Your Honor, there is one other matter. We would like to recall Mr. Larry Ragle to the stand, your Honor, for the following purposes, and I can make an offer of proof if the court would--
Mr. Blasier would like to recall him to the stand and I would like to make an offer of proof, if the court would care to hear it.
All right. Let's have Mr. Goldberg. Why don't we proceed to the--you wanted to have a 402--I take it this is in the form actually of an in limine motion to restrict certain cross-examination of Dr. Reichardt?
All right. Why don't we do that since we have all the parties. My recollection is Mr. Darden was the attorney on the Prosecution side who was going to be conducting the cross-examination of Dr. Reichardt; is that correct?
We are going to have a motion in limine on cross-examination, future cross-examination?
No. My recollection is that both sides have availed themselves of that several times in this case. Mr. Cochran, what issue do you wish the court to determine?
The issue, your Honor, is as follows: I anticipate calling Dr. Christian Reichardt, who is present with his lawyer, Mr. Dominick Rubalcava.
He is injured with us today, but he is with us at any rate. I anticipate it will be very, very simple and direct examination. I expect that Dr. Reichardt will testify that he first met--
The issue has to do with the scope of the direct and whether or not the Prosecution is going to be able to bring up issues which aren't covered on direct, and I will be very right to the point.
Mr. Rubalcava, can we have your client step outside, please, and I will allow you to remain.
Thank you, your Honor. In the course--and let me just as an offer of proof lay out what I expect the direct to be. It will be very brief and you will get an idea of where we would like to limit any other examination that will be beyond the scope. Dr. Reichardt I believe will testify that he met and became acquainted with Mr. Simpson sometime around the middle of 1993, that they were friends, they knew each other over a period of time, and in fact in the earlier part of 1994 Dr. Reichardt was paid I think $5,000 for his work on the video in which he did some background and work with Mr. Simpson about the perils of traveling, jet lag, drinking water, walking around the plane, things of that nature. He did a major script of fifty pages, reduced down to five.
Yes, that was the resulting portion of that, that he had participated and helped out with that.
Yes, they had a business relationship, and he was paid for that. That over a period of time that they continued to be friends. He was aware of Mr. Simpson's relationships. They talked. That on June 12th, and specifically getting to the point, we want to bring out on the date of June 12th, 1994, Dr. Reichardt received a call from Mr. Simpson at about nine o'clock p.m. that evening. Mr. Simpson was jovial, was his usual self with regard to his demeanor, that a conversation at that time occurred. During the conversation Mr. Simpson talked about what he was doing with his life, that he was on his way to Chicago and that the--they made basically a date. They wanted to get together on Wednesday of that week, which would have been Wednesday, June 15th, I believe, and they made a dinner date or plans to get together when Mr. Simpson returned back from Chicago. That he will testify that Mr. Simpson didn't sound any differently than he has on other occasions. In fact, he sounded really upbeat and happy, and they had a very good conversation and that is pretty much it. It will be with regard to the conversation, the demeanor, the brief business relationship they had, that he was aware also of Mr. Simpson's personal life, who he was seeing at various times and that is it. Now, I don't expect to go into any of these other incidents that occurred before that time. I don't expect to elicit anything regarding Faye Resnick and her drug treatment program or anything of that nature. I want to limit it just to these things, and I think the Prosecution would be accordingly limited, and that is why I'm doing this now, so we don't have a misunderstanding, and move ahead.
Well, it seems to me that he has something specific in mind, that is, something specific he doesn't want me to go into, and perhaps we should ask Mr. Cochran what exactly that is. If we are talking about bias and prior business relationships and his attitude to these proceedings and things like that, those are traditionally areas that are fair game in cross-examination, then of course I assumed that I will be permitted to pursue those issues. I don't intend to ask about Faye Resnick and her--
--and her drug usage. I mean, geez, we got--you know, we fought that issue so why would I do that now?
I was kind of wondering that myself, but I know things seem to change here from time to time.
Nor will I ask this witness about whether or not he has ever used drugs, not that I'm saying that he has, so what are we having the 402 over?
Your Honor, from the side who asked for the 402 on every hearing, I'm trying to narrow the issues, your Honor.
Counsel, let me just explain something to you just so we all know what the court's thought process is at this point. I would like for this jury to deliberate--begin deliberations on this case sometime after--shortly after labor day is my hope and expectation, which means that scope of examinations are going to get tightened and have been tightened. And if you recollect from the court's rulings yesterday regarding Mr. Ragle, if there were scope problems, I enforce those restrictions. Now, attitudes and opinions, other issues regarding testifying, clearly that is--under the evidence code and under the Caljic 2.20 that is an area that Mr. Darden is entitled to go into, but it has to be impeachment that is relevant to the issue.
And we know since our--we've had these discussions informally before, we pretty much know what Dr. Reichardt is going to say.
Yes, I do, and no one can accuse me of lengthy cross-examination of any witness. I think I'm the only one in this case--
Your Honor, may I ask one other thing? If there is an area of alleged impeachment regarding Dr. Reichardt, I would ask that the court--that either side--that certainly the Prosecution approach the bench so we can argue it before it is asked--some question is asked improperly before the jury. That has been our general rule. Will that be the rule here also?
I'm not going to ask any improper questions, your Honor, but I will hand over any documentation I have just before I go into that area.
Mr. Rubalcava, do you want to come forward and be available to consult with your client?
He is here in great stress and pain. Your Honor, given that, may I move on to the issue?
May I address also the issue regarding Howard Weitzman so we can move right along?
All right. With regard to Mr. Weitzman, we expect, as I said, he will be here around 10:30. This hearing would be--and we talked about this also, so I think everybody is aware of this, we do not expect to get into any attorney/client communications and do not expect the court will recall that Mr. Weitzman represented Mr. Simpson back on the 1989 incident.
We are not getting into that. I'm not getting into any communications between Mr. Simpson and Mr. Weitzman from `89 to the present. That I don't want to get into any statements made by Mr. Weitzman, publicly or privately, or anybody in his family, re these proceedings, your Honor, the lawyers. That is all irrelevant. I expect only to go into background briefly. He is a lawyer, that he was called on June 12th, at least the jury has already seen the video, then go briefly into his background, June--of June 13th, rather--he has a distinguished background, obviously, and I will go through it briefly.
Mr. Cochran, let me help you out here. What you are saying is want me to enforce the scope objection regarding any cross-examination, and you want the court to be wary of any attorney/client issues?
I want to get right to what happened at the time of the statement and what he was told and that is it.
That is exactly correct. And I have told the court this before and I want to make sure that everybody understands that.
I will, your Honor. Well, I would really like to know what counsel is talking about. What testimony is it that he is supposed to be impeaching? We have not entered the statement.
No. It has to do I think with the nature of the timing, location and circumstances of Detective Vannatter talking to Mr. Weitzman, who was allowed to be present, who wasn't. There is apparently a factual dispute.
Your Honor, what difference does a factual dispute make if we have not introduced any evidence of the statement? We have not introduced one thing about the manner in which the statement was taken, the content of the statement, Mr. Simpson's demeanor or any interaction with Mr. Weitzman. What is the relevance?
Very relevant. Vannatter--I will show you the testimony of what Detective Vannatter said about who could be present during the statement. It is directly impeaching.
Why don't you show to it her and we will proceed with recalling--I'm sorry, Mr. Goldberg is back. We have Mr. Ragle still present.
So let's have the offer of proof from Mr. Blasier as to recalling Mr. Ragle. Let's get Ragle out of the way and then Dr. Reichardt.
Your Honor, so the court is clear on this Weitzman issue, we have Miranda waivers on tape from the Defendant.
The issue goes to the attempt to impeach Detective Vannatter. Why don't you look at the transcript portion and then we will take a look at that. Mr. Blasier, what is your offer regarding recalling Mr. Ragle?
Good morning, your Honor. Your Honor, after Mr. Ragle was done testifying yesterday he came--he came off the witness stand, he had seen Detective Vannatter sitting in the back of the courtroom during his testimony or on the back bench there, he put his hand out to shake his hand and Detective Vannatter backed away and stated, "I'm not going to shake your hand. You are a traitor," or a word to that effect, that substance. "You should be ashamed of yourself. I'm a cop, you're a cop. You are pathetic. I've been a cop for 27 years and I have never seen a cop come in and testify the way you did." Now we want to him put Mr. Ragle on to state that. It is directly relevant to the bias of Detective Vannatter of his motives. It is--it shows--it is state of mind evidence on Detective Vannatter as to his feeling that cops should not testify against cops. It is--the central aspect of our defense is the code of silence of the police department, and it is relevant to Detective Vannatter's credibility and we wish to call Mr. Ragle to demonstrate that. It is relevant to bias under evidence code section 780. It is evidence of a habit and custom of the police department or Detective Vannatter of not wanting to say anything negative about another police officer.
I will handle this, your Honor. This is ridiculous. I mean, we have really reached the farther outmost reaches I have every seen. I am actually speechless. I can't believe what I'm hearing. Detective Vannatter is entitled to his opinion. He's a human being and a citizen of this country and he is entitled to his opinion. And if he wants to tell Mr. Ragle, after he has completed his testimony, what he thinks of him, he is entitled to do so. And if Mr. Ragle feels the need to go and cry to his lawyers about it, he can do that, too. But that--none of it has anything that should be involving this court's time and attention and energy, which are already sorely taxed by a very difficult and lengthy case. This is absurd. These people want to put on everything they can think of, whether it is relevant or not, to slime the police department. I understand the motive. We have seen it in every case. This one is no different, just a slight bit more, and it is more extreme. But to say that it is relevant, that Detective Vannatter voices an opinion of someone he feels to be unethical, he is entitled to do that, as am I. He did not try to dissuade the witness. This witness completed his testimony, went up to Detective Vannatter and wanted to do the same thing that all these witnesses do, excuse me, for basically lying on the witness stand or saying things that I--
Mr. Blasier raises the issue of bias and habit and custom. He raises two legal issues that you have not addressed. If you don't want to address those, then I will assume those grounds to be well-taken.
As to habit and custom, your Honor, Mr. Ragle went over to Detective Vannatter. He approached Detective Vannatter; not reverse. He was the one that sought out interaction with Detective Vannatter. He was the one who went and made the overture, wanted to say let bygones be bygones or whatever he wanted to say. Detective Vannatter gave him his opinion. There is no habit and custom shown here. There is no code of silence shown here. Detective Vannatter, if called to testify, would say that many of the statements made were misrepresented by Mr. Ragle. And I can understand where there would be misunderstanding between two people when tempers flare; however, habit is more than one occasion, your Honor. There is no habit shown here. There was one encounter that Mr. Ragle didn't like that the attorneys wish to capitalize on. Habit has not been shown. As for bias, Detective Vannatter has an opinion of the witness' testimony. That doesn't reflect bias in terms of his relevance as a witness in this case. He has an interaction with someone who has completed his testimony. And the fact that a witness in a case has an opinion as to guilt or innocence or has an opinion of a witness' credibility does not make him biased as a witness in terms of giving his testimony. He is entitled to it. He is not on the jury, your Honor. He does not have to withhold his opinion. And I don't understand how this could possibly be relevant to his bias, quote-unquote, as a witness, when he testified, what, six months ago at this point. Detective Vannatter is entitled to have an opinion about someone else, to voice that opinion when the person approaches him to have an interaction, without that being called habit and custom, code of silence or bias as a witness. And if we have to, then we will convene the mini trial of Detective Vannatter and Larry Ragle, then we have to recall Detective Vannatter to set the record straight, say his true state of mind, which would make relevant his opinion of Mr. Ragle's credibility and the nature of his testimony. That is what this would open up. Obviously none of it is relevant. One witness' opinion of another's demeanor on the witness stand is their opinion, and when that witness approaches another and asks for the interaction, there is no reason why he can't voice that opinion, but to do so once certainly is not a habit or custom.
Detective Vannatter, when he testified, made many statements about the actions of other police officers, Detective Fuhrman and others, in terms of what they did or what they did not do, whether things were done properly or improperly. His state of mind, as evidenced by his statement yesterday, is relevant and that is that you don't say anything negative about another police officer and that is directly relevant to his credibility, and we offer it for that purpose.
And the statements made were twisted to be offered for that purpose. As I understand it from Detective Vannatter, that is not what he meant or what he said. He simply offered his personal opinion of the witness' credibility and demeanor on the witness stand; not you don't criticize another police officer. It was rather--I will tell the court what it was. You haven't investigated a crime scene in twenty years. How could you possibly know what you are talking about? I dare say that there might be one or two others in this country that might share that opinion, but it certainly has nothing to do with code of silence or habit and custom, your Honor.
I'm concerned that attorneys from both sides have referred to what other people around this country may think. That causes me to believe that the lawyers are pandering to the cameras and that causes me to believe that probably I ought to pull the plug on the cameras. I'm contemplating doing that because I'm tired of this kind of argument. All right. Any other comment?
KEY QUOTEAll right. I'm going to sustain the objection as to the recall of this witness for this reason: The probative value, since we have a dispute to what that statement actually was, I find the probative value to be minimal. It will prolong this trial by requiring the Prosecution to recall Detective Vannatter to explain why it is that he holds this opinion, plus pro or con with regards to Mr. Ragle, which will get into all sorts of inadmissible hearsay. And I think that given the--this isn't even remotely collateral and I don't see any point in prolonging this trial. I think it is an undue expenditure of the court's time to engage in this type of thing, so I'm not going to allow it.
he put his hand out to shake his hand and Detective Vannatter backed away and stated, 'I'm not going to shake your hand. You are a traitor,' or a word to that effect, that substance. 'You should be ashamed of yourself. I'm a cop, you're a cop. You are pathetic. I've been a cop for 27 years and I have never seen a cop come in and testify the way you did.'
These people want to put on everything they can think of, whether it is relevant or not, to slime the police department. I understand the motive. We have seen it in every case.
I'm concerned that attorneys from both sides have referred to what other people around this country may think. That causes me to believe that the lawyers are pandering to the cameras and that causes me to believe that probably I ought to pull the plug on the cameras. I'm contemplating doing that.
Dr. Reichardt received a call from Mr. Simpson at about nine o'clock p.m. that evening. Mr. Simpson was jovial, was his usual self with regard to his demeanor... he sounded really upbeat and happy, and they had a very good conversation.