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.)

(Pages 45504 through 45507, volume 222a, transcribed and sealed under separate cover.)

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

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present before the court with his counsel, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Blasier, Mr. Neufeld, Mr. Scheck. The People are represented by Miss Clark, Mr. Darden, Mr. Yochelson and Mr. Harmon. The jury is not present. First order of business, counsel, I scheduled a hearing on the Prosecution's motion to admit certain testimony concerning the Defendant's activities, I guess we would call it, on June 17th. That hearing was set for 8:30 this morning. The court was here, Defense counsel was here and the Defendant was here. We were ready to proceed. The Prosecution did not choose to appear in court until nine o'clock. Is there an explanation for this?

MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor. The person designated to argue this segment of the case had an emergency at home and was unable to make it. And I apologize to the court, but the time has not been wasted. I have been in conference with other members of the team. At this time, your Honor, we would like to indicate to the court that we will not be asking to admit the events of June the 17th at this time; however, I repeat "At this time," because we have not yet heard the end of the Defense case. We have not yet heard surrebuttal. And I would like to reserve the option of asking to renew our request to admit that evidence depending on what we see in the balance of the Defense Case in Chief and Surrebuttal.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. CLARK: We would like to--we are trimming this case so that we can get it to the jury and we are hopeful that we can rest the People's rebuttal case tomorrow.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran, as to the withdrawal of the June 17th witnesses?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes. Well, we certainly accept that withdrawal. We think it is appropriate and saves you having to waste your time on that, and we accept that obviously, your Honor. No problem. I would like to raise a couple of issues if I might, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Well, we are not finished with that yet.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Certainly.

THE COURT: All right. The offer is accepted; however, for the failure to appear in court in a timely manner and failure to advise the court, sanction will be $250.00 to the District Attorney's office. That is to be paid by the close of business today.

MS. CLARK: Excuse me, your Honor. May I remind the court that Mr. Shapiro kept the court waiting for twenty minutes, showing up at twenty after 9:00 when it was his witness on the stand, and suffered no sanction.

THE COURT: Thank you. The sanction will be a thousand dollars.

MR. COCHRAN: How much?

THE COURT: A thousand.

MR. COCHRAN: May I proceed, your Honor, now? Your Honor, with regard to--at the end of yesterday your Honor asked us not to waste your time. Miss Clark on the record indicated certain witnesses. You will recall she said People like the modified Thano Peratis video which you talked about and Deedrick and Bodziak and the Bronco fiber issue and the Ackards and all those kind of things, and you said don't waste my time, get together. Mr. Douglas went over and talked to Mr. Darden who told him I don't know who we are going to call. They gave us no proffer, no offer of proof, no cooperation, no nothing. So we don't want to waste your time, Judge, but when they won't talk to Mr. Douglas, so what are we going to do? They say they don't know who they are calling. If, Judge, they are saying they are going to finish the case by Thursday or Friday, we are entitled to all rest of the witnesses and all we are trying to get is get somebody to talk to us so we can resolve this matter. If they really want to get this case to the jury, we would like our proffers and we would like to know who they are really going to call. The 17th is now out and that is fine and so we would just like to have--would you direct them to meet with Mr. Douglas right so we can get this done?

MR. DARDEN: Good morning, your Honor. I met with Mr. Douglas yesterday afternoon. I gave him approximately six names. That included Sims, Deedrick, Bodziak, Lawrence Ackard, Nancy Ackard. What other names did I give you, Mr. Douglas? I don't know what he is talking about. I have given him the names.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, Mr. Douglas can speak for himself.

MR. DARDEN: I gave him the names. If Mr. Douglas says that isn't correct, he was writing on his pad, I was standing right here late at noon. Was that true?

MR. DOUGLAS: I asked him what order is going to be called following Sims. Mr. Darden said, "I do not know." I asked him this morning. He gave me these names. I asked what order, who is next after Sims? This morning he said, "I do not know," if I'm mistaken. Please correct me.

THE COURT: All right. But he gave you the witnesses. He has given you five or six names.

MR. DOUGLAS: He did, your Honor, and I asked who follows Sims so I can have the person who does that witness ready after Sims.

MR. COCHRAN: In other words, your Honor, what we are saying is he gave us the names in court. We want to know who is up next? What is the offer of proof?

THE COURT: They have given you the names. We know who Bodziak is. We know who Sims is. We know who Deedrick is.

MR. DARDEN: I can tell you this about the Ackards. We are trying to get the Ackards here from out of the country to testify tomorrow, so they won't be here today.

THE COURT: All right. Testify as to what?

MR. DARDEN: Heidstra issues.

THE COURT: Heidstra, okay.

MR. DARDEN: They have the discovery on that.

MR. COCHRAN: All right, your Honor, and may I inquire, are they still planning to rest then by tomorrow or Friday, because then we would be entitled to anybody else they have. It is within the three days and we are trying to find out.

THE COURT: I assume that is their case. They tell me that they are going to rest tomorrow or Friday.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. That is fine then, your Honor. The last thing, your Honor, is--the next thing I would like to--we are going to have to address at this point on Bronco fiber issue which we think shouldn't take the court very long, speaking of no brainers, but we are ready to do that whenever you want to. The last thing is we would like to have Agent Martz, FBI Agent Martz back here. We need this court's assistance, if they are going to rest truly on Thursday or Friday, for our case on Monday, September 18th. We would like to request that now so we will have him here. And in addition to that, we expect to call Special Agent Whitehurst of the FBI and we expect that hopefully Mr. Scheck has started a procedure, but hopefully Justice will make this person available. He is a critical witness in this case and it will tie in with the Martz testimony so there is no delay in that regard.

THE COURT: All right. If there are interstate subpoenas that need to be issued, submit them to Mrs. Robertson as soon as you can.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Thank you. May I have one second, your Honor?

MR. DARDEN: We have a day of down time.

MR. COCHRAN: Trying to save down time. We will work on that day. The last thing is, your Honor, on this whole issue, if the Ackards anyone called with regard to Robert Heidstra's testimony, we need Detective Dennis Payne who we understand is retired and we want to put him on notice now. We need Payne.

THE COURT: Is Payne the one who took the statement from the Ackards?

MR. COCHRAN: From Heidstra.

THE COURT: Heidstra.

MR. COCHRAN: We need him right away and we want to put them on notice we need Payne so there will be no down time on that. Might as well have him here on Monday.

MR. DARDEN: They should contact the LAPD. In any event, they marked Mr. Heidstra's statement. I'm not sure but I think you admitted it into evidence.

MR. COCHRAN: We want Dennis Payne, so that is the issue on that.

MR. DARDEN: Then call the LAPD.

THE COURT: Then you are not willing to make him available?

MR. DARDEN: He is retired, Judge. I can't make him available.

THE COURT: All right. You will have to subpoena him.

MR. COCHRAN: Get an address or something, your Honor?

MR. DARDEN: Penal code section that would preclude us from giving them the address of retired police officers.

THE COURT: Well, counsel, what we will do is I don't care about this fight between the parties. I will have my staff contact the LAPD and make them--

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor. That is all we are asking.

THE COURT: Get cooperation to produce him.

MR. COCHRAN: Produce him for Monday, your Honor, thank you very kindly, or soon thereafter.

THE COURT: He is retired. He could be in Florida. Who knows?

MR. COCHRAN: Well, as with the other witnesses, we don't want to delay this trial, we will pay for him to come back.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, with respect to Agent Deedrick, if I understand it correctly, he is supposed to be here arriving here at 12:30, the last representation. And Mr. Morton is going to be able to get here at 12:30, one o'clock. I at least would like the opportunity to look at the underlying data from the report that they just gave us. I do get that opportunity.

THE COURT: I issued that order yesterday.

MR. SCHECK: I understand that.

THE COURT: As soon as the exemplars or the impressions are here, you are entitled to look at them, to see them. You are entitled access to that. We dealt with that issue yesterday.

MR. SCHECK: No, I understand that, but I just wanted to make clear we are going to get that opportunity, and this includes, the jeans, the envelope, the shirt.

THE COURT: The whole enchilada.

MR. SCHECK: In terms of scheduling, I wanted to put the court on notice.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, we need to--no. 1, we need to be heard with respect to the admissibility of the Whitehurst issue and we are prepared to argue that so that we do not waste time trying to locate a witness who I believe has testimony that has nothing to do with this case and is irrelevant, so you know, we are going to go into down time to make him available when he has no admissible evidence. Secondly, I would like to argue the Bronco fiber motion.

THE COURT: Well, let's do this: Let's proceed with your next witness this morning with the jury, because the jury is expecting testimony now. As soon as we complete that phase of your presentation, where do you anticipate going after that?

MS. CLARK: Well, we had wanted to go with the Ackards. Since they are not available immediately, I would like to--we may have a little down time because we have to fly witnesses in. We have the Peratis tape presented with the testimony of Steve Oppler, and we have--which we have edited and we will show to the court, and then we intend to call Doug Deedrick, any fiber witnesses that we are allowed to call, and Bill Bodziak, but they won't be ready for testimony until tomorrow morning, so we might have--

THE COURT: All right. So then the point of my asking you that question is that we don't need to resolve that issue now. If there is going to be down time for witnesses, we can use that time to argue the motion.

MS. CLARK: Well, the problem is I don't know whether to notify the witness to come in or not until the court rules.

THE COURT: Where are these witnesses coming from?

MS. CLARK: Washington, I believe.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: They are flying. They are not in the state.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. CLARK: I didn't want to fly them out if the court was going to--they are on standby, I have them on call, but I'm not going to spend the money to have them out until you say that they can testify.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran, who your side is going to argue the Bronco fiber motion?

MR. COCHRAN: I believe it will be Mr. Blasier.

THE COURT: All right. Are you prepared?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. I will hear the argument.

MS. CLARK: I believe we are the moving party, your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes. I just wanted to know if they were ready. You are ready?

MS. CLARK: I'm ready. They are ready. As my moving papers indicated to the court, we believe the evidence is admissible and proper rebuttal for two reasons, the first of which is believe we appended to our motion the transcript sections from the testimony of Kathleen Bell as elicited by Mr. Bailey in which he gratuitously asked her questions concerning the kind of car Mark Fuhrman drove or she believed he drove back when the statements were made. There was no purpose, no legitimate purpose for asking that question unless it was to--other than the one we are arguing they were trying to infer, unless it was to show that she in fact did know him and therefore could identify him. That argument, however, falls as specious because there was never an effort to link up the car she described to any car known to be driven or owned by Mark Fuhrman, which could have been done through DMV records or any other people who knew him at the time, including the police department. No such effort was made. And it is clear that the motivation for asking those questions and eliciting not once, but twice, that she saw him driving a sports utility vehicle, was to have the jury infer that he preferred that kind of vehicle and therefore the fibers could have come from that vehicle. And as the court recalls, Mr. Bailey was the one who handled the hair and fiber evidence with us and is most acquainted with the issues concerning the admissibility of the Bronco fiber study that was conducted by Agent Deedrick. That is on one hand. Secondly, with respect to attack on Mark Fuhrman's credibility, as the court is aware, an all-out attack was launched on his credibility and it has become the cornerstone of the Defense case. Anything in the case in terms of scientific or objective evidence that tends to indicate that the glove was not planted and that he was not responsible for the planting is relevant as rebuttal to that claim. Having found Bronco fibers on the Rockingham glove, and that is key, it is not the Bundy glove, it is the Rockingham glove and that is the one they are claiming was moved, that is key to establish that in fact it was not planted, because the fiber on that glove came from a rather unique source, not just any car, which is what otherwise they could argue, or even any carpet in a house, but a very unique fiber that was made during `92 and `93 and put into `94 vehicles, a fiber whose configuration in terms of the cross-section and the dye formulation was changed later in `94 and had not been made prior to `92. Moreover, this is a fiber in which carpeting was used for only three kind of cars, predominantly for the Bronco, and secondly, and much fewer number, Econoline vans and "F" series trucks, so you have very highly probative evidence found on the glove that could not have been planted that was--that would tend to rebut the claim that the glove was planted by Detective Fuhrman. So we have two independent bases on which to admit this evidence now which makes it proper rebuttal. The People have cited cases to the court as to why this is admissible rebuttal and why it is proper to address this at this time. The court is aware of course that the discovery has been given to the Defense on this, so there is no element of surprise here. The witnesses that would be called to prove this evidence would be two at maximum, three in number, of very short duration; one to talk about the fact that the fiber of this cross-section was made during these years, sold to Masland. Masland representative will say that fiber was put, during these years with this dye formulation, into these cars and that is it, and then Doug Deedrick to say that is the fiber I saw. That testimony collectively for all three witnesses should not take an hour, so we are not talking about an undue consumption of time either, but I do think it is highly probative and certainly important to rebut the claim of any evidence movement by the Defense, especially the Rockingham glove.

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier.

MR. BLASIER: Good morning, your Honor. As the court will recall, I believe it was with Susan Brockbank. Brockbank, I asked a series of questions about whether they had checked other vehicles and I asked those questions based on representations that had been made to us by the manufacturer of this fiber, that it was very, very common. Unbeknownst to me that same person, the actual person that we had talked to, had already provided written documentation to the FBI as part of their investigation of the source of the fiber that they title it. It was just completely the opposite. And it was only after that point that Mr. Deedrick came in and brought his paperwork. I asked him a number of questions before he testified to try and find out what he had and he was very, very evasive. Finally the court had to intervene and make him have a copy of his whole binder made, and in that binder is this very, very detailed report where they had done a thorough investigation months before, I think it was a seven or eight-page report, titled "The source of the fiber." And the court, properly so in our view, precluded the Prosecution, because of misconduct, from putting on any of that evidence because it had been held back and not turned over in a timely fashion, prior to our conducting our cross-examination of these witnesses. We were extremely careful after that point to not ask a single question about rarity of Bronco fibers. We didn't ask anybody about that because we didn't not want to open the door. Now, as I understand the argument--well, first of all, I think it is interesting that Miss Clark has argued many, many times that there is absolutely no evidence that Detective Fuhrman planted the glove and now she feels the need to bring this evidence in to show that Mark Fuhrman's carpet fiber is not on the glove. We have never said that. We have never maintained that. The references to his green utility vehicle were--were--it was obvious what the purpose of that was. It was to demonstrate that Miss Bell recognized his car and had seen that same car with him in it on a couple of other occasions. If the Prosecution is concerned that we would argue that the car that Mark Fuhrman drove in 1986 might have a fiber that matched the fiber on the glove, they can put on a witness to say what kind of fiber was in Mark Fuhrman's vehicle. That would certainly solve that problem. That is not the reason they want to do this. They want to do this because they think that is powerful evidence. It was precluded before because of their misconduct and now they are trying to find a way to get it in. This is just a ridiculous argument, and I--we haven't offered any testimony about what vehicle Mark Fuhrman drives. We don't intend to. We would never argue that. That is a ludicrous inference. It is not believable. It is not a justification for putting on this evidence that was wrongfully withheld before.

THE COURT: What do you think about a restriction, if I remain--if I maintain the preclusion, a restriction on argument as to the rarity of the fiber and the lack of evidence of this?

MR. BLASIER: Well, if they are allowed to put on evidence about the rarity of the fiber, then the preclusion--the effect of the preclusion is nil.

THE COURT: No, no. You misunderstood my comment. If I maintain the preclusion--

MR. BLASIER: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: --that is likely to include a preclusion of argument.

MR. BLASIER: Oh, absolutely. That is--oh, that is not problem. We don't intend to argue that.

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

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Beyond what is stated in the record, I assume is what you mean? We are not going to make any argument that we know is misleading based on the information they have obtained. I have no problem with that. I assume that is what you were suggesting.

THE COURT: I'm just asking.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Yeah. That is fine. We are not arguing that anyway. I don't want--we don't want to do anything improper in closing that might allow them to come back and ask to have the case reopened. That would be foolish.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: I don't know why they are trying to hide the truth. Doesn't the jury have a right to the very best evidence that exists? We have evidence that is very powerful that is further evidence of the Defendant's guilt, and to simply preclude them from arguing that it was Mark Fuhrman's vehicle does not go anywhere near addressing that issue. Furthermore, if there is to be a preclusion in the alternative, your Honor, then the preclusion should include their ability to argue that any police officer's car could have imparted those fibers, because that is in fact the case and that would in fact be the testimony.

MR. BLASIER: I accept that. I mean, I assumed that what you were referring to, we would not make the argument that it could have been in his police car. We would not make that argument.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, I just think the rarity of the fiber is very probative evidence of the jury for the Defendant's guilt, and I think that given the nature of the attack in this case and the arguments about planting of evidence, it become even more probative, and I think it is evidence that the jury should hear.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. The reason for the court's initial preclusion was the failure to disclose the report which included--which gave indicia of extensive investigation as to the source, nature and rarity of that particular fiber. That information was not turned over during the course of discovery as required. The court felt that preclusion at that time was the appropriate sanction. The proffer at this time is that Kathleen Bell testified that she observed a pea green utility vehicle at the Marine recruiting station at a time that coincided with Detective Fuhrman's presence at that location. She then testified that she Detective Fuhrman in a business establishment in that same general area, on another occasion also saw the same pea green utility vehicle at that location and chose not to enter the location, fearing that Detective Fuhrman was again there and not wanting to reacquaint herself with him at that time, given the nature of her testimony. These events occurred in 1986. There was no contemporaneous testimony indicating that Detective Fuhrman had any contact with the same vehicle. The testimony was that Detective Fuhrman drove to the Bundy location in a police vehicle with Detective Phillips. The proffer has no probative value and the court's previous ruling stands. All right. Let's call our next witness.

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, just one quick--your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: All I ask is I was out of the room for a moment when I heard that they wanted to do the Peratis tape next. All I'm saying is that in light of your instruction yesterday that they edit, I haven't seen the edit yet.

THE COURT: I indicated to you I wanted to look at it one more time before it was played. I want to see the edited tape as well.

MR. NEUFELD: Right. Because I may have objections about that.

THE COURT: All right. Deputy Magnera, the jury is upstairs as well?

DEPUTY MAGNERA: Yes.

THE COURT: Our next witness is Mr. Sims?

MR. HARMON: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: While we take the recess to bring the jury down, I had to pull a number of the Bronco exhibits for the purpose of reviewing last night. Mrs. Robertson has them available. Get your exhibits organized. Let's not lose anytime fumbling with the exhibits.

MR. SCHECK: I need them.

THE COURT: All right. All right. We will take 15 to bring the jury down. Get your exhibits in order.

(Recess.)

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. The jury is not present. Mr. Harmon, would you do me a huge favor and take this one down for a moment, please.

MR. HARMON: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: Since I need to see the eyeballs of the jury from time to time. All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.

(Brief pause.)

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

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Let the record reflect that we have now been rejoined by all 14 members of our jury panel. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

THE COURT: Better. All right. Mr. Harmon, you may call the next witness.

MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

MR. HARMON: The People recall Gary Sims.

Gary Sims, recalled as a witness by the People in rebuttal, was sworn and testified as follows:

THE CLERK: Please raise your right hand to be sworn. 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. SIMS: 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. SIMS: My name is Gary Sims, G-A-R-Y S-I-M-S.

MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. HARMON

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, have you conducted additional testing that you are here to provide the results on in this case?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And just to put the additional testing in context, I would like to put up a couple of exhibit boards, People's exhibit 260 and People's exhibit 172, which are the Bronco photo board or the Bronco result board and the Bronco photo board, respectively, and start out by just briefly discussing items 31, 303, 304 and 305 that you previously presented to the jury. Item 31, if you look at the result board, that was on the center console shown in one of the photographs where you provided some PCR results from that; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And just--would you just summarize what the results were and what your conclusions were, without addressing any statistical aspects of those conclusions.

MR. SIMS: Yes. For item number LAPD 31, which is our item number DNA 18, the DQ-Alpha finding indicated a main type of 1.1, 1.2, a minor type of 1.3 and 4, and those alleles are consistent with a mixture of the Defendant, Mr. Simpson's blood, and Mr. Ronald Goldman's blood. And then on the D1S80 results for that sample, the call on that was 24, 25. Again that is consistent with this same mixture.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And would you give us the same summary with respect to item 303, which was from the center console as well?

MR. SIMS: Yes. Item 303 was our numbered DNA 52. The DQ-Alpha type on that was a 1.1 with a possible 1.2, 1.3 and 4. The D1S80 type was 24, 25 with a weaker 18 allele. That particular mixture was consistent with a mixture of the Defendant, Mr. Goldman, and also Nicole Brown.

MR. HARMON: What about 304?

MR. SIMS: 304 was the same results. That is our item no. 53, DNA 53.

MR. HARMON: Same as 303?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: And what about 305?

MR. SIMS: 305--in the case of 305 there was a slight difference there in that the DQ-Alpha type was called a 1.1, possible 1.2. the minor type in that case was a 1.3 and 4.

MR. HARMON: And what conclusion would you draw about possible sources from among the three parties whose reference samples were provided to you in this case?

MR. SIMS: Well, I would also supplement that the D1S80 results were the 24 and 25 alleles, along the weaker 18 allele, so again that was consistent with a mixture of all three of the principals in this case.

MR. HARMON: Okay. I want to ask you a general question with regard to your PCR processing of each of these console samples that you've provided a summary of your results on. Were any of those console samples ever extracted in the presence of any of the reference samples during your handling of these samples in this case?

MR. SIMS: No.

MR. HARMON: Are you familiar with dr. Gerdes' testimony with regard to some of your results in this case?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And what is the basis for your familiarity? Have you read excerpts of his testimony?

MR. SIMS: I listened to some of his testimony when I was monitoring it. I also have read some of the transcript.

MR. HARMON: And have you also been provided with a copy of a Defense exhibit in this case, Defense exhibit 1309?

MR. SIMS: Yes. I believe--is that the--I'm sorry, could you explain which 1309 is?

MR. HARMON: Well, why don't you take a look at it. It appears to be a photo of a set of DQ-Alpha strips. Why don't you take a look at the photo in the left-hand corner and see if you recognize the photo of the complete set of strips reflecting work that you did in this case?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I do.

MR. HARMON: Could you briefly summarize, and I want to solely ask you to focus on LAPD item no. 31, the center console item that you just provided us a summary of your results for, could you describe, based on your reading of dr. Gerdes' testimony, the nature of his concerns about item 31 and solely with respect to the DQ-Alpha testing?

MR. SCHECK: Objection to summarizing the testimony.

THE COURT: Rephrase the question.

MR. HARMON: Sure.

MR. HARMON: What are the concerns that dr. Gerdes expressed with regard to item 31?

MR. SCHECK: Same objection.

THE COURT: What is the first concern?

MR. HARMON: What is the first concern that dr. Gerdes expressed with regard to--specifically with regard to LAPD item 31?

MR. SIMS: The concern that I was aware of was the determination as to whether or not that 1.3 dot was in fact a real allele showing up or an artifact. That was his concern.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Do you agree with the concerns that dr. Gerdes expressed to this jury when he testified and discussed exhibit 1309?

MR. SIMS: Well, I disagree with him in that his conclusion was that one could not say with confidence that the 1.3 allele was there, and I disagree with that.

MR. HARMON: And solely focusing on LAPD item 31 and the testing that you actually performed, and you are the only one that performed testing on that sample, why do you disagree with him?

MR. SIMS: Well, just for the record, I should state that this analysis was performed by Renee Montgomery and I was the second reader on this particular date.

MR. HARMON: Okay.

MR. SIMS: I disagreed with him because of the relative intensity of the 1.3 dot in this case relative to the c dot within this particular strip.

MR. HARMON: And why--what is the basis for your opinion that you are correct in calling that?

MR. SIMS: Well, the call that was made at the time that this strip was developed included the findings of the 1 dot, the 4 dot, the 1.1, the 1.2, et cetera, the 1.3 and the all but, and the finding of these two dots, the weaker dots here being the 4 and the 1.3, was that they were of similar intensity to the c dot.

MR. HARMON: In an effort to unravel or determine the potential sources for all of the bloodstains that were tested on the console, on the Bronco console, did you continue to perform testing on items 303, 304 and 305, continue beyond what you've already described to this jury?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And what--just generally what did you do?

MR. SIMS: What I ended up doing--may I sit down? What I ended up doing was noting that the overall quantity of DNA that was individually extracted from those three samples, 303, 304 and 305, appeared to be insufficient for an RFLP type analysis, so what I did was to individually look at the types from those samples and then I made a determination to combine those extracts, the extracted DNA from all those three samples, to get enough DNA so that I felt I could get an RFLP result by the collective--the bringing together of those three samples from the center--all from the center console.

MR. HARMON: We are going to talk about that in a little bit, but would you just describe the relative amounts of DNA that you detected in those individual samples, 303, 304 and 305?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I can do that. I need one second to refer to my notes.

(Brief pause.)

MR. SIMS: From 303, which is our item DNA 52, there was about 40 nanograms recovered in that original extract. From 304, which is our DNA 53, there was about 29 nanograms. And then in the original extract of 305, that was around 17 nanograms, approximately.

MR. HARMON: Now, why did you feel it was appropriate to combine those stains in order to pursue the RFLP--strike that. Why did you feel it was necessary to combine those three stains to--in order to try to perform RFLP testing to produce results from those stains?

MR. SIMS: Well, it was clear to me that we had a mixture of DNA in these--of DNA's from different individuals in these samples, and individually, for a typical individual stain we like to get about 50 nanograms to test in our--in our laboratory for an RFLP analysis. And I knew that given these weaker mixtures that it would be very difficult to get that kind of DNA to show up on one of these autorads that we have seen so many of without having enough quantity. So the only way I felt that I could get enough quantity to do that was to combine them. In other words, I could individually test them for these sensitive PCR tests, but to get enough from one of these RFLP results, I felt that I had to combine them.

MR. HARMON: Why did you feel it was scientifically appropriate to combine those three stains in order to perform RFLP testing?

MR. SIMS: Well, I looked at this in a very step-wise fashion in terms of looking, first of all, at the consistency of the PCR results and the different systems that we tested DQ-Alpha and D1S80. Also knowing that they were all collected from the center console, the Bronco, I felt that, you know, in my forensic opinion that that was the same general blood-stained area so that it would be reasonable and certainly feasible to combine them.

MR. HARMON: Do your--in your opinion do your RFLP results, which we will show to the jury in a few minutes on the mixtures that you have just described for us, do they corroborate your interpretation of item 31, the center console where you concluded that the possible sources would be Mr. Simpson and Mr. Goldman?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: In what sense do they corroborate them?

MR. SIMS: Well, the finding of those--of the RFLP patterns that are consistent with those two individuals, Mr. Simpson and Mr. Goldman, tends to corroborate the results in item no. 31, which is also a center console bloodstain.

MR. SCHECK: Objection, move to strike with respect to item 31. He is talking about 303, 304 and 305. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. HARMON: Had you finished your answer?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And in your opinion do your RFLP results, which we will show to the jury in a couple of minutes, do they tend to undermine the reservation or criticism expressed by dr. Gerdes that you've described to the jury just a few moments ago?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, move to strike. It is not dr. Gerdes' testimony about 303, 304 and 305.

THE COURT: It is leading. Rephrase the question.

MR. HARMON: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, in your opinion do your RFLP results from the mixtures that you've performed--that you have just briefly described to this jury, do they tend to undermine dr. Gerdes' opinion--

THE COURT: Rephrase the question. What is the impact?

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, what is the impact of your RFLP results on the combination of 303, 304 and 305 on dr. Gerdes' criticism about the 1.3 allele in item no. 31 from the center console?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, move to strike with respect to item 31.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: Well, I think the RFLP results do tend to undermine that because they do show consistency with what I originally called on item no. 31 and which Renee Montgomery also called on item no. 31, namely that those DQ-Alpha results were consistent with a mixture of Mr. Simpson and Mr. Goldman.

MR. HARMON: Okay. In addition, Mr. Sims, do your RFLP results from the combined stains on the center console also corroborate the PCR results that you've briefly summarized from those same stains on the center console?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: In what way?

MR. SIMS: Well again, the finding on the RFLP results is that it is consistent with a mixture of Mr. Goldman and Mr. Simpson. You will recall that on the PCR results we saw a little bit of this 18 allele. This was the weak allele on the D1S80 results on those gels. I believe what we are seeing is that that weak type that is detectable by the very sensitive PCR methodology is not detected by the less sensitive RFLP approach.

MR. HARMON: And what do you say about the remaining types that are consistent with Mr. Simpson and Mr. Goldman from the PCR? Is that what you see in the RFLP results?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, do the combined stains from 303, 304 and 305, the RFLP results, tend to address any concerns about PCR's exquisite sensitivity?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I believe they do, because we've heard extensive--you've heard extensive testimony about the sensitivity issues with PCR. The RFLP is not as vulnerable to those concerns as the PCR is.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, do the mixture results from stains 303, 304 and 305, the RFLP results, tend to address concerns about potential cross-contamination among samples?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, move to strike. Vague, overbroad--overbroad question.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: Yes, I believe they do, because to get an RFLP result you need a substantial amount of DNA from a blood sample, particularly when you are comparing that to how sensitive the PCR test is.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Your Honor, at this time I would like to have marked as People's next in order a set of four autorads in a plastic cover. What would that number be, your Honor?

THE COURT: Mrs. Robertson, People's next in order?

THE CLERK: 616.

THE COURT: 616.

MR. HARMON: 616.

THE COURT: Do you want to mark them 616, A, B, C, and D?

MR. HARMON: Yes. And I will describe that so we can correlate them in order. I will describe the order that we will be showing them. As 616-a, the autorad is labeled D10S28. As 616-b, it is autorad d4. And as 616-c it is d4. And 616-d it is d2, your Honor.

(Peo's 616-a thru 616-d for id = autorads)

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, I would like to show you a set of four autorads, 616-a through D, and would you tell us if those represent the four autorads that were produced as a result of your combination of those three stains, 303, 304 and 305?

MR. SIMS: Yes, they do.

MR. HARMON: And we have actually put labels on them that you didn't put on there to show the names and identify the stains; is that true?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, I would like to show them to the jury and have Mr. Sims use the telestrator. I would like to show 616-a, please.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Can we clear these artifacts. Mr. Harmon, we appear to have artifacts on the telestrator. There we go. Thank you, Miss Martinez.

(Brief pause.)

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, can you help get the jury reoriented on autorad reading 1 here and describe what they are seeing so they can understand the results.

MR. SIMS: Yes. This is--this is now an autorad from a gel which contains the combined 303, 304 and 305 from the console and that is labeled "Console" in that particular lane. And you will recall these samples run downwards from the top to the bottom in the vertical column. Then we have a reference sample from Mr. Goldman, we have a reference sample from Mr. Simpson and then a reference sample from Nicole Brown to the right side there.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And so the lane that is labeled "Console," that represents the combination of 303, 304 and 305; is that right?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And then the reference samples is Mr. Goldman, Mr. Simpson and Miss Brown?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: Could you describe your results and what your conclusions are, without addressing any statistics?

MR. SIMS: Yes. The finding of that pattern in the console is--in the console lane is consistent with a mixture of the banding pattern of the Defendant, Mr. Simpson, and also the contribution from Mr. Goldman.

MR. HARMON: Could you--is there any way that you can show which bands match which by using different colors for the different reference samples?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Why don't you do that.

MR. SIMS: (Witness complies.) I will mark the lanes in the console in, I guess that is sort of a lavender or pink color, that are consistent with the Defendant's bands, and I will also mark those lanes--I'm sorry, I will mark those bands in the Defendant's, Mr. Simpson's lane.

MR. HARMON: And then what about--there seems to be on the reference sample of Mr. Goldman for this probe, it looks like he has just got one band; is that true?

MR. SIMS: Yes. This was scored as what we call a single-band pattern down in this area. It is possible that he has two very close bands in this area, but they tend to run together in all the samples that we saw in this case every time we ran the sample. It is a single-band pattern, so instead of having two bands, he just has one that is scored, and I will mark in green his position in his reference lane, and now I will mark that band also in the console lane. The other--the other thing that is significant to me in this particular mix is that--

THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel. That is not responsive to a question.

MR. HARMON: Is there anything else that is significant to you in this particular mix?

MR. SIMS: The other thing I wanted to mention, and we will see this as we go through the total picture of these different autorads, is that the bands that are consistent with Mr. Simpson's sample are consistent with the stronger bands in the console lane, whereas the bands that are consistent with Mr. Goldman's sample, his reference sample, are consistent with the weaker bands in the console lane.

MR. HARMON: And that is true with each of the four autorads that we will be showing to the jury?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And does that somehow relate to the amounts of DNA in those, in your opinion?

MR. SIMS: It relates to the relative contributions from each individual.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Harmon, are you going to print this out?

MR. HARMON: Yes, your Honor. 616-a(1).

THE COURT: A(1).

(Peo's 616-a(1) for id = printout)

MR. HARMON: As soon as we are ready can we put up 616-b.

(Brief pause.)

MR. HARMON: Okay. Mr. Sims, we are looking at 616-b now. You have already given the jury the orientation on that. What do these results reflect, in your opinion?

MR. SIMS: This is the--this is an autorad developed from the locus D4S139. Perhaps we can brighten that up a little bit. That is pretty good.

MR. HARMON: Is this the best way to look at autorads, projecting them up on the screen?

MR. SIMS: That is not how we do it in the laboratory.

MR. HARMON: You look at it on a light box?

MR. SIMS: Yes. We study them under a light box, over a light box.

MR. HARMON: Sure. Why don't you describe what you observed and what conclusions you drew from 616-b?

MR. SIMS: Yes. From 616-b, again this is the locus D4S139. Again the console lane has in this case now four bands. This is consistent with a mixture of the Defendant's sample and Mr. Goldman's sample, and I will mark the bands again, as I did previously in the console. Console lane I'm marking in the pink or lavender, the bands that are consistent with Mr. Simpson's bands, and now I will mark them in his reference lane, and now I will mark in green the bands that are in the console lane that are consistent with Mr. Goldman's bands.

MR. HARMON: In this instance Mr. Goldman's reference type and the corresponding evidence stain have two bands; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: That's correct. He has a two-banded pattern, which is the typical pattern in an RFLP is a two-banded, but sometimes you will see one, for example. And now I will mark in green the bands of Mr. Goldman in his reference lane.

MR. HARMON: And I neglected to ask you this with regard to 616-a, but Miss Brown is excluded as a source of any of the typing results on the console combination; is that true?

MR. SIMS: I didn't detect her band pattern in these autorads.

MR. HARMON: And the pattern you detected was inconsistent with her?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. May that be marked as 616-b(1), your Honor?

THE COURT: So marked.

(Peo's 616-b(1) for id = printout)

MR. HARMON: Can we put up 616-c.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Why don't you describe what is of significance in 616-c, Mr. Sims?

MR. SIMS: Again, this is the same gel but now this is the locust d5s110. Again, we see a pattern in the console lane that is consistent with a mixture of Mr. Goldman and Mr. Simpson. Again the bands that are the strongest in that console lane correspond to Mr. Simpson's bands. The weaker--the two weaker bands correspond to Mr. Goldman's bands.

MR. HARMON: Could you mark them with the corresponding arrows and colors that correspond to 616-a(1) and b(1).

MR. SIMS: Yes. I will use the lavender arrow to indicate the bands in the console lane that are in agreement with the bands seen in the Defendant, Mr. Simpson's, reference lane. And now I will mark those corresponding bands in Mr. Simpson's reference lane. And now switching to the green arrows, I will mark the bands in the console lane that are in agreement with the bands in Mr. Goldman's reference sample, and now I will mark in green the corresponding bands in Mr. Goldman's reference lane.

MR. HARMON: May we capture that as 616-c(1), your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

(Peo's 616-c(1) for id = printout)

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

MR. HARMON: Okay. We are looking at 616-d now, Mr. Sims?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Why don't you describe to the jury what you see on there and what conclusions you drew from the results.

MR. SIMS: Yes. Thinks now the locus d2s44. This is the final autorad I will show you today. This is a more difficult call on this particular lane with regard to the console, because you can see that Mr. Goldman and Mr. Simpson have fairly close bands as far as their upper bands are concerned, and I will talk about that as I look at the--as I explain to you the console pattern. But I think you can--you can see--I will point with the lavender arrow at the bands in the console lane that are in agreement with Mr. Simpson's bands, and now I will mark those corresponding bands in the lavender color in his reference lane. And now with the green arrow I will first mark--I will go backwards a little bit here. I will first mark the bands in Mr. Goldman's reference lane here and here, (Indicating). And now we will talk about the console lane, because there is--this is a little more difficult to--to see. There is a band in this position, this lowest position in the console lane where I'm pointing now with the green arrow, (Indicating), that is in agreement with Mr. Goldman's lowest band. Now, the difficulty arises when looking at this particular area right above the band that corresponds with Mr. Simpson's band.

MR. HARMON: The upper band?

MR. SIMS: The upper band. This autorad was reviewed by myself and then independently by a second reader. We felt that there was an indication of a band here, but we could not score that as a clear band. In other words, it is not clear and distinct enough that we could make a determination that that is a band sitting on top of that one band. It is too close to call and it is just not clear enough, so we did not score that as a band.

MR. HARMON: It is too close to what?

MR. SIMS: It is too close to the band that corresponds to Mr. Simpson's band in his reference sample.

MR. HARMON: And if what you see there really is a band, does that correspond to Mr. Goldman's other upper band?

MR. SIMS: Yes, it would.

MR. HARMON: Could you point to the area what you believe you saw some activity.

MR. SIMS: Yes. I will point to it with the--perhaps I should use another color.

MR. HARMON: That is okay. We have described it as upper so--

MR. SIMS: Okay. I will point to it and mark it with a green arrow.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Can we capture this as 616-d(1), your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

(Peo's 616-d(1) for id = printout)

MR. HARMON: Actually, there is a fifth probe going on as we speak?

MR. SIMS: Yes. There is another film that if I get back today I will look at it this afternoon.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, why don't you go up and have a seat. I just have a couple more questions here.

MR. SIMS: (Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, is there any question in your mind that the RFLP results that you've described to this jury represent a mixture from more than one source?

MR. SIMS: No. There is clearly a mixture of DNA's in those samples.

MR. HARMON: And you've already described to the jury the significance of the relative intensity differences in the bands and you can see what they are, especially on 616-d; is that true?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: What significance is there to the fact that you never observe more than four bands in the combined stain from the console?

MR. SIMS: That would indicate that we are seeing most likely DNA from just two individuals; not more than two individuals.

MR. HARMON: And just to make sure there is no confusion, because of the relative sensitivity of PCR with respect to RFLP, these RFLP results in no way undermine or contradict the PCR picture results you have previously provided to the jury; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Sims.

THE COURT: Mr. Scheck.

MR. SCHECK: It is 25 after. Do you want me to start for five minutes or do you want to take a break? It is up to you.

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, I neglected. We have a patch. I just wanted to complete his testimony.

MR. SCHECK: I will put it up.

THE COURT: Well, why don't you ask.

MR. HARMON: Can we do that on the record?

THE COURT: Why don't you do it on the record. Go ahead. Mr. Harmon, let's--all right.

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

MR. HARMON: Okay. May the record reflect on the Bronco result board I'm placing vertically, to overlap the RFLP column on 303, 304 and 305, a label that says "Console mix four probes."

THE COURT: Okay. So noted. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our mid-morning recess at this time. Remember all my admonitions to you and we will see you back here in about fifteen minutes.

(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. All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.

(Brief pause.)

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

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Let the record reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Mr. Sims, would you resume the witness stand, please. All right. Mr. Harmon has completed his direct examination. And Mr. Scheck, you may commence your cross-examination.

MR. SCHECK: Thank you, your Honor. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.

THE JURY: Good morning.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SCHECK

MR. SCHECK: Mr. Sims, good to see you.

MR. SIMS: Good to see you.

MR. SCHECK: Let's see if we can--

THE COURT: All right. Are you going to put up again People's 172?

MR. SCHECK: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Got it?

MR. SCHECK: Mr. Sims, could you join me for a minute, and if we could look, just to clarify some of the facts here, at People's 172 and also the results board, People's 260, to understand precisely what you have done here. Now, first of all, items 30 and 31 are depicted in the upper right-hand corner; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Of the People's 172. And those represent swatches that were made on June 14th?

MR. SIMS: Yes, that is my understanding, but those two stains were collected about June 14th.

MR. SCHECK: On June 14th by Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola?

MR. SIMS: I'm not sure who collected them, but the date sounds right to me.

MR. SCHECK: And each picture on this board, 29, that is the steering wheel you told us about, right?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. That is the one with the 1.1, 1.2 and 4, correct?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And number--the next picture over, 33, another picture of the steering wheel, 29, 33 again, 22, 23, 34, the picture showing 25, 26, 27, all those pictures were of collections made on June 14th, 1994? That is your understanding, correct?

MR. SIMS: That's my understanding, yes.

MR. SCHECK: And 293 is a carpet that was pulled out of the Bronco on June 14th, correct?

MR. SIMS: That is my understanding, the carpet was pulled out on that date.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, samples 303, 304 and 305, those are the samples that you combined to do your new RFLP test, right?

MR. SIMS: Yes. 303, 304 and 305.

MR. SCHECK: And they are depicted at the bottom right-hand corner here from the console?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And those stains were collected on August 26th, right?

MR. SIMS: Yes. My understanding it is about that date.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, the results you got on the Bronco samples that were collected on June 14th are shown in the result board here that is 30 and 31, correct?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I believe those are the ones, although 34 I think and 29 were also--

MR. SCHECK: I'm talking about the console?

MR. SIMS: Console, 30 and 31.

MR. SCHECK: That is my question.

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Right, the console?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, 30 is depicted in the upper right-hand corner from that swatch collected on June 14th, you got a 1.1, 1.2, 24, 25, correct?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And that is a DNA typing that is consistent just with Mr. Simpson?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And from that typing there is--you can exclude Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson?

MR. SIMS: Yes. None of their DNA shows up in that sample.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, the result from 303, the sample taken on August 26th, right?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Which is that one on the DQ-Alpha and D1S80, you got results that were consistent with Mr. Simpson, Mr. Goldman and Nicole Brown?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: And in theory it is your understanding that 30 and 303 were taken from the same area?

MR. HARMON: Objection, calls for speculation, misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Is it your understanding that 303 and 30 were supposed to be bloodstains in the same area?

MR. HARMON: Objection. That is vague, calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: I remember we went through all this in May and I think we got down to the issue of what is--what are we talking about when we are saying it is exactly the same area?

MR. SCHECK: I didn't say exactly the same. Same general area?

MR. SIMS: Same general area, yes.

MR. SCHECK: Right. That is what the reports you got indicated?

MR. SIMS: Same general area, yes.

MR. SCHECK: Thank you. Now, 31, okay, that is the second stain from the console from June 14th, right?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And that is the one that you say has a DNA--a DQ-Alpha profile that is consistent with Mr. Goldman?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Now--your Honor, I'm--for the sake of--I don't know if it can be seen, so I will try to put it in the middle.

(Brief pause.)

MR. SCHECK: Now, Mr. Sims, 31--

THE COURT: All right. I'm sorry, Mr. Scheck, you just put up Defense exhibit--

MR. SCHECK: 1309.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. SCHECK: 31 is the item--30 and 31 are depicted here in Defense 1309; is that right?

MR. SIMS: Yes, the DQ-Alpha strips.

MR. SCHECK: And in the upper left-hand corner we see all the strips that were run that day?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, you recall we discussed this, you and I on cross-examination?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And my--you would agree when I asked you those questions on cross-examination the issues probably weren't so clear the way I did it that way with dots?

MR. SIMS: I thought it was clear.

MR. SCHECK: Oh, you thought it was clear? I apologize. But when dr. Gerdes testified he made points that were similar to precisely the points I made--was making with you when we visited this issue on cross-examination?

MR. HARMON: Objection, that is vague, no foundation.

THE COURT: It is argumentative. Sustained.

MR. HARMON: Argumentative.

MR. SCHECK: All right.

MR. SCHECK: Now, you stated on direct examination one of the concerns that dr. Gerdes expressed with respect to this 1.3 dot, correct?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, wasn't one of the points that dr. Gerdes made is that there was also evidence of the 1.3 dot appearing on the quality sample 86 and the positive control on the same run?

MR. HARMON: Objection, that is beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: Yes, he mentioned that in his testimony.

MR. SCHECK: Right. And he took the position that scientifically when your controls are showing 1.3's, that shouldn't be there, it is improper to call a 1.3 that is also faint within a mixture? You remember he made that point?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And your protocol, as we discussed when I cross-examined you, does say that if the quality control and the positive control fail or show unexpected results, that the procedure is to do it again?

MR. SIMS: That's what we would say, yes. In other words, if they show--I think the key word is whether or not they fail, but in my opinion, they didn't fail.

MR. SCHECK: I understand that, but you did not do this again?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: However--and this is--

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Scheck, just be careful because this easel--

MR. SCHECK: I understand. I think I've got it.

THE COURT: --has got a limited capacity.

MR. SCHECK: 1310.

THE COURT: 1310. Thank you.

MR. SCHECK: However, on item 52 on board 1310 there was a--what you in your terminology called a 1.3 trace, correct?

MR. HARMON: Objection. It is beyond the scope, your Honor. These are different samples.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: Yes, it was called a c minus/trace.

MR. SCHECK: Right. And there is also on one of the quality assurance samples in this run what you called a trace of a 1.3?

MR. SIMS: Yes. I believe that is right, but I would like to quickly check the note sheet for that day.

MR. SCHECK: Well, would you accept my representation that this came from the note sheet? Is that your--

MR. SIMS: That is my recollection.

MR. SCHECK: And that on the positive control it was a hint/trace?

MR. SIMS: Yes. In other words, there was more of a dot showing on this particular positive control than the previous one you showed me.

MR. SCHECK: And that you decided, based on this data, to do it again?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: And the 1.3 here, item 52 is a Bundy blood drop?

MR. SIMS: Yes, it is.

MR. SCHECK: And if that 1.3 were a real allele, then that would indicate that there was perhaps more than one contributor to the stain you had?

MR. HARMON: Objection, 52 is beyond the scope of direct, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled. But let's--

MR. SCHECK: Yes, we are moving through it.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Do you recall that?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And you did it again?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And in your notes, even though it is not really visible on this strip, it was recorded very faint trace?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I believe that is correct, but I rehybed it.

MR. SCHECK: And the rehybe indicates that the film was developed for 22 minutes?

MR. SIMS: I believe that's correct, yes.

MR. SCHECK: And your protocol is to develop them between 20 and 30 minutes?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And would you agree that the amount of time that you develop them may relate to the intensity of the 1.3 dot?

MR. SIMS: Well, beyond--beyond about twenty minutes it was really very little difference in those. It is mainly what happens in the first twenty minutes that is the issue.

MR. SCHECK: Well, you didn't indicate on the sheets how long the original run of item 52 was developed?

MR. SIMS: That's correct. I consulted with Renee Montgomery later on that.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, dr.--to finish this up, you recall that dr. Gerdes criticized your results by saying that it was inconsistent to call this 1.3 not real and without further testing to call the 1.3 on sample 31 real?

MR. SIMS: I believe that was his testimony, yes.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. So those are some of the concerns that dr. Gerdes expressed with respect to a full rendition of his concerns with respect to sample 31. Fair statement?

MR. SIMS: I think that covers about everything.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. And just so we are all clear, with respect to the console of the Bronco and the samples that were collected on June 14th, the only evidence of DNA testing that you had with respect to the console is that 1.3, 4 finding that you and dr. Gerdes disagree about on item 31?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, with respect to the results on 303, 304 and 305, you recall that dr. Gerdes expressed the view that the integrity of the evidence had been compromised by the way in which the Bronco was handled between June 14th and August 26th. Do you recall that?

MR. HARMON: Objection, that misstates the testimony. That is argumentative. That is not what he said. It is beyond the scope of the direct examination.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.

MR. SIMS: I believe I saw that in his testimony, yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. So you recall that with respect to his opinions about 303, 304 and 305, that was a concern of his?

MR. SIMS: I believe that was a concern, yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. And do you have some familiarity with the way the Bronco was handled between June 14th and August 26th.

MR. HARMON: Objection, no foundation, calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: Hearsay.

THE COURT: You can ask him if he took that into consideration.

MR. SCHECK: Mr. Sims, from what you know about the way the chain of custody for the Bronco was handled, between June 14th and August 26th, do you think it was handled appropriately, in your forensic opinion?

MR. SIMS: Well, I don't--I don't know the whole history of how that Bronco was maintained. I don't know the whole history of that. I've heard that there were some--

MR. HARMON: Objection. That calls for hearsay, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. HARMON: Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled. It is an expert opinion, counsel.

MR. HARMON: I'm sorry.

MR. SCHECK: Please continue.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: I've heard that the Defense has raised some issues with regard to that. I don't know the truth of the matter on all these issues, though.

MR. HARMON: Object. That is nonresponsive, move to strike. There is no foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: Mr. Sims, you heard dr. Gerdes testify about it?

MR. SIMS: I heard him express concerns. I don't know what his basis for those concerns were, other than the general term "Chain of evidence."

MR. SCHECK: Well, you have no knowledge with respect to whether or not this Bronco was secured for further biological analysis between August 26th and June 14th in a way that would preserve the integrity of the evidence? You have no knowledge of that?

MR. SIMS: Well, I--I know what I see in the newspaper and I know, for example, that I think two weeks ago I called a witness that addressed some of those issues, but that is what my knowledge is.

MR. SCHECK: And you have not familiarized yourself then at all with what the history was of how the Bronco was kept? Is that what you are telling us?

MR. HARMON: Objection. That is argumentative, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. SCHECK: Have you--let me try it this way: Mr. Sims, in your forensic opinion, based on your experience--

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Scheck, is it necessary for him to be down there at this point? Simply because the--we ought to use the microphones when we--

MR. SCHECK: All right. I think it would save time if we keep the boards up.

THE COURT: All right. Go ahead.

(Brief pause.)

MR. SCHECK: Mr. Sims, to try to cut to the heart of it quickly, let me--let me ask you to assume that between June 14th and August 26th the Bronco automobile was not--was put into a tow yard, that no records were kept as to who entered or left it between June 14th and August 26th, that unauthorized personnel were in and out of that Bronco automobile, that is non-police personnel, they were in the seats, they were looking around the car. Would you consider that an appropriate way to preserve the integrity of biological evidence?

MR. SIMS: Well, I--I don't think that should be allowed. I don't think one should be allowed to come in and out of a car. I think that should be done by authorized people.

MR. SCHECK: And that records should be kept as to who has access and doesn't have access to the vehicle if you were going to preserve blood evidence for future biological testing?

MR. SIMS: Well, when you put it in the context of records should be kept, I don't know. I mean, for example, there may be, you know, other tow yards that I have been involved with in forensic cases where perhaps just one person has the keys, so there is no record kept of all those things, but that should be controlled. Access should be controlled.

MR. SCHECK: So your answer is yes?

MR. SIMS: Well, with what I added to that, yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now--so basically you have no basis for disagreeing with dr. Gerdes' judgment that the integrity of those samples, 303, 304 and 305, was compromised by the chain of custody procedures used in this case?

MR. HARMON: Objection. It is vague as to what type of integrity, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: All right. You heard his testimony that he believed as a scientist that the chain of custody for those samples compromised the integrity of future analysis? You recall that?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I heard some of that.

MR. SCHECK: And you are saying to us that you are really not familiar with the details of how--of the chain of custody of the Bronco?

MR. SIMS: That's correct. I'm not familiar with those details.

MR. SCHECK: And you have not endeavored to become more familiar with the exact detail of how it was kept and who was in and out of the car?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: And therefore you wouldn't want to render an opinion on it because you don't have enough information?

MR. HARMON: Objection, it is vague as to opinion about what.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: Well, I think I did offer the opinion of what should be done with that kind of evidence as far as securing it, yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. So your general opinion is that wasn't handled properly, but you don't know the specific detail of how bad it was.

MR. HARMON: Objection, that is argumentative.

THE COURT: It is.

MR. SCHECK: I will move on.

MR. SCHECK: Now, just so we are clear, what you have done since we last visited is that you combined the samples that were found on August 26th, 303, 304 and 305, and you put them together; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I've put them together.

MR. SCHECK: Now, altogether, when you did the quantitations on all these stains combined, you came up with 72 nanograms of high-molecular weight DNA?

MR. SIMS: Well, there was actually more than that, I believe, after, but some other tests were run in between, but it is about 72 nanograms.

MR. SCHECK: About 72 nanograms?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And looking at the results, you believe this to be a mixture?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And the predominant contribution in the mixture is DNA that you say is consistent with Mr. Simpson?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And that is something on the order of 3 to 1?

MR. SIMS: Yes. I--I would say it is somewhere 3 to 1, maybe 2 to 1, but that is the right ballpark.

MR. SCHECK: And therefore the amount of DNA on the RFLP tests that is consistent with the profile of Mr. Goldman would be something on the order of 20 nanograms of DNA?

MR. SIMS: Somewhere in that area, yes. That is--that is a reasonable approximation.

MR. SCHECK: And that is why you had to put these probes, keep those probes cooking, so to speak, for fifteen or sixteen days, to try to draw up the amount of DNA because there was comparatively a small amount there?

MR. SIMS: Yes. Technically what is going on is that there is a low amount of DNA on that membrane, that southern blot that we made, which means that there is a low amount of radioactive probe that is binding, and so you have to let the film that is--that is developing, you have to let that film go for a longer period of time. Usually we do these in a couple days, but for this type of sample you have to let it go a week or longer to get those weak bands to show up.

MR. SCHECK: So 20 nanograms of DNA, that is really at the low end of your ability to detect, isn't it?

MR. SIMS: Yes. This is getting of the low end of the ability to detect.

MR. SCHECK: Small amount?

MR. SIMS: Small amount.

MR. SCHECK: Now, if we were to look at--to give us some perspective, one drop of blood contains about 1000 nanograms of high-molecular weight DNA?

MR. SIMS: Yes, about a thousand nanograms or one microgram, yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. And in fact you have seen estimates in the NRC report and other places that some people put it at between one and 2000?

MR. SIMS: Yes, it is in that area.

MR. SCHECK: Now, if you, based on your quantitations, were to combine the amount of DNA that you got as a whole in 305, 304, 303, the August 26th collections, and for just the purpose of this hypothetical, let's also include the amount of DNA that came out of the swatches from 30 and 31--are you with me?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: --would you not agree that combining all of those together, all that from the console together, the amount of DNA would not exceed a hundred nanograms?

MR. SIMS: Well, it might slightly exceed that, but it is around that ballpark.

MR. SCHECK: Around a hundred nanograms?

MR. SIMS: Around a hundred nanograms.

MR. SCHECK: So that is one/tenth of one drop of blood?

MR. SIMS: Well, you have to remember that with a drop of blood, for example, if you are testing liquid blood, that is not the same as extracting DNA out of a stain's worth of one drop of blood, so there is--you are not quite talking apples--you are somewhat talking apples and oranges there, but in terms of the ballpark you are talking about, you know, maybe getting three/quarters of that DNA out, so you can figure it from that.

MR. SCHECK: All right. So what you are basically saying to us is that maybe if you are just dealing with a pristine drop of blood, you won't get a thousand nanograms, you will get 750?

MR. SIMS: Something like that.

MR. SCHECK: Is that what you just said in English?

MR. SIMS: Yes, that is what I just said.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. And if we were to--I mean no disrespect for that, just summarizing it. And so if you've got about a hundred nanograms of DNA and there is 750 nanograms in a drop of blood, can you give me that fraction quickly? That would be, what, about a seventh?

MR. SIMS: Something like that. Something like that.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. So certainly, just reasoning from the DNA alone, the amount of blood, just looking at the DNA in the console, as you said, is in the area of a hundred nanograms of DNA?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Objection. That assumes it was all collected.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: Well--

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: Object to the--

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled. Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: Okay.

MR. SIMS: May I answer?

MR. SCHECK: You actually overruled that speaking objection.

MR. HARMON: Calls for speculation. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: I overruled the objection. Ask your question.

MR. SCHECK: Oh, overruled the objection?

MR. SIMS: Can I finish my answer to that?

THE COURT: I'm sorry.

MR. SCHECK: I thought you did.

THE COURT: I meant--sustained is what I meant.

MR. SCHECK: That is what I thought you did.

THE COURT: Here is the problem. The moment I start to think about something else--proceed.

MR. SCHECK: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, you also were asked some questions on--withdrawn. I will start this way: Now, you don't know anything about the order in which blood was deposited on that console?

MR. SIMS: No, I don't know the order in which the blood was deposited.

MR. SCHECK: Are you familiar with the testimony of dr. Baden in this case that Mr. Simpson told him that he had cut himself on the evening of June 12th, I believe, and that he had gone into the Bronco searching for his cellular phone?

MR. HARMON: Objection, that calls for hearsay and no foundation.

MR. SCHECK: This was testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: And with a small cut on the side of his finger and had blood within the Bronco? Are you familiar with that testimony.

MR. HARMON: Same objection, calls for hearsay and no foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. HARMON: Misstates the testimony as well.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: No, I really wasn't interested in doctor, is it Baden how you say it, in his testimony. I don't recall that. I don't recall his testimony on that issue.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Just look at it then from the point of view of forensic DNA expertise that you have, ask you to assume that there was an initial deposit of Mr. Simpson's blood on the Bronco from a small cut and I ask you further to assume that a--at a later point in time there was a second deposit, all right? Do you have that hypothetical?

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. SCHECK: And if one assumes, for the sake of argument and for the sake of this hypothetical, that the bloodstains of 303, 304, 305, all right, were all present also on June 14th, all right, asking you to assume both of these--there is no question, just for the purpose of this hypothetical--that everything that was on--on August 26th, all right, that was found there, was also present on June 14th, just for the purpose of this hypothetical. Are you with me?

MR. SIMS: Okay. On June 14th versus August 26th. Okay. Those are the two collection times.

MR. SCHECK: Right. But if we assume that on August 26th the finding--the stains there 303, 304, 305, were also present on June 14th, but somehow they were missed, okay--

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. SCHECK: --your conclusions with respect to mixtures are not inconsistent with two deposits at two separate times?

MR. HARMON: Objection. That is an improper hypothetical. Misstates the testimony. There is no foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: Okay. I understand the hypothetical, but now give me the last phrase, please, the question.

MR. SCHECK: In other words, your findings here of mixtures are not inconsistent with a contribution of Mr. Simpson's blood at one point in time and then a subsequent contribution of blood from Mr. Goldman at a subsequent point in time?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: And in fact, based on all the testing that you did, most of the blood, if we--withdrawn. Most of the DNA that you extracted from that console is consistent with Mr. Simpson?

MR. SIMS: In the sample that we look at he would be consistent with the main contributor of that DNA mix.

MR. SCHECK: Something--when you combine 303, 304 and 305, something on the order of 3 to 1?

MR. SIMS: Yes, that is--again, that is a reasonable figure, something like 3 to 1, maybe 2 to 1.

MR. SCHECK: Now, finally, there--you have continued testing--are you still continuing testing in this case?

MR. SIMS: Well, as I mentioned, there is another autorad that we would--I would like to look at this afternoon, another probe or another one of these autorads that we are developing.

MR. SCHECK: Have you tested item 1, the speck on the door that was first observed by Detective Fuhrman?

MR. HARMON: Objection, that is beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Do you have DNA samples from the handrail? Have you tested that?

MR. HARMON: Objection. It is beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Excuse me for one second.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, can we approach the bench for just one minute?

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. SCHECK: On a scope problem. I don't want to ask the question and--

THE COURT: All right. With the court reporter, please.

MR. SCHECK: Take just a second.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: All right. We are over at the side bar.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor--

THE COURT: Mr. Scheck, what is your concern?

MR. SCHECK: My application is that in order to expedite matters, and in view of the fact that there is some issue about Mr. De forest and the whole question of exculpatory evidence, what I would like to do now is make Mr. Sims my own witness and ask him about his July 17th examination of the sock wherein he found a wet transfer on surface 3 of the second sock that was in the area that he typed of consistent with Nicole Brown Simpson. I realize that this would make him our witness at this point in time, but it saves us calling him back for a surrebuttal case.

MR. HARMON: Can I respond to that? Umm, they haven't even rested their case yet. He is going to be back with the fifth probe result, because it is going to drag on for weeks and weeks. That is just not appropriate at this time. We will be happy to make him available. We called him for a very limited reason. We really are trying to get this case to the jury and that is just going to reopen--they have never--well, what about the three-day rule? He has never mentioned that he was going to do that. If he wants him call him as his witness, give us three days' notice and we will have him back. Maybe he will have rested by then or maybe he will be the last witness in their case in chief. Well, I don't want to tell you what this is.

MR. SCHECK: Frankly, the fact that we haven't rested only adds to the appropriateness of doing it now and the fact that we have this whole problem of something--a subsequent test performed by him and dr. De forest on July 17th that we believe is exculpatory evidence. And all I'm seeking permission to do is to get it on now and save us some time.

MR. HARMON: The same amount of time now or later, your Honor. You know, we do have a three-day rule; although I never saw them held to it in their case. So I insist he will be available. I will make him available. I will any back and forth with him. But they want to obscure these powerful results and that is all this is.

THE COURT: All right. The People's objection is sustained.

MR. HARMON: Thank you.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. Proceed.

MR. SCHECK: Now, Mr. Harmon asked you some questions on direct examination about these RFLP results allaying concerns that dr. Gerdes expressed with respect to cross contamination. Do you recall that?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: He asked you that question very generally, didn't he?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, these RFLP results only deal with samples 303, 304 and 305?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: These RFLP results do not address any issues of cross-contamination with respect to the Bundy blood drops, 47, 48, 49, 50 and 52?

MR. HARMON: Objection. That is vague, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: No, these results relate to these samples.

MR. SCHECK: All right. They don't relate to any problems of cross-contamination that occurred in the evidence processing room on June 14th when Collin Yamauchi examined the Rockingham glove?

MR. HARMON: Objection, it is beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled. You can generalize this.

MR. SCHECK: I only have two or three more questions, just to show what it doesn't concern.

MR. HARMON: It also misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: The question again, please?

MR. SCHECK: The question is these RFLP results don't do anything--don't address the issues of cross-contamination that have been raised by dr. Gerdes concerning Collin Yamauchi's handling of the Rockingham glove in the evidence processing room on the morning of June 14th, right?

MR. SIMS: I'm trying to recall what issues dr. Gerdes specifically raised about those, because I don't recall seeing any issue with those particular samples.

MR. SCHECK: Well, you don't recall his testimony about that? Is that what you are telling us?

MR. SIMS: I don't recall the detail of his testimony about those particular samples.

MR. SCHECK: You don't recall his testimony about Mr. Yamauchi--

THE COURT: Counsel, counsel.

MR. SCHECK: All right.

MR. SCHECK: You don't recall it? Is that your testimony?

MR. SIMS: I said I don't recall all the details. When you start talking about issues, you are putting a plural on it and you are implying there is some--

MR. SCHECK: Mr. Sims, even if you don't recall all the details of what dr. Gerdes said, you don't believe that these RFLP results on 303, 304 and 305 have anything to do with it?

MR. HARMON: Objection, that is argumentative.

THE COURT: It is.

MR. SCHECK: Do you believe they have anything to do with it?

MR. SIMS: Well--

MR. SCHECK: Do they address those concerns about cross-contamination?

MR. SIMS: I think in the narrow sense of your question, no, the answer is no, they don't address that.

MR. SCHECK: Thank you.

MR. SCHECK: Now, dr. Gerdes gave extensive testimony concerning a study he performed of contamination at the LAPD laboratory and the efficacy of controls in sample handling procedures used at the LAPD laboratory. Are you familiar with the fact that he testified about such a study?

MR. HARMON: Objection. Beyond the scope of direct examination.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: My question last on this question.

MR. SIMS: Yes, I am aware that he presented that.

MR. SCHECK: You didn't review that, read that study or review his data, did you?

MR. SIMS: No, I did not.

MR. SCHECK: Now--your Honor, I actually think I'm finished.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I have no further questions, but I would request, based on what we've discussed, that this witness be subject to recall on another matter.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Sims--we know where Mr. Sims is. He knows how to get to L.A. all right. Mr. Harmon, do you have any redirect examination for Mr. Sims?

MR. HARMON: Yes, your Honor.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. HARMON

MR. HARMON: Just taking up with that last point, dr. Gerdes' study about LAPD, do you recall that dr. Gerdes was unable to recount the history from the sample collection of 303, 304 and 305 when Mr. Clarke asked him to recite that to the jury?

MR. SCHECK: We object insofar as he said he doesn't remember his testimony completely.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: No, I did read that part of the testimony. I did review that particular part of the testimony regarding who collected the samples on--with regards to 303, 304 and 305.

MR. HARMON: And based on reviewing his testimony, do you recall that dr. Gerdes made no specific technical criticisms of your PCR results on 303, 304 and 305?

MR. SIMS: Yes. My recollection in his transcript was that there was no specific criticism of those PCR results.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, Mr. Sims, your crime scene collection days have long past; is that right?

MR. SIMS: I haven't been to a crime scene or a vehicle, that sort of thing, in about five years now, over five years.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Scheck asked you about the appropriate way to preserve evidence and keep logs of who has access to evidence. Do you recall that?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Now--and you said that is not the appropriate way to do it?

MR. SIMS: Well, I just said that access should be controlled. I think that was the gist of my response.

MR. HARMON: Now, the failure to keep a log of who went in and out of a car, if anyone went in and out of the car, that is not going to change the types of the RFLP results that you presented to this jury that are consistent with Mr. Simpson and Mr. Goldman, is it?

MR. SCHECK: Objection. Beyond the scope, calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: No.

MR. HARMON: And allowing people to go into the car to look around, unauthorized people, if that actually happened, that alone is not going to necessarily change the PCR or RFLP results from 303, 304 and 305, is it?

MR. SCHECK: Same objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: What you have presented to this jury is the results of your testing--DNA testing from various samples that are provided to you; is that true?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Is it unusual for you not to know the history of a sample in a case?

MR. SIMS: No, it is not unusual to not know the complete history of a sample in a case.

MR. HARMON: In fact, given the way these violent crimes often occur, some history of the sample is frequently lacking when you do your testing; isn't that correct?

MR. SIMS: Well, yes, that is true.

MR. HARMON: Let's just--I will give you a hypothetical and just to sort of illustrate, let's assume we have a female brutally murdered, signs of sexual assault.

MR. SCHECK: Objection, call for speculation, irrelevant, beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. HARMON: Signs of sexual assault, evidence is vaginal swabs, apparent seminal stains on clothing are all collected and sent to you with reference samples. Are you with me so far?

MR. SCHECK: Renew the objection on relevancy grounds.

THE COURT: Overruled. I haven't heard the question yet.

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: That is not an unusual case presented to you in the DOJ lab, evidence of that?

MR. SIMS: That would be typical or not unusual.

MR. HARMON: It is not unusual for you to perform tests on that sample; isn't that true?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And in cases like that you have frequently identified people as the source of sperm in apparent sexual assault/murder cases; isn't that true?

MR. SIMS: Yes. For example, we have used the DNA to say who could be the potential source of that particular semen testing.

MR. HARMON: Now, when you do that testing, based on the test results alone, you can't necessarily tell whether the sex act that produced the sperm occurred before the homicide, can you?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: You can't necessarily tell that the sex act that produced the sperm occurred during the homicide?

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I think this is irrelevant.

THE COURT: We are about to become irrelevant.

MR. HARMON: About two more questions and it will be totally irrelevant, your Honor.

MR. SCHECK: Totally irrelevant did he say?

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. HARMON: You can't tell that the sex act that produced the sperm occurred in any relationship to the violence that caused the homicide, can you?

MR. SIMS: That is correct.

MR. HARMON: And last question on this point. You--for example, you might identify--the sperm that you produce might be someone who had sex with a person who has been murdered where the sex act occurred after the homicide?

MR. SIMS: Possible.

MR. SCHECK: Objection, relevance.

THE COURT: Let's move on.

MR. HARMON: Now, Mr. Scheck asked you a series of questions about people having access to the car and coming into--into the car, and I just asked you some questions about those things wouldn't necessarily change the type of the DNA that was there. Do you recall that?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Now, in order for one person to have produced the RFLP results or the PCR results that you detected on that console, there would have to be something terribly wrong with that person, wouldn't there?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, vague--

THE COURT: Sustained. Vague.

MR. HARMON: Based on your DNA result, in order for one person to account for the DNA results from 303, 304, 305, both individually and in combination, there would have to be something terribly wrong with that person, wouldn't there?

MR. SCHECK: Same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: Would there have to be something terribly wrong from one person if one person were to try to account for all of the results from 303, 304 and 305?

MR. SCHECK: Same objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: Yes. It would be some sort of genetic anomaly.

MR. HARMON: In what sense?

MR. SIMS: Well, because you see more what we call alleles or types than you would from a single individual.

MR. HARMON: Okay. For example, you've already described the significance of seeing four bands, two of higher intensity and two of lower intensity?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Are you aware of anything in the literature where one person could have four bands where they are of different intensities?

MR. SIMS: Well--

MR. HARMON: From these probes?

MR. SIMS: The sort of thing where we might see that would be on, for example, somebody who is transfused or something unusual like that.

MR. HARMON: Well, to just add to the mystery a little bit, if in order for--you've paired those results. You've paired some of them that are consistent with Mr. Simpson by relative intensity and some that are weaker than Mr. Simpson and they are consistent with Mr. Goldman; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: Yes. The intensity patterns, the band intensity patterns pair up between those two individuals.

MR. HARMON: In order for another person to account for depositing, let's say, the weaker set of bands, they would have to match Mr. Goldman's type, wouldn't they?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Now, the last point, or I think it is the last point, at least, Mr. Scheck asked you about the console mixture results that you've described to this jury, 303, 304 and 305, both PCR and RFLP, and you said they are not inconsistent with two deposits, the results alone. Do you recall that?

MR. SIMS: The RFLP results are consistent with two depositors?

MR. HARMON: I didn't speak clearly enough. Are they--I think you told him they are consistent with two separate deposits, having come at two different times?

MR. SIMS: Oh, as far as the order of deposition?

MR. HARMON: Or whether they were simultaneous or at different times?

MR. SIMS: I say I could not rule out that possibility, yes.

MR. HARMON: Now, is there something about the amounts of DNA in those samples that tells you it is highly improbable that that occurred?

MR. SIMS: Well, it is hard to say too much just based on the amounts of DNA in those particular samples. I have no reason to suspect that they are from different times, but there is nothing clear to me one way or the other.

MR. HARMON: Would you say that the amounts that would be represented from, say, Nicole Brown, who is not detected in the RFLP testing, what can you tell us about that?

MR. SIMS: Well, when you--when you--when you enter the point now where you are talking about three different people's blood on a console in a vehicle, I mean, forensically that seems very significant to me. I mean, it just seems unusual that you would have three different individuals bleeding or their blood present inside a vehicle in that kind of a location. That to me is the significance.

MR. HARMON: May I have a moment, your Honor?

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

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, Mr. Scheck never asked you about 293. You are aware of the history of 293?

MR. SCHECK: I'm sorry, I didn't hear that question. I apologize.

THE COURT: Asked about 293.

MR. SCHECK: Oh.

MR. SIMS: Yes, he asked me about that and I discussed a little bit about how the carpet was cut out and later sampled.

MR. HARMON: Okay. That was done at the earlier date rather than the later date? Is that your recollection?

MR. SIMS: My understanding was that the carpet was cut out at the earlier date.

MR. HARMON: And the types that you found on the carpet are consistent with--

MR. SCHECK: Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. HARMON: Are the types that you found on the carpet consistent with what you detect as the possible presence of Nicole Brown on 303, 304 and 305?

MR. SIMS: Are they consistent? Yes. In other words, her type was found on that sample consistent also with what was seen in the Bronco console.

MR. HARMON: And finally I'm going to ask you a question about 31 and 30 and 303 and 304 and 305. Have you had a chance to look at those results?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Are those results consistent with Mr. Simpson having injured himself during the brutal murder of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman, returning to his car, that Bronco, with a right-handed glove that bore their blood commingled with his blood from his injured left hand, and somehow that item having come in contact with the console?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained. Foundation.

MR. HARMON: I'm going to ask you a question. The question is are your results consistent with the following scenario? You know what Mr.--

MR. SCHECK: No foundation.

THE COURT: I haven't heard the question yet.

MR. HARMON: You are familiar with testimony that Mr. Simpson had a cut on his left hand?

MR. SIMS: Well, I mentioned that I heard dr. Baden specifically talk about that. I am aware from other issues in this case about the cut on the hand.

MR. HARMON: On the left hand?

MR. SIMS: On the left hand, yes.

MR. HARMON: Do you know what his DQ-Alpha type is?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: You know what his RFLP type is from all the tests that we've done?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And you are familiar with the fact that the victims in this case provided--their reference samples were provided to you for typing?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. You are familiar with your typing results from the glove, no. 9?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Objection, beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. HARMON: You are familiar with where all the stains were found on the console? And we've just had the photo board up there; is that right?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Are the PCR and RFLP results that you produced, your lab produced from the console, are they consistent with Mr. Simpson having injured himself while brutally murdering Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, your Honor, no foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: Are they consistent with Mr. Simpson having injured himself at or about the time someone brutally murdered Ronald Goldman?

MR. SCHECK: Objection and move to strike.

THE COURT: Sustained, sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Ask for an instruction if he persists.

THE COURT: Sustained.

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

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, let's go back to the same question about the console. Are all of your console DNA test results consistent with the glove, item no. 9, having Mr. Simpson's blood on it, that glove being in the Bronco, coming in--and having the victim's blood on it as well, and that glove coming into contact with the console and transferring portions of all three participant's blood onto the console?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, no foundation. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims--

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

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, you know what your--the glove results that your lab produced suggest a mixture consistent with Mr. Goldman, Mr. Simpson and Miss Brown; is that correct?

MR. SCHECK: Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: I want you to assume hypothetically that that glove was brought into that console or into that Bronco and that glove transferred some of the blood from the glove--

MR. SCHECK: Objection, no foundation.

MR. HARMON: --onto the console.

MR. SCHECK: Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: All right. We are going to take our recess for the morning session at this time. Remember all my admonitions to you. Don't discuss the case among yourselves, form any opinions about the case, conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you. Not allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. As far as the jury is concerned, and counsel, we will stand in recess until 1:00. Mr. Sims, you may step down. You are ordered to come back at one o'clock. All right. We will stand in recess.

(At 11:49 A.M. the noon recess was taken until 1:00 P.M. of the same day.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1995 1:10 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. Mr. Simpson is present with his counsel, People are represented. The jury is not present. Counsel, when we adjourned, Mr. Sims was on the stand and Mr. Harmon was asking a hypothetical question regarding the glove results, no. 9 being consistent with 304, 303 and 305, and that's where we were.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I would--I think that--I would object to any further questions along those lines in terms of--Mr. Harmon was asking a series of hypotheticals that plainly go far beyond what's permitted. They're talking about brutal murders and everything else and not tied to what was raised on the cross-examination, which all I brought out is that it's consistent with--that he can't tell what blood was deposited when. That's all I did. And I think this is way beyond the scope and I think it's reached the point now after all these different questions where we're way into argument. Hopefully, we'll argue this case soon, but I think that these hypothetical are improper.

THE COURT: Well, I--frankly, I thought that after he got this answer, well, when you enter the point now where you're talking about three different people's blood on a console in a vehicle, I mean forensically that seems very significant to me.

MR. HARMON: Well, you know, your Honor, I reconsidered that over the lunch hour--

THE COURT: I mean, it just seems unusual that you would have three different individuals bleeding or their blood present inside a vehicle in that kind of a location. I thought that was going to be the last question and answer.

MR. HARMON: It probably should have been. But I have two more and they have nothing to do with my hypothetical.

THE COURT: You're going to withdraw the hypothetical?

MR. HARMON: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Bless you. All right. Let's have the jury.

MR. GOLDBERG: Excuse me. Before we call the jury back, I wanted to put on the report that I he was down here during the noon hour and did bring the materials or at least parts of the materials that we have for Defense to see, and they wanted to go out and have lunch. I am now leaving to do some other business that we will be prepared to--

THE COURT: Which materials did you bring down?

MR. GOLDBERG: I brought down the test impressions that were taken on August the 21st and I brought down certain of the raw materials that are going to be placed on boards, photographs, including photographs of the jeans, photographs of the Bundy walkway that were taken on June the 13th, plus those that were most recently taken, the black and white photographs of various abnormalities in the tiles and some other photographic materials that we would be used--that would be used to be placed and mounted on boards for purposes of evidence that would be presented presumably tomorrow morning.

THE COURT: Mr. Scheck.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, you have to--I thought that we had an understanding when Mr. Harmon and Mr. Clarke were present at the bench that I reiterated the request which I thought the court granted yesterday, that we would get an opportunity to look at the test impressions, blown-up photographs, the shirt and the jeans at one location. I raised this with Mr. Goldberg earlier. I brought it up with the court. I thought the court said that that could be arranged either in the courthouse or at the lab. I went back to Mr. Goldberg, I said--communicated what your Honor had said to us. I asked him to make that arrangements, began to do so, then Miss Clark turned to him and said, "Just show him the test impressions. That's it." And then I asked--I said, "Well, Miss Clark, it's not my understanding of what the Judge just indicated and what he previously ordered," and she said, "Just give him the test impressions. That's it, and, Mr. Scheck, I'm not talking to you. Don't even talk to me. I don't talk to you." That's the way this woman works and she's ordered him to do that. Now, he came down here at a quarter to 1:00. As we're running downstairs, he pulls out a big packet and he says, "Take a look at this one, take a look at this one, take a look at this one," and I say, we're going downstairs to eat lunch right now. We can't do it. Mr. Morton just arrived. The federal express package just came in. Now, you know, I've already made my arguments about an opportunity to look at it. We have to have an opportunity to look at the data that they're going to put on, and we're taking the afternoon off because their witness has just arrived. And it's a civilized scientific way to proceed. I've requested an opportunity to talk to the witnesses and just make this simple arrangement. Should take an hour or two to show us the data. I think that's what's required and it's civilized. And I just ask that that be done. And if Mr. Goldberg is going to run out the door and we won't be able to see him later in the day and make arrangements for this and we won't be able to get ahold of him in the office, I think that's wrong.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, my understanding of the court's order yesterday--and I think it was pretty clear--is that we were supposed to, over the noon recess, have the test impressions from the 13th and the 31st--excuse me--from the 21st and the 31st in court. We learned that the 21st impressions have been mailed to the court. So I don't know--

THE COURT: The impressions?

MR. GOLDBERG: Excuse me. The 31st impressions from the jeans and the shirt have been mailed to the court. But I wanted to try to satisfy the court's order by being down here at--over the noon recess, and that's what I was trying to do. If counsel didn't have an opportunity to look at them at that time, whether it's legitimate or illegitimate, doesn't make any difference to me. We will try to accommodate them at some later point. The point is that, had they wanted to look at them over the noon recess, they could have done so, and I was trying to fulfill the court's order. No one recalls anything, other than Mr. Scheck, about the court having revisited this issue and now placed an additional requirement on the People that we are responsible for assembling the jeans, the shirt, the test impressions simultaneously at the same place at the same location. That's a logistical problem. It's difficult for us to do that the court did not require us to do because that would mean--

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Goldberg, here's our choice. Mr. Morton is here. Mr. Scheck is here. The stuff is--the impressions are here. It would take us an hour to take this evidence after the jury has been excused, put it in the jury room, let them look at it and then we can proceed.

MR. GOLDBERG: Right.

THE COURT: That's the orderly way to do this.

MR. GOLDBERG: The only problem would be getting the jeans and the shirt here. We'd have to do that and that would be difficult.

THE COURT: But I suspect it's less than a mile away.

MR. GOLDBERG: It's at piper tech.

THE COURT: Less than a mile away.

MR. GOLDBERG: Right. But the point is, that needs to be checked out and I'm not sure the jury room is an appropriate environment to be looking at those jeans and I'm not sure that that would be acceptable to Mr. Morton as a forensic scientist.

THE COURT: Well, given the fact I want this done now, that's where it's going to be.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: I don't want to delay this trial anymore. Mr. Morton is here, the impressions are apparently here. I'm certain Mrs. Robertson could find somebody to call over at LAPD to get Detective Vannatter to check those items out and get them over here. Let's let them look at it. Maybe we can proceed with this testimony today.

MS. CLARK: We won't be able to, your Honor. They just arrived. I saw them. They have gone out to Bundy to re-examine the scene and look at the various defects in the tiles and they will, however, be ready first thing in the morning.

THE COURT: All right. So you're not ready to present this at this point in any event because your witnesses are in West L.A.?

MS. CLARK: Correct.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, we've also communicated, and all I'm saying, we'd like an opportunity to discuss with the witnesses what it is, because just looking at the test impressions and the markings and the pictures, it's hard to link it up. If they could provide us with that opportunity since--

MR. GOLDBERG: I'll let Miss Clark do that. Evidently she's going to be putting on these witnesses, and our policy is, we always allow the witnesses to decide on their own. We do not make any suggestion one way or the other.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. GOLDBERG: Can I just also say, I don't think it's necessary for the record, in response to Mr. Scheck's contentions about Miss Clark's statements, she was simply communicating to me that her recollection of the court's orders were not the same as Mr. Scheck and that the court did not modify its previous order. For the record, you know, we've tried to get along with all the attorneys as amicably as we can. I think the Defense has done so as well. There appears to be a little bit of a--perhaps it's a cultural clash between the California and New York styles. I don't know what it is, but--

MR. SCHECK: He was right about meshugana.

MR. GOLDBERG: We have had a little bit of difficulty at times with Mr. Scheck and Mr. Neufeld and it's simply easier for us to deal with many things on the record than to try to sort them out informally. We've had some trouble doing that.

THE COURT: Well, the court's interest is getting this testimony presented tomorrow.

MR. GOLDBERG: I understand. And that is our interest as well. I just wanted to say that we have had a little bit of difficulty and we're trying to smooth it out to the extent that we can.

THE COURT: All right. Mrs. Robertson--excuse me--would you contact either Detective Vannatter or Detective Lange and see if we can get those two items, the shirt, Mr. Goldman's shirt, Mr. Goldman's pants checked out and brought over here, please.

MR. COCHRAN: Good afternoon, your Honor. I'm from California and so I can understand this.

THE COURT: No. No. We're not discussing this anymore.

MR. COCHRAN: There was something else I wanted to bring out.

THE COURT: No.

MR. COCHRAN: He has to leave, so it has to do with one other thing so we don't have to delay the trial.

THE COURT: What is that?

MR. COCHRAN: We need him here if we're going to talk about that video. We have some objections to the video. If he's not going to be here--it's his video, isn't it?

THE COURT: Miss Clark will handle that.

MR. COCHRAN: I just want to make sure he's available.

THE COURT: All right. Also, just so everything is clear, the court has received two packages from the FBI. Mr. Byrne, my research attorney, is cataloging those items, and then we'll make those available for inspection to counsel. Also, we've received from NBC what appears to be a package, sealed package of videotapes in response to our discussions yesterday. All right. Also--excuse me. As soon as Mrs. Robertson logs those in, we'll have the opportunity to display those to counsel, the videotapes from NBC. Also, while we were still in recess, Mr. Neufeld advised the court that he had advised the Prosecution that apparently there's some objection you're going to withdraw, Mr. Neufeld?

MR. NEUFELD: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Good afternoon.

MR. NEUFELD: Good afternoon. What we are prepared to do, your Honor, is withdraw the objection that the RFLP results for the combination 303, 304 and 305 stains need to be presented in conjunction with the statistics, and the failure to do so is the objection we are now withdrawing. It should be very clear though that we're not saying that that authorizes them to argue to the jury that the true numbers for the significance of that mixture are the solo contributor stains that exist elsewhere which have been typed consistent with either Mr. Goldman or Mr. Simpson.

THE COURT: I don't think they would do that.

MR. HARMON: Excuse me, your Honor. I think that's perfectly proper argument if the jury decides in the context of this case that those two stains did come from those two people and there's other information within this case that will allow them to do that. I think the court, upon reflection, will see that if they decide that and if that information is contained elsewhere, then that's a proper point to make for them and that's a proper conclusion for them to draw.

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, two things. No. 1, we suggested doing this to save a great deal of time. They were going to have somebody coming from Great Britain. We were then going to have dr. Shields come in to respond to that issue. You know, it looks to me that from just the expressions on the jurors' faces now, I mean whoever has anymore witnesses gets these cold stares from the jury, and we're trying to avoid the continuation of that problem. All we're simply saying is, they would be precluded from arguing solo frequencies for the other mixtures and that's why the court made the initial ruling and that's why Bruce Weir came in here and offered different frequencies for mixtures than the frequencies that are given for solo stains. So that's been the--that's been the approach to mixtures throughout this entire proceeding. It would be a distortion of that reality should they be permitted to then argue something completely different for this mixture which they're not allowed to argue for any of the other mixtures. It just doesn't make any sense.

MR. HARMON: Just final response. You know, reality has no reason to be mentioned in any of these arguments. These are legal arguments designed to create a reality, okay. We are not conceding that there's any validity to limiting our argument because they're willing to shorten the trial. Whatever you feel is appropriate argument at that time, you'll have to decide that, your Honor. This is--we have not agreed to anything except if they withdraw their objection, we will not call a statistician. There's no quid pro quo for that, your Honor. That's their decision. We're happy they want to shorten the trial, but we have not agreed to any concession on any other point and I think the court will see in the context of the argument--

THE COURT: The problem I have though, counsel, is, the original proffer to this evidence, this RFLP, was not to offer any statistics, merely to say that it is consistent with the PCR test. That was the offer that I was given and that was the assumption that I was under when I allowed this evidence.

MR. HARMON: And nothing I've said I think contravenes that or--

THE COURT: I agree. So far.

MR. HARMON: --or undermines that. But my point is--I mean listen to the cross-examination. I was going to ask you to reconsider your ruling in light of the fact that they have conceded by their cross-examination that part of that RFLP pattern is Mr. Simpson's blood. Well, then who else--what other pattern is left there? And if there's information in this record that this jury can use to evaluate how frequently that fainter pattern, which when you subtract Mr. Simpson's out is Mr. Goldman's, then I think not only is it is permissible for them to do that, that Miss Clark can ask them to do that. She may not want to. My only point--because we're not arguing the case now--is to say, we're not conceding any issue in light of what--what, you know, that they don't want to see another statistician here. We're delighted about that as well.

THE COURT: All right. I understand that. But you should understand that the court's already made a ruling in this area.

MR. HARMON: We remember that.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Let's have the jury and let's finish Mr. Sims.

MR. HARMON: So--and we will not call a statistician.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. CLARK: Let me indicate while the jury is coming out, your Honor, we received--these are other charts that were mailed to us from Agent Deedrick, and I don't want--I want the Defense to know that they're here. I want to show it to them as soon as we recess today.

THE COURT: All right. Let's finish Mr. Sims, and then we'll see where we are at that point. What do you have after Sims by the way?

MS. CLARK: The video.

THE COURT: And what after that? Deedrick?

MS. CLARK: That's it. Well, but that won't be until tomorrow.

THE COURT: They'll have rested twice and--

MR. COCHRAN: Not yet. We're waiting, your Honor.

MS. CLARK: Before we ask the court to rest subject to--you understand also, your Honor, we have sent a letter to the Defense requesting the Stockdale tape because we have a declaration from the answering machine company that they no longer have any copy.

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

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Let the record reflect we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

Gary Sims, the witness on the stand at the time of the noon recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:

THE COURT: Mr. Gary Sims is again on the witness stand undergoing redirect examination by Mr. Harmon. And, Mr. Harmon, you may continue.

MR. HARMON: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. HARMON

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, one last point, couple of questions. Based on the combination of your RFLP and PCR results from 303, 304 and 305, how would you quantify the amount of DNA which produced results consistent with Nicole Brown?

MR. SIMS: The amount of DNA for that particular component of the mixture would be what I would describe as a trace level of DNA.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And you recall Mr. Scheck asked you about eliminating or talking about how many different deposits there would have to be or there might be to account for the console results from 303, 304 and 305. Do you recall that question?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And you said it's possible that there could be more than one deposit that could have produced the combined results that you saw in this case?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Now, in order--in light of the trace amount of DNA that you've described is consistent with the results that are consistent with Nicole Brown. You with me so far?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And in light of the fact that you found three such results, what series of events would have to have happened in order to have--and assuming that Mr. Simpson's blood was there previous to that in all three places.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Okay? Would you describe the series of events that would have to have occurred to account for the trace amounts from Nicole Brown and the substrate controls from those three samples testing clean?

MR. SCHECK: Calls for speculation. Vague.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: Can you describe the series of results--keep my last question in mind. Can you describe the series of results which would have had to have occurred in light of the trace amounts of DNA that are consistent with Nicole Brown?

MR. SCHECK: Calls for speculation again.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: In order for you to have seen the results that you saw, which include Mr. Simpson's DQ-Alpha type--and by the way, how would you describe the amount of DNA which produced Mr. Simpson's types as opposed to the trace amounts that produced results consistent with Miss Brown?

THE COURT: You're talking PCR or the RFLP?

MR. HARMON: In general. On the three console stains, 303, 304 and 305.

MR. SIMS: Well, I would describe it that there was significantly more DNA consistent with Mr. Simpson than there was with Nicole Brown Simpson's sample.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, in order for you to have seen the results that you had, greater amount of DNA consistent with Mr. Simpson's type and the trace amount of DNA consistent with Miss Brown's type, and in order for there to have been two deposits, one of Mr. Simpson and then at least one more with a trace amount of Nicole Brown's, would you have to have had that trace amount deposited on all three separate stains and not on the substrate controls?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Again, substrate--objection. Calls for speculation and he's mixing--

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: --two different--

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. HARMON: Thanks, Mr. Sims. I have no further questions.

THE COURT: Mr. Scheck.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SCHECK

MR. SCHECK: What was the answer?

MR. SIMS: The answer was yes.

MR. SCHECK: The answer was yes. Okay. Mr. Sims, you don't know who was in the car--who was in the Bronco in the early morning hours of June 13th?

MR. SIMS: The early morning hours of June 13th, no, I don't know.

MR. SCHECK: All right. You don't know the identities of the contributors to the mixture on the steering wheel?

MR. HARMON: Objection. That's beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: No, I don't know.

MR. SCHECK: Has anybody sent you DNA exemplars from police officers to type?

MR. HARMON: Objection. That's beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: You don't know who went into the Bronco between June 14th and August 26th?

MR. SIMS: I don't know.

MR. SCHECK: Thank you.

THE COURT: Mr. Harmon?

MR. SCHECK: But he's subject to recall for the reasons we stated.

MR. HARMON: No further questions.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. HARMON: Excuse me. May--

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

MR. HARMON: No further questions.

THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Sims, again, thank you, sir.

MR. SIMS: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: We have our next witness ready, your Honor, but I think the Defense--

THE COURT: We need to preview something?

MS. CLARK: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, let me ask you to step back in the jury room. I need to preview something before we present the next witness.

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

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. All right. I take it, Miss Clark, the next offer from the People is the statement from Thano Peratis under 1202?

MS. CLARK: Yes.

THE COURT: Let's see the edited--

MR. NEUFELD: Before you see it, I think it would help the court if you knew in advance--because I got to see it a little while ago--what some of my concerns are so you can--when you're looking at the tape, you can see whether or not they're there. I think it helps you in deciding this thing rather quickly.

THE COURT: You want to pre-object to it before I see it? All right.

MR. NEUFELD: Yeah. Or at least tell you--

THE COURT: All right. Well, what should I be looking for?

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Thank you. Your Honor, the problem is that I don't believe that they followed your instructions of yesterday. No. 1, right off the bat, they start referring to a demonstration that he wants to show. Although he doesn't actually show most of the demonstration, he refers to or he's about to. No. 2, he then orally describes the experiment that he did not with Mr. Simpson's blood, but an experiment that he did sometime between the time he drew Mr. Simpson's blood and the time that this tape is made on July 27th. You said no reference to any experiments are to be included in this tape. It's simple impeachment on the issue of the 8 cc's. He goes through a description of the experiment he conducted in his own infirmary eight months after the incident to help convince him of the error of his ways, that his testimony at the grand jury and preliminary hearing were wrong. So they didn't follow your instructions with regard to that either. No. 3, on the tape, they referred to the 6.5 cc's results that he achieved when he completed his own experiment, again, referring to the very experiment that he's not allowed to refer to given your instructions yesterday. No. 4, there's still a ton of extraneous references on this tape which has absolutely nothing to do with the impeachment, again, contrary to your specific instruction yesterday. No. 5, you still have Mr. Goldberg on there as an unsworn witness, and what makes it much worse and more problematic is, he's paraphrasing the grand jury and preliminary hearing testimony, but not quoting it accurately. In fact, he's misstating it at least twice. And I can point those out as well and you'll see when he mentions it here--if you'll look at your transcript, the disparity will be quite obvious. And, finally, there's two critical things missing from the tape. One is, there's no explanation as to when he realized that his testimony at the preliminary hearing and grand jury were wrong. Thus, as a result of the way the tape is currently edited, the jurors will be free to speculate that it was right after he got off the witness stand, for instance, at the preliminary hearing in July of 1994 that he realized that he was wrong, when in fact, even if you give his false statement about learning from a friend of a friend of a friend who was watching the trial on television, given that statement, he didn't realize he was wrong until after the trial began and he knew what the Defendant's theory of the case was and he had heard or felt that perhaps the testimony he gave would screw the Prosecution or hurt the Prosecution, it's only then that he began to reassess what he had done. The way it exists right now is the suggestion that it could have happened the day after he testified. So that key element is missing. And, finally, there's another segment on the tape where Mr. Goldberg asks him a question and he mouths the words, "I don't remember," without actually uttering the words. I don't know if you recall that when you saw the tape yesterday. And to me, your Honor, and to other people I've discussed it with, there's a suggestion that during this, you know, prepping session that occurred between Mr. Goldberg and the witness before the tape actually started running, that certain things were scripted or prepared. And now Mr. Goldberg is asking him a question and he's going, "I don't remember," although he doesn't actually say it because he doesn't want to say it so it can be heard on the tape. He just mouths the words. And that too, you know, seems to undermine his own credibility. And that's missing from this tape. But I'd just like you to look for those things when you see it. And I think the key thing is, is they simply didn't follow your instructions as to what had to be taken out.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, wasn't it your instruction to take out the experiment where he measures? We did.

THE COURT: Let's see the tape.

(At 1:41 P.M., a videotape was played.)

(At 1:55 P.M., the playing of the videotape was concluded.)

MS. CLARK: The--I think the videotape indicates that we obeyed the court's orders in terms of the revisions requested. There's no experiment performed by Mr. Peratis. The only reference to a demonstration he makes is an eyeball estimate of how many 8 cc's is and that that was more than he did and that it looks more like it's 6-1/2. That's no more an experiment than having a witness testify, "Well, he stood about from here to there." "Well, would you get down and show us how far he stood?" "Okay." You get down, "Well, no. It's a little closer." "Okay. Tell me when to stop moving," in the eyewitness identification cases. Do you call that an experiment, or is that an experiment that requires the kind of foundational cross-examination that Mr. Neufeld implies? I think not. This is a very simple, non-rocket science sort of thing. This is a man who's--notice what I didn't say. This is a man who's looking at the test tube and eyeballing how much he thinks it is for what it's worth. The whole--all of the tape goes to the aspect of how much blood he took and the approximation that he made of that and the unreliability of any number attached to the amount that was contained in the test tube by virtue of the means by which he does it and by virtue of the fact that he is not aiming for any particular amount. It's not a formal thing. The question he has to answer is, "Did I get enough?" He got enough. The method he used by using the syringe drawing the blood, it's not with a vacuum. So that means that it keeps--he'll draw until he thinks he's got enough. I mean, that's really what it comes down to. He's not looking at the calibrated side of it. In this particular case, he hit a vein and it stopped, and he figured that's enough and it's not worth trying to get more, that, "I might injure Mr. Simpson. So I'll stop here." And that was all he was trying to do. And I think that the entirety of the tape makes it--that's what it makes clear. But to call an eyeball of an estimated amount of water in a test tube an experiment is really dignifying it way beyond the realm of reality there. And the aspect I think of the tape that the court wanted us to take out, we did. I think--I thought we did. Is there more that the court would like us to excise?

THE COURT: I'll hear the comments from Mr. Neufeld.

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, very specifically, the problem is not simply doing any kind of demonstration on the tape. He is describing orally a demonstrat--I'm sorry--verbally a demonstration that he conducted sometime in February of 1994, and that's what he's explaining. Even when he's not taking the syringe out now and doing the 1 cc withdrawals, he is verbally explaining it to the camera. And that experiment itself does not substantially replicate what happened with Mr. Simpson back on June 13th of 1994. So both exper--I mean, I thought your ruling was very clear, that no reference to either experiment could be included in this tape, and it's still there.

There's even a reference to a demo I'm about to show you on this point. There's the reference to the 6.5 result of the experiment, and he's only holding this up after he completes the experiment. It's not just a description of what he remembers seeing. Now, it would be 13 months earlier. All right. Back in June from June of 1994 to July 27, 1995. It's not just that. And, finally, your Honor, one of the interesting things is, when Mr. Goldberg--what Mr. Goldberg does is, he dissects the Q's and A's from the preliminary hearing. In the preliminary hearing, when he's asked, "When you say approximately--" you know, the answer is, "I drew--withdrew approximately 8 cc's," and the question then is: "When you say approximately, you did not measure the amount?

"Answer: Well, it could have been 7.9 or it could have been 8.1. I just looked at the syringe, and it looked at about 8 cc's." When Mr. Goldberg is asking him the q and a on the tape, he doesn't include the, "I just looked at the syringe and looked at about 8 cc's," in conjunction with, "Well, it could have been 7.9 or could have been 8.1." In fact, what he's saying is, when he says it could have been 7.9 or 8.1, "I knew this because I looked at the syringe and it was about 8 cc's." By separating those statements, which is not the way it is in the preliminary hearing, it distorts the answer of the witness where the witness is quite plainly, unequivocally explaining under oath at a preliminary hearing that the reason he knows it's between 7.9 and 8.1 is because he looked at the syringe and it looked at about 8 cc's. And by separating that, you really paint a very distorted picture for the jury. And then, your Honor, as I said before, it's missing those two very, very important elements, most important of which, of course, is when it first dawned on him that all of his testimony was wrong. That is a critical fact for the jury to assess.

THE COURT: But I thought that we agreed that all of that--your objection yesterday was that there was a lot of extraneous material in there, including the telephone calls from friends of friends of friends who told him that he had done all these silly things, and the motivations for him having done this, I thought we agreed that that was extraneous hearsay.

MR. NEUFELD: No. What I said about the motivation, your Honor, is that he lied about that, that what he told Mr. Blasier and what he told Jo-Ellan Dimitrius when we were in his infirmary on April 11th is that he was personally watching the trial on television, using the same television that he showed us in the infirmary that day, which was glued to the channel that was covering the trial while we were actually there in the infirmary, that he watched Mr. Cochran give his opening statement and it was when Mr. Cochran gave his opening statement that he realized, "Oh, my goodness, my testimony at these hearings may have screwed the Prosecution and I ought to reconsider."

THE COURT: The fact that Mr. Peratis says something on the tape that you feel you can rebut, that's for another decision. This is not the decision I have to make now.

MR. NEUFELD: No. But in terms of impeaching him--they want to impeach his earlier statement. The jury can't have, you know, half a glass on this. They are actually misrepresenting then the reality of this witness' statement by simply suggesting or allowing the jury to speculate. That's the more dangerous thing here, your Honor, that the jury could speculate that it was immediately after his preliminary hearing more than a year ago that it dawned on him that he had made this mistake and so he went back and rethought about it, when we know even if we take him at his word, that at best, it's sometime in February of 1995 after this trial has already begun. And there's a big difference between somebody innocently coming to the conclusion that he made a mistake and his testimony was wrong a few days after he gave it as opposed to here what he's saying is, it came to him for the first time when in fact he has a motive to lie, if you will, only after Mr. Simpson's defense has been articulated to the jury on television. There's a huge difference between those two. So they'd have to include that.

THE COURT: You think they have to include--

MR. NEUFELD: I'm asking that that portion--that that portion be included. Then if need be, we will rebut it on surrebuttal. I'm also asking that all the other portions of the tape though which are extraneous be redacted or deleted from the edited version. But you can't really, you know, misrepresent us or allow them to speculate as to when this dawned upon him when it's very, very clear that no matter what the source of the dawning was, the timing is not in dispute, and the timing is not until after Mr. Cochran gave his opening statement.

THE COURT: All right. Miss Martinez, I'd like to see--can you roll me up the point where Mr. Peratis says that he was wrong, it was probably 6 to 6-1/2 and he shows the tube? That's about the second--there's four series of answers that he gives with regards to this issue.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: And while we're waiting for that, Mrs. Robertson, did you get in touch with the detectives?

THE CLERK: The detectives were out in the field, your Honor, but Mr. Matheson will check out the items and bring them to the court.

THE COURT: Perfect.

(At 2:04 P.M., a videotape was played.)

THE COURT: Miss Martinez, can you roll it back before that? About 30 seconds before that. About 30 seconds before.

(At 2:05 P.M., a videotape was played.)

THE COURT: I'm sorry. Can you roll it back about 30 seconds before that?

(At 2:05 P.M., a videotape was played.)

THE COURT: I need 30 seconds before that.

(At 2:06 P.M., a videotape was played.)

MR. NEUFELD: That's when he separates the statements.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Miss Martinez.

(At 2:08 P.M., the playing of the videotape was concluded.)

THE COURT: Well, certainly not a presentation that's designed to make this easy.

MS. CLARK: I'm sorry. I intended it to be, your Honor.

THE COURT: No. You have to admit that it does jump around.

MS. CLARK: Well--

THE COURT: Yeah. All right. Keeping in mind the limited use of this particular item, I'm going to allow its use. So the objection will be overruled.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry. In its current form?

THE COURT: Current form.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, what about then a concern, your Honor, which I haven't raised yet pursuant to 356 of the evidence code, that I would like to then include certain segments in this--

THE COURT: Absolutely.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, the segments I would want them to include would be the segments where he talks--

THE COURT: 356 would allow you to do that if you want.

MS. CLARK: Well, your Honor, why not let us put it back in? I mean, what--this is kind of like a game. We were happy to have it in to begin with. If Mr. Neufeld wants it--he complained about it yesterday. We took it out.

THE COURT: And we stopped and we went through all this trouble, and now I've had to watch it three times. You're right. But if there are items that aren't there that they want to put in under 356 as a matter of tactics, they're entitled to do that. I realize--I agree with you, this doesn't make sense, but let's proceed.

MS. CLARK: Well, we can put it back in. We have the original. We can put it back in so that we can play the whole thing for the jury. I mean, we do it this way--it's like the People are trying to hide something. The unfairness of that is, we were trying to show it to begin with and cut it out at their request. So I'm happy to put it back in. I don't think it's fair to create that impression.

THE COURT: Well, that won't be allowed to be argued. All right. Let's have the jurors, please. Mrs. Robertson? All right. Counsel, we appear to have both clothing items.

MS. CLARK: Maybe the People should be allowed then at least to indicate to the jury through the court that there was a portion excised inadvertently or something. This is unfair because, you know what is going to happen? We play the tape, they're going to play the excerpts and it's going to look like we were trying to hide something. The People are being penalized for their objection.

THE COURT: I didn't hear a withdrawal of the objection. They asked under 356, do they have an opportunity to play portions they feel are favorable to them. The answer to that is yes.

MS. CLARK: Well, I agree except that you understand the excise was made at their request.

THE COURT: I understand that.

MS. CLARK: Now they're playing the excerpt that they asked to be taken out, creating the impression in front of the jury that we are hiding something.

THE COURT: Do you want to withdraw the exhibit? That will save us all the trouble.

MS. CLARK: Then you're penalizing the People altogether because they changed their minds.

THE COURT: I'm not penalizing you, counsel. I'm letting you enter your evidence.

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

THE COURT: In fact--ladies and gentlemen, step back in the jury room, please.

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

THE COURT: The jury has withdrawn. Have a seat, ladies and gentlemen. Miss Clark, for you to suggest that this court is penalizing you I think borders on contemptuous conduct on your part. That's the second time you've done that. You're warned in no uncertain terms. Do you understand me?

MS. CLARK: I do. I meant nothing like that, your Honor.

THE COURT: Let's have the jury, please.

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

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Let the record reflect that we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Sorry for that start and stop there. Ladies and gentlemen, the next item that will be presented to you will be People's exhibit 615. It is a videotape of a statement. It is going to be allowed. I'm going to allow its viewing, the excerpts from this videotape for a limited purpose. It is presented to you for the limited purpose of evaluating the credibility of the witness that it involves. All right. Miss Clark, you may present 615.

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, I'm sorry. My understanding is, they're going to call a witness.

MS. CLARK: To lay a foundation.

THE COURT: When we get to the videotape.

MS. CLARK: Thank you. People call Mr. Oppler.

Stephen Oppler, called as a witness by the People on rebuttal, was sworn and testified as follows:

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

MR. OPPLER: I do.

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

MR. OPPLER: Stephen, S-T-E-P-H-E-N, Oppler, O-P-P-L-E-R.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Oppler, would you pull the microphone closer, please.

MR. OPPLER: Closer?

THE COURT: Thank you.

MS. CLARK: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK

MS. CLARK: Mr. Oppler, can you tell us what you do for a living?

MR. OPPLER: I'm a senior investigator for the District Attorney's office.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Would you pull that mike a little closer so we can hear you?

MR. OPPLER: Want me to repeat it? Do you need me to repeat it?

MS. CLARK: I think everybody heard that. All right. Sir, directing your attention to the date of July 27th, 1995, on that date, did you conduct an interview of a person by the name of Thano Peratis?

MR. OPPLER: Yeah. Actually District Attorney, Deputy District Attorney Hank Goldberg did. I was with him assisting him.

MS. CLARK: You were present?

MR. OPPLER: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And was that interview videotaped in your presence, sir?

MR. OPPLER: Yes, it was.

MS. CLARK: Now, do you know why--where did this take place, this videotape?

MR. OPPLER: At his home.

MS. CLARK: Mr. Peratis' home?

MR. OPPLER: Mr. Peratis' home.

MS. CLARK: And why was it done there?

MR. OPPLER: It was my understanding that he had just had an operation concerning his heart. I don't know the specifics of it, but he had a heart operation.

MS. CLARK: So you were there at his home taping due to a medical condition of his?

MR. OPPLER: Right.

MS. CLARK: Now, was the--was there any rehearsal prior to beginning the videotaping of that interview?

MR. OPPLER: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Objection as to the term "Rehearsal."

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. OPPLER: No. None.

MS. CLARK: In other words, as soon as you got there, the questioning began and the videotape started running?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: I'm sorry. It is.

MS. CLARK: When you began video--did you begin questioning at the same time you began videotaping?

MR. OPPLER: Yes.

MS. CLARK: So the interview, was it--would you characterize it as spontaneous?

MR. OPPLER: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Objection. Calls for a conclusion.

THE COURT: Yes. Answer is stricken.

MS. CLARK: How would you characterize the interview, sir?

MR. OPPLER: Spontaneous.

MS. CLARK: What a coincidence. Let me ask you something else, sir. With respect to this tape, did Mr. Peratis explain to you over the course of the tape something that caused him to re-examine his testimony given at the preliminary hearing and the grand jury?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor. The tape speaks for itself.

THE COURT: That objection is overruled.

MR. NEUFELD: It's hearsay also.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. OPPLER: You want--can you repeat it?

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. OPPLER: Oh, I'm sorry.

MS. CLARK: Sir, were you present during a hearing just now that took place in the court?

MR. OPPLER: For most of it.

MS. CLARK: And did you hear the Defense request the excision of portions--

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained. That's not appropriate.

MS. CLARK: Did--was Mr. Peratis asked any question by Mr. Goldberg concerning what prompted him to do--to reevaluate his testimony at the preliminary hearing?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Question.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Do you recall the subject matter of Mr. Peratis'--of what prompted Mr. Peratis' review of his preliminary hearing testimony coming up?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

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

MS. CLARK: Sir, have you observed the videotape that's about to be shown to the jury?

MR. OPPLER: Yes, I have.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And has that jury--and has that videotape been edited at the court's request?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Does that videotape contain everything that was conducted--every part of the interview that was conducted on July 27th, 1995?

MR. OPPLER: No.

MS. CLARK: Thank you. I'm going to show you a portion of the beginning of that tape and ask you to identify it, indicate whether or not that is the taping that you recall being conducted in your presence on July 27th, 1995 of Thano Peratis.

MR. OPPLER: Okay.

(At 2:17 P.M., People's exhibit 615, a videotape, was played.)

MS. CLARK: Okay. Have you seen that, Mr. Oppler?

MR. OPPLER: Yes, I have.

MS. CLARK: Do you recognize the voice that introduces the video?

MR. OPPLER: Yes. That's mine.

MS. CLARK: And the person that is shown on the videotape, who is that?

MR. OPPLER: That's Mr. Peratis.

MS. CLARK: And do you know what his role is in this case?

MR. OPPLER: As I understand it, he took the blood of--he withdrew blood from Mr. Simpson for testing purposes.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And the other voice that you heard just before the tape was stopped, do you recognize that voice?

MR. OPPLER: Deputy District Attorney Hank Goldberg.

MS. CLARK: Was that the videotape that was conducted--videotape interview that was conducted in your presence on July 27th, 1995 of Thano Peratis?

MR. OPPLER: Yes.

(At 2:19 P.M., People's exhibit 615, a videotape, continues playing.)

MS. CLARK: Excuse me, Mr. Oppler. After Mr. Peratis said, "Not that day," did he go on to give some further explanation of that topic?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. OPPLER: Yes, he did.

MS. CLARK: And was that previously on the tape?

MR. OPPLER: Yes, it was.

(At 2:22 P.M., People's exhibit 615, a videotape, continues playing.)

MS. CLARK: Excuse me, your Honor. It appears the monitor is slivering in the jury box. All the monitors in the courtroom.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Ormond, apparently everything but the big screen is jumping.

MR. ORMOND: I think it has to do with the quality of the video. It appears to be more sensitive than the direct video.

THE COURT: All right. Juror no. 1, juror no. 7 and 8, is that watchable for you?

JUROR NO. 1: Well, yes. It stopped when she walked up there.

THE COURT: Would any of you--those of you who are watching the small monitor in front, want to take a seat further in the jury box so you can see the big screen or stay where you are?

JUROR NO. 1: It's fine.

THE COURT: All right. Let's proceed. Thank you.

(At 2:27 P.M., People's exhibit 615, a videotape, continues playing.)

MS. CLARK: Excuse me, your Honor. It jumped a little bit. We're going to rewind. I think it skipped some--

(At 2:27 P.M., People's exhibit 615, a videotape, continues playing.)

(At 2:32 P.M., the playing of the videotape was concluded.)

MS. CLARK: Mr. Oppler, the entire tape, that is not the edited version that you see here, but the entire tape was given over to the Defense, correct?

MR. OPPLER: Yes, as far as I know.

MS. CLARK: And when Mr. Peratis referred to, "I could just go bing on you, I don't need a tourniquet," who was he referring to?

MR. OPPLER: He was referring to me.

MS. CLARK: Were you wearing short sleeves that day?

MR. OPPLER: Yes.

MS. CLARK: I have one request of the court, if I could make it at sidebar.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: We are at sidebar.

MS. CLARK: I just wanted to ask the court, are you going to say anything as to the authentication of it or the excision--

THE COURT: What I am going to do, I am going to restate the instruction that it's for the limited purpose of the unavailability of Mr. Peratis and that the editing that's apparent in the tape was done at the court's direction.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Would the court also permit me to introduce by way of Mr. Oppler the statement by Thano Peratis that was made on the tape concerning the reasons that prompted him, because it can't be hearsay. Some of this is offered for the truth of the matter. So it's not hearsay.

THE COURT: No.

MR. COCHRAN: It's not relevant.

MS. CLARK: If it's not relevant, why are they offering it?

THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection at this point.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. Ladies and gentlemen, if you recollect, I indicated to you that the tape that we just saw was to be used by you for the limited purpose of evaluating the credibility of Mr. Peratis whose testimony you saw previously. Also, there were some--there was some editing that was apparent in the videotape, and you should know that that editing was done at the court's order. All right. Miss Clark, do you have anything further for Mr. Oppler?

MS. CLARK: No, thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Do you have any questions for Mr. Oppler?

MR. NEUFELD: I do. Thank you, your Honor. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. NEUFELD

MR. NEUFELD: Mr. Oppler--is it Oppler?

MR. OPPLER: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Oppler, how many years have you worked for the District Attorney?

MR. OPPLER: November will be seven.

MR. NEUFELD: Seven years?

MR. OPPLER: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. As an investigator?

MR. OPPLER: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Did you prepare any notes or reports in connection with this taping that occurred on July 27th of this summer?

MR. OPPLER: Yes. There was a small report.

MR. NEUFELD: Do you have a copy with you?

MR. OPPLER: I have it in my file upstairs.

MR. NEUFELD: May we have a sidebar, your Honor?

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: We're over at the sidebar.

MR. NEUFELD: I can only tell you, best of my recollection, we haven't seen the report.

THE COURT: Do you have a copy with you?

MS. CLARK: I've never seen one either, your Honor. Diana is going through Hank's book to see if there's anything. We've never seen one.

THE COURT: Want to take a brief recess?

MR. NEUFELD: I'd like to take a recess.

MS. CLARK: Probably one of those one-line things that say, "I videotaped on this day."

THE COURT: Okay. Is there anything else you can cross-examine on?

MR. NEUFELD: No. I would like to see the report before I cross-examine. Maybe we can take a brief recess, get the report, and then we'll resume, because that's the only witness they have.

THE COURT: Okay.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take a brief recess just to secure a copy of that report. It should only take about five or 10 minutes. Let me ask you to step back in the jury room. Mr. Oppler, go upstairs and get your report.

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

THE COURT: It appears to be one long sentence.

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: I can proceed. Is it possible I can have a few minutes break, two minutes?

THE COURT: Two minutes.

MS. CLARK: Is it okay if we see it?

THE COURT: You handed it over. I assumed you knew what it was.

MR. DARDEN: It will save time, Judge.

MR. NEUFELD: Can we just have a four-minute break?

THE COURT: We are going to take a break at 3:00. Can it wait until 3:00?

MR. NEUFELD: Sure.

THE COURT: I'd like to finish if at all possible.

MR. NEUFELD: Sure. Judge, while we're waiting for the jury, it is my understanding I will edit the brief portions I intend to use on our surrebuttal, and I have to take our original back to do that. So I just want the witness to be on recall for the five minutes or whatever it will take to recall him either Friday morning when we begin our surrebuttal case or on Monday. That's the only way I can proceed because I don't have an edited version of those segments. Okay?

THE COURT: Assuming--I assume the Prosecution will finish either Friday or Monday.

MS. CLARK: Before then.

THE COURT: No. Mr. Oppler will be available.

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. So ordered.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, if we can resolve the Dutton issue tomorrow, we can rest tomorrow. I don't want to go to Friday. I'd like to rest tomorrow.

MR. COCHRAN: What was that, your Honor, she said?

THE COURT: She indicated the People want to rest tomorrow after Deedrick and whatever is all.

MR. COCHRAN: I was thinking we could solve the Dutton issue very easily. I would step out and call Dean Uelmen. If they promise to rest, I'll ask him to come down here tomorrow.

MS. CLARK: Well, I can't promise. There's cross-examination with Mr. Scheck. I mean, I don't know. We've got two witnesses--

THE COURT: Well, let's--

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

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Let the record reflect we've been rejoined by all of the members of our jury panel. We found the report. Mr. Neufeld.

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.

MR. NEUFELD: Sorry about that. Mr. Oppler, you said you've been with the District Attorney's office as an investigator for about seven years?

MR. OPPLER: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And this investigation you went out on on July 27th of 1995, that was at the request of Deputy District Attorney Hank Goldberg?

MR. OPPLER: Through my lieutenant, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And had you--did you actually set up the appointment with Mr. Peratis?

MR. OPPLER: No, I didn't.

MR. NEUFELD: When were you first notified that you were going to be going to Mr. Peratis' on July 27th?

MR. OPPLER: Earlier in that day.

MR. NEUFELD: And have you been working on this case, sir?

MR. OPPLER: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Since the beginning?

MR. OPPLER: Since October of last year.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. So you knew when you went out to Mr. Peratis' house this past July 27th that Mr. Peratis had given sworn testimony to a grand jury in this case; is that correct?

MR. OPPLER: I was informed of that.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And you knew when you went out on July 27th that Mr. Peratis had also given sworn testimony as a witness called by the Prosecutor Marcia Clark at a preliminary hearing on July 7th of 1994. Did you know that too?

MR. OPPLER: I understood that, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And you were told when you went out on July 27th to Mr. Peratis' home of this year, 1995, that the purpose of this taping was to obtain statements which would impeach or contradict the sworn testimony that Mr. Peratis gave approximately one year ago. You knew that too, didn't you?

MR. OPPLER: I don't know so much in those terms. Umm, what I was informed of was that he had conducted a demonstration to himself.

MR. NEUFELD: Sir, I'm asking whether or not you were told when you went out there on July 27th that the purpose of this taped interview was to secure a statement from Mr. Peratis which would be used to impeach his own sworn testimony that he gave on July 7th of 1994 and June 22nd of 1994.

MS. CLARK: Objection.

MR. NEUFELD: Were you told that? I'm sorry. Not were you told that. Did you know that?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Argumentative, hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, did you know when you went out there on July 27th of 1994 that this taping was being conducted because a determination had been made that Mr. Peratis was unavailable to come into court and be sworn in as a witness because of his poor health?

MR. OPPLER: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And you knew when you went out there on July 27th to conduct this taped examination or interview I should say of Mr. Peratis that he wasn't going to be sworn in before he gave the statement to you; isn't that correct?

MR. OPPLER: I was never told he was going to be sworn in. No.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And you knew that because this interview was going to be conducted at Mr. Peratis' home, he was never going to be subjected to cross-examination as he had been at the preliminary hearing when he was called by Marcia Clark.

MS. CLARK: Objection. Irrelevant, calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Mr. Oppler, did you make any effort on July 27th before you went out to Mr. Peratis' home to notify the Defense so they could have a lawyer present for this interview?

MR. OPPLER: No.

MS. CLARK: Objection. Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: Assumes legal facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. NEUFELD: Did you, sir, make any effort on July 27th to notify the Defense so at least the Defense investigator could be present?

MR. OPPLER: No.

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. This is irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. NEUFELD: And, finally, sir, did you make any effort on July 27th to ensure that some independent person who was neither associated with the Prosecution nor the Defense could be present for this taped examination at Mr. Peratis' home?

THE COURT: Sustained. That's irrelevant.

MR. NEUFELD: What time did you arrive at Mr. Peratis' that day?

MR. OPPLER: Approximately 3:15, 3:20.

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: And when you arrived at Mr. Peratis' home, did he let you in?

MR. OPPLER: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And was he alone or with someone?

MR. OPPLER: He was alone.

MR. NEUFELD: And where did he take you when he let you in, sir?

MR. OPPLER: Originally we went into the room adjacent to the entry, which I think was the living room, and we ended up upstairs in a room that was more like a den.

MR. NEUFELD: And how long did you stay in the living room before you went upstairs to the den?

MR. OPPLER: Just a few minutes.

MR. NEUFELD: And who made the decision to go upstairs instead of doing it downstairs?

MR. OPPLER: I believe it was Mr. Peratis said it would be more comfortable up there.

MR. NEUFELD: And, sir, you said you arrived sometime between 3:15 and 3:20?

MR. OPPLER: Approximately.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, according to the tape, the tape itself shows I believe one time, but you hear a voice-over on the tape saying it's a different time; is that correct?

MR. OPPLER: That's correct. I was--when I initially put the heading on the tape, I stated 3:48 when in fact my watch was 3:38. The photographer said the tape on the video was 3:36. I checked my watch. It was 3:38, not 48. I was in error when I first said that. And on my backup audiocassette, which I was making, I believe I corrected that at the end of it.

MR. NEUFELD: So if you arrived between 3:15 and 3:20 and the tape began at approximately 3:38, that would mean that there was about 20 minutes while you were there at Mr. Peratis' home before you started rolling the tape; isn't that correct?

MR. OPPLER: When I say 3:15, 3:20, because we have a radio, because that's when I called into the office. Then we walked to the house. We got there a minute or so later. And then--and at that point, we were downstairs, then went upstairs.

MR. NEUFELD: So, Mr. Oppler, am I correct in saying that it's approximately 15 minutes that you were there at Mr. Peratis' house before the tape began rolling?

MR. OPPLER: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And it's your testimony that during that 15 minutes, other than saying, "Let's move upstairs where we'll be more comfortable," there was absolutely no discussion between District Attorney hang Goldberg and Mr. Peratis?

MR. OPPLER: There was no discussion regarding what the content of the tape would be.

MR. NEUFELD: You remember that specifically, sir?

MR. OPPLER: I remember we weren't going to discuss that.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, during those 15 minutes before the tape started rolling, did Mr. Goldberg assure Mr. Peratis that he could say whatever he wanted to say because he wouldn't be sworn?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Your Honor--

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: During the 15 minutes--by the way, we notice that Mr. Peratis was holding a syringe at one point on the tape and holding a vacutainer. Did you and Mr. Goldberg bring that equipment with you to his house?

MR. OPPLER: No.

MR. NEUFELD: He had it there already?

MR. OPPLER: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: He had it sitting out when you arrived?

MR. OPPLER: I don't recall where it was when we arrived.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, sir, you said that--that on direct examination, that he was not rehearsed while you were there on July 27th; is that correct?

MR. OPPLER: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: But during the course of this interview at Mr. Peratis' house, didn't Mr. Goldberg refer to other conversations and discussions that he had had with Mr. Peratis?

MR. OPPLER: I don't recall. I'd have to see that tape again, that part of it where it said that. I don't recall every piece of that tape, if he had that discussion.

MR. NEUFELD: To the best of your recollection, Mr. Goldberg never said during the course of the tape or bring up the fact that he had had any prior discussion with Mr. Peratis before just showing up on July 27th out of the blue?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Hearsay. The tape speaks for itself. Best evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. OPPLER: I didn't say he never said it. I said I don't recall if he said that.

MR. NEUFELD: And you learned, sir, during the course of this examination or your participation in this outing on July 27th that Mr. Peratis had been an employee of the Los Angeles Police Department for some 30 or 40 years; did you not?

MR. OPPLER: I didn't know the exact number of years. I know it was many years.

MR. NEUFELD: And, sir, you also learned during this outing on July 27th that the first time Mr. Peratis ever believed that his testimony, his sworn testimony was false was after this trial actually began. Did you learn that on July 27th?

MR. OPPLER: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And did you learn--

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled. It's late.

MR. NEUFELD: And did you learn on July 27th--one moment--that it was only after he learned that it was the Defense theory through opening statements--

MS. CLARK: Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Calling for a conclusion on the part of this witness as to somebody else. Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: During this interview with Mr. Peratis at his home, did he show you the syringe or an exact replica of the syringe that was actually used to draw blood out of Mr. Simpson's on July 13th, 1994?

MS. CLARK: Objection.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry. June 13th, 1994.

MS. CLARK: Objection. No foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. OPPLER: He showed us a syringe that said it was like the one that he used. I don't know if the exact replica was it, but--

MR. NEUFELD: And the syringe that he showed you that he said was like the one that he used, didn't it have calibrations on the syringe itself with numbers so that anyone who looked at the syringe and saw liquid in it would know how much was there?

MR. OPPLER: The syringe had calibrations on it.

MR. NEUFELD: And when we say "Calibrations," it had numbers indicating whether it was 1 cc, 2 cc's, 6 cc's or 8 cc's, didn't it?

MR. OPPLER: I didn't see it up close, whether it said cc's or milliliters or what was the exact marking, but it was calibrated.

MR. NEUFELD: And it was calibrated with numbers--

MR. OPPLER: Right.

MR. NEUFELD: --indicating quantities?

MR. OPPLER: Right.

MR. NEUFELD: And it was calibrated with lines next to the numbers so you could see where the liquid was at a certain point, couldn't you?

MR. OPPLER: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And it was at that point that Mr. Peratis during this interview told you and the Deputy District Attorney Hank Goldberg--

MS. CLARK: Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: There was a time when we looked at the videotape where the image was giggling a little bit. Have you seen a version of that tape where the image doesn't giggle at all?

MR. OPPLER: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And I notice that when Mr. Peratis is giving an explanation of what he did when he looked at the syringe when trying to explain his preliminary hearing testimony in which he--

MS. CLARK: Objection. That's argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. NEUFELD: Do you remember the portion on the tape where Mr. Goldberg brings out the fact that Mr. Peratis had testified under oath that the amount in the syringe could--"The amount drawn could have been 7.9 or it could have been 8.1. I just looked at the syringe and it looked at about 8 cc's," unquote? Do you remember when Mr. Goldberg brought that point up to Mr. Peratis?

MR. OPPLER: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. NEUFELD: And do you remember when Mr. Peratis showed you the syringe with the calibrations, the numbers and lines on it, to indicate how much liquid would be in a syringe? Do you recall that?

MR. OPPLER: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And do you recall that on this tape, he says--or I'm sorry--he then turns the syringe over so you can't see the numbers and calibrations, you only see a portion of the syringe that has no numbers on it? Do you recall that?

MR. OPPLER: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Sir, is it your testimony that neither you--I'm sorry--that Deputy District Attorney Mr. Goldberg had no discussion at all with Mr. Peratis about how he held the syringe 12 months ago on June 13th before he uttered that description during that videotape session last month?

MR. OPPLER: Are you speaking before we filmed the tape or--I'm not sure I understand the question.

MR. NEUFELD: Before you filmed the tape that day on that day. That's the time frame I'm talking about.

MR. OPPLER: Right. Before he--the filming of the tape is what you're saying.

MR. NEUFELD: Yes. Do you understand the question? I can rephrase it if you'd like.

MR. OPPLER: I'd like you to, please.

MR. NEUFELD: Sure. Prior to Mr. Peratis turning that syringe over so he said that the numbers and calibrations couldn't be seen when he withdrew the syringe, what I'm asking is, did that subject come up at any time at all in the discussion between Deputy District Attorney Hank Goldberg and Mr. Peratis before he gave that statement on the videotape that day?

MR. OPPLER: No.

MR. NEUFELD: There was no demonstration by Mr. Peratis off camera before the taping started of how he may have held the syringe?

MR. OPPLER: Not in my presence.

MR. NEUFELD: Was there any mention in your presence of a concern that he had testified under oath that, "I just looked at the syringe and it looked at about 8 cc's"? Was there any discussion at all that that would be a problem for the Prosecution?

MR. OPPLER: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Sir, at any point at all during that day, was there any substantive discussion held about this case when the tape was not running?

MR. OPPLER: No.

MR. NEUFELD: So it's your testimony that the tape ran continuously and there was no time where the tape was turned off and a discussion about the substantive facts of this case occurred?

MR. OPPLER: No. The only downtime when we got there was when the photographer was setting up her equipment.

MR. NEUFELD: Mr. Oppler, isn't it a fact that according to the clock on the tape, on the original tape that you provided to the Defense in this case, that the tape stops at 3:59 P.M. and resumes at 4:13 P.M. with approximately 14 minutes of downtime in-between? Isn't that correct, sir?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Objection, your Honor. Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: Hearsay, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: Nothing--352, misleading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. OPPLER: Can you repeat that, please?

MR. NEUFELD: Isn't it a fact that when you went to Mr. Peratis' home to make this tape and to interview Mr. Peratis, that the tape was turned off at 3:59 and resumed at 4:13, some 14 minutes later?

MR. OPPLER: I don't recall that specifically. I think that there might have been a time that the photographer was checking and making sure that it was recording correctly.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, sir, you testified that the time that the tape began was approximately 3:36; is that right?

MR. OPPLER: Approximately.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, if the tape was turned off at 3:59, that would be 23 minutes after the tape started; is that correct, sir?

MR. OPPLER: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And if the tape was turned off at 3:59 and resumed at 4:13, some 14 minutes later, that certainly wouldn't be for the purpose of making sure the tape was working, would it, sir?

MR. OPPLER: Probably not. I--I do recall her doing that. It may have been at the end just to make sure that it tape-recorded before we left. So at that time, you know, possibly that wasn't the reason.

MR. NEUFELD: Sir, other than the fact that the tape was working, is it your testimony that there was no substantive--that there was no break in this tape of some 14 minutes before you resumed this witness describing his position regarding his handling of the evidence in this case? Is that your testimony?

MR. OPPLER: I don't recall the reason that the tape stopped. Other than being on tape, there was nothing substantive spoken about.

MR. NEUFELD: Sir, are you saying--are you changing your testimony when you said a moment ago--

MS. CLARK: Objection. Argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: One moment.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, I just need to get a little portion of the tape cued up.

MR. NEUFELD: Sir, while he's cueing that up, let me ask you one other question. Was there ever a time during this interview on tape when Mr. Peratis instead of actually speaking, mouthed words, "I don't remember"?

MR. OPPLER: I do recall him mouthing words. I don't remember if it was "I don't remember."

MR. NEUFELD: Well, if it had been him mouthing words, "I don't remember," but not saying that, would that be in response to his inability to remember that portion of the script that was given to him?

MR. OPPLER: No.

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. The answer is stricken. The question and answer are stricken.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, sir, if in fact he mouthed the words, "I don't remember," are you sure that that would not be in response to something he had been--to something that had been discussed with him before the tape ran?

MR. OPPLER: I'm positive. We didn't discuss anything concerning what we would be filming.

MR. NEUFELD: Are you as positive about the fact that you didn't discuss the substance of his testimony before the--I'm sorry--the substance of his unsworn interview before the tape began running as you are that there was no 14-minute break in the tape in which after that break ended, you resumed the substantive discussion of the facts of this case?

MS. CLARK: Objection. That misstates the testimony and it's argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry, your Honor. We're just cueing it up and it's my fault.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: Can we see what the Defense is planning on--

THE COURT: We'll take our recess at this point.

MS. CLARK: I was just going to say, you want to--

THE COURT: We're going to take our recess at this point. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take our mid-afternoon recess. Remember all my admonitions to you. Mr. Oppler, you may step down. You are ordered to come back in 15 minutes. All right. 15. Miss Clark, take a look at the video.

(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. All right. Let's have the jury, please.

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

THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Let the record reflect we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Mr. Steven Oppler is on the witness stand undergoing cross-examination by Mr. Neufeld. Mr. Neufeld, you may conclude your cross-examination.

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you very much.

MR. NEUFELD: Mr. Oppler, do you consider yourself objective and fair?

MR. OPPLER: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. Argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. NEUFELD: When we just took this 15-minute recess, sir--

THE COURT: More like 35.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. When we just took this 35-minute recess, sir, did I approach you when you came off the stand and asked you if I could speak to you a few minutes alone?

MR. OPPLER: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And did you at that time refuse to speak to me alone and instead state that you would only speak with me if the Prosecutor Miss Clark was present?

MR. OPPLER: I stated I would be more comfortable.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, then I asked you after that, sir, if you would speak to me alone notwithstanding the fact that you would be more comfortable to have Miss Clark there. Did you then say, "I will not speak to you alone unless Miss Clark is present"?

MR. OPPLER: After about four or five times when you kept saying, "Are you saying will you not speak to me," I said, "I would prefer Miss Clark be there."

MR. NEUFELD: And after you kept saying that three or four times, sir, did you then say by that preference that you would be unwilling to sort of just walk over to the other side of the room alone and speak to me?

MR. OPPLER: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Isn't that what happened?

MR. OPPLER: That's what happened.

MR. NEUFELD: And, sir, is that because you felt as a witness it's important to have both sides present when I interview you?

MR. OPPLER: I--I don't know specifically what I thought. I just--I was in the middle of you questioning me, and to do it off the stand, I did not feel comfortable.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, let me ask you this. Did you think that it would be the better practice, sir, that when you went out to Mr. Peratis' to have someone from the other side present as well?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Asked and answered, argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, even after Miss Clark came over and the three of us stood over there in the well there during the break, do you recall me asking you a question off the record over there in front of Miss Clark whether or not after all the taping was done for the day, whether Mr. Peratis said anything to you at all about the substance of this case? Do you recall me asking you that?

MR. OPPLER: Something to that effect.

MR. NEUFELD: And do you recall, sir, that when I asked you that even in front of the Prosecutor, Miss Clark, that you said you wouldn't answer me there? Do you recall that, sir?

MR. OPPLER: That was at the point where I just said that I would feel more comfortable--that--I'm sorry. Excuse me--I did not feel comfortable in what we were doing and I said I would answer anything under oath.

MR. NEUFELD: And did you say, sir, that you wouldn't even answer my simple question over there with Miss Clark present?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Isn't it a fact, sir, that you then refused to talk to me at all about the substance of this case even with Miss Clark present during the recess?

MR. OPPLER: Yeah. At that point, I really wasn't feeling comfortable. You kept repeating the same thing and I decided that it didn't feel appropriate to me.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. But then after I walked away, you did have a conversation, of course, with Miss Clark and with Mr. Darden, didn't you?

MR. OPPLER: I spoke to them.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, would you consider yourself fair and objective? Is that true, sir?

MR. OPPLER: Absolutely.

MR. NEUFELD: Can we play the tape now? Oh, I think we need to mark this segment as an exhibit, your Honor.

THE COURT: How do you propose to capture it? You're going to provide us with a separate video of this segment?

MR. NEUFELD: I will, yes.

THE COURT: Mrs. Robertson, Defense 13--

THE CLERK: 76.

THE COURT: 1376.

(Deft's 1376 for id = segment of videotape)

(At 3:40 P.M., Deft's exhibit 1376, a videotape, was played.)

MR. NEUFELD: Notice that it's 3:59 on the bottom?

MR. OPPLER: Yes.

(At 3:41 P.M., Deft's exhibit 1376, a videotape, continues playing.)

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Is that Mr. Goldberg's voice in the background, sir?

MR. OPPLER: Yeah, I believe it was.

(At 3:41 P.M., Deft's exhibit 1376, a videotape, continues playing.)

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you. You can stop.

(At 3:42 P.M., the playing of the videotape was concluded.)

MR. NEUFELD: Sir, did you notice the clock?

MR. OPPLER: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Did you notice that the tape stopped at 3:29 P.M.--3:50--sorry.

MS. CLARK: Objection.

THE COURT: Restate the question.

MR. NEUFELD: 3:59 P.M. did you notice that, sir?

MR. OPPLER: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And did you notice that the tape resumed at 4:13 P.M.?

MR. OPPLER: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. So there was 14 minutes when the tape was not playing; is that correct, sir?

MR. OPPLER: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, is it your testimony that just all of a sudden after 14 minutes of no taping, that the tape was simply turned on and Mr. Peratis is sitting there with the syringe in the vial?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Misstates the testimony. He said no such thing.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. NEUFELD: Didn't you testify, sir, earlier on cross-examination that there was no substantive discussion at all unless the tape was running?

MR. OPPLER: I believe I said that. What I--after seeing that and recalling--after we stopped the tape, I don't recall specifically if it was Mr. Peratis saying he wanted to show us something or if it was Mr. Goldberg saying that there was something he forgot to mention, but we went back on the tape. Teresa, the photographer, had been packing up, and we reset it up and went back on the tape.

MR. NEUFELD: Is it your testimony, sir, that during the 14 minutes after the first portion of the tape ended, that all that was said was, "Oop, there was something I forgot to bring up," or Mr. Goldberg said, "Oop, there's another question I wanted to ask you"? Is that what you're now saying, sir?

MR. OPPLER: That--to the best of my recollection, that's what happened.

MR. NEUFELD: And during the break, sir, did you see this portion of the tape, during this 35-minute recess we just took?

MR. OPPLER: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Sir, were you standing in this courtroom when I--when Mr. Harris played the tape with you standing here and Miss Clark standing right here (Indicating)?

MR. OPPLER: Miss Clark said she wanted to see it. I was standing there, but I was not watching the monitor.

MR. NEUFELD: It's your testimony, sir, that you were standing here during the break and the tape was playing and the audio was playing, but you didn't watch it at all?

MR. OPPLER: It was on--

MR. NEUFELD: Is that your testimony, sir?

MR. OPPLER: It was on. I noticed it was on. I spoke to a lot of people during the break and I think that might have even been the time that Miss Martinez was in here. I was speaking to Mr. Darden, Miss Clark. It was on. I recall Miss Clark saying that she wanted to see it on that screen. I was not watching it at that point.

MR. NEUFELD: Mr. Oppler, the last series of questions before we broke for the recess dealt with your failure to acknowledge that there was a 14-minute gap between the first portion of the--

THE COURT: Counsel, rephrase the question, please.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Do you recall that this subject of the tape being turned off for several minutes, for 14 minutes, and then being turned on again was the last thing we were talking about before the break? Do you recall that?

MR. OPPLER: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And it's your testimony now that when I finally during that 35-minute recess played the segment that we just saw now, that you weren't watching, you weren't paying attention. Is that your testimony?

MR. OPPLER: That's what I just said, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you. Nothing further.

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

REDIRECT-EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK

MS. CLARK: Mr. Oppler, when you came down to court today, what did you expect to be doing?

MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry. I couldn't hear the question, your Honor.

THE COURT: You have it right there in front of you, don't you?

MR. NEUFELD: No, I don't. I'm sorry.

THE COURT: The question was, what was he expecting to testify to today.

MR. NEUFELD: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. OPPLER: I was expecting to come here and introduce the videotape and basically be done.

MS. CLARK: Did you even expect to be cross-examined?

MR. OPPLER: Maybe a question or two.

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor, as to his expectations.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: You indicated there was a report you prepared. Have you seen that report, sir?

MR. OPPLER: Yes.

MS. CLARK: What does it--what did you put into that report?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor, as to the report.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Hearsay.

MS. CLARK: I'd like to mark this report, your Honor, People's next in order.

MR. NEUFELD: Can we have a copy?

MS. CLARK: You have it.

THE COURT: 617.

(Peo's 617 for id = report)

THE COURT: And, counsel--I'm sorry. Excuse me. The videotape should be 1375, the People's--excuse me--Defense next exhibit.

(Deft's previously marked 1375 for id =

Videotape)

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Showing you 617, sir, do you recognize that?

MR. OPPLER: Yes, I do.

MS. CLARK: What is it?

MR. OPPLER: It's a report I wrote on July 31st.

MS. CLARK: Does it contain anything about the substance of the interview conducted by Hank Goldberg with Thano Peratis?

MR. OPPLER: No.

MS. CLARK: What do you put into your report?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: What's the purpose of preparing that report, sir?

MR. OPPLER: Just to make a record of the--of who went there, where we went and that we videotaped it and I audiotaped it and the numbers designated by our sound lab and photo lab.

MS. CLARK: Was there any substantive information in that report at all other than simply--

MR. NEUFELD: Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Finish the question.

MS. CLARK: Was there anything substantive concerning the subject matter of the interview in that report, sir?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. OPPLER: The only thing that I wrote of substance--

MR. NEUFELD: Objection as to what he wrote.

THE COURT: No. The question--just answer the question yes or no. Was there anything substantive?

MR. OPPLER: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And what is that?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: What is the purpose of that report, sir?

MR. NEUFELD: Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled. Who wants to make the objections there?

MR. OPPLER: Primarily just to document that I was there with D.A. Goldberg and to--

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, I would object. The question was what is the purpose of a report, not what is the purpose of this particular report.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.

MR. OPPLER: And to put into the record the numbers of the two tapes.

MS. CLARK: Numbers?

MR. OPPLER: We--the sound lab--our sound lab, the District Attorney's Bureau of Investigation sound lab gives an evidence number or their number to videotapes and audiotapes that we make.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And that's why you make a report, to document that?

MR. OPPLER: That's why I did it, yes.

MS. CLARK: Now, you are aware, sir, are you not, that the Defense has interviewed Thano Peratis?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. OPPLER: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And are you aware of exactly when that interview took place?

MR. OPPLER: No, I'm not.

MS. CLARK: Are you aware that the interview occurred--

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor. He already said he wasn't aware.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: I asked exactly where--when the interview took place. You're not aware of when that interview took place?

MR. OPPLER: No.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Were you aware of whether it took place before or after this videotaped interview on July 27th?

MR. OPPLER: I'm not aware of it.

MS. CLARK: So other than the fact that you know the Defense did talk to Mr. Peratis, you don't know when it was?

MR. OPPLER: Right.

MS. CLARK: Did you ask any questions of Mr. Peratis during this interview, sir?

MR. OPPLER: No, I don't believe so other than when he was sticking the needle back in the cup not to stick me with it when I was holding it. I think I requested that.

MS. CLARK: You were holding the cup that he put the needle back into?

MR. OPPLER: When he was drawing water during the demonstration.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And then you were holding a cup for him?

MR. OPPLER: Yes.

MS. CLARK: When he put the needle back in, you asked him not to stick you with the needle?

MR. OPPLER: I thing something to the effect be careful not to stick me with the needle.

MS. CLARK: All right. Other than that request, did you direct this interview, sir?

MR. OPPLER: No.

MS. CLARK: Did you have anything to do with determining what the content of the questions would be by Mr. Goldberg?

MR. OPPLER: No.

MS. CLARK: Did you ask that the tape be turned off at any particular point?

MR. OPPLER: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Did you ask that the tape be turned on at any particular point?

MR. OPPLER: No.

MS. CLARK: What were you doing there, sir?

MR. OPPLER: It was my understanding when I went out that it was just going to be to document that it happened--

MR. NEUFELD: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. OPPLER: --to document that it happened. It was going to be a videotape. It was my belief that I was--if need be, I was just going to introduce that here and that it would speak for itself.

MS. CLARK: Did you expect to come here and be badgered like this by Mr. Neufeld?

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor.

MS. CLARK: All right. When Mr. Neufeld asked you questions during this half-hour break, sir, can you describe his demeanor?

MR. OPPLER: Hostile.

MS. CLARK: In the manner in which he asked you questions?

MR. OPPLER: In the manner in which he kept repeating after I told him I preferred not to.

MS. CLARK: And why did you prefer not to, sir?

MR. OPPLER: It just didn't feel comfortable, didn't feel right for me to do it in the middle of my testimony.

MS. CLARK: Did you tell him under what conditions you would answer questions?

MR. OPPLER: On the stand.

MS. CLARK: Under oath?

MR. OPPLER: Under oath, I said I would be happy to answer anything.

MS. CLARK: Now, during the 14 minutes--can you tell us, first of all, the tape stopped at 3:59, correct?

MR. OPPLER: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And after the tape stopped, what happened?

MR. OPPLER: I don't--it--I don't recall if it was Mr. Peratis saying there was something that he still needed to demonstrate or if it was Hank Goldberg, D.A. Goldberg remembering that he wanted him to demonstrate something, but there was something else that was going to be done. It was almost an afterthought and then it was done. We were back on the tape and they did it.

MS. CLARK: All right. Now, before you were actually shown the segment where there was a stop and a start in the tape, did you have an independent recollection of that event, of it having been stopped and started?

MR. OPPLER: No. It happened about the same time, as I said, that she tested to make sure that it taped before we left toward the end. He had a TV right there and it was all within that same time frame.

MS. CLARK: Well, when this taping was going on, sir, was there some kind of equipment that she had set up? Was it Miss Ramirez?

MR. OPPLER: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Of the photo lab unit?

MR. OPPLER: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And was there some equipment she had set up to conduct this videotaping?

MR. OPPLER: Yes.

MS. CLARK: When the tape stopped at 3:59, did she proceed to dismantle that equipment?

MR. OPPLER: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And when Mr. Goldberg or Mr. Peratis indicated they wanted to say something else, did she have to go and set it back up again?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection. Leading and asked and answered.

THE COURT: Rephrase the question.

MS. CLARK: When--you indicated it was either Mr. Goldberg or Mr. Peratis that indicated a desire to say something further on the tape, correct?

MR. OPPLER: Right.

MS. CLARK: At that point, had the equipment--had she begun to break the equipment down?

MR. OPPLER: Yes. I think so.

MS. CLARK: And pack up?

MR. OPPLER: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Did you see her at some point play the tape on the television to see if it had taped correctly?

MR. OPPLER: Yes. Yes.

MS. CLARK: And did that occur during the 14-minute break?

MR. OPPLER: I don't recall if it was during that 14-minute break or afterwards, but it could have been either. I can't say for sure.

MS. CLARK: Are you sure, however, that she began to pack up her equipment during that 14-minute break?

MR. OPPLER: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Then when Mr. Goldberg and Mr.--or Mr. Peratis indicated a desire to tape some more discussion, what did she do?

MR. OPPLER: Set it back up and filmed the rest of it, whatever remained.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Do you know--Mr. Peratis in that last segment was holding a 12-cc syringe, correct?

MR. OPPLER: Right.

MS. CLARK: Earlier in the interview, had he been showing anything with a 12-cc syringe?

MR. OPPLER: He hadn't shown us--

MR. NEUFELD: Objection. I believe that actually misstates what we saw in the tape. That misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained. There's no testimony in the record regarding the size of the syringe.

MS. CLARK: Can we play the tape, your Honor, and see?

THE COURT: Play the whole tape? Not at this point. Proceed with your examination. See if you can lay a foundation for what it was.

MS. CLARK: Okay.

MS. CLARK: Do you recall, sir, at this moment what was the substance of Mr. Peratis' statement at 4:13 on the tape?

MR. OPPLER: He was--what was the status of that last segment? Is that what you're asking?

MS. CLARK: Do you recall independently without reviewing the videotape what Mr. Peratis was showing on the videotape when it was resumed at 4:13?

MR. OPPLER: It was a 12-cc container of some sort.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Had--during--now, when the interview began at 4--at 3:36?

MR. OPPLER: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Okay. When the interview began at 3:36 until it concluded at 3:59, had, to your recollection, he shown a 12-cc vial during that 23-minute segment?

MR. OPPLER: He had a little box with different vials. I don't recall if that one was in there or not. I don't believe he demonstrated with that one though.

MS. CLARK: Okay. During the 14 minutes after the tape stopped at 3:59, did he go to look for that 12-cc syringe to your recollection?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection. That wasn't his testimony, it was a 12-cc syringe. It was a 12-cc container.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MS. CLARK: Container. Did he go look for some 12-cc container?

MR. OPPLER: There was a point where he went to look for another container, syringe, whatever it was, and then he came back. If this was that exact time, I don't recall. Umm, there was a time he left and he came back to get something. He had a--it wasn't--I remember him shuffling a box. It wasn't in there and he went to get it. This could very well have been that time.

MR. NEUFELD: Objection. Move to strike since he said it could have been. Calls for him speculating.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: All right. Sir, at any time, did Mr. Goldberg suggest to Mr. Peratis what he was supposed to say?

MR. OPPLER: No.

MS. CLARK: Did you ever suggest to him what he was supposed to say?

MR. OPPLER: No.

MS. CLARK: Was Mr. Peratis given any kind of written material or script to look at before he answered questions on that videotape?

MR. OPPLER: No.

MS. CLARK: May I have a moment, your Honor?

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

MS. CLARK: I have nothing further.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. NEUFELD

MR. NEUFELD: Mr. Oppler, it was the videographer who was taking apart and putting back the equipment, correct?

MR. OPPLER: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: It wasn't Mr. Goldberg, was it?

MR. OPPLER: No.

MR. NEUFELD: And it wasn't Mr. Peratis, right?

MR. OPPLER: Right.

MR. NEUFELD: So while she's taking apart her equipment, Mr. Peratis and Mr. Goldberg are free to have whatever discussions they want during that 14-minute period; is that correct?

MR. OPPLER: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And if Mr. Peratis happened to walk off with some period of time to get another syringe, that didn't take up 14 minutes, did it?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Well--

THE COURT: Rephrase the question.

MR. NEUFELD: You said on redirect examination that you're not even sure if during those 14 minutes Mr. Peratis even went off to get another syringe, are you?

MR. OPPLER: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And, sir, you also said at the end of her redirect examination a moment ago that that day when you arrived there, there was no script given to Mr. Peratis; is that right?

MR. OPPLER: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And no instructions before the tape began rolling the first time to Mr. Peratis; is that correct?

MR. OPPLER: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: But you don't know to what extent Mr. Goldberg prepped him on prior occasions, do you?

MR. OPPLER: No, I wouldn't.

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Nothing further.

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK

MS. CLARK: Was there anything about the nature of Mr. Peratis' demeanor or his answers that lead you to believe anyone had coached him, sir?

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, he's not qualified to answer that question.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Did you form any impression about Mr. Peratis'--the nature of Mr. Peratis' responses to the question?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection. He's not competent to answer that either.

THE COURT: Sustained. That's for the jury to decide.

MS. CLARK: I have nothing further.

THE COURT: Anything else?

MR. NEUFELD: Nothing else.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Mr. Oppler, thank you very much, sir. You're excused, sir.

MR. OPPLER: Am I subject to come back?

THE COURT: Yes. All right. Counsel, let me see you at the sidebar without the court reporter, please.

(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, our next witness is elsewhere in the building. So I'm going to have that person brought down. As soon as they're here, we'll have you brought back out. So it will take a couple minutes.

(Recess.)

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

THE COURT: Okay. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. Next witness is Teresa--

MS. CLARK: Ramirez of the photo lab of the District Attorney's office. She's an addition to our witness list that we made in view of the nature of the cross-examination of Mr. Oppler.

MR. COCHRAN: The only thing is--we want to move the case along also, your Honor. I misunderstood our sidebar. I thought it was Beverly DeTeresa, another witness, which I have, and I was prepared on that. But what I would like to do is to have an opportunity to get Mr. Neufeld. This is his witness. And also, I'm sure he would want to talk to her because she wasn't on the witness list. It violates the three-day rule, but we'll be ready to go I'm sure.

THE COURT: All right. Do you need five minutes to talk to her?

MR. COCHRAN: I've got to get Mr. Neufeld first, your Honor. I may need a few more minutes than that, but we'll be ready.

THE COURT: All right. And Mr. Neufeld and the others are looking at the other physical evidence right now. Mr. Fairtlough, would you see if you can find Mr. Neufeld, please?

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: Assuming I can get the door open, your Honor.

THE COURT: You're going to get the fire marshals after us again. All right. We're going to have to fix that this evening. All right. Then I will get off the bench. Get Mr. Neufeld here and talk to her.

MR. DARDEN: You want to take up the sanction issue? We have a lawyer here.

THE COURT: There's lots of lawyers here, Mr. Darden.

MR. DARDEN: I understand that. But I don't know if you wanted to spend the time on the record on the sanction issue while you--

THE COURT: Well, we might as well make good use of the time.

MR. RIGGS: Your Honor, Grant Riggs from the D.A.'s office.

THE COURT: Mr. Riggs, how are you? Good to see you.

MR. RIGGS: I wonder if I might impose on the court to perhaps go in chambers with Miss Clark, Mr. Darden for a few moments.

THE COURT: Why would that be necessary in chambers?

MR. RIGGS: Well, we just think it might be appropriate to have a private conversation if the court wouldn't mind.

THE COURT: Well, I don't think that's appropriate.

MR. RIGGS: Well, what we're doing I suppose is begging the court's indulgence for our failure to have an attorney here at 8:30 this morning. As the court probably is aware, we have asked the Court of Appeal to stay the fine. But in any event, we would ask the court to reconsider at least--if not the fine altogether, at least the amount. It does appear that Miss Clark, in explaining the reason for the delay this morning, was being forthright with the court, and furthermore, that she was engaging in diligent advocacy when she defended the office against the fine. So we would ask the court to at least reconsider the amount, if not the fine altogether.

THE COURT: All right. Original fine will be reinstated. Anything else, Mr. Riggs?

MR. RIGGS: No. That's all.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, sir. Good to see you.

MR. RIGGS: $250?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: Could he represent me before Judge Bascue?

THE COURT: But see, Mr. Riggs is short, to the point. This is what we want, this is why we want it. Thank you very much. Goodbye. Notice how effective that is, persuasive?

MR. COCHRAN: We'll remember that.

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Neufeld, I'm going to get off the bench so you can talk to your witness.

MR. NEUFELD: Actually, I'm going to ask she be called tomorrow morning. I mean, first of all, there's been a rule--I'm asking for three days.

THE COURT: No.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm asking for 12 hours.

THE COURT: No. Talk to her.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, my concern is, we are doing the other thing, preparing for Deedrick and Bodziak.

THE COURT: There are 20 lawyers on each side, counsel. Talk to her.

(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. Counsel, have we had the opportunity to chat with the next witness?

MR. NEUFELD: We have.

THE COURT: All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please. And, Mr. Darden, are you going to handle this witness? Miss Clark, is this your witness?

MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. CLARK: Are there any jurors that have a problem that would require us to quit promptly at 5:00 or could we complete this witness?

THE COURT: I'm going to try to complete this witness.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Within reason.

MS. CLARK: Yeah. Well, the People's questioning will be brief.

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

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Have a seat, please. All right. Miss Clark, you may call the People's next witness.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor. The People call Teresa Ramirez.

THE COURT: All right. Miss Ramirez, come forward, please.

Teresa Ramirez, called as a witness by the People on rebuttal, was sworn and testified as follows:

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

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes, I do.

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

MS. RAMIREZ: T-E-R-E-S-A, last name R-A-M-I-R-E-Z.

THE CLERK: Thank you.

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK

MS. CLARK: Miss Ramirez, can you tell us what you do for a living?

MS. RAMIREZ: I'm a photographer for the Bureau of Investigation of Los Angeles county District Attorney's office.

MS. CLARK: And do you work in what we call the photo lab in the D.A.'s office?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Directing your attention to the date of July 27th, 1995, did you perform the videotaping of an interview of Thano Peratis?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And in order to do that, did you go to the home of Thano Peratis?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And who was with you?

MS. RAMIREZ: Uh, Hank Goldberg.

MS. CLARK: Is he a D.A.?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Do you see him here in the courtroom?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Back there (Indicating)?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Who else?

MS. RAMIREZ: Stephen Oppler.

MS. CLARK: Was that a D.A. investigator?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And is that somebody who testified in court today?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Did you see him testify on television today?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Did you watch all of his testimony?

MS. RAMIREZ: Excuse me?

MS. CLARK: Did you watch all of his testimony?

MS. RAMIREZ: No.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And who else was there? There was you, Steve Oppler, Hank Goldberg and--

MS. RAMIREZ: Mr. Peratis. He lives there.

MS. CLARK: And did you perform the videotaping of the interview conducted by Hank Goldberg?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: At some point, did the interview stop?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And at some point thereafter, did the interview resume again?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: In-between the time that the interview stopped and it started, can you tell us what occurred?

MS. RAMIREZ: I noticed that Mr. Peratis had very nice television set and I ask him if we could check the tape on his set, if we could watch it on his TV, and he agreed, but he had to go and change--I don't know. He rehook it up or something.

MS. CLARK: So did he go into another room at that point?

MS. RAMIREZ: It was like a little--next to where I was standing, it was like a little--bigger than a closet. He had a lot of tapes and cables. He went in there, took some cables, went behind the TV and the VCR and hook it up.

MS. CLARK: And did he do the actual hookup himself for you?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, I wonder if we could play Defense exhibit 13--

THE COURT: 1375.

MS. CLARK: Thank you.

THE COURT: Mrs. Robertson, do you have 1375?

THE CLERK: Yes.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. CLARK: Now, I'm going to show you a segment of tape and ask if you recognize it. I think.

(Brief pause.)

(At 4:57 P.M., People's exhibit 615, a videotape, was played.)

MS. CLARK: Do you recognize this tape, Miss Ramirez?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: All right. Is this the videotape you did of Thano Peratis in the company of Hank Goldberg and Steve Oppler on November 27th, 1995?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And did you operate the video camera?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: All right. Now, you see the time there? Is that--you see the time 3:59 there?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Okay.

MS. CLARK: No, go ahead. Keep it running. Can we back up for a minute? Just back up to 3:59. Thanks.

(At 4:58 P.M., People's exhibit 615, a videotape, continues playing.)

(At 4:58, the playing of the videotape was concluded.)

MS. CLARK: All right. Okay. You saw that 3:59, then you heard a voice, "I'm going to conclude my audiotape"?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And whose voice was that?

MS. RAMIREZ: Oppler.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And then you saw the tape resume at 4:13?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: What happened between 3:59 and when you resumed the tape at 4:13?

MS. RAMIREZ: Mr. Peratis hooked up his TV so we could watch the tape. We watched the tape just for a minute or two probably.

MS. CLARK: Okay. How long did it take for him to hook up the TV so you could watch the tape?

MS. RAMIREZ: Few minutes because first he checked why the TV was not hooked up properly. Then he hook it up, then he check that it work again. Then we played the tape I did, and then Hank said that he had another question. So I had to cue the tape to the end, put the camera back on the tripod, put the tape back in there and start again. But--

MS. CLARK: All right. So--I'm sorry.

MS. RAMIREZ: But I missed--we showing--when we videotape somebody, we--the investigator that is conducting the interview says that we were off for few minutes or whatever, and I missed that part on the videotape. So when the tape starts again, Mr. Peratis is already answering to the question. So I probably missed, I don't know, up to a minute.

MS. CLARK: Okay. You--so you started the tape a little late; is that right?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And you missed the part where Mr. Oppler announced that you had been off tape for a while and you're resuming?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And did you miss Mr. Goldberg's question?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Is there anything else you missed?

MS. RAMIREZ: No.

MS. CLARK: During the time that you were setting up--Mr. Peratis was setting up the cable on the television so you could watch the tape, were you talking to him?

MS. RAMIREZ: To who? Excuse me.

MS. CLARK: To Mr. Peratis.

MS. RAMIREZ: I don't remember.

MS. CLARK: Was anyone questioning him?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. RAMIREZ: No.

MS. CLARK: Was Mr. Goldberg interviewing him during the time the videotape was off?

MS. RAMIREZ: No.

MS. CLARK: Did you discuss anything with Mr. Peratis concerning the case?

MS. RAMIREZ: No.

MS. CLARK: Did he make any--did you make any remark to him about his equipment?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: What was that?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection. Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Not for the truth of the matter, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Does this explain subsequent conduct with regards to the television equipment?

MS. CLARK: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Proceed.

MS. RAMIREZ: I made a comment about his impressive television set, and he had more than one VCR, at least four.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And so did that have some impact on the manner in which he was setting up the cables and connecting the TV to the cables--

MR. NEUFELD: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained. Leading.

MS. CLARK: I'm sorry. And why were you discussing that?

MS. RAMIREZ: As part of my job, I work with VCR's and television sets and cameras. So I--I ask him to play the tape because I wanted to see how it worked.

MS. CLARK: Was--did his system appear complex to you?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Was there more than one piece of equipment there?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: How many pieces of equipment did he have?

MS. RAMIREZ: It was one television monitor and I remember that there were at least four VCR's plus some stereo equipment and speakers, receivers.

MS. CLARK: Four VCR's?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: So did you discuss that with him?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection as to what they discussed.

THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer the question.

MS. RAMIREZ: I made a comment about his nice equipment. He said he didn't like to miss shows while he was at work.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Now, during the course of that conversation, was he attempting to do anything with respect to the cable, the television and the VCR's?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes. He moved something in the back.

MS. CLARK: And who was in the room at that time?

MS. RAMIREZ: Stephen Oppler and Hank Goldberg.

MS. CLARK: Was anybody asking him questions during that time?

MS. RAMIREZ: I don't remember.

MS. CLARK: Was anybody interviewing him concerning the case at that time?

MS. RAMIREZ: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: Did he have--was--did he have any difficulty hooking up the TV to the correct VCR?

MS. RAMIREZ: Not really.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And after he finished the hookup, what happened next?

MS. RAMIREZ: We watched the tape.

MS. CLARK: And did you watch the entire tape?

MS. RAMIREZ: No.

MS. CLARK: How much did you watch?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled. Haven't we already gotten an answer to the question?

MS. CLARK: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: A minute or so?

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.

MS. CLARK: And after you watched it for a minute or so, then what happened?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection. Asked and answered. This whole line is asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. RAMIREZ: I took the tape out of the machine.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And then what happened?

MS. RAMIREZ: And I was starting to put it away as well as my camera and the rest of the equipment, but the D.A. said that he had another question. So then I had to put the tape back and cue it to the end. But I don't remember if I did it in the camera or on his VCR.

MS. CLARK: Okay.

MS. RAMIREZ: But I had to do that. So that probably took another couple of minutes.

MS. CLARK: And then you indicated I think before that you had to set your camera back up again?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Then at that point, did you resume the taping of Mr. Peratis?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And I would like to show the segment, if I may, Defense 1375 again.

(At 5:05 P.M., Deft's exhibit 1375, a videotape, was played.)

MS. CLARK: Go ahead. Run it back.

(At 5:05 P.M., Deft's exhibit 1375, a videotape, was played.)

THE COURT: Miss Clark, do you need to show this anymore?

MS. CLARK: I wanted to show it to the end if I could.

MR. NEUFELD: Sidebar, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes. With the court reporter, please.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: What's on the rest of this tape? My recollection--we watched it yesterday almost to the end of the tape. Goldberg says good-bye. What is on the rest of the tape?

MS. CLARK: That's it. This--I think this is like a one-minute--I know it's a one-minute segment. And the reason I want to play it all until they say good-bye is, the implication that is made here, there's some coaching done. Then they went back on tape. And if all you have is a one-minute segment, what kind of coaching was there? What does that have to do with anything? Obviously it becomes relevant now. There's no statement.

MR. COCHRAN: You want to look at it over there?

THE COURT: No. If that's your--

MR. NEUFELD: I have no problem.

THE COURT: All right. Let's proceed.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Miss Clark, you wanted to show 1375 to conclusion at this point?

MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Let's proceed.

(At 5:08 P.M., Deft's exhibit 1375, a videotape, continues playing.)

(At 5:10 P.M., the playing of the videotape was concluded.)

MS. CLARK: Is that the end?

THE COURT: That was it?

MS. CLARK: That's it.

MS. CLARK: Let me ask you, Miss Ramirez, is that the segment that was taped after the 14-minute break?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes. But it looks like--it didn't--like the end is missing at least from this copy.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Do you know how long you went--for how long you videotaped after the 14-minute break?

MS. RAMIREZ: No. I don't remember.

MS. CLARK: Do you remember if it was one minute versus half an hour? Was it a long time that you went--

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, leading and speculation. She says she doesn't remember.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. RAMIREZ: I remember that it was only one question. So it was very short. I can't tell how long.

MS. CLARK: So Hank Goldberg asked one question and Mr. Peratis gave that one answer?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And that's all that happened?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Now, was Mr.--did Mr. Goldberg give a set of questions or any written materials to Mr. Peratis during the questioning?

MS. RAMIREZ: No.

MS. CLARK: And during the 14-minute break, did he hand Mr. Peratis any written materials or any kind of questions written down on paper?

MS. RAMIREZ: No.

MS. CLARK: And did you do anything--did you do any other tape with Mr. Peratis besides this one?

MS. RAMIREZ: No.

MS. CLARK: Was there a reason for that?

MS. RAMIREZ: I don't know.

MS. CLARK: Did Mr. Goldberg convey to you any concern about Mr. Peratis?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection. Hearsay.

MS. RAMIREZ: No.

MS. CLARK: Did you discuss with anybody Mr. Peratis' physical condition?

MS. RAMIREZ: I don't remember.

MS. CLARK: Do you remember whether you discussed Mr. Peratis' physical condition with Hank Goldberg?

MS. RAMIREZ: I don't remember.

MS. CLARK: Now, today, did Mr. Darden and I go to your office and locate you?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And was that at about 4:00 o'clock today?

MS. RAMIREZ: I think so.

MS. CLARK: Where were you--were you on your way to go somewhere?

MS. RAMIREZ: I had a dentist appointment. Yes. I was leaving.

MS. CLARK: Had we ever contacted you and asked you to testify before 4:00 o'clock this afternoon?

MS. RAMIREZ: No.

MS. CLARK: If we had gotten there at 4:05, would you have been gone to the dentist?

MS. RAMIREZ: Perhaps.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Have we--after we--did we speak to you for about 10 minutes?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: How long did we speak to you for? Mr. Darden and I up in your office, how long did we speak to you for?

MS. RAMIREZ: It was short. I can't remember. I got really nervous when I saw you.

MS. CLARK: Why was that?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor. It's irrelevant and immaterial.

MS. RAMIREZ: I'd like to be--

THE COURT: Hold on. Let's move on.

MS. CLARK: All right. I'm sorry.

MS. CLARK: And after that, Miss Ramirez, did we bring you down to the courtroom?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And did you sit and speak with Mr. Neufeld and Mr. Cochran for about half an hour?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Did they ask you all the questions they wanted to ask?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And you answered all those questions?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: I have nothing further.

THE COURT: Mr. Neufeld.

MR. NEUFELD: Just one second.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel and the Defendant.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. NEUFELD

MS. CLARK: Miss Ramirez, hi. Good afternoon.

MS. RAMIREZ: Good afternoon.

MS. CLARK: You said you were on your way home when or you were about to leave when you were contacted by Miss Clark and Mr. Darden?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And, in fact, just before that, you had been watching your colleague, Mr. Oppler, testify; is that right?

MS. RAMIREZ: Part.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And it was while you were listening to Mr. Oppler testifying that a supervisor of yours contacted you?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And that would be a Deputy District Attorney named Ross?

MS. RAMIREZ: She's an investigator.

MS. CLARK: Okay. An investigator named Ross?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And she made some joking, critical comment of your taping?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And shortly after that, you were contacted by a Deputy District Attorney Miss Martinez; is that right?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And as a result of that, you then were spoken to by--after Miss Martinez by Miss Clark and Mr. Darden; is that right?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: The next thing you know, you're down here in the courtroom?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Now, back on that day on the 27th, you remember Miss Clark asking you a few questions a while ago about whether or not Mr. Goldberg told you anything about Mr. Peratis' health. Do you recall Mr. Goldberg telling you that Mr. Peratis had just had a--like a bypass, a heart surgery that summer--this summer? Do you recall something like that, that he had just had heart surgery?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes, but I don't remember when it was that he mentioned.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Now--by the way, just two other questions or two other subjects.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry, your Honor.

MR. NEUFELD: During that 14 minutes when the tape wasn't playing, you said that Mr. Peratis got up and gave you a cable? Did he do that?

MS. RAMIREZ: He didn't give me anything.

MS. CLARK: Did he stay in the room with you that whole time?

MS. RAMIREZ: He went into a space that it look like a big closet and got some cables and hooked up his TV.

MS. CLARK: And that closet was in the room that you were in?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes. It might be a small room.

MS. CLARK: But you could see what he was doing when he did this?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes. Yes.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And other than that, he never left the room, did he?

MS. RAMIREZ: No.

MS. CLARK: Never left the room to go get a syringe or anything, correct?

MS. RAMIREZ: I don't remember that.

MS. CLARK: Objection. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. NEUFELD: To the best of your recollection, he was in the room the whole time?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: One other matter. Now, although you said to the Prosecutor that to the best of your recollection, Mr. Goldberg handed--did not hand Mr. Peratis any instructions that day, to your knowledge, did Mr. Goldberg--

MS. CLARK: Objection. That misstates the testimony. The witness stated no.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: I thought that's what I just said, no.

THE COURT: No. Did not hand. Restate the question.

MR. NEUFELD: Sure.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. I know that you said a little while ago that as best you can recall, during that afternoon--by the way, during that 14-minute break, were you primarily concerned with packing and unpacking your equipment?

MS. RAMIREZ: Well, we also watched the tape, took most of the--

MS. CLARK: Were you--I'm sorry. Go ahead.

MS. RAMIREZ: Most of that time was taken by watching the tape and then recueing the tape, playing it back to the end.

MS. CLARK: Does your view finder have a play back so you can look through the view finder and see the tape?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes, but I think I wanted to see what that TV looked like.

MS. CLARK: But you couldn't simply see whether or not it's been taping by looking through the view finder?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes. But it's difficult for everybody else to see it. I mean, you cannot. Only one person can.

MS. CLARK: Okay.

MS. RAMIREZ: So I thought it was better to just play it back on the big TV.

MS. CLARK: All right. Now, you had said that Mr. Goldberg did not give--to the best of your recollection, give Mr. Peratis any instructions that day when the tape wasn't playing; is that right?

MS. RAMIREZ: He did not.

MS. CLARK: But you don't know to what extent Mr. Goldberg had prior conversations with Mr. Peratis before he arrived that day; isn't that correct?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Withdrawn. Withdrawn.

MS. RAMIREZ: We all came together.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, but you don't know whether or not prior to your arrival that date, either earlier that day, the day before or some other day, Mr. Goldberg had conversations with Mr. Peratis where he explained to him what he wanted him to say the day that you arrived?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Speculation.

THE COURT: The way it's phrased, it's argumentative.

MR. NEUFELD: While you were there, didn't Mr. Goldberg say that he had had or didn't he refer to prior conversations he had had with Mr. Peratis prior to the time you got there on July 27th?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Confusing. Vague.

THE COURT: Overruled. Do you understand the question?

MS. RAMIREZ: It sounds like three questions.

MR. NEUFELD: Let me ask you this, Miss Ramirez. Do you remember that day while you were there Mr. Peratis holding up a subpoena? Do you remember that, holding up a piece of paper on the tape?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Because you've seen the tape several times, haven't you?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: In fact, you're the person who edited the tape?

MS. CLARK: Objection. 356 and 352.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. RAMIREZ: Can you repeat the question?

MR. NEUFELD: Are you the person who edited the tape?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.

THE COURT: And, ladies and gentlemen, you'll recollect because I instructed you, the editing you saw in the tape was at my direction.

MR. NEUFELD: Yes.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. NEUFELD: And when Mr. Peratis held up that subpoena the day you were there on July 27th, he described the conversation he had with Mr. Goldberg back in February, didn't he, about that subpoena?

MS. RAMIREZ: I don't remember the exact words.

MS. CLARK: Do you remember a--Mr. Peratis holding up a piece of paper and saying, "This is the subpoena that Mr. Goldberg gave me"?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Hearsay. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer the question. Do you remember that?

MS. RAMIREZ: I can only remember the piece of paper.

MR. NEUFELD: And do you remember him saying it was a subpoena, a subpoena for Mr. Peratis to come to court back in February? Do you remember that?

MS. CLARK: Well, objection. Hearsay, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. RAMIREZ: Not exact words.

MR. NEUFELD: If you saw that portion of the tape, would that refresh your recollection?

MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: May I have just a few minutes to do that, your Honor, just to cue up that portion?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Beyond the scope. Your Honor, the procedure to refresh the witness' recollection is to show it to the witness.

MR. NEUFELD: Perhaps she could step down and she could look at it with Mr. Harris then sitting over there.

THE COURT: Do you have headphones?

MR. HARRIS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Let's conclude this for the day. We're not going to finish.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay.

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take our recess for the afternoon session. Please remember all my admonitions to you; do not discuss the case amongst yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, don't allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. We'll stand in recess as far as the jury is concerned until 9:00 o'clock tomorrow morning. And, Miss Ramirez, you may step down. You are ordered to come back tomorrow morning at 9:00 o'clock. All right? Thank you.

(Proceedings held in camera, transcribed and sealed under separate cover.)

(At 5:20 P.M., an adjournment was taken until, Thursday, September 14, 1995, 9:00 A.M.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

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

The People of the State of California,)

Plaintiff,)

Vs.) No. Ba097211)

Orenthal James Simpson,)

Defendant.)

Reporter's transcript of proceedings Wednesday, September 13, 1995 volume 222

Pages 45508 through 45744, inclusive

(Pages 45504 through 45507, inclusive, sealed) (Pages 45745 through 45785, inclusive, sealed)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

APPEARANCES:

Janet M. Moxham, CSR #4588 Christine M. Olson, CSR #2378 official reporters

FOR THE PEOPLE: Gil Garcetti, District Attorney by: Marcia R. Clark, William W. Hodgman, Christopher A. Darden, Cheri A. Lewis, Rockne P. Harmon, George W. Clarke, Scott M. Gordon Lydia C. Bodin, Hank M. Goldberg, Alan Yochelson and Darrell S. Mavis, Brian R. Kelberg, and Kenneth E. Lynch, Deputies 18-000 Criminal Courts Building 210 West Temple Street Los Angeles, California 90012

FOR THE DEFENDANT: Robert L. Shapiro, Esquire Sara L. Caplan, Esquire 2121 Avenue of the Stars 19th floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr., Esquire by: Carl E. Douglas, Esquire Shawn Snider Chapman, Esquire 4929 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1010 Los Angeles, California 90010 Gerald F. Uelmen, Esquire Robert Kardashian, Esquire Alan Dershowitz, Esquire F. Lee Bailey, Esquire Barry Scheck, Esquire Peter Neufeld, Esquire Robert D. Blasier, Esquire William C. Thompson, Esquire

ALSO PRESENT: Kelli Sager, Esquire Douglas E. Mirell, Esquire, mark D. Rosenbaum, Esquire Matthew Schwartz, Esquire Ron Regwan, Esquire James K. Hahn, city attorney Mary Thronton House, assistant city attorney

ALSO PRESENT: Brent Riggs, Deputy District Attorney

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I N D E X

Index for volume 222 pages 45508 - 45744

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day date session page vol.

Wednesday September 13, 1995 A.M. 45508 222 P.M. 45607 222

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

PEOPLE'S (Rebuttal) witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.

Sims, Gary 45533rh 45560bs 45592rh 222 (Resumed) 45624rh 45627bs

Oppler, 44649mc 45658n 45692mc 45705n 222 Stephen (Further) 45707mc

Ramirez, 45719mc 45736n 222 Teresa

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

PEOPLE'S (Rebuttal) witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.

Oppler, 44649mc 45658n 45692mc 45705n 222 Stephen (Further) 45707mc

Ramirez, 45719mc 45736n 222 Teresa

Sims, Gary 45533rh 45560bs 45592rh 222 (Resumed) 45624rh 45627bs

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EXHIBITS

PEOPLE'S for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.

616-a thru 616-d - 45545 222 autorads

616-a(1) - 45549 222 computer printout of autorad

616-b(1) - 45551 222 computer printout of autorad

616-c(1) - 45552 222 computer printout of autorad

616-d(1) - 45555 222 computer printout of autorad

617 - document 45693 222 investigator's report by Stephen Oppler

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DEFENSE for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.

1375 - videotape 45693 222 of an excerpt of the interview with Thano Peratis