ALL RIGHT. THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT WE'VE BEEN REJOINED BY MR. DARDEN. ALL RIGHT. MR. COCHRAN, DO YOU WISH TO CONTINUE YOUR REMARKS?
I'M GOING TO YIELD MY REMARKS FOR THE TIME BEING TO MR. UELMEN, AND I WILL CONCLUDE AFTER HE'S FINISHED.
YOUR HONOR, I HAVE TO SAY, WHEN MR. DARDEN ASKED ME IF I WAS GOING TO USE THE "N" WORD, MY IMMEDIATE REACTION WAS, AFTER THE TROUBLE I HAD FOR USING THE "F" WORD, THERE'S NO WAY I'M GOING TO STEP INTO THAT ONE. ONE OF MY MOTHER'S FRIENDS ACTUALLY CALLED AND SUGGESTED THAT I SHOULD HAVE MY MOUTH WASHED OUT WITH SOAP. THERE REALLY IS A FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MOTION IN LIMINE LIMITING THE EXAMINATION OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AND THE MOTION THAT YOUR HONOR NOW HAS UNDER CONSIDERATION DEALING WITH ALL OF THE CHARACTER EVIDENCE RELATING TO MR. SIMPSON; AND THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE IS THAT WHAT IS BEING ATTEMPTED HERE IS AN ATTEMPT TO LIMIT CROSS-EXAMINATION. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT KEEPING OUT EVIDENCE FROM A CASE IN CHIEF. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT PUTTING LIMITS ON THE EXTENT TO WHICH A WITNESS WILL BE CROSS-EXAMINED IN THE COURSE OF THIS TRIAL. AND THAT DIFFERENCE I THINK IS THE REAL REASON THAT THIS MOTION IS PREMATURE. WE DON'T KNOW YET WHAT THE DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WILL BE. WE HEARD SOME INTIMATIONS AND TALK ABOUT LAWYER'S DREAMS AND WISHES, THE DREAMS OF THE PROSECUTION TO ATTEMPTING TO LIMIT SOMEHOW DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S TESTIMONY SO THEY CAN SCOOT HIM IN HERE AND HAVE HIM UP HERE FOR TWO MINUTES AND DESCRIBE HOW HE FOUND THE GLOVE AND LEAVE. MY REACTION WAS, "NOT IN YOUR DREAMS." THERE IS GOING TO BE A LOT OF THE ISSUES THAT THE PROSECUTION INDICATED DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WOULD NOT BE TESTIFYING ABOUT THAT WILL BE RELEVANT CROSS-EXAMINATION WITH RESPECT TO HIS DIRECT TESTIMONY NO MATTER HOW RESTRICTED THAT TESTIMONY IS. AND AS LONG AS WE'RE BOTH PUTTING EACH OTHER ON NOTICE, WE'LL PUT THE PROSECUTION ON NOTICE THAT EVEN IF THEY SUCCEED IN SO DRASTICALLY LIMITING THE TESTIMONY OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, HE WILL MAKE ANOTHER APPEARANCE IN THIS CASE BEING CALLED AS A HOSTILE WITNESS BY THE DEFENSE BECAUSE HE HAS A LOT OF RELEVANT TESTIMONY TO OFFER WITH RESPECT TO THE BRONCO AUTOMOBILE, THE POSITION OF THAT AUTOMOBILE, WHETHER THAT AUTOMOBILE WAS ENTERED AND MOVED BEFORE IT WAS TOWED AWAY FROM THE SCENE, LOTS OF QUESTIONS THAT ARE GOING TO COME UP WITH RESPECT TO HOW EVIDENCE WAS CONTAMINATED IN TERMS OF THE PARADE OF OFFICERS WHO WENT FROM ONE SCENE TO THE OTHER. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IS GOING TO BE A CRUCIAL WITNESS WITH RESPECT TO A LOT OF EVIDENCE IN THIS TRIAL, AND MR. COCHRAN IS GOING TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE WAYS IN WHICH THAT TESTIMONY WILL BE RELEVANT. BUT THE IMPORTANT POINT IS, WE DON'T KNOW YET WHAT HIS DIRECT TESTIMONY WILL BE. SO WE CAN'T REALLY DEFINE AT THIS POINT IN ADVANCE WHAT THE RELEVANCE OF PARTICULAR CROSS-EXAMINATION WILL BE. IT'S ALSO ALARMING THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE MOTION IS BASED ON SOME SORT OF PROGNOSTICATION OF WHAT THE DEFENSE STRATEGY IS GOING TO BE IN THIS CASE, AND WE WOULD SUGGEST THAT THAT INCLUDES A LOT OF ASSUMPTIONS THAT ARE APPARENTLY BASED ON READING THE SPECULATION IN THE TABLOIDS AND NOT BASED ON READING ANY OF THE TRANSCRIPTS OF THE RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THIS CASE IN TERMS OF WHAT IS ON THE RECORD WITH RESPECT TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. I AGREE WITH THE PROSECUTION THAT IT IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE TIME TO REVEAL PROSECUTION STRATEGY NOR IS IT AN APPROPRIATE TIME TO REVEAL DEFENSE STRATEGY, BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT YOUR HONOR NEEDS TO KNOW THAT STRATEGY IN ORDER TO RULE ON THIS MOTION, WE HAVE IN OUR RESPONSE LAID OUT 11 DIFFERENT WAYS IN WHICH THE CREDIBILITY OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WILL BE IN ISSUE IN THIS CASE. AND THE RESPONSE OR THE MOTION ITSELF AND THE ULTIMATE REPLY TO OUR RESPONSE MAKES A LOT OF ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT WHAT THE PEOPLE'S EVIDENCE IS GOING TO SHOW AS WELL IN THEIR STATEMENT THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE DEFENSE THEORY REGARDING DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, THAT HE DELIBERATELY PLANTED THIS GLOVE, THEY KNOW WHAT THIS THEORY IS AND THEY CAN SHOW YOU IN ADVANCE THAT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY THAT THE EVIDENCE WILL EVER SUPPORT THIS THEORY. AND THAT SIMPLY ASSUMES THAT THE OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS THAT THEY HAVE COLLECTED IN THE COURSE OF THEIR INVESTIGATION ARE NOT GOING TO BE REFUTED IN ANY WAY, THAT THEY'RE NOT REFUTABLE, THAT THEY CONCLUSIVELY WILL PROVE THAT THIS COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED. AND I THINK IN THE PAPERS ITSELF RELATED TO THIS MOTION, WE'VE BEEN TREATED TO A COUPLE OF EXCELLENT EXAMPLES OF HOW FALLIBLE THAT CLAIM IS, WHAT THE REALITY IS IN TERMS OF HOW THE EVIDENCE CAN AT THIS POINT CONCLUSIVELY SHOW ANYTHING. IN THE ORIGINAL MOTION, THE PEOPLE ASSERTED THAT THE PHOTOGRAPHER WHO FINISHED PHOTOGRAPHING THE SCENE BEFORE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN EVER ARRIVED DID NOT SEE OR PHOTOGRAPH A SECOND GLOVE ANYWHERE AT THE CRIME SCENE; AND THAT IS BASED ON A FACTUAL ASSERTION IN THEIR STATEMENT OF FACTS THAT LAPD PHOTOGRAPHER RALPH ROKAR RESPONDED TO THE CRIME SCENE, TOOK NUMEROUS PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE AREA AROUND THEM INCLUDING PHOTOGRAPHS OF A SINGLE DARK LEATHER GLOVE AND HE COMPLETED ALL OF HIS OVERALL PHOTOGRAPHY AT THE CRIME SCENE BEFORE DETECTIVES PHILLIPS AND FUHRMAN ARRIVED ON THE SCENE. WELL, OUR RESPONSE TO THAT WAS, OF COURSE, WE HAVEN'T MET RALPH ROKAR YET. HE DID NOT TESTIFY AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING. HE HAS NOT GIVEN SWORN TESTIMONY IN ANY PART OF THIS CASE YET. SO HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT HE IS GOING TO SAY WITH RESPECT TO WHEN HE ARRIVED OR WHAT PICTURES HE TOOK OR FROM WHAT VANTAGE POINTS THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS WERE TAKEN? AND THEN IN THE REPLY, WE FIND A VERY INTERESTING FOOTNOTE ON PAGE 12, FOOTNOTE 3 IN THEIR REPLY TO OUR RESPONSE, WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS:
"IN OUR MOTION, WE ALSO INDICATED THAT THE CRIME SCENE PHOTOGRAPHER ARRIVED AND PHOTOGRAPHED THE SCENE PRIOR TO DETECTIVES PHILLIPS' AND FUHRMAN' JOINT ARRIVAL. THIS WAS ERRONEOUS.
"THE PHOTOGRAPHER ERRED IN HIS RECOLLECTION OF THE TIME OF HIS ARRIVAL AT BUNDY WHEN HE WAS INTERVIEWED TELEPHONICALLY FIVE AND A HALF MONTHS AFTER THE MURDERS ON NOVEMBER 22ND.
"WE HAVE SINCE OBTAINED THE PHOTOGRAPHER'S LOG FOR JUNE 13TH AND HAVE LEARNED THAT HE ARRIVED AT BUNDY AT 2:50 A.M. THIS LOG IS TWO PAGES AND WAS PROVIDED TO THE DEFENSE ON JANUARY 5TH, 1995," ONE WEEK AGO. AND I CAN ATTEST, YOUR HONOR, THAT THROUGH BOTH INFORMAL REQUESTS AND FORMAL MOTIONS, WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GET HOLD OF THE PHOTOGRAPHER'S LOG FOR SIX MONTHS, AND IT WAS JUST DELIVERED LAST WEEK. AND WHAT IT SHOWS IS THAT THE ALLEGATION IN THE OPENING MOTION IS UNTRUE. SO UNTIL WE GET RALPH ROKAR ON THE WITNESS STAND AND HEAR UNDER OATH THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH ALL OF THE PICTURES WERE TAKEN, WE REALLY DON'T KNOW TO WHAT EXTENT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIMS OF THE DEFENSE OR THE THEORY OF THE DEFENSE, WHATEVER THAT THEORY MIGHT BE, WITH RESPECT TO THE CREDIBILITY OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. THE SECOND EXAMPLE WE HAVE IS THE ALLEGATION THAT FIVE DIFFERENT UNIFORMED OFFICERS AND A SERGEANT OF THE LAPD ALSO EXAMINED THE CRIME SCENE AND THEY TOO DID NOT SEE A SECOND GLOVE. NOW, I WAS ACCUSED OF INFLAMMATORY RHETORIC IN SUGGESTING THAT THE IDENTITY OF THESE DETECTIVES OR UNIFORMED OFFICERS WAS KNOWN BUT TO GOD AND THE PROSECUTION BECAUSE WE'RE TOLD THAT ALL YOU HAD TO DO IS FLIP BACK TO OUR EARLIER STATEMENT OF FACTS, AND YOU'LL FIND THEIR NAMES LISTED. AND OF COURSE, THERE'S NO REFERENCE TO THE MOVING PAPERS ITSELF TO IDENTIFYING THESE OFFICERS AS THE OFFICERS WHO WOULD TESTIFY THAT THEY EXAMINED THE SCENE AND SAW ONLY ONE GLOVE. NOT ONE OF THESE POLICE OFFICERS TESTIFIED AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING NOR HAVE THEY TESTIFIED IN ANY SUBSEQUENT MOTION OR PROCEEDING IN THIS CASE. SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO TESTIFY TO WITH RESPECT TO WHAT THEY OBSERVED AND WHEN THEY OBSERVED IT. IT'S INTERESTING IF WE'RE GOING TO LEARN THAT EACH OF THE UNIFORMED OFFICERS WHO ARRIVED AT THE BUNDY SCENE IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS OF JUNE 13TH DID THEIR OWN LITTLE INVESTIGATION OF THE CRIME SCENE, BECAUSE WE OF COURSE ARE GOING TO CONTEND THAT HAVING AS MANY AS 50 POLICE OFFICERS WHO APPEAR ON THAT LOG AS GOING TO THE BUNDY SCENE, HAVING EACH OF THEM TRAIPSING THROUGH THE EVIDENCE AND EXAMINING WHAT WAS THERE CREATED THE PRECISE PROBLEMS THAT THE PROSECUTION IS GOING TO HAVE IN THIS CASE WITH THE OVERWHELMING CONTAMINATION OF EVIDENCE AND THE UNRELIABILITY OF THAT EVIDENCE AS A RESULT IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO WERE WALKING THROUGH THE SCENE AND DISTURBING THE EVIDENCE BEFORE IT WAS ACTUALLY COLLECTED AND DOCUMENTED. BUT THE REAL POINT IS, WELL, NONE OF THESE OFFICERS HAVE YET TESTIFIED. SO WE DON'T KNOW AT THIS POINT WHETHER THE DEFENSE THEORY OR THEORIES OF THE CASE ARE GOING TO BE SUPPORTED OR CHALLENGED BY THE EVIDENCE AT ALL. I THINK IT'S INTERESTING TO NOTE AT LEAST ONE OF THESE OFFICERS DOESN'T EVEN APPEAR ON THE PROSECUTION WITNESS LIST AT THIS POINT. SO FOR HIM TO BE RELIED ON IN THE MOVING PAPERS IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS RAISES SOME QUESTIONS IN TERMS OF WHETHER THEY'RE EVEN GOING TO PRODUCE SWORN TESTIMONY FROM THAT OFFICER. THE SECOND POINT I WANT TO ADDRESS IS THE ATTEMPT IN THIS CASE TO ANALOGIZE TO THE RULE OF LAW IN PEOPLE VERSUS HALL. SOMEHOW, THE PROSECUTION SUGGESTS THE THEORY OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN PLANTING A GLOVE, IF INDEED THAT'S GOING TO BE A THEORY PRESENTED BY THE DEFENSE IN THIS CASE, IS ANALOGOUS TO SUGGESTING THAT SOME THIRD PARTY COMMITTED THE CRIME AND THAT THE ONLY EXPLANATION FOR SUCH CONDUCT BY A POLICE OFFICER WOULD BE THAT HE WAS TRYING TO FRAME AN INNOCENT PERSON. AND THE DIFFICULTY WITH THAT ATTEMPTED ANALOGY IS THAT ONCE AGAIN, IT MAKES SOME VERY FAR-OUT ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT WHAT MIGHT MOTIVATE AN OFFICER TO ACTUALLY PHYSICALLY PLANT EVIDENCE. AND WE SUGGESTED IN OUR PAPERS THAT THERE MAY BE A NUMBER OF PLAUSIBLE MOTIVATIONS FOR A DETECTIVE SUCH AS FUHRMAN TO WANT TO DISTURB THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE. FIRST, THAT HE MAY HAVE BEEN ANGRY THAT HE HAD BEEN KICKED OFF THE CASE. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WAS NOT JUST A TAG-ALONG POLICE OFFICER IN THESE PROCEEDINGS. HE WAS IN CHARGE OF THIS INVESTIGATION. HE WAS THE FIRST DETECTIVE, HOMICIDE DETECTIVE TO ARRIVE AT THE BUNDY SCENE AND TAKE CHARGE OF THE INVESTIGATION; AND VERY SHORTLY THEREAFTER, HE WAS TOLD HE WAS OFF THE CASE. HE WAS BEING REASSIGNED. SECONDLY, THERE MAY HAVE BEEN MOTIVATION TO WANT TO APPEAR SOMEHOW AS THE HERO THAT SOLVED THE CASE. I MEAN, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IS THE DETECTIVE WHO CLAIMS HE SAW THE BLOOD SPOT ON THE BRONCO, HE WENT OVER THE WALL AND THEN HE QUESTIONED KATO KAELIN AND THEN HE FOUND THE KEY PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT BROKE THE CASE. THAT'S QUITE A ROLE FOR A DETECTIVE TO PLAY WHO HAS BEEN PULLED OFF THE CASE AND REASSIGNED. AND THIRDLY, HE MAY HAVE BEEN MOTIVATED SIMPLY BY WANTING TO PROVIDE PROBABLE CAUSE SO THAT A SEARCH WARRANT COULD BE OBTAINED TO GO INTO THE HOUSE AND LOOK FOR OTHER EVIDENCE. SO THE SCENARIO THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE TRIED TO PAINT OF THIS THEORY LEAVES OUT A LOT OF OTHER VERY PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATIONS THAT HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH PEOPLE VERSUS HALL. PEOPLE VERSUS HALL SAYS THAT EVIDENCE OF THIRD-PARTY CULPABILITY IS ADMISSIBLE IF IT CAN RAISE A REASONABLE DOUBT. ACTUALLY, THE HALL DECISION REJECTED THE MENENDEZ, ARLINE LINE OF CASES THAT PRECEDED IT THAT SET AN EVEN HIGHER THRESHOLD BEFORE THAT EVIDENCE COULD BE ADMITTED. BUT THAT'S NOT THE KIND OF EVIDENCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS SIMPLY QUESTIONING DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IN AREAS THAT RELATE TO HIS CREDIBILITY. AND THERE IS NO STANDARD, NO CASE THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T ASK A QUESTION OF A WITNESS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION UNLESS THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION WOULD RAISE A REASONABLE DOUBT. THAT ISN'T THE STANDARD FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS. THE STANDARD IS THE STANDARD OF RELEVANCY THAT IS CONTAINED IN SECTION 210 OF THE EVIDENCE CODE THAT SAYS:
"RELEVANT EVIDENCE MEANS EVIDENCE INCLUDING EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO THE CREDIBILITY OF A WITNESS OR HEARSAY DECLARANT HAVING ANY TENDENCY IN REASON TO PROVE OR DISPROVE ANY DISPUTED FACT THAT IS OF CONSEQUENCE OR SUBSEQUENCE TO THE DETERMINATION OF THE ACT." THAT IS THE TEST OF WHAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN CAN BE ASKED ON CROSS-EXAMINATION; IF IT HAS ANY TENDENCY IN REASON TO PROVE OR DISPROVE WHETHER DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IS A CREDIBLE, BELIEVABLE PERSON. NOW, WITH RESPECT TO THE VARIOUS WAYS IN WHICH THE CREDIBILITY OF A WITNESS CAN BE CHALLENGED, WE RELY OF COURSE ON SECTION 780 OF THE EVIDENCE CODE WHICH LAYS OUT ALL OF THE WAYS THAT WOULD "HAVE A TENDENCY IN REASON," AGAIN USING THE SAME LANGUAGE AS SECTION 210, "TO PROVE OR DISPROVE THE TRUTHFULNESS OF A WITNESS' TESTIMONY." AND AMONG THOSE ENUMERATED THEORIES OR BASES OF ATTACKING THE CREDIBILITY OF A WITNESS ARE THE EXISTENCE OR NONEXISTENCE OF A BIAS, INTEREST OR OTHER MOTIVE AND HIS ATTITUDE TOWARD THE ACTION IN WHICH HE TESTIFIES OR THE GIVING OF TESTIMONY. NOW, WITH RESPECT TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, OUR CONTENTION IS THAT WE ARE TALKING HERE ABOUT A WITNESS WITH AN ATTITUDE. IN FACT, YOU COULDN'T HAVE MORE PERSUASIVE EVIDENCE OF THAT ATTITUDE THAN THE LETTER THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WROTE IN 1989 GIVING HIS ACCOUNT OF WHAT HAPPENED WHEN HE FIRST MET THE DEFENDANT IN 1985. AND WHAT DID HE SAY ABOUT THAT MEETING? HE SAID IT WAS INDELIBLY IMPRESSED ON HIS MEMORY. HE COULD REMEMBER FOUR YEARS LATER IN PRECISE DETAIL EVERY WORD THAT WAS SPOKEN IN THAT ENCOUNTER. AND THAT IS SOMETHING WE WANT TO EXPLORE WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, JUST WHY THAT WAS INDELIBLY IMPRESSED ON HIS MEMORY, JUST WHAT HIS IMPRESSION WAS OF MR. SIMPSON AND WHETHER THOSE SAME THOUGHTS WERE GOING THROUGH THIS DETECTIVE'S MIND ON THE EVENING OR ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 13TH WHEN HE LED THE CONTINGENT OF DETECTIVES GOING TO MR. SIMPSON'S HOME TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION. NOW, WITH RESPECT TO THE 352 ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER THE PREJUDICIAL IMPACT OF THIS EVIDENCE WOULD OUTWEIGH ITS PROBATIVE VALUE, ONCE AGAIN, WE WANT TO EMPHASIZE THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ANALYSIS OF THE 352 QUESTION PRESENTED HERE WITH RESPECT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AND THE 352 QUESTION PRESENTED TO THE COURT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO KEEP OUT EVIDENCE OF BAD CHARACTER. FIRST OF ALL, THE ELEMENT OF PREJUDICE ASSUMES TOTALLY DIFFERENT DIMENSIONS WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE PREJUDICIAL IMPACT OF EVIDENCE ADMITTED AGAINST A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT WHOSE FATE IS GOING TO BE DECIDED BY THE JURY THAT HEARS THAT EVIDENCE. AND OF COURSE, THE PREJUDICE THAT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT IS THAT THIS EVIDENCE WILL BE IMPROPERLY USED IN ORDER TO CONVICT SOMEONE OF A CRIME. NOW, WITH RESPECT TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, THE ONLY ISSUE THE JURY IS GOING TO BE DECIDING WITH RESPECT TO HIM IS WHETHER OR NOT THEY SHOULD BELIEVE HIS TESTIMONY. AND TO SUGGEST THAT SOMEHOW THE PEOPLE WILL BE IRRETRIEVABLY PREJUDICED BECAUSE A JUROR DECIDES THEY WILL NOT CREDIT HIS TESTIMONY IS A WHOLE DIFFERENT DIMENSION OF PREJUDICE. AND THAT'S PRECISELY THE REASON WE BELIEVE THIS EVIDENCE IS RELEVANT, THAT A JURY THAT IS SIZING UP THE CREDIBILITY OF THIS WITNESS SHOULD KNOW ABOUT THIS EVIDENCE IN ORDER TO MAKE A RATIONAL INTELLIGENT JUDGMENT, THAT EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT BE WITHHELD FROM THEM IN TERMS OF DECIDING WHETHER DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IS A CREDIBLE OR BELIEVABLE PERSON. THE ELEMENTS OF THE UNDUE CONSUMPTION OF TIME ALSO TAKES ON A DIFFERENT DIMENSION BECAUSE WE ARE NOT TALKING AT THIS POINT ABOUT LITIGATING EACH OF THESE ALLEGATIONS OR CHARGES. WE ARE SIMPLY TALKING ABOUT CROSS-EXAMINATION. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WHETHER THESE QUESTIONS CAN BE PUT TO THE WITNESS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION. AND IT MAY BE HE HAS AN EXPLANATION OF THESE INCIDENTS AND EVENTS THAT WILL END THE MATTER AND WE WON'T EVEN NEED TO TALK ABOUT ANY COLLATERAL IMPEACHMENT. BUT YOUR HONOR CAN ADDRESS THE QUESTION OF COLLATERAL IMPEACHMENT IF AND WHEN IT COMES UP. BUT AT THIS POINT, THE ONLY QUESTION THAT YOUR HONOR HAS TO ADDRESS IS WHETHER THE DEFENSE SHOULD BE LIMITED IN ITS CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THIS WITNESS BASED ON SECTION 352. AND FINALLY, I WANT TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF REMOTENESS BECAUSE THE PEOPLE HAVE MADE A SUGGESTION THAT SOMEHOW THE FIVE YEARS' PITCHESS LIMITATION ON GOING BACK INTO THE RECORDS OF A POLICE OFFICER CREATES SOME SORT OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, SOME SORT OF TEST OF RELEVANCY THAT PROHIBITS ANY INQUIRY INTO EVENTS THAT ARE MORE THAN FIVE YEARS OLD. THE IMPETUS OF THE FIVE-YEAR LIMITATION IN PITCHESS WAS REALLY TO NOT BURDEN POLICE DEPARTMENTS WITH THE NECESSITY OF MAINTAINING RECORDS FOR MORE THAN A FIVE-YEAR PERIOD. IT DOES NOT PURPORT TO SET UP A TEST OF RELEVANCY. THE TEST OF RELEVANCY IS WHAT IS IN THE EVIDENCE CODE; AND THAT IS SIMPLY WHETHER THIS EVIDENCE HAS A TENDENCY IN REASON TO SUGGEST THAT --
-- A TENDENCY IN REASON TO SUGGEST THAT OFFICER FUHRMAN'S TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT BE BELIEVED AND UNDER SECTION 352, WHETHER THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF A PARTICULAR QUESTION IS OUTWEIGHED BY ITS POTENTIAL PREJUDICIAL IMPACT OR THE RISK OF UNDUE CONSUMPTION OF TIME. THERE OF COURSE IS AN IRONY HERE IN THE CONTEXT OF CHALLENGING MR. SIMPSON'S CREDIBILITY. THE PROSECUTION FEELS IT APPROPRIATE TO GO BACK 17 YEARS AND REQUIRE HIM TO EXPLAIN THINGS THAT HAPPENED 17 YEARS AGO, BUT THAT WE SHOULD NOT EXHAUST THE MEMORY OF A POLICE OFFICER BEYOND A FIVE-YEAR LIMITATION. AND OF COURSE, THERE'S NO BASIS IN LAW OR FACT FOR ANY SUCH ASSERTION. THE RELEVANCE OF THESE EVENTS -- AND MR. COCHRAN WILL GO INTO MORE DETAIL WITH RESPECT TO THE PARTICULAR EVIDENCE THAT WE THINK IS RELEVANT -- IS OF COURSE THAT IT IS PRECISELY CONTEMPORANEOUS WITH THE DEFINING EVENT THAT WE BELIEVE ESTABLISHES MR. FUHRMAN'S ATTITUDE AND HIS BIAS IN THIS CASE; AND THAT EVENT IS HIS ENCOUNTER WITH MR. SIMPSON IN 1985. AND IF, CONTEMPORANEOUS WITH THAT EVENT, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IS MAKING STATEMENTS ABOUT HIS ATTITUDES TOWARD BLACK PEOPLE, IF HE IS MAKING STATEMENTS ABOUT HIS ATTITUDES TOWARDS INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE, WE BELIEVE THOSE ARE ATTITUDES THAT AFFECTED HOW HE DESCRIBED THAT INCIDENT IN 1989 AND INDEED AFFECTED HIS CONDUCT AND HIS ACTIVITY ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 13TH, 1994. WITH THAT, I WILL TURN THE PODIUM OVER TO MR. COCHRAN.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, DEAN UELMEN, AND GOOD AFTERNOON, JUDGE ITO, AND COLLEAGUES. YOUR HONOR, FOLLOWING UP ON WHAT MR. UELMEN SO ELOQUENTLY INDICATED, I WILL JUST AGAIN POINT TO EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 718. AND I CERTAINLY DON'T HAVE TO REMIND THIS COURT OF THIS, BUT UNDER THAT SECTION, IT TALKS ABOUT, UNDER 718, "IF THE EXISTENCE OR NONEXISTENCE OF A BIAS, INTEREST OR OTHER MOTIVE." IT TALKS ABOUT HIS ATTITUDE, A WITNESS' ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE ACTION IN WHICH HE TESTIFIES OR TOWARDS THE GIVING OF TESTIMONY. AND IN THIS PRESENTATION I'M GOING TO MAKE NOW, I WANT TO JUST ADDRESS WITH THE COURT SOME OF THE EVIDENCE THAT WE THINK IS VERY IMPORTANT AND VERY RELEVANT THAT BEARS UPON THE ATTITUDE OF THIS PARTICULAR WITNESS WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT. YOU KNOW, YOUR HONOR, IT'S VERY INTERESTING THAT A WITNESS WHO WAS SO INVOLVED IN THIS CASE FROM THE STANDPOINT OF BEING, AS I SAID, THE FIRST OFFICERS ON THE SCENE, PHILLIPS AND FUHRMAN -- HE MAKES THE OBSERVATION ALLEGEDLY OF THE BRONCO, HE'S THE ONE WHO IS SEEN IN THE PICTURES POINTING TOWARDS EVIDENCE, HE IS THE ONE WHO ALLEGEDLY GOES OVER TO ROCKINGHAM TO SHOW THE WAY TO VANNATTER, HE'S THE ONE THAT IS SO PHYSICALLY FIT THAT HE CLIMBS OVER THE WALL, HE'S THE ONE WHO ENGAGES KATO KAELIN, HE'S THE ONE WHO HAS THIS RUSH OF ADRENALIN AS HE GOES BACK DOWN THIS DARK PATH AS WE SAT WITH STILLED ATTENTION AS HE MADE THIS AMAZING DISCOVERY AND THEN WENT BACK ONE BY ONE AND SHOWED ALL THE OTHER OFFICERS, THIS IS THE SAME MAN THAT THEY NOW SAY IS INSIGNIFICANT IN THIS CASE, THEY WOULD RATHER NOT CALL HIM. NOW, WHY WOULD THE PROSECUTION COME HERE AND SAY THAT TO YOUR HONOR, AN EXPERIENCED JURIST? WELL, ONE OF THE REASONS MIGHT BE, IF WE TAKE THE DECLARATION OF KATHLEEN BELL, WHOM THEY'VE MALIGNED -- NOW THIS IS A LADY, A WITNESS WHO HAS NO AX TO GRIND IN THIS AT ALL, WHO COMES FORWARD VOLUNTARILY. SHE DOESN'T PREFER ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER. SHE DOESN'T KNOW O.J. SIMPSON. SHE JUST SPELLS OUT SOMETHING BECAUSE SHE SEES WHAT SHE BELIEVES IS A WRONG. LET ME SHARE WITH YOU, JUDGE, WHAT SHE HAS TO SAY THAT WE THINK IS VERY RELEVANT AND BEARS ON THIS MAN'S ATTITUDE AND IN SPECIFIC GOES BACK TO MR. FUHRMAN'S ENCOUNTER WITH O.J. SIMPSON AND HIS WIFE BACK IN 1985. SHE SAYS THAT:
"I WAS INTRODUCED TO MARK FUHRMAN BY A MARINE CORPS RECRUITER. DURING OUR INITIAL CONVERSATION, MARK FUHRMAN TOLD ME HE WAS A FORMER MARINE AND CURRENTLY A LOCAL POLICE OFFICER.
"DURING OUR CONVERSATION, MARK FUHRMAN STATED THAT HE WOULD PULL OVER ANY VEHICLE THAT WAS OCCUPIED BY A BLACK MAN AND A WHITE WOMAN.
"I THEN ASKED HIM, 'WHAT IF YOU DON'T HAVE A GOOD REASON TO PULL THEM OVER?' "MR. FUHRMAN THEN STATED, 'I'D MAKE ONE UP.'
"I THEN ASKED FUHRMAN, 'WHAT IF THE TWO PEOPLE ARE IN LOVE?'
"FUHRMAN THEN APPEARED TO BE DISGUSTED WITH ME AND STATED, IF I HAD MY WAY, THEY WOULD TAKE ALL THE --'" AND I'LL USE THE WORD BECAUSE I'M QUOTING HIM --
"'--ALL THE NIGGERS, PUT THEM TOGETHER IN A BIG GROUP AND BURN THEM.'
"I BECAME VISIBLY UPSET, BEGAN TO CRY AND LEFT THE OFFICE." AND TO MS. CHERI LEWIS, WHO DID A FINE JOB IN HER PRESENTATION, SOME PEOPLE WOULD CRY WHEN YOU'RE TOLD THAT A PERSON HAS AN ATTITUDE IN THIS DAY AND AGE, THEY WOULD PUT A RACIAL GROUP TOGETHER IN A GROUP AND BURN THEM. SOME PEOPLE MIGHT GET MAD. SOME PEOPLE MIGHT GET DISGUSTED. SOME PEOPLE MIGHT CRY. THIS LADY CRIED. BUT SHE WAS MALIGNED BECAUSE SHE CRIED BECAUSE OF HER SENSITIVITY. AND SHE WENT ON TO SAY:
"I DO HEREBY DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT." SHE GOES ON. AND THIS LADY CAME FORWARD VOLUNTARILY. NOW, YOUR HONOR, WE THINK THAT'S VERY RELEVANT. AND SPECIFICALLY, IN 1985, THIS DETECTIVE FUHRMAN COMES OUT IN AN ALLEGED ENCOUNTER INVOLVING MR. SIMPSON AND HIS WIFE. MR. SIMPSON IS AN AFRICAN AMERICAN. HIS WIFE IS CAUCASIAN. THIS OFFICER DOESN'T WRITE A REPORT THEN, JUDGE. FOUR YEARS LATER, HE WRITES A REPORT IN 1989 WHERE HE SAYS THIS EVENT MADE AN INDELIBLE IMPRESSION UPON HIM. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO ASK ABOUT HIS ATTITUDES, ABOUT HIS MOTIVE, ABOUT HIS INTEREST, ABOUT HIS BIAS. BUT THAT'S NOT ALL, JUDGE. LET'S LOOK AT SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS THIS MAN HAS SAID AND HOW IT BEARS UPON THIS EVIDENCE. THIS IS A GENTLEMAN WHO THEY TALK ABOUT BEING A POLICE OFFICER. AND WE KNOW POLICE WORK IS TOUGH WORK. BUT AS I SAID EARLIER, MUCH OF THE WORK IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IS TOUGH, JUDGE. WE'RE IN IT, WE GET PAID WELL FOR WHAT WE DO, AND IF WE CAN'T BE IN IT, WE TRY TO GET OUT. NOW, THIS OFFICER DID IN FACT TRY TO GET OUT BECAUSE -- AND I WOULD LIKE TO ALLUDE, SO COUNSEL WILL HAVE IT, TO THE REPORT OF DR. HOCHMAN. NOW, THIS REPORT IS DATED DECEMBER 16, 1981 AND IT REGARDS MARK FUHRMAN. AND I'LL SKIP THE IRRELEVANT PORTIONS AND LET'S GET TO ON PAGE 8. HERE'S WHAT HE TOLD DR. HOCHMAN, JUDGE, IN AN EFFORT --
YOUR HONOR, I'M SORRY. I OBJECT TO COUNSEL READING ANY FURTHER FROM THIS DOCUMENT. THE COURT HAS THE DOCUMENT AS AN EXHIBIT. MR. COCHRAN ONLY NEEDS TO REFER THE COURT TO THE SPECIFIC SECTION, PAGE THAT HE WOULD LIKE THE COURT TO REVIEW AT THIS POINT. AND I FURTHER OBJECT TO THE USE OF THAT -- OF THE "N" WORD IN THESE PROCEEDINGS. IT'S UNNECESSARY. IT'S ABSOLUTELY UNNECESSARY.
THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. IN HIS OCCUPATIONAL HISTORY, HE TELLS THE DOCTOR:
"HE WAS IN THE MARINES FROM 1970 TO 1975. DURING HIS LAST SIX MONTHS, HE," QUOTE -- AND I'M QUOTING HIM -- THESE ARE NOT MY WORDS. I'M QUOTING HIS WORDS, MR. DARDEN. "GOT TIRED --"
I WILL, YOUR HONOR. AND I CERTAINLY WAS LOOKING AT YOUR HONOR. DURING HIS LAST SIX MONTHS, HE, QUOTE:
"GOT TIRED OF HAVING A BUNCH OF MEXICANS AND NIGGERS THAT SHOULD BE IN PRISON TELLING HIM THEY WEREN'T GOING TO DO SOMETHING. HE DID NOT LIKE THE VOLUNTARY MILITARY. HE DID WELL IN THE MARINES AND WAS PROMOTED." THE REPORT OF COURSE GOES ON. IT TELLS ABOUT HIS ATTITUDE TOWARD HIS WORK.
"HE WAS TRANSFERRED AND WORKED A FOOT BEAT FOR THE CENTRAL DIVISION DOWNTOWN L.A. HE DESCRIBES THIS WORK AS," QUOTE, AGAIN, HIS WORDS:
"MORE SLIMES AND MORE ASS HOLES." THAT'S HOW HE DEALT AND SAW THE PUBLIC THAT HE DEALT WITH. HE WENT ON TO SAY THAT:
"IN THIS WORK, THAT HE WOULD BE," QUOTE, "RECKLESS. HE DID NOT EVEN CARE IF HE DIED. HE SAID THAT IF ANYONE RESISTED HIS ARREST," QUOTE, "THEY WENT BACK UNCONSCIOUS," END QUOTE.
"HE WAS AFRAID THAT HE WOULD KILL SOMEONE IF HE CONTINUED TO WORK THE STREETS. HE RECALLS CHOKING, KICKING AND PUNCHING A MAN AFTER HE WAS UNCONSCIOUS.
"IN ANOTHER INCIDENT --"
I CERTAINLY WILL TRY TO DO THAT. HE WENT ON TO DESCRIBE IN THIS ONE INCIDENT A MAN WHO WAS ON PCP WHEREIN HE BROKE THE MAN'S ELBOWS, SAYS THE OTHER POLICEMEN WERE STANDING AROUND WATCHING HIM. AFTERWARDS, HE WONDERED WHAT HE WAS DOING. SO HE GOES ON IN A WHOLE PATTERN OF THESE THINGS. HE DESCRIBES HIMSELF AS, QUOTE, A NEANDERTHAL WHO WOULD CHARGE A GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT WILL NOT MOVE.
YOUR HONOR, EXCUSE ME. THERE IS AN OBJECTION TO THIS. THIS IS NOT PART OF THIS MOTION. THIS IS ONLY INFLAMMATORY. THE COURT --
ALL RIGHT, YOUR HONOR. AND I'LL MOVE ON TO WHAT I THINK SURELY THE COURT WILL FIND RELEVANT. NOW, BASICALLY I WAS TRYING TO GIVE THE COURT SOME BACKGROUND AS TO WHAT THIS REPORT SAID. THE IMPORTANT THING IS THE DISCUSSION --
COUNSEL, I READ THE ENTIRE REPORT ONCE FOR THE PITCHESS MOTION. I'VE READ IT AGAIN FOR THIS. SO I'VE READ IT SEVERAL TIMES.
VERY WELL, YOUR HONOR. THEN WE GET DOWN TO WHAT I'M SURE WE CAN ALL AGREE THEN IS VERY RELEVANT. THE DOCTOR SAYS:
"THE MOST NOTABLE PSYCHIATRIC FINDING IS WHAT APPEARS TO BE A PRE-EXISTING PERSONALITY DISORDER MARKED BY THE TENDENCY ON THIS PATIENT'S PART TO OVEREMPHASIZE HIS OWN MERITS AND TO DISPARAGE OTHERS. GENERALLY, PEOPLE WITH THIS PERSONALITY CON --"
COUNSEL, THIS IS THE DOCTOR'S OPINION. THIS IS NOT STATEMENTS BY THIS PERSON. SO A PSYCHIATRIC ANALYSIS, THAT'S HEARSAY. IT'S NOT ADMISSIBLE FOR THESE PURPOSES.
IT IS HEARSAY, YOUR HONOR. BUT I THINK -- THE REASON I THOUGHT THAT I COULD READ THIS PARTICULAR PORTION IS BECAUSE IT BEARS UPON THIS PERSON'S ATTITUDE WITH REGARD TO AFRICAN AMERICANS AND OTHERS, HIS ATTITUDE TOWARD THE GENERAL PUBLIC, HIS ATTITUDE OF HOW HE'S SEEN. AND I THINK THAT IF THE COURT WILL ALLOW ME JUST TO CONCLUDE THIS SENTENCE, I'LL MOVE ON FROM THIS DOCTOR'S REPORT IF I MIGHT.
ALL RIGHT. YOU HAVE READ THAT. FINE, YOUR HONOR. WELL, THEN THAT BRINGS US, IF THE COURT PLEASES, TO DR. KOEGLER'S REPORT. DR. KOEGLER'S REPORT, AS THE COURT IS AWARE, NOVEMBER OF 1982. AND TO GET TO THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THAT REPORT, MR. DARDEN THIS MORNING TALKED ABOUT THE ASPECT OF THIS MAN HAVING SUCH A TOUGH LIFE AND HIS WORK AND THAT SORT OF THING. AND I THINK I SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO READ THIS ABOUT HIS LIFE AND HIS DIVORCE AND ALL THE BAD THINGS THAT HAPPENED TO HIM. HERE'S WHAT HE SAYS IN THAT REGARD. AND THEY OPENED THE DOOR. SO I THINK THAT I SHOULD BE ABLE TO RESPOND.
EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR. THERE IS AN OBJECTION. MR. DARDEN'S COMMENTS WERE JUST GENERALLY DIRECTED TOWARD POLICE OFFICERS AND HIS KNOWLEDGE OF POLICE OFFICERS WORKING IN THE FIELD. THERE IS CERTAINLY NO OPENING OF THE DOOR OF THIS PARTICULAR DETECTIVE'S BACKGROUND IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER EXCEPT WITH REGARD TO THE PARTICULAR STATEMENTS THAT HE IS ALLEGED TO HAVE MADE.
YOUR HONOR, HE SAID -- MR. DARDEN SPOKE ABOUT WHAT A TOUGH LIFE HE HAD AND HE HAD BEEN SHOT AT AND HE GOT A DIVORCE AND ALL THOSE THINGS, AND I WANT TO INDICATE TO THE COURT WHAT HE HAD TO SAY WITH REGARD TO HIS WIFE AND THAT LIFE JUST BRIEFLY.
COUNSEL, WELL, WAIT A MINUTE. WHY DON'T YOU TELL ME WHAT PAGE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT ON THE DOCTOR'S --
THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 2, OF DR. KOEGLER'S REPORT, YOUR HONOR, AT THE LAST PARAGRAPH STARTING WITH "PRIOR".
VERY WELL, YOUR HONOR. I WOULD LIKE THE COURT TO THEN TAKE A LOOK AT ON PAGE 2, PARAGRAPH 3, IF THE COURT WILL AGREE THAT WOULD BE RELEVANT.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. IN THIS PARTICULAR POINT, DR. KOEGLER SAYS:
"HE TRACES HIS FEELINGS ABOUT VIOLENCE TO HIS EXPERIENCES IN THE MARINES. HE WAS SENT TO VIETNAM AND WAS IN SAIGON TOWARD THE END OF THE WAR." QUOTE, "'I LOVED IT IN THE MILITARY. YOU KNEW WHAT YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO DO, AND IF YOU DID IT, THEY REWARDED YOU,' END QUOTE.
"1970 TO 1975, HE WAS IN THE MARINES AND SAYS THAT HE ENJOYED IT UNTIL THE LAST YEAR. THEN HE SAYS, QUOTE, 'THERE WERE THESE MEXICANS AND NIGGERS, VOLUNTEERS, AND THEY WOULD TELL ME THEY WEREN'T GOING TO DO SOMETHING.'" I THINK THE COURT HAS READ THE REPORT AS YOU'VE INDICATED AND YOU THEN HAVE A PICTURE. I DON'T WANT TO BELABOR THIS, BUT JUST TO POINT OUT, THE EVIDENCE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE BEARS CLEARLY UPON THE 11 ITEMS THAT WE HAVE LISTED. AND I WOULD JUST SAY IN PASSING, WITH REGARD TO THE BRITTON INCIDENT, THAT, AS I UNDERSTAND WHAT MR. BRITTON HAS INDICATED -- AND HE IS -- AND SO THEY'VE NOT MADE IT CLEAR TO YOUR HONOR, THERE IS A CIVIL LAWSUIT PENDING WHEREIN THE CITY WAS SUED --
RIGHT AFTER A MISTRIAL. IT'S GOING TO BE TRIED AGAIN IN APRIL. SO ALTHOUGH THAT THE JURY WASN'T ABLE TO AGREE AT FIRST, THE ALLEGATIONS ARE, ACCORDING TO MR. BRITTON -- AND I DON'T THINK HE MAKES ANY BONES ABOUT THE FACT THAT HE WAS CONVICTED OF A ROBBERY -- BUT WHAT HE CONTENDS WAS THAT HE WAS WRONGFULLY SHOT AND THAT THERE WERE ONLY TWO OFFICERS WHO SHOT, THAT WAS DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AND HIS PARTNER, AND THAT SOME EVIDENCE, A KNIFE, WAS MOVED CLOSER TO HIS BODY FROM WHERE HE DROPPED IT. HE'S NOT SURE WHICH OF THE TWO DID IT. AND IT WAS ONE OF THOSE TWO, AND THEY'RE BOTH DEFENDANTS AS I UNDERSTAND THE TESTIMONY.
NOW, I EARLIER SAID TO THE PROSECUTION, THIS IS, AS WITH THEIR CASE, AN ON-GOING MATTER AND THERE WILL CONTINUE TO BE OTHER EVIDENCE, OTHER INSTANCES OF A MORE CURRENT VARIETY THAT WE WILL SHARE WITH THEM AS SOON AS THE INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN COMPLETED. THE PROSECUTION IN THEIR PRESENTATION SPENT FAR TOO MUCH TIME ON THE GLOVE, THE PLACING OF THE GLOVE, THE MOVING OF THE GLOVE. WHAT I WOULD CHOOSE TO DO IS TO TALK WHY WE SHOULD NOT BE PRESCRIBED IN OUR CROSS-EXAMINATION. THROUGHOUT ALL, THEY'VE TRIED TO PREDICT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO. THIS MOTION IS PREMATURE. MR. DARDEN DOESN'T KNOW WHAT I'M GOING TO DO AS YOU COULD TELL THIS MORNING WHEN HE GETS ALL EMOTIONAL ABOUT THAT. HE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO. THAT'S THEIR PROBLEM, AND WE ARE NOT GOING TO TELL THEM WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO. IT'S THEIR CASE, AND WHEN WE GET TO OUR CASE, WE'LL DEAL WITH IT, YOUR HONOR. BUT CERTAINLY WITH REGARD TO THESE ITEMS, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, THE 1985 INCIDENT, WHO COULD ARGUE THAT WHEN THIS ENCOUNTER WAS HAD AND THE REPORT WAS WRITTEN SOME FOUR YEARS LATER, THAT'S VERY, VERY RELEVANT. SO I THINK WITH 1 AND 2, THE COURT CAN SEE EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN THAT REGARD. AND THEN WITH NUMBER 3, THE CREDIBILITY OF THE ACCOUNT, OF THE REASONS WHY THESE DETECTIVES WENT TO THE HOME. CERTAINLY WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE AT THIS POINT, YOUR HONOR. YOU RULED ON THAT. BUT I WOULD SAY THIS. THAT IT'S ABSOLUTELY RELEVANT IN THE SITUATION WHERE -- DETECTIVE VANNATTER SAID THAT HE WORKED WEST LOS ANGELES, KNEW THAT AREA. WHY THEN DID FUHRMAN AND PHILLIPS HAVE TO GO OVER TO THE RESIDENCE? I THINK THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ISSUES OF POSSIBLE IMPEACHMENT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. IF HE WORKED THERE, YOU DIDN'T NEED ANY GUIDE OVER THERE. REMINDS ME OF THE STORY, HOW MANY LAPD DETECTIVES DOES IT TAKE TO NOTIFY THE NEXT OF KIN? APPARENTLY ALL FOUR OF THEM, BECAUSE THEY ALL WENT OVER THERE, YOUR HONOR, AND FOR WHATEVER REASON THEY DID. THE CREDIBILITY OF THIS DESCRIPTION OF THE POSITION OF THE DEFENDANT'S FORD BRONCO; AGAIN, THIS IS AN IMPORTANT WITNESS. AND WHETHER THAT VEHICLE WAS PARKED ASKEW AND AT WHAT TIME, WAS THAT VEHICLE MOVED BY SOME OFFICER, WAS IT LOCKED, WHO GOT IN THERE AND WHO MOVED IT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WHETHER OR NOT THE VEHICLE WAS SECURE AT THE TIME. AND THOSE ARE ALL I MEAN REAL ISSUES IN THIS CASE, JUDGE, THAT WE WILL BE LITIGATING MOST VIGOROUSLY. THE DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE ACCOUNT OF THIS PARTICULAR OFFICER REGARDING THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS AT THE ROCKINGHAM ADDRESS. AS THE COURT IS AWARE, THAT WE'RE NOW AWARE OF THE WESTEC OFFICERS WHO ARRIVED AND THAT SORT OF THING. SO THAT WE HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO GO INTO THEIR CREDIBILITY AND THEIR TESTIMONY UNDER OATH WITH REGARD TO THOSE EVENTS, WHAT LED THEM THERE AND WHAT HAPPENED WHEN THEY GOT THERE. DID THEY GO THERE MORE THAN ONE TIME THAT MORNING? THOSE WILL BE THINGS WE WILL BE QUERYING, YOUR HONOR. AND THEN OF COURSE THE CREDIBILITY OF THE TESTIMONY REGARDING THE DISCOVERY OF THE SPOTS OF BLOOD SUPPOSEDLY ON THE FORD BRONCO AND THE DRIVEWAY OF ROCKINGHAM. TO HEAR THE PROSECUTION, OF COURSE, THAT'S NO LONGER IMPORTANT AND THEY WOULDN'T EVEN BOTHER TALKING ABOUT THAT. THE SEARCH OF KATO KAELIN'S ROOM AGAIN IS A QUESTION OF THIS MAN'S CREDIBILITY. HE IS THERE TO NOTIFY MR. SIMPSON. FIRST THING HE DOES IS START LOOKING THROUGH CLOTHES, LOOKING AT MR. KATO KAELIN'S EYES, LOOKING AT HIS SHOES. HOW DOES THAT BEAR UPON NOTIFYING ANYONE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES? BUT YET THAT IS THE SAME OFFICER, THE SAME OFFICER WHO NO LONGER WANTED TO BE A POLICE OFFICER. AND I SHOULD POINT OUT THAT THOSE ARGUMENTS THAT HE MADE TO TRY TO GET OUT OF BEING A POLICE OFFICER WERE ALL REJECTED BY THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES. WHAT DOES THAT TELL US? HE SAYS:
"I HAVE THESE TERRIBLE PROBLEMS. I WANT TO GET OUT." THEY SAY:
"YOU'RE LYING. WE'RE NOT LETTING YOU OUT. YOU ARE GOING TO REMAIN A POLICE OFFICER." IS CREDIBILITY AT ISSUE, YOUR HONOR? I THINK SO. SO THE CREDIBILITY OF HIS ACCOUNT, OF HIS PARTICIPATION, THE EXECUTION OF THESE SEARCH WARRANTS, NOT THE SEARCH WARRANT ITSELF, BUT THE CREDIBILITY OF THE INFORMATION GIVEN, YOUR HONOR, WE ARE PERMITTED TO GO INTO THOSE FACTS. WE'VE SEEN WITH THE OTHER WITNESSES THERE'S BEEN A RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE TRUTH, AND WE ARE PERMITTED IT SEEMS TO ME TO LOOK AT THOSE ITEMS, OF THE RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE TRUTH FROM ANY OF THESE WITNESSES WHO HAVE DONE THAT. AND THEN BECAUSE OF HIS FAILURE TO RECORD, RECORDS WE HEAR FROM MISS LEWIS THIS MORNING, HE HAD SOME BRIEF NOTES. WELL, THIS IS THIS IMPORTANT WITNESS THEY PARADE OUT. HE HAS ONLY BRIEF NOTES OR LACK OF NOTES OR VERY FEW NOTES? IF IT WAS NOT HIS CASE ANYMORE, WHAT WAS HE DOING OVER THERE? WHY WAS HE THE ONE TAKING THE ACTIVE ROLE? VANNATTER DIDN'T BECOME ACTIVE UNTIL MUCH LATER IT SEEMED IN THE DAY IF THE COURT PLEASES. HIS ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY, THE FAILURE OF THE OFFICERS TO FOLLOW PROPER TECHNIQUES TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE WITHOUT CONTAMINATION. AND AGAIN, WITHOUT AGAIN GOING INTO THE EVIDENCE, YOU WILL SEE PICTURES OF THE VARIOUS OFFICERS AT THE SCENE, PICTURES OF MARK FUHRMAN AROUND THIS CRITICAL EVIDENCE. THE QUESTION IS, HAS THAT EVIDENCE BEEN MOVED? CAN WE DEMONSTRATE FOR THIS COURT AND FOR THIS JURY THAT EVIDENCE, CERTAINLY OTHER THAN THE GLOVE, HAD BEEN MOVED, THE SCENE HAS BEEN TAMPERED WITH, THAT PEOPLE HAVE WALKED THROUGH BLOOD MAKING FOOTPRINTS? CAN WE SHOW THOSE THINGS? I THINK WE CAN SHOW THOSE THINGS. I THINK HE AGAIN BECOMES VERY, VERY IMPORTANT IN THAT REGARD BECAUSE HE'S ONE OF THE FIRST ONES THERE. AND HIS TESTIMONY AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, REFERRING TO THE GLOVES AT THE BUNDY SCENE AS "THEM". AND IT'S INTERESTING. MISS LEWIS AGAIN, BEING HONEST ABOUT IT, SAYS THERE'S AMBIGUITY THERE. THERE'S AMBIGUITY. HE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE GLOVES. BUT HE SAYS "THE GLOVES" AND HE SAYS "THEM". NOW, SHE SAYS, WELL, GEE, PROFESSOR UELMEN DIDN'T GO INTO THAT. BUT, YOUR HONOR, HE WAS THE PROSECUTION WITNESS. IF THERE WAS AMBIGUITY, WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY IS IT TO CLEAR IT UP? IT'S THEIR RESPONSIBILITY. NOT MR. -- NOT PROFESSOR UELMEN'S. SO IT WASN'T HIS OBLIGATION. BUT THAT'S AGAIN SOMETHING WE WOULD OBVIOUSLY BE LOOKING AT. AND SO WHEN THE COURT TIES THOSE VARIOUS INCIDENTS INTO 718 OF THE EVIDENCE CODE, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT WHAT THE PROSECUTION IS SEEKING TO DO IS TO PRESCRIBE US IN ADVANCE, TO STOP US IN ADVANCE FROM CROSS-EXAMINATION. AND THE COURT UNDERSTANDS THE VERY IMPORTANCE OF CROSS-EXAMINATION. WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS THE ABILITY TO TRY TO GET A FAIR TRIAL. AND THIS COURT ALWAYS HAS HAD THAT CONCERN AND HAS ALSO DEMONSTRATED THAT CONCERN, THAT BOTH SIDES GET A FAIR TRIAL. YOU HAVE BEEN PATIENT, OFTEN TIMES BEYOND BELIEF AS THE LAWYERS HAVE GONE ON AND ON. AND I'M MINDFUL OF THAT AS WE GET CLOSE TO 3:00 O'CLOCK. BUT AT THE TIME, CROSS-EXAMINATION IS NOT ONE OF THESE THINGS WHERE I DON'T THINK -- I THINK THIS COURT WOULD WANT TO DEPRIVE ANYONE OF, CERTAINLY IN ADVANCE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. AND AS DEAN UELMEN HAS SAID, IT IS THE HEIGHT OF IRONY AND HYPOCRISY TO SPEND TWO DAYS ON GOING BACK IN THIS MAN'S LIFE 17, 18 YEARS AGO ON THINGS HE COULD HARDLY EVEN REMEMBER, MYSTERIOUS PEOPLE WHO APPEAR ALL OF A SUDDEN WITHOUT BEING CHECKED, FROM THIS KIND OF TABLOID PROSECUTION, WHERE THEY GET THEIR WITNESSES FROM HARD COPY, COME IN AND MAKE A NATIONAL DISPLAY AND THEN HAVE TO WITHDRAW 18 OF THOSE WITNESSES. I MEAN IT'S OUTRAGEOUS. AND THEY WANT TO TALK ABOUT BEING FAIR. FAIR WORKS BOTH WAYS. FAIR WORKS BOTH WAYS. AND WHAT WE MEAN BY FAIRNESS, WE WANT THE ABILITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE THESE WITNESSES. SO IF THEY HAVE A KEY WITNESS, THEY CAN'T HIDE THAT WITNESS. THIS IS A MOTION TO HIDE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, AND HE CAN'T BE -- HE CAN'T HIDE, JUDGE, YOUR HONOR. HIS WORDS ARE OUT THERE. AND THAT BRINGS ME TO WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT THIS MORNING AGAIN JUST BRIEFLY. WE TAKE THE FACTS THE WAY WE FIND THEM. WE'RE ON THE EVE OF TRIAL. IT'S TIME TO STOP TALKING AND POSTULATING. LET'S GO TO TRIAL. ON THE ONE HAND, THEY WANT TO TELL YOU WHAT MOUNTAINS OF EVIDENCE THEY HAVE. ON THE OTHER HAND, OUT THE OTHER SIDE OF HIS MOUTH, HE SAYS, BUT GEE, IT WON'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE BECAUSE THESE PEOPLE CAN'T BE FAIR, MALIGNING THESE PEOPLE. I MEAN IN THE COOL LIGHT OF DAY, WE SEE ERRORS IN HIS CASE IN THAT REGARD. THAT WAS WRONG TO DO. THAT WE CAN ALL BECOME EMOTIONAL, BUT AS OFFICERS OF THIS COURT, I HOPE WE CAN ALL REMEMBER TO BE PROFESSIONAL. WE HAVE TO DECIDE THIS CASE BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE. WE DIDN'T MAKE THESE FACTS UP. AND THEIR JOB IS TO SEEK JUSTICE. OUR JOB IS TO DEFEND OUR CLIENT, AS THE COURT IS AWARE. AND IN THE PURSUIT OF JUSTICE WE'RE CAUGHT UP WITH, SOMETIMES WE LOSE SIGHT OF OUR PERSPECTIVE. THERE WILL BE LIFE AFTER SIMPSON FOR ALL OF US. I THINK WE NEED TO ALL REMEMBER THAT. SO, YOUR HONOR, I THINK THAT THESE INCIDENTS THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT BEAR UPON THE CREDIBILITY OF THIS OFFICER'S TESTIMONY. NOT JUST ABOUT THE GLOVE, BUT BEARS UPON HIS ATTITUDES, HIS BELIEFS, HIS THOUGHT PROCESSES. AND THAT SHAPES HOW HE TESTIFIES. IF HE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THE PEOPLE HE SERVES, WE HAVE A RIGHT TO BRING THAT OUT. AND THEY HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT BECAUSE THAT'S THE TESTIMONY, IF HE TESTIFIES TO THAT. IF THEY DON'T CALL HIM, WE'LL CALL HIM BECAUSE HE HAPPENED TO BE THERE. AND THEY CAN'T HIDE HIM UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. AND THAT'S ALL WE ARE TRYING TO DO AND THAT'S WHAT THIS MOTION IS ABOUT. SO I WOULD URGE YOUR HONOR -- AND OF COURSE, I THANK YOUR HONOR FOR ALLOWING US THIS OPPORTUNITY TO THOROUGHLY DISCUSS THIS. THIS IS NOT BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION A 352 PROBLEM. AND ONE FINAL THING THAT I THINK THAT I MUST ADDRESS. PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS THROWING OUT THIS THING ABOUT USING THE RACE CAR AND THAT SORT OF STUFF. I'M NOT ABOUT TO USE ANY RACE CAR. ALL THE DEFENSE IS TRYING TO DO IS GET JUSTICE FOR OUR CLIENT. THAT'S ALL WE ARE TRYING TO DO. AND WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE RACE CAR, HOW OUTRAGEOUS IS IT TO SAY THAT I'M NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT MR. SIMPSON'S FETISH FOR BLOND WHITE WOMEN THAT WAS SAID IN THIS COURT A LOT? DID I HEAR THAT? THAT'S OUTRAGEOUS. IF THIS MAN LOVED SOMEBODY WHO WAS PURPLE, IN AMERICA, HE HAS THE RIGHT TO GET MARRIED TO THAT PERSON. HIS FIRST WIFE WAS AFRICAN AMERICAN. THAT'S THE BEAUTY OF AMERICA. THAT'S WHY PEOPLE HAVE DIED, BECAUSE YOU CAN DO WHAT YOU WANT SUPPOSEDLY. EVEN IN THIS SOCIETY THAT'S NOT PERFECT, YOU HAVE THAT RIGHT. THAT'S ALL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR HONOR.
YOUR HONOR, MISS CLARK WILL BE MAKING COMMENTS IN REBUTTAL TO THE DEFENSE RESPONSE, AND I BELIEVE MR. DARDEN WISHES TO MAKE SOME COMMENTS IN CONCLUDING REBUTTAL.
THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. I'M CONCERNED FIRST OF ALL AND WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS COUNSEL'S REMARKS CONCERNING THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE ABOUT THE CHARACTERIZATION OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S REMOVAL, QUOTE, UNQUOTE, REASSIGNMENT, BEING PULLED OFF THE CASE. THIS HAS BEEN NOW PRESENTED TO THIS COURT AS THOUGH SOME TERRIBLY PREJUDICIAL AND DAMAGING THING WAS DONE TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IN THAT THE CASE WAS REASSIGNED TO THE DETECTIVES FROM ROBBERY-HOMICIDE DIVISION. THIS COURT KNOWS, AS I KNOW THAT COUNSEL IS AWARE, THAT SUCH REASSIGNMENTS HAPPEN ON A DAILY, IN FACT ALMOST HOURLY BASIS; THAT THERE WILL BE INITIAL OFFICERS ON THE SCENE, THAT THE CASE WILL THEN BE ASSIGNED TO ONE DIVISION OR ANOTHER AND THAT WHEN THE CASE SEEMS TO BE COMPLEX OR OF A CERTAIN NATURE, ROBBERY-HOMICIDE OR MAJOR CRIMES TAKES OVER. IT IS A ROUTINE OCCURRENCE, NOTHING UNUSUAL IN IT. AND TO HYPOTHESIZE BASED ON SOMETHING LIKE THAT THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WOULD THEN FEEL SO OUTRAGED AT THE REASSIGNMENT, THAT HE WOULD BE MOVED TO COMMIT A FELONY IS NOTHING SHORT OF RIDICULOUS AND APPALLING, AND IT IS TYPICAL OF THE KIND OF FLIGHTS OF FANTASY ABOUT POSSIBLE MOTIVE THAT THE DEFENSE TAKES OFF ON, TYPICAL OF THE GROUNDLESS AND YET INFLAMMATORY RHETORIC THAT HAS BEEN PROFERRED BY THE DEFENSE AND WOULD BE PROFFERED BEFORE THIS JURY IF THEY ARE PERMITTED TO DO SO IN AN EFFORT TO DISTRACT THEM FROM THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE. AND THAT IS WHAT THE PEOPLE ARE SEEKING TO AVOID. IF WHAT WE WANT, YOUR HONOR, IS TO HAVE A JURY THAT WILL MAKE A RATIONAL AND INTELLIGENT DECISION BASED ON EVIDENCE AND NOT AN IRRATIONAL AND EMOTIONAL DECISION BASED ON IRRELEVANT AND REMOTE INFORMATION THAT IS UNRELIABLE, THEN WE MUST BE VERY, VERY CAREFUL ABOUT WHAT IS PERMISSIBLE MATERIAL FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION. AS THE COURT IS AWARE I'M SURE, PEOPLE VERSUS HALL APPLIES TO THE ANALYSIS REGARDLESS OF THE NATURE OF THE MOTIVE. THE ANALYSIS REMAINS THE SAME. WHETHER THE MOTIVE IS TO PLANT EVIDENCE BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT IS OF A PARTICULAR RACE OR BECAUSE HE IS ANGRY AT HAVING BEEN TAKEN OFF A CASE, THE MOTIVE IS THE SAME -- THE MOTIVE REGARDLESS OF WHAT IT IS, THE ANALYSIS REMAINS THE SAME, AND PEOPLE VERSUS HALL APPLIES. AND IT APPLIES VERY WELL IN THIS CASE FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS. NUMBER ONE, AS A GENERAL PROPOSITION, THE COURT I KNOW IS AWARE THAT MERE MOTIVE ALONE IS INSUFFICIENT TO CHARGE ANYONE WITH ANYTHING. IF ALL WE HAD WAS THE -- WAS THE WIFE OF A MAN MURDERED AND THE MAN HAD NO ALIBI, THAT'S ALL WE HAD, AND WE COULD PROVE THAT HE REASONABLY THREATENED HER OR THEY HAD AN ARGUMENT, WE HAVE MOTIVE, BUT WE HAVE NOTHING ELSE. HE COULD NOT BE CHARGED. WE COULD NOT BRING CHARGES. AND IF THAT WERE THE CASE, THERE WOULD BE NO CASE. BUT THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT THE DEFENSE INTENDS TO DO HERE. THEY PRESENT WHAT THEY DEEM TO BE EVIDENCE OF MOTIVE IN THIS CASE, WHICH WE DISPUTE AS WELL, BUT EVIDENCE OF MOTIVE NONETHELESS IN THEIR OPINION, AND WITHOUT ANY DEMONSTRATION OF OPPORTUNITY OR POSSIBILITY, PHYSICAL CAPABILITY IN THIS CASE, THEY SEEK TO HAVE THIS EVIDENCE ADMITTED BEFORE THE JURY, KNOWING FULL WELL THAT IT'S AN INFLAMMATORY -- THE INFLAMMATORY NATURE OF THE EVIDENCE WILL DISTRACT, WILL CONFUSE, WILL DISTORT THIS CASE AND PREVENT THE JURY FROM FOCUSING ON THE EVIDENCE. AND THAT IS THE INTENT. AND THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS THAT THERE IS A PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY THAT THEY ARE NOT ADDRESSING. NOT ONCE DURING THE DEFENSE PRESENTATION HAS THIS COURT SEEN THE DEFENSE PROFFER ANYTHING IN THE NATURE OF AN OFFER OF PROOF AS TO HOW THEY INTEND TO DEMONSTRATE THAT SUCH AN ACT AS THE ONE THAT THEY ARE ALLEGING COULD HAVE BEEN COMMITTED. NOT ONCE. THAT'S A VERY NOTABLE ABSENCE BECAUSE THEY'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY NOW ALL AFTERNOON TO PRESENT TO YOUR HONOR WHAT EVIDENCE OR WHAT THEORY THEY WILL PRESENT -- THEY WILL PROCEED ON TO DEMONSTRATE THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO WHAT THEY ALLEGE. IN FACT, HE DID NOT. I AGREE WITH MR. COCHRAN VERY WHOLEHEARTEDLY. I AM VERY EAGER TO GET ON WITH THE EVIDENCE BECAUSE THE POSTURING AND THE REPRESENTATIONS CONTINUALLY MADE ABOUT WHAT CAN BE DONE AND WHAT MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED AND WHAT COULD HAVE HAPPENED ARE REALLY REACHING THE OUTER LIMITS OF FLIGHTS OF FANTASY. AND WHEN WE FINALLY DO PRESENT EVIDENCE, I'M SURE THAT MUCH OF THE POSTURING THAT THE COURT HAS SEEN FROM THE DEFENSE CONCERNING WHAT THEORIES THEY'D LIKE TO PURSUE ARE GOING TO FALL BY THE WAYSIDE BECAUSE REALITY WILL SIMPLY PREVENT IT. NOW, WITH RESPECT TO THEIR ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING THE 1985 INCIDENT, COUNSEL WOULD LIKE TO MAKE MUCH OF THE FACT THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN REMEMBERS SO VIVIDLY THE INCIDENT IN WHICH HE SAW THE DEFENDANT WITH A BASEBALL BAT AND NICOLE IN A MERCEDES, SEATED IN A CAR WHERE THE WINDSHIELD WAS COMPLETELY SHATTERED AND THE DEFENDANT ADMITTED THAT HE HAS DONE SO. NOW, THAT IS A SITUATION THAT ANY NORMAL PERSON WOULD FIND INDELIBLY IMPRESSED ON THEIR MEMORY. I THINK FOR MOST OF US -- I KNOW FOR MYSELF, YOUR HONOR, IF I WERE TO HAVE MET A CELEBRITY AND SIMPLY SHAKEN THEIR HAND OR GOTTEN THEIR AUTOGRAPH, WHICH IS AN ORDINARY THING, YOU KNOW, THAT MIGHT BE THE ORDINARY KIND OF INTERACTION THAT SOMEONE WOULD HAVE WITH A CELEBRITY, YOU WOULD REMEMBER IT FOREVER. BUT TO CONFRONT A CELEBRITY IN SUCH A SITUATION AFTER SUCH OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT HAS BEEN COMMITTED, I THINK THAT ANYONE WOULD REMEMBER THAT. THAT WOULD NEVER LEAVE THEIR MEMORY BECAUSE YOU DO NOT EXPECT SOMEONE OF SUCH RENOWN TO BEHAVE IN SUCH AN OUTRAGEOUS MANNER. AND TO SOMEHOW DRAW SOME NEGATIVE INFERENCE FROM THE FACT THAT AS A NORMAL HUMAN BEING, HE'S IMPRESSED AND REMEMBERS SOMETHING THAT IS SO MEMORABLE IS ABSURD. YOU WOULD EXPECT ANY PERSON TO REMEMBER SOMETHING THAT SHOCKING. AND OF COURSE, HE DID. BUT WHETHER HE DID OR NOT IS IRRELEVANT. HE WON'T TESTIFY TO THAT PARTICULAR INCIDENT. WE HAVE SOMEONE ELSE WHO APPEARED ON THE SCENE BEFORE HE DID AND WAS PERCIPIENT TO MANY MORE OBSERVATIONS THAN HE WAS.
BUT ISN'T THE POINT THE FACT THAT HE WAS PREVIOUSLY ACQUAINTED WITH BOTH OF THE DEFENDANT AND THE VICTIM? ISN'T THAT THE POINT?
I THINK THAT IS THE POINT THAT THEY ARE ATTEMPTING TO MAKE WITH THAT, YOUR HONOR. AND IN THAT CONNECTION, LET ME SAY THIS.
I AGREE WITH YOU; THAT IF I WERE TO HAVE MET MR. SIMPSON UNDER JUST ABOUT ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, I WOULD REMEMBER THAT. I MEAN I DON'T FIND THAT PART OF IT IMPLAUSIBLE. BUT IT IS THE FACT THAT THEY WERE PREVIOUSLY ACQUAINTED IS THE ISSUE.
AND IT WAS A BRIEF ACQUAINTANCE THOUGH. AND I THINK THAT WHAT'S REALLY KIND OF INTERESTING ABOUT THAT IS THAT EVEN THOUGH HE DID APPEAR ON THE SCENE, HE WROTE NO REPORT, HE DID NOT ATTEMPT TO FORCE THE PROSECUTION OF THE MATTER, HE DID NOT INVOLVE HIMSELF IN ANY WAY THAT WOULD INDICATE THAT HE HAD A BIAS TOWARDS MR. SIMPSON. QUITE THE OPPOSITE. IT WAS ONLY AFTER THE CITY ATTORNEY SOLICITED HIS OPINION IN 1989 THAT HE SAID, "WELL, I DO REMEMBER THIS." AND THE FACT THAT IT WAS INDELIBLY IMPRESSED ON HIS MEMORY, OF COURSE BEING HUMAN. BUT IF THAT INCIDENT WERE SOMETHING THAT INDEED CAUSED HIM TO BE BIASED AGAINST MR. SIMPSON, THEN WE WOULD HAVE SEEN SOME CONDUCT AT THE TIME INDICATIVE OF THAT STATE OF MIND. BUT WE DIDN'T. AND THAT'S WHAT IS SO INTERESTING ABOUT THE DEFENSE ARGUMENT AT THIS TIME. WE HAVE STATEMENTS THAT WERE OF COURSE REPEATEDLY READ INTO THE RECORD BY COUNSEL IN THE ATTEMPT TO PUBLISH AND REPUBLISH INFLAMMATORY INFORMATION. BUT WHAT WE ARE NEGLECTING TO PAY ATTENTION TO IS THE FACT THAT YES, THERE IS A CONTEXT FOR THESE STATEMENTS, YES, THE MAN WAS UNDER STRESS, YES, HE WAS SPEAKING TO PSYCHIATRISTS, NOT THE OUTSIDE WORLD, HE WAS SPEAKING IN AN EFFORT TO GET DISABILITY, TO GET RELIEF FROM A STRESS-RELATED JOB. BUT THIS WAS 15 YEARS AGO OR NEARLY 15 YEARS AGO, YOUR HONOR. IT WAS A DISCRETE AND A REMOTE TIME PERIOD IN THAT DETECTIVE'S LIFE. IF THE ALLEGATION -- IF THE STATEMENTS -- THESE ARE SELF-REPORTED STATEMENTS BY THE WAY. THIS IS NOT WHAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE SAYING ABOUT HIM, YOUR HONOR. HE IS SELF-REPORTING THAT HE IS STRESSED OUT AND HE DOESN'T LIKE HIMSELF, HE DOESN'T LIKE WHERE HE'S AT. BUT THAT WAS 15 YEARS AGO. I THINK ALL OF US HAVE GONE THROUGH A LOT OF CHANGES IN OUR LIVES. WHERE OUR HEADS WERE 15 YEARS AGO MAY HAVE AND VERY LIKELY DOES HAVE NO BEARING ON WHERE THEY ARE TODAY.
DETECTIVE FUHRMAN REPORTED 15 YEARS AGO TO A CERTAIN STATE OF MIND. SINCE THAT TIME, WE HAD NO REPORTS OR OBSERVATIONS BY THIRD PARTIES OF ANY CONDUCT BY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN CONSONANT WITH RACISM OR BIAS. IN FACT, WHAT'S NOTABLE ABOUT KATHLEEN BELL'S STATEMENT IS THAT SHE CAME FORWARD TO NO ONE AND SAID NOTHING ABOUT THIS UNTIL THE CASE HAPPENED, AT WHICH POINT SHE SAW AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE FAMOUS, AS SO MANY HAVE FROM BOTH SIDES OF THIS CASE. IT IS A DEFINITE -- IT'S A PROBLEM WITH THIS CASE THAT BOTH SIDES HAVE TO BE WARY OF, ALL SIDES HAVE TO BE WARY OF. THERE'S SO MUCH FAME AND NOTORIETY ATTACHED TO IT THAT PEOPLE WILL INJECT THEMSELVES WHERE PROBABLY THEY SHOULD NOT. AND I THINK KATHLEEN BELL MAY WELL BE ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE. NEVERTHELESS, IT'S INTERESTING TO NOTE SHE MADE NO COMPLAINTS AND SAID NOTHING ABOUT THESE ALLEGED REMARKS BY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN UNTIL AFTER THIS CASE CAME OUT, AND SHE DID NOT MAKE -- I THINK IT'S ALSO VERY INTERESTING HOW CONVENIENTLY SHE MAKES THOSE REMARKS FIT IN WITH THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, AN INTERRACIAL COUPLE AND WHATNOT. BUT THAT'S ALL RIGHT. IF KATHLEEN BELL IS ULTIMATELY CALLED TO THE WITNESS STAND FOR ANY REASON, WE CAN TAKE UP HER CREDIBILITY AT THAT TIME, AND THEN THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW WHAT I THINK HER CREDIBILITY REALLY IS. NEVERTHELESS, WHAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE HERE IS A VERY DISCREET WOMAN IN TIME THAT IS REMOTE AND WE HAVE NOTHING IN-BETWEEN THAT SHOULD INDICATE -- THAT SHOULD BE THERE TO CORROBORATE WHAT THE DEFENSE IS ALLEGING MR. -- DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S STATE OF MIND IS. AND BY THAT, I MEAN THIRD-PARTY OBSERVATIONS OF MORE RECENT NATURE. THIS IS A POLICE OFFICER WHO'S OUT IN THE STREET AND OUT IN THE PUBLIC EVERY DAY. IN THAT CASE, YOU WOULD EXPECT PEOPLE TO BE COMING FORWARD TO SAY, "HE'S BEEN DOING THIS, HE'S BEEN SAYING THAT, I'VE SEEN HIM DO THIS AND I'VE HEARD HIM SAY THAT." BUT WE HAVE NONE OF IT. AND MR. COCHRAN OBLIQUELY REFERRED TO SOME INFORMATION HE'S GOT, AND WITH THE DISCOVERY ORDERS THAT HAVE BEEN ISSUED FROM THIS COURT, THE FACT THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED NOTHING IS VERY ALARMING TO ME. IF MR. COCHRAN IS IN POSSESSION OF SUCH INFORMATION, IT'S LONG OVERDUE TO BE TURNED OVER TO THE PROSECUTION. I SUSPECT THAT HE DOES NOT. AND IN THAT CASE, WHAT THE COURT SHOULD ASK ITSELF, WHAT IS THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF THESE SELF-REPORT STATEMENTS MADE IN A WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIM 15 YEARS AGO WITHOUT ANY INDEPENDENT CORROBORATION OR ANY MORE RECENT EVENT TO SOMEHOW CONNECT IT UP TO THE PRESENT TIME? THAT'S WHAT WOULD MAKE IT PROBATIVE IF ANYTHING COULD. BUT INSTEAD, WE DON'T HAVE THAT. AS THE COURT IS WELL AWARE, ANY DEFENDANT WHO TAKES THE WITNESS STAND WHO HAS A PRIOR CONVICTION THAT IS REMOTE, 15 YEARS AGO WITH NO INTERVENING CRIMINAL CONDUCT UPDATING THAT 15-YEAR OLD CONVICTION, COULD NOT BE IMPEACHED WITH IT BECAUSE THE COURT WOULD RIGHTFULLY FIND IT WOULD BE UNDULY PREJUDICIAL TO IMPEACH THE DEFENDANT WITH WHAT MAY HAVE SIMPLY BEEN ABERRANT PERIOD IN HIS LIFE. IF IN EFFECT, WE ARE PERMITTING THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WITH THIS INFORMATION, WE ARE AFFORDING OUR WITNESSES FEWER RIGHTS THAN WE ARE OF THE DEFENDANTS, AND THAT SEEMS COMPLETELY UNFAIR. MOREOVER, WHAT WE HAVE IN ADDITION -- WELL, I AM SORRY. LET ME INTERRUPT MY -- I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE DEFENSE ARGUMENTS CONCERNING THE COMPARISON TO 1101(B). THERE IS SIMPLY NO COMPARISON TO THE 1101(B) MOTION. FIRST OF ALL, LET ME INDICATE THIS. MR. COCHRAN HAS REPEATEDLY STATED THAT 17 OR 18 INCIDENTS WERE THROWN OUT BY THE PROSECUTION OR PRESENTED TO THIS COURT AND THEN WITHDRAWN. THAT'S NOT THE CASE. THE DEFENSE MADE A MOTION IN ADVANCE OF OUR LISTING OF ANY OF THE EVENTS THAT WE INTENDED TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION AND SOUGHT TO LIMIT THE EVIDENCE THAT WE WOULD ADMIT CONCERNING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. IN RESPONSE TO THEIR MOTION, WE SAID WE HAVE THE FOLLOWING LIST OF ITEMS. WE GAVE FULL AND FAIR DISCLOSURE TO THE DEFENSE OF EVERY POSSIBLE EVENT THAT MAY OCCUR, EVERY POSSIBLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT MAY BE USED, WHETHER IT IS FOR THE PEOPLE'S CASE IN CHIEF, FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE DEFENSE WITNESSES OR ON REBUTTAL TO THE DEFENSE CASE OR FOR THE FOUNDATION FOR EXPERT TESTIMONY. THERE ARE MANY USES TO WHICH THIS EVIDENCE CAN BE PUT. BUT THE COURT WANTED US TO CONFINE -- THE COURT WANTED US TO EDIT THE LIST, TO PRESENT IT WITH SIMPLY WHAT WE WOULD BE ASKING TO PRESENT IN OUR CASE IN CHIEF, WHICH IS WHAT WE DID. BUT TO INFER FROM THAT SOMEHOW THAT WE WERE PRESENTING EVIDENCE TO THIS COURT THAT WE NEVER INTENDED TO PRESENT ULTIMATELY IS FALSE, IS MISLEADING. ALL OF THAT EVIDENCE MAY VERY WELL COME OUT. IN FACT, I'M SURE MUCH OF IT WILL AT ONE POINT OR ANOTHER THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL. AND HAD WE NOT GIVEN THE DEFENSE NOTICE OF ALL OF THE ITEMS THAT WE WERE SEEKING TO ADMIT FOR WHATEVER PURPOSE, WE WOULD BE HELD REMISS AND MR. UELMEN WOULD ONCE AGAIN CASTIGATE US FOR MISCONDUCT. AND I DON'T EVEN WANT TO GIVE HIM MORE CAUSE FOR THAT. SO WE GAVE THEM FULL AND COMPLETE NOTICE IN ORDER TO AVOID THAT VERY THING; THAT HE CANNOT COMPLAIN THAT THEY HAVE BEEN SURPRISED. NOW, WITH RESPECT TO 1101(B) AS COMPARED TO THE 15-YEAR OLD CONDUCT OR STATEMENTS BY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, LET ME SAY THIS.
COUNSEL, LET ME JUST GIVE YOU A LITTLE GUIDANCE HERE. I CONSIDER THE COMPARISON OF THE TWO ISSUES TO BE APPLES AND ORANGES.
OKAY. WE HAVE -- YES. AND THE COURT HEARD YESTERDAY A LENGTHY -- THERE'S LENGTH TO THE INCIDENTS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. IT'S NOT JUST AN INCIDENT 17 YEARS AGO ALLEGED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT. IT'S A PATTERN OF CONDUCT DATING BACK TO 17 YEARS AGO. WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WE HAVE THE EXACT OPPOSITE SITUATION. WE HAVE ONE SET OF STATEMENTS MADE BY HIM IN A CONFINED SITUATION 15 YEARS AGO WITH NOTHING AFTER THAT. AND SO IT CANNOT BE COMPARED JUST ON THAT BASIS ALONE. BUT I WON'T BELABOR THE POINT. THEN I WILL MOVE ON. COUNSEL MADE SEVERAL MISREPRESENTATIONS CONCERNING THE ROLE OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IN THIS MATTER. COUNSEL ATTEMPTS TO MAGNIFY HIS ROLE IN THIS CASE IN ORDER TO GIVE MORE LATITUDE TO THE ARGUMENT THAT HE THEREFORE MUST NECESSARILY BE IMPEACHED AND THAT IMPEACHMENT OF HIM IS COLLATERAL.
LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION AT THIS POINT, THOUGH. IN RAISING THE ISSUE OF WHAT THE SCOPE OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S TESTIMONY IS GOING TO BE, THE ISSUE THAT COMES UP IN MY MIND IMMEDIATELY IS, HOW BROAD IS THAT SCOPE GOING TO BE, AND THE ARGUMENT BY THE DEFENSE THAT PERHAPS THIS MOTION IS PREMATURE WOULD PERHAPS BE WELL TAKEN BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW AT THIS POINT EXACTLY WHAT IT IS DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IS GOING TO TESTIFY TO, AND THE SCOPE OF CROSS-EXAMINATION WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE SCOPE OF WHAT IT IS THAT YOU PRESENT. I MEAN THAT'S PRETTY STANDARD. SO IF YOU PUT HIM ON FOR A WHOLE LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS, WE MAY GET INTO A WHOLE LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION. BUT I DON'T KNOW AT THIS POINT.
RIGHT. AND I THINK THAT WAS A VERY WELL TAKEN POINT BY THE DEFENSE AS WELL, YOUR HONOR. THAT IS SOMETHING WE WILL NOT -- WE DO NOT ANTICIPATE THAT THERE WILL BE A GREAT DEAL OF TESTIMONY FROM DETECTIVE FUHRMAN BECAUSE IN TRUTH, HIS ROLE WAS SMALL. BY THE TIME HE PROCEEDED TO ROCKINGHAM, IT WAS THE CASE OF ROBBERY-HOMICIDE DIVISION. HE MADE SOME OBSERVATIONS AND SPOKE TO KATO KAELIN, AND THAT'S ABOUT THE EXTENT OF IT. HE DID NO FOLLOW-UP INVESTIGATION. HE CONDUCTED NO INTERVIEWS OF ANY OTHER WITNESSES BESIDES KATO KAELIN. AND WE KNOW THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF WITNESSES IN THIS CASE. THE FOLLOW-UP INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN VOLUMINOUS. LAPD HAS BEEN INUNDATED WITH THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF PAGES OF DISCOVERY, NONE OF WHICH WAS GENERATED BY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAS THE ONE LIMITED ROLE OF TAKING THE OFFICERS FROM BUNDY TO ROCKINGHAM, MAKING SOME OBSERVATIONS FOR THE LIMITED TIME HE WAS THERE, AND THEN IT WAS OVER.
ALL RIGHT. THEN RATHER THAN DANCE AROUND THE BARN FOR THE NEXT HOUR, LET ME ASK YOU THESE TWO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.
LET'S ASSUME THAT PERHAPS THE PSYCHOLOGIST'S REPORTS OR THE PSYCHIATRIC REPORTS ARE REMOTE AND NOT DIRECTLY GERMAINE TO THE ISSUES. THE ALLEGATION AS TO THE GLOVE HAS BEEN CLEARLY RAISED.
ALL RIGHT. THE BRITTON CASE CONTAINS THE SAME ALLEGATION. NOW, THE ISSUE IS ALSO, THE EVIDENCE CODE SECTION THAT BOTH SIDES HAVE REFERRED TO IS EMBODIED IN CALJIC 220, WHICH I HAVE TO READ TO THE JURY, CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES, WHICH THEY WILL GET THE SAME LANGUAGE: THAT THE JURY, IN DETERMINING THE BELIEVABILITY OF A WITNESS, MAY CONSIDER ANYTHING THAT HAS A TENDENCY IN REASON TO PROVE OR DISPROVE, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, ONE OF WHICH IS THE EXISTENCE OR NON-EXISTENCE OF A BIAS, INTEREST OR OTHER MOTIVE OR THEIR ATTITUDE TOWARDS TESTIFYING, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. HAVING SAID THAT, THE STATEMENT TO KATHLEEN BELL WOULD TEND TO STATE A BIAS THAT FITS THIS CASE. SO LET'S ASSUME THAT I'M NOT PARTICULARLY THRILLED WITH THE FIRST EVENT, THE WORKERS' COMP CLAIM, BECAUSE IT'S GENERALIZED. AND YOU CAN'T ATTACK THAT ON A CREDIBILITY BASIS BECAUSE SOMEBODY WHO SAYS, "I'M BIASED IN THESE POLITICALLY CORRECT TIMES," THAT'S AN HONEST STATEMENT. I DON'T SEE THAT THAT NECESSARILY GOES TO CREDIBILITY. BUT THE OTHER TWO GO TO BIASES OR CREDIBILITY. AND THEY'RE SPECIFICALLY CLOSE ENOUGH TO THIS CASE TO MAKE THEM PLAUSIBLY RELEVANT. SO AT THIS POINT, MY INCLINATION IS TO TELL YOU I THINK THIS MOTION IS AT THIS POINT PREMATURE SINCE I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT SCOPE. BUT IF THE ALLEGATIONS ARE RAISED THAT I THINK ARE GOING TO BE RAISED, WE MAY GET INTO THIS.
RIGHT. THEN PERHAPS -- LET ME POSE SOMETHING ELSE TO THE COURT BECAUSE I CERTAINLY DO APPRECIATE THE COURT'S POSITION HERE.
NO, YOU DON'T NEED TO. I KNOW. WE CAN GET ON WITH OTHER THINGS. LET ME JUST RAISE THEN ONE FURTHER POINT IN THAT REGARD. WITH RESPECT TO WHAT NEEDS TO BE SHOWN, EVEN THOUGH 220 DOES SPEAK OF BIAS, THAT IS CORRECT, IT IS STILL SUBJECT TO LIMITATIONS OF 352.
I UNDERSTAND THAT. LET ME GIVE YOU ANOTHER THOUGHT HERE. LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE BRITTON ISSUE, I DON'T WANT TO TRY THAT CASE HERE. AND IF THE DEPOSITION -- UNLESS I SEE A BETTER OFFER OF PROOF -- AND FROM WHAT I SAW, IF IT STANDS -- IF THE STATE OF THE EVIDENCE IS THE SAME AFTER DETECTIVE FUHRMAN TESTIFIES AND MR. BRITTON CANNOT SAY HOW IT WAS THAT THE KNIFE HAPPENED TO GO FROM THE BUSHES TO HIS FEET, THEN WE GET INTO A SPECULATIVE AREA, WHICH UNDER THE CASE LAW IS NOT NECESSARILY ADMISSIBLE FOR IMPEACHMENT PURPOSES.
SO WE MAY BE THERE. BUT IT IS CLOSE ENOUGH TO LOOK AT. BUT THE OFFER OF PROOF IS PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE TO BE BETTER THAN WHAT IT IS.
SO I AGREE WITH YOU, THERE'S A 352 PROBLEM THERE. BUT THE ALLEGATION IS CLOSE ENOUGH TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE THAT I'VE GOT TO AT LEAST LISTEN TO WHAT THEIR OFFER OF PROOF IS WHEN WE GET THERE.
I AGREE. I AGREE. THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO ASK THE COURT; TO DEFER UNTIL A PRIMA FACIE CASE WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE DEFENSE OR AN OFFER OF PROOF THAT COULD BE SUBSTANTIATED WITH EVIDENCE. AND THEN WE'LL BE IN A DIFFERENT POSTURE. IF THE DEFENSE CAN ACTUALLY PROVE --
BUT WE'RE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH THE BELL DECLARATION, BUT THERE APPEARS TO BE A PRIMA FACIE CASE.
WELL, NO. LET ME ADDRESS THAT THEN, YOUR HONOR, IF I MAY. WITH RESPECT TO THE BELL STATEMENT, STILL AGAIN, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THEIR REQUEST TO ADMIT EVIDENCE OF MOTIVE TO DO AN ACT THAT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH IN ANY -- EVEN BY WAY OF OFFER OF PROOF COULD PHYSICALLY HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED.
WHAT I'M ASKING THE COURT TO DO IS TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING: THAT BEFORE IT -- THIS COURT CONSIDERS ADMITTING EVIDENCE OF KATHLEEN BELL'S STATEMENT, THAT THE DEFENSE BE REQUIRED TO AT LEAST PRESENT PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE THAT WHAT THEY ALLEGE TO HAVE BEEN DONE BY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN COULD ACTUALLY HAVE BEEN DONE, BECAUSE AT THIS POINT WE DON'T EVEN HAVE AN OFFER OF PROOF LET ALONE EVIDENCE.
COUNSEL, THAT'S A BASIC RELEVANCY FOUNDATION THAT HAS TO BE SHOWN. BUT THAT BRINGS ME BACK TO MY AGREEMENT WITH COUNSEL, THAT I THINK THE MOTION AT THIS POINT IS PREMATURE.
COUNSEL RAISES A GOOD POINT, YOUR HONOR. THERE'S ONLY ONE PROBLEM WITH THE DEFERRAL OF THIS EVIDENCE; IS WHAT CAN BE STATED -- MADE PUBLIC IN OPENING STATEMENT? IS THE DEFENSE GOING TO BE PERMITTED TO MAKE THESE STATEMENTS, TO MAKE REPRESENTATIONS CONCERNING THESE EVENTS IN OPENING STATEMENT?
IF I HAD MY WAY, THEY WOULD TAKE ALL THE NIGGERS, PUT THEM TOGETHER IN A BIG GROUP AND BURN THEM.
THIS WAS ERRONEOUS. THE PHOTOGRAPHER ERRED IN HIS RECOLLECTION OF THE TIME OF HIS ARRIVAL AT BUNDY WHEN HE WAS INTERVIEWED TELEPHONICALLY FIVE AND A HALF MONTHS AFTER THE MURDERS ON NOVEMBER 22ND.
THIS IS A MOTION TO HIDE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, AND HE CAN'T HIDE, JUDGE, YOUR HONOR. HIS WORDS ARE OUT THERE.
NOT ONCE DURING THE DEFENSE PRESENTATION HAS THIS COURT SEEN THE DEFENSE PROFFER ANYTHING IN THE NATURE OF AN OFFER OF PROOF AS TO HOW THEY INTEND TO DEMONSTRATE THAT SUCH AN ACT AS THE ONE THAT THEY ARE ALLEGING COULD HAVE BEEN COMMITTED.
THERE IS AN IRONY HERE IN THE CONTEXT OF CHALLENGING MR. SIMPSON'S CREDIBILITY. THE PROSECUTION FEELS IT APPROPRIATE TO GO BACK 17 YEARS AND REQUIRE HIM TO EXPLAIN THINGS THAT HAPPENED 17 YEARS AGO, BUT THAT WE SHOULD NOT EXHAUST THE MEMORY OF A POLICE OFFICER BEYOND A FIVE-YEAR LIMITATION.