YES, YOUR HONOR, THANK YOU. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT HAS HEARD THE TESTIMONY AND AS USUAL, HAS BEEN PATIENT WITH REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED. THE COURT HAS FOR ITS CONSIDERATION MISS ROSA LOPEZ, ROSA MARIA LOPEZ, A LADY WHO HAS RELEVANT TESTIMONY TO GIVE IN THIS CASE. SHE'S AN IMPORTANT WITNESS FOR THE DEFENSE AND I THINK BY ALL ACCOUNTS, THAT'S WHY BOTH SIDES ARE FIGHTING IT SEEMS SO VIGOROUSLY. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT THE PROPONENTS HAVE MET THEIR BURDEN WITH REGARD TO SHOWING THAT THERE'S A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT SHE'S GOING TO LEAVE THIS JURISDICTION. THE EVIDENCE TO ME SEEMS TO BE CLEAR, YOUR HONOR. MISS LOPEZ IS A WOMAN WHOSE FACE HAS BEEN BROADCAST EVEN THROUGH COUNSEL'S EXAMINATION LITERALLY AROUND THE WORLD BY VIRTUE OF THE GREAT INTEREST IN THIS CASE. I SUPPOSE THAT THE INDIVIDUALS WHO FRAMED 1335 PROBABLY DIDN'T HAVE THIS CASE IN MIND AS DID I THINK ANYBODY COULD HAVE HAD THIS CASE IN MIND. HERE IS A LADY WHO IS A HOUSEKEEPER WHO HAS NO OTHER MEANS OF SUPPORT, WHOSE FAMILY HAS BEEN TORN ASUNDER BY THE FACT THAT SHE WITNESSED SOMETHING THAT WILL BEAR ON MR. SIMPSON'S INNOCENCE. AND THAT MAY NOT BE FAIR TO HER, BUT SHE HAS ACTED IT SEEMS TO ME OUT OF A SENSE OF DUTY. SHE'S HAD A LAWYER, MR. JONES, WHO'S ADVISED HER THROUGHOUT. AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE COURT HAS TO LOOK AT THE THINGS THAT'S HAPPENED TO THIS LADY. SHE HAD A JOB OF SOME THREE YEARS WITH THE SALINGER'S. SHE DOESN'T HAVE THAT JOB ANYMORE. SHE ISN'T A WEALTHY LADY, YOUR HONOR, WHERE YOU WORK FOR THREE YEARS WITH A FAMILY WHO BY AND LARGE WAS PRETTY HAPPY WITH HER. BUT I WOULD SUSPECT AND I THINK IT'S REASONABLE THAT WHEN THIS CASE COMES INTO YOUR LIFE, THINGS HAPPEN AND THINGS CHANGE. WE'VE ALL SEEN WHAT THIS HAS DONE TO OUR LIVES AND TO WITNESSES' LIVES, WHICH IS EVEN MORE IMPORTANT. THE SALINGER'S SHE SAYS HAVE NOT BEEN HAPPY WITH THE FACT THEY HAVE COME ABOUT. THE FACT THAT MR. DARDEN BRINGS OUT, THERE'S A GATE OUT THERE HAS -- OF NO CONSEQUENCE. SHE'S THE HOUSEKEEPER. THE FACT THAT GATE MAY BE CLOSED ON ONE DAY, IT DOESN'T MEAN THE PRESS -- SHE'S NOT BEEN A VIRTUAL PRISONER IN HER HOME ON OCCASION. SHE WORKS OUT THERE PERHAPS FIVE DAYS A WEEK. BUT WHEN THIS CASE STARTED, SHE HAD A SON AND A DAUGHTER, YOUR HONOR. THE FAMILY WASN'T TORN ASUNDER. AND SHE GOES HOME TO HER DAUGHTER'S HOUSE, THE PROBLEMS HAVE STARTED. THE DAUGHTER SAYS THAT, "YOU BROUGHT THE PRESS TO US." THE WHOLE FACT THAT WE HAVE THIS TAPE FROM CHANNEL 34 IS BECAUSE THE PRESS FOUND THIS LADY. THE COURT READ THIS STATEMENT MR. DARDEN GAVE US. THEY SAID WE -- IN THE COMMUNITY, WE FOUND HER. THIS LADY WANTED ANONYMITY. THAT'S ALL SHE'S EVER ASKED FOR. SHE DIDN'T ASK TO BE THRUST IN THIS SPOTLIGHT, AND IT'S OUTRAGEOUS THAT SHE'S BEEN TREATED LIKE SOME KIND OF CRIMINAL WHEN SHE IS A WITNESS IN THIS CASE. IT'S OUTRAGEOUS. AND SO WHAT HAPPENED IS THAT SHE'S OUT MINDING HER OWN BUSINESS LAST FRIDAY. SHE IS APPARENTLY ACCOSTED. SHE HAS A CONVERSATION WITH A LADY. SHE THEN CALLS HER LAWYERS. A DECLARATION IS DONE. AND I WENT THROUGH THE -- CERTAINLY THE KEY PORTIONS OF THAT DECLARATION AND SPECIFICALLY PARAGRAPH 7. IT IS NOT REQUIRED THAT SHE BELIEVES THAT SOMEBODY'S GOING TO WALK UP AND OR SOMEBODY THREATENS HER WITH PHYSICAL VIOLENCE. SHE SAYS SHE'S AFRAID. SHE'S AFRAID FOR HER LIFE, SHE'S AFRAID FOR THE SAFETY OF HER FAMILY, THAT HER DAUGHTER TOLD HER, "IF YOU GO AND TESTIFY IN THAT CASE, I'M NOT GOING TO BE YOUR DAUGHTER ANYMORE AND YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SEE YOUR GRANDCHILDREN ANYMORE." AND HER DAUGHTER APPARENTLY MEANT IT BECAUSE WHEN HER DAUGHTER CAME BACK FROM WORKING IN NEW YORK ON TUESDAY, YOUR HONOR, ROSA LOPEZ WAS THROWN OUT. ROSA LOPEZ SPENT THE NIGHT IN HER CAR ON TUESDAY NIGHT. ON WEDNESDAY, SHE LEFT THE STATE. AND TO HER EVERLASTING CREDIT, DESPITE WHAT THE PEOPLE THINK, THIS LADY CALLED ON HER OWN YESTERDAY TO MR. JONES IN THE AFTERNOON. THE COURT'S AWARE OF THAT BECAUSE WHEN I GOT A CALL AT 5:00 O'CLOCK AND MADE ARRANGEMENTS TO BRING HER BACK HERE TODAY, SHE'S BACK. SHE WAS IN ANOTHER STATE. SHE HAS NO PLACE TO LIVE HERE. SHE DOESN'T HAVE HER DAUGHTER ANYMORE. HER FAMILY HAS BEEN TORN ASUNDER. AND NOW WE'RE BEING TOLD THAT "WELL, GEE, IF YOU GO TO EL SALVADOR, THEY'LL KNOW ABOUT YOU THERE," BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE REASONS. YOU KNOW, IF THIS IS A CASE ABOUT THE SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH, WHY NOT LET HER TESTIFY? WHY NOT -- WHY SHOULD HER LIFE BE RUINED. SOME OF US HAVE TO BE HERE EVERY DAY BECAUSE THIS IS OUR JOB. BUT SHE IS AN UNWITTING AND UNWILLING PARTICIPANT. AND IT SEEMS TO ME WHERE THIS COURT HAS DISCRETION AND WISDOM AND JUDGMENT, THIS IS THE KIND OF CALL THAT WE ASK YOU TO MAKE. THIS IS A WITNESS, AND THE MESSAGE WE SEND TO ALL THESE WITNESSES WILL SET THE STANDARD OF HOW PEOPLE SHOULD BE TREATED AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO BECOME INVOLVED IN THE SYSTEM. ROSA LOPEZ' TESTIMONY WILL RISE AND FALL ON WHAT SHE HAS TO SAY ON THE CRITICAL EVENTS OF JUNE 12TH, 1994. THE PEOPLE SEEM TO WANT TO FIGHT THAT. THEY SEEM TO BE VERY AFRAID OF WHAT SHE MAY SAY AT THAT TIME. SHE'S A WITNESS. AND ON MR. SIMPSON'S BEHALF, WE HAVE TO BRING THIS MOTION, IF A WITNESS SAYS TO US, IN HER DECLARATION SAYS, "I AM GOING TO EL SALVADOR AND I'M NOT COMING BACK." AND IT SEEMED TO ME THAT PERHAPS THE MOST RELEVANT TESTIMONY WAS A COUPLE OF MR. DARDEN'S VERY KEY QUESTIONS AT THE END WHEN HE ASKED, "DO YOU HAVE GREAT RESPECT FOR JUDGE ITO," SHE SAID, "YES, I DO. I LIKE HIM VERY MUCH, BUT I'M NOT COMING BACK BECAUSE I'VE HAD IT." AND, JUDGE, IF YOU PUT YOURSELF IN HER PLACE, WHO WOULD WANT TO COME BACK AND BE SUBJECTED TO ALL KINDS OF QUESTIONS AND WHEN ALL YOU COME IN AND SAY IS, "LOOK, I AM AFRAID FOR MY SAFETY"? WHO AMONG US CAN SAY SHE'S NOT TELLING THE TRUTH? NONE OF US CAN DO THAT. SHE SAYS, "I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CASE EXCEPT I AM A WITNESS AND I'M AFRAID FOR MY SAFETY. I WANT TO GO BACK TO MY HOMELAND WHERE I HAVE A HOME. I DON'T HAVE A HOME IN LOS ANGELES. I DON'T WANT TO REVEAL TO YOU WHERE I HAD TO GO THE OTHER DAY, WHEN I FLEW BACK HERE TODAY, AND I WANT TO GO BACK TO THAT PLACE. MY BAGS ARE PACKED FOR OVER A MONTH," SHE SAYS. AND THEN WE BRING IN A TRAVEL AGENT WHO SHE'S DEALT WITH. I THINK IT'S OF NO MOMENT SHE HAS A RESERVATION IN MARCH OR WHATEVER. THE TRAVEL AGENT SAYS SHE MADE A RESERVATION FOR FEBRUARY 15TH SHE COULDN'T KEEP. WE KNOW THAT HER DAUGHTER WAS OUT OF TOWN. WHEN HER DAUGHTER CAME BACK, THE SPLIT OCCURRED, AND NOW SHE WANTS TO GO. BUT IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, IT'S ROSA LOPEZ WHO THIS COURT HAS TO BELIEVE. IF SHE SAYS, "I'M NOT COMING BACK, I'M LEAVING," I THINK YOU CAN BELIEVE THAT. HERE'S A WOMAN WHO DIDN'T HAVE TO COME BACK TODAY. THAT'S THE POINT. THEY CAN NEVER GET OVER THIS POINT. WE DID NOT KNOW WHERE SHE WAS UNTIL SHE CALLED MR. JONES YESTERDAY AFTERNOON AFTER THE SPLIT WITH HER DAUGHTER. SHE CAME BACK ON HER OWN AND SAID, "I WILL COME, I WILL TESTIFY. I WANT TO RESOLVE IT TODAY." BUT AGAIN, JUDGE, IS IT HER FAULT THAT EVERYTHING IN THIS CASE TAKES MUCH LONGER THAN WE ANTICIPATE? SO DO WE SAY TO ROSA LOPEZ, "OKAY. YOU'RE A GOOD CITIZEN. YOU FELT A DUTY AND CAME BACK. NOW I'M GOING TO MAKE YOU STAY HERE UNTIL MONDAY OR TUESDAY OR WEDNESDAY OR THURSDAY." SHE DOESN'T WANT TO DO THAT AND THAT'S NOT FAIR. SO I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO GRANT THIS MOTION. AND I ASKED HER AND DARDEN ASKED HER AND SHE SAID NOT ONLY DOES SHE DOESN'T WANT TO COME BACK ON MONDAY, SHE DOESN'T WANT TO COME BACK IN THREE MONTHS. THE COURT'S AWARE OF THE LAW. IF WE LOSE HER, SHE'S A RELEVANT AND IMPORTANT WITNESS IN THIS CASE IN THE SEARCH FOR JUSTICE. SO I DON'T KNOW HOW WE CAN AFFORD TO LOSE HER UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, I DON'T THINK THIS COURT CAN LOCK HER UP. THIS IS A VOLUNTARY WITNESS WHO CAME BACK HERE ON HER OWN WITH THE UNDERSTANDING, SHE SAID, "I WANT TO GET THIS OVER WITH ONE DAY AND GET ON WITH MY LIFE." AND SHE HAS A RIGHT. SHE IS A FREE CITIZEN, THAT SHE SHOULD BE ABLE TO GO WHERE SHE WANTS TO GO UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. SHE'S MADE HER CLAIM. AND I TRUST THE COURT WILL BELIEVE WHAT SHE'S HAD TO SAY, THAT SHE'S IN FEAR. AND I THINK THE COURT CAN READ AND LOOK AT THIS WOMAN. YOU SAW HER TEARFUL TESTIMONY WITH REGARDS TO WHAT SHE HAD TO SAY. THIS WOMAN IS AFRAID. SHE DOESN'T WANT TO BE HERE. SHE DOESN'T WANT HER PICTURE PLASTERED ALL OVER THE PLACE. SHE HAD A DIFFERENT CONCEPTION OF WHAT IT MEANT TO HAVE YOUR TESTIMONY TAKEN AND SHE THOUGHT I THOUGHT I BELIEVE THAT IT WAS THE JUDGES, THE LAWYERS AND WHATEVER. BUT EVEN WHEN SHE GOT HERE TODAY AND SAW THAT, THE FACT THAT THERE WAS A CAMERA HERE, SHE STILL SAID, "I'M WILLING TO TRY AND TESTIFY, BUT I WANT TO TESTIFY TODAY. I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO COME BACK IN THE FUTURE. I WANT TO SAY WHAT I HAVE TO SAY AND GET IT OVER WITH." SHE SAYS SHE'S UNDER GREAT STRESS. AND ALSO, I POINT OUT TO THE COURT, THE TESTIMONY UNREBUTTED IS THAT THERE'S BEEN HEART -- THERE'S A PROBLEM OF -- A HISTORY OF HEART AILMENTS WITH THIS FAMILY. SHE HAS EVERY REASON TO WANT TO GO TO EL SALVADOR. THAT'S HER HOME, THE ONLY HOME SHE HAS IN THE WORLD, YOUR HONOR. SHE'S LOST HER JOB. SHE HAS NO MONEY. SHE HAS NO PLACE TO STAY. SHE HAS A SON WHO'S ENTOMBED IN A TEMPORARY GRAVE. I MEAN WHAT MORE DO WE WANT? SHE HAS A SISTER WHO IS ILL. NOW, WHO AMONG THE PROSECUTION CAN BE SO HEARTLESS TO STAND UP HERE AND SAY, "WELL, LET'S MAKE HER COME BACK." MAYBE THERE'S ONE OR TWO, BUT WE'LL SEE. BUT AT ANY RATE, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IN THIS SITUATION, THIS LADY HAS MADE HER CASE, YOUR HONOR, AND SHE -- WE SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO HAVE A CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION. I DO NOT THINK THAT SHE WILL BE SEEN AGAIN AND I DON'T KNOW WHO COULD BLAME HER UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES. AND THE ALTERNATIVE IS FOR THIS COURT TO HOLD HER AGAINST HER WILL. WHERE IS SHE GOING TO STAY? HER DAUGHTER WON'T TAKE HER IN BECAUSE OF THIS CASE. HER DAUGHTER FEELS THAT THERE'S FEAR. NOW, YOU MAY BELIEVE THAT THE DAUGHTER'S FEAR IS UNREASONABLE. BUT IF SOMEBODY BELIEVES THAT, YOUR HONOR, YOU CAN'T TALK THEM INTO THAT. WE HAVE TO CONSIDER THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES. AND I THINK THE PROPONENT HAS MET THEIR BURDEN AND I WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK THE COURT TO MAKE A DECISION TO ALLOW US TO PRESERVE HER TESTIMONY. AND KEEP THIS IN MIND, YOUR HONOR. WHAT WE DO WITH REGARD TO ROSA LOPEZ, IT SAYS SOMETHING TO ALL THE WITNESSES WHO WOULD OTHERWISE COME FORWARD IN ANY CASE IN AMERICA. IT SAYS THEY ARE GOING TO BE TREATED WITH SOME KIND OF DIGNITY, THEY'RE GOING TO BE TREATED FAIRLY, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE TREATED AS THOUGH THEY LIED ABOUT EVERY LITTLE THING. WHEN SOMEBODY SAYS THEY WANT TO GO TO EL SALVADOR BECAUSE THEY WANT TO GET AWAY FROM THIS CASE, I DON'T KNOW HOW UNREASONABLE THAT IS, AND THEY WANT TO GIVE THEIR TESTIMONY AND NOT HAVE TO COME BACK DOWN HERE TO AGAIN AND BE SUBJECTED TO THIS.
MR. COCHRAN, WOULD YOU ADDRESS THE -- WHAT APPEARS TO THE COURT TO BE SEVERAL CONTRADICTIONS IN THE RECORD AS FAR AS MISS LOPEZ IS CONCERNED? FOR EXAMPLE, THE DECLARATION THAT SHE HAS BEEN HARASSED BY THE NEWS MEDIA AND THAT IT IS THIS HARASSMENT THAT IS THE MAJOR COMPONENT OF HER DESIRE TO LEAVE THE UNITED STATES. YET, SHE VOLUNTARILY CONSENTS TO AN INTERVIEW WITH MISS VILLAPANDO, SHE INDICATES AN INTEREST IN THE VARIOUS TELEVISION COVERAGES, THAT SHE RECOGNIZES SOME OF THE TELEVISION REPORTERS HERE. AND I HAVE TO TELL YOU, I DON'T KNOW WHO THAT WOMAN WAS. I DON'T WATCH COURT T.V. I DON'T HAVE CABLE T.V. I HAVE NO IDEA WHO THAT PERSON WAS. SHE KNOWS WHO IT IS. THAT SHE SAW THAT AS A PERSONALITY, SOMEBODY THAT SHE LIKED AND ENJOYED, IT SHOWS TO ME AN INTEREST IN THE PRESS AND NOT A FEAR OF THE PRESS. THE CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS THAT SHE HAS MADE ABOUT WHEN SHE IS GOING TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY, THE STATEMENT MADE BY CARL JONES THAT ON -- AS EARLY AS LAST WEEK, THAT SHE WAS NOT -- HE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE THAT HIS CLIENT WAS GOING TO BE LEAVING THE COUNTRY OR THAT SHE HAD EXPRESSED ANYTHING LIKE THAT; THE CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS TO THE SALINGER'S THAT SHE WAS GOING TO IMMEDIATELY LEAVE TO GO TO EL SALVADOR, WHICH SHE DID NOT DO; THE CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS THAT SHE MADE TODAY REGARDING WHEN SHE MADE THE RESERVATIONS TO LEAVE, THE FACT SHE DID NOT DISCLOSE THE RESERVATIONS IN MARCH, THE FACT SHE DENIED HAVING ANY OTHER ARRANGEMENTS. I MEAN THERE ARE A NUMBER OF CONTRADICTIONS IN WHAT SHE HAS SAID, AND THAT CONCERNS ME ABOUT THE CREDIBILITY OF HER STATEMENT THAT SHE NOW INTENDS TO GO TODAY NO MATTER WHAT.
ALL RIGHT. LET ME ADDRESS THOSE, PLEASE. THANK YOU. WITH REGARD TO THE PRESS, FIRST OF ALL --
OKAY. WHATEVER NUMBER YOU WANT TO BRING, I'LL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. FIRST OF ALL, I THINK EVEN YOUR HONOR HAS FRIENDS IN THE PRESS, PEOPLE THAT YOU TRUST.
WELL, YOU DID AT ONE POINT, YOUR HONOR. LET ME POINT THIS OUT. YOU CAN TRUST -- I'M NOT TRYING TO HURT THE GUY, BUT ALL OF US HAVE PEOPLE THAT WE MAY RESPECT OR ADMIRE IN THE PRESS AT ONE TIME OR OTHER. EVEN WISE PEOPLE MAKE MISTAKES REGARDING THE PRESS. AS I UNDERSTOOD -- AND WE SAW THE TAPE. LET'S JUST TAKE THAT INCIDENT. AND THEN I WANT TO PUT IT IN PERSPECTIVE OF WHERE IT SHOULD BE. SHE'S SITTING ON THE BENCH BACK THERE WITH HER LAWYER. SHE FEELS SAFE. KRISTIN JEANNETTE MEYERS WALKS PAST. SHE RECOGNIZES HER AND SAYS SOMETHING LIKE, "YOU'RE PRETTY. I'VE SEEN YOU ON TELEVISION," SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THIS LADY -- I THINK THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU HATE ALL THE PRESS. KRISTIN MEYERS DID NOT HAVE A CAMERA RUNNING AFTER HER ASKING HER A BUNCH OF QUESTIONS. SHE WAS WALKING PAST. MISS LOPEZ INSTITUTED THAT. DOES THAT MEAN SHE DOESN'T WANT TO GO TO EL SALVADOR? DOES THAT MEAN SHE DOESN'T HAVE A FEAR OF WHAT THE PRESS HAS DONE TO HER LIFE? I THINK NOT, YOUR HONOR. I MEAN, IF YOU LOOK AT THAT FOR WHAT IT IS, THAT WAS ONE PERSON SHE RECOGNIZED WITH HER LAWYER SITTING HOPEFULLY IN THE SANCTITY AND SOME SAFETY IN THIS PARTICULAR COURTROOM, WHEN SHE SAYS, "YOU'RE A PRETTY LADY ON TELEVISION. I RECOGNIZE YOU." NOW, THE FACT THAT SOME OF US MAY NOT SEE COURT TV OR KNOW WHO KRISTIN JEANNETTE MEYERS WAS, SHE RECOGNIZED HER. IN RESPONSE TO MR. DARDEN'S QUESTION, SHE SAID SHE HAD SEEN SOME PORTION OF THE PRELIMINARY HEARING. BUT I DON'T SEE ANY CONTRADICTION BETWEEN THAT AND THE FACT THAT SHE IS TERRIFIED OR CONCERNED ABOUT THE PRESS AND WHAT THE PRESS HAS DONE TO HER LIFE AND WHAT THE PRESS HAS DONE TO HER DAUGHTER AND WHAT THE DAUGHTER THINKS THE PRESS IS GOING TO DO. I MEAN, JUDGE, YOU PERHAPS -- AND WE HAVE BECOME USED TO THE PRESS OUTSIDE YOUR DOORS ALL THE TIME. BUT FOR REGULAR PEOPLE WHO HAVE THEIR REGULAR LIVES, THEY DON'T LIKE THAT. THEY LIKE TO GO AND WHEN THEY PLEASE, AND WHEN IT BRINGS PROBLEMS IN THE FAMILY, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. SO LET'S JUST TAKE THAT. AND I THINK THAT'S AN ANSWER WITH REGARD TO THAT. NOW, SECONDLY, YOU ASKED A QUESTION ABOUT MR. JONES' STATEMENT. MR. JONES, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, TALKED TO HER AS OFTEN AS HE COULD IN TALKING TO HER. AND AT ONE POINT -- AND I HAVE NEVER HEARD ANY TESTIMONY ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT HE SAID THAT OR NOT. BUT LET'S ASSUME THAT THAT WAS -- AT SOME POINT IN FEBRUARY, HE SAID HE DIDN'T KNOW.
WELL, IF YOU RECALL, SHE ACKNOWLEDGED UNDER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DARDEN THAT SHE HAD HEARD MR. JONES SAY ON THE 17TH THAT HE HAD BEEN IN CONTACT WITH HER AND HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF ANY PLANS TO LEAVE. THAT'S THE STATE OF THE RECORD AS I RECOLLECT.
OKAY. THAT'S FINE. WE DID NOT -- WHAT I MEANT, WE DIDN'T CALL MR. JONES ON THIS ISSUE OR WE'D BE HERE ALL DAY.
RIGHT. IN THAT CONNECTION -- AND THE COURT WILL RECALL, THERE HAD BEEN SOME EARLIER DECLARATIONS IN THIS REGARD. ON THE 17TH OF FEBRUARY, BECAUSE THIS ADDRESSES THAT ISSUE, THERE'S A DECLARATION PREPARED BY MR. JONES IN TALKING WITH HIS CLIENT WITH A SPANISH INTERPRETER THERE WHERE SHE SPELLS OUT THIS FEAR. THE 17TH WAS APPARENTLY A PRETTY FRIGHTENING DAY BY ALL ACCOUNTS FOR HER. SHE HAD HIDDEN OUT AGAIN, JUDGE. SHE HAD LOST THE JOB NOW WITH THE SALINGER'S. AND KEEP THAT IN MIND. I MEAN, LOSING A JOB, I MEAN, DOES THAT MEAN ANYTHING TO ANY OF US? THAT SHE'S LOST HER LIVELIHOOD. SHE'S LOST THE JOB. SHE'S AT HOME AT HER DAUGHTER'S HOUSE. HER DAUGHTER IS SAYING, "YOU GET INVOLVED IN THIS CASE AND YOU'RE OUT OF HERE." CHANNEL 34 SAYS THEY GO OUT AND THEY DO A COMMUNITY SERVICE, THEY FIND HER. AND THEN ALL THESE CAMERAS AND THEN EVERYTHING SHOW UP. THERE IS NO INTERVIEW AS SUCH. AS I UNDERSTOOD IT, MISS VILLAPANDO GAINED HER CONFIDENCE OR WHATEVER AND CAME INSIDE THE HOUSE AND THEN TRIED TO TALK TO HER. SHE THEN WENT ON CAMERA. ROSA LOPEZ DID NOT GO ON CAMERA. MISS VILLAPANDO THEN TALKED TO HER AND MADE THIS STATEMENT. BUT -- AND SOME MEMBERS OF THE PRESS ARE PERHAPS NICER THAN OTHERS. BUT THERE'S NO INTERVIEW BY ROSA LOPEZ. AND AGAIN, SHE'S NEVER SAID, "I HATE ALL MEMBERS OF THE PRESS." WHAT SHE SAYS, "I HATE WHAT THE PRESS HAS DONE TO ME AND MY FAMILY." THERE'S SOME NICE PEOPLE OUT THERE, YOUR HONOR. AND I LOOK BACK AND I SEE SOME OF THE NICE ONES. AND -- BUT COLLECTIVELY, IT'S WHAT THEY BECOME WHEN THEY WANT TO GET A STORY. AND ROSA LOPEZ IS A HOT STORY. SO THAT WITH REGARD TO THAT, I SEE -- I SEE THAT OF NO PARTICULAR MOMENT OR CONSEQUENCE. NOW, WITH REGARD TO ROSA LOPEZ AS A WITNESS ON THE STAND, THE COURT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE HER. AND CERTAINLY, YOU HAVE IN MIND HER TESTIMONY. THIS LADY SAID SHE HAD MADE RESERVATIONS THROUGH THIS COMPANY --
-- PAN AMERICANA. I HEARD THAT AND I WENT AND CHECKED IT AND SHE GAVE -- AND ACTUALLY SHE WAS RIGHT. SHE HAD SAID AT ONE POINT IN MR. DARDEN'S EXAMINATION THAT SHE HAD MADE SOME RESERVATIONS AND IN FACT SHE HADN'T MADE THOSE RESERVATIONS. BUT FROM THE 17TH, WHEN SHE MADE THAT DECLARATION, SHE'S ALWAYS BEEN CLEAR, "I AM LEAVING BY TOMORROW." AND THE REASON WHY I THOUGHT ZULEMA IIDA WAS IMPORTANT WAS, JUDGE, AGAIN, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT ROSA LOPEZ AND LOOK AT HER HISTORY. SOME PEOPLE, JUDGE, ARE NOT FREQUENT FLYERS. THEY DON'T GO AND BUY THEIR TICKETS A MONTH IN ADVANCE AND STICK BY IT. SOME PEOPLE TRY TO GET THE BEST RATES. SOME PEOPLE IT SEEMS TO ME, ACCORDING TO MISS IIDA, MAKE RESERVATIONS AND NOT ALWAYS COMPLY WITH THEM. SOME PEOPLE, WHEN FLIGHTS ARE AVAILABLE AND THEY SAY THEY'RE GOING TO GO, THEY DO IT AND DO IT THAT DAY. NOW, WE KNOW FROM MISS IIDA SHE NOW HAS RESERVATIONS TO THAT EFFECT. SHE WAS OUT OF TOWN UNTIL 1:30 THIS MORNING, YOUR HONOR. SHE SLEPT FOR NO MORE THAN TWO AND A HALF HOURS, THEN MET WITH LAWYERS AND HAS BEEN HERE SINCE BEFORE 9:00 O'CLOCK THIS MORNING. SO THE COURT HAS TO VIEW THE TOTALITY OF HER TESTIMONY WITH REGARD TO WHETHER OR NOT SHE IS IMPEACHED ON ANY POINT OR WHATEVER. THE COURT SAW THE THINGS THAT SHE HAD TO SAY. THE PURPOSE OF THIS HEARING WAS NOT TO TEAR INTO ROSA LOPEZ DAY AS THE COURT UNDERSTANDS. THE PURPOSE OF THIS HEARING WAS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT HER TESTIMONY SHOULD BE PRESERVED BASED UPON WHAT SHE HAS TO SAY. AND I KEEP COMING BACK TO THE POINT, SHE IS THE ONE THAT ONE HAS TO LISTEN TO. NOT THE D.A.'S, NOT THE OTHER WITNESS. SHE IS THE ONE, WHEN SHE SAYS TO YOU, "I LIKE YOU, I RESPECT YOU, BUT I'M NOT COMING BACK HERE. I WANT TO GET OUT OF HERE." DARDEN ASKED HER SEVERAL DIFFERENT WAYS, WELL, WHAT IF THE D.A.'S OFFICE OR WHAT IF THE JUDGE OUT OF HIS BUDGET PAYS FOR HER, TO PUT HER UP. THAT'S AN ADMISSION, JUDGE. THIS LADY HAS NO PLACE TO STAY. SHE HAS NO PLACE TO GO BY VIRTUE OF THIS CASE. AND SO WE'RE GOING TO TAR AND FEATHER HER? AND I JUST -- I -- IT FRIGHTENS, IT SHOCKS ME TO THINK OF THE MESSAGE WE WANT TO SEND AROUND AMERICA TO WITNESSES. THIS INNOCENT LADY WHO COMES IN HERE AND WANTS TO GO TO EL SALVADOR TO REBURY HER SON, TO LOOK AFTER HER SICK SISTER, TO GO TO THE ONLY PLACE SHE HAS A HOME, TO GO TO HER HOMELAND WHERE SHE IS FRANCHISED, WHEN SHE'S BEEN THROWN OUT OF HER DAUGHTER'S HOME, AND COME HERE ON HER OWN FROM ANOTHER STATE, I THINK SHE DESERVES A LOT MORE CREDIT THAN IT SEEMS TO ME SHE'S BEEN GIVEN. IF THE COURT WILL REMIND ME OF THE OTHER ISSUE -- I PERHAPS DIDN'T GET IT -- I'LL BE GLAD TO RESPOND TO IT.
OH, I'M SORRY. CONCEDED. I THINK WITH REGARD -- JUDGE, THERE'S A JURY INSTRUCTION WHICH TALKS ABOUT INNOCENT MISRECOLLECTION OF WITNESSES. I WANT YOU TO COMPARE THESE -- THESE MISREPRESENTATIONS OR ANY CONCEALMENTS OR ANY CONCEDING, THINGS SHE'S CONCEDED WITH THE FACT THIS LADY STANDS BEFORE YOU AND TELLS YOU, "I DON'T WANT TO COME BACK. I DON'T WANT TO BE HERE. I CAME HERE VOLUNTARILY TODAY." NOW, WHO CAN QUARREL WITH THAT? THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT SHE DID. THEY ASKED ALL THESE THINGS ABOUT SOMEBODY FROM THE STAR WHOSE NAME HAS SURFACED IN OTHER INVESTIGATIONS. HOW CREDIBLE IS THAT? IF SHE WANTED TO MAKE MONEY IN THIS CASE, SHE HAS NO JOB, SHE HAS NO PLACE TO STAY, SHE SPENT ONE NIGHT THIS WEEK IN A CAR. IF A STAR REPORTER OFFERED HER $5,000, WITH THE TESTIMONY SHE HAS TO GIVE OF THIS EXPLOSIVE NATURE, DON'T YOU THINK SHE WOULD TAKE THAT? THIS IS AN HONORABLE WOMAN. SHE DOES NOT DESERVE TO BE MALIGNED. SHE DOES NOT DESERVE TO BE TREATED THIS WAY. IF THEY COULD COME IN AND SHOW SHE WAS GOING TO GET SOME MONEY FOR THIS, THAT'S SOMETHING ELSE AGAIN. BUT THAT'S PREPOSTEROUS, TO ASK HER A QUESTION ABOUT BILLBOARDS IN HER COUNTRY. AND THE FACT THAT WE HAVE CNN AROUND THE WORLD IS OF NO MOMENT. WHAT THEY DON'T SEEM TO REALIZE, BECAUSE THEY HAVE HOMES, IS SHE HAS A PLACE TO GO TO THERE. SHE DOESN'T HAVE A PLACE TO GO TO HERE. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING FOR HER. SO IT'S EASY TO BEAT UP ON SOMEBODY IN COURT, BUT IT'S SOMETHING ELSE AGAIN TO HAVE SOME COMPASSION FOR PEOPLE AND THEN -- EXCUSE ME. IT'S EASY TO BEAT UP ON SOMEONE IN COURT, BUT IT'S SOMETHING ELSE AGAIN TO HAVE SOME COMPASSION FOR ONE'S FELLOW MAN AND ESPECIALLY SOMEBODY WHO'S NOT REALLY A PARTY. WE'RE ALL LOCKED TOGETHER IN THIS CASE UNTIL THE END. BUT ROSA LOPEZ IS CERTAINLY MORE TRANSITORY THAN THIS. AND WHETHER OR NOT -- AND ALL WE ARE ASKING IS GIVEN EVERYTHING, YOU CONSIDER THIS LIKE ALL THE WITNESSES. JUDGE, YOU KNOW, IF YOU THINK ABOUT WITNESSES WHO ARE -- WHO HAVE BEEN IMPEACHED IN THIS CASE, IF I STARTED TOTALLING UP WITNESSES, SOME OF THEM WOULDN'T EVEN COME BACK IN HERE. THIS LADY IS AN HONORABLE LADY WHO HAS NOTHING TO GAIN OR WHATEVER EXCEPT SHE WANTS TO GO ON WITH HER LIFE. THAT'S ALL SHE SAID TO YOU. IF YOU HAVE ANY DOUBT ABOUT IT, YOU LOOK HER IN THE EYE AND ASK HER THAT. AND SHE'S TOLD YOU THAT. SHE'S TOLD DARDEN THAT. I'M ASKING YOU TO ALLOW HER TO GIVE HER TESTIMONY. AND I UNDERSTAND THE TIME CRUNCH. BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND -- IN ADDITION TO BEING A LAWYER, I WANT TO BE A HUMAN BEING ABOUT THIS, ABOUT WHAT THIS LADY DID. AND I KNOW WHEN I SPOKE TO YOU LAST NIGHT AT 5:00 O'CLOCK, AT THAT TIME, I DIDN'T KNOW WHERE SHE WAS. AND WHEN I FOUND OUT WHERE SHE WAS, I INDICATED TO YOU I WAS GOING TO GET HER BACK HERE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, AND YOU INDICATED TO ME TO CALL THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AND I FOLLOWED -- AND I CALLED DARDEN AND TOLD HIM THAT NIGHT. SO THERE'S AN HONORABLE QUALITY ABOUT THIS LADY AND I HOPE THAT HAS SHONE THROUGH IN HER TESTIMONY. AND I ASK THE COURT TO CONSIDER IT. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL BE GLAD TO TRY TO ADDRESS THEM.
YOUR HONOR, AS I SAT HERE LISTENING TO MR. COCHRAN, I WONDERED, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME ROSA LOPEZ? THEY ARE -- SORRY? DID YOU SAY SOMETHING? MR. COCHRAN MUST HAVE HAD A HARD TIME KEEPING A STRAIGHT FACE AS HE ARGUED THE CREDIBILITY OF ROSA LOPEZ. THE ISSUE AT THIS POINT ISN'T WHETHER WE SHOULD HOLD A 1335 OR CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION. THE ISSUE IS WHY SHOULD WE HOLD A CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION. ROSA LOPEZ HAS TAKEN THE WITNESS STAND. SHE TOOK THE OATH. SHE PROMISED TO TELL THE TRUTH AND SHE DID THE EXACT OPPOSITE. SHE TOLD US THAT SHE MADE RESERVATIONS TO LEAVE. WE CALLED AND CHECKED. WE FOUND OUT THAT SHE HADN'T, AND WHEN WE CONFRONTED HER WITH IT, SHE ADMITTED THAT SHE HAD LIED. SHE TOLD US THAT SHE WAS GOING TO MAKE RESERVATIONS. I'M NOT SURE THAT SHE HAS OR THAT SHE DID TODAY. SHE TOLD US THAT SHE HADN'T MADE RESERVATIONS TO LEAVE AT SOME OTHER TIME. BUT NOW WE FIND OUT THAT ON FEBRUARY 21ST, THAT SHE BOOKED A ROUND-TRIP TICKET TO EL SALVADOR. AND WHAT'S IMPORTANT ABOUT THE FEBRUARY 21 DATE, YOUR HONOR, IS THAT FOUR DAYS BEFORE ON FEBRUARY 17TH, SHE SIGNED A DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY SAYING SHE WAS LEAVING AND SHE WASN'T COMING BACK SAYING SHE FEARED FOR HER LIFE. YOU TELL ME, WHAT'S GOING ON HERE? TALKING ABOUT CONTRADICTIONS, THERE ARE CONTRADICTIONS HERE, CONTRADICTIONS MADE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY. YOU CAN'T BELIEVE ANYTHING ROSA LOPEZ SAYS I THINK AT THIS POINT.
WAS IT THE DECLARATION ON THE 17TH THAT SAYS THAT SHE'S LEAVING? BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT WAS ONE THAT DID NOT SAY SHE WAS LEAVING. LET ME JUST DOUBLE-CHECK.
I STAND CORRECTED. I STAND CORRECTED. THERE WERE OTHER DECLARATIONS THAT DID NOT SAY THAT.
THE FEBRUARY 17TH DECLARATION SAYS, "I HAVE DECIDED TO RETURN TO MY NATIVE EL SALVADOR ON FEBRUARY 25." THAT'S FEBRUARY 17. ON FEBRUARY 21, SHE MAKES A ROUND-TRIP RESERVATION FOR A ROUND-TRIP TICKET FOR MARCH. OKAY. WE WOULD CERTAINLY LIKE TO SEE ROSA LOPEZ TESTIFY IN FRONT OF THE JURY. AND IF WHAT WE'VE SEEN TODAY IS A SNEAK PREVIEW OF THE DEFENSE IN THIS CASE, THEN OBVIOUSLY WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO IT, IF MISS LOPEZ MAKES THESE CLAIMS AND ALLEGATIONS ABOUT BRONCOS AND DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AND ALL THESE OTHER THINGS, AND THEY ARE IMPORTANT THINGS, EVEN IF HER ACCOUNT IS UNTRUE, BUT THEY ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT A JURY OUGHT TO HEAR, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE COMPLETE AND TOTAL LACK OF CREDIBILITY THAT ROSA LOPEZ HAS. THEY HAVEN'T PROVEN THAT SHE'S ABOUT TO LEAVE. WHAT WE FOUND OUT ABOUT ROSA LOPEZ IS THAT HER ACCOUNTS, HER VIEWS, HER POSITIONS AND HER TESTIMONY CHANGES WITH THE WIND, YOUR HONOR. IT CHANGES WITH THE SECONDS. IT CHANGES WITH TIME, AND SHE WILL CHANGE AND MODIFY THAT TESTIMONY AND HER VIEW AND HER POSITION AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT DEPENDENT UPON WHO ASKS -- IS ASKING THE QUESTIONS. THERE IS NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE IN THIS RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT SHE IS ABOUT TO LEAVE THIS JURISDICTION. IN FACT, THE MOST CREDIBLE EVIDENCE IN THIS RECORD IS THAT SHE IS GOING TO PURCHASE A ROUND-TRIP TICKET IN MARCH OF 1995. I WOULD ASK THAT THE COURT TAKE NOTE OF HER COOPERATION WITH THE DEFENSE IN THIS CASE. SHE TOLD MISS VILLAPANDO THAT SHE CALLED HER ATTORNEY ON MANY, MANY OCCASIONS. EVEN WHEN THEY DIDN'T RETURN HER CALL, SHE STILL CALLED.
AND WHEN SHE LEFT THE STATE, SHE CALLED TO TELL THEM WHERE SHE WAS AND TO TELL THEM THAT SHE WOULD BE HERE. SHE BOOKED A ROUND-TRIP TICKET FOR MARCH. SHE'LL COME BACK. SHE SAYS THAT SHE FEELS AS IF SHE HAS A DUTY TO TELL THE TRUTH AND TO ASSIST THIS DEFENDANT. ROSA LOPEZ WILL BE BACK. AND I'LL TELL YOU, YOUR HONOR, IF YOU DON'T HOLD A CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION TODAY, SHE PROBABLY WON'T LEAVE THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES. SHE PROBABLY WON'T EVEN VISIT THE TICKET AGENCY OR THE TRAVEL AGENCY. THERE IS NOTHING, NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE, NO CREDIBLE TESTIMONY IN THIS RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT SHE IS ABOUT TO LEAVE AND THE MOTION OUGHT TO BE DENIED. THERE ARE MANY, MANY CONTRADICTIONS IN THE RECORD THAT I COULD SPEAK ON WHICH MY CLERKS FROM SOUTHWESTERN LAW SCHOOL WERE CAREFUL TO PLOT OUT FOR ME SO THAT I COULD ARGUE THOSE POINT TO THE COURT. BUT I SENSE THE COURT IS AWARE OF THOSE CONTRADICTIONS. HOW CAN THE COURT ACCEPT THIS WITNESS' TESTIMONY? HOW CAN THE COURT FIND HER CREDIBLE? HOW CAN WE POSSIBLY BELIEVE THAT SHE IS GOING TO DO WHAT SHE SAYS? EVEN AS WE STAND BEFORE THE COURT NOW AND ARGUE THIS ISSUE, I SUSPECT THAT IN THE MEDIA RIGHT NOW, THAT THEY HAVE UNCOVERED OTHER CONTRADICTIONS IN THE TESTIMONY THAT SHE HAS GIVEN TODAY. THE DEFENSE HAS FAILED TO CARRY THE BURDEN, TO CARRY THE DAY ON THIS ISSUE, YOUR HONOR. AND WE DIDN'T BEAT UP ON HER. WE DIDN'T TREAT HER LIKE THEY TREATED OUR WITNESSES. WE DIDN'T TREAT HER LIKE THEY TREATED RON SHIPP OR WE DIDN'T ASK HER ABOUT HER DRINKING PROBLEMS OR OTHER PERSONAL BUSINESS, OKAY. WE TREATED HER IN A DIGNIFIED MANNER. THIS IS A COURT OF LAW. MR. SIMPSON'S FREEDOM IS AT STAKE, THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AND THE PUBLIC SAFETY IS AT STAKE. GIVEN THE INFORMATION SHE CLAIMS TO HAVE AND GIVEN THEIR COMPLETE FAILURE, COMPLETE FAILURE TO SUSTAIN THEIR BURDEN UNDER 1335 AND 1336, THE COURT OUGHT TO DENY THE MOTION. MISS LOPEZ IS ON HER OWN AS SHE SHOULD BE. I AM SURE THAT SHE WILL RETURN TO HER DAUGHTER'S HOUSE. I DOUBT THAT SHE EVER SLEPT ON THE STREET OR DID ANY OF THAT AT ALL. WE KNOW WHERE SHE'S BEEN AND SHE'S PROBABLY BEEN PLAYING THE SLOT MACHINES AND HAVING A GOOD TIME. AND I'VE INDICATED TO MR. COCHRAN THAT IF THE D.A.'S OFFICE CAN ASSIST IN ANY REASONABLE MANNER IN HELPING THEM TO KEEP THEIR WITNESS OR TO STAY IN CONTACT WITH THEIR WITNESS, THEN WE'RE HAPPY TO DO THAT BECAUSE THIS IS A SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH. AND WE THINK WE KNOW WHAT THE TRUTH IS AND WE THINK THE JURY IS GOING TO FIND THE TRUTH AT THE END OF THIS. AND WE WANT TO HELP, WE WANT TO HELP THE DEFENSE, BUT NOT THIS WAY. IT'S UNFAIR. IT'S WRONG.
MR. DARDEN, LET ME ASK YOU TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE. ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE LEDGER, HAVING NOTED THE CONTRADICTIONS, THE RECORD ALSO INDICATES THAT SHE WAS IN FACT OUT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA UNTIL THE EARLY MORNING HOURS OF TODAY, THAT SHE VOLUNTARILY RETURNED, WHICH SHOWS HER GOOD FAITH. AND THE INFORMATION THAT I RECEIVED, THAT WE STIPULATED TO IN A SIDEBAR WAS, SHE WAS IN FACT OUTSIDE OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
SO DON'T I HAVE -- I'M SORRY. DON'T I HAVE TO ALSO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACT THAT SHE DID VOLUNTARILY COME BACK, SHE WAS BEYOND THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT AND SHOULDN'T I TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION IN EVALUATING THE TRUTHFULNESS OF HER STATEMENT THAT SHE'S GOING TO LEAVE? QUESTION NUMBER ONE. QUESTION NUMBER TWO IS, DO YOU WANT TO ROLL THE DICE? SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, I ACCEPT YOUR ARGUMENT THAT BASED UPON MY ANALYSIS OF THE CREDIBILITY OF THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES HERE, THAT THERE HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT THE WITNESS IS ABOUT TO LEAVE THE STATE AS IS REQUIRED UNDER 1337, SUB (4). LET'S ASSUME THAT I ACCEPT THAT ARGUMENT AND DENY THE HEARING. WE GO FORWARD AND SHE DOES IN FACT LEAVE THE JURISDICTION AND GOES TO A PLACE WHERE SHE IS BEYOND SERVICE OF THE INTERSTATE COMPACT ON WITNESSES. LET'S ASSUME THAT THE WORSE HAPPENS AS FAR AS MR. SIMPSON IS CONCERNED AND HE IS FOUND GUILTY OF SOME FELONY SERIOUS CRIME. THEN WE HAVE AN APPELLATE ISSUE ON THE ABUSE OF THIS -- THE ABUSE OF DISCRETION BY THIS COURT FAILING TO GRANT A 1335, WHEN THE ONLY DOWNSIDE IS THAT IF SHE IS UNAVAILABLE UNDER TWO -- WE HAVE TO HAVE A 240 HEARING SOMEWHERE FURTHER DOWN THE LINE TO SEE IF SHE'S STILL IN FACT UNAVAILABLE AT THE TIME THAT THE DEFENSE CASE GOES ON.
YOUR HONOR, IF ANYTHING, THE COURT SHOULD CONSIDER HER RETURN TO THIS JURISDICTION TO TESTIFY TODAY AS PROOF POSITIVE OF HER WILLINGNESS TO ASSIST THE DEFENSE IN ANY MANNER THAT SHE CAN. AND I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY ABOUT ALL THAT IT'S WORTH. AND AS FAR AS ROLLING THE DICE IS CONCERNED, YOUR HONOR, WE BELIEVE THAT THE RECORD SUPPORTS A FINDING THAT THEY HAVE FAILED TO CARRY THEIR BURDEN. THE COURT DOES HAVE DISCRETION. THERE ARE MANY, MANY CONTRADICTIONS AND INCONSISTENCIES IN THE TESTIMONY OF MISS LOPEZ AND MISS LOPEZ' TESTIMONY AS OPPOSED TO THE SECOND WITNESS. AND THIS TESTIMONY, ALL OF THIS TESTIMONY WE BELIEVE WILL SUPPORT THE COURT'S FINDING THAT A CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION IS INAPPROPRIATE UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. WE DON'T SEE IT AS AN ISSUE OF ROLLING THE DICE OR NOT. IT'S NOT A ROLL THE DICE ISSUE. WE FOUGHT HARD ON THIS ISSUE BECAUSE WE BELIEVED THIS PERSON TO BE -- YOU KNOW, AND I DON'T WANT TO OFFEND ANYONE THIS AFTERNOON, BUT WE DID NOT BELIEVE SHE WAS A CREDIBLE INDIVIDUAL. WE FELT THAT THE JURY OUGHT TO HEAR HER TESTIFY. THAT IS, IF THEY REALLY WANT TO TAKE HER TESTIMONY. THAT IS AS OPPOSED TO CREATING AN APPELLATE ISSUE IN THIS CASE. AT ANY EVENT, YOUR HONOR, THE RECORD WE THINK FULLY SUPPORTS THE COURT'S FINDING, IF THE COURT IS INCLINED TO SO FIND, THAT A CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION IS NOT NECESSARY UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. I DON'T THINK THAT ROSA LOPEZ WILL MISS OUT ON TESTIFYING AGAIN IN THESE PROCEEDINGS IN FRONT OF THE WHOLE WORLD. I THINK SHE'LL BE BACK. I THINK IF MR. JONES ASKED HER TO COME BACK OR IF MR. SIMPSON SHOULD ASK HER TO COME BACK, I THINK SHE WILL. I'M SURE SHE WILL. I'M NOT SURE THEY'RE GOING TO WANT HER TO COME BACK. BUT I THINK IF THEY ASK, THAT SHE WILL. AND ONCE AGAIN, THE PEOPLE ARE PREPARED TO OFFER SOME ASSISTANCE TO THE DEFENSE IN TERMS OF BRINGING HER BACK IF THEY REALLY --
AND THE PEOPLE MAINTAIN THEIR POSITION AT THIS TIME THAT THEY WILL NOT ALLOW OR THEY OBJECT TO CALLING ROSA LOPEZ OUT OF ORDER SO THAT SHE CAN TESTIFY IN FRONT OF THE JURY?
JUST BRIEFLY, YOUR HONOR. IF THE PROSECUTION IS SO CONFIDENT THAT ROSA LOPEZ IS NOT A CREDIBLE WITNESS, THEN LET ME REITERATE OUR OFFER THAT WE MADE EARLIER THAT WE WERE JUST ASKING ABOUT. IF THEY'RE SO CONVINCED, LET US CALL HER IN HERE AND ASK HER, JUDGE, IF WE CAN PUT HER ON THE STAND MONDAY MORNING AND SHE LEAVE MONDAY NIGHT. LET HER TESTIFY BEFORE THIS JURY ON MONDAY SINCE THEY THINK -- THEY'RE SO PROUD OF WHAT THEY CAN SHOW. LET HER TESTIFY. THEY WANT TO SEARCH FOR TRUTH, LET THEM DO IT. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT, YOUR HONOR, BECAUSE I ASKED THEM THAT BEFORE. AND I THINK IT'S REALLY THE HEIGHT OF ARROGANCE AND REALLY UNFAIR. MR. DARDEN KNOWS THAT SHE WAS NOT IN LAS VEGAS, NEVADA. HER FLIGHT WENT THROUGH THERE. SHE COULDN'T GET A THROUGH FLIGHT. THAT'S WHY SHE FLEW LAST NIGHT TILL 1:30. AND HOW DISINGENUOUS IS IT FOR A LAWYER TO STAND UP HERE AND TALK ABOUT SLOT MACHINES WHEN THE ONLY FLIGHT SHE COULD GET WAS THROUGH LAS VEGAS TO GET TO L.A. THAT'S PREPOSTEROUS.
WELL, IT MAY NOT. BUT, YOU KNOW, IT OFFENDS ME, BECAUSE IT SHOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED, YOUR HONOR. SO I HAVE TO -- I FEEL DUTY-BOUND TO SAY THAT. PLEASE ALLOW ME THAT. NOW, HAVING SAID THAT, LET ME GET BACK TO THE ISSUES. YOU PUT YOUR FINGER ON IT DIRECTLY. THE PROSECUTION IN THEIR ZEST TO WIN, THEIR OBSESSION TO WIN, THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT ROLLING ANY DICE IN THIS CASE. THEY ARE NOT WORRIED ABOUT THAT. YOU ARE THE JUDGE AND YOU'RE THE ONE WHO HAS TO BE WISE. IT'S YOUR DISCRETION THAT'S AT STAKE. WHAT WE ARE SAYING TO YOU, YOU SAW THIS WITNESS WHO CAME BACK ON HER OWN. SHE DIDN'T HAVE TO DO THAT. SHE DOESN'T WANT TO TESTIFY. SHE DIDN'T GET ANYTHING OUT OF THIS. IF SHE DOESN'T COME BACK -- IF SHE DOES WHAT SHE SAYS SHE'S GOING TO DO -- AND I FIND HER CREDIBLE ON THAT. SHE SAID SHE WOULD COME BACK TODAY. SHE DID THAT. SHE SAID SHE'S NOT COMING BACK AFTER TODAY, AND I BELIEVE THAT. YOU HEARD THOSE PARTICULAR QUESTIONS WHICH WERE THE MOST IMPORTANT ONES HERE TODAY EVEN THOUGH SHE HAD RESPECT FOR YOU, BECAUSE OF WHAT IT'S DONE TO HER LIFE. AND, YOU KNOW, FOR THEM TO SAY THAT SHE DIDN'T SLEEP ON THE STREETS, THAT IS THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, THAT'S WHAT SHE TESTIFIED ABOUT. AND WE KNOW SHE THEN LEFT THIS JURISDICTION. AND THE WHOLE EVIDENCE IS, SHE'S HAD THIS PROBLEM WITH HER FAMILY. IT JUST SEEMS TO ME TO DEFY CREDULITY AND BE THE HEIGHT OF INSENSITIVITY FOR THEM TO TALK ABOUT THIS. THEY TALK ABOUT THIS -- THIS IS A WITNESS, A WITNESS. SHE'S NOT A PARTY TO THIS CASE. SHE SHOULD BE TREATED WITH SOME AMOUNT OF DIGNITY, AND I THINK THE COURT IS DOING THAT IN LOOKING AT ALL THE FACTS IN THE CASE. WHEN YOU DO THAT, I THINK WE HAVE MADE OUR BURDEN. IF YOU LOOK AT ANY CASE WHERE A WITNESS HAS BEEN AWAY, CAME BACK ON THEIR OWN WITH NO PLACE TO STAY AND SAYS, "I'M NOT GOING TO BE HERE AFTERWARDS," AND YOU HAVE A MAN CHARGED WITH THE MOST SERIOUS OF OFFENSES, WHAT MORE CAN WE DO UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAN TO MAKE THE PRESENTATION WE'VE MADE. SHE'S HERE BECAUSE WE MADE ARRANGEMENTS TO GET HER BACK AND BECAUSE SHE CALLED US. NOT BECAUSE THEY DID ANYTHING. IF THEY REALLY DON'T THINK SHE'S CREDIBLE, LET HER COME BEFORE THE JURY. OTHERWISE, LET US HAVE OUR 1335 AND LET'S RESOLVE THIS MATTER AND MOVE ON, YOUR HONOR.
YOUR HONOR, WHEN THE COURT OF APPEALS TAKES A LOOK AT THIS RECORD, THEY'LL LOOK AT THE RECORD AS IT STOOD TODAY AND REGARDLESS OF WHAT MAY HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE. BUT AS THE RECORD STANDS TODAY, HOW CAN YOU FIND HER CREDIBLE? HOW CAN WE POSSIBLY BELIEVE THAT SHE IS ABOUT TO LEAVE? SHE HAS LAWYERS TELLING HER "HEY, IT'S OKAY. IT'S OKAY TO GO BACK TO EL SALVADOR."
WELL, THE THING THAT TROUBLES ME THE MOST, MR. DARDEN, IS THE FACT THAT SHE WAS IN FACT OUT OF THE STATE TODAY.
THAT'S WHAT -- THAT'S WHAT MR. COCHRAN HAS TOLD US, YES. AND SHE'S BACK. PEOPLE COME AND GO ALL THE TIME, YOUR HONOR. SHE HAS COME AND GONE FROM HERE TO EL SALVADOR WHAT, 27 -- SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 27 AND 50 OCCASIONS. WE COULD CALL DOWN TO EL SALVADOR. SHE CAN'T HIDE FROM THE MEDIA. AND FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND FROM OUR CONVERSATIONS TODAY --
-- THEY'RE A LOT MORE RUTHLESS, OKAY. THAT IS, THE MEDIA IS A LOT MORE RUTHLESS DOWN THERE THAN THEY ARE HERE IS I UNDERSTAND. THERE ARE BILLBOARDS DOWN THERE THAT SAY, "IF YOU SEE ROSA LOPEZ, CALL THIS NUMBER." WE LEARNED TODAY, YOUR HONOR --
OKAY, AND THEY HOUNDED AND FOLLOWED THIS WOMAN FOR QUITE SOME TIME UNTIL THEY FINALLY REALIZED THAT SHE WAS NOT THIS ROSA LOPEZ. THE REPORTERS OUR OFFICE SPOKE TO TODAY SAID THEY ARE WAITING. THEY ARE WAITING FOR HER TO LAND. SHE'S BIG, MAYBE BIGGER THAN YOU, JUDGE. I DON'T KNOW. BUT SHE CAN'T RUN FROM THE PRESS AND NONE OF US CAN. BUT THE RECORD STILL IS CLEAR. THERE IS NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, NO CREDIBLE PROOF THAT SHE IS ABOUT TO LEAVE. WE CAN'T BELIEVE ANYTHING SHE SAYS. SHE CONTRADICTS HERSELF. I MEAN, THERE'S INHERENT CONFLICTS IN HER OWN TESTIMONY, YOUR HONOR. AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO BEAT ON HER OR BADGER HER TO BRING THESE CONFLICTS OUT. SHE CONFLICTS HERSELF.
SO -- AND UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE COURT CERTAINLY HAS DISCRETION GIVEN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES AND WE DON'T SEE IT AS AN ISSUE OF ROLLING THE DICE. WE'RE IN IT FOR THE LONG HAUL AND WE THINK THAT THE COURT -- THAT SHOULD THE COURT DENY THIS MOTION, THAT THE COURT WILL BE STANDING ON SOUND LEGAL GROUNDS.
THE LAST THING I WOULD LIKE TO SAY, YOUR HONOR, IS, WE DON'T SEE THIS AS ANYTHING FUNNY AT ALL. THE FACT THAT MAYBE PRESS OR HE MADE SOME CALL DOWN TO EL SALVADOR AND SENDING MESSAGES LIKE THAT I THINK ARE VERY, VERY UNFORTUNATE IF EVERYBODY AROUND THE WORLD IS WATCHING THIS. HOW WE CONDUCT OURSELVES SEEMS TO BE IMPORTANT, AND WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS THIS PARTICULAR WITNESS. THIS LADY BELIEVES HER LIFE IS IN JEOPARDY. AND WHAT WE DO HAS A LOT TO DO WITH THAT.
WELL, THIS IS AN INTERESTING SITUATION. THIS IS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION STANDARD THAT I HAVE TO APPLY HERE IN FINDING WHETHER OR NOT A CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION IS NECESSARY OR REQUIRED UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. WE HAVE A WITNESS WHO ON THE POSITIVE SIDE OF THE LEDGER WAS IN FACT AND I BELIEVE WAS IN FACT OUT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA UNTIL THE EARLY MORNING HOURS THIS MORNING, WAS IN FACT OUT OF THE STATE. SHE DID IN FACT RETURN AND COOPERATIVELY AFTER THE REQUEST BY HER ATTORNEY, MR. JONES, AND BY THE DEFENSE COUNSEL HERE, SHE HAS STATED UNEQUIVOCALLY TO THE COURT TODAY THAT SHE INTENDS ON LEAVING TOMORROW. ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE LEDGER, WE HAVE THE FACT THAT SHE -- THE REASON THAT SHE HAS GIVEN THE PRESS HARASSMENT IS CONTRADICTED BY HER COOPERATION WITH KMEX, CHANNEL 34, SPEAKING TO THEIR REPORTER, VILLAPANDO AND HER FRIENDLINESS WITH THE COURT T.V. PERSONNEL THAT SEEMS TO CONTRADICT HER FEAR OF HARASSMENT BY THE PRESS. ALSO, SHE HAS INDICATED IN HER DECLARATION DATED ON THE 17TH OF FEBRUARY THAT SHE IS LEAVING ON THE 25TH WHEN IN FACT SHE HAD RESERVATIONS FOR MID MARCH TO RETURN ON A ROUND-TRIP TICKET AS WELL. SO THE ISSUE IS WHETHER OR NOT HER CLAIM -- THE COURT DEEMS CREDIBLE HER CLAIM THAT SHE IS GOING TO LEAVE THE JURISDICTION AND NOT RETURN ANYTIME DURING THE COURSE OF THIS TRIAL AND WILL NOT VOLUNTARILY RETURN AND IN FACT SHE IS GOING TO GO TO A JURISDICTION WHERE SECURING HER ATTENDANCE HERE IN CALIFORNIA WILL BE DIFFICULT, IF NOT LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE. I HAVE TO BALANCE ALSO THE MATERIALITY OF THE PROFFERED TESTIMONY, WHICH IS THAT SHE OBSERVED -- MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THE ALLEGATIONS IS THAT SHE OBSERVED MR. SIMPSON'S BRONCO PARKED AT HIS RESIDENCE AT A TIME THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE PROSECUTION THEORY OF THE CASE. BALANCING THE MATERIALITY OF THAT PROFFERED TESTIMONY WITH THE FACTORS THAT I'VE DISCUSSED HERE, THE CAUTIOUS RESOLUTION OF THIS IS TO GRANT THE MOTION FOR A 1335.
DO YOU HAVE GREAT RESPECT FOR JUDGE ITO, SHE SAID, YES, I DO. I LIKE HIM VERY MUCH, BUT I'M NOT COMING BACK BECAUSE I'VE HAD IT.
YOU CAN'T BELIEVE ANYTHING ROSA LOPEZ SAYS I THINK AT THIS POINT.
WE KNOW WHERE SHE'S BEEN AND SHE'S PROBABLY BEEN PLAYING THE SLOT MACHINES AND HAVING A GOOD TIME.
THE CAUTIOUS RESOLUTION OF THIS IS TO GRANT THE MOTION FOR A 1335.
SHE HAS A SON WHO'S ENTOMBED IN A TEMPORARY GRAVE. I MEAN WHAT MORE DO WE WANT?