ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, COUNSEL.

GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.

BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. MR. SIMPSON IS AGAIN PRESENT WITH HIS COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. DOUGLAS, MR. BAILEY, PEOPLE REPRESENTED BY MISS CLARK AND MR. DARDEN. THE JURY IS NOT PRESENT. COUNSEL, ANYTHING WE NEED TO DISCUSS BEFORE WE RESUME WITH THE JURY? MR. SHAPIRO.

YES, YOUR HONOR, BRIEFLY, PLEASE. YOUR HONOR, ONCE BEFORE, WE WERE CONFRONTED WITH A SITUATION WHERE ALLEGED SCIENTIFIC RESULTS WERE PRESENTED IN THE MEDIA FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION BEFORE TESTS WERE DONE BY THE SCIENTISTS THEMSELVES AND NOW WE ARE CONFRONTED WITH A MORE SERIOUS PROBLEM. WE ARE CONFRONTED WITH A PROBLEM WHERE ONE OF THE PROSECUTORS IN THIS CASE HAS PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED TO YOUR HONOR ON THE RECORD SCIENTIFIC RESULTS FROM SPOTS 115, 116 AND 117 AND HAS TOLD YOUR HONOR THAT THESE STAINS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS MR. SIMPSON'S. AND ONCE AGAIN, WE ARE IN THE POSITION THAT THIS STATEMENT IS WITHOUT ANY SCIENTIFIC BASIS SINCE, REGARDING STAINS 115 AND 116, THEY HAVE YET TO BE TESTED, AND REGARDING STAIN 117, THE TEST THAT WAS COMPLETED WAS A PRELIMINARY TEST, THAT THAT TEST WAS INTERRUPTED BY A FIRE ALARM AT THE LABORATORY AND NO DEFINITIVE RESULTS WERE OBTAINED. AND FINALLY, AS MR. ROCKNE HARMON, THE EXPERT IN DNA FROM THE PROSECUTION WELL KNOWS, THAT THE RESULTS OF THOSE TESTS ARE FAR FROM DEFINITIVE AND THAT UNDER THE CHARACTERISTICS THAT WERE PRESENTED; NAMELY, A POINT -- 1.1, 1.2, THAT THERE IS A 50 PERCENT CHANCE THAT THE OFFSPRING OF MR. SIMPSON WOULD HAVE THOSE IDENTICAL GENETIC MARKERS AND FIVE TO EIGHT PERCENT OF THE POPULATION WOULD HAVE THOSE IDENTICAL GENETIC MARKERS. TO MAKE THE STATEMENT TO YOUR HONOR AND FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION THAT THIS STAIN WAS A STAIN THAT IS THE BLOOD OF MR. SIMPSON IS SCIENTIFICALLY INCORRECT, IS TOTALLY IRRESPONSIBLE AND WE HOPE IS NOT AGAIN GOING TO BE A SELF-FULFILLING PROPHESY MADE BY THE PROSECUTION.

MISS CLARK.

YOUR HONOR, YET ANOTHER PRESS CONFERENCE HAS BEEN LAUNCHED AGAIN BY COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE INSIDE THIS COURTROOM. I THINK THAT THE PRESS CONFERENCES WHICH HAVE BEEN NUMEROUS AND CONTINUOUS MADE BY THE DEFENSE OUTSIDE THE COURTROOM ARE PROBABLY SUFFICIENT. I WOULD ASK IN THE FUTURE THAT THE COURT PROHIBIT THIS KIND OF RHETORIC, THAT IT IS OF NO ASSISTANCE TO THIS COURT. YOUR HONOR CERTAINLY DIDN'T NEED TO HEAR THAT EXPOSITION OF SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION WHICH WAS MISCHARACTERIZED BY A LAWYER WHO KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT THE AREA. THE TEST THAT WAS PERFORMED ON STAIN 117 WAS PCR. THAT'S NOT JUST A PRELIMINARY TEST. THAT IS A DNA TEST. AND THE ISSUE OF RELATEDNESS CONCERNING WHAT CHARACTERISTICS MIGHT BE SHARED GOES TO SIBLINGS, NOT FATHER AND SON. IF COUNSEL KNEW A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS FIELD, HE WOULD KNOW THAT. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT BEFORE HE STARTS TO -- STANDS UP AND STARTS TO ACCUSE THE POLICE OR THE PROSECUTION OF SUCH SERIOUS MISCONDUCT, HE OUGHT TO AT LEAST UNDERSTAND WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT. IN THIS CASE, THESE THINGS WERE TESTED, RESULTS WERE OBTAINED. THE RESULTS THAT WERE OBTAINED ARE ACCURATE AND ARE RELIABLE. THEY INDICATE THAT MR. SIMPSON IS INCLUDED, THAT THE STAINS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE BLOOD TYPES AND THE MARKERS FOUND IN MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD. WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TESTING FOR MORE MARKERS. BUT THUS FAR, NOTHING HAS BEEN MISSTATED AT ALL BY MR. HARMON. THE BLOOD RESULTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THOSE OF MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD. AND TO WILLFULLY STAND UP HERE AND MAKE SUCH SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS WITH ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS WHATSOEVER OTHER THAN TO OBTAIN PUBLIC SPIN BACK IN THE DEFENSE FAVOR IS RECKLESS, IS IRRESPONSIBLE AND SHOULD BE SANCTIONED. AND I REALLY DO WISH THE COURT WOULD PRECLUDE THE DEFENSE FROM THIS KIND OF RHETORIC IN THE COURTROOM. THESE PRESS CONFERENCES ARE UNNECESSARY AND UNPRODUCTIVE.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

AND I'M SORRY I HAD TO WASTE THE COURT'S TIME EVEN SAYING THAT.

YOUR HONOR, IF I COULD RESPOND BRIEFLY TO THIS.

BRIEFLY.

WHAT I'M REFERRING TO WAS A STATEMENT MADE ON THE RECORD TO YOUR HONOR ON FEBRUARY 15TH FROM PROSECUTOR ROCKNE HARMON. LET ME QUOTE -- LET ME QUOTE WHAT IT --

I RECALL. YOU DON'T NEED TO QUOTE IT BECAUSE I RECALL IT, COUNSEL.

ALL RIGHT. THE SECOND THING, REGARDING THE EXPERTISE IN THIS AREA IS, I WOULD LIKE TO BRIEFLY QUOTE FROM ONE OF THE MOST RESPECTED EXPERTS IN DNA IN THE COUNTRY, MR. ED BLAKE, WHO WAS STIPULATED AS AN EXPERT FOR BOTH SIDES.

YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT. WHAT'S THE POINT OF THIS? IS THIS GOING TO ASSIST THE COURT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM?

MAYBE.

YES. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. YESTERDAY, FEBRUARY 15TH, 1995, PROSECUTOR ROCKNE HARMON REPRESENTED TO YOUR HONOR THAT SAMPLES 115 --

OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHAT COUNSEL IS READING FROM. I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT AND I THINK THE PEOPLE ARE ENTITLED TO --

WE'RE NOT DEALING WITH EVIDENCE BEFORE THE JURY, COUNSEL. BUT IF THIS IS A LETTER ADDRESSED TO ME, THEN WHY DON'T I HAVE IT?

IT ISN'T ADDRESSED TO YOU. IT'S ADDRESSED TO ME.

WELL, THE COMMENT YOU JUST READ, IT IS ADDRESSED TO ME.

IT IS NOT ADDRESSED TO YOU, YOUR HONOR.

IF COUNSEL INTENDS TO READ IT IN OPEN COURT, I THINK THE PEOPLE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO AT LEAST EXAMINE THIS LETTER.

YOUR HONOR, IF I COULD JUST PROCEED BRIEFLY --

WELL, MR. SHAPIRO, LET ME JUST MAKE THIS ONE COMMENT. WE HAVE DELAYED GETTING TO THE JURY FOR 45 MINUTES AT THIS POINT. YOU'VE RAISED YOUR OBJECTION. I TAKE THAT AS A WARNING TO THE COURT THAT THIS ISSUE WILL COME UP WHEN WE HIT 115, 116 AND 117. THAT'S THE VALUE IN THE COMMENT TO THE COURT. I THINK I CAN APPRECIATE WHAT THE ISSUE IS. I DON'T NEED MR. BLAKE'S COMMENTS TO ME AS TO WHAT IT IS OR ISN'T.

WITH THE COURT'S PERMISSION, I WOULD LIKE TO FILE AN AFFIDAVIT FROM DR. BLAKE THIS AFTERNOON.

ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR HONOR. AND THAT WAS THE PURPOSE, TO NOTIFY THE COURT.

THAT'S WHAT I TOOK IT AS. THANK YOU.

YOUR HONOR, BRIEFLY, I HAVE ANOTHER MATTER.

ANOTHER MATTER?

YES, YOUR HONOR.

MR. DOUGLAS.

YOUR HONOR, AS THE COURT IS AWARE, YESTERDAY MISS -- -- RATHER ON WEDNESDAY, I GAVE MR. DARDEN A STATEMENT OF A POTENTIAL WITNESS THAT THE DEFENSE ANTICIPATED PERHAPS CALLING AT TRIAL. I WAS DISMAYED, YOUR HONOR -- AND MR. DARDEN YESTERDAY ANNOUNCED THE NAME OF THAT WITNESS FOR THE COURT'S EDIFICATION JUST TO PUT ON THE RECORD THAT IN FACT A STATEMENT HAD BEEN GIVEN. I WAS DISMAYED YESTERDAY THAT I BEGAN RECEIVING PRESS CALLS CONCERNING THE SUBSTANCE OF THE STATEMENT THAT WAS GIVEN TO MR. DARDEN YESTERDAY QUOTING FROM ME, TO ME ASPECTS OF THE STATEMENT TELLING ME THAT THE STATEMENT HAD NOW BEEN RELEASED TO SOME MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS. I THINK THAT THAT IS OUTRAGEOUS, YOUR HONOR. AS THE COURT IS AWARE, WE ARE CURRENTLY UNDERGOING SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS WITH WITNESSES WHO ARE BEING HOUNDED BY THE PRESS. I WOULD HOPE THAT EVERYONE WOULD APPRECIATE THE IMPORTANCE OF MAINTAINING THE SANCTITY OF WITNESSES WHO ARE SIMPLY PLACED ON LISTS. AND THE COURT RECOGNIZES THAT IT WOULD BE IMPROPER TO RELEASE NOT ONLY THE SUBSTANCE OF ANY STATEMENTS, BUT ANY SIGNIFICANT PROPRIETARY DETAILS ABOUT WHAT WITNESSES MAY OR MAY NOT BE SAYING.

MR. DARDEN.

TALK TO THE COURT, MR. DARDEN.

IS THAT WHAT HE IS ATTEMPTING TO SUGGEST TO THE COURT?

THAT'S THE INFERENCE OF WHAT I HEARD.

WELL, I DON'T PLACE MUCH VALUE FROM THE STATEMENT MR. DOUGLAS GAVE TO US FIRST OF ALL. SECOND OF ALL, IT'S A NEGATIVE STATEMENT. IT'S NOT THE KIND OF STATEMENT THAT WILL ASSIST THE PROSECUTION. IT IS A STATEMENT THAT IS DEROGATORY IN NATURE AND RELATES TO DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN.

SO WHY WOULD WE RELEASE A STATEMENT LIKE THAT TO THE PRESS? THEY'VE BEEN LEAKING STUFF THROUGHOUT THIS CASE. THEY WERE LEAKING THINGS BEFORE I JOINED THIS CASE. THEY CONTINUE TO LEAK THINGS AND I'M OFFENDED THAT MR. DOUGLAS WOULD SUGGEST TO THE COURT THAT I WILL LEAK ANYTHING. EVERY REPORTER IN THIS COURTROOM KNOWS I DON'T LEAK ANYTHING, AND I RESENT THAT, MR. DOUGLAS.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

THE REASON I BROUGHT UP THE ISSUE OF THE REPORT, YOUR HONOR, WAS BECAUSE IT WAS GIVEN TO ME ON FEBRUARY 15, BUT DATED JANUARY 21.

WHICH IS WHY WE PUT IT ON THE RECORD.

AND THAT'S WHY WE PUT IT ON THE RECORD.