ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNSEL. MY APOLOGIES FOR THE DELAY. I WAS JUST PUTTING THE FINISHING TOUCHES ON THE COURT'S COPY OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE TAPE.

I'M SORRY. WE DIDN'T HEAR THAT.

I WAS JUST PUTTING THE FINISHING TOUCHES ON THE COURT'S TRANSCRIPTION OF THE TAPE. ALL RIGHT. WHAT'S OUR PROGRESS, MISS CLARK?

I WOULD LIKE TO INDICATE TO THE COURT THAT OVER THE NOON HOUR, AS SOON AS WE SENT THE TAPE OVER TO BE TRANSCRIBED, I LISTENED TO AN ADDITIONAL COPY OF IT, AND IT WAS -- THERE WAS MORE MATERIAL IN THE TAPE THAN I REALIZED EVEN IN THE FIRST TWO LISTENINGS. AND I WANT TO INDICATE TO THE COURT THAT I WAS VERY ANGRY EARLIER THIS MORNING, BUT I MEANT NO DISRESPECT TO THE COURT. I HOPE THE COURT UNDERSTANDS THAT, THAT MY IRE IS DIRECTED TOWARDS THE DEFENSE ONLY AND I MEANT NO OFFENSE.

NO. I NEVER TOOK YOUR UMBRAGE AS DIRECTED TOWARDS ME CERTAINLY.

NO, CERTAINLY NOT. AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE ABSOLUTELY SURE THAT IF THERE WAS ANY MISUNDERSTANDING THERE, I WANTED TO CLEAR THAT UP. BUT UPON REVIEWING THE STATEMENTS --

AND IN FACT, BEFORE WE PROCEED ANY FURTHER, LET ME GIVE TO -- MR. DARDEN, WOULD YOU APPROACH, AND MR. SHAPIRO, LET ME GIVE YOU A TRANSCRIPT OF THE TAPE-RECORDING THAT I'VE PREPARED OVER THE LUNCH HOUR.

AND OUR TRANSCRIPT SHOULD BE PREPARED IN HALF AN HOUR AS WELL. SO WE'LL HAVE LOTS OF TRANSCRIPTS. BUT --

I THINK YOU'LL LIKE MINE.

YOU THINK WE'LL LIKE YOURS? I'M SURE WE WILL. I WANTED TO POINT OUT TO THE COURT THAT IN ADDITION TO THIS TAPE ITSELF, WHICH NOW THE INTERNAL INCONSISTENCIES AS WELL AS THE INCONSISTENCIES WITH EACH STATEMENT AS WELL AS THE INCONSISTENCIES WITH HER DIRECT TESTIMONY AND THE INCONSISTENCIES WITH OTHER WITNESSES WHO WILL TESTIFY IN THIS CASE OUR NUMEROUS, ARE GLARING AND ARE OF MAJOR SIGNIFICANCE TO HER TESTIMONY AND HER CREDIBILITY. AND SO WE FIND OURSELVES BASICALLY PLACED BEHIND THE EIGHT BALL BY THE MACHINATIONS OF THE DEFENSE AND UNABLE TO PROCEED WITH EFFECTIVE CROSS-EXAMINATION THIS AFTERNOON. AS THE COURT IS AWARE, HAVING BEEN A TRIAL ATTORNEY FOR QUITE SOME TIME, WHEN YOU HAVE THIS NUMBER OF STATEMENTS BY A KEY WITNESS, IT IS IMPORTANT TO TRACK EACH AND EVERY INCONSISTENCY BOTH LOGICAL AND LITERAL IN ORDER TO IN EFFECT CREATE A FLOW CHART SO THAT THE CONFRONTATION WITH THE INCONSISTENCIES CAN BE EFFECTIVE AND CLEAR. AND BECAUSE THE DEFENSE HAS PUT US IN THIS POSITION, WE ARE NOW BEING ESSENTIALLY RUSHED INTO A CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT IS GOING TO BE HALF AS EFFECTIVE AS IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN HAD THEY COMPLIED WITH THE LAW.

IN OTHER WORDS, YOU MEAN YOU FEEL YOU'VE BEEN SANDBAGGED AGAIN?

MISS CLARK, LET ME ASK YOU THIS THEN. SINCE YOU RAISE THE POSSIBILITY, YOU SUGGEST THAT THE PROSECUTION WANTS MISS LOPEZ TO TESTIFY FOR THE JURY -- BEFORE THE JURY AND THAT YOU HAVE A WEALTH OF IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE AVAILABLE TO YOU, THEN SHOULDN'T WE THEN PROCEED WITH HER IN FRONT OF THE JURY?

THAT'S EXACTLY THE POINT. WE NEED TIME. WE NEED TIME TO ORGANIZE AND COLLATE EVERYTHING.

THEN I MISUNDERSTOOD. WHEN YOU SAY, "WE HAVE A WEALTH OF IMPEACHMENT." I THOUGHT THAT THAT MEANT THAT YOU WERE -- HAD ANALYZED THAT, HAD EVALUATED IT AND WERE PREPARED TO GO FORWARD WITH IT.

NO, YOUR HONOR. AND THE COURT RAISES AN EXCELLENT POINT. IT'S NOT ENOUGH TO SIMPLY READ A STATEMENT OF A WITNESS THAT WILL IMPEACH THE DEFENSE WITNESS. ONE HAS TO ASSIMILATE IT, ONE HAS TO DETERMINE ITS SIGNIFICANCE AND WHAT ARE THE KEY POINTS AND WIDOW THE WHEAT FROM THE CHAFF SO TO SPEAK. YOU CAN'T JUST READ A REPORT AND THEN BE PREPARED TO USE IT AGAINST A WITNESS IN CROSS-EXAMINATION AS THE COURT WELL KNOWS. CROSS-EXAMINATION REQUIRES VERY CAREFUL STRATEGY AND TACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS THAT PRECLUDE A MERE READING OF A REPORT AND ITS USE ON CROSS-EXAMINATION. AND ESPECIALLY WITH THE NUMBER OF INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS THIS WITNESS HAS, WE HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF WORK TO DO TO IMPEACH HER. IN ESSENCE, ALL WE'RE REALLY ASKING FOR IS THE VERY MINIMUM SANCTION OR THE MINIMUM GRANT OF A CONTINUANCE, WHICH IS THE GENERAL POSTURE WE'RE IN WHEN A DISCOVERY VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED. NOW, THIS IS A VERY FLAGRANT AND EGREGIOUS, I THINK THE MOST EGREGIOUS I'VE EVER SEEN IN MY PRACTICE, VIOLATION OF THE LAW BY A DEFENSE ATTORNEY. AND ALTHOUGH WE COULD ASK FOR WITNESS PRECLUSION, WE HAVEN'T ASKED FOR THAT AND WE WILL NOT ASK FOR THAT. BUT WE DO ASK THAT THE COURT TERMINATE --

MISS LOPEZ IS HERE.

YOUR HONOR, COULD WE ASK MISS LOPEZ WAIT OUTSIDE?

YES. I AM SORRY. I THOUGHT SHE HAD STEPPED OUT ONCE BEFORE.

SHE CAME BACK.

I BELIEVE SHE JUST CAME BACK IN.

ALL RIGHT.

MISS CLARK.

THANK YOU. WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR THE PRECLUSION. WHAT WE ARE ASKING FOR IS THAT SHE BE -- THAT THE CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION BE TERMINATED AND THAT SHE BE CALLED IN THE DEFENSE CASE IF AND WHEN THEY DECIDE TO CALL HER, AT WHICH POINT WE WILL HAVE HAD THE TIME TO PREPARE FOR HER TESTIMONY, EXACTLY THE SAME KIND OF TIME THAT THE DEFENSE DEMANDED WITH RESPECT TO SOME VERY TRIVIAL WITNESSES, AND THEY DEMANDED SIX WEEKS TO INVESTIGATE AND PREPARE FOR THOSE WITNESSES. ALL WE ARE ASKING IS THAT THE WITNESS BE PLACED BACK INTO THE DEFENSE CASE WHERE IT BELONGS IN FRONT OF THE JURY WHICH WILL GIVE US THE TIME TO ASSIMILATE AND ORGANIZE A CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT WILL BE EFFECTIVE AND WILL PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE TO A FAIR TRIAL. I THINK THAT THE COURT HAS SEEN AN ABUSE OF ITS GENEROSITY, AN ABUSE OF ITS PATIENCE AND AN ABUSE OF ITS -- OF THE INTEGRITY AFFORDED TO THE DEFENSE. IT IS NO LONGER JUSTIFIED. THEIR CONDUCT -- THEIR MISCONDUCT HAS BECOME SO EGREGIOUS THAT I THINK THE COURT HAS TO NOW REVIEW ITS PAST GENEROSITY WITH THE DEFENSE. AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THE COURT IS AWARE OF ALL THE CONTRADICTIONS CONCERNING THIS WITNESS' AVAILABILITY AND HER WILLINGNESS TO COME TO COURT AND I THINK THAT THE CONTROL THAT THE DEFENSE HAS OVER HERE IS MANIFEST. IF FOR NO OTHER REASON, THE LEADING NATURE OF THE STATEMENTS GIVEN BY THE WITNESS IN THE INTERVIEW THAT WAS BASICALLY NOTHING MORE THAN A COACHING SESSION BY MR. PAVELIC INDICATES THE DEGREE OF CONTROL THEY HAVE OVER THIS WITNESS. SHE WILL APPEAR WHEN THEY WANT HER TO. SHE DOESN'T WANT TO GO BACK TO SALVADOR AND IT'S VERY, VERY CLEAR THAT IF SHE IS PLACED BACK INTO THE DEFENSE CASE, THERE WILL BE NO RISK SUFFERED. THE ONLY WAY MISS LOPEZ WILL NOT APPEAR IS IF THE DEFENSE DESIRES NOT TO HAVE HER APPEAR. THE PEOPLE WANT TO SEE HER APPEAR, BUT IN THE APPROPRIATE TIME. I WOULD INDICATE TO THE COURT THAT JUST ON LISTENING TO THE TAPE TODAY -- AND REALIZE, YOUR HONOR, THAT WE HAVE TRIPLED THE NUMBER OF STATEMENTS THIS WITNESS GAVE IN 24 HOURS. AND THE COURT IS ASKING US TO BE PREPARED TO CROSS-EXAMINE WITH WHAT IS GOING TO AMOUNT TO A TRIPLING OF THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THIS WITNESS, NOT TO MENTION THE SIGNIFICANCE THAT HAS NOW BEEN BROUGHT TO BEAR ON PREVIOUS WITNESSES THAT WE'VE SPOKEN TO THAT HAD NO SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE. FOR EXAMPLE --

SUCH AS?

SUCH AS THE SYLVIA ISSUE. THIS IS A GLARING ONE. WE HAD A TIP CONCERNING MISS LOPEZ FROM SOMEONE NAMED SYLVIA. WHEN WE WENT TO SPEAK TO HER, WE HAD NO IDEA OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT WITNESS BECAUSE WE WERE NOT GIVEN THE JULY 29TH STATEMENT. WE HAD NO IDEA THAT ROSA LOPEZ WAS CLAIMING TO HAVE BEEN WITH THAT WITNESS AND THAT THAT WITNESS WOULD CORROBORATE HER OBSERVATION OF THE BRONCO AT 8:30, WHICH IS A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF HER TESTIMONY. ONLY YESTERDAY DID WE FIND OUT THAT THEY ARE ONE AND THE SAME AND THAT THERE WERE ALLEGATIONS MADE REGARDING WHAT SYLVIA WOULD TESTIFY TO, WHICH ARE FALSE AND PROVABLY FALSE. SO THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH WITHHOLDING OF DISCOVERY. NOW WE HAVE INFORMATION -- AND THERE ARE WITNESSES THAT ARE ENGENDERED BY THE LATE DISCOVERY THAT HAVE TO BE -- THAT HAVE TO BE INTERVIEWED, STATEMENTS HAVE TO BE GENERATED AND THEY HAVE TO BE COLLATED AND PLACED IN THE APPROPRIATE PLACE IN THE CROSS-EXAMINATION, WHICH I ASSURE THE COURT WILL BE LENGTHY. WE NEED THE TIME TO ADEQUATELY PREPARE FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT WE HAVE BEEN DEPRIVED OF BY THE DEFENSE. AND THE DEFENSE GETTING UP TO URGE THE COURT TO CUT OFF OUR TIME IN THE MANNER THAT THEY HAVE DONE THIS MORNING IS REPREHENSIBLE BECAUSE IT IS THEIR MISCONDUCT THAT HAS PUT US IN THIS POSITION. WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO EFFECTIVELY CROSS-EXAMINE IN ORDER TO GIVE THE JURY THE TRUTH. AND WHAT THE DEFENSE IS TRYING TO DO IS CURTAIL THE SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH, IS TO CUT OFF THE JURY'S KNOWLEDGE OF THIS WITNESS AND TO GIVE THEM HALF A LOAF SO THAT ALL THEY CAN SEE IS THE SIDE THE DEFENSE WANTS TO PRESENT AND NOT TO SEE THE SIDE THAT BASICALLY NEGATES EVERYTHING SHE SAYS. AS WE ALL KNOW -- I MEAN, YOU CAN HEAR ONE SIDE -- AND BASICALLY THE ONE SIDE WE'RE HEARING IS MR. PAVELIC TALKING AND THEN YOU HEAR WHAT THIS WITNESS REALLY HAS TO SAY, AND IT'S SHOCKING. BUT THIS IS A SHOCKING TRUTH THAT THE JURY NEEDS TO HEAR AND WILL NOT HEAR EFFECTIVELY IF THE PEOPLE ARE DENIED THE RIGHT TO PREPARE THEIR CROSS-EXAMINATION IN A COHESIVE MANNER AND PRESENT IT IN THE MOST EFFECTIVE MANNER POSSIBLE.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOTHING LESS IMPORTANT HERE THAN THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AND TO AN EFFECTIVE AND INTELLIGENT SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH INSTEAD OF THE OBSCURING NATURE AND DISTORTING NATURE OF THE TRUTH THAT HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THIS JURY BY THE DEFENSE AND WHICH THE DEFENSE DESIRES TO PROPOUND FURTHER VIA THE TESTIMONY OF ROSA LOPEZ AND THE CURTAILMENT OF THE PEOPLE'S CROSS-EXAMINATION.

HOW MUCH TIME ARE YOU ASKING FOR TO PREPARE?

WE ARE ASKING TO PRESENT CROSS-EXAMINATION ON FRIDAY, ASSUMING THE COURT DENIES THE REQUEST TO TERMINATE THE CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION.

WELL, I'M JUST CURIOUS AS TO HOW LONG YOU THINK YOU NEED TO PREPARE.

I MEAN, THAT'S A MINIMUM. THAT'S RUSHING IT.

TODAY BEING THE 28TH. OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENT, MISS CLARK?

MAY I HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?

CERTAINLY.

NO, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. MR. COCHRAN.

THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR.

GOOD AFTERNOON.

YOUR HONOR, IN THIS INSTANCE, IT IS VERY INTERESTING TO HEAR MISS CLARK AGAIN USE ALL OF THESE TERMS AND SHE TALKS ABOUT TRUTH AND ALL THAT SORT OF THING. YOUR HONOR, YESTERDAY, SHE STOOD BEFORE YOU AS AN OFFICER OF THIS COURT AND INDICATED TO THE COURT THAT THERE WAS A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN THE JULY 29TH STATEMENT, THAT SHE TOLD YOU THAT THERE WAS NO MENTION THAT THE BRONCO HAD BEEN AT THE CURB AT 8:30 AND STILL IN THE MORNING. SHE SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT.

THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAID.

ABSOLUTELY THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID, YOUR HONOR. AND I WANT TO READ SOMETHING. "MISS LOPEZ STATED THAT THE LAST TIME SHE HEARD O.J. TALKING WAS APPROXIMATELY 11:00 O'CLOCK HOURS. SHE IS ADAMANT THAT FROM THE MOMENT SHE FIRST OBSERVED THE BRONCO AT APPROXIMATELY 8:30 HOURS UNTIL THE FOLLOWING DAY, THE BRONCO WAS NOT MOVED." NOW, IN HER HASTE TO CASTIGATE YESTERDAY -- THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT SHE SAID. SHE SAID THAT WAS THE MAJOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN --

MISS CLARK, IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE DON'T INTERRUPT COUNSEL.

THE MAJOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AUGUST 18TH STATEMENT AND THE JULY 29TH STATEMENT WAS THE FACT SHE HAD MENTIONED THAT THAT WAS GOING TO BE SOME GREAT IMPEACHMENT.

WELL, MR. COCHRAN, LET ME FOCUS YOU ON WHAT CONCERNS ME. AND FORGIVE ME FOR INTERRUPTING YOU, BUT THE PROBLEM WE HAVE THOUGH IS, WE STARTED THE PROCEEDINGS YESTERDAY WITH MR. DOUGLAS TELLING ME THAT THERE WERE NO NOTES AND NO TAPE RECORDINGS OF ANY OF THESE STATEMENTS.

THAT'S CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.

THAT STATEMENT WAS ECHOED BY YOURSELF TO THIS COURT --

YES.

-- WHEN YOU SAID THERE WERE NO NOTES AND NO TAPE RECORDING. WE FIND OUT AT THE CONCLUSION OF YESTERDAY THERE MAY BE NOTES AND THERE CERTAINLY IS A TAPE RECORDING. SO THE REASON WE'RE HERE AND HAVING THIS DELAY IS BECAUSE OF THE LATE DISCLOSURE OF THIS TAPE RECORDING. SO ANY DIFFERENCES OR SUBTLETIES BETWEEN THE TWO STATEMENTS OR THE WRITTEN STATEMENTS ARE INTERESTING. WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE AS SIGNIFICANT AS MISS CLARK SAID, I DON'T KNOW. THE REASON WE'RE IN THIS DIFFICULTY THOUGH IS BECAUSE OF THIS BELATED DISCLOSURE OF THIS TAPE RECORDING. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE PROBLEM AND THE DELAY.

YES. MAY I ADDRESS THAT, YOUR HONOR?

PLEASE.

THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE -- AND I APPRECIATE THE COURT'S INDULGENCE, BUT IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO HAVE SOMEBODY STAND UP AND MAKE THESE BALD-FACE ACCUSATIONS THAT ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG AND EVERYBODY KNOWS THEY'RE WRONG. SO I FELT AT LEAST COMPELLED AT LEAST FOR MY CLIENT TO ADDRESS THAT. BUT I WILL FOCUS, AS THE COURT HAS ASKED ME TO DO, IN THAT REGARD. YOUR HONOR, WHEN MR. DOUGLAS STOOD UP YESTERDAY AND INDICATED TO THIS COURT AS AN OFFICER OF THIS COURT THAT HE -- THERE WAS NO TAPE RECORDING AS FAR AS HE KNEW, HE WAS BEING ABSOLUTELY HONEST. AND NEITHER DID I KNOW. YOUR HONOR, IF WE KNEW ABOUT THE TAPE RECORDING, WE WOULD HAVE ABSOLUTELY HAD IT PRESENT, IF WE KNEW ABOUT THE OTHER REPORT.

WE ARE THE ONES, IF THE COURT PLEASES, WHO BROUGHT TO YOUR HONOR'S ATTENTION YESTERDAY MORNING THAT THE STATEMENT THAT I WAS WORKING FROM, THE JULY 29TH STATEMENT, WAS DIFFERENT FROM THE AUGUST 18TH STATEMENT. AS I'VE INDICATED, THAT THIS WAS A CHORE THAT MR. DOUGLAS INHERITED AFTER THE FIRST OF THIS YEAR. WHEN WE BROUGHT THAT TO YOUR HONOR'S ATTENTION, YOU SAID WE HAD TO MAKE DISCLOSURE. WE DID THAT. WHEN MR. PAVELIC CAME DOWN AND SAID HE HAD DISCOVERED THIS TAPE, WE SAID, OBVIOUSLY TELL THE COURT THAT. WE DID NOT KNOW THAT. AS HE TOLD YOU THIS MORNING UNDER OATH, HE HAD NOT TOLD US THAT.

LET ME TELL YOU WHAT CONCERNS ME ABOUT MR. PAVELIC. WHEN I FIRST ASKED HIM, ARE THERE ANY TAPE RECORDINGS OR NOTES, HE SAID THESE ARE THE ONLY TWO STATEMENTS. THEN AT MISS CLARK'S URGING AND OVER -- AND WITH SOME RELUCTANCE BY THE COURT, I PUT HIM UNDER OATH AND I GOT A DIFFERENT ANSWER.

I WAS HERE AND MY INTERPRETATION WAS THIS, YOUR HONOR. HE INDICATED THESE ARE THE ONLY TWO STATEMENTS. BUT THEN YOUR HONOR ASKED HIM A DIFFERENT QUESTION. YOUR HONOR ASKED HIM WHEN HE WAS UNDER OATH, ARE THERE ANY --

WELL --

LET ME COMPLETE, YOUR HONOR.

SURE. GO AHEAD.

I THINK THE INDICATION WAS, ARE THERE ANY TAPE RECORDINGS. IF YOU'LL LOOK AT THAT, I THINK THAT'S MY RECOLLECTION, AND HE SAID, YES, THERE IS. AND WE WERE JUST AS SHOCKED AS YOU WERE AT THAT POINT. I THINK THAT WAS THE POINT THAT HE INDICATED. I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THAT, THAT'S MY RECOLLECTION OF IT. YOU ASKED HIM SOME QUESTION ABOUT ANY OTHER STATEMENTS.

WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO -- CAN WE LOOK AT IT, YOUR HONOR? BECAUSE I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THAT. I THINK THAT --

THE COURT'S QUESTION WAS: "ALL RIGHT. ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY STATEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE OR ANY REPORTS OR ANY NOTES REGARDING THIS WITNESS, ROSA LOPEZ, OTHER THAN THE TWO STATEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN TURNED OVER? "MR. PAVELIC: OTHER THAN THE TWO STATEMENTS, NO." THEN MISS CLARK ASKED ME TO PLACE HIM UNDER OATH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. THEN I ASKED HIM DIRECTLY: "DO YOU HAVE ANY TAPE RECORDINGS OF ANY STATEMENTS? AND MR. PAVELIC: "I TAPE-RECORDED THE FIRST STATEMENT, WHICH WAS THE JULY STATEMENT."

THAT'S WHAT HE SAID. AND THAT WAS MY TOTAL RECOLLECTION. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT YOU'D ASKED HIM AND WHAT YOU DID. NOW, YOU CAN DEFER DIFFERENT THINGS WITH REGARD TO THAT.

WELL, IT WAS NOT IN THE SPIRIT OF WHAT I ASKED HIM.

WELL, YOUR HONOR, I'M NOT STANDING UP HERE NOW TO ADDRESS WHAT MR. PAVELIC DID. WE ALL SAW AND HEARD WHAT HE SAID. WE WERE SURPRISED. NOW, YOU CAN IMAGINE THAT I WASN'T PARTICULARLY PLEASED EITHER WITH HEARING MR. PAVELIC HAD A TAPED STATEMENT THAT I HAD NEVER HEARD, THAT THIS WITNESS HAD NEVER EVER SEEN OR HEARD. I WASN'T PARTICULARLY HAPPY ABOUT THAT, YOUR HONOR.

WELL, MR. COCHRAN, WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW IS, WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF A 1335 --

YES.

-- DIRECT EXAMINATION BY YOURSELF WITH THE PROSECUTION SAYING BECAUSE OF THIS LATE DISCLOSURE, WE NEED ADDITIONAL TIME TO PREPARE FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION. DO YOU FIND THAT TO BE AN UNREASONABLE POSITION BY THE PEOPLE?

YES, I DO, AND THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS.

AND WHY IS THAT?

ABSOLUTELY. FIRST OF ALL, WE HAVE VERY EXPERIENCED LAWYERS ON THE OTHER SIDE. YOUR HONOR, THEY HAVE KNOWN ABOUT THE ORIGINAL STATEMENT SINCE SEPTEMBER 1ST WHEN SARA CAPLAN AND JERRY UELMEN TURNED OVER ALL THE DOCUMENTS. THEY HAVE KNOWN ABOUT ROSA LOPEZ SINCE THAT TIME. FOR INSTANCE, THEY TALK ABOUT THIS CLUE THAT LED THEM TO SYLVIA. MISS LOPEZ -- WE HAD INDICATED THAT TO THE COURT. WE'VE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING ABOUT THIS CLUE. AND BASICALLY, YOUR HONOR, THEY HAVE KNOWN ABOUT THIS. AND TO SHOW YOU THE POWER OF THE PROSECUTION AND TO TALK ABOUT THEIR EFFORTS AT INTIMIDATION, THEY HAVE THE SAL -- AT THE CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION, THEY HAVE HER EMPLOYERS SITTING HERE IN COURT YESTERDAY. NOW, WHAT DOES THAT SAY TO PEOPLE ALL ACROSS AMERICA WHO SAY THEY'RE GOING TO BE FAIR ABOUT SOMETHING? THEY CAN'T BE CALLED AT A CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION. WHY DO YOU THINK THEY WERE HERE?

THEN AT THE END OF THE DAY, MR. DARDEN SAYS, "YOUR HONOR, I WANT TO HAVE A WITNESS ORDERED BACK," ORDERED BACK IN A CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION OF ROSA LOPEZ. THEY THEN BRING IN THIS SYLVIA. SO WITHIN ONE DAY, THEY HAVE ALL OF THE WITNESSES HERE. AND THEN THEY WOULD STAND HERE AND TELL YOU --

MY INTERPRETATION WAS THAT THEY WERE GOING TO SAY, "DO YOU KNOW THIS PERSON?"

THAT'S FINE, YOUR HONOR.

"DID YOU SAY THIS -- ANYTHING LIKE THIS TO THIS PERSON?" HAVING BEEN IN THAT CHAIR BEFORE, I UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON.

WELL, I'VE BEEN IN THAT CHAIR ALSO, YOUR HONOR, BUT I THINK THAT THERE MAY BE TWO INTERPRETATIONS FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN IN THAT CHAIR. I THINK ALSO --

I FIND THAT -- I FIND THAT TO BE A PLAUSIBLE GUESS AS TO WHY THEY WERE HERE.

IT CERTAINLY WAS. BUT LET ME -- LET ME SAY THIS AS ONE THAT'S BEEN IN THAT CHAIR ALSO THE SAME TIME YOUR HONOR WAS. REMEMBER --

WELL, I DIDN'T WANT TO SAY THAT. I WASN'T GOING TO SAY THAT, YOUR HONOR.

YOUR HONOR, WITH REGARD TO THAT, IF YOU PLEASE, YOU --

YOU DID AN EXCELLENT JOB, MR. COCHRAN.

THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

YOU'RE WELCOME.

BUT WITH REGARD TO THAT, YOUR HONOR, IN THAT OFFICE, YOU KNOW THESE WITNESSES AREN'T JUST SITTING UP THERE ALL DAY -- SYLVIA IS NOT UP THERE ALL DAY BY HERSELF NOT BEING INTERVIEWED BY THE INVESTIGATORS AND WHAT'S HAPPENING. WHAT I'M POINTING OUT TO YOU, IF THE COURT DEEMS THAT THEY NEED SOME TIME -- THESE ARE EXPERIENCED LAWYERS. MR. DARDEN HAD A BOOK FULL OF INFORMATION TO TRY AND CROSS-EXAMINE MISS LOPEZ. ALL WE'RE SAYING IS, WE WANT TO GO AHEAD. JUDGE, THEY TALK OUT OF BOTH SIDES OF THEIR MOUTH EVERY DAY. ON FRIDAY EVENING, THEY SAID TO YOU, "LET'S GO BEFORE THE JURY." THEN THEY CHANGED THAT FOR WHATEVER REASON. THEN WHEN THEY COME IN MONDAY MORNING, THEY HAVE A MOTION, SAY, "WELL, WE WANT A CONDITIONAL EXAM." NOW MISS CLARK STANDS BEFORE YOU AND SAYS, "WELL, WE REALLY WANT IT BEFORE THE JURY," BUT THEY'LL NEVER REALLY CALL HER BECAUSE THEY'VE GOT ALL THIS GREAT CROSS-EXAMINATION. THAT'S WHAT THEY ALWAYS SAY, JUDGE. THROUGHOUT THEIR ENTIRE CASE FROM THE TIME THEY HAVE THIS RUSH TO JUDGMENT, ALL THEY DO IS TALK. WE WANT THEM TO PRESENT THE EVIDENCE. AND IF THE COURT FEELS THAT THESE LAWYERS, WHO ARE EXPERIENCED COUNSEL, NEED SOME TIME FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION, THEN SO BE IT. BUT IT SEEMS TO ME WHEN MR. DARDEN STARTED ON FRIDAY, YOUR HONOR, SPENT THE BETTER PART OF THE AFTERNOON ON INSIGNIFICANT ISSUES WITH MISS LOPEZ, WHO THEN THE COURT RULES THAT SHE'S A WITNESS WHO IS GOING BACK TO EL SALVADOR. AND THEN WE COME BACK HERE MONDAY, AND INSTEAD OF HER GOING BEFORE THE JURORS, WHICH WE ALL THOUGHT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN WHEN WE LEFT HERE AT 6:30 OR 7:00, WE THEN REVERSE FIELDS. WE COME BACK AND NOW WE START OUR CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION. THE COURT GOT THAT DONE. THEN NOW BECAUSE OF THE FACT OF THE TAPE AND EVERYTHING, THEY CANNOT PROCEED UNTIL FRIDAY. YOUR HONOR, THAT IS JUST UNHEARD OF IN A CASE WHERE WE HAVE 21 JURORS AND NOT TO MENTION -- NOT ONLY THE JURORS. WE HAVE ROSA LOPEZ, JUDGE. AND LET ME JUST FOCUS ON HER FOR A MOMENT. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT SOMETIMES THE -- MY WORTHY ADVERSARIES ARE TOTALLY INSULATED FROM WHAT HAPPENS OUT IN THE WORLD. THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO ARE WATCHING THIS CASE. AND WE HAVE TO TRY TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT. AND ROSA LOPEZ IS INNOCENT OF ANY WRONGDOING, IF AT ALL, AND TO HAVE HER MALIGNED BY THE PROSECUTION FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSES I THINK IS OUTRAGEOUS. MANY PEOPLE BELIEVE SHE'S A VERY, VERY CREDIBLE WITNESS. BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT MARCIA CLARK THINKS. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT CHRIS DARDEN THINKS. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT CHERI LEWIS THINKS. IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, IT'S WHAT THOSE 12 PEOPLE THINK OVER THERE. AND THAT'S WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO GET THEIR BIG SURPRISE. WHEN PEOPLE SEND IN FLOWERS FOR ROSA LOPEZ, OFFER HER JOBS, SEND HER MONEY IN, THAT'S BECAUSE THEY UNDERSTAND AND THEY HAVE SEEN HER TESTIMONY AND OBSERVED HER. WHEN MISS CLARK STANDS HERE AND TALKS ABOUT HER BEING UNTRUTHFUL, SHE IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG. WHETHER YOU LOOK AT THE STATEMENT, YOUR HONOR, THAT PAVELIC SENDS TO SHAPIRO ON THE 29TH WHERE SHE TALKS ABOUT THE BRONCO BEING THERE FROM 8:30 TO THE NEXT MORNING, WHERE YOU LOOK AT THE STATEMENT OF AUGUST 18TH, SHE TALKS ABOUT THE BRONCO BEING THERE FROM 8:30 UNTIL THE NEXT MORNING AND TALKING TO FUHRMAN THEREAFTER, WHERE YOU LOOK AT THE TAPE WHERE THEY TALK ABOUT THE BRONCO BEING THERE UNTIL THE NEXT MORNING. JUDGE, THEY HAVE A PROBLEM. AND THE REASON WHY THEY ARE GOING THROUGH ALL THESE MACHINATIONS -- THEY'RE NOT FOOLING ANYBODY -- IS BECAUSE THIS IS A PROBLEM WITH THEM.

AND I SHOULD TELL YOU ALSO THAT BECAUSE OF THE CONDUCT, OF THE WAY THEY CONDUCT THEMSELVES TOWARDS WITNESSES, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OTHER WITNESSES OUT THERE, JUDGE, WHO KNOW THAT BRONCO WAS THERE WHO ARE AFRAID TO COME FORWARD, A NUMBER OF OTHER WITNESSES WHO UP AND DOWN ROCKINGHAM AS WE'RE SITTING HERE RIGHT NOW WHO KNOW THAT BRONCO WAS THERE, WHOSE EMPLOYERS WILL NOT LET THEM COME FORWARD AND TESTIFY, SOME OF WHO ARE UNDOCUMENTED, AND AS A TRAVESTY BECAUSE WE ARE FACED WITH THAT SITUATION, YOUR HONOR, IN THE FACE OF A MAN WHO WE BELIEVE HAS BEEN WRONGFULLY ACCUSED. AND SO --

WHAT'S THE ISSUE HERE, YOUR HONOR?

IS THIS A PRESS CONFERENCE?

WAIT, WAIT. COUNSEL, PLEASE. MR. COCHRAN.

SO IF THERE IS VEHEMENCE ON BOTH SIDES, YOUR HONOR, YOU CAN FULLY UNDERSTAND IT. BUT BACK TO THE FOCAL POINT, IS THIS.

WHAT'S THE ISSUE?

YOUR HONOR, COULD YOU ASK THEM -- MAY I COMPLETE MY STATEMENT? I TRIED NOT TO INTERRUPT THEM.

PLEASE.

HE'S BEEN GOING ON AN HOUR, YOUR HONOR.

MR. DARDEN, PLEASE. MR. COCHRAN.

THANK YOU. THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE, YOUR HONOR, WAS, WE WANT TO CONDUCT AND COMPLETE THIS CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION. SOMEWHERE ALONG THE WAY, AS I ASKED THE COURT TO CONSIDER, THE JURORS TO CONSIDER ROSA LOPEZ, WHO WAS SUPPOSED TO LEAVE FOR EL SALVADOR WAS IT LAST NIGHT?

SATURDAY.

THE RESERVATIONS WERE MOVED. SHE'S GOT TO GO BACK TO THE OTHER STATE FIRST. AND, JUDGE, YOU KNOW, SHE IS THE ONE WHO PROMISED YOU. SHE DOES NOT WANT TO BE HERE. SHE'S NOT ASKING TO BE HERE. SHE WONDERS, "WHY, BECAUSE I SAW SOMETHING, DO I HAVE TO BE DRUGGED THROUGH THIS AND MY NAME SULLIED BY THESE PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO DO BUT TALK?" AND SO I THINK THAT'S REALLY UNFAIR, YOUR HONOR. AND I JUST THINK SOMEBODY NEEDS TO SPEAK UP FOR ROSA LOPEZ AND CERTAINLY FOR O.J. SIMPSON WHO IS THE ONE ON TRIAL HERE, AND THAT'S WHY WE ENTRUST THE FAIRNESS TO YOUR HONOR. IF THEY'RE ENTITLED TO SOME TIME, YOU KNOW THE COMPETENCE OF THESE LAWYERS FOR THE PROSECUTION. YOUR HONOR, THEY ARE READY TO PROCEED WITH THEIR PROSECUTION.

I SPOKE TO MR. DARDEN BEFORE MISS CLARK CAME DOWN, AND HE SAID THEY WERE TYPING UP THE TRANSCRIPT. YOU HAD ALREADY DONE THE TRANSCRIPT WHILE THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT IT. THERE IS A TRANSCRIPT. HOW MUCH MORE DO THEY WANT FROM THIS TRANSCRIPT? ALL THEY'VE GOT TO DO IS PLAY THE TAPE. LET'S ALL LISTEN TO THIS TAPE SINCE THEY THINK IT'S SO IMPEACHING. LET'S LISTEN TO THE TAPE AND SEE HOW -- WHAT IT DOES FOR HER. LET'S PLAY IT FOR THE JURY. IF THEY'RE SO WORRIED ABOUT IT, I'LL GIVE THEM AN OFFER RIGHT NOW, LET'S PLAY IT FOR THE JURY. I'M SAYING, LET'S PUT ROSA LOPEZ UP THERE, LET'S COMPLETE THIS EXAMINATION. WHAT THEY WANT TO DO, JUDGE, BY BRINGING THE SALINGER'S HERE, BY BRINGING SYLVIA HERE, BY TRYING TO PROLONG THIS, THEY WANT HER TO RUN AWAY. YOU MADE A FINDING THAT SHE WOULD -- THAT SHE WANTS TO LEAVE, AND SHE DOES. AND IF YOU TALK TO HER NOW -- AND I'M GOING TO ASK YOU BEFORE YOU MAKE A DECISION FINALLY TO TALK TO HER LAWYER. MR. JONES IS NOT HERE, BUT MISS HAMBURGER IS HERE. TALK TO HER LAWYER ABOUT HER PRESENT STATE OF MIND. SHE DEFINITELY FIGURES INTO THIS. AND FACTOR IN THE COMPETENCE OF THESE LAWYERS AND THE FACT THEY'RE ALREADY READY. THEY'VE KNOWN ABOUT THIS WITNESS SINCE AUGUST 18TH. AND THEN TO COME AND TELL YOU -- TODAY IS TUESDAY, JUDGE, FEBRUARY 28TH -- TO TELL YOU THEY NEED UNTIL MARCH 3RD IS JUST ABSOLUTELY BEYOND BELIEF. AND YOU TALK ABOUT CREDIBILITY. IT'S THE SAME KIND OF CREDIBILITY THAT HAD MISS CLARK STAND UP YESTERDAY AND SAID THE JULY 29TH STATEMENT DIDN'T TALK ABOUT THE BRONCO BEING THERE OVERNIGHT. THAT'S IN HER DREAMS. IT'S THERE EVERY PLACE, EVERY TIME AND FUHRMAN IS THERE EVERY PLACE AND EVERY TIME AND THEY KNOW THAT FUHRMAN CAME TO SEE HER THE NEXT DAY. SO WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO DO ABOUT THAT? IT'S LIKE THE OTHER WITNESSES THEY WANT TO AVOID. THEY DON'T WANT TO -- THEY DON'T WANT TO -- DON'T KNOW HOW TO DEAL WITH IT. SO WOULD THE COURT, BEFORE YOU MAKE A FINAL DECISION, AT LEAST TALK TO MISS HAMBURGER WITH REGARD TO -- SOMEBODY OTHER THAN MYSELF SHOULD SPEAK FOR MISS ROSA LOPEZ. YOU'VE BEEN FAIR ABOUT THAT AND I WOULD ASK YOU TO DO THAT AGAIN AND PERHAPS MISS LOPEZ ALSO.

ALL RIGHT. LET ME HEAR FROM MISS CLARK AND THEN I'LL HEAR FROM MISS HAMBURGER. ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, WOULD YOU FOCUS YOUR COMMENTS ON HOW MUCH TIME IS REASONABLY NECESSARY TO EVALUATE THIS TRANSCRIPT, THE TAPE AND THEN ADD THAT INTO YOUR CROSS-EXAMINATION MIX, BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY THE ISSUE I NEED TO ADDRESS.

AND IT REALLY IS.

WE'RE NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT A STATEMENT AND A TAPED TRANSCRIPT, TAPE TRANSCRIPT. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE WITNESSES WHOSE TESTIMONY BECOMES RELEVANT AND IMPORTANT AS A RESULT OF THAT ABOUT WHICH THIS WITNESS HAS TO BE CROSS-EXAMINED, WITH WHICH THIS WITNESS HAS TO BE CONFRONTED. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE TESTIMONY OF THE SALINGER'S, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE TESTIMONY OF SYLVIA, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE DIRECT TESTIMONY ALREADY OF ROSA, WHICH IS INCONSISTENT WITH EACH OF THE STATEMENTS SHE'S GIVEN AND THE TAPED TRANSCRIPT THAT WE HAVE AS WELL AS NUMEROUS OTHER WITNESSES. WE'RE -- THIS IS NOT A LITTLE THING. THIS IS A BIG THING, AND I'M SENSITIVE TO THE ISSUES OF WITNESS INCONVENIENCE. I DEAL WITH IT EVERY DAY. WE ALL DO AS PROSECUTORS. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT YOUR HONOR'S VERY FAMILIAR WITH, PROSECUTORS HAVE TO DEAL WITH CONSTANTLY. AND ROSA LOPEZ IS LIVING BETTER RIGHT NOW THAN SHE MAY EVER HAVE IN HER LIFE. AND SO WHAT -- AND COUNSEL KNOWS IT'S TRUE. HE KNOWS VERY WELL IT'S TRUE. SHE'S NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM BEING INCONVENIENCED. AND WHAT WE -- AND FOR HIM TO SAY IT'S OUTRAGEOUS FOR US TO PREPARE FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION IS THE D'AUTRE THAT THIS COURTROOM HAS BEEN SUBJECTED TO AND THIS COURT HAS BEEN SUBJECTED TO. IT IS NOTHING SHORT OF APPALLING. ALL HE WANTS TO DO IS PREVENT THE CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT HIS WITNESS IS GOING TO BE SUBJECTED TO. BUT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNTS THAT HAVE BEEN ENGENDERED BY THIS NEW INFORMATION WHICH IS, AS I'VE TOLD THE COURT, TRIPLED IT, TRIPLED THE CROSS BECAUSE IT'S BROUGHT IN A NUMBER OF OTHER WITNESSES.

ALL RIGHT. NOW, HAVING SAID THAT --

I'VE ASKED THE COURT FOR THE VERY LEAST AMOUNT OF TIME THAT WE CAN POSSIBLY PREPARE IN. I'VE ASKED THE COURT FOR THE VERY MINIMUM AMOUNT. YOU KNOW, I MEAN, IF WE WERE THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS, WE WOULD BE STANDING HERE ASKING THE COURT FOR SIX WEEKS, WHICH IS WHAT THEY DID. I'M NOT ASKING THE COURT FOR THAT. I DID ASK THE COURT TO TERMINATE THE CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION. I THINK THAT'S AN APPROPRIATE SANCTION AND I THINK THAT'S THE APPROPRIATE THING TO DO IN LIGHT OF THE WITNESS' INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS AND THE BEHAVIOR THAT SHE'S EXHIBITED TO THIS COURT. THE COURT DOESN'T NEED TO TALK TO MISS HAMBURGER. THE COURT HAS HEARD FROM THIS WITNESS HERSELF ABOUT HER STATE OF MIND AND ALL OF THE INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS AND BEHAVIOR. AND WHEN COUNSEL TALKS ABOUT THE HARASSMENT BY THE PRESS, THIS IS A WITNESS WHO'S PULLING ON THE SKIRT OF THE REPORTER FROM COURT T.V., "OH, I LIKE YOU."

WELL, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT POINT ALREADY.

YEAH. OKAY. I AM SORRY, YOUR HONOR. THERE'S NOTHING ABOUT THIS WITNESS THAT SHOULD CAUSE -- GIVE ANYONE CAUSE ABOUT HER WILLINGNESS, HER DESIRE, HER ANXIOUSNESS TO HELP THE DEFENSE IN ANY WAY POSSIBLE AND SAY ANYTHING SHE CAN. SO --

CAN YOU GIVE ME ANY BETTER -- OTHER THAN THE GENERALITIES THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, CAN YOU GIVE ME ANY OTHER REASON WHY IT IS YOU NEED ALL THE WAY TO FRIDAY TO EVALUATE THE TRANSCRIPT OF THIS TAPE AND THE TAPE RECORDING?

FIRST OF ALL, YOUR HONOR, WE'RE ONLY TALKING TWO DAYS FOR SOMETHING THAT MOST ATTORNEYS WOULD BE REQUESTING WEEKS TO DO.

NO. THREE DAYS.

WELL, IT'S CLOSE TO THAT. I THINK THAT'S VERY LITTLE TIME. I THINK IT'S REALLY -- IT'S EXTRAORDINARILY REASONABLE OF THE PEOPLE GIVEN THE NATURE OF THE NEW INFORMATION THAT WE'VE GOT AND THE IMPEACHING NATURE OF THE TAPE AND THE STATEMENT. AND I'VE BEEN I THINK VERY SPECIFIC TO THE COURT. WE HAVE FOUND INCONSISTENCIES SUCH AS DEFENSE COUNSEL POSTURES ABOUT THE FACT THAT SHE WAS CONSISTENT. NO. IN THE JULY 29TH STATEMENT, SHE STATES IN THE STATEMENT: "MISS LOPEZ STATED THAT AT APPROXIMATELY 10:15 TO 10:20, SHE TOOK HER DOG FOR A WALK AND FIVE MINUTES LATER, SHE RETURNED TO HER RESIDENCE. MISS LOPEZ STATED THAT THE LAST TIME SHE HEARD O.J. TALKING WAS AT APPROXIMATELY 11:00 O'CLOCK. SHE IS ADAMANT THAT FROM THE MOMENT SHE FIRST OBSERVED THE BRONCO AT ABOUT 8:30 UNTIL THE FOLLOWING DAY, THE BRONCO WAS NOT MOVED." NOWHERE IN THIS STATEMENT IS A SPECIFIC MENTION OF SEEING THE BRONCO AT 10:15. MIRACULOUSLY IN THE AUGUST 18TH INTERVIEW, THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS MADE: "AT APPROXIMATELY 10:15 TO 10:20, MISS LOPEZ TOOK HER DOG FOR A WALK, AND FIVE MINUTES LATER, SHE RETURNED TO HER RESIDENCE. DURING THIS TIME, MISS LOPEZ AGAIN OBSERVED O.J. SIMPSON'S BRONCO TO BE PARKED IN THE SAME POSITION NEAR THE ROCKINGHAM GATE." I CALL THAT A MATERIAL CONFLICT.

NOW, WHAT THE COURT HEARD IN LISTENING TO THE TAPE IS THAT THERE WAS NO MENTION OF SYLVIA. YET, A REPORT PURPORTING TO BE PREPARED FROM THE INTERVIEW OF THE SAME DATE, JULY 29TH, HAS IN IT THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH: "SHORTLY AFTER HER -- 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 OF 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." MIRACULOUSLY IN THE AUGUST 18TH STATEMENT, THAT PARAGRAPH DISAPPEARS. WE ARE TALKING MATERIAL HUGE INCONSISTENCIES THAT NEED TO BE EXPLORED WITH ALL THE WITNESSES THAT PERTAIN TO THESE OBSERVATIONS.

BUT THAT -- ISN'T THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN EXPLORE LOGISTICALLY AFTER THIS PERSON HAS COMPLETED THEIR DIRECT EXAMINATION, AFTER YOU'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK MISS LOPEZ ABOUT THESE THINGS, CONFRONTED HER WITH THEM SO TO SPEAK? I MEAN, THE INCONSISTENCIES OR THE APPARENT INCONSISTENCIES ARE THERE AND ARE APPARENT TO YOU; ARE THEY NOT?

THOSE ARE. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE WITNESSES WHOSE STATEMENTS GO TO THESE ISSUES? HOW CAN I CONFRONT HER WITH THE WITNESSES' STATEMENTS IF WE HAVEN'T COLLATED THEM AND PREPARED ALL OF THEM? I MEAN, YOU KNOW, YOUR HONOR, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO TO THREE DAYS TO PULL OUT WITNESSES AND THEIR STATEMENTS AND INCONSISTENCIES IN-BETWEEN THESE STATEMENTS AND THE TAPED TRANSCRIPT THAT WOULD REQUIRE ORDINARILY WEEKS TO DO.

BUT CANNOT MISS LOPEZ ONLY BE CONFRONTED WITH HER INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS RATHER THAN INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS BY OTHER PEOPLE?

CANNOT -- WOULDN'T IT BE MORE EFFECTIVE SINCE WE ARE -- APPARENTLY THE DEFENSE INSISTS ON REPRESENTING TO THE COURT THAT SHE WON'T BE HERE, WOULDN'T IT BE EFFECTIVE CROSS-EXAMINATION TO CONFRONT HER WITH THE EXISTENCE OF THESE OTHER WITNESSES AND PROBE HER RELATIONSHIP TO THEM?

YOU CAN, BUT YOU CAN'T -- NOT WITH THEIR HEARSAY STATEMENTS OBVIOUSLY.

MAYBE THAT'S NOT NECESSARY. BUT WE NEED -- THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT, YOUR HONOR. THERE ARE A LOT OF TACTICAL DECISIONS TO BE MADE. THERE'S A LOT OF PREPARATION THAT GOES INTO THIS.

ALL RIGHT. LET'S ASSUME THAT I SMILE FAVORABLY ON SOME OF YOUR REQUESTS FOR A CONTINUANCE. WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO IN THE MEANTIME? I WOULD ASSUME THAT WE COULD COMPLETE AT LEAST THE DIRECT EXAMINATION TODAY OF ROSA LOPEZ. IS THAT CORRECT, MR. COCHRAN? ARE YOU PREPARED TO CONCLUDE THAT?

YES. I'M READY TO PROCEED RIGHT NOW, YOUR HONOR.

LET'S ASSUME THAT WE CAN COMPLETE THE DIRECT. WHAT DO YOU PROPOSE WE DO TOMORROW AND THURSDAY?

YOUR HONOR, I DON'T THINK THAT THE PEOPLE SHOULD BE IN THE POSITION OF HAVING TO PROPOSE ANYTHING GIVEN THE FACT THAT IT'S THE DEFENSE MISCONDUCT THAT PUT US IN THIS POSITION.

NO. I WAS ABOUT TO INVITE YOU TO SAY, WELL, PERHAPS WE OUGHT TO CONCLUDE THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DETECTIVE LANGE.

BUT HOW CAN WE BE IN TWO PLACES AT ONE TIME?

WELL, I MEAN, WE'VE GOT, ACCORDING TO THE L.A. TIMES, 43 PEOPLE IN THE D.A.'S OFFICE WORKING FULL-TIME ON THIS CASE.

HOW MANY OF THEM ARE THE LEAD PROSECUTORS IN THE CASE? THERE'S ONLY TWO. WE'RE THE ONES THAT ARE GOING TO BE INVOLVED -- WE ARE THE ONES THAT --

I DIDN'T BELIEVE IT EITHER.

I DON'T KNOW. I MEAN THAT MUST BE -- NEVER MIND.

OKAY. I MEAN, SERIOUSLY, WE HAVE TO MAKE A CHOICE HERE. SOMEBODY'S GOT TO PREPARE THIS. BUT WE HAVE A TRIAL AND WE HAVE A SEQUESTERED JURY. SO I'VE GOT TO DO WORK WITH THE JURY. THAT'S WHERE WE ARE.

BUT BASICALLY, YOUR HONOR, THE PEOPLE ARE STILL BEING PUNISHED FOR DEFENSE MISCONDUCT. YOU KNOW, HOW IS THIS FAIR? HOW IS THAT FAIR? YOU KNOW, WE'RE THE ONES PUT BEHIND THE EIGHT BALL BY THEIR MISCONDUCT AND THE COURT THEN WANTS TO -- TO HAVE OUR EFFORTS IN THE PREPARATION OF CROSS-EXAMINATION WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN CUT BACK TO NOT 10 PERCENT OF WHAT THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN BY THEIR MISCONDUCT. I MEAN, YOU -- THE DEFENSE IS -- IT'S THE DEFENSE'S GREED --

SO IN OTHER WORDS, YOU ARE ASKING FOR A COMPLETE CONTINUANCE UNTIL FRIDAY. IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE ASKING FOR?

THAT'S CORRECT, YOUR HONOR. THAT'S CORRECT. OR I HAVE OFFERED THE COURT AN OPTION THAT WILL ABSOLUTELY PUT THE JURY BACK IN THIS COURTROOM READY TO GO TOMORROW, AND THAT IS TO TERMINATE THE CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION, WHICH IS EXACTLY -- YOU KNOW, EXACTLY WHAT I THINK SHOULD HAPPEN HERE. IT'S WHAT THEY DESERVE. IT WILL NOT CURTAIL THEIR ABILITY TO PRESENT THE DEFENSE. THE WITNESS WILL BE HERE AND WE WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PREPARE FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION. IT ANSWERS ALL PROBLEMS.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

JUST A FEW LAST WORDS IF I MIGHT. THE PEOPLE NEVER CAN ACCEPT THE COURT'S RULING. YOU'VE RULED THIS CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION. THEY COULDN'T ACCEPT THAT. THEY STILL DON'T WANT TO ACCEPT IT. EVERY OPPORTUNITY, THEY TRY TO CHANGE THAT. IT SEEMS TO ME TO BE TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE AND I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO -- TO -- TO NOT DO THAT. THAT SEEMS TO BE INAPPROPRIATE. IT SEEMS ALSO, YOUR HONOR, THAT THIS IS -- WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, YOUR HONOR, SO THAT WE'RE PERFECTLY CLEAR, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A 12-MINUTE TAPE.

15.

WELL, 15 MINUTES. IT SEEMED MORE LIKE 12, BUT THE FIRST PART IS ADMONITIONS AND "I'M NOT THREATENING YOU" OR WHATEVER. 15 -- YOU'VE DONE THE TAPE. SO 15-MINUTE TAPE. YOUR HONOR, HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE A LAWYER 15-MINUTE -- A TAPE THAT TRACKS A JULY 29TH STATEMENT TO PREPARE THAT? WHETHER THEY'VE GOT 43 PEOPLE WORKING UP THERE OR 15 OR 20, THERE ARE PLENTY AND AMPLE PEOPLE TO DO THIS CROSS-EXAMINATION. THEY'RE ALREADY PREPARED ON THIS. THIS IS THE ONLY THING ADDED, IS 15 MINUTES OF TAPE. AND SO DO WHAT YOU THINK IS REASONABLE, BUT I WOULD ASK YOU BEFORE YOU MAKE YOUR DECISION, THAT NOT MAKE IT BASED ON THE MACHINATIONS OF CLIMATE AND THIS UNREASONABLE ESTIMATE. IT SEEMS TO ME IF THE COURT WOULD LISTEN TO MISS HAMBURGER AND MISS LOPEZ, SHE HAS A REAL -- SHE HAS A REAL -- SHE IS THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST IN THIS AND I WOULD ASK YOU ONCE AGAIN TO DO THAT. AND I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THIS STATEMENT -- COUNSEL TRIES TO GO THROUGH THIS STATEMENT AND PICK OUT CERTAIN PORTIONS OF IT OR WHATEVER. I THINK WHAT SHE HAS TO POINT OUT, THIS IS PAVELIC'S STATEMENT. SO SHE'S GOING TO HAVE A REAL DIFFICULT TIME IMPEACHING ROSA LOPEZ ON PAVELIC'S STATEMENT. SHE CAN ASK HER QUESTIONS. BUT SHE'S GOT TO ASK PAVELIC ABOUT WHAT HE WROTE AND WHAT HE -- AFTER THE CONVERSATION. THAT'S WHAT IT'S ABOUT, AND THEY SEEM TO FORGET THAT, YOUR HONOR. THEY DO NOT HAVE A STATEMENT SIGNED BY ROSA LOPEZ. THEY HAVE A VOICE ON THIS TAPE. AND THEY CAN PLAY THE TAPE AS I'VE INVITED THEM. NO FOUNDATIONAL PROBLEMS AT ALL. PLAY THE TAPE. AND SO -- BUT WOULD YOU PLEASE LISTEN TO MISS HAMBURGER AND MISS LOPEZ BEFORE YOU RULE AS TO WHAT'S APPROPRIATE, YOUR HONOR?

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

ALL RIGHT. DEPUTY BROWNING, CAN I HAVE MISS HAMBURGER, PLEASE.

ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON. MISS HAMBURGER, WOULD YOU APPROACH, PLEASE. ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNSEL. WE'VE HAD A FEW DEVELOPMENTS TRANSPIRE, AS YOU KNOW, OVER THE LAST TWO DAYS. THE DEFENSE HAS TURNED OVER A TAPE RECORDING OF A STATEMENT MADE BY YOUR CLIENT, ROSA LOPEZ, IN JULY OF LAST YEAR, AND THAT TAPE RECORDING WAS TURNED OVER LATE THIS MORNING AND A TRANSCRIPT WAS JUST PROVIDED BY THE COURT TO COUNSEL FOR BOTH SIDES. THE PROSECUTION HAS ASKED FOR A CONTINUANCE OF THE 1335 UNTIL FRIDAY MORNING SO THAT THEY CAN EVALUATE THE TAPE-RECORDED STATEMENT AND CORRELATE IT WITH ALL THE OTHER EVIDENCE THAT HAS BEEN ENGENDERED -- EXCUSE ME -- HAS BEEN CREATED BY THIS SITUATION. I AM PROBABLY NOT GOING TO GRANT THE CONTINUANCE UNTIL FRIDAY. I AM PROBABLY GOING TO GRANT A CONTINUANCE UNTIL THURSDAY FOR THIS REASON. I DO NOT BELIEVE WE CAN COMPLETE THIS CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION IN ONE ADDITIONAL DAY. I THINK WE'RE GOING TO GO LONGER THAN AN ADDITIONAL DAY. AND I'M THEREFORE GOING TO BE ORDERING YOUR CLIENT TO RETURN BACK HERE AT 9:00 O'CLOCK ON THURSDAY MORNING, THE 2ND OF MARCH. AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR CLIENT IS VERY RELUCTANT TO STAY. THE COURT HAS ALREADY THROUGH THE CLERK MADE ARRANGEMENTS TO CHANGE HER PLANE RESERVATIONS FOR HER FLIGHT OUT OF TOWN. SO I MAINTAIN MY BELIEF THAT SHE IS IN FACT GOING TO LEAVE THE JURISDICTION. MY ALTERNATIVE IS THAT IF SHE DOES NOT ACCEPT MY ORDER TO RETURN ON MARCH THE 3RD AT 9:00 A.M., THEN AS A -- HAVING ALREADY DETERMINED THAT SHE IS A MATERIAL WITNESS, I WILL HAVE TO REQUIRE HER TO POST A SUBSTANTIAL BOND. ALL RIGHT. DO YOU WANT TO DISCUSS THAT WITH YOUR CLIENT?

MAY I, PLEASE, YOUR HONOR?

PLEASE.

MARCH 2ND?

MARCH 2ND, WHICH IS THURSDAY.

MAY I HAVE 10 MINUTES?

ABSOLUTELY. THE REASON FOR THAT, COUNSEL -- LET ME JUST EXPLAIN TO COUNSEL. I THINK, MISS CLARK, THAT YOU'RE ENTITLED TO A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF TIME, AND PERHAPS OVERNIGHT IS NOT ENOUGH. BUT I DON'T BELIEVE WE ARE GOING TO COMPLETE THIS CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION IN ONE ADDITIONAL DAY. AND IF WE GO TO FRIDAY, THEN WE'RE GOING TO DRIBBLE OVER INTO SATURDAY AND SUNDAY, AND I HAVE OTHER COMMITMENTS SATURDAY THAT I CAN'T BREAK. SO THAT'S THAT.

AND THE COURT IS CORRECT. ONE DAY WILL NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO COMPLETE THE EXAMINATION.

ALL RIGHT. SO I PROPOSE THAT WHAT WE DO IS COMPLETE THE EXAMINATION OF -- WE WILL TAKE A 10-MINUTE RECESS FOR MISS HAMBURGER TO SPEAK TO MISS LOPEZ. WE'LL COMPLETE THE DIRECT EXAMINATION THIS AFTERNOON AND THEN WE'LL STAND IN RECESS. HOWEVER, I DO WANT COUNSEL BACK THE NEXT FEW DAYS TO HASH OUT SOME OF THE DISCOVERY THINGS THAT WE HAVEN'T GONE THROUGH, TAKE CARE OF SOME OF THE OTHER BUSINESS WE HAVE WITH DEAN UELMEN TOMORROW. WE CAN DO THOSE THINGS WITHOUT THE JURY.

THANK YOU, JUDGE.

ALL RIGHT. 10 MINUTES.

THANK YOU.