WE'RE OVER AT THE SIDEBAR. MR. COCHRAN.

I HAVE A FEW MORE QUESTIONS. IT'S ABOUT 4:30. THE POINT I WANTED TO MAKE WAS, WITH REGARD TO -- AS MR. DOUGLAS REPRESENTED -- AND I WANTED TO GET CLARIFICATION OF THE COURT'S RULING. I REFERRED TO THE AUGUST 18TH STATEMENT APPARENTLY TURNED OVER TO THE PROSECUTION. I'M NOT GOING INTO THINGS THAT HAPPENED JUNE 29TH, BUT YOU SAID SOMETHING ABOUT CROSS-EXAMINATION OR WHATEVER. SO I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS RELEVANT OR IMPORTANT TO HER OBSERVATION AND THINGS WE ARE TRYING TO GET OUT. SO I'M TRYING TO GET CLARIFICATION OF THAT. I WANT TO FIGURE OUT WHETHER OR NOT ON DIRECT I SHOULD GO INTO THAT. IS THE COURT PRECLUDING US OR NOT? I'M NOT CLEAR ON THAT.

WHY DON'T WE TAKE A RECESS AS FAR AS THE WITNESS IS CONCERNED. LET ME READ MY NOTES HERE REAL QUICK.

YOUR HONOR, IS THERE ANY CHANCE THE COURT WOULD ALLOW ME TO START CROSS-EXAMINATION IF ONLY FOR FIVE MINUTES?

I'M NOT FINISHED.

HE'S NOT DONE YET. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT I SHOULD ALLOW HIM TO GO INTO THE 7-29 STATEMENT AT THIS POINT.

OUR REQUESTED SANCTION INCLUDED THAT. OBVIOUSLY IF WE GO INTO IT ON CROSS-EXAMINATION -- THAT WAS THE ISSUE I ARGUED THOUGH.

UH-HUH.

THAT WAS ONE OF THE SANCTIONS REQUESTED BY THE PEOPLE, THAT THEY NOT BE PERMITTED TO GO INTO IT ON DIRECT. THE COURT POINTED OUT TO US THAT IF WE GO INTO IT ON CROSS, THEY MAY HAVE THE RIGHT TO GO INTO IT ON REDIRECT. AND THAT'S TRUE. SO I THINK AT THIS TIME, IF THE COURT DID AGREE WITH THAT ASPECT OF THE SANCTION, THAT THIS SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED THEN, TO GO INTO IT ON DIRECT AT THIS POINT.

ACTUALLY, WHAT I THINK I SAID, I DON'T NEED TO VISIT IT UNLESS AND UNTIL WE GET TO THE OFFER.

THIS IS ALSO TRUE.

THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID.

ALL RIGHT. SO HOW WOULD WE WORD IT AT THIS POINT?

MY REQUEST WOULD BE THAT WE PRECLUDE COUNSEL FROM GOING INTO IT ON DIRECT AND THAT WE WILL SEE WHAT HAPPENS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION.

HOW IS THAT A REASONABLE SANCTION?

HOW IS THAT A REASONABLE --

SANCTION. YEAH. YOU'RE ASKING ME TO IMPOSE IT NOW. HOW IS THAT A REASONABLE SANCTION?

BECAUSE OF THE LATE DISCOVERY, THEY SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM USING A STATEMENT AS PART OF A CONSISTENT STATEMENT TO BUTTRESS THIS WITNESS' CREDIBILITY, WHICH IS WHAT THEY WILL DO.

NO. BUT IF YOU GO INTO IT ON CROSS-EXAMINATION --

THEN THAT'S A DIFFERENT STORY.

YEAH. BUT SEE, WHEN YOU USE IT AS A PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT, IT ONLY COMES IN IF THERE'S BEEN PRIOR OR SUBSEQUENT INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS. SO THE SANCTION YOU'RE ASKING FOR IS REALLY MEANINGLESS. THE POINT I'M MAKING IS, THE SANCTION YOU'RE ASKING FOR APPEARS TO BE ILLOGICAL IF YOU INTEND ON GOING INTO THAT 7-29 CONVERSATION ON CROSS.

I AGREE AND WE DON'T KNOW AT THIS TIME.

WELL, WE ARE AT THE END OF THE COURT DAY.

THAT'S WHY I APPROACHED THE BENCH.

WELL, FIRST OF ALL, THE PEOPLE ALSO PRESENT AN ARGUMENT THAT IT IS NOT A PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT BECAUSE IT IS NOT MADE AT A POINT IN TIME BEFORE --

FORGIVE ME FOR INTERRUPTING YOU, BUT LET ME ASK MR. COCHRAN, WHERE DO YOU INTEND ON GOING WITH THIS?

I WANTED TO WAIT, AS YOU SAID, UNTIL WE ACTUALLY CROSSED THAT BRIDGE AND I WANTED TO THINK ABOUT IT ALSO. AS I INDICATED TO THE COURT, FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THIS PARTICULAR WITNESS, WE HAVE NOT INTERVIEWED HER. ACTUALLY, HE HAVEN'T INTERVIEWED HER, WE DON'T HAVE ANY REPORTS FOR HER NOR DOES PAVELIC. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SYLVIA. AND I DON'T -- AS MR. DOUGLAS REPRESENTED, AT THIS POINT, I WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO THINK ABOUT THAT AND SEE IF THERE'S A POSSIBILITY I WON'T GO INTO IT. BUT I HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IT.

OKAY. MR. DARDEN?

WHAT PLANS DO YOU HAVE FOR MISS LOPEZ TONIGHT?

WELL, I AM GOING DO ASK COUNSEL TO MAKE THE SAME ARRANGEMENTS AS LAST NIGHT, AND WE WILL HAVE HER BACK HERE TOMORROW FRESH AND READY TO GO AT 9:00 O'CLOCK.

I'M CONCERNED THAT, YOU KNOW, THESE PLUSH ACCOMMODATIONS THAT ARE BEING PROVIDED FOR HER MIGHT INFLUENCE HER TESTIMONY. I DON'T SEE WHY COUNSEL CAN'T -- WELL, YOU'RE RICH. YOU'RE USED TO THIS, MR. BAILEY. I'M NOT AND SHE ISN'T EITHER. SO I DON'T KNOW WHY SHE HAS TO STAY --

MAY THAT BE STRICKEN?

NO, IT WON'T BE STRICKEN, BUT I'M NOT CONCERNED -- MR. DARDEN, I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT WHERE SHE'S STAYING. I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT SHE COMES BACK TOMORROW.

YOUR HONOR, I UNDERSTAND -- THIS IS REALLY -- YOU HAD SAID YOU WOULD PROVIDE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR HER. I SAID JUDGE, IT WILL BE EASIER, IF YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION, NO COMMENT ON IT, WE'LL TRY TO PROVIDE -- MAKE SURE SHE HAS ACCOMMODATIONS, SHE DOESN'T LEAVE. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE DID. NOW THEY'RE COMPLAINING ABOUT THAT.

SO I CAN'T OBJECT? FIRST OF ALL, I NEVER AGREED TO THAT. BUT I UNDERSTAND THE COURT'S POSITION ON THAT AND I'M NOT ARGUING ABOUT THAT. BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW, ........ IS A LITTLE EXCESSIVE, OKAY.

BUT BEYOND THAT, I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT MAYBE WE SHOULD REQUIRE MISS LOPEZ TO POST A BOND.

WELL, LET ME JUST MAKE AN OBSERVATION, MR. DARDEN. IF YOU START CRITICIZING A WITNESS IN FRONT OF THIS JURY ABOUT THE QUALITY OF THE HOTEL ACCOMMODATIONS, I THINK THAT ARGUMENT WILL FALL ON DEAF EARS. JUST A PRACTICAL COMMENT.

AND YOU WILL RECALL, YOUR HONOR, THE REASON WHY SHE WAS MOVED. WE HAD HAD HER IN BELLE AGE, WHERE ALL EXPERTS STAY. THE REASON WE CHANGED, A CAMERA CREW HAD SPOTTED HER THAT MORNING. I THOUGHT OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION -- THE LAST THING SHE SAID WAS THAT SHE DIDN'T WANT TO BE CHASED BY PHOTOGRAPHERS. THIS IS MUCH TO DO ABOUT NOTHING AGAIN.

WE'LL TAKE OUR RECESS THEN UNTIL TOMORROW MORNING, 9:00 O'CLOCK. I'M GOING TO HAVE THE JURY BROUGHT BACK AT 1:30 BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO FINISH THIS.

I NEED A WITNESS ORDERED BACK AND THE WITNESS IS ON THE WAY DOWN THE ELEVATOR RIGHT NOW.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND, MR. COCHRAN, YOU'LL MAKE ARRANGEMENTS FOR ONE ADDITIONAL NIGHT?

YES, I WILL.

I THINK YOU SHOULD BE DOING THIS. I MEAN --

IF HE WANTS TO DO IT -- MR. DARDEN ALWAYS MAKES ALL THESE THINGS -- I WANT YOU TO DECIDE. I WOULD LIKE YOU TO RULE ON IT. WOULD YOU PLEASE RULE ON IT SO WE DON'T HAVE TO HEAR A BUNCH --

WILL THE COURT PUT SYLVIA UP WHEN WE NEED TO PUT HER UP OVER AT ........?

WE'LL SEE. THANK YOU.