All right. The jury has withdrawn from the courtroom. Mr. Cochran, you had a comment?
Yes, your Honor. I was just going to ask the Court again in light of our--in light of our last sidebar, I was going to ask the Court to consider a limiting instruction to the jury because I think that the Court's interpretation may not be theirs in light of the questions. That he--counsel's indicated he was not considering any test results, but I think that a fair reading of those questions would be that he did consider test results when he talks about Ron Goldman's blood in the Bronco, he talks about Nicole Brown Simpson's blood in the Bronco. That's an unfair inference. It assumes facts not in evidence in addition to everything else. It seems to me that a limiting instruction might be in order if that was in the nature of like a hypothetical question. When the Court proposed what we think would be an appropriate question, counsel indicated he had no further questions. And so he should either ask the questions that you--as you phrased it or they should be stricken or the jury should be given some limiting instruction with regard to those last series of questions it seems to me, your Honor.
Your Honor, I think that--to conclude, I think there's clearly an implication that this witness has knowledge of test results which counsel said he wasn't including in his question and I think unless the Court does something to clear that up, it would be very unfair for the Defendant in this regard. And so I think that the question that you proposed at the end of the sidebar, that did he do anything to contaminate these samples, nobody could object to that question. But that's not the question he asked. And so either ask that question--
No, I don't think so. No, because he asked about samples, your Honor. He asked about--he asked about results. The import was, he talked about results that this jury could absolutely infer because he's talking about results. And that's the part that's unfair. And so I would ask the Court to either figure a way to limit it or strike that and let counsel ask the appropriate questions or strike the whole line of questions. I mean, I think that--you know, obviously that's why we approached the sidebar, to address that. And your Honor specified how you thought the question should be asked and he sought not to ask that question because probably he wanted to ask his questions. And the reason he wanted to ask his questions is because it leads a reasonable juror to that conclusion which is totally unfair and unfounded. So we would ask the Court to correct that misperception.
Your Honor, all Mr. Goldberg did was address this witness with respect to what he did, what he did if anything, and that's talking about his actions and his handling of the crime scene which we know is hotly contested.
Or Miss Mazzola in his presence, which is an appropriate question based on what he observed. But I would remind the Court--well, first of all, did he do anything, that part of the question simply directs the witness' attention to his actions, whether he appropriately handled the crime scene to avoid contamination and to keep everything in it's--in the--to keep--maintain the integrity of the evidence. There's no problem with that. And then further, with respect to cause this kind of result is simply a hypothetical. But I would also remind the Court that the Defense went extensively into hypotheticals concerning how Bronco fibers could have been deposited on the cap and how the Defendant's hair could have been deposited on the cap or on Ron Goldman and how they could have been transferred as a result of this blanket that somehow--as bizarre as this theory seems, and I can't believe any reasonable juror will ever buy it.
Nevertheless, the Defense has attempted to sell to this jury through their hypotheticals that this blanket was waved around the scene like a matador would in an arena and that somehow particles flew off of that blanket and magically landed one on Ron Goldman and another on the cap and I mean kind of crazy stuff. But that's what they've been trying to do and they've been doing it repeatedly, specifically with respect to the Defendant's hair could have been on the blanket, the Bronco fibers could have been on the blanket and they could have wound up here and they could have wound up there because of this, that and the other. So the Defense has done that very thing. Now when we come back and in the most mild and muted form come back with a hypothetical concerning this witness' handling of the crime scene collection procedures used, they're screaming bloody murder, and it's not appropriate. They don't have the right to--
That's exactly what we have here. As a matter of fact though, what Mr. Goldberg asked of the witness is, "Did you do anything, what have you done in terms of this crime scene," and it goes to the very heart of the matter. The Defense is claiming that all of this contamination, quote, unquote, occurred as a result of what Mr. Fung did or didn't do. He's addressing the matter head on, "I did nothing to cause the contamination," and by way of hypothetical, by way of example to cause this blood to be here or some blood to be there. I think that we are really--after the Defense has laid out these results in their own hypotheticals, for them to complain that we have answered the hypotheticals that they have raised is absurd. Cat's out of the bag so to speak if you will and these results are going to come in eventually. Not so eventually actually. With the forthcoming witnesses. It's going to happen.
You know, why--I don't even know why we're arguing about this right now because the thrust of the question is what he did and how he collected the evidence at the crime scene. There's nothing improper in the questioning and there's no misleading evidence in front of--misleading information in it. You know, counsel started it and we've--we've answered it. This seems to happen repeatedly. You know, the Defense opens the door and sticks their foot through and then they get upset when we step on their toes and say hey, we have a response. We have a response. They have tried to by way of hypothetical mislead the jury and confuse them and give them these wild and outlandish theories as to how evidence came to be where it is and we're debunking it, and that's what we have to do. That's our job. And now they're complaining about it. But there is nothing improper in the manner of questioning that was done. I don't even understand what the objection is.
I would like to explain it for her, your Honor. She started talking about debunking theories. And it wasn't us, your Honor, that was talking about who sees mystery shadows, where gloves appear on white sheets. It's not us who's misleading anybody. Let me just get to the issue here. The issue is, if this was an appropriate hypothetical, then perhaps we wouldn't be objecting. What they did was, they went too far, your Honor. They didn't just ask about contamination, which Mr. Scheck did a masterful job in talking about contamination. They don't like the fact the scene was all contaminated or could have been or reasonable people could infer that. So if they wanted to ask Mr. Fung, your Honor, whether or not he did anything that would cause contamination, that's appropriate. That's what you told them. But they went further. He asked questions that were like non sequiturs about saliva that would end up going from one place to the other, which we didn't bother objecting because it seemed so bizarre. We wouldn't object to that.
KEY QUOTEYeah. I didn't even know what he was talking about either. I didn't. So we didn't object to that. But when he talks specifically about hair of the Defendant's which they're not going to have, from that standpoint, your Honor, which they're not--when they talk about blood of various people. And those are specific results which this witness should not be giving, your Honor. And the fact--and it doesn't cure it for Miss Clark to say well, it's going to come in. Well, I mean that's her dream, it may come in at some day. The question is, your Honor, what's the appropriate way of handling this. And the fact that they've been wounded on cross-examination does not allow them to ask improper questions at the end and try to end in a big flourish. And that's what we saw here. And when you told him how to ask the question, he went back to his seat and chose to ask, "I have no further questions," because he didn't want to ask it the right way. So all we're trying to do is, let's keep the record clean, let's make it fair and not be prejudicial to this Defendant, even though the jurors were probably not listening by this point. But I can't assume that. I've got to get the record the way it should be, your Honor, and that's why--that's why we're very serious about this and ask you to clean that record up.
Mr. Scheck, how much more do you need to--how much time do you need to get geared up and get your videotapes ready to roll? 10 minutes?
No. I know you won't finish this afternoon. But let's assume that you've got 10 minutes to get your tapes together.
No. We're going to take about 10 minutes so I can get rid of a few things and then we'll start at 4:40 or so. And some of the jurors in our lineup have doctor's appointments. So we may only get to three of them today. Okay.
No, I won't. It's about the presence of the Defendant at the hearing. At the appropriate time--you asked about a case and I wanted to share something with you.
All right. Well, share it with me when we take our 10-minute break. All right. Thank you.
He asked about results. The import was, he talked about results that this jury could absolutely infer because he's talking about results. And that's the part that's unfair.
Cat's out of the bag so to speak if you will and these results are going to come in eventually. Not so eventually actually.
They don't have the right to — screaming bloody murder, and it's not appropriate.
even though the jurors were probably not listening by this point. But I can't assume that. I've got to get the record the way it should be, your Honor.
I would like to explain it for her, your Honor.