All right. Let's launch into the McKinny matter. This is in the vein of a 402 hearing. This is evidence being offered by the Defense with an objection by the Prosecution and I will hear from the Defense first.
Your Honor, we would like to proceed by calling Miss McKinny to the witness stand to lay a foundation with respect to the manner which the tapes were compiled and the transcripts of the tapes that are no longer available.
Yes. We have on calendar today at nine o'clock a motion to quash a subpoena that was served by the Prosecution. We were wondering if we could handle that before we get into the 402. And we had a stipulation with Mr. Darden that this would be done in chambers, during our last appearance.
Well, I'm glad you had a stipulation with him, because it is not a stipulation with the court. What is your schedule today, gentlemen? Are you going to stay for the testimony of Miss McKinny?
We certainly don't intend to utilize the screenplay at all during our presentation.
Good morning. Mrs. Robertson.
Laura Hart McKinny, (402) called as a witness by the Defendant, pursuant to evidence code section 402, was sworn and testified as follows:
Please raise your right hand. You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this court, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God.
Please have a seat on the witness stand and state and spell your first and last names for the record.
My first name is Laura, L-A-U-R-A. My middle name is hart, H-A-R-T. My last name is McKinny, M-C K-I-N-N-Y.
May I just have one moment, your Honor? I did not anticipate that we would begin with the 402 and Mr. Darden is prepared to cross-examine Miss McKinny and I'm prepared to do the argument, if the court--if that is all right with the court. We had split it that way. We ordinarily would not have done so, but this is not a procedure I anticipated and I'm asking leave of the court to allow Mr. Darden to cross-examine her and I will do the argument. Is that acceptable?
And Mr. Regwan, if you want to take a seat in the jury box, you are welcome to do so.
Actually, Miss Sager, why don't you take a seat in the jury box and let Mr. Regwan be in the--before the bar, since he may need to consult with his client. All right. Mr. Uelmen.
I'm currently employed as a film maker in residence at North Carolina school of the arts school of filmmaking, professor of screen writing there.
Yes. The North Carolina school of the arts was started in 1965. It has just celebrated its 30th anniversary.
Yes. The North Carolina school of the arts already had their theater, dance, visual arts, music, design and production, and then in 1993 the school of filmmaking was the new school, and I was brought on board as one of the six founding faculty.
I have been writing screenplays for a long time. I've written approximately six screenplays, a dozen treatments.
Yes. I won the writer's guild of America East Foundation award in 1984 for an original screenplay.
And did that award include assigning a mentor to work with you in the development of screenplays?
Yes. The award included a stipend which then their request--the requirement was then to write another original screenplay and you could use one of the mentors that the writer's guild suggested or you could ask for a mentor of your choosing and I wanted very much to work with Alvin Sergeant and I requested to work with him and was able to meet and befriend him through a mutual friend.
All right. So Mr. Sergeant was serving as your mentor in the development of screenplays?
My first short piece was produced in 1979 or 1980, but no long form screenplay has been produced.
Yes. I wore a couple of hats in 1985. I was a freelance screenwriter and I worked as a--as the senior learning skills counselor at UCLA.
I worked in the athletic department as a liaison from--with the letters of college and science, and I worked under the auspices of Terry Donohue with specifically high-risk athletes.
Yes. Umm, I had--have had a family over the last ten years. I have two young children and was working at UCLA and writing. I also worked at Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District as a home instructor during that time period.
So when you went to the North Carolina school of arts in 1993, you moved from the Los Angeles area back to North Carolina?
So throughout the period from 1985 to 1993 you were residing in Los Angeles; is that correct?
Yes. I was sitting in a cafe in Westwood late one morning working on my laptop computer and Officer Fuhrman, who was not dressed in uniform, so a man essentially came up and asked me about my laptop. Someone had come up a short time earlier and asked me and I had explained how the laptop worked and that was a common practice. It was uncommon then to have a laptop and I had actually purchased it in part from the stipend I had won from the writer's guild award.
At the time I was working on something to do with women in law enforcement. I'm not exactly clear on what I was typing at the exact moment he walked up, but generally I was looking over some notes or thinking about the extent to which women could succeed in areas of violent crime in law enforcement. There had been some rumblings in Santa Monica where I lived about a particular woman officer who was incapable of performing some--some acts and I was writing or thinking about that.
So you expressed to him your interest in writing about women who are employed as police officers?
It was around that time that he told me he was an officer and had strong feelings about whether or not women should be on the Los Angeles Police Department and working specifically in areas of high crime.
Did he tell you anything about any organization he was active in with respect to that issue?
Yes. He mentioned men against women, which is actually policemen against policewomen, commonly called MAW.
Now, as a result of this conversation did you agree to have further conversations with Officer Fuhrman?
After he told me about this particular group, men against women, I--it stirred a curiosity and I was very interested in finding out why a group like that would be formed, what kind of frustrations some men working on the police department would have that would cause them to want to join a group like that and what kind of things they would do to stonewall or embarrass or humiliate women and also what kind of effect that had on women, how they would feel. So I thought that that particular issue was something that I really would like to explore and I would very much like to have his point of view as to why some men felt very strongly that some women were incapable of working in areas of high crime.
Now, is this a frequent or common arrangement when someone is doing a screenplay or preparing a treatment for a screenplay, to consult with someone with firsthand experience?
I work that way. I don't know how frequently all writers do. I would think frequently. If you are going to write about a particular issue and you want to be able to obtain different points of view, then you need to talk with people who have that kind of experience and you will need to be able to understand procedural issues in many different facets, so it is a very common practice for me. I do extensive interviews and with people and I shadow them with their permission at work just to see what kind of obstacles they have during the day, who their friends are, what their conversations are, so it is a common practice with me.
All right. Was Mark Fuhrman the only person you were meeting with or consulting in the course of preparing this treatment?
Did you agree at the cafe in Westwood that you would continue to meet with Officer Fuhrman for purpose of getting this background information that you wanted?
How soon after your initial meeting did you first sit down and talk with him in an interview format?
We usually met at Alice's restaurant in Westwood. I believe it is on Westwood Boulevard.
And again, briefly describe your purpose in having this meeting in April at Alice's restaurant.
I needed to hear his ideas, his thoughts, his feelings about some elements of police work.
Yes. That initial interview, a taped interview in April was taped. I believe that was April 2nd.
Okay. Now, this I take it was the first of a series of interview meetings; is that correct?
About how many times did you sit down and conduct an interview of this nature with Officer Fuhrman?
Umm, twelve to fourteen. One in particular I remember that was not tape recorded was one in 1993 with then I believe Detective Fuhrman, a gentleman who had optioned the property, and another woman officer that had been--who had been a partner with Detective Fuhrman.
Okay. But your general practice was to tape-record the meetings between yourself and Officer Fuhrman?
I knew that it seemed to me that he would be giving me a lot of information that would be hard for me to process because it is new, and I needed to hear his words for dialogue purposes to be able to construct accurate characters so that they would be clear. And I needed to--if it was a police procedural issue, I would need to listen to it again and be able to visualize it to be able to cinematically write it, and I didn't feel I would be able to take copious notes on a yellow pad that would enable me to listen actively, ask questions, participate and take the notes and then be able to clearly cinematically write it.
I didn't automatically turn the recorder on when we would first begin the interview. I would turn it on when I felt that he was going to--he was ready to discuss perhaps some of the questions that I had given him ahead of time or it just seemed that it was the appropriate time to start taping.
And were there occasional interruptions with people serving food or things of that nature?
I would put the tape in my transcribing machine at home in front of my computer and transcribe the tape. My transcribing machine accommodates transcriptions because it modulates the speed of the--of the tape, so that you can slow it down or speed it up for--to be able to hear more clearly, and it also has an audible--it modulates the volume, and has a foot pedal to allow you to stop and start and rewind appropriately.
My job was to transcribe reports that inspectors would give regarding people they were investigating.
My transcriptions were of what Officer Fuhrman would say, what I would hear him to say and what I would say.
And in fact did you on at least one occasion tell Officer Fuhrman that the transcripts you were preparing were verbatim transcripts of what he was saying?
Now, in these transcripts was the--or in the interviews that were taped, was the word "Nigger" ever used?
Now, if that word appears in a transcript of the interview, it is because that word was spoken by Officer Fuhrman?
You never added that word to any of the transcription that you were preparing on any occasion when he didn't say the word, did you?
Now, have all of the tapes of all of your interviews with Officer Fuhrman been preserved?
Could you explain what happened with respect to any tapes that are no longer still in existence.
Yes. I inadvertently recorded another interview over one tape and a similar situation with another tape.
Our first interview, taped interview, and I believe it is numbered the ninth now.
Okay. Now, the first interview is the one you have already referred to on April 2nd, 1985?
We will come back to that. Now, at the time you were preparing what is called a treatment for a screenplay; is that correct?
A treatment is a narrative form of the story, it is in pros in paragraph form and it delineates the principle characters that, the protagonist, the antagonist, the secondary characters, the main problem in the story, what the obstacles are, possibly some dialogue, what the resolution might be.
And the screenplay that you were contemplating was to be a fictional story, was it not?
Did you ever explain to Officer Fuhrman the role he would play in terms of your process of creating this story (Pros) ?
To help give me some ideas from the point of view of some men who might be long to this particular group, men against women and how men would be frustrated by some of the actions of some women, what kind of--bless you--what kinds of things they would do to possibly stonewall women or make it uncomfortable with them, how they might react were they partnered with women, how they reacted to the administration, partner's relationships, procedural issues.
Did you communicate to him in any way an expectation as to the nature of the information he was to convey to you?
The nature of the information that I wished that he would convey would be something that would help me develop a story wherein a very competent woman officer is transferred into a precinct where there is high crime and she is forced to work with a--an officer who is a member of this particular group, men against women. That was the structure or the--the characters that I really wanted to work with, and so the information that I needed from him was what--what would a working relationship be like, what would some of the frustrations be having to work with a woman officer, what would be some of her frustrations, and then possibly what could be some situations that might occur in a precinct such as this. It was structured after the 77th precinct.
Now, was there any difference between the nature of the first interview and the subsequent interviews of Officer Fuhrman?
Was there any difference in the nature of the first interview that you conducted with Officer Fuhrman and then the later interviews as the project developed?
Yes. In the first interviews I really needed to hear what he had to say, without directing him specifically and be able to hear his words, his dialogue, the kind of issues that he felt comfortable expressing to me, and then in the later--the later transcripts reflect that many of the points that we talk about are related to the story. I give general categories and he responds and the later interviews I believe some of them are transcribed in terms of categories. It is not question and answer; it is more of a specified topical interview and it also my transcriptions during some of the interviews, the later interviews, were reflecting my lack of time. I had just had one child and was having another child, and was working a couple of jobs, and I--and writing, so--and those things, so I had less time and I really just needed to have him answer certain questions, so there is a difference in the transcriptions.
So the later interviews were much more directed to specific areas as opposed to getting background information?
So your transcriptions were done right after the interviews had taken place while they were still fresh in your mind?
I was very interested in the project and again I had more time initially, I could work later hours, I could work early in the morning. My time was more fluid, but I really wanted to be able to transcribe them and hear the dialogue. It is easier to transcribe something especially when there is interruptions--it is easier to transcribe it when you are closer to the topic.
And after you prepared a transcription of the interview, did you deliver a copy of that transcription to Officer Fuhrman?
I believe the first transcript I sent to him along with some questions that I wanted to pursue in the following taped interview. At some point after most of our interviews during 1985, I gave him the collection of transcripts. I don't remember if I sent them each--sent him each transcript. I remember the first one difficult.
Okay. So you recall specifically that after the first interview you sent him a copy of the transcript with a set of questions?
Yes. I had given him a series of questions to think about and see if he would like to answer those in preparation for our next interview.
And then at the conclusion or at a point where you had conducted a number of interviews, you gave him a bound set of the transcripts?
I recall giving him at some point, after our initial `85 interviews, that collection of transcripts, transcriptions.
I had given it to him in a three-ring binder similar to the that I had bound mine.
Your Honor, we have a three-page document, a copy has been supplied to the People, headed, "Fuhrman questions round two." We would ask these three pages be--
Miss McKinny, I'm handing you a three-page document with numbered items from 1 through 31 and it is headed "Fuhrman." Could you look at that?
These are the questions that I sent to Officer Fuhrman after our first interview so that he could perhaps refresh his mind on what we had discussed and then he would know what kind of issues I would like to discuss the next time we met.
So you were actually giving him questions in advance of the interview. For what purpose?
Well, time was limited. He was a very busy man and I wanted him to understand what issues I really needed to talk about.
And did this list of questions contain specific references to the transcript that accompanied them?
Not every question. A few of the questions have references to page numbers of my original transcript.
Well, for example, item 15 on your list of questions, does that refer to a specific page of the transcript that you are asking him to look at?
And that question was: "How do you hire someone who is capable of shooting someone in the back, no. 1? And no. 2, on what ground would you determine who is capable of figuring out who the bad guys are?"
According to this, and my notes, that was referring to page 25 of the first taped interview.
Are there other references in those questions to the transcript, either by quoting material in the transcript or referring to specific pages?
Yes. Generally when there is a--when there is parentheses around a word, that indicates that it is something that we possibly discussed. For instance, no. 27, "Why is the chokehold considered brutality?" That would be something that we had discussed.
Now, at any time in the course of your interviews did Officer Fuhrman ever indicate that there were any inaccuracies in the transcript?
Now, at the same time that you were conducting this--these interviews with Officer Fuhrman, were you meeting with other persons associated with the Los Angeles Police Department?
Yes, I was, during that period. I went on--I met with approximately fifteen to twenty other officers from the Los Angeles Police Department, either through the Parker Center, on ride-alongs or some of the pt's at the Los Angeles Police Department academy, along with around 20 to 25 police cadets there at the Los Angeles Police Academy, women cadets.
Many of them were tape-recorded. Some of the meetings and discussions with the--the cadet women were when I was there with them when they were in training and running and wrestling, watching them do that and observing their--their pre-training prior to entering Los Angeles Police Academy, so many of those were very informal and they weren't taped, but several of them were.
Now, were all of the interviews you conducted with Officer Fuhrman just yourself and Officer Fuhrman or did you ever involve any third persons in the process?
No. There are several interviews where there are--where there is another party involved.
Sometimes it is to give me additional information, that it is hard to be able to do an inquiry when you are conducting the interview, because it is a one-on-one and you are looking at someone and trying to respond appropriately, you are not observing, so that was helpful information. One particular interview was of a woman who was going to pretend to be a woman who wanted to enter the police academy and Officer Fuhrman was going to talk with her about his feelings about that. Another interview was with a gentleman with whom I was working at UCLA, an athlete who was going to talk with Officer Fuhrman. Another was with a gentleman who had optioned the piece and it was more of a partial story conference.
Now, did these interviews with the woman who was portraying someone interested in going into LAPD and with the gentleman who was a student of yours--at UCLA did you say?
Perhaps you could identify these individuals. Who were these persons who played these roles?
The woman was Laurie Diaz. She was a personal friend who agreed to do this confidentially. And the gentleman was James Washington and the producer was John Flynn.
And did the interviews with Laurie Diaz and James Washington also take place in 1985?
Umm, did you find any of the comments that Officer Fuhrman was making in the course of your interviews offensive?
I'm--I heard your question and I didn't hear what happened with the court after that.
I had a journalistic approach to this project with all the people that I interviewed, and for me that means that when I'm trying to hear someone's point of view, even though I might not espouse their feelings, whether they are a man or a woman, I don't react in a way that will cause them to drop their feelings of confidentiality, their desire to communicate their ideas with me, so I don't respond in a way that will cause them to stop talking to me.
KEY QUOTEYour Honor, at this point we would like to take Miss McKinny through each of the items in our offer of proof to have her authenticate the context of the conversation that in the case of the transcriptions it is an accurate record of what Officer Fuhrman said, and where we do have a tape-recording, to authenticate his voice.
We do have a video that was prepared in advance which would display the text, and where we have the voice, play the voice accompanying the text. With the court's permission I would like to utilize that in the examination.
Perhaps it would help if Miss McKinny were able to look at a copy of our offer of proof at the same time that we are displaying the text.
Your Honor, perhaps it would save some time. I don't think that there is going to be any question about the authenticity of the tapes. The tapes speak for themselves. The only question is the transcripts where there are no tapes, and I think that having Miss McKinny go through tapes which do speak for themselves is just going to spend a lot of time doing--proving the obvious. We can probably save a lot of time by cutting to the chase and going to the transcripts where there are no tapes.
Well, there does have to be some foundation that she recognizes the voices and who is there, though, some basic foundation.
We can stipulate that she would identify her voice and that of Mark Fuhrman on the tapes.
I think one of the issues your Honor has to address is how much consumption of time will be involved in presenting this to the jury. I think we can very expeditiously kind of give you a preview of precisely how this material would be presented to the jury so that your Honor is in a better position to rule.
There is the additional issue of whether she has an independent recollection apart from the tapes and that would have to be established.
Well, the problem is foundationally speaking, your Honor, is that the tapes should not be played until that area is explored because then you get into a leading situation.
I intend to elicit, as we go through each excerpt, her memory of Detective Fuhrman speaking those words.
I'm handing you, Miss McKinny, a copy of the offer of proof that was prepared for the court containing excerpts from the transcripts and the tapes that were supplied pursuant to subpoena to the court.
I will be referring to these excerpts in terms of the three categories we established, your Honor, B, being racial animosity and the use of racial epithets, which will include items B-1 through B-40, and actually we added one more, B-41. This a supplement to the offer of proof. And then--
Let me ask you just out of shear curiosity, did you actually anticipate that any court would allow you to have all 41 of these incidents? Isn't there some cumulative problem here or redundancy.
KEY QUOTEWell, I certainly plan to address the question of the cumulative issue in the argument. If you like, I will address it now.
I'm just asking. Do you think--in presenting this issue to the court, do you think I really need to contemplate all 41 of these? Aren't there perhaps a half dozen of these that capture the essence of what you want to present?
Well, we believe there are 17 to be exact that will be admissible for two purposes; not only to show the use of the word but to also show actual racial bias and hostility.
All right. Then why do I have to listen to 41? You have conceded at this point that the remainder is surplusage.
Well, certainly I think we are entitled to elicit that there were 41, but in terms of the ones that would actually be displayed or heard, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the actual display or hearing of the epithets would--would be limited to the ones that have relevance beyond simply the use of the word "Nigger." I don't--I'm certainly not going to argue that--that there is any evidentiary significance to hearing just that word 41 times, but we believe the context in which the word is used in many of these examples goes beyond simply the use of a racial epithet.
Then wouldn't it be a more efficient use of my time, your time and the jury's time, if you limit yourself to the 17 that you think are the ones that are appropriately offered to the court?
I think we are kind of jumping the gun at this point to start talking about editing it in terms of the--of the offer of proof. What we would like to do--and we can go through it very quickly. I mean, these will not take much time at all, and we have edited them down to the bare bones, so in each case it is just a couple of sentences surrounding the use of the word and Miss McKinny can put it in context and it won't take much time at all. And then at that point the court will be in a position to say, well, now we need to talk about what the jury should actually hear.
No, no, we want 41. I mean, I think that the counter argument obviously is going to be, well, you know, this was--was inadvertent, he didn't remember speaking these words seven or eight years ago in the context of a screenplay interview.
All right. And this is the interview that the tape was inadvertently taped over; is that correct?
And are these words that "We got females and dumb niggers and all your Mexicans that can't even write the name of the car they drive," is that an accurate record of Officer Fuhrman's actual words?
It is leading, counsel, and it is the issue that is before the court, wouldn't you say?
Did you prepare this transcription of these words immediately after you heard them?
And as you look at these words now, are they an accurate reflection of what was on the tape?
Now, in there is certain--there is a blank. It says, "If I'm wrestling with some" blank "Nigger." Is the blank something that you put into the transcript?
It would have been a word that was inaudible, but I just wouldn't type out "Inaudible." That would let me know that it was something that I didn't understand.
All right. So you would--if there were inaudible words that you could not record verbatim, you would indicate by inserting a blank into the transcript?
And does the transcript accurately record what was said by Officer Fuhrman at that time?
Excuse me. Miss McKinny, with regards to this April 2nd interview, you transcribed the entire tape within a day or two?
Okay. We were talking about the way some suspects may be arrested, umm, and I'm not familiar with 22nd and Western, so it didn't set up a visual picture for me where Fat Burger was.
Now, at the time of these interviews Officer Fuhrman was a patrol officer in Westwood; is that correct?
All right. Could you explain how it came about that he described this incident to you?
I have here, Miss McKinny, a set of the transcripts that been prepared, including--
She has indicated she needs to refresh her recollection from her original transcript is what she has indicated.
Does the binder I have just handed you contain your transcription of the first interview on April 2nd?
If you could refer to page 33 of that interview, does that page contain the Fat Burger excerpt?
Putting that in context, can you tell us whether this was an explanation or a description of an actual event?
This is a description of an actual event that took place according to Officer Fuhrman on the previous night.
We were talking about administration of LAPD, some of the other administration officers.
And is the transcript an accurate record of what Officer Fuhrman said at the time?
Counsel, why don't we just assume all of these are during the first interview until we get to--
What were you talking about at the time, and in what context did this reference to Ethiopia come up?
I need to refer--it was a tangent, it wasn't specific to the story, but we had been talking about the media and the media's role in projecting a positive--positive work capacity for women.
What--what were we talking about or what were you talking about at the time, in the context of discussing "People in someplace don't want niggers in their town"?
Could you tell us whether--what Officer Fuhrman was describing was based on reality?
In what context was this statement made in terms of whether it reflected actual events or whether it was fictional?
May the record reflect the witness is reading a transcript before responding, your Honor?
Yes. Actually, why don't you take that back, because she only has to refresh her recollection as to that one item. The issue here is testing her recollection since there is no tape-recording. Why don't you just close that and put it up on the--
Do you recall--do you presently recall, during the first conversation, talking with Officer Fuhrman about his personal background and where he grew up?
And is the transcript which just presented an accurate record of what Officer Fuhrman said in that first interview on April 2nd?
We were discussing the difference between pt officers, physical training officers, at the academy, when Officer Fuhrman trained as opposed to pt officers at the academy at that particular time in 1985.
All right. Your Honor, that concludes the excerpts from the transcript no. 1, which was the first interview. We can now proceed to interviews where we do have audiotape available.
Your Honor, the People have offered to stipulate to the authenticity and I think the tapes speak for themselves.
Well, your Honor, we need to make the same showing in terms of the context in which these words were spoken.
Your Honor, obviously the court has the entire transcript. To the extent that there is context available, the court already has it and the tapes speak for themselves. We have the entire tape of these. There is no need for this.
All right. Mr. Uelmen, though, I think he does need to establish at least some basic foundation as to the voices. Proceed.
Yes. We were talking about nicknames that officers or partners give to each other.
Excuse me just a second. Miss McKinny, in your transcript you have down Baba, B-A-B-A. What i heard was Bubba. Do you distinguish between those two terms?
All right. Which is accurate, your transcript or the transcript that we just saw here?
No. If she is saying that these are all Mr. Fuhrman on the tapes, I don't need to hear any more. I have read the offer of proof. I've heard the tapes. I've read the transcripts.
There are issues that come up, your Honor, in terms of the context of each of these statements. The People, for example, in their--in their brief, have argued that some of these involved the fictional role playing in which Detective Fuhrman or Officer Fuhrman at the time was entering into some sort of fictional context at the time he spoke. Of course our contention is that he still used the word and when he testified he didn't make an exception for fictional role playing, so that is simply a question for the jury, but as a foundational matter we believe that with just a couple of exceptions we can show that each of these uses of the word were in the context of conversation in which he was recounting actual experiences or giving his personal opinions and did not involve creating dialogue or role playing with respect to fictional characters, so--
Well, let me ask you this then: Then why was it necessary for me to take all of these tapes home with the offer of proof, with the transcripts, and read all this stuff and listen to all this stuff?
We are in a position, your Honor, where not knowing how your Honor is going to rule on any of these offers, we believe we are entitled to make a record to show the admissibility.
You have these tape recordings. You have lodged the transcripts with the court. You have a record. What more do we need to do?
Well, I think your Honor needs to have a sense of how this is going to be presented to the jury as well. I mean, our position is what we have done with a massive amount of material is to refine it, to edit it, to put it into a format where it can be very concisely and with great precision presented to the jury, just cut to the bare bones of what is relevant, without any--any embellishment. And I think that is a very relevant factor for your Honor to recognize in terms of considering what you are going to admit and allow the jury to hear. And I think it would be very helpful to your Honor to see just how and in what format and in what context we intend to present this material to the jury.
But your Honor has not heard any testimony as to the context in which each of these statements were made.
Well, the transcript--they are saying--they are objecting to her even looking at the transcript in terms of her own memory of the context in which these statements were made and the conversations took place. We believe we have a right to present the testimony of the witness who will actually testify before the jury to establish the context of each of these statements to show that in fact these are the opinions, these are the personal experiences of Officer Mark Fuhrman. These are not fiction, these are not the creations of a playwright. These are the words that he was speaking in terms of his own life experience.
I will limit my questions as we go through each excerpt to simply having her put them in context.
Your Honor, we have--why do we need the witness' memory, as dim as it may be, ten years later for context when you have the entire tape conversation for context?
Well, we don't have the entire tape conversations. There are a lot of stops and starts here. It starts in the middle of conversations. It ends in the middle of the conversations. I don't know what the predicate was to all of these things. There are a lot of unanswered questions with these tapes.
And it is going to be necessary to play all of the tapes to give her testimony to each of the contexts as opposed to letting her look at the transcript? She has got the proffer in front of her.
The tape and the spoken word is the best evidence at this point. All right. Mr. Harris, just rewind that shortly, please.
Yes. This is related to the story. I would be--it would be helpful to look at the transcript, but to my best recollection, I was asking how--how an officer would approach a suspect and stop a suspect and these two suspects or the suspect, I believe they are black Muslims.
Yes, because there are two times where a suspect is stopped, one in a car, and I asked for that information, how an officer would stop a--what they considered to be a suspicious car, what kind of issues would come up in that, and then there is another time when an officer is stopping two suspects on a street, so there are two different times.
This would be the context regarding the black Muslims, stopping two suspects on the street who are black Muslims.
All right. Could you look at transcript no. 2 or transcript of tape no. 1, page 1.
Officer Fuhrman is explaining what it feels like to work on this particular mid-watch.
My best recollection is it was a situation where I was asking how an officer would respond to transporting a suspect who had beaten up or hit a woman officer.
Your Honor, I'm going to impose an objection again. I do not--well, I don't know. Let me inquire of the court. Is this at all helpful to the court in giving it any additional information over and above what it already has in the Defense proffers?
This is the person who is conducting the conversations and interviews of Detective Fuhrman. She has unique personal knowledge as to each one of these individual situations.
What unique personal knowledge that she has imparted thus far that we haven't already gotten more of in the proffers themselves and the actual transcripts?
Well, at some point in time I'm going to ask that question, but I'm letting Mr. Uelmen go with what he feels is appropriate at this point.
There are a number of excerpts we will get to in a moment where there were others present and an additional set of excerpts where we do not have a tape, your Honor, so I think this will be very helpful. Could we have the next excerpt.
I believe, yes, we were discussing fencing. It would be helpful to look at the transcript, but to my best recollection we were discussing what it would be like to be fencing two officers and Officer Fuhrman was saying that--something to the effect that even knowing fencing isn't particularly useful because that is not something that an officer would be called upon to use in the line of duty.
Hold on. Madam reporter? All right. We need to take a recess. All right. We are going to take a 15-minute recess at this time. And Miss McKinny, you may step down. Come back in fifteen minutes. All right. Thank you.
We got females and dumb niggers and all your Mexicans that can't even write the name of the car they drive.
Let me ask you just out of shear curiosity, did you actually anticipate that any court would allow you to have all 41 of these incidents? Isn't there some cumulative problem here or redundancy.
I had a journalistic approach to this project with all the people that I interviewed, and for me that means that when I'm trying to hear someone's point of view, even though I might not espouse their feelings, whether they are a man or a woman, I don't react in a way that will cause them to drop their feelings of confidentiality.
I'm still at the cafe in Westwood.