ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNSEL. BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. ALL THE PARTIES ARE AGAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT. MR. SCHECK, YOU HAD A DISCOVERY ISSUE YOU WANTED TO RAISE?
YES, YOUR HONOR. AND I WOULD REQUEST THAT THE WITNESS BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE ROOM FOR A MOMENT.
ALL RIGHT. MR. FUNG, WOULD YOU WAIT OUTSIDE FOR A FEW MOMENTS, PLEASE. THANK YOU, SIR.
THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. YOUR HONOR, AS I'M SURE THE COURT IS WELL AWARE, ONE ISSUE OF GREAT INTEREST IN THIS CASE ARE THE ACTIVITIES AT SID ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 14TH. AND DISCOVERY REQUEST WAS MADE FOR COMPUTER RECORDS THAT REFLECTED WHO WENT IN AND OUT OF THE DOORS IN VARIOUS ROOMS AT SID. AND THE PROSECUTION -- IN PARTICULAR THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 14TH. THE PROSECUTION TURNED OVER TO US A SERIES OF PAGES STARTING IN THE MURDER BOOK AT D.A. 04329 TO D.A. 04334. ACTUALLY THESE PAGES ARE BACKWARDS IN TERMS OF CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER. THAT IS TO SAY THAT 04329 PURPORTS TO BE RECORDS OF JUNE 16TH AND THEN THEY GO FROM THE 16TH TO THE 15TH.
WHATEVER IT DID. THE 14TH TO THE 13TH. THE PROBLEM IS, HOWEVER, WITH RESPECT TO ON PAGE 04333 WE RECEIVED RECORDS ABOUT JUNE 14TH. THOSE WERE THE ONLY RECORDS WE RECEIVED. THE RECORDS OF JUNE 13TH WERE THEN CONTAINED ON 04334, SO THESE ARE CONSECUTIVELY NUMBERED PAGES. WE NOTICED THIS MORNING, IN PREPARATION FOR COURT, THAT THE FIRST ENTRY THAT WE HAD ON JUNE 14TH FOR SOMEONE ENTERING THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM IS 9:27 A.M. ACTUALLY WHAT I REQUEST IS THAT PERHAPS THESE PAGES BE MARKED AS EXHIBIT AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
MY COLLEAGUE, MR. NEUFELD, WHO IS A BIT UNDER THE WEATHER, HAS BEEN MONITORING THESE PROCEEDINGS FROM HIS HOTEL ROOM AND MADE A TELEPHONE CALL TO GREG MATHESON AT SID DURING THE COURSE OF THE TESTIMONY OF MR. FUNG AND MADE AN INQUIRY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS AN ADDITIONAL PAGE REFLECTING WHO WENT IN AND OUT OF THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM ON JUNE 14TH. AND AGAIN, MR. NEUFELD WAS REVIEWING THOSE RECORDS THAT I HAVE JUST MENTIONED TO THE COURT. MR. NEUFELD INFORMS ME THAT MR. MATHESON CONFIRMED THAT WE WERE INDEED MISSING A PAGE WITH RESPECT TO EARLIER TIMES, BUT INDICATED THAT HE DID GIVE THAT PAGE TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. THE -- MR. NEUFELD HAS READ TO ME OVER THE PHONE INFORMATION THAT HE RECEIVED FROM MR. MATHESON WITH RESPECT TO THE TIMES.
THE TIMES ON THE 14TH AND THE MISSING PAGE AND THOSE TIMES CONTRADICT, I BELIEVE, THE TESTIMONY OF MR. FUNG. WE HAVE MR. FUNG IN THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM AT 7:45 AND THEN WE HAVE HIM BACK ENTERING THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM AT 7:50 AND WE HAVE OTHER INDIVIDUALS IN AND OUT OF THAT ROOM STARTING AT 6:03 A.M. AND MY CONCERN, YOUR HONOR, IS -- IS THAT WE DIDN'T GET THIS PAGE AND THE CONSECUTIVE NUMBERING OF THE DOCUMENTS, AND OBVIOUSLY WE WOULD REQUEST AN EXPLANATION FROM THE PROSECUTORS, IF THIS COURT WERE TO MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS DELIBERATELY WITHHELD, WHAT WE WOULD ASK IS THAT WE BE -- GET AN ACTUAL COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT TO THE COURT, THAT WE CONFRONT MR. FUNG, BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, THAT THE JURY BE INSTRUCTED THAT THE DOCUMENT WAS INTENTIONALLY WITHHELD IF THAT IN FACT TURNS OUT TO BE THE CASE. ALL THAT I CAN DO IS RELAY THE INFORMATION THAT I HAVE. IT IS A MATTER OF CONCERN TO ME, BUT OF COURSE I AWAIT THE EXPLANATIONS FROM COUNSEL.
YOUR HONOR, I THINK COUNSEL HAS UNINTENTIONALLY MISSTATED THE RECORD. I DON'T BELIEVE THE DEFENSE EVER MADE A REQUEST FOR ACCESS IN OR OUT OF THE ROOM. THE WAY IT CAME ABOUT IS I ASKED FOR THOSE RECORDS FOR THE PURPOSES OF TRYING TO DETERMINE CERTAIN TIME SEQUENCES AND VOLUNTARILY PRODUCED THEM TO THE DEFENSE WITHOUT ANY REQUEST WHATSOEVER. SO I WOULD ASK MR. SCHECK, IF HE CAN, TO FIND THE CITATION IN THE TRANSCRIPT WHERE THAT WAS REQUESTED, BECAUSE I'M SIMPLY UNAWARE OF IT.
MR. SCHECK, BEFORE WE LAUNCH INTO THAT ISSUE, THE ISSUE THAT I AM CONCERNED ABOUT NOW, SINCE I HAVE A JURY WAITING, IS WHERE IS THIS DOCUMENT? CAN WE MAKE IT AVAILABLE FOR MR. SCHECK TO EXAMINE AND FOR BOTH SIDES TO EXAMINE? AND LET'S CONTINUE WITH THE CROSS-EXAMINATION AND REDIRECT OF MR. FUNG AND WE CAN TAKE UP THE ISSUE OF WHERE IT WAS AND WHY IT DIDN'T SHOW UP IN YOUR PACKAGE AT A MORE APPROPRIATE TIME, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO GET FINISHED WITH MR. FUNG TODAY.
BUT I JUST WOULD LIKE TO SAY FOR THE RECORD THAT WHAT I HAVE IN MY NOTEBOOK IS IDENTICAL TO WHAT COUNSEL JUST DESCRIBED AND I PERSONALLY XEROXED IT AND DELIVERED IT TO THEM, WHICH PROBABLY ACCOUNTS FOR WHY IT IS IN REVERSE CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER. XEROXING IS NOT ONE OF MY STRONG POINTS. BUT I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY FOR THE RECORD THAT I JUST THINK IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT EVERY SINGLE LEGAL ISSUE THAT IS RAISED IS ALWAYS COUCHED IN TERMS OF SOME ALLEGATION OF MISCONDUCT AND I THINK IT IS A VERY SAD WAY --
COUNSEL, I AM NOT IMMEDIATELY LEAPING TO THAT CONCLUSION, SO DON'T GET YOUR FEATHERS RUFFLED UP AT THIS POINT. MY CONCERN IS LET'S PROCEED WITH THE CROSS-EXAMINATION. CAN WE GET THIS DOCUMENT? CAN WE GET SOMEBODY TO FAX IT TO THE COURT?
KEY QUOTEI -- I WANT TO BE CLEAR, I'M JUST STATING THE FACTS, AND I WOULD CERTAINLY CONCEDE THAT I DO RECALL THAT WE DID HAVE THAT CONVERSATION MORE OR LESS AS MR. GOLDBERG SAYS IT IN TERMS OF WE WERE INTERESTED IN THESE DOCUMENTS AND HE WAS, TOO.
TODAY I DON'T CARE ABOUT IT. LATER THIS WEEK I WILL CARE ABOUT IT. CAN WE GET MR. MATHESON TO FAX US THE SHEET?
KEY QUOTEWELL, I CAN PROCEED AT THIS POINT WITHOUT IT. I THOUGHT THE COURT WANTED TO GET THE DOCUMENT AND RESOLVE THE ISSUE AND YOU WANTED ME TO PROCEED.
NO. IF WE AGREE THAT WHAT COMES FROM MR. MATHESON IS A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT, IF YOU FEEL YOU NEED IT TO CROSS-EXAMINE MR. FUNG FURTHER, WE WILL GET IT FOR YOU AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET IT FAXED TO US IN A MATTER OF MINUTES. BOTH SIDES WILL GET A PHOTOCOPY AND WE CAN PROCEED.
MISS MARTINEZ IS CALLING MR. MATHESON AND WE WILL SEE IF WE CAN HAVE IT FAXED OVER.
OKAY. LET'S PROCEED. ALL RIGHT. DEPUTY MAGNERA, LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE. AND CAN WE HAVE MR. FUNG, PLEASE.
IF THIS COURT WERE TO MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS DELIBERATELY WITHHELD, WHAT WE WOULD ASK IS THAT WE BE -- GET AN ACTUAL COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT TO THE COURT, THAT WE CONFRONT MR. FUNG, BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, THAT THE JURY BE INSTRUCTED THAT THE DOCUMENT WAS INTENTIONALLY WITHHELD IF THAT IN FACT TURNS OUT TO BE THE CASE.
I JUST THINK IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT EVERY SINGLE LEGAL ISSUE THAT IS RAISED IS ALWAYS COUCHED IN TERMS OF SOME ALLEGATION OF MISCONDUCT AND I THINK IT IS A VERY SAD WAY --
COUNSEL, I AM NOT IMMEDIATELY LEAPING TO THAT CONCLUSION, SO DON'T GET YOUR FEATHERS RUFFLED UP AT THIS POINT.
TODAY I DON'T CARE ABOUT IT. LATER THIS WEEK I WILL CARE ABOUT IT.