OJ Simpson openings and OPJ hearings, part three.
This is openings, and out of the presence of the jury hearings. Because there are those, two of them! They occured on January 26th, and then there was a delay in the trial, …These particular hearings are not on Youtube. Well the fact that there was a delay is chronicaled, but not these hearings. They are transcribed, and on the Court TV archive.
Transcript from January 26th, 1995.
First Court TV excerpt, 1 hour and 48 minutes.
There’s already a gap in the archive itself. It’s a small one, but there’s definitely one at the beginning!
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, COUNSEL.
MR. COCHRAN: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.
MR. SHAPIRO: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.
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. BAILEY, MR. BLASIER. THE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED BY MISS CLARK AND MR. DARDEN. COUNSEL, SO THE RECORD IS CLEAR, WE ARE IN THE MIDST OF OPENING STATEMENTS BY THE DEFENSE, THE PROSECUTION HAVING COMPLETED THEIR OPENING STATEMENTS.
AND AT THE CONCLUSION OF YESTERDAY’S PROCEEDINGS
Well, literally, the archive starts there. Court TV should do less commentary, and just leave cases in their original state! They should’ve done less back then, too!
When they came back from the break, there was a gap in the archive. This is going to be in strange order, but again, a small gap.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNSEL. BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. MR. SIMPSON IS AGAIN PRESENT WITH HIS COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. DOUGLAS, MR. BAILEY, MR. BLASIER, PEOPLE REPRESENTED BY MISS CLARK AND MR. DARDEN. WE ALSO HAVE MS. WITHEY PRESENT WITH US. MS. WITHEY, DO YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER BUSINESS BEFORE THE COURT?
MS. WITHEY: NO, YOUR HONOR, THANK YOU.
THE COURT: THANK YOU FOR COMING IN. ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, DO YOU HAVE ANY WORD FOR THE RECORD AS TO THE STATUS OF MR. HODGMAN?
MS. CLARK: NOT AT THIS TIME, YOUR HONOR. AS FAR AS I KNOW AT THIS POINT, MR. HODGMAN HAS BEEN REMOVED TO ANOTHER HOSPITAL. HE’S STILL DOING WELL. FINAL WORD AS TO HIS CONDITION?
THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND HE’S BEEN MOVED TO A MAJOR CARDIAC UNIT.
MS. CLARK: THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHEN DO YOU — HAS YOUR OFFICE GIVEN YOU ANY INDICATION AS TO WHEN WE MIGHT BE GETTING AN UPDATE AS TO HIS CONDITION AND WHEN HE MIGHT BE ABLE TO REJOIN US?
MS. CLARK: NO. I HAVE NO INDICATION OF THAT AT THIS TIME AND I PROBABLY WILL NOT EVEN BY THE CONCLUSION OF TODAY’S PROCEEDINGS.
I do want to highlight this exchange between Cochran, Darden, and the court!
MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, WE WILL TAKE THIS UP —
THE COURT: NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. I LISTENED TO ONE SIDE VERY CAREFULLY, VERY PATIENTLY, THEN YOU GET TO RESPOND. I’M GOING TO GRANT YOUR REQUEST TO 1:30, MISS CLARK.
MR. DARDEN: ON THAT NOTE, YOUR HONOR, MAY I BE EXCUSED?
THE COURT: NO. BE SEATED, PLEASE.
MR. DARDEN: THEY WANT ME TO WRITE THE MOTION.
THE COURT: BE SEATED, MR. DARDEN, WILL YOU PLEASE. THANK YOU. MR. COCHRAN, HAVE YOU CONCLUDED YOUR COMMENTS?
MR. COCHRAN: NOT YET, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: WOULD YOU PLEASE.
MR. COCHRAN: OKAY, I WILL. THANK YOU VERY KINDLY, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: THIS IS GOING TO BE A LONG TRIAL.
MR. COCHRAN: I DON’T THINK SO, YOUR HONOR. IF THEY WOULD LEARN TO FOLLOW YOUR RULES I THINK IT WOULD NOT BE. ALL I WANT TO SAY AND JUST CONCLUDE —
THE COURT: WELL, MR. COCHRAN, DON’T BAIT THEM UNNECESSARILY IF YOU DON’T HAVE TO.
MR. COCHRAN: I’M NOT BAITING THEM, YOUR HONOR. I MEAN THEY ARE ADULTS; NOT CHILDREN. OKAY. BUT I WON’T BAIT THEM.
MR. DARDEN: DO WE HAVE TO SIT HERE AND LISTEN TO THIS ALL MORNING?
THE COURT: MR. DARDEN, PLEASE, PLEASE.
MR. COCHRAN: LET ME CONCLUDE JUST BY SAYING —
This exchange was just weird to me! Ito and Cochran were talking about the prosecution like they weren’t in the room. OK OK, as a disabled person, this happens to me a whole lot, but that’s just me. It generally doesn’t happen to prosecutors, or at least I wouldn’t think so!
There’s another exchange I want to bring up. Darden is addressing the court regarding discovery sanctions, and he brings up the sealed envelope that there are still so many theories about today.
AND THEN THERE IS THE ENVELOPE, YOUR HONOR, THE ENVELOPE THAT MR. COCHRAN WAIVED IN FRONT OF THE JURY YESTERDAY, THE ENVELOPE WHICH CONTAINS AN UNSPECIFIED KNIFE AS I UNDERSTAND IT. I’M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT’S INSIDE THE ENVELOPE. I HAVE SEEN THE REPORT. I HAVE NOT SEEN THE ITEM, BUT THE DEFENSE HAS SEEN THE ITEM. WE HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OR INFORMATION AS TO WHERE THE ITEM CAME FROM, HOW IF IT WAS RECOVERED, WHO HANDLED IT, WHO HANDED IT WHERE AND WHEN, HOW IT GOT THERE. WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THIS ITEM EXCEPT WHAT WE KNOW FROM DR. LEE’S REPORT. BUT THE DEFENSE KNOWS EVERYTHING ABOUT IT AND THEY APPARENTLY INTEND TO INTRODUCE IT AS EVIDENCE IN THIS TRIAL. IF THAT IS THE CASE, YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW THE TRUE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THIS PARTICULAR OBJECT. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW HOW IT WAS RECOVERED, HOW THE COURT WAS CONTACTED. WE HAVE A RIGHT I BELIEVE TO KNOW ALL THE DETAILS SURROUNDING THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, AND WE REQUIRE IMMEDIATE DISCOVERY AS IT RELATES TO THIS ITEM. AND I WOULD SUGGEST TO THE COURT THAT THE DISPLAY OF THAT OBJECT YESTERDAY WAS JUST ONE OF MANY FLAGRANT VIOLATIONS OF THIS COURT’S RULES AND ORDERS. THIS COURT ORDERED US TO GIVE EACH SIDE THE OPPORTUNITY TO VIEW ANY EXHIBITS THAT MIGHT BE INTRODUCED BEFORE THIS JURY DURING OPENING STATEMENT. WE DIDN’T GET THAT OPPORTUNITY. MR. COCHRAN JUST PULLS IT OUT, WAVES IT IN FRONT OF THE JURY.
THE COURT: THAT WAS NOT EXHIBITED TO YOU DURING OUR TWO SHOW AND TELL SESSIONS?
MR. DARDEN: I HAVE NEVER SEEN IT BEFORE, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: THANK YOU.
MR. DARDEN: AND I HAD NO KNOWLEDGE THAT IT WAS ABOUT TO BE PRESENTED TO THE JURY. BY THE TIME I SAW IT, IT WAS IN FULL VIEW OF EVERYONE IN THE ROOM AS I RECALL. THE JURY SHOULD BE ORDERED TO DISREGARD ANY VIEWING OF THAT ITEM. THEY SHOULD BE ORDERED NOT TO SPECULATE AS TO THE CONTENT OF THAT ITEM OR THE WEIGHT TO BE ATTACHED TO IT. THE JURY SHOULD BE INFORMED THAT THIS WAS A LOW BLOW AND A CHEAP SHOT AND THAT IT IS GROSS MISCONDUCT, A SERIOUS VIOLATION OF THE COURT’S DIRECTIVES AND ORDERS.
Once again, there’s a small gap when starting the proceedings.
THE COURT: BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. ALL PARTIES ARE AGAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT. MR. DARDEN, DO YOU WISH TO CONCLUDE YOUR COMMENTS?
MR. DARDEN: YES, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: YOU HAD GONE THROUGH A NUMBER OF ITEMS.
MR. DARDEN: YES.
THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER SPECIFIC ITEMS? AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THE SPECIFICITY OF YOUR COMMENTS TO THE COURT.
MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. I JUST HAVE A FEW BRIEF COMMENTS, IF I MAY.
Second Court TV excerpt, 1 hour, and 23 minutes.
This is also an OPJ hearing. In this one, Carl Douglas, the defense’s discovery/evidence coordinator makes his arguments to the court.
There’s a gap in this second hearing. After Douglas speaks, Cochran and Clark also get to argue. However, there’s a small gap in Clark’s argument.
THE COURT: HOW WOULD I JUSTIFY GRANTING YOU A THIRTY-DAY CONTINUANCE IF WE ALL AGREE THE PEOPLE’S CASE IN CHIEF IS PROBABLY GOING TO TAKE BETWEEN TWO AND THREE MONTHS TO PRESENT? DOESN’T THAT GIVE YOU ADEQUATE TIME TO GO OUT AND PREPARE TO REBUT OR TO IMPEACH THESE WITNESSES, THESE TWELVE OR FOURTEEN WITNESSES WHO HAVE JUST BEEN DISCLOSED?
MS. CLARK: WELL, WE ARE TIED UP IN TRIAL. WE CAN’T GET INVOLVED IN THE INVESTIGATION. THAT IS THE SAME GAME THAT HAS BEEN PLAYED THROUGHOUT THIS CASE. WE ARE TIED UP IN COURT WITH DAYS AND DAYS OF JURY SELECTION. WE HAVE TO BE OUT THERE, TOO. WE CAN’T JUST SEND PEOPLE OUT TO DO THINGS FOR US WITHOUT GUIDING THE INVESTIGATION, BECAUSE WE KNOW WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR. MAY I HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)
MS. CLARK: YES. I DON’T THINK THAT THE PEOPLE’S CASE IS GOING TO TAKE TWO OR THREE MONTHS, NOT EVEN CLOSE.
THE COURT: PROMISE?
The gap was during that exchange. It was just a small one. We’re finished with the hearings between openings! We can now get back to the openings!
- First YOutube excerpt, 1 hour, and 20 minutes.
- Third court TV excerpt, 1 hour, and 47 minutes.
- Transcript from January 27th, 1995.
This begins with them going over a document I definitely don’t have anywhere! Why don’t I have this document? because it’s never been released!
THE COURT: GOOD MORNING, COUNSEL.
MR. COCHRAN: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, YOU’VE EACH RECEIVED A PHOTOCOPY OF THE COURT’S RULING REGARDING REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS. MY APOLOGIES TO COUNSEL FOR THE COURT’S FAILURE TO FAX YOU A COPY EARLIER THAN TODAY. I EXPERIENCED A COMPLETE BREAKDOWN IN MY FAX PROGRAM AT HOME. I ATTEMPTED TO FAX THIS TO ALL PARTIES YESTERDAY AND WAS APPARENTLY OBVIOUSLY NOT ABLE TO DO SO. IF THE PARTIES WISH, I WILL GIVE THEM LEAVE TO REVIEW THE RULING, AND I WOULD — COURT’S RULING ASKS FOR INPUT FROM BOTH PARTIES REGARDING OPENING STATEMENTS AND THE JURY INSTRUCTION.
There was a chambers trip in this excerpt, but unfortunately, it was transcribed under seal. Sometimes that happens with chambers trips.
(PAGES 12144 THROUGH 12166, VOLUME 77A, TRANSCRIBED AND SEALED UNDER SEPARATE COVER.)
We now have the end of the opening. As I was minding the Youtube excerpt, I noticed it cut off at the end, I know the Court TV one did not do so.
Fourth Court TV excerpt, 1 hour, and 16 minutes.
Second Youtube Excerpt, 1 hour and 5 minutes.
In this excerpt, there’s a side bar.
MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR —
MR. COCHRAN: MAY I CONCLUDE, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: WHY DON’T YOU APPROACH THE BENCH WITH THE REPORTER, PLEASE.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)
THE COURT: WE ARE OVER AT SIDEBAR. MISS CLARK, YOU HAD AN OBJECTION.
MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR. COUNSEL DOESN’T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THE PROSECUTION IS GOING TO PRESENT THAT STATEMENT. AND COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE CANNOT PRESENT IT BECAUSE IT’S HEARSAY AS TO THE DEFENDANT UNLESS HE CAN TELL THE JURY RIGHT HERE AND NOW MR. SIMPSON WOULD TAKE THE WITNESS STAND AND SO TESTIFY, UNLESS MR. COCHRAN —
MR. COCHRAN: I DON’T HAVE TO TELL THE JURY THAT HERE. YOU WANT TO KNOW EVERYTHING IN MY MIND. JUDGE, IT’S CLEAR — YOU AGREE WITH THAT. JUDGE, I’M NOT GOING TO GO INTO THE STATEMENT. I’M JUST GOING TO SAY WHAT SHE SAYS, THIS TIME WAS UNACCOUNTED FOR. I’M PRIVILEGED TO SAY HE TALKED TO THE POLICE. ALL I AM SAYING IS, HE TALKED TO THE POLICE AND I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW HIS TIME IS ACCOUNTED FOR.
THE COURT: BUT THE INFERENCE “TALKED TO THE POLICE” IMPLIES THAT STATEMENT IS GOING TO COME IN. YOU CAN SAY THE EVIDENCE IS GOING TO SHOW WE ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO ACCOUNT FOR HIS TIME. IT’S A DIFFERENT STATEMENT THEN.
MR. COCHRAN: THAT’S ALL I’M TRYING TO SAY. I’M NOT GIVING A STATEMENT, JUDGE.
MS. CLARK: THEN I THINK THE REFERENCE TO THE POLICE SHOULD BE DELETED.
MR. DARDEN: I THINK WE SHOULD —
THE COURT: WE GET ONE GLADIATOR.
MR. COCHRAN: I’LL ADDRESS IT IN THAT FASHION, IF I MIGHT, SO WE CAN TRY TO —
MS. CLARK: ALSO, YOUR HONOR, WHILE WE ARE AT SIDEBAR — I DID NOT WANT TO INTERRUPT MR. COCHRAN EARLIER, BUT HE MADE A BLATANT MISREPRESENTATION ABOUT THE NATURE OF MY OPENING STATEMENT IN TERMS OF TIME, REPRESENTING TO THE JURY THAT I SAID HE CAME BACK AT 10:15 OR 10:20, 10:30. I NEVER SAID ANY SUCH THING.
MR. COCHRAN: YOU SAID THE KILLING WAS AT 10:15 AND HE HAD TO RUSH BACK.
MS. CLARK: HE GOT BACK — 10:45 IS WHEN I SAID HE CAME BACK.
MR. COCHRAN: THAT’S YOUR THEORY, OKAY.
MS. CLARK: THAT’S WHAT I SAID. I’M JUST SAYING — TELLING THE JURY THE TRUTH.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, COULD WE HAVE THAT CORRECTED?
THE COURT: NO.
MS. CLARK: COUNSEL WAS ALLOWED TO MISREPRESENT MY STATEMENT.
THE COURT: COUNSEL, THEY REMEMBER WHAT YOU SAID AND THEY REMEMBER WHAT HE SAID. THEY KNOW THE DIFFERENCE. IF HE WANTS TO CORRECT THAT, HE’LL PROBABLY GO BACK NOW AND SAY MAYBE I MISSPOKE MYSELF ABOUT THIS.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)
MR. COCHRAN: MAY I CONTINUE, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL. MR. COCHRAN, YOU MAY CONTINUE.
There’s a second side bar in this excerpt. I actually thought it was a gap! I was being mindful, though, and I turned to the transcript to see exactly what it was.
MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR —
MR. COCHRAN: MAY I CONCLUDE, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: WHY DON’T YOU APPROACH THE BENCH WITH THE REPORTER, PLEASE.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)
THE COURT: WE ARE OVER AT SIDEBAR. MISS CLARK, YOU HAD AN OBJECTION.
MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR. COUNSEL DOESN’T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THE PROSECUTION IS GOING TO PRESENT THAT STATEMENT. AND COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE CANNOT PRESENT IT BECAUSE IT’S HEARSAY AS TO THE DEFENDANT UNLESS HE CAN TELL THE JURY RIGHT HERE AND NOW MR. SIMPSON WOULD TAKE THE WITNESS STAND AND SO TESTIFY, UNLESS MR. COCHRAN —
MR. COCHRAN: I DON’T HAVE TO TELL THE JURY THAT HERE. YOU WANT TO KNOW EVERYTHING IN MY MIND. JUDGE, IT’S CLEAR — YOU AGREE WITH THAT. JUDGE, I’M NOT GOING TO GO INTO THE STATEMENT. I’M JUST GOING TO SAY WHAT SHE SAYS, THIS TIME WAS UNACCOUNTED FOR. I’M PRIVILEGED TO SAY HE TALKED TO THE POLICE. ALL I AM SAYING IS, HE TALKED TO THE POLICE AND I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW HIS TIME IS ACCOUNTED FOR.
THE COURT: BUT THE INFERENCE “TALKED TO THE POLICE” IMPLIES THAT STATEMENT IS GOING TO COME IN. YOU CAN SAY THE EVIDENCE IS GOING TO SHOW WE ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO ACCOUNT FOR HIS TIME. IT’S A DIFFERENT STATEMENT THEN.
MR. COCHRAN: THAT’S ALL I’M TRYING TO SAY. I’M NOT GIVING A STATEMENT, JUDGE.
MS. CLARK: THEN I THINK THE REFERENCE TO THE POLICE SHOULD BE DELETED.
MR. DARDEN: I THINK WE SHOULD —
THE COURT: WE GET ONE GLADIATOR.
MR. COCHRAN: I’LL ADDRESS IT IN THAT FASHION, IF I MIGHT, SO WE CAN TRY TO —
MS. CLARK: ALSO, YOUR HONOR, WHILE WE ARE AT SIDEBAR — I DID NOT WANT TO INTERRUPT MR. COCHRAN EARLIER, BUT HE MADE A BLATANT MISREPRESENTATION ABOUT THE NATURE OF MY OPENING STATEMENT IN TERMS OF TIME, REPRESENTING TO THE JURY THAT I SAID HE CAME BACK AT 10:15 OR 10:20, 10:30. I NEVER SAID ANY SUCH THING.
MR. COCHRAN: YOU SAID THE KILLING WAS AT 10:15 AND HE HAD TO RUSH BACK.
MS. CLARK: HE GOT BACK — 10:45 IS WHEN I SAID HE CAME BACK.
MR. COCHRAN: THAT’S YOUR THEORY, OKAY.
MS. CLARK: THAT’S WHAT I SAID. I’M JUST SAYING — TELLING THE JURY THE TRUTH.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, COULD WE HAVE THAT CORRECTED?
THE COURT: NO.
MS. CLARK: COUNSEL WAS ALLOWED TO MISREPRESENT MY STATEMENT.
THE COURT: COUNSEL, THEY REMEMBER WHAT YOU SAID AND THEY REMEMBER WHAT HE SAID. THEY KNOW THE DIFFERENCE. IF HE WANTS TO CORRECT THAT, HE’LL PROBABLY GO BACK NOW AND SAY MAYBE I MISSPOKE MYSELF ABOUT THIS.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)
MR. COCHRAN: MAY I CONTINUE, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL. MR. COCHRAN, YOU MAY CONTINUE.
There was another side bar in this excerpt. I thought it was a gap! I’m glad I turned to the transcript to see exactly what it was.
NOW, AS WE CONCLUDE FINALLY, AS I PROMISED YOU TODAY, I BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT — MAY WE APPROACH, YOUR HONOR? MAY WE APPROACH?
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)
THE COURT: WE ARE AT SIDEBAR. MR. COCHRAN.
MR. COCHRAN: I WAS GOING TO INDICATE THAT THERE WILL BE EVIDENCE OF SUSPICIOUS THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED TO MR. SIMPSON IN THE MONTH BEFORE THIS INCIDENT THAT I WAS GOING TO ALLUDE TO BRIEFLY NOW. I THOUGHT I WOULD TELL COUNSEL WHAT IT WAS. AND THEY ARE, ON MAY 8, ON HIS WAY DOWN TO ORANGE COUNTY, HE WAS SURROUNDED BY THREE DIFFERENT CARS. ONE PULLED BEHIND HIM, ONE PULLED RIGHT BESIDE, ONE PULLED IN FRONT OF HIM IN AN EFFORT HE THOUGHT TO CARJACK HIM. BUT HE HELD UP HIS CELLULAR PHONE AND FINALLY THESE PEOPLE SPED AWAY. THAT ON JUNE 11TH, AFTER BEING AT A CHARITABLE DINNER, HE CAME HOME AFTER HAVING HIS ALARM OFF, AND HE — LEAVING WITH HIS ALARM OFF, HE FOUND HIS KITCHEN DOOR OPEN. AND FOR A CONSIDERABLE PERIOD OF TIME, HE HAD BEEN FINDING — HAD BEEN RECEIVING NUMEROUS PHONE CALLS GENERALLY IN SPANISH OR A FOREIGN LANGUAGE, SO MUCH SO THAT ON JUNE 2ND, HE HAD REQUESTED AND HAD ARRANGED TO HAVE THIS STAR 69 PUT ON HIS PHONE THERE AT THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE SO YOU CAN FIND OUT WHO’S CALLING YOU. THESE ITEMS, I WAS GOING TO LAUNCH INTO THAT JUST BRIEFLY. I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT —
MS. CLARK: DOES COUNSEL INTEND TO PROVE ANY OF THE ABOVE WITHOUT CALLING MR. SIMPSON?
MR. COCHRAN: WE WILL BE CALLING KATHY RANDA, WHO IS ON EVERYBODY’S WITNESS LIST. SHE IS THE ONE WHO IN FACT ORDERED THE STAR 69. WITH REGARD TO THE INCIDENT DOWN IN ORANGE COUNTY, HE WENT ON DOWN THERE, TOLD YOUR STAR WITNESSES, THE BROWN’S, ABOUT HAVING BEEN ALMOST ABDUCTED OR CARJACKED.
MS. CLARK: YOU ARE SAYING —
MR. COCHRAN: LET ME FINISH — CARJACKED OR — AND WITH REGARD TO THE INCIDENT ON JUNE 11TH, WHEN HE CAME HOME, HIS CHILDREN — BECAUSE HE TALKED TO EVERYBODY ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE DOOR OF THE KITCHEN WAS OPEN, SO THE CHILDREN ARE ALSO AWARE OF IT.
MS. CLARK: MORE HEARSAY.
THE COURT: IF THE CHILDREN ARE INDEPENDENTLY AWARE OF IT —
MR. COCHRAN: THEY ARE INDEPENDENTLY AWARE.
THE COURT: — OTHER THAN STATEMENTS BY THE DEFENDANT, THEY CAN TESTIFY TO THE FACT OF — WELL, MAYBE.
MR. DARDEN: WHERE IS THE DISCOVERY ON THAT?
MS. CLARK: WHERE IS THE DISCOVERY ON THAT?
MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE NO REPORT ON THAT.
MS. CLARK: ON WHAT THE KIDS SAW?
MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE NO REPORT ON THAT. I CAN TELL YOU WHAT THESE KIDS SAW, BUT I DON’T HAVE ANY DISCOVERY ON THAT.
MS. CLARK: WHY NOT?
MR. COCHRAN: WELL, WE LIVE IN A DIFFERENT WORLD. I DON’T HAVE DISCOVERY.
THE COURT: HOW ARE YOU GOING TO GET IN UNLESS YOUR CLIENT TESTIFIES ABOUT THE CARJACKING BECAUSE IT’S NOT AN ADMISSION.
MR. COCHRAN: THE CARJACKING I THINK —
THE COURT: THEY WOULD HAVE TO OFFER IT.
MR. COCHRAN: WELL, HE DID APPROACH SOMEBODY AND TALK ABOUT IT, BUT I’M NOT SURE I CAN GET THAT PERSON — AT A MALL IN ORANGE COUNTY. BUT I’M NOT SURE I CAN GET THAT PERSON.
THE COURT: WHY DON’T YOU STAY AWAY FROM THAT STUFF.
MR. DARDEN: STAY AWAY FROM ALL OF IT.
THE COURT: UNLESS YOU CAN —
MR. COCHRAN: EVEN ABOUT THE PHONE?
THE COURT: THE PHONE, STAR 69, KATHY RANDA, IF SHE’S THE ONE THAT ACTUALLY ORDERED THAT, SHE COULD TESTIFY TO THAT.
MS. CLARK: BUT SHE CAN’T TESTIFY TO WHY BECAUSE IT’S IRRELEVANT.
MR. COCHRAN: IT’S NOT IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: SHE CAN TESTIFY THAT AT MR. SIMPSON’S REQUEST, IT GOT PUT ON THE PHONE. THAT’S ALL SHE CAN TESTIFY TO.
MS. CLARK: ACTUALLY, SHE CAN’T TESTIFY, YOUR HONOR, TO THE FACT IT WAS MR. SIMPSON’S REQUEST. THAT’S HEARSAY.
THE COURT: I’M SURE SHE CAN.
MS. CLARK: NO. WHAT I MEAN IS —
THE COURT: THERE’S AN EXCEPTION BECAUSE IT EXPLAINS WHY YOU DID SOMETHING, NON-HEARSAY PURPOSE.
MS. CLARK: RIGHT. BUT IN THAT CONTEXT THOUGH, WOULD SHE BE PERMITTED TO TESTIFY WHAT HE TOLD HER, AS TO —
THE COURT: NO.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)
Third Youtube excerpt, 58 minutes.