Good afternoon. My name is Dan Leonard; I represent O.J. Simpson.

Good afternoon.

Detective Phillips, was it your intention when you took the stand today, to make sure that your testimony before this jury was as accurate and truthful as possible?

Yes, sir.

And what steps, if any, did you take in order to accomplish that goal, sir?

I reviewed my transcript of the trial. I had one or two meetings with the plaintiffs' attorneys in preparation for my testimony here.

That's basically all I've done.

You had a meeting last night over at the Doubletree Hotel with the plaintiffs' attorneys; is that correct?

No.

Did you have a meeting at any time recently at the Doubletree Hotel with the plaintiffs' attorneys?

Other than meeting them there this morning, that's the first time I've ever been there.

I'm sorry; I misspoke.

When you met them this morning, Officer Thompson was also there; is that right?

Yes.

And you went over with the plaintiffs' attorneys, the questions you would be asked and the answers you would give?

This morning?

Yeah.

Not really.

What did you do this morning?

I looked at a photograph.

Okay. Which photograph was that, sir?

It was a photograph of the north -- the east-west walkway on the north side of the property.

Were you there when the plaintiffs' attorneys were showing Officer Thompson some photographs?

No.

You weren't present at all?

I didn't see anything that they were showing him.

Were you present when they were interviewing or discussing anything about this case with Officer Thompson?

No; I believe they left. I was eating breakfast in the restaurant, and Thompson and one of the attorneys left.

So, you weren't present for those discussions?

No, sir.

What else did you do?

You said you reviewed your transcript from the criminal trial, right?

Yes.

You met with the plaintiffs' attorneys on what, two occasions, including this morning?

Two or three occasions.

Did you meet with any investigators for the plaintiffs at any time?

There's an investigator named Otis Marlow that has come by the station. He basically just set up times when I was to meet with Mr. Medvene, to see what my schedule and their schedule was, and when that would be.

And Otis Marlow is a former LAPD officer, correct?

Yes, he is.

And he had some involvement in the Simpson case, did he not?

I don't know what involvement he had in the case.

So if he did, you don't know, right?

I'll withdraw the question.

He -- okay. You withdraw it, so I'm going to withdraw my answer.

Excuse me?

You withdrew the question, So I'm not going to answer it.

Fine.

Okay.

Did you at any time meet with a fellow named Tippin, an investigator for the plaintiffs?

I don't recall the name.

Tippin was an LAPD officer who worked in this investigation.

Tippin. I thought you said Tippet.

Tippin.

Tippin.

I don't recall meeting him. I may have talked to him on the phone.

When you talked to him, it was after Mr. Simpson's acquittal, correct?

I believe so.

He represented to you that he was an investigator for the plaintiffs in this case, correct?

That's why I would have talked to him.

And he had some role in the investigation, correct, of Mr. Simpson during the criminal case, right?

I have no idea what role he had. He works out of downtown, sir. I don't know who worked on this case out of downtown.

When is it that you last reviewed your transcript from the criminal trial?

Possibly looked at some of it last night.

Okay. And in particular, did you look at the section that dealt with the discussion that you had with Mr. Simpson when he was in Chicago, the telephone discussion?

I looked at that in the transcript, and I also viewed that in the document that I had prepared.

Okay. When you're referring to a document you prepared, you're referring to the report that you made of that?

Yes, sir.

By the way, that's the only report that you made involving your activities of June 13, 1994; isn't that right?

That's correct.

You didn't make any report about any observations of blood or anything else you made at either the Bundy or Rockingham crime scene; isn't that correct, sir?

That's correct.

So when you were testifying today about observations you made, that was from memory, wasn't it?

That's correct.

Prior to the criminal trial, sir, did you make sure that you reviewed any relevant materials, including your reports an reports of other officers, in order that your testimony would be accurate and truthful, sir? Did you do that?

To the best of my knowledge, I did.

That's something that you would do in a double-homicide case, isn't it?

Something I'd do in any homicide. I like to prepare myself before I take the witness stand.

Well, the case was special, wasn't it, sir?

Well, it was on national television, wasn't it?

Objection. Relevance, materiality.

I'm going to allow you sufficient leeway, but don't overdo it, please.

I hear you, Your Honor.

Okay. Thank you.

(BY MR. LEONARD) When you had your meeting with the plaintiffs' attorneys this morning, did you go over the part of your testimony that dealt with the discussion you had with Mr. Simpson when he was this Chicago?

Did you go over that in particular?

So your testimony is that the only thing you discussed was one photograph; is that right?

That's correct.

And nothing else?

Not this morning.

Now, on prior occasions when you have met with plaintiffs' attorneys, did you talk about your discussion with Mr. Simpson in Chicago, a telephone discussion, is that something that you did with them?

Yes.

Okay. And have you always told them the same version that you told the jury today about that telephone discussion?

I'd like to think I've told it the same way every time, except for a few words that may get changed here and there. But the basic meat of it, I think, is the same.

Well, can you think of any words right now that you didn't tell this jury that you've testified to before about this conversation?

No.

Objection. Compound. He's asking him to recall --

The answer can be yes or no.

(BY MR. LEONARD) Can you think of any?

Would you repeat the question.

Yes.

Can you think of any words that Mr. Simpson spoke to you or you spoke to Mr. Simpson during that telephone conversation that you didn't tell this jury about this morning --

No.

-- or this afternoon?

I can't think of any offhand.

You have made public appearances with the Goldman family; is that right?

I don't believe so.

Have you ever appeared, or have you ever attended any kind of rallies or anything like that or any kind of publication in support of the Ron Goldman Foundation?

No, I have not.

You've had discussions with Mr. Goldman since the acquittal; is that right?

Other than to say hi to him and how are you doing, and hope your family is doing fine, and he asks me the same. And that's basically been our conversations.

Do you feel like your testimony has been not colored at all by any feelings that you have about the result of the criminal case?

Today?

Yeah.

Sir, I got up here and testified to what I believe I remembered, exactly like I did in the criminal case. No different.

And again, you had the benefit of reviewing your transcript this morning; is that correct?

I didn't review my transcript this morning. I may have looked at a page or two.

Well when?

Most of it was done last night.

Okay. You feel like you did an author's review?

I didn't read it all, no. There was too much of it.

Didn't bother to read it all?

Well, I tried to read it all, but I have other cases to do, also.

Now, Mr. Medvene had asked you a number of questions about your discussion with Mr. Simpson.

Your telephone discussion on the 13th, for instance, he asked you if Mr. Simpson asked any questions about how Nicole Brown Simpson was killed. Do you remember that?

Yes.

And -- well, isn't it true that Mr. Simpson asked you repeatedly, "What do you mean, Nicole's been killed?"

Do you are remember that?

He wasn't asking me -- he was talking on the telephone, going, "Oh, my God. Nicole is dead. Oh, my God. Nicole is dead."

Well, who else was on the telephone?

Did he or did he not say to you repeatedly, "What do you mean, Nicole has been killed?"

Didn't he say that to you?

He asked me that one time, yes.

Didn't he say it repeatedly?

No.

Do you remember testifying at the criminal trial with regard to this very same discussion at page 15221 -- starting at 15220. And it was your answer to the question:

"Q. So you never responded to Mr. O.J. Simpson's request, 'What do you mean she's been killed?'

And it is your statement that he was upset at this point; was he not?

"A. Yes, he was."

Do you remember giving that answer to that question?

Okay.

Do you?

Yes.

Okay. Next:

"Q. And you expected -- and then he went to say, 'Oh, my God, Nicole is dead. Oh, my God.' And he continued repeating himself in and upset fashion; isn't that correct?

"A. Yes, he did.

Do you remember that?

Yes.

"Q. At some point, didn't you try to get him to get hold of himself from an emotional standpoint?

"A. Yes, I did.

"Q. And he kept repeating himself, 'she's been killed? What do you mean she's been killed? Oh, my God, Nicole is dead,' and repeated himself over and over again.

"A. That's correct.

Did you give those responses to those questions at the criminal trial, sir?

Yes.

Okay. So, in fact, Mr. Simpson did say to you over and over again, "What do you mean, she's been killed?" Isn't that right, sir?

He said that, yes.

And is there any reason in particular why you didn't tell that to this jury this afternoon?

Well, he said that, and then he said, "Oh, my God, Nicole's been killed; Oh, my God, Nicole is dead" over and over again.

My question, sir, is: Is there any reason in particular you failed to tell this jury that Mr. Simpson asked you the question, "What do you mean, she's been killed?"

Oh.

Well, did you read that part of the transcript when you were reviewing it?

All right. But you would agree that your recollection back then was better than it is today --

Yes, it is.

-- wouldn't you?

And you also prepared a report about this discussion, didn't you?

Yes, I did.

May I approach?

Thank you. This is Exhibit -- the next number.

What number is that?

What number?

Should be 2106, I believe.

MR. P. BAKER: Yes.

Jurors, hello.

You don't compare notes. If you've got questions, you ask the Court. You're not to talk about this case. Those notebooks and pencils we've given you are for you to take notes. What transpires in this trial is recorded by the reporter. If there's any discrepancy between what was wrote down and what you recall, you ask the Court, and the Court will have the reporter read it back to you.

You're not to discuss what you're writing down on your notes. Okay. Three of you jurors were conferring amongst yourselves about what you've been writing. Don't do that. Those notes are only your own personal notes, not your fellow jurors' notes

Everybody understand that?

Yes, sir.

All right.

May I, Your Honor?

You may.

Thank you.

(BY MR. LEONARD) I show you what's been marked as 2106.

And take your time and look at it; tell me what it is.

It's a statement I made about the conversation of Mr. Simpson on the telephone.

That's a written report that was made when, sir?

Typed report.

Excuse me. Typed report?

6/13/94.

It was made the same day, right?

That's correct.

You certainly would agree that your memory, as memorialized in that document, is much better than it is today, wouldn't you, sir?

Much better.

Much better?

Much better.

Now, I want you to read, if you will -- I think it's seven -- actually read one, two, three, four, five, six, seven -- why don't you read it starting with the, "I obtained the O'Hare Plaza Hotel," that paragraph. I want you to read that out loud to the jury.

Just that paragraph?

No, down to the bottom of the page.

I obtained the O'Hare Plaza Hotel phone number from information and called the hotel.

I asked for the room of Mr.` O.J. Simpson. I was connected, and a male voice answered. I asked the person if he was O.J. Simpson, and the voice responded yes.

I advised Mr. Simpson that I was Detective Ron Phillips of the Los Angeles Police Department, and that I had to relay some bad information to him. I advised Mr. Simpson that his ex-wife, Nicole, had been killed.

Mr. Simpson replied, "What do you mean, she has been killed? Oh, my God, Nicole is dead. Oh, my God."

Thank you, sir.

I tried --

Excuse me.

You said to the bottom of the page.

Go ahead.

It continues in context on the next page. We ask that that be read.

Well, you can have -- on your redirect, you can have him read the whole thing, if you like, okay?

I'm satisfied.

If you want him to just read a part, fine.

You don't want me to read to the bottom, sir?

No.

Okay.

(BY MR. LEONARD) Now, how long have you known Mark Fuhrman?

I believe Mark Fuhrman came to work the robbery table in 1991 or 1990. I don't recall for sure what year he came to the robbery table where I was working.

And when he arrived, when he came to the -- what does "table" mean? What do you mean by that?

In the detective division, it's a an old phrase because we used to all have tables instead of desks -- now we've gotten modern -- and two detectives sat at each table, and the tables butted against each other. It's a term that came up, that we work a table -- that is a robbery unit, a homicide unit and a burglary unit and an auto unit, so forth -- we work the robbery unit, that desk.

And Mark Fuhrman came to work with for the robbery unit.

When he came to work, you were his supervisor?

No, I was not.

You were his supervisor starting when? Let's put it like that.

When Mark Fuhrman came to the robbery unit, Bob Tapia was his supervisor. Then I was promoted to Detective II, and I out-ranked him -- I always out-ranked him -- but we didn't work together; we worked the same table.

And then when he was sent to the homicide unit, I became a D-3. I became his immediate supervisor.

And in -- in relation to June 12, 1994, when is it that you became Mark Fuhrman's immediate supervisor? In other words, was it a year before, two years before?

Well, again, I was his supervisor, a D-2 when he was a D-1 in robbery. But I was not his supervisor, like I was as a D-3; Bob Tapia was.

There's 3 ranks of Detective: Detective 1, 2, and 3. The D-3 is the overall detective supervisor; a D-2 is in the middle, and he out-ranks the D-1, and basically can tell them what to do and approve his reports, but I was not his ultimate supervisor.

When I went to work in the homicide unit, I believe in March -- February or March of '94 and Mark Fuhrman was working the homicide unit, I went there as a D-3 and I became his immediate supervisor, his ultimate supervisor.

So for about three or four months prior to June 12, 1994, you were his immediate supervisor?

That's true.

And you had to approve his work?

That's true.

You had to approve his reports --

Yes.

-- correct? You had to direct him as necessary, right?

Yes.

And you had to supervise and train him, if necessary?

Objection. Relevance, materiality, this line.

Approach the bench.