GOOD MORNING, COUNSEL. BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. MR. SIMPSON IS AGAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT WITH HIS COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. DOUGLAS, MR. BAILEY, PEOPLE REPRESENTED BY MS. CLARK, MR. DARDEN. THE JURY IS NOT PRESENT. COUNSEL, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE NEED TO TAKE UP BEFORE WE INVITE THE JURORS TO JOIN US?
THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. YOUR HONOR, THIS CONCERNS THE VIDEOTAPE THAT THE DEFENSE WAS GIVEN A COPY OF ONLY YESTERDAY FROM THE PROSECUTION, WHICH CLEARLY TURNED OUT TO BE A PIECE OF VERY FAVORABLE EVIDENCE TO MR. SIMPSON'S DEFENSE. AS THE COURT IS WELL AWARE --
AS THE COURT IS WELL AWARE, THE CASE OF BRADY VERSUS MARYLAND OBLIGATES NOT ONLY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, BUT ALSO ITS AGENTS IN THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT TO IMMEDIATELY TURN OVER INFORMATION OR EVIDENCE THAT IS FAVORABLE TO THE ACCUSED. IN THIS INSTANCE, YOUR HONOR, WE HAPPENED TO LEARN FROM THE PERSON WHO CREATED THAT TAPE, A MR. SCOTT KENNEDY, ONLY LAST WEEK OF ITS EXISTENCE AND WERE ABLE TO SEE IT FOR THE FIRST TIME ONLY LAST FRIDAY WHEN WE WERE ABLE TO RECEIVE A COPY DIRECTLY FROM MR. KENNEDY.
YOUR HONOR, WE HAD RAISED THE ISSUE OF THIS TAPE IN COURT ON THURSDAY, AND BOTH MR. DARDEN AND MISS CLARK CLAIMED TO HAVE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF ITS EXISTENCE BUT THAT THEY WOULD CHECK INTO IT. WE LEARNED FROM THE TESTIMONY OF CANDACE GARVEY THAT AT -- ON FRIDAY AFTERNOON, THIS SAME COPY OF THIS TAPE WAS SHOWN TO HER AND SHE HAD A CHANCE TO PREVIEW IT IN PREPARATION FOR HER TESTIMONY. KENNEDY CLAIMS, YOUR HONOR, THAT HE HAD SENT A COPY OF THE TAPE TO THE PROSECUTION BACK IN JULY. AND SINCE EARLY JULY, WE HAD REPEATEDLY REQUESTED ANY BRADY TYPE MATERIAL AND WERE ASSURED THAT THERE WAS NONE OR THAT WHICH WAS IN THEIR POSSESSION HAD BEEN GIVEN OVER. YOUR HONOR, TWO WEEKS AGO, I STOOD BEFORE THIS COURT ON THIS -- AT THIS PODIUM AND I WAS LAMBASTED FOR CONDUCT THAT WAS TERMED THE MOST EGREGIOUS IN THE HISTORY OF JURISPRUDENCE. I CHOOSE NOT TO REACH INTO MY BAG OF HYPERBOLE AND WHACK THE PROSECUTION OVER THE HEAD WITH IT FOR THEIR CONDUCT, BUT MY INDIGNATION IS EVERY BIT AS STRONG AND SEVERE. AND I WORRY, YOUR HONOR. I'VE PRACTICED CRIMINAL LAW FOR 15 YEARS AND THIS HAS INDEED HAPPENED IN OTHER CASES WHERE THERE HAS BEEN A FAILURE TO TURN OVER BRADY TYPE OF MATERIAL. SO IT'S NOT NEW TO ME, YOUR HONOR.
BUT DEPENDING ON THE EXPLANATION THAT THE PEOPLE WOULD OFFER FOR ITS NONDISCLOSURE UNTIL NOW, I THINK THAT THERE IS THE SUPREME RISK FOR THERE TO BE DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS OF A CONSTITUTIONAL DIMENSION AND I URGE THE COURT TO CONDUCT AN OFFICIAL INQUIRY INTO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS TAPE COMING INTO THE POSSESSION OF THE PEOPLE, HOW IT WAS THAT THEY WERE IN POSSESSION OF IT FOR SEVEN MONTHS AND DID NOT EITHER REALIZE THAT IT WAS BRADY OR FAILED TO TURN IT OVER TO THE DEFENSE, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, WHAT SORTS OF MECHANISMS HAVE NOW BEEN IN PLACE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE DISGORGED THEIR FILES OF ALL BRADY TYPE MATERIALS AND WHAT SORTS OF NEW MECHANISMS ARE NOW IN PLACE TO ASSURE THAT THERE WILL NOT BE A REPEAT OCCURRENCE OF THIS PROBLEM. YOUR HONOR, I AM ACCEPTING OF THE NOTION THAT SUCH AN INQUIRY CAN BE DONE IN CAMERA, BUT I DO THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT THERE BE CERTAIN EXPLANATIONS BE BROUGHT TO THIS COURT'S ATTENTION; WHEN THE TAPE WAS FIRST RECEIVED, WHO HAD POSSESSION OF IT, HOW DID THEY LEARN OF ITS EXISTENCE ONLY AFTER WE MENTIONED IT IN OPEN COURT, AND AS I SAID EARLIER, WHAT IS GOING TO BE DONE TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE ARE NOT OTHER BRADY TYPE MATERIALS IN THE PEOPLE'S POSSESSION AND WHAT MECHANISMS WILL ASSURE THAT THERE WILL NOT BE A REPEATED OCCURRENCE OF THIS.
AS THE COURT IS AWARE, BRADY REQUIRES THE PEOPLE TO TURN OVER NOT ONLY EVIDENCE THAT IS FAVORABLE ON THE ISSUE OF GUILT OR PUNISHMENT, BUT IT ALSO REQUIRES THE TURNING OVER OF EVIDENCE THAT MAY REFLECT ON THE CREDIBILITY OF MATERIAL WITNESSES. INDEED, YOUR HONOR, COMMENTATORS HAVE NOTED THAT AS IT RELATES TO BRADY MATERIAL, THE FAR BETTER PRACTICE OF THE PROSECUTION IS TO RESOLVE ANY DOUBTFUL QUESTIONS IN FAVOR OF DISCLOSURE. THERE ARE, YOUR HONOR, WITNESSES IN THIS CASE THAT ARE VERY MATERIAL. AND I REMEMBER THE WORDS OF MR. SIMPSON AS HE RETURNED BACK TO LOCK-UP LAST NIGHT, WHICH KIND OF ECHOED THE WORDS OF RODNEY KING, THANK GOODNESS FOR VIDEOS. I WONDER HOW MR. SIMPSON'S DEFENSE AND HIS CROSS-EXAMINATION OF BOTH MISS GARVEY AND DENISE BROWN WOULD HAVE BEEN ADVERSELY AFFECTED HAD THOSE TAPES NOT BEEN TURNED OVER TO US WHEN THEY WERE BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE BEEN LEFT WITH THE IMAGE OF A BROODING VACANT O.J. SIMPSON RATHER THAN A SMILING HAPPY-GO-LUCKY MAN. AND INDEED, YOUR HONOR, THAT TAPE WAS ABLE TO CLEARLY ILLUMINATE THE TRUE FACTS OF THAT DAY AND ARE VERY CENTRAL TO OUR CASE. ON THOSE COMMENTS, YOUR HONOR, I'LL SUBMIT THE MATTER.
YOUR HONOR, I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT MR. DOUGLAS IS STILL WHINING ABOUT THE SANCTIONS THE COURT IMPOSED A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO AS A RESULT OF HIS OWN MISCONDUCT REGARDING THE ISSUE OF DISCOVERY. I CAN NOT SPEAK TO THE ISSUE OF WHEN THE TAPE CAME INTO THE POSSESSION OF THE PROSECUTION BECAUSE I WAS NOT A PART OF THE PROSECUTION TEAM IN THIS MATTER APPARENTLY WHEN THE TAPE CAME INTO OUR POSSESSION. BUT WHEN MR. COCHRAN BROUGHT IT TO OUR --
NO. I'M SURE IT'S BEEN UP THERE AWHILE THOUGH. BUT WHEN IT CAME INTO OUR POSSESSION, I DON'T KNOW. MR. COCHRAN BROUGHT IT TO OUR ATTENTION, THEN WE WENT IN SEARCH OF THAT PARTICULAR TAPE. WE HAVE SOME 400 VIDEOTAPES UPSTAIRS AND THAT HAPPENED TO BE ONE OF THEM UNFORTUNATELY. I WOULD SIMPLY LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT OBVIOUSLY WE WERE NOT HIDING THE TAPE. THE FACT OF THE TAPE'S EXISTENCE APPARENTLY WAS KNOWN TO OTHERS OUTSIDE THE D.A.'S OFFICE. SO WHY WOULD WE HIDE IT? IT'S A MISTAKE. IT'S ANOTHER INNOCENT MISTAKE IN A SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE 30,000 PAGES OF DISCOVERY AND HUNDREDS OF VIDEOTAPES. IT HAPPENS.
IS THIS VIDEOTAPE LOGGED IN ANY WAY IN ANY OF THE LOGS THAT WERE DISCLOSED TO THE DEFENSE?
IN FACT, IT WASN'T DISCLOSED IN ANY LOG PROVIDED TO DEPUTY D.A. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN FOR THAT MATTER, YOUR HONOR.
WELL, LET'S ADDRESS MR. DOUGLAS' REQUEST, THAT HOW ARE WE ASSURED THAT EVERYTHING THAT IS BRADY VERSUS MARYLAND TYPE MATERIAL HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AND DISGORGED BY THE PROSECUTION?
WILL, I AM CONFIDENT THAT EVERY PIECE OF PAPER AND EVERY AUDIOTAPE THAT WE'RE REQUIRED TO TURN OVER HAS BEEN TURNED OVER AND I'M CONFIDENT NOW THAT EVERY VIDEOTAPE WE'RE REQUIRED TO TURN OVER HAS BEEN TURNED OVER. AS TO MR. DOUGLAS' CHARACTERIZATION OF THE TAPE AS BEING SOMEWHAT EXCULPATORY, I DISAGREE. I THINK THAT THE DEMEANOR AND APPEARANCE OF THE DEFENDANT IN A VIDEOTAPE IS NOTHING LIKE I'VE EVER SEEN OF THE DEFENDANT. IT DOESN'T EVEN LOOK LIKE HIM. IT LOOKS LIKE AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PERSON. AND THAT OF COURSE IS AN ISSUE FOR THE JURY TO RESOLVE. BUT I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY OTHER PROBLEMS WITH OUR DISCOVERY. I DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO WRITE OUT FIVE OR SIX PAGES OF COMMENTARY FOR THIS MORNING'S PROCEEDING LIKE MR. DOUGLAS DID.
I'M JUST HAPPY, YOUR HONOR, MR. DARDEN IS NOT SITTING ON THIS JURY. I THINK, YOUR HONOR, IT'S INTERESTING HOW EVERYTHING THAT THEY DO IS INNOCENT AND EVERYTHING THAT WE DO IS MISCONDUCT, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO DWELL ON THAT. WHAT I THINK THE IMPORTANT THING IS, YOUR HONOR, IS THAT THERE WAS A PROBLEM, JUST HOW THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH MARY ANN GERCHAS AND A STATEMENT THERE WAS A PROBLEM APPARENTLY WITH THE VIDEOTAPE IN THE PEOPLE'S POSSESSION SINCE LAST JULY, AND CERTAINLY I THINK THAT THERE HAS NOT BEEN ADEQUATE EXPLANATION FOR THE PROBLEM AND THERE NEEDS TO BE IN CAMERA AN OFFICIAL INQUIRY. THAT'S ALL THAT I ASK.
KEY QUOTETHANK, YOU COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. JUST SO IT'S CLEAR, THE COURT ORDERS THE PROSECUTION TO TURN OVER ANY MATERIAL THAT IS DEFINED BY BRADY VERSUS MARYLAND. AND I WILL CONDUCT A LATER INQUIRY AS TO DATE AND TIME AS TO HOW THIS CAME INTO EXISTENCE, WHEN IT WAS TRANSMITTED AND WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS ANY FAILURE TO EFFECTIVELY EVALUATE.
YOUR HONOR, I SHOULD INDICATE MR. HODGMAN MAY BE THE BEST PERSON TO CONVEY THAT INFORMATION TO THE COURT. AND WHEN HE RETURNS, WE WILL INQUIRE.
YOUR HONOR, NOT ANOTHER ISSUE, BUT FOR THE RECORD, WE HAVE ASKED THE COURT FOR THE RETURN OF 12 VIDEOTAPES TAKEN FROM THE DEFENDANT'S HOME, AND WE WOULD LIKE THAT DONE EXPEDITIOUSLY. THEY MAY BE USEFUL IN THE CASE.
I'VE ALREADY ASSURED MR. BAILEY WE WILL EXAMINE THOSE VIDEOTAPES, THIS IS NOW THE THIRD TIME, AND TURN THEM OVER IF THEY HAVE NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE.
ALL RIGHT. LET ME KNOW IF WE NEED TO TAKE THAT UP LATER. ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE INVITE THE JURY TO REJOIN US? ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE THE JURY.
TWO WEEKS AGO, I STOOD BEFORE THIS COURT ON THIS -- AT THIS PODIUM AND I WAS LAMBASTED FOR CONDUCT THAT WAS TERMED THE MOST EGREGIOUS IN THE HISTORY OF JURISPRUDENCE. I CHOOSE NOT TO REACH INTO MY BAG OF HYPERBOLE AND WHACK THE PROSECUTION OVER THE HEAD WITH IT FOR THEIR CONDUCT, BUT MY INDIGNATION IS EVERY BIT AS STRONG AND SEVERE.
I REMEMBER THE WORDS OF MR. SIMPSON AS HE RETURNED BACK TO LOCK-UP LAST NIGHT, WHICH KIND OF ECHOED THE WORDS OF RODNEY KING, THANK GOODNESS FOR VIDEOS.
WE HAVE SOME 400 VIDEOTAPES UPSTAIRS AND THAT HAPPENED TO BE ONE OF THEM UNFORTUNATELY. I WOULD SIMPLY LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT OBVIOUSLY WE WERE NOT HIDING THE TAPE. IT'S A MISTAKE. IT'S ANOTHER INNOCENT MISTAKE IN A SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE 30,000 PAGES OF DISCOVERY AND HUNDREDS OF VIDEOTAPES. IT HAPPENS.
I'M JUST HAPPY, YOUR HONOR, MR. DARDEN IS NOT SITTING ON THIS JURY.