ALL RIGHT. BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. COUNSEL, THE ISSUE IS POSED WHETHER OR NOT -- WHAT THE POSTURE OF THE DEFENSE WOULD BE.
AT THIS POINT, YOUR HONOR, DEFENSE HAS HAD OCCASION TO STOP AND THINK ABOUT IT. WE THINK CERTAINLY THE DECLARATION OF KATHLEEN BELL CERTAINLY GOES BEYOND ANY THEORY BEYOND ANY GLOVE. I THINK IT GOES TO BIAS AND INTEREST. IT FITS THESE FACTS AS THE COURT HAS INDICATED, WHICH WE SHOULD NOT BE PRECLUDED FROM USING IN THIS DECLARATION THAT STATES THAT SHE IS A WITNESS. WE DON'T KNOW WHY SHE'S NOT GOING TO BE CALLED. SHE'S VOLUNTEERED TO COME FORWARD. WE THINK AT A MINIMUM, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE KATHLEEN BELL AS A WITNESS ON OUR WITNESS LIST AND DISCUSS HER TESTIMONY. I DON'T SEE ANY -- THE PROBLEM HERE IS PROSCRIBING AREAS. I UNDERSTAND IF THERE'S SOME PROBLEM ABOUT THAT. BUT THIS IS A WITNESS WHO WE THINK WE'VE SHOWN WHY SHE'S RELEVANT. THERE ARE FACTS WHICH UNDER THAT -- SO WE PROPOSE THAT. WE'RE WILLING TO WAIT AND SEE AS THE TRIAL DEVELOPS.
WELL, I DON'T SEE WHY THAT'S IN ANY DIFFERENT POSTURE OTHER THAN THE OTHER THINGS, YOUR HONOR. I MEAN COUNSEL IS ASKING TO ADMIT THE TESTIMONY OF KATHLEEN BELL TO --
MISS CLARK, LET ME SAY THIS. MR. COCHRAN APPEARS TO HAVE CONCEDED THAT HE WILL NOT GO INTO THE WORKERS' COMP ISSUE OR THE BRITTON ISSUE IN OPENING STATEMENT. THE ONLY THING HE'S ARGUING THAT IS PLAUSIBLE THAT HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO GO INTO IS THE BELL STATEMENT. SO WHY DON'T WE JUST ADDRESS THE SPECIFICS OF THAT PARTICULAR STATEMENT, AS TO WHY YOU THINK THAT THAT WOULD NOT BE ADMISSIBLE FOR IMPEACHMENT PURPOSES.
WELL, IT'S THE SAME ISSUE, YOUR HONOR. TO PROVE WHAT? COUNSEL SEEKS TO IMPEACH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WITH THE TESTIMONY OF KATHLEEN BELL TO PROVE WHAT?
WELL, IT PROVES ANIMUS TOWARD INTERRACIAL COUPLES AND THE WILLINGNESS TO FABRICATE PROBABLE CAUSE TO STOP SOMEBODY. THAT'S WHAT IT SHOWS.
KEY QUOTEWELL, WE HAVE AN INTERRACIAL COUPLE HERE, AND THE ALLEGATION IS THAT PART OF THIS EVIDENCE IS SOMEHOW FABRICATED OR PLANTED.
THAT'S THE PROBLEM. THAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH THE DEFENSE POSTURE, YOUR HONOR. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THAT. THERE IS NO PRIMA FACIE CASE ESTABLISHED. IT IS PHYSICALLY AN IMPOSSIBILITY WHAT THEY ARE ALLEGING. AND THAT IS WHY I'M ASKING THE COURT TO DEFER ITS RULING AT THIS TIME WITH RESPECT TO --
WELL, IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY HAD THE STATEMENT OF THE PHOTOGRAPHER HELD UP.
BUT WE HAVE OTHER STATEMENTS, YOUR HONOR, THAT WILL PROVE IT TO BE A PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY AS WELL. THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH ASKING THE COURT TO RULE IN A BLIND. AT THIS POINT, ALL WE HAVE ARE RATHER INFLAMMATORY ACCUSATIONS MADE BY COUNSEL IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE. AND MR. COCHRAN HAS MISREPRESENTED THE EVIDENCE TO THE COURT EVEN TODAY. MR. COCHRAN REPRESENTED TO THE COURT THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WHEN QUESTIONED ON CROSS-EXAMINATION DURING THE PRELIMINARY HEARING SAID GLOVES, PLURAL. HE DID NOT. THE RECORD REFUTES IT.
ALSO GLOVES, COUNSEL. AND "THEM" WAS MADE IN THE CONTEXT OF OTHER EVIDENCE. AND AT THE TIME, EVEN MR. UELMEN, WHO WAS CONDUCTING THE CROSS-EXAMINATION, SAW NO SIGNIFICANCE IN THAT STATEMENT BECAUSE IT WAS ALL IN THE CONTEXT OF DISCUSSING ALL OF THE EVIDENCE, AMONG IT, A SINGLE GLOVE AT THE FOOT OF RONALD GOLDMAN. IN HINDSIGHT, COUNSEL DECIDED TO PULL ONE ITEM OUT OF CONTEXT AND TO EXAGGERATE IT IN ORDER TO MAKE AN INFLAMMATORY ACCUSATION. BUT IN FACT, THE ACCUSATION HAS NO BASIS IN PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OR IN PHYSICAL REALITY. AND THAT IS WHY ASKING THE COURT TO RULE IN FAVOR OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THIS EVIDENCE IN A BLIND IS UNFAIR AND UNREASONABLE. WHAT THE COURT NEEDS TO DO IS TO REQUIRE COUNSEL TO ESTABLISH A PRIMA FACIE CASE AT WHICH POINT, IF THEY HAVE DONE SO, WE WILL ALL BE IN A VERY DIFFERENT POSTURE TO RETHINK THE APPLICABILITY OR ADMISSIBILITY OF THAT TESTIMONY. BUT AT THIS TIME, COUNSEL HAS BEEN EVEN UNWILLING TO MAKE AN OFFER OF PROOF TO SHOW THE COURT HOW IT INTENDS TO ESTABLISH A PRIMA FACIE CASE LET ALONE PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE. WE CANNOT PROCEED TO ENGAGE IN DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WHAT IS ADMISSIBLE AND NOT WHEN THE PREDICATE OR THE GOAL OF THE CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT IS STATED BY COUNSEL IS INCAPABLE OF PROOF. IF COUNSEL AVERS THAT IT IS CAPABLE OF PROOF AND HAS A WAY OF PROVING IT AND DOES SO, THEN THAT'S DIFFERENT. THAT'S FINE. BUT AT THIS TIME, THE REQUEST TO ADMIT THAT EVIDENCE IS PREMATURE. AND WHAT WE ASK THE COURT TO DO IS DEFER ITS RULING UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE DEFENSE MAKES A PRIMA FACIE CASE.
THAT'S WHAT I AM DOING. I'M DEFERRING MY RULING. THE ISSUE IS WHETHER OR NOT IT'S APPROPRIATE TO BE MENTIONED IN OPENING STATEMENT. I ASKED -- WHAT MY QUESTION THEN WAS, WHAT DO YOU PROPOSE TO DO, AND MR. COCHRAN IS INDICATING THAT'S WHAT HE PROPOSES TO DO. HOWEVER, I SUSPECT HE WOULD ACCEPT DIRECTION FROM THE COURT ON THAT ISSUE. SO THAT'S YOUR POINT, CORRECT?
YES. MY POINT IS THAT I ASK NONE OF IT BE MENTIONED IN OPENING STATEMENT, THAT THE COURT RULE AT THE TIME THAT A PRIMA FACIE CASE IS ESTABLISHED. AND AFTER -- YOU KNOW -- THE PEOPLE'S CASE WILL DEMONSTRATE CERTAIN PHYSICAL REALITIES TO WHAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN OR ANY OFFICER COULD OR COULD NOT DO, CERTAIN PHYSICAL REALITIES WITH RESPECT TO THE SMALLNESS OF THE CRIME SCENE, CERTAIN PHYSICAL REALITIES WITH RESPECT TO THE OFFICERS WHO WERE PRESENT. IT IS A FACT THAT OFFICERS WERE NOT TRAIPSING THROUGH THIS CRIME SCENE CONTAMINATING THE EVIDENCE. IT IS A FACT THAT --
WELL, MISS CLARK, LET ME ASK YOU THIS. I'M MORE INTERESTED IN WHAT'S FAIR FOR OPENING STATEMENTS, WHICH IS HOPEFULLY SOONER THAN LATER.
WOULD IT THEN BE FAIR IF I PROSCRIBE THE DEFENSE FROM GOING INTO FUHRMAN'S BACKGROUND, THAT I PROSCRIBE YOU FROM MENTIONING FUHRMAN IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT?
MR. COCHRAN, WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS WHAT'S FAIR HERE UNTIL WE GET TO AN EVIDENTIARY POINT WHERE I HAVE --
-- WHERE I HAVE A FACTUAL BASIS TO MAKE A RULING ON WHETHER OR NOT THIS COMES IN. THE POINT BEING THAT IF I'M GOING TO PROSCRIBE YOU FROM GOING AFTER -- MENTIONING PROBLEMS WITH FUHRMAN, WHETHER OR NOT IT IS THEN FAIR TO PROSCRIBE THE PROSECUTION FROM MENTIONING FUHRMAN IN THEIR OPENING STATEMENT.
WELL, I THINK SO, YOUR HONOR. I THINK THIS WHOLE MOTION AS DESCRIBED IS AN ATTEMPT TO HIDE. YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE INTERESTED IN THE TRUTH, WHY IS ALL OF A SUDDEN THE PROSECUTION TRYING TO HIDE EVERYTHING? THAT'S THE THING THAT AMAZES ME. WE'RE NOT TRYING TO PROSCRIBE THEM. ARE THEY SO WORRIED ABOUT WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY? ALL OF A SUDDEN, I BECOME THIS FOCUS WHERE I HAVE SOMETHING I AM GOING TO DISPLAY TO PEOPLE THAT'S GOING TO JUST CUT THROUGH THE HEART OF THEIR CASE? THEY'RE SO WORRIED ABOUT PROSCRIBING, YOUR HONOR, I FEEL SHACKLED ALL OF A SUDDEN. AND I DON'T LIKE FEELING SHACKLED. I WANT TO BE FREE.
COUNSEL LOOKS PRETTY FREE TO ME. LET ME INDICATE THIS. COUNSEL HAS FILED NUMEROUS MOTIONS IN LIMINE TO HIDE THINGS, TO KEEP THINGS FROM THE PUBLIC, TO KEEP THINGS FROM THE JURY. AND THE LATEST MOTION IN LIMINE CONCERNING THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS A CLASSIC CASE IN POINT. THE DEFENSE HAS BEEN ATTEMPTING TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE, HAS BEEN ATTEMPTING TO KEEP AWAY EVIDENCE FROM THE JURY, HAS BEEN ATTEMPTING TO LIMIT THE EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE BY THE PROSECUTION. BUT FOR THEM TO COMPLAIN THAT THE PEOPLE SIMPLY ARE ASKING FOR FAIRNESS IN TERMS OF WHAT IS IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE, WHAT IS VIABLE IMPEACHMENT ON AN OFFICER WHO DOES HAVE A LIMITED ROLE IN THE CASE THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO MAGNIFY NOW FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSE IS A VERY UNFAIR ACCUSATION TO MAKE.
KEY QUOTEYOUR HONOR, IS IT NECESSARY TO MARK THE ARTICLES I HANDED THE COURT YESTERDAY AS EXHIBITS FOR PURPOSES OF THE HEARING?
THIS IS THE ONE MAIN UNRESOLVED PROBLEM OF OUR SOCIETY. AND FOR THOSE OF US WHO GREW UP IN THE 60'S AND HAD HOPED THIS WAS GOING TO GO AWAY, IT'S A BIG DISAPPOINTMENT TO STILL HAVE TO READ THIS STUFF. YES, I WILL MARK THESE AS PROSECUTION EXHIBITS FOR PURPOSES OF THIS HEARING.
KEY QUOTETHE COURT'S RULING IS AS FOLLOWS: THE COURT DETERMINES THAT THE RULINGS AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE AS TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, THAT THE MOTION AT THIS POINT IS PREMATURE. THE COURT WILL TAKE UNDER SUBMISSION ITS RULING ON WHETHER OR NOT EITHER SIDE WILL BE ALLOWED TO DISCUSS DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S ROLE IN THEIR OPENING STATEMENT. I WANT TO THINK ABOUT THAT ONE. ALL RIGHT. MR. BAILEY.
JUST ONE POINT, YOUR HONOR. IT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME WHETHER THE NON-MENTION OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN MEANS THAT A POLICE OFFICER CAN BE SUBSTITUTED OR WHETHER ALL MENTION OF THE LOCATION OF THE ALLEGED FINDING OF THE GLOVE BE SUBLITERATED.
I PRESUME MY LEARNED COLLEAGUE IS SAYING ALSO THAT IT WOULD BE UNFAIR FOR US TO BE PROSCRIBED AND FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO USE OTHER OFFICERS TO TRY TO SAY THE SAME THING TO THE JURY. SO IT SHOULD HAVE EQUAL INQUIRY. I'M SURE THE COURT HAS THAT IN MIND. AS IT TURNS OUT -- EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR. WE DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO RESPOND TO MISS CLARK. I WAS RESTRAINING -- I SAT HERE BECAUSE IT WAS HER LAST TIME TO SPEAK. BUT AT SOME POINT, SINCE SHE STARTED ARGUING THE MOTION, WE WILL BE ABLE TO DISCUSS THAT WITH THE COURT; CAN WE NOT?
NO. WHAT HAPPENED IS, THERE WAS A MOTION IN LIMINE THAT I'VE RULED IS PREMATURE. THE ISSUE THEN BECOMES, AS A BRAND NEW ISSUE, AS TO WHAT THE PEOPLE GET TO TALK ABOUT IN OPENING STATEMENTS. I THINK EITHER SIDE CAN BE HEARD ON THAT. BUT I THINK I'VE HEARD --
I'M JUST SAYING I DID NOT WANT TO BE HEARD ON IT NOW. AND I'M NOT -- BUT AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME, IF THE COURT DEEMS IT APPROPRIATE, WE WOULD LIKE TO SHARE SOME THOUGHTS. SHE GOT A CHANCE TO.
WELL, THE PEOPLE ACTUALLY WOULD LIKE TO SHARE FURTHER THOUGHTS WITH THE COURT ABOUT -- WE REALLY DIDN'T ADDRESS THAT, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT INDICATED SOMETHING SHOULD BE DONE ABOUT THE OPENING STATEMENT. BUT I WOULD ASK LEAVE OF THE COURT TO SUBMIT PROPOSITIONS IN TERMS OF WHAT BOTH SIDES SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO ADDRESS.
WELL, IT PROVES ANIMUS TOWARD INTERRACIAL COUPLES AND THE WILLINGNESS TO FABRICATE PROBABLE CAUSE TO STOP SOMEBODY. THAT'S WHAT IT SHOWS.
I FEEL SHACKLED ALL OF A SUDDEN. AND I DON'T LIKE FEELING SHACKLED. I WANT TO BE FREE.
COUNSEL LOOKS PRETTY FREE TO ME.
THIS IS THE ONE MAIN UNRESOLVED PROBLEM OF OUR SOCIETY. AND FOR THOSE OF US WHO GREW UP IN THE 60'S AND HAD HOPED THIS WAS GOING TO GO AWAY, IT'S A BIG DISAPPOINTMENT TO STILL HAVE TO READ THIS STUFF.