YES, YOUR HONOR. AS WE ADVISED THE COURT IN CHAMBERS, WE HAD FILED A MOTION THIS MORNING REQUESTING THAT THIS MATTER BE CONDUCTED AS A CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION ON VIDEOTAPE AND WE ARE PREPARED WITH THE MEANS BY WHICH TO DO SO. THE REASON THAT WE HAVE MADE THIS MOTION, WE HAVE NOT BEEN AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD ON WHETHER THIS WOULD BE A CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION OR IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY. AND WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE COURT'S DISCRETION IN THIS MATTER. NEVERTHELESS, WE FEEL --
NO, WE DID NOT. WE ASKED FOR TIME TO CONSIDER THE POSITION. ALTHOUGH OUR POSITION HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY CONSISTENT, THAT WE WANTED A CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION, WE DID NOT WANT TO TAKE THE WITNESS OUT OF ORDER IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR CASE IN CHIEF. AT THE ELEVENTH HOUR YESTERDAY THE COURT ASKED US AGAIN TO RECONSIDER AND WE STATED THAT WE WOULD CONSIDER, BUT WE WERE NEVER GIVEN THE OPTION OF ARGUING TO THE COURT WHAT OUR POSITION WOULD BE. WE CONSIDERED THE MATTER AND DETERMINED THAT WE DID NOT WANT TO PROCEED IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY, BUT WE WERE NOT AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD IN THAT REGARD. WE WERE NOT. WE HAVE --
WE DISCUSSED IT AT SIDE BAR AT THE LAST OPPORTUNITY -- THE COURT INQUIRED OF US, I BELIEVE ON FRIDAY, WHETHER THE PEOPLE CONTINUED TO OBJECT TO HER BEING CALLED IN OUR CASE OF CHIEF OUT OF ORDER IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY, AND WE SAID WE CONTINUED TO OBJECT. THEN WE WENT TO SIDE BAR AT THE END OF THE DAY AND THE COURT ASKED WHETHER OR NOT WE WANTED TO HAVE THAT. THE COURT INDICATED THAT WE SHOULD -- WHETHER WE WANTED TO CONSIDER HAVING HER IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY AND WE SAID WE WERE CONSIDERING THAT OTHER OPTION, BUT WE HAVE NOT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT TO THE COURT OUR POSITION ON THIS SINCE THAT TIME, AND I WOULD LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO. I THINK THAT THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL IS SUBSTANTIALLY ENDANGERED BY THIS PROCEDURE. NO. 1, BY ALLOWING THE WITNESS TO BE CALLED OUT OF ORDER IN THE CONTEXT OF THE MIDDLE OF THE PEOPLE'S CASE IN CHIEF. THIS HIGHLIGHTS THE WITNESS' TESTIMONY, AFFORDS HER UNDUE IMPORTANCE, HIGHLIGHTING HER ABOVE ALL OTHER WITNESSES, WHICH IS UNFAIR TO THE PEOPLE'S CASE.
BUT BEYOND THAT, YOUR HONOR, IT IS VERY DISRUPTIVE. THE PEOPLE WILL THEN HAVE TO PRESENT REBUTTAL TESTIMONY WHICH IS ONLY IN ITS EMBRYONIC STAGES IN BEING FORMULATED. THERE IS A GREAT DEAL OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST THIS WITNESS, A GREAT DEAL. YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATING HER ALL ALONG. IT IS NOT THAT WE WAITED UNTIL THE ELEVENTH HOUR TO DO SO; HOWEVER, WE WERE ALWAYS OF THE BELIEF, AND IT WAS A WELL-FOUNDED ONE, THAT THE ULTIMATE REBUTTAL WOULD NOT OCCUR UNTIL REBUTTAL IN THE PEOPLE'S -- IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF THINGS. THAT IS, HER TESTIMONY WOULD BE PRESENTED IN THE COURSE OF THE DEFENSE CASE AND THAT WE WOULD BE AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT REBUTTAL OF HER TESTIMONY AFTER THAT WHEN THE PEOPLE'S REBUTTAL BEGAN. SO THERE WAS AT LEAST A TWO TO THREE-MONTH WINDOW IN WHICH TO FURTHER DEVELOP ALL THE LEADS. EVEN THIS WEEKEND WE HAVE BEEN OBTAINING SUBSTANTIALLY NEW INFORMATION. TO PRECLUDE US FROM GETTING ALL THAT INFORMATION AND TO REQUIRE US TO BASICALLY PREPARE FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION IN ONE WEEKEND AND THEN CROSS-EXAMINE THIS WITNESS THAT THE DEFENSE CONTENDS IS A KEY WITNESS FOR THEM, ON WHICH THEIR WHOLE CASE HINGES, IS BASICALLY TO DEPRIVE THE PEOPLE OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE AN EFFECTIVE RIGHT OF CROSS-EXAMINATION AND CONFRONTATION. NOT ONLY DOES IT RIP THE FABRIC OF THE PEOPLE'S CASE AT A CRITICAL POINT IN TIME, BUT IT ALSO PREVENTS THE PEOPLE FROM CONDUCTING THE THOROUGH KIND OF INVESTIGATION THAT WE ARE ENTITLED TO CONDUCT WITH RESPECT TO THIS WITNESS' CREDIBILITY, WHICH AS THE COURT IS ALREADY AWARE, IS SUBSTANTIALLY IN QUESTION. WE ASK ONLY THAT THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL BE PRESERVED BY AFFORDING THE DEFENSE THE CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION THAT INITIALLY REQUESTED, ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE'S POSITION HAS NOT CHANGED THAT THE GRANTING OF THE CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION WAS NOT REQUIRED BASED ON THE TESTIMONY GIVEN, THAT PERHAPS 1332 OF THE PENAL CODE, MATERIAL WITNESS SECTION, WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATE TO PROTECT THEIR RIGHT TO HAVE THAT WITNESS PRESENT.
NO. THE WITNESS CAN POST BOND. THE DEFENSE HAS BEEN GIVING THIS WITNESS MONEY, FEEDING HER, CLOTHING HER, HOUSING HER, PAID FOR A ROUND TRIP TICKET FOR HER. I'M SURE THEY WILL POST BOND FOR HAS AS WELL. SHE NEED NOT BE INCARCERATED. THE COURT IS ALSO AWARE OF THE DEFENSE FUND AND MAKE SURE SHE HAS THE ABILITY TO POST THE BOND. THAT OPTION WAS AVAILABLE AND THE PEOPLE URGED THE COURT TO TAKE IT. NEVERTHELESS, THE COURT RULED THAT A CONDITIONAL EXAM WOULD BE AFFORDED TO THE DEFENSE FOR THIS WITNESS. ALL THE PEOPLE ARE ASKING NOW IS THAT THE COURT HOLD TO THAT RULING AND CONDUCT THIS AS A CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION SO THAT THE PEOPLE WILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO PRESENT THEIR CASE IN AN ORDERLY FASHION, COMPLETE THE INVESTIGATION THAT THEY HAVE ONLY BEEN GIVEN A WEEKEND TO SPEED UP.
THE PROSECUTION WAS AWARE OF THIS WITNESS AND WAS CONDUCTING INVESTIGATION INTO THIS WITNESS; NEVERTHELESS, HER LACK OF CREDIBILITY WAS SO APPARENT THAT WE COULD NEVER HAVE ANTICIPATED THE DEFENSE WOULD HINGE THEIR WHOLE CASE ON HER. MOREOVER, THE DEFENSE HAS MADE REPRESENTATIONS CONCERNING SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS BY THIS WITNESS THAT WE WERE NEVER MADE AWARE AND TO THIS DATE HAVE NO WRITTEN STATEMENT ON. WE HAVE ONLY COUNSEL'S REPRESENTATIONS IN THE OPENING STATEMENT AS TO MANY OF THE THINGS SHE IS GOING TO TESTIFY TO. AND I'M SURE WE ARE GOING TO HEAR ANOTHER VERSION ON THE WITNESS STAND TODAY, WHETHER THAT THE BE BY CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION OR IN FRONT OF THE JURY, BUT THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL IS IN JEOPARDY HERE AND I THINK THERE IS NO DETRIMENT PRESENTED BY THE DEFENSE IF WE PRESENT THE CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION AND VIDEOTAPE IT. DON'T FORGET, YOUR HONOR, THAT THEY WILL STILL HAVE HER PRESENT AND AVAILABLE TO TESTIFY IN CASE THEY WANT TO PUT HER ON THE WITNESS STAND. THEY WILL HAVE THE OPTION, IF THEY DECIDE THAT THEY DON'T LIKE THIS WITNESS, THEY CAN PUT IT ON THROUGH VIDEOTAPE OR, IF SHE HAS A GOOD DRESS REHEARSAL, THEY WILL HAVE HER PRESENT FOR THE DEFENSE CASE. NO ONE SHOULD HAVE ANY DOUBT ABOUT THAT. SHE WILL BE HERE. NEVERTHELESS, IF WE DO PRESENT THIS AS A CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION AND VIDEOTAPE IT, THE RIGHT OF ALL SIDES WILL BE FULLY PRESERVED, BUT TO INTERRUPT THE PEOPLE'S CASE AND TO BASICALLY STOP THE EXAMINATION AND INTERJECT A DEFENSE WITNESS THAT WILL REQUIRE LENGTHY CROSS-EXAMINATION AND LENGTHY REBUTTAL PERTAINING TO FACTS THAT HAVE NOT YET BEEN PRESENTED, EVEN IN THE PEOPLE'S, CASE WILL BE CONFUSING AND MISLEADING TO THE JURY, WILL CURTAIL THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO AN EFFECTIVE CROSS-EXAMINATION AND WILL CURTAIL THE PEOPLE'S ABILITY TO EFFECTIVELY INVESTIGATE HER. AND I'M ASKING THE COURT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE TO ALLOW THIS AS A CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION. THAT WILL PROTECT EVERYONE'S RIGHTS.
HOW DO YOU PROPOSE TO PREPARE UNDER EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 770, IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY?
WELL, IF YOU ARE GOING TO CONFRONT HER WITH INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS, DON'T YOU HAVE TO DO THAT NOW DURING THE CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION? ARE YOU PREPARED TO DO THAT?
YES, AND I THINK THAT, FIRST OF ALL, WE CAN DO THAT BY ASKING -- BY BEING GIVEN BROAD LATITUDE IN CROSS-EXAMINATION, WHICH I'M SURE THE COURT WILL AFFORD US, GIVEN THE UNUSUAL NATURE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS AND THE FACT THAT IT IS A CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION, AND WE ASK THOSE KIND OF BROAD FAR-REACHING QUESTIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT WILL SUBSUME THE ISSUES -- MANY OF THE ISSUES OF PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS.
YES, YOUR HONOR. I THOUGHT I WOULD NOT BE AMAZED ANY MORE, BUT IT IS AMAZING THAT IF THE COURT WILL RECALL AT THE END OF THE DAY ON FRIDAY, MR. DARDEN WAS SAYING HOW HE LOOKED FORWARD TO HAVING MISS LOPEZ BEFORE THE JURY. IN FACT, HE MADE THE STATEMENT "I WONDER WHO IS GOING TO CLEAN UP THE BLOOD AFTER THE FINISH OF THE CROSS-EXAMINATION," AND I WELCOME IT, AND I SAID, WE HAVE A TRUTHFUL WITNESS HERE. THIS WAS LITIGATED, AND AS ALWAYS, THE PEOPLE -- IT IS BEYOND DISINGENUOUS FOR SOMEBODY TO COME INTO COURT AT 6:30, AFTER YOU BROUGHT ALL THESE JURORS OVER HERE, WE ARE READY TO PROCEED, AND THE WITNESS MAKES A PROMISE TO YOU SHE WILL COME BACK, AND THEY SAY, WELL, WE CAN'T DO IT TONIGHT, JUDGE, BECAUSE I HAVE TO PICK UP MY CHILDREN. AND THE COURT IS SENSITIVE TO THAT AND IT WAS ONLY A PLOY FOR THEM TO GO AND CRY AND MOAN OVER THE WEEKEND AND COME UP WITH SOME OTHER DOCUMENT. FOR MISS CLARK TO EVEN STAND UP HERE AND TALK ABOUT THE DEFENSE DOING THIS, SHE DOESN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE DEFENSE. IF SHE THINKS THAT OUR WHOLE CASE HINGES ON THIS WITNESS, THEN SHE, LIKE SO MANY PEOPLE WHO WRITE ABOUT THIS CASE, DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT, THEY ARE NOT EVEN A PART OF THIS CASE. WE HAVE A NUMBER OF WITNESSES, ALL OF WHICH THEY KNOW ABOUT, SO IT IS PREPOSTEROUS FOR THEM TO SAY THAT. THIS IS A WITNESS, YOUR HONOR, WHO IS GOING TO BE LEAVING. THE COURT HAS RULED ON THIS MATTER. WE ALL COME BACK TO COURT PREPARED TO DO THIS AND THEY ARE PREPARED TO PUT IT OVER JUST UNTIL TODAY TO PROCEED AND ALL OF A SUDDEN WE GET THIS MOTION WHERE ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY ARE BEING PREJUDICED OR WHATEVER. IT IS THE USUAL THING, YOUR HONOR, AND FOR HER TO SAY THAT OUR WHOLE CASE HINGES UPON THIS WITNESS IS PREPOSTEROUS. WE HAVE A NUMBER OF OTHER WITNESSES AND THEY ARE VERY MUCH AWARE OF IT. AND SPECIFICALLY, THE COURT HAS RULED ON THIS, THEY AGREED TO IT. WE TALKED ABOUT IT, AS YOU SAID, A HALF DOZEN TIMES, AND WHEN THEY ASKED FOR THE DELAY ON FRIDAY NIGHT, LOOK AT THE TRANSCRIPT, THEY DIDN'T SAY WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE HER TESTIFY BEFORE THE JURY. THEY SAID WE JUST CAN'T DO IT TONIGHT BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH MR. DARDEN IS GOING TO BE CONDUCTING THE EXAMINATION, MISS CLARK HAS TO BE HERE TO SEE AND ADVISE HIM AND TELL HIM WHAT QUESTIONS TO ASK AND THAT WAS WHY WE PUT IT OVER. WE WENT THROUGH IN THIS DETAIL. AND SO CLEARLY, YOUR HONOR, THIS IS ANOTHER ATTEMPT BY THEM TO AVOID FACING UP TO WHAT THEY HAVE TO FACE UP TO IN THIS CASE, AND WE ARE READY TO PROCEED AND WE SHOULD PROCEED. AND THE COURT HAS RULED ON THIS. IT IS THE HONORABLE AND FAIR THING TO DO. AND ALL OF THE REST OF THIS WILD SPECULATION ON THEIR PART IS TOTALLY DISINGENUOUS. I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO ALLOW US TO PROCEED AT THIS POINT.
I'M OFFENDED AS A WOMAN, AS A SINGLE PARENT AND AS A PROSECUTOR AND AN OFFICER OF THE COURT TO HEAR AN ARGUMENT POSED BY COUNSEL LIKE THAT OF MR. COCHRAN TODAY. SOME OF US HAVE CHILD CARE ISSUES AND THEY ARE SERIOUS AND THEY ARE PARAMOUNT. OBVIOUSLY MR. COCHRAN CANNOT UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT HE SHOULD NOT COME BEFORE THIS COURT AND IMPUGN THE INTEGRITY OF SOMEONE WHO DOES HAVE THOSE CONSIDERATIONS. AND I'M DEEPLY OFFENDED. THE PEOPLE'S -- I WOULD LIKE TO INDICATE THE PEOPLE ARE STRENUOUS AND VIGOROUS IN THEIR DESIRE TO HAVE THIS WITNESS TESTIFY. WE WANT THE ABILITY TO FULLY AND EFFECTIVELY CROSS-EXAMINE HER. WE FEEL THAT IT WOULD BE THE FAIREST THING FOR BOTH SIDES TO DO THAT IN A CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION. WHAT THE COURT NOR THE PEOPLE COULD NOT KNOW ON FRIDAY IS THAT NEW INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED -- WOULD BE OBTAINED OVER THE WEEKEND, WHICH IT HAS BEEN, THAT WILL PROVIDE FERTILE GROUND FOR MORE EFFECTIVE CROSS-EXAMINATION. THIS INFORMATION NEEDS TO BE FOLLOWED UP. IT WILL AFFORD US THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT OUR REBUTTAL EFFECTIVELY HAVING GATHERED ALL OF THAT INFORMATION AT ONE TIME. IF WE HAVE TO PRESENT THIS WITNESS BEFORE THE JURY NOW, WE WILL BE REQUIRED TO PRESENT SOME REBUTTAL NOW AND THEN SOME LATER IN A DISJOINTED FASHION. THE PEOPLE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO TRY THEIR OWN CASE, AS DOES THE DEFENSE, AND THE ORDER OF WITNESSES IS A VERY IMPORTANT MATTER THAT WE KNOW THE COURT IS AWARE OF. THE ABILITY TO STRUCTURE A TRIAL STRATEGY THAT MOST EFFECTIVELY CONVEYS THE NATURE OF THE CASE AND THE INFORMATION THAT IS REQUIRED TO BE CONVEYED TO THE JURY IS A VERY, VERY IMPORTANT MATTER. IT IS NOT ONE TO BE TAKEN LIGHTLY. THIS IS WHY THE DEFENSE IS SO DESIROUS OF HAVING THIS WITNESS TAKEN OUT OF ORDER. IF SHE DOESN'T COME ACROSS EFFECTIVELY, THE JURY IS ADEQUATELY PROTECTED SO THAT HER TESTIMONY, EVEN THOUGH MAY NOT BE BELIEVED, SIMPLY RENDS THE PEOPLE'S CASE SUFFICIENTLY TO CAUSE CONFUSION AND DISTORTION OF THE PEOPLE'S CASE. ALL WE WANT IS FOR THE ABILITY TO EFFECTIVELY AND COHESIVELY PRESENT OUR CASE TO THE JURY. THE DEFENSE HAS ALREADY PERSUADED THE COURT TO AFFECT THE ORDER OF WITNESSES THAT THE PEOPLE HAD PROPOSED ON THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ISSUES. THE DEFENSE NOW SEEKS TO DO IT AGAIN, BUT WITHOUT GOOD CAUSE, YOUR HONOR. THE PEOPLE SUBMIT THAT THERE ARE SUBSTANTIAL ISSUES OF FAIRNESS IN THIS TRIAL, THE PEOPLE'S EFFECTIVE ABILITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE AND TO PRESENT THE CASE TO THIS JURY THAT ARE BEING -- THAT WE ARE BEING DEPRIVE OF BY HAVING THIS WITNESS TAKEN OUT OF ORDER. WE DO FEEL THAT EVERYONE'S RIGHTS WILL BE ADEQUATELY PROTECTED BY A CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION, BUT PLEASE BEAR IN OUR MIND THAT OUR INVESTIGATION OF THIS WITNESS IS ACTIVELY ONGOING, HAS BEEN, BUT CERTAINLY WENT INTO HIGH GEAR OVER THIS WEEKEND AND A NUMBER OF NEW MATTERS WERE BROUGHT TO LIGHT.
SO WE WOULD ASK THAT THE COURT TAKE THE WITNESS' TESTIMONY TODAY, BUT ALLOW US TO DO THAT AS A CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION. AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME, IF THE DEFENSE DESIRES TO PLAY THE VIDEOTAPE, THEY WILL HAVE THE OPTION OF DOING SO, PROVIDING THEY CAN SHOW DUE DILIGENCE, BUT I SUSPECT THAT THE WITNESS WILL BE AVAILABLE TO BE TESTIFYING IN PERSON AT THAT TIME. EITHER WAY IT IS A NO LOSE SITUATION REALLY FOR THE DEFENSE, BUT AT LEAST IT AFFORDS THE PEOPLE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT A COHESIVE CASE AND TO EFFECTIVELY INVESTIGATE AND CROSS-EXAMINE THIS WITNESS.
KEY QUOTEWHAT IS YOUR TIME ESTIMATE, MISS CLARK, FOR THE PRESENTATION OF THE REMAINDER OF YOUR CASE? REALISTICALLY NOW, WOULD YOU SAY PERHAPS THE END OF MARCH?
BASED ON WHAT WE HAVE SEEN THE WAY TESTIMONY IS GOING, I HAVE A BETTER FEEL FOR THE PACE, BUT I NEED TO TALK TO THE PEOPLE WHO WILL BE PRESENTING THE BLOOD EVIDENCE AND THE DNA EVIDENCE TO REALLY GIVE A GOOD IDEA, SO I'M GOING TO GIVE IT MY BEST SHOT, YOUR HONOR. I THINK THAT IS PROBABLY FAIR, THE END OF MARCH. I THINK SO. I MEAN, IF YOU REALLY WANT ME TO GET MORE SPECIFIC AND MORE ACCURATE --
JUST SORT OF A BALLPARK GUESS IN ASKING YOU HOW MUCH DISRUPTION THIS IS, JUST TO PUT THIS IN CONTEXT.
WE HAVEN'T EVEN GOTTEN TO -- LET ME HELP WITH THAT. WE HAVEN'T EVEN GOTTEN TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES THAT MAKE ROSA LOPEZ RELEVANT. WE HAVEN'T EVEN GOTTEN THAT FAR. WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN THE TESTIMONY OF KATO, WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN THE TESTIMONY OF ALLAN PARK. THESE ARE THE KEY WITNESSES THAT MAKE ROSA LOPEZ' TESTIMONY INTELLIGIBLE. SO WE ARE GOING TO BE -- WIND UP REBUTTING TESTIMONY THAT HAS NOT EVEN BEEN -- ESSENTIALLY THEY ARE PUTTING ON THEIR REBUTTAL BEFORE WE PUT ON ANYTHING DIRECTLY TO MAKE THAT INTELLIGIBLE TO THE JURY.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. WELL, YOU CERTAINLY MAKE MY LIFE INTERESTING EVERYDAY. I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT BOTH SIDES ANTICIPATED GOING FORWARD WITH HER TESTIMONY BEFORE THE JURY TODAY. THE ORIGINAL DEFENSE REQUEST WAS FOR A 1335 CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION, WHICH I GRANTED, AND AFTER OUR DISCUSSIONS, I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT BOTH SIDES AGREED THAT IT WOULD BE BETTER UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES TO HAVE MISS LOPEZ TESTIFY BEFORE THE JURY SINCE THAT IS THE IDEAL SITUATION. HOWEVER, THE RIGHTS OF BOTH SIDES WILL BE PROTECTED UNDER THE 1335 PROCEDURE, SO I WILL MODIFY MY ORDER.
I STARTED TO RESPOND TO THE LAST THINGS COUNSEL SAID, BUT YOUR HONOR, BOTH SIDES DID IN FACT AGREE, AND THE FACT THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE NOW COME IN AND CHANGED THAT I THINK IT IS OUTRAGEOUS, YOUR HONOR. WE CAN NEVER HAVE ANY CLOSURE ON THIS THING.
YOUR HONOR, YOU RULED ON FRIDAY NIGHT AND THEY ARE BACK UP HERE TALKING, SO I SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO AT LEAST INDICATE THIS.
MISS CLARK IS CORRECT IN THAT AFTER I MADE THE DECISION I TOLD HER IF SHE SAID SHE WANTED TO BE HEARD AND THEN THE OTHER ISSUE CAME UP WITH CHILD CARE AND THAT SORT OF CLOSED THE WHOLE ISSUE FOR THE EVENING, AS FAR AS I WAS CONCERNED, AND FRANKLY, SINCE WE HAD BEEN IN SESSION SIX HOURS BEYOND OUR ANTICIPATED CLOSING TIME ON FRIDAY, I WAS READY TO CALL IT A NIGHT THEN.
MAY I REMIND THE COURT WHAT HAPPENED WAS MISS CLARK WAS NOW GONE, AT THIS POINT THE COURT CALLED THE JURY IN AT THE END OF THE DAY AND SAID WE WOULD BE CALLING A WITNESS IN OUT OF ORDER TO TESTIFY.
EVERYBODY IN AMERICA LOOKING IN WAS AWARE THAT THIS WAS A MADE DECISION, AND THEY COME UP WITH THIS MOTION THAT NOBODY KNEW ABOUT. MR. DARDEN HAD AGREED TO IT.
WELL, MR. COCHRAN, THANK YOU. I AGREE WITH YOU IN MANY RESPECTS, HOWEVER, YOU ASKED INITIALLY FOR A 1335, SO YOU WON THE DAY, YOU GOT YOUR 1335. MISS CLARK NOW BRINGS UP GOOD POINTS. I AM MORE THAN WILLING TO CHANGE MY MIND WHEN I FEEL IT IS APPROPRIATE.
WELL, CAN WE JUST TALK FOR A MOMENT ABOUT HER GOOD POINTS? THE GOOD POINTS ARE THESE, YOUR HONOR --
WELL, YOUR HONOR, I WOULD JUST SUBMIT TO THE COURT THAT THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO COME BACK IN AND RECONVINCE YOUR HONOR AFTER WE MADE A DECISION. YOU WERE GOING TO DO THIS ON FRIDAY NIGHT.
WELL, MISS CLARK RAISES THE POSSIBILITY THAT IF WE PUT ON ROSA LOPEZ NOW, THEN THEY ARE GOING TO BRING ON FIVE REBUTTAL WITNESSES, WHICH IS GOING TO TOTALLY DERAIL THINGS.
YOUR HONOR, THEY ARE ALWAYS CLAIMING THINGS LIKE THAT AND IT TURNS OUT TO BE MUCH TO DO ABOUT NOTHING.
LET THEM DO THAT. THEY WERE GOING TO BE SO READY TO DO THIS. JUDGE, THEY HAVE KNOWN ABOUT THIS WITNESS SINCE LAST JULY OR AUGUST.
EXCUSE ME, MR. COCHRAN. LET ME -- FORGIVE ME FOR INTERRUPTING YOU FOR JUST A SECOND.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THEY HAVE KNOWN ABOUT THIS WITNESS SINCE LAST SUMMER. THE FACT THAT WE GET INFORMATION THIS VERY MORNING, AT THIS VERY MOMENT PEOPLE ARE CALLING IN BOTH SIDES, IT IS TOTALLY DISINGENUOUS TO SAY WE GOT NEW INFORMATION. WE GET NEW INFORMATION MINUTE BY MINUTE IN THIS CASE AND IT WILL CONTINUE UNTIL THIS CASE GOES TO THE JURY, YOUR HONOR. IT IS ANOTHER STALL, AS FRIDAY NIGHT. YOUR HONOR HAS BEEN WISE AND FAIR IN THIS CASE, BUT CERTAINLY YOU CAN SEE THROUGH THIS, AND FOR HER TO SAY THAT I'M NOT SENSITIVE TO CHILD CARE, IT IS PREPOSTEROUS. WHAT I'M SENSITIVE TO IS THE FACT THAT THEY CAME IN HERE AND SAID WE ARE READY TO GO ON MONDAY, BUT I JUST HAVE TO BE HERE SO I CAN ADVISE CHRIS DARDEN. AND NOW WE COME WITH THIS MOTION, AND THAT IS THE THING, SO I WANTED TO AT LEAST HAVE THE COURT INDICATE HOW STRONGLY THE DEFENSE FEELS ABOUT THIS. I DON'T WANT TO SEE THIS COURT SNOOKERED BY THIS. THIS STUFF ABOUT A FAIR TRIAL WORKS BOTH WAYS, JUDGE. THEY HAVE THE POWER OF THE STATE, THE ENTIRE POLICE DEPARTMENT AS, D.A.'S INVESTIGATORS. THEY HAVE GOT EVERYTHING. THEY HAVE KNOWN ABOUT THIS WITNESS SINCE LAST SUMMER, AND FOR THEM TO COME IN AND SAY WE ARE NOT READY, JUDGE, WE HEAR THIS TIME AND TIME AND TIME AGAIN, AND I THINK IT IS UNFAIR BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO A FAIR TRIAL ALSO. AND THE COURT HAD MADE ITS DECISION AND WE LIVED WITH THAT DECISION. AND AS USUAL, THEY COME BACK AND BEGGED AND MOANED AND ASKED YOU TO DO SOMETHING ELSE, AND YOU RIGHTFULLY CONSIDER THOSE THINGS, JUDGE, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME IN THIS INSTANCE, GIVEN THEIR RECORD, AND WHAT YOU SAID, THIS AFFECTS YOUR CREDIBILITY. WE TELL THE JURORS WE WOULD HAVE DONE THIS FRIDAY NIGHT. YOU TELL THE JURORS TAKE THIS WITNESS OUT OF ORDER, COME BACK MONDAY MORNING. MISS LOPEZ, WHO STAYS OVER, SAYS I WILL DO THAT FOR YOU, JUDGE, AND YOU SAY TO HER, I WILL GET YOU ON AND YOU WILL TESTIFY BEFORE THE JURY AND IT WILL BE OVER WITH MONDAY MORNING AND WE WILL LEAVE.
WHAT SHE ANTICIPATED WAS COMING HERE AND HAVING HER TESTIMONY TAPE-RECORDED, WHICH WHAT IT IS WE ARE GOING TO DO.
WELL, NOT AS OF FRIDAY NIGHT. SHE ANTICIPATED HAVING IT OVER. WHAT THEY ARE ARGUING -- AND YOU KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING, JUDGE.
JUDGE, WHAT THEY ARE DOING AGAIN IS SEEKING TO REARGUE EVERYTHING. THEY ARE SAYING IN THEIR MOTION WHEN YOU RULE AND ROSA LOPEZ WOULD LEAVE TO GO TO EL SALVADOR, AND THEY DON'T LIKE YOUR RULING, THEY TRY TO COME AND CIRCUMVENT IT BY EVERY WAY THEY CAN. THEY SAY DO THIS CONDITIONAL EXAM BECAUSE WE KNOW SHE IS REALLY GOING TO BE AVAILABLE, WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE DECISION, SO THEY ASK YOU TO RECONSIDER THAT PARTICULAR POINT, YOUR HONOR, AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IS UNFAIR. IN THIS CASE STRINGS ARE BEING PULLED BY OTHERS SITTING HERE AT THIS TABLE AND THEY COME HERE AND MAKE A REPRESENTATION AND THEY GO BACK AND THEY HAVE TO WALK UPSTAIRS AND GET THEIR NEW ORDERS AND RUN DOWN HERE.
THEY WANT TO PULL UP IN THE MIDDLE OF THEIR BATTLE UP THERE WHEN ONE PERSONS SAYS SOMETHING AND THAT IS NOT FAIR, AND THAT IS WHY YOU ARE THE JUDGE, TO MAKE THESE RULINGS, AND MAKE THEM AND STICK BY THEM. SO I JUST THINK WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO GO FORWARD AS WE -- I THINK IT AFFECTS EVERYBODY'S CREDIBILITY WHEN WE TELL JURORS SOMETHING AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY COME UP WITH THIS LAST MINUTE STATEMENT, SO I AM JUST SAYING TO THE COURT, YOU RULED, IT WAS AN APPROPRIATE RULING GIVEN ALL THE EVIDENCE, WE SHOULD PROCEED WITH THE TESTIMONY. AND IF THEY WANT TO CALL FIVE REBUTTAL WITNESSES, THEY HAVE ALL THE TIME IN THE WORLD TO DO THAT. THEY CAN CALL ANYBODY THEY WANT. THEY WERE SO WORRIED ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT TO CALL THIS WITNESS, AND MAKE IT VERY CLEAR, WHEN I STOOD UP AND I SAID "SUBMITTED," HE SAID LET'S PUT HER BEFORE THE JURY. EVERYBODY IN AMERICA IS WORRIED ABOUT ROSA LOPEZ. WE MADE OUR DECISION WITH REGARD TO THAT. IT HAS BEEN ABUNDANTLY CLEAR. YOU DON'T SEE US CHANGING OUR STRATEGY EVERY FEW MINUTES, WHERE THEY HAVE, AND I SUGGEST TO THE COURT THAT THAT IS NOT FAIR TO THE DEFENSE. WE TALK ABOUT WHAT IS FUNDAMENTALLY FAIR AND I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO THINK ABOUT THAT BEFORE YOU REVERSE YOUR WELL THOUGHT OUT AND WELL-REASONED RULING.
THANK YOU, MR. COCHRAN. ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, WE HAD NOT STARTED THE ACTUAL EXAMINATION OF THE WITNESS. WHAT YOU HAD ASKED FOR WAS A 1335 CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION. I GRANTED THAT. SINCE THE JURY WAS AVAILABLE, I DECIDED TO DO THAT. SINCE THEN THE PROSECUTION HAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION A POINT THAT I HAD NOT CONTEMPLATED. SINCE WE HAD NOT EMBARKED UPON THAT COURSE OF ACTION IT IS NOT INAPPROPRIATE FOR ME TO CHANGE THAT, WHICH I'M GOING TO DO. WE WILL TAKE A 20-MINUTE RECESS TO ALLOW THE VIDEOTAPE EQUIPMENT TO BE SET UP AND THEN WE WILL PROCEED.
AND DEPUTY MAGNERA, WE WILL NEED TO TRANSPORT THE JURY UP TO THE HOLDING LOUNGE UPSTAIRS. MR. DARDEN.
YOUR HONOR, BEFORE WE BREAK, I HAVE ASKED DEFENSE COUNSEL AND I'VE ASKED ON THE RECORD AS WELL FOR ANY NOTES AND RECORDINGS RELATIVE TO ANY INTERVIEW THEY HAD WITH MISS LOPEZ. I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY NOTES OR ANY RECORDINGS OF ANY INTERVIEW THEY MAY HAVE HAD WITH HER AND I WOULD LIKE TO INQUIRE OF DEFENSE COUNSEL IF ANY SUCH NOTES OR TAPE-RECORDINGS EXIST.
AS FAR AS OTHER THAN TALKING TO HER, WE HAVE NO NOTES OR RECORDINGS. I CAN INQUIRE.
WE UNDERSTAND, YOUR HONOR, THAT OVER THE WEEKEND MR. SCHILLER, WHO IS APPARENTLY MR. SIMPSON'S PERSONAL BIOGRAPHER, SPENT SOME TIME WITH MISS LOPEZ, AND I WOULD LIKE TO INQUIRE OF MR. SCHILLER IF HE HAS NOTES. IF HE INTERVIEWED MISS LOPEZ, I WOULD LIKE THOSE NOTES, YOUR HONOR.
AS FAR AS I KNOW HE DIDN'T TALK TO HER. HE HAS NEVER TALKED TO HER. MR. WALSH, YOU HAD SOMETHING?
I'M OFFENDED AS A WOMAN, AS A SINGLE PARENT AND AS A PROSECUTOR AND AN OFFICER OF THE COURT TO HEAR AN ARGUMENT POSED BY COUNSEL LIKE THAT OF MR. COCHRAN TODAY. SOME OF US HAVE CHILD CARE ISSUES AND THEY ARE SERIOUS AND THEY ARE PARAMOUNT.
MR. DARDEN WAS SAYING HOW HE LOOKED FORWARD TO HAVING MISS LOPEZ BEFORE THE JURY. IN FACT, HE MADE THE STATEMENT 'I WONDER WHO IS GOING TO CLEAN UP THE BLOOD AFTER THE FINISH OF THE CROSS-EXAMINATION,' AND I WELCOME IT.
I DON'T WANT TO SEE THIS COURT SNOOKERED BY THIS. THIS STUFF ABOUT A FAIR TRIAL WORKS BOTH WAYS, JUDGE. THEY HAVE THE POWER OF THE STATE, THE ENTIRE POLICE DEPARTMENT AS D.A.'S INVESTIGATORS. THEY HAVE GOT EVERYTHING.
YOU CERTAINLY MAKE MY LIFE INTERESTING EVERYDAY. I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT BOTH SIDES ANTICIPATED GOING FORWARD WITH HER TESTIMONY BEFORE THE JURY TODAY.
SINCE THE JURY WAS AVAILABLE, I DECIDED TO DO THAT. SINCE THEN THE PROSECUTION HAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION A POINT THAT I HAD NOT CONTEMPLATED. SINCE WE HAD NOT EMBARKED UPON THAT COURSE OF ACTION IT IS NOT INAPPROPRIATE FOR ME TO CHANGE THAT, WHICH I'M GOING TO DO.