OJ Simpson trial, Prosecution reopen, OPJ hearings, and if it isn’t too long after that testimony!

Posted on by ladyhope | Category: Trial

Yeah, I know it’s been a bit since I’ve done some archiving, that may happen from time to time. Next month, one of the cases I’m following is most likely going to trial, so there’s definitely no guarantees! I do plan to continue, it just is going to take time, could take all year, and into the next lol!!!
We do have the prosecution reopen, that’s where we’re at today. Before this, there’s an out of the presence of the jury hearing, and after that, it’s possible we may get to a witness or two.

This Youtube thing looks strange to me, it’s an hour and 16 minutes, so it’s definitely not the whole motion to reopen hearing, I guess I’m just not sure why. We’ll use the Court TV archive version, and transcript, since it’s the most full version we have.
In fact, I want to make a comparison about this. During the hearing, a laser disk is mentioned by one of defense counsel, i couldn’t tell which one, but I’m pretty sure it was Douglas, that’s around 19 minutes into the Court TV version, it’s between 18 and 19 actually. This is where the Youtube version begins.
During this excerpt, a sidebar is held without the reporter, and copyrighted material is withhehld from the public.
THE COURT: I WILL THINK ABOUT THAT, BUT AT THIS POINT LET ME SEE THESE OTHER ITEMS. DO WE HAVE THE LASER DISK OF THE —
MR. FAIRTLOUGH: YES, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS A FULL CUE TAPE OF THE TEN-MINUTE SEGMENTS OF OUTTAKES.
MR. DARDEN: BEFORE WE PLAY THAT, CAN WE APPROACH WITHOUT THE REPORTER FOR A MOMENT?
THE COURT: SURE.
(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)
One last side bar was held at the end of the hearing, but they seemed to be neglecting the record during this time. In other words, they decided not to have the reporter come to this one either.
I WILL SEE COUNSEL AT SIDE BAR.
(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)
Now, we’re going to get to the prosecution reopen. This is quick, and there will be witnesses afterwards.

The Youtube excerpt captures a bit of what happens before the reopen. the Court TV excerpt is just the reopen itself. there’s a side bar in this excerpt, a quick one that’s reported thankfully!
MR. BAILEY: MIGHT WE APPROACH FOR A MINUTE, JUDGE?
THE COURT: WITH THE REPORTER, PLEASE.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)
THE COURT: WE ARE AT THE SIDE BAR. MR. BAILEY.
MR. BAILEY: I BELIEVE THAT THE PHOTOGRAPHERS WERE AGAIN PHOTOGRAPHING THE SCREENS OF THE COMPUTERS AND I WONDER IF YOU COULD DIRECT THEM NOT TO DO THAT.
THE COURT: CERTAINLY.
.There was a second side bar in this short Youtube excerpt, but we’re about to switch over to Court TV, because this one is 40 minutes long, and includes some of the testimony that I don’t want to be cut off.
MR. COCHRAN: MAY WE APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: YES, PLEASE.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)
THE COURT: AT THE SIDE BAR, MR. COCHRAN.
MR. COCHRAN: I’M GOING TO OBJECT BECAUSE ALL KIND OF HEARSAY AND SHAPIRO AND SHAPIRO’S INVESTIGATOR SAID, PLUS MISS SHEILA CARTER. WE THE REPORTS, BUT IF THEY KNEW SO MUCH ABOUT THIS, THEY HAVEN’T GIVEN US ANYTHING REGARDING SHEILA CARTER, SO IT WORKS BOTH WAYS.
MS. CLARK: WELL, IT IS IMPEACHMENT.
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I’VE GOT NO REPORTS ON SHEILA CARTER AND THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT HAS BEEN INTRODUCED.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE WILL TAKE UP THIS ISSUE LATER.
MR. COCHRAN: CAN I JUST SAY SOMETHING, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: SURE.
MR. COCHRAN: I THINK SHE GETS UP AND TALKS ABOUT HER AND ACCUSES OF ALL KIND OF STUFF. IF THAT IS A VIOLATION, YOUR HONOR, WE SHOULD DEAL WITH IT RIGHT NOW.
THE COURT: I THINK THIS IS A FOOTNOTE 11 PROBLEM, ISN’T IT?
MR. COCHRAN: WELL, MAYBE, BUT —
THE COURT: REFERRING TO FOOTNOTE 11 IN IZAZAGA.
MR. COCHRAN: YES, I THINK IT IS.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE WILL TAKE IT UP. YOUR OBJECTION IS NOTED.
MR. COCHRAN: WHILE WE ARE UP HERE, SO I CAN SAVE SOME MORE TIME, I WANT TO NOW LODGE MY OBJECTION TO — I WANT TO PHRASE THIS AS APPROPRIATELY AS POSSIBLE. WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY ASKED THE PEOPLE FOR AN ONGOING OBJECTION TO ALL OF THIS TESTIMONY WHICH WE BELIEVE IS CHARACTER ASSASSINATION, DEALING WITH CHARACTER, DEALING WITH THE INCIDENTS OF 1989, 1993, ANYTHING DEALING WITH ANY DOMESTIC DISCORD ISSUE, O.J. SIMPSON AND HIS WIFE. AND I WANT TO NOW LODGE THE OBJECTION TO WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS GOING TO BE THE 1989 INCIDENT.
MR. DARDEN: (NODS HEAD UP AND DOWN.)
MR. COCHRAN: IS THIS GOING TO BE SUCH, AT LEAST FOR THIS FIRST INCIDENT, BECAUSE I WANT TO APPROACH THE BENCH.
THE COURT: YES.
MR. COCHRAN: THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT WE HAVE A CONTINUING OBJECTION AND I WANT TO DO IT IN A TACTFUL MANNER.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
MR. COCHRAN: WILL THE COURT LODGE AND NOTE MY OBJECTION?
THE COURT: I NOTE YOUR OBJECTIONS.
MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, ALSO MAY I ASK FOR A POINT OF CLARIFICATION. I WASN’T SURE WHEN MISS CLARK SAID THAT SHE SPOKE TO ROBERT SHAPIRO, WHETHER SHE WAS REFERRING TO MISS GERCHAS OR THIS OTHER LADY.
MS. CLARK: MISS GERCHAS. AND WHEN WE CALL MISS GERCHAS WE WILL ASK ABOUT IT AND I HAVE — I HAVE BEEN VERY CAREFUL TO DISCUSS ONLY WHAT I BELIEVE THAT IS — WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE, EITHER THROUGH CROSS-EXAMINATION OR DIRECT OF THAT WITNESS.
THE COURT: WELL, WE CAN TAKE ALL OF THIS UP.
MR. SHAPIRO: I WILL TELL YOU AT THIS POINT IN TIME, I AM ABSOLUTELY AS CERTAIN AS I CAN BE THAT I HAVE NEVER SEEN THIS WOMAN IN MY LIFE.
MS. CLARK: GOES TO HER CREDIBILITY, COUNSEL. THAT IS WHAT I MEAN.
MR. COCHRAN: HOWARD WEITZMAN. SHE KNOWS WHAT HOWARD WEITZMAN IS GOING TO SAY ABOUT THIS. THE LAWYER IS GOING TO SAY HE GOES OFF TO LUNCH AND LEAVES HIS CLIENT?
MS. CLARK: GUESS WHAT? GUESS WHAT?
MR. COCHRAN: I DON’T BELIEVE IT.
MS. CLARK: BE REAL CAREFUL WHEN YOU SAY THAT.
MR. COCHRAN: I DON’T BELIEVE IT, UNLESS YOU GOT A TAPE.
THE COURT: WE WILL TAKE IT UP UNDER THE FOOTNOTE 11 ISSUES.
MR. BAILEY: HAVE YOU EXEMPTED ANY WITNESSES FROM THE RULE?
THE COURT: EXCLUSION RULE.
MR. COCHRAN: YEAH, THE FAMILY.
MR. BAILEY: NO, NO, PROFESSIONAL WITNESSES, POLICE.
THE COURT: OTHER THAN — WELL, THERE IS A STANDARD EXCEPTION FOR THE INVESTIGATING OFFICERS.
MR. BAILEY: I AM WONDERING IF OUR INVESTIGATOR CAN COME AND GO WITHOUT BEING EXCLUDED.
MR. COCHRAN: I THINK OUR —
MR. BAILEY: EITHER THAT, OR IF THEY INTEND TO STAY DURING TESTIMONY, I THINK WE OUGHT TO HAVE A RECIPROCAL RULING.
MR. COCHRAN: I WILL MAKE A MOTION, IF THE COURT PLEASES, PAT MC KENNA AND PAVELIC, IF THAT IS ALL RIGHT WITH THE COURT.
THE COURT: ANY COMMENTS?
MS. CLARK: YES. THERE IS NO RECIPROCAL ON THE PART OF THE DEFENSE TO HAVE AN INVESTIGATING OFFICER PRESENT, AND IF THEY DO, THEN I WILL BE CROSS-EXAMINING ON THAT SHOULD HE BE CALLED AS A WITNESS, TO THE FACT THAT HE WAS PRESENT AND LISTENED TO ALL OF THE TESTIMONY BEFORE HE TOOK THE WITNESS STAND.
MR. BAILEY: THE SAME.
MR. COCHRAN: JUST A MOMENT. THAT IS NOT FAIR. LANGE AND VANNATTER ARE SITTING HERE THE WHOLE TIME. WE TALK ABOUT EVERYTHING BEING RECIPROCAL AND LET’S START TO MAKE IT RECIPROCAL.
MR. DARDEN: CAN I INTERRUPT FOR A MOMENT AND STEP OUTSIDE AND SEE IF THE WITNESS IS OUTSIDE SO THERE WON’T BE AN INTERRUPTION?
THE COURT: PLEASE.
MS. CLARK: THERE IS A STATUTORY EXCEPTION FOR THE INVESTIGATING OFFICERS IN THE CASE TO BE PRESENT. THAT IS DIFFERENT AND THAT IS FINE. THEY WANT TO HAVE HIM PRESENT, I’M JUST GIVING FAIR WARNING.
THE COURT: OKAY.
MS. CLARK: I INTEND TO CROSS-EXAMINE ON IT.
MR. COCHRAN: I DO —
MS. CLARK: I WOULD OBJECT AND I’M LODGING MY OBJECTION FOR THE RECORD.
THE COURT: KEEP YOUR VOICE DOWN.
MR. COCHRAN: WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WHAT’S FAIR AND I THINK IT IS FAIR THAT WE SHOULD HAVE OUR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS.
THE COURT: THOSE TWO INVESTIGATORS?
MS. CLARK: ONE FURTHER CLARIFICATION, YOUR HONOR, ALONG THIS LINE. WE HAVE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE EXPERTS THAT WE WILL BE CALLING TO TESTIFY AND I ASK LEAVE OF THE COURT TO ALLOW THEM TO OBSERVE THE TESTIMONY OF THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE WITNESSES.
THE COURT: YEAH. WE WILL TAKE THIS ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS, BUT I THINK BOTH SIDES CAN MAKE THAT REQUEST.
MS. CLARK: I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THEIRS ALSO.
MR. SHAPIRO: WE WILL BE IN AGREEMENT THAT ALL EXPERT WITNESSES —
MR. COCHRAN: I WILL AGREE WITH THAT, BUT I WOULD LIKE LENORE WALKER TO BE ABLE TO WATCH IT ON TELEVISION WHEREVER SHE IS.
THE COURT: I THOUGHT THAT WE DID THAT.
MS. CLARK: SURE.
MR. COCHRAN: I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE CLEAR, YOUR HONOR. YOU CAN’T BE TOO CAREFUL, JUDGE, ABOUT THESE THINGS.
THE COURT: SURE, WE CAN, AND WE ARE GETTING A FRESH START TODAY.
MR. COCHRAN: WE ARE. SHE AND I AGREED WE ARE NOT ATTACKING EACH OTHER. SHE WON’T BE UP TODAY ANYWAY; IT WILL BE CHRIS.
MS. CLARK: THAT IS WHY YOU SAID THAT.
MR. COCHRAN: I KNOW.
MR. COCHRAN: THANKS, JUDGE. I WILL MAKE MY MOTION NOW FOR THE EXCLUSION OF WITNESSES.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
third Court TV excerpt, 2 hours, and 20 minutes.
The reason I put a link here to this, is because the second one was really short, and consisted primarily of the prosecutions reopen, and the little bit before that. I’ll link youtube links at the end, most likely. The ffirst witness to testify was Sharyn Gilbert, who was a 911 dispatcher at the time. She testified about a 1989 911 call made by Nicole Brown-Simpson, that was an open line call. The dispatcher said she could hear a woman screaming, and being beaten on the call.
There was a side bar during Gilbert’s testimony. MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, JUST A MOMENT BEFORE WE DO THAT. MAY WE APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: CERTAINLY.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)
MR. COCHRAN: MAY I LET YOU SEE MY COPY?
THE COURT: SURE.
MR. COCHRAN: THE OBJECTION HAS TO DO WITH — I NEED A LITTLE FURTHER FOUNDATION BEFORE HE PUTS IT UP THERE AS TO WHAT COMES OUT HERE BECAUSE DARDEN TOLD US IN OPENING STATEMENT THAT THEY WOULD BE TALKING ABOUT SHE WOULD BE SAYING THE FEMALE WAS BEING SLAPPED AND HEAR SLAPPING AND IT SAYS “FEMALE BEING BEATEN,” AND I’M NOT SURE HOW THIS COMES IN. SHE TYPES THAT IN, THAT IS HER INTERPRETATION? WE NEED MORE FOUNDATION AS TO WHAT THIS IS, HOW THIS GETS IN HERE, THAT SORT OF THING, BEFORE HE PUTS IT UP ON THE SCREEN. HE KIND OF SKIPPED A COUPLE OF STEPS IT SEEMED TO ME.
THE COURT: PROBABLY A COUPLE OF FOUNDATIONAL QUESTIONS.
MR. DARDEN: AS TO WHAT?
THE COURT: WHAT THE FORM IS, HOW IT IS FILLED OUT. ONCE WE ESTABLISH THAT, PROBABLY TWO QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT. SUSTAINED.
MR. COCHRAN: I WILL OBJECT. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
Next to testify is John Edwards, a police officer who responded to Nicole’s 1989 911 call. At the time, he was a training officer, so he was accompanied by a recruit. Edwards stated he saw Nicole Brown-Simpson running out of the bushes to the left of him, across the driveway. He said she was wearing a bra, and dark lightweight pajama bottoms. Edwards stated She collapsed on the speaker post of the gate, then pressed the button for the gate to open. Then, he said Nicole Brown-Simpson said “he’s going to kill me, he’s going to kill me!!” Edwards asked who was going to kill her, Nicole said OJ. He asked if she meant the football player, and she said yes. Edwards said he was surprised on the stand, that was objected to.
I think the first part of Edward’s testimony is important, but his testimony is fairly long, so I’m not going to summarize the entire thing. It is on video, but I thought it would be interesting to give a bit of a summary. This gave way to a couple interesting side bars.
In order to summarize the side bar a bit, I just need to put in a bit of what we were talking about before this.
Q: AND WHAT WAS THE NEXT THING TO OCCUR? WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
A: THEN I TURNED AROUND TO SEE HOW THE REPORT WAS GOING WITH MY PARTNER AND NICOLE SIMPSON AND I REQUESTED MY SUPERVISOR TO RESPOND TO THE SCENE, AND THEN SUDDENLY I HEARD THE GATE OPEN AND I SAW SOMEBODY COME THROUGH THE GATE. IT WAS A FEMALE.
Q: COULD YOU DESCRIBE THIS WOMAN, PLEASE?
A: IT WAS EITHER A HISPANIC OR A FILIPINO LADY. I CAN’T REMEMBER, BUT SHE WENT DIRECTLY TO THE RIGHT REAR DOOR OF THE POLICE CAR.
Q: AND WHAT DID SHE DO WHEN SHE ARRIVED AT THE RIGHT REAR DOOR OF THE POLICE CAR?
A: SHE OPENED THE RIGHT REAR DOOR AND REACHED IN AND GRABBED NICOLE SIMPSON BY THE RIGHT ARM AND STARTED PULLING ON HER AND SAYING SOMETHING.
Q: WHAT DID SHE SAY?
A: I BELIEVE IT WAS —
MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. HEARSAY WHAT SHE SAID.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, CAN WE APPROACH?
THE COURT: SURE.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)
THE COURT: THIS IS ACTUALLY PRETTY GOOD. WE’VE ONLY HAD THREE SIDEBARS SO FAR.
MR. COCHRAN: WE’RE REALLY TRYING. WE’D LIKE TO TRY THIS CASE. IF I’M DOING PRETTY GOOD, MAYBE ON MONDAY, YOU’RE GOING TO LET US RETURN HAVING A LIFE.
THE COURT: MAYBE. OBJECTION IS HEARSAY. WE ARE AT SIDEBAR. MR. DARDEN.
MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, WE EXPECT, IF THE WITNESS IS ALLOWED TO ANSWER, WOULD TESTIFY THAT THE WOMAN SAID, “NICOLE, DON’T DO THIS. COME INSIDE NOW,” AS SHE PULLED HER OUT OF THE VEHICLE. THIS IS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE. THESE ARE WORDS OF COMMAND. IT IS NOT NECESSARILY OFFERED FOR A HEARSAY PURPOSE, BUT TO EXPLAIN THE OFFICER’S CONDUCT AND HIS SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT TO FOLLOW.
MS. CLARK: IT’S NOT FOR THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER ASSERTED.
MR. DARDEN: IT DOESN’T GO TO THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER ASSERTED.
MR. COCHRAN: IT’S HEARSAY. HE’S NOT GIVING YOU AN EXCEPTION. AND AGAIN, IT’S IRRELEVANT AND IMMATERIAL, NOT OFFERED FOR THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER ASSERTED. THEY CAN TESTIFY THAT MICHELLE WAS THERE OR WHATEVER, BUT THEY CAN’T GO INTO THAT STATEMENT. HOW CAN I CROSS-EXAMINE THAT?
THE COURT: AT THIS POINT, IT’S HEARSAY.
MR. DARDEN: IT’S NOT BEING OFFERED FOR THE TRUTH.
THE COURT: IS THIS MICHELLE ABUDRAHM?
MR. COCHRAN: YES.
MR. DARDEN: IT’S NOT BEING OFFERED FOR THE TRUTH.
THE COURT: THEN IT’S IRRELEVANT AND IMMATERIAL. OBJECTION SUSTAINED.
We had a side bar that wasn’t reported, but right after that we had one that was! (A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)
Here comes the one that was, like a minute later!
Q: ARE THESE THE PHOTOGRAPHS YOU TOOK ON THE MORNING OF JANUARY 1, 1989?
A: YES, THEY ARE.
Q: AND DO THEY FULLY AND FAIRLY AND COMPLETELY REPRESENT THE INJURIES YOU SAW THAT NIGHT?
A: NOT EVEN CLOSE.
MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THAT, YOUR HONOR. OBJECTION. MAY WE APPROACH? I OBJECT TO THAT, ON THE RECORD TOO, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. COCHRAN: MAY WE HAVE THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS?
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)
THE COURT: WHAT’S THE OBJECTION?
MR. COCHRAN: THE OBJECTION IS, HOW COULD HE SAY THAT? THESE PICTURES SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. THAT’S CONCLUSIONARY ON HIS PART. THESE PICTURES REFLECT WHAT HE TOOK.
THE COURT: RIGHT. WELL —
MR. COCHRAN: I OBJECT TO HIS ANSWER AND MOVE TO STRIKE HIS ANSWER. THIS DOESN’T FAIRLY REFLECT THAT HE TOOK THIS PICTURE? THIS WAS THE SAME PICTURE.
THE COURT: WELL, I THINK, MR. COCHRAN, THE BASIS OF YOUR OBJECTION IS YOU DISAGREE WITH THE ANSWER. YOU WILL BE ABLE TO TALK TO HIM ABOUT THAT ON CROSS-EXAMINATION. OBJECTION OVERRULED.
MR. COCHRAN: IT ISN’T ACTUALLY MY OBJECTION THAT I DISAGREE WITH THE ANSWER. THANKS, JUDGE.
Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ARE YOU AWARE THAT IN THIS CONNECTION, WITH REGARD TO THIS CASE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, THAT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON WANTED TO DROP THE CHARGES AGAINST HER HUSBAND?
MR. DARDEN: SAME OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.
Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT?
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THAT.
THE COURT: PLEASE, WITH THE COURT REPORTER.
MR. COCHRAN: CERTAINLY.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)
THE COURT: HOW DO WE GET THIS IN, MR. COCHRAN, WITH THIS WITNESS?
MR. COCHRAN: WELL —
THE COURT: NO. I MEAN WITHOUT CALLING THE CITY ATTORNEY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
MR. DARDEN: I’LL CALL THE CITY ATTORNEY.
THE COURT: HOW DO YOU GET THIS IN WITH THIS GUY?
MR. COCHRAN: THIS GUY IS — HERE’S WHY I THINK IT’S RELEVANT. THIS GUY GIVES US A LITANY OF STUFF, JUDGE, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN, HE KNOWS AND REMEMBERS WORDS SAID AND HE TELLS US HOW NICOLE WANTS TO COME TO THE STATION AND EVERYTHING. I’M JUST ASKING IS HE AWARE — AND I CAN REPHRASE IT — THAT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AFTER THIS SAID SHE WANTED TO DROP ALL THESE CHARGES. I’M JUST ASKING THE QUESTION. THAT’S WHAT SHE DID IN FACT, DROP THE CHARGES. SHE WISHED NOT TO PROSECUTE MR. SIMPSON. THE CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE APPARENTLY WENT AHEAD AND HOWARD WEITZMAN WORKED OUT A NO CONTEST PLEA. I THINK IT WOULD BE UNFAIR TO BE CUT OFF AFTER THEY’VE MADE ALL THIS HYPE OF THE TAPE. THAT’S WHAT I’M ASKING.
MR. DARDEN: IT’S HEARSAY.
MR. COCHRAN: IT’S NOT HEARSAY.
MR. DARDEN: IT’S PURE UNADULTERATED HEARSAY. HE HEARD ABOUT IT LAST YEAR, OKAY. HOW CAN HE COME HERE AND — I’LL CALL THE CITY ATTORNEY IF YOU WANT. YOU CAN TALK TO THE CITY ATTORNEY. I’LL INTRODUCE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DOCKET OF HIS PLEA IF YOU —
MR. COCHRAN: I’M NOT GOING TO ASK HIM TO DO THAT. ALL I AM ASKING IS TO CROSS-EXAMINE THIS MAN.
THE COURT: WELL, YOU CAN CROSS-EXAMINE HIM, YES. BUT WHAT HIS AWARENESS IS OF WHAT THE VICTIM LATER DID IS IRRELEVANT TO HIS TESTIMONY HERE.
MR. COCHRAN: WELL, I THINK IT’S VERY RELEVANT, YOUR HONOR. IF SHE SAID SHE WANTED TO DROP THE CHARGES AND IF HE IS AWARE OF THAT, THAT’S VERY RELEVANT. AND HE’S BEEN ALLOWED TO TALK ABOUT ALL THESE THINGS AND NOW I CAN’T BRING OUT —
THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, YOU CAN BRING IN THE CITY ATTORNEY OR OFFER IT. YOU CAN ASK FOUNDATIONAL QUESTIONS, WAS HE INVOLVED IN DISCUSSIONS REGARDING SETTLING THE CASE AND THAT SORT OF THING. YOU CAN ASK HIM THOSE FOUNDATIONAL QUESTIONS. IF THE ANSWER IS YES, HE’S AWARE OF THAT, THEN YOU CAN ASK. IF HE’S NOT AWARE OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS —
MR. COCHRAN: THEN I’LL PROCEED ON. THE OTHER THING I WANT TO DO WITH REGARD TO THIS WITNESS BECAUSE I THINK THERE’S BEEN A LOT OF TALK ABOUT THESE PICTURES, I WANT THE JURORS TO BE ABLE TO SEE THE PICTURES. IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO HAVING THE JURORS BE ABLE TO SEE THEM?
THE COURT: NO. WE’LL HAND THEM OUT IF YOU WANT TO.
MR. COCHRAN: I’LL ASK TO DO THAT.
THE COURT: WE’LL TAKE 10 MINUTES TO PASS THEM AROUND.
MR. DARDEN: BEFORE WE DO THAT, COULD YOU ADMONISH COUNSEL TO STOP TESTIFYING, YOU KNOW, LET THE WITNESS TESTIFY?
THE COURT: NO. I CUT HIM OFF. WE ARE HERE AT THE SIDEBAR. I HAVE TOLD HIM UNLESS HE LAYS SOME FOUNDATION, HE DOESN’T GET TO GO INTO IT.
MR. DARDEN: I DON’T WANT TO JACK HIM UP HERE RIGHT IN FRONT OF HIS WIFE, WHOM I ALSO LOVE.
MR. COCHRAN: WHEN HE WAS TALKING ABOUT TESTIFYING, I THOUGHT HE WAS TESTIFYING ABOUT HIMSELF.
THE COURT: COME ON GUYS.
Now, for some gap minding. After the lunch break, this happened, and I failed to put it in anywhere. MISS CLARK, MR. DARDEN, MR. GORDON. AND MR. COCHRAN, YOU SEEM TO BE STANDING AT THE PODIUM POISED TO SAY SOMETHING.
MR. COCHRAN: YES, YOUR HONOR. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE COURT TO GIVE THE JURY A LIMITING INSTRUCTION.
THE COURT: I HAD NEGLECTED TO REMIND THEM OF THAT. Defense was asking the court to give the jury a limiting instruction, meaning that the evidence they’re hearing now is for a limited purpose.
Then we have an interesting side bar after that! Q: DID YOU EVER SEE ANY CHILDREN IN OR ABOUT THAT RESIDENCE THAT NIGHT?
A: NO.
Q: DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO HAVE A FURTHER CONVERSATION WITH MR. SIMPSON THAT YOU HAVEN’T TOLD US ABOUT THUS FAR WHERE HE DESCRIBED TO YOU —
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, THIS CALLS FOR HEARSAY.
MR. COCHRAN: MAY I FINISH THE QUESTION, YOUR HONOR?
MR. DARDEN: THE FORM OF THE QUESTION CALLS FOR HEARSAY.
MR. COCHRAN: MAY I FINISH THE QUESTION, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: OVER HERE AT THE SIDE BAR WITH THE REPORTER, PLEASE.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)
THE COURT: OKAY. WE ARE AT THE SIDE BAR. SOUNDS LIKE A HEARSAY STATEMENT IS ABOUT TO COME IN HERE.
MR. COCHRAN: NO, NO. YOUR HONOR, THE QUESTION AGAIN I’M ASKING HIM, DID YOU EVER HAVE OCCASION TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH MR. O.J. SIMPSON WHERE HE DESCRIBED TO HIM THE EVENTS OF THE EVENING? THAT IS NOT HEARSAY YET. QUICK OBJECTION. I MEAN, I’M NOT ASKING THE HEARSAY YET. THAT IS NOT A HEARSAY QUESTION. THAT IS A YES OR NO.
MR. DARDEN: YOU ARE KIDDING ME.
MR. COCHRAN: ONE AT A TIME.
THE COURT: OKAY. YOU CAN ASK THAT QUESTION. YES OR NO.
MR. DARDEN: WILL HE DESCRIBE TO HIM THE EVENTS? COME BACK HERE.
THE COURT: NO. OVERRULED.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)
THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
MR. COCHRAN: MAY I HAVE THAT REREAD OR SHOULD I JUST RESTATE IT, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: STATE IT AGAIN.
MR. COCHRAN: CERTAINLY.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DETECTIVE EDWARDS, DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO HAVE A FURTHER CONVERSATION WITH MR. SIMPSON THAT YOU HAVEN’T TOLD US ABOUT THUS FAR WHEREIN HE DESCRIBED FOR YOU THE EVENTS OF THAT NIGHT AS REGARDS HE AND HIS WIFE? YOU CAN ANSWER THAT YES OR NO?
A: NO. I put the question in, because it’s about the question that was before, and the question that followed.
Here comes another one! THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET ME SEE COUNSEL AT SIDE BAR.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)
THE COURT: WE GOT A PROBLEM HERE, GUYS, BECAUSE, JOHNNIE, YOU WENT INTO THIS BUSINESS ABOUT TRYING TO ELICIT THE STATEMENT THAT THEY HAD BEEN AT A PARTY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, SO IS THAT WHAT WE ARE GOING FOR?
MR. DARDEN: YEAH. THAT’S RIGHT. LET’S FIND OUT WHY IT HAPPENED.
MR. COCHRAN: THAT IS FINE — NO, THAT IS FINE WITH ME. YOU JUST OPENED IT UP, WALK RIGHT IN THE DOOR.
MR. DARDEN: SURE, SURE.
MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS ON RECROSS.
THE COURT: ALSO, BOTH OF YOU PEOPLE HAVE DONE SPEAKING OBJECTIONS, SO YOU ARE BOTH WARNED AGAIN.
MR. COCHRAN: ADMONISHED. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. YOU ARE ADMONISHED. REMEMBER THAT.
I’m going to finish with Youtube excerpts here.