OJ Simpson opening statements, part two.

Still working on openings. They’re going to take a while to finish unfortunately. This is just the first week of trial, and a whole lot of discovery issues are going on already!
Darden’s statement is only about an hour long. With some pretrial stuff happening on Youtube just before the openings, and not being segmented out, we did not get to the end of it. There’s a second part that contains some of his statement. I’ll link to everything for gap minding purposes.

• First Youtube excerpt, 2 hours and 4 minutes.
• First Court TV excerpt, 2 hours, and 39 minutes.
• Transcript from January 24th, 1995.
• Second Youtube excerpt, 1 hour, and 52 minutes.

There’s clearly a gap in the archive, and on Youtube. The gap happens when Darden is discussing the recital that Simpson attended on June 12th, he starts to talk about that part, and there’s a pause in the archive. It sounds like it’s where commentary once was. On Youtube, there’s a gap during excerpt transition that cuts off that part. I’m going to go ahead and fill it with the transcript. Unfortunately there wasn’t a natural breaking point in the transcript, so it just went until the end of Darden’s statement. It really isn’t that long!
.on June 12, a dance recital was held in brentwood for the defendant’s daughter Sidney. the entire Brown family went to the recital as did some friends, Candice Garvey for instance. the auditorium was crowded. so not everyone could sit, you know, next to a family member. and so their party was, you know — there were people between them. they were separated somewhat and different people had to sit in different rows and not all together. well, the defendant arrived late and he arrived carrying a bouquet of flowers, flowers he had bought for his daughter. well, when he walked into the auditorium, he greeted just about everyone in the party in the Brown family. he said hello to them, he kissed Denise on the cheek, “how are you, how you doing,” whatever, and he pretty much addressed everybody except Nicole. he sat behind the Brown’s for a few moments. and then he got up and he grabbed a chair and he dragged it in the corner of the auditorium and he turned that chair around and he sat in it, and he sat there facing Nicole and he just stared at her. he just sat there staring at her. and you’ll hear testimony about this, and the evidence will show that this was a menacing stare, a penetrating stare, it was an angry stare, and it made everyone very uncomfortable. when the recital was over, there was a little issue whether or not the defendant was allowed to give Sidney some flowers, and he gave her some flowers. but the Brown family had decided to go over to the Mezzaluna restaurant for dinner. and as they left, they made it clear to the defendant that he was not invited, and he wasn’t invited. and by not inviting him, it was a reaffirmation of what he had already been told, and that is that it was over. he was no longer being treated as a part of the family. he was no longer the central centerpiece of every family outing. nicole was getting on with her own life. and as the Brown family left, they looked toward the defendant and they saw him, and he was angry and he was depressed and they were concerned and everyone wondered what is he up to now. miss Clark will tell you exactly what the defendant was up to as the day proceeded on. but there’s some things you should know about this evidence as you hear it. this is not character assassination. this is evidence of a controlling personality, of a controlling relationship, this proof of jealousy. and as miss Clark talks and the evidence develops in this case and as you hear it and see it and process it, you will see that cycle of violence. you will see how things escalated. you’ll see how controlling he is and you’ll see why he would kill on june 12. this is not character assassination. this is not some tabloid prosecution. the evidence you hear in this case will be evidence of this defendant’s life, of his conduct, the things he did. you will hear evidence of his relationship with one of the victims. and as you hear it, you will — as you hear the evidence and as you listen to miss Clark, you’ll see how it is that Ron Goldman happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. as you listen to the evidence, you will see that his decision to kill finally was merely a final link in a progressive chain of abusive and controlling conduct, and it was a chain that consisted of fear and intimidation and battery and emotional and mental abuse and economic abuse and control and stalking. and you’ll see that there was a common scheme and common plan in all of this, and that was to control, to control her. it was all designed just to control her. and in controlling her, it was the private man, private o.j. simpson, it was the defendant who committed that final ultimate act of control. she left him. she was no longer in his control. he was obsessed with her. he could not stand to lose her, and so he murdered her. and as you hear the evidence in this case, it will become clear that in his mind, she belonged to him; and if he couldn’t have her, then nobody could. thank you.
In the second Youtube excerpt, there’s a gap that isn’t there during the archive. It comes around an hour in to that particular thing, and it sounds like we’re just letting tape run. I do think there was a bit of a pause, but this was for a few minutes, like five minutes. This was longer than that.
I just want to catalog the side bars that happened during the prosecution’s opening. There was one about Clark’s inability to say, “the evidence will show,” while she was giving an opening. You are definitely supposed to do this, it was a more strict standard back in the 90s. Today, people get away with not doing it, but when you don’t do that, it seems like your arguing to the jury. Clark said she forgot.
MR. COCHRAN: MAY WE APPROACH JUST A MINUTE?
THE COURT: YES. WITH THE REPORTER, PLEASE.
MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, WHILE COUNSEL IS APPROACHING SIDE BAR, IF WE COULD MAKE TAKE A LITTLE STRETCH BREAK AND JUST STAND UP.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)
THE COURT: WE ARE AT THE SIDE BAR.
MR. COCHRAN: WE KIND OF HAVE LIKE A LITTLE AGREEMENT SO I DIDN’T WANT TO OBJECT, BUT WHEN SHE GOES INTO THINGS ABOUT AMNIOCENTESIS, SHE IS TESTIFYING.
MS. CLARK: THAT IS WHAT THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW.
THE COURT: WELL, YOU ARE SPEAKING OF IT IN TERMS OF YOU ARE TELLING THEM THIS.
MR. COCHRAN: YOU TOLD THEM THAT.
MS. CLARK: YOU NEED TO SAY WITNESSES WILL TELL YOU, THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT.
MR. COCHRAN: YES.
MS. CLARK: OKAY.
THE COURT: BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.
MS. CLARK: I FORGOT.
MR. COCHRAN: YOU PROBABLY FORGOT.
MS. CLARK: I DID.
MR. COCHRAN: JUST REMEMBER THAT.
MS. CLARK: I’M SURE YOU ARE GOING TO DO FAR MORE OBJECTIONABLE THINGS IN YOUR OPENING ARGUMENT.
MR. COCHRAN: THAT IS NOT WHY WE ARE UP HERE.
MR. DARDEN: I DIDN’T AGREE TO ANYTHING.
MR. COCHRAN: I AM UP HERE TO BE A GENTLEMAN AND BRING IT TO YOUR ATTENTION AND SHE TURNS IT AROUND AND SAYS I’M GOING TO DO FAR MORE OBJECTIONABLE —
THE COURT: I MEAN IT ABSOLUTELY HONESTLY AND SINCERELY THAT I EXPECT THIS TO BE A VERY PROFESSIONAL —
MR. COCHRAN: IT WILL BE.
THE COURT: — ENTERPRISE HERE.
MR. COCHRAN: WE WILL.
THE COURT: THANK YOU.
MR. DARDEN: WAS THAT OBJECTION SUSTAINED?
THE COURT: NO, IT IS A CAUTION. BE CAREFUL.
MS. CLARK: YES.
The second one was not reported, whenever that happens, there are times that I tend to think Judge Ito is lecturing the lawyers.
THE COURT: COUNSEL, WILL YOU APPROACH, PLEASE.
MS. CLARK: THANK YOU.
(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)

After the prosecution finished their opening, something happened that was only transcribed. It was not televised. Since there’s no video of it anywhere, this isn’t the first time the coverage was terminated, by the way! I’m going to go ahead and put the section of the transcript in here.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: COUNSEL, BACK ON THE RECORD, PLEASE. LET’S HAVE IT QUIET IN THE COURTROOM, PLEASE. BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. ALL PARTIES ARE AGAIN PRESENT. THE JURY IS NOT PRESENT. COUNSEL, I WANT TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION TWO MATTERS. FIRST OF ALL, NOW THAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE A JURY IMPANELED AND HEARING THE CASE, I URGE COUNSEL NOT TO USE THE REST ROOM FACILITIES IN THE JURY ROOM BECAUSE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF BEING IN THERE AT THE SAME TIME, WHICH IS NOT APPROPRIATE. THE SECOND MATTER IS MUCH MORE SIGNIFICANT. IT WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION OVER THE RECESS THAT A TELEVISION FEED WAS SENT OUT OF THIS COURTROOM WHICH INCLUDED A VIEW OF OUR ALTERNATE JURORS, WHICH IS A DIRECT VIOLATION OF RULE 980. AND I HAVE NOW CUT THE VIDEO FEED GOING OUT OF THE COURTROOM. THAT IS A DIRECT VIOLATION OF 980 AND I’M GOING TO TERMINATE THE TELEVISION COVERAGE AS A RESULT OF THAT.
MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, MAY I BE HEARD?
THE COURT: YES. MR. SHAPIRO.
MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, WE —
THE COURT: I MIGHT ADD, THE VIDEO SIGNAL WENT OUT, THE PERSON OPERATING THE DELAY DEVICE DID NOT CUT THE VIDEO FEED AFTER THAT WENT OUT AND IT WAS BROADCAST TO THE PUBLIC. SO BOTH THE CAMERA OPERATOR MADE AN ERROR AND THE PERSON ON THE DELAY BOX MADE AN ERROR, AND I INDICATED TO ALL PARTIES THAT IF THIS WOULD OCCUR, THEN I WOULD TERMINATE THE TELEVISION COVERAGE.
MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, WE SHARE THE COURT’S CONCERN AND ESPECIALLY VIOLATING SOMETHING AS BASIC AS SHOWING THE JURORS, WHICH THE COURT HAS OVEREMPHASIZED TIME AND TIME AGAIN.
THE COURT: I MIGHT ADD THAT I VIEWED THE VIDEOTAPE OF IT. SO —
MR. SHAPIRO: AND WE ARE EQUALLY CONCERNED AND DO NOT WISH TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE ANY FURTHER. HOWEVER, WE ARE REPRESENTING A MAN WHOSE LIFE IS AT STAKE IN THIS TRIAL AND WE BELIEVE THAT THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT HE IS WRONGLY CHARGED. AND, THEREFORE, HIS LIFE AFTER THIS TRIAL IN THE WORLD OF PUBLIC OPINION IS ALSO AT STAKE. AND IN FAIRNESS TO MR. SIMPSON, TO HIS MOTHER, HIS SISTERS, HIS CHILDREN, WHO ARE HERE, HIS FRIENDS AND SUPPORTERS WORLDWIDE, I THINK IT WOULD BE TREMENDOUSLY UNFAIR TO HAVE THE WORLD SEE THE OPENING STATEMENTS OF THE PROSECUTION AND NOT SEE THE OPENING STATEMENTS ON BEHALF OF MR. SIMPSON. SO WE WILL NOT OBJECT TO THE COURT TERMINATING THE TELEVISION COVERAGE AS THE COURT HAS INDICATED, BUT WE WOULD SINCERELY ASK YOUR HONOR TO RECONSIDER BECAUSE OF THE EFFECT THIS WILL HAVE ON MR. SIMPSON, ON THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE AND ON HIS LIFE AFTER THIS CASE AND IF IN FACT HE IS RENDERED INNOCENT OF THESE CHARGES. AND ON BEHALF OF MR. SIMPSON AND HIS FAMILY, WE ASK YOUR HONOR, PLEASE, TO AIR OUR OPENING STATEMENT ALSO. AFTER THAT, WE WILL SHARE THE COURT’S VIEW OF THE ISSUE.
THE COURT: PEOPLE, ANY COMMENT?
MS. CLARK: WELL, YOUR HONOR, THE IMPORTANT PEOPLE TO HEAR FROM BOTH SIDES IS THE JURY. THEY’RE THE ONES THAT MATTER HERE. THE DEFENDANT WILL HAVE HIS OPENING STATEMENT HEARD BY THE PEOPLE WHO WILL VOTE ON THE ISSUE OF GUILT OR INNOCENCE, AND THAT IS WHAT COUNTS. THE RADIO IS ALLOWED TO I UNDERSTAND BROADCAST IT; IS THAT CORRECT? THE AUDIO FEED IS NOT TURNED ON; IS THAT — THAT’S A QUESTION. I DON’T KNOW THE ANSWER TO — I’M ASKING. WE HAVE PRINT MEDIA HERE. WE HAVE REPORTERS HERE, ALL OF WHOM WILL BE ABLE TO PRINT IN A WORD-BY-WORD BASIS EVERYTHING THAT IS SAID BY COUNSEL. BUT WE ARE NOT PLAYING TO THE WORLD HERE, YOUR HONOR. WE’RE PLAYING TO THE JURY. THE JURY IS THE ONE THAT HAS TO HEAR EVERYTHING, AND THEY WILL WHETHER THE COURT CUTS THE FEED OR NOT. BUT WE DO — THE PRESS IS PRESENT IN FULL FORCE AND THEY WILL BE HERE TO REPORT EVERYTHING THAT’S SAID.
THE COURT: WELL, OBVIOUSLY THIS IS AN UNUSUAL SITUATION. I’M NOT AWARE OF ANY OTHER COURT THAT’S BEEN PLACED IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE WITH THIS PARTICULAR TYPE OF DILEMMA. I CAN’T BEGIN TO TELL YOU MY CONCERN AND MY DISAPPOINTMENT WITH THE ELECTRONIC NEWS MEDIA FOR THEIR INABILITY TO FOLLOW A VERY FUNDAMENTAL AND BASIC RULE. AND BEFORE MR. SHAPIRO RAISED THE CONCERN THAT MR. SIMPSON HAS, THERE’S A FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION OF FAIRNESS TOO AS FAR AS HIS REPUTATION IS CONCERNED. I’M VERY COGNIZANT OF HIS INTEREST IN PRESERVING AS MUCH AS HE CAN OF HIS REPUTATION UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. THIS IS A VERY UNUSUAL SITUATION I FIND MYSELF IN. ON THE ONE HAND, I’VE MADE IT VERY CLEAR TO THE NEWS MEDIA THAT IF THERE’S A VIOLATION OF RULE 980, THAT THEY WOULD LOSE THEIR PRIVILEGE IN THIS COURTROOM. THEY HAVE DEMONSTRATED AN INABILITY TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER. SO MY INCLINATION IS TO TERMINATE ALL TELEVISION COVERAGE AT THIS POINT.
MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, MAY I BE HEARD BRIEFLY AGAIN?
THE COURT: NO. I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE ISSUES ARE. I DON’T THINK EMBELLISHING ON ANY OF THIS IS GOING TO HELP ME ON THIS DECISION. ON THE ONE HAND, I HAVE MY CREDIBILITY AS A JUDGE AT STAKE. BUT I TOLD THEM THIS WAS GOING TO HAPPEN IF THEY VIOLATED MY ORDER. I ALSO HAVE TO BALANCE FAIRNESS TO YOUR CLIENT CERTAINLY IN MAKING A DECISION. OUR FRIENDS IN THE NEWS MEDIA, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. LET’S TAKE A RECESS. IN FACT, I’M GOING TO TAKE A RECESS FOR THE REST OF THE DAY. THIS IS UNBELIEVABLE. WE’LL STAND IN RECESS. I WANT KELLI SAGER HERE AT 8:30.
MR. DARDEN: WHAT ABOUT THE JURY?
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE COURT: I NEED TO ADMONISH THE JURY BEFORE I LET THEM LOOSE.
THE BAILIFF: DO YOU WANT THE JURY OUT NOW?
THE COURT: YES, PLEASE.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: COUNSEL, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, BE SEATED, PLEASE. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON AGAIN, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. THERE’S A RULE OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR CALLED MURPHY’S LAW THAT BASICALLY SAYS IF SOMETHING CAN GO WRONG, IT WILL GO WRONG, AND THE COROLLARY TO THAT RULE IS THAT IF IT’S GOING TO GO WRONG, IT WILL GO WRONG AT THE MOST OPPORTUNE MOMENT. SOMETHING HAS COME UP THAT INVOLVES DIRECTLY YOUR WELFARE, A PROBLEM THAT I’M GOING TO NEED TO DEAL WITH. AND I NEED SOME TIME TO THINK ABOUT IT, DECIDE WHAT I’M GOING TO DO. AND IT’S A RATHER UNUSUAL PROBLEM AND IT HAS — I WANT YOU TO KNOW IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING THAT THE PARTIES DID. IT’S SOMETHING EXTRANEOUS, SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED OUTSIDE THE COURTROOM THAT I NEED TO DEAL WITH. YOU ARE NOT TO SPECULATE AS TO WHAT THAT MIGHT BE. AND LET ME BE FRANK WITH YOU. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU DIRECTLY. BUT IT HAS CAUSED ME GREAT CONCERN, AND I’M GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE THE REST OF THE COURT DAY TO DEAL WITH THIS SITUATION. SO WE’RE GOING TO STAND IN RECESS AT THIS POINT AS FAR AS YOU ARE CONCERNED. WE WILL RESUME WITH YOU, THE JURY, WITH THE DEFENDANT’S OPENING STATEMENTS TOMORROW MORNING AT 10:00 O’CLOCK.
MR. COCHRAN: MAY WE APPROACH JUST ONE SECOND?
THE COURT: SURE.
(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, JUST SO YOU UNDERSTAND, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR PERSONAL WELFARE OR SAFETY. IT’S AN ISSUE THAT IS A JURY ISSUE, BUT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR WELFARE OR SAFETY. ALSO, THIS IS A VERY UNUSUAL POINT IN THE PROCEEDINGS, TO HAVE TO TAKE AN EXTENDED RECESS, BECAUSE NOW YOU HAVE HEARD THE OPENING STATEMENT MADE BY THE PROSECUTION. I WANT YOU TO BE VERY CAREFUL, VERY DILIGENT, THAT YOU KEEP AN OPEN MIND IN THIS CASE BECAUSE YOU STILL HAVE TO HEAR THE OPENING STATEMENT TO BE MADE ON BEHALF OF MR. SIMPSON AS WELL. SO LISTEN VERY CAREFULLY. YOU ARE NOT TO FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THIS CASE. YOU ARE NOT TO FORM ANY JUDGMENTS. YOU ARE NOT TO EXPRESS ANY OPINIONS. YOU ARE NOT TO TALK TO ANYBODY ELSE ABOUT THIS CASE NOR ALLOW YOURSELF TO BE ADDRESSED ABOUT THIS CASE. ALL RIGHT. IT’S VERY IMPORTANT THAT YOU THINK ABOUT THAT VERY CAREFULLY TODAY BECAUSE IN FAIRNESS, BOTH SIDES OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE ACCESS TO YOU TO MAKE THEIR STATEMENTS TO YOU AT THE SAME TIME. SO KEEP AN OPEN MIND. THEN WE’LL HEAR THE OPENING STATEMENT BY MR. SIMPSON’S COUNSEL TOMORROW MORNING. I APOLOGIZE TO YOU SINCERELY FOR THIS DELAY. BELIEVE ME, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PARTIES HERE. IT’S NOT THEIR FAULT. IT’S SOMETHING THAT CAME UP THAT’S HIGHLY UNUSUAL THAT I NEED TO DEAL WITH. ALL RIGHT. WE’LL STAND IN RECESS UNTIL TOMORROW MORNING AS FAR AS THE JURY IS CONCERNED 10:00 O’CLOCK. I WANT COUNSEL HERE AT 9:00 O’CLOCK. THAT’S THE ORDER.
MR. DARDEN: CAN WE APPROACH AT SIDEBAR WITHOUT THE REPORTER?
(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)
(AT 3:00 P.M., AN ADJOURNMENT WAS TAKEN UNTIL WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 25, 1995, 9:00 A.M.)
The third Court TV excerpt is an hour and 41 minutes long, and it consists of at least the first part of Cochran’s opening statement. I know he was long! In order to try to get all the openings done at once, I’m going to consolodate them into one really long post!

• Transcript for January 25th, 1995.
• Third Court TV excerpt, 1 hour, and 41 minutes.
• Third Youtube excerpt, 1 hour, and 32 minutes.

Kelly Sager had the honor or duty of fixing this for the media. She was their attorney during the trial, and I honestly think that she did a really good job, because each time something happened, and it happened several times, she was the one that had to argue on the side of the press, and the ability for the public to watch! She was successfull each time. She also had some help from Court TV this time, and without their attorney, they would’ve faced termination!
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, WE HAVE THREE MATTERS TO TAKE UP BEFORE WE BEGIN THE DEFENSE OPENING STATEMENT. FIRST, IF I CAN HAVE ONE REPRESENTATIVE FROM EACH SIDE APPROACH THE BENCH, I HAVE A NEW REPORT FROM ROD ENGLERT REGARDING APPARENTLY THE SOCKS. ALL RIGHT. THE SECOND MATTER IS TO HEAR FROM COURT T.V., AN EXPLANATION AS TO THE PROBLEM REGARDING THE VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT RULE 980. AFTER I HEAR THAT EXPLANATION AND MAKE A RULING WHETHER OR NOT THE TELEVISION CAMERA WILL STAY OR GO, I WILL THEN CONDUCT A HEARING WITH JUROR NO. 1492, THE AFFECTED JUROR, TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT KNOWING THAT HER IMAGE HAS BEEN BROADCAST, THAT HER ANONYMITY HAS BEEN COMPROMISED, WHETHER OR NOT IT WILL CAUSE ANY IMPACT UPON HER ABILITY TO SIT AS A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TRIAL JUROR AND WHETHER OR NOT HER FRAME OF MIND WILL BE AFFECTED. MISS SAGER, FIRST OF ALL, LET ME APOLOGIZE TO YOU FOR THE PERSONAL INCONVENIENCE TO YOU. I UNDERSTAND YOU WERE ON VACATION IN COLORADO.
MS. SAGER: I WAS, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: BUT THIS IS CERTAINLY NOT MY DOING.
MS. SAGER: I UNDERSTAND THAT, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR A SPECIFIC EXPLANATION FROM COURT T.V. AND WHOEVER WHO IS IN COURT AS TO HOW THIS HAPPENED.
MS. SAGER: CERTAINLY, YOUR HONOR. WITH THE COURT’S PERMISSION I WOULD LIKE TO DEFER FOR A MOMENT TO RON OLSON WHO WANTS TO MAKE A STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF COURT T.V. AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COURT AND ANSWER ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS THAT YOUR HONOR HAS.
THE COURT: GOOD MORNING, MR. OLSEN.
MR. OLSEN: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. MAY IT PLEASE BE COURT, ON BEHALF OF COURT T.V., AT THE VERY OUTSET, I WANT TO APOLOGIZE TO THIS COURT FOR THE MISTAKE THAT WAS MADE. IT WAS ALSO NECESSARY FOR US TO APOLOGIZE TO THE DEFENDANT, THE DEFENSE TEAM, THE PROSECUTION, THE REST OF THE MEDIA THAT IS DEPENDENT UPON COURT T.V., AND INDEED THE VIEWING PUBLIC ITSELF, FOR CAUSING THIS HEARING AND INTERRUPTING THIS PROCEEDING. IT WAS AN ERROR, A REGRETTABLE ERROR, A HIGHLY REGRETTABLE ERROR THAT WE BELIEVE WILL NOT HAPPEN AGAIN. IT HAPPENED, YOUR HONOR, AS A RESULT OF A SCAN OF THE CAMERA REACHING SUFFICIENTLY FAR AROUND TO CATCH THE ALTERNATE JUROR MOMENTARILY. THAT WAS AN ERROR WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN CAUGHT AND WASN’T. AGAINST OVER 30,000 HOURS OF COURT T.V. TIME WITHOUT A GLITCH, YOUR HONOR, THIS MOMENTARY BLOTCH IS A VERY BIG STAIN AND ONE THAT THE PRESIDENT OF COURT T.V. IS DEDICATED TO REMEDY AND DEDICATED TO PREVENTING FROM A REPEAT. THE RESPONSES THAT WERE MADE WHEN THIS WAS NOTICED, YOUR HONOR, WERE IMMEDIATE AND WERE TAKEN INSTINCTIVELY AND WITHOUT HESITATION. IMMEDIATELY THIS COURT WAS PUT ON NOTICE AND PROVIDED WITH A DUB OF THE MOMENT THAT CAPTURED THE ALTERNATE JUROR. IMMEDIATELY THE REST OF THE MEDIA WAS PUT ON NOTICE AND REQUESTED NOT TO REBROADCAST ANY PORTION OF THAT. NOW, THOSE RESPONSES DO NOT IN ANY WAY ERASE THAT ERROR, YOUR HONOR, BUT I HOPE THEY WILL REASSURE THE COURT OF THE INADVERTENCE OF THE ERROR AND OF THE INTEGRITY OF THE COURT T.V. PERSONNEL WHO ARE INVOLVED. THE STEPS THAT HAVE BEEN TAKEN, YOUR HONOR, AS A RESULT OF A REEXAMINATION OF A SYSTEM UNDER THE DIRECTION THAT MR. BRILL HIMSELF AND CYNTHIA GLOZIER AND THE TECHNICAL CONSULTANT, SCOTT SHULMAN — MISS GLOZIER AND SCOTT SHULMAN ARE AVAILABLE TO THE COURT THIS MORNING IF THE COURT WISHES TO PURSUE IT DIRECTLY WITH THEM — BUT AS A RESULT OF THEIR REEXAMINATION OF ALL OF THE STEPS THAT COULD BE TAKEN TO REASSURE THE COURT AND RAISE THE CONFIDENCE LEVEL OF EVERYBODY INVOLVED THAT THIS CANNOT BE REPEATED, THREE — FOUR VERY FUNDAMENTAL STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN OR WILL BE TAKEN. FIRST, WITH THE COURT’S PERMISSION AND DIRECTION, A CURTAIN WILL BE PLACED UNDER THE CAMERA. THAT CURTAIN WILL PREVENT ANY SHOWING OF ANYBODY BELOW THE CURTAIN, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE SWING OF THE CAMERA. IT WILL PREVENT ANY HUMAN ERROR. THIS WAS HUMAN ERROR. SECONDLY, YOUR HONOR — AND I HAVE A DRAWING OF HOW THAT WOULD LOOK IF THE COURT WOULD LIKE. SECONDLY, YOUR HONOR, A DIRECT DEDICATED LINE HAS NOW BEEN PUT IN PLACE, IT IS RIGHT NOW IN PLACE, BETWEEN THE PHOTOGRAPHER RUNNING THE CAMERA AND THE KILL ROOM THAT WILL KILL, UPON REVIEW, ANY MISTAKE IN THE FUTURE. THAT WILL BE A DIRECT COMMUNICATION LIKE DEDICATED ONLY TO THAT LINK, THAT COMMUNICATION LINK. THIRD, YOUR HONOR, THERE IS WITHIN THE KILL ROOM ITSELF, A NEW OPERATOR AND AN ADDITIONAL OPERATOR. THE NEW OPERATOR, YOUR HONOR, IS THE MOST EXPERIENCED OPERATOR THAT EXISTS. THE PERSON, FOR INSTANCE, WHO DID THE RODNEY KING TRIAL. THE PERSON IS A NEW YORK LAWYER AND A REPORTER AND WILL BE DEDICATED ONLY TO REVIEWING THE DELAY.
THE COURT: THAT IS QUITE A COMBINATION.
MR. OLSEN: SCARES ME, TOO. IT IS DESIGNED TO SCARE EVERYBODY ELSE. IN ADDITION, YOUR HONOR, A SECOND PERSON HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE KILL ROOM THAT IS A CALIFORNIA LAWYER. BOTH HAVE NO TASK OTHER THAN TO REVIEW THIS. FOURTH, YOUR HONOR, THE CAMERA OPERATOR, AS I THINK THE COURT WAS AWARE, WAS NOT THE NO. 1 CAMERA OPERATOR YESTERDAY. HE HAD A MEDICAL PROBLEM, CHRIS BANCROFT. THAT IS BEYOND HIM NOW, WE ARE THANKFUL, AND HE IS BACK WITH THE CAMERA IF THE COURT PERMITS THE CAMERA TO GO FORWARD IN THIS PROCEEDING. I DON’T THINK THERE IS A CHANCE THAT THIS KIND OF ERROR CAN BE REPEATED. I WOULD HOPE THAT THE COURT WILL APPRECIATE THAT WHEN IT WAS — WHEN IT DID OCCUR, THERE WASN’T ANY CONSULTING OF ME OR ANY OF THE OTHER LAWYERS INVOLVED. INSTINCTIVELY THE COURT T.V. PERSONNEL PUT THIS COURT ON NOTICE AND DID THE BEST TO LIMIT THE MISTAKE THAT WAS MADE. I KNOW THIS COURT HAS TAKEN EXTRAORDINARY MEASURES TO ASSURE A FAIR TRIAL FOR THE DEFENDANT, TO ALLOW ALL PARTICIPANTS FAIR PARTICIPATION AND MEANINGFUL ACCESS TO THE PUBLIC IN ACCORD WITH THE CALIFORNIA POLICY FAVORING THE CAMERA IN THE COURTROOM. WE ALSO KNOW THAT THAT POLICY WAS PUT IN JEOPARDY BY THIS ERROR. WE WOULD ASK THE COURT FOR A SECOND CHANCE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT COURT T.V. IS AS DEDICATED TO CARRYING OUT ITS RESPONSIBILITY AS I KNOW YOUR HONOR AND THE LAWYERS IN THIS COURTROOM ARE IN CARRYING OUT THEIR RESPONSIBILITY. AS YOUR HONOR SAID ON MONDAY, THE DEFENDANT IS ON TRIAL, NO DOUBT, FOREMOST IMPORTANCE, BUT ALSO THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IS ON TRIAL. WE BELIEVE THAT WITH A SECOND CHANCE THAT JUSTICE SYSTEM GETS A SECOND CHANCE. THE PUBLIC HAS SEEN IN THIS CASE EVERYTHING BUT THE EVIDENCE, EVERYTHING BUT YOUR HONOR’S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RULES AND PROCEDURES THAT ASSURE A FAIR TRIAL. WE URGE THE COURT TO FORGIVE THE MISTAKE, ALLOW THE CAMERA TO CONTINUE TO REPORT THESE PROCEEDINGS. I AGAIN OFFER THE COURT ACCESS TO THE TECHNICAL PERSONNEL IF THERE IS ANY QUESTION THAT IS BEYOND MY COMPETENCE.
THE COURT: WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW SPECIFICALLY WHAT THE PRODUCER PLANS TO DO AS FAR AS RETRAINING, REINSTRUCTING THE PERSONNEL WHO ARE INVOLVED IN THIS, THE SPECIFICS.
MR. OLSEN: YES. I THINK MISS SAGER HAS TAKEN AN INTEREST IN THIS, NOT ONLY BECAUSE OF HER ASSOCIATION WITH COURT T.V., BUT WITH THE ENTIRE POOL. THERE HAS BEEN, AS I SAID, STEPS TAKEN TO ADD A SECOND PERSON IN THE KILL ROOM. THERE HAS BEEN TAKEN STEPS FOR DIRECT COMMUNICATION AND THERE WILL BE THE PHYSICAL INTERRUPTION CURTAIN IF THAT IS PERMITTED BY THE COURT. IN ADDITION, I THINK MISS SAGER HAS OTHER STEPS THAT SHE MIGHT BE ABLE TO APPRISE THE COURT OF.
MS. SAGER: I WOULD LIKE TO ECHO MR. OLSEN’S REMARKS AND AGAIN APOLOGIZE TO THE COURT ON BEHALF OF COURT T.V. IT WAS AN UNFORTUNATE SERIES OF ERRORS THAT LED TO THIS RESULT, ALL OF WHICH I THINK CAN BE MIXED WITH THE STEPS THAT MR. OLSEN HAS SUGGESTED.
THE COURT: WHAT CONCERNS ME, THOUGH, IS THAT IT WAS A SERIES OF ERRORS; IT WAS NOT JUST ONE ERROR.
MS. SAGER: I UNDERSTAND, YOUR HONOR, AND PART OF THAT, AS I UNDERSTAND WHAT HAPPENED, THE REMOTE CAMERA WAS TESTED REPEATEDLY TO SEE WHAT THE SCOPE OF THE CAMERA ANGLE WOULD BE, BUT EVIDENTLY WHEN THOSE TESTS WERE DONE IT WASN’T KNOWN, OR IT WAS AT LEAST NOT COMPLETED, THAT THE PODIUM WOULD BE MOVED TO RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE JURY BOX FOR THE OPENING STATEMENTS. AND SO WHEN THE CAMERA WAS ATTEMPTING TO CAPTURE COUNSEL STANDING RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE JURY BOX FOR OPENING STATEMENTS, USING THE WIDE ANGLE LENS THAT THEY WOULD NORMALLY USE TO CAPTURE COUNSEL STANDING AT THE PODIUM OR THE WITNESS BOX, CAPTURE THE WITNESS, THE ANGLE WAS SLIGHTLY TOO WIDE AND CAPTURED ONE OF THE JURORS WHO ARE SITTING IN FRONT OF JURY BOX. AND HAD THE EXPERIENCED CAMERA OPERATOR BEEN ON DUTY YESTERDAY, HE EVIDENTLY HAD BEEN AWARE OF THAT, BUT BECAUSE HE WAS NOT AVAILABLE A LESS EXPERIENCED CAMERA OPERATOR DOING THAT FOR THE FIRST TIME WITH THE PODIUM MOVED IN A POSITION WHERE HE HAD NOT TESTED IT WAS NOT AWARE THAT THAT ANGLE WOULD CAPTURE A PORTION OF A JUROR’S FACE, AND IMMEDIATELY UPON RECOGNIZING THAT DID SWING THE CAMERA AWAY.
THE COURT: HAVE YOU VIEWED THE ACTUAL TAPE? IT IS NOT JUST A PORTION OF THE FACE.
MS. SAGER: I HAVE VIEWED THE TAPES, YOUR HONOR, YES. THE SECOND ERROR WHICH CAN BE FIXED IS THAT THAT OPERATOR, IMMEDIATELY RECOGNIZING THE ERROR, TRANSMITTED OVER HIS HEADSET TO A PERSON UP IN THE PRESS ROOM THAT A JUROR HAD BEEN CAUGHT, BUT THAT PERSON WAS NOT THE PERSON WITH THE KILL SWITCH. THE DIRECT LINK WAS NOT BETWEEN THE CAMERA OPERATOR AND THE PERSON WITH THE KILL SWITCH. AND BY THE TIME THE PERSON IN THE PRESS ROOM COULD COMMUNICATE IT TO THE WOMAN RUNNING THE KILL SWITCH, IT WAS TOO LATE. THAT CAN ALSO BE FIXED AND HAS BEEN FIXED, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, ALREADY THIS MORNING, SO THAT THE CAMERA OPERATOR IN THE COURTROOM WILL HAVE A DIRECT AUDIO LINK UP WITH THE PEOPLE IN THE KILL SWITCH ROOM WHO ARE SEPARATE FROM THE PRESS ROOM SO THAT INSTANTLY UPON NOTICING AN ERROR THEY CAN FIX IT. THE THIRD PROBLEM, WHICH ALSO IS BEING FIXED, IS THE WOMAN WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF THE KILL SWITCH YESTERDAY EVIDENTLY HAD NOT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO VIEW THE COURTROOM AND WAS NOT AWARE THAT THERE WERE JURORS SITTING IN FRONT OF THE JURY BOX.
THE COURT: ISN’T THAT — IN MANAGING A SITUATION LIKE THIS, ISN’T THAT A PRETTY CRITICAL THING, THAT THE PERSON — PERSONNEL INVOLVED ARE ADEQUATELY TRAINED AND INSTRUCTED?
MS. SAGER: AND I CAN’T APOLOGIZE ENOUGH TO THE COURT OR TO THE PARTIES FOR THAT ERROR HAVING HAPPENED.
THE COURT: SO HOW AM I HOW ASSURED THAT THE PERSONS WHO ARE NOW WORKING THE SWITCH ARE ADEQUATELY STRAINED AND INSTRUCTED? I DON’T HAVE A HIGH LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE IN THAT.
MS. SAGER: AND I UNDERSTAND THE COURT’S CONCERN. THE TECHNICAL PART OF IT, WHICH WILL SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF RELYING SOLELY ON HUMAN ERROR WHICH IS THE FLAG SCREEN THAT MR. OLSEN MENTIONED, IN ADDITION TO ALL OF THESE HUMAN CHECKS, HAVING ADDITIONAL PEOPLE IN THE KILL SWITCH ROOM WHO ARE TRAINED WITH A VIEW OF THE ROOM AND UNDERSTAND THE LAYOUT AND KNOW WHERE THE JURORS ARE SEATED AND POSSIBLY OF EVEN SEEING THE JURORS IN PERSON SO THEY COULD RECOGNIZE THEM. THE TECHNICAL PART OF IT WHICH WILL HOPEFULLY ELIMINATE ANY NEED FOR RELYING SIMPLY ON HUMAN CHECKS IS TO ADD THE SCREEN UNDERNEATH THE CAMERA SO THAT IT SIMPLY CANNOT CAPTURE ANYTHING BELOW THE EDGE OF COUNSEL TABLE, BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENED WAS THE CAMERA ANGLE COULD BE WIDE ENOUGH THEN THAT SOMEONE STANDING AT THE PODIUM, AS MISS CLARK WAS YESTERDAY, YOU COULD CAPTURE THE ENTIRETY OF THE PERSON STANDING THERE AND THAT IS HOW THE JUROR WAS CAPTURED. WITH THE SCREEN YOU WOULD ONLY BE ABLE TO CAPTURE PART OF THE PERSON STANDING AT THAT PODIUM OR THE EDGE OF THE TABLE. THE CAMERA SIMPLY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO CAPTURE ANYTHING BELOW A CERTAIN POINT. AND ONE OF THE TECHNICIANS HAS DRAWN A DIAGRAM WHICH WE CAN SHOW TO THE COURT TO EXPLAIN HOW THAT CAN BE DONE SO THAT THERE IS NO CHANCE THAT THE CAMERA CANNOT CAPTURE IT ANY MORE THAN IT COULD SWING DOWN LOW ENOUGH TO CAPTURE ANYONE ELSE.
THE COURT: WOULDN’T A SIMPLE REMEDY BE TO HAVE A SINGLE STATIC SHOT?
MS. SAGER: YOUR HONOR, I THINK THAT IS AN EXTREME REMEDY THAT IS NOT NECESSARY BECAUSE WE CAN TECHNOLOGICALLY CONTROL IT TO ALLOW THE CAMERA TO VIEW A WITNESS AT THE WITNESS STAND OR COUNSEL AT THE PODIUM, AND SIMPLY LIMITING TO THAT RANGE OF VISION ELIMINATES THE PROBLEM OF CAPTURING THE JURORS BY ALLOWING THE VIEWING PUBLIC AND THE MEMBERS OF THE MEDIA WHO WANT TO WATCH AND EVALUATE THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESS, THE DEMEANOR OF COUNSEL, TO CAPTURE BOTH OF THOSE THINGS. AND IT IS CERTAINLY A VERY UNFORTUNATE INCIDENT WHICH I THINK CAN BE FIXED, BUT I ALSO THINK IT WOULD BE UNFORTUNATE IF THE COURT WERE TO REACT BY, IN ESSENCE, PUNISHING ALL THE MEDIA, NOT ONLY THE BROADCAST MEDIA, BUT THE PRINT MEDIA WHO RELY ON THE VIDEO FEED IN ORDER TO ACCURATELY REPORT THE PROCEEDINGS, AND THE VIEWING PUBLIC. AND I RECEIVED A LETTER JUST THIS MORNING WHICH I SUBMITTED TO THE COURT AND I UNDERSTAND WAS GIVEN TO COUNSEL FROM A LAW PROFESSOR CONCERNED ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE JUDGE WAS CONSIDERING TERMINATING ELECTRONIC COVERAGE BECAUSE OF ITS IMPORTANCE TO THE VIEWING PUBLIC AND THE UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE PROCESS WORKS. AND I THINK THE TECHNOLOGICAL FIXES THAT HAVE BEEN OFFERED BY COURT T.V. ARE SUFFICIENT TO SOLVE THESE PROBLEMS, AND CERTAINLY EVERYONE HAS LEARNED A VERY VALUABLE LESSON HERE. WE ARE DEALING WITH HUMAN BEINGS; THEY MAKE MISTAKES. AND AS COUNSEL HAVE AND THE MEDIA HAVE IN THE PAST, THE COURT HAS IN EVERY INSTANCE GEARED ITS RESPONSE PROPORTIONATELY TO SOLVE WHATEVER THE PROBLEM WAS THAT HAS OCCURRED OR WHATEVER COUNSEL HAS DONE THAT IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF WHAT THEY ARE PERMITTED TO DO. AND I WOULD HOPE IN THIS INSTANCE THE COURT WOULD SIMILARLY ACT TO SIMPLY RESTRICT WHAT NEEDS TO BE RESTRICTED TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM, WHICH CAN BE DONE, AND NOT PULL THE PLUG ON THE CAMERAS OR OTHERWISE PENALIZE THE PRESS AND THE PUBLIC FROM VIEWING THIS TRIAL.
MR. OLSEN: WITH THE COURT’S PERMISSION, I WOULD LIKE TO FURTHER ANSWER THE COURT’S INQUIRY REGARDING THE LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE IN THE KILL ROOM. I THINK IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN PERSPECTIVE, YOUR HONOR, THERE HAS BEEN A 30,000-HOUR RECORD IN THE PAST. THE MOST EXPERIENCED KILL OPERATOR IS NOW IN THE KILL ROOM, WAS NOT YESTERDAY. THIS IS THE NEW YORK LAWYER REPORTER THAT I REFERRED TO. I THINK THE COURT MIGHT EVEN WISH TO TALK TO THAT PERSON, BUT I THINK THAT IS THE LEVEL OF ADDED CONFIDENCE, IN ADDITION TO PUTTING A SECOND HUMAN BEING IN TO FURTHER PROTECT AGAINST THAT KIND OF HUMAN ERROR IN THE FUTURE, SO WE WILL PUT IN THE MOST EXPERIENCED AND ADD A SECOND PERSON.
THE COURT: I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM MISS GLOZIER.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE COURT: GOOD MORNING, MISS GLOZIER. CYNTHIA, CORRECT?
MS. GLOZIER: YES, SIR.
THE COURT: GOOD MORNING.
MS. GLOZIER: GOOD MORNING.
THE COURT: HOW ARE WE GOING TO REMEDY THIS?
MS. GLOZIER: BASICALLY, YOUR HONOR, WE WOULD LIKE TO APOLOGIZE TO MR. SIMPSON AND TO THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA.
THE COURT: MISS GLOZIER, LET ME START OUR DISCUSSION WITH THIS: I VERY MUCH ADMIRE YOUR COURAGE AND CANDOR FOR IMMEDIATELY BRINGING THIS TO MY ATTENTION. THAT WAS OF THE UTMOST HIGHEST LEVEL OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS ON YOUR PART. THE QUESTION IS HOW DO WE AVOID THIS IN THE FUTURE? AND MY CONCERN IS HOW ARE YOU GOING TO RETRAIN OR TRAIN YOUR STAFF OR PERSONNEL TO AVOID IT? THAT IS MY CONCERN. AND I WANT TO KNOW WHAT SPECIFIC MEASURES ARE TAKEN. THE FACT THAT YOU’VE GOT THE MOST EXPERIENCED KILL SWITCH PERSON UP THERE NOW DOESN’T INSTILL IN ME A HIGH LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE, BECAUSE THAT PERSON, TO MY UNDERSTANDING, HAS NOT BEEN IN THE COURTROOM AND CANNOT UNDERSTAND THE PHYSICAL LAYOUT THAT WE HAVE HERE AND OPERATING WITH THIS RATHER UNIQUE CAMERA ANGLE, WHICH WAS MY IDEA IN THE FIRST PLACE WHICH I’M BEGINNING TO REGRET TODAY.
MS. GLOZIER: OUR MOST EXPERIENCED DELAY OPERATOR IS KRISTIN JEANNETTE MYERS AND SHE HAS BEEN IN THIS COURTROOM.
AN UNIDENTIFIED MAN: SHE IS IN THE COURTROOM RIGHT NOW.
MS. GLOZIER: SHE HANDLED THE KILL SWITCH ON THE RODNEY KING CASE. SHE HAS A GREAT DEAL OF EXPERIENCE IN THIS. AND WE ALSO HAVE ANOTHER PERSON WHO IS — WHO IS FLYING IN FROM NEW YORK WHO ALSO HAS HAD SIMILAR EXPERIENCE TO KRISTIN.
MS. SAGER: IF I CAN INTERJECT, YOUR HONOR, MISS MYERS WAS NOT THE OPERATOR IN THE ROOM YESTERDAY.
MS. GLOZIER: NO, SHE WASN’T. THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN WITH COURT T.V. SINCE THE VERY BEGINNING. WE HAVE NOT HAD A PROBLEM WITH THIS IN THE PAST. THE ERROR YESTERDAY WAS AS MUCH MY ERROR AS IT WAS OUR OPERATOR’S. I WAS IN THE TRUCK AND I WAS WATCHING THE FEED AND I MISSED IT. WE WERE VERY LUCKY TO HAVE A WONDERFUL PERSON ON THE CAMERA WHO REALIZED WHAT HAD HAPPENED, WHO CALLED US AND WE IMMEDIATELY CALLED THE COURT. WE WILL NOT LET THIS HAPPEN AGAIN. WE WILL NOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN AGAIN.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MISS GLOZIER. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MISS SAGER, MR. OLSEN.
MR. OLSEN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. MR. COCHRAN.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
THE COURT: VIEWS OR OBSERVATIONS.
MR. COCHRAN: YES, YOUR HONOR. MR. SHAPIRO WILL GIVE OUR OBSERVATIONS, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: GOOD MORNING, COUNSEL.
MR. SHAPIRO: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. OUR CONCERN HAS ALWAYS BEEN IN THIS CASE FOR A FAIR TRIAL AND WE WERE CONCERNED THAT MEDIA COVERAGE COULD AND WOULD INTERFERE WITH THAT RIGHT. AS A RESULT OF THAT, WE HAVE LOST MANY JURORS, WE’VE HAD TO HAVE JURORS SEQUESTERED, AND YESTERDAY WE SUFFERED A VERY DEVASTATING SETBACK. AT THE TIME THAT WE WERE TO GET UP AND ANSWER THE PROSECUTION’S OUTLINE OF THEIR CASE, WE NOT ONLY WERE DEPRIVED OF THAT VERY IMPORTANT MOMENT, BUT ALSO WE WERE FACED WITH A SITUATION WHERE THE JURY HAD TO ABRUPTLY BE INTERRUPTED AND GO HOME UNDER A GREAT CLOUD THAT SOMETHING WAS GOING ON, AND THAT HAS CAUSED US IRREPARABLE HARM. THE JURY HAS HAD THE ENTIRE EARLY EVENING AND NIGHT TO CONTEMPLATE THE REMARKS MADE BY THE PROSECUTORS AND ALSO TO THINK ABOUT WHY THESE PROCEEDINGS WERE INTERRUPTED SO ABRUPTLY, AND IT IS VERY ADMIRABLE THAT EVERYBODY APOLOGIZES, THAT IT WAS A MISTAKE AND THAT IT WAS A GOOD FAITH MISTAKE, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT OUR CONCERN IS A MUCH MORE SELFISH ONE. WE ARE CONCERNED WITH ONE PERSON AND ONE PERSON ONLY; O.J. SIMPSON WHO IS ON TRIAL FOR HIS LIFE. AND WHEN HIS RIGHTS ARE INTERFERED WITH THE WAY THEY WERE YESTERDAY, WE ARE SERIOUSLY CONCERNED. AND IT IS VERY NICE TO THINK OF POTENTIAL REMEDIES SO IT WON’T HAPPEN AGAIN, BUT I DON’T KNOW HOW WE CAN EVER RESTORE WHAT WAS TAKEN AWAY FROM HIM YESTERDAY TO THIS JURY WHO IS GOING TO SIT IN JUDGMENT OF HIM. AND WE HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT THIS. AS THE COURT KNOWS, WE COLLECTIVELY HAVE ALWAYS ADVOCATED THE RIGHT TO HAVE THE PUBLIC VIEW OUR COURT PROCEEDINGS AND TO HAVE IT AIRED SO THAT PEOPLE COULD REALLY SEE WHAT OUR LEGAL SYSTEM IS ABOUT. BUT EVERYTHING IN LAW IS BALANCING AND THE COURT MUST BALANCE MR. SIMPSON’S RIGHTS AGAINST ALL THESE OTHER RIGHTS THAT HAVE BEEN SO ELOQUENTLY PUT FORWARD BY MISS SAGER AND MR. OLSEN. I DON’T KNOW WHAT THE ANSWER IS. WE ARE ASKING THE COURT TO CERTAINLY ALLOW OUR RESPONSE AND OUR OPENING STATEMENT TO BE HEARD, BUT WE EVEN HAVE A GREATER CONCERN AND WE ADDRESSED THAT YESTERDAY. WE HAVE SOME WITNESSES WHO HAVE BEEN INTIMIDATED BY THE MEDIA. WE HAVE SOME WITNESSES WHO ARE NOW VERY RELUCTANT TO COME TO COURT. WE HAVE SOME WITNESSES WHO DON’T WANT TO HAVE THEIR FACE ON TELEVISION. AND WE WOULD ASK THE COURT TO ALLOW OUR WITNESSES, AS A REMEDY, TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THEIR TESTIMONY WILL BE AIRED IF THE COURT ALLOWS CAMERAS BACK INTO THE COURTROOM.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: I WILL HEAR FROM THE PEOPLE.
MS. CLARK: MAY I HAVE ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)
THE COURT: MISS CLARK.
MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, IT IS THE PEOPLE’S POSITION THAT IT WOULD BE IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE AND THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE FOR THE DEFENDANT AS WELL — EXCUSE ME — I’M LOSING MY VOICE — TO PERMIT COVERAGE — TELEVISION COVERAGE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. THE PEOPLE WOULD URGE THE COURT, IF IT CHOOSES TO DO SO, THAT IT DO SO EQUALLY AND COMPLETELY. THE PEOPLE’S WITNESSES HAVE ALSO BEEN INTIMIDATED BY THE MEDIA. THE PEOPLE’S WITNESSES AS EQUALLY INTIMIDATED BY THE PROSPECT OF APPEARING ON NATIONAL TELEVISION WHEN THEY TESTIFY, BUT THEY HAVE BEEN INFORMED IT IS A FACT OF LIFE, THAT IF THERE IS COVERAGE, THERE WILL BE COVERAGE OF THEIR TESTIMONY AS WITH ALL OTHER WITNESSES. I THINK THERE SHOULD BE NO DIFFERENT RULE FOR THE WITNESSES FOR THE DEFENSE THAN THERE IS FOR THE PEOPLE’S WITNESSES. SO THE PEOPLE DO URGE THE COURT TO CONTINUE THE COVERAGE SO THAT THE PEOPLE OF THIS STATE, AS WELL AS OF THIS COUNTRY, CAN OBSERVE THE JUDICIAL PROCESS.
THE COURT: WHAT IS THE REASON FOR YOUR CHANGE IN POSITION FROM YESTERDAY?
MS. CLARK: YESTERDAY THE PEOPLE WERE CONCERNED THAT THE DEFENSE BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE JURY IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE PEOPLE’S CASE, BECAUSE WE APPRECIATED THE SITUATION ALLUDED TO TODAY BY MR. SHAPIRO, THAT THE DEFENSE WOULD WANT TO GET UP AND IMMEDIATELY ADDRESS THEM. THEY ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT AUDIENCE IN THIS CASE. BUT THE DEFENSE ELECTED NOT TO DO SO IF THERE WAS NOT COVERAGE.
MR. SHAPIRO: THAT IS A MISSTATEMENT, JUDGE.
MS. CLARK: I’M SORRY IF I HAVE MISSTATED. IT APPEARED THAT THE DEFENSE — THAT IS THE WAY TO — I DON’T MEAN TO MISCHARACTERIZE. ALL I’M SAYING IS THAT THE PEOPLE WERE IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENSE BEING ALLOWED TO ADDRESS THE JURY IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE PEOPLE’S STATEMENT. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT IT IS ANYWHERE NEAR THE DEVASTATING IMPACT THAT COUNSEL HAS REPRESENTED TO THE COURT TODAY. IT IS GOING TO BE A LENGTHY TRIAL. I KNOW THAT THE JURORS WILL BE ABLE TO KEEP OPEN MINDS, HAVE KEPT OPEN MINDS AND ARE EAGERLY ANTICIPATING THE REMARKS OF MR. COCHRAN, WHO IS A VERY ABLE ATTORNEY. I THINK THAT THIS IS ACTUALLY NOT A CHANGE IN POSITION SO MUCH AS IT IS IF WE ARE CONSIDERING THE BROAD PICTURE. THE PEOPLE DO FAVOR AND URGE THE COURT TO CONSIDER CONTINUING THE TELEVISED COVERAGE.
THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
MR. COCHRAN: MAY I SAY ONE THING, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.
MR. COCHRAN: MAY I SAY ONE THING?
THE COURT: ONE THING, MR. COCHRAN.
MR. COCHRAN: MAYBE TWO.
MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, I THOUGHT WE HAD —
THE COURT: I THOUGHT WE HAD A ONE-LAWYER RULE.
MR. COCHRAN: THIS IS KIND OF A LITTLE DIFFERENT SEGUE.
THE COURT: WE HAVE A SEGUE EXCEPTION.
MR. COCHRAN: THIS IS THE SEGUE EXCEPTION, YOUR HONOR. THE SEGUE EXCEPTION AND IT IS MORE ABOUT OPENING STATEMENTS. I JUST WANTED TO INDICATE THAT WITH REGARD TO THE OPENING STATEMENT, I JUST WANTED THE RECORD TO BE CLEAR THAT WE WERE READY TO PROCEED. AS THE COURT WAS AWARE, I HAD AN EXHIBIT UP THERE. MISS CLARK DIDN’T REALIZE IT WHEN YOUR HONOR SAID WE WERE GOING TO TAKE A RECESS. WE WEREN’T GOING TO STAND OUT HERE AND TALK TO OURSELVES IS THE FIRST THING I WAS GOING TO SAY. AND THE SECOND THING, YOUR HONOR, WE WANTED AN EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN WITNESSES WHO ARE CONCERNED, AND THIS COURT HAS THAT DISCRETION. IF A WITNESS IS CONCERNED ABOUT HAVING THEIR FACE SHOWN, THE COURT CAN MAKE THAT EXCEPTION. WE DIDN’T ASK FOR THAT ONLY FOR OURSELVES. MISS CLARK MISCONSTRUES AGAIN. WE ARE JUST SAYING THAT WE WANT YOU TO HAVE THAT DISCRETION AND WE KNOW OF SOME WITNESSES FROM OUR SIDE WHO WOULD LIKE THAT. WE ARE JUST SAYING THAT WOULD APPLY EQUALLY TO THEM. WE WEREN’T ASKING ONLY FOR THE DEFENSE.
THE COURT: WELL, CLEARLY THE DISCRETION TO LIMIT TELEVISION COVERAGE OF A PARTICULAR WITNESS IS WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT. THE COURT WILL CERTAINLY TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE WISHES OF THE PARTIES AND THE WISHES OF THE WITNESSES. THAT IS IN THE COURT’S DISCRETION. THANK YOU.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: WELL, THE COURT HAS HAD THE BENEFIT OF A NIGHT’S SLEEP ON THE ISSUE. THE COURT HAS, FOR THE RECORD, VIEWED THE VIDEOTAPE ON EIGHT OCCASIONS. THE ALTERNATE JUROR IN QUESTION, NO. 1492, IS CLEARLY VISIBLE AND EASILY IDENTIFIABLE. THIS IS A CLEAR VIOLATION OF RULE 980 SUB (B) SUB (2) WHICH SAYS:
“CLOSE UP PHOTOGRAPHY OF JURORS IS PROHIBITED,” UNQUOTE, AND THIS IS ONE OF THE VERY MOST IMPORTANT RESTRICTIONS OF OUR ELECTRONIC MEDIA COVERAGE IN THE COURTROOM, FOR OBVIOUS REASONS THAT I DON’T THINK I NEED TO EXPLAIN HERE. THIS WAS A CLEAR AND OPEN VIOLATION OF RULE 980. THIS WAS A RESULT OF THE FAILURE OF THE CAMERA PERSON TO APPRECIATE THE SWING OF THE CAMERA, FAILURE OF THE TIME DELAY MONITOR, AND IT APPEARED TO BE A FAILURE OF TRAINING, SUPERVISION OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS. I ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION THAT THIS WAS AN INADVERTENT AND NON-INTENTIONAL VIOLATION OF RULE 980. I FIND THAT THERE WAS NO BAD FAITH INVOLVED, NO ATTEMPT TO CIRCUMVENT THE COURT’S RULES REGARDING MEDIA COVERAGE. THE COURT NOTES THAT THE USUAL CAMERA PERSON WAS NOT PRESENT IN THE COURTROOM AND WE HAD A SUBSTITUTE IN THAT PERSON’S STEAD. AS I MENTIONED TO MISS GLOZIER, I COMPLIMENTED HER ON HER CANDOR AND PROFESSIONALISM, SOMETHING THAT IS REFRESHING TO THIS COURT. THE CAMERA PERSON IS TO BE COMPLIMENTED. AND WHAT IS HIS NAME, MISS GLOZIER.
MS. GLOZIER: CHRIS GAZETTA.
THE COURT: MR. GAZETTA IS TO BE COMPLIMENTED FOR THIS IMMEDIATE REPORT OF THIS TRANSGRESSION TO HIS SUPERIORS. THE COURT T.V. MANAGEMENT IS TO BE COMMENDED FOR THEIR IMMEDIATE REPORT TO THE COURT. WITHIN MINUTES OF THE TRANSGRESSION BECOMING APPARENT, THERE WAS IMMEDIATE COOPERATION WITH THE COURT’S INQUIRY ABOUT PROVIDING A VHS COPY OF THE OFFENDING OUTTAKE. ACTUALLY, IT WASN’T AN OUTTAKE BECAUSE; IT WAS BROADCAST. THE REMEDY WILL BE AS FOLLOWS: THE COURT WILL DIRECT THE COURT T.V. TO TAKE A SINGLE SET STATIC SHOT UNLESS AND UNTIL FURTHER PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS ON THE CAMERAS ARE IN PLACE. THE COURT HAD ALREADY DECIDED TO DIRECT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A DIRECT OPEN LINE BETWEEN THE CAMERA PERSON AND WHAT I WOULD CALL THE BLEEPER PERSON. APPARENTLY THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN PUT IN PLACE. AND I’M GOING TO DIRECT COURT T.V. AND THEIR STAFF TO INTENSIVELY RETRAIN AND REORIENT THEIR PERSONNEL ASSIGNED TO THIS PARTICULAR CASE. THE COURT IS NOW GOING TO TAKE A PUBLIC RECESS AND ASK THE BAILIFF TO BRING THE JURORS DOWN AND I’M GOING TO ASK FOR TWO REPRESENTATIVES FROM EACH SIDE TO MEET WITH ME IN CHAMBERS AND I’M GOING TO TALK TO JUROR NO. 1492 AND I’M GOING TO SHOW HER THE VIDEOTAPE SO SHE IS AWARE OF THE NATURE OF THE DISCLOSURE AND THE RATHER FLEETING MOMENT THAT IT IS. I’M GOING TO INQUIRE OF HER IF THIS WILL HAVE ANY IMPACT UPON HER ABILITY TO SIT AS A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TRIAL JUROR ON THIS CASE. I WOULD URGE THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE NEWS MEDIA TO NOT OVERLY IDENTIFY JUROR NO. 1492 AND HER DESCRIPTION, WHICH HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PAST, SO THAT HER IDENTITY IS STILL KEPT CONFIDENTIAL. ALL RIGHT. DEPUTY MAGNERA, LET’S HAVE THE JURORS BROUGHT DOWN AND LET’S ANTICIPATE STARTING DEFENSE OPENING STATEMENT AT FIVE MINUTES AFTER 10:00. ALL RIGHT. CAN I HAVE TWO REPRESENTATIVES INSIDE WITH THE COURT REPORTER.
(AN CONFERENCE WAS HELD IN CAMERA, TRANSCRIBED AND SEALED UNDER SEPARATE COVER.)
(RECESS.)
(PAGES 11751 THROUGH 11755, VOLUME 75A, 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. LET’S SEE A WIDE STATIC SHOT.
THE COURT: IS THAT AS WIDE AS YOU GO?
MR. BANCROFT: YES. THAT WOULDN’T SHOW THE JURORS IF THE LAWYERS WERE THERE.
In the third Court TV excerpt, there’s a pause while Cochran is speaking. This is also on Youtube, by the way. There’s a small gap there that I found. I’ll go ahead and put the bit of transcript in there.
SO IN THE COURSE OF MY STATEMENT TODAY LET ME SHARE WITH YOU SOME OF THE THINGS THEY DIDN’T TELL YOU YESTERDAY AND WE WILL HAVE TO WONDER WHY THEY DIDN’T DO THAT. THIS, THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE WE BELIEVE WILL SHOW THAT O.J. SIMPSON IS AN INNOCENT MAN WRONGFULLY ACCUSED. MR. DARDEN SAID YESTERDAY THAT IN RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA, AND SOMEPLACE IN GEORGIA PEOPLE WERE ASKING QUESTIONS. WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO THINK THAT IN MY HOMETOWN OF SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA, MY MOTHER-IN-LAW IN NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, AND OTHER PLACES THROUGHOUT THIS COUNTRY, THAT THEY ARE ASKING WHY DID MR. DARDEN SPEND ALL THAT TIME ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IF THIS IS A MURDER CASE? WHY DID HE DO THAT? AND THEN WHEN HE GAVE YOU THIS ANSWER, HE WAS GOING TO ANSWER THE QUESTION FOR ALL OF AMERICA. THAT IS A LITTLE PRESUMPTUOUS, DON’T YOU THINK, BECAUSE THE ANSWER OF O.J. SIMPSON’S GUILT OR INNOCENCE CAN ONLY BE DETERMINED BY YOU IF YOU ARE ABLE TO DO IT. NONE OF US WERE OUT THERE ON JUNE 12, 1994. WE CAN ONLY DEAL WITH THE WITNESSES AS THEY WERE. AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THIS CASE, THE PROSECUTION’S CASE, BASED UPON WHAT WE HEARD AND THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW, THIS CASE IS ABOUT A RUSH TO JUDGMENT, AN OBSESSION TO WIN AT ANY COST AND BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THE PROSECUTION IN THIS CASE HAS ENLISTED THE SERVICES OF MANY, MANY POLICE AGENCIES ACROSS THE UNITED STATES, THE FBI, MANY LOCAL POLICE AGENCIES. THEY HAVE GONE AROUND THE WORLD TALKING TO WITNESSES. BUT THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THEY FAILED TO GO NEXT DOOR TO MR. SIMPSON’S HOUSE AND TALK TO A WITNESS THAT THEY KNEW ABOUT WHO PROVIDED HIM WITH AN ALIBI, AND THERE ARE OTHER WITNESSES LIKE THAT AND WE WILL HAVE TO ONLY ASK OURSELVES WHY. LET ME JUST BRIEFLY TALK ABOUT THE WITNESSES THAT THEY DIDN’T TALK ABOUT YESTERDAY AND THEY DIDN’T TELL YOU ABOUT. There was just a bit of a pause there, so it created a gap. Before the court took a break, there was a side bar that wasn’t transcribed. They took a break at around an hour into the third Court TV excerpt.
Just before the lunch recess, Cochran was being very argumentative. He was not saying “the evidence will show,” however Ito was overruling all of the prosecution’s objections, unlike the defense ones during the prosecution’s opening. He basically forced Clark to finish. This exchange took place.
MR. COCHRAN: THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT —
THE COURT: WELL, I THINK WE SHOULD HEAR THESE OBJECTIONS AT THE SIDE BAR.
MR. COCHRAN: LET’S DO IT WITHOUT THE REPORTER. I THINK WE CAN RESOLVE IT. MAY WE?
THE COURT: PLEASE.
MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE REPORTER.
THE COURT: NO.
(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)
At the end of that third excerpt, there was another side bar, and this one was reported!
MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, EXCUSE ME. MAY WE —
THE COURT: MR. HODGMAN.
MR. HODGMAN: I HAVE AN OBJECTION TO INTERPOSE. I WISH TO APPROACH AT SIDEBAR.
THE COURT: WITH THE REPORTER.
MR. HODGMAN: AND I WOULD LIKE THIS STRICKEN FROM THE SCREEN FOR A MOMENT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET’S HOLD THAT, MR. HARRIS.
MR. HODGMAN: THANK YOU.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. BILL?
MR. HODGMAN: YES, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: AT SIDEBAR.
MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT TO THIS ON THE GROUNDS OF HEARSAY. THIS IS PURE HEARSAY, THIS LETTER. AND THE OBJECTION CAN BE INTERPOSED AT TRIAL WITH REGARD TO THIS, BUT AT THE MOMENT, THIS IS PURE HEARSAY.
THE COURT: WHAT IS THIS LETTER? I CAN’T TELL.
MR. COCHRAN: I AM SORRY, YOUR HONOR. WE WENT OVER THIS BEFORE WE DID ARGUMENT, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS A LETTER. AND WHAT I’M GOING TO DO — LETTER SENT TO BILL HODGMAN IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS. IT BECAME PART OF THE CORONER’S REPORT. THEY MADE 16 CHANGES AFTER THEY MET WITH MICHAEL BADIN. THAT’S WHAT THE EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE. THIS LETTER HIGHLIGHTS THOSE CHANGES, LIKE THEY DIDN’T KEEP THE STOMACH CONTENTS. THIS IS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR RECORD SIGNED BY THE MEDICAL EXAMINER. WE TALKED ABOUT IT. WE PRESENTED IT TO THEM EARLY LAST FRIDAY.
THE COURT: THIS WAS PART OF THE SHOW AND TELL?
MR. COCHRAN: YES. IT WAS PART OF THE SHOW AND TELL, YES, IT WAS.
MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, THE COURT DOESN’T RECALL SEEING IT. THIS IS NOT A PART OF THE OFFICIAL RECORD OF THE CORONER’S OFFICE. IT IS A LETTER THAT WAS SENT TO ME DETAILING CERTAIN THINGS. IT’S NOT A PART OF ANY OFFICIAL RECORD. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO LITIGATE THIS WHEN THE TIME COMES.
MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE, WE WANT TO USE THIS. IF THEY DON’T CALL HIM, WE WANT TO USE THIS. WHEN WE TALKED TO DR. MIKE BADIN AND DR. WOLF, THEY POINTED OUT ALL THESE THINGS THEY HADN’T DONE. THIS LETTER CAME FROM THE MEDICAL EXAMINER. IT CAME TO BILL HODGMAN. THEY KNEW ABOUT IT. WE ARE GOING TO USE IT. THIS IS PART OF THEIR BUSINESS RECORDS, OFFICIAL RECORD, OFFICIAL ADDENDUM TO THE CORONER’S REPORT, JUDGE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET ME SEE IT. DO YOU HAVE THE ORIGINAL OR A COPY?
MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE TO GET A COPY.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE COURT: IS SOMEBODY GETTING ME A COPY OF THIS?
MR. COCHRAN: YES. IT MAY NOT BE THE ORIGINAL. BUT I ASKED FOR A COPY.
THE COURT: I DON’T RECALL HAVING SEEN THIS.
MR. COCHRAN: WE DID HAVE IT ON THE BOARD. IT HAS 16 POINTS. IT CAME AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE CORONER’S REPORT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I’VE READ THE LETTER, WHICH IS A THREE-PAGE LETTER DATED JULY 28, 1994. I DO RECALL HAVING SEEN SOME OF THESE SPECIFIC ITEMS.
MR. COCHRAN: THAT’S WHAT WE WANT TO PRESENT.
MR. HODGMAN: MY POINT IS, YOUR HONOR, THIS LETTER WILL BE THE SUBJECT OF LITIGATION. WITH REGARD TO OPENING STATEMENT TODAY, COUNSEL CAN STATE, “YOU WILL HEAR EVIDENCE,” BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH WITH REGARD TO A NUMBER OF POINTS. BUT TO TREAT THIS — WHICH IS PURE RANK HEARSAY — IN OPENING STATEMENT IS INAPPROPRIATE AND BEYOND THE PROPER SCOPE OF OPENING.
MR. COCHRAN: THEY THINK IF THEY MAKE THESE OBJECTIONS, YOUR HONOR, THEY’LL THROW ME OFF. THEY’RE NOT GOING TO THROW ME OFF. I’VE BEEN DOING THIS 33 YEARS. IT DOESN’T MAKE A DIFFERENCE. BY CONTINUALLY OBJECTING, THEY ONLY HURT THEMSELVES WITH THIS JURY. I ONLY WANT TO USE THIS LETTER TO TRY TO COUCH MY STATEMENTS THIS AFTERNOON, IN THAT VEIN.
THE COURT: THIS PARTICULAR DOCUMENT, I THOUGHT THIS WAS ON A DIFFERENT DISPLAY.
MR. COCHRAN: WHAT YOU SAW WAS — LET ME TELL YOU WHAT IT IS, YOUR HONOR, AND YOU WILL RECALL THIS NOW. THEY JUST — THEY SHOWED THE WHOLE DOCUMENT THAT YOU COULD HARDLY READ. THEY PUT UP I THINK MR. HODGMAN’S NAME. THEN I ASKED THEM TO GO IMMEDIATELY TO THE 16 POINTS. THAT’S THE WHOLE THING. AND I’M GOING TO SAY, “THIS IS WHAT WE EXPECT THE EVIDENCE TO SHOW.” I’M NOT MISLEADING THE JURY TALKING ABOUT THIS. IF THEY’RE GOING TO OBJECT TO EVERY ONE OF OUR EXHIBITS WHICH WE WENT OVER, WE’LL BE HERE FOREVER.
MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS DIFFERENT. I INFORMED THE COURT THIS AFTERNOON AND I INFORMED COUNSEL THAT IF SOMETHING IS ARGUMENTATIVE, I WILL OBJECT. IF SOMETHING IS HEARSAY, I WILL OBJECT. I TRIED TO GIVE EVERYONE FAIR NOTICE.
THE COURT: MY RECOLLECTION THOUGH IS, WE HAD ALREADY GONE OVER THIS PARTICULAR ITEM IN OUR SHOW AND TELL.
MR. COCHRAN: WE DID, JUDGE.
MR. SCHECK: EVERY POINT WAS PUT UP ON THAT SCREEN.
MR. COCHRAN: EVERY ONE.
THE COURT: NOW THAT I READ IT, I RECOGNIZE THE POINTS.
MR. COCHRAN: IT’S NOT FAIR, JUDGE, FOR HIM TO KEEP DOING THIS. WE WENT THROUGH EVERYTHING. IF THEY’RE GOING TO REARGUE EVERYTHING WE’VE ALREADY DONE, THAT’S NOT FAIR.
MR. HODGMAN: I DON’T INTEND TO DO THAT, MR. COCHRAN. I DON’T. I INTEND TO MAKE OBJECTIONS WHEN APPROPRIATE. AND, YOUR HONOR, I HAVE STATED I DON’T INTEND TO JUMP UP AND DOWN, BUT —
THE COURT: MR. HODGMAN, AT THE SHOW AND TELL, WE DID GO THROUGH THESE POINTS. WE’VE ALREADY LITIGATED THIS. OBJECTION IS OVERRULED.
Fourth Youtube excerpt, 15 minutes.
This is a short Youtube thing between defense opening, and lunch. I’m not sure why it’s here, but OK. The prosecution does speak to Judge Ito here, but they could’ve put this on the longer excerpt.
Also, part of the opening was on there, very strange!
The fourth court TV excerpt, which is 1 hour and 41 minutes long, captures all of the opening, with the exception of a bit in the beginning that’s captured on Youtube. It’s actually more than I thought, but all of it is on Youtube.
Fifth youtube excerpt, 1 hour and 48 minutes.
There are quite a few side bars in this excerpt.
MR. HODGMAN: I HAVE AN OBJECTION TO INTERPOSE. I WISH TO APPROACH AT SIDEBAR.
THE COURT: WITH THE REPORTER.
MR. HODGMAN: AND I WOULD LIKE THIS STRICKEN FROM THE SCREEN FOR A MOMENT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET’S HOLD THAT, MR. HARRIS.
MR. HODGMAN: THANK YOU.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. BILL?
MR. HODGMAN: YES, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: AT SIDEBAR.
MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT TO THIS ON THE GROUNDS OF HEARSAY. THIS IS PURE HEARSAY, THIS LETTER. AND THE OBJECTION CAN BE INTERPOSED AT TRIAL WITH REGARD TO THIS, BUT AT THE MOMENT, THIS IS PURE HEARSAY.
THE COURT: WHAT IS THIS LETTER? I CAN’T TELL.
MR. COCHRAN: I AM SORRY, YOUR HONOR. WE WENT OVER THIS BEFORE WE DID ARGUMENT, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS A LETTER. AND WHAT I’M GOING TO DO — LETTER SENT TO BILL HODGMAN IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS. IT BECAME PART OF THE CORONER’S REPORT. THEY MADE 16 CHANGES AFTER THEY MET WITH MICHAEL BADIN. THAT’S WHAT THE EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE. THIS LETTER HIGHLIGHTS THOSE CHANGES, LIKE THEY DIDN’T KEEP THE STOMACH CONTENTS. THIS IS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR RECORD SIGNED BY THE MEDICAL EXAMINER. WE TALKED ABOUT IT. WE PRESENTED IT TO THEM EARLY LAST FRIDAY.
THE COURT: THIS WAS PART OF THE SHOW AND TELL?
MR. COCHRAN: YES. IT WAS PART OF THE SHOW AND TELL, YES, IT WAS.
MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, THE COURT DOESN’T RECALL SEEING IT. THIS IS NOT A PART OF THE OFFICIAL RECORD OF THE CORONER’S OFFICE. IT IS A LETTER THAT WAS SENT TO ME DETAILING CERTAIN THINGS. IT’S NOT A PART OF ANY OFFICIAL RECORD. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO LITIGATE THIS WHEN THE TIME COMES.
MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE, WE WANT TO USE THIS. IF THEY DON’T CALL HIM, WE WANT TO USE THIS. WHEN WE TALKED TO DR. MIKE BADIN AND DR. WOLF, THEY POINTED OUT ALL THESE THINGS THEY HADN’T DONE. THIS LETTER CAME FROM THE MEDICAL EXAMINER. IT CAME TO BILL HODGMAN. THEY KNEW ABOUT IT. WE ARE GOING TO USE IT. THIS IS PART OF THEIR BUSINESS RECORDS, OFFICIAL RECORD, OFFICIAL ADDENDUM TO THE CORONER’S REPORT, JUDGE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET ME SEE IT. DO YOU HAVE THE ORIGINAL OR A COPY?
MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE TO GET A COPY.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE COURT: IS SOMEBODY GETTING ME A COPY OF THIS?
MR. COCHRAN: YES. IT MAY NOT BE THE ORIGINAL. BUT I ASKED FOR A COPY.
THE COURT: I DON’T RECALL HAVING SEEN THIS.
MR. COCHRAN: WE DID HAVE IT ON THE BOARD. IT HAS 16 POINTS. IT CAME AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE CORONER’S REPORT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I’VE READ THE LETTER, WHICH IS A THREE-PAGE LETTER DATED JULY 28, 1994. I DO RECALL HAVING SEEN SOME OF THESE SPECIFIC ITEMS.
MR. COCHRAN: THAT’S WHAT WE WANT TO PRESENT.
MR. HODGMAN: MY POINT IS, YOUR HONOR, THIS LETTER WILL BE THE SUBJECT OF LITIGATION. WITH REGARD TO OPENING STATEMENT TODAY, COUNSEL CAN STATE, “YOU WILL HEAR EVIDENCE,” BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH WITH REGARD TO A NUMBER OF POINTS. BUT TO TREAT THIS — WHICH IS PURE RANK HEARSAY — IN OPENING STATEMENT IS INAPPROPRIATE AND BEYOND THE PROPER SCOPE OF OPENING.
MR. COCHRAN: THEY THINK IF THEY MAKE THESE OBJECTIONS, YOUR HONOR, THEY’LL THROW ME OFF. THEY’RE NOT GOING TO THROW ME OFF. I’VE BEEN DOING THIS 33 YEARS. IT DOESN’T MAKE A DIFFERENCE. BY CONTINUALLY OBJECTING, THEY ONLY HURT THEMSELVES WITH THIS JURY. I ONLY WANT TO USE THIS LETTER TO TRY TO COUCH MY STATEMENTS THIS AFTERNOON, IN THAT VEIN.
THE COURT: THIS PARTICULAR DOCUMENT, I THOUGHT THIS WAS ON A DIFFERENT DISPLAY.
MR. COCHRAN: WHAT YOU SAW WAS — LET ME TELL YOU WHAT IT IS, YOUR HONOR, AND YOU WILL RECALL THIS NOW. THEY JUST — THEY SHOWED THE WHOLE DOCUMENT THAT YOU COULD HARDLY READ. THEY PUT UP I THINK MR. HODGMAN’S NAME. THEN I ASKED THEM TO GO IMMEDIATELY TO THE 16 POINTS. THAT’S THE WHOLE THING. AND I’M GOING TO SAY, “THIS IS WHAT WE EXPECT THE EVIDENCE TO SHOW.” I’M NOT MISLEADING THE JURY TALKING ABOUT THIS. IF THEY’RE GOING TO OBJECT TO EVERY ONE OF OUR EXHIBITS WHICH WE WENT OVER, WE’LL BE HERE FOREVER.
MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS DIFFERENT. I INFORMED THE COURT THIS AFTERNOON AND I INFORMED COUNSEL THAT IF SOMETHING IS ARGUMENTATIVE, I WILL OBJECT. IF SOMETHING IS HEARSAY, I WILL OBJECT. I TRIED TO GIVE EVERYONE FAIR NOTICE.
THE COURT: MY RECOLLECTION THOUGH IS, WE HAD ALREADY GONE OVER THIS PARTICULAR ITEM IN OUR SHOW AND TELL.
MR. COCHRAN: WE DID, JUDGE.
MR. SCHECK: EVERY POINT WAS PUT UP ON THAT SCREEN.
MR. COCHRAN: EVERY ONE.
THE COURT: NOW THAT I READ IT, I RECOGNIZE THE POINTS.
MR. COCHRAN: IT’S NOT FAIR, JUDGE, FOR HIM TO KEEP DOING THIS. WE WENT THROUGH EVERYTHING. IF THEY’RE GOING TO REARGUE EVERYTHING WE’VE ALREADY DONE, THAT’S NOT FAIR.
MR. HODGMAN: I DON’T INTEND TO DO THAT, MR. COCHRAN. I DON’T. I INTEND TO MAKE OBJECTIONS WHEN APPROPRIATE. AND, YOUR HONOR, I HAVE STATED I DON’T INTEND TO JUMP UP AND DOWN, BUT —
THE COURT: MR. HODGMAN, AT THE SHOW AND TELL, WE DID GO THROUGH THESE POINTS. WE’VE ALREADY LITIGATED THIS. OBJECTION IS OVERRULED.
This is another side bar that took place.
MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION. MAY WE APPROACH?
THE COURT: MR. HODGMAN?
MR. HODGMAN: YES, YOUR HONOR. MAY WE APPROACH?
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE ARE AT THE SIDEBAR. I THOUGHT WE WERE NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE PHENO TESTING.
MR. COCHRAN: I DIDN’T TALK ABOUT IT. I SAID —
MR. HODGMAN: YES. YOUR HONOR, THE POINT IS, WE HAD THE PRESUMPTIVE TEST EVIDENCE, WHICH WAS EXCLUDED AS THE COURT WILL RECALL, AND NOW COUNSEL RAISES IT. THAT IS PATENTLY UNFAIR.
MR. COCHRAN: WHAT I THOUGHT I WAS TRYING TO SAY WAS THAT THEY SEARCHED THE HOUSE. I DIDN’T SAY WHAT HAPPENED.
THE COURT: NO.
MR. COCHRAN: THEY SEARCHED THE PIPES.
THE COURT: YOU MENTIONED SINKS AND TRAPS.
MR. COCHRAN: I DIDN’T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT ANY PHENO TESTING. I JUST SAID SEARCH.
THE COURT: NO. FAIR IS FAIR HERE, BECAUSE THEY HAD PRESUMPTIVE TESTING FOR BLOOD, AND I TOLD YOU NOT TO USE — TOLD THEM NOT TO USE IT AT YOUR REQUEST, AND IT’S NOT FAIR FOR YOU TO BRING THAT UP.
MR. COCHRAN: MAY I — WILL THE COURT ALLOW ME TO SAY THERE WAS PHENO TESTS TAKEN TO EXPLAIN THAT?
MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, WE ASK FOR A MOTION TO STRIKE AND ADMONISHMENT TO THE JURY. THAT IS IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE COURT’S ORDER.
MS. CLARK: SO ADVISE THE JURY THAT THE PEOPLE WERE PRECLUDED FROM MENTIONING THE EXISTENCE OF POSSIBLE PHENO TESTS WITH THE SINK AND THE SHOWER.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THERE’S A REQUEST FOR A COMFORT BREAK.
MR. COCHRAN: I THOUGHT SHE SAID YESTERDAY THEY LOOKED AT THE PIPES IN OPENING STATEMENT.
THE COURT: NO. NO. REMEMBER, I TOLD THEM NOT TO.
MR. COCHRAN: ABOUT THE PHENO TESTING BECAUSE OF OTHER THINGS. I DIDN’T SAY — I DON’T WANT TO MISLEAD THE JURY. IF THE COURT WILL ALLOW ME TO SEE IF I CAN CLEAR IT UP. IF I DON’T — I’M NOT TRYING TO MISLEAD ANYBODY ON THIS OBVIOUSLY. I’M TRYING TO POINT OUT THEIR SEARCH, YOUR HONOR, IN THIS HOUSE FOR BLOOD THROUGHOUT. THAT’S ALL I’M TRYING TO DO.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WELL, WHY DON’T YOU CLEAR IT UP BY SAYING THE PROSECUTION DID DO PRESUMPTIVE TESTS.
MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. FOR BLOOD. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT.
MR. HODGMAN: DO YOU RECALL WHERE IT WAS FOUND?
MR. COCHRAN: NO.
MS. CLARK: IN THE DRAIN OF THE SHOWER AND IN THE DRAIN OF THE SINK IN HIS BATHROOM; ALSO ON HIS BATHROOM FLOOR.
MR. COCHRAN: BUT THEY DID DO PRESUMPTIVE TESTS — I’LL SAY THEY WERE PERMITTED TO —
THE COURT: WHY DON’T YOU JUST SAY THERE WAS A PRESUMPTIVE TEST THAT CAME BACK POSITIVE, BUT THEN, “WE’LL DISCUSS WHAT THAT MEANS IN THE EVIDENCE.”
MR. COCHRAN: THAT’S FINE.
MR. SHAPIRO: CAN WE GO ONE STEP FURTHER AND SAY WE HAVE EXPERT TESTIMONY THAT WILL TESTIFY — DR. HENRY LEE WILL TESTIFY THAT IF THEY WENT TO EVERY SHOWER AND DRAIN IN THE UNITED STATES, YOU WOULD GET POSITIVE RESULTS?
THE COURT: NO. FAIR IS FAIR. WE’VE PRECLUDED THEM FROM BRINGING THAT UP IN FRONT OF THE JURY. JUST TELL THEM IT’S THERE, WE’LL DISCUSS IT LATER.
MR. HODGMAN: I THINK IT WOULD ONLY BE FAIR GIVEN THE INVESTIGATIVE NATURE OF THE CASE TO STATE THERE WAS A POSITIVE PHENO TEST FOR SUBSTANCE WHICH COULD INCLUDE BLOOD.
MR. COCHRAN: YEAH. THAT’S FAIR. NO PROBLEM.
THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, WE’RE MISSING ONE OF OUR JURORS, COMFORT BREAK. GO BACK, TAKE YOUR SEATS, AND WHEN THEY COME BACK, WE’LL RESUME.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR
(
This is a third side bar, that took place during this excerpt.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)
THE COURT: MR. HODGMAN.
MS. CLARK: SORRY, YOUR HONOR. I WAS TRYING TO READ IT ON THE SCREEN. THE OBJECTION IS TO THIS PASSAGE. I THOUGHT COUNSEL WAS GOING TO USE THE ENTIRE PARAGRAPH. IT’S VERY MISLEADING. THE VERY NEXT LINE IS A QUALIFIER. WHAT COUNSEL HAS DONE IS EXCERPTED — YEAH. WHAT COUNSEL HAS DONE IS EXCERPTED ONE LINE FROM THE REPORT THAT WOULD APPEAR TO EXCLUDE NICOLE BROWN WHEN IN FACT WHAT GRAY MATHESON STATED IS, THIS MARKER DEGRADES QUICKLY, ESPECIALLY IN LIQUID POOLS OF BLOOD AND THAT IT COULD BE HERS, BUT THAT THE MARKER DEGRADES QUICKLY.
THE COURT: HERE’S THE PROBLEM. WE HAD TWO DAYS OF SHOW AND TELL FOR THIS PURPOSE.
MS. CLARK: I UNDERSTAND. I THOUGHT HE WAS GOING TO SHOW THE ENTIRE PARAGRAPH.
MR. SCHECK: I SAW THE ACTUAL REPORT. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS —
THE COURT: NO. ONE PERSON.
MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE, AS THE COURT INDICATES, WE HAD TWO DAYS OF THIS. WE ACTUALLY WENT THROUGH AND SHOWED THEM EVERYTHING THAT WE HAD. AND NOW WE’RE HERE LIKE LAST TIME. THEY WANT TO LITIGATE EVERYTHING. MISS CLARK DIDN’T NOTICE IT. THE YOUNG MAN, MR. GOLDBERG, CAME RUNNING UP SAYING THOSE THINGS. WE ARE JUST TRYING TO PROCEED. WE’RE DOING WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT DOING, JUDGE. WE’RE TRYING TO. THEY’RE OBJECTING TO EVERYTHING THAT YOU’VE ALREADY RULED ON. THEY JUST GOT ON ME ABOUT THAT ONE MINUTE AGO, AND I SHUT UP.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, I APOLOGIZE TO THE COURT, BUT I THOUGHT WHAT I REMEMBERED WAS THAT HE WAS GOING TO SHOW THE ENTIRE PARAGRAPH. NO OBJECTION TO THAT BECAUSE IT’S FAIR AND IN CONTEXT. BUT THIS IS VERY MISLEADING. IT’S IN DIRECT CONTRAVENTION TO WHAT THE EXPERT CONCLUDED. THAT’S NOT WHAT HE SAID AT ALL.
THE COURT: OBJECTION IS OVERRULED. WE HAD A CHANCE TO LITIGATE THIS. IF THERE’S ANY DEFECT, IT’S BEEN WAIVED AT THIS POINT.
Cochran concludes his statement for the day in this excerpt, after that, they begin talking about discovery violations. Since this becomes very prevalent in the case, and since it already happened on the 23rd of January, 1995, when the defense previously turned over a supplemental witness list, that they were supposed to turn over well, let’s say, in August or September, I think it’s important to highlight the really long list of “I’m turning over’s.”
Problem is, we have a gap in both places, and we also have the list of “I’m turning over’s.” This is going to be a whole bunch of transcript!
COUNSEL, I THINK WE HAVE A COUPLE OF DISCOVERY MATTERS WE NEED TO TAKE UP BEFORE WE RECESS. I HAD BEEN UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THERE HAD BEEN A DISCLOSURE OF THE REPORT FROM JUDGE WONG. APPARENTLY I’M MISTAKEN.
MR. COCHRAN: I THINK MR. SHAPIRO WILL ADDRESS THAT.
MR. SHAPIRO: IF WE ARE DIRECTED TO GIVE IT TO THE PROSECUTION, WE WILL. WE BELIEVE THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE USED IN REBUTTAL, AND UNDER THE RULES OF DISCOVERY, WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO TURN IT OVER AT THIS TIME.
THE COURT: WELL, THE ONLY COMPLICATION IS, THERE WAS AN INDICATION OF INTENT TO USE IT IN OPENING STATEMENT WHICH —
MR. SHAPIRO: NO. IT WASN’T AN INTENT TO USE IT IN OPENING STATEMENT. IT WAS AN INTENT TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS AN ITEM THAT WAS LISTED ON A SEARCH WARRANT TO BE SEIZED AND THAT WE WERE GOING TO INDICATE FURTHER INCOMPETENCE ON THE PART OF LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT THAT ITEM WAS OVERLOOKED AND WAS LATER RECOVERED BY A SPECIAL MAGISTRATE AND MASTER APPOINTED BY YOUR HONOR, JUDGE WONG. SO IT’S REALLY —
THE COURT: SO YOU ARE SAYING —
MR. SHAPIRO: — GOING TO BE USED FOR IMPEACHMENT.
THE COURT: THIS IS COMING IN AS IMPEACHMENT AFTER THE PROSECUTION HAS PRESENTED ITS SEARCHING OFFICERS?
MR. SHAPIRO: YES.
THE COURT: MR. HODGMAN, AS TO THAT ITEM?
MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, I SHARE THE COURT’S REACTION IN TERMS OF ROLLING THE EYES. FIRST OF ALL, THERE IS ONLY ONE REPORT WHICH HAS BEEN AVAILABLE TO THE PROSECUTION. THE COURT KNOWS THAT. I DOUBLE-CHECKED AS RECENTLY AS TWO WEEKS AGO JUST TO BE SURE.
THE COURT: I WAS MISTAKEN IN MY ASSUMPTION THAT HAD BEEN TURNED OVER BECAUSE I RECALL SOME REPORT HAVING BEEN TURNED OVER TO YOU WITH REGARD TO THAT. SO I ASSUMED — MY MISTAKE.
MR. HODGMAN: THE PROBLEM IS, YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE WHAT OCCURRED THIS AFTERNOON, AND THAT IS VERY, VERY PREJUDICIAL TO THE PEOPLE. I DON’T THINK I NEED TO EXPLAIN THAT ANY FURTHER IN TERMS OF THAT DEMONSTRATION FOR DRAMATIC EFFECT, PREJUDICIAL EFFECT TO THE PEOPLE. WE’RE GOING TO ASK THAT THE COURT ADMONISH THE JURY TO DISREGARD THAT, ASK ANY REFERENCE TO IT BE STRICKEN, THAT DEFENSE NOT BE ALLOWED TO PRODUCE OR UTILIZE THAT ITEM IN ANY FASHION WHATSOEVER. AND, YOUR HONOR, WE WILL BE ASKING IN ADDITION IN A LITTLE BIT OF TIME TO TALK ABOUT DISCOVERY. EXCUSE ME. I NEED TO SLOW DOWN MYSELF A LITTLE BIT, YOUR HONOR. GIVE ME JUST A MOMENT.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MR. HODGMAN: YESTERDAY OR THE OTHER DAY, THE COURT HAD TO TAKE A DEEP BREATH. ALLOW ME TO TAKE ONE TOO.
THE COURT: I TOOK A DEEP BREATH AND THEN DECIDED TO TAKE A RECESS AND DECIDED I SHOULD GO HOME.
MR. COCHRAN: WE NOTICED, YOUR HONOR.
MR. SHAPIRO: WE DON’T HAVE THAT OPTION, DO WE?
MR. COCHRAN: WE CAN’T DO THAT.
THE COURT: I DON’T KNOW.
MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, THE COURT IS ABSOLUTELY ACCURATE IN THE SENSE THAT WE HAVE SOME DISCOVERY ITEMS OF CONCERN THAT DESERVE DISCUSSION THIS AFTERNOON. IN COUNSEL’S OPENING STATEMENT TODAY, THERE HAS BEEN REFERENCE — I HAVE A LAUNDRY LIST HERE, BUT THAT LAST REFERENCE —
THE COURT: LET’S DEAL WITH THEM ONE AT A TIME. I HAVE A NUMBER OF WITNESSES THAT WERE MENTIONED THAT I HAVE CONCERN ABOUT. BUT LET’S DEAL WITH THE ENVELOPE AND ITS CONTENTS AND THE RECORDS RELATING TO IT. WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE? WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE SPECIFICALLY TO MR. SHAPIRO’S ARGUMENT THAT — I AGREE WITH YOU, I’M CONCERNED ABOUT THE ENVELOPE’S USE DURING THE COURSE OF OPENING STATEMENT. BUT WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE TO MR. SHAPIRO’S ARGUMENT THAT SINCE IT WAS GOING TO BE PRESENTED AS AN IMPEACHMENT ITEM — AND UNFORTUNATELY — WELL, YOU KNOW FROM THE REPORT WHAT THE ITEM IS, FROM DR. LEE’S AND DR. SUGIYAMA’S REPORT AS TO WHAT THE ITEM IS. SO THAT’S NOT ADMISSIBLE.
MR. HODGMAN: WE KNOW WHAT THE ITEM IS, YOUR HONOR. BUT AS FAR AS THE STATED PURPOSE, I MEAN, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I BELIEVE OCCURRED ON SHAKING SANDS THIS AFTERNOON. WE ARE GOING TO ASK FOR A HEARING WITH REGARD TO UTILIZATION OF THE ENVELOPE AND CONTENTS OF THE ENVELOPE, AND WE CERTAINLY ASK OR WHAT I REQUESTED THUS FAR IS AN ADMONITION TO THE JURY.
THE COURT: LET ME ASK YOU THIS, MR. HODGMAN. JUST AS FAR AS THE ENVELOPE AND ITS CONTENTS, YOU KNOW WHAT IT IS. WE KNOW THAT IT WAS AN ITEM SOUGHT BY THE POLICE SEARCH WARRANT AND THEY DID NOT IN FACT RECOVER IT.
MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, WE DON’T KNOW THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE RECOVERY OF THAT ITEM.
THE COURT: I KNOW.
MR. HODGMAN: AND TO STATE —
THE COURT: NO. MR. HODGMAN, I’M STATING A KNOWN FACT. YOU KNOW WHAT IS IN THE ENVELOPE FROM THE REPORT FROM THE TWO DOCTORS OR THE CRIMINALIST AND THE DOCTOR. YOU KNOW THERE’S AN ITEM THAT WAS ORIGINALLY SOUGHT OR SOMETHING SIMILAR TO IT WAS SOUGHT IN THE SEARCH WARRANT, CORRECT?
MR. HODGMAN: I KNOW THAT ITEMS LIKE THAT. THAT PARTICULAR ITEM, YOUR HONOR, I DON’T KNOW THE SOURCE. I DON’T KNOW THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE RECOVERY.
THE COURT: LET’S ASSUME WE’RE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING.
MR. HODGMAN: I CAN’T MAKE THAT ASSUMPTION, YOUR HONOR. I DON’T KNOW UNTIL WE GET DISCOVERY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE RECOVERY OF THAT ITEM. I MEAN, WE ARE COMPLETELY IN THE DARK. AND WHAT YOUR HONOR — AGAIN, I’M GOING TO —
THE COURT: HERE’S THE POINT. THE POINT THOUGH, THEY’RE SAYING THEY DON’T HAVE TO DISCLOSE IT BECAUSE IT’S IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE, THAT IT’S GOING TO COME DURING THE COURSE OF THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE POLICE OFFICERS THAT YOU’RE GOING TO CALL SERVING THE SEARCH WARRANT WHO SEIZE THE EVIDENCE. WHAT’S YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT?
MR. HODGMAN: MY RESPONSE, YOUR HONOR —
THE COURT: THAT’S THE ISSUE.
MR. HODGMAN: IT HAS BEEN DISCLOSED. WE WANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A HEARING ON THIS AND LITIGATE IT. MY POSITION RIGHT NOW IS THAT ITEM SHOULD BE SIMPLY SUPPRESSED. NOW, WE HAVE A STATED PURPOSE FROM COUNSEL THIS AFTERNOON, BUT THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FORTHCOMING IN AN OPENING STATEMENT, NOT AT ALL, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: MR. SHAPIRO, I’M CONCERNED THOUGH THAT YOU’VE SORT OF WAIVED CERTAIN CONFIDENTIALITY AS TO WHAT IT IS BY ITS USE OR ATTEMPTED USE IN OPENING STATEMENT; WOULDN’T YOU AGREE?
MR. SHAPIRO: NO, YOUR HONOR. I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE. THERE WAS NEVER ANY INTENTION TO OPEN IT. THE ONLY INTENTION WAS TO TELL THE JURY SOMETHING VERY SIMPLY; THAT THE POLICE HAVE NOT DONE A PROPER JOB INVESTIGATING THIS CASE. AND IT STARTED AT THE BEGINNING AND IT WENT TO THE END. AND EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD TWO SEARCH WARRANTS TO SEARCH A LOCATION AND TO LOOK FOR A PARTICULAR ITEM AS DIRECTED BY TWO JUDGES, THAT THEIR INCOMPETENCE WAS SO GROSS THAT THEY OVERLOOKED A POTENTIAL KEY ITEM OF EVIDENCE; AND WE WILL POINT THAT OUT AS IMPEACHING EVIDENCE OF THE OFFICERS WHO WERE IN CHARGE OF THE SEARCH. WE WERE NOT GOING TO OPEN IT, WE WERE NOT GOING TO DESCRIBE ITS CONTENTS, WE WERE NOT GOING TO MENTION WHERE IT CAME FROM. WE WERE SIMPLY GOING TO SAY THAT THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT HAD DIRECTIONS FROM TWO JUDGES TO LOOK FOR SOMETHING.
THE COURT: WELL, THE VALUE IN NOT HAVING TO DISCLOSE SOMETHING THAT’S BEING USED FOR IMPEACHMENT PURPOSES IS OBVIOUS. THE PROBLEM IS, YOU’VE CREATED A PROBLEM BY BRINGING THE ENVELOPE OUT. I AGREE THAT MR. HODGMAN’S ENTITLED TO A HEARING BEFORE THE ITEM IS ACTUALLY OPENED, AND WE WILL HAVE THAT HEARING AT THE TIME THAT THE DEFENSE INTENDS TO PRESENT THAT, PRIOR TO THEN.
MR. SHAPIRO: WE WOULD ALSO ASK THE COURT TO INQUIRE WHAT GROUNDS THERE ARE FOR THE PEOPLE TO SUPPRESS AN ITEM OF IMPEACHMENT.
THE COURT: THEY’VE ASKED FOR A HEARING.
MR. SHAPIRO: ON WHAT GROUNDS?
THE COURT: WELL, I HAVE NO IDEA. I AM SURE BETWEEN NOW AND TWO MONTHS FROM NOW WHEN IT’S ACTUALLY PRESENTED —
MR. SHAPIRO: NO. IT MAY BE PRESENTED AS EARLY AS TOMORROW, DEPENDING ON WHAT WITNESSES THEY CALL.
THE COURT: COULD BE. WE’LL SEE. WELL, PRIOR TO ITS PRESENTATION, WE WILL HOLD A HEARING OUTSIDE OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY AS TO WHAT — THEY ARE ENTITLED TO KNOW WHAT IT IS BEFORE YOU USE IT TO PREPARE THEIR WITNESSES.
MR. SHAPIRO: THEY ALREADY KNOW WHAT IT IS. THEY’VE ALREADY STATED THAT.
THE COURT: NOW, AS TO THE NAMES — SO THE ISSUE WILL REMAIN UNRESOLVED UNTIL THE MATTER ACTUALLY COMES UP FOR PRESENTATION BECAUSE I THINK THAT’S THE TIME TO LITIGATE THAT ISSUE. BUT YOU ARE ON NOTICE THAT IT’S THERE.
MR. HODGMAN: WE ARE ON NOTICE THAT IT IS THERE, BUT WE ARE STILL COMPLETELY IN THE DARK, THE PEOPLE ARE COMPLETELY IN THE DARK AS TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE RECOVERY. WE MAY KNOW WHAT IT IS, YOUR HONOR, BUT COUNSEL HAS INFORMATION AND IS MAKING ILLUSIONS THIS AFTERNOON —
THE COURT: MR. HODGMAN, LET ME SUGGEST YOU DO THIS THOUGH. MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW ON IMPEACHMENT IS, THEY’RE NOT REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE IT UNTIL THEY WANT TO USE IT IF IT’S IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE. IF YOU HAVE SOME EVIDENCE OUT OF THE LAW OF DISCOVERY THAT’S CONTRARY TO THAT, LET ME KNOW TOMORROW. IF YOU’VE GOT SOME CASES TO THE CONTRARY, LET ME KNOW.
MR. SHAPIRO: ALSO, PERHAPS IT MIGHT HELP MR. HODGMAN THAT THIS ITEM WAS NOT RECOVERED BY US, BUT IT WAS RECOVERED BY A RETIRED JUDGE AT THE COURT’S DIRECTION.
MS. CLARK: ON WHOSE BEHEST? HOW DID THE JUDGE KNOW TO GO OUT THERE?
MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, WE ARE STILL UNAWARE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF WHERE, WHEN THIS ITEM WAS RECOVERED. WE DON’T KNOW. THE PEOPLE HAVE NEVER KNOWN. COUNSEL APPARENTLY KNOWS, AND IT WAS — THAT WHOLE ARRANGEMENT WAS DONE AT THE REQUEST OF THE DEFENSE.
THE COURT: MR. HODGMAN, IT’S OBVIOUSLY A DISCOVERY ISSUE. THE QUESTION IS, ARE YOU ENTITLED TO KNOW ABOUT THEIR IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE BEFORE THEY PRESENT IT, UNTIL JUST BEFORE THEY PRESENT IT. MY READING OF THE LAW OF DISCOVERY IS, THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS NO, IF IT’S IMPEACHMENT. IF YOU HAVE SOME AUTHORITY TO THE CONTRARY, LET ME KNOW TOMORROW. ALL RIGHT. I’VE DIRECTED MR. COCHRAN — I GAVE THE ENVELOPE BACK TO MRS. ROBERTSON, DIRECTED HIM NOT TO USE IT IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT. THAT’S WHERE WE STAND.
MR. HODGMAN: AND WITH REGARD TO THAT, YOUR HONOR, AGAIN, WE REPEAT OUR REQUEST FOR AN ADMONITION TO THE JURY.
THE COURT: NO. YOU DON’T NEED TO REPEAT IT. THANK YOU.
MR. HODGMAN: VERY WELL.
THE COURT: OKAY. LET’S GO TO —
MR. HODGMAN: WITNESSES.
THE COURT: I AM SORRY. MR. COCHRAN, YOU’RE GOING TO HAVE TO SPELL THOSE NAMES FOR ME.
MR. COCHRAN: WHICH ONE, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: GOTCHAS.
MR. COCHRAN: MARYANNE GERCHAS? I THINK IT’S MARYANNE GERCHAS, G-E-R-C-H-A-S, YOUR HONOR, I BELIEVE.
THE COURT: WHEN YOU BRING UP SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THE COURT REPORTER WOULD BE THRILLED IF YOU SPELL IT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
MR. COCHRAN: I WILL.
THE COURT: MR. DOUGLAS, ARE YOU GOING TO ADDRESS THESE DISCOVERY ISSUES REGARDING WITNESSES?
MR. DOUGLAS: I’M GOING TO TRY, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. DOUGLAS: THE COURT IS WELL AWARE THAT WE HAVE BEEN WORKING DILIGENTLY IN THIS MATTER. THE COURT IS EQUALLY AWARE THAT THE WORK IN THIS CASE HAS BEEN DIVIDED AMONG A COUPLE OF OFFICES AND INVESTIGATORS, ET CETERA. IT PERHAPS IS REGRETTABLE THAT I STAND BEFORE THIS COURT, THAT WE HAVE NOT COORDINATED ALL OF OUR DEFENSE EFFORTS AS WELL AS I WOULD HAVE LIKED BEFORE THIS POINT. I SAY THAT BECAUSE, YOUR HONOR, I HAVE SOME DOCUMENTS THAT I DO INTEND TO GIVE OVER TO THE PEOPLE. AS THE COURT HAS ENCOURAGED BOTH LAST NIGHT AND BEFORE, I HAVE HAD A LAW CLERK WORKING FROM MID MORNING ON YESTERDAY PREPARING TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTS AND ANY WITNESS STATEMENTS ON THIS MATTER.
THE COURT: ONE OF THE ITEMS I FORGOT TO DO THIS MORNING WAS TO ASK FOR YOUR REPORT THIS MORNING.
MR. DOUGLAS: AND THAT IS WHAT I AM DOING RIGHT NOW, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MY MISTAKE.
MR. DOUGLAS: BY WAY OF BACKGROUND, JUST SO I CAN LEND SOME SCOPE TO WHAT OUR EFFORTS HAVE INVOLVED, I HAVE IN MY OWN OFFICE 16 NOTEBOOKS OF DIFFERENT WITNESS STATEMENTS. THEY ARE PRIMARILY STATEMENTS THAT WERE PROVIDED BY DISCOVERY GIVEN ME BY THE PEOPLE. THERE WERE THEN EFFORTS BY MY INVESTIGATORS TO INTERVIEW SOME OF THOSE WITNESSES AT VARIOUS OCCASIONS, AND THERE HAVE BEEN LEADS THAT HAVE BEEN DERIVED FROM THOSE INTERVIEWS. AT VARIOUS TIMES, THERE HAVE BEEN FIVE DIFFERENT INVESTIGATORS WORKING IN VARIOUS ASPECTS ON THIS CASE REPORTING NOT ONLY TO MY OFFICE, BUT TO MR. SHAPIRO’S OFFICE AS WELL. THE NORMAL PROCESS HAS BEEN THAT DUPLICATE COPIES OF ALL INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS BE SUBMITTED BOTH TO MR. SHAPIRO’S OFFICE AND TO OUR OFFICE AS WELL. THE NORMAL PROCESS HAS BEEN THAT I HAVE WORKED VERY CLOSELY WITH MISS SARA CAPLAN, MR. SHAPIRO’S OFFICE, MUTUALLY COORDINATING DIFFERENT DISCOVERY, MUTUALLY COORDINATING THE PREPARATION OF DIFFERENT DEFENSE WITNESS LISTS AND COMPARING WHAT ITEMS WOULD COMPLY WITH THE DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF DISCOVERY CONSISTENT WITH OUR INTERPRETATION OF OUR OBLIGATION UNDER THE DISCOVERY ACT. I AM PREPARED AT THIS TIME — BECAUSE THERE HAS NOW BEEN WHAT I HOPE IS A FINAL SEARCH OF ALL NAMES THAT WERE ON OUR WITNESS LIST, NOT ONLY ON THE RECENT WITNESS LIST, BUT ALSO ON THE LIST THAT WAS PREPARED IN AUGUST OF 1994. AND WE WENT THROUGH EACH OF THOSE 16 BOOKS, YOUR HONOR, AND WE WENT THROUGH AND PULLED ANY DEFENSE REPORTS. AND THIS AFTERNOON, I HAD MISS CAPLAN COMPARE ALL OF THE REPORTS THAT WERE SIFTED THROUGH AND TAKEN OUT OF MY NOTEBOOKS WITH THOSE DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED TO THE PEOPLE. I HAVE A STACK OF — NOT A STACK. I HAVE PROBABLY 12 REPORTS, 13 INCLUDING THE REPORT OF MR. — I WILL REPRESENT TO THE COURT AS AN OFFICER OF THIS COURT THAT MISS GERCHAS’ STATEMENT I SEE FOR THE FIRST TIME ONLY FIVE MINUTES AGO. IT IS A COPY OF A STATEMENT THAT WAS TAKEN JULY OF 1994. YOUR HONOR, I ACKNOWLEDGE AND I ANTICIPATE THAT THERE WILL BE STRENUOUS EFFORTS TO IMPUNE BOTH MY PERSONAL INTEGRITY AND THE INTEGRITY OF THE DEFENSE TEAM. I TELL THIS COURT, LOOKING THE COURT STRAIGHT IN THE EYE WITH ALL SERIOUSNESS, THAT IT HAD BEEN AN OVERSIGHT AND I AM EMBARRASSED BY IT AND I TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY. IT IS MY OBLIGATION AS THE COORDINATOR OF THE EVIDENCE TO BE BETTER ON TOP OF THE WITNESS FLOW AND THE PREPARATION OF STATEMENTS AND REPORTS. IT IS MY BLAME AND MY BLAME ALONE AND I TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY. I AM REMINDED BY MR. COCHRAN THAT MISS GERCHAS IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHOM THE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN AWARE OF BECAUSE, AS IS AT LEAST OUR UNDERSTANDING, MISS GERCHAS WAS — HAD CONTACTED BOTH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE. HOWEVER, YOUR HONOR, I ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY BECAUSE HER NAME WAS ADDED TO OUR LIST IN JULY — I AM SORRY — IN AUGUST. THERE WAS A STATEMENT THAT WAS TAKEN APPARENTLY FROM AN INVESTIGATOR WHO WE DO NOT WORK HAND IN HAND WITH EACH DAY. IT DOES NOT EXCUSE IT, YOUR HONOR, AND I SEEK NOT TO EXCUSE IT. I AM ONLY OFFERING AN EXPLANATION. I AM PROVIDING TODAY A STATEMENT OF MARYANNE GERCHAS, AND THAT IS A STATEMENT THAT IS SIGNED BY HER FULLY WITHIN THE — BOTH THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER OF THE DISCOVERY ACT, FULLY A DOCUMENT THAT WE WERE OBLIGED TO TURN OVER IN AUGUST OF 1994. I AM ALSO TURNING OVER A STATEMENT OF MISS MICHELLE ABUDRAHM, WHICH IS DATED JUNE 24TH OF 1994. THIS IS A SECOND STATEMENT THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN TURNED OVER IN AUGUST. BUT SHE IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS THE FORMER MAID OF MR. SIMPSON WHO WAS STRUCK BY NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON WHO THEY ARE FULLY AWARE OF. THEY HAVE BEEN INTERVIEWING DIFFERENT WITNESSES ABOUT THE INCIDENTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES GIVING RISE TO MISS BROWN SIMPSON STRIKING MICHELLE ABUDRAHM. SO THEY ARE AWARE OF HER EXISTENCE.
THE COURT: MR. DOUGLAS, COULD YOU SPELL THE NAME FOR ME, PLEASE?
MR. DOUGLAS: SURE, YOUR HONOR. A-B-U-D-R-A-H-M. I AM TURNING OVER, YOUR HONOR, A STATEMENT BY — OF A RACHEL BERMAN WHO IS AN EIGHT YEAR OLD WHO ACCOMPANIED THE SIMPSON CHILDREN AND NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, A PERSON WHOM THEY ARE AWARE OF. SHE ACCOMPANIED THEM TO BEN AND JERRY’S IF YOU WILL AND SHE ACCOMPANIED THEM TO MEZZALUNA. SHE IS AN EIGHT YEAR OLD. HER NAME WAS GIVEN ONLY THIS MONDAY ON OUR SUPPLEMENTAL WITNESS LIST.
THE COURT: WHAT’S THE DATE OF THAT STATEMENT?
MR. DOUGLAS: THAT STATEMENT IS DATED JUNE 20TH, 1994, YOUR HONOR. HER MOTHER’S NAME HAS BEEN ON OUR WITNESS LIST. THE STATEMENT OF THE MOTHER WAS EARLIER GIVEN. WE DECIDED ONLY THIS WEEK TO ADD THE CHILD ON OUR WITNESS LIST. I AM TURNING OVER A STATEMENT DATED JULY 31 OR DATED AUGUST THE 1ST CONCERNING A JULY 31 INTERVIEW OF AN ALEX CASTILLO, WHOM MISS CAPLAN INFORMS ME WAS NOT PREVIOUSLY TURNED OVER.
THE COURT: AND WHAT IS MR. CASTILLO’S RELEVANCE?
MR. DOUGLAS: MR. CASTILLO WAS AN EMPLOYEE, MEZZALUNA RESTAURANT. AND HE GIVES TESTIMONY OR INFORMATION CONCERNING A SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT BY DETECTIVE TOM LANGE SUGGESTING THAT HE HAD GIVEN MR. GOLDMAN A BEEPER AND DENYING SAME. I AM TURNING OVER AN AUGUST 2 —
THE COURT: LET ME JUST CLARIFY. IS THIS THE BRENTWOOD MEZZALUNA OR BEVERLY HILLS?
MR. DOUGLAS: THAT’S CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: WHICH?
MR. DOUGLAS: THIS IS THE BRENTWOOD MEZZALUNA. I’M SORRY. I AM TURNING OVER A STATEMENT OF NARINDEN, N-A-R-I-N-D-E-N, SINGH, S-I-N-G-H. MR. SINGH IS THE OWNER OF A NEWSSTAND ACROSS THE STREET FROM MEZZALUNA. HE IS ON OUR WITNESS LIST. IT IS SIMPLY TALKING ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF A VIDEO CAMERA AT HIS NEWSSTAND. HE IS ON THE WITNESS LIST AS JUST A PRECAUTION.
THE COURT: WHAT IS THE DATE OF THAT STATEMENT?
MR. DOUGLAS: AUGUST THE 2ND, 1994. I AM TURNING OVER A REPORT FOR KEVIN WHELAN, W-H-E-L-A-N. THE REPORT IS DATED AUGUST THE 3RD, 1994. HE WORKS AS A DISPATCHER WITH NETWORK COURIER SERVICES, WHO SPEAKS ABOUT A COURIER HAVING CALLED THE DISPATCH AND SAYING THAT THE COURIER HAD OBTAINED AN AUTOGRAPH OF O.J. SIMPSON ON JUNE THE 12TH, 1994 AT 11:20 P.M. AND THE STATEMENT IS, “YOU’LL NEVER GUESS WHOSE AUTOGRAPH I GOT. O.J.’S.” I AM TURNING OVER A STATEMENT, YOUR HONOR, DATED JULY 14TH, 1994 OF A TONY PARKER. AS THE COURT WILL RECALL, I DID NOT KNOW ON MONDAY WHO TONY PARKER WAS. AS THE COURT WILL FURTHER RECALL, I TURNED TO MISS CAPLAN, AND SHE DIDN’T KNOW WHO HE WAS. THIS IS A STATEMENT THAT COMES FROM ONE OF OUR INVESTIGATORS. MR. PARKER IS THE OWNER OF A WHITE 1973 INTERNATIONAL SCOUT FOUR-WHEEL DRIVE WHICH WAS PARKED ON BUNDY NORTH OF DARLINGTON ON JUNE THE 11TH THROUGH JUNE THE 13TH, 1994. I AM TURNING OVER, YOUR HONOR, A TWO-PAGE DOCUMENT GIVEN FROM MARK PARTRIDGE. MR. PARTRIDGE IS THE —
THE COURT: THE LAWYER REFERRED TO BY MR. COCHRAN.
MR. DOUGLAS: CORRECT, YOUR HONOR. DATED JUNE 27, 1994. AND THERE’S A FAX COVER SHEET DATED JUNE 25, 1994. I AM TURNING OVER A REPORT FROM MISS ROSITA RHEUBAN, R-H-E-U-B-A-N, DATED AUGUST 21ST, 1994. SHE IS CONNECTED WITH RHEUBAN MOTORS, WHICH WAS ONE OF THE IMPOUND YARDS I THINK THAT IS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE CONCERNING A.C. COWLINGS’ BRONCO.
THE COURT: WHAT’S THE DATE OF IT?
MR. DOUGLAS: AUGUST THE 23RD, 1994. I AM TURNING OVER ANOTHER REPORT FOR PAUL SONENSHINE, S-O-N-E-N-S-H-I-N-E, DATED AUGUST 16TH, 1994 CONCERNING AN INTERVIEW THAT HE HAD. HE IS AN EMPLOYEE OF RHEUBEN’S IMPOUND YARD, AND HE TALKS ABOUT THE FACT THAT MR. COWLINGS’ BRONCO WAS LEFT IN AN UNSECURED LOCATION. I AM TURNING A REPORT OVER DATED JULY 20, 1994 OF MR. THOMAS TALERINO, T-A-L-E-R-I-N-O, WHO TALKS ABOUT THE FACT THAT HE WAS ROLLER SKATING ON JUNE THE 12TH, 1994 ON BUNDY AND HE SEES A MAN HIDING IN THE BUSHES NEAR 877 SOUTH BUNDY WHO WAS NOT THE DEFENDANT. I AM TURNING OVER A REPORT OF DR. RONALD — MR. RONALD TAYLOR DATED JUNE 22, 1994, WHO RESIDES IN CHICAGO, WHO SAID THAT MR. TAYLOR HAD OCCASION ON JUNE 13TH TO SEE O.J. SIMPSON. WHEN MR. TAYLOR ARRIVED — WHEN MR. SIMPSON ARRIVED IN CHICAGO, THAT HE SHOOK HIS HANDS, EXCHANGED A FEW PLEASANTRIES, OBSERVED HIS HANDS AND DID NOT SEE ANY SCRATCHES OR CUTS AND HOW MR. SIMPSON WAS VERY FRIENDLY AND GRACIOUS, BUT APPEARED TIRED FROM THE FLIGHT. I AM TURNING OVER A REPORT DATED JULY 19, 1994 FROM MR. JASON WOOD, WHO APPARENTLY WORKED FOR AIR TOUCH CELLULAR LOCATED IN IRVINE AND WHO HAPPENED TO CALL MR. SIMPSON ON HIS CELLULAR PHONE ON JUNE 17TH, 1994. I AM ALSO TURNING OVER A REPORT OF A MR. JOEL PITCOFF, P-I-T-C-O-F-F, DATED AUGUST 24TH, 1994. MR. PITCOFF IS A RESEARCH AND ANALYST, MANAGER OF THE FORD MOTOR COMPANY, AND THIS IS THE REPORT TESTIFYING OR STATING THAT FOR THE 10-MONTH PERIOD FROM OCTOBER ’93 THROUGH JULY ’94, 26,688 FORD BRONCOS WERE SOLD NATIONALLY, 20,012 WERE SOLD IN THE FIRST SEVEN MONTHS OF 1994.
THE COURT: HOW MANY WHITE ONES?
MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, THIS REPORT DOES NOT BREAK DOWN THE NUMBER OF WHITE ONES. AND THOSE ARE THE STATEMENTS THAT I CAN SAY NOW WITH A STRONGER DEGREE OF CONFIDENCE ARE ALL STATEMENTS THAT ARE DISCOVERABLE THAT ARE OBLIGATED TO BE TURNED OVER. AS I SAY, YOUR HONOR, I TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY FAILURES TO HAVE FULLY COMPLIED WITH.
THE COURT: MR. DOUGLAS, HOW DO YOU SUGGEST I DEAL WITH THE OBJECTIONS THAT I’M GOING TO HEAR FROM THE PROSECUTION AS SOON AS I FINISH PEELING THEM OFF THE CEILING?
MR. DOUGLAS: I SUSPECT, YOUR HONOR, THAT THE BEST WAY TO DEAL WITH THESE OBJECTIONS, ONE, IS TO STRONGLY ADMONISH THE DEFENSE, AS YOU PROBABLY WILL DO. I THINK A SECOND APPROPRIATE OBJECTION WOULD BE THAT WHEN WE GET TO THE DEFENDANT’S CASE, WHICH WILL BE LIKELY IN TWO MONTHS IF NOT LONGER, THAT YOU ASK THE PEOPLE FOR THE STATUS OF THEIR INVESTIGATIVE EFFORTS AS TO THESE PARTICULAR WITNESSES. THAT IF THE PEOPLE CAN MAKE A SHOWING THAT THEY HAVE FAILED OR BEEN UNABLE TO FULLY COMPLETE ANY INVESTIGATION AS TO ANY OF THESE INDIVIDUALS AFTER HAVING TWO MONTHS OR MORE TO DO SO, THAT WE BE REQUIRED TO CALL THESE WITNESSES TOWARDS THE END OF OUR CASE. I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE A SANCTION THAT WOULD BE MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE SANCTION THAT WAS EARLIER IMPOSED ON THE PROSECUTOR, BUT I THINK THAT MY LEARNED COLLEAGUES MIGHT HAVE SOME OTHER THOUGHTS IN THAT REGARD.
MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, ONE VOICE PER ISSUE.
THE COURT: YEAH.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. DOUGLAS: AS I SAID EARLIER, YOUR HONOR, SINCE JANUARY 1ST OF THIS YEAR, I HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING THE EVIDENCE, FOR MAKING SURE THAT DISCOVERY HAS BEEN FULLY COMPLIED WITH. CERTAINLY, THIS TURNING OVER OF DOCUMENTS TODAY REFLECTS A BREACH IN THE PROCESS. IT IS ONE THAT PREDATES MY CURRENT ROLE, BUT ONE THAT I ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR BECAUSE SOMEBODY HAS TO. I THINK HOWEVER, YOUR HONOR, WHEN YOU TAKE THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, GIVEN THE SCOPE AND THE MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, GIVEN THE NUMBER OF WITNESSES ON BOTH INDIVIDUALS’ WITNESS LISTS, GIVEN THE TIME AND THE CARE AND THE EFFORT THAT HAS OBVIOUSLY BEEN PLACED INTO THIS CASE BY BOTH SIDES, THAT THE COURT SHOULD FASHION ANY SANCTION, IF AT ALL, THAT IS MEASURED, THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COURT’S KNOWLEDGE THAT THESE ARE LAWYERS WHO DON’T PLAY GAMES, WHO DON’T PLAY FAST AND LOOSE WITH THE RULES, WHO PERHAPS BOTH SIDES HAVE MADE MISTAKES AND ERRORS. I SEE MR. DARDEN SMILING.
MR. DARDEN: I’M NOT.
MR. DOUGLAS: BOTH SIDES HAVE MADE MISTAKES. WE ARE ALL HUMAN. I AM NOT PERFECT, BUT THERE IS NO BAD FAITH, AND I AM SURPRISED AS ANYONE THAT THERE WERE THESE NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS THAT HAD NOT BEEN TURNED OVER PREVIOUSLY.
Transcript from January 25th, 1995.
This was a whole lot of transcript, but I thought this portion of the proceedings was worth highlighting. I’ve never seen this before, and I’ve probably followed cases since around this time!