ALL RIGHT. I WILL HEAR FROM THE PEOPLE.

THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR, AND GOOD MORNING AGAIN. YOUR HONOR, I WILL BE ADDRESSING THE BULK OF OUR MOTION THIS MORNING. AT THE CONCLUSION OF MY REMARKS MR. DARDEN WILL BE ADDRESSING A SPECIFIC AREA WHICH HE WANTS TO TALK TO THE COURT ABOUT FOR A FEW MINUTES AFTER I CONCLUDE MY REMARKS. NOW, YOUR HONOR, EARLY ON IN THIS CASE THE DEFENSE PLANTED THE IDEA, THE WISH, FRANKLY, THAT A DETECTIVE WITH THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT PLANTED EVIDENCE, THE GLOVE AT ROCKINGHAM. NOW, THAT OF COURSE IS AN INFLAMMATORY ACCUSATION, THAT A POLICE DETECTIVE WOULD PLANT A GLOVE, AND IT MADE HOT NEWS AND THE DEFENSE, IN MONTHS GONE PASSED, ALTHOUGH NOT RECENTLY IN MONTHS GONE PASSED, THEY REITERATED AND REINFORCED THIS NOTION, THIS IDEA, THIS WISH OF THEIRS REPEATEDLY WITHIN THE MEDIA, SO IT HAS ALREADY CAUSED A GREAT DEAL OF TURMOIL TO THE DETECTIVE INVOLVED. NOW, THE TROUBLE WITH THIS WISH, AND I'M NOT CALLING IT A THEORY BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EVEN RISE TO THE LEVEL OF A THEORY, THE TROUBLE WITH THIS WISH, THIS DREAM OF THE DEFENSE TEAM, IS THAT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT THEORY. MOREOVER, ALL OF THE EVIDENCE KNOWN TO THE PROSECUTION REFUTES ANY SUCH THEORY. YOUR HONOR, IN THE -- I WANT TO ADDRESS ONE POINT AND THEN QUICKLY MOVE ON. IN THE DEFENSE RESPONSE BRIEF THE DEFENSE MAKES THE WILD ACCUSATION, PLANTS THE IDEA IN THE COURT'S MIND PERHAPS THAT THE IDENTIFICATION OF CERTAIN OFFICERS WHO ARRIVED AT THE CRIME SCENE PRIOR TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S ARRIVAL, WELL KNOWN ONLY TO, QUOTE, GOD AND THE PROSECUTION, CLOSE QUOTE, AND THAT WAS SIMPLY INFLAMMATORY RHETORIC. IN FACT, THE IDENTIFICATION OF THOSE OFFICERS, THEIR NAMES, AS WELL AS THE TIMES OF THEIR ARRIVALS AT THE CRIME SCENE AT BUNDY, AS WELL AS THE TIMES AND NAMES AND ARRIVAL TIMES AND NAMES OF THE FOUR DETECTIVES, INCLUDING DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, ARE ALL RECORDED ON THE CRIME SCENE LOG WHICH WAS DISCOVERY NUMBER 00038 PROVIDED TO THE DEFENSE AT THE INCEPTION OF THE CASE, SO THE DEFENSE HAS KNOWN FOR MONTHS THE IDENTITY OF NOT ONLY THE FIVE OFFICERS I PARTICULARLY REFER TO IN OUR BRIEF, BUT THE OTHER OFFICERS, AND THERE WERE OTHE ARRIVED PRIOR TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S ARRIVAL AS WELL. NOW, THAT IS JUST THE SORT OF INFLAMMATORY RHETORIC AND ANALYZATION AGAINST THE PROSECUTION THAT THE DEFENSE HAS DONE, FRANKLY, WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUE ON WHETHER THIS POLICE DETECTIVE PLANTED THIS GLOVE AT ROCKINGHAM. NOW, YOUR HONOR, BECAUSE THE THRUST OF OUR MOTION BASICALLY IS GOING TO BE UNDER SECTION 352, AND OF COURSE THE COURT HAS TO DO A WEIGHING PROCESS IN EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE, THE COURT NEEDS THE CONTEXT TO EVALUATE THAT EVIDENCE. I WANT TO RECAP THE EVIDENCE INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S RECOVERY OF THE GLOVE AND AS -- INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO THE THREE AREAS UNDERLYING THIS MOTION WE ARE BRINGING TODAY. AND THAT EVIDENCE STARTS BASICALLY WITH KATO KAELIN WHO AS WE ALL KNOW BY THIS TIME WAS A FRIEND OF THE DEFENDANT'S LIVING RENT FREE IN THE DEFENDANT'S -- ONE OF THE DEFENDANT'S THREE GUEST HOUSES AT ROCKINGHAM. AND WE KNOW THAT LATER IN THE EVENING, AT APPROXIMATELY 10:10 IN THE EVENING ON JUNE 12, KATO KAELIN, AFTER HAVING GOTTEN FOOD MUCH EARLIER IN THE EVENING WITH THE DEFENDANT, WAS BACK IN HIS ROOM AND HE WAS TALKING ON THE PHONE WITH A FRIEND NAMED RACHEL FERRARA. THEY HAD TALKED ON THE PHONE FOR PERHAPS A HALF AN HOUR WHEN KATO SUDDENLY HEARD, KNOCK, KNOCK KNOCK, (MS. LEWIS POUNDING ON PODIUM), THAT KIND OF THUMPING NOISES AND FELT SOMETHING AS A VIBRATION OR MOVEMENT SIGNIFICANT WITH IT.

IN FACT, IT WAS SUCH A STRONG FEELING THAT IT CAUSED THE WALL TO SHAKE TO THE POINT OF MOVING A PICTURE THAT WAS ON THE WALL TO ALMOST COME OFF THE WALL AND THIS IS THE WALL OF THE GUEST HOUSE WHERE KATO RESIDES. NOW, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT WALL THERE IS A PATH THAT IS ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE WALL. NOW, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT PATH IS A CHAINLINK FENCE WHICH SURROUNDS BASICALLY THE PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY. SO KATO WAS CONCERNED AND STARTLED BY THIS EVENT. HE ASKED HIS FRIEND RACHEL WHETHER THERE HAD BEEN AN EARTHQUAKE. SHE INDICATED THAT SHE HADN'T FELT ANYTHING, SO HE SPOKE WITH RACHEL FOR A COUPLE OF MORE MINUTES, GOT OFF THE PHONE WITH HER AND WENT OUT TO INVESTIGATE. HE WENT OUTSIDE WITH A FLASHLIGHT THAT HE HAD. NOW, MEANTIME, WHEN THAT WAS HAPPENING, A LIMOUSINE DRIVER NAMED ALLAN PARK HAD PULLED UP A LIMOUSINE TO THE GATE, TO THE ASHFORD GATE AT THE DEFENDANT'S ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE, BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY ARRANGED THAT THAT LIMOUSINE DRIVER WOULD PICK UP THE DEFENDANT AND TAKE HIM TO THE AIRPORT, AND THE LIMOUSINE DRIVER HAD BEEN THERE AT THE GATE FOR SOME TIME RINGING THE BUZZER, THE INTERCOM SYSTEM WHICH RINGS INTO THE MAIN HOUSE, BECAUSE HE WAS SUPPOSED TO PICK UP THE DEFENDANT.

NOW, THERE HAD BEEN NO RESPONSE. MR. PARK SAW THAT THERE WAS NO LIGHT THAT HE COULD SEE IN THE BOTTOM OF THE HOUSE. HE SAW ONE LIGHT ON I BELIEVE AT THE UPSTAIRS PORTION OF THE HOUSE, BUT HE HAD BECOME CONCERNED BECAUSE HE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE PICKING UP THE DEFENDANT TO TAKE HIM TO THE AIRPORT, YET NO ONE WAS HOME. SO ALLAN PARK CALLED HIS BOSS TO GET INSTRUCTIONS AND HIS BOSS BASICALLY SAID WAIT FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME LONGER AND THEN LEAVE IF HE DOESN'T SHOW UP. WELL, SHORTLY THEREAFTER, JUST A COUPLE OF MINUTES AFTER ALLAN PARK TALKED TO HIS BOSS ON THE TELEPHONE THAT WAS IN THE LIMOUSINE THAT HE WAS DRIVING, HE LOOKED INTO THE ROCKINGHAM ESTATE AND HE SAW TWO IMPORTANT THINGS: HE SAW KATO KAELIN COMING OUT OF THE GUEST HOUSE WITH A FLASHLIGHT. HE ALSO, IN A DIFFERENT VICINITY, SAW A SIX-FOOT TALL 200-POUND AFRICAN AMERICAN WALK QUICKLY TOWARD THE MAIN DOOR OF THE HOUSE AND GO INTO THE HOUSE. AND AS AN ASIDE, WE KNOW FROM THE TESTIMONY OF KATO KAELIN THAT THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO HAD KEYS TO THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE WERE THE DEFENDANT, HIS DAUGHTER, ARNELLE SIMPSON, AND THE MAID. NOW, WHEN MR. PARK SAW THE 200-POUND SIX-FOOT AFRICAN AMERICAN PERSON ENTER THE HOUSE, HE CONTINUED TO RING THE INTERCOM, AND WITHIN APPROXIMATELY TWENTY TO THIRTY SECONDS LONGER OF RINGING THE INTERCOM THE DEFENDANT ANSWERED THE TELEPHONE, THE TELEPHONE LEADING TO THE INTERCOM AT THE GATE. THE DEFENDANT SAID HE HAD OVERSLEPT. CLEARLY HE HAD JUST ENTERED THE HOUSE. NOW, KATO STARTED AN ATTEMPT TO INVESTIGATE THE NOISE THAT HE HEARD; HOWEVER, MR. SIMPSON WAS EAGER, THE DEFENDANT WAS EAGER TO GET TO THE AIRPORT BECAUSE HIS FLIGHT WAS GOING TO BE LEAVING SHORTLY, AND CONSEQUENTLY, KATO, WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LIMOUSINE DRIVER, ALLAN PARK, AND THE DEFENDANT LOADED THE DEFENDANT'S BAGS INTO THE LIMOUSINE AND EVENTUALLY LEFT. AT THAT POINT KATO WENT BACK INTO THE GUEST HOUSE. HE WAS ALONE ON THE ESTATE WITH A SMALL FLASHLIGHT. THE NOISE HAD SCARED AND ALARMED HIM, BUT THE PATHWAY WHICH I MENTIONED A MOMENT AGO BEHIND HIS GUEST HOUSE IS OVERGROWN WITH BUSHES AND THIS WAS AT NIGHTTIME AND IT WAS DARK SO HE DIDN'T WANT TO INVESTIGATE FURTHER ON HIS OWN. NOW, AS WE KNOW, AT APPROXIMATELY MIDNIGHT THAT NIGHT ON JUNE 12 OR THE WEE MORNING HOURS OF JUNE 13, THE BODIES OF THE VICTIMS, NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AND RONALD GOLDMAN WERE DISCOVERED AT NICOLE'S RESIDENCE ON BUNDY. THOSE BODIES, AS THE COURT WILL RECALL, WERE DISCOVERED BY A NEIGHBOR WHO WENT, IN ESSENCE, SEARCHING FOR THE OWNER OF THE BLOODY-PAWED AKITA THAT THE COURT HAS I BELIEVE HEARD ABOUT BEFORE. NOW, ALMOST IMMEDIATELY, WITHIN A FEW MINUTES AFTER THE DISCOVERY OF THE BODIES, THE POLICE WERE NOTIFIED AND THE POLICE OF COURSE RESPONDED IMMEDIATELY. NOW, THERE WERE SEVERAL OFFICERS WHO WERE FIRST ON THE SCENE. AMONG THEM WERE WITH OFFICER ZEIGLER, OFFICER GLORIOSO, THERE WAS A SERGEANT THERE, A PATROL SERGEANT THERE, AND THERE WERE SEVERAL OTHER OTHERS, ALL OF THESE KNOWN TO THE DEFENSE MANY MONTHS AGO. THEY ALL ARRIVED AT THE CRIME SCENE FIRST. A COUPLE OF THEM LEFT TO GO DOOR KNOCKING RESIDENCES. OTHERS STAYED TO MAINTAIN THE SECURITY AND THE PERIMETER OF THE CRIME SCENE SINCE IT WAS A DOUBLE HOMICIDE. DETECTIVE RON PHILLIPS OF WEST L.A. DIVISION WAS THE FIRST DETECTIVE TO BE NOTIFIED AND HE WAS ASSIGNED THE CASE. HE TELEPHONED DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN TO TELL HIM ABOUT THE HOMICIDE AND DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WAS INITIALLY ASSIGNED WITH DETECTIVE PHILLIPS TO THE CASE. DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AND DETECTIVE FUHRMAN DECIDED TO GET TOGETHER AT WEST L.A. STATION TO PICK UP THE APPROPRIATE DETECTIVE CAR AND THEN DROVE OUT TOGETHER TO THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE. THEY ARRIVED AT THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE AT APPROXIMATELY 2:05, SOMEWHERE IN THE VICINITY OF TWO HOURS AFTER THE DISCOVERY OF THESE BODIES, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY FOR PURPOSES OF THIS MOTION, AFTER THE PRESENCE OF NUMEROUS POLICE OFFICERS AND A POLICE SERGEANT AT THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE. NOW, WHEN DETECTIVE FUHRMAN ARRIVED AT THE CRIME SCENE HE SAW WHAT THE OTHER OFFICERS WHO WERE THERE HAD SEEN AND WHAT DETECTIVE PHILLIPS SAW, AND THAT IS A FEW ITEMS AT THE FEET OF RONALD GOLDMAN. AND YOUR HONOR, I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT THIS CRIME SCENE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WHERE BOTH OF THE VICTIMS' BODIES LAY IS A VERY SMALL AREA. THIS IS NOT -- THESE MURDERS TOOK PLACE IN A VERY SMALL LOCATION. AND I THINK THE COURT EVENTUALLY WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DETERMINE THAT, BUT I DO WANT TO MAKE THAT REPRESENTATION FOR THIS HEARING, THAT IT WAS A VERY SMALL AREA, SURPRISINGLY SMALL. NOW, AT THE FEET OF RONALD GOLDMAN DETECTIVE FUHRMAN SAW, AS WELL AS OTHER OFFICERS WHO HAD PRECEDED HIS ARRIVAL, A LEFT-HANDED BULKY MAN'S GLOVE. THEY ALSO SAW A WHITE ENVELOPE WHICH CONTAINED THE GLASSES WHICH MR. GOLDMAN WAS DROPPING OFF THERE AT NICOLE'S RESIDENCE. THEY ALSO SAW THE DARK WATCH CAP, BUT IN PARTICULAR THEY SAW, FOR PURPOSES OF THIS MOTION, THEY SAW THE LEFT-HANDED BULKY MAN'S GLOVE THERE AT THE FEET OF RONALD GOLDMAN. THEY ALSO SAW AND DETECTIVE FUHRMAN ALSO SAW BLOODY SHOEPRINTS LEADING AWAY FROM THIS SMALL AREA WHERE BOTH THE BODIES LAY AND OF COURSE HE TOOK NOTE OF THOSE. NOW, RELATIVELY SHORTLY AFTER THE ARRIVAL THOSE TWO DETECTIVES, THEY LEARNED THAT ROBBERY/HOMICIDE DIVISION OF THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT WOULD BE INDEED TAKING OVER THE CASE, AND AS THE COURT IS AWARE, BUT I'M NOT SURE OTHERS ARE SO AWARE, ROBBERY/HOMICIDE IS REALLY A MISNOMER BECAUSE THAT DIVISION OF LAPD HANDLES A VARIETY OF COMPLEX OR HIGH-PROFILE CASES. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO REALLY WITH HOMICIDES THAT ARE COMMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF A ROBBERY. THAT IS NOT THE THRUST OF THE UNIT. SO THEY ARE NOTIFIED THAT ROBBERY/HOMICIDE WOULD BE TAKING OVER THE CASE. AND WHAT THEY DID, WHAT MARK FUHRMAN IN PARTICULAR DID WAS TO WAIT THERE WITH DETECTIVE PHILLIPS. HE ALSO SPOKE, WHILE HE WAS THERE, TO A DETECTIVE LIEUTENANT SPANGLER AND THEY TALKED ABOUT WHAT THEY WERE SEEING AND WAITED FOR THE ARRIVAL OF DETECTIVES VANNATTER AND LANGE WHO WERE THE INVESTIGATING OFFICERS WHO TOOK OVER THE CASE. ONE OF THEM ARRIVED AT 4:00 A.M. AND THE OTHER AT APPROXIMATELY 4:30 A.M. BY THE WAY, YOUR HONOR, DURING THE ENTIRE TIME THAT MARK FUHRMAN WAS AT THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE HE WAS WEARING STANDARD DETECTIVE ATTIRE. HE WAS WEARING A SPORT COAT AND SLACKS. IT WAS A JUNE NIGHT HERE IN LOS ANGELES AND HE HAD NO OVERCOAT ON, NO TRENCH COAT ON, NOTHING THAT COULD CONCEAL A BULKY ITEM. AFTER DETECTIVES VANNATTER AND LANGE ARRIVED, ALL FOUR OF THE DETECTIVES PROCEEDED IN TWO CARS OVER TO ROCKINGHAM. AS THE COURT IS WELL AWARE, THEY EVENTUALLY MADE ENTRY ONTO THE GROUNDS OF ROCKINGHAM AND THE FIRST PERSON THEY CONTACTED THERE WAS KATO WHO WAS BACK IN HIS GUEST ROOM APPARENTLY ASLEEP. THEY COULD SEE HIM THROUGH THE BLINDS. THEY KNOCKED ON HIS DOOR AND INQUIRED ABOUT THE DEFENDANT'S WHEREABOUTS. KATO DIRECTED THEM UP TO A COUPLE OF GUEST HOUSES BEYOND, THAT IS TO THE QUARTERS OR THE RESIDENCE, I SHOULD SAY, WHERE ARNELLE SIMPSON WAS STAYING. NOW, AT THAT POINT IN TIME, BECAUSE ROBBERY/HOMICIDE DIVISION HAD TAKEN OVER THE CASE, THE INVESTIGATING OFFICERS IN THE CASE WERE DETECTIVES LANGE AND VANNATTER. IN ADDITION, DETECTIVE PHILLIPS IS A SENIOR DETECTIVE TO DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN, SO THOSE THREE SENIOR OFFICERS, THE TWO INVESTIGATING OFFICERS AND THE SENIOR OFFICER BETWEEN DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AND DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, PROCEEDED ON FOR THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THEY WERE THERE AND THAT IS TO IDENTIFY THE LOCATION OF THE DEFENDANT.

NOW, BECAUSE THEY DID NOT KNOW WHO KATO KAELIN WAS AND BECAUSE THEY HAD JUST LEFT THE SCENE OF THIS VICIOUS, BRUTAL, BLOODY, DOUBLE MURDER, 2.1, I BELIEVE IT IS, MILES AWAY AT BUNDY, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN REMAINED IN KATO'S ROOM TO SPEAK WITH HIM A LITTLE BIT TO GET A FEEL FOR WHETHER THIS PERSON WAS AN OKAY PERSON WHO WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THERE, WHAT WAS GOING ON. SO HE DID. HE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH KATO KAELIN, AND DURING THAT TIME DETECTIVE FUHRMAN NOTICED A PILE OF CLOTHING ON THE FLOOR IN KATO'S ROOM. HE ASKED KATO WHETHER THAT WAS THE CLOTHING, INCLUDING A PAIR OF SHOES THAT WAS THERE, THAT KATO HAD WORN THE NIGHT BEFORE AND KATO CONFIRMED THAT IT WAS. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN ASKED KATO IF HE COULD LOOK AT THE CLOTHING AND KATO SAID SURE. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN PICKED UP THE SHOES, IN PARTICULAR, AND LOOKED AT THEIR SOLES. THEY WEREN'T BLOODY AND THE FOOTPRINTS DIDN'T APPEAR TO MATCH THE FOOTPRINTS HE HAD SEEN AT THE CRIME SCENE. NOW, DURING THE COURSE OF THAT CONVERSATION DETECTIVE FUHRMAN ASKED KATO IF HE HAD EXPERIENCED ANYTHING UNUSUAL THE NIGHT BEFORE. KATO SAID, YES, AT THE APPROXIMATE TIME I MENTIONED EARLIER, HE HEARD THIS STRANGE THUMPING ON THE WALL TO HIS GUEST HOUSE AND HE SAW THE PICTURE MOVE ALMOST OFF THE WALL AND HE THOUGHT IT WAS AN EARTHQUAKE BUT IT HADN'T BEEN.

CAN WE ISOLATE THE TIME MORE PRECISELY BY PHONE RECORDS?

THE TIME THAT HE HEARD THE THUMP? THE PHONE CALL THAT WAS IN PROGRESS, YOUR HONOR, WAS LOCAL, BUT WE HAVE -- WHAT WE DO HAVE IS WE HAVE THE STATEMENT OF KATO KAELIN CORROBORATED BY THE PERSON HE WAS ON THE PHONE WITH AT APPROXIMATELY 10:45 TO 10:50. WE ALSO FIX IT BY INFERENCE WITH THE PHONE RECORDS IN POSSESSION OF -- PHONE RECORDS CONCERNING THE PHONE CALL MADE BY ALLAN PARK TO HIS BOSS AND HIS BOSS BACK TO HIM. THOSE CELL PHONE RECORDS HELP TO FIX THE TIME, AND IT IS APPROXIMATELY 10:50.

MISS LEWIS.

THE FRIEND WHO KATO WAS ON THE PHONE TALKING TO, RACHEL FERRARA, TESTIFIED AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING AS WELL. NONE OF THESE FACTS WHICH I HAVE JUST MENTIONED TO THE COURT, NOR ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO MENTION, ARE A SURPRISE TO ANYONE. THERE IS NO MYSTERY TO THESE, AS THE DEFENSE PROCLAIMED THERE WAS IN THEIR RESPONSE BRIEF. NOW, DURING THE COURSE OF THIS CONVERSATION, AS I MENTIONED, THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WAS HAVING WITH KATO, KATO ALERTED HIM TO THIS EARTHQUAKE-LIKE SOUND AND TOLD HIM THE DIRECTION THAT IT WAS COMING FROM, SO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, LIKE ANY GOOD, CONSCIENTIOUS POLICE OFFICER IN ANY TOWN IN THIS COUNTRY SHOULD DO, DID WHAT HE SHOULD DO AND THAT WAS TO GO AND INVESTIGATE THAT SOUND, THAT NOISE, THAT VIBRATION THAT KATO HAD HEARD. SO HE WENT TO THE AREA BEHIND KATO'S GUEST HOUSE, AND ALTHOUGH HE HAD ONLY A SMALL FLASHLIGHT THERE, HE COULD SEE SOMEWHAT. IT WAS DARK AND OVERGROWN. HE WALKED DOWN THE PATHWAY, AND AT A POINT DOWN THE PATHWAY HIS HEART STARTED TO POUND AND IT STARTED TO POUND BECAUSE HE SAW WHAT HE REALIZED WAS PROBABLY THE RIGHT-HANDED MATE TO THE BULKY MEN'S LEATHER GLOVE THAT HE HAD SEEN AT THE CRIME SCENE AT BUNDY A SHORT TIME BEFORE ONLY TWO MILES AWAY. AT THAT POINT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN RETURNED TO THE OTHER DETECTIVES AND ALERTED THEM TO WHAT HE HAD FOUND AND TOOK EACH OF THE DETECTIVES IN TURN OUT TO SEE THE GLOVE FOR THEMSELVES. THE GLOVE EVENTUALLY WAS COLLECTED BY A CRIMINALIST, DENNIS FUNG, AND OF COURSE TAKEN INTO THE CUSTODY OF THE EVIDENCE -- THE PROPERTY DEPARTMENT AT LAPD. NOW, THIS NOTION OF THE DEFENSE THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN COULD HAVE SOMEHOW PLANTED THIS GLOVE, AS I INDICATED EARLIER, IS TOTALLY REFUTED BY ALL OF THE EVIDENCE. THE TIMING, AS THE COURT MADE INQUIRY WITH REGARD TO, THE TIMING OF THE LIMOUSINE -- FIRST KATO HEARING THIS THUMPING NOISE RIGHT AGAINST HIS WALL, OF GOING OUT TO INVESTIGATE WITH A FLASHLIGHT JUST A FEW MINUTES LATER, OF THE LIMOUSINE DRIVER, ALLAN PARK, SEEING HIM COME OUT AT THAT TIME AND SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THAT SEEING WHO WAS CLEARLY THE DEFENDANT GOING INTO THE FRONT OF HIS HOUSE, ALL OF THAT EVIDENCE CLEARLY DIRECTS ITSELF TO THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT DROPPED THAT GLOVE BEHIND KATO KAELIN'S GUEST HOUSE. THE DEFENSE THEORY THAT IT WAS PLANTED FAILS TO ACCOUNT FOR THAT EARTHQUAKE LIKE THUMPING AND THAT NOISE.

YOUR HONOR, THIS MAY NOT BE AN APPROPRIATE TIME TO REVEAL THE PROSECUTION'S THEORY OF THE CASE IN ALL RESPECTS. TO THE EXTENT WE NEED TO DO SO FOR PURPOSES OF THIS MOTION, WE WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT. I CAN APPRECIATE THE COURT'S QUESTION. DOES COURT FEEL IT IS TRULY GERMANE TO THIS PROCEEDING, TO THIS MOTION WE ARE HERE FOR?

IT IS AN OBVIOUS QUESTION AT THIS POINT, BUT I WILL HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY, AND IF IT IS STILL A QUESTION IN MY MIND, I WILL ASK.

MAY I HAVE JUST A MOMENT?

YOUR HONOR, IF THE COURT DESIRES TO MAKE FACTUAL INQUIRY INTO THIS MATTER, I WILL ADDRESS THAT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COURT. PLEASE LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU ARE INTERESTED.

WELL, I WILL HEAR THE ARGUMENT, AND IF I STILL THINK I NEED TO KNOW WHAT YOUR THEORY IS AS TO WHAT EXPLAINS THE EARTHQUAKE, I WILL ASK.

THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

IT JUST SEEMED AN APPROPRIATE QUESTION TO ASK AT THAT POINT. MISS LEWIS.

WELL, I WILL SAY TO THE COURT, AND I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANY DISPUTE, THAT THAT -- THE NOISE WAS CAUSED BY THE DEFENDANT THERE DROPPING THE GLOVE, AND I THINK THAT IS THE OBVIOUS INFERENCE FROM ALL OF THIS EVIDENCE AND I THINK I MENTIONED THAT ALREADY, AND THAT IS, THAT THE DEFENDANT INDEED HIMSELF DROPPED THE GLOVE AS HE WAS TRYING TO SECRETLY COME BACK ON TO HIS PROPERTY SO THAT NOBODY WOULD SEE HIM ENTERING. SINCE HE LATER LIED AND SAID HE HAD BEEN SLEEPING, THAT WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH SOMEBODY SEEING HIM ENTERING. AS IT HAPPENS, ALLAN PARK DID SEE HIM ENTER, SO THAT ATTEMPTED EFFORT OF HIS TO SUPPRESS HIS ENTRY DIDN'T WORK. NOW, WITH REGARD TO THE MOTION AT HAND, YOUR HONOR, THAT IS ONE POINT TO BE MADE, THAT THE TIMING, ALL OF THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE DEFENDANT INDEED BEING THE PERSON WHO DROPPED THE GLOVE BACK THERE AND IS INCONSISTENT AND HAS NO EVIDENTIARY BASIS FOR SUPPORTING DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAVING -- PLACING THE GLOVE BACK THERE. IN ADDITION, YOUR HONOR, THERE IS THE OBVIOUS -- THE OBVIOUS THING TO NOTE, AND THAT IS THAT THE NUMEROUS OTHER OFFICERS THERE AT THE CRIME SCENE, INCLUDING THE POLICE SERGEANT, DID NOT SEE A SECOND GLOVE ANYWHERE AT THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE. THEY SAW A LONE GLOVE, A SINGLE GLOVE AT THE FEET OF RONALD GOLDMAN. A THIRD POINT IN THIS REGARD, YOUR HONOR, IS THAT THE OFFICERS AND THE SERGEANT AND THE OTHER DETECTIVES, INCLUDING DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, HIS PARTNER, ALL -- EXCUSE ME -- INCLUDING DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S PARTNER, ALL SAW DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WHEN DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WAS AT THE CRIME SCENE. HE WASN'T THE INVISIBLE MAN, ABLE TO GO ABOUT AND LOOK AND FIND THINGS ON HIS OWN. HE WAS PRESENT. WHEN HE WAS PRESENT THERE WERE NUMEROUS OTHER OFFICERS PRESENT THERE AS WELL, SO THE DEFENSE THEORY PRESUPPOSES THAT HE WAS SOMEHOW ABLE TO REMOVE EVIDENCE WHICH NONE OF THESE OTHER OFFICERS WHO HAD BEEN THERE, SOME OF THEM FOR TWO HOURS BEFORE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN ARRIVED, WERE ABLE TO SEE.

A FOURTH POINT IN THIS REGARD, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, YOUR HONOR, IS THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WAS WEARING NO CLOTHING WHICH WOULD SUPPORT BEING CAPABLE OF CARRYING AWAY UNNOTICED A BULKY MAN'S GLOVE SUCH AS THE ONE THAT WAS FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM. AN ADDITIONAL POINT TO BE MADE IN THIS REGARD, YOUR HONOR, IS THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S LOOKING, SCRUTINIZING THE SOLES OF THE SHOES OF KATO KAELIN TO SEE IF THEY APPEARED -- IF THEY WERE BLOODY OR IF THEY APPEARED TO MATCH THE BLOODY FOOTPRINT AT THE CRIME SCENE, THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH A PREORDAINED PLAN OR IDEA OR EFFORT OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN TO SOMEHOW PLANT EVIDENCE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT. THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH A DETECTIVE WHO IS SEARCHING FOR THE TRUTH AND INDEED THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WAS DOING. THIS NOTION OR THIS WISH OF THE DEFENSE ALSO DOES NOT ADDRESS THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IN THE CASE, AND OF COURSE I'M NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE DNA RESULT NOW, BUT IT SEEMS TO ACCOUNT FOR THOSE RESULTS AND FOR THE REMAINING SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IN THE CASE, ALL OF WHICH WE ALSO BELIEVE POINTS TO THE DEFENDANT AS THE PERPETRATOR. ANOTHER POINT TO MAKE IN THIS REGARD, YOUR HONOR, IS THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN NEVER LEFT THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE UNTIL HE WAS IN THE COMPANY AGAIN OF DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AND IN THE OTHER CAR, DETECTIVES VANNATTER AND LANGE. THERE WAS NO OPPORTUNITY FOR HIM TO TAKE THE GLOVE OVER TO ROCKINGHAM. HE WAS PRESENT AT BUNDY AND STAYED THERE AND THERE ARE NUMEROUS OTHER OFFICERS THERE WHO ALL SAW HIM THERE UNTIL THE OTHER DETECTIVES ARRIVED AND THEY WENT OVER TOGETHER AND HE WAS IN THEIR PRESENCE AND IN THEIR COMPANY WHEN THEY ALL WENT ON TO THE ROCKINGHAM ESTATE AND APPROACHED KATO'S ROOM AND SO FORTH. FINALLY, YOUR HONOR, TO ACCEPT THIS WISH OR THIS DREAM OF THE DEFENSE THAT THE DETECTIVE PLANTED EVIDENCE, ONE WOULD HAVE TO ASSUME THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WOULD BELIEVE THAT NONE OF THESE OTHER OFFICERS OR THE POLICE SERGEANT OR THE DETECTIVES HAS SEEN A SUPPOSED SECOND GLOVE THERE AT BUNDY. HE WOULD HAVE TO BELIEVE IN HIS OWN MIND THAT NONE OF THESE OTHER OFFICERS HAD SEEN THAT. SO IN ADDITION TO THERE BEING SIMPLY NO EVIDENCE OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S HAVING REMOVED ANYTHING FROM THE CRIME SCENE, ALL OF THE INDICATIONS AND ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IS TO THE CONTRARY AND REALLY CONCLUSIVELY REFUTES THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN COULD HAVE POSSIBLY, HAD HE SO DESIRED, REMOVED ANYTHING, ESPECIALLY SOMETHING SO BULKY AS A GLOVE FROM THE CRIME SCENE. NOW, IN THIS REGARD, YOUR HONOR, THERE IS A BODY OF CASE LAW REGARDING WHAT WE REFER TO AS THIRD PARTY CULPABILITY WHICH IS DIRECTLY ANALOGOUS TO THE SITUATION WE HAVE HERE. THAT CASE LAW ADDRESSES WHEN ONE CAN PUT ON EVIDENCE OF SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE DEFENDANT COMMITTING THE CRIME. NOW, HERE THE DEFENSE HAS NOT GONE SO FAR AS TO ACCUSE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN OF COMMITTING THESE MURDERS. THEY HAVE, HOWEVER, ACCUSED HIM OF ATTRIBUTING TO THE DEFENDANT'S POSSESSION HIGHLY INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE AND THE DEFENDANT'S CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION, SINCE IT WAS FOUND ON HIS PROPERTY, RATHER THAN ON HIS PERSON, BUT THEY HAVE ACCUSED HIM OF DOING SOMETHING THAT IS HIGHLY INCRIMINATING TO THE DEFENDANT. IN THOSE CASES REGARDING THIRD PARTY CULPABILITY, THE SUPREME COURT BACK IN HALL IN 1986, AND IN ALL OF THE SUBSEQUENT CASES SINCE HALL, INCLUDING SEVERAL CASES THROUGHOUT THE 1990'S, AND IN THESE CASE -- CASES WERE DEATH PENALTY CASES WHERE THE SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED THE PENALTY OF DEATH. IN THESE CASES THEY ALL HELD THAT THE TRIAL COURT IN EACH OF THOSE INSTANCES POSSIBLY EXCLUDED FROM EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE OF MERE MOTIVE OR OPPORTUNITY TO COMMIT THE CRIME ON A THIRD PARTY. WHAT MAKES THAT DIRECTLY ANALOGOUS IN THIS INSTANCE, YOUR HONOR, IS THAT THAT WOULD BE THE MOST CRITICAL SITUATION WHERE IF THE APPELLATE COURTS FELT IT APPROPRIATE TO ALLOW IN EVIDENCE OF MOTIVE OF A THIRD PERSON, IT WOULD CERTAINLY BE IN THE AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MURDERS THEMSELVES AND OF COURSE THE CRITICAL IMPORTANCE OF THAT IS NO MORE, UMM, HIGHLIGHTED THAN IT IS IN A DEATH PENALTY CASE WHERE THE COURT IS AFFIRMING A CONVICTION OF DEATH ON A DEFENDANT. SO BY ANALOGY, YOUR HONOR, IN THIS INSTANCE IF THE COURT SAID, AND THEY HAVE SAID CONSISTENTLY THROUGHOUT MANY YEARS NOW, THAT EVIDENCE OF MERE MOTIVE OR OPPORTUNITY IS INSUFFICIENT AS A MATTER OF LAW BASICALLY TO RAISE A REASONABLE DOUBT, THEN CERTAINLY IT APPLIES IN THIS SITUATION AS WELL. WHAT THE COURTS HAVE SAID CONSISTENTLY, THE APPELLATE COURT, IS THAT IT REQUIRES SOME EVIDENTIARY LINK LINKING THAT THIRD PERSON TO THE CULPABILITY AND THAT IS THE EVIDENTIARY LINK THAT FAILS ABYSMALLY HERE. AND THE DEFENSE CAN POINT TO AND HAS POINTED TO NO EVIDENTIARY LINK, ANY WAY, ANY EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THIS NOTION THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WAS ABLE TO AND DID REMOVE THE GLOVE FROM ROCKINGHAM, THE ONE THAT WAS FOUND -- EXCUSE ME, THE GLOVE FROM BUNDY, THE ONE THAT WAS FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM. NOW, IN THE RESPONSIVE BRIEF, YOUR HONOR, THE DEFENSE ATTEMPTS TO CHARACTERIZE THIS AREA, THIS WHOLE ISSUE, AS BEING CENTRAL TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S CREDIBILITY AND THEY HAVE LISTED AREAS THAT I WON'T ADDRESS AT THIS TIME WITH REGARD TO THEIR STATEMENT THAT HIS CREDIBILITY IS IMPORTANT, BUT THIS IS NOT REALLY ABOUT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S CREDIBILITY. THIS HAS BEEN AN ATTACK, AND WHAT THE DEFENSE SEEKS TO DO AT TRIAL, WILL BE AN ATTACK ON HIS CHARACTER BECAUSE NONE OF THE AREAS WHICH THE DEFENSE HAS LISTED IN THEIR RESPONSIVE PLEADING ARE AREAS WHERE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S CREDIBILITY IS REALLY VERY IMPORTANT. THEY ARE ALL AREAS WHERE THERE IS OTHER CORROBORATION AND THEY ARE AREAS WHERE THERE IS SIGNIFICANT IMPEACHMENT AVAILABLE IF THERE IS SOMETHING TO IMPEACH THAT IS IN THE FORM OF DIRECT IMPEACHMENT WITH OTHER OFFICERS, OTHER WITNESSES, OTHER EVIDENCE, BESIDES THE VERY COLLATERAL AND REMOTE EVIDENCE THAT I'M GOING TO GET TO IN A MINUTE THAT THE DEFENSE SEEKS TO USE HERE. NOW, IN THIS REGARD I THINK THE FACT THAT THIS IS NOT TRULY A CREDIBILITY ISSUE WITH REGARD TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IS HIGHLIGHTED BY THE FACT THAT IN THEIR RESPONSE BRIEF THE DEFENSE BRIEF FAILS TO SET FORTH THE DETECTIVE'S RECOVERY OF THE GLOVE AT ROCKINGHAM AS A CREDIBILITY ISSUE. THEY MANAGE TO COME UP WITH A LIST OF THINGS THAT THEY FEEL HIS CREDIBILITY IS IMPORTANT TO, BUT THEY DON'T TALK ABOUT THE CREDIBILITY IN FINDING THE GLOVE AND THAT IS BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT DISCLAIMING THAT HE WALKED DOWN THAT PATHWAY, SAW THE GLOVE, SHOWED THE GLOVE TO THE OTHER DETECTIVES AND THAT THAT GLOVE WAS RECOVERED FROM ROCKINGHAM. THEY ARE NOT SAYING THAT HE IS LYING ABOUT THAT AND I THINK THAT IS HIGHLIGHTED BY ITS ABSENCE OF THE CREDIBILITY ON THAT AREA IN THEIR RESPONSE BRIEF. WHAT THEY ARE SAYING IN THAT REGARD IS THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN PLANTED THAT EVIDENCE, NOT THAT HE LIED ABOUT RECOVERING IT FROM THERE, SO THE PLANTING OF THAT EVIDENCE, YOUR HONOR, GOES TO HIS CHARACTER, NOT TO HIS CREDIBILITY, PER SE. IT IS REALLY A CHARACTER ATTACK, ACCUSING HIM OF DOING SOMETHING AND THEN PERHAPS LYING AT SOME POINT TO COVER IT UP, BUT THE THRUST AND THE HEART OF THEIR ACCUSATION IS THAT HE --

MY RECOLLECTION OF THE RESPONSE WAS THAT NOT ONLY IS IT RELEVANT TO THE GLOVE, BUT IT IS RELEVANT TO THESE OTHER EIGHT ISSUES OR NINE ISSUES THAT THEY LIST IS MY RECOLLECTION OF WHAT WAS ARGUED.

IF THAT IS TRUE, YOUR HONOR, THEN I DO HAVE TO APOLOGIZE TO THE COURT. IT WAS NOT LISTED AMONG THE --

I MEAN, THAT IS THE WAY I UNDERSTOOD THE ARGUMENT THAT THE DEFENSE WAS MAKING.

WELL, NEVERTHELESS, YOUR HONOR, WHETHER THEY ADDRESS IT IN THEIR RESPONSE BRIEF OR NOT IN THOSE TERMS, THE FACT REMAINS THAT IT IS NOT IN ACTUALITY A CREDIBILITY ARGUMENT. IT IS IN ACTUALITY A CHARACTER ATTACK, THIS ACCUSATION THAT HE PLANTED THE GLOVE. THAT HAS TO DO WITH HIS CHARACTER.

NOW, I'VE CITED CASES AND TREATISES IN MY REPLY BRIEF, YOUR HONOR, THAT I WON'T BORE THE COURT WITH AT THIS TIME. THEY SET FORTH, HOWEVER, IN WITKIN NOTES, A COUPLE OR ONE MORE THING WITH REGARD TO COLLATERAL IMPEACHMENT, AND THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE HERE. WE HAVE IMPEACHMENT THAT DOES NOT GO DIRECTLY TO AN ISSUE OF GUILT. WE HAVE SUPPOSED IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE OR ALLEGED IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE THAT GOES TO THE CREDIBILITY OF A WITNESS AND IT DOESN'T EVEN GO DIRECTLY TO THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS. IT GOES ONLY INDIRECTLY BY INFERENCE. NOW, I THINK AT THIS POINT I NEED TO DISCUSS THE AREAS THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, YOUR HONOR, BECAUSE THE COURT OF COURSE, IN ADDITION TO THE FACTUAL CONTEXT, HAS TO LOOK AT THE AREAS THAT THE DEFENSE WE ANTICIPATE WILL SEEK TO IMPEACH WITH AND DETERMINE WHETHER THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF THAT EVIDENCE INDEED OUTWEIGHS THE PREJUDICIAL EFFECT AND THE OTHER CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 352. NOW, ACTUALLY AT THIS POINT IN TIME, YOUR HONOR, I THINK I WILL GO THROUGH THE POINTS RAISED BY THE DEFENSE IN THEIR RESPONSE BRIEF, AND THERE ARE ELEVEN OF THEM THAT THEY MAKE, PRIOR TO TURNING TO THE EVIDENCE THAT THEY ARE SPECIFICALLY SEEKING TO BE EXCLUDED FROM BEING INTRODUCED. I DO WANT TO GO POINT BY POINT AS TO HOW CREDIBILITY IS NOT AN ISSUE WITH REGARD TO EACH OF THESE AREAS. MAY I HAVE JUST A MOMENT WITH COUNSEL, YOUR HONOR?

FIRST, YOUR HONOR, THE DEFENSE IN THEIR RESPONSIVE BRIEF INDICATES THEY FEEL DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S ACCOUNT OF HIS 1985 ENCOUNTER WITH THE SIMPSONS WHEN THEY ARE MARRIED, HIS CREDIBILITY IS IMPORTANT IN THAT REGARD. THAT IS THE ONE AREA -- AND THEY DO LIST IT FIRST I HAVE NOTICED -- THAT IS THE ONE AREA WHERE THERE MAY BE SOME MERIT TO THAT; HOWEVER, THERE IS THE TESTIMONY OF SERGEANT MARK DAY, WHO IS CURRENTLY AN LAPD SERGEANT WHO WAS THEN THE WESTEC SECURITY OFFICER WHO INDEED ARRIVED AT THAT SCENE DURING THE 1985 INCIDENT PRIOR TO THE ARRIVAL OF THE POLICE, AND HIS REPORT DETAILING HIS RECOLLECTION CORROBORATES MOST OF WHAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN ALSO RECALLS FROM THAT INCIDENT. SO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN --

I'M TOLD, YOUR HONOR, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IS NOT GOING TO TESTIFY AS TO THAT. WE ARE NOT GOING TO UTILIZE HIM AS A WITNESS WITH REGARD TO THIS 1985 INCIDENT, SO HIS CREDIBILITY IS NOT AT ISSUE AT ALL WITH REGARD TO THAT. THE SECOND -- THE SECOND AREA THAT THE DEFENSE SETS OUT IN THEIR RESPONSE BRIEF IS THE DETECTIVE'S MOTIVE FOR WRITING AND THE ACCURACY OF THE ACCOUNT OF THE 1985 INCIDENT. THAT OF COURSE GOES BY THE WAYSIDE SINCE THE DETECTIVE IS NOT GOING TO BE TESTIFYING ABOUT IT. THAT IS SUBSUMED WITHIN THE FIRST ONE. THERE WILL BE NO ISSUE OF HIS CREDIBILITY IN THIS REGARD. THE THIRD AREA OF INQUIRY THAT THE DEFENSE THINKS IS GOING TO BE ELICITED FROM DETECTIVE FUHRMAN OR ASKED OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IS HIS MOTIVE AND ROLE IN GOING TO THE DEFENDANT'S ROCKINGHAM ESTATE. NOW, THAT MOTIVE AND HIS STATE OF MIND WERE ADDRESSED AND TESTIFIED TO EXTENSIVELY DURING THE PRELIMINARY HEARING AND DURING OTHER SEARCH AND SEIZURE ISSUES OF THIS COURT -- ISSUES, AREAS THAT WERE BEFORE THIS COURT. HIS STATE OF MIND AND THIS WHOLE AREA WAS IMPORTANT OR RELEVANT PERHAPS, PERHAPS, TO THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE ISSUES, BUT IT IS NOT RELEVANT AND HAS NO APPLICABILITY TO THE CRIME BEFORE THE JURY. HIS MOTIVE -- DETECTIVE'S MOTIVES IN GOING TO ROCKINGHAM, THIS IS NOT A SUBJECT WHICH THE DEFENSE IS ENTITLED TO RELITIGATE IN FRONT OF THE JURY, YOUR HONOR. THOSE ARE QUESTIONS OF LAW WHICH THE MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE DECIDED AND WHICH THIS COURT DECIDED IN THE NUMEROUS MOTIONS THAT WERE BROUGHT BEFORE IT, SO THAT IS SIMPLY NOT AN AREA OF INQUIRY WHICH SHOULD BE ALLOWED DURING TRIAL, HENCE, THE DETECTIVE'S CREDIBILITY IN THAT REGARD IS OF NO IMPORT, SINCE IT IS NOT SOMETHING HE WOULD BE TESTIFYING TO. THE ONLY AREA WHERE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WILL BE TESTIFYING IS TO HIS CONVERSATION WITH KATO AND SUBSEQUENT GOING BACK BEHIND THE AREA TO WHERE THE GLOVE WAS LOCATED. THE NEXT THING THAT THE DEFENSE TALKS ABOUT IS DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S DESCRIPTION OF THE FORD BRONCO AS IT WAS PARKED OUTSIDE OF THE ROCKINGHAM ESTATE. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WILL NOT BE TESTIFYING TO THAT. MOREOVER, THERE ARE NUMEROUS WITNESSES WHO SAW THAT. THERE ARE PHOTOGRAPHS WHICH THE DEFENSE INDEED INTRODUCED AT THE 1538.5 HEARING IN MUNICIPAL COURT. THERE IS AN ABUNDANT EVIDENCE ON THAT. AND AS FAR AS ANY DISPUTE INTO THE POSITION OF THE ANGLE OF THE CAR, THERE ARE NUMEROUS WITNESSES WHO SAW IT, AND WHO, IF ANY OF THOSE TESTIFIED, THEY WILL NOT BE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. HE IS NOT GOING TO BE TESTIFYING WITH REGARD TO THAT.

NO. 5 ON THEIR LIST IS DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S ACCOUNT OF THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS AT ROCKINGHAM ON JUNE 13 AND THE ACCOUNTS OF OTHER WITNESSES AND RECORDS. WELL, AGAIN THE DETECTIVE IS NOT GOING TO BE TESTIFYING TO ANY SEQUENCE OF EVENTS AT ROCKINGHAM, AND EVEN IF HE WERE, ANY DISCREPANCIES SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. THAT IS AN ISSUE -- THE DISCREPANCY IS OF ITSELF, IF IT IS MATERIAL TO THE TRIER OF FACT, OF IMPEACHMENT VALUE. THERE IS NOTHING IN DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S CREDIBILITY IN THAT REGARD, BEYOND THE MERE DESCRIPTION, IF THERE WERE A MATERIAL DISCREPANCY, BUT AGAIN, THIS IS AN AREA WHERE THIS DETECTIVE IS NOT GOING TO BE TESTIFYING. THE DETECTIVE'S DISCOVERY OF THE APPARENT BLOOD ON THE BRONCO AND THE BLOOD DROPS ON THE DRIVEWAY, THESE WERE PHOTOGRAPHED. THERE WILL BE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE INTRODUCED AT TRIAL WITH REGARD TO THESE. THIS IS NOT AN AREA WHERE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WILL BE TESTIFYING OR WHERE HIS CREDIBILITY WILL BE AT ISSUE.

HE IS NOT GOING TO TESTIFY AS TO THAT?

NO.

NO, YOUR HONOR. HE WAS NOT THE FIRST -- HE WAS NOT THE PERSON WHO NOTICED THOSE BLOOD DROPS, YOUR HONOR, SO HE WILL NOT BE TESTIFYING TO THEM. MAY I HAVE JUST A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?

CERTAINLY.

WITH REGARD TO THE CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE DETECTIVE AND KATO KAELIN IN KATO'S ROOM, KATO KAELIN WILL BE TESTIFYING TO THAT CONVERSATION, AND HE INDEED, IN HIS TESTIMONY AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, INDICATED THAT THE DETECTIVE DID INDEED PICK UP THE SOLES OF KATO'S SHOES AND LOOK AT THEM. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S -- THE NEXT ITEM LISTED IN THE DEFENSE BRIEF IS THE DETECTIVE'S ACCOUNT OF HIS PARTICIPATION OF THE EXECUTION OF THE SEARCH WARRANTS AT ROCKINGHAM. HE WILL NOT BE TESTIFYING TO EXECUTION OF THE SEARCH WARRANTS AT ROCKINGHAM. AND THERE WERE NUMEROUS OTHER OFFICERS INVOLVED IN THE EXECUTION OF THOSE SEARCH WARRANTS. THE NEXT ITEM WHICH THE DEFENSE LISTS IN ITS RESPONSE BRIEF IS DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S FAILURE TO RECORD HIS ACTIVITY AT ROCKINGHAM. AS THE COURT IS WELL AWARE, THIS CASE WAS TAKEN OVER BY ROBBERY HOMICIDE DIVISION. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN MADE A FEW NOTES WHILE AT BUNDY WHICH HE SUBSEQUENTLY TURNED OVER TO ROBBERY DIVISION. HE WAS NO LONGER AT THAT POINT AN INVESTIGATING OFFICER ON THE CASE, CONSEQUENTLY, THERE WAS NO REASON FOR HIM TO TAKE NOTES AT ROCKINGHAM. TO THE EXTENT THAT THAT FAILURE TO TAKE NOTES AT ROCKINGHAM HAS ANY IMPEACHMENT VALUE, THE MERE FAILURE IS WHAT IS IMPEACHING, BUT AGAIN, YOUR HONOR, THIS IS NOT AN AREA WHERE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IS GOING TO BE TESTIFYING AND THEREFORE HIS CREDIBILITY IS NOT AT ISSUE IN THIS AREA. HIS -- THE NEXT THING THE DEFENSE ITEMIZES IN THEIR BRIEF IS HIS ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE OR WHAT THE DEFENSE ACCUSES IS THE LACK OF PROPER PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE IN THE CASE. NOW, THIS JUST GOES TO THE DEFENSE GENERAL ACCUSATION WHICH WE ARE EXPECTING WITH REGARD TO A LOT OF WITNESSES, THAT THERE WERE PROBLEMS WITH THE EVIDENCE. THAT IS CLEARLY ONE OF THEIR THEORIES IN ATTACKING THE PROSECUTION'S CASE. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAD NO ROLE OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR COLLECTING OR PRESERVING ANY OF THE EVIDENCE. HE WAS NOT AN INVESTIGATING OFFICER. AND FINALLY, YOUR HONOR, THE DEFENSE FEELS THAT THE DETECTIVES -- OR CLAIM THAT THE DETECTIVE'S CREDIBILITY IS IMPORTANT INSOFAR AS HE USED THE WORD "THEM" WHEN HE WAS BEING CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR. UELMEN DURING THE PRELIMINARY HEARING. THAT CROSS-EXAMINATION WAS -- THEY WERE TALKING, IF THE COURT LOOKS AT IT IN CONTEXT, ABOUT THE GLOVE AND OTHER ITEMS AT THE FEET OF RONALD GOLDMAN AND THERE HAD BEEN SEVERAL QUESTIONS REGARDING THE GLOVE ITSELF. THERE HAD BEEN TESTIMONY FROM DETECTIVE FUHRMAN THAT AT THE FEET OF RONALD GOLDMAN WAS NOT ONLY THE GLOVE, BUT THE DARK-COLORED WATCH CAP, THE WHITE ENVELOPE. AND DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WHEN HE TESTIFIED AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, THINKING OF THE WATCH CAP, THE GLOVE WHICH HAD BEEN PART OF THE EARLIER TESTIMONY, SAID "THEM." WELL, MR. UELMEN CONTINUED ON IN NORMAL CROSS-EXAMINATION, BECAUSE THAT WAS NOT A SIGNIFICANT STATEMENT ON DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S PART AND IT WASN'T TAKEN TO BE SUCH BY THE DEFENSE AT THE TIME. ALTHOUGH IT WAS SLIGHTLY AMBIGUOUS, THE DEFENSE FAILED TO QUESTION HIM FURTHER ABOUT THAT. THAT WAS SIMPLY NOT SOMETHING IMPORTANT. WHEN IT CAME TIME FOR THE PITCHESS MOTION, HOWEVER, YOUR HONOR, THE DEFENSE WENT OVER WITH A FINE TOOTH COMB TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANYTHING THAT THEY COULD BOOTSTRAP INTO AN ALLEGATION WHICH WOULD ENCOURAGE THE COURT TO GRANT THE PITCHESS MOTION. SO THAT SIMPLE STATEMENT OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S WAS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT AND WAS OVERBLOWN.

NOW, YOUR HONOR, THERE ARE THE THREE AREAS OF INQUIRY WHICH WE ARE SEEKING TO PRECLUDE THE DEFENSE FROM GETTING INTO, AND TO RECOUNT THOSE FOR THE RECORD, ONE IS THE 14-YEAR WORKERS COMPENSATION LAWSUIT THAT THE DETECTIVE FILED AGAINST THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES. SPECIFICALLY IN THAT REGARD THERE WERE REPORTS FROM TWO CITY-HIRED PSYCHIATRISTS ATTRIBUTING CERTAIN RACIAL, RACIST STATEMENTS TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WHEN HE WAS IN THE THROWS OF THIS HOTLY CONTESTED LITIGATION AGAINST THE CITY. WITH REGARD TO THAT, THE DEFENSE HAS MADE NO OFFER OF PROOF, FRANKLY, AND THEY HAVE MADE NO OFFER OF PROOF THAT EITHER OF THESE DOCTORS, I'M NOT SURE IF IT IS HOCHMAN OR HOCKMAN AND DR. KOEGLER, WHETHER EITHER OF THESE DOCTORS HAVE ANY RECOLLECTION OF THESE STATEMENTS THEY WROTE IN THEIR LETTERS MANY, MANY YEARS AGO AND THAT THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO TESTIFY TO THEM. THE LETTERS OF COURSE BY THEMSELVES ARE INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY AND THE LETTERS ARE CONTAINED WITHIN LENGTHY -- THE PARTICULAR QUOTES ATTRIBUTED TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN ARE CONTAINED WITHIN LENGTHY EVALUATIONS THAT GO FOR QUITE SOME TIME. DR. HOCHMAN'S LETTER I BELIEVE IS 14 PAGES. DR. KOEGLER IS EIGHT. THE SECOND AREA OF INQUIRY WHICH WE ARE SEEKING THE COURT TO ADDRESS IN ITS RULING IS THE -- IS SUPPOSED TESTIMONY FROM A WOMAN NAMED KATHLEEN BELL WHO CLAIMED IN AUGUST OF 1994 TO HAVE SUDDENLY REMEMBERED A VERY INFLAMMATORY RACIAL STATEMENT THAT SHE CLAIMS DETECTIVE FUHRMAN MADE EIGHT YEARS EARLIER. NOW, APPARENTLY THIS WOMAN HAS INDICATED THAT THIS WAS THE ONLY TIME IN HER LIFE SHE HAD CONTACT WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, YET SHE REMEMBERS THIS INFLAMMATORY STATEMENT. AND FRANKLY, YOUR HONOR, HER -- HER CREDIBILITY OF COURSE IS AT ISSUE ANYWAY ON THIS. IT IS SUSPECT BECAUSE OF HAVING READ SOMETHING HAPPENING EIGHT YEARS AGO, BUT HER REACTION, WHICH HAS BEEN REPORTED TO IT OF CRYING WHEN SHE HEARD IT IS A VERY STRANGE ALLEGATION. WHEN I HEAR AN ALLEGATION OF RACISM, I GET ANGRY; I DON'T CRY. IT IS JUST A VERY STRANGE AND BIZARRE BEHAVIOR ON THIS WOMAN'S PART, SO HER TESTIMONY IS IMMEDIATELY SUSPECT. SHE INDICATED THAT SHE OVERHEARD THIS STATEMENT WHILE SHE AND DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WERE AT A MARINE RECRUITING QUARTERS, MARINE RECRUITING OFFICE AT I GUESS WHAT CAN BE CALLED A STRIP MALL IN REDONDO BEACH. THIS WOMAN APPARENTLY WAS -- HAD TO DO WITH A REAL ESTATE OFFICE THERE IN THE SAME STRIP MALL AND FROM WHAT -- IN READING BETWEEN THE LINES, IT APPEARS THAT SHE WAS HANGING AROUND THE MARINES, SO ON THIS ONE OCCASION SHE SEEMS TO RECOLLECT NOW EIGHT YEARS LATER THAT THIS STATEMENT THAT SHE CLAIMS TO HAVE HEARD, IF SHE HEARD IT AT ALL, WAS ATTRIBUTED TO THIS PARTICULAR DETECTIVE WHO SHE DIDN'T SEE FOR THE NEXT EIGHT YEARS. IN ADDITION, YOUR HONOR, THE PROSECUTION HAS AT LEAST TWO AND LIKELY THREE MARINES WHO WERE THERE AT THE RECRUITING STATION AT THE TIME WHO SAID THAT NO SUCH REMARK WAS MADE. AND I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE FOR THE COURT THAT ONE OF THOSE MARINES WAS A HEAVY, TALL, BODY BUILDER, AFRICAN AMERICAN. NOW, ON ITS FACE THE ABSURDITY OF BELIEVING THAT MARK FUHRMAN MADE A RACIST STATEMENT IN FRONT OF A TALL BURLY AFRICAN AMERICAN, IT IS JUST CRAZY, SO THAT AGAIN MAKES KATHLEEN BELL'S STATEMENT HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS. THE THIRD AREA THAT WE ARE ADDRESSING IN THIS MOTION, YOUR HONOR, IS WITH REGARD TO ACTIVITY OF A JOSEPH BRITTON WHICH OCCURRED IN 1987, AND IN 1987 JOSEPH BRITTON WAS ATTEMPTING, WITH THE USE OF A BUTCHER KNIFE, TO ROB A JAPANESE MAN, AS IT HAPPENED, THE JAPANESE AMERICAN MAN AT AN ATM, WHEN HE WAS INTERRUPTED WITH A COHORT. WHEN HE WAS INTERRUPTED IN THAT REGARD BY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AND HIS PARTNER AND THAT THAT INTERRUPTION INVOLVED -- AS A RESULT RESULTED IN AN OFFICER-INVOLVED SHOOTING WHEN DETECTIVE -- EXCUSE ME -- WHEN JOSEPH BRITTON ATTEMPTED TO FLEE FROM THE OFFICERS AND BRANDISHED THIS BUTCHER KNIFE.

NOW, JOSEPH BRITTON PLED GUILTY TO THE ROBBERY, WHICH IS OBVIOUS TO THE COURT AND MAYBE NOT TO OTHER PEOPLE, IS A FELONY, AND HE ADMITTED THE USE OF A DANGEROUS AND DEADLY WEAPON, IN THIS CASE A KNIFE, IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDING THAT WAS BROUGHT AGAINST HIM IN THAT REGARD. NOW, THIS IS ANOTHER AREA WHERE THERE HAS BEEN A FAILURE OF AN OFFER OF PROOF FROM THE DEFENSE AND WHERE THE EVIDENCE THAT IS KNOWN WITH REGARD TO JOSEPH BRITTON SHOWS IT TO BE VERY WEAK AND LACKING IN PROBATIVE VALUE. MR. BRITTON, IN ADDITION TO HAVING BEEN AN ARMED ROBBER WHO WAS SUCCESSFULLY INTERRUPTED DURING THAT ROBBERY, SUFFERED ANOTHER ROBBERY CONVICTION, A FELONY, AROUND THE SAME TIME PERIOD, I BELIEVE IT WAS A FEW MONTHS LATER, AND I HAVE THE CASE NUMBERS IF THERE IS ANY QUESTION ABOUT THAT. SO MR. BRITTON'S CREDIBILITY WOULD BE HIGHLY SUSPECT IF THAT ALONE WERE THE SITUATION AND HE WERE TO COME IN AND TESTIFY WITH REGARD TO SOME MOVING OF EVIDENCE, BUT THAT IS NOT EVEN ALL THAT THE COURT HAS TO CONSIDER IN THIS REGARD. ALSO IN THIS REGARD MR. BRITTON, IN HIS OWN DEPOSITION, DESCRIBES THE MAN WHO HE BELIEVES SHOT HIM AS HAVING RED HAIR AND A MUSTACHE, AND THOUGH HE MAY BE ONE OF THE FEW THAT I AM AWARE OF, IT IS A FACT THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAS NEVER IN HIS CAREER AS A POLICE OFFICER HAD A MUSTACHE AND HE CERTAINLY DOESN'T HAVE RED HAIR, AS THE COURT HAS SEEN, AND NEVER HAD RED HAIR. IN ADDITION TO THAT, JOSEPH BRITTON, WHEN HE WAS INTERVIEWED ON CBS EVENING NEWS ON OCTOBER 12, AND WE APPENDED TO OUR BRIEF A COPY OF THAT SCRIPT, INDICATED THAT HE CAN'T SAY THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN MOVED ANY EVIDENCE, MOVED THAT KNIFE, AND THE ALLEGATION WITH REGARD TO THAT IS THAT JOSEPH BRITTON CLAIMS HE THREW THE KNIFE WHEN HE WAS RUNNING AND IT WAS MOVED FROM THE LOCATION WHERE HE THREW IT TO HIS FEET. THE OFFICERS INVOLVED IN THE SHOOTING FOUND IT AT HIS FEET WHEN HE DROPPED IT AFTER HAVING BEEN SHOT. BUT JOSEPH BRITTON ON CBS EVENING NEWS INDICATED TO THE COUNTRY THAT HE COULDN'T SAY THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN DID THAT, NOR COULD HE SAY THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN MADE A RACIST REMARK TO HIM. SO WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE THAT THE DEFENSE WOULD HAVE TO SEEK TO IMPEACH IN THIS REGARD? IT APPEARS TO US, YOUR HONOR, THAT THE DEFENSE IS JUST ATTEMPTING TO INQUIRE INTO THESE THINGS TO CAST A SUSPICION, TO RAISE REASONABLE DOUBT, WHEN THERE REALLY IS NOTHING BEHIND IT AND NOTHING TO SUPPORT IT. ALL RIGHT. THERE IS A LOT OF AREAS FOR THE COURT OF COURSE TO CONSIDER UNDER SECTION 352, AND I WOULD LIKE TO GO OVER THEM INDIVIDUALLY.

ONE OF THOSE AREAS THAT THE COURT HAS TO CONSIDER IS WHETHER PUTTING ON ALL THIS COLLATERAL EVIDENCE WOULD NECESSITATE AN UNDUE CONSUMPTION OF THE COURT'S TIME, AND IT WOULD WITH REGARD TO EACH OF THESE INCIDENTS. WITH REGARD TO THE CITY-HIRED PSYCHIATRIST, THERE WOULD BE EXTENSIVE -- ASSUMING THAT THE DEFENSE CAN EVEN REPRESENT THAT THEY ARE WILLING AND ABLE TO TESTIFY, THERE WOULD OF COURSE BE EXTENSIVE EXAMINATION OF THEM. THE PEOPLE, THE PROSECUTION MIGHT CHOOSE TO CALL DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S PSYCHIATRIST WHO INTERVIEWED HIM BACK IN THE SAME TIME PERIOD AND WE WOULD OPEN A WHOLE AREA OF INQUIRY WHICH IS TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE, TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE TO THE ISSUES BEFORE THIS JURY WITH REGARD TO WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED THE MURDERS OF THESE TWO VICTIMS. IF KATHLEEN BELL TESTIFIES OF COURSE WE WILL PUT ON THE MARINES WHO REFUTE HER TESTIMONY. ALL OF THAT TAKES AN UNDUE CONSUMPTION OF TIME. AND OF COURSE IF JOSEPH BRITTON TESTIFIES HE WILL BE IMPEACHED WITH THESE AREAS I HAVE JUST INDICATED, HIS STATEMENT BEFORE THE COUNTRY ON THE NATIONAL NEWS THAT HE CAN'T SAY MARK FUHRMAN MOVED ANY EVIDENCE AND THAT HE CAN'T SAY MARK FUHRMAN MADE ANY RACIAL SLUR, BECAUSE HE DIDN'T. IN ADDITION, WE WOULD SEEK TO IMPEACH JOSEPH BRITTON WITH HIS -- WITH BOTH OF HIS ROBBERY CONVICTIONS, THE ATTEMPTED CONVICTION, AS WELL AS THE OTHER ROBBERY CONVICTION, SO THAT WOULD NECESSITATE A CASTRO HEARING WITH REGARD TO THAT HEARING. IN ADDITION, YOUR HONOR, WERE THE DEFENSE SUCCESSFUL IN ALL OF THIS REGARD, THE PEOPLE, THE PROSECUTION WOULD LIKELY PUT ON CHARACTER EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, VARIOUS AFRICAN AMERICANS, THE AFRICAN AMERICAN SERGEANT AND AFRICAN AMERICAN DETECTIVE WITH WHOM HE REGULARLY PLAYS BASKETBALL AND NUMEROUS OTHER AFRICAN AMERICANS WHO KNOW MARK FUHRMAN WELL AND KNOW THAT HE IS NOT A RACIST AND WOULD NOT MAKE THESE KIND OF RACIAL SLURS THAT THE DEFENSE IS ALLEGING THAT HE MADE MANY YEARS AGO. ANOTHER AREA, AND THE -- AN OBVIOUS AREA IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE WITH REGARD TO THESE THREE AREAS FOR THE COURT TO CONSIDER IS THE REMOTENESS OF THE EVIDENCE AND THAT IS WHAT REALLY BRINGS HOME THE LACK OF PROBATIVE VALUE IN THESE AREAS IN PARTICULAR. THAT WORKERS COMPENSATION LAWSUIT WAS FOURTEEN YEARS AGO, 1981, FOURTEEN YEARS AGO NOW. ONE OF THE DOCTOR'S LETTERS IS IN 1982, THIRTEEN YEARS AGO. THAT EVIDENCE IS EXTREMELY REMOTE. THE KATHLEEN BELL ALLEGATION THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IS THE ONE WHO HEARD THESE SUPPOSED REMARKS THAT CAUSED HER TO CRY RATHER THAN BECOME ANGRY, THAT ALLEGATION HAPPENED SHE SAYS IN 1985 OR 1986. THAT WAS EIGHT OR NINE YEARS AGO. THE JOSEPH BRITTON ATTEMPTED ARMED ROBBERY HAPPENED EIGHT YEARS AGO, SO ALL OF THESE AREAS ARE EXTREMELY REMOTE WHEN IT COMES TO CREDIBILITY. NOW, IN THIS REGARD, AS THE COURT KNOWS, THE LEGISLATURE, IN ENACTING THE PITCHESS STATUTES, MADE A DETERMINATION OF A FIVE-YEAR CUT OFF FOR POLICE OFFICER PERSONNEL FILES TO BE DISCOVERABLE TO THE DEFENSE AND THEY SAID BASICALLY THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT NEED NOT MAINTAIN PERSONNEL FILES OF A POLICE OFFICER BEYOND FIVE YEARS BECAUSE AT THAT POINT IN TIME ANYTHING WITHIN THEM IS NO LONGER RELEVANT, EVEN FOR DISCOVERY PURPOSES. AND THE COURT OF APPEAL, IN THE CASE CITED IN OUR BRIEF, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, I BELIEVE, HELD THAT -- HELD THAT THE LEGISLATURE DETERMINED THAT AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT BEYOND FIVE YEARS IS NOT RELEVANT. SO THIS ATTEMPT BY THE DEFENSE, SHOULD THEY ATTEMPT CROSS-EXAMINATION ON THIS -- IN THIS AREA -- ON ANY OF THESE AREAS, IS REALLY AN ATTEMPT TO GET AROUND WHAT IS ALMOST AND CAN ALMOST BE CONSIDERED A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THE PITCHESS AREA.

NOW, YOUR HONOR, THE THREE AREAS WHICH WE HAVE ADDRESSED ARE THOSE THAT THIS MOTION SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSES. WE ALSO, AS PART OF THIS MOTION, WOULD ASK THE COURT TO PRECLUDE THE DEFENSE FROM ASKING DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WHETHER HE HARBORS RACIAL HOSTILITY TOWARD AFRICAN AMERICANS. OF COURSE IF THAT WERE ALLOWED, WHAT THIS MOTION SEEKS TO DO IS PRECLUDE THEM FROM IMPEACHING WITH THESE AREAS THAT WE HAVE DESCRIBED IN OUR BRIEF, BUT THAT AREA OF INQUIRY ITSELF IS SO INCREDIBLY VOLATILE, YOUR HONOR, AND IS SO REMOTE FROM ANY OF THE ISSUES AT THIS TRIAL THAT ITS PREJUDICIAL EFFECT FAR OUTWEIGHS ANY PROBATIVE VALUE, BECAUSE AS I INDICATED, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IS NOT GOING TO BE TESTIFYING WITH REGARD TO THESE OTHER AREAS WHICH THE DEFENSE SEEMS TO FEEL HIS CREDIBILITY IS AT ISSUE ON. IT IS NOT, BECAUSE HE WILL NOT BE TESTIFYING THERE. IN REGARD TO WHETHER THE DEFENSE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO INQUIRE INTO THAT AREA, ALTHOUGH IT WAS NOT CONTAINED WITHIN THE DEFENSE RESPONSE BRIEF, I DO FEEL AN OBLIGATION, AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT, TO MAKE THE COURT AWARE OF A CASE CALLED IN RE ANTHONY P. IT IS A 1985 COURT OF APPEAL CASE AT 167 CAL.APP.3D 502. IN THAT CASE, YOUR HONOR, THERE WAS A 17-YEAR OLD AFRICAN AMERICAN DEFENDANT, A 15-YEAR OLD WHITE VICTIM. THERE WAS A PETITION SUSTAINED AGAINST THAT AFRICAN AMERICAN JUVENILE FOR A CHILD MOLESTATION AND BATTERY. IN THAT CASE THE DEFENDANT AND THE VICTIM WENT TO THE SAME HIGH SCHOOL. THE DETECTIVE TESTIFIED THAT THE DEFENDANT APPROACHED HER AND ASKED HER FOR A DATE AND THAT SHE REFUSED AND SHE CLAIMS THAT THE DEFENDANT AT THAT POINT GRABBED HER IN VARIOUS SEXUAL AREAS OF HER BODY AND SHE FLED FROM HIM AND SAW A SCHOOLMATE AND ASKED FOR HIS HELP. THE SCHOOLMATE TESTIFIED THAT SHE APPROACHED HIM AND WAS NERVOUS, BUT THERE WERE NO OTHER WITNESSES -- THERE WERE NO WITNESSES TO THE ENCOUNTER ITSELF BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND THE VICTIM, NONE AT ALL, NOR WERE THERE ANY WITNESSES TO THE VICTIM'S HAVING RUN AWAY, SO IT WAS A ONE-ON-ONE CREDIBILITY CONTEST, CROSS-RACIAL BETWEEN THE VICTIM AND THE DEFENDANT. AND IN FACT THE COURT OF APPEAL IN THAT CASE SAID, AND I QUOTE FROM PAGE 506:

"THE ENTIRE CASE AGAINST APPELLANT HINGED ENTIRELY ON THE CREDIBILITY OF ONE WITNESS, DEBORAH M, WHO WAS THE VICTIM." THE COURT OF APPEAL HELD IN THAT CASE, YOUR HONOR, THAT:

"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REFUSING THE DEFENSE TO PURSUE A LINE OF INQUIRY WITH REGARD TO WHETHER THE VICTIM HARBORED FEELINGS OF RACIAL ANIMOSITY," AND INDEED THE COURT OF APPEAL REVERSED THE SUSTAINING OF THE PETITION ON THAT GROUND. I WOULD NOTE IT WAS DIVISION 7. YOUR HONOR, THAT SITUATION IS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE HAVE HERE. ALTHOUGH -- DOES THE COURT WISH ME TO ALLOW THE -- DOES THE COURT WISH ME TO ALLOW THE COURT AN OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE A LOOK BEFORE I CONTINUE?