ALL RIGHT. BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. MR. SIMPSON IS AGAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT WITH HIS COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. BAILEY, MR. BLASIER. THE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED BY MISS CLARK AND MR. DARDEN. COUNSEL, SO THE RECORD IS CLEAR, WE ARE IN THE MIDST OF OPENING STATEMENTS BY THE DEFENSE, THE PROSECUTION HAVING COMPLETED THEIR OPENING STATEMENTS.
AND AT THE CONCLUSION OF YESTERDAY'S PROCEEDINGS THE DEFENSE MADE CERTAIN DISCLOSURES TO THE PROSECUTION PERTAINING TO CERTAIN WITNESSES WHO WERE MENTIONED AND/OR ALLUDED TO DURING THE COURSE OF THE DEFENSE OPENING STATEMENT, AND THE PROSECUTION ASKED FOR LEAVE TO -- ACTUALLY AT THE COURT'S SUGGESTION THE PROSECUTION ACCEPTED LEAVE OF THE COURT TO EVALUATE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT DISCLOSURE AND TO REPORT BACK TO THE COURT THIS MORNING. AND SO THE RECORD IS ALSO CLEAR, YESTERDAY EVENING AT APPROXIMATELY 10:30 IN THE EVENING I RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM THE ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY, FRANK SUNDSTEDT, AT MY HOME, ADVISING ME OF THE SUDDEN ILLNESS OF MR. HODGMAN WHO WAS THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY ASSIGNED OR WHO WAS HANDLING THE DISCOVERY ISSUE AND THE OBJECTIONS TO THE OPENING STATEMENT BY MR. COCHRAN. MISS CLARK, WHAT IS THE POSITION OF THE PEOPLE THIS MORNING?
YOUR HONOR, AT THE COURT'S DIRECTION, LAST NIGHT WE ATTEMPTED TO GO AND EVALUATE WHAT EXACTLY HAD OCCURRED IN COURT AND ATTEMPTED TO ADDRESS THE EGREGIOUS ISSUES OF MISCONDUCT. WE WERE WORKING UNTIL APPROXIMATELY 1:30 IN THE MORNING AND WE WERE DOING IT WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF THE ASSISTANCE OF MR. HODGMAN WHO WAS TAKEN TO THE HOSPITAL AT I BELIEVE APPROXIMATELY 6:00 P.M., WHICH DID HAMPER OUR PREPARATION. WE ARE GOING TO BE READY TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED BY THE CONDUCT OF COUNSEL. IF WE COULD HAVE AN ADDITIONAL PERIOD OF TIME UNTIL 1:30 THIS AFTERNOON, WE WILL HAVE SOMETHING IN WRITING FOR THE COURT ADDRESSING EACH OF THE ISSUES OF MISCONDUCT COMMITTED BY COUNSEL, AND WE DID ATTEMPT TO HAVE IT READY FOR THE COURT THIS MORNING, BUT HAVING WORKED UNTIL 1:30 IN THE MORNING LAST NIGHT, WE SIMPLY COULD NOT COMPLETE IT IN TIME.
ALL RIGHT. ASSUMING THE PROSECUTION'S WRITTEN OBJECTIONS ARE SUBMITTED TO THE COURT TODAY AT 1:30, WHAT IS YOUR POSITION AS FAR AS CONTINUING THE OPENING STATEMENTS AND PROCEEDING IN THE ABSENCE OF MR. HODGMAN?
THAT WILL DEPEND ON THE COURT'S RULING ON OUR MOTION, YOUR HONOR, AND WHEN WE -- WE WILL BE REQUESTING CERTAIN THINGS OF THE COURT, AND DEPENDING ON THE COURT'S DECISION WITH RESPECT TO THOSE REQUESTS IN OUR MOVING PAPERS, THEN WE WILL KNOW WHAT OUR POSITION IS IN THAT REGARD.
ALL RIGHT. ARE YOU IN A POSITION TO TELL ME WHAT REMEDIES YOU ARE GOING TO BE SEEKING?
NOT AT THIS TIME, YOUR HONOR. THAT IS BEING PREPARED AS WE SPEAK. WE HAD -- WE DID AN EXHAUSTIVE SEARCH THROUGH THE RECORD, AMONG OTHER THINGS -- SO THE COURT WILL KNOW HOW SOME OF OUR TIME WAS TAKEN UP, WE DID AN EXHAUSTIVE SEARCH THROUGH THE RECORD FOR ALL OF THE REPRESENTATIONS OF DEFENSE COUNSEL CONCERNING THEIR COMPLIANCE WITH DISCOVERY ORDERS, AND THERE WERE NUMEROUS, NUMEROUS REPRESENTATIONS BY THE DEFENSE OF FULL AND COMPLETE DISCLOSURE, WHICH HAVE OF COURSE BEEN PROVEN TO BE FALSE, AND WE HAD TO CITE THOSE TO THE COURT, AS WELL AS THE NUMEROUS LETTERS THAT WE HAVE SENT TO THE DEFENSE WHICH WERE NOT ANSWERED IN A TRUTHFUL MANNER, AS WELL AS THE COURT ORDERS THAT WERE ISSUED WHICH WERE WILLFULLY VIOLATED BY THE DEFENSE. SO WE HAVE HAD TO COMPILE QUITE A BIT OF MATERIAL TO DEMONSTRATE TO THE COURT THE MISCONDUCT OF THE DEFENSE, IN ADDITION OF COURSE TO THE MOST RECENT.
I HAVE TO TELL YOU, WHAT I'M INTERESTED IN IS KNOWING WHAT THE PROSECUTION'S POSITION WILL BE WITH REGARDS TO EACH OF THE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS THAT OBJECTION WAS MADE TO, EACH OF THE WITNESSES THAT WERE DISCLOSED IN THE LAST FEW DAYS, AND THE LINE OF ARGUMENT OR DEFENSE THAT WAS OBJECTED TO OR THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS OBJECTED TO. I NEED TO KNOW WHAT THE PEOPLE'S POSITION IS WITH REGARDS TO EACH ONE OF THOSE DISCREET ITEMS, BECAUSE EACH IS DIFFERENT, EACH HAS A DIFFERENT DATE OF DISCLOSURE AND EACH HAS DIFFERENT RELEVANCE TO THE CASE, SOME OF WHICH IS HARD FOR THE COURT TO EVALUATE WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT YOUR SPECIFIC POSITION WILL BE ON THAT.
CAN YOU GIVE ME PERHAPS AN EXPLANATION UNDER WHAT SCENARIO, UNDER WHAT SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES THE PROSECUTION WOULD BE WILLING TO GO FORWARD AND COMPLETE THE OPENING STATEMENTS TODAY?
WELL, I APPRECIATE THE COURT'S DIRECTION, NO. 1, AS TO WHAT THE COURT DESIRES WITH RESPECT TO EACH WITNESS AND THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE IN ARGUMENT. IN ORDER TO ADDRESS IT IN THAT KIND OF SPECIFICITY, THOUGH, WE ARE GOING TO NEED TO ADDRESS THE COURT WITH MORE THAN ONE LAWYER BECAUSE WE HAVE OUR LAWYERS WORKING ON SEPARATE AREAS, AND ORDINARILY, IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE ONE-LAWYER RULE, WE WOULD HAVE ALL OF THEM FUNNEL THEIR INFORMATION TO ONE. IF THE COURT WOULD LIKE US TO RESPOND WITH THAT SPECIFICITY, WE WOULD ASK LEAVE OF THE COURT TO HAVE AN EXCEPTION TO THE RULE, BECAUSE THERE IS NO WAY THAT WE CAN BE READY WITH ONE LAWYER TO PRESENT ALL OF THAT AT 1:30. EITHER THAT OR TO ALLOW US A LITTLE ADDITIONAL TIME. BUT WITH RESPECT TO EACH WITNESS OR GROUPS OF WITNESSES, THERE WILL BE -- THE COURT -- I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE COURT IS SAYING. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN THE NATURE OF THE SANCTION. I DO APPRECIATE THAT, YOUR HONOR.
WELL, WHAT I'M ASKING IS SINCE I HAVE A JURY -- THERE IS A VERY PRACTICAL REASON FOR MY QUESTION. I HAVE GOT A JURY IN THE WAITING ROOM RIGHT NOW SITTING THERE, AND IF THERE IS ANY POINT TO KEEPING THEM HERE, IS THERE -- WHAT IS THE SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES THAT YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO GO FORWARD WITH THE OPENING STATEMENTS AND CONCLUDE AT LEAST MR. COCHRAN'S OPENING STATEMENT?
HOLD ON. CERTAINLY. I THOUGHT YOU WANTED TO TALK WHILE SHE IS TALKING TO MR. DARDEN.
YES, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU. THE SANCTIONS THAT WE WILL BE REQUESTING WILL BE ADMONITIONS TO THE JURY WITH RESPECT TO SOME WITNESSES, PRECLUSION WITH RESPECT TO OTHERS AND WE NEED A CONSENSUS AMONG US AS TO WHICH SANCTION FOR WHICH WITNESSES AND THAT IS WHY IT IS DIFFICULT TO ADDRESS THE COURT. I UNDERSTAND --
THERE ALSO WILL BE ISSUES OF CONTINUANCE REQUIRED IN ORDER TO ADDRESS THE NEW DISCOVERY, AS WELL AS THE REQUEST TO REOPEN THE PEOPLE'S OPENING STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE ARGUMENTS POSED BY COUNSEL.
AND I APPRECIATE THE COURT'S POSITION. IT NEEDS TO KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH THE JURY. THESE ISSUES ARE GOING TO TAKE A LITTLE WHILE TO RESOLVE, BUT DEPENDING ON THE COURT'S RULING WITH THAT -- ON THOSE VARIOUS ISSUES, WE WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE RESUMPTION OF OPENING STATEMENT, BUT WE DO -- I THINK WE NEED TO PRESENT THIS TO THE COURT FOR RESOLUTION BEFORE WE RESUME WITH THE OPENING STATEMENT. I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW LONG THAT IS GOING TO TAKE, BECAUSE WE ARE PRESENTED WITH A MYRIAD -- MYRIAD ISSUES TO ADDRESS.
GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. YOUR HONOR, FIRST OF ALL, THOSE OF US ON THE DEFENSE ARE VERY SORRY ABOUT MR. HODGMAN'S ILLNESS AND WE WISH HIM A SPEEDY RECOVERY. WE ARE ALSO REPRESENTING MR. O.J. SIMPSON, A MAN WE BELIEVE IS ABSOLUTELY INNOCENT, AND THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT, SO WE HAVE TO KIND OF BALANCE THAT. CERTAINLY, AS I INDICATED TO THE COURT EARLIER, IF THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH MR. HODGMAN BEING HERE AND THAT WILL CAUSE THE PEOPLE SOME PROBLEMS, WE ARE WILLING TO WAIT A COUPLE OF DAYS ON THAT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF PROCEEDING WITH THE EVIDENCE.
BUT YOUR HONOR, I NEED HARDLY REMIND THIS COURT, WITH REGARD TO OPENING STATEMENTS, THAT WE WERE READY TO PROCEED WITH OPENING STATEMENTS ON TUESDAY AFTERNOON AFTER THE PEOPLE CONCLUDED AT 3:30 AND BECAUSE OF A GLITCH WHICH WAS NO FAULT -- AN ACCIDENTAL GLITCH, BUT CERTAINLY NO FAULT OF MR. SIMPSON'S, THE COURT TOOK A RECESS AT THAT TIME AND WE WEREN'T ABLE TO FINISH OUR OPENING STATEMENTS. WE ACCEPTED THAT LIKE WE DO ALL THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED HERE. FINALLY YESTERDAY I WAS ABLE TO MAKE MY OPENING STATEMENT. AND I WILL BE VERY INTERESTED IN THEIR MOTION. AS USUAL, THEY TEND TO BE TOTALLY JUDGMENTAL, TALKING ABOUT MISCONDUCT. THERE IS NO MISCONDUCT IN THIS CASE. THEY CAN'T STAND THE TRUTH. I INDICATED THAT BEFORE. IF COUNSEL GETS UP AND IF YOU LOOK VERY CLOSELY AT THAT OPENING STATEMENT I GAVE YESTERDAY AND WE TALKED ABOUT LET'S SAY THE BLOOD UNDER NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S FINGERNAILS, THAT IS NOT ANYTHING THEY TOLD THEM, SO THE FACT THEY ARE UPSET -- THIS IS THE SAME GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN ASKING FOR A CONTINUANCE. IF A DEFENDANT HAD DONE THIS, ASKING FOR A CONTINUANCE AND THEN HAVE ALL THESE THINGS AND CONTINUE TO ASK FOR A CONTINUANCE, EVERYONE WOULD BE VERY SUSPICIOUS, BUT HERE IT IS PROSECUTION WHO IS CONTINUALLY DOING THIS SO. ALL I'M ASKING AND WHAT MR. SIMPSON ASKS IS THAT WE BE ALLOWED TO COMPLETE THE OPENING STATEMENT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. IT IS UNPRECEDENTED TO HAVE MY OPENING STATEMENT INTERRUPTED ALL OF THESE TIMES, TO HAVE THEM -- TALK ABOUT GETTING UP AND GIVING A FURTHER OPENING STATEMENT. THEN DO I GET TO REBUT THAT? THEY CANNOT SHUT ME UP, YOUR HONOR. I'M GOING TO TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THIS CASE. I'M GOING TO COMPLY WITH THE RULE. WE MAKE A MISTAKE, WE WILL TALK ABOUT THAT, BUT IF YOU LOOK THROUGH THAT TRANSCRIPT, THE THINGS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT ARE THINGS THAT WE EITHER DISCLOSED TO THEM OR THINGS I KNOW ABOUT THAT I HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO TELL THEM ABOUT. THEY CANNOT GET INSIDE MY HEAD AND THEY MIGHT AS WELL UNDERSTAND THAT. YOU RECALL ONCE BEFORE I SAID THEY ARE CONSTANTLY TRYING TO SHACKLE ME FROM THE STANDPOINT OF ADDRESSING THE ISSUES. THE COURT HAS ALREADY INDICATED TO THESE JURORS WHAT BOTH COUNSEL SAY IS NOT EVIDENCE AND IF WE DON'T PROVE SOMETHING OR IF WE FALL SHORT OF THAT, THE REMEDY SAYS THE JURORS SAY YOU SAID YOU WERE GOING TO DO THIS AND YOU DIDN'T DO THAT. YOU HAVE TOLD THEM HOW MANY TIMES THAT IT IS NOT -- OPENING STATEMENT IS NOT EVIDENCE.
AND I NOTICE MISS CLARK INADVERTENTLY KEPT USING THE WORDS "ARGUMENT" YOU RECALL WHEN THEY WERE GIVING THEIR OPENING STATEMENT, MAKING ALL OF THESE OUTRAGEOUS SPECIOUS CLAIMS ABOUT O.J. SIMPSON, CONTINUING TO TARNISH HIS REPUTATION. WE SAT HERE AND LISTENED TO THAT, AS WE HAVE BEEN DOING FOR SEVEN YEARS -- SEVEN MONTHS. THEY TALK ABOUT ALL THIS MOUND OF EVIDENCE. WE DIDN'T OBJECT. WE TRIED TO CONDUCT OURSELVES AS PROFESSIONALS UNTIL THE VERY END WHEN YOUR HONOR HAD TO ASK MISS CLARK TO SIT DOWN FOR BEING SO ARGUMENTATIVE. THOSE ARE THE FACTS. WE WENT THROUGH THAT YESTERDAY. THEY ASSIGNED MR. HODGMAN TO TRACK MY OPENING STATEMENT WHERE HE OBJECTS THIRTEEN TIMES, ABOUT ELEVEN OF WHICH WERE OVERRULED AND BUT -- AND I TOLD THEM AT THE TIME THEY ARE NOT GOING TO THROW US OFF WITH THAT KIND OF TACTIC, YOUR HONOR. NOW THEY WANT STILL A FURTHER DELAY. SO WE NEED TO PUT THIS IN PERSPECTIVE AS TO WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE. WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO CONCLUDE OUR OPENING STATEMENT AND GET TO THE CASE. JUDGE, AS SOMEBODY WISE INDICATED, THIS IS THE PEOPLE'S CASE. THEY MADE THIS JUDGMENT BACK ON JUNE 16 TO CALL FOR THIS MAN'S ARREST ON JUNE 17. THEY HAVE THE ENTIRE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, I PRESUME. THEY HAVE 8000 PERSONS. THEY HAVE THE THIRD OR FOURTH LARGEST POLICE DEPARTMENT IN THIS COUNTY, AND THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S INVESTIGATORS. THEY HAVE 900 LAWYERS. THEY SAID THEY WERE READY TO GO. THEY HAVE ALL OF THAT ON THEIR SIDE AND YET THEY ARE GOING TO COME WHIMPERING INTO THIS COURT AND CLAIMING THEY DIDN'T KNOW SOMETHING OR THEIR INVESTIGATORS DIDN'T KNOW SOMETHING BECAUSE I HAVE A THEORY IN MY HEAD OR A FACT IN MY HEAD ABOUT THIS MAN'S PHYSICAL CONDITION OR SOMETHING THEY DIDN'T WHAT TO HEAR. SO WE HAVE TO PUT IT IN PERSPECTIVE AND THEY WANT TO CALL THAT MISCONDUCT. IT IS NOT MISCONDUCT AT ALL. BOTH OF THEM HAVE BEEN TRYING CASES FOR TWENTY SOME YEARS. I GUESS AS BOB PHILIBOSIAN, WHO WAS A FORMER PROSECUTOR, SAID LAST NIGHT, THIS IS MUCH TO DO ABOUT NOTHING. HE SAID HE TRIED CASES FOR TWENTY YEARS, AS YOU DID, AND NEVER HAD A REPORT FROM THE DEFENSE AND NOW THEY WANT TO GET IN OUR BRIEFCASE. THEY WOULD LIKE TO COME HOME WITH US IF THEY COULD. THEY CAN'T DO THAT. THE LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT. THE FORMER DISTRICT ATTORNEY SAYS THAT AND EVERYBODY SAYS THAT AND WE NEED TO GET DOWN TO IT. THIS IS A STALL, YOUR HONOR. LET ME FINISH MY OPENING STATEMENT. WHY ARE THEY SO AFRAID OF ME ADDRESSING THIS JURY AND TELLING THE TRUTH? THAT IS ABOUT WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT AND THAT IS ALL I WANT TO DO, IS COMPLETE MY OPENING STATEMENT.
YOU ARE THE ARBITER AND YOU KNOW YESTERDAY WE WERE TOTALLY RESPECTFUL. EVERY TIME THERE IS AN OBJECTION WE APPROACH THE BENCH. AND WHEN THE COURT GIVES SOME DIRECTIONS, I FOLLOW THOSE DIRECTIONS. I DON'T GO BEYOND THAT. I WAS NOT NEARLY, NEARLY AS ARGUMENTATIVE AS BOTH OF THEM WERE IN THEIR OPENING STATEMENTS, ABSOLUTELY NOT. AND YOUR HONOR -- BECAUSE IF I HAD, YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN CALLING ME ON IT, BUT AT THE END YOU HAD TO HAVE HER SIT DOWN, SO LET'S GET TO WHERE THIS REALLY IS. IT IS NOT ABOUT PERSONALITIES. AND WHAT THIS CASE IS ABOUT IS TRYING TO GET A FAIR TRIAL FOR THIS MAN HERE AND HE SHOULDN'T SUFFER BECAUSE OF THEIR TACTICS AND THEIR STALL TACTICS, AND THAT IS WHAT THIS BOILS DOWN TO. SO WE ARE READY TO PROCEED. AND QUITE FRANKLY I WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE AS YOU'VE ALSO SAID, AND I WANT TO END ON THIS NOTE, THIS ALSO IS ABOUT THESE 22 CITIZEN VOLUNTEERS, AND YESTERDAY WHEN THEY CAME OUT, OR THE DAY BEFORE YESTERDAY WHEN THEY CAME OUT, YOU SAID "I HOPE THIS IS THE LAST TIME I WILL HAVE TO APOLOGIZE TO YOU FOR NOT STARTING ON TIME" AND THEN YOU CAUGHT YOURSELF AND SAID, "BUT I KNOW IT WON'T BE," SO NOW WE GOT TO APOLOGIZE AGAIN TODAY ALL BECAUSE OF THESE DELAYS, AND THE DELAYS ARE FROM THEM. I AM READY TO GO. YOU BASICALLY WOULD BE READY TO GO. THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY READY TO GO. THIS IS THEIR CASE. WHO IS NOT READY TO GO? THE PEOPLE. WHO IS IT WHO WANTS TO LIKE CONTINUE TO CURTAIL WHAT I CAN SAY TO THE JURY? THE PEOPLE. AND IT IS THEIR CASE, JUDGE. AS I SAID THE OTHER DAY, THEY DON'T WANT TO HEAR THE TRUTH IN THIS CASE, BUT THE TRUTH WILL COME OUT, AND WHEN YOU PUT IT IN COUNTER POSITION, JUDGE, FOR THE LAST TWO OR THREE WEEKS THEY HAVE BEEN ON A PUBLIC RELATIONS CAMPAIGN TO TAR AND BESMIRCH THIS MAN.
I OBJECT AT THIS POINT. ISN'T THE ISSUE HERE WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE GOING TO GO TO 1:30? ISN'T THAT THE ONLY ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT?
THANK YOU VERY KINDLY, YOUR HONOR. WHENEVER I'M TALKING, YOUR HONOR, THEY WANT TO STOP ME FROM TALKING.
MR. DARDEN, I AM HEARING FROM ONE COUNSEL AT A TIME. MISS CLARK IS THE ONE ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE.
NOTHING COULD BE MORE GRAPHIC THAN EXACTLY WHAT YOU JUST SAW. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THIS CASE. AND IT IS NOT PERSONAL BETWEEN ME AND MR. DARDEN OR MISS CLARK. THIS IS WITH OUR CLIENT. THEY WENT ON THIS PUBLIC RELATIONS MEDIA BLITZ TO TAR THIS MAN. FINALLY, YOUR HONOR, AFTER SEVEN MONTHS, YESTERDAY SOMEBODY SPOKE UP FOR O.J. SIMPSON. ALL ACROSS THIS COUNTRY IN THE BYWAYS AND HIGHWAYS THEY HEARD ANOTHER SIDE OF WHAT THIS EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE AND THEY CAN'T TAKE IT AND THAT IS NOT FAIR. NOW, WHAT ABOUT HIM? I MEAN, HE WOULD LOVE TO ADDRESS IT, BUT WE ARE NOT GOING TO LET HIM, BUT ON WHAT IT FEELS LIKE TO BE THE ONE WHO HAS BEEN THE OBJECT OF ALL THE THINGS THEY HAVE DONE TO HIM AND THEY THEN HAVE THE TEMERITY, THE UNMITIGATED GALL TO COME IN HERE AND COMPLAIN THAT, GEE, THEY HAVE SOMEHOW BEEN SABOTAGED AND THEY ARE THE ONE WHO BROUGHT THE CASE, YOUR HONOR. SO LET'S GET THIS OPENING STATEMENT COMPLETED. LET'S GET TO THE EVIDENCE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. LET'S TRY TO PUT IT INTO PERSPECTIVE AND LET'S CONDUCT OURSELVES LIKE LAWYERS. WE WON'T BE TRYING TO INTERRUPT THEM. WE DIDN'T INTERRUPT THEM WHEN THEY WERE GIVING THEIR OPENING STATEMENT. I WON'T BE STANDING UP WHEN HE IS TALKING LIKE THAT. THEY SHOULD CONDUCT THEMSELVES LIKE LAWYERS AND BE PROFESSIONAL AND LET'S GET THIS DONE.
MR. COCHRAN, LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION, THOUGH. THE ISSUE RIGHT NOW IS WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE GOING TO TRAIL OVER UNTIL 1:30 TO DETERMINE WHAT THE PEOPLE'S POSITION IS GOING TO BE, AND OBVIOUSLY WE ARE IN THE UNUSUAL POSITION WHERE MR. HODGMAN HAS TAKEN ILL, HE IS IN THE INTENSIVE CARE UNIT. I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY THEY ARE ENTITLED TO SOME RELIEF, IF NOTHING ELSE, JUST TO REGROUP. SECONDLY, THE DEFENSE DID MAKE DISCLOSURE YESTERDAY OF A NUMBER OF WITNESSES AND TURNED OVER WITNESS STATEMENTS THAT WERE DATED IN AUGUST AND JULY OF LAST YEAR THAT THEY WERE NOT AWARE OF, AND MR. DOUGLAS FORTHRIGHTLY INDICATED THAT AN ERROR HAD BEEN MADE IN NOT TURNING THOSE OVER, SO THE PROSECUTION IS IN THE SITUATION WHERE ONE OF THE THREE LEAD PROSECUTORS HAS TAKEN ILL, STILL IS IN THE HOSPITAL, AND YOUR SIDE HAS CONCEDED THAT IT WAS A MISTAKE NOT TO TURN THOSE ITEMS OVER TO THEM. THEY ARE ENTITLED TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO EVALUATE WHAT WAS TURNED OVER LATE. THEY ARE ENTITLED TO ASK THIS COURT FOR SANCTIONS. THEY ARE ALSO ENTITLED TO REEVALUATE THEIR POSITION IN LIGHT OF THE ABSENCE OF MR. HODGMAN. I'M GOING TO GIVE THEM THE TIME UNTIL 1:30 TO DO THAT.
MAY I RESPOND TO THAT? AND I STARTED MY REMARKS BY SAYING, YOUR HONOR, I'M VERY SYMPATHETIC TO MR. HODGMAN.
HE IS A WONDERFUL PERSON AND THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT, AND AS I SAID, WE ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. YOUR HONOR, I WANT TO PUT ONE THING IN PERSPECTIVE. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT LIST -- FIRST OF ALL, THE LIST CAME ABOUT --
YOU HAD INDICATED ON THE LIST THAT THERE WERE A NUMBER OF DISCLOSURES THAT WERE LATE. I THINK WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT LIST, THE LIST CAME ABOUT BECAUSE YOU HAD ASKED MR. DOUGLAS TO MAKE SURE -- MR. DOUGLAS ONLY BECAME THE EVIDENCE COORDINATOR, I CAN SAY THIS --
I WANTED TO POINT OUT TO THE COURT THERE ARE VERY FEW WITNESSES ON THAT LIST, IF ANY, THAT I ALLUDED TO IN OPENING STATEMENT, MANY OF WHOM WON'T EVEN I DON'T THINK BE CALLED, BUT AGAIN, I THINK IT WAS JUST A QUESTION --
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. I LISTENED TO ONE SIDE VERY CAREFULLY, VERY PATIENTLY, THEN YOU GET TO RESPOND. I'M GOING TO GRANT YOUR REQUEST TO 1:30, MISS CLARK.
BE SEATED, MR. DARDEN, WILL YOU PLEASE. THANK YOU. MR. COCHRAN, HAVE YOU CONCLUDED YOUR COMMENTS?
I DON'T THINK SO, YOUR HONOR. IF THEY WOULD LEARN TO FOLLOW YOUR RULES I THINK IT WOULD NOT BE. ALL I WANT TO SAY AND JUST CONCLUDE --
I'M NOT BAITING THEM, YOUR HONOR. I MEAN THEY ARE ADULTS; NOT CHILDREN. OKAY. BUT I WON'T BAIT THEM.
YOUR HONOR, WE WILL BE -- THE POINT I WAS JUST TRYING TO MAKE IN RESPONSE TO YOUR HONOR'S STATEMENT, I THINK YOU WILL SEE WHEN YOU SEE THE WITNESS LIST THAT VERY FEW OF THOSE WITNESSES WERE ALLUDED TO IN THE OPENING STATEMENT. THE LIST CAME ABOUT BECAUSE YOU HAD INSTRUCTED US TO GET ON TOP OF THAT.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT BY CONCEDING THAT VERY FEW ON THAT LATE DISCLOSED LIST WERE MENTIONED, THE FACT THAT THEY ARE MENTIONED AT ALL AND LATELY DISCLOSED IS AN ISSUE THAT THE PROSECUTION IS ENTITLED TO LITIGATE.
IF THEY WANT TO MAKE THAT ISSUE THAT IS FINE, YOUR HONOR, BUT WHAT I'M SAYING TO YOU IS THAT WE CAN ADDRESS THAT IN QUICK ORDER I THINK. I THINK WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT IT IS MUCH TO DO ABOUT NOTHING AND THAT IS THE THING I WANTED TO POINT OUT TO THE COURT SO THAT WE CAN GET ON WITH IT. THANK YOU FOR BEING PATIENT AND LISTENING, YOUR HONOR. I APPRECIATE THAT VERY MUCH.
I ALSO HAVE TO TAKE UP THE DNA DISCOVERY ISSUE THAT MR. BLASIER AND MR. HARMON I THINK ARE GOING TO ADDRESS. ANYTHING ELSE, MR. DARDEN?
YOUR HONOR, I SEE THAT EVERY TIME THE JURY COMES IN THAT THE DEFENSE HAS PICTURES OF MR. SIMPSON AND THEIR BOARDS TURNED TO FACE THE JURY SO THAT THEY CAN READ THEM AS THEY WALK THROUGH THE JURY BOX. AND I WOULD ASK THAT THE DEFENSE BE DIRECTED TO TURN THEIR BOARDS AROUND, AS WE HAVE.
THAT IS PROBABLY TRUE. BOTH SIDES NEED THE COURT'S PERMISSION BEFORE THEY PUT UP ANY DISPLAYS WHILE THE JURY IS HERE. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
I THINK IT IS UP FROM LAST NIGHT. THE JURORS HAVEN'T SEEN IT; THEY HAVEN'T BEEN IN HERE.
A STANDING RULE WILL BE NO EXHIBITS WILL BE DISPLAYED UNTIL THE COURT IS IN SESSION AND THE COURT HAS GIVEN PERMISSION FOR THAT TO BE POSTED.
ON THE ISSUE OF DISCOVERY, YOUR HONOR, AND I DON'T DESIRE TO ARGUE THE ISSUE OF DISCOVERY AT THIS TIME, BUT I WANT TO MAKE THE RECORD PERFECTLY CLEAR, AND WE WILL SHOW THIS THIS AFTERNOON WHEN WE DISCUSS THE ISSUE, AND THAT IS THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE MENTIONED YESTERDAY, PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT ON THEIR WITNESS LIST, PEOPLE WHOSE WITNESS STATEMENTS HAVE NEVER BEEN TURNED OVER TO US AS THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN. WHEN WE OBJECTED WE GOT NO RELIEF. HAD WE KNOWN ABOUT SOME OF THESE WITNESSES, WE COULD HAVE INFORMED COUNSEL THAT THEY ARE HEROIN ADDICTS, THIEVES, FELONS, AND THAT ONE OF THESE WITNESS, ONE OF THEIR SO-CALLED MATERIAL WITNESSES IS THE ONLY PERSON I HAVE EVER KNOWN TO BE A COURT CERTIFIED PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. LET ME, BEFORE I EXCUSE YOU, MR. DARDEN, LET ME ALSO ADVISE COUNSEL THAT THERE IS A STANDING ORDER BY BOTH SUPERVISING JUDGES IN THIS BUILDING THAT NO PRESS CONFERENCES WILL BE HELD ON THE 9TH FLOOR. APPARENTLY WE HAVE A MISUNDERSTANDING BY COUNSEL IN THIS CASE WHO HAVE CONDUCTED INTERVIEWS OR GRANTED INTERVIEWS TO MEMBERS OF THE PRESS HERE ON THE 9TH FLOOR. JUST SO THERE IS NO MISUNDERSTANDING, THERE ARE TO BE NO PRESS INTERVIEWS ON THE 9TH FLOOR CONDUCTED BY COUNSEL. THE REASON FOR THAT IS THIS IS A HIGH SECURITY FLOOR, IT CREATES CONGESTION, IT IS A SECURITY PROBLEM, IT INTERFERES WITH OTHER COURTS, IT INFLUENCES OTHER WITNESSES AND JURORS ON OTHER CASES, AND THERE IS A STANDING ORDER AGAINST THAT. THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT HAS REPORTED TO ME SEVERAL INSTANCES WHERE THE SUPERVISING JUDGE'S ORDERS HAD BEEN VIOLATED. I AM JUST PUTTING COUNSEL ON NOTICE THAT DEPARTMENT 100 WILL BE CONDUCTING CONTEMPT HEARINGS IF THIS OCCURS AGAIN, SO PLEASE FOLLOW THE SUPERVISING JUDGE'S ORDER IN THAT REGARD. WE DO HAVE A FIRST FLOOR PRESS CONFERENCE AREA SET ASIDE FOR THAT PURPOSE.
THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. WE HAVE PROVIDED A LETTER TO THE PROSECUTION AND TO THE COURT REQUESTING ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY WITH RESPECT TO PHOTOGRAPHS OF SOME OF THE EVIDENCE AND WOULD YOU LIKE -- WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO COVER THOSE ONE AT A TIME?
I HAVE READ THE LETTER, COUNSEL. I UNDERSTAND YOU ARE ASKING FOR USABLE LARGE SEEABLE PHOTOGRAPHS.
CORRECT, YOUR HONOR. THE PHOTOGRAPHS I DID NOT PROVIDE TO THE COURT. I HAD DR. GERDES FAX ME A COPY OF SOME OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT I REFERRED TO IN MY LETTER, AND I MIGHT POINT OUT THAT THESE PHOTOGRAPHS CONTAIN EIGHT TESTING STRIPS IN THE SIZE OF ABOUT MY PICTURE ON MY DRIVER'S LICENSE, SO THEY ARE SIMPLY NOT USABLE IN THE FORM THAT WE HAVE BEEN GIVEN THEM AND WE WOULD LIKE COPIES THAT ARE THE SAME SIZE AS THE COPIES THAT THEY WILL BE USING IN THEIR TESTIMONY.
GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. AS WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN, NOTHING IS AS SHORT OR AS SIMPLE AS IT SEEMS.
THERE ARE ACTUALLY TWO CATEGORIES OF ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN REQUESTED. THE SECOND CATEGORY INVOLVES PROFICIENCY TESTS AND THOSE COPIES -- BETTER COPIES WILL BE MADE OF THEM. THE FIRST CATEGORY I THINK IS MUCH MORE INTERESTING BECAUSE IT REALLY TIES IN WITH WHAT THE COURT IS STRUGGLING WITH TODAY. AT THE SAME TIME THIS COURT IS CONSIDERING ALLEGATIONS OF SERIOUS INTENTIONAL MISCONDUCT BY THE DEFENSE IN DISCOVERY, THE DEFENSE HAS THE TEMERITY TO ASK FOR SOMETHING THAT THEY ALREADY HAVE. I THINK TO ILLUSTRATE THE ABUSIVE EXTENT OF THE DISCOVERY IN THE DNA CONTEXT, I JUST SELECTED ONE OF THE DAYS IN THE LIFE OF GARY SIMS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THAT DIRECTLY ADDRESSES THE NATURE OF THE REQUEST AND WHY THIS COURT HAS TO DRAW THE LINE AT SOME POINT AT THE SAME TIME THE COURT HAS RECOGNIZED THAT THE LINE HAS BEEN CROSSED BY THE DEFENSE IN OTHER DISCOVERY AREAS. I JUST SELECTED OCTOBER 27 BECAUSE IT SEEMED TO BE THE LONGEST DAY FOR GARY SIMS. HE STARTED WORK AT ABOUT TEN O'CLOCK THAT MORNING. HE DID A FULL DAY'S WORK ON THE DNA TEST RESULTS IN THIS CASE. AND I THINK THE COURT NEEDS TO APPRECIATE, AND THE COURT HAS HEARD A LITTLE BIT ABOUT DNA. WE REALIZE THAT EVERY TEST HAS THE POSSIBILITY OF EXCLUDING SOMEBODY IF THEY DESERVE TO BE EXCLUDED. IF THEY ARE NOT EXCLUDED, THEY WILL BE INCLUDED. SO AT THE SAME TIME THAT MR. SIMS WAS ANALYZING VOLUMES AND VOLUMES OF EVIDENCE ON THIS CASE, TO ACCEPT WHATEVER RESULTS CAME OUT OF IT AND IF MR. SIMPSON WAS GOING TO BE EXCLUDED AND EXONERATED AND SHOWN TO BE INNOCENT, SO BE IT, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE RESULT THAT WAS PRODUCED. AT THE SAME TIME THAT HAPPENED THE COURT HAD PROPERLY INSTITUTED SOME SORT OF RECIPROCAL VISITATION BY DR. BLAKE, AND DR. BLAKE IS THE KEY FIGURE IN THIS DISCOVERY REQUEST, SO GARY SIMS WORKED ALL DAY ANALYZING EVIDENCE ON THIS CASE, AND AS WAS THE NORM -- AND I THINK WHAT HE DID THAT DAY IS ALSO VERY INTERESTING.
THAT WAS THE DAY, COINCIDENTALLY, THAT THE SOCK THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF GREAT DISCUSSION WAS EXAMINED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE LAB AND ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT THEY PRODUCED SHOWS THAT THERE IS NO SINISTER ACTIVITY ABOUT THAT SOCK. IT IS AN INFRARED VIDEO THAT SHOWS ONLY ONCE YOU KNOW THERE IS BLOOD ON THE SOCK AND YOU HAVE VISUALLY EXAMINED IT AND YOU HAVE DONE PRESUMPTIVE TESTS, NOT ONLY DOES THAT JUST TELL WHERE YOU SOME OF THE STUFF IS, YOU NEED TO DO INFRARED PHOTOGRAPHY TO SEE OTHER THINGS ONCE YOU REALIZE THAT SOCK HAS BLOOD ALL OVER IT. SO THAT IS WHAT MR. SIMS DID THAT DAY, PREPARED THAT EVIDENCE, PREPARED THE VIDEOTAPE, CAREFULLY DOCUMENTED THINGS AND THE DOCUMENTATION TAKES HOURS AND HOURS. AND THEN WHO SHOWS UP AT 7:45 THAT NIGHT, BUT DR. BLAKE. YOU HAVE TO APPRECIATE THAT DR. BLAKE HAS A BUSINESS AND A LIFE OF HIS OWN, SO HE OFTEN DOESN'T SHOW UP DURING THE DAY, HE SHOWS UP AT NIGHT, WHICH MEANS MR. SIMS HAS TO WORK HIS FULL DAY AND THEN ON INTO THE NIGHT WITH DR. BLAKE. THEY SPENT FIVE HOURS GOING OVER ITEMS, UNPACKAGING ITEMS, DOCUMENTING ITEMS AND TAKING, IN MANY INSTANCES, SIMULTANEOUS PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE VERY SAME THINGS, AND NOW THOSE SIMULTANEOUS PHOTOGRAPHS ARE WHAT IS IN ISSUE AT THIS TEST. THIS IS THE SAME DR. BLAKE THEY HAVE HIDDEN BEHIND THE ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE, AND THIS IS THE SAME DR. BLAKE WHO HAS ALWAYS TESTIFIED IN OPPOSITION TO THE TWO DEFENSE WITNESSES IN THIS CASE, DR. MULLIS AND DR. GERDES. THESE ARE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WERE TAKEN OF THE SAME ITEMS. THE DEFENSE HAS MADE NO SHOWING, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO HIDE DR. BLAKE. HE HAS NEVER BEEN MENTIONED IN THE OPENING STATEMENT, THAT HIS PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SAME ITEMS THAT WE'VE GIVEN THEM, WHAT THEY CALL INADEQUATE COPIES, ARE INSUFFICIENT FOR HIS PURPOSES. HE HAS SEEN THEM HIMSELF, HE HAS TAKEN PHOTOGRAPHS OF THEM. IN FACT, I THINK WHAT IS IRONIC ABOUT THE NATURE OF THEIR REQUEST AND THE INVISIBLE DR. BLAKE, WHO HAS BEEN SHIELDED BY THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE, IS THAT IN MANY INSTANCES, WHEN DR. BLAKE VIEWED THESE ITEMS, HE INTERPRETED THEM AND CALLED THOSE RESULTS ODDLY -- AND THOSE RESULTS IN EVERY INSTANCE CONCUR WITH THE PROSECUTION EXPERTS RESULTS. SO HERE WE HAVE AN INVISIBLE WITNESS WHO HAS HIS OWN PHOTOS OF THE VERY SAME ITEMS WHO HAS CONCURRED IN MANY INSTANCES VERBALLY WITH THE RESULTS THAT THE PROSECUTION LAB HAS PRODUCED AND THEY JUST SAY WE WANT YOU TO PROVIDE BETTER PHOTOS AND THEY HAVE NEVER DEMONSTRATED THAT THERE IS ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE PHOTOS THAT THEY HAVE TAKEN OF THE VERY SAME ITEMS.
COINCIDENTALLY, AS THE COURT IS AWARE, THE DEFENSE HAS NEVER OBTAINED ANY OF THE PHYSICAL BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE TO DO ANY OF THE TESTING THEMSELVES. DR. BLAKE CAN SHOW UP THERE ANY TIME WITH THE PHOTOS THAT HE HAS TAKEN OF THE ITEMS THAT THEY HAVE REQUESTED WE PROVIDE NEW PHOTOS. HE WAS JUST THERE LAST NIGHT. HE CAN SHOW UP THERE ANY TIME TO SEE THESE THINGS, TO COMPARE HIS PHOTOS WITH THE ORIGINAL PHOTOS AND SEE IF THERE IS ANY DISCREPANCY. I THINK WE'VE COMPLIED WITH IT. THE CONSUMPTION OF TIME THAT IT TAKES DR. -- OR THE DOJ TO ACCOMMODATE DR. BLAKE HAS TAKEN DAYS AND DAYS WORTH OF VALUABLE LABORATORY TIME FROM THIS CASE AND OTHER CASES THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SERVICES WHILE, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, THIS CASE GOES ON RAPIDLY TO TRIAL. SO THE DEFENSE SIMPLY HASN'T SHOWN THAT THEY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING. IN FACT, IT IS CLEAR, IF YOU LOOK AT THESE VOLUMINOUS NOTES, THEY HAVE THEIR OWN COPIES, THEIR OWN ORIGINAL PHOTOS OF THESE VERY SAME ITEMS, SO I THINK IT IS TIME TO DRAW THE LINE. MR. COCHRAN WANTS TO GO TO TRIAL. WE WANT TO GO TO TRIAL, TOO. WE WANT THE WORLD TO SEE THIS. DR. BLAKE HAS SEEN THIS. DR. BLAKE HAS SEEN THESE THINGS BEFORE WE HAVE SEEN THEM, SO I THINK THE COURT SHOULD SAY IT IS TIME. MR. COCHRAN WANTS TO GO TO TRIAL, WE WANT TO GO TO TRIAL AND THERE IS NO BASIS FOR ANY ADDITIONAL BURDENSOME REQUEST.
YOUR HONOR, THIS IS A DISCOVERY REQUEST FROM OUR SIDE, NOT MR. HARMON'S REQUESTS FOR DR. BLAKE'S MATERIALS. THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT RESULT FROM THESE TESTS ARE THE BEST EVIDENCE OF THE TEST RESULTS THEMSELVES. THIS IS NOT LIKE WE ARE TAKING A PICTURE OF A PIECE OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, LIKE A PIECE OF CLOTHING THAT WILL THEN BE BROUGHT INTO COURT. THESE PHOTOGRAPHS ARE WHAT THE PROSECUTION WILL BE RELYING ON IN GIVING THEIR INTERPRETATIONS OF THE TEST RESULTS. THERE IS A LOT OF CONTROVERSY IN THE DQ-ALPHA TESTING AREA ABOUT THE INTENSITIES OF DOTS, WHETHER DOTS ARE APPARENT OR NOT. DIFFERENT EXPERTS WILL LOOK AT THE SAME PHOTOS AND GIVE YOU GIVE INTERPRETATIONS OF WHETHER THERE ARE DOTS THERE OR NOT AND IT IS NOT OUT PHOTOGRAPHS THAT THEY ARE GOING TO BE USING WHERE THEY HAVE THEIR EXPERTS; IT IS THEIR PHOTOS. THAT IS GOING TO BE WHAT THEY WILL BE RELYING ON. THEY ARE NOT BRINGING THE TEST STRIPS IN, BECAUSE THEY FADE VERY QUICKLY, SO BECAUSE THESE ARE SOURCE MATERIALS, WE CERTAINLY ARE ENTITLED. THE EXPERTS ARE GOING TO RELY ON THEM AND WE ARE GOING TO BE CROSS-EXAMINING THEM ABOUT THEIR PICTURES.
HASN'T DR. BLAKE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THESE PHOTOGRAPHS, TO LOOK AT THE TEST RESULTS, MAKE HIS OWN PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SAME THING?
WELL, DR. BLAKE, IT IS TRUE, HAS TAKEN PICTURES OF THE TESTING STRIPS HIMSELF, BUT THAT IS OUR WORK PRODUCT MATERIAL. WE HAVE NOT MADE A DECISION WHETHER DR. BLAKE WILL TESTIFY OR NOT. AT A POINT IN TIME WHERE WE DECIDE THAT HE WILL, WE WILL MAKE AVAILABLE EVERYTHING THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO MAKE. BUT IT IS THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT THEY TOOK THAT THEY ARE GOING TO BE USING. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE RELYING ON DR. BLAKE'S PHOTOGRAPHS; THEY ARE GOING TO BE RELYING UPON THEIR OWN AND WE ARE GOING TO BE RAISING SIGNIFICANT QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW THEY INTERPRET THEIR OWN PHOTOGRAPHS. WE ARE ENTITLED TO THOSE.
ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, I THINK THE DEFENSE HAS ALREADY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY NOT ONLY TO LOOK AT THESE THINGS IN THEIR STATE, THEY HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THEIR OWN PHOTOGRAPHS, COMPARE THEIR OWN PHOTOGRAPHS. THE DEFENSE HAS BEEN GIVEN SMALLER COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL PHOTOGRAPHS. I THINK THE PROSECUTION HAS ALREADY FULLY COMPLIED. THE REQUEST IS DENIED.
WE HAVEN'T BEEN PROVIDED WITH SMALLER PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE DQ-ALPHA TESTING STRIPS. THAT RELATED TO THE LAST REQUEST WHEN I ASSUME MR. HARMON SAID HE WOULD COMPLY WITH. ALL WE HAVE BEEN PROVIDED WITH ARE XEROX COPIES AND NONE OF THE EXPERTS HERE WILL TELL YOU THAT THEY CAN MAKE ANY KIND OF AN ASSESSMENT FROM XEROX COPIES OF PHOTOGRAPHS.
YOU SEE, THIS IS THE POINT. DR. BLAKE HAS NEVER TESTIFIED FOR A DEFENDANT IN A CASE LIKE THIS.
I THINK IT IS THE POINT. THEY WANT TO PREVENT -- THEY WANT TO SHIELD THEIR WITNESSES, GERDES AND MULLIS, FROM THE TRUTH, AND THE TRUTH IS, THIS IS THE DANGER THAT WE TRIED TO POINT OUT TO THEM ON THE MOTION TO QUASH. THEY HIRED THE MOST EXPERIENCED FORENSIC SEROLOGIST WITH PCR DQ-ALPHA AND WE HAD TO COMPLY WITH THESE BURDENSOME REQUESTS TO HAVE GARY SIMS WORK UNTIL 2:00 OR 3:00 IN THE MORNING AT THE TIME WHEN THIS COURT WAS GOING TO CUT OFF OR THERE WAS A SERIOUS CONCERN ABOUT CUTTING OFF TESTING, SO NOW WE HAVE DONE ALL THAT, HE HAS TAKEN ALL THESE PICTURES. HE HAS PICTURES OF ALL THESE STRIPS. HE HAS PICTURES OF THE SAME THINGS WE HAVE PICTURES. THEY ARE AS REAL AND SCIENTIFIC AND SOUND AS THE PICTURES WE HAVE. AND NOW TO FURTHER BURDEN US AND SHIELD THEIR EXPERTS FROM THE TRUTH, THAT IS THE PERSON WHO TOOK THE PICTURES AND SAW IT AND CONCURS IN OUR RESULTS, AND THEY WANT TO FORCE US TO GIVE -- TO GIVE NEW PICTURES OVER. WE HAVE SATISFIED THAT. HE HAS SEEN IT AND HE HAS HIS OWN PICTURES OF IT. AND I WOULD SUGGEST IF THIS COURT IS GOING TO SERIOUSLY ENTERTAIN ANY OF THIS ABUSIVE DISCOVERY REQUEST, THAT THE COURT PUT THE BURDEN ON THEM TO HAVE DR. BLAKE COME OUT OF HIDING AND TESTIFY THAT THERE IS SOME DEFICIENCY IN HIS PHOTOS AND WE WILL DO IT ON A PHOTO BY PHOTO BASIS. WE HAVE WASTED VALUABLE DAYS -- WELL, I MEAN I THINK THE LEGAL PROCESS CALLS FOR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, YOUR HONOR.
IT IS REAL EASY TO SAY JUST GIVE IT TO THEM, BUT I DON'T THINK THE PROCESS CALLS FOR THAT, YOUR HONOR.
NO. WHAT STRUCK ME, MR. HARBOR, IS I CAN SEE MYSELF HAVING TO START ANOTHER ONE OF THESE HEARINGS AND HAVING TO LOOK AT ALL OF THESE PHOTOS.
IF THE PROCESS CALLS FOR THAT, WE MAY HAVE TO DO THAT, YOUR HONOR. I THINK IT IS REAL SIMPLE TO SAY GIVE HIM NEW COPIES. WE HAVE SHUT DOWN THE STATE LAB TO SATISFY DR. BLAKE'S SCHEDULE. YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE EVER DONE LAB WORK --
BUT THEY HAVEN'T SHOWN THAT THEY HAVE BEEN DEPRIVED OF ANYTHING, AND THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN DO THAT IS TO BRING BLAKE OUT OF HIDING AND PUT HIM UP THERE AND THEY ARE NOT GOING TO DO THAT.
VERY BRIEFLY, WHEN THE EXPERTS ARE CALLED, THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE THE PICTURES AND WE WILL BE ENTITLED TO REVIEW THEM. I JUST WANT TO SAVE SOME TIME BECAUSE WE MAY WANT TO MAKE BLOWUPS OF THE PICTURES, AND IF WE DON'T GET THEM UNTIL THE WITNESS TESTIFIES, IT IS GOING TO CAUSE A TIME DELAY.
THE ISSUE IS ACCESS, DISCLOSURE, KNOWLEDGE. YOU HAVE HAD THAT. THE REQUEST IS DENIED. WE ARE IN RECESS UNTIL 1:30.
THEY CANNOT GET INSIDE MY HEAD AND THEY MIGHT AS WELL UNDERSTAND THAT.
HAD WE KNOWN ABOUT SOME OF THESE WITNESSES, WE COULD HAVE INFORMED COUNSEL THAT THEY ARE HEROIN ADDICTS, THIEVES, FELONS, AND THAT ONE OF THESE WITNESSES, ONE OF THEIR SO-CALLED MATERIAL WITNESSES IS THE ONLY PERSON I HAVE EVER KNOWN TO BE A COURT CERTIFIED PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.
FINALLY, YOUR HONOR, AFTER SEVEN MONTHS, YESTERDAY SOMEBODY SPOKE UP FOR O.J. SIMPSON. ALL ACROSS THIS COUNTRY IN THE BYWAYS AND HIGHWAYS THEY HEARD ANOTHER SIDE OF WHAT THIS EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE AND THEY CAN'T TAKE IT.
THIS IS GOING TO BE A LONG TRIAL.
AS WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN, NOTHING IS AS SHORT OR AS SIMPLE AS IT SEEMS.