YOUR HONOR, THE NEXT ISSUE HAS TO DO WITH THE EVIDENCE -- THE AIRLINE TICKETS.

THE AIRLINE TICKET AND THE BAGGAGE TAG.

AND THE BAGGAGE TAG. IT IS A BANE TO US ALL AT THIS POINT, BUT IT IS AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION -- THE CONCERNS THAT I EXPRESSED TO THE COURT WHEN WE HAD ALL OF THESE DIFFICULTIES, YOU KNOW, HAVE PREVAILED. I THINK THAT THERE MAY COME A TIME SOON IN THE CROSS-EXAMINATION WHERE I'M GOING TO BE INTRODUCING INTO EVIDENCE THE EVIDENCE COLLECTION SHEET THAT MR. FUNG PREPARED THAT HAS BEEN REDACTED AND THERE MAY BE PASSING REFERENCE TO THE COLLECTION OF THESE ITEMS IN THE COURSE OF THE TESTIMONY OF THIS WITNESS AND PERHAPS MISS MAZZOLA, AND IT JUST SEEMS THAT --

I DON'T WANT THE JURY TO THINK THAT ANYTHING IS BEING HIDDEN FROM THEM OR THAT THERE'S ANY PROBLEM WITH THIS OR THERE'S ANY -- ANYTHING LIKE THAT AT THIS POINT, AND I -- IT'S JUST THAT IT'S BECOME SUCH AN ISSUE THAT WHAT WE WOULD PREFER TO DO IS IN ANY FASHION OR FORM THE COURT THINKS IS APPROPRIATE, TO JUST INDICATE TO THE JURY THAT BY AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES, WE'RE, YOU KNOW -- THEY CAN CONSIDER THE COLLECTION -- THESE ITEMS AND THEIR COLLECTION AND, YOU KNOW, LEAVE IT AT THAT. I JUST WANT IT IN. I DON'T WANT ANY --

SO YOU'RE SUGGESTING THAT NOW MR. SIMPSON IS WILLING TO WAIVE THE 1538.5 ISSUE AS TO THE AIRLINE TICKET AND THE BAGGAGE TAG?

WELL, NO. ONE SECOND.

WE DON'T WANT TO WAIVE THAT, BUT WHAT WE'RE REALLY SAYING IS THAT IN TERMS OF THE -- WE DID NOT CREATE THIS SITUATION. IT SHOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED IN THE FIRST PLACE. IT SHOULDN'T HAVE COME IN AND THEN IT SHOULDN'T HAVE COME IN A SECOND TIME, AND WE DID PROFFER PROPOSED INSTRUCTIONS; AND THE COURT DECIDED IN ITS PROPOSED INSTRUCTIONS FIRST TO TELL THE JURY TO DISREGARD IT AND THEN THE NEXT TIME TO TELL THE JURY IT WAS IRRELEVANT.

AND JUST BY THE WAY IT ALL OCCURRED, IT CALLED MORE ATTENTION TO IT THAN WE THOUGHT. AND SO IT'S REALLY NOT SO MUCH A WAIVER OF OUR 1538.5 ISSUE. WHAT IT IS AT THIS POINT IS A QUESTION OF REMEDY.

AND IN TERMS OF THE REMEDY, WHAT WE ARE REQUESTING IS -- IS THAT -- THAT THE JURY -- THAT WE JUST ALLOW TO PUT BEFORE THE JURY THE FACT THAT THESE ITEMS EXIST AND THAT THEY WERE COLLECTED AND THE APPROPRIATE PAPERWORK. WE DON'T WANT -- WE DON'T WANT CONFUSION OR ANY BELIEF THAT SOMETHING'S BEING HIDDEN. THAT'S ALL.

SO AS A MATTER OF TRIAL TACTICS, WITHOUT WAIVING THE 1538.5 ISSUE FOR ANY LATER LITIGATION, YOU'RE WILLING TO ALLOW 14 AND 15 TO BE PRESENTED TO THE JURY; IS THAT CORRECT?

15 AND 16.

15 AND 16.

THAT'S CORRECT.

IS THAT ACCEPTABLE TO THE PEOPLE?

YOUR HONOR, OBVIOUSLY I WAS FLABBERGASTED THIS MORNING WHEN COUNSEL MADE THIS PROPOSAL TO ME, THAT HE WANTED TO INTRODUCE THESE ITEMS IN LIGHT OF WHAT HAD HAPPENED. THE COURT WILL RECALL --

YOU DON'T NEED TO REMIND ME.

OKAY. TWICE DURING THAT HEARING, DURING THAT INCIDENT, I SAID, WHY DOESN'T THE DEFENSE AND WHY ISN'T THE DEFENSE MAKING A GOOD FAITH OFFER OF PROOF TO THIS COURT OR STATEMENT TO THIS COURT THAT THEY DON'T INTEND TO PUT THAT EVIDENCE IN OR THAT THEY FEEL THAT EVIDENCE IS SOMEHOW HARMING THEM OR PREJUDICING THEM WHEN I WAS TRYING TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF PREJUDICE.

AND THEY NEVER MADE SUCH A REPRESENTATION TO THIS COURT. THEY NEVER SAID, WELL, YOUR HONOR, WE NEVER WOULD HAVE PUT THAT IN. IT DOES HURT US. AND NOW SUDDENLY THEY'RE COMING FORWARD AND SAYING, WE WANT THEM IN EVIDENCE.

AND IT IS MORE EVIDENCE IN MY JUDGMENT OF THE VERY PERSONAL NATURE OF THE KIND OF LAWYERING THAT HAS GONE ON UNNECESSARILY IN THIS COURTROOM, OF TRYING TO VILIFY AN ATTORNEY WHEN THERE ARE NO LEGAL RIGHTS OF THE OTHER SIDE THAT HAVE BEEN COMPROMISED OR INJURED OR THAT THEY WERE EVEN REPRESENTING WERE COMPROMISED AND INJURED.

WELL, MR. GOLDBERG, BEFORE WE GET TOO FAR DOWN THAT PARTICULAR AVENUE OF ARGUMENT, DO YOU AGREE TO THAT OR NOT? YES OR NO?

YOUR HONOR, IT WAS PROPOSED TO US THIS MORNING. WE DIDN'T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE AIRLINE TICKETS.

AS I SAID TO THE COURT, THOSE AIRLINE TICKETS WERE SOMETHING THAT I DEEMED TO HAVE NO RELEVANCE AT ALL, NOT HELPFUL TO THE PROSECUTION, NOT HELPFUL TO THE DEFENSE, AND WE WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE AIRLINE TICKETS -- AND I TOLD MR. SCHECK THIS -- BEFORE AGREEING TO THAT.

BUT IF THE COURT WERE GOING TO INTRODUCE THOSE ITEMS -- AND THE COURT MAY, VERY WELL MAY, AND I SIMPLY AM REQUESTING THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A LOOK AT THEM -- WE WOULD ASK THAT THE COURT WITHDRAW THE ADMONITION THAT HAD BEEN GIVEN TO THE JURY AT THE TIME THAT THE VIOLATION OCCURRED BY PLACING THAT EVIDENCE IN FRONT OF THE JURY AND SAY THAT THEY ARE ENTIRELY TO DISREGARD IT.

MR. GOLDBERG, HOW LONG DO YOU NEED TO EXAMINE THE TICKET AND THE BAGGAGE TAG? HOW LONG DO YOU NEED TO MAKE UP YOUR MIND WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT TO DO THAT?

IT'S OBVIOUSLY GOING TO REQUIRE UNTIL THIS AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR, BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GET THOSE ITEMS AND THEY ARE NOT HERE IN THIS BUILDING.

ALL RIGHT.

BUT I WOULD SAY, YOUR HONOR, IN RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S ALTERNATIVE, I WOULD JUST ASK THE COURT TO THINK ABOUT THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS AND WHETHER OR NOT IT IS APPARENT THAT WHAT HAPPENED HERE WAS AN ATTEMPT TO, IN THE EYES OF THE JURY, TRY TO DIMINISH THE PROSECUTION OR THIS PROSECUTOR FOR TACTICAL REASONS THAT BORE -- NOTHING -- THAT HAD NO RELATIONSHIP TO ANY RIGHTS OF THIS DEFENDANT OR ANY PREJUDICE THAT HAD BEEN CAUSED TO HIM.

AND IF THAT IS THE CASE, YOUR HONOR, THAT THE APPROPRIATE THING TO DO WOULD BE TO WITHDRAW THAT SANCTION THAT THE COURT IMPOSED ALTOGETHER AND PERHAPS EVEN GIVE A COUNTER ADMONITION DRAFTED BY THE PEOPLE, NOT TO PENALIZE THE DEFENSE IN ANY WAY, BUT SIMPLY TO TRY TO ERASE ANY PREJUDICE THAT THE PEOPLE SUFFERED AS A RESULT OF THE ADMONITION THAT THE COURT GAVE.

ALL RIGHT. MR. SCHECK, DO YOU STILL WISH TO OFFER?

ONE SECOND.