Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge
APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted; also appearing, Matthew Schwartz, Esquire, and Ron Regwan, Esquire, on behalf of Laura Hart McKinny; and Irving Miller, Esquire, on behalf of Roderic Hodge.)
(Janet M. Moxham, CSR no. 4855, official reporter.)
(Christine M. Olson, CSR no. 2378, official reporter.)
(Pages 44179 through 44195, volume 217A, transcribed and sealed under separate cover.)
(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. Mr. Simpson is present with his counsel, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran.
MR. COCHRAN: Good morning, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Spaulding, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Blasier. The People are represented by Miss Clark and Miss Lewis. The jury is not present. Anything we need to take up with regard to Miss McKinny before we resume?
MR. COCHRAN: Yes, we do, your Honor. I would ask your Honor to listen to Dean Uelmen with regard to a proposed jury instruction we have to offer.
THE COURT: Well, jury instructions come at the end of the trial, don't they?
MR. COCHRAN: They normally do, your Honor, however this is a unique situation. I think Dean Uelmen can explain it if you would allow.
MR. UELMEN: Your Honor, we have submitted a special proposed instruction that we would ask the court to give at the conclusion of Miss McKinny's testimony. The genesis of this instruction is section 412 of the California evidence code which provides that: "If weaker and less satisfactory evidence is offered when it was within the power of the party to produce stronger and more satisfactory evidence, the evidence offered should be viewed with distrust." Our concern is that the jury may view the evidence with respect to the racial epithets in the tapes and transcripts with distrust since they are not being given the opportunity to hear the stronger and more satisfactory evidence of seeing the transcripts themselves, and if you will, actually hearing the tapes, so we believe it is appropriate under these circumstances for the court to inform the jury of the court's ruling and the reason why they are not being allowed to see the transcripts or hear the tapes. And we have fashioned a jury instruction which actually uses the language of the court to explain to the jury why they will not have that opportunity. In very simple and nonjudgmental language they would be informed that they will not be allowed to see the transcripts or--
THE COURT: Do you know of any precedents for a jury instruction like this, Dean Uelmen? Have you ever seen one like this before?
MR. UELMEN: Well, yes. I believe that on occasion courts have instructed the jury in the language--
THE COURT: In what case, counsel?
MR. UELMEN: --of section 412.
THE COURT: What case?
MR. UELMEN: In fact, we will submit that instruction because we believe the Prosecution has presented weaker and less satisfactory evidence when stronger evidence was available. But that--that instruction should not be used against the Defense in the context of a ruling of the court that precluded the use of stronger and more satisfactory evidence when the--the evidence would have been offered but for that ruling.
THE COURT: All right. Do you have any case law authority for this proposition?
MR. UELMEN: I do not, your Honor.
THE COURT: I will hear from the People.
MS. CLARK: Your Honor, this is very obvious attempt to have the jury focus on what they haven't seen and haven't heard. It is like don't think of the marshmallow man. That is all you can think about. And that is what instruction says, think about all you haven't heard, think about all you haven't seen, and that is the intent of this instruction. It is highly inappropriate. It seeks to highlight what the court has deemed inadmissible.
What is the purpose of having rulings under 352 that make evidence inadmissible if all do you is turn around and tell the jury, guess what, there is all kind of things you haven't seen? What is the point? Then you have the imaginations run wild with what they haven't seen. It is bad enough. They know there are eleven, twelve, fourteen hours of tape. They have heard one second and I think they get the picture. Every time Mr. Cochran asks the question, it becomes 42, 43. We are going to be up to 47 if he keeps questioning her. They get the idea. They get the idea plenty. They have heard two excerpts. They said it 41 times. They know he spoke to her for twelve hours on tape. All of that gives the jury the clear view that they had gotten a small snippet. All this seeks to do is highlight this matter, inflame the jury more and get them to think about how awful the rest of the 39 or 40 times were in which he uttered the word. That is--it is so obviously inappropriate that I don't think I need to argue this any further. With respect to whether section 412 could form the appropriate basis of a jury instruction, I don't think I disagree with that. I think that the court could appropriately instruct that is the evidence code. That is the law and it is available to both sides. If Dean Uelmen thinks that we are going to argue section 412 with respect to this evidence, he is sadly mistaken.
THE COURT: I don't think that that would ever happen.
MS. CLARK: It will not.
THE COURT: I don't think that is the import of his argument.
MS. CLARK: Oh, I think that is exactly what he said, that the People would argue this instruction against the Defense to point up the fact that they could have offered better and stronger evidence, i.e., more inflammatory, but they failed to. And in point of fact I can assure the court and counsel that will never occur, not with respect to the tapes. They have got his voice. His voice. I think that is pretty strong evidence that he said it. So this is--this is nothing but an attempt to highlight the inflammatory material that has been ruled inadmissible and to cause the jury to speculate on what they haven't heard and to imagine the worst which I think--I don't know. It is already so inflammatory what they have heard, your Honor. The Defense has already gotten the benefit of the most prejudicial and inflammatory thing I have seen admitted into a court ever, you know, by virtue of what we have in Miss McKinny's tapes. Now they want to have the jury speculate how much worse it gets. It is obviously improper.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Uelmen.
MR. UELMEN: Your Honor, the instruction tells the jury not to speculate. It is precisely the opposite of what has just been represented to you. The instruction suggests the court tell the jury, "You should not speculate about why you have not had an opportunity to see the transcripts or to hear the tapes." We are not inviting speculation. What we are trying to avoid is speculation under an inference ordained by the evidence code where the jury is invited to view the evidence with distrust because stronger and more satisfying evidence has not been presented. Our problem of course is that as your Honor concedes, the two excerpts that the jury has heard are among the most innocuous and least inflammatory of all of the evidence available, and your Honor sustained an objection to Miss McKinny's characterization of the evidence in that respect. We believe the jury should hear the reasons why your Honor is keeping out those other 39 in the language that you used in your order, that your examination reveals that the epithet--
THE COURT: Counsel, you don't need to read my order to me. I know it is there.
MR. UELMEN: We think it is appropriate for the jury to be informed of that order so they know why they are not hearing all 41 of these.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. All right. I will take the request for the instruction under submission for consideration at the time of the jury instruction conference. All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.
MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, may I just ask one question with regard to the question I asked Miss McKinny yesterday? Would the court care to reconsider that, whether or not I can ask her if she can characterize this--the one tape portion that was played as compared to the others?
THE COURT: No.
MR. COCHRAN: All right.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. COCHRAN: Thank you.
(Brief pause.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Let the record reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good morning.
THE COURT: All right. Miss McKinny, would you resume the witness stand, please.
Laura Hart McKinny, the witness on the stand at the time of the evening adjournment, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
THE COURT: All right. The record should reflect that Miss Laura Hart McKinny is again on the witness stand undergoing direct examination by Mr. Cochran. Good morning again, Miss McKinny.
MS. MCKINNY: Good morning, your Honor.
THE COURT: Miss McKinny, you are reminded that you are still under oath. Mr. Cochran, you may conclude your direct examination.
MR. COCHRAN: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good morning.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. COCHRAN
MR. COCHRAN: Good morning, Miss McKinny.
MS. MCKINNY: Good morning, Mr. Cochran.
MR. COCHRAN: When we concluded our day yesterday we had played a tape for the jury and you shared with us and identified for this jury that was Mark Fuhrman's voice. Do you recall that?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And with regard to the tapes, the twelve hours plus tapes and the transcripts we talked about yesterday, did you turn those tapes and transcripts over to the Prosecution just as you did to the Defense in this case?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes, I did.
MR. COCHRAN: And have you been interviewed and talked with the Prosecution and cooperated with them?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes, certainly.
MR. COCHRAN: And you are out here from North Carolina pursuant to a subpoena; is that correct?
MS. MCKINNY: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: You tried to cooperate with both sides?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to these tapes and transcripts that we have been talking about, after the first interview that you had with Detective Fuhrman in February of 1985, that you described for us, I showed you yesterday a series of questions which you sent to him prior to the second interview; is that correct?
MS. MCKINNY: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: That second interview would have been in April of 1985; is that correct?
MS. MCKINNY: Correct.
MR. COCHRAN: Along with the questions that you sent him, did you send him a transcription of the tape of the--of an earlier meeting or any transcription, do you recall?
MS. MCKINNY: I sent him the transcription of our April 2nd, 1985, meeting, our first taped interview.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. You sent that to him and did he ever, as far as you know, make any changes at all on that transcription that you sent him?
MS. MCKINNY: No.
MR. COCHRAN: Now, later in 1985 did you have occasion to prepare a series of transcripts that you had prepared from the various tapes you had conducted and send those to Mr. Fuhrman?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Will you tell the jury when that was, ma'am.
MS. MCKINNY: That was sometime in mid-June. I don't remember the exact date. But at that time I compiled all of the transcripts of our interviews and put them in a three-ring binder with indexes and dates and similar to the way I was logging the transcripts and keeping them for myself.
MR. COCHRAN: And did you give those to him or mail those to him or what did you do in that connection?
MS. MCKINNY: I gave those to him in the binder.
MR. COCHRAN: Did you ever at any point get any of those--the transcripts that were in the binder back from him with any changes?
MS. MCKINNY: No.
MR. COCHRAN: And so that we are clear about what was inside the binder, it contained some hours of the transcriptions of the tapes you had had with this particular individual; is that right?
MS. MCKINNY: That's right.
MR. COCHRAN: Did he ever give back the bound volume to you?
MS. MCKINNY: No.
MR. COCHRAN: So as far as you know he still has it; is that correct?
MR. DARDEN: Objection, speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. COCHRAN: As far as you know he still has it, right?
MS. MCKINNY: As far as I know.
MR. COCHRAN: Now, yesterday we talked about Mr. Fuhrman's role as a technical advisor or a consultant. Was he to be paid if the screenplay was ever sold by you?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And what was that compensation to be?
MS. MCKINNY: $10,000.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Has that screenplay been sold?
MS. MCKINNY: No.
MR. COCHRAN: And with regard to these tapes or interviews that we call interviews of Mark Fuhrman, you have not tried to sell those tapes yourself, have you?
MS. MCKINNY: They are not for sale, no.
MR. COCHRAN: You are not trying to profit from those tapes, are you?
MS. MCKINNY: No.
MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to the references of the so-called "N" word that we talked about, we talked yesterday, and I think the two examples that we were able to play for the jury I think you said occurred maybe in April of 1985; is that correct?
MR. DARDEN: Objection, misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. COCHRAN: The two examples occurred in 1985?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Do you remember the first one about where he grew up, when was that?
MS. MCKINNY: That was during our--
THE COURT: Haven't we covered this already?
MR. COCHRAN: Perhaps so, your Honor. It is leading to another question, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. COCHRAN: When was that?
MS. MCKINNY: That was during our first interview, April 2nd.
MR. COCHRAN: The second one was also in `85?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. The use of this word by this man, however, continued through 1988; isn't that correct?
MR. DARDEN: Objection.
THE COURT: It is leading.
MR. DARDEN: 352.
MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor. Let me restate it. Thank you.
MR. COCHRAN: Were there times after 1985 in the course of these interviews that you had with Mr. Fuhrman that he continued to use this word?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Objection.
MR. COCHRAN: And how long did he continue to go on--
MR. DARDEN: Objection, the court's ruling, 352.
THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.
MR. COCHRAN: You may answer.
MS. MCKINNY: In the transcripts through 1988.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Thank you. Now, I think you have already explained to us that the last interview was in July of 1984--1994?
MS. MCKINNY: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: After this case had occurred; is that correct?
MS. MCKINNY: Correct.
MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to yesterday, just briefly we talked about the fact that you had inadvertently taped over the first tape and also maybe no. 9; is that correct?
MS. MCKINNY: Correct.
MR. COCHRAN: The transcripts that we talked about, had the transcripts been made before the tapes were inadvertently taped over?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: So you completed your process of doing the transcripts before you then taped over the actual tapes; is that correct?
MS. MCKINNY: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, in these interviews that you conducted with Mr. Fuhrman did you ever at any time ask him to embellish or enhance what he was telling you.
MR. DARDEN: Objection, vague.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MCKINNY: No.
MR. COCHRAN: In fact, what did you tell him in that regard, if anything?
MR. DARDEN: Objection, hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MCKINNY: I told him that I wanted realistic scenarios and responses to what may happen relative to the development of the story and characters.
MR. COCHRAN: In talking to you did he relate his own personal experiences as a police officer?
MR. DARDEN: Objection, speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. COCHRAN: In talking to you can you describe what he did with regard to his personal experiences?
MR. DARDEN: Objection.
MR. COCHRAN: As a police officer?
MR. DARDEN: Vague.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. DARDEN: Speculation.
MR. COCHRAN: You were talking to this man because he was a police officer; isn't that correct?
MS. MCKINNY: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: And why did you want to talk to him?
MR. DARDEN: Objection. This is asked and answered a number of times.
THE COURT: Asked and answered.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. In addition to talking to Mark Fuhrman, did you talk to other police officers in and around this same time?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes, I did, approximately fifteen.
MR. COCHRAN: Fifteen police officers?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Did you talk to--did you go to the police academy?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes, I went to the Los Angeles Police Academy and talked with physical training people who worked with cadet patrol women there, and I went on ride-alongs and talked with other police officers as well.
MR. COCHRAN: And why did you do these things?
MS. MCKINNY: It was important to balance the--my understanding of the frustrations, as I mentioned before, that the women were feeling, the reasons why they wanted to become officers and some of the obstacles that they faced, the very real obstacles that they faced on the force and with dealing--dealing with some men who might belong to a group Men Against Women who didn't want them to be officers. I needed to have a clear understanding of the realistic kind of obstacles they would face.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, you mentioned that these "N" word references were between `85 and `88. Did you have any interviews with this man between `88 and `94 that were taped?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And how many, if you recall?
MS. MCKINNY: Umm, between four and six.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. There were less than had been before in `85, `86, `87 and `88?
MS. MCKINNY: Again, please.
MR. COCHRAN: The frequency of the interviews, did they become less after about 1988?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes, they did.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Was there a period of time when there were no interviews, a period of time when there were no taped interviews?
MS. MCKINNY: No taped interviews.
MR. COCHRAN: And when was that?
MS. MCKINNY: During the early nineties there were no taped interviews.
MR. COCHRAN: Now, yesterday you had shared with us and with this jury that when Detective Fuhrman used this word, this offensive word, the "N" word, he seemed to speak in ordinary speech or something of that nature. Do you recall that?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Would you describe for the jury what you meant by that?
MR. DARDEN: Objection, asked and answered yesterday.
THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained. It was asked yesterday.
MR. COCHRAN: To explain it, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. May I have just a second, your Honor?
THE COURT: Certainly.
MR. COCHRAN: Thank you.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel and the Defendant.)
MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, nothing further at this point.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Darden.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DARDEN
MR. DARDEN: Good morning.
MS. MCKINNY: Good morning, Mr. Darden.
MR. DARDEN: It is true that you and I have met before, correct?
MS. MCKINNY: That's true, yes.
MR. DARDEN: You, your husband, your attorneys, Miss Clark, Miss Lewis, Mr. Hodgman and myself, we all met on August 17th, I believe, in the D.A.'s office; is that correct?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes, I believe that was the date.
MR. DARDEN: August 17, 1995?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: And we had a discussion about the transcripts and tapes and epithets that you have described here today and yesterday, right?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. And it is a fact, isn't it, that is, that Mark Fuhrman used these epithets in 1985, correct?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: And in 1988, correct?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Now, the two gentlemen seated here behind me, who are these two gentlemen?
MS. MCKINNY: Mr. Ron Regwan, Mr. Matthew Schwartz. They are my attorneys.
MR. DARDEN: And they are entertainment attorneys?
MR. COCHRAN: Object, your Honor. That is irrelevant and immaterial.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. DARDEN: You told us a little while ago that the tapes and transcripts were not for sale; is that correct?
MS. MCKINNY: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: Just a moment. Misstates the evidence, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. DARDEN: May I reask that?
THE COURT: I think she answered it.
MR. DARDEN: Oh, okay.
MR. DARDEN: They are entertainment lawyers?
MR. COCHRAN: Objection, your Honor. You sustained an objection to that.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. DARDEN: Isn't it true that Mr. Regwan and Mr. Schwartz have been attempting to sell those transcripts and those tapes?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Objection, your Honor, attorney-client privilege.
MR. COCHRAN: May we approach, your Honor?
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. COCHRAN: Objection, your Honor, also. I'm objecting also.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MCKINNY: I can answer the question?
THE COURT: You can answer the question.
MS. MCKINNY: The question is isn't it true that they have been attempting to sell those tapes and transcripts?
MR. DARDEN: Yes.
MS. MCKINNY: No, that is not true.
MR. DARDEN: I would like to show you--may I have a moment to confer with counsel?
THE COURT: Yes.
(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MR. DARDEN: Have you been attempting to sell any audiotapes other than the Fuhrman audiotapes?
MS. MCKINNY: No.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. Have you been attempting to sell any transcripts other than the transcripts of the Fuhrman audiotapes?
MS. MCKINNY: That question is vague to me. Could you rephrase it? It makes it sound like I'm attempting to sell the tapes and transcripts and I'm not, so I would appreciate it if you would rephrase it.
MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, what is next in order?
THE COURT: I'm sorry?
THE CLERK: 603.
THE COURT: 603. People's 603.
(Peo's 603 for id = 4-page document)
MR. DARDEN: I have a four-page document that is dated August 18, 1985. It is entitled "Nondisclosure agreement." It is on the letterhead of Regwan and Schwartz and their law offices. May I approach the witness, your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. DARDEN: May I remain for a few moments?
THE COURT: Yes, you may.
MR. DARDEN: Let me show you what has been marked People's 603, please. You can take it?
MS. MCKINNY: (Witness complies.)
MR. DARDEN: Is that document entitled "Nondisclosure agreement"?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Is it on your attorney's letterhead?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes, it is.
MR. DARDEN: Is it dated August 18, 1995?
MS. MCKINNY: That's correct.
MR. DARDEN: And you are their client?
MS. MCKINNY: I am.
MR. DARDEN: And paragraph 2 in that document, does it read as follows:
MR. COCHRAN: I object, your Honor, without further foundation with regard to this witness and this document.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. DARDEN: That document is addressed to dove publishing; is that correct?
MS. MCKINNY: That's correct.
MR. DARDEN: To the publisher, Mr. Viner?
MS. MCKINNY: I don't know that he is the publisher. It is addressed to Mr. Michael Viner, yes.
MR. DARDEN: Were the tapes, the Fuhrman tapes, submitted to Michael Viner at dove publishing?
MS. MCKINNY: No, they were not.
MR. DARDEN: Was there an attempt to submit them to him?
MS. MCKINNY: Not to my knowledge, no.
MR. DARDEN: Look at the last page of that document, if you will.
MS. MCKINNY: (Witness complies.)
MR. DARDEN: Is there a signature at the last page?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes, there is.
MR. DARDEN: And can you read that signature?
MS. MCKINNY: It is Ron Regwan.
MR. DARDEN: Now, if you could turn back to the first page, please.
MS. MCKINNY: (Witness complies.)
MR. DARDEN: Does the document contain the term--
MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I object. There is no foundation this witness has ever seen it.
THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained. Foundation.
MR. DARDEN: Have you ever spoken with inside edition?
MS. MCKINNY: Have I ever spoken with inside edition?
MR. DARDEN: Yeah. Yes.
MS. MCKINNY: Could you define what inside edition is? Is that a tabloid or television show, newspaper, periodical?
MR. DARDEN: Okay. You are not familiar with the term inside edition?
MS. MCKINNY: I have heard the term, yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of the question.
THE COURT: Wait. Overruled.
MS. MCKINNY: I have heard inside edition, but I would like you to define it for me, please, so I am clear in my response.
MR. DARDEN: It is a television program. Have you ever spoken to any representative from inside edition, the television program?
MS. MCKINNY: No, I have not.
MR. DARDEN: When did you bring those tapes to California? Do you recall the date?
MS. MCKINNY: When we were subpoenaed we flew to California on July 13, 1995, and my husband and I brought the tapes and gave them to the court.
MR. DARDEN: Now, the document in your hand, you have never seen that document?
MS. MCKINNY: No.
MR. DARDEN: Did you authorize your attorneys to sell the transcript?
MS. MCKINNY: No.
MR. DARDEN: Did you authorize them to sell the audiotapes?
MS. MCKINNY: No.
MR. DARDEN: Have you ever discussed with anyone selling the audiotapes for one-half million dollars?
MS. MCKINNY: Have I discussed that with anyone?
MR. DARDEN: Yes.
MS. MCKINNY: No, I have not discussed it with anyone.
MR. DARDEN: Have you also given--given your attorneys the authority to negotiate for the sale of the Fuhrman tapes?
MS. MCKINNY: I have authorized my attorneys to determine the value of the tapes, yes.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. And that is what that document relates to then?
MR. COCHRAN: Well, object, your Honor. Calls for speculation. She has never seen a copy before.
THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer the question.
MS. MCKINNY: Thank you. I would assume, although that I have never seen this document, that this is what this relates to. It is a nondisclosure agreement.
MR. DARDEN: Doesn't the document say that the tapes are submitted so that dove publishing can decide whether or not they want to purchase--
MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of this question, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.
MR. DARDEN: The witness--
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. DARDEN: All right. Is it indicated anywhere on that document that the tapes are being submitted to dove publishing so that dove publishing can help you ascertain the--ascertain the market value of the Fuhrman tapes?
MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I object to the form of the question. She has never seen the document before.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MCKINNY: Would you ask the question again, please.
MR. DARDEN: Where if anywhere on that document does it indicate that the Fuhrman tapes are being submitted to a publisher so that the publisher can help you determine the market value of those tapes?
MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I object to the form of that question. It is argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MCKINNY: Firstly, I have never read this document. I have never seen it. I would have to read it to be able to answer that question clearly. And the tapes and transcripts were never submitted to dove publishing. They have only been given to the Prosecution and the Defense.
MR. DARDEN: If you weren't interested in selling the tapes, why then did you meet and confer with others to determine the market value--
MR. COCHRAN: Object. That is vague, your Honor--
MR. DARDEN: --of the tapes?
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of the question. It is vague.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MCKINNY: Again please, again.
MR. DARDEN: The question is this if you weren't interested in selling those tapes and transcripts, why then did you have your attorneys go out and attempt to sell them to publishers to determine the market value?
MR. COCHRAN: Assumes a fact not in evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. DARDEN: The document--
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. DARDEN: If you weren't interested in selling the tapes, why did you have your attorneys contact a publisher?
MS. MCKINNY: It is more to know what the value of the tapes were and I authorized my attorneys to do that.
MR. DARDEN: And that is because you were considering selling the tapes at the time?
MS. MCKINNY: No. I wanted to know what the value of the tapes were and my attorneys advised me that it was in my best interests and they would be negligent as attorneys if they didn't let me know exactly what the value--market value of the tapes and/or the transcripts would be.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MS. MCKINNY: Keep in mind I've had a great deal of material leaked and that is an aspect that I would certainly want to be considering.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. DARDEN: In addition to attempting to determine the market value of the tapes, you also had your attorneys attempt to determine the market value of your transcripts of the tapes as well; is that correct?
MS. MCKINNY: That would be correct, yes. I believe--I thought that is what this document was in reference to. "Certain transcripts" I believe you have highlighted in yellow.
MR. DARDEN: Was it your testimony yesterday that you were offended when you heard Mark Fuhrman use that epithet?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Now, when you met with Miss Clark and Miss Lewis and Mr. Hodgman and myself on August 17, do you recall me asking you what you thought or what came to mind when you first heard Fuhrman use that epithet?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes, I do.
MR. DARDEN: And you told me that nothing came to mind; is that correct?
MS. MCKINNY: That's correct, that I couldn't remember anything coming to mind the first time. Your question was what came to mind the first time you heard that word, I believe.
MR. DARDEN: But you don't remember what came to mind at the time?
MS. MCKINNY: No. That would have been about ten years ago. I could not remember the first time I heard that word used what came to my mind.
MR. DARDEN: You don't remember a white police officer using this epithet in your presence and your not being offended by it?
MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of that question and the tone of the voice.
THE COURT: Sustained. It is argumentative.
MR. DARDEN: You understand that that word is the most vile word in the English language?
MS. MCKINNY: I think it is one of the most vile words in the English language, yes.
MR. DARDEN: You think there are worse?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes, I certainly do. Why are we having this adversarial relationship? I don't understand that. It is a vile word. Why do I have to define it more so than it is?
MR. DARDEN: You wrote a screenplay, right?
MS. MCKINNY: That is accurate.
MR. DARDEN: Did you use that word in the screenplay?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Did you attempt to out and sell that screenplay?
MS. MCKINNY: Certainly.
MR. DARDEN: You are using that word in your screenplay to help make money, right?
MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of that question, your Honor. That is argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.
MR. DARDEN: Are you trying to make money off of the use of that word?
MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of this question, your Honor. Object.
THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled. It is an appropriate question.
MR. DARDEN: When you met Detective Fuhrman you told him that you were a screenwriter?
MS. MCKINNY: That is accurate.
MR. DARDEN: And you told him that you had written other screenplays?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: And how many screenplays have you written up to this point?
MS. MCKINNY: I've written about a dozen screenplays, approximately six that I would--would consider that would be in appropriate shape now to be read, but I have written about a dozen screenplays, more treatments, synopses.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. How many screenplays did you tell Fuhrman you had written when you first met him?
MR. COCHRAN: Assumes a fact not in evidence that she told him anything, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. DARDEN: Did you tell Detective Fuhrman how many screenplays you had written when you first met him?
MS. MCKINNY: I don't recall telling him how many screenplays I had written, but it could have come up in conversation that I had the year before won an award for a screenplay through the Writer's Guild of America East Foundation. That could have come up.
MR. DARDEN: Now, do you have to be a member of the writer's guild to win that award?
MS. MCKINNY: No, you don't.
MR. DARDEN: Are you a member of the writer's guild?
MS. MCKINNY: No, I am not.
MR. DARDEN: You have had one screenplay published or made into a film?
MS. MCKINNY: Have I had one screenplay made into a film?
MR. DARDEN: Yes.
MS. MCKINNY: No.
MR. DARDEN: Have you had any made into a film?
MS. MCKINNY: I have had short pieces filmed, yes.
MR. DARDEN: You had a short piece called "The painter"?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes, I did.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. Who made that into a film?
MS. MCKINNY: That was directed--produced by playboy productions.
MR. DARDEN: Who directed that film?
MS. MCKINNY: Daniel McKinny.
MR. DARDEN: Your husband?
MS. MCKINNY: That's correct.
MR. DARDEN: And this piece was what, sort of soft porn kind of piece?
MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, object to the form. Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained. This is not relevant. This is not relevant.
MR. DARDEN: When Mark Fuhrman used these words in your presence why didn't you just tell him to stop?
MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I object to the form of that question. I object to the form of that question.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. COCHRAN: Argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MCKINNY: For the same reason I didn't tell him to stop when he told me of police procedures, cover-ups, other information that I felt were important for me to have a clear understanding in context of this material that I was writing. He told me many things that I thought were important for me to understand, many things I hadn't been aware of, as did other officers of the Los Angeles Police Department, as did many of the other interviews that I did and ride-alongs I went on. I was in a journalistic mode. I was not judgmental. And I needed that information to help me write a more realistic journalistic piece and I did not ask him to stop using the type of normal ordinary language he would use or other officers would use. I needed to know how he would speak.
MR. DARDEN: You told us yesterday that there was no racial subplot to the screenplay you were planning to write, correct?
MS. MCKINNY: That is accurate.
MR. DARDEN: And yet you use this epithet in your screenplay anyway; is that also correct?
MS. MCKINNY: That is true.
MR. DARDEN: Now, your relationship in 1985 with Mark Fuhrman, was it only professional?
MR. COCHRAN: Object, your Honor. This is irrelevant and immaterial.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MCKINNY: He was--it was--I'm sorry. It was a business relationship. He was a technical advisor for the screenplay.
MR. DARDEN: And that is it?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. DARDEN: I can I have a moment, your Honor?
THE COURT: Certainly.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. DARDEN: You mentioned something about cover-ups a few minutes ago; is that right?
MS. MCKINNY: I'm sorry. Again, please.
MR. DARDEN: Did you mention the term "Cover-up" a few minutes ago?
MS. MCKINNY: I did, yes.
MR. DARDEN: What you were alluding to at that time was a discussion you and Fuhrman had as it related to women police officers; is that correct?
MR. COCHRAN: Object, your Honor. Object to the form of that question as argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. DARDEN: Is that correct?
MS. MCKINNY: Again, please, I'm sorry.
MR. DARDEN: What you were alluding to was a conversation you had with Detective Fuhrman as it related to female police officers and the LAPD's recognition that female police officers did not perform well in violent situations; is that right?
MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of that, your Honor. Object to the form of that question.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MCKINNY: Some LAPD officers and also in relation to police procedural cover-up issues that I needed to know about.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. DARDEN: When you spoke to us on August 17--can I have one moment?
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. DARDEN: I will get Mr. Cochran a copy of this.
(Brief pause.)
MR. DARDEN: While I look for this--strike that.
(Brief pause.)
MR. DARDEN: I neglected to bring Mr. Cochran a clean copy of this document, your Honor.
THE COURT: Why don't you show it to him.
(Brief pause.)
(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. DARDEN: Do you recall during our August 17th interview that Miss Clark asked you specifically what you meant when you used the term "Cover-ups"?
MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of that, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MCKINNY: Yeah, I do. Yes, I do remember us discussing that.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. Do you recall her--strike that. Do you recall telling her that what you were referring to were cover-ups in terms of the LAPD's recognition and cover-up of the fact that female officers did not perform well in violent situations, or words to that effect?
MS. MCKINNY: I don't know if it was Miss Clark or Miss Lewis who made that comment. It was one of them.
MR. DARDEN: But that was basically your response to them at the time?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. Now, you asked a moment ago why we are involved in some adversarial relationship. Do you recall asking that?
MS. MCKINNY: I felt that you were. I don't feel adversarial toward you, but I felt that there was something negative coming from some of your questions, yes.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. You didn't stop him the first time he used the epithet, correct?
MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, that has be asked and answered.
THE COURT: It has.
MR. DARDEN: Well, you didn't stop him the twentieth time he used the epithet?
MR. COCHRAN: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: That has not. Overruled.
MR. DARDEN: Correct?
MS. MCKINNY: That's correct.
MR. DARDEN: You didn't stop him the fortieth or forty-second time that he used the epithet, correct?
MS. MCKINNY: I didn't abridge his dialogue or conversation during an interview, no.
MR. DARDEN: Given the fact that you have included this epithet in your screenplay, do you feel that it is appropriate under some circumstances to utter or use this word?
MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I object to the form of this. Object to the form of that question.
THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.
MS. MCKINNY: Do I personally feel it is appropriate?
MR. DARDEN: Yes.
MS. MCKINNY: No, I don't.
MR. DARDEN: Why then include it in a screenplay, a screenplay that you intend to make into a movie?
MS. MCKINNY: Because it is reflective of particular officers or officer's dialogue, feelings at a particular time. It is representative of what would be said.
MR. DARDEN: That is all I have.
THE COURT: Mr. Cochran.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN
MR. COCHRAN: Miss McKinny--
MS. MCKINNY: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: --you don't like racism, do you?
MS. MCKINNY: No.
MR. COCHRAN: But you understand that racism exists in the world? Are you aware of that?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes, I am aware of that.
MR. DARDEN: Object, your Honor. This is--
MR. COCHRAN: And the fact--
THE COURT: These are argumentative and leading. Proceed.
MR. COCHRAN: The fact that Mark Fuhrman used the "N" word more than 42 times--
MR. DARDEN: Objection. That misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. COCHRAN: --did that make you agree with him when he was using those words?
MS. MCKINNY: (No audible response.)
MR. COCHRAN: Did you agree with him when he was using those words in that base, vile manner?
MS. MCKINNY: Of course not.
MR. COCHRAN: You have described for us that you were working as a journalist at the time; is that correct?
MS. MCKINNY: That's true.
MR. COCHRAN: And with regard to your screenplay, Men Against Women, you told us yesterday that racism was not one of the--not even a subplot; is that correct?
MR. DARDEN: Objection, misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. COCHRAN: Is that correct?
MS. MCKINNY: That's true.
MR. COCHRAN: And so when these words, these vile insulting words came up, you weren't saying these words, were you?
MS. MCKINNY: No.
MR. COCHRAN: Who was saying these words?
MS. MCKINNY: Officer Fuhrman.
MR. COCHRAN: Who was expressing these views of cover-ups?
MS. MCKINNY: Officer Fuhrman.
MR. DARDEN: Motion to strike. Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. COCHRAN: With regard to cover-up, he talked to you, did he not?
MR. DARDEN: Objection, there is a 352.
THE COURT: Sustained, sustained, sustained.
MR. COCHRAN: Well, your Honor, I need to be heard. I certainly do.
THE COURT: Side bar.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)
THE COURT: All right. We are over at the side Mr. Cochran.
MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor--
THE COURT: What is your intended question?
MR. COCHRAN: Well, my intended question was that he talked with--Mr. Fuhrman in the course of these tapes talked about cover-ups, Men Against Women or how women reacted. He opened the door, your Honor. He talked about cover-ups and he tried to limit it to Miss Clark or Miss Lewis asking the question. There are many other cover-ups that took place and we have a right to bring that up. I didn't bring that up. You limited us and I didn't do it. I sat down.
THE COURT: Mr. Darden, why did you write that up.
MR. DARDEN: I didn't bring that up. She unloaded on me, okay, and mentioned the word cover-up and I went back to it to clarify the fact that what she was talking about was I asked about recognition by the LAPD, that they recognized that female officers don't perform well in the field and that--and that--and that in Fuhrman's view the department covered that problem up. She unloaded that on me. That wasn't in direct response to a question. She unloaded that on me in front of the jury. She is their witness. It is obvious she is biased for the Defense. What am I to do? We have this highly inflammatory and volatile issue here in front of the jury. I'm trying to do my cross. She unloaded me. I tried to repair some of the damage. I did not go into the issue of cover-ups.
THE COURT: So what are you going to ask in response to this, Mr. Cochran?
MR. COCHRAN: I have the right, it seems to me, to ask the question.
THE COURT: That is not what I asked. I asked you what are you going to ask?
MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I resent that tone. I'm a man just like you are, your Honor. I resent that tone, your Honor. I resent that tone, your Honor.
(The following proceedings were held in open court:)
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, would you please step back into the jury room, please. All right. I will see counsel in chambers with the court reporter, please.
(The following proceedings were held in camera:)
THE COURT: The record should reflect that we are in chambers with Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran, Miss Clark and Mr. Darden. I have asked counsel to step into chambers. Mr. Cochran, let me just express to you some concern that I have regarding our personal relationship at this point in time.
MR. COCHRAN: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: I have chosen up to this point to ignore your press conference last Thursday and what I consider to be in direct contempt of this court. I have chosen to ignore that. And today when we were at the side bar, this is obviously a very volatile issue, and I asked you to direct yourself to the question that I asked, what questions were you going to ask with regards to Miss McKinny and her conversations--her testimony just now about a cover-up. And I think the record will reflect that I asked you a direct question and you started talking about something else. And I redirected your attention back to the question that I asked and apparently you have taken umbrage at that. Well, Mr. Cochran, let me tell you something. I take umbrage at your response and your reaction. And I want you to know that I have chosen to ignore it thus far and that is because of our long relationship and what I will hope will be our continuing friendship. And what I'm going to suggest that we do is that you and I both take a deep breath, take a recess and come back and talk about this again. You know, you are involved in the heat of battle. I understand that.
MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I was trying to and the question--but what I said was I--
THE COURT: I was trying to cut to the chase. What I should have asked and the vernacular is where are we going with that?
MR. COCHRAN: You are right about that. Perhaps my reaction was that I felt that I was a man, you are a man, we have been friends and I thought the tone--
THE COURT: Counsel, when you say something, "I am a man, you are a man," that is--that is a challenge of sorts, wouldn't you say?
MR. COCHRAN: Well, no. I was just saying I didn't want to be talked to like a school kid. I said that I felt that we do have a long relationship and the court--I felt we were the ones who were being put upon on this whole issue and I was trying to explain it and I didn't get a chance to explain it. And your Honor wanted to get right to the issue. I'm not saying you jumped me, but you said, "That is not what I asked you." I'm saying, Judge, I'm trying to get to it. So I will take a deep breath. And I am prepared now to try to tell you what I am trying to do.
THE COURT: No. I need to take a deep breath, too, Mr. Cochran.
MR. COCHRAN: Okay.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: I think we have sort of gotten far afield on some of our discussions here. All right. Let's take a recess.
(Proceedings in camera concluded.)
(Recess.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. The jury is not present. Mr. Cochran, did you want to make any further comment on the--
MR. COCHRAN: I would ask, your Honor, would the court allow Dean Uelmen to make that for me at this point?
THE COURT: We are in mid-sentence in your argument, counsel.
MR. COCHRAN: We were, but I would ask if he could make it because it ties in with the--
THE COURT: No, I would prefer that you conclude the--
MR. COCHRAN: May I have a second, your Honor?
THE COURT: Sure.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. COCHRAN: May I have a second, your Honor?
THE COURT: Certainly.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
THE COURT: Mr. Cochran.
MR. COCHRAN: Thank you very kindly, your Honor, for this opportunity. What I wanted to indicate to the court, and I will do it as briefly as possible, is that I believe my colleague Mr. Darden opened the door when the testimony was elicited about a cover-up. Further, I think if--I think you have to, first of all, look at the thrust of their cross-examination. The impression they gave to this jury was that Miss McKinny was in some way trying to profit from these tapes, profit from the transcripts, and nothing could be further from the truth. I need hardly remind this court that we got your Honor to issue a subpoena that I went to North Carolina and we were rebuffed at the superior court, the comparable court, the superior court. We had to go all the way to North Carolina court of appeals. And these lawyers, Messers. Regwan and Schwartz, did an excellent job in fighting us to get this. She resisted coming to California. When she finally got here August 1, you saw the problems we had even getting the tapes then.
THE COURT: I am familiar with the history. Is that where you are with--
MR. COCHRAN: I think they have opened the door clearly to that. But other than that, your Honor, in addition to that--so that is the impression they give to this jury. She doesn't want to be out here. She didn't favor one side or the other. You will recall that when we were in court that day--I will get to the point--Mr. Simpson, you will recall--usually I'm sitting next to him when we talk about that, your Honor.
THE COURT: I know, I can hear most of it.
MR. COCHRAN: I understand. You will recall that when we argued about the tapes belonging to the Defense or at least we have the right to it, she went down that same day and gave a copy to the Prosecution. She interviewed with him for hours. That is why she was so taken aback about what she perceived as negativity. You last week, your Honor--I know you don't like to be quoted, but this is a time I think I can quote you appropriately--but you said last week that it was clear--after listening to the tapes it was clear that Fuhrman wasn't describing a fictional character but describing his point of view. I mean everybody in the world knows now, if that is true, these tapes are the best evidence of what they are trying to make it, not like she is trying to embellish this. She again throws out with Michael Viner a nondisclosure agreement is to test the water. Viner or his office never ever saw these tapes or transcripts. That should be abundantly clear. I can bring that out also. The lawyers felt it was not malpractice not to know the overall value of these things.
THE COURT: Mr. Cochran, let me just cut to the chase here. The issue that I was concerned with--I agree with you that it is probably appropriate redirect to go back and discuss the procedural fight to get those tapes and that Miss McKinny resisted all the way to the appellate courts in North Carolina, and that once she was compelled to come here to the state of California then she cooperated with both sides. I don't have a problem with that.
MR. COCHRAN: All right.
THE COURT: I could probably do that in five questions.
MR. COCHRAN: Okay.
THE COURT: The second issue--
MR. COCHRAN: We will see if we can do that.
THE COURT: The issue about selling the tapes or I'm sure Miss McKinny has had the opportunity to discuss with her lawyers the fact that the tapes and transcripts were never transmitted to dove audio or to anybody else for commercial exploitation purposes, that is fair game, because that is an issue that was brought up. I'm more concerned about the issue that was our last side bar.
MR. COCHRAN: Let me address that, your Honor. I think that clearly when Mr. Darden got the answer about a cover-up or cover-ups he then went back, as he indicated, to try and repair the damage, his own words, and what he did was try to elicit from her, well, you were just talking about when you talked about cover-up the LAPD covering up Men Against Women and that sort of thing. That is not correct at all. And this witness will say, as an offer of proof, that first of all, there were many cover-ups, as you know, from the tapes. There were cover-ups in the very beginning when officers would go out and they didn't have probable cause to arrest anybody and tear up their driver's license. There was cover-ups in manufacturing evidence all throughout. But specifically with regard to Men Against Women, and the instance you will recall--
THE COURT: I think--my recollection of Miss McKinny's transcripts is which she talks about cover-ups, she talked about it in terms--she used the term cover-up in the terms of an incident of police misconduct having occurred and then there being a concerted effort by the officer--
MR. COCHRAN: Code of silence.
THE COURT: --by the officer involved to make sure that nobody was disciplined. For example, my recollection of the plot was that one of the female officers was supposed to have arrested somebody, then the transporting officers then beat the arrestee out of her presence.
MR. COCHRAN: Ruptured his spleen.
THE COURT: Ruptures his spleen with the batons and then she come in and says, I didn't see any of that, I don't know who transported, et cetera, et cetera, and becomes part of it. That was my understanding of her discussion of cover-ups.
MR. COCHRAN: Right. Well, you are right on with regard to that. It is much more than what he has elicited, and clearly he has opened the door on it. It is about a cover-up where to be one of the boys this female then covers up the death of a suspect whom she has choked out, but she doesn't kill the suspect. The suspect is killed by these other male officers who beat this person to death by rupturing his spleen.
Actually, that is not fictional, by the way, as this community is going to find out. The other issue, your Honor, is this: That she talks about other cover-ups also. I mean, she talks about cover-ups all the way through, so I'm saying you can't just limit it to this instance of the Men Against Women situation. They opened the door.
THE COURT: Which hence brings me to my question, where are you going? What specific instances are you going to?
MR. COCHRAN: Well, I would like to--let me tell you the question I would like, your Honor, specifically. I would like to ask her what did you mean when you said cover-up? And I think she will then tell us about these in the Men Against Women context, but also in the other contest where Detective Fuhrman talked about covering up. And the court can ask her. I'm not testifying. She would be the one so indicating. And I think we are permitted to go after that. And the final thing I will say on this was I think they have opened the door by virtue of the fact that their attack on this witness, this unnecessary needless attack, and you told them about not going into this, and yet they did it, when they did that they opened the door to these tapes. And I think we would get a chance to do that. Your Honor, for instance, Mr. Darden's questions about as though she was egging Fuhrman on using racial epithets or you didn't try to stop him or whatever, that is almost when they would in Roots--and they used the "N" word in Roots, that you couldn't talk about racism. This play is about sexism. This lady is opposed to sexism. In literary circles, in art, that is how you address things so people start to discuss it and maybe bring about changes. You don't buy into it necessarily so. Now that that has been done, this door has been opened, it seems to me that we should be permitted to do this, and that is why, you know, I wanted to make this statement to the court. Certainly you cleared the first part of it, but I think the rest of it is also clear, your Honor. I'm being handed something. May I read something to the court my counsel just shared with me, your Honor? This has to do with--let me just read this and I think it puts it in perspective about lying and covering up. This is describing--there was our no. 10 describing the necessity of police officers to be willing to lie. "Well, I really love being a policeman when I can be a policeman. It is like my partner now. He is so hung up with the rules and stuff"--
THE COURT: "He has more morals than he has got hair."
MR. COCHRAN: Remember that? "You just don't fucking even understand. The job is not rules. This is a feeling. Fuck the rules. We will make them up later. He's a college graduate, as you know, a catholic college," et cetera. "He was going to be a priest," et cetera, "And he has got more morals than he has got hair. "What do you mean he has got more morals?" "He doesn't know how to be a policeman, especially can't lie. Oh, you make me fucking sick to my guts. You know, you do what you have to do to put these fucking assholes in jail. If you don't, you fuckin' get out the fuckin' game. He just wants to be one of the boys. He doesn't want to play--pay the dues, so how does he deal with it? He doesn't lie. Well, I know for a fact in this Internal Affairs investigation he has a 10-day suspension, he will roll." He goes on to say:
"He will drop a dime on me. He will squeal." Now, Judge, that is cover-up and that is another cover-up, and clearly I think you understand that and that is the point we are trying to make. We are now permitted to at least play this to the jury, to at least ask questions about it. He can't talk about cover-ups and then try to put it on this will little tiny frame, that he was only talking about Men Against Women, because that is not even clear. We can clear that up plus show, I think as a representation to this court, that there are other instances of cover-up and they opened the door. You ruled, we all understood that, but they opened the door, Judge. So I'm asking you to allow to us do this and let's get it over with so we can finish our case. They have opened the door.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. DARDEN: Can I respond?
MR. COCHRAN: Also, you know, one of the other issues that we are going to be talking is cover-ups e probable cause, lying to try and put together probable cause, but that is another issue, but I think that this is a very germane thing. We have sat over there. It has now happened and it seems to me we should be permitted to do this, Judge.
THE COURT: Mr. Darden.
MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, in 10:14 and 44 seconds I asked this question: "When Mark Fuhrman used these words in your presence why didn't you just tell him to stop?" And after an objection Miss McKinny volunteered:
"For the same reason I didn't tell him to stop when he told me of police procedures, cover-ups and other information" and so an and so on. So I didn't invite this witness to bring cover--the term "Cover-ups" into these proceedings in her testimony, Judge. I asked her about a specific word. We are talking about a specific epithet. But she brought it in. And yes, I did attempt to repair some of the damage and so now the issue before the court is now that the witness has volunteered this, does that now allow counsel--and by the way, Miss McKinny is his witness, not the Prosecution's witness--does that now allow counsel to drag in more inflammatory and irrelevant material before this jury? I don't think so. I don't think that is fair. I don't think it has any probative value at all. And what I was attempting to show the witness was an excerpt from a transcript of a conversation she and I had on August 17th in my office, and if I could just read into the record briefly what that excerpt says, and this is Miss McKinny at page 5, line 19: "He expressed very strongly that it would be wonderful if someone would write a story from his point of view, from the men's point of view, about why women weren't succeeding in those areas and what they couldn't do and what kind of cover-ups were occurring in terms of that and that interested me." Okay. So even my subsequent follow-up questions were directed to Mark Fuhrman's belief that the department was covering up the fact that female officers did not perform well in violent situations. Okay. I wasn't getting into all this other stuff. And you know, Mark Fuhrman did discuss other kind of cover-ups and other issues like that in his taped interviews with Miss McKinny and I concede that and we have conceded all of this all along, but my point today is this: Well, it is a personal point of view. Well, in any event I don't think this opens the door to any of this. I think it is time to take control again of these proceedings and let's move along with the issues that are relevant.
MR. COCHRAN: May I respond, your Honor?
THE COURT: Briefly.
MR. COCHRAN: Certainly, your Honor. Thank you. This, your Honor, is about their attack on her credibility and the court has said many times, been very concerned many times about leaving an unfair and misleading impression upon this jury. You told the Prosecution last week how they should conduct this cross-examination. What Mr. Darden did was he asked the famous "Why" questioned.
THE COURT: I offered them some advice.
MR. COCHRAN: Yeah, and I didn't mean--
THE COURT: As I oftentimes offer you advice.
MR. COCHRAN: Both sides, yes, but you made a suggestion. They didn't follow it. They asked the why question. This answer that he got and then he went into it further in cover-up, and when he does that there is much more to it than that, and it is wrong and they attacked her credibility, Judge. And you have heard those tapes and that is unfair. That is a misleading impression to this jury and they are using your ruling as a shield. Using the shield as a sword against us and against Mr. Simpson specifically. And so that is not right, your Honor, and we have a right, it seems to me, under these circumstances, to plumb this area, to him bring out what you deem appropriate in this area, and we are not going to belabor it but we have an absolute right. They opened the door. I mean, this isn't anything we did. And we did our examination and sat down. We are back up here now because of something they did and I think we have a right to do that. And in the interest of justice and truth we have a right to do that also. Also in the interests of a lady who fought getting out here, to malign her in front of this jury and give that wrong impression is not right, so I think the court would want to allow to us straighten that out on each of these areas and point out there is more to this cover-up regarding Men Against Women but also there are other cover-ups that she was talking about. And when you ask "Why" questions you get those answers, your Honor, and that is the thing. That is the point that come about and I think that the record is very clear in this regard and I would ask the court to rule and allow to us do it and we will be--I will be--you said five questions. We will be very quick. I will try to do the whole thing in ten or fifteen questions. In fact, I will take your advice if you want to give me some of that.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. All right. As to the question regarding the procedural history as to how the tapes and transcripts got to California and the fact that Miss McKinny did resist through the appellate courts in the North Carolina courts, that is an appropriate line of questioning. As to the discussions regarding dove audio and the nature of that agreement, that is appropriate redirect examination based upon the cross-examination. As to the mention of cover-ups, the problem I have here is that the answer where Miss McKinny mentions cover-ups was a nonresponsive answer. The question was concerning tolerating the use of the "N" word or at least not mentioning it in response to the--not making any mention in response to the use and then adding gratuitously the issue regarding cover-ups. However it is phrased in the context of a specific statement by Miss McKinny made to the District Attorneys, that statement has been made available to the Defense. Mr. Cochran, you may recross--excuse me--redirect your examination as to that statement made to the District Attorney's office. All right. But that is the limitation.
MR. COCHRAN: So that I'm clear, I can plumb that particular area as to what you meant by "Cover-up" in that area; is that right?
THE COURT: That particular area about Men Against Women, inadequacy of woman police officers--
MR. COCHRAN: All right.
THE COURT: --alleged.
MR. COCHRAN: All right.
THE COURT: All right. Let's have the jury, please.
(Brief pause.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Miss McKinny, would you resume the witness stand, please.
MS. MCKINNY: Yes.
THE COURT: Thank you. 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. And Mr. Cochran, you may continue with your redirect examination.
MR. COCHRAN: Thank you very kindly, your Honor. Good morning again, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good morning.
MR. COCHRAN: Good morning, ms. McKinny.
MS. MCKINNY: Good morning, Mr. Cochran.
MR. COCHRAN: If I may continue, Miss McKinny, you had shared with us, in fact I think on cross-examination, you said that you have been out here since July 13th. Was that correct? Was it July 13th?
MS. MCKINNY: No, it was incorrect.
MR. COCHRAN: What is the correct date?
MS. MCKINNY: August 13th.
MR. COCHRAN: It may just seem like July 13th, is that it, but you have been here since August 13th?
MS. MCKINNY: It has been a long time.
MR. COCHRAN: Is your family here with you?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes, my husband and boys are here.
MR. COCHRAN: Now, ma'am, with regard to your coming to California, did you voluntarily come out here and bring your tapes and transcripts out here so you could come to California and testify?
MS. MCKINNY: No, sir, I was subpoenaed by the court.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And when you were subpoenaed by a subpoena issued by Judge Ito and this court, did you resist and fight that subpoena?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes, I did.
MR. COCHRAN: And tell the court and jury what you did to fight that subpoena.
MS. MCKINNY: I hired Mr. Regwan and Mr. Schwartz and they--
MR. COCHRAN: The two gentlemen seated there?
MS. MCKINNY: The two gentlemen seated there, and they flew to North Carolina and fought the subpoena in court there with Mr. Cochran and Mr. Bailey.
MR. COCHRAN: So in other words, you first met me in North Carolina about a month ago; is that right?
MS. MCKINNY: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: And you fought this subpoena at that time; isn't that correct? Winston Salem, North Carolina?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: In fact, you won in the initial hearing; isn't that correct?
MS. MCKINNY: My attorneys did as well as a local firm with whom they were working.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And thereafter--
THE COURT: Excuse me, Mr. Cochran. I think there is--there is an impression here, you said that you were in North Carolina, I think needs to be--need or made clear to the jury that you were on one side and Mr. Regwan and Mr. Schwartz were on the other side at that time.
MR. COCHRAN: Yes, your Honor. Thank you very kindly.
MR. COCHRAN: When we were in Winston Salem, North Carolina, on a Friday morning you had your two fine lawyers, Messers. Regwan and Schwartz, right?
MS. MCKINNY: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: But local counsel there in Winston Salem, right?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And on the other side was myself, Mr. Bailey and our local North Carolina counsel; is that correct?
MS. MCKINNY: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And then at that point the Judge in North Carolina ruled for you so you wouldn't have to come to California; isn't that right?
MS. MCKINNY: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: Then we continued to fight this matter and it went up to the North Carolina court of appeals; isn't that right?
MS. MCKINNY: That's right.
MR. COCHRAN: And that is where we won at that point; is that right? By "We" I mean Mr. Simpson's side won at that point?
MS. MCKINNY: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: And I presume nobody was reimbursing you for the money you were spending? Lawyers aren't free, are they?
MR. DARDEN: Objection, irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. COCHRAN: Nobody was--in other words, nobody was helping you pay for these lawyers you had back there, were you?
MS. MCKINNY: No.
MR. COCHRAN: And at some point when the North Carolina court of appeals upheld Judge Ito's subpoena, you then agreed to come to California; is that correct?
MS. MCKINNY: I don't believe I had a choice. Certainly I would.
MR. COCHRAN: When the final court ruled you then came to California; is that right?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And that was only after then when you produced and delivered these tapes; is that correct?
MS. MCKINNY: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And once you came to California with these tapes and these transcripts, the same date that you delivered them to the Defense, Mr. Simpson, you also delivered them to the Prosecution on that same date, did you not?
MS. MCKINNY: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: And you tried to cooperate with them, didn't you?
MS. MCKINNY: I have wanted to cooperate with the court, the Prosecution and the Defense, yes.
MR. COCHRAN: In fact, Mr. Darden asked you if you came to California on August 13th. It was August 17th as he asked that you came down in this building in the D.A.'s office and met with all the D.A.'s and talked with them; isn't that right?
MS. MCKINNY: That's right.
MR. COCHRAN: And in that meeting they tape-recorded everything you had to say, didn't they?
MS. MCKINNY: They did.
MR. COCHRAN: And you also gave them a copy of your screenplay, didn't you?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes, I did.
MR. COCHRAN: You cooperated fully, right?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to your work as a screenwriter, also you described for Mr. Darden that you had won an award at some time in the past through the Writer's Guild of America. Tell the jury about that award and whether or not there was a cash stipend that went along with that award.
MR. DARDEN: Objection. It is irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. COCHRAN: You may answer.
MS. MCKINNY: Yes. It was an award I won in 1984 through the Writer's Guild of America East Foundation, so it was a competitive award for screenplays and there was a cash stipend, and along with that a request that you write another screenplay with a mentor of your choice. The cash stipend I used to purchase a computer and my laptop.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. You have done other screenplays in addition to this one Men Against Women; isn't that correct?
MS. MCKINNY: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: Now, you shared with us and this jury that the premise of Men Against Women is sexism; is that correct?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And are you opposed to sexism?
MR. DARDEN: Objection, irrelevant.
MS. MCKINNY: Yes.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. COCHRAN: Yet you write a play about sexism, right?
MS. MCKINNY: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: And would you describe for the jury why as a writer you write a play about sexism?
MS. MCKINNY: It was a topic I wanted to explore from the man's point of view and the woman's point of view to try to understand better why some men would be so upset by what they felt as the incapable abilities (Sic) in some areas of high crime that they would form an organization called Men Against Women and be a part of that and why some women would be upset with some of the things that men were doing in making it difficult for them to perform their jobs, embarrassing them or humiliating them. So I wanted to try to have--to explore those issues and--and develop some kind of a dialogue or discussion.
MR. COCHRAN: Now, I asked you a question before with regard to the whole concept of racism and writings regarding racism. During the time that you--1985, when you first encountered this man, Mark Fuhrman, you have described for us I believe that you were employed at UCLA working with Terry Donohue; is that correct?
MS. MCKINNY: I was employed at UCLA working under the auspices of coach Terry Donohue in conjunction with the college of letters and sciences, yes.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. In that connection did you work frequently with African American athletes?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes, I did.
MR. COCHRAN: Would you describe for the court what you did during that time, and the jury.
MS. MCKINNY: The--sorry. The NAA--the National Association--sorry.
MR. COCHRAN: NAACP?
MS. MCKINNY: No, not the NAACP.
THE COURT: NCAA?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes, NCAA.
MR. COCHRAN: Alphabet organizations.
MS. MCKINNY: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: NCAA?
MS. MCKINNY: Had demanded that athletes be studying courses in their field of expertise and not taking any class, so it was incumbent upon the athletic department during that period to hire educators who they felt would be able to work with athletes, high-risk athletes, athletes they felt might need extra counseling, extra tutorial time and understanding time management and study skills. So they hired--they would hire someone such as myself to work with what they called high-risk athletes and that is what I did during that time.
MR. COCHRAN: And would some of these high-risk athletes be African American youngsters?
MS. MCKINNY: In the beginning they were, yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And did you interact with them on a daily basis?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Did you enjoy that work?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes, very much.
MR. COCHRAN: You were asked some questions about a document that Mr. Darden marked and at the top of it is called "Nondisclosure agreement." May I approach, your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. COCHRAN: Do you know what a nondisclosure agreement is, Miss McKinny, generally?
MS. MCKINNY: Generally I do.
MR. COCHRAN: And what is it?
MS. MCKINNY: I have just recently learned what a nondisclosure agreement is. Umm, it is an agreement that you would give to another party and what it does is ask them not to discuss the material, not to show the material, not to copy the material. They cannot disclose or talk about the product or the material to anyone else.
MR. COCHRAN: All right.
MS. MCKINNY: As I understand it. Is that accurate? That is my understanding.
MR. COCHRAN: I think so. As I understand the letter that is placed before you, August 18, 1995, from Mr. Michael Viner--address to Michael Viner to your lawyers, you had never seen that before Mr. Darden showed it to you; is that correct?
MS. MCKINNY: That's true.
MR. COCHRAN: And with regard to since you came to California, have you at any time ever authorized anyone to try and sell these tapes or screenplay--strike that--these tapes or transcriptions?
MS. MCKINNY: No.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And with regard to your lawyers, did they at some point tell you that it would be malpractice if they didn't try to find out for you what the value of these tapes and transcripts are worth?
MR. DARDEN: Objection, hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. COCHRAN: Did they tell you that?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes, they did.
MR. COCHRAN: Did they try to find out the value of these tapes and transcriptions?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes.
THE COURT: Mr. Cochran, do you need to stand there, because you are blocking juror no. 7?
MR. COCHRAN: No, I don't.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. COCHRAN: Now, in that connection, even though you now found out the value of these items, and I won't ask you what the value is, you still have not tried to sell these, have you?
MS. MCKINNY: No, I have not.
MR. COCHRAN: What you do want to sell is your screenplay Men Against Women; isn't that right?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes, that would be lovely.
MR. COCHRAN: That is what you want to do; isn't that right?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Now, ma'am, you mentioned, in response to one of Mr. Darden's questions about specific cover-up as relates Men Against Women--and I want to ask you in that regard what did you mean when you talked about cover-up as relates to Men Against Women in this screenplay that you ultimately wrote? Would you tell us about that?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes. One of the reasons why I was discovering that some women were having a difficult time being accepted into the police department in certain male circles--
MR. DARDEN: I'm going to object at this time. Pardon me. I'm going to object at this time. It is nonresponsive.
MR. COCHRAN: It is responsive, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. COCHRAN: You may continue.
MS. MCKINNY: In certain circles officers didn't trust their confidence or their ability--
MR. DARDEN: Object at this time, your Honor.
THE COURT: Next question.
MR. COCHRAN: Can you continue and tell us--can you answer the question, please?
MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: It is turning into a narrative. Why don't you ask her the next question, counsel.
MR. COCHRAN: All right, your Honor.
MR. COCHRAN: When you--Mr. Darden asked you about this cover-up as relates Men Against Women, can you succinctly state for this jury what you meant and what you had reference to?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: I'm going to object to the form of that question.
THE COURT: Overruled. Go ahead and answer the question.
MS. MCKINNY: Some women on the police department were not willing to follow--
MR. DARDEN: Objection. Your Honor, I'm sorry, may we approach?
THE COURT: No. Overruled. Answer the question, Miss McKinny, please.
MS. MCKINNY: Some women on the police department were not willing to adhere to some of the cover-ups that men were--
MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor, 352.
THE COURT: Ask another question.
MR. COCHRAN: Well, you said that some women on the police department were not willing to adhere--
MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, may we approach, please?
THE COURT: This is not the topic, counsel. Let's redirect back into that topic.
MR. COCHRAN: All right, your Honor.
MR. COCHRAN: With regard to this subject of cover-up, can you tell us what you had reference to specifically in the area that Mr. Darden asked you about cover-ups as relates women and men on the Los Angeles Police Department?
MR. DARDEN: Objection. The question is vague. 352.
THE COURT: Overruled. Miss McKinny, we are speaking about the specific topic about the controversy about women as police officers in areas of high violence or high crime, the topic of your book.
MS. MCKINNY: Right. That is the sexism issue that relates to why women were unable to cover-up some issues the same way men were and it is related. They are interchangeable.
MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MCKINNY: They are interchangeable. Sexism is what I was looking into, but what I found out was--
MR. DARDEN: Objection.
MS. MCKINNY: --related to cover-ups, that men were--
MR. DARDEN: Objection, Judge.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I couldn't hear the last answer.
THE COURT: Finish the answer.
MR. COCHRAN: Finish, please.
MS. MCKINNY: Sexism was the issue that interested me, what I was looking into, but what I was finding was that--
MR. DARDEN: Objection, conclusion.
MR. COCHRAN: Can she finish her answer?
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MCKINNY: What I was finding was that sexism is inextricably related to certain cover-ups that some men on the police department are doing and some women are not able to agree with that or follow along those lines and that was a huge schism between men and women.
MR. COCHRAN: And in that connection can you give us like an example of this, of this schism between Men Against Women where--as a result of a cover-up?
MR. DARDEN: 352, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained. We've covered it.
MR. COCHRAN: May I have a second, your Honor?
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. COCHRAN: I will ask another question in this regard, your Honor.
MR. COCHRAN: Did Mark Fuhrman ever explain to you why he wouldn't trust a woman in this--from the standpoint of cover-up?
MR. DARDEN: Object, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained. It is not relevant.
MR. COCHRAN: Now, Mr. Darden asked you a lot of questions about why you didn't stop Mark Fuhrman from using this "N" word or whatever. Do you recall those questions?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And is there any doubt in your mind now as you sit here that Mark Fuhrman used this horrible word 41 or more times during the time that you were talking to him? Any doubt in your mind at all?
MR. DARDEN: Misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MCKINNY: No.
MR. COCHRAN: And those were his words coming from his mouth; is that right?
MS. MCKINNY: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: Those weren't your words, were they?
MS. MCKINNY: No.
MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, before I conclude, may I approach just for a moment, please?
THE COURT: With the court reporter, please.
MR. COCHRAN: Thank you.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)
THE COURT: All right. We are over at the side bar. Mr. Cochran.
MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor. The reason I wanted to approach is I think we should be permitted to play--there are certain portions of the tape which I think are now open that deal with Men Against Women. My colleagues are telling me we can find it. That is fair, from the question, and what we have been talking about dealing with Men Against Women and cover-ups. And to the extent that is in there, I would like an opportunity to do that. I'm not trying to delay. I think we should be able to rule--that if you don't rule all of it, then that portion that relates to cover-ups, Men Against Women, and I would like an opportunity to do it.
THE COURT: Do you want an opportunity to find it and review it and see if you want to do it?
MR. COCHRAN: I want to try to do it. So we don't delay it, I could put Hodge on right after this, and it is going to be very limited, by the way, and then could I bring her back if I do find that, if you will permit us to do so. We can do it and have over the lunch hour to do that.
MR. DARDEN: You issued an order related to McKinny, written order. You issued an order today regarding cover-ups. None of it has been followed, not one iota in no manner, no way, no how. Where are we going now? Where are we going now? You know, there is supposed to be rules followed by both sides so that counsel knows, you know how, to plan a case, how to examine witnesses. All these rules seem to be getting thrown out the door, Judge. You just limited him supposedly to a passage and a transcript, but now we have gone into Mark Fuhrman and cover-ups and how male officers--female officers won't cover-up for male officers and all this other nonsense. Okay. I mean, where is 352? Okay? None of this has any probative value. It is--shut this down and get this witness out of here. I mean, have you watched the jury? Have you watched their faces as all these epithets roll off of Mr. Bailey's tongue and Mr. Cochran's and everybody else's? At some point, you know, we get to the point where we are not getting a fair trial.
MS. CLARK: We are there.
MR. UELMEN: Your Honor, if I could just interject?
THE COURT: No. No, you may not.
MR. COCHRAN: I would like that opportunity, your Honor. This is nothing we opened up. They opened it up.
THE COURT: Well, no. Mr. Cochran, it is not an issue that you didn't open it up. That was a nonresponsive answer.
MR. COCHRAN: Well, we will talk about that later.
THE COURT: No. The question to Miss McKinny was did you stop him from using the "N" word? And then she goes on to say that she gratuitously tosses in this cover-up stuff.
MR. COCHRAN: Judge, when you have a "Why" question, why didn't you stop him, why didn't you do this, it opens up.
THE COURT: It does.
MR. COCHRAN: When you say why you do something, that person has a right to explain to it.
THE COURT: Just because it is opened it doesn't mean I have to spend court time going into it.
MR. COCHRAN: What we are talking about is misinforming the jury in some tiny passage.
THE COURT: Mr. Cochran, excuse me. Forgive me for interrupting you, but the reason I'm doing that, what I'm going to suggest we do is finish your redirect that you have now.
MR. COCHRAN: Okay.
THE COURT: We will hit the lunch hour shortly, in any event. Over the lunch hour you can find your excerpt.
MR. COCHRAN: Okay.
THE COURT: I don't recollect the particular excerpt we are talking about.
MR. COCHRAN: What I want the opportunity to look at--
THE COURT: We will look at it. If she is still available, if it is an appropriate section, you can recall her. If not, we will move on.
MR. COCHRAN: Okay. So we save some time, I will say something like when I finish "No further questions." If they have further questions, I would like to move to the next witness so we won't lose any time on that, but I will say "No further questions at this time" so I will have that opportunity.
MR. DARDEN: If she returns after lunch I will impeach her with her love letters to Mark Fuhrman.
MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, if they have got something else--
MR. DARDEN: Let's keep on going with this. This is ridiculous.
MR. COCHRAN: This is how we got into this problem, by attacking her.
MR. DARDEN: We got into this problem because we are chasing down issues that have nothing to do with this trial. If Mr. Simpson is acquitted just because Mark Fuhrman uttered an epithet, well, then there is no justice, Judge.
MR. COCHRAN: It won't be because of that because I would like to move ahead if I can.
THE COURT: All right. Let's proceed.
MR. COCHRAN: Thank you.
(The following proceedings were held in open court:)
THE COURT: Mr. Cochran.
MR. COCHRAN: Just two other questions, your Honor.
MR. COCHRAN: When you indicated that Mr. Fuhrman had used this word some 41 or more times, much how do you know that? Did you count them yourself from the transcripts and the tapes?
MS. MCKINNY: No, I did not count them.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. You have seen them, however, in the various and sundry documents filed with this court?
MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Leading.
MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Have you had occasion to review any document filed with this court with regard to the use of that word?
MR. DARDEN: This is irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MCKINNY: Yes, I have reviewed the offer of proof submitted by the Defense.
MR. DARDEN: Objection.
THE COURT: Basis?
MR. DARDEN: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. COCHRAN: You have counted those documents, right?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, I have nothing further at this point, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Recross.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DARDEN
MR. DARDEN: Miss McKinny, you testified in North Carolina on July 30th; is that correct?
MS. MCKINNY: I don't recall the exact date. That sounds close.
MR. DARDEN: Would it refresh your recollection if I showed you a transcript? Sorry. The date is wrong on the transcript. In any event, are you aware that the D.A.'s office attempted to subpoena these tapes from your attorneys on July 14th?
MS. MCKINNY: Again I don't--
MR. DARDEN: Are you aware that the D.A.'s office obtained a court order from the Judge attempting to subpoena to this court these very same tapes from your attorneys on July 14th?
MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of the question. Assumes a fact not in evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MCKINNY: No.
MR. DARDEN: Are you aware that on July 10th the D.A.'s office addressed the court and advised the court of the existence of these tapes and sought guidance from the court in terms of recovering these tapes?
MS. MCKINNY: On July 10th?
MR. DARDEN: Yes.
MS. MCKINNY: Again, please, I'm--
MR. DARDEN: Yes.
MS. MCKINNY: And did what? Could you say what you did again?
MR. DARDEN: That we went to Judge Ito and told him that we heard of the existence of these tapes and we asked the court for guidance and help in obtaining these tapes and causing them to be delivered to the court?
MS. MCKINNY: No, I'm not--I am not aware of that.
MR. DARDEN: Just so it is clear, when was it that you authorized your attorneys to contact media entities--entities to determine the value of the tapes and transcripts?
MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of that question, your Honor. There is no testimony about media entities.
THE COURT: Rephrase the question.
MR. DARDEN: When was it that you authorized your attorneys to contact any person or any organization or any business or corporation?
MS. MCKINNY: I don't recall a specific date that I authorized my attorneys to do that.
MR. DARDEN: Do you recall which month?
MS. MCKINNY: Which month?
MR. DARDEN: Yes.
MS. MCKINNY: It would have to be July or August.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. Well, do you know which one?
MS. MCKINNY: No, I don't.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. Was there any contact with the National Enquirer.
MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of that question. By whom, your Honor?
MR. DARDEN: By your attorneys?
THE COURT: Rephrase the question.
MR. DARDEN: Did you have your attorneys contact the National Enquirer?
MS. MCKINNY: I don't know if my attorneys have contacted the National Enquirer. They may have. I don't know.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. Did you have your attorneys contact media entities outside the United States?
MS. MCKINNY: I don't know. We were--we were contacted by people I didn't even know, and my attorneys would relay that information to me, so I don't know if for instance the National Enquirer would have called my attorneys or who would have contacted them.
MR. DARDEN: Thank you. That is all.
THE COURT: Mr. Cochran.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel and the Defendant.)
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN
MR. COCHRAN: I presume there has been a great amount of interest in these tapes and transcripts by a lot of the media; isn't that correct?
MS. MCKINNY: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: But you have refused steadfastly to sell these tapes; isn't that correct?
MS. MCKINNY: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: And you have even sent some portions of these tapes to Mr. Mark Fuhrman; isn't that correct?
MS. MCKINNY: (No audible response.)
MR. COCHRAN: Back in 1985 or earlier?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Thank you very kindly. Nothing further at this particular point, your Honor.
FURTHER RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DARDEN
MR. DARDEN: You said you sent tapes to Mark Fuhrman?
MS. MCKINNY: Excuse me then.
MR. COCHRAN: Transcription.
MR. DARDEN: I'm sorry, I'm asking the questions.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Darden.
MR. DARDEN: You said you sent tapes to Mr. Fuhrman?
MS. MCKINNY: I sent transcripts.
MR. DARDEN: With regard to the tapes and the transcript, who owns those tapes or transcripts, you or Mark Fuhrman?
MS. MCKINNY: I assume I own them. They are my tapes, my transcripts.
MR. DARDEN: That is all.
THE COURT: Mr. Cochran.
MR. COCHRAN: Just one last question.
FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN
MR. COCHRAN: Your lawyers and you have made these tapes and these transcripts available to Mark Fuhrman and his lawyer; isn't that correct?
MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. COCHRAN: Isn't that correct?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes, as well as to anyone else who has asked.
MR. COCHRAN: Others who have asked can go to your lawyer's office and listen to these things?
MS. MCKINNY: Anyone who has standing; LAPD, yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Anyone who has standing?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Just a few if the may.
FURTHER RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DARDEN
MR. DARDEN: The L.A. Police Commission has come over to take a listen to these tapes?
MS. MCKINNY: My attorney's office has been available for anyone who has standing who has called the attorneys to listen to the tapes and take copious notes on the transcript. They have spent hours, days there taking notes, but they are under protective order with only the Prosecution and the Defense actually having copies of the tapes or the transcripts.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. And the United States Department of Justice, have they been there to listen to the tapes yet?
MS. MCKINNY: I don't know.
MR. DARDEN: Has the FBI been there yet?
MS. MCKINNY: I don't know.
MR. DARDEN: They will be, won't they?
MS. MCKINNY: I don't know.
MR. DARDEN: That is all.
THE COURT: All right. Miss McKinny, at this time I'm going to allow you to be excused; however, you are subject to recall. All right?
MS. MCKINNY: Thank you, Judge.
THE COURT: All right. You may step down. All right. Is your next witness available?
MR. COCHRAN: Actually I think he may be.
THE COURT: Why don't you have Mr. Douglas check. Let me see counsel at the side bar with the court reporter, please.
MR. COCHRAN: Okay.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)
THE COURT: We are over at the side bar. I just want to make sure we understand Mr. Hodge is next, correct?
MR. COCHRAN: Yes. Hodge is next and I would like to use this as a possible motion in limine also. I'm going to direct him directly and I will tell you what it is going to be. Contrary to what Mr. Darden said, the arrest was on January 12, 1987; it wasn't on the 13th or whatever. He was arrested, he was laying in the alley and he was picked up and arrested by Mark Fuhrman and his partner, Tom Vettraino, and put in the car. Fuhrman turns around and says, "I told you I would get you, Nigger," and that is basically it. I understand you told me I can't go into the fact that they yanked him up by the handcuffs or they had him bent over. The other thing, he has a lawyer from Chicago and they keep talking about 1054.7. This man has never been convicted of a felony. I don't know--I don't know what this information is that they are talking about, but this lawyer is here from Chicago. He represents him back there. And he does not have any felony convictions and the lawyer would like to talk to you about that, so I don't have any problems or questions about that, but it seems to me, in view of the restrictions the court has placed on us, and I will abide by them, this is a very limited cross-examination, if Mark Fuhrman said this or not.
MR. DARDEN: I would like to hear from counsel from Illinois.
MR. COCHRAN: He is here and I would like to get him up.
MS. CLARK: I would like to address the court on this matter.
THE COURT: Are you going to handle this matter?
MS. CLARK: I may.
MR. COCHRAN: Well, your Honor--
MS. CLARK: I want to address a legal issue here, and that is that what counsel is going to attempt to do to get in through this purported statement is the insinuation that Mark Fuhrman has been threatening to get him for a long time, that there were previous contacts. This has expressly been said by the court to be inadmissible and inappropriate subject for examination. By putting in the statement that Mr. Cochran has just referred to, he is attempting to get by implication what he can't do explicitly and the jury will get the message. This has already gone on for so long and the bounds of the order have been stretched to the snapping point and counsel has pushed this envelope repeatedly with improper question after improper question attempting to elicit everything that the court has ruled inadmissible. This courtroom has been filled with sludge for the last two days. They have had more than their bite of this apple. They've had three apples, all of them. And I'm begging the court please put a stop to this and let us get back to trying this case. Mr. Hodge does not need to be heard from. The statement referred to by counsel is in violation of the court's order. It will implicitly inform the jury of what the court has said cannot be brought out and it adds nothing of probative value to what has been already established beyond any doubt about Mark Fuhrman. How many times we have to say it, I don't know, but I frankly am of the firm opinion that the People have no longer any right to a fair trial. It has been thrown out the door and all we are hearing now is the repeated epithets to make this jury forget what the evidence is. Mr. Hodge is not necessary to the Defense in any way, shape or form. They have heard it and heard it and heard it. And now we are going to bring it in one more time except even more--in a more inflammatory way. There is nothing of probative value here. The fact that Mr. Hodge is African American does not add probative value to it. The issue is not whether or not he said it to Mr. Hodge or anyone else, but whether he uses the epithet. If you think or anyone thinks that we are going to get up in front of this jury and argue that he would never address an African American in that manner, all he would do is talk about them in the third person, you are all nuts. There is no way we are going to say any such thing. The court knows that. I know the court knows that I wouldn't do it, as the court wouldn't do it. This is a concession and we have been conceding all throughout. We have not been fighting this. We have taken it on the chin. But now we are getting kicked in the guts. This is below the belt and this is not fair.
MR. COCHRAN: First of all, they are violating the two-lawyer rule, but we have ruled on this and we are up here to find out from this lawyer about the 402. I understood your ruling yesterday. Miss Clark came up to talk about it then. You told us what the ruling was. It is our witness in this area. I would like you to hear from this lawyer in case it becomes an issue.
THE COURT: In case it becomes an issue?
MR. COCHRAN: He is here now.
MR. SHAPIRO: He ruled yesterday.
MR. COCHRAN: I'm telling you there is no good faith basis because he's here and they can go back and talk to him, so I wanted to let the court know that. Why we are making these speeches we can be finished with the examination.
MS. CLARK: Look whose talking about the speeches. Interesting.
THE COURT: All right. Let's proceed.
MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor.
(The following proceedings were held in open court:)
MR. COCHRAN: May I have just a second, your Honor?
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
THE COURT: Mr. Cochran.
MR. COCHRAN: Thank you very kindly, your Honor. Your Honor, our next witness is a Mr. Roderic Hodge. Mr. Hodge, would you come forward, sir, along with his counsel, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Cochran, why don't you retrieve the exhibit that is up on the witness stand first, please.
MR. COCHRAN: Certainly.
(Brief pause.)
MR. MILLER: Good morning, your Honor.
THE COURT: Your name for the record.
MR. MILLER: Judge, Irv Miller on behalf of Mr. Hodge.
THE COURT: All right. Good morning, counsel. Mrs. Robertson.
Roderic Hodge, 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.
MR. HODGE: 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. HODGE: First name is Roderic, R-O-D-E-R-I-C, Hodge, H-O-D-G-E.
THE CLERK: Thank you.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN
MR. COCHRAN: Good morning, Mr. Hodge.
MR. HODGE: Good morning, Mr. Cochran.
MR. COCHRAN: Would you move the microphone a little bit back, sir.
THE COURT: Just pull it closer to you.
MR. HODGE: (Witness complies.)
MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Hodge, just tell us what city do you presently reside in?
MR. HODGE: In Dalton, Illinois.
MR. COCHRAN: And that is near Chicago?
MR. HODGE: Yes, it is just south of Chicago, eight miles out of Chicago.
MR. COCHRAN: And have you come here today pursuant to a subpoena issued by this court from Illinois?
MR. HODGE: Yes, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: And when--how long have you been in California?
MR. HODGE: As of late--approximately one week.
MR. COCHRAN: About a week waiting to testify?
MR. HODGE: Yes, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: Now, what is your occupation generally, sir?
MR. HODGE: I'm currently a communications repair technician with Ryan Jennings Communications in Chicago, Illinois.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. I would like to cut to the chase and get right to it. Did you formerly live in California before you moved to Illinois?
MR. HODGE: Yes, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: And I would like specifically to direct your attention back to the month of January of 1987 and specifically January 11 of 1987. Did you have occasion to see or interact with a person by the name of Mark Fuhrman?
MR. HODGE: Yes, sir, I did.
MR. COCHRAN: Was he a Los Angeles police officer at that point?
MR. HODGE: Yes, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: On that date were you taken into custody by Mr. Fuhrman?
MR. HODGE: I believe so--I believe it was that date, yes, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Was it the 11th or 12th or do you know the exact date?
MR. HODGE: I am unable to recall the exact date, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: Was it in January of 1987?
MR. HODGE: Yes, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And do you remember who Mr. Fuhrman's partner was at that time?
MR. HODGE: Yes, sir. It was Vettraino. I referred to him as Vettraino. I believe it is Tom Vettraino.
MR. COCHRAN: Tom Vettraino?
MR. HODGE: Yes, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: At some point were you placed inside of a police vehicle?
MR. HODGE: Yes, sir, I was.
MR. COCHRAN: And after you were placed inside that police vehicle were you taken somewhere?
MR. HODGE: Yes, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: Do you remember which officer was driving the vehicle?
MR. HODGE: Yes, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: Who, which one?
MR. HODGE: That was Vettraino.
MR. COCHRAN: Who was Vettraino's partner officer at that time?
MR. HODGE: Officer Fuhrman.
MR. COCHRAN: And where was officer Fuhrman seated in the vehicle, if you recall?
MR. HODGE: On the passenger side of the vehicle.
MR. COCHRAN: And where were you seated?
MR. HODGE: In the rear of the vehicle.
MR. COCHRAN: Were you handcuffed at that point?
MR. HODGE: Yes, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: And did officer Fuhrman say something to you as he was seated in the right front passenger seat and you were in the rear portion of that police vehicle?
MR. HODGE: Yes, sir, he did.
MR. COCHRAN: Will you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what officer Fuhrman said to you on this date in January of 1987?
MR. HODGE: Yes, sir. At that time officer Fuhrman turned around, looked at me and told me, "I told you we would get you, Nigger."
MR. COCHRAN: Did you hear--you heard him clearly?
MR. HODGE: Very clearly, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: And when he said this to you can you describe for us the tone of voice that he used?
MR. HODGE: Anger, hatred, just something from deep inside, if you would, just--just very ugly.
MR. COCHRAN: And when he made this statement to you can you describe for the jury how you felt?
MR. DARDEN: Objection, irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. HODGE: Belittled, scared, very, very angry. Umm, I could use many more adjectives, but those--
MR. COCHRAN: Does that encapsulate how you felt?
MR. HODGE: Lightly, yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Thank you very much for coming today. Nothing further, your Honor.
THE COURT: People.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DARDEN
MR. DARDEN: Mr. Hodge, thank you for coming, sir. Sir, you used to live on Corning Avenue, was it?
MR. HODGE: Yes, sir.
MR. DARDEN: And you were arrested by Vettraino and Fuhrman on January 13, 1987; is that right?
MR. HODGE: I'm unable to recall the exact date, sir.
MR. DARDEN: By the way, did you--were you only arrested once by Vettraino and Fuhrman and placed in a police vehicle?
MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, object. Beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. DARDEN: Trying to establish the date, your Honor.
THE COURT: The date of January, `87, is close enough.
MR. DARDEN: Perhaps I should approach then.
THE COURT: All right. Let me see you over here at side bar with the court reporter.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Darden, where are you going with this?
MR. DARDEN: I'm trying to establish what the date is, because--I will give this to Mr. Cochran. This is the printout on the F.I.'s with that time with Mr. Hodge. There were many, many, many, many contacts by LAPD, from the narcotics and gang units, of Mr. Hodge. Mr. Hodge was a crack dealer over on Corning Avenue, an area where crack was sold by him and members of the Playboy Gangster Crips.
THE COURT: Let me ask you this question. Let me ask you a question. Why wouldn't you at this point say, Mr. Hodge, you were offended, that was a horrible thing? Thank you very much. Good-bye?
MR. DARDEN: Well, I just have a couple other things, okay? All I want to do is make sure we are talking about the same incident, okay? That is all I want to do. I can show him the piece of paper and then identify it and make sure that is the date. And even if that is the date, I have three more questions and we are done. Just the booking slip, not the arrest report.
MR. COCHRAN: Judge, can I respond?
MR. DARDEN: Otherwise I don't know if he is talking about some other day, some other contact, but--
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. COCHRAN: Judge isn't the issue whether or not Fuhrman arrested this man and indicated to him--the issue he was called for you limited very specifically was whether Fuhrman turned around and said, "I tell you I will get you Nigger." That is the question. It happened in January of 1987. That is the question.
MR. DARDEN: We have eight minutes more, okay? Now, all I want to do, you know, he filed a--
THE COURT: I'm sorry.
MR. DARDEN: He complained to IAD, right? January 13, `87, he complained to IAD. He didn't complain about this. He complained about everything else under the sun, but he didn't complain about this and that is why I want to make sure of the day.
THE COURT: Then why don't you ask him with regards to this particular arrest did you make a complaint to the Los Angeles Police Department about the manner which you were treated? Answer, yes or no.
MR. DARDEN: Okay.
THE COURT: Is this a copy of the complaint? Yes or no. I'm trying to restrict the scope here, counsel.
MR. COCHRAN: I want to wait until you finish because doesn't it open the door? This man was acquitted and you said we can't get into that. He made lots of complaints against these officers.
MR. DARDEN: Fuhrman is not a witness in the drug Prosecution. Fuhrman did not witness the drug Prosecution.
MR. COCHRAN: He took him down and he was arrested originally for battery on a police officer.
MR. DARDEN: And Fuhrman did not testify at trial.
MR. COCHRAN: Battery on a police officer.
THE COURT: I know. I know, counsel.
MR. DARDEN: And we know and Johnnie knows that the prosecution was dismissed because when it came for trial Detective Fuhrman wasn't in the state. He never testified at trial, but it was dismissed.
MR. COCHRAN: I didn't know that.
MR. DARDEN: 148 on Fuhrman, okay? And the narcotics issue and the 148 occurred when he tried to arrest him after a narcotics--
THE COURT: Why are we dragging this out? If you want this over, just say, gee, that is horrible, good-bye.
MR. DARDEN: Judge, you know, I feel no need to lay down or roll over and die just because the jury has been polluted with these epithets. I mean, you know, he did the murders. I'm going to convict him.
THE COURT: Why don't you ask him if he made a complaint about this incident?
MR. DARDEN: I was trying to ask about the date and you sustained the objection.
THE COURT: All right. Let's go.
(The following proceedings were held in open court:)
THE COURT: Thank you, counsel. Proceed.
MR. DARDEN: Mr. Hodge, did you complain to the LAPD about the manner in which you were arrested by these two officers?
MR. HODGE: On which occasion, sir?
MR. DARDEN: On the occasion you just described for Mr. Cochran?
MR. HODGE: Yes, sir.
MR. DARDEN: You filed a formal complaint?
MR. HODGE: Yes, sir.
MR. DARDEN: When you were arrested, were you holding a drill or something in your hand?
MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of this question, your Honor. Beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. DARDEN: Let me show you a copy of an IAD complaint. By the way, did you have any portion at all of the IAD minute that you filed?
MR. HODGE: At this time--
THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel. I think your question assumes IAD and that the jury knows what we are talking about here.
MR. DARDEN: Certainly.
MR. DARDEN: You complained to Internal Affairs Division at LAPD; is that right?
MR. HODGE: I believe it was Internal Affairs, yes, sir.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. You were interviewed by them?
MR. HODGE: Yes, sir.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. And were you interviewed by a supervising officer at West L.A. Station as well?
MR. HODGE: I believe it was a supervising officer.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. And your name is Roderic T. Hodge; is that correct?
MR. HODGE: No, sir.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. What is your name?
MR. HODGE: Roderic T. Hodge.
MR. DARDEN: What is your birthdate?
MR. HODGE: August 22, 1964.
MR. COCHRAN: May I see that, counsel?
THE COURT: I will give Mr. Cochran a copy.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. COCHRAN: Is that the--if you will just take a look at that, please, sir.
MR. HODGE: (Witness complies.)
THE COURT: Mr. Darden.
MR. DARDEN: Does that refresh your recollection that the date of arrest was January 13, 1987?
MR. HODGE: Not really, sir, but I take it--
MR. DARDEN: Does that appear to be the complaint that you filed with LAPD?
MR. HODGE: Yes, sir, it does. It appears to be.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. Okay. And on the last page of that document does it indicate that you had a second interview with someone from Internal Affairs on January 23, 1987, an interview with a Sergeant Lamprey?
MR. HODGE: Yes, sir, it does indicate that.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. Did you have such an interview?
MR. HODGE: Yes, sir, I believe so.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. Nowhere in this Internal Affairs complaint is it mentioned that you complained of Fuhrman's use of any epithets; is that correct?
MR. HODGE: I haven't read over the entire of the interview, sir.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. Your Honor, may this document be marked People's 604?
THE COURT: People's next in order, 604.
(Peo's 604 for id = document)
MR. DARDEN: Would you like to take a moment and see?
MR. HODGE: (Witness complies.)
THE COURT: How many pages is this document, Mr. Darden?
MR. DARDEN: It is 17 pages, your Honor. Other than a response to this question, I have no additional questions.
THE COURT: All right. Since it is--it appears to be typewritten?
MR. HODGE: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Single page. All right. Then what I'm going to suggest we do is allow Mr. Hodge the time to review the document and we will conclude the examination after the lunch hour. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our recess for the morning session. Please remember all my admonitions to you. Don't discuss the case among 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. As far as the jury is concerned, we will stand in recess until 1:30. All right. Mr. Hodge, you can step down. Thank you.
(At 11:59 A.M. the noon recess was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the same day.)
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1995 1:35 P.M.
Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge
APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)
(Janet M. Moxham, CSR no. 4855, official reporter.)
(Christine M. Olson, CSR no. 2378, official reporter.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. The jury is not present. 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. Be seated. All right. Let the record reflect we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: Mr. Roderic Hodge. Mr. Hodge, would you come forward, sir.
Roderic Hodge, the witness on the stand at the time of the lunch recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Hodge, would you resume the witness stand, please. All right. The record should reflect that Mr. Roderic Hodge is on the witness stand undergoing cross-examination by Mr. Darden. Good afternoon, Mr. Hodge. Mr. Hodge, you're reminded, sir, that you are still under oath. And, Mr. Darden, you may continue with your cross-examination.
CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. DARDEN
MR. DARDEN: Do you still have the documents from this morning, Mr. Hodge?
MR. HODGE: No, sir. I gave them back to your assistant.
MR. DARDEN: At any event, do those documents--
THE COURT: Miss Lewis. All right. Mr. Hodge, why don't you pull the microphone close to you, please. Thank you.
MR. DARDEN: Did you see the epithet indicated here in these documents?
MR. HODGE: No, sir.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. Do you think it might be contained in some other document?
MR. COCHRAN: I object. That calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Rephrase the question.
MR. DARDEN: At any event, thank you, Mr. Hodge.
THE COURT: Mr. Cochran.
MR. COCHRAN: Yes. Thank you very kindly, your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN
MR. COCHRAN: Good afternoon, Mr. Hodge.
MR. HODGE: Sir.
MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Hodge, is there any doubt in your mind that in the month of January of 1987, Detective Fuhrman referred to you as a Nigger?
MR. HODGE: Sir, there's no doubt in my mind whatsoever.
MR. COCHRAN: Is that something you'd forget?
MR. HODGE: Something you don't forget.
MR. COCHRAN: Now, Mr. Hodge, sir, with regard to this document that Mr. Darden showed you, did you get a chance to look at this document over at lunchtime?
MR. HODGE: Yes, sir, I did.
MR. COCHRAN: And with regard to that document--
MR. DARDEN: I'm going to object at this time.
THE COURT: Overruled. I haven't heard the question yet.
MR. COCHRAN: With regard to this document--
MR. DARDEN: May I approach, your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. COCHRAN: With regard to this document, it indicates after your encounter with Mr. Fuhrman--
MR. DARDEN: Objection. Hearsay. Hearsay, your Honor.
MR. COCHRAN: May I finish the question?
THE COURT: Finish the question.
MR. COCHRAN: After your encounter with Mr. Fuhrman and the other officers on that day, you went down and made a complaint for their behavior; isn't that correct?
MR. HODGE: That's correct, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: And I'd like to show you this document--
MR. COCHRAN: Which is People's what, your Honor?
THE COURT: This is 604.
MR. COCHRAN: I want you to take a look at 604. And first of all, you are Roderic T. Hodge; is that correct?
MR. HODGE: Yes, sir, that's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: And with regard to the type of complaint you rendered against these officers, do you see that--do you see this box here under "Type of complaint"?
MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: What's the objection?
MR. DARDEN: 352.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. COCHRAN: Do you see the "Type of complaint"?
MR. HODGE: Oh, yes, sir.
MR. DARDEN: May we approach, your Honor?
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Do you recall--do you recall that you went down at some point after the contact with Mr. Fuhrman and the other officers and made this actual complaint?
MR. HODGE: There were a couple times, yes, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Did you--in addition, did you go to West Los Angeles on some occasion?
MR. HODGE: Yes, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: Did you also go someplace else and make a complaint?
MR. HODGE: Yes, sir, I did.
MR. COCHRAN: And where did you go to make that complaint?
MR. HODGE: Downtown location, what we refer to as the Parker Center.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Did you go to Parker Center on the same date you went to West Los Angeles?
MR. HODGE: No, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: That was on a different date?
MR. HODGE: Yes, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: And why did you go to both locations to make complaints about the conduct of these officers?
MR. DARDEN: Objection. Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. HODGE: Uh, my brother, who's a law enforcement--
THE COURT: Hold on. Hold on. You made two complaints, two places, both at West L.A. and downtown Parker Center, correct?
MR. HODGE: Sir, I made three complaints.
THE COURT: Three complaints. Where else?
MR. HODGE: My brother advised me that West Los Angeles Police Department--
MR. DARDEN: Hearsay, your Honor.
MR. HODGE: --would not pursue--
MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. COCHRAN: Let me just go question by question, your Honor.
MR. COCHRAN: Do you have a brother in law enforcement?
MR. HODGE: Yes, I do.
MR. COCHRAN: What kind of law enforcement is he in?
MR. HODGE: Department of corrections.
MR. COCHRAN: Did you have occasion to discuss with your brother who is in law enforcement whether or not you should make a complaint?
MR. HODGE: Yes, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: Did he give you some advice?
MR. HODGE: On many occasions.
MR. COCHRAN: And after you got this advice from your brother who was in law enforcement, where did you go?
MR. HODGE: To the Parker Center.
MR. COCHRAN: That was after you had been to West Los Angeles?
MR. HODGE: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: And did you make a complaint at Parker Center?
MR. HODGE: Yes, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: You said you went a third place. Did you go some other place and make a complaint?
MR. HODGE: No, sir. I made two complains at West L.A. Station and one at the Parker Center.
MR. COCHRAN: So that was the third complaint?
MR. HODGE: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, with regard to these documents that Mr. Darden showed you, did you notice anything unusual about the pages? Would you look at the pages and look at the numbers of those pages.
THE COURT: You want to show him 604, the actual exhibit?
MR. COCHRAN: Sure. I'd be glad to, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Because we're talking about two different documents here.
MR. COCHRAN: Thank you.
MR. COCHRAN: I want you to look at the last two pages of 604, see if there's anything unusual about the numbering of the pages there.
MR. HODGE: Yes, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: What do you see? Tell the jury what you see there.
MR. HODGE: Well, it goes from page 6 to page 17.
MR. COCHRAN: Do you know what happened to pages 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16?
MR. HODGE: No, sir. I would have no idea.
MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to that document, look in the upper right-hand corner under the "Type of complaint" that you made against these officers on January 13, 1987. Do you see that?
MR. HODGE: Yes, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: And what does it say?
MR. DARDEN: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. COCHRAN: I may want to approach just briefly if I could to show the court something.
THE COURT: All right. With the court reporter, please.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. COCHRAN: What I was--
THE COURT: Hold on. Mr. Darden's making the objection. Miss Lewis, would you step back