BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. ALL PARTIES ARE AGAIN PRESENT, WITH MR. SCHECK AND MR. UELMEN JOINING THE DEFENSE TEAM. COUNSEL, I'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO -- MISS CLARK, YOU HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE DEFENSE EXHIBITS. DO YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS?
NUMEROUS, YOUR HONOR. THE FIRST OBJECTION I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IS I AM APPALLED AT THE CONDUCT OF THE DEFENSE IN WITHHOLDING DISCOVERY.
THE CONDUCT OF THE DEFENSE IS ABSOLUTELY APPALLING, YOUR HONOR. JUST TODAY WE WERE GIVEN, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PAGES -- I'M GOING TO HOLD IT UP TO THE COURT -- OF DISCOVERY. THESE WERE STATEMENTS THAT WERE TAKEN ON JUNE 27 AND -- SOME OF THEM, AND JULY. WE ARE HERE, IT IS NOW JANUARY 23RD, AND ONLY TODAY DID WE RECEIVE DISCOVERY OF THESE STATEMENTS. THE DEFENSE HAS BEEN YELLING AND SCREAMING AT US FOR NOT TURNING OVER DISCOVERY WITHIN TWO WEEKS OF HAVING RECEIVED IT AND THEY NOW HAVE HAD THINGS FOR SIX AND SEVEN MONTHS AND ARE JUST TURNING IT OVER. THERE IS A VIDEOTAPE THAT THEY HAVE HAD TO HAVE HAD IN THEIR POSSESSION SINCE JUNE 13 THAT I WAS JUST SHOWN ON THE MONITOR TODAY. THE COURT HAS ORDERED THE DEFENSE TO TURN OVER DISCOVERY IN A TIMELY FASHION, JUST AS IT HAS ORDERED THE PEOPLE TO COMPLY WITH THE SAME ORDER. WE HAVE MADE NUMEROUS REQUESTS OF THE DEFENSE ON AND OFF THE RECORD TO PLEASE TURN OVER DISCOVERY AND TURN OVER STATEMENTS. THEY SAID THEY HAD NOTHING. THOSE WERE LIES AND THESE STATEMENTS PROVE THAT THEY WERE LIES BECAUSE THESE STATEMENTS WERE TAKEN IN JUNE AND JULY. AND YET AS RECENTLY AS JANUARY THEY WERE SAYING THAT THEY HAD NO FURTHER DISCOVERY TO GIVE US AND THAT THEY WERE IN FULL COMPLIANCE. CLEARLY THEY WERE NOT. THEY WERE NOT IN FULL COMPLIANCE BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION, EITHER WITH RESPECT TO THE EXHIBITS NOR WITH RESPECT TO THE VIDEOTAPES THAT THEY HAD, NOR WITH RESPECT TO WITNESSES STATEMENTS THAT WERE TAKEN. THIS IS -- I CAN'T -- I'M ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED. I AM SHOCKED AT THIS KIND OF CONDUCT. YOU KNOW, HOW COULD THEY WITHHOLD ALL THIS MATERIAL AND CLAIM -- AND YET COME INTO COURT AND CLAIM TO THIS COURT ON THE RECORD THAT THEY WERE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DISCOVERY ORDER? THEY NOT ONLY ARE IN NONCOMPLIANCE, BUT THEY ARE IN WILLFUL NONCOMPLIANCE AND THEY HAVE MADE MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATIONS TO THE COURT AND COUNSEL IN THIS MATTER. HOW CAN THE PEOPLE POSSIBLY GET A FAIR TRIAL WHEN THE DEFENSE HAS WILLFULLY WITHHELD INFORMATION PREVENTING US FROM PREPARING THE CASE AND AT THE LAST MINUTE SPRINGS THINGS ON US KNOWING FULL WELL THAT THEY WERE IN NONCOMPLIANCE? THIS IS WILLFUL NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT ORDER AND A WILLFUL DESIRE TO DEPRIVE THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WITH THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL. THE PEOPLE OBJECT TO ALL OF THIS, NOT TO MENTION SPECIFICALLY OBJECTIONS TO MANY OF THE EXHIBITS, BUT I THINK THIS NONCOMPLIANCE IS SOMETHING THAT REALLY HAS TO BE DEALT WITH. AND I WILL BE HONEST WITH THE COURT. YOU KNOW, I HAVE NEVER SEEN THIS KIND OF CONDUCT ON THE PART OF DEFENSE COUNSEL BEFORE; NEVER.
ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, I HAVE REVIEWED WHAT APPEARS TO BE LABELED A DEFENSE SUPPLEMENTAL WITNESS LIST WHICH APPEARS TO CONTAIN CERTAIN WITNESS STATEMENTS AND A LONG CV FOR DR. LENORE WALKER. WHAT REMEDY ARE YOU ASKING FOR?
WE WOULD REQUEST THAT THE DEFENSE BE PRECLUDED FROM CALLING THOSE WITNESSES, AS IS REQUIRED BY THE PENAL CODE SECTION 1054, ET SEQ., FOR WILLFUL NONCOMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDERS. I WOULD ALSO CITE TO THE COURT DEFENSE COUNSEL'S RESPONSE TO THE PEOPLE'S MOTION MADE IN DECEMBER FOR SANCTIONS FOR NONCOMPLIANCE AND IN THAT MOTION THE DEFENSE FILED ON DECEMBER 30TH IT STATED THAT:
"THE DEFENSE HAS FULLY COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENT TO DISCLOSE WITNESSES AND STATEMENTS," AND THAT IS NOT OBVIOUSLY THE CASE. I WOULD ASK THE COURT FURTHER TO ORDER THAT COUNSEL TURN OVER ALL OF THE STATEMENTS AND ALL THE INVESTIGATION THAT THEY HAVE PREPARED TO DATE TODAY NOW BEFORE WE BEGIN OPENING STATEMENTS, AND FURTHER, THAT THERE BE TO MENTION OF ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THIS LATE DISCOVERY IN THE OPENING STATEMENTS TODAY.
THAT INCLUDES OF COURSE VIDEOTAPES, PHOTOGRAPHS, ANY OTHER GRAPHIC DEPICTIONS THEY INTEND TO USE. OBVIOUSLY THE VIDEOTAPE WHICH WAS TURNED OVER ONLY TODAY, WHICH THEY HAVE HAD FOR QUITE SOME TIME, IS AN EXAMPLE OF THAT SORT OF THING. THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT THE COURT SEES RIGHT HERE BLOWN UP ON THE BOARD WERE NEVER SHOWN TO THE PROSECUTION, SO WE WOULD ASK THAT ALL OF THAT BE TURNED OVER FORTHWITH BEFORE WE BEGIN OPENING STATEMENTS AND THAT THERE BE NO MENTION OF ANYTHING THAT THEY'VE TURNED OVER TODAY OR WILL TURN OVER, PURSUANT I HOPE TO THE COURT'S ORDER, IN THE OPENING STATEMENTS AS WELL.
MAY I ALSO INCLUDE, YOUR HONOR, ANY TAPES OF INTERVIEWS THAT WERE CONDUCTED AS WELL.
FIRST OF ALL, YOUR HONOR, THE COURT IS MINDFUL THAT THE OBLIGATIONS OF A DEFENDANT UNDER THE STATE'S DISCOVERY RULES DIFFER FROM THOSE OF THE PROSECUTION. HOWEVER, LET ME MAKE A COUPLE OF THINGS PERFECTLY CLEAR. WE HAVE CONTINUALLY BEEN REFOCUSING AND RESTRATEGIZING THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHOM WE INTEND TO CALL FOR TRIAL. MANY OF THE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE BEEN ADDED ON OUR SUPPLEMENTAL WITNESS LIST ARE DECISIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE ONLY SINCE THE COURT'S RULINGS ON THE DOMESTIC DISCORD MOTION, AS WELL AS THE COURT'S RULINGS ON THE FUHRMAN MOTION. YOU WERE GIVEN A PACKET TODAY, YOUR HONOR, AND MISS CLARK MADE CLEAR TO HOLD UP THE PACKET, BUT THAT PACKET CONTAINED 34 NAMES, SIX WITNESS STATEMENTS, AND 34 PAGES OF THE RESUME OF AN ILLUSTRIOUS EXPERT, DR. LENORE WALKER, WHO ONLY ON SUNDAY HAD PRELIMINARILY COMPLETED HER REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE AND HAD COMMITTED TO WORKING ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENSE IN THIS CASE. SHE HAS NOT YET EVEN AUTHORED A FINAL REPORT. WE HAVE NOT YET, FOR EXAMPLE, SEEN ANY OF THE DATA. AS THE COURT IS AWARE, DR. WALKER VISITED MR. SIMPSON WITHIN THE LAST MONTH, THREE WEEKS FOR SURE, AND THE DECISION TO CALL DR. WALKER HINGED ON THE COURT'S RULING ON THE DOMESTIC DISCORD, ON THE COURT'S RULING OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF DR. DUTTON, AND AFTER CONSULTING WITH DR. WALKER THIS WEEKEND ONLY WERE THOSE DECISIONS MADE. SECONDLY, YOUR HONOR, IN TERMS OF THE DISCOVERY OF VIDEOTAPES OR THAT KIND OF THING, WHEN WE ASKED IN THE BEGINNING OF THIS CASE FOR NEWS REPORTS OR FOR HOSPITAL RECORDS OR ITEMS THAT WERE EQUALLY AVAILABLE TO EITHER SIDE, THE PROSECUTION'S RESPONSE, QUITE POINTEDLY, AND THE COURT AGREED, WAS IF IT WAS A NEWSPAPER AND YOU CAN SUBPOENA THE PAPER, YOU CAN DO IT YOURSELF, AND THEREBY WE DID DO IT OURSELVES. WE WENT OUT ON OUR OWN AND SIMPLY OBTAINED NEWS DOCUMENTS OR NEWS FOOTAGE THAT WE DECIDED TO USE IN OUR OPENING STATEMENT. YOUR HONOR, WE WORKED IN THE OFFICE, TEN OF US, UNTIL TWO O'CLOCK -- 1:30 -- UNTIL TWO O'CLOCK THURSDAY NIGHT GOING THROUGH THESE GRAPHICS, TRYING TO MAKE SOME DECISIONS, AND THOSE DECISIONS WERE NOT YET COMPLETED. YOUR HONOR, I WAS IN THE OFFICE --
COUNSEL, WE ARE MIXING APPLES AND ORANGES HERE. I'M INTERESTED IN THE DISCOVERY ISSUE FIRST, WHY THIS LIST IS NOW BEING MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PROSECUTION THIS MORNING, FIRST OF ALL, AND THEN SECONDLY, WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE TO THE PROSECUTION'S REQUEST THAT I PRECLUDE THE TESTIMONY OF EVERYBODY WHO IS ON THIS LIST FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S PREVIOUS DISCOVERY ORDER? THAT IS THE ISSUE. I'M NOT INTERESTED IN THESE CHARTS RIGHT NOW.
VERY WELL, YOUR HONOR. DECISIONS -- I SPEAK TO THE CHARTS BECAUSE DECISIONS ON WITNESSES THAT WE WERE GOING TO OFFER IN EVIDENCE WERE NOT FINALIZED UNTIL THIS VERY WEEKEND. WE HAVE BEEN SPENDING THE BULK OF OUR TIME RUNNING DOWN THE OVER 350 NAMES THAT WE HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE PROSECUTION'S LIST. NOW, YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE ATTEMPTED TO TRY AND INTERVIEW WITNESSES THAT ARE ON THEIR LIST, BUT THAT IS NOT DISCOVERABLE UNDER THE DISCOVERY RULES. WHEN WE ARE INTERVIEWING THEIR WITNESSES FOR IMPEACHMENT PURPOSES, THAT IS NOT DISCOVERABLE. THESE ARE NAMES THAT WERE ADDED THAT WERE NOT ON THE PROSECUTION'S LIST, THAT WERE DECIDED AFTER THE CRITICAL RULINGS ON DOMESTIC DISCORD AND ON THE FUHRMAN MOTION AND WERE DECIDED AFTER TALKING WITH LENORE WALKER AND THOSE INDIVIDUALS THAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO PROVIDE SOME CONTEXT, IF YOU WILL, TO SOME OF THE ALLEGATIONS THAT THE COURT IS GOING TO ALLOW TO BE ADMITTED. AND THEREFORE, YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE FULLY COMPLIED WITH THE DEFENDANT'S OBLIGATIONS IN THE DISCOVERY ACT.
IF THE COURT WILL RECALL, ASSUMING WE HAVE PRESENTED THESE 34 NAMES TODAY, THERE IS STILL AT LEAST AN ADDITIONAL TWO MONTHS, EVEN UNDER THE MOST CONSERVATIVE OF ESTIMATES, FOR THE PEOPLE TO GO ABOUT DOING THEIR WORK ATTEMPTING TO INTERVIEW WITNESSES THAT ARE ON OUR LIST. ONE THING THAT IS INTERESTING, HOWEVER, AND YOU HEAR ALL THE SCREAMING AND ALL THE PROTESTATIONS BY MISS CLARK, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THERE ARE NAMES ON OUR FIRST LIST THAT WE SUBMITTED AUGUST OF 1994 WITH ADDRESSES, WITH PHONE NUMBERS, WHO WERE NEVER CONTACTED BY ANYONE ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION. EVEN UP UNTIL THIS VERY DAY WE ARE CONTINUING TO MAKE DECISIONS, WE ARE FULLY COMPLYING WITH ALL OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CODE. NOW, AS FOR SANCTIONS, YOUR HONOR, I THINK IT VERY IRONIC THAT THE PEOPLE WOULD STAND HERE AND SEEK THE SANCTION OF EXCLUSION, THE ULTIMATE SANCTION THAT THE COURT IS EMPOWERED TO IMPOSE, GIVEN ALL OF THE EQUITIES OF THIS CASE, GIVEN THE BACKGROUND OF THIS CASE, GIVEN THE FACT THAT WHEN WE WERE GIVEN A LIST OF 206 NAMES ON JANUARY THE 6TH ON A TRIAL THAT WAS DUE TO START TWO WEEKS LATER, OUR ONLY SANCTION THAT WE WERE SEEKING WAS SIMPLY GIVE US MORE TIME, REQUIRE THEM TO NOT OFFER THESE NAMES IN OPENING STATEMENT, REQUIRE THAT THEY CHANGE THE ORDER OF PROOF AND PUT THE PROOF AT THE END SO THAT WE WOULD HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO ADEQUATELY PREPARE AND RESPOND TO THIS EVIDENCE. I DARE SAY THAT WE HAD THE POSSIBILITY OF SEEKING THE ULTIMATE SANCTION OF EXCLUSION, BUT WE DID NOT GO THAT ROUTE. I WOULD URGE THE COURT TO NOT GO THAT ROUTE HERE. I THINK, YOUR HONOR, GIVEN WHERE WE ARE IN THE CASE ON THE FIRST DAY OF OPENING STATEMENT --
WELL, ON THE FIRST DAY SCHEDULED FOR OPENING STATEMENT, AND THE DEFENSE HAS SUPPLEMENTED THEIR LIST OF 34 ADDITIONAL NAMES, THAT THE PROSECUTION IS NOT UNDULY PREJUDICED, THAT THE PROSECUTION WILL HAVE MORE THAN ADEQUATE TIME. THEY HAVE THE ENTIRE 8000-MAN POLICE FORCE -- MAN AND WOMAN POLICE FORCE OF THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT AT THEIR DISPOSAL. THEY HAVE THE 600 LAWYERS EMPLOYED BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
THEY HAVE FAR MORE RESOURCES THAN WE, YOUR HONOR. THOUST PROTEST TOO MUCH WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE EQUITIES THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE. AND CERTAINLY I DON'T THINK, YOUR HONOR, THAT THE SANCTION OF EVEN EXCLUDING THESE NAMES FROM OUR OPENING STATEMENT IS ONE THAT HAS TO BE IMPOSED.
AND WITH THE EXCEPTION OF DR. WALKER, WHO I THINK MR. COCHRAN PERHAPS MAY LIKE TO MENTION IN HIS OPENING, I AM NOT SURE EVEN THAT THERE IS EVEN GOING TO BE AN ATTEMPT TO DISCUSS THESE PARTICULAR WITNESSES, PERHAPS AS WELL WITH MISS BELL, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THERE IS MUCH OF AN ATTEMPT TO OFFER THESE WITNESSES DURING THE OPENING STATEMENT, BUT EVEN IF THAT IS THE CASE, IT WOULD NOT BE A FAIR SANCTION, GIVEN THE POSTURE THAT WE'VE HAD IN THIS CASE, GIVEN THAT WE ARE ON THE FIRST DAY SCHEDULED FOR OPENING STATEMENT, GIVEN THAT THIS IS A CASE WHERE EVEN THE PROSECUTION ESTIMATES THAT THEIR CASE IS GOING TO TAKE AT LEAST EIGHT WEEKS, IF NOT LONGER. THERE IS ADEQUATE TIME FOR THEM TO PREPARE. THEY HAVE NOT EVEN DONE WORK ON OTHER WITNESSES WHOM WE GAVE THEM BACK IN AUGUST, YOUR HONOR, AND I DON'T THINK THAT THEIR PROTESTATIONS SHOULD BE TAKEN WITH ANY GREAT WEIGHT BY THIS COURT.
KEY QUOTEYOUR HONOR, WE NEED TO SUPPLEMENT -- MR. HODGMAN HAD CONTACT WITH MR. DOUGLAS AND I THINK THE COURT NEEDS TO BE MADE AWARE OF IT.
YES, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU. ONCE I STOOD BEFORE THIS COURT AND INDICATED I WAS SLOW TO ANGER. IT COMES A LITTLE MORE QUICKLY THIS MORNING. YOUR HONOR, I HAD TO BRACE MR. DOUGLAS TO EVEN GET THE LIST THAT IS BEFORE THE COURT. WHEN WOULD THE PEOPLE GET THAT? AFTER I HAD SEEN PHOTOGRAPHS WHICH OBVIOUSLY HAD BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR SOME TIME AND OBVIOUSLY THEY ANTICIPATED USING AND I SEE THIS, WHERE IS OUR DISCOVERY? WHERE IS THE RECIPROCITY OF DISCOVERY? AND IT WAS ONLY THEN THAT THIS WITNESS LIST COMES UP. AND YOUR HONOR, WHEN WOULD WE HAVE SEEN IT HAD I NOT ASKED MR. DOUGLAS, ASKED THE DEFENSE FOR THAT INFORMATION?
YOUR HONOR, WE WILL WITHDRAW THE REQUEST FOR PRECLUSION ON THE CONDITION THAT THE COURT WILL ENTERTAIN THIS: THAT THE SANCTIONS REGARDING OUR WITNESS ORDER, WHEN WE PROVIDED OUR WITNESS LIST WELL IN ADVANCE OF TRIAL, BE LIFTED. THAT IS WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE FROM THIS.
THEY CAN CALL THEIR WITNESSES IN THEIR CASE, IF THEY WISH, BUT REMOVE FROM US THE SANCTION THAT THE COURT IMPOSED IN TERMS OF WHEN WE PROVIDED A WITNESS LIST WELL OVER A MONTH BEFORE TODAY'S DATE, WELL OVER A MONTH. AND EVEN THEN, YOUR HONOR, I DON'T INTEND TO REARGUE THIS, BUT THE WITNESS LIST ASPECT WAS ACTUALLY MORE OF A FORM OVER SUBSTANCE TYPE THING. HOWEVER, THAT IS WHAT THE PEOPLE PROPOSE. IN ADDITION, I WOULD LIKE TO SIMPLY STATE THAT MR. DOUGLAS ADDRESSED ASKING US TO GO OUT AND OBTAIN NEWS FOOTAGE, NEWS VIDEO AND THE LIKE FOR THEM. WE ARE NOT INVESTIGATORS FOR THE DEFENSE. THEY HAD ACCESS TO IT. THE DEFENSE IS -- AND THE DISTINCTION IS, YOUR HONOR, THEY'VE ELECTED TO UTILIZE IT. THEY HAVE COLLECTED IT AND NOW THEY INTEND TO USE IT. WHERE IS THE RECIPROCITY OF DISCOVERY? THIS IS BEING DROPPED ON US ON THE MORNING OF OPENING STATEMENT.
ALL RIGHT. MR. HODGMAN, LET ME ASK YOU THIS: OF THESE 34 NAMES, SEVERAL OF THESE NAMES ARE VERY FAMILIAR TO ME. OTHERS I HAVE NO IDEA WHO THEY ARE. FOR EXAMPLE, I'M ACQUAINTED WITH WILLIE WILLIAMS AND DR. WALKER OF COURSE. BUT AS TO EACH OF THESE, I MEAN ARE YOU RAISING A BLANKET OBJECTION TO ALL OF THESE? CERTAINLY YOU KNOW WHO SOME OF THESE PEOPLE ARE, YOU HAVE ANTICIPATED WHAT THEIR TESTIMONY IS GOING TO BE. THEIR APPEARANCE ON THE DEFENSE LIST IS CERTAINLY NOT A SURPRISE.
WELL, I'VE BEEN SURPRISED IN MORE THAN ONE WAY SO FAR THIS MORNING, YOUR HONOR, BUT RIGHT NOW THE COURT --
MISS CLARK, IS THIS YOUR ONLY COPY OF THIS? MR. DOUGLAS, HOW MANY COPIES OF THIS PACKAGE DO YOU HAVE?
MR. HODGMAN, WHILE I AM WAITING FOR THAT PHOTOCOPY, DOESN'T MR. DOUGLAS' ARGUMENT, THOUGH, THAT THESE DECISIONS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT TO CALL THESE WITNESSES, HINGE UPON THE COURT'S IN LIMINE MOTION RULINGS AND OBVIOUSLY THEIR STRATEGY CHANGED IN LIGHT OF THE COURT'S RULINGS?
YOUR HONOR, I KNOW THE COURT HAS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY ITSELF TO ASK OF THIS. WHEN I LOOK AT A MEMO DATED JUNE 27, 1994, WHICH DID NOT, AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, HINGE IN ANY FASHION, HAVE ANY NEXUS WITH THE COURT'S HEARINGS OR RULING, AND WE GET THIS TODAY, I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT TO THINK.
YOUR HONOR, LET ME INDICATE THAT UNDER THAT THEORY WE WOULD NOT HAVE HAD TO DISCLOSE ANY OF THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE WITNESSES TO THE DEFENSE UNTIL AFTER THE COURT RULING EITHER. I MEAN, IF WE ARE GOING TO WAIT TO GIVE DISCOVERY OF WITNESSES THAT MAY BE USED BY EITHER SIDE UNTIL THE COURT MAKES A RULING, THEN I SUSPECT THAT THERE WOULD BE A LOT MORE WITNESSES THAT THE PEOPLE WOULD NOT HAVE HAD TO DISCLOSE, NOR WOULD THE COURT HAVE IMPOSED ANY SANCTION FOR LATE DISCLOSURE, THAT THAT SIMPLY -- THE ARGUMENT PROFFERED BY MR. DOUGLAS IN THAT REGARD IS -- SHOULD BE UNAVAILING, BECAUSE IF THEY HAVE THESE WITNESSES, THEY KNOW THESE ISSUES ARE IN ISSUE AND THESE ARE PEOPLE THAT THEY MAY CALL IN TRIAL OR INTEND TO CALL IN TRIAL AND WE SHOULD HAVE DISCOVERY OF THEM AND THEN THEY SHOULD NOT BE CALLED BASED UPON THE COURT'S RULING.
I JUST WANT TO FIND OUT WHO WE ARE FIGHTING OVER. THIS IS AN INDIVIDUAL WITNESS BY WITNESS DETERMINATION.
SURE. MR. DARDEN, WHY DON'T YOU APPROACH AND LET ME GIVE YOU A COUPLE OF EXTRA COPIES HERE.
CAN WE HAVE TIME TO READ THIS, PLEASE? WE CAN'T STAND ON ONE FOOT AND ADDRESS THE COURT. CAN WE GET FIFTEEN OR TWENTY MINUTES TO READ THIS AND SEE WHAT WE HAVE HERE? THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH THIS. WE ARE SURPRISED BY THIS. WE SEE NAMES WE NEVER RECOGNIZED.
THAT IS A SIGNAL RIGHT THERE. IF YOU DON'T RECOGNIZE THE NAME -- LET'S TAKE IT FROM THE TOP. LET'S SEE HOW MUCH PROGRESS WE CAN MAKE.
COUNSEL, YOU HAVE IT RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU. KATHLEEN BELL, NO. 1. NOT A SURPRISE, CORRECT?
THERE IS A WITNESS STATEMENT. IF YOU READ THE PACKAGE, THERE IS A WITNESS STATEMENT BY HER. THERE IS A REPORT FROM MR. PAVELIC REGARDING A TELEPHONE CALL FROM KATHLEEN BELL IN THE PACKAGE. IS THAT A SURPRISE TO YOU?
WELL, WE NEED TO BE HEARD ABOUT THAT. I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS IN THE -- THEY HAVE BLACKED SOME PORTIONS OF THIS STATEMENT OUT.
ALL RIGHT. SO THAT IS A SURPRISE TO YOU? THAT IS A RHETORICAL QUESTION, IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT BEFORE.
OBVIOUSLY THE WITNESS IS NOT A SURPRISE. ANOTHER STATEMENT BY THE WITNESS THAT THEY HAVE NEVER SEEN BEFORE IS A SURPRISE ON TODAY'S DATE.
SHE IS THE DAUGHTER OF A NEIGHBOR AND FORMER FRIEND WHO ACCOMPANIED THE CHILDREN TO THE RECITAL ON THE NIGHT OR THE DAY OF THE MURDER.
ALL RIGHT. DINO BUCCOLLA. AND MY APOLOGIES FOR ANYBODY'S NAME I MISPRONOUNCE. DO YOU KNOW WHO THAT PERSON IS?
IT GOES DIRECTLY TOWARD DOMESTIC DISCORD RULING AND A WITNESS WHO WILL CONTRADICT ALLEGATIONS PROFFERED BY THE PEOPLE.
HOW CAN YOU HAVE NO STATEMENT, NO RECOLLECTION, NO RECORDATION OF WHAT THESE PEOPLE SAY?
FOR EXAMPLE, YOUR HONOR, IF MR. SIMPSON TELLS ME THAT THERE IS A CERTAIN PERSON WHO KNOWS ABOUT A CERTAIN INCIDENT AND I CALL THE PERSON UP AND TAKE NOTES OF THAT PERSON AND I ADD HIS NAME TO THE LIST WITNESS, THAT IS NOT DISCOVERABLE STATEMENT GENERATED BY THAT INTERVIEW. THERE IS NO INVESTIGATOR WHO HAS INTERVIEWED DINO BUCCOLLA WHO HAS A STATEMENT THAT I WOULD TURN OVER TO THE PEOPLE. MY STATEMENT OR MY ROUGH NOTES ARE MY ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT, YOUR HONOR, RESPECTFULLY.
TAKING A WITNESS STATEMENT IS WHEN I WRITE DOWN WHAT HE SAYS AND HE SIGNS IT, FOR EXAMPLE. THAT IS NOT -- THERE IS NO SUCH STATEMENT IN EVIDENCE OR IN OUR POSSESSION.
YOUR HONOR, WHEN THE COURT RULED ON THE DOMESTIC DISCORD, ATTORNEYS THEN WENT TO INTERVIEW MR. SIMPSON ABOUT THE COURT'S RULING. ATTORNEYS THEN WENT TO DISCOVER OR TO IDENTIFY INDIVIDUALS WHOM THEY INTEND TO OFFER OR WHO THEY REASONABLY INTEND TO OFFER IN RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S RULINGS. WE HAVE -- WITH DINO, DINO HAS NOT BEEN INTERVIEWED BY ANY LAWYER, BUT I'M JUST SAYING, FOR EXAMPLE, WE TRIED AS SOON AS WE MADE A DECISION, BASED ON THE COURT'S RULING, TO IDENTIFY INDIVIDUALS SUCH AS MR. BUCCOLLA WHO WE REASONABLY INTEND TO CALL AS WITNESS, BECAUSE MR. SIMPSON SAYS THIS PERSON IS SOMEONE THAT WE CAN CALL WHO IS GOING TO CONTRADICT SOMETHING ELSE THAT THEY ARE GOING TO SAY AND THAT NAME WAS ADDED TO THE LIST. THAT IS WHY THERE IS A NAME ADDED TO THE LIST. THERE IS NOT AN ADDRESS FOR HIS NAME AND THERE IS AN OFFICE PHONE NUMBER.
I HAVE NEVER HEARD THIS NAME BEFORE EITHER. IS THERE A REPORT ON THIS? THERE IS NO REPORT HERE.
HE IS A PERSON IN THEIR NOTES, YOUR HONOR, WHO THEY HAD ON THEIR LIST CONCERNING THE TRYST INCIDENT.
MR. DARDEN, WHO HAS BEEN INVESTIGATING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE MATTERS, DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THAT NAME.
BEFORE WE LEAVE MR. ENGLAND, YOUR HONOR, WE DON'T HAVE A TELEPHONE NUMBER NOR DO WE HAVE AN ADDRESS.
COUNSEL, THE LIST IS APPARENT TO ME AS WELL. ALL RIGHT. NANCY GENNUSA. WHO IS THIS PERSON? FIRST OF ALL, IS THE -- ARE THE PEOPLE ACQUAINTED WITH THIS PERSON?
SHE IS A LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE WORKING OUT OF THE PROPERTY DIVISION.
WE BELIEVE THAT SHE IS ONE OF THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY WITNESSES, BUT WHAT WE ARE DOING, YOUR HONOR, SO THE COURT ALSO UNDERSTANDS, IS IN OUR EFFORTS TO BE OVERLY INCLUSIVE WE ARE TAKING NAMES THAT MAY HAVE BEEN ON THE PROSECUTOR'S LIST, SUCH AS MISS GENNUSA, AND ADDING THEM TO OUR LIST IN THE EVENT THAT THE PROSECUTION WITHDREW THEIR NAMES, SUCH AS 83 PERCENT OF THE NAMES THAT WERE WITHDRAWN, WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE --
COUNSEL, YOU ARE WASTING MY TIME AT THIS POINT. I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHO THESE PEOPLE ARE.
MR. GREEN IS AN EMPLOYEE OF VIERTEL'S, YOUR HONOR. THERE IS NO STATEMENT. HE HAS NOT BEEN INTERVIEWED.
DR. HUTSON WAS ONLY RETAINED LAST EVENING, YOUR HONOR. HE IS A CUT EXPERT. HE WILL TESTIFY ABOUT THE --
MR. KEITH IS A WITNESS TO THE TRYST INCIDENT. TAWNY KITAEN IS A PERSONAL FRIEND OF THE DEFENDANT. NO STATEMENT HAS BEEN TAKEN.
WELL, WE KNOW THE NAME, BUT THERE IS OBVIOUSLY NO STATEMENT. THEY HAVE NO ADDRESS. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT SHE WOULD BE RELEVANT TOO.
THE FIRST TIME WE HAVE HEARD THIS NAME. AND WHAT IS SHE RELEVANT TO? EXCUSE ME, HE. THERE IS NO STATEMENT HERE.
LOUIS MARKS IS THE FRIEND OF MR. SIMPSON WHO OWNED A RESIDENCE IN NEW YORK CITY. THAT IS ONE OF THE INCIDENTS THAT THE COURT ALLOWED ADMISSION OF.
I RECALL A NEW YORK CITY INCIDENT IN 1977, AS I RECALL, WHERE THE DEFENDANT BEAT NICOLE, BUT YOU EXCLUDED THAT INCIDENT.
CHARACTER WITNESS THEN. HE HAS NOT BEEN INTERVIEWED. THERE IS NO STATEMENT THAT WE HAVE IN OUR POSSESSION.
SCOTT MATSUDA IS AN EMPLOYEE OF WESTEC SECURITY. WE HAVE NOT INTERVIEWED HIM. THERE IS NO STATEMENT.
ED MC CABE CONCERNS ONE OF THE INCIDENTS ON DOMESTIC DISCORD THAT THE COURT ALLOWED THE ADMISSION. THERE IS NO STATEMENT.
ASSISTANT WATCH COMMANDER. LIEUTENANTS ARE WATCH COMMANDERS. I TAKE IT YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THIS NAME, MISS CLARK.
THERE IS A CLUE CONCERNING THE PEOPLE'S DISCOVERY AND HIS NAME WAS ADDED AS A PRECAUTION.
YES, YOUR HONOR. THAT CONCERNS AN INCIDENT THAT WAS MENTIONED IN THE DISCOVERY MATERIALS --
AND THE COURT EXCLUDED IT LAST WEEK, BUT WE ARE LEAVING HIM ON AS A PRECAUTION. THERE WAS A MATTER CONCERNING RECORDS --
THERE IS A DECISION TO ADD HER TO THE WITNESS LIST TO AUTHENTICATE CERTAIN THEORIES THAT WE ARE OFFERING.
MR. DARDEN, WE WILL TAKE THAT UP. THE ISSUE IS IS IT A SURPRISE TO YOU AND DO THEY GET TO USE THAT IN THEIR OPENING STATEMENT.
I NEED TO ASK THE COURT INDULGE US, YOUR HONOR. WITH RESPECT TO MATSUDA, COUNSEL INDICATED THAT THERE WAS NO INTERVIEW. WE KNOW THAT THERE WAS BY INVESTIGATOR PAVELIC.
WE DO NOT HAVE A REPORT OF THAT INTERVIEW AND THE INTERVIEW WAS CONDUCTED MONTHS AGO.
HE IS THE TRAINER OR FORMER TRAINER OF MR. SIMPSON AND WE RECENTLY DECIDED TO ADD HIS NAME.
I'M NOT SURE OF HIS ROLE, YOUR HONOR, BUT SEVERAL LAWYERS GOT TOGETHER TO DEVELOP THIS LIST AND WE ADDED IT AS A PRECAUTION.
NO, I AM NOT, YOUR HONOR, BUT WITH RESPECT TO MARK STEVENS, I AM REMINDED THAT THERE WAS -- DETECTIVE LANGE INFORMS ME THAT THERE WAS A BRIEF STATEMENT TAKEN, BUT NOT AS IT PERTAINS TO HIS INVOLVEMENT WITH THE DEFENDANT. IT PERTAINED TO HIS OWNERSHIP OF THE GYM.
HE WAS JUST RETAINED, YOUR HONOR. HE IS IN THE PROCESS OF BEING RETAINED, MORE PROPERLY. HE HAS NOT BEEN FORMALLY RETAINED, BUT AS A PRECAUTION WE ADDED HIS NAME RIGHT NOW.
THERE IS A STATEMENT OF MR. VALENZUELA ATTACHED. WE ADDED HIM NOW ONLY AS A PRECAUTION. IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER IN FACT HE WILL BE CALLED AS A WITNESS.
I HAVE NEVER HEARD IT BEFORE TODAY. THIS IS THE FIRST. AND OF COURSE PORTIONS OF THESE STATEMENTS ARE BLACKED OUT AS WELL.
THERE IS A STATEMENT INCLUDED IN THE PACKET FROM DECEMBER THE 8TH, YOUR HONOR. DEALS WITH CHARACTER MATTERS AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MR. SIMPSON AND HIS FORMER WIFE.
ALL RIGHT. DR. LENORE WALKER. I TAKE IT YOU ARE ACQUAINTED WITH DR. WALKER OR HER BODY OF WORK AT LEAST?
WELL, WE KNOW WHO SHE IS, BUT OF COURSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT, IF ANYTHING, SHE HAS DONE ON THIS CASE.
ALL RIGHT. BUT GIVEN MR. DOUGLAS' REPRESENTATION THAT SHE WAS RECENTLY RETAINED, HAS NOT YET COMPLETED A REPORT, I THINK THAT IS THE STATUS -- WE UNDERSTAND THE CONTEXT OF HER INVOLVEMENT HERE?
ALL RIGHT. CHIEF WILLIE WILLIAMS. I THINK WE ARE ALL ACQUAINTED WITH HIM. AND MR. DOUGLAS, DO YOU HAVE A SIGNIFICANT OFFER OF PROOF THAT WOULD CAUSE CHIEF WILLIAMS TO BE A RELEVANT WITNESS TO THIS CASE?
YOUR HONOR, WE DID IT AS A PRECAUTION. IT IS LIKELY HE WILL NOT BE CALLED BUT I DID NOT WANT TO BE PRECLUDED.
HE IS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE COUNTY CORONER'S OFFICE. THERE HAS BEEN NO STATEMENT AND THERE IS NO INTERVIEW.
HE'S A DOCTOR WHOM WE HAVE ONLY RECENTLY RETAINED WHO HAS NOT YET FINALIZED A REPORT.
THERE ARE ONLY A FEW -- IT WOULD BE EASIER TO COUNT THE NAMES THAT WE ARE FAMILIAR WITH ON THIS LIST THAN THE ONES THAT WE ARE NOT, NOT TO MENTION THE ADDITIONAL FACT OF REPRESENTATIONS OF COUNSEL THAT NO REPORTS WERE PREPARED ALTHOUGH INTERVIEWS WERE CONDUCTED. THERE IS A CASE DIRECTLY ON POINT REGARDING THAT.
THE ISSUE AT THIS POINT IS WHAT SANCTIONS ARE APPROPRIATE AT THIS STAGE IN THE PROCEEDING.
YOUR HONOR, WITH REGARD TO SANCTIONS, WHETHER IT BE CHARACTERIZED AS A SANCTION OR JUST SOMETHING REASONABLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PEOPLE ARE ASKING FOR A WEEK'S CONTINUANCE.
THIS WAS THRUST UPON US, AND ONLY UPON REQUEST, TODAY. WE WENT TO SEE -- WE WANT TO SEE WHAT ELSE THEY'VE GOT. WE'VE GOT TO CHECK THIS OUT, YOUR HONOR. I MEAN, TO GET THIS TODAY IS JUST SHOCKING TO ME. WE WOULD LIKE A WEEK'S CONTINUANCE SO THAT WE CAN DIGEST THIS, TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT WE'VE GOT AND THEN BE ABLE TO REACT ACCORDINGLY.
WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. MR. HODGMAN, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I HAVE ON MY CHECKLIST OF THINGS TO DO HERE IS THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE ONE COUNSEL PER SIDE PER ISSUE ON THESE MATTERS FROM HENCEFORTH. TOO BAD I DIDN'T GET THERE FIRST TODAY. MR. COCHRAN, GOOD MORNING, SIR.
GOOD MORNING TO YOU, YOUR HONOR. HAVING SAID THAT, PERHAPS I SHOULD SIT DOWN, SINCE YOU HAVE ONE COUNSEL PER SIDE. I GUESS I'M GOING TO BE TWO HERE. I WAS GOING TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF THE CONTINUANCE, BUT PERHAPS THAT IS NOT NECESSARY AT THIS POINT.
NO. MR. HODGMAN, YOU ARE ASKING FOR SOMETHING RELATIVELY UNUSUAL AT THIS POINT. DO YOU WANT TO ELABORATE AS TO WHY YOU FEEL THE PEOPLE SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO A GOOD CAUSE CONTINUANCE TODAY?
YES, YOUR HONOR. AS WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER, MAY I HAVE JUST A MOMENT WITH COUNSEL? I HAVE SOME THINGS I WOULD LIKE TO SAY, BUT LET'S MAKE SURE WE GET IT ALL.
THANK YOU FOR INDULGING ME, YOUR HONOR. YOUR HONOR, WE ARE ASKING FOR A CONTINUANCE BECAUSE IT IS REASONABLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND WE ARE OFFERING THAT AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO PERHAPS MORE SEVERE SANCTIONS THAT THE COURT MAY ENTERTAIN VIS-A-VIS THE DEFENSE. THE PROBLEM IS EXACERBATED, YOUR HONOR, BECAUSE -- FIRST OF ALL, LET ME SAY THIS: WHEN THERE IS A FAILURE OF DISCOVERY, ONE OF THE AVAILABLE SANCTIONS IS A CONTINUANCE TO ALLOW THE PARTY WHO IS HARMED A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO CHECK OUT WHAT THEY HAVE JUST BEEN -- WHAT THEY HAVE JUST DISCOVERED. IN ADDITION, THE PROBLEM IS EXACERBATED THIS MORNING BECAUSE WE ALREADY KNOW FROM REPRESENTATIONS FROM MR. DOUGLAS, OR LACK OF KNOWLEDGE ON THE PART OF MR. DOUGLAS, THAT THERE IS OTHER INFORMATION THAT THEY POSSESS THAT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN FORTHCOMING WITH. WE HAVE ASKED TODAY TO HAVE ALL WITNESS STATEMENTS, ANYTHING THEY'VE GOT TURNED OVER. THEY HAVE GOT PHOTOGRAPHS, THEY GOT VIDEO, THEY HAVE STATEMENTS. MR. DOUGLAS ALLUDES TO PERHAPS INVESTIGATOR'S NOTES. THE PROBLEM IS, YOUR HONOR, WHAT ELSE DO THEY HAVE THAT ISN'T EVEN ON THIS LIST? THE PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW. IT IS APPARENTLY THERE. THE PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW AND THAT IS ONE REASON WE ARE ASKING FOR A CONTINUANCE, SO THAT WE CAN FLUSH OUT WHATEVER IT IS THEY HAVE. AND THEN SECONDLY, WE HAVE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO DEAL WITH WHATEVER THEY HAVE. I MEAN, TO SPRING THIS ON -- ON THE DATE OF OPENING STATEMENT IS SIMPLY NOT FAIR.
WELL, MR. HODGMAN, LET ME ASK YOU THIS: MY GUESS IS THAT THE PROSECUTION WILL TAKE AT LEAST TWO TO THREE MONTHS TO PRESENT THEIR CASE IN CHIEF. THAT IS A LONG TIME BETWEEN NOW AND THE DEFENSE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THEIR CASE.
ISN'T THAT -- GIVEN THE RATHER IFFY NATURE OF SOME OF THESE PEOPLE, THE REPRESENTATIONS AS TO WHO THEY ARE, ISN'T THAT SUFFICIENT TIME FOR THE PROSECUTION TO INTERVIEW THESE PEOPLE OR AT LEAST EVALUATE WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN THERE, ASSUMING I GRANT A PRECLUSION OF USE OF SURPRISE WITNESSES FOR PURPOSES OF OPENING STATEMENT BY THE DEFENSE?
OKAY. PERHAPS FOR SOME OF THE WITNESSES, YOUR HONOR. HOWEVER, AGAIN, DISCOVERY IS SUPPOSED TO BE A RECIPROCAL PROCESS. WE ARE HERE ON THE DATE OF OPENING STATEMENT AND AS THE DEFENSE --
ONLY IN THIS SENSE, THOUGH. ONLY IN THIS SENSE. THE DEFENSE HAS RELIED UPON THE DISCOVERY WHICH WE -- AS THE COURT IS AWARE, YOU HAVE HEARD THE NUMBERS ALL TOO OFTEN WHICH WE HAVE CHURNED OUT ON AN UNPRECEDENTED BASIS. WE COME TO COURT DISADVANTAGED BECAUSE OF INFORMATION WHICH WE SHOULD HAVE HAD THAT HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO IT COULD AFFECT HOW WE PRESENT OUR CASE. IT COULD AFFECT, BECAUSE IF DISCOVERY IS AN ENGINE FOR DETERMINING THE TRUTH, THERE MAY BE INFORMATION THAT IS OF RELEVANCE, OF VITAL RELEVANCE TO HOW WE PROCEED WITH OUR CASE. WE ARE HERE TODAY TO PROCEED WITH A STATEMENT OF THEORY, A RECITATION OR SYNOPSIS OF EVIDENCE THAT WE ANTICIPATE PRESENTING, AND WE ARE HAMSTRUNG BY THE FACT THAT PERHAPS PART OF THE AVAILABLE TRUTH, WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO US, HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN TO US. I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THIS WITNESS LIST AND IN A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME WE CAN DEAL WITH THIS. WHAT I'M MORE CONCERNED ABOUT AND WHAT I'M ASKING THE COURT FOR RIGHT NOW IS AN ORDER FOR THE DEFENSE TO DISGORGE WHATEVER ELSE THEY HAVE. THERE APPEARS TO BE SOME CONFUSION THAT THEY ARE NOT EVEN SURE WHAT THEY HAVE AT THIS MOMENT, BUT IT IS VERY APPARENT, AND I THINK THE COURT REALIZES, THEY HAVE MORE THAN WHAT THEY HAVE TURNED OVER TODAY. AND AT THE VERY LEAST I'M LOOKING AT TWO AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN SOME TIME BEFORE, PHOTOGRAPHS WHICH HAVE BEEN IN THE POSSESSION OF THE DEFENSE, WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN TURNED OVER TO THE PEOPLE. THERE HAS BEEN A VIDEOTAPE SHOWN THIS MORNING WHICH HAS BEEN IN THE POSSESSION OF THE DEFENSE FOR GOD KNOWS HOW LONG WHICH HAS ONLY BEEN DISCLOSED TO THE PEOPLE THIS MORNING.
AND I AM REMINDED, SOME OF THIS INFORMATION ABSOLUTELY PERTAINS TO OUR OPENING STATEMENT, SO YOUR HONOR --
SUCH AS? WHY DON'T YOU BRING ME INTO THAT CONTEXT WITH YOUR COMMENTS. HOW DOES THIS -- HOW DOES THIS LATE DISCLOSURE IMPACT YOUR OPENING STATEMENT?
YOUR HONOR, THERE IS A VIDEOTAPE OF THE CRIME SCENE. I DID NOT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE IT DURING THE BREAK BECAUSE I WAS DEALING WITH MR. DOUGLAS AND OTHER ISSUES, BUT I AM ADVISED THERE IS A VIDEOTAPE OF THE CRIME SCENE WHICH I HAVE NOT SEEN WHICH COMES AS A COMPLETE SURPRISE TO THE PROSECUTION THIS MORNING, AND APPARENTLY IT HAS BEEN IN POSSESSION OF THE DEFENSE AND HAS NEVER BEEN TURNED OVER, AND YET THIS MORNING THE DEFENSE, OR TODAY OR WHEN WE GET TO IT, THE DEFENSE WANTS TO BE ABLE TO UTILIZE THAT TAPE. WE HAVEN'T HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO EVEN SEE IT UNTIL TODAY. WE COULD HAVE -- EVEN LAST WEEK WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL TO US. BUT IN TERMS OF POSING OBJECTIONS, IN TERMS OF ANTICIPATING DEFENSE REMARKS IN OPENING STATEMENT, IN TERMS OF PLOTTING OUR OWN OPENING STATEMENT ITSELF, WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THIS. THERE IS AN AFFECT, THERE IS A DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN WHAT THEY HAVE WITH WITHHELD AND WHAT WE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE DONE OR WHAT WE CAN OR CANNOT DO TODAY.
ALL RIGHT. MR. HODGMAN, IS YOUR PRIMARY OBJECTION THE VIDEOTAPE AT THIS POINT? I MEAN, THE CRIME -- THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS HERE, AS I CAN SEE THEM, IS THERE ANYTHING SURPRISING TO YOU ABOUT THOSE ITEMS?
YOUR HONOR, WITH REGARD TO THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS, THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS ARE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS. WHAT SURPRISES ME IS THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE BEEN IN THE POSSESSION OF THE DEFENSE AGAIN FOR WHO KNOWS HOW LONG AND YET WE SEE THEM TODAY. THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WE CAN DEAL WITH. THE VIDEOTAPE IS A DIFFERENT ISSUE AND I HAVE NOT EVEN HAD AN OPPORTUNITY -- BECAUSE DURING THE BREAK THAT THE COURT AFFORDED US, THERE WERE A NUMBER OF ISSUES THAT BECAME VERY, VERY -- THAT AROSE, LET'S PUT IT THAT WAY.
THAT IS WHY I HAD ASKED -- THAT IS WHY I HAD SCHEDULED TWO PREVIOUS SHOW AND TELLS.
AND WE SHOWED UP FRIDAY AND WE SHOWED, WE TOLD, AND MR. DOUGLAS INDICATED THAT THERE WOULD BE A FEW THINGS AND I HAVE A LIST OF THINGS THAT HE SAID WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE AS OF LAST WEEK, AND WE HAD NO RECIPROCITY IN THAT EXCHANGE. THEY HAVE COME IN WITH A MULTITUDE OF HARD BOARD, EXHIBITS THAT THEY WISH TO USE, AND I AM PUTTING JUST OBJECTIONS, TECHNICAL OBJECTIONS THAT SHOULD BE MADE THAT WE HAVE NEVER EVEN SEEN BEFORE, BUT OF CRITICAL IMPORTANCE TO OPENING STATEMENT ARE THE WITNESS STATEMENTS. THE WITNESS STATEMENTS WHICH AGAIN WE HAVE -- THEY EXIST OR THEY DON'T EXIST. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THEY HAVE THAT THEY HAVE NOT GIVEN US -- WHAT THEY HAVE GIVEN US THIS MORNING WE HAVE JUST BECOME AWARE OF THIS MORNING, YOUR HONOR. SO IT IS A MATTER OF FAIRNESS. IT HAS AN IMPACT ON WHAT WE INTEND TO DO. THE TRUTH OR PART OF THE TRUTH HAS BEEN HIDDEN FROM US BY THE DEFENSE.
YOUR HONOR, WE ARE ASKING FOR A REASONABLE CONTINUANCE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. I WOULD SAY AT LEAST A WEEK TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT WE'VE GOT. WHAT CONCERNS ME IS WHAT WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED. AND I DON'T KNOW -- I CAN'T ADDRESS THAT UNTIL WE RECEIVE IT FROM THE DEFENSE. I CAN ONLY ASK THE COURT TO ORDER THE DEFENSE TO DISGORGE WHAT THEY HAVE SO WE CAN HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO EVALUATE IT.
GOOD MORNING AGAIN, YOUR HONOR. ALWAYS A PLEASURE TO APPEAR. YOUR HONOR, IF I MIGHT JUST SAY THIS: I'VE USED THIS WORD BEFORE, BUT I AM ABSOLUTELY APPALLED THAT THE PROSECUTION WOULD COME HERE AND CLAIM THEY ARE NOT READY FOR TRIAL. THEY ARE TALKING ONCE MORE ABOUT THIS AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE AND NOW THEY ARE READY FOR TRIAL. THEY SEE A FEW CHARTS FROM US AND THEY BECOME FRIGHTENED AND WANT TO RUN AWAY AND HIDE FOR A WEEK. YOUR HONOR, MR. SIMPSON IS NOT GOING TO WAIVE TIME. MAY I MAKE THIS SUGGESTION? WE ARE ALL TRIAL ATTORNEYS HERE. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET INSIDE MY HEAD AS TO WHAT I CAN SAY TO THIS JURY OR MY THEORY. THE PUNDITS CAN SPECULATE, BUT THEY DON'T KNOW, YOUR HONOR. MR. DOUGLAS CORRECTLY POINTED IT OUT. HOW SURPRISED ARE THEY, YOUR HONOR, THAT WE PUT ON A LIST KATHLEEN BELL? WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT HER, AND THE COURT IS AWARE, SINCE THE PITCHESS MOTION. THAT IS NOT A SURPRISE. MANY OF THE OTHER WITNESSES, YOUR HONOR, LIKE DINO BUCCOLLA, WE HAVEN'T TALKED TO HIM YET, BUT WE TALKED TO OUR CLIENT. THE THINGS THEY ARE SAYING ABOUT THE RED ONION ARE FLAT OUT NOT TRUE. WHAT WE SAY, MR. SIMPSON, WHO ELSE WAS PRESENT? HE SAYS DINO BUCCOLLA AND THE OTHERS. YOU TALK TO THEM. OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION, YOUR HONOR, WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS PUT A LIST TOGETHER AS YOU SAW. MANY OF THESE PEOPLE MAY OR MAY NOT BE CALLED, BUT WE TRY TO DO THAT BASED UPON WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT. I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO SITTING DOWN WITH MY GOOD FRIEND BILL HODGMAN OR MR. DOUGLAS DO IT RIGHT AWAY AND GOING THROUGH THESE AND THEN THERE IS A DISGORGING OF DISCOVERY THAT THEY THINK THEY ARE ENTITLED TO. BUT THE POINT IS, YOUR HONOR, THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE PRIVY TO WHAT IS IN OUR HEADS, WHAT WE THINK HAPPENED. THEY HAVE THEIR THEORY; WE HAVE FACTS. WE BELIEVE -- AND THEY KNOW THE FACTS JUST LIKE WE -- LIKE WE SHOULD KNOW THEM, AND THE FACT THAT WE HAVE AN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH, YOUR HONOR, FIRST OF ALL, UNTIL WE SIT DOWN -- AS THE COURT WAS A FORMER TRIAL LAWYER -- UNTIL WE SIT DOWN OVER THIS WEEKEND AND WORK ALL NIGHT THURSDAY NIGHT AND FRIDAY NIGHT AND THEN MAKE A DECISION AS TO WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO, IT DIDN'T EVEN BECOME RELEVANT. BUT I DON'T SEE HOW THEY ARE PREJUDICED BY AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS. THEY HAVE THEM THEMSELVES.
MR. COCHRAN, THE ONLY REAL OBJECTION THAT I HERE COMING FROM THE PROSECUTION IS THE NAMES ON THE WITNESS LIST THAT THEY ARE NOT ACQUAINTED WITH AND THE VIDEOTAPE SEQUENCE THAT WAS JUST EXHIBITED TO THE PROSECUTION THIS MORNING. THAT IS WHAT I'M HEARING.
AND I HAVE TO TELL YOU MY INCLINATION AT THIS POINT IS TO DENY THE MOTION TO CONTINUE, BUT TO PRECLUDE YOU FROM USING IN YOUR OPENING REMARKS ANY OF THE STATEMENTS MADE BY ANY OF THE WITNESSES THAT WERE UNKNOWN TO THE PROSECUTION PRIOR TO TODAY AND NOT TO USE THEM UNTIL THEY'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY -- THE SAME OPPORTUNITY THAT YOU HAVE FOR INTERVIEWING THE WITNESSES. THAT IS MY INCLINATION.
IN YOUR OWN WISDOM, YOUR HONOR, I CERTAINLY CAN LIVE WITH THAT. LET ME FIRST ENDORSE THE FIRST PART OF YOUR INCLINATION NOT FOR A CONTINUANCE, AND WITH REGARD TO THE OTHER PEOPLE --
BUT I AM GOING TO AFFORD THE PROSECUTION TIME OVER THE LUNCH HOUR TO SIT DOWN AND GO FRAME BY FRAME OVER THAT VIDEO THAT YOU HAVE JUST BROUGHT IN, BECAUSE I SAW IT FLASHING BY, TOO, AND IT APPEARED TO ME TO BE A COMPOSITE OF SEVERAL DIFFERENT TYPES OF FOOTAGE.
AND YOUR HONOR, CERTAINLY I THINK THAT IS ABSOLUTELY REASONABLE, AND ALTHOUGH THE WORLD AWAITS THE OPENING STATEMENTS, I THINK --
I WAS SAYING THE SAME THING AND I DON'T THINK WE DO EITHER FROM OUR OWN POINT. IF THEY NEED SOME ADDITIONAL TIME TO LOOK AT THE GRAPHICS, IT IS THEIR CRIME SCENE, YOUR HONOR, SO HOW BIG A SURPRISE COULD THIS BE TO THEM? SO WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THAT. AND I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST ON THE DISCOVERY ISSUES, IF YOU ALLOW US BY THE END OF DAY, MR. HODGMAN WILL BE SATISFIED WITH REGARD TO EVERYTHING WE HAVE. WE WILL HAVE EACH OF THE INVESTIGATORS DOWN HERE TO MAKE SURE THERE IS NO REPORT WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT AND WE CAN DISCUSS THAT.
THERE IS ONE HYBRID PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE HERE. CERTAINLY THE PROSECUTION IS NOT SURPRISED TO SEE THE NAME KATHLEEN BELL, BUT THEY ARE PERHAPS SURPRISED TO SEE A NEW STATEMENT OR STATEMENTS OF HER OR ABOUT HER. THAT IS THE ONLY HYBRID ISSUE THAT WE HAVE.
WE WILL ADDRESS THAT ISSUE, YOUR HONOR, ALSO, AND ALSO I THINK THERE IS ANOTHER MOTION TODAY THAT MR. BAILEY WILL BE HANDLING THAT WILL BEAR ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, IT SEEMS TO ME ALSO, IF WE CAN LEAVE THIS WITH THE COURT.
I HAVE ON MY AGENDA WHAT I CALLED FUHRMAN 2, WHICH IS NEW ARGUMENT ON THAT ISSUE OR YOUR NEW OFFER OF PROOF ON THAT ISSUE.
ALL RIGHT. JUST SO WE ARE CLEAR, THE COURT'S RULING IS AS FOLLOWS -- AND I'M GOING TO ACCEPT KATHLEEN BELL BECAUSE I WANT TO HEAR THE ARGUMENT AS TO OTHER THE PART.
THE DEFENSE MAY USE IN THEIR OPENING STATEMENT MR. GLORIOSO, MR. MATSUDA, DR. PALEY, CLAUDINE RATCLIFFE, ROLF ROKAHR, TRACIE SAVAGE, RON SHIPP, MARK STEVENS AND DR. LENORE WALKER. THE REMAINDER THE NAMES ON THE WITNESS LIST MAY NOT BE USED BY THE DEFENSE IN THEIR OPENING STATEMENT OR REFERRED TO UNTIL THE PROSECUTION HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONDUCT REASONABLE INVESTIGATION AS TO THESE PERSONS WHO ARE JUST NOW DISCLOSED THE MORNING SCHEDULED FOR OPENING STATEMENTS. THIS LIST WILL BE MARKED AS COURT'S EXHIBIT 1 FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS MORNING'S HEARING.
WITH RESPECT TO MR. MATSUDA, I THINK -- LET ME REMIND THE COURT THAT THERE WAS AN INTERVIEW CONDUCTED OF HIM BY MR. PAVELIC SOME MONTHS AGO AND IT HAS NOT BEEN EVER TURNED OVER TO THE PROSECUTION.
BECAUSE WE ASKED MR. MATSUDA. WE CONTACTED WESTEC AND THEY INFORMED US THAT THERE WAS PROBABLY MORE THAN ONE INTERVIEW AND IT OCCURRED SOME TIME AGO, IT WAS LENGTHY IN NATURE, AND THERE IS NO REPORT THAT HAS EVER BEEN TURNED OVER TO US.
I AM NOT AWARE OF IT AND WE WILL GET MR. PAVELIC AVAILABLE TO THE COURT AND WE WILL HAVE A MEETING BETWEEN MR. HODGMAN OR MR. DOUGLAS AND SOLVE THE PROBLEM.
COUNSEL, AT THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS TODAY I WILL SIT DOWN WITH YOU, DEFENSE COUNSEL, COURT REPORTER, AND WE WILL GO THROUGH THESE ISSUES ONE AT A TIME FOR DISCOVERY PURPOSES. WE WILL CONCLUDE THIS THIS AFTERNOON.
THE PROBLEM, YOUR HONOR, IS THERE MAY HAVE BEEN -- THERE MAY BE ISSUES THAT WE WANT TO ADDRESS IN OUR OPENING STATEMENT PERTAINING TO SOME OF THESE WITNESSES, PARTICULARLY THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE WITNESSES, AND HOW CAN WE POSSIBLY DO SO EFFECTIVELY IF WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THEY SAID? COUNSEL HAS REFUSED TO TURN OVER ANY STATEMENTS MADE BY THEM. WE ONLY TODAY DISCOVERED THEIR NAME AND THEY HAVE NOT EVEN REDUCED A LOT OF THOSE STATEMENTS TO WRITING, WHICH THE COURT KNOWS THE IMPROPRIETY OF THAT, SO HOW CAN WE PRESENT AN OPENING STATEMENT WITHOUT KNOWING WHO THESE PEOPLE ARE WHICH WE MAY WANT TO ADDRESS?
WE DON'T NEED TO GET INTO COUNSEL'S HEAD, AS COUNSEL HAS INDICATED. WE HAVE NO DESIRE TO DO SO. PRIVACY ISSUES ARE BEING RESPECTED HERE.
YOU ARE WELCOME. BUT WE DO NEED TO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE, SO WE HAVE TO ADDRESS THE OPENING STATEMENT AND WE CANNOT MEANINGFULLY MAKE AN INTELLIGENT DECISION WITHOUT KNOWING THAT COUNSEL HAS DEPRIVED US OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO. NOT ONLY THAT, BUT THE VIDEOTAPE -- THE COURT SEES THERE ARE A LOT OF ISSUES OF FOUNDATIONAL SHOWINGS CONCERNING TIMING. COUNSEL IS SPRINGING ALL OF THESE EXHIBITS ON US AT THE LAST MINUTE. AND I INDICATED TO THE COURT THERE IS ONE WE STILL HAVE NOT YET SEEN THAT IS NOT EVEN PRESENT IN COURT YET THAT CONTAINS A LOT OF MISREPRESENTATIONS OF FACT.
THOSE WERE LIES AND THESE STATEMENTS PROVE THAT THEY WERE LIES BECAUSE THESE STATEMENTS WERE TAKEN IN JUNE AND JULY. AND YET AS RECENTLY AS JANUARY THEY WERE SAYING THAT THEY HAD NO FURTHER DISCOVERY TO GIVE US AND THAT THEY WERE IN FULL COMPLIANCE.
DO YOU EXPECT ME TO BELIEVE THAT?
ONCE I STOOD BEFORE THIS COURT AND INDICATED I WAS SLOW TO ANGER. IT COMES A LITTLE MORE QUICKLY THIS MORNING.
MY INCLINATION AT THIS POINT IS TO DENY THE MOTION TO CONTINUE, BUT TO PRECLUDE YOU FROM USING IN YOUR OPENING REMARKS ANY OF THE STATEMENTS MADE BY ANY OF THE WITNESSES THAT WERE UNKNOWN TO THE PROSECUTION PRIOR TO TODAY.
THEY HAVE FAR MORE RESOURCES THAN WE, YOUR HONOR. THOUST PROTEST TOO MUCH WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE EQUITIES THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE.