ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, WE HAVE THREE MATTERS TO TAKE UP BEFORE WE BEGIN THE DEFENSE OPENING STATEMENT. FIRST, IF I CAN HAVE ONE REPRESENTATIVE FROM EACH SIDE APPROACH THE BENCH, I HAVE A NEW REPORT FROM ROD ENGLERT REGARDING APPARENTLY THE SOCKS. ALL RIGHT. THE SECOND MATTER IS TO HEAR FROM COURT T.V., AN EXPLANATION AS TO THE PROBLEM REGARDING THE VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT RULE 980. AFTER I HEAR THAT EXPLANATION AND MAKE A RULING WHETHER OR NOT THE TELEVISION CAMERA WILL STAY OR GO, I WILL THEN CONDUCT A HEARING WITH JUROR NO. 1492, THE AFFECTED JUROR, TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT KNOWING THAT HER IMAGE HAS BEEN BROADCAST, THAT HER ANONYMITY HAS BEEN COMPROMISED, WHETHER OR NOT IT WILL CAUSE ANY IMPACT UPON HER ABILITY TO SIT AS A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TRIAL JUROR AND WHETHER OR NOT HER FRAME OF MIND WILL BE AFFECTED. MISS SAGER, FIRST OF ALL, LET ME APOLOGIZE TO YOU FOR THE PERSONAL INCONVENIENCE TO YOU. I UNDERSTAND YOU WERE ON VACATION IN COLORADO.

I WAS, YOUR HONOR.

BUT THIS IS CERTAINLY NOT MY DOING.

I UNDERSTAND THAT, YOUR HONOR.

I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR A SPECIFIC EXPLANATION FROM COURT T.V. AND WHOEVER WHO IS IN COURT AS TO HOW THIS HAPPENED.

CERTAINLY, YOUR HONOR. WITH THE COURT'S PERMISSION I WOULD LIKE TO DEFER FOR A MOMENT TO RON OLSON WHO WANTS TO MAKE A STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF COURT T.V. AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COURT AND ANSWER ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS THAT YOUR HONOR HAS.

GOOD MORNING, MR. OLSEN.

GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. MAY IT PLEASE BE COURT, ON BEHALF OF COURT T.V., AT THE VERY OUTSET, I WANT TO APOLOGIZE TO THIS COURT FOR THE MISTAKE THAT WAS MADE. IT WAS ALSO NECESSARY FOR US TO APOLOGIZE TO THE DEFENDANT, THE DEFENSE TEAM, THE PROSECUTION, THE REST OF THE MEDIA THAT IS DEPENDENT UPON COURT T.V., AND INDEED THE VIEWING PUBLIC ITSELF, FOR CAUSING THIS HEARING AND INTERRUPTING THIS PROCEEDING. IT WAS AN ERROR, A REGRETTABLE ERROR, A HIGHLY REGRETTABLE ERROR THAT WE BELIEVE WILL NOT HAPPEN AGAIN. IT HAPPENED, YOUR HONOR, AS A RESULT OF A SCAN OF THE CAMERA REACHING SUFFICIENTLY FAR AROUND TO CATCH THE ALTERNATE JUROR MOMENTARILY. THAT WAS AN ERROR WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN CAUGHT AND WASN'T. AGAINST OVER 30,000 HOURS OF COURT T.V. TIME WITHOUT A GLITCH, YOUR HONOR, THIS MOMENTARY BLOTCH IS A VERY BIG STAIN AND ONE THAT THE PRESIDENT OF COURT T.V. IS DEDICATED TO REMEDY AND DEDICATED TO PREVENTING FROM A REPEAT. THE RESPONSES THAT WERE MADE WHEN THIS WAS NOTICED, YOUR HONOR, WERE IMMEDIATE AND WERE TAKEN INSTINCTIVELY AND WITHOUT HESITATION. IMMEDIATELY THIS COURT WAS PUT ON NOTICE AND PROVIDED WITH A DUB OF THE MOMENT THAT CAPTURED THE ALTERNATE JUROR. IMMEDIATELY THE REST OF THE MEDIA WAS PUT ON NOTICE AND REQUESTED NOT TO REBROADCAST ANY PORTION OF THAT. NOW, THOSE RESPONSES DO NOT IN ANY WAY ERASE THAT ERROR, YOUR HONOR, BUT I HOPE THEY WILL REASSURE THE COURT OF THE INADVERTENCE OF THE ERROR AND OF THE INTEGRITY OF THE COURT T.V. PERSONNEL WHO ARE INVOLVED. THE STEPS THAT HAVE BEEN TAKEN, YOUR HONOR, AS A RESULT OF A REEXAMINATION OF A SYSTEM UNDER THE DIRECTION THAT MR. BRILL HIMSELF AND CYNTHIA GLOZIER AND THE TECHNICAL CONSULTANT, SCOTT SHULMAN -- MISS GLOZIER AND SCOTT SHULMAN ARE AVAILABLE TO THE COURT THIS MORNING IF THE COURT WISHES TO PURSUE IT DIRECTLY WITH THEM -- BUT AS A RESULT OF THEIR REEXAMINATION OF ALL OF THE STEPS THAT COULD BE TAKEN TO REASSURE THE COURT AND RAISE THE CONFIDENCE LEVEL OF EVERYBODY INVOLVED THAT THIS CANNOT BE REPEATED, THREE -- FOUR VERY FUNDAMENTAL STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN OR WILL BE TAKEN. FIRST, WITH THE COURT'S PERMISSION AND DIRECTION, A CURTAIN WILL BE PLACED UNDER THE CAMERA. THAT CURTAIN WILL PREVENT ANY SHOWING OF ANYBODY BELOW THE CURTAIN, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE SWING OF THE CAMERA. IT WILL PREVENT ANY HUMAN ERROR. THIS WAS HUMAN ERROR. SECONDLY, YOUR HONOR -- AND I HAVE A DRAWING OF HOW THAT WOULD LOOK IF THE COURT WOULD LIKE. SECONDLY, YOUR HONOR, A DIRECT DEDICATED LINE HAS NOW BEEN PUT IN PLACE, IT IS RIGHT NOW IN PLACE, BETWEEN THE PHOTOGRAPHER RUNNING THE CAMERA AND THE KILL ROOM THAT WILL KILL, UPON REVIEW, ANY MISTAKE IN THE FUTURE. THAT WILL BE A DIRECT COMMUNICATION LIKE DEDICATED ONLY TO THAT LINK, THAT COMMUNICATION LINK. THIRD, YOUR HONOR, THERE IS WITHIN THE KILL ROOM ITSELF, A NEW OPERATOR AND AN ADDITIONAL OPERATOR. THE NEW OPERATOR, YOUR HONOR, IS THE MOST EXPERIENCED OPERATOR THAT EXISTS. THE PERSON, FOR INSTANCE, WHO DID THE RODNEY KING TRIAL. THE PERSON IS A NEW YORK LAWYER AND A REPORTER AND WILL BE DEDICATED ONLY TO REVIEWING THE DELAY.

THAT IS QUITE A COMBINATION.

SCARES ME, TOO. IT IS DESIGNED TO SCARE EVERYBODY ELSE. IN ADDITION, YOUR HONOR, A SECOND PERSON HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE KILL ROOM THAT IS A CALIFORNIA LAWYER. BOTH HAVE NO TASK OTHER THAN TO REVIEW THIS. FOURTH, YOUR HONOR, THE CAMERA OPERATOR, AS I THINK THE COURT WAS AWARE, WAS NOT THE NO. 1 CAMERA OPERATOR YESTERDAY. HE HAD A MEDICAL PROBLEM, CHRIS BANCROFT. THAT IS BEYOND HIM NOW, WE ARE THANKFUL, AND HE IS BACK WITH THE CAMERA IF THE COURT PERMITS THE CAMERA TO GO FORWARD IN THIS PROCEEDING. I DON'T THINK THERE IS A CHANCE THAT THIS KIND OF ERROR CAN BE REPEATED. I WOULD HOPE THAT THE COURT WILL APPRECIATE THAT WHEN IT WAS -- WHEN IT DID OCCUR, THERE WASN'T ANY CONSULTING OF ME OR ANY OF THE OTHER LAWYERS INVOLVED. INSTINCTIVELY THE COURT T.V. PERSONNEL PUT THIS COURT ON NOTICE AND DID THE BEST TO LIMIT THE MISTAKE THAT WAS MADE. I KNOW THIS COURT HAS TAKEN EXTRAORDINARY MEASURES TO ASSURE A FAIR TRIAL FOR THE DEFENDANT, TO ALLOW ALL PARTICIPANTS FAIR PARTICIPATION AND MEANINGFUL ACCESS TO THE PUBLIC IN ACCORD WITH THE CALIFORNIA POLICY FAVORING THE CAMERA IN THE COURTROOM. WE ALSO KNOW THAT THAT POLICY WAS PUT IN JEOPARDY BY THIS ERROR. WE WOULD ASK THE COURT FOR A SECOND CHANCE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT COURT T.V. IS AS DEDICATED TO CARRYING OUT ITS RESPONSIBILITY AS I KNOW YOUR HONOR AND THE LAWYERS IN THIS COURTROOM ARE IN CARRYING OUT THEIR RESPONSIBILITY. AS YOUR HONOR SAID ON MONDAY, THE DEFENDANT IS ON TRIAL, NO DOUBT, FOREMOST IMPORTANCE, BUT ALSO THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IS ON TRIAL. WE BELIEVE THAT WITH A SECOND CHANCE THAT JUSTICE SYSTEM GETS A SECOND CHANCE. THE PUBLIC HAS SEEN IN THIS CASE EVERYTHING BUT THE EVIDENCE, EVERYTHING BUT YOUR HONOR'S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RULES AND PROCEDURES THAT ASSURE A FAIR TRIAL. WE URGE THE COURT TO FORGIVE THE MISTAKE, ALLOW THE CAMERA TO CONTINUE TO REPORT THESE PROCEEDINGS. I AGAIN OFFER THE COURT ACCESS TO THE TECHNICAL PERSONNEL IF THERE IS ANY QUESTION THAT IS BEYOND MY COMPETENCE.

WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW SPECIFICALLY WHAT THE PRODUCER PLANS TO DO AS FAR AS RETRAINING, REINSTRUCTING THE PERSONNEL WHO ARE INVOLVED IN THIS, THE SPECIFICS.

YES. I THINK MISS SAGER HAS TAKEN AN INTEREST IN THIS, NOT ONLY BECAUSE OF HER ASSOCIATION WITH COURT T.V., BUT WITH THE ENTIRE POOL. THERE HAS BEEN, AS I SAID, STEPS TAKEN TO ADD A SECOND PERSON IN THE KILL ROOM. THERE HAS BEEN TAKEN STEPS FOR DIRECT COMMUNICATION AND THERE WILL BE THE PHYSICAL INTERRUPTION CURTAIN IF THAT IS PERMITTED BY THE COURT. IN ADDITION, I THINK MISS SAGER HAS OTHER STEPS THAT SHE MIGHT BE ABLE TO APPRISE THE COURT OF.

I WOULD LIKE TO ECHO MR. OLSEN'S REMARKS AND AGAIN APOLOGIZE TO THE COURT ON BEHALF OF COURT T.V. IT WAS AN UNFORTUNATE SERIES OF ERRORS THAT LED TO THIS RESULT, ALL OF WHICH I THINK CAN BE MIXED WITH THE STEPS THAT MR. OLSEN HAS SUGGESTED.

WHAT CONCERNS ME, THOUGH, IS THAT IT WAS A SERIES OF ERRORS; IT WAS NOT JUST ONE ERROR.

I UNDERSTAND, YOUR HONOR, AND PART OF THAT, AS I UNDERSTAND WHAT HAPPENED, THE REMOTE CAMERA WAS TESTED REPEATEDLY TO SEE WHAT THE SCOPE OF THE CAMERA ANGLE WOULD BE, BUT EVIDENTLY WHEN THOSE TESTS WERE DONE IT WASN'T KNOWN, OR IT WAS AT LEAST NOT COMPLETED, THAT THE PODIUM WOULD BE MOVED TO RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE JURY BOX FOR THE OPENING STATEMENTS. AND SO WHEN THE CAMERA WAS ATTEMPTING TO CAPTURE COUNSEL STANDING RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE JURY BOX FOR OPENING STATEMENTS, USING THE WIDE ANGLE LENS THAT THEY WOULD NORMALLY USE TO CAPTURE COUNSEL STANDING AT THE PODIUM OR THE WITNESS BOX, CAPTURE THE WITNESS, THE ANGLE WAS SLIGHTLY TOO WIDE AND CAPTURED ONE OF THE JURORS WHO ARE SITTING IN FRONT OF JURY BOX. AND HAD THE EXPERIENCED CAMERA OPERATOR BEEN ON DUTY YESTERDAY, HE EVIDENTLY HAD BEEN AWARE OF THAT, BUT BECAUSE HE WAS NOT AVAILABLE A LESS EXPERIENCED CAMERA OPERATOR DOING THAT FOR THE FIRST TIME WITH THE PODIUM MOVED IN A POSITION WHERE HE HAD NOT TESTED IT WAS NOT AWARE THAT THAT ANGLE WOULD CAPTURE A PORTION OF A JUROR'S FACE, AND IMMEDIATELY UPON RECOGNIZING THAT DID SWING THE CAMERA AWAY.

HAVE YOU VIEWED THE ACTUAL TAPE? IT IS NOT JUST A PORTION OF THE FACE.

I HAVE VIEWED THE TAPES, YOUR HONOR, YES. THE SECOND ERROR WHICH CAN BE FIXED IS THAT THAT OPERATOR, IMMEDIATELY RECOGNIZING THE ERROR, TRANSMITTED OVER HIS HEADSET TO A PERSON UP IN THE PRESS ROOM THAT A JUROR HAD BEEN CAUGHT, BUT THAT PERSON WAS NOT THE PERSON WITH THE KILL SWITCH. THE DIRECT LINK WAS NOT BETWEEN THE CAMERA OPERATOR AND THE PERSON WITH THE KILL SWITCH. AND BY THE TIME THE PERSON IN THE PRESS ROOM COULD COMMUNICATE IT TO THE WOMAN RUNNING THE KILL SWITCH, IT WAS TOO LATE. THAT CAN ALSO BE FIXED AND HAS BEEN FIXED, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, ALREADY THIS MORNING, SO THAT THE CAMERA OPERATOR IN THE COURTROOM WILL HAVE A DIRECT AUDIO LINK UP WITH THE PEOPLE IN THE KILL SWITCH ROOM WHO ARE SEPARATE FROM THE PRESS ROOM SO THAT INSTANTLY UPON NOTICING AN ERROR THEY CAN FIX IT. THE THIRD PROBLEM, WHICH ALSO IS BEING FIXED, IS THE WOMAN WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF THE KILL SWITCH YESTERDAY EVIDENTLY HAD NOT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO VIEW THE COURTROOM AND WAS NOT AWARE THAT THERE WERE JURORS SITTING IN FRONT OF THE JURY BOX.

ISN'T THAT -- IN MANAGING A SITUATION LIKE THIS, ISN'T THAT A PRETTY CRITICAL THING, THAT THE PERSON -- PERSONNEL INVOLVED ARE ADEQUATELY TRAINED AND INSTRUCTED?

AND I CAN'T APOLOGIZE ENOUGH TO THE COURT OR TO THE PARTIES FOR THAT ERROR HAVING HAPPENED.

SO HOW AM I HOW ASSURED THAT THE PERSONS WHO ARE NOW WORKING THE SWITCH ARE ADEQUATELY STRAINED AND INSTRUCTED? I DON'T HAVE A HIGH LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE IN THAT.

AND I UNDERSTAND THE COURT'S CONCERN. THE TECHNICAL PART OF IT, WHICH WILL SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF RELYING SOLELY ON HUMAN ERROR WHICH IS THE FLAG SCREEN THAT MR. OLSEN MENTIONED, IN ADDITION TO ALL OF THESE HUMAN CHECKS, HAVING ADDITIONAL PEOPLE IN THE KILL SWITCH ROOM WHO ARE TRAINED WITH A VIEW OF THE ROOM AND UNDERSTAND THE LAYOUT AND KNOW WHERE THE JURORS ARE SEATED AND POSSIBLY OF EVEN SEEING THE JURORS IN PERSON SO THEY COULD RECOGNIZE THEM. THE TECHNICAL PART OF IT WHICH WILL HOPEFULLY ELIMINATE ANY NEED FOR RELYING SIMPLY ON HUMAN CHECKS IS TO ADD THE SCREEN UNDERNEATH THE CAMERA SO THAT IT SIMPLY CANNOT CAPTURE ANYTHING BELOW THE EDGE OF COUNSEL TABLE, BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENED WAS THE CAMERA ANGLE COULD BE WIDE ENOUGH THEN THAT SOMEONE STANDING AT THE PODIUM, AS MISS CLARK WAS YESTERDAY, YOU COULD CAPTURE THE ENTIRETY OF THE PERSON STANDING THERE AND THAT IS HOW THE JUROR WAS CAPTURED. WITH THE SCREEN YOU WOULD ONLY BE ABLE TO CAPTURE PART OF THE PERSON STANDING AT THAT PODIUM OR THE EDGE OF THE TABLE. THE CAMERA SIMPLY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO CAPTURE ANYTHING BELOW A CERTAIN POINT. AND ONE OF THE TECHNICIANS HAS DRAWN A DIAGRAM WHICH WE CAN SHOW TO THE COURT TO EXPLAIN HOW THAT CAN BE DONE SO THAT THERE IS NO CHANCE THAT THE CAMERA CANNOT CAPTURE IT ANY MORE THAN IT COULD SWING DOWN LOW ENOUGH TO CAPTURE ANYONE ELSE.

WOULDN'T A SIMPLE REMEDY BE TO HAVE A SINGLE STATIC SHOT?

YOUR HONOR, I THINK THAT IS AN EXTREME REMEDY THAT IS NOT NECESSARY BECAUSE WE CAN TECHNOLOGICALLY CONTROL IT TO ALLOW THE CAMERA TO VIEW A WITNESS AT THE WITNESS STAND OR COUNSEL AT THE PODIUM, AND SIMPLY LIMITING TO THAT RANGE OF VISION ELIMINATES THE PROBLEM OF CAPTURING THE JURORS BY ALLOWING THE VIEWING PUBLIC AND THE MEMBERS OF THE MEDIA WHO WANT TO WATCH AND EVALUATE THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESS, THE DEMEANOR OF COUNSEL, TO CAPTURE BOTH OF THOSE THINGS. AND IT IS CERTAINLY A VERY UNFORTUNATE INCIDENT WHICH I THINK CAN BE FIXED, BUT I ALSO THINK IT WOULD BE UNFORTUNATE IF THE COURT WERE TO REACT BY, IN ESSENCE, PUNISHING ALL THE MEDIA, NOT ONLY THE BROADCAST MEDIA, BUT THE PRINT MEDIA WHO RELY ON THE VIDEO FEED IN ORDER TO ACCURATELY REPORT THE PROCEEDINGS, AND THE VIEWING PUBLIC. AND I RECEIVED A LETTER JUST THIS MORNING WHICH I SUBMITTED TO THE COURT AND I UNDERSTAND WAS GIVEN TO COUNSEL FROM A LAW PROFESSOR CONCERNED ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE JUDGE WAS CONSIDERING TERMINATING ELECTRONIC COVERAGE BECAUSE OF ITS IMPORTANCE TO THE VIEWING PUBLIC AND THE UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE PROCESS WORKS. AND I THINK THE TECHNOLOGICAL FIXES THAT HAVE BEEN OFFERED BY COURT T.V. ARE SUFFICIENT TO SOLVE THESE PROBLEMS, AND CERTAINLY EVERYONE HAS LEARNED A VERY VALUABLE LESSON HERE. WE ARE DEALING WITH HUMAN BEINGS; THEY MAKE MISTAKES. AND AS COUNSEL HAVE AND THE MEDIA HAVE IN THE PAST, THE COURT HAS IN EVERY INSTANCE GEARED ITS RESPONSE PROPORTIONATELY TO SOLVE WHATEVER THE PROBLEM WAS THAT HAS OCCURRED OR WHATEVER COUNSEL HAS DONE THAT IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF WHAT THEY ARE PERMITTED TO DO. AND I WOULD HOPE IN THIS INSTANCE THE COURT WOULD SIMILARLY ACT TO SIMPLY RESTRICT WHAT NEEDS TO BE RESTRICTED TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM, WHICH CAN BE DONE, AND NOT PULL THE PLUG ON THE CAMERAS OR OTHERWISE PENALIZE THE PRESS AND THE PUBLIC FROM VIEWING THIS TRIAL.

WITH THE COURT'S PERMISSION, I WOULD LIKE TO FURTHER ANSWER THE COURT'S INQUIRY REGARDING THE LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE IN THE KILL ROOM. I THINK IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN PERSPECTIVE, YOUR HONOR, THERE HAS BEEN A 30,000-HOUR RECORD IN THE PAST. THE MOST EXPERIENCED KILL OPERATOR IS NOW IN THE KILL ROOM, WAS NOT YESTERDAY. THIS IS THE NEW YORK LAWYER REPORTER THAT I REFERRED TO. I THINK THE COURT MIGHT EVEN WISH TO TALK TO THAT PERSON, BUT I THINK THAT IS THE LEVEL OF ADDED CONFIDENCE, IN ADDITION TO PUTTING A SECOND HUMAN BEING IN TO FURTHER PROTECT AGAINST THAT KIND OF HUMAN ERROR IN THE FUTURE, SO WE WILL PUT IN THE MOST EXPERIENCED AND ADD A SECOND PERSON.

I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM MISS GLOZIER.

GOOD MORNING, MISS GLOZIER. CYNTHIA, CORRECT?

YES, SIR.

GOOD MORNING.

GOOD MORNING.

HOW ARE WE GOING TO REMEDY THIS?

BASICALLY, YOUR HONOR, WE WOULD LIKE TO APOLOGIZE TO MR. SIMPSON AND TO THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA.

MISS GLOZIER, LET ME START OUR DISCUSSION WITH THIS: I VERY MUCH ADMIRE YOUR COURAGE AND CANDOR FOR IMMEDIATELY BRINGING THIS TO MY ATTENTION. THAT WAS OF THE UTMOST HIGHEST LEVEL OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS ON YOUR PART. THE QUESTION IS HOW DO WE AVOID THIS IN THE FUTURE? AND MY CONCERN IS HOW ARE YOU GOING TO RETRAIN OR TRAIN YOUR STAFF OR PERSONNEL TO AVOID IT? THAT IS MY CONCERN. AND I WANT TO KNOW WHAT SPECIFIC MEASURES ARE TAKEN. THE FACT THAT YOU'VE GOT THE MOST EXPERIENCED KILL SWITCH PERSON UP THERE NOW DOESN'T INSTILL IN ME A HIGH LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE, BECAUSE THAT PERSON, TO MY UNDERSTANDING, HAS NOT BEEN IN THE COURTROOM AND CANNOT UNDERSTAND THE PHYSICAL LAYOUT THAT WE HAVE HERE AND OPERATING WITH THIS RATHER UNIQUE CAMERA ANGLE, WHICH WAS MY IDEA IN THE FIRST PLACE WHICH I'M BEGINNING TO REGRET TODAY.

OUR MOST EXPERIENCED DELAY OPERATOR IS KRISTIN JEANNETTE MYERS AND SHE HAS BEEN IN THIS COURTROOM.

SHE IS IN THE COURTROOM RIGHT NOW.

SHE HANDLED THE KILL SWITCH ON THE RODNEY KING CASE. SHE HAS A GREAT DEAL OF EXPERIENCE IN THIS. AND WE ALSO HAVE ANOTHER PERSON WHO IS -- WHO IS FLYING IN FROM NEW YORK WHO ALSO HAS HAD SIMILAR EXPERIENCE TO KRISTIN.

IF I CAN INTERJECT, YOUR HONOR, MISS MYERS WAS NOT THE OPERATOR IN THE ROOM YESTERDAY.

NO, SHE WASN'T. THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN WITH COURT T.V. SINCE THE VERY BEGINNING. WE HAVE NOT HAD A PROBLEM WITH THIS IN THE PAST. THE ERROR YESTERDAY WAS AS MUCH MY ERROR AS IT WAS OUR OPERATOR'S. I WAS IN THE TRUCK AND I WAS WATCHING THE FEED AND I MISSED IT. WE WERE VERY LUCKY TO HAVE A WONDERFUL PERSON ON THE CAMERA WHO REALIZED WHAT HAD HAPPENED, WHO CALLED US AND WE IMMEDIATELY CALLED THE COURT. WE WILL NOT LET THIS HAPPEN AGAIN. WE WILL NOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN AGAIN.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MISS GLOZIER. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MISS SAGER, MR. OLSEN.

THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. MR. COCHRAN.

VIEWS OR OBSERVATIONS.

YES, YOUR HONOR. MR. SHAPIRO WILL GIVE OUR OBSERVATIONS, YOUR HONOR.

GOOD MORNING, COUNSEL.

GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. OUR CONCERN HAS ALWAYS BEEN IN THIS CASE FOR A FAIR TRIAL AND WE WERE CONCERNED THAT MEDIA COVERAGE COULD AND WOULD INTERFERE WITH THAT RIGHT. AS A RESULT OF THAT, WE HAVE LOST MANY JURORS, WE'VE HAD TO HAVE JURORS SEQUESTERED, AND YESTERDAY WE SUFFERED A VERY DEVASTATING SETBACK. AT THE TIME THAT WE WERE TO GET UP AND ANSWER THE PROSECUTION'S OUTLINE OF THEIR CASE, WE NOT ONLY WERE DEPRIVED OF THAT VERY IMPORTANT MOMENT, BUT ALSO WE WERE FACED WITH A SITUATION WHERE THE JURY HAD TO ABRUPTLY BE INTERRUPTED AND GO HOME UNDER A GREAT CLOUD THAT SOMETHING WAS GOING ON, AND THAT HAS CAUSED US IRREPARABLE HARM. THE JURY HAS HAD THE ENTIRE EARLY EVENING AND NIGHT TO CONTEMPLATE THE REMARKS MADE BY THE PROSECUTORS AND ALSO TO THINK ABOUT WHY THESE PROCEEDINGS WERE INTERRUPTED SO ABRUPTLY, AND IT IS VERY ADMIRABLE THAT EVERYBODY APOLOGIZES, THAT IT WAS A MISTAKE AND THAT IT WAS A GOOD FAITH MISTAKE, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT OUR CONCERN IS A MUCH MORE SELFISH ONE. WE ARE CONCERNED WITH ONE PERSON AND ONE PERSON ONLY; O.J. SIMPSON WHO IS ON TRIAL FOR HIS LIFE. AND WHEN HIS RIGHTS ARE INTERFERED WITH THE WAY THEY WERE YESTERDAY, WE ARE SERIOUSLY CONCERNED. AND IT IS VERY NICE TO THINK OF POTENTIAL REMEDIES SO IT WON'T HAPPEN AGAIN, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW WE CAN EVER RESTORE WHAT WAS TAKEN AWAY FROM HIM YESTERDAY TO THIS JURY WHO IS GOING TO SIT IN JUDGMENT OF HIM. AND WE HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT THIS. AS THE COURT KNOWS, WE COLLECTIVELY HAVE ALWAYS ADVOCATED THE RIGHT TO HAVE THE PUBLIC VIEW OUR COURT PROCEEDINGS AND TO HAVE IT AIRED SO THAT PEOPLE COULD REALLY SEE WHAT OUR LEGAL SYSTEM IS ABOUT. BUT EVERYTHING IN LAW IS BALANCING AND THE COURT MUST BALANCE MR. SIMPSON'S RIGHTS AGAINST ALL THESE OTHER RIGHTS THAT HAVE BEEN SO ELOQUENTLY PUT FORWARD BY MISS SAGER AND MR. OLSEN. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ANSWER IS. WE ARE ASKING THE COURT TO CERTAINLY ALLOW OUR RESPONSE AND OUR OPENING STATEMENT TO BE HEARD, BUT WE EVEN HAVE A GREATER CONCERN AND WE ADDRESSED THAT YESTERDAY. WE HAVE SOME WITNESSES WHO HAVE BEEN INTIMIDATED BY THE MEDIA. WE HAVE SOME WITNESSES WHO ARE NOW VERY RELUCTANT TO COME TO COURT. WE HAVE SOME WITNESSES WHO DON'T WANT TO HAVE THEIR FACE ON TELEVISION. AND WE WOULD ASK THE COURT TO ALLOW OUR WITNESSES, AS A REMEDY, TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THEIR TESTIMONY WILL BE AIRED IF THE COURT ALLOWS CAMERAS BACK INTO THE COURTROOM.

THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

I WILL HEAR FROM THE PEOPLE.

MAY I HAVE ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?

MISS CLARK.

YOUR HONOR, IT IS THE PEOPLE'S POSITION THAT IT WOULD BE IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE AND THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE FOR THE DEFENDANT AS WELL -- EXCUSE ME -- I'M LOSING MY VOICE -- TO PERMIT COVERAGE -- TELEVISION COVERAGE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. THE PEOPLE WOULD URGE THE COURT, IF IT CHOOSES TO DO SO, THAT IT DO SO EQUALLY AND COMPLETELY. THE PEOPLE'S WITNESSES HAVE ALSO BEEN INTIMIDATED BY THE MEDIA. THE PEOPLE'S WITNESSES AS EQUALLY INTIMIDATED BY THE PROSPECT OF APPEARING ON NATIONAL TELEVISION WHEN THEY TESTIFY, BUT THEY HAVE BEEN INFORMED IT IS A FACT OF LIFE, THAT IF THERE IS COVERAGE, THERE WILL BE COVERAGE OF THEIR TESTIMONY AS WITH ALL OTHER WITNESSES. I THINK THERE SHOULD BE NO DIFFERENT RULE FOR THE WITNESSES FOR THE DEFENSE THAN THERE IS FOR THE PEOPLE'S WITNESSES. SO THE PEOPLE DO URGE THE COURT TO CONTINUE THE COVERAGE SO THAT THE PEOPLE OF THIS STATE, AS WELL AS OF THIS COUNTRY, CAN OBSERVE THE JUDICIAL PROCESS.

WHAT IS THE REASON FOR YOUR CHANGE IN POSITION FROM YESTERDAY?

YESTERDAY THE PEOPLE WERE CONCERNED THAT THE DEFENSE BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE JURY IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE PEOPLE'S CASE, BECAUSE WE APPRECIATED THE SITUATION ALLUDED TO TODAY BY MR. SHAPIRO, THAT THE DEFENSE WOULD WANT TO GET UP AND IMMEDIATELY ADDRESS THEM. THEY ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT AUDIENCE IN THIS CASE. BUT THE DEFENSE ELECTED NOT TO DO SO IF THERE WAS NOT COVERAGE.

THAT IS A MISSTATEMENT, JUDGE.

I'M SORRY IF I HAVE MISSTATED. IT APPEARED THAT THE DEFENSE -- THAT IS THE WAY TO -- I DON'T MEAN TO MISCHARACTERIZE. ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT THE PEOPLE WERE IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENSE BEING ALLOWED TO ADDRESS THE JURY IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE PEOPLE'S STATEMENT. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT IT IS ANYWHERE NEAR THE DEVASTATING IMPACT THAT COUNSEL HAS REPRESENTED TO THE COURT TODAY. IT IS GOING TO BE A LENGTHY TRIAL. I KNOW THAT THE JURORS WILL BE ABLE TO KEEP OPEN MINDS, HAVE KEPT OPEN MINDS AND ARE EAGERLY ANTICIPATING THE REMARKS OF MR. COCHRAN, WHO IS A VERY ABLE ATTORNEY. I THINK THAT THIS IS ACTUALLY NOT A CHANGE IN POSITION SO MUCH AS IT IS IF WE ARE CONSIDERING THE BROAD PICTURE. THE PEOPLE DO FAVOR AND URGE THE COURT TO CONSIDER CONTINUING THE TELEVISED COVERAGE.

THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

MAY I SAY ONE THING, YOUR HONOR?

MR. COCHRAN.

MAY I SAY ONE THING?

ONE THING, MR. COCHRAN.

MAYBE TWO.

YOUR HONOR, I THOUGHT WE HAD --

I THOUGHT WE HAD A ONE-LAWYER RULE.

WE HAVE A SEGUE EXCEPTION.

THIS IS THE SEGUE EXCEPTION, YOUR HONOR. THE SEGUE EXCEPTION AND IT IS MORE ABOUT OPENING STATEMENTS. I JUST WANTED TO INDICATE THAT WITH REGARD TO THE OPENING STATEMENT, I JUST WANTED THE RECORD TO BE CLEAR THAT WE WERE READY TO PROCEED. AS THE COURT WAS AWARE, I HAD AN EXHIBIT UP THERE. MISS CLARK DIDN'T REALIZE IT WHEN YOUR HONOR SAID WE WERE GOING TO TAKE A RECESS. WE WEREN'T GOING TO STAND OUT HERE AND TALK TO OURSELVES IS THE FIRST THING I WAS GOING TO SAY. AND THE SECOND THING, YOUR HONOR, WE WANTED AN EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN WITNESSES WHO ARE CONCERNED, AND THIS COURT HAS THAT DISCRETION. IF A WITNESS IS CONCERNED ABOUT HAVING THEIR FACE SHOWN, THE COURT CAN MAKE THAT EXCEPTION. WE DIDN'T ASK FOR THAT ONLY FOR OURSELVES. MISS CLARK MISCONSTRUES AGAIN. WE ARE JUST SAYING THAT WE WANT YOU TO HAVE THAT DISCRETION AND WE KNOW OF SOME WITNESSES FROM OUR SIDE WHO WOULD LIKE THAT. WE ARE JUST SAYING THAT WOULD APPLY EQUALLY TO THEM. WE WEREN'T ASKING ONLY FOR THE DEFENSE.

WELL, CLEARLY THE DISCRETION TO LIMIT TELEVISION COVERAGE OF A PARTICULAR WITNESS IS WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT. THE COURT WILL CERTAINLY TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE WISHES OF THE PARTIES AND THE WISHES OF THE WITNESSES. THAT IS IN THE COURT'S DISCRETION. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

WELL, THE COURT HAS HAD THE BENEFIT OF A NIGHT'S SLEEP ON THE ISSUE. THE COURT HAS, FOR THE RECORD, VIEWED THE VIDEOTAPE ON EIGHT OCCASIONS. THE ALTERNATE JUROR IN QUESTION, NO. 1492, IS CLEARLY VISIBLE AND EASILY IDENTIFIABLE. THIS IS A CLEAR VIOLATION OF RULE 980 SUB (B) SUB (2) WHICH SAYS:

"CLOSE UP PHOTOGRAPHY OF JURORS IS PROHIBITED," UNQUOTE, AND THIS IS ONE OF THE VERY MOST IMPORTANT RESTRICTIONS OF OUR ELECTRONIC MEDIA COVERAGE IN THE COURTROOM, FOR OBVIOUS REASONS THAT I DON'T THINK I NEED TO EXPLAIN HERE. THIS WAS A CLEAR AND OPEN VIOLATION OF RULE 980. THIS WAS A RESULT OF THE FAILURE OF THE CAMERA PERSON TO APPRECIATE THE SWING OF THE CAMERA, FAILURE OF THE TIME DELAY MONITOR, AND IT APPEARED TO BE A FAILURE OF TRAINING, SUPERVISION OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS. I ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION THAT THIS WAS AN INADVERTENT AND NON-INTENTIONAL VIOLATION OF RULE 980. I FIND THAT THERE WAS NO BAD FAITH INVOLVED, NO ATTEMPT TO CIRCUMVENT THE COURT'S RULES REGARDING MEDIA COVERAGE. THE COURT NOTES THAT THE USUAL CAMERA PERSON WAS NOT PRESENT IN THE COURTROOM AND WE HAD A SUBSTITUTE IN THAT PERSON'S STEAD. AS I MENTIONED TO MISS GLOZIER, I COMPLIMENTED HER ON HER CANDOR AND PROFESSIONALISM, SOMETHING THAT IS REFRESHING TO THIS COURT. THE CAMERA PERSON IS TO BE COMPLIMENTED. AND WHAT IS HIS NAME, MISS GLOZIER.

CHRIS GAZETTA.

MR. GAZETTA IS TO BE COMPLIMENTED FOR THIS IMMEDIATE REPORT OF THIS TRANSGRESSION TO HIS SUPERIORS. THE COURT T.V. MANAGEMENT IS TO BE COMMENDED FOR THEIR IMMEDIATE REPORT TO THE COURT. WITHIN MINUTES OF THE TRANSGRESSION BECOMING APPARENT, THERE WAS IMMEDIATE COOPERATION WITH THE COURT'S INQUIRY ABOUT PROVIDING A VHS COPY OF THE OFFENDING OUTTAKE. ACTUALLY, IT WASN'T AN OUTTAKE BECAUSE; IT WAS BROADCAST. THE REMEDY WILL BE AS FOLLOWS: THE COURT WILL DIRECT THE COURT T.V. TO TAKE A SINGLE SET STATIC SHOT UNLESS AND UNTIL FURTHER PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS ON THE CAMERAS ARE IN PLACE. THE COURT HAD ALREADY DECIDED TO DIRECT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A DIRECT OPEN LINE BETWEEN THE CAMERA PERSON AND WHAT I WOULD CALL THE BLEEPER PERSON. APPARENTLY THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN PUT IN PLACE. AND I'M GOING TO DIRECT COURT T.V. AND THEIR STAFF TO INTENSIVELY RETRAIN AND REORIENT THEIR PERSONNEL ASSIGNED TO THIS PARTICULAR CASE. THE COURT IS NOW GOING TO TAKE A PUBLIC RECESS AND ASK THE BAILIFF TO BRING THE JURORS DOWN AND I'M GOING TO ASK FOR TWO REPRESENTATIVES FROM EACH SIDE TO MEET WITH ME IN CHAMBERS AND I'M GOING TO TALK TO JUROR NO. 1492 AND I'M GOING TO SHOW HER THE VIDEOTAPE SO SHE IS AWARE OF THE NATURE OF THE DISCLOSURE AND THE RATHER FLEETING MOMENT THAT IT IS. I'M GOING TO INQUIRE OF HER IF THIS WILL HAVE ANY IMPACT UPON HER ABILITY TO SIT AS A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TRIAL JUROR ON THIS CASE. I WOULD URGE THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE NEWS MEDIA TO NOT OVERLY IDENTIFY JUROR NO. 1492 AND HER DESCRIPTION, WHICH HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PAST, SO THAT HER IDENTITY IS STILL KEPT CONFIDENTIAL. ALL RIGHT. DEPUTY MAGNERA, LET'S HAVE THE JURORS BROUGHT DOWN AND LET'S ANTICIPATE STARTING DEFENSE OPENING STATEMENT AT FIVE MINUTES AFTER 10:00. ALL RIGHT. CAN I HAVE TWO REPRESENTATIVES INSIDE WITH THE COURT REPORTER.