.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, let me ask you this. When gloves are on tight, they're generally removed by pulling the fingers off; isn't that correct?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And that's kind of an accepted manner; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Because if you pull like from the vent, they'll basically turn inside out; isn't that correct?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: From the V. From the V, they'll turn inside out, right? All right. These gloves that we've been talking about were specifically ordered for the winter; isn't that correct?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, they were.

MR. COCHRAN: We talked yesterday I think about the fact that these gloves were ordered in August and then there was maybe another shipment that came maybe in October?

MR. RUBIN: September, October, November.

MR. COCHRAN: And that was in anticipation of cold weather; isn't that correct?

MR. RUBIN: Correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And that's one of the reasons they're lined; isn't that correct?

MR. RUBIN: Correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And it's anticipated then these gloves would go through weather and precipitation and rain and all kind of things they have back east that we don't have out here?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: You described that with regard to the sizing of these gloves, that your company, at least by the time before you left, did make an extra, extra large?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And you described something about the fact that that was perhaps one percent of the population; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: Less than one percent.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And, you know, one percent of the population right now would be about two million people; isn't that correct?

MR. RUBIN: 2.6.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, maybe more then. 2.6 million? It's a lot of people, isn't it? Can you answer that yes or no? Is that a lot of people?

MR. RUBIN: 2.6 million people is a lot of people, but we were only selling men's gloves. So--

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You think there are many--well, let me see how I can phrase this. You haven't seen many women who've bought extra large gloves, have you, extra, extra large, have you?

MR. RUBIN: Very rare.

MR. COCHRAN: It is rare. Most of the people or the individuals who purchase extra, extra large gloves are what?

MR. RUBIN: Two different scenarios. One--

MR. COCHRAN: I'm asking if they're male or female is the question.

MR. RUBIN: Male.

MR. COCHRAN: They're male? All right. Have you seen athletes--have you dealt much with athletes?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I have.

MR. COCHRAN: And you've seen some pretty large people, athletes?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I have.

MR. COCHRAN: Who can't buy their clothes off the rack. They usually are tailored; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: That is correct.

MR. COCHRAN: They sometimes have very large appendages. You've noticed that, have you?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Are you a basketball fan?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And have you recently seen the size of the shoes of Shaquille O'neal?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I have.

MR. COCHRAN: 22 something or other? And so you know that they're athletes who have these large appendages. You hear them saying that, don't you?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

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

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

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

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor. A few more questions.

MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Rubin, just a few more questions. Do you--are you aware of how much 3 cc's of liquid amounts to?

MR. RUBIN: No, I'm not. Excuse me. 3 cc's?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes.

MR. RUBIN: Yes. I'm very familiar with 3 cc's.

MR. COCHRAN: And do you think that--I want you to assume arguendo that 3 cc's of liquid is almost two gloves. Do you think that amount of liquid would result in your gloves, your very expensive Aris gloves, shrinking 10 to 15 percent?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor. Improper hypothetical.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RUBIN: 3 cc's of liquid would have no effect whatsoever on those gloves.

MR. COCHRAN: So if there's testimony that's there only 3 cc's of liquid on those gloves, should have no effect at all? They should be exactly the same size; is that correct?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Misstates the testimony.

MR. COCHRAN: I'm asking.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: Is that right?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. One last question. With regard to Aris--the Aris--and Mr. Darden kept saying Isotoner. Did you tell us yesterday it wasn't Isotoner, these are Aris lights?

MR. RUBIN: Isotoner was a different product line than leather gloves. These are Aris leather light gloves.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you know whether or not the style no. 70263 for Aris light was made for Christian Dior in addition to Bloomingdales so that Christian Dior may have also sold those gloves during that same period of time that we're talking about?

MR. RUBIN: That was absolutely impossible because Aris Isotoner was the licensing of Christian Dior and assigned different style numbers to Christian Dior product. Aris Isotoner was the distributor of Christian Dior.

MR. COCHRAN: They were. All right. So my question is, was it possible that Christian Dior distributed or sold the style number 70263?

MR. RUBIN: Impossible.

MR. COCHRAN: That's absolutely impossible?

MR. RUBIN: Absolutely impossible.

MR. COCHRAN: Could not have happened?

MR. RUBIN: Could not have happened.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you very much for staying over.

MR. RUBIN: Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Rubin, thank you very much, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, may I--

THE COURT: Counsel, you asked to reopen on this. Isn't there a end to this at some point?

MR. DARDEN: Yes, there is, your Honor. I would ask for 10 minutes of the Court's time.

THE COURT: Proceed.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. DARDEN

MR. DARDEN: Mr. Rubin, with regard to the conversations you and I had last night and this morning--and you've discussed the nature of some of those conversations here this morning; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, it is.

MR. DARDEN: Well, this morning, were you shown some gloves?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And who brought those gloves to you?

MR. RUBIN: I believe that they--

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, objection. That is improper re--beyond the scope of cross-examination.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RUBIN: I believe that there was a package of gloves on the floor when I arrived.

MR. DARDEN: Were they in a box?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, they were.

MR. DARDEN: And were each of the gloves in bags just like the bag marked 164-A?

MR. RUBIN: Yes. Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Did it have writing on it?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: How many gloves were there contained in those boxes?

MR. COCHRAN: Objection. We haven't seen the gloves. May we approach? I haven't seen the gloves.

THE COURT: With the court reporter, please.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: We're over at the sidebar. I'm sure glad it's Friday. Where are we going with this?

MR. DARDEN: Well, Mr. Cochran wants to bring out the nature of our conversation.

THE COURT: I'm just curious about the box. Tell me about the box.

MR. DARDEN: I'm just telling you, he looked at the gloves that we had, then we had men with hands, larger hands than O.J.'s come in and try on different kinds of gloves, sizes of gloves smaller than the one we have here in evidence; and even men with hands larger than O.J.'s were able to get their hand into those gloves.

THE COURT: Mr. Darden, this man is an expert on gloves and an expert on sizing. What more do you need from this guy? He agreed with you that they should fit. Mr. Cochran went into your discussions with this guy after court and this morning, and you're entitled to go into, "What did we discuss," that sort of thing. You can do that. But to bring out that you did that demonstration with, you know--

MR. COCHRAN: We weren't present. We didn't see that.

THE COURT: One person. You can ask, "What did we do," but the results is something different. You can talk about what you did.

MR. DARDEN: All right.

MR. COCHRAN: But the results are what we are objecting to.

THE COURT: Let's finish. Let's get this guy home.

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

THE COURT: All right. Thank you very much, counsel. Mr. Darden, would you continue, please.

MR. DARDEN: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. DARDEN: What did we do in our office in addition to talking about your testimony?

MR. RUBIN: We looked at some other gloves that were on the floor in bags.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And were there other men present in the room?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, there were.

MR. DARDEN: And did you look at the size of the hands of those men?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: I object to that. Irrelevant and immaterial.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: And were there men in the room who had hands larger than the Defendant?

MR. COCHRAN: I object to that, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained. We're close. We're close.

MR. DARDEN: In response to Mr. Cochran's question, you testified that the appropriate way to pull off a tight pair of gloves is by the fingers?

MR. RUBIN: The appropriate way to take off any glove would be by the fingers first.

MR. DARDEN: And what do you do after you--after fingers first? How do you get them off?

MR. RUBIN: Just pull them down and gradually they would slide off.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Well, would you pull them down by the fingers and then pull them off the palm of your hand?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, that's leading and suggestive. Object. Leading and suggestive, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RUBIN: I believe what you would do, most people would do, if they were right-handed, they would always start with their left hand, they would pull down the pinky finger approximately half an inch to an inch, pull down two or three fingers, have enough material to just pull the glove off.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Now, you testified that the CXL cadet is an extra large glove?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And does that mean that the fingers in the glove are smaller than normal?

MR. RUBIN: Slightly shorter at the end.

MR. DARDEN: You also said that the crime scene gloves from Rockingham and Bundy both have some degree of elasticity; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: But they've lost some of that elasticity; is that right?

MR. COCHRAN: Objection. Leading and suggestive.

THE COURT: Rephrase the question.

MR. DARDEN: Have they lost any of the elasticity?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, they have.

MR. DARDEN: And when you were in my office last night, did you also look at some videotape?

MR. RUBIN: Various videotapes, yes.

MR. DARDEN: Videotape of the Defendant?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Did you see him put on the latex gloves yesterday?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I object to this. We weren't present. I object to this. Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.

MR. DARDEN: Well, did we talk about the videotape?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, we did.

MR. DARDEN: Did we talk about the demonstration?

MR. RUBIN: What demonstration?

MR. DARDEN: Yesterday, the Defendant putting the gloves on.

MR. RUBIN: Yes. Yes, we did.

MR. DARDEN: Did you note any irregularity--well, strike that.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I object to this whole line of questioning.

THE COURT: Overruled. At this point, I haven't heard a question. It's been withdrawn.

MR. DARDEN: And did we talk about the effect latex might have on putting a pair of gloves on?

MR. COCHRAN: Been asked and answered. That was asked of this witness this morning.

THE COURT: Has.

MR. DARDEN: When you say that a pair of tight gloves should properly be pulled off at the fingers, does it matter which hand you use?

MR. COCHRAN: Objection. That's unintelligible. I object to the form of the question.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: If you have a glove on your left hand, does it matter--well, you would have to use your right hand to pull the glove off; is that right?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, you would.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. But someone else could pull that glove of, couldn't they?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, that calls for a form of speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RUBIN: Yes, they could.

MR. DARDEN: And if the Defendant had on a glove, a tight glove, and was in a struggle with Ron Goldman and that glove came off, that could be because Goldman pulled at his fingers: Is that correct?

MR. COCHRAN: I object to the form. It's argumentative. Improper hypothetical.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: Beyond--

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. DARDEN: In any event, a tight glove can be pulled off a hand--

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: --rather easily?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Asked and answered.

MR. DARDEN: Rather easily; is that right?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, it is.

MR. DARDEN: Now, when you spoke with us in my office yesterday, you spoke primarily to me?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: Other people came in and out; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. So--you and I had never met prior to yesterday; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: You live in New York?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. So if I prepare you to testify, I would have to ask you questions, wouldn't I?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, you would.

MR. COCHRAN: That calls--I withdraw it.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: And that's--is there any way to find out if somebody knows the answer to a question other than by posing the question to him?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, objection. That's common sense.

THE COURT: It is.

MR. DARDEN: That's all. Thank you.

MR. COCHRAN: Just one or two additional. I want to go home too, your Honor.

MR. DARDEN: Yell at him like you yelled at me, Judge.

THE COURT: I'm about to. I'd like to go home too as would the jury.

MR. COCHRAN: And the jury. And with that thought in mind--I want them to go home.

THE COURT: Let's proceed. Proceed.

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

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN

MR. COCHRAN: Have you--you of course talked to Mr. Darden before you took the witness stand yesterday; isn't that correct?

MR. RUBIN: Briefly.

MR. COCHRAN: As a trained lawyer, you talked to him before he put you up there, you met him in court here; did you not?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: In fact, you were sitting out in the hallway talking to David wooden while the lady was on the stand, Miss Vemich, isn't that correct, when you were brought in here?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, just a couple questions. With regard to those particular gloves there, you shared with us how one appropriately takes gloves off; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I have.

MR. COCHRAN: And you shared with us I believe yesterday that those gloves are designed to fit rather snuggly; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And when they fit snuggly, they don't just fall off, do they?

MR. RUBIN: No, they do not.

MR. COCHRAN: They have to be kind of taken off, don't they?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, they would.

MR. COCHRAN: And you have to use some effort and some energy to take them off, don't you?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, Mr. Rubin.

MR. DARDEN: Two questions. Just two questions, your Honor.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION (FURTHER) BY MR. DARDEN

MR. DARDEN: The crime scene gloves from Rockingham and Bundy, are they designed to be worn tightly just like golf gloves?

MR. COCHRAN: I object to the from of--well--

THE COURT: You can answer the question.

MR. RUBIN: The fact that they are lined, they are designed to be snug, provide warmth, but not worn exactly like golf gloves, no.

MR. DARDEN: And you testified a moment ago that it takes a lot of effort to take off a tight pair of gloves; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: It would take some effort.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And--

THE COURT: That's two.

MR. DARDEN: An effort consistent with a life and death struggle for one's life I take it?

MR. COCHRAN: Objection, your Honor. Speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: May he go home now, your Honor?

MR. DARDEN: He may be excused.

THE COURT: It calls for speculation. Mr. Rubin, thank you very much for coming to testify. Sir, you are excused.

MR. RUBIN: Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Darden, would you collect the evidence there, please.

MR. DARDEN: May--we have 12 minutes, your Honor. Do you want to proceed with another witness?

THE COURT: Who do you have available?

MR. COCHRAN: I didn't hear the question.

THE COURT: I was asking who the next witness is.

MR. DARDEN: I'm informed that the witness is upstairs. It's Mr. Acosta. With our elevator system, it will take 15 minutes to get him down here though.

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, may have been a short day, but it was interesting. All right. We're going to take our recess for the morning session. Please remember all my admonitions to you; don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, don't allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. Have a pleasant weekend. See you Monday morning, 9:00 A.M. all right.

MR. COCHRAN: May we approach, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes. We're in recess.

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

(At 11:50 A.M., an adjournment was taken until, Monday, June 19th, 1995, 9:00 A.M.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

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

The People of the State of California,)

Plaintiff,)

Vs.) No. BA097211)

Orenthal James Simpson,)

Defendant.)

Reporter's transcript of proceedings Friday, June 16, 1995

Volume 169 pages 32449 through 32594, inclusive

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

APPEARANCES:

Janet M. Moxham, CSR #4588 Christine M. Olson, CSR #2378 official reporters

FOR THE PEOPLE: Gil Garcetti, District Attorney by: Marcia R. Clark, William W. Hodgman, Christopher A. Darden, Cheri A. Lewis, Rockne P. Harmon, George W. Clarke, Scott M. Gordon Lydia C. Bodin, Hank M. Goldberg, Alan Yochelson and Darrell S. Mavis, Brian R. Kelberg, and Kenneth E. Lynch, Deputies 18-000 Criminal Courts Building 210 West Temple Street Los Angeles, California 90012

FOR THE DEFENDANT: Robert L. Shapiro, Esquire Sara L. Caplan, Esquire 2121 Avenue of the Stars 19th floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr., Esquire by: Carl E. Douglas, Esquire Shawn Snider Chapman, Esquire 4929 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1010 Los Angeles, California 90010 Gerald F. Uelmen, Esquire Robert Kardashian, Esquire Alan Dershowitz, Esquire F. Lee Bailey, Esquire Barry Scheck, Esquire Peter Neufeld, Esquire Robert D. Blasier, Esquire William C. Thompson, Esquire

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I N D E X

Index for volume 169 pages 32449 - 32594

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day date session page vol.

Friday June 16, 1995 A.M. 32449 169

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LEGEND: Ms. Clark-mc Mr. Hodgman-h Mr. Darden d Mr. Kahn-k Mr. Goldberg-gb Mr. Gordon-g Mr. Shapiro-s Mr. Cochran-c Mr. Douglas-cd Mr. Bailey-b Mr. Uelmen-u Mr. Scheck-bs Mr. Neufeld-n

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

PEOPLE'S witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.

Rubin, Richard (Recalled) 32499D 32544C 32579D 32590C 169 (Further) 32592D

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

WITNESSES direct cross redirect recross vol.

Rubin, Richard (Recalled) 32499D 32544C 32579D 32590C 169 (Further) 32592D

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EXHIBITS

DEFENSE for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.

1053-A - Golf glove 32505 169 white in color with "Palm tree" logo

1053-B - Golf glove 32506 169 white in color with "FJ" logo

1053-C - Golf glove 32506 169 white in color with "Animal" logo (Slazenger)