Okay.
Ms. Reporter, that portion of the testimony where Mr. Baker said you have not seen -- even seen the document, Your Honor. Mr. Petrocelli would you like, and then you have on here the Court, I -- you told me what it was. That's not what I said. So I want to clarify the record.
I can't tell -- I can't tell without looking at the notes. It might have mistranned.
I want to clarify the record today. I don't want to be in a position of coming back the day after and trying to explain why it wasn't correct at the time that it came to my attention.
Okay.
The document that Mr. Baker referred to appears to be a letter dated June 15, 1994, which reads as follows:
Dear Detectives Vannatter and Lange: At our meeting today, I offered
to provide the services of Dr. Michael
Baden, Pathologist, and Dr. Henry Lee,
Criminologist, to aid in the
investigation of the murder of Nicole
Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman.
These gentlemen are employed by the
state governmental agency, and, in my
opinion, are the leading experts in the
United States. I think it is imperative prior to
internment, that a second autopsy be
performed that may produce evidence
relevant to the murders. Detective Tom Lange requested a
polygraph of Mr. Simpson. Mr. Simpson
will be willing to consider a polygraph
examination, with the stipulation that
the results would be admissible in any
potential criminal investigation. We have written" --
Appears to be a new paragraph.
At any rate, on the second page, quote: We have written to the coroner,
requesting a second autopsy, and would
like you to contact the next of kin for
permission in this regard, since I feel
it would be inappropriate for me to
contact them directly during this
period.
It's signed Robert O. Shapiro.
Thank you.
Okay. It's my opinion that this is probably the most troublesome aspect of this case that has been brought about by the reference by defense of the polygraph, the failure of the plaintiff to object at the time, and we are in a state of our case wherein reference to the polygraph had been made.
The Court is satisfied that the state of the law is, polygraphic evidence is not admissible by statute, as well as by case law in this state. And the Court is inclined to not permit the evidence in this regard.
Before counsel may be permitted to make any argument in closing argument in this regard, I will visit this issue again and allow counsel to submit points and authorities in that regard.
My inclination is not to permit at this point any further comment on the polygraph, because to permit comment on it, it would appear to me, it would be to permit a contention that the polygraph has probative value as to truthfulness or untruthfulness, there being no evidence being received in that regard. Number one.
Number 2, the Court, having the understanding that it's not admissible evidence statutorily or by case law, that such comments should not be permitted, possibly with the exception of a stipulation by counsel that it were to be considered and there not be any such stipulation, the Court, the same preclude any reference to polygraphs pending further points and authorities on that issue.
For the record, I want to object to the Court's ruling.
He opened the door once in opening, after your Court's limiting instruction, to which I objected because of the scope of it.
He then opened it up a second time on this witness's examination. He elicited that Mr. Simpson, once again, wanted to take one. The implication being if he had taken one, he would have passed. The implication being that it was trustworthy and reliable as a scientific device. And I don't see how I could possibly be precluded at this time, after he elicited this testimony, from me responding to it.
Mr. Petrocelli, so far as I've seen, this far, based upon all of your papers, your points and authorities, there is no admissible evidence in that regard that you can offer.
Mr. Simpson testified that he was hooked up to a polygraph operator. And I can produce a witness that can say he did take a test, irrespective of the outcome of the test. But it's unfair for him to keep throwing this up to the jury and we can't respond to it.
We have Robert Kardashian; we have the polygraph operator, and we have whoever else was there. I'll serve a subpoena on them and bring them in.
He keeps saying that Mr. Simpson would gladly and happily have taken a test.
The fact is, he did take a test.
KEY QUOTEHow does he -- How does he get around opening up a subject matter that, at the same time, he claims is work product and privilege and then bars us --
KEY QUOTEAt this point, I'm going to stand on what I said today. I'm not permitting any further movement on this issue, and I'm not going to permit defense to argue this.
For the record, I, first of all, have disagreed with the Court's opinion relative to the fact that -- that I opened the door in opening statement.
As this Court is well aware, an opening statement is not evidence, number one.
Number two, the -- the incident of this letter and the incident that he's talking about are totally separate and apart.
Mr. Brewer gets up and announces to the jury in opening statement, the title of my remarks is The Presumption of Guilt, Consciousness of Guilt. This goes to the consciousness of innocence that was opened by them. And I objected to the -- any going into the polygraph test by Mr. Petrocelli.
We had a side-bar. I was totally overruled. And I've also moved for mistrial on that basis.
And he opened the door and represented to this jury what a purported score was, what it meant, and that Mr. Simpson took a test without any good-faith belief in any of the above.
It's my opinion that this is probably the most troublesome aspect of this case that has been brought about by the reference by defense of the polygraph, the failure of the plaintiff to object at the time, and we are in a state of our case wherein reference to the polygraph had been made.
We have Robert Kardashian; we have the polygraph operator, and we have whoever else was there. I'll serve a subpoena on them and bring them in. He keeps saying that Mr. Simpson would gladly and happily have taken a test. The fact is, he did take a test.
How does he get around opening up a subject matter that, at the same time, he claims is work product and privilege and then bars us inquiring --
He opened the door and represented to this jury what a purported score was, what it meant, and that Mr. Simpson took a test without any good-faith belief in any of the above.