BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. ALL PARTIES ARE AGAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT. MR. DARDEN, DO YOU WISH TO CONCLUDE YOUR COMMENTS?
DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER SPECIFIC ITEMS? AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THE SPECIFICITY OF YOUR COMMENTS TO THE COURT.
THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. I JUST HAVE A FEW BRIEF COMMENTS, IF I MAY. WE WOULD JUST LIKE THE COURT TO KNOW THAT WE FEEL THAT WE HAVE A RIGHT AND WE FEEL OUR POSITION IS SUPPORTED BY THE LAW, BUT WE FEEL THAT YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO PRECLUDE THE TESTIMONY OF SOME OF THE WITNESSES WHOSE STATEMENTS WERE GIVEN TO US JUST RECENTLY OR WHOSE STATEMENTS HAVEN'T BEEN GIVEN TO US BUT WHOSE TESTIMONY WAS MENTIONED IN FRONT OF THIS JURY. AND WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR PRECLUSION AND WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR PRECLUSION BECAUSE WE WANT TO SEE THE TRUTH. WE WANT THE TRUTH TO COME OUT IN THIS TRIAL. WE COULD ASK FOR CONTEMPT, WE COULD ASK THE COURT TO HOLD THE DEFENSE IN CONTEMPT, BUT WE ARE NOT ASKING THAT. WE ARE NOT ASKING THAT AT ALL. WE ARE NOT ASKING TO REPORT ANYBODY TO THE BAR. WE ARE NOT DOING ANY OF THAT. ALL WE ARE DOING HERE TODAY IS ASKING THE COURT TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD. NOW, JUST BEFORE I LEFT OUT OF HERE FOR THE BREAK MR. BAILEY MENTIONED TO ME THAT PERHAPS WHAT I REALLY WANT IS A MISTRIAL. I DON'T WANT A MISTRIAL. I LIKE THE TWELVE JURORS WE HAVE. I LIKE OUR CASE. I LIKE OUR CHANCES. WE DON'T WANT A MISTRIAL, YOUR HONOR. WE WANT TO SEE THE TRUTH. WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THESE PROCEEDINGS CONTINUE. AND MY DISTINGUISHED COLLEAGUE, MR. BAILEY, ALSO ASKED ME BEFORE WE BROKE IF I FELT A NEED TO RUN AWAY, AND I WANT MR. BAILEY TO UNDERSTAND THAT I'M NOT GOING ANYWHERE, WE ARE NOT GOING ANYWHERE. WE ARE IN SEARCH OF THE TRUTH AND WE ARE GOING TO FIND IT. WE HAVE FOUND IT. WE WANT THE JURY TO FIND IT. WE ARE GOING TO STAY RIGHT HERE, MR. BAILEY. WE ARE GOING TO FINISH THIS TRIAL. WE JUST NEED A LITTLE TIME TO REPAIR SOME OF THE HARM CAUSED BY THE MISCONDUCT OF YOUR COLLEAGUES AND YOURSELF. WE JUST WANT A FAIR SHOT AT IT, YOUR HONOR; NOTHING MORE.
ALL RIGHT. MR. DARDEN, LET ME ASK YOU THIS: ONE OF THE REMEDIES THAT YOU ARE ASKING FOR IS FOR THE COURT TO ADVISE THE JURY THAT I AM STRIKING FROM THE RECORD MR. COCHRAN'S COMMENTS CONCERNING CERTAIN WITNESSES WITH REGARD TO CERTAIN ISSUES, THEN YOU WERE ALSO ASKING FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO REOPEN. ARE THOSE IN THE ALTERNATIVE OR IN THE CONJUNCTIVE?
BECAUSE IT DOESN'T SEEM TO MAKE SENSE IF I'M GOING TO STRIKE IT AND THEN YOU COME BACK AND TALK ABOUT IT. SORT OF DEFEATING THE PURPOSE. SEEMS TO ME TO BE MILDLY ILLOGICAL. THEY SEEM TO BE IN CONFLICT.
WE INDICATED TO THE COURT WE WERE GOING TO PRESENT ON THIS BECAUSE WE JUST DIDN'T HAVE THE TIME TO FUNNEL IT TO ONE.
THANK YOU, MISS CLARK. JUST AN OBSERVATION. ALL RIGHT. MR. DARDEN, HAVE YOU CONCLUDED YOUR COMMENTS?
IF I COULD INDICATE, BECAUSE THE COURT MAY HAVE MORE, I DON'T KNOW IF THE COURT DID A SEARCH OF THE TRANSCRIPT ON ITS OWN, BUT THAT IS ALL THAT WE COULD PULL OUT IN THE SHORT TIME THAT WE HAD.
GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR. YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO BEGIN DEALING WITH SOME OF THE DISCOVERY CONCERNS RAISED AND MR. COCHRAN WOULD LIKE TO DEAL WITH SOME OF THE SANCTIONING ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED. YOUR HONOR, AT THE OUTSET OF THIS TRIAL THE COURT REMINDED ALL COUNSEL THAT THE EYES AND THE EARS OF THE WORLD WOULD BE WATCHING US TODAY. IT IS MY SINCERE HOPE, YOUR HONOR, TO BRING DIGNITY TO THE PROFESSION THAT I LOVE, SO I WILL NOT DIGNIFY THE OFTEN VILE, INSIDIOUS AND LONG-WINDED COMMENTS BY MY COLLEAGUE BY RESPONDING IN KIND. YOUR HONOR, I HAVE KNOWN CHRISTOPHER DARDEN FOR WELL OVER TEN YEARS AND HE HAS REFERRED IN FACT TO ME AND TO MY OFFICE THE PARENTS OF A YOUNG MAN WHO WAS ONCE SHOT AND KILLED WHILE GOING HOME FROM SCHOOL, SO I CANNOT FATHOM THAT HE WOULD HAVE ENTRUSTED THAT FAMILY IN MY CARE IF HE BELIEVED THAT I OR MY COLLEAGUES WERE AS DISHONEST AND AS UNETHICAL AS HE HAS INFERRED. YOUR HONOR, HE COMES TO YOU SEEKING EQUITY. HE COMES TO YOU ASKING ABOUT BASIC FAIRNESS. AS THE COURT IS AWARE, THERE IS A CONCEPT IN EQUITY CALLED CLEAN HANDS AND THAT CONCEPT SAYS THAT ONE CANNOT SEEK EQUITY WITHOUT DOING EQUITY IN KIND. AND I SUBMIT TO THE COURT THAT BEFORE MR. DARDEN COMES AND SEEKS EQUITY THE TRUE RECORD SHOULD BE CONSIDERED SO THAT THE COURT CAN WEIGH AND PROPERLY BALANCE A RESPONSE, GIVEN THE CURRENT STATE OF THE FULL RECORD. YOUR HONOR, IN SEPTEMBER OF 1994 THE PROSECUTORS GAVE THE DEFENDANTS A LIST OF 214 NAMES. ON JANUARY THE 6TH OF 1995 THE PROSECUTORS GAVE THE DEFENDANTS 207 ADDITIONAL NAMES. FIVE MORE WERE ADDED THE FOLLOWING WEEK; THREE MORE WERE ADDED AFTER THAT; TWO MORE WERE ADDED SINCE THEN. THE FIRST OF HIS COMPLAINTS WERE BASED ON THE THOUGHT THAT THE DEFENSE HAD SOMEHOW DUMPED NAMES WITHOUT ADDRESSES OR PHONE NUMBERS ON THE PROSECUTION AND HOW UNFAIR THAT WAS TO THE PROSECUTION. I GIVE THIS COURT AT THIS TIME THE NAMES OF ART SHAFFMAN, BHARAT SHAW, JOSEPH PERULLI, ELISA PEREZ, CINDY PATTERSON, BRET LOBNER, MARK LEON, RAY KILDUFF, BO JACKSON, CARLOS HERNANDEZ, RICHARD GONZALEZ, DON DETZLER, CAROL DIPRIMA, JAY SWELL, VITO BOFFA, NICOLAS BOLLAS, DONNA ESTES, GARY KAWAKAWI, AMANDA DARLING, PATRICK -- PATRICIA FOY, DAVID PRESTHOLT, CRUZ PRIEGO, R. RINCH, RODNEY SHELTON, NORMAN SMITH, JOHN STEWART, MARK STORFER, JAN VAN POBEL, PHILLIP VAN SAUN, TONY WAYBRIGHT, CHRISTINE WOLFORD AND CHARLOTTE WORD AS JUST SOME EXAMPLES OF NAMES GIVEN TO THE DEFENSE WITHOUT ADDRESSES OR PHONE NUMBERS. THAT COMMENT, YOUR HONOR, THAT THE DEFENSE HAD TO TRY TO FIND OUT WHO THESE PEOPLE WERE, TRY TO LOCATE THEM AND TRY TO IDENTIFY THEM. THEY WERE NAMES THAT WERE ON THE PEOPLE'S PROSECUTION LIST.
ALL RIGHT. MR. DOUGLAS, IF YOU WILL AT THE CONCLUSION OF TODAY'S PROCEEDINGS GIVE A COPY OF THE LIST THAT YOU JUST READ TO THE COURT REPORTER.
YOUR HONOR, THE FACT THAT THEY DON'T KNOW WHO WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WHEN WE MAY OBLIQUELY INFER THAT THERE IS A CERTAIN WITNESS THAT MIGHT SAY CERTAIN THINGS DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE HAVE COMMITTED MISCONDUCT. THERE IS NO CASE AUTHORITY THAT THEY CAN CITE, BECAUSE THERE IS NO CASE TO SUGGEST THAT ATTORNEYS HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO CREATE DISCOVERABLE NOTES OR MEMOS BASED ON CONVERSATIONS WITH THEIR CLIENT OR BASED ON CONVERSATIONS WITH RETAINED EXPERTS. YOUR HONOR, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS RETAINED MANY EXPERTS TO TALK ABOUT DNA ISSUES, TO TALK ABOUT BLOOD ISSUES, TO TALK ABOUT OTHER ISSUES, BUT AMONG THE 22,000 PAGES OF DOCUMENTS THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED IN THIS CASE THERE IS NOT ONE HANDWRITTEN NOTE FROM MARCIA CLARK, FROM CHRISTOPHER DARDEN, FROM WILLIAM HODGMAN.
OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. COUNSEL SPECIFICALLY TOLD US THAT HE WAS NOT INTERESTED IN OUR HANDWRITTEN NOTES. SPECIFICALLY THAT WAS AN AGREEMENT HE HAD WITH MR. HODGMAN. HE IS NOW MISREPRESENTING TO THE COURT THE AGREEMENT.
FROM JONATHAN FAIRTLOUGH, FROM SCOTT GORDON, FROM LYDIA BODIN OR FROM ANY OTHER ATTORNEY, CHERI LEWIS, MISS KAHN OR ANYONE ELSE WHO HAS OBVIOUSLY HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH OTHER WITNESSES. AS WELL, YOUR HONOR, THERE HAVE BEEN AT LEAST TWELVE DNA EXPERTS THAT HAVE BEEN NOTICED BY BOTH SIDES, KARY MULLIS, I STRONGLY BELIEVE WAS ONE OF THE NAMES THAT WERE INCLUDED IN OUR LIST OF EXPERTS THAT THEY ARE AWARE OF, AND I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ONE DNA REPORT FROM ANY OF THESE EXPERTS BASED ON TESTIMONY THAT THEY INTEND TO OFFER IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. SO WE ARE TALKING ABOUT FAIRNESS, BUT WE MUST ALSO REMEMBER THAT BOTH SIDES MUST HAVE CLEAN HANDS. THE CASE, YOUR HONOR, BEGAN BACK IN JUNE OF THIS YEAR. WE HAVE ENLISTED SEVERAL ATTORNEYS WHO WORK OUT OF DIFFERENT OFFICES. AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER WE HAVE USED SEVEN DIFFERENT -- SIX DIFFERENT INVESTIGATORS THAT WERE INVOLVED IN DIFFERENT PIECES OF INVESTIGATION. THEY DID NOT ALWAYS WORK IN CONCERT, THEY DID NOT ALWAYS SHARE THEIR WORK PRODUCT WITH EACH OF THE OTHER INVESTIGATORS OR WITH EACH OF THE OTHER ATTORNEYS. ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT WERE TURNED OVER YESTERDAY WAS A WITNESS STATEMENT OF MARY ANNE GERCHAS. THAT WITNESS STATEMENT WAS OBTAINED BY AN INVESTIGATOR WITH WHOM I PERSONALLY HAVE NEVER SPOKE. THAT IS AN INVESTIGATOR WHO BASICALLY HAS DONE LIMITED WORK ON THIS CASE, AND UNBEKNOWNST TO ME, ONE OF THE JOBS THAT HE PERFORMED WAS TO INTERVIEW AND TO OBTAIN A STATEMENT OF MARY ANNE GERCHAS. I REPRESENT AS AN OFFICER OF THIS COURT THAT THE FIRST DAY THAT I PERSONALLY BECAME AWARE OF THE EXISTENCE OF HIS STATEMENT BETWEEN OF MISS GERCHAS WAS MOMENTS BEFORE I TOOK THE PODIUM YESTERDAY WHEN MR. COCHRAN GAVE ME A COPY AND I ASKED YOUR CLERK TO MAKE COPIES SO THAT I CAN READ MYSELF. CERTAINLY, YOUR HONOR, I RECOGNIZED, IF YOU WILL, YESTERDAY THAT THAT WAS A VIOLATION TO HAVE NOT TURNED THAT STATEMENT OVER, BUT IF THE COURT WERE TO READ THAT STATEMENT, THE COURT WOULD SEE THAT MISS GERCHAS HAD CONTACTED THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND SPOKE TO PATTY FAIRBANKS IN THAT OFFICE, THAT MISS FAIRBANKS TOLD MISS GERCHAS THAT I'M TALKING LONG DISTANCE TO A PSYCHIC SO THAT I WILL HAVE TO CALL YOU BACK, THAT IN HER DESPAIR MISS GERCHAS CONTACTED THE POLICE DEPARTMENT GIVING THEM INFORMATION THAT WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THE JURY YESTERDAY, THAT MISS GERCHAS' NAME, ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER WERE INCLUDED ON THE WITNESS LIST THAT WE PROVIDED IN AUGUST OF 1994. SO CERTAINLY, YOUR HONOR, WHILE THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A PROBLEM WITH OUR PHYSICALLY TURNING OVER HER STATEMENT, THE SURPRISE, THE ABSOLUTE SHOCK AND AMAZEMENT THAT HAS BEEN OFFERED HERE IS SOMEWHAT OVERBLOWN. FOR EXAMPLE, YOUR HONOR, NOT ONLY DID WE GIVE THE NAME OF ROSA LOPEZ, WE GAVE HER ADDRESS AS BEING A LOCATION DIRECTLY NEXT DOOR TO WHERE MR. SIMPSON LIVED. NOT ONLY DID WE GIVE HER NAME AND HER ADDRESS, BUT WE GAVE HER STATEMENT AS WELL. DESPITE HAVING HER NAME, HER ADDRESS, HER TELEPHONE NUMBER AND A STATEMENT, THERE WAS NO REPRESENTATIVE FROM EITHER THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE OR THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT TO INTERVIEW ROSA LOPEZ --
YOUR HONOR, I AM SIMPLY, BY ANALOGY, HOPING TO OFFER TO THE COURT THAT THE PROTESTATIONS OF PREJUDICE ARE PERHAPS NOT IN GOOD FAITH, BECAUSE THOUGH THEY HAD THE VERY IMPORTANT INFORMATION, ROSA LOPEZ, THEY NEVER SAW FIT TO GO AND INTERVIEW HER UNTIL MONDAY EVENING WHEN MR. BAILEY STOOD UP AND EXPLAINED TO THIS COURT THE SIGNIFICANCE OF HER TESTIMONY. I OFFER THAT TO SAY, YOUR HONOR, THAT YES, THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME FACIAL VIOLATIONS OF THE CODE; HOWEVER, BEFORE THE COURT BELIEVES THAT THERE HAS BEEN DIRE PREJUDICE YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE EQUITY, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE CLEAN HANDS AND THAT IS WHAT I SEEK TO OFFER TO THE COURT. NOW, YOUR HONOR, THERE HAS IN FACT BEEN A LIST GIVEN YESTERDAY BECAUSE THE COURT MADE IT VERY CLEAR ON MONDAY THAT I WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH -- I'M SORRY, ON TUESDAY -- MONDAY WHEN I GAVE THE NAMES OF SUPPLEMENTAL WITNESSES I TOLD THE COURT THAT THESE WERE THE STATEMENTS THAT WERE ATTACHED AND THERE WERE, I BELIEVE, SEVERAL NAMES AND SIX STATEMENTS THAT WERE ATTACHED. THERE WAS ONE NAME IN PARTICULAR, SCOTT MATSUDA THAT THE PEOPLE KNEW ABOUT AND THAT THEY KNEW THAT THERE HAD BEEN A STATEMENT OF AND THAT STATEMENT WAS NOT IMMEDIATELY FORTHCOMING BECAUSE IT WAS NOT ATTACHED IN THAT PACKET. I THEN MADE A CALL AND THE NEXT DAY THAT NAME AND THAT STATEMENT WAS GIVEN TO THE PEOPLE. IT WAS ON TUESDAY THAT THE COURT DIRECTED ME SPECIFICALLY TO GO THROUGH MY ENTIRE RECORDS AND TO MAKE SURE THAT I HAVE COMPLETELY SATISFIED MYSELF, THAT I HAVE GONE THROUGH AND FOUND OUT EVERYTHING THAT HAS NOT BEEN TURNED OVER AND WE DID AN EXHAUSTIVE PROCESS, YOUR HONOR, AND WE FOLLOWED THROUGH WITH THE COURT'S WARNINGS AND THE COURT'S DIRECTIONS AND THAT WAS HOW WE WERE ABLE TO FIND OUT THAT THERE WERE TWELVE STATEMENTS THAT HAD FALLEN THROUGH THE CRACK. TWELVE STATEMENTS OUT OF HUNDREDS OF NAMES THAT WERE GIVEN BY THE PROSECUTION AND HUNDREDS OF NAMES THAT WERE PROVIDED BY THE DEFENSE. NOW, YOUR HONOR, OF THESE TWELVE INDIVIDUALS, WHOM STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN PREPARED, THERE ARE FIVE WHOM I REASONABLY EXPECT THAT I WILL BE OFFERING TESTIMONY AT TRIAL. THEREFORE, YOUR HONOR, WHEN THE COURT CONSIDERS THE PROPRIETY OF A SANCTION, THE COURT SHOULD DO SO WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF REALITY. IT DOESN'T MAKE MUCH JUSTICE OR FAIRNESS TO CRY OUT NUMBERS OR TO CALL OUT NAMES WITHOUT KNOWING IN ACTUALITY THE IMPACT THAT IS GOING TO HAVE ON THIS TRIAL. AND YOUR HONOR, IT CANNOT BE IGNORED THAT THIS IS JANUARY 26, THE START OF THE BEGINNING OF THE CASE. IT IS A DAY WHEN TYPICALLY IN PREPARATION FOR THE TRIAL THE LAWYERS HUDDLE TOGETHER, THE LAWYERS REVIEW THE STATE OF THE RECORD, THE LAWYERS REVIEW THE STATE OF ALL OF THE PRETRIAL ARGUMENTS AND RULINGS AND GET TOGETHER AND DECIDE WHOM WE NOW REASONABLY EXPECT TO CALL, AND WE DID THAT. AND EVEN ON DOING THAT, YOUR HONOR, WE OMITTED THE NAME OF RON FISCHMAN, WE OMIT THE NAMES OF CHRISTIAN RIECHARDT, AND THOSE NAMES WILL BE SOON ADDED, BUT THE PEOPLE HAVE ADDED NAMES THIS VERY WEEK AND WE ARE ALREADY BEGINNING. THEIR CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN TODAY, PERHAPS WILL BE TOMORROW, BUT THEY, TOO, HAVE STILL ADDED NAMES. YOUR HONOR, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE FIVE INDIVIDUALS WHOM WE REASONABLY BELIEVE THAT WE ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO CALL, IT IS MY OPINION THAT ONLY TWO OF THOSE NAMES ARE NAMES THAT ARE UNKNOWN TO THE PROSECUTION. AND YOUR HONOR, THEY TALK ABOUT HOW THEY HAVE BEEN SANDBAGGED, YET IN 24 HOURS THEY HAVE ATTEMPTED TO ASSASSINATE THE CHARACTER OF MARY ANNE GERCHAS, ONE OF OUR WITNESSES, BY SUGGESTING ALLEGATIONS THAT ARE TOTALLY UNTRUE. AND YOUR HONOR, MR. COCHRAN WILL DEAL WITH THAT MORE WHEN HE COMES UP, BUT YOUR HONOR, THERE IS A TREMENDOUSLY AFFECTIVE WHEEL THAT IS ALREADY IN PLACE CALLED THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THERE IS ANOTHER COG IN THAT WHEEL CALLED THE LOS ANGELES DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AND ALTHOUGH THEY MAY HAVE BEEN GIVEN SHORT TIME TO ADEQUATELY INVESTIGATE SOME OF THE NAMES, THEY HAVE DONE A PRETTY GOOD JOB IN 24 HOURS, AND I DARE SAY THEY WILL BE ABLE TO DO A MUCH BETTER JOB IN THE TWO MONTHS' TIME IT IS GOING TO TAKE AT A MINIMUM BEFORE WE BEGIN CALLING ANY WITNESSES ON THE DEFENSE. YOUR HONOR, IF THIS WERE THE FIRST DAY OF THE DEFENDANT'S CASE AND WE WERE THEN INTENDING TO CALL MARY ANNE GERCHAS OR RON FISCHMAN OR CHRISTIAN RIECHARDT I WOULD NOT BE MAKING THE SAME ARGUMENTS TO THIS COURT BECAUSE I WOULD RECOGNIZE THAT THERE WOULD REALLY BE A CLEAR PREJUDICE. BUT WHEN WE HAVE 400 NAMES ON A WITNESS LIST AND WHEN WE HAVE A SIX-MONTH TRIAL ESTIMATE AND WHEN WE HAVE THE EXPECTATION THAT THERE WILL BE DOZENS AND SCORES OF WITNESSES CALLED, I ALSO BELIEVE THIS COURT MAY FASHION A MORE EQUITABLE SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM, A MORE EQUITABLE RESPONSE TO OUR MISTAKES, RECOGNIZING THAT THESE LAWYERS WHOM YOU ALSO KNOW, WHOM YOU ALSO HAVE SOME ADMIRATION FOR AND RESPECT FOR, WHOM YOU ALSO BELIEVE, WOULD NOT MALICIOUSLY OR IN BAD FAITH ATTEMPT TO SANDBAG OR DO ALL OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN ALLEGED. I THINK CERTAINLY, YOUR HONOR, YOU DON'T COME INTO THIS POSITION IN A VACUUM AND CERTAINLY I THINK YOU CAN UNDERSTAND, GIVEN THE MASSIVE SIZE OF THIS CASE, GIVEN THE COMPLEXITY OF ISSUES, GIVEN ALL OF THE WITNESSES WHO WILL BE CALLED, THAT IT IS LIKELY THAT THINGS FALL THROUGH THE CRACKS. NOW, YOUR HONOR, THE PEOPLE STOOD UP HERE IN DECEMBER AND TRIED TO TELL YOU ALL OF THE REASONS WHY THEY MADE CERTAIN MISTAKES AND THE COURT SAID THAT THE CODE REQUIRED THAT THEY IMMEDIATELY DISCLOSE AND THAT THEY HADN'T DONE SO IMMEDIATELY AND THAT THE COURT THEN ISSUED A SANCTION WHICH THE COURT FELT WAS APPROPRIATE. I THINK THE COURT SHOULD DO THE SAME SORT OF BALANCING TODAY, BECAUSE ON DECEMBER THE 14TH, OR WHENEVER THAT HEARING WAS, OPENING STATEMENTS WERE DUE TO BEGIN THE FOLLOWING MONTH. WE HAVE AT LEAST TWO MONTHS NOW BEFORE WE ARE EVEN GOING TO CALL ANY OF THE DEFENDANT'S WITNESSES. YOUR HONOR, MARY ANNE GERCHAS IS A NAME, AS I SUGGEST, THAT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY KNEW OF. HER STATEMENT TAKEN IN JULY GIVES THE NAME OF PATTY FAIRBANKS OR PATTY FAIR SOMETHING, CLEARLY SUGGESTING THAT SHE HAD HAD CONTACT WITH SOMEONE IN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. MICHELLE ABUDRAHM, WHO IS ANOTHER NAME ON OUR LIST WITH A STATEMENT TURNED OVER YESTERDAY, IS ALSO A PERSON WITH WHOM THEY ARE AWARE. THEY HAVE INTERVIEWED OTHER WITNESSES ABOUT THE FAIR -- ABOUT MISS ABUDRAHM AND ABOUT THE ALLEGATIONS THAT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON STRUCK HER PRIOR TO HER LEAVING THE SIMPSON HOME. JOEL PITCOFF, WHO WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF FORD, IS A WITNESS WHO WE INTEND TO CALL WHO IS PROBABLY UNKNOWN TO THE PROSECUTION, AND ON THAT ONE I WOULD ACCEPT THE SANCTION OF ALLOWING THEM TO ADEQUATELY PROVIDE OR PERFORM BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION AND BACKGROUND RESEARCH AND TRY TO CHALLENGE THE STRENGTH OF THE NUMBERS THAT HE IS GOING TO OFFER AND REQUIRE US TO WAIT AND RECEIVE PERMISSION FROM THIS COURT BEFORE WE MENTION HIS NAME OR BEFORE WE CALL MR. PITCOFF AS A WITNESS IN THIS CASE. KEVIN WHELAN, THE COURIER, IS ANOTHER PERSON WHO WE RESPECTFULLY BELIEVE WAS IN FACT UNKNOWN TO THE PEOPLE AND SIMILARLY IT WOULD BE MEASURED AND PROPER FOR THE COURT TO IMPOSE THAT SORT OF A SANCTION.
MARK PARTRIDGE IS THE FIFTH OF THE NAMES THAT I GAVE WITNESS STATEMENTS FOR YESTERDAY WHOM WE DO INTEND TO CALL, BUT YOUR HONOR, WHEN I REVIEWED MY LIST THIS MORNING, I SAW THAT THERE WAS A ONE-PAGE STATEMENT OF MR. PARTRIDGE THAT WAS TURNED OVER IN AUGUST. WHAT I TURNED OVER YESTERDAY WAS TWO ADDITIONAL PAGES, SO THEREFORE THEY CANNOT COMPLAIN TO THIS COURT THAT THEY DID NOT KNOW MR. PARTRIDGE AND THAT THEY WERE NOT AWARE OF WHAT EVIDENCE HE WOULD OFFER IN THIS CASE. SO IT WOULD NOT BE PROPER OR FAIR TO INCLUDE HIM WITH THE OTHER FOUR NAMES. RON FISCHMAN, YOUR HONOR, IS A FRIEND OF MR. SIMPSON. WHEN WE GO DOWN TO LOOK UP OR GO DOWN TO COUNTY JAIL AND HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. SIMPSON AND WE TAKE NOTES DURING THOSE CONVERSATIONS AND WE WILL ASK HIM ABOUT WHAT WOULD RON FISCHMAN SAY AND RON FISCHMAN MAY MAKE CERTAIN COMMENTS OR MR. SIMPSON MAY MAKE CERTAIN COMMENTS ABOUT WHAT HE BELIEVES RON FISCHMAN WILL SAY OR JOE STELLINI WILL SAY OR LOUIS MARKS WILL SAY, YOUR HONOR, WHEN WE ARE THINKING ABOUT CALLING WITNESSES WEEKS OR MONTHS IN ADVANCE, WE DO NOT HAVE TIME TO SPEND ON LIMITED RESOURCES, AND THEY ARE IN FACT LIMITED, FOR INVESTIGATOR TIME. AND THERE ARE TWO INVESTIGATORS NOW ONLY WORKING ON MR. SIMPSON'S BEHALF ON A FULL-TIME BASIS TO TRY TO TRACK DOWN FRIENDLY FAVORABLE WITNESSES WHOM WE WILL NOT CALL FOR AT LEAST THE NEXT TWO MONTHS OR SO. AND THEREFORE, BECAUSE WE DO NOT WANT TO BE SANCTIONED BY PRECLUSION, WE THEN PUT THEIR NAMES ON THE WITNESS LIST, AND SOMETIMES, YOUR HONOR, WE PUT THE NAMES ON THE WITNESS LIST BEFORE WE EVEN HAVE A COPY OF THE ADDRESS OR THE TELEPHONE NUMBER BECAUSE WE EXPECT REASONABLY AND FAIRLY THAT THEY WILL BE CALLED AS WITNESSES AND THAT BY THE TIME IT IS RELEVANT AND NECESSARY WE WILL BE ABLE TO PROVIDE CONTINUING DISCOVERY, BECAUSE IT IS IN FACT A CONTINUING PROCESS. YOUR HONOR, THERE ARE OCCASIONS WHEN WE HAVE INTERVIEWED OR SPOKEN WITH -- MR. COCHRAN WOULD SPEAK TO, FOR EXAMPLE, HENRY LEE, BARBARA WOLF, MICHAEL BADEN. THESE ARE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE ON THEIR WITNESS LIST, THEY ARE AWARE OF THE NAMES, AND I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE CITED A CASE THAT ARGUES THAT WHEN A LAWYER SPEAKS TO AN EXPERT ABOUT SOMETHING THAT THE LAWYER MAY SAY IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT OR ABOUT A PROPER RESPONSE TO THE SUGGESTIONS IN THE PEOPLE'S OPENING THAT BY THAT CONVERSATION ALONE HE IS REQUIRED TO REDUCE THAT CONVERSATION TO A DISCOVERABLE DOCUMENT AND THEN IMMEDIATELY TURN IT OVER TO THE OTHER SIDE. THAT IS NOT THE OBLIGATIONS EVEN UNDER PROP 115 OR THE U.S. CONSTITUTION OR THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION, YOUR HONOR, BECAUSE THIS MAN STILL HAS FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS THAT STILL SURVIVE EVEN PROP 115. YOUR HONOR, THEY TALK ABOUT NOT KNOWING ABOUT DR. KARY MULLIS, THE NOBEL PRIZE WINNER. I REPRESENT TO THE COURT THAT DR. MULLIS WAS A WITNESS IN THE WINN CASE, A CASE WHERE MR. ROBERT BLASIER WAS A DEFENSE ATTORNEY IN, A CASE WITH SOME OF THE SAME DNA ISSUES AND A CASE WHICH MR. BLASIER WON AND THE COURT DECIDED THAT DNA WAS NOT ADEQUATELY RELIABLE TO BE ADMITTED INTO A CRIMINAL CASE. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IS AWARE OF THAT, AND YOUR HONOR, I BELIEVE THAT IF MR. DARDEN WERE TO CHECK WITH MR. WOODY CLARK AND MR. ROCK HARMON, THAT HE WOULD LEARN THAT THEY HAVE ATTEMPTED TO OBTAIN MR. MULLIS' TESTIMONY IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE, THAT INDEED MR. HARMON SOUGHT TO BE INTRODUCED AS A SPECIAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY IN THAT CASE TO HELP CROSS-EXAMINE SOME OF THE DEFENDANT'S EXPERTS, SO FOR THEM TO SAY THAT LO AND BEHOLD THEY DIDN'T KNOW THAT, THEY ARE SURPRISED, I SUGGEST TO THE COURT IS NOT TOTALLY WITH GOOD FAITH.
YOUR HONOR, I HAVE JUST LOOKED FOR TODAY AND HE WAS ON THE LIST THAT WE GAVE IN OCTOBER OF COMPLYING BACK AND FORTH WITH WHO OUR DNA EXPERTS OUR. HE WAS NOT PLACED ON OUR SUPPLEMENTAL LIST, BUT HE WILL, BUT THAT LIST, YOUR HONOR, OF DNA EXPERTS RESPONDED TO THEIR LIST OF DNA EXPERTS. IT WAS TURNED OVER TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY. MR. CLARK, MR. HARMON AND MISS KAHN ARE AWARE OF EACH OF THEM.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS, YOUR HONOR, AND MR. SCHECK IS NO LONGER HERE IN COURT, HOPEFULLY HE IS WATCHING ON A TELEVISION WITH HIS FAMILY IN NEW YORK CITY, BUT IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING, YOUR HONOR, THAT BOTH SIDES HAVE NOW MUTUALLY EXCHANGED RESUMES OF EACH OF THE DNA EXPERTS BUT THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING SECONDHAND FROM MR. SCHECK. THERE IS A SUGGESTION, YOUR HONOR, THAT BARBARA WOLF WAS A SURPRISE. MISS WOLF'S NAME, HER ADDRESS, HER TELEPHONE NUMBER, WERE PROVIDED IN AUGUST OF 1994. AGAIN WE HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH MISS WOLF. WE DO NOT REDUCE THOSE CONVERSATIONS DOWN IN WRITTEN FORM. THERE ARE NO REPORTS FROM BARBARA WOLF CONCERNING HER TESTIMONY OR HER CONCLUSIONS OR HER FINDINGS IN THIS CASE. THERE ARE NO REPORTS FROM DR. MICHAEL BADEN CONCERNING HIS TESTIMONY, HIS CONCLUSIONS OR FINDINGS IN THIS CASE. THERE ARE NO REPORTS FROM DR. HENRY LEE WHO IS IN FACT THE PREEMINENT BLOOD SPLATTER EXPERT IN AMERICA, CONCERNING HIS CONCLUSIONS, HIS FINDINGS OR HIS IMPRESSIONS IN THIS CASE.
WE ARE AWARE, IF ANY SUCH REPORT IS GENERATED, THAT IT IS DISCOVERABLE AND WE WILL DO SO. YOUR HONOR, MR. WEITZMAN IS AN ATTORNEY THAT MR. COCHRAN HAS KNOWN FOR THIRTY YEARS. I HAVE ENJOYED THE PLEASURE OF HIS COMPANY FOR TEN AND I CALL HIM ON THE PHONE AT HOME IF I NEED TO. WHEN I SAY, "HOWIE, TELL ME ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED AT THE JAIL" AND HE SAYS, "THEY TOLD ME I HAD TO LEAVE," I DO NOT THINK LAW OR THE CODE REQUIRES THAT I PUT THAT IN A WRITING AND TURN IT OVER TO THE OTHER SIDE. SKIP TAFT HAS BEEN MR. SIMPSON'S PERSONAL BUSINESS ATTORNEY FOR OVER TWENTY YEARS. WHEN HE TELLS ME THAT THE POLICE OFFICERS TOLD HIM THAT THEY HAD TO LEAVE WHEN MR. SIMPSON WAS BEING INTERVIEWED, THAT IS NOT A CONVERSATION THAT I WOULD PUT DOWN IN WRITING. WHETHER OR NOT THE DISCLOSURE OF THE ENVELOPE WAS A PROPER FUNCTION TO PRESENT TO THE JURY IS NOT REALLY A DISCOVERY ISSUE, YOUR HONOR, IS NOT REALLY A DISCOVERY ISSUE THAT IS PROPERLY A 402 ISSUE, BUT REMEMBER, WHAT HAPPENED WAS MR. HODGMAN STOOD UP, MR. COCHRAN WALKED OVER, TOLD HIM WHAT HE WAS GOING TO DO, GIVING HIM THE BENEFIT OF HIS INFORMATION, ALLOWING HIM TO LODGE AN OBJECTION. IT WAS LODGED. SIDE BAR WAS APPROACHED. THE MATTER WAS RESOLVED AND HE MOVED ON.
THERE IS SOME QUESTION ABOUT THE STATEMENT OF DINO BUCCOLLA. YOUR HONOR, MR. BUCCOLLA'S NAME WAS GIVEN ON MONDAY AND THE COURT ASKED ME DO I -- DO YOU EXPECT ME TO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS NO REPORT? AND I SAID "YES" AND THERE WAS NO REPORT. BUT ON JANUARY 24, IN PART BECAUSE HIS HONOR GAVE THOSE WORDS TO ME, I HAD MY INVESTIGATOR INTERVIEW MR. BUCCOLLA. THAT INTERVIEW TOOK PLACE ON JANUARY 24TH AND THE DOCUMENT WAS FAXED TO OUR COURTROOM FAX AT 4:16 P.M. THAT DAY. WHEN I RECEIVED THAT DOCUMENT, YOUR HONOR, RATHER THAN LEAVING THE COURTROOM, I WENT UPSTAIRS MYSELF TO THE 18TH FLOOR AND HANDED THAT DOCUMENT TO CHERI LEWIS, MAKING SURE THAT I COULD DO EVERYTHING THAT I COULD, IN THE FACE OF THE SLINGS AND ARROWS THAT WERE SLUNG MY WAY, TO SHOW MY GOOD FAITH, TO SHOW THAT I'M TRYING TO PLAY FAIR, AND TO OBVIATE ANY ACCUSATIONS THAT I HEARD THIS AFTERNOON. THE PREJUDICE, YOUR HONOR, THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE SUGGESTED IS JUST NOT TRUE. BEFORE 1992, YOUR HONOR, THERE WAS NO RECIPROCAL DISCOVERY, YET THERE WERE MURDER CASES, THERE WERE ROBBERY CASES, THERE WERE SHOPLIFTING CASES, THERE WERE DRUNK DRIVING CASES WHERE THE PEOPLE WOULD OPEN UP THEIR ENTIRE FILE AND THE DEFENDANTS WOULD GIVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
SO FOR THESE HISTRIONICS TO GO ON AND FOR THERE TO BE THE SUGGESTION THAT THIS IS THE MOST EGREGIOUS WRONG IN THE HISTORY OF JURISPRUDENCE IS LAUGHABLE, CLEARLY LAUGHABLE. ONLY SINCE 1992 WHEN THE PEOPLE OF THIS STATE, NOT THE LEGISLATURE, THOUGHT IN THEIR WISDOM TO IMPOSE ON THE DEFENDANTS THE REQUIREMENTS OF PROP 51 (SIC) HAVE THOSE REQUIREMENTS BEEN IN PLACE. AND DEFENSE LAWYERS IN THIS STATE ARE CONTINUING TO WRESTLE WITH THE IMPLICATIONS OF THAT LAW. WE ARE CONTINUING TO WEIGH AND TO BALANCE OUR OBLIGATIONS TO A LAW THAT WE FEEL IS UNJUST AND OUR PRIMARILY OBLIGATIONS TO OUR CLIENT WHO HAS AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION, AND YOUR HONOR, IF IT MEANS THAT WE WEIGH IN FAVOR OF SELF-INCRIMINATION AND THAT THOSE INTERESTS ARE MORE PROFOUND AND THAT THOSE INTERESTS ARE THE STRONGEST AND AS A RESULT WE MUST BE PRECLUDED FROM OFFERING THE TESTIMONY OF THOSE WITNESSES UNTIL THE END OF THE DEFENSE CASE, SO BE IT.
MR. DOUGLAS, AS A FORMER LONG-TIME FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, THIS SCHEME OF RECIPROCAL DISCOVERY IS NOT UNKNOWN TO YOU AND IT IS WELL-SETTLED IN THE LAW GIVEN TO US BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, THAT THESE SCHEMES ARE NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
YOUR HONOR, I'M NOT ARGUING THAT THE SCHEMES ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, BUT I ARGUE THAT AS A DEFENSE LAWYER I MUST CONSTANTLY DAILY WRESTLE WITH THE INTERNAL CONFLICT WITHIN ME OF RESOLVING A LAW THAT I FEEL IS UNFAIR, A LAW THAT I FEEL IS UNJUST, BUT A LAW THAT I AM COMPELLED TO FOLLOW. AND THERE ARE CONFLICTS, YOUR HONOR, THAT ARE OCCURRING ACROSS THE DEFENSE OFFICES IN THIS STATE, IN PUBLIC DEFENDER OFFICES EVERYWHERE. NO ONE WHO REPRESENTS A MAN ACCUSED OF A CRIME, PARTICULARLY A MURDER CASE, ENJOYS COMPLYING WITH THAT LAW, BUT WE MUST AND WE TRY TO. YOUR HONOR, I RECOGNIZE THAT IT IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE SOLELY. I RECOGNIZE THE WISDOM OF THE COURTS. I DO NOT ARGUE THAT I SHOULD NOT OR MUST NOT COMPLY WITH THE RULE, EVEN THOUGH I FEEL IT UNJUST, AND I DO COMPLY, YOUR HONOR, BUT I OFFER TO THE COURT THAT WHEN THE COURT MEASURES AND BALANCES AND WEIGHS EVERYTHING, WHEN THE COURT DOES EQUITY, WHICH IS INDEED ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT ROLES OF A JUDGE, THAT THE COURT BALANCE THE EQUITY OF THE PREJUDICE TO THE DEFENDANTS AND THE REAL PREJUDICE, NOT JUST THE PUFFED UP SOUFFLE OF PREJUDICE THAT WE HAVE HEARD THIS AFTERNOON, BUT THE REAL PREJUDICE AGAINST REASONABLE SOLUTIONS TO A CLEAR AND UNDERSTANDABLE MISTAKE.
GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR. OF ALL THE LAWYERS WHO HAVE ADDRESSED YOUR HONOR THIS AFTERNOON, I'M GOING TO TRY AND BE THE SHORTEST, IF I CAN. I'M SURE YOU WILL BE VERY PATIENT AND LISTEN TO US AS ALWAYS. I'M GOING TO TRY NOT TO RAISE MY VOICE, YOUR HONOR, BECAUSE I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE ALWAYS TRY TO CONDUCT OURSELVES AS PROFESSIONALS, EVEN IN THE FACE OF SOME RATHER UNTOWARD ATTACKS. BUT I ASK THE COURT TO REMEMBER THAT IN THE PROSECUTION'S PRESENTATION MR. DARDEN, MY GOOD FRIEND MR. DARDEN -- AND I AM REMINDED THAT MY WIFE IS PRESENT IN COURT HERE TODAY, AS THE COURT KNOWS, AND DURING THE BREAK -- I SAID -- INTRODUCED HER TO CHRIS DARDEN AND CHRIS SAYS, "I AM YOUR HUSBAND'S GOOD FRIEND." AND I TELL MY WIFE, "I CERTAINLY HOPE THAT YOU DON'T LOVE ME LIKE HE DOES, BECAUSE I THINK I MIGHT BE IN TROUBLE." BUT I WANT TO POINT OUT TO THE COURT THAT WITH REGARD TO MR. DARDEN AND SOME OF THIS HISTRIONICS WE HAVE HEARD OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS, MR. DARDEN IS THE SAME PERSON THAT STOOD BEFORE YOU AND TOLD YOU THAT IF WE INTERROGATED ANY POLICE OFFICER LIKE MARK FUHRMAN WITH ANY RACIAL SLURS IT WOULD SO POLLUTE -- WE COULD NOT PURSUE RACIAL ANIMUS. IT WOULD SO POLLUTE THIS JURY THAT THEY COULDN'T GET A FAIR TRIAL. THEIR WHOLE CASE WOULD FALL APART. REMEMBER THAT? THESE PEOPLE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND TO PUT IT IN PERSPECTIVE. THEY ARE THE SAME PEOPLE WHO BROUGHT YOU THAT WHICH -- WHICH IS NOT GOING TO BE TRUE AND I THINK EVERYBODY AGREES WITH THAT. COUNSEL MADE A NUMBER OF STATEMENTS IN THEIR OPENING STATEMENT AND I THINK WE SHOULD PUT THINGS IN PERSPECTIVE ABOUT OPENING STATEMENTS, YOUR HONOR. YOU HAVE SAID ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS AND I SAID -- WE ALL SAID WHEN WE GOT UP, OPENING STATEMENTS ARE NOT EVIDENCE, WHAT WE EXPECT TO PROVE, WHAT WE EXPECT TO PROVE IN GOOD FAITH. IF YOU DON'T PROVE THAT, THEN YOU SUFFER THE SLINGS AND ARROWS THAT OCCURS WITH THAT. FOR THEM TO STAND HERE AND TALK ABOUT THAT THEY HAVE SUFFERED, THERE IS AN UNEVEN PLAYING FIELD, YOUR HONOR, FOR THE FIRST TIME IN SEVEN MONTHS YESTERDAY SOMEBODY WAS ABLE TO GET UP AND SAY SOMETHING ON BEHALF OF MR. SIMPSON. AND THAT IS ALL THAT TOOK PLACE. ALL I DID WAS TRY TO ADDRESS WHAT THEY HAD SAID, YOUR HONOR AND--
YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION. THIS IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE MATTER BEFORE THIS COURT AND MR. COCHRAN HAS ALREADY ADDRESSED THE COURT.
MISS CLARK, MISS CLARK, PLEASE, I HAVE -- WHEN WE ARE HERE OUTSIDE OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY, I WILL HEAR THE COMPLETE COMMENT OF COUNSEL, PLEASE, WITHOUT OBJECTION. YOU WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO MR. COCHRAN.
THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR, AGAIN. WITH REGARD TO THIS -- I TRIED TO ADDRESS THE THINGS THEY SAID IN THEIR OPENING STATEMENT, AND I FELT THEY SAID A NUMBER OF OUTRAGEOUS THINGS THAT THEY COULDN'T PROVE BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION, BUT I DIDN'T STAND UP -- I DIDN'T COME CRYING TO YOU THAT NIGHT AND SAID, LOOK, JUDGE, HE KNOW, HE CAN'T PROVE THOSE THINGS, HE CAN'T PROVE THOSE THINGS OF DOMESTIC DISCORD HE TALKED ABOUT, THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE -- BECAUSE WE DON'T TRY CASES THAT WAY, JUDGE. I WILL JUST WAIT UNTIL I GET MY CHANCE TO TELL THE JURY WHAT I THINK AND THEN I WILL DEAL WITH THE EVIDENCE. IT IS THE EVIDENCE THAT WE WILL BE TALKING ABOUT IN THIS CASE. NOW, CERTAINLY FOR ANYONE TO STAND HERE AND SAY THAT AFTER 32 YEARS OF PRACTICE THAT I WOULD IN ANY WAY JEOPARDIZE MY REPUTATION OR DO SOMETHING UNTOWARD IN A CASE, I WOULD NEVER DO THAT. I WOULD NEVER EVER DO THAT. WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE -- AND I WOULDN'T STAND UP AS MISS CLARK DID AND TELL THE JURY THAT ALLAN PARK SAYS HE SAW A BRONCO PARKED THERE. I DIDN'T JUMP ON THAT. I JUST CAME BACK AND READ WHAT HE SAID. I DON'T HAVE TO CALL ANYBODY A LIAR. I THINK IN THIS CASE THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH THEM. THEY ALWAYS WANT TO LABEL EVERYBODY. I WOULD MUCH PREFER READING THE TESTIMONY AND THEN I THINK IT MAKES IT CLEAR. THAT IS WHAT I THINK WE WILL BE DOING OR TRYING TO DO. NOW, THEY MAKE A BIG THING ABOUT ALL THE THINGS THAT I SAID AND IT TURNS OUT, JUDGE, WITH REGARD TO THE THINGS I TALKED ABOUT YESTERDAY, THAT DAN MANDEL AND ELLEN ARRONSON, VERY WELL-KNOWN TO THEM, THEY HAVE ALL THE REPORTS. THEY TALKED TO THEM, WE HAD TALKED TO THEM. TOM LANG, THEY TALKED TO HIM, WE HAD TALKED TO HIM. MR. DOUGLAS POINTS OUT ROSA LOPEZ, THEY TALKED TO HIM, WE HAD TALKED TO HIM. MR. DOUGLAS HAS EXPLAINED THE SITUATION WITH MARY ANNE GERCHAS, AND I APOLOGIZE TO THE COURT FOR THAT. CERTAINLY I HAD THOUGHT THAT HAD BEEN TURNED OVER. THE LAST THING IN MY MIND TO TRY TO DO THAT. BUT I WANT TO TELL THE COURT SOMETHING ABOUT THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF COUNSEL AND WHY WE NEED TO BE PROFESSIONAL. DURING THE BREAK WE RECEIVED A CALL IN THIS COURTROOM FROM MARY ANNE GERCHAS' LAWYER. SHE WAS SO DISTRAUGHT, SHE IS TOTALLY DISTRAUGHT AT HAVING BEEN CALLED A THIEF ON TELEVISION BY MR. DARDEN -- HE SHOULD BE REAL HAPPY THAT HE MADE THESE STATEMENTS WITHIN THIS COURTROOM. HER LAWYERS ARE INCENSED. THIS WOMAN IS VERY, VERY, VERY UPSET. SHE SAYS IT'S ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE AND WHAT SHE SAID IS THE TRUTH. I MEAN, IT IS IRONIC AND OUTRAGEOUS THAT THEY WOULD DO THAT. IT SEEMS TO ME THEN THAT WHENEVER THEY STAND UP TO TALK, JUDGE, IT HAS TO BE CHARACTER ASSASSINATION, WHETHER IT IS O.J. SIMPSON, WHETHER IT IS MARY ANNE GERCHAS, WHETHER IT IS AT THE END OF THIS MORNING WHERE HE STANDS UP AND SAYS EVERYBODY ON OUR LIST IS A LIAR, A THIEF OR A FELON. ISN'T THAT INTERESTING, JUDGE, THAT ANYBODY THAT THEY DON'T CALL, YOU KNOW, BECOMES SOME VERY BAD PERSON. I DON'T THINK YOU CONDUCT YOURSELF THAT WAY AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT HOW WE APPEAR AND HOW THIS SYSTEM APPEARS AROUND THE COUNTRY. NOW, MORE SPECIFICALLY, I HAVE INDICATED TO THE COURT ABOUT MARY ANNE GERCHAS AND THE COURT -- MR. DOUGLAS HAS TALKED ABOUT KARY MULLIS. THERE IS NO CONFUSION THERE. THERE IS NO CONFUSION WITH THE PEOPLE REGARDING CORA AND RON FISCHMAN. THEY KNOW ALL THESE PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY ALL RAN AROUND TOGETHER, YOUR HONOR. AND IF WE INADVERTENTLY LEFT THEIR NAME OFF, WE APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. I ASSUMED THOSE NAMES HAD BEEN TAKEN CARE OF. MY JOB HAS NOT BEEN THAT ASPECT OF IT. I AM NOT TRYING TO SHY AWAY FROM IT, BUT EVERYBODY HAS RESPONSIBILITIES AND ROLES, AND SO CAN'T DO EVERYTHING, BUT WE WANT TO ADHERE TO THAT. CERTAINLY IT IS OUTRAGEOUS FOR ANYONE TO SAY THAT WE THINK WE ARE ABOVE ANYTHING. I PRACTICED LAW IN THE COURTS OF THIS COUNTY FOR 32 OR 33 YEARS. I AM THE BLUE COLLAR LAWYER THAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT, EXCEPT YOU SEE I WAS ON THAT SIDE FOR ALMOST HALF THE TIME AND I'VE BEEN OUT HERE EARNING A LIVING THE REST OF THE TIME. AND SO I UNDERSTAND BOTH SIDES. I UNDERSTAND. NOW, ONE OF THESE DAYS WHEN THEY GET UP ENOUGH NERVE AND COME ON THIS SIDE, THEY WILL UNDERSTAND, JUDGE, THAT IT IS TOUGH WHEN YOU HAVE TO RUN YOUR OWN PRACTICE.
AND MARCIA WAS THERE FOR A SHORT TIME, YES, SHE WAS, TO HER CREDIT, BUT NOT AS LONG AS WE'VE BEEN HERE AND SHE'D UNDERSTAND WHAT MR. DOUGLAS WAS TRYING TO SAY -- AND I WANT TO CLARIFY THIS IS -- AS BEING A LITTLE OLDER AND LITTLE CALMER, THAT THERE IS THIS PHILOSOPHICAL THING, AND I WANT TO POINT IT OUT TO YOUR HONOR, AND YOU -- THE OTHER DAY WE HAD THIS CONVERSATION -- WE TALKED ABOUT DEFENSE LAWYERS AND THEIR ROLE AND YOU SAID YOU HAVE BEEN A DEFENSE LAWYER. WHEN I GO TO THE JAIL AND I TALK TO MY CLIENT, AND HE TELLS ME SOMETHING, I DON'T HAVE ANY OBLIGATION TO TELL THEM THAT, JUDGE. IF I KNOW THAT HE HAS RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS, IF I KNOW THAT HE HAD TROUBLE SHUFFLING CARDS ON JUNE 12, THERE IS NO REPORT ON THAT, JUDGE. AS MR. DOUGLAS SAYS, IF I TALKED TO HOWARD WEITZMAN, WHOM I HAVE KNOWN FOR THIRTY YEARS, WE REPRESENTED MICHAEL JACKSON TOGETHER, IF I TALK TO HIM AND I KNOW WHAT HE AND SKIP TAFT WILL SAY, THERE IS NO REPORT ON THAT. I DON'T THINK YOU'D REQUIRE THAT, IN THE MIDST OF EVERYTHING ELSE, TO SIT DOWN AND WRITE A REPORT REGARDING THAT. NOW, THEY KNOW HOWARD WEITZMAN WAS DOWN THERE. THEY KNOW SKIP TAFT WAS THERE. THIS IS NO SURPRISE, JUDGE. WHAT HAPPENED, JUDGE, YESTERDAY -- AND I WANT YOU TO PUT THIS IN -- IN PERSPECTIVE, WAS FINALLY SOMEBODY FROM THE DEFENSE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO STAND UP AND TELL THE FACTS AS WE UNDERSTOOD THEM. IF THEY DON'T LIKE THOSE FACTS, THEY SAY THEY FEEL IT'S -- IT IS UNFAIR. JUDGE, IF WE DON'T PROVE THOSE FACTS, THEN THEY ARE ALL THE BETTER FOR IT. THEY BENEFIT FROM THAT. NOBODY IS TRYING TO SANDBAG THEM. FOR MONTHS THEY TALKED AND TRIED THIS MAN IN THE PRESS. YOU KNOW, TALK ABOUT UNCLEAN HANDS, TO VILIFY SOMEBODY LIKE THIS MAN AND EVEN TO STAND HERE TODAY, YOUR HONOR, AND REFER TO HIM AS A DREAM DEFENDANT. YOUR HONOR, WHO WOULD EVER WANT TO BE A DEFENDANT? THAT'S A -- THAT'S A -- IS IF EVER THERE WAS AN OXYMORON, YOUR HONOR, THAT MAY BE IT, ISN'T IT? A DREAM DEFENDANT? I MEAN, WHO WANTS TO BE A DEFENDANT? BUT THAT'S TO MALIGN ALL OF US AND WE DON'T TAKE IT PERSONALLY BECAUSE MR. DARDEN SAYS HE LOVES ME, SO SINCE HE LOVES ME --
-- I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT PERSONALLY. BUT JUDGE, GO ON AND LOOK AT THE REST OF THE LIST. JOE STELLINI IS A FRIEND OF THE DEFENDANT. THERE IS NO REPORT, WE HAVE NOT INTERVIEWED JOE STELLINI. WE DON'T HAVE UNLIMITED RESOURCES LIKE THEY HAVE, YOUR HONOR. MICHAEL BADEN. MICHAEL BADEN AND BARBARA WOLF CAME OUT HERE THE WEEK OF THESE MURDERS, IF THE COURT PLEASE. THEY WENT OVER -- AND THERE IS A LETTER WHERE MR. SHAPIRO OFFERED -- THEY OFFERED TO HELP THE LAPD AND THE CORONER'S OFFICE HELP SOLVE THIS CRIME WHICH WAS -- WHICH WAS REJECTED. THEY WENT OVER TO THE LAB. THEY WENT OVER AND LOOKED AT THESE EXHIBITS. THEY KNEW ABOUT THEM FROM THE BEGINNING, JUDGE. THEY WERE THERE LIKE JUNE 15. THEY KNOW ABOUT IT. THE ONE REPORT FROM HENRY LEE THAT YOU KNOW ABOUT, WE TURNED THAT OVER. I MEAN, WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER REPORTS. NOW, I MEAN, I CAN'T MAKE -- THESE ARE BUSY MEN. HENRY LEE IS THE FOREMOST BLOOD SPLATTER CRIME SCENE FORENSIC EXPERT IN THE COUNTRY. AND SO THEY MIGHT NOT LIKE WE HAVE HENRY LEE ON THE SIDE, BUT THAT'S NOT THE REASON TO BAR US. THEY KNOW ABOUT IT. THE SAME THING WITH KARY MULLIS. IF HE WINS THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE AND THEY DON'T HAVE HIM, THEY MAY NOT LIKE THAT, BUT THAT DOESN'T LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD, JUDGE. THEY KNOW ABOUT IT.
YOU KNOW, JUDGE, I SAID THAT. I'M GOING TO MAKE THAT CLEAR. THE NOBLE PRIZE FOR CHEMISTRY. I HAD DR. KING ON THE MIND YESTERDAY WHEN I WAS SAYING THAT WHO DID WIN THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE.
NOW, YOU WOULD KNOW THOSE FACTS, TOO. I'M NOT SURPRISED, JUDGE. IS HE ON OUR WITNESS LIST YET?
OKAY. WE PUT HIM ON OUR LIST. I WILL LET YOU KNOW -- IF WE PUT HIM ON YOUR LIST, JUDGE, I'LL LET YOU KNOW.
THEN YOU WILL BE AMAZED. I THINK SO, JUDGE. YOUR HONOR -- TO CONTINUE, YOUR HONOR, IN A SERIOUS VEIN, SO -- SO WITH REGARD TO MICHAEL BADEN, HENRY LEE AND BARBARA WOLF, THEY ARE ALL OUT HERE THE FIRST WEEK, JUDGE. WHAT ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT? THERE ARE NO REPORTS. I'M TELLING YOU THERE ARE NO REPORTS. THESE ARE OUR EXPERTS. I DON'T HAVE ANY REPORTS. WHEN WE GET REPORTS, I WILL MAKE SURE AND MR. DOUGLAS WILL MAKE SURE THAT YOU GET THOSE REPORTS.
I WALKED OVER TO YOUR HONOR'S CLERK AND I SAID MAY I HAVE -- MAY I GET THIS ENVELOPE -- THE ENVELOPE EARLIER, AND THEN I ASKED MR. DOUGLAS TO GET IT. BEFORE I FINISHED DOING ANYTHING, I WAS OVER HERE, I WALKED OVER TO MR. HODGMAN AND I SAID LET ME MAKE AN OFFER OF PROOF TO YOU. I'M NOT GOING TO TRY TO OPEN THIS. WHAT I WAS SEEKING TO TRY TO DO -- AND YOU'LL HAVE TO MAKE THE JUDGMENT ON THIS -- I AM A TRIAL LAWYER, AND THIS IS A COURT'S EXHIBIT, SO IT'S NOT ANYTHING I HAD. I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY. AND I MADE THE OFFER OF PROOF THERE. WHAT I WAS SEEKING TO TRY AND DO WAS USE THIS AS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE PEOPLE'S RUSH TO JUDGMENT. NOW, I KNOW THEY WOULDN'T LIKE ME TO USE THOSE WORDS, JUDGE, BUT THEY CAN'T STOP ME FROM USING THOSE WORDS, AND THAT WAS ANOTHER EXAMPLE, AS I TRIED TO DEMONSTRATE WITH THE FINGERNAILS AND WITH THE OTHER THINGS THAT THEY DIDN'T BOTHER CHECKING UP ON. WHEN MR. HODGMAN SAID, WELL, I LIKE TO APPROACH THE BENCH, WE APPROACHED THE BENCH. YOU AT FIRST, AS YOU RECALL -- I WILL TELL YOU WHAT YOU DID -- YOU AT FIRST FELT IT WAS APPROPRIATE. WHEN YOU INQUIRED FURTHER AS TO WHETHER THEY HAD SOME REPORT, WHICH APPARENTLY MR. HODGMAN SAID THEY DIDN'T HAVE, WHICH I DIDN'T HAVE EITHER AND I THOUGHT THEY PROBABLY HAD IT, YOU SAID, WELL, IF THEY DON'T HAVE THAT REPORT, MR. COCHRAN, YOU CAN'T DO IT, AND WE HAVE PUT IT BACK. WE NEVER TALKED ABOUT IT. NOW, THAT GETS BLOWN ALL OUT OF PROPORTIONS AND WE STILL DON'T KNOW UNTIL -- HIS SPECULATION. HE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT IS IN THAT ENVELOPE. LET ME MAKE THAT CLEAR. I DON'T THINK HE KNOWS. IF HE DOES, THAT IS SOMETHING ELSE THEY KNOW THAT WE DON'T -- THEY CLAIM THEY DON'T KNOW, BUT WE HAVE NEVER SAID WHAT'S IN THAT ENVELOPE, NEVER, AND WE DIDN'T YESTERDAY AT ALL AND THE JURORS DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT. SO WITH REGARD TO THIS MAN'S PHYSICAL CONDITION, HE'S OUR CLIENT. I KNOW ABOUT HIS PHYSICAL CONDITION. DOCTOR HUIZENGA IS ON THE LIST. WHEN WE GET A REPORT FROM DR. HUIZENGA OR FROM HIS RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS SPECIALIST, RHEUMATOLOGIST, I GUESS HE'S CALLED, YOUR HONOR, WE WILL BE THE FIRST TO BRING THAT FORWARD TO YOU. MR. DARDEN GETS UP HERE AND SAYS I MENTIONED DINO BUCCOLLA. I NEVER MENTIONED DINO BUCCOLLA ONE TIME. NEVER MENTIONED HIM IN OPENING STATEMENT AT ALL. YOU HAD TO POINT THAT OUT AND I NEVER DID THAT. SO LET ME JUST END MY REMARKS BY SAYING AND ASKING YOUR HONOR TO DO THE RIGHT THING WITH REGARD TO THIS. BILL HODGMAN IS SOMEBODY THAT I HAVE A GREAT AMOUNT OF RESPECT FOR, AS I HAVE INDICATED, AND I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT HIS PHYSICAL CONDITION AND I HOPE THAT HE WILL GET WELL SOON AND I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT AND I HAVE DISCUSSED THAT WITH OUR CLIENT. BUT TALK ABOUT SANCTIONS. WHEN HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A CASE, JUDGE, WHERE FIRST OF ALL THEY GET UP AND MAKE AN UNFETTERED OPENING STATEMENT TO OUR JURY. BECAUSE WE WANT TO BE PROFESSIONAL WE DIDN'T OBJECT UNTIL THE VERY END WHEN IT BECAME ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. BECAUSE OF EVENTS BEYOND OUR CONTROL, I COULDN'T START THAT DAY. WE HAD TO LEAVE. THE JURORS GOT TO GO HOME THAT NIGHT. WE CAME BACK THE NEXT DAY AND I GOT MY CHANCE TO MAKE THE OPENING STATEMENT, IN WHICH THE THINGS THAT I SAID I EXPECT TO PROVE, THINGS THAT I KNOW FROM MY CLIENT. I DON'T THINK THAT THEY CAN CHANGE THAT OR TALK ABOUT LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD. BECAUSE APPARENTLY THEY FELT THE JOB THAT I DID MADE THEM NERVOUS AND UPSET THE NEXT DAY WE SAW -- SAW THESE HISTRIONICS AND SO THEY NOW WANT YOU TO CARVE OUT SOME NEW LAW. THEY HAVE NO CASES THAT CITE THIS, AND YOU HAVE A LOT OF DISCRETION, JUDGE. THEY WANT TO CARVE OUT SOMETHING TO GIVE THEM LIKE ANOTHER OPENING SO THAT THEY CAN GET BACK UP AND TALK. WELL, THEN DO I GET A CHANCE TO RESPOND TO THAT? I MEAN, THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. EVERYTHING THAT WE DID, WE HAVE DONE IN GOOD FAITH. WE WANT TO TRY THIS CASE AS MUCH AS THEY DO. AND IN FACT YOU RECALL I HAVE SAID FOR THE LAST TEN DAYS, LET'S STOP ALL THIS POSTURING AND LET'S GET THIS CASE ON THE WAY. THE FINAL THING I WANT TO SAY IS THIS: THAT IT IS RARELY PRODUCTIVE OF GOOD TO MALIGN CITIZENS. AS YOU KNOW, I'M -- I AM A BIG FIGHTER FOR JURORS AND FOR WITNESSES. AND FOR MR. DARDEN TO STAND HERE AND SAY THAT CHRISTIAN RIECHARDT -- REINHART -- RIECHARDT, RATHER, WAS DUMPED BY FAYE RESNICK IS PERHAPS THE GREATEST BIT OF HYPERBOLE I HAVE EVER HEARD. THAT IS SO FAR FROM THE TRUTH. IT STRAINS CREDULITY. IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. HE PUT HER OUT BECAUSE SHE WAS USING DRUGS AND AFTER SHE USED DRUGS SO BADLY, AND IN THAT FIVE OR SIX-DAY PERIOD, HE WAS THE ONE WHO HELP PUT HER IN A DRUG TREATMENT PLACE.
MR. COCHRAN, AS INTERESTING AS THAT CONVERSATION ABOUT THAT PROBABLY IS AND PROBABLY WILL BE LATER --
-- MY INTEREST IS IN THE PEOPLE'S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS. THEY HAVE ASKED ME TO TELL THE JURY THAT I'M STRIKING FROM YOUR COMMENTS AND FOR THEM TO IGNORE YOUR REFERENCES TO THESE VARIOUS WITNESSES AND ITEMS THAT THEY HAVE DISCUSSED. THEY HAVE ASKED ME TO ADMONISH THEM THAT THE MENTION OF THOSE WAS NOT APPROPRIATE BECAUSE THE PROSECUTION WAS ENTITLED TO KNOW OF THOSE WITNESS STATEMENTS OR THE IDENTITY OF THOSE WITNESSES BEFORE THE OPENING STATEMENT WAS MADE, AND THEY ARE ASKING FOR A THIRTY-DAY CONTINUANCE. SO I WOULD LIKE YOUR OBSERVATIONS ON THE VARIOUS SANCTIONS THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS REQUESTED.
LET ME DO THAT. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. AND THE ONLY REASON I WAS TALKING ABOUT RIECHARDT, I JUST FELT YOU HAVE -- YOU HAVE TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT SOMETIME. THERE IS A MAN -- HE IS A DOCTOR, JUDGE. HE IS OUT THERE HAVING THE SLINGS AND ARROWS -- WE CAN TAKE IT, BUT IT IS NOT FAIR TO THESE OTHER PEOPLE TO GO THROUGH CHRISTOPHER DARDEN'S -- I KNOW HE LOVES THEM, TOO, BUT WE CAN TAKE IT BETTER. JUDGE, WITH REGARD YOUR -- TO THE THIRTY DAYS, I THINK AGAIN, YOUR HONOR, IT IS ALMOST LIKE THEY ARE KIDDING ABOUT THIRTY DAYS. YOUR HONOR, WE WERE AT THE -- THEY HAVEN'T EVEN CALLED THEIR FIRST WITNESS.
YOU KNOW, YOU ARE VERY OPTIMISTIC AND SO AM I GENERALLY. I WOULD LIKE TO THINK THE DEFENSE IS GOING TO START WITHIN TWO MONTHS, PROBABLY MORE LIKE THREE MONTHS. JUDGE, BY THAT TIME THEY WILL HAVE TIME TO INVESTIGATE EVERYTHING. THEY'VE GOT THE LAPD, THEY'VE GOT THE D.A.'S OFFICE, THEY'VE GOT EVERYTHING. THEY GOT ALL THIS INFORMATION THEY SUPPOSEDLY GOT ON MARY ANNE GERCHAS, SUPPOSEDLY, WHICH APPARENTLY ISN'T TRUE, AND THEY CAN HAVE ALL THE TIME THEY WANT TO INVESTIGATE IT, AND AS MR. DOUGLAS SAYS, WE ARE NOT TRYING TO PLAYING ANY GAMES, AND TO SHOW THAT, THEY CAN HAVE AS MUCH TIME AS THEY WANT. I DON'T MIND IF WE CAN CALL HER AS A WITNESS, CALLING HER WHATEVER TIME YOU SAY. PLAY BY THE RULES. I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM. WE MADE A MISTAKE WITH REGARD TO HER. WITH REGARD TO THE OTHER WITNESSES, JUDGE, THEY'RE -- THEY'RE -- I DON'T THINK THEY CAN SHOW THERE WERE ANY MISTAKES. I THINK THAT THEY KNEW ABOUT KARY MULLIS. THEY KNEW -- I MEAN, THEY SAY TO ME THAT I SAY THAT HE HAS, UMM -- THAT THIS MAN SUFFERS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS. THOSE ARE THE FACTS AND I WILL BE ABLE TO PROVE THAT. WHAT DO WE STRIKE BASED ON THAN THAT? THEY DON'T LIKE THE TRUTH AND THEY WANT TO TRY TO CHANGE IT AROUND. TALKING ABOUT A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD, SO AS I LISTEN TO IT, I DIDN'T SEE -- AND I TRIED TO GO THROUGH THE LIST OF WITNESSES, UMM -- UMM, I MENTIONED RON FISCHMAN AND THEY KNEW -- THEY KNOW ABOUT RON FISCHMAN. WE HADN'T TURNED THAT REPORT OVER. THEY -- WE -- CHRIS RIECHARDT, THEY KNEW ABOUT CHRIS RIECHARDT, JUDGE, BECAUSE THEY'VE INTERVIEWED HIM. THEY'VE INTERVIEWED HIM. WE DON'T HAVE A REPORT, I DON'T THINK, FROM CHRISTIAN RIECHARDT. WE DON'T HAVE A REPORT. AND WE DON'T HAVE A REPORT FROM FISCHMAN SO WE HAVE NOTHING TO TURN OVER. THEY KNOW ABOUT LENORE WALKER, JUDGE. IN FACT, LET ME RESPOND TO THAT ON LENORE WALKER. WITH REGARD TO LENORE WALKER, WE GOT A SPECIAL ORDER, SHE WENT TO THE JAIL OVER TWO WEEKENDS. SHE HAS NOT FINISHED HER EXAMINATION, AS I INDICATED TO THE JURORS. WE DON'T HAVE A REPORT FROM HER AND WE DON'T HAVE ONE EITHER FROM GERALDINE BUTTS STAHLY EITHER WHO IS HER ASSOCIATE BECAUSE THEY WERE DUE TO GO TO THE JAIL LAST WEEKEND TO FINISH THEIRS REPORTS. THEY HAVEN'T FINISHED THEM, OR FINISHED THE TESTING. SO AGAIN, THAT'S NOT ANYTHING. WE TRIED TO GIVE THEM THE CV AND WE HAVE DONE WHAT WE COULD ON THAT. WITH REGARD TO MICHELLE ABUDRAHM, THEY KNEW ABOUT MICHELLE ABUDRAHM. JOE STELLINI THERE IS NO REPORT.
SO JUDGE, THE SANCTIONS THEY ARE ASKING ARE FAR OUT OF LINE WITH WHAT -- WHAT SHOULD TAKE PLACE. I THINK WE ARE IN A SIMILAR POSITION THAN WHAT THEY WERE. AND WHAT I AM TRYING TO INDICATE TO YOU THAT WE HAVE NOT DONE ANYTHING INTENTIONALLY, WE WOULD NOT DO THAT. WE ARE JUST TRYING TO GET WHAT WE KNOW WE CAN PROVE BEFORE THIS JURY AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE TIME AND THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE HAD TO DO THAT. AND SO I WOULD ASK THE COURT NOT TO TRY TO COME BACK AND THEN GUT MY OPENING STATEMENT BY TRYING TO PICK OUT THINGS THAT WE SAID. IT IS THE SAME SITUATION. IF WE DON'T PROVE THOSE THINGS, THE PROBLEM COMES WITH THAT. WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT BECAUSE IN AN OPENING STATEMENT I MAKE A STATEMENT BELIEVING THAT THEY HAVE MARY ANNE GERCHAS' TESTIMONY AND THEY DON'T HAVE IT, WHEN THEY SHOULD HAVE, BECAUSE OF -- OF THE STATEMENT OF ITSELF, IN THAT STATEMENT IF YOU LOOK AT IT, HAS THE D.A.'S PHONE NUMBER. MARY ANNE GERCHAS SAYS SHE HAS THE D.A.'S PHONE NUMBER FROM PATTY FAIRBANKS WHO SHE PUTS ON HOLD AND SHE ELLS ABOUT CALLING THE THESE POLICE DEPARTMENTS. AND THIS IS AN INVESTIGATOR I NEVER MET IT AND I RECEIVED THAT REPORT WITHIN THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS BEFORE THE ARGUMENT.
SO I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT IT, WHAT I THINK YOU SHOULD DO IS PUT IS IN THE SAME POSITION THAT YOU PUT THE PROSECUTION IN WHEN THEY WERE FACED WITH THIS SAME SITUATION IN DECEMBER AND WHAT'S IS FAIR FOR THEM IS FAIR FOR US. WE WOULDN'T ASK ANY MORE OR ANY LESS. IT DOESN'T GO TO MY OPENING STATEMENT. JUDGE, MUCH OF WHAT YOU HAVE SEEN OVER THE LAST COUPLE DAYS, MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT, IS TO TRY TO KEEP ME FROM GETTING BACK UP BEFORE THAT JURY. THERE IS AN ULTIMATE SANCTION TODAY. NOW, I BELIEVE THAT BILL HODGMAN IS SICK, BUT EVERYTHING THAT HAS HAPPENED WHEN MR. HODGMAN -- WHEN MR. DARDEN KEPT TALKING AND SAYING THE SAME THING SIX OR SEVEN TIMES, I THOUGH HE WAS FILIBUSTERING AND OBVIOUSLY IT WAS SO I COULDN'T TALK TO THIS JURY TODAY. BUT ULTIMATELY, JUDGE, NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO, I GET TO FINISH TALKING TO THIS JURY. THAT IS NOT A SANCTION THEY CAN IMPOSE. I GET TO GET BACK UP THERE AND THEY ARE NOT GOING TO LIKE THAT, SO THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ABOUT, SO I ASK YOU TO BE FAIR IN THAT AND BE FAIR LIKE I THOUGHT YOU WERE IN POSING TO THEM. IF WE SLIPPED UP TELLING YOU, IT WAS NOT INTENTIONAL. WE WOULD NOT DO THAT. AND IF WE SLIPPED UP, THE SAME SANCTIONS THEY GOT IN DECEMBER SHOULD PERTAIN TO US, AND IF THAT HAPPENS, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OPENING STATEMENT. I HAVEN'T MISLED ANYBODY. IF CHRISTIAN RIECHARDT --
WELL, THE PROBLEM IS I CAN'T REALLY IMPOSE THE SAME SANCTION AT THIS POINT BECAUSE PART OF THE SANCTION WAS I TOLD THEM THEY COULD NOT USE CERTAIN WITNESSES IN THEIR CASE IN CHIEF UNTIL THEY HAD COMPLETED THEIR ORIGINAL WITNESS LIST AND THEY COULD NOT MENTION IT IN OPENING STATEMENT, WHICH AS FAR AS MR. DARDEN IS CONCERNED, I ESSENTIALLY TOOK THE HEART OUT OF HIS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ARGUMENT BECAUSE HE WAS NOT ABLE TO MENTION THREE OR FOUR OTHER INCIDENTS THAT FILL IN CERTAIN TIME GAPS. I ASSUME THAT'S THE ARGUMENT HE IS ABOUT TO JUMP UP AND MAKE.
WELL, YOU CAN -- I THINK THE THRUST OF IT, THOUGH, JUDGE, ISN'T IT, IS THAT THEY WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TRY AND CHECK THESE THINGS OUT. I THINK -- FOR INSTANCE, CHRISTIAN RIECHARDT, THEY ALREADY KNOW ABOUT IT. WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A REPORT. THAT IS MAYBE A BAD EXAMPLE. THEY KNOW ABOUT HIM, THEY ALREADY HAVE A REPORT AND MAYBE THAT'S A BAD EXAMPLE. THE ONLY ONE THAT I CAN REALLY FIX ON, BECAUSE THEY KNOW ABOUT RON FISCHMAN, IS MAYBE MARY ANNE GERCHAS AND I'M JUST SAYING TO YOUR HONOR THAT IN 24 HOURS THEY'VE DONE ALL THIS WORK SUPPOSEDLY ON HER. THE REST OF THE PEOPLE, JUDGE, THEY KNEW ABOUT AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY REPORTS ON THEM, SO I DON'T KNOW WHERE -- WHERE WE GO FROM THERE TO SAYING -- ADMONISHING THIS JURY REGARDING THIS. YOU ADMONISHED THEM. EVEN AFTER I DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO TALK TO THEM FOR A WHOLE EVENING, WHEN THEY CAME IN YESTERDAY YOU STARTED OFF BY SAYING "WHAT COUNSEL SAYS IS NOT EVIDENCE" AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IT IS; IT IS NOT EVIDENCE. SO YOU KNOW, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE EVIDENCE. THE CASE WILL ULTIMATELY BE -- WHY ARE THEY SO AFRAID? THE CASE WILL ULTIMATELY BE DECIDED. WE WANT TO UPHOLD ALL THE RULES LIKE EVERYONE ELSE, BUT WHY ARE THEY SO WORRIED ABOUT THAT, JUDGE? ULTIMATELY IT IS GOING TO BE THE EVIDENCE THAT THIS CASE IS DECIDED UPON AND THAT IS ALL THAT I WANTED US TO GET BACK TO. THE REST OF THESE WITNESSES, IN SUMMARY, THEN IS THAT THEY KNEW ABOUT THEM, WE DON'T HAVE ANY REPORTS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MARY ANNE GERCHAS, THAT I CAN SEE AS I LOOK AT THE LIST, AND I THINK THAT THE SANCTIONS ARE WAY OUT OF LINE WITH WHERE WE ARE AND HAVING UNDERSTOOD WHAT YOUR SANCTIONS WERE BACK THEN, BUT TO DEAL WITH WHERE WE ARE AT THIS POINT. WITH REGARD TO MARY ANNE GERCHAS, THIS IS A WITNESS THAT GAVE A STATEMENT. I DON'T KNOW HER. I HAVE A STATEMENT FROM HER. THE INVESTIGATORS TALKED TO HER AND THAT'S HOW IT CAME TO ME. I ASSUME THEY HAD IT AND I WASN'T AWARE THEY DIDN'T, AND AGAIN, I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S ANY REASON THAT MR. SIMPSON SHOULD HAVE TO SUFFER OR THESE JURORS WOULD HAVE TO BE TOLD, OH, GEE, IT'S NOT EVIDENCE, BUT JUST DISREGARD THAT, IT IS NOT EVIDENCE, AND YOU KNOW -- JUDGE, IF WE DO IT BASED UPON THAT, I COULD COME BACK TOMORROW AND SAY TO YOU, JUDGE, I WANT YOU -- I WANT TO LOOK AT THE TRANSCRIPT FOR ALL THE TIMES MISS CLARK WAS ARGUMENTATIVE THAT I DIDN'T OBJECT, BECAUSE AS AN OFFICER OF THIS COURT AND A GENTLEMAN I DIDN'T WANT TO DO THAT. THAT IS LIKE RUNNING BACK -- DOING SOMETHING LIKE THAT, I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. I WANT TO GET THIS TRIAL ON. I WANT TO FINISH MY OPENING STATEMENT SO THAT THEY CAN CALL THEIR FIRST WITNESSES. AND SO WHAT I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO DO IS FASHION SOMETHING THAT IS REASONABLE. YOU ARE WISE AND THESE SITUATIONS IT CALLS FOR A WISE DECISION. WHERE WE HAVE DONE SOMETHING IN GOOD FAITH, AND I WILL CONCLUDE BY SAYING THIS, JUDGE, WHAT I CERTAINLY DON'T REFER TO OURSELVES AS THE DREAM TEAM, JUST A COLLECTION OF LAWYERS WHO ARE TRYING TO DO THE BEST WE CAN FOR OUR CLIENT, AND THAT IS ALL WE ARE DOING. AND MR. DARDEN CAN REFER TO THIS DERISIVELY OR ANYWAY HE WANTS TO, BUT WE'RE JUST TRYING TO DO OUR JOB AND IN THAT, JUDGE, WE ARE TRYING TO REPRESENT OUR CLIENT TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITY AND I THINK YOU KNOW WE WOULD NEVER INTENTIONALLY MISLEAD THIS COURT. WE WOULD NOT DO THAT. I WOULD NOT DO THAT. I KNOW MY REPUTATION MEANS FAR TOO MUCH TO ME AND THIS CASE IS NOT THE LAST CASE OF MY CAREER AND SO WE DON'T HAVE THE OBSESSION THAT SOME SEEM TO HAVE ABOUT THIS CASE. WE WANT TO TRY THIS CASE. WE THINK WE ARE GOING TO WIN THIS CASE, BUT WE ARE NOT OUT HERE TRYING TO WIN THIS CASE AT ALL COSTS. WE ARE TRYING TO DO IT METHODICALLY AND DO THE JOB THAT WE ARE PAID TO DO, AND THAT'S WHAT WE EXPECT TO DO, ETHICALLY AND MORALLY, YOUR HONOR. AND ALL I ASK YOU TO DO IS TO ALLOW US -- REMEMBER THAT PART OF THE SANCTIONS HAVE ALREADY BEEN THE DELAYS, THE INTERMINABLE DELAYS IN MY OPENING STATEMENT IN GETTING BACK TO THAT JURY. ALLOW ME TO GET BACK TO THAT JURY WITHOUT ANY REAL UNNECESSARY DELAY. IF THE COURT FELT THAT THERE WAS SOME PROBLEM WITH REGARD TO BILL HODGMAN, OBVIOUSLY WE WANT TO LISTEN TO THAT. I MEAN, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I AM SENSITIVE TO AND I HAVE TALKED TO MR. SIMPSON ABOUT THAT. HE WANTS TO PROCEED AS FAST AS HE CAN. I'M SENSITIVE TO THAT. BUT WITH REGARD TO THESE OTHER THINGS, JUDGE, IF YOU LOOK AT IT WHEN IT IS REDUCED DOWN, YOU KNOW THINGS THAT I KNEW BECAUSE MY CLIENT TOLD ME, I DON'T HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO DO THAT, AND I HOPE I PUT THE ENVELOPE AND THE ANOTHER THINGS IN PERSPECTIVE, SO I WOULD ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THAT YOUR HONOR HAS FOR ME AT THIS POINT.
WELL, YOU ARE OBJECTING TO THE THIRTY-DAY CONTINUANCE THAT MR. DARDEN HAS SUGGESTED?
YES, YOUR HONOR. I THINK THAT IS -- THAT IS FAR, FAR TOO LONG. WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO FOR THIRTY DAYS? JUDGE, WE HAVE A JURY THAT HAS BEEN SEQUESTERED. THEY HAVE WASTED ANOTHER WHOLE DAY TODAY. I DON'T HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT, BUT THOSE ARE THE FACTS.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, BRIEFLY, PLEASE, AND LET ME ASK YOU A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS BEFORE WE LAUNCH INTO THIS. DO YOU CONCEDE THAT DR. MULLIS WAS ON THE DNA LIST FOR THE DEFENSE?
YES, I DO. HE WAS ON THE KELLY-FRYE LIST AND HIS DELETION IN THE TRIAL LIST LED US TO BELIEVE THAT HE WAS NOT GOING TO BE CALLED AT TRIAL AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM THAT IS POSED, IS THAT WE WERE JUST BEGINNING TO PREPARE FOR THE KELLY-FRYE AND THEN MATTERS WERE TRANSPIRING AT A RAPID PACE. WE CEASED PREPARATION WHEN IT APPEARED THAT THERE WAS NOT GOING TO BE A KELLY-FRYE HEARING AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH HIM, BUT IT IS NOT NEARLY AS EGREGIOUS AS THE OTHERS BECAUSE WE DID HAVE SOME NOTICE OF HIS EXISTENCE FOR THE DEFENSE. LET ME INDICATE TO THE COURT THAT WITH RESPECT TO THE THIRTY DAYS, I BELIEVE IT WAS THE DEFENSE WHO INDICATED AT THE COURT'S REQUEST PRIOR TO THIS WHEN THEY WANTED TIME TO INVESTIGATE WITNESSES THAT THEY CLAIMED THEY WERE GIVEN LATE NOTICE OF, ALTHOUGH THEY GOT THEM FAR IN ADVANCE OF THE LAST HOUR OF OPENING STATEMENT, THEY ASKED FOR SIX WEEKS. THEY THOUGHT THAT WAS A REASONABLE TIME FOR INVESTIGATION, AS DID THE COURT. WE ARE ASKING FOR LESS, EVEN THOUGH WE WOULD BE, UNDER A PARITY OF REASONING, ENTITLED TO THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME FOR REASONABLE INVESTIGATION.
WE ARE NOT OBSESSED WITH THIS CASE, YOUR HONOR, BUT I WONDER ABOUT THE DEFENSE OBSESSION BECAUSE THEIR DESPERATE TACTICS IN THROWING ETHICS OUT THE WINDOW AND BEHAVING AS THEY HAVE IS EVIDENCE OF CLEARLY THE OPPOSITE OF WANTING THE FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE THAT WE ARE ENTITLED TO IN THIS CASE. THERE SHOULD BE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT. THIS CONDUCT SHOULD NOT BE MINIMIZED THIS WAY. MR. COCHRAN IS VERY PERSUASIVE, VERY TALENTED, VERY CHARISMATIC, BUT I'M SORRY, YOUR HONOR, IN THIS CASE HE IS WRONG. HE HAS DONE WRONG. THIS IS NOT THE WAY TO BEHAVE. THIS IS NOT ETHICAL CONDUCT OR BEHAVIOR. AND AS I TOLD THE COURT, HE GLIBLY STANDS UP TO SAY, WELL, THE PEOPLE CAN ADDRESS IT ALL IN CLOSING ARGUMENT. NO, NO. SEE, IT'S TOO LATE, BECAUSE BY THEN, YOUR HONOR, THERE WILL HAVE BEEN MONTHS OF TIME FOR WHATEVER THAT JURY HAS PICKED UP THAT WILL NEVER BE ADDRESSED IN TRIAL. THOSE WITNESSES THAT MR. COCHRAN REFERRED TO THAT MAY NEVER BE CALLED OUT OF SOME KIND OF FEAR THAT HE'S THINKING OF OR WITNESSES THAT NEVER APPEAR AT ALL, THAT AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN REPRESENTED IN FRONT OF THIS JURY, THEY WILL HAVE THAT WITNESS IN THE BACK OF THEIR MIND AND THAT MAY BE ENOUGH TO PERSUADE THE ONE. ANY KIND OF RELIEF THAT THE COURT GRANTS US AT THIS POINT MAY STILL NOT BE ENOUGH, BECAUSE THE DAMAGE MAY BE INDELIBLE AT THIS POINT AFTER HAVING MENTIONED ALL THESE PEOPLE THAT HE HIMSELF KNOWS HE IS IN DANGER OF NOT ULTIMATELY BEING CALLED BECAUSE ONCE THEY ARE INVESTIGATED IT IS DETERMINED THEY HAVE RECORDS, THEY HAVE FELONY RECORDS. THESE ARE PEOPLE THAT REALLY WILL NOT WITHSTAND THE SCRUTINY, THEY KNOW IT. THE DEFENSE KNOWS IT. AND THE WILFULNESS OF THEIR TACTIC IN DELAYING THE DISCOVERY IS SHOWN BY VIRTUE OF ONE SIMPLE FACT. EARLY ON IN THESE PROCEEDINGS THE DEFENDANT THROWS UP THE NAME OF FRANK CHIUCHIOLO FROM HAPPY CAMP. THIS WAS A MAN WHO CAME FORWARD TO SAY HE SAW TWO WHITE BURGLARS LEAVING THE HOME OF NICOLE BROWN. IT WAS THEN DISCOVERED THAT HE HAD COME FORWARD TO OFFER FALSE INFORMATION ON OTHER FAMOUS CASES AND HIS CREDIBILITY WAS EXPLODED, AS IT DESERVED TO BE. AND THE DEFENSE REALIZED THAT THEN THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO SHIELD, HIDE THEIR WITNESSES TO PREVENT THE EXPOSURE THAT WOULD SHOW THEM TO BE AS INCREDIBLE AS THEY ARE, AND THAT IS WHAT THEY HAVE DONE IN THIS CASE, SO IT IS A VERY WILLFUL THING, AND IT IS NOT A MINOR THING. THIS IS A MAJOR FORM OF MISCONDUCT THAT HAS OCCURRED AND I DON'T WANT MR. COCHRAN TO MINIMIZE IT THIS WAY. IT IS MAJOR. AND IF WE LACK -- LET ME JUST CONTRAST IT FOR A MOMENT, BECAUSE I KNOW WHAT THE COURT IS GOING TO SAY, OKAY? THEIR STATEMENTS WERE TAKEN FOUR, FIVE --
COUNSEL WANTS TO COMPARE THE GRAVITY OF THEIR MISCONDUCT TO WHAT OCCURRED WITH THE PEOPLE, AND LET ME CONTRAST THE TWO. THE STATEMENT TURNED OVER BY THE PEOPLE WERE TWO AND THREE WEEKS LATE. THE STATEMENTS TURNED OVER BY THE DEFENSE WERE FOUR, FIVE AND EVEN SEVEN MONTHS LATE. WE WERE SANCTIONED FOR THAT FOR JUST TWO OR THREE WEEKS AND NOW THEY ARE FIGHTING THE SANCTION FOR FOUR, FIVE, EVEN SEVEN MONTHS FOR MATERIAL WITNESSES, OBVIOUSLY WITNESSES THEY THINK ARE VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE MR. COCHRAN IS OUTLINING THEIR TESTIMONY TO THE JURY. AND WHEN YOU ALSO LOOK AT IT IN THIS CONTEXT, YOUR HONOR, OUT OF THE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PAGES THAT WE HAVE TURNED OVER, DOZENS OF VIDEOTAPES, DOZENS OF AUDIOTAPES, WE HAVE -- WE WERE SLOW TO TURN OVER -- BY THAT I MEAN TWO TO THREE WEEKS, A FEW PAGES OF DISCOVERY, COMPARED TO WHAT THEY DID. WE HAD SEVENTY PAGES OF DISCOVERY, YOUR HONOR, UNTIL THE LAST TWO OR THREE DAYS. NOW, THEY HAVE DOUBLED THE AMOUNT OF DISCOVERY IN THE LAST TWO OR THREE DAYS. WHAT THAT SHOWS THIS COURT IS NOT ONLY THAT THE GRAVITY IS VERY SEVERE, THAT THE MISCONDUCT IS VERY SERIOUS, BUT THAT IT IS NOT INADVERTENT AND CANNOT BE CLAIMED TO BE. YOU DON'T OVERLOOK OVER HALF YOUR CASE AND THAT IS WHAT THEY CLAIM TO BE DOABLE. I DON'T BELIEVE IT. I DON'T BELIEVE IT. MR. COCHRAN IS AN EXCELLENT LAWYER. HE KNOWS WHAT THEY INTEND TO USE. HE KNOWS WHAT HE INTENDS TO TELL THIS JURY. HIS STATEMENT WAS TYPED AND IT WAS PREPARED, AND HE CANNOT COME BEFORE THE COURT AND TELL US THAT HE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THESE WITNESSES BEFORE OR WAS UNAWARE OF THEIR STATEMENTS. AND THE FACT THAT MR. JONES -- EXCUSE ME -- MR. DOUGLAS CAN STAND UP BEFORE THIS COURT AND SAY -- AND TRY TO EXCUSE THE MISCONDUCT BY SAYING, WELL, THIS WASN'T ALWAYS THE LAW, THAT MAKES IT EVEN MORE EGREGIOUS, BECAUSE WHAT HE IS INDICATING IS A DESIRE TO THWART THE LAW, A DESIRE BASED UPON HIS OWN BELIEF AS TO WHAT HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO AS DEFENSE COUNSEL. UNFORTUNATELY THE VOTERS OF THIS STATE HAVE SPOKEN. THEY SAY WE WILL NOT COUNTENANCE ANY MORE OF THIS HIDE THE BALL STUFF, THIS SHELL GAME DURING THE COURSE OF A CRIMINAL TRIAL. WE WANT BOTH SIDES TO AIR THEIR WITNESSES SO EVERYBODY CAN HAVE FULL AND COMPLETE INVESTIGATION, AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH WHAT DEFENSE COUNSEL HAS DONE. THEY ARE TRYING TO PREVENT US FROM DOING OUR JOB. I WANT MR. COCHRAN TO GET UP TO SPEAK TO THIS JURY AS LONG AS HE WANTS TO. I DON'T WANT TO STOP HIM FROM TALKING. I WANT THIS OPENING STATEMENT TO GET GOING AND TO GET COMPLETED. I WANT HIM TO BE ABLE TO PUT ON EVERY WITNESS HE DESIRES. ALL I ASK IS THE ABILITY FOR THE PEOPLE TO INVESTIGATE THESE WITNESSES SO THAT THE JURY GETS THE WHOLE TRUTH, SO THAT WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW THE JURY WHO THESE PEOPLE REALLY ARE, AND WHEN THESE PEOPLE ARE HIDDEN FROM OUR INVESTIGATORS, WE CANNOT LET THE JURY DOES NOT GET THE TRUE PICTURE WHO HAVE THEY REALLY ARE. I WOULD NOT BE DOING MY JOB IF DEFENSE COUNSEL WERE PERMITTED TO TROT A PARADE OF WITNESS UP TO THAT WITNESS STAND, AND WERE I TO SIT BACK AND SAY WHAT IS YOUR NAME, WHAT TIME IS IT TODAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, I SHOULD BE FIRED FOR THAT. IT IS OUR JOB TO SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH AND IT IS OUR JOB TO SHOW THIS JURY THE REAL CREDIBILITY OF WHO THESE PEOPLE ARE, WHAT THESE WITNESSES REALLY ARE, AND IF THIS JURY DOESN'T GET TO SEE THAT THEY ARE DEPRIVED OF THE TRUTH, AND IF THEY ARE DEPRIVED OF THE TRUTH THE PEOPLE OF THIS STATE ARE DEPRIVED OF JUSTICE, AND I CANNOT ALLOW THAT. THAT IS NOT MY JOB. MY JOB AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PEOPLE IS TO SEE THAT THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN, THAT ANY WITNESS WHO IS CALLED IS GIVEN THOROUGH AND COMPLETE EXAMINATION. AND WHAT THEY ARE ATTEMPTING TO DO HERE IS PREVENT MARY ANNE GERCHAS -- WHO NOW CLAIMS THAT SHE CALLED OUR OFFICE -- THIS IS NOT A WOMAN WHOSE CREDIBILITY IS UNSULLIED, AND IF SHE DID CALL THE OFFICE, WHICH COUNSEL KNOWS BECAUSE COUNSEL HAD THE SAME PROBLEM, WE HAVE ALL GOTTEN THOUSANDS OF CALLS FROM EVERY TOM, DICK AND HARRY THAT WANTS TO GET INVOLVED IN THIS CASE. IF THE PERSON DOESN'T PURSUE IT, SOMETIMES THEY DON'T GET REACHED AGAIN, BUT I THINK IT IS VERY INTERESTING THAT THEY SAY THAT. ARE WE SUPPOSED TO NOW SAY THAT THE LAWYERS CAN RELY ON THE WITNESSES TO GIVE DISCOVERY? IS SHE SUPPOSED TO GIVE HER DISCOVERY TO US? SOMEHOW HE IS PUTTING THE OBLIGATION ON HER TO COME FORWARD. NO, THE OBLIGATION IS NOT ON THE WITNESS TO TURN THEIR STATEMENTS IN. THE OBLIGATION IS NOT ON THE D.A.'S OFFICE TO GO BEGGING FOR THE DEFENSE WITNESSES TO COME AND TALK TO US. THE OBLIGATION IS FOR THE DEFENSE TO GIVE US WHAT THEY'VE GOT, THE SAME AS IT IS FOR TO US GIVE THEM WHAT WE HAVE GOT. AND WE HAVE DONE SO DILIGENTLY AT EVERY BEND AND TURN. WE HAVE NOT ATTEMPTED TO AVOID IT IN ANY WAY. NOW, I THINK THAT WHAT THE COURT SHOULD KNOW IS THAT MR. DOUGLAS' POSITION VIS-A-VIS THE LAW, VIS-A-VIS HIS REQUIREMENTS IN TERMS OF TURNING OVER DISCOVERY, TAKING REPORTS AND REDUCING STATEMENTS TO WRITING IS WRONG, A HUNDRED PERCENT WRONG. IT IS SO WRONG THAT PREVIOUS COURTS HAVE FOUND THAT CONDUCT TO BE CONTEMPTUOUS. I CITE THE COURT TO THE CASE OF IN RE SERRA, S-E-R-R-A, 484 FED.2D 948. THE COURT HELD THAT A DEFENSE ATTORNEY SHOULD BE HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR ASKING AN EXPERT TO REFRAIN FROM WRITING A REPORT IN ORDER TO AVOID DISCOVERY. ALSO CITE THE COURT TO SANDEFFER VERSUS SUPERIOR COURT, 18 CAL.APP. 4TH 672. IT CAUTIONED AGAIN THE ATTORNEY NOT TO DIRECT AN EXPERT TO AVOID WRITING A REPORT IN ORDER TO AVOID DISCOVERY. COUNSEL HAS DELIBERATELY DONE AN END RUN AROUND THE DISCOVERY LAWS BASICALLY BY TRYING TO GET THEIR DISCOVERY FROM THE MOUTH OF THEIR CLIENT. HERE, MR. SIMPSON, GO CALL RON FISCHMAN. TELL US WHAT HE SAID, AND THEN THEY GO AND ASK MR. SIMPSON. I MEAN, THAT IS A VERY CLEAR GAME, BUT IT CERTAINLY DOES NOT SERVE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND IT DOES NOT COMPORT WITH THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER OF THE LAW UNDER 1054. WE LOVE THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE HENRY LEE FOR AN EXPERT, BUT IF HE IS SUCH A GREAT EXPERT, HE IS SO WELL RENOWN, AND I UNDERSTAND HE IS, HOW COULD HE NOT -- HOW COULD HE NOT HAVE WRITTEN A REPORT WITH RESPECT TO ALL OF THE WORK THAT COUNSEL HAS TOLD US HE HAS PERFORMED IN THIS CASE AND WILL TESTIFY TO HERE? NO REPORT. HE HAS BEEN ON THE CASE SINCE DAY ONE, WE ARE ALL AWARE OF THAT, AND TO TELL US NOW THAT HE HAS NO REPORT TO OFFER US, THAT DR. BADEN HAS NO REPORT TO OFFER US, THAT SYLVIA WOLF HAS NO REPORT TO OFFER US, THIS IS UNBELIEVABLE. YOU KNOW, THIS CONDUCTING NOT BE MINIMIZED, SHOULD NOT BE MINIMIZED. WE HAVE -- WE HAVE BEEN PLACED IN A VERY -- IT IS A VERY UNFAIR POSITION THAT WE ARE PLACED IN. I THINK THAT THE GOAL OF A TRIAL IS FOR THE TRUTH TO EMERGE AND IT IS NOT FOR A LAWYER TO HOLD IN HIS HEAD INFORMATION THAT HE OR SHE MAY USE TO AMBUSH THE CASE WITH, AND THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE HERE. IT IS A TRIAL BY AMBUSH. THAT IS THE STRATEGY. THE PEOPLE WOULD REQUEST, NO. 1, THAT THE COURT ADMONISH THE JURY WITH RESPECT TO COUNSEL'S MISCONDUCT, AS I HAVE INDICATED EARLIER. NO. 2, IF THE COURT IS NOT INCLINED TO STRIKE THE COMMENTS, THE OFFENSIVE COMMENTS BY MR. COCHRAN -- AND LET ME INDICATE ABOUT THAT ENVELOPE, HE WAVED IT IN FRONT OF THAT JURY AND EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM SAW IT, AND WE ALL KNOW, WE ALL KNOW THAT AFTER THE PRELIMINARY HEARING WHAT OCCURRED THERE. EVERYBODY KNOWS ABOUT THE ENVELOPE. EVERYONE ON THE JURY SAID SO. MR. COCHRAN KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING. THAT JURY SAW WHAT HE WAS DOING AND THAT WAS A SET-UP, AS SURE AS I'M STANDING HERE, BECAUSE HE KNEW THAT HE WAS GOING TO SURPRISE US WITH THAT, A SURPRISE TACTIC THAT WE WOULD OBJECT TO AND THAT THE JURY WOULD THEN SEE THE OBJECTION AND MAYBE CONCLUDE THAT WE WERE TRYING TO HIDE EVIDENCE WHEN IN FACT WHAT HAS HAPPENED IS WE HAVE BEEN HIDDEN FROM. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IS IN THE ENVELOPE. WE HAVEN'T SEEN THE REPORT. COUNSEL KNOWS BETTER THAN WE DO. THEY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE WAVING AROUND. WE DON'T EVEN KNOW. ALL WE ARE ASKING IS LET US KNOW. WE WANT TO KNOW. WE WANT TO KNOW WHAT THEIR WITNESSES HAVE TO SAY. WE WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE EVIDENCE IS. IS THAT ASKING SO MUCH? UNDER 1054 IT IS NOT ASKING ANYTHING THAT WE ARE NOT ENTITLED TO. THAT IS ALL WE ASK FOR. AND UNDER 1054 THERE ARE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF SANCTIONS THAT ARE ALLOWED UNDER THE LAW, AND MR. COCHRAN IS AWARE OF THAT. AND IF THE COURT IS NOT INCLINED TO STRIKE THE OFFENSIVE COMMENTS, THEN THE PEOPLE WOULD REQUEST THAT WE BE ALLOWED TO REOPEN TO ADDRESS THOSE MATTERS, BUT THAT IS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ADMONITION, AND THAT AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF OPENING STATEMENT THAT WE BE PERMITTED TO A CONTINUANCE IN ORDER TO INVESTIGATE ALL OF THESE WITNESS THAT WERE JUST RECENTLY THROWN AT US AT THE CONCLUSION OF MR. COCHRAN'S OPENING STATEMENT REMARKS YESTERDAY. I THINK IT IS ONLY -- THE ALTERNATIVES THAT I HAVE POSED TO THE COURT I THINK ARE THE ONLY WAY THAT THE PEOPLE CAN BE MADE WHOLE. WE ARE NOT BEING HYSTERICAL HERE. WE ARE SIMPLY ASKING FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO OUR JOB. THAT IS ALL WE ARE ASKING.
HOW WOULD I JUSTIFY GRANTING YOU A THIRTY-DAY CONTINUANCE IF WE ALL AGREE THE PEOPLE'S CASE IN CHIEF IS PROBABLY GOING TO TAKE BETWEEN TWO AND THREE MONTHS TO PRESENT? DOESN'T THAT GIVE YOU ADEQUATE TIME TO GO OUT AND PREPARE TO REBUT OR TO IMPEACH THESE WITNESSES, THESE TWELVE OR FOURTEEN WITNESSES WHO HAVE JUST BEEN DISCLOSED?
WELL, WE ARE TIED UP IN TRIAL. WE CAN'T GET INVOLVED IN THE INVESTIGATION. THAT IS THE SAME GAME THAT HAS BEEN PLAYED THROUGHOUT THIS CASE. WE ARE TIED UP IN COURT WITH DAYS AND DAYS OF JURY SELECTION. WE HAVE TO BE OUT THERE, TOO. WE CAN'T JUST SEND PEOPLE OUT TO DO THINGS FOR US WITHOUT GUIDING THE INVESTIGATION, BECAUSE WE KNOW WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR. MAY I HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?
YES. I DON'T THINK THAT THE PEOPLE'S CASE IS GOING TO TAKE TWO OR THREE MONTHS, NOT EVEN CLOSE.
YEAH. I MEAN, I WOULD LIKE TO, BUT I REALLY DON'T THINK IT IS GOING TO TAKE THAT LONG, YOUR HONOR, SERIOUSLY. I THINK THAT THE PEOPLE'S CASE MIGHT WELL BE WRAPPED UP IN FOUR TO SIX WEEKS.
IF THE COURT WOULD LIKE, I THINK I HAVE OTHER CASE AUTHORITY CONCERNING THE ABILITY OF THE COURT TO GRANT US THE OPENING -- THE REOPENING OF THE STATEMENT.
THAT IS KIND OF AN ESOTERIC QUESTION. I THINK THERE ARE TWO OTHER CASES THAT I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO FIND IN LEXIS, BUT IN OTHER STATES.
ALL RIGHT. LET ME ASK YOU ANOTHER QUESTION. THAT IS REALLY AN ESOTERIC ISSUE ABOUT REOPENING. WHAT KIND --
IT IS NOT TO ADDRESS ABUSE OF DISCOVERY, IT IS TO ADDRESS SOMETHING ELSE, BUT IT DOES INDICATE THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN REVERSIBLE ERROR TO DENY THE ABILITY TO REOPEN THE OPENING STATEMENT.
THAT IS A THING A TRIAL COURT NEVER WANTS TO HEAR. MISS CLARK, LET ME ASK YOU THIS, THOUGH: WHAT KIND OF ADMONITION WOULD BE APPROPRIATE HERE?
JUST TO PICK OUT EACH ONE OF THESE INDIVIDUAL THINGS AND TELL THEM DISREGARD THESE COMMENTS? TO SAY DURING THE COURSE OF THE OPENING STATEMENT BY DEFENSE COUNSEL THIS WITNESS WAS LISTED, THIS PERSON WAS MENTIONED, THIS PERSON, DISREGARD ALL THAT? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE ASKING ME TO DO?
AND THEN SAY THE REASON FOR THIS IS BECAUSE WE HAVE RULES OF DISCOVERY, THAT IS DISCLOSURE OF WITNESSES, BECAUSE THEY WERE DISCLOSED AND IT WAS A SURPRISE TO THE PROSECUTION, THEY DON'T GET TO TALK ABOUT IT IN THEIR OPENING STATEMENT AND THAT IS THE REASON FOR THE DELAY? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE ASKING ME TO DO?
YOU ARE ASKING ME TO DO THINGS. I WANT TO KNOW SPECIFICS. WHAT ARE YOU ASKING ME TO DO?
IF THE COURT WOULD ACTUALLY FRAME THE LANGUAGE OF THE ADMONITION, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO DO THAT, IF THE COURT COULD GIVE US -- WELL, IT IS KIND OF LATE ALREADY.
ALL RIGHT. WELL, BEFORE YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTION, LET ME ASK YOU THE QUESTION THAT IS MORE PRESSING ON MY MIND, IS WHAT IS THE CONDITION OF MR. HODGMAN THIS AFTERNOON?
WE DON'T HAVE FINAL WORD AND WE WILL NOT HAVE FINAL WORD AS TO WHEN HE IS GOING TO BE AVAILABLE TO COME BACK. WE WON'T HAVE THAT TODAY.
DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA WHEN HE IS GOING TO BE RELEASED? I SAW COLLEEN WILLIAMS REPORTING A PRESS COVERAGE DOWN AT THE HOSPITAL.
WITH RESPECT TO THE ADMONITION, YOUR HONOR, WHAT THE PEOPLE WOULD REQUEST IS THAT THE JURY BE ADMONISHED AS FOLLOWS: THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL HAS COMMITTED SERIOUS ACTS OF MISCONDUCT, THAT THEY ARE TO VIEW VERY CAREFULLY THE OPENING STATEMENTS, THEY ARE NOT EVIDENCE AND THAT TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY FAIL TO FULFILL THE PROMISES MADE IN AN OPENING STATEMENT, ANY STATEMENTS MADE SHOULD BE DISREGARDED BECAUSE THEY DO NOT CONSTITUTE EVIDENCE.
DON'T I HAVE TO BE MORE SPECIFIC THAN THAT? BECAUSE CERTAINLY NOT ALL OF MR. COCHRAN'S OPENING STATEMENT IS IN DISPUTE OR THE PROPRIETY OF IT.
WELL, YOUR HONOR, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO -- WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE A BREAK SO THAT I CAN FRAME THEN SOMETHING MORE SPECIFIC. I CAN'T AT THIS TIME. BUT THEY DO NEED TO BE ADMONISHED CONCERNING COUNSEL'S MISCONDUCT. THEY NEED TO BE ADMONISHED TO DISREGARD COUNSEL'S STATEMENT CONCERNING THE WITNESSES WHO WILL NOT APPEAR OUT OF FEAR. THAT WAS A TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE COMMENT, VERY IMPROPER AND THE VERY -- VERY PREJUDICIAL, AND THE PEOPLE SHOULD -- THE JURORS SHOULD BE ADMONISHED TO TOTALLY DISREGARD THAT. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO THAT EFFECT. AND THEN WE SHOULD ASK COUNSEL AT THIS TIME --
UH-HUH. WE ALSO WOULD REQUEST THAT THE DEFENSE SIT DOWN WITH MR. COCHRAN AND REVIEW THE BALANCE OF HIS OPENING STATEMENT TO DETERMINE IF THERE ARE ANY MORE WITNESSES HE INTENDS TO MENTION THAT THEY HAVE SOMEHOW MAGICALLY FORGOTTEN TO GIVE US DISCOVERY OF, AND WE ALSO ASK THAT THE CONSIDER TO ORDER THEM TO REDUCE TO WRITING ALL OF THESE REPORTS THEY CARRY AROUND IN THEIR HEAD WITH RESPECT TO THE WITNESSES THAT ARE CIVILIAN, AS WELL AS THE EXPERTS WHO THEY INTEND TO CALL. AND WE HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE RESUMPTION OF OPENING STATEMENT, PROVIDED IT BEGINS WITH THE COURT'S ADMONITION TO THEM.
I WOULD DEFINITELY PREFER THAT MR. HODGMAN BE HERE, YOUR HONOR. AND I'M GOING TO HAVE TO FIND OUT HOW LONG IT IS GOING TO BE. THAT I DON'T KNOW.
I FEEL LIKE IT IS UNFAIR OF ME TO MAKE A REQUEST TO WAIT FOR HIS RETURN IF I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS, AND SO I'M GOING TO HAVE TO ASK LEAVE OF THE COURT TO GET FURTHER INFORMATION BEFORE I MAKE ANY REQUEST ALONG THOSE LINES, EITHER WAY.
I MEAN, IF HE DOESN'T COME BACK FOR TWO WEEKS, IS THAT FAIR? THAT IS NOT FAIR TO DEFENSE. AND SO I SHOULD REALLY FIND OUT HOW LONG WE ARE TALKING ABOUT BEFORE I ASK FOR ANYTHING.
NOT LIKE THE PLAINTIVE WAIL. IF THE PRESS IS BEING TOLD ON MR. HODGMAN'S CONDITION THROUGH PRESS CONFERENCES AND THINGS AND WHY DON'T THEY TAKE A BREAK AND THEN THEY CAN CALL AND FIND OUT.
WHY DON'T YOU TAKE FIVE MINUTES. MY COURT REPORTER TELLS ME SHE IS OUT OF PAPER, SO LET'S TAKE FIVE MINUTES. WHY DON'T YOU MAKE A PHONE CALL UPSTAIRS, AND THIS IS NOT A RECESS, SO EVERYBODY STAY IN PLACE.
MY BEEPER ISN'T WITH ME, SO THAT IS OKAY. MY BEEPER IS UPSTAIRS. THEY WERE GOING TO CALL ME, SO I'M SUPPOSED TO GET A CALL THE MINUTE THEY FIND OUT.
MISS ROBERTSON, WHAT INFORMATION DID YOU RECEIVE FROM THE EVERY PRESENT MISS FAIRBANKS.
SHE INDICATED THAT MR. -- SHE INDICATED THAT HE WAS HEALTHY AND HIS DOCTOR ANTICIPATED HE WOULD BE RELEASED SOME TIME NEXT WEEK, THAT HIS WIFE WAS REQUESTING THAT HE HAVE AN ADDITIONAL TIME OFF PERIOD. BASICALLY THAT WAS WHAT MISS FAIRBANKS RELATED TO ME ON THE PHONE.
BASICALLY THAT IS WHAT MISS FAIRBANKS INDICATED OVER THE PHONE. SHE DIDN'T GIVE ME --
I HAD ASKED AS SOON AS WE HAD KNOWLEDGE THAT WE BE CALLED AND THEY DID. THANK YOU, GUYS. SO THAT IS ALL WE KNOW RIGHT NOW, IS THAT HE WILL BE BACK SOME TIME NEXT WEEK, AT LEAST RELEASED, BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHEN HE WILL COME BACK YET.
YES, YOUR HONOR. FIRST OF ALL, MISS FAIRBANKS ASKED ME TO INFORM YOU THAT THE EVER PRESENT MISS FAIRBANKS IS HERE. SHE HAS GOTTEN WORD FROM THE PRESS COVERAGE THAT THEY WILL NOT STATE EXACTLY WHEN MR. HODGMAN IS GOING TO BE RELEASED. THE DOCTORS WOULD NOT GIVE A DEFINITE DATE. AND AS FOR HIS RETURN, IT IS UNCERTAIN AS TO WHETHER IT WILL BE THE BEGINNING PART OF NEXT WEEK OR THE END OF NEXT WEEK.
ALL RIGHT. IN LIGHT OF MR. HODGMAN'S ABSENCE, WHEN WILL YOU BE PREPARED TO GO FORWARD IN HIS ABSENCE? CAN YOU BE PREPARED TOMORROW TO GO FORWARD?
THE WHOLE ENCHILADA. I ASSUME MR. COCHRAN -- HE INDICATED HE HAD ONE OTHER SEGMENT OF THE CASE THAT HE WANTED TO TALK ABOUT AND I ASSUME, ALTHOUGH THAT IT WILL BE A RATHER LARGE PART, I ASSUME IT IS NOT THE WHOLE DAY, SO I WOULD ASSUME THAT HE WOULD CONCLUDE HIS OPENING STATEMENT IN THE MORNING AND THAT WE WOULD PROCEED TO WITNESSES IN THE AFTERNOON, ASSUMING WE STARTED AT A NORMAL HOUR.
YOUR HONOR, I UNDERSTOOD -- THE COURT HAS NOT INDICATED ANY RULING SO FAR ON THE PEOPLE'S REQUEST FOR A CONTINUANCE TO DEAL WITH THE DISCOVERY THAT WAS JUST DUMPED ON US OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF DAYS.
I'M ASKING YOU WHEN WILL YOU BE ABLE TO DO THAT? I'M MINDFUL OF MR. HODGMAN'S ABSENCE. I'M MINDFUL OF THE FACT THAT HE IS A CRITICAL MEMBER OF THE PROSECUTION TEAM. I FRANKLY WILL NEED TIME TO GO THROUGH MY NOTES, TO COMPARE THE RECORD, BECAUSE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, AS I INDICATED, MY RECOLLECTION IS WE TALKED ABOUT 26 SPECIFIC ITEMS OF DISCOVERY AND/OR WITNESSES, SO THIS IS NOT SOMETHING I FEEL COMFORTABLE RULING FROM THE BENCH UPON, SO I PROBABLY WILL NOT BE PREPARED TO RULE UPON YOUR REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS UNTIL PROBABLY LATE TOMORROW IS MY PROBLEM, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT I WANT TO DRAG THE JURY DOWN TO SIT AROUND AND WAIT ALL DAY AGAIN. I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION.
WHAT WE COULD DO IS LET -- THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT MR. HODGMAN WILL RETURN ON MONDAY. IF FOR THE PURPOSE OF HAVING HIM PRESENT FOR OPENING STATEMENT WE COULD DO THAT ON MONDAY, BUT THEN -- WHAT I THOUGHT WE COULD DO IS SEVER THE ISSUES OF THE OPENING STATEMENT BEING COMPLETED AND THEN THE REQUEST FOR A CONTINUANCE.
WELL, YOU HAVE DUMPED A RATHER LARGE NUMBER OF THINGS IN MY LAP. IT ALSO IS GOING TO REQUIRE ME TO GO BACK THROUGH AND READ MR. COCHRAN'S OPENING STATEMENT AGAIN.
TO GO THROUGH THE RECORD TO SEE WHAT IS MENTIONED AND WHERE, SO THIS IS NOT SOMETHING I'M GOING TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH BETWEEN NOW AND FIVE O'CLOCK.
NECESSITATED BY. ANYWAY, WHY NOT -- IF WE COULD HAVE IT GO OVER TO MONDAY FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPLETING OPENING STATEMENTS AND AT THE CONCLUSION OF OPENING STATEMENTS WOULD THAT GIVE THE COURT TIME TO RULE ON THE PEOPLE'S REQUEST AND THAT WAY WE WOULD KNOW WERE WE STAND?
ALL RIGHT. I'M CONTEMPLATING GOING OVER UNTIL MONDAY. THAT WILL GIVE ME TIME TO REVIEW THIS, MAKE MY RULING, AND WE CAN FIND OUT DEFINITIVELY WHEN MR. HODGMAN WILL BE BACK. MY INCLINATION, THOUGH, IS TO DIRECT THE PEOPLE TO BE READY TO PROCEED. IF I RULE THAT CERTAIN SANCTIONS ARE APPROPRIATE, BUT THAT WE ARE GOING TO CONCLUDE THE OPENING STATEMENTS, THAT YOU BE READY TO PROCEED IMMEDIATELY, MR. COCHRAN, AND ASSUMING THAT WE PROCEED ON MONDAY, THAT THE PROSECUTION ALSO BE READY TO CALL WITNESSES MONDAY AFTERNOON.
THAT WILL BE FINE AND I AM READY, AND MAKE NO MISTAKE, IT IS THE PEOPLE'S MOTION, NOT OURS. THE ONE THING I WOULD LIKE TO SAY, YOUR HONOR, WITH REGARD TO --
WELL, THE SITUATION -- THE CREATION OF THE SITUATION, THOUGH, I THINK RESTS ON THIS SIDE OF THE TABLE, AS MR. DOUGLAS CONCEDED THAT THESE STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED.
YES, WE HAVE SAID THAT. WE JUST SAID THAT IT WAS INADVERTENT. THE POINT IS, YOUR HONOR --
THAT IS THE KIND OF LAWYER THAT HE IS, YOUR HONOR, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT ON THE OTHER SIDE.
YOUR HONOR, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY IS THIS, THOUGH. I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST TO THE COURT, I WOULD RATHER NOT HAVE MARCIA CLARK DRAFTING -- I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE ADDITIONAL TIME. I WOULD RATHER NOT HAVE HER DRAFTING ANYTHING THAT RELATES TO US.
I'M GOING TO SUGGEST THAT BOTH SIDES SUBMIT BY TEN O'CLOCK TOMORROW MORNING ANY ADMONITION TO THE JURY THEY FEEL IS APPROPRIATE.
WE JUST NEED A LITTLE TIME TO REPAIR SOME OF THE HARM CAUSED BY THE MISCONDUCT OF YOUR COLLEAGUES AND YOURSELF. WE JUST WANT A FAIR SHOT AT IT, YOUR HONOR; NOTHING MORE.
THE PUFFED UP SOUFFLE OF PREJUDICE THAT WE HAVE HEARD THIS AFTERNOON... THE REAL PREJUDICE AGAINST REASONABLE SOLUTIONS TO A CLEAR AND UNDERSTANDABLE MISTAKE.
WHO WOULD EVER WANT TO BE A DEFENDANT? THAT'S A -- THAT'S A -- IS IF EVER THERE WAS AN OXYMORON, YOUR HONOR, THAT MAY BE IT, ISN'T IT? A DREAM DEFENDANT?
I INTRODUCED HER TO CHRIS DARDEN AND CHRIS SAYS, 'I AM YOUR HUSBAND'S GOOD FRIEND.' AND I TELL MY WIFE, 'I CERTAINLY HOPE THAT YOU DON'T LOVE ME LIKE HE DOES, BECAUSE I THINK I MIGHT BE IN TROUBLE.'