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

APPEARANCES: (APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED, MR. DARDEN NOT BEING PRESENT.)

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

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

(PAGES 20704 THROUGH 20713, VOLUME 116A, TRANSCRIBED AND SEALED UNDER SEPARATE COVER.)

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

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

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, LET'S PROCEED. LET'S PROCEED.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: LET'S GET THE AUDIENCE AND GO FORWARD.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. THE DEFENDANT IS AGAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT WITH HIS COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. DOUGLAS, MR. BAILEY. THE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED BY MISS CLARK. WHAT HAPPENED TO MR. DARDEN? ALL RIGHT. MR. DOUGLAS, MISS CLARK, YOU HAD A MATTER YOU WANTED TO TAKE UP BEFORE WE RESUME WITH THE JURY?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MS. CLARK: YES. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR. WE ARE GOING TO BE STIPULATING TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE CELL PHONE RECORDS THAT WERE SUBPOENAED FROM AIR TOUCH, BUT THE STIPULATION THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY FRAMED NEEDS TO BE REWORKED A LITTLE BIT AND THEN WE WILL PRESENT THAT TO THE COURT. AND I WANTED TO INDICATE TO COUNSEL THAT BEFORE I WAS LOOKING FOR A CLEAN COPY OF THE PHONE RECORDS FOR THE LIMO AND I NOW HAVE THEM AND I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THESE RECORDS IN LIEU OF THE ONES PREVIOUSLY GIVEN, WHICH HAD MARKINGS ON THEM.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THAT WAS PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT?

MS. CLARK: 148.

THE COURT: MRS. ROBERTSON, PEOPLE'S 148, WAS THAT THE CELL PHONE RECORDS?

THE CLERK: YES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION, MR. DOUGLAS, WE WILL SUBSTITUTE -- SUBSTITUTE THE CLEAN COPY FOR 148.

(PEO'S 148 FOR ID = CLEAN CC/SUBSTITUTED)

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

(MR. DARDEN ENTERS THE COURTROOM.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE ARE NOW REJOINED BY MR. DARDEN. ALL RIGHT. MR. DOUGLAS, ANYTHING ELSE WE NEED TO TAKE UP BEFORE WE INVITE THE JURORS TO JOIN US?

MR. DOUGLAS: I DO HAVE A MATTER, YOUR HONOR, THAT I DO THINK MERITS SOME CONCERN AND ATTENTION BY THE COURT. YOUR HONOR, AS THE COURT WILL RECALL, ON MONDAY THERE HAD BEEN AN OBJECTION LODGED TO A QUESTION ASKED BY MISS CLARK OF MR. KAELIN. THE QUESTION CONCERNED WHETHER OR NOT MR. KAELIN HAD BEEN TOLD BY MR. SIMPSON THAT HE HAD HAD AN ANGRY ARGUMENT WITH HIS FORMER WIFE EARLIER THAT DAY. THERE HAD BEEN AN OBJECTION LODGED BY MR. SHAPIRO ARGUING THAT A GOOD FAITH BASIS FOR THAT QUESTION HAD NOT EXISTED AND THERE HAD BEEN AN OFFER OF PROOF MADE BY MISS CLARK AT SIDE BAR. I HAVE HAD OCCASION, YOUR HONOR, LAST NIGHT, TO REVIEW THOSE PARTICULAR RECORDS AND ALSO TO REVIEW A TRANSCRIPT OF THE SIDE BAR HEARING WHICH HAS BEEN COVERED QUITE BROADLY IN MANY OF THE MEDIA YESTERDAY, AND I'M TROUBLED, YOUR HONOR, BY SOME OF THE REPRESENTATIONS THAT WERE MADE AND THAT APPARENTLY FORMED THE BASIS FOR THE COURT TO OVERRULE MR. SHAPIRO'S OBJECTION TO THE GOOD FAITH BASIS FOR MISS CLARK HAVING ASKED THE QUESTION. I AM REFERRING SPECIFICALLY, YOUR HONOR, TO REFERENCES THAT MISS CLARK MADE THAT THERE HAD BEEN A WITNESS THAT WOULD TESTIFY THAT MR. SIMPSON ON THAT AFTERNOON OF JUNE THE 12TH HAD BEEN ANGRY AND YELLING AND THAT THERE WAS A SUGGESTION THAT THE ONLY CONVERSATION THAT THEIR RECORDS CONFIRMED HIS HAVING AT ABOUT THE TIME THAT HE WAS AT THE RIVIERA COUNTRY CLUB WAS IN FACT A CONVERSATION THAT HE HAD HAD WITH NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON. SPECIFICALLY, THERE WAS A COLLOQUY BETWEEN THE COURT AND MISS CLARK WHERE THE COURT ASKED: "SO THERE IS ONLY ONE CELL PHONE CALL ON HIS RECORDS THAT AFTERNOON?" MISS CLARK RESPONDS: "THAT WOULD MATCH THE TIME THAT HE WAS AT THE COUNTRY CLUB WHEN THIS WITNESS COULD HAVE SEEN HIM." THE COURT THEN ASKS: "WHEN YOU SAY 'MATCH THE TIME,' I MEAN ARE THERE OTHER CELL PHONE CALLS IN THE AFTERNOON?" MISS CLARK RESPONDS: "OTHER CELL PHONE CALLS BUT NOT WITHIN THE TIME FRAME WHEN HE WAS AT THE COUNTRY CLUB. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN?" AND THE COURT RESPONDS: "UH-HUH." YOUR HONOR, IN REVIEWING THE CELL PHONE RECORDS OF MR. SIMPSON ON THAT DAY, I NOTED THAT THERE WERE TWELVE PARTICULAR -- I'M SORRY, SEVEN PARTICULAR CALLS THAT OCCURRED ON HIS CELL PHONE BETWEEN 2:12 IN THE AFTERNOON AND 2:24 IN THE AFTERNOON. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE TIME FRAME THAT HE WAS AT THE COUNTRY CLUB. OF THOSE SEVEN CALLS THE THIRD OF THE SEVEN WAS THE FOUR-MINUTE CALL TO NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON ABOUT WHICH SHE REFERRED, MISS CLARK REFERRED. THAT MEANT, YOUR HONOR, THAT THERE WERE SIX OTHER CALLS OF MAYBE ONE OR TWO-MINUTE DURATION THAT WERE WITHIN THE TIME FRAME THAT COULD WELL HAVE BEEN ONE OF THE CALLS WHEN THE WITNESS SUPPOSEDLY SAW MR. SIMPSON ON THE PHONE, BUT IS DIRECTLY CONTRARY TO THE SUGGESTION OF MISS CLARK THAT THERE WAS ONLY ONE CALL THAT OCCURRED WITHIN THE TIME FRAME WHEN HE WAS AT THE COUNTRY CLUB. I'M ALSO TROUBLED, YOUR HONOR, BECAUSE IN REVIEWING A STATEMENT FROM THAT WITNESS THAT PROVIDED THE BASIS I'M SURE FOR MISS CLARK TO ARGUE THAT SHE HAD A GOOD FAITH BELIEF THAT MR. SIMPSON WAS ANGRY AND WAS YELLING ON THAT CONVERSATION, I SEE THAT THERE WAS NO REFERENCE AT ALL IN THE ENTIRE POLICE STATEMENT THAT MR. SIMPSON WAS YELLING, THAT HE WAS VERY ANGRY. INDEED, THE ONLY STATEMENT THAT IS WRITTEN IS THAT "O.J. APPEARED SERIOUS CONVERSATION, STERN FACE, DIFFERENT FACE, STRIKING A DIFFERENT O.J." AND WE HAD AN OCCASION TO SPEAK WITH THE WITNESS HERSELF YESTERDAY EVENING AND WHEN SHE WAS INFORMED THAT THERE WAS A SUGGESTION THAT SHE WOULD TESTIFY THAT MR. SIMPSON WAS ANGRY AND WAS YELLING, SHE WAS SOMEWHAT DISAPPOINTED THAT HER STATEMENTS TO THE POLICE COULD BE SO MISCONSTRUED BECAUSE SHE REFERRED TO THE FACT THAT TYPICALLY WHEN MR. SIMPSON WOULD GREET THIS INDIVIDUAL HE WOULD CALL HER HONEY BUNNY OR SOME SORT OF ENDEARING TERM AND ON THAT PARTICULAR DAY HE WAS SIMPLY ENGAGED IN SOME SORT OF CONVERSATION AND DID NOT ACKNOWLEDGE HER IN THAT TYPICAL WAY. AND THAT WAS THE ONLY SENSE THAT SHE WAS ATTEMPTING TO CONVEY IN TERMS OF THERE BEING A DIFFERENT O.J., BUT THAT HE WAS NEVER VERY ANGRY, HE WAS NEVER YELLING. I AM THEN THEREFORE, YOUR HONOR, TROUBLED BY THIS ERROR, BECAUSE IT APPEARS THAT IT WAS THE REPRESENTATION THAT GAVE THE COURT --

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. DOUGLAS: -- IT APPEARED THAT IT WAS THE REPRESENTATION THAT GAVE THE COURT THE BELIEF THAT THE QUESTION BEING ASKED WAS IN GOOD FAITH AND THAT THERE WAS IN FACT A BASIS FOR HER TO SUGGEST IN FRONT OF THE JURY TO MR. KAELIN THAT THERE HAD BEEN AN ARGUMENT BETWEEN MR. SIMPSON AND MISS BROWN SIMPSON. THE CALL THAT OCCURRED WAS ONLY A FOUR-MINUTE CALL. WE HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE CALL CONCERNED SIMPLY AN ARRANGEMENT OF TICKETS FOR THE RECITAL BETWEEN MR. SIMPSON AND MISS BROWN SIMPSON WHO HAD IN FACT THE TICKETS IN HER POSSESSION AT THAT TIME. THERE WERE SIX OTHER CALLS THAT OCCURRED WITHIN THE SAME TIME FRAME. THERE APPEARS TO BE A MISREPRESENTATION TO THE COURT. I WOULD ARGUE, YOUR HONOR, THAT THIS MISREPRESENTATION TO THE COURT, GIVEN THAT IT OCCURRED IN A QUESTION THAT WAS POSED TO MR. KAELIN, TO WHICH THERE WAS AN OBJECTION, MERITS SOME SORT OF A STERN REMEDY. I WOULD ARGUE, YOUR HONOR, THAT THE REMEDY THAT WE WOULD SEEK FOR THIS TRANSGRESSION WOULD BE FIRST A STERN ADMONISHMENT TO MISS CLARK TO BE VERY CAREFUL IN HER QUESTIONING IN FRONT OF THE JURY. SECOND, THAT THERE BE AN ADMONISHMENT TO THE JURY THAT LAWYERS MUST HAVE A GOOD FAITH BASIS BEFORE ASKING A PARTICULAR QUESTION TO A WITNESS AND THE COURT FINDS THAT THERE WAS A QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED OF MR. KAELIN CONCERNING MR. SIMPSON APPARENTLY BEING ENGAGED IN AN ARGUMENT WITH HIS WIFE THAT WAS NOT ASKED IN GOOD FAITH AND THAT THE JURY IS SUPPOSED TO -- IS DIRECTED TO DISREGARD THE QUESTION AND THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE QUESTION BECAUSE IT WAS OFFERED IN BAD FAITH. AND I DO THINK, YOUR HONOR, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THAT THIS IS A TRANSGRESSION THAT MERITS SOME SORT OF A FINANCIAL SANCTION SO AS TO FULLY IMPRESS UPON EVERYONE IN THIS CASE THE OBLIGATIONS TO PLAY FAIR AND THAT IT IS CLEAR FROM MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, I KNOW, THAT A FINANCIAL SANCTION CERTAINLY CATCHES ONE'S ATTENTION. THE COURT HAS SUGGESTED ITS NEW POLICY OF IMPOSING SANCTIONS FOR SPEAKING OBJECTIONS, AND I THINK THAT THAT HAS RESULTED IN THEIR HAVING BEEN A GREAT SHORTAGE OF SPEAKING OBJECTIONS NOW, AND I THINK -- AND I'M NOT ONE WHO FREELY AND EASILY ASKS THE COURT TO IMPOSE SANCTIONS ON ANOTHER COUNSEL OF A FINANCIAL NATURE, BUT I THINK THIS IS NOT THE FIRST OCCASION THAT WE HAVE WITNESSED OCCURRENCES OF THIS KIND BEFORE THE JURY. I AM TROUBLED BY THAT AND I WOULD HOPE THAT SOMETHING COULD BE DONE SO THAT WE COULD OBVIATE THE NEED FOR THESE SORTS OF OCCURRENCES TO BE RAISED IN THE FUTURE.

THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL. MR. DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, CAN I SHOW YOU THE CELLULAR PHONE BILL?

MR. DOUGLAS: AND CAN I SHOW YOU THE STATEMENT?

THE COURT: SURE.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL AND THE DEFENDANT.)

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. DOUGLAS: AND YOUR HONOR, IF I MAY BE HEARD BRIEFLY? IT HAS BEEN REMINDED TO ME THAT THE STATEMENT OF THE WITNESS SUGGESTED THAT THE CONVERSATION HAD OCCURRED AT APPROXIMATELY FOUR O'CLOCK ON THAT EVENING, AND AS THE COURT WILL SEE BY LOOKING AT THE PHONE RECORDS, THERE WAS NO CELLULAR PHONE CALL MADE AT APPROXIMATELY FOUR O'CLOCK THAT DAY.

MR. DARDEN: WHICH IS OUR POINT EXACTLY. MISS ARTOONIAN COULD NOT BE EXACT ON THE TIME ON WHICH SHE OBSERVED THE DEFENDANT UPSET AND ANIMATED WHILE TALKING ON THE CELLULAR PHONE AT THE RIVIERA COUNTRY CLUB, BUT WE DO KNOW THAT HE WAS THERE AT 2:18 IN THE AFTERNOON. AS FOR THOSE 1.0, 2.0 MINUTE CALLS, THE CELLULAR PHONE COMPANY CAN TELL YOU, LIKE THEY HAVE TOLD US, THAT THIS DOESN'T MEAN THAT HE SPOKE TO ANYONE. ANYONE WHO HAS A CELLULAR PHONE CAN TELL YOU THAT AS WELL. WE STAND BY OUR REPRESENTATION. WE HAVE TALKED TO MISS ARTOONIAN. WHEN SHE TESTIFIES, HER TESTIMONY WILL BE VERY MUCH AS I BELIEVE AS WE REPRESENTED TO THE COURT. MISS ARTOONIAN CALLED US LAST NIGHT AND TOLD US THAT THE DEFENSE HAD CALLED HER AND ASKED HER ABOUT THE STATEMENT AND SHE SAID SHE STOOD BY HER STATEMENT, AND THAT APPARENTLY WAS THE GIST OF THE CONVERSATION THAT SHE HAD WITH THE DEFENSE. ON THE ISSUE OF GOOD FAITH, I HAVE SAT HERE THROUGHOUT THIS TRIAL AND I HAVE SEEN MANY, MANY INSTANCES OF BAD FAITH QUESTIONING ON THE PART OF THE DEFENSE; HOWEVER, I RECOGNIZE THAT THAT SOMETIMES IS SIMPLY THE NATURE OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LITIGATION. TIME AND TIME AGAIN THE DEFENSE HAS SUGGESTED THAT THE BLOOD AT ROCKINGHAM WAS PLANTED BY THE POLICE WHEN EVEN THEY KNOW BY THE DEFENDANT'S OWN STATEMENT THAT HE WAS BLEEDING AT ROCKINGHAM PRIOR TO LEAVING FOR THE AIRPORT THAT NIGHT. EVERY TIME THEY MAKE THAT SUGGESTION TO THIS JURY AND TO THIS COURT THEY MAKE IT IN BAD FAITH. THIS IS A NON-ISSUE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. I WOULD LIKE TO READ THE -- CAREFULLY THE STATEMENT AND REVIEW THE PHONE RECORDS WHEN I HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY. I WOULD LIKE TO USE THE TIME WITH MR. PARK, HOWEVER, IN FRONT OF THE JURY AT THIS TIME, AND SINCE THIS ISSUE DOES NOT INVOLVE THIS PARTICULAR WITNESS, I WILL TAKE THIS UP AT A LATER TIME.

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, WOULD THE COURT LIKE TO SEE A COPY OF THE SIDE BAR WHERE THAT PORTION WAS REFERENCED?

THE COURT: YES, THAT WILL HELP ME IMMENSELY, TOO, IF YOU WILL GIVE THAT TO ME LATER. ALL RIGHT. BUT I DO WANT A COPY OF EACH OF THOSE ITEMS.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE THE JURY, PLEASE, AND WE WILL TAKE ONE TEN-MINUTE RECESS AT 11:00.

MR. DARDEN: WE WANTED TO LODGE AN OBJECTION TO THE BAGS BEFORE THEY ARE SHOWN TO THE JURY.

THE COURT: OKAY. HOLD THE JURY. HOLD THE JURY. MR. DARDEN.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.

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

MR. DARDEN: WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO INTRODUCING TO THE WITNESS THE GOLF CLUBS AND BAG AND THE LOUIS VITTON BAG, HOWEVER AS FOR THE OTHER TIMES, IT APPEARS THAT --

MR. COCHRAN: THE WITNESS IS HERE. I'M SORRY.

THE COURT: MR. PARK, WHY DON'T YOU STEP OUTSIDE, PLEASE.

(MR. PARK EXITS THE COURTROOM.)

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE DEFENSE PRESENTING TO THE WITNESS THE GOLF CLUB BAG, THE LOUIS VITTON BAG OR THE DUFFEL BAG ENROUTE FROM THE GRAND JURY; HOWEVER, THE OTHER TWO BAGS, THE BLACK GARMENT BAG AND THE SMALL BROWN LEATHER BAG WITH THE BLUE TRIM, WE DO HAVE OBJECTIONS TO BRINGING THOSE TO THE WITNESS. AND NO WITNESS HAS DESCRIBED EITHER ONE OF THOSE TWO BAGS DURING THEIR TESTIMONY. AND AS THE COURT NOTED IN CHAMBERS, THE SMALLER BAG APPEARS TO BE BRAND NEW AND IT HAS THE KEYS STILL ATTACHED TO IT, AS WELL AS THE TAG.

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: YES. IF I MIGHT, YOUR HONOR, I THINK, FIRST OF ALL, WITH REGARD TO THE BLACK GARMENT BAG, THE BAG WITH THE "O.J.S." ON IT, I THINK WE COULD CERTAINLY REASONABLY UNDERSTAND THAT IF THAT BAG WAS FULL WITH CLOTHES AND FOLDED OVER IT WOULD VERY CLOSELY MATCH THE DESCRIPTION WE HAVE DESCRIBED OF A SECOND BLACK DUFFEL BAG.

AND I THINK THE BEST WAY TO FIND OUT OBVIOUSLY IS TO ASK THE WITNESS. I MEAN, THIS IS WHY THIS WITNESS IS HERE. WE DON'T WANT TO BRING EVERYBODY BACK FOUR OR FIVE TIMES. AND I THINK THE BAG NOW IS EMPTY, BUT IF HE HAD CLOTHES IN IT, AS YOU WOULD EXPECT IF SOMEONE WAS TAKING A TRIP, I THINK IT BECOMES VERY RELEVANT, AND THE BEST WAY IS TO ASK THE WITNESS. WITH REGARDS TO THE OTHER BAG AND THE NEWNESS OF THE BAG, MR. SIMPSON HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO GO BACK OUT AND PICK OUT WHICH BAG OR WHATEVER. HE HAS BEEN IN CUSTODY. WITH REGARD, HOWEVER, YOU WILL NOTICE EVEN THE GOLF CLUBS STILL HAVE THE LABELS. THAT IS OF NO MOMENT. AND THE GOLF CLUBS HAVE OBVIOUSLY BEEN USED, SO THE FACT THAT IT LOOKS NEW OR HAS SOME KEYS ON IT I THINK IS NOT OF ANY MOMENT. THE QUESTION IS CAN THIS WITNESS DESCRIBE THESE? BECAUSE AFTER ALL, WE WERE NOT OUT THERE AND WE CAN'T PUT OUR JUDGMENT IN THIS. WE HAVE TO ASK THE WITNESS WHO WAS THERE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. AT THIS POINT I'M INCLINED TO SUSTAIN THE PROSECUTION OBJECTION UNTIL THE WITNESS TESTIFIES DESCRIBING THESE ITEMS IN PARTICULARITY, ANYTHING THAT EVEN COMES CLOSE TO THESE ITEMS.

MR. COCHRAN: I AM NOT VERY CLEAR YOUR HONOR. YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT JUST THE TWO ITEMS?

THE COURT: THAT'S CORRECT.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I KNEW WHAT YOU WERE SAYING.

MR. DARDEN: WE HAVE HEARD A LOT THIS MORNING ABOUT GOOD FAITH AND I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO INQUIRE OF THE DEFENSE. IS IT THEIR CONTENTION THAT THAT SMALL LEATHER BAG, THE ONE WITH THE BLUE TAG, IS THE BAG MR. SIMPSON CARRIED?

THE COURT: ACTUALLY IT IS A BLUE BAG WITH BROWN LEATHER TRIM.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. DARDEN: IS IT THEIR CONTENTION THAT THE WITNESS (SIC) CARRIED THAT BAG ON THE PLANE? IF NOT, THEY ARE ACTING IN BAD FAITH. WHY INTRODUCE IT TO THE WITNESS? THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH AND WE SHOULDN'T BE TRYING TO TRICK WITNESSES TO GET TO THEM SAY SOMETHING THAT MIGHT AFFECT THEIR CREDIBILITY.

MR. COCHRAN: NOBODY IS TRYING --

MR. DARDEN: THAT SEEMS TO BE WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO DO.

MR. COCHRAN: NOBODY IS TRYING TO TRICK ANYBODY. WITH ALL THEIR SEARCH WARRANT POWERS AND ALL THE THINGS THEY DID, THEY NEVER EVEN TRIED TO FIND THESE BAGS, JUST TALK ABOUT IT AND THROW ALL THESE THEORIES UP. LET'S NOT TRY AND TALK ABOUT TRICKING ANYBODY. WE ARE THE ONES, WITH THE COURT'S INDULGENCE AND HELP, WHO BROUGHT THESE BAGS IN HERE. YOU WILL ALLOW SOME FURTHER QUESTIONING AND WE WILL FIND OUT. I WASN'T THERE AND NEITHER WAS MR. DARDEN, SO CLEARLY THE WITNESS IS THE ONE WHO IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO TELL US WHETHER OR NOT THIS COMPORTS WITH HIS DESCRIPTION AND HIS RECOLLECTION THAT NIGHT. THAT IS ALL WE ARE TYING TO DO.

MR. DARDEN: WE HOPE TO PRESENT MORE EVIDENCE TOMORROW RELATIVE TO WHAT HAPPENED TO THE BAG IN WHICH THE BLOODY CLOTHES WERE CARRIED IN AND TONIGHT I HOPE TO PRESENT TO THE DEFENSE DISCOVERY ON THAT ISSUE AS SOON AS IT COMES INTO OUR POSSESSION. IN ANY EVENT, WE SHOULDN'T BE TRYING TO TRICK WITNESSES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I NOTED THE OBJECTION. I SUSTAINED THE OBJECTION. UNLESS I HEAR A BETTER FOUNDATION, I HAVE INDICATED THAT I'M SUSTAINING --

MR. COCHRAN: YOU RULED AND AS USUAL THEY ARE TRYING TO GIVE A SOUND BITE FOR WHAT MIGHT BE OR FOR WHAT HE HOPES IS GOING TO HAPPEN. THEIR WHOLE CASE IS BASED UPON HOPES AND DREAMS AND THEY'RE EVAPORATING.

MR. DARDEN: NOBODY CALLS US THE DREAM TEAM, MR. COCHRAN.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, THE REPARTEE IS NOT NECESSARY. ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

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

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

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

THE COURT: MY APOLOGIES TO YOU FOR THE LATE STARTING TIME; HOWEVER, WE HAVE BEEN ENGAGED THIS MORNING, BOTH IN CHAMBERS AND HERE IN OPEN COURT, ON MATTERS THAT PERTAIN TO THE TESTIMONY THAT YOU ARE HEARING TODAY, AND I HAD TO RESOLVE THOSE MATTERS BEFORE PRESENTING THE WITNESS AGAIN TO YOU. MR. PARK, WOULD YOU RESUME THE WITNESS STAND, PLEASE.

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, MR. PARK.

THE WITNESS: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH, SIR. AND MR. COCHRAN, YOU MAY CONTINUE YOUR CROSS-EXAMINATION.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY, YOUR HONOR.

CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED)

BY MR. COCHRAN:

Q: GOOD MORNING, MR. PARK.

A: GOOD MORNING, SIR.

MR. COCHRAN: GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

MR. COCHRAN: EXCUSE ME JUST A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR.

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

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

Q: NOW, MR. PARK, YOU HAD DESCRIBED FOR US I BELIEVE YESTERDAY HOW WHEN YOU PULLED TO THE ROCKINGHAM GATE YOU LOOKED INTO THE DRIVEWAY THERE AND ONE OF THE THINGS YOU WERE TRYING TO CONSIDER IS WHETHER OR NOT THE LIMOUSINE COULD BE PULLED IN THROUGH THE ROCKINGHAM GATE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED THAT YOU DID SEE TWO CARS IN THAT DRIVEWAY?

A: YES.

Q: AND ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THAT?

A: I'M PRETTY SURE. NOT POSITIVE, BUT THAT IS WHAT I OBSERVED.

Q: ALL RIGHT. YOUR BELIEF IS YOU SAW TWO CARS THERE?

A: YES.

Q: CAN YOU DESCRIBE THOSE TWO CARS FOR US?

A: THE ONE I KNOW WAS A ROLLS ROYCE. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS PRETTY OBVIOUS. THE OTHER ONE I WASN'T TOO SURE ABOUT; ANOTHER DARK CAR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AS YOU WERE FACING LOOKING IN THE ROCKINGHAM GATE, WHICH OF THE TWO CARS WOULD BE -- WOULD BE CLOSEST TO YOU, SIR?

A: FROM WHAT I REMEMBER, THE ROLLS ROYCE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND SO WOULD YOU ACCEPT THAT THAT MIGHT BE A BENTLEY AS OPPOSED TO A ROLLS ROYCE? SAME FAMILY?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. IT WAS DARK IN COLOR; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO SEE SOME PHOTOGRAPHS OR SOMETHING AT OR ABOUT THE TIME THAT YOU TESTIFIED AT EITHER THE GRAND JURY OR THE PRELIMINARY HEARING WHERE YOU SAW TWO CARS IN THE DRIVEWAY AT SOME POINT?

A: NOT THAT I REMEMBER.

Q: ALL RIGHT. IF I WERE TO TELL YOU THAT THAT SECOND CAR DID NOT ARRIVE IN THAT DRIVEWAY UNTIL ABOUT ONE O'CLOCK P.M. -- ONE O'CLOCK A.M., WOULD THAT IN ANY WAY REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION THAT THERE WAS ONLY ONE CAR THERE WHEN YOU LOOKED IN THERE?

A: NO.

Q: YOUR BEST RECOLLECTION AS YOU SIT HERE NOW IS THAT YOU SAW TWO CARS WITH THE BENTLEY OR ROLLS ROYCE PARKED FIRST; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: FROM WHAT I REMEMBER, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THE SECOND CAR THEN, WHAT KIND OF CAR WAS THAT?

A: I DON'T KNOW WHAT KIND OF CAR IT WAS. IT JUST SEEMED TO BE ANOTHER DARK CAR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DARK IN COLOR?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU BELIEVE THAT THAT SECOND DARK-COLORED CAR WAS PARKED BEHIND THE BENTLEY?

A: YES.

Q: BUT AS I UNDERSTAND YOUR TESTIMONY AS YOU HAVE INDICATED, YOU ARE NOT SURE ABOUT THAT, ARE YOU?

A: NO.

Q: YOU JUST HAVE A RECOLLECTION OR IMPRESSION THAT YOU MAY HAVE SEEN TWO CARS?

A: YES.

Q: YOU ARE SURE, HOWEVER, THAT YOU DID SEE THE BENTLEY OR THE ROLLS ROYCE?

A: YES.

Q: IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I AM POSITIVE OF THAT, YES.

Q: THAT YOU ARE POSITIVE OF?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. NOW, YOU YESTERDAY DESCRIBED FOR THE JURY SOME LUGGAGE THAT WAS PLACED IN THE BACK OF THE LIMOUSINE. YOU RECALL THAT?

A: YES.

Q: AND AS I UNDERSTAND YOUR TESTIMONY, YOU DESCRIBED FOR US A GOLF BAG THAT WAS ENCASED IN SOME KIND OF A SHEATH WITH SOME KIND OF EMBLEM THEREON; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: IF YOU WERE TO SEE THAT GOLF BAG AND WITH THE EMBLEM THEREON, YOU WOULD RECOGNIZE THAT, WOULD YOU NOT? DO YOU THINK YOU COULD?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THEN YOU DESCRIBED FOR US A DESIGNER BAG THAT YOU HAD PREVIOUSLY CALLED GUCCI, BUT YESTERDAY YOU AND I HAD A CONVERSATION THAT IT MIGHT POSSIBLY BE LOUIS VITTON, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: YOU DESCRIBED IT AS BEING KIND OF BEIGE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU ALSO PREVIOUSLY DESCRIBED WHAT YOU CALL A BLACK DUFFEL BAG AND YOU GAVE US SOME MEASUREMENTS OF ABOUT THREE FEET BY MAYBE ONE AND A HALF FEET IN WIDTH; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU THINK YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY THAT IF YOU SAW IT ALSO?

A: I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN GIVE YOU A POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION, BUT I COULD SAY THAT IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.

Q: I UNDERSTAND THAT. NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT IT WAS NIGHT, THINGS WERE DARK, AND IT HAS BEEN A LONG TIME?

A: YES.

Q: YOU CAN TELL US WHETHER OR NOT IT LOOKED SIMILAR? IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, WITH REGARD TO -- YOU TALKED ABOUT A SECOND BLACK DUFFEL BAG AS YOU DESCRIBED IT. WITH REGARD TO THAT, DO YOU RECALL WHETHER OR NOT -- THAT WAS BLACK IN COLOR, WAS IT NOT, THE SECOND BAG?

A: IT WAS DARK IN COLOR.

Q: YES. AND DO YOU RECALL WHETHER OR NOT YOU SAW ANY INITIALS OR ANYTHING ON THAT AT ALL?

A: NO.

Q: DO YOU RECALL? AND WAS IT FOLDED OVER AT THE TIME THAT YOU SAW IT IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT APPEARED THAT THERE WERE CLOTHES INSIDE OF IT IN SOME WAY?

A: WELL, WHICH BAG --

Q: THE SECOND BLACK DUFFEL BAG THAT YOU DESCRIBED FOR US YESTERDAY?

A: WHICH, THE TWO THAT WERE TOGETHER?

Q: YEAH, THE TWO THAT WERE ON THE GROUND. DID IT APPEAR -- WE WERE TALKING ABOUT ONE, NOW I'M TALKING ABOUT THE OTHER ONE.

A: OKAY.

Q: I'M ASKING YOU WHETHER OR NOT THE OTHER DUFFEL BAG, THE BLACK DUFFEL BAG, APPEARED TO LOOK AS THOUGH IT HAD SOME CLOTHES IN IT?

A: I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT HAD IN IT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. BUT DID IT LOOK -- AND LET ME ASK YOU THIS THEN: DID IT APPEAR AS THOUGH IT HAD SOMETHING INSIDE?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND ONE OF THOSE BAGS WAS OPENED PARTIALLY OR UNZIPPED AND YOU DIDN'T LOOK INSIDE, THOUGH?

A: NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: BASED UPON YOUR EXPERIENCE AND COMMON SENSE, YOU FELT THAT IT HAD SOMETHING IN IT AT THAT POINT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: SO IT LOOKED FAIRLY FULL, DID IT?

A: YES, IT DID.

Q: OKAY. THEN YOU DESCRIBED FOR US YESTERDAY THIS OTHER BAG THAT WAS APPROXIMATELY TWENTY FEET AWAY FROM YOU ON THE DRIVEWAY. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?

A: YES.

Q: CAN YOU AGAIN DESCRIBE THAT BY COLOR FOR US, IF YOU WOULD.

A: AGAIN ANOTHER DARK BAG. I NEVER REALLY HANDLED THAT BAG OR GOT CLOSE TO IT, SO --

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND AGAIN FROM THE STANDPOINT OF SIZE, CAN YOU HELP US WITH THE SIZE OF THAT BAG, SIR?

A: IT WAS A BIT SMALLER THAN THE OTHER ONES. IT SEEMED TO BE A FOOT AND A HALF ACROSS AND HALF TO A FOOT DEEP.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU RECALL WHETHER OR NOT IT HAD ANY HANDLES ON IT?

A: NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU NEVER GOT CLOSER THAN TWENTY FEET WITH REGARD TO THAT BAG; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: CORRECT.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE AT THIS POINT TO SHOW THE WITNESS A COUPLE BAGS.

MS. CLARK: I WOULD LIKE TO APPROACH, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THE TWO THAT THERE ARE NO OBJECTION TO, YOU MAY.

MS. CLARK: WE WOULD LIKE TO APPROACH, YOUR HONOR.

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

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

MS. CLARK: WE GET HIT WITH THESE THINGS AT THE LAST MINUTE.

THE COURT: WE ARE AT THE SIDE BAR. MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR. NO. 1 THING, THESE BAGS ARE NOT IN THE CONDITION THEY WERE IN WHEN THIS WITNESS SAW THEM. THEY ARE EMPTY NOW, THEY WERE FULL THEN, SO THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.

THE COURT: WAIT A MINUTE. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE GOLF CLUBS AND THE LOUIS VITTON.

MS. CLARK: THE LOUIS VITTON BAG IS EMPTY, TOO.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I HAVE JUST ONE SECOND, PLEASE?

MS. CLARK: SURE.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

MS. CLARK: YOU KNOW WHAT, CAN I LET MR. DARDEN HANDLE THIS?

MR. COCHRAN: ONE-LAWYER RULE.

MS. CLARK: I'M JUST TOO TIRED.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK.

MR. DARDEN: WE HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. FIRST, SO THAT THE JURY ISN'T MISLED, WE WOULD ASK THAT THERE BE SOME INFORMATION GIVEN TO THE JURY REGARDING THE RECOVERY --

THE COURT: OKAY.

MR. DARDEN: -- OF THE BAG AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH IT WAS RECOVERED. SECONDLY, I THINK WE ALL AGREE THAT THE BAG CONTAINED SOME ITEMS OF SOME NATURE.

MR. COCHRAN: WHICH BAG ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?

MR. DARDEN: LOUIS VITTON.

THE COURT: WHY DON'T YOU JUST ASK A FEW MORE QUESTIONS.

MR. COCHRAN: IN FACT, THAT IS WHAT THAT WAS ABOUT.

MR. DARDEN: LET ME FINISH. SO THERE WERE OTHER ITEMS INSIDE THE BAG. OKAY. THE BAG IS NOT NOW IN THE CONDITION IT WAS IN APPARENTLY WHEN IT RETURNED FROM CHICAGO, SO SOMEONE HAS REMOVED THE ITEMS FROM THE BAG. AND IF IT IS MR. KARDASHIAN OR HIS AGENT OR MR. COCHRAN OR HIS AGENTS, THEY HAVE A DUTY UNDER THE CASE LAW, I BELIEVE, TO INFORM THE COURT AND US AS TO THE CONDITION OF THE BAG WHEN IT WAS RECEIVED, AS WELL AS THE CONTENTS. IF IT HAS BEEN ALTERED IN ANY WAY, WE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW HOW.

MR. COCHRAN: LET ME JUST SAY THIS: THEY ARE MIXING APPLES AND ORANGES FROM THE STANDPOINT --

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

MR. COCHRAN: I THINK, FIRST OF ALL, IF I CAN RESPOND, FIRST THEY ARE MIXING AND APPLES AND ORANGES. I'M ASKING THIS WITNESS TO IDENTIFY THE BAG. I WILL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO TALK. I WASN'T THERE, JUDGE, ON JUNE 13TH AND I WASN'T THERE. WITH REGARD TO THE BAG, THE COURT KNOWS THE HISTORY OF IT, AND CHRIS -- MR. DARDEN, WE WILL ABSOLUTELY COMPORT WITH THAT ANYTIME THE COURT WANTS TO. IT IS CHAIN OF CUSTODY. BUT THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE. I'M TRYING TO SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH. I'M TRYING TO ASK THIS MAN -- HE WAS OUT THERE -- WHETHER OR NOT HE CAN IDENTIFY THIS BAG. I'M WILLING TO ASK WHAT THE CONDITION OF THE BAGS WERE BEFORE I PRESUME AT THAT POINT. IF THEY ARE NOT FULL --

MR. DARDEN: JOHNNIE, JOHNNIE, WE UNDERSTAND THAT AND WE ARE NOT STANDING HERE RIGHT NOW TRYING TO STOP FROM YOU SHOWING THE BAGS TO THIS WITNESS; HOWEVER, THERE IS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WE HAVE A RIGHT TO HAVE AND WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT IMMEDIATELY SO THAT WE CAN PREPARE TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THEN AT THIS POINT I'M GOING TO SUSTAIN A FOUNDATIONAL OBJECTION SIMPLY TO THE POINT THAT WHEN MR. PARK SAW THE LOUIS VITTON BAG IT WAS FULL. IN OTHER WORDS, IT APPEARED TO HAVE CLOTHING IN IT.

MR. COCHRAN: I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS FULL, BUT I WILL ASK THE QUESTION.

THE COURT: AND THEN SECONDLY, THAT WHAT APPEARED TO BE A GOLF BAG APPEARED -- WHEN HE PUT IT IN THE LIMOUSINE, APPEARED TO HAVE A SET OF GOLF CLUBS IN IT, APPEARED TO BE A NORMAL GOLF BAG WITH GOLF CLUBS, ET CETERA.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT IS ALL I'M SAYING.

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

MR. COCHRAN: WE DON'T WANT THE JURY INFORMED OF ANYTHING.

THE COURT: AND JUDGE WONG WILL BE AVAILABLE THIS AFTERNOON AT 1:30.

MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE, CAN I ASK ONE OTHER THING?

MS. CLARK: JUDGE, WITH RESPECT TO THE --

MR. COCHRAN: THERE IS TWO OF YOU.

MS. CLARK: HE IS GOING TO DO IT. HE IS GOING TO DO IT.

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

MR. DARDEN: WOULD THE COURT BE INCLINED TO TELL THE JURY THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE BAG WAS RECOVERED PRIOR TO SHOWING IT TO THE WITNESS?

THE COURT: NO, BUT WE WILL PUT THAT -- THE ONLY REASON I'M NOT DOING THAT, JUDGE WONG IS NOT AVAILABLE RIGHT NOW. HE WILL BE AVAILABLE AT 1:30. WE WILL PUT HIM ON.

MR. DARDEN: NEXT ISSUE. MR. KARDASHIAN, WILL HE BE AVAILABLE THIS AFTERNOON?

THE COURT: YEAH.

MR. COCHRAN: THEY ARE COMING BACK, I PRESUME.

MR. DARDEN: ALL RIGHT.

THE COURT: I'M GOING TO MAKE JUDGE WONG AVAILABLE TO YOU AT 1:30 TO DISCUSS ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ABOUT A SPECIAL MASTER ACTIVITY AND THEN I WILL BRING THE JURY BACK AT TWO O'CLOCK.

MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE, MAY I ASK ONE OTHER THING?

MS. CLARK: THE ONLY THING I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS THAT THE JURY REALIZES WE JUST DON'T GO IN THERE WITH A SEARCH WARRANT AND NOT FIND THESE THINGS. THEY WEREN'T THERE AND THE JURY IS NOW OF THE IMPRESSION THAT THEY WERE AT HIS HOUSE ALL ALONG AND WE DIDN'T BRING THEM.

MR. COCHRAN: I'M GOING TO ASK ABOUT WHERE IT WAS RECOVERED. SOME OF THEM WERE THERE. I SAW THAT BAG WHEN WE WENT OUT ON THE JURY VIEW AND I'M SURE SOME OF THEM SAW IT, SO THAT IS NOT GOING TO FLY.

THE COURT: IT WAS IN THE CLOSET.

MR. COCHRAN: IT WAS IN THE CLOSET, THE LOUIS VITTON BAG.

MR. DARDEN: THAT IS NOT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT JUNE 13.

MS. CLARK: RIGHT.

MR. DARDEN: THAT IS NOT THE BAG ANYWAY WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT. WE DON'T CARE ABOUT THE LOUIS VITTON BAG.

THE COURT: THEN LET'S STOP FIGHTING ABOUT IT.

MR. COCHRAN: LET ME ASK YOU THIS: TALK ABOUT A FOUNDATIONAL ISSUE, JUST AS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT CLOTHES AND WHAT THE ISSUE WAS, IT IS OUR CONTENTION THAT THE O.J.S. BAG WAS THE OTHER BAG AND IT HAD CLOTHES IN IT AND SO I THINK I SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO ASK HIM IF THIS WAS SIMILAR, IF IT HAD CLOTHES IN IT OR HAD SOMETHING IN IT, WOULD BE SIMILAR.

THE COURT: WELL, ASK HIM SOME MORE FOUNDATIONAL QUESTIONS BECAUSE HE'S THE ONE WHO PUT IT IN THE LIMOUSINE. IF IT HAD HANDLES ON IT, WAS HE ABLE TO DESCRIBE WHAT A DUFFLE BAG IS. IF WE HAVE TO, I MEAN, I GOT AN L.L. BEAN CATALOG IN THE BACK AND YOU CAN ASK HIM PICK WHAT LOOKS LIKE IT.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR --

THE COURT: THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A GARMENT BAG AND A DUFFLE BAG.

MS. CLARK: THE EASIEST THING TO DO IS TO HAVE THE DUFFEL BAG HERE. DID THEY BOTH LOOK LIKE THIS.

MR. COCHRAN: I AM GOING TO DO THAT AT SOME POINT AND I'M GOING TO ASK A FEW MORE QUESTIONS.

MR. DARDEN: I KNEW HE HAD MORE THAN FIFTEEN MINUTES.

MR. COCHRAN: NO, THIS --

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

MR. COCHRAN: SHALL I BRING THEM IN?

THE COURT: YES, AND A COUPLE MORE FOUNDATIONAL QUESTIONS.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I PROCEED, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

Q: MR. PARK, JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS WITH REGARD TO THE TWO DUFFLE BAGS THAT WERE ON THE GROUND WHEN YOU PULLED IN WITH THE LIMOUSINE THAT WERE OUT IN FRONT OF MR. SIMPSON'S HOUSE. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: YES.

Q: CAN YOU DESCRIBE FOR US AND GIVE US A WORD PICTURE OF THE DUFFLE BAGS? YOU TOLD US THEY WERE BLACK IN COLOR; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND AS BETWEEN THE TWO BAGS, WAS THERE ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO BAGS?

A: UMM, FROM WHAT I REMEMBER, THEY WERE PRETTY MUCH THE SAME.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WITH REGARD TO -- I HAVE TO ASK YOU WHETHER THERE WAS ANY WRITING ON EITHER ONE OF THEM AND DO YOU RECALL ANY WRITING AT ALL?

A: NO.

Q: AND DID THEY BOTH APPEAR AS THOUGH THEY HAD SOMETHING INSIDE OF THEM?

A: YES.

Q: CAN YOU DESCRIBE FOR US ANYTHING ABOUT THE HANDLES OF THESE TWO BAGS?

A: NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND DID YOU PUT THE TWO DUFFLE BAGS INSIDE THE CAR?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU ONLY HAD THEM FOR A VERY SHORT TIME, I PRESUME; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YEAH, SECONDS.

Q: AND THAT WASN'T SOMETHING YOU WERE CONCENTRATING ON, I PRESUME?

A: NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. BUT WITH REGARD TO -- WHAT ELSE CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THESE BAGS, THAT YOU HAVEN'T TOLD US THUS FAR? YOU TOLD US THE COLOR, YOU TOLD US THERE IS NO WRITING THAT YOU RECALL?

A: I'M NOT POSITIVE IF ONE HAD A SHOULDER STRAP OR NOT.

Q: IS IT POSSIBLE THAT ONE COULD HAVE BEEN CARRIED UP OVER ONE'S SHOULDER; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND AS WITH SOMETIMES -- AS SOMETIMES HAPPENS WITH THOSE BAGS WITH THE SHOULDER STRAPS, THEY CAN ALSO SOMETIMES BE FOLDED; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, I GUESS.

Q: AND DO YOU RECALL ON THAT PARTICULAR NIGHT WHETHER OR NOT, AS IT APPEARS, THE DUFFEL BAG HAD BEEN FOLDED OVER WITH CLOTHES INSIDE OF IT? DO YOU RECALL?

A: NO.

Q: YOU DON'T RECALL?

A: NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. IF YOU WERE TO SEE BOTH OF THESE BLACK DUFFLE BAGS AGAIN, DO YOU THINK YOU COULD TELL US WHETHER OR NOT IT APPEARS TO BE SIMILAR TO THE BAG YOU SAW THAT NIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: YOUR BEST TEST WOULD BE TO ACTUALLY LOOK AT IT, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. CAN YOU TELL US ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU HAVEN'T TOLD US THUS FAR ABOUT THE TWO BLACK DUFFLE BAGS?

A: THAT IS ABOUT ALL I REMEMBER, OTHER THAN ONE WAS UNZIPPED.

Q: OF THE TWO OF THEM, ONE WAS UNZIPPED?

A: YES.

Q: WHERE WERE THE ZIPPERS ON THAT PARTICULAR BAG, IF YOU RECALL?

A: THEY SEEMED TO BE IN THE MIDDLE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. ANOTHER ONE -- DID THE OTHER DUFFEL BAG HAVE ZIPPERS ALSO?

A: IT WAS CLOSED. I DON'T KNOW IF IT HAD A ZIPPER OR NOT. I DIDN'T ASK THEM TO --

Q: THIS WAS JUST A QUICK THING BECAUSE YOU WERE LATE?

A: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: I UNDERSTAND. I UNDERSTAND. YOUR HONOR, MAY I SHOW THE WITNESS A COUPLE OF BAGS?

THE COURT: THE FIRST TWO, YES.

MR. COCHRAN: THEY ARE NOW THREE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: I'M SORRY?

MR. COCHRAN: THEY ARE NOW THREE.

THE COURT: THE FIRST TWO.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY WE APPROACH WITHOUT THE REPORTER?

THE COURT: YES.

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

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. MR. COCHRAN.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, FOR THE RECORD, I WANT TO ASK -- I WANT TO ASK ONE QUESTION BEFORE I SHOW THE WITNESS THE BAGS.

Q: MR. PARK, DO YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A GARMENT BAG, AS IT WERE, AND A DUFFEL BAG? DO YOU MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TWO OF THOSE?

A: YES.

Q: AND IF A GARMENT BAG IS FOLDED OVER WITH CLOTHES THEREIN, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT LOOKS VERY SIMILAR TO A DUFFEL BAG ON OCCASION?

A: IT COULD.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU -- DO YOU KNOW -- THE SECOND BLACK BAG THAT YOU SAW THAT NIGHT, DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS POSSIBLY A GARMENT BAG THAT WAS FOLDED OVER WITH CLOTHES THEREIN?

A: NOT POSITIVE, NO.

Q: YOU DON'T KNOW?

A: NO.

Q: AGAIN, WOULD THE BEST TEST OF THAT BE FOR YOU TO ACTUALLY SEE A BAG AND THEN MAKE A DETERMINATION?

A: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT, YOUR HONOR. YOUR HONOR, MAY I -- I WOULD LIKE TO MARK AS DEFENDANT'S NEXT IN ORDER 1062, WHAT APPARENTLY IS A GARMENT BAG, COUNSEL HAS SEEN IT, A LOUIS VITTON GARMENT BAG. AND I WOULD LIKE, IF I MIGHT, TO APPROACH MR. PARK.

THE COURT: YES. FOLD-OVER GARMENT BAG.

(DEFT'S 1062 FOR ID = GARMENT BAG)

MR. COCHRAN: LOUIS VITTON WITH A PANEL.

Q: MR. PARK, I WANT TO PLACE THE DEFENDANT'S 1062 BEFORE YOU AND WHY DON'T YOU JUST TAKE A MINUTE AND TAKE A LOOK AT THAT AND SEE WHETHER OR NOT THE BAG THAT YOU TALKED ABOUT YESTERDAY BEING A DESIGNER BAG APPEARS SIMILAR TO DEFENDANT'S 662 -- 1062 FROM THE NIGHT OF JUNE 12, 1994, SIR?

A: UMM, IT IS VERY SIMILAR, IF NOT THE BAG.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND DO YOU WANT TO LOOK AT IT ANY MORE?

A: NO.

Q: LOOKS VERY SIMILAR?

A: YES.

Q: AND DO YOU SEE THESE LITTLE LV'S ON IT?

A: YES.

Q: THAT LOOKS LIKE WHAT YOU SAW THAT NIGHT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU SEE ANYTHING ELSE ABOUT THIS BAG THAT LOOKS FAMILIAR, THE LABEL? DID YOU HAPPEN TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THE SKYCAPS PUT A LABEL ON IT THAT NIGHT WHERE THIS BAG WAS GOING?

A: NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: DO YOU RECALL WHETHER OR NOT THE DESIGNER BAG YOU SAW THAT NIGHT HAD A HERTZ LABEL WITH THE NAME "SIMPSON" ON IT? DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: NO.

Q: YOU DON'T RECALL SEEING THAT?

A: NO.

Q: DO YOU RECALL SEEING "PREMIUM SERVICE FLAGSHIP SERVICE AMERICAN AIRLINES"?

A: NO.

Q: BUT HE WENT OUT ON AMERICAN AIRLINES?

A: YES.

Q: SO YOUR TESTIMONY IS THIS BAG, DEFENDANT'S 1062 FOR IDENTIFICATION, MAY VERY WELL BE THE BAG THAT YOU HAD THAT NIGHT; IS THAT CORRECT, OR SAW THAT NIGHT?

A: YES, IT LOOKS VERY FAMILIAR.

MR. COCHRAN: OKAY, SIR. I WOULD LIKE NOW, YOUR HONOR, TO SHOW I GUESS WHAT WILL BE MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S 1063. THAT WILL BE BROUGHT BY MR. DOUGLAS.

(DEFT'S 1063 FOR ID = GOLF BAG)

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, MR. DOUGLAS.

Q: YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY DESCRIBED FOR US WHAT YOU BELIEVE WAS A GOLF BAG AND YOU TOLD US THAT IT HAD SOME KIND OF AN INSIGNIA ON IT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: WE ARE NOW PLACING BEFORE YOU NOW DEFENDANT'S 1063 FOR IDENTIFICATION. DO YOU RECOGNIZE THIS BAG AT ALL?

A: NO.

Q: DO YOU SEE AN INSIGNIA ON THIS BAG THAT LOOKS FAMILIAR TO YOU AT ALL?

A: NO.

Q: DOES THIS -- DOES THE CONFIGURATION OF THIS PARTICULAR BAG SEEM SIMILAR TO THE GOLF BAG THAT YOU SAW ON THAT PARTICULAR NIGHT?

A: SOMEWHAT SIMILAR, BUT I DON'T THINK IT IS THE SAME.

Q: IT DOESN'T LOOK THE SAME TO YOU?

A: NO.

Q: IF IT WERE TO -- WOULD IT BE HELPFUL FOR YOU -- DID YOU SEE THE CLUBS THAT NIGHT?

A: YES. NOT THE CLUBS ITSELF, BUT THE BAG.

Q: YOU SAW A SHEATH OF SOME KIND?

A: YES.

Q: HOW DOES THIS SHEATH LOOK DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE THAT YOU SAW?

A: IT DIDN'T SAY "SWISS ARMY" LIKE THAT AND IT WASN'T THAT BIG.

Q: THE "SWISS ARMY" THING?

A: YES. AND IT SEEMED TO BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. IT WASN'T AS BULKY.

Q: DIDN'T SEEM THAT BULKY?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. IF WE CAN UNZIP IT. DID YOU EVER HAVE IT UNZIPPED AT ALL THAT NIGHT? HAVE YOU LOOK AT THE BAG AND THE CLUBS INSIDE? DID YOU AT ANY TIME THAT NIGHT SEE WHAT APPARENTLY IS A SET OF GOLF CLUBS AND SOME KIND OF BLACK GOLF BAG WITH A TOP THEREON, A SLEEVE OR SOMETHING THEREON, AND IT HAS ANOTHER INSIGNIA, "SWISS ARMY" -- "SWISS ARMY" --

A: BRANDS.

Q: -- "BRANDS LIMITED"?

A: I NEVER SAW IT LIKE THAT, NO. IT HAD ANOTHER SHEATH, BUT I DON'T -- I DON'T RECALL SEEING IT WRITTEN LIKE THAT.

Q: ALL RIGHT.

A: IT SEEMED TO BE A DIFFERENT EMBLEM.

Q: ALL RIGHT. IT SEEMED TO BE A DIFFERENT EMBLEM, AS YOU RECALL?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU -- THIS PARTICULAR BAG I THINK YOU DESCRIBED FOR US, THE GOLF BAG, WAS PLACED IN THE VEHICLE BY MR. KATO KAELIN?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: SO YOU DIDN'T HANDLE IT, PER SE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: NO, I WAS THERE WHEN HE PUT IT IN. WELL, I HANDLED IT AT THE AIRPORT.

Q: YOU TOOK IT OUT AND PUT IT ON THE CART OF THE GENTLEMEN WHO WAS CHECKING?

A: YES.

Q: SO YOUR BEST RECOLLECTION IS THAT THIS SET OF GOLF CLUBS DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE SIMILAR TO THE ONES YOU SAW THAT NIGHT OR COULD YOU SAY ONE WAY OR THE OTHER?

A: WELL, IT COULD BE THE GOLF CLUBS, BUT IT JUST SEEMED TO BE A DIFFERENT SHEATH THAN THIS ONE OVER IT.

Q: WAS THE SHEATH YOU SAW THIS NIGHT, WAS IT DARK ALSO?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS SHEATH AND THE SHEATH THAT YOU RECALL THAT NIGHT HAS TO DO THE EMBLEM; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: THE EMBLEM THAT YOU RECALL THAT NIGHT SAID "SWISS ARMY" ALSO, DID IT?

A: IT DIDN'T SAY IT LIKE THAT. IT WASN'T WRITTEN AS BIG.

Q: OKAY.

A: IT SEEMED TO BE JUST A LITTLE SILK SCREEN WHITE TRIANGLE EMBLEM, ALMOST LIKE THE CENTER OF THIS, JUST THE RED PART.

Q: YOU CAN RETURN TO THE MICROPHONE SO I CAN RESTATE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. YOU ARE SAYING THAT THE SWISS -- FIRST OF ALL, LET ME ASK YOU THIS: DID THE BAG YOU SAW THAT NIGHT HAVE A SHEATH THAT HAD SWISS ARMY ON IT?

A: I'M NOT POSITIVE. I'M PRETTY SURE IT SAID SWISS ARMY. IT WAS MORE OF AN EMBLEM. LIKE I SAID, IT WASN'T WRITTEN THAT BIG.

Q: I GUESS THE POINT IS DID IT HAVE A "SWISS ARMY"?

A: YES.

Q: I THINK YOU TESTIFIED TO THAT YESTERDAY?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT YOU ARE TELLING US IS THAT YOUR RECOLLECTION IS THAT THE INSIGNIA "SWISS ARMY" APPEARS DIFFERENT THAN THE SHEATH THAT WAS ON DEFENDANT'S 1063? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. HOW LONG WOULD YOU SAY -- THANK YOU, MR. DOUGLAS -- WOULD YOU SAY YOU LOOKED AT THAT PARTICULAR BAG OR THAT GOLF BAG WITH THE INSIGNIA THAT PARTICULAR NIGHT? HOW LONG -- HOW MUCH TIME DID YOU SPEND LOOKING AT IT?

A: NOT VERY LONG AT ALL. I NOTICED IT.

Q: A MATTER OF SECONDS WOULD YOU SAY?

A: YES.

Q: AND --

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

THE COURT: COUNSEL, I WOULD JUST SUGGEST FOR A MOMENT THAT YOU JUST PROP THE BAG UP ON THE RAIL FOR THE JURORS SO THAT THEY CAN SEE THE EMBLEM THAT WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT.

MR. COCHRAN: SURE.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY WE DO THE SAME THING FOR THE OTHER BAG, YOUR HONOR, THE LOUIS VITTON BAG?

THE COURT: YES.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL AND THE DEFENDANT.)

MR. COCHRAN: THE OTHER ONE IS NOT HERE YET, YOUR HONOR.

Q: NOW, HAD YOU EVER BEFORE THAT NIGHT EVER SEEN A SWISS ARMY INSIGNIA ON A BAG BEFORE THAT NIGHT?

A: ON A BAG?

Q: YES. ON ANY KIND OF A BAG, LUGGAGE?

A: NO.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE MORE THAN ONE KIND OF INSIGNIA ON BAGS, SWISS ARMY COMPANY?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT IS THE ANSWER TO THAT? DO YOU KNOW THE ANSWER?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: WHAT IS THE ANSWER TO THAT? DO THEY HAVE MORE THAN ONE KIND OF INSIGNIA ON LUGGAGE?

A: I SAID YES.

Q: OKAY. YOU KNOW THAT THEY HAVE DO HAVE? YOU HAVE SEEN MORE THAN ONE KIND?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. WHEN DID YOU SEE -- WHEN DID YOU MAKE THIS OBSERVATION?

A: JUST NOW.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND BY THE FACT THAT THE ONE YOU SAW HERE YOU FELT WAS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT YOU HAVE SEEN IN THE PAST?

A: YES.

Q: IS THAT HOW YOU MADE THAT DETERMINATION?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, DO YOU RECALL THAT WHEN YOU TESTIFIED AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING YOU INDICATED THAT WHEN YOU FIRST ARRIVED AT THE LOCATION YOU MISSED OR PASSED BY THE RESIDENCE THERE ON ROCKINGHAM. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: AND IN FACT YOU HAD INDICATED THAT YOU CAME UP ROCKINGHAM GOING NORTH AND YOU WERE GOING A LITTLE BIT FAST. DO YOU REMEMBER TESTIFYING TO THAT?

A: YES.

Q: AND SO YOU ACTUALLY MISSED THE HOUSE, RIGHT, AT THAT POINT?

A: WELL, I DIDN'T MISS THE HOUSE. I CAUGHT THE ADDRESS ON THE SIDE OF THE CURB, SO I KNEW IT WAS THE HOUSE, BUT -- BUT I -- I WOULD SAY I MISSED THAT GATE.

Q: WELL, NOW, LET ME JUST ASK YOU THIS: WHAT WAY WERE YOU GOING WHEN YOU CAME UP WHEN YOU WERE GOING A LITTLE BIT FAST WHEN YOU FIRST GOT THERE?

A: I WAS HEADING NORTH.

Q: WHAT DID YOU DO AFTER THAT AS YOU WERE HEADING NORTH?

A: THAT IS WHEN I TURNED DOWN -- MADE A RIGHT ONTO ASHFORD HEADING EAST.

Q: DID YOU GO HALFWAY DOWN ASHFORD AT THAT POINT?

A: YES.

Q: YOU CAME BACK AND YOU PARKED AT THAT POINT?

A: YES.

Q: THAT IS WHEN YOU PARKED ACROSS FROM THE ASHFORD GATE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, I WANTED TO ASK YOU, YOU WERE GOING BY A LITTLE BIT FAST WHEN YOU SPOTTED THE ADDRESS ON THE SIDEWALK; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: AND SO YOU WERE DRIVING AND LOOKING AT THE LETTERS ON THE SIDEWALK AS YOU WENT PAST AND YOU WENT ON UP TO ASHFORD; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: AND AS YOU TOLD US EARLIER, AT THAT POINT YOU WERE FOCUSING ON THE ADDRESS AND ON THE HOUSE AT THAT POINT; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, AS YOU TOLD US YESTERDAY, YOU WERE NOT FOCUSING ON ANY CARS, PARTICULAR CARS PARKED THERE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND YOU CANNOT TELL THIS JURY POSITIVELY THAT A VEHICLE WAS PARKED THERE OUTSIDE THE ROCKINGHAM GATE OR NOT, CAN YOU?

A: NO.

Q: IN FACT, WHEN YOU LEFT TO GET TO THE AIRPORT WHEN YOU WENT --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. I BELIEVE THAT MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY. I BELIEVE THE WITNESS IS CONFUSED ABOUT THE TIME FRAME.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, CROSS-EXAMINATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: IN FACT, WHEN YOU LEFT THE ROCKINGHAM GATE, SIR, AND YOU WERE GOING TO PULL OUT TO HEAD TO THE AIRPORT TO GO BACK TOWARD SUNSET, AT THAT POINT YOU DON'T RECALL WHETHER OR NOT YOU SAW ANY PARKED CARS; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THAT IS WHAT YOU INDICATED TO OFFICER TIPPIN ON JUNE 15TH IN THE CONVERSATIONS YOU HAD, RIGHT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: THAT IS WHAT YOU INDICATED AT THE GRAND JURY; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: THAT IS WHAT YOU INDICATED AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING WHEN YOU TESTIFIED; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND AT ALL TIMES THROUGHOUT YOUR TESTIMONY YOU HAVE ALWAYS TRIED TO BE ACCURATE AND AS ACCURATE AS YOU COULD; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU AGREED WITH ME THAT YOUR TESTIMONY FOR EVENTS THAT TRANSPIRED ON JUNE 12TH IN THE LATE EVENING HOURS WAS OBVIOUSLY BETTER BACK IN JUNE THAN IT IS NOW SOME EIGHT OR NINE MONTHS LATER IN MARCH OF 1995; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: I WOULD SAY IT IS THE SAME.

Q: YOUR -- I KNOW YOU ARE VERY YOUNG, BUT IS YOUR MEMORY -- THAT IS A COMPLIMENT BY THE WAY -- BUT YOUR MEMORY EVEN AT YOUR AGE TENDS TO GET A LITTLE WORSE OVER A PERIOD OF TIME, DOESN'T IT?

A: I WOULD AGREE ON THAT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. THAT IS WHAT I'M SAYING. SO WHEN EVENTS ARE FRESHER IN YOUR MIND THEY ARE LIKELY TO BE MORE ACCURATE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: THAN WHEN TIME PASSES A LITTLE BIT; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, LAST -- YESTERDAY, I ASKED YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FACT THAT JUNE 12TH WAS A SUNDAY EVENING AND THE STREET IN AND AROUND ROCKINGHAM AND ASHFORD WERE QUIET THAT NIGHT; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE THAT AS KIND OF A QUIET NEIGHBORHOOD?

A: YES.

Q: AND AS SUCH YOU TOLD US IN FACT THAT YOU OBSERVED AND SAW CARS THAT WERE COMING AND PASSING BY -- BY YOU; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: BUT YOU NEVER AT ANY TIME SAW ANY CAR COME UP, STOP OR HEARD ANYBODY GET OUT OR SLAM ANY DOORS; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: YOU NEVER WENT OVER TO INSPECT ANY CARS THAT PARTICULAR NIGHT, ANY PARKED CARS, DID YOU?

A: NO.

Q: THAT WAS AGAIN BECAUSE YOUR JOB WAS TO PICK UP THIS CLIENT AND GET HIM TO THE AIRPORT ON TIME; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND NOTHING ELSE WAS IMPORTANT TO YOU AT THAT POINT; ISN'T THAT CORRECT, EXCEPT GETTING THE CLIENT THERE SAFELY?

A: THAT IS ABOUT IT.

Q: YOU DID THAT? YOU GOT HIM THERE SAFELY AND RELATIVELY ON TIME; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: I ASKED YOU SOME QUESTIONS YESTERDAY ABOUT THIS PARTITION INSIDE THE LIMOUSINE. YOU DESCRIBED FOR US HOW THAT WORKS IN A LIMOUSINE THAT COULD SEPARATE THE DRIVER'S COMPARTMENT FROM WHERE YOUR CLIENT OR THE CUSTOMER IS. HOW DOES THAT WORK?

A: THERE IS A BUTTON IN THE BACK THAT THE CLIENT OR WHOEVER YOU HAVE IN THE CAR CAN PUT UP THE DIVIDER. THERE IS A GLASS ONE THAT YOU CAN SEE THROUGH AND THEN THERE IS ANOTHER FULLY DARK ONE, LIKE A WOOD BORDER THAT GOES UP IN BETWEEN IF YOU WANT TOTAL PRIVACY.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AT ANYTIME DID MR. SIMPSON EVER PUT THIS TOTAL PRIVACY PARTITION UP THAT NIGHT?

A: NO.

Q: AT ANY TIME DID HE EVEN PUT THE CLEAR ONE UP THAT NIGHT?

A: NO.

Q: IN OTHER WORDS, HE LEFT IT DOWN AT ALL TIMES; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN IT IS DOWN, YOU ARE ABLE TO COMMUNICATE, JUST TALK BACK AND FORTH; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND IN FACT IN MOST LIMOUSINES, WAS IT TRUE IN YOURS, THAT IF YOU HAD PUT THE ONE OF TOTAL PRIVACY UP THERE IS USUALLY A PHONE IN THE BACK WHERE YOU CAN TALK BACK AND FORTH IF YOU WANTED TO; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: BUT IN YOUR CONVERSATIONS THAT YOU HAVE DESCRIBED FOR US WITH MR. SIMPSON, THE TWO OF YOU WERE JUST ABLE TO TALK BACK AND FORTH; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: NOW, YESTERDAY YOU DESCRIBED FOR US THIS -- THIS FIGURE OF THIS PERSON THAT YOU SAW, YOU RECALL, AND YOU TOLD US THAT, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WHEN YOU FIRST OBSERVED THIS FIGURE, THIS PERSON WAS JUST ABOUT IN THE ENTRANCEWAY OF THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU COULD NOT TELL US FROM WHENCE -- STRIKE THAT. YOU COULD NOT TELL US FROM WHERE THAT INDIVIDUAL HAD COME; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: AND YOU SAW THIS INDIVIDUAL FOR JUST A FLEETING PERIOD OF TIME, JUST A SECOND OR TWO; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOUR OBSERVATION AT THAT TIME WAS FROM OUTSIDE THE GATE ON THE ASHFORD GATE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU EVER, WHEN YOU FIRST SAW THIS FIGURE OF THIS PERSON WHO WAS GOING TOWARD THE FRONT DOOR OF ROCKINGHAM, SIR, DID YOU EVER SEE OR OVERHEAR ANY CONVERSATION BETWEEN THIS PERSON THAT YOU SAID WAS WEARING SOMETHING DARK, PERHAPS EVEN A ROBE, WITH THE GENTLEMAN WHO YOU DESCRIBED AS KATO KAELIN LATER? DID YOU SEE THEM AT ALL TALKING WHEN YOU SAW THIS FIGURE OF THIS INDIVIDUAL?

A: NO.

Q: WHEN YOU -- AND KATO KAELIN THEN LET YOU INSIDE AND YOU PULLED INSIDE, YOU TOLD US ABOUT YOUR OBSERVATIONS, YOU THEN HAD A CONVERSATION WITH HIM; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: WITH KATO KAELIN?

A: YES.

Q: AND THEN AS WE UNDERSTAND, IT WAS WITHIN FIVE, NO MORE THAN SIX MINUTES, THAT YOU THEN SAW MR. O.J. SIMPSON COME DOWN AND YOU THEN SAW HIM FOR THE FIRST TIME?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND SO THAT WE ARE CLEAR FOR THE JURY, THE BAG THAT HE WAS CARRYING WHEN HE CAME DOWN, WHEN YOU FIRST SAW HIM, WITHIN FIVE OR SIX MINUTES AFTER YOU GOT THERE, IS THAT THE BAG THAT LOOKED SIMILAR TO THE LOUIS VITTON BAG THAT WE JUST SHOWED THE JURY?

A: YES.

Q: AND HE WAS CARRYING THAT BAG IN HIS HAND?

A: YES.

Q: AND WAS IT FOLDED OVER IN THE FASHION IT APPEARED HERE?

A: YES.

Q: AND THE TWO DUFFEL BAGS WERE ALREADY OUTSIDE?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, WHEN YOU WERE IN AND AROUND THAT DRIVEWAY, I MAY HAVE ASKED YOU THIS YESTERDAY, YOU NEVER SAW ANY BLOOD DROPS ANYWHERE ON THAT DRIVEWAY, DID YOU?

A: NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: YOU NEVER SAW ANY BLOOD DROPS IN THE FOYER AREA OF THE RESIDENCE THAT I SHOWED YOU A PICTURE OF YESTERDAY?

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

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU?

A: NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: SINCE JUNE 12, 1994, HAVE YOU HAD OCCASION TO GO BACK OUT TO ROCKINGHAM AT ALL, THAT LOCATION?

A: NO.

Q: YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN OUT THERE WITH THE POLICE OR ANYTHING?

A: NO.

Q: YOU DESCRIBED FOR MISS CLARK YESTERDAY THAT YOU WORE GLASSES BECAUSE YOU HAD TROUBLE SEEING THINGS FAR AWAY. YOU ARE NEARSIGHTED, RIGHT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: AND HOW DO YOU DETERMINE WHEN YOU ARE GOING TO WEAR YOUR GLASSES?

A: PRETTY MUCH JUST WHEN I FEEL LIKE IT. I DON'T WEAR THEM VERY OFTEN AT ALL.

Q: SO IT IS JUST --

A: I THINK THEY MAKE MY EYES WORSE.

Q: REALLY?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AT ANY RATE, YOU DIDN'T HAVE THEM ON THAT NIGHT, DID YOU?

A: NO.

Q: NOW, WITH REGARD TO MR. DALE ST. JOHN, DID YOU TALK TO HIM AT ALL ANY MORE THAT NIGHT AFTER YOU DROPPED MR. SIMPSON OFF?

A: NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: WHEN DID YOU NEXT TALK TO HIM, IF YOU DID, IN CONNECTION WITH TAKING MR. SIMPSON TO THE AIRPORT?

A: I THINK IT WAS THE NEXT MORNING.

Q: AND DID YOU KEEP THE LIMOUSINE WITH YOU THAT PARTICULAR NIGHT, IF YOU RECALL?

A: IT WAS AT HIS HOUSE, WHICH IS ACROSS THE STREET.

Q: YOU TOOK IT BACK TO HIS HOUSE?

A: YES.

Q: AND THEN JUST WALKED HOME; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, YOU HAVE, HAVE YOU NOT, SEEN PICTURES OF THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE DURING THE TIMES YOU HAVE MET WITH MISS CLARK AND THE OTHERS AT THE D.A.'S OFFICE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: IN FACT, WHEN YOU MET WITH HER LAST FRIDAY IN THIS BUILDING, LIKE ELEVEN O'CLOCK ON, AT THAT TIME YOU WENT OVER SOME PHOTOGRAPHS OR PICTURES AT THAT POINT, DID YOU NOT?

A: A FEW, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND SOME OF THOSE FEW PICTURES WERE OF THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE, WERE THEY?

A: YES.

Q: WHEN YOU WERE PARKED BEFORE YOU WENT TO THE -- EITHER THE ROCKINGHAM GATE OR THE ASHFORD GATE, WHEN YOU WERE PARKED, I GUESS ON ASHFORD, YOU WERE PARKED IN A WAY YOU COULD LOOK DOWN ROCKINGHAM, WERE YOU?

A: NOT ACTUALLY DOWN ROCKINGHAM. I WAS JUST LOOKING AT IT.

Q: YOU COULD LOOK AT ROCKINGHAM; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: IS THAT WHILE YOU WERE IN THE CAR?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: IS THAT WHILE YOU WERE STILL SEATED IN THE CAR?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN YOU GOT OUTSIDE THE CAR AND KIND OF WALKED AROUND AND WALKED TO THE REAR OF THE CAR, COULD YOU SEE DOWN TOWARD ROCKINGHAM AT THAT POINT?

A: NO. I WAS SITTING ON THE CURB LOOKING, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN DOWN THE ASHFORD GATE AT THE RESIDENCE.

Q: THE ASHFORD GATE TOWARD THE RESIDENCE AT THAT POINT, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: THE VEHICLE WAS POINTED FORWARD AND YOU GOT OUT AND WERE LOOKING -- WHAT DIRECTION IS THAT?

A: THAT WOULD BE SOUTH.

Q: LOOKING SOUTH AT THAT POINT?

A: THE CAR WAS POINTING WEST.

Q: WEST AT THAT POINT? ALL RIGHT. YOUR HONOR, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE OTHER ITEM MAY BE HERE.

THE COURT: YES. MISS CLARK, DO YOU WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

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

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. COCHRAN, DO YOU WANT TO MARK THAT ITEM?

MR. COCHRAN: YES. I THINK THIS WOULD BE --

THE COURT: 1064.

MR. COCHRAN: -- 1064.

(DEFENSE 1064 FOR ID = BLACK BAG)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WHEN YOU WERE UP IN THE D.A.'S OFFICE MEETING MISS CLARK LAST FRIDAY, DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT PICTURES SHE SHOWED YOU OF ROCKINGHAM?

A: I DON'T RECALL.

Q: WERE THEY SOME OF THE SAME PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WE SAW YESTERDAY DURING YOUR DIRECT EXAMINATION?

A: YES.

Q: SO THEY LOOKED FAMILIAR? AND DID YOU SEE ANY OF THE BOARDS HERE AT THAT TIME ALSO?

A: UMM, THE PHONE RECORDS.

Q: YOU SAW THE PHONE RECORDS?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU SAW SOME PICTURES THAT LOOKED SIMILAR TO THE PICTURES THAT YOU SEE HERE; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. I'M GOING TO APPROACH YOU FIRST AND SHOW YOU A BLACK BAG. COUNSEL HAS SEEN IT. AND I'M GOING TO ASK YOU WHETHER OR NOT THIS BLACK BAG -- I WILL PLACE IT BEFORE YOU -- STRIKE THAT. LET ME JUST PLACE THE BLACK BAG BEFORE YOU FIRST. WILL YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THAT, PLEASE, SIR.

A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.) THIS ONE LOOKS FAMILIAR.

Q: NOW, YOU HAVE HAD OCCASION TO LOOK AT THAT BLACK BAG?

A: YES.

Q: DOES THAT BLACK BAG LOOK SIMILAR TO EITHER ONE OF THE BLACK DUFFLE BAGS THAT YOU HAVE DESCRIBED FOR THE JURY TO THIS POINT?

A: YES, IT DOES.

Q: AND DOES IT LOOK DISSIMILAR AT ALL?

A: IT LOOKS VERY SIMILAR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. IT LOOKS VERY SIMILAR?

A: YES.

Q: SO THIS COULD HAVE WELL BEEN ONE OF THE BLACK DUFFLE BAGS THAT WERE OUT IN FRONT OF THE SIMPSON HOME IN FRONT OF THE ENTRANCEWAY; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. MAY I MOVE IT CLOSER TO THE JURY, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YES.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. COCHRAN: NOW, I WANT TO SHOW YOU ANOTHER BAG. COUNSEL HAS SEEN IT.

THE COURT: WE WILL MARK THIS DEFENSE 1065.

MR. COCHRAN: 1065.

(DEFENSE 1065 FOR ID = BAG)

MR. COCHRAN: I WILL PLACE 1065 BEFORE YOU.

Q: ASK YOU TO TAKE A LOOK, FIRST OF ALL, AT 1065.

A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.)

Q: NOW, WITH REGARD TO DEFENDANT'S 1065, IT IS OBVIOUSLY EMPTY, IT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING INSIDE OF IT. IT DOES HAVE, FIRST OF ALL, A HANDLE APPARENTLY ON IT. DOES THIS LOOK SIMILAR TO ANY OF THE -- EITHER ONE OF THE BLACK BAGS YOU SAW ON THAT PARTICULAR NIGHT?

A: NO, NOT THAT I REMEMBER.

Q: YOU DON'T RECALL SEEING A BAG THAT LOOKS SIMILAR TO THIS THAT NIGHT?

A: NO.

Q: IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. WITH REGARD -- YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO PLACE ON THE ELMO, IF I COULD, DEFENDANT'S 66-E, IF I CAN, AT THE MOMENT.

THE COURT: DEFENDANT'S OR PROSECUTION?

MR. COCHRAN: PROSECUTION 66-E. THANK YOU.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: NOW, CAN YOU SEE 66-E THERE?

A: YES.

Q: AND I JUST WANTED TO HAVE YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THAT AGAIN AND CAN YOU HELP US AND SHOW US -- I DON'T WANT TO PARTICULARLY WRITE ON THIS PARTICULAR DIAGRAM -- BUT PERHAPS A WORD PICTURE WILL BE HELPFUL -- WHERE THE VEHICLE YOU DESCRIBED AS THE ROLLS ROYCE OR THE BENTLEY WAS PARKED IN THAT DRIVEWAY BY USING THE VARIOUS DESCRIPTIONS THAT ARE DEPICTED ON 66-E?

A: IT WOULD HAVE BEEN JUST ABOUT IN THAT LITTLE INLET AREA RIGHT ABOVE THE WORD "DRIVEWAY" ON THE ROCKINGHAM DRIVEWAY.

Q: RIGHT ABOVE THE WORD "DRIVEWAY"?

A: A LITTLE BIT FARTHER TOWARD THE STREET.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO THE BENTLEY WOULD BE THERE?

A: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: AND MISS CLARK HAS NO OBJECTION, IF WE WERE, YOUR HONOR, TO MARK THAT AREA FOR THE BENTLEY. SHOULD WE PUT -- PUT A BOX THERE.

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

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. AND IT WAS POINTED TOWARD THE ROCKINGHAM GATE, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: SO THAT MARK ON 66-E IS THE -- WHY DON'T YOU PUT AN "RR" BY THAT.

THE COURT: WHAT ABOUT "B"?

MS. CLARK: EVERYBODY IS CALLING IT A ROLLS ROYCE.

MR. COCHRAN: THEY ARE SIMILAR, YOUR HONOR. WE WILL MAKE IT A "B."

MS. CLARK: CAN WE MAKE IT A "BE" TO DISTINGUISH IT FROM THE OTHER "B"?

THE COURT: WELL, IT IS IN WHITE.

MS. CLARK: OKAY.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: IS THAT A FAIR APPROXIMATION OF WHERE YOU BELIEVE YOU SAW THE BENTLEY THAT PARTICULAR NIGHT, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, THIS OTHER CAR, THIS OTHER DARK CAR, DO YOU RECALL WHERE THAT CAR WOULD BE IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE -- TO THE BENTLEY?

A: RIGHT BEHIND IT.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. AND SO WE MAY EITHER MAKE A VERY SMALL CAR OR RUN INTO THAT OTHER "B," BUT RIGHT BEHIND IT? MR. HARRIS, CAN YOU DO THAT?

Q: RIGHT IN THAT AREA THERE, (INDICATING)?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. THAT IS THE ONE YOU ARE NOT POSITIVE ABOUT, RIGHT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: IT WAS DARK?

MS. CLARK: WELL --

THE COURT: WELL, MR. COCHRAN, I REALLY DON'T THINK IT IS NECESSARY TO MARK IT. THE JURY HAS BEEN THERE; THEY HAVE SEEN IT.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. THAT IS FINE.

THE COURT: THEY KNOW WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

MR. COCHRAN: FINE. NO PROBLEM THEN, YOUR HONOR. SO WE KNOW THE AREA. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

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

THE COURT: CERTAINLY. PERHAPS THIS WOULD BE A GOOD MOMENT. I NEED TO GIVE MY COURT REPORTER A BRIEF RECESS.

MR. COCHRAN: YES, THANK YOU.

THE COURT: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A TEN-MINUTE COMFORT RECESS FOR THE COURT REPORTER. PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITION TO YOU. DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONGST YOURSELVES, DON'T FORM ANY OPINIONS, DON'T CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS, DON'T LET ANYBODY COMMUNICATE WITH YOU. I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO STEP BACK INTO THE JURY ROOM. WE WILL BE IN RECESS FOR TEN MINUTES. ALL RIGHT. MR. PARK, YOU CAN STEP DOWN. WE WILL BE IN RECESS FOR TEN MINUTES.

(RECESS.)

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

THE COURT: LET'S HAVE THE JURY, PLEASE.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. BE SEATED. MR. PARK, WOULD YOU RESUME THE WITNESS STAND, PLEASE.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT WE HAVE BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL. GOOD MORNING AGAIN, MR. PARK. YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH. MR. COCHRAN, YOU MAY CONTINUE.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

Q: MR. PARK, YOU DESCRIBED FOR US BRIEFLY YESTERDAY THE STRETCH LIMO. HOW LONG IS THAT STRETCH LIMO, SIR, IF YOU RECALL?

A: UMM, I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT LENGTH. IT IS, I WOULD SAY, APPROXIMATELY 28 FEET.

Q: AND IT DOES REQUIRE SOME MANEUVERING WHEN YOU ARE TURNING IT, DOES IT NOT?

A: YES.

Q: I WANT YOU TO TAKE A LOOK AT A PHOTOGRAPH AND I WANT TO ASK YOU A COUPLE QUESTIONS REGARDING THE PHOTOGRAPH. MAY WE SEE I THINK IT IS PEOPLE'S 136. THANK YOU. CAN YOU SEE PEOPLE'S 136 FOR IDENTIFICATION THERE?

A: YES.

Q: BY THE WAY, HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THAT PARTICULAR PHOTOGRAPH BEFORE?

A: YES, I HAVE.

Q: AND COULD YOU HAVE SEEN THAT PHOTOGRAPH IN MISS CLARK'S OFFICE?

A: YES.

Q: LAST FRIDAY?

A: POSSIBLY, YES.

Q: AND WE HAVE ALREADY COVERED THE FACT THAT YOU ARE CLEAR ABOUT THE BENTLEY, BUT NOT SO CLEAR ABOUT THE CAR BEHIND, RIGHT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: AND DOES THAT PHOTOGRAPH COMPORT WITH YOUR PRESENT RECOLLECTION OF HOW THE CARS WERE CONFIGURED THAT NIGHT WHEN YOU WERE LOOKING INTO THE ROCKINGHAM GATE?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, WITH REGARD TO THE STRETCH LIMO, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IN ORDER FOR YOU TO COME OUT THE ROCKINGHAM GATE, YOU WOULD HAVE TO COME RIGHT DOWN THE DRIVER'S SIDE OF THOSE TWO CARS DEPICTED IN PEOPLE'S 136 FOR IDENTIFICATION; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: AND DO YOU KNOW, AS YOU LOOK AT THAT PHOTOGRAPH, IN RECALLING THAT PARTICULAR DRIVEWAY, WHETHER IT WOULD HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE TO MANEUVER THAT STRETCH LIMOUSINE AROUND TWO CARS AS THEY ARE PARKED AND CONFIGURED THERE?

A: I WOULDN'T KNOW THAT.

Q: YOU DON'T KNOW THAT, DO YOU?

A: NO.

Q: DO YOU AGREE IT WOULD BE A LOT EASIER IF THAT SECOND CAR WASN'T THERE, TO GET OUT OF THAT DRIVEWAY; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. CAN YOU TELL FROM THAT PICTURE?

THE WITNESS: NO.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. WELL, LET ME ASK YOU THIS WAY: WITH REGARD TO THE WAY THE CARS APPEAR THERE, YOU CAN'T TELL WHETHER IT IS POSSIBLE TO MANEUVER THE STRETCH LIMOUSINE AROUND THEM; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: FROM THAT PICTURE, NO.

Q: HOWEVER, YOU WOULD AGREE, WOULD YOU NOT, THAT IF THERE WERE ONLY ONE VEHICLE THERE IT WOULD TEND TO BE EASIER TO GET AROUND THERE WHERE YOU HAVE TWO VEHICLES PARKED IN TANDEM; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AS WE SIT HERE NOW, DOES THAT PHOTOGRAPH, PEOPLE'S 136, IN ANY WAY REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THERE WERE ONE OR TWO CARS THERE ON JUNE 12TH IN THE LATE EVENING HOURS?

A: NO, IT DOESN'T.

Q: OKAY. NOW, SIR, WITH REGARD TO THE STRETCH LIMOUSINE, YOU SPOKE WITH OFFICERS TIPPIN AND CARR ON OR ABOUT JUNE 15, 1994; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: AND YOU SPOKE TO THEM IN PERSON AND ALSO BY PHONE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN YOU SPOKE TO THEM IN PERSON WAS IT AT THE HARBOR DIVISION OF THE LAPD?

A: YES, IT WAS.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND AFTER THEY TALKED TO YOU WERE YOU AWARE OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY WENT AND LOOKED INSIDE THE REAR OF THIS -- THE STRETCH LIMOUSINE?

A: YES. I -- I TOLD THEM THAT MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA. IT HADN'T BEEN USED SINCE THAT NIGHT.

Q: SO THESE TWO OFFICERS, TIPPIN AND CARR, LOOKED INSIDE THE VEHICLE?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WERE WITH YOU THEM AT THAT POINT?

A: NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU TOLD THEM TO DO THAT, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: LASTLY, DID YOU HAVE ANY, AS YOU THINK BACK ON THAT NIGHT, WHEN YOU CAME OUT THE ROCKINGHAM GATE TO THEN GO UP TO SUNSET AND GO TO THE AIRPORT, DID YOU HAVE ANY TROUBLE IN GETTING OUT OF THAT DRIVEWAY AND NEGOTIATING THE TURN FROM IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE TO GO OUT THE DRIVEWAY, IF YOU RECALL?

A: NO, I DIDN'T HAVE ANY TROUBLE. I DIDN'T HIT ANYTHING.

Q: WELL, THAT IS THE ULTIMATE TEST, ISN'T IT?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. BUT I WANT YOU TO THINK BACK FOR A MOMENT. DO YOU RECALL ANY PROBLEMS IN NEGOTIATING OR MANEUVERING?

A: NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU DIDN'T HIT ANYTHING?

A: NO.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU. I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER OF THIS WITNESS AT THIS POINT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MS. CLARK:

Q: GOOD MORNING, MR. PARK.

A: GOOD MORNING.

MS. CLARK: GOOD MORNING.

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: LET ME FIRST ASK YOU, WHEN YOU WERE AT THE DEFENDANT'S HOME ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE THE 12TH, WERE YOU IN A HURRY?

A: UMM, I WAS -- IT DEPENDS ON WHAT POINT IN TIME.

Q: WELL, WHEN YOU -- WHEN YOU FINALLY SAW -- LET ME ASK YOU. THAT IS GOOD -- THANK YOU. BY THE TIME THE DEFENDANT CAME DOWNSTAIRS TO THE LIMOUSINE WERE YOU IN A HURRY?

A: I SEEM -- YES.

Q: AND DID HE APPEAR TO BE IN A HURRY?

A: YES.

Q: WERE YOU SPENDING TIME TRYING TO STUDY THE DEFENDANT, HIS HAND AND HIS BODY, WHEN HE CAME DOWNSTAIRS?

A: NO.

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THAT, YOUR HONOR. IT IS LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: HOW CAREFULLY WERE YOU TRYING TO OBSERVE THE DEFENDANT'S BODY AND HANDS WHEN HE CAME DOWNSTAIRS FINALLY TO THE LIMOUSINE?

A: NOT AT ALL.

Q: DID YOU PAY ANY ATTENTION TO HIS HAND AT ALL?

A: NO.

Q: SHAKE HIS HAND OR HAVE ANY PHYSICAL CONTACT WITH HIM, WITH HIS BODY OR HIS PERSON?

A: SHOOK HIS HAND, YES.

Q: AND WHICH HAND DID YOU SHAKE?

A: RIGHT HAND.

Q: EVER TOUCH THE LEFT HAND?

A: NO.

Q: YOU TOLD US, I THINK, THAT HE WAS CARRYING A BLACK OVERCOAT?

A: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT. MISSTATES.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DO YOU RECALL WHETHER HE HAD THAT OVERCOAT DRAPED OVER HIS LEFT ARM?

A: WHAT I SAID, I DON'T REMEMBER IF HE HAD IT ON OR IF HE WAS CARRYING IT.

Q: OKAY. AND IF HE WAS CARRYING IT, DO YOU RECALL WHICH ARM, WHETHER IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE RIGHT OR THE LEFT ARM, THAT HE HAD IT OVER?

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR -- THIS CALLS FOR SPECULATION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHEN YOU WERE AT THE -- OKAY. YOU INDICATED, I THINK EARLIER, THAT YOU WERE ON ASHFORD TWICE IN TWO DIFFERENT POSITIONS THAT NIGHT, CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: WHEN YOU WERE PARKED ON ASHFORD --

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

Q: BY MS. CLARK: OKAY. I'M SHOWING YOU PEOPLE'S 63, SIR. I BELIEVE YOU INDICATED THAT THE FIRST TIME YOU PARKED ON ASHFORD YOU SAID YOU PARKED IN THAT LOCATION WHERE YOU SEE THAT BLACK JEEP IN THE PHOTOGRAPH?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND THAT YOU SAT BEHIND THE LIMO ON THE CURB?

A: CORRECT.

Q: WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE THE ROCKINGHAM GATE FROM YOUR POSITION BEHIND THE LIMOUSINE ON THE CURB?

A: NO, I WASN'T.

Q: WERE YOU ABLE TO -- AND THEN LATER ON I THINK YOU INDICATED THAT YOU PARKED FACING IN TOWARDS THE ASHFORD. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: YES.

Q: WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE THE ROCKINGHAM GATE FROM YOUR POSITION FACING THE ASHFORD GATE?

A: NO, I WASN'T.

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

Q: BY MS. CLARK: OKAY. PEOPLE'S 64, THAT IS THE ASHFORD GATE. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHILE YOU WERE SEATED IN THAT LIMOUSINE AFTER YOU HAD POINTED IT IN TOWARDS THE ASHFORD GATE, DID YOU HAVE THE RADIO ON AT ANY POINT?

A: I THINK IT WAS ON, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW LOUD IT WAS. IT WAS DOWN VERY LOW.

Q: OKAY. WHAT WAS YOUR ATTENTION DIRECTED TOWARDS WHEN YOU WERE SEATED THERE IN THE LIMOUSINE FACING INTO THE ASHFORD GATE?

A: REPEAT THAT.

Q: WHAT WAS THE FOCUS OF YOUR ATTENTION AT THAT TIME?

A: MY FOCUS? I WAS MORE OR LESS JUST LOOKING AT THE HOUSE, SEEING IF THERE WAS ANY LIGHTS ON.

Q: UH-HUH.

A: STUFF LIKE THAT. I MEAN, WHEN I RANG THE BUZZER NOBODY WAS THERE, SO --

Q: WERE YOU PAYING ATTENTION TO THE TRAFFIC ON THE STREET, EITHER ON ASHFORD OR ON ROCKINGHAM?

A: NO.

Q: WAS THAT IMPORTANT TO YOU?

A: NO.

Q: WAS IT IMPORTANT TO YOU AT THAT TIME TO DETERMINE WHICH CARS MAY HAVE STOPPED OR NOT?

A: NO.

Q: OR WHICH MAY HAVE PARKED ON ROCKINGHAM OR NOT?

A: NO.

Q: DO YOU EVEN KNOW IF YOU COULD HAVE HEARD A CAR PULL UP ON ROCKINGHAM FROM YOUR POSITION AT THE ASHFORD GATE?

MR. COCHRAN: CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: NO.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WOULD IT HAVE BEEN SIGNIFICANT TO YOU, IF YOU HAD?

A: NO.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MS. CLARK: NOW, WHEN YOU -- WHEN YOU FIRST PULLED UP -- WHEN YOU FIRST PULLED UP ROCKINGHAM AT ABOUT 10:22, YOU INDICATED EARLIER YOU WERE LOOKING FOR ADDRESSES ON THE CURB SO YOU COULD FIND THE DEFENDANT'S HOUSE; IS THAT RIGHT? DO YOU RECALL THAT?

MR. COCHRAN: I'M GOING TO OBJECT TO THIS NARRATIVE QUESTION, YOUR HONOR. IT IS NOT A QUESTION; IT IS A STATEMENT. I OBJECT TO THE FORM.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: YES, I WAS.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: OKAY. ARE YOU SURE THAT YOU WERE DOING THAT, SIR?

A: LOOKING FOR THE ADDRESS?

Q: YES.

A: POSITIVE.

Q: NO DOUBT IN YOUR HIND ABOUT THAT?

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR -- THAT IS ASKED AND ANSWERED, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: NO DOUBT.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND WHEN YOU INDICATED TO US THAT YOU SAW THE ADDRESS OF 360 ON THE CURB OF ROCKINGHAM, ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THAT?

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

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: YES.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DO YOU HAVE ANY DOUBT ABOUT THAT?

A: NO.

MR. COCHRAN: ASKED AND ANSWERED.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND WHEN YOU WERE LOOKING AT THE CURB AND YOU SAW THIS ADDRESS, YOU INDICATED EARLIER THAT YOU DID NOT SEE A WHITE FORD BRONCO. DO YOU RECALL SAYING THAT?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT. THIS IS LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE, YOUR HONOR, THE FORM OF THIS QUESTION.

THE COURT: I ASSUME THIS IS FOUNDATIONAL TO SOMETHING ELSE.

MS. CLARK: YES, IT IS.

MR. COCHRAN: IT IS LEADING STILL, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: NO.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THAT?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT. LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: I WASN'T LOOKING FOR IT. I DIDN'T SEE IT.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: ARE YOU SURE YOU DIDN'T SEE IT?

MR. COCHRAN: JUST A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR. ASKED AND ANSWERED.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: I WOULDN'T SAY I'M POSITIVE. I WASN'T LOOKING FOR A CAR. I WAS LOOKING FOR AN ADDRESS.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: OKAY. WHEN YOU LOOKED AT THE ADDRESS ON THE CURB --

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

MS. CLARK: PEOPLE'S 62-A.

Q: DO YOU RECALL DRIVING BY THAT LOCATION, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: AND THE ADDRESS INDICATED ON THE CURB, THAT IS WHERE YOU SAW IT THAT NIGHT AT ABOUT 10:22?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN YOU WERE LOOKING IN THAT LOCATION DID YOU SEE A WHITE FORD BRONCO?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION. ASKED AND ANSWERED, IMPROPER REDIRECT EXAMINATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND WHEN YOU PULLED BACK DOWN TO THE ROCKINGHAM GATE AT 10:39, YOU RECALL YOUR TESTIMONY AT THAT POINT, YOU PULLED SO THAT THE SIDE -- THE DRIVER'S SIDE WINDOW WAS PARALLEL WITH THE DRIVEWAY. DO YOU RECALL TESTIFYING TO THAT, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: HOW CLOSE DID YOU PULL TO THE DRIVEWAY AT THAT POINT AT 10:39?

A: TEN FEET.

Q: WITHIN TEN FEET OF THE DRIVEWAY?

A: I WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET, YES.

Q: SO YOU WERE NOT OVER ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE WHERE YOUR LANE OF TRAFFIC WOULD NEARLY BE? YOU WERE FARTHER OVER TO THE LEFT?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM. IT IS LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ASK HIM TO DESCRIBE WHERE HE WAS.

MS. CLARK: OKAY.

Q: IN TERMS OF THE LANES OF TRAFFIC, IF YOU ARE DRIVING SOUTHBOUND ON ROCKINGHAM, YOUR LANE OF TRAFFIC WOULD BE TO WHAT SIDE OF THE STREET, SIR?

A: IT WOULD BE ON THE RIGHT.

Q: AND WERE YOU ALL THE WAY OVER ON THE RIGHT?

A: NO.

Q: WHERE WERE YOU?

A: TOWARD THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET.

Q: DID YOU HAVE TO VEER AROUND ANY WHITE FORD BRONCO PARKED AT THE CURB?

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAIN. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY WE APPROACH?

THE COURT: I HAVE SUSTAINED THE OBJECTION.

MR. COCHRAN: YES. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHEN YOU PULLED UP TO THE ROCKINGHAM DRIVEWAY, SIR, AND YOU LOOKED INTO THE GATE, WHEN YOU PULLED UP TO THAT LOCATION, WAS THE LOCATION IN WHICH YOU SEE THE WHITE FORD BRONCO ON THIS PHOTOGRAPH, WAS THAT AREA IN YOUR FIELD OF VIEW?

A: YES, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN.

Q: AND DID YOU SEE THE WHITE FORD BRONCO?

MR. COCHRAN: ASKED AND ANSWERED, YOUR HONOR.

THE WITNESS: NO, I DIDN'T.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DID YOU TELL THAT TO THE POLICE WHEN YOU SPOKE TO THEM SHORTLY AFTER THE MURDERS OCCURRED?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID YOU TELL THAT TO THE GRAND JURY IN YOUR TESTIMONY AS WELL?

A: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: I OBJECT, YOUR HONOR. THAT MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHEN YOU TESTIFIED BEFORE THE GRAND JURY DID YOU TELL THEM THAT WHEN YOU PULLED DOWN TO THE ROCKINGHAM GATE TO SEE IF YOU COULD PULL INTO THAT DRIVEWAY THAT YOU DID NOT SEE THE WHITE FORD BRONCO PARKED AT THE CURB?

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION. THE BEST EVIDENCE IS WHAT HE SAID AT THE GRAND JURY, NOT JUST PARAPHRASED.

MS. CLARK: FINE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MS. CLARK: DIRECTING COUNSEL'S ATTENTION TO PAGE 252 OF THE GRAND JURY TRANSCRIPT.

MR. COCHRAN: WHAT LINE?

MS. CLARK: LINE 12 -- WELL, LINE 10. LET'S START WITH LINE 10. READY?

MR. COCHRAN: YES. I WOULD ASK YOU TO READ ALL THE WAY DOWN TO -- HOW FAR ARE YOU GOING TO READ DOWN?

MS. CLARK: I'M GOING TO READ ALL THE WAY DOWN.

MR. COCHRAN: RIGHT.

MS. CLARK: I WILL READ OVER TO PAGE 253.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. PROCEED.

MS. CLARK: "QUESTION:" -- DO YOU RECALL THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS BEFORE THE GRAND JURY BACK IN JUNE, 1994, SIR? QUESTION BY MYSELF. "AT WHAT POINT DID YOU GET BACK IN YOUR CAR, IF YOU DID? "ANSWER: I GOT BACK IN AT ABOUT 10:30 AND SAT THERE AND WAITED UNTIL ABOUT 10:40 AND THEN I PULLED UP TO THE FRONT GATE ON ASHFORD. "QUESTION: DID YOU GET BACK IN YOUR CAR AND DRIVE AROUND AT ANY POINT? "ANSWER: BEFORE -- BEFORE I PULLED INTO THE GATE ON ASHFORD I CAME OUT ONTO ROCKINGHAM. "QUESTION: HOW FAR DOWN ROCKINGHAM DID YOU COME? "ANSWER: I CAME ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE GATE OF ROCKINGHAM.

"QUESTION: DID YOU NOTICE ANY CAR PARKED IN FRONT? "ANSWER: NO, I DID NOT. "QUESTION: THERE WASN'T ANY CAR THERE? "ANSWER: NO. "QUESTION: YOU WERE LOOKING THERE AND YOU WOULD HAVE SEEN IT? "ANSWER: YEAH, I WOULD HAVE SAW IT IF IT WAS THERE. "QUESTION: WHAT TIME WAS THAT? "ANSWER: THAT WAS JUST BEFORE 10:40. "QUESTION: ABOUT 10:35 OR SO? "YEAH. I THEN NOTICED THAT IT WOULD BE A LOT EASIER IF I JUST BACKED UP AND CAME BACK TO THE OTHER DRIVEWAY BECAUSE IT DIDN'T LOOK LIKE I WOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE THE TURN IN THE LIMOUSINE, SO I DROVE BACK TO THE OTHER GATE. "QUESTION: WHEN YOU SAY THE OTHER GATE, YOU MEAN THE ASHFORD GATE. "ANSWER: YES. "QUESTION: WHERE DID YOU PARK THAT TIME? "ANSWER: I PARKED FACE FIRST INTO THE DRIVEWAY LOOKING TOWARD THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE. "YOU PARKED RIGHT UP IN THE DRIVEWAY AREA JUST IN FRONT OF THE GATE? "ANSWER: YES, I DID. "QUESTION: AND YOU WERE FACING IN? "ANSWER: YES. "QUESTION: WHAT TIME WAS IT THEN? "ANSWER: 10:40."

Q: DO YOU RECALL GIVING THOSE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE JUST READ TO YOU, SIR?

A: YES, I DO.

MS. CLARK: AND DIRECTING COUNSEL'S ATTENTION TO THE PRELIMINARY HEARING TRANSCRIPT, PAGES 15 AND 16.

MR. COCHRAN: WHAT LINE?

MS. CLARK: I WILL START WITH 12. WELL, ACTUALLY NO, LET ME BACK UP, COUNSEL. I'M GOING TO START AT -- I SHOULD START ON PAGE 14. I WILL START AT LINE 2, PAGE 14. OKAY.

MR. COCHRAN: I'M SORRY?

THE COURT: 14, LINE 2.

MS. CLARK: PAGE 14, LINE 2.

MR. COCHRAN: LINE 2. OKAY.

THE COURT: PROCEED.

MS. CLARK: READY? OKAY.

Q: I'M GOING TO ASK YOU IF THE QUESTIONS I'M ABOUT TO READ TO YOU AND THE ANSWERS ARE THOSE YOU RECALL BEING POSED TO YOU AND GIVEN BY YOU AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING IN I BELIEVE IT WAS JULY OF 1994. OKAY. "QUESTION: SO WAS IT ABOUT 10:39 WHEN YOU PULLED DOWN TO THE ROCKINGHAM GATE? "ANSWER: YES, I WOULD SAY THAT. "QUESTION: WHEN YOU PULLED DOWN TO THE ROCKINGHAM GATE, YOU SAY YOU LOOKED DOWN THE DRIVEWAY? "ANSWER: YES. "QUESTION: WOULD THAT MEAN, SIR, THAT YOUR DRIVER'S SIDE WINDOW WAS PARALLEL TO THE DRIVEWAY? "ANSWER: YES, IT WAS. "QUESTION: AND SO YOU WERE RIGHT NEXT TO THIS AREA HERE THAT I AM INDICATING WITH MY PEN, WHICH IS JUST ABOVE THE LINE THAT SEEMS TO INDICATE THE EDGE OF THE DRIVEWAY UPPERMOST ON THE ROCKINGHAM GATE?"

MR. COCHRAN: ROCKINGHAM SIDE.

MS. CLARK: ROCKINGHAM SIDE, THANK YOU. "ANSWER: YES. "NOW, WHY WERE YOU LOOKING THAT UP DRIVEWAY? FOR WHAT PURPOSE? "ANSWER: TO DRIVE INTO IT. "QUESTION: AND WHY DID IT SEEM INACCESSIBLE TO YOU? "ANSWER: IT JUST SEEMED TOO NARROW, THE TWO WALLS HERE AND JUST THE WAY THE CARS WERE AND THE WAY THE DRIVEWAY BENT THIS WAY, IT DIDN'T LOOK AS EASY AS THE OTHER SIDE AS COMING IN STRAIGHT AHEAD AND THEN MAKING THE TURN. "QUESTION: SO IT LOOKED A LITTLE BIT TOO TIGHT TO GET UP TO THE FRONT DOOR FROM THAT GATE? "ANSWER: YES. "SO YOU WERE LOOKING CAREFULLY THROUGH THAT WINDOW TO ASSESS WHETHER OR NOT YOU COULD MAKE THE TURN? "ANSWER: YEAH. "QUESTION: DID YOU NOTICE ANY WHITE FORD BRONCO PARKED ON THE ROCKINGHAM SIDE NEAR THE GATE? "ANSWER: NO, I DIDN'T. "QUESTION: WOULD YOU HAVE SEEN IT HAD IT BEEN PARKED THERE NEXT TO THE GATE? "GIVEN THE MANNER IN WHICH YOU WERE LOOKING AT THAT LOCATION" --

MR. COCHRAN: I THINK THERE WAS AN OBJECTION.

MS. CLARK: STRIKE THAT QUESTION.

MR. COCHRAN: STRIKE THAT LAST QUESTION.

MS. CLARK: STRIKE THAT. BUT THIS ONE WAS OKAY. "GIVEN THE MANNER IN WHICH YOU WERE LOOKING AT THAT LOCATION WHEN YOU PULLED UP TO THE ROCKINGHAM GATE, WOULD THAT WHITE FORD BRONCO HAVE BEEN RIGHT IN YOUR FIELD OF VIEW? "ANSWER: I WOULDN'T SAY I WAS -- IT WAS RIGHT IN MY EXACT SIGHT IF -- "QUESTION: WAS IT IN YOUR FIELD OF VIEW WHERE YOU WERE LOOKING? "NO, TOWARDS -- "QUESTION: TOWARD THE DRIVEWAY WAS THAT AREA -- LET ME INDICATE WITH MY PEN. WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE THIS AREA AS YOU WERE LOOKING UP THE DRIVEWAY? "ANSWER: YES, I WAS."

AND FOR THE RECORD, I INDICATED THE AREA JUST ABOVE THE LINE WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN JUST TO THE NORTH OF THE ROCKINGHAM GATE. "OKAY. WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE THIS AREA? "ANSWER: YES, I WAS. "AS YOU WERE LOOKING DOWN THE DRIVEWAY COULD YOU SEE THIS AREA THAT I AM INDICATING WITH YOUR PEN? "ANSWER: YES. "QUESTION: AND YOU DID NOT SEE THE WHITE FORD BRONCO? "ANSWER: NO, I DIDN'T. "NOW, THAT WAS 10:40 APPROXIMATELY OR 10:39 YOU SAID? "ANSWER: YES. "QUESTION: AND THEN WHAT DID YOU DO AFTER YOU PULLED UP TO THE ROCKINGHAM GATE YOU INDICATED? "ANSWER: I BACKED STRAIGHT BACK UP AND MADE ANOTHER LEFT ONTO ASHFORD AND CAME UP TO THIS GATE, THE ASHFORD GATE." AND THEN -- I BETTER FINISH IT. "QUESTION: WHERE DID YOU PARK WHEN YOU CAME BACK TO THE ASHFORD SIDE? "I PULLED IN FRONTWARD IN THE LIMOUSINE, AND YOU KNOW, THE FRONT BUMPER WAS JUST ABOUT TOUCHING THE GATE. "QUESTION: SO AT THAT POINT WAS THE FRONT OF YOUR LIMO POINTING INTO THE DRIVEWAY? "ANSWER: YES, IT WAS. "QUESTION: AND WHAT TIME WAS IT AT THAT POINT WHEN YOU PULLED UP TO THE GATE FACING INTO THE DRIVEWAY ON THE ASHFORD SIDE? "ANSWER: ABOUT 10:40."

Q: DO YOU RECALL THOSE QUESTIONS AND THOSE ANSWERS HAVING BEEN GIVEN TO YOU TO THOSE QUESTIONS AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING IN THIS MATTER IN 1994?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: SO WHEN YOU PULLED -- NOW, WHEN YOU PULLED OUT OF THE ROCKINGHAM GATE ON YOUR WAY TO THE AIRPORT, I BELIEVE YOU INDICATED YOU RECALL SOME OBSTRUCTION TO THE RIGHT?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTED TO, YOUR HONOR. LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE; NOT JUST FOUNDATIONAL.

MS. CLARK: HOW COULD IT BE LEADING IF HE HAS ALREADY TESTIFIED TO IT?

THE COURT: OVERRULED. OVERRULED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: MR. PARK?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU RECALL WHETHER THAT WAS -- WHAT THAT OBSTRUCTION WAS?

A: NO, I DON'T.

Q: SO AT THIS TIME DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHETHER IT WAS A CAR PARKED OR ANYTHING ELSE TO THE RIGHT OF YOU?

A: NO, I DON'T.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, YOU INDICATED, SIR, THAT YOU SAW THIS SIX-FOOT 200-POUND AFRICAN AMERICAN PERSON IN ALL DARK CLOTHING WALK INTO THE ENTRANCE OF ROCKINGHAM. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU SAID THAT WAS BETWEEN 10:54 AND 10:55?

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

THE COURT: I HAVE A QUESTION PENDING WITH NO ANSWER.

MS. CLARK: I AM WAITING FOR A PHOTOGRAPH I WANTED TO SHOW HIM.

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

MS. CLARK: GREAT.

Q: OKAY. CAN YOU INDICATE ON THIS PHOTOGRAPH, SIR -- I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO --

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, MAY WE APPROACH FOR A MOMENT?

MS. CLARK: I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO DIRECT THE -- I'M SORRY.

THE COURT: FOR WHAT PURPOSE?

MR. COCHRAN: MAY WE APPROACH A MINUTE?

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WITHOUT THE REPORTER.

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

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, PROCEED. WE ARE WASTING TIME HERE.

MS. CLARK: I DIDN'T ASK FOR A SIDE BAR.

THE COURT: I KNOW, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO STAND THERE EITHER, BOTH OF YOU. PROCEED. THIS IS PEOPLE'S 139?

MS. CLARK: PEOPLE'S 139.

Q: COULD YOU PLEASE INDICATE, IF YOU WOULD, SIR, DIRECT THAT ARROW, IF YOU CAN FIND IT, ON THIS PHOTOGRAPH WHERE YOU FIRST SAW THE PERSON YOU DESCRIBED WALKING INTO THE HOUSE BETWEEN 10:54 AND 10:55?

A: IT WOULD HAVE BEEN UP JUST TO THE CORNER OF THOSE POTTED PLANTS. UP A LITTLE FARTHER. THERE YOU GO. GO BACK. AROUND THERE, (INDICATING).

Q: WAS IT -- IT WASN'T ON THEM?

A: WELL, IN THAT AREA, MAYBE A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO THE DOOR. THERE YOU GO, (INDICATING).

Q: THERE?

MR. COCHRAN: CLOSER TO THE DOOR, YOUR HONOR, HE SAID.

THE COURT: IT WAS JUST MOVED CLOSER TO THE DOOR AND OFF THE POT.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: IS THAT --

A: THAT IS THE GENERAL AREA, YES.

MS. CLARK: MARK THAT. HAVE THIS MARKED AS PEOPLE'S 139-A.

(PEO'S 139-A FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, CAN WE ASK THE WITNESS IF THAT IS WHERE HE WOULD PLACE IT?

MS. CLARK: THAT IS WHAT HE SAID.

THE COURT: ASK HIM AGAIN.

MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT.

Q: WHERE THAT WHITE ARROW IS; IS THAT CORRECT, SIR?

A: YOU COULD GO CLOSER TO THE FRONT OF THE DOOR.

MS. CLARK: OKAY. LET'S MOVE IT.

THE WITNESS: THAT WOULD BE GOOD, (INDICATING).

MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. PEOPLE'S 139-B.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. 139-B.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU.

(PEO'S 139-B FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHEN YOU SAW THAT PERSON WALK INTO THE DOOR, SIR, WERE YOU ABLE -- DID YOU SEE THE HEM OF A ROBE SWIRLING AROUND THE LEGS AT ALL?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THAT, YOUR HONOR. ARGUMENTATIVE. SPECULATIVE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MR. COCHRAN: ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: NO.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: OKAY. DID YOU SEE THAT PERSON SWINGING A GOLF CLUB?

A: NO.

Q: CARRYING A GOLF CLUB?

A: NO.

Q: NOW, YOU INDICATED THAT AFTER THAT PERSON ENTERED THE HOUSE YOU SAW THE LIGHTS GO ON?

A: CORRECT.

MR. COCHRAN: ASKED AND ANSWERED, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHEN YOU -- ULTIMATELY AT SOME POINT YOU PULLED UP TO THE -- YOU PULLED INSIDE?

A: YES.

Q: CORRECT. BEFORE YOU PULLED INSIDE, SIR, YOU INDICATED YOU SPOKE TO THE DEFENDANT OVER THE INTERCOM?

A: YES.

Q: DID HE BUZZ YOU IN?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

MR. COCHRAN: ASKED AND ANSWERED, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: NO.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: IT WAS KATO THAT LET YOU IN?

A: FROM WHAT I REMEMBER, YES.

Q: OKAY. AFTER YOU GOT IN AND YOU PARKED -- YOU SAID AT SOME POINT YOU SAW THE DEFENDANT COME DOWNSTAIRS, COME OUT THE FRONT DOOR?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU LOOK AT YOUR WATCH TO SEE WHAT TIME IT WAS WHEN HE CAME DOWNSTAIRS?

A: NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: YOU ESTIMATED FOR US THAT IT WAS FIVE TO SIX MINUTES BETWEEN THE TIME YOU SPOKE TO THE DEFENDANT -- EXCUSE ME. STRIKE THAT. YOU INDICATED TO US YESTERDAY THAT IT WAS FIVE TO SIX MINUTES, I BELIEVE, BETWEEN THE TIME YOU SAW THE SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON GO INTO THE HOUSE AND THE TIME YOU SAW THE DEFENDANT COME OUTSIDE?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: YOU DID NOT LOOK AT YOUR WATCH WHEN HE -- WHEN THE DEFENDANT CAME OUTSIDE, THAT FIVE TO SIX-MINUTE TIME FRAME?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

MS. CLARK: THAT FIVE TO SIX-MINUTE TIME -- TIME FRAME YOU GAVE US BETWEEN THE TIME YOU SAW THE SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON GO INSIDE AND YOU SAW THE DEFENDANT COME OUTSIDE, IS THAT APPROXIMATE OR IS THAT EXACT?

A: THAT IS ESTIMATED TIME. THAT IS A GUESSTIMATE YOU COULD SAY.

Q: A GUESSTIMATE?

A: YEAH.

MS. CLARK: COULD I GET 138? (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

Q: BY MS. CLARK: LET ME SHOW YOU PEOPLE'S 138, SIR. NO, WAIT. YOU KNOW WHAT --

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

Q: BY MS. CLARK: FIRST I WANT TO SHOW YOU PEOPLE'S 112. I BELIEVE YOU INDICATED ON CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT YOU RECOGNIZED THIS FOYER AREA OF THE DEFENDANT'S RESIDENCE?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: YOU INDICATED ALSO THAT YOU SAW THE DEFENDANT AND KATO SPEAKING TOGETHER JUST INSIDE THE HOUSE SHORTLY BEFORE YOU LEFT FOR THE AIRPORT. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU SEE THE AREA IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH WHERE THEY STOOD TALKING FOR A BIT?

A: YEAH, THAT IS THE AREA.

Q: IN THAT FOYER?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, WHEN YOU WERE --

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

Q: BY MS. CLARK: LET ME ASK YOU A COUPLE QUESTIONS BEFORE WE GET -- THIS IS PEOPLE'S 138. YOU RECALL THE FRONT PLAY AND LAWN AREA IN THE -- INSIDE THE -- INSIDE THE GATES OF THE DEFENDANT'S RESIDENCE?

A: I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT IT WAS AT THE TIME, NO.

Q: OKAY.

A: I MEAN --

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

Q: BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU SEE THE AREA ON THIS DIAGRAM THAT HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN MARKED AS PEOPLE'S 66, BUT NOW IT IS ON THE SCREEN THERE IS DESIGNATED "LAWN."

A: YES.

Q: AND "PLAY YARD"?

A: YES.

Q: CAN YOU TELL US WHAT THE LIGHTING WAS LIKE IN THAT AREA THAT NIGHT?

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, THIS HAS BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED ON DIRECT EXAMINATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: IT WAS VERY DARK.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND CAN YOU TELL US, SIR, WHETHER YOU SAW ANY GOLF BALLS IN THAT LAWN AREA THAT NIGHT?

A: NO.

Q: LET ME ASK YOU ALSO, SIR, WERE YOU LOOKING ON THE -- WERE YOU LOOKING DOWN AT THE DRIVEWAY AND ON THE GROUND TO SEE IF THERE WERE ANY SPOTS ON THE GROUND THAT NIGHT?

A: NO.

Q: AND WAS -- CAN YOU TELL US WHAT THE LIGHTING IN THE DRIVEWAY WAS LIKE, IN GENERAL?

A: IT -- IT WAS DIM. THERE WASN'T VERY MUCH LIGHT.

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

MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. BACK TO PEOPLE'S 138.

Q: OKAY. YOU INDICATED PREVIOUSLY THAT YOU SAW A SMALL DARK BAG SOME -- BEHIND THE BENTLEY OR THE ROLLS ROYCE OR BEHIND THE CARS, I'M SORRY. DO YOU RECALL SAYING THAT?

A: YES.

Q: CAN YOU SEE THE AREA ON THIS PHOTOGRAPH, PEOPLE'S 138, WHERE YOU SAW THAT BAG?

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, THIS HAS BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED AND WE HAVE AN EXHIBIT MARKED WITH THAT AREA ON IT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: GO AHEAD.

A: IT IS JUST TO THE LOWER LEFT CORNER IN THAT PICTURE.

Q: WHY DON'T YOU DIRECT THE ARROW.

A: STRAIGHT. GO BACK TOWARDS -- JUST DOWN TOWARDS THE CORNER. SOMEWHERE AROUND THERE, (INDICATING).

MS. CLARK: OKAY. 138-C. 138-C, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. 138-C.

(PEO'S 138-C FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)

Q: BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. NOW, THAT BAG, SIR, YOU INDICATED, I BELIEVE YESTERDAY, THAT GOLF CLUBS WERE PLACED INTO THE TRUNK, THE GARMENT BAG WAS PLACED INTO THE TRUNK, AND THEN THERE WERE TWO BLACK DUFFLE BAGS THAT WENT INTO THE PASSENGER COMPARTMENT?

MR. COCHRAN: MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: YES.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DID THE DEFENDANT LOAD ANY OF THOSE BAGS INTO THE TRUNK OR THE PASSENGER COMPARTMENT?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION, YOUR HONOR. IT IS VAGUE. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: NOT FROM WHAT I REMEMBER.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: BUT THAT KNAPSACK -- THAT SMALL BAG THAT YOU JUST INDICATED ON THIS PHOTOGRAPH, DID YOU LOAD THAT INTO THE CAR?

A: NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: AFTER THE DEFENDANT PICKED IT UP, DID YOU EVER -- PICKED IT UP FROM THAT LOCATION, DID YOU EVER SEE IT AGAIN?

A: NO.

Q: NOW, YOU INDICATED THAT ONE OF THE DUFFLE BAGS WAS UNZIPPED?

A: YES.

Q: COULD YOU TELL WHETHER THAT DUFFEL BAG WAS EMPTY OR FULL?

A: IT WASN'T EMPTY AND IT WASN'T FULL.

Q: DID YOU LOOK INSIDE IT TO SEE WHAT WAS IN IT?

A: NO.

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

Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND THAT SMALL DARK BAG THAT THE DEFENDANT PICKED UP FROM THE LOCATION SHOWN IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH, HAVE YOU SEEN THAT BAG IN COURT TODAY?

A: WHICH ONE?

Q: THE SMALL DARK BAG THAT YOU SAW ON THE DRIVEWAY?

MR. COCHRAN: JUST A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR. OBJECT. MAY WE APPROACH? MAY WE APPROACH?

THE COURT: NO. I'M GOING TO SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: OKAY. YOU INDICATED ONE OF THE DUFFLE BAGS WAS UNZIPPED. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT DUFFEL BAG WENT INTO THE PASSENGER COMPARTMENT IN THE REAR AREA OF THE CAR?

A: YES, IT DID.

Q: AND COULD THAT SMALL DARK BAG THAT YOU SAW THAT YOU HAVE INDICATED THE POSITION OF IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH, PEOPLE'S 138, COULD THAT SMALL DARK BAG HAVE FIT INTO THE DUFFEL BAG?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT, YOUR HONOR. CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I DON'T KNOW.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WAS IT SMALLER THAN THE DUFFEL BAG?

A: I SAW IT FROM A DISTANCE, SO I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW BIG IT WAS.

Q: WAS IT SMALLER THAN THE DUFFEL BAG?

MR. COCHRAN: ASKED AND ANSWERED, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: IT SEEMED TO BE SMALLER.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, DO YOU HAVE MUCH MORE?

MS. CLARK: NO, I DON'T, YOUR HONOR.

Q: AND THAT SMALL DARK BAG, COULD THAT HAVE BEEN IN THE BACKSEAT WITH THE DEFENDANT?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, THAT GARMENT BAG -- CAN WE HAVE THAT BACK? I THINK IF I CAN JUST HAVE FIVE MINUTES, YOUR HONOR, I WILL BE DONE.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MS. CLARK: FIRST OF ALL, MR. PART, WHEN YOU SAW THE GARMENT BAG ON JUNE THE 12TH YOU PICKED IT UP, DID YOU?

A: YES.

Q: YOU LOADED IT INTO THE TRUNK?

A: YES.

Q: DID IT SEEM TO CONTAIN CLOTHING?

A: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: JUST A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR. THAT IS SPECULATIVE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: IT SEEMED TO HAVE SOMETHING IN IT.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: HAVE YOU LOOKED IN THIS BAG TODAY, SIR?

A: NO, I HAVEN'T.

Q: UNZIPPING IT. I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO TELL US, DO YOU SEE ANY CLOTHING IN IT NOW?

A: NO.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO THE CLOTHING THAT WAS IN IT ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE THE 12TH?

A: NO.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHERE THIS BAG HAS BEEN SINCE JUNE THE 12TH?

A: NO.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO THE ITEMS THAT WERE INSIDE IT?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU SEE THE CONTENTS OF THAT BAG ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE THE 12TH?

A: NO.

Q: AND THE GOLF BAG THAT YOU WERE SHOWN, I BELIEVE YOU INDICATED THAT EXTERIOR DIDN'T LOOK LIKE THE EXTERIOR YOU RECALL SEEING ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE THE 12TH? DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: YES.

Q: SO DO YOU THINK IT WAS SOME OTHER KIND OF EXTERIOR THAT WAS OVER THE GOLF BAG THAT NIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT EXTERIOR PART, THAT SHEATH THAT YOU ARE DESCRIBING, WAS THAT THE PART THAT YOU ACTUALLY HAD CONTACT WITH WHEN YOU GAVE IT TO THE SKYCAP AND SAW IT IN THE TRUNK?

A: YES.

Q: AND THIS BLACK DUFFEL BAG, SIR, DID IT APPEAR TO HAVE SOMETHING IN IT ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE THE 12TH WHEN YOU LOADED IT INTO THE PASSENGER AREA OF THE LIMOUSINE?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU SEE ANYTHING IN IT NOW, SIR?

A: NO.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO THE CONTENTS OF THAT BAG?

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, THOSE ARE CLEARLY IMPROPER QUESTIONS AND COUNSEL KNOWS IT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: NO.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DO YOU KNOW WHERE THAT BAG HAS BEEN SINCE JUNE THE 12TH, SIR?

A: I HAVE NO IDEA.

Q: OR WHAT HAPPENED TO THE CONTENTS OF THE BAG THAT WERE THERE ON JUNE THE 12TH?

A: NO IDEA.

Q: WHEN THE DEFENDANT GOT OUT OF THE LIMOUSINE AT THE AIRPORT, SIR, WERE THERE ANY BAGS -- ANY OF HIS BAGS LEFT IN THE PASSENGER COMPARTMENT?

A: NO.

Q: WERE THERE ANY OF HIS BAGS LEFT IN THE TRUNK?

A: NO.

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

MS. CLARK: I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I TAKE IT YOU DO HAVE SOME RECROSS?

MR. COCHRAN: YES, I HAVE SOME.

THE COURT: OKAY.

MR. COCHRAN: WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO DO IT NOW?

THE COURT: NO. WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A RECESS AT THIS POINT. ALL RIGHT.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A RECESS AT THIS POINT. PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU. DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONGST YOURSELVES, FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, CONDUCT MY DELIBERATIONS OR ALLOW ANYBODY TO CONTACT YOU. WE WILL BE IN RECESS UNTIL 1:30. I WOULD LIKE COUNSEL HERE AT 1:30. MR. PARK, YOU ARE EXCUSED UNTIL 1:30. ALL RIGHT. PLEASE REMEMBER MY OTHER ORDERS.

THE WITNESS: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

MR. DARDEN: MAY WE APPROACH FOR A MOMENT?

THE COURT: SURE.

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

(AT 12:08 P.M. THE NOON RECESS WAS TAKEN UNTIL 1:30 P.M. OF THE SAME DAY.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 1995 2:04 P.M.

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

APPEARANCES: (APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED, MS. CLARK NOT BEING PRESENT; ALSO PRESENT REPRESENTING THE DEFENDANT, ROBERT D. BLASIER, BARRY SCHECK, PETER NEUFELD AND WILLIAM C. THOMPSON; ALSO REPRESENTING THE PEOPLE, WILLIAM W. HODGMAN, CHERI A. LEWIS, ROCKNE P. HARMON, GEORGE W. CLARKE, HANK M. GOLDBERG AND ALAN YOCHELSON.)

(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. ANYTHING ELSE WE NEED TO DISCUSS BEFORE WE HAVE THE JURORS REJOIN US?

MR. COCHRAN: JUST ONE MOMENT.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL AND THE DEFENDANT.)

MR. DARDEN: WE HAVE TO WAIT FOR --

MR. COCHRAN: MAY WE APPROACH, YOUR HONOR, JUST A MOMENT?

MR. DARDEN: WITH THE REPORTER?

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, I WILL LET THE JUDGE DECIDE.

MR. DARDEN: IS IT RELATIVE -- RELATES TO THAT ITEM.

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

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. ALL PARTIES ARE AGAIN PRESENT, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MISS CLARK. MR. COCHRAN, YOU WISH TO BE HEARD?

MR. COCHRAN: I WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD IF I MIGHT. I WOULD ASK LEAVE THE COURT TO ASK MR. PARK A QUESTION REGARDING THIS PARTICULAR BAG, WHICH I WOULD LIKE TO MARK AND ASK HIM WHETHER OR NOT THIS PARTICULAR BAG I HAVE IN MY LEFT HAND HERE APPEARS SIMILAR IN SIZE AND SHAPE AND COLOR TO THE BAG THAT HE SAW FROM ABOUT TWENTY FEET ON THE DRIVEWAY. I THINK THAT THIS BAG BELONGED TO OR BELONGS TO MR. SIMPSON AND MAY HAVE BEEN ONE OF THE BAGS THAT HE TOOK TO CHICAGO ON THAT NIGHT. AND I THINK THE COURT IS AWARE ALSO THAT MR. PARK HAS PREVIOUSLY SEEN THIS BAG AND INDICATED THAT IT APPARENTLY IS -- COMPORTS OR IS SIMILAR IN SIZE AND SHAPE AND COLOR TO THE BAG THAT HE SAW FROM SOME TWENTY FEET AWAY. HE CAN'T SAY DEFINITELY. AND I ASK LEAVE THE COURT, IN VIEW OF THE TACT TAKEN BY THE PROSECUTION REGARDING THIS BAG, TO BE ALLOWED TO ASK THAT QUESTION IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN: WELL, AS I UNDERSTOOD THE OFFER OF PROOF COUNSEL MADE AT SIDE BAR IS THAT MR. SIMPSON SAID THAT THE BAG MIGHT HAVE BEEN A BAG HE TOOK TO CHICAGO, HE DOESN'T KNOW, HE CAN'T SAY FOR SURE. HE THINKS IT IS HIS BAG. HE HAS A LOT OF BAGS. WELL, THAT DOESN'T GIVE -- THAT IS NO OFFER OF PROOF. THAT IS NOT MUCH MORE THAN SPECULATION. IT IS A COMPLETE NON-COMMITTAL ON THE PART OF THE DEFENSE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THAT BAG IS THE ONE THAT WAS TAKEN TO CHICAGO, AND THEY OUGHT NOT TO JUST THROW THINGS UP HERE IN FRONT OF THIS WITNESS.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, MAY THE WITNESS BE ASKED TO STEP OUTSIDE?

THE COURT: NO. HE HAS ALREADY BEEN INTERVIEWED IN THE PRESENCE OF COUNSEL.

(MS. CLARK ENTERS THE COURTROOM.)

MR. DARDEN: IT IS LITTLE MORE THAN TRICKERY. BEYOND THAT, THE BAG IS NEW AND IT IS APPARENT THAT NOTHING HAS EVER BEEN PLACED INSIDE THE BAG. THE KEYS ARE STILL ATTACHED TO THE BAG AND THE LITTLE PLASTIC STRING THAT ONCE -- TO WHICH WAS ONCE ATTACHED THE PRICE TAG I GUESS IS STILL ON THE BAG. THE BAG WAS RECOVERED JUST TODAY, I BELIEVE AT ELEVEN O'CLOCK THIS MORNING, FROM MR. KARDASHIAN'S HOME.

THE COURT: YESTERDAY.

MR. DARDEN: I'M SORRY.

THE COURT: YESTERDAY.

MR. DARDEN: YESTERDAY. IT IS IRRELEVANT. IT IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. THIS BAG HAS -- HELPS US, IT DOES NOT HELP THE JURY --

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

MR. DARDEN: AND AS MISS CLARK HAS REMINDED ME THERE COULD BE MILLIONS OF BAGS THAT PERHAPS FIT THE DESCRIPTION GIVEN BY MR. PARK, AND MR. PARK HAS TOLD THE COURT AT SIDE BAR AND HE HAS TOLD THE JURY AS WELL THAT HE DID NOT GET A GOOD LOOK AT THE BAG. HIS MEMORY IS SOMEWHAT VAGUE AS TO WHAT THE BAG LOOKED LIKE EXACTLY. I MEAN, IT COULD BE, IT COULDN'T BE. WHERE DOES THAT GET US? HOW IS THAT RELEVANT? SO WE WOULD OBJECT TO REPRESENTING THAT BAG TO THE JURY.

MR. COCHRAN: THE IDEA THAT IT IS VERY HARD FOR THE PROSECUTORS TO EVER ARGUE EVERYTHING WITHOUT LABELING EVERYTHING. TRICKERY COMES FROM THESE VAGUE THEORIES THAT CHANGE LIKE THE WEATHER.

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. IS THAT NOT A GRATUITOUS PERSONAL ATTACK?

MR. COCHRAN: I'M REFERRING TO HIS REMARK ABOUT TRICKERY.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, STOP, BOTH OF YOU.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, IF THE COURT PLEASES, I'M ASKING LEAVE OF THE COURT, BASED ON THE REPRESENTATION AND BASED UPON THE FACT THAT THIS BAG WAS RECOVERED BY JUDGE WONG YESTERDAY -- AND I WANT TO ASK MR. WONG ABOUT IT. YOUR HONOR, THIS MATTER WAS BROUGHT UP -- COULD MR. DARDEN PLEASE SIT DOWN AND STOP MAKING SOUNDS.

MR. DARDEN: WAS I MAKING SOUNDS?

MR. COCHRAN: YES. YOU WERE GOING "UN, UN, UN."

MR. DARDEN: NO, I WAS GOING "UN, UMM, UN."

MR. COCHRAN: THAT NERVOUS TWITCH.

THE COURT: I THINK WAS "UN, UN, UN."

MR. COCHRAN: "UN, UN, UN," YOUR HONOR.

MR. DARDEN: I COULDN'T BELIEVE WHAT MR. COCHRAN WAS SAYING.

MR. COCHRAN: NOW, YOUR HONOR, MAY I PROCEED? WITH REGARD TO THE PROSECUTION'S QUESTIONING OF BOTH MR. PARK AND MR. KATO KAELIN, IN THIS INSTANCE THESE BAGS, ALL THESE BAGS WERE RECOVERED. THEY WERE NOT RECOVERED BY THE PEOPLE. THESE BAGS WERE BROUGHT FORWARD BY THE DEFENSE WITH THE HELP OF THIS COURT BY THE SPECIAL MASTER AND THEY ARE NOW IN THE COURT'S CUSTODY. I WANT PURELY TO ASK THE QUESTION THE COURT KNOWS THAT I WANT TO ASK. I HAVE ASKED MR. PARK. I GUESS PROBATIVE VALUE. IT DOESN'T GO TO ANY WEIGHT. IT DOESN'T GO TO ADMISSIBILITY, RATHER, IT GOES TO ANY WEIGHT. EVERYBODY KNOWS HE WAS TWENTY FEET AWAY. HE WAS TWENTY FEET AWAY WHEN THEY WERE ASKING ALL THOSE QUESTIONS, TOO, BUT FAIR IS FAIR. YOU CAN'T ALLOW THEM, IT SEEMS TO ME, TO DO ALL THESE THINGS AND NOT ALLOW US AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW WHAT MIGHT VERY WELL HAVE BEEN THE BAG. AND THAT IS ALL WE ARE ASKING TO DO YOUR HONOR. I THINK IT IS ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE. WITH REGARD TO THE OTHER BAG HE CAN'T IDENTIFY, I'M NOT ASKING ANYTHING REGARDING THAT AND I WOULD LIKE TO CONCLUDED MY CROSS-EXAMINATION WITH THAT.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN: THIS OFFER OF PROOF DOES NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF WHAT VERY WELL MIGHT HAVE BEEN. MR. SIMPSON KNOWS WHICH BAG HE TOOK TO CHICAGO. HE HASN'T SAID THAT THIS IS THE ONE, AND GIVEN THAT, THE DEFENSE SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM JUST THROWING THINGS UP HERE IN FRONT OF THE WITNESSES WHEN THEY THROW THEORIES AROUND THE COURTROOM, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY HAVE A FACTUAL BASIS FOR THEM, AND NOW THEY WANT TO DO THE SAME THING WITH THIS BAG. IT IS IRRELEVANT. IT HAS NO PROBATIVE VALUE WHATSOEVER. MR. COCHRAN IS MAKING SOUNDS BEHIND MY BACK, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GENTLEMEN.

MR. DARDEN: IN ANY EVENT --

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO SUSTAIN THE 352 OBJECTION FOR THIS REASON: THE OFFER OF PROOF WAS THIS COULD POSSIBLY BE AND THE STATEMENT BY MR. PARK WITH COUNSEL AT SIDE BAR "THAT DOES NOT LOOK FAMILIAR," BUT HE COULDN'T TELL, YOU HAVE -- IT IS TOO SPECULATIVE AT THIS POINT AND THE DANGER OF MISLEADING THE JURY IS APPARENT. AND THE COURT WILL SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, MAY I BE HEARD? MY UNDERSTANDING REGARDING WHAT MR. PARK SAID -- MY UNDERSTANDING MR. PARK -- AND I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO ASK HIM WHAT HE SAID -- WAS THAT IT WAS SIMILAR IN BOTH SIZE, SHAPE AND COLOR AND THAT HE WAS TWENTY FEET AWAY.

THE COURT: HIS INITIAL COMMENT TO ME WAS IT DOESN'T LOOK FAMILIAR.

MR. COCHRAN: BUT HE DID ALSO SAY --

THE COURT: COUNSEL, I'VE GOT EIGHT BAGS IN MY CHAMBERS THAT ARE THE SAME GENERAL COLOR, GENERAL SIZE.

MR. COCHRAN: EIGHT?

THE COURT: EIGHT. DO YOU WANT TO COUNT THEM?

MR. COCHRAN: NO, NO, I DON'T NEED TO COUNT THEM, BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE --

THE COURT: TWO JUST FOR DNA MATERIALS.

MR. COCHRAN: I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THE COURT WAS MINDFUL OF WHAT HE HAD SAID.

THE COURT: I DID. I HEARD VERY CAREFULLY. I LISTENED TO MR. PARK VERY CAREFULLY. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

MR. DARDEN: THERE IS THE ISSUE OF THE OTHER BAG, RIGHT, THE SUEDE ONE.

THE COURT: THAT IS NOT BEING OFFERED IS MY UNDERSTANDING.

MR. DARDEN: SUEDE?

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, MAY I MARK THIS 1066.

THE COURT: YES, FOR THE RECORD.

(DEFT'S 1066 FOR ID = BAG)

MR. DARDEN: THE SUEDE BAG IS NOT BEING OFFERED?

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

MR. COCHRAN: HE COULDN'T IDENTIFY IT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ARE YOU READY TO PROCEED?

MR. DARDEN: YES.

THE COURT: I DO STILL HAVE JUDGE WONG HERE AVAILABLE, BUT HE WOULD LIKE TO GET OUT OF HERE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY, YOUR HONOR. I COULDN'T HEAR.

THE COURT: JUDGE WONG IS STILL HERE. HE WOULD LIKE TO LEAVE, THOUGH, BECAUSE HE HAS ANOTHER APPOINTMENT.

MR. DARDEN: IF WE COULD JUST DRAG OUT THE BAGS.

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

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. PLEASE BE SEATED. LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT WE HAVE BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL. MR. PARK, WOULD YOU RESUME THE WITNESS STAND, PLEASE.

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

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, IF I MAY, I HAD A COUPLE OF ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ON REDIRECT, VERY, VERY BRIEFLY. I'M SORRY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON AGAIN, MR. PARK.

THE WITNESS: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH, PLEASE. A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. I WILL BE BRIEF. GOOD AFTERNOON.

THE JURY: GOOD AFTERNOON

REDIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED)

BY MS. CLARK:

Q: MR. PARK, WHEN THE DEFENDANT WENT OVER TO THE SKYCAP, DID YOU -- WHAT DID YOU DO?

A: I PUT THE GOLF BAGS ON THE BIGGER LARGER SKYCAP CART AND THE DESIGNER BAG.

Q: OKAY. SO YOU ACTUALLY LIFTED THAT GOLF BAG, DID YOU?

A: YES.

Q: I'M GOING TO ASK YOU NOW TO LIFT THIS BAG FOR US AND TELL US IF THIS IS THE APPROXIMATE WEIGHT OF THE BAG THAT YOU PICKED UP AND PUT ON THE SKYCAP'S CARRIER?

A: IT IS CLOSE TO IT, YES.

Q: OKAY. AND NOW, THAT -- THIS BAG, SIR, GO AHEAD AND TAKE YOUR SEAT.

A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.

Q: THIS BAG, WHO TOOK IT OUT OF THE TRUNK OF THE CAR WHEN YOU GOT TO THE AIRPORT?

A: FROM WHAT I REMEMBER, MR. SIMPSON.

Q: AND WHO PUT IT -- TAKING IT FROM THE TRUNK, WHO PUT IT ONTO THE LUGGAGE CARRIER THAT YOU BROUGHT OUT OF THE AIRPORT?

A: I WAS HOLDING THE LUGGAGE CARRIER AND HE SET IT ON THE RACK.

Q: AND WHEN HE PICKED UP THAT BAG AND TOOK IT OUT OF THE TRUNK AND PUT IT ONTO THE LUGGAGE CARRIER, DID HE COMPLAIN TO YOU OF ANY PAIN IN HIS ARMS OR HIS SHOULDERS?

A: NO, HE DIDN'T.

Q: WHEN MR. SIMPSON WAS OVER BY THE SKYCAP, SIR, DID YOU SEE -- OTHER THAN THE GARMENT BAG AND THE GOLF BAG, DID YOU SEE WHERE THE OTHER BAGS WERE?

A: FROM WHAT I REMEMBER THERE WAS -- HE HAD THE ONE OVER HIS SHOULDER AND THERE WAS ANOTHER ONE SITTING ON TOP OF A TRASH CAN NEXT TO THE SKYCAP STAND.

Q: SO THERE WAS A BAG SITTING ON TOP OF THE TRASH CAN NEXT TO THE SKYCAP STAND?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU SEE MR. SIMPSON DO ANYTHING WITH RESPECT TO THE BAG ON TOP OF THE TRASH CAN?

A: NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: AFTER YOU GOT MR. SIMPSON OVER TO THE SKYCAP AREA, AND THAT BAG WAS ON TOP OF THE TRASH CAN AND THE GARMENT BAG AND THE GOLF BAG WERE GIVEN TO THE SKYCAP, WHAT DID YOU DO?

A: UMM, I WALKED OVER TO HIM AND THAT IS WHEN I WAS GETTING READY TO LEAVE, AND SHOOK HIS HAND AND SAID "ADD TWENTY PERCENT" AND THAT WAS IT.

Q: SO YOU LEFT AT THAT POINT?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU SEE MR. SIMPSON ENTER THE AIRPORT TERMINAL?

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, THIS HAS BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED BEFORE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: UMM, NOT AT THAT POINT. WHEN I GOT BACK INTO THE CAR, AFTER I CHECKED THE CAR TO SEE IF HE LEFT ANYTHING, I DROVE AWAY, LOOKED DOWN THE TERMINAL AND HE WAS ON HIS WAY TO THE AIRPORT OR TO THE PLANE.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DID YOU SEE WHAT HE WAS CARRYING?

A: NO.

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

MS. CLARK: OKAY. NOTHING FURTHER.

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. COCHRAN:

Q: SO AS I UNDERSTAND YOUR TESTIMONY, MR. PARK -- GOOD AFTERNOON, FIRST OF ALL.

THE WITNESS: GOOD AFTERNOON.

MR. COCHRAN: GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

THE JURY: GOOD AFTERNOON.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AS I UNDERSTAND YOUR TESTIMONY, THE LAST THING THAT YOU DID WITH MR. SIMPSON WAS YOU SHOOK HANDS WITH HIM AND THEN YOU TOOK YOUR LEAVE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: AND YOU HAD HAD A RATHER PLEASANT ENCOUNTER WITH HIM; IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT TO SAY, BASED UPON THE FACT YOU GOT HIM THERE ON TIME AND EVERYTHING WENT WELL?

A: YES.

Q: AND IN FACT HE SAID TO ADD TWENTY PERCENT TO THE BILL, RIGHT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: AND FIRST OF ALL, WITH REGARD TO THE GOLF BAG THAT WAS TAKEN OVER HERE, THIS WAS THE FIRST NIGHT THAT YOU HAD EVER SEEN MR. O.J. SIMPSON; ISN'T THAT CORRECT, IN YOUR LIFE, ON JUNE 12TH?

A: PERSONALLY, YES.

Q: YES, PERSONALLY, WHERE THE TWO OF YOU WERE TOGETHER?

A: YES.

Q: AND IN YOUR FIRST MEETING WITH MR. SIMPSON HE DIDN'T SHARE WITH YOU HIS LIFE SECRETS ABOUT HIM HAVING RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, DID HE?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE, CALLS FOR HEARSAY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: NO.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU ARE NOT SURPRISED BY THAT, ARE YOU, SIR?

A: NO, I'M NOT.

Q: YOU DIDN'T SHARE WITH HIM ANY MALADIES YOU HAD, EVEN AT YOUR YOUNG AGE, DID YOU?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: YOU WERE JUST TRYING TO GET HIM TO THE AIRPORT ON TIME; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, SIR, WITH REGARD TO QUESTIONS YOU WERE ASKED, YOU WERE ASKED WHETHER OR NOT YOU WERE IN A HURRY AND YOU INDICATED TO MISS CLARK AT SOME POINT THAT YOU WERE IN FACT IN A HURRY AGAIN BECAUSE YOU WANTED TO GET MR. SIMPSON TO THE AIRPORT ON TIME; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: YOU PREVIOUSLY TOLD US ALREADY THAT AT SOME POINT YOU DROVE PERHAPS AS FAST AS 75 OR 80 SO COULD YOU ACCOMPLISH YOUR GOAL?

A: CORRECT.

Q: WHICH YOU DID, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: YOU RECALL MISS CLARK ASKED YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT YOU WERE LOOKING OR PAYING ATTENTION TO MR. SIMPSON'S BODY OR HIS HAND. DO YOU REMEMBER THOSE QUESTIONS?

A: YES.

Q: YOU WOULD HAVE REMEMBERED, WOULD YOU HAVE NOT, IF MR. SIMPSON HAD A BAND-AID, A LARGE BAND-AID ON THIS LEFT KNUCKLE HERE? IT WOULD STAND OUT? YOU WOULD REMEMBER THAT, WOULDN'T YOU?

A: IF I SAW IT, YES.

Q: YOU NEVER SAW THAT THAT NIGHT, DID YOU?

A: NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, WITH REGARD TO THE TIME YOU WERE WAITING AND TRYING TO GET INSIDE THE ASHFORD GATE, WOULD I BE CORRECT IN ASSUMING THAT YOUR ATTENTION AT THAT TIME WAS -- YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT TRYING TO LOCATE SOMEBODY INSIDE THE PREMISES AND REACHING YOUR CLIENT; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: IN FACT, SO MUCH SO THAT YOU NOT ONLY CALLED YOUR BOSS, BUT YOU ALSO CALLED YOUR MOTHER; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: DURING THAT TIME FRAME? AND THAT PRETTY MUCH WAS YOUR FOCUS; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN YOU TESTIFIED AT THE GRAND -- AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING AS FOLLOWS, COUNSEL AGAIN AT PAGE 40 --

MS. CLARK: WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. PAGE 40?

MR. COCHRAN: YES, PAGE 40 BEGINNING AT LINE 17 -- LINE 15.

Q: WERE YOU ASKED THESE QUESTIONS AND GAVE THESE ANSWERS TO MISS CLARK? "WHAT GATE DID YOU LEAVE FROM? "ANSWER: THE ROCKINGHAM GATE. "QUESTION: AND WHICH WAY DID YOU GO ON ROCKINGHAM AS YOU EXITED THE GATE? "ANSWER: I MADE A LEFT. "QUESTION: DID YOU LOOK TO SEE WHETHER ANY CARS WERE PARKED ON THE RIGHT SIDE AS YOU FACED THE DRIVEWAY OF ROCKINGHAM OUTSIDE THE RESIDENCE?" YOUR ANSWER WAS: "I DIDN'T LOOK TO SEE.

"QUESTION: YOU WEREN'T LOOKING AT THE PARKED CARS?" AND YOUR ANSWER WAS: "YEAH." YOU WEREN'T LOOKING AT PARKED CARS THAT NIGHT BECAUSE YOUR FOCUS WAS ON SOMETHING ELSE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AS YOU TOLD US BEFORE, YOU CAN'T BE POSITIVE WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS ANY PARKED CARS PARKED THERE TO THE RIGHT OF THE GATE WHEN YOU CAME OUT OF THAT GATE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN YOU TESTIFIED AT THE GRAND JURY IN THAT CONNECTION, YOU WERE AGAIN TRYING TO BE AS ACCURATE AND AS FACTUAL AS YOU COULD, WERE YOU NOT?

A: YES, I WAS.

MR. COCHRAN: COUNSEL, LET'S BEGIN AT PAGE 270, ABOUT LINE 21. AND LET'S GO OVER TO PAGE 272, LINE 14. "QUESTION:" --

MS. CLARK: JUST ONE SECOND.

MR. COCHRAN: GRAND JURY.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

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

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DO YOU RECALL BEING ASKED THESE SERIES OF QUESTIONS BY MISS CLARK ON JUNE 17, 1994? "QUESTION: WHEN YOU PULLED OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY OF THE SUSPECT'S HOUSE, WHAT DRIVEWAY EXIT DID YOU USE, ASHFORD OR ROCKINGHAM? "ANSWER: ROCKINGHAM. "QUESTION: WHEN YOU PULLED OUT OF THE ROCKINGHAM GATE WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE ANY CAR PARKED ON THE STREET NEXT TO THAT GATE? "ANSWER: THERE WAS A VEHICLE TO MY LEFT. WHEN I WAS EXITING I NOTICED I HAD TO LOOK AROUND A VEHICLE. I NEVER NOTICED WHAT KIND OF VEHICLE IT WAS. I DIDN'T PAY ANY ATTENTION TO THAT, BUT THERE WAS A VEHICLE THERE. "QUESTION: YOU SAY A VEHICLE TO YOUR LEFT. THAT WOULD BE THE AREA I AM INDICATING WITH MY PEN -- "ANSWER: CORRECT. "WHY DON'T YOU MARK THAT. "YOU SAID YOU NOTICED THE VEHICLE DOWN THERE? "ANSWER: YES. "(WITNESS COMPLIES.) "GO AHEAD AND HAVE A SEAT. "YOU EXITED OUT OF THE GATE THAT FEEDS ONTO ROCKINGHAM; IS THAT RIGHT? "ANSWER: YES. "SO YOU WERE ON THE LEFT SIDE OF YOUR CAR, RIGHT? "ANSWER: YES. "AND YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE A LEFT OUT OF THE GATE? "ANSWER: THAT'S CORRECT. "SO YOU ARE LOOKING TO YOUR LEFT FOR TRAFFIC, FOR ONCOMING TRAFFIC? "ANSWER: YEAH, BOTH WAYS. "QUESTION: DID YOU ATTEMPT TO LOOK VERY CAREFULLY TO SEE WHETHER THE CARS WERE PARKED ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE DRIVEWAY" I PRESUME THAT MEANS TO THE RIGHT SIDE. "ANSWER: THERE WERE NO CARS."

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION TO COUNSEL'S EDITORIALIZING. THAT IS NOT PART OF THE TRANSCRIPT.

THE COURT: JUST READ THE TRANSCRIPT, COUNSEL.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: "DID YOU ATTEMPT TO LOOK VERY CAREFULLY TO SEE WHETHER CARS WERE PARKED ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE DRIVEWAY? "ANSWER: THERE WERE NO CARS. "QUESTION: ARE YOU SURE? "ANSWER: I'M PRETTY SURE. "QUESTION: DID YOU MAKE AN EFFORT TO LOOK AND SEE IF THERE WERE ANY CARS THERE? "ANSWER: I LOOKED TO THE RIGHT TO SEE IF WERE ANY CARS COMING DOWN THE STREET. "I'M ASKING IF YOU LOOKED TO -- MADE AN EFFORT TO SEE IF THERE WAS A CAR PARKED? "ANSWER: NO." WAS THAT A CORRECT ANSWER AT THAT TIME?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. "QUESTION: THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN A CAR PARKED THERE AND YOU DIDN'T SEE IT? "ANSWER: CORRECT." AND THE REASON WHY YOU DON'T KNOW ONE WAY OR THE OTHER IS BECAUSE YOU WEREN'T FOCUSING ON ANY CARS OR PAYING ANY ATTENTION; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: BASICALLY YOUR GOAL WAS TO GET MR. O.J. SIMPSON -- TRY TO GET HIM TO THE AIRPORT ON TIME, ISN'T IT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: THAT IS WHAT YOU ENDED UP DOING, ISN'T IT, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, HAVE YOU EVER HEARD THE ENGINE OF A FORD BRONCO?

A: WHAT YEAR?

Q: WELL, THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION. LET'S SEE. WELL, LET'S START WITH MY QUESTION FIRST. HAVE YOU EVER HEARD THE ENGINE OF ANY FORD BRONCO?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT YEAR WAS THE FORD BRONCO THAT YOU HEARD?

A: I'VE HEARD A LOT OF THEM.

Q: HAVE YOU?

A: YEAH.

Q: WELL --

A: WELL, OLDER CARS SEEM TO -- SOME OF THE OLDER BRONCOS SEEM TO BE A LITTLE BIT LOUDER THAN THE NEW ONES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. LET'S SEE. WHAT IS THE NEWEST FORD BRONCO THAT YOU HAVE HEARD?

A: I THINK IT WAS AN '88.

Q: '88? AND WHAT IS THE OLDEST?

A: UMM, HAD TO BE SOMEWHERE AROUND A '70, '72.

Q: PRETTY OLD ONE; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YEAH.

Q: HOW LONG AGO WAS IT THAT YOU HEARD THE ENGINE OF THE '88 FORD BRONCO?

A: I DON'T REMEMBER THAT.

Q: SOMETIME IN YOUR PAST?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WOULD I BE CORRECT IN ASSUMING THAT THOSE ENGINES CAN BE LOUD ON OCCASION, THOSE CARS?

A: COULD BE.

Q: YOU DIDN'T HEAR THE ENGINES ON ANY CARS OR ANYTHING THAT SOUNDED LIKE A FORD BRONCO THAT NIGHT, DID YOU?

A: NO.

Q: NOW, MISS CLARK ASKED YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS FIGURE THAT WAS WALKING INTO THE WALKWAY THERE, OF THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU REMEMBER THAT? AND YOU RECALL THAT, AS YOU HAVE TESTIFIED FOR US, THE FIGURE WAS WALKING TOWARDS THE DOOR WHEN YOU FIRST OBSERVED THAT FIGURE, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU SAW THAT FIGURE FOR ONLY A SECOND OR SO; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU TOLD US THAT THAT FIGURE WAS ATTIRED IN SOMETHING DARK AND IT COULD HAVE BEEN A ROBE, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WAS; IS THAT CORRECT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: IT COULD HAVE BEEN A ROBE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: JUST SEEMED TO BE DARK CLOTHING. IT COULD HAVE BEEN ANYTHING.

Q: IT COULD HAVE BEEN ANYTHING BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

A: THAT'S TRUE.

Q: YOU JUST GOT A FLEETING GLANCE; ISN'T THAT RIGHT, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: SO YOU NEVER HAD A CHANCE TO SEE THE HEM OF A ROBE SWIRLING AROUND OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE, DID YOU?

A: NO.

Q: AND WITH REGARD TO THIS TIME FRAME, YOU SHARED WITH US THAT IT WAS YOUR BELIEF THAT FROM THE TIME THAT YOU SAW THIS FIGURE TO THE TIME THAT YOU SAW MR. SIMPSON COME DOWN WITH A BAG, WHICH WE NOW KNOW IS THE LOUIS VITTON BAG, ONE OF THE DEFENDANT'S EXHIBITS, ABOUT FIVE OR SIX MINUTES, HAD PAST; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AND THAT IS ABOUT FIVE OR SIX MINUTES; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: THAT IS YOUR BEST ESTIMATE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: YOU HAVE DONE THAT THROUGHOUT YOUR TESTIMONY HERE, GIVE US YOUR HONEST AND BEST ESTIMATE ISN'T THIS RIGHT, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: YOU HAVE DONE THAT WITH REGARD TO THAT FIVE OR SIX-MINUTE PERIOD OF TIME; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: WHEN YOU WERE SHOWN PEOPLE'S 112 FOR IDENTIFICATION, THE FOYER AREA OF THE SIMPSON RESIDENCE THERE, DO YOU RECALL ON THAT NIGHT WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS EVER A RUG ANYWHERE IN THAT FOYER AREA WHEN YOU WERE IN THERE, WHEN YOU WERE INSIDE THERE?

A: NO.

Q: YOU RECALL THAT YOU WALKED SOME TWO TO THREE FEET IN THERE YOURSELF BUT YOU DON'T REMEMBER SEEING A RUG OF ANY KIND; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

A: NO.

Q: NOW, YOU NEVER WENT OUT AND LOOKED AND YOU WERE ASKED SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT LOOKING IN THE PLAY YARD FOR GOLF BALLS. YOU NEVER DID THAT, DID YOU?

A: NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: YOU WEREN'T THERE TO LOOK FOR GOLF BALLS?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. HE WAS NEVER ASKED TO GO OUT AND LOOK.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU DIDN'T GO AROUND LOOKING IN MR. SIMPSON'S PREMISES FOR ANY GOLF BALLS, DID YOU?

A: NO.

Q: CAME THERE TO DO A JOB AND YOU TRIED TO DO THAT JOB; ISN'T THAT RIGHT, SIR?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, ASKED AND ANSWERED.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU CAME THERE TO PICK HIM UP AND YOU LEFT AS SOON AS YOU COULD; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: YOU WERE ASKED SOME QUESTIONS ON REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MISS CLARK REGARDING THE LOCATION OF THIS SMALLER BAG THAT WAS SOME TWENTY FEET AWAY FROM YOU. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: YES.

Q: AS YOU THINK BACK IN YOUR MIND'S EYE, CAN YOU TELL US HOW FAR THAT SECOND BAG WAS AWAY FROM THE SECOND CAR, IF THE SECOND CAR WAS THERE?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

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

THE COURT: DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION, SIR?

THE WITNESS: YES.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU MAY ANSWER.

A: IT -- IT SEEMED TO BE THREE TO FIVE FEET BEHIND THE BACK BUMPER.

Q: OF WHICH CAR?

A: OF THE SECOND CAR.

Q: IN OTHER WORDS, SO IF WE -- IF WE COULD PUT THAT DIAGRAM UP, IT WOULD BE BEHIND WHERE YOU BELIEVE THE SECOND -- THE BACK BUMPER OF THE SECOND CAR?

A: YES.

Q: NOT THE BENTLEY; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: AS I UNDERSTAND YOUR TESTIMONY, MR. KATO KAELIN HAD PLACED THE GOLF CLUBS IN THE BACK OF THE LIMOUSINE AT ROCKINGHAM; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: AND WITH REGARD TO THESE GOLF CLUBS THAT HAVE NOW BEEN MARKED AS ONE OF OUR EXHIBITS -- 1063 FOR IDENTIFICATION?

THE COURT: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YOU MAY.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: IT IS YOUR BELIEF THAT AS YOU LIFTED THE ITEMS THAT YOU LIFTED THAT NIGHT, APPEARED ABOUT THE SAME WEIGHT AS THAT?

THE COURT: IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS ABOUT TO GO OVER.

MR. COCHRAN: I WILL STAND HERE WITH IT.

Q: IT IS YOUR TESTIMONY THAT WHEN YOU LIFTED THIS ITEM ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE 12, 1994, IT APPEARED TO BE ABOUT THE SAME WEIGHT; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND THIS MORNING YOU REMEMBER I ASKED SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR INSIGNIA OF THE SWISS ARMY BRAND LIMITED. WOULD YOU CHANGE YOUR TESTIMONY AT ALL IF I WERE TO TELL YOU THAT --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, I HAVEN'T SAID IT YET, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THE WAY IT WAS PHRASED, I DON'T THINK IT WAS APPROPRIATE.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I APPROACH FOR A MOMENT?

THE COURT: SURE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE ARE OVER AT THE SIDE BAR. I TAKE IT THIS IS THE ONLY BAG THEY MAKE.

MR. COCHRAN: THEY ONLY MADE 25. THEY ARE NOT FOR SALE. THERE IS A GUY NAMED STEVE OWENS WILL BE ADDED TO OUR WITNESS LIST, SAYS THAT THAT IS THE ONLY ONE THAT HE HAD. THEY MADE 25 AT THAT TIME. WE TALKED TO HIM AT LUNCHTIME. SOMEONE ASKED HIM A QUESTION WITH REGARD TO THE SPECIAL NATURE OF THIS BAG.

MR. DARDEN: THAT'S FINE. LET STEVE OWENS COME AND TESTIFY.

THE COURT: I'M GOING TO SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION.

MR. COCHRAN: I WANT TO THINK ABOUT HOW I MIGHT REPHRASE IT.

THE COURT: I DON'T THINK YOU CAN DO IT THAT WAY.

MR. COCHRAN: NO?

THE COURT: NO.

MR. COCHRAN: YOU ARE CONVINCED OF THAT.

THE COURT: I AM CONVINCED OF THAT, BUT I AM AWARE IT IS CUSTOM MADE.

MR. COCHRAN: HUM?

THE COURT: I AM AWARE THAT IT IS CUSTOM MADE.

MR. COCHRAN: I CAN ASK HIM THAT? OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

MR. DARDEN: NO, NO.

THE COURT: I'M SAYING YOU CAN'T --

MR. COCHRAN: I CAN ASK HIM WHETHER OR NOT THIS APPEARS TO BE A CUSTOM MADE BAG?

MR. DARDEN: NO.

MR. COCHRAN: I CAN ASK HIM THAT QUESTION?

MR. DARDEN: HOW CAN HE ANSWER THAT?

MR. COCHRAN: I CAN ASK HIM THAT.

THE COURT: HE DOESN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT GOLF BAGS.

MR. COCHRAN: YOU DON'T KNOW THAT. HE SAID HE HAD SEEN A LOGO LIKE THAT BEFORE, JUDGE. THAT IS WHAT I'M SAYING.

MR. DARDEN: LET'S LET HIM CALL THE WITNESS.

MR. COCHRAN: I'M GOING TO CALL THE WITNESS, DON'T WORRY ABOUT THAT. THIS ISN'T YOUR WITNESS ANYWAY.

MR. DARDEN: I'M HERE ARGUING THE ISSUE.

THE COURT: I'M SUSTAINING THE OBJECTION TO THE FORM THE QUESTION.

MR. COCHRAN: SURE. I UNDERSTAND.

THE COURT: YOU CAN ASK HIM IF HE KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT CUSTOM MADE GOLF BAGS. IF HE SAYS YES OR NO, WHAT IT SAYS.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, JUDGE. THANK YOU.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL. PROCEED.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY, YOUR HONOR.

Q: MR. PARK, SIR, WITH REGARD TO THIS BAG, THIS GOLF BAG COVERED WITH A SHEATH OF SOME KIND, ARE YOU ACQUAINTED WITH CUSTOM MADE GOLF BAGS? HAVE YOU SEEN THOSE BEFORE?

MR. COCHRAN: YES.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AND ARE YOU AWARE THAT THIS IS A CUSTOM MADE GOLF BAG?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I FINISH?

Q: ARE YOU AWARE THIS WAS A CUSTOM --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: FINISH THE QUESTION.

MS. CLARK: COUNSEL IS TESTIFYING.

THE COURT: FINISH THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ARE YOU AWARE THAT THIS IS A CUSTOM MADE GOLF BAG BY THE SWISS ARMY BRAND LIMITED?

THE COURT: DOES THIS APPEAR TO YOU TO BE?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION.

MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. YES, YOUR HONOR. STRIKE THAT. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DOES THIS APPEAR TO YOU TO BE A CUSTOM MADE GOLF BAG BY SWISS ARMY BRANDS LIMITED?

A: IT APPEARS TO BE.

Q: DO YOU KNOW OR DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MANY CUSTOM MADE GOLF BAGS WERE MADE LIKE THAT ONE BEFORE YOU THERE BY SWISS ARMY LIMITED?

A: I HAVE NO IDEA.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THESE CUSTOM MADE GOLF BAGS BY SWISS ARMY LIMITED WERE ONLY FOR SPECIAL CUSTOMERS?

A: I DON'T KNOW THAT EITHER.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE EVER COMMERCIALLY SOLD?

A: NO.

Q: NOW, YOU WERE ASKED A SERIES OF QUESTIONS BY MISS CLARK ABOUT WHAT WAS IN THESE VARIOUS BAGS AND YOU HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE AT ALL OF WHAT WAS IN THE BAGS; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: NO, I DON'T.

Q: AGAIN, YOUR JOB WAS TO GET THE BAGS AND THE CLIENT TO THE AIRPORT; IS THAT RIGHT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. ASKED AND ANSWERED NOW FOR THE FIFTH TIME.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: YES.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU SEE THE SKYCAP WHO WAITED ON YOU AND MR. SIMPSON THAT NIGHT OR WAS THERE A SKYCAP WHO WAITED ON YOU?

A: UMM, THERE WAS A FEW AROUND. I SAW HIM, BUT I WOULDN'T RECOGNIZE HIM.

Q: YOU DIDN'T RECOGNIZE HIM?

A: I MEAN, I WOULDN'T RECOGNIZE HIM NOW IF I SAW HIM.

Q: IF YOU SAW WHATEVER THIS INDIVIDUAL WAS -- IT WAS A MALE, I PRESUME?

A: YES.

Q: AND IF YOU SAW HIM AGAIN YOU WOULD NOT RECOGNIZE HIM? IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?

A: YES.

Q: AND WITH REGARD TO YOUR CONVERSATION WITH THE DETECTIVES TIPPIN AND CARR WHEN YOU BECAME AWARE THAT THEY WERE GOING TO LOOK IN THE BACK OF THE LIMOUSINE ON OR ABOUT THE 15TH OF JUNE, WHERE WAS THE LIMOUSINE AT THAT TIME?

A: IT WAS AT DALE ST. JOHN'S IN THE GARAGE.

Q: AND THAT IS WHERE YOU HAD TAKEN IT AFTER YOU DROPPED MR. SIMPSON OFF THAT PARTICULAR NIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT SWISS ARMY BRAND LIMITED MAKES ANY OTHER DECAL FOR GOLF -- FOR SPECIALLY MADE GOLF BAGS?

A: DO I -- I DON'T KNOW IF THEY DO OR NOT. UMM --

Q: ALL RIGHT.

A: I HAVE SEEN OTHER LABELS.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THEY MAKE ANY OTHER DECALS FOR THESE SPECIALLY MADE GOLF BAGS?

A: NO.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY, MR. PARK.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK.

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

THE COURT: SURE.

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

FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MS. CLARK:

Q: MR. PARK, DURING THE TIME THAT YOU SPENT WITH MR. SIMPSON ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE THE 12TH, WERE YOU LOOKING AT HIS HANDS?

MR. COCHRAN: ASKED AND ANSWERED, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MR. COCHRAN: IMPROPER REDIRECT.

THE COURT: NO. IT WAS ASKED ON RE-RECROSS.

THE WITNESS: NO, I WASN'T.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: SO IF HE HAD BEEN WEARING A BAND-AID, WOULD YOU HAVE NOTICED IT THEN?

A: NO.

Q: DID MR. SIMPSON -- AND WHEN YOU WERE AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION, SIR, BEFORE YOU -- BEFORE YOU SAW THE PERSON WALKING INTO THE FRONT ENTRANCE OF THE HOUSE AT ABOUT TEN -- BETWEEN 10:54 AND 10:55, HAD YOU BEEN LISTENING FOR FORD BRONCOS?

A: I WASN'T LISTENING FOR ANYTHING.

Q: SO COULD ONE HAVE DRIVEN BY EITHER ROCKINGHAM OR ASHFORD WITHOUT YOU NOTICING?

MR. COCHRAN: CALLS FOR SPECULATION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: REPEAT IT.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: COULD A FORD BRONCO HAVE DRIVEN BY ON EITHER ROCKINGHAM OR ASHFORD WITHOUT YOU NOTICING?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID MR. SIMPSON SEEM TO HAVE ANY TROUBLE LIFTING THAT GOLF BAG --

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: -- ONTO THE LUGGAGE CARRIER OR TAKING IT OUT OF THE TRUNK?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT. CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. BEYOND THE SCOPE.

MR. COCHRAN: BEYOND THE SCOPE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. SUSTAINED.

MS. CLARK: CAN WE APPROACH, YOUR HONOR, ON THE SCOPE ISSUE? IT WAS GONE INTO.

THE COURT: OKAY.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: SIDE BAR.

MS. CLARK: COUNSEL BROUGHT IT UP WHEN HE ASKED, WELL, DID HE SHARE WITH YOU HIS PAINS OR ACHES OR ARTHRITIC HISTORIES, HIS RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS, AND THAT IS OBVIOUSLY WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, IS HIS ABILITY TO LIFT THE GOLF BAG.

THE COURT: DIDN'T YOU ALREADY ASK THAT QUESTION ON OUR LAST ROUND?

MS. CLARK: NO. I ASKED WHETHER HE COMPLAINED OF ANY PAIN TO HIS BACK OR HIS SHOULDERS AND THEN COUNSEL SAID, BASICALLY, YOU WOULDN'T EXPECT TO HIM COMPLAIN TO YOU, WOULD YOU? HE DOESN'T KNOW YOU. THAT WAS THE ESSENCE OF HIS QUESTIONING. AND THEN IN RESPONSE, OKAY, WAS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT THE WAY HE MOVED OR LIFTED THAT GOLF BAG THAT SHOWED THAT HE WAS HAVING SOME DIFFICULTY DOING SO SOMETHING THAT HE COULD OBSERVE? AND IT IS A PROPER QUESTION ADDRESSING WHAT WAS DONE ON RE-RE-RECROSS.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I BE HEARD, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: WHAT HAPPENED WAS I ASKED ONLY THE QUESTION ABOUT DISCUSSING RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS OR WHATEVER AND NEVER WENT INTO LIFTING THE BAG. SHE ASKED THAT SAME QUESTION. SHE WENT OVER AND LIFTED THE BAG AND SAID, "WHEN HE LIFTED THIS BAG DID HE SAY ANYTHING," AND I DID NOT GO INTO THAT.

THE COURT: SHE DIDN'T ASK THAT SPECIFIC QUESTION.

MR. COCHRAN: SHE DID ASK THE QUESTION. LOOK AT THE RECORD.

THE COURT: NO, NO.

MR. COCHRAN: SHE ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT LIFTING THE BAG AND WHETHER HE COULD LIFT THE BAG.

THE COURT: I JUST WENT BACK AND CHECKED.

MR. COCHRAN: SHE ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT LIFTING THE BAG.

MS. CLARK: THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION I ASKED.

THE COURT: NOT AT THIS POINT. THE OBJECTION IS OVERRULED.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU. BRIEFLY.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

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

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHEN MR. SIMPSON PICKED UP THAT GOLF BAG OUT OF THE TRUNK OF THE LIMO AND PUT IT ONTO THE LUGGAGE CARRIER, DID HE SEEM TO HAVE ANY DIFFICULTY IN LIFTING IT?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THIS QUESTION, YOUR HONOR, "SEEMED TO HAVE DIFFICULTY." CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: NOT THAT I NOTICED, SIR.

MS. CLARK: NOTHING FURTHER.

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.

FURTHER RECROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. COCHRAN:

Q: WHEN HE LIFTED IT UP AND PLACED IT ON THIS LUGGAGE CART, YOU WEREN'T PAYING ATTENTION OF WHETHER OR NOT HE HAD DIFFICULTY, WERE YOU?

A: NO.

Q: YOU WERE THINKING IT IS NOW OVER AND YOU WERE GOING TO GO HOME; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, BEYOND THE SCOPE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: IT WAS 11:35 ON SUNDAY NIGHT AND I PRESUME YOU WANTED TO GET HOME?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. BEYOND THE SCOPE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU WENT HOME AFTER THAT DIDN'T YOU?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: YOU WOULD LIKE TO GO HOME NOW, WOULD YOU?

A: SURE WOULD.

MR. COCHRAN: RIGHT.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK.

FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MS. CLARK:

Q: DID YOU WATCH MR. SIMPSON AS HE PICKED IT UP OUT OF THE TRUNK AND PUT IT ON THE LUGGAGE CARRIER SIR?

MR. COCHRAN: ASKED AND ANSWERED.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I'M SURE I WAS WATCHING HIM, BUT I DIDN'T PAY ANY ATTENTION TO IT.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: YOU DIDN'T SEE HIM GRUNT OR GROAN OR MAKE ANY MOVEMENTS?

MR. COCHRAN: LEADING.

THE WITNESS: NO.

MR. COCHRAN: SUGGESTIVE. BEYOND THE SCOPE.

THE COURT: THE ANSWER WILL STAND. I THINK WE HAVE FINISHED THIS TOPIC, THOUGH.

MS. CLARK: THAT IS IT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. PARK, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING IN. I'M GOING TO EXCUSE YOU AT THIS TIME; HOWEVER, YOU ARE STILL SUBJECT TO BEING RECALLED AS A WITNESS. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT, SIR?

THE WITNESS: YES, I DO, SIR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DON'T DISCUSS YOUR TESTIMONY WITH ANYBODY EXCEPT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OR YOUR ATTORNEY ON THE CASE. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE ORDER?

THE WITNESS: YES, I DO.

THE COURT: YOUR NEXT WITNESS.

MR. DARDEN: HOW ABOUT JUDGE WONG.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. JUDGE WONG. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

DELBERT WONG, CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE PEOPLE, WAS SWORN AND TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:

THE CLERK: PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. YOU DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU MAY GIVE IN THE CAUSE NOW PENDING BEFORE THIS COURT, SHALL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD.

THE WITNESS: I DO

THE CLERK: PLEASE HAVE A SEAT ON THE WITNESS STAND AND STATE AND SPELL YOUR FIRST AND LAST NAMES FOR THE RECORD.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, MAY WE APPROACH JUST FOR A MOMENT BEFORE WE START?

THE COURT: SURE. WITHOUT THE REPORTER.

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

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON, JUDGE WONG.

THE WITNESS: GOOD AFTERNOON.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. DARDEN:

Q: GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR.

A: GOOD AFTERNOON.

MR. DARDEN: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, GOOD AFTERNOON.

Q: JUDGE WONG, YOU ARE A RETIRED SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE, SIR?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND IN CONNECTION WITH THIS CASE YOU HAVE BEEN ACTING AS A SPECIAL MASTER; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: THAT IS ALSO CORRECT.

Q: WHAT IS A SPECIAL MASTER, JUDGE?

A: A SPECIAL MASTER IS A PERSON WHO IS APPOINTED TO CARRY OUT CERTAIN SPECIFIC ASSIGNMENTS.

Q: OKAY. AND IN THIS CASE WERE YOU GIVEN AN ASSIGNMENT BY JUDGE ITO?

A: THAT IS CORRECT.

Q: OKAY. AND WERE YOU GIVEN AN ASSIGNMENT DIRECTING YOU TO RETRIEVE CERTAIN ITEMS ON MARCH 28, 1995?

A: THAT IS CORRECT.

Q: AND SHOWING YOU OR RATHER DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE GOLF BAG IN FRONT OF YOU, DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1063, DO YOU RECOGNIZE THIS BAG?

A: YES.

Q: ON WHAT DATE AND AT WHAT TIME DID YOU RECOVER THAT BAG?

A: I RECOVERED THE BAG YESTERDAY.

Q: OKAY. WHAT TIME OF THE DAY, IF YOU RECALL?

A: ABOUT FOUR O'CLOCK.

Q: WHO ELSE WAS PRESENT?

A: MR. KARDASHIAN.

Q: THE GENTLEMAN STANDING HERE, (INDICATING)?

A: YES.

Q: ONE OF MR. SIMPSON'S LAWYERS, ROBERT KARDASHIAN?

A: YES.

Q: AND FROM WHERE -- FROM WHAT LOCATION DID YOU RECOVER THAT BAG?

A: THIS WAS IN THE GARAGE AT 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM.

Q: DID SOMEONE POINT THAT BAG OUT TO YOU?

A: YES. MR. KARDASHIAN DID.

Q: YOU DIDN'T SEARCH THE GARAGE, I TAKE IT?

A: PARDON?

Q: YOU DIDN'T SEARCH THE GARAGE?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: YOU DIDN'T SEARCH ANY PORTION OF THE HOUSE?

A: NO, THAT WAS NOT MY ASSIGNMENT.

Q: YOUR ASSIGNMENT WAS TO GO SEE MR. KARDASHIAN WHO WOULD POINT OUT CERTAIN ITEMS TO YOU?

A: AND I WAS TO TAKE POSSESSION OF THOSE ITEMS.

Q: AND SHOWING WHAT YOU HAS BEEN MARKED DEFENDANT'S 1062, A LOUIS VITTON GARMENT BAG, SIR --

A: YES.

Q: -- DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT BAG?

A: YES, I RECOGNIZE IT.

Q: OKAY. AND YOU RECOVERED THAT BAG YESTERDAY?

A: YES.

Q: FROM WHERE, SIR?

A: THIS WAS FROM THE SECOND STORY MASTER BEDROOM. IT WAS IN A CLOSET TO THE -- TO THE RIGHT OF THE VANITY.

Q: OKAY. WAS IT ON A SHELF IN THE CLOSET?

A: IT WAS ON THE TOP SHELF.

Q: WAS THAT BAG POINTED OUT TO YOU BY MR. KARDASHIAN?

A: YES.

Q: WERE THERE OTHER LOUIS VITTON BAGS SIMILAR TO THAT?

A: I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WERE LOUIS VITTONS, BUT THERE WERE SEVERAL OTHER BAGS, VARIOUS SORTS, IN THE CLOSET.

Q: OKAY. BUT THAT PARTICULAR BAG WAS POINTED OUT TO YOU BY MR. KARDASHIAN?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AT THE DEFENDANT'S HOUSE?

A: YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: WAS THERE ANYTHING INSIDE THE BAG WHEN MR. KARDASHIAN POINTED IT OUT TO YOU?

A: NO. I DID NOT OPEN THE BAG. THE BAG IS INTACT.

Q: OKAY. YOU DID NOT OPEN THE GOLF BAG?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: SO YOU DELIVERED THESE BAGS TO THE COURT IN THE CONDITION IN WHICH YOU FOUND THEM, SIR?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: SHOWING YOU WHAT HAS BEEN MARKED DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1065, A BLACK GARMENT BAG OR SUIT BAG, DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT BAG, SIR?

A: YES. THIS IS THE GARMENT BAG THAT WE RECOVERED FROM THE MASTER BEDROOM.

Q: AT THE DEFENDANT'S HOUSE?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHERE IN THE DEFENDANT'S HOUSE WAS THAT BAG?

A: IT WAS IN A CLOSET TO THE LEFT OF A TELEVISION IN THE DEFENDANT'S MASTER BEDROOM.

Q: AND THAT WAS POINTED OUT TO YOU BY MR. KARDASHIAN?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AND TO GO BACK TO THE GOLF CLUBS FOR A MOMENT, DID YOU RECOVER THOSE GOLF CLUBS FROM THE DEFENDANT'S HOUSE OR FROM MR. KARDASHIAN'S HOUSE?

A: NO. THE GOLF CLUBS -- NO, YOU ARE RIGHT. THE GOLF CLUBS CAME FROM MR. KARDASHIAN'S HOUSE.

Q: OKAY. IN ENCINO?

A: IN ENCINO.

Q: AND THEY WERE IN THE GARAGE?

A: YES.

Q: IN MR. KARDASHIAN'S GARAGE?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU KNOW HOW THEY CAME TO END UP IN MR. KARDASHIAN'S GARAGE?

A: NO.

Q: AND DO YOU KNOW THE HISTORY OR THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY REGARDING ANY OF THESE ITEMS?

A: NO, I DO NOT.

Q: YOU DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY WERE PRIOR TO YOUR RECOVERY?

MR. COCHRAN: ASKED AND ANSWERED, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: THAT'S CORRECT.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU, SIR.

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. COCHRAN:

Q: MR. COCHRAN: GOOD AFTERNOON, JUDGE WONG.

A: GOOD AFTERNOON.

Q: AS A SPECIAL MASTER, YOU WORK ALONG WITH JUDGE ITO TO RETRIEVE CERTAIN ITEMS OF EVIDENCE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: YOU HAVE BEEN A SPECIAL MASTER IN THIS CASE FOR SOME TIME NOW, HAVE YOU NOT?

A: YES. SINCE JUNE, I BELIEVE.

Q: JUNE OF 1994?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND YOU RETRIEVED OTHER ITEMS OF EVIDENCE; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. IRRELEVANT, YOUR HONOR.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO GO INTO --

THE COURT: I WOULD LIKE TO LET THAT STAND.

MR. COCHRAN: I WOULD LIKE TO ASK HIM SOME QUESTIONS AND I WOULD LIKE TO APPROACH BEFORE I ASK THOSE QUESTIONS.

THE COURT: LET'S APPROACH THE SIDE BAR.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, WHERE ARE YOU GOING NOW?

MR. COCHRAN: WHERE I WOULD LIKE TO GO IS I WOULD LIKE TO HIM ASK -- HE IS GOING TO BE AWAY ANYWAY. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK HIM ABOUT THE RECOVERY OF THE KNIFE AT ROCKINGHAM, MAKE HIM MY OWN WITNESS. HE IS A COURT'S WITNESS ANYWAY. ASK HIM WHERE HE RECOVERED IT AND WHEN HE RECOVERED IT AND SAVE HIM HAVING TO COME BACK.

MR. DARDEN: THE REASON I DIDN'T ASK HIM ABOUT THAT IS BECAUSE THE KNIFE IS IRRELEVANT, COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT, SINCE IT ISN'T THE MURDER WEAPON, BUT YOU KNOW, I KNOW HOW MR. COCHRAN LIKES TO PLAY TO THE PUBLIC ON THESE ISSUES. BUT IT EXCEEDS DIRECT, IT IS IRRELEVANT AND IT IS AN ISSUE THAT I THOUGHT WE HAD ALL AGREED THAT WE WOULD LITIGATE AT SOME FUTURE POINT. JUDGE WONG WILL BE BACK IN TOWN TUESDAY. MR. COCHRAN, HE WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR YOUR DEFENSE CASE IF YOU WANT TO ATTEMPT TO PUT IN A KNIFE THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CASE.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL --

MR. DARDEN: IN ANY EVENT, WE STRENUOUSLY OBJECT. IT IS HIGHLY IMPROPER. LET HIM PUT ON A DEFENSE, JUDGE. LET HIM PUT ON THEIR OWN DEFENSE, CALL WHATEVER WITNESSES YOU THINK ARE APPROPRIATE WHEN THE TIME COMES, MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: OKAY.

MR. DARDEN: BUT DON'T TRY TO USE US.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I -- IF THEY COULD TRY NOT TO BE PERSONAL, I AM TRYING TO ADDRESS THE REMARK TO YOU, NOT TO THEM, AND WHAT I AM INDICATING TO THE COURT IS THAT THIS WILL BE AN APPROPRIATE TIME. I ASKED TO APPROACH. UNLIKE THEM, I DIDN'T ASK QUESTIONS OUT THERE. I APPROACHED THE BENCH AND ASKED YOU TO GO INTO THIS. THIS IS RELEVANT, VERY RELEVANT, BECAUSE THE SPECIAL MASTER IS APPOINTED BY YOU. AND FURTHERMORE, THERE IS GOING TO BE TESTIMONY FROM THIS CORONER. THE CORONER COMPARED THESE KNIVES, SO THEY MAY WANT TO LIMIT WHATEVER -- THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT HIDING EVIDENCE, THEY MAY WANT TO LIMIT WHAT IS RELEVANT, BUT IT IS GOING TO BE VERY RELEVANT, YOUR HONOR. THE CORONER TESTED THIS PARTICULAR KNIFE FROM ROSS CUTLERY AND COMPARED IT WITH THE WOUND AND FOUND IT WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE WOUND. THE FACT THAT THEY FIND OUT NOW THAT IT WAS A THEORY THAT DIDN'T WORK DOESN'T MEAN IT CAN'T BE PART OF THIS TRIAL, SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT I CAN BRING OUT, WHILE HE IS HERE, THAT HE DID RECOVER A KNIFE AT SOME POINT.

HE CALLED A PARTICULAR OFFICER WHO RECOVERED THE KNIFE. WE ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO INTRODUCE THAT KNIFE. AND I JUST WANT TO BRING OUT THE FACT THAT HE DID IN FACT, AS A SPECIAL MASTER, RECOVER THE KNIFE EARLIER.

THE COURT: UH-HUH.

MR. COCHRAN: I WILL ASK LEAVE TO MAKE HIM MY OWN WITNESS FOR THAT PURPOSE.

MS. CLARK: DURING OUR CASE.

MR. DARDEN: IF YOU DO THAT --

THE COURT: THE COURT HAS DISCRETION TO DETERMINE THE OFFER -- THE ORDER OF PROOF, AND I THINK IT WOULD BE AT THIS POINT COMPLETELY OUT OF LOGICAL ORDER TO GO INTO THOSE ISSUES NOW, SO I'M GOING TO SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION. JUDGE WONG IS AVAILABLE AND WILL BE AVAILABLE TO ANY OF THE PARTIES DURING THE COURSE OF THEIR PRESENTATION OF THE CASE. THE OBJECTION IS SUSTAINED.

MR. COCHRAN: BRING HIM BACK WHEN IT IS OUR PART OF THE CASE. THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING TO ME?

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SUSTAINED.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL. MR. COCHRAN, DO YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS?

MR. COCHRAN: JUST A FEW OTHER QUESTIONS, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU VERY KINDLY.

Q: JUDGE WONG, IN THIS INSTANCE YOU WERE REQUESTED TO MEET MR. ROBERT KARDASHIAN YESTERDAY AT ABOUT THREE O'CLOCK TO RETRIEVE -- THREE O'CLOCK AT MR. SIMPSON'S HOME TO RETRIEVE CERTAIN ITEMS LOCATED THERE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: BY THE WAY, WITH REGARD TO THE LOUIS VITTON BAG, DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS ANY LUGGAGE TAG ON THAT BAG?

A: YES, THERE ARE SOME LUGGAGE TAGS.

Q: AND THIS LUGGAGE TAG ON HERE IS APPARENTLY FROM AMERICAN AIRLINES, IS IT NOT?

A: YES, AMERICAN AIRLINES, AND THE TAG INDICATES "CHICAGO O'HARE AIRPORT."

Q: AND HAS A FLIGHT NUMBER SOMEWHERE ON THERE I PRESUME?

A: 668.

Q: AND WAS THAT LUGGAGE TAG ON THAT BAG WHEN IT WAS POINTED OUT TO YOU IN MR. SIMPSON'S CLOSET?

A: YES, IT WAS.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THEN YOU THEN BROUGHT THAT LUGGAGE IN ITS PRESENT FORM TO COURT THIS MORNING, AS I UNDERSTAND IT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND THE -- DO YOU RECALL A GARMENT BAG, THE BLACK GARMENT BAG ON TOP OF THIS WAS ALSO FOUND IN ONE OF MR. SIMPSON'S CLOSETS; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT IS CORRECT.

Q: THE GOLF BAG HERE THAT I AM NOW TOUCHING, THE SWISS ARMY LOGO SO THAT WE ARE CLEAR FOR THE RECORD, THAT BAG WAS ALSO FOUND IN MR. KARDASHIAN'S GARAGE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, THAT WAS IN MR. KARDASHIAN'S GARAGE.

Q: AND YOU ACCOMPANIED HIM TO THAT LOCATION; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT IS CORRECT.

Q: AND WITH REGARD TO THAT BAG ALSO, IT HAS A PARTICULAR FLIGHT NUMBER, DOES IT NOT?

A: YES. AMERICAN AIRLINE FLIGHT 1103.

Q: AND DOES IT SHOW WHERE 1103 FLEW INTO?

A: LOS ANGELES.

Q: SO THESE ITEMS ARE IN THE SAME CONDITION THEY WERE IN WHEN YOU FOUND THEM; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT IS CORRECT.

Q: IF I WERE TO HOLD UP THIS ITEM HERE, THIS BLACK BAG HERE --

MR. DARDEN: 352 OBJECTION.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: -- ASK YOU TO HOLD THIS BLACK BAG UP HERE --

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU MAKE RECOVERY OF THIS BAG?

A: PARDON?

Q: DID YOU MAKE RECOVERY OF THIS BAG?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

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

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YOU MAY.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, JUDGE WONG.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. DARDEN, ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR JUDGE WONG?

MR. DARDEN: JUST A FEW, YOUR HONOR.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. DARDEN:

Q: JUDGE, THE GARMENT BAG SHOWS FLIGHT NUMBER --

A: THE GARMENT BAG SHOWS FLIGHT 668 AMERICAN AIRLINES FROM -- TO CHICAGO O'HARE.

Q: THAT IS TO CHICAGO; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT IS CORRECT.

Q: NOT TO LOS ANGELES?

A: THAT IS WHAT IT SAYS, CHICAGO.

Q: OKAY. AND SHOWING YOU THE GOLF BAG, WHAT IS THE FLIGHT NUMBER ON THIS BAG?

A: AMERICAN AIRLINES 1103 LAX.

Q: SO THE GARMENT BAG AND THE GOLF BAG THEN SHOW TAGS FOR DIFFERENT FLIGHTS; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: YOU ARE AWARE THAT THE MURDERS OCCURRED ON JUNE 12, 1994?

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD OBJECT. THAT IS BEYOND THE SCOPE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: WELL, IS THERE A DATE AND TIME STAMP ON THE GARMENT BAG TAG?

A: THE DATE IS JUNE 13TH ON THE GARMENT BAG.

Q: AND IS THERE A TIME AS WELL ON THAT TAG?

A: 2332, WHICH IS JUST A LITTLE BEFORE MIDNIGHT.

Q: ON JUNE 13?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

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

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: AND IS THAT MILITARY TIME?

A: THAT IS MILITARY TIME.

Q: 11:32 P.M.

A: 11:32.

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

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: JUDGE, DO YOU SEE A DATE ON THE TAG FOR THE GOLF BAG?

A: GOLF BAG BEARS THE DATE -- THE TIME IS 0921, 13TH OF JUNE.

Q: THE GOLF BAG THEN APPARENTLY WAS BOOKED AT 9:20 A.M. ON JUNE 13TH?

A: THAT IS CORRECT.

Q: BY THE WAY, YOUR RETRIEVAL OF THESE -- THOSE BAGS OR THESE ITEMS, THAT WAS MADE PURSUANT TO A DEFENSE REQUEST; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: THAT WAS MY INSTRUCTIONS WERE FROM JUDGE ITO.

MR. DARDEN: OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR.

MR. COCHRAN: ONE LAST QUESTION.

THE COURT: ONE LAST QUESTION.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, MAYBE TWO.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. COCHRAN:

Q: JUDGE WONG, WITH REGARD TO THESE ITEMS, SO THAT WE ARE CLEAR, ABUNDANTLY CLEAR, THESE ITEMS WERE PICKED UP BY YOU HERE IN LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU.

FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. DARDEN:

Q: YESTERDAY?

A: YESTERDAY, THAT'S CORRECT.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU, SIR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. JUDGE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU ARE EXCUSED, SIR.

AND MR. DARDEN, CAN I GET YOU TO COLLECT THOSE ITEMS AND GIVE THEM BACK TO MRS. ROBERTSON. THANK YOU.

MR. DARDEN: CAN WE APPROACH REGARDING THE NEXT WITNESS?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE ARE OVER AT THE SIDE BAR. WHO IS NEXT?

MR. DARDEN: I WOULD LIKE TO CALL MR. KARDASHIAN TO TESTIFY AT THIS TIME.

MR. COCHRAN: DARDEN KNOWS THAT HE IS A LAWYER. WE HAVE A CONFLICT. HIS LAWYER IS NOT HERE. THEY CAN GO ON UNTIL HIS LAWYER COMES.

MR. DARDEN: WE NEED TO AUTHENTICATE A TAPE REGARDING HIS TAKING POSSESSION OF A GARMENT BAG THE MORNING MR. SIMPSON ARRIVED. IN ADDITION, WE NOW HAVE THIS EVIDENCE BEFORE THE JURY, EVIDENCE THAT WE JUST SAW TODAY, AND IT IS ONLY LOGICAL I THINK AT THIS POINT --

THE COURT: WHEN -- WHEN WILL MR. KARDASHIAN HAVE HIS LAWYER HERE?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. COCHRAN: I COULDN'T HEAR YOU.

THE COURT: WHEN WILL MR. KARDASHIAN HAVE HIS LAWYER HERE?

MR. COCHRAN: I DON'T KNOW. I TOLD CHRIS TO HAVE DARDEN -- WHEN HE CAME DOWN, I SAID WE DIDN'T REPRESENT HIM. JANET LEVINE IS HIS LAWYER AND HE HAS GOT TO FIND OUT. THAT IS UP TO THEM, YOUR HONOR; IT IS NOT UP TO ME. THEY CAN PROCEED WITH SOME OTHER WITNESSES AND THEN GET TO IT.

THE COURT: I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANY GREAT HARM TO FINISHING OUT THE REST OF THE COURT DAY HERE.

MR. COCHRAN: WORK IT OUT. I TOLD MR. DARDEN TO CALL JANET LEVINE.

MR. DARDEN: I INTEND TO CALL HIM. THEY ARE HARASSING US. I INTEND TO CALL HIM. HE HAS MADE HIMSELF A WITNESS IN THIS CASE BY TAKING POSSESSION OF ALL THIS STUFF.

MR. COCHRAN: I AM TALKING TO YOU. I DON'T TALK -- OKAY. I'M DIRECTING MY COMMENTS TO THE COURT.

MR. DARDEN: HE HAS MADE HIMSELF A WITNESS. IT IS NOT OUR FAULT. YOU HAVE INTRODUCED THIS STUFF TO THE JURY AT THIS TIME -- POINT IN TIME AND IT IS ONLY LOGICAL TO CALL HIM.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN, I AGREE WITH YOU THAT YOU ARE PROBABLY ENTITLED TO PURSUE THIS AREA. I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT. BUT JUST AS A MATTER OF COURTESY, COUNSEL IS -- MR. KARDASHIAN IS ENTITLED TO CONSULT WITH HIS ATTORNEY SINCE HE WAS NOTIFIED THIS AFTERNOON THAT HE IS GOING TO BE A WITNESS. HE IS ENTITLED TO CONSULT WITH HIS ATTORNEY. I WOULD EXTEND TO YOU THE SAME COURTESY, SO LET'S JUST FINISH OUT THE 55 MINUTES WE'VE GOT.

MR. DARDEN: OKAY. I APPRECIATE THAT.

MS. CLARK: ALL THE LAWYERS IN THIS COURTROOM, THERE IS NO ONE WHO COULD POSSIBLY ASSIST?

THE COURT: BUT THEY HAVE --

MS. CLARK: THE LAWYER'S RIGHT TO --

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, OBVIOUSLY THERE IS A CONFLICT HERE. THAT IS EASILY APPARENT.

MR. DARDEN: WELL, YOU KNOW --

THE COURT: SO --

MR. DARDEN: YOU WOULD THINK THAT THEY WOULD HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THAT BEFORE INTRODUCING --

THE COURT: YOU WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT, BUT THAT IS ANOTHER QUESTION.

MR. COCHRAN: YOU WOULD HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT IT. WE THOUGHT YOU GUYS WOULD HAVE HAD THAT BY NOW.

MR. DARDEN: IT IS NOT THE BAG.

THE COURT: WHO IS YOUR NEXT WITNESS?

MR. DARDEN: O.J. KNOWS IT.

MS. CLARK: JAMES WILLIAMS, THE SKYCAP. SHOULD BE BRIEF.

THE COURT: IS HE AVAILABLE?

MS. CLARK: HE IS RIGHT HERE. WHO DO YOU HAVE AFTER THIS?

MR. DARDEN: AFTER THIS WE HAVE THE WOMAN FROM WESTEC TO TALK ABOUT WHERE THE SENSORS ARE.

MR. COCHRAN: COULD WE HAVE AN OFFER OF PROOF ON THAT, YOUR HONOR? OFFER OF PROOF?

THE COURT: WHY IS THAT RELEVANT?

MR. COCHRAN: I DON'T UNDERSTAND.

MR. DARDEN: THAT HE HAS AN ALARM SYSTEM AND THAT HE CAN'T GO THROUGH THE SOUTH SIDE DOORS BECAUSE OF AN ALARM SYSTEM.

MR. COCHRAN: CAN'T DO WHAT?

MR. DARDEN: HE CAN'T ENTER THE HOUSE THROUGH THE LAUNDRY ROOM DOOR OR THE SIDE GARAGE DOOR ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE BECAUSE OF THE ALARM SYSTEM.

MR. COCHRAN: YOU CAN STILL ENTER. I SUPPOSE THE ALARM WILL GO OFF.

MS. CLARK: HE IS SET ON THIS DOING THIS.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT IS A MAJOR POINT. THAT IS IF THE ALARM IS ON. WHAT IF THE ALARM IS NOT ON.

MR. DARDEN: IF IT IS ON. HE ALWAYS TURNS IT ON BEFORE HE LEAVES THE HOUSE.

MR. COCHRAN: THIS IS NOT PERSONAL. I THINK AN OFFER OF PROOF --

MS. CLARK: THAT IS IT.

THE COURT: LET'S SEE.

MS. CLARK: THEY HAVE KNOWN ABOUT THIS WITNESS FOR A VERY LONG TIME. ONLY AT THIS MOMENT WE ARE TALKING --

THE COURT: LET'S SEE THE SKYCAP.

MR. COCHRAN: IT IS NOT RELEVANT UNTIL YOU GET TO --

MS. CLARK: CAN I JUST ASK THAT WE GET A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK BEFORE WE GET TO THAT? GO TO THE BATHROOM.

THE COURT: OKAY. WE WILL TAKE A BREAK RIGHT NOW.

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR -- AND OFF THE RECORD.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A TEN-MINUTE COURT REPORTER COMFORT BREAK. REMEMBER MY ADMONITION. PLEASE STEP BACK IN THE JURY ROOM. AND COUNSEL, THAT IS TEN MINUTES.

(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. ARE THE PEOPLE READY TO CALL THEIR NEXT WITNESS?

MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE THE JURY, PLEASE.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. BE SEATED. ALL RIGHT. LET THE RECORD REFLECT WE HAVE NOW BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL. THE PEOPLE MAY CALL THEIR NEXT WITNESS.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THE PEOPLE CALL MR. JAMES WILLIAMS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. WILLIAMS, COME FORWARD. FACE THE CLERK, PLEASE.

JAMES WILLIAMS, CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE PEOPLE, WAS SWORN AND TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:

THE CLERK: PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. YOU DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU MAY GIVE IN THE CAUSE NOW PENDING BEFORE THIS COURT, SHALL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD.

THE WITNESS: YES.

THE CLERK: PLEASE HAVE A SEAT ON THE WITNESS STAND AND STATE AND SPELL YOUR FIRST AND LAST NAMES FOR THE RECORD.

THE WITNESS: YOU SAID SPELL MY FIRST NAME?

THE CLERK: AND LAST NAME.

THE WITNESS: JAMES WILLIAMS, J-A-M-E-S. WILLIAMS, W-I-L-L-I-A-M-S.

THE CLERK: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. WILLIAMS.

THE WITNESS: GOOD AFTERNOON.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MS. CLARK:

Q: GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. WILLIAMS.

A: GOOD AFTERNOON.

Q: A LITTLE BIT NERVOUS?

A: YES.

Q: WOULD YOU LIKE SOME WATER?

A: IS THE WATER FRESH?

Q: IS IT SOMEONE ELSE'S?

A: I'M THIRSTY. THE WATER OUT THERE IS HOT.

THE COURT: IT IS NOT HOT, IT IS TOXIC.

THE WITNESS: IT TASTES LIKE METAL. IT TASTES LIKE METAL.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: BUT YOU ARE STILL ALIVE?

A: RIGHT.

Q: WE WILL GET SOME GOOD WATER.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: SIR, AS OF JUNE 12, 1994, WHERE WERE YOU EMPLOYED?

A: AT LAX AT AMERICAN AIRLINES WHERE I'M A SKYCAP, CONTRACTED OUT FROM AMERICAN EMPLOYED BY HUNTLEY.

Q: EMPLOYED BY?

A: HUNTLEIGH, HUNTLEIGH USC.

Q: CAN YOU SPELL THAT, SIR, HUNTLEIGH?

A: HUNTLEIGH, CAPITAL H-U-N-T-L-E-I-G-H.

Q: OKAY. YOU CONTRACTED OUT THROUGH THEM TO WORK AS A SKYCAP FOR AMERICAN AIRLINES?

A: UH-HUH.

Q: IS THAT YES?

A: YES.

Q: YOU HAVE TO SAY YES OR NO FOR THE REPORTER.

A: OKAY.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WHAT WERE YOUR DUTIES AS A SKYCAP?

A: CHECKS BAGS FOR PASSENGERS, BAG ASSISTANCE, CHECK BAGS ON THE CURB, CURB SIDE, PASSENGER ASSISTANCE.

Q: AND HOW LONG HAD YOU BEEN WORKING AS A SKYCAP AS OF JUNE 12, 1994?

A: AS A SKYCAP ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF.

Q: WHAT TIME -- WHAT WERE YOUR WORK TIMES BACK THEN?

A: UMM, AT THAT TIME I HAD A STRAIGHT SEVEN O'CLOCK SHIFT. IT WAS 7:00 IN THE EVENING TO 2:00 IN THE MORNING.

Q: AND ON THE DATE OF JUNE THE 12TH, 1994, DID YOU START WORK AT 7:00 P.M.?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND WERE YOU STILL AT WORK AT ABOUT 11:30 P.M.

A: YES, I WAS.

Q: DID SOMEONE APPROACH YOU AT ABOUT 11:30 P.M. TO ASK YOU FOR HELP WITH SOME BAGS THAT YOU HAPPEN TO RECALL?

A: YES.

Q: CAN YOU PLEASE TELL US WHAT HAPPENED IN THAT REGARD?

A: YOU WANT ME TO TELL YOU WHAT HAPPENED AFTER --

Q: FIRST TELL ME DO YOU RECALL A YOUNG CAUCASIAN MAN COMING UP TO YOU AND ASKING YOU FOR HELP WITH BAGS?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT HAPPENED AFTER HE ASKED YOU FOR HELP?

A: WELL, HE ASKED ME FOR HELP AND I WAS HELPING SOMEONE AT THE TIME, SO I TOLD HIM I WOULD BE WITH HIM IN A MINUTE AND HE SEEMED -- HE WENT INSIDE.

HE SEEMED A LITTLE HURRIED BECAUSE HE WANTED TO GET THE BAGS CHECKED, I GUESS, AND SO HE WENT -- HE RAN INSIDE TO GO GET A CART SO HE COULD GET THEM AND THEN HE WENT BACK TO THE LIMOUSINE.

Q: DID YOU SEE HIM GET A CART, SIR?

A: I DIDN'T SEE HIM GET IT, BUT I SAW HIM WITH IT AFTER HE CAME BACK OUT.

Q: OKAY.

A: BECAUSE I WAS HELPING SOMEBODY SO I DIDN'T PAY THAT MUCH ATTENTION TO HIM AFTER THAT.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU SEE WHERE HE TOOK THAT CART TO?

A: HE TOOK IT TO THE LIMO.

Q: YOU SAW A LIMO?

A: YES.

Q: HOW FAR WAS THAT LIMO FROM YOUR -- YOUR PODIUM?

A: I WOULD HAVE TO SAY IT WAS ABOUT 20 YARDS -- 20, 25 YARDS.

Q: 25 YARDS. 20 TO 25 YARDS?

A: YEAH, IT WAS A GOOD -- 25 YARDS.

Q: OKAY. AND AFTER YOU SAW HIM TAKE THE LUGGAGE CARRIER OVER TO THE LIMO, WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

A: WELL, I REALLY -- I JUST SAW HIM TAKE THE LUGGAGE CART OVER THERE. I DIDN'T REALLY PAY ATTENTION TO HIM GETTING THE BAGS OUT, BECAUSE I WAS HELPING SOMEONE, SO I JUST FINISHED HELPING WHO I WAS HELPING AND THEN, YOU KNOW, I WAS ALMOST FINISHED WITH THE PERSON I WAS HELPING AND I SAW HIM WALKING BACK UP.

Q: THE SAME GUY?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN HE CAME WALKING BACK UP, DID HE HAVE A LUGGAGE CARRIER WITH HIM?

A: YES, HE HAD THE LITTLE CART WITH THE BAGS ON IT.

Q: AND WHAT BAGS WERE ON THAT CART, SIR?

A: HE HAD A GOLF BAG AND TWO OTHER BAGS. NO HE HAD A GOLF BAG AND ONE OTHER BAG.

Q: CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE GOLF BAG?

A: IT WAS A DARK-COLORED GOLF BAG, DARK-COLORED GOLF BAG. IT WAS --

Q: COULD IT HAVE BEEN -- WHEN YOU SAY "DARK-COLORED," DOES THAT INCLUDE NAVY BLUE OR BLACK?

A: NAVY BLUE, BLACK.

MR. COCHRAN: 1063.

MS. CLARK: 1063? IS IT MARKED?

MR. COCHRAN: 1063.

MS. CLARK: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: SURE.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: SHOWING YOU WHAT HAS BEEN MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S 1063, SIR, CAN YOU TELL US, PLEASE, IF YOU RECOGNIZE THIS PARTICULAR BAG, SIR?

A: YEAH. THAT IS A BLACK GOLF BAG. I MEAN, I DIDN'T PAY THAT -- I MEAN, I DIDN'T JUST ANALYZE THE BAG. I JUST CHECKED IT.

Q: YOU DIDN'T ANALYZE IT; YOU JUST CHECKED IT?

A: I JUST CHECKED IT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO CAN YOU TELL US WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS ONE OF THE BAGS ON THE LUGGAGE CARRIER THAT THE YOUNG MAN HAD?

A: I WOULD SAY THAT IS ONE OF THE BAGS, YES.

Q: PARDON?

A: YES, THAT COULD BE THE GOLF BAG.

Q: IT COULD BE?

A: YES. LIKE I SAY, I DIDN'T MEMORIZE -- LOOK AT THE GOLF BAG THAT CLOSELY, BUT --

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

Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND THERE WAS SOME OTHER BAG ON THE LUGGAGE CARRIER AS WELL, SIR?

A: YEAH.

Q: AND COULD YOU DESCRIBE THAT BAG?

A: IT WAS LIKE -- FROM WHAT I REMEMBER IT WAS A HANGING BAG.

Q: BY "HANGING BAG" DO YOU MEAN A GARMENT BAG?

A: YEAH, HANGING CLOTHES. IF YOU DON'T WANT TO GET MESSED UP, IT FOLDS OVER.

Q: IT CAN BE FOLDED BUT IT CAN HANG STRAIGHT?

A: YEAH.

Q: DO YOU RECALL WHAT THAT LOOKED LIKE?

A: THE SAME WITH THE GOLF BAG. I MEAN, IT WAS -- IT WAS JUST A REGULAR BAG. I MEAN, I SEE SO MANY, I MEAN, THAT IS WHY I DIDN'T PAY A WHOLE LOT OF ATTENTION TO IT, BUT I JUST KNOW IT WAS ANOTHER BAG THERE.

Q: DO YOU REMEMBER WHETHER IT WAS ONE OF THESE DESIGNER BAGS OR NOT THAT HAD THOSE LOGOS ON IT?

A: I COULDN'T TELL YOU.

Q: OKAY. SO WHO WAS PUSHING THE LUGGAGE CARRIER, SIR?

A: A CAUCASIAN MAN.

Q: AND WAS THERE SOMEONE ELSE WITH THAT YOUNG CAUCASIAN MAN?

A: I DIDN'T NOTICE. I DIDN'T NOTICE THE OTHER PERSON AT FIRST. HE WAS STANDING LIKE OUT OF MY SIGHT. WHEN I FIRST TURNED I WAS FACING THE PODIUM HELPING THE PEOPLE I WAS HELPING, AND THEN AFTER I FINISHED WITH THEM I TURNED TO MY LEFT AND I ASKED HIM IF HE NEEDED HELP AND THEN IT WAS AT THAT TIME THAT I NOTICED IN MY PERIPHERAL VISION I COULD SEE SOMEONE ELSE STANDING THERE AND --

Q: COULD YOU SEE WHO THAT WAS?

A: YES.

Q: WHO WAS THAT?

A: MR. SIMPSON.

Q: IS THAT SOMEONE YOU SEE IN COURT TODAY, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. CAN YOU POINT HIM OUT?

A: MR. SIMPSON, (INDICATING).

THE COURT: INDICATING THE DEFENDANT.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU.

THE WITNESS: MR. SIMPSON.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: OKAY. AND WAS HE CARRYING -- WAS MR. SIMPSON CARRYING ANYTHING WHEN YOU SAW HIM?

A: YES, HE HAD A BAG.

Q: WHAT KIND OF BAG?

A: LIKE A LITTLE DUFFLE -- DUFFEL BAG.

Q: A DUFFEL BAG?

A: YEAH.

Q: AND WHAT COLOR WAS IT?

A: I DIDN'T -- IT WAS DARK-COLORED, TOO, FROM WHAT I REMEMBER. I DIDN'T -- LIKE I SAID, I DIDN'T, YOU KNOW, PAY SPECIFIC ATTENTION TO IT.

Q: OKAY. COULD YOU TELL US, SIR, HOW HE WAS CARRYING THAT DUFFEL BAG? IN HIS HAND OR ON HIS SHOULDER?

A: WHEN I SAW HIM IT WAS ON HIS SHOULDER.

Q: ON HIS SHOULDER?

A: YEAH.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, DID YOU PERSONALLY CHECK ANY OF THE BAGS FOR THE YOUNG MAN OR MR. SIMPSON?

A: YEAH. I CHECKED TWO BAGS.

Q: WHAT BAGS DID YOU CHECK?

A: THE GOLF CLUB AND THE LIKE HANGING BAG.

Q: NOW, WHEN YOU CHECK BAGS IN, SIR, COULD YOU PUT -- CREATE SOME PAPERWORK TO GO TAG THEM IN ANY WAY?

A: WELL, YOU HAVE TO PULL THE TAGS FROM THE COMPUTER AND THEY ARE AUTOMATIC, THEY JUST COME OUT WHEN YOU PULL THEM OUT, AND YOU JUST PUT THEM ON THE BAGS.

Q: OKAY. NOW, THE TAGS THAT COME OUT OF THAT COMPUTER, SIR, ARE THEY STAMPED WITH DATE AND TIME?

A: UMM, YES, THEY ARE. THEY ARE.

Q: AND WHEN -- TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, SIR, ARE TAGS PLACED ON -- STRIKE THAT. WHEN YOU PLACE THE TAGS ON THE BAG THAT YOU ARE CHECKING, DOES IT REFLECT THE DATE AND TIME AT WHICH YOU PLACE THOSE TAGS ON THE BAG?

A: YEAH, IT TELLS YOU THAT, YOU KNOW, THE TAG WAS PULLED AT THIS TIME AND ON THIS DATE.

Q: OKAY.

A: BY THIS SKYCAP AND IT HAS A NUMBER. IT HAS LIKE THE DATE, THE TIME AND YOU KNOW, IT HAS THE CODE, MY CODE THAT I HAVE TO USE TO GET INTO THE COMPUTER.

Q: SO THAT DATE AND TIME SHOWS WHEN THE BAGS WERE CHECKED IN?

A: YES.

Q: AND IS THAT -- DOES THAT OCCUR AS WELL WHEN THE BAGS RETURN? ARE THEY -- ARE THEY TAGGED WITH DATE AND TIME WHEN THEY COME BACK FROM WHEREVER THEY HAVE BEEN, OR DOES THAT ONLY OCCUR WHEN THEY ARE BEING CHECKED IN TO BOARD A FLIGHT?

A: JUST WHEN THEY ARE BEING CHECKED IN. I MEAN EITHER WAY. I MEAN, YOU KNOW -- YOU KNOW, IF YOU CHECK YOUR BAGS IN IN CHICAGO AND THEY PULL IT OUT OF THE COMPUTER, THE DATE AND TIME IS ON THERE.

Q: OKAY. I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU THE EXHIBIT THAT HAS BEEN MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S 1063 AND I ASK YOU TO LOOK AT THE TAG ON THIS BAG, SIR. DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT TAG THAT I'M SHOWING YOU HERE? AND FOR THE RECORD, IT IS A TAG THAT SAYS "LAX AA 1103." DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT TAG?

A: YEAH, IT IS A REGULAR AMERICAN AIRLINES TAG.

Q: IS THAT THE KIND -- IS THAT THE KIND OF TAG THAT YOU WOULD PUT ON THE BAG WHEN YOU CHECK IT IN?

A: UH-HUH, YES, IT IS.

Q: AND IF YOU CAN TELL US, SIR, THEN THE INFORMATION ON THIS TAG, "LAX" AT THE TOP, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN TO YOU?

A: LOS ANGELES. THAT IS WHERE THE BAG IS DESTINED TO GO, TO L.A.

Q: OKAY. THAT IS THE DESTINATION?

A: YEAH, THAT IS THE DESTINATION, L.A.

Q: SO THEN THIS TAG WOULD HAVE BEEN PUT ON SOMEWHERE ELSE BECAUSE IT WAS FLYING TO L.A.?

A: YEAH, I CAN TELL YOU. IT WAS CHECKED IN CHICAGO.

THE COURT: MR. WILLIAMS, I NEED YOU TO SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE.

THE WITNESS: YES. THIS BAG WAS CHECKED IN CHICAGO.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND YOU CAN TELL THAT BY?

A: LOOKING RIGHT HERE. "ORD," THAT IS THE CODE FOR CHICAGO, AT 9:21 ON THE 13TH OF JUNE.

Q: 9:21 IN THE MORNING, SIR?

A: I COULDN'T TELL YOU -- YEAH, BECAUSE IT IS MILITARY TIME, SO IT WAS, YES.

Q: OKAY. SO THIS BAG WAS CHECKED IN CHICAGO ON JUNE 13TH AT 9:21?

A: YES.

Q: IN THE MORNING?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT MEANS CHECKED -- AND THAT MEANS CHECKED AT THE CHICAGO AIRPORT TO GO TO LAX AT THAT TIME?

A: YES. THAT IS NOT THE TAG I PULLED.

Q: I'M SORRY?

A: THAT IS NOT THE TAG I PULLED. JUST A STATEMENT.

Q: RIGHT. BECAUSE YOU WERE WORKING IN L.A.?

A: YEAH.

Q: RIGHT. NOW, I'M SHOWING YOU AN ITEM THAT HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S 1062. YOUR HONOR, IT IS A TAG THAT SAYS "ORD AA 668." DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT TAG, SIR?

A: YES, AMERICAN AIRLINES TAG.

Q: UH-HUH. IS THAT LIKE A TAG THAT YOU WOULD PUT ON THERE?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT DOES THAT "ORD" AT THE TOP MEAN?

A: O'HARE, CHICAGO O'HARE AIRPORT.

Q: AND MEANS THAT THIS BAG WAS CHECKED AND ITS DESTINATION WAS CHICAGO O'HARE?

A: YES.

Q: AND CAN YOU TELL US WHAT TIME THIS BAG WAS CHECKED IN?

A: THIS BAG WAS CHECKED IN AT, UMM, 11:32 ON JUNE 13TH.

Q: CHECKED IN AT 11:32 ON --

MR. DOUGLAS: MAY I APPROACH?

THE COURT: YES.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: 11:32 P.M., SIR?

A: YES.

Q: ON JUNE THE 13TH?

A: YES.

Q: AND WAS IT -- AND IT WAS CHECKED IN AT WHAT AIRPORT?

A: LAX.

Q: IS THAT SHOWN HERE AS WELL?

A: YEAH, IT IS RIGHT THERE.

Q: WHERE IT SAYS "LAX"?

A: UH-HUH, AND THAT IS MY CODE.

Q: WHERE IS YOUR CODE, SIR?

A: H03.

Q: 803?

A: H03.

Q: THAT MEANS THAT IT WAS YOU?

A: YEAH.

Q: SO YOU CHECKED THIS BAG IN AT LAX ON JUNE THE 13TH AT 11:32?

A: YEAH. YEAH.

Q: OKAY. WELL, YOU DIDN'T WRITE THAT ON THERE, DID YOU, SIR?

A: NO, THE COMPUTER PRINTS IT AUTOMATICALLY.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER THOSE COMPUTERS ARE ACCURATE WITH RESPECT TO DATE OR TIME?

A: USUALLY THEY ARE, BUT SOMETIMES THEY HAVE BEEN KNOWN TO HAVE -- MAY BE, YOU KNOW, MINUTES OFF OR SOMETHING.

Q: UH-HUH. ALL RIGHT. THEN WITH RESPECT TO THAT -- THAT GARMENT BAG, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT YOU WERE THE ONE THAT CHECKED THAT IN, SIR?

A: YES.

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

THE COURT: YES.

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

Q: BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. SIR, NOW THE DATE I AM TALKING TO YOU ABOUT WITH RESPECT TO CHECKING IN THE BAGS FOR MR. SIMPSON WAS JUNE THE 12TH, CORRECT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: ARE YOU SURPRISED TO SEE THE DATE OF JUNE THE 13TH ON THAT BAG, ON THAT GARMENT BAG?

A: YES.

Q: CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW JUNE THE 13TH GOT ON THAT GARMENT BAG?

A: I HAVE NO IDEA. I -- YOU KNOW -- I COULDN'T -- I COULDN'T TELL YOU WHY IT SAYS JUNE 13TH.

Q: SOMETHING WITH THE COMPUTER?

A: YEAH, BECAUSE I DON'T PUNCH IN THE DATE. IF THE PERSON IS IN THE COMPUTER, IT COMES OUT AUTOMATICALLY.

Q: OKAY. YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH SETTING THE DATE ON THE COMPUTER?

A: UN-UNH, I DON'T DO THAT.

Q: OKAY. NOW, DID YOU HAVE -- DID YOU ASK THE DEFENDANT WHERE HE WAS DESTINED FOR BEFORE YOU PUNCHED OUT THE TAGS?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID HE TELL YOU?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHERE WAS THAT?

A: CHICAGO.

Q: AND DID HE MAKE ANY INQUIRY OF YOU AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE PASSION WOULD MAKE IT ONTO THE PLANE?

A: HE ASKED ME IF -- HE PRETTY MUCH ASKED ME THAT, IF THEY WOULD MAKE IT.

Q: AND WHAT DID YOU SAY?

A: I TOLD HIM YEAH.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU GIVE HIM SOME PAPERWORK OR SOMETHING WITH RESPECT TO THE BAGS THAT YOU CHECKED?

A: YEAH. I GAVE HIM HIS CLAIM CHECKS FOR THE BAGS.

Q: AND ABOUT WHAT TIME WAS IT WHEN YOU DID THAT, SIR?

A: AT ABOUT 11:30.

Q: NOW, YOU INDICATED THAT HE WAS CARRYING A DARK DUFFEL BAG?

A: YES.

Q: SHOWING YOU WHAT HAS BEEN MARKED PREVIOUSLY AS DEFENDANT'S 1064, DO YOU SEE THIS BAG, SIR?

A: UH-HUH.

Q: IS THAT YES?

A: YES, I'M SORRY.

Q: CAN YOU TELL US -- THAT IS OKAY. CAN YOU TELL US IF THIS LOOKS LIKE THE BAG YOU SAW HIM CARRYING THAT NIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: CAN YOU TELL US IF THIS WAS THE BAG HE WAS CARRYING THAT NIGHT?

A: I COULDN'T TELL YOU IF IT WAS THE BAG, NO.

Q: LOOKS LIKE IT?

A: LOOKS LIKE IT.

Q: COULD YOU TELL US IF IT APPEARED TO BE FULL OR EMPTY?

A: IT HAD SOMETHING IN IT. I'M NOT SURE WHAT, BUT IT CAN'T -- IT WASN'T WEIGHING IT DOWN OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

Q: HE HAD THAT ON HIS SHOULDER?

A: YES.

Q: DID HE CHECK THAT BAG IN WITH YOU?

A: NO.

Q: WHAT DID HE DO WITH THAT BAG?

A: HE KEPT IT WITH HIM.

Q: IS THERE A TRASH CAN ANYWHERE NEAR YOUR STAND WHERE YOU WORK?

A: UMM, YES, JUST TO THE LEFT OF IT.

Q: THE LEFT OF IT AS YOU FACE IT?

A: IF I'M FACING THE PODIUM, THE PODIUM IS HERE, THE KEYBOARD AND EVERYTHING AND SCREEN IS HERE, AND I WOULD SAY RIGHT -- RIGHT OVER HERE THERE IS A TRASH CAN, (INDICATING).

Q: SO IF YOU ARE WORKING AT YOUR PODIUM, WOULD IT HAVE BEEN TO YOUR LEFT?

A: A LEFT AND A LITTLE BEHIND ME.

Q: A LITTLE BEHIND YOU?

A: YEAH, NOT FAR.

Q: NOW, WHEN YOU SAW THE DEFENDANT, SIR, WHAT WAS HE WEARING?

A: FROM WHAT I REMEMBER IT WAS A DENIM OUTFIT. IT WAS LIKE SOME -- LIKE JEANS, BUT JEANS, LIGHT SHIRT, A LIGHT-COLORED SHIRT.

Q: OKAY. COULD IT HAVE BEEN A DENIM TYPE -- LIGHT DENIM SHIRT?

A: YES.

Q: LIGHT-COLORED DENIM SHIRT?

A: UH-HUH.

Q: IS THAT YES?

A: YES, YES. I KEEP FORGETTING.

Q: HOW MANY BAGS DID THE DEFENDANT HAVE, SIR?

A: JUST THE THREE.

Q: OKAY. THE TWO YOU CHECKED AND THE ONE HE CARRIED?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU SEE ANY OTHER BAGS WITH HIM?

A: NO.

Q: DID THE DEFENDANT GIVE YOU A TIP?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT DID -- WHAT MONEY DID HE GIVE YOU?

A: HE GAVE ME A TWENTY AND I GAVE HIM BACK TWO FIVES.

Q: HE GAVE YOU A TWENTY DOLLAR BILL?

A: YES.

Q: YOU GAVE HIM BACK TWO FIVE DOLLAR BILLS?

A: YES.

Q: IS THAT THE ONLY TIME YOU HAVE CHECKED MR. SIMPSON IN FOR A FLIGHT?

A: YEAH, BECAUSE I WASN'T A SKYCAP THE OTHER TIMES I SEEN HIM.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH ANYONE THE DAY AFTER THESE EVENTS THAT WE HAVE JUST DISCUSSED ON JUNE THE 12TH?

A: YES.

Q: WAS THAT A FRIEND OF YOURS?

A: ANOTHER SKYCAP.

Q: OKAY. AND AFTER YOU HAD THAT CONVERSATION WITH YOUR FRIEND, WHAT DID THAT CAUSE YOU TO DO WITH RESPECT TO YOUR MEMORY OF THE EVENTS OF CHECKING MR. SIMPSON IN ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE THE 12TH?

A: TRY TO RECALL, RECOLLECT WHAT HAPPENED THAT NIGHT.

Q: OKAY. AND DID THAT CAUSE YOU TO REFLECT ON EVERYTHING THAT HAD HAPPENED, THE NUMBER OF BAGS CHECKED AND EVERYTHING YOU SAW?

A: YEAH. PRETTY MUCH, YES.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.) Q: BY MS. CLARK: SO YOU ONLY SAW ONE BLACK DUFFEL BAG; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YEAH. THAT IS ALL I SAW, YES, ASIDE FROM THE OTHER TWO BAGS.

Q: THE TWO YOU CHECKED?

A: UH-HUH.

Q: IS THAT YES?

A: YES.

Q: SO THOSE --

A: I KEEP FORGETTING.

Q: I KNOW. THE TWO THAT YOU CHECKED, THOUGH, NEITHER ONE OF THEM WERE DUFFLE BAGS?

A: NO.

Q: THE ONLY DUFFEL BAG YOU SAW WAS THE ONE HE CARRIED IN OVER HIS SHOULDER?

MR. DOUGLAS: OBJECTION, LEADING, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: OH, YEAH, THAT IS THE ONLY ONE I SAW, PAID ATTENTION TO.

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

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: MR. DOUGLAS.

MR. DOUGLAS: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. DOUGLAS:

Q: MR. WILLIAMS, GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR.

A: GOOD AFTERNOON.

Q: MR. WILLIAMS, HOW LONG, SIR, HAD YOU BEEN WORKING AS A SKYCAP AS OF JUNE THE 12TH OF 1994?

A: ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF.

Q: ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF?

A: YES.

Q: AND SIR, TYPICALLY, WHAT WOULD BE THE NUMBER OF PASSENGERS THAT YOU WOULD CHECK BAGGAGE FOR IN A GIVEN -- SAY A GIVEN HOUR?

A: THAT DEPENDS ON THE DAY, BECAUSE SOME DAYS ARE BUSIER THAN OTHER DAYS.

Q: OKAY. WHAT WOULD BE YOUR AVERAGE IF YOU WERE TO ESTIMATE HOW MANY CUSTOMERS YOU TEND TO HANDLE IN A TYPICAL HOUR?

A: IN A TYPICAL HOUR? OH, MAYBE FIFTEEN OR TWENTY MAYBE.

Q: FIFTEEN TO TWENTY PER HOUR?

A: YEAH.

Q: AND FREQUENTLY EACH OF THESE PASSENGERS, THESE FIFTEEN OR TWENTY PER HOUR, WILL OFTEN HAVE MORE THAN ONE BAG, TRUE?

A: YEAH.

Q: SO IT WOULDN'T BE UNUSUAL FOR YOU TO SEE DOZENS OF BAGS IN ANY GIVEN HOUR, CONSIDERING ALL OF THE PASSENGERS THAT YOU ARE HANDLING, TRUE?

A: TRUE, YES.

Q: NOW, THERE CAME A TIME ON A SUNDAY EVENING YOU SAY WHEN THIS FELLOW CAME UP TO YOU ASKING ABOUT CHECKING IN SOME BAGGAGE, CORRECT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: AND LATER YOU REALIZED THAT THERE WAS A PASSENGER WITH THIS PERSON WHO WAS MR. SIMPSON, TRUE?

A: EXCUSE ME? REPEAT THE QUESTION.

Q: YOU LATER REALIZED THAT THIS PERSON THAT HAD COME TO YOU WAS HANDLING BAGS FOR MR. SIMPSON?

A: YES.

Q: AND MR. SIMPSON CAME TO YOU ON A SUNDAY EVENING, DIDN'T HE?

A: YES.

Q: HE DIDN'T COME THE NEXT DAY ON MONDAY EVENING AS WELL, DID HE?

A: NO.

Q: AND PART OF THE PROCESS OF YOUR CHECKING IN THE BAGGAGE WAS TO VERIFY MR. SIMPSON'S FLIGHT SCHEDULE ON THE COMPUTER THERE, CORRECT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: AND YOU WERE ABLE TO VERIFY THAT MR. SIMPSON WAS IN FACT BOOKED ON A FLIGHT THAT EVENING, DIDN'T YOU?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, THERE IS CERTAIN INFORMATION THAT YOU PUT INTO THE COMPUTER BEFORE ONE OF THESE CLAIM CHECKS ARE PRINTED OUT, CORRECT?

A: UH-HUH, YES.

Q: PART OF THE INFORMATION THAT YOU PUT IN WOULD BE THE DESTINATION OF THE PASSENGER?

A: YEAH. I CAN TELL YOU EXACTLY WHAT I -- THE FIRST THING YOU HAVE TO PUT IN IS HOW MANY BAGS ARE CHECKED, WHAT IS THE FLIGHT NUMBER, FINAL DESTINATION, NAME OF THE PASSENGER AND HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE IN THE PARTY.

Q: OKAY. AND WHAT IS YOUR PRACTICE, SIR, WHEN THERE IS AN OLD TAG ON THE BAG THAT YOU ARE GOING TO CHECK IN? IS IT YOUR PRACTICE TO TAKE OFF THE OLD TAGS FIRST?

A: YEAH, EITHER TAKE IT OFF OR SCRIBBLE IT, MARK OVER IT, SO IT DOESN'T INTERFERE WITH THE BAG.

Q: AND THAT IS SO THAT THE BAGGAGE HANDLERS WILL NOT CONFUSE ONE DESTINATION FROM AN OLD TAG, AS OPPOSED TO THE CURRENT DESTINATION, CORRECT?

A: YEAH, UH-HUH.

Q: NOW, EVERY BAG THAT IS CHECKED IN HAS TO HAVE A LUGGAGE TAG PLACED ON IT, DOESN'T IT?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN THERE IS A BAG THAT SOMEONE IS TAKING ON THE AIRPLANE WITH THEM, THERE IS NO NEED TO CHECK THAT BAG IN NECESSARILY, CORRECT?

A: CORRECT. IF THEY ARE TAKING IT ON, YOU DON'T CHECK IT IN.

Q: SO IF SOMEBODY IS CARRYING A BAG -- LET'S SAY THAT SOMEBODY IS CARRYING A BAG TO LOS ANGELES FROM CHICAGO THAT THEY HAD CHECKED IN IN LOS ANGELES TO CHICAGO, BUT THEY CARRIED THAT BAG ON THE AIRPLANE WITH THEM BACK FROM CHICAGO, THERE WOULDN'T BE AN LAX TAG ON THAT PARTICULAR BAG, WOULD THERE?

A: YOU ARE SAYING HE -- OKAY. HE CHECKED IT IN L.A.?

Q: LET'S ASSUME, FOR EXAMPLE, LET'S TAKE THE GARMENT BAG, WHICH WOULD BE EXHIBIT 1062.

A: OKAY.

Q: AND IF THIS TAG HAS CERTAIN INFORMATION, THIS MEANS THAT THIS PIECE OF LUGGAGE WAS CHECKED IN FROM LOS ANGELES TO CHICAGO, CORRECT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: AND THEN IT WAS PLACED ON A CONVEYOR BELT TO GO TO THE AIRPLANE, CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND IF THE PERSON WHO OWNED THIS BAG BROUGHT IT BACK FROM CHICAGO ON THE AIRPLANE WITH HIM --

A: UH-HUH.

Q: -- IT WOULD STILL HAVE THE ORD TAG ON IT, WOULDN'T IT?

A: YEAH, UNLESS HE TOOK IT OFF, IT WOULD STAY ON THERE.

Q: OKAY. AND IF, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT SAME PERSON WAS BRINGING BACK NOT ONLY THE BAG THAT HE IS CARRYING ON, BUT ANOTHER BAG THAT THEY ARE CHECKING IN IN CHICAGO TO COME TO LOS ANGELES, IT WOULD BE THE PRACTICE TO TAKE OFF THAT OLD TAG, WOULD IT NOT?

A: YEAH, YOU USUALLY TAKE THE WHOLE TAG OFF BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT THEM TO --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. OBJECTION. THIS WOULD CALL FOR SPECULATION. IT IS BEYOND THE SCOPE AND ALSO IRRELEVANT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: SO THAT YOU CANNOT TELL WHETHER OR NOT THIS GOLF CLUB BAG WAS CHECKED IN AT LAX TO CHICAGO BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE THAT TAG ON THERE, CORRECT?

A: WELL, YEAH.

Q: BUT YOU CAN TELL THAT THIS BAG WAS CHECKED INTO CHICAGO TO COME BACK TO LOS ANGELES ON JUNE 13TH, TRUE?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, YOU TALKED SOMETHING ABOUT THERE BEING A TRASH CAN SOMEWHERE NEAR THE AREA WHERE YOU ARE WORKING?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU WOULD HAVE OCCASION, WOULD YOU NOT, TO LOOK INTO THAT TRASH CAN TO SEE -- TO THROW THINGS AWAY, WOULDN'T YOU?

A: JUST -- I JUST USE TO IT THROW THINGS AWAY, BECAUSE THE WAY THE TRASH CAN IS DESIGNED, YOU JUST THROW IT IN THE FRONT AND IT JUST GOES DOWN THERE. THERE IS LIKE A COVER OVER IT.

Q: AND YOU NEVER HEARD ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THERE BEING ANY LUGGAGE RECOVERED FROM ANY TRASH CANS NEAR YOUR AREA, DID YOU?

A: NO, NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. I NEVER HEARD ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

Q: NOW, YOU SAID THAT WHEN YOU SAW MR. SIMPSON ON JUNE THE 12TH THAT HE WAS WEARING A JEAN-TYPE SHIRT, WASN'T HE?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT SHIRT WAS NOT TUCKED INTO HIS PANTS, WAS IT?

A: NO.

Q: AND YOU RECALL THAT HE HAD A WHITE SHIRT ON UNDERNEATH THAT JEAN-TYPE SHIRT? DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: I JUST REMEMBER A LIGHT -- LIGHT-COLORED SHIRT.

Q: OKAY. DO YOU RECALL EVER SEEING HIM CARRYING AN OVERCOAT THAT EVENING?

A: I CAN'T RECALL.

Q: YOU DON'T RECALL THAT?

A: NO, I CAN'T RECALL.

Q: NOW, THERE CAME A TIME THAT YOU SAID MR. SIMPSON GAVE YOU A TIP FOR YOUR SERVICES, DID HE NOT?

A: YES.

Q: AND HE GAVE YOU A TWENTY DOLLAR BILL?

A: YES, HE DID.

Q: AND YOU GAVE HIM BACK AS CHANGE TWO FIVES; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, MA'AM.

Q: WAS THAT ALL THE CHANGE THAT YOU THEN HAD IN YOUR POSSESSION, THAT YOU RECALL?

A: I MEAN I HAD OTHER MONEY ON ME, BUT I JUST, YOU KNOW, GAVE HIM TWO FIVES. I DIDN'T WANT TO COUNT OUT SINGLES.

Q: AS HE WAS WALKING AWAY DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO STARE AT HIM WHEN HE WAS WALKING AWAY OR WERE YOU HANDLING OTHER WORK?

A: I WAS TRYING TO GET HIS BAGS ON FOR HIM. THE WAY HE GOES, THERE IS AN ESCALATOR AND BEHIND THE ESCALATOR THERE IS A BELT FOR OVERSIZED ITEMS, FOR GOLF CLUBS, BUT REALIZING HE WAS RUNNING A LITTLE BEHIND SCHEDULE, I JUST TOOK THEM DOWN THE BACK WAY AND WALKED THEM HALFWAY TO THE PLANE.

Q: SO AFTER HE GAVE YOU THE TIP YOU THEN TRIED TO PUT THE BAGS ON THAT SPECIAL BELT FOR HIM?

A: YES.

Q: YOU DIDN'T FOCUS YOUR ATTENTION ON HIM WALKING AWAY FROM YOU GOING TO THE AIRPLANE?

A: I JUST FIGURED HE WENT UP TO THE PLANE BECAUSE HE HAD TO MAKE THE FLIGHT.

Q: SO YOU DIDN'T REALLY HAVE A CHANCE TO SEE WHAT, IF ANYTHING, HE WAS CARRYING IN HIS HAND WHILE YOU WERE PUTTING THE GOLF BAG ONTO THAT SPECIAL BELT, DID YOU?

A: ASIDE FROM THE SMALL LITTLE DUFFEL BAG.

MR. DOUGLAS: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ONE MOMENT, PLEASE.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. DOUGLAS: NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, ANY REDIRECT?

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

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

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

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

THE WITNESS: I DON'T MEAN TO BE A BURDEN, BUT IS THERE ANYWAY I CAN GET SOME MORE WATER? I'M THIRSTY.

THE COURT: MRS. ROBERTSON.

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, MAY WE APPROACH ABOUT SOME PHOTOGRAPHS?

THE COURT: SURE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: WE ARE OVER AT THE SIDE BAR. MR. DOUGLAS.

MR. DOUGLAS: I JUST WONDERED IF MISS CLARK CAN GIVE AN OFFER AS TO WHAT HER DESIGNS ARE WITH THESE PHOTOGRAPHS AND WITH THE TRASH CAN.

THE COURT: WHAT HER DESIGNS ARE?

MR. DOUGLAS: WHAT SHE WANTS TO DO WITH THEM?

MS. CLARK: I'M JUST GOING TO SHOW THEM TO HIM AND ASK HIM IF THIS ACCURATELY REFLECTS HIS PODIUM AND THE TRASH CAN HE JUST DESCRIBED ON THE DATE OF JUNE THE 12TH. THAT IS IT.

MR. DOUGLAS: OKAY. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: CAN I SEE?

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. DOUGLAS: THE COURT THINKS THAT IT IS RELEVANT THAT SHE SHOULD SHOW THE TRASH CANS?

MS. CLARK: IT IS RELEVANT.

THE COURT: ARE YOU GOING TO TIE IT UP SOMEHOW?

MS. CLARK: UH-HUH.

THE COURT: HOW?

MS. CLARK: THERE IS A WITNESS WHO HAS COME FORWARD WHOSE REPORT WILL BE TURNED OVER TO COUNSEL WHO SAW THE DEFENDANT -- OF COURSE PARK HAS ALSO ALREADY TESTIFIED TO THE FACT THAT HE PLACED ONE OF THE BAGS -- ONE OF THE DUFFLE BAGS ON TOP OF THE TRASH CAN. THIS WITNESS WILL STATE THAT HE SAW MR. SIMPSON REACH DOWN, THEN REACH BACK UP AND GO INTO HIS BAG AND ZIP IT UP.

MR. COCHRAN: WHAT?

MS. CLARK: ON THE TRASH CAN. IT IS COMING. I JUST TALKED TO THE GUY TODAY.

MR. COCHRAN: WHAT IS COMING? THE TRASH CAN IS COMING OR THE REPORT?

MS. CLARK: THE TRASH CAN IS COMING, TOO. WE ARE MARKING IT. THAT IS THE WITNESS.

THE COURT: THESE ARE JUST INNOCUOUS -- I'M NOT EVEN GOING TO SUGGEST ANYTHING. JUST ASK HIM IS THAT HOW IT LOOKED ON JUNE THE 12TH AND THAT IS IT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. PROCEED.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE WITNESS: YOU HAVE SOME GOOD WATER HERE, BEATS THAT STUFF OUTSIDE.

MS. CLARK: DON'T DRINK THAT STUFF OUTSIDE. SKULL AND CROSS BONES OVER THAT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S PROCEED. MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: IF I MAY, YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO MARK A SERIES OF PHOTOGRAPHS.

THE COURT: STARTING WITH PEOPLE'S 150.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. PEOPLE'S 150 WILL BE THE PHOTOGRAPH WITH THE NUMBER "10" AT THE LOWER RIGHT-HAND CORNER.

(PEO'S 150 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)

MS. CLARK: 151 WITH THE NUMBER "11" IN THE LOWER RIGHT-HAND CORNER.

(PEO'S 151 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)

MS. CLARK: 152 WITH THE NUMBER "12" IN THE LOWER RIGHT-HAND CORNER.

(PEO'S 152 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)

MS. CLARK: 153 WITH THE NUMBER "02" IN THE LOWER RIGHT-HAND CORNER.

(PEO'S 153 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)

MS. CLARK: AND NUMBER 154 WITH THE NUMBER "15" IN THE LOWER RIGHT-HAND CORNER.

(PEO'S 154 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)

MS. CLARK: AND NUMBER 155 WITH THE NUMBER "14."

(PEO'S 155 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SO NOTED.

MS. CLARK: IN THE LOWER RIGHT-HAND CORNER. THANK YOU.

THE COURT: PROCEED.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MS. CLARK:

Q: ALL RIGHT. MR. WILLIAMS, I JUST WANT TO SHOW YOU THESE PICTURES AND ASK YOU IF YOU CAN TELL US WHETHER THESE PICTURES ACCURATELY DEPICT YOUR -- THE PODIUM YOU WORKED AT AT AMERICAN AIRLINES AND THE LOCATION OF THE TRASH CAN IN RELATIONSHIP TO THAT PODIUM ON THE DATE OF JUNE THE 12TH, 1994. OKAY?

A: OKAY.

MS. CLARK: FOR THE RECORD, I AM SHOWING HIM THE PHOTOGRAPHS I HAVE JUST NOW MARKED AS 150 THROUGH 155.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. NOW, YOU HAVE JUST SEEN 150 THROUGH 153; IS THAT CORRECT, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. IS THAT THE WAY YOUR WORK AREA LOOKED AT AMERICAN AIRLINES ON THE DATE OF JUNE THE 12TH, 1994?

A: I GUESS, YEAH. IT WAS DARKER, BUT YEAH, THAT IS IT.

Q: BECAUSE IT WAS AT NIGHT?

A: UH-HUH, YES.

Q: AND YOU DESCRIBED A TRASH CAN TO YOUR LEFT AND A LITTLE BIT BEHIND YOU WHERE YOU WORKED. DID YOU SEE IT IN THAT POSITION IN THESE PHOTOGRAPHS?

A: YES.

Q: AND IS THAT THE POSITION IT WAS IN ON JUNE THE 12TH, 1994?

A: YES.

Q: SHOWING YOU NOW PEOPLE'S 154 AND 155, DOES THIS ACCURATE -- DO THESE PHOTOGRAPHS ACCURATELY DEPICT THE TRASH CAN THAT IS SHOWN IN THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT HAS BEEN -- PHOTOGRAPHS THAT HAVE BEEN MARKED PEOPLE'S 150 THROUGH 153?

A: YEAH, THAT IS THE TRASH CAN.

Q: AND THAT IS THE WAY IT LOOKED ON JUNE THE 12TH, 1994, AS WELL?

A: YEAH, THAT IS THE SAME WAY IT LOOKED.

Q: CAN YOU TELL US, SIR, IF YOU KNOW, HOW OFTEN -- STRIKE THAT. DO YOU SEE A PLASTIC INSERT IN THAT TRASH CAN?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: THAT IS DEPICTED IN ALL THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS?

A: YEAH, THE TRASH BAG.

Q: DO YOU KNOW HOW OFTEN THEY CHANGE THOSE PLASTIC INSERTS?

A: NO, I COULDN'T TELL YOU. I SEE THEM CHANGE THEM. I DON'T KNOW HAD YOU OFTEN THEY DO IT. THEY JUST CHANGE THEM.

Q: YOU JUST KNOW THAT THEY DO?

A: UH-HUH.

MS. CLARK: OKAY. I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER.

THE COURT: MR. DOUGLAS, ANY ISSUES ON THIS?

MR. DOUGLAS: BRIEFLY, YOUR HONOR.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. DOUGLAS:

Q: MR. WILLIAMS, THERE IS A LOST AND FOUND SECTION AT THE AIRPORT; IS THERE NOT?

A: YES, THERE IS.

Q: SO IF LUGGAGE IS LEFT BEHIND OR LOST THERE IS A LOCATION WHERE IT CAN ALL BE TAKEN, TRUE?

A: YES.

Q: AND MR. WILLIAMS, YOU DON'T RECALL EVER SEEING MR. SIMPSON ANYWHERE NEAR THAT TRASH ON JUNE THE 12TH, DO YOU, SIR?

A: YES, HE WAS STANDING NEAR THE TRASH CAN.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU SEE HIM DO ANYTHING WITH THE TRASH CAN?

A: NO, I DIDN'T SEE HIM DO ANYTHING WITH THE TRASH CAN.

MS. CLARK: CAN I ASK --

FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MS. CLARK:

Q: WHEN MR. SIMPSON WAS STANDING NEAR THE TRASH CAN, SIR, DID YOU HAPPEN TO SEE WHETHER HE HAD ANY ITEM OF -- ANY ITEM OF LUGGAGE OR THAT BLACK DUFFEL BAG ON TOP OF THE TRASH CAN?

A: NO, I DIDN'T PAY THAT MUCH ATTENTION TO SEE IF -- WHERE THE BAG WAS. IT WAS ON HIS ARM.

Q: OKAY. WAS YOUR -- WAS YOUR BACK TO MR. SIMPSON WHEN HE WAS STANDING NEAR THE TRASH CAN?

A: WHEN HE FIRST CAME UP, YES. I DIDN'T EVEN NOTICE IT WAS MR. SIMPSON UNTIL I TURNED AND ASKED THE LIMO DRIVER IF HE -- YOU KNOW, HE NEEDED -- YOU KNOW, IF HE WANTED TO CHECK THE BAGGAGE.

Q: AND WHEN YOU CHECKED THE -- WHEN YOU TOOK THE BAGGAGE FROM THE LUGGAGE CARRIER TO PUT IT ONTO YOUR LUGGAGE CARRIER, TO YOUR CONVEYOR BELT, WOULD YOU BE TURNING TOWARD THE TRASH CAN OR AWAY FROM IT TO DO THAT?

A: I WOULD HAVE TO TURN TOWARD IT.

Q: OKAY. AND -- YOU HAVE THE PICTURES. CAN YOU SHOW US IN THE PHOTOGRAPH, SIR, WHERE IS THE CONVEYOR BELT THAT YOU WOULD BE PUTTING THE LUGGAGE ON?

A: UMM --

THE COURT: WHICH PHOTOGRAPH ARE YOU USING?

MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY, I'M SHOWING THE WITNESS PEOPLE'S 150.

THE WITNESS: I WOULD HAVE TO GO IN THE DOOR AND OVER HERE TOWARDS THIS WAY THERE IS A ESCALATOR, AND BEHIND THE ESCALATOR THERE IS A BIG BELT AND SOME DOORWAYS THAT GO OUT TO THE RAMP, AND I JUST TOOK THE BAGS DOWN THERE.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WOULD YOU CARRY THEM BY HAND OR WOULD YOU PUT THEM ON SOME KIND OF A CART?

A: USUALLY I PUT THEM ON A CART, BUT IN THAT SITUATION I JUST CARRIED THEM IN BY HAND.

Q: DID YOU IN THIS CASE CARRY THEM IN BY HAND?

A: YEAH. THEY WEREN'T THAT HEAVY.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU CARRY THEM IN BY HAND BEFORE OR AFTER MR. SIMPSON LEFT YOUR PODIUM?

A: IT PROBABLY WOULD HAVE TO BE -- IT WAS BEFORE -- AFTER, AFTER. HE LEFT. HE WAS WALKING AWAY AND I JUST GRABBED THE BAGS.

Q: AND WALKED THEM INSIDE?

A: YEAH.

MS. CLARK: OKAY.

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

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DO YOU KNOW IF THOSE TRASH CANS ARE EMPTIED EVERY NIGHT, SIR?

A: YES, THEY ARE. THEY ARE EMPTIED SOMETIME BECAUSE -- YEAH, THEY ARE EMPTIED EVERY NIGHT BECAUSE THERE IS -- WHEN THE TRASH TRUCK COMES AROUND IT KICKS OUT SO MANY FUMES IT IS PATHETIC. IT KILLS US EVERY NIGHT.

MS. CLARK: I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER.

FURTHER RECROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. DOUGLAS:

Q: SO THAT I AM CORRECT, MR. WILLIAMS, MR. SIMPSON LEFT THE TRASH CAN AREA BEFORE YOU WENT AROUND THE CORNER TO PUT THE BAGS AWAY?

A: YES.

MR. DOUGLAS: NOTHING FURTHER.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, DO YOU WANT TO HAND THE PHOTOGRAPHS TO THE JURORS AND ALLOW THEM TO PASS THEM THROUGH SO THEY CAN LOOK AT THAT?

MR. COCHRAN: WHAT IS THAT, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: I'M ASKING MRS. CLARK IF SHE WANTS TO HAND THESE PHOTOGRAPHS TO THE JURORS.

MR. COCHRAN: NO, I DON'T THINK SHE DOES.

MS. CLARK: IN VIEW OF TESTIMONY, YEAH.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY WE APPROACH?

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

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

MR. DARDEN: HE CAN'T OBJECT. THIS IS NOT HIS WITNESS. BACK TO HIS SIDE OF THE TABLE. THIS IS NOT HIS WITNESS. HE CANNOT OBJECT.

MS. CLARK: MR. DOUGLAS' BAILIWICK.

MR. COCHRAN: TELL HIM TO GET HIS HANDS OFF ME, JUDGE.

THE COURT: GET YOUR HANDS OFF HIM, MR. DARDEN.

MR. COCHRAN: THE REASON I APPROACHED, MISS CLARK TOLD ME THAT THEY WERE GOING TO INVESTIGATE SOMETHING REGARDING POTENTIAL WITNESSES AND SHE WOULDN'T TRY TO SHOW THIS TO THE JURY BECAUSE IT MAY NEVER COME TO PASS. SO YOUR HONOR GRATUITOUSLY OFFERED TO DO THAT, BUT SHE SAID THAT WAS THEIR REPRESENTATION.

THE COURT: BUT THEY -- WAIT. HE ALREADY TESTIFIED THAT THIS IS WHERE HIS PODIUM IS. THE LIMO GUY SAID, YEAH, HE WENT OVER AND PUT THIS THING ON TOP OF THE TRASH CAN.

MS. CLARK: BUT NOW THIS WITNESS CORROBORATES THE OTHER WITNESSES AND WE HAVE HIM STANDING BY THE TRASH CAN.

MR. COCHRAN: HE SAYS HE NEVER SAW HIM DOING THAT. WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES THAT MAKE?

MS. CLARK: DIFFERENT VIEW.

MR. DARDEN: YOU DON'T HAVE TO --

MR. COCHRAN: GRABBING AT STRAWS. MY OBJECTION IS THIS: GRABBING AT STRAWS. DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING IN THE TRASH CAN?

THE COURT: WELL, IS THERE ANY DOUBT, COUNSEL, THAT IF WE WERE TO GO TO LAX RIGHT NOW AND LOOK AT THIS PARTICULAR PODIUM AT AMERICAN AIRLINES THAT IT IS GOING TO BE EXACTLY THE SAME AS IT IS?

MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE NO DOUBT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. COCHRAN: I WAS PRESENT -- I HELPED BUILD THE AIRPORT, SO I KNOW ABOUT THAT AIRPORT.

THE COURT: THEN I HAVE MANY BONES TO PICK WITH YOU.

MR. DARDEN: YOU HAVEN'T DONE AN HONEST DAY'S WORK IN YOUR LIFE.

MR. COCHRAN: FOR 13 YEARS I WAS A COMMISSIONER. BUT THE POINT IS THERE ARE PICTURES OF TRASH CANS. LET THEM ALL IN THERE OR LET THEM LOOK AT THEM. THAT IS MY POINT.

MS. CLARK: YOU'VE LOOKED AT THEM.

MR. COCHRAN: THE DEAL WHEN WE LEFT, SHE WASN'T GOING TO DO IT, SO THAT IS WHY I'M UP HERE. I DON'T CARE ABOUT THESE PICTURES.

MS. CLARK: THANKS TO MR. DOUGLAS WE HAVE TWO WITNESSES NOW PUTTING THE DEFENDANT NEXT TO THE TRASH CAN, YOU KNOW, ONE OF WHOM HAD NO CLUE WHERE THAT QUESTION WAS COMING FROM. AND I REALLY THINK, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO DRAW ANY INFERENCES AT THIS POINT, BUT IT IS AN ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF WHERE THEY STOOD. IT DOES CORROBORATE THE WITNESS AND IT CORROBORATES ALLAN PARK.

THE COURT: THE PROBLEM IS IF YOU TOLD MR. COCHRAN YOU WEREN'T GOING TO SHOW THEM TO THE JURY, THEN AT THIS POINT WE WON'T.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT IS -- SHE DID TELL ME THAT.

MS. CLARK: I DID. I TOLD HIM BECAUSE I DIDN'T THINK THIS WITNESS WOULD SAY HE WAS NEAR THE TRASH CAN, BUT THEN HE DID.

THE COURT: HOLD ON, HOLD ON. SO GIVEN THAT THERE IS AN AGREEMENT --

MR. COCHRAN: THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT. ALSO, IF YOU CAME UP TO THIS THING, YOU WOULD BE STANDING NEAR THE TRASH CAN BASED UPON THOSE PICTURES.

MS. CLARK: SURE.

THE COURT: SURE.

MS. CLARK: WHY ARE WE ARGUING ABOUT IT? WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL? WHY ARE YOU SO SCARED?

THE COURT: SINCE THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT, WE WON'T DO IT RIGHT NOW.

MR. COCHRAN: WE CAN ARGUE ABOUT IT LATER.

MR. DOUGLAS: TWO MORE QUESTIONS.

MS. CLARK: ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO, CARL? THE REASON WE ARE UP HERE IS BECAUSE YOU ASKED THE LAST ONE.

MR. DOUGLAS: CAN I HAVE TWO MORE QUESTIONS?

THE COURT: OKAY.

MR. DOUGLAS: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. MR. DOUGLAS, YOU HAD TWO MORE QUESTIONS?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: MR. WILLIAMS, JUST SO THAT WE ARE CLEAR, THE TRASH BAGS THAT GO INTO THE TRASH CAN THAT ARE SHOWN IN THOSE EXHIBITS ARE CLEAR TRASH BAGS, ARE THEY NOT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THE LOCATION WHERE THAT TRASH CAN IS IS DIRECTLY NEXT TO WHERE YOU WERE STANDING CHECKING IN THE BAGS, IS IT NOT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY AND THE PICTURE SPEAKS FOR ITSELF, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: IS THE TRASH CAN DIRECTLY NEXT TO THE STATION WHERE YOU ARE STANDING?

A: YEAH, THE SAME SPOT IN THE PICTURES, DIRECTLY NEXT TO IT AND A LITTLE BACK.

Q: SO WHEN PEOPLE ARE STANDING AND DEALING WITH YOU THEY ARE NATURALLY STANDING NEXT TO THE TRASH CAN?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. IT DEPENDS ON WHERE THEY ARE STANDING. CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. OVERRULED. OVERRULED. THE PHOTOGRAPHS WILL SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.

THE WITNESS: YEAH, THEY STAND BY HERE. THEY COULD STAND IN FRONT OF IT.

MR. DOUGLAS: NOTHING FURTHER.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR --

THE COURT: NO.

MS. CLARK: GIVEN THE LAST --

THE COURT: DO YOU WANT TO ASK ANOTHER QUESTION?

MS. CLARK: NO, I JUST WANT TO SHOW THE PICTURES.

THE COURT: NO. WE HAD AN AGREEMENT THAT I WAS NOT AWARE OF. ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, AT THIS TIME WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OUR RECESS FOR THE AFTERNOON AND I TAKE IT NEITHER SIDE HAS ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. WILLIAMS?

MR. DOUGLAS: CORRECT.

THE COURT: MR. WILLIAMS, I AM GOING TO EXCUSE YOU AS A WITNESS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING IN, SIR.

THE WITNESS: ALL RIGHT. I HAVE TO COME BACK TOMORROW?

THE COURT: YOU ARE OUT OF HERE.

THE WITNESS: OH, OKAY. NOT LIKE IT WAS A PROBLEM. THANKS FOR THE WATER.

THE COURT: SURE THING. TAKE THE WATER WITH YOU.

MS. CLARK: WATCH OUT FOR THE BAG.

THE WITNESS: OKAY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, AS FAR AS THE JURY IS CONCERNED, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OUR RECESS FOR THE AFTERNOON 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 CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS, DO NOT ALLOW ANYBODY TO CONTACT YOU WITH REGARD TO THE CASE. AS FAR AS THE JURY IS CONCERNED, WE WILL STAND IN RECESS UNTIL 9:00 A.M. TOMORROW MORNING. ALL RIGHT. WE WILL TAKE A TEN-MINUTE RECESS AND THEN I WILL SEE COUNSEL ON THE OTHER EVIDENTIARY MATTERS.

(RECESS.)

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. THE DEFENDANT IS AGAIN PRESENT WITH COUNSEL AND WE HAVE A NEW SET OF LAWYERS FOR THIS PARTICULAR MATTER. COUNSEL, DO YOU WANT TO STATE YOUR APPEARANCES FOR THE RECORD.

MR. BLASIER: ROBERT BLASIER FOR MR. SIMPSON.

MR. NEUFELD: PETER NEUFELD.

MR. SCHECK: BARRY SCHECK.

MR. THOMPSON: WILLIAM THOMPSON.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. FOR THE PEOPLE.

MS. LEWIS: CHERI LEWIS BRIEFLY, I BELIEVE.

MR. GOLDBERG: HANK GOLDBERG.

MR. CLARKE: GEORGE CLARKE, YOUR HONOR.

MR. HARMON: ROCK HARMON.

MS. KAHN: LISA KAHN.

MR. HODGMAN: WILLIAM HODGMAN, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNSEL. I HAVE AN ABSOLUTE STOP TIME TODAY OF FIVE O'CLOCK, SO IF WE DON'T CONCLUDE, WE WILL HAVE TO TRAIL OVER UNTIL ANOTHER DATE.

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, JUST TO -- THERE WERE A NUMBER OF DEVELOPMENTS IN TERMS OF YOUR SCHEDULING. I WANT TO PUT THEM IN ORDER FOR YOU. OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE THE DEFENDANT'S PROPOSED SET OF ACTIONS IN THE DNA ISSUES; HOWEVER, A MATTER OF SOME IMPORTANCE BEFORE COLLECTION WITNESSES TESTIFY IS THE LETTER THAT WE SENT THIS MORNING CONCERNING WHAT WE BELIEVE ARE DISCOVERY ABUSES AND RECENT MATTERS THAT WERE TURNED OVER TO THE DEFENSE BY THE PROSECUTION THAT WE THINK IS A CLEAR DISCOVERY ABUSE AND FOR WHICH THERE ARE TO BE SANCTIONS AND REMEDIES. SO THE ISSUE IS WE THINK THAT IS A SERIOUS MATTER THAT HAS TO BE RESOLVED BEFORE THE WITNESSES TESTIFY. THEN THERE IS THE STIPULATION -- PROPOSED STIPULATION BY THE PROSECUTION AND THEN THERE ARE THE BOARDS, SO THOSE ARE ALL THE MATTERS THAT I THINK WE HAVE TO COVER. AND I KNOW YOU HAVE LIMITED TIME, SO TELL US WHAT YOU WANT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WELL, LET'S DO THE MOTION THAT -- LET'S START ON THE MOTION THAT WAS SCHEDULED FOR THIS AFTERNOON, THE NOTICE OF OBJECTIONS TO TESTIMONY CONCERNING DNA EVIDENCE.

MR. SCHECK: MAYBE I OUGHT TO MAKE ONE POINT ABOUT THE DISCOVERY SANCTION. WE SENT A NUMBER OF MATTERS TO THE COURT IN TERMS OF THE MATERIALS, BUT ONE THAT I THINK THE COURT REALLY HAS TO LOOK AT IS THAT WE WERE PROVIDED WITH A VIDEOTAPE THAT WE HAD BEEN ASKING FOR FOR A LONG TIME THAT WAS TAKEN ON JUNE THE 13TH AT ROCKINGHAM. THE WAY WE KNEW ABOUT THIS A LONG TIME IS THAT ON THAT VIDEOTAPE THAT I THINK THE COURT HAS OF ALL THE DIFFERENT CLIPS WE HAVE SEEN FROM THE SERVICES, THERE WAS A GENTLEMAN FROM THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE OR WE THOUGHT OR POLICE DEPARTMENT, WE DIDN'T KNOW WHERE, TAKING A VIDEOTAPE. WE JUST RECEIVED A VIDEOTAPE FROM THE PROSECUTION OF -- PANNING THE GROUND AND THEN AN INTERIOR SEARCH.

THE COURT: UH-HUH.

MR. SCHECK: OR WALK-THROUGH OF MR. SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE AT ROCKINGHAM. IT IS HIGHLY MATERIAL AND SOMETHING THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN TURNED OVER AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARINGS, BECAUSE IT IS RELEVANT TO THOSE ISSUES, WOULD HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED THERE IN TERMS OF SEARCH WITNESSES, IN TERMS OF THEIR TESTIMONY. AND THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT ARE PERFECTLY APPARENT ABOUT IT. NO. 1, THERE ARE THINGS OUT ALL OVER IN VERY IMPORTANT PLACES. MATTERS --

THE COURT: WELL, MR. SCHECK, FORGIVE ME FOR INTERRUPTING YOU.

MR. SCHECK: YEAH.

THE COURT: BUT THE ISSUE BEFORE US TODAY IS YOUR SPECIFIC MOTION REGARDING KELLY ISSUES.

MR. SCHECK: OH, I UNDERSTAND. ALL THAT I'M SAYING IS BEFORE THE PROSECUTION'S NEXT WITNESSES, THE COLLECTION WITNESSES, MAZZOLLA AND FUNG, TESTIFY AND PEOPLE TESTIFY AS TO THE COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE AT ROCKINGHAM --

THE COURT: WELL, I HAVE ON MY DESK WHAT APPEARS TO BE A FASHIONED LETTER TO THE COURT.

MR. SCHECK: THAT'S RIGHT.

THE COURT: THAT MENTIONS SOMETHING ABOUT DISCOVERY SANCTIONS, BUT IN CASE YOU HAVEN'T NOTICED, I HAVE BEEN IN SESSION ALL DAY.

MR. SCHECK: I UNDERSTAND THAT. THAT IS WHY I'M BRINGING THIS ONE TO YOUR ATTENTION BECAUSE I KNOW I WANT TO HEAR ABOUT IT.

THE COURT: THE POINT I'M MAKING IS I DON'T WANT TO HEAR ABOUT IT RIGHT NOW.

MR. SCHECK: OKAY. BOTTOM LINE IS WE THINK IT REQUIRES A HEARING BEFORE THESE -- OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY BEFORE THE WITNESSES TESTIFY.

THE COURT: OKAY.

MR. SCHECK: THAT IS WHY I WANTED TO MENTION IT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S ADDRESS THE MOTION THAT YOU HAVE ON CALENDAR FOR THIS AFTERNOON.

MR. SCHECK: MY PLEASURE, YOUR HONOR. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO FIRST IS A GENERAL INTRODUCTION AND THEN EXPLAIN WHAT I WILL ADDRESS AND THEN DEFER TO OTHER COUNSEL ABOUT THE OTHER ISSUES. THE FIRST --

THE COURT: WHAT IS YOUR TIME ESTIMATE FOR OUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT ON YOUR SIDE?

MR. SCHECK: THIRTY MINUTES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. PROCEED.

MR. SCHECK: IF I UNDERSTAND THE PROSECUTION'S POSITION CORRECTLY, WHAT THEY ARE CLAIMING IS BY WITHDRAWING OUR INITIAL KELLY-FRYE MOTION WE WAIVE THE RIGHT TO CONTEST WHETHER OR NOT CORRECT SCIENTIFIC PROCEDURES WERE USED IN ANY OF THE DNA TESTS PERFORMED IN THE PAST OR PERFORMED SINCE THE TRIAL BEGAN AND TESTS THAT ARE STILL BEING PERFORMED AS WE SPEAK. WHETHER CORRECT SCIENTIFIC PROCEDURES WERE USED, WHETHER CONTROLS FAILED IN THE COURSE OF DOING THESE TESTS, WHICH ARE SO MATERIAL THAT THEY WOULD INVALIDATE THE SCIENTIFIC MERITS OF THE TESTS, WHETHER THESE TESTS WERE PERFORMED VERY, VERY BADLY, SUCH THAT THEY SHOULD NOT COME INTO EVIDENCE.

THEY SAY WE HAVE WAIVED OUR RIGHT TO CONTEST THAT UNDER THE THIRD PRONG OF KELLY-FRYE AS AN ISSUE UNDER 403 OF THE CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE CODE, OR 405. THEY ALSO CLAIM THAT BY WITHDRAWING OUR KELLY-FRYE MOTION WE HAVE WAIVED OUR RIGHT TO CHALLENGE UNDER 352 THE WAY DNA EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED TO THE JURY, PARTICULARLY WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER OR NOT THE STATISTICAL EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED IN A FASHION THAT IS MISLEADING, UNDULY PREJUDICIAL AND SHOULD NOT BE ADMITTED UNDER RELEVANT CASE LAW. THEY INDEED CONTINUE TO INSIST THAT BY WITHDRAWING OUR MOTION WE CANNOT MAKE OBJECTIONS UNDER CERTAIN CASE LAW, PEOPLE VERSUS CELLA, PEOPLE VERSUS COLLINS, THAT WE CITE IN OUR PAPERS. THEY CLAIM THAT BY WITHDRAWING OUR MOTION WE HAVE WAIVED OUR RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE SCIENTIFIC WITNESSES FROM THE PROSECUTION ABOUT DISPUTES WITHIN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY CONCERNING THE RELIABILITY OF THE TESTS THAT THEY ARE GOING TO OFFER TO THIS JURY. THAT WE CANNOT TALK ABOUT OPINIONS OF OTHER LEADING SCIENTISTS THAT WOULD BE GENERALLY RELIED UPON BY EXPERTS IN THE FIELD WHO ARE PROMINENT SCIENTISTS THAT WERE PUBLISHED IN SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS. THAT WE COULDN'T RELY UPON, FOR EXAMPLE, DOCUMENTS LIKE THE NRC REPORT OR THE FACT THAT THERE IS AN NRC PANEL -- NRC PANEL FROM THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES CONSIDER MANY OF THE CRITICISMS THAT WE HAVE RAISED HERE, THAT THEY CONVENE ANOTHER PANEL. THEY ARE SAYING THAT WE CAN'T GO INTO ANYTHING WITH RESPECT TO THOSE DISPUTES IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY BECAUSE WE WITHDREW OUR MOTION. THEY SAY THAT WE CANNOT OFFER TESTIMONY WITH RESPECT TO TESTING PROCEDURES, SUCH AS MITOCHONDRIAL DNA, BECAUSE WE WITHDREW OUR MOTION WHEN IN FACT DURING OPENING STATEMENT MISS CLARK REFERRED TO PROCEDURES THAT ARE DONE TO IDENTIFY THE BODIES THAT WERE FOUND OVERSEAS OF SOLDIERS. AND IN FACT ONE OF THE TECHNIQUES THAT IS USED, IN FACT, THE PRIMARY TECHNIQUE IS, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THAT IS USED, IS MITOCHONDRIAL DNA TESTING BY ONE OF THE PROPOSED PROSECUTION WITNESSES, MAJOR VICTOR WEEDN. THEY SAY BY WITHDRAWING OUR MOTION WE CAN'T OFFER TESTIMONY ON THAT. THEIR POSITION IS THAT IN OUR DIRECT CASE WE DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO PRESENT EVIDENCE AGAIN THROUGH OUR WITNESSES UNDER APPROPRIATE SECTIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE CODE, I BELIEVE IT IS 801, CONCERNING OPINIONS OF OTHER SCIENTISTS AND THEIR CONCERNS, PUBLISHED AND OTHERWISE, ABOUT FORENSIC DNA TESTING, THAT ARE THE KIND THAT ARE RELIED UPON REASONABLY BY EXPERTS IN THE FIELD.

WHAT WOULD ORDINARILY COME IN AS A PROPER BASIS FOR AN EXPERT TESTIMONY, THEY SAY WE CAN'T DO THAT NOW BECAUSE WE WITHDREW THIS KELLY-FRYE MOTION BEFORE. THEY HAVE ALSO MADE A MOTION IN LIMINE. IN EFFECT THEY SAY UNDER 406 WE CAN'T ATTACK THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND ITS RELIABILITY IN THIS WAY BECAUSE WE WITHDREW OUR MOTION. THEY THEN PROPOSE THIS MOTION IN LIMINE WHERE THEY SAY THAT WE SHOULD BE RESTRICTED IN OUR CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES ABOUT THE VIEWS OF DR. KARY MULLIS, THE WINNER OF THE NOBEL PRIZE IN CHEMISTRY FOR THE INVENTION OF THE PCR TECHNIQUE CONCERNING HIS VIEWS ON THE APPLICATION OF PCR TO FORENSICS, SUCH AS WAS DONE IN THIS CASE. AND THEY CONCEDE IN THEIR PAPERS THAT DR. MULLIS HAS TESTIFIED ON THESE MATTERS. THEY HAVE THESE TRANSCRIPTS, THAT THEIR EXPERTS HAVE LOOKED AT THESE TRANSCRIPTS AND CONSIDERED HIS VIEWS, THEY WERE BEFORE THE COURT BEFORE, BUT THEY SAY THAT BECAUSE WE WITHDREW OUR MOTION WE CAN'T CROSS-EXAMINE THEM ABOUT THOSE. AND THEY INDEED GO FURTHER AND SAY THAT WE CAN'T CROSS-EXAMINE THEIR WITNESSES ABOUT DR. MULLIS' VIEWS BECAUSE HIS OPINIONS HAVE NO VALUE WITHIN THE VIEWS THEY CLAIM OF THEIR EXPERTS, ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT IN ANY WAY EVER SAID THAT THEIR EXPERTS -- THERE IS NO AFFIDAVIT FOR ANY EXPERTS, THERE IS NONE NAMED, BECAUSE THESE EXPERTS BELIEVE THAT DR. MULLIS' LIFESTYLE, DR. MULLIS' VIEWS ON MATTERS THAT ARE COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO THIS LITIGATION HAVING TO DO WITH THE IDEOLOGY OF AIDS AND THE HIV VIRUS ARE MATTERS WHICH DISCREDIT --

THE COURT: AN INTERESTING THEORY.

MR. SCHECK: I THOUGHT IT WAS -- WE HAVE PROBLEMS WITH THAT, BECAUSE THEY SAY ON THAT BASIS HE CAN'T RAISE HIS VIEWS WITH OTHER WITNESSES, NOTWITHSTANDING HIS WINNING THE NOBEL PRIZE ABOUT THIS TECHNOLOGY. BUT WHAT CONCERNS US A GREAT DEAL, YOUR HONOR, IS THAT WE ARE ABOUT TO ENTER THE TECHNICAL PHASE OF THE CASE AND YOU HAVE ISSUED AN ORDER TO US, US LAWYERS, ABOUT HOW THESE MATTERS SHOULD BE LITIGATED. AND I MENTION TO YOU THAT WE WANT TO LITIGATE THESE MATTERS ON THE MERITS IN A HIGHLY PROFESSIONAL FASHION, TRY TO CONDUCT MYSELF IN THIS FASHION THROUGHOUT THESE PROCEEDINGS IN A DIFFICULT SUBJECT MATTER THAT IS TURGID AND GIVES EVERYBODY HEADACHES, I UNDERSTAND IT, BUT WE HAVE GREAT CONCERNS. THIS CASE IS ON NATIONAL TELEVISION, IT IS BROADCAST AROUND THE WORLD. PEOPLE ARE RELUCTANT TO COME IN AS WITNESSES, LAY PEOPLE. YOU KNOW, IT APPLIES TO SCIENTISTS, TOO.

AND WHEN MOTIONS ARE FILED WHERE PERSONAL ATTACKS OF THIS KIND THAT I THINK DON'T EVEN MERIT SERIOUS CONSIDERATION -- WHAT IT DOES IS IT SERVES NOTICE TO EVERYBODY, IF YOU WANT TO COME IN HERE AND TALK ABOUT SCIENCE, IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT REAL ISSUES, WELL, YOU BETTER BE PREPARED TO BE PUT UNDER A MICROSCOPE AND HAVE YOUR ENTIRE CHARACTER SUBJECT TO ATTACK. AND WE THINK THAT IS VERY UNFAIR. WE THINK THAT IS INTIMIDATING TO SCIENTISTS. WE THINK THAT IS NOT THE WAY THIS SHOULD BE CONDUCTED AND WE OBJECT TO IT. NOW, WHAT I PROPOSE TO DO, YOUR HONOR, IS AT THIS POINT GO THROUGH THE OBJECTIONS THAT WE MADE, OUR NOTICE OF OBJECTIONS, AND DEAL WITH THE PROSECUTION'S RESPONSE TO THAT AND THEN I'M GOING TO DEFER TO PROFESSOR THOMPSON TO ADDRESS THE MOTION IN LIMINE ISSUE. AND THEN IF WE HAVE TIME, WE COULD MOVE ON TO THE STIPULATION, WHICH MR. BLASIER WILL DISCUSS, AND THEN THE DEMONSTRATION BOARDS WHICH MR. NEUFELD WILL DISCUSS. THE FIRST POINT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ABOUT OUR NOTICE OF OBJECTIONS IS THAT WE TRIED TO DESIGN THIS IN SUCH A WAY TO INDICATE TO THE COURT WHAT ISSUES WE THINK YOU HAVE TO DECIDE BEFORE THE WITNESSES TESTIFY, WHAT ISSUES WE THINK CAN ONLY BE DECIDED AFTER YOU HEAR EXPERT TESTIMONY FROM BOTH SIDES. UMM, AND WHAT I WOULD FIRST LIKE TO DISCUSS IS THE PROSECUTION'S CONTENTION THAT BY WITHDRAWING THE DNA MOTION WHEN WE DID THAT WE HAVE EXPLICITLY GIVEN A BLANKET WAIVER TO ALL THE VARIOUS LEGAL CHALLENGES THAT WE HAVE GIVEN NOTICE WE WANT TO PURSUE. AND THE MATTERS THAT I WANT TO DISCUSS FIRST ARE THE PRONG 352, 350, COLLINS, CELLA CHALLENGES, AND JUDGE, I'M SURE YOU WILL APPRECIATE IT, YES, WE HAVE DONE A CHART THAT I WOULD OFFER TO THE COURT -- MAY I JUST WALK OVER?

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. SCHECK: THAT ESSENTIALLY DIAGRAMS OUR BRIEF AND OUR VARIOUS OBJECTIONS.

THE COURT: VERY SIMILAR THEN TO MY CHART DIAGRAMMING THE ARGUMENT AND THE CASE LAW.

MR. SCHECK: THE ONE YOU WOULDN'T GIVE THE OTHER DAY AND THE ONE THAT HAS THE TENTATIVE RULINGS ON IT? I HOPE IT IS SIMILAR.

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

MR. SCHECK: HERE. NOW, THE FIRST POINT THAT THE PROSECUTION MAKES IS THAT THEY SAY THE DAY THAT WE WITHDREW OUR MOTION WE EXPLICITLY WAIVED ALL LEGAL CHALLENGES, INCLUDING THE PRONG 3 CHALLENGES AND ALL THE ONES THAT I HAVE LISTED ON THIS CHART, AS GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION THAT GO BEYOND THE FIRST PRONG OF KELLY-FRYE. AND THEN THEY CITE TO SECTIONS OF THE RECORD, AND I'M SURE THE COURT REMEMBERS IT AND THE COURT REPORTER REMEMBERS IT, BUT AT THE MOMENT THAT THIS WAS DONE, THERE ACTUALLY WAS -- I HEARD AND I KNOW WE CORRECTED IT -- A SMALL ERROR IN THE RECORD OR ON THE LIVE NOTES, AND THAT MR. SIMPSON DID NOT USE THE WORD "WAIVER," HE USED THE WORD "MOTION," BUT THAT IS NOT REALLY THE POINT. THE POINT WAS THAT AT THE TIME THAT THIS WAS DONE, INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE PROSECUTION PUT IN ITS BRIEF, IT WAS ABSOLUTELY CLEAR THAT MR. SIMPSON WAS DISCUSSING AND WE HAD PROFFERED TO THE COURT OUR WITHDRAWAL MOTION WHICH HAD VERY SPECIFIC GROUNDS AS TO WHAT WE WITHDREW AND WHY WE WITHDREW IT AND THAT THAT IS WHAT HE WAS REFERRING TO. AND THEN THE COURT ACKNOWLEDGES THIS ON PAGE 10281 AND SAYS THAT -- YOU INDICATE THAT IT WAS YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT MR. SIMPSON WAS REFERRING TO THE DOCUMENT THAT WE -- THAT HAD BEEN DRAFTED, THE WITHDRAWAL MOTION, AND IT IS ALSO CLEAR FROM THE RECORD THAT WE HAD DISCUSSED WITH MR. SIMPSON THE PROSECUTION'S PROPOSED QUESTIONS. AND OBVIOUSLY THEY HAD THEIR VIEW AT THAT TIME AS TO THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE WITHDRAWAL, BUT THAT IS NOTHING THAT WE EXPLICITLY ACKNOWLEDGED OR BELIEVED TO BE TRUE, AND I'M SURE THE COURT REALIZED AT THAT TIME, I THINK YOU EVEN INDICATED IT, THAT ONE DAY WE WOULD VISIT THE QUESTION OF GROUNDS FOR OBJECTIONS BEYOND PRONG 1 CERTAINLY WITH RESPECT TO THE TESTING THAT HAD BEEN DONE UP TO THAT POINT. SO THE PROSECUTION'S POSITION THAT WE EXPLICITLY WAIVED IN A BLANKET FASHION ALL THESE CHALLENGES I THINK HAS NO MERIT AND IS BACKED UP BY THE RECORD. WE SHOULD ALSO NOTE THE FACTORS, I WON'T REPEAT THEM BECAUSE THE COURT REMEMBERS THEM WELL, THAT WENT INTO THAT WITHDRAWAL MOTION AND THAT WE WANTED TO RAISE PRONG 1 CHALLENGES, AND WE THINK BY WITHDRAWING THE MOTION WHEN WE DID, WHAT WE WAIVED WAS WE WAIVED OUR RIGHT TO ATTACK, OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY, ALL DNA TEST RESULTS THAT HAD BEEN DONE UP TO THAT POINT, THAT WE HAD RECEIVED RESULTS FROM. THAT IS WHAT WE THINK WE WAIVED. WE ASKED THE COURT IN DECEMBER TO CONSIDER A PROCEDURE WHEREBY WE COULD LITIGATE THE PRONG 1 ISSUES DURING THE COURSE OF TRIAL, HAVING THE PROSECUTION PRESENT ITS DNA WITNESSES IN EXACTLY THE PASSION THAT THEY ORDINARILY WOULD, ANY WITNESS THAT THEY FELT THEY NEEDED FOR FOUNDATION COULD BE TAKEN OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY, WORK ON A SATURDAY OR ON A DOWN DAY, WHATEVER ELSE, AND THAT WE WOULD PRESENT WITNESSES. AND THEN AT THE END OF THE TRIAL THE COURT COULD CONSIDER STRIKING TESTIMONY AND GIVE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY AND WE WOULD WAIVE THE PREJUDICE OF HAVING THAT BELL RUNG AND THEN UNRUNG IF WE PREVAILED ON ANY OF THOSE CLAIMS. THE COURT DECLINED OUR PROPOSAL AT THAT TIME INDICATING THAT YOU DIDN'T FEEL WE WERE SUFFICIENTLY CONCRETE ABOUT IT IN STATING OTHER REASONS AND YOU JUST DECLINED TO DO IT. BUT WE THINK WE WAIVED JUST AT THAT POINT THE RIGHT TO DO PRONG 1 CHALLENGES OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY AND WE DIDN'T WAIVE ANY OF THE CHALLENGES THAT WE'VE OUTLINED HERE. SO THAT WAS THEIR FIRST ARGUMENT; WAIVER, BLANKET WAIVER, EXPLICIT WAIVER, WHICH I DON'T THINK IS SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD IN OUR WITHDRAWAL MOTION. THE SECOND ARGUMENT NOW IS THAT -- THAT THE PROSECUTION OFFERS IS THAT THEY SAY UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW THAT YOU MUST DO PRONG 3 CHALLENGES, 352 CHALLENGE, CHALLENGES THAT ARE WE THINK GOVERNED BY BARNEY, WALLACE AND PIZARRO, THE COLLINS CHALLENGE, THIS NOTION OF INDEPENDENCE, PEOPLE VERSUS CELLA, THIS MOTION OF QUANTIFYING ALL THE RELEVANT VARIABLES ACCURATELY, THAT ALL THOSE HAVE TO BE DONE PRETRIAL THROUGH A KELLY-FRYE HEARING AND THEY CANNOT BE DONE DURING THE COURSE OF TRIAL BY MAKING OBJECTIONS WHEN WE ACTUALLY GET THE RESULTS AND WE SEE HOW THE TESTS ARE PERFORMED. WE DON'T THINK THAT THAT IS CORRECT. WE DON'T THINK THAT THERE IS ANY BASIS IN THE LAW FOR THAT. AND IN FACT THE PROSECUTION SEEMS TO BE GOING FURTHER. THEY SEEM TO BE TAKING THE POSITION THAT THEY ARE FREE, BECAUSE OF OUR WITHDRAWAL OF THE MOTION, TO PREVENT -- PRESENT ANY DNA EVIDENCE IN ANY FORM, LITERALLY SCIENTIFIC GARBAGE, IF THEY WANT TO, BEFORE THE JURY WITHOUT ANY LIMITATIONS BY THE COURT OR ANY RIGHT BY THE DEFENSE TO OBJECT TO FOUNDATIONS. AND WE DON'T THINK THAT THAT MAKES ANY SENSE AND WE DON'T THINK THAT IS THE LAW. IT IS VERY REVEALING TO US THAT THE PROSECUTION IN ITS PAPERS DOES NOT EVEN BOTHER TO MAKE A POINT BY POINT RESPONSE TO OUR VARIOUS OBJECTIONS. THEY JUST SAY BLANKET WAIVER AND YOU EITHER DO IT IN A KELLY-FRYE HEARING BEFORE THE JURY OR YOU CAN'T WAIVE THESE THIRD PRONG CHALLENGES, THESE 352 CHALLENGES AND THE OTHER CHALLENGES. WE DON'T THINK THAT MAKES ANY SENSE. NOW, IN TERMS OF THESE OBJECTIONS, WHAT WE WOULD PROPOSE TO THE COURT IS THAT THERE IS ONLY REALLY TWO OF THEM, MAYBE THREE OF THEM, THAT HAVE TO BE RESOLVED BEFORE THE WITNESSES TESTIFY. AND THOSE ARE WHAT I WOULD SAY ON OUR LIST IS NO. 1, PRESENTING DNA EVIDENCE TO THE JURY WITHOUT STATISTICS. AND NO. 2, SUGGESTIONS THAT DNA TESTS PROVIDE UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION. A RELATED ISSUE I THINK IS THE SECOND TO LAST ENTRY IN OUR CHART, THE PROSECUTOR'S FALLACY, BUT LET ME JUST ADDRESS THIS FIRST POINT BECAUSE I THINK IT IS AN ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL ONE, AND IT IS ONE THAT HIGHLIGHTS THE WAY THE PROSECUTION IS PROCEEDING HERE THAT I THINK HAS BEEN UNFAIR AND ABUSIVE IN TERMS OF WHY DNA EVIDENCE OUGHT TO BE PRESENTED AND A MATTER THAT I THINK IS OF EXTRAORDINARY CONSEQUENCE IN TERMS OF HOW THIS KIND OF EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE PRESENTED TO JURIES FROM THIS POINT FORWARD, NOT JUST IN THIS COURTROOM, I THINK, BUT ACROSS THE COUNTRY, INDEED ACROSS THE WORLD. WHAT IS DNA EVIDENCE AND WHAT ISN'T IT? WHAT IS ITS REAL SIGNIFICANCE? HOW CAN COURTS STRUCTURE THE PRESENTATION OF THIS EVIDENCE SO THAT JURIES ARE NOT MISLED AND THEY TAKE IT IN THE PROPER CONTEXT FOR EXACTLY WHAT IT IS WORTH AND WHAT IT IS NOT WORTH? THIS IS A VERY VEXING QUESTION. THIS IS ONE THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES HAS OPINED ON. AS YOU SAW FROM THE PAPERS WE SUBMITTED, IT IS ONE THAT THEY ARE STILL STRUGGLING WITH AND IT IS ALSO AN ISSUE THAT ALL THE LEGAL AND SCIENTIFIC COMMENTATORS ARE COMMENTING ON. THIS IS A LEGAL PRINCIPLE. BUT I THINK THERE ARE CERTAIN APPOINTMENTS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED IN CASE LAW AND WITHIN OTHER JURISDICTIONS AND WITHIN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY THAT PEOPLE TAKE THAT IS CLEARLY APPROPRIATE AND SO WE URGE THE COURT TO THINK ABOUT THIS VERY CAREFULLY, AND THIS IS THE ARGUMENT: NO. 1, I THINK IT IS ABSOLUTELY CLEAR FROM BARNEY, AND I CITE BARNEY, WALLACE AND PIZARRO, BECAUSE AT THIS POINT I THINK THAT IS ALL WE CAN CITE, THE RECENT ACTIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT IN TAKING VENEGAS AND PUTTING A GRANT AND HOLD ON SOTO, ON WILDS, WHICH WAS A DIFFERENT POSITION THAN WE WERE IN WHEN WE BEGAN THIS TRIAL, MAKES THAT THE GOVERNING PRECEDENT. BUT UNDER ANY PRECEDENT DNA EVIDENCE IS STATISTICAL AND YOU SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO PRESENT THIS EVIDENCE WITHOUT STATISTICS. NOW, THE PROSECUTION HAS ALREADY DONE THAT IN THE OPENING STATEMENT WHERE MISS CLARK WENT ON SAYING HERE IS A BLOOD STAIN, MATCH. HERE IS A BLOOD STAIN, MATCH. THEN IN THE EXAMINATION OF DETECTIVE VANNATTER, IN THE COURSE OF A DISCOVERY VIOLATION, AND I THINK THE RECORD IS CLEAR IN A WAY THAT I THINK IS PURPOSEFUL, SHE ELICITED FROM HIM THE TESTIMONY THAT, OH, THERE WERE SCRAPINGS TAKEN FROM UNDER NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S FINGERNAILS AND DNA TESTS WERE DONE AND THE CONCLUSION WAS THAT IS HER BLOOD. NOW, THAT IS NOT WHAT DNA TESTS SHOW. THEY GIVE YOU RESULTS WHICH HAVE GENE FREQUENCIES AND THAT IS WHAT THEY SHOW. THEY SAY THIS IS THE GENE FREQUENCY OF THE PROFILE. AND NOBODY WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE ARE AT A POINT NOW WHERE THOSE TESTS IN PARTICULAR, THOSE PCR-BASED TESTS, COULD EVER REACH THE CONCLUSION THAT WOULD SATISFY ANY SCIENTIST THAT IS HER BLOOD. NOW, THE LAW IS CLEAR IN BARNEY THAT YOU CANNOT PRESENT THIS EVIDENCE WITHOUT PRESENTING STATISTICS. YOU CAN'T SAY IT IS JUST A MACHINE AND NOT PRESENT STATISTICS, BUT THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT THE PROSECUTION HAS DONE SO FAR IN THIS PROCEEDING. AND IT IS NOT LIKE THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING, YOUR HONOR. THEY HAVE ALL THE PEOPLE HERE IN CALIFORNIA THAT HAVE BEEN FROM THE VERY BEGINNING TRYING TO ENGINEER THE ADMISSION OF THIS EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF THE PROSECUTION, THE PROPONENTS OF IT, AND THEY KNOW THE LAW. AND WHAT IS VERY INTERESTING IS THAT MISS CLARK, IN AN ARTICLE BY ONE OF OUR BRETHREN, PROFESSOR RICHARD LEMPERT, THAT WE HAVE CITED, ACTUALLY TAKES TO TASK MISS CLARK'S ARGUMENTS IN ANOTHER CASE WHERE SHE ARGUED DNA EVIDENCE AND SHE DID THE VERY SAME THING, AND THAT IS NOTED IN OUR PAPERS. NOW, THAT IS UNFAIRLY PREJUDICIAL. SO WHAT DO WE PROPOSE? WHAT WE PROPOSE IS THAT, A, I THINK IS THE LAW THE EVIDENCE HAS TO BE PRESENTED IN THE FORM OF STATISTICS, GENE FREQUENCIES, BUT THAT IS NOT ALL. IF YOU AGREE WITH US AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THAT MUST BE THE WAY IT IS DONE BECAUSE THAT IS THE LAW, THEN WE DEAL WITH ANOTHER QUESTION AND THAT IS WHAT KIND OF PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION WILL THIS COURT GIVE TO THE JURY ABOUT THESE STATISTICS? THIS WE THINK IS THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT. IF YOU GO WITH US THE NEXT STEP, AND THAT IS MAKE THEM PUT IT IN THE FORM OF STATISTICS, BECAUSE WHAT THE JURY OUGHT TO BE INSTRUCTED IS THAT WHAT THEY ARE ABOUT TO HEAR ARE STATISTICAL ESTIMATES ABOUT GENE FREQUENCIES, UMM, AND THAT THEY SHOULD BE INSTRUCTED THAT THOSE GENE FREQUENCY ESTIMATES DO NOT REPRESENT THE FALSE POSITIVE ERROR RATES OF THE LABORATORY. THEY DO NOT REPRESENT A PROBABILITY ABOUT SAMPLE HANDLING MISTAKES WITHIN A LABORATORY. THEY DO NOT REPRESENT PROBABILITIES ABOUT, UMM, FALSE MATCHES ARISING FROM CROSS-CONTAMINATION IN THE COLLECTION OF SAMPLES AND THEY DO NOT REPRESENT PROBABILITIES AS TO WHETHER OR NOT EVIDENCE WAS TAMPERED WITH AND THEY DO NOT REPRESENT PROBABILITIES OF GUILT. AND I THINK THAT THE JURY HAS TO BE INSTRUCTED ON EXACTLY WHAT IT IS AND WHAT IT ISN'T. AND WE WOULD -- IF YOU AGREE WITH US THAT IT MUST BE STATISTICAL, THEN WE WILL PRESENT TO YOU A PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION ON THIS POINT THAT WE THINK IS ESSENTIAL TO GIVE THE JURY GUIDANCE ABOUT WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO HEAR, WHAT IT MEANS AND WHAT IT DOESN'T MEAN. AND THESE ARE ISSUES THAT WE RAISED IN OUR INITIAL BRIEFS AND PEOPLE ARE WRITING ABOUT. THERE IS AN ARTICLE THAT I WOULD CALL TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT HAS JUST BEEN PUBLISHED IN JURIMETRICS THAT WAS INITIALLY CITED IN OUR PAPERS AND IN ITS UNPUBLISHED FORM BY DR. JAY KOEHLER CONCERNING ERRORS AND EXAGGERATIONS IN THE PRESENTATION OF DNA EVIDENCE. AND THE RESEARCH THAT DR. KOEHLER HAS DONE, AND OTHERS IN THIS FIELD, IS THAT IF YOU PRESENT -- HE DID A STUDY -- THEY DID A MOCK CASE AND THE JURY -- THE JURY OF COLLEGE STUDENT'S ESSENTIALLY WAS PRESENTED DNA EVIDENCE ABOUT A GENE FREQUENCY OF ONE IN A BILLION AND THEN THEY WERE ASKED GIVEN THE EVIDENCE THEY SAW WOULD THEY VOTE GUILTY OR INNOCENT? THEN THEY WERE GIVEN THE ONE IN A BILLION GENE FREQUENCY STATISTIC AND THEY WERE ALSO GIVEN A FALSE POSITIVE ERROR RATE, SOMETHING ON THE ORDER OF ONE IN 200, AND THE JURY REACHED EXACTLY THE SAME CONCLUSION, HUM, WHEN THEY HAD BOTH STATISTICS AS OPPOSED TO JUST HAVING THE ONE IN A BILLION STATISTIC ALONE. IN OTHER WORDS, IT DIDN'T AFFECT IT AT ALL. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF YOU GAVE THEM THE STATISTICS OF JUST THE FALSE POSITIVE ERROR RATE, THEY WOULD REACH A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT VERDICT. MUCH IT WAS A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT. NOW, WHAT THAT REFLECTS, YOUR HONOR, IS A RICH LITERATURE, PSYCHOLOGICAL LITERATURE THAT WE ARE PREPARED TO PUT ON TESTIMONY ABOUT, UMM, HAVING TO DO WITH, UMM, THE NAIVETE THAT LAY PEOPLE HAVE, MANY OF US HAVE ABOUT STATISTICS AND ABOUT HOW EASILY PEOPLE CAN BE CONFUSED AND MISLEAD AND PREJUDICED BY THE PRESENTATION OF STATISTICS. THERE IS A RICH LITERATURE IN THIS FIELD, AND WHAT WILL NOT ORDINARILY BE UNDERSTOOD BY PEOPLE IS THAT IF YOU HAVE A FALSE POSITIVE ERROR RATE, FOR EXAMPLE, OF ONE IN 200 OR ONE IN 243, I THINK IT WAS THE LAST ONE THAT CELLMARK OFFERED FOR ITSELF, THEN THE CHANCES, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT A PARTICULAR TEST RESULT IS A FALSE POSITIVE IS ONE OUT OF 243. AND THE GENE FREQUENCY OF ONE IN A BILLION IS IRRELEVANT, OR SO WE WOULD ARGUE OR AT LEAST PEOPLE SHOULD UNDERSTAND THAT ARGUMENT OR UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS ONE THAT IS AVAILABLE TO THEM. NOW, THEY HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT DISTINCTION AND THEY SHOULDN'T BE CONFUSING THE GENE FREQUENCY STATISTIC WITH ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT IT IS AND BE FREE TO UNDERSTAND AND CONSIDER THE OTHER EVIDENCE IN THE CASE. AND IT IS CRITICAL THAT JURORS BE -- UNDERSTAND THAT AND THAT THEY BE INSTRUCTED ON IT AND THAT THESE -- THIS EVIDENCE BE PRESENTED IN THE FORM OF STATISTICS. LET ME MOVE ON QUICKLY TO THE REMAINDER OF THE ARGUMENTS WHICH WE THINK YOU SHOULD ONLY DECIDE AFTER HEARING TESTIMONY FROM EXPERTS ON BOTH SIDES, AND I WILL JUST HIT A FEW OF THEM BECAUSE I THINK YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THEM FROM THE PAPERS. LET'S TAKE IN OUR CHART FAILURE TO ACCOUNT FOR POPULATION SUBSTRUCTURE, AN ISSUE I'M SURE THE COURT HAS BECOME LEARNED IN. ONE METHOD FOR FAILURE TO ACCOUNT FOR POPULATION SUBSTRUCTURE IS THE CEILING PRINCIPLE. NOW, AS I UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES NOW BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT, THE QUESTION IS A PRONG 3 QUESTION AS ARTICULATED IN BARNEY WHICH WOULD BE THE GOVERNING PRECEDENT WE ARGUE NOW OR THE ONLY CITEABLE PRECEDENT AND THAT IS THE IDEA THAT IF THEY WANT TO OFFER GENE FREQUENCIES, THEY CAN ONLY OFFER THEM AT THE VERY -- VERY -- IF THEY CAN OFFER THEM AT ALL, PURSUANT TO THE CEILING PRINCIPLE, CERTAINLY FOR RFLP TESTS, THAT IS ALL THEY OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO OFFER IN TERMS OF ACCOUNTING FOR SUBSTRUCTURE. AND I WILL TELL YOU NOW THAT IT IS OUR POSITION YOU DON'T EVEN NEED A HEARING. WE THINK THAT ANY PRODUCT RULE STATISTIC SHOULD NOT BE ADMITTED. WE SAY IF THEY ARE GOING TO BE ADMITTED AT ALL IT SHOULD ONLY BE DONE BY THE CEILING PRINCIPLE TO ACCOUNT FOR SUBSTRUCTURE. THAT IS THE CORRECT PROCEDURE. AND WE THINK THAT IS THE ISSUE THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT IS CONSIDERING RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED IN VENEGAS. THEY INTRODUCED THE PRODUCT RULE, NOT THE CEILING PRINCIPLE. THE COURT REVERSED AND THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT IS CONSIDERING IT, SO THEY ARE ON NOTICE OF THAT RIGHT NOW, BUT THEY ARE A FAR CRY FROM INTRODUCING THE CEILING PRINCIPLE. THEY ARE INTRODUCING EVIDENCE IT IS A MATCH, IT IS HER BLOOD. NOW, WE ARE ALSO VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE FAILURE OF CONTROLS. WE THINK THIS IS ABSOLUTELY BASIC. UMM, WE THINK THAT THERE IS A NUMBER OF TESTS HERE WHERE THERE WAS A FAILURE OF CRITICAL CONTROLS. IF THE CONTROLS FAIL, THEN YOU ARE NOT USING CORRECT PROCEDURES AND THE EVIDENCE IS UNRELIABLE AND IT SHOULDN'T GO BEFORE THE JURY, AND AFTER HEARING THE EVIDENCE, I THINK YOU WILL AGREE WITH THAT PROPOSITION AND THERE SHOULD BE A MOTION TO STRIKE. MIXED STAINS, JUST TO CLARIFY IT. LET'S SAY THAT THEY DO A PCR TEST ON BLOOD SAMPLES FROM UNKNOWN SOURCES WHICH I THINK IS VERY CLEAR IS THE -- THE BIGGEST PROBLEM, I MEAN, AS OPPOSED TO A SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE SEMEN, SPERM IN A VAGINAL SWAB AND YOU CAN DO A DIFFERENTIAL EXTRACTION. WHEN YOU ARE DEALING WITH TWO UNKNOWN BLOOD STAINS OR BLOOD STAIN OF MANY POSSIBLE SOURCES, YOU CAN'T DO DIFFERENTIAL EXTRACTIONS. UMM, IT IS A PROBLEM. THE LITERATURE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT. THE PROPONENTS OF THE TEST ACKNOWLEDGE IT. LET'S SAY THAT THE DOTS ON THESE STRIPS OR THE D1S80 BANDS THAT THEY CLAIM IS A MIXTURE OF A NUMBER OF PARTIES ALL HAVE EQUAL INTENSITIES. OUR POSITION IS IF THAT IS WHAT THEY THINK IT IS, THEN AT THE VARIOUS LEAST THEY CAN'T PRESENT JUST THE GENE FREQUENCIES OF THE PEOPLE WHO THEY THINK IT IS, THEY HAVE TO PRESENT -- OR THE PROFILES THAT THEY THINK IT REPRESENTS -- THEY HAVE TO SUM ALL THE FREQUENCIES OF ALL THE POSSIBLE PROFILES WHEN THEY ARE PRESENTING STATISTICS TO THE JURY. THE NEXT ARGUMENT HAS TO DO WITH MIXED STAINS ITSELF AND THE FACT THAT IT IS NOT VALIDATED, THAT BY INTENSITIES YOU CAN REALLY DIFFERENTIATE WHO IS A PRINCIPLE OR A PRIMARY OR A SECONDARY OR A TERCERY CONTRIBUTOR TO ANY PARTICULAR STAIN, PARTICULARLY AN UNKNOWN BLOOD STAIN OF THAT KIND. AND THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE IN ITS 1992 REPORT SUPPORTS THAT CONTENTION. OUR EXPERTS TAKE THAT POSITION. AND I THINK THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU SHOULD CONSIDER AFTER HEARING ALL THE EVIDENCE FROM BOTH SIDES BEFORE MAKING A RULING. AND WE THINK THAT THAT IS OBVIOUSLY A PRONG 3 ISSUE, AS WE INDICATED, A BARNEY, WALLACE, PIZARRO ISSUE. AND THEN THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES ABOUT DATABASES AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WE DESCRIBE IN OUR PAPERS AND IF IN THE COURT WANTS ME TO ADDRESS THEM ONE BY ONE, I WON'T, BECAUSE I THINK THEY ARE COVERED.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. SCHECK: UMM, AND OBVIOUSLY I KNOW YOU HAVE TIME PROBLEMS. I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE ON NOW TO THE PRONG 1 ISSUE.

THE COURT: NOT THE TIME PROBLEMS. I ONLY HAVE ONE COURT REPORTER AND I WEAR THEM OUT AFTER A DAY.

MR. SCHECK: I UNDERSTAND.

THE COURT: PLUS SHE HAS TO GO HOME AND THEN DO THE TRANSCRIPT SO THAT I HAVE IT ON MY DESK TOMORROW MORNING WHEN WE START.

MR. SCHECK: I WOULD LIKE TO BRIEFLY DISCUSS THEN THE PRONG 1 ISSUE BEFORE I DEFER --

THE COURT: PROCEED.

MR. SHAPIRO: -- TO PROFESSOR THOMPSON. LET ME DISCUSS THE PRONG 1 ISSUE. WE TAKE THE POSITION, AS WE HAVE INDICATED IN OUR PAPERS, THAT WE ARE ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON PRONG 1 ISSUES WITH RESPECT OR ALL DNA TEST RESULTS THAT WE RECEIVED AFTER THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE MOTION AND TEST RESULTS THAT HAVE BEEN GOING ON SINCE THE TRIAL AND TEST RESULTS THAT I UNDERSTAND ARE STILL IN PROGRESS THAT WE HAVEN'T SEEN. WE THINK WE ARE ENTITLED TO THAT, UMM, AS A MATTER OF LAW. UMM, WE AGAIN WOULD PROPOSE THAT, UMM, IN THE ALTERNATIVE -- IF YOU REJECT THAT, WE CERTAINLY WOULD PROPOSE IT THIS WAY: WE WOULD CERTAINLY TAKE A HEARING UNDER THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS THAT WE PROPOSED THE LAST TIME WITH RESPECT TO PRONG 1 ISSUES, THAT IS, THAT THEY CAN PUT ON THE EVIDENCE HOWEVER THEY WANT IT, AND THEN IF THEY THINK ME NEED ADDITIONAL FOUNDATIONAL WITNESSES ON THE ISSUES AS TO THE NEW TEST RESULTS, THEY CAN CALL THEM OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY AND WE PUT ON WITNESSES IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY AND THEN YOU WILL MAKE A DECISION. BUT WE THINK, A, WE ARE ENTITLED TO THIS OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY, AND B, IF WE ARE ENTITLED TO IT OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY, WE ARE CERTAINLY ENTITLED TO THE PROPOSAL THAT WE HAVE MADE NOW AGAIN. AS TO HOW PRONG 1 ISSUES SHOULD BE LITIGATED. NOW, THE QUESTION WILL CERTAINLY ARISE, WELL, HAVEN'T YOU WAIVED THAT AS TO THE FUTURE TESTS, TOO, BECAUSE AT ISSUE INITIALLY WAS METHODOLOGIES. PRONG 1 GOES TO METHODOLOGIES AND YOU DIDN'T -- WE CHOSE NOT TO GO THROUGH THIS VERY LONG HEARING THAT THE PROSECUTION WAS GOING TO MAKE AS LONG AS IT COULD BY CALLING ALL THE WITNESSES THEY COULD WHILE THE JURY WAS SEQUESTERED AND MAKE US SPEND ALL THAT MONEY AND RUN THE RISK OF PRETRIAL PUBLICITY, ALL OF THOSE FACTORS THAT WE HAVE LAID OUT BEFORE. UMM, UMM, YOU KNOW, HAVE YOU WAIVED IT? WELL, WE DON'T THINK WE HAVE WAIVED THAT AT ALL ON THE NEW TEST RESULTS. AND I THINK THAT THE LANDSCAPE HERE WAS THE ONE THAT YOU SET OUT INITIALLY WHEN WE BREACHED THE WHOLE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT THE PROSECUTION COULD CONTINUE TO TEST UP THROUGH THE BEGINNING OF TRIAL AND THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL IN ANY FASHION OR FORM THAT THEY WANTED TO. NOW, AS I UNDERSTAND THE COURT'S RULING ON THAT, IS THAT THEY WERE ENTITLED TO DO SO SHORT OF BAD FAITH, BAD FAITH USE OF IT. WELL, WE CONTEND IT THEN, WE CONTEND NOW, THAT IN FACT THEY HAVE ACTED IN BAD FAITH IN TERMS OF THE TIMING OF THEIR TESTING. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. SCHECK: AND LET'S TALK ABOUT SOME ISSUES THAT I THINK ARE -- YOU KNOW, THERE WAS NO SECRET FROM THE HEARING WE DID ON A SPLIT AND ON THE PAPERS THAT WE FILED THAT WE CONSIDERED THE COLLECTION OF SAMPLES AND THE POSSIBILITY OF CROSS-CONTAMINATING SAMPLES ON JUNE 13TH TO BE A GROUND IN AND OF ITSELF THAT WOULD INVALIDATE THE DNA TEST RESULTS AND WAS A BASIS FOR CONTESTING THEM AT THIS TRIAL. UMM, THE PROSECUTION, ON SEPTEMBER 26, 1994, SENT SAMPLES THAT WERE RECOVERED ON JULY 3RD FROM THE REAR GATE AT BUNDY; NUMBERS 115, 116, 117, TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. NOW, OBVIOUSLY THEIR CONTENTION IS, THAT IS, THIS BLOOD IS A CONTINUATION OF BLOOD DROPS LEFT BY THE DEFENDANT AT THE TIME OF THE KILLINGS AND THERE IS SOME ON THE WALKWAY AND THERE IS SOME ON THE BACK GATE. THAT IS THEIR POSITION. THEY DID NOT TEST THIS. THEY COULD HAVE DONE PCR SCREENING TESTS ON THESE, ONE OR TWO DAYS. THEY DID NOT DO A DQ-ALPHA TEST OR A D1S80 TEST UNTIL FEBRUARY 20. I SUBMIT TO YOU IT IS CERTAINLY -- YOU KNOW, THEY WANTED THE DEFENSE TO COMMIT ITSELF TO A POSITION WITH RESPECT TO THE BUNDY BLOOD DROPS AND THEN THEY TEST IT AND THEN THEY COME IN AND THEY SAY, SEE, ANYTHING THAT HAPPENED ON JUNE 13TH CAN'T AFFECT WHAT HAPPENED ON JULY 3RD AND THEN THEY COULD, BY MEANS OF THIS FORENSIC AMBUSH, DERAIL THOSE ARGUMENTS. SIMILARLY, WE HAVE THE WHOLE QUESTION OF THE BRONCO AND HOW THE STAINS WERE TAKEN FROM THE BRONCO. WE HAD A WHOLE HEARING ON CHAIN OF CUSTODY WITH THE BRONCO, AND IT IS WELL-KNOWN THAT AFTER INITIAL SWATCHING WAS DONE WITH THE BRONCO ON JUNE 14TH, IT WAS LEFT TO THE VAGARIES OF VIERTEL'S WITHOUT A PROTECTION ON IT, PROTECT THIS BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE. PEOPLE WENT IN THERE, THINGS WERE STOLEN, ALL KIND OF THINGS HAPPENED TO THAT CAR. THEN MIRACULOUSLY ON AUGUST 26TH THEY WENT IN AND THEY TOOK OTHER SWATCHES. IN OPENING STATEMENT MARCIA CLARK SAID TO THE JURY I HAVE SHOWN YOU ALL THESE THINGS FROM THE BRONCO AND THE DEFENSE IS GOING TO SAY SOME THINGS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED TO THE BRONCO AFTER JUNE 14TH AND IT IS ALL VERY INTERESTING BUT IT DOESN'T RELATE TO THE TESTING RESULTS FROM THE BRONCO FROM SAMPLES THAT WERE TAKEN ON JUNE 14TH. WELL, LO AND BEHOLD, SAMPLES 303, 304, WHICH ARE FROM THE SAME AREA OF THE BRONCO AS WERE SWATCHED ON JUNE 14TH, BUT WERE TAKEN ON AUGUST 26, THEY START TESTING IN MARCH. IN MARCH. AND GET DIFFERENT RESULTS THAN THEY DID THE FIRST TIME AROUND. AND THEN AS YOU KNOW, THEY COME IN AND SAY WE WANT TO COMBINE ALL THOSE SAMPLES AND DO AN RFLP TEST. THAT IS FORENSIC AMBUSH, TRYING TO CHANGE THE TERRAIN OF HOW THIS CASE IS ARGUED BECAUSE THE FAILURE OF CONTROLS ON THE PCR TESTS IS MOST CLEARLY EVIDENT FROM THE INITIAL RESULTS THAT THEY GOT ON THE BRONCO. SO I THINK THAT WE THINK THAT IS BAD FAITH, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO MAKE A FINDING OF BAD FAITH. LET'S JUST SAY IN TERMS OF PARAMETERS, AND THE GROUNDRULES OF THIS CASE AND IT IS AN UNUSUAL ONE, LET'S SAY IT IS STRATEGIC. LET'S SAY THAT THE PROSECUTION DECIDED TO GO ABOUT ITS DNA TESTING, SEEING HOW THE DEFENSE WAS DEVELOPING AND THEN THEY DID IT IN A STRATEGIC WAY. WELL, IF THEY CAN DO THAT IN A STRATEGIC WAY AND CHANGE THE ENTIRE LIKE OF ATTACK IN THE DEFENSE, THEN THE DEFENSE IS ENTITLED TO RECONSIDER AND SAY, WELL, THE GAME WASN'T WORTH THE CANDLE WHEN WE WITHDREW OUR MOTION IN LIGHT OF WHAT WE KNEW IN JANUARY, BUT NOW WE HAVE NEVER -- WE HAVE NEVER TAKEN THE POSITION THAT WE THOUGHT THESE METHODOLOGIES WERE RELIABLE, PARTICULARLY THE MORE ESOTERIC NEW PCR TESTS FOR WHICH THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE DATABASES IN PLACE THAT WE THINK ARE, YOU KNOW, CLOSE TO LARGE ENOUGH OR RELIABLE ENOUGH. WE HAVE MADE THAT CLEAR BUT WE HAVE A CONSISTENT POSITION. WE THINK THERE IS REAL PROBLEMS WITH THE METHODOLOGY, BUT IF THE GAME IS NOT WORTH THE CANDLE IN JANUARY BECAUSE OF THE STATE OF THE EVIDENCE AND NOW THEY WAIT AND THEY TRY TO DO THIS IN A STRATEGIC WAY, YOU DON'T HAVE TO MAKE AN INDEPENDENT FINDING OF BAD FAITH. WE THINK WE ARE ENTITLED TO RAISE THOSE OBJECTIONS NOW AND LITIGATE THEM, NOW, PARTICULARLY ON TESTING THAT WE THINK WOULD NEVER -- SHOULD NEVER HAVE COME IN, UMM, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. SO BASICALLY THAT IS OUR ARGUMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE PRONG 1. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME ON THAT? I WILL DEFER -- ONE SECOND.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. SCHECK: IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED TO ME THAT GIVEN THE TIME CONSTRAINTS, MAYBE IT IS BETTER TO HEAR FROM THEM IN RESPONSE TO THIS BEFORE WE GO ON. UP TO YOU.

THE COURT: NICE TIMING. COUNSEL, SINCE I KNOW ALL OF YOU ARE FROM -- OR MOST OF YOU ARE FROM OUT OF TOWN, WHAT IS YOUR SCHEDULE IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS?

MR. SCHECK: WE CAN COME BACK AND ADDRESS THIS.

MR. NEUFELD: WE ARE HERE, BUT YOUR HONOR, WITH YOUR PERMISSION, WHAT YOU COULD DO IS GIVE US SOME GUIDANCE AND DIRECTION ABOUT SCHEDULING OVER THE NEXT FEW DAYS, BECAUSE YOU HAD MENTIONED YESTERDAY YOU WERE THINKING ABOUT A CERTAIN TRANSITION, TRANSITIONAL PERIOD OR SOMETHING IN BETWEEN DIFFERENT PORTIONS OF THE CASE, AND IF YOU COULD JUST GIVE US SOME DIRECTION AT THIS POINT, WE CAN CERTAINLY ACCOMMODATE YOU.

THE COURT: WELL, I AM NOT AWARE OF WHEN THE PROSECUTION EXACTLY IS GOING TO SHIFT GEARS INTO EVIDENCE COLLECTION. IT IS NOT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR TO ME YET.

MR. DOUGLAS: TOMORROW.

THE COURT: TOMORROW?

MR. GOLDMAN: THAT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING, YOUR HONOR, THAT IT IS GOING TO BE TOMORROW.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THEN WE WILL PROBABLY SHIFT GEARS AND WE HAVE TO RESOLVE SOME OF THESE ISSUES BEFORE WE LAUNCH INTO THAT, SO DO WE KNOW, MR. GOLDBERG, WHO IS GOING TO APPEAR, SINCE WE HAVE FINISHED WITH MR. WILLIAMS, WE HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH WESTEC, IF I RECALL, SOMETHING TO DO WITH AIRTOUCH RECORDS?

MR. GOLDBERG: YEAH. THAT IS WHAT I UNDERSTAND. I UNDERSTOOD THAT THERE WERE A FEW MORE WITNESSES TO CALL, AND WE DON'T KNOW ALL THE DETAILS, BUT FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THEY ARE FAIRLY BRIEF.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THEN PERHAPS WE COULD ADDRESS -- START READDRESSING OR CONTINUING OUR DISCUSSION AT 1:30 TOMORROW. DOES THAT SOUND REALISTIC?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, AFTER THE PEOPLE ARE FINISHED WITH THE REMAINING WITNESSES BEFORE WE GET TO EVIDENCE COLLECTION, THEN DOES THE COURT WANT TO TAKE IT UP AT THAT TIME IF THAT IS IN THE MORNING?

THE COURT: IT SEEMS TO BE -- WELL, NO -- WELL, I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE PROSECUTION IS GOING TO PRESENT ME WITH TOMORROW MORNING. THESE THINGS HAVE A HABIT OF MUSHROOMING.

MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, I BELIEVE IT WILL BE EITHER TWO OR THREE -- TWO OR THREE WITNESSES TOMORROW, PLUS A STIPULATION, WHICH SHOULD TAKE THE MORNING. I'M PRETTY CONFIDENT IT WILL TAKE ALL MORNING.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S SCHEDULE FOR 1:30 TOMORROW TO CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION. ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE?

MR. NEUFELD: YOUR HONOR, JUST IN TERMS OF THAT WE DON'T EXPECT THAT WE WILL ACTUALLY BEGIN THE WITNESSES ON COLLECTION UNTIL EARLY NEXT WEEK, BECAUSE WE ALSO WANTED -- WE ALSO HAVE SOME DISCOVERY CONCERNS THAT ARE RAISED IN THAT LETTER THAT WE WANT TO ADDRESS WITH THE COURT AND WE ARE ASKING FOR A HEARING IN FACT ON THE DISCOVERY VIOLATION BEFORE WE START WITH THE COLLECTION WITNESSES.

MR. SCHECK: MAY I MAKE ONE SUGGESTION TO THE COURT?

THE COURT: I HAVEN'T EVEN READ THE LETTER YET.

MR. SCHECK: I UNDERSTAND THERE IS A TAPE, THOUGH, THE TAPE THEY TURNED OVER. I THINK YOU SHOULD SEE IT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. AS FAR AS THIS ISSUE THEN, WE WILL STAND IN RECESS UNTIL 1:30. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, MAY I JUST ASK ONE MORE QUESTION? ARE YOU PLANNING ON HAVING WITNESSES GO FORWARD ON FRIDAY THEN FOR THE MORNING SESSION ON FRIDAY?

THE COURT: I DON'T KNOW. IT DEPENDS ON HOW LONG THIS ARGUMENT IS GOING TO TAKE AND I DON'T -- I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE DIMENSION OF THE DISCOVERY SANCTIONS REQUEST IS, FRANKLY, HAVING ONLY SEEN THE CAPTION OF THE LETTER.

MR. GOLDBERG: OKAY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE THAT CITE OF THE JURIMETRICS ARTICLE. IT IS KOEHLER, CHIA AND LINDLEY AND IT IS ENTITLED "THE RANDOM MATCH" --

MR. THOMPSON: KOEHLER, CHIA AND LINDLEY, "THE RANDOM MATCH PROBABILITY AND DNA EVIDENCE, IRRELEVANT AND PREJUDICIAL." IT IS IN THE JURIMETRICS, THE WINTER, 1995 ISSUE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I'M SURE MY STAFF CAN FIND IT ON LEXIS. ALL RIGHT. WE ARE IN RECESS.

(AT 5:01 P.M. AN ADJOURNMENT WAS TAKEN UNTIL, THURSDAY, MARCH 30, 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 29, 1995
VOLUME 116

PAGES 20714 THROUGH 20972, INCLUSIVE
(PAGES 20704 THROUGH 20713, 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 116 PAGES 20714 - 20972

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

DAY DATE SESSION PAGE VOL.

WEDNESDAY MARCH 29, 1995 A.M. 20714 116
P.M. 20823 116

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

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.

PARK, ALLAN 116 (RESUMED) 20733C 20787MC
(RESUMED) 20834MC 20837C
(FURTHER) 20858MC 20864C
(FURTHER) 20865MC

WONG, DELBERT 20867D 20972C 20880D 20882C 116 (FURTHER) 20882D

WILLIAMS, 20892MC 20912CD 20925MC 20927CD 116 JAMES
(FURTHER) 20928MC 20930CD
-----------------------------------------------------
ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

PEOPLE'S
WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS VOL.

PARK, ALLAN 116 (RESUMED) 20733C 20787MC
(RESUMED) 20834MC 20837C
(FURTHER) 20858MC 20864C
(FURTHER) 20865MC

WONG, DELBERT 20867D 20972C 20880D 20882C 116 (FURTHER) 20882D

WILLIAMS, 20892MC 20912CD 20925MC 20927CD 116 JAMES
(FURTHER) 20928MC 20930CD

EXHIBITS

PEOPLE'S FOR IN EXHIBIT IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE
PAGE VOL. PAGE VOL.

148 - CLEAN COPY OF 148 20716 116
SUBSTITUTED

139-A - PHOTOGRAPH 20808 116

139-B - PHOTOGRAPH OF 20809 116
360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM WITH ONE ARROW AND
THE INITIALS "A.P."

139-C - PHOTOGRAPH OF 20815 116
THE FRONT ENTRANCE AND GARAGE DOOR AT 360
NORTH ROCKINGHAM WITH ONE RED ARROW AND
THE INITIALS "A.P."

150 - PHOTOGRAPH OF 20923 116
THE AMERICAN AIRLINES PLATFORM AT LAX,
INDIVIDUALS AND THE NUMBER 10 IN THE
LOWER RIGHT-HAND CORNER

151 - PHOTOGRAPH OF 20923 116
THE ENTRYWAY TO THE AMERICAN AIRLINES
COUNTER AT LAX AND THE NUMBER 11 IN THE
LOWER RIGHT-HAND CORNER

152 - PHOTOGRAPH OF 20923 116
THE AMERICAN AIRLINES PLATFORM AT LAX AND
THE NUMBER 12 IN THE LOWER RIGHT-HAND CORNER

153 - PHOTOGRAPH OF 20924 116
THE AMERICAN AIRLINES PLATFORM AT LAX AND
THE NUMBER 02 IN THE LOWER RIGHT-HAND CORNER

154 - PHOTOGRAPH OF 20924 116
THE FRONT OF A TRASH CAN AT THE AMERICAN
AIRLINES PLATFORM AT LAX AND THE NUMBER 15
IN THE LOWER RIGHT-HAND CORNER

155 - PHOTOGRAPH OF 20924 116
THE FRONT OF A TRASH CAN AT THE AMERICAN
AIRLINES PLATFORM AT LAX AND THE NUMBER 14
IN THE LOWER RIGHT-HAND CORNER

EXHIBITS
(CONTINUED)

DEFENSE FOR IN EXHIBIT IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE
PAGE VOL. PAGE VOL.

1062 - GARMENT BAG 20754 116
WITH THE INITIALS "L.V.", BROWN IN COLOR

1063 - BLACK GOLF BAG 20756 116
WITH RED SWISS ARMY INSIGNIA CONTAINING
GOLF CLUBS

1064 - BLACK LEATHER 20775 116
DUFFLE BAG

1065 - BLACK GARMENT 20777 116
BAG WITH THE INITIALS "O.J.S."

1066 - NYLON BAG 20831 116
BRIEFCASE SIZE, BLUE IN COLOR WITH BROWN
LEATHER TRIM