BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. MR. SIMPSON IS AGAIN PRESENT WITH COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. BAILEY, MR. DOUGLAS. THE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED BY MS. CLARK, MR. DARDEN AND MISS LEWIS.
I HAVE A MATTER, YOUR HONOR, WHICH I WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION AND WAS THE SUBJECT OF SOME DISCUSSIONS THAT WE HAD IN CHAMBERS. YOUR HONOR, THERE --
AS THE COURT IS AWARE, YOUR HONOR, THIS MORNING, A DOCUMENT WHICH IS A TWO-PAGE STATEMENT WRITTEN BY AN INVESTIGATOR AND ADDRESSED TO MR. SHAPIRO CONCERNING ROSA LOPEZ WAS TURNED OVER TO THE PROSECUTION AFTER HAVING AN IN CAMERA REVIEW WITH THE COURT. THAT WAS A DOCUMENT THAT IS DATED JULY 29, 1994. NOW, YOUR HONOR, I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THAT DOCUMENT HAD BEEN TURNED OVER TO THE PROSECUTION CONSISTENT WITH OTHER DOCUMENTS THAT WE HAD TURNED OVER ON SEPTEMBER THE 1ST, 1994. INDEED, YOUR HONOR, WHEN WE DISCUSSED WITH MISS LOPEZ LAST WEEK THE SUBSTANCE OF HER TESTIMONY, WE WERE DISCUSSING IT WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE JULY 29TH DOCUMENT. THAT DOCUMENT, YOUR HONOR, INCLUDED REFERENCE TO AN UNDOCUMENTED HOUSEKEEPER WHO IS NAMED SYLVIA WHO IS ACQUAINTED WITH MISS LOPEZ AND WHO WAS PRESENT ON SOME TIMES THAT ARE NOT CRITICAL NOR GERMANE TO THE SUBSTANCE OF MISS LOPEZ' TESTIMONY. MISS LOPEZ HAD EXPRESSED SEVER CONCERN THAT THIS SYLVIA, AND SHE IS NOT AWARE OF SYLVIA'S LAST NAME, BUT THAT SYLVIA, SINCE SHE WAS UNDOCUMENTED, DID NOT WANT TO HAVE ANY INVOLVEMENT AT ALL IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE AND DID NOT WANT HER NAME MENTIONED AT ALL IN ANY REPORTS DEALING WITH MISS LOPEZ' STATEMENT. IT WAS WITH THAT CONTEXT THAT MR. PAVELIC GENERATED A SECOND DOCUMENT WHICH WAS AN INTERVIEW OF MISS LOPEZ WHICH OCCURRED AND THAT DOCUMENT WAS DATED AUGUST THE 18TH, 1994. IT IS THE AUGUST THE 18TH, 1994, DOCUMENT THAT WAS TURNED OVER TO THE PROSECUTION. I HAVE, YOUR HONOR, IN THE INTERIM SINCE THIS MORNING, CHECKED WITH MY OFFICE TO SEE WHETHER MY OFFICE HAD ANY RECORD OR KNOWLEDGE OF THE AUGUST 18TH STATEMENT BECAUSE IT WAS NOT AMONG THE DOCUMENTS THAT I USED TO HELP DISCUSS MISS LOPEZ' TESTIMONY WITH HER THIS PAST WEEK. AND I WAS TOLD THAT WE DID NOT HAVE THE AUGUST 18TH DOCUMENT IN OUR PARTICULAR FILE. I LEARNED ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY THAT SUCH A DOCUMENT EXISTED WHEN I SPOKE TO MR. PAVELIC ON SUNDAY COMPLAINING THAT MR. PAVELIC HAD INCLUDED IN HIS REPORT TO THE PROSECUTION A NAME THAT MISS LOPEZ HAD WANTED TO NOT BE INCLUDED. IT WAS THEN THAT I LEARNED, AND I VERIFIED IT WHEN I CHECKED MY OWN DOCUMENTS HERE IN COURT, THAT IN FACT THERE HAD BEEN A SECOND REPORT, THE AUGUST 18TH REPORT, THAT WAS IN FACT A TWO-PAGE DOCUMENT OF MISS LOPEZ, JUST AS THE JULY 29TH STATEMENT WAS A TWO-PAGE DOCUMENT OF MISS LOPEZ. THAT IS WHERE MY CONFUSION WAS BORNE, SUCH THAT WHEN I SAW THAT THERE WAS A TWO-PAGE STATEMENT OF MISS LOPEZ, I THOUGHT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE EARLIER STATEMENT AND I WAS NOT AWARE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE AUGUST STATEMENT. I ANTICIPATE THAT MISS CLARK WILL STAND BEFORE YOU AND EXPRESS SOME SHOCK, SOME OUTRAGE AND SOME SENSE OF PREJUDICE. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THESE WORDS IN RESPONSE, HOWEVER. THE AUGUST 18TH STATEMENT THAT WAS TURNED OVER TO THE PROSECUTION IS MORE DETAILED IN TERMS OF THE GERMANE FACTS OF MISS LOPEZ' TESTIMONY. THERE IS MORE INCLUSION, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE AUGUST 18TH STATEMENT ABOUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE JUNE 13TH INTERVIEW BETWEEN MR. FUHRMAN IN THE MORNING AND MISS LOPEZ. MORE INFORMATION WAS CONTAINED IN THE AUGUST 18TH STATEMENT THAN WAS EVEN IN THE JULY 29TH STATEMENT. THE AUGUST 18TH STATEMENT WAS CREATED SIMPLY TO ASSUAGE MISS LOPEZ' CONCERNS THAT HER UNDOCUMENTED FRIEND, WHO DID NOT WANT ANY INVOLVEMENT IN THIS CASE, MIGHT COME FORWARD, HER NAME MIGHT BE RELEASED AND SHE THEN MIGHT BE INTERVIEWED OR SOME WAY INVOLVED IN THIS CASE. HOWEVER, MISS LOPEZ TOLD ME AND TOLD MR. COCHRAN, WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING THAT STATEMENT, THAT SHE HAD HAD SUBSEQUENT CONVERSATIONS WITH THIS SYLVIA AND THAT SYLVIA HAD IN FACT BEEN INTERVIEWED BY LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICERS MONTHS AGO, THAT SYLVIA IN THAT INTERVIEW HAD DENIED ANY ACQUAINTANCESHIP WITH MISS LOPEZ, KNEW HER ONLY BRIEFLY AND DID NOT HAVE ANY INFORMATION TO LEND TO ANYTHING CONCERNING THIS CASE, WHICH WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE STATEMENT THAT SYLVIA TOLD MISS LOPEZ THAT SYLVIA DID NOT WANT TO HAVE ANY INVOLVEMENT IN THIS CASE AND WOULD DENY ANY SUBSEQUENT INVOLVEMENT IN THE CASE WERE SHE TO BE ASKED ABOUT IT. THEREFORE, YOUR HONOR, IF THERE IS SOME CLAIM THAT THERE IS SOME SURPRISE THAT THERE IS SOME PREJUDICE, I THINK THAT YOU SHOULD INQUIRE WHETHER OR NOT THIS SYLVIA PERSON HAS EVER BEEN KNOWN TO THE PROSECUTION, WHETHER OR NOT THIS SYLVIA PERSON HAD EVER BEEN INTERVIEWED BY THE PROSECUTION, AND SHE WAS IN FACT INTERVIEWED, AS I SAID, MONTHS AGO. HER RELEVANT INVOLVEMENT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE IS NOT GERMANE TO THE SUBSTANCE OF MISS LOPEZ' STATEMENT THAT SOMETIME AFTER TEN O'CLOCK SHE WENT OUTSIDE WALKING HER DOG AND SAW MR. SIMPSON'S BRONCO IN A LOCATION IDENTICAL TO WHERE SHE HAD SEEN THAT BRONCO EARLIER IN THE EVENING. THE ONLY CONTEXT WITH WHICH THIS SYLVIA INFORMATION HAS ANY SORT OF RELEVANCE IS TO EXPLAIN WHY AT APPROXIMATELY EIGHT O'CLOCK MISS LOPEZ WAS OUTSIDE WAITING FOR SYLVIA TO COME OVER AND THEREBY SAW MR. SIMPSON'S BRONCO PARKED IN THE SAME POSITION AS IT WAS PARKED LATER AFTER TEN O'CLOCK AND WHY SOME TIME AFTER 9:00 OR 9:15 MISS LOPEZ WAS OUTSIDE TO SEE MR. SIMPSON LEAVE AND TO NOTICE THAT HE HAD LEFT IN HIS ROLLS ROYCE WITH ANOTHER MAN WHO WE NOW KNOW WAS KATO KAELIN WHEN THEY WENT TO GO GET A HAMBURGER. THE STATEMENT IN AUGUST INCLUDES MENTION OF MISS LOPEZ BEING OUTSIDE AT TEN O'CLOCK AND SEEING THE BRONCO, INCLUDES MENTION OF MISS LOPEZ SEEING MR. SIMPSON LEAVE IN HIS BENTLEY AFTER NINE O'CLOCK WITH AN UNKNOWN PERSON, AND THEN LEARNING THAT THERE WAS SOME HARD-SOLED SHOES WALKING DOWN MR. SIMPSON'S PROPERTY ABOUT TWENTY TO THIRTY MINUTES AFTER HE HAD LEFT TO MC DONALD'S.
EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR. IF MISS LOPEZ IS HERE, CAN WE HAVE HER STEP OUTSIDE NOW THAT COUNSEL IS GIVING --
MRS. HAMBURGER, WHY DON'T YOU AND YOUR CLIENT STEP OUTSIDE WHILE WE ARE DISCUSSING YOUR CLIENT'S POTENTIAL TESTIMONY, PLEASE. THANK YOU. PLEASE WAIT IN THE HALLWAY. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
BUT YOUR HONOR, ANY INVOLVEMENT OR MENTION OF SYLVIA OR ANY RELEVANCE TO ANYTHING THAT SHE MAY OFFER IS REALLY COLLATERAL AND TANGENTIAL TO THE SUBSTANCE OF MISS LOPEZ' TESTIMONY. THE STATEMENT THAT SHE GAVE IN AUGUST IS MORE COMPLETE AS TO WHAT MISS LOPEZ WILL TESTIFY TO THAN THE STATEMENT THAT WAS IN JULY. THE PREJUDICE, IF ANY, IS MINIMIZED BECAUSE THE PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY INTERVIEWED THIS SYLVIA. THE PEOPLE HAVE A STATEMENT, I WOULD ASSUME, ALTHOUGH I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANY REPORTS OF THE INTERVIEW OF SYLVIA, BUT SYLVIA TOLD MISS LOPEZ THAT IN FACT SHE WAS INTERVIEWED BY DETECTIVES OR POLICE OFFICERS SHORTLY AFTER THE INCIDENT OCCURRED MONTHS AGO. AND THEREFORE, YOUR HONOR, I THINK THAT, YES, THERE WAS A PROBLEM BECAUSE A TWO-PAGE REPORT THAT PREDATES THE REPORT THAT WAS TURNED OVER WAS NOT ACTUALLY TURNED OVER. HOWEVER, THE REPORT THAT WAS TURNED OVER IS MORE COMPLETE IN TERMS OF THE TESTIMONY THAT MISS LOPEZ WILL GIVE IN THIS TRIAL, AND THE REASON WHY THE SECOND REPORT WAS GIVEN -- WAS CREATED WAS SIMPLY TO PROTECT THE IDENTITY OF AN UNDOCUMENTED WORKER WHO DID NOT WANT TO HAVE HER NAME MENTIONED OR TO BE INVOLVED IN A CASE OF THIS SORT OF PROFILE.
I AM ALSO REMINDED, YOUR HONOR, THAT WE, UPON LEARNING -- AND THIS MORNING WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE TURNED OVER TO THE PROSECUTION, LEARNED FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT IN FACT TO OUR SURPRISE THE JULY 29TH STATEMENT WAS NOT THE ONE THAT HAD BEEN TURNED OVER BUT IT WAS THIS AUGUST 18TH STATEMENT, AND THAT WAS THEN THE REASON FOR THE ADDED DELAY WHILE WE BROUGHT THAT UP TO THE COURT AND THEN VOLUNTARILY TURNED THAT DOCUMENT OVER TO THE PROSECUTION.
ALL OVER AGAIN, THAT'S RIGHT. MR. DOUGLAS STANDS BEFORE THE COURT ONCE AGAIN FALLING ON HIS SWORD. I GUESS HE HAS ELECTED TO DO THAT. THAT IS HIS JOB IN THIS TRIAL. I AM NOT IMPRESSED. I THINK THAT THESE REPRESENTATIONS BY COUNSEL ARE UNAVAILING TO ALLEVIATE THE PROBLEM THAT THEY HAVE CREATED BY WILLFULLY FAILING TO DISCLOSE MATERIAL STATEMENTS. THIS JULY 29TH STATEMENT IS NOT ONLY -- COUNSEL WANTS TO REPRESENT TO US THAT THE AUGUST 18TH STATEMENT WAS MORE DETAILED AND HAD MORE RELEVANT INFORMATION THAN THE JULY 29TH STATEMENT. WHEN I WENT THROUGH AND COMPARED THE TWO STATEMENTS, WHAT I FOUND WAS THAT ACTUALLY IN MOST RELEVANT RESPECTS THE JULY 29TH STATEMENT WAS FAR MORE DETAILED. AND THERE WAS ONE OBVIOUS OMISSION IN THAT JULY 29TH STATEMENT, AND THAT IS THAT AT 10:15 TO 10:20 ON JULY 29TH, ROSA LOPEZ SAID SHE WENT OUT TO WALK THE DOG AND MADE NO MENTION OF SEEING THE BRONCO AT ALL. THAT STATEMENT IS TOTALLY ABSENT FROM THE JULY 29TH STATEMENT. ONLY ON THE AUGUST 18TH DOES IT STATE THAT SHE WENT OUT TO WALK THE DOG AT 10:15 TO 10:20 AND SAW THE BRONCO. OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE SOME MATERIAL DISCREPANCIES OF A VERY IMPORTANT NATURE, DISCREPANCIES THAT WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN INFORMED OF QUITE A LONG TIME AGO, DISCREPANCIES THAT WOULD HAVE ALLOWED US TO ADDRESS MISS LOPEZ IN A FAR DIFFERENT MANNER. WITH RESPECT TO GREATER DETAIL IN THE AUGUST 18TH STATEMENT, LET ME POINT OUT THAT IT WAS ONLY THE JULY 29TH STATEMENT WHEN SHE MADE MENTION OF WHAT KIND OF SHOES SHE WAS ADAMANT THE PROWLER WAS WEARING. AUGUST 18TH SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THAT. THE INFORMATION CONCERNING DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN IN THE JULY 29TH STATEMENT IS NO DIFFERENT. IN FACT, IT STATES THAT IT WAS CONCLUSIVELY DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN SHE SPOKE TO, WHEREAS IN THE AUGUST 18TH STATEMENT IT SAYS THAT HE WAS SUBSEQUENTLY IDENTIFIED AS MARK FUHRMAN. AND LEST THERE BE ANY MISTAKE HERE, YOUR HONOR, THE AUGUST 18TH STATEMENT MAKES NO MENTION OF A JULY 29TH INTERVIEW AND THE AUGUST 18TH STATEMENT STATES SPECIFICALLY THAT IT IS NOT AN EDITED VERSION OF A PRIOR STATEMENT, BUT IT WAS A STATEMENT GENERATED BY ROSA LOPEZ ON AUGUST 18TH. SO WE HAVE NOT ONLY WILLFUL FAILURE TO DISCLOSE THE JULY 29TH STATEMENT BY THEIR LATE PRESENTATION TODAY, BUT WE ALSO HAVE A DELIBERATE MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION IMPLICIT IN THE AUGUST 18TH STATEMENT IN WHICH IT PURPORTS TO HAVE INTERVIEWED HER ONCE AND ONLY ONCE, AND THAT WAS ON AUGUST 18TH, DELIBERATELY MISREPRESENTING AND MISLEADING THE PEOPLE TO BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS ONLY ONE INTERVIEW. NOW, WHAT MAKES THAT AN EVEN MORE GROSS LIE, IS THAT BOTH STATEMENTS WERE TAKEN BY THE SAME INVESTIGATOR, BILL PAVELIC, GIVEN TO THE SAME ATTORNEY, ROBERT SHAPIRO. OBVIOUSLY COUNSEL KNEW, OBVIOUSLY PAVELIC KNEW THAT THERE WAS A PRIOR STATEMENT, AND THERE IS NO MENTION OF THAT. THIS IS A MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION IN AND OF ITSELF, AND AS OFFICERS OF THE COURT, THEY SHOULD BE ASHAMED, THEY SHOULD BE EMBARRASSED, IN FACT, THEIR BAR TICKET SHOULD BE HANGING IN JEOPARDY AT THIS POINT FOR THIS KIND OF MISCONDUCT. AND THIS IS MISCONDUCT, THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT IT. THE QUESTION IS WHAT THE COURT WANTS TO DO ABOUT IT IS ANOTHER ISSUE, BUT I AM APPALLED, I AM APPALLED AS AN OFFICER OF THIS COURT THAT THESE KIND OF REPRESENTATIONS WOULD BE PROPOUNDED IN THE MANNER THAT THEY ARE WITH THESE SANCTIMONIOUS DENIALS AND CLAIMS OF BEING FAIR-MINDED AND OPEN-HANDED AND FORGETTING. FORGETTING? FORGETTING THAT THERE WAS A SUPPOSEDLY A WITNESS WHO WOULD CORROBORATE AT LEAST SOME ASPECT OF ROSA LOPEZ' STATEMENT. OBVIOUSLY ROSA LOPEZ PUT THIS PERSON INTO HER JULY 29TH STATEMENT FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF SHOWING HOW CREDIBLE SHE WAS, AND WHEN THE DEFENSE FOUND OUT THAT SYLVIA WAS NOT ONLY NOT GOING TO CORROBORATE MISS LOPEZ, BUT WAS GOING TO SAY SHE IS A LIAR AND NO SUCH THING EVER HAPPENED AND I WASN'T AT HER HOUSE AND I DID NOT MAKE AN OBSERVATION OF THE BRONCO, SHE CONVENIENTLY DISAPPEARED FROM THE STATEMENT. THAT IS THE TRUTH. ALL WE KNEW -- AND COUNSEL WANTS NOW TO POINT THE FINGER AT US TO TRY AND PUT US ON THE DEFENSIVE AFTER THEIR MISCONDUCT, WHICH IS REPREHENSIBLE IN ITSELF. I WOULD LIKE FOR THE COURT TO KNOW WHAT THAT SITUATION WAS. WHAT HAPPENED IS THAT WE RECEIVED A CLUE TO TALK TO A MAID NAMED SYLVIA WHO SAID THAT ROSA SOLD HER STORY FOR $5,000 AND THAT IS WHAT WE DID. WE INTERVIEWED A MAID NAMED SYLVIA WHO LIVED CLOSE TO THE ROCKINGHAM ADDRESS OF THE DEFENDANT AND SHE DENIED HAVING SPOKEN TO -- SHE DENIED HAVING ANY CLOSE RELATIONSHIP WITH ROSA LOPEZ. SHE DENIED HAVING ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE CASE AT ALL. SHE SAID SHE DID KNOW ROSA, BUT HAVING RIDDEN THE BUS WITH HER A COUPLE TIMES AND THAT IS ALL SHE KNEW. AND SO THERE WAS NOTHING TO GENERATE BECAUSE ALL WE DID WAS FOLLOW UP A CLUE THAT WOUND UP BEING "I HAVE NO INFORMATION." WE HAD NO IDEA, BECAUSE OF THE DEFENSE MISCONDUCT, THAT SYLVIA WAS SOMEBODY WHO HAD SOME MATERIAL INFORMATION, ROSA LOPEZ CLAIMED, AND SO ALL WE WERE DOING WAS FOLLOWING UP A TIP THAT DIDN'T PAN OUT. HAD WE KNOWN THAT ROSA LOPEZ MADE THIS STATEMENT ON JULY 29TH CLAIMING TO HAVE VISITED -- AND NOW THE DEFENSE WANTS TO DOWNPLAY HER IMPORTANCE AND THEY WANT TO DOWNPLAY HER IMPORTANCE IN ORDER TO -- THIS IS GOING TO BE HOW THEY COVER UP, HOW THEY EXPLAIN AWAY, YET ANOTHER WAY WE ARE GOING TO EXPOSE ROSA LOPEZ AS A LIAR. NOW, WE'VE GOT THEIR COVER STORY, THE COURT HAS HEARD IT, THAT THIS WOMAN DOESN'T WANT TO GET INVOLVED AND SHE IS AN ILLEGAL ALIEN. ILLEGAL ALIENS TELL THE TRUTH, YOUR HONOR, AND I'M SURE THAT SYLVIA WILL TELL THE TRUTH IF ASKED WHETHER OR NOT SHE WAS WITH ROSA LOPEZ THAT NIGHT, BUT OBVIOUSLY SHE BECOMES A SOURCE OF IMPEACHMENT MATERIAL.
ALL RIGHT. TWO QUESTIONS THEN, MISS CLARK. ARE WE CONFIDENT IN OUR DETERMINATION THAT THE SYLVIA MENTIONED IN THE REPORT FROM JULY IS THE SAME SYLVIA THAT THE TIP WAS FOLLOWED UP ON?
WE HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING THAT. BECAUSE THE DEFENSE HID THIS REPORT FROM US, WE HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING AT THIS TIME. WE ARE GOING TO ATTEMPT TO FIND OUT.
OKAY. SECOND QUESTION. ALTHOUGH FROM MR. DOUGLAS' COMMENT I TAKE THAT TO MEAN THAT APPARENTLY IT IS THE SAME PERSON --
I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT TO THE COURT THAT WE HAVE AN INCONSISTENCY EVEN AMONG DEFENSE COUNSEL.
LET ME POSE MY QUESTIONS TO YOU. I JUST WANTED TO SEE WHAT YOUR LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE WAS IN THAT SYLVIA IS THE SAME SYLVIA. YOU SEEM TO HAVE A FAIR DEGREE OF CONFIDENCE THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME PERSON.
MY SECOND QUESTION. LET'S ASSUME THAT I AGREE WITH YOU THAT THIS IS A DELAY IN DISCOVERY THAT IS SUBSTANTIAL AND SHOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED, ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF WHAT TRANSPIRED EARLIER, RECALLING YOUR FIRST OBSERVATION THAT THIS IS DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN. WHAT SANCTION, IF ANY, DO YOU SEEK AT THIS POINT SINCE THAT IS REALLY THE BOTTOM LINE OF OUR DISCUSSION, I ASSUME?
YES. LET ME ADDRESS THE POINTS SERIATIM. NO. 1, ONLY HEARING MR. DOUGLAS' STATEMENTS NOW DID I GAIN THAT CONFIDENCE. PRIOR TO COMING DOWN TO COURT AND HEARING HIM MAKE THOSE STATEMENTS, I DIDN'T. I WASN'T SURE. I ASKED --
I WOULD ASSUME THAT DURING THE COURSE OF CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MISS LOPEZ, ASSUMING WE GO FORWARD TODAY, WE CAN FLUSH OUT WHO SHE IS.
RIGHT. OF COURSE, THANKS TO DEFENSE COUNSEL'S MISCONDUCT, WE ARE GOING TO BE DOING THAT IN THE BLIND, AND AS WE ALL KNOW, LAWYERS SHOULD NOT BE ASKING QUESTIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION FOR WHICH THEY DO NOT HAVE ANSWERS, AND WHAT COUNSEL HAS DELIBERATELY DONE IS FORCED US TO DO THAT VERY THING. SO NO. 1 THING, I WANT TO POINT OUT TO THE COURT ON HOW MANY OCCASIONS IN THE PAST WE HAVE ASKED FOR THE NOTES, TAPES, PRIOR OTHER STATEMENTS OF THIS WITNESS, SPECIFICALLY THIS WITNESS. WE HAVE REQUESTED THEM; THEY WERE DENIED TO US. THIS MORNING MR. COCHRAN CAME IN AND TOLD THE COURT THAT HE FIRST HEARD OF THIS OTHER STATEMENT TODAY AND NOW MR. DOUGLAS TELLS US HE KNEW ABOUT IT ALL ALONG. WE HAVE INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN COUNSEL AND WE HAVE -- NOW WE HAVE TO RAISE THE TABLOIDS IN ORDER TO FIND OUT WHERE THIS SYLVIA IS, WHO SHE IS, AND WHAT SHE WILL HAVE TO SAY. REALLY WE ARE CAUGHT BEHIND THE EIGHT BALL IN A VERY SERIOUS WAY AND MR. DOUGLAS' ELABORATE DANCE DOESN'T CLOUD THE FACT THAT WE ARE PUT BEHIND THE EIGHT BALL WITH THIS. I THINK THAT -- HERE IS WHAT I THINK WOULD BE THE FAIREST THING, IS TO PRECLUDE COUNSEL FROM USING THIS AS A PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT, WHICH IS IN ANY CASE -- LEGALLY IT DOESN'T AMOUNT TO A PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT THAT WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE FOR CORROBORATION BECAUSE IT DOES NOT ARISE AT A TIME PRIOR TO THE GENESIS OF THE BIAS, BUT IN ANY CASE, IF THEY WERE TO ATTEMPT TO USE IT IN ANY FORM IT SHOULD NOT BE ADMISSIBLE AS A PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT. FURTHERMORE -- FURTHERMORE, THEY SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM EVER CALLING SYLVIA AND WE SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO CROSS-EXAMINE ON THIS JULY 29TH STATEMENT AT OUR DISCRETION. WE WOULD FURTHER ASK THE COURT TO ADMONISH THE JURY THAT WE HAVE A WILLFUL AND INTENTIONAL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE COURT ORDER IN THE DELAYING TACTIC OF THE DEFENSE IN TURNING OVER THIS REPORT, WHICH DELAYING TACTIC WAS ENGAGED IN FOR THE PURPOSE OF GAINING A TACTICAL ADVANTAGE IN THE CASE AND TAKING THE PEOPLE BY SURPRISE AND IN AN EFFORT TO CURTAIL THEIR EFFECTIVE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF ROSA LOPEZ.
AND I'M REMINDED THAT PERHAPS THIS WOULD BE THE TIME, YOUR HONOR, TO LIFT THE DISCOVERY SANCTIONS IMPOSED UPON US SOME TWO MONTHS AGO.
REVISIT, YES, BUT AT LEAST THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO PRESENT WITNESSES AND TRY THE CASE CLOSER TO THE MANNER WHICH WE HAD ANTICIPATED DOING. IT HAS NOW BEEN TWO MONTHS. COUNSEL WAS AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO INVESTIGATE THOSE WITNESSES. NOW THEY HAVE HAD ALL OF THE TIME THAT THE COURT DEEMED APPROPRIATE. I THINK THE COURT SAID SIX WEEKS, IT HAS BEEN LONGER THAN THAT, AND WE SHOULD BE PERMITTED, I THINK AT THIS TIME, TO BE ABLE TO PUT THOSE WITNESSES ON.
ALL RIGHT. SO AS I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY THEN, YOUR POSITION IS, IS THAT YOU WANT ME TO RESTRICT OR PREVENT THE DEFENSE FROM USING THE JULY 29TH STATEMENT AS A PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT SHOULD THAT COME UP. YOU WANT ME TO PRECLUDE THE USE OF SYLVIA AS A DEFENSE WITNESS.
YOU WANT ME TO GIVE AN INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY REGARDING ANOTHER VIOLATION OF THE DISCOVERY RULES, AND YOU WANT ME TO LIFT THE PREVIOUS SANCTION REGARDING THE WITNESSES THAT WERE BELATEDLY DISCLOSED BY THE PROSECUTION, CORRECT?
RIGHT. I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERLINE ONE THING TO THE COURT. WHEN WE SAY "BELATED," IN THE PEOPLE'S CASE IT WAS A TWO TO THREE-WEEK DELAY. WE ARE NOT TALKING -- THE DEFENSE DELAY IS MORE LIKE AN ICE AGE COMPARED TO THAT, YOU KNOW. I MEAN, WE ARE TALKING EIGHT MONTHS, YOUR HONOR, EIGHT MONTHS THAT THEY SAT ON A STATEMENT THAT -- THAT AT LEAST ONE OF THEM KNEW THEY HAD, A STATEMENT THAT WAS PREPARED BY THE VERY SAME INVESTIGATOR WHO PREPARED THE AUGUST 18TH STATEMENT. I MEAN, THIS IS SO OBVIOUSLY WILLFUL, THIS IS SO OBVIOUSLY INTENTIONAL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE COURT'S ORDER, THAT I AM SHOCKED. I AM SHOCKED. I HAVE NEVER SEEN A DEFENSE ATTORNEY BEHAVE THIS WAY. I HAVE NEVER SEEN THIS HAPPEN. YOU KNOW, I'VE HEARD OF DELAYS, I'VE HEARD OF REFUSAL TO TAKE STATEMENTS, I HAVE HEARD OF A LOT OF THINGS, BUT I HAVE NEVER SEEN THIS AND I HAVE NEVER SEEN IT IN SUCH A BLATANT FORM IN AN EFFORT TO SANDBAG THE PROSECUTION, TO BLIND SIDE US. YOU KNOW, THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY VERY DESPERATE, YOU KNOW, TO ENGAGE IN SUCH OBVIOUS TACTICS, BUT THEY SHOULD BE UNAVAILING.
YOU KNOW, AFTER THE REPEATED REQUEST BY THE PROSECUTION FOR NOTES, TAPES AND OTHER REPORTS ON WITNESSES, AND PARTICULARLY THIS ONE, AND THE DENIALS OF DEFENSE COUNSEL THAT ANY SUCH THING EXISTED, ONLY TO HAVE THE ELEVENTH HOUR REPORT COME OUT, I WOULD ASK THAT --
WELL, COUNSEL, LET ME TELL YOU WHAT CONCERNS ME THE MOST ABOUT THAT. HAVING SAID ALL THAT, AND FORGIVE ME FOR INTERRUPTING YOU, BUT A MORE PERTINENT POINT IS THAT AFTER WE HAD HAD THAT LAST EPISODE, I THEN DIRECTED DEFENSE COUNSEL TO GO THROUGH AND MAKE AN INVENTORY OF ALL THEIR WITNESSES AND STATEMENTS.
BECAUSE I WANTED TO AVOID SPECIFICALLY WHAT WE HAVE HERE. THAT IS WHAT CONCERNS ME MORE THAN WHAT YOU HAVE JUST MENTIONED.
RIGHT, RIGHT, AND BECAUSE I WAS NOT CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF COMPILING THE INVENTORY, THE PAIN OF THAT EFFORT CAUSED ME TO FORGET THAT THE COURT HAD MADE THAT ORDER AND THAT MAKES IT EVEN WORSE, THAT'S RIGHT, BECAUSE WHO KNOWS WHAT ELSE THEY HAVE. WHO KNOWS WHAT ELSE THEY ARE SITTING ON. SO I WOULD ASK THE COURT FOR THIS: I WOULD LIKE THEIR INVESTIGATORS TO COME INTO COURT AND DIVULGE TO US ALL OF THE REPORTS AND NOTES AND STATEMENTS THAT THEY HAVE TAKEN ON THE RELEVANT DEFENSE WITNESSES THAT WE WILL DESIGNATE, SO THAT WE CAN GET A COMPLETE AND ACCURATE IDEA OF WHAT ELSE THEY HAVE GOT THAT THEY HAVE NOT TURNED OVER, BECAUSE I THINK WE STILL HAVE NOT -- WE HAVE NOT SEEN THE END OF THIS.
WE NEED ROSA'S NOTES ANYWAY. WE KNOW THAT SHE HAS BEEN INTERVIEWED EXTENSIVELY BY COUNSEL. I CANNOT BELIEVE FOR ONE MINUTE THAT THERE WAS NO NOTE TAKEN, ANY STATEMENT TAKEN, ESPECIALLY OVER THIS LAST WEEK, SO THERE ARE CONSIDERABLE NOTES AND STATEMENTS THAT EXIST ON THIS WITNESS THAT WE HAVE NOT BEEN SHOWN. AND IF DEFENSE COUNSEL WANT TO GET UP IT AND DENY IT AGAIN, WE ARE GOING TO REVISIT IT AGAIN, BUT I WOULD HOPE THAT THE COURT'S SANCTIONS WOULD BE MORE MUCH DRACONIAN, BUT I WOULD ASK, BEFORE WE PROCEED, WE SHOULD HEAR FROM THESE INVESTIGATORS AND I THINK THE COURT SHOULD SEE WHAT ELSE THEY'VE GOT, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE WE WILL FIND OUT, BUT WE CAN TRY.
A COUPLE THINGS COME TO MIND, YOUR HONOR. THERE ARE FEW OCCASIONS IN COURT WHERE I FELT AS BAD BACK IN JANUARY WHEN I HAD TO SUFFER THE SLINGS AND ARROWS FOR THINGS THAT OCCURRED THEREFORE; YOUR HONOR, I WOULD NOT WILLINGLY OR INTENTIONALLY THRUST THE DEFENSE INTO A POSITION WHERE I FIND MYSELF AGAIN HAVING TO EXPLAIN SOMETHING SUCH AS THIS. WHEN THE COURT ADMONISHED DEFENSE COUNSEL TO SERIOUSLY AND CAUTIOUSLY REVIEW THE DISCOVERY AND TO RECREATE A BOOK AND TO SET FORTH ALL OF THE DOCUMENTATION, I DID THAT AND I COMPLIED WITH THE COURT'S CORRECTION IN THAT REGARD.
THERE WAS, YOUR HONOR, IN MY RECORDS, A TWO-PAGE INTERVIEW FROM WILLIAM PAVELIC TO ROBERT SHAPIRO CONCERNING ROSA LOPEZ. I THEN CHECKED OFF THAT CONSISTENT WITH A TWO-PAGE INTERVIEW FROM WILLIAM PAVELIC TO ROBERT SHAPIRO THAT HAD BEEN TURNED OVER TO THE PROSECUTION. IT WAS ONLY THIS MORNING, YOUR HONOR, THAT I SAW FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT THE TWO-PAGE INTERVIEW THAT WE HAD GIVEN TO THE PROSECUTION WAS NOT THE SAME TWO-PAGE INTERVIEW THAT I HAD BEEN USING IN MY NOTES. YOUR HONOR, I STAND BEFORE THIS COURT AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT TO TELL YOU THAT I NEVER HAD IN MY POSSESSION THE AUGUST 18TH STATEMENT UNTIL I WENT BACK AT DIRECTION OF MR. COCHRAN AND CHECKED TO SEE WHAT DOCUMENT IT WAS THAT HAD BEEN GIVEN.
MR. DOUGLAS, LET ME -- LET ME DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO WHAT -- ONE OTHER THING THAT I AM MORE INTERESTED IN. LET'S ASSUME THAT WE BOTH AGREE, HOWEVER, THAT THIS IS A LATE DISCLOSURE, BECAUSE THERE IS SOME DIFFERENCE -- SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE TWO STATEMENTS, SO YOU AND I BOTH HAVE TO AGREE THAT THE DISCLOSURE IS LATE IN COMING, CORRECT?
PUTTING ASIDE THE EXPLANATION AS TO HOW THAT HAPPENED, THE PROSECUTION HAS ASKED FOR FOUR SANCTIONS AS A RESULT OF THIS. WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE TO THEIR REQUEST FOR THESE FOUR SANCTIONS?
I DO NOT THINK, YOUR HONOR, THAT IT JUSTIFIES BRINGING IN INVESTIGATORS AND HAVING INVESTIGATORS SHARE INTIMATE ATTORNEY/CLIENT WORK PRODUCT WITH THE PROSECUTION. THERE ARE NO NOTES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN TURNED OVER. THERE ARE NO TAPE-RECORDED STATEMENTS OF MISS LOPEZ. I'M NOT SURE, YOUR HONOR, HOW THE PROSECUTION SPEAKS TO A WITNESS THAT THEY ARE GOING TO CALL WHEN THERE ARE ATTORNEYS PRESENT. WE SIT IN A CONFERENCE ROOM AND BASICALLY DISCUSS QUESTIONS THAT WILL BE ASKED, ANSWERS THAT ARE GOING TO BE GIVEN, BUT WE ARE NOT TAKING DOWN NOTES SUCH THAT IT WOULD BE THE KIND OF THING THAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT, SO I'M POT SURE WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT. THERE IS NO TAPE-RECORDING OF MISS LOPEZ BY ANY OF OUR INVESTIGATORS. WE TURNED OVER, YOUR HONOR, THE JULY 29TH, 1994, STATEMENT.
ALL RIGHT. MR. DOUGLAS, THAT IS REALLY A -- ANOTHER QUESTION THAT YOU ARE ADDRESSING. I WANT YOU TO ADDRESS THE FOUR SPECIFIC ANSWERS THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS ASKED FOR IN LIGHT OF THE DELAY AND DISCLOSURE. ANOTHER ISSUE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE GOING TO TALK TO MR. PAVELIC OR THE OTHER INVESTIGATOR TO ASK THEM TO DISGORGE ANYTHING ELSE THEY MIGHT HAVE AS TO ANY OTHER WITNESSES, THAT IS INTERESTING, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE WILL TAKE UP AT A LATER TIME. I AM MORE INTERESTED IN GETTING YOUR RESPONSE TO THESE FOUR REQUESTS.
NO. 1, THAT YOU BE PRECLUDED FROM USING THE JULY 29TH STATEMENT AS A PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT. NO. 2, THAT YOU BE PRECLUDED FROM USING SYLVIA, QUOTE-UNQUOTE, AS A DEFENSE WITNESS. NO. 3, THAT THE COURT GIVE AN INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY THAT THERE HAS BEEN A WILLFUL FAILURE TO DISCLOSE THE PRIOR STATEMENT OF SYLVIA -- EXCUSE ME -- OF ROSA LOPEZ TO THE JURY. AND FOURTHLY, THAT THE COURT LIFT ITS PREVIOUS SANCTION ON THE PROSECUTION FOR THEIR DELAY IN DISCLOSURE AND ALLOW THEM TO NOW PRESENT THE WITNESSES THAT WERE LATE IN BEING DISCLOSED.
I THINK, YOUR HONOR, I WILL ANSWER THIS QUESTION AND I THINK THE COURT SHOULD UNDERSTAND SOME CONTEXT SO THAT YOU WOULD WEIGH THE APPROPRIATENESS OF ANY PARTICULAR SANCTION. WHAT WE ARE DOING IS CREATING A CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION RECORD THAT THE DEFENDANT WILL USE IN HIS CASE NOW, WE ARE LEARNING, WILL COME AT A MINIMUM OF SIX WEEKS FROM NOW, IF NOT LONGER. IF THIS IS THE COURT'S POSITION, THAT SOME SORT OF A SANCTION WOULD BE APPROPRIATE BECAUSE THERE MAY BE SOME MEASURE OF PREJUDICE WITH THE PEOPLE BEING UNABLE TO SPECIFICALLY QUESTION THIS SYLVIA -- AND WE HAVE NOT INTERVIEWED SYLVIA, YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE NOT CONTACTED HER, LET ME MAKE THAT CLEAR AS WELL -- I THINK THAT THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THAT WHICH WAS IMPOSED ON THE PROSECUTION, THAT IS, CREATING SOME TIME FRAME WITHIN WHICH THE DEFENSE WOULD BE BARRED FROM OFFERING THAT VIDEOTAPE UNTIL THERE HAS BEEN A SHOWING THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE HAD AN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO INVESTIGATE THIS SYLVIA, TO OBTAIN A SUBSEQUENT STATEMENT FROM HER AND ARE NOW ADEQUATELY PREPARED TO REBUT ANYTHING THAT MAY HAVE BEEN SAID ABOUT SYLVIA IN MISS LOPEZ' STATEMENT. IT IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER, YOUR HONOR, THAT WE ARE NOT INTENDING TO BRING ANY CIRCUMSTANCES OF SYLVIA'S INVOLVEMENT IN OUR CASE THROUGH THE TESTIMONY OF MISS LOPEZ. OUR ENTIRE TESTIMONY IS GOING TO BE BASED ON THAT WHICH IS INCLUDED IN THE AUGUST 18TH, 1994, STATEMENT, WHICH IS WHY I SAY THAT STATEMENT IS MORE COMPLETE FOR THE PURPOSES OF HER TESTIMONY THAN EVEN THE STATEMENT FROM JULY, 1994. I DO NOT THINK, YOUR HONOR, THAT IT WOULD BE PROPER TO PRECLUDE SYLVIA FROM BEING CALLED AS A DEFENSE WITNESS, BECAUSE I THINK THAT WILL BE A PREMATURE RULING AT THIS POINT. IT MAY THAT BE SHE WILL HAVE NOTHING THAT WE ARE GOING TO OFFER IN CORROBORATION OF MISS LOPEZ. IT MAY BE THAT SHE WILL. I WOULD URGE THE COURT TO WITHHOLD THAT PARTICULAR CONSIDERATION OF THE SANCTION UNTIL WE GET TO THAT POINT AND TO REQUIRE THAT WE WOULD BE OBLIGATED TO INFORM THE COURT BEFOREHAND. THIS SYLVIA IS NOT ON OUR WITNESS LIST. WE HAVE NO DOCUMENT FROM SYLVIA. I CANNOT REPRESENT TO THE COURT THAT THERE IS EVEN A PRESENT INTENTION TO CALL SYLVIA IN ANY REGARD. I SUSPECT, BECAUSE SHE IS UNDOCUMENTED, THAT SHE IS NOT GOING TO BE VERY INTERESTED IN INVOLVING HERSELF IN A CASE OF THIS PROFILE AND I SUSPECT THAT WE WOULD NOT ANTICIPATE CALLING HER AS A WITNESS, BUT I DO NOT THINK IT BE PRUDENT AT THIS POINT TO COMMIT TO THAT PARTICULAR SANCTION. AS TO THE FINAL SANCTION, THAT IS THAT THEY SHOULD NOT BE RELIEVED OF THEIR OBLIGATIONS, THE COURT HAS ALWAYS MADE IT CLEAR THAT WE CAN'T CONFUSE APPLES AND ORANGES. THE COURT IMPOSED A SANCTION THAT THE COURT THOUGHT WAS WELL-FASHIONED AND WELL-BASED GIVEN THAT RECORD. I WOULD URGE THE COURT TO IMPOSE A SANCTION THAT IS SIMILAR, GIVEN THIS PARTICULAR RECORD, AND THAT IS THE ADVANTAGE THAT WE HAVE NOW OF HAVING A CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION. SHE IS NOT GOING TO BE TESTIFYING IN FRONT OF THE JURY. IT IS NOT, FOR EXAMPLE, A SITUATION WHERE PRIOR TO HER GOING AWAY FOR THE DAY AFTER HER DIRECT HAS ALREADY BEEN PLACED IN FRONT OF THE JURY, WE NOW SAY, OH, BY THE WAY, WE HAVE THIS STATEMENT. WHEN WE LEARNED ABOUT THIS STATEMENT, WHEN WE LEARNED THAT THEY WERE DIFFERENT, WE THEN FIRST BROUGHT IT TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION TO SEE FOR THE COURT PRELIMINARILY TO RULE WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS AN OBLIGATION TO RELEASE THE STATEMENT. CERTAINLY, YOUR HONOR, I UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE THE SCORN THAT WOULD BEFALL ME FOR EXPLAINING THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS, BUT THIS WAS NOT INTENTIONAL, YOUR HONOR, IT WAS NOT WILLFUL, AND CERTAINLY THIS COURT HAS HAD SOME ABILITY TO GAUGE THE NATURE OF THE DEFENSE EFFORT, UNDERSTANDING THAT IT IS VERY MUCH A MONUMENTAL EFFORT, BUT THIS WAS A MATTER THAT WE BROUGHT TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION BEFORE THE WITNESS WAS CALLED TO TESTIFY. AND I DO THINK, YOUR HONOR, WHEN THE COURT IS TRYING TO BALANCE AND TO INTERPRET AND TO READ BETWEEN THE LINES, THERE SHOULD BE SOME UNDERSTANDING PLACED THAT THE DEFENDANT DID IN FACT COME FORWARD WITH THIS EVIDENCE, THIS INFORMATION, AND OFFERED AN EXPLANATION TO EXPLAIN IT, THOUGH CERTAINLY NOT A JUSTIFICATION THAT THE NAME WAS IN FACT MISSED. I DO THINK, YOUR HONOR, AS WELL, THAT IT WOULD BE TOTALLY IMPROPER, GIVEN THE CURRENT STATE AND WHERE WE ARE, FOR THE COURT TO ISSUE AN INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY THAT THERE HAS BEEN SOME FURTHER WILLFUL MISCONDUCT. THE REASON WHY THE COURT FELT IT APPROPRIATE EARLIER TO ISSUE A CURATIVE INSTRUCTION WAS BECAUSE THERE HAD BEEN STATEMENTS MADE CONCERNING MARY ANNE GERCHAS TO THE JURY AND THE COURT REALIZED THAT WE COULD NOT UNRING THE BELL. THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANYTHING SAID ABOUT ANY SYLVIA, ANY MENTION TO THE JURY AT ALL OF ANY CONNECTION THAT SHE MAY HAVE. HER CONNECTION AT BEST IS ONLY TANGENTIAL AND IS NOT ONE THAT WE INTEND TO ELICIT ON DIRECT EXAMINATION, SO I DO NOT THINK THAT THERE IS A SHOWING THAT WE HAVE IN ANY WAY TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF THIS SLIP AS THE SHOWING THAT WAS MADE IN THE EARLIER EXAMPLE WHICH THEN IN THE COURT'S MIND JUSTIFIED THE IMPOSITION OF THAT SANCTION.
OKAY. I FIND IT VERY, VERY IMPOSSIBLE TO BELIEVE THAT THE DEFENSE DID NOT FOLLOW UP TO INTERVIEW A POTENTIALLY CORROBORATING WITNESS FOR SOMEONE WHO IS THEIR KEY ALIBI WITNESS, AND MR. DOUGLAS' EFFORTS TO CONVINCE THIS COURT TO MINIMIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF SYLVIA TO THE DEFENSE SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED AT FACE VALUE. IT IS CLEAR THAT SHE IS SOMEBODY THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO RELY ON AND PROBABLY DID INTERVIEW AND REJECTED BECAUSE SHE DUMPED ROSA LOPEZ OUT AS BEING A LIAR. AND I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT TO THE COURT THAT THE DEFENSE CAME FORWARD THIS MORNING ONLY AFTER IT REALIZED IN FEAR THAT ONCE MISS LOPEZ WAS CROSS-EXAMINED ABOUT HOW MANY TIMES SHE SPOKE TO THEIR INVESTIGATORS AND WHEN THERE SUBTERFUGE WAS GOING TO BE EXPOSED. HAD WE DONE THE CONDITIONAL EXAM ON FRIDAY NIGHT, YOUR HONOR, SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN HERE AND GONE AND WE WOULD NEVER HAVE REALIZED THAT THERE WAS ANOTHER STATEMENT GIVEN BY HER.
NEVER MIND. I TAKE IT, MISS CLARK, THAT SINCE YOU ARE ASKING FOR THESE VARIOUS SANCTIONS, MR. DOUGLAS IS CORRECT, THAT I NEED NOT IMPOSE ANY OF THESE SANCTIONS EXCEPT FOR THE ONE LIFTING YOUR ORDER OF PROOF UNTIL -- UNLESS AND UNTIL THE DEFENSE CHOOSES TO PRESENT ROSA LOPEZ' 1335 STATEMENT, CORRECT? I THINK YOU AGREE WITH THAT TIMING WISE.
ALL RIGHT. THEN I WOULD PROPOSE THAT WE GO FORWARD THEN WITH THE 1335 WITH ROSA LOPEZ AT THIS TIME.
THERE IS ONLY ONE THING THAT I WOULD REQUEST AT THIS TIME, YOUR HONOR, AND THAT IS THAT THE INVESTIGATORS BE BROUGHT INTO COURT AND REQUIRED TO DIVULGE THE INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO ANY OTHER NOTES, REPORT OR INTERVIEWS TAKEN.
WE CAN TAKE THAT UP LATER, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO GET THE 1335 IN THE CAN, SO TO SPEAK, IF WE CAN DO THAT.
I WOULD LIKE TO GET -- WE WILL THAT TAKE THAT ISSUE UP WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS ANY -- WHAT HAS TRANSPIRED OBVIOUSLY CAUSES ME SOME CURIOSITY AND CONCERN AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS ANYTHING MORE OUT THERE THAT WE OUGHT TO KNOW ABOUT. I AGREE WITH YOU THERE. BUT I WOULD PREFER TO USE OUR TIME TODAY GETTING THE 1335 IN THE CAN.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT OUR RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE THIS WITNESS. IF THERE ARE OTHER NOTES AND REPORTS OF HER MADE BY THE INVESTIGATORS, WE OBVIOUSLY NEED TO THOUGH ABOUT THAT BEFORE WE CROSS-EXAMINE HER.
WELL, THE REPRESENTATION THAT HAS BEEN MADE BY MR. DOUGLAS IS THAT THERE ARE NO SUCH OTHER REPORTS.
WHICH HAS BEEN MADE BEFORE SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARD TO THIS WITNESS THIS MORNING. YOU KNOW, MR. DARDEN CAME INTO COURT AND REQUESTED ANY OTHER NOTES OR REPORTS AND WE WERE GIVEN A VERY ASSURED CONFIDENT STATEMENT THAT THERE WAS NOTHING ELSE, ONLY TO BE CONFRONTED WITH AT THE ELEVENTH HOUR WITH OTHER STATEMENTS THAT CAME FLOATING OUT.
ALL RIGHT. SO YOU WOULD BE SATISFIED WITH MR. PAVELIC COMING IN AND TELLING US ON THE RECORD THAT THIS IS ALL THERE IS?
THE OTHER SANCTION THAT WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO THE CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION, YOUR HONOR, IS THE USE OR MENTION OF ANY OF THE STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE JULY 29TH STATEMENT, ANY REFERENCE TO THOSE AS A PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT.
I WOULD SAY THIS, THOUGH, MISS CLARK. THAT WE CAN GO FORWARD WITH A RATHER BROAD RANGE DURING THE 1335, BECAUSE THAT IS A STATEMENT THAT WILL NOT BE OFFERED UNLESS AND UNTIL I FIND THERE IS GOOD CAUSE, AND IT IS STILL SUBJECT TO EDITING FOR OBJECTIONS AND OTHER SANCTIONS.
BECAUSE I HAVE THE IMPRESSION THAT YOU WOULD HIKE TO CROSS-EXAMINE HER ON THE JULY 29TH.
SO IF YOU CROSS-EXAMINE ON IT, THEN THEY ARE ENTITLED TO GO BACK AND REESTABLISH THE COMPLETE STATEMENT OF WHAT IS THERE. NOW, WHETHER OR NOT THAT COMES BEFORE THE JURY IS ANOTHER QUESTION.
ALL RIGHT. BUT I WILL -- I WILL ASK MR. PAVELIC TO COME IN AND TO RESPOND TO THE QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE ANY OTHER ITEMS WITH REGARDS --
I DON'T BELIEVE IS HERE AND I DON'T BELIEVE HE IS IN THE EMPLOY OF THE DEFENSE ANY LONGER.
IS THERE ANYWAY -- I'M SORRY, BUT IS THERE ANYWAY THAT WE CAN GET SOME KIND OF STATEMENT FROM THE DEFENSE CONCERNING MR. MC NALLY'S NOTES AND WHO THEY WERE TURNED OVER TO. PERHAPS MR. PAVELIC IS IN POSSESSION OF THEM. OBVIOUSLY HE WAS ENGAGED BY THE DEFENSE BACK AT THE --
WELL, I'M GOING TO PROPOSE A MODIFICATION TO OUR SCHEDULE TODAY TO GO TO 4:35 SINCE WE ARE GETTING SUCH A LATE START. ANY OBJECTIONS?
NO, YOUR HONOR, EXCEPT THAT WE WANT TO HEAR FROM MR. PAVELIC BEFORE WE BEGIN CROSS.
ALL RIGHT. WELL, LET'S GET THE DIRECT, AND MR. SHAPIRO, WOULD YOU MAKE A PHONE CALL TO MR. PAVELIC, HAVE HIM COME TO COURT FORTHWITH, AND WE WILL COMMENCE WITH THE DIRECT EXAMINATION AND I WILL TAKE A RECESS BETWEEN THE DIRECT AND THE CROSS-EXAMINATION SO THAT WE CAN ADDRESS THE PAVELIC ISSUE, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO GET STARTED WITH THIS.
ONE THING, YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE THE RECORD TO BE CLEAR, IS WE HAVE NOT INTERVIEWED THIS PERSON KNOWN AS SYLVIA. WE DO NOT KNOW HER.
WELL, YOUR HONOR, THE SUGGESTION THAT I'M LYING WHEN I SAY THAT OFFENDS ME, SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE.
I HAVEN'T MADE ANY FINDING YET SO LET'S NOT GET TOO EXCITED AT THIS POINT, BUT I AM CONCERNED FOR THE REASON I MENTIONED.
I FEEL LIKE I'M EXPERIENCING DEJA VU.
AS OFFICERS OF THE COURT, THEY SHOULD BE ASHAMED, THEY SHOULD BE EMBARRASSED, IN FACT, THEIR BAR TICKET SHOULD BE HANGING IN JEOPARDY AT THIS POINT FOR THIS KIND OF MISCONDUCT.
WE ARE TALKING EIGHT MONTHS, YOUR HONOR, EIGHT MONTHS THAT THEY SAT ON A STATEMENT THAT -- THAT AT LEAST ONE OF THEM KNEW THEY HAD.
WELL, WE ARE LUCKY WE ALL GOT TIRED.
I STAND BEFORE THIS COURT AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT TO TELL YOU THAT I NEVER HAD IN MY POSSESSION THE AUGUST 18TH STATEMENT UNTIL I WENT BACK AT DIRECTION OF MR. COCHRAN AND CHECKED TO SEE WHAT DOCUMENT IT WAS THAT HAD BEEN GIVEN.