ALL RIGHT. MISS LEWIS. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE REVIEWED IN RE ANTHONY P.

YOUR HONOR, IN THAT CASE THE DEFENSE APPARENTLY HAD NO INFORMATION WITH REGARD TO RACIAL HOSTILITY AND SO THEY WERE REALLY IN A BLIND SITUATION. HERE THE DEFENSE HAS FULLY, APPARENTLY FROM ALL WE AS THE PROSECUTION CAN TELL, HAS FULLY INVESTIGATED DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AND THE BEST THEY HAVE APPARENTLY MANAGED TO COME UP WITH THIS OLD, REMOTE, INFLAMMATORY EVIDENCE WHICH HAS INCREDIBLY WEAK PROBATIVE VALUE. AND I JUST WANT TO REITERATE TO THE COURT A COUPLE OF THINGS. ONE IS THAT IT IS COLLATERAL, TO START WITH, AND THE CASES HAVE SAID THAT IT DOES NOT DENY EFFECTIVE CROSS-EXAMINATION TO A DEFENDANT TO PRECLUDE THE DEFENSE FROM INTRODUCING EVIDENCE THAT GOES ONLY TO THE WEIGHT OF DIRECT TESTIMONY. AND THIS EVIDENCE IS NOT ONLY COLLATERAL BECAUSE IT IS COLLATERAL ON THE AREA OF IMPEACHMENT, IT IS EVEN A FURTHER STEP REMOVED, BECAUSE EVEN ON THAT AREA YOU HAVE TO LEAP FROM INFERENCE TO INFERENCE. YOU HAVE TO LEAP FROM THE INFERENCE THAT RACIAL STATEMENTS THAT WERE MADE FOURTEEN YEARS AGO, EVEN EIGHT YEARS AGO, YOU HAVE TO LEAP FROM THAT INFERENCE THAT THAT SUPPLIES A MOTIVE THAT WOULD ACTUALLY CAUSE A DETECTIVE TO LIE DURING HIS TESTIMONY OR TO DO ANYTHING TO HARM THE PERSON BECAUSE OF THIS REMOTE, ANCIENT STATEMENTS THAT HE MADE. SO IT IS INCREDIBLY REMOTE TO ALL OF THE ISSUES AT HAND AND INCREDIBLY COLLATERAL TO ALL OF THE ISSUES AT HAND AND THAT IS CERTAINLY UNLIKE THE ANTHONY P. CASE WHERE IT WAS CENTRAL -- THAT VICTIM'S CREDIBILITY, SINCE THERE WAS ZERO CORROBORATION, WAS CENTRAL TO THE CASE. NOW, YOUR HONOR, IN THE DEFENSE RESPONSE BRIEF, THE DEFENSE INDICATES THAT THIS MOTION IS NOT RIPE FOR RESOLUTION. ONE THING WE ARE SEEKING FROM THIS COURT IS THE PRECLUSION OF GETTING INTO AN AREA OF WHETHER OR NOT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IS A RACIST. THIS IS NOT A TRIAL ON DETERMINING WHETHER THESE STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO HIM MANY YEARS AGO ARE GOING TO BE USEFUL IN TERMS OF THE JURY'S ASSESSMENT OF WHETHER OR NOT DEFENDANT SIMPSON COMMITTED THESE MURDERS. IT IS EXTREMELY COLLATERAL IN THAT SENSE AS WELL. NOW, ALONG THOSE LINES WE NEED A RULING FROM THIS COURT. WE ARE ASKING FOR A RULING FROM THIS COURT THAT THE DEFENSE BE PRECLUDED FROM ASKING THE DETECTIVE CURRENTLY THESE QUESTIONS ABOUT RACISM AND WHETHER HE IS A RACIST. THEY ARE UNDULY PREJUDICIAL, PARTICULARLY UNDER ALL OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE HAVE HERE. THEY HAVE ALREADY MALIGNED HIM EXTENSIVELY WITHIN THE MEDIA AND THAT MALIGNMENT HE WILL SUFFER WITH AND CARRY WITH HIM THE REST OF HIS LIFE. I WANT TO REMIND THE COURT THAT THE EVIDENCE CODE DOES ASK THAT THE COURT PROTECT WITNESSES FROM HARASSMENT, AND WHEN THAT DETECTIVE TESTIFIES IN THIS COURTROOM, THE COURT WILL HAVE THE POWER AND THE ABILITY TO HEED EVIDENCE CODE 765 AND PROTECT THAT WITNESS FROM THE TYPE OF HARASSMENT HE HAS HAD TO UNDERGO IN THE MEDIA AND THROUGH THE PRESS BECAUSE OF THESE GROUNDLESS BASELESS DEFENSE ACCUSATIONS WITH REGARD TO THE GLOVE. NOW, YOUR HONOR, THE FINAL AREA UNDER SECTION 352 CONCERNS THE PREJUDICIAL EFFECT OF THE EVIDENCE. IT IS SELF-EVIDENT TO A CERTAIN EXTENT OF COURSE WHEN SOMEONE ISSUES THE "N" WORD OR ANY OTHER RACIAL EPITHET IN FRONT OF ANYBODY, AND ESPECIALLY IN FRONT OF A MEMBER OF THAT MINORITY GROUP, IT HAS AN INFLAMMATORY EFFECT THAT IS INCOMPARABLE, AND TO THAT SPECIFIC ISSUE MR. DARDEN WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COURT, AND I THINK I WILL CONCLUDE MY COMMENTS AT THIS TIME.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MISS LEWIS. MR. DARDEN, GOOD MORNING.

GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. YOUR HONOR, I THINK THE BEST INDICATIONAL EVIDENCE OF JUST HOW INFLAMMATORY THE USE OF THIS WORD IS IS A FACT THAT IT APPEARS THAT MR. COCHRAN AND I, THE ONLY TWO BLACK LEAD LAWYERS ON EACH SIDE OF THE COUNSEL TABLE, ARE SOMEHOW DRAGGED INTO THIS ISSUE TO ARGUE THE ISSUE TO THE COURT, AND I THINK THAT MAY BE DUE IN SOME PART TO THE FACT THAT IF ANYONE SHOULD SLIP AND SAY OR UTTER THE WORD, IT IS PROBABLY BETTER TO HAVE A BLACK PERSON DO IT, BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE A WHITE PERSON DO IT, IF A WHITE MALE TAKES THE WITNESS STAND AND THAT WORD IS UTTERED IN THIS COURTROOM, IT WILL OFFEND EVERY BLACK JUROR ON THIS CASE. IT WILL OFFEND ME, IT WILL OFFEND MR. COCHRAN, IT WILL OFFEND MR. SIMPSON, IT WILL OFFEND THE AFRICAN AMERICAN REPORTERS IN THIS COURTROOM AND IT WILL OFFEND THE PUBLIC AND ANY OTHER AFRICAN AMERICAN WITHIN EARSHOT OF THAT WORD. IT IS A DIRTY FILTHY WORD. IT IS NOT A WORD THAT I ALLOW PEOPLE TO USE IN MY HOUSEHOLD. I'M SURE MR. COCHRAN DOESN'T. AND THE REASON WE DON'T IS BECAUSE IT IS AN EXTREMELY DEROGATORY AND DENIGRATING TERM BECAUSE IT IS SO PREJUDICIAL AND SO EXTREMELY INFLAMMATORY THAT TO USE THAT WORD IN ANY SITUATION WILL EVOKE SOME TYPE OF EMOTIONAL RESPONSE FROM ANY AFRICAN AMERICAN WITHIN EARSHOT OF THAT WORD. I SPOKE TO DEAN UELMEN EARLIER THIS MORNING AND I ASKED HIM -- I SAID, "DEAN, ARE YOU GOING TO USE THE "N" WORD DURING ARGUMENT TODAY?" HE SAID, "NOPE, NOT ME."

WELL, IF DEAN UELMEN DOESN'T WANT TO UTTER THE WORD AND IF HAD COCHRAN DOESN'T UTTER THE WORD OR ALLOW OTHERS TO USE THAT WORD IN HIS HOUSEHOLD, AND I CERTAINLY DON'T, WHY THEN SHOULD WE ALLOW THAT WORD IN USE IN THIS COURTROOM? ESPECIALLY IN A CASE LIKE THIS WHERE IT HAS NO PROBATIVE VALUE. IT IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. IT WAS CREATED AND DESIGNED TO DO ONE THING, AND THAT IS TO DEMEAN PEOPLE, TO STRIP PEOPLE OF THEIR HUMANITY, TO EVOKE AN EMOTIONAL RESPONSE. YOUR HONOR, WHEN YOU USE THAT WORD YOU ARE USING FIGHTING WORDS. WHEN YOU USE THAT WORD IN THE PRESENCE OF AN AFRICAN AMERICAN YOU ARE ASKING THAT AFRICAN AMERICAN FOR A REACTION. IT IS A CALL TO ARMS. IT IS A TEST. IT IS A TEST OF EVERY AFRICAN AMERICAN WHEN THEY HEAR THAT WORD AND THE TEST IS WHERE DO YOU STAND? ON WHICH SIDE OF THE LINE DO YOU STAND? BECAUSE WHEN THAT WORD IS USED IN THE PRESENCE OF AN AFRICAN AMERICAN, AN AFRICAN AMERICAN HAS AN OBLIGATION TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, TO SAY SOMETHING. AN AFRICAN AMERICAN HAS A DUTY, IN MOST SITUATIONS TO CONFRONT, TO CONFRONT THE DECLARANT. IT IS THE FILTHIEST, DIRTIEST, NASTIEST WORD IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. IT HAS NO PLACE IN THIS CASE OR IN THIS COURTROOM. IT WILL DO NOTHING TO FURTHER THE COURT'S ATTEMPT AT SEEKING THE TRUTH IN THIS CASE. IT WILL DO ONE THING. IT WILL UPSET THE BLACK JURORS, IT WILL ISSUE A TEST, IT WILL GIVE THEM THE TEST AND THE TEST WILL BE WHOSE SIDE ARE YOU ON? THE SIDE OF THE WHITE PROSECUTORS AND THE WHITE POLICEMEN OR ON THE SIDE OF THE BLACK DEFENDANT AND HIS VERY PROMINENT AND BLACK LAWYER? THAT IS WHAT IT IS GOING TO DO. EITHER YOU ARE WITH THE MAN OR YOU ARE WITH THE BROTHERS. THAT IS WHAT IT DOES. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IT DOES. NO ONE, NO AFRICAN AMERICAN CAN HEAR THAT WORD WITHOUT GETTING UPSET. YOU HEAR IT IN THE MOVIES; IT UPSETS YOU. PEOPLE DON'T LISTEN TO RAP MUSIC, BLACK PEOPLE, BECAUSE THEY DON'T LIKE THAT WORD. THEY DON'T LIKE THE USE OF THAT WORD, AND IF YOU SEARCH BLACK LIGATURE TODAY, BLACK MAGAZINES, YOU WILL SEE LETTERS, WRITERS AND ARTICLES AND PEOPLE ASKING WHY THAT WORD IS USED, WHY DOES THAT WORD EXIST? WHY WOULD ANYBODY WANT TO USE IT? WHY WOULD ANYBODY WANT TO RAP ABOUT IT? WHY WOULD ANYBODY WANT TO WRITE ABOUT IT? WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO REPEAT IT OR SAY IT? THE WORD HAS NO PLACE IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. IT HAS NO PLACE IN THIS COURTROOM. YOU SHOULDN'T LET THEM USE IT. I'M NOT GOING TO SAY THE WORD. WE ALL KNOW WHAT THE WORD IS. IF MR. COCHRAN USES THAT WORD TODAY I'M GOING TO BE OFFENDED, AND IT IS PROBABLY THE THIRD OR FOR THE TIME THIS WEEK THAT I HAVE BEEN OFFENDED, BUT I CAN'T HELP BUT BE OFFENDED. HOW CAN THE JURY HELP BUT BE OFFENDED? DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IS GOING TO PLAY A VERY, VERY SMALL ROLE IN THIS CASE. THIS WASN'T HIS CASE. HE WAS NOT THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER OR THE LEAD INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN THIS CASE. HE WENT TO ROCKINGHAM WITH FOUR OTHER DETECTIVES OR THREE OTHER DETECTIVES AND HE JUST HAPPENED TO FIND AN ITEM. PURE HAPPENSTANCE. PURE LUCK ON THE PART OF THE POLICE AND CERTAINLY ON THE PART OF THE PROSECUTION. HE JUST HAPPENED TO FIND A GLOVE. ONE ITEM. THE MAN FINDS ONE ITEM AMONGST SIX OR SEVEN OR 800 OTHER ITEMS COLLECTED BY THE POLICE IN THIS CASE AND NOW WHEN THE MAN IS CALLED TO THE WITNESS STAND WE ARE GOING TO GO FIFTEEN YEARS BACK OR FOURTEEN YEARS BACK AND ASK HIM IF HE EVER MADE A RACIAL SLUR, REPEATED A RACIAL EPITHET? WHY? WHAT IS THE POINT OF THAT WHEN THE DETECTIVE IS GOING TO PLAY SUCH A SMALL ROLE IN THIS CASE? THERE IS NO LEGAL PURPOSE. THERE IS NO VALID OR LEGITIMATE PURPOSE. BUT MR. COCHRAN AND THE DEFENSE, THEY HAVE A PURPOSE IN GOING INTO THAT AREA AND THE PURPOSE IS TO INFLAME THE PASSIONS OF THE JURY AND TO ASK THEM TO PICK SIDES NOT ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE. AND THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE AGAINST THIS DEFENDANT IS OVERWHELMING. THERE IS A MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE POINTING TO THIS DEFENDANT'S GUILT. BUT WHEN YOU MENTION THAT WORD TO THIS JURY OR TO ANY AFRICAN AMERICAN, IT BLINDS PEOPLE. IT WILL BLIND THE JURY, IT WILL BLIND THEM TO THE TRUTH. THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO DISCERN WHAT IS TRUE AND WHAT IS NOT. IT WILL AFFECT THEIR JUDGMENT, IT WILL IMPAIR THEIR ABILITY TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL. IT WILL CAUSE EXTREME PREJUDICE TO THE PROSECUTION'S CASE. YOU KNOW, AND WE DO HAVE A RIGHT, YOUR HONOR, AND I KNOW THE COURT IS WELL AWARE OF IT AND I DON'T HAVE TO EDUCATE THE COURT ON THIS POINT, BUT WE HAVE A RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL JUST LIKE THE DEFENDANT HAS. WE ARE NOT RUNNING AROUND OR TALKING ABOUT OR SEEKING TO INTRODUCE TO THE JURY THE NOTION THAT THIS DEFENDANT HAS A FETISH FOR BLOND-HAIRED WHITE WOMEN. THAT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE. THAT WOULD INFLAME THE PASSIONS OF THE JURY. IT WOULD BE OUTRAGEOUS. THE USE OF THAT WORD IN THIS CASE IS OUTRAGEOUS. THE USE OF THAT WORD WILL INFLAME THE PASSIONS OF THE JURY. THIS ISN'T A RACE CASE. MR. COCHRAN WANTS TO PLAY THE ACE OF SPADES AND PLAY THE RACE CARD, BUT THIS ISN'T A RACE CASE. WE SHOULDN'T ALLOW HIM TO PLAY THAT CARD. WE SHOULDN'T ALLOW HIM TO PLAY THAT CARD IF WHAT WE ARE REALLY INTERESTED IN IS PLAYING BY THE RULES, FINDING OUT JUST WHAT HAPPENED AT BUNDY AND IF WE ARE REALLY INTERESTED IN SEARCHING FOR THE TRUTH. YESTERDAY I HANDED TO THE COURT SOME ARTICLES AND XEROXED COPIES OF A COUPLE OF CHAPTERS FROM A COUPLE OF BOOKS, AND THEY INCLUDED ANDREW HACKER'S TWO NATIONS, AND IF I MIGHT, I WOULD LIKE TO DIRECT THE COURT'S ATTENTION TO PAGE 43 OF TWO NATIONS AND READ INTO THE RECORD A PARTICULAR QUOTE, AND I WOULD LIKE TO READ THIS QUOTE BECAUSE I THINK THIS QUOTE FAIRLY DESCRIBES THE IMPACT AND EFFECT THE HEARING OF THIS WORD HAS AND WILL HAVE ON ANY AFRICAN AMERICANS ON THE JURY. WITH REGARD TO THIS "N" WORD HACKER WRITES:

"WHEN A WHITE PERSON VOICES IT, IT BECOMES A KNIFE WITH A WHETTED EDGE. NO BLACK PERSON CAN HEAR IT WITH EQUANIMITY OR IGNORE IT AS SIMPLY A WORD. THIS WORD HAS THE FORCE TO PIERCE, TO WOUND, TO PENETRATE AS NO OTHER HAS. THERE HAVE OF COURSE BEEN TERMS LIKE 'KIKE' AND 'SPIC' AND 'CHINK'" AND I HAVE USED THOSE WORDS AND I APOLOGIZE FOR USING THOSE TERMS, YOUR HONOR, "BUT THESE ARE LESS FREQUENTLY HEARD TODAY AND THEY LACK THE SAME EMOTIONAL IMPACT. SOME NON-ETHNIC TERMS COME CLOSER, SUCH AS 'SLUT' AND 'FAG' AND 'CRIPPLE.' YET THE "N" WORD STANDS ALONE WITH THIS POWER TO TEAR AT ONE'S INSIDES. IT WILL REVEAL THAT WHITES HAVE NEVER CREATED SO WRENCHING AN EPITHET FOR EVEN THE MOST BEKNIGHTED MEMBERS OF THEIR OWN RACE. IT IS A PERSISTENT REMINDER THAT YOU ARE STILL PERCEIVED AS A DEGRADED SPECIES OF HUMANITY, A LEVEL TO WHICH WHITES CAN NEVER DESCEND." MR. COCHRAN WOULD LIKE TO ASK A WHITE POLICE OFFICER IF HE EVER USED THAT WORD AND AFTER THAT WHITE POLICE OFFICER TESTIFIES THERE WILL BE OTHER WHITE MALE POLICE OFFICERS, AND BY THE TIME THOSE OTHER OFFICERS TESTIFY THEY WILL -- THE JURY WILL HAVE HEARD THIS WORD, THEY WILL BE UPSET, THEY WILL HAVE BECOME EMOTIONAL, AND AS SOON AS MR. COCHRAN WORKS THEM UP INTO THAT EMOTIONAL FRENZY HE WOULD LIKE TO GET THEM INTO, AS SOON AS HE DOES THAT AND THE NEXT WHITE POLICE OFFICER TAKES THE WITNESS STAND, THE JURY IS GOING TO PAINT THAT WHITE POLICE OFFICER WITH THE SAME BRUSH MR. COCHRAN PAINTED DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. AND THERE BEGINS THE DECLINE OF THE PROSECUTION'S CASE, A VERY GOOD CASE I MIGHT ADD.

THIS WORD HAS NO PLACE IN THIS COURTROOM AND IT SHOULD NOT BE HEARD BEFORE THE JURY. I KNOW THE COURT PROBABLY HAS HAD ITS OWN EXPERIENCE WITH RACIAL EPITHETS. IN MY VIEW, AND I HAVEN'T SEARCHED FOR EMPIRICAL DATA ON THIS ISSUE OR READ ANY STUDIES ON THIS ISSUE, BUT I BELIEVE AND THIS CERTAINLY APPLIES TO ME AND IT APPLIES TO FRIENDS OF MINE WHO ARE ALSO AFRICAN AMERICANS, I BELIEVE THAT WHEN WE HEAR THIS WORD CERTAIN IMAGES COME TO MIND, PERHAPS NOT THEN, BUT PERHAPS LATER. IT ALWAYS CAUSES ME TO REFLECT ON THE FIRST TIME I WAS EVER CALLED THAT WORD. I REMEMBER IT TODAY AS CLEAR AS A BELL AND IF YOU READ SOME OF THE ARTICLES I HANDED THE COURT YESTERDAY, YOU WILL SEE THAT THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE, OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE INTERVIEWED AND DOCUMENTED IN THOSE STUDIES AND REPORTS, OLD PEOPLE, OLDER THAN YOU, SIXTIES AND SEVENTIES, AND IN THE SIXTIES AND SEVENTIES, AND THEY ALL REMEMBER THE DAY, THE FIRST TIME SOMEBODY USED THAT WORD. I REMEMBER THE FIRST TIME. I'M SURE MR. COCHRAN REMEMBERS THE FIRST TIME. AND WHENEVER I REFLECT BACK ON THAT, THAT EXPERIENCE, I FIND IT EXTREMELY UPSETTING AND I PROBABLY APPEAR TO BE GETTING A LITTLE UPSET RIGHT NOW AS I ADDRESS THE COURT. IT IS PROBABLY THE MOST NEGATIVE EXPERIENCE I HAVE EVER HAD IN MY LIFE.

AND WHEN THE JURY HEARS THAT WORD FROM A WHITE POLICE OFFICER, THEY ARE GOING TO REFLECT ALSO I THINK ON THE MOST NEGATIVE EXPERIENCE IN THEIR LIFE, AND I THINK THAT THIS -- OR RATHER THE FIRST TIME THAT THEY HEARD THAT WORD WILL PROBABLY BE THE MOST NEGATIVE EXPERIENCE AND I THINK THEY ARE GOING TO BECOME EMOTIONAL. ANOTHER THING HEARING THAT WORD CAUSES BLACK PEOPLE TO DO, AFRICAN AMERICANS TO DO, IS IT CAUSES -- IT CAUSES YOU TO CHANGE YOUR FOCUS. IT DIVERTS YOUR ATTENTION. IF WE REALLY WANT THE JURY'S ATTENTION FOCUSED ON THE EVIDENCE AND ON THE LEGAL AND FACTUAL ISSUES, THE IMPORTANT LEGAL AND FACTUAL ISSUES INHERIT IN THIS CASE, WE SHOULDN'T LET THEM HEAR THIS WORD, BECAUSE IF THEY HEAR THIS WORD THEY ARE GOING TO FOCUS THEIR ATTENTION ON THE ISSUE OF RACE. THEY ARE GOING TO BE MORE CONCERNED WITH WHETHER MARK FUHRMAN IS A RACIST THAN THEY ARE WITH WHETHER THERE WAS ANY WAY, ANY POSSIBILITY, ANY CHANCE, ANY THEORY OFFERED BY THE DEFENSE TO ESTABLISH THAT MARK FUHRMAN PLANTED EVIDENCE. THAT WILL BE A FOREGONE CONCLUSION. THEY CAN JUST CHECK THAT ONE OFF. HE MUST HAVE DONE IT, HE IS A RACIST. THAT IS WHAT MR. COCHRAN WANTS THE JURY TO DO, SKIP THE EVIDENCE, FORGET THE DIRECT EXAMINATION AND THE CROSS-EXAMINATION AND THE REAL FACTUAL POINTS ESTABLISHED IN THE CASE. THE JURY IS GOING TO FIND THIS CASE ON THE BASIS OF RACE. THEY ARE GOING TO BE PREOCCUPIED WITH RACE. AFTER ALL, MR. SIMPSON IS AN AFRICAN AMERICAN AND SO IS MR. COCHRAN. THE USE OF THIS WORD CAUSES PEOPLE TO DIVERT THEIR FOCUS FROM THE REAL IMPORTANT ISSUES IN FRONT OF THEM. IT CAUSES PEOPLE TO FOCUS SOLELY ON THE ISSUE OF RACE AND THAT IS THE REASON THAT WE DON'T USE IT. NOW, I'M SURE THAT MR. COCHRAN OR DEAN UELMEN WILL STEP TO THE PODIUM AND THEY WILL SAY, JUDGE, YOUR HONOR, YOU CAN ALWAYS ISSUE SOME LIMITING INSTRUCTION. YOU CAN SAY TO ALL THE BLACK JURORS HERE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE USE OF THE "N" WORD HAS BEEN INTRODUCED IN THIS CASE FOR A LIMITED PURPOSE AND THIS IS THE PURPOSE AND DON'T CONSIDER IT FOR ANY OTHER REASON. THAT IS POINTLESS. IT IS A WASTE OF PAPER AND A WASTE OF THE COURT'S TIME BECAUSE YOU CAN'T IGNORE IT. ONCE THAT WORD IS IN FRONT OF YOU, YOU CAN'T IGNORE IT. I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO IGNORE THIS WORD OVER THE LAST WEEK WHEN I SUDDENLY FOUND MYSELF INVOLVED IN THIS NASTY LITTLE ISSUE, ARGUING THIS ISSUE, THE USE OF THE "N" WORD IN THIS CASE. WELL, IT POSES AN IMPORTANT MORAL QUESTION FOR ME PERSONALLY BECAUSE MY BELIEF IS, HEY, IF YOU SEE A RACIST, LET'S TATTOO IT ON HIS FOREHEAD SO EVERYBODY KNOWS WHEN THEY MEET THE GUY THAT, HEY, HE IS A RACIST. AND I AM NOT SAYING MARK FUHRMAN IS A RACIST, BECAUSE I HAVE MET MARK FUHRMAN AND I HAVE TALKED TO MARK FUHRMAN. AND I HAVE LOOKED AT THESE RECORDS, AND WHAT I SEE IN THE RECORD IS THAT IN 1981 AND 1982 MARK FUHRMAN SUFFERED FROM STRESS. HE SUFFERED FROM THE SAME KIND OF STRESS THAT LOTS OF POLICE OFFICERS SUFFER FROM, NOT JUST WHITE POLICE OFFICERS, BUT BLACK POLICE OFFICERS AS WELL. I THINK THE RECORDS ARE CLEAR THAT DURING THOSE DAYS THAT MARK FUHRMAN HAD BEEN SHOT AT FOR NO REASON OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT HE WAS AN LAPD OFFICER. HIS FRIEND HAD BEEN SHOT AT, HIS COLLEAGUES HAD BEEN KILLED. PEOPLE WOULD SPIT ON HIM JUST BECAUSE HE WORE A BLUE UNIFORM. PEOPLE HAD DIRECTED RACIAL EPITHETS TOWARD HIM. HE HAD JUST COME BACK FROM VIETNAM WHEN HE JOINED THE LAPD. HE WAS SUFFERING FROM STRESS AND IT HAS TO BE STRESSFUL TO BE A POLICE OFFICER IN THE CITY OF L.A. I MEAN, GEEZ, THE STUFF THAT IS GOING ON IN THIS CITY IN THE LAST FIVE TO SIX YEARS, I CAN'T IMAGINE ANYBODY THAT WOULD WANT A JOB LIKE THAT, BUT SOME DO AND THEY OUGHT TO BE COMMENDED. BUT THE POINT I'M ATTEMPTING TO MAKE IS THAT THERE IS NO LIMITING INSTRUCTION THAT THE COURT CAN GIVE TO ORDER THE JURY OR TO CAUSE THE JURY TO PLACE THE USE OF THIS TERM INTO SOME PERSPECTIVE OTHER THAN THE ONE THEY HAVE ALWAYS PLACED IT IN AND THAT IS AT THE TOP OF THE LIST, NO. 1. NO. 1 IN THE CATEGORY OF THE MOST OFFENSIVE EMOTIONAL TERMS IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. IT IS THE PROSECUTION'S POSITION THAT IF YOU ALLOW MR. COCHRAN TO USE THIS WORD AND TO PLAY THIS RACE CARD, NOT ONLY DOES THE DIRECTION AND THE FOCUS OF THE CASE CHANGE, BUT THE ENTIRE COMPLEXION OF THE CASE CHANGES. IT IS A RACE CASE THEN. IT IS WHITE VERSUS BLACK, AFRICAN AMERICAN VERSUS CAUCASIAN, US VERSUS THEM, US VERSUS THE SYSTEM. IT IS NOT A SIMPLE ISSUE THEN OF SIMPLE GUILT OR INNOCENCE OR PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. IT BECOMES AN ISSUE OF COLOR. WHO IS -- YOU KNOW, WHO IS THE BLACKEST MAN UP HERE? WHO ARE THE REAL BROTHERS? WHO ARE -- WHO REALLY REPRESENTS THE AFRICAN AMERICAN INTERESTS IN THIS CASE? IT CHANGES TO ALL KIND OF OTHER THINGS. THE JURY -- THE JURY WILL FORGET ABOUT THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE. ALL THEY WILL THINK ABOUT IS FRAME-UP, FRAME-UP, FRAME-UP. THERE WON'T BE ANY EVIDENCE OF ANY FRAME, THAT THIS DEFENDANT WAS FRAMED BY ANY MEMBER OF THE LAPD. YOU KNOW, THEY MAY MAKE A WEAK ATTEMPT AT PROVING A FRAME-UP, BUT THERE WON'T BE ANY EVIDENCE. ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS MENTION THE WORD, SAY TO MARK FUHRMAN, HEY, DID YOU EVER USE THAT "N" WORD AND HE WILL SAY YEAH AND IT IS OVER, HE MUST HAVE PLANTED THE GLOVE. IN DIRECT EXAMINATION AND EVEN IN CROSS-EXAMINATION AND IN ALL MATTERS RELATED TO THE ISSUE, I BELIEVE, OF WHETHER EVIDENCE MIGHT BE ADMITTED AT TRIAL, THE EVIDENCE HAS TO BE RELEVANT, AND I THINK ALL EVIDENCE IS SUBJECT TO AN EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 352 OBJECTION. OKAY. DOES THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF THE EVIDENCE OR IS THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF THE EVIDENCE OUTWEIGHED BY THE PREJUDICIAL EFFECT? IS THERE SUBSTANTIAL PREJUDICE? AND I THINK MR. GOLDBERG YESTERDAY ALLUDED TO THE FACT THAT IT IS EVEN AND THIS ISN'T EVEN -- WHAT DID MR. GOLDBERG SAY? IF IT IS EVEN -- I BELIEVE WE WIN IF IT IS EVEN. BUT IN THIS SITUATION THE PREJUDICE THAT WILL FLOW TO THE PEOPLE'S CASE BECAUSE OF THE INFLAMMATORY NATURE OF THAT WORD IS BEYOND -- BEYOND SUBSTANTIAL PREJUDICE. IT IS EXTREME PREJUDICE. IT IS PREJUDICE AT THE MOST EXTREME. WE CAN'T WIN, NO MATTER WHAT, BECAUSE NOW WE ARE TRYING A RACE CASE. WE ARE NOT TRYING O.J. SIMPSON AND WE ARE NOT TRYING THE ISSUE OF WHETHER HE KILLED TWO PEOPLE ON BUNDY ON JUNE 12. WE ARE TRYING A RACE CASE. AND EVERYTHING, EVERY PIECE OF EVIDENCE, EVERY WITNESS, EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS IN THIS CASE BEYOND THAT IS GOING TO SOMEHOW BE AFFECTED BY THE JURY'S PERCEPTION OF THAT WITNESS' ETHNICITY AND COLOR AND THE REAL ISSUES IN THIS CASE ARE GOING TO BE PAINTED, GLOSSED OVER, MISSED BY THE JURY AND COMPLETELY IGNORED.

NOW, THE COURT MAY WELL THINK, WELL, MR. DARDEN, THIS IS AN AWFUL EXTREME ARGUMENT THAT YOU ARE MAKING, BUT IT IS TRUE. THAT IS WHAT THIS WORD DOES, YOUR HONOR. THAT IS WHAT THIS WORD DOES. AND TO COME FROM A WHITE POLICE OFFICER, THAT JUST EXACERBATES EVERYTHING. WHAT HAPPENED TO MARK FUHRMAN FOURTEEN YEARS AGO UNDER THE -- UNDER THE CONDITIONS IN WHICH THESE STATEMENTS WERE ALLEGEDLY MADE, WHILE SUFFERING APPARENTLY FROM SOME FORM OF STRESS, A POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS AND AFTER HIS WIFE LEFT HIM, IT IS UNFAIR. IT IS UNFAIR TO INTRODUCE THE STATEMENTS IN THIS CASE. THEY ARE INHERENTLY UNRELIABLE AND IT IS UNFAIR TO ALLOW MR. COCHRAN TO PLAY THE RACE CARD AND MAKE AND TURN THESE PROCEEDINGS INTO A RACE CASE. IF I HAVEN'T STRENUOUSLY OBJECTED ALREADY TO THE NOTION THAT THIS WORD SHOULD NOT BE ADMITTED IN THE COURT, THEN LET ME MAKE IT CLEAR; I DO. ALL THE PROSECUTION WANTS IN THIS CASE IS A FAIR SHOT, A FAIR TRIAL. WE JUST WANT EVERYBODY TO PLAY BY THE RULES, AND WHEN WE DON'T PLAY BY THE RULES AND WHEN THERE IS A PERCEPTION THAT WE DON'T PLAY BY THE RULES, THE COURT SANCTIONS US, DEAN UELMEN BERATES US AND WE DO WHAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO DO. THE RULES DON'T REQUIRE THE COURT TO ALLOW THE USE OF THIS WORD INTO THIS COURTROOM OR TO HAVE THIS WORD UTTERED INTO THIS COURTROOM. AND WE STRONGLY URGE THE COURT, AND RESPECTFULLY SO, THAT THE COURT NOT ALLOW THAT WORD, THAT IT NOT BE UTTERED IN THIS COURTROOM.

THANK YOU, MR. DARDEN. ALL RIGHT. MR. COCHRAN, IN DEFERENCE TO YOUR SCHEDULE --