Let the record reflect that the jurors have all gone from the courtroom. Counsel, I have issued an order with regards to item 1, evidence item 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 and 52, that those items are to be returned to the Scientific Investigation Division of the Los Angeles Police Department, kept in storage by them and returned to the Court upon notice by the clerk. Let me ask counsel, I understand that we are going to have Mr. Matheson as our next witness. All right. Are we going to need any of these items for him tomorrow?
Mr.--who is going to be doing--Mr. Blasier doing the cross-examination as to Mr. Matheson?
I don't at this time but could I request the Prosecution have available photographs of those items in case we do need photographs to refer to?
All right. Mr. Goldberg, did you hear Mr. Blasier's comment regarding the availability of photographs as to these items?
Did you hear Mr. Blasier's request regarding the availability of photographs of these items?
Well, I think we probably have photographs of all of these items because they were sent out to the Defense in Albany and photographs were taken at those times, so they should have all of them. I do not know if we have photographs of the bindles of all of those items.
We are certainly won't need them Monday. I understand Mr. Goldberg is going to take at least a day for Mr. Matheson.
All right. Well, whoever needs the photographs ought to have them here. Do you have a set of photographs, Mr. Blasier?
Okay. All right. We had one other item regarding the EAP, issues on the demonstration board for Mr. Matheson. Let's take that up now.
Well, your Honor, I don't know whether the Court had a chance to read our letter brief that we filed.
I know, your Honor. That is why I assume the Court wouldn't have probably had an opportunity--
All right. I will read it. All right. Are there any other issues that we can resolve?
I would like to respond to it. I can do that in writing over the weekend if you like.
I will be here. I have a session regarding this case tomorrow morning at nine o'clock, so I will be here.
There are also some other issues regarding EAP that I wanted to raise and I didn't have an opportunity before the close of yesterday's session.
Why don't you file your documents. The reason we are not going to be in session is because I have got other things, other cases, other things to do tomorrow.
But if you file whatever you want, then I will consider it over the weekend and do any research that I need to do.
I know when we talked about this last time the Court suggested that you wanted to hear Mr. Matheson testify outside the presence of the jury in a 402 hearing, not yesterday but the time before that. I don't know whether the Court still desires that. It is somewhat of an involved issue in that I think once the Court understands the technology and the scientific issues, that the legal issue will become absolutely crystal clear, and perhaps the Court would want that testimony first, because I don't know whether I have adequately explained what our position is and why it is that we feel we are entitled to prevail.
Well, as I have indicated to you, I will read your letter brief, I will read the cases that you have cited, and I will read the response from Mr. Blasier and then we will see where we are at 8:30 on Monday. Anything else on the anticipate issue? Mr. Scheck?
A brief request that I will think will save us time in the long run. I understand they have changed the order of the witnesses now because we anticipated Mr. Yamauchi and now we have Mr. Matheson and I have been further informed that the Prosecution intends to then start with DNA witnesses and we have been given a lead time of three days. The problem is, is that the DNA evidence is so voluminous, as of ten days ago we got a 200-page handwritten set of notes from DOJ and I must confess I haven't read them yet. What we would request is that we be given more advanced notice, just we want to know which labs are coming first so we can be preparing this weekend, because if we get that kind of advance notice, then it will go faster. Frankly, given the voluminous data, the continuing results that are coming in, we don't want to be in the a position where we would have to turn to the Court and ask for some extra time. That would be the last thing we would want to do, because I want to go home. So I think it would expedite everything if we could have--just as far as the DNA issues because it is so dense--that we get more advanced notice with respect to which set of tests and witnesses are coming first.
Refresh my recollection as to what our specific agreement was regarding prior notice as to the witnesses? Was it the next--
Well, I advised them that I changed the order of witnesses on Thursday of last week and I expected Mr. Matheson to be testifying.
Well, let me just ask, so I can also get prepared myself, who do you anticipate for our DNA witnesses? Have you set an order yet? Mr. Clarke?
Yes, your Honor. I believe the first witness will be DR Cotton from cellmark who will testify to the results in the series of reports that cellmark has already issued.
The only other thing that we would indicate, that the previous order of witnesses had included the nurse, Mr. Peratis, and Mr. Yamauchi, which we regard as chain of custody witnesses and foundational witnesses with respect to the blood, particularly the blood vial, which is obviously of greatest interest to the Defense. They must have some--
So they--we obviously would request and maybe they can brief it, if they want, but we think that certainly the nurse's testimony should come in before they start introducing the test results.
Well, as to the nurse's testimony, Mr. Vannatter testified already that he saw the blood being drawn and that he dropped it off to Dennis Fung. There is no further foundation. Even if the Court were to require us to put it on in some particular order, there is no further foundation that is necessary.
Well, the issue here, first of all, is notice to the Defense as to who is coming. Mr. Clarke, my guess is that you have just given to us three weeks worth of witnesses.
They told us that the chain of custody witnesses were going to take a week. That is what we were told.
Your Honor, I have one concern about the last words of Mr. Goldberg's, which is that it is our position, as it has been all along, no surprise that we have been challenging the chain of custody and we are challenging that there is not a proper foundation, which is for some of these DNA test results to come in. And I think you yourself said, even in your ruling, that no matter what the ruling was on the Kelly-Frye issues, that the People still have to lay the proper foundation before any witness can testify to results. And I don't believe it is just the New York rule, your Honor, I'm sure it is a California rule and a rule in every jurisdiction in this country, as a matter of foundation, you introduce the blood into evidence before you can have anybody testify to what the results are with the blood. Introduce the narcotics into evidence before a technician can testify to the results.
Well, counsel, the issue hasn't been presented to me yet. I don't have to rule on it. The issue here is Mr. Scheck asked who is coming next. He knows. You can take whatever action you feel is appropriate in light of that information.
Just so that the People are on notice we will object to any testimony about results, for instance, results of a DNA profile or a conventional serological profile attributed to Mr. Simpson, until the blood is introduced in evidence, and the same will apply to swatches allegedly sent to these laboratories by--
KEY QUOTEOkay. Any other swatches or anything else? At least the person who collected it. It has to be introduced.
All right. Well, you are tipping off what your objections are going to be and we will see what happens when we get there.
One final thing, your Honor. The People filed a brief today also about there was no statement of fact, but the subject matter was introducing police reports in lieu of having witnesses testify as business records.
And we are very concerned about what it is they intend introduce that way. We will have certain objections and we would appreciate some sort of an offer as to what it is they intend to introduce this way so they can make the appropriate objections.
I had my able assistant put that together for me. Your Honor, what we are going to do is we are going to put on every piece of evidence and every test result through a single witness from LAPD and we are not going to call any other witnesses. I guess humor isn't very--the room doesn't seem to be a receptive audience.
I'm sorry. What we do plan on doing is we plan on putting certain chain of custody evidence on through Mr. Matheson that would--that would normally require some other witnesses to be called, and essentially what he is going to be testifying to is that items are packaged up and mailed out based on business records and that is what the brief goes to.
All right. All right. Anybody interested in the 980 hearing, I will see you tomorrow. Otherwise have a nice weekend.
Thanks, Judge. Mr. Simpson says he will waive his presence, your Honor, for that.
I want to go home. So I think it would expedite everything if we could have--just as far as the DNA issues because it is so dense--that we get more advanced notice with respect to which set of tests and witnesses are coming first.
What we are going to do is we are going to put on every piece of evidence and every test result through a single witness from LAPD and we are not going to call any other witnesses. I guess humor isn't very--the room doesn't seem to be a receptive audience.
Mirthless.
Just so that the People are on notice we will object to any testimony about results, for instance, results of a DNA profile or a conventional serological profile attributed to Mr. Simpson, until the blood is introduced in evidence.