Three hours, three and a half, two and a half. Doesn't really matter. (Videotape is halted.) (Pause.) (Videotaped deposition of Dr. Henry Lee resumes being played, with Mr. Baker examining.) REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER:
Dr. Lee, let me go back to this drying. I want to read what was said in your transcript on August 28, 1995, because maybe it was misread to you. Page 43142 in the criminal trial transcript (During the videotaped deposition of Dr. Henry Lee, Mr. Baker read a portion of the criminal trial transcript.)
And is that because there is a threshold between wet and dry— strike that. And is that because the threshold between wet and dry is somewhat fuzzy.
Whether wet or dry, but they are in between, damp, not soaking wet. What's the definition of the wet, what kind of—you get into a semantic issue.
Okay. Thank you. (Mr. Baker read an answer given by Dr. Lee from a portion of the criminal trial transcript.)
If it is not dry. Anything else I call wet. (In the videotaped deposition of Dr. Henry Lee, Mr. Baker ceased reading from the criminal trial transcript of Dr. Henry Lee.)
KEY QUOTENow, Dr. Lee, in a laboratory procedure, the conditions are somewhat constant, are they not?
Now, Mr.—strike that. Dr. Lee, you heard Mr. Medvene ask you some questions about the sock being inside out, did you not?
And did you also determine— well, strike that. And the proposition that was proffered to you was basically if Mr. Simpson had blood on his hand or finger, and pressed side 3 of the sock that was outside—strike that—that was inside out, that that could account for the blood that you found when you examined the socks, correct?
(BY MR. BAKER) The area cut out on the sock—on sides 1 and 2 would have—in other words, the blood on side 1 and 2 was in the exact same position as you found red balls on side 3, correct?
Should be similar position. If press hard enough side 4 should have some blood stain, too.
KEY QUOTEAnd so it would have to be a coincidence if Mr. Simpson put blood on side 3 when the sock was inside out in the amazing same spot that had a cut out previously by someone in the sock that you examined, correct?
KEY QUOTENow, Mr. Medvene talked to you about, and I don't know if I can get there with this . . . talked to you about— Where did you put that other exhibit? (Pause in tape.)
MR. P. BAKER: 366.
367 from line 4 through 10 was read the first time around.
MR. P. BAKER: We didn't get to the redirect.
(BY MR. BAKER) That would— you mean you found a parallel line pattern; is that correct?
And got 70 plus pairs of shoes with a parallel line sole on them subsequent— (Tape halted.)
The second part was sustained. The Court overruled it to line 10. Line 11 is sustained. (Tape resumes playing.) (Tape halted.)
THE COURT: There was no objection to 368 -- well, strike that. 368:06 through 369:07 was sustained. Let's take a 10-minute recess. I understand you have the copy of the minute order to assist you. Okay. (Recess.) (The following proceedings were held in open court outside the presence of the jury.)
Judge, one matter just before—in anticipation of Mr. Simpson taking the stand. Back in September, as a result of the defendant's motion in limine No. 3, this Court had ruled that plaintiffs could not put Mr. Simpson's character in issue, specifically forbid us to go into any allegations of purported drug use or infidelities of Mr. Simpson unless, of course, he put his character in issue. Mr. Baker in his opening statement and subsequent to that, he's given some indication that he would put Nicole Brown's Simpson character in issue even though we have not in our case thus far. He's brought up mention of in his opening statement in particular the parties, visiting with prostitutes, heavy drug users into the home, being with a lot of different men, allegations of purported drug use, excessive drinking, erratic behavior and also mention of a terminated pregnancy after separation from Mr. Simpson. We've heard no evidence of that thus far, and I suspect that he may try to put this in through Mr. Simpson's own testimony. It's my position, Judge, that first of all, these things are totally irrelevant, that there's been no evidence presented that in any way would indicate that Nicole Brown Simpson's lifestyle or character or any of that had anything to do with these murders. Secondly, Mr. Simpson alone is the only one who has testified as to any purported drug use or excessive drinking of Nicole Brown Simpson. He based that only on conversations he had had with Nicole, and clearly she's not here to defend herself with regard to that. And finally, Judge, if this is put in issue, we have a number of witnesses, and all the depositions taken to date, indicate nothing but Nicole Brown Simpson was simply a wonderful person, and we're going to be forced to bring in a parade of witnesses to testify as to what a good person she was if character is put in issue. And we think that would be an undue consumption of the Court's time and certainly misleading to the issues of fact. And all I would ask at this time is to reenforce the Court's ruling of the other day that no allegations of drug use or excessive drinking of Nicole Brown Simpson be put into issue, certainly not any of her alleged romantic interests after her separation from Mr. Simpson, and specifically the defense be barred from any testimony regarding the purported terminated pregnancy. It's just not relevant to any of the issues, Your Honor.
Your Honor, this was—these issues were raised by plaintiffs. They were raised by the plaintiffs by saying that Mr. Simpson was in a jealous rage when these murders took place, and indicating to this jury that that's the cause of the rage, is that he had this thing for Nicole that he couldn't get over. This goes to the issue—the very issues amounting to their relationship. He put their relationship in issue in opening statement. It's been an issue in the whole case. And it will, I assume, continue to be an issue through final argument. Now, I'm certainly entitled to combat that issue with the testimony of my client, and I intend to do so. And had they not talked about the relationship between my client and Nicole, it wouldn't have come in ever because it wouldn't have been necessary. They have bandied that about for four months. I obviously have to defend on that issue, and intend to.
Your Honor, it's not the relationship. It's the specific issues I've mentioned. You'll—it's alleged drug use or excessive drinking or her romantic interests. And, first of all, we didn't put these issues before the jury, before the Court, or at issue at all. What we put at issue was possibly the relationship, which Mr. Simpson certainly allowed to comment upon, but the—these specific things Mr. Baker mentioned in his opening occurred before the reconciliation. Even so, it has nothing to do even in terms of a non-motive, in terms of that, Your Honor, these are all '92 incidences, early '93 incidences, even before the reconciliation, so they have no bearing on the relationship or non-motive for that affect, Your Honor, and it's just—it's just not relevant to the killing. We have put nothing forward that suggests in any way it has anything to do with these killings, nor has the defense in their part of the case also, Your Honor.
Drug use and drinking goes to the erratic behavior that Mr. Simpson will testify to. And that was a problem and concerned him and he talked to Juditha Brown about it. He raised that issue with Juditha Brown in all the telephone calls. The relationship—I mean we have spent basically three weeks on an incident of July 1, 1989 --
January, I'm sorry. And to an outsider, you would think that's the incident we're here on trial on, and of course that was some five and a half years before these murders took place. That seemed to be terribly relevant. 1984 incident in the relationship seemed to be terribly relevant. And the romantic interest—they say he was extremely jealous and he was in a jealous rage. The incident that took place to her romantic interests is that he had, for example, the incident that he witnessed, I mean he didn't go into any rage, he didn't go into the house and go into a rage. These the jury's entitled to hear. They've raised them and trumpeted them throughout the country. Now it's time for Mr. Simpson to explain.
Your Honor, with regard to the incidences of violence, that's a separate issue supported by P V. Zack. With regard to the specific things—as I say, they're way before the reconciliation, and the only thing I can add, if Mr. Simpson is going to testify to these things in terms of a non-motive or would be a reason for him not to have these strong feelings towards Nicole Brown Simpson or commit the murder, we should in fact be then allowed to bring in evidence of any purported drug use of his or infidelities or romantic interest he may have to show it wouldn't provide a non motive for motive for him, and the whole character issue should be front and center.
It would be nice if you would bring these things up in a timely fashion when we have time to address these things instead of right in the middle of taking evidence on something else.
I was in town. The issue was raised just the other day with Mr. Tippin again, and I wanted to reenforce it.
Then Mr. Baker and Mr. Petrocelli came in with matters. Why do you do it now? Right in the middle when we're trying to finish other matters?
I thought it was important before Mr. Simpson takes the stand and I felt it was—
Do it in a little more timely fashion, please. I'll reserve judgment on it. Bring the jury in. Let's finish this video examination. Get it out of here.
They were blue jeans, Your Honor, Guess jeans everyone. (Laughter.)
MR. P. BAKER: Judge, the transcript starts on 369, line 13, through to 374, line 15.
369?
MR. P. BAKER: Line 13, through 374, line 15. That's the end of the defense, and they have a couple more questions and that's it.
Monday morning, first thing. We just got them late yesterday and they're very thick and we're here in court.
-- you got a whole staff of lawyers. I don't know why these things come the way they do.
It's a big stack of papers at the end of the day yesterday and I was working very late last night.
Prepared to argue the Fuhrman one and the rebuttal one at—we'll just—we'll argue it orally, Your Honor.
The McKinney one, we have time to look at all the references that they're talking about. We can argue the law on all of them if you like.
If it is not dry. Anything else I call wet.
Should be similar position. If press hard enough side 4 should have some blood stain, too.
And so it would have to be a coincidence if Mr. Simpson put blood on side 3 when the sock was inside out in the amazing same spot that had a cut out previously by someone in the sock that you examined, correct?
Phil's future is not in the entertainment world, not in editing.
Secondly, Mr. Simpson alone is the only one who has testified as to any purported drug use or excessive drinking of Nicole Brown Simpson. He based that only on conversations he had had with Nicole, and clearly she's not here to defend herself with regard to that.