Yes, Your Honor, we have two matters. First of all, I'd like to bring -- I don't have a written motion, but I will file one by the close of business today. We'd like to bring to the Court's attention that the attacks on Robert Groden that commenced in the courtroom were continued by an agent of the plaintiff outside the courtroom by way of a news conference that was broadcast on a local television station, and also by an appearance or at least a videotape on a national television program on MSNBC; that person's name is David Lifton. He represented himself to be a photographic consultant for the plaintiffs. He's in the courtroom today, sitting in the second row, back there, the gentleman with glasses on the right-hand side there. We'd ask that the plaintiffs be sanctioned, that Mr. Lifton be excluded from the courtroom, and additional sanction be levied against the plaintiffs; and that would be that we bring before the jury that the plaintiffs have violated the gag order in particular by attempting to attack Mr. Groden through this agent of theirs. He made very derogatory remarks about Mr. Groden. We have taken -- we had a full-blown hearing on this. We have the tape-recordings we can present to Your Honor.
Mr. Lifton is not employed, is not the Mr. Lifton, is not a photographic agent, not a consultant to the plaintiff's, he's a member of the public who has known Mr. Groden for over 20 years and has provided us with information regarding Mr. Groden's background, and that is it. He's not our agent, he's not under our control, never paid him a dime. We don't intend to pay him a dime he's somebody just like, I'm sure defendants have a person, who provides us with information. He's not an agent, not under our control.
I would like to put point out that during the examination and cross-examination of Mr. Groden, I saw Mr. Gelblum and Mr. Petrocelli consulting with Mr. Lifton, that Mr. Lifton came into the building this morning with the plaintiffs party, he's sitting in the plaintiffs' seats, it was accepted on national television that he was a consultant, a photographic consultant for the plaintiffs. It seems to me that if this gag order is to have any teeth in it or have any affect, that they can't use a shill like Lifton to make their point to the press, and in the press and national television that's exactly what's going on, so I think that -- that Mr. Lifton should be removed from the courtroom at a minimum.
He's not a shill, he's not under our control. I can't tell him what to say or not to say. I didn't tell him what to say or not to say. I didn't know what he was going to say or not say. I didn't know he was going to go on the television.
He has provided us information about Mr. Groden's historical background, yes, Your Honor. He's not consulted with us. He's not a photographic consultant.
The other matter is a -- we filed by way of a written motion, and I'm not sure whether -- whether it's ripe at this point because we have gotten no indication whatsoever in written form or even orally that the plaintiffs intend to utilize these newly emerged photographs. I think if you -- if you had an opportunity to read the motion, I think it speaks for itself. It's a total -- it's a 23 and a half hour situation. We obviously are going to -- if these photographs come into this case at all, we are going to vigorously fight their -- their admission, we are going to attack their authenticity naturally, and we would need -- we would need time to do discovery on this. We need to go back and do the deposition of the -- of the photographer who purported to take the photographs. Interestingly enough, the middle-man or the agent who's either attempting to or has already sold the photographs to a tabloid is the same one who sold the Scull photograph that we're dealing with here. We want to take his deposition. We want to take the deposition of whoever was involved in the discovery of this photograph including Mr. Kelly and Mr. O'Connor, another attorney who was involved in this effort with Mr. Kelly. We think it's highly suspicious that the photograph has emerged at this time, particularly in view of the fact that there was -- there was an investigation done, there were attempts at the beginning of the criminal case to locate photographs of Mr. Simpson, particularly among photographers at football games. So we would vigorously object to any mention of this photograph at this juncture -- at any point in this trial. I can tell you one thing, that if -- if they attempt to get this in, we're going to ask for at least a two-week recess in order to investigate and to do the appropriate discovery we need to do to prove that this photograph is either irrelevant or faked. So that's one thing that we'd be looking for. And I think in the interest of fairness and in the interest of judicial efficiency and under the laws of the State of California, particularly the discovery statutes, this photograph has no business being in this case at this point. We haven't even seen it yet, by the way.
Your Honor, there's absolutely no basis for this position at all. Mr. Simpson took that stand, under oath, and said he was not wearing the shoes in that photograph, he said the photograph was a fake. Mr. Baker told the jury the same thing. They put this would-be expert on the stand to say that this photo is a fake. This is about as pure impeachment as you can find, Your Honor. You want to get on the stand and tell those kind of -- make those kind of representations, you have to suffer the risk that you may get caught red-handed. That is what has happened. These photos emerged this weekend. I just got them on Saturday, Your Honor. They were just handed --
I just got them this weekend. There are photos, eight or nine of them, contact sheets, and everything from the same game, Your Honor, the September 26, 1993, game, taken by a completely different photographer unrelated to -- to Mr. Scull. In addition, one of the photographs appeared in a Buffalo Bills newsletter of sorts, that was printed and circulated to the public. Mr. Simpson and his defense lawyers obviously had full access to this. This is classical impeachment material, Your Honor, and they don't have any right to advance disclosure of it, even if we had obtained it in advance, which we did not. We fully intend to confront the witnesses with the photographs that directly destroy the representations they made to this jury, Your Honor.
We have had no opportunity to look at these photographs to determine whether they're authentic. There's no chain of custody that's been developed on these. I think it's highly improper for them to be put in at this point. Your Honor, we've had no opportunity to look at them. It would seem after the first time -- is it -- are you going to permit them to confront this witness with these photographs when they haven't been able to establish any kind of a chain with them, where they were taken, how they were taken, whether they're authentic at all? I think that's highly unfair to us at this point, Your Honor, and I would object.
First of all, we will right now make copies of everything available to you. Secondly, you have indicated a number of times to the Court how you were going to tie things up later on. We can authenticate these pictures through the defendant himself, no less, Your Honor, when we question him about the photographs and to allay any possible concern, I have produced a sworn affidavit of the photographer who has indicated that, if necessary, he will come to testify in this court and authenticate the photographs.
That's usually what impeachment amounts to, counsel. (Court reviews document.)
KEY QUOTEWe can make him available on 24-hour's notice. We were planning to call him in our rebuttal case. I'm told the defense is resting probably by the end of this week or early next week, and he will probably be our first witness.
Okay. Is there anything else? What about the declarations that also were filed with respect to Ferrara and Siglar.
It seems like this fellow can't serve many people, Your Honor, but the bottom line is I don't have any objection to Ms. Ferrara being read in by her criminal trial testimony. We'll read in our portions.
As to the one regarding Mr. Siglar, I haven't yet seen the designations. Once I see the designations, I'd be happy to confer about our position on that.
That's usually what impeachment amounts to, counsel.
You want to get on the stand and tell those kind of -- make those kind of representations, you have to suffer the risk that you may get caught red-handed. That is what has happened.
It's a total sandbag.
Okay, sir, you're excluded. Step out.