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

APPEARANCES: (APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)

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

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

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, COUNSEL.

MS. LEWIS: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.

MR. SHAPIRO: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. MR. SIMPSON IS PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT WITH HIS COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. DOUGLAS, MR. BAILEY. THE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED BY MISS CLARK, MR. DARDEN AND MISS LEWIS. THE JURY IS NOT PRESENT. COUNSEL, IS THERE ANYTHING WE NEED TO TAKE UP BEFORE WE INVITE THE JURORS IN?

MR. BAILEY: THERE IS, YOUR HONOR. PARTLY BECAUSE I PERSONALLY REPRESENTED TO YOU YESTERDAY THAT I HAD SPOKEN TO MAX CORDOBA, AND YOU MAY HAVE HEARD REPORTS THAT HE GAVE CONFLICTING STATEMENTS, I WANT THE COURT TO BE ASSURED THAT I DID INDEED, ABOUT TWO WEEKS AGO ON A WEEKEND IN MR. COCHRAN'S OFFICE, TALK TO MR. CORDOBA. MR. MC KENNA WAS TALKING TO HIM AND INTERVIEWING HIM. HE CALLED US. MR. MC KENNA RECOGNIZED HIS VOICE AND HE HAD SPOKEN TO HIM BEFORE. HE HANDED ME THE PHONE JUST TO SAY HELLO AS ONE MARINE TO ANOTHER. I DID THAT AND HANDED THE PHONE BACK. HE REACHED MR. CORDOBA LAST NIGHT AND HE SAID, "YES, THAT'S CORRECT, I WAS CONFUSED WHEN THE FELLOW ASKED ME THE QUESTION," BUT THE DISTURBING THING IS THAT NBC WOULD AIR THAT STATEMENT NATIONWIDE WITHOUT PICKING UP THE PHONE TO EITHER MYSELF OR MR. MC KENNA. WELL, THEY ARE PERFECTLY ABLE TO HOUND US WHEN THEY WANT SOMETHING. THEY KNOW WHERE WE ARE ALL THE TIME. THEY COULD HAVE AVOIDED THIS WHOLE MISTAKE. AND THAT LEVEL OF JOURNALISM IS SINKING WAY BELOW WHAT ONE EXPECTS FROM NBC. AND I HAVE REPORTED TO IT DATELINE AND I AM EXPECTING A CORRECTION THIS EVENING WHEN THE MATTER IS PURSUED. MORE TO THE POINT OF THIS TRIAL, YOUR HONOR, YOU HAD RULED OUT THE TESTIMONY OF MR. COLEMAN WHO RUNS THE LADY'S WEAR SHOP NEXT DOOR.

I BELIEVE THAT IF ONE OF THE INFERENCES THAT COULD BE DRAWN FROM THE CONDUCT OF THE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WAS A DELIBERATE RACIAL SLUR, THAT THIS SHOULD BE A JURY QUESTION AND NOT FOR THE COURT TO RULE OUT, BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS.

MR. COCHRAN: MR. FUHRMAN IS IN THE COURTROOM, YOUR HONOR. I ASK HIM TO BE EXCUSED.

THE COURT: MR. FUHRMAN, WOULD YOU STEP OUT, PLEASE.

(DETECTIVE FUHRMAN EXITS THE COURTROOM.)

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, I'M GOING TO OBJECT. THE COURT HAS RULED. I THOUGHT THE COURT INDICATED ONCE IT HAS RULED --

THE COURT: LET ME HEAR FROM MR. BAILEY.

MR. BAILEY: I'M TAKING A LEGAL POSITION, YOUR HONOR, BECAUSE WE HAVE A LETTER FROM MR. COLEMAN, IN ORDER THAT THIS SUBJECT CAN BE PROPERLY SCRUTINIZED ON APPEAL, IN THE HORRENDOUS EVENT THAT SHOULD EVER BECOME NECESSARY. I'M ASKING THAT YOU GIVE ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO PUT MR. COLEMAN ON THE STAND OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY AND ASK HIM TO TELL US WHAT HAPPENED AND THE WAY IT HAPPENED SO A REVIEWING COURT CAN DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THE QUESTION AS TO WHAT THE CONDUCT MEANT IS A FACTUAL, AS OPPOSED TO A LEGAL QUESTION. SECOND, MR. COLEMAN CORROBORATES MAX CORDOBA, BECAUSE AFTER DETECTIVE FUHRMAN CALLED HIM A NIGGER INSIDE THE BUILDING AND FOLLOWED HIM OUT TO THE PARKING LOT AND DID IT AGAIN, CORDOBA CAME TO COLEMAN'S PLACE OF BUSINESS, COLEMAN REMEMBERS THE INCIDENT, AND SAID, "I HAD TO CALM HIM DOWN, HE WAS VERY UPSET" AND HE WAS VERY EXCITED BY THE WHOLE THING.

THE COURT: WELL, THAT IS A DIFFERENT OFFER OF PROOF.

MR. BAILEY: I UNDERSTAND THAT AND I'M BRINGING THAT TO YOUR ATTENTION BECAUSE I LEARNED IT A SHORT TIME AGO WHEN I CALLED TO SEE IF MR. COLEMAN WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO COME DOWN AND MAKE AN OFFER OF PROOF ON THE RECORD. THAT TO ME IS THE POSSIBLE FORM AND WE THINK IT WOULD BE WORTH THE COURT'S TIME TO PRESERVE IT.

THE COURT: HOW ABOUT A STATEMENT IN WRITING? I DON'T WANT TO TAKE UP THE COURT'S TIME DOING EXTRANEOUS HEARINGS ALL THE TIME, COUNSEL.

MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT. IF YOU CAN ENABLE ME TO UNDERSTAND, YOUR HONOR, YOU HAVE A RATHER ELABORATE STATEMENT ON THE FIRST PART. CORDOBA, IT SEEMS TO ME, IS A SEPARATE ISSUE ENTIRELY.

THE COURT: I AGREE.

MR. BAILEY: AND HIS TESTIMONY WOULD BE RELEVANT IF CORDOBA TESTIFIES, AS HE TOLD DATELINE HE WOULD LAST NIGHT, AND IS ATTACKED ON THE GROUND THAT HE MADE THE INCIDENT UP. OTHER THAN THAT, I'M NOT SURE THAT A PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE, BUT SHOULD IT BE TERMED A RECENT FABRICATION ON CORDOBA'S PART, AND THAT IS THE DRIFT I GET FROM THIS SIDE OF THE TABLE, THEN THE FACT THAT HE SAID THAT TO COLEMAN HARD ON THE HEELS, EVEN IF IT IS NOT PART OF THE RES GESTAE, WOULD BECOME ADMISSIBLE UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW. I DON'T THINK THAT QUESTION IS GOING TO BE PRESENTED TO YOU AS TO THE CORDOBA PART UNLESS AND UNTIL THAT ATTACK IS MADE. I DO THINK THAT I WOULD LIKE A BETTER FORM, AND IF YOU ARE SUGGESTING I REWRITE OR WE PUT TOGETHER A NEW MORE FORMAL STATEMENT, SINCE THOSE WERE ALL MR. COLEMAN'S WORDS, PINPOINTING THE ISSUE THAT WE WISH YOU TO TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT PERHAPS, I WILL BE HAPPY TO DO THAT RATHER THAN TAKE UP THE COURT'S TIME PUTTING HIM ON THE WITNESS STAND. I DON'T THINK IT WOULD TAKE LONG, BUT I WILL BE HAPPY TO PURSUE THAT.

THE COURT: I THINK YOU HAVE THE DIRECTION FROM THE COURT.

MR. BAILEY: OKAY. NOW, IN ADDITION TO THAT, YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE A CASE THAT WE WOULD LIKE THE COURT TO CONSIDER. IT IS A COURT CASE THAT WAS THROWN OUT BECAUSE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN LOST A DOOR IN WHICH A BULLET HOLE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE, CALLED THE GOULD CASE IN THE SUPERIOR COURT. WE BELIEVE THAT HIS CONDUCT IN THAT CASE IS RELEVANT TO THIS ONE. WE ARE GOING TO ASK YOU TO TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THE BRITTON CASE ON WHICH YOU PREVIOUSLY RULED, PERHAPS WITH SOME ADDITIONAL FACTS. BEYOND THAT, YOUR HONOR, THE PHONES ARE RINGING AND RINGING HARD, PEOPLE CALLING IN WHO WATCHED THE DETECTIVE AND NOW WISH TO OFFER EVIDENCE CONTRADICTING HIS CLAIMS, AND AS THESE PEOPLE COME UP, AS RAPIDLY AS I CAN, I WILL SUBMIT THEM TO THE COURT AS A PROFFER, THE WAY I DID ORIGINALLY, AND THEN AWAIT YOUR DIRECTION AS TO WHAT, IF ANYTHING, MUST BE TURNED OVER, BUT THIS IS AN ONGOING PROCESS AND I EXPECT IT WILL CONTINUE FOR SOME DAYS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO PLAY A TAPE FOR THE COURT, BECAUSE NOT ONLY DID MR. BAILEY MAKE A DIRECT MISREPRESENTATION TO THE COURT YESTERDAY, HE HAS DONE IT AGAIN THIS MORNING, AND I THINK THAT THE -- AS I SAID YESTERDAY, AS I PREDICTED, THE TAPE WOULD BE VERY ILLUMINATING AND PROVIDE THE COURT WITH SOME VERY GRAPHIC EVIDENCE OF THE WAY COUNSEL TAKES HIS ROLE AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT SO LIGHTLY. I WANT TO PLAY THIS TAPE NOW SO THAT THE COURT WILL BE REMINDED OF EXACTLY AND PRECISELY THE LANGUAGE MR. BAILEY USED YESTERDAY WHEN HE SOUGHT TO MISINFORM AND MISLEAD THIS COURT AS TO THE NATURE OF HIS CONTACT WITH MR. CORDOBA.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, WHAT IS THIS A TAPE-RECORDING OF?

MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY?

THE COURT: WHAT IS THIS A TAPE-RECORDING OF?

MS. CLARK: HIS APPEARANCE IN COURT YESTERDAY IN WHICH HE STATED TO THIS COURT -- EXCUSE ME -- IN WHICH HE STATED TO THIS COURT THAT HE HAD A CONVERSATION MARINE TO MARINE WITH MR. CORDOBA AND THAT MR. CORDOBA TOLD HIM, NOT MR. MC KENNA, HIM, THE STATEMENTS THAT HE LATER REPORTED TO THIS COURT.

THE COURT: YOU ARE REFERRING TO THE -- TO THE COMMENTS BY MR. BAILEY AT 18606 BEGINNING AT LINE 15?

MS. CLARK: WE DON'T HAVE A TRANSCRIPT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: YES, YOU DO.

MR. BAILEY: WE DON'T EITHER.

MS. LEWIS: WE JUST RECEIVED IT THIS MORNING.

MR. DARDEN: 606, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: 18606, STARTING AT LINE 15.

(A VIDEOTAPE WAS PLAYED.)

MR. BAILEY: YOUR HONOR, PLEASE, EXCUSE ME.

(THE VIDEOTAPE CONTINUES PLAYING.)

MR. BAILEY: THAT IS NOT WHAT MISS CLARK SAYS I SAID. I DID NOT CLAIM THAT HE RELATED THE INCIDENT TO ME. I SAID I SPOKE TO HIM AND I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT HE WILL APPEAR, AND I DON'T HAVE ANY DOUBT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MS. CLARK: THIS IS THE KIND OF NONSENSE THAT GIVES LAWYERS A BAD NAME, YOUR HONOR. YOU KNOW, IT IS VERY CLEAR WHAT HE SAID TO THE COURT AND WHAT HE WAS INTENDING TO CONVEY. HE WAS INTENDING TO CONVEY TO THE COURT THAT HE HAD PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT THIS MAN SAID BECAUSE THIS MAN SAID IT TO HIM PERSONALLY MARINE TO MARINE, AND NOW HE IS STANDING UP AND HAIR SPLITTING WITH US. I NEVER SAID HE SAID THIS TO ME, I JUST SAID HE SPOKE TO ME PERSONALLY. THAT IS NONSENSE. THAT SHOWS YOU WHAT KIND -- WHAT WE HAVE OVER HERE IN THE WAY OF ETHICS ON THIS SIDE OF THE TABLE. THEY GET UP AND THEY WILL MISREPRESENT TO THEIR HEART'S CONTENT, UNTIL THEY CAUGHT, AND THEN THEY HAVE EXCUSES.

AND THEN THEY START SPLITTING HAIRS AND THEN, WELL, THIS MEANS THIS, AND NO, THAT MEANS THAT, THAT I FELT LIKE ALICE IN WONDERLAND. WE HAVE GOT JABBERWOCKY HERE. NOTHING MEANS WHAT IT SAYS IT DOES. "NO" MEANS I DON'T REMEMBER. "I DON'T REMEMBER" MEANS NO. SAME THING. NOW IT IS COMING OUT OF MR. BAILEY AND -- BUT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE EXPECT TO HAPPEN WHEN THE WITNESS TAKES THE STAND, IF WE RELY ON HIS OFFERS. AND WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO REACH MR. CORDOBA AND WE NEED TO TALK TO THIS MAN PERSONALLY. I CAN ASSURE THE COURT ABSOLUTELY NO ONE CUT MR. CORDOBA OFF. NO ONE REFUSED TO LISTEN TO HIM. AS A MATTER OF FACT, MR. DARDEN KEPT SAYING TELL US MORE, TELL US MORE. PLEASE, IS THAT ALL? IS THERE THINKING ELSE YOU WANT TO TELL US? AND WITH RESPECT TO MR. CORDOBA'S PRIOR STATEMENTS, THEY HAVE BEEN AIRED ON NATIONAL TELEVISION. I MEAN, IF MR. BAILEY DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE HAS SAID BEFORE, I GUESS HE HAS NEVER TURNED ON HIS TELEVISION SET, BUT THEY ARE A MATTER OF RECORD THAT ALL THE WORLD HAS SEEN. SO IF HE IS NOW CLAIMING TO HAVE SAID -- TO HAVE HEARD SOMETHING AS VOLATILE AND INFLAMMATORY AS WHAT MR. BAILEY IS REPRESENTING, WE DO HAVE SOME SERIOUS IMPEACHMENT, BUT NO ONE CUT THAT MAN OFF.

WE HAVE NOT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO HIM SO WE DO NOT KNOW EXACTLY WHAT -- WE DO NOT KNOW EXACTLY WHAT HE HAS -- WHAT HE IS GOING TO SAY AT THIS POINT, AND I CERTAINLY DO NOT FEEL COMFORTABLE ACCEPTING ANYTHING THAT MR. BAILEY OFFERS TO THIS COURT, ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF WHAT WE HAVE HEARD. AND I WOULD LIKE TO PLAY THE CLIP FOR THE COURT FROM MR. CORDOBA BECAUSE MR. CORDOBA, WHEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY I SPOKE WITH A MEMBER OF THE DEFENSE TEAM, I SPOKE WITH AN INVESTIGATOR AND THEN SOMEONE ELSE CAME ON THE LINE, SAID NOTHING OF THE KIND, AND I THINK THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT -- THAT IS NOT A MATTER OF OUR RECORD. I THINK THE COURT NEEDS TO SEE THAT BECAUSE MR. BAILEY, YOU CAN SEE HOW AGITATED HE IS, HAS BEEN CAUGHT IN A LIE, AND YOU KNOW SOMETHING, NOT IN THIS CASE YOU DON'T GET AWAY WITH THAT. THERE IS JUST TOO MANY PEOPLE WATCHING.

MR. BAILEY: I OBJECT TO THE LACK OF FOUNDATION FOR THIS TAPE.

(THE VIDEOTAPE BEINGS PLAYING.)

MR. BAILEY: EXCUSE ME. DON'T PLAY THE TAPE WHILE THERE IS AN OBJECTION. IF MISS CLARK IS GOING TO TAKE THE STAND AND AUTHENTICATE THE TAPE, LET HER DO IT, BUT TAPES ARE NOT SELF-AUTHENTICATING. WE HAVE NO CHANCE HAD TO SEE IT, AS YOU ALWAYS REQUIRE BEFORE WE ARE ALLOWED TO SHOW ANYTHING TO YOU, AND I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHERE IT CAME FROM.

THE COURT: NOT BEFORE YOU CAN SHOW IT TO ME; BEFORE YOU CAN SHOW IT TO THE JURY.

MS. CLARK: I'M JUST SHOWING IT TO THE COURT, IF YOU PLEASE, YOUR HONOR. IT IS SELF-AUTHENTICATING. THE MAN ON IT SAYS HE IS MAX CORDOBA.

THE COURT: WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SELF-AUTHENTICATING ARGUMENT BEFORE, WHICH I DID NOT ACCEPT, IF YOU RECALL, BUT BE THAT AS IT MAY, WHAT IS THIS?

MS. CLARK: THIS IS THE TAPE OF AN INTERVIEW WITH DATELINE WHICH WAS CONDUCTED YESTERDAY AFTER MR. BAILEY MADE HIS REPRESENTATIONS THAT HE HAD SPOKEN TO MAX CORDOBA. AFTER HE MADE THOSE REPRESENTATIONS COURT, DATELINE WENT AND INTERVIEWED MAX CORDOBA AND ASKED IF HE HAD HAD AN INTERVIEW WITH MR. BAILEY, MARINE TO MARINE AND MR. CORDOBA SAID, "NO, I DID NOT."

MR. BAILEY: WHICH ANSWER IS CORRECT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE AN EXTRA COPY, BY THE WAY? THAT IS BILL COSBY, MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: I AM AWARE OF THAT, YOUR HONOR. WE ARE NOT OFFERING BILL COSBY AT THIS TIME. AND WHILE HE IS CUEING IT, YOUR HONOR, IF I MAY REQUEST THE NOTES MR. MC KENNA SURELY MUST HAVE TAKEN AS A RESPONSIBLE INVESTIGATOR OF THAT INTERVIEW THAT WE NOW LEARN OCCURRED, WHICH OBVIOUSLY MR. BAILEY DID NOT WANT US TO KNOW YESTERDAY, WE WANT THE NOTES OF MR. MC KENNA'S INTERVIEW WITH MR. CORDOBA YESTERDAY.

MR. BAILEY: THERE ARE NO NOTES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: YOU KNOW, IT IS INTERESTING THAT OTHER STATES HAVE RULES OF RECIPROCAL DISCOVERY THAT REQUIRE THE -- AT LEAST SOME OFFER OR INDICATION OF ANTICIPATED TESTIMONY IN THEIR RECIPROCAL DISCOVERY STATUTES, WHICH IS SOMETHING CALIFORNIA DOES NOT HAVE.

MS. CLARK: RIGHT. I FIND IT INTERESTING, THOUGH, THAT IT WOULD APPEAR THE INVESTIGATORS FOR THE DEFENSE IN THIS CASE HAVE PREPARED REPORTS AND TAKEN NOTES ON ALL OTHER WITNESSES, BUT SURPRISINGLY, NOTHING ON THIS ONE.

THE COURT: WELL, I ASSUME THAT IS SOMETHING YOU WILL CROSS-EXAMINE ON.

MS. CLARK: PROBABLY FAIR TO ASSUME. WELL, IT MAKES MR. MC KENNA A WITNESS AT THE VERY LEAST.

MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE --

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, WHO TAPE-RECORDED THIS FOR YOU?

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

MS. CLARK: OUR MEDIA RELATIONS DEPARTMENT DID, YOUR HONOR, AFTER CONTACTING DATELINE TO FIND OUT WHEN THE INTERVIEW WAS CONDUCTED.

THE COURT: AND ARE YOU REPRESENTING TO THE COURT THAT THIS IS A VIDEOTAPE OF THE DATELINE BROADCAST WHEN?

MS. CLARK: LAST NIGHT, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS A VIDEOTAPE OF THE DATELINE BROADCAST LAST NIGHT, AN INTERVIEW THAT WAS CONDUCTED WITH MAX CORDOBA AFTER MR. BAILEY'S REPRESENTATIONS TO THIS COURT YESTERDAY CONCERNING HIS CONTACT WITH MR. CORDOBA.

MR. BAILEY: IS THAT MAX CORDOBA?

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: 5, PLEASE. 3, PLEASE.

(AT 10:01 A.M. VIDEOTAPE WAS PLAYED.)

MS. CLARK: BY THE WAY, THAT REPRESENTATION WILL BE DISPROVEN AS WELL. NOW, MR. CORDOBA HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY, WELL, YES, I HAD SOME BRIEF CONVERSATION WITH MR. BAILEY, BUT WE DIDN'T DISCUSS THE CONTENTS OF MY TESTIMONY, OR YES, WE HAD A BRIEF CONTACT, HE SAID HELLO TO ME. MR. CORDOBA SAID NONE OF THE ABOVE. HE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY AS WELL TO SAY, "MR. MC KENNA SPOKE WITH ME. I KNOW HE IS A DEFENSE INVESTIGATOR." HE DID NOT SAY THAT EITHER.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, LET'S ASSUME, FOR THE SAKE OF THE ARGUMENT, THAT WHAT YOU SAY IS CORRECT, THAT THIS MISREPRESENTATION HAS BEEN MADE TO THE COURT. WHAT ACTION OR SANCTION DO YOU SEEK AS A RESULT?

MS. CLARK: I THINK THAT THE WITNESS SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM TESTIFYING. I THINK THAT MR. BAILEY SHOULD BE CITED FOR CONTEMPT AND FINED SUBSTANTIALLY. AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT HE HAS LIED TO THIS COURT.

MR. BAILEY: I OBJECT TO THAT, YOUR HONOR, AND I ASK THAT YOU PUT A STOP TO IT. EITHER PUT CORDOBA ON THE STAND OR STOP HER FROM TESTIFYING.

MS. CLARK: EXCUSE ME, MR. BAILEY. STAND UP AND SPEAK WHEN IT IS YOUR TURN.

THE COURT: MR. BAILEY, DO NOT INTERRUPT COUNSEL. I UNDERSTAND THIS IS A VOLATILE ISSUE, BUT IT IS A BIG PROBLEM FOR THE COURT. I WOULD ASK YOU TO CONTROL YOURSELF, SIR. MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: I THINK THAT WHAT HAS OCCURRED IS VERY SERIOUS AND I THINK THAT THE INTERVIEW WITH MR. CORDOBA MAKES IT -- IT IS VERY STARK. THERE ARE NO GRAY AREAS HERE. THIS IS NOT A MATTER OF HAIR SPLITTING ANY MORE. AS MR. BAILEY GOT UP TO REPRESENT TO THE COURT THIS MORNING, MR. CORDOBA WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE STATEMENT THAT HE -- THAT MR. BAILEY MADE THAT THEY SPOKE. HE SAID NO, WE DID NOT, AND I WOULD REMEMBER, AND THERE WAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY WE HAD SOME CONVERSATION AND HE DID NOT DO SO.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MISS CLARK. MR. BAILEY, DO YOU WISH TO RESPOND?

MR. BAILEY: I DO, YOUR HONOR. AND I DO NOT APPRECIATE BEING CALLED A LIAR IN ANY COURT AND I WILL ASK AT THE PROPER TIME FOR CORRECT ACTION TO BE TAKEN AGAINST THE OFFENDER. THE PROPER WAY TO PROCEED, IF THERE WAS ANY CLAIM OF MISLEADING THE COURT, WOULD BE TO PUT THE WITNESS ON THE WITNESS STAND UNDER OATH AND LET HIM BE QUESTIONED IN THE COURT'S PRESENCE. WHAT THEY ELIMINATED FROM THE TAPE THAT I SAW ON NBC NEWS THIS MORNING WAS THAT STONE PHILLIPS SAID WHY DIDN'T YOU MENTION THESE THINGS BEFORE? HE SAID I ONLY GIVE VERY NARROW ANSWERS TO EVERY QUESTION. AS HE EXPLAINED TO MR. MC KENNA LAST NIGHT, HE DID NOT HAVE AN INTERVIEW WITH ME, NOR DID HE TELL ME HIS STORY. WHEN HE WAS TALKING WITH MR. MC KENNA IN THE OFFICE, MR. MC KENNA HANDED ME THE PHONE TO INTRODUCE ME, AND I SAID, "MAX, AS A MARINE I'M PROUD THAT YOU HAVE THE COURAGE TO COME FORWARD AND SAY THIS. I KNOW THAT IT IS PAINFUL." AND HE SAID, "I AM WILLING TO DO IT." AND MY COMMENT TO THE COURT WAS IN RESPONSE ONLY TO THE UNFOUNDED IRRESPONSIBLE AND FALSE ASSERTION BY MISS CLARK THAT CORDOBA WOULD NEVER APPEAR. SHE HAD NO BASIS TO SAY THAT WHATSOEVER, AS SHE HAS JUST SHOWN WITH HER OWN VIDEOTAPE. NOW, I EXPECT NBC TO CORRECT IT AND SOMEWHERE DOWN THE LINE I HOPE THAT THIS COURT RECORD IS MADE PLAIN. MR. MC KENNA IS SITTING RIGHT HERE AND HE IS AVAILABLE TO GET ON THE WITNESS STAND AND ASSURE THE COURT THAT MAXIMUM CORDOBA SAID LAST NIGHT, OKAY, I NOW REMEMBER I SPOKE BRIEFLY ON THE PHONE. THAT IS NOT AN INTERVIEW. PHILLIPS COULD HAVE SAVED HIMSELF SOME EMBARRASSMENT IF HE BOTHERED TO PICK UP THE PHONE AND CALL ME. NBC ALWAYS FINDS ME WHEN THEY WANT TO.

THE COURT: I AM CONCERNED, THOUGH, MR. BAILEY, THAT THE -- THE STATEMENT "I HAVE SPOKEN WITH HIM ON THE PHONE PERSONALLY MARINE TO MARINE," THAT SORT OF CONNOTATES SOMETHING MORE THAN JUST HI, HOW ARE YOU, I'M GLAD TO TALK TO YOU.

MR. BAILEY: I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU ARE CONCERNED. YOU RAISED NO QUESTION ABOUT WHAT WAS SAID. I WAS SIMPLY, IF YOU ARE READING THE TRANSCRIPT CORRECTLY, GIVING YOU MY ASSURANCE THAT I EXPECTED HIM TO APPEAR WHEN CALLED, THAT HE WAS UNDER SUBPOENA AND THAT I DID NOT THINK HE WOULD VANISH AND THAT I HAD SPOKEN TO HIM AND RECEIVED AN ASSURANCE ON THAT ALONE. I DO NOT INTERVIEW WITNESSES. GOOD LAWYERS GENERALLY DON'T. THEY MIGHT BE IN A POSITION OF HAVING TO TESTIFY IF THE WITNESS WERE TO ACCUSE THEM OF SOMETHING OR TELL A DIFFERENT STORY. MR. MC KENNA IS EMPLOYED FOR THAT PURPOSE. WE HAPPENED TO BE IN THE SAME ROOM WHEN CORDOBA CALLED US, AS HIS PHONE RECORD WILL SHOW, IF HE HAS MADE THE CALL FROM A PRIVATE PHONE AND WAS BILLED FOR IT. NOW, YOU ARE PERFECTLY ABLE TO EXPLORE THIS RIGHT NOW WITH MR. MC KENNA, AND I WISH YOU WOULD, AND IF YOU READ THE TRANSCRIPT CAREFULLY, I WAS REACTING TO THE ONLY THING THAT CONCERNED ME, BECAUSE AN OFFER OF PROOF IS AN OFFER OF PROOF AND THE COURT HAS TO ACCEPT IT AS THAT, BUT THE COURT MIGHT BE CONCERNED THAT IF CROSS-EXAMINATION WERE PUT FORTH AND THE WITNESS NEVER APPEARED, THAT THE DAMAGE WOULD BE DONE AND YOU COULDN'T UNRING THE BELL. AND IT WAS MY PURPOSE TO ASSURE THE COURT THAT I FELT THIS FELLOW WOULD APPEAR BASED ON HIS STATEMENT TO ME THAT HE WOULD, AND THAT IS ALL THAT TRANSCRIPT SAYS, AND YOU CAN'T READ IT ANY OTHER WAY. IF YOU'VE GOT A CONTRARY IMPRESSION, I'M SORRY, THAT WAS NOT MY PURPOSE. I WANTED YOU TO KNOW THAT I BELIEVED HE WOULD APPEAR OR I WOULDN'T PUT THE QUESTIONS, AND THAT IS THE SUM TOTAL ON THE SUBJECT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. BAILEY. ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, WE HAVE AN INTERESTING SITUATION HERE, NOT UNEXPECTEDLY. COUNSEL, WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO WITH REGARDS TO MR. CORDOBA -- MISS CLARK, WHERE DOES MR. CORDOBA RESIDE?

MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY?

THE COURT: WHERE DOES MR. CORDOBA RESIDE?

MS. CLARK: HE IS NOT IN THE STATE OR HE WASN'T LAST NIGHT. WE WERE UNABLE TO CONTACT HIM.

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

THE COURT: WHAT STATE DOES HE RESIDE IN, MR. MC KENNA?

INVESTIGATOR MC KENNA: HE RESIDES IN CALIFORNIA. HE IS NOT IN CALIFORNIA, I DON'T BELIEVE, TODAY. HE RESIDES IN BELLFLOWER, IF THAT IS A TOWN. HE HAS A SUBPOENA.

MR. BAILEY: WHEN DID HE LEAVE?

INVESTIGATOR MC KENNA: I BELIEVE HE LEFT EITHER THIS MORNING OR LAST NIGHT.

MR. BAILEY: WHEN DID YOU SPEAK WITH HIM?

INVESTIGATOR MC KENNA: I SPOKE WITH HIM --

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, I AGREE WITH MR. BAILEY'S COMMENT THAT TELEVISION NEWS BROADCASTS ARE NOT BASES FOR THE COURT TO PRECLUDE AT THIS TIME THE OFFER OF MAX CORDOBA AS A DEFENSE WITNESS, UNLESS AND UNTIL I HEAR TESTIMONY FROM MR. MC KENNA AND MR. CORDOBA HIMSELF REGARDING THESE ISSUES. I THINK YOU AGREE WITH THAT.

MS. CLARK: I DO.

THE COURT: SO AT THIS POINT I'M GOING TO PRECLUDE ANY CROSS-EXAMINATION REGARDING ANYTHING WITH REGARDS TO MAX CORDOBA, WHICH I HAD PREVIOUSLY DONE, BUT I'M GOING TO EXTEND THAT PROHIBITION THROUGH THE REMAINDER OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S TESTIMONY. UNDER THE CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE CODE A PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT MAY BE OFFERED AS LONG AS A WITNESS HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FROM THE REQUIREMENT OF PROVIDING FURTHER TESTIMONY UNDER 770 OF THE EVIDENCE CODE. SO IF IT SHOULD TRANSPIRE THAT MR. BAILEY IS CORRECT IN HIS ASSERTIONS, THEN PERHAPS WE WILL HEAR FROM MAX CORDOBA, BUT UNLESS AND UNTIL I'M SATISFIED THAT THE OFFER OF PROOF IS -- THERE IS A SOUND BASIS FOR IT, I DON'T BELIEVE MAX CORDOBA WILL SURFACE.

MS. CLARK: OKAY.

THE COURT: BUT I WILL DETERMINE THAT AT A LATER TIME.

MS. CLARK: OKAY. MR. DARDEN NEEDS TO ADDRESS THE COURT ON THE MATTER OF ALWYN MARTIN.

MR. BAILEY: WELL, I WAS GOING TO ASK WHETHER I COULD ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT ALWYN MARTIN BECAUSE THEY HAD A TAPE-RECORDED INTERVIEW WITH HER LAST NIGHT, WE ARE GIVEN TO UNDERSTAND, BUT I WOULD LIKE A CLARIFICATION OF WHAT THE COURT IS SAYING YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER MAX CORDOBA IS GOING TO SURFACE BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW IF HE WILL REPEAT WHAT HE SAID ON TELEVISION?

THE COURT: NO. WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT AS FAR AS THIS CONTROVERSY --

MR. BAILEY: YES.

THE COURT: -- THAT HAS SINCE ARISEN, I'M NOT GOING TO ALLOW ANY CROSS-EXAMINATION WITH REGARDS TO ANYTHING MAX CORDOBA MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT SAY, UNLESS AND UNTIL WE HEAR FROM HIM FIRST, BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME ISSUES WE NEED TO RESOLVE BEFORE HE HIT THE WITNESS STAND IN FRONT OF THE JURY IS WHAT I'M SAYING.

MR. BAILEY: HE IS IN NEW YORK FOR FOUR DAYS I'M TOLD.

THE COURT: WELL, I SUSPECT THE DEFENSE CASE WON'T START ANYTIME BETWEEN NOW AND NEXT WEEK.

MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT. ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU WILL POSTPONE EXAMINATION OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN ON THE CORDOBA ISSUE UNTIL THE DEFENSE CASE HAS BEGUN?

THE COURT: THAT'S CORRECT.

MR. BAILEY: WELL, I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THAT, YOUR HONOR. YOU HAVE THE POWER TO GET CORDOBA IN HERE WHILE THE PROSECUTION'S CASE IS GOING ON AND HEAR FROM HIM AND MAKE YOUR PRELIMINARY FINDINGS, BUT TO PUT IT THAT FAR DOWN THE ROAD IS COMPLETELY UNFAIR IN THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THIS CRITICAL WITNESS.

THE COURT: WELL, COUNSEL I DIDN'T CREATE THIS PROBLEM.

MR. BAILEY: I DIDN'T CREATE IT EITHER, YOUR HONOR. WE INTERVIEW WITNESSES AND WE MAKE PROFFERS TO THE COURT AND THAT IS ALL WE HAVE DONE. WE SUBPOENA WITNESSES. THAT, TOO. I DIDN'T INTERVIEW HIM FOR DATELINE OR ASK HIM TO TALK TO DATELINE, NOR DID I CONFUSE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT HE HAD EVER TALKED TO ME.

WHAT ARE WE BEING PENALIZED FOR? I DON'T UNDERSTAND.

THE COURT: YOU ARE BEING PENALIZED AT THIS POINT MERELY UNDER THE PROCEDURE OF THE CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE CODE, WHICH SAYS PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS CAN BE OFFERED IN ONE OF TWO WAYS: EITHER THE WITNESS IS CONFRONTED OR THE WITNESS IS STILL AVAILABLE TO BE CROSS-EXAMINED, AND THAT IS HOW WE ARE GOING TO DO IT. THANK YOU, SIR.

MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT. NOTE OUR OBJECTION, PLEASE.

THE COURT: NOTED. MR. DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. YOUR HONOR, THE PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO LODGE A 352 OBJECTION TO THE ADMISSION OF ANY INFORMATION RELATIVE TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S CONTACT WITH ALWYN, A-L-W-Y-N, DARLA MARTIN. MISS MARTIN WAS THE VICTIM OF A CARJACKING ON MAY 20, 1993, AND DURING THE COMMISSION OF THAT ASSAULT AND ROBBERY SHE APPARENTLY WAS STABBED. SHE WAS TAKEN TO THE HOSPITAL WHERE SHE WAS TREATED. SHE WAS TAKEN TO SURGERY. TWO DAYS LATER DETECTIVE FUHRMAN VISITED HER AT THE -- AT THE HOSPITAL, AS I UNDERSTAND IT.

WHEN HE WALKED INTO THE ROOM MISS MARTIN'S BOYFRIEND WAS THERE AND MISS MARTIN IS CAUCASIAN, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, AND HER BOYFRIEND AT THE TIME WAS AFRICAN -- I THINK HE WAS BRITISH, ACTUALLY, SO NOT NECESSARILY AFRICAN AMERICAN, BUT OF AFRICAN DECENT. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN MET HIM, THEY SHOOK HANDS, INTRODUCED THEMSELVES, AND DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAD A CONVERSATION WITH MISS MARTIN RELATIVE TO THE DESCRIPTION OF THE CARJACKING SUSPECT. LAST NIGHT ONE OF OUR D.A. INVESTIGATORS, BRIAN HALE, INTERVIEWED MISS MARTIN. MISS MARTIN COULD POINT TO KNOW RACIAL EPITHET UTTERED BY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. SHE COULD POINT TO NO RACIAL SLUR. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN DID NOT TELL HER THAT ONLY BLACKS OR AFRICAN AMERICANS COMMIT CARJACKINGS. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN DID NOT TELL HER THAT HE DISLIKED INTERRACIAL COUPLES OR THAT -- OR THAT RACE MIXING WAS A CRIME AGAINST NATURE OR ANYTHING OF THAT SORT. WE HAVE REVIEWED THE FILE AND THE INVESTIGATIVE FILE IN THIS CASE. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE FILE TO INDICATE THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HARBORED ANY TYPE OF HOSTILITY OR ANIMOSITY TOWARD MISS WILLIAMS OR HER BOYFRIEND BECAUSE OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE -- I'M SORRY, MARTIN -- THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, NO INDICATION, NO FIRM EVIDENCE, NO FIRM ALLEGATION BY THE WITNESS, MISS MARTIN, THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAS DONE ANYTHING BUT ACT PROFESSIONALLY. I DON'T KNOW WHY THE DEFENSE WANTS TO INTRODUCE THIS INCIDENT OR THIS CONTACT, BUT I CAN ASSURE THE COURT THAT THERE IS NOTHING HERE WHICH SUGGESTS THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HARBORED ANY RACIAL ANIMUS OR BIAS AGAINST MISS MARTIN OR HER BOYFRIEND BECAUSE OF THEIR INTERRACIAL RELATIONSHIP. I'M AT A LOSS TO EXPLAIN OR UNDERSTAND WHY THEY WANT TO INTRODUCE THIS. IT SHOULDN'T COME IN. IT JUST SHOULDN'T COME IN. I'M SURE THAT ONCE COUNSEL BEGINS ASKING HIS QUESTIONS RELATIVE TO THIS ISSUE AND ONCE HE PUTS HIS OWN SPIN ON IT THAT PERHAPS HE CAN SOMEHOW TRANSFORM IT INTO A RACIAL ISSUE, BUT BASED ON OUR CONVERSATION LAST NIGHT WITH MISS MARTIN, THERE IS NO RACIAL ISSUE HERE. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE AT ALL THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN ACTED IN ANY WAY OTHER THAN AS A PROFESSIONAL POLICE OFFICER.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. BAILEY.

MR. BAILEY: FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THE TAPE. MR. DARDEN HAS CHOSEN NOT TO CONFRONT THE OFFER OF PROOF IN ANY WAY. YOU WERE NEVER TOLD IN WRITING OR IN ANY ORAL DESCRIPTION BY ME FROM THIS PODIUM THAT RACIAL EPITHETS WERE USED OR ANY OF THE OTHER THINGS HE HAS ATTEMPTED TO NEGATE TOOK PLACE. WHAT YOU WERE TOLD WAS THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WAS ASSIGNED TO INVESTIGATE A STABBING AND A ROBBERY OF AN AUTOMOBILE, THAT PURSUANT TO THAT ASSIGNMENT HE CAME TO THE HOSPITAL TO INTERVIEW THE VICTIM WHO HAD BEEN INJURED IN THE STOMACH WITH A SHARP INSTRUMENT. THAT SHE TOLD HIM THE ASSAILANTS WERE WHITE. THAT HE SUGGESTED THAT THEY MAY HAVE BEEN LIGHT-SKINNED BLACKS, AND WHEN SHE REFUSED TO BUDGE ON THAT ISSUE, HE LEFT THE ROOM, FILED NO REPORT AND NEVER RETURNED. THAT WAS THE OFFER OF PROOF. I HAVE NOT HEARD THAT CONTRADICTED, BUT BECAUSE WE ARE HAVING THESE PROBLEMS, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE COURT LISTEN TO THE TAPE THAT WAS MADE LAST NIGHT AND THAT WE MAKE IT PART OF THE RECORD. IF YOU ARE RELYING TO ANY EXTENT ON HIS INTERPRETATION OF WHAT HE THINKS SOMEONE ELSE HEARD FROM MISS MARTIN, THE COURT NEEDS TO HEAR IT DIRECTLY, AND THEN IF THE OFFER OF PROOF IS SOMEHOW IMPROPER, YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO CATCH IT RIGHT NOW, BUT THE TAPE IS THE BEST EVIDENCE, NOT MR. DARDEN'S SPIN ON THAT TAPE, AND I THINK WE SHOULD HEAR IT.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN: I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THEIR TAPES, YOUR HONOR. OUR TAPES ARE IMPEACHMENT, IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT MR. -- MR. BAILEY HAS BEEN READING, BUT APPARENTLY HE HASN'T READ THE COMPLETE FILE IN THIS CASE. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN DID FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT, AND NOT ONLY DID HE FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT, HE ALSO TOOK TO MISS MARTIN A MUG BOOK CONTAINING MANY, MANY WHITE ARRESTEES AND POTENTIAL SUSPECTS, ALL CAUCASIAN. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN DID HIS JOB, YOUR HONOR. NOW, HE QUESTIONED MISS MARTIN APPARENTLY ABOUT HER DESCRIPTION OF THE SUSPECT, AS ANY DETECTIVE WOULD DO. WHERE IS THE RACIAL ISSUE? YOU KNOW THERE IS NONE. MR. BAILEY PERHAPS SHOULD GET THE REST OF THE POLICE FILE IN THIS CASE, AND ONCE HE DOES HE WILL SEE THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN ATTEMPTED TO RUN DOWN PARTIAL FINGERPRINTS RECOVERED FROM HER VEHICLE, HE TOOK HER MUG BOOKS, HE LOOKED AT OTHER REPORTS, OKAY, TO SEE IF THERE WAS SOME TYPE OF M.O. BETWEEN THIS CARJACKING AND OTHERS. HE DID EVERYTHING A POLICE OFFICER IS SUPPOSED TO DO IN A CASE LIKE THIS.

THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE THAT FILE HERE OR A COPY OF IT?

MR. DARDEN: I HAVE A COPY OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT.

MR. BAILEY: WHILE THAT IS BEING DONE, YOUR HONOR, MIGHT I POINT OUT THAT MISS MARTIN CALLED DETECTIVE TAPIA AT THE WEST LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT TO ASK FOR THE REPORT AND HE SENT HER TWO PAGES AND SAID THAT IS ALL THERE WAS. FURTHERMORE, I AM STARTLED TO LEARN TODAY THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS SO MANY FACTS ON THE MARTIN CASE. THEY WERE VERY SILENT ABOUT THEM YESTERDAY WHEN WE FIRST DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE. PERHAPS THIS IS SOMETHING THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN NEVER MENTIONED UNTIL AFTER WE TALKED ABOUT IT.

MR. DARDEN: YOU KNOW, WE WEREN'T PARTICULARLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE ALWYN MARTIN CASE, YOUR HONOR. WHY SHOULD WE BE? THERE IS NO ISSUE OF RACIAL ANIMUS CONTAINED IN THIS CASE. IN ANY EVENT, BEFORE COUNSEL STANDS BEFORE THE COURT AND MAKES THESE ALLEGATIONS, ALLEGATIONS OF THIS NATURE, HE OUGHT TO CHECK OUT THE FACTS. HE OUGHT TO KNOW WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT.

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

MR. DARDEN: ANOTHER -- IN ADDITION, YOUR HONOR, LAPD DOES NOT TURN OVER UNSOLVED SUPPLEMENTAL INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS TO VICTIMS OR TO ANYONE. THIS CASE IS NOT CLOSED. THIS CASE IS STILL AN OPEN CASE.

AND I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO DIRECT COUNSEL NOT TO DISTRIBUTE THE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT TO ANYONE AND THAT NO COPIES BE MADE AS WELL. THERE WAS A PARTIAL FINGERPRINT RECOVERED FROM THE -- FROM THE VICTIM'S VEHICLE WHICH AT SOME POINT MAY BE MATCHED TO A PARTICULAR SUSPECT OR DEFENDANT.

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

MR. DARDEN: IN ADDITION, YOUR HONOR, WHEN -- AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WHEN MISS MARTIN CONTACTED DETECTIVE TAPIA AT WEST L.A. DETECTIVES RELATIVE TO THIS REPORT, SHE MENTIONED TO DETECTIVE TAPIA THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAD DONE A GOOD JOB AND THAT HE ACTED AS A TRUE PROFESSIONAL DURING THE CONTACT THAT SHE HAD WITH HIM.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. DARDEN: IF I CAN STATE FURTHER, YOUR HONOR, I DON'T WANT TO HAVE A MINI TRIAL ON RACIAL ISSUES, COLEMAN AND MARTIN AND CORDOBA AND ALL OF THESE OTHER PEOPLE. I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO CALL 25 WITNESSES IN THIS CASE JUST TO REBUT THESE MALICIOUS ALLEGATIONS THE DEFENSE HAS LODGED AGAINST DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, AND WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO. AT SOME POINT THIS BECOMES CUMULATIVE. AT SOME POINT 352 HAS TO COME INTO OPERATION AND CUT THE DEFENSE OFF, OKAY? I MEAN, THIS IS RIDICULOUS AND IT IS GOING TO RESULT IN A MINI TRIAL AND THE JURY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO SIT HERE AN EXTRA TWO WEEKS AND I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO SIT HERE AN EXTRA COUPLE OF WEEKS TO LITIGATE THESE COLLATERAL ISSUES. NOT EVERY CONTACT EVERYONE HAD WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, YOU KNOW, IS A CASE OF RACIAL ANIMUS OR REFLECTS SOME RACIAL BIAS ON DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S PART, YOUR HONOR, ESPECIALLY THIS ONE. IT LOOKS LIKE GOOD POLICE WORK HERE AND NOTHING MORE; NOTHING LESS.

MR. BAILEY: IF IT PLEASE THE COURT, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH NICER IF DETECTIVE TAPIA WOULD HAVE BEEN TRUTHFUL TO MISS MARTIN AND SAID THERE IS MORE OF A REPORT I CAN'T GIVE YOU. SHE WAS GIVEN TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE TWO PAGES WERE ALL THAT EVER HAPPENED, AND UNDER THAT WE QUITE PROPERLY DREW AN INFERENCE THAT THERE WAS NO FOLLOW-UP. ALL THAT ASIDE, MISS MARTIN CAME TO US BECAUSE OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S CONDUCT. SHE DESCRIBED IT AS WE HAVE DESCRIBED IT TO YOU. THAT WAS THE OFFER OF PROOF IN CAMERA AND THAT IS THE OFFER OF PROOF AS IT EXISTS. IF SHE MADE STATEMENTS ABOUT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN BEING A NICE FELLOW, DOING A GOOD JOB, THAT IS PERFECTLY AVAILABLE FOR IMPEACHMENT, BUT THE EVIDENCE ABOUT TRYING TO SUGGEST THAT A WHITE SUSPECT, VERY CLEARLY WHITE IN THIS REPORT, MIGHT HAVE BEEN A LIGHT-SKINNED BLACK, WAS WHAT BROUGHT THE WHOLE MATTER TO OUR ATTENTION TO BEGIN WITH AND I HAVE NOT HEARD THAT CONTROVERTED YET. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE MARKED, HOWEVER, YOUR HONOR, BECAUSE THE SUBJECT IS STILL VERY MUCH ALIVE, A DOCUMENT THAT JUST CAME OVER THE FAX FROM PHIL COLEMAN, AND I WOULD LIKE YOUR HONOR TO READ IT.

THE COURT: I AM NOT GOING TO DEAL WITH MR. COLEMAN AT THIS TIME, MR. BAILEY.

MR. BAILEY: IT DEALS WITH MR. CORDOBA.

THE COURT: THAT IS A CLOSED ISSUE AT THIS POINT.

MR. BAILEY: CORDOBA IS A CLOSED ISSUE UNTIL THE DEFENSE BEGINS?

THE COURT: CORRECT.

MR. BAILEY: AND WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ADDRESS YOUR HONOR ON IT AGAIN?

THE COURT: I ALLOW YOU TO, BUT NOT TODAY. DON'T PRESS IT. MY CONCERN, COUNSEL, IS NOW I HAVE A REPORT THAT IS DATED JUNE OF 1993 WHICH CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE SUSPECT WAS WHITE, CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE VICTIM STATED THE MALE WHITE SUSPECT. IT CLEARLY INDICATES A SUSPECT DESCRIPTION. IT IS SIGNED BY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. IT INDICATES AN INQUIRY INTO OTHER POSSIBLE CONNECTIONS THAT MIGHT BE A FACTOR IN THE ROBBERY, INDICATES THE RECOVERY OF THE VEHICLE, THE GARNERING OF FINGERPRINT EVIDENCE, AND THE DETECTIVE TAKING MUG BOOKS TO THE VICTIM FOR POSSIBLE SUSPECT IDENTIFICATION. THIS IS CONTRARY TO THE OFFER OF PROOF.

MR. BAILEY: AND WITHHELD FROM THE DEFENSE.

THE COURT: WELL, THIS IS A DEFENSE WITNESS THAT WAS BROUGHT --

MR. BAILEY: THAT WITNESS HAS NO ACCESS TO POLICE REPORTS, PARTICULARLY WHEN SHE IS TOLD THEY DON'T EXIST.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I FIND THE OFFER OF PROOF TO BE CLEARLY CONTRADICTED. THE PROSECUTION OBJECTION WILL BE SUSTAINED.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, IF I CAN BE HEARD. RELATIVE TO THE ISSUE OF THE FOLLOW-UP INVESTIGATION --

THE COURT: I WILL MARK THIS AS COURT'S EXHIBIT 7.

(COURT'S 7 FOR ID = 2-PAGE DOCUMENT)

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, WOULD THE COURT KINDLY ORDER DEFENSE COUNSEL TO RETURN THE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS TO THE COURT AND WILL THE COURT SEAL THE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS?

THE COURT: YES.

MR. BAILEY: MAY I HAVE THIS DOCUMENT MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION?

THE COURT: YOU MAY. I WILL READ IT.

MR. BAILEY: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: HAND IT TO THE CLERK. LET'S HAVE THE CLERK MAKE PHOTOCOPIES FOR COUNSEL.

(DEFT'S 1056 FOR ID = 1-PAGE DOCUMENT)

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE WE INVITE THE JURY TO JOIN US?

MR. BAILEY: YES, YOUR HONOR. A COUPLE OF MATTERS THAT MAY ARISE, AND I THOUGHT I WOULD PREVIEW THEM FOR YOUR HONOR, RATHER THAN HAVE TO GO TO THE BENCH IN THE MIDDLE OF CROSS-EXAMINATION. I HAVE PURCHASED A LIGHT WHICH I BELIEVE IS IDENTICAL, OR AT LEAST VERY SIMILAR, TO THE ONE THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAS DESCRIBED REPEATEDLY IN HIS TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: DESCRIBE IT AS A DOUBLE A -- TWO DOUBLE A MAG LIGHT WHICH THAT APPEARS TO BE --

MR. BAILEY: YEAH, AND I WOULD SIMPLY LIKE TO KNOW FROM HIM BEFORE THE JURY COMES IN WHETHER IT IS A REPLICATION SO THAT IT WOULD BE FAIR TO USE IT IN CROSS AND ASK HIM WHERE HE WAS HOLDING IT, WHERE IT WAS KEPT. I ALSO HAVE, WHICH DOES NOT PURPORT TO BE THE SAME SIZE OF MANUFACTURE, A BROWN LEATHER GLOVE IN A ZIP-LOCK BAG THAT I WOULD LIKE TO REFER TO IN CROSS-EXAMINATION WITHOUT SUGGESTING THAT IT BE MARKED AS EVIDENCE, UNLESS THE PROSECUTION WISHES THAT THAT BE DONE, AS WITH THE FLASHLIGHT. THE THIRD ITEM IS I INTEND TO ASK DETECTIVE FUHRMAN TO NAME HIS THREE BEST FRIENDS AND I INTEND TO DO THAT IN RELIANCE ON YOUR RULING THAT THAT WAS A PROPER QUESTION FOR ROSA LOPEZ. WE WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO THOSE FRIENDS.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK?

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

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

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

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

MR. BAILEY: FINAL MATTER, YOUR HONOR.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. BAILEY: IF IT PLEASE THE COURT, WE TRIED TO LOCATE A COPY OF THE HELP FUHRMAN LETTER THAT WAS REFERRED TO IN THE TESTIMONY. WE HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO PROCURE ONE. WE HAVE ITS CONTENTS DESCRIBED IN THIS ARTICLE WHICH WAS SENT TO US FROM OKLAHOMA, AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT FROM MR. FUHRMAN, HE HAS SOME KNOWLEDGE OF THE LETTER THAT WENT OUT. I BELIEVE THAT IF HE DOES NOT HAVE A COPY WITH HIM, HIS LAWYER, MR. TOURTELOT, WHO AS WE SPEAK IS I BELIEVE ON THE 12TH FLOOR PREPARED TO WATCH HIS TESTIMONY, AND I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THAT THE PROSECUTION ATTEMPT TO MAKE THAT LETTER AVAILABLE BEFORE THE CROSS IS CONCLUDED. I WOULD LIKE THE COURT TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE BASIS OF MY REQUEST, WHICH IS THIS ARTICLE.

THE COURT: WELL, I THINK IF MR. TOURTELOT IS ON THE 12TH FLOOR, I COULD ASK THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER TO GO UP THERE AND SEE IF MR. TOURTELOT HAS A COPY OF THAT AVAILABLE.

MR. BAILEY: I THINK WE JUST ASKED HIM.

THE COURT: MISS HAYSLETT.

MS. HAYSLETT: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

MR. BAILEY: I HAVE GIVEN A COPY OF THE ARTICLE, IF IT PLEASE THE COURT, TO THE PROSECUTION.

MS. CLARK: WITH RESPECT TO THE FLASHLIGHT, YOUR HONOR, NO OBJECTION. WITH RESPECT TO THIS PLASTIC BAG, THIS IS RIDICULOUS. ZIP-LOCK BAG FOR WHICH THERE IS NO -- THERE IS NO CONNECTION TO THIS CASE. A LEATHER GLOVE OF A DIFFERENT SIZE, A DIFFERENT COLOR, A DIFFERENT MAKE, A DIFFERENT STYLE THAT HAS NO RELEVANCE TO THIS CASE EITHER.

THE COURT: MAY I SEE THAT?

MS. CLARK: YES.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: THANK YOU. WHEN YOU SAY "DIFFERENT SIZE," WHAT DO YOU MEAN, MISS CLARK?

MS. CLARK: IT IS OBVIOUSLY SMALLER. LOOKS LIKE MY SIZE. AND I THINK COUNSEL EVEN CONCEDED THAT IT IS A DIFFERENT SIZE. THIS IS UNDER 352 THERE IS NO VALID PROBATIVE PURPOSE TO THIS. I'M SURE THE COURT KNOWS THAT WHAT MR. BAILEY AGAIN INTENDS TO DO IS MAKE ANOTHER INFLAMMATORY ARGUMENT WITH NO EVIDENTIARY BASIS WHATSOEVER IN AN ATTEMPT TO CONFUSE, MISLEAD AND DECEIVE THIS JURY. THIS HAS NO PART IN ANY SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH. THIS IS A FANTASY WOVEN BY THE DEFENSE FOR WHICH THERE IS NO EVIDENTIARY BASIS, NO LOGICAL OR FACTUAL CONNECTION TO THIS CASE.

THE COURT: LET ME ASK YOU THIS: WHAT IS THE GLOVE SIZE THAT IS ON THE GLOVE THAT WAS RECOVERED AT BUNDY?

MS. CLARK: EXTRA LARGE.

THE COURT: THE GLOVE THERE IS A BROOKS BROTHERS SIZE SMALL.

MS. CLARK: RIGHT.

MR. BAILEY: THEY ARE OUT OF EXTRA LARGE, YOUR HONOR.

MS. CLARK: NOT ONLY THAT, BUT THE GLOVE IN ISSUE IS AN ARIS AND IT IS NOT A BROOKS BROTHERS. I CAN'T EVEN TELL IF IT IS A MAN'S OR WOMAN'S GLOVE. SIZE SMALL. I GUESS IT IS MR. BAILEY'S. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RELEVANCE IS TO THIS CASE, YOUR HONOR. I CAN'T SEE ANY POSSIBLE VALID EVIDENTIARY PURPOSE FOR THE ADMISSION OF SUCH AN ITEM THAT BEARS NO RESEMBLANCE TO THE GLOVES IN THIS CASE OR ZIP-LOCK BAG THAT HAS NO -- ABSOLUTELY ABSENT FROM THIS CASE, NO SUCH EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE WHATSOEVER. AND I THINK THAT THE COURT SHOULD PREVENT THESE KIND OF THEATRICS THAT ARE MISLEADING AND INFLAMMATORY AND DECEPTIVE IN FRONT OF THIS JURY.

THE COURT: WHAT IS YOUR COMMENT ON THE LETTER REGARDING DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

MS. CLARK: WITH RESPECT TO THAT, I WOULD OBJECT TO THE ADMISSION OF THE ARTICLE. WITH RESPECT TO THE LETTER ITSELF, I HAVE A REAL DIFFICULT TIME SEEING THE RELEVANCE OF THAT, YOUR HONOR. MR. -- DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAS SOUGHT LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFENDING HIMSELF AS A RESULT OF THE MALICIOUS ATTACKS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE ON HIM BY THE DEFENSE, AND IN THAT REGARD HIS LAWYER ATTEMPTED TO DEFRAY SOME OF THE COSTS OF HIS LEGAL EXPENSES. THIS WAS NOT A LETTER DRAFTED BY THIS WITNESS, BY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. IT WAS A LETTER THAT WENT OUT BY HIS LAWYER THAT THIS WITNESS APPARENTLY IS NOT EVEN FAMILIAR WITH ENOUGH TO SAY WHAT IS IN IT OR NOT IN IT. THAT ALONE I THINK SHOULD PRECLUDE THE USE OF IT. I DON'T SEE ITS RELEVANCE IN THIS CASE. IT DOES NOT SHOW ANY FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME OF THIS CASE THAT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO BIAS, SO I THINK UNDER 352 THAT LETTER IS OF NO PROBATIVE VALUE AT ALL. I SHOULD ALSO INDICATE THAT MR. BAILEY HAS GIVEN US NO PROOF, NO OFFER OF PROOF EVEN AS TO HOW DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WHICH I'M SURE IS THE INFERENCE THAT HE WANTS US TO DRAW, PUT THE GLOVE THAT WAS -- THAT HE FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM INTO A PLASTIC BAG. THERE IS NO OFFER OF PROOF. THERE WILL NEVER BE ANY PROOF. THERE WILL NEVER BE ANYTHING BUT MR. BAILEY'S THEATRICS, DRAMATIC, ALL BE IT ELOQUENT STATEMENTS TO THIS COURT, THAT ARE ABSOLUTELY EMPTY OF ANY EVIDENCE OR ANY FACTUAL SUPPORT. AND THAT IS WHY HE IS SEEKING TO TAKE A DIFFERENT PAIR OF GLOVES, DIFFERENT STYLE, DIFFERENT SIZE IN A ZIP-LOCK BAG THAT THIS CASE DOES NOT CONTAIN. THERE IS NO ZIP-LOCK BAG IN EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE. HE IS MANUFACTURING EVIDENCE. HE DOESN'T LIKE THE TRUTH SO HE IS MANUFACTURING HIS OWN AND THAT IS WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT. AND THAT IS WHY THIS IS THE KIND OF THING THAT SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED. MAY I HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

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

MS. CLARK: IS THE COURT -- LET ME ASK THIS: IS THE COURT INCLINED TO ALLOW IN A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE OR IS THE COURT GOING TO SEEK TO ALLOW -- WAS THE COURT GOING TO ALLOW COUNSEL TO USE THE ACTUAL LETTER?

THE COURT: I DON'T KNOW YET.

MS. CLARK: OR NEITHER?

THE COURT: I DON'T KNOW YET.

MS. CLARK: YOU DON'T KNOW YET. I THINK THAT AS FAR AS THE LETTER GOES, I THINK WE HAVE GONE AS FAR AS WE NEED TO GO. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN INDICATED HE WAS AWARE OF THE LETTER. HE DID NOT DRAFT IT. HE IS UNAWARE OF THE PRECISE CONTENTS OF IT. IT WAS AN ARTICLE DRAFTED BY HIS LAWYER, BUT COUNSEL HAS RECEIVED THE ADMISSION FROM DETECTIVE FUHRMAN THAT HE SAW IT.

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

THE COURT: ANY FURTHER COMMENTS, MISS CLARK?

MS. CLARK: YES. WITH RESPECT TO THE LETTER, I THINK NO, I HAVE SAID IT. WITH RESPECT TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AND THE PLASTIC BAG AND THE GLOVE THAT COUNSEL NOW WANTS TO ADMIT, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN PUT ANYTHING IN ANY PLASTIC BAG AT ANY TIME RELEVANT TO THIS CASE, JUNE 12, JUNE 13 OR JUNE 28 OR JULY, AUGUST, SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER; NONE. AND SO THERE IS NO VALID PURPOSE FOR THE ADMISSION OF THAT NON-EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. BAILEY, ANY BRIEF RESPONSE?

MR. BAILEY: MAY I RESPOND TO THAT, YOUR HONOR? I TAKE IT THERE IS NO ISSUE AS TO THE THREE GOOD FRIENDS?

MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY. I FORGOT TO ADDRESS THAT. ALLOW ME, PLEASE, COUNSEL. WITH RESPECT TO THE THREE GOOD FRIENDS, YOUR HONOR, NO. 1 THING, WE HAVE A PRIVACY ISSUE AS TO THOSE THREE PEOPLE. I WONDER IF IT IS FAIR TO HAVE THEIR NAMES AIRED PUBLICLY FOR NO VALID PURPOSES. WITH RESPECT TO THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF ROSA LOPEZ, THIS IS KIND OF A PETTY TIT FOR TAT. YOU GET TO DO IT SO WE DO. THEY OBVIOUSLY DON'T UNDERSTAND. MR. DARDEN WAS CROSS-EXAMINING ROSA LOPEZ BECAUSE SHE CLAIMED TO HAVE WITNESSED SOMETHING VERY IMPORTANT, VERY SIGNIFICANT CONCERNING THIS CASE, AND OBVIOUSLY IT WOULD BE LOGICAL FOR ONE TO EXPECT THAT SHE WOULD TELL THAT VERY SIGNIFICANT OBSERVATION AND EXPERIENCE TO HER CLOSEST FRIENDS AND SO THAT WENT TO AN IMPORTANT AREA OF IMPEACHMENT. WHAT IS THE VALID PURPOSE OF HIM INQUIRING OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WHO HIS BEST FRIENDS ARE? THERE IS NONE.

THIS IS JUST A PETTY VENGEFUL KIND OF TACTIC EMPLOYED BY THE DEFENSE. IF THE COURT IS INCLINED TO ALLOW FOR THIS KIND OF NONSENSE, THEN AT LEAST ALLOW DETECTIVE FUHRMAN TO WRITE THEM ON A PIECE OF PAPER AND ALLOW COUNSEL TO SEE THOSE NAMES.

MR. BAILEY: THAT IS ACCEPTABLE.

MS. CLARK: BUT I THINK THAT THERE IS NO VALID PURPOSE FOR THIS. I REALLY THINK IT IS JUST A PETTY RIDICULOUS KIND OF FORM OF PAYBACK BY THE DEFENSE. THERE IS NO VALID EVIDENTIARY PURPOSE TO IT AS THERE WAS IN THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF ROSA LOPEZ. I WOULD LIKE FOR COUNSEL TO PERHAPS GIVE THIS COURT AN OFFER OF PROOF AS TO THE RELEVANCE OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S THREE BEST FRIENDS.

THE COURT: BUT I SUSPECT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S THREE BEST FRIENDS WOULD BE PROUD TO STAND UP AND BE COUNTED.

MS. CLARK: I'M SURE THEY WOULD, YOUR HONOR. I JUST WANT TO GIVE THEM THE OPTION OF DOING SO, BUT IF COUNSEL WANTS TO -- YOU KNOW SOMETHING, AS THE COURT IS WELL AWARE --

THE COURT: WHY DON'T YOU ASK DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IF HE HAS ANY OBJECTION.

MS. CLARK: I CAN.

THE COURT: AND I WOULD SUGGEST -- AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IN MOST CASES THEY ARE ENTITLED TO LOOK INTO. OBVIOUSLY THE PEOPLE YOU WANT TO TALK WITH ARE THE PEOPLE WHO KNOW THE PERSON THE BEST.

MS. CLARK: RIGHT.

THE COURT: IF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAS NO OBJECTION TO REVEALING THAT PRIVATELY TO YOU AND TO COUNSEL, FOR INVESTIGATION PURPOSES, THEN IT IS A NON-ISSUE.

MS. CLARK: I WILL BE GLAD TO HANDLE IT THAT WAY. IT IS JUST THAT, YOU KNOW, WE ARE ALL SENSITIVE TO THE PRIVACY ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN FOISTED UPON US AND I JUST DON'T WANT TO DO THAT WITHOUT ANYBODY'S SAY SO AHEAD OF TIME.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WELL, LET'S PURSUE IT THAT WAY.

MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, THE LETTER MR. BAILEY ALLUDED TO A MOMENT AGO IS HERE AND THE CLERK IS MAKING COPIES OF THAT LETTER.

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

MR. BAILEY: LET ME ADDRESS THE OTHER ISSUES AND SAVE THAT ONE UNTIL I GET THE LETTER.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. BAILEY: ACTUALLY SEE IT. THE TRANSCRIPT, IF IT PLEASE THE COURT, PAGE 18750 AND BEFORE, SHOWS THAT THE WITNESS KNEW ABOUT THE LETTER, WAS UNCLEAR AS TO HIS UNDERSTANDING OF ALL OF ITS CONTENTS. THE FLASHLIGHT IS SOLVED?

THE COURT: YES.

MR. BAILEY: LET ME STATE VERY CLEARLY, AND I SHOULD POINT OUT, THAT IF MISS CLARK THINKS THAT HAND AND THIS GLOVE WOULD EVER WORK TOGETHER, HER EYESIGHT IS AS BAD AS HER MEMORY. BUT MARINES, IF IT PLEASE THE COURT, HAVE A HABIT MOST OF THEM ACQUIRE AS TO WHERE THEY CARRY THINGS BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THEIR DUTIES, DRILLS AND ACTIVITIES IN THE NATURE OF THE ISSUED GARMENTS THAT THEY WEAR. THE PROSECUTION HAS OPENED THIS DOOR RATHER DELIBERATELY, KNOWING FULL WELL THAT THERE WOULD BE QUESTIONS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE SOMEONE, AND THERE HAS TO BE SOMEONE, WHO TRANSPORTED THAT GLOVE TO ROCKINGHAM COULD HAVE BEEN DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. THEY WERE AT PAINS TO HAVE DETECTIVE PHILLIPS SAY THAT HE NEVER WORE A COAT OR ALMOST NEVER WORE A COAT, SUGGESTING THAT HE WOULD NOT HAVE HAD THE MEANS TO CONCEAL THE SUSPECT GLOVE HAD HE REQUIRED IT. A GENEROUS OFFER WOULD BE TO USE BOTH THE BULK OF WHICH EXCEEDS THE LARGE GLOVE THAT WILL BE IN EVIDENCE IF THEY EVER GET THROUGH TESTING IT. THE PLASTIC BAG I THINK IS REASONABLY SIMILAR, AND THE WITNESS CAN TELL US, TO THOSE CONTAINED IN THE HOMICIDE KIT IN THE CAR THAT HE WAS DRIVING THAT NIGHT OR RIDING IN.

THE RUBBER GLOVE, WHICH IS HERE FOR A DIFFERENT PURPOSE, IS SIMILAR TO THE ONE THAT WE HAVE SEEN ON DETECTIVE LANGE AND THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN SAID WAS IN THE HOMICIDE KIT AND AVAILABLE TO HIM. WE HAVE SUGGESTED THAT HE HAS DESCRIBED WITH GREAT DIFFERENCES A KEY TRIP TO THE BODY OF RONALD GOLDMAN. WE SUGGEST THAT MOST KILLERS DON'T LEAVE ONE GLOVE AT THE SCENE AND CARRY THE OTHER ONE TO PRIVATE PROPERTY, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, AND I SUSPECT THAT EVERY DETECTIVE WHO IS ASKED IF HE HAS HAD THAT EXPERIENCE WILL HAVE TO SAY NO. SO THE LIKELIHOOD IS THAT WHEN THE KILLERS LEFT THE SCENE BOTH GLOVES WERE THERE OR BOTH WOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN. YOU HAVE SEEN THAT THE ONE GLOVE WHICH IS ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE WAS UNDER SOME LEAVES AND NOT EASILY VISIBLE UNTIL THE LEAVES WERE POKED BACK. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN DESCRIBED THAT AS LEAVES CASCADING DOWN OVER THE GLOVE AND PARTIALLY BLOCKING THE VIEW OF IT. ASSUMING, SINCE THAT GLOVE IS RIGHT AGAINST THE FENCE, THAT THE OTHER ONE WAS SEEN SEVERAL FEET AWAY FROM THE VANTAGE POINT ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE FENCE IN THE SHRUBBERY WHERE IT WOULD NOT BE IMMEDIATELY VISIBLE UNLESS SPECIFICALLY LOOKED FOR WITH A FLASHLIGHT, IF THAT WAS SPOTTED, EVEN WITH THIS LITTLE LIGHT WHICH THROWS A PRETTY GOOD SPOT FOR A SHORT DISTANCE IN DARKNESS, HOW WAS IT TRANSPORTED TO ROCKINGHAM? CERTAINLY THE PROSECUTION IS GOING TO ASK THAT QUESTION. IF IT WERE PLACED IN A BAG, WHICH WOULD EXPLAIN THE REASON THAT IT DIDN'T DRY, AND WE WILL OFFER EVIDENCE TO THIS COURT THAT HAD IT BEEN SITTING OUT IN THE AIR AT SIXTY DEGREES UNDER THE CONDITIONS WHICH EXISTED THAT NIGHT IT WOULD HAVE DRIED AND THAT WILL BE GIVEN BY SOMEONE WHO HAS SEEN THE GLOVE AND THE AMOUNT OF BLOOD ON IT AND IS AN EXPERT IN SUCH MATTERS, SO ONE WAY TO EXPLAIN ITS FAILURE TO DRY WOULD BE TO HAVE IT SEALED OFF FROM THE AIR. DETECTIVES FREQUENTLY, AS WE HAVE SEEN IN THIS CASE, COLLECT EVIDENCE IN PLASTIC BAGS, SOMETHING YOU WERE NEVER SUPPOSED TO DO IF YOU ARE DEALING WITH BLOOD, BECAUSE EVERYTHING THAT PLASTIC BAGS DO, AS YOU WILL RECALL FROM AN INCIDENT IN THE COURTROOM, THE BLOODY OBJECTS IS BAD FOR EVIDENTIARY AND DETECTION PURPOSES. MARINES TEND TO CARRY THINGS IN THEIR SOCKS, THE SAME WAY SOME DETECTIVES CARRY AN ANKLE HOLSTER FOR A BACK-UP WEAPON. THIS PACKAGE COULD EASILY HAVE BEEN KEPT IN A MAN'S SOCK, SHORT OR TALL, FOR THE LENGTH OF TIME THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN NECESSARY FROM THE FINDING OF THE GLOVE, IF IT OCCURRED WHEN WE BELIEVE IT DID, ON HIS VISIT TO THE NORTH FENCE DESCRIBED IN DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT WAYS ON TWO DIFFERENT OCCASIONS IN WAYS THAT CAN'T BE RECONCILED. IT COULD HAVE BEEN CONCEALED UP TO THE TIME THAT HE BOLTED OUT OF THE HOUSE WITHOUT TELLING ANYONE AND MAKING SURE EVERYBODY ELSE WAS OCCUPIED AND FOR FIFTEEN MINUTES DID SOMETHING, WHICH WE BELIEVE EXPLAINS THE PRESENCE OF THE GLOVE, THE BLOOD IN THE BRONCO, ET CETERA. AND WE ASK YOUR HONOR TO NOTE THAT THIS MAN SAID THAT FOR FIVE TO SEVEN MINUTES HE INVESTIGATED THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE WONDERING WHO DROPPED THE GLOVE AND WHERE HE HAD GONE AND FAILED TO NOTICE A SET OF STEPS AND A DOOR LEADING INTO THE HOUSE. IF THAT DOES NOT CONTRADICT ANY POSSIBILITY THAT HE OCCUPIED HIS TIME, AS HE SAYS, I CAN'T IMAGINE A STRONGER CONTRADICTION. A DOOR IS HARD TO MISS AND MR. FUHRMAN HAS EXPERIENCE WITH DOORS, AS WE WILL SHOW YOU IN THE GOULD CASE. NOW, BASED ON ALL THAT CIRCUMSTANCE, I THINK IT FAIR TO ASK DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IF IT WOULD HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE FOR HIM TO PUT A GLOVE IN A PLASTIC BAG TO WHICH HE HAD ACCESS AND TO STICK IT IN HIS SOCK AND TO LATER PULL IT OUT AND DISPOSE OF THE PLASTIC BAG. NOT A COMPLICATED QUESTION, NOT ONE HE WILL HAVE TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING, BUT A FAIR QUESTION, IT SEEMS TO ME, BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY THE JURY IS GOING TO HAVE TO DECIDE, BETWEEN THE CHOICES GIVEN THEM, WHETHER THIS DEFENDANT JUMPED OVER A FENCE OR DID SOMETHING UNREASONABLE AND DROPPED A BLOODY GLOVE ON HIS PROPERTY, WHETHER A KILLER, WISHING TO DIVERT THE POLICE, AND IF THIS HAPPENED, HE WAS EMINENTLY SUCCESSFUL, FROM ANY ATTENTION TO HIMSELF, DEPOSITED THE GLOVE SIMPLY BY THROWING IT OVER THE FENCE, AS IS EASY TO DO FROM THE PROPERTY WHERE ROSA LOPEZ LIVES, OR WHETHER DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WHO WELL COULD HAVE AND HAD THE MOTIVE, AND WE SAY THE OPPORTUNITY, CARRIED THAT GLOVE -- EXCUSE ME -- FROM WHERE HE FOUND IT AT THE CRIME SCENE AND DEPOSITED IT IN A WAY THAT WOULD ACCOMPLISH TWO THINGS: NO. 1, IT WOULD KEEP HIM INEXORABLY IN THE LAWSUIT, AND NO. 2, IT WOULD PUNISH A BLACK MAN WHO HAD THE TEMERITY TO ASSOCIATE WITH A WHITE WOMAN IN A ROMANTIC WAY. NOW, THAT IS THE THEORY OF THE CASE AND I THINK THAT THE EVIDENCE THAT WE ARE OFFERING TO SUPPORT IT OUGHT NOT TO BE EXCLUDED. I THINK THE QUESTION GOES TO THE WEIGHT. IF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WANTS TO SAY THE KIND OF SOCKS I WEAR ARE SO FRAGILE THAT THEY WOULDN'T HAVE CARRIED THE PACKAGE, THAT MAY BE HIS ANSWER. THE QUESTION IS ARE WE ENTITLED TO ASK?

AS TO THE LETTER I AM HOLDING -- DOES THE COURT HAVE A COPY OF THIS LETTER?

THE COURT: YES.

MR. BAILEY: IT IS A LETTERHEAD SPECIALLY MADE UP FOR THIS CASE AND IT SAYS, "MARK FUHRMAN JUSTICE FUND." IT SEEKS FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS. AND I RESPECTFULLY SUGGEST, YOUR HONOR, THAT IT IS ADMISSIBLE FOR SEVERAL REASONS. FIRST, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN KNEW ABOUT IT AND IT WAS TO HIS FINANCIAL ADVANTAGE IF OTHERS WOULD PAY HIS LEGAL BILLS SO THAT HE WOULDN'T HAVE TO. NO. 2, UNLESS AND UNTIL MR. TOURTELOT CAN PROVIDE SOME EVIDENCE THAT THE EXPENSES, NOT FEES, BUT EXPENSES OF HANDLING MARK FUHRMAN'S REPRESENTATION IN THIS CASE HAD CAUSED HIM TO SPEND $100,000 OF HIS FIRM'S MONEY, AS THIS SAYS, THAN HE HAS COMMITTED A RATHER NEAT VIOLATION OF TITLE 18 SECTION 1341, MAIL FRAUD, BY TRYING TO INDUCE PEOPLE TO PAY MONEY ON THE GROUND THAT $100,000 HAD BEEN SPENT. AND IF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN KNOWS HOW THAT MONEY WAS SPENT IN REPRESENTING HIM IN THIS CASE BY TOURTELOT AND BUTLER, I THINK HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO TELL US, AND IF HE DOESN'T KNOW, THEN HE SHOULD TELL US WHETHER OR NOT HE EVER QUESTIONED THIS ASSERTION BEFORE THIS LETTER WAS PUT IN THE MAIL TO HIS FELLOW POLICE OFFICERS TO INDUCE THEM TO DEPART WITH THEIR HARD-EARNED INCOME. I THINK THAT WOULD BE FAIR CROSS-EXAMINATION AND THAT IS THE BASIS FOR FURTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS LETTER.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS JUST THE LETTER, PLEASE.

MS. CLARK: ONLY THE LETTER?

THE COURT: YES. THAT IS THE ONLY THING THAT WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED.

MS. CLARK: NOW THAT I FINALLY READ THE LETTER, YOUR HONOR, NOW I'M REALLY STUMPED AS TO THE RELEVANCE. I CANNOT SEE HOW -- I MEAN, COUNSEL HAS ALREADY GONE INTO THE EXISTENCE OF THE LETTER. PROBABLY SHOULD NOT -- I SHOULD HAVE OBJECTED TO IT AT THAT TIME, AND NOW THAT I CAN SEE THE LETTER I CAN TELL THE COURT ABSOLUTELY I DO NOT SEE THE RELEVANCE OF THIS. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAS AN ATTORNEY WHO IS REPRESENTING HIM. THIS IS NOT -- THIS DOES NOT GIVE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN A FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THE CASE. THIS IS SUPPOSEDLY TO DEFRAY COSTS, BUT IT HAS REALLY GOTTEN WAY OFF OF THE END OF THE SCALE OF RELEVANCE. WHAT IS THE PROBATIVE VALUE FOR WHICH IT HAS BEEN OFFERED? I HAVEN'T EVEN HEARD A THEORY PROFFERED BY COUNSEL THAT WOULD MAKE THIS RELEVANT TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S CREDIBILITY. THIS IS A LETTER DRAFTED BY HIS LAWYER. HE WAS AWARE THAT SUCH A LETTER WAS DRAFTED. HE HIMSELF DID NOT DRAFT IT. HE HIMSELF RECEIVED NO MONEY AS A RESULT OF IT. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE UNDERSTANDING I HAVE IS THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO MONEY RECEIVED AS A RESULT OF THIS LETTER. I THINK THAT THERE IS SIMPLY NO RELEVANCE TO THIS. YOU KNOW, THERE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN CROSS-EXAMINATION. AND AS A MATTER OF FACT, WHAT THE PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO DO IS SIMPLY ASK THE COURT TO STRIKE THE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN ASKED AND PERTAINED TO THIS LETTER AS IRRELEVANT AND NOT ADMIT THIS LETTER ITSELF, WHICH IS THE HEIGHT OF IRRELEVANCE. I DON'T SEE THE PROBATIVE VALUE WITH RESPECT TO THE TESTIMONY OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. THE ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT IS WHAT CAN COUNSEL USE WITH REGARDS TO THESE ITEMS FOR THE CROSS-EXAMINATION -- CONTINUING CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. THERE BEING NO OBJECTION TO THE FLASHLIGHT, THE MAG LIGHT, THAT WILL BE ALLOWED. THE COURT WILL SUSTAIN THE PROSECUTION OBJECTION TO THE USE OF THE GLOVES FOR THIS REASON: THE GLOVE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE IS AN EXTRA LARGE GLOVE. ITS SPECIFIC BULK AND DIMENSION, AS MENTIONED BY THE DEFENSE THEORY, IS THEREFORE CRITICAL TO HOW IT COULD BE TRANSPORTED BY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, GIVEN HIS GARMENTS THAT PARTICULAR EVENING, HOW HE WAS DRESSED AND WHAT MEANS HE HAD AVAILABLE TO HIM. I WILL PRELIMINARILY ALLOW THE PLASTIC BAG, HOWEVER, TO BE USED IF, MR. BAILEY, YOU CAN ESTABLISH A FOUNDATION THAT A SIMILAR BAG OF SIMILAR SIZE WAS AVAILABLE TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IN THE HOMICIDE KIT. AND AS TO THE LETTER, I'M GOING TO RESERVE JUDGMENT ON THAT. I WOULD LIKE TO READ IT SENTENCE BY SENTENCE AND I DON'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY NOW. I WOULD LIKE TO AT LEAST PROCEED WITH WHAT YOU HAVE LEFT WITH THE JURY THIS MORNING.

MR. BAILEY: THAT IS FINE, YOUR HONOR. I TAKE IT YOU WILL GO TO 12:00 AND PERHAPS BE PREPARED TO ADDRESS THESE MATTERS THIS AFTERNOON, IF WE ARE STILL GOING? WELL, IN THE EVENT I SHOULD CONCLUDE CROSS WITH THE POSTPONEMENTS THAT CONFRONT ME, AND REDIRECT IS BEGUN, BECAUSE YOU WISH TO USE THE JURY'S TIME PROFITABLY, I WOULD LIKE, ONCE YOU HAVE RULED, TO BE ABLE TO COME BACK AND COMPLETE THE CROSS.

MS. CLARK: ON?

THE COURT: YES. AS TO THIS LETTER, CORRECT?

MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT. LAST MATTER, YOUR HONOR. THE LETTER THAT WAS FURNISHED TO ME, AND THIS MAY BE A COPYING FAULT, IS BLURRED ON THE LINE THAT RECITES THE AMOUNT CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN EXPENDED.

THE COURT: IT DOES. IT DOES ON MY COPY AS WELL.

MR. BAILEY: DO WE HAVE A COPY OF A FIGURE? A HUNDRED THOUSAND IS CLEARLY SHOWN.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, I'M SHOWING MR. BAILEY THE COPY DELIVERED TO ME THIS MORNING IN COURT AND --

MR. BAILEY: CAN WE AGREE IT IS A HUNDRED THOUSAND OR CAN WE GET THE ORIGINAL?

MR. DARDEN: LET ME MAKE A CALL.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WELL, THEN ALL THE MORE REASON TO DELAY RECROSS AS TO THIS ISSUE.

MR. BAILEY: OVER A HUNDRED THOUSAND ARE THE EXACT WORDS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WELL, LET'S GET A CLEAN COPY OF THIS, IF IT IS AVAILABLE.

MR. BAILEY: YOUR HONOR, MAY I MAKE INQUIRY OF THE PROSECUTION AS TO WHETHER EITHER THE LEFT OR RIGHT-HANDED GLOVE THAT WAS ACTUALLY INVOLVED IN THE MURDERS, WE BELIEVE, IS ACCESSIBLE? THE REASON I TRIED TO BUY ONE IS BECAUSE WE WERE TOLD THEY WERE STILL BEING TESTED SOMEWHERE, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME IF EITHER ONE IS AVAILABLE, THE BULK WOULD BE SUFFICIENTLY SIMILAR TO MAKE THE QUESTION FAIR.

THE COURT: BUT THIS IS AN ARIS BRAND. GLOVES ARE COMMONLY AVAILABLE. I MEAN, THAT IS A MAJOR BRAND OF GLOVES. I ASSUME A SIMILAR GLOVE IS AVAILABLE COMMERCIALLY.

MR. BAILEY: I THOUGHT THIS WAS DAN MARINO'S GLOVE, THE ISOTONER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, WHAT BRAND IS IT?

MS. CLARK: ARIS ISOTONER.

MR. BAILEY: ARIS ISOTONER.

MS. CLARK: I BELIEVE.

THE COURT: BROADWAY.

MR. BAILEY: WELL, IF WE CAN GET AN EXTRA LARGE GLOVE NOT USED IN THE MURDER, WOULD THAT BE FAIR?

THE COURT: YES. IT IS THE BULK THAT IS AN ISSUE.

MR. BAILEY: MR. MC KENNA, I DON'T HAVE TO TELL YOU WHERE YOUR DUTY LIES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, WITH RESPECT TO THE THREE BEST FRIENDS ISSUE, CAN WE HANDLE THAT OVER THE NOON HOUR?

THE COURT: YES.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, MAY WE HAVE A MOMENT BEFORE THE JURY IS BROUGHT IN?

THE COURT: FOR WHAT PURPOSE?

MS. CLARK: WE HAVE TO EXPLAIN THE RULINGS.

MR. DARDEN: I CAN DO THAT IN ONE MINUTE.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

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

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

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

THE COURT: MY APOLOGIES TO YOU AGAIN FOR THE DELAY IN GETTING STARTED THIS MORNING. THERE WERE A NUMBER OF ISSUES THAT I HAD TO DEAL WITH THIS MORNING SO FAR, PERHAPS TWENTY DIFFERENT ISSUES THAT WE'VE HAD TO ADDRESS AND I'VE HAD TO MAKE RULINGS ON OR MAKE DETERMINATIONS AND DISCUSS THINGS, AND AS LUCK WOULD HAVE IT, IT JUST TAKES A LONG TIME, SOME OF THESE THINGS. AND I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT WHILE YOU ARE BACK THERE, I AM AWARE THAT YOU ARE BACK IN THAT SMALL LITTLE ROOM AND IT IS NOT THE MOST COMFORTABLE PLACE IN THE WORLD AND I DO HAVE IN THE BACK OF MY MIND CONSTANTLY THE PRESSURE KNOWING THAT YOU ARE BACK THERE, BUT THERE ARE JUST SOME THINGS THAT I HAVE TO DETERMINE OUT OF YOUR PRESENCE AND THEY GOT LONGER THAN I THOUGHT THEY WOULD TODAY. ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WOULD YOU PLEASE RESUME THE WITNESS STAND, PLEASE.

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN IS BACK ON THE WITNESS STAND UNDERGOING CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BAILEY. GOOD MORNING, DETECTIVE.

THE WITNESS: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH.

THE WITNESS: YES.

THE COURT: MR. BAILEY. YOU MAY RESUME.

MR. BAILEY: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED)

BY MR. BAILEY:

Q: DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, YESTERDAY YOU TOLD US ABOUT A CERTAIN TIME THAT YOU WERE IN THE GRAND JURY ROOM WITH OTHER LAWYERS WHOM YOU NAMED. HAVE YOU BEEN ABLE TO RECALL THE IDENTITIES OF ANY OF THE OTHER PEOPLE THAT YOU WERE UNABLE TO NAME YESTERDAY WHO WERE PRESENT DURING THIS EXERCISE?

A: NO.

Q: OKAY. I TAKE IT YOU HAVE MADE NO INQUIRY AS TO WHO THEY WERE THEN?

A: NO, I HAVEN'T.

Q: IS THIS THE ONLY TIME THAT YOU WERE QUESTIONED IN A MODIFIED COURT SETTING, SO TO SPEAK?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: HOW MANY OTHER CONVERSATIONS DID YOU HAVE THIS YEAR, I TAKE IT THEY ARE ALL THIS YEAR, WITH MR. DARDEN, MISS CLARK, MISS LEWIS OR OTHER PROSECUTORS ABOUT THE FORTHCOMING TESTIMONY?

A: SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS. I WOULD HAVE A DIFFICULT TIME ON NUMBERS.

Q: WE HAVE THE SAME DIFFICULTY WITH THE WORD "SEVERAL," OKAY? IF YOU COULD USE NUMBERS IT WOULD BE MUCH MORE HELPFUL TO US. WERE YOU ENGAGED IN AT LEAST TEN DIFFERENT VISITS WITH THE PROSECUTION IN PREPARATION FOR THIS CASE, INCLUDING THE ONE IN THE GRAND JURY?

A: I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE HIGH NUMBER. I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE THAT MANY. I WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE WITH MAYBE EIGHT.

Q: EIGHT YOU THINK WOULD BE MORE ACCURATE?

A: YES.

Q: AND DOES THAT INCLUDE THIS SESSION THAT YOU DESCRIBED?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. NOW, THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE SESSION WITH THE THREE LAWYERS WAS THE KATHLEEN BELL PROBLEM YOU TOLD US?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT WAS THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THIS SIMULATED CROSS-EXAMINATION?

A: TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, YES.

Q: OKAY. DO YOU HAVE ANY UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE QUESTIONING THAT WAS DONE TO YOU WAS TO ALLEVIATE YOUR CONCERN OVER REMARKS YOU SAY YOU NEVER MADE? WHAT WAS THE PLAN? CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT TO US?

A: NO, I CAN'T.

Q: YOU CAN'T?

A: NO.

Q: WELL, WERE YOU TOLD WHY YOU WERE BEING BROUGHT INTO THAT ROOM?

A: TO BE CONFRONTED WITH CROSS-EXAMINATION TYPE QUESTIONS.

Q: ALL RIGHT. BUT I'M SURE IT WAS MORE EXPLICIT THAN THAT, WASN'T IT?

A: CONCERNING KATHLEEN BELL.

Q: CONCERNING KATHLEEN BELL?

A: YES.

Q: WERE YOU TOLD WHAT IT WOULD DO OR NOT DO WHEN QUESTIONS WERE PUT TO YOU?

A: NO.

Q: DID ANY OF THE QUESTIONS CONTAIN THE NAME "KATHLEEN BELL"?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE SO. I'M NOT SURE ON THAT, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE -- I DON'T BELIEVE IT DID, NO.

Q: DID IT CONTAIN THE NAME OF ANY OTHER LIVING PERSON RELATED TO THIS CASE?

A: NO, NOT THAT I REMEMBER, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. HOW MANY TOTAL QUESTIONS DO YOU SAY WERE PUT TO YOU TO ADDRESS THE KATHLEEN BELL PROBLEM?

A: NOT VERY MUCH. IT WOULD BE HARD TO ESTIMATE. IT WOULD BE ALSO LESS THAN TEN, I'M SURE.

Q: LESS THAN TEN?

A: YES.

Q: THREE LAWYERS ASKED YOU A TOTAL OF TEN QUESTIONS?

A: THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE LAWYERS; IT JUST WASN'T QUESTIONING.

Q: MY QUESTION WAS DO YOU REPRESENT TO THE COURT AND JURY THAT THREE LAWYERS ASKED YOU A TOTAL OF TEN QUESTIONS?

A: YES.

Q: IN THIS SESSION?

A: YES.

Q: THAT WOULD BE THREE AND A FRACTION PER LAWYER?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU KNOW ANY LAWYER ON THIS EARTH WHO IS CAPABLE OF ASKING ONLY THREE QUESTIONS?

A: NOT CURRENTLY.

Q: TOUCHE. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, HOW WAS IT POSSIBLE FOR THESE PEOPLE TO PREPARE YOU TO CONFRONT THE BELL PROBLEM, WHOEVER BROUGHT IT TO YOUR ATTENTION, MYSELF OR ANOTHER LAWYER, WITHOUT USING THE WORDS THAT YOU WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE USED IN HER PRESENCE? HOW DID THAT DO THAT?

A: I READ SOME ALLEGATIONS, I BELIEVE IT WAS ON A DECLARATION.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU A DOCUMENT FILED IN THIS COURT SIGNED BY KATHLEEN BELL ALLEGING THE CONDUCT THAT WE DISCUSSED BEFORE THE CLOSE OF COURT YESTERDAY?

A: SIR, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT --

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

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT WHAT I VIEWED ON THE --

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: YES.

A: THAT LETTER IN FRONT OF ME?

Q: YES.

A: I DID NOT HAVE --

Q: NO, NO. I'M TALKING ABOUT A DECLARATION THAT WAS FILED IN COURT BY KATHLEEN BELL AS AN OFFER OF PROOF?

A: ON THAT DAY?

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

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. NOTHING WAS FILED BY KATHLEEN BELL IN THIS COURT.

MR. BAILEY: I'M SORRY, NOT BY KATHLEEN BELL.

Q: IN HER BEHALF AS TO WHAT SHE WOULD SAY?

A: IN FRONT OF ME THAT DAY, SIR?

Q: YES.

A: NO.

Q: WHAT PAPER WERE YOU LOOKING AT THAT WAS THE BASIS OF THE QUESTIONS? CAN YOU TELL US?

A: I WAS LOOKING AT NO PAPER.

Q: I THOUGHT SOMETHING WAS READ TO YOU OR THAT YOU READ THAT YOU CALLED A DECLARATION. CAN YOU TELL US WHAT YOU MEANT BY THAT?

A: I HAD READ IT PREVIOUSLY. I DON'T KNOW WHEN.

Q: WERE YOU FAMILIAR WITH ITS CONTENTS?

A: I READ IT ONCE, YES.

Q: WERE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE LANGUAGE ATTRIBUTED TO YOU BY MS. BELL IN THAT DECLARATION?

A: YES.

Q: WAS ANY OF THAT LANGUAGE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE QUESTIONS PUT TO YOU BY COUNSEL?

A: THEY DID NOT USE THAT LANGUAGE, NO.

Q: WELL, WHAT LANGUAGE DID THEY USE INSTEAD TO HELP YOU WITH THE BELL PROBLEM?

A: THEY USED THE TERM RACIAL SLURS.

Q: OKAY. WELL, NOW DO YOU HAVE ANY MEMORY OF EVEN ONE OF THESE TEN QUESTIONS?

A: NO.

Q: NOT A SINGLE ONE?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: AND THIS HAPPENED WHEN, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS TWO OR THREE WEEKS AGO.

Q: TWO OR THREE WEEKS AGO?

A: YES.

Q: WELL, NOW YOU HAVE BEEN EXHIBITING A STARTLING MEMORY FOR DETAIL OF A CRIME THAT WAS EIGHT MONTHS AGO, HAVE YOU NOT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: DID ANY OF THE QUESTIONS REQUIRE YOU TO SAY WHETHER OR NOT LANGUAGE OF THAT SORT WAS A PART OF YOUR VOCABULARY?

A: I MIGHT HAVE OFFERED THAT.

Q: AH. TELL US, PLEASE, WHAT IT WAS YOU OFFERED THESE LAWYERS IN THAT ROOM ABOUT YOUR VOCABULARY, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, OBJECTION. IRRELEVANT. WITHDRAWN.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: WOULD YOU ANSWER?

A: YES. THAT I DON'T USE ANY TYPE OF LANGUAGE TO DESCRIBE PEOPLE OF ANY RACE SUCH AS WHAT IS ALLEGED BY KATHLEEN BELL.

Q: AND YOU NEVER HAVE?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: IS THAT RIGHT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. THAT QUESTION IS IRRELEVANT.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: DID YOU SAY TO THE LAWYERS WHO WERE TRYING TO PREPARE YOU FOR THE BELL PROBLEM THAT YOU NEVER, NEVER USE THAT LANGUAGE?

MS. CLARK: SAME OBJECTION.

THE WITNESS: I WASN'T ASKED, SIR.

MR. BAILEY: WITHDRAWN. I WILL BE MORE SPECIFIC.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: DID YOU TELL THE LAWYERS IN THAT ROOM THAT YOU NEVER USED THE WORD "NIGGER"?

MS. CLARK: SAME OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: IT WAS NEVER ASKED.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: I'M ASKING, DO YOU?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THAT IS VAGUE. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: DO YOU USE THE WORD "NIGGER" IN DESCRIBING PEOPLE?

MS. CLARK: SAME OBJECTION.

THE COURT: PRESENTLY?

MR. BAILEY: YES.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: NO, SIR.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: HAVE YOU USED THAT WORD IN THE PAST TEN YEARS?

A: NOT THAT I RECALL, NO.

Q: YOU MEAN IF YOU CALLED SOMEONE A NIGGER YOU HAVE FORGOTTEN IT?

A: I'M NOT SURE I CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION THE WAY YOU PHRASED IT, SIR.

Q: YOU HAVE DIFFICULTY UNDERSTANDING THE QUESTION?

A: YES.

Q: I WILL REPHRASE IT. I WANT YOU TO ASSUME THAT PERHAPS AT SOME TIME, SINCE 1985 OR 6, YOU ADDRESSED A MEMBER OF THE AFRICAN AMERICAN RACE AS A NIGGER. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT YOU HAVE FORGOTTEN THAT ACT ON YOUR PART?

A: NO, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE.

Q: ARE YOU THEREFORE SAYING THAT YOU HAVE NOT USED THAT WORD IN THE PAST TEN YEARS, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

A: YES, THAT IS WHAT I'M SAYING.

Q: AND YOU SAY UNDER OATH THAT YOU HAVE NOT ADDRESSED ANY BLACK PERSON AS A NIGGER OR SPOKEN ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE AS NIGGERS IN THE PAST TEN YEARS, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

A: THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING, SIR.

Q: SO THAT ANYONE WHO COMES TO THIS COURT AND QUOTES YOU AS USING THAT WORD IN DEALING WITH AFRICAN AMERICANS WOULD BE A LIAR, WOULD THEY NOT, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

A: YES, THEY WOULD.

Q: ALL OF THEM, CORRECT?

A: ALL OF THEM.

Q: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

Q: DID YOU HAVE ANY OTHER TRAINING SESSIONS OF THIS SORT?

A: I'M SORRY, SIR?

Q: DID YOU HAVE ANY OTHER TRAINING SESSIONS OF THIS SORT?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU HAVE OTHER SESSIONS WHEREIN THE WORD "NIGGER" WAS USED BETWEEN YOU AND COUNSEL?

A: NO.

Q: NEVER?

A: NO.

Q: OKAY. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, I'M SHOWING YOU WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE A REPLICA OF A FLASHLIGHT YOU DESCRIBED AS HAVING CARRIED THAT NIGHT, AND I WONDER IF YOU COULD TELL ME WHETHER OR NOT IT IS SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR OR APPEARS TO BE?

A: YES, IT IS EXACTLY.

Q: ALL RIGHT.

MR. BAILEY: DO YOU WISH IT TO BE MARKED?

MS. CLARK: DO YOU WANT TO MARK IT AS A DEFENSE EXHIBIT?

MR. BAILEY: I DON'T CARE.

MS. CLARK: WHATEVER YOU LIKE.

MR. BAILEY: MAY THIS JUST BE MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION, YOUR HONOR, IN CASE IT IS USED LATER ON?

THE COURT: 1055.

(DEFT'S 1055 FOR ID = MAG LIGHT)

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

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

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: I REALIZE IT IS LIGHT IN HERE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, BUT WOULD YOU CHECK THAT AND SEE WHETHER OR NOT BY ROTATING THE HEAD OF THE LIGHT NEAR THE BULB IT TURNS ON AND OFF AND ALSO CHANGES ITS PROJECTION? CAN YOU JUST POINT AT A DARK CORNER UNDER THE WITNESS STAND.

A: YES, IT DOES.

Q: DOES IT APPEAR TO FUNCTION ABOUT THE SAME WAY?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WOULD YOU NARROW THE LIGHT TO A SPOT.

A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.)

Q: OKAY. WOULD YOU SHINE IT ON THE SCREEN.

A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.)

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, WOULD THAT LIGHT IN DARKNESS, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, ENABLE YOU TO SEE FOR A DISTANCE OF TEN TO FIFTEEN FEET, DO YOU THINK, TO SEE AN OBJECT?

A: I CAN SEE THE OBJECT AT THAT DISTANCE WITHOUT A LIGHT. WITH THE LIGHT, YES, IT WOULD AID ME GREATLY.

Q: NO, IN TOTAL DARKNESS?

A: I WASN'T IN TOTAL DARKNESS.

Q: I UNDERSTAND, BUT I DON'T THINK YOU KNOW YET WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT, WHICH PLACE IN TIME, OR HAVE YOU ASSUMED THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT YOUR VISIT TO THE NORTH FENCE?

A: NO, I'M NOT ASSUMING THAT.

Q: ASSUME IT.

A: ASSUMED.

Q: YES. NOW, MY QUESTION IS WHEN YOU WERE AT THE NORTH FENCE AND YOU SAW THE GLOVE THAT YOU REFERRED TO PERHAPS MISTAKENLY AS "THEM" IN YOUR PRELIMINARY HEARING --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT. YOU SAW ONE GLOVE THERE, CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: DID YOU LOOK AROUND THE AREA AT ALL IN ANY WAY?

A: WHAT AREA IS THIS, SIR?

Q: THE AREA NEAR THE FENCE. THE GLOVE WAS ALMOST AT THE FENCE, WAS IT NOT?

A: NO, IT WASN'T. IT WASN'T EVEN CLOSE TO THE FENCE, SIR.

Q: WHAT WAS IT CLOSE TO?

A: IT WAS CLOSE TO THE SIDEWALK.

Q: ALL RIGHT. BUT WASN'T THERE SOME RAILINGS NEARBY NEAR GOLDMAN'S BODY?

A: YES, BY MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY BUT NOT BY THE GLOVE AND THE HAT.

Q: DO YOU RECALL SAYING THAT LEAVES WERE CASCADING DOWN OVER THE GLOVE MAKING IT DIFFICULT TO SEE?

A: YES. THERE WAS A PLANT THAT HAD LEAVES THAT WENT UP AND THEN FELL DOWN, A BROAD LEAVE PLANT, AND YET COVERED PORTIONS OF IT STILL VISIBLE, BUT IT WAS CLEARLY VISIBLE FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE NORTH FENCE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. COULD YOU SEE THAT WITHOUT THE AID OF THE FLASHLIGHT?

A: YOU COULD SEE THE OBJECTS BUT NOT AS WELL AS YOU COULD WITH THE FLASHLIGHT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. IF YOU HAD SHINED THAT FLASHLIGHT ON THAT GLOVE, THE LEFT-HAND GLOVE, WOULD IT HAVE ILLUMINATED IT BETTER THAN THE AMBIENT LIGHT WAS DOING?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: NOW, WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THE TERRAIN IMMEDIATELY AROUND THE CRIME SCENE, AND I WISH YOU TO ELIMINATE THE SIDEWALK WHICH IS A CONCRETE OR TERRAZZO INLAY?

A: ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT --

Q: YES. WHAT DO YOU HAVE? DO YOU HAVE GRASS, DO YOU HAVE PLANTS, DO YOU HAVE SHRUBS?

A: AROUND MR. GOLDMAN?

Q: NO, AROUND THE AREA CLOSED OFF BY THE FENCE, THE FENCE BEING THE ONE AGAINST WHICH HIS BODY WAS KIND OF PROPPED?

A: THAT IS MR. GOLDMAN.

Q: YES.

A: DIRT, LARGE TREE BY I THINK THE -- BY HIS HIP, BUTTOCKS AREA. LARGE MEANING THREE OR FOUR INCHES IN TRUNK DIAMETER.

Q: WERE THERE ANY OTHER -- WAS THERE ANY OTHER PLANT LIFE GROWING IN THAT AREA?

A: THERE WAS PLANT LIFE, BUT I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY WHERE IT WAS.

Q: WAS IT SIMILAR TO THE PLANT THAT WAS PARTIALLY COVERING THE GLOVE AND THE CAP THAT WE HAVE SEEN IN SEVERAL PICTURES?

A: I DON'T RECALL, SIR.

Q: DID IT STAND ABOUT THAT HIGH FROM THE GROUND, (INDICATING)?

THE COURT: INDICATING ABOUT TEN, TWELVE INCHES.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: ABOUT EIGHT, TEN INCHES OR MORE FROM THE GROUND?

A: WHICH PLANT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

Q: I'M TALKING ABOUT PLANTS GROWING OUTSIDE THE FENCE ENCLOSURE WHERE THE CRIME OCCURRED.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, VAGUE.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: ADJACENT TO IT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, VAGUE. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I CAN'T REMEMBER ALL THE SMALL PLANTS IN THE AREA, NO, SIR.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: OKAY. WELL, CAN YOU TELL ME WHETHER OR NOT IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THAT FENCE, AND IN THE GENERAL VICINITY WHERE THE CAP, GLOVE AND GOLDMAN WERE LOCATED, THERE WERE PLANTS SUFFICIENTLY HIGH TO CONCEAL ANOTHER OBJECT THE SIZE OF THE GLOVE THAT HAD BEEN LYING THERE?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT IS VAGUE, CONFUSING, COMPOUND.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I COULDN'T SPECULATE ON THAT, SIR.

MS. CLARK: SPECULATION.

MR. BAILEY: MAY I HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT THE SCENE THAT NIGHT -- AND I AM LOOKING FOR SOMETHING SO WE WILL COME BACK TO THIS AND PERHAPS GIVE YOU SOME HELP ON YOUR RECOLLECTION --

A: YES.

Q: -- WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT THE SCENE THIS NIGHT, WERE YOU WEARING A COAT, A JACKET OF SOME SORT?

A: WHEN I FIRST ARRIVED AT THE SCENE, YES.

Q: CAN YOU DESCRIBE IT?

A: A BLUE BLAZER.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU WERE WEARING THE TROUSERS AND SHIRT THAT WE SEE YOU IN WITH YOUR WEAPON IN THE PICTURE POINTING AT THE LEFT-HANDED GLOVE?

A: YES, TAN SLACKS.

Q: OKAY. NOW, AT SOME POINT DID YOU WALK BACK TO YOUR VEHICLE AND TAKE OFF YOUR BLAZER AND HANG IT OR LAY IT IN THE VEHICLE SOMEWHERE?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: OKAY. CAN YOU TELL THE COURT AND JURY ABOUT WHAT TIME OF DAY THAT HAPPENED, BEARING IN MIND THAT YOU ARRIVED AT ABOUT 2:10?

A: IT WOULD BE AFTER I WAS RELIEVED FROM THE CASE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. THAT WOULD BE CLOSE TO THREE O'CLOCK?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND THAT IS WHEN YOU WALKED BACK TO THE VEHICLE AND LEFT THE JACKET AND STOOD WAITING FOR YOUR RELIEF?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: CORRECT?

A: YES.

MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT. DEFENDANT'S NEXT IN ORDER, IF IT PLEASE THE COURT.

THE COURT: 1056. 1056.

(DEFT'S 1056 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU WHAT HAS BEEN MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION AS DEFENDANT'S 1056 WHICH IS A PHOTOGRAPH THAT YOU MAY RECOGNIZE. WOULD YOU LOOK AT THE MONITOR AND TELL ME WHETHER OR NOT THAT IS A SCENE THAT YOU HAVE VIEWED BEFORE?

A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.)

Q: DOES THAT DEPICT THE ENTRANCE TO 875 BUNDY WITH NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S BODY LYING IN THE REAR?

A: YES, IT IS, SIR.

MR. BAILEY: YOUR HONOR, I ASSUME THE FEED IS OFF. I SHOULD HAVE REMINDED THE COURT.

THE COURT: MR. HARRIS WARNED ME.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT. NOW, DOES THAT HELP YOU TO RECALL THE NATURE OF THE SHRUBBERY WHICH WAS TO THE NORTH OF THE ENTRANCE WALKWAY AT 875 BUNDY ON THAT EVENING?

A: IT DIDN'T APPEAR THAT WAY FROM THE FENCE, NO.

Q: WELL, DID YOU EVER STAND IN THIS VANTAGE POINT ON THE SIDEWALK ON BUNDY LOOKING WEST?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. WHEN YOU FIRST ARRIVED THERE, I BELIEVE IN A SIMILAR PHOTOGRAPH, YOU EXPLAINED THAT YOU AND DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, TOGETHER WITH OFFICER RISKE, APPROACHED THE GATEPOST WHICH WE SEE IN THE PHOTOGRAPH BY GOING THROUGH THE SHRUBBERY OFF TO THE LEFT OF THE PHOTO AND THEN ENTERING THE AREA SHOWN BY THE PHOTO AND WALKING UP TO THE GATEPOST?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: THAT WOULD HAVE GIVEN YOU AMPLE OPPORTUNITY, I TAKE IT, TO VIEW THE SHRUBBERY ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE WALK FROM A DISTANCE OF A COUPLE OF FEET, DID IT NOT?

A: NOT REALLY, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. MY UNDERSTANDING IS YOU ARE AT THE GATEPOST. CAN YOU PUT AN ARROW ON THAT, PLEASE, JUST TO MAKE DOUBLY CERTAIN THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING. WHEN YOU REFERRED EARLIER IN YOUR DIRECT TESTIMONY, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, TO THE GATEPOST BEYOND WHICH YOU COULD NOT GO WITHOUT RISKING THE CONTAMINATION OF EVIDENCE, IS THIS THE APPROXIMATE AREA THAT YOU MEANT?

A: YEAH. A LITTLE MORE TO THE RIGHT, SIR, IS WHERE OFFICER RISKE WAS. IN THAT AREA, YES, (INDICATING).

Q: OKAY. FROM THERE DID YOU HAVE A VIEW ACROSS THE WALKWAY AT THE SHRUBBERY THAT WE SEE IN THE PHOTOGRAPH?

A: IN THE PHOTOGRAPH, YES, SIR. THIS SHRUBBERY, YES.

Q: WELL, ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THIS SHRUBBERY IS DIFFERENT THAN THE SHRUBBERY THAT EXISTED ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 13TH?

A: NO. IF I COULD SEE A PICTURE FROM THE NORTH RESIDENCE LOOKING TOWARD MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY IN A SOUTHERLY DIRECTION, IT WOULD BE EASIER TO EXPLAIN.

Q: WE ARE GOING TO TRY AND LOCATE ONE, BUT FOR PURPOSES OF YOUR PRESENT EXAMINATION CAN YOU TELL ME WHETHER OR NOT, FROM THE POSITION YOU WERE STANDING, IF YOU LOOK ACROSS THE WALKWAY IN A NORTHERLY DIRECTION, YOU COULD JUDGE THE HEIGHT OF THE SHRUBBERY THAT WE SEE IN THE PHOTO?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND WAS THE SHRUBBERY THAT WE SEE IN THE PHOTO SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS WHAT YOU SAW WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT 2:10 A.M.?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THAT SHRUBBERY IS FULLY CAPABLE OF HIDING SMALL OBJECTS THAT MIGHT BE DROPPED INTO IT?

A: YES, SIR.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, VAGUE, WHICH --

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. BAILEY: MAY I APPROACH THE WITNESS, YOUR HONOR?

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

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, BEFORE DISPLAYING IT, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO LOOK AT THIS PHOTOGRAPH AND TELL ME, IF YOU CAN, WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS TAKEN LOOKING IN A NORTHERLY DIRECTION FROM THE WALKWAY AT THE BASE OF THE STAIRS IN THE APPROXIMATE POSITION WHERE NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S BODY WAS AFTER THE BODIES HAD BEEN REMOVED?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: OKAY. THE AREA TO WHICH I WAS ATTEMPTING TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION IS ON THE RIGHT OR EAST SIDE OF THAT FENCE. NOW, IN LOOKING AT THAT PHOTO, DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION AS TO WHETHER THE GLOVE AND THE CAP WERE FOUND CLOSE TO THE FENCE?

A: YES, SIR. YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THIS FENCE THAT RUNS NORTH/SOUTH?

Q: THAT'S CORRECT.

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AND YOU RECOGNIZE THIS AS BEING THE AREA WHERE DETECTIVE -- I MEAN WHERE MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY WAS FOUND WHEN YOU WERE THERE?

A: YES. THIS WAS THE AREA I WAS REFERRING TO AS SOMEWHAT CLEARED OUT.

MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT. MAY THIS BE MARKED --

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. PEOPLE'S 10 -- EXCUSE ME -- 1057.

MR. BAILEY: 1057, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: 1057.

(DEFT'S 1057 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)

MR. BAILEY: MAY IT BE DISPLAYED, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. HARRIS, I DON'T THINK WE NEED THE ARROW ON THAT.

MR. BAILEY: I WOULD LIKE THE ARROW, YOUR HONOR, SO THAT I CAN POINT SOMETHING OUT TO THE WITNESS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. PROCEED.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WE ARE NOW LOOKING NORTH INSIDE THE CRIME SCENE AREA AFTER THE REMOVAL OF THE BODIES, OR AT LEAST THE BODY OF MR. GOLDMAN, CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. I WAS -- OH, WOULD YOU POINT OUT IN THAT PHOTO, AND I WILL ASK MR. HARRIS TO PUT AN ARROW ON IT WHEN YOU DO, THE AREA WHERE THE LEFT-HAND GLOVE AND CAP WERE FOUND.

A: YES, SIR.

MS. CLARK: WHAT HAPPENED?

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE WITNESS: THAT IS THE AREA RIGHT THERE, (INDICATING).

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: SO THAT IS FAIRLY CLOSE TO THE FENCE, AS I SUGGESTED, BUT YOU HAD IN MIND A DIFFERENT FENCE WHEN YOU SAID IT WAS NOT?

A: YES, SIR. I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE NORTH FENCE.

Q: THE NORTH FENCE?

A: YES.

Q: WE ARE TALKING NOW ABOUT THE EAST FENCE?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT I WAS TRYING TO LEARN IS THIS: NO. 1, WOULD THE SPOT OF YOUR FLASHLIGHT IN THE AMBIENT LIGHT CONDITIONS COMING FROM THE HOUSE -- I GUESS YOU FELLAS HADN'T ARTIFICIALLY LIGHTED ANYTHING WHEN YOU WERE THERE WITH SPOTS AND FLOODS, WERE YOU?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: YOU WERE OPERATING WITH FLASHLIGHTS AND WHATEVER LIGHT COULD BE GAINED FROM THE OPEN DOOR OF THE HOUSE?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WOULD THE LITTLE FLASHLIGHT THAT YOU HAVE BEEN HANDLING BEEN CAPABLE OF ILLUMINATING THE AREA IMMEDIATELY OUTSIDE THE EAST WALL OF THAT FENCE WHICH IS ON OUR RIGHT AS WE LOOK AT THE PHOTOGRAPH?

A: YES.

MR. BAILEY: OKAY. THANK YOU. TAKE IT DOWN.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

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

MR. BAILEY: YOUR HONOR, WE NEGLECTED TO PRINT 1056 WITH THE ARROW WHERE MR. HARRIS PUT IT NEXT TO THE -- I'M SORRY. MR. HARRIS IS AHEAD OF ME. IT IS PRINTED. YES. MAY THAT BE 1056-A, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YES. 1056-A.

(DEFT'S 1056-A FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)

MR. BAILEY: AND THE OTHER ONE WOULD BE 1057-A.

THE COURT: YES. HARD COPY OF EACH.

(DEFT'S 1057-A FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)

MR. BAILEY: MAY I HAVE A MOMENT?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, AS BEST YOU CAN, FROM YOUR RECOLLECTION, COULD YOU GO THROUGH THE MEETINGS THAT YOU HAD WITH PROSECUTORS SINCE JANUARY 1 AND SIMPLY TELL US WHO WAS PRESENT AND HOW LONG THEY TOOK?

A: I HAVE MET WITH MR. DARDEN.

Q: START WITH THE FIRST ONE YOU CAN RECALL. DO YOU HAVE ANY DATE IN MIND AS TO WHEN THIS FIRST MEETING WITH MR. DARDEN MIGHT HAVE TAKEN PLACE?

A: I BELIEVE I PROBABLY MET WITH MISS LEWIS BEFORE MR. DARDEN.

Q: MISS LEWIS?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AND COULD YOU TELL US WHEN THAT OCCURRED?

A: NO. SOME TIME THIS YEAR.

Q: WITHIN THE PAST WEEK?

A: WELL, I HAVE SEEN HER FREQUENTLY BECAUSE SHE IS IN THE D.A.'S OFFICE, BUT NOT ALL OF THE CONTACTS WERE TALKING ABOUT ANYTHING TO DO WITH TESTIMONY.

Q: WAS ANY ONE LAWYER AT EACH OF THE MEETINGS WHERE TESTIMONY OR THE CASE, EITHER ONE, WAS DISCUSSED?

A: NO.

Q: THE FIRST MEETING THAT YOU HAD WITH MISS LEWIS, WHEN WOULD YOU ESTIMATE THAT IT TOOK PLACE? IN JANUARY, FEBRUARY OR MARCH?

A: I'M NOT SURE, SIR.

Q: YOU CAN'T TELL US WHETHER IT WAS MORE THAN THREE WEEKS AGO OR LESS?

A: WELL, I HAVE TALKED TO HER SEVERAL TIMES OVER SEVERAL MONTHS.

Q: I APPRECIATE THAT, BUT I WOULD ASK THAT YOU USE YOUR BEST MEMORY TO INFORM US OF WHEN YOU FIRST MET WITH MISS LEWIS ABOUT THIS CASE, TESTIMONY OR OTHERWISE, AND HOW LONG THAT MEETING WAS?

A: I'M NOT SURE. AS FAR AS MOTIONS, IT COULD HAVE BEEN -- I MET HER LAST YEAR OR TALKED TO HER ON THE PHONE, BUT I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY.

Q: DID YOU OR DIDN'T YOU MEET WITH THE PROSECUTION LAST YEAR ABOUT THE CASE AFTER THE PRELIMINARY HEARING?

A: I DID NOT.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT IS ASKED AND ANSWERED.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I DID NOT.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: WELL, WHAT DID YOU MEAN WHEN YOU SAID I MAY HAVE MET HER LAST YEAR OVER THE PHONE OR OTHERWISE ABOUT SOME MOTIONS?

A: WELL, I MIGHT HAVE BEEN ASKED ABOUT SOMETHING THAT IS NO LONGER PART OF THIS TRIAL OR A MOTION THAT -- I GET PHONE CALLS, SIR. I DON'T WRITE THEM DOWN, I DON'T LOG THEM IN. I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO TELL YOU.

Q: YOU ARE A DETECTIVE WHO DOESN'T ALWAYS TAKE NOTES?

A: I DON'T TAKE NOTES ABOUT PHONE CALLS OR THAT IS ALL I WOULD DO.

Q: OKAY. WELL, HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU SPEAK WITH THE PROSECUTION ON THE PHONE, AS OPPOSED TO PERSONALLY, ABOUT THIS CASE, STARTING IN 1994, IF YOU CAN?

A: I HAVE TALKED ON THE PHONE WITH THE PROSECUTORS ABOUT WHEN TO -- WE COULD GET TOGETHER OR MEET AND THAT IS -- THAT IS KIND OF DIFFICULT BECAUSE OF THE SCHEDULING.

Q: ALL THAT ASIDE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WHEN DID YOU TALK WITH A PROSECUTOR ABOUT A MOTION IN 1994?

A: SIR, I DON'T HAVE A DAY CALENDAR.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, THAT IS IRRELEVANT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I DON'T HAVE A DAY CALENDAR I WRITE THOSE MEMOS IN.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: I UNDERSTAND. BUT YOU HAVE A MEMORY. YOU REMEMBER THIS CRIME OCCURRED IN JUNE OF '94, CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: TELL US AS BEST YOU CAN WHAT WAS THE MOTION THAT YOU WERE DISCUSSING ON THE PHONE?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT IS IRRELEVANT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: SIR, THERE HAS BEEN SO MANY THINGS GOING ON I COULDN'T TELL YOU WHEN I TALKED TO SOME PEOPLE ABOUT --

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: DIDN'T ASK YOU THAT. WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF MOTION THAT REQUIRED THAT YOU BE CONSULTED IF YOU KNOW?

A: I DON'T, SIR.

Q: WAS IT A MOTION ABOUT KATHLEEN BELL?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER.

THE WITNESS: I HAVE TALKED TO --

THE COURT: YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: I HAVE TALKED TO MISS LEWIS ABOUT KATHLEEN BELL'S MOTION, YES.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT. WAS THAT IN 1994 WHEN IT WAS PRESENTED OR FILED?

A: IT COULD HAVE BEEN.

Q: DID YOU TALK ON JANUARY 3RD WHEN IT WAS ARGUED, OR THEREABOUTS?

A: I DON'T RECALL THE DATE, NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WERE YOU IN THE PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE IN THE MONTH OF JANUARY?

A: I BELIEVE SO, YES.

Q: ON WHAT OCCASIONS, AND START WITH THE FIRST ONE, PLEASE.

A: SIR, I CANNOT REMEMBER A DATE. I COULDN'T GIVE YOU A TIME.

Q: YOU KEPT NO RECORD WHATSOEVER OF YOUR VISITS?

A: WHY WOULD I DO THAT?

Q: WERE YOU ON DUTY?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU HAVE TO ACCOUNT TO SOMEONE AS TO WHERE YOU WERE GOING AND WHY?

A: NO. WHEN THE D.A.'S OFFICE WANTS TO TALK TO A DETECTIVE, THEY OBVIOUSLY WILL TALK TO HIM. THERE IS NOBODY THAT WOULD NEED TO GIVE ME PERMISSION. I JUST SAY I'M GOING TO THE D.A.'S OFFICE.

Q: WHO WOULD YOU TELL? SOMEONE HAD TO KNOW WHERE YOU WERE, DIDN'T THEY?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: WELL, WHO IS YOUR BOSS?

A: RON PHILLIPS IS.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU TELL DETECTIVE PHILLIPS ON THOSE OCCASIONS WHEN YOU WERE COMING DOWNTOWN TO WORK ON THIS CASE WHERE YOU WERE GOING?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AND DO YOU KNOW IF ANY RECORDS OF ANY KIND ARE KEPT ABOUT THESE VISITS?

A: NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

Q: WELL, ARE THE PROSECUTORS KEEPING ANY RECORD OF YOUR VISIT THAT YOU KNOW OF?

A: I DON'T KNOW, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, IF YOU HAD A MEETING WITH MISS LEWIS IN JANUARY, YOU ARE NOT CERTAIN OF THAT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: YOU JUST DON'T HAVE ANY MEMORY OF MEETING THIS WOMAN IN JANUARY, THE ONE SEATED AT THE TABLE HERE TO MY FAR RIGHT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, THAT MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: OKAY. TRY AGAIN. DID YOU OR DID YOU NOT SEE MISS LEWIS IN JANUARY IN THIS BUILDING?

A: I WOULD SAY I COULD HAVE, BUT I COULDN'T TELL YOU EXACTLY WHEN, SO I CAN'T SAY FOR SURE.

Q: IS SHE THE FIRST LAWYER THAT YOU MET AND TALKED TO?

A: AFTER THE PRELIM?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, VAGUE.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: IN 1995. LEAVE '94 ALONE FOR NOW.

A: I DON'T KNOW IF SHE IS THE FIRST, SIR.

Q: YOU DON'T KNOW?

A: NO.

Q: DOES ANYONE ELSE COME TO MIND AS BEING THE PERSON WHO STARTED OFF THIS WHOLE SERIES OF INTERVIEWS?

A: NO.

Q: WAS IT MR. DARDEN?

A: NO.

Q: WAS IT MISS CLARK?

A: NO.

Q: ANY OTHER LAWYERS NOT SEATED HERE TODAY THAT YOU HAVE WORKED WITH ON THIS CASE?

A: NO.

Q: MR. HODGMAN?

A: NO.

Q: OKAY. SO JANUARY THEN I TAKE IT IS A BLANK?

A: NO.

Q: MAY WE NOW TURN TO FEBRUARY. DO YOU HAVE ANY MEMORY OF COMING TO THIS BUILDING IN FEBRUARY AND MEETING WITH SOMEONE?

A: YES.

Q: WHEN WAS THE FIRST MEETING IN FEBRUARY THAT YOU CAN RECALL, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

A: I CAN'T.

Q: HUM?

A: I CAN'T REMEMBER WHEN IN FEBRUARY.

Q: I'M NOT ASKING FOR DATE AND A MINUTE. CAN YOU SAY EARLY, MIDDLE LATE, GIVE US ANY HELP AT ALL?

A: I WOULD SAY IT WOULD BE FAIR TO SAY PROBABLY EARLY PART OF FEBRUARY AND THE LATTER PART.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WHO WAS PRESENT AT THE MEETING, THE FIRST ONE?

A: I HAVE TALKED TO MR. DARDEN, I HAVE TALKED TO MISS CLARK, I HAVE TALKED TO MISS LEWIS.

Q: DOES THAT MEAN YOU CANNOT REMEMBER WHO WAS PRESENT AT THE FIRST MEETING?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND THAT WAS EARLY IN FEBRUARY YOU THINK?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. WHEN WAS THE ONE AFTER THAT?

A: I'M NOT SURE, SIR.

Q: EARLY, MIDDLE OR LATE? CAN YOU HELP US AT LEAST THAT MUCH AS TO MEETING NO. 2 IN FEBRUARY, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

A: SOME TIME IN THE LATTER PART OF FEBRUARY.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO YOU HAD A MEETING IN THE EARLY PART OF FEBRUARY BEING THE FIRST ONE OF THAT MONTH, AND YOU DON'T REMEMBER WHO WAS AT THAT MEETING, CORRECT?

A: NO.

Q: AND THEN YOU HAD A MEETING AT THE LATTER PART OF FEBRUARY WITH WHOM, IF YOU RECALL?

A: I HAVE TALKED TO ALL THESE PROSECUTORS THAT ARE SEATED BEFORE ME.

Q: ALL AT ONCE?

A: NO. THEY WORK A TEAM. I COULD TALK TO ONE, I COULD SEE ANOTHER ONE THE NEXT DAY OR THE NEXT HOUR.

Q: WELL, LET'S TRY AND APPROACH IT ANOTHER WAY. OF THE THREE PROSECUTORS FACING YOU, WITH WHOM DID YOU SPEND THE MOST TIME TALKING ABOUT THE CASE?

A: PROBABLY MISS CLARK.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WHEN IS THE FIRST TIME YOU CAN REMEMBER SEEING MISS CLARK IN A MEETING THAT YOU ATTENDED IN THIS BUILDING IN FEBRUARY?

A: I BELIEVE -- I BELIEVE IN THE LATTER PART OF FEBRUARY.

Q: OKAY. DO YOU REMEMBER HOW LONG THE MEETING WAS?

A: I DIDN'T -- WE DIDN'T HAVE MANY MEETINGS OR DISCUSSIONS THAT LASTED MUCH LONGER THAN AN HOUR ONCE WE GOT STARTED.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU REMEMBER THE DAY OF THE WEEK THAT THE MEETING OCCURRED?

A: NO, I DON'T.

Q: DO YOU HAVE ANY MEMORY OF THE TIME OF DAY THAT THE MEETING OCCURRED?

A: IT WOULD BE AFTER COURT OR MAYBE AN AFTERNOON ON A WEEKEND, BUT I CAN'T REMEMBER THAT PERIOD OF TIME OR DAY OF WEEK WITH THE PERSON.

Q: YOU CAN'T REMEMBER?

A: NO.

Q: OKAY. WHEN WAS THE NEXT FEBRUARY MEETING YOU HAD AFTER NO. 2 LATE IN THE MONTH WITH MISS CLARK?

A: SIR, I DON'T KNOW.

Q: DON'T KNOW?

A: NO.

Q: WELL, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WHEN I ASKED YOU IF YOU HAD TEN MEETINGS AND YOU SAID EIGHT WOULD BE MORE LIKE IT, WHERE DID YOU GET THAT NUMBER?

A: I JUST FELT TEN WAS TOO MANY. IT JUST FELT LIKE I WOULD BE MORE COMFORTABLE WITH EIGHT.

Q: DID YOU PICK EIGHT OUT OF THE AIR OR DO YOU REMEMBER HAVING APPROXIMATELY EIGHT MEETINGS WITH PROSECUTORS?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THIS IS ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: DID YOU HAVE A MEMORY, WHEN YOU GAVE US THAT ANSWER, OF ABOUT EIGHT MEETINGS WITH PROSECUTORS?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THIS IS ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: THAT FELT LIKE A COMFORTABLE NUMBER, YES.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT. WHY DID IT FEEL COMFORTABLE?

A: BECAUSE IT WAS MORE THAN FIVE AND LESS THAN TEN.

Q: SO FAR YOU HAVE DESCRIBED TWO. WERE THERE ANY MORE MEETINGS IN FEBRUARY OTHER THAN THE TWO THAT YOU HAVE DESCRIBED THAT YOU CAN RECALL NOW, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

A: I CAN'T RECALL THE SPECIFICS. I DIDN'T TAKE NOTE OF THESE. MANY TIMES IT WAS INCONVENIENT AND SOMETIME WE GOT NOTHING ACCOMPLISHED BECAUSE OF SCHEDULING AND THINGS GOING ON WITH PEOPLE'S PERSONAL LIVES. SOMETIMES THEY WERE NOT MUCH OF MEETINGS AT ALL BECAUSE OF PEOPLE'S LIVES.

Q: AND WERE THERE SOMETIMES WHEN DISAGREEMENTS PREVENTED ANYTHING FROM BEING ACCOMPLISHED?

A: I DON'T RECALL THAT.

Q: DON'T RECALL HAVING ANY DISAGREEMENT?

A: NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, HOW ABOUT MARCH? DO YOU RECALL SOME MEETINGS IN MARCH?

A: WE HAVE MET, YES, IN MARCH.

Q: THE FIRST ONE IN MARCH THAT YOU CAN RECALL? AND I ASSUME THAT IT WOULD HAVE TO BE EARLY OR MIDDLE?

A: YES, EARLY IN MARCH.

Q: OKAY. ANY IDEA WHAT DATE?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS ON A -- I DON'T KNOW THE DATE. IT WOULD BE ON A WEEKEND.

Q: A WEEKEND IN MARCH?

A: YES.

Q: WOULD THAT BE THE FIRST WEEKEND IN MARCH IF IT WAS EARLY IN MARCH?

A: IT COULD HAVE BEEN.

Q: WAS IT DOWN HERE?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU RECALL A SATURDAY OR A SUNDAY?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS A SATURDAY.

Q: AND WHO WAS PRESENT?

A: MISS CLARK.

Q: HOW LONG DID YOU TALK?

A: ABOUT AN HOUR, HOUR AND A HALF.

Q: WAS ANYONE ELSE PRESENT DURING THAT HOUR TO HOUR AND A HALF?

A: PEOPLE CAME IN AND GAVE HER MESSAGES OR PAPERS THAT I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT SHE WAS RECEIVING AND THEN THEY LEFT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. BUT WERE ANY OF THE OTHER LAWYERS SEATED AT THIS TABLE OR OTHER LAWYERS WORKING ON THIS CASE OUTSIDE THE COURTROOM PRESENT DURING THIS HOUR TO HOUR AND A HALF?

A: PERIODICALLY AN ATTORNEY WOULD COME IN AND GIVE HER SOMETHING. SOMETIMES THEY WOULD STAY FOR A MOMENT, THEN THEY WOULD LEAVE.

Q: WELL, LET ME NARROW IT A LITTLE BIT, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. DURING THIS HOUR TO HOUR AND A HALF, DID ANY LAWYER CONNECTED TO THIS CASE COME IN AND PARTICIPATE IN WHAT YOU AND MISS CLARK WERE DOING?

A: NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO THAT YOU TALKED TOGETHER FOR SIXTY TO NINETY MINUTES?

A: YES.

Q: ABOUT THE CASE?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: NONE OF THESE PEOPLE HAVE EVER HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH YOU ABOUT OTHER MATTERS, HAVE THEY?

A: WHAT ARE OTHER MATTERS? VAGUE.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: OTHER THAN THE CASE?

MS. CLARK: VAGUE. OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, VAGUE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MS. CLARK: AND IRRELEVANT, BUT --

THE COURT: YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT. LET ME REPHRASE IT. YOU HAVE TOLD US THAT YOU SPENT A NUMBER OF HOURS TALKING WITH THESE PEOPLE, AMONG OTHERS, ABOUT THE CASE?

A: YES.

Q: YOU DON'T SOCIALIZE WITH ANY OF THESE LAWYERS, DO YOU?

A: NO.

Q: YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THEM OUTSIDE THE WORK ENVIRONMENT, HAVE YOU?

A: NO.

Q: AND YOU DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER CASES GOING WITH THEM AT THE MOMENT, DO YOU?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: OKAY. SO IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT ALL OF THE DISCUSSIONS YOU HAVE HAD WITH THESE PEOPLE IN 1995 HAVE BEEN ABOUT THE CASE?

A: NO.

Q: IT IS NOT?

A: NO.

Q: WHAT OTHER THINGS WERE TALKED ABOUT?

A: CHRIS DARDEN AND I TALKED ABOUT BASKETBALL.

Q: OKAY.

A: MISS LEWIS TALKS ABOUT SCUBA DIVING.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WERE THESE DOMINANT THEMES OR JUST SMALL TALK AS PART OF THE OVERALL CONVERSATION?

A: JUST CONVERSATION.

Q: ALL RIGHT. BUT THE MAIN PURPOSE I TAKE IT OF EACH ENCOUNTER, EVEN THOUGH THERE MAY HAVE BEEN OTHER SUBJECTS TOUCHED UPON, WAS THE CASE, PEOPLE AGAINST SIMPSON?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOUR ROLE IN THAT CASE?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, THE TOTAL NUMBER OF MEETINGS IN MARCH THAT YOU CAN RECALL, EXCLUDING THE GRAND JURY SESSION?

A: TWO OR THREE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. THE FIRST WAS WITH MISS CLARK FOR SIXTY TO NINETY MINUTES. WHEN WAS THE ONE THAT YOU MEANT WHEN YOU SAID TWO?

A: I BELIEVE THAT WAS DURING THE WEEKDAY AFTER COURT WITH MISS CLARK.

Q: AND WHEN WAS THAT?

A: I BELIEVE THE FOLLOWING WEEK.

Q: SO IF YOU MET ON A SATURDAY, THEN SOME DAY DURING THE FOLLOWING WEEK AFTER COURT HAD ADJOURNED? I TAKE IT IT WAS LATE IN THE DAY?

A: I BELIEVE SO, SIR.

Q: AND HOW LONG DID THAT SESSION LAST?

A: I RECALL IT WAS ABOUT AN HOUR.

Q: OKAY. AND WERE ANY OTHER LAWYERS INVOLVED TO THE EXTENT OF PARTICIPATING IN THAT CONVERSATION THAT YOU WERE HAVING?

A: I THINK PERIODICALLY MISS LEWIS CAME IN AND OUT.

Q: DID SHE STAY LONG ENOUGH TO POSITION HERSELF IN THE CONVERSATION OR JUST DROP SOMETHING AND TAKE OFF?

A: WELL, A LOT OF TIME WHEN ANOTHER PERSON COMES INTO THE ROOM, MISS CLARK WILL STOP, TAKE CARE OF BUSINESS OR WAIT UNTIL THEY LEAVE AND THEN WE CONTINUE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. MY QUESTION TO YOU WAS WAS MISS LEWIS ASSISTING MISS CLARK IN SOME WAY WITH THE PREPARATION OF THIS CASE OR SIMPLY COMING IN AND OUT ON OTHER MATTERS OTHER THAN THE FUHRMAN TESTIMONY?

A: NO, NO. MISS CLARK DEALT WITH ME DIRECTLY.

Q: AND YOU SAID TWO OR THREE. IF THERE WAS A THIRD, WHAT IS YOUR RECOLLECTION AS TO THAT?

A: CLOSE TO THE BEGINNING OF MY TESTIMONY OR CLOSE TO THAT WEEK.

Q: YOUR TESTIMONY BEGAN I BELIEVE LAST THURSDAY.

A: YES, SIR.

Q: SO HOW LONG PRIOR TO THAT WAS YOUR MEETING WITH MISS CLARK, IF IT OCCURRED? AND I AM NOW LOOKING FOR A THIRD ONE?

A: YES. THAT WAS VERY BRIEF.

Q: HOW LONG PRIOR TO THE ONSET OF YOUR TESTIMONY DID IT OCCUR?

A: TWO, THREE DAYS.

Q: NOT THE DAY BEFORE?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE SO, NO.

Q: YOU WEREN'T IN THE BUILDING THE DAY BEFORE?

A: I WAS IN THE BUILDING THE DAY BEFORE, YES.

Q: WHAT WERE YOU DOING?

A: WAITING TO TESTIFY.

Q: NOT TALKING WITH ANYONE?

A: NO.

Q: OKAY. WAS YOUR LAWYER WITH YOU AT THE TIME?

A: NO. HE WAS WATCHING THE T.V. AND I WAS NOT.

Q: NOW, HAVE YOU SPENT ANY TIME WITH HIM, WITHOUT GOING INTO ANYTHING THAT WAS SAID, PREPARING FOR YOUR TESTIMONY IN THIS CASE?

A: PREPARING FOR DIRECT TESTIMONY IN THIS CASE?

Q: NO, PREPARING FOR THE CROSS-EXAMINATION YOU ASSUMED WOULD FOLLOW HARD ON THE HEELS OF DIRECT?

A: I THINK I HAVE GOTTEN SOME GENERAL ADVICE, MUCH THE SAME AS I HAVE GOTTEN FROM MOST THE PEOPLE I KNOW.

Q: OKAY. AND YOU HAVE BEEN URGED TO REMAIN CALM, HAVE YOU NOT?

THE COURT: I'M GOING TO SUSTAIN THE COURT'S OWN OBJECTION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PREVIOUS --

MR. BAILEY: I'M SORRY, I MEAN TO EXCLUDE MR. TOURTELOT FROM ANY QUESTION THAT HAS SUBSTANCE OF A CONVERSATION IN IT. I DO NOT ASK TO GO INTO ANYTHING HE SAID TO YOU.

Q: BUT YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU HAD ADVICE FROM A LOT OF PEOPLE AND WHAT I MEANT TO ASK YOU WAS DID A LOT OF PEOPLE SAY IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT TO REMAIN CALM?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: NO.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: NO. WERE ANY DOCUMENTS, BOOKS OR OTHER MATERIALS GIVEN TO YOU OR EXHIBITED TO YOU AT ANY OF THESE SESSIONS TO ASSIST YOU IN YOUR ROLE AS A WITNESS IN THIS CASE?

A: NO.

Q: YOU HAVE READ NO BOOKS ON HOW TO BE A GOOD WITNESS?

A: WHO.

Q: NONE ON CROSS-EXAMINATION?

A: NONE.

Q: HAVE YOU WATCHED ANY FILMS OR TAPES THAT RELATE TO THAT SUBJECT?

A: NONE.

Q: AND HAVE YOU DISCUSSED YOUR POSITION WITH FELLOW OFFICERS AND SOUGHT THEIR ADVICE AS TO HOW TO BE AN EFFECTIVE WITNESS?

A: NO.

Q: NOW, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, IS IT NOT FAIR TO SAY THAT IN YOUR 19-YEAR CAREER THIS IS BY FAR THE MOST IMPORTANT CASE IN WHICH YOU HAVE BEEN INVOLVED?

A: YES.

Q: IS IT NOT ALSO TRUE THAT YOU REALIZE NOW, AS YOU DID BACK ON JUNE 13, THAT THE RIGHT HAND LEATHER GLOVE WHICH YOU CLAIM TO HAVE FOUND ON ROCKINGHAM COULD BE A VERY SIGNIFICANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND ARE YOU AWARE OF THE FACT THAT YOUR TESTIMONY, AS IT PERTAINS TO THAT EVIDENCE, MAY BE VERY, VERY IMPORTANT TO THIS COURT?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU ANTICIPATE, BASED ON WHAT YOU HAD BEEN TOLD, THAT SOME SORT OF ATTACK MIGHT BE VISITED UPON YOU WITH RESPECT TO ALLEGED RACIAL SLURS?

A: NO.

Q: WAS IT A SURPRISE TO YOU WHEN THOSE QUESTIONS WERE PUT BY MARCIA CLARK AT THE VERY OUTSET OF YOUR TESTIMONY TO GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO DENY THE ALLEGATIONS BEFORE I HAVE TALKED TO YOU?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THAT ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE AND SPECULATION AS TO --

MR. BAILEY: WITHDRAW THE QUESTION.

Q: DO YOU RECALL THAT WHEN YOU TOOK THE STAND YOU EXPLAINED TO THE JURY AND TO THE COURT THAT YOU HAD HAD SOME SPECIAL SESSIONS BECAUSE OF A PROBLEM NOT RELATED TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE?

MS. CLARK: MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MS. CLARK: THE QUESTION IS --

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU RECALL MISS CLARK THEN CAUSED TO BE DISPLAYED TO YOU PARTS OF A LETTER ALLEGEDLY WRITTEN BY KATHLEEN BELL TO JOHNNIE COCHRAN AND INVITED YOU TO EXAMINE THE TEXT OF THAT LETTER? DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: OKAY. HAD YOU DISCUSSED THE FACT THAT THIS WAS GOING TO HAPPEN BEFORE YOU EVER CAME INTO THE COURTROOM?

A: YES. THAT LETTER, YES.

Q: THIS WAS NO SURPRISE TO YOU, WAS IT?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: AND WERE YOU NOT ADVISED THAT THE EFFORT IN DOING SO WAS TO STEAL THE THUNDER FROM THE INEVITABLE CROSS-EXAMINATION?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THAT IS SPECULATION, IT IS IRRELEVANT.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: WAS IT EXPLAINED TO YOU THAT THIS WAS AN EFFORT TO DIFFUSE THE IMPACT OF ANY ACCUSATIONS THAT MIGHT LATER BE MADE AGAINST YOU?

MS. CLARK: SAME OBJECTION. SAME OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: WHY -- IF THERE WAS AN EXPLANATION, WAS IT EXPLAINED TO YOU THAT THIS METHOD OF INTRODUCING YOUR TESTIMONY WAS TO BE USED IN THIS CASE?

A: IT WASN'T EXPLAINED TO ME, NO.

Q: WELL, IN OTHER WORDS, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, YOU WERE SIMPLY TOLD HERE IS WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, HERE IS THE ORDER IN WHICH THINGS WILL HAPPEN WHEN YOU HIT THE WITNESS STAND, AND WE ARE NOT GOING TO TELL YOU WHY?

A: I AM NOT THE PROSECUTOR, SIR.

Q: I KNOW THAT YOU ARE NOT THE PROSECUTOR; YOU ARE THE WITNESS.

A: THAT WAS --

Q: DID YOU HAVE ANY COMPREHENSION AS TO WHY THIS TACT WAS TAKEN BY THE PROSECUTION?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU UNDERSTAND THAT IT RELATED TO POSSIBLE EXPERIENCES YOU MIGHT HAVE ON CROSS-EXAMINATION?

A: NO.

Q: OKAY. WHAT WAS YOUR UNDERSTANDING AS TO WHY THIS LETTER WAS SURFACED AT THE OUTSET OF YOUR TESTIMONY.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, THAT IS IRRELEVANT.

THE COURT: I THINK HIS FRAME OF MIND IS IRRELEVANT. OVERRULED.

MS. CLARK: AS TO THE REASON FOR THE MANNER IN WHICH I UNDERSTAND HIM --

MR. COCHRAN: SPEAKING OBJECTION.

THE COURT: NO. I HAVE RULED, COUNSEL. IT IS RELEVANT, HIS FRAME OF MIND. OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: GIVE US YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHY THIS WAS DONE IN THIS CASE.

A: BECAUSE THAT IS WHY MISS CLARK -- THE WAY SHE WANTED TO LITIGATE THIS CASE.

Q: OKAY. AND BEYOND THAT, YOU HAD NO COMPREHENSION AS TO WHY IT WAS DONE; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU NOT TESTIFY AT THE VERY OUTSET OF YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOU HAD BEEN SUBJECTED, SINCE THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, TO A BARRAGE OF PERSONAL ATTACKS WHICH MADE YOU NERVOUS AS YOU FIRST SAT DOWN ON THE STAND?

MS. CLARK: MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: DID YOU TELL US SOMETHING ABOUT YOUR EXPERIENCES JULY 6TH OR A LITTLE LATER, PERHAPS AROUND THE 14TH, THAT WAS UNUSUAL?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU TELL US ANYTHING ABOUT PROBLEMS YOU HAD HAD THAT WERE SPECIFIC TO THIS CASE AND NO OTHER AND DID NOT RELATE TO THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT DID YOU MEAN TO CONVEY WHEN YOU TOLD THAT TO THIS JURY? WHAT WERE YOU THINKING OF WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT THESE PROBLEMS?

A: BEING ACCUSED OF COMMITTING A FELONY IN A CAPITAL CRIME.

Q: OKAY. WAS THAT THE ONLY ACCUSATION THAT WAS TROUBLING YOU AS YOU TOOK THE WITNESS STAND?

A: THAT IS THE ONLY ONE I CARE ABOUT, YES.

Q: THE OTHER ONES, THE ACCUSATIONS THAT YOU USED RACIAL EPITHETS, YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT AT ALL; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I DIDN'T SAY THEM. I DON'T CARE ABOUT THEM.

Q: YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT THEM?

A: I DIDN'T SAY THEM, SIR.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: THE WITNESS ANSWERED.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU READ, WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE PUBLICATION, IN ONE OF THE MEDIA COVERING THIS CASE, A PRINTED ARTICLE, THAT DISCLOSED OR PURPORTED TO DISCLOSE THAT YOU WERE UNDERGOING SOME HEAVY TRAINING IN THE D.A.'S OFFICE?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, HEARSAY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

MR. BAILEY: I'M SORRY, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

MR. BAILEY: OKAY.

Q: DID YOU LEARN FROM ANY SOURCE THAT IT WAS CLAIMED THAT YOU WERE UNDERGOING SOME TRAINING SESSIONS IN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WITH SEVERAL LAWYERS?

A: I WAS TOLD THAT.

Q: OKAY. DO YOU REMEMBER WHEN YOU WERE FIRST TOLD THAT?

A: I BELIEVE WHEN THAT NEWSWEEK ARTICLE CAME OUT.

Q: NEWSWEEK. YOU READ IT?

A: NO.

Q: NO. WHO DESCRIBED IT TO YOU?

A: MISS CLARK.

Q: DID SHE READ IT TO YOU?

A: MISS LEWIS. YES.

Q: READ YOU THE TEXT?

A: NO.

Q: OKAY. WAS THERE ANY TALK -- THIS, BY THE WAY, OCCURRED AFTER THE GRAND JURY EXPERIENCE, DID IT NOT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: OKAY. WAS THERE ANY TALK, DURING THE PERIOD WHEN SHE WAS READING THIS TO YOU, ABOUT A LEAK?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY. HE JUST TESTIFIED HE DID NOT -- NOBODY READ IT TO HIM.

THE COURT: WAIT.

MR. BAILEY: I'M SORRY, I MAY HAVE MISHEARD YOU.

THE COURT: REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: MISS CLARK READ YOU THE NEWSWEEK ARTICLE OR A PORTION OF IT?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE SHE READ IT, NO.

Q: WHAT DID SHE SAY TO YOU THAT NEWSWEEK WAS TALKING ABOUT?

A: SHE PULLED OUT EXCERPTS OF THE ARTICLE.

Q: WELL, WHERE WERE THE TWO OF YOU?

A: SITTING IN HER OFFICE.

Q: OKAY. NOW, DOES THIS HELP YOU WITH ONE OF THE MEETINGS, THE RECOLLECTION OF THE NEWSWEEK ARTICLE IN MARCH?

A: HELP ME WITH THE RECOLLECTION?

Q: WE WERE TRYING EARLIER, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, TO PIN DOWN AS BEST WE COULD THE TIMES THAT YOU HAD MET WITH PROSECUTORS IN THE MONTH OF MARCH TO GET READY FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.

A: YES.

Q: AT WHICH OF THE POSSIBLE THREE MEETINGS THAT YOU HAVE SOME RECOLLECTION OF DID THE NEWSWEEK ARTICLE SURFACE?

A: I DON'T REMEMBER WHICH ONE IT WAS, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WELL, DO YOU REMEMBER THE DATE ON WHICH YOU DID THE GRAND JURY THING?

A: NO.

Q: DO YOU REMEMBER THE DAY OF THE WEEK?

A: SUNDAY.

Q: SUNDAY?

A: I BELIEVE SO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. HOW LONG AFTER THAT DID MISS CLARK INFORM YOU THAT NEWSWEEK HAD DESCRIBED THE EVENT?

A: I DON'T REMEMBER THAT.

Q: A DAY OR MORE?

A: I DON'T REMEMBER, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT WHEN MISS CLARK INFORMED YOU ABOUT THE NEWSWEEK PIECE IT WAS AFTER THE GRAND JURY EXERCISE HAD TAKEN PLACE?

A: THAT WOULD BE FAIR TO SAY.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, WERE YOU PRESENT IN HER OFFICE WHEN YOU LEARNED ABOUT THIS OR ON THE PHONE?

A: I'M NOT SURE ON THAT. I COULD HAVE BEEN IN HER OFFICE.

Q: YOU DON'T RECALL WHETHER OR NOT YOU WERE ON A TELEPHONE OR FACING MISS CLARK WHEN YOU LEARNED THAT YOUR GRAND JURY TRAINING HAD BEEN PUBLISHED IN THE MEDIA?

A: I DON'T REMEMBER, SIR.

MS. CLARK: OBJECT TO "GRAND JURY TRAINING," YOUR HONOR. ARGUMENTATIVE AND MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: HOW TO YOU DESCRIBE THAT?

THE COURT: OVERRULED. OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: HOW DO YOU DESCRIBE THE SESSION IN THE GRAND JURY ROOM?

A: CASE PREPARATION.

Q: CASE PREPARATION?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WOULD YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE IF I DESCRIBE IT HENCEFORTH AS GRAND JURY ROOM CASE PREPARATION TO IDENTIFY THAT INCIDENT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: IS THAT ACCEPTABLE TO YOU?

A: IT IS ACCEPTABLE.

Q: THANK YOU. YOU HAVE TOLD US THAT THE LEARNING ABOUT THE NEWSWEEK ARTICLE CAME AFTER THE GRAND JURY PREPARATION AND I'M ASKING YOU WHETHER IT WAS DAYS OR WEEKS AFTERWARDS THAT MISS CLARK BROUGHT IT TO YOUR ATTENTION?

A: THE WAY YOU CHARACTERIZE THAT DAY OR WEEK -- DAYS OR WEEKS, I WOULD HAVE TO SAY DAYS.

Q: SOME DAYS?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MANY?

A: NO.

Q: NOW, DO YOU REMEMBER -- DO YOU KNOW WHEN NEWSWEEK COMES OUT AND WHEN IT IS GENERALLY DISTRIBUTED IN THIS AREA?

A: I BELIEVE IT IS SUNDAY OR MONDAY.

Q: WELL, IF YOU CONNECTED SUNDAY NIGHT ON THE NEWSSTAND SOMETIMES MONDAY, IS THAT YOUR EXPERIENCE?

A: I DON'T GO TO THE NEWSSTAND AND BUY IT, SO --

Q: DO YOU READ NEWSWEEK?

A: SOMETIMES, BUT NOT USUALLY.

Q: ASSUMING THAT SOMETIME ON THE MONDAY AFTER -- SOMETIME AFTER THE GRAND JURY PREPARATION, NEWSWEEK CAME OUT, DID -- WAS MISS CLARK THE FIRST ONE TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION THE CONTENT OF THE ARTICLE?

A: I'M NOT SURE. I BELIEVE SO.

Q: MR. TOURTELOT DIDN'T CALL YOU UP AND TELL YOU WHAT WAS BEING PUBLISHED?

THE COURT: I'M GOING TO SUSTAIN THE COURT'S OWN OBJECTION TO THAT QUESTION, COUNSEL.

MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT.

Q: DID MR. PELLICANO --

THE COURT: SAME OBJECTION, INVESTIGATOR EMPLOYED BY AN ATTORNEY.

MR. BAILEY: OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

Q: LET ME PUT IT THIS WAY: DID ANYONE, OTHER THAN YOUR LAWYERS IN PRIVATE CONVERSATION AND PRIOR TO MISS CLARK BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION THE EXISTENCE OF THIS ARTICLE?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE?

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT. WHEN YOU WALKED INTO HER OFFICE AND SHE TOLD YOU ABOUT THE ARTICLE, WAS SHE HOLDING THE MAGAZINE, IF YOU REMEMBER?

A: I DON'T.

Q: DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT SHE SAID THAT ENLIGHTENED YOU AS TO WHAT HAD HAPPENED IN THE MAGAZINE?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: DID YOU AT SOME POINT DURING THE CONVERSATION COME TO UNDERSTAND THAT NEWSWEEK WAS DESCRIBING MORE OR LESS THE GRAND JURY CASE PREPARATION THAT YOU HAD EXPERIENCED?

A: I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE DESCRIPTION I ASSUMED, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WERE YOU QUESTIONED AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAD TOLD ANYONE ABOUT THAT IN THE MEDIA?

A: NO.

Q: WAS THERE ANY CONVERSATION BETWEEN YOU, MISS CLARK AND POSSIBLY OTHERS ON THAT DAY ABOUT HOW THE MEDIA HAD GOTTEN AHOLD OF IT?

A: I THINK --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. IRRELEVANT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: OKAY. SUBSEQUENT TO THIS CONVERSATION WITH MISS CLARK DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH HER OR ANY OF THE PROSECUTORS ABOUT BRINGING OUT THE GRAND JURY PREPARATION SESSION EARLY IN YOUR DIRECT EXAMINATION?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE WE DID, NO.

Q: WELL, I SAID "SUBSEQUENT" NOW. THAT MEANS UP TO TODAY. YOU HADN'T -- YOU HAD AN EXPERIENCE WITH MISS CLARK IN THE OFFICE IN THE OFFICE WHERE YOU LEARNED ABOUT NEWSWEEK?

A: YES.

Q: YOU TOLD US THAT YOU WERE NOT SURPRISED WHEN SHE DEVELOPED EARLY IN YOUR DIRECT EXAMINATION THAT YOU HAD UNDERGONE A PRACTICED CROSS-EXAMINATION WITH SOME LAWYERS. IF YOU ARE NOT SURPRISED, AT SOME POINT I TAKE IT YOU WERE INFORMED THAT THAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. WERE YOU INFORMED THAT THAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN SOMETIME AFTER THE NEWSWEEK ARTICLE CAME OUT AND YOU TWO DISCUSSED IT?

A: NO. I THINK MISS CLARK TOLD ME THAT SHE WAS GOING TO BRING THAT UP ON DIRECT AND THAT WAS AS FAR AS IT WENT.

Q: WHEN DID SHE TELL YOU THAT?

A: RIGHT BEFORE I TESTIFIED.

Q: JUST BEFORE YOU TESTIFIED?

A: THE DAY BEFORE, MAYBE DAY AND A HALF.

Q: ALL RIGHT. PRIOR TO THAT YOU HAD NEVER HEARD OF THAT PLAN, HAD YOU? ISN'T THAT TRUE?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE AND IT ALSO --

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, CAN WE APPROACH?

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WITH THE COURT REPORTER, PLEASE.

MR. BAILEY: I WILL WITHDRAW THE QUESTION.

THE COURT: EASIER.

MS. CLARK: OKAY.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: YOU JUST SAID THAT MISS CLARK EXPLAINED TO YOU A DAY OR TWO BEFORE YOUR TESTIMONY THAT SHE WOULD ELICIT FROM YOU THE FACT THAT YOU HAD THAT PRACTICED CROSS-EXAMINATION, CORRECT?

A: I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS EXACTLY THOSE WORDS, BUT YES.

Q: TO THAT EFFECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: WAS THIS A DAY OR TWO BEFORE YOUR TESTIMONY, THE FIRST TIME THAT THIS IDEA OF BRINGING THIS OUT WAS CONVEYED TO YOU?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. BUT AT NO TIME AFTER THE EXPERIENCE TOOK PLACE, AND PRIOR TO THE PUBLICATION OF THE NEWSWEEK ARTICLE, WERE YOU TOLD THAT ANY SUCH DISCLOSURE WOULD BE MADE; ISN'T THAT SO, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THAT IS EXACTLY THE POINT. I WOULD LIKE TO APPROACH.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WITH THE COURT REPORTER, PLEASE.

MR. BAILEY: I DO NOT WITHDRAW THIS TIME.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE ARE OVER AT THE SIDE BAR. MISS CLARK, WHAT IS THE OBJECTION?

MS. CLARK: THE OBJECTION IS THAT MISLEADS THE JURY INTO BELIEVING THAT THERE WAS ANY PREPARATION AT THAT TIME IN TERMS OF WHAT WE WERE REALLY GOING TO QUESTION THE WITNESS ABOUT OR HOW WE WERE GOING TO STRUCTURE DIRECT. THERE WAS NONE. THAT DIDN'T OCCUR UNTIL AFTER THAT, WAY AFTER THAT, SO THAT THERE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ANY STRATEGIZING, THERE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ANY PLANNING THE INFERENCE THAT MR. BAILEY IS SEEKING TO DRAW IS HAD THE NEWSWEEK ARTICLE NOT COME OUT WE WOULD NOT HAVE EXPOSED THE FACT THAT WE HAD PREPARED THE CASE WITH THE WITNESS AND QUESTIONED HIM ABOUT THESE THINGS. AND THAT IS NOT A FAIR INFERENCE BECAUSE WE HADN'T PREPARED FOR WHAT WE WERE GOING TO ASK YET. THAT WAS -- THAT WAS WHAT PART OF THE GRAND JURY SESSION WAS ABOUT.

THE COURT: UH-HUH.

MS. CLARK: IT IS AN UNFAIR INFERENCE BEING LEFT WITH THIS JURY.

THE COURT: WHAT IS THE LEGAL BASIS?

MS. CLARK: MISLEADING UNDER 352. IT WILL CONFUSE THE JURY. IT WILL MISLEAD THE JURY. THIS IS DECEPTIVE. YOU KNOW, IT ALSO GOES TO WORK PRODUCT, YOUR HONOR. YOU KNOW, HOW WE PLAN AND WHEN WE PLAN AND STRATEGIZE THE QUESTIONING OF A WITNESS IS A MATTER -- IT'S A SUBJECT MATTER OF WORK PRODUCT THAT THE COURT IS PERMITTING COUNSEL TO GO INTO. THIS WITNESS DOESN'T KNOW THE NICETIES OF THIS, BUT THIS IS A MATTER OF WHEN WE REALLY SAT DOWN TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WE WERE TO GO ASK ABOUT, IN WHAT ORDER, HOW HIS DIRECT EXAMINATION WAS GOING TO BE STRUCTURED, SO AT THE POINT IN TIME THAT COUNSEL IS REFERRING TO THAT HADN'T OCCURRED YET. I DIDN'T EVEN REALLY BEGUN -- I AM TRYING TO THINK WHEN I REALLY STRUCTURED THE MATTER OF QUESTIONING. IT WAS PRETTY LATE -- IT WAS PRETTY LATE. I DIDN'T EVEN BEGIN IT I THINK UNTIL A WEEK BEFORE HE TOOK THE STAND. HE WOULDN'T KNOW THAT. HE DOESN'T KNOW. WE SIT AND WE REVIEW FACTS AND WE TALK ABOUT WHAT HE REMEMBERS, YOU KNOW, AND I ASK HIM TO REVIEW HIS PRELIM TESTIMONY AND YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN, THE WAY PEOPLE WOULD ORDINARILY PREPARE A WITNESS. BUT I DID NOT ACTUALLY SAY "WE ARE GOING TO DO THIS" ACTUALLY UNTIL - I'M TRYING TO THINK WHEN I DID. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHEN I DID IT.

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

MS. CLARK: THE WHOLE AREA IS IRRELEVANT, YOUR HONOR, AND WHAT COUNSEL IS TRYING TO ELICIT FROM THIS WITNESS, BY WAY OF INFERENCE, THIS WITNESS CAN'T EVEN KNOW ABOUT AND WE ARE TALKING AS WELL ABOUT WORK PRODUCT.

THE COURT: ARE YOU TAKING THE POSITION THAT PREPARING WITNESSES TO TESTIFY IS IRRELEVANT?

MS. CLARK: NO, NO, I'M NOT. I'M TAKING THE POSITION THAT ASKING THIS WITNESS TO SPECULATE OR TO TRY TO DRAW THE INFERENCE FROM THIS WITNESS THAT WE WOULD NOT HAVE DIVULGED THE GRAND JURY EXAMINATION BUT FOR THE NEWSWEEK ARTICLE IS UNFAIR AND MISLEADING TO THE JURY BECAUSE HE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT WE WERE PLANNING TO DO BEFORE, AFTER OR DURING.

THE COURT: MR. BAILEY.

MR. BAILEY: I'M NOT ASKING HIM TO DRAW ANY INFERENCE. I'M ASKING HIM IF A PLAN WAS EVER MADE KNOWN TO HIM BETWEEN THE EVENTS AND THE PUBLICATION, AND I THINK THAT IS A SIMPLE HISTORICAL FACT, BUT WHAT ARGUMENT IS MADE OF IT IS SOMETHING YOUR HONOR MAY TO RULE ON LATER. I THINK IT A FAIR QUESTION UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THE OBJECTION IS OVERRULED, ASSUMING THE QUESTION IS REASKED IN THAT PARAMETER, WHETHER OR NOT IT PRECEDED.

MR. BAILEY: YES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. AND MR. BAILEY, THIS WILL BE THE LAST QUESTION BEFORE THE NOON BREAK.

MR. BAILEY: YES, YOUR HONOR.

Q: DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, BETWEEN THE TIME THAT YOU DID GRAND JURY CASE PREPARATION ON THE WEEKEND AND THE TIME THAT MS. CLARK BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION THE CONTENTS OF THE NEWSWEEK ARTICLE DESCRIBING THAT EVENT, DID ANY PROSECUTOR TELL YOU, BETWEEN THOSE TWO EVENTS, WE ARE GOING TO BRING THE PREPARATION SESSION OUT EARLY IN YOUR TESTIMONY?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION.

THE WITNESS: NO.

MR. BAILEY: I DIDN'T HEAR THE ANSWER.

THE COURT: WAIT. THERE IS AN OBJECTION.

MS. CLARK: UNDER 352, MISLEADING.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: NO.

MR. BAILEY: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OUR RECESS FOR THE MORNING SESSION. PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITIONS. DO YOU DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONGST YOURSELVES, FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, ALLOW ANYBODY TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU OR PERFORM ANY DELIBERATIONS UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU. WE WILL STAND IN RECESS UNTIL 1:30. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, YOU ARE EXCUSED UNTIL 1:30.

THE WITNESS: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

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

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 1995 1:35 P.M.

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

APPEARANCES: (APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)

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

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

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

THE COURT: BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. ALL PARTIES ARE AGAIN PRESENT. COUNSEL, DID WE GET A BETTER PHOTOCOPY OF THE TOURTELOT LETTER BECAUSE --

MR. BAILEY: I WAS GOING TO DO THAT, YOUR HONOR. I DON'T KNOW IF IT HAS BEEN DONE.

THE COURT: I MUST CONFESS, THE -- ONE OF THE CRITICAL LINES REGARDING THE AMOUNT IS OBSCURED ON MY COPY AND COULD BE INTERPRETED AS 200,000.

MR. BAILEY: I THINK IT'S PRETTY PLAINLY SIX FIGURES AFTER THE DOLLAR SIGN.

THE COURT: THE PROBLEM IS, THE PHOTOCOPY IMPERFECTION IS EXACTLY -- AND IT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN REDUCED AS WELL.

MR. BAILEY: WELL, MR. TOURTELOT IS UPSTAIRS. I'M SURE THE GOVERNMENT COULD FIND OUT IF THE ORIGINAL SAYS A HUNDRED. THE NEWSPAPER ARTICLE SAYS IT IN SEVERAL PLACES AND SAID THAT HE ACKNOWLEDGED IT. SO -- I CAN'T IMAGINE THEM TRYING TO RAISE 10.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, DO WE KNOW IF THAT'S AVAILABLE? THAT WAS OUR INQUIRY WHEN WE BROKE FOR LUNCH.

MS. CLARK: I KNOW. I FORGOT TO ASK MR. TOURTELOT. I AM SORRY, YOUR HONOR. I CAN DO THAT. WE'RE DOING IT NOW.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. ARE WE READY TO PROCEED IN THE ABSENCE OF THAT? I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE READ AND -- A CLEAR COPY OF THIS LETTER BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH IT.

MS. CLARK: THE COURT HAS NOT ISSUED A RULING YET THEN.

THE COURT: NO. ONE OF THE CRITICAL LINES HERE IS OBSCURED TO ME AND I ASSUME YOUR COPY IS THE SAME.

MS. CLARK: YES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. THEN LET'S GET AS FAR AS WE CAN WITH THE JURY THIS AFTERNOON. ALL RIGHT. DEPUTY MAGNERA, LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE.

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

THE COURT: BE SEATED, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WOULD YOU RESUME THE WITNESS STAND, PLEASE. ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

THE JURY: GOOD AFTERNOON.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT WE'VE NOW BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL, THAT DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN IS AGAIN ON THE WITNESS STAND UNDERGOING CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BAILEY.

MARK FUHRMAN, THE WITNESS ON THE STAND AT THE TIME OF THE LUNCH ADJOURNMENT, RESUMED THE STAND AND TESTIFIED FURTHER AS FOLLOWS:

THE COURT: GOOD AFTERNOON, DETECTIVE.

THE WITNESS: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR.

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

MR. BAILEY: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED)

BY MR. BAILEY:

Q: DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, YESTERDAY, WHEN YOU WERE QUIZZED ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF THE HOMICIDE KIT IN THE VEHICLE THAT YOU AND DETECTIVE PHILLIPS PICKED UP, ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT YOU MENTIONED THAT WAS CARRIED IN THESE KITS WAS PLASTIC BAGS?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: WERE THERE ANY OF ROUGHLY THIS TYPE OF COMMERCIAL ZIPLOC SANDWICH BAG SIZE AND TYPE OF PLASTIC IN THE HOMICIDE KIT (INDICATING)?

A: NO, WE DON'T HAVE ANY ZIPLOC BAGS.

Q: YOU DON'T?

A: NO. WE HAVE A -- I'M SORRY.

Q: TELL ME WHAT YOU DO HAVE.

A: A JAIL BAG, WHAT YOU PUT A -- AN ARRESTEE'S PROPERTY IN. THEN IT'S HEAT SEALED WITH A HEAT SEAL THAT'S KEPT IN THE JAIL.

Q: OKAY. AND I BELIEVE YOU SAID SOMETHING ABOUT DIFFERENT SIZE BAGS; IS THAT TRUE?

A: WELL, THE JAIL BAGS ARE ONE SIZE THAT I KNOW IS IN THERE AND THEN YOU MIGHT HAVE VERY SMALL ONES USED FOR NARCOTICS.

Q: OKAY.

THE COURT: LET THE RECORD REFLECT WHAT MR. BAILEY HAS SHOWN TO THE WITNESS IS A SANDWICH SIZE ZIPLOC BAG.

MR. BAILEY: ROUGHLY SIX BY SEVEN AND A HALF INCHES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: YES.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT. IN OTHER WORDS, PLASTIC BAGS OF VARIOUS SIZES ARE AVAILABLE FOR THE COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE?

A: TWO THAT COMES TO MY IMMEDIATE MEMORY, YES.

Q: OKAY. AND YOU MENTIONED ALSO THAT RUBBER GLOVES ARE AVAILABLE?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: OKAY. NOW, ONCE AGAIN, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, HAVE YOU ATTEMPTED TO FIND OUT THE IDENTITIES OF THE PEOPLE YOU WERE UNABLE TO NAME WHO WERE IN THE GRAND JURY CASE PREPARATION EXERCISE?

A: NO.

Q: DOES THE NAME MELISSA BECKER MEAN ANYTHING TO YOU?

A: NONE AT ALL.

Q: DO YOU REMEMBER ANY LAW STUDENTS BEING PRESENT DURING THAT TIME, ANYONE IDENTIFIED TO YOU AS A LAW STUDENT?

A: I DO NOT KNOW ANY OF THE PEOPLE IN THE ROOM.

Q: SORRY. MELISSA DECKER.

A: NO. I STILL DON'T.

Q: AND YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER ANY OF THE PEOPLE IN THE ROOM WERE LAW STUDENTS?

A: I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR STATUS WAS, NO.

Q: OKAY. IS THERE ANYONE IN THIS ROOM OTHER THAN THE LAWYERS SEATED AT COUNSEL TABLE WHO WERE PRESENT DURING THAT EXERCISE?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE. MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MS. CLARK: ASSUMES --

THE COURT: I AM SORRY. I STAND CORRECTED. SUSTAINED. IT DOES. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: YES. DO YOU SEE ANYONE IN THE COURTROOM WHO WAS PRESENT THAT DAY OTHER THAN THESE LAWYERS?

MS. CLARK: SAME OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION OVER IN THIS AREA, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, MAY I HAVE -- SAME OBJECTION. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE. MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY. ASSUMES THAT ALL OF US WERE PRESENT.

THE COURT: NO. THAT'S NOT MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE QUESTION. OTHER THAN THESE LAWYERS.

MS. CLARK: OTHER THAN -- AND ASSUMES THESE LAWYERS WERE PRESENT.

THE COURT: OTHER THAN THESE LAWYERS HERE IN THE COURTROOM IS THE WAY -- WHY DON'T YOU REPHRASE THE QUESTION SO IT'S CRYSTAL CLEAR.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: YOU TOLD US MR. DARDEN AND MISS LEWIS WERE PRESENT?

A: YES.

Q: MR. CLARKE WAS NOT -- MISS CLARK WAS NOT I TAKE IT?

A: SHE WAS NOT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU SEE ANYONE OTHER THAN THE LAWYERS, ONE, TWO, WHITE AND ONE OTHER THAT YOU NAMED, ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEYS IN THIS COURTROOM WHO WAS PRESENT DURING THAT SESSION?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

Q: LOOKING IN THE AUDIENCE, YOU DON'T RECOGNIZE ANYONE WHO WAS PRESENT?

A: NO.

Q: OKAY. YOU MENTIONED MR. RUNYON. WHAT DOES HE DO?

A: I BELIEVE I SEEM -- ASSISTING MR. DARDEN.

Q: HAVE YOU HAD ANY CONTACTS WITH OR INTERVIEWS WITH, SINCE THE FIRST OF JANUARY, ANY PSYCHOLOGISTS?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. RELEVANCE. PRIVILEGE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: IN CONNECTION WITH THE TESTIMONY.

A: NO.

Q: NONE AT ALL?

A: NO.

Q: HAVE YOU RECEIVED ANY COUNSELING FROM ANYONE OTHER THAN LAWYERS WITH RESPECT TO YOUR TESTIMONY?

A: NO.

Q: OKAY. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: DOES THE NAME, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, DON VINCENT MEAN ANYTHING TO YOU?

A: DON VINCENT I BELIEVE IS A CITY ATTORNEY.

Q: DO YOU KNOW ANY OTHER DON VINCENT OR KNOW OF?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: HOW ABOUT MARK GOLDSTEIN? DOES THAT NAME MEAN ANYTHING TO YOU?

A: THE NAME GOLDSTEIN DOES NOT, NO.

Q: HAVE YOU HAD ANY CONTACT WITH ANYONE BY EITHER OF THOSE NAMES IN CONNECTION WITH THIS CASE SINCE THE FIRST OF THE YEAR?

A: NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO.

Q: OKAY. THANK YOU. NOW, IN YOUR DIRECT TESTIMONY, YOU EXPLAINED TO US THAT AT THE REQUEST OF DETECTIVE VANNATTER I BELIEVE IT WAS, YOU AND DETECTIVE PHILLIPS WENT BACK TO BUNDY TO REVIEW THE LEFT-HAND GLOVE THAT YOU HAD SEEN THERE?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND THE PURPOSE OF THAT WAS FOR YOU TOGETHER TO MAKE A JUDGMENT OF SOME SORTS AS TO THE PROBABILITY THAT THE TWO GLOVES WERE RELATED, THE RIGHT HAND AT ROCKINGHAM, THE LEFT HAND AT BUNDY?

A: YES, AND TO SEE IF THEY WERE SIMILAR.

Q: OKAY. AND IN CONNECTION WITH THAT EFFORT, I BELIEVE YOU SAID THAT YOU TOOK A PENCIL AND PICKED UP -- OR PEN AND PICKED UP THE GLOVE TO SEE WHAT THE LINING LOOKED LIKE?

A: YES. LIFTED IT UP, YES.

Q: CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME IN A LITTLE MORE DETAIL -- AND YOU CAN SHOW US IF YOU WISH WITH THIS GLOVE -- HOW YOU PICKED IT UP; IN OTHER WORDS, WHERE THE PENCIL WAS PUT?

A: I DIDN'T PICK IT UP, SIR.

Q: WELL, DID YOU LIFT IT AT ALL OR JUST LIFT ONE SIDE?

A: JUST LIFTED IT, YES.

Q: OKAY. AND HOW FAR DID YOU LIFT IT?

A: COUPLE INCHES.

Q: AND DID YOU SHINE YOUR LITTLE LIGHT ON IT OR WAS IT LIGHT ENOUGH THAT YOU DIDN'T NEED TO BY THE TIME YOU GOT BACK TO BUNDY?

A: I WAS LOOKING PREDOMINATELY IF IT WAS A RIGHT OR LEFT AND THE LINING, THE COLOR OF THE LEATHER.

Q: AND YOU FOUND THAT THEY WERE SIMILAR?

A: YES.

Q: AND THEN YOU WENT BACK AND MADE YOUR REPORT?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, YOU REMAINED AT ROCKINGHAM FOR SOME TIME AFTER THAT; DID YOU NOT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: DO YOU KNOW A WITNESS IN THIS CASE NAMED RON SHIPP?

A: YES.

Q: DID HE TALK TO YOU ON THE PHONE THAT MORNING?

A: HE DID.

Q: OKAY. AND PRIOR TO TALKING TO RON SHIPP, DID YOU MAKE AN EFFORT TO FIND OUT WHETHER ANYONE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAD HEARD ANYTHING UNUSUAL THAT NIGHT?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU GO QUESTION ANYONE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU GO TO ANY HOME IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD?

A: YES.

Q: WHOSE HOME?

A: THE HOUSE TO THE NORTH THAT I KNOW NOW IS THE SALINGER RESIDENCE.

Q: AND DID YOU ENCOUNTER SOMEONE THERE THAT YOU WERE ABLE TO TALK TO?

A: BRIEFLY, YES.

Q: AND WAS THAT ROSA LOPEZ?

A: I HAVE NO IDEA.

Q: YOU DIDN'T GET HER NAME?

A: NO.

Q: YOU DIDN'T WRITE IT DOWN?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU ASK HER IF SHE HEARD ANYTHING UNUSUAL? JUST YES OR NO.

A: NO.

Q: WHAT DID YOU ASK HER, IF YOU REMEMBER?

A: IF I COULD LOOK DOWN THE NORTH BORDER OF THE RESIDENCE, SOMETHING HAPPENED NEXT DOOR AND I JUST WANTED TO LOOK AND SEE IF THERE WAS ANYTHING ON THEIR SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. THEY SAID NO PROBLEM.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, DID YOU MAKE ANY INQUIRY AS TO WHERE HER BEDROOM WAS, IF SHE HAD ONE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SIMPSON HOUSE?

A: ABSOLUTELY NONE, SIR.

Q: DID YOU MAKE ANY INQUIRY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT SHE HAD SEEN ANYTHING THAT NIGHT OVER AT THE SIMPSON HOUSE?

A: NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: DID YOU INQUIRE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT SHE HAD HEARD ANYTHING THAT NIGHT AT THE SIMPSON HOUSE?

A: NO.

Q: BY THIS TIME IN YOUR INVESTIGATION, HAVING IN MIND THE BLOOD THAT YOU DISCOVERED ON THE BRONCO AND THE GLOVE THAT YOU DISCOVERED IN THE ALLEYWAY, HAD MR. SIMPSON BECOME A SUSPECT IN YOUR MIND AS A DETECTIVE?

A: I THINK THERE WAS A REMOTE POSSIBILITY, BUT NOTHING WAS SOLID, NO.

Q: A REMOTE POSSIBILITY?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. WELL, WERE YOU PRESENT WHEN HE ARRIVED FROM CHICAGO AND THEY SLAPPED HANDCUFFS ON HIM?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: YES.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: WELL, WHEN YOU SLAP HANDCUFFS ON SOMEONE, YOU TAKE THEM INTO CUSTODY, DON'T YOU?

A: NOT ALWAYS, NO.

Q: OH, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO HANDCUFF A CITIZEN WITHOUT A CRIMINAL CHARGE?

A: THERE ARE INSTANCES YOU COULD, YES.

Q: HAVE YOU DONE THAT IN THE PAST, HANDCUFFED PEOPLE AGAINST WHOM THERE WAS NO CHARGE?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS IRRELEVANT, BEYOND THE SCOPE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: THERE'S TIMES WHEN PEOPLE PICK PEOPLE OUT AS SUSPECTS AND YOU LATER IDENTIFY THAT THEY WERE NOT THE SUSPECT AND YOU WOULD RELEASE THEM.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: BUT THAT WASN'T THE CASE HERE, WAS IT?

A: I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CASE -- AS FAR AS HE WAS HANDCUFFED, I DID NOT ORDER THAT.

Q: WITHOUT GOING INTO THE DETAILS, HAD YOU HAD CONVERSATION WITH THE OTHER DETECTIVES AS TO WHETHER OR NOT ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON WAS A SUSPECT IN THE DOUBLE HOMICIDE ON BUNDY?

A: NO.

Q: THAT HAD NOT EVER BEEN DISCUSSED PRIOR TO YOUR GOING TO THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: HAD IT EVER PASSED YOUR MIND, HOWEVER REMOTELY, THAT THAT MIGHT BE THE CASE?

A: NOT KNOWING HIS WHEREABOUTS THE NIGHT BEFORE, I FELT IT WAS EXTREMELY REMOTE.

Q: NOT KNOWING HIS WHEREABOUTS.

A: I KNEW HE WAS IN CHICAGO.

Q: WELL, YOU ALSO KNEW HE DIDN'T LEAVE UNTIL 11:00, RIGHT?

A: I DIDN'T KNOW THAT, NO.

Q: YOU DIDN'T THINK THE LIMOUSINE WAS THERE TO PICK UP ANYONE ELSE AT 11:00 O'CLOCK, DID YOU?

A: I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE LIMOUSINE OTHER THAN WHAT KATO INITIALLY TOLD ME.

Q: HOW MUCH MORE DO YOU NEED TO KNOW? HE SAW A LIMOUSINE AT 11:00 O'CLOCK.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. BAILEY: WITHDRAW THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: DID THAT SEEM SIGNIFICANT TO YOU WITH RESPECT TO THE WHEREABOUTS OF THE RATHER FAMOUS OWNER OF THE HOUSE THAT THERE WAS A LIMOUSINE THERE AT 11:00 O'CLOCK?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: DID KATO KAELIN TELL YOU THAT HE SAW A LIMOUSINE THERE AT 11:00 O'CLOCK WHEN HE WENT OUTSIDE AFTER HE HEARD THE NOISE?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. NOW, MY QUESTION IS, DID THAT IN ANY WAY RELATE TO THE POSSIBLE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF MR. SIMPSON AT ABOUT THAT TIME AT HIS HOME?

A: I HAD NO IDEA.

Q: DID YOU THINK MAYBE THE LIMOUSINE WAS BRINGING HIM BACK FROM SOMEWHERE?

A: I DID NOT GIVE IT ANY THOUGHT.

Q: BUT YOU KNEW HE HAD GONE TO CHICAGO, DIDN'T YOU?

A: YES. I HAD BEEN TOLD THAT BY THEN.

Q: YOU KNEW THAT DETECTIVE PHILLIPS TALKED TO HIM IN CHICAGO, DIDN'T YOU?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. VAGUE AS TO TIME. WHEN.

THE WITNESS: YES.

MR. BAILEY: THE NEXT MORNING.

THE COURT: WELL, I TAKE IT WE'RE STILL IN THE CONTEXT OF WHEN DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WENT NEXT DOOR TO THE SALINGER'S.

MR. BAILEY: I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT HE THEN KNEW.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: OKAY. YOU KNEW THAT HE REACHED HIM IN CHICAGO BY TELEPHONE, DIDN'T YOU?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AND DETECTIVE PHILLIPS WAS SATISFIED THAT THE RECIPIENT OF THE CALL WAS IN FACT IN CHICAGO, CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO AT SOME POINT, HE HAD TRAVELED TO CHICAGO. DID THAT OCCUR TO YOU?

A: OF COURSE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DID A QUESTION ARISE IN YOUR MIND AS TO WHEN HE MIGHT HAVE TRAVELED TO CHICAGO?

A: IT DID NOT.

Q: WELL, DID IT OCCUR TO YOU IF HE HAD TRAVELED TO CHICAGO BEFORE THE ICE CREAM WAS PURCHASED, AT WHICH POINT THE VICTIM NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON WAS VERY MUCH ALIVE, THAT HE WOULD BE ELIMINATED AS A SUSPECT INSOFAR AS DIRECT PARTICIPATION IN THE HOMICIDE WAS CONCERNED?

A: I NEVER GAVE ANY OF THAT --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. COMPOUND.

THE COURT: I'M SORRY. MISS CLARK?

MS. CLARK: COMPOUND, YOUR HONOR, COMPLEX.

THE COURT: CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION AS WELL. SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: WERE YOU, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, DURING THE COURSE OF YOUR STAY FROM 2:10 A.M. UNTIL YOU TALKED TO SHIPP LET'S SAY AROUND 10:00 -- IS THAT CORRECT; 10:00 O'CLOCK?

A: I DON'T RECALL WHAT TIME HE CALLED.

Q: MID MORNING?

A: I BELIEVE SO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WERE YOU ENGAGED IN YOUR PROFESSION AS A DETECTIVE OF THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT?

A: AT THE TIME I TALKED TO MR. SHIPP?

Q: NO, SIR. FROM 2:10 A.M. WHEN YOU ARRIVED ON THE SCENE UNTIL AT LEAST MID MORNING ON THE 13TH, WERE YOU ENGAGED IN YOUR PROFESSION AS A POLICE OFFICER?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: WERE YOU BEING PAID TO CARRY OUT THE FUNCTION OF A DETECTIVE DURING THAT PERIOD?

A: YES.

Q: WERE YOU GIVING THAT YOUR BEST EFFORT DURING THAT PERIOD?

A: I WAS BEING DIRECTED. YES.

Q: YOU WERE BEING DIRECTED?

A: YES.

Q: YOU WEREN'T DIRECTED TO THE BRONCO, WERE YOU?

A: NO.

Q: YOU WEREN'T DIRECTED TO THE SOUTH BORDER OF THE SIMPSON PROPERTY, WERE YOU?

A: YES.

Q: BY WHOM?

A: MR. KAELIN.

Q: MR. KAELIN ORDERED YOU TO GO OUT AND LOOK FOR WHERE THE NOISE CAME FROM, DETECTIVE?

A: NO. HE DIRECTED ME BY HIS STATEMENT.

Q: DOES HE HAVE THE POWER TO DIRECT ANY DETECTIVE IN THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

A: DIRECTION IN THE LOGICAL THING TO DO WOULD BE ONE AND THE SAME.

Q: THEY'RE ONE AND THE SAME?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU WANT TO LEAVE IT THAT KATO KAELIN DIRECTED YOU TO GO OUT AND LOOK FOR THE NOISE OR ITS SOURCE?

A: BY HIS STATEMENT, ABSOLUTELY.

Q: OKAY. YOU HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO DO THAT WITHOUT TELLING ANYBODY, CORRECT?

A: I HAD A CHOICE. THAT WAS A LOGICAL THING TO DO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. LET'S CONTINUE. WHEN YOU LEARNED THAT MR. SIMPSON WAS IN CHICAGO, DID IT OCCUR TO YOU THAT THE PRESENCE OF THE LIMOUSINE MIGHT BE OF SOME SIGNIFICANCE?

A: I DID NOT GIVE THE LIMOUSINE ANY THOUGHT AFTER THAT.

Q: DID YOU GIVE ANY THOUGHT TO THE POSSIBILITY THAT MR. SIMPSON WAS OR WAS NOT IN BRENTWOOD BETWEEN 9:00 AND MIDNIGHT?

A: NO.

Q: THAT NEVER CROSSED YOUR MIND?

A: WELL, IT WAS OUT OF MY REALM OF RESPONSIBILITY AT THAT TIME.

Q: WELL, YOU CLAIM THAT YOU FOUND AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF MURDER THAT TURNS OUT TO BE ON HIS PROPERTY. DID THAT GIVE YOU ANY CAUSE TO SUSPECT MR. SIMPSON?

A: KNOWING HE WAS IN CHICAGO, I THINK IT WOULD BE QUITE THE OPPOSITE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, YOU ATTACH SOME SIGNIFICANCE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, TO THE BRONCO INITIALLY AGAINST THE POSSIBILITY THAT PEOPLE INSIDE WOULD BE INJURED, CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU HAD ASCERTAINED BY QUESTIONING KATO KAELIN THAT ONLY O.J. SIMPSON DROVE THE BRONCO, CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU HAD NOTICED A SHOVEL AND SOME PLASTIC WHICH YOU DID NOT THEN UNDERSTAND IN THE BACK OF THE BRONCO, CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU HAVE BEFORE CITED THIS SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES AS BEING RELEVANT TO THE PRESSING NEED TO GO OVER THE FENCE ONTO THE PROPERTY, CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WERE THEY ALSO RELEVANT TO THE POSSIBILITY THAT MR. SIMPSON SHOULD BE LOOKED AT AS A SUSPECT ON THE 13TH OF JUNE?

A: NOT AT THE TIME AS YOU ARE DESCRIBING THESE, NO.

Q: OKAY. WHEN YOU LEARNED THAT HE WAS THE ONLY DRIVER OF THE SUSPECT -- OF THE BRONCO ACCORDING TO MR. KAELIN, WERE YOU INTERESTED TO KNOW WHETHER THE BRONCO MIGHT HAVE LEFT THE PREMISES THAT NIGHT DURING THE PERIOD DURING WHICH THE MURDER MAY HAVE OCCURRED?

A: THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL, YES.

Q: IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL. ALL RIGHT. NOW, WHEN YOU SPOKE TO MISS LOPEZ TO GET PERMISSION TO GO BACK ALONG THE BORDERLINE AND WHEREVER IT WAS THAT YOU WANTED TO GO ON THE SALINGER'S PROPERTY, DID YOU ASK HER ANY QUESTIONS WHATSOEVER ABOUT THE BRONCO?

A: NO.

Q: OKAY. OR ANY QUESTIONS WHATSOEVER ABOUT THE DOINGS AT THE SIMPSON PLACE THE NIGHT BEFORE?

A: NO.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU THEN GO AND MAKE AN INQUIRY OR INVESTIGATION OF THE TERRAIN TO THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE SALINGER PROPERTY ALONG THE FENCE?

A: YES. YES, SIR.

Q: BY THE WAY, DID YOU EVER IDENTIFY YOURSELF TO ROSA LOPEZ?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AS DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU TAKE ANY NOTES WHEN YOU TALKED TO HER?

A: NO.

Q: OR MAKE ANY LATER ON OF THE CONVERSATION?

A: NO.

Q: AND DID YOU EVER SAY TO HER THAT YOU WOULD HAVE SOME OTHER OFFICERS GET IN TOUCH WITH HER?

A: NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO AS FAR AS YOU WERE CONCERNED, THERE WAS NO POINT IN YOU OR ANYONE ELSE QUESTIONING ROSA LOPEZ?

A: THERE WAS NOTHING SHE INDICATED THAT SHOULD BE INTERVIEWED FOR, NO.

Q: WELL, YOU NEVER ASKED HER A QUESTION. HOW COULD SHE INDICATE ANYTHING?

A: AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED.

Q: DO YOU DETERMINE WITHOUT ASKING QUESTIONS WHETHER WITNESSES HAVE INFORMATION?

A: NO, SIR. YOU MISSTATED I -- I WOULDN'T HAVE INTERVIEWED HER.

Q: YOU WOULD NOT HAVE INTERVIEWED HER?

A: NO.

Q: AS THE DETECTIVE, YOU DON'T INTERVIEW WITNESSES?

A: IT WAS NO LONGER MY CASE. DETECTIVE LANGE AND VANNATTER WILL DICTATE WHAT INTERVIEWS AND WHEN.

Q: DID YOU EVER CONSULT WITH THEM AND SAY, "I WOULD LIKE THIS TIME TO ASK YOUR DIRECTION. SHOULD I TALK WITH THIS LADY NEXT DOOR"?

A: NO. DETECTIVE LANGE WAS ON THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE AND DETECTIVE VANNATTER WAS WRITING A SEARCH WARRANT.

Q: YOU COULDN'T INTERRUPT HIM WRITING A SEARCH WARRANT TO SEE IF IT WAS OKAY TO TALK TO THE NEXT-DOOR NEIGHBOR'S MAID?

A: I DIDN'T THINK IT IMPORTANT.

Q: DIDN'T THINK IT IMPORTANT. DID YOU CAUSE HER TO ASK HER GARDENER SOME QUESTIONS?

A: EXCUSE ME?

Q: DID YOU CAUSE ROSA LOPEZ TO ASK HER GARDENER SOME QUESTIONS?

A: NOT AT ALL.

Q: WERE YOU LOOKING FOR POSSIBLE SHARP OBJECTS WHEN YOU WERE ON THE SALINGER PROPERTY?

A: I WAS LOOKING FOR ANYTHING THAT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS UNUSUAL OR SOMETHING THAT WAS OBVIOUS.

Q: WAS ONE OF THE UNUSUAL THINGS YOU WERE LOOKING FOR, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, A SHARP OBJECT?

A: I DIDN'T KNOW AT THAT TIME THE CAUSE OF DEATH AT BUNDY, SO I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR PRECISELY.

Q: CAN YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION? WERE YOU LOOKING OR WERE YOU NOT LOOKING FOR A SHARP OBJECT?

A: I CAN'T ANSWER THAT AS A YES OR NO, SIR.

Q: SO YOU DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAD SEEN A KNIFE, WHETHER YOU WOULD HAVE PICKED IT UP OR PHOTOGRAPHED IT OR EVEN NOTED IT?

A: I WASN'T SPECIFICALLY LOOKING FOR A KNIFE. IF I WOULD HAVE FOUND ONE, I WOULD HAVE SEIZED IT, YES, OR KEPT IT THERE FOR A PHOTOGRAPHER AND A CRIMINALIST TO RECOVER, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WHAT ELSE WERE YOU LOOKING FOR? IF IT WASN'T KNIVES, WHAT WERE YOU HOPING TO FIND?

A: I DON'T KNOW, SIR. ANYTHING THAT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS OUT OF PLACE OR POSSIBLE EVIDENCE, I COULD GO BACK TO THE SALINGER RESIDENCE AND ASK IF IT WAS THEIRS.

Q: REGARDING CLOTHING?

A: ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE, YES.

Q: HAD YOU SEEN ENOUGH OF THE CRIME SCENE TO ASSUME WHOEVER HAD PERPETRATED THE MURDERS PROBABLY HAD BLOOD ON THEM AS THE GLOVES DID?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WERE YOU INTERESTED IN FINDING WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS ANY BLOODY CLOTHING NEARBY THE SIMPSON RESIDENCE?

A: I DON'T THINK I WAS SPECIFICALLY LOOKING FOR JUST THAT. BUT AS I SAID.

Q: DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WHEN I ASK YOU WERE YOU LOOKING FOR SOMETHING, THAT DOES NOT MEAN TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHER ITEMS. I SIMPLY WANT TO KNOW IF THAT WAS ON THE LIST OF THINGS THAT MIGHT HAVE INTERESTED YOU IF YOU HAD SEEN IT.

A: THERE WAS NO LIST.

Q: THERE WAS NO LIST.

A: NO.

Q: OKAY. DO YOU KNOW HOW YOU WERE GOING TO DECIDE WHETHER SOMETHING WAS SIGNIFICANT IF IT WALKED UP AND HIT YOU IN THE FACE?

A: WELL, IF IT DIDN'T BELONG IN THE SALINGER RESIDENCE AND IT CAME FROM THE SIMPSON RESIDENCE, IT COULD BE POSSIBLY CONSTRUED AS SOMETHING INVOLVED WITH -- ANYTHING TO DO WITH BUNDY OR ROCKINGHAM, AND I WOULD SIMPLY ASK THE SALINGER'S.

Q: MY QUESTION TO YOU WAS SIMPLY, INCLUDED AMONG THOSE KINDS OF ITEMS, WOULD BLOODY CLOTHES HAVE BEEN AN ITEM?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU FIND ANY?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU FIND ANY SHARP INSTRUMENTS?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: WAS THE GARDENER WORKING THAT MONDAY MORNING?

A: I SAW A GARDENER SOMETIME THAT MORNING, BUT I'M NOT SURE IF IT WAS IN FRONT OF SALINGER'S RESIDENCE OR ON THE STREET.

Q: YOU NEVER SAW THE SALINGER'S THERE, DID YOU?

A: I DON'T -- NO, I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

Q: THE ONLY PERSON YOU SPOKE TO AT THE FRONT DOOR WAS RATHER SHORT, HISPANIC, UPPER MIDDLE-AGED, CORRECT?

A: NO, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THERE WAS A SECURITY DOOR WITH SOME TYPE OF A MESH WHERE I CAN'T SEE IN, AND THAT PERSON OPENED THE INTERIOR DOOR AND SPOKE THROUGH THAT.

Q: IF THE PERSON WHO SPOKE TO YOU THAT MORNING PRESENTED THEMSELVES IN THIS COURTROOM NOW AND DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING, WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO RECOGNIZE THEM?

A: NO.

Q: WAS THE ACCENT ACCOMPANYING THE VOICE WHICH HAD NO IMAGE AT THAT POINT SPANISH OR HISPANIC?

A: I DON'T RECALL THAT THERE WAS A HEAVY ACCENT, NO.

Q: DO YOU RECALL ANY ACCENT THAT WOULD TEND TO IDENTIFY THE SPEAKER AS SOMEONE BORN IN ANOTHER COUNTRY?

A: IT'S A POSSIBILITY, BUT I DON'T RECALL IT.

Q: OKAY. AND WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME YOU EVER SPOKE TO ANYBODY ABOUT THIS ENCOUNTER WITH THE PERSON AT THE SALINGER'S?

A: I BELIEVE WHEN ROSA LOPEZ CAME FORWARD AS A WITNESS.

Q: WELL, YOU MEAN WHEN SHE WAS FIRST LISTED BY THE DEFENSE A LONG TIME AGO OR RECENTLY?

A: I'M NOT SURE ON THAT, SIR. I DON'T KNOW WHEN SHE WAS LISTED AND I DON'T KNOW WHEN SHE TESTIFIED EXACTLY. SO I WOULD PROBABLY SAY SOMETIME IN BETWEEN THERE.

Q: DID YOU EVER LEARN AS A RESULT OF ANY HEARINGS BEFORE THIS COURT, WITHOUT GOING INTO WHAT WAS SAID, THAT IT WAS ALLEGED THAT YOU HAD TALKED WITH MISS LOPEZ THE MORNING OF THE INVESTIGATION, THE FIRST MORNING?

A: YES, I HEARD THAT.

Q: AND DO YOU REMEMBER WHEN YOU FIRST LEARNED THAT?

A: NO.

Q: HAVE YOU EVER MADE ANY EFFORT SINCE THAT TIME TO GET A LOOK AT MISS LOPEZ TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT OR LISTEN TO MISS LOPEZ TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT YOU COULD RECOGNIZE THAT PERSON AS THE ONE YOU MAY HAVE TALKED TO ON THE MORNING OF THE 13TH?

A: YES. I SAW HER ON THE NEWS.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND DID YOU LISTEN TO HER?

A: YES.

Q: DID THAT HELP YOU IN ANY WAY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS THE PERSON YOU QUESTIONED ON THE MORNING OF THE 13TH?

A: WELL, SHE WAS SPEAKING SPANISH. SO NO.

Q: YOU DID NOT HEAR HER SPEAK ENGLISH?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: DID NOT HEAR HER HERE ON THE WITNESS STAND TESTIFYING?

A: NO. I SAW A CLIP ON THE NEWS I BELIEVE IT WAS OF HER TESTIMONY.

Q: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND TO THIS DAY -- BY THE WAY, DO YOU KNOW WHAT IF ANY PORTION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AROUND THE SIMPSON HOME WAS SEARCHED FOR THESE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU AND I HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING SUCH AS WEAPONS AND CLOTHING?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: YOU NEVER PARTICIPATED IN, GAVE ANY DIRECTION TO OTHER OFFICERS ABOUT OR OTHERWISE INVOLVED YOURSELF IN A SEARCH FOR ITEMS OF EVIDENCE OF THIS SORT?

A: I WAS THERE DURING THE SEARCH WARRANT AND I ASSISTED IN THE CLOSET OF MR. SIMPSON'S BEDROOM AND SOME OF THE EXTERIOR PORTIONS, BUT THAT'S IT.

Q: WHO WAS THE FIRST PERSON, IF YOU KNOW, BY THE WAY EVER TO GO UP TO MR. SIMPSON'S BEDROOM AFTER YOU ENTERED THE PREMISES?

A: I DON'T KNOW, SIR.

Q: WHAT TIME DID YOU GO THERE FIRST?

A: INSIDE THE RESIDENCE?

Q: YES.

A: WITH MR. KAELIN.

Q: HOW GREAT AN AREA, IF YOU KNOW, AROUND BUNDY WAS SEARCHED FOR BLOODY CLOTHING, OTHER ACCOUTREMENTS MIGHT HAVE BEEN WORN OR USED BY THE MURDERER INCLUDING A WEAPON?

A: I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THAT, SIR.

Q: DIDN'T OFFICER RISKE TELL YOU WHERE HE HAD CAUSED PEOPLE TO LOOK FOR ITEMS OF THAT SORT?

A: I DON'T RECALL THAT, NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU CONTINUE WORKING ON THIS CASE AFTER JUNE 13TH?

A: I BELIEVE I WAS ASKED TO DO A FEW THINGS, YES.

Q: DID YOU KNOW THAT DETECTIVE VANNATTER SAID ON JUNE 6TH IN HIS SWORN TESTIMONY THAT YOU WERE STILL VERY MUCH A PART OF THE CASE AS A DETECTIVE?

A: OH, I THINK THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE TIME THAT THEY ASKED US TO DO CERTAIN THINGS, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHEN DID YOU LAST DO ANY WORK ON THIS CASE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, OTHER THAN TO PREPARE YOURSELF AS A WITNESS?

A: IT WOULD HAVE BEEN LAST YEAR, SIR. MAYBE --

Q: I UNDERSTAND. I UNDERSTAND.

A: MAYBE A MONTH, MONTH AFTER THE CRIME.

Q: YOU THINK YOU MAY HAVE CONTINUED THROUGH JULY TO WORK ON THE CASE?

A: YES. THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN SOME THINGS I DID, YES.

Q: AND SOME PART OF AUGUST, YOU MAY HAVE WORKED ON THE CASE?

A: I'M NOT SURE, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WELL, ASSUMING THAT JURY SELECTION OR PROCEEDINGS POINTED TOWARDS JURY SELECTION BEGAN SEPTEMBER 19TH OF 1994, DID YOU DO ANY WORK ON THE CASE AFTER THAT?

A: I CAN'T REMEMBER, SIR.

Q: YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER YOU HAD DONE ANYTHING ON THE CASE SINCE THIS PROCEEDING BEGAN?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE I HAVE, NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: DID YOU RECEIVE AN INSTRUCTION OF SOME SORT, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, TO ABSTAIN FROM VIEWING THESE PROCEEDINGS?

A: YES.

Q: AND HAVE YOU FOLLOWED THAT INSTRUCTION?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: NOW, OVER THE LUNCH HOUR, DID YOU HAVE ANY CHANCE TO REFLECT OR HAVE YOUR MEMORY ASSISTED BY ANY OF THE MINIONS FOR THE PROSECUTION AS TO THE SESSIONS THAT OCCURRED BEFORE THE TRIAL, YOUR PART OF THIS TRIAL AND SINCE THE FIRST OF THE YEAR?

A: NO.

Q: WOULD YOU SAY, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, THAT IN ADDITION TO THIS BEING THE LARGEST CASE IN WHICH YOU'VE EVER BEEN INVOLVED, THIS IS PERHAPS THE MOST IMPORTANT TESTIMONY IN WHICH YOU'VE EVER BEEN INVOLVED?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. VAGUE, IMPORTANT.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: HAVE YOU NOT BEEN VERY CONCERNED SINCE JANUARY 1 AND BEYOND WITH THE EXPERIENCE OF TESTIFYING IN THIS CASE?

A: I BELIEVE I WAS CONCERNED WITH THE ALLEGATIONS THAT HAD BEEN BROUGHT FORTH AGAINST ME.

Q: YES.

A: YES.

Q: YOU WERE CONCERNED WITH SOMETHING HAPPENING WHICH HAS NOW HAPPENED, CORRECT?

MS. CLARK: NO. OBJECTION. ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. BAILEY: WITHDRAWN.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: HAVING THAT IN MIND, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WERE YOU ANXIOUS THAT YOU DELIVER A GOOD PERFORMANCE ON THE WITNESS STAND?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MS. CLARK: VAGUE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I'M ALWAYS CONCERNED WITH THAT IN EVERY CASE.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: IN THIS CASE MORE THAN OTHERS, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

A: I'M TESTIFYING JUST LIKE I DO IN ANY OTHER CASE.

Q: UH-HUH. AND HAVE YOU EVER IN ANY OTHER CASE FACED ACCUSATIONS SUCH AS YOU EXPECTED IN THIS CASE?

MS. CLARK: WELL, YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: HAVE YOU EVER IN ANY OTHER CASE HAD THE BENEFIT --

MS. CLARK: ASK TO APPROACH.

MR. BAILEY: MAY I FINISH THE QUESTION?

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: HAVE YOU EVER IN ANY OTHER CASE HAD THE BENEFIT OF A GRAND JURY CASE PREPARATION SESSION SUCH AS YOU HAD HERE?

THE COURT: OVERRULED. DENIED. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: NO.

THE COURT: I THOUGHT WE ALREADY ASKED THAT ONCE BEFORE.

MR. BAILEY: OKAY.

MS. CLARK: ASKED AND ANSWERED.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: OKAY. NOW, HAVING IN MIND ALL OF THAT, YOU MAINTAIN THAT YOU HAVE ALMOST NO RECOLLECTION OF THE SESSIONS INTENDED TO PREPARE YOU FOR THIS TESTIMONY?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, SIR.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MR. BAILEY: HAVE WE SOLVED THE EARLIER PROBLEM YOUR HONOR DESCRIBED AT THE --

THE COURT: NOTHING HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO ME.

MR. BAILEY: I UNDERSTOOD IT WAS COMING FORTHWITH. HAVE WE LEARNED THE STATUS OF THAT PERHAPS?

THE COURT: MISS LEWIS?

MS. LEWIS: I'LL CHECK ON IT.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MS. LEWIS: IF I COULD JUST APPROACH OFF THE RECORD.

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

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL AND THE DEFENDANT.)

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. BAILEY, CAN WE USE THE TIME PROFITABLY?

MR. BAILEY: WELL, I DIDN'T WANT TO INTERRUPT THE CONFERENCE OF MY COLLEAGUES, BUT I WOULD CERTAINLY LIKE TO DO THAT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, AS I RECALL, IN YOUR INITIAL ARRIVAL AT THE ASHFORD GATE AND IN THE DEVELOPMENTS THAT OCCURRED THEREAFTER INCLUDING THE OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE BRONCO, YOU WERE CONCERNED THAT SOMEBODY MIGHT BE BLEEDING TO DEATH, INCLUDING O.J. SIMPSON INSIDE HIS HOUSE, CORRECT?

A: I SAID SOMEBODY. I DIDN'T USE THE WORD "O.J. SIMPSON."

Q: NO, NO.

A: YES, SIR.

Q: I'M ADDING IT. WASN'T HE ONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT COULD HAVE BEEN BLEEDING TO DEATH IN THE O.J. SIMPSON HOUSE?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: WHEN YOU GOT INTO THAT HOUSE FINALLY AND STARTED TALKING TO PEOPLE, DID YOU EVER ASK ANYONE WHERE O.J. WAS?

A: NO.

MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT. THE ONLY OTHER QUESTION I HAVE, YOUR HONOR, IS RELATED TO THAT DOCUMENT WHICH I ASSUME IS ON THE WAY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A BRIEF RECESS. THIS WILL PROBABLY ONLY BE ABOUT FIVE OR 10 MINUTES, ASK YOU TO STEP BACK IN THE JURY ROOM, WILL GIVE YOU ENOUGH TIME FOR A COMFORT BREAK. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, YOU CAN STEP DOWN. STAY IN THE COURTROOM, PLEASE.

(RECESS.)

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

THE COURT: BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. ALL PARTIES ARE AGAIN PRESENT. THE JURY IS NOT PRESENT. I HAVE NOW RECEIVED WHAT --

MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR --

THE COURT: -- APPEARS TO A BE A PHOTOCOPY OF A FAX --

MS. LEWIS: EXCUSE ME. COULD WE HAVE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN EXCUSED?

THE COURT: YES, PLEASE. THANK YOU.

(DETECTIVE FUHRMAN EXITED THE COURTROOM.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I'VE REVIEWED THIS -- WHAT APPEARS TO BE A CLEAR AND FULL SIZE COPY OF A LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 21ST, 1994, ADDRESSED TO A DANIEL LA BATO OF THE NORTHHAMPTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, NORTHHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS. ALL RIGHT. EITHER COUNSEL WISH TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE OR DO YOU WANT TO PROCEED WITH THE JURY?

MS. CLARK: WHAT? THE PEOPLE HAVE ADDRESSED THE COURT ON THE ISSUE OF RELEVANCE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WELL, I INDICATED I WANTED TO WAIT UNTIL I HAD THE CHANCE TO READ THE ENTIRE THING AND -- WITHOUT ANY OBS -- ANY PASSAGES BEING OBSCURED. I'M NOW READY TO HEAR THAT.

MS. CLARK: OH. THAT'S WHAT --

THE COURT: MR. BAILEY.

MR. BAILEY: YOUR HONOR, I BELIEVE THAT THE LETTER PLAINLY SEEKS TO ADVANCE THE FINANCIAL POSITION OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN TO THE EXTENT THAT IN SEEKING COUNSEL, ONE ASSUMES THAT EXPENSES AND FEES WOULD ARISE. THIS LETTER, WHICH PROCLAIMS THE HIGH MORAL CHARACTER OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AND DECLAIMS FALSE ACCUSATIONS OF RACISM, SEEKS TO HAVE POLICE OFFICERS -- AND I BELIEVE IT WENT AROUND THE COUNTRY -- CONTRIBUTE, TO MAKE UP THE COSTS THAT HAD BEEN INCURRED AND WERE EXPECTED TO BE INCURRED. IT LISTS SOME OF THE SALIENT VICTORIES OF THE TOURTELOT FIRM IN REPRESENTING FUHRMAN AND CLAIMS THAT TOURTELOT AND BUTLER HAD FRONTED OUT-OF-POCKET COSTS WHICH HAVE ALREADY REACHED OVER A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS, "AND TO CLEAR HIS GOOD NAME, THE COST OF EXPERTS, INVESTIGATORS AND PARALEGAL CONTINUE TO MOUNT AT A RATE WE CAN NO LONGER SUSTAIN." GROUND ONE, I BELIEVE THAT ANY MONEY CONTRIBUTED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR SOMETHING THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WOULD OWE AS A LEGITIMATE FEE OR COST OF REPRESENTATION, IF THERE WERE ANY, IS A SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL ADVANTAGE TO HIM. SECOND, HE SAYS HE'S FAMILIAR WITH THE LETTER. I THINK WE'RE ENTITLED TO ASK HIM WHICH PORTIONS OF THE LETTER HE WAS AWARE OF BEFORE THEY WENT OUT. AND THIRD, I THINK WE'RE ENTITLED TO INQUIRE WHETHER ANYTHING APPROACHING A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS IN COSTS HAD BEEN INCURRED BY SEPTEMBER 21, 1994 OR WHETHER THE UNITED STATES MAILS WERE USED FOR A FRAUDULENT ATTEMPT TO MAINTAIN MONEY BY MAKING MISREPRESENTATIONS AS TO COSTS WHICH RECIPIENTS WOULD HARDLY BE IN A POSITION TO SECOND-GUESS.

THE COURT: YOU WANT TO EXPLAIN TO THE COURT HOW IT IS THAT THIS LETTER RELATES TO ANY BIAS, INTEREST OR MOTIVE AS IT PERTAINS TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S TESTIMONY HERE TODAY?

MR. BAILEY: YES, I DO, BECAUSE PRESUMABLY, IF HIS TESTIMONY IS ACCEPTED OR ADMIRED BY THE RECIPIENTS OF THIS LETTER, THE SOLICITATION IS STILL HANGING OUT THERE. IF HE CAN CONVINCE THEM THAT HE'S A GOOD GUY AND HE'S TELLING THE TRUTH, O.J. SIMPSON IS A BAD GUY, SOME OF THIS MONEY MAY COME IN.

BUT I DON'T BELIEVE IN AN UNDERTAKING OF THIS SORT, THAT THE RESULT IS NECESSARILY ESSENTIAL. IT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE EXERCISE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: THAT IS TORTURE LOGIC TO SAY THE LEAST, YOUR HONOR. THE WITNESS IS HERE IN COURT TO PRESENT TESTIMONY CONCERNING THE WORK HE DID IN THIS CASE. HE'S NOT HERE SOLICITING FUNDS FOR ANYTHING. NUMBER ONE, THIS LETTER IS IRRELEVANT TO ANY ISSUE OF BIAS OR THE -- OR DETECTIVE'S CREDIBILITY. NUMBER TWO, WITH RESPECT TO HOW MONIES HAVE BEEN SPENT IN HIS -- IN THE MOUNTING OF THE LAWSUITS FOR DEFAMATION IS PRIVILEGED. SO COUNSEL'S NOT PERMITTED TO GET INTO THAT. I CAN NOT SEE ANY RELEVANCE TO THIS LETTER PERTINENT TO THIS DETECTIVE'S TESTIMONY. I MEAN IT'S JUST ABSOLUTELY ABSENT.

THE COURT: WELL, THE ISSUE, AS I UNDERSTAND MR. BAILEY'S ARGUMENT, IS THAT THERE IS SOME POTENTIAL FOR FINANCIAL GAIN THAT WOULD IMPACT ON MOTIVATIONS TO TESTIFY OR HOW TO TESTIFY. DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THAT PARTICULAR?

MS. CLARK: NOT REFLECTED IN THIS LETTER THERE ISN'T, YOUR HONOR.

WHAT THIS LETTER REFLECTS IS THE NEED TO DEFRAY COSTS OF LEGAL EXPENSES INCURRED AS A RESULT OF LAWSUITS WHICH WERE -- WHICH WERE MADE NECESSARY BY THE DEFAMATORY NATURE OF THE FALSE ALLEGATIONS MADE AGAINST DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. BUT THERE'S NO -- THERE'S NO FINANCIAL GAIN INVOLVED IN -- THAT PERTAINS TO HIS TESTIMONY. THE TWO ARE TOTALLY DESPERATE. HE'S TESTIFYING HERE TODAY AND THIS LETTER WAS GENERATED WHEN? BACK IN SEPTEMBER BEFORE HE -- LONG BEFORE HE TOOK THIS WITNESS STAND IN AN EFFORT TO DEFRAY LEGAL COSTS. HIS APPEARANCE TODAY HAS NO BEARING. THERE'S JUST NO CONNECTION BETWEEN HIS APPEARANCE IN COURT AND THIS LETTER AND THE MONEY IT SEEKS TO GET. AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DEFRAYING LEGAL COSTS THAT WERE MADE NECESSARY BY VIRTUE OF THE ACTIONS OF THE LAWYERS FOR THE DEFENSE IN THIS CASE. SO THERE IS NO GAIN TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IN THAT REGARD, AND IT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN THAT THERE IS ANY NOR THAT THERE WILL EVER BE. TO THE EXTENT THAT THE COURT SEES THERE IS A FINANCIAL INTEREST THIS WITNESS HAS IN HAVING AT LEAST BEGUN WORK OR CONTEMPLATED LAWSUITS FOR DEFAMATION AGAINST THE LAWYERS IN THIS CASE, THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN EXPLORED AND THAT ISSUE IS NOT ILLUMINATED IN ANY RESPECT BY THIS LETTER OTHER THAN TO INDICATE THAT HE DOESN'T REALLY HAVE THE MONEY TO PAY FOR THESE LAWYERS. I DO NOT SEE HOW IT CAN HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S CREDIBILITY ON THE WITNESS STAND, ESPECIALLY IF VIEW OF THE FACT THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN NEVER READ THE LETTER. THIS IS SOMETHING ISSUED BY HIS LAWYER, IS THE WORK PRODUCT OF HIS LAWYER AS WAS THE DECISION AS TO WHO TO SUE AND WHAT TO SUE THEM FOR WAS THE WORK OF HIS LAWYER. I UNDERSTAND THE AGENCY THEORIES, YOUR HONOR. I'M NOT ARGUING WITH THAT. BUT THIS LETTER WAS NOT GENERATED AT THE BEHEST OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AND I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION TO -- TO MAKE.

THE COURT: WELL, WHEN YOU CALL SOMETHING THE MARK FUHRMAN JUSTICE FUND AND IT'S ISSUED BY YOUR ATTORNEY, DON'T YOU THINK THAT ANY ATTORNEY WOULD SEND A COPY OF THESE THINGS OUT FOR APPROVAL BY THE CLIENT BEFORE THEY'RE SENT OUT, ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A NATIONWIDE FUND RAISING CAMPAIGN AND THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT THAT TAKES? I MEAN, JUST IN POSTAGE, YOU ARE TALKING A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF MONEY.

MS. CLARK: WELL, LEAVING THAT TO ONE SIDE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAS INDICATED HE'S AWARE A LETTER WENT OUT THAT HE DID NOT READ THAT HIS LAWYER DRAFTED.

BUT, YOU KNOW -- DO WE REALLY WANT TO DO THIS -- YOUR HONOR, DO WE REALLY WANT TO SPEND TWO HOURS NOW TALKING ABOUT HOW DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S LAWYER IS SAYING HE NEEDS TO DEFRAY LEGAL COSTS INCURRED AS A RESULT OF THE DEFAMATION SUITS THAT MAY BE FILED AT THE END OF THIS CASE WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN FILED YET? I MEAN, IS THAT WHERE THIS CASE IS GOING? HOW FAR AFIELD DO WE HAVE TO GO ON THIS WITNESS? I MEAN, WE HAVE GONE WAY OUT THERE WITH, IN THE PAST 10 YEARS, HAVE YOU EVER USED A RACIAL SLUR AND A WOMAN WHO MAKES ALLEGATIONS ABOUT HIM 10 YEARS AGO AND WHAT OTHER CASES HE'S EVER TESTIFIED IN. AND -- I MEAN, WE HAVE REALLY HIT THE OUTER LIMITS HERE AND THIS IS FAR BEYOND THE OUTER LIMITS. THIS IS THE TWILIGHT ZONE. THIS LETTER REALLY HAS NO BEARING ON THIS DETECTIVE'S CREDIBILITY, YOUR HONOR. IT'S A LETTER HE HIMSELF HAS NOT DRAFTED. AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE COURT IS SAYING. HE GAVE PERMISSION FOR IT TO GO OUT, BUT THE LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN IT, WHICH MR. BAILEY IS GOING TO WANT TO ATTRIBUTE TO HIM, IS NOT HIS LANGUAGE. SO WE'RE CREATING AN UNFAIR INFERENCE THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WROTE A LETTER, PUT LANGUAGE IN IT AND SOLICITED AN AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT HE DID NOT DO. IT'S THE WORK OF HIS LAWYER FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFRAYING LEGAL COSTS AND IT IS PRIVILEGED MATERIAL, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE MR. BAILEY WHO HAS NOW SAID HE NOW WANTS TO EXPLORE EXACTLY HOW MUCH MONEY WAS SPENT AND WHETHER $100,000 IS A FAIR REPRESENTATION. I CAN ASSURE THE COURT THAT IT IS AND THE PAPERWORK EXISTS, BUT IT'S NOBODY'S BUSINESS. IT'S PRIVILEGED.

THE COURT: IS MR. TOURTELOT GOING TO APPEAR AND CLAIM THAT PRIVILEGE OR IS DETECTIVE FUHRMAN GOING TO ASSERT THAT PRIVILEGE?

MS. CLARK: YES. YES. THIS IS NOT TERRITORY THAT I THINK IS REALLY PROPER FOR MR. BAILEY TO EXPLORE WITH THIS WITNESS OR ANY WITNESS FOR THAT MATTER. BUT -- I MEAN, THIS IS PRIVILEGED MATERIAL AND THAT MR. BAILEY WANTS TO GET INTO. AND THE REAL THRUST OF HIS CROSS-EXAMINATION ON THIS IS WHETHER A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS WAS REALLY DRUMMED UP IN COSTS OR NOT. THAT'S A PRIVILEGED ISSUE. WOULD THE COURT PERMIT US TO GO INTO HOW MUCH A WITNESS WHO TESTIFIES IN THIS COURT WHO HAPPENS TO HAVE A LAWYER IS PAYING THAT LAWYER TO REPRESENT THEM AS A WITNESS IN THIS CASE?

MR. COCHRAN: YES. LOPEZ.

THE COURT: ROSA LOPEZ. WE TALKED ABOUT IT, REMEMBER?

MS. CLARK: BUT --

THE COURT: FEE ARRANGEMENTS. REMEMBER?

MS. CLARK: BUT THEY DIDN'T ASSERT IT.

THE COURT: THAT'S TRUE, BUT I ALLOWED THE INQUIRY, DIDN'T I?

MS. CLARK: BUT ONLY AFTER THEY CONFERRED. THAT WAS CLEARED FIRST. I REMEMBER MR. DARDEN WENT OVER TO CARL DOUGLAS -- WENT OVER TO CARL JONES AND ASKED HIM, "HEY, I'M GOING TO GO INTO THE FEE ARRANGEMENTS." CARL JONES WAIVED ANY PRIVILEGE AND SAID THAT WAS FINE.

MR. COCHRAN: HE DIDN'T WAIVE IT.

MS. CLARK: HE DID NOT ASSERT THE PRIVILEGE AND HE COULD HAVE. HE WAS GIVEN EVERY OPPORTUNITY. THE COURT FLAGGED THE ISSUE FOR HIM AND HE ELECTED NOT TO DO SO.

THE COURT: AS I AM DOING HERE.

MS. CLARK: IS THAT --

MR. DARDEN: SO YOU WANT MR. TOURTELOT DOWN HERE, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: WELL, I DON'T THINK -- MISS CLARK, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I DON'T THINK YOU'RE IN A POSITION TO CLAIM THE PRIVILEGE ON DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S BEHALF.

MS. CLARK: NO.

THE COURT: SO EITHER DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HIMSELF HAS TO CLAIM THE PRIVILEGE OR HIS ATTORNEY ON HIS BEHALF.

MS. CLARK: I THINK IT'S PROBABLY MOST APPROPRIATE IF HIS ATTORNEY DID SO, YOUR HONOR.

MR. BAILEY: MIGHT I BE HEARD ON WAIVER, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: WELL, LET'S -- LET'S HEAR FROM MR. TOURTELOT IF HE'S AVAILABLE.

MS. LEWIS: I'M TRYING, YOUR HONOR.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, SOMETHING ELSE, YOUR HONOR, THAT'S DIFFERENT HERE. WITH RESPECT TO ROSA LOPEZ, CARL JONES WAS REPRESENTING HER IN HER CAPACITY AS A WITNESS, NO OTHER CAPACITY. SHE WASN'T FILING ANY LAWSUIT. SHE HAD NO INDEPENDENT LEGAL CAUSE OF ACTION GOING, AND DETECTIVE FUHRMAN DOES BECAUSE HE'S NOT BEING REPRESENTED BY MR. TOURTELOT --

THE COURT: WELL, THAT'S -- BUT THE TESTIMONY SO FAR, HASN'T IT BEEN THAT MR. FUHRMAN HAS NOT FILED ANY LAWSUITS YET?

MS. CLARK: THAT'S RIGHT.

THE COURT: SO THERE ARE NO CAUSES OF ACTION PENDING, ARE THERE?

MS. CLARK: THAT'S CORRECT.

THE COURT: SAME DIFFERENCE.

MS. CLARK: BUT -- NO, IT'S NOT. NO, IT'S NOT, NOT AT ALL, BECAUSE MR. TOURTELOT IS REPRESENTING DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WITH RESPECT TO WHAT MAY BE FILED --

THE COURT: WELL, MISS CLARK --

MS. CLARK: -- AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO --

THE COURT: HOLD ON. THE ISSUE IS, IS THERE SOMEBODY PLAUSIBLY WHO CAN RAISE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT ISSUE HERE REGARDING THE AREA OF COSTS. MAY BE. THAT'S WHAT I'VE DETERMINED THUS FAR. I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM MR. TOURTELOT. SO RATHER THAN ARGUE APPLES AND ORANGES BETWEEN THE ROSA LOPEZ SITUATION AND DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S ISSUE -- IT'S AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION, BUT I DON'T THINK IT REALLY BEARS UPON THE SPECIFIC ISSUE REGARDING THIS LETTER.

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

MR. BAILEY: YOUR HONOR, MAY I POINT OUT THAT MR. TOURTELOT CLAIMS VICTORY BASED ON YOUR RULINGS. IF THAT'S NOT REPRESENTING A WITNESS, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS. BUT IT'S IN THE BODY OF THE LETTER. HE TOOK CREDIT FOR RULINGS YOU MADE IN FUHRMAN'S FAVOR.

MS. CLARK: WHAT? WHAT WAS THAT? NO ONE GETS TO TAKE ANY CREDIT EXCEPT YOUR HONOR FOR YOUR HONOR'S RULINGS.

MR. BAILEY: "WE HAVE WON TWO RECENT VICTORIES."

THE COURT: NO, I DON'T SCORE IT THAT WAY EITHER.

MR. BAILEY: YOU DON'T SCORE IT THAT WAY?

THE COURT: NO.

MS. CLARK: NO.

MR. BAILEY: "FIRST JUDGE ITO DENIED THE DEFENSE TEAM'S RIGHT TO REVIEW MARK'S RECORDS," THAT'S ONE OF THE VICTORIES.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, DID MISS LEWIS STEP OUT TO FIND MR. TOURTELOT?

MS. CLARK: YES, SHE DID.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: AND, MR. BAILEY, I UNDERSTAND THIS IS ABOUT THE LAST AREA OF INQUIRY THAT YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE AT THIS POINT.

MR. BAILEY: YOU WOULD LIKE THE PERIMETERS OF THE INQUIRY?

THE COURT: NO, NO. I'M JUST SAYING, THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE IS THE LAST ISSUE ON CROSS UNLESS -- UNLESS SOMETHING LEAPS OUT AT YOU OVERNIGHT?

MR. BAILEY: WELL, SOMETHING JUST CAME IN, BUT IT IS SO FAR AS I KNOW EXCEPT FOR QUESTIONS PROMPTED BY THE LAST PHONE CALL, WHICH IS VERY BRIEF.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MS. CLARK: DOES COUNSEL INTEND TO GO INTO ANOTHER IMPEACHMENT WITNESS?

THE COURT: NO. I WAS JUST TRYING FOR SCHEDULING REASONS TO SEE MAYBE WE COULD AT LEAST WRAP UP THE CROSS TODAY.

MS. CLARK: RIGHT. I APPRECIATE THAT, BUT I'M TALKING ABOUT DISCOVERY GRIEVANCE.

THE COURT: WELL, IF WE ARE GOING TO WRAP IT UP, I ASSUME THERE'S NOTHING ELSE TO DISCOVER.

MS. CLARK: WHY WOULD YOU ASSUME THAT?

THE COURT: WELL, I GUESS THAT WAS MORE WISHFUL THINKING.

MS. CLARK: MINE TOO. BUT IF COUNSEL IS REFERRING TO ANOTHER WITNESS THAT THEY INTEND TO PROFFER, THEN THE PEOPLE ARE ENTITLED TO KNOW ABOUT IT.

MR. BAILEY: I'M NOT.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

(MR. TOURTELOT ENTERED THE COURTROOM.)

THE COURT: MR. TOURTELOT.

MR. TOURTELOT: AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: GOOD AFTERNOON.

MR. TOURTELOT: GLAD I WORE A TIE.

THE COURT: MR. TOURTELOT, ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER THE 21ST, 1994?

MR. TOURTELOT: YES.

THE COURT: ADDRESSED TO A DANIEL LA BATO OF THE NORTHHAMPTON POLICE DEPARTMENT?

MR. TOURTELOT: YES, I AM, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THE ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED IN THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF YOUR CLIENT, MR. FUHRMAN, CONCERNING ANY POTENTIAL MONETARY INTEREST HE MAY HAVE IN THE OUTCOME OF THIS LITIGATION, AND THIS LETTER HAS BEEN PROFFERED TO THE COURT AS SOME INDICIA OF MONETARY INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME OF THIS LITIGATION, AND SPECIFICALLY THE ISSUE OF THE PARAGRAPH THAT INDICATES THAT YOUR LAW FIRM HAS BEEN FRONTING SO TO SPEAK THE OUT-OF-POCKET EXPENSES THAT HAVE REACHED OVER $100,000, AND MR. BAILEY HAS INDICATED HE WISHES TO CROSS-EXAMINE IN THAT AREA.

AND IN OUR DISCUSSION, THE PROSECUTION HAS RAISED AN OBJECTION OF RELEVANCY AND 352 AND UNDUE CONSUMPTION OF TIME AS TO THAT ISSUE. AND I DON'T RECALL SPECIFICALLY WHO IT WAS WHO ALSO OPINED THAT THERE PERHAPS IS AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT ISSUE REGARDING THE SPECIFICS OF THE REPRESENTATION, THE PARAMETERS, THE COST AND THAT SORT OF THING, AND THERE'S ALSO A POTENTIAL OF WAIVER IF IN FACT THIS LETTER ITSELF WAS PUBLISHED, CONSTITUTES A WAIVER OF THAT.

MR. TOURTELOT: WELL, NUMBER ONE, I WILL REPRESENT TO THE COURT THAT WE HAVE EXPENDED, INCLUDING ATTORNEYS FEES, IN EXCESS OF $100,000 AS OF THE DATE OF THAT LETTER. THAT'S NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, I'LL REPRESENT TO THE COURT THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN TO MY KNOWLEDGE HAS NEVER SEEN THE LETTER. I HAVE NEVER GIVEN HIM THE LETTER. I ASKED HIM IF WE COULD SEND OUT A LETTER TO COVER SECRETARIAL, EXPERT FEES, INVESTIGATORS AND PARALEGALS. IF THE LETTER ISN'T CLEAR, I'LL MAKE IT VERY CLEAR. WE HAVE MADE AN ARRANGEMENT WITH MR. FUHRMAN THAT WE WERE NOT CHARGING HIM ONE CENT. WE HAVE NOT CHARGED HIM A PENNY, WE DO NOT INTEND TO CHARGE HIM A PENNY AND THAT WE WERE DOING IT PRO BONO.

AND THAT'S WHAT THE LETTER IS MEANT TO IMPLY. BUT WE CANNOT CONTINUE -- AS OF SEPTEMBER, WE COULD NOT CONTINUE TO FRONT AND PUT UP ALL OF THE COSTS THAT WE'VE BEEN PUTTING UP IN PARALEGALS AND ASSOCIATES. I GUESS I'LL LET --

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND MR. TOURTELOT.)

MR. TOURTELOT: YOUR HONOR, WE DO CLAIM THE PRIVILEGE. I WANTED TO EXPLAIN WHY. I REALLY APPRECIATE MISS LEWIS' HELP, BUT I DID INTEND TO CLAIM THE PRIVILEGE, BUT I WANTED TO EXPLAIN BECAUSE I'VE BEEN IN FRONT OF THE WHOLE WORLD ACCUSED OF MAIL FRAUD, WHICH IS OUTRAGEOUS, OUTRAGEOUS STATEMENT. AND I WILL TELL THE COURT AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT, WE HAVE EXPENDED OVER A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS AS OF THE DATE OF THAT LETTER, AND THE INSINUATIONS AND ACCUSATIONS BY MR. BAILEY ARE OUTRAGEOUS AND I RESENT THOSE. BUT WE DO CLAIM THE PRIVILEGE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. AND DO YOU WANT TO EXPLAIN TO ME HOW IT IS THAT YOU FEEL EXPENSES AND EXPENDITURES ON BEHALF OF A PRO BONO CLIENT FALL WITHIN THE PRIVILEGE?

MR. TOURTELOT: THE SERVICES RENDERED, WHETHER THEY'RE PRO BONO OR THEY'RE FOR A FEE, THE DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES ARE CERTAINLY PRIVILEGED. WHAT WE CHECKED INTO WITH RESPECT TO THE OUTRAGEOUS CHARACTER ASSASSINATION THAT THE DETECTIVE'S BEEN SUBJECTED TO IN THE LAST NINE MONTHS AND THE WORK THAT WE'VE DONE IS DEFINITELY PRIVILEGED AND OUR PREPARATION IN CONNECTION WITH POTENTIAL DEFAMATION SUIT IS PRIVILEGED.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, SIR. MR. BAILEY, DO YOU WISH TO RESPOND TO THAT CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE?

MR. BAILEY: I CERTAINLY DO, YOUR HONOR. IT APPEARS THAT THE LETTER IS IN FACT FRAUDULENT. WE'RE NOW TOLD THAT IT IS TO COVER FEES. THE PLAIN LANGUAGE, WHICH EVERY LAWYER UNDERSTANDS, IS UNEQUIVOCAL, IS, OUT-OF-POCKET COSTS HAVE EXCEEDED $100,000. NOW, WE'RE PRO BONO, WE'RE COVERING FEES AND WE'RE OUT OF POCKET. NONE OF THIS LETTER APPARENTLY IS TRUE IN TOTO. BUT AS IT RELATES TO THE WITNESS, THIS OFFICE, IF THEY'RE ACTING PRO BONO ON THE ONE HAND, NONETHELESS PURPORT TO REPRESENT HIM IN A MONEY DAMAGES CLAIM FOR DEFAMATION TO BE BROUGHT WHEN THIS CASE CONCLUDES AND NOT BEFORE BASED ON CORRESPONDENCE WE'VE RECEIVED ON BEHALF OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.

I'VE SEEN NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT THE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS, WHATEVER IT WAS, IF IT WAS, IS SEGREGATED OUT AS FOR REPRESENTING MR. FUHRMAN AS A WITNESS, AND I CONTEND THAT THIS LETTER SAYS THAT THEY'RE REPRESENTING HIM AS A WITNESS AND IN FACT HAVE WON TWO IMPORTANT VICTORIES THAT RELATE TO RULINGS YOU MADE RELATING TO MILITARY RECORDS AND HIS LAPD PERSONNEL RECORDS. WE ALSO KNOW -- AND WE DON'T KNOW OF ANY CONTINGENT AGREEMENT -- THAT LAWSUITS ARE BEING PREPARED BECAUSE COUNSEL SAYS THEY'RE BEING PREPARED AND THE WITNESS MORE IMPORTANTLY SAYS THAT THEY'RE BEING PREPARED. NOW, HOW MUCH OF THIS MONEY TO BE RECEIVED FROM THE SOLICITATION IS APPLIED TO THE LAWSUIT WHERE NORMALLY THE CLIENT PAYS THE COSTS EVEN IN A CONTINGENT FEE ARRANGEMENT IS NOT SPECIFIED. BUT I THINK IT IS A FAIR AVENUE OF INQUIRY. AND I THINK THE TEST IS, IF THE HUNDRED THOUSAND COMES IN, DOES ANY OF THAT INURE TO MARK FUHRMAN'S BENEFIT AND DID HE EXPECT IT TO WHEN THE LETTER WENT OUT AND IS IT NOT SOLELY BECAUSE OF HIS POSITION AS A WITNESS IN THIS CASE THAT THE SOLICITATION WAS MADE WITH THE HOPE OF IT BEING SUCCESSFUL. IF THE ANSWERS TO THOSE QUESTIONS ARE YES, I THINK WAIVER IS PATENT IN THIS CASE. WHEN YOU GO OUT REPRESENTING TO PEOPLE THROUGH THE UNITED STATES MAILS THAT YOU'VE SPENT A HUNDRED THOUSAND ON EXPERTS, INVESTIGATORS AND PARALEGALS, AN ON-GOING EXPENSE, THAT'S A PRETTY SERIOUS ALLEGATION, AND IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE UNDER FEDERAL LAW COMPLETELY TRUTHFUL. I STILL DOUBT WHETHER OR NOT OUT-OF-POCKET WENT THAT HIGH AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 21, BUT I DON'T KNOW. MISS CLARK ALLEGES THAT SHE KNOWS AND ASSURES THE COURT THAT IT DID. I WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK MARK FUHRMAN IF ANY ACCOUNTING HAS BEEN GIVEN TO HIM AS AGAINST FUTURE OBLIGATIONS HE MAY HAVE IN THESE CIVIL LAWSUITS OR AS AGAINST ANY FEES THAT MAY HAVE BEEN CHARGED, BECAUSE WE JUST HEARD THE FEES WERE INCLUDED BY THE TOURTELOT FIRM, AND WHAT HE UNDERSTANDS HIS POSITION TO BE VIS-A-VIS THE SUCCESSFUL PRODUCTION OF MONEY FROM THE POLICE OFFICERS WHO ARE BEING ASKED TO GIVE IT, LIKE DANIEL LA BATO AND THE PEOPLE IN OKLAHOMA. THAT'S WHAT I THINK THE CROSS-EXAMINATION SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO TOUCH.

MR. TOURTELOT: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE NOT REPRESENTED DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AS A WITNESS. I'VE NEVER DISCUSSED HIS TESTIMONY EVER. I REPRESENT TO YOU AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT I HAVEN'T BEEN PRESENT AT ANY MEETINGS AND I HAVE HAD NO CONVERSATIONS WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN REGARDING THE FACTS OF THE CASE PURPOSELY. MY REPRESENTATION HAS BEEN AS A RESULT OF THE INCREDIBLE CHARACTER ASSASSINATION CAMPAIGN THAT COMMENCED IN JULY WITH THE NEW YORKER ARTICLE, AND THAT'S IT. AND TO SAY THAT PART OF OUR WORK, THE ASSUMPTION MR. BAILEY MAKES, HAD TO DO WITH PREPARING HIM AS A WITNESS IS LUDICROUS. AGAIN, I REPRESENT TO YOU AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT, I HAVE NEVER DISCUSSED DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S TESTIMONY WITH HIM NOR HAVE I DISCUSSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE WITH HIM.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WELL, THE FACTUAL ISSUE, MR. TOURTELOT, THOUGH THAT I NEED TO RESOLVE IS WHETHER ANYTHING -- ANY OF THE FUNDS THAT WERE ANTICIPATED OR RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER SEPTEMBER THE 21ST -- AND I TAKE IT THIS WAS A MASS MAILING.

MR. TOURTELOT: NO. WELL, THERE WERE LIKE 425 OR SOMETHING. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY THERE WERE. WE GOT VERY LITTLE MONEY. BUT I DO WANT TO SAY THIS. I REPRESENTED HIM AS A POLICE OFFICER. AND UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, A POLICE OFFICER HAS A RIGHT OF PRIVACY, AND IT'S A SEPARATE RIGHT. AND HE HAS THE RIGHT TO HAVE A PRIVATE ATTORNEY COME INTO COURT AND DEFEND HIS RIGHTS OF PRIVACY, WHICH IS WHAT I DID BEFORE YOU.

THE COURT: MR. TOURTELOT, BEFORE YOU LAUNCH INTO THAT, LET ME JUST ASK -- LET ME FINISH THE QUESTION TO YOU THAT I WAS TRYING TO ASK.

MR. TOURTELOT: BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF THOSE PROBLEMS IN THIS COURTROOM.

THE COURT: YEAH, SEEMS THAT WAY. MR. TOURTELOT, THE QUESTION I HAVE IS WHETHER OR NOT ANY OF THE FUNDS THAT WERE GENERATED OR ANTICIPATED TO BE GENERATED BY THIS LETTER, DID ANY OF THESE GO TO THE DIRECT BENEFIT OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

MR. TOURTELOT: ABSOLUTELY NONE.

THE COURT: EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THAT IS.

MR. TOURTELOT: BECAUSE IT GOES TO MY BENEFIT. I'M THE ONE THAT'S OUT THE LEGAL FEES. I'M THE ONE THAT'S OUT PAYING MY ASSOCIATES AND MY PARALEGALS AND MY SECRETARIES. MR. FUHRMAN IS NOT OBLIGATED TO PAY ONE PENNY, NOT ONE CENT. THEREFORE, THE BENEFIT IS TO ME, WHO'S DOING THIS WORK, AND TO MY PARTNER, LAURIE BUTLER, AND TO OUR FIRM. THERE'S NO BENEFIT TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WHATEVER HAPPENS TO THIS CASE, IS NOT GOING TO OWE A PENNY TO US. I'M DOING IT PRO BONO.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMENT, MR. TOURTELOT? IS THAT IT?

MR. TOURTELOT: I'VE CLAIMED THE PRIVILEGE AND I'M READY TO LEAVE IF YOU --

MR. DARDEN: AND I'M READY TO LEAVE WITH HIM.

MR. TOURTELOT: IN FACT, I'LL CATCH THE NEXT PLANE TO HAWAII IF I COULD GET SOMEONE TO GO WITH ME. THEY'D LOVE IT. HIS COMMENT WAS, "PLEASE DO," BUT --

MR. BAILEY: NO. NO. I SAID IT WAS A GOOD IDEA.

MR. TOURTELOT: I'M SURE HE DOES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WELL, TODAY'S BEEN A PRETTY CONTENTIOUS DAY. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMENT FROM THE PARTIES, MR. BAILEY, MISS CLARK?

MS. CLARK: MAY I HAVE A MOMENT?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

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

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, I THINK THAT EVENTUALLY AS LOATHE AS DEFENSE IS TO LET ANY DETECTIVE OFF THE WITNESS STAND, AT SOME POINT WE HAVE TO. AND IF WE GET INTO THIS LETTER, THIS IS GOING TO BE ANOTHER -- LOOK AT WHAT IT JUST CAUSED NOW, JUST TO CLAIM A PRIVILEGE, JUST TO ARGUE THE ISSUE.

THE COURT: WELL, WE WERE LUCKY MR. TOURTELOT WAS IN THE BUILDING.

MS. CLARK: WE WERE AND WE ARE. BUT JUST UNDER 352 ALONE, THE CONSUMPTION OF TIME TO GO INTO AN ISSUE THAT IS BASICALLY A PRIVILEGED MATTER -- BECAUSE THE HEART OF IT IS A PRIVILEGED MATTER FOR -- TO IMPEACH SOMEONE'S CREDIBILITY, IT HAS NO IMPEACHMENT VALUE ON DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. HE HAS NO BENEFIT TO GAIN FROM THIS LETTER. HIS LAWYER HOPES TO BE MADE WHOLE BY IT BECAUSE HE HAS EXPENDED SO MUCH TIME AND EFFORT AT HIS -- ON HIS BEHALF WITHOUT ANY RECOMPENSE. AND THAT'S ALL YOU HAVE HERE. SO THE BIAS AND MOTIVE ISSUE, WHICH IS WHAT THIS SHOULD BE GOING TO, IS NONEXISTENT. SO THE LETTER IS REALLY AND TRULY IRRELEVANT IN ADDITION TO BE PRIVILEGED.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. BAILEY, ANY LAST COMMENT AFTER MR. TOURTELOT'S COMMENTS?

MR. BAILEY: WELL, I THINK I'VE EXPRESSED, YOUR HONOR, THE FACT THAT EVEN IF NOTHING MORE, MR. FUHRMAN IS GETTING A FREE LAWYER, IF HE IS -- AND TO ME THAT'S VERY CLOUDY -- BY VIRTUE OF THIS SOLICITATION WHERE HE WOULD NOT HAVE GOTTEN A FREE LAWYER PERHAPS IF HE HADN'T AUTHORIZED THIS SOLICITATION, THAT IS A FINANCIAL BENEFIT SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT CROSS-EXAMINATION.

MS. CLARK: BUT HE HAD THE FREE LAWYER LONG BEFORE.

THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL. THE ISSUE OF CROSS-EXAMINATION, THE EXTENT OF CROSS-EXAMINATION IS SOMETHING THAT THANKFULLY THE APPELLATE COURTS HAVE RESTED SIGNIFICANT DISCRETION IN THE HANDS OF THE TRIAL COURT. AND IN SOME AREAS WHEN WE DEAL WITH SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, RACIAL BIAS, THE COURTS HAVE INDICATED THAT I MUST GIVE EITHER SIDE WIDE LATITUDE IN CROSS-EXAMINATION ON RACIAL BIAS AND THOSE ISSUES, AND THE COURT HAS DONE THAT. THIS IS AN ISSUE OF FINANCIAL BIAS. AND GIVEN THE REPRESENTATIONS OF MR. TOURTELOT, THE FINANCIAL INTEREST OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WITH REGARDS TO THIS PARTICULAR LETTER IS REMOTE AND I FIND IT NOT TO BE RELEVANT. WERE IT TO BE RELEVANT, IT WOULD CAUSE AN UNDUE CONSUMPTION OF TIME GIVEN THE VARIOUS ISSUES THAT ARE HERE, AND THE CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE ALSO GOES TO THE HEART OF THE LETTER. SO THE PROSECUTION OBJECTION WILL BE SUSTAINED.

MS. CLARK: MAY WE ASK, YOUR HONOR, THEN THAT THE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS POSED BY MR. BAILEY YESTERDAY IN ADVANCE OF OUR HAVING BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEE THIS LETTER BE STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD?

THE COURT: NO. HE WAS ALLOWED TO CROSS-EXAMINE ON WHETHER OR NOT MR. FUHRMAN CONTEMPLATED LEGAL ACTION AGAINST THE LAWYERS IN THIS CASE. THAT'S A FAIR -- THAT'S FAIR CROSS-EXAMINATION.

MS. CLARK: NO. BUT HE ALSO ASKED ABOUT THE LETTER. THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING BE STRICKEN.

THE COURT: I THINK THERE'S ONLY -- IF YOU CAN SHOW ME WHERE THAT IS IN THE RECORD. I THINK THERE'S ONLY A QUESTION OR ANSWER THAT'S PRETTY INNOCUOUS, AND WE STOPPED AT THAT POINT WITH THE PURPOSE OF GETTING THE LETTER TO EXAMINE IT.

MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. THEN MAY I READDRESS THAT WITH THE COURT AFTER I FOUND THE PASSAGE? IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN THERE IS NO POINT. BUT --

THE COURT: I HAVE TO TELL YOU, I'M NOT -- MY RECOLLECTION OF IT IS THAT IT'S SO INNOCUOUS THAT I'M NOT REALLY WILLING TO STIR THE POT ANYMORE.

MS. CLARK: VERY WELL, YOUR HONOR. WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS FINAL ARGUMENT THOUGH AND ADDRESSING AN ISSUE THAT THE COURT HAS DEEMED TO BE IRRELEVANT UNDER 352.

THE COURT: WELL, IF THERE'S NO LETTER TO ARGUE, THEN I SUSPECT IT WON'T BE ARGUED. GIVEN THE PANOPLY OF ISSUES THAT ARE HERE TO ARGUE IN FINAL ARGUMENT, A PASSING REFERENCE IN TWO QUESTIONS AND TWO ANSWERS I SUSPECT WON'T CARRY THE CASE. IF YOU DISAGREE, LOOK IN THE RECORD, SEE WHAT YOU THINK.

MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT.

THE COURT: I'M JUST NOT INCLINED TO ADDRESS WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE SUCH A MINIMAL ISSUE AT THIS POINT. MAYBE IF I THINK ABOUT IT TOMORROW MORNING, MAYBE I'LL THINK ABOUT IT DIFFERENTLY. BUT I'VE GOT TO TELL YOU AT THIS POINT, I'M NOT REAL PERSUADED.

MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. LET ME LOOK IT UP AND SEE IF IT IS WORTH IT, YOUR HONOR. I APPRECIATE THAT.

MR. BAILEY: MAY I INQUIRE, YOUR HONOR, WHETHER THIS IN ANY WAY IDENTIFIED FOR THE RECORD?

THE COURT: IT SHOULD BE. THE CLEAN COPY WILL BE IDENTIFIED AS COURT'S EXHIBIT NEXT IN ORDER, 8? 8.

(COURT'S 8 FOR ID = LETTER)

MR. TOURTELOT: MAY I EXCUSED, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YES.

MR. TOURTELOT: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: THANK YOU, SIR.

(MR. TOURTELOT EXITED THE COURTROOM.)

MS. CLARK: CAN WE FINISH CROSS-EXAMINATION, PLEASE?

THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WISH --

MR. BAILEY: IT'S 3:00 O'CLOCK, YOUR HONOR. I WOULD LIKE A CHANCE TO -- WE HAVE INFORMATION COMING IN AS WE SPEAK. I WOULD LIKE A CHANCE TO CONFER WITH MY COLLEAGUES BEFORE WE DECIDE. THOSE ARE THE ONLY REMAINING QUESTIONS. I HAVE A QUESTION I CAN PUT TODAY IF YOU WANT TO SAVE THAT MUCH TIME. IT'S ABOUT THREE MINUTES' WORTH.

THE COURT: NOT TO DRAG THE JURY OUT AND SEND EVERYBODY HOME. ALL RIGHT. DEPUTY MAGNERA, LET'S HAVE THE JURY AND I'LL EXCUSE THEM. AND DO WE HAVE ANY DNA LINGERING ISSUES TODAY? AN AFTERNOON WITHOUT DNA. HOW WONDERFUL. OKAY.

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

THE COURT: THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. BE SEATED. ALL RIGHT. THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT WE'VE BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL. GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

THE JURY: GOOD AFTERNOON.

THE COURT: THAT SEARCH FOR AN ITEM LED TO ARGUMENT, LED TO HAVING TO HAVE ANOTHER ATTORNEY ON ANOTHER ISSUE COME IN AND DISCUSS IT, AND WE'VE MANAGED TO TAKE UP THE WHOLE COURT DAY. THIS IS ALSO -- ORDINARILY, GIVEN THE SITUATION, I WOULD LIKE TO FORGE AHEAD A LITTLE MORE, BUT WE HAVE AN ACTIVITY PLANNED THIS AFTERNOON. SO I'M GOING TO BREAK AT THIS TIME. PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU; DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONGST YOURSELVES, DON'T FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, DON'T ALLOW ANYBODY TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU REGARDING THE CASE, DON'T CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU. SEE YOU HERE TOMORROW MORNING, 9:00 O'CLOCK. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL STAND IN RECESS. AND, MRS. ROBERTSON.

(AT 3:00 P.M., AN ADJOURNMENT WAS TAKEN UNTIL, THURSDAY, MARCH 16, 1995, 9:00 A.M.)

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

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

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, )
)
PLAINTIFF, )
)
) VS.
) NO. BA097211
)
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, )
)
)
DEFENDANT. )

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 1995
VOLUME 107

PAGES 18835 THROUGH 19018, INCLUSIVE
(PAGES 18800 THROUGH 18832, 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

I N D E X

INDEX FOR VOLUME 107 PAGES 18835 - 19018

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

DAY DATE SESSION PAGE VOL.

WEDNESDAY MARCH 15, 1995 A.M. 18835 107
P.M. 18954 107

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

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.

FUHRMAN, MARK 107
(RESUMED) 18891B
(RESUMED) 18957B

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

ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

PEOPLE'S
WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS VOL.

FUHRMAN, MARK 107
(RESUMED) 18891B
(RESUMED) 18957B

EXHIBITS

COURT'S FOR IN EXHIBIT
IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE
PAGE VOL. PAGE VOL.

7 - 2-PAGE DOCUMENT 18865 107 18865 107
ENTITLED "LAPD" FOLLOW-UP
INVESTIGATION RE ALWYN MARTIN" DATED JUNE 15,
1993

8 - 1-PAGE DOCUMENT 19015 107 19015 107
ENTITLED "THE MARK FUHRMAN JUSTICE FUND" DATED
SEPTEMBER 21, 1994

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

DEFENSE FOR IN EXHIBIT
IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE
PAGE VOL. PAGE VOL.

1054 - 1-PAGE DOCUMENT 18866 107
DATED MARCH 15, 1995

1055 - MAG-LITE 18900 107

1056 - PHOTOGRAPH OF 18907 107
WALKWAY AT CRIME SCENE WITH THE BODY OF VICTIM
NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON

1057 - PHOTOGRAPH OF 18912 107
THE AREA AT THE CRIME SCENE WHERE VICTIM
RONALD GOLDMAN WAS FOUND

1056-A - PHOTOGRAPH OF 18914 107
WALKWAY AT CRIME SCENE WITH THE BODY OF VICTIM
NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AND TWO BLUE ARROWS
(COMPUTER PRINTOUT)

1057-A - PHOTOGRAPH OF 18912 107
THE AREA AT THE CRIME SCENE WHERE VICTIM
RONALD GOLDMAN WAS FOUND WITH ONE BLUE ARROW
(COMPUTER PRINTOUT)