COUNSEL, WE'RE STILL IN SESSION. SINCE WE'RE ABOUT TO DISCUSS MISS BROWN'S, DENISE BROWN'S CROSS-EXAMINATION MATERIAL, PERHAPS WE SHOULD EXCUSE HER FROM THE COURTROOM. AND, MISS BROWN, I'LL ORDER YOU TO COME BACK AT 2:00 O'CLOCK.

2:00 O'CLOCK?

CAN SHE WAIT IN THE FOYER?

AS LONG AS SHE'S OUT OF THE COURTROOM.

SHE WILL BE GOING UPSTAIRS. THANK YOU.

COUNSEL, AT THE SIDEBAR, WE DISCUSSED CERTAIN MATERIALS IN THE PUBLIC RECORD ARE AVAILABLE FROM CERTAIN DATABASES. AND, MR. SHAPIRO, JUST SO THE RECORD IS CLEAR, I'VE ORDERED YOU TO TURN OVER ONE COPY OF THAT INFORMATION WHICH IS OTHERWISE COPYRIGHTED TO THE PROSECUTION. AND YOU'VE INDICATED THAT YOU HAVE ALREADY MADE A PHOTOCOPY AVAILABLE TO MR. GORDON WITH THE EXCEPTION OF CERTAIN ITEMS YOU ALREADY DESCRIBED WITH YOUR PERSONAL NOTES, AND THAT YOU WILL GIVE A LIST TO MR. GORDON OF THE DATABASE AND PERIMETERS FOR THOSE MISSING ARTICLES, CORRECT?

YES, THAT HAS BEEN DONE. WE INFORMED THE PEOPLE EARLIER THIS WEEK THAT WE IN FACT HAD DONE AN EXTENSIVE SEARCH AND COMPILED WHAT WE BELIEVE TO BE EVERY PUBLIC STATEMENT MADE BY DENISE BROWN REGARDING THIS CASE. AND WE DO NOT FEEL THAT WE HAVE ANY LEGAL OBLIGATION WHATSOEVER TO INFORM THE PROSECUTION OF THIS, BUT IN THE SPIRIT OF COOPERATION AND GOOD FAITH AND IN THE SPIRIT OF TRYING TO SAVE TIME, BECAUSE I FEEL THAT I WILL BE USING THESE DOCUMENTS FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION, THAT THE PEOPLE WILL HAVE ADEQUATE TIME TO GET READY.

ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, I APPRECIATE YOUR HAVING ALREADY MADE A COPY TO SAVE MY STAFF SOME TIME.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR HONOR.

I'M GOING TO ORDER THE PROSECUTION, SINCE THESE ARE OTHERWISE COPYRIGHTED MATERIALS, NOT TO MAKE ANY FURTHER PHOTOCOPIES OF THAT AND THAT IT IS TO REMAIN IN YOUR POSSESSION, MR. GORDON, OR POSSESSION OF THE PROSECUTION TEAM.

YES, YOUR HONOR. WE'RE AWAITING THE OTHER DATA SEARCH AND WILL CONDUCT IT AS SOON AS WE GET IT.

GIVEN WHAT IS LEFT OF OUR COURT DAY, I SUSPECT WE WON'T FINISH DIRECT EXAMINATION TODAY. SO YOU WILL HAVE THE WEEKEND TO PERUSE THOSE MATTERS. ANYTHING ELSE WE NEED TO PUT ON THE RECORD BEFORE WE TAKE OUR RECESS FOR THE NOON HOUR? TERRIFIC. MR. SHAPIRO, YOU ARE EXCUSED. WHOSE BEEPER WAS THAT? EXCUSE ME. MR. SHAPIRO, YOU ARE EXCUSED UNTIL 2:00 O'CLOCK.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WE'LL STAND IN RECESS UNTIL 1:30 FOR DISCOVERY MATTERS AND OTHER REMAINING MOTIONS AT 1:30. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. MR. SIMPSON IS AGAIN PRESENT WITH COUNSEL, MR. COCHRAN, MR. BLAISER, PEOPLE REPRESENTED BY MR. HARMON. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE BEFORE ME A LETTER FROM THE DEFENSE DATED JANUARY 30, 1995. ON PAGE 2, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ITEMS BEARING EVIDENCE NUMBERS WHICH CORRESPOND TO THE LAPD LIST. MR. BLAISER.

YES, YOUR HONOR. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT MISS CLARK YESTERDAY AGREED ESSENTIALLY TO WHAT WE WERE ASKING FOR WITH THE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION OF THE LAST HEARTFELT LETTER WHERE WE WANTED TO DO POSSIBLY SOME TESTING IN CONFIDENCE WITHOUT THEIR PEOPLE LOOKING OVER OUR SHOULDERS. WITH THAT IN MIND, I WOULD INDICATE TO THE COURT THAT ALL OF THESE EXHIBITS HAVE BEEN IN THE CUSTODY OF THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT OR VARIOUS LABS WORKING FOR THEM FOR THE LAST EIGHT MONTHS. MANY OF THE EXHIBITS, THEY'VE ALREADY DONE EXTENSIVE TESTING ON. SOME OF THEM, THEY HAVE TESTED AS MANY AS THREE TIMES, THREE DIFFERENT LABS. OTHER ITEMS -- I'M ASSUMING THEY HAVE EXAMINED ALL OF THE ITEMS. THEY HAVE INDICATED I BELIEVE AROUND JANUARY 4TH, WHEN WE WERE PROVIDED WITH THE DOJ REPORTS, THAT THEY WERE DONE TESTING. WE AT THAT POINT BEGAN DISCUSSIONS ABOUT GETTING ACCESS TO THE EXHIBITS SO THAT WE COULD CONDUCT OUR OWN INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION. I WOULD INDICATE TO THE COURT THAT UNDER THE SIXTH AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, MR. SIMPSON HAS A RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; AND IN FACT, WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE THAT EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE TO HIM. FUNDAMENTAL TO THAT RIGHT IS OUR OBLIGATION TO EXAMINE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE THAT MIGHT BE USED AGAINST HIM. WE -- AND WE MUST BE ABLE TO DO THAT IN A MEANINGFUL MANNER. RIGHT NOW, TO THIS POINT, WE'VE ONLY HAD ACCESS TO THIS EVIDENCE FROM AFAR. WHEN DRS. BADIN AND WOLF WERE ALLOWED TO LOOK AT EXHIBITS, THEY WERE INSTRUCTED THAT THEY WERE NOT ALLOWED TO TOUCH ANYTHING, THEY WERE NOT ALLOWED TO TAKE ANYTHING OUT OF ANY BAGS, THEY WERE NOT ALLOWED TO DO ANY PHOTOGRAPHING. THIS IS OBVIOUSLY ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THERE ARE NO REPORTS FROM THOSE PEOPLE, BECAUSE THEY WOULD NOT PREPARE REPORTS BASED ON THAT KIND OF A CURSORY EXAMINATION. THAT IS NOT A MEANINGFUL EXAMINATION FROM OUR STANDPOINT. PROPOSITION 115 REQUIRES THAT WE MAKE AVAILABLE TO THE PROSECUTION ANY SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, EVIDENCE EXAMINATIONS THAT WE INTEND TO USE. WHILE 115 IMPOSES CERTAIN OBLIGATIONS ON US, IT ALSO CREATES CERTAIN PROTECTIONS FOR US. WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO TURN OVER EXPERT REPORTS OR INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS THAT WE DO NOT INTEND TO USE IN OUR CASE. AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS SO THAT WE CAN CONDUCT AN EFFECTIVE INVESTIGATION. WE MAY FIND SOME THINGS THAT WE DON'T LIKE AND DON'T WANT TO USE, AND IT'S OUR RIGHT NOT TO USE THOSE THINGS AND WE DON'T HAVE TO TURN THEM OVER TO THE PROSECUTION. TO ALLOW A PROSECUTION EXPERT TO BE LOOKING OVER OUR SHOULDERS AS YOU WILL WHILE WE CONDUCT SCIENTIFIC TESTING IS IN A SENSE REQUIRING US TO MAKE DISCLOSURE TO THE PROSECUTION OF THE RESULTS OF ALL EXAMINATIONS THAT WE DO WHETHER WE LIKE THE RESULTS OR NOT, WHETHER WE INTEND TO USE THE RESULTS OR NOT. I WOULD POINT THE COURT TO THE CASE OF PEOPLE VERSUS OR PRINCE VERSUS SUPERIOR COURT, WHICH IS AT 8 CAL. APP. 4TH 1180, WHICH I BELIEVE THE COURT'S ALREADY FAMILIAR WITH. THAT CASE INVOLVED A SITUATION WHERE THERE WERE TWO VAGINAL SWABS, AND THE COURT RULED THAT THE DEFENSE HAD A RIGHT TO ONE OF THOSE SWABS SINCE THE PROSECUTION WOULD HAVE THE OTHER SWAB AND COULD DO WHATEVER TESTING THEY WANTED TO DO ON THAT SWAB AND THAT THE DEFENSE WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONDUCT INDEPENDENT TESTING OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE PROSECUTION ON THE REMAINING SAMPLE. THE BASIS FOR THAT RULING WAS THE SIXTH AMENDMENT EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT THAT UNDER CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018, WHICH IS THE WORK PRODUCT STATUTE, THE POLICY OF THAT SECTION IS TO PRESERVE THE RIGHTS OF ATTORNEYS TO PREPARE THEIR CASES AND TO PREVENT ATTORNEYS FROM TAKING UNDUE ADVANTAGE OF AN ADVERSARY'S INDUSTRY AND EFFORTS. AND I WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU THAT TESTING THAT MIGHT BE DONE BY OUR EXPERTS AT OUR DIRECTION ARE CERTAINLY WORK PRODUCT UNDER THAT GUISE UNTIL THE POINT WHERE WE DECIDE THAT WE'RE GOING TO SUBMIT SOMETHING TO THE COURT OR TO THE JURY, AT WHICH POINT THE PROSECUTION HAS A RIGHT TO HAVE THAT. I MIGHT ALSO ADD THAT WE WERE NOT PERMITTED TO BE PRESENT WHEN THIS EVIDENCE WAS COLLECTED. WE WERE NOT PERMITTED TO BE PRESENT WHEN IT WAS TRANSPORTED OR WHEN IT WAS INITIALLY PREPARED FOR ANALYSIS AT PIPER TECH WITH THE LAPD PEOPLE. NOW, WHILE WE HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO WATCH WHILE SOME OF THE DNA TESTING HAS BEEN DONE, WE HAVE NOT BEEN ALLOWED TO DO ANY TESTING ON OUR OWN. THE COURT HAS -- UP TO THIS POINT HAS BEEN UNWILLING TO IMPOSE ANY KIND OF TIMELINESS REQUIREMENT ON THE PROSECUTION. THEY'VE HAD THIS EVIDENCE FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME. I BELIEVE IN YOUR ORDER, YOUR RULING ON THE GRIFFIN HEARING, YOU POINTED OUT THAT THE DEFENSE SHOULD USE OR THE PROSECUTION SHOULD USE ALL CONSERVATIVE METHODS IN ORDER TO PRESERVE POSSIBLE SAMPLES FOR TESTING BY THE DEFENSE. AND WE ARE AT A POINT IN TIME NOW WHERE THE TRIAL HAS ALREADY STARTED. WE WOULD LIKE OUR OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THIS EVIDENCE. AND IF WE DECIDE THAT WE WANT TO CONDUCT SPECIFIC TESTS, WE THINK WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DO THAT IN PRIVATE AND NOT REVEAL THE RESULTS UNLESS WE DECIDE THAT WE'RE GOING TO USE THAT RESULT. SO WITH THAT, I WOULD SUBMIT THE MATTER AND ASK WE BE ALLOWED TO -- THAT THE EXHIBITS BE PROVIDED TO US AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AND THAT WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THEM BEING THERE WHILE WE OPEN THEM UP AND LOOK AT THEM, AND THEY CAN VIDEOTAPE THAT IF THEY LIKE. BUT AT A POINT IN TIME WHERE WE DECIDE WE WANT TO DO A SPECIFIC TEST, WE SUBMIT THAT WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DO THAT IN PRIVATE.

YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE PRESENCE OF THE CUSTODIAN OF THESE ITEMS BEING PRESENT WHEN THEY'RE DISPLAYED, EXAMINED, SPLITS ARE TAKEN, BUT FOR THE ACTUAL TESTING, YOU WANT THAT DONE IN PRIVATE?

THAT'S CORRECT.

ALL RIGHT. ARE THERE ANY UNUSUAL ITEMS HERE, MR. BLAISER? YOU HAVE THE LIST -- THE NUMBERS THAT YOU LIST ON PAGE 2 OF YOUR LETTER. ARE THERE ANY ITEMS THAT ARE OF UNUSUAL DIFFICULTY IN HANDLING?

I DON'T BELIEVE SO. I THINK MOST OF THE OR A LOT OF THE ITEMS HAVE ALREADY BEEN TESTED BY THE PROSECUTION. WE DID NOT ASK FOR LARGE PIECES OF THE BRONCO. THAT MIGHT BE TROUBLESOME TO TRANSPORT BACK TO THE -- ALL OF THE CORONER'S EXHIBITS ARE ALL RELATIVELY WELL CONTAINED IN AMPLE QUANTITY THAT IF THE PROSECUTION WANTS TO DO FURTHER TESTING, PRESUMABLY THEY COULD. SO I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING THAT REQUIRES ANY KIND OF A SPECIAL ORDER.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. HARMON.

GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR. IT'S FUNNY HOW WE CAN LIVE THROUGH THE SAME EVENTS AND HAVE A DIFFERENT APPRECIATION FOR THEM.

WELL, THERE'S A JURY INSTRUCTION ON THAT.

THIS IS ALL NOT IN FRONT OF THE JURY. SO -- A LITTLE HISTORY I THINK IS IN ORDER. ON NOVEMBER 28TH, WE WROTE THE COURT AND TOLD THE COURT AND COUNSEL THAT THE SOCKS AND THE GLOVE WERE BACK HERE AND IF YOU WANTED TO DO ANY SAMPLING OR EXAMINATION, FEEL FREE TO. WE JUST WANTED TO VIDEOTAPE IT. AND IN LIGHT OF MR. COCHRAN'S OPENING STATEMENT, I'M JUST THANKFUL THAT THEY DIDN'T TAKE US UP ON THAT FOR REASONS THAT WILL BECOME OBVIOUS IN A FEW MINUTES. SO SOME OF THOSE ITEMS AND THOSE TWO IN PARTICULAR HAVE BEEN HERE FOR MONTHS, AND NO ONE TOOK US UP ON THAT. MUCH TO OUR SURPRISE, ON JANUARY 9TH, WE GOT A LETTER FROM THE DEFENSE TEAM SAYING THEY WANTED ALL THEIR LAWYERS TO GO VISIT THE LAB THE NEXT DAY WITH -- AND, YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE NOT EASY ARRANGEMENTS TO MAKE. AND THEN THEY ALSO SAID THAT THEY WANTED DESIGNATED ITEMS TO BE SENT TO DR. LEE IN ANY FASHION WE DESIRE, AND THEY NEVER DESIGNATED THEM. AND THAT'S WHEN I MADE THE MISTAKE OF DOING SOMETHING THAT I HAD TRIED NOT TO DO IN THIS CASE. I TRIED TO DISCUSS THIS WITH MR. SCHECK. AND IF YOU RECALL, WHEN WE WENT ON THE RECORD AFTER THAT, I ASKED MR. SCHECK THAT WHENEVER WE HAD ANY COMMUNICATION, LET'S PUT IT IN WRITING SO OUR MEMORIES CAN'T FADE AND WE CAN'T FORGET WHAT REALLY WAS DISCUSSED. SO THIS LATEST LETTER -- ACTUALLY WE RESPONDED TO THAT JANUARY 9TH LETTER ON JANUARY 9TH, AND WE SAID -- AND THIS IS A QUOTE:

"WE ARE IN RECEIPT OF YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 9TH, 1995. YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED US WITH ADEQUATE TIME NOR GIVEN US SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO INTELLIGENTLY RESPOND TO YOUR REQUEST. PLEASE FILE APPROPRIATE LEGAL MOTIONS WITH THE COURT, JANUARY 9TH." NOTHING HAPPENED. JANUARY 30, THREE WEEKS LATER, WE GET THE LETTER THAT BROUGHT US HERE TODAY. AND MUCH TO MY SURPRISE, THE LETTER SAYS THAT MR. CLARK AND I AGREED TO SOMETHING. NOW, WE AGREED TO AGREE TO SOMETHING WHEN FULL INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED. AT THAT TIME, MR. SCHECK SUGGESTED THAT WE ABIDE BY THE RULES OF CELLMARK. AND IF YOU RECALL, THIS IS LONG BEFORE I WAS INVOLVED IN THE CASE, CELLMARK WOULD ALLOW DEFENSE EXPERTS TO VIEW TESTING. AND WE WERE VERY SURPRISED THAT SOMETHING LIKE THAT WOULD BE SO EASILY RESOLVED BETWEEN MR. SCHECK AND I. AND THEN NOTHING EVER CAME OF IT UNTIL WE READ THIS LETTER READING THAT WE HAD AGREED TO SHIPPING EVERYTHING WHEN IN FACT NO NUMBERED ITEMS HAD EVER BEEN MENTIONED IN ANY OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS. IF THERE WAS EVER ANY AGREEMENT, IT WAS THAT OUR EXPERTS WOULD BE ALLOWED TO WATCH, TO VIDEOTAPE THE SAMPLINGS, EXAMINATIONS AND TESTS JUST AS WE HAVE ALLOWED THE DEFENDANT TO DO AT EVERY TURN IN THIS PROCEEDINGS. THE UBIQUITOUS DR. BLAKE, THE UBIQUITOUS BUT VISIBLE DR. BLAKE CONTINUES TO VISIT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. AND THIS IS DONE VERY CORDIALLY BY THEM. THEY TELL HIM WHEN THINGS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN AND CHANGE THEIR SCHEDULE SO THAT HE CAN SHOW. I THINK IT'S AT THIS POINT WE NEED TO REFLECT BACK ON SOMETHING THAT I WATCHED AT HOME ON TELEVISION BACK IN AUGUST, NOT REALIZING I WOULD BE HERE. MISS CLARK OFFERED TO HAVE THE UBIQUITOUS DR. BLAKE DO ALL OF THE TESTING, ALL OF THE PCR TESTING THAT APPARENTLY -- AND I SAY APPARENTLY IS NOW BEING REQUESTED OF THIS COURT. I'M SOMEWHAT SURPRISED TO HEAR MR. BLAISER -- PERHAPS HE HASN'T BEEN INFORMED OF THIS. AND IF HE HASN'T, IT'S ANOTHER CURIOUS EVENT -- SAY THAT THEY'VE NEVER HAD ANY OF THE EVIDENCE WHEN YOU KNOW, YOUR HONOR, THAT YOU SIGNED AN EX PARTE ORDER WAY BACK IN OCTOBER FOR ITEMS 47, 50 AND 78, AND THOSE ITEMS WERE RELEASED TO THE DEFENSE TEAM. MR. BLAISER APPARENTLY DOESN'T KNOW THAT. PERHAPS THIS IS ANOTHER ONE OF THESE INSTANCES WHERE THEY'VE TESTED SOMETHING IN SECRET AND THEY DON'T EVEN WANT HIM TO KNOW WHAT THE ANSWER IS. IT'S CLEAR THAT WHAT THEY WANT TO DO IS HIDE THE BALL. AND I'M GOING TO CONVINCE YOU TODAY, YOUR HONOR, THAT ON MANY OF THESE ITEMS, THE TIME HAS COME TO REALIZE THAT THIS IS NOT ABOUT FINDING THE TRUTH THAT IS IN THAT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE IS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT CATEGORY OF EVIDENCE IN THIS STATE. THAT THIS IS ONLY ABOUT WINNING AT ALL COSTS. THE DEFENDANT HAS REQUESTED 184 ITEMS, MOST OF THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, TO BE TRANSPORTED TO A LABORATORY ON THE EAST COAST RIGHT WHEN WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR CASE. OR I SHOULDN'T SAY MIDDLE, BUT RIGHT WHEN WE'VE BEGUN OUR CASE. SOME OF THEM ARE REALLY INTERESTING AND INTRIGUING ITEMS. NOW, THEY HAVEN'T SAID WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WITH IT. THEY HAVEN'T SAID WHAT KIND OF TESTS THEY WANT TO PERFORM ON IT, AND I THINK THERE ARE LEGAL REASONS WHY THEY HAVE TO SPECIFY THAT I'LL ADDRESS. THEY WANT NO. -- I'VE PICKED OUT SOME OF THE MORE INTRIGUING ITEMS. NO. 118, IT'S A KNIFE THAT MR. COCHRAN HAD UP ON GREG MATHESON'S REPORT. IT'S A KNIFE WITH SOMEONE ELSE'S BLOOD ON IT OTHER THAN THE VICTIMS'. THAT'S ONE OF THE KNIVES OR ONE OF THE ITEMS THEY WANT TO SEE. THEY WANT NO. 136, WHICH WAS SEIZED BY -- SEIZED FROM RONALD GOLDMAN'S APARTMENT ON JUNE 15TH. DINO, THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF DEAN MARTIN FOR SOME STRANGE REASON. THEY WANT NO. 143, A KNIFE FOUND ALL THE WAY DOWN IN OCEANSIDE. PERHAPS THE MOST INTERESTING ITEM THAT THEY --

OCEANSIDE AS IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY?

THAT'S RIGHT, YOUR HONOR. THEY MUST KNOW SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T KNOW. THE ITEM THAT I FOUND MOST INTRIGUING AND INTERESTING IS, THEY WANT NO. 200, THE CASSETTE THAT WAS SEIZED FROM MR. SIMPSON'S BRONCO, CARLITO'S WAY, THE SOUND TRACK. AND ALL I COULD THINK OF WAS PERHAPS THEY WANT TO PLAY IT BACKWARDS LIKE THE BEATLES, "I'M THE WALRUS," AND IF YOU DO THAT -- REMEMBER YOU HEAR PAUL IS DEAD -- THERE WILL BE A CLUE AS TO WHO REALLY KILLED THE VICTIMS IN THIS CASE.

YOU'RE DATING YOURSELF.

IT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS.

WELL, YOUR HONOR, YOU SEEMED TO UNDERSTAND IT ALSO.

AMONG THE LIST OF ITEMS ARE SOME ITEMS THAT ARE STILL BEING TESTED AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. THIS LIST WAS DONE VERY CARELESSLY WITHOUT ANY REAL CONSIDERATION FOR WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY TOLD THEM. ITEMS 79, 81 AND 86, THEY'RE AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. THEY KNOW THAT. WE'VE TOLD THEM THAT.

WHAT ARE THOSE ITEMS?

THEY ARE CLOTHING ITEMS BELONGING TO RONALD GOLDMAN AND NICOLE BROWN. I CAN'T SORT THEM OUT NOW. I DON'T QUITE HAVE THEM MEMORIZED YET. AND 303 AND 304 -- AND THIS IS NOT INCLUSIVE, BUT I'M PRETTY SURE IT IS -- THOSE ARE SOME STAINS FROM THE BRONCO THAT WERE COLLECTED THE SECOND TIME AROUND I BELIEVE IN AUGUST. THOSE THINGS ARE STILL AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND WE'VE TOLD THEM THAT ALL ALONG. NO SPECIFIC REASON IS PROVIDED FOR ANY OF THESE ITEMS, NO SPECIFIC TEST IS MENTIONED. AND THERE ARE LEGAL REASONS WHY IT'S INCUMBENT UPON THEM IN MY OPINION TO PROVIDE THAT KIND OF SPECIFICITY. SO THE DEFENDANT NOW WANTS ALL OF THESE 184 ITEMS TO BE SHIPPED OFF TO THE EAST COAST. WHAT'S INTERESTING ABOUT THE TIMING OF THE REQUEST YOUR HONOR, IT'S MADE IMMEDIATELY AFTER MR. COCHRAN HAS PUBLICLY ACCUSED THE PROSECUTION OF CONDUCTING UNRELIABLE DNA TESTS ON CONTAMINATED SAMPLES, THE SAME TIME HE'S ACCUSED SOMEONE IN LAW ENFORCEMENT OF PLANTING NICOLE SIMPSON'S BLOOD ON THE DEFENDANT'S SOCKS. BECAUSE DEFENDANT OR HIS TEAM APPARENTLY SEEKS TO PERFORM TESTS WHICH CONSUME OR ALTER SOME OF THESE ITEMS OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FOREVER, THEY HAVE TO JUSTIFY UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF PEOPLE VERSUS COOPER WHAT THESE ITEMS ARE, WHY THESE SAMPLES ARE NEEDED AND WHO WILL PERFORM THE TESTS. IF THE DNA TESTS ARE BEING CONTEMPLATED BY THE DEFENSE, HOW HAVE THOSE TESTS SUDDENLY BECOME RELIABLE IN THERE HANDS WHEN MR. COCHRAN HAS ANNOUNCED TO THIS JURY AND THE WORLD THAT THEY ARE UNRELIABLE IN THEIR FORENSIC APPLICATION? PERHAPS THEY ARE CONTEMPLATING HAVING NOBLE PRIZE WINNER MULLIS PERFORM SOME OF HIS CYBERSPACE 21ST CENTURY TESTS ON THESE ITEMS. AND HOPEFULLY -- I ADD THIS PARENTHETICALLY. HOPEFULLY THE COURT WILL ALLOW THE PEOPLE WHEN WE CROSS-EXAMINE DR. MULLIS TO ENGAGE IN SOME OF THE PROBING QUESTIONING THAT RON SHIPP UNDERWENT IN TERMS OF HIS CONSUMPTION HABITS AND HIS BIZARRE SCIENTIFIC OPINIONS. IF MULLIS PERFORMS THESE ANALYSIS, IT WILL BE THE FIRST TIME HE'S EVER TESTED FORENSIC EVIDENCE. SOMEHOW, PERHAPS THE DEFENSE HAS SUGGESTED THAT THE WAY MULLIS WILL DO IT WILL OVERCOME THE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER POINT THAT MR. COCHRAN ALLUDED TO IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT. WELL, BECAUSE OF THOSE SHOCKING ALLEGATIONS, SPECIFICALLY WITH RESPECT TO NICOLE SIMPSON'S OR NICOLE'S BLOOD ON THE DEFENDANT'S SOCKS WHICH MR. COCHRAN MADE PUBLIC FOR THE FIRST TIME ON MONDAY, THE PROSECUTION PRESENTLY INTENDS TO PERFORM TESTS ON THOSE BLOOD-STAINED AREAS OF DEFENDANT'S SOCKS WHICH ARE ABLE TO DETECT THE PRESENCE OF THE PRESERVATIVE IN REFERENCE SAMPLES IN THE SAMPLE THAT WAS PRESERVED BY THE CORONER. THERE IS A PRESERVATIVE NAMED EDTA IN THOSE TUBES. THEY'RE PREMANUFACTURED. THERE'S A SPECIFIED AMOUNT OF THAT PRESERVATIVE IN THOSE TUBES. WE INTEND TO PURSUE THAT WITH ALL OF OUR VIGOR TO REFUTE THE ALLEGATIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN -- WHICH HAVE CAST A CLOUD OVER MANY OF THE PEOPLE WHO WORKED IN THIS CASE. HAD THESE ALLEGATIONS BEEN MADE MONTHS AGO, WE COULD HAVE DONE THIS MONTHS AGO. BUT FOR WHATEVER REASON, THOSE UGLY RUMORS CIRCULATED AND CIRCULATED, AND THEN FINALLY ON MONDAY, MR. COCHRAN POINTED THE FINGER. UNFORTUNATELY, WHEN HE POINTED THE FINGER IN HIS SOCK TIMELINE, HE LEFT OFF ONE IMPORTANT EVENT THAT TOTALLY UNDERMINDS THE CHRONOLOGY THAT HE CREATED OR DEMONSTRATED IN FRONT OF THE JURY. AND THE EVENT THAT HE LEFT OUT WAS, BEFORE THAT LEAKED STORY, THE LAPD HAD DONE CONVENTIONAL SCREENING ON THAT SOCK AND DETERMINED THAT THE PGM SUBTYPE BELONGED TO NICOLE AND DID NOT BELONG TO ANY OF THESE OTHER PEOPLE. SO IT WAS KNOWN. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT DIDN'T APPEAR THAT THERE WAS A LEAK. BUT THAT'S AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE STORY THAT MR. COCHRAN LEFT OUT. WE ARE UNDER A LEGAL OBLIGATION IN LIGHT OF THESE ALLEGATIONS UNDER BRADY VERSUS MARYLAND TO PURSUE THIS ISSUE. NOT THAT WE BELIEVE IT WILL PRODUCE EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE. BUT WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO DO SO, AND WE INTEND TO DO SO WITH ALL THE RESOURCES THAT MAY BE AVAILABLE TO US. WE ALSO HAVE A MORAL AND AN ETHICAL OBLIGATION TO PURSUE THIS. AND THIS ISN'T ANY INQUIRY MOTIVATED BY ADVOCACY. THIS IS A PURELY SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY. WE CAN'T RELY ON TAINTED EVIDENCE. WE HAVE NO DOUBT THAT THE BLOOD ON THOSE SOCKS WHICH WE HAVE IDENTIFIED CONCLUSIVELY THROUGH MULTIPLE DNA TESTS BELONG TO NICOLE AND WAS TRANSFERRED THERE DURING THE SAVAGE BRUTAL KILLINGS OF RON GOLDMAN AND NICOLE. WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO THOSE PEOPLE WHOSE REPUTATION STAND TO BE TARNISHED BY MR. COCHRAN'S CARELESS CHARGES WITH NO SUBSTANCE TO THEM. THE TESTS WILL SHOW THAT THE BLOOD ON THOSE SOCKS WHICH MR. COCHRAN ADMITS IS NICOLE'S DID NOT COME FROM THE REFERENCE SAMPLE THAT WAS LACED WITH EDTA THAT WAS OBTAINED BY THE CORONER'S OFFICE. IT'S A QUESTION OF SCIENTIFIC TRUTH WHICH CAN ONLY BE ADDRESSED BY FAIR AND IMPARTIAL SCIENTISTS, NOT ATTORNEYS WHOSE INTERESTS ARE IRRECONCILABLE OR WHOSE CAREERS SERVE TO BE PROMOTED OR ADVANCED BY CARELESS CHARGES SUCH AS THAT. IN FACT, WE'VE INVITED AND WE CONTINUE TO INVITE INPUT FROM THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY ABOUT HOW TO APPROACH THESE TESTS AND TO DESIGN THEM IN A WAY THAT THERE WILL BE NO QUESTION THAT WHEN THOSE TESTS PROVE THAT THERE'S NO EDTA ON THE STAIN THAT'S BEEN IDENTIFIED AS COMING FROM NICOLE, THERE WILL BE NO QUESTION. NO ONE WILL HAVE A LINGERING DOUBT. RIGHT NOW, WE ACTUALLY INVITE THE DEFENDANT TO JOIN US IN THIS SEARCH IF THEY WANT TO FIND OUT WHAT THE TRUTH IS ABOUT HOW THOSE STAINS GOT THERE. PERHAPS WE CAN AGREE ON A SERIES OF DIFFERENT TESTS TO BE PERFORMED BY DIFFERENT LABS OVERSEEN BY A MUTUALLY AGREED UPON BLUE RIBBON PANEL. IF THIS IS ABOUT FINDING THE TRUTH, WE WILL AGREE. IF IT'S ABOUT WINNING AT ALL COSTS, WE WON'T. THERE'S ONLY TWO POSSIBLE OUTCOMES TO THIS TEST. THERE'S EITHER GOING TO BE EDTA THERE OR THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE EDTA THERE. AND WE'RE WILLING TO ACCEPT THE OUTCOME, WHATEVER THAT IS. ONE CAN ONLY IMAGINE THE ONLY REASON THAT THE DEFENSE MIGHT NOT WANT TO JOIN IN MUTUALLY AGREEING ON THIS IS BECAUSE THEY ALREADY KNOW THERE'S NO EDTA THERE AND THEY ALREADY KNOW HOW THAT BLOOD GOT THERE. WE AGREE TO ACCEPT THOSE RESULTS IN ADVANCE. WE SINCERELY HOPE THAT THE DEFENSE AGREES TO DO SO TOO, AND WE ESPECIALLY HOPE THAT SHOULD WE PROVE CONCLUSIVELY THROUGH A SERIES OF TESTS, WELL-ESTABLISHED TESTS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY, THE DEFENDANT WILL NOT FALL BACK ON THE DATED LEGAL ARTIFICE OF PEOPLE VERSUS KELLY TO TRY TO PREVENT THE RESULTS FROM BEING PRESENTED TO THIS JURY. THAT KIND OF TACTIC WOULD ONLY SUBVERT THE TRUTH EVEN MORE. I BELIEVE AT THIS POINT, WE HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT THOSE SOCKS NEED TO BE MAINTAINED IN OUR POSSESSION UNTIL WE HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO PURSUE THIS SCIENTIFICALLY. THAT INCLUDES ALL THE REFERENCE SAMPLES, AND I'M BROADENING THIS A LITTLE BIT TOO TO INCLUDE THE OTHER TWO REFERENCE SAMPLES FOR REASONS I'LL ALLUDE TO. IF WE'RE FORCED AT THIS POINT TO TURN OVER ANY OF THOSE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE, THAT COULD COMPROMISE OUR ABILITY TO PRODUCE A DEFINITIVE ANSWER ABOUT THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF EDTA ON THE STAIN THAT'S BEEN CONCLUSIVELY IDENTIFIED AS COMING FROM NICOLE ON THE -- FROM THE SOCKS FOUND IN THE DEFENDANT'S BEDROOM. NO COURT SHOULD FORCE US TO PART WITH THOSE ITEMS AT THIS POINT. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, YOUR HONOR, IT'S DOUBTFUL THAT ANY COURT COULD AT THIS POINT. AND I SAY THAT RESPECTFULLY. THERE'S TOO MUCH AT STAKE. WE HAVE TO GO WITH THAT AND WE'RE WILLING TO ACCEPT WHATEVER OUTCOME. MR. COCHRAN ALSO ALLUDED TO THE DEFENDANT'S REFERENCE SAMPLE DRIFTING AROUND IN MR. -- DETECTIVE VANNATTER'S POCKET, GOING TO ANOTHER SIDE OF TOWN, AND HE NEVER POINTED OUT WHAT STAINS MIGHT HAVE BEEN POLLUTED OR PLANTED BY DETECTIVE VANNATTER. AND THERE'S A REASON HE DIDN'T DO THAT. BUT THAT'S SPECTER. THAT IMAGE IS STILL FLOATING AROUND OF VANNATTER DRIVING ACROSS TOWN RATHER THAN TAKING THE SHORT ROUTE. THERE'S A REASON THAT HE DIDN'T -- HE WASN'T SPECIFIC, AND THAT IS BECAUSE ALL THOSE EVIDENCE STAINS WERE COLLECTED BEFORE THE REFERENCE SAMPLE HAD BEEN OBTAINED FROM MR. SIMPSON. BUT STILL, IN LIGHT OF THAT MISLEADING IMPRESSION THAT WAS CREATED, WE WANT TO MAINTAIN POSSESSION OF ALL THREE REFERENCE SAMPLES. AND THEY EXIST IN TUBES, THEY EXIST IN CARDS, THEY EXIST IN SWATCHES.

WELL, LET ME ASK YOU THIS, MR. HARMON.

YES, YOUR HONOR.

AS TO THOSE REFERENCE SAMPLES --

THE DEFENSE HAS ALREADY GOTTEN SAMPLES FROM THEM. I'M SORRY.

ALL RIGHT. THEN I WON'T CONCERN MYSELF WITH THOSE.

THEY HAVE ALREADY -- I COULD PULL OUT THE DATES, BUT THE DEFENSE HAS ALREADY HAD ACCESS TO THE REFERENCE SAMPLES, ALL THREE OF THEM. SO IN MY OPINION, THERE'S NO CONTINUED NEED TO OBTAIN THOSE ITEMS.

ARE THERE ANY ITEMS ON THIS LIST THAT YOU ARE WILLING TO CONCEDE THAT THEY ARE ENTITLED TO HAVE IN THEIR POSSESSION FOR TESTING AND YOU HAVE NO FURTHER OBJECTION?

WELL, HOW ABOUT DINO AND CARLITO'S WAY FOR STARTERS? WE MADE PROGRESS THIS AFTERNOON. WELL, I THINK IT'S INCUMBENT ON THEM TO SPECIFY WHAT IT IS THAT THEY NEED. AND WHEN I FINISH IN A MOMENT, I THINK YOU'LL SEE THE REASON WHY, YOUR HONOR. UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF KEENAN VERSUS SUPERIOR COURT, WHICH WE LIST IN OUR LETTER, WE HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO OBSERVE THESE TESTS, NOT ONLY TO OBSERVE THEM, BUT TO MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF THE EVIDENCE. THAT'S AT 126 CAL. APP. 3D 576. DEFENDANT -- THERE'S NO SURPRISE THAT THEY SHOULD RELY ON PRINCE VERSUS SUPERIOR COURT. I THINK THE COURT NEEDS TO LOOK AT WHAT OUR SUPREME COURT HAS SAID, PEOPLE VERSUS COOPER, 53 CAL. 3D. 771. THEY SIMPLY ASSERT THAT THIS KIND OF MONITORING WOULD VIOLATE THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES. AND REMEMBER A COUPLE MONTHS AGO, WE WENT THROUGH SOME DISCUSSIONS ABOUT ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE. PEOPLE VERSUS COOPER IN MY OPINION DISPOSES OF THAT. AND IF IT DOESN'T, IT'S INCUMBENT ON THEM TO POINT OUT BY SPECIFYING WHAT IT IS THAT THEY WANT TO DO AND HOW MUCH THAT THEY'RE GOING TO CONSUME. YOU KNOW, IF WE JUST SHIP ALL THIS STUFF OFF, UNDER THEIR THEORY, IT DISAPPEARS INTO THE BLACK HOLE OF CALCUTTA AND WE NEVER GET TO SEE OR FIND OUT ANYTHING THAT COMES OUT OF IT. I JUST SENT A LETTER TO THE DEFENSE TEAM TODAY. I WANT TO KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENED TO 47, 50 AND 78. WE'RE ENTITLED TO PRESENT AN ACCOUNT FOR THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY. AND I WASN'T THAT ACTIVELY INVOLVED AT THE TIME THEY OBTAINED POSSESSION OF IT, BUT I THINK WE'RE ENTITLED TO KNOW THAT, WHAT'S LEFT. YOU KNOW, THERE ARE SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS ABOUT HOW TERRIBLE THE CESSPOOL OF LAPD, SID IS, AND WE'RE ENTITLED TO CLEAR THOSE UP BY DEMONSTRATING THAT EVERYTHING IS ACCOUNTED FOR. REMEMBER THE TIME OR THE CHART ABOUT MR. SIMPSON'S REFERENCE SAMPLE? THEY'VE MADE SOME SERIOUS CHARGES ABOUT THAT, AND WE'RE ENTITLED. BUT IF WE GIVE THEM STUFF AND ARE NEVER ABLE TO ACCOUNT FOR IT -- I MEAN THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES, THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY AND THEN THERE'S THE MANDATE -- TO ME, THE PRECISE LEGAL QUESTION IS, WHAT LEGAL AUTHORITY DID THEY HAVE TO SHIELD THOSE RESULTS. THAT'S OUR EVIDENCE. AND WE'RE MORE THAN HAPPY TO LET THEM BE AS EFFECTIVE AS THEY CAN BE. BUT THE LAW IN THIS STATE AND IN THIS COUNTRY DOESN'T ALLOW THEM TO BE ANY MORE EFFECTIVE THAN THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE ALLOWS THEM TO BE. AND THERE'S THE BIND. THEY WANT TO TAKE OUR EVIDENCE, THEY WANT TO DO SOME TESTING SOMEWHERE, AND THEY HAVEN'T EVEN TOLD YOU THAT'S WHERE THE TESTING WAS GOING TO BE. IT IS MY OPINION THAT THE LAB THEY WE WILL BE SHIPPING IT TO IS MERELY A CONDUIT TO PREVENT US -- WHAT GOOD DOES IT DO TO TAPE THIS AND FILM THEM IN ONE PLACE IF IT'S GOING TO BE SHIPPED OUT ALL OVER THE COUNTRY FROM THERE? HOW ARE WE EVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO ACCOUNT FOR THINGS? YOU KNOW, JURIES ASK -- I'M SURE YOU'VE SEEN -- SOME STRANGE QUESTIONS. THEY WANT TO SEE THINGS SOMETIMES. AND WHERE ARE WE WHEN WE SAY, WELL, WE SHIPPED IT ALL OFF TO THEM? I'M SURE THAT THEY'LL PROBABLY OBJECT TO ANY REFERENCE TO THEM HAVING HAD ACCESS IN THE ACTUAL TRIAL TOO. I'M TRYING NOT TO PREDICT THE FUTURE, BUT YOU KNOW THAT'S COMING TOO. THAT NOT ONLY -- IF THEY PREVAIL ON ANY OF THESE ISSUES, NOT ONLY DO THEY RESERVE THE RIGHT TO ATTACK OUR EVIDENCE, EVEN IF THEY'VE GOTTEN THE SAME ANSWERS, AS THEY SURELY WILL IN THIS CASE, BUT THEN THEY'LL TRY TO PREVENT ANY REFERENCE TO THE FACT THAT THEY GOT THE STUFF IN THE FIRST PLACE, SERIOUSLY MISLEADING THE JURY, DEPRIVING US OF ANY OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW THEM THAT THIS IS MERELY ABOUT CRITICIZING WHAT OUR EVIDENCE SHOWS, BUT NOT ABOUT SHOWING THAT THE ANSWERS ARE INCONSISTENT. AND I JUST CLOSE ON A PRACTICAL MATTER. YOU KNOW, THE TRIAL'S BEGUN. YOU CAN IMAGINE WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WHEN WE SAY, CAN WE HAVE THE GLOVE? WE ARE GOING TO NEED IT ABOUT 10:00 O'CLOCK TOMORROW, AND THEN THEY HAVE TO TRACK IT DOWN. SO AT THIS POINT, YOUR HONOR, I SEE THREE CATEGORIES. I SEE THE SOCKS AND THE REFERENCE SAMPLES. I SEE ALL THE ITEMS OF BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE THAT WE MAY INTEND TO PURSUE ONCE WE PURSUE THE QUESTION ON THE SOCK, THE QUESTION OF, IS THERE ANY EDTA IN ANY OF THE SAMPLES THAT WE'VE ASSOCIATED WITH MR. SIMPSON. AND WHAT'S INTERESTING, THERE AREN'T THAT MANY SAMPLES THAT WE'VE ASSOCIATED WITH MR. SIMPSON EXCEPT -- THAT HAVE A PURELY SINISTER IMPLICATION TO THEM EXCEPT FOR THE CRIME SCENE DROPS. THERE'S BLOOD IN HIS BRONCO, THERE'S BLOOD AT HIS HOUSE AND THERE'S ALSO HIS BLOOD WHICH HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED ON THOSE VERY SAME SOCKS TOO. BUT MR. COCHRAN HAS RAISED THE SPECTER THAT DETECTIVE VANNATTER OR SOME OTHER DARK AGENT OF HIS DID SOMETHING WITH MR. SIMPSON'S REFERENCE SAMPLE AND PLANTED IT SOMEWHERE. AND DEPENDENT ON HOW THE FIRST SET OF EDTA TESTS ARE DONE -- AND I CAN'T EVEN GIVE YOU A TIMETABLE ON THAT, YOUR HONOR. WE'VE BEEN MAKING MANY PHONE CALLS SINCE MR. COCHRAN MADE THAT ANNOUNCEMENT TO THE WORLD THE OTHER DAY. BUT WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO BE ABLE TO TRY TO DETECT EDTA OR DETERMINE THAT THERE IS NO EDTA IN MANY OF THESE OTHER SAMPLES TOO.

ALL RIGHT. MR. BLAISER.

YES, YOUR HONOR. I'M NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT MR. SHIPMAN OR CARLITO'S WAY. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS. WE'VE MADE ALLEGATIONS THAT MAYBE SOME OF THIS EVIDENCE WAS TAMPERED WITH, AND NOW THEY'RE SAYING WE CAN'T EVEN LOOK AT IT TO TRY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT. JUST BECAUSE OF WHAT OUR DEFENSE HAPPENS TO BE DOESN'T GIVE THEM LEGAL AUTHORITY TO SAY WE CAN'T LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE AT ALL ANYMORE. THE ONLY AUTHORITY THAT MR. HARMON CITED IS PEOPLE VERSUS COOPER. AND COOPER DOES NOT SAY THAT WE HAVE TO TELL THEM WHAT OUR TESTS ARE GOING TO BE, THAT WE HAVE TO TELL THEM WHEN WE ARE GOING TO DO IT, THAT WE HAVE TO TELL THEM HOW MUCH WE ARE GOING TO USE AND THAT WE HAVE TO TELL THEM WHAT THE RESULTS ARE. WHAT PEOPLE VERSUS COOPER SAYS IS THAT WHERE A SAMPLE IS SO SMALL THAT BOTH SIDES CAN'T DO TESTING INDIVIDUALLY, THAT IT HAS TO BE DONE TOGETHER. THE DEFENSE DOES NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO DEPRIVE THE PROSECUTION OF DOING TESTING BY DOING IT THEMSELVES AND DESTROYING ALL OF THE EVIDENCE. THAT'S ALL THAT COOPER SAYS. PRINCE CAME AFTER COOPER AND SAID THAT THAT'S WHAT COOPER SAID. BUT WITH PRINCE, WHERE THERE'S ADDITIONAL MATERIALS FOR THE DEFENSE TO DO TESTING, THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO DO IT AND THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO DO IT IN PRIVATE. MR. HARMON SEEMS TO BE -- FORGOTTEN THAT WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION IN THIS COMPANY -- IN THIS COUNTRY THAT PROVIDES THAT THE DEFENSE HAS CERTAIN RIGHTS, THAT WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION, THAT THERE'S ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE, THAT WE'RE NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE INFORMATION THAT MIGHT INCRIMINATE OUR OWN CLIENT IF INDEED THAT IT IS OUT THERE AND THAT WE HAVE A RIGHT TO CONDUCT OUR INVESTIGATION IN A WAY THAT BEST ALLOWS US TO PREPARE OUR DEFENSE. IF MR. HARMON IS HERE TO SAY THAT THE FACT THAT THE SOCKS -- THAT THERE WAS AN ANNOUNCEMENT TO THE PRESS THAT NICOLE SIMPSON'S DNA WERE ON THOSE SOCKS WHILE THEY WERE STILL IN THE CRIME LAB BEFORE THEY HAD BEEN SENT FOR TESTING, IF THEY CAN'T FIGURE OUT FROM THAT THAT WE MIGHT MAKE SOME ALLEGATION THAT WHEN THE BLOOD LATER ON TURNS UP ON THE SOCK, THAT THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN TAMPERED WITH, THEN THEY AREN'T VERY GOOD TRIAL LAWYERS. CERTAINLY THEY KNEW THAT THAT WAS A POSSIBILITY. NOW THEY'RE TRYING TO TIE UP THAT PIECE OF EVIDENCE BY SAYING THEY'RE GOING TO DO OTHER TESTING, OTHER TESTING THAT I DON'T KNOW HAS PASSED KELLY-FRYE, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S ADMISSIBLE OR NOT. THEY WANT TO TIE THAT UP NOW SO WE CAN'T LOOK AT THAT. WITH RESPECT TO THE ITEMS THAT THEY DID TELL US THAT THEY ALREADY -- THAT THEY WERE STILL DOING SOME TESTING ON, WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO LETTING THEM FINISH THAT AND THEN HAVE US LOOK AT IT. THE REFERENCE SAMPLES, WE ARE INTERESTED IN EXAMINING THE TUBES. IF THERE WAS TAMPERING WITH THE TUBES, WE WANT TO LOOK AT THE TUBES AND THE LABELS. WE'RE NOT SO CONCERNED ABOUT THE BLOOD THAT IS ON THE INSIDE, BUT IN THE MANNER IN WHICH IT'S BEEN PRESERVED IN THE TUBES AND IN THE ENVELOPE. AND THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO INSPECT WITH THESE THINGS. WE POINTED -- MR. COCHRAN POINTED OUT IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT THAT THERE HAD BEEN SOME CONVENTIONAL SEROLOGY DONE ON THOSE SOCKS. IT WAS THE FACT THAT IT WAS ANNOUNCED THAT THERE WAS DNA TESTING THAT HAD BEEN COMPLETED WHEN THEY HAD NEVER BEEN SENT TO THE LAB THAT WE FELT WAS SUSPICIOUS AND IS PART OF OUR DEFENSE AND CERTAINLY IS A LEGITIMATE PART OF OUR DEFENSE. I WOULD JUST CLOSE BY SAYING THAT IF THE ONLY AUTHORITY MR. HARMON HAS IS COOPER, IT DOESN'T SUPPORT WHAT HE HAS TOLD THIS COURT THAT IT SETS. IT DOES NOT SAY THAT WE HAVE TO TELL THEM WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO, HOW MUCH WE ARE GOING TO USE, WHERE WE ARE GOING TO DO IT AND HOW WE ARE GOING TO DO IT. WE APPARENTLY OFFERED TO ALLOW TO HAVE DOCTORS WOLF, BADIN AND LEE ASSIST THE PROSECUTION'S EXPERT IN CONDUCTING TESTS EARLY ON. THEY WERE NOT PARTICULARLY INTERESTED IN THAT, AND NOW WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DO THE TESTING OURSELVES SO THAT WE CAN PREPARE OUR DEFENSE.

WHY DO WE HAVE TO DO THIS EXAMINATION AND SPLIT IN NEW YORK? WHY CAN'T YOU HAVE YOUR PEOPLE COME HERE, DO THE PHYSICAL EXAMINATION, TAKE WHATEVER SPLITS ARE AGREED UPON BY BOTH SIDES HERE AND THEN TRANSPORT ON YOUR OWN THOSE SPLITS FOR TESTING?

SOME OF THOSE EXAMINATIONS THAT WE WANT TO DO ARE PROBABLY GOING TO BE MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATIONS OF ITEMS TO DETERMINE WHETHER WE NEED TO DO ANY TESTING. THAT IS DONE IN OUR LAB BY OUR PEOPLE WITH THEIR EQUIPMENT. WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THEM WATCHING THAT SO THAT THEY SEE WHAT'S DONE. BUT IN OUR VIEW, IT'S UNREASONABLE TO REQUIRE ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE TO COME BACK HERE, NOT KNOWING WHAT EQUIPMENT THEY MIGHT HAVE AVAILABLE TO THEM, NOT KNOWING WHETHER THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE EQUIPMENT, NOT KNOWING HOW MUCH TIME THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE. WE THINK IT'S FAR MORE REASONABLE THAT THEY BE ALLOWED TO EXAMINE IT IN THEIR OWN SETTING, AND WE DO NOT HAVE ANY INTENTION OF SHIPPING THIS STUFF ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. THEY'RE GOING TO BE THERE, THEY'RE GOING TO SEE WHAT WE DO WITH IT, THEY'RE GOING TO SEE US TAKE SPLITS. THEY'RE JUST NOT GOING TO GO SEE WHAT KIND OF TESTING WE MIGHT DO WITH THOSE SPLITS.

WELL, HERE'S THE PROBLEM. I MEAN WE'RE HERE, WE'RE IN TRIAL. I'M TOLD THAT THE PEOPLE'S OPENING REGARDING THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ISSUES WILL PROBABLY CONCLUDE IN A WEEK OR SO AND THAT WE WILL GO INTO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. THEY'RE GOING TO START WANTING TO PRESENT SOME OF THIS PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. HOW CAN I JUSTIFY -- YOU SAY IT'S REASONABLE. HOW CAN I REASONABLY ALLOW YOU TO TAKE ALL THIS EVIDENCE TO NEW YORK WHEN WE'RE IN TRIAL HERE AND ONE OF THE PARTIES WANTS TO PRESENT IT?

FIRST OF ALL, WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THEM SPECIFYING WHICH PARTICULAR ITEMS THEY ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO USE AND WILL DO THOSE FIRST AND GET THEM BACK AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. THERE ARE PICTURES OF ALL OF THESE THINGS. PICTURES CAN BE USED UNTIL THE ITEMS COME BACK. I THINK -- THE NUMBER OF ITEMS THAT THEY ACTUALLY INTEND TO INTRODUCE PHYSICAL PIECES OF EVIDENCE I THINK ARE RELATIVELY SMALL. MUCH OF WHAT WE ASKED FOR ARE THINGS THAT THEY FEEL ARE UNIMPORTANT. THEY HAVEN'T EVEN DONE TESTING ON SOME OF THIS STUFF. SO WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO EXAMINING THINGS IN AN ORDER IN WHICH WE CAN GET THEM BACK AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE SO THAT THEY CAN BE USED FOR WHATEVER PURPOSE THEY WANT TO USE THEM.

ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, I AM GOING TO WANT FROM BOTH SIDES ON MONDAY MORNING A LIST OF THESE ITEMS, AS TO WHAT IT IS, WHERE IT IS, WHAT TYPE OF TESTING THE PROSECUTION WANTS TO SUBJECT THESE TO AND WHY. OR I CAN FIGURE OUT THE WHY. AND I'LL TAKE THE MATTER UNDER SUBMISSION UNTIL I HEAR FROM THE PROSECUTION. BECAUSE JUST THESE LISTS -- MR. BLAISER, JUST THE LIST OF THE NUMBERS HERE, I WOULD HAVE TO SIT DOWN AND CORRELATE WITH MY OWN NOTES, AND I DON'T KNOW WHERE ALL THESE ITEMS ARE.

WE CAN PROVIDE THAT, YOUR HONOR.

ALL RIGHT.

SO THAT'S -- YOU JUST WANT TO KNOW WHAT TESTS WE WANT TO DO?

I WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE ITEM IS, I WANT TO KNOW WHERE IT IS, WHAT ITS CURRENT STATUS IS, WHAT ADDITIONAL TESTING YOU WANT TO DO. I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THIS EDTA TESTING, AS TO HOW YOU PROPOSE TO DO THAT.

I KNOW I WON'T BE ABLE TO TELL YOU THAT MONDAY, YOUR HONOR. I MEAN, WE'VE ONLY HAD FOUR DAYS FOR A COMMITMENT THAT THIS IS WHAT THE DEFENSE WOULD SHOW. AND SO I CAN'T TELL YOU WHERE THE TESTS WILL BE DONE BECAUSE WE'RE STILL --

NO. I AM JUST CURIOUS ABOUT WHAT KIND OF TESTS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE.

OH, I AM SORRY.

I MEAN, I NEED TO KNOW WHAT TYPE OF TESTS SO I KNOW LOGISTICALLY -- I MEAN ARE WE GOING TO HAVE TO -- IS THE ONLY PLACE YOU CAN DO THIS IS SOMEWHERE IN VIRGINIA OR IS IT SOMETHING WE CAN DO LOCALLY HERE, IS IT SOMETHING THAT ONE OF OUR LOCAL UNIVERSITIES CAN DO.

WELL, WE WANT TO TRY TO GET AWAY FROM LOS ANGELES BECAUSE OF THE CHARGES MR. COCHRAN HAS MADE FOR OBVIOUS REASONS. NOT THAT WE BELIEVE THEM, BUT FOR OBVIOUS REASONS. THAT WE'LL INVITE THE COURT TO EVEN CONTRIBUTE IF YOU HAVE SOME LABS YOU WANT TO SUGGEST. IT CAN BE -- THERE ARE A VARIETY OF TESTS THAT CAN BE DONE IN A NUMBER OF PLACES. SO --

NO. I'M JUST CURIOUS AS TO HOW WE TEST FOR EDTA AND THE SAMPLES, WHAT TYPE OF TESTS IT IS, HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE.

THE PHONES ARE PROBABLY RINGING RIGHT NOW, YOUR HONOR.

WHO DOES IT. JUST CURIOUS.

OKAY.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT THANK YOU, COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE? LET'S HAVE THE JURY.

YOUR HONOR, WERE WE GOING TO HANDLE THE MOTION -- THERE WAS ANOTHER MOTION.

I AM SORRY. I FORGOT THE OTHER MOTION.