THEN LET'S TAKE UP THE DEFENSE PROFFER OF EVIDENCE REGARDING IMPEACHMENT OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. MR. BAILEY.
IF IT PLEASE THE COURT, IN YOUR RULING, YOU SUGGESTED THAT THERE WAS CLEAR RELEVANCE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAD CONFRONTED MR. SIMPSON AND HIS THEN EITHER FIANCE' OR WIFE IN 1985.
RIGHT. AND THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS SOME PROFFER OF EVIDENCE THAT WOULD MAKE HIS BIAS RELEVANT SINCE THE BIAS WAS INHERENT IN HIS STATEMENT. WE HAVE GIVEN YOU SEVERAL EXAMPLES --
MR. BAILEY, MAYBE I FAILED TO COMMUNICATE THE IMPORT OF MY RULING. WHAT I'M INDICATING TO YOU, THAT IT'S AN UNUSUAL FACTUAL SITUATION, THAT YOU HAVE A DETECTIVE WHO HAD CONTACT WITH BOTH THE VICTIM AND THE DEFENDANT IN 1985 --
-- AND THEN CROSSES PATHS WITH THEM AGAIN ON JUNE THE 12TH OR 13TH OF 1994. THAT'S UNUSUAL. THEN YOU HAVE THE PROFFERED STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN BELL, WHICH TOUCHES ON RACIAL BIAS, DISAPPROVAL OF INTERRACIAL COUPLES AND WILLINGNESS TO FABRICATE PROBABLE CAUSE. SO I AGREE IT'S RELEVANT. I AGREE IT'S RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE OF RACIAL ANIMUS, IT'S RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE OF WILLINGNESS TO FABRICATE PROBABLE CAUSE, IT'S RELEVANT TO RACIAL PREJUDICE AS WELL. THE ISSUE THEN BECOMES, ONCE WE HAVE THAT, HOW DO WE GET TO HOW IT'S RELEVANT TO THIS CASE GIVEN THE DETECTIVE'S ACTIVITIES ON THIS CASE. THAT'S THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE.
IN OTHER WORDS, HOW DO I MAKE THAT BRIDGE FROM THIS TO WHAT YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO PROVE REGARDING DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?
AGAINST THE FRUSTRATIONS OF OUR EARLY EXCURSIONS, YOUR HONOR, THIS TASK IS LIFTED FROM YOUR SHOULDERS BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT IN THE SECOND DISTRICT WHERE IT CLEARLY RULED THAT TO ELIMINATE ANY QUESTIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION OF A RELEVANT WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION RELATING TO HIS RACIAL BIAS AGAINST A PERSON OR A RACE OF WHICH HE IS A MEMBER WOULD BE FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL ERROR PER SE WITH NO DISCRETION. SO IF YOU START FROM THAT POINT AND THEN ASSUME, AS I THINK YOU SHOULD BASED ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, THAT WITHOUT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, THERE IS NO POSSIBLE WAY TO GET INTO EVIDENCE THAT GLOVE CLAIMED TO MATCH THE ONE FOUND AT THE SCENE, CLAIMED TO HAVE THE BLOOD OF THE MURDER VICTIMS ON IT WHICH ALLEGEDLY WAS LOCATED BY FUHRMAN IN AN ALLEY BETWEEN A CHAIN LINK FENCE AND THE DEFENDANT'S HOUSE ON HIS PREMISES ON THE MORNING OF THE 13TH, YOU ANTICIPATE THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WILL BE A WITNESS. WE ARE ENTITLED TO ATTACK THE CREDIBILITY OF ANY WITNESS WHOSE TESTIMONY TENDS TO INCRIMINATE THE ACCUSED. IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE HAVE TOLD YOU IN OUR PAPERS AND PERHAPS THE FIRST TIME THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN THEN WENT ON WITHIN HOURS TO SUPPRESS VITAL EVIDENCE TENDING TO EXCULPATE THE DEFENDANT BECAUSE HE INTERVIEWED AND ASKED QUESTIONS OF ONE ROSA LOPEZ, WHO LIVES NEXT DOOR, WHO SAW THE DEFENDANT'S BRONCO AT ITS PARKING SPOT ON ROCKINGHAM BETWEEN 10:15 AND 10:20 THAT NIGHT, HE REPORTED IT TO NO ONE, THERE ARE NO REPORTS ABOUT IT, AND SHE HAS NEVER BEEN INTERVIEWED BY THE PROSECUTION AS OF LAST NIGHT. SO IF HE SUPPRESSED EVIDENCE AND CLAIMED TO FIND INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE, I THINK WE HARDLY NEED GO FURTHER BEFORE WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK HIM, "AND BY THE WAY, HAVEN'T YOU SAID ON PAST OCCASIONS THAT YOU ARE IN FAVOR OF GENOCIDE?" BECAUSE WHAT HE REALLY SAID WAS, "LET'S PUT THEM ALL IN A PILE AND BURN THEM ALL." AND I HAVEN'T HEARD THAT COME FROM ANYONE SINCE ADOLF HITLER. THAT'S A PRETTY EXTREME STATEMENT. NOT ONLY THAT; MR. FUHRMAN AS OF THIS MORNING INVOKED THE JURISDICTION OF GOOD MORNING AMERICA TO MAKE PUBLIC AND TRUCULENT STATEMENT ABOUT THE TRIAL PLANS AND AMMUNITION OF MY COLLEAGUES FROM THE PROSECUTION AS TO HOW THEY WILL DECIMATE THE WITNESS WHO CLAIMS SHE HEARD HIM SAY THESE THINGS AFTER SHE TRIED TO FIX HIM UP WITH A WOMAN WHO HAD GONE OUT WITH A BLACK MAN. THIS WAS AN OUTBURST. SO I CANNOT IMAGINE A CLEARER CASE OF THE DEFENSE HAVING AN ABSOLUTE AND INALIENABLE, INDELIBLE, IRREVOCABLE RIGHT TO SMASH INTO ANY PERSON SO LOW LIFE AS TO MAKE THOSE UTTERANCES AND THEN TO PROCEED TO THE WITNESS STAND AND ATTEMPT TO INCRIMINATE FOR MURDER THROUGH THESE DEFALCATIONS AND SPORULATION A MEMBER OF THE AFRICAN AMERICAN RACE. THERE COULD BE NO CLEARER CASE. BUT THE ANTHONY CASE, YOUR HONOR, IT SEEMS TO ME MAKES IT VERY CLEAR TO THE COURT THAT ANY ELIMINATION OR LIMITATION -- BECAUSE IN ANTHONY, ONE RACIAL BIAS QUESTION WAS ALLOWED, THE SECOND ONE WAS EXCLUDED. AND THAT WAS HELD TO BE A VIOLATION NOT OF CALIFORNIA, BUT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, RELYING ON DAVIS V. ALASKA, A 1974 CASE IN WHICH CHIEF JUSTICE BERGER JOINED BY SIX OTHER JUSTICES CONDEMNED ANY LIMITATION ON RACIAL BIAS QUESTIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION. I DON'T SEE ANY WIGGLING ROOM. AND WHILE I WAS HAPPY TO PUT TOGETHER THE PROFFER THAT YOU ASKED FOR IN YOUR RULING, YOUR HONOR, SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU ASKED FOR IT, I DON'T THINK IT WAS NECESSARY. I THINK ONCE FUHRMAN HITS THE STAND WITHOUT ANY WARNING TO ANYBODY AS TO WHAT WE'RE UP TO, WE'RE ABLE TO ASK HIM, "DON'T YOU HATE BLACK PEOPLE AND HAVEN'T YOU SAID SO ON MANY OCCASIONS AND PARTICULARLY THIS OCCASION AFTER YOU LEARNED THAT THIS DEFENDANT HAD A ROMANTIC ENTANGLEMENT WITH A CAUCASIAN WOMAN?" I BELIEVE THAT CROSSES THE BRIDGE AND I BELIEVE IT CROSSES IT IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT CAN NEVER BE TORN DOWN. I THINK BEYOND THE ANTHONY CASE, THERE'S NOWHERE ELSE TO LOOK. CERTAINLY THIS IS AN AREA CARVED OUT WHERE JUDICIAL DISCRETION HAS BEEN PINCHED DOWN TO THE POINT WHERE IT MAY NOT EXIST, EXCEPT IN CASES OF RANK ABUSE WHEN THERE WAS NO POSSIBLE RELEVANCE TO THE PERSON'S BIAS AS IT RELATED TO HIS TESTIMONY. BUT THE BIAS OF THIS WITNESS AGAINST THIS DEFENDANT IN PARTICULAR AND HIS RACE IN GENERAL COULD WELL EXPLAIN A NUMBER OF FALSE STATEMENTS ON HIS PART, WHICH WE'RE GOING TO TELL THE JURY HE'S MADE. WE'RE NOT TRYING TO PROVE THAT HE PLANTED ANYTHING BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE TO. WE'RE SIMPLY SAYING, IF THE ONLY EVIDENCE YOU HAVE THAT THIS GLOVE CAME FROM O.J. SIMPSON'S HOME IS DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN, THAT ISN'T ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO CONVICT A RAT, LET ALONE A HUMAN BEING. AND I THINK THAT'S A FAIR ARGUMENT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE. AFTER ALL, THERE'S ANOTHER PRINCIPAL AT PLAY HERE, IF IT PLEASE THE COURT. THIS IS THE PEOPLE'S WITNESS. THE PEOPLE ARE ESTOPPED TO COMPLAIN THAT HAVING BEEN PUT ON NOTICE IN 1981 THAT THIS FELLOW HAD TERRIBLE RACIST FEELINGS, TERRIBLE FEELINGS, HE COULDN'T CONTROL HIS VIOLENCE AGAINST PEOPLE HE WAS ARRESTING, THEY FOUND THAT HE NOT ONLY WAS GOOD ENOUGH TO STAY ON AS AN LAPD DETECTIVE, BUT PROMOTED HIM IN THE PROCESS. AND CERTAINLY, IF MRS. BELL WAS HEARING HIS RACIST FEELINGS IN 1985 AND 1986, SOMEONE IN THE DEPARTMENT WAS HEARING IT AND THEY WERE TERRIBLY INSENSITIVE TO LEAVE HIM WITH A BADGE AND A GUN KNOWING HOW HE FELT IN THIS CITY AND THE TURMOIL IT SUFFERED. DOES THE COURT HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AS TO THE PROFFER?
GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR. I WAS IMPRESSED BY MR. BAILEY'S DRAMA AND EMPHASIS AND FINGER POINTING, BUT THAT DOES NOT TAKE THE PLACE OF AN OFFER OF PROOF OF EVIDENCE, WHICH IS WHAT THIS COURT RULED WAS REQUIRED. MR. BAILEY ALSO JUST NOW APPARENTLY WAS SEEKING TO RELITIGATE THE MOTION ITSELF, AND THAT WAS TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE. THE OFFER OF PROOF THAT THE DEFENSE GIVES THE COURT WITHIN THEIR MOTION IS PROOF OF SPECULATION. THERE IS SIMPLY NOTHING IN HERE. FURTHER, THEY GO BEYOND AND THEY NOW ARE CLAIMING THAT THE BRONCO WAS MOVED; BECAUSE OF INCONSISTENT TESTIMONY EARLY ON AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, THAT THE DEFENDANT'S FORD BRONCO IS MOVED. THIS IS A BRAND NEW ALLEGATION ARISING OUT OF HOLE CLOTH, OUT OF DEFENSE SPECULATION, OUT OF THE DREAM OF THE DEFENSE TEAM THAT SOMETHING COULD COME UP TO DIVERT THE JURY'S ATTENTION IN A VERY SERIOUS WAY. THE COURT SAW THE DEMONSTRATION -- I SHOULDN'T SAY DEMONSTRATION -- BUT THE EFFECT OF THE RACIAL ARGUMENT, AS IT HAPPENS, WHEN IT CAME OUT THROUGH MR. DARDEN FOR THE PROSECUTION AND MR. COCHRAN FOR THE DEFENSE. THE COURT SAW FOR ITSELF HOW VERY INFLAMMATORY THAT GETS VERY EASILY. THE COURT RULED ON THESE AREAS, RULED UNDER 352 THAT THE 1981 LAWSUIT WAS TOO REMOTE TO BE REASONABLY RELEVANT HERE, THAT THE JOSEPH BRITTON MATTER WAS TOO REMOTE TO BE REASONABLY RELEVANT HERE. THE COURT --
NO. I SAID THE BRITTON MATTER WAS SPECULATIVE BECAUSE THERE WAS NO DIRECT EVIDENCE OF ANY MISCONDUCT OR ANY EXPRESSION OF RACIAL ANIMUS, NOT THAT IT WAS REMOTE.
THANK YOU. AND I OVERSTATED IT WHEN I SAID THAT IT WAS TOO REMOTE TO BE RELEVANT SINCE IT WAS PURELY SPECULATION, AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO BACK THAT EITHER. BUT IN THIS SITUATION, THE COURT'S RULING WAS ABSOLUTELY CLEAR TO ME, HAVING READ IT. IT WAS DETAILED IN FIVE PAGES. AND WHAT WAS CLEAR IS THAT THE DEFENSE -- FOUR AND A HALF. WHAT WAS CLEAR WAS THAT THE COURT WAS REQUIRING OF THE DEFENSE SOME OFFER OF EVIDENCE THAT THIS DETECTIVE MOVED EVIDENCE, WHETHER IT BE THE GLOVE OR ANY OTHER EVIDENCE.
BUT THE ARGUMENT HAS CHANGED AND SHIFTED. THE ARGUMENT HAS NOW -- IS NOW GONE -- SEE, THE INTERESTING THING IS, THE WAY THIS ALL PLAYED OUT BECAUSE IT STARTED OUT AS A MOTION IN LIMINE BY THE PROSECUTION TO LIMIT THIS. SO ESSENTIALLY, YOU FRAMED THE ISSUE AS YOU WANTED IT, WHICH WAS THE ALLEGATION PUBLISHED IN A MAGAZINE BACK EAST THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAD PLANTED THE EVIDENCE. SO THAT WAS THE POINT OF YOUR OFFENSIVE IN THIS CASE. THE RESPONSE THAT I GOT THIS MORNING FROM THE DEFENSE IS THAT THEY ARE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE ENTITLED TO CROSS-EXAMINE AS TO RACIAL ANIMUS. AND THEY CITE TWO CASES THAT APPEAR TO BE CONTROLLING.
I'M NOT AWARE OF THE SECOND CASE. BUT OF COURSE, THEY CITED THE ANTHONY P. CASE, WHICH I, AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT, BROUGHT TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T EVEN ABLE TO LOCATE THAT DURING THEIR EARLIER RESPONSE. THE ANTHONY P. CASE, YOUR HONOR, I BELIEVE IS DISTINGUISHABLE HERE. IN THAT CASE, IF THE COURT RECALLS, ALL THE DEFENSE TRIED TO DO WAS TO CROSS-EXAMINE IN THAT ONE AREA, AND THAT WAS IT. APPARENTLY, THERE WERE NO OTHER AVENUES OPEN TO THE DEFENSE. AND THAT'S BECAUSE, AS THE COURT SAID ON PAGE 506 COMES TO MIND IN THAT CASE, IN RE ANTHONY P., THAT THE ENTIRE CASE RESTED ENTIRELY ON THE CREDIBILITY OF THE COMPLAINING VICTIM, WHO WAS THE VICTIM OF WHAT FACTUALLY APPEARED TO BE A SEXUAL BATTERY. SO THERE WAS NO CORROBORATION, NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE TO CORROBORATE, NO OTHER WITNESSES WHO SAW THE EVENT OR EVEN SAW HER RUN FROM THE EVENT. AND WHEN YOU HAD A ONE-ON-ONE CREDIBILITY CONTEST, THE ANTHONY P. COURT FELT IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO ALLOW THAT. THE SITUATION WE HAVE HERE IS VASTLY DIFFERENT. WE HAVE ABUNDANT EVIDENCE OTHER THAN THE GLOVE AT ROCKINGHAM, WHICH THE COURT IS AWARE OF AND WILL HEAR MORE OF AS TIME GOES BY AND AS THE TRIAL EVOLVES AND CERTAINLY BY THE TIME OPENING STATEMENTS ARE COMPLETED. BUT THIS IS NOT A SITUATION WHERE THIS IS THE SOLE WITNESS, THE VICTIM, THE COMPLAINING WITNESS. THIS IS NOT A SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE THE CREDIBILITY OF THE ENTIRE CASE AND THE ENTIRE BASIS OF EVERY ELEMENT OF THE CHARGES IN THAT CASE WHERE ALL OF THAT IS COMING FROM THE MOUTH OF ONE PERSON TESTIFYING FROM THE WITNESS STAND. THIS IS A CASE WHERE, AS THE COURT KNOWS, THERE'S GOING TO BE -- I DON'T WANT TO SAY HUNDREDS, BUT THERE'S GOING TO BE LOTS AND LOTS OF WITNESSES GOING TO VARIOUS DIFFERENT TYPES OF EVIDENCE. AND THE 352 ANALYSIS STILL APPLIES HERE; THAT IT IS SOMETHING THAT REQUIRES DEEP CONSIDERATION AND IT DOES NOT BEHOOVE THE COURT TO ALLOW THE DEFENSE TO RECAST THE TRUE FRAMEWORK OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S TESTIMONY IN TRYING TO TURN IT INTO A CREDIBILITY CONTEST AS IF HE WERE INDEED -- INDEED AS IF HIS CREDIBILITY WERE AT STAKE IN THE SAME WAY THAT IT WAS FOR THAT COMPLAINING VICTIM AND SOLE WITNESS IN THE ANTHONY P. CASE. THEY'RE TRYING TO TWIST THE FACTS OF THIS CASE TO FIT THAT. BUT IN REALITY, THEY DON'T. THIS CASE IS NOT THAT CASE. NOW, THE COURT MENTIONED A SECOND CASE THEY CITED IN SUPPORT OF -- AND I'M NOT SURE. THEY DO CITE ALONG WITH ANTHONY P., WHICH WE PROVIDED THE COURT WITH, LARRY E. VERSUS SUPERIOR COURT. THAT CASE HAD TO DO WITH A PITCHESS MOTION. AND THE PROSECUTION THERE HAD ARGUED THAT THE PERSONNEL RECORDS OF A POLICE OFFICER NOT NAMED AS A VICTIM IN THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT BE DISCOVERABLE, AND THE COURT OF APPEAL, I BELIEVE IT WAS, HELD OTHERWISE. THAT WAS FOR PURPOSES OF A PITCHESS MOTION, WHICH, AS THE COURT IS WELL AWARE, A PITCHESS MOTION GOES TO DISCOVERY; AND THE ONLY GROUND FOR DISCOVERY OR THE ONLY REQUIREMENT IS THAT IT BE REASONABLY LIKELY TO LEAD TO ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE. BUT EVEN IN THIS CASE ITSELF, I THINK THE COURT IN HERE NOTES THAT THEY'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT EVIDENCE THAT WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE AT TRIAL. THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT SIMPLY A DISCOVERY MATTER. AND IN THIS CASE, THE COURT INDEED DID REVIEW THE PERSONNEL DOCUMENTS THAT WERE PROVIDED TO IT. AND I BELIEVE MARK FUHRMAN'S ATTORNEY REQUESTED THE COURT DO THAT. THE COURT DID IT. AND SO IN LIMITED RESPECT, IT LOOKED INTO THE MATTER, DETERMINED THERE WAS NOTHING RELEVANT FROM THOSE RECORDS; AND INDEED THERE WAS NOT. AND THE BOTTOM LINE, YOUR HONOR, IS THAT IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE TO ALLOW THE DEFENSE TO GO ON A FISHING EXPEDITION RAISING AN INFLAMMATORY ISSUE OF RACIAL ANIMOSITY IN FRONT OF THE JURY WHEN THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT NEXUS, TO PROVIDE THAT NEXUS TO BEGIN WITH. AND WE DO DOVETAIL BACK INTO THE THIRD PARTY CULPABILITY CASE LAW, WHICH REQUIRES SOME EVIDENTIARY LINK PRIOR TO THERE BEING ANY RELEVANCE TO MOTIVE OR OPPORTUNITY EVIDENCE. SO THEY HAVE FAILED TO COMPORT WITH THAT, YOUR HONOR. AND MR. BAILEY, ALTHOUGH HE MAY BE ELOQUENT AND PERHAPS PERSUASIVE TO A TRIER OF FACT, CERTAINLY SHOULD NOT BE PERSUASIVE TO THIS COURT BECAUSE THE COURT HAS BEHIND IT ALL OF THE LAW AND ALL OF THE FACTS IN THIS AREA. AND THE COURT HAS DONE A VERY CAREFUL AND REASONED ANALYSIS, AND I CERTAINLY APPRECIATED THE CAREFULNESS AND THE RULING WHICH THE COURT CAME FORTH WITH WHICH SHOWED THAT THE COURT HAD CAREFULLY THOUGHT OUT THE ISSUE. AND THE DEFENSE HAS SIMPLY FAILED TO DO WHAT THE COURT DECIDED IT WOULD ALLOW; AND THAT WOULD BE A LAST-MINUTE OFFER. IF THEY HAD SOME TRUE EVIDENCE, LET THEM COME FORWARD WITH IT. IT'S SORT OF PUT UP OR SHUT UP. AND THE DEFENSE FRANKLY HAS NOT DONE THAT. THEY HAVE NOT PUT UP, SO THEY SHOULD SHUT UP.
I SHOULD JUST EXPLAIN, YOUR HONOR, THAT THE OTHER JUVENILE CASE WE CITED WAS IN RESPONSE TO THEIR CLAIM THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO ASK DETECTIVE FUHRMAN ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE 1985 INCIDENT, WHICH WAS OBVIOUSLY AN EFFORT TO PROTECT HIM FROM CROSS ABOUT THAT INCIDENT. THE SECOND CASE SAYS YOU CAN'T DO THAT. YOU CAN'T PULL AN OFFICER BACK ONCE HE WAS INVOLVED, SAY YOU ARE NOT GOING TO TESTIFY AND THEN PROTECT HIM FROM DISCOVERY AND OTHER REMEDIES. AND AS TO THE LATTER REMARK OF COUNSEL, WE'RE ALWAYS TOLD WE ARE ON A FISHING EXPEDITION. IF EVER THERE WAS A CASE WHERE AN 1800 POUND MARLIN WAS HOOKED, GAFFED AND IN THE BOAT, THIS IS SUCH A CASE.
THANK YOU, COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. AS TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, I'M GOING TO PRECLUDE THE DEFENSE FROM PURSUING THAT LINE DURING THE COURSE OF OPENING STATEMENTS FOR THIS REASON: BECAUSE OF THE TURNING OVER TODAY OF OTHER STATEMENTS MADE BY KATHLEEN BELL, WHO IS THE GENESIS OF THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. HOWEVER, AFTER THE PROSECUTION HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REINTERVIEW OR REEXAMINE THOSE STATEMENTS, I WILL ALLOW CROSS-EXAMINATION ON THAT ISSUE.
YOUR HONOR, SO THAT THE RECORD IS CLEAR, WHEN YOU SAY YOU'RE GOING TO ALLOW CROSS-EXAMINATION ON THAT ISSUE, IS THAT THE ISSUE OF RACIAL BIAS OR ANIMUS AS A WHOLE OR ON THE 1985 --
RACIAL BIAS AS TO THE STATEMENT BY KATHLEEN BELL AS IT RELATES TO THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
I DON'T WANT TO BE A POLICEMAN, BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE ONE LAWYER, ONE ISSUE RULE START AT 1:30, IT PROBABLY SHOULD START --
I AM PRECLUDING THE DEFENSE FROM MAKING MENTION OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN DURING THE COURSE OF THEIR OPENING STATEMENT SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE FACT OF THE LATE TURNING OVER OF THE OTHER STATEMENTS OF KATHLEEN BELL TODAY. HOWEVER, I FIND THE ISSUE OF RACIAL ANIMOSITY TO BE SOMETHING THAT THEY'RE ENTITLED TO CROSS-EXAMINE ON.
AND, YOUR HONOR, THAT STILL DOES NOT QUITE CONCLUDE THE COURT'S RULING WITH REGARD TO KATHLEEN BELL IN TERMS OF THE 352 ASPECT, OF ITS REMOTENESS.
NO. I DON'T FIND IT TO BE REMOTE. I THINK -- I ALREADY RULED ON THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE.
SO THAT THE COURT IS SATISFIED THAT THE DEFENSE CAME UP WITH AN OFFER OF PROOF OR THE COURT IS CONCERNED FRANKLY ABOUT IN RE ANTHONY P.?
NO. WE'VE SWITCHED -- THE THEORY HERE ON THE DEFENSE SIDE CHANGED. IT'S NO LONGER AN ISSUE OF PLANTING EVIDENCE. IT'S THE RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE ON RACIAL ANIMUS. SEE, THAT'S THE INTERESTING THING ABOUT HOW THIS WHOLE THING DEVELOPED. IT DEVELOPED AS A PROSECUTION MOTION IN LIMINE. NORMALLY IT'S THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
COUNSEL, I'M NOT GOING TO HEAR IT AGAIN. I'VE RULED. MY RULING IS IN THE RECORD. IT SHOULD BE CLEAR AT THIS POINT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
I CANNOT IMAGINE A CLEARER CASE OF THE DEFENSE HAVING AN ABSOLUTE AND INALIENABLE, INDELIBLE, IRREVOCABLE RIGHT TO SMASH INTO ANY PERSON SO LOW LIFE AS TO MAKE THOSE UTTERANCES AND THEN TO PROCEED TO THE WITNESS STAND AND ATTEMPT TO INCRIMINATE FOR MURDER THROUGH THESE DEFALCATIONS AND SPORULATION A MEMBER OF THE AFRICAN AMERICAN RACE.
IT'S SORT OF PUT UP OR SHUT UP. AND THE DEFENSE FRANKLY HAS NOT DONE THAT. THEY HAVE NOT PUT UP, SO THEY SHOULD SHUT UP.
IF EVER THERE WAS A CASE WHERE AN 1800 POUND MARLIN WAS HOOKED, GAFFED AND IN THE BOAT, THIS IS SUCH A CASE.
I FIND THE ISSUE OF RACIAL ANIMOSITY TO BE SOMETHING THAT THEY'RE ENTITLED TO CROSS-EXAMINE ON.
IF THE ONLY EVIDENCE YOU HAVE THAT THIS GLOVE CAME FROM O.J. SIMPSON'S HOME IS DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN, THAT ISN'T ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO CONVICT A RAT, LET ALONE A HUMAN BEING.