JOHNNIE COCHRAN, YOUR HONOR, ALONG WITH BOB SHAPIRO, F. LEE BAILEY, ROBERT KARDASHIAN AND CARL DOUGLAS.
ESSENTIALLY, WE'RE READY TO PROCEED, YOUR HONOR. WHAT I -- THERE IS A PROBLEM IN THE DISCOVERY APPARENTLY -- I DON'T KNOW THE DATES BECAUSE IT WAS DONE BY SARA CAPLAN. A REPORT WAS TURNED OVER TO THE PROSECUTION AUGUST 18TH, 1994 INVOLVING AN INTERVIEW WITH ROSA LOPEZ, AND APPARENTLY THAT'S THE REPORT SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT HAVING DOT, DOT. WE APPROACHED THE BENCH. THERE IS ANOTHER REPORT -- I LOOKED AT THE FILE, AND THERE'S ANOTHER REPORT DATED JULY 29. I AM NOT SURE IT'S EVER BEEN TURNED OVER. WHEN I WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT THE TWO REPORTS, THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IN THE REPORTS ARE THAT -- AND I CAN SHOW YOU THE TWO REPORTS. IN THE REPORT FROM JULY 29TH, BOTH -- THE REPORT FROM PAVELIC TO SHAPIRO IS IN THE FIRST REPORT. THERE IS A -- WELL, LET ME JUST READ IT TO YOU. THAT'S PROBABLY THE BEST WAY TO DO IT. IN THE -- LET ME TAKE THE 29, JULY 29TH REPORT. "MISS LOPEZ STATED THAT ON JUNE 12TH, 1994, AT APPROXIMATELY 2030 TO 2100 HOURS, SHE OBSERVED O.J. AND A PASSENGER DRIVE OFF IN HIS ROLLS ROYCE. SHE DISTINCTLY RECALLED SEEING SIMPSON'S BRONCO PARKED NEAR THE ROCKINGHAM GATE. "SHORTLY AFTER HE LEFT, HER FRIEND SYLVIA CAME BY, AND THEY HAD A CUP OF COFFEE. THEY SPENT TOGETHER APPROXIMATELY 10 TO 15 MINUTES, AND MISS LOPEZ DROVE SYLVIA TO HER HOUSE A COUPLE MINUTES AWAY. "WHEN SYLVIA OBSERVED SIMPSON'S BRONCO, SHE MADE A COMMENT ABOUT THE WAY IT WAS PARKED. MISS LOPEZ STATED THAT O.J. ALWAYS PARKS HIS CAR THAT WAY. "AFTER DROPPING OFF HER FRIEND SYLVIA AND WHILE O.J. AND HIS PASSENGER WERE OUT, SHE HEARD A PROWLER ALONGSIDE HIS AND HER RESIDENCE FENCE. MISS LOPEZ ESTIMATED THE TIME TO BE AROUND 2120 OR 2130 HOURS." AND THEN SHE GOES ON TO SAY: "SHE HEARS FOOTSTEPS." THE REPORT OF AUGUST 18TH, THIS IS HOW IT'S WORDED. "MISS LOPEZ STATED THAT ON JUNE 12TH, 1994 AT APPROXIMATELY 2000 TO 2030 HOURS, SHE OBSERVED O.J. SIMPSON'S BRONCO PARKED AT THE ROCKINGHAM GATE, DOT, DOT, DOT, DOT, DOT, AND THAT THE BRONCO REMAINED PARKED THERE UNTIL THE FOLLOWING DAY. MISS LOPEZ HAS SEEN THE BRONCO PARKED IN THE SAME SPOT ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS. "MISS LOPEZ STATED THAT AT APPROXIMATELY 2100 HOURS, SHE OBSERVED O.J. SIMPSON AND UNKNOWN PASSENGER DEPART THE ROCKINGHAM ESTATE IN MR. SIMPSON'S ROLLS ROYCE." AND THEN SHE GOES ON TO SAY: "APPROXIMATELY 2000 TO 2030, WHILE O.J. WAS OUT, MISS LOPEZ HEARD A PROWLER WALKING NEAR THE RESIDENCE." SO THE DIFFERENCE IN THESE TWO REPORTS IS THIS PERSON SYLVIA. SO AGAIN, THE REASON WHY WE'RE IN CAMERA, I ASKED TO HAVE THE TWO REPORTS BEFORE ME NOW. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE SEEN THE ONE FROM THE 18TH. I'VE SEEN THE OTHER ONE. THE INDICATION WAS THAT SYLVIA APPARENTLY IS AN UNDOCUMENTED WORKER AND APPARENTLY SHE DIDN'T WANT TO GET INVOLVED OR WHATEVER. BUT WE TALKED ABOUT IT BACK THERE, AND AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT, WE HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT THERE IS -- THAT THERE IS THIS OTHER PERSON WHO MAY OR MAY NOT COME FORWARD. I DON'T KNOW. WE HAVE NEVER INTERVIEWED SYLVIA OR WHATEVER. BUT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE --
THERE IS THE 29TH REPORT WHERE SYLVIA IS MENTIONED. THEY MAY OR MAY NOT KNOW ABOUT SYLVIA OR WHATEVER. I CAN TELL YOU AS AN OFFER, MISS LOPEZ SAYS THAT SYLVIA IS UNDOCUMENTED. HER EMPLOYER SAYS, "YOU WERE NEVER DOWN THERE, YOU DON'T KNOW HER," OR, "YOU CAN'T GET INVOLVED IN THIS OR WHATEVER." APPARENTLY SHE'S UNDOCUMENTED. NOW, BUT THIS IS -- I ALWAYS WANT TO MAKE IT EASY FOR YOU.
SO THIS IS A 1054.7 IN CAMERA REVIEW OF WHETHER OR NOT YOU FEEL THIS IS DISCOVERABLE?
YES, DISCOVERABLE. AND NOW, KEEP IN MIND ALSO THE OTHER THING THAT FURTHER COMPLICATES IT. THESE ARE -- THIS IS NOT ROSA LOPEZ' REPORT. I'M GLAD TO GIVE YOU BOTH OF THEM. THIS REPORT IS FROM PAVELIC TO SHAPIRO.
AND NEVER SAW IT. AND FURTHER, TO FURTHER MESS IT UP, NEITHER, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, PAVELIC OR MC NALLY SPEAKS SPANISH. IS THAT RIGHT, BOB?
THEY DON'T SPEAK SPANISH. SO WHATEVER THEY TALKED TO HER ABOUT, IT'S CLEARLY NOT -- MC NALLY IS NOT ON THE CASE ANYMORE. I DON'T THINK PAVELIC SPEAKS SPANISH. HE DOESN'T SPEAK IT VERY WELL. THERE'S SOME OTHER CONFLICT IN THIS THING THAT I DON'T -- THERE'S THINGS HE HAS IN THIS REPORT -- THIS IS NOT WHAT I'M GOING TO USE.
WHY WOULD THIS NOT BE DISCOVERABLE SINCE IT DOES ENCAPSULATE A PRIOR STATEMENT ON THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER?
IT MAY BE. WE WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW. THE PROBLEM IS -- I GUESS THE PROBLEM IS THAT IT IS A STATEMENT THAT IS SUPPOSEDLY TAKEN BY PAVELIC AT A TIME EARLIER THAN THE AUGUST 18TH STATEMENT AND IT HAS -- THE MAJOR DIFFERENCE IS THIS WITNESS SYLVIA.
ALL RIGHT. YOU REALIZE WHAT THIS IS LIKELY TO DO. IT'S GOING TO SEND THE PROSECUTION BALLISTIC IN CLAIMING THAT NOW THERE ARE MORE REPORTS AND THAT I SHOULD PRECLUDE YOU FROM CALLING THIS WITNESS BECAUSE OF THE DISCOVERY DELAY.
KEY QUOTEJUST SO YOU KNOW, AS SOON AS WE GO OUT THERE AND TELL THEM THIS IS HERE, THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, WHICH IS GOING TO DELAY OUR GETTING STARTED WITH MISS LOPEZ THIS MORNING.
I MEAN THIS IS NOT ANYTHING THAT WE KNEW ABOUT. THIS WAS ALL TURNED OVER IN AN EARLIER REPORT. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING WE WERE AWARE OF. WE JUST DISCOVERED IT.
IF MR. PAVELIC HAD FOLLOWED HER INSTRUCTIONS IN HIS INITIAL REPORT AND NOT MENTIONED SYLVIA AS SHE ASKED, WOULD THERE BE ANYTHING FRAUDULENT ABOUT THAT REPORT THAT SHE WAS LEFT OFF? I THINK WHAT WE'RE DOING IS REDACTING BY WRITING A NEW REPORT OMITTING THAT NAME TO PREVENT HER FROM BECOMING INVOLVED IN IT.
KEY QUOTESTILL, IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT CORROBORATES, I THINK THE PROSECUTION IS ENTITLED TO IT.
THEY'VE INTERVIEWED HER. SHE SAID SHE WAS NEVER THERE. I DON'T THINK THEY HAVE ANY --
THE ONLY THING I WANTED TO SAY, YOUR HONOR, WHEN I HAD EARLIER GONE THROUGH AND DISGORGED, I WAS DEALING ONLY WITH THE FIRST JULY 29 STATEMENT THAT WAS THE INTERVIEW OF ROSA LOPEZ THAT I HAD ASSUMED HAD BEEN TURNED OVER TO THE PROSECUTION. TODAY, I JUST HAPPENED TO CHECK MY NOTEBOOK THAT IS IN THE COURTHOUSE ABOUT WHAT THE ACTUAL STATEMENT WAS, AND I SAW THAT IT WAS THE AUGUST 18TH STATEMENT AND NOT THE JULY 29TH STATEMENT THAT HAD BEEN THE STATEMENT THAT WAS TURNED OVER. UP UNTIL THIS MORNING, I WAS ALWAYS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT IT WAS THE JULY THE 29TH STATEMENT AND THAT THEY IN FACT WERE ONE AND THE SAME. AND I LEARNED THAT THERE WAS IN FACT THIS OTHER STATEMENT WHERE THE MENTION OF SYLVIA HAD BEEN DELETED AND THAT WAS THE ONE THAT HAD BEEN TURNED OVER AND NOT THE JULY 29TH STATEMENT.
ALL RIGHT. OKAY. COUNSEL, I'M GOING TO REQUIRE YOU TO DISCLOSE THE ADDITIONAL PREVIOUS REPORT TO THE PROSECUTION.
JUDGE, WE NEED TO GET A CLEAN COPY OF THE JULY 29TH REPORT. YOU WANT SOMEBODY TO STEP OUT? YOU WANT DEIRDRA?
ALL RIGHT. THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT WE'VE BEEN JOINED BY MISS CLARK, MR. DARDEN AND MISS LEWIS. COUNSEL, DEFENSE COUNSEL ASKED ME TO CONDUCT A 1054.7 IN CAMERA REVIEW OF ITEMS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE DISCOVERABLE, AND THOSE ITEMS HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED TO ME AND I'VE DETERMINED THAT THEY ARE IN FACT DISCOVERABLE AND I AM GOING TO ORDER THEM TO TURN OVER A COPY TO YOU. THEY INDICATE THEY ONLY HAVE ONE COPY HERE RIGHT NOW THAT HAS THEIR WRITING ON THE SIDE IN THE MARGINS. SO I'M GOING TO ASK THEM TO WITE THAT OUT, THEIR COMMENT AND THEN GIVE YOU A COPY. YOU MAY WANT TO REVIEW THAT. AND IT HAS TO DO WITH ROSA LOPEZ' TESTIMONY TODAY.
I THINK WHAT IT IS, MARCIA, IS, IT'S A STATEMENT TAKEN -- IT'S A STATEMENT FROM PAVELIC TO SHAPIRO THAT YOU JUST ASKED ME ABOUT THIS EARLIER ONE. IT PREDATES THAT ONE. WE DISCOVERED THAT.
WELL, COUNSEL, I'M SURE -- TAKE A LOOK AT IT FIRST TO SEE IF YOU WANT TO MAKE AN ISSUE OF IT. IF YOU WANT TO MAKE AN ISSUE OF IT, DISCOVERY VIOLATION ISSUE OF IT, THAT'S ANOTHER ISSUE. OKAY. AT THIS POINT, LET ME JUST MAKE -- I'VE DETERMINED THAT IT'S DISCOVERABLE AND WE'LL GET YOU A COPY OF IT AS SOON AS THE WITE-OUT DRIES BECAUSE I DON'T WANT IT ON MY XEROX MACHINE. AND WE'LL PROCEED. TAKE A LOOK AT IT, AND THEN WE'LL PROCEED.
ARE WE GOING TO BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW IT BEFORE WE BEGIN WITH HER TESTIMONY?
IT LOOKS TO ME THAT GIVEN THAT WE'RE 21 MINUTES UNTIL THE NOON HOUR, YOU'LL PROBABLY HAVE AT LEAST THE NOON HOUR TO LOOK AT IT BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO TAKE FIVE MINUTES FOR THE WITE-OUT TO DRY. SO -- CARL, ARE YOU WITING?
THEN I TAKE IT THE COURT IS NOT AT THIS TIME ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF SANCTIONS OR DELAY.
TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND SEE WHAT YOU THINK. I DON'T KNOW -- YOU KNOW YOUR CASE. UNFORTUNATELY, I DON'T. I DON'T UNDERSTAND IF IT WOULD MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE TO YOU. IT MAY, IT MAY NOT.
AND BEFORE YOU GET TO THE DEGREE OF PERTURBNESS, LOOK AT THE STATEMENT AND THEN LET ME TALK TO YOU ABOUT IT BEFORE YOU GET PERTURBED. THIS CAME UP WHILE WE DID THIS TODAY.
I WOULD SAY, GIVEN THIS LATEST TURN OF EVENTS JUST NOW, WE'LL JUST STAND IN RECESS UNTIL 1:30. OKAY. AND WE ARE QUITTING AT 3:00 TODAY UNFORTUNATELY BECAUSE ONE OF THE JURORS HAS A MEDICAL APPOINTMENT AT 4:00.
I AM GOING TO CUT THEM LOOSE. THERE'S NO WAY WE CAN START A CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION AT 1:30 AND -- NEVER MIND.
NO, BECAUSE THEY'RE -- LET'S GET THIS OUT OF THE WAY. YOU KNOW, WE'LL WORRY ABOUT 620 AND THIS OTHER PROBLEM PROBABLY NOT UNTIL WEDNESDAY FRANKLY, BECAUSE I'M SURE THIS IS GOING TO SLOP OVER TO TOMORROW.
I'M OPTIMISTIC. MIGHT AS WELL GET THEM OUT, GET THEM DRESSED. IN FACT, IF YOU WANT TO -- WELL, WE CAN -- I'VE GOT WINDEX. WE CAN CLEAN IT OFF. MISS CLARK, MARCIA, WHY DON'T YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. IN FACT, WHY DON'T YOU SIT DOWN RIGHT HERE -- MISS CLARK, WHY DON'T YOU SIT DOWN AND JUST READ THAT REAL QUICK, AND THEN MAYBE YOU AND MR. COCHRAN CAN CHAT ABOUT IT. SEE IF MY PREDICTION IS RIGHT OR WRONG.
ALL RIGHT. LET'S TAKE A BREAK AT THIS POINT. MISS CLARK, DO YOU WANT TO CHAT WITH YOUR COLLEAGUES FIRST AND CHAT WITH MR. COCHRAN?
MISS ROBERTSON, WE'LL STAND IN ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 1:30. THANK YOU. WHY DON'T YOU TALK WITH CHERI AND CHRIS, THEN COME BACK. AND ACTUALLY, WE'LL TOSS EVERYBODY OUT AND YOU GUYS CAN TALK.
IF MR. PAVELIC HAD FOLLOWED HER INSTRUCTIONS IN HIS INITIAL REPORT AND NOT MENTIONED SYLVIA AS SHE ASKED, WOULD THERE BE ANYTHING FRAUDULENT ABOUT THAT REPORT THAT SHE WAS LEFT OFF? I THINK WHAT WE'RE DOING IS REDACTING BY WRITING A NEW REPORT OMITTING THAT NAME TO PREVENT HER FROM BECOMING INVOLVED IN IT.
YOU REALIZE WHAT THIS IS LIKELY TO DO. IT'S GOING TO SEND THE PROSECUTION BALLISTIC IN CLAIMING THAT NOW THERE ARE MORE REPORTS AND THAT I SHOULD PRECLUDE YOU FROM CALLING THIS WITNESS BECAUSE OF THE DISCOVERY DELAY.
I'M A LITTLE PERTURBED ABOUT A STATEMENT TAKEN SO LONG AGO. BUT THE DEGREE OF PERTURBNESS WILL BE ADDRESSED LATER.
DO YOU HAVE ANY SIMPLE PROBLEMS FOR ME TODAY?