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

APPEARANCES: (APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED, STEPHEN WARREN SOLOMON, ESQUIRE, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF CATHY RANDA; MELVYN DOUGLAS SACKS, ESQUIRE, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF MICHELLE ABOUDRAM.)

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

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

(PAGES 17861 THROUGH 17690, VOLUME 101A, TRANSCRIBED AND SEALED UNDER SEPARATE COVER.)

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, COUNSEL. BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. THE DEFENDANT IS AGAIN PRESENT WITH HIS COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. DOUGLAS, MR. BAILEY. THE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED BY MS. CLARK, MR. DARDEN, MISS LEWIS. THE MATTER IS HERE FOR MOTIONS TO QUASH CERTAIN SUBPOENAS, AND THE COURT HAS ALSO ISSUED ITS RULING REGARDING THE RENEWED PITCHESS MOTION, WHICH SHOULD BE PRETTY MUCH SELF-EXPLANATORY. AND MR. DOUGLAS, MISS CLARK, AS SOON AS THE CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS COMES, BECAUSE I'M ORDERING THE DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN ITEMS, HOWEVER, REDACTED FOR CERTAIN CONTENT, WHICH WILL TAKE SOME TIME.

MR. DOUGLAS: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I ANTICIPATE, HOWEVER, THAT WE WILL BE WITH DETECTIVE LANGE AND MRS. GOLDMAN PERHAPS FOR THE MORNING SESSION. ALL RIGHT. LET'S PROCEED THEN TO THE MOTIONS TO QUASH SUBPOENAS. ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, COUNSEL. YOUR APPEARANCES FOR THE RECORD.

MR. SOLOMON: STEPHEN WARREN SOLOMON OF SOLOMON SALTZMAN AND JAMIESON, FOR MICHELLE ABOUDRAM.

MR. SACKS: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. MELVYN DOUGLAS SACKS FOR CATHY RANDA.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, WHO WISHES TO GO FIRST?

MR. SOLOMON: I WILL BEGIN, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, COUNSEL.

MR. SOLOMON: MAY IT PLEASE BE THE COURT, WE AS CITIZENS DO NOT GIVE UP OUR RIGHTS BECAUSE MR. O.J. SIMPSON OR ANYONE ELSE IS ACCUSED OF A CRIME IN THIS CASE. MY CLIENT, MICHELLE ABOUDRAM, IS NOT A DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE, IS NOT ACCUSED OF ANY CRIME, IS NOT INVOLVED IN ANY WRONGDOING. SHE IS ONLY LISTED AS A WITNESS FOR THE DEFENSE IN THIS MATTER. MY CLIENT WAS A HOUSEKEEPER FOR MR. SIMPSON'S FAMILY IN 1988 THROUGH 1990, FROM 1992 BACK THROUGH UP TO AND INCLUDING THE EARLY PART OF 1994. THEREAFTER SHE LEFT THE SIMPSON EMPLOYMENT, WENT TO WORK IN A RESIDENCE IN BEVERLY HILLS AS A HOUSEKEEPER. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, IN ITS PRESENT FORM IN THIS SUBPOENA, IF LEFT UNTOUCHED, WOULD ALLOW ANYONE AT ANY TIME TO GET ANYONE'S RECORDS. LET ME LOOK AT THE APPROACH THAT THE D.A. HAS TAKEN IN THIS CASE. FIRST OF ALL, YOUR HONOR, ON NOVEMBER 10TH THEY ISSUED A SUBPOENA. THE SUBPOENA WAS FROM NOVEMBER 1ST, 1994, THROUGH FEBRUARY 10TH, 1995. AS THE COURT CAN SEE FROM THOSE DATES, THE COMMENCING PART OF THE SUBPOENA WAS FOUR AND A HALF MONTHS AFTER THE HOMICIDE. THE SUBPOENA WAS RETURNABLE ON THE 24TH IN THIS COURTROOM.

AS REQUIRED BY CIVIL LAW, SINCE THE MOTION TO QUASH IS CIVIL, COUNSEL AND MY FIRM, FILED A MOTION TO QUASH ON THE 23RD. WE FILED A DECLARATION FOR MY CLIENT AND SUPPORTING POINTS AND AUTHORITIES. THIS COURT ISSUED A MINUTE ORDER SEALING THOSE RECORDS AND THOSE RECORDS HAVE NOT BEEN TURNED OVER TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OR THE D.A. THEY ARE PRESENTLY UNDER SEAL BEFORE THIS COURT. THE DECLARATION IN QUESTION, YOUR HONOR, AS SEEN ON THE FIRST BOARD, STATES THAT THE MATERIALITY IS, QUOTE, "FILED BY THE D.A. NECESSARY TO PROVE THE CHARGES FILED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT." THAT STATEMENT, YOUR HONOR, DOES NOT COMPLY WITH CCP 1985 OR 1985.7. THERE IS NO FACTUAL SHOWING OF MATERIALITY. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO WITH THE COURT, THERE ARE THREE KEY CASES. WE FILED EXTENSIVE POINTS AND AUTHORITIES. I CAN ONLY COMMENT THAT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS NOT FILED ANY POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO THE LAW ON THE SUBJECT. THE FIRST CASE I WOULD LIKE TO GO INTO, YOUR , HONOR IS PEOPLE VERSUS SCHMITT. IN THE SCHMITT CASE THE DEFENDANT WAS ON TRIAL FOR A CONSPIRACY, GRAND THEFT AND OTHER MATTERS. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY IN THAT CASE FILED A MOTION TO SUPPRESS SUBPOENAS ISSUED BY THE DEFENSE. THE COURT, IN AFFIRMING THE TRIAL COURT'S QUASHING, INDICATED, AND IT IS SHOWN HERE ON THE FIRST BOARD, YOUR HONOR: "THE ALLEGATIONS OF DEFENDANT'S AFFIDAVITS WERE WHOLLY INSUFFICIENT TO SHOW WHAT MATERIAL FACT, IF ANY, WOULD OR COULD HAVE BEEN PROVED BY THE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT TO BE PRODUCED." AND THEN THE COURT ON THE NEXT PAGE SUSTAINED THE QUASHING OF IT. THE KEY CASE, YOUR HONOR, IS JOHNSON VERSUS SUPERIOR COURT. IN JOHNSON VERSUS SUPERIOR COURT THE LANGUAGE WAS: "NECESSARY TO PROVE THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE CASE." AND OUR LANGUAGE IS, QUOTE: "NECESSARY TO PROVE THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE DEFENDANT." THE JOHNSON COURT SAID NO GOOD, SUSTAINED THE QUASHING. NOW SUBSEQUENTLY, IN THE PACIFIC AUTOMOBILE CASE, YOUR HONOR, THE COURT OF APPEALS SAID THAT SUBSEQUENT FACTS ADDUCED IN COURT ARE NOT SUFFICIENT BASIS TO BE USED TO SUPPORT THE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM. NOW, WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THIS CASE, YOUR HONOR, YESTERDAY MORNING AROUND NINE O'CLOCK I RECEIVED BY FAX FROM MISS LEWIS, A SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION ALLEGING SOME, QUOTE, "NEW FACTS" THAT THEY ARE NOW TRYING TO USE TO BOOTSTRAP THE SUBPOENA THAT WAS ISSUED SOME WEEKS AGO. UNDER THE PACIFIC AUTOMOBILE CASE, THAT AUTHORITY DOES NOT ALLOW FOR THAT, YOUR HONOR. NOW I NOTE, YOUR HONOR, THAT THE -- HAS THE COURT RECEIVED THE SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION?

THE COURT: NO, I HAVE NOT.

MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, I FILED THAT YESTERDAY MORNING. I'M SORRY. THAT WAS NOT GIVEN TO YOU?

THE COURT: NOT IN MY NOTEBOOK OF THE ITEMS.

MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, I BELIEVE THE COURT WOULD BENEFIT BY READING THAT BEFORE --

THE COURT: LET ME CHECK WITH MRS. ROBERTSON. MRS. ROBERTSON, DO WE HAVE THE SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE SDT?

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: PROCEED, COUNSEL.

MR. SOLOMON: YOUR HONOR, MY CONCERN -- THE SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION SAYS -- IN A FOOTNOTE SAYS: "WE ARE FILING THIS RESPONSE UNDER SEAL TO PROTECT THE PHONE NUMBERS IN QUESTION FROM BEING REVEALED TO THE PUBLIC BY THE PRESS." THE WANT TO GO INTO THE FACTS OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION, BUT I WON'T REFER TO THE PHONE NUMBERS. IS THAT APPROPRIATE, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

MR. SOLOMON: THE DECLARATION IS APPROXIMATELY FIVE PAGES AND IT CONCERNS NOT ONLY MY CLIENT, BUT ABOUT EIGHTY PERCENT OF IT CONCERNS MR. SACKS' CLIENT. I WILL ONLY REFER TO THOSE PARAGRAPHS THAT RELATE TO MY CLIENT, YOUR HONOR. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY NOW -- AND IT IS SIGNED BY CHERI LEWIS YESTERDAY, SO THIS IS WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO USE TO BOOTSTRAP THE SUBPOENA ISSUED SOME WEEKS AGO. IT SAYS: "ON FEBRUARY 10TH, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ISSUED A SUBPOENA DT." AND THEN THEY SAY ON PARAGRAPH NO. 5: "ON JANUARY 31, 1995, DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE INTERVIEWED A WOMAN BY THE NAME OF ZIONA FREEMAN. MISS FRIEDMAN IS A MAID WHO CURRENTLY LIVES IN WEST HOLLYWOOD," AND I AM LEAVING OUT THE ADDRESSES AND PHONE NUMBERS.

IT SAYS: "OVER THE EIGHT-YEAR PERIOD PRIOR TO THE MURDERS IN THIS CASE, MISS FRIEDMAN WAS REGULARLY CALLED BY THE DEFENSE MAID, MICHELLE ABOUDRAM, TO HELP HER AT THE DEFENDANT'S ROCKINGHAM ESTATE," AND THEN THEY TALK ABOUT SOME WORK THAT MAID DOES. "ON FEBRUARY 8TH, 1995, ZIONA FRIEDMAN WAS INTERVIEWED A SECOND TIME IN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. DURING THAT INTERVIEW SHE SUPPLIED MANY ADDITIONAL DETAILS OF INFORMATION SHE SAYS MICHELLE ABOUDRAM," WHICH IS MY CLIENT, "TOLD HER REGARDING THE 1989 SPOUSAL ABUSE INCIDENT BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON." AND THEN THE ONLY THING LEFT IN THERE REGARDING MY CLIENT IS PARAGRAPH 8(C). "MISS FRIEDMAN SAID SHE TALKED WITH MICHELLE ABOUDRAM BY TELEPHONE ALMOST EVERYDAY. ONE OF THE THINGS MICHELLE TOLD HER WAS MICHELLE HAD A LAWYER, TO WIT, SHAPIRO. MICHELLE HAD NOT CALLED FRIEDMAN IN A WEEK, THE WEEK PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 8. MISS FRIEDMAN WAS VERY WORRIED AND SCARED ABOUT THAT SINCE SHE WAS ACCUSTOMED TO MICHELLE CALLING HER EVERYDAY." THE OTHER ONLY THING LEFT RELATING TO MY CLIENT IS, QUOTE: "THE TELEPHONE RECORDS OF MY CLIENT ARE NECESSARY TO AID IN ASSESSING THE CREDIBILITY OF MISS FRIEDMAN BY AIDING AND DETERMINING THE EXTENT OF HER CONTACT WITH THOSE WITNESSES." WHAT WE REALLY HAVE HERE IS A LOT TO DO ABOUT NOTHING IN REGARD TO MISS FRIEDMAN. IF THEY WANT TO SEE WHO MISS FRIEDMAN TALKED TO, THEY CAN LOOK AT MISS FRIEDMAN'S TELEPHONE RECORDS, AND THEY DO HAVE A SUBPOENA OUT FOR THAT. THE SUBSEQUENT DECLARATION DOESN'T HAVE ANY LEGAL EFFECT IN TERMS OF THE SUBPOENA THAT WAS ISSUED SOME MONTH AGO, AND THAT IS THE PACIFIC CASE. IT IS ALSO INTERESTING TO NOTE, YOUR HONOR, THAT THE STAFF OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS NOT RESPONDED TO ANY LEGAL AUTHORITIES SET FORTH BY MYSELF OR MR. SACKS. AND WHAT YOU HAVE TO BALANCE HERE, YOUR HONOR, IS MY CLIENT HAS A RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF ASSOCIATION. WHO SHE CALLS ON HER OWN PHONE, HER FRIENDS AND WHAT SHE DOES IS HER OWN BUSINESS. SHE IS NOT A DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE. SHE IS NOT ACCUSED IN THIS CASE. SHE IS NOT INVOLVED IN ANY WRONGDOING. NOW, WHAT THE COURT HAS TO DO, YOUR HONOR, IS BALANCE HER RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION TO THE GOVERNMENT'S COMPELLING RIGHT TO LOOK AT SOME PHONE RECORDS. NOW, UNDER THE FIRST DECLARATION IT SHOULD BE QUASHED. UNDER THE SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION IT SHOULD BE QUASHED. I WOULD SUSPECT, HOWEVER, THAT THE D.A. WILL PROBABLY COME IN AGAIN AND TRY FACTUALLY SOMETHING ELSE. THE ONLY -- THE ONLY RELEVANCE I COULD SEE TO ANY PART OF THIS, YOUR HONOR, IS MISS SEE A FRIEDMAN'S PHONE RECORDS, AND I WOULD SUSPECT AND SUGGEST ON BEHALF OF MY CLIENT, THAT IF THE COURT WANTED TO TAKE THOSE RECORDS IN CAMERA, GO THROUGH MY CLIENT'S PHONE CARDS AND REDACT OUT ANYTHING EXCEPT MISS SEE A FRIEDMAN'S PHONE RECORDS APPEARED THERE, THEN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY COULD HAVE WHAT IT WANTS AND THEN THE COURT COULD PROTECT MY CLIENT'S RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, AND THAT WOULD BE THE LEAST OBTRUSIVE WAY TO RESOLVE THIS PROBLEM, YOUR HONOR. UNLESS THE COURT HAS ANY SUGGESTIONS, I WOULD SUBMIT THAT THAT WOULD BE THE BEST APPROACH TO PROTECT MY CLIENT'S RIGHTS AND GIVE THE GOVERNMENT WHAT THEY WANT, BUT NOT OPEN THIS UP TO ALLOWING ANYBODY AT ANY TIME TO LOOK AT ANY PHONE RECORDS, BECAUSE BASED ON WHAT THEY HAVE DONE HERE, I SUSPECT THE DEFENSE COULD TAKE EVERY PROSECUTION WITNESS AND REQUEST ALL THEIR PHONE RECORDS AND THE PROSECUTION COULD TAKE EVERY DEFENSE AND REQUEST THEIR PHONE RECORDS. AND THAT IS NOT WHAT IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE, YOUR HONOR. I'LL SUBMIT IT, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU.

THE COURT: THANK YOU. MR. SACKS.

MR. SACKS: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: GOOD MORNING.

MR. SACKS: IN REGARDS TO THE SITUATION HERE, WE ARE REALLY CONCERNED WITH THE CITIZEN'S RIGHT TO PRIVACY, AND IN DEALING WITH THE ISSUE AS TO WHY MY CLIENT OBJECTS, AS ANY CITIZEN HAS A RIGHT IN CALIFORNIA TO ANYBODY LOOKING AT HER RESIDENTIAL TELEPHONE RECORDS, IS BECAUSE THE LEGISLATURE IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, WHEN THEY ENACTED 2991 OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE, THEY MADE A FINDING THAT IT WAS OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE THAT THE RESIDENTIAL TELEPHONE RECORDS OF ALL OUR CITIZENS IN THIS STATE ARE ACCORDED THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY, AND ONLY IF THE GOVERNMENT CAN SHOW BY THE USE OF LAWFUL PROCESS IN A CRIMINAL CASE CAN THEY OBTAIN THOSE RECORDS. NOW, IN THIS SITUATION MR. SOLOMON HAS ALLUDED TO THE DEFICIENCIES IN THE DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE SUBPOENA, AND WHEN WE LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE WHERE IT SAYS, "NECESSARY TO PROVE THE CHARGES FILED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT," THE CASES WE HAVE CITED SHOW THAT THERE IS NO FACTUAL BASIS OF MATERIALITY OR GOOD CAUSE THAT WOULD JUSTIFY THE ISSUANCE OF THE SUBPOENA. AND IF WE USE THAT LANGUAGE AND SAY THAT JUSTIFIES THE ISSUANCE OF THE SUBPOENA, AND THAT ALONE WOULD OVERCOME THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO PRIVACY, THAT THE LEGISLATURE ENACTED UNDER THE PUBLIC UTILITY CODE, EXCEPT WHEN A GOOD SHOWING IN A CRIMINAL CASE IS MADE, THE COURT WOULD AUTHORIZE THE SEIZING OF 300 DEFENSE WITNESS' RESIDENTIAL TELEPHONE RECORDS. AND IF WE TOOK THE SAME AFFIDAVIT AND CHANGED ONE WORD AND SAID "NECESSARY TO DISPROVE THE CHARGES FILED AGAINST THE NAMED DEFENDANT," THE COURT WOULD BE AUTHORIZING THE SEIZURE OF 400 OF THE -- OF THE PROSECUTION'S WITNESS' RESIDENTIAL TELEPHONE NUMBERS, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE DETECTIVES LANGE'S RESIDENCE TELEPHONE NUMBERS, MARK FUHRMAN'S, PHILIP VANNATTER'S AND RON PHILLIPS'. AND I DON'T THINK THE COURT WOULD ALLOW THE DEFENSE NO GREATER SHOWING THAN IS SHOWN IN THIS AFFIDAVIT TO SEIZE NOT ONLY 400 RECORDS OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES, BUT THE DETECTIVE'S AS WELL, AND OTHER POLICE OFFICERS INVOLVED IN THE CASE. NOW, IN DEALING WITH THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY, WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IN THIS COURTROOM ARE CITIZEN RIGHTS. THIS COURT SO FAR HAS BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT CERTAIN RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES. THEY HAVE BEEN CONCERNED WITH THE RIGHTS OF THE PROSECUTION TO GET A FAIR TRIAL; PROPERLY SO. THE COURT IS CONCERNED WITH THE RIGHTS OF MR. SIMPSON TO GET DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND A FAIR TRIAL, AND PROPERLY SO. THE COURT HAS BEEN CONCERNED WITH THE RIGHTS OF THE JURORS AND THE RIGHTS OF THOSE JURORS TO HAVE THEIR ANONYMITY AND NOT BE HARASSED BY THE PRESS AND THE PUBLIC. NOBODY HAS --

THE COURT: AND PROPERLY SO.

MR. SACKS: AND PROPERLY SO. NOBODY HAS ADDRESSED TO THIS POINT THE RIGHTS OF THESE WITNESSES. AND WHAT WE HAVE IN THIS CASE IS 700 PEOPLE THAT ARE ON A LIST. THEY ARE ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS. UNDER THE STATUES ENACTED IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ALL OF THESE WITNESSES HAVE A RIGHT TO PRIVACY UNLESS THERE IS A SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE TO GO BEYOND WHAT THE LEGISLATURE SAID IS A RIGHT OF PARAMOUNT CONCERN WHEN THEY PASSED THE LEGISLATION. SO I WOULD SUBMIT TO THE COURT, NO. 1, THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK TO THE FACT THAT WITNESSES HAVE NOT BEEN SPOKEN FOR UP UNTIL THIS POINT UNDER THESE SUBPOENAS. NOW, MY CLIENT HAS HAD EIGHT SUBPOENAS SERVED ON HER IN REGARDS TO THIS LITIGATION; THREE SUBPOENAS TO TESTIFY BEFORE THE GRAND JURY UNDER THE GUISE OF THE AL COWLINGS INVESTIGATION, BUT ALL OF THE QUESTIONS THAT SHE WAS ASKED BEFORE THE GRAND JURY CONCERNED THIS CASE ITSELF. SINCE SHE WENT TO THE GRAND JURY SHE HAS RECEIVED THREE OTHER SUBPOENAS TO TESTIFY IN THIS CASE, ONE OF WHICH SHE WAS ON CALL FOR OVER THREE MONTHS BEFORE SHE WAS RELEASED. SHE HAS ALSO RECEIVED, IN ADDITION TO THOSE THREE WITNESS SUBPOENAS, ONE OTHER SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM THAT REQUIRED HER PRESENCE AND THESE TWO SUBPOENA DUCES TECUMS FOR TELEPHONE RECORDS, THE ONE THAT IS BEING LITIGATED HERE, AND THERE WAS ANOTHER ONE THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY ISSUED IN JULY, BUT SHE HAD NO COUNSEL AT THAT POINT; NO OPPOSITION WAS RAISED. NOW, IN DEALING WITH THE RIGHTS OF THE WITNESSES AND THE FACT THAT NOBODY HAS SPOKEN IN TERMS OF WITNESS' RIGHTS, WE HAVE A LOT OF SITUATIONS ARISING WHERE THERE HAVE BEEN COMMENTS MADE IN THIS COURTROOM, AND I KNOW THE COURT HAS TRIED TO BE VERY FAIR TO ALL CONCERNED, BUT THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT PLAY OUT IN THIS COURTROOM THAT GET TELEVISED THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY AND IT LOOKS A LITTLE DIFFERENT TO THE WITNESS THAN IT MAY LOOK TO YOUR HONOR. AND I WILL SAY ONE THING ABOUT YOUR HONOR. YOU HAVE BEEN VERY ACCOMMODATING, AS FAR AS I COULD SEE, TO ALL THE PARTIES THAT HAVE APPEARED BEFORE YOU. ALL THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE COME INTO COURTROOM HAVE BEEN ACCORDED NOTHING BUT THE UTMOST RESPECT BY THIS COURT, AND I THINK YOU'VE ESTABLISHED A FRIENDLY ENVIRONMENT FOR THE PEOPLE COMING BEFORE YOUR HONOR. BUT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED THROUGH THE LITIGANTS PLAYS OUT THROUGH THE PUBLIC, AND THE WITNESSES THAT ARE UNDER SUBPOENA SEE THIS AND THERE HAVE BEEN CERTAIN COMMENTS MADE. FIRST BACK IN SEPTEMBER THERE WERE COMMENTS MADE ABOUT MY CLIENT AND SOME EVIDENTIARY ISSUES IN REGARDS TO SOME EVIDENCE THAT MAY HAVE BEEN DESTROYED, AND UNDER A PROFFERED OFFER OF PROOF THAT NOBODY REQUIRED, MY CLIENT SORT OF HAD A LITTLE CHARACTER ASSASSINATION MADE PUBLIC. NOW, TIED IN WITH THAT THERE WERE OTHER COMMENTS MADE BY DEFENSE WITNESSES THAT THE PROSECUTION SAID, I WILL TELL YOU ABOUT THE DEFENSE WITNESSES, THEY ARE FELONS, THEY ARE HEROIN ADDICTS, THEY ARE COURT CERTIFIED PATHOLOGICAL LIARS AND FELONS. NOW, NOBODY MENTIONED WHAT WITNESSES -- DEFENSE WITNESSES WERE BEING SPOKEN ABOUT, BUT WHAT HAPPENS IS BEYOND THIS COURTROOM WHEN THE WITNESSES SEE IT, IT HAS TO HAVE A CHILLING EFFECT ON PEOPLE, BECAUSE AS FAR AS I CAN SEE, ANYTIME A DEFENSE WITNESS HEARS THEIR NAME MENTIONED, AT THIS POINT THEY SHOULD BE DOING TWO THINGS: JUMPING FOR COVER AND SEEKING LEGAL REPRESENTATION. NOW, IN DEALING WITH THAT, THAT GIVES AN OVERALL PICTURE OF THE CHILLING EFFECT THAT CAN HAPPEN WHEN COMMENTS ARE MADE IN THE SHAPE OF LITIGATION WHERE IN A NORMAL CASE NOBODY WOULD KNOW ABOUT IT. YOUR HONOR WOULD HEAR A COMMENT MADE, THE PARTIES HERE WOULD HEAR IT, WOULD KNOW ABOUT IT IN A COURTROOM. A FEW COURTROOM HAWKS TO THAT WOULD BE SITTING IN THE COURTROOM, WOULD KNOW ABOUT IT, BUT IT WON'T GO ANY FURTHER. BUT HERE IN THIS SITUATION WITH WITNESSES -- AND WHY I AM CONCERNED WITH WITNESSES' RIGHTS, BECAUSE IT DOES HAVE A DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON THE PEOPLE THAT ARE COMING IN AS CITIZENS TO DO THEIR CIVIC DUTY TO TAKE THIS WITNESS STAND AND TO TESTIFY TO THE BEST OF THEIR ABILITY. AS THE PUBLIC HAS SEEN, AS THE COURT WELL KNOWS, SOME WITNESSES TESTIFY BETTER THAN OTHERS DUE TO ONE REASON OR ANOTHER. SO TIED IN WITH THE HISTORY OF WHY I AM CONCERNED WITH WITNESS' RIGHTS, AND MORE SPECIFICALLY WITH THE SUBPOENA, MY CLIENT HAS EVERY RIGHT TO HAVE HER PRIVACY PROTECTED, NOT ONLY UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT, BUT UNDER THE STATUTES RECITED IN OUR POINTS AND AUTHORITIES. AND UNLESS THE GOVERNMENT CAN SHOW A GOOD -- MAKE A GOOD SHOWING AS TO WHY THAT PRIVACY SHOULD BE INVADED, THE PRIVACY SHOULD BE PROTECTED. NOW, IN DEALING WITH THE SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION, I STILL DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT MAKES A FACTUAL STATEMENT THAT WOULD SATISFY A SHOWING OF MATERIALITY AND GOOD CAUSE, BUT IF THE COURT WERE GOING TO TAKE A QUANTUM LEAP AND SAY THAT YOU FEEL IT DOES MAKE A SHOWING THAT WOULD JUSTIFY SOME OF THE RECORDS POSSIBLY BEING TURNED OVER, I WOULD CONCUR WITH WHAT MR. SOLOMON SUGGESTED IN THE WAY OF ACCOMMODATION, THAT THE COURT IN CAMERA LOOK AT THE RECORDS AND LIMIT ANY RELEASE OF THOSE RECORDS, FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT AT THIS POINT, TO THE PROSECUTION ONLY LIMITED TO THE TWO PARTIES THAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT, MISS FRIEDMAN AND RON SHIPP. AND LIMIT IT TO THOSE TWO NUMBERS ALONE AND PRESERVE THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY AS FAR AS THE OTHER CALLS ARE MADE, BECAUSE AS WE HAVE SHOWED UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT, THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF MISS RAN TODAY, AS WELL AS ANY OTHER CITIZEN, COVERS THEIR PERSONAL CONTACT WITH THE PEOPLE THEY ASSOCIATE WITH DAY IN AND DAY OUT, AND WHAT MORE OF A PERSONAL CONTACT DO YOU MAKE OTHER THAN FACE-TO-FACE THAN WHEN YOU CALL SOMEBODY FROM YOUR OWN RESIDENCE. SECONDLY, I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF THE VIOLATION OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW UNDER 1985.3 WHERE THERE IS A BURDEN PLACED ON THE PROSECUTION OR ANY OTHER PARTY SEEKING TO GET A SUBPOENA FROM A CONSUMER RECORD, WHICH THE TELEPHONE COMPANY RECORDS ARE, THAT DUE NOTICE HAS TO BE GIVEN TO THE CONSUMER, IN THIS CASE IT IS MY CLIENT, CATHY RANDA. THE PROSECUTION, UNDER 1985.3 SUBDIVISION (E), IS REQUIRED TO SERVE A COPY OF THE SUBPOENA WITH THE DECLARATION ON THE CONSUMER AND GIVE THEM NOTICE THAT THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO CONTEST THE SUBPOENA IN COURT. NOW, I WOULD LIKE TO STATE THAT IN REGARDS TO THE FIRST SUBPOENA ISSUED LAST JULY, NO NOTICE WAS GIVEN TO MISS RANDA AND I FILED A SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION TO THAT EFFECT. SHE RECEIVED NO NOTICE ON THE FIRST SUBPOENA. SHE RECEIVED NO NOTICE ON THE SECOND SUBPOENA. IN ADDITION, THE PROSECUTION HAS KNOWN SINCE SEPTEMBER THE 19TH THAT I HAVE BEEN REPRESENTING CATHY RANDA AND THEY MADE NO ATTEMPT TO GIVE ME NOTICE BY SUPPLYING MY OFFICE WITH A COPY OF THE SUBPOENA OR THE DECLARATION. AND THIS WAS EVEN AFTER I REQUESTED FROM MISS CLARK AND MR. HODGMAN BY WAY OF FAX, ON BOTH THE 18TH OF FEBRUARY AND THE 21ST OF FEBRUARY, THAT MY OFFICE BE PROVIDED A COPY OF THE SUBPOENA AND THE DECLARATION SO WE COULD TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION. THE ONLY REASON I RECEIVED A COPY IS I REQUESTED THE ASSISTANCE OF MR. COCHRAN'S OFFICE AND THROUGH THEIR GOOD OFFICES I DID RECEIVE A COPY. NOW, THE ONLY REASON I KNEW TO ASK FOR A COPY OF THE SUBPOENA WASN'T BECAUSE WE RECEIVED ANY NOTICE FROM THE PROSECUTION. THE ONLY NOTICE WE RECEIVED WAS FROM PACIFIC BELL AND PACIFIC BELL HAS A COMPANY POLICY NOT REQUIRED BY LAW, BUT A POLICY OF THEIR COMPANY, TO NOTIFY THEIR CONSUMERS AND THEIR CUSTOMERS WHEN A SUBPOENA HAS BEEN SERVED UPON THE COMPANY FOR THOSE RECORDS. IF IT WASN'T FOR THE FACT THAT THE TELEPHONE COMPANY SENT MY CLIENT A LETTER, THIS MOTION WOULD HAVE BEEN HEARD IN SILENCE AND SECRECY BECAUSE THE COURT WOULD HAVE HAD NO OPPOSITION, THE SUBPOENAED RECORDS WOULD HAVE ARRIVED IN COURT AND PURSUANT TO THE SUBPOENA IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HANDED OVER TO THE PROSECUTION. SO WITH A TOTAL ELEMENT OF SECRECY AND NO NOTICE BEING GIVEN TO MY CLIENT, HER PRIVACY WOULD HAVE BEEN INVADED IN VIOLATION OF NOT ONLY THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION LAW, AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 2891, BUT IN VIOLATION AS WELL OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CONSUMER NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF 1985.3. BASED ON TWO INTENTIONAL VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW, I WOULD REQUEST THIS COURT ISSUE SANCTIONS AT THIS POINT BECAUSE THIS IS NO DIFFERENT THAN THE SITUATION WHERE SANCTIONS HAVE BEEN ISSUED AGAINST THE DEFENSE AND THE PROSECUTION FOR FAILURE ON BOTH SIDES TO COMPLY WITH 1054 OF THE PENAL CODE. AND I THINK THAT IT SETS A STANDARD THAT THE PROSECUTION, IF THEY ARE GOING TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS OR IF THE OTHER SIDE IS GOING TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS AS WELL, THEY HAVE GOT TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THESE WITNESSES. BECAUSE THESE WITNESSES ARE AMERICAN CITIZENS. THEY ARE ENTITLED TO EVERY PROTECTION UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND EVERY PROTECTION UNDER THE SPECIAL STATUTES THAT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA HAS PASSED TO DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE. AND BASED ON THOSE -- THOSE ARGUMENTS, I WOULD SUBMIT THAT THE SUBPOENA SHOULD BE QUASHED. IN THE ALTERNATE, SANCTIONS THAT THE COURT DEEMS APPROPRIATE SHOULD BE ISSUED AGAINST THE PROSECUTION FOR THE VIOLATION OF MY CLIENT'S RIGHTS TO PRIVACY UNDER THE LAW AND AN ATTEMPT TO INVADE HER PRIVACY WITHOUT DUE NOTICE. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: MR. SACKS, LET ME ASK YOU THIS: WITH REGARD TO YOUR REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS, WHAT DO YOU THINK ARE APPROPRIATE?

MR. SACKS: WELL, MY CLIENT'S -- TO BE QUITE FRANK, MY CLIENT HASN'T INCURRED ANY LEGAL EXPENSES. WITHOUT BREECHING THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE, CAN JUST SAY THAT MY WORK HERE IS PRO BONO. BUT I THINK SOME MONETARY SANCTIONS MAY BE APPROPRIATE JUST AS AN OUT-OF-POCKET EXPENSE TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUT I'M NOT LOOKING TO UNJUSTLY ENRICH MYSELF, BUT I THINK IN TERMS OF SANCTIONS, IF THE COURT ISN'T CONCERNED WITH DEALING WITH MONETARY SANCTIONS, I THINK AN ADMONITION TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WITH FURTHER COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE STATUTES THAT I HAVE CITED WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. AND I THINK IF ANY OF THIS EVIDENCE COMES BEFORE THE JURY, THAT AN APPROPRIATE SANCTION SHOULD BE ASSESSED AGAINST THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY WHERE THE JURY IS INFORMED OF THE FACT THAT THE PROSECUTION, IN REGARD TO MY CLIENT'S RIGHTS, WHEN SHE IS CALLED AS A WITNESS, HAS BEEN INFRINGED UPON, AND WHEN THEY CROSS-EXAMINE ABOUT TELEPHONE RECORDS AND SO FORTH AND SO ON, I THINK AN APPROPRIATE ADMONITION TO THE JURY INFORMING THEM THAT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY ACTED IMPROPERLY IN TRYING TO SEIZE THE WITNESS' RECORDS. AND I THINK IT IS SOMETHING THAT I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO HEAVILY CONSIDER AND I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE TAKEN LIGHTLY AND IT SETS THE STANDARD, AS THIS CASE COMMENCES DOWN THE LINE, THAT THE -- EITHER PARTY ISSUES SUBPOENA DUCES TECUMS THAT WOULD FALL WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THIS STATUTE OR SOME OTHER RIGHT TO PRIVACY BEING INVADED IS COMPLIED WITH, BECAUSE I THINK ALL THE WITNESSES SHOULD FEEL AS COMFORTABLE AS POSSIBLE COMING INTO THIS COURTROOM TO TESTIFY. I SAID IT ONCE BEFORE IN ANOTHER FORUM, THAT THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT LIKE COMING INTO COURTROOMS ARE THE PEOPLE THAT WORK HERE; YOUR HONOR, THE ATTORNEYS, THE COURT STAFF. WE DO THIS FOR A LIVING. WE ARE USED TO WHAT GOES ON HERE DAY IN AND DAY OUT. BUT THE AVERAGE CITIZEN THAT IS CALLED UPON TO COME THROUGH THESE DOORS AND TAKE THAT WITNESS STAND DOES HAVE A LOT OF APPREHENSION BECAUSE THEY CAN SEE WHAT HAPPENED TO ROSA LOPEZ. WHETHER IT IS GOOD, BAD OR INDIFFERENT, IT WAS FOUR DAYS ON THE WITNESS STAND. DETECTIVE LANGE HAS BEEN ON THE WITNESS STAND FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME, BUT THERE IS LITTLE COMPENSATION IN HIS REGARD, HE IS MORE OR LESS A PROFESSIONAL WITNESS BECAUSE WITH HIS JOB OVER THE YEARS HE DOES TESTIFY ON A NORMAL BASIS. BUT THE AVERAGE CITIZEN HERE IN AMERICA THAT IS CALLED INTO THIS COURTROOM TO TESTIFY, ESPECIALLY THE FACT THAT IT IS GOING INTO EVERY BIG CITY, SMALL HAMLET, TOWNSHIP AND COUNTY THROUGHOUT THIS GREAT LAND OF OURS, KNOWS THAT WHATEVER THEY SEE, NOT ONLY IS EVERYBODY SEEING WHAT IS BEING SAID, THE PUBLIC AT LARGE, BUT THEIR FRIENDS, ASSOCIATES, PEOPLE THEY WORK WITH, AND ALL OF THE COMMENTATORS ON T.V. ARE NITPICKING AND ANALYZING TO THE NTH DEGREE -- THE TENTH DEGREE, EXACTLY WHAT THIS WITNESS SAID, HOW HE SAID IT OR SHE SAID IT, WHETHER OR NOT SHE IS CREDIBLE OR MAYBE LYING, MISTAKEN OR WHATEVER, AND THAT DOES HAVE A DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON THESE PEOPLE. SO WHAT I'M CONCERNED WITH, AND I THINK EVEN THOUGH I'VE POINTED OUT, I THINK THE COURT HAS BEEN OVERACCOMMODATING TO BE AS GENEROUS AND AS COURTEOUS TO EVERYBODY THAT WORKS IN THIS COURTROOM AND COMES IN HERE, THERE IS A CHILLING EFFECT THAT THESE WITNESSES FEEL JUST FROM THE FACT THAT IT IS ABNORMAL TO COME IN AND HAVE TO TESTIFY. AND MOST PEOPLE THINK THEY ARE GOING TO GET ON THAT WITNESS STAND THEY ARE GOING TO BE GRILLED RIGHT AND LEFT, BUT THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT. WHAT HAPPENS IN THIS CASE WHEN IT GOES OUT TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE AND THE PEOPLE SEE WHAT HAPPENS TO EACH WITNESS AS THEY COME IN, MOST PEOPLE, IF THEY HAD THEIR DRUTHERS, WOULD NEVER WANT TO COME IN AND TESTIFY IN THIS CASE. OTHER CASES, YOU KNOW, YOU WORK YOUR NERVE UP, YOU GO IN AND YOU TESTIFY AND THEN YOU ARE BACK TO WHAT YOU NORMALLY DO, BUT WITH THIS CASE WITH THAT CAMERA IN THIS COURTROOM IT HAS AN EXTREME AFFECT ON THE WITNESSES. AND I THINK WHEN I ASK FOR SANCTIONS IT IS NOT JUST IN TERMS OF MY CLIENT ALONE. I'M CONCERNED WITH THE WITNESSES WHO HAVE TO COME FORWARD, WHETHER THEY ARE PROSECUTION OR DEFENSE WITNESSES. THEY HAVE CERTAIN RIGHTS. AND I THINK THE COURT SHOULD BEND OVER BACKWARDS TO PROTECT THEIR RIGHTS AS WELL. AND I DO HAVE TO APOLOGIZE WHEN I WAS TALKING ABOUT PROTECTING RIGHTS, THE VICTIM'S RIGHTS ARE PROPERLY PROTECTED IN THIS CASE. WE HAVE TWO DECEDENTS. THE COURT HAS EVERY INTENTION TO TREAT THOSE PEOPLE WITH DIGNITY AND THE RESPECT THAT THEY ARE ENTITLED TO. I'M JUST ASKING FOR THE SAME THING FOR MY CLIENT AND THE OTHER CIVILIAN CITIZENS THAT ARE CALLED UPON TO DO THEIR CIVIC DUTY AND COME IN HERE AND TESTIFY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. SACKS.

MR. SACHS: YOU ARE WELCOME, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: MISS LEWIS. GOOD MORNING.

MS. LEWIS: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU. FIRST OF ALL, YOUR HONOR, I THINK WE NEED TO BACK DOWN A LITTLE BIT FROM SOME OF THE RHETORIC AND SEE WHAT THE SCOPE OF THIS PARTICULAR HEARING IS. WHILE IT IS I THINK EVIDENT THAT I AGREE WITH PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF WITNESSES, PARTICULARLY GIVEN THE MOTIONS THAT I HAVE FILED AND ARGUED REGARDING DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN AND HIS PRIVACY RIGHTS, WE ARE HERE TODAY TO TALK ABOUT TWO PARTICULAR SUBPOENAS THAT WERE ISSUED FOR PHONE RECORDS OF TWO PARTICULAR PERSONS, MICHELLE ABOUDRAM WHO WAS THE DEFENDANT'S MAID FOR MANY YEARS OVER ON ROCKINGHAM, AND CATHY RANDA WHO WAS THE DEFENDANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT FOR PROBABLY LIKE TWENTY YEARS, SOMETHING LIKE TWENTY YEARS. WHAT CONCERNS ME, YOUR HONOR, IS THAT THE COURT HAS NOT READ THE SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION THAT I FILED. AS YOUR HONOR KNOWS, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ISSUES THOUSANDS OF SDT'S PER MONTH THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY FOR RECORDS OF ALL SORTS, INCLUDING PHONE RECORDS. WE ARE AWARE THAT IT IS THE CUSTOM AND PRACTICE OF PACIFIC BELL TO ALERT CONSUMERS SHOULD THEY HAVE ANY CONCERN ABOUT THAT. YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO GO INTO A LENGTHY RHETORIC MYSELF ABOUT THE COST CURRENTLY OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, THE DIFFICULTIES OUR OFFICE HAS IN OBTAINING APPROPRIATE BUDGETING, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE CURRENT THREE STRIKES LAWS. WE DO THE BEST WE CAN UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, YOUR HONOR. NOW, BECAUSE THERE WAS CONCERN RAISED IN THIS CASE WITH THE PRIVACY OF THE TWO PARTICULAR WITNESSES INVOLVED, I TOOK A LOOK AT THE DECLARATION WHICH WE SENT OUT WHICH IS A PRO FORMA DECLARATION, FRANKLY, THAT SAYS THAT THEY ARE NECESSARY TO PROVE THE CHARGES, THE RECORDS ARE. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT OUR OFFICE ROUTINELY PUTS ON SUBPOENAS, AS I'M SURE YOUR HONOR IS AWARE, AND TO TAKE THE TIME IN EVERY CASE AND EVERY TYPE OF SUBPOENA FOR RECORDS TO HAVE TO DETAIL THE REASONS FOR IT WOULD REQUIRE SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONAL TIME ON THE PART OF D.A.'S HANDLING ALL THESE CASES FOR WHICH WE ISSUE THESE THOUSANDS OF SUBPOENAS.

BUT YOUR HONOR, BECAUSE THE PRIVACY CONCERNS WERE RAISED, I DID DETAIL IN -- I SET FORTH IN DETAIL THE REASONS WHY WE INDEED SUBPOENAED THESE PARTICULAR RECORDS, AND THE TIMING IS SELF-EVIDENT. WE ARE NOT TRYING TO MANUFACTURE OUR FACTS LATER. THESE RECORDS WERE SUBPOENAED ON FEBRUARY 9TH AND 10TH AND THEY FOLLOWED OUR SECOND INTERVIEW OF ZIONA FRIEDMAN WHICH WAS ON FEBRUARY 8TH. THAT LADY IS ALSO A MAID AND SHE WAS A MAID WHO MICHELLE, THE DEFENDANT'S MAID FOR APPROXIMATELY EIGHT YEARS, CALLED REGULARLY TO ASSIST HER WHEN THE DEFENDANT WAS ENTERTAINING. SHE IS ALSO SOMEONE -- MICHELLE AND ZIONA FRIEDMAN WERE CLOSE TOGETHER AND IN FACT THEIR RECORDS WERE SUBPOENAED ON THE SAME SDT. AND ZIONA FRIEDMAN HAS NOT SOUGHT LEGAL COUNSEL TO MOVE TO QUASH THE SUBPOENA FOR HER RECORDS. WHEN WE INTERVIEWED HER, YOUR HONOR, ON FEBRUARY 8TH, AND THIS IS SET FORTH IN MORE DETAIL IN MY DECLARATION, SHE INITIALLY, IN BEING DRIVEN TO THE INTERVIEW, SHE EXPRESSED CONCERNS TO ONE OF OUR D.A. INVESTIGATORS THAT SHE FELT SHE WAS BEING PRESSURED AND HARASSED BY MS. RANDA TO DISASSOCIATE HERSELF FROM THE PROSECUTION AND SHE WAS VERY ADAMANT ABOUT THOSE CONCERNS. WHEN WE GOT TO THE INTERVIEW, THE TAPED INTERVIEW, SHE DENIED THAT, BUT SHE STILL ACTED VERY SCARED, SAID SHE WAS VERY SCARED, VERY CONCERNED. IT APPEARED THAT SHE HAD WANTED TO TALK TO US BUT SHE WAS TERRIFIED OF DOING SO. IN ADDITION, SHE SET FORTH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT SHE HAD NOT PROVIDED WITH REGARD TO MICHELLE'S RECOUNTING OF THE 1989 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INCIDENT. IF THE COURT RECALLS, I BELIEVE THE COURT HEARD TESTIMONY DURING TRIAL AND/OR DURING THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE DURING THE 1101(B) HEARINGS THAT MICHELLE WAS THE PERSON INDEED WHO TRIED TO PULL NICOLE SIMPSON OUT OF THE CAR, OUT OF THE POLICE CAR BACK IN 1989, SO -- AND MICHELLE AS WELL IS SOMEONE WHO HAD, DURING THE PERIODS OF TIME IN QUESTION, CALLED THIS OTHER MAID, ZIONA FRIEDMAN, WHO HAS BEEN COOPERATIVE WITH THE PROSECUTION, ALMOST EVERYDAY, ACCORDING TO ZIONA, SO THAT HER TELEPHONE RECORDS WOULD BE THE ONE THAT WOULD SHOW THOSE CALLS TO ZIONA, RATHER THAN VICE VERSA. IN ADDITION, THE COURT WILL RECALL THE TESTIMONY OF RON SHIPP WHERE HE INDICATED THAT HE WAS -- CONSIDERED HIMSELF A GOOD FRIEND OF THE DEFENDANT AND OF CATHY RANDA AND HE ALLUDED TO HIM AND CATHY RANDA AS SHARING MUTUAL -- SUPPORTING EACH OTHER WITH REGARD TO DRINKING PROBLEMS. IT WAS THE ILLUSION THERE. AND BECAUSE MR. SHIPP DID NOT COME FORTH TO THE PROSECUTION UNTIL JANUARY 28 I BELIEVE IT WAS, WITH REVEALING THE DEFENDANT'S INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS ABOUT HAVING HAD DREAMS OF KILLING NICOLE SIMPSON, BECAUSE HE DID NOT COME FORTH UNTIL THAT DATE, THE PHONE RECORD OF CATHY RANDA SHOWING CALLS DURING THE TIME IN QUESTION FROM NOVEMBER, DECEMBER AND JANUARY, NOT ONLY TO THESE MAIDS IN QUESTION, BUT ALSO TO MR. SHIPP, FURTHER CORROBORATES HIS EXPLANATION THAT HE WAS A FRIEND OF THE DEFENDANTS, AND HIS BIAS, HIS NATURAL BIAS WAS FOR THE DEFENSE. AND IT DOES CORROBORATE WHY HE DID NOT COME FORTH UNTIL LATE IN TIME IN REVEALING THAT INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS OF THE DEFENDANT'S WAS BECAUSE HE DID NOT WANT NICOLE'S BLOOD ON HIS HANDS AND BECAUSE HIS GUILTY CONSCIENCE COULD NOT STOP HIM ANY LONGER. I WOULD CERTAINLY ASK THE COURT TO READ THE DECLARATION IN DETAIL. WHAT WE HAVE IS A SITUATION HERE, YOUR HONOR, WHERE THE -- LET ME MAKE MENTION OF ONE OTHER THING. MISS RANDA WAS NOTIFIED WITH REGARD TO HER PHONE RECORDS WHICH WERE OBTAINED EARLIER BY PACIFIC BELL. IT IS ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT C TO MR. SACKS' SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH CATHY RANDA -- I'M SORRY, IN SUPPORT OF MOTION BY CATHY RANDA TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM, AND THAT SHOWS THAT SHE WAS NOTIFIED.

IN ADDITION, YOUR HONOR, MR. SACKS MAY BE UNAWARE, BUT WE DID PROVIDE THE DISCOVERY TO THE DEFENSE IN THIS CASE, WHO HAS STANDING FOR THAT, THAT THOSE PHONE RECORDS WERE ALSO OBTAINED PURSUANT TO A SEARCH WARRANT WHICH COVERED NOT ONLY THOSE RECORDS, BUT SEVERAL OTHERS HAVING TO DO WITH THAT PERIOD OF TIME OF THE WEEK DURING WHICH THE DEFENDANT WAS FINALLY ARRESTED ON THE 17TH OF JUNE. SO SHE DID -- BUT SHE WAS NOTIFIED BECAUSE WE ALSO STD'D THEM. SHE WAS ALSO NOTIFIED BY PACIFIC BELL ABOUT THOSE. WE ARE HERE AT A POINT IN TIME, YOUR HONOR, WHERE THESE WITNESSES HAVE HAD NOTICE NOW. THEY HAVE STARTED TO HIRE, THEY DO HAVE ATTORNEYS, THEY HAVE ATTORNEYS WHO HAVE FILED POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ON THEIR BEHALF. THE COURT I BELIEVE HAS THE RECORDS BEFORE IT. THE COURT -- WE ARE IN A SITUATION WHERE THE COURT IS ABLE TO MAKE A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION, BASED ON THE ADDITIONAL FACTS I SET FORTH IN OUR SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION, AND THAT IS ALL THAT SHOULD BE REQUIRED AT THIS POINT IN TIME. WE CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO UNDULY HARASS EITHER OF THESE WITNESSES BY RESUBPOENING THE DOCUMENTS JUST SO I CAN SET FORTH MY FOUR OR FIVE-PAGE DECLARATION WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF OUR STANDARD SDT FORMAT.

I ALSO WANTED TO MENTION A COUPLE OF CASES THAT -- IT IS ACTUALLY ONE CASE BY THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT, ASSOCIATED BREWERS DISTRIBUTING COMPANY VERSUS SUPERIOR COURT, A 1967 CASE AT 65 CAL.2D 583 AT 587 AND A CASE WHICH QUOTES THAT CASE AND INVOKES ITS HOLDING, PEOPLE VERSUS BIGELOW, B-I-G-E-L-O-W, A 1988 CASE AT 200 CAL.APP.3D 59 AT PAGE 61. BOTH OF THOSE CASES TALK ABOUT WHEN THE SUBPOENA POWER IS INVOKED TO SECURE DISCOVERY, THE GOOD CAUSE AND MATERIALITY REQUIREMENTS OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 1985, WHICH RELATES TO THE ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS, MUST BE GOVERNED BY DISCOVERY STANDARDS AND THEY ALSO SAY: "THE OBJECTIVE IS NOT MERELY THE DISCOVERY OF ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE, BUT ALSO EFFECTIVE PREPARATION FOR TRIAL." SO WHEN THE COURT REVIEWS THE SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION WHICH I FILED, I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO -- I WOULD REMIND THE COURT THAT EVEN THOUGH WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF TRIAL AND THE COURT IS DECIDING ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE, THE STANDARD ON DISCOVERY IS WHETHER THE RECORDS SOUGHT WILL TEND TO LEAD TO ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OR WOULD ENHANCE OR ALLOW FOR THE EFFECTIVE PREPARATION FOR TRIAL.

SO YOUR HONOR, WHILE MR. SACKS TALKS ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF 300 WITNESSES AND SO FORTH, WE HAD GOOD REASON TO SUBPOENA THESE PARTICULAR RECORDS IN QUESTION AND I SET FORTH THOSE REASONS, WHICH WERE NOT AFTER DISCOVERED FACTS, BUT FACTS THAT HAPPENED RIGHT BEFORE THE TIME WE SUBPOENAED THEM, AND THAT IS WHY WE SUBPOENAED THEM. I DID ALL THAT TO ALLOW THE COURT TO MAKE AN INTELLIGENT DECISION AS TO WHETHER INDEED THERE IS MATERIALITY SHOWN, AND IN ADDITION, I DON'T THINK I MENTIONED IN THE DECLARATION, BUT OF COURSE THESE RECORDS ARE NOT AVAILABLE FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE, AND THAT IS ALWAYS ONE OF THE REASONS GIVEN WHY RECORDS ARE NECESSARY FROM A PARTICULAR SOURCE, SO I WOULD WANT THAT IN THE RECORD AS WELL. OF COURSE THESE RECORDS, PHONE RECORDS, ARE NOT AVAILABLE FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE THAT WE ARE AWARE OF.

THE COURT: MISS LEWIS, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS REGARDING THE REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS AND WHETHER OR NOT THE POLICY OF PACIFIC BELL TO NOTIFY THEIR CUSTOMERS IS REALLY SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE WITH THE PUBLIC UTILITY CODE?

MS. LEWIS: I BELIEVE IT IS SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE, YOUR HONOR. I WOULD NOT WANT YOUR HONOR TO SET PRECEDENTS THAT WOULD REQUIRE, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY, BUT SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONAL MONEY EXPENDED BY THE BUDGET ALLOTTED BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FROM THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WHICH COMES FROM THE TAXPAYERS, BECAUSE IF WE WERE REQUIRED TO NOTIFY THE CONSUMER IN EVERY CASE, THAT WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE THE EXPENSE TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE OF HAVING TO DO SO, AND ESPECIALLY GIVEN OUR KNOWLEDGE THAT IT IS PACIFIC BELL'S CUSTOM AND PRACTICE TO SUBMIT, WHENEVER THEY RETURN A SUBPOENA, THEIR POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AND THEIR NOTIFICATION, YOU KNOW, WITH THE RECORDS.

THE COURT: WHAT IS THE POLICY OF GENERAL TELEPHONE?

MS. LEWIS: WELL, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE POLICY OF ALL THE PHONE COMPANIES IS THE SAME, BUT I HAVE TO TELL YOU I HAVEN'T CALLED GTE IN PARTICULAR AND ASKED THEM THAT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. SOLOMON, ANY RESPONSE?

MR. SOLOMON: A COUPLE.

THE COURT: LET ME ASK MISS LEWIS ONE MORE QUESTION.

MR. SOLOMON: I'M SORRY.

THE COURT: MISS LEWIS, BOTH MR. SOLOMON AND MR. SACKS HAVE SUGGESTED THAT ASSUMING THE WORSE CASE SCENARIO, THAT I FIND THAT THERE IS SOME MATERIALITY AND THAT RATHER THAN REQUIRE YOU TO REISSUE A SUBPOENA FOR THE FIVE-PAGE DECLARATION IN SUPPORT, THAT THEY ARE RECOMMENDING THAT THE COURT REVIEW THE PHONE RECORDS IN CAMERA AND REDACT THOSE RECORDS JUST TO REFLECT THE PHONE CALLS BETWEEN THE PERSONS THAT YOU HAVE INDICATED ARE MATERIAL, RATHER THAN ALLOWING THE PROSECUTION UNFETTERED ACCESS TO THE COMPLETE PHONE RECORDS OF MISS RANDA AND MISS ABOUDRAM.

MS. LEWIS: I THINK THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE, YOUR HONOR. WITH REGARD TO MS. RANDA, I THINK AS THE COURT WILL SEE FROM THE DECLARATION, THERE ARE OTHER -- THERE ARE OTHER PERSONS WHICH -- WHICH WOULD BE RELEVANT. FOR EXAMPLE, ZIONA FRIEDMAN WAS ADVISED TO -- BY CATHY RANDA, I BELIEVE I HAVE SET IT FORTH IN DETAIL IN MY DECLARATION -- TO CALL BILL PAVELIC. SHE SAID SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT, "MY GOD, PLEASE, FOR O.J., CALL BILL PAVELIC BEFORE YOU TALK TO THE PROSECUTION." WE DIDN'T FIND THIS OUT UNTIL THE SECOND INTERVIEW WE DID OF HER ON FEBRUARY 8TH AND SHE SAID SHE DID CALL BILL PAVELIC INDEED AND SHE CLAIMS THAT MR. PAVELIC TOLD HER ONLY TO TELL THE TRUTH. WELL, THE LENGTH OF THE PHONE CONVERSATION BETWEEN THOSE TWO WOULD BE USEFUL IN ASSESSING THE ACCURACY OF THAT STATEMENT, SO -- AND SHE ALSO INDICATED THAT SHE CALLED A.C. COWLINGS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS LEWIS, FORGIVE ME FOR INTERRUPTING YOU, BUT MY SPECIFIC QUESTION, THOUGH, IS THAT WOULD YOU ACCEPT A REDACTED PHONE RECORD RATHER THAN THE COMPLETE PHONE RECORD THAT YOU SUBPOENAED?

MS. LEWIS: YES, YOUR HONOR. WE WOULD JUST NEED TO MAKE THE COURT SPECIFICALLY AWARE OF THE PHONE NUMBERS THAT WE ARE INTERESTED IN.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. MR. SOLOMON.

MR. SOLOMON: YES, YOUR HONOR. I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF THE LARGEST, I GUESS, PUBLIC LAW FIRM IN AMERICA, SAYING THAT THEY DON'T HAVE THE TIME, EFFORT ABILITY OR STAFF TO FILL OUT A SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM APPROPRIATELY. IF IN THE CIVIL COURT I HAD DONE WHAT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY HAD USED AND COME IN AND SAID, WELL, WE DON'T HAVE THE STAFF TO DO IT, THEY WOULD BE LOOKING FOR ME TO DO ANOTHER JOB, YOUR HONOR. YOU CAN'T DELEGATE THE FUNCTIONS OF SUBPOENA DT'S TO ONE LINE. YOU HAVE GOT TO USE THE APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE TO PROTECT PEOPLE. NOW, I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT THE REST OF THE WORLD, I AM WORRIED ABOUT MY CLIENT. THAT IS ALL I REPRESENT HERE. NOW, I HAVE HEARD NO JUSTIFICATION, OTHER THAN THIS IS THE WAY WE HAVE DONE IT FOR YEARS. WELL, THE CONSUMER NOTICE REQUIREMENT THEY DON'T EVEN GIVE. 1985.3 IS MANDATORY, NOT ON THE TELEPHONE COMPANY, BUT ON THE GOVERNMENT, WHOEVER WAS ATTEMPTING TO ISSUE THE SUBPOENA.

I'VE HEARD NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE COURT NOT TO IMPOSE SANCTIONS. AND THE QUESTION YOU ASKED MR. SACKS IS WHAT KIND OF SANCTIONS TO IMPOSE. WELL, FIRST OF ALL, IT SHOULD BE PAYABLE TO THE COURT, NOT TO COUNSEL. AND SECOND OF ALL, IT SHOULD BE APPROPRIATE WITH ANY OTHER TYPE OF SANCTIONS THAT THIS COURT HAS GIVEN IN THE PAST, EITHER AGAINST THE PROSECUTION OR THE DEFENSE, AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU ADMONISH THE JURY IS SOMETHING THAT IS NOT REALLY AN ISSUE I THINK. I THINK IT SHOULD BE A FINANCIAL SANCTION TO IMPOSE UPON BOTH THE PROSECUTION AND ANYBODY ELSE WHO APPEARS IN THIS COURT, THAT IF THEY ARE GOING TO SUBPOENA RECORDS OF PEOPLE, YOU BETTER COMPLY WITH THE LAW. I WOULD ALSO COMMENT THAT THE COMMENTS MADE BY MISS LEWIS REGARDING WHO SAID WHAT TO WHERE, ET CETERA, IS ALL HEARSAY DECLARATION BY MISS LEWIS. THERE IS NO DECLARATION IN THIS COURT IN THIS CASE FOR THESE SUBPOENAS BY ANY OF THE INVESTIGATORS OR BY MISS CLARK WHO WAS IN THE INTERVIEW. IT IS BY MISS LEWIS WHO HEARD IT FROM X, Y AND Z, SO WE HAVE A TRAIL OF HEARSAY HERE. ALSO, IN REGARD TO MY CLIENT, THEY ARE NOT ASKING FOR RECORDS WHEN SHE WAS THERE, YOUR HONOR. THEY ARE ASKING FROM NOVEMBER 1ST TO FEBRUARY 10, SOME FOUR AND A HALF MONTHS AFTER THE INCIDENTS. IN SPITE OF ALL THAT, WE WILL STILL GO ALONG WITH A REDACTED VERSION TO SAVE US FROM COMING BACK AGAIN, BUT I THINK AS MR. SACKS INDICATED, IT IS APPROPRIATE IN THIS CASE TO SANCTION THE PROSECUTION. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL. MR. SACKS, ANY BRIEF RESPONSE?

MR. SACKS: YES, YOUR HONOR. IN RESPONSE TO THE DECLARATION ITSELF, AND WHAT WE HAVE HEARD IS HEARSAY ON HEARSAY, WE ARE NOT HERE TO LITIGATE THE TRUTHFULNESS OF THAT DECLARATION, JUST WHETHER OR NOT THAT DECLARATION WILL SUFFICE AS GOOD CAUSE. MY CLIENT CATEGORICALLY DENIES ANY ALLEGATIONS OF WRONGDOING MADE AGAINST HER IN THAT DECLARATION. BUT IN DEALING WITH THE POSITION OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, MY LAW OFFICE DOESN'T HAVE 125 OR 150 MILLION DOLLAR A YEAR BUDGET AND YET I FIND TIME TO DRAFT A DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF A SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM AS AN ATTORNEY PRACTICING BY MYSELF. I CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHY ATTORNEYS CLAIM THAT THEY DON'T HAVE THE MONEY WHEN ALL IT DOES IS TAKE TIME AND EFFORT TO PROPERLY DRAFT A DOCUMENT.

I THINK THE COURT, IF THEY WANT A BRIEF ON SOMETHING, YOU EXPECT AN ISSUE TO BE FULLY BRIEFED BY BOTH SIDES AND NOT TO GET SLOPPY LAWYERING IN THE PROCESS. NOW, IN ADDITION TO THE SANCTIONS SITUATION, I THINK MISS LEWIS MISSED THE POINT. SHE IS TELLING THIS COURT THAT SANCTIONS SHOULDN'T BE IMPOSED BECAUSE OF THE POLICY, THE COMPANY POLICY OF PACIFIC BELL, MY CLIENT DID GET NOTICE. WELL, MY CLIENT GOT NOTICE THAT THERE WAS A SUBPOENA, BUT SHE NEVER GOT THE SUBPOENA, AND IT IS NOT THE REQUIREMENT UNDER THE LAW FOR THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE COMPANY TO GIVE NOTICE TO THEIR SUBSCRIBERS. THEY DO THAT AS A COURTESY. BUT IF THEY STOPPED THAT COURTESY TOMORROW, WHO EVEN GETS ANY NOTICE THAT THEY ARE HOLDING A SUBPOENA FOR THOSE RECORDS? 1985.3(E) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE REQUIRES ON THE GOVERNMENT, OR ANY OTHER PARTY SEEKING A SUBPOENA UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, TO GIVE DIRECT NOTICE TO THE CONSUMER OR THEIR ATTORNEY. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY DIDN'T STAND BEFORE THIS COURT SAYING IN THE FUTURE WE ARE GOING TO GIVE NOTICE TO THE WITNESSES. SHE SAID WE ARE GOING TO RELY ON PACIFIC BELL TO CONTINUE WITH THE COMPANY POLICY, AND THAT IS NOT WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES. AND I THINK THAT EMPHASIZES THE REASON WHY THE COURT SHOULD SERIOUSLY CONSIDER THE REQUEST OF SANCTIONS BEING IMPOSED AT THIS TIME, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT GOING TO CHANGE THEIR WAYS AND THEY ARE NOT GOING TO CHANGE THEIR MIND. THEY ARE JUST GOING TO CONTINUE TO DO THINGS IN THE SAME WAY THAT THEY THINK IS APPROPRIATE, WHICH AMOUNTS TO NOTHING MORE THAN GOVERNMENTAL ABUSE AGAINST A CITIZEN OF THIS STATE THAT IS PROTECTED UNDER THE LAW TO RECEIVE THE NOTICE THAT THE LAW SAYS THEY SHOULD GET. AND TO DO OTHERWISE IS A VIOLATION OF THE LAW. AND TO STAND BEFORE THIS COURT AND SAY WE ARE GOING TO DO THE SAME OLD THING BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A 32-CENT STAMP TO SEND OUT THE SUBPOENA TO MISS RANDA OR HER ATTORNEY, IS THE BASIS OF WHICH THEY ARE STATING THEY ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO NOT COMPLY WITH THE LAW. AND I FIND THAT LUDICROUS AT THE PRICE OF A 32-CENT STAMP AND THE COST OF XEROXING TWO PIECES OF PAPER, WHICH IS THE SUBPOENA AND THE DECLARATION OF SUPPORT, IS THE BASIS TO INTENTIONALLY TO CONTINUE TO VIOLATE THIS LAW. AND I WOULD SUBMIT ON IT THAT BASIS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. I'M GOING TO TAKE THE MATTER UNDER SUBMISSION SO I CAN READ THE DECLARATION FILED BY MISS LEWIS, AND I WILL ISSUE A WRITTEN RULING. ALL RIGHT.

MR. SOLOMON: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR HONOR.

MR. SACKS: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. I APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION AND TIME.

MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, JUST FOR THE RECORD, I READ THE TRANSCRIPT OF ZIONA FRIEDMAN AND I LISTENED TO THE OTHER TAPED INTERVIEW, SO IT IS NOT HEARSAY UPON HEARSAY UPON HEARSAY.

THE COURT: THE RECORD SHOULD ALSO REFLECT THAT IT IS GTE THAT RESPONDED; NOT PACIFIC BELL.

MS. LEWIS: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: I'M GOING TO NEED TO TAKE A BRIEF RECESS. WE HAVE THE CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS HERE FROM THE LAPD THAT I NEED TO CHAT WITH ON THE RECORD IN CHAMBERS, SO WE WILL TAKE ABOUT A 15-MINUTE RECESS.

(RECESS.)

(PAGES 11730 THROUGH 11733, VOLUME 102A, TRANSCRIBED AND SEALED UNDER SEPARATE COVER.)

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. BE SEATED. ALL RIGHT. BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT ALL PARTIES ARE AGAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT. WE'VE NOW BEEN JOINED BY OUR JURY PANEL. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, GOOD MORNING.

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

THE COURT: MY APOLOGIES TO YOU THIS MORNING. WE'VE BEEN IN SESSION SINCE 9:00 O'CLOCK. I HAD TWO MATTERS THAT I HAD TO DEAL WITH REGARDING THE PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE BY THIRD PARTIES. SO I HAD TO RULE ON THOSE MOTIONS BEFORE WE COULD START TODAY. ALL RIGHT. LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT DETECTIVE TOM LANGE IS STILL ON THE WITNESS STAND.

TOM LANGE, THE WITNESS ON THE STAND AT THE TIME OF THE EVENING ADJOURNMENT, RESUMED THE STAND AND TESTIFIED FURTHER AS FOLLOWS:

THE COURT: GOOD MORNING AGAIN, DETECTIVE LANGE.

THE WITNESS: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: HE'S ON REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY THE PEOPLE. MISS CLARK, YOU MAY CONTINUE.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. GOOD MORNING.

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED)

BY MS. CLARK:

Q: DETECTIVE LANGE, YOU WERE SPEAKING YESTERDAY YOUR REASONS AS TO WHY IN YOUR OPINION BASED ON WHAT YOU SAW IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION YOU DID NOT BELIEVE THESE TO BE DRUG RELATED MURDERS. YOU RECALL THAT?

A: YES.

Q: IN THAT REGARD, SIR, YOU INDICATED -- DO YOU RECALL INDICATING TO MR. COCHRAN THAT THERE WERE SUPERFICIAL INQUIRIES MADE CONCERNING THE TOPIC OF WHETHER OR NOT DRUGS WERE INVOLVED IN THESE MURDERS? DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: YES.

Q: CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN TO US WHAT YOU MEAN BY SUPERFICIAL INQUIRY?

A: CHECKING THE LOCATION FOR DRUG DEBRIS OR DRUG PARAPHERNALIA, FOR WEAPONS PERHAPS, FOR ANY -- ANYTHING THAT WOULD INDICATE NARCOTICS ACTIVITY ON THE PART OF THE VICTIM OR THE SUSPECTS.

Q: AND SO WAS THAT AN EXAMINATION THAT YOU MADE AT THE CRIME SCENE?

A: YES.

Q: AND WAS -- WAS THE CONDOMINIUM -- WAS MISS BROWN'S CONDOMINIUM EXAMINED BY POLICE?

A: YES.

Q: WERE -- WAS THERE ANY DRUGS FOUND?

A: NO.

Q: WERE THERE ANY PARAPHERNALIA FOR DRUGS FOUND?

A: NO.

Q: ANY SCALES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT?

A: NO.

Q: ANY PARAPHERNALIA FOR THE USAGE OF COCAINE?

A: NO.

Q: OR MARIJUANA?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU FIND ANY WRITINGS IN THE WAY OF PAY AND OWE SHEETS CONCERNING MONIES TO BE PAID FOR A KILO OF THIS OR A GRAM OF THAT?

A: I DID NOT.

Q: WAS ANY MATERIAL LIKE THAT EVER FOUND IN THE APARTMENT -- THE CONDOMINIUM THAT WAS SHOWN TO YOU LATER?

A: NO.

Q: WAS MR. GOLDMAN'S APARTMENT EXAMINED FOR -- EXAMINED ALSO?

A: YES.

Q: AND WAS ANYTHING RELATED TO DRUGS OR DRUG PARAPHERNALIA FOUND IN HIS APARTMENT?

A: NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

Q: AND WOULD IT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, SIR, AS THE LEAD INVESTIGATOR?

MR. COCHRAN: I OBJECT TO THAT. NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE.

THE COURT: CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WAS THE EVIDENCE -- WAS THE APARTMENT -- FINDINGS MADE IN THE APARTMENT OF RON GOLDMAN MADE KNOWN TO YOU, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: AND WAS ANYTHING MADE KNOWN TO YOU CONCERNING THE SEARCH OF HIS APARTMENT --

MR. COCHRAN: SAME OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: COMPLETE THE QUESTION.

MS. CLARK: LET ME START ANOTHER ONE, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WAS ANY EVIDENCE -- WAS -- WERE ANY DRUGS OR DRUG PARAPHERNALIA SEIZED FROM MR. GOLDMAN'S APARTMENT, SIR?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION. HE HAS NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THAT.

MS. CLARK: THIS IS THE BASIS OF HIS OPINION.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THIS IS -- THIS INFORMATION IS LIMITED ONLY TO THE STATE OF MIND OF THIS DETECTIVE. IT'S NOT NECESSARILY TRUE. IT'S HIS STATE OF MIND.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK.

THE WITNESS: NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: OTHER DETECTIVES SEARCHED MR. GOLDMAN'S APARTMENT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: WAS THAT AT YOUR DIRECTION, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: DID THEY TURN OVER TO YOU ANY EVIDENCE OF DRUGS OR DRUG PARAPHERNALIA FOUND IN MR. GOLDMAN'S APARTMENT?

A: NO.

Q: WAS THERE ANY PAY AND OWE SHEETS INDICATING MONIES PAID OR RECEIVED FOR THE SALE OF DRUGS?

A: NO.

Q: WERE THERE ANY SCALES OR CUTTING AGENTS OR DEBRIS ASSOCIATED WITH DRUG USAGE OR DRUG SALES FOUND IN MR. GOLDMAN'S APARTMENT?

A: NO.

Q: AND IS THAT -- DID YOU COMPLETE YOUR ANSWER WITH RESPECT TO WHAT YOU MEANT BY SUPERFICIAL INQUIRY? IS THAT WHAT YOU MEANT?

MR. COCHRAN: LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER TO ADD? I DON'T KNOW IF I CUT YOU OFF, SIR.

A: NO. THAT'S IT.

Q: NOW, WITH RESPECT TO -- YOU ALSO ALLUDED TO YESTERDAY THE MANNER OF KILLING AS ANOTHER REASON WHY YOU FELT THESE WERE NOT DRUG-RELATED MURDERS. DO YOU RECALL THAT, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: YOU REFERRED TO THE FACT THAT THERE --

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT TO THIS. THIS IS IMPROPER QUESTIONING, NO FOUNDATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. IT'S FOUNDATION, THE NEXT QUESTION IS.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: YOU REFERRED TO, IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, IT'S USUALLY FIREARMS, GUNS THAT ARE USED IN DRUG-RELATED MURDERS?

A: IT'S BEEN MY EXPERIENCE, YES.

Q: WAS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE WOUNDS THAT YOU OBSERVED EITHER AT THE CRIME SCENE AND IN THE COURSE OF THE AUTOPSY THAT CAUSED YOU TO CONCLUDE THAT THESE WERE NOT DRUG-RELATED MURDERS?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT WAS THAT?

A: THIS APPEARED TO ME TO BE AN OVERKILL OR RAGE KILLING.

Q: AND HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU SEE IN DRUG-RELATED MURDERS?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THAT. OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT. CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: AGAIN, IN MY MIND, IT APPEARED TO BE MOTIVATED BY RAGE AND NOT NARCOTICS RELATED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: IN NARCOTICS-RELATED CASES, WHAT KIND OF WOUNDING DO YOU TYPICALLY SEE --

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, OBJECT AGAIN.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: -- AS COMPARED TO THIS CASE?

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: GENERALLY, YOU WOULD SEE GUNSHOT WOUNDS, WHAT I SAW NORMALLY.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: I AM SORRY?

A: NORMALLY A GUNSHOT WOUND. THE MURDERS THAT I'VE HANDLED, NORMALLY BY GUNSHOT WOUNDS AS OPPOSED TO EXCESSIVE SLASHING, STABBING OF THE VICTIM.

Q: ALL RIGHT. I BELIEVE THAT ON CROSS-EXAMINATION ALSO, YOU DISCUSSED WITH MR. COCHRAN THE POSSIBLE ORDER OF DEATH, WHETHER NICOLE WAS KILLED FIRST, WHETHER RON GOLDMAN WAS KILLED FIRST. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: PARTIALLY. I DON'T RECALL TESTIFYING TO AN ORDER.

Q: AND WHAT IS YOUR OPINION IN THAT REGARD, SIR?

A: AS TO WHO WAS ATTACKED OR DIED FIRST?

Q: YES.

A: FROM THE EVIDENCE, I REALLY CAN'T TELL.

Q: UH-HUH. COULD BE EITHER ONE?

A: COULD BE EITHER ONE.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, AT THIS TIME, I WOULD ASK LEAVE OF THE COURT TO REOPEN DIRECT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SHOWING THE JURY A VIDEOTAPE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. PROCEED. LET ME JUST INSTRUCT THE JURY WHAT THAT MEANS. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, REOPENING DIRECT MEANS THAT THE PROSECUTION IS GOING TO GO INTO SOMETHING THAT THEY DID NOT PRESENT PREVIOUSLY IN THEIR FIRST EXAMINATION OF MR. LANGE, DETECTIVE LANGE, AND I'VE ALLOWED THEM TO DO THAT RATHER THAN TO RECALL THE WITNESS AT A LATER TIME SINCE HE'S HERE. MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: IT'S PLAYING. DO YOU WANT THAT PLAYING?

MS. CLARK: NO, NOT YET.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: MY APOLOGIES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: SIR, I'M SHOWING YOU A PHOTOGRAPH THAT'S BEEN PREVIOUSLY MARKED AS PEOPLE'S 57. DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE LOCATION SHOWN THERE?

A: YES. THAT APPEARS TO BE THE WALKWAY AT 875 BUNDY, CRIME SCENE.

Q: CAN YOU TELL BY WHAT YOU SEE IN THAT PHOTOGRAPH WHO THAT OFFICER IS?

A: NO.

Q: I'M GOING TO PUT THAT UP ON THE ELMO OR LET ME ALSO SHOW YOU DEFENSE 1011. CAN YOU TELL US, DOES THAT APPEAR TO BE A COPY OF THE SAME PHOTOGRAPH BUT WITH THE LOGO AMERICAN JOURNAL BLOCKED OUT?

A: YES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, YOU HAVE ON THE ELMO WHICH OF THE EXHIBITS?

MS. CLARK: THIS IS PEOPLE'S 57, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT, SIR. NOW, CAN YOU TELL US AT WHAT TIME THE CRIME SCENE IN THIS CASE AT 875 SOUTH BUNDY WAS BROKEN DOWN?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS APPROXIMATELY 3:00 OR 3:30 THAT AFTERNOON OF THE 13TH.

Q: OKAY. YOU DON'T PRESENTLY RECALL EXACTLY?

A: EXACTLY? NO.

Q: WOULD IT REFRESH YOUR MEMORY IF YOU LOCKED AT THE CHRONO LOG?

A: YES.

Q: GO AHEAD.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE WITNESS: LAST ENTRY SHOWS 3:45 P.M.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: NOW, AFTER THE CRIME SCENE TAPE IS TAKEN DOWN, WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT? WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

A: THAT THE CRIME SCENE IN EFFECT HAS BEEN BROKEN DOWN AND THAT THE INVESTIGATORS AND THE OFFICERS INVOLVED ARE LEAVING AT THAT TIME.

Q: OKAY. AND DOES THAT THEN PERMIT PEOPLE TO WALK INSIDE WHERE THE CRIME SCENE -- THE AREA WHERE THE CRIME SCENE TAPE HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY BLOCKING OFF?

A: WELL, THERE WOULD BE NOTHING TO PREVENT THAT.

Q: IS THERE ANYTHING IMPROPER AT THAT TIME FOR POLICE OFFICERS THEN TO WALK INSIDE THE AREA THAT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN BLOCKED OFF BY THE CRIME SCENE TAPE?

A: NO.

Q: CAN YOU TELL BY LOOKING AT THIS PHOTOGRAPH, SIR, WHETHER THE CRIME SCENE TAPE HAS BEEN REMOVED OR NOT?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU SEE AN OFFICER STROLL UP THE WALKWAY IN THE MANNER SHOWN IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH DURING THE TIME THE CRIME SCENE TAPE WAS STILL UP --

A: NO.

Q: -- AT 875 SOUTH BUNDY?

A: NO.

MS. CLARK: THE FOLLOWING VIDEOTAPE I WOULD ASK BE MARKED NEXT IN ORDER, PEOPLE'S 101.

THE COURT: 101.

(PEO'S 101 FOR ID = VIDEOTAPE/CRIME SCENE)

(AT 10:25 A.M., PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT 101, A VIDEOTAPE, WAS PLAYED.)

Q: BY MS. CLARK: CAN YOU TELL US WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE IN THIS PORTION OF THE TAPE, SIR?

A: THAT'S THE OFFICERS REMOVING THE CRIME SCENE TAPE AND THE SCENE IS APPARENTLY BEING BROKEN DOWN.

Q: AND YOU SAID THAT WAS APPROXIMATELY 3:45?

A: YES.

Q: THEN AT THIS POINT, THE CRIME SCENE TAPE HAS BEEN REMOVED?

A: YES.

Q: DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE INVESTIGATION HAS BASICALLY BEEN COMPLETED IN THIS AREA?

MR. COCHRAN: ASKED AND ANSWERED, YOUR HONOR, THIS MORNING.

THE COURT: IT'S LEADING.

MS. CLARK: SORRY.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHAT DOES THAT MEAN WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER OR NOT THE CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION -- THE STATUS OF THE CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION IN THIS AREA?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION. THIS WAS ASKED AND ANSWERED THIS MORNING.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME, IT'S BEEN CONCLUDED.

MS. CLARK: AND STOP.

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

Q: BY MS. CLARK: I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU AGAIN PEOPLE'S -- OOPS -- PEOPLE'S 57 AND THE DEFENSE 1011 AND ASK YOU IF THESE APPEAR TO BE A STILL FRAME TAKEN FROM THE VIDEO WE'RE NOW LOOKING AT THAT'S BEEN MARKED PEOPLE'S 101.

A: DOES APPEAR TO BE A STILL OF THAT VIDEO, YES.

MS. CLARK: MAY I ASK PERMISSION OF THE COURT TO LET THE JURY -- TO PASS THESE PICTURES TO THE JURY WHILE THIS IS STILL ON THE SCREEN?

THE COURT: YES.

(PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT 57 AND DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1011 WERE PASSED AMONGST THE JURY.)

(AT 10:30 A.M., THE PLAYING OF THE VIDEOTAPE ENDED.)

THE COURT: DEPUTY RUSSELL, WE'VE GOT ANOTHER CELLULAR PHONE GOING OFF IN THE AUDIENCE. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I THINK THE COURT'S ORDER IS QUITE CLEAR. ANY ELECTRONIC DEVICES ARE TO BE TURNED OFF IN THE COURTROOM.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: MRS. ROBERTSON, WHAT IS THE DEFENSE EXHIBIT?

THE CLERK: 1011.

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT, SIR. AND AT THE TIME THEN --

THE COURT: WAIT, WAIT, WAIT.

MS. CLARK: OH, I'M SORRY.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT EACH OF THE JURORS HAS TAKEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMPARE PEOPLE'S 57 AND DEFENSE 1011 WITH THE STILL FRAME VIDEO THAT IS NOW ON THE SCREEN. MISS CLARK, I WOULD SUGGEST WE PRINT THIS OUT.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: THEN AT THE TIME THAT THESE -- THAT YOU SEE THE OFFICER ON THE WALKWAY AS DEPICTED IN THE PHOTOGRAPHS AND IN THE VIDEO FROM WHICH THE PHOTOGRAPHS WERE TAKEN, THE CRIME SCENE TAPE, IS IT UP OR DOWN?

A: DOWN.

Q: AND WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT, SIR? WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

A: THAT THE CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION AT THAT TIME HAS BEEN CONCLUDED.

Q: AND DOES THAT -- WHAT DOES THAT MEAN WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER IT WAS APPROPRIATE OR NOT FOR THE OFFICER TO BE ON THAT WALKWAY WALKING IN THE MANNER YOU SEE HIM ON THE VIDEO AND ON THAT STILL?

A: IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR HIM TO DO THAT.

Q: CAN YOU TELL US, SIR, IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION IN THIS CASE, APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY WITNESSES HAVE BEEN INTERVIEWED?

A: I'M AWARE OF I BELIEVE A HUNDRED AND SEVENTY FORMAL INTERVIEWS THAT ARE WRITTEN. THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHER INTERVIEWS THAT ARE TAPED. THERE'S AN EXCESS OF 440 CLUES I BELIEVE WITH NUMEROUS INTERVIEWS ASSOCIATED WITH EACH ONE.

Q: EACH OF THOSE CLUES HAS BEEN INVESTIGATED, SIR?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

MR. COCHRAN: LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND WERE ALL OF THOSE CLUES WITH RESPECT TO -- WERE ALL CLUES FOLLOWED UP?

A: WE -- WE GET CLUES IN ALMOST ON A DAILY BASIS AND IT'S AN ON-GOING PROCESS, BUT THEY ARE ALL BEING FOLLOWED UP OR HAVE BEEN.

Q: AND DID YOU FOLLOW UP CLUES THAT -- EXCUSE ME. STRIKE THAT.

MS. CLARK: MAY I HAVE A MOMENT?

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

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DO YOU --

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND HAS THE INVESTIGATION OF THIS CASE -- HAS THE INVESTIGATION OF THIS CASE STOPPED, SIR?

A: NO. IT'S ONGOING.

Q: IS THAT UNUSUAL?

A: NO. NOT AT ALL.

Q: CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT, PLEASE?

A: IN MOST OF MY CASES, WE GET INFORMATION ALL THE TIME FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES. CERTAINLY IN THIS CASE, DUE TO THE GREAT AMOUNT OF PUBLICITY, WE ARE GETTING INFORMATION ON A DAILY BASIS AND ATTEMPTING TO FOLLOW UP ON ALL OF IT.

Q: UH-HUH. WELL, SIR, BUT IN YOUR OTHER CASES, DOES -- HAS YOUR INVESTIGATION STOPPED AT THE MOMENT OF TRIAL?

A: NO.

MR. COCHRAN: I OBJECT. IRRELEVANT AND IMMATERIAL.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: FOR HOW LONG DOES YOUR INVESTIGATION CONTINUE IN YOUR OTHER CASES, NOT JUST THIS ONE?

A: CONTINUES RIGHT INTO TRIAL AND RIGHT THROUGH TRIAL.

Q: IS THAT A TYPICAL THING?

A: YES, IT IS.

Q: AND YOU CONTINUE TO FOLLOW UP ALL LEADS IN ALL CASES THAT YOU -- THAT YOU INVESTIGATE, THAT YOU HANDLE?

A: YES.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE HERE THE -- THE PRINTOUT STILL FROM THE VIDEO TAPE MARKED PEOPLE'S 101, ASK THAT THIS BE 101-A.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. 101-A.

(PEO'S 101-A FOR ID = PRINTOUT STILL OF VIDEOTAPE)

Q: BY MS. CLARK: IN THAT RESPECT, SIR, IS THIS CASE ANY DIFFERENT THAN THE OTHER CASES YOU'VE HANDLED?

MR. COCHRAN: VAGUE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: JUST AS TO THE VOLUME OF INFORMATION COMING IN.

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

MS. CLARK: I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER.

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. COCHRAN:

Q: GOOD MORNING, DETECTIVE LANGE.

A: GOOD MORNING, SIR.

Q: PRIOR TO YOUR UNDERGOING REDIRECT EXAMINATION, YOU HAD A NUMBER OF CONVERSATIONS WITH MISS CLARK; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: REGARDING YOUR TESTIMONY AND THE QUESTIONS SHE WOULD ASK YOU?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU DISCUSSED AND WENT OVER THE CONTENT OF THE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS THAT WE POSED TO YOU; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: SO THAT YOU KNEW WHAT QUESTIONS SHE WAS GOING TO ASK, AND IN FACT, YOU REHEARSED WHAT YOU WERE GOING TO BE TESTIFYING ABOUT; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION TO THE CHARACTERIZATION "REHEARSED."

THE COURT: REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WELL, YOU DISCUSSED WHAT YOU WERE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT HERE IN COURT YESTERDAY AND TODAY; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND IN THE COURSE OF THAT -- HOW -- WHEN DID YOU DO THAT? WHEN DID YOU HAVE THAT CONVERSATION?

A: I BELIEVE THERE ARE MORE THAN ONE CONVERSATION.

Q: WELL, START AT THE FIRST ONE. LET'S TAKE WHEN THE FIRST ONE WAS THAT YOU HAD THIS CONVERSATION WITH MISS CLARK PREPARING YOU FOR YOUR REDIRECT EXAMINATION.

A: FOR REDIRECT?

Q: YES.

A: I DON'T RECALL. PERHAPS LAST WEEK.

Q: LAST WEEK, WHILE WE WERE OFF ON THIS CASE, THAT YOU HAD AN OCCASION TO TALK TO MISS CLARK DURING THAT TIME FRAME?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS LAST WEEK.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: WELL, COUNSEL, WE WEREN'T OFF FROM THIS CASE LAST WEEK.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, WE WERE OFF -- THE JURY WASN'T HERE.

THE COURT: THE JURY -- ALL RIGHT.

MR. COCHRAN: SORRY. WE WERE WORKING, YES, YOUR HONOR. SO STIPULATED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WHEN THE JURY WAS NOT HERE WITH US LAST WEEK, YOU HAD OCCASION TO TALK TO MISS CLARK ABOUT YOUR UPCOMING TESTIMONY; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHERE DID THAT FIRST CONVERSATION TAKE PLACE?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS HERE IN THE BUILDING.

Q: AND WAS ANYBODY ELSE PRESENT DURING THAT CONVERSATION?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

Q: NOW, JUST THE TWO OF YOU WERE TALKING?

A: WELL, THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT ARE CONSTANTLY MOVING IN AND OUT OF HER OFFICE.

Q: WELL, THE PRIMARY CONVERSATION WAS BETWEEN YOU AND SHE; IS THAT CORRECT, SIR?

A: WELL, THERE WERE ONE OR TWO CONVERSATIONS THAT I RECALL THAT WE HAD IN REGARDS TO REDIRECT. IT WAS PRIMARILY THE TWO OF US, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THAT TOOK PLACE AS BEST YOU CAN RECALL LAST WEEK UP IN MISS CLARK'S OFFICE; IS THAT CORRECT, SIR?

A: I BELIEVE SO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WHAT DATE WAS THE FIRST CONVERSATION?

A: I DON'T KNOW.

Q: WHAT DATE WAS THE SECOND CONVERSATION?

A: I DON'T RECALL WHAT DATE. IT WAS SOME DAY LAST WEEK.

Q: ONE DAY LAST WEEK?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS LAST WEEK.

Q: AND DID YOU TALK ABOUT YOUR TESTIMONY YESTERDAY BEFORE YOU TOOK THE STAND FOR REDIRECT EXAMINATION?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

Q: DID YOU TALK ABOUT IT TODAY, THIS MORNING BEFORE WE STARTED ON THIS PART OF THE CASE?

A: THERE WAS SOME CONVERSATION, YES.

Q: AND THAT AGAIN WAS BETWEEN YOU AND MISS CLARK; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, WITH REGARD TO THIS VIDEO THAT WE JUST SAW --

MR. COCHRAN: I WANT TO HAVE THAT VIDEO REPLAYED, IF I CAN, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. COCHRAN: CAN WE HAVE THAT REPLAYED?

THE COURT: PEOPLE'S 101?

MR. COCHRAN: YES.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU HAVE SHARED BEFORE IT'S -- WELL, IT'S BEING PUT UP. YOU SHARED WITH US THAT THE BEST OF YOUR RECOLLECTION, THE SCENE WAS BROKEN DOWN ON JUNE 13 PERHAPS AT ABOUT 3:45 IN THE AFTERNOON; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: APPROXIMATELY, YES.

Q: SO, AS WE KNOW, POLICE OFFICERS WERE FREE TO WALK IN AND OUT AT THAT POINT?

MR. COCHRAN: HOLD IT.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: POLICE OFFICERS WERE FREE TO WALK IN AND OUT OF THE SCENE AT THAT POINT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND WE ALSO KNOW THAT, ACCORDING TO YOUR TESTIMONY, THERE WAS SOME ALLEGED BLOOD SPOTS ON THE REAR GATE OF THIS PREMISES; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND NO PHOTOGRAPHS WERE TAKEN OF THOSE BLOOD SPOTS ON JUNE 13TH; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND NOBODY EVEN BOTHERED TO COME BACK AND YOU DIDN'T GO BACK AND EVEN CHECK UNTIL JULY 3RD, SOME THREE WEEKS LATER; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

A: THE REAR GATE AREA, THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: YES. AND THAT SCENE HAD BEEN BROKEN DOWN ALL OF THAT TIME; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: IN FACT, YOU CAME BACK ON AT LEAST TWO OR THREE OCCASIONS BETWEEN JUNE 13TH AND JULY 3RD AND YOU NEVER WENT BACK TO THE REAR; IS THAT CORRECT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. ASKED AND ANSWERED.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. NOW, LET US SEE THAT VIDEO, IF WE CAN.

(AT 10:40 A.M., PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT 101, A VIDEOTAPE, WAS PLAYED.)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DID MISS CLARK SHOW YOU THIS VIDEO LAST WEEK WHEN YOU WERE MEETING AND TALKING ABOUT YOUR REDIRECT EXAMINATION?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE I'VE EVER SEEN THIS VIDEO.

MR. COCHRAN: IT'S VERY DARK. CAN WE BACK IT UP, YOUR HONOR? CAN YOU BACK UP THE -- ALL RIGHT. NOW, LET'S STOP IT THERE.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: THAT WHITE BLANKET OR SHEET, WAS THAT A BLANKET OR SHEET THAT HAD BEEN PLACED OVER MISS NICOLE SIMPSON'S BODY?

A: THAT APPEARS TO BE, YES.

Q: AND WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT THE SCENE AFTER YOU GOT THE CALL AND YOU FROM ROBBERY-HOMICIDE TOOK OVER THIS CASE, YOU FIRST ARRIVED THERE, WAS THE BLOOD IN AND AROUND MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S BODY STILL WET?

A: THERE WERE PARTS THAT I WOULD TERM AROUND HER ON THE PAVEMENT STICKY.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THAT BLANKET OR SHEET THERE WAS PLACED OVER HER BODY AT SOME POINT?

A: YES.

Q: AND DO YOU SEE THE RED PORTIONS ON THAT BLANKET OR SHEET WHICH IS WHITE?

A: YES.

Q: DOES THAT APPEAR TO YOU TO BE BLOOD?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT BLANKET OR SHEET HAD BEEN ON TOP OF HER BODY AT SOME POINT?

A: EARLIER IN THE DAY, YES.

Q: IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU NEVER SAVED THAT BLANKET OR SHEET, DID YOU?

A: NO.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S TRACE EVIDENCE ON THAT BLANKET OR SHEET?

A: TRACE EVIDENCE?

Q: TRACE EVIDENCE FROM HER BODY.

A: I WOULD HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING WHAT WAS ON THAT BLANKET.

Q: AND YOU NEVER SAVED IT. WAS IT ULTIMATELY THROWN AWAY?

A: I BELIEVE SO.

Q: NOW, YOU'RE NOT A CRIMINALIST, ARE YOU?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND YOU'RE NOT A DOCTOR, ARE YOU?

A: NO.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. LET'S CONTINUE ON WITH THE VIDEO.

(PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT 101, A VIDEOTAPE, CONTINUES PLAYING.) Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WHEN'S THE LAST TIME YOU SAW THIS SHEET WITH THE BLOOD THEREON OR BLANKET?

A: MORNING OF THE 13TH.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHATEVER HAPPENED TO IT?

A: NO, I DON'T.

Q: DID YOU EVER COME BACK TO THE SCENE ON JUNE 13TH AFTER YOU LEFT ABOUT 12:00 NOON?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE I RETURNED THAT DAY.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO IF THIS TOOK PLACE, THIS VIDEO TOOK PLACE AT 3:45 OR THEREABOUTS, YOU WEREN'T EVEN THERE, WERE YOU, AT THAT POINT?

A: I DON'T KNOW WHAT TIME THE VIDEO TOOK PLACE.

Q: WELL, IF WE -- YOU JUST TOLD US THAT THE SCENE WAS BROKEN DOWN AT 3:45.

A: CORRECT.

Q: SO I PRESUME THAT THE FIRST PART OF THE VIDEO STARTED AT 3:45. IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?

A: WELL, THIS PARTICULAR APPEARS TO BE A CUT AWAY. SO I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT TIME. THE LOG INDICATES IT WAS BROKEN AT 3:45. THIS IS OBVIOUSLY SOMETIME AFTER THAT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. BUT WE SAW AN OFFICER WITH THE -- TAKING THE YELLOW TAPE DOWN. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO DO YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT HAVING BEEN CLOSE TO 3:45?

A: AGAIN, APPROXIMATELY 3:45.

Q: AND YOU NEVER SAW ANY OF THIS, DID YOU, WHAT'S DEPICTED IN THE VIDEO?

A: I WASN'T THERE.

(AT 1044 A.M., THE PLAYING OF THE VIDEOTAPE ENDED.)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. NOW, WITH REGARD TO OFFICERS AND THEIR FEET AND BLOOD, I WANT TO SHOW YOU A PHOTOGRAPH. YOU CAN STEP DOWN WITH THE COURT'S PERMISSION.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY HE STEP DOWN, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YES.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WITH REGARD TO --

MR. COCHRAN: AND, YOUR HONOR, FOR THE RECORD, WE'RE LOOKING AT PLAINTIFF'S 54 AND THIS IS 54-2. 54-2, PHOTOGRAPH.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: I WANT YOU TO LOOK AT 54-2 HERE -- AND MAKE SURE ALL THE JURORS CAN SEE IT. YOU SEE THIS RED SUBSTANCE KIND OF IN THE GROUT WAYS THERE OF THE TILE THERE? DO YOU SEE THAT?

A: YES.

MR. DARDEN: DID YOUR HONOR CUT THE FEED?

THE COURT: YES.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AND YOU SEE THIS SHOE, I BELIEVE IT'S A BLACK SHOE, APPEARS TO BE A BLACK MAN'S SHOE?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: AND SIMILAR TO THE SHOE YOU HAVE ON THERE, ISN'T IT?

A: CERTAINLY IS.

Q: AND WE WON'T -- WELL, HAVE ANY PHOTOGRAPHS OF THOSE SHOES, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THAT SHOE; DOES IT NOT?

A: APPEARS TO BE THE SAME TYPE OF SHOE, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND DO YOU SEE WHERE THAT -- APPEARS TO BE A RIGHT SHOE, DOESN'T IT? DO YOU SEE APPEARS TO BE A RIGHT SHOE; DOES IT NOT?

A: I CAN'T TELL FROM THAT ANGLE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE, CAN YOU KEEP YOUR VOICE UP FOR THE COURT REPORTER?

THE WITNESS: I -- I CAN'T TELL FROM THE ANGLE IF IT'S LEFT OR RIGHT.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. YOU CAN'T TELL IF IT'S A RIGHT OR A LEFT SHOE?

A: NO.

Q: IT'S ONE OF THE SHOES; IS IT NOT? IT'S RIGHT OR LEFT, ISN'T IT?

A: YES.

Q: AND JUDGING WHERE THAT IS, IF THAT WAS A LEFT SHOE, WHERE WOULD THE PERSON BE STANDING?

A: PROBABLY OFF TO THE -- TO THE RIGHT HERE BY THE GATE (INDICATING).

Q: ALL RIGHT.

A: OR THEY COULD BE STANDING AT AN ANGLE AT THE SIDE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. BUT YOU CAN'T TELL US THAT, CAN YOU?

A: NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. BUT YOU CAN TELL US THAT THAT SHOE IS STANDING RIGHT ON TOP OF THE BLOOD THERE IN THAT GROUTING. YOU SEE THAT?

A: NO. IT APPEARS TO ME THAT IT COULD EITHER BE UP ON THE TOE OR PERHAPS THE ARCH.

Q: WELL, YOU'RE TELLING WHAT -- YOU'RE TELLING THIS JURY THAT -- THAT THIS SHOE -- THAT THIS PARTICULAR SHOE, THE PERSON IS ON HIS ARCH?

A: I'M NOT TELLING YOU. I'M SAYING I DON'T KNOW.

Q: ALL RIGHT.

A: IT COULD BE ON THE TOE OR IT COULD BE OVER THE ARCH. FROM THAT ANGLE, FOR ME, IT'S A LITTLE HARD FOR ME TO TELL.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WELL, I UNDERSTAND THE JURY HAS TO MAKE THE FINAL DECISION, BUT LOOK AT THAT PHOTOGRAPH, SIR. TAKE A MOMENT AND LOOK.

A: I HAVE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DOES THAT LOOK AS THOUGH THE FRONT OF THAT SHOE, ALL OF THE PORTION THAT YOU CAN SEE ON THAT SHOE IS FLAT AGAINST THE TILE, SIR? ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: I CAN'T TELL.

Q: YOU CAN'T TELL THAT?

A: NOT FROM THAT ANGLE.

Q: WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THERE'S BLOOD UNDERNEATH WHERE THAT SHOE IS?

A: APPEARS TO BE BLOOD IN THE GROUTING UNDERNEATH THE SHOE. BUT AS FAR AS THE SHOE GOES, WHETHER IT'S UNDERNEATH THE ARCH OR THAT PERSON IS UP ON THEIR TOE, I DON'T KNOW.

Q: WELL, DID YOU -- WHEN YOU WALKED AROUND THE SCENE, DID YOU WALK AROUND ON YOUR TIPPEE TOES THAT DAY?

A: I AT TIMES WERE -- WAS ON MY TOES, THAT'S EXACTLY CORRECT.

Q: AND WAS -- IS THIS YOU HERE?

A: IT MAY WELL BE.

Q: ALL RIGHT.

A: AND I HAD NO BLOOD ON MY SHOES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. BUT WITH REGARD TO THIS PARTICULAR SHOE, YOU CAN'T TELL WHETHER THAT'S YOU OR FUHRMAN, CAN YOU?

A: UH-UH.

Q: OR ANY OTHER DETECTIVE, CAN YOU?

A: I DON'T KNOW WHO IT IS.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU AGREE WITH ME, THE PICTURE -- THIS PHOTOGRAPH WILL SPEAK FOR ITSELF; IS THAT CORRECT?

MS. CLARK: WELL, OBJECTION. THAT'S ARGUMENTATIVE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. WELL, CALLS FOR FOUNDATION ALSO.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AT ANY RATE, SO THAT WE'RE CLEAR, LOOKING AT 54-2, YOU CAN NOT TELL US WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S YOUR SHOE; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU WILL AGREE, HOWEVER, THAT THE SHOE IS ON THE GROUTING AND UNDER THAT GROUTING, THERE'S BLOOD; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: NO.

Q: THERE'S NOT?

A: I CAN NOT AGREE WITH YOU THAT THE SHOE IS ON THE GROUTING, IF THAT PARTICULAR PERSON IS UP ON THEIR FRONT TOES OR IF THE GROUTING IS BENEATH THE ARCHWAY OF THE SHOE. I CAN'T TELL YOU. I CAN'T TELL THAT FROM ANGLE, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. BUT THERE IS BLOOD ON THE GROUTING; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: IT APPEARS TO BE, THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: THAT APPEARS TO BE?

A: THAT APPEARS TO BE BLOOD, THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU WERE OUT THERE THAT MORNING. YOU KNOW THERE WAS BLOOD IN THE GROUTING, DON'T YOU?

A: CORRECT.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THIS PHOTOGRAPH DOWN TO THE OTHER END SO THE OTHER JURORS CAN SEE IT ALSO.

THE COURT: CERTAINLY. MR. DOUGLAS, YOU WANT TO HELP US? PHOTOGRAPHERS ARE DIRECTED NOT TO ATTEMPT TO PHOTOGRAPH THIS EXHIBIT.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU MAY RESUME YOUR SEAT.

THE COURT: MR. DOUGLAS, COULD YOU TURN THE BOARD AROUND, PLEASE? THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: THAT PHOTOGRAPH WE WERE JUST REFERRING TO, NUMBER 54-2, WAS THAT TAKEN AT MARK FUHRMAN'S DIRECTION, IF YOU KNOW?

A: I DON'T KNOW.

Q: WAS THAT PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN AT YOUR DIRECTION?

A: VERY POSSIBLY.

Q: WELL, DO YOU RECALL?

A: THAT SPECIFIC PHOTOGRAPH, NO.

Q: YOU DON'T RECALL WHO DIRECTED THAT PHOTOGRAPH TO BE TAKEN?

A: AGAIN, I DO NOT RECALL WHO DIRECTED THAT SPECIFIC PHOTOGRAPH TO BE TAKEN.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT YOU WERE AT THE SCENE WHEN THAT PHOTOGRAPH WAS TAKEN?

A: I CAN'T SAY WHETHER I WAS OR NOT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, DETECTIVE LANGE, WITH REGARD TO THE TENNIS SHOES -- AND YOU RECALL THE VIDEO WHERE YOU WERE SHOWN CARRYING THE TENNIS SHOES UNDER YOUR ARMS? REMEMBER THAT?

A: YES.

Q: AND IS THAT -- WERE YOU TRAINED TO DO THAT IN THE ACADEMY; IN CASE THERE'S TRACE EVIDENCE ON AN ITEM SUCH AS THAT, TO CARRY IT UNDER YOUR ARMS LIKE THAT?

A: I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND THAT QUESTION.

Q: OKAY. LET ME SEE IF I CAN ASK IT ANOTHER WAY. WE SAW YOU IN THE VIDEO CARRYING THE TENNIS SHOES UNDER YOUR ARM. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: YES.

Q: WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE THAT AGAIN? WOULD THAT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION?

A: I RECALL THE VIDEO. I DON'T NEED TO SEE IT AGAIN.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THE WAY YOU WERE CARRYING THE TENNIS SHOES IN THE VIDEO, WERE YOU SEEKING AT THAT TIME TO PROTECT TRACE EVIDENCE WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ON THOSE PARTICULAR SHOES?

A: TRACE EVIDENCE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN A CONSIDERATION. THE REASON THAT I OBTAINED THOSE SHOES WAS TO HAVE RED STAINS CHECKED FOR THE POSSIBILITY OF BLOOD AND TO OBTAIN A SHOE SIZE.

Q: WE UNDERSTAND THAT. AND WE KNOW THERE WAS NO -- IT WAS NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. THE QUESTION WAS ABOUT TRACE EVIDENCE, SIR.

A: TRACE EVIDENCE, SIR, WAS NOT FOREMOST ON MY MIND.

Q: WELL, I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT YOU ARE AN INVESTIGATOR. AND I UNDERSTAND IT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN FOREMOST ON YOUR MIND. BUT IF THERE WERE TRACE EVIDENCE ON THOSE PARTICULAR TENNIS SHOES, WOULDN'T THAT BE VALUABLE EVIDENCE EITHER TO EXONERATE OR TO INCULPATE MR. SIMPSON? ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: I THINK THAT'S ARGUMENTATIVE, BUT IT'S POSSIBLE. MAYBE NOT. I REALLY COULDN'T SAY.

Q: SINCE NOBODY IS OBJECTING, WHY DON'T YOU JUST TRY TO ANSWER THE QUESTION.

A: THAT'S MY ANSWER.

Q: ALL RIGHT. BUT YOU DON'T THINK THAT TRACE EVIDENCE WOULD HAVE BEEN RELEVANT IN THIS INSTANCE?

A: NO. I SAID IT COULD BE AND MAYBE IT COULDN'T BE.

Q: IN THE COURSE OF YOUR DISCUSSIONS WITH MISS CLARK, DID SHE TELL YOU AS -- THAT YOU NEED TO BE MORE AGGRESSIVE IN YOUR ANSWERS AT SOME POINT BECAUSE I WAS MAKING POINTS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION? DID SHE TELL YOU THAT?

A: AGGRESSIVE?

Q: YES. BE MORE AGGRESSIVE IN YOUR RESPONSES.

A: I DON'T RECALL HER INSTRUCTING ME TO BE MORE AGGRESSIVE.

Q: WHAT WORD DID SHE USE?

A: I DON'T RECALL ANY WORD THAT SHE USED.

Q: DID MR. DARDEN USE THE WORD, "BE MORE AGGRESSIVE"?

A: I DON'T RECALL MR. DARDEN TELLING ME TO BE MORE AGGRESSIVE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AT ANY RATE, YOU WEREN'T CONCERNED ABOUT TRACE EVIDENCE AS YOU CARRIED THESE TENNIS SHOES UNDER YOUR ARMS; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: TRACE EVIDENCE WAS NOT FOREMOST IN MY MIND UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES.

Q: THE QUESTION WAS, SIR -- PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION -- WERE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT TRACE EVIDENCE WHEN YOU CARRIED THOSE TENNIS SHOES UNDER YOUR ARM?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. ASKED AND ANSWERED.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: TRACE EVIDENCE WAS NOT FOREMOST IN MY MIND AT THAT TIME.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S NOT MY QUESTION. THE QUESTION WAS, WERE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT TRACE EVIDENCE?

A: IT WAS NOT FOREMOST IN MY MIND.

Q: WELL, IF THERE WERE BLOOD ON THOSE TENNIS SHOES AND YOU CARRIED THEM UNDER YOUR ARMS, WASN'T THERE A CHANCE YOU MIGHT WIPE THAT BLOOD OFF?

A: NOT FROM THE STAINS THAT I OBSERVED. THEY WERE ON THE TOP OF THE SHOE, ON THE SIDE OF THE SHOE, THEY APPEARED TO BE DRY. THOSE SHOES HAD BEEN SITTING IN THAT CLOSET ON THE FLOOR. THEY HAD BEEN IN OTHER PLACES OTHER THAN THE CRIME SCENE. TRACE EVIDENCE, BECAUSE OF THAT REASON, WAS NOT FOREMOST IN MY MIND.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WELL, LET'S LOOK AT THE VIDEO --

A: I OBTAINED THOSE SHOES TO OBTAIN A SHOE SIZE AND TO CHECK FOR THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD.

Q: YOU TOLD US THAT AND WE KNOW IT WAS NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD.

MR. COCHRAN: CAN WE SEE THE VIDEO? I WANT TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT IT.

THE COURT: AND, MR. COCHRAN, WHICH DEFENSE EXHIBIT IS THIS?

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, YOUR HONOR, LET ME CHECK.

MR. DOUGLAS: 1049.

MR. COCHRAN: 1049 I'M ADVISED, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU.

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

(AT 10:53 A.M., DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1049, A VIDEOTAPE, WAS PLAYED.)

MR. COCHRAN: NOW -- STOP IT THERE.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU SEE HOW YOU ARE CARRYING THE TENNIS SHOES AT THAT POINT?

A: YES.

Q: AND AT THAT POINT, I KNOW TRACE EVIDENCE WAS NOT UPPERMOST IN YOUR MIND BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE SHOES AGAINST YOUR BODY THERE, DON'T YOU?

A: THEY'RE AGAINST MY ARM, YES.

Q: YES. AND IS THAT A WAY THAT YOU, AS AN EXPERIENCED INVESTIGATOR OF OVER 20 YEARS, LEARNED TO CARRY EVIDENCE?

A: THAT'S ONE WAY OF CARRYING EVIDENCE, YES.

Q: AND THAT -- YOU LEARNED TO CARRY IT THAT WAY, DID YOU, AT THE ACADEMY?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE WITNESS: THERE'S NO -- THERE'S NO ONE WAY TO LEARN TO CARRY EVIDENCE.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. BUT CERTAINLY YOU CARRIED IT ON THIS WAY ON THIS DATE; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. CONTINUE ON.

THE COURT: HOLD ON. HOLD ON. HOLD ON.

MR. COCHRAN: PRINT THAT OUT, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: DO YOU WANT TO PRINT THAT OUT BECAUSE THE --

MR. COCHRAN: YES. YES. IT'S PART OF 1049 I KNOW?

THE COURT: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: PERHAPS MAKE THIS 1049-A?

THE COURT: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: PRINT THAT OUT, MR. HARRIS. THANK YOU.

(DEFT'S 1049-A FOR ID = PRINTOUT)

(DEFENDANT'S 1049, A VIDEOTAPE, CONTINUES PLAYING.)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: IS THAT YOUR CLIPBOARD THAT YOU HAVE THOSE SHOES ON?

A: YES.

Q: THAT'S NOT A BOX, IS IT?

A: BOXES IN THE TRUNK.

Q: IT'S NOT A BOX, IS IT?

A: THAT'S A CLIPBOARD.

Q: ALL RIGHT. I THOUGHT SO.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, MR. HARRIS.

(AT 10:56 A.M., THE PLAYING OF THE VIDEOTAPE ENDED.)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: NOW, I THINK WE ALREADY ESTABLISHED THOSE TENNIS SHOES WERE THEN TAKEN BY YOU TO THE LAB THE NEXT MORNING ON JUNE 14TH, RIGHT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: NOW, YOU'VE TESTIFIED THAT YOU SAW DETECTIVE -- CRIMINALIST FUNG AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION SOMETIME AFTER 5:20 ON THE AFTERNOON OF JUNE 13TH; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I DON'T RECALL THE TIME.

Q: WELL, WHAT TIME DO YOU THINK IT WAS?

A: I BELIEVE I ARRIVED AT APPROXIMATELY AT THAT TIME. I DON'T RECALL WHAT TIME I MIGHT HAVE SEEN HIM.

Q: SOMETIME AFTER 5:20, WOULD THAT BE A FAIR STATEMENT?

A: I CAN'T SAY.

Q: WELL, YOU SAW HIM AFTER YOU GOT THERE, DIDN'T YOU?

A: I BELIEVE I DID.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND AT THAT TIME, DID IT EVER OCCUR TO YOU AT ANY TIME BEFORE YOU LEFT TO GET IN YOUR CAR TO GO HOME TO GIVE THOSE TENNIS SHOES TO MR. FUNG SINCE ULTIMATELY THEY HAD TO GO TO THE LAB ANYWAY?

A: I BELIEVE MR. FUNG HAD LEFT BY THE TIME THAT I RETRIEVED THOSE TENNIS SHOES.

Q: THE QUESTION WAS, DID IT EVER OCCUR TO YOU TO GIVE THOSE TENNIS SHOES TO MR. FUNG IS THE QUESTION?

A: WELL, IF HE'S NOT THERE, I COULDN'T HAVE GIVEN THEM TO HIM. SO NO, IT WOULDN'T HAVE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. THE FACT THAT YOU COULD HAVE RECOVERED THE SHOES AND STAYED AROUND -- HE MAY HAVE BEEN THERE EARLIER. SO -- I'M NOT ARGUING WITH YOU. I'M JUST ASKING, DID IT EVER OCCUR TO YOU TO GIVE THOSE TENNIS SHOES TO MR. FUNG OR FOR THAT MATTER, ANY OTHER CRIMINALIST WHO MAY HAVE BEEN AT THAT SCENE?

A: MR. FUNG WAS NOT THERE WHEN THE SHOES WERE RECOVERED. SO CERTAINLY IT DID NOT OCCUR TO ME.

Q: WHAT TIME WERE THE SHOES RECOVERED?

A: I BELIEVE IT'S SOMETIME AFTER 6:00 OR 6:15.

Q: DO YOU HAVE A RECORD THAT INDICATES THAT?

A: THE TIME OF RECOVERY?

Q: OF RECOVERY OF THOSE SHOES. CAN YOU LOOK IN YOUR NOTES AND TELL US THAT?

A: NO.

Q: YOU'RE SPEAKING FROM YOUR OWN INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION?

A: SPEAKING FROM MY RECOLLECTION. AND I DON'T RECALL SEEING MR. FUNG AT THAT LOCATION AT THAT TIME THAT I CAME DOWN AND LEFT.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHAT TIME MR. FUNG LEFT THAT EVENING?

A: NO.

Q: HAVE YOU SEEN A LOG WHICH WOULD INDICATE WHAT TIME HE LEFT?

A: NO.

Q: DO YOU HAVE SUCH A LOG?

A: DO I HAVE A LOG?

Q: YES, WHEN HE LEFT.

A: I DON'T BELIEVE I DO.

Q: IN YOUR BOOKS THERE, DO YOU HAVE THE CRIMINALIST LOG WHICH WOULD INDICATE WHAT TIME FUNG LEFT ON JUNE 13 FROM THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION?

A: I DON'T HAVE A CRIMINALIST LOG.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU HAVE A LOG WHICH INDICATES WHAT TIME YOU LEFT?

A: I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS A LOG THAT WAS TAKEN AT THAT TIME OR NOT.

Q: CAN YOU TAKE A LOOK -- CAN YOU TAKE A LOOK FOR US AND TELL US WHETHER YOU HAVE THAT?

A: CERTAINLY. YES. IT'S RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YES.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: FIRST OF ALL, DOES THAT LOG INDICATE WHAT TIME YOU RECOVERED THESE TENNIS SHOES?

A: NO. IT WOULDN'T INDICATE A TIME OF RECOVERY.

Q: ALL RIGHT.

THE COURT: MAY I SEE COUNSEL AT THE SIDEBAR WITHOUT THE REPORTER, PLEASE?

MR. COCHRAN: CERTAINLY.

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

THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL. PROCEED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: THE LOG BEFORE YOU, WHAT TIME DOES THAT SHOW THAT YOU ARRIVED BACK AT THE LOCATION OF ROCKINGHAM? 1715?

A: IT SHOWS THAT I ARRIVED AT 5:15, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. 5:15. AND AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, FUNG WAS STILL THERE AT LEAST UNTIL 5:20; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: I -- I DON'T RECALL.

Q: WHEN YOU --

THE COURT: WHY DON'T YOU USE THE MICROPHONE. WHY DON'T YOU USE THE MICROPHONE.

MR. COCHRAN: CERTAINLY, YOUR HONOR. USE YOUR MICROPHONE.

THE WITNESS: AGAIN, I DON'T RECALL.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU EVER SEE VANNATTER GIVE CRIMINALIST FUNG MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD THAT WAS CONTAINED IN A VIAL THAT HAD BEEN TAKEN DOWNTOWN HERE AT PARKER CENTER OUT AT ROCKINGHAM AT ABOUT 5:20 OR THEREABOUTS ON THE EVENING OF JUNE 13TH, 1994?

A: I DIDN'T ACTUALLY SEE HIM DO THAT, NO.

Q: YOU NEVER SAW -- YOU WEREN'T PRESENT WHEN THAT HAPPENED OR IF IT HAPPENED?

A: I DON'T -- I DIDN'T -- I DON'T RECALL SEEING IT. I DON'T RECALL SEEING IT HAPPEN VISUALLY.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO AT ANY RATE, WHAT TIME DOES IT SHOW YOU LEAVING THE ROCKINGHAM SCENE?

A: AT 7:10 P.M.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THAT REFRESHES YOUR RECOLLECTION, THAT'S ABOUT THE TIME THAT YOU LEFT?

A: YES.

Q: AND AT THAT TIME, YOU DON'T KNOW OR DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT FUNG HAD ALREADY LEFT AT THAT POINT?

A: NO. I DON'T RECALL SEEING HIM.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU TALK TO MR. FUNG AT ALL WHILE YOU WERE AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION THAT AFTERNOON AFTER YOU CAME BACK AT 5:15, IF YOU RECALL?

A: I MAY HAVE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH HIM.

Q: AND WHERE WOULD THAT CONVERSATION HAVE TAKEN PLACE?

A: PROBABLY IN THE HOUSE UPSTAIRS IN THE MASTER BATH AREA.

Q: NOW, YOU AND I HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS REGARDING A GREEN PIECE OF PAPER INSIDE A BAG THAT CONTAINED MR. GOLDMAN'S CLOTHES. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: YES.

THE COURT: HOLD ON. LET ME TOSS THE GOLDMAN'S OUT.

(THE GOLDMAN FAMILY EXITS THE COURTROOM.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AND PRIOR TO MY ASKING YOU QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT GREEN PIECE OF PAPER, HAD YOU EVER SEEN THAT BEFORE?

A: NO.

Q: AND DID YOU NOT TELL US THAT THAT -- THE ITEMS IN THAT GREEN PAPER BAG WERE RECOVERED BY OFFICERS TIPPIN AND CARR? DID YOU TELL US THAT, MR. GOLDMAN'S RESIDENCE?

A: I DON'T RECALL IF I DID. IF I DID TELL YOU THAT, THEN I MISSPOKE.

Q: WELL, MAYBE I CAN READ IT TO YOU. THAT IF YOU SAID THAT -- IF YOU SAID THE CLOTHES --

MS. CLARK: EXCUSE ME. MAY I SEE WHAT HE'S READING FROM?

MR. COCHRAN: YES.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

THE COURT: TRANSCRIPT FROM DAY BEFORE YESTERDAY.

MR. COCHRAN: HE HAS IT ON HIS COMPUTER AND I THINK I CAN GET IT ON HIS COMPUTER.

THE COURT: WE ALL HAVE IT ON OUR COMPUTER.

MS. CLARK: I JUST NEED A PAGE CITE OR SOMETHING. IF WE COULD ASK COUNSEL TO PRINT, IF THEIR COMPUTER WILL PRINT IT OUT.

THE COURT: I DON'T THINK IT'S ON THE NOTES YET.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

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

MS. CLARK: IT'S NOT THE OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT, YOUR HONOR.

MR. COCHRAN: THIS IS FROM HIS -- THIS IS FROM HIS COMPUTER. LET ME ASK YOU THIS QUESTION.

THE COURT: WELL, I'M GOING TO OVERRULE THE OBJECTION AT THIS POINT.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DO YOU RECALL BEING ASKED -- THIS IS THE DAY BEFORE YESTERDAY -- THIS QUESTION BY ME AND GIVING THIS RESPONSE? QUESTION AT LINE 26: "HOW WERE THESE CLOTHES RECOVERED AND WHAT IS THE CONNECTION OF THE BAG WITH THE CLOTHES? "ANSWER: ONCE AGAIN, THEY WERE RECOVERED BY DETECTIVES TIPPIN AND CARR." DO YOU REMEMBER SO TESTIFYING?

A: I MAY HAVE.

Q: AND YOU WENT ON TO SAY: "I WASN'T THERE. I COULDN'T ANSWER THAT. "QUESTION: BUT IT WAS BOOKED IN THE VONS PAVILION BAG ALONG WITH THIS ENVELOPE; IS THAT CORRECT? "ANSWER: APPARENTLY." REMEMBER SO TESTIFYING?

A: APPARENTLY.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, IS THAT WHAT HAPPENED?

A: NO.

Q: BY TIPPIN AND CARR?

A: PARDON?

Q: IS THAT WHAT HAPPENED?

A: NO. THOSE CLOTHES WERE RECOVERED BY THE GOLDMAN FAMILY.

Q: SO YOU WANT TO CHANGE YOUR TESTIMONY UNDER OATH?

A: IF I MISSTATED THAT, THEN I MISSPOKE.

Q: YOU MISSPOKE?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: SO TIPPIN AND CARR DIDN'T RECOVER THEM?

A: DID NOT. THE CLOTHING WAS RECOVERED BY THE GOLDMAN FAMILY.

Q: AND WHEN YOU WERE TESTIFYING THE OTHER DAY, WHEN YOU WERE UNDER OATH, YOU WERE TRYING TO BE AS ACCURATE AS YOU COULD; WERE YOU NOT?

A: I ALWAYS TRY TO BE AS ACCURATE AS I CAN.

Q: NOT WHAT YOU ALWAYS DO. THE OTHER DAY WHEN YOU TESTIFIED.

A: THE OTHER DAY, TODAY, ALWAYS.

Q: ALL RIGHT. BUT YOU WERE WRONG, RIGHT?

A: APPARENTLY I WAS.

Q: AND YOU SPELLED OUT FOR US THE OTHER DAY THAT YOU DO MAKE MISTAKES; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE, I CERTAINLY DO.

Q: WELL, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT EVERYBODY ELSE RIGHT NOW. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT YOU. YOU MAKE MISTAKES; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: I CERTAINLY DO.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU MAKE MISTAKES; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: MR. COCHRAN, I MAKE MISTAKES.

Q: ALL RIGHT.

A: YES.

Q: AND WITH REGARD TO THESE THEORIES THAT YOU EXPOUNDED YESTERDAY, YOU WILL AGREE WITH ME, WILL YOU NOT, THAT WITH REGARD TO WHAT HAPPENED ON JUNE 12TH IN THE LATE EVENING HOURS ULTIMATELY MUST BE DECIDED BY THIS JURY AND NOT BY YOUR THEORY? ISN'T THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THAT'S ARGUMENTATIVE.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, SEE IF I CAN RESTATE IT.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. YOU WILL AGREE WITH ME, WILL YOU NOT, THAT AS TO THE FACTS OF THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THAT HAS TO BE DETERMINED --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. ARGUMENTATIVE.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO FINISH THE QUESTION.

THE COURT: GO AHEAD. FINISH THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. YOU WILL AGREE WITH ME, WILL YOU NOT, THAT IT'S THE FACTS OF THIS PARTICULAR CASE -- THE FACTS IN THIS CASE MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE JURY?

MS. CLARK: THAT'S EXACTLY THE SAME QUESTION.

MR. COCHRAN: IT'S NOT THE EXACT SAME QUESTION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. YES OR NO.

THE WITNESS: YES.

THE COURT: A TRUISM.

MR. COCHRAN: RIGHT. ABSOLUTELY A TRUISM.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: NOW --

MS. CLARK: WE ALL KNOW THIS.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, I AM NOT ASKING HER OPINION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WELL, YOU GOT MINE. LET'S MOVE ON.

MR. COCHRAN: I GOT YOURS. I HAVE TO DEAL WITH YOURS, BUT NOT HERS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: NOW, WITH REGARD TO YOUR -- YOUR -- YOUR THEORIES, YOU'VE BEEN WRONG AND MISTAKEN IN THIS CASE BEFORE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT? YOU MADE MISTAKES IN THIS CASE?

A: THERE WERE MISTAKES MADE.

Q: WELL, I KNOW THERE WERE MISTAKES MADE, BUT DID YOU MAKE ANY MISTAKES?

A: I BELIEVE YOU JUST POINTED ONE OUT IN MY TESTIMONY.

Q: WELL, THERE ARE OTHERS, AREN'T THERE? WHAT ABOUT -- LET ME JUST ASK YOU THIS REGARDING MISTAKES. THE BLOOD ON MISS NICOLE SIMPSON'S BACK, YOU SAW THAT AT THE SCENE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: THAT BLOOD WAS NOT PRESERVED; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT. THE CORONER DID NOT PRESERVE THAT BLOOD.

Q: SO THAT WAS THE CORONER'S MISTAKE, NOT YOURS?

A: I'M NOT POINTING FINGERS AS TO WHOSE MISTAKE. I THINK THAT THERE'S A -- THERE WAS A COMMUNICATIONS PROBLEM CERTAINLY AT THE VERY LEAST.

Q: WELL, AS THE INVESTIGATOR IN THIS CASE, IF THAT WAS POSSIBLY IMPORTANT EVIDENCE THAT MAY HAVE LED TO EXCLUSION OF MR. SIMPSON, DO YOU THINK THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN GOOD TO COMMUNICATE THAT TO THE CORONER'S OFFICE SO THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED AND PRESERVED AND TESTED?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE. IT'S ARGUMENTATIVE.

MR. COCHRAN: HE'S TALKED ABOUT COMMUNICATION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: IT'S OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: THAT WAS COMMUNICATED TO THE CORONER'S OFFICE.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AND WHO DID YOU COMMUNICATE THAT TO?

A: TO THE CORONER'S INVESTIGATOR AT THE SCENE.

Q: AND YOU COMMUNICATED -- YOU BOTH WERE SPEAKING ENGLISH; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, WE WERE.

Q: AND THEN YOU FOUND OUT SOMETIME LATER THAT THOSE RESULTS OF THE BLOOD HAD NOT BEEN TESTED OR EXAMINED OR COLLECTED; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: DID YOU TALK TO THE PERSON YOU SPOKE TO ABOUT THAT?

A: YES.

Q: AFTERWARDS?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT'S THAT PERSON'S NAME?

A: I BELIEVE IT'S MAHANEY.

Q: MAHANEY, IS THAT A CRIMINALIST AT THE CORONER'S OFFICE?

A: YES.

Q: SO IT WAS MAHANEY'S FAULT?

A: I'M NOT SAYING WHOSE FAULT IT WAS.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WHAT ABOUT THE FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE STOMACH CONTENTS OF MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON? WHOSE FAULT WAS THAT, THAT THAT WAS THROWN OUT?

A: I DON'T KNOW THAT WAS ANYONE'S FAULT. I DO KNOW I'M NOT IN CHARGE OF STOMACH CONTENTS OR WHAT OCCURS AT THE CORONER'S OFFICE.

Q: WELL NOW, LET'S SEE. AS AN EXPERIENCED INVESTIGATOR, YOU KNOW THE IMPORTANCE OF STOMACH CONTENTS FROM THE STANDPOINT OF TRYING TO DETERMINE -- THE FACT IN DETERMINING TIME OF DEATH OF AN INDIVIDUAL AND YOU'RE THERE AT THE AUTOPSY. WOULDN'T YOU SUGGEST TO THE CORONERS THAT IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO SAVE THESE STOMACH CONTENTS? WOULDN'T YOU DO THAT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THAT IS NOT THIS WITNESS' JOB.

MR. COCHRAN: SHE'S TESTIFYING, YOUR HONOR. I OBJECT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: NO.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU MAY ANSWER. YOU WOULDN'T SUGGEST THAT?

A: THAT'S THEIR CALL.

Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU NEVER SUGGESTED THAT IN THIS CASE?

A: I DON'T RECALL EVER SUGGESTING THE CORONER TO MAINTAIN ANY STOMACH CONTENTS IN ANY CASE.

Q: NOW, YOU WERE PRESENT WHEN DR. GOLDEN WAS DOING THIS AUTOPSY; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU UNDERSTAND ANY LOGIC AT ALL IN PRESERVING AND SAVING OF THE STOMACH CONTENTS OF MR. GOLDMAN WHILE NOT PRESERVING AND SAVING THE STOMACH CONTENTS OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I SEE THE LOGIC IN EXAMINING BOTH CONTENTS AND THAT WAS DONE. AS FAR AS THEIR POLICIES ON PRESERVING STOMACH CONTENTS, I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH IT. I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG THEY DO THAT OR UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES. I JUST DON'T KNOW.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WELL NOW, YOU HAVE ATTENDED MORE THAN 250 AUTOPSIES IN YOUR LONG CAREER; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: NO, I DON'T THINK SO. IT'S PROBABLY MORE LIKE 150, SOMEWHERE IN THERE.

Q: 150 AUTOPSIES? AND IN THOSE CASES, WHERE TIME OF DEATH IS AT QUESTION, ISN'T IT ACCEPTED IN THE COMMUNITY OF INVESTIGATORS AND CRIMINALISTS THAT THE STOMACH CONTENTS ARE ONE IMPORTANT FACTOR IN HELPING US DETERMINE THE TIME OF DEATH, SIR?

MS. CLARK: SAME OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. OUTSIDE THIS WITNESS' FIELD OF EXPERTISE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: YES OR NO. IT MAY BE AND IT MAY NOT BE. IT'S JUST IT'S ONE FACTOR AND IT'S NOT AN EXACT FACTOR IN DETERMINING DEATH -- THE TIME OF DEATH.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: BUT IN THIS CASE, IT WAS THROWN AWAY. SO WE DON'T HAVE IT AT ALL AND THAT'S THE POINT. ISN'T THAT A MISTAKE?

A: I CAN'T SAY WHAT'S A MISTAKE. I KNOW THAT IT WAS EXAMINED. AND TO ME, IT WOULD BE MUCH MORE IMPORTANT TO EXAMINE THOSE CONTENTS AND MAKE A DETERMINATION JUST HOW FULL THE STOMACH WAS.

Q: AND WHO EXAMINED --

A: AS FAR AS RETAINING THOSE CONTENTS, AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR POLICIES ARE.

Q: IF THE CORONER'S OFFICE ADMITS THAT'S A MISTAKE, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT'S A MISTAKE SINCE IT'S THEIR FIELD?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: NOW, TALKING ABOUT OTHER MISTAKES, WITH REGARD TO YOUR REPORT WHICH INDICATED THAT YOU BOOKED TWO DIMES AND TWO PENNIES, DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: AND IN FACT, YOU TOLD US ON THE STAND HERE YOU ONLY BOOKED ONE DIME AND ONE PENNY; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: I DIDN'T BOOK EITHER. THEY WERE BOOKED BY THE CRIMINALIST. I INADVERTENTLY WROTE DOWN TWO DIMES AND TWO PENNIES WHEN IN EFFECT IT WAS ONLY ONE DIME AND ONE PENNY.

Q: IS THAT A MISTAKE?

A: I'D CERTAINLY CALL IT A MISTAKE, YES.

Q: WHEN YOU TOLD US UNDER OATH THAT YOU HAD SEEN THESE BLOOD SPOTS ON THE REAR GATE AT BUNDY, YET NO PHOTOGRAPHS WERE TAKEN OF THOSE BLOOD SPOTS ON JUNE 13TH, 1994, WOULD YOU CONSIDER THAT A MISTAKE?

A: THAT AGAIN WAS PROBABLY A PROBLEM WITH COMMUNICATIONS. AT A CRIME SCENE, THE CRIMINALIST, THE PRINT PEOPLE, THE PHOTOGRAPHERS, THE OTHER DETECTIVES ARE ALL GIVEN ASSIGNMENTS. THE DETECTIVE IN CHARGE, WHILE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OVERALL PERFORMANCE, CAN'T FOLLOW EACH TECHNICIAN AROUND AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY DO EVERY LITTLE THING THAT THEY ASK OF THEM. SO YOU ASSIGN OUT JOBS; AND THAT PARTICULAR ASSIGNMENT CAME UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE CRIMINALIST. UNFORTUNATELY, IT WAS NOT DONE.

Q: NOW TO GET BACK TO MY QUESTION, WAS THAT A MISTAKE THAT WASN'T DONE? THAT WAS THE QUESTION.

A: WAS THAT THE MISTAKE OF MINE?

Q: I DIDN'T ASK WHOSE MISTAKE. I SAID, WAS THAT A MISTAKE, DETECTIVE LANGE?

A: I WOULD CALL THAT A MISTAKE, PROBLEM WITH THE COMMUNICATIONS.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND IN FACT, THERE WERE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN OF SOME SPOT ON THE FRONT GATE, ISN'T THAT CORRECT, WHICH WE SAW YESTERDAY, NUMBER 116?

A: I BELIEVE SO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. BUT THEY WEREN'T TAKEN OF THE REAR GATE, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: NOW, THAT WAS A MISTAKE, BUT THAT WAS SOMEONE ELSE'S MISTAKE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YOU COULD CHARACTERIZE IT AS A MISTAKE, YES.

Q: NOW, YOU WOULD AGREE WITH ME, WOULD YOU NOT, THAT SINCE YOU'RE THE LEAD INVESTIGATOR IN CHARGE AT BUNDY OF THIS PARTICULAR CASE, SOME OF THIS FALLS ON YOUR SHOULDERS ALSO; DOES IT NOT?

A: CERTAINLY.

Q: NOW, BY THE WAY, THE DIME AND THE PENNY WERE FOUND ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE JEEP VEHICLE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I BELIEVE SO.

Q: AND YOU WERE ASKED SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT TIRE TRACK MARKS. DO YOU RECALL THAT YESTERDAY?

A: YES.

Q: AND MISS CLARK SHOWED YOU A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE -- OF THAT ALLEYWAY WHERE IT WAS ASPHALT OR WHATEVER, SOME KIND OF BLACK SUBSTANCE. DO YOU RECALL SEEING THAT?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, THE AREA, HOWEVER, WHERE THE TIRE TRACK MARKS WERE WAS NOT IN THE ALLEYWAY. THAT WAS A DIFFERENT KIND OF MATERIAL BEHIND THE GARAGE AREA OF MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: THERE WERE TIRE TRACKS ON THAT AREA, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU TWO PHOTOGRAPHS IN SEQUENCE AND ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT IT.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, WE'RE GOING TO SHOW IF THE COURT PLEASES DEFENSE 1032 AND DEFENSE 1033, AND I WANT TO ASK HIM QUESTIONS ABOUT THOSE TWO BY USE OF THE ELMO.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: FIRST OF ALL, CAN YOU SEE -- WE TRIED TO PLACE THEM IN JUST THE POSITION TO EACH OTHER AND SEQUENTIALLY. THEY'RE ON THE ELMO NOW TOO. CAN YOU SEE WHAT APPEAR TO BE --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION TO THE CHARACTERIZATION OF SEQUENTIAL.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. WE PLACED THEM, THE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS TOGETHER. AND DO YOU SEE WHAT APPEARS TO BE TIRE TRACKS ON THOSE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS, 1032 AND 1033?

A: APPEARS TO BE, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND DO YOU SEE ALSO WHERE THE COINS FROM THOSE TWO DIFFERENT PHOTOGRAPHS -- WHICH ARE LAPD PHOTOGRAPHS, RIGHT?

A: I WOULD SAY SO, YES.

Q: THAT THOSE COINS HAVE BEEN MOVED, THEY'RE IN A DIFFERENT POSITION?

A: THEY APPEAR TO BE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU EVER, AS THE LEAD INVESTIGATOR AT BUNDY, DO ANYTHING TO TRY AND CHECK OR TO CHECK OUT THOSE TIRE TRACK MARKS THERE?

A: I OBSERVED THE TIRE TRACKS WHEN I WAS THERE AND FORMED AN OPINION.

Q: I DIDN'T ASK YOU ABOUT THAT. I SAID, DID YOU EVER DO ANYTHING -- DID YOU CALL ANY EXPERTS OUT --

A: THAT WAS WHAT I DID.

Q: YOU CALLED AN EXPERT OUT?

A: NO. I FORMED AN OPINION THAT AN EXPERT WAS NOT NEEDED.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO YOU MADE THAT JUDGMENT YOURSELF; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND ARE YOU IN ADDITION TO BEING THE HOMICIDE INVESTIGATOR ALSO A TIRE TRACK EXPERT ALSO?

A: I KNOW WHEN TIRE TRACKS HAVE BEEN RUN OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND THAT THIS IS A VERY COMMONLY USED AREA BACK HERE FOR TIRES AND THAT YOU CAN'T TELL THE AGE OF A TIRE TRACK AND THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN FRUITLESS TO GO ANY FURTHER WITH IT.

Q: AND DID YOU EVER TALK TO AN EXPERT ABOUT THAT?

A: I KNOW OF NO EXPERT IN TIRE TRACKS. I KNOW OF CRIMINALISTS AND PHOTOGRAPHERS WHO COULD HAVE PHOTOGRAPHED THIS. BUT ASIDE FROM THAT --

Q: DID YOU TALK TO THEM AT ALL?

A: NO. REGARDING THE TIRE TRACKS? NO.

Q: YES. WHAT YOU DID, YOU MADE A VISUAL OBSERVATION AND YOU GAVE US -- YOU'VE GIVEN US YOUR OPINION NOW THAT THERE'S NO RELEVANCE IN THIS PARTICULAR EVIDENCE. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TELLING US, SIR?

A: THIS IS A DRIVEWAY THAT'S VERY COMMON TO SEE TIRE TRACKS TRANSPOSED OVER BY ANOTHER --

Q: I'M ASKING YOU WHETHER THERE'S RELEVANCE IN THIS EVIDENCE, YOUR HONOR.

A: THAT'S MY OPINION.

THE COURT: WAIT, WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. MR. COCHRAN, LET THE WITNESS ANSWER BEFORE YOU START ASKING THE NEXT QUESTION.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. I WAS TRYING TO GET TO THE QUESTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE WITNESS: MY OPINION --

THE COURT: HOLD ON. HOLD ON. ONE AT A TIME.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: LET ME ASK YOU AGAIN. YOU LOOKED AT THESE TIRE TRACKS DEPICTED ON 1032 AND 1033 AND YOU MADE A DECISION THAT YOU DIDN'T NEED TO TALK TO ANY FURTHER EXPERT ABOUT THIS. YOU GAVE US YOUR OWN OPINION IN THAT REGARD; IS THAT CORRECT, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND -- BY THE WAY, COULD THESE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOW DIFFERENT DIMES AND PENNIES?

A: COULD THEY SHOW DIFFERENT?

Q: YES. ARE THOSE DIFFERENT DIMES AND PENNIES OR ARE THOSE THE SAME IF YOU KNOW?

A: THEY'RE IN A DIFFERENT POSITION. SO I CAN'T SAY FOR SURE.

Q: BUT YOU TOLD US YOU ONLY BOOKED ONE DIME AND ONE PENNY, RIGHT?

A: THE CRIMINALIST BOOKED ONE DIME AND ONE PENNY.

Q: ALL RIGHT. BUT WHAT DID YOU SEE OUT THERE THAT NIGHT?

A: MY RECOLLECTION IS ONE DIME AND ONE PENNY.

Q: BUT YOU WROTE TWO DIMES AND TWO PENNIES; IS THAT RIGHT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. ASKED AND ANSWERED.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I WROTE TWO DIMES AND TWO PENNIES INCORRECTLY. I OBSERVED ONE DIME AND ONE PENNY IN THE DRIVEWAY.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: CAN YOU TELL US IN LOOKING AT THE MONITOR WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE TREAD MARKS UNDER THESE COINS?

A: I CAN'T SEE UNDER THE COINS.

Q: COULD YOU TELL WHETHER OR NOT THERE WERE TREAD MARKS OVER THE TOP OF THE COINS?

A: DIDN'T APPEAR TO ME TO BE.

Q: AND YOU SAW IT WITH YOUR NAKED EYE, DID YOU?

A: I OBSERVED THE COINS WITH MY NAKED EYE, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. THESE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, 1032 AND 1033, WERE TAKEN WHILE YOU WERE THERE OR AT SOME LATER TIME, IF YOU KNOW?

A: I WOULD SAY THE TOP ONE WAS PROBABLY TAKEN WHILE I WAS NOT THERE. AS FAR AS THE BOTTOM ONE, IT'S HARD TO SAY.

Q: YOU DON'T RECALL?

A: WELL, I WAS DOING A LOT OF THINGS AND A LOT OF OTHER PLACES.

Q: DO YOU RECALL IS THE QUESTION.

A: I DO NOT SPECIFICALLY RECALL THAT BOTTOM PHOTOGRAPH BEING TAKEN, NO.

Q: AND WITH REGARD HOWEVER TO THE MATERIAL WITH REGARD TO THE TIRE TRACKS, WHEN YOU WERE TALKING YESTERDAY ABOUT ASPHALT, THIS IS NOT ASPHALT BACK THERE, IS IT?

A: NO. THAT APPEARS TO BE CEMENT.

Q: SOME KIND OF CEMENT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: NOW, YOU WERE ASKED YESTERDAY SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR TAKING EVIDENCE AND HOLDING IT SOMEPLACE AND NOT BOOKING IT FOR A PERIOD OF TIME. AGAIN, YOUR LAPD MANUAL, WHICH YOU USE AS A GUIDE, DIRECTS YOU TO BOOK EVIDENCE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: GENERALLY, YES.

Q: AND WHERE IN YOUR -- IN THE MANUAL DOES IT SAY THAT YOU CAN TAKE AN ITEM LIKE A PLASTIC HEART AND PUT IT AT ROBBERY-HOMICIDE FOR SEVEN WEEKS? IS THERE A PARTICULAR SECTION THAT TELLS YOU YOU CAN DO THAT?

A: I DON'T KNOW OF ANY SECTION.

Q: BECAUSE THERE IS NO SECTION THAT SAYS THAT, IS THERE?

A: THAT SAYS THAT I CAN KEEP A PLASTIC HEART?

Q: WELL, THAT SAYS YOU CAN KEEP ANY ITEM OF EVIDENCE FOR SEVEN WEEKS WITHOUT BOOKING IT INTO EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE.

A: THERE'S NOTHING TO SAY THAT I CAN'T.

Q: IN OTHER WORDS, YOU COULD TAKE EVERY PIECE OF EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE AND HOLD ON TO IT FOR SEVEN WEEKS IF YOU WANT IN A MANUAL THAT SAYS YOU SHOULD BOOK EVIDENCE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TELLING US?

A: I THINK IT'S A COMMON SENSE CALL. CERTAINLY I WOULDN'T KEEP EVERY BIT OF EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE. THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE WAS COLLECTED BY CRIMINALISTS WHO BOOKED IT.

Q: WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EVIDENCE. LET'S TALK ABOUT THE PLASTIC HEART THAT WAS NOT BOOKED UNTIL WELL INTO AUGUST. IT WAS TAKEN ON OR ABOUT JUNE 13TH, 1994; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND IN THAT INSTANCE -- AND LET'S TALK ABOUT COMMON SENSE AND THE MANUAL. IN THAT INSTANCE, YOU WOULD NOT HOLD EVIDENCE OUT GENERALLY FOR THAT LONG. ISN'T THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?

A: THERE WOULD BE A PURPOSE THAT I WOULD HOLD ANY EVIDENCE OUT. CERTAINLY THE EVIDENCE COLLECTED AT THE CRIME SCENE SAVE THAT PLASTIC HEART WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN HELD OUT BY ME AND INDEED WAS COLLECTED AND BOOKED BY THE CRIMINALISTS.

Q: WELL, WHAT ABOUT THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU TALKED ABOUT YESTERDAY THAT WAS TAKEN ON THE 13TH BUT NOT BOOKED TILL THE 15TH? WHAT HAPPENED OVER THE 14TH IF YOU KNOW?

A: WHAT EVIDENCE WOULD THAT BE?

Q: WELL, YOU TALKED ABOUT EVIDENCE YESTERDAY THAT MISS CLARK WAS ASKING YOU QUESTIONS YOU REMEMBER THAT WAS SEIZED ON THE 13TH, IT SHOWED A DATE OF BEING BOOKED ON THE 15TH I THOUGHT.

A: THAT'S CORRECT. THAT IS THE ACTUAL DATE THAT IT WAS PHYSICALLY BOOKED INTO THE PROPERTY DIVISION.

Q: MY QUESTION WAS, WHAT HAPPENED ON THE 14TH WHICH WAS THE DAY IN BETWEEN, SIR?

A: ON THE 14TH, I BELIEVE THE CRIMINALIST WHO HAD POSSESSION OF THAT EVIDENCE WAS BUSY DOING OTHER THINGS ON THIS CASE.

Q: DID THE CRIMINALIST TELL YOU THAT?

A: DID HE TELL ME HE WAS?

Q: WERE YOU TOLD THAT?

A: I AM AWARE THAT HE WAS.

Q: ALL RIGHT. IS THAT YOUR SPECULATION, THAT THEY WERE DOING OTHER THINGS?

A: NO.

Q: DO YOU KNOW THE REASON IT WAS NOT BOOKED ON THE 14TH, SIR?

A: THE REASON IN MY MIND WAS THE FACT THAT THIS CRIMINALIST WAS DOING OTHER THINGS AND I BELIEVE AT THAT DATE WORKING ON THE BRONCO. THERE WAS ALSO DOZENS AND DOZENS OF PIECES OF EVIDENCE THAT HAVE TO BE CATEGORIZED, WRITTEN UP, MEASURED, REPORTS HAVE TO BE PREPARED BEFORE THIS IS ACTUALLY PHYSICALLY BOOKED INTO EVIDENCE.

Q: WERE YOU TOLD THAT BY THE CRIMINALISTS IS MY QUESTION.

A: WAS I TOLD WHAT?

Q: DID THE CRIMINALISTS TELL YOU THEY WERE BUSY ON THE 14TH AND THAT'S WHY THEY DIDN'T BOOK THE EVIDENCE UNTIL THE 15TH?

A: NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU'RE JUST -- THAT'S JUST YOUR OPINION YOU JUST GAVE US?

A: THAT'S MY INFORMATION. I WAS AWARE THAT HE WAS DOING OTHER THINGS.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, WHAT ABOUT THESE CAUCASIAN HAIRS ON THE GLOVES THAT WE TALKED ABOUT? YOU INDICATED THERE WERE CAUCASIAN HAIRS ON BOTH GLOVES; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I BELIEVE YOU INDICATED THAT.

Q: WELL, I ASKED YOU IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT AS THE LEAD INVESTIGATOR IN THIS CASE.

A: I'M AWARE THAT THERE WERE CAUCASIAN HAIRS.

Q: ON BOTH GLOVES; IS THAT CORRECT? HAVE ANY TESTS BEEN DONE --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. OBJECTION. COUNSEL IS NOT ALLOWING THE WITNESS TO ANSWER.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MR. COCHRAN: I JUST FINISHED.

THE COURT: PROCEED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY TESTS THAT HAVE BEEN DONE ON THESE CAUCASIAN HAIRS THAT WERE ON THE GLOVES?

A: I BELIEVE THERE HAVE BEEN.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. COUNSEL ASKED THE QUESTION -- COULD I ASK THE COURT TO LOOK AT THE LAST -- DOES THE COURT HAVE A TIME STAMP ON IT?

THE COURT: NO. ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY TESTS THAT HAVE BEEN DONE ON THESE CAUCASIAN HAIRS THAT WERE ON THE GLOVES.

MR. COCHRAN: IS THE QUESTION.

MS. CLARK: GOING BACK. MAY WE APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YES.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: WE'RE AT SIDEBAR.

MS. CLARK: HE ASKED GENERALLY, GOING BACK A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS -- WHAT HAD HAPPENED AND WHAT CONTINUES TO HAPPEN WITH MR. COCHRAN IS THAT HE ASKS -- KIND OF TESTIFIES, GETS NO ANSWER FROM THE WITNESS AND THEN GOES ON AS THOUGH HE GOT AN AFFIRMATIVE ANSWER. IT JUST HAPPENED NOW. HE SAID THAT THERE WERE CAUCASIAN HAIRS ON BOTH GLOVES. THERE WAS NO ANSWER. THEN MR. COCHRAN CONTINUED AS THOUGH THERE HAD BEEN AN AFFIRMATIVE ANSWER, WHICH THERE WASN'T BECAUSE THE DETECTIVE HAS CONTINUALLY INDICATED HE DOESN'T KNOW. I WOULD LIKE FOR THE RECORD TO BE READ BACK, GO BACK TO THE POINT WHEN COUNSEL SAID THAT THERE WERE CAUCASIAN HAIRS ON BOTH GLOVES.

MR. COCHRAN: I ASKED HIM WHETHER OR NOT THERE WERE CAUCASIAN HAIRS. HE SAYS, "YOU'VE INDICATED THAT TO ME THE OTHER TIME." THAT'S WHAT HIS RESPONSE WAS. YOUR HONOR, MAY I PROCEED?

MS. CLARK: RIGHT AFTER THAT. COULD WE PLEASE HAVE THE RECORD READ BACK?

THE COURT: ARE THERE CAUCASIAN HAIRS ON BOTH THESE GLOVES?

MS. CLARK: I DON'T REMEMBER.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, SHE'S NOT TELLING THE TRUTH.

MS. CLARK: I DON'T REMEMBER.

THE COURT: WAIT, WAIT.

MS. CLARK: YOU KNOW SOMETHING? I'M GOING TO START ASKING THE COURT FOR SANCTIONS IF MR. COCHRAN DOESN'T STOP THESE FALSITIES.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S PREPOSTEROUS.

THE COURT: WAIT, WAIT.

MS. CLARK: THEY'RE SO INAPPROPRIATE.

THE COURT: WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. THE QUESTION LOOKS PRETTY BENIGN TO ME; ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY TESTS THAT WERE DONE ON THE HAIRS ON THE GLOVE.

MS. CLARK: THE PROBLEM IS THE ASSERTION BY COUNSEL -- THAT THE WITNESS WAS NOT ALLOWED TO ANSWER. HE PUT WORDS IN HIS MOUTH WITHOUT AN ANSWER AS THOUGH HE --

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, HERE IS THE QUESTION. DO YOU KNOW IF THERE'S CAUCASIAN HAIRS ON THE GLOVES.

MS. CLARK: I HONESTLY CAN'T REMEMBER ON BOTH GLOVES. I KNOW ROCKINGHAM, THERE ARE. ON THE BUNDY GLOVE, I DO NOT. I DO NOT RECALL. I WOULD JUST ASK THAT THE RECORD BE READ BACK WITH RESPECT TO THAT QUESTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: HOLD ON.

MS. CLARK: IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT MR. BLASIER SAYS. I'M OBJECTING TO THE MANNER IN WHICH THIS WITNESS IS BEING QUESTIONED AND NOT ALLOWED TO GIVE ANSWERS.

THE COURT: HOLD ON.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I PROCEED, YOUR HONOR?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. COCHRAN: WE'LL GET THE REPORT.

MS. CLARK: THEY DON'T REMEMBER EITHER.

THE COURT: YOU GUYS ARE A BIG HELP.

MS. CLARK: COUNSEL SAYS, "ON BOTH GLOVES," AND THEN -- "ON BOTH GLOVES, CORRECT," NO ANSWER GIVEN BY THE WITNESS, AND THEN COUNSEL CONTINUES, "HAVE TESTS BEEN CONDUCTED," AND THAT'S WHAT I'M OBJECTING TO.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MS. CLARK: MAY THE WITNESS BE ALLOWED TO ANSWER THE QUESTION?

MR. COCHRAN: I GAVE HIM A CHANCE TO ANSWER. I THOUGHT HE ANSWERED THE QUESTION.

THE COURT: WHY DON'T YOU STOP AND TAKE IT FROM THE TOP.

MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. SURE. I'LL BE GLAD TO.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DETECTIVE LANGE, DO YOU RECALL WHETHER OR NOT THERE WERE CAUCASIAN HAIRS FOUND -- LET'S TAKE FIRST THE GLOVE ON ROCKINGHAM.

A: I BELIEVE THAT MY INFORMATION WAS THAT THERE WAS IN FACT A CAUCASIAN HAIR ON THAT GLOVE.

Q: AND WERE ANY TESTS CONDUCTED WITH REGARD TO THOSE CAUCASIAN HAIRS?

A: I BELIEVE SO.

Q: DO YOU HAVE ANY REPORTS IN YOUR VOLUMINOUS FILES THAT WOULD ILLUMINATE FURTHER FOR US WHERE THESE HAIRS WERE FOUND ON THAT GLOVE?

A: ALL OF THOSE REPORTS BY THE ORDER OF THE COURT --

Q: WAS YOUR ANSWER NO? IS THE ANSWER NO?

A: I DON'T HAVE THEM.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. COULD THE WITNESS BE ALLOWED TO ANSWER?

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, HE'S NOT ANSWERING THE QUESTION, YOUR HONOR.

MS. CLARK: HE'S ATTEMPTING TO.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I NEVER GOT ANY REPORTS REGARDING THAT.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU RECALL WHETHER OR NOT THERE WERE ANY CAUCASIAN HAIRS ON THE BUNDY GLOVE?

A: I DON'T RECALL WHETHER THERE WAS OR NOT.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT AND HAVE YOU SEEN ANY REPORTS WITH REGARD TO ANY TESTS CONDUCTED ON ANY HAIRS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ON THE BUNDY GLOVE?

A: NO.

Q: THE SAME ANSWER AS BEFORE?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, DID I UNDERSTAND YOUR TESTIMONY YESTERDAY TO INDICATE THAT YOU HAD SOMEONE BRING YOU THE GLOVE THAT WAS ALLEGEDLY FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM OVER TO YOU AT BUNDY? DID YOU SO TESTIFY YESTERDAY?

A: THE GLOVE WAS ALREADY AT BUNDY BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE CRIMINALIST HAD JUST COME FROM. SO HE CAME TO BUNDY, AND AT THAT TIME, I REQUESTED TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE GLOVE.

Q: HAD YOU ASKED TO HAVE THAT GLOVE BROUGHT OVER?

A: NO. IT WAS BROUGHT OVER WITH THE CRIMINALIST AFTER HE CONCLUDED HIS INVESTIGATION AT ROCKINGHAM.

Q: SO WE'RE CLEAR ABOUT THE CRIMINALIST, WHAT CRIMINALIST ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?

A: MR. FUNG.

Q: AND HOW DID HE BRING IT OVER IF YOU KNOW?

A: HE DROVE OVER IN HIS TRUCK.

Q: AND -- WELL, THEN BY THE TRUCK, HOW - WHERE WAS THE GLOVE WHEN YOU FIRST SAW IT?

A: IN A BROWN PAPER BAG.

Q: AND WAS ANYTHING ELSE IN THAT BAG?

A: I DON'T RECALL SEEING ANYTHING ELSE IN THE BAG.

Q: AND YOU TOLD US YESTERDAY HOW YOU EXAMINED THIS PARTICULAR GLOVE. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: NO. I BELIEVE I JUST SAID THAT I LOOKED AT IT BRIEFLY AND THEN WE WENT OVER TO THE TRUCK AND I EXAMINED IT FURTHER AT THE REAR OF HIS TRUCK.

Q: ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO BACK. WHERE DID YOU FIRST -- WHERE WERE YOU WHEN YOU FIRST SAW THE GLOVE THAT ALLEGEDLY HAD COME FROM ROCKINGHAM? WHERE WERE YOU IN RELATION TO THE BUNDY LOCATION?

A: I WAS AT THE REAR OF THE CRIMINALIST VAN.

Q: AND WHAT TIME WAS THIS?

A: I COULD ONLY ESTIMATE. I --

Q: YOUR BEST ESTIMATE. WHAT TIME WAS IT?

A: I THINK PERHAPS 10:30, 10:45, 10:20. I DON'T KNOW.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU SAW IT, FUNG HAD IT IN HIS HAND AT THAT POINT; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: NO.

Q: WHERE WAS IT?

A: IT WAS IN A BROWN PAPER BAG. HE BROUGHT IT OVER TO ME AT THE SCENE AND SAID HE HAD IT AND HE SUGGESTED THAT WE GO TO THE TRUCK TO LOOK AT IT, WHICH WE DID.

Q: THE QUESTION WAS, DID FUNG HAVE THE PAPER BAG IN HIS HAND AT THAT TIME?

A: THAT'S MY RECOLLECTION.

Q: ALL RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING YOU. AND THEN AT THAT POINT, DID YOU VISUALLY LOOK INSIDE THE BAG?

A: AGAIN, I DON'T BELIEVE I DID AT THAT POINT. WE WALKED TO THE TRUCK AND THAT'S WHEN I LOOKED INSIDE THE BAG.

Q: AND WHEN YOU WALKED INSIDE THE TRUCK, WHO WAS PRESENT INSIDE THAT TRUCK WHEN YOU LOOKED INSIDE THIS BAG?

A: OKAY. WE WERE AT THE REAR OF THE TRUCK. FUNG OPENED THE BAG AND SHOWED ME THE GLOVE.

Q: CAN YOU ANSWER MY QUESTION? WHO WAS PRESENT INSIDE THE TRUCK AT THE TIME YOU LOOKED INSIDE THE BAG?

A: FUNG AND MYSELF.

Q: JUST THE TWO OF YOU?

A: THAT'S MY RECOLLECTION.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND OF COURSE, YOU'VE WRITTEN ALL THIS DOWN IN YOUR REPORTS? YOU WROTE THIS DOWN IN YOUR REPORT; DID YOU NOT?

A: I WROTE WHAT DOWN?

Q: THE FACT THAT YOU SAW THE GLOVE THE BACK OF THE CRIMINALIST TRUCK ALONG WITH YOU AND FUNG, YOU WROTE THAT IN SOME REPORT, DIDN'T YOU?

A: NO. NO.

Q: I CAN'T HEAR YOU.

A: NO.

Q: THAT'S NOT WRITTEN ANYWHERE IN ANY OF YOUR REPORTS, IS IT?

A: I WOULD HAVE HAD NO REASON TO WRITE THAT DOWN.

Q: I'M ASKING, IS THAT WRITTEN ANYWHERE IN ANY OF YOUR REPORTS, DETECTIVE?

A: MY ANSWER IS, MR. COCHRAN, NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU HAVE NEVER BEFORE YESTERDAY EVER TESTIFIED ABOUT THAT; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

A: IF I HAVEN'T BEEN ASKED ABOUT IT, I CERTAINLY WOULDN'T TESTIFY ABOUT IT.

Q: LET ME ASK YOU THIS. DID YOU EVER BEFORE YESTERDAY AFTERNOON EVER TESTIFY ABOUT LOOKING AT THE GLOVE ALLEGEDLY TAKEN FROM ROCKINGHAM AT THE BUNDY SCENE ALONG WITH MR. FUNG? DID YOU EVER TESTIFY TO THAT BEFORE?

A: I'VE NEVER BEEN ASKED THAT.

Q: IT'S NEVER BEEN IN ANY OF YOUR REPORTS; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO REASON TO PUT IT IN ANY REPORT.

Q: THE ANSWER IS NO?

A: CORRECT.

Q: NOW, SO WHEN YOU THEN LOOKED INSIDE THE BAG INSIDE THE TRUCK WHERE YOU AND FUNG WERE, DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO TOUCH THE GLOVE AT THAT POINT?

A: I DID NOT.

Q: DID YOU TAKE THE GLOVE OUT?

A: NO.

Q: AND DID YOU EVER DO ANYTHING WITH REGARD TO THE OTHER GLOVE, THE SO-CALLED BUNDY GLOVE? DID YOU BRING IT OVER AND LOOK AT IT?

A: I DIDN'T TOUCH IT.

Q: YOU NEVER TOUCHED IT AT ALL THAT DAY?

A: THE BUNDY GLOVE?

Q: THE BUNDY GLOVE.

A: I DON'T RECALL TOUCHING IT AT ALL.

Q: BY THE WAY, WITH REGARD TO THIS EVIDENCE THAT WAS MOVED THAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT YESTERDAY, AND YOU TOLD US HOW THESE BODIES WERE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY, DID YOU SEE THE EVIDENCE MOVED AS THE BODIES WERE MOVED? AND BY THE EVIDENCE, I MEAN THE CAP, THE GLOVE AND THAT ENVELOPE. DID YOU SEE THAT EVIDENCE MOVED?

A: NO.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE, THE CAP WAS MOVED.

MR. COCHRAN: I'M ASKING ON CROSS-EXAMINATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU SEE EVIDENCE MOVED IN THIS CASE?

A: I DIDN'T PHYSICALLY SEE IT, NO.

Q: BUT WHEN I WAS ORIGINALLY WITH YOU ON CROSS-EXAMINATION, I SHOWED YOU THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS. YOU ACKNOWLEDGED THE EVIDENCE HAD BEEN MOVED; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: IT WAS OBVIOUS TO ME IT HAD.

Q: AND THAT'S THE FIRST TIME EVER IN THIS CASE YOU EVER BECAME AWARE THAT THE EVIDENCE HAD BEEN MOVED; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: WHEN YOU SHOWED ME THOSE?

Q: YES.

A: NO.

Q: YOU KNEW BEFORE THAT?

A: I OBSERVED THE PHOTOS PRIOR TO THAT, YES.

Q: AND DID YOU GO AND WRITE A REPORT ABOUT THAT DETAILING HOW AND WHEN THAT EVIDENCE HAD BEEN MOVED?

A: I WOULDN'T HAVE KNOWN HOW AND WHEN.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. ASKED AND ANSWERED.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU MAY ANSWER.

A: NO.

Q: YOU'VE NEVER WRITTEN SUCH A REPORT, HAVE YOU?

A: NO.

Q: AND WITH REGARD TO THINGS LIKE THE ICE CREAM, YOU NEVER BOTHERED TO TEST THE MELTING RATE OF ICE CREAM UNTIL I STARTED ASKING YOU QUESTIONS, ISN'T THAT CORRECT, ABOUT THAT?

A: UNTIL YOU MADE IT AN ISSUE, THAT'S CORRECT. IT WAS OF NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE TO ME AT ALL.

Q: WELL, AS THE INVESTIGATOR, AGAIN, IF YOU MADE ONE OF YOUR MISTAKES THAT YOU MAKE ON OCCASION, PERHAPS WE CALL IT TO YOUR ATTENTION, AND NOW YOU'RE NOW TESTING ICE CREAM; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

THE COURT: IT'S ARGUMENTATIVE. IT'S ALSO BADGERING THE WITNESS AT THIS POINT.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WITH REGARD --

MR. COCHRAN: LET ME REPHRASE IT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: PLEASE.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WITH REGARD TO THE ICE CREAM, THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU EVER DID ANY TESTS REGARDING THE ICE CREAM WAS AFTER WE STARTED TALKING ABOUT IT HERE IN COURT; IS THAT CORRECT, SIR?

A: AFTER YOU MADE IT AN ISSUE, THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: SO THE ANSWER IS YES?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WITH REGARD TO -- LET'S TALK ABOUT THE ICE CREAM. YESTERDAY, IN RESPONSE TO ONE OF MISS CLARK'S QUESTIONS, YOU INDICATED THAT -- ABOUT SEEING SOME SUBSTANCE IN THE ICE CREAM. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: SOME SUBSTANCE?

Q: YES. YOU REMEMBER YOU SAID SOMETHING ABOUT SEEING SOMETHING INSIDE THE ICE CREAM?

A: THERE APPEARED TO BE --

THE COURT: HOLD ON. DETECTIVE, LET HIM FINISH ASKING THE QUESTION BEFORE YOU START ANSWERING, PLEASE.

THE WITNESS: OKAY.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DO YOU REMEMBER SO TESTIFYING ABOUT SEEING SOMETHING IN THE ICE CREAM AFTER IT MELTED, SIR?

A: I REMEMBER SAYING I BELIEVE THERE WAS SOMETHING LUMPY.

Q: AND DO YOU RECALL BEING ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT EARLIER, ABOUT THE ICE CREAM IN MY EXAMINATION? I'M GOING TO ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT.

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU RECALL BEING ASKED THIS SERIES OF QUESTIONS AND GIVING THESE ANSWERS?

MR. COCHRAN: COUNSEL, IT'S AT PAGE 15369 AND 15370. THEY'RE PRINTED OUT.

MS. CLARK: OF WHAT?

MR. COCHRAN: OF THE TRIAL TRANSCRIPT. TRIAL TRANSCRIPT. "TELL US WHAT YOU SAW WHEN YOU WENT IN THROUGH THAT DOOR, SIR, WENT UPSTAIRS. "ANSWER: I ENTERED UP THE STAIRS AND TO THE LEFT WAS A BANISTER, WHICH I OBSERVED A BEN AND JERRY'S ICE CREAM CUP. IT WAS POINTED OUT TO ME BY DETECTIVE PHILLIPS. TO ME, IT APPEARED TO BE MELTED OR MELTING. "I ASKED DETECTIVE PHILLIPS IF THAT HAD BEEN OBSERVED EARLIER. HE STATED --" THERE'S AN OBJECTION. "BY MISS CLARK: HE GAVE YOU SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE FIRST OFFICER ON THE SCENE? "ANSWER: YES. "QUESTION: DID YOU OBSERVE WHAT KIND OF ICE CREAM THAT WAS? "ANSWER: NO." REMEMBER SO TESTIFYING IN MISS CLARK'S DIRECT EXAMINATION THAT YOU DIDN'T OBSERVE WHAT KIND OF ICE CREAM THAT WAS AT THAT TIME? REMEMBER SO TESTIFYING?

A: YES.

Q: NOW YESTERDAY, WHEN YOU WERE ASKED, YOU TOLD US THAT YOU THOUGHT IT MIGHT HAVE A LUMPY AREA IN THE CENTER; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I BELIEVE I WAS ASKED IF IT HAD SOMETHING LIKE THAT, YES.

Q: YOU DIDN'T TELL US ABOUT THAT BEFORE, DID YOU?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE I WAS ASKED ABOUT THAT BEFORE.

Q: NOW --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT'S NOT IMPEACHING, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: NOW, WITH REGARD TO YOUR INVESTIGATION INTO THE ICE CREAM AND THE TYPE OF ICE CREAM, WHEN DID YOU START THAT INVESTIGATION?

A: AS TO THE MELTING RATE, I BELIEVE IT WAS LAST WEEK PROBABLY, PERHAPS THE WEEK BEFORE.

Q: THE WEEK BEFORE MEANING -- LET'S LOOK AT THE CALENDAR. WHICH WEEK ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY THE 20TH, SIR?

A: I BELIEVE THAT MIGHT HAVE -- I BELIEVE IT MIGHT HAVE OCCURRED ON THE -- YES, I BELIEVE IT WAS THAT WEEK, 20, 21, 22.

Q: IN THAT AREA?

A: I BELIEVE SO. I COULD BE MISTAKEN.

Q: AND IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION, HAVE YOU TALKED TO A YOUNG LADY BY THE NAME OF BERMAN AT ALL?

A: HAVE I?

Q: YES. HAVE YOU OR ANYONE IN YOUR DIRECTION, SIR?

A: I BELIEVE SOMEONE MAY HAVE. I DIDN'T.

Q: I MEAN IN THE COURSE OF THIS INVESTIGATION THAT STARTED SOMETIME THE WEEK OF THE 20TH I AM TALKING ABOUT NOW.

A: IN REGARDS TO THE ICE CREAM?

Q: YES, SIR.

A: I HAVE NOT SINCE THEN, NO.

Q: YOU HAVE NOT SINCE THEN?

A: NO.

Q: WHO ELSE HAVE YOU TALKED TO IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION?

A: I SPOKE WITH THE BROWN FAMILY AND THE CHILDREN THROUGH THE BROWN FAMILY.

Q: ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE?

A: DETECTIVE PAYNE WHO I REQUESTED TO CONDUCT THIS EXAMINATION.

Q: AND EXAMINATION, WHEN YOU SAY -- YOU MEAN INVESTIGATION?

A: AS TO THE ICE CREAM, EXAMINATION OF THE MELTING RATE OF CHOCOLATE CHIP COOKIE DOUGH.

Q: SO YOU HAD HIM GO OUT AND BUY SOME CHOCOLATE CHIP COOKIE DOUGH AND THEN TRY TO SEE HOW LONG IT TOOK TO MELT. IS THAT WHAT YOU DID?

A: ESSENTIALLY THAT'S WHAT WE DID, YES.

Q: WERE YOU PRESENT WHEN DETECTIVE PAYNE DID THIS?

A: NO.

Q: WERE YOU ABLE TO ASCERTAIN HOW MANY MEMBERS OF THE BROWN FAMILY ON THAT PARTICULAR NIGHT PURCHASED ICE CREAM?

A: I WAS TOLD HOW MANY PURCHASED ICE CREAM.

Q: AND YOU WERE TOLD THAT BY THE BROWN FAMILY?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: I'M SORRY. THE BROWN FAMILY?

THE COURT: DO WE HAVE ANY BROWN FAMILY MEMBERS PRESENT IN THE COURTROOM? ALL RIGHT. PROCEED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: IN REGARD TO DETECTIVE PAYNE --

MR. COCHRAN: CAN I HAVE JUST A SECOND, YOUR HONOR?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: NOW, WITH REGARD TO DETECTIVE PAYNE, HAS HE WRITTEN -- GIVEN YOU A REPORT OF HIS FINDING REGARDING THE ICE CREAM?

A: I HAVE PHOTOGRAPHS.

Q: AND IN THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS, ARE THEY TAKEN IN A SEQUENTIAL FASHION SO THAT YOU'RE ABLE TO DETERMINE HOW LONG THIS PARTICULAR ICE CREAM WOULD TAKE TO MELT? IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES, IN FIVE-MINUTE INCREMENTS.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU FOUND OUT THAT THAT PARTICULAR ICE CREAM WOULD MELT IN A LITTLE MORE THAN AN HOUR; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

A: APPROXIMATELY AN HOUR AND 15 MINUTES UNDER THOSE CONDITIONS.

Q: SO IF THAT ICE CREAM WAS SOLID AT 11:00 O'CLOCK, SOMEONE WAS EATING IT AT 11:00 O'CLOCK, YOU WOULD EXPECT THAT IT WOULD BE MELTED THEN BY ABOUT 12:15 OR THEREAFTER, IS THAT CORRECT, OR IN A MELTING STATE?

A: NOT IF IT HAD BEEN PLACED IN A FREEZER.

Q: WELL, I DIDN'T ASK YOU THAT. I ASKED YOU WHETHER YOU -- IF THE ICE CREAM WAS EATEN BY SOMEBODY AT 11:00 O'CLOCK AND IT WAS SEEN AN HOUR AND 15 MINUTES AFTER THAT, YOU WOULD EXPECT THAT IT WOULD BE MELTED, ISN'T THAT RIGHT, UNDER YOUR TEST?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. NO FOUNDATION. SPECULATION. NO FOUNDATION.

MR. COCHRAN: I'M ASKING.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. COCHRAN: BASIS, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: FOUNDATION.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT.

THE COURT: SPECULATION.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: NOW, WITH REGARD THEN TO THIS ICE CREAM, YOU WERE ABLE TO FIND OUT THAT THIS ICE CREAM WOULD MELT IN ABOUT AN HOUR, HOUR AND 15 MINUTES TESTING IT IN FIVE-MINUTE INTERVALS; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: UNDER THE CONDITIONS THAT WE HAD, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, IF RISKE FOUND THE ICE CREAM STILL MELTING AT 12:40 A.M. AND YOU EXTRAPOLATE BACKWARDS, DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE PERSON MAY HAVE BEEN EATING ICE CREAM AS LATE AS 11:15, 11:30?

A: I COULDN'T SAY.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WELL, YOU HAVE THIS TEST FROM DETECTIVE PAYNE, DON'T YOU?

A: WELL, I HAVE THIS TEST, BUT THIS TEST ISN'T THE DEFINITIVE ANSWER AS TO MELTING ICE CREAM. IF YOU HAD PLACED THIS ICE CREAM IN THE FREEZER AND REFROZE THE ICE CREAM, IT WOULD CHANGE EVERYTHING.

Q: WELL, DO YOU THINK SOMEONE PLACED THIS ICE CREAM IN THE FREEZER WHEN YOU FOUND -- WHEN YOU KNOW IN FACT THAT THE ICE CREAM WAS FOUND ON THE BANISTER WHERE IT WAS WHEN YOU FOUND IT, SIR?

A: I DON'T KNOW WHEN IT WAS LAST FROZEN. IT MAY HAVE BEEN PLACED IN THE ICE CREAM PRIOR. I DON'T KNOW.

Q: I SEE, SIR. AT ANY RATE, YOUR INVESTIGATION IN THE ICE CREAM CONTINUES; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND YOU'RE DOING OTHER INVESTIGATIONS ALSO; ISN'T THAT CORRECT? THAT CONTINUES, THAT YOU'VE STARTED AFTER THIS TRIAL; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: HE GET INFORMATION ON A DAILY BASIS AND WE CONDUCT THIS INVESTIGATION ON A DAILY BASIS. EVERYTHING IS ONGOING.

Q: DO YOU EVER INVESTIGATE ANY CLUES THAT LEAD AWAY FROM MR. SIMPSON? HAVE YOU DONE THAT?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WHAT CLUES HAVE YOU CONDUCTED --

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I HAVE JUST A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR? MAY WE APPROACH FOR A SECOND?

THE COURT: SURE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: WE ARE OVER AT SIDEBAR. MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: SINCE THEY OPENED THE DOOR, I WANT TO FIND OUT WHAT INVESTIGATION HE'S CONDUCTED SINCE THIS CASE STARTED TO LEAD AWAY FROM MR. SIMPSON, WHAT CLUES HE'S INVESTIGATED. I WOULD LAKE TO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE. SO I WOULD ASK THE COURT --

THE COURT: ANY OBJECTION?

MS. CLARK: CAN I HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: SURE.

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

MR. COCHRAN: THEY OPENED THE DOOR.

THE COURT: BUT STRATEGICALLY, MAYBE THEY WANT YOU TO GO INTO IT.

MR. COCHRAN: MAYBE I WON'T THEN, YOUR HONOR.

MS. CLARK: LET ME TELL YOU, YOUR HONOR, THE PROBLEM WITH HAVING COUNSEL GO INTO THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CLUES IS THAT IT'S ALL GOING TO BE HEARSAY AND AN ANONYMOUS SOURCE. WE HAVE VOLUMES AND VOLUMES AND VOLUMES OF CLUES. WE ARE GOING TO -- JUDGE, YOU ARE GOING TO -- WE'RE GOING TO BE HERE A WEEK WHILE HE TESTIFIES TO EVERY HEARSAY STATEMENT THAT WE HAVE.

THE COURT: I THINK WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS DISCUSS THIS MORE FULLY ON THE RECORD BECAUSE I THINK I NEED TO KNOW WHAT WE ARE GOING TO GO INTO. I WANT THE TEXT. I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT WITH THE JURY HERE. SO --

MR. COCHRAN: ALL I WANT TO DO IS ASK -- AND WE CAN DO IT -- I CAN ASK OTHER THINGS. I DON'T WANT TO WASTE ALL THIS TIME. I THINK THE COURT SHOULD ALLOW ME TO PURSUE ALL THESE CLUES. NOW I'M PRECLUDED FROM ASKING ABOUT THE CLUES.

MS. CLARK: ASKING WHETHER HE DID AN INVESTIGATION INTO CLUES IN THIS CASE OPENS A DOOR TO ALL THE HEARSAY AS TO THE SPECIFIC CLUES THAT WERE GIVEN. I MEAN HOW CAN THAT POSSIBLY BE TRUE?

MR. COCHRAN: THEY BROUGHT THIS OUT. I SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS. WE DON'T NEED A HEARING FOR THAT.

THE COURT: I TAKE IT -- I APPRECIATE THE FACT YOU WANTED TO COME OVER HERE AT SIDEBAR AND DISCUSS THIS, AND WE WILL DISCUSS IT IN GREATER DETAIL; HOWEVER, NOT WITH THE JURY SITTING HERE IN THE BOX. WHY DON'T YOU PROCEED WITH SOME OTHER MATTERS, AND WE'LL TAKE THAT UP WHEN WE HAVE -- AFTER WE HAVE THE JURY EXCLUDED FOR THE MORNING SESSION, ALTHOUGH I HAVE THE OFFICERS NOW FROM -- BACK FROM INTERNAL AFFAIRS. AND SO I NEED TO TURN THOSE MATERIALS OVER TO BOTH PARTIES. SO WHEN WE -- WE'RE GOING TO BREAK ABOUT FIVE MINUTES EARLY. I HAVE A MEETING AT 12:15 THAT I HAVE TO GET TO. BUT I WANT TO PUT ON THE RECORD THAT MATTER YOU WANTED TO TALK ABOUT BEFORE WE CAME DOWN. I WANT TO PUT ON THE RECORD THE IAD IS HERE TO COMPLY WITH THE DISCOVERY ORDER, AND THEN WE'LL BREAK. BUT WHEN WE COME BACK AT 1:30, WE'LL GO INTO THIS BUSINESS ABOUT CLUES.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. WE'LL COME BACK, AND THEN I CAN -- WHY DON'T I JUST COME BACK TO THIS AREA OF THE CLUES. I'LL COME BACK TO THAT AFTER LUNCH. LET'S DO THAT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DETECTIVE LANGE, IF -- WHY DON'T WE COME BACK TO THE CLUES AND WHAT YOU PURSUED AFTER LUNCH IF YOU DON'T MIND. LET ME ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR THEORY ABOUT THIS NOT BEING A DRUG-RELATED HOMICIDE. HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF SOMETHING CALLED A COLOMBIAN NECKLACE?

A: I BELIEVE SO.

Q: AND IT'S TRUE, IS IT NOT, THAT A COLOMBIAN NECKLACE IS A SITUATION WHERE DRUG DEALERS WILL SLICE THE NECK OF A VICTIM, INCLUDING THE CAROTID ARTERY, IN ORDER TO KILL THE VICTIMS AND TO INSTILL FEAR AND SEND A MESSAGE TO OTHERS WHO HAVE NOT EITHER PAID FOR THEIR DRUGS OR HAVE BEEN INFORMING TO THE POLICE? ISN'T THAT WHAT A COLOMBIAN NECKLACE IS?

A: I HAVE HEARD THAT.

Q: AND, SIR, ISN'T IT TRUE THAT YOU IN YOUR EXPERIENCE KNOW ABOUT DRUG KILLINGS WHERE KNIVES HAVE BEEN USED? ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: I DO HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF KNIVES BEING USED, YES.

Q: AND, SIR, IN THIS CONNECTION, YOU ARE AWARE, ARE YOU NOT, THAT FAYE RESNICK BECAME A RESIDENT AT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S PLACE AT 875 SOUTH BUNDY ON OR ABOUT JUNE 3RD, 1994? ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: NO, I'M NOT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. YOUR INVESTIGATION -- YOUR SUPERFICIAL INVESTIGATION DIDN'T REVEAL THAT?

A: INITIALLY, THE INVESTIGATION REVEALED SHE MAY HAVE BEEN. I'VE SINCE RECEIVED INFORMATION THAT SHE WAS NOT A RESIDENT AT THAT LOCATION, AND THAT IS ONGOING.

Q: YOU'RE STILL LOOKING AT THAT?

A: YES, WE ARE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WELL, IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION, HAVE YOU LEARNED THAT SHE MOVED IN WITH MISS SIMPSON ON OR ABOUT JUNE 3RD, 1994 AND STAYED THERE --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. HEARSAY.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: -- UNTIL JUNE -- MAY I FINISH THE QUESTION?

THE COURT: FINISH THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: -- AND STAYED THERE UNTIL JUNE 8TH, 1994, AT WHICH TIME SHE WENT INTO DRUG REHABILITATION --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. DID YOUR INVESTIGATION REVEAL THAT FAYE RESNICK WENT INTO DRUG REHABILITATION ON OR ABOUT JUNE 8, 1994 AND THAT SHE WAS LIVING AT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. HEARSAY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. COCHRAN: I'M ASKING THIS INVESTIGATION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, IT'S A COMPOUND QUESTION.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. LET ME RESTATE IT THEN, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION, DID YOU LEARN THAT --

THE COURT: WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. THAT ASSUMES THAT SOMETHING IS A FACT. DID YOU CONSIDER -- WHEN HE FORMED HIS OPINION, DID YOU EVER CONSIDER THESE THREE FACTORS.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: AND IT'S ONLY ON THE BASIS OF FORMING AN OPINION, NOT ASSUMING IT TO BE TRUE.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: IN THE COURSE OF YOUR FORMING YOUR OPINION --

MS. CLARK: IS THE JURY GOING TO BE GIVEN A LIMITING INSTRUCTION ON THIS?

THE COURT: THEY WILL AS SOON AS I HEAR WHAT THE QUESTION IS.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION INTO THIS MATTER, YOUR DETERMINATION THAT THIS WAS NOT A DRUG KILLING, DID YOU CONSIDER THE FACT THAT NICOLE -- THAT FAYE RESNICK WENT INTO A DRUG REHABILITATION FACILITY ON OR ABOUT JUNE 8TH --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: -- 1994?

MS. CLARK: ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU CONSIDER THAT FACT?

A: I HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT SHE HAD.

Q: THE QUESTION IS NOW NOT WHAT YOU'VE BEEN TOLD, SIR. DID YOU CONSIDER THAT FACT WHEN YOU CAME TO THIS CONCLUSION YOU TOLD US ABOUT YESTERDAY?

A: WHEN I CAME TO THAT CONCLUSION I TOLD YOU ABOUT YESTERDAY, I DIDN'T HAVE THAT KNOWLEDGE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO THERE ARE OTHER FACTS THAT ARE COMING INTO YOUR KNOWLEDGE EVEN AS WE SPEAK IN THIS CASE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: EVERY DAY.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, IF -- I WANT TO ASK YOU THIS AS IT RELATES TO YOUR OPINION. IF FAYE RESNICK WAS FREE-BASING COCAINE ON A DAILY BASIS AT THE BUNDY LOCATION, SO MUCH SO THAT SHE HAD TO HAVE A DRUG INTERVENTION BY JUNE 8 OF 1994, AND YOU LEARNED THAT TO BE A FACT, WOULD THAT CHANGE YOUR OPINION ABOUT THIS POSSIBLY BEING A DRUG-RELATED KILLING?

A: IF I HAD THAT INFORMATION, THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE A CONSIDERATION IF I HAD NO OTHER DIRECTION TO GO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND IF YOU FOUND OUT THAT AS SHE USED THIS COCAINE AND WAS FREE-BASING ON A DAILY BASIS, SHE HAD NO JOB BY WHICH TO PAY FOR THESE DRUGS, WOULD THAT BE A FACTOR THAT MIGHT BEAR UPON THE OPINION YOU GAVE US YESTERDAY?

MS. CLARK: SAME OBJECTION. THAT ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE ALSO.

MR. COCHRAN: IT RELATES TO HIS OPINION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THIS IS -- WHAT COUNSEL IS POSING TO THE DETECTIVE ARE WHAT ARE KNOWN AS HYPOTHETICAL QUESTIONS. THE WITNESS IS ASKED TO ASSUME TO BE TRUE CERTAIN FACTS AND THEN ASKED TO GIVE AN OPINION BASED UPON THOSE ASSUMED FACTS. IF THOSE ASSUMED FACTS TURN OUT NOT TO BE TRUE, THEN YOU CAN TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION IN EVALUATING THE OPINION THAT IS GIVEN. MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU. I DON'T THINK WE HAD AN ANSWER TO THE LAST QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DO YOU HAVE -- DO YOU WANT THE QUESTION READ BACK FOR YOU?

A: I THINK I UNDERSTAND IT.

Q: ALL RIGHT.

A: IF I HAD BEEN PURSUING THAT LINE, THAT CERTAINLY WOULD BE A FACTOR I WOULD LOOK AT, YES.

Q: AND YOU UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN INDIVIDUALS GET DRUGS, THEY SOMETIMES WILL PAY FOR THEM IN CASH, SOMETIMES THEY GET THEM ON CONSIGNMENT; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: I'VE HEARD OF THAT.

Q: AND IN YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH -- EXPERIENCES POLICE OFFICER, WHEN PEOPLE ARE GIVEN DRUGS, THE DRUG DEALERS ARE PEOPLE WHO GIVE THOSE DRUGS WANT TO BE PAID; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: I WOULD ASSUME THAT.

Q: AND SOMETIMES IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, YOU KNOW THAT WHEN DRUGS ARE NOT PAID FOR THAT HAVE BEEN GOTTEN AND USED, THERE ARE REPERCUSSIONS; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: CERTAINLY.

Q: AND HENCE, SOMETIMES -- AND THAT'S WHY YOU'VE HEARD THIS TERM "COLOMBIAN NECKLACE"; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: I HAVE HEARD THAT TERM, NOT NECESSARILY IN CONNECTION WITH EVERY MURDER I'VE EVER HANDLED.

Q: WELL, IT CAN ALSO BE FOR PAYBACK FOR NOT HAVING PAID BACK FOR DRUGS; ISN'T THAT CORRECT, SIR?

A: I SUPPOSE IT COULD BE.

Q: AND IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION, IF YOU WERE TO LEARN THAT FAYE RESNICK WAS IN THIS DRUG TREATMENT FACILITY ON JUNE 12TH, 1994 AND THAT SHE IN FACT CALLED MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON THAT EVENING FROM THE DRUG TREATMENT FACILITY, WOULD THAT BE A FACT THAT YOU MIGHT FIND RELEVANT IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION, YOUR OPINION REGARDING WHETHER DRUGS ARE RELATED IN THIS MATTER?

A: AGAIN, IF I WERE PURSUING A DRUG-RELATED HOMICIDE, IT WOULD PROBABLY COME INTO PLAY, YES.

Q: AND WOULD IT BE RELEVANT TO YOU IF YOU WERE PURSUING A DRUG-RELATED HOMICIDE, THAT MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON WAS PRESENT AT THE INTERVENTION IN WHICH FAMILY AND FRIENDS OF FAYE RESNICK, INCLUDING NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AND HER FORMER BOYFRIEND, CHRISTIAN RIECHARDT, INSISTED BECAUSE OF THE STATE OF HER FREE-BASING COCAINE, THAT SHE GO AND GET SOME HELP THAT SAME NIGHT AND LEAVE NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE? WOULD THAT -- WOULD YOU CONSIDER THAT AS ONE OF THE FACTORS IF YOU WERE PURSUING THIS AS A DRUG-RELATED HOMICIDE?

A: IF I WERE PURSUING IT AS A DRUG-RELATED HOMICIDE, I WOULD PROBABLY WANT ALL OF THOSE FACTORS, YES.

Q: IN OTHER WORDS, AS AN EXPERIENCED INVESTIGATOR, YOU WOULD WANT TO KNOW ALL OF THOSE THINGS AND YOU WOULD WANT TO DETERMINE WHAT BEARING IF ANY THEY HAD, AND THAT WOULD BE MORE THAN A SUPERFICIAL INVESTIGATION; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: IF IT LED IN THAT DIRECTION, CERTAINLY.

MR. COCHRAN: VERY WELL, YOUR HONOR. MAY WE STOP AT THIS POINT?

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I HAVE A COUPLE MATTERS I NEED TO TAKE CARE OF OUT OF YOUR PRESENCE. I'M GOING TO EXCUSE YOU FOR LUNCH NOW. PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU; DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONGST YOURSELVES, DON'T FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, DON'T CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU, DO NOT ALLOW ANYBODY TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU WITH REGARD TO THE CASE. ALL RIGHT. LET'S EXCUSE THE JURY AND LET ME SEE MR. WALSH AND ONE COUNSEL FROM EACH SIDE AT THE SIDEBAR, PLEASE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE'RE IN RECESS UNTIL 1:30.

(AT 12:00 P.M., THE NOON RECESS WAS TAKEN UNTIL 1:30 P.M. OF THE SAME DAY.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8, 1995 1:39 P.M.

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

APPEARANCES: (APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)

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

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

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

THE COURT: BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. ALL PARTIES ARE AGAIN PRESENT. THE JURY IS NOT PRESENT. MR. COCHRAN, ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ADDRESS OR BRING UP BEFORE WE INVITE THE JURORS TO REJOIN US?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

THE COURT: AND MRS. ROBERTSON, WOULD YOU ASK IF MR. HODGMAN CAN BE DOWN HERE AT 3:15 SO THAT WE CAN CLEAR UP SOME OF THOSE THINGS. MR. SCHECK, ANY ITEMS WE CAN CLEAR UP SO THAT WE CAN TURN YOU LOOSE FOR THE AFTERNOON? ANY ITEMS WE CAN CLEAR UP SO THAT WE CAN TURN YOUR LOOSE FOR THE AFTERNOON?

MR. SCHECK: YES.

THE COURT: YOU MENTIONED YOU WANTED TO --

MR. SCHECK: YES. I RESUBMITTED A LETTER TO THE COURT WITH THE TRANSCRIPT OF YESTERDAY'S TESTIMONY WITH THE WITNESS AND SOME OF THE COLLOQUY AND MADE A PROPOSED CURATIVE INSTRUCTION AND I THINK OUR LETTER SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. AND I WOULD URGE THE COURT TO GIVE THE INSTRUCTION AS WRITTEN.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR. THE PEOPLE HAVE ALSO SUBMITTED THE PROPOSED ADMONITION. I THINK THAT COUNSEL'S LETTER IS AN EXTREME EXAGGERATION OF BOTH THE IMPORTANCE AND THE IMPACT OF THE QUESTION AND ANSWER THAT ARE IN ISSUE AND THE REQUESTED ADMONITION GOES FAR BEYOND THE PALE OF ANYTHING NECESSARY. WE ALL KNOW THIS TESTIMONY IS GOING TO OCCUR, THIS EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE PRESENTED. COUNSEL'S PROPOSED ADMONITION MAKES IT SOUND LIKE THERE WAS A DEVASTATING THING THAT OCCURRED IN COURT YESTERDAY AND THAT IS NOT THE CASE. THAT IS SIMPLY NOT THE CASE. I THINK THAT IF ANYTHING AT ALL IS REQUIRED HERE IS THAT THE ANSWER AND THE QUESTION BE STRICKEN, PERIOD.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, JUST IN REACTION TO THAT, I THINK IT IS CLEAR FROM THE LETTER THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CURATIVE INSTRUCTION THAT WE OFFERED AND THE ONE THE PROSECUTION OFFERED IS THAT WE ARE ESSENTIALLY SAYING THAT THE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS -- THE QUESTIONS WERE IMPROPER, BUT THAT DETECTIVE LANGE DOES NOT HAVE THE SCIENTIFIC TRAINING OR QUALIFICATIONS TO STATE AN OPINION ABOUT THESE TEST RESULTS AND YOU ARE INSTRUCTED TO DISREGARD HIS ANSWERS. I THINK THAT THAT IS REASONABLE AND PLAIN, AND I THINK AS I LAY OUT IN THIS MEMO, THE PROSECUTION IS WELL AWARE OF THE SCIENTIFIC ISSUES WITH RESPECT TO THE BLOOD SCRAPINGS AND THE TESTS. THEY ARE SUBTLE AND THEY ARE COMPLICATED AND I THINK THAT THEY PLAINLY GAINED A TACTICAL ADVANTAGE HERE. AND IN LOOKING BACK AT THE RECORD, I THINK IT WAS MUCH MORE EGREGIOUS THAN ANY OF US THOUGHT. FIRST OF ALL, THE QUESTION: "ARE YOU AWARE OF THE RESULTS OF THOSE SCRAPINGS, THE DNA -- THAT THE DNA TESTS AND THE NAIL SCRAPINGS? "YES, I AM. "AND DID THAT TEST REVEAL THE BLOOD TO BE HERS? "YES." NOW, THAT QUESTION EVERYBODY KNOWS IS IMPROPER BECAUSE NO DNA TEST CAN DO THAT DEFINITIVELY, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE PROSECUTOR YESTERDAY INDICATED THAT SHE WAS TRYING TO RAISE THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE, JUST TO SHOW HOW AS OBLIQUELY -- JUST TO SHOW HOW THIS DETECTIVE'S INVESTIGATION OR THE FOCUS OF HIS INVESTIGATION CHANGED. AND THAT -- THAT REALLY CAN'T BE THE CASE, BECAUSE THESE TESTS WERE PERFORMED AFTER THE TRIAL STARTED, SO TO BE CLAIMING THAT SHE WAS ASKING THESE QUESTIONS TO FOCUS -- TO EXPLAIN HOW THE DETECTIVE'S INVESTIGATION WENT BEFORE THE TRIAL STARTED, UMM, IS ILLOGICAL AND WITHOUT ANY FACTUAL BASIS. I THINK WHAT WAS CLEARLY GOING ON IS MISS CLARK WAS TRYING TO ELICIT DNA TEST RESULTS FROM A WITNESS WHO WAS NOT QUALIFIED TO DO SO IN ORDER TO GAIN AGAIN A TACTICAL ADVANTAGE IN TERMS OF WHEN THE TESTIMONY WILL COME OUT FROM THE SCIENTIFIC WITNESSES WHERE IT WILL COME OUT QUITE DIFFERENTLY IN TERMS OF DIRECT AND CROSS OF THE PROPER WITNESSES. SO I TRIED TO CRAFT AN INSTRUCTION THAT WAS LIMITED PARTICULARLY IN LIGHT OF THE DISCOVERY VIOLATION.

IT SEEMS TO ME PERFECTLY PLAIN THAT DETECTIVE LANGE, WHO SEEMS TO HAVE FAR-RANGING EXPERTISE IN LOTS OF AREAS, BUT I'M SURE ONE OF THEM IS NOT THAT HE IS QUALIFIED TO STATE AN OPINION ABOUT THESE DNA TEST RESULTS, AND IT SEEMS FAIR TO TELL THE JURY TO DISREGARD IT, BECAUSE I THINK THAT IS THE WAY WE WERE PREJUDICED.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

MR. COCHRAN: THE OTHER AREA, YOUR HONOR, THAT YOU ASKED ME ABOUT --

THE COURT: IF YOU FEEL COMPELLED.

MS. CLARK: ONLY THAT THE CURATIVE INSTRUCTION REQUESTED IS INAPPROPRIATE. THE QUESTION WAS NEITHER INAPPROPRIATE NOR IMPROPER. THE ONLY ISSUE WAS DISCOVERY. I IN GOOD FAITH BELIEVED THAT THEY KNEW OF THESE RESULTS AND THAT IS REALLY THE ISSUE I THOUGHT THE COURT WAS ADDRESSING. AND DETECTIVE LANGE DID NOT OFFER A SCIENTIFIC OPINION OF ANY KIND. HE SIMPLY INDICATED IT DID NOT CHANGE THE FOCUS OF HIS INVESTIGATION, AND THAT HAD TO DO WITH THE IMPACT ON HIS STATE OF MIND, THE ISSUE AS TO RUSH TO JUDGMENT, THE ISSUE AS TO HIS THEORY OF THE CASE, WHICH IS CONTINUING TO BE A LINE OF CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT IS BEING ENGAGED IN BY COUNSEL. OBVIOUSLY THE RESPONSE TO THAT LINE OF QUESTIONING IS THERE IS A WEALTH OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE THAT INDICATES THAT THESE ARE NOT DRUG-RELATED KILLINGS, THAT THIS IS NOT THE RESULT OF SOME COLOMBIAN CARTEL OR SOME MAFIA KILLING AND THAT IS WHAT THIS LINE OF QUESTIONING GOES TO. IT WAS OPENED UP ON CROSS-EXAMINATION WHICH COUNSEL BEGAN TO ASK ABOUT DRUG-RELATED KILLINGS AND OTHER MOTIVES, AND IN RESPONSE THAT THE PEOPLE ARE APPROPRIATELY ENTITLED TO SAY WHAT LED YOU TO FILE AND WHAT LED YOU TO CONCLUDE TO THIS DAY THAT YOU HAVE MADE NO MISTAKE IN REQUESTING THE FILING IN THAT MANNER? AND I MEAN THAT IS THE BIG PICTURE. THAT IS WHERE THIS ALL FITS IN AND THERE IS NO EFFORT TO MISLEAD OR CONFUSE THE JURY. QUITE THE CONTRARY. THE COURT KNOWS THAT THE PEOPLE WILL PRESENT WITNESSES, EXPERTS, TO TESTIFY IN MUCH MORE DETAIL AS TO THE NATURE OF THE TESTING AND THOSE RESULTS, BUT AT THIS MOMENT ALL WE WERE ASKING TO DO WAS ASK DETECTIVE LANGE TO TESTIFY TO HIS STATE OF MIND AND WHY HE BASES HIS OPINION -- WHAT HE BASES HIS OPINION ON AND WHY HE DOES NOT BELIEVE IT TO GO DRUG-RELATED KILLINGS, SO I BELIEVE IT IS A TOTALLY SEPARATE LINE OF INQUIRY. MR. SCHECK IS MISSING THE POINT. WHAT THE COURT I THOUGHT WANTED TO ADDRESS TURNED OUT TO BE A DISCOVERY ISSUES WHICH THE PEOPLE WERE NOT AWARE IT WAS A DISCOVERY ISSUE KNOWING THAT THE DEFENSE EXPERT WAS STANDING OVER THEIR SHOULDER LITERALLY WHEN THE TESTING WAS DONE. I THINK I WILL BE ENTITLED TO BELIEVE THAT THEY WOULD KNOW WHAT THOSE RESULTS WERE AND I'M NOT SURE SO THAT THEY DIDN'T. NEVERTHELESS, I UNDERSTAND THE COURT'S CONCERN. THAT IS WHY AT BEST THE COURT SHOULD INSTRUCT THE JURY TO DISREGARD THE QUESTION AND ANSWER AND ADVISE THEM THAT THAT SUBJECT MATTER WILL BE TAKEN UP BY THE EXPERT WITNESSES AT THE APPROPRIATELY TIME.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

MS. CLARK: I THINK THAT THAT MORE THAN ADEQUATELY COVERS THE SITUATION.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. I THINK WE HAVE EXHAUSTED OUR DISCUSSION ON THIS.

MR. SCHECK: OKAY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. COCHRAN, YOU HAD ONE OTHER MATTER THAT YOU BROACHED BEFORE WE BROKE?

MR. COCHRAN: YES. JUST AN AREA OF INQUIRY BRIEFLY, YOUR HONOR, WITH REGARD TO THE PROSECUTOR ELICITED SOME TESTIMONY THAT THIS DETECTIVE FOLLOWED UP ALL OF THESE LEADS AND CLUES AND EVERYTHING. AND I THINK THE QUESTION I PONDERED OR PROFFERED WAS WHETHER OR NOT HE FOLLOWED UP ANY CLUES OR LEADS THAT HAD POINTED TOWARD MR. SIMPSON'S INNOCENCE AND I WANTED SOME DOCUMENTATION ON THAT. THAT WAS THE AREA WE WERE LOOKING AT JUST BRIEFLY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I HAD SORT OF ANTICIPATED YOU WERE GOING TO LAUNCH INTO A LITANY OF 450 LEADS THAT WERE OTHERWISE --

MR. COCHRAN: NO, YOUR HONOR. I MENTIONED TO THE COURT YESTERDAY YOU SHOULD NEVER PRESUPPOSE ANYTHING WITH REGARD TO ME. I THINK I'M PERFECTLY CAPABLE OF TELLING THE COURT THAT IS ALL I PLAN TO DO. THAT IS WHY I WANTED TO ASK HIM ABOUT IT. IN FACT, WE CAN ASK HIM NOW.

THE COURT: THEN I MISUNDERSTOOD THE IMPORT OF YOUR COMMENT.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S ALL. SURE.

THE COURT: THEN LET'S PROCEED.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I APPROACH THE WITNESS, YOUR HONOR, WITH REGARD TO THAT?

THE COURT: YES. MISS CLARK.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN MS. CLARK, MR. COCHRAN AND THE WITNESS.)

MR. COCHRAN: TRYING TO SAVE SOME TIME, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DEPUTY MAGNERA, LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE. AND COUNSEL, WE ARE GOING TO GO THROUGH UNTIL 3:15.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. SANS BREAK?

THE COURT: SANS BREAK.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

MR. DARDEN: MAY WE INQUIRE OF MR. COCHRAN, DOES HE PLAN TO FINISH THIS AFTERNOON AND CAN WE SEND THE NEXT WITNESS AWAY?

MR. COCHRAN: WHO IS THE NEXT WITNESS?

MR. DARDEN: DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. ARE WE GOING TO FINISH THIS AFTERNOON?

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

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. PLEASE BE SEATED. LET THE RECORD REFLECT WE HAVE NOW BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL. GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

THE JURY: GOOD AFTERNOON.

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

THE COURT: DETECTIVE TOM LANGE IS STILL ON THE WITNESS STAND ON RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN. GOOD AFTERNOON AGAIN, DETECTIVE LANGE.

THE WITNESS: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH. MR. COCHRAN, YOU MAY CONTINUE.

MR. COCHRAN: CONTINUE.

THE COURT: RECROSS-EXAMINATION.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR HONOR. GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

THE JURY: GOOD AFTERNOON.

MR. COCHRAN: GOOD AFTERNOON, DETECTIVE LANGE.

THE WITNESS: GOOD AFTERNOON.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED)

BY MR. COCHRAN:

Q: WITH REGARD TO THE CLUES THAT YOU SPOKE ABOUT, I GUESS YESTERDAY AND THIS MORNING, THAT YOU HAVE INVESTIGATED, ARE THERE SOME CLUES THAT OTHER MEMBERS OF YOUR TEAM HAVE PURSUED THAT WOULD BE OF AN EXCULPATORY NATURE AS THEY RELATE TO MR. SIMPSON THAT WOULD POINT TOWARD HIS INNOCENCE?

A: POSSIBLY OF AN EXCULPATORY NATURE, YES.

Q: AND THERE ARE SOME CLUES LIKE THAT YOU HAVE NOT PERSONALLY INVESTIGATED; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I BELIEVE SO.

Q: AND WOULD -- WOULD DETECTIVE PAYNE BE ONE OF THOSE WHO WOULD HAVE LOOKED AT THOSE CLUES?

A: DETECTIVE PAYNE SUPERVISES THE ASSIGNMENT OF THOSE CLUES TO A GREAT EXTENT AND HAS THOSE CLUES ON HIS COMPUTER.

Q: AND IF I WERE TO ASK YOU TO SEARCH THROUGH YOUR COMPUTER TO GIVE US A COMPUTER RUN OF THE NUMBER OF THOSE CLUES AND WHAT THE STATUS OF THEM -- OF THOSE CLUES ARE, COULD YOU DO THAT OVER A PERIOD OF TIME?

A: YES.

Q: AND ARE YOU WILLING TO DO THAT?

A: CERTAINLY.

Q: AND DO YOU HAVE A BALLPARK ESTIMATE OF HOW MANY SUCH CLUES THERE ARE NOW PENDING?

A: I WOULD HAVE NO IDEA EXCEPT TO STATE THAT THEY HAVE ALL BEEN TURNED OVER TO YOU. I HAVEN'T REVIEWED PERSONALLY EACH AND EVERY ONE SO I DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA.

Q: AND IN THAT CONNECTION, AS I UNDERSTAND YOUR TESTIMONY, THOSE CLUES REGARDING NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON OR WHATEVER COME IN PRETTY MUCH ON A DAILY BASIS; IS THAT CORRECT, CLUES IN THIS CASE?

A: NO, NOT NECESSARILY.

Q: ALL RIGHT. LET ME REPHRASE IT. YOU STILL GET CLUES IN THIS CASE ON A DAILY BASIS; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: PRACTICALLY.

Q: AND SO THE INVESTIGATION IN THIS CASE WILL AND MUST CONTINUE BECAUSE OF THAT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND SO YOU WILL TRY TO GET THAT FOR US, AND IF WE CAN FINISH YOU TODAY, YOU CAN PERHAPS BRING THAT BACK AT SOME LATER TIME; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: WELL, AGAIN, I HAVE TURNED OVER ALL CLUES. I -- IT MIGHT BE VERY SUBJECTIVE AS TO WHAT IS EXCULPATORY AND WHAT IS NOT. I MIGHT SUGGEST THAT YOU HAVE YOUR PEOPLE LOOK AT THOSE ALSO.

Q: WE WILL DO THAT.

A: BECAUSE YOU MAY INTERPRET SOMETHING AS EXCULPATORY AND I MAY NOT.

Q: OKAY. ONE PERSON --

A: SO I REALLY DON'T KNOW.

Q: ONE PERSON'S EXCULPATORY MIGHT BE ANOTHER PERSON'S INCULPATORY? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING?

A: CERTAINLY.

Q: YOU WILL MAKE THAT JUDGMENT BUT YOU WILL GIVE US WHAT YOU HAVE?

A: WE WILL MAKE THAT ATTEMPT, BUT AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE ASKING FOR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. I APPRECIATE YOUR DOING THAT. ALL RIGHT. NOW, WITH REGARD TO THE SUBJECT OF ICE CREAM, YOU KNOW YOU SAID YESTERDAY THAT PHOTOGRAPHS TEND TO MEMORIALIZE WHAT IS AT THE SCENE AND THAT SEEMED TO BE A FAIR STATEMENT. AND IN THIS INSTANCE YOU DID NOT TAKE ANY PHOTOGRAPHS OF MANY OF THE THINGS THAT WERE IN THE INTERIOR OF THAT RESIDENCE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: OR HAVE THEM TAKEN. AND WE HAVE ESTABLISHED PREVIOUSLY THAT YOU DIDN'T TAKE ANY PHOTOGRAPH OF THE ICE CREAM, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: NOW, WITH REGARD TO -- TO THAT, HAVE YOU PERSONALLY OR ANYONE AT YOUR DIRECTION TALKED TO A YOUNG LADY WHO I BELIEVE IS EIGHT YEARS OLD OR THEREABOUTS WHOSE NAME IS RACHEL BERMAN?

A: I DON'T KNOW IF RACHEL WAS SPOKEN TO OR HER MOTHER. I BELIEVE HER MOTHER WAS.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WITH REGARD TO THE KIND OF ICE CREAM THAT YOU HAD THE DETECTIVE DO A TEST ON, I THINK YOU TOLD US THAT WAS SOME KIND OF -- WHAT ICE CREAM WAS THAT?

A: CHOCOLATE CHIP COOKIE DOUGH.

Q: DID YOU RUN ANY TESTS ON AN ICE CREAM FLAVOR NAMED RAIN FOREST CRUNCH?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU HAVE INFORMATION THAT MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON THAT NIGHT --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, OBJECTION.

MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU HAVE INFORMATION THAT NIGHT -- MAY I FINISH THE QUESTION, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YES.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DURING THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION DID YOU HAVE INFORMATION THAT ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE 12, 1994, MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON PURCHASED AN ICE CREAM CALLED RAIN FOREST CRUNCH?

A: NO. MY INFORMATION WAS THE CHOCOLATE CHIP COOKIE DOUGH AND I BELIEVE THERE WAS A CHOCOLATE CHIP --

Q: YOUR ANSWER IS NO, YOU DIDN'T HAVE IT AS RAIN FOREST CRUNCH?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: SO IN YOUR VOLUMINOUS MATERIALS DO YOU HAVE ANY STATEMENT OR HAVE YOU READ A STATEMENT FROM RACHEL BERMAN WHO APPARENTLY WAS WITH THEM THAT EVENING? HAVE YOU READ THAT STATEMENT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I READ A STATEMENT FROM RACHEL BERMAN.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AS TO WHAT KIND OF ICE CREAM THEY PURCHASED WHEN THEY WENT TO BEN AND JERRY'S?

A: NO. I RECEIVED THAT INFORMATION THROUGH THE BROWN FAMILY AS TO WHAT EACH ONE OF THE THREE CHILDREN PURCHASED.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL -- STRIKE THAT. IN YOUR INVESTIGATION YOU LEARNED, DID YOU NOT, THAT THE BROWN FAMILY THEMSELVES WERE NOT WITH MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AND THE CHILDREN AND RACHEL BERMAN WHEN THE ICE CREAM WAS PURCHASED? DID YOU NOT FIND THAT OUT?

A: THEY JUST LEFT THEM WHEN THEY WALKED ACROSS THE STREET, THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: THEY WEREN'T WITH THEM. NOW, WOULD IT BE HELPFUL TO YOU TO TALK TO A CHILD NOT INVOLVED IN THIS CASE WHO WAS PRESENT WHEN THE ICE CREAM WAS PURCHASED?

A: THAT WAS --

Q: WOULD THAT BE HELPFUL?

A: THIS WAS DONE THROUGH THE BROWN FAMILY.

Q: I'M ASKING WOULD THAT BE HELPFUL FOR YOU TO DO THAT?

A: YES.

Q: THE BROWN FAMILY, THEY AREN'T MEMBERS OF THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, ARE THEY?

A: I WAS ADVISED BY THE BROWN FAMILY THAT I COULD NOT TALK TO THE CHILDREN, THAT THEY WERE UNDER THE CARE OF A CHILD PSYCHOLOGIST, SO I RESPECTED THAT.

Q: I UNDERSTAND YOU TOLD US THAT YESTERDAY. I'M ASKING YOU NOW ABOUT RACHEL BERMAN, NOT THE SIMPSON CHILDREN. I'M ASKING YOU HAVE YOU OR ANYONE UNDER YOUR DIRECTION TALKED TO THAT CHILD INDIVIDUALLY?

A: AS TO THE ICE CREAM?

Q: YES.

A: NO. AGAIN, THAT WAS DONE THROUGH THE BROWN FAMILY.

Q: WELL, AS THE INVESTIGATOR, WOULD IT BE HELPFUL TO YOU TO TALK TO A CHILD WHO WAS PRESENT, SIR, AND FIND OUT ABOUT THE ICE CREAM?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU ALSO -- DID YOU FIND OUT AT ANY POINT THAT -- LET ME ASK YOU THIS: DID YOU FIND OUT AT ANY POINT DURING THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION THAT THE FLAVORS PURCHASED WERE RAIN FOREST CRUNCH? DID YOU EVER FIND THAT OUT?

A: I DON'T RECALL RAIN FOREST CRUNCH.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU FIND OUT THAT ONE OF THE FLAVORS PURCHASED WAS CHOCOLATE FUDGE?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU FIND OUT ONE OF THE FLAVORS PURCHASED WAS COOKIE DOUGHNUT?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS COOKIE DOUGH. MY INFORMATION WAS ONE CHOCOLATE FUDGE AND TWO COOKIE DOUGHS.

Q: ALL RIGHT. BUT YOU HAVE NOT TALKED TO RACHEL BERMAN RIGHT, CORRECT?

A: I HAVE NOT TALKED TO RACHEL BERMAN.

Q: NOW, IN THIS -- YOU DESCRIBED FOR US THAT BEFORE LUNCH ABOUT THESE DRUG KILLINGS AND YOU -- I ASKED YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS COLOMBIAN NECKLACE AND REMEMBER WE TALKED ABOUT THAT?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHAT A COLOMBIAN NECKTIE IS?

A: YES, I'VE HEARD STORIES OF COLOMBIAN NECKTIES.

Q: WHAT IS A COLOMBIAN NECKTIE?

A: MY INFORMATION IS THAT IT IS A TIRE THAT WOULD BE PUT OVER SOMEONE'S NECK AND SET AFIRE.

Q: THAT IS A COLOMBIAN NECKTIE?

A: THAT IS WHAT I'VE HEARD. I HAVE NEVER EXPERIENCED THAT.

Q: HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF A COLOMBIAN NECKTIE BEING A SITUATION WHERE IN A DRUG --

MS. CLARK: ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

MR. COCHRAN: I ASK THIS QUESTION, YOUR HONOR, AS AN EXPERT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF A COLOMBIAN NECKTIE BEING A SITUATION WHERE IN A DRUG KILLING A PERSON'S THROAT IS SLASHED AND THEIR TONGUE IS PULLED DOWN THROUGH WHERE THEIR -- THROUGH THE NECK AREA? HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF THAT?

A: NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WHAT YOU TALKED ABOUT WAS A NECKTIE USED IN SOUTH AFRICA WHERE TIRES WERE PUT OVER --

A: I THOUGHT THAT IS WHAT YOU WERE REFERRING TO.

Q: WE ARE TALKING ABOUT COLOMBIA, NOT SOUTH AFRICA.

A: I DON'T KNOW WHERE THESE THINGS OCCUR. THE ONLY NECKTIE REFERENCE I'VE HEARD IS WITH A TIRE.

Q: YOU WERE THE DETECTIVE ON THE WONDERLAND CASE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: WAS THAT A DRUG CASE?

A: YES.

Q: WAS THAT A DRUG CASE THAT INVOLVED KNIVES?

A: NO.

Q: DIDN'T IT INVOLVE -- DRUG CASE INVOLVING KILLINGS?

A: IT INVOLVED KILLING, YES.

Q: WAS THERE A KNIFE INVOLVED IN THAT CASE AT ALL?

A: THERE WERE NO KNIVES INVOLVED IN LAUREL CANYON, NO.

Q: BUT IN THAT CASE THERE WAS A DRUG KILLING THAT RESULTED IN WHICH YOU INVESTIGATED; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THERE WERE SEVERAL. THERE WERE FOUR OF THEM, YES.

Q: HOW LONG AGO WAS THAT?

A: THAT WAS IN JULY 1ST, 1981.

Q: 19 --

A: '81.

Q: VERY WELL. NOW, THIS MORNING I ASKED YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT FAYE RESNICK, AND YOU ARE AWARE, BECAUSE YOU HAVE SEEN RECORDS SUBPOENAED FROM A DRUG TREATMENT FACILITY CALLED EXODUS -- ISN'T THAT RIGHT, REGARDING FAYE RESNICK? YOU HAVE SEEN THOSE RECORDS, HAVEN'T YOU?

A: I DON'T RECALL SEEING ANY RECORDS LIKE THAT.

Q: YOU ARE THE LEAD INVESTIGATOR IN THIS CASE AND YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN ANY RECORDS FROM A DRUG TREATMENT FACILITY CALLED EXODUS?

A: FAYE RESNICK BECAME A WITNESS AFTER THIS CASE WAS FILED AND DEALT WITH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND I WASN'T PRESENT FOR THOSE INTERVIEWS.

Q: I UNDERSTAND ALL THAT, BUT HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THOSE RECORDS FROM EXODUS?

A: AGAIN, I DON'T RECALL EVER SEEING THOSE RECORDS.

Q: HAVE YOU HAD OCCASION, IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION, TO EVER REVIEW THIS BOOK ALLEGEDLY WRITTEN BY FAYE RESNICK?

A: I HAVE READ THE BOOK.

Q: YOU HAVE READ THE BOOK?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN DID YOU READ THE BOOK?

A: SHORTLY AFTER IT CAME OUT.

Q: AND IN THAT BOOK, AFTER READING THE BOOK, IF IT IS TO BE BELIEVED, YOU BECAME AWARE, DID YOU NOT, THAT FAYE RESNICK HAD HAD A HISTORY --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I FINISH THE QUESTION?

THE COURT: FINISH THE QUESTION.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR --

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: BECAME AWARE --

MS. CLARK: MAY WE APPROACH?

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I FINISH THE QUESTION, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: WHY DON'T YOU APPROACH BRIEFLY.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: OKAY. IS THERE ANY -- IS THERE ANY DISPUTE THAT FAYE RESNICK WENT INTO THIS DRUG PROGRAM?

MR. DARDEN: WHAT WAS THE QUESTION?

MS. CLARK: IS THERE ANY DISPUTE THAT FAYE RESNICK WENT INTO THIS DRUG PROGRAM?

THE COURT: EXODUS.

MS. CLARK: WAIT A MINUTE. THE ISSUE IS RELEVANCE AND NOT WHETHER OR NOT THESE THINGS OCCURRED. IT IS IRRELEVANT AND HEARSAY AS TO THIS DETECTIVE, BUT WHAT I REALLY WANT IS GUIDANCE FROM THE COURT. IF MR. COCHRAN IS GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO EXPLORE THIS LINE OF TESTIMONY CONCERNING FAYE RESNICK AND THE BOOK, THEN THE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO COME BACK ON RECROSS -- ON REDIRECT AND ASK THE DETECTIVE WHETHER OR NOT IN THAT BOOK FAYE RESNICK INDICATES THAT THE DEFENDANT THREATENED TO KILL NICOLE ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS, THE LAST OF WHICH SHE RECALLS BEING SHORTLY BEFORE THE MURDERS, OF HIS STALKING BEHAVIOR, OF HIS BRUTAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BEHAVIOR WITH REGARD TO NICOLE. OPEN THAT DOOR.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I BE HEARD? I DON'T THINK SHE IS RUNNING THIS COURT YET, I HOPE. THE QUESTION IS, AM I PERMITTED SOME LEEWAY ON THIS DRUG THING, BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT I'M ASKING. HE IS UP THERE CLAIMING THAT HE DOESN'T KNOW FAYE RESNICK WAS IN EXODUS. A VERY SIMPLE QUESTION. WE NEVER GOT AN ANSWER, THOUGH. WE ALL HAVE THE RECORDS AT EXODUS. SHE CALLS THAT NIGHT. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT ANY THREATS OPENING ANY DOORS ANY MORE THAN SHE IS OPENING THE DOORS. I'M JUST ASKING ABOUT EXODUS, ABOUT THE DRUG TREATMENT, ABOUT HIS POSTULATION THIS IS NOT A DRUG KILLING. THAT IS WHAT I ASKED HIM ABOUT AND I THINK I AM PERMITTED TO DO THAT. FOR INSTANCE, HE READ THE BOOK BECAUSE HE SAID BEFORE THEIR WHOLE INVESTIGATION STARTED WHEN THEY READ THIS BOOK, SO I'M ASKING THAT AND I THINK I AM PERMITTED TO ASK THAT. THAT IS ALL I WANT TO ASK HIM.

MS. CLARK: OBVIOUSLY ASKING FOR HEARSAY AND ALSO OBVIOUSLY IRRELEVANT, BUT THAT IS FINE. IF THE COURT IS INCLINED TO ALLOW THAT, THE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO -- AS I INDICATED BEFORE, THE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE ASKING THE COURT TO ALLOW US TO GO BACK ON REDIRECT.

THE COURT: UH-HUH.

MS. CLARK: BECAUSE THE IMPORT OF COUNSEL'S QUESTIONING IS THAT THESE WERE DRUG-ELATED KILLINGS BECAUSE FAYE RESNICK WAS THE ACTUAL TARGET, FAYE RESNICK WAS A DRUG USER, OTHERWISE WHY GO INTO THIS LINE? OKAY? AND THAT IS A HALL ISSUE AS WELL THAT I THINK THEY CANNOT ESTABLISH ANY RELEVANCE BASED ON FAY RESNICK'S DRUG USAGE TO JUSTIFY THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THIS KIND OF INFORMATION. BUT IF THEY DO, THEN IN ORDER TO REBUT THAT INFERENCE, I THINK WHAT IS SAUCE FOR THE GOOSE IS SAUCE FOR THE GANDER AND THE FAIR THING TO DO IS THEN COME BACK AND SAY, OKAY, BUT IN THAT BOOK FAYE RESNICK, ALTHOUGH SHE ADMITS DRUG USAGE, INDICATES THE FOLLOWING, DOES SHE NOT?

MR. COCHRAN: COMPARING APPLES AND ORANGES.

MS. CLARK: SAME THING.

MR. COCHRAN: WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS AN OFFER OF PROOF. THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE -- AND THEY HAVE TALKED TO CHRISTIAN REICHARDT AND FAYE RESNICK. SHE MOVED IN ON JUNE 3RD. ON JUNE 8TH SHE WAS USING DRUGS FREEBASING SO BADLY -- IN FACT, CHRISTIAN REICHARDT PUT HER OUT ON JUNE 3RD. THEN ON JUNE 8TH SHE WAS PUT INTO EXODUS WITH NICOLE BEING PART OF THE INTERVENTION AND THAT ON JUNE 12TH SHE CALLED AND THAT THE INFORMATION IS THAT I THINK THAT WHEN THEY HEARD SYDNEY SIMPSON TALKING AT THE POLICE STATION, SHE SAYS TO JUSTIN SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT "YOU HEARD MOMMY'S BEST FRIEND CALLED AND MOMMY WAS CRYING AFTER THIS" AND THE TESTIMONY IS THAT SHE ALSO CALLED AND THAT IS THE WHOLE THING. WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH O.J. THREATS OR WHATEVER THEY WENT INTO IN EVERYTHING, AS THEY TRIED TO DO YESTERDAY? NOW WHEN THEY ARE GETTING STUNG WITH THEIR OWN MEDICINE THEY CAN'T STAND IT. SO I AM POINTING OUT TO THE COURT I DON'T THINK THAT OPENS ANY DOOR BY ASKING THAT QUESTION.

MS. CLARK: IT IS A HALL ISSUE. THEY ARE TRYING TO RAISE THE SPECTRE OF THIRD PARTY DRUG DEALS HERE AND USING THE BOOK AND USING FAY RESNICK TO DO THAT. FINE. IF THAT IS WHAT THEY WANT TO DO, I THINK IT IS A HALL ISSUE AND IRRELEVANT AND THEY CAN'T LINK IT UP ALL. IT IS ANOTHER SINISTER INNUENDO THEY THROW UP THAT HAS ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS IN FACT. CHRISTIAN REICHARDT DID NOT PUT HER OUT. FAYE RESNICK LEFT HIM. THAT IS THE REAL STORY. THE STATEMENT FROM SYDNEY, SYDNEY HAS INDICATED REPEATEDLY DURING THE COURSE OF THE INVESTIGATION SHE DOES NOT REMEMBER ANY SUCH THING HAPPENING. SHE WAS IN A HALF WAKENED STATE AT THE TIME THAT SHE SAID IT, AND SO IT HAS NO RELEVANCE EITHER. COUNSEL WANTS TO ALLOW ALL OF THESE RED HERRINGS OUT THERE FOR THE JURY TO STUMBLE OVER. THEY CANNOT ESTABLISH THEIR REQUIREMENTS UNDER HALL AND SHOULD NOT BE ADMITTED FOR THAT REASON, BUT IF IT IS, THE PEOPLE SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO REVISIT THAT ISSUE AND CLEAR IT UP, BECAUSE WHAT THE BOOK MAKES VERY CLEAR IS THAT THIS IS NOT A DRUG-RELATED KILLING.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION.

MS. CLARK: MINI TRIAL, JUDGE, IF THIS HAPPENS.

THE COURT: YOU SEE, THAT IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO AVOID HERE. IF MR. COCHRAN ASKS THE QUESTION DID YOU CONSIDER, IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION, FAY RESNICK'S STAYING WITH NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON FOR THIS LIMITED PERIOD OF TIME AND WHAT APPEARS TO BE A RATHER SEVERE DRUG PROBLEM IN YOUR CONSIDERATION WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS A DRUG-RELATED MURDER? YES OR NO. HE WILL PROBABLY SAY -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT HE IS GOING TO SAY. BUT IF -- AND I THINK HE IS ENTITLED TO DO THAT, IN LIGHT OF WHAT HAS TRANSPIRED SO FAR.

MR. COCHRAN: YESTERDAY, YES.

THE COURT: BUT I THINK THAT IS ABOUT THE EXTENT OF IT. NOW, IF ASSUMING FOR THE SAKE OF THE ARGUMENT THAT I SUSTAINED YOUR OBJECTION AT THIS POINT, THEN HE IS GOING TO ALSO DRAG FAYE RESNICK IN HERE TO SAY WHERE DID YOU LIVE ON SUCH AND SUCH A TIME AND HERE ARE THE RECORDS FROM EXODUS, WHICH SEEMS TO ME TO BE A LOT TO DO THAT WE CAN DISPOSE OF WITH TWO QUESTIONS HERE.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR --

THE COURT: AND I ASSUME THAT IS THE EXTENT OF IT.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT IS IT.

MS. CLARK: DISPOSE OF UNFAIRLY, BECAUSE WE ARE CREATING AN INNUENDO WITH ALL THIS DRUG USAGE STUFF WHICH IS UNFAIR AND FAYE RESNICK SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO ADDRESS.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, IS IT THE TRUTH?

MS. CLARK: IS WHAT THE TRUTH?

THE COURT: THAT SHE WAS THERE AND THE TRUTH THAT SHE WENT INTO A DRUG PROGRAM?

MS. CLARK: YES, AND IT IS THE TRUTH THAT SHE HEARD O.J. THREATEN NICOLE.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, SHE IS ARGUING THE CASE.

THE COURT: THOSE ARE APPLES AND APRICOTS. THAT IS NOT EVEN APPLES AND ORANGES.

MR. COCHRAN: OTHER QUESTIONS I CAN ASK AND MOVE ON AFTER THAT. I HAVE ENOUGH TO TALK ABOUT. I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THE AREA OF INQUIRY.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, I THINK THIS IS ALL HEARSAY, IRRELEVANT AND IMMATERIAL. IT IS INAPPROPRIATE TO MISLEAD AND CONFUSE THE JURY THIS WAY. THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE BEING ALLOWED TO DO. IF THEY WANT TO CALL FAYE RESNICK AND TRY AND BRING ALL THIS STUFF WITH FAYE, THAT IS FAIR GAME, THEY DO CAN DO, THAT BUT TO DRAG IN THROUGH THIS DETECTIVE TO CREATE AN INFERENCE WHICH THERE IS NO BASIS UNDER HALL WOULD BE VERY UNFAIR, MISLEADING TO THE JURY. IT IS THE TRUTH THAT THIS WOMAN USED DRUGS AT THIS POINT. IT IS THE TRUTH THAT SHE WENT INTO EXODUS AT SOME POINT. BUT THE INFERENCE THEY ARE SEEKING TO DRAW FROM THAT IS UNTRUE, PATENTLY UNTRUE, AND THAT IS WHAT IS UNFAIR.

MR. DARDEN: CAN WE CONFER FOR ONE MOMENT?

MR. COCHRAN: UNFORTUNATELY SHE DOESN'T HAVE THE VOTE. CAN YOU RULE AND GIVE ME THE AREAS AND I WILL MOVE ON AND GET THIS DONE THIS AFTERNOON? WE HAVE ARGUED IT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. COCHRAN: CAN YOU GIVE ME THE AREAS OF THE QUESTIONS TO ASK?

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO OVERRULE THE OBJECTION AND I'M GOING TO ALLOW YOU TO ASK THE QUESTION IF IN MAKING THE DETERMINATION THAT THIS WAS NOT A DRUG -- WHETHER OR NOT THIS WAS A DRUG-RELATED KILLING, ANY INFORMATION HE HAD ABOUT FAYE RESNICK STAYING AT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE FROM THE 3RD TO THE 8TH AND ALSO HER SUBSEQUENT IMMEDIATE RESIDENCE AT A DRUG REHABILITATION PROGRAM PERIOD.

MR. COCHRAN: ANY INFORMATION? THE COURT DIDN'T FINISH THE QUESTION.

THE COURT: WHETHER OR NOT HE CONSIDERED, IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THIS WAS A DRUG-RELATED CRIME --

MR. COCHRAN: OKAY.

THE COURT: -- THE FACT THAT FAYE RESNICK STAYED WITH NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, THE ALLEGED INFORMATION THAT SHE STAYED WITH NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON FROM THE 3RD TO THE 8TH AND THEN IMMEDIATELY WENT INTO A DRUG REHABILITATION PROGRAM PERIOD.

MR. COCHRAN: FINE. THANK YOU.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL. PROCEED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DETECTIVE LANGE, IN THE COURSE OF FORMING YOUR OPINION THIS WAS NOT A DRUG-RELATED -- THESE WERE NOT DRUG-RELATED KILLINGS, DID YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT, IN FORMING THAT OPINION, WHETHER OR NOT FAYE RESNICK HAD MOVED IN WITH MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON ON JUNE 3RD, RESIDED THERE UNTIL JUNE 8TH, AT WHICH TIME SHE WENT THROUGH AN INTERVENTION WITH FRIENDS AND FAMILY INTO A DRUG TREATMENT FACILITY CALLED EXODUS WHERE SHE WAS STILL IN ON JUNE 12, 1994?

A: INITIALLY I DIDN'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION. SUBSEQUENTLY I RECEIVED INFORMATION SHE DID NOT IN FACT MOVE IN WITH HER PERMANENTLY.

Q: I DIDN'T ASK YOU IF SHE MOVED IN PERMANENTLY, SIR. CAN YOU GET BACK TO MY QUESTION, IF YOU CAN? LET ME SEE IF I CAN GIVE IT BACK TO YOU SO YOU ARE CLEAR. THE QUESTION WAS WOULD -- IF SHE LIVED THERE FROM JUNE 3RD THROUGH JUNE 8TH, WHETHER PERMANENTLY OR NOT, BUT DURING THAT TIME FRAME AND ON JUNE 8TH SHE WENT INTO EXODUS, THE DRUG TREATMENT FACILITY, AND ON JUNE 12TH SHE WAS STILL IN THAT DRUG TREATMENT FACILITY, WOULD THAT HAVE AFFECTED YOUR OPINION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS WAS POSSIBLY A DRUG-RELATED KILLING?

A: I DIDN'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION.

Q: YOU DIDN'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION. WE UNDERSTAND THAT. NOW, IF YOU HAD THAT INFORMATION WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO CHECK OUT?

A: IF I FELT THAT THERE WERE DRUGS AND THIS WAS A DRUG-RELATED MURDER, CERTAINLY.

Q: ALL RIGHT.

A: BUT THAT WASN'T THE EVIDENCE THAT I HAD AND THAT WASN'T THE PATH THAT I HAD PURSUED. I HAD NOTHING TO LEAD ME IN THAT DIRECTION.

Q: I UNDERSTAND. YOU HAVE SINCE SAID YOU FOUND OUT INFORMATION SINCE THIS HAPPENED AND YOU HAVE TOLD MISS CLARK, DID YOU NOT, THAT INVESTIGATIONS CONTINUE SOMETIMES EVEN WHEN THE CASE IS GOING ON; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: UP TO THE MINUTE THAT THIS JURY GETS THIS CASE THE INVESTIGATION MAY VERY WELL CONTINUE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: MAY WELL BEYOND THAT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AS A GOOD INVESTIGATOR DON'T YOU CONTINUE AND DON'T YOU, AS AN INVESTIGATOR, TRY TO DEVELOP EVIDENCE AS IT COMES FORWARD? ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: IF IT COMES FORWARD I CERTAINLY DO.

Q: YOU DON'T TURN A BLIND EYE ON EVIDENCE JUST BECAUSE IT MIGHT POINT TOWARDS MR. SIMPSON, DO YOU?

A: JUST THE CONTRARY.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO YOU WOULD FOLLOW ANY PARTICULAR LEAD, AND ANY SUCH LEAD REGARDING POSSIBLE DRUG INVOLVEMENT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO YOU AS AN INVESTIGATOR; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: IF I FELT THAT THIS CASE INVOLVED DRUGS OR DRUG DEALERS, IT WOULD. THE FACT IS IT DOESN'T.

Q: YOU SAID THERE IS NEW INFORMATION THAT YOU HAVE AFTERWARDS SO THAT YOU HAVE ALREADY MADE THE CONCLUSION IN THIS CASE THAT NO MATTER WHAT YOU HEARD ABOUT DRUG INVOLVEMENT OR FAYE RESNICK YOU DON'T PLAN TO LOOK INTO THAT? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING TO THIS JURY?

A: NO. THE FACT THAT THE VICTIM MAY HAVE A FRIEND WHO USES DRUGS AND IN LIGHT OF NO OTHER EVIDENCE IN THAT REGARD HAS VERY LITTLE CONSEQUENCE TO ME. THE FACT THAT EVERY BIT OF THAT EVIDENCE THAT I HAVE IN THIS CASE POINTS TOWARD THE DEFENDANT HAS A LOT MORE TO DO WITH THIS.

Q: EVERY BIT OF EVIDENCE YOU HAVE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO THAT YOU HAVE MADE YOUR OWN JUDGMENT -- IN FACT, IN THIS CASE YOU SUBMITTED THIS CASE TO MISS CLARK FOR FILING, DID YOU?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: SO YOU SUBMITTED FOR A FILING ON JUNE 17TH TO MISS CLARK, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND THEN SHE THEN FILED THIS CASE, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND BEFORE YOU SUBMITTED THIS CASE YOU HAD HEARD OR SEEN MISS CLARK ON TELEVISION SAYING THIS WAS A SOLE MURDERER CASE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT? YOU HAD HEARD THAT, HADN'T YOU?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: HEARSAY. SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WELL, DID YOU EVER HEAR MISS CLARK --

MS. CLARK: MOTION TO STRIKE.

THE COURT: IT IS A QUESTION. THERE IS NO ANSWER.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU EVER HEAR MISS CLARK SAY, WHEN YOU WERE PRESENT, THIS WAS A SOLE MURDERER CASE?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. SAME OBJECTION.

THE COURT: I'M GOING TO SUSTAIN THE COURT'S OWN OBJECTION. THAT IS IRRELEVANT WHAT HE HEARD MISS CLARK SAY.

MR. COCHRAN: WHEN HE GIVES HIS THEORY? I HAVE A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION, YOUR HONOR. ALL RIGHT.

Q: AT ANY RATE, WHEN YOU FILED THIS PARTICULAR CASE AND YOU TOLD US THIS THEORY OF THE SOLE MURDERER, WAS THAT YOUR THEORY OR MISS MARCIA CLARK'S THEORY?

A: MY THEORY HAS ALWAYS BEEN THERE IS ONE MURDERER.

Q: WAS THAT YOUR THEORY OR MISS MARCIA CLARK'S THEORY?

MS. CLARK: ASKED AND ANSWERED.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I DON'T KNOW WHAT HER THEORY IS. I BELIEVE HER THEORY IS THE SAME AS MINE.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU DISCUSSED THAT, DID YOU NOT, DURING YOUR MANY CONVERSATIONS?

A: AS TO THE ONE-PERSON THEORY?

Q: YES.

A: THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP.

Q: YOU DISCUSSED IT AND WENT OVER YOUR TESTIMONY LAST WEEK BEFORE YOU TESTIFIED, YESTERDAY YOU TALKED ABOUT THAT, DIDN'T YOU?

A: THE FACT THAT WE BELIEVE THERE IS ONE MURDERER?

Q: TALKED ABOUT THE ONE-MURDERER THEORY, YES?

A: YES.

Q: YOU WERE PREPARED WHEN SHE ASKED YOU THOSE QUESTIONS YESTERDAY; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, IN THAT CONNECTION, YOU TOLD US THAT YOU READ FAY RESNICK'S BOOK, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND SO THAT WE ARE CLEAR, YOU ARE SAYING TO US THAT EVEN IF YOU KNEW THAT FAYE RESNICK HAD LIVED AT THE RESIDENCE OF 875 SOUTH BUNDY AND HAD USED DRUGS AT THAT RESIDENCE BETWEEN THE PERIOD OF JUNE 3RD TO JUNE 8TH TO SUCH AN EXTENT THAT SHE HAD TO GO INTO A DRUG REHABILITATION FACILITY AND THAT SHE HAD NO JOB BY WHICH TO PAY FOR THESE DRUGS --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: -- AND THAT --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: -- AND THAT --

MS. CLARK: ASSUMES FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: -- AND THAT --

THE COURT: HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION.

Q: -- AS OF JUNE 12 SHE IS STILL IN THAT FACILITY, YOU ARE TELLING US AS AN EXPERIENCED INVESTIGATOR THAT WOULDN'T EVEN CAUSE YOU TO CONSIDER THAT THIS MIGHT BE A DRUG KILLING; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: I DIDN'T BASE MY INVESTIGATION ON WHAT I READ IN THE BOOK. I BASED IT ON THE FACTS AND THE EVIDENCE THAT I HAD.

Q: THAT IS WHAT I'M ASKING YOU ABOUT. BASED UPON THE FACTS AND THE EVIDENCE, IS THERE ANY DOUBT, AS YOU SIT THERE NOW, THAT FAYE RESNICK WAS IN EXODUS, A DRUG TREATMENT FACILITY, ON JUNE 12TH.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT, HEARSAY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I DON'T KNOW IF SHE WAS OR NOT.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AS AN INVESTIGATOR HAVE YOU CHECKED THAT OUT?

A: PERSONALLY. NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO YOU HAVEN'T, SO WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING THAT AS AN EXPERIENCED INVESTIGATOR WHO WANTED TO GET ALL THE FACTS, WOULDN'T YOU WANT TO CHECK THAT OUT?

A: NOT WHEN IT WAS BEING HANDLED BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AFTER THE CASE WAS FILED.

Q: NOT WHEN WHAT?

A: THE INTERVIEW OF MISS RESNICK AND HER BACKGROUND WAS BEING HANDLED BY THE L.A. DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SUBSEQUENT TO FILING.

Q: BUT DIDN'T YOU TELL US THE OTHER DAY THAT VANNATTER INTERVIEWED HER ALSO, WAS PRESENT DURING THE INTERVIEW?

A: HE WAS PRESENT DURING THE INITIAL INTERVIEW; THAT IS CORRECT.

Q: YOU ARE BOTH CO-LEAD INVESTIGATORS; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: DON'T THE TWO OF YOU EVER TALK ABOUT THIS CASE?

A: ALL THE TIME.

Q: HAS HE EVER DISCUSSED WITH YOU WHAT FAYE RESNICK SAID?

A: NOT TO ANY GREAT DEGREE.

Q: YOU NEVER TALKED ABOUT IT?

A: WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT CERTAIN THINGS, BUT AGAIN, NOT TO ANY GREAT DEGREE.

Q: IT WAS OF NO INTEREST TO YOU SO THAT IT WOULD CAUSE YOU TO WANT TO GO OUT AND CHECK OUT THAT POSSIBILITY OF A RETALIATION FOR FAILING TO HAVE PAID FOR DRUGS OBTAINED AFTER JUNE 3RD, 1994?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THIS ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. IT IS A HALL PROBLEM. THAT IS A HALL PROBLEM.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

Q: NOW, YOU MENTIONED ALSO THAT YOU SEARCHED THE -- NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON HOME FOR VARIOUS THINGS. WHEN DID YOU CONDUCT THIS SEARCH FOR THE DRUG PARAPHERNALIA AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE? WHEN WAS THAT?

A: I HAVE BEEN THROUGH THE HOUSE ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS, BEGINNING ON THE 13TH.

Q: ALL RIGHT. ON THE 13TH I THOUGHT YOU TOLD US EARLIER THAT YOU JUST BASICALLY WENT THROUGH THE HOUSE AND YOU LEFT BY TWELVE O'CLOCK. WHEN WAS IT THAT YOU SEARCHED FOR DRUGS DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME?

A: ON THE 13TH I LOOKED FOR DRUGS, DRUG PARAPHERNALIA.

Q: ALL RIGHT.

A: DRUG DEBRIS.

Q: HAD DRUGS COME UP BY THAT TIME?

A: HAVE DRUGS COME UP?

Q: HAD DRUGS COME UP BY THE TIME YOU WERE SEARCHING ON THE 13TH?

A: I SAW NONE.

Q: NO. I'M ASKING YOU, YOU SAID THAT YOU WERE SEARCHING FOR DRUGS. WHAT WOULD MAKE YOU SEARCH FOR DRUGS ON JUNE 13?

A: THAT WAS PART OF MY SUPERFICIAL INVESTIGATION. I ALWAYS CHECK FOR THINGS SUCH AS DRUGS, HANDGUNS, LARGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY, THINGS OF THIS NATURE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND PART OF YOUR SUPERFICIAL INVESTIGATION TOOK HOW LONG? ABOUT FIFTEEN MINUTES?

A: NO. I BELIEVE I WAS THERE FOR SEVERAL HOURS.

Q: WE KNOW YOU WERE THERE FOR SEVERAL HOURS, BUT HOW LONG WERE YOU SEARCHING?

A: WITHIN THE HOUSE?

Q: YES, INSIDE THE HOUSE, THE INTERIOR OF THE HOUSE?

A: I WAS PROBABLY IN AND OUT OF THERE SEVERAL TIMES, PERHAPS -- PERHAPS AS LONG AS AN HOUR AND A HALF, TWO HOURS, TWO HOURS AND 45 MINUTES. IT IS HARD TO SAY.

Q: AND HOW MUCH OF THAT TIME WAS SPENT SEARCHING, DETECTIVE?

A: I WOULD SAY THE WHOLE TIME WAS SPENT LOOKING AT THINGS, NOTING THINGS.

Q: AND WHILE YOU WERE DOING THIS -- YOU, BY THE WAY, DIDN'T TAKE ANY PHOTOGRAPHS OF THAT INTERIOR OTHER THAN THE KNIFE AND THE THING DOWN ON THE KITCHEN COUNTER; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: THE ONLY PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN AT THAT TIME WERE OF THE KNIFE ON THE COUNTER, YES.

Q: WAS THE ANSWER YES?

THE COURT: HE SAID YES.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT.

Q: SO YOU DIDN'T TAKE ANY PHOTOGRAPHS OF ANYTHING THAT YOU SEARCHED AND ANY DRAWERS YOU LOOKED IN UPSTAIRS; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: DID YOU ASCERTAIN AND FIND OUT WHICH ROOM FAYE RESNICK MIGHT HAVE LIVED IN IN THAT HOUSE FROM JUNE 3RD TO JUNE 8TH WHEN YOU WERE THERE ON THE 13TH?

A: I DIDN'T KNOW WHO MISS RESNICK WAS AT THAT TIME.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHERE TO LOOK? IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?

A: I DIDN'T KNOW WHO SHE WAS OR ANYONE ELSE AT THE LOCATION. WE HADN'T EVEN EARLIER HAD THE VICTIM IDENTIFIED UNTIL WE FOUND HER IDENTIFICATION IN A ROOM AND WE MADE POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION.

Q: YOUR ANSWER IS YOU DIDN'T LOOK AND YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHERE TO LOOK AS TO WHICH ROOM FAYE RESNICK MAY HAVE OCCUPIED; IS THAT RIGHT, SIR?

A: I DIDN'T KNOW WHO FAYE RESNICK WAS.

Q: WHEN YOU FOUND OUT WHO SHE WAS, DID YOU GO BACK AND LOOK?

A: NO.

Q: HAVE YOU EVER PERSONALLY TALKED TO FAYE RESNICK YOURSELF?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN WAS THAT?

A: ABOUT AN HOUR AND A HALF AGO.

Q: TODAY?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: OVER THE TELEPHONE?

A: SHE CALLED, YES.

Q: WAS THAT OVER THE LUNCH HOUR?

A: YES, IT WAS.

Q: WAS THAT THE FIRST TIME YOU EVER TALKED TO HER?

A: OTHER THAN IN PASSING AND IN GREETING, YES.

Q: YOU WERE NOT PRESENT WHEN SHE WAS INTERVIEWED BEFORE; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: NOW, AS I UNDERSTOOD YOUR TESTIMONY THIS MORNING, DID YOU INDICATE THAT YOU CANNOT TELL US WHICH OF THE TWO INDIVIDUALS IN THIS CASE WERE KILLED FIRST, NEITHER MR. GOLDMAN OR MISS BROWN SIMPSON; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND WITH REGARD TO MR. GOLDMAN AND THE FIGHT THAT HE PUT UP PRIOR TO LOSING HIS LIFE, DR. IRWIN GOLDEN, G-O-L-D-I-N -- WHO IS THE FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST WHO DID THE AUTOPSIES IN THIS CASE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I BELIEVE IT IS G-O-L-D-E-N. DR. GOLDEN, YES.

Q: G-O-L-D-E-N?

A: YES.

Q: IS THE DOCTOR, THE EXPERT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, HE IS THE PATHOLOGIST WHO PERFORMED THE AUTOPSIES.

Q: YOU WERE PRESENT AND YOU HAD SEEN HIM TESTIFY AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING AND OTHER TIMES IN THIS CASE, WERE YOU NOT?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU RECALL DR. GOLDEN DESCRIBING THE BRUISES AND ABRASIONS ON MR. GOLDMAN'S KNUCKLES AS FOLLOWS, COUNSEL, FROM THE PRELIMINARY PAGE 96. "QUESTION: AND IN GENERAL, AS IN BRIEF, HOW WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE THOSE WOUNDS? "ANSWER: BASICALLY THEY ARE MULTIPLE ABRASIONS INVOLVING THE FOREARM, INCLUDING THE OUTER OR LATERAL ASPECT OF THE FOREARM WHERE THERE ARE MULTIPLE ABRASIONS, THAT MEANS SCRATCHES, WHO WERE NOT SCRATCHES, THEY WERE IRREGULAR IN CONFIGURATION. ON THE TOP OF THE HAND THERE WERE FRESH BRUISES, ABRASIONS ON THE KNUCKLES, AND I WENT INTO DETAIL ON WHICH FINGERS AND WHICH KNUCKLES." DO YOU REMEMBER HIM SO TESTIFYING?

A: NO.

Q: YOU DON'T REMEMBER THAT?

A: I DON'T HAVE AN INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION. I'M NOT SAYING IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

Q: WOULD IT BE HELPFUL FOR YOU TO READ IT YOURSELF?

A: NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. "THERE ARE ABRASIONS, BRUISES."

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, THERE WILL BE AN OBJECTION. WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE OF THIS?

MR. COCHRAN: I WILL LINK IT UP, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, HEARSAY.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: THERE ARE ABRASIONS --

THE COURT: HEARSAY AT THIS POINT. SUSTAINED.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS WITH REGARD TO -- EXCEPTION. MAY I APPROACH? NOT HEARSAY. WITH REGARD TO THIS WITNESS -- HIS EXPERT.

THE COURT: NO, NO, NO. SIDE BAR.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

MS. CLARK: FIRST OF ALL, YOUR HONOR, WE DON'T HAVE WHAT HE IS READING TO THE JURY AND WE NEED TO HAVE A COPY OF THAT.

MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE --

MS. CLARK: I DON'T BRING THE PRELIMINARY HEARINGS DOWN WITH ME EVERYDAY.

MR. COCHRAN: THEY SHOULD BRING IT DOWN EVERYDAY FOR THESE WITNESSES.

MS. CLARK: I WILL BE BRINGING DOWN A CART EVERYDAY.

THE COURT: WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. I GET TO HEAR THE OBJECTION FIRST.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU.

MS. CLARK: MY OBJECTION IS HE IS ATTEMPTING TO IMPEACH THIS OFFICER'S TESTIMONY WITH THE TESTIMONY OF ANOTHER WITNESS. THAT IS IMPROPER IMPEACHMENT. IT IS HEARSAY. THIS IS NOT A PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT OF THIS WITNESS. SO WHAT IS -- I DON'T SEE HOW IT IS ADMISSIBLE IN THE LEAST.

MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE, VERY CLEARLY THIS IS RELEVANT. HE SAT THROUGH THE PRELIMINARY HEARING. HE IS THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER. IF THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER SAYS YOU CAN'T TELL WHAT THESE BRUISES WERE AND THESE BRUISES MAY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY STRIKING SOMEBODY OR SUBJECT OR WHATEVER, HOW CAN HE GIVE US AN OPINION WHICH THE COURT ALLOWED YESTERDAY? I CAN IMPEACH HIM BASED UPON THE EXPERT.

THE COURT: YOU CAN IMPEACH HIM WITH THE EXPERT, THAT'S TRUE, BUT YOU HAVE GOT TO CALL THE EXPERT. YOU HAVE TO SAY DID YOU TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT DR. GOLDEN SAID? YES OR NO. THEN YOU GET TO BRING IN DR. GOLDEN TO SAY SOMETHING INCONSISTENT.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO. HAD YOU TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, WHEN YOU FORMED THAT OPINION --

THE COURT: THAT IS HEARSAY. WHAT -- MR. COCHRAN, WHAT SOMEBODY ELSE SAYS THAT IS CONTRARY TO THIS GUY'S --

MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE, I UNDERSTAND THAT.

THE COURT: HEARSAY.

MR. COCHRAN: I'M IMPEACHING HIM. I CAN ASK HIM IF HE HAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, AS YOU INDICATED I CAN DO THAT. I GOT TO GIVE HIM WHAT DR. GOLDEN SAID ON THE SUBJECT AND ASK HIM IF HE TOOK THAT INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN HE FORMED HIS OPINION YESTERDAY.

THE COURT: NO, NO. YOU CAN ASK HIM IF HE CONSIDERED THAT WITHOUT READING IT TO HIM.

MR. COCHRAN: WITHOUT READING IT TO HIM?

THE COURT: IT IS HEARSAY AT THIS POINT.

MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. OKAY. WELL, I WILL PUT IT IN THAT FRAME. THANKS.

THE COURT: OKAY.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, THERE IS A MOTION TO STRIKE. ASK JURY TO DISREGARD.

MR. COCHRAN: THE QUESTION?

MS. CLARK: AND ANSWER.

MR. COCHRAN: THERE WAS NO ANSWER.

THE COURT: THERE WAS NO ANSWER.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DETECTIVE, WITH REGARD TO DR. GOLDEN, YOU HAD INDICATED THAT YOU HAD HEARD HIS TESTIMONY AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I WAS PRESENT, YES.

Q: AND YOU ARE AWARE OF WHAT HE TESTIFIED ABOUT THESE BRUISES AND ABRASIONS ON MR. GOLDEN -- MR. GOLDMAN'S KNUCKLES; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I AM AWARE HE TESTIFIED TO THAT, YES.

Q: AND WITH REGARD TO THAT, DID YOU, PRIOR TO GIVING US YOUR OPINION YESTERDAY ABOUT HOW MR. GOLDMAN MAY HAVE GOTTEN THESE INJURIES TO HIS -- TO HIS HAND, DID YOU EVER DISCUSS TODAY WITH YOUR EXPERT FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST REGARDING WHAT THOSE BRUISES CONNOTED, WHAT THEY MEANT?

A: NO.

Q: YOU GAVE US -- YOU ARE NOT A DOCTOR, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND YOU GAVE US AN OPINION YESTERDAY WITHOUT TALKING TO THE DOCTOR WHO US ASSIGNED TO THIS CASE; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: THAT'S MY OPINION THAT I GAVE YOU. I WOULDN'T ELICIT MY OPINION FROM ANYONE.

Q: THIS WAS YOUR OPINION, RIGHT?

A: CORRECT. THAT IS WHAT I WAS ASKED.

Q: NOW, WITH REGARD TO WHETHER OR NOT THESE KILLINGS WERE DONE BY ONE INDIVIDUAL, AGAIN AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO LISTEN TO DR. GOLDEN AND HIS TESTIMONY OF WHETHER OR NOT HE BELIEVED THERE MAY HAVE BEEN TWO KNIVES INVOLVED OR USED?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AT THE TIME?

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL --

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: LET ME STATE IT THIS WAY: DID YOU HEAR DR. GOLDEN'S TESTIMONY ABOUT THE NUMBER OF KNIVES THAT HE FOUND MAY HAVE BEEN USED AT THE TIME OF THESE KILLINGS AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING?

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. SAME QUESTION. IF HE HEARD THE TESTIMONY OF DR. GOLDEN, YES OR NO. DID HE CONSIDER THAT?

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU HEAR THE TESTIMONY OF DR. GOLDEN AGAIN AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID YOU CONSIDER THAT TESTIMONY AS IT RELATES TO WEAPONS PRIOR TO FORMING YOUR OPINION THAT YOU GAVE US YESTERDAY?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID YOU DISCUSS THAT TESTIMONY WITH DR. GOLDEN YESTERDAY BEFORE YOU GAVE US YOUR OPINION ABOUT THE NUMBER OF WEAPONS INVOLVED HERE?

A: I DIDN'T DISCUSS IT WITH HIM YESTERDAY. I HAVE DISCUSSED THE ONE OR TWO-WEAPON THEORY WITH DR. GOLDEN.

Q: YOU HAVE DONE THAT IN THE PAST?

A: YES.

Q: CAN YOU TELL US WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU DISCUSSED THAT WITH DR. GOLDEN -- STRIKE THAT. WAS IT -- DID YOU DISCUSS IT WITH HIM AFTER THE PRELIMINARY HEARING?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS AFTER, YES.

Q: DID YOU EVER DISCUSS IT WITH HIM BEFORE THE PRELIMINARY HEARING?

A: I DON'T RECALL IF THERE WAS ANY DISCUSSION DURING AUTOPSY OR NOT.

Q: DID YOU WRITE A REPORT BASED UPON YOUR DISCUSSION WITH DR. GOLDEN?

A: I WROTE A REPORT, NOTES INITIALLY AT THE AUTOPSY, YES.

Q: NOW, I WANTED TO KNOW, THIS WAS -- THE CONVERSATION YOU HAD AFTERWARDS THAT YOU SAY WHERE YOU TALKED ABOUT THE NUMBER OF WEAPONS, DID YOU WRITE A REPORT ABOUT THAT, THAT CONVERSATION?

A: NO.

Q: SO THERE IS NO REPORT?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS. I'M NOT SAYING THERE IS NO REPORT. I DISCUSSED THIS WITH ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL, AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT INDIVIDUAL MADE A REPORT OR NOT, I DON'T KNOW.

Q: IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION DID YOU FIND ANY DEBRIS OR ANY BARK FROM A TREE OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE ON MR. GOLDMAN'S HANDS OR ON ANY PORTION OF HIS BODY?

A: I DID NOT PERSONALLY EXAMINE HIS HANDS.

Q: ALL RIGHT. IT IS YOUR ANSWER YOU DIDN'T FIND ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE?

A: I DIDN'T EXAMINE HIS HANDS SO I DIDN'T FIND ANYTHING.

Q: IF YOU WERE TO SEE A PHOTOGRAPHS OF HIS HANDS, WOULD YOU RECOGNIZE THAT PHOTOGRAPH FROM THE AUTOPSY AT ALL?

A: IF THERE WAS SOME IDENTIFIER PERHAPS. I COULDN'T JUST IDENTIFY A HAND, NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU WERE PRESENT AT THE AUTOPSY AND YOU OBSERVED THESE THINGS, DID YOU NOT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: NOW, WITH REGARD TO THE HANDS OF THESE TWO INDIVIDUALS, IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY YESTERDAY THAT NEVER IN YOUR EXPERIENCE AS A HOMICIDE INVESTIGATOR HAVE YOU EVER BAGGED HANDS, BAGGED THE HANDS OF A VICTIM, OTHER THAN IN A CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE THERE WAS A GUNSHOT WOUND? IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID?

A: MY EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN THAT WE BAG THE HANDS OF GUNSHOT VICTIMS.

Q: OKAY. YOU TOLD US THAT. AND FROM THE STANDPOINT OF GOOD FORENSIC PROCEDURE -- AND HAVE YOU READ BOOKS ON THIS SUBJECT AT ALL?

A: ON WHAT, BAGGING HANDS?

Q: BAGGING HANDS AND SAVING TRACE EVIDENCE?

A: SPECIFICALLY, NO.

Q: YOU HAVE NEVER READ A BOOK ON THAT SUBJECT; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: SPECIFICALLY ON THAT SUBJECT, NO.

Q: YES, SIR.

A: NO.

Q: AND IN THAT CONNECTION WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THE BEST WAY OR THAT EXPERTS AGREE THE BEST WAY TO PRESERVER TRACE EVIDENCE IS TO BAG HANDS AND KEEP THE HANDS SEPARATE? WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT?

A: I CAN'T SAY THAT, NO. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO ATTEMPT TO PRESERVE ANY EVIDENCE. THERE ARE DIFFERENT WAYS THAT ONE WOULD GO ABOUT DOING THAT AND IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY INCLUDE BAGGING OF THE HANDS.

Q: BUT YOU NEVER READ A BOOK WITH REGARD TO THAT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: A BOOK ON BAGGING THE HANDS?

Q: YES, A BOOK OR ANY PORTION OF A BOOK REGARDING BAGGING OF HANDS?

A: NO.

Q: WITH REGARD TO THE SUBJECT OF LIVIDITY, WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT -- TALKED ABOUT YESTERDAY, HAVE YOU EVER READ ANY ARTICLES OR PUBLICATIONS REGARDING LIVIDITY AND WHAT LIVIDITY IS?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT DID YOU READ AND WHAT IS THE LAST THING YOU HAVE READ IN THAT CONNECTION?

A: OVER THE YEARS I HAVE READ SEVERAL BOOKS. I HAVE READ CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION, VARIOUS PUBLICATIONS.

Q: HAVE YOU EVER -- DO YOU KNOW IF -- WHAT THE TERM "BLANCHING" IS?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT IS BLANCHING?

A: BLANCHING IS THE TOUCHING OF THE SKIN AFTER DEATH IN THE AREA THAT HAS LIVIDITY AND IN AN ATTEMPT TO SEE IF THAT -- THE -- IT WOULD BLANCH IF THE -- IF YOU TOUCHED, SAY, A RED AREA THAT HAS LIVIDITY, YOU PRESS THAT AREA AND THE BLANCHING OR THE WHITENESS REMAINS, THERE IS A GOOD POSSIBILITY THAT THE PERSON HAS BEEN DECEASED FOR FOUR OR FIVE HOURS OR LONGER. GENERALLY IF THE REDNESS WOULD RETURN, IT MAY INDICATE THAT THAT PERSON HAS BEEN KILLED WITHIN TWO, THREE OR FOUR HOURS, SOMETHING UNDER THE FIVE OR SIX HOURS, THAT GENERAL GUIDE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, WHAT TO YOU DOES THE TERM LIVIDITY MEAN?

A: LIVIDITY IS THE SINGING OF THE BLOOD IN THE HUMAN BODY SUBSEQUENT TO DEATH TO ITS LOWEST POINT CAUSED BY GRAVITATIONAL PULL.

Q: AND IF YOU HAVE A FAIR SKINNED PERSON IT MIGHT SHOW UP MORE THAN SOMEBODY WHO HAS DARKER SKIN? IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?

A: WELL, IT WOULD DEPEND. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE YOU HAD A VICTIM WITH VERY LITTLE BLOOD IN HER AND NOT NECESSARILY UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES.

Q: WELL, THAT WAS AS TO THE ONE VICTIM. YOU DID CHECK LIVIDITY TO BOTH VICTIMS, DID YOU NOT?

A: JUST FROM WHAT I COULD OBSERVE THE ONE VICTIM MR. GOLDMAN, WAS FULLY CLOTHED AND I COULDN'T OBSERVE ANY LIVIDITY.

Q: AND MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON WAS CLOTHED ALSO, WAS SHE NOT?

A: SHE WAS CLOTHED, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WITH REGARD TO HER BODY, WHAT, IF ANYTHING, DID YOU NOTICE REGARDING LIVIDITY?

A: UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES AT THE SCENE, NOTHING.

Q: DID YOU TRY? DID YOU TOUCH HER SKIN?

A: I WOULDN'T HAVE TOUCHED HER SKIN, NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU DID NOT DO THAT SO YOUR OBSERVATIONS WERE NOTHING REGARDING LIVIDITY IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND LIVIDITY, SO THAT WE ARE CLEAR, IS AGAIN ONE OF THOSE CONDITIONS WHICH ONE MIGHT USE TO TRY AND DETERMINE THE TIME OF DEATH; IS THAT CORRECT, ALONG WITH OTHER FACTORS?

A: IT IS A VERY GENERAL -- VERY GENERAL INDICATOR.

Q: ALL RIGHT.

A: I WOULDN'T DEPEND ENTIRELY ON LIVIDITY TO DETERMINE TIME OF DEATH.

Q: I DIDN'T ASK YOU TO DEPEND ENTIRELY. I SAID WAS THAT ONE OF THE FACTORS THAT YOU MIGHT USE TO DETERMINE THE TIME OF DEATH? IS THAT CORRECT, SIR?

A: ONE MIGHT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WHAT ABOUT YOU?

A: AGAIN, IT WOULD DEPEND ON THE CIRCUMSTANCE. IN THIS CASE, CERTAINLY NOT.

Q: AND THAT WAS BECAUSE SHE HAD LOST SO MUCH BLOOD?

A: BECAUSE SHE LOST SO MUCH BLOOD. THERE WAS NO LIVIDITY THAT I COULD SEE CERTAINLY ON THE BACK PORTION OF HER OR HER LEGS THAT WERE VISIBLE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. BUT YOU HAD MADE NO PALPABLE OR NO TOUCHING OF THAT BODY; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: I DID NOT TOUCH HER.

Q: ALL RIGHT. HAVE YOU EVER READ A BOOK PUT OUT BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE RESEARCH PROJECT ENTITLED "PLANT FOOD CELLS AND GASTRIC CONTENTS FOR FORENSIC INVESTIGATIONS AS A LABORATORY MANUAL"?

A: NO.

Q: HAVE YOU EVER READ THAT?

A: NO.

Q: BY BACH, LANE AND NORRIS?

A: NO.

Q: HAVE YOU EVER READ ANY PUBLICATION AT ALL ABOUT HOW STOMACH CONTENTS MIGHT BE USED TO DETERMINE THE TIME OF DEATH IN INDIVIDUALS?

A: I READ LEMOINE SNYDER'S HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION THAT ADDRESSES THAT PARTICULAR THING, BUT AGAIN, IT IS ONE GENERAL INDICATOR.

Q: AND LEMOINE SNYDER, WHEN DID YOU READ THAT LAST?

A: I HAVE REFERRED TO IT SEVERAL TIMES OVER THE YEARS.

Q: WHEN DID YOU READ IT LAST?

A: I READ IT FROM COVER TO COVER SEVERAL YEARS AGO.

Q: WHEN WAS THAT?

A: GOSH PROBABLY TEN, TWELVE, FIFTEEN YEARS AGO.

Q: WAS THAT THE LAST TIME YOU READ IT?

A: WELL, I REFER TO IT FROM TIME TO TIME. THAT WOULD BE THE LAST TIME I READ IT COVER TO COVER.

Q: AND AGAIN, IN THAT CONNECTION YOU HAVE TOLD US THAT ALL THESE THINGS ARE FACTORS BUT YOU TAKE ALL THESE FACTORS, WHETHER LIVIDITY OR STOMACH CONTENTS OR WHETHER THE PERSON HAD THEIR LAST MEAL, AND YOU PUT ALL THOSE THINGS TOGETHER AS AN INVESTIGATOR AND YOU TRY TO DETERMINE WHAT THE TIME OF DEATH IS; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: ISN'T THAT WHAT YOU DO? CAN YOU ANSWER THAT YES OR NO?

A: YOU ATTEMPT TO, YES, BUT AGAIN, IT IS VERY GENERAL. WITHOUT AN EYEWITNESS YOU ARE NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO PINPOINT THE TIME OF DEATH.

Q: WE UNDERSTAND THAT, AND IF THERE ARE NO EYES, WE APPRECIATE THAT, BUT WHAT YOU DO, DO THE BEST YOU CAN WITH EACH HOMICIDE SCENE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT, SIR?

A: YOU CERTAINLY DO.

Q: YOU DO YOU TRY TO ASSEMBLE A TEAM OF FORENSIC PATHOLOGISTS AND YOU TRY TO USE THAT TEAM; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND IF THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT MIGHT HELP YOU TO DETERMINE CERTAIN THINGS, YOU TRY TO PRESERVE THAT EVIDENCE? YOU DON'T THROW IT AWAY; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: WELL, YOU ARE ALWAYS GOING TO ATTEMPT TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE, CERTAINLY.

Q: YOU TRY TO DO THE BEST YOU CAN TO GATHER ALL THE FACTS; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: YOU HAVE ALREADY SHARED WITH US THAT EACH CASE IS SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: ALL CASES ARE DIFFERENT.

Q: NOW, YESTERDAY YOU DESCRIBED A TERM WHICH YOU -- I THINK YOU CALL IT A CAST OFF. HAVE YOU EVER QUALIFIED AS A BLOOD SPATTER EXPERT IN ANY COURT IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY BEFORE?

A: YES.

Q: HOW MANY TIMES?

A: TWICE.

Q: AND WHERE WAS THAT?

A: IN FEDERAL COURT ONCE AND IN THE COURT OF JUDGE JAMES BASCUE, L.A. COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT.

Q: AND WHEN WAS THAT?

A: APPROXIMATELY FOUR -- FOUR YEARS AGO PERHAPS.

Q: DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT THE NAME OF THE CASE WAS?

A: YES. IT WAS THE KOWALL -- KOWALL WAS THE VICTIM. IT WAS THE -- KARIMALIS.

Q: KARAMALIS?

A: K-A-R-I-M-A-L-I-S.

Q: AND WITH REGARD TO THIS TERM "CAST OFF," HAVE YOU READ ANY PUBLICATIONS ON THAT PARTICULAR TERM?

A: YES, I HAVE READ BOOKS.

Q: WHAT DID YOU READ?

A: BOOKS ON BLOOD SPATTER ANALYSIS, CRIME SCENE ANALYSIS.

Q: ALL RIGHT. IN THAT CONNECTION, DOES THAT HAVE TO DO -- THE TERM "CAST OFF," DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH DESCRIBING THE VELOCITY WITH WHICH A SPLATTER MOVES FROM ONE OBJECT TO ANOTHER; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: NOT NECESSARILY THE VELOCITY. JUST DESCRIBING A DROPLET OF BLOOD FALLING FROM, SAY, A WEAPON.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU -- CAN YOU TELL, BY LOOKING AT A SPLATTER, WHETHER OR NOT THE DROPLET WAS A FREE FALL OR WHETHER IT WAS THROWN FROM A DISTANCE? CAN YOU TELL THAT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU -- IN THIS CASE DID YOU MAKE AN ANALYSIS IN THIS CASE AT THE SCENE THAT DAY?

A: AS TO BLOOD DROPLETS, YES.

Q: YES, SIR.

A: AS TO THIS PARTICULAR -- ARE YOU REFERRING TO A PARTICULAR DROPLET OR ALL OF THE BLOOD?

Q: TALKING ABOUT THE DROPLET YOU TALKED ABOUT YESTERDAY ON RON GOLDMAN'S SHOE.

A: OKAY.

Q: DID YOU MAKE AN ANALYSIS THAT DAY AT THAT TIME AT THE SCENE?

A: NO.

Q: WELL, WHEN DID YOU MAKE YOUR ANALYSIS? AT A LATER TIME?

A: AS TO THE FACT IT WAS A CAST OFF?

Q: YOUR BELIEF IT IS A CAST OFF?

A: SUBSEQUENT TO THAT DATE.

Q: AND WHEN WAS THAT? WHEN DID YOU FIRST MAKE THAT ANALYSIS?

A: I BELIEVE AFTER INFORMATION BECAME AVAILABLE AS TO THE IDENTITY OF THE BLOOD THAT WAS CONTAINED.

Q: AND WHEN WAS THAT? GIVE US THE MONTH OR THE YEAR.

A: IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN SEPTEMBER OR OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR.

Q: 1994?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, IT IS TRUE, IS IT NOT, THAT THE CONDITION OF MR. GOLDMAN'S SHOES CHANGED AFTER THEY WERE BAGGED BY THE CORONER'S OFFICE SO THERE WAS MORE BLOOD ON THESE SHOES AFTER THEY WERE BAGGED AND TAKEN TO THE CORONER'S OFFICE THAN THEY WERE BEFORE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: I WASN'T AWARE OF THAT.

Q: YOU ARE NOT AWARE OF THAT?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: HAVE YOU EVER SEEN ANY PICTURES THAT WOULD INDICATE THAT?

A: I WASN'T AWARE OF THAT.

Q: DID YOU EVER TALK TO ANY EXPERT IN THE FIELD, A BLOOD SPATTER EXPERT, REGARDING THIS CAST OFF THEORY THAT YOU TOLD US ABOUT YESTERDAY?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID YOU EVER WRITE A REPORT IN YOUR BOOK REGARDING YOUR BELIEF ABOUT THE CAST OFF THEORY?

A: NO.

Q: WAS THAT EVER WRITTEN ANYWHERE IN ANY OF THESE VOLUMES OF BOOKS THAT YOU HAVE?

A: AS TO THAT DROPLET BEING A CAST OFF?

Q: YES, YES.

A: NO, I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS.

Q: DID YOU EVER TESTIFY ABOUT THAT BEFORE IN ANY PROCEEDING IN THIS CASE?

A: NO.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I WAS NEVER ASKED ABOUT THAT.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: SO THE FIRST TIME YOU TESTIFIED ABOUT THAT WAS YESTERDAY, RIGHT?

A: THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME I WAS ASKED ABOUT IT.

Q: DID YOU ANSWER YES THE FIRST TIME YOU TESTIFIED?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND IT IS NOT WRITTEN IN ANY PUBLICATION OR ANY REPORTS THAT YOU HAVE WRITTEN IN THIS CASE; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: WITH REGARD TO THIS SO-CALLED MIXTURE OF THE VICTIM'S BLOODS, DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS MORE CONCENTRATION OF ONE VICTIM'S BLOOD OVER THE OTHER IN THIS SO-CALLED SPLATTER?

A: NO.

Q: DO YOU KNOW THAT?

A: NO.

Q: YOU HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THAT, DO YOU?

A: NO.

Q: NOW, YOU TALKED TO US YESTERDAY ABOUT THE BODIES BEING IN A RATHER CLOSE AREA AND THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS CLOSE TO THE BODIES OR THE EVIDENCE WAS RIGHT AROUND THE BODIES. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: YES.

Q: AND IN THAT CONNECTION THE CRIMINALIST IN THIS CASE, AS I RECALL IT, DID NOT ARRIVE UNTIL AFTER TEN O'CLOCK BECAUSE THEY HAD BEEN OVER AT ROCKINGHAM; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, IN SOME OF THE VIDEOS WE HAVE SEEN WE SAW A MAN YOU IDENTIFIED I THINK AS JOHNSON, STEVE JOHNSON, WAS IT?

A: YES.

Q: HE IS ONE OF THE CRIMINALISTS, A SUPERVISOR; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: THE LAPD LAB, SID LAB, HAS MORE THAN TWO CRIMINALISTS, DON'T THEY?

A: YES.

Q: AND IF YOU HAD WANTED TO GET OTHER CRIMINALISTS OUT THERE TO START WORKING ON THAT SCENE AT BUNDY, YOU COULD HAVE DONE THAT, COULDN'T YOU?

A: THERE WAS NO NEED TO, BUT I COULD HAVE, I SUPPOSE.

Q: YOU COULD HAVE DONE THAT?

A: PERHAPS I COULD HAVE, BUT I EXPECTED THE CRIMINALIST TO COME DIRECTLY OVER FROM ROCKINGHAM.

Q: SO WHEN THEY GOT THERE AFTER TEN O'CLOCK, THAT WAS SOME TEN HOURS AFTER THESE BODIES HAD BEEN FOUND; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: APPROXIMATELY.

Q: AND AT THAT TIME, SINCE THE CORONERS HAD FINALLY BEEN CALLED, THE CORONERS WERE THERE ALREADY WHEN THE CRIMINALISTS ARRIVED; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: AND THEN ULTIMATELY YOU WERE PRESENT WHEN THESE BODIES WERE MOVED; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, I WAS.

Q: YOU DESCRIBED FOR US THAT YOUR BELIEF -- STRIKE THAT. DID YOU SEE THE EVIDENCE MOVE THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER WHEN THE BODIES WERE MOVED?

A: ONCE AGAIN --

Q: DID YOU SEE THAT?

A: -- MY ANSWER WAS THEN AND IT STILL IS NOW, I DID NOT PHYSICALLY SEE THEM MOVE.

Q: BUT AT ANY RATE, THE BODIES WERE MOVED, AND HAD THE CRIMINALISTS FINISHED THEIR WORK AT THE TIME THESE BODIES WERE MOVED?

A: NO.

Q: SO FUNG CONTINUED TO -- FUNG AND MAZZOLLA CONTINUED TO DO THEIR WORK AFTER THE CORONERS AND CORONER'S REPRESENTATIVES TOOK THE BODIES AWAY; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: NOW, I WANT TO SHOW YOU PART OF A VIDEO THAT WE HAVE SHOWN BEFORE WITH REGARD TO MR. FUNG AND HIS PRESENCE AT THE SCENE THERE THAT MORNING ON JUNE 13.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHICH EXHIBIT IS THIS, MR. COCHRAN?

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

MR. COCHRAN: 1043 I AM ADVISED, YOUR HONOR.

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. CAN YOU HOLD ON FOR A SECOND, MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: YES. CERTAINLY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY, IF YOU WANT TO STAND UP AND STRETCH FOR A MOMENT, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO DO SO.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: THE AUDIENCE CAN, TOO, AS WELL.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

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

MR. COCHRAN: PROCEED, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU.

Q: I WANT TO HAVE YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THIS PORTION OF THIS VIDEO. I BELIEVE YOU HAVE SEEN THIS BEFORE.

(AT 2:44 P.M., DEFENSE EXHIBIT 1043, A VIDEOTAPE, WAS PLAYED.)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: NOW, THAT GENTLEMAN THERE WITH THE -- STOP IT RIGHT THERE. THE MAN WHO IS COMING OUT OF AN AREA THAT YOU JUST WENT INTO, WHO IS THAT?

A: THAT IS MR. FUNG.

Q: IS THAT THE CRIMINALIST WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT?

A: YES.

Q: AND HE HAS A BAG IN HIS RIGHT HAND WITH NO GLOVE ON THAT HAND. DO YOU SEE THAT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT IS AN AREA THAT YOU JUST CAME -- THAT YOU JUST WENT INTO RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: IS THAT THE AREA OVER WHEREIN -- THE JURY WOULD BE FAMILIAR, THE AREA WHERE MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY WAS FOUND?

A: YES.

Q: IS THAT THE AREA WHERE -- STRIKE THAT. MR. -- MR. FUNG IS COMING OUT OF THAT AREA; IS THAT CORRECT? IS HE ABOUT TO STEP OVER MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S BODY AT THAT POINT?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: IF YOU CAN TELL?

A: I CAN'T TELL WHETHER THE BODY HAS BEEN MOVED OUT ON THE WALKWAY AT THAT POINT OR NOT.

Q: DID YOU SEE THE MAN IN THE BLUE -- AND PERHAPS IT MAY BE THE OTHER BODY. DO YOU SEE THE PLAN IN THE BLUE BENT OVER, MR. JACOBO FROM CORONER'S OFFICE?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU RECALL HIM WHEN YOU SAW HIM THERE IN THAT AREA WORKING IN THE AREA OF THE WALKWAY, HE WAS WORKING WITH BODIES WHEN HE WAS IN THAT LOCATION?

A: YES, BUT I CAN'T TELL WHICH BODY IS HERE.

Q: I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT APPARENTLY ONE OF THE BODIES IS; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT WAY.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, WE PRINTED OUT THIS PARTICULAR AREA EARLIER AND IF -- I ASK THE COURT TO ALLOW ME TO MARK THAT.

THE COURT: 1043-A.

MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE SHOWN IT TO COUNSEL.

(DEFT'S 1043-A FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)

THE COURT: EXCUSE ME.

MR. COCHRAN: SORRY.

THE COURT: THIS IS COUNTER 0:18:18:01.

MR. COCHRAN: ON THE PHOTOGRAPH, 07, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THAT IS IN HUNDREDS OF SECONDS. SO LET'S TAKE IT TO 7. 01:18:18:07.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: MR. LANGE, WHAT DOES MR. FUNG HAVE IN HIS HAND, THAT BAG THERE?

A: I BELIEVE THAT IS VERY POSSIBLY THE RIGHT-HAND GLOVE FROM ROCKINGHAM.

Q: WELL, HE HAD TAKEN THE RIGHT-HAND GLOVE FROM ROCKINGHAM INTO THE AREA WHERE MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY WAS AND WHERE THIS LEFT-LAND GLOVE WAS; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: I HAD ASKED HIM TO LOOK AT THE GLOVE --

Q: YOU CAN ANSWER THAT YES OR NO, SIR. HAD HE TAKEN THE GLOVE IN THERE?

A: UNLESS I'M MISTAKEN, THIS IS VERY POSSIBLY THE TIME THAT HE BROUGHT THE GLOVE OVER TO ME TO LOOK AT, YES.

Q: SO THE ANSWER IS YES, HE HAD TAKEN THE GLOVE INSIDE THAT AREA?

A: WELL, AGAIN I AM TRYING TO BE AS ACCURATE AS I CAN. I MAY BE MISTAKEN, BUT I HAD ASKED MR. FUNG IF I COULD LOOK AT THE GLOVE FROM ROCKINGHAM. HE BROUGHT IT OVER TO ME AND I BELIEVE THAT THIS VERY POSSIBLY MAY DEPICT THAT. I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE.

Q: THIS MORNING WHEN I ASKED YOU, DIDN'T YOU TELL US -- WELL, STRIKE THAT. IS IT YOUR RECOLLECTION NOW THAT YOU AS YOU SIT HERE THAT YOU HAD LOOKED AT THE GLOVE IN THE BAG AT THIS POINT, THE POINT THAT SHOWS ON THE COUNTER?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE I DID. I BELIEVE I LOOKED IN THE BAG AT THE EVIDENCE TRUCK AFTER HE WALKED OUT WITH IT, IF THIS IN FACT IS THAT TIME.

Q: WHAT HAS HE DONE JUST BEFORE THIS, IF YOU KNOW, WITH THAT BAG?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE HE DID ANYTHING. IF IN FACT THIS IS THE INCIDENT DEPICTED HERE WITH THE GLOVE AND THE BAG, HE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WITH IT.

Q: WHAT WAS HE DOING OVER IN THE AREA OF MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY?

A: AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW IF MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY IS BACK THERE OR NOT AT THIS POINT BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHICH BODY IS OUT ON THE WALKWAY. I HAVE NO IDEA.

Q: ALL RIGHT. LET'S CONTINUE ON WITH THE VIDEO.

(THE VIDEOTAPE CONTINUES PLAYING.)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: HE APPARENTLY STEPPED OVER SOMETHING. DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION? HE STEPPED OVER ONE OF THE BODIES AT THAT POINT?

A: YES. FUNG, YES.

(THE VIDEOTAPE CONTINUES PLAYING.)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DO YOU SEE -- BACK IT UP. BACK IT UP. BACK IT UP. CAN YOU SEE THAT DRINK -- SOMEBODY HAVING A DRINK IN THEIR HAND THERE? DO YOU SEE THAT?

A: IT APPEARS TO BE A CUP IN SOMEONE'S HAND, YES.

Q: A CUP AT 1:18:34:29. THAT IS A VIOLATION OF THE RULES YOU TOLD US ABOUT THE OTHER DAY, ISN'T IT?

A: I DON'T KNOW WHERE HE IS STANDING. IF I HAD SEEN THAT, I WOULDN'T HAVE ALLOWED IT ON THE SCENE. I DON'T KNOW IF THE CUP IS FULL OR EMPTY AND I HAVE NEVER SEEN THE CUP AT THE SCENE.

Q: DO YOU SEE THE CUP AT THE SCENE NOW, SIR?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: THE QUESTION WAS IT IS A VIOLATION OF THE RULES THAT YOU TOLD US ABOUT YESTERDAY; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: I WOULDN'T ALLOW THAT ON MY CRIME SCENE. THAT IS MY SAME ANSWER; THAT'S CORRECT.

THE COURT: HE JUST SAID THAT IS CORRECT. NEVER MIND. PROCEED.

MR. COCHRAN: OKAY.

Q: DO YOU SEE YOURSELF UP IN THE UPPER RIGHT-HAND PORTION OF THIS PHOTOGRAPH?

A: I AM NOT LOOKING FOR CUPS, MR. COCHRAN.

Q: I SAID DO YOU SEE YOURSELF AT THE SCENE, DETECTIVE? CAN YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION, PLEASE?

A: I AM TRYING TO.

Q: DO YOU SEE YOURSELF ON THE VIDEO HERE?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, DO YOU SEE THE CUP ON THE VIDEO?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: THAT IS A VIOLATION OF THE RULES YOU TOLD US ABOUT, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHOSE HAND THAT IS ON THAT CUP?

A: NO.

MR. COCHRAN: CONTINUE ON.

(THE VIDEOTAPE CONTINUES PLAYING.)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DO YOU SEE IT AGAIN THERE?

A: YES, MR. COCHRAN, I SAW IT AGAIN.

Q: NOW -- WILL YOU STOP FOR A MOMENT. YOU SEE MR. FUNG THERE. HE DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING ON HIS HAND THERE, DOES HE?

A: I CAN'T TELL WITH THAT SHOT.

Q: WELL, LOOK ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WEREN'T YOU ABLE TO TELL HE DOES NOT HAVE ANY GLOVES ON HIS HANDS AT THAT POINT?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: WERE YOU ABLE TO TELL THAT?

A: NO.

Q: YOU CAN'T TELL THAT? ALL RIGHT. CONTINUE ON.

(THE VIDEOTAPE CONTINUES PLAYING.)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DO YOU SEE HIS HAND NOW? DO YOU SEE FUNG'S HANDS NOW?

A: HE DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE GLOVES ON.

THE COURT: THIS IS FRAME 51:19.

MR. COCHRAN: 1:18:51:19, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: ET SEQ. THANK YOU.

(THE VIDEOTAPE CONTINUES PLAYING.)

MR. COCHRAN: THAT IS THE END OF IT. YOUR HONOR, THERE IS ANOTHER VIDEO THAT RATHER THAN SHOW IT, I THINK WE HAVE SHOWN IT EARLIER, I WANT TO JUST APPROACH THE WITNESS AND ASK HIM TO IDENTIFY AND THEN I WILL PUT IT ON THE ELMO IF THE COURT WILL ALLOW. I HAVE SHOWN THIS TO COUNSEL SO I WILL MARK THIS AS DEFENDANT'S NEXT IN ORDER, 1043-B. I HAVE SHOWN IT TO COUNSEL.

THE COURT: 1043-B.

MR. COCHRAN: 1043-B, YES, YOUR HONOR.

(DEFT'S 1043-B FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DETECTIVE LANGE, I WANT TO SHOW YOU THIS PHOTOGRAPH, A PRINT ACTUALLY OF THE VIDEO. DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN DEPICTED THEREIN?

A: IT APPEARS TO BE THE PHOTOGRAPHER.

Q: IS THAT MR. ROKAHR?

A: IT LOOKS LIKE MR. ROKAHR, YES.

Q: AND IN THAT PHOTOGRAPH YOU SEE HIS CAMERA THERE ON HIS RIGHT SHOULDER?

A: YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: DO YOU SEE THE LINE STILL UP SO THAT THE CRIME SCENE IS STILL INTACT AT THAT POINT?

A: YES.

Q: HE IS INSIDE THE CRIME SCENE?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: MR. ROKAHR IS INSIDE THE CRIME SCENE?

A: HE APPEARS TO BE, YES.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. I WILL PUT THIS ON THE ELMO, YOUR HONOR.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: NOW, THAT IS A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PHOTOGRAPHER IN THIS CASE; IS THAT CORRECT? YOU SEE HIS CAMERA IN HIS RIGHT HAND, DO YOU NOT?

A: YES.

Q: IT APPEARS THAT HE IS LOOKING INSIDE OF A MAILBOX THERE AT THE LOCATION?

A: YEAH, IT APPEARS THAT WAY.

Q: THAT IS ONE OF THE JOBS YOU ASSIGNED HIM THAT MORNING, TO LOOK INSIDE THAT MAILBOX?

A: NO. HE MAY HAVE BEEN LOOKING INSIDE THAT MAILBOX TO TAKE A PHOTOGRAPH OF MAIL, HOWEVER.

Q: HE MAY HAVE BEEN DOING ANY NUMBER OF THINGS, BUT WHAT WE HAVE IS THE PHOTOGRAPH; IS THAT CORRECT, SIR?

A: WHEN WE HAVE A PHOTOGRAPHER AT THE SCENE WE GENERALLY ASK THEM INITIALLY TO DO ORIENTATION SHOTS AND WE DO NOT SUPERVISE EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM. I WOULD CERTAINLY EXPECT MY PHOTOGRAPHER TO SHOW THAT INITIATIVE AND IN THIS CASE HE APPEARS TO BE SHOWING THAT INITIATIVE.

Q: HE IS SHOWING YOU LOTS OF INITIATIVE; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: HE IS SHOWING ME THE INITIATIVE THAT HE IS LOOKING IN THE MAILBOX, AND IF THERE WERE MAIL IN THERE, I'M SURE HE PHOTOGRAPHED IT AND TOLD ME ABOUT IT.

Q: HAVE YOU SEEN ANY PHOTOGRAPHS OF MAIL THIS CASE, SIR?

A: HE WOULDN'T HAVE KNOWN UNLESS HE LOOKED.

Q: ALL RIGHT. CAN YOU ANSWER ONE QUESTION? DID YOU SEE ANY MAIL IN THAT MAILBOX?

A: NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THEN WITH REGARD TO THAT, DID YOU WRITE A REPORT ABOUT OPENING THE MAILBOX AND LOOKING INSIDE THE MAILBOX?

A: NO.

Q: YOU DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT HIM DOING THIS UNTIL YOU SAW THE VIDEO, DID YOU?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THAT MAILBOX HAD BEEN DUSTED FOR PRINTS BEFORE HE DID THIS?

A: I HAVE NO IDEA WHEN THIS PARTICULAR PHOTOGRAPH WAS TAKEN.

Q: YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHETHER HE DID THIS TOTALLY ON HIS OWN, DO YOU?

A: I BELIEVE TO ME IT SHOWS INITIATIVE THAT HE DID IT. I HAVE NO IDEA WHEN IT WAS DONE.

Q: THAT IS NOT WHAT I ASKED YOU, SIR. YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHEN HE DID THIS, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: YOU HAD NOT TOLD HIM TO DO THIS; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

A: NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: THE FIRST TIME YOU BECAME AWARE OF THIS IS WHEN YOU SAW THIS PHOTOGRAPH, RIGHT?

A: ONCE AGAIN THAT IS TRUE.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THAT MAILBOX HAD BEEN DUSTED FOR ANY KIND OF PRINTS AT THAT POINT?

A: SAME ANSWER. I HAVE NO IDEA WHEN THIS PHOTOGRAPH WAS TAKEN SO I CAN'T GIVE YOU THAT ANSWER.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. YOUR HONOR, WE CAN MARK THAT EXHIBIT, IF THE COURT PLEASES, AND I WOULD LIKE ALSO TO MARK 1043-C IS THE PHOTOGRAPH WITH THE ARM WITH THE CUP IN IT WHICH WAS AT 1:18:34:29.

THE COURT: 1043-C.

MR. COCHRAN: 1043-C, AND WE WILL PASS THAT ON, YOUR HONOR.

(DEFT'S 1043-C FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: NOW, WITH REGARD TO THIS WHITE SHEET OR BLANKET THAT WE SAW THIS MORNING AND WE HAVE SEEN BEFORE, YOU HAVE SEEN BLOOD ON THAT SHEET AND BLANKET; ISN'T THAT CORRECT, DID YOU NOT?

A: YES.

Q: THAT BLOOD CAME FROM MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S BODY, THE AREA OF HER BODY?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, YOU ALLUDED TO, I BELIEVE THIS MORNING, THE FACT THAT THERE HAD BEEN A WALK-THROUGH IN WHICH YOU HAD PARTICIPATED IN WITH THE DEFENSE, I THINK IN AUGUST, ON OR ABOUT AUGUST 27 OF 1994. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: YES.

Q: AND AT THAT TIME A KNIT CAP WAS POINTED OUT TO YOU. AND DID YOU EVER SEE THE INVESTIGATOR MC NALLY WHO WAS THERE TRY THE KNIT CAP ON?

A: NO.

Q: AND YOU NEVER -- YOU WEREN'T INTERESTED IN BOOKING THAT KNIT CAP, WERE YOU?

A: I HAD NO INTEREST IN BOOKING IT, NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. HAVE YOU SEEN THESE KNIT CAPS WHERE THERE IS ONE SIZE THAT FITS ALL?

A: I SUPPOSE THERE IS SUCH A THING.

Q: AND WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT KNIT CAP, DO YOU KNOW?

A: I AM ASSUMING THAT THE FAMILY COLLECTED IT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO IT?

A: I DID NOT FOLLOW UP ON THE KNIT CAP, NO.

Q: WHAT COLOR WAS THE KNIT CAP, SIR?

A: MY RECOLLECTION IS EITHER DARK BLUE OR BLACK. I DON'T RECALL.

Q: IT APPEARED TO BE THE SAME COLOR AS THE KNIT CAP THAT YOU ALLEGEDLY FOUND OUTSIDE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: IT WAS A DARK COLOR. I DON'T RECALL IF IT WAS THE SAME COLOR OR NOT.

Q: DID YOU TAKE A PHOTO OF THAT PARTICULAR CAP THAT WAS POINTED OUT TO YOU THAT MORNING?

A: NO.

Q: NOW, WITH REGARD TO THE CHILDREN, WE TALKED ABOUT THIS BRIEFLY, THE POLICE OFFICER VASQUEZ OVERHEARD A STATEMENT WHEREIN SYDNEY SIMPSON WAS SPEAKING TO HER YOUNGER BROTHER JUSTIN; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING, YES.

Q: AND THAT STATEMENT IS IN A REPORT PROVIDED BY VASQUEZ; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I BELIEVE SO.

Q: AND THE SUBJECT OF THAT STATEMENT DEALS WITH A PHONE CALL THAT THEIR MOTHER HAD RECEIVED THAT NIGHT; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: I DON'T KNOW IF IT INVOLVES A PHONE CALL. I THOUGHT IT INVOLVED AN OVERHEAR ON THE PART OF SYDNEY. I'M NOT SURE, THOUGH. I HAVEN'T REVIEWED IT IN SOME TIME.

Q: AN OVERHEAR OF A PHONE CALL; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

MR. COCHRAN: SUBJECT MATTER.

THE COURT: WHAT IS THE OBJECTION?

MS. CLARK: HEARSAY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. COCHRAN: ASKING ABOUT THE SUBJECT MATTER, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THAT CALLS FOR HEARSAY. SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DID IT INVOLVE AN OVERHEAR OF A CONVERSATION?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT IS NOT HEARSAY.

THE COURT: THAT IS NOT. THE SUBJECT, WHAT WENT ON, IS.

MR. COCHRAN: YES.

Q: DID IT INVOLVE AN OVERHEAR OF A CONVERSATION, TELEPHONE CONVERSATION?

A: I BELIEVE IT DID. I BELIEVE IT DID.

Q: WHEN IS THE LAST TIME YOU HAVE SEEN VASQUEZ' REPORT?

A: WHEN YOU SHOWED IT TO ME IN COURT SEVERAL DAYS AGO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SHE IS STILL WITH THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT?

A: I DON'T KNOW.

Q: YOU DON'T KNOW THAT?

A: I DON'T KNOW.

Q: IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION DID YOU EVER ASCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM FAYE RESNICK THAT NIGHT?

A: I DID NOT HAVE THAT INFORMATION, NO.

Q: WITH REGARD TO YOUR THEORY OF THIS NOT BEING A DRUG KILLING, WOULD THAT EVER BE RELEVANT TO YOU, GIVEN THE FACTS I GAVE YOU BEFORE REGARDING FAYE RESNICK AND WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A PHONE CALL FROM FAYE RESNICK AT ABOUT NINE O'CLOCK OR THEREAFTER ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE 12, 1994?

WOULD THAT HAVE BEEN IMPORTANT TO YOU AS AN INVESTIGATOR, FROM FAYE RESNICK, TO NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON?

A: YES.

Q: WOULD THAT BE IMPORTANT TO YOU?

A: WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO FAYE RESNICK, NOT BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS A DRUG-RELATED MURDER, BUT ANYONE WHO SPOKE TO THE VICTIM I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN.

Q: WELL, YOU TALKED TO HER AT LUNCHTIME TODAY. WITHOUT GIVING US THE CONVERSATION, IS THAT THE FIRST TIME YOU HAVE TALKED TO HER SINCE READING THE BOOK?

MS. CLARK: THE BOOK, YOUR HONOR --

THE COURT: HE SAID HE READ THE BOOK WHEN IT FIRST CAME OUT AND HE TOLD US ABOUT TALKING TO HER THIS AFTERNOON. HE HAS ALREADY TOLD US ABOUT THIS.

MR. COCHRAN: VERY WELL, YOUR HONOR.

Q: WHEN YOU WERE AT ROCKINGHAM, IT IS YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOU CAME IN THE REAR OF MR. SIMPSON'S HOME; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: INITIALLY, YES.

Q: AND WHEN YOU CAME IN THE REAR OF THAT HOUSE, DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT ORDER YOU CAME INTO THE HOUSE, SIR?

A: NO.

Q: AND DID ARNELLE SIMPSON COME IN FIRST?

A: SHE MAY HAVE.

Q: WELL, DID SHE HAVE A KEY?

A: SEEMS TO ME SHE DID KEY HER WAY IN.

Q: AND DO YOU RECALL WHETHER OR NOT THE ALARM WAS ON AT THAT HOUSE AT THAT TIME, SIR?

A: NO.

Q: YOU DON'T RECALL?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: YOU HAVE NO RECOLLECTION OF WHETHER OR NOT SHE HAD TO TURN THE ALARM OFF AT SOME POINT?

A: SHE MAY HAVE. MY ATTENTION WASN'T FOCUSED ON HER.

Q: BUT AT ANY RATE, IF SHE DID IT, SHE DID IT AFTER SHE CAME INSIDE THE HOUSE FROM THE REAR, RIGHT?

A: I WOULD ASSUME THAT.

Q: NOW, YESTERDAY YOU DESCRIBED, DURING REDIRECT EXAMINATION, HOW YOU ALLOWED DETECTIVE FUHRMAN TO INTERVIEW MR. KATO KAELIN IN HIS ROOM; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: DID YOU SPECIFICALLY TELL HIM TO DO THAT OR YOU JUST TOLD HIM -- YOU JUST DIDN'T STOP HIM FROM DOING THAT?

A: THAT IS THE WAY THINGS HAPPENED. HE WAS WALKING IN FRONT OF ME. I WAS GOING TOWARD THE HOUSE TO KNOCK ON THE REAR DOOR. HE WALKED TO THE GUEST HOUSE AND KNOCKED ON THE GUEST DOOR. HE WAS THE ONE THAT HAPPENED TO BE THERE TO DO THAT.

Q: LET'S GET BACK TO MY QUESTION. MY QUESTION WAS DID YOU SPECIFICALLY TELL HIM TO DO THAT AT ALL?

A: SPECIFICALLY TELL HIM TO KNOCK ON THE DOOR?

Q: GO INTERVIEW KATO KAELIN? DID YOU TELL HIM TO DO THAT?

A: NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. YESTERDAY YOU INDICATED -- AT SOME POINT IN YOUR EXAMINATION DID YOU USE THE WORDS "I WORK FOR VANNATTER" ? DID YOU SAY THAT?

A: I WORK FOR VANNATTER?

Q: DID YOU USE THE WORDS "I WORK FOR VANNATTER"? WAS THAT IN THE TRANSCRIPT? STRIKE THAT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT IS A BAD QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU SAY THAT? DID YOU SAY THAT, "I WORK FOR VANNATTER"?

A: IN RELATION TO TESTIMONY YESTERDAY?

Q: YES, SIR, IN RELATION TO TESTIMONY YESTERDAY?

A: I DON'T RECALL SAYING THAT.

Q: YOU DON'T RECALL SAYING THAT?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU WORK FOR VANNATTER ON THAT DATE?

A: NO.

Q: DO YOU RECALL? YOU WERE CO-LEAD INVESTIGATORS; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: WE WORK AS PARTNERS; THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: YOU WERE ASKED A SERIES OF QUESTIONS YESTERDAY BY MISS CLARK ABOUT I BELIEVE CANDLES AND THE STATE OF BURNING OF CANDLES. SO THAT WE ARE CLEAR, THERE ARE NO PHOTOGRAPHS OF THESE CANDLES TO ASSIST US NOW AS WE LOOK BACK TO TRY AND DETERMINE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I HAVE NO PHOTOGRAPHS, THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: NOT ONLY YOU, BUT THERE ARE NO PHOTOGRAPHS IN THIS CASE OF THOSE CANDLES; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: I RECENTLY OBSERVED A VIDEO THAT HAS THE CANDLES IN THEM, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WHERE DID YOU OBSERVE THAT VIDEO?

A: I BELIEVE THAT WAS A COMPILATION OF NEWS RELEASES, NEWS STORIES AND NEWS VIDEOS THAT WERE RECEIVED FROM THE DEFENSE.

Q: RECEIVED FROM THE DEFENSE?

A: FROM YOU.

Q: AND YOU SAW THIS AND YOU SAW A CANDLE BURNING IN WHAT ROOM?

A: IN THE FRONT ROOM.

Q: IN THE LIVING ROOM AREA?

A: YES.

Q: IS THERE ANY PICTURES THAT YOU EVER TOOK OF ANY CANDLES BURNING?

A: NO. I ALREADY TESTIFIED WE TOOK NO PICTURES OF THE CANDLES BURNING.

Q: ONLY BURNING CANDLE YOU HAVE SEEN IS A VIDEO TURNED OVER BY THE DEFENSE TO THE PROSECUTION; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: WHEN DID YOU SEE THAT?

A: WHEN?

Q: YES.

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: WHAT DATE WAS IT?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS LAST FRIDAY NIGHT.

Q: LAST FRIDAY NIGHT. AND WHERE WERE YOU AT THAT TIME WHEN YOU SAW IT?

A: IN THIS BUILDING.

Q: WHO WERE YOU WITH?

A: MYSELF.

Q: BY YOURSELF ALONE?

A: BY MYSELF.

Q: ON FRIDAY NIGHT WATCHING VIDEOS?

A: BY MYSELF ALONE WATCHING VIDEOS.

MR. COCHRAN: I WON'T SAY ANYTHING ELSE ABOUT THAT.

Q: AND YOU --

(LAUGHTER)

MR. COCHRAN: EXCUSE ME. THANK YOU.

THE WITNESS: I WAS ASKED TO DO IT.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. YOU WERE ASKED TO DO IT BY MISS CLARK? EXPLAIN THAT. WHO ASKED YOU TO DO THAT?

A: MISS CLARK.

Q: MISS CLARK? ALL RIGHT. DID SHE WATCH ANY OF THOSE VIDEOS WITH YOU?

A: NO.

Q: NOW, YESTERDAY MISS CLARK WENT THROUGH AN ATTEMPT TO TRY AND EXPLAIN THE -- THE 115, 116, 117 PHOTO I.D. NUMBERS AND THE EVIDENCE NUMBERS. DO YOU REMEMBER.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT IS ARGUMENTATIVE, "ATTEMPT."

THE COURT: IT IS.

MR. SHAPIRO: IT IS.

MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. I WILL TAKE OUT THE WORD "ATTEMPT."

Q: YESTERDAY MISS CLARK ASKED YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT 115, 116, 117, THE PHOTO I.D. NUMBERS AND THE NUMBERS ASSIGNED TO EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: YES.

Q: AS I UNDERSTOOD WHAT YOU INDICATED TO US, YOU SAID THAT THE ANSWERS TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PHOTO I.D. NUMBERS AND THE ITEMS THAT WERE ASSIGNED EVIDENCE ARE LOCATED IN THE VOLUMINOUS 30,000 PAGES OF REPORTS IN THIS CASE? IS THAT WHAT YOU BASICALLY SAID TO US?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION.

MR. COCHRAN: I AM ASKING HIM.

THE COURT: MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE.

MR. COCHRAN: WHAT, YOUR HONOR?

MS. CLARK: MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DIDN'T YOU SAY THE ANSWER TO THE 115, 116, 117 WAS CONTAINED IN THE REPORTS IN THIS CASE? DID YOU SAY THAT?

A: I BELIEVE I SAID THE PROPERTY REPORTS.

Q: YES. DID YOU SAY THAT? AND AMONG THE REPORTS IN THIS CASE THERE ARE --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, THAT MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MS. CLARK: HE DIDN'T GET THE --

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AMONG THE REPORTS IN THIS CASE, HOW MANY PAGES ARE THERE ALTOGETHER, IF YOU KNOW?

A: PROPERTY REPORTS AND ALL REPORTS.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT IS IRRELEVANT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: AS TO THE ENTIRE INVESTIGATION?

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YES, SIR.

A: SEVERAL THOUSAND.

Q: SEVERAL THOUSAND?

A: YES.

Q: YOU HEARD THE TERM 30,000?

A: I DON'T KNOW IF THERE ARE THAT MANY, AT LEAST NOT GENERATED BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. AFTER THE CASE WAS FILED OF COURSE THERE WAS A LOT MORE THAT WENT ON.

Q: NOW, WITH REGARD TO THAT GLOVE THAT WE SAW -- STRIKE THAT. WITH REGARD TO THE BAG THAT WE SAW ON THE VIDEO THAT WE SHOWED YOU REGARDING MR. FUNG, AFTER HAVING SEEN THAT IS YOUR MEMORY REFRESHED AS TO WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS AFTER WE SAW MR. FUNG STEPPING OUT OF THE AREA WHERE MR. GOLDMAN WAS THAT YOU THEN WENT OUT TO THE VAN AND LOOKED AT OR LOOKED INSIDE OF THE ENVELOPE -- INSIDE OF THE PAPER BAG, RATHER?

A: AGAIN, IF THIS WAS THE BAG THAT HAD THE GLOVE IN IT, I WOULD HAVE DONE THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF THIS WAS THAT PARTICULAR BAG OR IF MR. FUNG WAS BACK THERE DOING SOMETHING ELSE. IT IS UNCLEAR TO ME WHETHER MR. GOLDMAN WAS STILL BACK IN THAT POSITION OR NOT, SO I CAN'T GIVE YOU A TIME FRAME AND I CAN'T GIVE YOU AN ANSWER.

Q: WELL, DID YOU SEE MR. FUNG AT THE SCENE THAT MORNING AFTER HE GOT THERE AFTER TEN O'CLOCK ON THE 13TH WITH MORE THAN ONE PAPER BAG AS HE APPEARED IN THE VIDEO?

A: I SAW HIM WITH VARIOUS BAGS AT DIFFERENT TIMES, YES.

Q: WERE THERE OTHER BAGS THAT YOU SAW SIMILAR TO THAT BAG?

A: YES.

Q: HOW MANY BAGS DID YOU SEE HIM WITH AT ALL THAT DAY?

A: I DON'T RECALL. I BELIEVE THEY PUT ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE IN ONE BAG, SO I OBSERVED TWO OR THREE BAGS IN THE AREA. I DON'T RECALL SPECIFICALLY.

Q: NOW, WITH REGARD TO SHOEPRINTS AT THE SCENE THEREOF THAT PARTICULAR EVENING, YOU HAVE GIVEN US -- WE HAVE HAD A LOT OF TESTIMONY ABOUT SHOEPRINTS LEADING AND HEADING WEST OF WHERE THE BODIES WERE FOUND. WERE YOU EVER ABLE TO DETERMINE OR MAKE ANY COPIES OR TAKE ANY PHOTOGRAPHS OF ANY SHOEPRINTS THAT WERE IN THE DIRT AREA WHERE MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY WAS FOUND?

A: I OBSERVED NONE IN THE DIRT AREA.

Q: AND IN FACT WE KNOW, DO WE NOT, THAT YOU STEPPED IN THAT AREA, DID YOU NOT?

A: I DID.

Q: DETECTIVE FUHRMAN STEPPED IN THAT AREA, DID HE NOT?

A: IT APPEARS THAT WAY.

Q: AND MR. FUNG STEPPED IN THAT AREA BASED UPON THAT VIDEO; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AT LEAST THOSE THREE AND THERE MAY HAVE BEEN OTHERS; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: POSSIBLY.

Q: AND WE KNOW ALSO THAT FOOTPRINTS AREN'T ALWAYS -- OR SHOEPRINTS AREN'T ALWAYS VISIBLE WITH THE NAKED EYE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: I WOULD SAY --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, VAGUE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE DIRT, I EXAMINED IT BEFORE I WENT IN THERE AND I SAW NONE. I COULDN'T MANAGE INVISIBLE PRINTS BEING IN THE DIRT.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION. I DIDN'T ASK YOU ABOUT IN THE DIRT. I SAID SHOEPRINTS ARE NOT ALWAYS VISIBLE WITH THE NAKED EYE?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, VAGUE, IRRELEVANT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: IN THE DIRT?

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: I ASKED YOU ARE SHOEPRINTS --

A: DEPENDS ON THE SURFACE, MR. COCHRAN. IT WOULD DEPEND ON THE SURFACE.

Q: ALL RIGHT.

A: IF YOU WERE TO ASK ME THAT ON A FLAT SURFACE --

MR. COCHRAN: YOU HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, COUNSEL KEEPS --

THE COURT: OVERRULED. IT WAS JUST A QUESTION OF SOME SHOEPRINTS NOT NECESSARILY VISIBLE TO THE EYE. YES OR NO.

MR. COCHRAN: YES. YES OR NO.

Q: ARE SOME SHOEPRINTS NOT NECESSARILY VISIBLE TO THE NAKED EYE?

A: YOU ARE NOT REFERRING TO DIRT, VISIBLY --

THE COURT: COUNSEL, WE HAVE COVERED THIS TWICE ALREADY.

MR. COCHRAN: I WANT TO GO INTO A SPECIFIC AREA. I THOUGHT HE HAD, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THIS IS ABOUT THE THIRD TIME WE ARE VISITING THIS WITH THIS WITNESS.

MR. COCHRAN: I'M SURE WE COVERED THIS. I'M NOT SURE OF THE ANSWER IS WHAT I'M INDICATING.

THE COURT: WE GOT THE SAME ANSWER LAST TIME.

MR. COCHRAN: LET ME ASK IT AGAIN AND TRY TO GET AN ANSWER.

THE COURT: QUICKLY.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ARE FOOTPRINTS, SHOEPRINTS, SOMETIMES NOT VISIBLE TO THE NAKED IDEA, DEPENDING ON THE SURFACE THAT THEY ARE ON?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WITH REGARD TO THE AREA OF THE DIRT IN THIS CASE, DID YOU TAKE ANY PHOTOGRAPHS OR WERE ANY PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN BY YOU OF ANY POSSIBLE SHOEPRINTS THAT MIGHT BE IN THAT DIRT AREA THAT MORNING?

A: THERE WERE NONE THERE SO THERE WAS NO REASON TO TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS.

Q: SO YOU DIDN'T TAKE ANY PHOTOGRAPHS; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: THERE WAS NOTHING TO TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS OF.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO THAT IF A PARTICULAR -- IF MR. GOLDMAN'S ASSAILANT HAD STEPPED IN THE DIRT AND THERE WERE NO SHOEPRINTS AND HE LEFT OUT LIKE YOU DID AND WALKED ALONG THAT WALKWAY TRYING TO AVOID THE BLOOD, THERE WOULD BE NO SHOEPRINTS FOR YOU TO SEE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: I DON'T KNOW. I SAW NONE IN THE DIRT.

Q: WELL, THAT IS WHAT YOU DID, IS IT NOT? YOU STEPPED IN THERE AND YOU STEPPED OUT TO TRY TO AVOID ANY BLOODY SHOEPRINTS, DID YOU NOT?

A: I DID.

Q: SINCE YOU DON'T KNOW, YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT MR. GOLDMAN'S ASSAILANT MAY HAVE DONE THAT SAME THING; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

MR. COCHRAN: I AM ASKING.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE ASSAILANT DID OTHER THAN THE ASSAILANT -- MAY I FINISH?

THE COURT: HOLD ON. HOLD ON. HOLD ON. MR. COCHRAN, LET HIM FINISH THE ANSWER BEFORE YOU START.

MR. COCHRAN: I THOUGHT HE WAS.

THE WITNESS: THE EVIDENCE CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE SUSPECT WENT THE OPPOSITE WAY BECAUSE OF THE BLOODY SHOEPRINTS WEST ON THE WALK; NOT EAST.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: SIR, IF YOU DON'T SEE THE PRINTS, HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THEY WERE NOT THERE?

A: I DID SEE THE PRINTS THAT WERE BLOODY.

Q: IF THERE WERE SHOEPRINTS THAT WERE NOT VISIBLE WITH THE NAKED EYE, HOW WOULD YOU KNOW THAT? YOU WERE NOT THERE?

THE COURT: THAT IS ARGUMENTATIVE, COUNSEL.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT.

Q: NOW, IN THAT CONNECTION, YESTERDAY WHEN YOU TOLD US THAT MR. GOLDMAN WAS SURPRISED BY HIS ATTACKER, THAT IS A THEORY OF YOURS. YOU WERE NOT THERE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: IT IS CORRECT THAT I WAS NOT THERE.

Q: THAT IS YOUR THEORY; IS IT NOT?

A: I BELIEVE THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY THAT HE WAS SURPRISED, YES.

Q: POSSIBILITY. IT IS ALSO A POSSIBILITY THAT HE WASN'T SURPRISED; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: THE INDICATORS TO ME ARE THAT HE WAS, BUT AGAIN, AS YOU STATED, I WASN'T THERE; I CAN'T SAY.

Q: AND WITH REGARD TO WHETHER OR NOT MR. GOLDMAN STRUCK HIS ASSAILANT OR ASSAILANTS, YOU DON'T KNOW THAT EITHER, SIR? YOU CAN ONLY TELL US YOUR THEORY; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: I CAN ONLY TELL YOU THE EVIDENCE THAT I HAVE.

Q: THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU HAVE YOU SHARED WITH US AND YOU ARE PART OF THE PROSECUTION TEAM; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: I AM, YES.

Q: NOW, YOU TALKED ABOUT YESTERDAY TAKING A STATEMENT FROM MR. O.J. SIMPSON. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND WHEN YOU TALKED TO MR. SIMPSON HE WAS COOPERATIVE, WAS HE NOT?

A: THAT IS A SUBJECTIVE -- A SUBJECTIVE THING. HE WAS COOPERATIVE TO THE EXTENT THAT HE SAT DOWN AND SPOKE WITH US, BUT --

Q: DIDN'T HAVE TO TALK TO YOU, SIR?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. HE HAS NOT FINISHED HIS ANSWER, YOUR HONOR.

MR. COCHRAN: I THOUGHT HE WAS FINISHED.

Q: YOU MAY CONTINUE.

A: I DON'T BELIEVE HE WAS COOPERATIVE AND BEING ENTIRELY FORTHCOMING WITH ME.

Q: THAT IS AGAIN YOUR OPINION, ISN'T IT, WHICH YOU ARE GIVING US ALL DAY TODAY AND YESTERDAY; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

THE COURT: ARGUMENTATIVE.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT IS ARGUMENTATIVE.

MR. COCHRAN: THERE IS A TAPE-RECORDING.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: THERE IS A TAPE-RECORDING OF THIS INTERVIEW; IS THERE NOT?

A: YES, THERE IS.

Q: IT IS ABOUT 33 MINUTES; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AT THE BEGINNING OF THAT INTERVIEW YOU TELL HIM THAT HE DOESN'T HAVE TO TELL --

MS. CLARK: OBJECT, BEYOND THE SCOPE AND HEARSAY.

MR. COCHRAN: AT THIS POINT I WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD WITH REGARD TO THIS PART.

THE COURT: BEYOND THE SCOPE OF REDIRECT.

MR. COCHRAN: I WOULD ASK LEAVE OF THE COURT WITH REGARD TO A SERIES OF QUESTIONS AND I WILL BE WRAPPING THIS PART UP.

MS. CLARK: WE SHOULD APPROACH, YOUR HONOR, IF COUNSEL WANTS TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT NOT TO BE BEFORE THE JURY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

MR. COCHRAN: ALL I WANTED TO ASK HIM --

THE COURT: AT THE SIDE BAR.

MR. COCHRAN: HE WAS SAYING HE WASN'T COOPERATIVE. HE WAS ADMONISHED REGARDING HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND ALL I WANTED TO ESTABLISHED WAS THAT HE THEN GAVE A STATEMENT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DON'T WE HAVE A PROBLEM THAT IT IS HEARSAY?

MR. COCHRAN: BEING ADMONISHED, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. COCHRAN: THEY GO INTO THE FACT HE TALKS TO HIM. CUT FINGER AND ALL THAT STUFF. I CAN'T COME BACK AND ASK HIM?

THE COURT: THE PROBLEM IS -- NO. IT IS AN ADMISSION WHICH CAN ONLY BE OFFERED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY, ISN'T IT?

MR. COCHRAN: YEAH.

THE COURT: SO IF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT STATEMENTS THAT HE MADE, UNLESS THEY OFFER IT, YOU DON'T GET TO OFFER IT.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, IT DEPENDS.

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

MR. COCHRAN: HE HAS OPENED IT UP BY SAYING STATE OF MIND. HE IS SAYING THAT HE WAS NOT COOPERATIVE OR FORTHCOMING AND HE HAS OPENED THE DOOR.

MS. CLARK: NO, NO.

THE COURT: SURE. GO AHEAD.

MR. COCHRAN: WHAT I AM INDICATING, WHEN HE SAYS HE IS NOT FORTHCOMING, THAT IS NOT TRUE, AND I THINK I SHOULD BE ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT BASED UPON THE STATEMENT THAT HE GAVE.

THE COURT: BUT THE NEXT QUESTION IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT DID HE SAY?

MR. COCHRAN: NO, NO, I'M NOT ASKING THAT QUESTION.

THE COURT: BUT IT IS THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF WHAT DID HE SAY.

MR. COCHRAN: THE QUESTION IS DID YOU ADMONISH HIM REGARDING HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, WHICH HE DID, AND DID HE THEN TALK TO YOU? THAT IS PERMISSIBLE. THAT IS WHAT I WANT TO GET OUT AT THIS POINT AND THAT IS PERMISSIBLE.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: IT IS ALL HEARSAY.

MR. COCHRAN: NOT HEARSAY.

MS. CLARK: COUNSEL WAS THE ONE THAT ASKED THE QUESTION THAT ELICITED THE STATEMENT ABOUT HIM NOT BEING FORTHCOMING. HE CAN'T SET UP HIS OWN DOOR OPENING. IF I OPEN A DOOR AND HE WANTS TO WALK THROUGH IT, THAT IS ONE THING. HE CAN'T OPEN THE DOOR THERE AND THAT IS WHAT HE IS ATTEMPTING TO DO. REPORTER OLSON: I'M SORRY, JUDGE. I CAN'T MAKE A RECORD WHEN COUNSEL ARE BOTH SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME.

THE COURT: JUST PUT ATTORNEYS IGNORE COURT'S ORDER TO TALK ONE AT A TIME, THERE IS NO RECORD TO REPORT.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, THE PROBLEM ENSUES BECAUSE MR. COCHRAN CANNOT REFRAIN FROM TALKING WHILE I AM MAKING ARGUMENT TO THE COURT. IT IS HEARSAY. THERE IS NO EXCEPTION FOR IT. HE WAS -- IF HE ELICITED THE ANSWER THAT HE DIDN'T LIKE, THAT IS TOO BAD, BUT ELICITING THE ANSWER HE DOESN'T LIKE, HE DOESN'T THEREBY GET THE RIGHT TO ASK IMPERMISSIBLE QUESTIONS. I DON'T SEE ANY ARGUMENT THAT SUPPORTS THAT AND THE DETECTIVE TESTIFIED ON REDIRECT ABOUT AN OBSERVATION OF HIS FINGER.

THE COURT: OKAY.

MS. CLARK: THAT IS ALL. ALL RIGHT.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL I WANT TO DO IS GET TO THE ASPECT AND THE WITNESS OPENS THE DOOR WHEN HE SAID HE WASN'T FORTHCOMING. I SHOULD BE ABLE TO ALLOW TO ASK HIM IF HE ADMONISHED HIM OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND THEN MR. SIMPSON THEN TALKED TO HIM. THAT IS ALL I'M ASKING AND I THINK THAT IS PERMISSIBLE, YOUR HONOR.

MS. LEWIS: IT IS NOT.

MS. CLARK: NOT ADMISSIBLE AND THE INFERENCE THAT HE IS NOW ASKING TO DRAW --

THE COURT: WELL, I GUESS WHAT WE ARE RIGHT AT THE END OF THE DAY.

MR. COCHRAN: I WANT TO ASK A COUPLE MORE QUESTIONS IF I MIGHT.

THE COURT: WE ARE GOING TO QUIT RIGHT NOW.

MR. COCHRAN: A COUPLE MORE QUESTIONS.

THE COURT: NO, WE ARE GOING TO QUIT. WE ARE GOING TO QUIT. OFF THE RECORD.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

MR. DARDEN: CAN I END IT WITH DOES YOUR SECURITY CAMERA COVER MR. SIMPSON?

THE COURT: IT DOES.

MR. DARDEN: OKAY. AT 3:01, APPROXIMATELY, IT APPEARED TO ME THAT HE WAS -- THAT HE WAS MAKING SOME KIND OF CONTACT WITH THE JUROR SEATED AT THE END OF THE BOX. HE IS ROLLING HIS EYES AND LOOKING OVER AT HIM.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT IS BALONEY.

MR. DARDEN: YOU DIDN'T EVEN SEE IT.

THE COURT: WELL, I DON'T HAVE THE TAPE ON RIGHT NOW.

MR. DARDEN: OKAY.

THE COURT: SO --

MR. DARDEN: BUT THAT IS WHAT HE IS DOING AND I WOULD ASK MR. COCHRAN TO ASK HIM, HEY, CUT IT OUT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WELL, WE ARE GOING TO CALL IT A DAY AND LOOKS LIKE WE ARE NOT GOING TO FINISH LANGE TODAY.

MR. COCHRAN: CAN I ASK ONE MORE QUESTION, YOUR HONOR, BEFORE I GO?

THE COURT: NO. I'M SUSTAINING THE OBJECTION AT THIS POINT AS HEARSAY. I WANT TO GO BACK AND LOOK IN THE RECORD AND SEE WHAT THEY ASKED ON REDIRECT.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT IS FAIR ENOUGH.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, CAN WE HAVE A INDICATION FROM COUNSEL HOW MUCH LONGER HE IS GOING TO BE ON RECROSS?

THE COURT: I THOUGHT HE WAS WINDING UP ABOUT TWENTY MINUTES AGO.

MS. CLARK: I THOUGHT IT WAS AN HOUR AGO, BUT CAN WE GET AN INDICATION?

MR. COCHRAN: TOMORROW I WILL FINISH.

MS. CLARK: WHAT TIME?

MR. COCHRAN: I DON'T KNOW. TOMORROW I WILL FINISH.

MS. CLARK: I NEED TO KNOW FOR WITNESSES.

MR. COCHRAN: HAVE YOUR WITNESSES HERE.

THE COURT: HAVE THEM HERE. HAVE THEM HERE. WE ARE ABOUT FINISHED.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, AT THIS POINT WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OUR RECESS FOR THE AFTERNOON. PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITION NOT TO DISCUSSION THE CASE, FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE. DON'T ALLOW ANYBODY TO SPEAK TO YOU REGARDING THE CASE. ALSO, DO NOT CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU. DETECTIVE LANGE, TOMORROW MORNING, NINE O'CLOCK. ALL RIGHT. LET'S EXCUSE THE JURY AND THEN I WOULD LIKE TO SEE COUNSEL IN CHAMBERS ON THE REMAINING DISCOVERY MATTERS THAT WE HAVE. ALL RIGHT. WE WILL STAND IN RECESS. THANK YOU.

(AT 3:17 P.M. AN ADJOURNMENT WAS TAKEN UNTIL, THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 1993, 9:00 A.M.)

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

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

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, )
)
PLAINTIFF, )
)
) VS. ) NO. BA097211
)
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, )
)
)
DEFENDANT. )

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8, 1995
VOLUME 102

PAGES 17691 THROUGH 17938, INCLUSIVE
(PAGES 17730 THROUGH 17733, INCLUSIVE, SEALED)
(PAGES 17939 THROUGH 17951, INCLUSIVE, SEALED)

APPEARANCES: (SEE PAGE 2)

JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR #4588
CHRISTINE M. OLSON, CSR #2378 OFFICIAL REPORTERS

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE PEOPLE: GIL GARCETTI, DISTRICT ATTORNEY
BY: MARCIA R. CLARK, WILLIAM W.
HODGMAN, CHRISTOPHER A. DARDEN,
CHERI A. LEWIS, ROCKNE P. HARMON,
GEORGE W. CLARKE, SCOTT M. GORDON
LYDIA C. BODIN, HANK M. GOLDBERG,
ALAN YOCHELSON AND DARRELL S.
MAVIS, DEPUTIES
18-000 CRIMINAL COURTS BUILDING
210 WEST TEMPLE STREET
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012

FOR THE DEFENDANT: ROBERT L. SHAPIRO, ESQUIRE
SARA L. CAPLAN, ESQUIRE
2121 AVENUE OF THE STARS
19TH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067

JOHNNIE L. COCHRAN, JR., ESQUIRE
BY: CARL E. DOUGLAS, ESQUIRE
SHAWN SNIDER CHAPMAN, ESQUIRE
4929 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
SUITE 1010
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90010

GERALD F. UELMEN, ESQUIRE
ROBERT KARDASHIAN, ESQUIRE
ALAN DERSHOWITZ, ESQUIRE
F. LEE BAILEY, ESQUIRE
BARRY SCHECK, ESQUIRE
ROBERT D. BLASIER, ESQUIRE

ALSO PRESENT: STEPHEN WARREN SOLOMON, ESQUIRE
MELVYN DOUGLAS SACKS, ESQUIRE

I N D E X

INDEX FOR VOLUME 102 PAGES 17691 - 17938

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

DAY DATE SESSION PAGE VOL.

WEDNESDAY MARCH 8, 1995 A.M. 17691 102
P.M. 17838 102
-----------------------------------------------------

PROCEEDINGS

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS 17692 102
(CATHY RANDA AND MICHELLE ABOUDRAM)

PITCHESS MOTION (RESUMED) (SEALED) 17730 102

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.

LANGE, TOM 102
(RESUMED) 17734MC 17751C
(RESUMED) 17848C

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

ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

PEOPLE'S
WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS VOL.

LANGE, TOM 102
(RESUMED) 17734MC 17751C
(RESUMED) 17848C

EXHIBITS

PEOPLE'S FOR IN EXHIBIT IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE
PAGE VOL. PAGE VOL.

101 - (RE-MARKED) 17744 102

101-A - PHOTOGRAPH OF 17750 102
BUNDY CRIME SCENE DEPICTING AN LAPD
OFFICER (COMPUTER PRINTOUT)

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

DEFENSE FOR IN EXHIBIT IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE
PAGE VOL. PAGE VOL.

1049-A - PHOTOGRAPH OF 17770 102
TENNIS SHOES (COMPUTER PRINTOUT)

1043-A - PHOTOGRAPH OF 17904 102
CRIME SCENE, NO. 01:18:18:07
(COMPUTER PRINTOUT)

1043-B - PHOTOGRAPH OF 17909 102
CRIME SCENE DEPICTING TWO MEN, ONE
AT A MAILBOX (COMPUTER PRINTOUT)

1043-C - PHOTOGRAPH OF 17913 102
CRIME SCENE, NO. 01:18:34:29
(COMPUTER PRINTOUT)