ALL RIGHT. CAN WE HAVE THE PHOTO TAKEN DOWN, PLEASE. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY, I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO STEP BACK INTO THE JURY ROOM, PLEASE. AND MISS BROWN, I'M GOING TO NEED TO DISCUSS SOMETHING WITH THE LAWYERS AND I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO STEP OUT OF THE COURTROOM. THANK YOU.
I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED. WE ARE BACK IN OPEN COURT OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY. MR. DARDEN, I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED HERE. PEOPLE'S 9, THE COURT RULED AS TO THE 1101(B) INCIDENTS, AND THERE WERE CERTAIN SPECIFIC INCIDENTS THAT WERE MENTIONED IN THE VARIOUS MOTIONS THAT THE COURT HAS SPECIFICALLY RULED ON YES OR NO. WHAT IS YOUR OFFER OF PROOF AS TO PEOPLE'S 9?
YOUR HONOR, PEOPLE'S 9, THE PHOTOGRAPH WHICH DEPICTS NICOLE BROWN, THE ONE THAT WAS JUST ON THE ELMO, IS A PHOTOGRAPH THAT WAS RECOVERED FROM THE SAFE-DEPOSIT BOX ALONG WITH THE 1989 PHOTOS, AS WELL AS THE HERALD-EXAMINER NEWSPAPER ARTICLE FROM 1989, THE NEWSPAPER ARTICLE THAT DESCRIBED THE JANUARY 1, 1989, CHARGES AND BEATING.
ALL RIGHT. WELL, WE ALL KNOW FROM APOCRYPHAL STORIES THAT POLAROID PHOTOS CAN BE DATED TO A CERTAIN DEGREE BY THE CODE ON THE BACK OF THE PHOTOGRAPH INDICATING THE DATE OF MANUFACTURE, DISTRIBUTION, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, ABOUT THE PHOTOGRAPH. WHAT HAVE YOU FOUND OUT FROM POLAROID REGARDING THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS?
THAT FILM WILL ALSO TELL YOU ABOUT FRESHNESS AND HOW LONG THE BATTERY PACK WILL STAY ALIVE AND THAT APPEARS TO BE AN SX-70 POLAROID PHOTO.
HOW ARE WE GOING TO TIE PEOPLE'S 9 TO AN INCIDENT THAT THE COURT HAS RULED ADMISSIBLE UNDER 1101(B)?
YOUR HONOR, THIS IS THE ISSUES OF THE DEFENDANT'S ATTEMPT TO MINIMIZE WHAT HAPPENED IN JANUARY OF 1989. AND AS I INDICATED TO THE COURT BEFORE, IT IS OUR POSITION THAT MISS BROWN LEFT A TRAIL, A TRAIL OF EVIDENCE INDICATING THAT THERE HAD BEEN A PATTERN, A HISTORY OF ABUSE BETWEEN HER AND THE DEFENDANT. I THINK HER STATE OF MIND IS RELEVANT, GIVEN THE DEFENSE POSTURE AND CROSS-EXAMINATION OF RON SHIPP. I THINK THAT MISS BROWN'S STATE OF MIND IS GOING TO BE RELEVANT IN THESE PROCEEDINGS IN THE AREA OR ON THE ISSUE OF WHY IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE MURDERS SHE TOLD THE NEW YORK TIMES THAT SHE DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT NICOLE HAVING BEEN ABUSED.
AND THESE PHOTOGRAPHS ARE NO SURPRISE TO THE DEFENSE. THESE PHOTOGRAPHS WERE PRESENTED TO THE COURT AND TO DEFENSE COUNSEL DURING THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE MOTIONS AND HEARINGS.
WELL, MR. DARDEN, THE FACT THAT IT IS NOT A SURPRISE DOESN'T MAKE IT AUTOMATICALLY ADMISSIBLE, WOULD YOU AGREE?
THERE HAS NEVER BEEN AN OBJECTION TO HAVING THESE PHOTOGRAPHS MENTIONED HERE IN OPEN COURT. THEY WERE SHOWN TO RON SHIPP JUST THE DAY BEFORE YESTERDAY.
WELL, LET ME ASK YOU ANOTHER QUESTION, SINCE WE ARE OBVIOUSLY GOING TO TALK ABOUT PEOPLE'S 10 AND PEOPLE'S 11. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO CONNECT THIS UP TO ANY OF OUR INCIDENTS, 10 AND 11?
ANY OF THE INCIDENTS UNDER 1101(B) THAT THE COURT HAS DEEMED ADMISSIBLE FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS HEARING.
I DON'T THINK THIS IS AN 1101(B) ISSUE, FRANKLY, BUT AS FAR AS THE OTHER TWO PHOTOGRAPHS, 10 AND 11 --
COUNSEL, YOU CAN'T JUST SHOW HORRIBLE PHOTOGRAPHS WITHOUT TYING IT TO SOMETHING RELEVANT TO THIS CASE.
DENISE BROWN'S STATE OF MIND IS RELEVANT AND SO IS NICOLE BROWN'S STATE OF MIND. THEY WILL MAKE NICOLE BROWN'S STATE OF MIND RELEVANT AS FAR AS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. THEY HAVE INTRODUCED EVIDENCE THAT SHE WAS DRINKING OR THAT THE 1989 INCIDENT OCCURRED BECAUSE SHE WAS DRINKING. THEY HAVE ATTEMPTED TO MINIMIZE THE DEFENDANT'S CONDUCT EVERY STEP ALONG THE WAY, YOUR HONOR, AND THEY HAVE ALSO ATTEMPTED TO IMPLY TO THE JURY OR SUGGEST TO THE JURY THAT IT WAS AN ISOLATED INCIDENT.
ALL RIGHT. WHAT IS THE -- MY RECOLLECTION OF LOOKING AT 9, 10 AND 11 IS THAT THE SERIAL -- NOT THE SERIAL NUMBER -- THE MANUFACTURER'S CODE ON EACH OF THESE POLAROID PHOTOGRAPHS IS VERY DIFFERENT, ONE FROM ANOTHER. WHAT IS YOUR INFORMATION AS TO THE DATE OF MANUFACTURE OF THE FILM OF 10 AND 11?
10 AND 11 ARE MANUFACTURED IN '88 OR '89, BUT DENISE BROWN IS GOING TO TESTIFY TO HAVING TAKEN 10 AND 11 HERSELF.
ALL RIGHT. SO YOUR OFFER OF PROOF IS THAT THIS IS RELEVANT TO A STATE OF MIND OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON --
AS WELL AS DENISE BROWN. MR. SHAPIRO HAS BEEN KIND ENOUGH TO SHARE WITH US HIS STACK OF -- HIS STACK OF NEWSPAPER ARTICLES THAT RELATE TO EVERYTHING THAT DENISE BROWN HAS EVER SAID ABOUT THIS CASE, AND I THINK WE NEED TO EXPLAIN TO THE JURY WHY MISS BROWN FELT INITIALLY THAT HER SISTER WAS NOT THE SUBJECT OF ABUSE. AND I THINK IT IS -- I THINK OTHER THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO THE COURT AND TO COUNSEL, THINGS THAT HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN OBJECTED TO AND THINGS THAT THE COURT HAS ACTUALLY ADVISED THE PEOPLE TO PROCEED WITH CAUTION --
MR. DARDEN, THE PROBLEM I HAVE, THOUGH, IS THAT YOU ARE OFFERING A PHOTOGRAPH FOR WHICH THERE IS NO FOUNDATION AS TO DATE, TIME AND A CONNECTION WITH ANY ONE OF THE 1101(B) INCIDENTS. THAT IS YOUR PROBLEM.
THAT IS WHY I SAID I DON'T SEE IT AS AN 1101(B) ISSUE. I SEE IT AS A STATE OF MIND ISSUE FOR DENISE BROWN AND FOR NICOLE BROWN. AND AS IT RELATES TO NICOLE BROWN'S STATE OF MIND, THE FACT THAT SHE IS KEEPING IN HER SAFE-DEPOSIT BOX THESE PHOTOGRAPHS, ALONG WITH HER WILL AND THESE NEWSPAPER ARTICLES, WE THINK IT IS ALL RELEVANT, NOT UNDER 1101(B), BUT WE THINK THAT NICOLE BROWN'S STATE OF MIND IS RELEVANT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR HONOR. FIRST, YOUR HONOR HAS BEEN TOLD BY THE PROSECUTORS THAT THESE THREE PHOTOGRAPHS WERE FROM 1989 WHEN THEY WERE DISCUSSED DURING OUR HEARINGS REGARDING THE RELEVANCY OF DOMESTIC DISCORD ISSUES, AND WITH THAT WE HAD NO OBJECTION. WE CERTAINLY HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WERE TAKEN ALLEGEDLY BY DENISE BROWN IN 1989 AS BEING SIMILAR PHOTOGRAPHS TO THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO A PREVIOUS WITNESS AND TAKEN BY THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT. HOWEVER, FOR THE PROSECUTOR TO COME TO COURT AND OFFER A WITNESS AND FLASH A PHOTOGRAPH WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THAT WITNESS WAS GOING TO SAY ABOUT THE PHOTOGRAPH AND TELLING YOUR HONOR THAT WE HASN'T ASKED HER, I GUESS SHE IS GOING TO SAY THEY WERE 1985, I DON'T KNOW WHAT SHE WILL SAY, I HAVE TO ASK HER, IS SOMETHING THAT IS NOT PERMITTED BY OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE.
FURTHER, THE FACT THAT I GRATUITOUSLY TURNED OVER AN EXTENSIVE LEXIS SEARCH REGARDING DENISE BROWN AND HER PUBLIC STATEMENTS, BOTH IN NEWSPAPERS AS WELL AS ABOUT TEN TELEVISION SHOW INTERVIEWS THAT SHE DID, AS WELL AS EXCERPTS FROM A BOOK THAT SHE PARTICIPATED IN, WAS ONLY TO AID THE PROSECUTION, SO THEY COULD NOT CLAIM SURPRISE AND SO THAT THEY WOULD BE PREPARED SHOULD THOSE ISSUES COME UP. HOWEVER, I HAVE NOT YET ASKED A QUESTION, AND I DON'T SEE HOW THE PROSECUTION CAN POSSIBLY KNOW WHAT QUESTIONS I'M GOING TO BE ASKING, IF ANY, OF MISS BROWN.
WELL, COUNSEL, MY CONCERN IS NOT NECESSARILY ANTICIPATING WHAT THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MISS BROWN IS GOING TO BE. MY CONCERN IS SHOWING THE JURY A RELATIVELY GRAPHIC PHOTOGRAPH OF THE VICTIM IN THIS MATTER, ONE OF THE VICTIMS IN THIS MATTER, WHO OBVIOUSLY APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN BEATEN FROM THIS PHOTOGRAPH, WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO TIE IT TO ANY OF THE INCIDENTS THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE. THAT IS MY CONCERN.
THAT IS OUR CONCERN AND WE ARE RELUCTANT TO OBJECT, BUT WHEN THEY START PUTTING UP MATERIAL LETTING THE COURT KNOW THAT THIS IS A 1989 INCIDENT AND THEN SAYING THEY CAN'T ESTABLISH A FOUNDATION, THEY DON'T KNOW WHEN IT WAS TAKEN AND THEY HAVEN'T EVEN ASKED THEIR WITNESS, IS CONDUCT THAT SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED. THE QUESTION IS NOW WHAT IS THE REMEDY THAT CAN BE DONE AFTER THIS PHOTOGRAPH HAS BEEN SHOWN AND DISPLAYED FOR SEVERAL MINUTES? AND WHEN I INITIALLY WENT UP TO SIDE BAR, YOUR HONOR WILL RECALL, THAT I ASKED THAT THE PICTURE BEEN TAKEN DOWN IMMEDIATELY BECAUSE OF THOSE CONCERNS, AND YOUR HONOR DID HAVE THAT PICTURE REMOVED, BUT IT STILL TOOK A PERIOD OF TIME, AND I BELIEVE THAT IRREPARABLE HARM HAS BEEN DONE, AND TREMENDOUS BIAS TO MR. SIMPSON, BY DELIBERATELY DISPLAYING A PHOTOGRAPH WHERE THEY KNEW THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO FOUNDATION AND THAT IT COULD NOT BE ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE AND WAS IMPROPER TO SHOW.
ALSO, MR. COCHRAN REMINDS, ME REGARDING THE STATE OF MIND, DENISE BROWN'S STATE OF MIND IS IRRELEVANT TO THESE PROCEEDINGS. SHE IS NOT ON TRIAL. SHE IS A WITNESS SO FAR TO THREE EVENTS AND HER STATE OF MIND AND WHAT SHE FELT AND WHAT SHE WANTED TO DO IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT TO ANYTHING. IF WE ARE SO SLOPPY AS TO BRING IT UP ON CROSS-EXAMINATION, THEN PERHAPS THE PEOPLE MIGHT CLAIM THE DOOR WAS OPENED, BUT TO TRY TO START WITH A PREEMPTIVE STRIKE AND TO ANTICIPATE BY BRINGING IN CLEARLY INADMISSIBLE MATERIAL IS NOT PERMITTED AND SHOULD NOT BE SANCTIONED BY THIS COURT AND THERE SHOULD BE A SERIOUS, SERIOUS MISCONDUCT SANCTION RENDERED AGAINST THE PROSECUTION FOR THIS BEHAVIOR.
I THINK TO TELL THE JURY TO DISREGARD THE PHOTOGRAPH HAS NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER. I THINK A MORE SERIOUS SANCTION IS IN ORDER. AND I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A MOMENT TO CONFER WITH MY COLLEAGUES AS TO WHAT THAT MIGHT BE AND ALSO TO PUT IN A CALL TO MR. DERSHOWITZ WHO IS VIEWING THESE PROCEEDINGS LONG DISTANCE.
YOUR HONOR, WE WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A RECESS AT THIS POINT IN TIME TO CONFER WITH MR. DERSHOWITZ AND MR. UELMEN, AS WELL AS MY CO-COUNSEL HERE IN COURT.
YOUR HONOR, YOU KNOW, I HAVE BEEN PRACTICING FOR A LONG TIME AND I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING QUITE THIS EXTRAORDINARY WHERE A PHOTOGRAPH THAT IS CLEARLY INADMISSIBLE IS JUST THROWN UP ON A GIANT SCREEN TELEVISION FOR THE JURY TO SEE --
-- WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING -- I MEAN, MR. DARDEN IS ON THE RECORD AS SAYING I HAVEN'T ASKED THE WITNESS ABOUT THIS, I DON'T KNOW WHAT HER ANSWERS WOULD BE.
AND THE SANCTIONS -- CERTAINLY THE EASIEST SANCTION IS SIMPLY DISREGARD IT. WELL, MOST OF US WHO HAVE BEEN PRACTICING FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME KNOW THAT NOT ONLY IS THAT NOT EFFECTIVE, ALL IT DOES IS SERVE IN SOME INSTANCES TO REEMPHASIZE THE POINT, AND PERHAPS THERE SHOULD BE SOME SANCTIONS THAT ALL ISSUES OF DOMESTIC DISCORD BE STRICKEN FROM THIS RECORD AND THAT WE MOVE ON TO THE REAL ISSUES OF THIS CASE, AND THAT IS, WHO COMMITTED THESE HORRIBLE MURDERS. AND I THINK THAT MIGHT BE AN APPROPRIATE SANCTION UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THAT THE PEOPLE WILL HAVE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE THAT THEY HAVE PRESENTED STRICKEN BECAUSE OF THIS TYPE OF CONDUCT.
YOU KNOW, THIS DOESN'T EVEN APPROACH ANYTHING THAT CAN BE CONSTRUED AS MISCONDUCT. THESE PHOTOGRAPHS WERE SHOWN TO THE COURT, THEY WERE SHOWN TO THE DEFENSE A MONTH AGO. THEY WERE PRESENTED HERE IN OPEN COURT AND THEY WERE SHOWN TO A WITNESS AND THEY WERE MARKED.
MR. DARDEN, MR. DARDEN, PLEASE, LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION. THE PROBLEM I HAVE IS THAT WE HAVE SHOWN THE JURY THIS PHOTOGRAPH WITHOUT A FOUNDATION AS TO WHERE AND WHEN THIS PHOTOGRAPH WAS TAKEN OR BY WHOM, AND WE DON'T KNOW IF IT TIES UP TO ANY OF THE INCIDENTS THAT I HAVE INDICATED ARE ADMISSIBLE UNDER 1101(B) RULING.
DID THE COURT -- DID THE COURT RULE IT INADMISSIBLE, THE RECOVERY OF THREE POLAROID PHOTOGRAPHS FROM A SAFE-DEPOSIT BOX?
AND IF IT IS IRRELEVANT, THE INFLAMMATORY NATURE OF THAT PARTICULAR PHOTOGRAPH, WHICH YOU HAVE TO ADMIT IS A PRETTY STRONG PHOTOGRAPH --
THAT IS WHY WE HAVE THE LEARNED COUNSEL ON THE -- FOR THE DEFENSE, YOUR HONOR. THEY COULD HAVE OBJECTED. THEY HAVE AN EVIDENCE LIST JUST LIKE I HAVE.
THAT'S RIGHT. THEY CERTAINLY DIDN'T. THEY DIDN'T OBJECT TO IT. THEY HAVE KNOWN ABOUT IT FOR A MONTH. THEY SAW IT LAST WEEK AND THEY DIDN'T OBJECT TO IT, BUT NOW THEY OBJECT TO IT TODAY AFTER THE JURY SEES IT.
THERE IS A FOUNDATION FOR IT. DENISE BROWN IS GOING TO TESTIFY TO HAVING SEEN THAT PHOTOGRAPH. IT ENDS UP IN A SAFE-DEPOSIT ALONG WITH THE 1989 PHOTOGRAPHS. THE DEFENSE HAS INDICATED THAT THEY ARE GOING TO CALL LENORE WALKER, AND IF THE COURT READS LENORE WALKER'S WRITING AS IT RELATES TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, THE FACT THAT THE VICTIM LEFT A TRAIL, A TRAIL JUST LIKE THE TRAIL LEFT BY NICOLE BROWN, IS VERY RELEVANT, EXTREMELY RELEVANT. IT IS GOING TO BE RELEVANT AS TO LENORE WALKER'S OPINION WHEN SHE ARRIVES.
WHY ISN'T THIS A REBUTTAL ISSUE? WHY IS THIS IN THE CASE OF CHIEF IF IT IS NOT ONE OF THE 1101(B) ISSUES, ONE OF THE 1101(B) INCIDENTS THAT I HAVE ALLOWED?
AT LEAST AT THIS POINT TO ESTABLISH -- DENISE BROWN IS HERE TO TESTIFY AS TO THE NATURE OF THE RELATIONSHIP AS TO THREE SPECIFIC INCIDENTS.
THIS PHOTOGRAPH IS NOT RELATED TO ANY OF THOSE THREE INCIDENTS SO IT APPEARS TO ME TO BE IRRELEVANT. WHAT CONCERNS ME IS THE RATHER INFLAMMATORY NATURE OF THAT PHOTOGRAPH AND TO SHOW IT TO THE JURY WITHOUT ANY FOUNDATION FOR IT IS MORE THAN INAPPROPRIATE.
YOUR HONOR, EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS WHEN THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS WERE RECOVERED. EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THAT IN THE PHOTOGRAPHS --
CAN WE PUT TWO PHOTOGRAPHS UP ON THE SCREEN FOR YOU FOR A MOMENT SO THAT I CAN JUST MAKE ONE OTHER POINT ON THE ISSUE OF THEIR FAILURE TO OBJECT?
THE POINT IS THIS: LOOK AT THE AGE OF NICOLE BROWN IN NO. 9 AND LOOK AT THE PHOTOGRAPH MARKED NUMBER -- WAS IT 11?
NO. 10. OKAY. NO ONE IS HIDING ANYTHING FROM THE DEFENSE. THEY KNOW THAT DENISE BROWN SAW THIS PHOTOGRAPH. THEY KNOW THAT DENISE BROWN -- OR RATHER, THAT THE PHOTOGRAPH WAS TAKEN OUT OF THE 1989 SAFE-DEPOSIT BOX. YOU CAN LOOK AT THE PHOTOGRAPHS AND CLEARLY DISCERN THAT SHE IS YOUNGER, SHE APPEARS YOUTHFUL IN PEOPLE'S 9 FOR IDENTIFICATION. IF THEY WANTED TO OBJECT TO THE INTRODUCTION OF THESE PHOTOGRAPHS, THEY COULD HAVE.
YEAH, AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO THE JURY. I MEAN DID I JUST THROW IT ON THE ELMO AND FLIP THE SWITCH AND HAVE IT JUMP OUT THERE IN FRONT OF THE JURY? OF COURSE NOT. I EVEN ASKED PERMISSION TO PUT THE THING ON THE ELMO. I MEAN, WHAT MORE DO THEY WANT? HOW MANY DAYS OR MONTHS DO THEY NEED TO FORMULATE AN OBJECTION? MAYBE MR. DERSHOWITZ SHOULD COME HERE FROM NEW YORK AND HELP THEM DECIDE WHEN TO OBJECT.
YOUR HONOR, WHAT ABOUT THE TWO-ATTORNEY RULE? YOUR HONOR, WHAT ABOUT THE ONE-ATTORNEY RULE ON THE ISSUE?
THEY NEVER CEASE TO AMAZE ME. THEY HAVE MUCH MORE EXPERIENCE THAN WE HAVE ON THE PROSECUTION SIDE, YOUR HONOR. MUCH MORE TRIAL EXPERIENCE.
YOUR HONOR, THE PROSECUTION, DURING THEIR PRESENTATION ON THESE ISSUES, TOLD YOUR HONOR THESE PHOTOGRAPHS WERE 1989. I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANYTHING MORE TO SAY. IF WE ARE GOING TO CALL AN EXPERT IN AS TO BEING ABLE TO TELL THE AGE OF A WOMAN WHEN SHE HAS BEEN OUT AT A NEW YEAR'S PARTY AND ACCORDING TO THE EVIDENCE BEEN DRINKING AND BEEN INVOLVED IN A DOMESTIC DISPUTE AND THEN SHOW A PICTURE OF HER MADE UP, THAT COULD BE THE NEXT DAY AFTER. I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANY ROOM FOR ANY DOUBT THAT THIS COURT HAS BEEN TOLD, COUNSEL HAS BEEN TOLD, AND I WOULD LIKE MR. DARDEN TO TELL YOUR HONOR THAT HE DIDN'T TELL YOU THESE WERE ALL 1989.
ARCHIVED IN '89. THEY ALL RELATE TO THE 1989 INCIDENT. I THINK THAT IS THE ONLY CONCLUSION WE CAN DRAW, GIVEN WHAT WAS CONTAINED IN THE SAFE-DEPOSIT BOX, JUDGE. I MEAN, IT IS CLEAR TO ME THAT WHAT NICOLE BROWN WAS DOING WAS, ONE, IDENTIFYING HER FUTURE MURDERER, HER FUTURE KILLER, AND SHE WAS TRYING TO ESTABLISH FOR US, FOR MYSELF AND MR. GORDON AND MISS CLARK, PROOF OF A PATTERN OF ABUSE AND --
WELL, MR. DARDEN, THAT MAY VERY WELL BE, BUT I THINK THAT COMES IN THE PEOPLE'S REBUTTAL CASE AFTER YOU SEE WHAT DR. WALKER SAYS, AFTER YOU HAVE ESTABLISHED THAT THROUGH YOUR OWN EXPERTS AND THROUGH THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DR. WALKER. BUT TO THROW UP A PHOTOGRAPH THAT WE CAN'T DATE TO ANY OF THE INCIDENTS THAT I HAVE ALLOWED IS NOT APPROPRIATE. THAT IS THE COURT'S RULING.
COUNSEL, WHEN THE COURT ALLOWS 1101(B) EVIDENCE, YOU HAVE TO BE -- YOU, AS THE PROSECUTION, HAVE TO BE VERY CONSERVATIVE AS TO HOW YOU GO ABOUT DOING THAT. IF YOU CAN'T TIE THIS PHOTOGRAPH TO ANY ONE OF THOSE THREE INCIDENTS THAT DENISE BROWN CAN TESTIFY TO, THAT PHOTOGRAPH IS NOT COMING IN. ALL RIGHT.
YOUR HONOR, THE REASON THAT ONE MIGHT ASSUME THAT THAT PHOTOGRAPH WAS THROWN UP RELATES BACK TO THE TESTIMONY OF A POLICE OFFICER NAMED EDWARDS WHO TESTIFIED THAT HE TOOK PHOTOGRAPHS, BUT THE PHOTOGRAPHS DID NOT ADEQUATELY DEPICT THE INJURIES AS HE OBSERVED THEM BECAUSE THEY WERE TAKEN WITH POLAROID FILM AND BECAUSE NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON DID NOT WANT TO GO DOWNTOWN FOR PROPER PHOTOGRAPHS.
WELL, I'M LEADING TO THAT. THE INFERENCE NOW IS THIS IS THE WAY SHE REALLY LOOKED IN 1989, AND I THINK THE SANCTIONS SHOULD BE THAT THE JURY SHOULD STRIKE FROM THEIR DELIBERATIONS ANY REFERENCE TO AN INCIDENT IN 1989, ANY REFERENCE TO ANY INJURIES THAT WERE SUFFERED BY NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, AND ANY PHOTOGRAPHS THAT THEY HAVE SEEN OR ANY TESTIMONY DEPICTING THOSE INJURIES.
YOUR HONOR, WHEN WE BEGAN THIS TRIAL THE COURT ORDERED THE DEFENSE TO PROVIDE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THEIR EXHIBITS AND WE WERE GIVEN A NANOSECOND TO DO THAT, AND WHEN WE REALIZED THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH ONE OF THOSE EXHIBITS AND OBJECTED, THE COURT FOUND THAT WE HAD WAIVED THE RIGHT TO OBJECT BECAUSE THE OBJECTION WAS UNTIMELY, AS THE COURT RULED. I THINK THE COURT SHOULD FIND THE SAME IN THIS SITUATION. THEY KNEW WHAT EXHIBIT 9 WAS. THEY HAVE SEEN IT, THEY HAVE IT IN THEIR HAND, THEY HAVE POSSESSED IT. IT WAS AN ISSUE IN THE DV HEARINGS. I MEAN TO SANCTION US NOW --
DENISE BROWN'S STATE OF MIND IS IRRELEVANT. TAKE THAT TO THE BANK.
I BELIEVE THAT IRREPARABLE HARM HAS BEEN DONE, AND TREMENDOUS BIAS TO MR. SIMPSON, BY DELIBERATELY DISPLAYING A PHOTOGRAPH WHERE THEY KNEW THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO FOUNDATION AND THAT IT COULD NOT BE ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE AND WAS IMPROPER TO SHOW.
MAYBE MR. DERSHOWITZ SHOULD COME HERE FROM NEW YORK AND HELP THEM DECIDE WHEN TO OBJECT.
I THINK HE IS IN BOSTON. BIG DIFFERENCE.
YOU WILL SEE IN ABOUT THIRTY SECONDS.