ALL RIGHT. WE ARE AT THE SIDE BAR. COUNSEL, WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH 1107.A HERE, DON'T WE?

I DON'T THINK WE DO. I THINK YESTERDAY I THINK GIVEN THE CONTENT OF MR. COCHRAN'S OPENING STATEMENT, THE QUESTION YESTERDAY REGARDING THE VICTIM'S DECISION NOT TO PROSECUTE IN A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASE, I THINK WE ARE WELL -- I THINK NOW WE HAVE CREATED AN ISSUE REGARDING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. I THINK WE HAVE A DUTY AND OBLIGATION TO DISABUSE THE JURY ABOUT THE MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE THAT THEY -- THAT THEY HAVE RAISED AND I THINK WE HAVE A RIGHT NOW UNDER THE EVIDENCE CODE. WHEN I OBJECTED YESTERDAY, I OBJECTED SO THAT COUNSEL WOULD BE PUT ON NOTICE THE LAW WAS IN OUR FAVOR ON THIS ISSUE, THAT BY CREATING THE MISCONCEPTIONS THAT THEY WERE IN FRONT OF THE JURY, THAT WE WOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO OFFER THE VICTIM'S PROFILE.

YOUR HONOR --

A RIGHT UNDER THE LAW AND I THINK THE CASE LAW IS CLEAR, AND WE WILL GET MISS BODIN AND MR. GORDON DOWN HERE TO EXPLAIN IT TO COUNSEL AND ARGUE THE ISSUE IF THEY DESIRE, BUT THE LAW IS CLEAR NOW.

I DON'T NEED THEM TO EXPLAIN ANYTHING TO ME. BY THE END OF THIS TRIAL THEY ARE ALL GOING TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WERE NO MISCONCEPTIONS. WE HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT. THEY ARE GOING TO TELL ALL THE STORY AND THEY WANT TO CUT IT OFF WHENEVER THEY WANT TO. WHEN YOU BRING UP THE CHARGES, I HAVE A RIGHT TO BRING IT OUT, AS YOUR HONOR SO RULED. THEY MAY HAVE A RIGHT TO TALK ABOUT THIS. THIS ISN'T NECESSARILY THE WITNESS TO DO THIS WITH. THIS IS NOT THE WITNESS TO DO THIS WITH. THIS IS 1107. THEY ARE USING SOME DOCUMENT THAT HE SHOWED US FOR THE FIRST TIME THIS MORNING AND WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A COPY OF IT AND HE IS TRYING TO READ THIS DOCUMENT IN. THERE WILL BE AN ISSUE WHETHER OR NOT -- AS TO WHETHER THIS DOCUMENT GETS IN. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER HE WILL BRING DOWN SCOTT GORDON OR LYDIA BODIN. HE CAN BRING THEM ALL DOWN AT ONCE. THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. WE ARE ENTITLED TO A HEARING AND THE FACT THAT WE BRING OUT THE TOTAL FACTUAL SITUATION, THIS LADY BROUGHT THE CHARGES AND THEY DROP THE CHARGES, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY ARE ENTITLED TO BRING OUT SOME DOCUMENT THAT RON SHIPP USED AT THE ACADEMY.

I AM JUST CURIOUS, MR. DARDEN. WHY ARE WE USING MR. SHIPP FOR THIS PURPOSE, JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY?

MAY I SAY TWO THINGS AND ADDRESS THE QUESTION? FIRST OF ALL, THE REASON THAT THEY MENTIONED HER DECISION OR DESIRE TO DROP THE CHARGES WAS BECAUSE THEY WERE TRYING TO MINIMIZE THE DEFENDANT'S CONDUCT. LET ME JUST INDICATE THAT AND THAT IS WHY 1107 KICKS IN, BUT BEYOND THAT, THE WITNESS IS GOING TO SUBSEQUENTLY TESTIFY THAT HE SHOWED THIS SAME PROFILE TO THE DEFENDANT AND THEY HAD A DISCUSSION WITH HIM ABOUT IT AND HE ALSO SHOWED THE SAME PROFILE TO NICOLE BROWN AND HAD A DISCUSSION WITH HER ABOUT IT. THAT IS WHY -- THIS IS WHY IT IS RELEVANT AND THAT IS WHY IT IS COMING IN.

CAN I RESPOND?

NO, NO. HOLD ON. HOLD ON. I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION FOR MR. DARDEN.

OKAY.

HOW DO WE GET AROUND THE PROHIBITION OF 1107.A OF THE EVIDENCE CODE?

WHAT PROHIBITION?

READ IT FIRST.

IT IS NOT BEING OFFERED TO PROVE THE ACT OR OCCURRENCE OR -- OF ABUSE. THAT IS NOT WHAT IT IS BEING OFFERED FOR. IT IS BEING OFFERED TO DISABUSE THE JURY.

THEN THAT IS PREPOSTEROUS. THEN IT IS IRRELEVANT AND IMMATERIAL.

LET ME GO GET MY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE MATERIAL. I WILL COME CAME DOWN HERE AND EXPLAIN IT TO YOU AND GIVE YOU THE COURT CASES. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS LOOK BACK AT THE P AND A'S WHICH WE FILED WHICH CLEARLY LAID OUT THE LAW IN THIS CARE. THERE IS NO PROHIBITION HERE UNDER 1107.A.

I'M SORRY.

I CAN'T HEAR BECAUSE SHE IS TALKING.

HOLD ON, HOLD ON, MISS CLARK.

THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THE POINT OF THE -- OF THE -- WHAT THE POINT OF SECTION A IS TO ADDRESS A BLOOD CELL SITUATION WHERE YOU ARE TRYING TO PROVE THAT AN ACT OCCURRED BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, INCLUDING THE TESTIMONY OF AN EXPERT WHO IS INTERPRETING THE CONDUCT OF THE VICTIM OR THE DEFENDANT.

THAT IS NOT WHAT WE ARE DOING HERE. THE FACT IS THE ABUSE IN 1989 OCCURRED. IT IS A MATTER OF RECORD. HE PLED GUILTY TO IT. WE'VE HAD THE TESTIMONY OF THE OFFICER WHO WAS A WITNESS TO HER BEHAVIOR. WE ARE NOT ASKING HIM TO TESTIFY TO ANY ULTIMATE CONCLUSION CONCERNING WHETHER OR NOT SHE WAS IN FACT ABUSED AND THAT IS WHAT THE 1107.A PROHIBITION GOES TO. WE DON'T WANT THAT. WE ARE ASKING HIM TO TESTIFY TO HIS CONDUCT VIS-A-VIS THE DEFENDANT AND NICOLE WHICH IS IMPORTANT TO HER RELATIONSHIP -- THEIR RELATIONSHIP, THE THREE OF THEM, AND HIS KNOWLEDGE OF THE DEFENDANT, WHAT KNOWLEDGE HE IMPARTED TO THE DEFENDANT, WHAT KNOWLEDGE HE IMPARTED TO NICOLE. ON AN ADDITIONAL LEVEL, ON ANOTHER LEVEL, IT BECOMES IMPORTANT AND ADMISSIBLE UNDER 1107 BECAUSE THEY ARE ATTACKING THE CREDIBILITY OF THE ABUSE AND TRYING TO MINIMIZE --

THEN DON'T I HAVE TO ADVISE THE JURY THAT THIS ONLY HAS TO GO TO EXPLAIN -- LIMITED TO THE PURPOSE OF EXPLAINING THE CONDUCT OF THE '89 INCIDENT?

YES.

AND --

AT THIS POINT WITH RESPECT TO THE '89 CONDUCT, I BELIEVE THAT IS TRUE, BUT THEN WE HAVE TO JUMP BACK OUT OF THAT AND REVISIT THE REST OF THIS IS FOR ALL PURPOSES.

I WAS TALKING AND ONLY ONE OF THEM ARE SUPPOSED TO TALK. THEY VIOLATED ALL THE RULES. WHAT I WAS SAYING IS WE COULDN'T HEAR BECAUSE MARCIA WAS WHISPERING IN HIS EAR SO LOUD THAT THE COURT REPORTER COULDN'T TAKE IT DOWN AND I COULDN'T HEAR EITHER, THEN MARCIA STARTS TALKING AND VIOLATING ANOTHER ONE OF YOUR RULES. AND I'M TRYING TO SAY, AND I APPRECIATE HER EXPLANATION, BUT UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS PREPOSTEROUS, YOUR HONOR, FOR THEM, IN THE FACE OF 1107 -- I THINK HE CAN COME DOWN AND DAZZLE US WITH SOME PAPERS OR BRINGING SOME LAWYERS DOWN HERE -- WE DON'T CARE ABOUT ANY LAWYERS. HE CAN BRING GARCETTI DOWN HERE. THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE. ALWAYS TALKING ABOUT MISCONCEPTIONS AS IF THEY ALWAYS HAVE THE RIGHT ANSWER. BY THE END OF THIS CASE THEY ARE GOING TO UNDERSTAND WE HE HAVE THE RIGHT ANSWER. IT IS OUTRAGEOUS FOR HIM TO TELL YOU THIS AND HE IS GOING TO GET THIS IN AND HE HAS TO HAVE SOME THEORY OR BASIS GOT GETTING THIS. AND IT IS NOT TO HAVE SOME MAN WHO WORKS AT THE POLICE ACADEMY TO START READING SOME DOCUMENT. HE IS NOT AN EXPERT. HE IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE WITNESS.

AS I UNDERSTAND THE OFFER OF PROOF, MR. SHIPP IS GOING TO TESTIFY AS TO WHAT HE TOLD NICOLE AND WHAT HE TOLD THE DEFENDANT ABOUT BATTERING SITUATIONS, CORRECT?

NOT BEING OFFERED. HE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THOSE TWO INDIVIDUALS.

THAT IS NOT WHAT HE WAS DOING UNTIL WE GOT UP HERE, AND THAT IS CLEAR. WE NEED A LIMITING AND I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO GIVE THAT AND THIS IS A LIMITING ON TOP OF A LIMITING.

I KNOW.

AND CAN YOU MAKE THIS CLEAR, BECAUSE YESTERDAY WHEN YOU GAVE THE LIMITING, IT WAS EVEN CONFUSING FOR SOME OF US, JUDGE, THAT YOU GAVE THE LIMITING BEFORE, THEN YOU ALSO REFERRED BACK TO THE LIMITING AND IT WASN'T ALTOGETHER CLEAR, SO AT SOME POINT COULD YOU MAYBE --

I'M GOING TO COME BACK.

WHAT THE LIMITINGS WERE.

PLEASE DON'T LEAVE YET. WHAT TYPE OF LIMITING INSTRUCTION ARE YOU --

I'M GOING TO TELL THEM THAT THIS TESTIMONY IS ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF EVALUATING THE CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES WITH REGARD TO THE 1989 INCIDENT.

OKAY. YOU ARE REFERRING SPECIFICALLY TO THE CONVERSATIONS HE HAD WITH NICOLE AND THE CONVERSATION HE HAD WITH THE DEFENDANT?

CORRECT.

ON THE '89 INCIDENT?

ON THE '89 INCIDENT.

YOUR HONOR, SO WE CAN SAVE SOME TIME, WILL YOU DIRECT COUNSEL AGAIN TO UNDERSTAND WHAT HEARSAY IS. MR. DOUGLAS IS GOING TO OBJECT EVERY TIME HE TRIES TO BRING IN NICOLE'S TESTIMONY. THIS MAN CAN SAY WHAT HE SAID, BUT HE SEEMS LIKE AT A LOSS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS HEARSAY WHEN HE ASKS THE SAME QUESTION AGAIN, SO TRY AND DEAL WITH --

HOWEVER, GIVEN COUNSEL'S ATTEMPT YESTERDAY TO MINIMIZE THE EVENTS THAT HAPPENED ON JANUARY 1, '89, I THINK HIS STATE OF MIND IS RELEVANT NOW, AND IF SHE STATES THAT SHE IS AFRAID OF BEING BEATEN AGAIN OR THAT SHE WAS AFRAID ON JANUARY 1, 1989, THAT IS RELEVANT NOW, JUDGE. IT IS CLEARLY RELEVANT.

JUDGE, COUNSEL DOESN'T UNDERSTAND HEARSAY AND CAN I MAKE A STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD? THE FIRST QUESTIONS I GOT UP, EDWARDS, ONE OF THEIR HOSTILE WITNESSES -- THEY MAY THINK HE'S GREAT BUT SOME WHO WATCHED DIDN'T. THEY THINK HE WAS SO GREAT. DIDN'T HE PLEAD GUILTY TO THIS? DIDN'T HE PLEAD NOLO CONTENDERE? THEY MAKE A BIG DEAL OUT OF THIS. I WOULD JUST AS SOON MOVE ON FROM THIS. THEY ARE THE ONES WHO WANT TO BELABOR. WE HAVE ADMITTED THAT, JUDGE. HE DID THAT RIGHT OUT THE OUTSET.

THEY ARE GREEDY.

COUNSEL, COUNSEL, WE ARE DONE.