All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. The jury is not present. We have two matters that we can resolve at this point. First of all, we have an issue regarding access to the tape-recordings, the so-called Fuhrman tape-recordings. And yesterday the court received via telephone through the clerk a request from counsel Darryl Mounger who I understand now represents mark Fuhrman and a request for access to the tape recordings that are involved here. I also understand that the Los Angeles city attorney's office, at the request of the Los Angeles police commission, is going to also be requesting access to those tapes.
And I note the presence of our city attorney, James Hahn and Miss House as well. Also present, Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Regwan representing the interests of Miss McKinny. Let me ask, first of all, informally, Mr. Hahn, Mr. Mounger, have you discussed the matters with Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Regwan to see if you can informally resolve the matter?
Yes, your Honor. I talked to Mr. Regwan today and asked him if his client would agree to Detective Fuhrman being included in the protective order that was provided around the tapes, and he indicated that his client was not willing to do that, so therefore I am here.
Yes. We have spoken with the attorneys and we were just speaking just before the court took the bench. They are still opposed to allowing the police commission access to copies of these materials. We are trying--we are hopeful that we can continue to maybe persuade them, but perhaps the court could be helpful in that matter.
Unfortunately. What we did do is we offered to give access to both the city attorney's office and the Los Angeles Police Department and Mr. Mounger under our supervision in our office so that they can listen to any and all portions of the tape that they feel is necessary for their own interest and to let them read from the corresponding transcripts. We are reluctant to make other copies. As the court well knows, there is a terrible problem with leaks and it is debilitating the value of my client's intellectual properties and I have to do everything I can to protect against that. So at least the city attorney's office and the police commission and the LAPD have already taken us up on our offer. They have been in our offices the last two days and they are going through these materials and I don't know how they can better their investigation aside from just listening to these tapes and taking their appropriate notes and hearing what they need to hear. I don't think it is necessary to actually have to make other copies and have them floating around. That is just posing another danger to our client's intellectual property interests. And we are doing everything we can to cooperate. We know everyone has a lot of concerns regarding these materials. We have been working with everybody. We just don't want to make other copies available to other people, but we will give everybody access for their own purposes.
All right. Is that correct, Mr. Hahn, that the police commission has had access to at least be able to listen to the tapes and take notes and review the transcripts?
That's correct, your Honor, and for the past two days that has been going on. I apologize to the fact that we just now were able to prepare some documents that were submitted to the court. Included in those documents is a declaration from the commission president, Deirdra Hill, indicating that she has gone over and taken advantage of this offer, but that she believes in order for the commission to really do its job and for the police department to be able to fully investigate these matters, this is a somewhat cumbersome way of doing things and taking notes when sometimes the exact words are going to be important is not as accurate for them. In order to do the kind of investigation that would--would satisfy them and have that kind of reliability, they would want to go back and review portions of these transcripts, review portions of these tapes. Maybe there is words that are unclear that need to be listened to by two or three people. We don't know yet what the accuracy of the transcripts are versus what is actually on the tapes. Those kind of issues are ones that certainly we can get a general idea by listening and taking notes, but it is not the way, and I'm sure the court is familiar with this, that Los Angeles Police Department likes to conduct these kind of investigations. And they believe in order to do a proper investigation, which they believe the public really demands, that they need access to these materials in a way so that they can view them on their time on their schedule and in a way that is most beneficial to getting at the bottom of these allegations to see whether or not there is any truth to them, to see whether or not this is going to lead to further investigations. And while we are very grateful for the opportunity to be able to listen to these tapes and to review the transcripts at the law office, it really is not going to be the way that we can complete this investigation.
My position is somewhat different. I have a client who the media and the world has been told has perjured himself and I have to advise that client on what his legal position must be when he come back to this witness stand. Therefore, I need to listen to those tapes or at least the proffered areas that they plan on cross-examining him on so that he can know what his position is. When he was--my position is that when he was first here, as all police officers that were here, his statements were compelled, because his department requires that he testify. If he does not testify, he can be terminated for insubordination. That is part of the rules and regulations of the Los Angeles Police Department. But now when he returns he returns as a private citizen, and unlike a position he would have if he took the 5th amendment before, he may in fact need to take the 5th amendment or choose to take the 5th amendment at this point. Until I have an opportunity to review what the statements are and have access to them, as well as my client, to know the context in which they are said, I'm not in a position to properly advise him. My client additionally is without the state. He is not in California at this point. And whatever communication I have with him needs to be in privacy. I would hope that I have enough of a reputation with at least this court that I am not going to disclose anything. I have been involved in cases that have protective orders before and have never revealed any information. I wish only to use them for as long as it takes me to review them with my client. I will immediately return them. I'm not in the same position as the city with administrative investigation. I have a client witness that is going to take the witness stand that is supposed to be a perjurer.
All right. The difficulty I have, counsel, is that this is a relatively unusual situation for which there is no guidance or precedent. We have two non-parties, the city of Los Angeles and Detective Fuhrman, coming to this court asking for access to evidence that we have gotten by means of a subpoena duces tecum through the interstate process, that the person who owns these materials owns it both physically, and as an intellectual property, has consented to give us these materials without too much of a fight and has asked for reasonable restrictions on the use of those items. The problem being is that for reasons that are pretty transparent, those items have been leaked and has the impact of--I don't know that it necessarily diminishes the value, perhaps it hypes even it more to pique the interest, because we are talking about hours and hours of tapes which the proffer is less than an hour at this point. So my--my concern is that the court in a criminal case has jurisdiction over the items, so far as it relates to the parties before me, and I don't know that either Detective Fuhrman or the city of Los Angeles or the police commission has standing to ask this court to do anything other than disclose these--this information to the parties--real parties in interest, plus I don't know that I would be exceeding my jurisdictional authority if I did that. And judges these days, given the growing area of non-judicial immunity, are loathe to go into areas where there is no clear precedent that this would be within my judicial discretion to grant the relief that you are asking. So I think that the--at this point the offer of Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Regwan to make the tapes available to you to listen to I think at this point is probably the best compromise. I realize it is not the most convenient thing to do, Mr. Mounger and Mr. Hahn.
Let me just make one further observation. The transcript that accompanied Miss McKinny's materials I think we all agree is not a professionally prepared transcript. I understand the Prosecution has prepared their own transcript and I believe that was delivered to the court this morning; is that correct, Miss Clark?
All right. And the Defense has also prepared some of its own transcriptions as well; is that correct, Mr. Cochran?
All right. So now we are going to have three sets of transcripts as to one tape all from three different sources. Mr. Schwartz, Mr. Regwan, I am acquainted with these three counsel, Miss House, Mr. Mounger and Mr. Hahn, and I have great faith in their professional integrity. I am inclined to request that you talk to your client, to allow the court to give to Mr. Mounger and Mr. Hahn and Miss House, one copy for the police commission, one copy for Mr. Mounger of the District Attorney's prepared transcript with each copy with the appropriate "Do not copy" stamp on it so we can tell if it ever turns up again photocopied where it came from, but I feel confident that I could order both Mr. Hahn and Mr. Mounger not to make any copies, and return those transcripts to the court within a reasonable period of time. I understand you would need, however, the consent of your client to do that, and if you could consult with your client, contemplate that.
Thank you, your Honor. I will do as you request; however, I'm sure this court has the same level of confidence for the professionalism of all the other attorneys here, and as we know, something is amiss and something has been leaked by somebody this court has confidence in, and the more people that have this--
Well, Mr. Schwartz, what I said is I have personal confidence in Mr. Hahn, Mr. Mounger and Miss House, since I know these people. That is what I've said, so--
Okay. Your Honor, I will ask my client for her permission to do that. We would request, if she is so inclined, reimbursement for the copying costs.
Actually what I had in mind is the transcript prepared by the District Attorney's office.
Actually, counsel, let me do this: Let me ask you to step into chambers and discuss this matter with you, the court reporter, two counsel from each side.
I understand there is also under seal a proffer of items that will be offered against Mr. Fuhrman. May I will get a copy of that document?
A request for Detective Fuhrman's counsel to have a copy of the proffers that have been filed.
Well, your Honor, may I say one thing? And I am really gland to see Mr. Mounger here, a fine criminal lawyer. This is in the nature of impeachment and before the court orders that I think the court would want to perhaps hear from the Defense in that regard. This is our proffer and I would just think you would want to do that. That would seem reasonable and fair. This is the nature of impeachment with tapes that we pursued and got that, so I would ask the court to consider that before you make a final order.
May we ask, your Honor, that the court provide Mr. Mounger with a copy of the People's--that the court's copy be provided to Mr. Mounger of the People's transcript?
Your Honor, may I be excused or does the court want to hear the swatch issue now, this afternoon?
I have a client who the media and the world has been told has perjured himself and I have to advise that client on what his legal position must be when he come back to this witness stand.
I don't know that either Detective Fuhrman or the city of Los Angeles or the police commission has standing to ask this court to do anything other than disclose these--this information to the parties--real parties in interest, plus I don't know that I would be exceeding my jurisdictional authority if I did that.
Something is amiss and something has been leaked by somebody this court has confidence in, and the more people that have this--
This is in the nature of impeachment and before the court orders that I think the court would want to perhaps hear from the Defense in that regard. This is our proffer and I would just think you would want to do that.