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

APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted; also appearing, Taylor J. Daigneault, Esquire, for Kathleen Bell; Matthew Schwartz, Esquire, and Ron Regwan, Esquire, for Laura Hart McKinny.)

(Janet M. Moxham, CSR no. 4855, official reporter.)

(Christine M. Olson, CSR no. 2378, official reporter.)

(Pages 43806 through 43813, volume 216B, transcribed and sealed under separate cover.)

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

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. The Defendant is again present before the court with his counsel, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Bailey and Mr. Blasier. The People are represented by Mr. Hodgman, Mr. Yochelson, Mr. Darden and Miss Lewis. The jury is not present. Counsel, the record should reflect that this morning, as a continuation of a hearing that began last week, the court conducted a 1054.7 hearing with the Prosecution and I will advise Defense counsel of the following orders by the Court: As to Dr. De Forest, the court will order the disclosure of the package of photographs and notes by Dr. De Forest as they relate to the sock examinations conducted by Dr. De Forest. My understanding, Mr. Hodgman, is the photographs that you intend to turn over are the photograph that you turned over to the court for examination; is that correct?

MR. HODGMAN: Yes. Good morning, your Honor, and that is correct.

THE COURT: All right. I will give this to Mrs. Robertson for turning over to the Defense. I'm going to direct you to turn over any written materials from Dr. De Forest by the close of business today. My recollection is you indicated that those had to be numbered for discovery purposes?

MR. HODGMAN: Yes, your Honor. And for purposes of the record, I have turned over to Mr. Neufeld this morning an unnumbered set of notes. We will number them per our formal discovery procedures and provide a second copy later in the day.

THE COURT: All right. Counsel, the--where is Mr. Douglas? Mr. Douglas?

MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Hodgman advised the court that Dr. De Forest would be testifying only to the sock or very limited avenues of inquiry. I had a concern, given the number of notes that Dr. De Forest had, that there might be some Brady materials, so Mr. Hodgman has given to me a complete set of Dr. De Forest's notes, plus the notes that he has turned over to you, so that I can compare both, and I will have to examine those over the noon hour, or perhaps this evening, to see if there is any Brady material or anything else that I think should be disclosed.

MR. DOUGLAS: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: So you might want to remind me of that later this week.

MR. HODGMAN: Your Honor, point of correction if I may. Mr. De Forest will be testifying with regard to the socks, but it is also possible he will be covering some other limited areas as well, so for the edification of the court and counsel, there may be some other areas involved.

THE COURT: All right. Second item was a photograph of Mr. Simpson wearing a glove and the court noted that it would allow the Prosecution to withhold discovery of this item until the investigation had been completed. I understand that that has been accomplished; is that correct?

MR. YOCHELSON: Yes, your Honor. In essence, yes.

THE COURT: The photograph and notes you turned over to the court, this is the copy you intend on turning over to the Defense, correct?

MR. YOCHELSON: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: I will likewise direct Mrs. Robertson to give this to the Defense. All right. As to Mr. Bodziak, Mr. Hodgman?

MR. HODGMAN: Yes, your Honor. We have indicated to the court, as well as counsel, that we do intend to call Mr. Bodziak in our rebuttal case. We have no report from Mr. Bodziak, nor do we have any reports as of yet. If and when we receive those we will turn over those over to the Defense in prompt fashion.

THE COURT: This is a rebuttal case. What is your offer of proof as to Mr. Bodziak?

MR. HODGMAN: Mr. Bodziak will be testifying with regard to his impression of some impressions and the--at the Bundy crime scene on the walkway, and in addition to--in a limited fashion to some general testimony about what one can perceive or can't perceive with regard--in crime scene photographs. And then based upon some information contained in his book, which I believe the Defense has, various limitations of what one should testify to based upon what can be deprived from photographs. So this is still being refined, your Honor. As it becomes more refined we will--and to the extent that we get notes, we will provide that to the Defense.

THE COURT: All right. As to Mr. Popovich, do you intend or have you made your decision as to whether or not you are going to call Mr. Popovich?

MR. HODGMAN: We intend to call Mr. Popovich. We have turned over notes that we have received from Mr. Popovich. At the moment the Defense has what we have and no more. To the extent that we get anything in addition from Mr. Popovich, we will turn that over as well.

THE COURT: All right. What is your offer of proof since it is likewise going to be a rebuttal witness? What is your offer of proof as to Mr. Popovich?

MR. HODGMAN: As contained in the notes that we have turned over to the Defense, Mr. Popovich's tours, if you will, of the Department of Justice crime lab, as well as the LAPD crime lab and observations of both those locations and some related testimony regarding contamination.

THE COURT: All right. And lastly, in response to Mr. Neufeld's question, you were going to advise Defense counsel and the court whether or not at this time you intend on calling an EDTA witness.

MR. HODGMAN: At this time, your Honor, we do not intend to call any EDTA witnesses.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Douglas--where did Mr. Douglas go? All right. Any other comment as to these discovery matters?

MR. DOUGLAS: No, your Honor. Ready to proceed.

THE COURT: All right. All right. Anything else we need to take up before we invite the jurors to rejoin us?

MR. DAIGNEAULT: Your Honor, I wonder if I may be heard briefly on behalf of Miss Bell?

THE COURT: Good morning, counsel. Would you identify yourself for the record.

MR. DAIGNEAULT: My name is Taylor Daigneault. I am the attorney from Miss Bell. As your Honor knows from the declaration that Miss Bell provided at an earlier time there has been an intensive investigation of Miss Bell. I would like to attend this morning and--before the jury came in I would like to ask the court if I could be heard on objections concerning right of privacy and possibly attorney/client privilege. My concern, your Honor, is that the investigation of Miss Bell has been very intense, but as I have seen the things that have unfolded in this courtroom in the past few weeks, I think that her testimony is--is almost beyond question the truthful testimony, and I would like the court to give some quarter to protecting her privacy rights, if the need arises, in terms of the cross-examination or her direct examination.

THE COURT: All right. Counsel, I will allow you to sit inside the bar at the time that Miss Bell is being questioned and you may of course raise any--on her behalf, any attorney/client privilege objections that you might have. Issues of privacy, though, are a different question, and if you wish time to consult with your client and consult with other counsel, I will allow you leave to do so.

MR. DAIGNEAULT: I haven't had an opportunity to talk with any member of the Prosecution team, so I don't know what they are going to inquire into in terms of her personal past. I do know that the telephone records were subpoenaed, the numbers were called, her social friends have been contacted. Several investigators from the District Attorney's office called her hair dresser, or so I have been advised, and I don't know what they have discovered along the way, but I would--if they are going to inquire into her personal life, she has--she has a family law file that is some twenty years old, I believe, or something close to that. I would just like some limitations into this field, especially in light of developments recently. Her testimony I think is--if your Honor would weigh these factors, I think her testimony is not all that remarkable in light of what other evidence has been submitted to the court recently.

THE COURT: All right. Well, the court is apprised of the issue.

MR. DAIGNEAULT: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. If you want, you can take a seat over next to Mr. Regwan over there.

MR. DAIGNEAULT: Yes.

THE COURT: Miss Lewis, good morning.

MS. LEWIS: Good morning, your Honor. A couple of brief matters. First I believe that Natalie Singer is here or available certainly to the Defense, since she has been moved to second on their witness list for this morning. The first request is that we have an opportunity to interview her, which we have not had previously. The short break that was taken Friday Mr. Darden was not able to accomplish that during the short break taken Friday, so we would request that we be permitted to interview her somewhere up in our offices or wherever is convenient.

THE COURT: If she is willing to be interviewed, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: No problem, your Honor.

THE COURT: We will probably take a recess between witnesses, I suspect, given our late start this morning.

MS. LEWIS: That is Natalie Singer. Mr. Bailey was just inquiring. The other thing I wanted to bring to the court's attention is that the Defense has on their current witness list Kathleen Bell, then Natalie Singer, then Andrea Terry. It is my expectation, and these are Mr. Darden's witnesses so I don't mean to--but it is our expectation that we will be bringing a motion after Kathleen Bell testifies renewing in essence the motion I argued a few weeks ago with regard to the additional witnesses being cumulative. Detective Fuhrman was cross-examined with regard to Andrea Terry, and if they choose for tactical reasons to try and wedge in Miss Singer--

THE COURT: Well, that is an issue we need to address once we see Miss Bell.

MS. LEWIS: All right. And I just want to remind the court, the court had ruled that no one else--there would be a possible issue that they be cumulative once Bell and Terry testified.

THE COURT: I wouldn't call it a ruling that there is a possible issue, but yes, the issue is there.

MS. LEWIS: All right.

THE COURT: I think we discussed this ad nauseam Friday.

MS. LEWIS: I heard the discussion. I wasn't present, but I did hear of it.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. LEWIS: The only other thing I wanted to mention, your Honor, is this morning I filed a responsive brief to the Defense motion, renewed motion to suppress based on newly discovered evidence, and I have noted in the Defense line-up they anticipate reaching argument on that at some point today. And of course the court must have an opportunity to read our response before I'm sure we will be able to assess the issues and to rule on the matter, and I just wanted to alert the court that it had been filed and it had been available.

THE COURT: I think that is an optimistic scenario timewise. All right. Mr. Bailey, are you ready to proceed?

MR. BAILEY: I am, your Honor, but first let me point out you are not being given the facts. On Friday I put on the record that Miss Singer had been inquired of as to whether she wished to be interviewed and her response was that they have known about me for six months, I have a lawyer in Nashville, I have one here who went out of town for the weekend, and they are too late. I'm not going to talk to them. Furthermore, why should I be trashed the way Kathleen Bell was? I get a call from Mr. Hodgman last night wanting to interview her. I said, you know what is in the record. I can't speak for her lawyer. She hasn't changed her mind. That was true this morning. So taking a recess to interview her, which they know full well is an imposition on a much beleaguered jury--

THE COURT: All right. We will take that up.

MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, there will be a 402 as relates to Miss Singer. We have no specific details as to what she is going to testify to. We have no offer of proof.

THE COURT: Like I said, we will take this up after we finish Miss Bell. All right. Are you ready?

MR. BAILEY: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jury, please.

(Brief pause.)

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

AN UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Judge Ito, I have a message to you from God. God wants you to play the tapes. This is a message from God.

(An unidentified woman is escorted from the courtroom.)

(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. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

THE COURT: Good to see all of you back. And I believe that we are back on track and we are going to proceed accordingly. Mr. Bailey, you may call the Defense next witness.

MR. BAILEY: The Defense calls Kathleen Bell, if it please the court.

THE COURT: All right. Miss Bell.

Kathleen Bell, called as a witness by the Defendant, was sworn and testified as follows:

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

MS. BELL: I do.

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

MS. BELL: My name is Kathleen Bell.

THE COURT: All right. Miss Bell, if you would just sit back and then pull the microphone toward you, please.

MS. BELL: (Witness complies.)

THE COURT: Thank you, ma'am.

MS. BELL: Kathleen Bell, K-A-T-H-L-E-E-N, thank you, B-E-L-L.

MR. BAILEY: Try and keep your voice up, Miss Bell, so the last people in the jury box can hear you.

THE COURT: Excuse me, Mr. Bailey. Deputy Long, would you pull the easel back there. I think it is in the way--blocking juror 7.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Bailey.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BAILEY

MR. BAILEY: Miss Bell, without giving a street address, can you tell us where you live?

MS. BELL: In Long Beach.

MR. BAILEY: And how long have you lived in that area?

MS. BELL: Since, let's see, about a year and a half.

MR. BAILEY: All right. In 1985 and `6 where were you living?

MS. BELL: In Palos Verdes.

MR. BAILEY: And did you have an occupation or profession at that time?

MS. BELL: Yes, real estate agent.

MR. BAILEY: On who did you work for as a real estate agent?

MS. BELL: Century 21, Bob Maher realty in Redondo Beach.

MR. BAILEY: Can you pull that mike in just a little bit?

THE COURT: Can you spell "Maher" for the court reporter, please.

MS. BELL: M-a-h-e-r.

THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Bailey.

MR. BAILEY: When did you begin working for Bob Maher at century 21?

MS. BELL: I received my real estate license in September of 1985 and I started working for Bob Maher I believe in October.

MR. BAILEY: Can you tell me whether or not in the immediate vicinity of your real estate office there was located a Marine recruiting station?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Did you know any of the personnel who worked in that station?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Can you name any of them?

MS. BELL: Joe Foss and Ron Rohr.

MR. BAILEY: And how would you encounter them in your daily business?

MS. BELL: Umm, as part of my real estate practice we were supposed to make cold calls and knock on doors and all of that and so during the cold calling sessions I would try to avoid that as best as possible and so I would go walking around the building. And at one time I encountered the Marines at the Marine recruiting center and I just stopped into say hello and kind of to take up some time.

MR. BAILEY: Where was this station located, the recruiting station?

MS. BELL: I was on the second floor and they were on the first floor of this Marine recruit--of the shopping center.

MR. BAILEY: Was your office immediately above theirs?

MS. BELL: Umm, it was above the Marine recruiting center.

MR. BAILEY: How did you get to and from your office?

MS. BELL: Driving.

MR. BAILEY: Once you got to the area?

MS. BELL: Oh, I went and I just walked to the Marine recruiting center down the stairs and then back up. Is that what you are asking?

MR. BAILEY: All right. Do you know a person named Mark Fuhrman?

MS. BELL: Yes, I do.

MR. BAILEY: When did you first see Mr. Fuhrman, according to your best recollection?

MS. BELL: Umm, between the time that I was working for Bob Maher realty century 21, it was between 1985 and `86.

MR. BAILEY: And what were the circumstances the first time you saw him, as opposed to encountered him?

MS. BELL: The first time I saw him I walked down to the Marine recruiting center just to say hello to the Marines and they had a man sitting there and I thought that they were in a meeting, so I just kind of tapped on the window and waved and went back upstairs.

MR. BAILEY: Were you introduced to Mr. Fuhrman at that time?

MS. BELL: No.

MR. BAILEY: Did you have any conversation with him or anyone else inside the station?

MS. BELL: No, I did not.

MR. BAILEY: Could you see what they were doing as you walked by?

MS. BELL: They were just speaking to each other.

MR. BAILEY: Did you notice anything unusual about Mr. Fuhrman at that time?

MS. BELL: Umm, I thought that he was handsome.

MR. BAILEY: All right.

MS. BELL: And I did notice that.

MR. BAILEY: Did you notice anything about his height?

MS. BELL: He was sitting in a chair but I could tell that he was tall, yes.

MR. BAILEY: What was the next time that you encountered Mr. Fuhrman?

MS. BELL: The next time was at that same Marine recruiting center and I came down, and prior to this time the Marines told me that it was okay for me to--that it would have been okay for me to come in that--the previous time.

MR. BAILEY: You can't tell us what the Marines told you.

MS. BELL: I'm sorry.

MR. BAILEY: You can tell us that you had a conversation with them after you first saw Mr. Fuhrman?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Without saying what was said, as a result of that conversation, when you next saw Mr. Fuhrman in their office, what did you do?

MS. BELL: I went inside the Marine recruiting center and I introduced myself and I just began speaking to all of the men.

MR. BAILEY: Who was present at the time?

MS. BELL: Joe Foss, Ron Rohr and Mark Fuhrman.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Had you at that time any special reason for wanting to meet Mr. Fuhrman?

MS. BELL: I thought that he would be interested in meeting my girlfriend Andrea Terry.

MR. BAILEY: What is there about Andrea Terry that you thought might match up well with Mr. Fuhrman?

MS. BELL: She is six feet tall and really beautiful and I thought that--she liked tall men and so I thought that she might want to meet him as well.

MR. BAILEY: All right. How did you introduce yourself to Mr. Fuhrman?

MS. BELL: Umm, I just said hello and the Marines actually introduced me and I don't remember the first kind of shooting the breeze kind of first part of the conversation. It was just very mild and I was talking about Andrea. I began talking about Andrea.

MR. BAILEY: All right. What did you tell him about Andrea Terry?

MS. BELL: I said that I have a girlfriend--

MR. DARDEN: Objection, hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAILEY: Okay.

MR. BAILEY: Did you tell Mr. Fuhrman something about a girl named Andrea Terry, without saying precisely what it was?

MS. BELL: Yes, I did.

MR. BAILEY: All right. In the course of giving him that information did you mention the name of anyone who is a public figure?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: What was that name?

MR. DARDEN: Hearsay, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. BELL: Marcus Allen.

MR. BAILEY: What happened when you mentioned the name Marcus Allen to Mark Fuhrman?

MS. BELL: His demeanor changed and his attitude toward me changed.

MR. BAILEY: And what, if anything, did he say?

MS. BELL: He said that if--when he sees a black man with a white woman driving in a car he pulls them over.

MR. BAILEY: And what did you say?

MS. BELL: I was taken back a little bit and so I kind of paused and I looked at the Marines and I just said, "Well, what if they didn't do anything wrong?"

MR. BAILEY: What did he say?

MS. BELL: He said he would find something.

MR. BAILEY: All right. And did you talk any further about that hypothetical of a black man riding with a white woman being pulled over?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: What else was said?

MS. BELL: I asked, "What if they are in love?"

MR. BAILEY: And what did he say to that?

MS. BELL: He said, "That is disgusting."

MR. BAILEY: The fact that a black man might be in love with a white woman was disgusting?

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

THE COURT: Rephrase the question.

MR. BAILEY: Okay.

MR. BAILEY: What was he referring to in your understanding when he used the word "Disgusting"?

MS. BELL: That I said--I asked him what if they were in love and I think the idea of them being in love was disgusting to him.

MR. DARDEN: Objection, objection to strike, calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BAILEY: After the word "Disgusting" was uttered, what was next said by either of you?

MS. BELL: Well, again I looked at the Marines because I had spoken to them before and they didn't seem to be mean people, and so I was waiting for some kind of reaction from them, and then, umm, I just was kind of--I just kind of paused and then he said, "If I had my way I would gather"--"All the niggers would be gathered together and burned."

MR. BAILEY: All right. And what was your reaction when he told you that he would gather the niggers all together and burn them?

MS. BELL: Umm, I'm sorry, I didn't--I thought that that was--nobody ever said that to me before. I heard the "N" word before, but nobody ever said something like that to me before.

MR. BAILEY: Had you ever used, in your conversation, the "N" word with Mark Fuhrman?

MS. BELL: Oh, with Mark Fuhrman?

MR. BAILEY: Right.

MS. BELL: Never, no.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Did you respond in any way, other than becoming upset when Mr. Fuhrman told you what he would like to do with reference to burning an entire race?

MS. BELL: I just--I looked at the Marines and I kind of--they weren't saying anything. They kind of just shrugged their shoulders, and so I kind of got teary-eyed and I left.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Now, can you help us with the date of this encounter, the first encounter, the second time you saw Mark Fuhrman, best recollection?

MS. BELL: The--I know it is between that year that I worked at century 21 Bob Maher and I know that Andrea--she was at BYU going to school and she only returned from school during holidays, so I would say that it is within the holiday times, and I--I really can't be extremely accurate.

MR. BAILEY: Miss Bell, without going into anything that was said between you and Andrea, can you tell us a little about her educational schedule during this period of time?

MS. BELL: She would come back for holidays, like I think thanksgiving, mainly Easter and Christmas, and then the summer.

MR. BAILEY: Okay.

MS. BELL: And I think it was a long period of time that she was back.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Are you able to relate this experience where Mr. Fuhrman surprised you with that language to any period of the year that would help us determine which of her vacations it might have been?

MS. BELL: I tried to--try to--by the weather, but the weather is all the same in California, and I really think it is more toward the summertime or maybe--maybe Easter vacation and then summer vacation, because I seem to have been speaking to Andrea quite a bit throughout this period of time and she really wasn't home for any long period of time except for the summer.

MR. BAILEY: How long had you known Andrea Terry?

MS. BELL: I have known her for many years. She went to my high school and we weren't close friends until a couple of years after high school.

MR. BAILEY: And Brigham Young University when she was there attending, where is that located?

MS. BELL: In Utah.

MR. BAILEY: Is she a resident or native of Utah or of California, if you know?

MS. BELL: I believe she was born in California.

MR. BAILEY: As I understand it, you had talked to her several times in this general time frame?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: And would you talk to her when she was at college on a regular basis or only when she was home?

MS. BELL: Not very often at college; only when she was home.

MR. BAILEY: Can you tell us how much time transpired between the moment that you first noticed Mark Fuhrman talking to the Marines but did not intervene, until you introduced yourself to him?

MS. BELL: At least a week probably, no more than three weeks.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Did you see Mark Fuhrman again?

MS. BELL: After the second--

MR. BAILEY: After this first encounter?

MS. BELL: After the first encounter, yes.

MR. BAILEY: I'm trying to distinguish seeing him from encountering him where you interact or have a conversation.

MS. BELL: Right.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Now time no. 3?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Is the second encounter; is that correct?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Where you have some talk together?

MS. BELL: I didn't really speak to him. We kind of exchanged glances.

MR. BAILEY: Where did you see him on this third occasion?

MS. BELL: At Hennessey's tavern on Catalina Avenue in Redondo Beach.

MR. BAILEY: Was this an establishment with which you were familiar?

MS. BELL: Somewhat, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Had you been there before?

MS. BELL: Oh, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Had you any prearrangement, to your knowledge, either you or Andrea Terry, to meet Mark Fuhrman at Hennessey's that day?

MS. BELL: Oh, no, no prior arrangement.

MR. BAILEY: Are you able to differentiate these meetings as between `85 and `86? You have said that it occurred in one year or the other. What would be your best recollection?

MS. BELL: Probably `86.

MR. BAILEY: Either the spring or summer?

MS. BELL: Probably the summer.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. But in any event, you saw him in the Marine Corps recruiting station on more than 10 occasions during this period?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Now, tell me the circumstances of your meeting at Hennessey's tavern. Who were you with?

MS. BELL: I was with Andrea.

MR. BAILEY: What was the purpose or occasion for you being with her? Anything special?

MS. BELL: No, we just stopped.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Why did you go to Hennessey's that day?

MS. BELL: Umm, just to--it is kind of like a local pub, almost like a cheers or something like that, and we just wanted to visit with people.

MR. BAILEY: Can you tell us the time of day?

MS. BELL: I cannot.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. When you were--arrived at Hennessey's, what did you do?

MS. BELL: We just sat down and we just started talking, and usually there are a lot of people that we grew up with that visit there and so we say hello to those people and that is it. I remember where we were sitting and all of that.

MR. BAILEY: Are you familiar with the floor layout at Hennessey's tavern?

MS. BELL: Uh-huh, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Can you give the court and jury some brief description as you walk in the door?

MS. BELL: You walk in Hennessey's and there are some--there are some tables on the left-hand side and the bar is on the left and then on the right there are tables as well and then kind of just one bar going through the middle, and umm, Andrea and I were sitting facing the door.

MR. BAILEY: Were you in a booth or at a table?

MS. BELL: It is considered a booth, yeah.

MR. BAILEY: How many booths are in the bar?

MS. BELL: Oh, I don't know.

MR. BAILEY: All right.

MS. BELL: Probably a good guess would be about ten.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. And what did do you after you sat down?

MS. BELL: We--

MR. BAILEY: Did you order something?

MS. BELL: Just were talking--yes. We ordered--I probably ordered cranberry juice with lime and Andrea I don't--I don't even know. We are not real drinkers.

MR. BAILEY: Did either of you order any alcoholic beverages that day?

MS. BELL: Pardon me?

MR. BAILEY: Did either of you order or consume any alcohol while you were in the bar?

MS. BELL: I did not. I don't think Andrea did either.

MR. BAILEY: After you had been there for some period of time did you notice someone you had seen before?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Who was that?

MS. BELL: Mark Fuhrman.

MR. BAILEY: Was he with anyone?

MS. BELL: Yes, he was.

MR. BAILEY: Can you describe the person that he was with?

MS. BELL: Slightly. She was--it was a woman and with sandy blond hair.

MR. BAILEY: And can you give any further description as to her height and weight and so forth?

MS. BELL: No, I really can't. Probably about 5-7.

MR. BAILEY: How was Mark Fuhrman dressed on that occasion?

MS. BELL: I don't remember.

MR. BAILEY: How had he been dressed when you talked to him in the Marine recruiting station, if you recall?

MS. BELL: I think at one time he was wearing sweats and that is all I can remember.

MR. BAILEY: Did you ever see him wearing a police uniform?

MS. BELL: No.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. How long had you been in Hennessey's when he sat down?

MS. BELL: I don't recall.

MR. BAILEY: And when he sat down what, if anything, did do you or say?

MS. BELL: He and this woman sat down facing us and so I saw him immediately and it was very uncomfortable, so I told Andrea that that is that man that I told her about that I at first wanted to set her up with, and then I found out what he believed and, umm, then I asked her if we could leave.

MR. BAILEY: Did he show any signs of recognition while looking in your direction?

MS. BELL: I don't know if he did at first, but as I left did he.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. In what way did he indicate that he might have seen you before?

MS. BELL: He just gave me kind of a nasty look.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Now, what happened after you said to Andrea that you felt uncomfortable and would like to leave the establishment?

MS. BELL: She said "Okay" and I thought that she was going with me, and umm, she--we started walking toward the door. Mark Fuhrman and this woman were sitting as you walk into Hennessey's and you take your first right. He was sitting at a table to the right and he was sitting facing us. So Andrea and I started walking to the door and when we were walking toward the door we were walking toward Mark Fuhrman and this woman, and she started kind of veeing off toward his table, and I was trying to catch her and telling her, you know, don't--what are you doing, you know, and she kind of had a--kind of a grin on her face like she was going to go get his goat or something like that.

MR. BAILEY: Uh-huh. Did you stay within earshot of the two?

MS. BELL: No, I did not.

MR. BAILEY: What did you do?

MS. BELL: I went to the door. I'm not sure if I waited in my car or waited outside, but I know I left.

MR. BAILEY: Can you recall hearing any conversation from either Andrea Terry, Mark Fuhrman or the lady that was with him that day?

MS. BELL: I did not hear anything.

MR. BAILEY: Can you tell us whether or not you saw her sit down as you walked out the door?

MS. BELL: I thought she was standing facing them, but, umm, I think she was just standing facing them.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. And how long was it before she rejoined you wherever you were?

MS. BELL: I don't think it was any more than ten minutes, probably five to ten minutes.

MR. BAILEY: All right. You stood either outside the bar or went and got in your automobile?

MS. BELL: Right.

MR. BAILEY: Is that correct? What kind of automobile were you driving at that time?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Irrelevant.

MR. BAILEY: Okay.

MR. BAILEY: Did you at any time have conversation with Mark Fuhrman concerning astrology?

MS. BELL: As embarrassing as it is, yes. When I met him--

MR. DARDEN: I'm going to object at this time. Hearsay, irrelevant, nonresponsive.

THE COURT: Did you have a conversation with him?

MS. BELL: Briefly, yes.

THE COURT: When was this?

MS. BELL: The second time I met him I found out he was Aquarius.

MR. BAILEY: All right.

MR. BAILEY: When astrology is relevant, what is important to know about a person before looking at their astrological signs?

MS. BELL: I really--I don't know. There is this book that I was given by someone to read and it was talking about how people relate to each other, so I briefly read it and I asked when his birthday was and I remember thinking in my head that he was Aquarius.

MR. BAILEY: What was his sign?

MS. BELL: Aquarius.

MR. BAILEY: Aquarius. What birthdates does that cover? What range?

MS. BELL: Oh, boy. Let's see. I'm going to think about this. It is January--

MR. BAILEY: Let me put it a different way. Is February 5th within the range of Aquarius?

MS. BELL: Yes, it is. It is.

MR. BAILEY: Did you have any talk with Mr. Fuhrman about the significance of his astrological sign, if you can remember?

MS. BELL: Very briefly. I just--

MR. DARDEN: Objection, hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BAILEY: Did that occur before the remarks were made in the Marine recruiting station?

MS. BELL: About the black man with the white woman?

MR. BAILEY: About his birthday?

MS. BELL: I'm sorry, I didn't understand the question.

MR. BAILEY: I'm trying to place the time that you learned his birthday.

MS. BELL: Okay.

MR. BAILEY: When did that happen?

MS. BELL: It happened when I started talking about my girlfriend Andrea.

THE COURT: This was for the purpose to see if they were compatible?

MS. BELL: Yes.

THE COURT: Next question.

MR. BAILEY: After Andrea came out, and without telling us what she said, did you have any conversation with her about what had transpired while you stepped out of Hennessey's and she was still inside at Fuhrman's table?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Okay.

MS. BELL: I just asked what--actually I didn't really even ask what was said. She just said, "Oh, God."

MR. BAILEY: Don't tell us what she said.

MS. BELL: All right.

MR. BAILEY: My only question is did she tell you something about the conversation?

MS. BELL: Yes, she did.

MR. BAILEY: And what did you two do after that?

MS. BELL: I don't recall. We probably just went home.

MR. BAILEY: Did you ever see Mark Fuhrman again?

MS. BELL: I saw him driving in his car once and I saw him on television.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Now, apart from the television, when you saw him driving in his car do you have any recollection of what kind of vehicle he was driving?

MS. BELL: I believe it was an International Scout, like a utility vehicle, and it was kind of a pea green and white.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Do you have any personal knowledge as to whether he owned that vehicle or was simply driving it?

MS. BELL: I don't know, but I saw it in front of the Marine recruiting center and I saw him driving it later and I saw it parked in front of Hennessey's and that prevented Andrea from going in, Andrea and me.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Did you ever personally see Mark Fuhrman again?

MS. BELL: No, I did not.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Now, you have told us that your second seeing of Mark Fuhrman and your first encounter was probably within three weeks of your first noticing him in the station, when you didn't stop?

MS. BELL: Probably.

MR. BAILEY: Can you relate the Hennessey's bar encounter to the one in the Marine Corps recruiting station in terms of time?

MS. BELL: Probably again about three weeks or a month.

MR. BAILEY: All right. And the occasion in which you simply saw him drive by and had no conversation with him, how much after Hennessey's bar might that have occurred?

MS. BELL: I don't know, but again Andrea was still in town.

MR. BAILEY: All right. What is the longest you would expect Andrea to be in town if she were on other than a summer vacation from Brigham young?

MS. BELL: She may have skipped a quarter and I'm not even sure if they are on the quarter system there, but she may have skipped a quarter, and I'm not sure when that was, when that fell.

MR. BAILEY: How did you learn Mark Fuhrman's name? Did someone tell you the name or did he tell you?

MS. BELL: When I was introduced to him at the Marine recruiting center I was introduced to him as mark.

MR. BAILEY: Who did the introduction?

MS. BELL: I believe it was Ron Rohr.

MR. BAILEY: All right. As a result of the remarks that Mark Fuhrman said to you on your first encounter--

MS. BELL: Uh-huh.

MR. BAILEY: --where he talked to you, did you do anything with respect to the LAPD that you can recall?

MS. BELL: Yes--

MR. BAILEY: What did you do?

MS. BELL: --I did. What did I do? I called the LAPD. I tried anyway. And it wasn't 911, but it was--I seem to recall Culver or Olympic, and I don't know if that means a street or a district or I don't--

MR. BAILEY: Do you remember how you got the number that you called to place this complaint?

MS. BELL: I called I think the operator or 411.

MR. BAILEY: And asked for whom, if you can remember?

MS. BELL: I asked for the Los Angeles Police Department in Westwood because that is where he said that he worked at that time, and I don't think there was such a thing, and she was saying, well, I can give you Olympic or Culver or something like that.

MR. BAILEY: Did you get a number and eventually call it?

MS. BELL: I did.

MR. BAILEY: Do you have any recollection of whom you may have spoken with?

MS. BELL: Umm, I believe it was a woman, and I hate to be so vague, but I really don't recall, but I truly believe it was a woman.

MR. BAILEY: And can you recall whether or not Mark Fuhrman's name was used during your conversation with whatever woman you spoke to?

MS. BELL: Well, I said that there is a police officer--

MR. DARDEN: Objection as hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. BELL: I said that they have a police officer named Mark and I told her that he had a racial problem and that I thought they should know, but I didn't have any other information about him and I was afraid to ask the Marines his last name.

MR. BAILEY: Why didn't you want to ask the Marines?

MS. BELL: I didn't want to seem like I was trying to get information about him to get him into trouble, because I was afraid of him.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Did you ever follow up on that call or go see anyone?

MS. BELL: No, I did not.

MR. BAILEY: Were you asked to do anything further by the woman at the other end of the police line?

MS. BELL: No, not at all.

MR. BAILEY: When was the next time you saw, either personally or on television, Mark Fuhrman?

MS. BELL: I did see him on television last year.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Was that perhaps during the preliminary hearing?

MS. BELL: Yes, it was.

MR. BAILEY: Might it have been in July of `94?

MS. BELL: Yes, it was.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. And where were you when you noticed Mark Fuhrman on the screen?

MS. BELL: I was at home.

MR. BAILEY: And what was he doing when you first noticed him?

MS. BELL: He was sitting as a witness.

MR. BAILEY: And was he testifying?

MS. BELL: Yes, he was testifying.

MR. BAILEY: Now, my understanding is that from the time you last saw him driving the pea green International Scout, until you saw him on television, you had no direct encounters or indirect encounters with Mark Fuhrman?

MS. BELL: Not, no.

MR. DARDEN: Objection, misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BAILEY: You have indicated that you were afraid of him in a way. Can you explain why that is so?

MS. BELL: I think that what he said was--

MR. DARDEN: This is irrelevant, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAILEY: All right.

MR. BAILEY: Can you describe his demeanor when he spoke the words using the "N" word about the black race? How did his face appear?

MR. DARDEN: Irrelevant, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. BELL: He seemed disgusted.

MR. BAILEY: Did you see any signs whatsoever of jocularity in his face as if he were pulling your leg with these outrageous remarks?

MR. DARDEN: Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BAILEY: All right. When you saw Mark Fuhrman on television, did you recognize him immediately?

MS. BELL: Immediately.

MR. BAILEY: And how did you recognize him?

MS. BELL: I just--I saw him and it all came back, every bit of it.

MR. BAILEY: All right. You were remembering now what about the Mark Fuhrman you had encountered back in `85 or `6?

MS. BELL: I remembered what he said.

MR. BAILEY: Did you remember his facial appearance?

MS. BELL: Oh, yes.

MR. BAILEY: He was a handsome man?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: And his height?

MS. BELL: He was sitting again, but I saw him and his face.

THE COURT: Counsel, Miss Bell, would you allow Mr. Bailey to finish asking the question before you start answering, and Mr. Bailey, would you allow her to finish answering before you start to ask the question.

MS. BELL: I'm sorry.

MR. BAILEY: What, if anything, did you do after seeing Mr. Fuhrman testifying in the Simpson case?

MS. BELL: I called the news show that I first saw him on. That was the first thing that I did. I wasn't sure what to do, and I just know that I felt afraid again. I felt that same feeling that I felt in that Marine recruiting center when I saw him on television, and I thought that someone should know and I didn't know what to do. So I called the news company and I told some young person on the phone that--what they just showed was true, there is something about this man that is--

MR. DARDEN: Objection, this is hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAILEY: Don't tell us what you said.

MS. BELL: Okay.

MR. BAILEY: Can you identify the news program and why called that program?

MS. BELL: It was channel 9 and I called because I saw him.

MR. BAILEY: Now, Miss Bell, when you say you saw him on the channel, do you mean on the witness stand in court or being interviewed outside of court?

MS. BELL: On the witness stand, but I'm not certain if there is--if he was saying anything. I think that the news broadcaster was speaking over the film of him.

MR. BAILEY: And what did you understand his role was, if any, in the case at that point?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAILEY: What caused you to call the news media? Why did you think that was important, channel 9?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. BELL: I just really didn't know what to do and I thought that someone should know that it was--something is wrong with this person and something was said, and I was vacuuming kind of and cleaning at the time, and I didn't hear exactly what was said, but something about a racial issue, so I thought that people should know that this person has a problem.

MR. BAILEY: Without going into what was said, did you contact anyone at channel 9?

MS. BELL: Only this young man who answered the phone.

MR. BAILEY: Did you have a conversation with him?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Did you ever have any further contact with anyone at channel 9?

MS. BELL: A reporter later on.

MR. BAILEY: A when did that occur?

MS. BELL: Much later on. Umm, I was walking out from my office where I work and he kind of tracked me down in his news van.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Now, at some point did you write a letter to Mr. Cochran?

MS. BELL: Yes, I did.

MR. BAILEY: And do you know whether or not that letter has been displayed to this jury earlier in the case?

MS. BELL: It has been displayed?

MR. BAILEY: I'm simply asking you if you know that is true or don't?

MS. BELL: You know, I'm not really sure. I don't think so.

MR. BAILEY: Have you seen the letter recently?

MS. BELL: I just saw it this morning.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Why did you write Mr. Cochran a letter?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. BELL: Well, I thought that--I didn't want someone to be tried without all the information and I thought that there might be some reason that they need to know that Mark Fuhrman said these things to me.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Without saying what was said, were you acting on the advice of anyone or on your own initiative when you wrote the letter?

MS. BELL: No, on my own initiative.

MR. BAILEY: This letter was written at about what date, as you best recall?

MS. BELL: July 18, I believe or July 19.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Was this after the preliminary hearing was over, to your knowledge?

MS. BELL: I don't know. I hadn't been watching the case. I would listen to it on the radio on my way home, but I really wasn't watching it very much.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. As a result of that letter did somebody contact you?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Can you give us the name of the person that contacted you?

MS. BELL: Mr. Douglas.

MR. BAILEY: Carl Douglas?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: All right. And without going into what was said, did you have some conversation with him?

MS. BELL: Yes, I did.

MR. BAILEY: Did you thereafter talk with anyone else affiliated with the Defense of this case?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. And can you name that person?

MS. BELL: Umm, okay. I spoke with a Pat McKenna, but before that I spoke with a man--umm, excuse me, I don't remember his name.

MR. BAILEY: Could it have been Pavelic?

MS. BELL: Yes, Mr. Pavelic.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Did you speak at length with either of these two Defense investigators?

MS. BELL: Umm, not--Mr. Pavelic I spoke to quite a bit.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Did you tell him essentially what was in the contents of your letter?

MS. BELL: Yes, I did.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Now, will you tell us who this gentleman is right here, (Indicating)?

MS. BELL: That is my family's attorney and my attorney.

MR. BAILEY: He has represented the family for some years now?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, irrelevant, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled. And just for the record, counsel, do you want to identify him, counsel.

MR. BAILEY: I'm sorry. He was identified out of the presence of the jury. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Mr. Taylor Daigneault who practices in Redondo Beach.

THE COURT: Thank you, counsel.

MR. BAILEY: At some point did you contact Mr. Daigneault, without going into anything that was said?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Can you relate to us a time when that occurred with respect to Mark Fuhrman?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, this is irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. BELL: With respect to seeing him on television?

MR. BAILEY: With respect to your whole involvement in letting the Defense know what he had done years before, when did you seek the advice of Mr. Daigneault on this point?

MS. BELL: Yes, umm--

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

MR. BAILEY: Sorry.

MS. BELL: Probably--gosh, let's see. I don't know when the reporters started finding me, but this is--after the channel 9 reporter found me, that is when I--I contacted him and I don't know what that time frame was. Probably a month later or three weeks later.

MR. BAILEY: All right. All right. All right. Now, at any time did you contact anyone affiliated with law enforcement with this information, or attempt to contact?

MS. BELL: After the--you mean since I saw him?

MR. BAILEY: Yes.

MS. BELL: I sent my same letter. I faxed my same letter to the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office.

MR. BAILEY: Did you get a response from anyone in the L.A. District Attorney's office after you faxed a copy of the letter to Mr. Cochran?

MS. BELL: No, I did not.

MR. BAILEY: Have you ever talked to anyone from that office?

MS. BELL: No, I haven't.

MR. BAILEY: Have you ever talked to myself prior to this morning?

MS. BELL: No, I have not.

MR. BAILEY: Or any other lawyer at the Defense table or affiliated with the Defense, to your knowledge, other than the one call from Mr. Douglas?

MS. BELL: No.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Have you been interviewed by either side, that is to say, lawyers for either side?

MS. BELL: No.

MR. BAILEY: Have you ever heard from anyone connected with law enforcement since you sent that letter out?

MS. BELL: No.

MR. BAILEY: Now, did you follow the proceedings in this case at all, this trial?

MS. BELL: Since I saw Mark Fuhrman I did. I was a little bit more interested, so I started following it.

MR. BAILEY: And do you recall a time when he testified when your name was brought into the trial?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Do you recall things that were said about you by the Prosecution at that time?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, this is irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAILEY: Okay.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BAILEY: For the record, your Honor, exhibit 102 has been previously shown to the jury in an enlarged form during Mr. Fuhrman's testimony and I would like to bring it up begin now.

MR. BAILEY: And Miss Bell, it will appear on a little television set down to your right and also up on that big screen, but I think you will be able to read it better.

MS. BELL: Okay.

MR. BAILEY: Now, I would like to go through it with you and ask you whether or not you recollect this as being a letter that you originated. First, did you have any help in drafting this letter?

MS. BELL: No, I did not.

MR. BAILEY: All right. How did you know that Mr. Cochran would be a good person to write to in connection with the information that you had?

MS. BELL: I called the information operator and I tried to get Mr. Shapiro's phone number, and he just kind of laughed and said, well, you can't get that phone number.

MR. BAILEY: The operator said you can't get Shapiro's phone number?

MS. BELL: Right.

MR. BAILEY: I see. So what did you do next?

MS. BELL: On that same news broadcast they had mentioned an attorney named Johnnie Cochran and I didn't know even if he was in California or not, so I just thought I would try, and I did get that phone number and he had an answering service and I asked for the fax number.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Did you get it?

MS. BELL: Yes, I did.

MR. BAILEY: And when you composed this letter can you tell us mechanically how you did it? Was it handwritten, typed or computer?

MS. BELL: No, I just went on a computer.

MR. BAILEY: Did you type it yourself?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: And print it out?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Now, would you look at the first paragraph down to your right.

MS. BELL: (Witness complies.)

MR. BAILEY: You mention that you were writing in regards to a story you saw on the news last night and you previously told us that you think this letter was sent out on July 18th when you got Mr. Cochran's fax number; is that right?

MS. BELL: I think I actually wrote the letter on July 18th or 19th and then I ended up staying up so late that it ended up being the 20th that I actually faxed it.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Well, can you help us with what date is meant by "Last night" in the first paragraph or first sentence of that letter?

MS. BELL: I have this at home, I'm sorry. I believe it was the 19th that I started writing it and I saw the news broadcast the 19th, and the 20th is when I actually sent it.

MR. BAILEY: Do you have any recollection, Miss Bell, as to what news program you were watching that you are referring to in that first sentence?

MS. BELL: Channel 9 news.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Is that a station that you generally watch?

MS. BELL: I was--yes, I guess, sure.

MR. BAILEY: The next says: "I thought it ridiculous that the same Defense team would even suggest that there might be racial motivation involved in the trial against Mr. Simpson." Now, without going into the text of what you had heard before, had you heard such a claim advanced by somebody?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Irrelevant, hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BAILEY: The next sentence you say: "I then glanced up at the television and was quite shocked to see that Officer Fuhrman was a man that I had the misfortune of meeting." When you glanced up at television, as you describe in that sentence, did you recognize Mr. Fuhrman immediately?

MS. BELL: Immediately.

MR. BAILEY: Had anyone in your entire life on a first greeting ever treated you the way that you were treated by him in that Marine recruiting station?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. BELL: Never.

MR. BAILEY: All right. You say: "You may have received a message from your answering service last night that I called to say that Mr. Fuhrman may be more of a racist that you can even imagine." Had you left a message on an answering service the night before that you believed to be that of Mr. Cochran?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: And did the answering message contain generally the information that is in that sentence? Did it use the word "Racist"?

MS. BELL: I don't know if I said anything--actually I do know that I said something. I don't know exactly what it was.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. In other words, you are not sure that you told the answering machine what is in that letter about Mr. Fuhrman, simply that you called to make contact; is that right?

MS. BELL: It was an answering service.

MR. BAILEY: Service?

MS. BELL: Right. I spoke to the woman.

MR. BAILEY: The one that gave you the fax number. You don't recall if you told the woman the text of your--

MS. BELL: Right.

MR. BAILEY: You said: "Between 1985 and 1986 I worked as a real estate agent." Do you mean by that during `85 and `86?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: And was the company out of business at the time you wrote this letter, as you have said?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. And you have told us, I believe, that your office century 21 was in fact located above the Marine recruiting center off of the Pacific Coast Highway. That's correct?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: And you would stop on occasion to say hello to the two Marines who work there, you have identified as Mr. Foss and Mr. Roar, right?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: By the way, were they generally in uniform when you saw them?

MS. BELL: They were always in uniform except for once or twice I saw Joe Foss, we went jogging.

MR. BAILEY: " saw Mr. Fuhrman there a couple of times because I remember him distinctly because of his height and build." Now, is that the height and build you told us you noted because you were concerned with fixing up your friend Andrea Terry with someone of equal or greater stature?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Next page, please.

MR. BAILEY: When you saw Mr. Fuhrman at the recruiting station on the first two occasions, was he wearing any of the accoutrements of a policeman, like a weapon or that sort of thing that you saw?

MS. BELL: I didn't notice anything.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. You say that: "While speaking to the men, I learned that Mr. Fuhrman was a police officer in Westwood and I don't know if he was telling the truth but he said that he had been in a special division of Marines."

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: I would like to stop there for a moment and see if we can sort this out. You saw Mr. Fuhrman through the window, tapped on the window and walked on on the first occasion?

MS. BELL: Uh-huh.

MR. BAILEY: You noted that he was tall and a good looking man. You then spoke with the Marines, when Mr. Fuhrman was not present, about the propriety of introducing yourself?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: And subsequently you did introduce yourself to be greeted by his views that you have described; is that correct?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: All right. What I want to know is whether or not the information about his having been in a special division of the Marines came from the two Marines or one of them or came from Fuhrman himself?

MS. BELL: I believe it came from one of the Marines.

MR. BAILEY: All right. In other words, they related this to you before you ever talked to him?

MS. BELL: I believe so.

MR. BAILEY: Your best recollection?

MS. BELL: After the first time that I met him--that I saw him, I spoke to them and at that time we talked about it a little bit.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Did you inquire of them as to any other information relating to Mr. Fuhrman, his marital status, what he did, et cetera?

MS. BELL: Not his marital status. I--I just said that I was uncomfortable walking in while he was there and they said that he was a former Marine.

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. BELL: That he was a former Marine that just liked to come and shoot the breeze so it was fine that I could walk in.

MR. BAILEY: Okay.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BAILEY: All right. At that point you say: "I don't know how the subject was raised but Officer Fuhrman said that when he sees an `n,' as he called it, driving with a white woman, he would pull them over." Now, there is no mention of Marcus Allen here. Do you now remember that his name was mentioned before this response?

MS. BELL: Yes, I do.

MR. BAILEY: Okay.

MS. BELL: And I also, excuse me, remember that he didn't say the "N" word--

MR. DARDEN: Objection, nonresponsive.

MS. BELL: --at first.

THE COURT: Hold on. Next question.

MR. BAILEY: You say: "I asked if he didn't have a reason and he said that he would find one."

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Did you mean by that a reason to pull them over?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Okay.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BAILEY: A moment ago you wanted to explain something to us that you had just recalled. Would you tell was that was?

MS. BELL: When--in this letter--I wrote this in a very big hurry and I didn't think that there would be such a need to recall exactly what had happened in detail, so there was a mistake there and the first--he did not say the "N" word when he said "If I saw a black man with a white woman driving in a car he would pull them over." He definitely said "A black man."

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Did he use that word later when he talked about burning everybody?

MS. BELL: Yes, he did.

MR. BAILEY: Did he use "Black" or the word beginning with "N"?

MS. BELL: The "N" word.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Now, there is no mention in this paragraph about the query supposing they were in love?

MS. BELL: Right.

MR. BAILEY: You left that out of your letter?

MS. BELL: Right.

MR. BAILEY: Have you gone over this encounter in your mind since the time you wrote this letter?

MS. BELL: Many, many times.

MR. BAILEY: Have you discussed it, without saying what was said, with a number of people?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Do you have, as you sit there today, a clear recollection of the words uttered by Mark Fuhrman as you have described them in your testimony?

MS. BELL: Yes, I do.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. All right. If we can pull up the next paragraph, Mr. Douglas. If would you just read that first sentence and ask you whether or not you distinctly recall him using those words?

MS. BELL: "Officer Fuhrman went on to say that he would like nothing more than to see all niggers gathered together and killed. He said something about the burning"--excuse me--"About burning them or bombing them. I was too shaken to remember the exact words he used; however, I do not remember that what he"--wait. I'm sorry. "I do remember that what he said was probably the most horrible thing I had ever heard someone say. What frightened me even more was that he was a police officer."

MR. BAILEY: Now, Miss Bell, is all of that true, everything that you wrote there?

MS. BELL: I know now that he said "Gather together and burned."

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Next paragraph, please, Mr. Douglas. All right. You have said in your letter that you are almost sure you called the LAPD. What is your present recollection as to whether you did?

MS. BELL: I am positive I did.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. And in the last full paragraph of information you say that now that you know that Mr. Fuhrman was the investigating officer. Are you relating that to the Simpson investigation?

MS. BELL: Yes, I am.

MR. BAILEY: And that information came to you because you saw him on television?

MS. BELL: Right.

MR. BAILEY: You said: "I'm certainly not a fan of Mr. Simpson, but I would hate to see anyone harm by Officer Fuhrman's extreme hatred." Now, were you writing this letter or bringing this information forward in an effort to help O.J. Simpson in any way?

MS. BELL: No, I was not.

MR. BAILEY: All right. And did you invite the recipient, Mr. Cochran, to contact you for further information as it says there?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Okay.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BAILEY: In one more effort to try and pin down the time frame, is it true that you began to work for Mr. Maher in the fall of `85, early fall, Septemberish?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: How long did this job last?

MS. BELL: I think it was October, I'm sorry. I think it was October.

MR. BAILEY: October of `85?

MS. BELL: Right.

MR. BAILEY: When did you last work for him?

MS. BELL: Probably October of `86.

MR. BAILEY: So if there were a spring or summer series of encounters--

MS. BELL: Uh-huh.

MR. BAILEY: --it would have to be in 1986; is that correct?

MS. BELL: I think it would be `86, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Didn't work there in the spring of `85 or `87?

MS. BELL: Right.

MR. BAILEY: Now, with respect to time when you faxed the letter to Mr. Cochran's office, how soon thereafter did you fax the same letter to the District Attorney?

MS. BELL: I think the next day.

THE COURT: Mr. Darden.

MR. DARDEN: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DARDEN

MR. DARDEN: Miss Bell, did you fax the same letter to Chief Willie Williams?

MS. BELL: No, I did not.

MR. BAILEY: I'm sorry, I didn't hear Mr. Darden.

THE COURT: Did she fax the letter to Chief Willie Williams.

MR. DARDEN: I take it that you understand it that this word, this epithet is the most vile word in the English language?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: You would agree with that, wouldn't you?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And when you heard Detective Fuhrman use this word, you were offended?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: You were hurt by it?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And you were frightened of him because of his use of this word?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: You were horrified I think you testified earlier?

MS. BELL: Excuse me, not just because of the use of the word, but because what he said--

MR. DARDEN: And you felt--

MS. BELL: --along with it.

MR. DARDEN: I'm sorry, did you finish?

MS. BELL: Along with it.

MR. DARDEN: And you felt the fact that this encounter ought to be made known to the Defense attorneys and also to the D.A.'s office; is that right?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: When you heard Detective Fuhrman use these words you cried or did you cry?

MS. BELL: Somewhat.

MR. DARDEN: Somewhat?

MS. BELL: Yes. I was teary-eyed. He could see that I was upset.

MR. DARDEN: And you immediately left the recruiting office?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Despite the horror and the trauma Detective Fuhrman's use of this word caused, isn't it true that you still introduced Andrea Terry to Mark Fuhrman?

MS. BELL: I did not.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Is she in the building today?

MS. BELL: I heard that she was.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Do you expect that she is going to be testifying later.

MR. BAILEY: I object. That is not for this witness.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. DARDEN: Detective Fuhrman did use this word, didn't he?

MS. BELL: Yes, he did.

MR. DARDEN: Now, when you and Andrea Terry saw Detective Fuhrman in Hennessey's bar, did you say to Andrea Terry that Detective Fuhrman would be a good person for her to date?

MS. BELL: No. I believe I spoke with Andrea about that after the first time I saw him at the Marine recruiting center, before Hennessey's and before the second time I saw him at the Marine recruiting center.

MR. DARDEN: And did you introduce Andrea Terry to Detective Fuhrman?

MS. BELL: No, I did not.

MR. DARDEN: And did you sit at a table with Andrea Terry and Detective Fuhrman and the other woman you described?

MS. BELL: I would never do that.

MR. DARDEN: I'm sorry?

MS. BELL: No, no, I did not.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Now, you didn't want to come here and testify; is that right?

MS. BELL: No.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Did you want to testify?

MS. BELL: I did not want to testify.

MR. DARDEN: You didn't want to help the Defendant in this case?

MS. BELL: No, I did not.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And that is because you think he--

MR. BAILEY: May we approach?

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: May we approach, your Honor?

THE COURT: No. Counsel, I understand Mr. Bailey is handling this witness.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes, he is, your Honor.

THE COURT: And he is able to do that admirably. Sustained. Move on.

MR. DARDEN: I want to make sure that you have given us a full account as best you can as to what happened between you and Detective Fuhrman then. Have you?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And everything you have said this morning before this jury is true?

MS. BELL: Yes, it is.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Now, I believe you told Mr. Bailey that you haven't--strike that. Did you tell Mr. Bailey that you haven't used the "N" word yourself before?

MR. BAILEY: I object.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. BELL: I have never used that to describe another person. I have used it several times--many, many times lately in referring to Mark Fuhrman's conversation.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Well, other than your references to Mark Fuhrman's conversations, have you ever used that word yourself?

MS. BELL: I have never used that word to describe someone, no.

MR. DARDEN: Not once in your whole life?

MS. BELL: Not once in my whole life.

MR. DARDEN: Not one time in the last ten years, that is, other than in reference to Detective Fuhrman's conversations?

MR. BAILEY: Object and ask for an offer of proof.

THE COURT: Sustained. It is irrelevant. It is a collateral issue.

MR. DARDEN: You testified also that no one from the D.A.'s office interviewed you; is that right?

MS. BELL: This is true.

MR. DARDEN: But there were attempts by members of the D.A.'s office to interview you; is that right?

MS. BELL: I--there was--my attorney was arranging something, but he wanted a court reporter to be there.

MR. DARDEN: Okay.

MS. BELL: That is all I remember.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. In any event, the D.A.'s office did attempt to interview you; is that right?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Thank you very much.

THE COURT: Mr. Bailey.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BAILEY

MR. BAILEY: Miss Bell, what was the information you were trying to give us about the condition that your attorney imposed on an interview relating to a court reporter? What did he ask you, if you know?

MR. DARDEN: Hearsay, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. BAILEY: Was there a request that a court reporter be present if you were interviewed by the Prosecution?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Same objection.

THE COURT: Overruled. The answer will stand.

MR. BAILEY: You have to--

MS. BELL: Yes, yes.

MR. BAILEY: The answer was yes, there was?

MS. BELL: Yes, sir.

MR. BAILEY: You learned of that through Mr. Daigneault?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: All right. And what was the response, as you understand it, from the District Attorney's office that a court reporter be present to take down what was said?

MR. DARDEN: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAILEY: Okay.

MR. BAILEY: Did the interview ever take place?

MS. BELL: No, it did not.

MR. BAILEY: Have you always been willing to submit to an interview, provided a court reporter could be present to take down what was said?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Thank you.

THE COURT: Mr. Darden.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DARDEN

MR. DARDEN: You did give interviews to Larry King and Dateline NBC; is that correct?

MS. BELL: Yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: There was no court reporter there?

MS. BELL: But the proof was there.

MR. DARDEN: Are you aware that we in the D.A.'s office tape-record almost every interview we do?

MR. BAILEY: Objection, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. BELL: I wasn't aware of that, no.

MR. DARDEN: Okay.

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

MR. DARDEN: Are you aware that the D.A.'s office offered to provide a stenographer during any interview that you might have had with us?

MR. DAIGNEAULT: I'm sorry, your Honor. I didn't hear the question.

THE COURT: Why don't you keep your voice up, Mr. Darden.

MR. BAILEY: Ask for an offer of proof, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: Are you aware that the D.A.'s office offered to provide a stenographer to be present during any conversation that you might have had with us?

MS. BELL: I am not aware of that, no.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. You never had a conversation with Miss Lewis?

MS. BELL: No, I did not.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. But your lawyer did?

MS. BELL: Oh, yes, he did.

MR. DARDEN: Thank you very much.

MR. BAILEY: Thank you very much, Miss Bell.

THE COURT: All right. Miss Bell, thank you very much. You are excused.

MS. BELL: Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. Next witness.

MR. BAILEY: They have asked for a 402.

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, as far as the jury is concerned, we are going to take our recess just a little bit early. Please remember all my admonitions to you. And we will probably call you back in about twenty minutes. All right.

(The jury was excused and the following proceedings were held in open court out of their presence:)

MR. BAILEY: May Miss Singer be brought in, your Honor?

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Bailey, are you going to be handling the next witness?

MR. BAILEY: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. What is your offer of proof as to Miss Singer?

MR. BAILEY: I will repeat my offer of proof as of Friday, your Honor. Miss Singer, who had for nine days been the roommate of a woman named Karel Hannak, wound up in a local hospital with a condition that required emergency treatment. While there Miss Hannak encountered two policemen named Vettraino and Fuhrman and Miss Hannak began to date Officer Vettraino who the evidence will show was Fuhrman's partner. Miss Singer went home, she did not spend overnight in the hospital, and a few weeks later was present in the living room of the two-bedroom apartment where she was at that time sleeping because there were four girls in the two-bedroom apartment, and Mr. Fuhrman entered with Mr. Vettraino who was courting Miss Hannak.

THE COURT: Do we have a time frame for this? Refresh my recollection.

MR. BAILEY: Yes, your Honor. She was in the hospital September 24, 1987, and within about three weeks thereafter, she has no means of ascertaining the exact date, these two men came into the apartment, Vettraino, to visit Miss Hannak, Fuhrman tagging along. During that conversation Officer Fuhrman gratuitously offered the fact upon been asking what he did that he and Vettraino were assigned to gangs and that as part of his business he would take "N" word people into and alley and he would hit them with a stick or baton, she is not sure which word he used, and then he would kick them until he could see them twitch and that relieved his tensions, and he smiled as he said it. The evidence will be that he came, when she was at home, she knows he came a number of times when she wasn't at home, but when she was at home, three or four more times. And when Officer Fuhrman came in she would leave the room so as not to be present when language of the kind she had heard on her very first encounter was uttered. After about the fourth occasion, and probably late in 1987, she was in the bathroom looking out the window of this second floor apartment when she saw a car pull up and Officer Vettraino pull up or get out of the car with Officer Fuhrman. They started up the walkway. And she said out the window, "Hello, Tom," and she saw Fuhrman with an angry face say something to Vettraino. The part she could hear was, "That fucking bitch." At which point she said, "That man is not coming in this house any more. Tom, you can come in if you like." Mr. Vettraino then came in and left she believes with Miss Hannak. She never saw Mr. Fuhrman in her apartment again. That is what she will testify to.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Darden.

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

MR. DARDEN: Well, the court has already ruled that these comments as they relate to excessive force are highly inflammatory and prejudicial. I am not interested in hiding the ball. If the court feels that use--that Detective Fuhrman's use of the "N" word is somehow relevant but in the context--the context provided to us today finally by Mr.--

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

MR. DARDEN: --by Mr. Bailey, your Honor--

MR. BAILEY: He forgot the name.

MR. DARDEN: When they throw those epithets around, Judge, I just go blank. But given the context in which the word was used in this case, I think it is highly inflammatory and prejudicial. If they want to call Miss Singer in to say that he uttered the epithet in a derogatory manner, in a disparaging manner--

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

MR. DARDEN: --in 1987 or three weeks after September 17, 1987, I will not object at this point; however these are horrible, horrible things that Miss Singer will testify were said by Mr. Fuhrman and I think it takes it to another level, a higher level of emotionalism, and I think the court should exercise its discretion under 352 and limit--

THE COURT: Mr. Bailey.

MR. DARDEN: --this testimony. In addition, I would say this: If Miss McKinny is also going to testify to 42 or 41 uses of the word, I think we are at the point where this is cumulative.

THE COURT: Mr. Bailey.

MR. BAILEY: If it please the court, when the Prosecution thought it could get away with trashing Miss Bell and calling her a liar, as they did in this court, they thought it a smart tactic to introduce into evidence 102 in which genocide is mentioned, a somewhat more inflammatory event than merely beating someone up until he twitched but presumably leaving him alive. Suddenly they have a queasy stomach because the tables have turned and they are in no position to start calling these people liars because the consequences are fairly obvious. The tapes are corroborative and could then be admitted. I do not believe the fact that their strategy has backfired, the fact that an officer they have long known, according to Commander Ball of the police department, since 1978 was a big problem because of his attitude, was put on this witness stand and vouched for is any basis for them to come whining in here with estoppel. Mr. Fuhrman chose those words. He chose on this location, as he did before, to visit them on a total stranger on a first encounter. It says a great deal about who he is and how much he is to be trusted. And to withhold this information from the jury because they can't live with it I think is pushing the envelope a long way up. They thought the jury could hear about burn or bomb them all. Now they think kicking is too bad because they realize that Fuhrman is lying in his teeth and these people are telling the truth and they are stuck with it. That wasn't a legal argument he gave, that is tucking your tail between your legs and trying to get out of it and as the court you ought not to permit it.

MR. DARDEN: You know, I'm going to save the heated remarks that I have for Mr. Bailey for another day and another time when it is just Mr. Bailey and I when we can talk this over. You know, we have a right under the law to ask the court to exercise its discretion under 352, and by the way, Mr. Bailey, we didn't call Kathleen Bell a liar, and the letter was introduced because his Honor--

THE COURT: Excuse me. Why don't you address your remarks to me, please, please, please.

MR. DARDEN: The letter was introduced because his Honor ruled the letter relevant. We take the evidence as it comes. We deal with it. Okay? We are not running with our tails tucked between our legs, Mr. Bailey. And I would ask the court--I would say to the court, so that Mr. Bailey can hear and understand, but I live with this everyday, Mr. Bailey. I understand what the word means. I can't run away from it and I certainly can't run away from it in this courtroom when it is thrown about in the careless manner that it is by Mr. Bailey. In any event, 352 is in the evidence code for a reason and it has been there many years. This is not the trial of People versus Fuhrman, not yet, and when it is the time for Mr. Fuhrman's Prosecution, if there is one, then they can deal with that issue, but this is the case of People versus Simpson. And I would ask the court to limit Miss Singer's testimony.

MR. BAILEY: Your Honor, it is the case of a leading witness for the Prosecution, a badge carrying detective who provided probable cause for a search and found evidence which purports to point to this Defendant, very severely lying to the court and lying to the jury. And I think within limits, and certainly there is a point at which you might find it cumulative--unless they are willing to step up to the bar and say, ladies and gentlemen, we made a mistake, this guy is a perjurer and we are stuck with it and we admit it. Until that happens I think we are entitled to provide, at least in two or three different sources from people who don't know each other, from people who made their statements before these tapes ever emerged, and they knew they would be corroborated by people who have been publicly called liars by this Prosecution team in this court in argument, I think the jury is entitled to have a sampling of the consistency of this man's conduct.

MR. DARDEN: You know what they say, Judge, "Yet he without sin cast the first stone," and I don't think anybody here is going to be throwing the first stone. It is highly inflammatory and prejudicial, Judge.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. I will allow the testimony of Miss Singer as it relates to 1987, the acquaintanceship with Detective or Officer Vettraino. You can lay the foundation that that officer was Mr. Fuhrman's partner at the time, the fact that he was working gangs with Mr. Vettraino and that he used the "N" word in a vile and disparaging manner as to African Americans. I am going to limit and not receive the testimony regarding beating of suspects. There is no allegation that that occurred in this case. It is not relevant to this case. I find it highly inflammatory. And I will exercise my discretion to keep that out.

MR. BAILEY: May we introduce the fact that his derogatory reference to people of the ilk of the "N" word relieved his tensions?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: All right. May I have a moment to acquaint the witness with the limitations of your Honor's ruling?

THE COURT: Absolutely.

MR. BAILEY: And with respect to the encounter where he is entering the house and calls her an epithet, may she testify to that?

MS. CLARK: No objection.

THE COURT: I think it is her and his reaction to each other based upon these discussions, so I would say yes.

MR. BAILEY: You would say--

MR. COCHRAN: Yes.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Thank you. May I have just a moment?

THE COURT: It places their relationship in context.

MR. BAILEY: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. We will take 15.

(Recess.)

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.

MR. BAILEY: Your Honor, before you do?

THE COURT: Yes, sir.

MR. BAILEY: There is one thing, and the fault is mine, that I omitted from the offer of proof at least today, I think I may have mentioned it last week, and that is later on the day of the first conversation with the remarks about beating and so forth that you have excluded were used, Detective Fuhrman or Officer Fuhrman at that time made the observation that the only dead--only good "N" person is a dead "N" person and I would propose to have her testify to that. I don't think that comes anywhere close to bomb and burn them all, as the Prosecution put before the jury, and I think it is an indication of his overall attitude toward the case.

THE COURT: Mr. Darden.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor--I'm going to handle this witness, I'm sorry.

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, I recall very distinctly counsel's offer of proof when he last made it, as well as today, and he has never mentioned before, and it is very apparent that what has happened is since the court has excluded the reference to the beatings they have come up with another phrase that will be inflammatory along these lines. The court has ruled that the reference to the use of the word, that all that can be used. That is a great deal that counsel has been given. And to now heap more on because the court has ruled that other references could not come in, is unfair and I think highly suspect and I would urge the court not to allow these belated observations of Miss Singer.

MR. BAILEY: If it please the court, Miss Clark's perennially professionally insulting conduct adds nothing to this trial. This woman told me--

THE COURT: Excuse me. Counsel, counsel, counsel, counsel, please, if you are going to complain about somebody else's conduct, I suggest you not engage in that yourself. I will hear your argument.

MR. BAILEY: My argument is that we have just been charged with concocting a fabrication in response to the court's limiting ruling. I personally interviewed this witness in Nashville on May 2nd, 1995, and was told about the remarks I have just recited at that time. This witness was interviewed in Mr. Cochran's office by a number of lawyers and we were told about the remark. I simply omitted it because I was focusing on the beating aspect of it and the fault is mine, but to suggest that lawyers are making up evidence to frustrate your ruling requires something more than a nasty attitude. I think you ought to require an offer of proof before you tolerate conduct of that sort in this trial any further.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, I have an offer of proof.

THE COURT: Wait, wait. What is your offer of proof, Miss Clark?

MS. CLARK: I would like to show counsel the fact--no, it is very easy. There is no discovery. We have no statement, we have nothing ever given to us by counsel that would indicate what Miss Singer said. There has been no offer of proof to date given to this court in which that phrase was represented as part of the offer. Today for the very first time, after the court's ruling, counsel comes up with it and now asserts to the court that that was something that had been said before. Now, if counsel had made an effort to comply with discovery, had made a good faith to give us a prior statement issued by Miss Singer, and I do not fault Miss Singer for this, I do fault counsel, however, then he would stand in a better posture before this court. But to come before this court now and represent, having given us no discovery, no statement from Miss Singer at all, that she said this all along, and yet he forgot to say it until this very moment, is something that should be considered by the court. If nothing else, counsel obviously didn't think it all that important if he did not include it any prior offer, which he did not; if did he not seek to tell us about it at any prior occasion, which he did not; if he included it in no discovery of any notes made by any investigator, which he did not. And if that is contained in notes somewhere, then we were entitled to discovery and we didn't get it under the discovery rules and laws under 1054, et seq. And I would urge the court to suppress it on those grounds as well.

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

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Bailey.

MS. CLARK: And let me also indicate to the court that it's another highly inflammatory statement that adds nothing to the evidence of racial bias other than to seek to inflame the passions of the jury again improperly.

THE COURT: I am concerned about any investigator's reports, any notations as to interviews of Miss Singer that haven't been turned over.

MR. BAILEY: Your Honor, investigator's notes have been turned over. No report has been written. No one was present with me when I talked with the witness.

THE COURT: Counsel, all I asked for was investigators notes.

MR. BAILEY: Pardon me?

THE COURT: Have they been turned over?

MR. BAILEY: They have been turned over. Furthermore, if I may--

MR. COCHRAN: Lee, Lee.

THE COURT: I have heard all I need to hear.

MS. CLARK: The statement does not appear in any notes, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. The objection is overruled. All right. Let's have the jury, please.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran, who is after Miss Singer?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, the lawyers are out now interviewing. We have three or four witnesses and can I--may I tell you that in a moment?

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Douglas, Mr. Shapiro have been doing that. I can let the court know that very shortly.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you.

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

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Mr. Bailey, you may call the next witness.

MR. BAILEY: Miss Natalie Singer, please.

Natalie Singer, called as a witness by the Defendant, was sworn and testified as follows:

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

MS. SINGER: I do.

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

MS. SINGER: Natalie, N-A-T-A-L-I-E, Singer, S-I-N-G-E-R.

THE COURT: All right. Miss Singer, why don't you just sit back and pull the microphone close to you.

MS. SINGER: (Witness complies.) Mr. Bailey.

MR. BAILEY: If you will, Miss Singer, keep your voice up so that we can all hear.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BAILEY

MR. BAILEY: Where do you presently reside, without giving us a street address?

MS. SINGER: Water?

MR. BAILEY: Yes. May we have a glass of water?

THE COURT: It is coming. We are way ahead of you. Proceed.

MS. SINGER: Nervous.

MR. BAILEY: Yes, your Honor. I think she would like a sip.

MS. SINGER: I'm nervous.

THE COURT: Mr. Bailey.

MS. SINGER: Sorry.

MR. BAILEY: In what area do you presently reside?

MS. SINGER: Nashville, Tennessee.

MR. BAILEY: All right. On September 24, 1987, where did you reside?

MS. SINGER: Umm, in Beverly Hills adjacent area in Los Angeles.

MR. BAILEY: In an apartment?

MS. SINGER: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Did you have roommates?

MS. SINGER: Yes, I had three.

MR. BAILEY: Now, how long had you been in Los Angeles as of September 24, 1987?

MS. SINGER: Nine days.

MR. BAILEY: And how long had you known the roommates with whom you were residing on that date?

MS. SINGER: Well, two of them I had known for years, six or seven years. There was--because it was a two-bedroom apartment, there was a spare bedroom and they rented that out to another girl whom I didn't know until I arrived and met her.

MR. BAILEY: What was her name?

MS. SINGER: Karel Hannak.

MR. BAILEY: Can you spell that?

MS. SINGER: K-A-R-E-L H-A-N-N-A-K.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. What kind of business were you in at the time you moved to Los Angeles?

MS. SINGER: Well, I had been previously working in and around the film industry. I had been personal assistant to Christopher Reeve for a few years.

MR. BAILEY: Is that the same Christopher Reeve that was just injured in a horse riding accident?

MS. SINGER: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Continue.

MS. SINGER: I had done script analysis and I was doing research on a book. It is project to project work. I don't have--

MR. BAILEY: Had you worked for any producers of television shows?

MS. SINGER: I--well, this was in New York. When I came out here I was supposed to work at Tri-Star Pictures hopefully as a script analysis and then the writer's strike happened like five seconds after I stepped off the plane so that job went out the window. And so eventually it was a bit of time because I found a good agency and I worked in different places in the film industry and settled on Aaron Spelling, the Aaron Spelling Company, with Doug Cramer who is a producer there, for about two and a half years, even though that was a temp job, but I stayed on for that long.

MR. BAILEY: Are you still in the same line of work, entertainment, so to speak?

MS. SINGER: Umm, well, I'm currently in pre-production as the creative director and producer of a series of women's titles for CD ROM, series of CD ROM titles.

MR. BAILEY: All right.

MS. SINGER: My partner is presently finishing another title so I'm just doing the story boarding.

MR. BAILEY: Let me draw your attention to September 24, 1987, nine days after you had moved to Los Angeles, and ask you if something extraordinary happened to you personally that day that you remember?

MS. SINGER: Is the kidney stone extraordinary?

MR. BAILEY: Yes.

MS. SINGER: Yeah. Well, I woke up--the night before I was having pains in my lower back and that morning, which is very unusual, usually there is at least one or two roommates home, no one was home. And I don't know if you have ever had a kidney stone, but it is like having birth, giving birth, and so I was rushed to the hospital. And they kept me in the emergency room in the hospital on intravenous Demerol for a while and they were hoping it would pass and that is what happened. I was in the hospital for hours.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Did the kidney stone pass sometime during the day of your admission?

MS. SINGER: During the evening it finally did.

MR. BAILEY: Was it necessary that you be kept overnight?

MS. SINGER: No.

MR. BAILEY: All right.

MS. SINGER: No.

MR. BAILEY: Was one of your roommates present in the hospital while you were admitted there for treatment?

MS. SINGER: Actually more than one.

MR. BAILEY: Okay.

MS. SINGER: Karel, who I had only known several days, but she is--you know, is very sweet of her, she came to the hospital and sat in the emergency room with another one of my roommates that found out I was over there. She stayed the whole time. And then the third roommate, well, she popped in just to see if I was okay and then left, so they--Karel and the other roommate stayed almost the entire time when Karel got off work.

MR. BAILEY: During the day was Karel in the emergency room, to your knowledge, Karel Hannak?

MS. SINGER: Well, I was being kept in the emergency room and the waiting room where people sat to wait for news about people in emergency was very close, because as high I was from the Demerol, I could hear their bracelets. I could hear their bracelets the whole time clanging together, so yes, Karel was there.

MR. BAILEY: Did you see any police officers that day?

MS. SINGER: I didn't. I wasn't seeing anything except--

MR. BAILEY: Without going into anything that she said, did you learn anything from Miss Hannak later with reference to police officers?

MS. SINGER: Well, I actually learned when I started to come out from under the Demerol, my other roommate came in and--well--

MR. BAILEY: Don't tell us what anybody said.

MS. SINGER: It is just personal--I don't have to go into that, but anyway, she mentioned--oh, I can't say what she said.

MR. BAILEY: Okay.

MS. SINGER: I became aware that Karel had met two police officers that had come in for other business in the hospital at that point.

MR. BAILEY: Did you go home that night?

MS. SINGER: Yes, I did.

MR. BAILEY: Okay.

MS. SINGER: At approximately between 8:00 and 8:30.

MR. BAILEY: Did you subsequently meet two policemen in your home that were referred to as people that were in the hospital the day you were?

MS. SINGER: That's right, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Can you tell us about how long it was after your encounter in the hospital before these policemen came to your home?

MS. SINGER: This is an approximate, but I would say about three to four weeks.

MR. BAILEY: And can you tell me--

MS. SINGER: I had been hearing about them, but I hadn't yet met them.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Did you know the names of these people by that time?

MS. SINGER: Umm, I knew especially Tom who is mark--it was Mark Fuhrman and Tom, whose name I still keep forgetting, so but it is Tom Catraino or Catrelno.

MR. BAILEY: Vettraino or Vetreano or something of that nature?

MS. SINGER: Yeah, because Karel and he were getting into this, you know, oh, he is cute, and you know, were getting to know one another, so I was hearing a lot about that, and they--then I met them when they came up.

MR. BAILEY: Without getting too personal, can you tell us basically within this two-bedroom apartment who slept where?

MS. SINGER: (No audible response.)

MR. BAILEY: How were the rooms allocated?

MS. SINGER: Well, the two roommates whose names I haven't mentioned that I knew in New York shared a room and Karel and I shared a room.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. But prior to the time you moved into Karel's room?

MS. SINGER: Well, I was actually in the living room to start with, but because everybody was--in the morning they would have to pass me to come out of the bedrooms to go into the kitchen and it became a little annoying, so everyone kind of got together and said do you think we could stick her in the other bedroom, so I shared the other bedroom with Karel.

MR. BAILEY: Did that sharing begin before or after the first visit by the police officers?

MS. SINGER: Well, when I got out of the hospital I was still in the living room because I was--I would--they gave me so much Demerol I was withdrawing--I am not used to drugs, so I know I was still in there and I think a couple of days--it was definitely before I met them.

MR. BAILEY: That you moved out of the living room?

MS. SINGER: Absolutely.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Tell me the circumstances, as best you can remember them, of your first or personal encounter with Mark Fuhrman.

MS. SINGER: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the very first two words of your question.

MR. BAILEY: Tell me the circumstances within your apartment surrounding your first encounter with Mark Fuhrman and his partner Tom?

MS. SINGER: Okay, okay. You walk in the front door and there is--there is two couches in the living room. There is a living room area. There is one couch facing that wall and there is one couch facing that wall. Karel was excited. This was going to be the first time, you know, they are coming over, and I want you to meet them, and you know, all that stuff, and they stopped by while they were on duty, because there is no other reason for a man to pick up a date with another guy, you know. They would just drop by.

MR. BAILEY: But did they say they were on duty or this is a conclusion?

MS. SINGER: No, they were on duty. Well, I mean, I--being that they had all that paraphernalia dangling off of them.

MS. CLARK: Objection, speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained. Next question.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Without reference as to whether they were on duty or off duty, what time of day, if you can remember did, they arrive?

MS. SINGER: The first time it was dark, definitely dark.

MR. BAILEY: In the evening?

MS. SINGER: And I want to say I do--

THE COURT: No, no.

MS. SINGER: I don't want to say anything?

THE COURT: No, you don't want to say anything except in response to a question. Mr. Bailey.

MR. BAILEY: Just try to answer the questions as tightly as you can. At some point during that evening were you sitting in proximity to Karel Hannak, Tom Veterano or Vettraino and Mark Fuhrman?

MS. SINGER: Yes, yes, yes.

MR. BAILEY: How close was the group?

MS. SINGER: Okay. Tom and Karel were sitting on this couch, (Indicating). Mark Fuhrman sat here, (Indicating). I sat here, (Indicating). I--okay, that is it. That is all I want to say. Okay.

MR. BAILEY: At some point was inquiry made by someone as to what these two officers did?

MS. SINGER: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Their work? And what was the response to the type of work that they did?

MS. SINGER: Fuhrman said "We work with gangs."

MR. BAILEY: All right.

MS. SINGER: Gang unit.

MR. BAILEY: Being very careful with your answer. Did he, in describing the gangs that he worked with, describe any particular race?

MS. SINGER: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Did he use an epithet well-known to the world that denotes black people and begins with "N"?

MS. SINGER: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: What was your reaction to his use of that word on your first encounter?

MS. SINGER: (No audible response.)

MR. BAILEY: How did you feel?

MS. SINGER: Well, in the context that it was in, that that word was used in, I was shocked, stunned. I never met anyone that talks that way.

MR. BAILEY: All right.

MS. SINGER: You know, so--

MR. BAILEY: Without going into the exact language, is it fair to say that the description of the way "N" people were treated was abusive?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BAILEY: Is it fair to say that the description of the way the "N" people were treated, according to Fuhrman, was abusive?

MS. SINGER: Absolutely.

MR. BAILEY: Do you recall his saying anything at the end of that description about his reaction to that kind of treatment?

MS. SINGER: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: What did he say?

MS. SINGER: He said--after he did what he said he did, he--he said, "Oh, it really relieves your tension" and then this--just this is nauseating--"It hits you here" kind of laughing looking at Tom. They were--do I stop now?

MR. BAILEY: You can stop there. Later in the conversation did he make another reference to "N" people?

MS. SINGER: Yes, he did.

MR. BAILEY: Can you tell us what he said?

MS. SINGER: (No audible response.)

MR. BAILEY: You may use the "N" word, if you wish.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

THE COURT: Do you remember the question?

MR. BAILEY: Let me rephrase it if I may, your Honor. Did he make a reference to the African American race using a word we have discussed that begins with "N"?

MS. SINGER: And you are not referring to the first reference?

MR. BAILEY: No, no.

MS. SINGER: You are referring to that second kind of saying.

MR. BAILEY: Later in the conversation?

MS. SINGER: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: What did he say?

MS. SINGER: It is okay to say that?

MR. BAILEY: Yes.

MS. SINGER: He said, "The only good Nigger is a dead Nigger."

MR. BAILEY: Now, did he visit thereafter when you were in the apartment with--I assume Officer--

MS. SINGER: Yes, they stopped by whenever and I--and they were on duty at times. I know that. I can't be specific which time, was it the first time, was it the second time, but I do know that they were on duty.

MS. CLARK: Objection, speculation, no foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained. Next question.

MR. BAILEY: Did you remain in the room on the subsequent visits where Mark Fuhrman was present?

MS. SINGER: No.

MR. BAILEY: Did you engage in any further conversation with him?

MS. SINGER: No. Well, in the--

MR. BAILEY: In the room?

MS. SINGER: No.

MR. BAILEY: When he visited?

MS. SINGER: No.

MR. BAILEY: Did there come a time when you were--by the way, this apartment is on what floor of the building?

MS. SINGER: Two, second.

MR. BAILEY: Did there come a time sometime later that year when you were in the bathroom of that apartment and heard something out the window?

MS. SINGER: Well, yes.

MR. BAILEY: How many times, to your knowledge, your personal knowledge, had Mr. Fuhrman been in the apartment between the first encounter about three weeks after your trip to the hospital and this final encounter?

MS. SINGER: (No audible response.)

MR. BAILEY: Best estimate?

MS. SINGER: The one where I have seen him where I knew for a fact he was there?

MR. BAILEY: Yes.

MS. SINGER: Approximately four--three to four times.

MR. BAILEY: All right. On each of those occasions did you stay out of the room where he was?

MS. SINGER: I made myself as scarce as possible, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Why did you not go in the room when Mark Fuhrman was there?

MS. SINGER: Because I was caught between a rock and a hard place. The first time he opened his mouth and said these things I wanted him out. I--in hindsight I realized I was a coward not to do it then and that I had the situation where here is a woman that is dating his partner, that is going to mess that up, you've got four girls together. It is political--is it okay to just throw this guy out? I was the new girl at the place, and--but it was--it was a topic of conversation around the house. Everyone knew that I was displeased with his presence.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Now, on the occasion that we just mentioned where you heard something through the bathroom window--

MS. SINGER: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: --did you thereafter look out the window?

MS. SINGER: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: What did you see?

MS. SINGER: Well, I saw the two of them just coming out. I heard them coming out of their cars just chatting. I heard them.

MR. BAILEY: Did they have a vehicle?

MS. SINGER: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: How far from the window looking down would you say the vehicle was stopped when you saw them getting out?

MS. SINGER: Oh, God. Here is the window, they were--I'm not very good at footage and measurements so--

MR. BAILEY: Can you pick out something in the courtroom of the same approximate distance?

MS. SINGER: Right. Say I'm on the second floor, I'm looking out my window, this would be their car, say around where you are.

MR. BAILEY: Within twenty, thirty feet?

MS. SINGER: Yeah, close, you know, not three blocks away.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. As they emerged from the car did you say anything to either of them?

MS. SINGER: Well, I heard them chatting so I went to the bathroom window and I said, "Hey." I said, "Hi Tom."

MR. BAILEY: After you said, "Hi, Tom," did you hear Mark Fuhrman utter anything that caught your ear?

MS. SINGER: Immediately he started talking. He has got a pretty strong tone to his voice. He started saying something and it sounded angry and nasty. His normal tone of voice actually.

MS. CLARK: Objection, no foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAILEY: Just tell us what he said.

MS. CLARK: Motion to strike.

THE COURT: Excuse me. That answer is stricken. The jury is to disregard. Next question.

MR. BAILEY: Just tell us what he said.

THE COURT: Just tell us what he said.

MS. SINGER: And then he called me a--am I allowed to curse?

THE COURT: Yes, you are.

MS. SINGER: He called me a fucking bitch.

MR. BAILEY: All right. What did you do after he called you a fucking bitch?

MS. SINGER: The thought went through my head "This is it."

MR. BAILEY: What did you say?

MS. SINGER: He is out. I went to the window. I said, "I do not"--I called him an asshole.

MR. BAILEY: An asshole?

MS. SINGER: I said, "I do not want you in this house any more, nobody does. Don't come up here. You are not welcome." And it was great, because it was a great opportunity to do that.

MR. BAILEY: What, if anything, did you say with respect to Mr. Vettraino's right to come up?

MS. SINGER: I said, "You are welcome to come up here."

MR. BAILEY: Did he come?

MS. SINGER: Yes, he came in.

MR. BAILEY: Did Officer Fuhrman come in?

MS. SINGER: Oh, no.

MR. BAILEY: Did you ever see Officer Fuhrman again where you had conversation with him?

MS. SINGER: Oh, no.

MR. BAILEY: Did you ever see him again period personally?

MS. SINGER: No, not until this past year.

MR. BAILEY: Did you see him?

MS. SINGER: On TV.

MR. BAILEY: Indirectly on television?

MS. SINGER: Yes, on television.

MR. BAILEY: Did you at some point become aware that he was involved in some fashion with the case against Mr. O.J. Simpson?

MS. SINGER: Could you repeat the start of that?

MR. BAILEY: Yes. Did you become aware, through the news or any other means, that Officer Fuhrman--

MS. SINGER: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: --was a figure in the Simpson case?

MS. SINGER: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: How did you learn that?

MS. SINGER: The minute I saw him I--I knew that that was the same man.

MR. BAILEY: Recognized him?

MS. SINGER: I saw him on television.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Did you make an effort to contact anyone to give them the information that you have just given this jury?

MS. SINGER: Yes, I did.

MR. BAILEY: How did you go about doing that? Who did you call first?

MS. SINGER: The very first call was to Mr. Shapiro's office.

MR. BAILEY: Uh-huh.

MS. SINGER: And I'm not to this day sure that it was actually the right office or not.

MR. BAILEY: Uh-huh.

MS. SINGER: I left a message. Then I called Mr. Cochran's office and apparently they were flooded about calls about similar stuff.

MR. BAILEY: Uh-huh.

MS. SINGER: And they said, "We will get back to you." I wanted to just let them know that there is a problem with this person.

MR. BAILEY: Uh-huh.

MS. SINGER: And then I just let it go. I felt, look, you know, I don't want to spend all my time pursuing this. I just want to let them know what I know.

MR. BAILEY: All right.

THE COURT: Next question.

MS. SINGER: Next question.

MR. BAILEY: And did you call anyone thereafter at any time?

MS. SINGER: Yes, I did.

MR. BAILEY: Who?

MS. SINGER: When I saw that he was--

THE COURT: Excuse me. The question was who?

MR. BAILEY: Who did you call?

MS. SINGER: Dan Leonard at your office.

MR. BAILEY: The office in Boston?

MS. SINGER: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Did you get the number through a listing?

MS. SINGER: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Without going into what was said, did you have some conversation with Mr. Leonard about your recollections relating to Mark Fuhrman?

MS. SINGER: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: And did you leave your name and number?

MS. SINGER: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Were you thereafter contacted by someone who is directly affiliated with the Defense?

MS. SINGER: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: And what was his name?

MS. SINGER: The next person that contacted me after Dan Leonard would be Pat McKenna.

MR. BAILEY: Pat McKenna?

MS. SINGER: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: As a result of conversations that you had with Pat McKenna was an arrangement made for you and I to meet in May of 1995?

MS. SINGER: That's right.

MR. BAILEY: And did we have a meeting near your residence outside of Nashville?

MS. SINGER: That's right.

MR. BAILEY: May 2nd of this year?

MS. SINGER: May 2nd.

MR. BAILEY: Did we have some conversation about the case, without going into what was said?

MS. SINGER: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: And did you relate to me at that time essentially what you have told the jury?

MS. SINGER: Essentially.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Have you talked with anyone directly connected with the Prosecution?

MS. SINGER: You know, I don't know if he is directly--

MR. BAILEY: Strike the question. Have you talked directly with anyone connected with Mark Fuhrman?

MS. SINGER: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: What was his name?

MS. SINGER: Anthony Pellicano.

MR. BAILEY: And as a result of that did you issue any invitation to him to have the Prosecution call you?

MS. SINGER: I guess you could call it an invitation. I--

MR. BAILEY: Well, did you inquire as to whether he was a member of the Prosecution or acting for--

MS. SINGER: Well, he--

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor.

MR. BAILEY: Don't tell us what he said.

MS. SINGER: Okay. What was your question again then?

MR. BAILEY: Did you say anything to him that you expected might lead to a call from a member of the Prosecution?

MS. SINGER: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Objection. That is irrelevant, calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BAILEY: Were you ever, prior to last Friday, requested to give an interview to anyone in connection to the Prosecution, to your knowledge?

MS. SINGER: No.

MR. BAILEY: Have you been represented by counsel in Nashville in connection with this matter?

MS. SINGER: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Is the lawyer who has represented you a well-known figure in the legal community?

MS. SINGER: I think so. I gather that from--

MS. CLARK: Objection, speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained. It is irrelevant.

MR. BAILEY: Did you give his name to Mr. Pellicano?

MS. SINGER: At that point, no. I didn't have him at that point.

MR. BAILEY: At some point did you give his name to Mr. Pellicano?

MS. SINGER: Yes. Oh, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, uh-huh.

MR. BAILEY: What name did you give Mr. Pellicano?

MS. SINGER: Jim Neal.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. And through Mr. Neal was it arranged that an attorney out in this area would advise you if that became necessary?

MS. SINGER: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: And do you know--did you speak to that attorney after you arrived here last week?

MS. SINGER: Umm, I spoke to him once just to let him know I was here.

MR. BAILEY: Okay.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MS. SINGER: Actually I have spoken to him twice. Judge, I actually spoke to him twice. I forgot.

THE COURT: Hold on. Mr. Bailey, Miss Singer indicates she needs to clarify her last answer.

MR. BAILEY: I'm sorry.

MS. SINGER: I actually spoke to him twice since I have been here.

MR. BAILEY: Mr. Pellicano?

MS. SINGER: No, the lawyer out here. I said once, but I meant twice.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BAILEY: Thank you, Miss Singer. No further questions. Your witness.

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

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

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK

MS. CLARK: Good morning, Miss Singer.

MS. SINGER: Good morning.

MS. CLARK: Did Mr. Bailey fly out to Nashville, Tennessee, to interview you?

MS. SINGER: Yes, he did.

MS. CLARK: That is--

THE COURT: Miss Clark, could you keep your voice up, please.

MS. CLARK: I'm sorry.

MS. CLARK: That is where you spoke to him?

MS. SINGER: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Now, you have never spoken to myself or Mr. Darden or Miss Lewis?

MS. SINGER: No, I haven't.

MS. CLARK: You have never spoken to any of the Prosecutors in this case; is that correct?

MS. SINGER: No, I haven't. Yes, that's correct.

MS. CLARK: And you spoke to--did you ever call any member of the Prosecution team to advise them personally of who your lawyer was?

MS. SINGER: No.

MS. CLARK: You spoke to--you spoke to Mr. Bailey; is that correct, back in May of this year?

MS. SINGER: Are you referring to the meeting in Nashville?

MS. CLARK: Yes.

MS. SINGER: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And how many times have you spoken to Mr. Bailey?

MS. SINGER: You will have to give me a minute on that. It has to be an approximate and it would be approximately five.

MS. CLARK: Five times?

MS. SINGER: Right. And those are not in person all of them.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Some were on the phone?

MS. SINGER: (No audible response.)

MS. CLARK: Some were on the phone?

MS. SINGER: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And of those five times how many times did you meet with him in Nashville?

MS. SINGER: Oh, one.

MS. CLARK: That is once?

MS. SINGER: Uh-huh.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Was that yes?

MS. SINGER: Yes, I'm sorry.

MS. CLARK: That is all right. And the other times you met with him, was that in Los Angeles, the times that they were in person?

MS. SINGER: Yes. Can I keep going?

MS. CLARK: No.

MS. SINGER: Two more times. Once last week, once today.

MS. CLARK: Okay. That was both in person here in Los Angeles?

MS. SINGER: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And they flew you out here from Nashville?

MS. SINGER: Yes.

MS. CLARK: You are staying in a hotel?

MS. SINGER: No.

MS. CLARK: You are staying with someone?

MS. SINGER: I am staying with a friend.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Now, after the occasion in which you heard Mark Fuhrman use that epithet--I'm sorry--this is not a great day for me--

MS. SINGER: Yeah.

MS. CLARK: --speaking wise. Excuse me. After you heard Mark Fuhrman use the racial epithet on that occasion in your apartment, you indicated that you were very shocked and you were very offended, correct?

MS. SINGER: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And it even made you feel nauseous, correct?

MS. SINGER: Yes, uh-huh.

MS. CLARK: And after that occasion he came to the apartment when you were there on three or four occasions you estimate, correct?

MS. SINGER: That I saw him, yes.

MS. CLARK: But you were aware that he came on other occasions to the apartment when you were not there, correct?

MS. SINGER: Correct.

MS. CLARK: And then on the last occasion that you saw him there, it was on that occasion that he said "Fucking bitch," correct? Did he do--

MS. SINGER: (No audible response.)

MS. CLARK: Was that yes?

MS. SINGER: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Did he direct that to you or to his partner?

MS. SINGER: Oh, he was speaking to his partner, referring to me.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Okay. You felt he was referring to you when he said that?

MS. SINGER: Oh, he was.

MS. CLARK: Okay.

MS. SINGER: Yeah.

MS. CLARK: And that was based on what--was he looking at you when he said it or had he looked at you and then turned to his partner and said that?

MS. SINGER: Umm, it was based on the fact that I had just looked out the window and said, "Tom, hi Tom, hi you guys," got a look, then he started immediately talking. And the reason I'm not going into specifically what he was saying is because I don't remember specifically what he said previous to the curse, and then he called--she is just a blah, blah, blah.

MS. CLARK: Uh-huh. Okay. You were the only woman in sight?

MS. SINGER: Yeah.

MS. CLARK: Okay.

MS. SINGER: I was.

MS. CLARK: All right. And then that made you angry?

MS. SINGER: No, it actually didn't.

MS. CLARK: You called him an asshole?

MS. SINGER: Yeah, I think--can I go on?

MS. CLARK: Did you call him an asshole?

MS. SINGER: Yes.

MS. CLARK: You did not mean it as a term of endearment I take it?

MS. SINGER: No, no. Normally I don't use that word as a term of endearment.

MS. CLARK: All right. Most of us don't. Okay. At that point you told him you are not welcome here; is that right?

MS. SINGER: Yes.

MS. CLARK: This was your opportunity at that point when he called you--

MS. SINGER: Uh-huh.

MS. CLARK: --when he called you that, this was your opportunity to make sure he couldn't come back; is that right?

MS. SINGER: Umm--

MS. CLARK: As you have testified on direct examination?

MS. SINGER: Yes, to make sure--yes, we didn't want him there and I certainly didn't want him there and that--yes, this was an opportunity to have him out.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Then this was the opportunity you chose to make sure he wouldn't come back?

MS. SINGER: Yes. Unfortunately it was the opportunity I finally chose instead of telling him the truth.

MS. CLARK: But that was the one you did choose, correct?

MS. SINGER: Uh-huh.

MS. CLARK: Yes?

MS. SINGER: Yes.

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

MS. CLARK: Thank you, Miss Singer. Nothing further.

THE COURT: Mr. Bailey.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BAILEY

MR. BAILEY: Miss Singer, you have said that you did not make any direct effort to contact the Prosecution as you did to Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran and my office?

MS. SINGER: Correct.

MR. BAILEY: Was there a reason that you chose not to volunteer your information to the Prosecution?

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. SINGER: Well, when Anthony Pellicano told me that he was going to tell them, I said I would be willing--

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor, hearsay. Motion to strike.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. SINGER: What was that?

THE COURT: Go ahead.

MR. BAILEY: You may answer.

MS. SINGER: I told him, "When they call I will speak to them," but I never got a call.

MR. BAILEY: Was there a reason that prior to talking to Mr. Pellicano and myself you had not given this information to the Prosecution?

MS. SINGER: Well, yeah.

MR. BAILEY: What was it?

MS. SINGER: Well, possibly incorrectly I had--not in a million years would I have thought they wanted to hear what I had to say, the things that I knew. I just thought it would fall on deaf ears, and that may be incorrect of me, but that is the way I felt.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Now, when you heard Mr. Fuhrman using racial epithets, was it the mere use of that word that upset you or the manner which--

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BAILEY: You may answer.

MS. SINGER: I go?

THE COURT: Was it the use or manner that offended you so much?

MS. SINGER: The manner more than the use. The use is bad, the manner is what got me.

MR. BAILEY: All right. And what, if any, expression can you recall being on his face as he described his treatment of black people?

THE COURT: I'm going to sustain the question. We are going beyond here.

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor.

MR. BAILEY: All right.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BAILEY: Can you tell us, Miss Singer, what you mean when you say "The manner in which it was used," without going into any text?

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, same objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. SINGER: There are words that we can speak that don't--are not followed by--they are meaningless words. I can say a specific word and it doesn't hurt anybody because I don't mean it. When he says the things, he says it is bolstered by--

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, objection. Nonresponsive.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. SINGER: It is bolstered and held up and pushed out of his mouth with hatred and arrogance and despicability and that is what hurts. That is what hurts.

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor.

MS. SINGER: Combined with the words.

MR. BAILEY: Thank you, Miss Singer. That is all.

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Nothing further.

THE COURT: All right. Miss Singer, thank you very much.

MS. SINGER: You are welcome.

THE COURT: All right. Next witness.

(Brief pause.)

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

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. COCHRAN: Ready to proceed, your Honor. We will next call Mr. Roderic Hodge, your Honor.

MS. CLARK: We need to have a 402.

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, let me ask you to step back into the jury room, please.

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

THE COURT: All right. The record should reflect the jury has withdrawn. Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes. We anticipate calling Mr. Roderic Hodge, your Honor. I just spoke with my colleagues to give the court some indication. We are at this point anticipating calling Mr. Hodge, followed by Mr. Blasini. We have told you about him I think before, not directly relating to Fuhrman, regarding the Bronco. We will then be calling the photographer, Rokahr, that is, supposed to have him here, and then Miss McKinny. As to the other witnesses, that is as far as we perhaps will get today, because there are some motions prior to McKinny's testimony, if the court pleases.

THE COURT: Mr. Darden.

MR. DARDEN: Well, your Honor, the court may have already noticed, we have sat here and we have taken it on the chin with regard to these witnesses and their testimony as it relates to Mark Fuhrman's racial animus. The message is certainly clear to me. I think it is clear to the rest of the nation and everyone else who is watching these proceedings this morning. I think the Defense has clearly established that Fuhrman is a racist, among many, many other things. But at some point it gets to be too much and at some point I think this court, and I think the jury certainly as well, may well lose focus as to what the real issue is here in this case, and the real issue is O.J. Simpson and what he did the night of June 12th, and not Mark Fuhrman. And what we have heard is that Mark Fuhrman espouses genocide, genocide of African Americans. We heard about his racial hatred, his sexism, his hatred for interracial couples, he will find something to stop interracial couples, he wants to burn all African Americans or bomb African Americans. We have heard it and we have not disputed it. It is done. Okay? Everything that they wanted to accomplish today I think is done. Okay? The Goldmans shouldn't have to sit here and hear any more of this and we shouldn't have to hear any more of it. Okay? When it comes time to argue this issue to the jury--we offered to stipulate last week or the week before, he used these word, Judge. We know it, you know it. Now the jury knows it. It is cumulative. The court ought to cut it off now under 352 and let's get back to the matter of trying O.J. Simpson for killing these two people. It is time to get back to that.

MR. COCHRAN: May I respond?

THE COURT: Yes, Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Just briefly, your Honor. We are in fact trying the case of People versus O.J. Simpson. Mark Fuhrman hasn't been arrested, he hasn't been in jail for fourteen months or fifteen months. This is the man who is on trial. What Mark Fuhrman did on June 12th is what is important and we are going to link it up. What I would offer to do--and we have been mindful of your Honor's concerns under 352. And that is why you didn't hear me call Andrea Terry. I think she would be cumulative--cumulative is the word, your Honor--of perhaps Kathleen Bell, so you didn't hear me call her. Roderic Hodge stands in a different position, your Honor. We have heard from these ladies who have dealt with this man and been appalled and aghast at his behavior, clearly. Other than Laura McKinny, we don't intend to call any other ladies, and she, because of the tape, as the court is aware. Roderic Hodge stands differently, your Honor. As you recall from the offer of proof last week, he's the man who was arrested by Mark Fuhrman, and you will recall what--Mark Fuhrman turns around, addresses him and says, "I told you we would get you" blank, and I think it becomes very relevant. Here is a man who encountered this man on the street, had to deal with him. He was stopped 20 to 25 times by Mark Fuhrman so he is in a different position. It is very relevant. It goes from what this man talked about to actually having done it. The direct exam will be very brief and right to the point. And then I have told you the other witnesses we expect to call after that. I don't think it is cumulative at all. I think it gets the picture before the jury. Your Honor, again we have taken one morning, less than one morning, versus six months. We have had less than six weeks and now everything becomes cumulative.

And we are trying to pare it down, being mindful of your Honor's order. It seems to me this witness is very relevant for the limited issues I have indicated to you. He is the only witness we are going to call of people who have been arrested by this man. We have a number of others. As you know, we could call witnesses for the next week, but again, we have tried to pare this down. The fact that they now know he is a bad man, took us a long time to convince them also. We are fighting for our client's life and we say this man is a key witness in this case. We are not taking any chances and we want to do enough so it is reasonable and so your Honor feels it is reasonable and can move on and that is what we are seeking to do.

THE COURT: Aren't we really in danger now of having four witnesses to testify to the same thing, that Detective Fuhrman was not telling us the truth about his use of the particular racial epithet and you have painted his bias and his willingness to use this word in an abusive manner? I mean, after--after a certain point in time it is pretty apparent, wouldn't you say?

MR. COCHRAN: Well, I think it becomes apparent except I think you can distinguish this man, as I have tried to do. I mean, clearly if it was Andrea Terry said I was at Hennessey's bar and said the same thing, then I think that argument might make more sense. This is a man who is arrested out in the street harassed by this man. This man, Mr. Hodge, made repeated complaints to internal affairs. He told the LAPD about this man Fuhrman. Everybody knew about how Fuhrman was treating this man, yet he continued doing it, so I think he is in a different situation. We are not going to belabor it. We told you what the issues were. It is also relevant, I think, your Honor, that Hodge was asked by Fuhrman, what are you? What is your mother? What race are you? And I think that goes again because Hodge has I believe a white mother and a black father. So it is again this same M.O. of this particular officer involved who they put such credence in early on. So I mean that is all I'm seeking to do, then we move on, as I told you, to Blasini, to Rokahr, and once we have argued our motions, to McKinny.

THE COURT: Don't you run the risk, though, of making McKinny cumulative?

MR. COCHRAN: There you go again, your Honor. I certainly don't think so. I think that in view of everything we've been through in this case, we have spent--you have taken two days to reach a decision. We have been away from jury for five or six days. I don't think she becomes cumulative. When this officer engages 41 times and another 18 times, I think that is the centerpiece. You know, your Honor, you said get some testimony before this jury.

THE COURT: Why don't you go with the centerpiece.

MR. COCHRAN: Let me tell you why. You always want to get testimony before this jury. You don't want to waste any time. We are trying to do that today when you get to McKinny. We have got motions for reconsideration, we have got to revisit the motion for suppression, and we have got further Brady motions, and I don't want this jury sitting back there writing us notes. There is no method to this, your Honor. Trying to get all the other witnesses off the plate so they will get something done so there won't be this level of frustration that we all have felt over the last week or so and get to it.

I will be glad to get to the centerpiece. McKinny's lawyers are here she is going to be here this afternoon, but we are trying to have witnesses, so we don't run out, that are relevant, not cumulative and right to the point, and that is all we are trying to do, Judge.

THE COURT: Why can't you present the centerpiece in the--within the parameters of the court's order? If I change my mind, you can come back and add more to it.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, the problem--

THE COURT: I am just telling you if you put Hodge on--I'm giving you fair warning, you put Hodge on, you may make McKinny cumulative, because three witnesses testifying about a collateral issue of impeachment.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, your Honor, we disagree that this is collateral, as you can see when we link it up. The problem is this then: Why don't I go with Blasini and I would like to be able to argue Hodge before McKinny when Jerry argues the motion--when Professor Uelmen argues the motion for reconsideration. I hear you, and--

THE COURT: Well, you will heard Miss Lewis saying that they want to file a response to that motion, so I wouldn't anticipate hearing that motion today.

MR. COCHRAN: I thought it was already filed.

MS. LEWIS: They just filed--your Honor, they just filed their brief this morning with regard to the reconsideration motion, if that is what you are referring to. We just received it this morning.

MR. COCHRAN: I thought you said you filed something you wanted him to read?

MS. LEWIS: I filed an opposition to their motion to reopen the suppression issue.

MR. COCHRAN: We are trying to keep this going. We don't want to have the jury frustrated. We want to move ahead.

THE COURT: I like plan B. Let's go with Blasini now. You can think about what you want between Hodge and McKinny.

MR. COCHRAN: May I have a second to find Blasini? Very well, your Honor.

MR. DARDEN: In the meantime, before Mr. Cochran leaves the podium, I don't believe I've heard that Mr. Fuhrman stopped Hodge 20 to 25 times. There seems to be some discovery I think that is owed to us as more seems to be heaped on the pile as it relates to Mr. Hodge, and I would ask for that discovery.

MR. COCHRAN: I think they have got everything we've got, your Honor.

(Brief pause.)

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, the other thing I am reminded by one of my colleagues is that in this whole scenario we have heard from, and we will hear from four or five white women with regard to their level of frustration dealing with this man and that is all nice, but you have not heard from one African American and that is why I think this is different. As I have tried to point out with Hodge, he is the focus of this man's genocidal talks and he lived this. He was the man out in the street on who he was doing it. I won't argue it now. Perhaps you will allow me to come back to that just prior to McKinny, we are talking about fifteen minutes of testimony, and I think you will see the relevance of this.

MR. DARDEN: We are talking very, very lengthy cross-examination of Hodge and still an additional 402 issues that relate to him in particular. For instance, he was apparently arrested in one case--

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

MR. DARDEN: One case was dismissed, one he was acquitted on, and it is going to require additional rebuttal because there are other officers who had contact with Mr. Hodge.

MR. COCHRAN: We can't--we are not threatened by them doing that. I mean, if they want to do that, that is their business. This man was acquainted of this charge when this officer was--arrested him. So if they want to bring that in, that is their problem. If they want to engage in those tactics, fine. I am telling you what we would like to do. I will accept your offer. I don't want to waste time.

THE COURT: Bring me Blasini.

MR. COCHRAN: I will bring you Blasini and then we will revisit this issue?

THE COURT: Well, you will have the lunch hour to think about it.

MR. COCHRAN: Will you think about it also, your Honor?

THE COURT: I think about it all the time, Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Judge. May I have just a second?

MS. CLARK: With respect to Mr. Blasini, I would like to--I have the materials being brought down now. He has a prior--he has a couple of prior convictions that I would like leave of the court to impeach him with on cross-examination, and I would like to show the court and counsel his rap sheet.

MR. COCHRAN: May we approach, your Honor? Rather than trashing every witness that comes up, may we approach the bench? He doesn't have any felony convictions. This is typical of the Prosecution's behavior. May we approach the bench? I want her to show any felonies they have of this man.

THE COURT: Wait, wait, wait.

MS. CLARK: First of all--

THE COURT: Wait, wait. Both sides. Do you have any proofs of priors?

MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Package coming down.

MS. CLARK: I have it being brought down now. I thought I had it with me this morning and I guess I don't. It is up on my desk. And I wanted to show that to the court. As I understand it, since prop 115 and prop 8, we are not confined to felony convictions. We can also use misdemeanor convictions.

THE COURT: That are evidence of moral turpitude.

MS. CLARK: Correct.

THE COURT: So you will need a ruling on that beforehand.

MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor, and I don't use--call requesting the court's leave--the court's permission to impeach a witness with prior convictions trashing the witness. I have them and it is physical proof that I have of that.

MR. COCHRAN: Wait until we see them, your Honor. And what is the date on it, may I ask?

THE COURT: Well, let's see where they are.

MS. CLARK: I will make sure that I have the paperwork here.

THE COURT: All right. Are you aware of these convictions, Mr. Cochran?

MR. COCHRAN: I am not aware of any felony convictions. I know he had some problems I thought twenty years ago. I would like to see the date.

THE COURT: All right. Would it have an impact--his criminal record, would that have an impact on your decision to call him?

MR. COCHRAN: I don't think so, but I certainly want an opportunity to see whatever they are claiming.

THE COURT: All right. I take it, Miss Clark, it is on its way?

MS. CLARK: It is on its way right now. Why don't we begin the examination. If Mr. Cochran is going to call him regardless of the court's ruling, why don't we start.

THE COURT: No, that is not what I heard.

MS. CLARK: Oh.

THE COURT: I take the some courier is bringing that down forthwith?

MS. CLARK: Yes.

(Brief pause.)

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, may I inquire? Regarding Detective Fuhrman, his lawyer was just on the phone. I do not want to run out of witnesses, so given the court is aware of some motions that are going to be heard this afternoon, shall I have him here this afternoon also? Six o'clock day?

THE COURT: 5:30 day. What motions do we have on for today?

MR. COCHRAN: I thought we had the Brady motion, the suppression motion, we have a motion we filed today with regard to the questions that you approved, I believe, the proffer to the D.A.'s, and I'm not sure that has been responded to yet, but I think that certainly those first two.

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, I don't know. They keep giving us this witness list with all these names on them and he is dropping down now--there were 17 names on this list. He is dropping down to name 16. What happened to all the people they want to have in here? What about Rivas?

MR. COCHRAN: I was addressing you. Mr. Mounger wanted to know what we should do.

MS. CLARK: I'm saying, your Honor, why don't we get something realistic from the Defense about who they intend to call.

THE COURT: The issue is when are we going to take up these motions? That is the issue.

MR. COCHRAN: We are ready to go whenever your Honor says.

THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel. I was addressing Miss Clark.

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

MS. CLARK: We can do them at any time, your Honor. We wanted to file a response on the reconsideration of the McKinny tapes, but--

THE COURT: When are you going to be available to file a response to that?

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

MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor. We've already I think visited the issue through the request of reconsideration of Christian Reichardt's cross-examination--excuse me--testimony, and I think that all we need to do is represent the points and authorities on this issue to the court again in the context of the McKinny tapes. And we don't need to file paper. We can argue it orally. We want to get this going, too, and I don't think the court needs to have us file more paper on the issue. I think that we can just submit it to you orally.

THE COURT: All right. Well, then we will take it up at the end of today.

MS. CLARK: All right. And the end of the day is?

THE COURT: 5:30 today.

MS. CLARK: Okay. All right. Where is our priors package?

MR. COCHRAN: My question on Fuhrman. I was asking the court what shall I tell Darryl Mounger regarding Detective Fuhrman?

THE COURT: I don't know, counsel. You are asking me to read your mind as to where you want to go with us. You have Mr. Blasini. I take it this has to do with access to the Bronco if I remember correctly?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Then after Blasini who do you anticipate calling?

MR. COCHRAN: We want to talk about Hodge, hopefully, and McKinny and Rokahr. Rather, first Rokahr. We will have Rokahr, your Honor.

MS. CLARK: What about Rivas and Andrea Terry?

MR. COCHRAN: For the suppression hearing--we need Fuhrman for the suppression hearing.

MS. CLARK: He is not needed for the suppression hearing.

MR. COCHRAN: It is our motion. They can't tell us who to call.

MS. CLARK: The law tells us who to call. I'm telling no one. Counsel might want to read the law and 1538.5(I).

THE COURT: This is that 1538.5(I) originally presented at the preliminary hearing and renewed in the superior court? Is that the issue that you are framing.

MS. CLARK: That's right, your Honor, and under the law--

THE COURT: I understand. I have read it. There are certain limitations.

MR. COCHRAN: I understand that, your Honor, but we still want him here for that.

MS. CLARK: They are not entitled to do that, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: If they want to hide him, your Honor, we can do that, but we want him here.

THE COURT: Let's set him for tomorrow at 5:00.

MR. COCHRAN: We need it today, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. We will do it today instead of the motion to reconsider (1538.5(I).

MR. COCHRAN: We can't do both, your Honor? What about starting at 5:00?

THE COURT: We've got a finite amount of time today.

MR. COCHRAN: We don't have that many witnesses. Let's see if we call all the witnesses that we have at least for the day. For instance, Vettraino can't be here if he has got problems with his lawyer, so let's go as far as we can.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Darden, do you have the priors package from Mr. Gordon?

MR. DARDEN: No, he is not the minion who was assigned that task. They are on the way.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, why don't you let me go and get it.

THE COURT: No, I want you to stay here, Miss Clark.

MR. DARDEN: Why don't you let me go and get it?

THE COURT: No. You stay here, too, Mr. Darden.

(Brief pause.)

MR. COCHRAN: May I be excused, your Honor, for a second?

THE COURT: No, no. I want you guys to stay here.

MS. CLARK: May I use the phone, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Miss Clark?

MS. CLARK: On its way.

(Brief pause.)

MR. DARDEN: Judge, may I inquire about a discovery issue while we are waiting?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: On the McKinny matter, if there is going to be a redacted videotape or audiotape, can I have that before lunch?

THE COURT: It has already been displayed to you and the excerpts have been clearly delineated, so I mean, you have seen it.

MR. DARDEN: Yes, I have seen the complete tape. I'm just wondering if there is a shorter version that is going to be used, as opposed to the one we saw last week?

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark, it appears that Mr. Gordon has handed you a priors package with a CII rap sheet.

MS. CLARK: That's correct, your Honor. He did not hand me a prior in the sense of a package we usually get on a Defendant with certified documents. It is a rap sheet which indicates that Mr. Blasini was arrested in 1974, January of `74 for burglary.

THE COURT: All right. May I see the rap sheet, please?

MS. CLARK: Yes.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Thank you.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark, let me ask you to show this to Mr. Cochran.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Thank you.

(Brief pause.)

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, on January 17, 1974, in Oceanside, it says Mr. Blasini was apparently arrested for burglary. There is no disposition whatsoever on that. Under that there is a 148 PC.

MS. CLARK: Separate arrest in March.

MR. COCHRAN: In March of `74, your Honor, which was a misdemeanor which would have nothing to do with truth telling or whatever. What good faith basis do they have for this?

MS. CLARK: He is arrested in March for resisting arrest, March of `74.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes, and it was a 415, your Honor.

MS. CLARK: Wound up pleading guilty to a 415.

MR. COCHRAN: It says 415, your Honor, in 1974, 21 years ago. Maybe we should just invite them to do this, but that preposterous, your Honor. Where is the package? Where is it certified? There is no relevance to this.

THE COURT: Counsel, any party who wishes to impeach somebody with a prior conviction or prior criminal record needs to have a good faith basis upon which to ask questions on cross-examination which traditionally a rap sheet is sufficient for the bases--as the bases of a good faith offer. The next issue being, A, is a 415 a crime of moral turpitude, and B, whether or not something that occurred in 1974 is untimely or stale.

MR. COCHRAN: I would say at the very minimum it is untimely, stale, and can I see that one second, please? Apparently--let me just indicate what happened on this. Talk about stale, your Honor. This is from 1974, so it is 21 and one-half years ago. This man is a responsible businessman in this community now and has been for sometime. This was an alleged misdemeanor where he got three months, I guess, summary probation. It doesn't even show a fine for a 415. Another charge there is no disposition. And your Honor, in this case in 1995 where we are so concerned about prejudice and that sort of thing, how could they even be allowed to do this? Certainly it is stale. Certainly this is a misdemeanor, doesn't involve truth telling, so can we dispense with this and proceed with the witness? We want to call the witness.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Submit it.

THE COURT: All right. The objection is sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: May I proceed with my witness now, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you.

THE COURT: Actually, we are going to call the jury in and tell them we are going to start with the next witness. I had to deal with something.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors out, please.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: Can we get some indication, your Honor, as to what--whether we can expect to see Andrea Terry or Ernesto Rivas on the witness stand?

THE COURT: I think the indication from Mr. Cochran is that he concedes that Andrea Terry, in light of Kathleen Bell's testimony, is probably cumulative.

MS. CLARK: And Ernesto Rivas.

THE COURT: Rivas we haven't discussed.

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

MS. CLARK: Actually Andrea Terry is just--

(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. The record should reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Ladies and gentlemen, the reason for the delay for about twenty minutes just now was I had to wait delivery of certain document to the court. I have had the opportunity to review those documents, I have made a ruling as to a certain evidentiary issue, and we are ready to start with the next witness, although we have come up on the lunch hour. So we will be ready to proceed with the next witness after we come back from the lunch. Please remember all my admonitions to you. Do not discuss the case amongst yourselves, nor allow anyone to communicate with you with regard to the case. Remember, this is very important, do not allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. All right. We will see you back here after lunch, one o'clock. All right. We are in recess.

(At 11:59 A.M. the noon recess was taken until 1:00 P.M. of the same day.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 1:03 P.M.

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

APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)

(Janet M. Moxham, CSR no. 4855, official reporter.)

(Christine M. Olson, CSR no. 2378, official reporter.)

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

THE COURT: Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. Miss Lewis.

MS. LEWIS: Your Honor, over the lunch hour, I prepared a response to the Defense motion for reconsideration with regard to the Fuhrman tapes and filed it just now and served it. So I want the court to be aware that is there so you'll have an opportunity to read it before hearing argument.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, may I say something about scheduling?

THE COURT: Yes. Scheduling?

MR. COCHRAN: About scheduling, yes, so we're all on the same wave length. Two things. So the court is aware, we plan to call Mr. Blasini next, and I'm ready to proceed with him. He will be followed by Mr. Rokahr if the court pleases. And then, although Miss McKinny is here, I'd like to read to the court something and for the court to think about because I'd like to reiterate what I said about Roderic Hodge. This is very brief, and I'll ask the court to allow me to read this. It can be found on page 18899 of the transcript, your Honor.

"Question by Mr. Bailey: And you say under oath that you've not addressed any black person as a Nigger or spoken about black people as niggers in the past 10 years, Detective Fuhrman? "Answer: That's what I'm saying, sir." What I didn't articulate well enough this morning when I was talking to you was this. Hodge is the only witness on our Defense list who can testify that Fuhrman used the "N" word in addressing him as an African American. Everyone else talks about conversation. This is the only witness. And I think you read that--read the question, and that impeaches him directly on that point of addressing an African American. It's the only one we recall. I think it makes it a lot easier court's decision for your Honor. Because I'm going to ask, your Honor, when we get to that point to allow us to call Hodge for this limited area, and then we would like to argue the motions with regard to McKinny obviously because what you ruled on those motions as they're prepared will bear upon what we do and what we play for this jury, if anything. And so that's the order we would like to proceed in, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Then I suggest we proceed with Blasini and with--

MR. COCHRAN: Sure.

THE COURT: --Rokahr.

MR. COCHRAN: And we're ready to do that.

THE COURT: And then we'll take up that issue.

MR. COCHRAN: Sure. I just wanted to alert the court because you were talking about 5:00 o'clock and I thought at 5:30, I'd bring this to your attention. We're ready to proceed.

THE COURT: All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.

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

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. And let the record reflect that we've now been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran, you may call the next witness.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you very kindly, your Honor. The Defense will next call Mr. Willie J. Blasini, who is present in the courtroom.

THE COURT: Mr. Blasini, would you stand here next to the court reporter, face the clerk. Mrs. Robertson.

William Blasini, Jr., called as a witness by the Defendant, was sworn and testified as follows:

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

MR. BLASINI: I do.

THE CLERK: Please be seated on the witness stand and state and spell your first and last names for the record.

MR. BLASINI: My name is William Blasini, Jr.

THE CLERK: You have to spell your name.

MR. BLASINI: Blasini, B as in boy, L-A-S-I-N-I.

THE CLERK: Thank you.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you very kindly. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN

MR. COCHRAN: Good afternoon, Mr. Blasini, sir. Would you move that microphone a little closer to you so we can all hear you this afternoon.

MR. BLASINI: Okay.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you very kindly, sir. Mr. Blasini, what is your occupation, sir?

MR. BLASINI: I work for Pick Your Part, the world's largest self-service automobile recycling center.

MR. COCHRAN: And it's called Pick Your Part?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And how long have you been so employed?

MR. BLASINI: About three and a half years.

MR. COCHRAN: And what is your present job title with Pick Your Part?

MR. BLASINI: I'm general manager of vehicle purchasing.

MR. COCHRAN: And as such, tell us briefly what you do as the general manager of Pick Your Part.

MR. BLASINI: Basically I go to auctions, police auctions, impounds and we buy cars.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And you've been doing this for how long?

MR. BLASINI: At Pick Your Part, for three and a half years.

MR. COCHRAN: Have you been in this industry before that time?

MR. BLASINI: I was a wholesaler. I was wholesaling vehicles before this.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So you've been around automobiles for some time; is that correct?

MR. BLASINI: 15 years to be correct.

MR. COCHRAN: All right, sir. I'd like, sir, to direct your attention back to the date of I believe June 21st of 1994. Did you have occasion on or about that date in the afternoon to be at Viertel's garage here in downtown Los Angeles?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, I was.

MR. COCHRAN: And would you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury under what circumstances were you at Viertel's on that date, that Tuesday, June 21st?

MR. BLASINI: Well, every Tuesday, we go there and we bid on cars. They have four locations, and the last location is at Temple, the main garage, and that's where we wind up. And when I walked--when we finished bidding on the cars, I was walking in to do the paperwork when I just happened to see the Bronco inside the garage.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So would you say you were accompanied by someone else at that point?

MR. BLASINI: I was accompanied by Bob Jones, Andrew Adlen, myself and Sam Adlen I think. I'm not sure about Sam, if he was there that day.

MR. COCHRAN: Let's take them one at a time. We've heard the name Bob Jones before. By whom is Bob Jones employed?

MR. BLASINI: Viertel's.

MR. COCHRAN: You knew him prior to this date of June 21st?

MR. BLASINI: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And you mentioned a Mr. Adlen. What is Mr. Adlen's first name?

MR. BLASINI: Andrew.

MR. COCHRAN: And who is Mr. Andrew Adlen?

MR. BLASINI: He's a competitor. He also bids on the cars as well.

THE COURT: How do you spell Adlen? Do you know?

MR. COCHRAN: A-d-l-e-n I believe, your Honor. Andrew Adlen.

MR. COCHRAN: And you mentioned another Adlen also I believe.

MR. BLASINI: It's his uncle. I assume it's his uncle.

MR. COCHRAN: So you were there in the company of the two Adlen's and yourself and Bob Jones; is that correct?

MR. BLASINI: I'm not correct on the second Adlen, but the first one was there, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: You're sure about the first one?

MR. BLASINI: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You were describing that you were at Viertel's and this jury's heard something about Viertel's and the layout there. Can you describe for us where you were once you got there on that particular afternoon?

MR. BLASINI: Well, there's two entrances, two main entrances, one from the street and one from the back of the yard, and that's where we come from, from the back of the yard. Once we're done bidding on the vehicles, we come through the back of the garage, and right there, as you walk in the area where they keep the restricted vehicles and as you continue past that area, you go down to the offices.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And did you--you were in this--walking in this area; is that correct?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, I was.

MR. COCHRAN: And while in this area--first, before we get to that, tell us what time of day was it on June 12th--on June 21st?

MR. BLASINI: It was about 2:30, 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And at some point after 2:30 or 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon on June 21st, did you see a white Bronco?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: And who were you with when you first saw the Bronco?

MR. BLASINI: I was with Andrew Adlen and Bob Jones.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Did you have some conversation at all with Mr. Jones about that Bronco?

MR. BLASINI: The minute I saw the Bronco, I was amazed at--

THE COURT: Excuse me. Excuse me. The question was, did you have any conversation with Mr. Jones. Yes or no?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, I did.

THE COURT: Next question.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And with regards to that--

MR. COCHRAN: Just before I get to that, your Honor, may I approach--thank you, Mr. Douglas. I have, your Honor, what has previously been marked--in evidence I guess now, Defense's 1254. I would like to show this just for--so we can get acclimated to the witness.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. COCHRAN: This, sir, is Defense exhibit no. 1254. And have you ever seen this before?

MR. BLASINI: Not this picture. No, I haven't, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. This purports to be the Viertel's garage here, downtown Los Angeles, on Temple Street?

MR. BLASINI: Correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you recognize that?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And there are various buildings from T-1 through T-5. Do you see those?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Just generally--I know you've never seen this before--can you look at Defense's 1254 and show us generally where this Bronco was housed on June 21st about 2:30, 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon?

MR. BLASINI: It was housed at the T-2 area, the T-2 building, which is the main building right here (Indicating).

MR. COCHRAN: All right. He's holding it up for the jury to see, your Honor. Can you all--may I inquire, your Honor? Can you all see that? He's talking about T-2.

MR. COCHRAN: And the vehicle was housed somewhere in T-2?

MR. BLASINI: It was in the rear of the building.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. The rear of T-2 as depicted on 1254; is that correct?

MR. BLASINI: Correct, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

THE COURT: All right. 1386, can you see that?

JUROR NO. 1386: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. 165?

JUROR NO. 165: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you very kindly.

MR. COCHRAN: So--

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran, could we move that just back six inches, the easel?

MR. COCHRAN: Sure, your Honor. I'll try to get it back six inches, your Honor. The boards are all here.

THE COURT: Mr. Douglas, could you help us on that, because it blocks the direct line of sight of juror no. 7.

MR. COCHRAN: May we have a moment, your Honor? There are some boards here.

THE COURT: Certainly.

(Pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Cochran, why don't you go ahead and proceed.

MR. COCHRAN: Sure. Your Honor, while he's doing that, I'll--

MR. COCHRAN: I think I had just asked you a question about whether or not you had a conversation with Mr. Bob Jones about this particular Bronco, and you indicated yes; is that correct?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And what was the--when you talked to Mr. Jones, can you tell us the general subject matter of what you talked to him about, the Bronco, without telling us what you said and what he said?

MR. BLASINI: Basically why was the vehicle there.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And did you get some response from him?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, based upon that brief conversation you had with Bob Jones, did you have occasion to at any point that afternoon go over to or get inside of this particular vehicle, the Bronco?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: And describe for the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what you did in that regard, if anything.

MR. BLASINI: As far as walking up to the Bronco and exactly what I did?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes. Yes. Tell us what you did.

MR. BLASINI: I opened the door to the Bronco.

MR. COCHRAN: Let me stop you there. Was the Bronco locked at that point?

MR. BLASINI: No, it wasn't, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And so you just walked over and opened the door?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And which door did you open of the Bronco?

MR. BLASINI: The passenger's door.

MR. COCHRAN: On the passenger side of the vehicle?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, you've seen pictures of that Bronco and you've seen the Bronco itself; is that correct?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Now, when you opened the door to the Bronco, the passenger door, what happened next?

MR. BLASINI: I looked in the vehicle.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, was there any particular reason why you wanted to go and look inside this Bronco?

MR. BLASINI: Well, I guess there's a couple of reasons. It was--it was a big story. Just the fact of looking at the Bronco, O.J. Simpson being involved in it. It was a big story. I was curious.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You were curious at that point?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Had you read or seen any stories on television regarding the Bronco being there?

MR. BLASINI: Some stories.

MR. COCHRAN: Were you expecting to see it at Viertel's?

MR. BLASINI: Not at all.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So you saw it and then you had heard things about it and you went over to it; is that right?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, when you went over to the Bronco and opened the door, tell the ladies and gentlemen what you next did after that.

MR. BLASINI: I looked inside the Bronco. I looked at the seats, the floor. I looked at the dashboard. I basically looked all over the vehicle.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And why did you look all over the vehicle?

MR. BLASINI: Well, Andrew and I were talking that it was said that there was a lot of blood in the vehicle.

MR. COCHRAN: Who had said there was a lot of blood in the vehicle?

MR. BLASINI: Well, it was said in the papers.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You had read or heard that?

MR. BLASINI: I heard that, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And were you looking to see if there was a lot of blood in that vehicle?

MR. BLASINI: Well, that was the first thing I looked for, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And will you describe for us how you--did you get inside the vehicle at some point?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, I did, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Describe for the jury again how you got inside the vehicle and where you were when you were inside the vehicle.

MR. BLASINI: Well, once I looked in the vehicle, I sat in the passenger seat. I continued to look around the vehicle. I looked between the seats and I looked to the back of the vehicle.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So when you got inside the vehicle and sat in the passenger seat and looked all around the vehicle, did you see any blood?

MR. BLASINI: No, sir, I didn't.

MR. COCHRAN: Were you looking specifically for blood?

MR. BLASINI: At first, yes, we were.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, you said "We." When you got into the passenger side of the vehicle and sat in the passenger seat, what did Mr. Adlen, Mr. Andrew Adlen do, if anything, that you saw?

MR. BLASINI: He opened up the driver's door.

MR. COCHRAN: And did you see him at any point put any part of his body inside the Bronco vehicle?

MR. BLASINI: Yes. Half of his body came into the vehicle.

MR. COCHRAN: Can you describe for the jury again how he did that, that movement?

MR. BLASINI: The vehicle sits up high because it's a truck, and he basically opened the door and leaned over the seat and looked in the vehicle.

MR. COCHRAN: At the time he made that movement of leaning inside the vehicle and looking inside, were you already inside the vehicle?

MR. BLASINI: I was already inside the vehicle, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And you were seated in the passenger compartment just as though you're seated in the witness seat there?

MR. BLASINI: Correct, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Take your time and describe for the jury what you did from that particular vantage point inside the driver's compartment of that Bronco on June 21st, 1994.

MR. BLASINI: Well, I basically at first looked for blood and I looked all over the vehicle. Uh, I looked for fingerprint dust.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you recall seeing any fingerprint dust?

MR. BLASINI: Not inside the vehicle, no.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Tell us what else. What happened after that?

MR. BLASINI: I saw some dust on the window sill. So I put my fingers on the window sill to see if there was any dust on there.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So you're holding your fingers up. And I want you to describe for this jury how you did this. What did you do with regard to your fingers on the window sill and which window sill was it?

MR. BLASINI: It was the same side I was sitting in, the passenger side, and I put my fingers up on the window sill like this (Indicating).

MR. COCHRAN: So did you leave fingerprints there as far as you could tell?

MR. BLASINI: Smudges, but I looked at my hands.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And you did that while you were inside the vehicle; is that correct?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. After you did this, what happened next, if you recall?

THE COURT: I'm sorry. Mr. Cochran, did you want to describe the motion that the witness--

MR. COCHRAN: Yes. I'm sorry, your Honor, I should. Thank you, your Honor. He made a motion, your Honor, as though with all 10 of his fingers extended out in front of him as though he touched the windshield.

THE COURT: Palms forward.

MR. COCHRAN: Palms forward. Is that correct?

MR. BLASINI: Fingers. Not palms on the window, but fingers.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Fingers forward?

MR. BLASINI: Correct.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Thank you.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, what happened after you did this, you made this movement with your fingers forward?

MR. BLASINI: I looked at Andrew and can't remember word for word, but basically what we said, we didn't find any blood. At that point, I happened to look down on the ground, and I noticed that the floorboard on the driver's side, the carpet itself was cut out.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You didn't see any carpet on the driver's compartment; is that correct?

MR. BLASINI: Correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Now, tell the jury how long did you stay approximately in this--inside the vehicle looking for blood and putting your finger--fingers first in the window of the driver's compartment? How long did you stay in this position?

MR. BLASINI: It felt like it was for five minutes, but I really couldn't tell you. It probably was a couple of minutes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Did you look--now, let's look and see--let's try to determine where you looked. Did you look on the dash?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, sir.

MS. CLARK: Objection. This is all asked and answered.

MR. COCHRAN: I'm trying to--

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you look on the dash at that point?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, sir, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you have occasion to look at the console?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you have occasion to look on the driver's side door?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you have occasion to look at the--

MS. CLARK: Objection. It's leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you have occasion to look at the steering wheel?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BLASINI: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you look--could--you described for us earlier you got in and you looked to your rear. Did you look toward the rear of the vehicle also?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, if I were to--at the last break, I showed you some photographs--

MR. COCHRAN: And again, I'd like to have these placed up, certain exhibits, your Honor, have him take a look at it.

(Brief pause.)

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I think this is plaintiff's exhibit 172, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: You saw this during the lunch break today, did you, this 172?

MR. BLASINI: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. With the court's permission, can you step down for a minute?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: I'll ask you some questions. Let me give you one of these pointers. Why don't you stand over there so you won't block any of the jurors. Let me give you a pointer. I'll just ask a--

THE COURT: Actually, I think he ought to be on this side here. Thank you.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, this is a mock-up of this particular vehicle with some photographs around it. I want to ask you--specifically, let's start with this area over here, which purports to be the middle photograph.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, on the left-hand side of this particular exhibit, it has photo card 22 and 23 thereon.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you recall looking at that area of the driver's side door of the Bronco?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, I do.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you recall at the locations of 22 or 23 seeing any blood at all at those locations when you looked at the Bronco on that date of June 21st, 1994?

MR. BLASINI: No, I didn't.

MR. COCHRAN: I want you to look down at no. 34.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, which is the third photograph on the left-hand side of this exhibit, appears to a smear mark there.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you recall looking in that general area also?

MR. BLASINI: I remember looking in the area, but I don't remember seeing that mark. I mean, I don't remember looking at--that's past the door. So I really don't think I looked that far into it.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. 22, 23, you sure you looked at that?

MR. BLASINI: I looked at this because I walked around the vehicle when I came to the driver's side and the door was open.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, you described for the jury I believe that part of the carpet was cut out at the time you saw it; is that correct?

MR. BLASINI: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Where was that? Would that be in the area of the driver's area?

MR. BLASINI: It was in this section right here (Indicating).

MR. COCHRAN: He's indicating in the center--your Honor, the area of the carpet in the--near where would be no. 33 there, area 33 there.

MR. BLASINI: Correct. Right there (Indicating).

MR. COCHRAN: Now, at some point, you described for us that you looked at item--you looked at the steering column; is that correct?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You see the photograph on the top there, left, did you at some point look at that area of the steering column?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: At any time on that date of June 21st, did you see any what appeared to be blood on the steering column?

MR. BLASINI: No, I didn't.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, did you in any way touch the steering column that day?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: And describe that for the jury. At what point did you touch the steering column?

MR. BLASINI: If I remember correctly--it's been a year and three months--when I walked into the vehicle, I grabbed the steering wheel to pull myself inside, and I sat down in the vehicle and I held the steering wheel for a short period of time.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And so we have this sequentially correct, let me back up for a moment if I might. You had been in the driver's compartment; is that correct?

MR. BLASINI: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And you told us you stayed in there for what appeared to be five minutes, it may have been less; is that right?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And you told us about your observations from that location, right?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: At some point, did you have occasion to get out of the driver's compartment of the vehicle?

MR. BLASINI: Out of the driver's--

MR. COCHRAN: Strike that. Out of the passenger's compartment of the vehicle.

MR. BLASINI: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. When you did that, where did you go, if anyplace?

MR. BLASINI: I walked around the vehicle, but I stopped at the window on the side, which you don't have on here; and, again, I looked for fingerprint dust and I put my fingers again on the glass.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, so that we're clear and the jury has a picture of where you put your fingers, this was on the right side of the vehicle or the rear of the vehicle?

MR. BLASINI: The right side of the vehicle, the glass in the back, which is the biggest glass that shows.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. And then at that point--

THE COURT: Excuse me. Mr. Cochran, why don't we refer to it as either the passenger side or the driver's side.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay.

THE COURT: Depends which side we're looking at.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. We're talking about the passenger side still, right?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: You put your fingers in the passenger side rear portion of the window, is that correct, outside?

MR. BLASINI: On the side, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Again, will you demonstrate for the jury what you did at that point?

MR. BLASINI: I put my fingers up on the glass, pulled them off and I looked at my fingers (Indicating).

MR. COCHRAN: And what did you see, if anything, at that point?

MR. BLASINI: Just dirt.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So did you leave your fingerprints there as far as you know?

MR. BLASINI: I would assume so.

MS. CLARK: Objection. Speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BLASINI: I would assume so.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So after you--

MS. CLARK: Objection. Speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: After you made this movement, where did you next go, if anyplace, sir?

MR. BLASINI: I went around the vehicle and I went to the driver's side. The door was open, and I looked on the ground, I looked at the rug; and at that point, Andrew and I decided that that's probably where all the blood was, was on the rug because it was cut out and it wasn't there.

MR. COCHRAN: You didn't see any rug at that point, right?

MR. BLASINI: Excuse me?

MR. COCHRAN: You didn't see any carpet or rug there at that point; is that right?

MR. BLASINI: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So did you then have occasion to get inside the vehicle or what did you do?

MR. BLASINI: I got inside the vehicle again, I looked over at the console to my right and I looked back, and then at that point, I got out of the vehicle and we left.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. How long did you--did you actually get in and sit down inside the driver's compartment on the left side?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, I did. Uh-huh.

MR. COCHRAN: Is that a yes?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, sir. I'm sorry.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. How long did you remain in the driver's compartment on the left side, sir?

MR. BLASINI: About half the time that I was in the front and on the driver's side--on the passenger side. So about two minutes.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay.

MR. BLASINI: Minute and a half.

MR. COCHRAN: While in there, did you do something and touch the steering wheel?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you have occasion to examine the steering wheel to see if you saw any red spots on it?

MR. BLASINI: Well, I looked at the steering wheel. But as you can see, the steering wheel is black. So I couldn't tell you if there was anything on there. But I did look at it and I didn't see any blood.

MR. COCHRAN: You didn't see any blood?

MR. BLASINI: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, I want to specifically direct your attention to the console on the--

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, on the upper photographs on the far right, there is a photographic card no. 30 and 31, and to the left of those are 30 and appear to be some kind of red smudges.

MR. COCHRAN: As you sat in the vehicle on the right side, the passenger side, did you have occasion to look down at that console depicted there in this photograph?

MR. BLASINI: I looked at the console twice, once I was in the vehicle and before I entered the vehicle.

MR. COCHRAN: At any time or any point when you sat in that vehicle or before you got in that vehicle, did you ever see any red or blood spots at the items 30 and 31 inside the Bronco on that date?

MR. BLASINI: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: You looked specifically for it; is that correct?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And if I were to ask you with regard to these photographs down in the bottom right, your Honor, and what appears to be the console now out of the vehicle, on the right side of it where it says 303, 306, that same area, you never saw any blood those locations either, did you?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you see--did you see any red spots when you looked at the console in that particular area of the photograph there, 303 and 306, sir?

MR. BLASINI: I would have to look at--303 is there and 306 is this one (Indicating)?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes. The one right next to it.

MR. BLASINI: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you see a blood spot there?

MR. BLASINI: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: You did not?

MR. BLASINI: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: You looked there?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. And this is as you were actually looking for blood; is that right?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to the dash, there's a photograph here on the upper left-hand corner, no. 24. Do you remember whether or not you saw any spots at all on the dash area of that vehicle, any red spots?

MR. BLASINI: No, sir. No, I don't.

MR. COCHRAN: You may resume your seat.

(The witness complies.)

MR. COCHRAN: So then, Mr. Blasini, as I understand it, during the time that--on June 12th--strike that.

THE COURT: Excuse me. Mr. Cochran, are you going to use this exhibit anymore?

MR. COCHRAN: I think I'm finished, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Because it does block juror 7.

MR. COCHRAN: Allow me to take it down, your Honor. Thank you.

THE COURT: All right.

(Brief pause.)

MR. COCHRAN: Now, Mr. Blasini, during the time that you were inside that vehicle either on the right side or the left side, the passenger side or the driver's side, did you ever see any red spots resembling blood inside that vehicle at all?

MR. BLASINI: No, sir, I didn't.

MR. COCHRAN: And when you left that vehicle and you had left--at least, you had on two occasions placed your fingerprints in the windows of that vehicle; is that correct?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, sir.

MS. CLARK: Objection. That calls for speculation. He can't say he put his fingerprints on it. He said he touched it.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled. Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, Mr. Blasini, you've come here today pursuant to subpoena; is that correct?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And you've come here to testify because you've been subpoenaed; is that correct?

MR. BLASINI: Correct, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: You did not volunteer to come forward, did you?

MR. BLASINI: Not at all, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And is Mr. Adlen still employed in his same work, line of work?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, he is, sir, as far as I know.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Did--who is a Mr. McElroy? Who is Mr. Chris McElroy?

MR. BLASINI: He's vice president and chief of operations of Pick Your Part.

MR. COCHRAN: That's your company?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you know whether or not at some point after you were inside this vehicle on June 21st, 1994, whether or not Mr. McElroy was inside that vehicle?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Speculation.

MR. COCHRAN: I'm asking if he knows.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: No foundation.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you know?

MR. BLASINI: I was told he was in the vehicle.

MS. CLARK: Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: All right. That answer is stricken. Jury is to disregard.

MR. COCHRAN: You have no personal knowledge about Mr. McElroy?

MR. BLASINI: As far as seen him in the vehicle?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes.

MR. BLASINI: No, I didn't see him in the vehicle.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. He's still employed at your company now, is he?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Is Mr. Adlen still employed at a rival company now?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, with regard to that vehicle, you have described for the jury where that vehicle was located I guess in T-2 on 1254. You described the vehicle was not locked; is that correct?

MR. BLASINI: Correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Before you got inside that vehicle on June 21st, did you have to sign any kind of log or anything of that nature?

MR. BLASINI: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Was anybody guarding that vehicle at that time?

MR. BLASINI: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: You just walked up and got inside the vehicle?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Both you and Adlen?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And while you were inside this vehicle for however long it was, five minutes, seven minutes or whatever, was Bob Jones over there watching you while you were in the vehicle?

MR. BLASINI: Bob Jones walked over with us--

MR. COCHRAN: Yes.

MR. BLASINI: --and then walked away to his office while we were looking at the vehicle.

MR. COCHRAN: So you were in there by yourself, right?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And after you finished looking in the vehicle and making your observations, where did you go then, if you recall?

MR. BLASINI: Once we were done, I proceeded to pick up the paperwork from the vehicles that we had purchased and I left.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And you were there in the normal course of your business to buy some actual vehicles from Viertel's; is that right?

MR. BLASINI: Correct.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. May I have just one second, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. COCHRAN: Now, in your work in purchasing vehicles over the last 15 plus years, have you ever had occasion to see blood in a vehicle before?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, I have.

MR. COCHRAN: How often?

MR. BLASINI: Well, Pick Your Part purchases like 8,000 vehicles a month. So I come across a lot of vehicles, and a lot of these vehicles are wrecked vehicles that were in accidents, so on, and you get to see a lot of blood.

MR. COCHRAN: You've done that yourself in the past and seen that yourself?

MR. BLASINI: Oh, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to the security, if any, around this particular vehicle, can you describe for us, for the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, whether or not there were any barriers or anything around this particular Bronco as you went in and got inside of it on that date. Can you describe that for us?

MR. BLASINI: Yes. They do have--it's like the chain links that you see at the banks that form the lines. That's what they use to block it off.

MR. COCHRAN: And where was that in relation to the Bronco?

MR. BLASINI: It was on the outside of the Bronco all the way around the restricted area.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And when you went inside, how did you get past there?

MR. BLASINI: I think there's a--I can't remember correctly, but I think there's an opening on either side that you can walk right through or you can just step right over.

MR. COCHRAN: And that's how you just walked right in; is that right?

MR. BLASINI: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And there's nobody there to stop you, right?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: Was anybody there to stop you when you were there on June 21st?

MR. BLASINI: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: In fact, Bob Jones was with you and walked away, right?

MR. BLASINI: Correct, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you very much for coming today, sir. Nothing further.

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK

MS. CLARK: Mr. Blasini, how many years have you known Bob Jones?

MR. BLASINI: About three years. Maybe a little less.

MS. CLARK: And you saw him what; once a week?

MR. BLASINI: Every Tuesday.

MS. CLARK: So you'd seen him for somewhere between two and a half to three years every week?

MR. BLASINI: Well, off and on because sometimes other people would come and do the auction.

MS. CLARK: He knew you?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, ma'am.

MS. CLARK: You knew him?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, ma'am.

MS. CLARK: You spoke to him, on the average, every week for almost three years?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, ma'am.

MS. CLARK: Did you think it unusual that he would let you look at a car without standing over you?

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

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.

MR. BLASINI: Can you repeat the question, ma'am?

MS. CLARK: Was there some reason you felt that Bob Jones should not trust you to look at the car without him supervising you?

MR. BLASINI: No. No reason at all.

MS. CLARK: So when he left you alone, you did not find that to be improper or unusual?

MR. BLASINI: Not--

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

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MS. CLARK: Bob Jones had every reason to believe that you would be--you would not do anything improper inside that vehicle, correct?

MR. BLASINI: Correct.

MS. CLARK: So when he walked away from you and let you be, you did not find that to be unusual?

MR. BLASINI: Not at that time.

MS. CLARK: Now, were you--you said you were looking for print dust?

MR. BLASINI: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Why were you looking for print dust?

MR. BLASINI: Because it was known that there was print--that the vehicle was printed. There was blood in the vehicle, and that's basically what we heard and we just took it for granted. Vehicles that are in restricted areas usually have print dust on them.

MS. CLARK: All right. And you saw print dust on the exterior of the car; did you not?

MR. BLASINI: I didn't.

MS. CLARK: You didn't. You didn't see any print dust on the outside of the vehicle, right? Is that right?

MR. BLASINI: Right. Correct.

MS. CLARK: Now, the vehicle was inside the building of T-2, correct?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, ma'am.

MS. CLARK: It was not out in the sun?

MR. BLASINI: No, it wasn't.

MS. CLARK: And when you got into that car, were you carrying a flashlight?

MR. BLASINI: No, ma'am.

MS. CLARK: Were you--you're not a criminalist, correct?

MR. BLASINI: No, ma'am.

MS. CLARK: Now, in the cases where you said you saw blood in cars on previous occasions, those were cases where the car had been in an accident; is that right?

MR. BLASINI: Correct.

MS. CLARK: And so someone had either died or been severely injured inside that car, correct?

MR. BLASINI: Correct.

MS. CLARK: And you saw big globs of blood; is that correct?

MR. BLASINI: Well, sometimes you see big globs and sometimes you see very little.

MS. CLARK: And in this particular case, you were expecting to see big globs of blood, weren't you?

MR. BLASINI: No, I wasn't.

MS. CLARK: You weren't. But you said that you read in the newspaper that there had been lots of blood?

MR. BLASINI: Correct.

MS. CLARK: That's what you read; isn't that right?

MR. BLASINI: Correct.

MS. CLARK: So you expected to see lots of blood; isn't that right?

MR. COCHRAN: Asked and answered, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BLASINI: I expected to see blood that I could see, yes.

MS. CLARK: Now, you did not get down and inspect the driver's door panel with a flashlight, did you?

MR. BLASINI: No, ma'am.

MR. COCHRAN: Just a moment, your Honor. Assumes a fact that a flashlight was necessary. Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.

MS. CLARK: And you did not, when you got into the passenger side of the vehicle, bend down to inspect the console closely, did you?

MR. BLASINI: Not underneath, no.

MS. CLARK: And when you were sitting in the passenger side of the car, your leg was parallel with the console; isn't that right?

MR. BLASINI: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Now, when you were looking at the steering wheel, sir, what effort did you make to inspect it carefully for blood?

MR. BLASINI: I didn't.

MS. CLARK: And you can not tell this jury that there was not blood on that steering wheel when you looked in it on June 21st, can you?

MR. BLASINI: I didn't see any.

MS. CLARK: You cannot tell them it wasn't there?

MR. BLASINI: Correct. Not on the steering wheel.

MS. CLARK: Now, on the driver's door, you indicated that you looked at a certain portion, but not the other. Do you recall that?

MR. BLASINI: The driver's--

MS. CLARK: A certain portion of the driver's door panel.

MR. BLASINI: I didn't see the outside of the door. I saw the inside because it was open as I was coming towards it.

MR. BLASINI: Your Honor, can I have some water?

THE COURT: I need a water brigade deputy. Thank you. Forgive the lack of hospitality.

MR. BLASINI: I didn't think I was going to make it.

MS. CLARK: Now, you told us you were looking for print dust on the Bronco; is that right?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, ma'am.

MS. CLARK: I take it that means you've seen print dust before?

MR. BLASINI: Correct.

MS. CLARK: You indicated in fact you had seen it before in the restricted area of Viertel's, correct?

MR. BLASINI: Correct.

MS. CLARK: And the area that the Bronco was parked in was a restricted area; was it not?

MR. BLASINI: Correct.

MS. CLARK: I have a photograph, your Honor, that has been previously marked and shown as People's 528.

MR. COCHRAN: Can I see it?

THE COURT: Miss Clark, you want to show that to Mr. Cochran?

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

THE COURT: All right. Proceed.

MS. CLARK: All right. Can you see this on the monitor?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, I can.

MS. CLARK: All right. Did you observe the trial testimony of Mr. John Meraz, an employee of Viertel's?

MR. BLASINI: Part of it, I did.

MS. CLARK: Did you see him testify to the location in which this Bronco is in this photograph, the print shed?

MR. BLASINI: I don't remember.

MS. CLARK: Are you familiar with that location, sir?

MR. BLASINI: The print shed? No, ma'am.

MS. CLARK: This photograph taken on June the 14th was shown to Mr. Meraz during his testimony. Do you see the exterior of the driver's door?

MR. BLASINI: I sure do.

MS. CLARK: Do you see something around the doorjamb?

MR. BLASINI: I sure do.

MS. CLARK: What does that look like to you?

MR. BLASINI: It looks like print dust to me.

MS. CLARK: And you're telling us, sir, that you did not see that on June the 21st?

MR. BLASINI: I did not see it.

MS. CLARK: Doesn't mean it wasn't there, does it, sir?

MR. BLASINI: Correct.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, I need--I need Mr. Wooden's help with this. It's a little heavy. These are magnetized, your Honor, so I'm going to ask that the board be marked--

MR. COCHRAN: May I see these, your Honor?

MS. CLARK: These are the photographs that have been previously--

THE COURT: Which exhibit is this? Why don't you show them to Mr. Cochran really quickly, please. Mr. Cochran.

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

THE COURT: Which exhibit is this, counsel?

MS. LEWIS: It's a blank board.

THE COURT: 540.

MR. COCHRAN: May we approach, your Honor?

THE COURT: All right. With the court reporter, please.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: All right. We're over at the sidebar. Mr. Cochran, what's your objection?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes. When we asked the question if these were Bodziak or FBI enhanced photographs, we never got a straight answer. This is an exhibit they're trying to create apparently. We haven't seen these photographs. They seem to be enhanced or blown up apparently. I don't think they've been marked before. We have a right to ask about them, your Honor.

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Excuse me, your Honor. Let me take a deep breath here. I just want to get this thing going. These are photographs that have been previously marked on other exhibits. They're not new to the Defense. They were--we took blow-ups and put magnets on them for the purpose of putting them on a magnetized board with the witness to show the similarity of stains between June 14th and September 1st. That's all.

All of these photographs have been turned over. They've been marked before in previous exhibits. I don't know whether these are Bodziak enhanced. I sincerely doubt it because this does not involve Bodziak's testimony. He enhanced photographs that had to do with shoeprints.

THE COURT: You are handing me four very heavy magnetized photographs.

MS. CLARK: Right.

THE COURT: The first one appears to be a photograph of the console.

MS. CLARK: These are LAPD blow-ups with magnets stuck on the back.

THE COURT: These appear to be L.A.--first one is the console out on brown wrapping paper at SID. Second one appears to be the console still in the car with garage door opener still in the console. Third one appears to be the door, but I think the door has probably been removed from the car at this point, and the fourth one appears to be--excuse me. That was the last one, was of the driver's door. This appears also to be the driver's door. And, counsel, I don't see anything that appears to be enhanced by these other than the fact they're blow-ups. There's nothing--

MS. CLARK: These are not Bodziak's photographs.

MR. COCHRAN: We had never seen these in this blown-up condition, your Honor. The representation was, these are all the same photos. These are not the same photos. They are at least enhanced or at least blown up by LAPD. We have never seen them before, so we have an absolute right to ask questions.

THE COURT: You have the right to ask questions, but I've seen these photographs before.

MR. COCHRAN: We have never seen them that large and in this condition.

THE COURT: They are enlargements, but you have the photographs. Nothing unusual about this. All read. Proceed.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark, do you want to mark this?

MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor. Collectively People's 598 and then I will--

THE COURT: Hold on a second. Mrs. Robertson?

THE CLERK: 601.

THE COURT: 601.

MS. CLARK: 601? Okay. 601. And then I'll describe the photographs and label them A, B, C, D.

(Peo's 601 for id = board of photographs)

(Peo's 601-A, B, c and d for id = photos)

THE COURT: Thank you.

MS. CLARK: Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. Do you want Mr. Blasini to step down?

MS. CLARK: Yes, thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Blasini, why don't you grab the pointer and step down.

(The witness complies.)

MS. CLARK: The first photograph, the label is A, shows the driver's panel with the numbers 21, 22 and 23. First, I'm going to show it to you, sir, and ask you if you were looking for little smears of blood like those marked in the markers 21, 22 and 23.

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

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MS. CLARK: Do you see the red substance near 22, the number 22?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, I do.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And you see the red substance near 21?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, I do.

MS. CLARK: Do you see the red substance near 23?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, I do.

MS. CLARK: Now, if you were told, sir, that this photograph was taken on June the 14th, a week prior to your getting into the Bronco, would it change your opinion or your testimony any that you did not see any blood on the driver's door?

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: Assumes a fact not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BLASINI: Well, the day that I seen the Bronco?

MS. CLARK: Yes.

MR. BLASINI: There was no blood.

MS. CLARK: You saw no blood in any of these areas. Is that your testimony, sir?

MR. BLASINI: Can I just put this up?

MS. CLARK: Sure.

MR. BLASINI: I can tell you that I didn't see any blood here, I didn't see any blood here. This might be possible (Indicating).

MS. CLARK: All right.

MR. BLASINI: But I didn't see anything here (Indicating).

THE COURT: Wait. Wait.

MS. CLARK: For the record, I'm going to describe what the witness just said--

THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel.

MS. CLARK: I'm sorry?

THE COURT: When I say wait, that means everybody waits.

MS. CLARK: I'm sorry. I couldn't hear you.

THE COURT: All right. Proceed.

MS. CLARK: For the record, the witness indicated here as the area shown by 21 and here, the area shown by 22. In the area of 23 where there is the driver's door handle on the inside, he said that might have been blood there (Indicating). He can't say that.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, that misstates it, your Honor.

THE COURT: It does.

MS. CLARK: Okay. What did you say about the area around 23, sir?

MR. BLASINI: It's possible--I didn't see that, that section there. I know that I looked at this. I looked at the whole door, but I didn't see that (Indicating).

MS. CLARK: You looked at the whole door, but you did not look in the interior--

THE COURT: Excuse me. Mr. Cochran, you're going to have to--you're blocking the jurors there.

MR. COCHRAN: Sorry, your Honor.

MS. CLARK: You did not look at the interior portion of the door handle at 23?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, may I say something? When he says, "I didn't see that," I'm trying to describe it for the record, your Honor.

THE COURT: Miss Clark is conducting this examination. It's her record to make. All right.

MR. COCHRAN: Well--

THE COURT: Miss Clark. I will remind her if she doesn't do something, believe me.

MS. CLARK: You can step back, sir. The interior portion where the driver's door handle is, did you look specifically into this area where the number 23 is?

MR. BLASINI: No.

MS. CLARK: So that we're clear, you are not telling this jury that there was no blood in that area which is marked with the number 23, correct?

MR. BLASINI: No, I'm not. I'm not saying that.

MS. CLARK: All right. And are you telling this jury you specifically got as close as you could to look carefully at the interior door panel at areas 21 and 22?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, I am.

MS. CLARK: How close did you get, sir?

MR. BLASINI: About as close as I am to you.

MS. CLARK: You sat, you looked that closely while you were in the car?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, ma'am.

THE COURT: Indicating about 18 inches to two feet.

MS. CLARK: All right. Sir, now I'm going to show you another photograph of that area which has a date of September 1st, 1994 on it. I'm going to ask you to look at this photograph. Do you see the numbers 298?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, I do.

MS. CLARK: Do you see what appears to be a red area there?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, I do.

MS. CLARK: Do you see the number 296?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, I do.

MS. CLARK: Do you see a red area down below that?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, ma'am.

MS. CLARK: Do you see the number 297?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, I do.

MS. CLARK: Can you see a red area around 297?

MR. BLASINI: I see a smudge. I don't see a red area.

MS. CLARK: And what color smudge does that appear to be?

MR. BLASINI: It could be brown, it could be black. It's a dark color.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, I'm going to put post-it's on for the lettering labels of these photographs. The first one was A. This one that we have been describing with the numbers 298, 299, 296, 297 as B.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MS. CLARK: And if you were told, sir, that this photograph was taken on September 4th, 1994 which was after you were in the Bronco, would that change your opinion any as to whether or not there were other areas of blood in that--on that door that you just didn't see while you were in the car?

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BLASINI: No, it wouldn't change my opinion.

THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry?

MR. BLASINI: No, it wouldn't change my opinion.

MS. CLARK: I have a third photograph I would ask be marked C, your Honor, with the numbers 31 and 30. Showing it to the witness now.

MS. CLARK: Does this appear to be the console area of the Bronco, sir?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, ma'am.

MS. CLARK: And do you see areas where there are red smudges on that side, on the passenger side of that console?

MR. BLASINI: I sure do.

MS. CLARK: Do you see it by the numbers there?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, ma'am.

MS. CLARK: At the time you were in the Bronco on June the 21st, there were no numbers marking any spots; is that correct?

MR. BLASINI: No, ma'am. Correct.

MS. CLARK: Now, are you telling us--when you sat on the passenger seat, sir, your leg would have been right up against the area marked by 30; isn't that correct?

MR. BLASINI: Correct.

MS. CLARK: And the area marked by 31, which appears to be to the rear of the console area, would have been blocked by your side; isn't that correct?

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BLASINI: If I was sitting on the seat, yes. Correct.

MS. CLARK: So during the time you were sitting on the passenger side of the Bronco, you would not have been able to see these red areas; isn't that correct?

MR. BLASINI: I would have been able to see this right here (Indicating) and--

MS. CLARK: Excuse me?

MR. BLASINI: I would have been able to see right on the top of the console--

MS. CLARK: Okay. For the record--

MR. BLASINI: --and right on the side.

MS. CLARK: For the record, the witness is pointing to the top of the console where there is no marking for any red stain.

MS. CLARK: And you're indicating where else could you have seen while you were sitting in the seat?

MR. BLASINI: Right where the number is.

MS. CLARK: You would have been able to see that number?

MR. BLASINI: Correct, ma'am.

MS. CLARK: Is it your testimony you would also have been able to see the red stain left of that number?

MR. BLASINI: From sitting down in the car, no, but that's not when I saw the mark.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And your testimony is, sir--I'm going to put it up.

MR. BLASINI: I saw part of it.

MS. CLARK: --that you saw that--you specifically looked at that part of the console; is that right?

MR. BLASINI: When I first entered the vehicle before I sat in the vehicle, I put my elbows on the seat to look inside and I directly looked at the console, straight at the console. That's what I looked at.

MS. CLARK: You specifically looked at the console?

MR. BLASINI: Well, a Bronco sits a little higher--

MS. CLARK: Uh-huh.

MR. BLASINI: --than a regular car does. So when you enter the car, the seat's higher. So when you look in, you automatically see the console, you see the top of the seat almost parallel with the console.

MS. CLARK: And then did you put your elbows down on the passenger seat and stare at the console? Is that what you?

MR. BLASINI: I can't remember if I put my elbows or put my hands, but I know that I looked in first before I entered the vehicle.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And you looked specifically at the area shown in 30?

MR. BLASINI: I looked straight ahead, right.

MS. CLARK: Did you look at the area shown in 31?

MR. BLASINI: No, I didn't. Not at that point.

MS. CLARK: All right. I'm asking that this be labeled as C, your Honor.

MS. CLARK: Now, you're telling this jury that you did not see the red stain depicted in 31; is that correct?

MR. BLASINI: Correct.

MS. CLARK: You're not telling the jury it wasn't there?

MR. BLASINI: Correct.

MS. CLARK: You did not see the red stain marked in 30; is that correct?

MR. BLASINI: Correct.

MS. CLARK: You're not telling the jury it wasn't there?

MR. BLASINI: I didn't see it.

MS. CLARK: You're not telling the jury it wasn't there?

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: It's nonresponsive.

MS. CLARK: Can you answer the question I asked you, sir?

MR. BLASINI: Anything is possible, but I didn't see the mark.

MS. CLARK: You didn't see it. That's what you're telling us, correct?

MR. BLASINI: Correct.

MS. CLARK: You cannot tell us it wasn't there?

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BLASINI: It wasn't there when I looked.

MS. CLARK: You are telling us then it wasn't there?

MR. BLASINI: When I looked, I didn't see the mark.

MS. CLARK: Now, if I told you that that photograph was taken on June the 14th, a week prior to your getting into the Bronco, sir, would that change your opinion any?

MR. BLASINI: No, it wouldn't.

MS. CLARK: Showing you another photograph now that's been I think previously shown. Now it's got numbers in it, 303, 306. Do you see that?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, ma'am.

MS. CLARK: Appears to be the console.

MR. BLASINI: Yes, ma'am.

MS. CLARK: Bottom right-hand corner has the date September 1, `94, correct?

MR. BLASINI: Correct.

MS. CLARK: Do you see red stains in the area of 303, 306, 304, 305 in this?

MR. BLASINI: I sure do.

MS. CLARK: And you're telling this jury that you did not see any of those red stains when you were in the Bronco on June the 21st; is that correct?

MR. BLASINI: I didn't see 303 and I didn't see 306.

MS. CLARK: And you cannot tell the jury that 303, 304 and 305 were not there?

MR. BLASINI: Correct.

MS. CLARK: You didn't see them?

MR. BLASINI: I didn't see them, correct.

MS. CLARK: But they could have been there?

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BLASINI: Yes, they could have been.

MS. CLARK: And I ask that this photograph be labeled D, your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And would it change your testimony any as to 303 and 306, the red stains on that area of the console, if I told you that that photograph was taken on September 1st, 1994, after you were in the Bronco?

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BLASINI: It wouldn't change my testimony.

MS. CLARK: But so we're clear, sir, you're telling this jury what you saw or did not see, not what was or was not there, correct?

MR. COCHRAN: Objection. That's argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: May I ask that the jury be allowed to look at this board before I conclude cross-examination or should I conclude first and then--

THE COURT: I think the photographs are large enough and I think we've seen these photographs several times before. If there's anybody on the jury panel who says they want to get up and look at the photographs, raise your hand. Anybody? I think they've already seen these photographs. Thank you.

MS. CLARK: All right. Can Mr. Blasini take his seat?

(The witness complies.)

MS. CLARK: Now, Mr. Blasini, when you opened the car door, no interior light came on in that Bronco, did it?

MR. BLASINI: Not that I can remember.

MS. CLARK: And the glasses that you're wearing today, are those prescription?

MR. BLASINI: No, they're not.

MS. CLARK: Did you wear those glasses back on June 21st, 1994?

MR. BLASINI: No. I had regular sunglasses, dark sunglasses.

MS. CLARK: And you wore those while you were inside the Bronco?

MR. BLASINI: No, I didn't.

MS. CLARK: When did you take them off?

MR. BLASINI: When I entered the building.

MS. CLARK: And you're wearing tinted glasses today in court, aren't you?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, I am.

MS. CLARK: Why is that?

MR. BLASINI: I had radial keratotomy about seven years ago, and I get a glare from lights, certain lights, fluorescent lights, sunlight. So I wear the tinted glasses.

MS. CLARK: And that happened and that's since seven years ago, sir?

MR. BLASINI: About seven years ago, yes.

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

MS. CLARK: Isn't it true, sir, that the area of the T-2 where the Bronco was parked has fluorescent lights?

MR. BLASINI: I think so, yes. But they're never on.

MS. CLARK: You are testifying to this jury they were not on on June the 21st, 1994?

MR. BLASINI: A lot of times during the daytime, they don't have the lights on.

MS. CLARK: Are you telling this jury they were not on on June the 21st, 1994?

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BLASINI: I couldn't tell you. I couldn't remember.

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

MS. CLARK: I have nothing further.

MR. COCHRAN: A few other questions, your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN

MR. COCHRAN: You had this radial keratotomy about seven years ago; is that correct?

MR. BLASINI: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And that corrected your vision so you are able to see pretty well; is that right?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: The only reason you wear the tinted shades is to avoid glare; is that correct?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Did--your eye condition did not affect you when you looked at the console before you got inside that car, did it?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: Did your eye condition affect you before you got inside that car on June 21st, 1994?

MR. BLASINI: No, it didn't.

MS. CLARK: Objection. Objection. That calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: You didn't see any blood inside that Bronco, did you?

MR. BLASINI: No, sir.

MS. CLARK: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: In fact, Miss Clark, didn't ask you about no. 299 there on b by the window sill. Can you see that from where you are?

MR. BLASINI: No, I can't.

MS. CLARK: Improper question. I did ask.

THE COURT: Overruled. Restate the question.

MR. COCHRAN: Sure. May he step down just for this one question?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: You may step down, sir. On June 21st, 1994, this area, no. 299 on the b photograph here, did you see any red substance on that date in that area?

MS. CLARK: Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BLASINI: No, I didn't.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Anything Miss Clark asked in any way change your mind about you had not see any blood on that date?

MR. BLASINI: No. Nothing's changed my mind.

MR. COCHRAN: You've come here and told us the truth today?

MR. BLASINI: I did, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Pursuant to subpoena?

MR. BLASINI: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, sir.

THE COURT: Miss Clark, anything else?

MS. CLARK: Nothing further.

THE COURT: Mr. Blasini, thank you very much, sir. You are excused.

MR. BLASINI: Thank you, sir.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Douglas, can we--where did Mr. Douglas disappear to? All right. Mr. Fairtlough--I'm sorry. Prosecution exhibit. Mr. Fairtlough, would you remove the exhibit and the easel, please. All right. Next witness. Next witness.

MR. NEUFELD: At this time, Defense calls Mr. Rokahr.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Rolf Rokahr. Mrs. Robertson.

Rolf D. Rokahr, called as a witness by the Defendant, was sworn and testified as follows:

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

MR. ROKAHR: 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. ROKAHR: My last name is Rokahr, R-O-K-A-H-R, first name is Rolf, R-O-L-F, middle initial D.

THE COURT: Mr. Neufeld.

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. NEUFELD

MR. NEUFELD: Good afternoon, Mr. Rokahr.

MR. ROKAHR: Good afternoon, Mr. Neufeld.

MR. NEUFELD: Mr. Rokahr, would you please tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what you do for a living.

MR. ROKAHR: I'm a photographer for the city of Los Angeles assigned to the police department.

MR. NEUFELD: And how long have you been working as a photographer for the Los Angeles Police Department?

MR. ROKAHR: As a civilian employee, almost 10 years. It's nine years and two months, and I've worked as a reserve officer since 1980 or `81 up until `86. I'm still working as a reserve officer.

MR. NEUFELD: Mr. Rokahr--

THE COURT: Mr. Rokahr, if you could, try to keep your voice up, please. All right. Mrs. Robertson, give me a little more volume on that.

MR. NEUFELD: Want some more juice?

MR. NEUFELD: Mr. Rokahr, would you please tell the jury what it is you do for the Los Angeles Police Department, what your job title is and what that entails, sir.

MR. ROKAHR: Job title is photographer ii and I photograph primarily homicide scenes. At this point, I work from 10:00 o'clock at night till 5:30 in the morning, and that's my--my main job.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, you didn't work 10:00 o'clock to 5:00 A.M. last night, did you, sir?

MR. ROKAHR: No, sir, I didn't.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And when you say you go out to photograph homicide scenes for the Los Angeles Police Department, do you go out there with equipment?

MR. ROKAHR: I carry equipment in the police car. It's an unmarked car, and I have cameras, film, tripod, everything a photographer would need.

MR. NEUFELD: And what happens to the film after you shoot the photographs, sir?

MR. ROKAHR: When I return to the office after working usually all night up until the morning, I turn the film in to be processed. If there's nobody there to do it, I do it myself, I do the developing myself.

MR. NEUFELD: Does that developing occur at the Los Angeles Police Department?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir.

MR. NEUFELD: Is that at Parker center?

MR. ROKAHR: It's at Parker center on the fourth floor.

MR. NEUFELD: By the way, sir, did you meet me for the first time yesterday at Parker center?

MR. ROKAHR: I believe it was first time, yeah.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. You have no recollection of ever talking to me before, do you, sir?

MR. ROKAHR: No, I don't.

MR. NEUFELD: And when we met yesterday at Parker center, it was to interview you in connection with this case; is that correct, sir?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And who else was present for this interview that I had with you at Parker center?

MR. ROKAHR: I don't know the other gentlemen that you brought, but it was Dave Adkins that was present with us I think.

MR. NEUFELD: And who is David Adkins?

MR. ROKAHR: David Adkins is my OIC, which stands for officer in charge of the photo lab.

MR. NEUFELD: Who also works for the Los Angeles Police Department, correct?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir.

MR. NEUFELD: And was there also a Deputy District Attorney present for this interview?

MR. ROKAHR: Uh, I'm trying to think of his name.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, even if you don't remember his name, was somebody from the District Attorney's office present?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes. Mr. Yochelson.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, I'd like to call your attention to the early morning hours of June 13th, 1994. Were you the Los Angeles Police Department photographer assigned to go to 875 Bundy in connection with a double homicide?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And approximately what time did you arrive at that location?

MR. ROKAHR: We received a call at 0248 and I probably arrived around 0320.

MR. NEUFELD: Sir, did you have an opportunity to review the logs of Bundy to--well, I'm sorry. Withdrawn. When you first arrived at 875 Bundy, did you immediately go see the log-in police officer?

MR. ROKAHR: I could not find him where I had parked.

MR. NEUFELD: And where was that that you had parked?

MR. ROKAHR: I parked right on the very corner of I believe it's Bundy and Dorothy and I had to walk in back of the--the actual location to find someone who had the log.

MR. NEUFELD: And when you found someone who had the log, they logged you in so to speak?

MR. ROKAHR: They logged me in, yes, sir.

MR. NEUFELD: And have you at any time reviewed that log prior to your testifying today?

MR. ROKAHR: I have never seen that log.

MR. NEUFELD: When you spoke with me yesterday, did you tell me that the time that you had arrived at 875 Bundy was approximately 3:10 in the morning?

MR. ROKAHR: Could be 3:10, could be 3:20. I'm not sure.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And when you arrived, sir, how many cameras did you use to photograph the scene at 875 Bundy?

MR. ROKAHR: Just one camera.

MR. NEUFELD: And what kind of film did you use?

MR. ROKAHR: We use 200 asa Kodak.

MR. NEUFELD: Is that color film?

MR. ROKAHR: Kodak. Yes. Gold color film.

MR. NEUFELD: That's color print film?

MR. ROKAHR: Color print film.

MR. NEUFELD: And as soon as you signed in or logged in at the rear of the house, were you then given a walk-through through the scene?

MR. ROKAHR: I was given a walk-through by a police officer.

MR. NEUFELD: And would that be a uniformed police officer who gave you that walk-through?

MR. ROKAHR: Uniformed police officer.

MR. NEUFELD: And approximately how long did that walk-through take, sir?

MR. ROKAHR: Probably no more than five minutes.

MR. NEUFELD: So if you had arrived at approximately 3:10, would that mean that the walk-through ended at about 3:15?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. NEUFELD: If you arrived at 3:20 in the morning and you logged in--I'm sorry. If you logged in at 3:20 in the morning and the walk-through took approximately five minutes, would that mean that the walk-through was over by 3:25?

MR. ROKAHR: I would say so.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And as soon as the walk-through was over, did you encounter Detective Phillips?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. This is leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: As soon as the walk-through was over, did you encounter a detective?

MR. DARDEN: Still leading.

MR. ROKAHR: No--

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. NEUFELD: Excuse me?

MR. ROKAHR: No, I did not.

MR. NEUFELD: After you completed the walk-through that took approximately five minutes, what is the next thing that happened?

MR. ROKAHR: I shot the overalls of the streets involved. So what we do is, we shoot up and down the street, the intersection, and I believe I shot pictures--can I refer to some of my notes here?

MR. NEUFELD: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Rokahr, it appears you brought a notebook. Are these all the photographs that you took on that day?

MR. ROKAHR: These are all the photographs I took.

THE COURT: All right. Proceed.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, Mr. Rokahr, you said that beginning then at about 3:25, after you had the walk-through at the scene, you began to shoot overalls, okay?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: When you say overalls, is another word for that establishment shots?

MR. ROKAHR: Location shots.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And are those shots, the purpose of those shots to give one an overall impression of the street scene?

MR. ROKAHR: The street scene and possible escape routes that the detectives might want to see if a witness should become available.

MR. NEUFELD: And so would those be a series of photographs taken both in front of 875 Bundy and also behind 875 Bundy in the alleyway?

MR. ROKAHR: And up and down the streets.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And, sir, approximately how long did it take you to shoot those overall or establishment or location shots that you just described?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. No foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer the question.

MR. ROKAHR: I would say approximately 25, 35 minutes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. So if you began taking these overall or location shots at approximately 3:25 in the morning and they took approximately 25 minutes to shoot, that would mean that you were finished shooting these location shots at approximately 3:50 or 3:55 in the morning. Would that be a fair estimate?

MR. ROKAHR: Something like that.

MR. NEUFELD: And, sir, immediately after you completed shooting the overalls, did you then speak to a detective?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. This is leading. Vague as to "Immediately."

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, what was the next thing that happened after you completed shooting these location shots, sir?

MR. ROKAHR: I believe at that point, I met up with Mark Fuhrman, Detective Mark Fuhrman.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. And about how many minutes after you finished shooting these overall location shots was it that you met up with Detective Mark Fuhrman?

MR. ROKAHR: It's difficult to see. At that time, it meant nothing to me, the difference in time. So I would say could be an hour.

MR. NEUFELD: Sir--

MR. ROKAHR: I'm just guessing at this point.

MR. NEUFELD: Sir, when you were interviewed by me yesterday, do you recall that I asked you at the beginning of the interview whether it was all right for me to tape-record the interview?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And do you recall saying that it was fine with you?

MR. ROKAHR: No problem.

MR. NEUFELD: And during that interview, do you recall saying that it was approximately five--

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor. Can I see what counsel is reading from?

MR. NEUFELD: Sure.

MR. DARDEN: Is he reading from a transcript?

MR. NEUFELD: Notes I made for myself.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. NEUFELD: When you were interviewed by me yesterday on tape at the Los Angeles Police Department Parker center, didn't you say to me that it was approximately five to 10 minutes after you completed the overall shots of the scene that you encountered Detective Mark Fuhrman?

MR. ROKAHR: I may have said that to you. I didn't realize I stayed by my car for a while.

MR. NEUFELD: Sir, did you have a conversation with any member of the District Attorney's office or the police department after we finished our interview yesterday about the facts concerning this case?

MR. ROKAHR: No, sir.

MR. NEUFELD: Did you have any discussion with any member of the District Attorney's office or the police department today about this case and your involvement before you took the witness stand?

MR. ROKAHR: No, sir. I looked at my--my paperwork, at my logs.

MR. NEUFELD: Sir, during the lunch break, did you speak to assistant District Attorney Christopher Darden about your involvement in this case?

THE COURT: Deputy District Attorney.

MR. NEUFELD: Excuse me--Deputy District Attorney Christopher Darden about your involvement in this case?

MR. ROKAHR: I don't know whether that was--we spoke, but I don't know whether that was during the lunch period.

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

THE COURT: Mr. Neufeld, 2:30.

MR. NEUFELD: Fine. One second.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: Sir, are you admitting that yesterday morning, when I interviewed you at the police department headquarters at Parker center, that you said to me that you met up with Mark Fuhrman approximately five or 10 minutes after completing the overall photographs or at about 4:10 in the morning or so? Do you recall saying that to me yesterday on tape?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, I do.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And when you met up with Mark Fuhrman at approximately 4:10 in the morning, sir, did Mark Fuhrman take you on another walk-through through the scene?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. DARDEN: Objection. This is leading, misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: It is. It's leading, counsel.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. When you met up with Mark Fuhrman at about 4:10 in the morning, what did Mark Fuhrman do with you, sir?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Misstates the witness' testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled. What happened? Mr. Rokahr, what happened when you met up with Detective Fuhrman?

MR. ROKAHR: Detective Fuhrman asked me to come around I believe it's Dorothy Street to the back of the house to show me what we have as far as a crime scene is concerned and as far as evidence is concerned.

MR. NEUFELD: And at that time when he took you through, did he ask you to take a few pictures of something in particular?

MR. ROKAHR: By the time we arrived to the actual crime scene, he first of all pointed out--the bodies were obvious--where there is some evidence, and he asked me to photograph it.

MR. NEUFELD: Now--I'm sorry.

MR. ROKAHR: Yeah. And he--I asked him to actually point out where the evidence is because it was rather dark in the green foliage there.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, sir, if, as you indicated yesterday during the interview, that you first encountered Mark Fuhrman at 4:10 A.M., how long did it take you to walk with Mark Fuhrman to the location where these items of evidence were in the green foliage approximately?

MR. ROKAHR: I really don't want to narrow myself down on that because I'm not sure.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, I'm not asking you for a specific--whether it's four minutes or seven minutes, sir. I'm just asking you, would it be fair to say, for instance, that it's less than 15 minutes from the time that Mr. Fuhrman encountered you and the time you got to those items of evidence which are in the green foliage?

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. NEUFELD: Would that be a fair estimate of time?

MR. ROKAHR: Could be 15 minutes, could be 20 minutes, 30. I'm not sure.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Would it be a fair estimate that it was something between 15 minutes and 30 minutes?

MR. ROKAHR: I think it's a fair estimate.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. So, sir, if, as you told me yesterday, that it was approximately 4:10 in the morning when you encountered Mr. Fuhrman at 875 Bundy at the time that he was having you take pictures of items of evidence that were in and about the green foliage, would that be sometime between 4:25 in the morning and 4:40 in the morning based on your estimate, sir?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. ROKAHR: I would say it's fair.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And the couple of pictures that Detective Fuhrman instructed you to take at that point, sir, were they pictures of Mr. Fuhrman pointing at the glove?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. That misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Did Mr. Fuhrman--I'm sorry. Did Detective Fuhrman instruct you to take any pictures of him pointing at objects of evidence?

MR. ROKAHR: No, he didn't. I requested him to point to the evidence.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And was the evidence that you requested him to point to the glove and the hat?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And that would be the glove and the hat at Bundy; is that correct?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And did you at that moment take pictures of Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove and the hat?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, I did.

MR. NEUFELD: And, sir, was one of the reasons that you asked Detective Fuhrman to point to the item is because it was nighttime and thus, the glove was difficult to see?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry. What was your answer, sir?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, sir, after taking those couple of pictures, pictures of the glove and the hat--

THE COURT: I think we're assuming the number of photographs at this point.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Do you know approximately how many photographs you took of Detective Fuhrman pointing at items of evidence near the green foliage that night?

MR. ROKAHR: I believe only those two.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, after taking those two photographs that you just described, sir, did you then begin to take--did you at some point after that take other pictures of the scene?

MR. ROKAHR: May I?

THE COURT: And the record should reflect that Mr. Rokahr is referring again to his notebook of photographs.

(Brief pause.)

MR. ROKAHR: Yeah. I only show two photographs, and these are in sequence, of Detective Fuhrman pointing to the items in the foliage.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And after you took those two photographs, at some time after you took those two photos, did you begin to take other photographs of the scene at 875 Bundy?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And in the next several photographs that you took--after you took photographs of Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove, for those next several photographs, were you being instructed by a police officer to take photographs or were you simply using your own professional judgment and taking them alone?

MR. ROKAHR: Some were of my own choices and some were--there were no police officers instructing me. It would have been Mark Fuhrman.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, sir, in the pictures that you took immediately after the glove, the first let's say five photographs--I'm sorry--withdrawn as to "Immediately." The next--

MR. NEUFELD: May I come--approach the witness one second?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. NEUFELD: Sir, for instance, sequentially, the next five photographs that you took after you took pictures of Mark Fuhrman pointing at the glove, for those five pictures, were you relying on your own professional judgment or were you being instructed by a detective or police officer to take those pictures?

MR. ROKAHR: At that point, I believe Mark Fuhrman said, "Let's go around the front of the building and shoot from there."

MR. NEUFELD: Sir, when you were interviewed by me yesterday, didn't you tell me that as to the next group of five photographs that you took after Mark Fuhrman pointed out the glove, that as to the next five photographs, they were not taken at the instructions of any detective or police officer, but they were pictures that you simply took using your own professional judgment? Didn't you say that to me yesterday?

MR. ROKAHR: I probably did, meaning--meaning that I do shoot a lot of photographs in my own judgment. The reason I'm saying now that Mark Fuhrman instructed me to go around the front is because I switched from the actual crime scene, and we had to walk all the way around front to do these photographs, and I think I was instructed.

MR. NEUFELD: Sir, yesterday when I interviewed you, you said that for these next five photographs, you were not instructed; isn't that correct?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Asked and answered, leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: And argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer the question.

MR. ROKAHR: I really don't remember what I told you last night or yesterday afternoon.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. One moment.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: I'm going to ask you to listen to this portion of the tape, sir, of the conversation of the interview of yesterday and tell me whether or not you did say during the interview yesterday that as to the next five photographs after the photographs of Detective Fuhrman pointing to the glove, that for those, you were not instructed by any police officer or detective, but instead were using your own professional judgment.

MR. DARDEN: I'm going to object. I would like an opportunity to hear this before it's going to be played to the jury or anything else.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: May we approach, your Honor?

THE COURT: No.

MR. NEUFELD: It was provided in discovery, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. You said it was a tape recording from yesterday that you made. All right.

MR. NEUFELD: They have a copy.

THE COURT: You gave them a copy?

MR. NEUFELD: I gave them a copy. They received a copy this morning as soon as I received it.

THE COURT: All right. I have a request from the jury for a break. All right. Let's take our recess at this point. All right. All right. We'll stand in recess for 15. You may step down. Thank you.

(Recess.)

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

THE COURT: We're back on the record. All parties are again present. Mr. Darden, Mr. Neufeld, have you resolved the issues regarding the tape?

MR. NEUFELD: I think it should be made clear on the record, the tape was made yesterday and that first thing this morning before we commenced court proceedings, a copy of the tape was given to Alan Yochelson, and it's that tape that I will be playing.

THE COURT: The problem is, for the record, that it's a standard rule of this court, of the superior court that court reporters are not required to attempt to transcribe what is on tape recordings. So, Mr. Neufeld, what I'm going to direct you to do is, tomorrow morning, file with the court a transcript of the portion of the tape that you're going to play for the record.

MR. NEUFELD: Very well, sir.

THE COURT: And so the record is clear. Anything else?

MR. DARDEN: And so the record is clear, I have no objection to this small excerpt. But as for others--and it is true that counsel gave us a copy of the tape this morning. But as the court is aware, I've been here before the court.

THE COURT: I understand that. All right. And you've cued up the snippet and showed it and--

MR. NEUFELD: No. I haven't played the snippet right now for Mr. Darden, which I can certainly do.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Harris, do you have that cued up? All right. Let's just make sure we're all talking about the same snippet here. How long is the tape in its entirety?

MR. NEUFELD: This snippet is about eight lines?

THE COURT: How long is the tape in its entirety?

MR. NEUFELD: Probably an hour, maybe little more than an hour, maybe an hour and 20 minutes.

THE COURT: Okay. Let's hear the snippet, Mr. Harris.

(At 2:44 P.M., a portion of a tape recording was played.)

(At 2:45 P.M., the playing of the tape recording concluded.)

MR. NEUFELD: That's the end. It would end at that point where he says, "I'm using my own judgment."

THE COURT: All right. Cue it back up. Let's have the jury, please.

(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. Mr. Rokahr, would you resume the witness stand, please. All right. The record should reflect we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. And, Mr. Neufeld, you may continue.

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.

MR. NEUFELD: Mr. Rokahr, when Detective Fuhrman initially approached you, was he alone at that point?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, he was.

MR. NEUFELD: And were you alone at that point?

MR. ROKAHR: I was too.

MR. NEUFELD: And by the way, did you know Detective Mark Fuhrman prior to June 13th, 1994?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, I did.

MR. NEUFELD: For approximately how many years did you know Detective Mark Fuhrman?

MR. ROKAHR: I would have to guess. I would say maybe five years.

MR. NEUFELD: And in what capacity did you know Detective Mark Fuhrman?

MR. ROKAHR: From working homicide scenes with him.

MR. NEUFELD: In other words, it was scenes where he was the detective and you were simply the--let me simply start.

MR. ROKAHR: Okay.

MR. NEUFELD: And you were the Los Angeles Police Department official photographer for crime scenes?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Ad approximately how many crime scenes did you work with Detective Fuhrman over those five years?

MR. ROKAHR: I would have to estimate, but I would say 12, 15.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, going back to the--the questions I was asking you just before the break, sir, when you take these pictures, is there a way that you can determine what the sequence of each picture is?

MR. ROKAHR: Well, each of the photographers have a set way of taking photographs. When you mention to me whether he instructed me on taking certain photographs, on the evidence, yes, he did.

MR. NEUFELD: Sir, I'm asking you--

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, I would ask that you ask the witness to be responsive.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm simply asking, is there a method, a technical method that you can determine a sequence in which photographs are taken?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, there is.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And does each camera come with a counter on it?

MR. ROKAHR: There'sMr.counter on each--on most of the cameras we use.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, does your camera have a counter, sir?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, it does.

MR. NEUFELD: And the camera you used that night at Bundy, did it have a counter?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir.

MR. NEUFELD: And could you please tell the ladies and gentleman of the jury how that works.

MR. ROKAHR: When we arrive at a crime scene, there is a data back on the back of my camera and I can set, as far as the counter is concerned, six numbers, 000000. From then on, it will count up every shot that is taken. It adds a number, a digit to it.

MR. NEUFELD: So, in other words, the first one will be 000001?

MR. ROKAHR: That would be my slate in the photograph.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, in this particular instance, can you by looking in your book tell us what the numbers were in sequence of the two photographs you took of Detective Mark Fuhrman pointing at the glove?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, I could.

MR. NEUFELD: Would you please do so.

MR. ROKAHR: That would be 34 and 35.

MR. NEUFELD: That means that those are the 34th and 35th pictures that you took at Bundy that night?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, before the break, sir, I asked you about the very next several pictures. Do you recall that?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, what I want you to do is look at photographs 36, in other words, the one immediately after 35, where Fuhrman is pointing at the glove, all the way through 43. Do you see those?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, isn't it a fact, sir, that when you took those photographs, the first eight photographs after Fuhrman is pointing at the glove, that as to those eight photographs, you were not having any detective instruct you as to what to shoot, but you were simply relying on your own professional judgment? Isn't that a fact?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, I would say it's a fact because of the--the sequence in these photographs, which is the way I shoot.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Thank you. Now, you said earlier to the jury that you were using Kodak color print film asa 200; is that correct?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And how many exposures are there in each roll that you use, sir?

MR. ROKAHR: 36 exposures.

MR. NEUFELD: Is that your standard practice?

MR. ROKAHR: That is what I prefer.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And on this night, when you were at Bundy shooting, you were using rolls of 36?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Could you please tell the jury what is a contact print?

MR. ROKAHR: Contact print would be a print of a negative, same size as the negative is.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, if one wanted to, one could take the first 36 negatives or the first 35 negatives, however many negatives are on the first roll of film, and print them; could they not?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, you could.

MR. NEUFELD: And if you printed the first roll of film, then anyone who wanted to know what the sequence of photographs were would be able to ascertain that; would they not?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay.

MR. NEUFELD: What is next in order, your Honor?

THE COURT: 1366.

(Deft's 1366 for id = photographs)

THE COURT: Mr. Neufeld.

MR. NEUFELD: I have to wait until these--

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm going to show it to the witness when--

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. NEUFELD: Sir, I'd ask you to take a look at Defendant's 1366 in evidence, and if you'd like, you can compare it to the photographs you have in your blue book. And the question I have for you, sir, first of all is, can you see the number--by the way, you mentioned that the--that there's a counter which numbers each photograph.

MR. ROKAHR: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: When the roll of film is printed, do those numbers appear on each and every print?

MR. ROKAHR: It depends what the background is on the negative. If the background is very light, they're quite often difficult to see.

MR. NEUFELD: But other than the fact that it may be difficult to see, is it the procedure that that number that you use on the counter will appear in the print?

MR. ROKAHR: It should be, yeah.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And in fact, in that exhibit which I have shown you, do the numbers appear in the lower right-hand corner?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, they do, and there are some that do not show.

MR. NEUFELD: The ones that do not show, is that because the background is extremely light?

MR. ROKAHR: That's because the background is so light.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. But can you tell the number because of the print that is directly in front of it or directly before it?

MR. ROKAHR: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry. Directly before it and directly after it?

MR. ROKAHR: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And, sir, if you'd like to compare it to your album, please go right ahead. But the question I have for you is, does this sheet--except for the fact that the images are slightly larger than they would be if it was a direct contact, does this page reflect the sequence of photographs on the very first roll of film that you shot that night at Bundy?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, it does.

MR. NEUFELD: And, sir, do the first--by the way, how many exposures did you get out of that first roll?

MR. ROKAHR: There would be 36, 35, 36.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And so sometimes when you're shooting a roll of 36, you only get 35?

MR. ROKAHR: It depends on how the camera on its first--on its first advance advances or depending on how far I have pushed the film into its position.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay.

MR. ROKAHR: So I may run out at 36 and sometimes you might even get 37.

MR. NEUFELD: In this particular roll, do you notice that the last shot on the roll is item no. 35--not item number, but photograph no. 35?

MR. ROKAHR: Yeah. I think it's--let me just check with this one.

MR. NEUFELD: Certainly.

MR. DARDEN: Can I approach for one moment?

THE COURT: You may.

(Brief pause.)

MR. ROKAHR: This is 35, this is no. 36.

MR. NEUFELD: That's the next roll?

MR. ROKAHR: Yeah. Either the next roll or the last negative. I may have reloaded walking around to the front of the building.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. So, sir, to the best of your recollection--I'm sorry. To the best of your recollection, would this contact sheet, except for the fact that the actual negatives are slightly larger when they're printed there than they would be on a routine contact sheet, do they represent the first roll of film you shot that night at Bundy?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir.

MR. NEUFELD: And the first 33 frames on that roll, those would be those overall shots you talked about that you took between approximately, oh, 3:25 and say 3:55 in the morning?

MR. ROKAHR: Whatever the time was, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And the last two shots that appear on there, those would be the two shots that you took sometime between 4:20 and 4:35 in the morning; is that correct?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. NEUFELD: Sir, didn't you--didn't you say just before the break that the time that the photographs were taken of Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove, given the times that you gave for the other events that evening, would be somewhere between 4:20 and 4:35 in the morning?

MR. DARDEN: Misstates the testimony.

MR. NEUFELD: Didn't you say that, sir?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. ROKAHR: I probably did. I have frankly no recollection as to the actual times involved.

MR. NEUFELD: Sir, yesterday, when you were interviewed by me, were you interviewed by me for approximately an hour and a half?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And would it be fair to say that the majority of that time, you were giving a narrative of what happened, the order it happened and the times it happened on June 13th of 1994? Isn't that correct?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: May I publish it to the jury, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes. Why don't you ask him--you want to ask him a question about the frame numbers?

MR. NEUFELD: That appears in each picture? Okay.

MR. NEUFELD: Aside from the number in the lower right-hand corner of the actual print, is there also a number beneath the print which indicates which frame it was or which shot it was in the roll?

MR. ROKAHR: There's only one imprint on the negative. There are no other numbers.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, no. Are there numbers below each print there that would show you it is the third frame or the fourth frame or the sixth frame?

MR. ROKAHR: You mean the ones that are put on by Kodak?

MR. NEUFELD: Yes. The one put on by Kodak.

MR. ROKAHR: Okay.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And do those also appear on those sheets?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Neufeld.

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, before I publish it, I would like to use the elmo, and I think we have to cut the feed.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. NEUFELD: Just a couple questions first. Sir, in the--those establishment, location, overall shots, whatever you want to call it, those first 33 shots, in those 33 shots, you used the flash?

MR. ROKAHR: I use a flash on every photograph I take.

MR. NEUFELD: And the--and in addition to the flash, there were streetlights that to some extent or other artificial lights that were there that illuminated the scene as well; is that correct?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And you can see the illumination given off by those other lights in these various prints; can you not?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. And when you shot the two photographs of Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove, as to those two shots, you shot those with a flash; did you not?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm now going to show you what is frame 34 and 35 on your first roll of film.

MR. NEUFELD: Is the feed cut?

MR. NEUFELD: Sir, first of all, let me show you one at a time. Do you see those two?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And by the way, all the other photographs on that first roll, 1 through 33, those were all shot at nighttime; isn't that correct?

MR. ROKAHR: They were shot what?

MR. NEUFELD: At nighttime.

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir.

MR. NEUFELD: And as to 34, the 34th picture, do you see that on the screen?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir.

MR. NEUFELD: Is that Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove?

MR. ROKAHR: That is Detective Fuhrman.

MR. NEUFELD: And in 35, is that also Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove?

MR. ROKAHR: That is also Detective Fuhrman.

MR. NEUFELD: And those were the last two pictures you took on that first roll of film during the night at Bundy on June 13th--in the early morning hours of June 13th, 1994?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: At night?

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. NEUFELD: That's what he--your Honor, at this time, I have no further questions. I would like to pose--I would like to pass this to the jury so they can at least look at it.

THE COURT: Hand it to juror no. 1, please.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry?

THE COURT: Hand it to juror no. 1.

(Defendant's exhibit 1366 was examined by the jurors.)

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Neufeld, would you retrieve 1366 from Deputy Long, please.

MR. NEUFELD: Certainly.

THE COURT: All right. The record should reflect each of the jurors has taken the opportunity to view Defense exhibit 1366. Mr. Darden, you may cross-examine.

MR. DARDEN: Thank you, your Honor. Good afternoon.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DARDEN

MR. DARDEN: Mr. Rokahr, under LAPD policy, you are not required to record the exact time of each and every photograph you take, are you?

MR. ROKAHR: No.

MR. DARDEN: You did not keep a detailed photo log in this case, that is a log indicating the exact time in which you took each photograph?

MR. ROKAHR: No, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Any time that you might give us today as to when you took a particular photograph is an estimate on your part; is that correct?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. DARDEN: It's your best estimate?

MR. ROKAHR: As good as I can do after a year.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. After 15 months actually.

MR. ROKAHR: 15 months.

MR. DARDEN: Now, you have always had some problem in trying to remember the exact time at which you took each of these photographs; is that correct?

MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry. Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. DARDEN: Isn't it true that you've always had some problem remembering the exact time that you took each of the photographs in this case?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. ROKAHR: Considering I photograph an average of two to three homicides every night, I cannot remember the times.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. In fact, you were interviewed by an LAPD Detective leFall on November 22, 1994, weren't you?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, I was.

MR. DARDEN: And when you were interviewed by Detective leFall, you told him you arrived at Bundy shortly after midnight; is that correct?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: But later on, you a looked at your own log and realized you didn't get the call to go out to Bundy until 2:48 in the morning; is that right?

MR. ROKAHR: He interviewed me by phone at my home and I had of course very little recollection what time and I was obviously wrong in the statement I made.

MR. DARDEN: Now, as you begin to take photographs at a crime scene, you take a photograph of a--

MR. ROKAHR: On a slate.

MR. DARDEN: I'm sorry?

MR. ROKAHR: We call it a slate.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And is there a slate depicted here in--

THE COURT: 1366.

MR. DARDEN: --1366?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes. Number on the very first photograph. It's got my name up here, my serial numbers and the--what we call a "C form" for this particular job and the location of the job.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And so this "C form" or slate exposure is number 0?

MR. ROKAHR: Number O, yeah.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And that slate indicates that you got the call at 2:48, correct?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: And not only did you not arrive at the scene at shortly after midnight, but in fact, you arrived at the scene at about 3:25 in the morning; is that correct?

MR. ROKAHR: Somewhere after 3:00 o'clock.

MR. DARDEN: You did sign in on the log; is that right?

MR. ROKAHR: I did sign in on the log.

MR. DARDEN: But you've also had problems recalling the exact time in which you took these photographs because of your health; is that right?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection. There's no testimony at all about that.

THE COURT: Facts not in evidence.

MR. NEUFELD: Facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. DARDEN: It's cross.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. DARDEN: Do you have any health problems?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, I do.

MR. DARDEN: Were you having health problems last year?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: Congestive heart failure?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. DARDEN: You also have a painful nerve disease?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. DARDEN: You take--strike that. You have been prescribed approximately 13 medications that you take on a daily basis; is that right?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. DARDEN: Do they include Vicodin?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: What is that?

MR. ROKAHR: Vicodin is a pain killer.

MR. DARDEN: You take one tablet or capsule every four hours?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. DARDEN: Did you take Vicodin yesterday when you spoke to Mr. Neufeld?

MR. ROKAHR: I carry about eight pills on me when I go to work.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And were you feeling well yesterday when you spoke to Mr. Neufeld?

MR. ROKAHR: I haven't really felt well for a long time.

MR. DARDEN: When you spoke to Detective leFall in November--well, strike that. After you took the overall photographs, did you wait in your car for detectives?

MR. ROKAHR: I waited--I'm not sure whether I was sitting in my car or just leaning up against it.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Do you recall telling Detective leFall November 22, 1994--

MR. DARDEN: Page 2 of that statement, Mr. Neufeld.

MR. DARDEN: --that you had completed all of the overall photographs--

MR. NEUFELD: Go ahead.

MR. DARDEN: --and was waiting in the vehicle, in your vehicle for the detectives' arrival?

MR. ROKAHR: I remember getting a phone call from Detective leFall, but I at this point really don't remember what all was said.

MR. DARDEN: The bottom line is that you can't tell this jury at what time you took photos 34 and 35; is that correct?

MR. ROKAHR: It's extremely--

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

THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer the question.

MR. DARDEN: You didn't look at your watch each and every time--

THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel. I don't think he finished answering the question.

MR. DARDEN: I'm sorry.

MR. DARDEN: The bottom line, sir, is that you can't tell this jury at what time you took photos 34 and 35; is that correct?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. DARDEN: You don't know?

MR. ROKAHR: The only time recorded on my paperwork is when we leave the scene.

MR. DARDEN: Now, the contact sheet in front of you, by looking at that contact sheet, you can tell the sequence in which the photographs were taken; is that correct?

MR. ROKAHR: That is assuming the negatives were placed in the correct order. The negatives are cut into strips, five negatives each, and I'm not sure who made this contact sheet. If we go by the Kodak numbers, I would say they were in proper order.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And you can also tell by looking at that contact sheet that you received a call at 2:48, correct?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. But you can't tell by looking at the contact sheet how much time elapsed between each photograph; is that right?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct. I could not tell.

MR. DARDEN: And you can't tell by looking at that contact sheet the exact time it was when you took the last photograph on that particular roll, correct?

MR. ROKAHR: No, I could not.

MR. DARDEN: And even though you have a counter, a photo counter built into your camera, right?

MR. ROKAHR: Right.

MR. DARDEN: That counter doesn't indicate the time in which you take a particular photograph either?

MR. ROKAHR: No. That's correct. It does not.

MR. DARDEN: What you've done here today is, you've testified to the best of your ability; is that correct?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes. I'm trying to.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. You weren't trying to avoid answering questions by Mr. Neufeld?

MR. ROKAHR: No, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Thank you, sir.

MR. ROKAHR: Thank you.

THE COURT: Mr. Neufeld.

MR. NEUFELD: One moment.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. NEUFELD

MR. NEUFELD: Mr. Rokahr, you said that you sometimes photograph as many as two, three homicides a night?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: But on this particular night, this was the only homicide you handled, correct?

MR. ROKAHR: That was the only homicide I handled.

MR. NEUFELD: And in fact, this was an unusual homicide. There was a lot of brass there; is that correct?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And that doesn't happen at most of the cases which you photograph, does it?

MR. ROKAHR: No, sir.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, when I interviewed you yesterday at the Los Angeles Police Department, sir, did we have a calm conversation?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, we did.

MR. NEUFELD: I didn't raise my voice, did I?

MR. ROKAHR: No, you were very nice.

MR. NEUFELD: During the hour, hour and a half we were talking, sir, did you ever at any time complain about your health?

MR. ROKAHR: I felt there was no reason--

MR. NEUFELD: Okay.

MR. ROKAHR: --to do so.

MR. NEUFELD: And, sir, you mentioned on cross-examination that you may not be, you know, absolutely certain as to what time a particular photograph or precisely what time a particular photograph was taken. But would you agree, sir, that there's a difference between a photograph taken a half hour, an hour before sunrise and a photograph taken an hour and a half after the sun comes up?

MR. DARDEN: Objection.

MR. NEUFELD: You know, in terms of light in the air?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Light in the air?

MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry. In terms of how light it is, that there is an obvious difference between a photograph taken an hour to an hour and a half before the sun rises and a photograph taken an hour to an hour and a half after the sun rises?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, there's a difference.

MR. NEUFELD: And, sir, if the sun raised that morning at 5:41 A.M., you would be able to tell the difference without being precise whether that photograph was a nighttime shot, shot perhaps an hour, hour and a half before sunrise and one shot an hour and a half after sunrise, wouldn't you?

MR. ROKAHR: I would like to think so.

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you. Nothing further.

THE COURT: Mr. Darden.

MR. DARDEN: Nothing further. I'm sorry.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DARDEN

MR. DARDEN: Mr. Rokahr, how many homicide scenes have you photographed since June 13th, 1994?

MR. ROKAHR: I--conservatively, I do about 10 a month. So a couple of hundred at least.

MR. DARDEN: Thank you.

MR. NEUFELD: One last question.

FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. NEUFELD

MR. NEUFELD: Besides the fact that all the brass was there that night when you were shooting at Bundy, given the notoriety of this case, in the--

MR. DARDEN: Objection. This exceeds--

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. DARDEN: --cross.

MR. NEUFELD: During the intervening 14 months that Mr. Darden referred to, was this the most important case that you photographed?

MR. ROKAHR: I would say so.

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.

THE COURT: Anything else, Mr. Darden?

MR. DARDEN: No, your Honor. Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Rokahr, thank you very much, sir. You may step down. Mr. Neufeld, would you retrieve 1366, please.

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. Next witness. Next witness. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, let me ask you to step back into the jury room for just a few moments.

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

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Cochran, who is the next witness?

MR. COCHRAN: Well, we--Mr. Scheck has--

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I'd just like to serve on Prosecution and to the court a letter memorandum with respect to a request for sanctions for failing to disclose or permit the creation of contact prints, and we have a proposed instruction that we would like the court to give to the jury on this matter.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. SCHECK: Now that the testimony of Mr. Rokahr has been completed and the factual record is complete, we think it's very plain that, as indicated in our Brady motion, what the problems are here, and I'm sure the court is familiar with the discovery problems we had.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran, next witness.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes, your Honor. The next witness--I think I indicated to the court again that--and I would reiterate this again--that what I would like to do, if the court would allow us to, is to allow us to argue our motion for reconsideration on Miss McKinny, my motion for reconsideration to your Honor prior to calling McKinny plus a couple other motions because it bears upon what we are able to do if you change your mind at any particular. And we would like to play a tape for you of what you're allowing us to play for the jury as far as Fuhrman's words. We think it's very relevant before McKinny is called. And then I want to reiterate again and ask your Honor to read the transcript at page 18899 because, as I said before, given Bailey's question, Mr. Bailey's question, which is very specific, we have an absolute right it seems to me to impeach Fuhrman based upon this. This is the only witness on our Defense list that can testify that Fuhrman used this word in addressing him as an African American. So it's not cumulative at all. And what I would like in the best of all worlds, for you to listen to the argument regarding McKinny, let us call McKinny, let us play what we're going to play on that and then call Hodge. If your Honor rules that this is permissible on Hodge, then I would go ahead and call Hodge now and then take the rest of the day dealing with McKinny. But I would like--if you say we can put our case on the way we want to, I would like to deal with--I'd like to get a ruling from you on Hodge, deal with McKinny, call McKinny and Hodge. But if you want to get more testimony on before this jury, I would then move Hodge up for this limited area we're talking about. And I'd ask you to read this page 18899. I think it's very controlling and very compelling and he is the only witness we have, the only African American we have who can refute Fuhrman's insistence that he never addressed any African American with this word, the only one. Everybody else is white.

THE COURT: Is that it?

MR. COCHRAN: That's it for right now.

THE COURT: Mr. Darden.

MR. DARDEN: Well, I think we've spread enough venom around for one day and for one trial, Judge. As I've said before, we have not challenged, we did not challenge the earlier witnesses' assertion that Fuhrman used these epitaphs and just reflect on the things you have allowed this jury to hear as they relate to Fuhrman's racial animus. And I'm sure the court noted that throughout that testimony, each of these jurors, they were writing like crazy. It seemed as if they wrote down each and every word, as if they hung on each and every word. And at some point, you know, I think the court has to remember--and I'm sure the court does--that we have a right to a fair trial just like this Defendant, okay. We have gone way too far, way over the mark in this I believe. The epitaph was uttered, considered in context in which it was uttered and which was heard by this jury, your Honor. What more can they want? I think McKinny is cumulative at this point, especially on an issue like this, which is collateral. And if the court disagrees that it's collateral, then it's only marginally beyond being collateral. At any event, you know, we can't be allowed to turn this trial into the trial of People versus Fuhrman or rather Cochran versus Fuhrman or Simpson versus Fuhrman or whomever--Bailey versus Fuhrman. We've heard this word thrown around throughout the courtroom today. I've heard that term more by Mr. Bailey than any other white individual I've ever heard it from in my entire life, and I'm sure a lot of people--

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Darden, why don't you address the legal issue that Mr. Cochran raises; that the only African American that has been proffered at this point is Mr. Hodge to say that, "I'm an African American who was referred to by Mark Fuhrman in this manner," although the record thankfully to this point is color blind as to who's who and what's what.

MR. DARDEN: Well, now we know. I mean, I think now the record indicates that everyone before Mr. Hodge was Caucasian. And the Defense chose the order of their witnesses. They knew apparently--well, I noticed, I'm sure they noticed the racial make-up of each witness they called today. Do we have to have a certain number of witnesses from certain ethnic or racial groups? Having chose the order of witnesses that they selected, to come to the court now and say, "Hey, we need to have an African American testify to this" I think is unfair. I think it's unnecessary. I think it's cumulative. As I said before, the words came in. We let them come in, Judge. We didn't fight it. You know, we fought our battle under 352 and in 402's and before the court, and when it came time to present this testimony before the jury, we let it come. This is enough. There is still the issue of the mini trial of Mr. Hodge, and it's going to take I believe well beyond this afternoon. If Mr. Cochran is 20 minutes with Mr. Hodge, we will be here until 5:30 on cross.

THE COURT: Well, why would you do that? Why would the Prosecution do that? Why wouldn't the Prosecution just say, "Gee, Mr. Hodge, you found it insulting? Gee, that's horrible. Thank you very much. Goodbye"?

MR. DARDEN: Well, we gave the court some information under 1054.7. That's why.

THE COURT: I understand that. But given what you're dealing with at this point--but I'm more interested in Mr. Cochran's proffer that this is the only African American who is going to be offered who is going to say that, "Mr. Fuhrman referred to me in this way, under these circumstances."

MR. DARDEN: Well, as my colleagues have pointed out to me, if he was so important to the Defense, why then didn't they call him earlier? I mean, you mentioned to the Defense and have over the past several days the issue--the 352 issue as to whether or not some of this testimony is cumulative.

THE COURT: I have given them pretty good warning that at some point in time, it will be redundant.

MR. DARDEN: Yeah. You know, you put me in an awful position when you ask me to argue to you why an African American shouldn't be allowed to testify in front of this jury, Judge.

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Darden, sincerely, I apologize to you for putting you in that position. But you're a professional. I--you know, you and I have known each other for years and years and years. I know you've up to it. I know that I--this think is a tremendous burden that's placed upon you and I don't envy your position, but nor do I envy my own.

MR. DARDEN: You know how it feels. But I would say this. That I have some doubt that what he says occurred, and so I feel ethically and morally bound to cross-examine him on those issues. But there are issues of whether or not he was arrested and acquitted and all kinds of other things, on whether Fuhrman is the arresting officer or the transporting officer. There's all kinds of issues that have to be dealt with, your Honor. Then we have to call other people to follow up on this stuff. I mean, you know, Marcia Clark and Cheri Lewis and I, you know, we don't like these words, you know--

THE COURT: Well, let me ask another interesting question. Mr. Cochran, do you have an arrest report to support this incident?

MR. COCHRAN: No, I don't, your Honor. I don't have an arrest report. I talked to this witness. He has a lawyer who is present and--

THE COURT: Do you have a court file that--you said that there was a--that the subsequent arrest and Prosecution resulted in an acquittal?

MR. COCHRAN: No, I don't have it. I have the Defendant himself who said he was a former Defendant, that he was arrested for--

THE COURT: No. I'm just asking.

MR. COCHRAN: No, I don't. I have the Defendant, former Defendant, and the lawyer himself, your Honor.

THE COURT: The lawyer who defended him in that case?

MR. COCHRAN: No. His present lawyer. He now lives in another state. He's been out here for over a week. Can I respond just briefly, your Honor?

THE COURT: No. Why don't you answer my--

MR. COCHRAN: No.

THE COURT: I'm not done discussing the matter with Mr. Darden.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. No, I don't have the court file.

MR. BAILEY: We'll make a copy.

MR. COCHRAN: Maybe the lawyer does.

MR. DARDEN: Well, let's see what they have. I guess today is race day.

(Brief pause.)

MR. COCHRAN: All I have is a couple pages of an arrest report indicating Fuhrman as one of the arresting officers.

THE COURT: All right. May I see that, please?

MR. DARDEN: May I explain to the court my understanding of that issue?

THE COURT: Let me see what the arrest report says.

MR. BAILEY: Excuse me, your Honor. Would you like me to print that page?

THE COURT: Which?

MR. BAILEY: 18899.

THE COURT: No. I am quite familiar with it. Ah, a phone.

MR. DARDEN: Take it. Take it. It's Betty Goldman's phone. Take it, Judge.

THE COURT: It was.

MR. DARDEN: May I see what the court is looking at?

THE COURT: I'm sorry?

MR. DARDEN: Can I see?

THE COURT: Certainly.

MR. COCHRAN: May I address the court in this regard?

THE COURT: Let Mr. Darden peruse the report.

MR. COCHRAN: Sure.

(Brief pause.)

MR. DARDEN: This report is not dated and Mr. Hodge is listed as an outstanding suspect in the report. He's not listed as having been arrested.

THE COURT: The DR number though indicates it's an `87 incident.

MR. DARDEN: It is an `87 incident.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Can I explain to the court my understanding of what happened here? As I understand it, officers other than Officer Fuhrman observed Mr. Hodge sell cocaine to a gentleman named Thompson.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I object to that because this man was acquitted of that and it's unfair to him to say that in court. This man was acquitted and I think that's unfair.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: And he has been acquitted. If I could just continue. That was the allegation. The officers moved in to arrest Mr. Hodge and Mr. Thompson. Mr. Hodge fled. As he fled, he apparently encountered Officer Fuhrman, knocking Fuhrman to the ground. Hodge got away and was listed as an outstanding suspect on this 11352 arrest report. Mr. Thompson and Mr. Hodge were later prosecuted and Mr. Hodge was acquitted of the narcotics sales. Officer Fuhrman did not testify in the narcotics case because he was not a witness to the alleged transaction, okay. So that Mr. Hodge was acquitted at trial on the narcotics violation is irrelevant. In fact, Mr. Fuhrman was not listed as a witness by the Prosecution in that matter.

THE COURT: All right. Does the District Attorney have a file in this case?

MR. DARDEN: I have a file on Hodge and Thompson, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: May I be heard now, your Honor?

THE COURT: Hold on. Then this was an arrest warrant situation with Mr. Hodge?

MR. DARDEN: Yeah. It was an arrest warrant situation. This transaction, the narcotics transaction occurred on January 10 as I recall. He was arrested on the 13th.

THE COURT: And that's as a result of an arrest warrant?

MR. DARDEN: I believe so.

THE COURT: And, Mr. Cochran, it's then at that point in time it's alleged that Detective Fuhrman said to Mr. Hodge, "Aha, I told you we'd get you."

MR. COCHRAN: Yes, your Honor. May I put it in perspective for you? What happened was, Mr. Hodge knew Mr. Fuhrman very, very well. He stopped him over 20 times, harassing him, messing with him, and he had called and made complaints about it. They would stop him all the time. Stopped him once on a bicycle. Stopped him on this occasion. He never knew it was Fuhrman that he ran into. In fact, he was charged with battering a police officer. Now, don't you think if they could make that case, that he ran into this officer intentionally, he would have been charged with a crime? That charge was dismissed. That's what happened. When he arrested him on this occasion and he had him spread eagle in an alleyway, and Fuhrman and his partner walked up and lifted him up by his handcuffs and took him and put him in their car, took him to jail and turned back and said, "I told you I would get you," so and so, with a racial slur. And then when he--so I mean, it's absolutely clear. They can try to hide all this. They can ask him whatever they want to ask. But this is the one witness that we have who has been confronted by this man, who had contact with him, who can testify, your Honor, to how this man acted in the streets vis-à-vis him. And I agree it's irrelevant and immaterial what happened at the trial. I don't plan to bring out he was acquitted unless they want to go into that. I don't want to go into that. I told you what I wanted to go into, your Honor.

MR. DARDEN: Wasn't that offer of proof different from the ones we've heard so far? We've heard so far something at the jail and something in the car. Now, we have something at the scene where he's lifted up--

THE COURT: No. My understanding of the material aspect of the offer was that at the time of the arrest, while in the car, while in the police car, while Mr. Hodge was back in the custody section of the patrol car, Detective Fuhrman turned to him and said, "I told you we'd get you," et cetera. That's the offer of proof that I heard thus far.

MR. COCHRAN: That's right, your Honor.

THE COURT: Also heard the bending over incident.

MR. COCHRAN: Strip search at the jail, strip search at the jail later. Recall that?

THE COURT: I recall that. I don't know that it's necessarily material to anything.

MR. COCHRAN: I just wanted to make sure we did talk about that also.

THE COURT: Yes, we did talk about that.

MR. DARDEN: Then there's the matter of his numerous contact with law enforcement, and doesn't appear all those contacts involve Detective Fuhrman. Those are issues to cross-examine him on. The 20 to 25 contacts that Mr. Cochran has alluded to today, there appears to be no record of all of those contacts between he and Detective Fuhrman.

THE COURT: How do you--

MR. DARDEN: And then there's the 1054.7 package we gave the court.

THE COURT: Well, that may become germaine in impeachment. Then we turn into the trial of Mr. Hodge.

MR. DARDEN: Trial no. 3.

MR. COCHRAN: May I respond, your Honor?

THE COURT: Well, I'm just musing at this point. All right. Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes. So we can get right to this. We're trying to get this testimony up, your Honor. Since we began our case six weeks ago, they've objected to every witness we've ever called. This is nothing new. We made you the offer of proof. We spelled it out as much as we can. They have what we have. I can't control what they do in cross-examination. We welcome their cross-examination. We welcome to spend the next couple hours with this jury if they want to do it. The relevant portion is this witness they're trying to protect refer to this man by the "N" word. It's inappropriate. He's an African American. We should have the right to do that. He's the one witness, and it goes directly to impeach what he said to Bailey. And the other things, I'm not that worried about. The other trial, I'm not worried about. We're trying to cut through this and get to McKinny and get to the end of this case, Judge. That's all we're trying to do. And I indicated to you in the best world, you give me a ruling, I could do this and I'd have Hodge come after her because we want to make certain points to you on McKinny. But as I said, I would be willing to be governed by what you would order in this regard.

MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, they could have put Mr. Hodge on last week.

MR. COCHRAN: Let me address that. Yes, I could have called Hodge. They said why don't we call Hodge. I was going to call Hodge on Friday. And then you'll recall, your Honor, you started talking about cumulative, and that's why I specifically got this particular excerpt from the transcript, to point out to your Honor exactly why this is relevant. Yes, we had Hodge here. Hodge came here from Chicago, Judge. He's been here like over a week because we don't want to run out of witnesses. Yes, we could have called him. We could have called Singer. We could have called Terry. But the court did indicate to us at some point this would become cumulative. And as you recall, we listened. And so we're trying to fashion this in a fashion now so it's no longer you think it's cumulative and redundant so we can resolve this point. These are the last two witnesses in this area. Hodge stands by himself, and you know the situation with McKinny and we need hearings before we get to McKinny.

MR. DARDEN: Judge, are you going to let Miss McKinny testify that he used the word 41 times? Now--

MR. COCHRAN: Judge, can I say something? This is their witness. We didn't make this up. This is their witness. So now they're stuck with it. Can't we just get this on and stop all this whining? Let's get it over with, can't we?

MR. DARDEN: You know, the Goldman's and Brown's have rights too.

MR. COCHRAN: That's preposterous. Do we to hear this every few minutes?

THE COURT: Wait, wait, wait, wait. All right. You propose to present Mr. Hodge, and then you want to argue the motion on the scope of McKinny?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes. And the motion for reconsideration that I think the court is aware of which all ties in. And then we'll be ready to proceed on that. And I think you got our papers. They filed something. And that's it. I think that will take us to the end of the day.

MR. DARDEN: Judge, if they insist on going on with this racial business, I think it would only be fair that the court require them to call McKinny now so that we can then take up the 352 issue again as to Hodge. I mean, at some point, it is cumulative.

MR. COCHRAN: They argued already, your Honor.

MR. DARDEN: Well, we have argued already. Now they want you to reconsider the past arguments, the P's and A's and proffer and submissions.

THE COURT: See, they're gambling too that I'm not going to find McKinny cumulative at that point since I haven't heard Hodge.

MR. COCHRAN: Judge, you just heard me say however--did you hear me say, however, the best of the situation, I want you to rule on Hodge and I wanted to call McKinny first. I said that very clearly, your Honor. So it's not much of a gamble if I get the ruling, we'll move ahead. I pared it down. We're trying to try this case and get it over with. That's it.

MR. DARDEN: I'm sorry. Why are we arguing Hodge now if McKinny is coming first?

MR. COCHRAN: Because the court will recall why I said that in the beginning. Because I said that once you gave us the ruling, we'd know how we finish out the day and be ready to come back tomorrow, whatever we got left, and that this would make it a lot easier, because I said, if you felt this jury needed to hear something else, I would move Hodge up if you felt that. But in the best of all worlds, I wanted Hodge after McKinny. I thought I made it very clear. I said that a number of times, your Honor. I would like to be able to proceed, your Honor.

MR. DARDEN: Judge, this is all collateral. Isn't genocide enough? Isn't having witnesses testified that Mark Fuhrman--

THE COURT: Well, counsel, would you do me one favor though? The argument, the only argument that Mr. Cochran has made that has any merit to it is the fact that Mr. Hodge is an African American. This is--and this is the only individual that they have proffered to whom this was said by Detective Fuhrman.

MR. DARDEN: And the probative value, the fact that Mr. Hodge is African American is what given what we have heard already? Okay. I think it would be apparent to the jury that Mr. Hodge is included in all of the--in the genocide and all the other things that Detective Fuhrman allegedly said and was testified to here in court. Okay. What is the probative value of that?

MR. COCHRAN: May I answer that, your Honor? The probative value is that it's directly impeaching of Detective Fuhrman. I want to deal with this on a legal basis. All this emotion kind of goes by the way side. This is impeaching of their witness, and that's all we're asking to do, your Honor. It's impeaching, and you can cut right though the chase and to the argument issues here, and that's the issue. We have a right to do that. And that's all we're asking to do. I would just ask you to allow us to do it after McKinny however.

MR. DARDEN: We have all but conceded the issue, Judge.

THE COURT: All but. All right. My inclination at this point, because it is a statement that is directly contradictory, what was testified to, is to allow that statement in the police car period. The fact of the arrest, fact of prior acquaintanceship, prior contacts upon the arrest in January of `87 in the police car, this statement was made period. All right? That's the ruling.

MR. DARDEN: May we--

THE COURT: Who is your next witness?

MR. COCHRAN: Given that, can we now argue the motion on McKinny, save some time? We would like to proceed with Dean Uelmen with regard to Miss McKinny.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. COCHRAN: My colleagues are telling me we'll call Hodge first. We'll proceed.

THE COURT: All right. Do you have your package on Hodge, Mr. Darden. I'm addressing Mr. Darden. Do you have your package on Mr. Hodge?

MS. LEWIS: We do have two boxes. We didn't bring all but two to court.

THE COURT: We also had your representation, Mr. Cochran, you were going to call McKinny. So let's go with McKinny. I'm not going to wait for them to bring down all their boxes.

MR. COCHRAN: Before we call McKinny, will the court listen to Mr. Uelmen?

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Uelmen.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Miss Lewis, are you going to argue this?

MS. LEWIS: I'm sorry, your Honor?

THE COURT: Are you arguing the motion to reconsider? Mr. Uelmen.

MS. LEWIS: Miss Clark is going to be arguing that, your Honor.

MR. UELMEN: Thank you, your Honor. I appreciate the opportunity.

MS. LEWIS: I'm sorry to interrupt, but has the court had the opportunity to read the brief that I filed in response?

THE COURT: Yes.

MS. LEWIS: Thank you.

MR. UELMEN: Your Honor--

THE COURT: Which is essentially the Christian Riechardt response with some modifications.

MS. LEWIS: That's right. It's the same law.

THE COURT: I read it.

MR. UELMEN: I would like to start with, we don't have a message from God, but a lot has happened since somebody tried to deliver that message this morning, and I think we need to look at this issue in the context in which the court must now address the testimony of Miss McKinny, and that posture is very different than it was even yesterday. As the court initially approached this problem, it viewed the Defense's attack on the credibility of Detective Fuhrman--

THE COURT: Well, let's focus in on what's changed between last week and today.

MR. UELMEN: All right. We now, your Honor, have five counts of perjury. Detective Fuhrman not only testified that he had not used the word, the "N" word in 10 years, but he also testified, your Honor will recall, that as soon as he got the word that robbery-homicide was taking over the case, he went and waited on the street. We now have testimony from Mr. Rokahr that after that call would have come in about robbery-homicide taking over the case, Detective Fuhrman is guiding the photographer through the crime scene. Your Honor will also recall--and this is count 3--that Detective Fuhrman testified that before he went to the Rockingham scene, the closest he got to the physical evidence surrounding the bodies was standing on a landing looking down at them, and he testified that another detective pointed out to him where the glove and the hat were. That your Honor appears at pages 18134 through 18136 of the transcript. Count 4 is that Detective Fuhrman testified under oath that the photograph depicting him kneeling in the midst of the crime scene pointing to the hat and the glove with his finger inches from the glove was taken at 7:00 A.M. after he had been to Rockingham and returned to the Bundy scene to compare the gloves and see if the Bundy glove was similar to the glove he allegedly had just discovered at Rockingham. And that testimony appears at 18369 through 18371 of the transcript. And count 5 we would contend is the inconsistency between Detective Fuhrman's description of the door of the Bronco when he said he saw a second stain with four brush marks and the testimony of criminalist Fung who testified that the only way you could observe those brush marks was if the door of the Bronco was open, contradicting Detective Fuhrman's testimony that he had never opened the door of the Bronco or been into the Bronco. Now, the significance of all of that is that when we talk about the credibility of Detective Fuhrman, what motive would he have to lie about how close he got to the evidence in this case? What motive would there be to try to cover up the fact that this photograph was actually taken earlier in the morning hours shortly after the photographer arrived and took the setting shots that here we have indisputable evidence of Detective Fuhrman kneeling in the midst of the evidence with his finger inches away from the glove? Why would there be any reason to lie about that except to try to disguise and conceal the access and the opportunity that Detective Fuhrman actually had. Now, I think that's important because your Honor was deciding this motion with respect to the Laura McKinny tapes based on a false premise. And the false premise was the argument by the People that there's no way this could have happened because someone was with Fuhrman every minute. He didn't have access to the evidence. So there's no way he could have physically picked up a glove and taken that glove to the Rockingham premises. I think the other false premise of the court's ruling was that the Defense theory is simply to prove that Detective Fuhrman moved a glove from one place to the other in order to frame an innocent man. And that, of course, has never been our contention. We don't of course have the burden of explaining how that glove got to Rockingham, but we are certainly contending it didn't get there by O.J. Simpson transporting it there. But the motive for a detective to bring evidence from one scene to another may have been other than simply a conscious effort to frame an innocent person. It may have been simply to take probable cause with you when you go to a scene so that you will be sure to be able to get a search warrant, you will be sure to be able to search for all of the evidence that you think you might find if you have already come to the conclusion that you got the right suspect. And that is why we believe that the words of Detective Fuhrman on those tapes are so critical and so relevant and so essential to the Defense theory of the case, because on those tapes, you have Detective Fuhrman claiming the ability by instinct to determine who is worthy of being arrested and convicted of a crime. You have him admitting that on occasion, he himself has made up the probable cause necessary to carry out an arrest. You have him describing how he believes a police officer should act immediately on his instinct and then make up the reasons later. And we believe there is ample reason in this record right now to believe that that is precisely what happened in this case, and we have a right to confront Detective Fuhrman with these statements by him in terms of the way in which he went about getting probable cause in other cases.

THE COURT: That's a completely different argument, counsel. Whether or not you have the right to recall Detective Fuhrman and confront him with these things? That's a different issue.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, I take it then your Honor's ruling--and this is one point of clarification that will be very helpful to us. Your Honor's ruling does not preclude us from questioning Detective Fuhrman about the information on that tape when we get him on the witness stand.

THE COURT: That issue is not presented.

MR. UELMEN: All right. Thank you. That's a very helpful clarification. With respect to the portions of the tape that your Honor indicated we can play at this point when we call Miss McKinny to the stand, your Honor indicated that we could elicit that the epitaph was used 41 times in the period 1985 and 1986. I believe your Honor may have misspoke in the order because the evidence is that in 1985 and 1986, the epitaph was used 35 times. Six of the uses of the epitaph occurred in 1987 and 1988.

THE COURT: The problem I have with that factual assertion is the labeling on the tapes themselves.

MR. UELMEN: I believe the testimony of Miss McKinny at the 402 supported that, that the tapes from which we have five of the--of the uses of the term were made in--well, was made in 1987 and the transcript in which we have the 41st use of the term was in 1988.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. UELMEN: So what we would like to do is elicit that the term was used 41 times between 1985 and 1988. The single tape that your Honor selected that the jury could hear of Detective Fuhrman actually uttering the epitaph--and I don't know whether this was accidental or your Honor consciously tried to find a tape where Detective Fuhrman's voice would be least recognizable or least legible, but--

THE COURT: Why would I do that?

MR. UELMEN: Well, that's what we were trying to figure out. But that is the fact, your Honor. Of the one incident that you indicated we could use the tape, the voice of Detective Fuhrman is lost in a clatter of background noise and it truly is of the 40--well, of the 18 or 19 that we have on tape, really the least legible of all of them. And we have some alternatives that we believe are no more inflammatory, no more prejudicial than the one that your Honor selected in which the voice can be heard much more legibly, and we would ask your Honor to seriously consider allowing us to use an alternative to the particular item that you selected just for purpose of--

THE COURT: And which two are those?

MR. UELMEN: We have a tape, your Honor, with the alternatives available that I think we can play in like five minutes so your Honor would have an opportunity of seeing--

THE COURT: Well, tell me which one they are. Since I've been over these things several times, I'll recollect which ones they are.

MR. UELMEN: They are 17, 18--

THE COURT: That's two.

MR. UELMEN: 26 and 27.

THE COURT: Sounds like four to me.

MR. UELMEN: Well, these are four alternatives in which the voice can be much more clearly heard than in the alternative that your Honor selected.

THE COURT: And what is the text in your transcript for 17--17 and 18 my recollection were a dual usage in a single passage, correct?

MR. UELMEN: I believe so.

(Brief pause.)

MR. UELMEN: 17 would be the--practicing his martial art movements, the term is "Niggers, they're easy. I used to practice my kicks." 18, "Don't they think they are physically capable? They can arm wrestle six foot seven inch N's." 26 would just be the first two lines, "Westwood is gone. The "N's" have discovered it when they start moving into Redondo and Torrance." And that would be all we would use. And 27 is discussing female police officers. "They don't do anything. They don't go out there and initiate a contact with some six foot five "N" that's been in prison for seven years pumping weights." On all of these, the voice of Detective Fuhrman is recognizable, the use of the term is recognizable, and we don't believe that either of those facts are true with respect to the single taped incident that your Honor previously indicated we would be allowed to use. The final point I want to make then--I know your Honor has read our papers and seriously thought about the scope of your Honor's ruling--is the extent of eliminating all but use of the word when the context in which the word is used itself reflects the racial animus. And we believe that even if Detective Fuhrman had never been asked, "Have you used the "N" word in the last 10 years," even if that question had never been asked, even if he hadn't lied about it, the facts of his racial animus would still be admissible to challenge his credibility. And by sanitizing these tapes to remove the racial animus, we are depriving the jury of evidence that it needs to assess the weight that should be given to his testimony. And I think it would be quite reasonable for a jury to look in terms of what weight they're going to give to a person's testimony. And here we're talking about all of his testimony, his testimony about entering the Bronco, his testimony about what he did at the Bundy crime scene before he went to Rockingham. All of his testimony. They are going to look at someone who is a virulent, spiteful, angry racist differently than they're going to look at someone who is a casual racist, who is not animated and motivated.

THE COURT: But given the testimony of Miss Bell who said that it caused her to almost--to break into tears, that he was angry and he said it in a very aggressive, hostile, arrogant way and Miss Singer's testimony which was even more graphic in describing the tone and demeanor of how it was said, haven't we established that already?

MR. UELMEN: I don't believe we have, your Honor. I don't believe we have even plumed yet the depths of the hatefulness and spite of Detective Mark Fuhrman. And until we do--

THE COURT: The issue here is whether or not the jury has sufficient information to put this man's credibility in appropriate context. That's the issue.

MR. UELMEN: Well, it's more than just a question of credibility. It's a question of what weight they will give to his testimony. And we believe that that is a quantitative as well as a qualitative judgment, and what we are doing really is depriving the jury of the quantitative portion of it. We are depriving them of really getting a flavor that we got from listening to those tapes of how trustworthy or how credible this man is.

THE COURT: I wouldn't call it a flavor.

MR. UELMEN: Well, it's certainly a distasteful flavor, but flavor it is.

THE COURT: Now, Dean Uelmen, why don't you anticipate the argument is going to be that no facts have changed. That the--for example, the photograph of Detective Fuhrman, it's apparent that it appears to be nighttime. I mean, that's something that was known to you or should have been known or should have been easily discernible based on what the photograph was and how it is depicted.

MR. UELMEN: Quite to the contrary, your Honor.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. UELMEN: What we were given at the onset of this trial was a stack of photographs without any order, without any indication in what order they were taken. Many of them were flash photographs, and you can't necessarily tell just by looking at a flash photograph whether it was taken at day or night. I think on close examination of this photograph, there are indications that someone whose clued in or tuned in to that--to that problem can tell. But the--when you look at the sequence of the contact print, it's overwhelming the significance of depriving us of the opportunity of seeing these photographs in sequence. And that's why we're asking for sanctions and we think very serious sanctions are warranted. Your Honor was actually deprived of the information you should have had before you even considered the admissibility of the McKinny tapes because this evidence had not yet even been produced at that time. It was only when it was to the convenience and to the benefit of the Prosecution to put contact prints together because their witness from the FBI asked for them that we ever had the opportunity to see the sequence of these photographs. That is a cover up. It is a cover up of perjured testimony in this case. That's the only way to look at it. And we were deprived of that information until one week ago when we saw those contact prints for the first time even though we had asked for those contact prints months ago at the outset of this trial and were told it was impossible, they could not produce contact prints. We believe that evidence is highly significant not only to your Honor's ruling, but, of course, to the credibility of Detective Fuhrman.

THE COURT: Thank you, counsel. Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: We're about neck deep in rhetoric hyperbole. I'm not going to add to it, but if you can call a contact sheet evidence of a cover up, I guess you can see where the Defense argument is smoke and mirrors and a lot of hot air and a lot of big talk and a lot of nasty accusations that aren't backed up with evidence. What we have here in these contact sheets is nothing more than they've already had throughout this trial. Those photographs, your Honor, all have numbers stamped on them. The sequence is shown on the photographs themselves. You can't miss it. I mean, that's how I was able to sequence them.

I got a stack of photographs in the beginning of this case that I had to sit down and put in sequence, and I did it by looking at the number that's stamped on the lower right-hand corner of each and every photograph that they have and that we have. And nothing's being covered up. There's nothing hidden. They've always known the sequence of these photographs. If they couldn't figure it out, they could ask us. I could tell them. There's a number on the photograph. It's very simple stuff, you know. There's nothing to get all excited about, a conspiracy. We didn't go and black out the numbers on their copy, your Honor. We wouldn't have had time. Who would want to? They have them. They have all that information. Look at what you've got. I can give it to them. I can't make them read it. The bottom line, they've had it now for over a year, and now they're complaining they didn't know how to put them in sequence. I hope that's not what they're arguing, but that's the value of the argument that you're getting here. Now, they wanted a contact sheet. They get it. It adds no new information. And that this is a cover up is ridiculous. It is absurd.

Mr. Uelmen stands up and argues out of both sides of his mouth simultaneously. What a feat. He says that you cannot really tell when pictures are taken with a flash whether it's during the daytime or at night, but except in these two last ones with Detective Fuhrman, you can really tell. Oh, come on. If you can't tell, you can't tell. That's the bottom line. And me, I look at the photographs, the last two in the roll, it's very apparent what happened here. Rokahr was at the scene for quite a long time. In-between his overalls, he took the first 33. They are all overalls of the general scene and none of them are specifically of any item of evidence. It is not until much later when Detective Fuhrman gets back and does as instructed by Detective Vannatter, to go look at the glove and see if they look like a match pair, that he goes over and points it out. Now, he's not the only one who testified to that. Officer Riske said that just before he got off duty at 7:30, he saw Officer Fuhrman come back from Rockingham, take the photographer over to the scene and move the bush back so he could point out the evidence. And that area happens to be dark with foliage as Rokahr testified. There's no big mystery here and not--rudeness of counsel or not their unfounded allegations will change the truth.

THE COURT: Why don't you address the legal issue on motions to reconsider, counsel.

MS. CLARK: Yes. And that's--I meant to start with that, your Honor. I got sidetracked.

THE COURT: That would help.

MS. CLARK: There is no--I'm sorry. There is no legal provision for motion to reconsideration in criminal law. That is only in civil law. It is recognized in civil code of procedure section 1008, and what they require in civil law is that the parties seeking reconsideration show newly discovered facts. In this case, we have no newly discovered facts with respect to the motion for reconsideration of Laura McKinny.

THE COURT: But doesn't--don't the--doesn't the case law dealing with that particular code section include criminal cases; if you shepherdize that, you come up with some criminal cases?

MS. CLARK: We did. I don't believe none were found, your Honor. I didn't--we don't have any in our motion, which leads me to believe that no, there aren't any criminal cases under that section.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. CLARK: You asked me that question because you knew Miss Lewis wrote this motion, huh? But no, as far as I know, there are no criminal law cases that involve that section because it's not recognized in criminal law. So I mean, at least in theory, we didn't have to have all the argument.

THE COURT: But my Pepperdine law clerks found some.

MS. CLARK: Did they? Criminal cases? And what do they say?

THE COURT: They say it's applicable in criminal law cases.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Never the less--

THE COURT: And it deals with sanctions.

MS. CLARK: I'm sorry, your Honor?

THE COURT: Never mind. There's a rule in the civil procedure that an unfounded motion for reconsideration is the subject of sanction. Just an aside. Not relevant to this situation.

MS. CLARK: Oh. You saw my motion coming. But with respect to this particular case, they don't have newly discovered evidence to point to, your Honor. The contact sheet doesn't qualify. That contact sheet has nothing--is nothing but a collection of the photographs they've had for a year and three months. So we have nothing new that has been offered to this court. We do have, however, as I've indicated to the court earlier, Officer Riske testified that he saw the photograph being taken at 7:00 A.M. shortly before he got off duty. Mr. Uelmen poses the question why lie about the time. Well, that's to cover up. If that's to cover up the ability or opportunity to conceal or move evidence, then why is he standing there in the photograph pointing to the evidence? I mean, isn't that the stupidest thing you've ever heard? "Hi, mom, you know, I'm going to move some evidence now." What is this? If he's trying to hide himself and conceal himself, then you certainly do not get close to the evidence. You don't step into the scene. You don't stand there and point to it. You stay way back in the shadows. That's not what he did. That's clearly not what he did. He was working. He was doing as he was told. Detective Vannatter told him what to do and he did it. It's very, very clear what happened and all of these nefarious implications that they're seeking to draw from very minor things, you know, that in no case would you ever see anyone try to make as big a deal as they have about a contact sheet. It doesn't mean it's so just because they keep saying it, your Honor. It's nothing more than the barest of allegations. That's all it is. They have nothing to back up any of this stuff, just like they have nothing to back up the motion for reconsideration. And in this case, you want to reconsider something, let me ask you this. You've allowed Miss Bell to testify to the utterance in 1985. You've allowed Miss Singer to testify to two very ugly utterances in 1987. Now, you propose to allow for Mr. Hodge to testify, although I concur with mr. Darden, I do not think that he adds any probative value to the nature of the impeachment which is concededly collateral at best. He adds nothing to them. If that's the state of the record, why are we allowing McKinny at all? She will do nothing more than reassert that at the relevant time frame that the Defense has established, `85 to `87, he used the racial epitaph. Now, isn't her testimony, McKinny's testimony, wholly cumulative at this point? We have gotten from two women and a man who happens to be African American that the racial epitaph was used. So now they've established that he uses it to talk about African American people and he uses it to address African American people directly. What more can you do to impeach? I mean, what can you do? They'd like to be doing it for the next two years if they could. But what is appropriate in this trial? You know, the court has ruled that at a certain point, it gets collateral. Well, we submit that if the court does allow Mr. Hodge to testify, it will then be completely collateral because Miss McKinny will truly be cumulative on every issue whether he uses the word in speaking of or when he addresses in speaking to. In fact, in some sense, Miss McKinny is impeaching because she has him speaking to an African American man and never using the word. Nevertheless, your Honor, that is now truly cumulative. What is the point in Miss McKinny? The People would urge this court yes, to reconsider. Please do. Reconsider that Miss McKinny is now not needed based on newly discovered fact that Mr. Hodge will be allowed to testify. Mr. Hodge will be allowed to complete the picture for them, a very ugly picture that really has no bearing on this case. And it's unfortunate that we have to paint that ugly picture for this jury again, but I cannot not see how this would possibly add any information that is relevant to the picture that this jury has of this case.

Mr. Uelmen is right in a sense. You know, they will view Mr. Fuhrman as a racist--I cannot imagine arguing differently to this jury--and they will put his credibility in its proper perspective. If they have their way, however, Mr. Fuhrman's attitudes, social attitudes will become the focal issue of this trial, and the fact that he had no opportunity to do any of the actions that they attempt to attribute to him in this case will become irrelevant because the jury will be so inflamed, it will not matter to them any longer whether Mark Fuhrman could or could not have moved the glove. And Mr. Uelmen wants to paint the distinction between a hostile racist and a casual racist. I don't know how anyone can be a casual racist. I mean, that's to me an oxymoron. You know, you can't be that kind of an evil person and be casual about such a thing. It just doesn't happen. They've painted Mr. Fuhrman as being a racist. There's no doubt about it. With the additional testimony of Mr. Hodge, they will have completed that picture, spread enough venom in this courtroom to sink a battleship. We've done it enough, and Miss McKinny is simply no longer necessary after Mr. Hodge's testimony. And we submit to this court that although it was unfortunate that we had to spend as much time as we did outside of the presence of the jury litigating the McKinny tapes, based on the actions of the Defense, the Defense has put us in this posture now, I think that your admission of the Hodge testimony should properly preclude them from calling Miss McKinny. And that's enough, your Honor. That's enough. Yes, the credibility of all witnesses is in issue, but his credibility is a very limited issue in this case, because in point of fact, he could not have done what they're trying to prove he did. So it's for what? It is only collateral impeachment, and to that end, those three witnesses are more, much more than they're entitled to. We would urge the court to reconsider as the Defense has, but to reconsider appropriately not to allow Miss McKinny to testify at all.

MR. UELMEN: Three very brief points, your Honor.

THE COURT: Reminds me of the Chinese proverb, be careful what you ask for.

MR. UELMEN: The suggestion that the Prosecution was well aware of the sequence of these photographs raises lots of questions in my mind in terms of whether it explains the refusal of the Prosecution to make contact prints available or to make the negatives available from which we could make contact prints. It suggests to me that from the outset of the case, they were aware of the problems that might create--that have been created.

THE COURT: But, Mr. Uelmen, let's take for granted that, you know, data backs on the back of cameras are in common usage. You can pay 40 bucks at Fedco and get a camera that's got one of these things, and it numbers or dates the pictures. It gives you a sequence. I've seen the photographs. They do have the sequences. So it's not the strongest argument. The argument that concerns me the most is Miss Clark's argument that I should reconsider the entire ruling and preclude Miss McKinny in her entirety because now that you have Singer and Hodge and Bell, you've got more than you asked for in the first place.

MR. UELMEN: Your Honor--

THE COURT: That's the argument you need to deal with.

MR. UELMEN: All right. Let me address that, because obviously the point at which we want the jury to end up is to reject Detective Fuhrman's testimony in its entirety. And as your Honor is aware, the instruction that informs the jury they may do that is, if they find that a witness was willfully false in a material part of his testimony, willfully false means that we not only have to show that Detective Fuhrman was wrong when he said he had not used the "N" word, but that he knew he was wrong, he knew he was lying. And if the argument can be made--I'm sure it will be made and we will hear it from the Prosecution at the end of this case--that why would Detective Fuhrman remember casual encounters with two woman in 1985 and 1986, every iota of evidence that we have that shows the frequency with which he used this term goes to that question of whether he was willfully lying when he said he had not used the word. We believe the fact that he used it 41 times in the course of transcribed tape-recorded conversations and the fact that he was well aware that transcripts and tapes of these conversations were in existence would have gone through his mind at the very moment he uttered the perjured testimony that he presented in this court. So we believe it's not cumulative at all. It goes right to the heart of the question the jury's going to have to resolve of whether he was willfully lying when he presented that falsehood to them. And finally, your Honor, we would like the opportunity to have the court review the alternative tapes that we have available. We believe it's very important for the jury to hear Detective Fuhrman's own words, and we believe that since your Honor has determined that one of these taped excerpts is appropriate, that it should be a tape excerpt that is audible in which his voice can be identified. Can we play the tape for your Honor?

THE COURT: I recollect the tape, counsel.

MR. UELMEN: Thank you.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, the People did not--we didn't get a chance to address the request to change the excerpts.

THE COURT: Well, I think the argument is over at this point, counsel. Since this is a motion to reconsider, I don't believe that that particular issue is--well, simple enough. In making my original ruling regarding Miss McKinny and determining what should come in, the court's thought process was I think pretty obvious, that the issue was Detective Fuhrman's use of the racial epitaph in a disparaging manner. And in reviewing the 41 offered incidents of that usage, the court wanted to find examples that would not then go on to include other offensive material as well, including physical abuse of other people, some other violent act, that sort of thing. So these were the most sanitized usage of the racial epitaph the court could find. In reviewing this, the court listened to the tapes and then primarily worked from the transcripts in making the ruling. And, Mr. Uelmen, I will concede that in selecting the excerpt to be played, I did not then go back and listen to the quality of the tape. So I will agree that that particular excerpt, the one where Detective Fuhrman discusses why black Muslims live in a particular part of town, that that one is not audible in a real sense. And what the court had sought was an example of where Detective Fuhrman in his own voice makes a statement that is of such color, and I'll use your term, Mr. Uelmen, flavor that the person listening to that that understand and appreciate and evaluate whether or not that was a true statement of that person's true feelings, whether or not that statement--or whether or not that statement was role playing in the context of the screen play and to allow the juror to give to that statement the appropriate weight. I will grant the motion to reconsider for this one particular item. I will substitute excerpt 27 for the excerpt regarding the black Muslims, which number I do not recollect. This is the police officer, female police officer--so we'll get to insult them as well--dealing with six or five suspects. So you can cue that up. We'll take 10 minutes. Have Miss McKinny here.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, what about Hodge?

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

(Recess.)

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record. All right. All the parties are present. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.

MR. NEUFELD: Judge, so you know when the jury comes in, Miss Clark and I have entered into a stipulation simply as to what time the sun rose on June 13 of 1994.

THE COURT: Why don't we take that up some other time.

MR. NEUFELD: It takes thirty seconds and I wanted to do it while it was still fresh in their minds from Mr. Rokahr's testimony, your Honor.

THE COURT: I'm sorry. Let's have the jurors, please.

MR. COCHRAN: The clerk indicated I want to introduce Mr. Ken Spaulding to the jury.

THE COURT: I met Mr. Spaulding.

MR. COCHRAN: No.

THE COURT: The problem is he is not admitted pro hoc vice. He is not on the record, counsel.

MR. COCHRAN: May I so move?

THE COURT: He is not--you have to make an application.

MR. COCHRAN: He has been here for two weeks.

THE COURT: I have been thrilled to have him here. If you want him on the record, you need to file the application.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, he is actually leaving tomorrow and he is here because of this particular witness.

THE COURT: Oh, okay. Okay.

MR. COCHRAN: He has been here, your Honor, for two weeks. It is no problem, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: How many times do I need to say it?

MS. CLARK: What does he want him to do before the jury?

THE COURT: Nothing. Just to say this is one of the attorneys representing Mr. Simpson.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor. All right. And we have Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Regwan present as well.

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

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Mr. Cochran, you may call your next witness.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes. Thank you, your Honor. The Defense will next call Miss Laura Hart McKinny to the stand.

THE COURT: Before we do that, excuse me just a minute, Miss McKinny. Ladies and gentlemen, present here at counsel table is Mr. Ken Spaulding. Mr. Spaulding, would you please stand. Mr. Spaulding is an attorney from, I believe North Carolina, who has been assisting the Defense, and that explains his presence here in court. Thank you, Mr. Spaulding. Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you. Miss McKinny, please.

THE COURT: All right. Miss McKinny, would you face the clerk, please.

Laura Hart McKinny, called as a witness by the Defendant, was sworn and testified as follows:

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

MS. MCKINNY: I do.

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

MS. MCKINNY: My first name is Laura, L-A-U-R-A.

THE COURT: Why don't you pull the microphone closer, please.

MS. MCKINNY: First name Laura, L-A-U-R-A. Last name McKinny, M-C K-I-N-N-Y.

THE COURT: All right. Is that a fresh glass?

THE BAILIFF: Yes.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN

MR. COCHRAN: Good afternoon, Miss McKinny.

MS. MCKINNY: Good afternoon, Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Miss McKinny, what is your occupation?

MS. MCKINNY: I'm a filmmaker in residence at the North Carolina school of the arts school of filmmaking, professor of screen writing.

MR. COCHRAN: And that is your present occupation?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And you presently reside in North Carolina?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes, I do.

MR. COCHRAN: And you are here today pursuant to a subpoena that was issued by this court?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And how long have you been out here in California waiting to testify?

MS. MCKINNY: Three weeks.

MR. DARDEN: Objection, this is irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

MR. COCHRAN: You are here to testify today from North Carolina?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes, I am.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, in that connection, prior to moving to North Carolina, did you live in California?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: And how long had you lived in California prior to going to North Carolina?

MS. MCKINNY: Since I was twelve.

MR. COCHRAN: So a good part of your life has been spent here?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Is that correct? When did you move to North Carolina?

MS. MCKINNY: In 1993.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, when you were last here in California, what was your occupation then?

MS. MCKINNY: I was a freelance writer and I worked at UCLA as a senior learning skills counselor and also at Santa Monica Malibu unified school district as a home instructor.

MR. COCHRAN: And how long did you have those two occupations, both at UCLA and the Malibu school district?

MS. MCKINNY: I started working for Malibu school district in 1974 or 1973, and for UCLA in 1983.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, I would like to direct your attention back to the month of April of 1985. Did you have occasion during that month and during that year to meet an individual by the name of Mark Fuhrman?

MS. MCKINNY: I'm sorry, what was the month again, please?

MR. COCHRAN: I think April of 1985 or thereabouts?

MS. MCKINNY: It was February.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

MS. MCKINNY: 1985, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Let's specifically direct you back to February of 1985. And did you have occasion to meet Mark Fuhrman during that time frame?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: Would you tell the jury where you were at the time that you first met Mark Fuhrman. You might pull the microphone up a little bit closer to you.

MS. MCKINNY: (Witness complies.) All right. I was at a cafe in Westwood. I don't remember the name of the cafe, but I believe it was on Westwood Boulevard.

MR. COCHRAN: And what happened? How did you happen to meet Mr. Fuhrman at that time?

MS. MCKINNY: I was sitting in the outside of the cafe. There were tables on the outside and I was sitting there. I was working on my laptop computer and a man dressed in street clothes came up and asked me about my computer. That was a fairly common thing for people to do then because this was a time when laptops weren't that familiar to people and often people would come and ask me what it was and how you used it. So this man asked me what I was doing and what that was and I explained to him that it was a laptop and explained to him how it worked.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. This was in February of 1985?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Thereafter, during that conversation, did you have occasion to--strike that. Were you working on some particular project at that time?

MS. MCKINNY: At the time--

MR. COCHRAN: At the time when you first met Detective Fuhrman?

MS. MCKINNY: I was transcribing some notes and at the time I was thinking about developing a story about women in the police department and to what extent they were successful in different--different kind of areas. I was thinking of particular areas of high crime.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, after you first met Mark Fuhrman in February of 1985 did you thereafter have further meetings with him?

MS. MCKINNY: (No audible response.)

MR. COCHRAN: After your initial meeting in February of 1985?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Tell us about those meetings. And did you at some point engage him as a consultant or an advisor for a screenplay you were working on?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: Tell us about that.

MS. MCKINNY: During our first meeting Officer Fuhrman at that time told me he was an officer, and he was interested in my idea of working on a story about women in--on the police department, and the extent to which they could succeed in areas of high crime. Officer Fuhrman had very strong views about the extent to which women--some women--

MR. DARDEN: Objection. That is a narrative.

THE COURT: Next question.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, did Officer Fuhrman have views about the ability of women to succeed in high crime areas?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes, he did.

MR. COCHRAN: What were his views in that regard?

MR. DARDEN: Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: You may answer.

MS. MCKINNY: He had strong views about women's ability to be able to succeed in areas of high crime, feeling that some of them were not capable of that, and during this particular first meeting he told me that he would--

MR. DARDEN: Objection, hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained. Next question.

MR. COCHRAN: Certainly, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: You had a conversation during this first meeting?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: You were able to garner some of his views about women in law enforcement during the first meeting; is that correct?

MS. MCKINNY: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you, at or during that first meeting, make some arrangements to meet further with Mr. Fuhrman regarding his views and whether or not he could help you with interviews that you might want to conduct?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Well, tell us about what you did in that connection. Did you retain him at some point?

MS. MCKINNY: I didn't retain him. I asked him if he would be interested in helping me give some ideas, some personal views that might help generate some thoughts about characters and police procedures and other areas that might be useful to me in helping understand the kind of frustrations that men had on the police department and women and possibly some of the cover-ups that might occur in conjunction with that. And he agreed to help me to that extent and give me some of his personal views, some ideas that he might have, and so we agreed to meet again and tape the interviews.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And you told him you wanted to tape the interviews that you conducted with him, did you?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you tell him why you wanted to tape the interviews?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And why was that?

MS. MCKINNY: He was giving me a great deal of material that would be hard for me to process, to understand, unless I listened to it, because I had to understand it sequentially to be able to write it cinematically, so sometimes it was police procedure, sometimes it was different kind of things people were saying and it would have been difficult to take copious notes and actually to listen to him attentively.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, these interviews that you had with Detective Fuhrman, were all of those interviews taped, as best you can recall?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury over what period of time did you conduct these taped interviews with Mark Fuhrman after your initial meeting with him in February of 1985?

MS. MCKINNY: Approximately from the beginning of April, April 2nd, I believe, through July, 1994.

MR. COCHRAN: So over almost a ten-year period of time you had taped interviews with this man; is that correct?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to these interviews, what did you call these interviews with Mr. Fuhrman?

MS. MCKINNY: Interviews with Mark Fuhrman.

MR. COCHRAN: And in talking with this man, what were you trying to get from him? Were you trying to get information from him?

MS. MCKINNY: I was trying to get some idea of the frustrations that some men who belong to a particular group called men against women on the police department, some kind of frustrations that they might have that would cause them to want to join a group like that, and then try to understand--

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

MR. COCHRAN: She is answering the question, your Honor.

MR. DARDEN: Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Finish your answer.

MS. MCKINNY: Then try to understand as well some of the areas in which women might feel frustrated by being stonewalled and embarrassed and humiliated by men.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, in that connection, before you started taping these interviews, did Detective Fuhrman know that you were taping these interviews?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And did you give him any--did you tell him--strike that. What did you tell him with regard to how you wanted him to talk? Did you want him to talk freely and openly think to you and use words like police officers use?

MR. DARDEN: This is leading, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: What did you tell him about the conversation or the kind of things you wanted him to share with you regarding police work?

MR. DARDEN: Also calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer the question.

MS. MCKINNY: I told him that I wanted to write a fictional piece based on fact, so it was very important to me that I had a really clear idea of what some police officers would say in a given situation, so that the instances that he would give me would be as factual and realistic as possible.

MR. COCHRAN: You asked him to be factual and realistic, did you?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, in that connection, after you would--before you would have a meeting with Detective Fuhrman, would you ever provide him with any questions, the kind of questions you would ask during your actual meeting?

MS. MCKINNY: Not for every meeting, but for our second meeting, the meeting after April 2nd, I compiled a list of questions based on some of his responses to that particular interview and sent them to him along with the interview so that he could refer back to some excerpts in the interview and then be prepared for some of the questions that I might--that we might want to talk about, anything that he might feel comfortable discussing in our next meeting, so I can't always include questions.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. But on occasion you did; is that correct?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Let's talk about your procedure with regard to the taping of the interviews. After you had taped the interview and the interview had concluded, would you then do something with regard to transcribing those tapes?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes. I would take the tape back home and put it in my transcribing machine. I have a cassette transcriber and professional cassette transcribing machine and a micro cassette transcribing machine which allows you to modulate the speed of speech and also the volume, and it has a foot pedal so that you can rewind at your leisure and review things that you are not sure about. So then I would put whatever cassette I was using in there, and transcribe it within a day or two of the interview, for my records.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to your transcribing habits, had you had a job prior to this time, prior to 1985, where you had done transcribing before that?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: What job did you have in that connection?

MS. MCKINNY: During college I worked through--not through college, but through a large part of it, for a few years at retail credit company. It is a place that was in Van Nuys and I was a professional transcriber.

MR. COCHRAN: So as a professional transcriber you knew how to transcribe at the time you set about to transcribe these tapes; is that correct?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And with regard to that did you try to get--transcribe it accurately as best you could?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: And why did you want to transcribe it accurately? How would that be helpful to you?

MS. MCKINNY: Well, again, initially I knew very little about the police department and I was doing other extensive interviews and research, ride-alongs, lots of research at the Los Angeles Police Academy. But when someone was going to be--going to be telling me specific events or issues that I needed to understand clearly, I would need to take that down as accurately as possible so that I--when I refreshed my memory the details that I would give would be accurate, so that when someone would read it or hopefully see it as a feature, they would know that it was an accurate well-researched project. So it was very important for me to transcribe the interviews accurately.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you, at the outset in 1985--was there a difference in the way you transcribed in `85 and later on in, let's say, 1988 or in 1994? Was there any difference?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes, there is a difference.

MR. COCHRAN: Tell us about that briefly.

MS. MCKINNY: Again, in the beginning I wanted to be as precise as possible. Also I was developing a story, but as the outline of the story became clear and the treatment, which is a narrative short version of the story, as I understood what that was about, my questions to Officer Fuhrman at that time were sometimes more topical, so that when I would transcribe it I might leave out my question and I might just put in the topic. It also had something to do with the fact that I had just had two children during that period of time, from 1986 to the early `90's, and was married and I was very busy, so I didn't take as much time to transcribe my questions and all the finite kind of detail. People interrupted us in the restaurant, I would keep that out.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Did you ever at any time in transcribing these transcripts ever substitute a word or put a word in that Mr. Fuhrman didn't say?

MS. MCKINNY: Not intentionally, no.

MR. COCHRAN: You tried to be accurate; is that correct?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I'm going to ask if I can approach the witness and what has previously been marked at another hearing 1364, and I want to just ask her a couple questions regarding it.

MR. COCHRAN: I want to place before you Defendant's 1364 which I believe indicates "Fuhrman questions round two." Would you tell the jury just briefly what that is, Miss McKinny.

MS. MCKINNY: This is the--an example of the questions that I gave Officer Fuhrman after our first interview on April 2nd, 1985. This is what I sent to him in conjunction with the taped transcript of that first interview.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, with regard to this--you have told us about the interviews with Mark Fuhrman and you have also told us that you were working as a result of these interviews on a screenplay called men against women; is that correct?

MS. MCKINNY: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And the--was a subplot of your screenplay men against women dealing with racism at all?

MS. MCKINNY: No, it was sexism.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You were dealing with sexism; is that correct?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, with regard to the taped interviews, over the ten-year period that we have been talking about, do you remember how many tapes you actually transcribed over that period of time?

MS. MCKINNY: Again please. How many types I transcribed?

MR. COCHRAN: How many tapes were actually transcribed? Over the ten-year period how many hours?

MS. MCKINNY: Oh, eleven to twelve hours of tape.

MR. COCHRAN: And I presume during those eleven to twelve hours you tried to be as accurate as possible, right?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to the eleven or twelve hours, did you ever at any point inadvertently tape over any of the tapes?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Would you tell us how many, if you recall?

MS. MCKINNY: I taped inadvertently over two tapes.

MR. COCHRAN: And would one of those be the first tape?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes, one was the first.

MR. COCHRAN: And when was that--when was that first interview that you taped?

MS. MCKINNY: The first interview that was taped was April 2nd, 1985.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, on April 2nd, 1985, would I be correct that after your interview was conducted with Detective Fuhrman you then transcribed it within a day or so?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes, that's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And in seeking to transcribe it was your memory fresh at the time you transcribed it?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you personally transcribe it and seek to record everything he had said?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And were the resulting transcripts or transcript a true account of what Mr. Fuhrman said during that interview?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, calls for a conclusion.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Finally, was this transcript an accurate record of what was on the tape?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, was there another time that there was another tape that was inadvertently taped over later on?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And do you remember the number of that one, if you recall?

MS. MCKINNY: I believe that was tape no. 9.

MR. COCHRAN: Was that at a later time?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. But with regard to tape no. 9, if I were to ask the same questions, did you seek to transcribe that tape within a day or so after the interview?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And did you at that time personally do that?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: You tried to be as accurate as you could?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Was it a true account of what Mr. Fuhrman had said?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: It was an accurate record as far as you knew; is that right?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, the last interview you had with this man was July 28, 1994; is that right?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Where did that interview take place?

MS. MCKINNY: That interview took place in Alice's restaurant in Westwood.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, during the time that you talked with Mr. Fuhrman during this ten-year period of time, did he ever use a racial epithet which I will call the "N" word, during the course of your conversations with him?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes, he did.

MR. COCHRAN: And in the course of your preparation of your testimony here today can you tell the jury how many times you counted that he used that word?

MS. MCKINNY: Approximately 42.

MR. COCHRAN: 42 times?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And when he would use this word in the course--strike that. In what circumstances would he use this word in being interviewed and talking to you?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, 352.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MCKINNY: Umm, well, the--the tapes were--the interviews were confidential and Officer Fuhrman certainly didn't think that--

MR. DARDEN: Objection.

THE COURT: This answer is non-response. Why don't you rephrase the question.

MR. COCHRAN: Let me rephrase the question.

MR. COCHRAN: Can you describe for the jury under what circumstances he would use this so-called "N" word? Was he talking about?

MS. MCKINNY: Police procedures.

MR. COCHRAN: What was he talking about?

MS. MCKINNY: Let me see. The word would come up in conversation when he might be talking about how an officer might deal with a suspect or a police procedural issue or how an officer might be talking about someone in administration, just general normal language.

THE COURT: Next question.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. When you would hear these words of this particular epithet, would that have an effect upon you.

MR. DARDEN: Objection, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MCKINNY: Certainly.

MR. COCHRAN: What effect did it have upon you?

MR. DARDEN: Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: You may answer.

MS. MCKINNY: It is a base epithet. There is no way of doctoring it up and making it sound better. It is offensive and I didn't feel good about it, hearing it; however, I was in very much of a journalistic mode and knew to be able to get the information that I needed, to be able to inquire from Officer Fuhrman, I would need to not react, not to be judgmental about hearing some of the very base offensive kinds of things that I would be hearing.

THE COURT: Next question.

MR. COCHRAN: So you didn't agree with the use of these words, is that what you are saying to us?

MS. MCKINNY: No, I didn't agree with the use of them.

MR. COCHRAN: So you were in a journalistic mode?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. This is leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you say anything to him about using these words at that time?

MS. MCKINNY: No, I did not.

MR. COCHRAN: And in the use of these words and other things during when he was talking to you, would he describe his experiences in police work?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, calls for a conclusion, speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: You may answer.

MS. MCKINNY: Would you ask the question again, please? Sorry.

MR. COCHRAN: Certainly. In the use of these words and during the course of the interview did Detective Fuhrman describe his experiences in being a police officer?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to the 41 or 42 times that he used the so-called "N," word can you describe for the jury how he appeared as he used this word?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, compound, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: No foundation.

MR. COCHRAN: You may answer.

THE COURT: You can answer.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you remember the question?

MS. MCKINNY: Could you ask it again? I understand.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes. During the 41 or 42 times that Mr. Fuhrman used the word "Nigger" did you--could you tell us how he appeared as he did that?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, no foundation; telephonic interview.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: You may answer.

MS. MCKINNY: When Officer Fuhrman used the word "Nigger" it was in a very casual ordinary pattern of speech. It was nothing extraordinary. It was just conversation.

MR. COCHRAN: And as did he that, did you have a sense of how he was using it?

MR. DARDEN: Objection.

THE COURT: Vague.

MR. COCHRAN: Let me see--

MR. COCHRAN: Did he appear to be joking when he was using that word?

MR. DARDEN: Objection.

THE COURT: Rephrase the question.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, when he used the word?

THE COURT: Why don't you ask her to describe the demeanor.

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

MR. COCHRAN: Would you describe the demeanor of Detective Fuhrman or Mr. Fuhrman while he was using this word 41 or 42 times?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, compound.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: You may answer.

MS. MCKINNY: He was answering it in a serious fashion. It was some--a word that apparently he felt--

MR. DARDEN: Objection, speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You may answer the question. Let me ask it again, your Honor. Can you describe--and I want you to paint a word picture for the ladies and gentlemen of the jury--of how he appeared when he was using this word this 41 or 42 times, as best you recall, the best description.

MR. DARDEN: Vague, no foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: You may answer.

MS. MCKINNY: When Officer Fuhrman used this word it was in conjunction to many of the things we would be discussing and it was in a serious manner. It was not light-hearted. It was something that he would use in normal conversation.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. When he used this word, did he appear to you to be using it in a way that was insulting?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: Leading.

MR. COCHRAN: You may answer the question. Was it insulting?

MR. DARDEN: It is leading.

THE COURT: Overruled. Go ahead.

MS. MCKINNY: It was insulting to me. The word is insulting. And when he was using it he was using it in a demeaning derogatory fashion. I don't know that he would think it was insulting, but--

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. You have answered the question.

MR. COCHRAN: You have answered the question.

MR. COCHRAN: Did he use it in a disparaging manner?

MR. DARDEN: Leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: You may answer.

MS. MCKINNY: Yes. It is a disparaging word. He was using it in a disparaging fashion.

MR. COCHRAN: In the course of the time that you came to interview this man over ten years, did you ever form an opinion of whether or not he was a racist?

MR. DARDEN: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, did he use this word in a racist manner?

MR. DARDEN: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: Did he use this word in a vicious manner?

MR. DARDEN: Objection.

THE COURT: I think negative, disparaging, insulting, I think that pretty much covers it.

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

MR. COCHRAN: With regard to how this man referred to African Americans, did he ever use any other words in referring to African Americans?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: What were those words?

MR. DARDEN: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: 1054.

MR. COCHRAN: You may proceed.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: 1052.

MS. MCKINNY: Bubba, anthracite.

MR. COCHRAN: Anthracite?

MR. DARDEN: May I approach, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes. I'm going to strike the last question and answer. Disregard that. That is an area that is beyond--

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Very well, your Honor.

THE COURT: I thought we were going into something quite different than that.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. I will, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to the 42 or so instances in which this man used this offensive word, some of those words are on tape; is that correct?

MS. MCKINNY: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And you have heard those tapes, have you not?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And you can, if I were to play at least one of those tapes for you, you can identify the--Mr. Fuhrman's voice, could you not?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to--we have two excerpts, your Honor, we would like to play at this point, if we--I think that we have transcripts of the two excerpts, one of which is on tape and one of which is not. I would like to pass these out to the jury if we can, your Honor, take a look at those.

MR. DARDEN: Why can't we just put it on the elmo, Judge?

THE COURT: They can be--the transcript can be passed out, although it is--Mr. Cochran--

MR. COCHRAN: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: Given the time it will take to pass that out and collect it, it is something we can put on the elmo.

MR. COCHRAN: It will be up on the screen also, but at some point I would like to mark it, your Honor.

MR. DARDEN: I would like to see it, if I may.

THE COURT: Did you have a copy?

MR. COCHRAN: He has a copy. Mr. Douglas gave him a copy, so he can look at it and read his own copy. May I mark this as our next, your Honor?

THE COURT: 1367.

(Deft's 1367 for id = trans of audiotape excerpt)

MR. COCHRAN: 1367. All right. Now, let me just inquire, your Honor, if I might.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I would like to mark as the Defendant's next 1368 as the tape that Mr. Harris will be playing.

THE COURT: Yes.

(Deft's 1368 for id = audiotape excerpt)

MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Harris has some speakers, your Honor, he is going to move at this point, if the court pleases.

(Brief pause.)

MR. COCHRAN: Let me ask a question while he is doing that, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to--may I give her an excerpt of that, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you have that?

THE COURT: I've got mine.

MR. COCHRAN: You are keeping it I guess, hum?

(Brief pause.)

MS. MCKINNY: Thank you.

MR. COCHRAN: That is okay, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: With regard to these two excerpts, you have shared with us there is some 42 or more instances where he uses this offensive word. This--

MS. CLARK: Objection.

MR. COCHRAN: --this first one--

MS. CLARK: I'm sorry.

MR. COCHRAN: With regard to this first instance that we are going to be seeing shortly, can you give us some background? I will use--I will use the--I will read it, your Honor, and ask her to give us some background regarding this. In this particular one, I believe this is one where it was taped over and we have just a transcript; is that correct?

MS. MCKINNY: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And the quote by Fuhrman is, "We have no niggers where I grew up." Do you recall him saying that?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Is that a fair and accurate portrayal of what he said?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And what tape was that where he made that statement?

MS. MCKINNY: That was during our first interview.

MR. COCHRAN: And that was the one you described for the jury that you taped over?

MS. MCKINNY: The first taped interview April 2nd, 1985.

MR. COCHRAN: And with regard to that particular one, about having no African Americans where he grew up, can you compare that with the other 42 others, from the standpoint of how he used that word in that compared to the others?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, that is irrelevant.

THE COURT: It is a vague question as well and I don't know that anybody can really answer that question.

MR. COCHRAN: Let me try again.

THE COURT: Rephrase the question.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay.

MR. COCHRAN: With regard to this instance where "We have no blank where I grew up," do you have that in mind?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Can you compare that with the other 42 times or so that he used this in the course of your interviews, if there is any difference between how he used the term there and the other 42 times or so?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, misstates the testimony. Speculation, no foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: You may answer.

MS. MCKINNY: Yes, there is a significance difference here. This particular example is the least offensive and inflammatory in comparison to the others.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, with regard to--

THE COURT: All right. I'm going to strike that answer. Ladies and gentlemen, that is a judgment that is not--at this point in time you are to disregard that last question and answer. Next question.

MR. COCHRAN: All right, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: With regard to--let's move down to the second incident we have been allowed to use for Fuhrman speaking, "They don't do anything, they don't go out there and initiate a contact with some six-foot-five inch Nigger that has been in prison for seven years pumping weights." Do you recall Mr. Fuhrman saying that to you at some point?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes, however I believe--

MR. DARDEN: Objection, asked and answered.

THE COURT: Next question.

MR. COCHRAN: You do recall that and that is on tape, is it not?

MS. MCKINNY: Excuse me.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. I understand. Let me just look at my question.

THE COURT: Hold on.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you recall that being said, Miss McKinny?

MS. MCKINNY: I recall that being said, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Was that said--were you present during that interview?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Was that an interview where you had another person present with you, a Miss Laurie Diaz?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And you were present there; is that correct?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: You heard Detective Fuhrman, interacting with Laurie Diaz, make the statement I just read; is that correct?

MS. MCKINNY: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Is that what you wanted to tell us?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes, it is.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And if you were to see these--hear this on tape, would you be able to identify Mr. Fuhrman's voice?

MS. MCKINNY: Certainly.

MR. COCHRAN: And would you--I don't know if we are going to hear Miss Diaz' voice or not, but you could identify his voice; is that correct?

MS. MCKINNY: And Miss Diaz as well.

MR. COCHRAN: Very well, your Honor. If the court please, may we have Mr. Harris put up the--I want to go back and ask a question regarding the first one that is not on tape and then we will have Mr. Harris play that.

MR. DARDEN: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you. May I have an opportunity to hear what they are going to play, given the possibility of other voices on the tape?

THE COURT: I think we've all had sufficient opportunity at this point, Mr. Darden.

MR. DARDEN: I had asked for an opportunity earlier.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Harris, do you have your headphones available there?

MR. HARRIS: Yes, your Honor, I do.

THE COURT: All right. Would you play that quickly for Mr. Darden, please.

MR. COCHRAN: While he is doing that, can we pass out the excerpts, your Honor, while he is doing that? May I? May I approach?

THE COURT: You may.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Do you have a copy for--

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. COCHRAN: The bailiff has them, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Deputy Bashmakian, would you hand those out to the jury, please.

(Brief pause.)

(A copy of Defense exhibit 1367 was passed out to the jury.)

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Darden, have you heard that excerpt?

MR. DARDEN: No.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran, juror no. 98 is indicating that she has two of the same pages. Do you have any other copies?

MR. DARDEN: She can have my copy, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Darden, would you change that with juror no. 98 and give it to Deputy Bashmakian, please. Thank you.

(Brief pause.)

MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Harris is trying to locate it, your Honor. Apparently he had it cued up and he is having trouble finding it now.

THE COURT: Do you have anything else you can ask Miss McKinny at this point?

MR. COCHRAN: I can, your Honor, but I just want to make sure I can take care of this.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. COCHRAN: I have a couple other questions I can ask, your Honor, while he is doing that.

MR. COCHRAN: Miss McKinny, did Mr. Fuhrman ever at any time apologize to you for the way in which he used this word, this "N" word?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

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

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, Mr. Harris has found it. He is indicating it is not coming through his headphones. That is the problem.

THE COURT: Well, I would like to have Mr. Darden have the opportunity to--we have to do this with the--without the headphones? In other words, he can't cue it up just on a system through his headphones?

MR. COCHRAN: Is that right?

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. HARRIS: It is not playing through the headphones is the problem. It will take less than a minute, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Let me ask jurors to step back into the jury room for a few moments.

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

THE COURT: All right. The record should reflect the jury has withdrawn from the courtroom. Mr. Harris, do you want to play that for Mr. Darden, please.

MR. DARDEN: Are you going to cut the feed?

THE COURT: I'm sorry.

MR. DARDEN: He is going to play it out loud?

(Brief pause.)

(Defense exhibit 1368, an audiotape, was played.)

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Darden.

MR. DARDEN: (No audible response.)

THE COURT: Do you recollect the excerpt?

MR. DARDEN: I believe I've heard it before, yeah.

THE COURT: All right.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

THE COURT: All right. Let's have the jurors, please, Deputy Magnera.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: We are breaking at 5:30, your Honor?

THE COURT: I'm sorry?

MS. CLARK: 5:30?

THE COURT: 5:30.

MR. DARDEN: We have a foundational objection and that is the date of that--

MS. CLARK: The dates are not indicated.

THE COURT: All right. Do ask a foundational question.

MR. COCHRAN: I did already, your Honor. The first one was in April of 1985 and the second one--

THE COURT: Just this one? Do you know when the second one was?

MR. COCHRAN: May I approach, your Honor?

MS. MCKINNY: Sorry, the date?

MR. COCHRAN: Yeah, the date of the second one, approximately.

MS. MCKINNY: It was approximately April or May, 1985.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. I just wanted to know.

(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. Cochran, you may conclude for the day.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes, your Honor. Thank you very much. May I ask a couple of foundational questions and we will play it?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Miss McKinny, the--Mr. Fuhrman said, "We have no niggers where I grew up." I think you have indicated that was in the early part of 1985?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And the statement about prison and six-foot-five-inch people, when was that?

MS. MCKINNY: That was approximately the same time, later in that month of April or possibly in the beginning of May.

MR. COCHRAN: Of 1985?

MS. MCKINNY: Of 1985, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Mr. Harris, are we ready? Let's start with the one that does not have a tape.

(An excerpt on a videotape was played.)

MR. COCHRAN: Hold that there.

MR. COCHRAN: In the course of the time that you interviewed this man, did you find out where he had grown-up?

MS. MCKINNY: In Washington state.

MR. COCHRAN: Did this discussion come about during a discussion about where he actually grew up and lived?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Is that an accurate statement, ma'am?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

(A videotape and audiotape were played.)

MR. COCHRAN: Do you recognize the voice of the person who was saying, "They don't do anything. They don't go out there and initiate a contact with some six-foot-five-inch Nigger that has been in prison for seven years pumping weights"? Who said that?

MS. MCKINNY: Officer Mark Fuhrman.

MR. COCHRAN: When did he say that?

MS. MCKINNY: In April or early May of 1985.

MR. COCHRAN: And that was his voice; is that right?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: No doubt about it?

MS. MCKINNY: No doubt about it.

MR. COCHRAN: Perhaps this would be a good point today, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our recess for the day at this time. Please remember all my admonitions to you. Don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, do not allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. We will stand in recess until nine o'clock tomorrow morning. Miss McKinny, you may step down. You are ordered to come back tomorrow morning at nine o'clock.

MS. MCKINNY: Thank you very much, Judge.

THE COURT: All right. Deputy Bashmakian, would you collect all of the taped transcripts. Let me ask the jurors to pass that all down.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Let me see counsel without the court reporter, please.

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

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

(At 5:32 P.M. an adjournment was taken until, Wednesday, September 6, 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

Tuesday, September 5, 1995 volume 216A

Pages 43966 through 44178, inclusive

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

APPEARANCES:

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

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

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

ALSO PRESENT: Taylor J. Daigneault, Esquire Matthew Schwartz, Esquire Ron Regwan, Esquire

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

I N D E X

Index for volume 216A pages 43966 - 44178

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

Day date session page vol.

Tuesday September 5, 1995 P.M. 43966 216A

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

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

DEFENSE witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.

Blasini, 43972C 44005Mc 44032C 216A William

Rokahr, 44036N 44073D 44081N 44084D 216A Rolf D. (Further) 44085N

McKinny, 44137C 216A Laura hart

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

ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

WITNESSES direct cross redirect recross vol.

Blasini, 43972C 44005Mc 44032C 216A William

McKinny, 44137C 216A Laura hart

Rokahr, 44036N 44073D 44081N 44084D 216A Rolf D. (Further) 44085N

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

EXHIBITS

PEOPLE'S for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.

601-A thru 601-C - 44016 216A posterboard with magnetic transfers re Bronco vehicle

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

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

1366 - Contact sheet 44064 216A with 35 photographs from the Bundy crime scene

1367 - 2-Page document 44162 216A entitled "Excerpt"

1368 - Videotape 44163 216A of written transcription of Mark Fuhrman interview with Laura Hart McKinny