We will have some things to talk about probably this afternoon so we will get this morning--
Your Honor, a couple of things we would like to address, if we might. One, regarding the tapes, your Honor. As the Court can imagine, we have all been quite busy, and I understand the Prosecution now has the tapes also, and one of the things I wanted to address was that with regard--
I don't know. I was just advised by Messers. Schwartz and Regwan that they were going to get I presume the tapes and the transcript.
Right, and he called and indicated that while I was back east this weekend. Your Honor, with regard to that, I would ask with regard to the people who can listen to the tape, we have obviously got expanded from the Defense standpoint because Mr. Bailey is handling Detective Fuhrman and we certainly anticipate that he is in the middle of cross-examination, so it is kind of unfair, that he has to know what is on these tapes, and so we've got to extend it further because these tapes are so voluminous and there is so much information on these tapes that I believe this Court is going to find very, very relevant. We need Mr. Dershowitz and--Professor Dershowitz and Professor Uelmen also involved because we anticipate any motion that they bring, clearly they are relevant, and the question is we don't want to play at this point thirteen or fourteen hours of tapes. Maybe five or six hours, but certainly not thirteen or fourteen, but we would like to narrow it down in order to do that. If the Court pleases, we want to be able to share that with our colleagues and we want to do a major brief spelling out the various points and the various relevance, and I think it will be helpful to the Court. We are going to have a copy for you--well, I should back up and say Miss McKinny is in town and I had asked her, you remember last week, to bring the original for this Court, and I will--hopefully tomorrow we can give you the original and a copy of her transcript. And then as I indicated, my office is doing a separate transcript which we can compare and--but you need to--you need to read these transcripts, and it is a lot of work, but you need to hear this for a lot of reasons. And so that is--that is what I would like to do. And certainly specifically Mr. Bailey isn't here this morning, but certainly he has to be part of it.
No, I agree with you, that since Mr. Bailey is the individual conducting the examination of that particular witness, that he ought to be included, something perhaps we should have thought about when the protective order was originally contemplated, but the thing is the protective order was submitted by counsel for Miss McKinny, Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Regwan.
It will and there will be no problem. I spoke to them from back east. And the other matter that we talked about, the 1054.07, they have acquiesced and they have been in touch and they have allowed that also, so I will ask them to send you a letter today.
All right. If you will secure for me their consent to that with the understanding that no copies be made by any of those three counsel; Mr. Bailey, Mr. Dershowitz or Mr. Uelmen.
KEY QUOTEThe Defense--excuse me. Miss McKinny's counsel have not asked for restrictions on the Prosecution.
That wasn't my understanding. My understanding was that they wanted to protect the propriety rights of these tapes. It had nothing to do with the--
Your Honor, the problem with what you just said, and I would like to just clear this up, Dershowitz, as the Court knows, is in Massachusetts so we can't work with one copy where he is concerned. I will address that when we reach Messers. Regwan and Schwartz, and they have already acquiesced to a separate copy to others as it is, so we expect we can handle this, if the Court pleases. As a matter of fact, Professor Uelmen will be here this afternoon and we will be talking about the Kestler/Bosco/Savage matters. And I think that Mr. Scheck would like to address the Court on the whole idea of the jury view and the--it is our position it is unnecessary and too costly, but I would like Mr. Scheck to do that at this point, if the Court pleases.
All right. Here, the problem Mr. Scheck, though, is the individuals from the District Attorney's office who were present aren't here. Why don't you put it in writing. Put your objections in writing.
All right. The record should reflect that on Sunday evening at eight o'clock the Court met with Mr. Scheck and Mr. Douglas and Mr. Yochelson and Mr. Hodgman and the five of us went to the Bundy and Rockingham locations in the evening hours to view Bundy and Rockingham for the purposes of determining whether or not a nighttime viewing would be appropriate in this case. And I will take up any objections or suggestions from counsel in writing, but we should resolve this issue by Wednesday. All right. Anything else before we bring the jury down?
these tapes are so voluminous and there is so much information on these tapes that I believe this Court is going to find very, very relevant
since Mr. Bailey is the individual conducting the examination of that particular witness, that he ought to be included, something perhaps we should have thought about when the protective order was originally contemplated
If you will secure for me their consent to that with the understanding that no copies be made by any of those three counsel; Mr. Bailey, Mr. Dershowitz or Mr. Uelmen
I think we should approach side bar... it is something that we can't discuss in open court