ALL RIGHT. BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. MR. SIMPSON IS NOT PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT. TWO -- THREE OF HIS COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. BAILEY ARE PRESENT, PEOPLE REPRESENTED BY MISS CHERI LEWIS AND PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE SUBPOENAED WITNESS IS COUNSEL CARL JONES. GOOD MORNING, MR. JONES.
WE HAVE, YOUR HONOR. WE ARE MOVING TO QUASH THE SUBPOENA BASED ON THE OUTRAGEOUS MANNER IN WHICH THE SERVICE TOOK PLACE, ACTIVITIES WHICH WE FEEL SHOULD SHOCK THE CONSCIENCE OF THE COURT AND/OR BECAUSE THE WITNESS HAS NO RELEVANT MATERIAL TESTIMONY TO OFFER. YOU HAVE BEEN PRESENTED WITH TWO SETS OF FACTS. BOTH CANNOT BE TRUE. OUR VERSION HAS A SUBTERFUGE TAKING PLACE AT THE FRONT DOOR OF THE THOMAS HOME ON DECEMBER 27TH. THE PEOPLE'S VERSION, AS REFLECTED IN THE REPORTS, READ AS IF MR. THOMAS DOES NOT EXIST, AS IF NOTHING HAPPENED BETWEEN THE POLICE OFFICERS AND MR. THOMAS AND THAT THEIR ACTIVITIES START AT THE FRONT DOOR WITH MRS. THOMAS WHEN THEY KNOCKED AT THE DOOR, IDENTIFIED THEMSELVES AND POLITELY SERVED HER WITH THE SUBPOENA, AT WHICH POINT SHE RESPONDED, "YOU CHICKEN SHITS," QUOTE, END QUOTE. NOW, WE THINK THAT THE COURT HAS THE POWER TO QUASH THE SUBPOENA IN THIS CASE BECAUSE OF THE POWER INHERENT IN THE COURT TO CONTROL THE PROCEEDINGS THAT TAKE PLACE BEFORE IT. WE ALSO THINK THAT THE COURT HAS THE POWER TO QUASH THE SUBPOENA BASED ON THE CASES IN WHICH OUTRAGEOUS POLICE MISCONDUCT TOOK PLACE AND SERIOUS CRIMINAL CHARGES HAVE BEEN DISMISSED OR CONTRABAND HAS BEEN SUPPRESSED. AND WE TALKED AT ONE PAST APPEARANCE ABOUT THE POWER TO DO THE GREATER SHOULD INCLUDE THE POWER TO DO THE LESSER. IT IS OUR POSITION THAT IF THE COURT BASED ON OUTRAGEOUS POLICE MISCONDUCT, CONDUCT WHICH SHOCKS THE CONSCIENCE OF THE COURT HAS THE POWER TO DISMISS CHARGES AND TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE, THEN CERTAINLY IT HAS THE POWER TO DO WHAT WE ARE ASKING, WHICH IS TO QUASH THE SUBPOENA. WE ALSO THINK THAT THE POWER OF THIS COURT TO SUPPRESS THE SUBPOENA COMES BY ANALOGY TO OTHER CASES WHERE PRETEXTS HAVE BEEN USED AND THEN CONDEMNED, PRETEXTS, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE AREAS OF TRAFFIC STOPS WHERE THEY ARE USED AS A SUBTERFUGE TO CONDUCT SEARCHES FOR EVIDENCE OF OTHER CRIMES. WE HAVE PRETEXTUAL VEHICLE IMPOUNDING AS AN EXCUSE TO DO AN INVENTORY TO RUMMAGE FOR EVIDENCE OF OTHER CRIMES. WE HAVE PRETEXTUAL ARRESTS WHERE ONE ARREST IS MADE AS A RUSE TO CONDUCT A SEARCH FOR EVIDENCE OF OTHER CRIMES. ALL OF THOSE CASES GIVE THIS COURT THE POWER TO QUASH THIS SUBPOENA BECAUSE OF THE PRETEXT THAT WAS USED AT THE DOOR OF THE THOMAS HOME; NAMELY, ASKING MR. THOMAS TO COME OUTSIDE IN RESPONSE TO AN INVESTIGATION HAVING TO DO WITH AN AUTO BURGLARY, A BURGLARY OF HIS VEHICLE, AND WHEN HE DISAPPEARED WITH THE OFFICERS, HAVING THEM COME BACK TO THE DOOR IN HIS ABSENCE, INFER TO MRS. THOMAS THAT HER HUSBAND, HER LOVED ONE, WAS EITHER INJURED OR DEAD AND SHE SHOULD COME OUTSIDE IMMEDIATELY, AT WHICH TIME THEY SERVED HER WITH A SUBPOENA. WE THINK THAT WAS OUTRAGEOUS. WE THINK THAT ALL OF THESE CASES THAT CONDEMN PRETEXTS APPLY AND WE THINK THAT IF THE COURT IS LOOKING FOR ANOTHER REASON TO QUASH, SOME FACTOR IN ADDITION TO THE IMPROPER SERVICE, THEN WE CAN LOOK TO THE FACT THAT MRS. THOMAS HAS NO RELEVANT OR MATERIAL TESTIMONY TO OFFER IN THIS CASE. NOW, IN MY PAPERWORK, I HAVE BEEN SUPPLIED WITH REPORTS THAT SAY OR THAT QUOTE MRS. THOMAS AS INDICATING THAT, "THE DEFENDANT SIMPSON NEVER HIT ME, NEVER BEAT ME, NEVER ABUSED ME, NEVER BATTERED ME." I DON'T THINK THEY WOULD CALL HER IN THEIR CASE TO ESTABLISH THAT. SHE ALSO IS QUOTED AS SAYING, "MR. SIMPSON TOLD ME HE WAS INNOCENT AND THAT HE WAS BEING FRAMED." I DON'T THINK THAT THEY WOULD CALL HER TO TESTIFY TO THAT. SHE ALSO IS QUOTED AS SAYING, "MR. SIMPSON ASKED ME TO KEEP HIS YOUNGER CHILDREN INVOLVED IN THE BLACK CHURCH AND IN TOUCH WITH THE BLACK SIDE OF THEIR HERITAGE." I DON'T THINK THEY WOULD CALL HER TO TESTIFY TO THAT. THE ONLY THING THAT I HAVE BEEN SUPPLIED WITH AS COMING CLOSE TO ANY BASIS FOR CALLING HER IS A REPORT COVERING AN INCIDENT BY -- THAT CAN BE SUMMARIZED AS THIS.
ON SOME UNKNOWN DATE ABOUT 20 YEARS AGO, A BACK-UP OFFICER RESPONDED TO AN UNKNOWN ADDRESS WITH UNKNOWN PRIMARY OFFICERS AND TOOK MRS. THOMAS, SIMPSON AT THAT TIME TO AN UNKNOWN LOCATION WHERE SHE STAYED FOR AN UNKNOWN TIME AND THAT THIS BACK-UP OFFICER, THE ONE THING HE IS CERTAIN IN THE MIDDLE OF ALL OF THOSE UNKNOWNS IS THAT SHE, MRS. THOMAS, HAD NO VISIBLE INJURIES. AND I THINK THAT THAT IS NOT RELEVANT, THAT IS NOT MATERIAL AND THAT IS NO REASON TO HAVE HER COME IN HERE. THE OTHER THING THAT I WOULD POINT OUT TO THE COURT -- AND YOU HAVE THIS REPORT ATTACHED TO THE PEOPLE'S RESPONSE -- IS THAT IT APPEARS THAT ON DECEMBER 27TH, WHICH IS THE POINT IN TIME THAT WE SHOULD BE TESTING WHEN THE SUBPOENA WAS SERVED, THAT THE PEOPLE DID NOT HAVE THIS INFORMATION IN THEIR POSSESSION BECAUSE THE NOTATION IN THE BOTTOM LEFT CORNER INDICATES, "RECEIVED 1-9-95." NOW, IF 1-9-95 MEANS JANUARY 9TH, '95, THEY DID NOT HAVE THIS ON DECEMBER 27TH, '94 AND I DON'T THINK IT -- I THINK A GOOD ARGUMENT COULD BE MADE THAT THIS PROVIDES NO BASIS WHATSOEVER AND ATTACHING IT TO THIS -- THESE PAPERS IN OPPOSITION DOES NOT HELP YOU DECIDE WHAT RELEVANT MATERIAL INFORMATION SHE HAD ON DECEMBER 27TH. NOW, I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO DO THE FOLLOWING: OBSERVE THAT NOT ONE SINGLE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY HAS ATTACHED AN AFFIDAVIT TO THESE MOVING PARTIES. AND THAT IS TO THEIR CREDIT I WOULD SUBMIT BECAUSE THESE REPORTS WHICH TEND TO JUSTIFY THIS SERVICE IS A HALF TRUTH, A DISTORTION AND MISLEADING IN THE SENSE THAT IT STARTS AT THE FRONT DOOR AS IF NOTHING HAD EVER HAPPENED. I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO REJECT THE INVITATION BY THE TITLES USED IN THAT POLICE REPORT OF CHAPLAIN OFFICER SO AND SO DOING SUCH AND SUCH BECAUSE THOSE TITLES ARE MISLEADING. AND THE TITLES THAT COME TO MY MIND ARE REVEREND JIM JONES OF THE JAMESTOWN MASSACRE AND REVEREND JIM BAKER AND OTHER REVERENDS THAT DON'T MATCH THE INVITATION THAT'S BEING EXTENDED TO THIS COURT BY THE USE OF THE TERM "CHAPLAIN." I WOULD ASK YOUR HONOR TO CONSIDER THE INCREDIBLE SCENARIO THAT THE PEOPLE WANT YOU TO SWALLOW, WHICH IS, THIS LADY IS IN HIDING AND THEY GO UP TO THE DOOR AND THEY KNOCK ON THE DOOR AND THEY SAY, "MISS THOMAS, POLICE OFFICERS. WOULD YOU PLEASE OPEN THE DOOR," AND THIS LADY WHO IS IN HIDING AND WHO IS IN CONCEALMENT OPENS THE DOOR AND THEY GIVE HER THE SUBPOENA. THAT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH SOMEONE WHO IS IN HIDING. HER RESPONSE HOWEVER, "YOU CHICKEN SHITS," IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR VERSION OF THE FACTS, WHICH IS, THEY HAD LURED HER HUSBAND OUTSIDE BASED ON A LIE ABOUT HIS VEHICLE BEING BURGLARIZED.
WELL, MR. JONES, LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION. MY RECOLLECTION OF THE CIVIL CODE THAT DEALS WITH THE SERVICE OF SUBPOENAS DOES ALLOW A COURT TO ISSUE ORDERS TO ALLOW POLICE OFFICERS TO EVEN BREAK AND ENTER TO SERVE SUBPOENAS UNDER THE APPROPRIATE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THESE OFFICERS APPARENTLY DIDN'T RESORT TO THAT.
YOU ARE CORRECT, YOUR HONOR. AND THE DIFFERENCE IS GIGANTIC BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS IN THE SITUATION THAT YOU ARE TOUCHING ON IS THAT A DETACHED NEUTRAL MAGISTRATE, MUCH LIKE THE MAGISTRATE WITH A SEARCH WARRANT, IS GIVEN ALL OF THE INFORMATION THAT THEY HAVE, AND THAT DETACHED, NEUTRAL MAGISTRATE THEN DECIDES WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS SUFFICIENT CAUSE TO AUTHORIZE THESE OFFICERS TO BREAK OPEN THE DOOR IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH THE SERVICE. THERE IS NO CODE, CIVIL PROCEDURE, CIVIL, CRIMINAL, PENAL OR ANY OTHER CODE THAT ALLOWS THE OFFICERS TO DO THAT WITHOUT THE EVALUATION OF THE DETACHED, NEUTRAL MAGISTRATE. IN THIS CASE, THE PEOPLE BYPASSED THAT MAGISTRATE AND THEY WENT OUT TO THE HOUSE, AND WHAT THEY DID IS TRAUMATIZE MRS. THOMAS BY INFERRING THE INJURY TO HER HUSBAND.
NOW, THERE ARE CASES WHICH PERMIT THE POLICE TO SAY, TELEGRAM, FLORIST, FEDEX OR SOME INNOCUOUS EXCUSE IN ORDER TO GET THE OCCUPANT TO OPEN THE DOOR, BUT THERE IS NO CASE THAT SAYS YOU CAN CREATE THE STRESS AND THE ATTENTION AND THE CLIMATE OF FEAR THAT WAS CREATED IN THIS CASE.
WELL, I WOULD EXCEPT THAT SOUNDS LIKE SHE WANTS TO SUE SOMEBODY, AND SHE IS NOT INTERESTED IN SUING. WHAT SHE WANTS IS TO BE TREATED WITH THE RESPECT AND DIGNITY THAT SHE'S ENTITLED TO. SHE'S NOT A SUSPECT, SHE'S NOT A DEFENDANT. SHE HAS DONE NOTHING WRONG EXCEPT BE THE VICTIM OF A CRUEL HOAX BY THESE PEOPLE. THESE REPORTS -- YOU KNOW, IT'S MUCH LIKE WATERGATE. WATERGATE STARTED OFF AS A SECOND-RATE BURGLARY AND IT REACHED A NATIONAL SCANDAL LEVEL BECAUSE OF THE COVER-UP. THESE PEOPLE DID WHAT THEY DID AT THE DOOR AND THEN THEY FILED REPORTS WITH YOU NOT BY ANY POLICE OFFICER WHO WAS INVOLVED, NOT BY ANY DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WHO WAS INVOLVED AND OMITTING ALL REFERENCES TO WHAT HAPPENED BETWEEN THEM AND THE HUSBAND AND THEN USES THE TERM "CHAPLAIN" IN ORDER TO INVITE YOU TO ATTACH SOME CREDIBILITY TO THAT AND THEN THEY ATTACH A REPORT THAT THEY APPARENTLY RECEIVED IN JANUARY TO JUSTIFY CONDUCT IN DECEMBER. I THINK IT'S OUTRAGEOUS. I THINK THAT WHAT THEY DID IS TOTALLY INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT THEY CLAIM. THEY CLAIM IN THESE REPORTS THAT SHE WAS NOT IN HIDING. HER RESPONSE INDICATES THAT HER HUSBAND HAD BEEN TRICKED OUTSIDE. AND THEIR REPORTS WHICH INDICATE THAT SHE WAS NOT HIDING I WOULD ADD IS TOTALLY CONTRARY TO THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY MRS. CLARK HERE ON JANUARY 3RD WHEN I FILED THESE PAPERS AND I COMPLAINED OF THIS CONDUCT, AND MISS CLARK SAID ON JANUARY 3RD AT 9:00 O'CLOCK, "WE HAD TO DO THAT BECAUSE SHE WAS HIDING FROM US." THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR HONOR.
GOOD MORNING. YOUR HONOR, IN DECIDING WHETHER THE COURT SHOULD INDEED QUASH THE SUBPOENA, THERE'S ONLY ONE RELEVANT ISSUE FOR THE COURT TO DECIDE; AND THAT IS WHETHER THIS WITNESS HAS RELEVANT AND MATERIAL INFORMATION TO OFFER. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO AUTHORITY FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THE COURT CAN QUASH THE SUBPOENA ON ANY GROUND OTHER THAN THAT, AND THAT WAS THE GIST OF OUR RESPONSIVE BRIEF AND THE PEOPLE VERSUS SUPERIOR COURT LONG CASE, WHICH INDEED HOLDS THAT THAT IS THE ONLY MEANS IN WHICH A SUBPOENA FOR A WITNESS CAN BE QUASHED. THE AUTHORITY CITED BY COUNSEL DOES NOT APPLY HERE. THIS MORNING, I SUPPLIED THE COURT AND COUNSEL WITH THE FABRICANT CASE, WHICH INDICATES THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 1987.1 HAS NO APPLICATION IN CRIMINAL CASES. THAT CASE SQUARELY HELD THAT. IN ADDITION, I WAS GOING TO REMIND THE COURT, WHICH THE COURT ALREADY TOOK NOTE OF, OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 1988, WHICH CERTAINLY CARRIES WITH IT A HARSHER MANNER OF ACCOMPLISHING SERVICE THAN ANYTHING THAT WAS NEARLY APPROACHED IN THIS CASE; AND THAT IS TO ALLOW THE SHERIFF'S TO GO BREAK DOWN SOMEONE'S DOOR. CERTAINLY, IF SOMEONE WERE GOING TO SUFFER EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AS A RESULT OF BEING SERVED WITH A SUBPOENA, THAT WOULD BE THE SITUATION WHERE THAT HAPPENS. FURTHER, THE CASE LAW THAT COUNSEL CITES WITH REGARD TO OUTRAGEOUS GOVERNMENTAL CONDUCT HAS NO APPLICATION HERE. THERE'S NOT A SINGLE STATUTE OR SINGLE CASE THAT I'M AWARE OF -- AND I LOOKED TO SEE WHETHER THAT HAS EVER BEEN APPLIED IN THIS INSTANCE IN TERMS OF MOVING TO QUASH A SUBPOENA, AND IT HAS NOT. THERE IS SIMPLY NO AUTHORITY FOR THAT. AS LONG AS COUNSEL MENTIONED THE IDEA OF PRETEXT STOPS, THE EVOLUTION OF THAT LAW INDEED IS THAT SO LONG AS THE POLICE ACT LAWFULLY, IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT WAS IN THEIR MIND OR WHAT SUBJECTIVE THINKING THEY HAD. IN FACT, I'M AWARE OF THE MOST RECENT PRETEXT STOP CASE BY THE COURT OF APPEAL WAS PEOPLE VERSUS TODD, DECIDED A COUPLE MONTHS AGO I BELIEVE AT 30 CAL. APP. 4617, AND I THINK THAT WAS THE FOURTH ADVANCE SHEET FROM NOW OR THIRD ADVANCE SHEET FROM NOW. AT ANY RATE, THAT HAS NO APPLICATION HERE EITHER. THAT'S NOT AN ANALOGOUS SITUATION ANYMORE THAN THE CASES WHICH DISMISS BASED ON GOVERNMENT CONDUCT IS. SO WHAT THE COURT REALLY HAS TO DO AND ALL THE COURT HAS TO DECIDE HERE IS WHETHER MARGUERITE SIMPSON HAS RELEVANT AND MATERIAL INFORMATION TO OFFER IN TESTIMONY. AND SHE DOES. WE KNOW FIRST OF ALL THAT SHE WAS MARRIED TO THE DEFENDANT FOR 12 YEARS FROM THE PERIOD OF 1967 TO 1979. AND THE POLICE OFFICER, WHO BY THE WAY, I RECEIVED INFORMATION WITH REGARD TO THAT POLICE OFFICER'S KNOWLEDGE BEFORE WE GOT THE REPORT IN HAND. THAT POLICE OFFICER INDICATED THAT HE HAD BEEN OUT TO THAT LOCATION OF WHERE THE DEFENDANT WAS LIVING WITH HIS FIRST WIFE APPROXIMATELY 20 YEARS PRIOR TO THAT, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN 1974 SINCE THE POLICE OFFICER'S REPORT IS DATED LATE 1994; AND 1974 WOULD HAVE BEEN SQUARELY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE 1967 TO 1979 YEARS DURING WHICH MARGUERITE SIMPSON WAS MARRIED TO THE DEFENDANT SIMPSON. AND HE RECALLS THAT WELL ENOUGH TO RECALL THAT SHE HAD CLAIMED SHE HAD BEEN HIT AND THAT SHE AND THE CHILDREN WERE REMOVED FROM THE HOME. THAT IS A SIGNIFICANT EVENT, ESPECIALLY WHEN ONE CONSIDERS THAT IT TOOK PLACE 20 YEARS AGO. AS THE COURT IS CERTAINLY AWARE, THE EVOLUTION OF THE SERIOUSNESS WITH WHICH POLICE RESPOND TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CALLS HAS BROUGHT US TO THE POINT WHERE THERE IS A SERIOUS RESPONSE. 20 YEARS AGO, I SUBMIT THERE WAS NOT A SERIOUS RESPONSE. SO THE FACT THAT THOSE CHILDREN AND THE WIFE HAD TO BE REMOVED FROM THE HOME CERTAINLY LENDS CREDENCE TO THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT INCIDENT.
WHEN WAS THAT INFORMATION MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PROSECUTION? WHEN DID YOU BECOME AWARE OF THAT?
YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T MAKE A NOTE OF THE DATE, YOUR HONOR. I JUST -- THE OFFICER WHO HAD THAT REPORT BROUGHT IT INTO THE OFFICE AT SOME TIME AFTER THAT. I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T MAKE NOTE OF THE DATE THAT I BECAME AWARE OF IT, BUT I DID BECOME AWARE OF IT BEFORE WE ACTUALLY GOT THE REPORT.
WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE TO MR. JONES' ARGUMENT THAT THE -- THAT INFORMATION WAS NOT MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PROSECUTION PRIOR TO THE DECEMBER 27TH DATE OF THE SERVICE OF THE SUBPOENA?
I THINK THOUGH I CAN NOT HONESTLY TELL THE COURT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. I THINK IT WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO US BEFORE THEN, BUT I AM NOT SURE. AT ANY RATE, YOUR HONOR, THAT IS NOT --
WELL, LET ME ASK YOU ANOTHER QUESTION THEN. LET'S EXCISE THEN FROM THE THOUGHT PROCESS OF ISSUING A SUBPOENA FOR HER. WHAT IS THERE THAT'S MATERIAL THEN THAT'S LEFT?
THERE IS A LOT, YOUR HONOR. SHE SPOKE TO A POLICE DETECTIVE WITH ROBBERY-HOMICIDE DIVISION JUNE 23RD, 1994 AND SHE HAD SEVERAL THINGS TO SAY WHICH WE, AS THE PROSECUTION, FEEL IT IS INCUMBENT UPON US TO INVESTIGATE AND TO DETERMINE WHAT CAN BE GLEANED FROM THAT INFORMATION. INITIALLY, SHE RECEIVED A THREATENING PHONE CALL ON HER ANSWERING MACHINE WHICH WAS MADE TO, AS SHE DESCRIBED, HER UNLISTED HOME TELEPHONE NUMBER; AND DURING THAT MESSAGE THAT WAS LEFT, THE MAN WHO LEFT THE MESSAGE THREATENED TO KILL HER. NOW, SHE WAS ADVISED BY DETECTIVE HARO I BELIEVE IT WAS OF RHD, ROBBERY-HOMICIDE DIVISION, TO SAVE THAT MICROCASSETTE. WE WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO HER ABOUT THAT. WE WOULD LIKE TO OBTAIN THAT MICROCASSETTE AND DO VOICE COMPARISONS. ALTHOUGH MISS SIMPSON THOMAS INDICATED THAT SHE DID NOT RECOGNIZE THE VOICE ON THAT TAPE, WE AS PROSECUTORS WOULD LIKE TO DO SOME COMPARISONS WITH KNOWN VOICES AND SEE IF THERE'S --
EXCUSE ME. MISS LEWIS, WAS THAT THREATENING PHONE CALL, THE MESSAGE, WAS IT RELEVANT TO ANY FACTS OR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE?
WELL, WE DON'T KNOW. THE TIMING WAS VERY INTERESTING, THAT IT HAPPENED ON JUNE 23RD, YOUR HONOR, ONLY 13 DAYS OR 10 DAYS, 11 DAYS AFTER THE MURDERS IN THIS CASE. SO WE NEED TO FIND OUT WHAT THAT -- EXACTLY WHAT IS ON THAT TAPE. WE NEED TO DO COMPARISONS. PART OF THE DIFFICULTY IS THAT IN THAT -- AND I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO A FACTUAL DISPUTE, BUT PART OF THE DIFFICULTY WAS THAT MARGUERITE SIMPSON THOMAS WAS INDEED EVADING CONTACT WITH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SO WE COULD NOT DETERMINE THAT IN ANOTHER MANNER. BUT OF EVEN GREATER SALIENT RELEVANCE TO THIS PARTICULAR CASE WAS A CONVERSATION SHE HAD ON JUNE 17TH WITH THE DEFENDANT AT BOB KARDASHIAN'S HOME IN ENCINO, AND SHE INDICATED TO THE POLICE DETECTIVES WHO INTERVIEWED HER THAT THE DEFENDANT SIMPSON ASKED HER TO GO TO HIS HOME ON ROCKINGHAM. THAT'S ALL THE REPORT INDICATES IN THAT REGARD. WE NEED TO KNOW WHY, FOR WHAT PURPOSE. THIS WAS HOURS BEFORE THE DEFENDANT FLED WITH MR. COWLINGS IN THE FORD BRONCO AND AFTER HE KNEW HE WAS GOING TO BE ARRESTED. WE WANT TO KNOW THE DETAILS OF THAT CONVERSATION. IN ADDITION, YOUR HONOR, APPARENTLY SHE ALSO SPOKE TO MR. SIMPSON WHEN SHE DID ARRIVE AT THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE BY CELL PHONE. APPARENTLY THE DEFENDANT CALLED HER ON THE CELL PHONE FROM THE BRONCO AND SPOKE TO HER AT THAT TIME. WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE DETAILS OF THAT CONVERSATION. THESE ARE ALL FACTS THAT COULD WELL BE VERY IMPORTANT TO THE CASE. NOW, RECOGNIZING THAT THE COURT HAS MADE VALIANT ATTEMPTS TO LIMIT BOTH SIDES TO ONLY THE ONE ARGUMENT IN CASES, I WANT TO ADDRESS FOR A MOMENT THE IDEA THAT EVEN IF THE COURT WERE TO ACCEPT A NOTION THAT THE COURT HAS THE AUTHORITY EVEN WITHOUT STATUTE OR WITHOUT CASE LAW ON POINT TO DISMISS THE SUBPOENA OR TO QUASH THE SUBPOENA BASED ON OUTRAGEOUS GOVERNMENTAL CONDUCT, THIS DECLARATION WHICH MR. JONES HAS PROVIDED, YOUR HONOR, ACTUALLY READ MORE LIKE TO ME A CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR INTENTIONAL OR NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS. I FOUND IT INTERESTING THAT THE COURT MADE A SIMILAR TYPE OF OBSERVATION BECAUSE IT CONCENTRATES A GREAT DEAL ON MARGUERITE SIMPSON THOMAS' STATE OF MIND AS A RESULT OF THE ALLEGED CONDUCT. BUT WHAT I WANT TO DO AND I DO -- I WANT TO MAKE IT CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THE ALLEGATIONS AS SET FORTH WITH REGARD TO DECEMBER 27TH IN MR. JONES' DECLARATION ARE NOT THE WAY THAT IT HAPPENED, AND WE CAN HAVE A FULL-BLOWN HEARING AND TAKE UP THIS COURT'S TIME DESPITE HAVING A SEQUESTERED JURY AND ASK THE COURT TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION. BUT I DO WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WE ARE NOT SAYING THOSE FACTS HAPPENED. THEY DID NOT HAPPEN. BUT I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO TREAT THAT DECLARATION SORT OF LIKE A COMPLAINT IN A CIVIL CASE AND A DEMURRER WHICH IS BROUGHT AGAINST IT AND LOOK AT THE ALLEGATIONS ON THEIR FACE. EVEN ACCEPTING THEY'RE TRUE -- AND AGAIN, I CAN'T SAY IT ENOUGH ESPECIALLY WITH A CAMERA AND THE WAY NON-LAWYERS UNDERSTAND THESE THINGS, THAT DID NOT GO DOWN THAT WAY AND WE HAVE THE INVESTIGATORS INVOLVED IN IT HERE PREPARED TO TESTIFY, AND WE CAN TAKE ALL THE COURT'S TIME THE COURT I'M SURE DOESN'T WANT TO DO IN THAT REGARD. BUT IF THE COURT LOOKS AT THE ALLEGATIONS THAT ARE MADE WITH REGARD TO THE CONDUCT IN MR. JONES' DECLARATION, ALL IT ALLEGES IS THAT THE POLICE CALLED THE HUSBAND OUTSIDE ON A PRETEXT, YELLED SOMETHING ABOUT HER HUSBAND WHICH CAUSED HER TO OPEN THE DOOR. IT DOES NOT EVEN INDICATE WHAT IT WAS THAT WAS YELLED WITHIN THE DECLARATION, BUT YELLED SOMETHING ABOUT HER HUSBAND WHICH CAUSED HER TO OPEN THE DOOR AND PUT THEIR FOOT IN THE DOOR LONG ENOUGH TO THROW A SUBPOENA INSIDE. AND THAT'S THE END OF THE FACTUAL ALLEGATION. THEN IT TALKS ABOUT HER MENTAL STATE. SO BY IMPLICATION, LAW ENFORCEMENT LEFT AT THAT TIME. SO WHAT I'M SUGGESTING, YOUR HONOR, IS, EVEN IF THE COURT WERE TO WANT TO LOOK BEYOND, WANTED TO LOOK AT THE FACTS THEMSELVES, WHICH THE COURT NEED NOT DO IN THIS REGARD, AS A MATTER OF LAW, THERE IS NO OUTRAGEOUS GOVERNMENTAL CONDUCT EVEN UNDER THE ALLEGATIONS THAT MR. JONES' DECLARATION, WHICH APPARENTLY IS NOT INFORMATION AND BELIEF, ALLEGES. IN FACT, THE TRUSTWORTHINESS OF THOSE ALLEGATIONS IS INHERENTLY UNTRUSTWORTHY. MISS MARGUERITE THOMAS, WHEN SHE APPEARED ON THE BARBARA WALTERS SHOW INDICATED THAT THE POLICE HAD SAID THERE HAD BEEN A RASH OF BURGLARIES AND FOR HER HUSBAND TO COME OUTSIDE AND CHECK. EVEN THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT IS STATED IN THIS DECLARATION, WHICH WAS THAT THE HUSBAND WAS TOLD HIS CAR WAS BURGLARIZED. SO -- BUT LIKE I SAID, I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO A FACTUAL DISPUTE BECAUSE IT'S NOT IMPORTANT. IT'S A WASTE OF THIS COURT'S TIME AND RESOURCES, AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SUBPOENA ON A WITNESS. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT GOES TO THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT OR INNOCENCE DIRECTLY AND SHOULD CONSUME THIS COURT'S TIME. BUT, YOUR HONOR, THE ONLY ISSUE THAT THE CASE LAW ALLOWS THIS COURT TO DECIDE IS WHETHER INDEED THIS WITNESS HAS RELEVANT AND MATERIAL INFORMATION TO OFFER. AND FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH, WE CERTAINLY BELIEVE THAT SHE DOES AND CONSEQUENTLY WE ASK THE COURT TO DENY THE MOTION TO QUASH THE SUBPOENA.
VERY BRIEF, YOUR HONOR. YOUR HONOR, COUNSEL REFERS TO SOME ADDITIONAL HEARING SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE. I'VE BEEN HERE THREE TIMES. IT WAS MY IMPRESSION THIS IS THE HEARING. IF THEY HAVE WITNESSES, IF THEY HAVE INFORMATION, IF THEY HAVE DOCUMENTS, IF THEY HAVE BARBARA WALTERS, THEN THIS IS THE TIME FOR IT. WE ARE ASKING THE COURT TO QUASH THIS SUBPOENA. THEY SAY THEY WANT -- THEY NEED TO INVESTIGATE THINGS. WELL, THE THIRST FOR KNOWLEDGE IS ADMIRABLE, BUT YOU DON'T DO IT BY SUBPOENA. IT'S THE REVERSE. YOU DO THE INVESTIGATION, YOU DEVELOP RELEVANT AND MATERIAL INFORMATION AND THEN YOU SERVE THE WITNESS WITH A SUBPOENA. YOU CAN NOT SERVE THE WITNESS WITH A SUBPOENA AND GO FISHING ONCE SHE IS ON THE STAND, AND I THINK THAT THAT'S LUDICROUS. SECONDLY, THEY TALK ABOUT THE WEAKNESS OF OUR FACTUAL SCENARIO. I WOULD JUST SUBMIT IT TO THE COURT THAT THE RESPONSE BY THIS LADY AFTER THIS APPROACH, KNOCK, KNOCK, POLICE OFFICERS, MRS. THOMAS, MAY WE COME IN, OPEN THE DOOR, AND SHE SAYS YOU CHICKEN SHITS, THAT SPEAKS VOLUMES FOR WHAT HAPPENED AND WHERE THE TRUTH LIES WITH RESPECT TO THIS FACTUAL CONTROVERSY. AND LASTLY, THIS CASE THAT THEY GAVE ME THIS MORNING SAYS YOU CAN'T ASSESS FEES AFTER YOU QUASH THE SUBPOENA. I CONCEDE THAT. WE'RE NOT REQUESTING FEES. WE DO ASK THE COURT TO QUASH THE SUBPOENA.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. I ACCEPT THE ARGUMENT BY MR. JONES THAT THE COURT DOES HAVE INHERENT POWER TO QUASH SUBPOENAS IN THE FACE OF OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT BY EITHER PARTY IN THE SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA ALTHOUGH I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIND ANY CASE AUTHORITY THAT DIRECTLY SAYS SO, BUT I ACCEPT THAT AS A GIVEN AND I WILL BE SURPRISED IF ANY APPELLATE COURT WOULD OVERTURN THAT PARTICULAR FINDING. IN EXAMINING THE ASSERTIONS IN THE MOVING PAPERS, HOWEVER, I FIND THAT FACTUALLY THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS SITUATION DO NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF OUTRAGE THAT WOULD SHOCK THE CONSCIENCE OF THE COURT. AND SO ON THAT GROUNDS, I DECLINE TO QUASH THE SUBPOENA. THEN THE COURT HAS TO FOCUS ITS ATTENTION TO WHETHER OR NOT THE WITNESS HAS SOME RELEVANT INFORMATION WITH REGARDS TO THIS CASE. THE FACT THAT THE WITNESS ON JUNE THE 17TH DID IN FACT HAVE OR IS ALLEGED TO HAVE HAD TWO TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE DEFENDANT AND WAS -- WHICH RELATE BOTH TO THE DATE OF THE ARREST AND THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE, I FIND THAT THAT IS A SUFFICIENT SHOWING FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE ISSUANCE OF A SUBPOENA. SO THE MOTION TO QUASH THE SUBPOENA IS DENIED. ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, WE HAD PREVIOUSLY ISSUED AND HELD A BODY ATTACHMENT FOR YOUR CLIENT UNTIL TODAY'S DATE. YOU WANT TO MAKE HER AVAILABLE ON SOME DATE IN THE FUTURE AND I'LL HOLD THE WARRANT -- EXCUSE ME -- HOLD THE BODY ATTACHMENT TO THAT DATE?
YES, YOUR HONOR. I WOULD APPRECIATE BEING GIVEN A DATE BY UPON WHICH THE PEOPLE INTEND TO PLACE MRS. THOMAS ON THE STAND WITHOUT ANY PRIOR INTERVIEWS.
ABSOLUTELY. AS A RESULT OF THIS TREATMENT, SHE HAS NO WILLINGNESS TO BE INTERVIEWED BY THE PEOPLE WHO WERE INVOLVED.
I WOULD ADD SHE LIVES IN ORANGE COUNTY. SO I WOULD APPRECIATE A REALISTIC DATE WHEN THEY WILL PUT HER ON THE STAND.
I WOULD SUGGEST THEN THAT WE PLACE HER -- GIVE US A RELATIVELY -- WE'LL GET A DATE AND THEN WE'LL PLACE HER ON CALL AND MAKE THE ARRANGEMENTS THROUGH YOUR OFFICE, MR. JONES, IF THAT'S AGREEABLE TO YOU.
MAY I MENTION, YOUR HONOR, THAT MISS THOMAS HAS BEEN IN THE AUDIENCE OBSERVING THESE PROCEEDINGS QUITE A BIT DURING THE TRIAL. IT DOESN'T SEEM TO HAVE BEEN A HARDSHIP FOR HER TO ARRIVE FROM ORANGE COUNTY.
WELL, AS A MATTER -- SHE IS GOING TO BE HERE WITH HER COUNSEL AS WELL THOUGH. SO KNOWING MR. JONES' SCHEDULE AS WELL, I'M WILLING TO ACCOMMODATE BOTH MR. JONES AND THE WITNESS.
ALL RIGHT. MARCH 3. BODY ATTACHMENT WILL BE CONTINUED TO BE HELD UNTIL FRIDAY, MARCH 3 AT 9:00 A.M. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
AT WHICH TIME THEY SERVED HER WITH A SUBPOENA. WE THINK THAT WAS OUTRAGEOUS.
THE THIRST FOR KNOWLEDGE IS ADMIRABLE, BUT YOU DON'T DO IT BY SUBPOENA. IT'S THE REVERSE. YOU DO THE INVESTIGATION, YOU DEVELOP RELEVANT AND MATERIAL INFORMATION AND THEN YOU SERVE THE WITNESS WITH A SUBPOENA.
SHE SAYS YOU CHICKEN SHITS. THAT SPEAKS VOLUMES FOR WHAT HAPPENED AND WHERE THE TRUTH LIES WITH RESPECT TO THIS FACTUAL CONTROVERSY.
THIS WAS HOURS BEFORE THE DEFENDANT FLED WITH MR. COWLINGS IN THE FORD BRONCO AND AFTER HE KNEW HE WAS GOING TO BE ARRESTED. WE WANT TO KNOW THE DETAILS OF THAT CONVERSATION.
THE FACT THAT THE WITNESS ON JUNE THE 17TH DID IN FACT HAVE OR IS ALLEGED TO HAVE HAD TWO TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE DEFENDANT... I FIND THAT THAT IS A SUFFICIENT SHOWING FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE ISSUANCE OF A SUBPOENA. SO THE MOTION TO QUASH THE SUBPOENA IS DENIED.