ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, BE SEATED, PLEASE. THE RECORD WILL REFLECT THE JURY HAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE COURTROOM. COUNSEL, I THINK WE HAVE A COUPLE OF DISCOVERY MATTERS WE NEED TO TAKE UP BEFORE WE RECESS. I HAD BEEN UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THERE HAD BEEN A DISCLOSURE OF THE REPORT FROM JUDGE WONG. APPARENTLY I'M MISTAKEN.

I THINK MR. SHAPIRO WILL ADDRESS THAT.

IF WE ARE DIRECTED TO GIVE IT TO THE PROSECUTION, WE WILL. WE BELIEVE THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE USED IN REBUTTAL, AND UNDER THE RULES OF DISCOVERY, WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO TURN IT OVER AT THIS TIME.

WELL, THE ONLY COMPLICATION IS, THERE WAS AN INDICATION OF INTENT TO USE IT IN OPENING STATEMENT WHICH --

NO. IT WASN'T AN INTENT TO USE IT IN OPENING STATEMENT. IT WAS AN INTENT TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS AN ITEM THAT WAS LISTED ON A SEARCH WARRANT TO BE SEIZED AND THAT WE WERE GOING TO INDICATE FURTHER INCOMPETENCE ON THE PART OF LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT THAT ITEM WAS OVERLOOKED AND WAS LATER RECOVERED BY A SPECIAL MAGISTRATE AND MASTER APPOINTED BY YOUR HONOR, JUDGE WONG. SO IT'S REALLY --

SO YOU ARE SAYING --

-- GOING TO BE USED FOR IMPEACHMENT.

THIS IS COMING IN AS IMPEACHMENT AFTER THE PROSECUTION HAS PRESENTED ITS SEARCHING OFFICERS?

YES.

MR. HODGMAN, AS TO THAT ITEM?

YOUR HONOR, I SHARE THE COURT'S REACTION IN TERMS OF ROLLING THE EYES. FIRST OF ALL, THERE IS ONLY ONE REPORT WHICH HAS BEEN AVAILABLE TO THE PROSECUTION. THE COURT KNOWS THAT. I DOUBLE-CHECKED AS RECENTLY AS TWO WEEKS AGO JUST TO BE SURE.

I WAS MISTAKEN IN MY ASSUMPTION THAT HAD BEEN TURNED OVER BECAUSE I RECALL SOME REPORT HAVING BEEN TURNED OVER TO YOU WITH REGARD TO THAT. SO I ASSUMED -- MY MISTAKE.

THE PROBLEM IS, YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE WHAT OCCURRED THIS AFTERNOON, AND THAT IS VERY, VERY PREJUDICIAL TO THE PEOPLE. I DON'T THINK I NEED TO EXPLAIN THAT ANY FURTHER IN TERMS OF THAT DEMONSTRATION FOR DRAMATIC EFFECT, PREJUDICIAL EFFECT TO THE PEOPLE. WE'RE GOING TO ASK THAT THE COURT ADMONISH THE JURY TO DISREGARD THAT, ASK ANY REFERENCE TO IT BE STRICKEN, THAT DEFENSE NOT BE ALLOWED TO PRODUCE OR UTILIZE THAT ITEM IN ANY FASHION WHATSOEVER. AND, YOUR HONOR, WE WILL BE ASKING IN ADDITION IN A LITTLE BIT OF TIME TO TALK ABOUT DISCOVERY. EXCUSE ME. I NEED TO SLOW DOWN MYSELF A LITTLE BIT, YOUR HONOR. GIVE ME JUST A MOMENT.

YESTERDAY OR THE OTHER DAY, THE COURT HAD TO TAKE A DEEP BREATH. ALLOW ME TO TAKE ONE TOO.

I TOOK A DEEP BREATH AND THEN DECIDED TO TAKE A RECESS AND DECIDED I SHOULD GO HOME.

WE NOTICED, YOUR HONOR.

WE DON'T HAVE THAT OPTION, DO WE?

WE CAN'T DO THAT.

I DON'T KNOW.

YOUR HONOR, THE COURT IS ABSOLUTELY ACCURATE IN THE SENSE THAT WE HAVE SOME DISCOVERY ITEMS OF CONCERN THAT DESERVE DISCUSSION THIS AFTERNOON. IN COUNSEL'S OPENING STATEMENT TODAY, THERE HAS BEEN REFERENCE -- I HAVE A LAUNDRY LIST HERE, BUT THAT LAST REFERENCE --

LET'S DEAL WITH THEM ONE AT A TIME. I HAVE A NUMBER OF WITNESSES THAT WERE MENTIONED THAT I HAVE CONCERN ABOUT. BUT LET'S DEAL WITH THE ENVELOPE AND ITS CONTENTS AND THE RECORDS RELATING TO IT. WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE? WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE SPECIFICALLY TO MR. SHAPIRO'S ARGUMENT THAT -- I AGREE WITH YOU, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE ENVELOPE'S USE DURING THE COURSE OF OPENING STATEMENT. BUT WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE TO MR. SHAPIRO'S ARGUMENT THAT SINCE IT WAS GOING TO BE PRESENTED AS AN IMPEACHMENT ITEM -- AND UNFORTUNATELY -- WELL, YOU KNOW FROM THE REPORT WHAT THE ITEM IS, FROM DR. LEE'S AND DR. SUGIYAMA'S REPORT AS TO WHAT THE ITEM IS. SO THAT'S NOT ADMISSIBLE.

WE KNOW WHAT THE ITEM IS, YOUR HONOR. BUT AS FAR AS THE STATED PURPOSE, I MEAN, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I BELIEVE OCCURRED ON SHAKING SANDS THIS AFTERNOON. WE ARE GOING TO ASK FOR A HEARING WITH REGARD TO UTILIZATION OF THE ENVELOPE AND CONTENTS OF THE ENVELOPE, AND WE CERTAINLY ASK OR WHAT I REQUESTED THUS FAR IS AN ADMONITION TO THE JURY.

LET ME ASK YOU THIS, MR. HODGMAN. JUST AS FAR AS THE ENVELOPE AND ITS CONTENTS, YOU KNOW WHAT IT IS. WE KNOW THAT IT WAS AN ITEM SOUGHT BY THE POLICE SEARCH WARRANT AND THEY DID NOT IN FACT RECOVER IT.

YOUR HONOR, WE DON'T KNOW THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE RECOVERY OF THAT ITEM.

I KNOW.

AND TO STATE --

NO. MR. HODGMAN, I'M STATING A KNOWN FACT. YOU KNOW WHAT IS IN THE ENVELOPE FROM THE REPORT FROM THE TWO DOCTORS OR THE CRIMINALIST AND THE DOCTOR. YOU KNOW THERE'S AN ITEM THAT WAS ORIGINALLY SOUGHT OR SOMETHING SIMILAR TO IT WAS SOUGHT IN THE SEARCH WARRANT, CORRECT?

I KNOW THAT ITEMS LIKE THAT. THAT PARTICULAR ITEM, YOUR HONOR, I DON'T KNOW THE SOURCE. I DON'T KNOW THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE RECOVERY.

LET'S ASSUME WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING.

I CAN'T MAKE THAT ASSUMPTION, YOUR HONOR. I DON'T KNOW UNTIL WE GET DISCOVERY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE RECOVERY OF THAT ITEM. I MEAN, WE ARE COMPLETELY IN THE DARK. AND WHAT YOUR HONOR -- AGAIN, I'M GOING TO --

HERE'S THE POINT. THE POINT THOUGH, THEY'RE SAYING THEY DON'T HAVE TO DISCLOSE IT BECAUSE IT'S IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE, THAT IT'S GOING TO COME DURING THE COURSE OF THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE POLICE OFFICERS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO CALL SERVING THE SEARCH WARRANT WHO SEIZE THE EVIDENCE. WHAT'S YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT?

MY RESPONSE, YOUR HONOR --

THAT'S THE ISSUE.

IT HAS BEEN DISCLOSED. WE WANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A HEARING ON THIS AND LITIGATE IT. MY POSITION RIGHT NOW IS THAT ITEM SHOULD BE SIMPLY SUPPRESSED. NOW, WE HAVE A STATED PURPOSE FROM COUNSEL THIS AFTERNOON, BUT THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FORTHCOMING IN AN OPENING STATEMENT, NOT AT ALL, YOUR HONOR.

MR. SHAPIRO, I'M CONCERNED THOUGH THAT YOU'VE SORT OF WAIVED CERTAIN CONFIDENTIALITY AS TO WHAT IT IS BY ITS USE OR ATTEMPTED USE IN OPENING STATEMENT; WOULDN'T YOU AGREE?

NO, YOUR HONOR. I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE. THERE WAS NEVER ANY INTENTION TO OPEN IT. THE ONLY INTENTION WAS TO TELL THE JURY SOMETHING VERY SIMPLY; THAT THE POLICE HAVE NOT DONE A PROPER JOB INVESTIGATING THIS CASE. AND IT STARTED AT THE BEGINNING AND IT WENT TO THE END. AND EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD TWO SEARCH WARRANTS TO SEARCH A LOCATION AND TO LOOK FOR A PARTICULAR ITEM AS DIRECTED BY TWO JUDGES, THAT THEIR INCOMPETENCE WAS SO GROSS THAT THEY OVERLOOKED A POTENTIAL KEY ITEM OF EVIDENCE; AND WE WILL POINT THAT OUT AS IMPEACHING EVIDENCE OF THE OFFICERS WHO WERE IN CHARGE OF THE SEARCH. WE WERE NOT GOING TO OPEN IT, WE WERE NOT GOING TO DESCRIBE ITS CONTENTS, WE WERE NOT GOING TO MENTION WHERE IT CAME FROM. WE WERE SIMPLY GOING TO SAY THAT THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT HAD DIRECTIONS FROM TWO JUDGES TO LOOK FOR SOMETHING.

WELL, THE VALUE IN NOT HAVING TO DISCLOSE SOMETHING THAT'S BEING USED FOR IMPEACHMENT PURPOSES IS OBVIOUS. THE PROBLEM IS, YOU'VE CREATED A PROBLEM BY BRINGING THE ENVELOPE OUT. I AGREE THAT MR. HODGMAN'S ENTITLED TO A HEARING BEFORE THE ITEM IS ACTUALLY OPENED, AND WE WILL HAVE THAT HEARING AT THE TIME THAT THE DEFENSE INTENDS TO PRESENT THAT, PRIOR TO THEN.

WE WOULD ALSO ASK THE COURT TO INQUIRE WHAT GROUNDS THERE ARE FOR THE PEOPLE TO SUPPRESS AN ITEM OF IMPEACHMENT.

THEY'VE ASKED FOR A HEARING.

ON WHAT GROUNDS?

WELL, I HAVE NO IDEA. I AM SURE BETWEEN NOW AND TWO MONTHS FROM NOW WHEN IT'S ACTUALLY PRESENTED --

NO. IT MAY BE PRESENTED AS EARLY AS TOMORROW, DEPENDING ON WHAT WITNESSES THEY CALL.

COULD BE. WE'LL SEE. WELL, PRIOR TO ITS PRESENTATION, WE WILL HOLD A HEARING OUTSIDE OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY AS TO WHAT -- THEY ARE ENTITLED TO KNOW WHAT IT IS BEFORE YOU USE IT TO PREPARE THEIR WITNESSES.

THEY ALREADY KNOW WHAT IT IS. THEY'VE ALREADY STATED THAT.

NOW, AS TO THE NAMES -- SO THE ISSUE WILL REMAIN UNRESOLVED UNTIL THE MATTER ACTUALLY COMES UP FOR PRESENTATION BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S THE TIME TO LITIGATE THAT ISSUE. BUT YOU ARE ON NOTICE THAT IT'S THERE.

WE ARE ON NOTICE THAT IT IS THERE, BUT WE ARE STILL COMPLETELY IN THE DARK, THE PEOPLE ARE COMPLETELY IN THE DARK AS TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE RECOVERY. WE MAY KNOW WHAT IT IS, YOUR HONOR, BUT COUNSEL HAS INFORMATION AND IS MAKING ILLUSIONS THIS AFTERNOON --

MR. HODGMAN, LET ME SUGGEST YOU DO THIS THOUGH. MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW ON IMPEACHMENT IS, THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE IT UNTIL THEY WANT TO USE IT IF IT'S IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE. IF YOU HAVE SOME EVIDENCE OUT OF THE LAW OF DISCOVERY THAT'S CONTRARY TO THAT, LET ME KNOW TOMORROW. IF YOU'VE GOT SOME CASES TO THE CONTRARY, LET ME KNOW.

ALSO, PERHAPS IT MIGHT HELP MR. HODGMAN THAT THIS ITEM WAS NOT RECOVERED BY US, BUT IT WAS RECOVERED BY A RETIRED JUDGE AT THE COURT'S DIRECTION.

ON WHOSE BEHEST? HOW DID THE JUDGE KNOW TO GO OUT THERE?

YOUR HONOR, WE ARE STILL UNAWARE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF WHERE, WHEN THIS ITEM WAS RECOVERED. WE DON'T KNOW. THE PEOPLE HAVE NEVER KNOWN. COUNSEL APPARENTLY KNOWS, AND IT WAS -- THAT WHOLE ARRANGEMENT WAS DONE AT THE REQUEST OF THE DEFENSE.

MR. HODGMAN, IT'S OBVIOUSLY A DISCOVERY ISSUE. THE QUESTION IS, ARE YOU ENTITLED TO KNOW ABOUT THEIR IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE BEFORE THEY PRESENT IT, UNTIL JUST BEFORE THEY PRESENT IT. MY READING OF THE LAW OF DISCOVERY IS, THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS NO, IF IT'S IMPEACHMENT. IF YOU HAVE SOME AUTHORITY TO THE CONTRARY, LET ME KNOW TOMORROW. ALL RIGHT. I'VE DIRECTED MR. COCHRAN -- I GAVE THE ENVELOPE BACK TO MRS. ROBERTSON, DIRECTED HIM NOT TO USE IT IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT. THAT'S WHERE WE STAND.

AND WITH REGARD TO THAT, YOUR HONOR, AGAIN, WE REPEAT OUR REQUEST FOR AN ADMONITION TO THE JURY.

NO. YOU DON'T NEED TO REPEAT IT. THANK YOU.

VERY WELL.

OKAY. LET'S GO TO --

WITNESSES.

I AM SORRY. MR. COCHRAN, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SPELL THOSE NAMES FOR ME.

WHICH ONE, YOUR HONOR?

GOTCHAS.

MARYANNE GERCHAS? I THINK IT'S MARYANNE GERCHAS, G-E-R-C-H-A-S, YOUR HONOR, I BELIEVE.

WHEN YOU BRING UP SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THE COURT REPORTER WOULD BE THRILLED IF YOU SPELL IT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

I WILL.

MR. DOUGLAS, ARE YOU GOING TO ADDRESS THESE DISCOVERY ISSUES REGARDING WITNESSES?

I'M GOING TO TRY, YOUR HONOR.

ALL RIGHT.

THE COURT IS WELL AWARE THAT WE HAVE BEEN WORKING DILIGENTLY IN THIS MATTER. THE COURT IS EQUALLY AWARE THAT THE WORK IN THIS CASE HAS BEEN DIVIDED AMONG A COUPLE OF OFFICES AND INVESTIGATORS, ET CETERA. IT PERHAPS IS REGRETTABLE THAT I STAND BEFORE THIS COURT, THAT WE HAVE NOT COORDINATED ALL OF OUR DEFENSE EFFORTS AS WELL AS I WOULD HAVE LIKED BEFORE THIS POINT. I SAY THAT BECAUSE, YOUR HONOR, I HAVE SOME DOCUMENTS THAT I DO INTEND TO GIVE OVER TO THE PEOPLE. AS THE COURT HAS ENCOURAGED BOTH LAST NIGHT AND BEFORE, I HAVE HAD A LAW CLERK WORKING FROM MID MORNING ON YESTERDAY PREPARING TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTS AND ANY WITNESS STATEMENTS ON THIS MATTER.

ONE OF THE ITEMS I FORGOT TO DO THIS MORNING WAS TO ASK FOR YOUR REPORT THIS MORNING.

AND THAT IS WHAT I AM DOING RIGHT NOW, YOUR HONOR.

ALL RIGHT. MY MISTAKE.

BY WAY OF BACKGROUND, JUST SO I CAN LEND SOME SCOPE TO WHAT OUR EFFORTS HAVE INVOLVED, I HAVE IN MY OWN OFFICE 16 NOTEBOOKS OF DIFFERENT WITNESS STATEMENTS. THEY ARE PRIMARILY STATEMENTS THAT WERE PROVIDED BY DISCOVERY GIVEN ME BY THE PEOPLE. THERE WERE THEN EFFORTS BY MY INVESTIGATORS TO INTERVIEW SOME OF THOSE WITNESSES AT VARIOUS OCCASIONS, AND THERE HAVE BEEN LEADS THAT HAVE BEEN DERIVED FROM THOSE INTERVIEWS. AT VARIOUS TIMES, THERE HAVE BEEN FIVE DIFFERENT INVESTIGATORS WORKING IN VARIOUS ASPECTS ON THIS CASE REPORTING NOT ONLY TO MY OFFICE, BUT TO MR. SHAPIRO'S OFFICE AS WELL. THE NORMAL PROCESS HAS BEEN THAT DUPLICATE COPIES OF ALL INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS BE SUBMITTED BOTH TO MR. SHAPIRO'S OFFICE AND TO OUR OFFICE AS WELL. THE NORMAL PROCESS HAS BEEN THAT I HAVE WORKED VERY CLOSELY WITH MISS SARA CAPLAN, MR. SHAPIRO'S OFFICE, MUTUALLY COORDINATING DIFFERENT DISCOVERY, MUTUALLY COORDINATING THE PREPARATION OF DIFFERENT DEFENSE WITNESS LISTS AND COMPARING WHAT ITEMS WOULD COMPLY WITH THE DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF DISCOVERY CONSISTENT WITH OUR INTERPRETATION OF OUR OBLIGATION UNDER THE DISCOVERY ACT. I AM PREPARED AT THIS TIME -- BECAUSE THERE HAS NOW BEEN WHAT I HOPE IS A FINAL SEARCH OF ALL NAMES THAT WERE ON OUR WITNESS LIST, NOT ONLY ON THE RECENT WITNESS LIST, BUT ALSO ON THE LIST THAT WAS PREPARED IN AUGUST OF 1994. AND WE WENT THROUGH EACH OF THOSE 16 BOOKS, YOUR HONOR, AND WE WENT THROUGH AND PULLED ANY DEFENSE REPORTS. AND THIS AFTERNOON, I HAD MISS CAPLAN COMPARE ALL OF THE REPORTS THAT WERE SIFTED THROUGH AND TAKEN OUT OF MY NOTEBOOKS WITH THOSE DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED TO THE PEOPLE. I HAVE A STACK OF -- NOT A STACK. I HAVE PROBABLY 12 REPORTS, 13 INCLUDING THE REPORT OF MR. -- I WILL REPRESENT TO THE COURT AS AN OFFICER OF THIS COURT THAT MISS GERCHAS' STATEMENT I SEE FOR THE FIRST TIME ONLY FIVE MINUTES AGO. IT IS A COPY OF A STATEMENT THAT WAS TAKEN JULY OF 1994. YOUR HONOR, I ACKNOWLEDGE AND I ANTICIPATE THAT THERE WILL BE STRENUOUS EFFORTS TO IMPUNE BOTH MY PERSONAL INTEGRITY AND THE INTEGRITY OF THE DEFENSE TEAM. I TELL THIS COURT, LOOKING THE COURT STRAIGHT IN THE EYE WITH ALL SERIOUSNESS, THAT IT HAD BEEN AN OVERSIGHT AND I AM EMBARRASSED BY IT AND I TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY. IT IS MY OBLIGATION AS THE COORDINATOR OF THE EVIDENCE TO BE BETTER ON TOP OF THE WITNESS FLOW AND THE PREPARATION OF STATEMENTS AND REPORTS. IT IS MY BLAME AND MY BLAME ALONE AND I TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY. I AM REMINDED BY MR. COCHRAN THAT MISS GERCHAS IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHOM THE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN AWARE OF BECAUSE, AS IS AT LEAST OUR UNDERSTANDING, MISS GERCHAS WAS -- HAD CONTACTED BOTH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. HOWEVER, YOUR HONOR, I ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY BECAUSE HER NAME WAS ADDED TO OUR LIST IN JULY -- I AM SORRY -- IN AUGUST. THERE WAS A STATEMENT THAT WAS TAKEN APPARENTLY FROM AN INVESTIGATOR WHO WE DO NOT WORK HAND IN HAND WITH EACH DAY. IT DOES NOT EXCUSE IT, YOUR HONOR, AND I SEEK NOT TO EXCUSE IT. I AM ONLY OFFERING AN EXPLANATION. I AM PROVIDING TODAY A STATEMENT OF MARYANNE GERCHAS, AND THAT IS A STATEMENT THAT IS SIGNED BY HER FULLY WITHIN THE -- BOTH THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER OF THE DISCOVERY ACT, FULLY A DOCUMENT THAT WE WERE OBLIGED TO TURN OVER IN AUGUST OF 1994. I AM ALSO TURNING OVER A STATEMENT OF MISS MICHELLE ABUDRAHM, WHICH IS DATED JUNE 24TH OF 1994. THIS IS A SECOND STATEMENT THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN TURNED OVER IN AUGUST. BUT SHE IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS THE FORMER MAID OF MR. SIMPSON WHO WAS STRUCK BY NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON WHO THEY ARE FULLY AWARE OF. THEY HAVE BEEN INTERVIEWING DIFFERENT WITNESSES ABOUT THE INCIDENTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES GIVING RISE TO MISS BROWN SIMPSON STRIKING MICHELLE ABUDRAHM. SO THEY ARE AWARE OF HER EXISTENCE.

MR. DOUGLAS, COULD YOU SPELL THE NAME FOR ME, PLEASE?

SURE, YOUR HONOR. A-B-U-D-R-A-H-M. I AM TURNING OVER, YOUR HONOR, A STATEMENT BY -- OF A RACHEL BERMAN WHO IS AN EIGHT YEAR OLD WHO ACCOMPANIED THE SIMPSON CHILDREN AND NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, A PERSON WHOM THEY ARE AWARE OF. SHE ACCOMPANIED THEM TO BEN AND JERRY'S IF YOU WILL AND SHE ACCOMPANIED THEM TO MEZZALUNA. SHE IS AN EIGHT YEAR OLD. HER NAME WAS GIVEN ONLY THIS MONDAY ON OUR SUPPLEMENTAL WITNESS LIST.

WHAT'S THE DATE OF THAT STATEMENT?

THAT STATEMENT IS DATED JUNE 20TH, 1994, YOUR HONOR. HER MOTHER'S NAME HAS BEEN ON OUR WITNESS LIST. THE STATEMENT OF THE MOTHER WAS EARLIER GIVEN. WE DECIDED ONLY THIS WEEK TO ADD THE CHILD ON OUR WITNESS LIST. I AM TURNING OVER A STATEMENT DATED JULY 31 OR DATED AUGUST THE 1ST CONCERNING A JULY 31 INTERVIEW OF AN ALEX CASTILLO, WHOM MISS CAPLAN INFORMS ME WAS NOT PREVIOUSLY TURNED OVER.

AND WHAT IS MR. CASTILLO'S RELEVANCE?

MR. CASTILLO WAS AN EMPLOYEE, MEZZALUNA RESTAURANT. AND HE GIVES TESTIMONY OR INFORMATION CONCERNING A SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT BY DETECTIVE TOM LANGE SUGGESTING THAT HE HAD GIVEN MR. GOLDMAN A BEEPER AND DENYING SAME. I AM TURNING OVER AN AUGUST 2 --

LET ME JUST CLARIFY. IS THIS THE BRENTWOOD MEZZALUNA OR BEVERLY HILLS?

THAT'S CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.

WHICH?

THIS IS THE BRENTWOOD MEZZALUNA. I'M SORRY. I AM TURNING OVER A STATEMENT OF NARINDEN, N-A-R-I-N-D-E-N, SINGH, S-I-N-G-H. MR. SINGH IS THE OWNER OF A NEWSSTAND ACROSS THE STREET FROM MEZZALUNA. HE IS ON OUR WITNESS LIST. IT IS SIMPLY TALKING ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF A VIDEO CAMERA AT HIS NEWSSTAND. HE IS ON THE WITNESS LIST AS JUST A PRECAUTION.

WHAT IS THE DATE OF THAT STATEMENT?

AUGUST THE 2ND, 1994. I AM TURNING OVER A REPORT FOR KEVIN WHELAN, W-H-E-L-A-N. THE REPORT IS DATED AUGUST THE 3RD, 1994. HE WORKS AS A DISPATCHER WITH NETWORK COURIER SERVICES, WHO SPEAKS ABOUT A COURIER HAVING CALLED THE DISPATCH AND SAYING THAT THE COURIER HAD OBTAINED AN AUTOGRAPH OF O.J. SIMPSON ON JUNE THE 12TH, 1994 AT 11:20 P.M. AND THE STATEMENT IS, "YOU'LL NEVER GUESS WHOSE AUTOGRAPH I GOT. O.J.'S." I AM TURNING OVER A STATEMENT, YOUR HONOR, DATED JULY 14TH, 1994 OF A TONY PARKER. AS THE COURT WILL RECALL, I DID NOT KNOW ON MONDAY WHO TONY PARKER WAS. AS THE COURT WILL FURTHER RECALL, I TURNED TO MISS CAPLAN, AND SHE DIDN'T KNOW WHO HE WAS. THIS IS A STATEMENT THAT COMES FROM ONE OF OUR INVESTIGATORS. MR. PARKER IS THE OWNER OF A WHITE 1973 INTERNATIONAL SCOUT FOUR-WHEEL DRIVE WHICH WAS PARKED ON BUNDY NORTH OF DARLINGTON ON JUNE THE 11TH THROUGH JUNE THE 13TH, 1994. I AM TURNING OVER, YOUR HONOR, A TWO-PAGE DOCUMENT GIVEN FROM MARK PARTRIDGE. MR. PARTRIDGE IS THE --

THE LAWYER REFERRED TO BY MR. COCHRAN.

CORRECT, YOUR HONOR. DATED JUNE 27, 1994. AND THERE'S A FAX COVER SHEET DATED JUNE 25, 1994. I AM TURNING OVER A REPORT FROM MISS ROSITA RHEUBAN, R-H-E-U-B-A-N, DATED AUGUST 21ST, 1994. SHE IS CONNECTED WITH RHEUBAN MOTORS, WHICH WAS ONE OF THE IMPOUND YARDS I THINK THAT IS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE CONCERNING A.C. COWLINGS' BRONCO.

WHAT'S THE DATE OF IT?

AUGUST THE 23RD, 1994. I AM TURNING OVER ANOTHER REPORT FOR PAUL SONENSHINE, S-O-N-E-N-S-H-I-N-E, DATED AUGUST 16TH, 1994 CONCERNING AN INTERVIEW THAT HE HAD. HE IS AN EMPLOYEE OF RHEUBEN'S IMPOUND YARD, AND HE TALKS ABOUT THE FACT THAT MR. COWLINGS' BRONCO WAS LEFT IN AN UNSECURED LOCATION. I AM TURNING A REPORT OVER DATED JULY 20, 1994 OF MR. THOMAS TALERINO, T-A-L-E-R-I-N-O, WHO TALKS ABOUT THE FACT THAT HE WAS ROLLER SKATING ON JUNE THE 12TH, 1994 ON BUNDY AND HE SEES A MAN HIDING IN THE BUSHES NEAR 877 SOUTH BUNDY WHO WAS NOT THE DEFENDANT. I AM TURNING OVER A REPORT OF DR. RONALD -- MR. RONALD TAYLOR DATED JUNE 22, 1994, WHO RESIDES IN CHICAGO, WHO SAID THAT MR. TAYLOR HAD OCCASION ON JUNE 13TH TO SEE O.J. SIMPSON. WHEN MR. TAYLOR ARRIVED -- WHEN MR. SIMPSON ARRIVED IN CHICAGO, THAT HE SHOOK HIS HANDS, EXCHANGED A FEW PLEASANTRIES, OBSERVED HIS HANDS AND DID NOT SEE ANY SCRATCHES OR CUTS AND HOW MR. SIMPSON WAS VERY FRIENDLY AND GRACIOUS, BUT APPEARED TIRED FROM THE FLIGHT. I AM TURNING OVER A REPORT DATED JULY 19, 1994 FROM MR. JASON WOOD, WHO APPARENTLY WORKED FOR AIR TOUCH CELLULAR LOCATED IN IRVINE AND WHO HAPPENED TO CALL MR. SIMPSON ON HIS CELLULAR PHONE ON JUNE 17TH, 1994. I AM ALSO TURNING OVER A REPORT OF A MR. JOEL PITCOFF, P-I-T-C-O-F-F, DATED AUGUST 24TH, 1994. MR. PITCOFF IS A RESEARCH AND ANALYST, MANAGER OF THE FORD MOTOR COMPANY, AND THIS IS THE REPORT TESTIFYING OR STATING THAT FOR THE 10-MONTH PERIOD FROM OCTOBER '93 THROUGH JULY '94, 26,688 FORD BRONCOS WERE SOLD NATIONALLY, 20,012 WERE SOLD IN THE FIRST SEVEN MONTHS OF 1994.

HOW MANY WHITE ONES?

YOUR HONOR, THIS REPORT DOES NOT BREAK DOWN THE NUMBER OF WHITE ONES. AND THOSE ARE THE STATEMENTS THAT I CAN SAY NOW WITH A STRONGER DEGREE OF CONFIDENCE ARE ALL STATEMENTS THAT ARE DISCOVERABLE THAT ARE OBLIGATED TO BE TURNED OVER. AS I SAY, YOUR HONOR, I TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY FAILURES TO HAVE FULLY COMPLIED WITH.

I SUSPECT, YOUR HONOR, THAT THE BEST WAY TO DEAL WITH THESE OBJECTIONS, ONE, IS TO STRONGLY ADMONISH THE DEFENSE, AS YOU PROBABLY WILL DO. I THINK A SECOND APPROPRIATE OBJECTION WOULD BE THAT WHEN WE GET TO THE DEFENDANT'S CASE, WHICH WILL BE LIKELY IN TWO MONTHS IF NOT LONGER, THAT YOU ASK THE PEOPLE FOR THE STATUS OF THEIR INVESTIGATIVE EFFORTS AS TO THESE PARTICULAR WITNESSES. THAT IF THE PEOPLE CAN MAKE A SHOWING THAT THEY HAVE FAILED OR BEEN UNABLE TO FULLY COMPLETE ANY INVESTIGATION AS TO ANY OF THESE INDIVIDUALS AFTER HAVING TWO MONTHS OR MORE TO DO SO, THAT WE BE REQUIRED TO CALL THESE WITNESSES TOWARDS THE END OF OUR CASE. I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE A SANCTION THAT WOULD BE MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE SANCTION THAT WAS EARLIER IMPOSED ON THE PROSECUTOR, BUT I THINK THAT MY LEARNED COLLEAGUES MIGHT HAVE SOME OTHER THOUGHTS IN THAT REGARD.

YOUR HONOR, ONE VOICE PER ISSUE.

YEAH.

AS I SAID EARLIER, YOUR HONOR, SINCE JANUARY 1ST OF THIS YEAR, I HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING THE EVIDENCE, FOR MAKING SURE THAT DISCOVERY HAS BEEN FULLY COMPLIED WITH. CERTAINLY, THIS TURNING OVER OF DOCUMENTS TODAY REFLECTS A BREACH IN THE PROCESS. IT IS ONE THAT PREDATES MY CURRENT ROLE, BUT ONE THAT I ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR BECAUSE SOMEBODY HAS TO. I THINK HOWEVER, YOUR HONOR, WHEN YOU TAKE THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, GIVEN THE SCOPE AND THE MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, GIVEN THE NUMBER OF WITNESSES ON BOTH INDIVIDUALS' WITNESS LISTS, GIVEN THE TIME AND THE CARE AND THE EFFORT THAT HAS OBVIOUSLY BEEN PLACED INTO THIS CASE BY BOTH SIDES, THAT THE COURT SHOULD FASHION ANY SANCTION, IF AT ALL, THAT IS MEASURED, THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COURT'S KNOWLEDGE THAT THESE ARE LAWYERS WHO DON'T PLAY GAMES, WHO DON'T PLAY FAST AND LOOSE WITH THE RULES, WHO PERHAPS BOTH SIDES HAVE MADE MISTAKES AND ERRORS. I SEE MR. DARDEN SMILING.

I'M NOT.

BOTH SIDES HAVE MADE MISTAKES. WE ARE ALL HUMAN. I AM NOT PERFECT, BUT THERE IS NO BAD FAITH, AND I AM SURPRISED AS ANYONE THAT THERE WERE THESE NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS THAT HAD NOT BEEN TURNED OVER PREVIOUSLY.

I HAVE TO SAY, MR. DOUGLAS, I'VE HAD LONG EXPERIENCE WITH MR. HODGMAN. I'VE KNOWN HIM AS A COLLEAGUE, AS A TRIAL LAWYER, AND I'VE NEVER SEEN THE EXPRESSIONS ON HIS FACE THAT I'VE SEEN TODAY. MR. HODGMAN, WHY DON'T YOU TAKE A FEW DEEP BREATHS, AND WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT THIS. BUT I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT MY SUGGESTION TO YOU IS GOING TO BE AS FOLLOWS: THIS IS A RATHER WIDE RANGE OF WITNESSES WHO COVER A RATHER WIDE RANGE OF TOPICS AND A WIDE RANGE OF ISSUES, AND I HAVE TO DEAL WITH THESE EACH INDIVIDUALLY BECAUSE THEY'RE EACH IN A DIFFERENT POSTURE. ONE OR TWO OF THESE MIGHT BE JUSTIFIED IN AN EXPLANATION, DECIDING TO ADD THEM ON THE WITNESS LIST, TURN OVER THE STATEMENT AFTER SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, THE COURT'S RULING ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. SOME OF THESE OTHERS THOUGH CLEARLY GO TO WHO DONE IT ISSUES. SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, TALERINO, WHO WAS ROLLER SKATING ON BUNDY THAT EVENING. OBVIOUSLY THAT'S A DIFFERENT POSTURE. I'M GOING TO SUGGEST TO YOU THAT YOU GO OVER THIS LIST, GO OVER THOSE INDIVIDUAL STATEMENTS WHICH YOU HAVE WHICH I'M NOT PRIVY TO AND SEE WHICH ONES -- WHAT SANCTIONS YOU SEEK AS TO WHICH DELAY IN DISCOVERY AND PRESENT THAT TO ME IN THE MORNING.

YOUR HONOR, I'M GOING TO ASK FOR A LITTLE BIT MORE. YOU KNOW, IT'S -- IT WAS CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT THIS MORNING TO HAVE THE RESUMPTION OF TELEVISED COVERAGE OF THIS CASE. THE COURT'S INTEREST AS I'M SURE -- AT LEAST CERTAIN PARTIES -- WAS THAT THIS WOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR AMERICA, LAW STUDENTS, LAW PROFESSORS AND PERHAPS EVEN PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD TO SEE HOW THE SYSTEM OPERATES IN AMERICA. I AM SORRY TO SAY THAT WE HAVE A HORRIBLE BREAKDOWN. AND WHILE I APPRECIATE MR. DOUGLAS FALLING ON HIS SWORD THIS AFTERNOON, I THINK HE MINIMIZES THE CONSEQUENCES AND THE DEPTH OF WHAT HAS OCCURRED HERE TODAY. YOUR HONOR, IF THE PEOPLE, IF THE PEOPLE ON THE DAY OF OPENING STATEMENT WERE TO UNLOAD DISCOVERY DATED JUNE, JULY, AUGUST OF THIS YEAR, I CAN ONLY, I CAN ONLY IMAGINE THAT THE SANCTIONS AGAINST THE PEOPLE WOULD BE SEVERE. I DON'T INTEND TO MINIMIZE THIS AND I ENCOURAGE THE COURT, DO NOT MINIMIZE THIS AT ALL. YOUR HONOR, IT IS NOT ONLY WHAT WAS TURNED OVER THIS AFTERNOON, WHICH WE WILL NEED TIME AND PERHAPS MORE THAN OVERNIGHT TO EXAMINE. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS AND EVALUATE IT IN LIGHT OF OTHER EVIDENCE.

I UNDERSTAND THAT. MR. HODGMAN, THAT'S WHY I WAS SUGGESTING THAT PERHAPS YOU OUGHT TO TAKE THE TIME TO CAREFULLY EVALUATE WHAT YOU HAVE THERE, AND IF YOU WANT TO COME BACK ANOTHER DAY, THURSDAY OR FRIDAY, TO ARGUE THE ISSUE OF SANCTIONS, WE CAN TAKE IT UP THEN. I'M JUST OFFERING THAT OPPORTUNITY TO YOU BECAUSE I THINK THAT WOULD BE A MORE EFFICIENT WAY TO DEAL WITH IT.

WELL, I AGREE THAT SOME TIME IN ORDER FOR US TO EVALUATE WOULD BE A MORE EFFICIENT WAY TO DEAL WITH IT. BUT, YOUR HONOR, WE DO NOT WANT TO PROCEED WITH EVIDENCE UNTIL WE'VE HAD NOT ONLY AN OPPORTUNITY TO VIEW THIS DISCOVERY, BUT THE REMAINING ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN ALLUDED TO IN MR. COCHRAN'S OPENING STATEMENT. I CAN GO THROUGH A LAUNDRY LIST RIGHT NOW, BUT, YOUR HONOR ---- THIS IS A FILE. THIS -- UP UNTIL TODAY, THIS IS THE EXTENT OF THE DEFENSE DISCOVERY TO THE PEOPLE. UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW, THERE IS SUPPOSED TO BE RECIPROCAL DISCOVERY. THAT'S PART OF PLAYING FAIR. THAT'S PART OF PLAYING THE GAME FAIR. THE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SEVERELY PREJUDICED TODAY, YOUR HONOR, SEVERELY PREJUDICED. THIS CONDUCT IS OUTRAGEOUS AND UNBELIEVABLE. NOW, IN MR. COCHRAN'S STATEMENT THIS AFTERNOON, WE HAVE REFERENCE TO STATEMENTS FROM JOE STELLINI, HOWARD WEITZMAN, SKIP TAFT, RON FICHMAN. WE HAVE A NUMBER OF WITNESSES LIKE THAT. ON TOP OF THAT, WE HAVE A MYRIAD OF REPRESENTATIONS AS TO THE DEFENDANT'S PHYSICAL CONDITION. WITH REGARD TO DYSLEXIA. WHERE IS THE REPORT? ARTHRITIS OF SEVERAL DIFFERENT VARIETIES. WHERE ARE THE REPORTS? AN EXPERT REGARDING SHOES. WHERE ARE THE REPORTS? POTENTIAL EVIDENCE REGARDING TIRE TRACKS. WHERE ARE THE REPORTS? THE CUT ON HIS FINGER. HE INTENDS TO PRESENT EXPERT TESTIMONY, HE SAID IT THIS AFTERNOON, WITH REGARD TO THE NATURE OF THAT CUT AND A POSSIBILITY OF WHERE THE DEFENDANT GOT IT. WHERE IS THE REPORT? MR. COCHRAN REFERS TO OTHER PHOTOS APPARENTLY OTHER THAN WHAT HAS BEEN DISCLOSED TO THE PEOPLE. WHERE ARE THE PHOTOS? HE TALKS ABOUT HAVING AN EXPERT TESTIFY THAT TRAUMA ON RON GOLDMAN'S HAND IS CONSISTENT WITH A CERTAIN SCENARIO. WHERE ARE THE REPORTS? WE HAVE ALL SORTS OF TEST RESULTS APPARENTLY CONDUCTED BY THE DEFENSE THAT HAVE NOT BEEN FORTHCOMING. WE HAVE REFERENCE TO MISS WALKER WHO HAS BEEN GIVING INFORMATION TO THE DEFENSE. AND I REALIZE SHE'S JUST RECENTLY RETAINED. BUT MR. COCHRAN IS REFERRING TO FINDINGS, TO DATA, TO OTHER MATERIAL THAT HAS NOT BEEN DISCLOSED TO THE PEOPLE. WE HAVE REFERENCE TO TESTIMONY OF DR. BADIN AND DR. LEE. WHERE ARE THE REPORTS? THE PEOPLE DON'T HAVE THEM, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS SUPPOSED -- THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A FAIR PROCEEDING. WHERE ARE THE REPORTS? THERE ARE WITNESS STATEMENTS WHICH HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO US WHICH HAVE REDACTIONS. WE ARE GOING TO BE ASKING THE COURT FOR A HEARING WITH REGARD TO THE NATURE OF THE REDACTIONS SO WE CAN DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS PROPER TO EVEN HAVE THOSE REDACTIONS. YOUR HONOR, THERE IS A MYRIAD OF ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ACTS OF THE DEFENSE TODAY, AN ABSOLUTE MYRIAD OF ISSUES. THE PEOPLE NEED SOME TIME TO DIGEST THIS. I REALIZE THIS COMES AT A DIFFICULT TIME IN THE PROCEEDINGS, BUT I DON'T THINK IN THE HISTORY OF JURISPRUDENCE HAVE WE EVER HAD ANYTHING OCCUR LIKE WHAT HAPPENED TODAY IN THIS COURTROOM.

ALL RIGHT. MR. DOUGLAS, WOULD YOU ADDRESS THE ADDITIONAL ISSUES THAT MR. HODGMAN RAISES, THAT --

CERTAINLY, YOUR HONOR. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO MR. HODGMAN -- AND HE IS A COLLEAGUE WHOM I RESPECT -- HE HAS NEVER PRACTICED LAW AS A DEFENSE LAWYER UNDER PROP 115. THERE IS A NEW WAY TO PRACTICE LAW THESE DAYS. AND THAT WAY IS, SINCE REPORTS ARE DISCOVERABLE, YOUR HONOR, REPORTS ARE NOT AUTOMATICALLY WRITTEN. PERHAPS THE WAY THAT HE'S ACCUSTOMED, WHENEVER YOU TALK TO A DOCTOR, A DOCTOR WRITES A REPORT AND TURNS IT OVER AND THEN IT'S DISCOVERABLE. YOUR HONOR, WHEN I TALK TO MICHAEL BADIN AND MICHAEL BADIN GIVES ME SOME IDEA FOR OPENING STATEMENT OR TALKS ABOUT WHAT IS HIS THEORY OF THE CASE, WE ARE NOT DOING IT WRITING FAXES BACK AND FORTH. WE TALK OVER THE TELEPHONE AND WE PRESENT EVIDENCE. MR. COCHRAN HAS BEEN TRYING CASES FOR 33 YEARS. HE DOESN'T NEED TO HAVE A REPORT IN ORDER TO SAY SOMETHING IN OPENING STATEMENT. I CAN CALL HOWARD WEITZMAN, WHO IS A COLLEAGUE OF MINE ON ANOTHER CASE, AND ASK HIM, "MR. WEITZMAN, DID THEY TELL YOU TO LEAVE THE ROOM IN THAT INTERVIEW," AND HE SAID, "YES," AND, "CAN I CALL YOU AS A WITNESS," AND HE SAYS, "YES," AND THERE IS NO REPORT. I CAN TALK TO MY CLIENT ABOUT A DEAR, DEAR FRIEND, JOE STELLINI, AND SAY, "WHAT WOULD JOE STELLINI SAY," AND HE WILL TELL ME THAT JOE STELLINI SAID THAT THERE WAS NOTHING GOING ON, AND I PUT HIS NAME ON THE WITNESS LIST AND THERE IS NO REPORT. YOUR HONOR, I WILL FALL ON MY SWORD, BUT I OBJECT TO THE INSINUATION THAT I AM DOING SOMETHING UNTOWARD. I ACKNOWLEDGE, YOUR HONOR, THAT I AM NOT PERFECT. I ACKNOWLEDGE, YOUR HONOR, THAT I HAVE DONE SOMETHING WRONG. I STAND BEFORE THIS COURT CHASTE, AND I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT. BUT I HAVE BEEN A LAWYER FOR 15 YEARS AND I TAKE MY OBLIGATION SERIOUSLY AND I TAKE THE ACCUSATIONS OF THE PEOPLE VERY SERIOUSLY. I DO NOT PRACTICE LAW THAT WAY. I ACKNOWLEDGE WHEN I'M WRONG, BUT THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY MALICIOUSNESS. THIS IS NOT THE MOST PREPOSTEROUS THING IN JURISPRUDENCE. THIS IS A MISTAKE. THIS IS A FUNCTION OF DEALING WITH HUNDREDS OF WITNESSES AND GOING TO TRIAL IN SEVEN MONTHS. THIS IS A FUNCTION OF THERE BEING 12 LAWYERS, 5 INVESTIGATORS, 22,000 PAGES OF EVIDENCE. THESE ARE SLIPS THROUGH THE PROVERBIAL CRACK. I ACCEPT IT AND I ACKNOWLEDGE IT, BUT I OBJECT STRONGLY TO ANY IMPUNING OF MY INTEGRITY OR THE INTEGRITY OF ANY LAWYERS ON THIS TEAM. THANK YOU.

YOUR HONOR --

MR. HODGMAN, HOW DO YOU SUGGEST WE PROCEED AT THIS POINT? SINCE THE BALL SEEMS TO BE IN YOUR COURT, YOU ARE THE AGGRIEVED PARTY, HOW DO YOU WANT TO PROCEED?

I AM THE AGGRIEVED PARTY. THE PEO -- WELL, I AM NOT, YOUR HONOR. THE PEOPLE ARE.

YOU ARE REPRESENTING THE AGGRIEVED PARTY.

I CERTAINLY DO. AND THE PEOPLE ARE DEEPLY AGGRIEVED. YOUR HONOR, FIRST OF ALL, WE WILL PROVIDE TO THE COURT A CASE THAT SAYS THE DEFENSE CANNOT CIRCUMVENT DISCOVERY LAWS IN THE MANNER SUGGESTED BY MR. DOUGLAS. THERE IS A CASE ON POINT. WE WILL PROVIDE IT TO THE COURT. WE'LL LET THE COURT SPEAK FOR ITSELF. AS FAR AS MR. DOUGLAS GOES --

WELL, THAT WAS PART OF MY, YOU EXPECT ME TO BELIEVE THAT COMMENT FROM THE DAY BEFORE.

I'M SORRY?

NEVER MIND.

OH, I -- IN FACT, I RECALL, YES, YOUR HONOR. YES. I THINK THE COURT IS FAMILIAR WITH THE CASE. YOUR HONOR, HOW DO WE PROCEED? WE DON'T PROCEED AT THIS POINT, BECAUSE WE NEED AN OPPORTUNITY TO DEAL WITH WHAT HAS BEEN UNLOADED ON US.

COUNSEL, WHAT WE ARE DOING, WE ARE BREAKING EARLY TODAY BECAUSE OF THE JUROR'S OBLIGATION. LET ME SUGGEST THAT WE DO THIS. DO TAKE THE EVENING HOURS TO EXAMINE WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU. DO PREPARE WHATEVER LETTER BRIEF YOU FEEL IS APPROPRIATE. OBVIOUSLY FAX A COPY TO COUNSEL. I THINK SOME OF THESE WITNESSES OBVIOUSLY -- FOR EXAMPLE, THE BERMAN CHILD, I THINK YOU ARE AWARE OF BECAUSE I RECALL SEEING SOMETHING ABOUT THAT SOMEWHERE IN THE -- SOME OF THESE THINGS MAY NOT BE EGREGIOUS ERRORS OF DISCOVERY. SOME OF THEM MAY BE VERY FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS WITH THE PEOPLE'S CASE THAT YOU MAY NOT FEEL COMFORTABLE GOING FORWARD WITHOUT HAVING SOME SUBSTANTIAL INVESTIGATION DONE. I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT WHAT I'M ASKING YOU TO DO IS TAKE A FEW DEEP BREATHS, EVALUATE WHAT YOU HAVE, EVALUATE THE RECORD FROM TODAY AND THEN COME TO ME WITH A PROPOSAL AS TO HOW WE PROCEED TOMORROW MORNING.

YOUR HONOR --

I JUST THINK IT'S A MORE EFFICIENT WAY TO DO THIS.

WE WILL DO THAT. WHAT CONCERNS ME IS WHAT WE DON'T HAVE, WHAT WE HAVE NOT BEEN GIVEN. THE COURT IS FAMILIAR WITH THE LAW. THE COURT A COUPLE DAYS AGO STATED, "YOU EXPECT ME TO BELIEVE THAT." NOW, YOUR HONOR, THIS IS JUST A QUESTION OF FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS AND FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS TO THE PEOPLE. THE PEOPLE TOO -- WE HAVE --

MR. HODGMAN, I UNDERSTAND THE POINT YOU'RE MAKING. AND WHAT I'M SUGGESTING TO YOU IS THAT IN A COHERENT WITNESS BY WITNESS, ITEM BY ITEM, YOU DETERMINE WHAT YOUR POSITION IS. BECAUSE THE SANCTIONS FOR FAILURE OR DELAYING DISCOVERY ARE OFTEN TIMES VERY SEVERE. AND IF YOU RECALL IN OUR DISCUSSION FROM YESTERDAY OR THE DAY BEFORE, YOUR FIRST POSITION WAS PRECLUSION, WHICH IS THE LAST STEP THE COURT CAN TAKE AFTER HAVING EXHAUSTING -- AFTER HAVING EXHAUSTED ALL LESSER REMEDIES. SO I WANT YOU TO BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT HOW YOU DO THAT BECAUSE IF I PRECLUDE SOMETHING AND THE COURT OF APPEAL OR SOMEBODY ELSE DECIDES THAT I'VE ABUSED MY DISCRETION, OFTEN TIMES THAT'S REVERSIBLE ERROR. AND THERE ARE ENOUGH LAND MINES IN THIS CASE ALREADY. SO LET ME SUGGEST THAT COURSE OF ACTION TO YOU.

YOUR HONOR, IN ADDITION TO WHAT THE COURT SUGGESTS, WE WILL REVIEW MR. COCHRAN'S STATEMENT THIS AFTERNOON.

I UNDERSTOOD THAT THAT WAS PART OF YOUR COMMENT.

VERY WELL. BECAUSE WE WILL BE ASKING FOR AN ORDER THAT ANY SUCH REPORTS BE PRODUCED AND FORTHWITH.

WHICH IS WHY YOU HAVE THE REAL TIME AND I SUSPECT YOU MAY UNPLUG YOUR COMPUTER AND TAKE IT HOME WITH YOU TONIGHT.

IT MAY BE A LONG TIME BEFORE WE GET HOME TONIGHT, YOUR HONOR. YOUR HONOR, WE WILL DO AS YOU SUGGEST. WE WILL REPORT BACK IN THE MORNING. I EXPECT IT'S GOING TO BE A VERY LONG NIGHT. I ALSO ANTICIPATE --

THEY'RE ALL LONG NIGHTS, MR. HODGMAN.

WELL, THEY ARE. BUT THIS ONE IS GOING TO BE ESPECIALLY LONG. AND, YOUR HONOR, BEFORE WE CAN PROCEED ANY FURTHER, WE NEED TO EVALUATE THIS AND WE NEED -- WELL, YOUR HONOR, LIKE I SAID, A PANDORA'S BOX OF DISCOVERY ISSUES HAS JUST BEEN CRACKED OPEN THIS AFTERNOON. WE'RE GOING TO NEED TIME TO EVALUATE.

COUNSEL, JUST AS A PRECAUTION, I'M GOING TO DIRECT DEPUTY MAGNERA TO HAVE THE JURORS BROUGHT OVER AT 10:00 RATHER THAN 9:00 SO AT LEAST WE HAVE A RUNNING START TO LOOK AT THESE ISSUES TO SEE HOW WE FRAME THEM.

I APPRECIATE THE COURT'S OPTIMISM. 10:00 O'CLOCK MAY BE EARLY, BUT --

I'M ALWAYS OPTIMISTIC.

I KNOW, YOUR HONOR.

ALL RIGHT. ANY COMMENT FROM MR. COCHRAN, MR. SHAPIRO ON THE DISCOVERY ISSUE? MR. DOUGLAS, I AM SORRY. YOU'RE THE DISCOVERY SWORD MAN.

NOTHING FURTHER, YOUR HONOR, THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. WE WILL STAND IN RECESS AS FAR AS COUNSEL ARE CONCERNED UNTIL 9:00 O'CLOCK. AND MISS CHILDS, CAN I SEE YOU, PLEASE? MISS CHILDS.

I WAS GOING TO RAISE THE ISSUE OF THE LENORE WALKER PRESS CONFERENCE.

I WAS UNAWARE OF THAT.

THAT'S WHY I WAS GOING TO INFORM THE COURT. I UNDERSTAND THAT LENORE WALKER INTENDS TO HAVE A FULL PRESS CONFERENCE THIS AFTERNOON CONCERNING THE REASONS FOR HER INVOLVEMENT IN THIS CASE. AND I THINK THE COURT SHOULD BE AWARE OF THAT BECAUSE IT'S A QUESTIONABLE ETHICS IN CONDUCT AND I THINK IT MIGHT BE -- I THOUGHT IT SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION.

WELL, THAT PERSON IS NOT PRESENTLY WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT. SO I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S ANYTHING I CAN DO ABOUT THAT OR WOULD BE INCLINED TO AT THIS POINT. THANK YOU FOR ADVISING ME.

IT IS DEFENSE COUNSEL'S WITNESS. PERHAPS THE COURT WOULD LIKE TO ADVISE DEFENSE COUNSEL OF THE ADVISABILITY OF A PRESS CONFERENCE OF THAT NATURE. BUT PERHAPS NOT. I JUST THOUGHT YOU SHOULD KNOW.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.