Sidebar: Sydney Simpson statement

📄 Sidebar: Sydney Simpson statement — Thursday, February 23, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\FEB\23\SIDEBAR-SYDNEY-SIMPSON-STATEME.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 24 of 167

◀ Cross-examination of Tom Lange (part 1) Cross-examination of Tom Lange (part 2) ▶

Date: Thursday, February 23, 1995 • Utterances: 45

The defense sought to question an investigating officer about whether he knew that police had spoken with Sydney Simpson (OJ's daughter) on the night of the murders. Clark vigorously opposed this as an attempt to sneak thirdhand hearsay into the record and plant an inference about a significant conversation without ever calling the child to testify. Ito overruled the objection, allowing Cochran to establish the officer's awareness of the interview, while the decision on whether to actually call Sydney remained with OJ Simpson.

# 1 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

# 2 THE COURT:

WE ARE OVER AT SIDE BAR. MR. COCHRAN, WHERE ARE WE GOING?

# 3 MR. COCHRAN:

I HAVE ESTABLISHED WITH HIM AND WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHO SHE TALKED WITH THAT EVENING OR WHATEVER. I WANT TO ESTABLISH, AND I WILL DO IT THROUGH SOME OTHER WITNESSES PERHAPS, THAT HE BECAME AWARE THAT THE -- OF THE OFFICERS AT WEST LOS ANGELES STATION HAD A CONVERSATION WITH SYDNEY. I'M NOT GOING TO TRY TO BRING THE STATEMENT OUT AT THIS POINT.

# 4 MS. CLARK:

WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE?

# 5 MR. COCHRAN:

IT BECOMES VERY RELEVANT.

# 6 THE COURT:

WELL --

# 7 MS. CLARK:

WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE? IF HE IS AWARE OF A CONVERSATION, THAT CAN'T COME IN BECAUSE IT IS HEARSAY.

# 8 THE COURT:

JUST TO ESTABLISH THE FACT THAT HE IS A LEAD INVESTIGATOR, HE IS AWARE THAT SOMEBODY INTERVIEWED THE KID. THAT IS ALL.

# 9 MS. CLARK:

WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE?

# 10 THE COURT:

THEN THEY ARE GOING TO ASK THE KID, "DID MOM HAVE ANY VISITORS OVER LAST NIGHT?"

# 11 MS. CLARK:

THE KID IS NOT ON THE WITNESS STAND.

# 12 THE COURT:

WELL, WHO KNOWS.

# 13 MR. COCHRAN:

THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

# 14 MS. CLARK:

WHO KNOWS?

# 15 THE COURT:

NO, NO.

# 16 MS. CLARK:

THAT IS NOT THE RULES OF DISCOVERY, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, YOUR HONOR, AND THEY HAVEN'T PUT HIM ON THE WITNESS STAND.

# 17 MR. COCHRAN:

YOUR HONOR --

# 18 MS. CLARK:

I HAVE LOOKED FOR THAT PURPOSE --

# 19 THE COURT:

HOLD ON. YOU DON'T GET TO BOTH TALK AT THE SAME TIME.

# 20 MS. CLARK:

WHAT MR. COCHRAN WANTS TO DO IS LEAVE AN INFERENCE IN THE MIND OF THIS JURY THAT SOME PROBATIVE CONVERSATION WAS HAD WITH THE CHILD CONCERNING SOMETHING HAPPENING ON THE NIGHT OF THE MURDER, WITHOUT EVER CALLING THE CHILD TO COME AND TESTIFY AS TO WHAT WAS ACTUALLY SEEN AND HEARD. AND IT IS UNFAIR. THEY WILL NEVER CALL THE CHILD AND THE COURT CAN'T MAKE THEM CALL THE CHILD. WE CAN'T MAKE THEM CALL THE CHILD AND IT WOULD BE CRUEL AND INHUMANE TO CALL THE CHILD TO COME IN AND TESTIFY.

KEY QUOTE

# 21 THE COURT:

WHAT DID HE CHILDREN SAY TO THE OFFICERS?

# 22 MR. COCHRAN:

AS I UNDERSTAND THE OFFER OF PROOF AND THE CHILDREN SAY -- AND I'M TRYING TO QUOTE IT -- THAT IS A DECISION WE HAVE TO MAKE, SHE CAN'T MAKE FOR US, NOBODY CAN MAKE FOR US. PUT HER ON THE LIST. THE CHILD SYDNEY SAYS, "MOMMY'S BEST FRIEND CALLED AND MOMMY STARTED CRYING." THAT IS WHAT THE OFFICER WROTE DOWN AT THE TIME HE HEARD THE STATEMENT. I'M NOT TRYING TO GET THAT FROM HIM, BUT I WANT TO FIND OUT IF HE TALKED TO THE CHILD OR WHATEVER. AND WE WILL MAKE A DECISION ON THIS. OBVIOUSLY MY CLIENT HAS THE SAY.

# 23 THE COURT:

BUT IF SHE CALLED -- WHO IS HER BEST FRIEND? IS THAT GOING TO BE CORA?

# 24 MS. CLARK:

NO ONE KNOWS. NO ONE KNOWS.

# 25 MR. COCHRAN:

THE CHILD MAY KNOW.

# 26 MS. CLARK:

NO.

# 27 MS. CLARK:

THE CHILD, AS MR. COCHRAN --

# 28 MR. COCHRAN:

MAY I TALK, MA'AM, PLEASE? IT WOULD DEPEND -- AND THIS IS A DECISION THAT OUR CLIENT HAS TO MAKE, BUT I THINK AS AN INVESTIGATING OFFICER, YOU HIT UPON IT, WE WANT TO FIND OUT WHAT HE DID. AT THIS POINT I'M NOT TRYING TO GET IN HEARSAY. I HAVE A RIGHT TO DO THIS. THAT IS ALL I'M TRYING TO DO AT THIS POINT.

KEY QUOTE

# 29 MS. CLARK:

YOUR HONOR, IT IS HEARSAY, AND IF MR. COCHRAN THINKS THAT THAT STATEMENT BY THE CHILD IS RELEVANT, THEN LET HIM CALL THE CHILD, BUT TO SNEAK IN SOME NASTY INFERENCE BY ASKING THIS WITNESS WHETHER HE IS AWARE OF A CONVERSATION THAT WAS HAD BY SOME OTHER OFFICER OF WHICH HE WAS INFORMED, THIRDHAND HEARSAY, HAS NO RELEVANCE, IS MISLEADING AND CONFUSING TO THE JURY. AND THE ONLY RELEVANCE IT CAN HAVE IS IF THE CHILD IS CALLED TO TESTIFY AS TO WHAT IT SAID AND WHAT IT HEARD AND WHAT IT PERCEIVED ON THAT NIGHT, AND WE DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THE CHILD IS REFERRING TO SOMEONE WHO CALLED THIS NIGHT OR SOMEONE SHE TALKED TO. SHE DOESN'T KNOW WHO IT IS. YOUR HONOR, THIS IS SO IMPROPER.

# 30 THE COURT:

HAVE YOU INTERVIEWED THE CHILD?

# 31 MS. CLARK:

NO, NO. THE FAMILY WILL NOT PERMIT IT.

# 32 MR. SHAPIRO:

YOUR HONOR, WE WOULD LIKE TO AND THEY WON'T LET US.

# 33 MS. CLARK:

US EITHER.

# 34 MR. COCHRAN:

IT WAS THAT NIGHT, YOUR HONOR, AND THAT IS ALL I PLAN TO GO INTO. MAY WE PROCEED?

# 35 MS. CLARK:

THIS IS SO INAPPROPRIATE, YOUR HONOR.

# 36 MR. COCHRAN:

PROBATIVE.

# 37 THE COURT:

I MEAN, ARE WE GOING TO GET THE CHILD IN? IS SHE GOING TO SAY WHO MOMMY TALKED TO?

# 38 MR. COCHRAN:

VERY POSSIBLY SHE WILL. I PRESUME -- MY CLIENT DOES TALK TO THE CHILDREN GENERALLY ON A WEEKLY BASIS, BUT THAT IS A DECISION HE HAS TO MAKE, YOUR HONOR, AS TO WHETHER HE WANTS TO INVOLVE HIS CHILDREN IN THIS TRIAL. YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THAT.

# 39 MS. CLARK:

THAT IS FINE.

# 40 MR. COCHRAN:

WHEN YOU RULE AND THEN KEEP ARGUING, IT MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT FOR US. WE WILL NEVER GET THIS TRIAL TRIED. I TOLD YOU THE PARAMETERS AND THAT IS ALL I'M GOING TO DO AT THIS POINT, AND I WILL LET THE COURT KNOW THE MOMENT THAT DECISION IS MADE. THAT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE REGARDING THE CHILDREN.

KEY QUOTE

# 41 MR. DARDEN:

THEN IT IS IRRELEVANT.

# 42 MS. CLARK:

IRRELEVANT.

# 43 MR. COCHRAN:

VERY RELEVANT WHAT HE DID AND WHAT HE KNEW. HE IS THE INVESTIGATOR, YOUR HONOR.

# 44 MS. CLARK:

YOUR HONOR, THERE IS NO PROBATIVE VALUE UNTIL THE CHILD IS CALLED. ALL HE IS TRYING TO DO IS PLAY WITH THESE JUROR'S MINDS. HE KNOWS HE IS NOT GOING TO EVER CALL THE CHILD. HE KNOWS IT. THAT HE IS GOING TO LAY THIS INFERENCE --

# 45 THE COURT:

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THE OBJECTION IS OVERRULED.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (5)

Johnnie Cochran

THE CHILD SYDNEY SAYS, 'MOMMY'S BEST FRIEND CALLED AND MOMMY STARTED CRYING.' THAT IS WHAT THE OFFICER WROTE DOWN AT THE TIME HE HEARD THE STATEMENT.

Reveals the content of Sydney Simpson's statement to police — potentially relevant to Nicole's emotional state or activity the night of the murders — which the defense is trying to get before the jury indirectly.

Marcia Clark

WHAT MR. COCHRAN WANTS TO DO IS LEAVE AN INFERENCE IN THE MIND OF THIS JURY THAT SOME PROBATIVE CONVERSATION WAS HAD WITH THE CHILD CONCERNING SOMETHING HAPPENING ON THE NIGHT OF THE MURDER, WITHOUT EVER CALLING THE CHILD TO COME AND TESTIFY AS TO WHAT WAS ACTUALLY SEEN AND HEARD.

Clark's clearest articulation of the prosecution's objection — that Cochran is engineering a backdoor hearsay inference the defense never intends to fully substantiate.

Marcia Clark

IT WOULD BE CRUEL AND INHUMANE TO CALL THE CHILD TO COME IN AND TESTIFY.

Clark acknowledges the practical and moral barrier to calling Sydney, while simultaneously arguing the defense is exploiting that barrier to its advantage.

Johnnie Cochran

MAY I TALK, MA'AM, PLEASE?

A flash of visible irritation from Cochran toward Clark, rare in its directness and revealing the tension between the two lead attorneys.

Johnnie Cochran

WHEN YOU RULE AND THEN KEEP ARGUING, IT MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT FOR US. WE WILL NEVER GET THIS TRIAL TRIED.

Cochran accuses Clark of continuing to re-litigate after Ito has effectively signaled his ruling, a pointed criticism of her courtroom conduct.

Evidence (1)

Informal

Officer's written notes documenting Sydney Simpson's statement: 'Mommy's best friend called and Mommy started crying'

discussed — defense seeking to establish officer's awareness of the interview without introducing the statement itself

Notable Exchanges (3)

Marcia Clark•Johnnie Cochran

Clark repeatedly accuses Cochran of trying to 'sneak in' a 'nasty inference' through thirdhand hearsay; Cochran fires back asking her to let him speak and accuses her of arguing past the ruling.

heated

Lance A. Ito•Marcia Clark

Ito appears to preview his thinking by speculating the defense will call Sydney to ask if 'mom had any visitors over last night,' prompting Clark to push back that the child is not on the witness list.

strategic

Marcia Clark•Robert Shapiro

Both sides confirm they have been blocked from interviewing Sydney — the family will not permit access to either prosecution or defense.

revealing

Objections

1 objections (0 sustained, 1 overruled)

Proceeding 4923 • 45 utterances

Criminal Trial

Department 103