ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNSEL. BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. MR. SIMPSON IS AGAIN PRESENT WITH HIS COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. DOUGLAS, MR. BAILEY, MR. BLASIER, PEOPLE REPRESENTED BY MISS CLARK AND MR. DARDEN. WE ALSO HAVE MS. WITHEY PRESENT WITH US. MS. WITHEY, DO YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER BUSINESS BEFORE THE COURT?
THANK YOU FOR COMING IN. ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, DO YOU HAVE ANY WORD FOR THE RECORD AS TO THE STATUS OF MR. HODGMAN?
NOT AT THIS TIME, YOUR HONOR. AS FAR AS I KNOW AT THIS POINT, MR. HODGMAN HAS BEEN REMOVED TO ANOTHER HOSPITAL. HE'S STILL DOING WELL. FINAL WORD AS TO HIS CONDITION?
ALL RIGHT. WHEN DO YOU -- HAS YOUR OFFICE GIVEN YOU ANY INDICATION AS TO WHEN WE MIGHT BE GETTING AN UPDATE AS TO HIS CONDITION AND WHEN HE MIGHT BE ABLE TO REJOIN US?
NO. I HAVE NO INDICATION OF THAT AT THIS TIME AND I PROBABLY WILL NOT EVEN BY THE CONCLUSION OF TODAY'S PROCEEDINGS.
AFTER WE ADDRESS THE COURT WITH RESPECT TO THE DISCOVERY MATTERS AND THE MISCONDUCT ISSUES, I THINK WE'LL BE IN A BETTER POSITION TO ASSESS THAT.
MYSELF AND MR. DARDEN WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS YOU ON THESE MATTERS, YOUR HONOR. THEY ARE NUMEROUS, AND THE COURT'S REQUEST IS SOME VERY SPECIFIC STATEMENTS CONCERNING WHAT WE DESIRE WITH RESPECT TO EACH OF THE ITEMS, EACH OF THE WITNESSES AND EACH OF THE STATEMENTS THAT WERE IMPROPERLY MADE BY COUNSEL. EXCUSE ME. I FIND IT -- I MUST SHARE WITH THE COURT THAT I FEEL VERY OUTRAGED AT COUNSEL'S STATEMENTS EARLIER THIS MORNING CONCERNING HIS REPRESENTATIONS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO PREVENT HIM FROM TELLING THE TRUTH, AND THAT IS SUCH A FALSEHOOD. IF MR. COCHRAN WERE STANDING UP AND TELLING THE JURORS THE TRUTH AND HAD NOT HIDDEN HIS WITNESSES FROM US WILLFULLY IN VIOLATION OF THIS COURT'S ORDER, WE WOULD NOT BE BEFORE THE COURT TODAY AND OPENING STATEMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN CONCLUDED AND THE WITNESS WOULD HAVE BEEN ON THE WITNESS STAND. UNFORTUNATELY, BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THIS MISCONDUCT, WHICH IS EGREGIOUS AND FLAGRANT AND NOT THE MINOR VIOLATION THAT HE ATTEMPTS TO REPRESENT TO THIS COURT, HE'S ATTEMPTING TO SWEEP IT UNDER THE RUG, CLAIM IGNORANCE AND USE MR. DOUGLAS AS A SACRIFICIAL LAMB, AND THAT IS ABSOLUTELY INAPPROPRIATE. COUNSEL SHOULD BEAR THE BRUNT OF HIS OWN MISCONDUCT, WHICH IS WILLFUL AND DELIBERATE AND INTENTIONAL AND IT IS IN EFFECT A THUMBING OF HIS NOSE AT THIS COURT'S ORDER. IT IS -- YES, IT'S COUCHED IN NICE SMILES AND INGRATIATING REMARKS, BUT THAT SHOULD NOT DECEIVE THE COURT AND I'M SURE IT DOESN'T. WHAT LIES BEHIND IT IS A WILLFUL DESIRE TO FLOUT THE LAW, AND IT VIOLATES THE LAW AND IT VIOLATES US BOTH LEGALLY AND MORALLY. LEGALLY, IT'S A VIOLATION OF 1054 IN BOTH SPIRIT AND LETTER OF THAT LAW. LEGALLY, IT IS IN VIOLATION OF THIS COURT'S DIRECT ORDER TO COUNSEL, AND MORALLY, IT'S A VIOLATION OF THE JURORS' RIGHT TO THE TRUTH. THEY'VE BEEN LIED TO, THEY'VE BEEN DECEIVED, THEY'VE GOTTEN HALF TRUTHS FROM COUNSEL. HE HAS DELIBERATELY SHOWN THEM ITEMS THAT WERE TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT, GIVEN THEM HALF TRUTHS, GIVEN THEM ACTUALLY PIECES OF STATEMENTS THAT LED TO A DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED REPRESENTATION OF WHAT REALLY WHAT WAS BEING STATED. AND COUNSEL IS TELLING THE COURT, "OH, THAT'S NO BIG DEAL. IF I MISLEAD THEM, THEN THE PEOPLE CAN COME BACK IN CLOSING ARGUMENT AND READDRESS ALL THE WRONG." COUNSEL KNOWS VERY WELL THAT WE CANNOT BECAUSE THIS IS -- OUR CLOSING ARGUMENTS ARE MONTHS DOWN THE LINE AND WELL HE KNOWS IT. COUNSEL HAS VERY CAREFULLY AND VERY CYNICALLY WEIGHED THE RISKS AND THE BENEFITS OF HIS MISCONDUCT AND HE HAS RIGHTFULLY ASSURED HIMSELF THAT THE RISKS, IF ANY AT ALL, ARE FAR OUTWEIGHED BY THE BENEFIT. THESE JURORS HAVE NOW HEARD STATEMENTS AND REPRESENTATIONS OF COUNSEL ABOUT WITNESSES THAT THE PEOPLE WERE NEVER INFORMED OF, THAT THE PEOPLE COULD HAVE ADDRESSED IN THEIR OPENING STATEMENT AND EVEN COULD HAVE CALLED IN THEIR CASE IN CHIEF IN ORDER TO SHOW THE JURORS THE KIND OF WITNESSES THAT WILL COME FORWARD IN A CASE LIKE THIS FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GAINING CELEBRITY. AND MR. COCHRAN WILLFULLY WITHHELD THEIR NAMES KNOWING THAT WHAT HE WAS GOING TO DO WAS CLOAK THEM WITH A FALSE AURA OF CREDIBILITY BEFORE THIS JURY AND SANDBAG THE PEOPLE SO THAT WE WERE UNAWARE OF THEM AND UNABLE TO ADDRESS THEM IN OUR OPENING STATEMENT. HE MADE STATEMENTS CONCERNING WITNESSES THAT MIGHT NEVER APPEAR BECAUSE OF FEAR, THEREBY CLOAKING A WITNESS WITH CREDIBILITY WHO WOULD NEVER APPEAR PROBABLY BECAUSE OF FEAR OF EXPOSURE BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT TELLING THE TRUTH. INSTEAD, NOW HE'S CREATED IDEAS AND NOTIONS IN THE MINDS OF THESE JURORS THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT WILL NOT COME FORWARD, THAT WOULD BE HOLDING THE TRUTH EXCEPT FOR THE FEAR OF HARASSMENT. AND THAT IS NOT TRUE. THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF THAT WHATSOEVER. IN FACT, WE HAVE WITNESSES COMING OUT OF THE WOODWORK WHO KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THE CASE CLAIMING TO KNOW SOMETHING JUST SO THEY CAN GET INVOLVED. SO COUNSEL HAS COMMITTED NUMEROUS ACTS OF MISCONDUCT. AND FOR HIM TO TURN TO US AND SAY WE'RE TRYING TO GET INTO HIS MIND AND WE'RE TRYING TO PREVENT THE TRUTH FROM COMING OUT IS OUTRAGEOUS, IS DISGUSTING AND IS APPALLING TO ME AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT. HE KNOWS THAT IS NOT THE CASE. AND TO ALLOW THAT KIND OF STATEMENT TO BE MADE -- AND IN ESSENCE, THAT IS THE STATEMENT THAT HE MADE TO THIS JURY -- IS WORSE THAN APPALLING. IT IS NO LONGER JUST A FEAR, YOUR HONOR, THAT THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL IS GOING TO BE DAMAGED. IT IS A REALITY. IT HAS BEEN DAMAGED. IT'S NOT DAMAGED BEYOND REPAIR BECAUSE IF CERTAIN ADMONITIONS ARE MADE, CERTAIN SANCTIONS ARE UNDERTAKEN AND WE ARE ABLE TO PRESENT THE WITNESSES, THE TRUTH WILL COME OUT BECAUSE OUR CASE IS STRONG. AND I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT OUR CASE. WHAT I AM WORRIED ABOUT IS THE WAY THESE JURORS ARE BEING MANIPULATED SO CYNICALLY. THEY'RE BEING TOLD, FOR EXAMPLE, "WHY DIDN'T THE PEOPLE TELL YOU ABOUT THIS WITNESS? WHY DIDN'T THE PEOPLE TELL YOU ABOUT THAT WITNESS?" THERE'S A REAL SIMPLE ANSWER FOR THAT. THEY HID THOSE WITNESSES. HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO TELL THE JURY ABOUT WITNESSES THEY NEVER TOLD US ABOUT, WITNESSES THAT THE COURT ORDERED THEM TIME AND TIME AGAIN TO DIVULGE AND WILLFULLY THEY TOLD THIS COURT THEY HAD NO SUCH WITNESSES. SEVEN MONTHS OLD THESE STATEMENTS ARE. SEVEN MONTHS OLD THESE NAMES ARE. AND ONLY ON THE VERY DAY OF HIS STATEMENT TO THE JURY DO WE FIND THEM OUT AND AT THE CLOSE OF THE DAY NO LESS. MR. DARDEN WILL ADDRESS THAT FURTHER. I AM GOING TO ADDRESS THE COURT SOLELY ON ONE ASPECT AT THIS POINT, AND THAT IS THAT WE ARE GOING TO ASK THE COURT AT FIRST BLUSH, BEFORE OPENING STATEMENTS ARE RESUMED, TO ADMONISH THE JURY, TO TELL THE JURY THAT THEY ARE TO DISREGARD THE STATEMENTS MADE NOT BY MR. COCHRAN CONCERNING THE WITNESSES THAT WERE NOT -- THAT WERE IMPROPERLY WITHHELD FROM THE PROSECUTION AND TO ADMONISH THE JURY IN EFFECT THAT THE WITHHOLDING OF THAT INFORMATION WAS MISCONDUCT, WAS IN VIOLATION OF A COURT ORDER AND IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW THAT REQUIRES BOTH SIDES TO EXCHANGE THEIR WITNESSES AND THEIR STATEMENTS. THE OTHER PROBLEM IS THAT, YOUR HONOR, I KNOW THE DEFENSE IS ARGUING, "WELL, WE GAVE THEM THE NAMES OF THE WITNESSES." YES. THEY GAVE US NO ADDRESS, THEY GAVE US NO PHONE NUMBER AND THEY GAVE US NO STATEMENT. HAVING A BLANK NAME ON A LIST OF 200 GIVES US NO CLUE AS TO WHAT THAT PERSON MIGHT SAY AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY SHOULD BE HIGH PRIORITY IN TERMS OF OUR INVESTIGATION. THEY STAND BEFORE THIS COURT REPEATEDLY SAYING RIDICULOUS THINGS LIKE, OH, THERE IS 900 LAWYERS IN THE D.A.'S OFFICE. YEAH. THERE'S ALSO 80,000 CASES IN THE D.A.'S OFFICE. BELIEVE IT OR NOT, THEY'RE NOT ALL WORKING ON SIMPSON NOR CAN THEY. AND THERE MAY BE 9,000 OFFICERS, BUT GUESS WHAT? THEY'RE NOT ALL WORKING ON THE SIMPSON INVESTIGATION EITHER. THEY CAN'T. EVERYBODY IS WAY OVERLOADED. WE HAVE TO PRIORITIZE. AND FOR THEM TO GIVE US A NAME WITH NO ADDRESS, NO PHONE NUMBER AND NO STATEMENT ON A LIST OF 200 THAT CONTAINS A LOT OF BUNK THAT WE KNOW THEY'RE NOT GOING TO CALL IS DISINGENUOUS AND A FRAUD UPON THIS COURT. WE COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE INVESTIGATED THESE PEOPLE. AND TO GIVE US THESE LATE STATEMENTS IS OUTRAGEOUS MISCONDUCT CONDUCT. SO WE ASK THAT THE JURY BE INFORMED OF THAT FACT, THAT COUNSEL'S REMARKS THAT RELATE TO THE MENTIONING OF THOSE WITNESSES EITHER BY NAME OR BY CONTENT OF THEIR STATEMENT, THAT THEY ARE ORDERED TO DISREGARD THEM BECAUSE THEY WERE MENTIONED IN DEROGATION OF A COURT ORDER. WE ARE ALSO ASKING THAT THE COURT ADMONISH THE JURY CONCERNING THE REPRESENTATIONS OF COUNSEL ABOUT WITNESSES THAT MAY NOT APPEAR DUE TO FEAR, THAT THERE'S -- THERE IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. SUCH REMARKS MADE BY COUNSEL WERE IMPROPER AND THEY ARE STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD AND THE JURY SHOULD BE ORDERED TO DISREGARD THEM. FURTHERMORE, THE PEOPLE WILL BE REQUESTING SOME ADDITIONAL TIME TO CONDUCT INVESTIGATION ON THE NUMEROUS WITNESSES THAT WE HAVE JUST BEEN GIVEN AT THE CLOSE OF OPENING STATEMENT DAY YESTERDAY AS WELL AS THE DAY BEFORE. AND SHOULD THE COURT GRANT US THE CONTINUANCE IN WHATEVER AMOUNT OF TIME THAT IT DOES, WE WOULD ASK THAT THE COURT TO INFORM THE JURY AS TO THE REASON FOR THE NECESSITY OF THAT CONTINUANCE, THAT IT WAS NECESSITATED BY COUNSEL'S MISCONDUCT IN FAILING TO TURN OVER THE INFORMATION THAT IT WAS ORDERED TO TURN OVER BY THE COURT. MR. DARDEN WILL ADDRESS THE COURT ON THE REMAINING REQUESTS WE HAVE PERTAINING SPECIFICALLY TO EACH WITNESS AND TO OUR REQUEST TO REOPEN THE OPENING STATEMENT.
YOUR HONOR, GOOD AFTERNOON. MANY OF THE WITNESSES DISCLOSED TO US BY THE DEFENSE THE PAST TWO DAYS ARE WITNESSES WHOSE STATEMENTS HAD NOT BEEN GIVEN TO US ON ANY PRIOR OCCASION. AND THE FIRST IS MARY ANNE GERCHAS. AND AS THE COURT WILL RECALL, MR. COCHRAN TOLD THE JURY THAT MARY ANNE GERCHAS SAW FOUR MEN RUNNING FROM THE SCENE OF THE KILLINGS ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE 12. WE HAVE NEVER BEEN GIVEN ANY DISCOVERY RELATIVE TO THAT WITNESS, THAT IS UNTIL YESTERDAY, AND THAT WAS GIVEN TO US AFTER MR. COCHRAN ALREADY MADE COMMENTS REGARDING THIS WITNESS BEFORE THE JURY. THIS IS OBVIOUSLY A MATERIAL WITNESS ONE WOULD THINK. THAT IS IF ONE COULD BELIEVE HER TESTIMONY. MR. DOUGLAS HAD THIS STATEMENT IN HIS POSSESSION. THE DEFENSE HAS HAD THE STATEMENT IN THEIR POSSESSION FOR SEVERAL MONTHS.
SINCE JULY. THEY COULD HAVE GIVEN IT TO US BACK IN JULY. THEY COULD HAVE GIVEN IT TO US BACK IN DECEMBER WHEN THEY WERE SQUAWKING ABOUT OUR DISCOVERY PROBLEMS AND WHILE THEY WERE ASKING THE COURT TO SANCTION US, BUT THEY DIDN'T DO THAT. THEY DIDN'T DO THAT THROUGHOUT THAT FIVE-MONTH PERIOD IN 1994. AND IN DECEMBER, WHEN THE COURT BEGAN TO ATTEMPT TO SET A DATE FOR OPENING STATEMENTS IN THIS CASE, THE DEFENSE DIDN'T TURN OVER THIS STATEMENT. AND WHEN THEY LEARNED THE EXACT DAY THAT OPENING STATEMENTS WOULD BEGIN, THEY DIDN'T TURN IT OVER. AND WHEN MR. COCHRAN'S OPENING STATEMENT WAS DELAYED A DAY, THEY DIDN'T TURN IT OVER. AND WHEN THEY CAME INTO COURT TO BEGIN MR. COCHRAN'S STATEMENT, PRIOR TO THAT STATEMENT THAT MORNING, THEY DIDN'T TURN IT OVER. AND THERE'S ONLY A FEW REASONS THAT THEY DIDN'T. FIRST, THEY KNEW THAT HAD THEY TURNED OVER THIS STATEMENT THIS LATE IN THE GAME, THE COURT WOULD HAVE PRECLUDED THEM FROM UTILIZING THE STATEMENT IN OPENING STATEMENT. THE COURT WOULD HAVE SANCTIONED THEM AS THEY DID US. AND THEY WERE ALSO AWARE THAT HAD THE PROSECUTION KNOWN ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR WITNESS, WE WOULD HAVE DISCREDITED HER. WE HAVE ONLY KNOWN OF THIS WITNESS 24 HOURS, AND ALREADY WE KNOW SHE HAS NINE LAWSUITS PENDING. AND THE D.A.'S OFFICE IN OUR BAD CHECK SECTION, THERE ARE $10,000 APPROXIMATELY IN BAD CHECKS THAT RELATE TO THIS PERSON. SHE HAS DEFRAUDED THE J.W. MARRIOTT CORPORATION OF $23,000 BY STAYING IN THEIR HOTEL AND NOT PAYING FOR IT. AND THERE IS MUCH MORE, MUCH, MUCH MORE REGARDING THIS WITNESS, BUT WE NEED TIME TO INVESTIGATE THIS WITNESS, YOUR HONOR.
WHAT'S YOUR REASONABLE ESTIMATE AS TO HOW LONG YOU NEED TO INVESTIGATE INTO THE BACKGROUND OF MISS GERCHAS SINCE PEOPLE VERSUS JACKSON AT 15 CAL. APP. 4 1197, PAGE 1203 INDICATES THAT WHAT THE REMEDY IS, HAVING A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO REBUT OR IMPEACH? SO WHAT ARE WE SPEAKING OF IN TERMS OF INVESTIGATION TO ADEQUATELY BE PREPARED TO REBUT AND/OR IMPEACH THAT TESTIMONY OR THAT PROFFER OF TESTIMONY? THAT'S THE ISSUE.
YOUR HONOR, WE ARE CONCERNED THAT PERHAPS THIS WITNESS IS NOT THE PERSON SHE CLAIMS TO BE, THAT SHE IS NOT THE PERSON -- SHE IS NOT THE REAL MARY ANNE GERCHAS. THERE IS A HINT THAT PERHAPS SHE IS NOT THAT PERSON, AND WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. AND SHE IS SUCH A CRITICAL WITNESS APPARENTLY TO THE DEFENSE THAT I BELIEVE IT WOULD TAKE APPROXIMATELY 30 DAYS TO CAREFULLY SEARCH OUT THE BACKGROUND OF THIS INDIVIDUAL.
WELL, IN ADDITION TO THE SANCTIONS MENTIONED BY MISS CLARK A MOMENT AGO AND IN ADDITION TO A 30-DAY CONTINUANCE TO CAREFULLY INVESTIGATE THIS WITNESS' BACKGROUND, I WOULD ASK THAT THE COURT STRIKE ANY REFERENCE TO THIS WITNESS FROM MR. COCHRAN'S OPENING STATEMENT AND ADVISE THE JURY THAT THE COURT IS DOING SO BECAUSE OF MR. COCHRAN'S WILLFUL AND FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF THE RULE OF DISCOVERY. IN ADDITION, I THINK THAT THE PREJUDICE THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE SUFFERED AS A RESULT OF THIS FLAGRANT VIOLATION, THIS WILLFUL VIOLATION, THIS EGREGIOUS CONDUCT, THAT THE PREJUDICE IS SO EXTREME, I BELIEVE THAT THE PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REOPEN THEIR OPENING STATEMENT.
THERE IS NO -- THERE IS NO CASE LAW DIRECTLY ON POINT, YOUR HONOR. HOWEVER, THE COURT DOES HAVE DISCRETION IN TERMS OF THE ORDER OF PROOF; AND UNDER 1054.5(B), THE COURT HAS THE DISCRETION AND THE RIGHT TO ORDER ANY LAWFUL REMEDY OR LEGAL REMEDY AVAILABLE TO RECTIFY THE HARM CAUSED US BY THE DEFENSE IN THIS CASE. BUT TO REOPEN WOULD BE ONLY FAIR.
HOW DOES THAT DOVETAIL THE 1093 SETTING THE ORDER OF TRIAL? DO I HAVE THE DISCRETION UNDER 1093 TO ALTER THAT TO ALLOW YOU TO REOPEN?
I BELIEVE SO, YOUR HONOR. 1093 SAYS THAT:
"THE PROCEEDINGS SHALL PROCEED IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE COURT." WE ASK THAT THE COURT ALLOW US A SECOND OPPORTUNITY. THERE IS NO LAW AGAINST IT. IT IS NOT OUR FAULT THAT WE'RE IN THIS POSITION. BACK IN DECEMBER, YOU ORDERED US TO PROVIDE THE DEFENSE WITH DISCOVERY. YOU LITERALLY FORCED US TO WORK 48 HOURS STRAIGHT ALMOST TO COMPLY WITH THAT DISCOVERY ORDER. YOU TOLD US TO HAVE DISCOVERY TO THE DEFENSE BY 5:00 O'CLOCK ON A FRIDAY AFTERNOON, AND WE WORKED AND WE COMPLIED. HAD WE COME INTO COURT AND DID WHAT THEY DID AND TRY TO PULL SOMETHING LIKE THIS? OUR CONDUCT BACK IN DECEMBER, WHICH, AS I RECALL, THE COURT AGREED WAS NOTHING MORE THAN NEGLIGENT, WASN'T NEARLY AS EGREGIOUS AS WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THIS CASE. AND IN RESPONSE TO OUR MISTAKE AND HONEST MISTAKE AT THAT, THE COURT GUTTED THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE EVIDENCE IN TERMS OF HOW IT COULD BE PRESENTED IN THE CASE. THE COURT PRECLUDED US FROM CALLING WITNESSES IN THE ORDER THAT WE WANTED TO CALL THOSE WITNESSES SO THAT NOW THE DEFENSE HAS A HAND SO DEEP IN OUR POCKET AT THIS POINT THAT THEY'RE LITERALLY DICTATING THE ORDER IN WHICH THE WITNESSES WILL BE CALLED BY THE PROSECUTION. SUCH SANCTIONS OUGHT TO FLOW BOTH WAYS, YOUR HONOR.
THAT'S WHY IT'S CALLED RECIPROCAL DISCOVERY AND THAT'S WHY IT'S A TWO-WAY STREET AND THE WATERS SHOULD FLOW BOTH WAYS AND IN BOTH DIRECTIONS. WE HAD TO DO IT. I WOULD LIKE TO PUT MY HAND IN MR. COCHRAN'S POCKET AT THIS POINT. IT'S ONLY FAIR. HE CREATED THIS SITUATION. HE DIDN'T HAVE TO ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN. THE NEXT WITNESS IS DR. KARY MULLIS, AN APPARENT DNA EXPERT ON PCR. PRIOR TO THE OPENING STATEMENT, WE RECEIVED NO STATEMENT OR REPORT REGARDING THIS WITNESS. I HAVE NOT HAD A LOT OF TIME TO SEARCH ALL THE DOCUMENTS GIVEN THE EVENT OF YESTERDAY EVENING.
WELL, ONE OF THE THINGS WE DID WITH REGARD TO THE DNA HEARING AND THE WITNESS LIST IS THIS. AFTER THEY ALLEGEDLY WAIVED THEIR KELLY-FRYE, WE UPDATED OUR WITNESS LIST TO INCLUDE THE PEOPLE WE INTENDED TO CALL ON THE DNA ISSUE. THIS DOCTOR IS NOT ON ANY NON-KELLY-FRYE WITNESS LIST. AND EVEN SO, WE HAVE NEVER RECEIVED ANY REPORT OR ANY STATEMENT RELEVANT TO WHAT THIS DOCTOR WOULD TESTIFY TO. WE REQUIRE TIME TO INVESTIGATE THIS WITNESS' BACKGROUND. I DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT HIM, BUT I UNDERSTAND HE IS A VERY CONTROVERSIAL FIGURE IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. WE NEED TIME TO GATHER TRANSCRIPTS OF HIS PRIOR TESTIMONY. WE NEED TIME TO REVIEW THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE, TO REVIEW HIS BACKGROUND AND HIS TRAINING. AS THE COURT IS AWARE, THAT CAN BE VERY DIFFICULT TO DO. NOT ANYONE AND NOT JUST EVERYONE CAN PERFORM A TASK LIKE THIS AS IT RELATES TO A SCIENTIST SUCH AS DR. MULLIS, AND IT IS GOING TO TAKE TIME. IT'S GOING TO TAKE ABOUT 30 DAYS. WE WOULD ASK THAT THE COURT IN ADDITION TO THE ADMONITION INSTRUCT THE JURY TO DISREGARD ANY MENTION OF THIS WITNESS. WE WOULD ASK THE COURT TO ALLOW US TO REOPEN OUR OPENING STATEMENT. AS TO DR. RON FISCHMAN, YOUR HONOR, WE ARE SOMEWHAT ACQUAINTED WITH DR. FISCHMAN. IN FACT, I'VE MET DR. FISCHMAN. BUT UNFORTUNATELY, I DIDN'T HAVE A SUBPOENA ON ME WHEN I MET HIM. I DID, HOWEVER, CAUSE A SUBPOENA TO BE ISSUED FOR DR. FISCHMAN'S APPEARANCE IN THIS CASE. WE HAVE BEEN ATTEMPTING TO SERVE DR. FISCHMAN AND TO SPEAK WITH DR. FISCHMAN SINCE DECEMBER 14. WE BELIEVE THAT IF DR. FISCHMAN WERE HONEST AND CALLED TO TESTIFY AND TESTIFIED HONESTLY, WE BELIEVE THAT HE WOULD TESTIFY THAT AS NICOLE BROWN LEFT THE RECITAL ON JUNE 12, HE OVERHEARD THIS DEFENDANT SAYING, "I'M GOING TO GET HER. I'M GOING TO TEACH HER A LESSON," AND WORDS ALONG THOSE LINES. AND SO WE HAVE TELEPHONED HIM AND WE HAVE GONE TO VISIT HIM AND WE HAVE ATTEMPTED TO SERVE HIM. AND ON JANUARY 19TH, 1995, OUR INVESTIGATORS WERE OUTSIDE DR. FISCHMAN'S HOME. THEY MET, THEY TOLD HIM THEY WERE THERE TO SERVE HIM WITH A SUBPOENA, AND HE TURNED AND HE RAN, AND HE RAN BACK INSIDE HIS HOUSE AND HE LOCKED THE DOOR AND HE WOULDN'T COME OUT. AND THE INVESTIGATORS PLACED A SUBPOENA IN THE MAILBOX AND SHOUTED THROUGH THE WINDOW, "DR. FISCHMAN, CONSIDER YOURSELF SERVED." WELL, DR. FISCHMAN SHOULD HAVE BEEN HERE YESTERDAY OR HE SHOULD HAVE CALLED THE PROSECUTION TO BE PLACED ON CALL, AND HE HAS DONE NEITHER. THE DEFENSE HAS A STATEMENT FROM DR. FISCHMAN. WE DON'T HAVE IT. WE SHOULD GET IT. WE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TIME TO INVESTIGATE DR. FISCHMAN. AND THERE ARE OTHER PROBLEMS WITH DR. FISCHMAN. WHEN THE DEFENDANT WAS ARRESTED ON JUNE 17, THERE WAS A PRESCRIPTION OF XANAX, A DEPRESSANT, IN HIS BLACK BAG. THE MEDICATION APPARENTLY WAS PRESCRIBED TO DR. FISCHMAN'S MOTHER. I DON'T KNOW WHY IT'S IN THE DEFENDANT'S BAG. BUT IT'S ISSUES LIKE THAT AND THE ISSUE OF THE RECITAL THAT HAS TO BE REVIEWED AND INVESTIGATED. IT'S GOING TO TAKE TIME TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUE OF DR. RON FISCHMAN, AND I WOULD ASK FOR THE SAME SANCTIONS, THE SAME SANCTIONS BE IMPOSED AS IT RELATES TO DR. FISCHMAN AS WE REQUESTED WITH REGARD TO MULLIS, GERCHAS AND THE OTHER WITNESSES. DR. LENORE WALKER IS A DIFFERENT ISSUE. THE DEFENSE SERVED US WITH HER CV ON JANUARY 24, BUT THEY HAD NOT PROVIDED US WITH ANY STATEMENTS OR ANY REPORTS AS THEY ARE REQUIRED TO DO UNDER THE LAW.
WELL, YOU HEARD MR. COCHRAN'S EXPLANATION THAT SHE HAD JUST BEEN RETAINED, WAS IN THE PROCESS OF INTERVIEWING THE DEFENDANT, PREPARING A REPORT. SO I ASSUME IT'S NOT THERE YET.
NEVERTHELESS, MR. COCHRAN REPRESENTED TO THE JURY THAT DR. WALKER WAS GOING TO FORM A CERTAIN CONCLUSION AND TESTIFY TO THAT CONCLUSION. SO APPARENTLY MR. COCHRAN IS AWARE OF WHAT MISS WALKER IS GOING TO SAY OR DR. WALKER -- I AM SORRY -- AS TO WHAT DR. WALKER IS GOING TO TESTIFY TO. BUT MR. COCHRAN ALSO INDICATED THAT DR. WALKER HAD INTERVIEWED THE DEFENDANT AND THAT SHE HAD CONDUCTED PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS. WELL, THAT'S DISCOVERABLE. IT'S DISCOVERABLE UNDER WOODS VERSUS SUPERIOR COURT AT 25 CAL. APP. 4TH 178. THAT STUFF EXISTS. IF MR. COCHRAN KNOWS ENOUGH ABOUT DR. WALKER TO TELL THE JURY WHAT SHE'S GOING TO TESTIFY TO AND IF TESTING RESULTS EXIST, IF ACTUAL TESTS EXIST, IF THERE ARE INTERVIEWS WITH THE DEFENDANT, WE HAVE A RIGHT TO ALL OF THAT. AND THAT'S CLEAR I BELIEVE IN THE LAW. IN ADDITION, MR. COCHRAN HAS PLACED THE DEFENDANT'S MENTAL STATE AND PSYCHOLOGICAL STATE AT ISSUE IN THIS TRIAL AND BEFORE THIS JURY. AND I BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE A RIGHT TO ACCESS -- TO HAVE ACCESS TO THIS DEFENDANT FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING, AND THAT'S AN ISSUE WE'LL TAKE UP AGAIN IN A COUPLE OF DAYS. AT ANY EVENT, IT WILL TAKE TIME TO PREPARE FOR DR. WALKER. AND THE COURT MIGHT ALSO RECALL THAT WHEN MR. COCHRAN WAS ARGUING TO THE JURY, THAT HE MENTIONED THAT DR. WALKER WAS WATCHING, WATCHING US ON TELEVISION. SO I ASSUME DR. WALKER HAS SOME NOTES, AND APPARENTLY SHE COMMUNICATED HER OPINIONS AND CONCLUSIONS TO MR. COCHRAN, WHICH MR. COCHRAN COMMUNICATED TO THE JURY. WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO THAT. WE MAKE THE SAME REQUEST WITH REGARD TO SANCTIONS. STRIKE IT, TELL THE JURY TO IGNORE IT, TELL THE JURY THAT MR. COCHRAN AND THE REST OF THE DREAM TEAM HAVE VIOLATED SOME VERY, VERY BASIC AND FUNDAMENTAL DISCOVERY RULES. THE NEXT WITNESS IS MICHELLE ABUDRAHM. SHE WAS MR. SIMPSON'S MAID APPARENTLY. AND ACCORDING TO MR. COCHRAN, NICOLE ONCE SLAPPED HER, NICOLE BROWN. AND I'VE HEARD OF THIS INCIDENT AND I BELIEVE THAT I'VE SEEN REPORTS -- SOME REPORT THAT RELATES TO THIS INCIDENT. I KNOW I'VE READ IT IN THE TABLOIDS. AND SO WE ARE SOMEWHAT AWARE OF THAT WITNESS. BUT OUR CONCERN HERE IS THAT PERHAPS MR. COCHRAN HAS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. THIS IS HIS WITNESS. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO HER STATEMENT. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DISCOVERY AS IT RELATES TO THIS WITNESS, AND IF THE COURT WOULD ORDER THE DEFENSE TO TURN OVER THAT STATEMENT TO US IMMEDIATELY. AND I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE IT AT THIS POINT, DO WE?
I THINK YESTERDAY, YOU WERE GIVEN A STATEMENT FROM JUNE OF '94 FROM THIS WITNESS. THAT'S ON THE RECORD AT PAGE 11921.
OKAY. YOUR HONOR, IT'S OUR RECOLLECTION THAT THAT IS MERELY A COPY OR IS IT A COPY OF A STATEMENT THE POLICE TOOK. BUT OUR CONCERN IS THIS. IF THE DEFENSE HAS MORE INFORMATION, AN ADDITIONAL STATEMENT, ADDITIONAL NOTES AS THEY RELATE TO THIS WITNESS, WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THEM. AND IF THEY DON'T HAVE THEM, WE WOULD LIKE THEM TO STAND BEFORE THE COURT AND REPRESENT THAT THEY DON'T HAVE THEM AND THAT THEY KNOW THEY DON'T HAVE THEM. IF THEY INTERVIEW THIS WITNESS SUBSEQUENT TO OUR INTERVIEW OF THE WITNESS, WE WANT THE NOTES. AND IF THEY INTERVIEW THE WITNESS SUBSEQUENT TO OUR WITNESS AND IF THEY FAILED TO TAKE NOTES, WE WOULD LIKE THE COURT TO ORDER THEM TO REDUCE THE CONVERSATION TO WRITING. THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO TAKE ORAL STATEMENTS, DECLINE TO COMMIT THEM TO WRITING AND THEN HIDE THEM FROM THE PROSECUTION. WHETHER ANY ADDITIONAL SANCTIONS SHOULD BE IMPOSED HERE I THINK DEPENDS ON THE CONTENT OF ANY SUBSEQUENT STATEMENT THIS WITNESS MAY HAVE PROVIDED THE DEFENSE. THEN THERE'S JOE STELLINI. THIS WITNESS APPARENTLY WAS AT THE TRIST RESTAURANT. HE IS A DEFENSE WITNESS. WE RECEIVED NO STATEMENT, NO REPORT, NO NOTICE, NO INFORMATION REGARDING MR. STELLINI FROM THE DEFENSE PRIOR TO THE OPENING STATEMENT. WE MAKE THE SAME REQUEST, THAT THE COURT ORDER THE JURY TO DISREGARD ANY REFERENCE TO MR. STELLINI OR ANY REFERENCE TO ANYTHING MR. STELLINI MIGHT TESTIFY TO. HE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO TESTIFY IN THIS CASE UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT THE WITNESSES WHO WERE INCLUDED ON THE DEFENSE WITNESS LIST AND WHOSE STATEMENT WAS PROVIDED IN A TIMELY MANNER AND IN A LAWFUL MANNER AND UNTIL THOSE PEOPLE, THOSE WITNESSES ARE EXHAUSTED. THE SAME SANCTION YOU IMPOSED ON US, YOUR HONOR, THAT SHOULD APPLY TO HIM, MR. STELLINI, AND IT SHOULD APPLY TO THE REST OF THEM.
SO YOU ARE ASKING THAT THE COURT ORDER THAT HIS -- ANY TESTIMONY BY MR. STELLINI BE DELAYED UNTIL THE OTHER WITNESSES ON THE PREVIOUS AUGUST AND DECEMBER WITNESS LIST HAVE BEEN CALLED?
YES, YOUR HONOR. AND I THINK THAT SHOULD APPLY TO EACH OF THE WITNESSES WE WERE AMBUSHED BY YESTERDAY AND THE DAY BEFORE. THEN THERE'S DR. BADEN. WE ARE AWARE OF DR. BADEN. WE ARE AWARE THAT HE WAS PRESENT ON JUNE 17TH. HE APPEARED BEFORE THE GRAND JURY. WE ASKED HIM WHAT HAPPENED IN MR. KARDASHIAN'S HOUSE JUST BEFORE THE DEFENDANT FLED. HE TOLD US THAT THE DEFENDANT FLED AS SOON AS HE HEARD THAT THE POLICE WERE ON THEIR WAY TO ARREST HIM. BUT WE DIDN'T ASK DR. BADEN ABOUT ANY TESTING OR THE RESULTS OF ANY TEST. WE DID NOT ASK HIM ABOUT HIS EXPERT OPINION REGARDING BLOOD OR PATHOLOGY. AND IT WAS MADE CLEAR TO US THAT SUCH TOPICS WERE OFF LIMITS, THAT HE WAS A DEFENSE EXPERT, AND THAT TO INQUIRE IN THOSE AREAS WOULD BE TO VIOLATE THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE, AND WE HONORED THAT. WHAT MR. COCHRAN HAS TOLD US THAT DR. BADEN WILL TESTIFY THAT THE PERPETRATOR SHOULD HAVE BEEN DRENCHED IN BLOOD. IT WOULD SEEM TO US THAT DR. BADEN HAS REVIEWED CERTAIN ITEMS AND OBJECTS, HE HAS PERHAPS CONDUCTED SOME TESTS, HE HAS RENDERED AN OPINION. WE WOULD LIKE THOSE REPORTS, WE WOULD LIKE THAT OPINION. AND THERE HAS TO BE ONE BECAUSE AS I UNDERSTAND THE RULES IN OPENING STATEMENT, COUNSEL IS NOT ALLOWED TO INFORM THE JURY OF EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION THAT THEY DO NOT IN GOOD FAITH AND REASONABLY BELIEVE WILL BE HEARD FROM THE WITNESS STAND OR IN OPENING COURT OR RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE. IF MR. COCHRAN OR THE REST OF THE DREAM TEAM HAVE HAD ORAL CONVERSATIONS WITH DR. BADEN REGARDING HIS CONCLUSIONS AND OPINIONS, THEN I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO ORDER THEM TO REDUCE THESE CONVERSATIONS TO WRITING AND THAT THEY DO IT NOW IMMEDIATELY. WE WOULD ASK THAT THE COURT IMPOSE THE SAME SANCTIONS, THE SANCTIONS WE MENTIONED EARLIER; STRIKE IT FROM THE RECORD, TELL THE JURY TO DISREGARD IT AND IGNORE IT, TELL THE JURY THAT THE DEFENSE, THE DREAM TEAM, AMERICA'S FINEST DEFENSE ATTORNEYS, TELL THE JURY THAT THESE LAWYERS HAVE COMMITTED MISCONDUCT, THEY HAVE DECEIVED THE COURT AND THAT THEY HAVE VIOLATED THE BASIC AND FUNDAMENTAL RULES OF DISCOVERY AND THAT THEY HAVE IMPINGED UPON THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL. NEXT IS CHRISTIAN RIECHARDT. HE IS FAYE RESNICK'S EX-FIANCE. SHE DUMPED HIM AND HE'S OUT TO GET HER. THAT'S FINE. I HAVE INTERVIEWED MR. RIECHARDT MYSELF WITH THE USE OF A COURT STENOGRAPHER IN THE PRESENCE OF HIS ATTORNEY, MR. DOMINIC RUBALCAVA, AND WE HAVE TURNED THAT OVER TO THE DEFENSE. IF THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT. IF THERE WERE ADDITIONAL CONVERSATIONS NOT REDUCED TO WRITING, WE WOULD ASK THAT THE COURT ORDER THE DEFENSE TO REDUCE THOSE CONVERSATIONS TO WRITING. IF THE DEFENSE INTENDS ONLY TO RELY ON INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED BY THE PROSECUTION AND BY THE LAPD, THEN THAT'S FINE. BUT THEY SHOULD STAND BEFORE THE COURT AND INFORM THE COURT OF THAT. IF THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO, THEN THERE'S NO SURPRISE NECESSARILY AS TO MR. RIECHARDT. BUT I WILL SAY THIS. AND THAT IS THAT NO STATEMENT HAS EVER BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE DEFENSE AS IT RELATES TO MR. RIECHARDT. IN ADDITION, MR. RIECHARDT IS NOT ON THE DEFENSE WITNESS LIST. SO MAYBE I JUMPED THE GUN ON THIS ONE, SHOULD STRIKE IT, AND HE SHOULD MOVE TO THE BACK OF THE LINE. AND WE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO AS THE DEFENSE HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO DO TO US IN THIS CASE. WE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO LET THEM KNOW WHEN THEY CAN CALL THIS WITNESS. THERE IS DR. BARBARA WOLF AND DR. GERDES.
AND DR. LEE. AND WE CAN SAY THE SAME THING ABOUT EACH OF THESE EXPERTS; AND THAT IS THAT WE HAVE NO REPORTS OR STATEMENTS FROM THESE WITNESSES.
WELL, WE HEARD YESTERDAY THAT HE WAS THE FOREMOST CRIME SCENE EXPERT, THE BEST IN THE WORLD AND HE WAS GOING TO TESTIFY ABOUT THE CRIME SCENE. WHERE IS THE REPORT? WHERE IS THE OPINION? WE REQUIRE IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE OF THESE EXPERT WITNESS REPORTS. WE WOULD ASK THAT THE SANCTIONS ALREADY MENTIONED REQUESTED BY US AS THEY RELATE TO OTHER WITNESSES APPLY TO THESE WITNESSES AS WELL. AND THEN THERE IS THE ENVELOPE, YOUR HONOR, THE ENVELOPE THAT MR. COCHRAN WAIVED IN FRONT OF THE JURY YESTERDAY, THE ENVELOPE WHICH CONTAINS AN UNSPECIFIED KNIFE AS I UNDERSTAND IT. I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT'S INSIDE THE ENVELOPE. I HAVE SEEN THE REPORT. I HAVE NOT SEEN THE ITEM, BUT THE DEFENSE HAS SEEN THE ITEM. WE HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OR INFORMATION AS TO WHERE THE ITEM CAME FROM, HOW IF IT WAS RECOVERED, WHO HANDLED IT, WHO HANDED IT WHERE AND WHEN, HOW IT GOT THERE. WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THIS ITEM EXCEPT WHAT WE KNOW FROM DR. LEE'S REPORT. BUT THE DEFENSE KNOWS EVERYTHING ABOUT IT AND THEY APPARENTLY INTEND TO INTRODUCE IT AS EVIDENCE IN THIS TRIAL. IF THAT IS THE CASE, YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW THE TRUE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THIS PARTICULAR OBJECT. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW HOW IT WAS RECOVERED, HOW THE COURT WAS CONTACTED. WE HAVE A RIGHT I BELIEVE TO KNOW ALL THE DETAILS SURROUNDING THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, AND WE REQUIRE IMMEDIATE DISCOVERY AS IT RELATES TO THIS ITEM. AND I WOULD SUGGEST TO THE COURT THAT THE DISPLAY OF THAT OBJECT YESTERDAY WAS JUST ONE OF MANY FLAGRANT VIOLATIONS OF THIS COURT'S RULES AND ORDERS. THIS COURT ORDERED US TO GIVE EACH SIDE THE OPPORTUNITY TO VIEW ANY EXHIBITS THAT MIGHT BE INTRODUCED BEFORE THIS JURY DURING OPENING STATEMENT. WE DIDN'T GET THAT OPPORTUNITY. MR. COCHRAN JUST PULLS IT OUT, WAVES IT IN FRONT OF THE JURY.
AND I HAD NO KNOWLEDGE THAT IT WAS ABOUT TO BE PRESENTED TO THE JURY. BY THE TIME I SAW IT, IT WAS IN FULL VIEW OF EVERYONE IN THE ROOM AS I RECALL. THE JURY SHOULD BE ORDERED TO DISREGARD ANY VIEWING OF THAT ITEM. THEY SHOULD BE ORDERED NOT TO SPECULATE AS TO THE CONTENT OF THAT ITEM OR THE WEIGHT TO BE ATTACHED TO IT. THE JURY SHOULD BE INFORMED THAT THIS WAS A LOW BLOW AND A CHEAP SHOT AND THAT IT IS GROSS MISCONDUCT, A SERIOUS VIOLATION OF THE COURT'S DIRECTIVES AND ORDERS. MR. COCHRAN MENTIONED YESTERDAY THAT CERTAIN WITNESSES WILL TESTIFY ABOUT THE DEFENDANT PLAYING CARDS ON JUNE 12 AND THAT HE SUFFERED SOME ACUTE ATTACK OF ARTHRITIS I BELIEVE, SOME FORM OF ARTHRITIS. WELL, IT IS APPARENT THAT MR. COCHRAN INTENDS TO CALL THESE WITNESSES TO TESTIFY. WELL, WHO ARE THESE WITNESSES? WHERE ARE THEIR STATEMENTS? WHERE DO THEY LIVE? WE DON'T EVEN HAVE THE NAMES. WE WOULD LIKE THAT INFORMATION. WE REQUIRE IMMEDIATE DISCOVERY AND THE JURY SHOULD BE ADVISED THAT THE DEFENSE IS UP TO CHEAP TRICKS AND THAT THEY'RE IN VIOLATION OF THE COURT'S RULES AND THAT THE DISPLAY OR RATHER THE MENTION OF THIS CARD GAME, THE MENTION OF THESE WITNESSES IS A FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF THE COURT'S ORDER. THE DEFENSE ALSO REFERRED TO TWO DOCTORS WHO THEY SAY EXAMINED THE DEFENDANT. WHO? WHERE ARE THE REPORTS? WHERE ARE THE STATEMENTS? WHERE ARE THE TEST RESULTS? WE DIDN'T GET ANY OF THAT. WE DIDN'T GET NOTICE.
THANK YOU. AS IT RELATES TO THOSE TWO DOCTORS, YOUR HONOR, UNTIL WE KNOW WHO THEY ARE, HOW THEY SPECIALIZE OR IN WHAT AREAS THEY SPECIALIZE IN, UNTIL WE GET THE DISCOVERY, IT'S DIFFICULT TO SEEK A PARTICULAR SANCTION. BUT I'LL SAY THIS. I CAN NOT IMAGINE, I CAN NOT UNDERSTAND WHY ANYONE IN A CASE LIKE THIS, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE SUPPOSED QUALITY AND ABILITIES OF THESE DEFENSE LAWYERS, WHY ANYONE WOULD WANT TO HIDE AN EXPERT WITNESS IN A CASE LIKE THIS. IT'S JUST UNFAIR, IS MIND BOGGLING. HOWARD WEITZMAN AND SKIP TAFT WERE MENTIONED YESTERDAY. IF THERE'S BEEN A CONVERSATION WITH MR. WEITZMAN AND MR. TAFT, WE WOULD LIKE THAT STATEMENT. WE WOULD LIKE THAT CONVERSATION REDUCED TO WRITING. WE WOULD LIKE DISCOVERY. ANY MENTION OF THESE TWO GENTLEMEN SHOULD BE STRICKEN, THE JURY SHOULD BE ADMONISHED, THEY SHOULD BE ADVISED TO DISREGARD COUNSEL'S COMMENTS REGARDING THESE TWO WITNESSES. NEXT --
HOW DO YOU SUGGEST I DEAL WITH THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT ISSUE THAT'S OBVIOUSLY GOING TO BE RAISED IN RESPONSE?
I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THERE IS AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE ISSUE IN THIS SITUATION. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY.
WE KNOW THEY HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY. AND WHATEVER MR. COCHRAN HAS SAID SO FAR CERTAINLY OUGHT TO OPERATE AS SOME FORM OF WAIVER AS TO SOME OR ALL OF ANY CONVERSATIONS.
MR. COCHRAN REFERRED YESTERDAY TO AN UNSPECIFIED DOCTOR WHO WOULD TESTIFY THAT THE DEFENDANT'S CUT, ONE OF THE CUTS OR MAYBE BOTH ON HIS LEFT HAND IS CONSISTENT WITH A KNIFE CUT.
INCONSISTENT. I'M SORRY. THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN. WELL, WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHO THAT PERSON IS. WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE HIS REPORT. WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT QUALIFICATIONS HE HAS TO FORM SUCH AN OPINION. THAT SHOULD BE STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD AS WELL. THAT'S AN EXPERT WITNESS. COUNSEL KNEW THAT THIS PERSON WOULD BE TESTIFYING. AND, YOU KNOW, AS I SAT THERE YESTERDAY, DAY BEFORE WATCHING MR. COCHRAN, I NOTICED THAT HIS OPENING STATEMENT, MOST OF IT WAS TYPED. HE HAD TIME TO TYPE IT, TO TYPE OUT THAT OPENING STATEMENT, AND IT WAS A VERY FINE OPENING STATEMENT. AND I'M ALWAYS PROUD OF MR. COCHRAN WHENEVER I SEE HIM IN COURT, YOUR HONOR. I LOVE HIM. I JUST DON'T LIKE TO GO UP AGAINST HIM. BUT IF HE HAD TIME TO TYPE HIS OPENING STATEMENT, THEN HE HAD TIME TO TURN IT OVER. AND I'M DISAPPOINTED IN MR. COCHRAN. I'M DISAPPOINTED THAT HE HASN'T TURNED OVER THAT INFORMATION TO US BECAUSE JUST THIS PAST WEEKEND, MR. COCHRAN AND I HAD A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION ON SUNDAY EVENING, AND WE DISCUSSED DISCOVERY ISSUES. I DISCUSSED WITH HIM ISSUES AND INFORMATION WHICH HE COULD NOT OTHERWISE LEARN OR OBTAIN UNTIL THE FOLLOWING MONDAY OR TUESDAY. AND I ADVISED HIM OF THESE THINGS SO THAT HE WOULD KNOW THAT THEY WERE IN EXISTENCE SO THAT HE WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED. AND SO I'M SURPRISED TO STAND HERE TODAY BEFORE THE COURT, YOUR HONOR, AND I'M DISAPPOINTED IN MR. COCHRAN. I WOULD THINK THAT HE WOULD RETURN TO ME THE SAME PROFESSIONAL COURTESY. AND THE COURT WILL RECALL THAT WE HAVE BEEN ORDERED TO TURN OVER TO THE DEFENSE LITERALLY WITHIN 24 HOURS OR ONE BUSINESS DAY THE NAME OF ANY POTENTIAL WITNESS AS WELL AS THE STATEMENT AS WELL AS THE TAPE OF THAT STATEMENT AS WELL AS A TRANSCRIPT IF A TRANSCRIPT EXISTS. THESE ARE THE RULES THAT THE COURT HAS SET FOR THE PROSECUTION IN THIS CASE, BUT NO RULES HAVE BEEN SET APPARENTLY FOR THE DEFENSE. OR IF RULES HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR THE DEFENSE FOR SOME REASON -- AND I THINK I KNOW WHAT THAT REASON IS -- THEY DON'T FEEL AS IF THEY HAVE TO LIVE UP TO THOSE RULES OR TO FOLLOW THOSE RULES. APPARENTLY THEY FEEL THAT THEY'RE ABOVE THE RULES. THIS CONDUCT IS OUTRAGEOUS. MR. COCHRAN NEXT DESCRIBED AN UNSPECIFIED GENTLEMAN WHO WOULD TESTIFY TO HAVING HAD AN AFFAIR WITH NICOLE BROWN. I DON'T KNOW WHO THAT INDIVIDUAL IS. I AM CONFIDENT THAT IT WON'T BE MR. MARCUS ALLEN BECAUSE I TRAVELED TO KANSAS CITY AND I WAS PRESENT WITH THREE POLICE DETECTIVES WHEN MR. ALLEN TOLD US HE NEVER HAD AN AFFAIR WITH DENISE -- RATHER WITH NICOLE BROWN. AND SO IF IT IS MR. MARCUS ALLEN OR IF IT IS SOME OTHER PERSON, WE WOULD LIKE THE DISCOVERY, YOUR HONOR. WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE IDENTITY OF THAT PERSON. MIND YOU THAT WE DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO PROVE TO BE RELEVANT IN THIS CASE ANYWAY. BUT IN THE EVENT THAT IT DOES, COUNSEL HAS DRAGGED THIS INFORMATION IN FRONT OF THE JURY IN AN ATTEMPT TO SOIL THE REPUTATION OF THE DECEASED VICTIM. AND THAT'S FINE. THAT HAPPENS IN COURT. BUT WE HAVE A RIGHT TO THAT INFORMATION, TO THE NAME OF THAT INDIVIDUAL AND TO THAT STATEMENT, THAT INDIVIDUAL'S STATEMENT. AND IF THEY THINK THEY CAN JUST SIT THERE AND TALK TO THESE PEOPLE ON THE TELEPHONE OR IN PERSON AND NOT REDUCE THEIR CONVERSATIONS TO NOTES OR THEY THINK THEY CAN REDUCE THIS INTERVIEW TO NOTES AND THEN NOT TURN THEM OVER, WELL, THAT'S NOT THE LAW. THAT'S NOT THE LAW IN THIS STATE. AND YOU CAN'T SANDBAG THE OPPOSITION THAT WAY. AND I UNDERSTAND MR. COCHRAN WHEN HE STANDS HERE AND TELLS US HOW HE'S THE ONLY ONE INTERESTED IN THE TRUTH IN THIS CASE. AND I APPRECIATE THAT. BUT I WOULD SUGGEST TO THE COURT THAT THIS CONDUCT AS IT RELATES TO THE DISCOVERY IN THIS CASE IS COMPLETELY INCONSISTENT, COMPLETELY INCONSISTENT WITH ANY DESIRE TO DETERMINE THE TRUTH OR TO HAVE THE JURY DETERMINE THE TRUTH. AND I WOULD LIKE THE JURY TO KNOW THE TRUTH REGARDING THE MURDER OF THESE TWO PEOPLE, YOUR HONOR, WIN OR LOSE, AS LONG AS THE TRUTH COMES OUT. BUT THE TYPE OF CONDUCT EXHIBITED BY THE DEFENSE THESE PAST COUPLE OF DAYS AND OVER THE PAST SEVERAL MONTHS -- I MEAN THEY HAD THE AUDACITY TO STAND HERE AND DEMAND THAT YOU SANCTION US ALL THE WHILE KNOWING THAT THEY HAD STATEMENTS, STATEMENTS FROM MATERIAL WITNESSES THAT THEY TOOK FOUR, FIVE AND SIX MONTHS PRIOR, AND THEY KNEW THEY HAD THEM, THEY KNEW THEY HADN'T TURNED THEM OVER AND THEY STOOD HERE AND ASKED YOU TO SANCTION US. THE GALL. THE COURT SHOULD IMPRESS UPON THE DEFENSE THAT THE RULES APPLY TO THEM. IT DOESN'T JUST APPLY TO THE POOR CIVIL SERVANT LAWYERS ON THE OTHER SIDE. IT APPLIES TO THE DREAM TEAM TOO AND TO THE DREAM DEFENDANT. IT ISN'T FAIR. WHAT THEY'VE DONE IN THIS COURTROOM THE PAST COUPLE DAYS IS NOT FAIR. I HAVE NEVER EVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THIS. MR. COCHRAN NEXT MADE REFERENCE TO TIRE TRACKS AND ANOTHER TRAIL OF FOOTPRINTS.
IT IS APPARENT TO US BASED ON HIS COMMENTS YESTERDAY THAT THEY HAVE AN EXPERT. AND MAYBE THAT EXPERT IS DR. LEE OR MAYBE IT'S SOME OTHER PERSON WHO HAS REVIEWED THIS ISSUE ON BEHALF OF DEFENSE. WHOEVER THAT PERSON IS, MR. COCHRAN HAS INDICATED THAT THEY WILL PROBABLY BE TESTIFYING IN THIS TRIAL OR THAT THEY WILL BE. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW WHO THEY ARE. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO ANY STATEMENTS THEY'VE MADE, ANY TESTS THAT THEY'VE CONDUCTED, ANY CONCLUSIONS THAT THEY'VE DRAWN. WE HAVE THAT RIGHT. AND THIS ISN'T JUST SOME RIGHT THAT JUST CAME TO US MONDAY OR ON JANUARY 1, 1995. THIS IS A RIGHT WE'VE HAD FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS. AND MR. DOUGLAS AND MR. UELMEN AND MR. COCHRAN HAVE STOOD BEFORE THE COURT AND TOLD THE COURT THAT, "WE UNDERSTAND --" THIS IS WHAT THEY SAID. "WE UNDERSTAND OUR RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THE RULES AND LAWS OF DISCOVERY." AND YET, THEY'VE CHOSEN TO IGNORE THOSE RULES AND THOSE LAWS AND THE COURT'S ORDER. IF THEY HAVE EXPERTS, REPORTS OR STUDIES OR ANYTHING NOT GIVEN BY THEM TO US, ANY PHOTOGRAPHS, ANYTHING RELIED UPON THE EXPERT THEY INTEND TO CALL, WE HAVE A RIGHT TO HAVE THAT. AND THIS EXPERT, IF THERE IS SUCH AN EXPERT, SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO TESTIFY IN THESE PROCEEDINGS UNTIL THE END, YOUR HONOR, UNTIL THE END, AND THE JURY SHOULD BE ADMONISHED, INSTRUCTED TO DISREGARD. MR. COCHRAN'S COMMENTS REGARDING THIS WITNESS IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT --
NEXT, MR. COCHRAN MENTIONED DINO -- AND I APOLOGIZE IF I MISPRONOUNCE THE LAST NAME -- BUCOLLA, B-U-C-O-L-L-A. AND THIS RELATES TO HIS OBSERVATIONS AT THE RED ONION, AN INCIDENT WHICH WAS DESCRIBED IN OUR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE MOTION.
YES. AS THEY WERE RUNNING TO THE ELEVATOR, "HERE, HAVE SOME MORE DISCOVERY." THEY GAVE US TWO REPORTS JUST THAT WAY YESTERDAY.
I BELIEVE IT IS -- WELL, WHY DON'T THE COURT INQUIRE OF MR. DOUGLAS IF YOU DON'T MIND. I DON'T HAVE IT IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE.
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
THEN HE SHOULD JUST BE REQUIRED TO MOVE TO THE BACK THEN, AND I THINK MR. COCHRAN SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM MENTIONING HIM IN THE EVENT THAT HE INTENDS TO. MAY I HAVE ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?
WE RECEIVED A NUMBER OF STATEMENTS ON JANUARY 25, YOUR HONOR. MR. BUCOLLA'S STATEMENT WAS ONE. WE RECEIVED A STATEMENT REGARDING MR. JASON WOOD, AND WE WILL SEEK NO SANCTION AS IT RELATES TO JASON WOOD. WE INTERVIEWED HIM. WE'RE ACQUAINTED WITH HIM. AND THE REPORT WE RECEIVED WAS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW, AND SO WE WILL SEEK NO SANCTION. BUT WE WILL ASK THE COURT, HOWEVER, TO ASK THE DEFENSE DO THEY HAVE INFORMATION IN ADDITION. MAY I HAVE ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?
NEXT, YOUR HONOR, THERE'S RONALD TAYLOR. WE RECEIVED THIS STATEMENT ON JANUARY 25TH. HE WAS ON THEIR AUGUST 31 WITNESS LIST. HOWEVER, THEY WAITED UNTIL JANUARY 25TH TO GIVE US A STATEMENT. THERE WAS PAUL SOLENSHINE, S-O-L-E-N-S-H-I-N-E.
YOUR HONOR, I STAND CORRECTED. WE DID RECEIVE AN EARLIER STATEMENT ON TAYLOR. DON'T TALK TO ME, OKAY? WE DID NOT RECEIVE A STATEMENT ON PAUL SOLENSHINE UNTIL JANUARY 25. AS I INDICATED, HE WAS ON THE AUGUST 31 WITNESS LIST. HOWEVER, NO STATEMENT WAS PROVIDED. THE SAME APPLIES TO ROSITA RHEUBAN, R-H-E-U-B-A-N. WE REQUIRE TIME TO INVESTIGATE THE CONTENT OF THEIR STATEMENTS AND DETERMINE IF THEY HAVE INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THESE PROCEEDINGS. THEY SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO CALL THESE WITNESSES.
ARE THE PEOPLE INTENDING ON PRESENTING ANY OF THE ITEMS SEIZED FROM MR. COWLING'S AUTOMOBILE?
THEY SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM CALLING MR. SOLENSHINE AND MISS RHEUBAN UNTIL THE CONCLUSION OF THEIR CASE AND UNTIL WE HAVE BEEN GIVEN A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO INVESTIGATE THEIR BACKGROUNDS AND THE CONTENT OF ANY STATEMENT THEY MIGHT GIVE. NEXT, THERE IS THE STATEMENT OF TONY PARKER GIVEN TO US ON JANUARY 25. WE HAD NO PRIOR DISCOVERY REGARDING THIS WITNESS. WE REQUIRE ADDITIONAL TIME TO INVESTIGATE THE CONTENT OF HIS STATEMENT AS WELL AS HIS BACKGROUND. WE WERE GIVEN A STATEMENT OR RATHER KEVIN WHELAN'S STATEMENT, AND HE CLAIMED TO HAVE GOTTEN THE DEFENDANT'S AUTOGRAPH ON JUNE 12, 1994 AT 11:20. YOU WOULD THINK THAT HE MIGHT BE A MATERIAL WITNESS TO THE DEFENSE. AND I'M SURE THEY SAW IT THAT WAY, AND HE WAS ON THEIR AUGUST 31 WITNESS LIST, BUT THEY DIDN'T TURN THAT STATEMENT OVER TO US UNTIL JANUARY 25TH, SIX MONTHS AFTER THE HOMICIDES. YESTERDAY, MR. COCHRAN MENTIONED -- OR STRIKE THAT. ON JANUARY 25, WE RECEIVED A STATEMENT FROM NARINDEN SINGH REGARDING THE POSSIBILITY OF A TAPE OF SOME KIND AT THE MEZZALUNA RESTAURANT. THIS PERSON WAS ON THE AUGUST 31 WITNESS LIST. WE RECEIVED THAT PERSON'S STATEMENT ON JANUARY 25, 1995. AND NEXT IS ALEX CASTILLO. HE HAS SOME INFORMATION REGARDING A BEEPER OR PAGER, AND HE WAS ON THE DEFENSE AUGUST 31 WITNESS LIST, BUT IT WAS NOT UNTIL JANUARY 25, 1995 THAT WE RECEIVED A STATEMENT OR A REPORT. MAY I HAVE ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?
YOUR HONOR, TIME AND TIME AGAIN, THE PROSECUTION STOOD BEFORE THE COURT, ADVISED THE COURT THAT THE DEFENSE WAS PLAYING FAST AND LOOSE WITH THE DISCOVERY RULES, WITH THE EVIDENCE. EACH TIME A MEMBER OF THE DREAM TEAM STEPPED TO THE PODIUM AND ADVISED THE COURT TO WHAT THEY THOUGHT THE LAW REQUIRED, THEY ADVISED THE COURT THAT THEY HAD NO DISCOVERY, THEY HAD NO REPORTS OR THEY DIDN'T INTEND TO CALL THE WITNESS OR THAT THEY HAD NO DUTY TO TURN OVER RELEVANT AND MATERIAL INFORMATION, STATEMENTS FROM MATERIAL WITNESSES THAT THEY KNEW FROM DAY ONE THEY WOULD WANT TO CALL IN THIS TRIAL, AND THEY DID THAT TIME AND TIME AGAIN. MR. DOUGLAS DID IT JUST LAST WEEK ON JANUARY 20. THE COURT MAY RECALL -- AND THIS IS AT VOLUME 73 AT PAGE 11319 WHERE MR. DOUGLAS INFORMED THE COURT:
"CERTAINLY, YOUR HONOR, THE COURT UNDERSTANDS OUR OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE DISCOVERY ACT AND CERTAINLY, YOUR HONOR, WITH THIS FINE COLLECTION OF LAWYERS, WE UNDERSTAND OUR OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE DISCOVERY ACT." AND I THINK THEIR UNDERSTANDING, YOUR HONOR, WAS PROBABLY CORRECT; AND THAT IS THAT THEY HAD A DUTY TO TURN OVER THE STATEMENTS OF THESE MATERIAL WITNESSES. AND I THINK THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT. I THINK THE LAW IS PRETTY CLEAR THERE. I THINK MR. UELMEN STATED IT RATHER SUCCINCTLY AND CLEARLY WHEN HE SAID IN CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE THESE WHERE TRIAL HAS ALREADY BEGUN, EACH PARTY HAS A DUTY TO TURN OVER TO THE OTHER PARTY DISCOVERABLE MATERIAL IMMEDIATELY. AND MR. UELMEN SAID TO THE COURT:
"YOUR HONOR, IMMEDIATE MEANS IMMEDIATE. IT MEANS NOW. IT MEANS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE." AND THAT, AS I RECALL, WAS THE COURT'S UNDERSTANDING OF THE TERM. WELL, WE'VE BEEN IN TRIAL SINCE SEPTEMBER AS I UNDERSTAND IT. WELL, IT IS THAT SECTION OF THE DISCOVERY RULES THAT APPLIES TO THESE DEFENDANTS OR TO THIS DEFENDANT AND THESE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS. THEY SHOULD HAVE TURNED OVER THIS INFORMATION TO US IMMEDIATELY, BUT THEY DIDN'T. THEY WANTED TO SANDBAG US. HAD THEY TURNED THE INFORMATION OVER TO US LAST WEEK OR AT CHRISTMAS OR ON DECEMBER 14, AS WE DID -- THE COURT WILL RECALL THAT ON DECEMBER 14, WE TURNED OVER DISCOVERY TO DEFENSE AND YOU HAD TO PULL THEM OFF THE CEILING. IT'S SIX WEEKS LATER NOW. THE SANCTIONS THE COURT IMPOSED ON US BACK ON SEPTEMBER 23RD AND EARLIER ARE STILL IN EFFECT. THEY'VE HAD SIX WEEKS TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION; AND IN THAT SIX WEEKS, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY DID IN TERMS OF AN INVESTIGATION. BUT IN THAT SIX WEEKS, THEY CERTAINLY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO THINK ABOUT THE ISSUE OF DISCOVERY. I MEAN THEY FILED A 40-PAGE BRIEF ON THE SUBJECT. THEY ARGUED IT TO THE COURT DAY AFTER DAY. THEY UNDERSTAND THE LAW AND THEY UNDERSTAND THE RULES. THEY KNOW THAT THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO TURN OVER DISCOVERY TO US AFTER MR. COCHRAN HAS MENTIONED THE CONTENT OF THAT DISCOVERY BEFORE THE JURY ALREADY. THEY KNOW THAT THEY HAVE A DUTY TO TURN OVER INFORMATION TO US IMMEDIATELY. BUT THEY DIDN'T DO THAT. THEY DIDN'T DO IT LAST YEAR, THEY DIDN'T DO IT LAST MONTH, THEY DIDN'T EVEN DO IT THE MORNING BEFORE MR. COCHRAN BEGAN HIS OPENING STATEMENT. AND THAT'S OUTRAGEOUS. THAT'S OUTRAGEOUS. AND THEY DIDN'T DO IT BECAUSE THEY KNEW THAT HAD THEY DONE IT, YOU WOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED MR. COCHRAN TO POISON THE MINDS OF THESE JURORS WITH HEARSAY ON TOP OF HEARSAY WITH THE CONTENT OF STATEMENTS GIVEN HIM BY WITNESSES WHO ARE COMPLETELY UNRELIABLE AND WHOSE BACKGROUND I AM SURE THAT IF MR. COCHRAN KNEW OR WAS AWARE, HE WOULD NOT HAVE EVEN MENTIONED THEM. WHEN THE VOTERS IN THIS STATE PASSED PROPOSITION 115, THERE WAS A CLEAR MANDATE, AND THAT MANDATE WAS, NO MORE SANDBAGGING, NO MORE SLEAZY TRIAL TACTICS, NO MORE ABUSE OF THE PROCESS OR OF THE SYSTEM OR OF THE COURTS. AS THE COURT ALREADY ALLUDED TO EARLIER, DISCOVERY BECAME A TWO-WAY STREET. I DON'T KNOW WHY THE DREAM TEAM CAN'T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THAT OR GRASP THAT OR WHY THEY DON'T WANT TO FOLLOW THE RULES. I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY HAVE A CELEBRITY CLIENT AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS ALLEGEDLY THE BIGGEST MURDER CASE EVER. BUT THE RULES DON'T STOP JUST FOR THIS CASE. THE RULES APPLY TO THIS CASE. HAD WE DONE WHAT THEY DID, I SHUDDER TO THINK WHAT THE COURT WOULD HAVE DONE TO OUR CASE, BECAUSE EVEN DESPITE OUR INNOCENT AND NEGLIGENT MISTAKES IN TERMS OF DISCOVERY, YOU'VE GUTTED OUR CASE TO SOME EXTENT. YOU'VE DISMANTLED IT IN MANY RESPECTS.
YOU REARRANGED IT ALL RIGHT. AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S FAIR. BUT THE BELL HAS ALREADY BEEN RUNG, YOUR HONOR, AND THE SHOT HAS ALREADY BEEN FIRED. AND ONCE THE SHOT IS FIRED -- AS MR. DE BLANC STATED LAST NIGHT ON TELEVISION, ONCE THE BULLET IS OUT THE GUN, YOU CAN'T GET IT BACK.
I HEARD ABOUT IT. I HEARD ABOUT IT, YOUR HONOR. I MISSED THE ENTIRE NBA SEASON UP TO THIS POINT, AND I AM UPSET ABOUT THAT. BUT THE PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL JUST LIKE MR. SIMPSON DOES, AND WE HAVE A RIGHT TO PLAY ON A LEVEL FIELD; AND THAT FIELD IS SUPPOSED TO BE LEVEL AND SUPPOSED TO BE BALANCED. WELL, THERE IS A TERRIBLE INBALANCE NOW, AND THIS INBALANCE IS BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE DREAM TEAM'S REFUSAL, THEIR INTENTIONAL AND WILLFUL DISREGARD FOR SOME VERY BASIC AND FUNDAMENTAL RULES OF DISCOVERY. THIS IS THEIR FAULT THAT THE FIELD IS NO LONGER A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD. IT'S THEIR FAULT THAT THINGS ARE OUT OF BALANCE. AND I WANT THE COURT TO UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS NOT, YOU KNOW, SO MUCH MR. COCHRAN'S OPENING STATEMENT THE OTHER DAY. HE DID WHAT I FIGURED HE WOULD DO. HE'S A GOOD LAWYER. THEY SAY HE'S THE BEST. HE'S A FRIEND OF MINE. I'M PROUD TO HAVE HIM AS A FRIEND OF MINE. BUT I'M DISAPPOINTED IN HIM. BUT I WANT MR. COCHRAN TO KNOW, MR. SIMPSON TOO TO KNOW THAT WE'RE NOT JUST HERE PLAYING GAMES EITHER. WE MAY JUST BE CIVIL SERVANTS AND BLUE COLLAR LAWYERS, YOUR HONOR, BUT WE INTEND TO WIN THIS CASE. BUT THE ONLY WAY WE'RE GOING TO WIN AND THE ONLY WAY WE CAN FULLY AND FAIRLY PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCESS WOULD BE IF THE COURT RECTIFIED THIS INBALANCE. AND I BELIEVE THE COURT MUST, BECAUSE THIS PROBLEM AND THIS ISSUE, IT'S MORE THAN JUST AN AFFRONT TO THE PROSECUTION. IT IS AN ATTACK ON THE INTEGRITY OF THIS COURT. THEY VIOLATED YOUR RULES, NOT JUST MINE, NOT JUST THE LEGISLATURE'S. NOT JUST THE RULES OF COURT, BUT YOUR RULES, YOUR HONOR.
THANKS FOR POINTING THAT OUT TO ME, YOUR HONOR. WE WOULD ASK THAT THE COURT ADMONISH THE JURY AND WE WOULD ASK AS WELL THAT WE BE GRANTED A BRIEF CONTINUANCE SO THAT WE CAN FULLY ASSESS WHAT HAS HAPPENED, SO THAT WE CAN INVESTIGATE THE BACKGROUNDS AND THE INFORMATION PROVIDED TO US IN COURT THESE PAST COUPLE OF DAYS. AND WE THINK WE HAVE A RIGHT TO THAT. I THINK WE HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO THAT. THE CODE SECTION SPEAKS TO THE REMEDIES THE COURT CAN PROVIDE IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS WHERE THERE EXISTS SUCH A FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF THE CODE, AND WE WOULD ASK THAT THE COURT ALLOW US TO REOPEN OUR OPENING STATEMENT --
-- AND TO CORRECT THE INBALANCE TO MAKE THE PLAYING FIELD LEVEL AGAIN. I'M SURE MR. SIMPSON DIDN'T PLAY ON LOPSIDED PLAYING FIELDS BACK WHEN HE WAS IN THE NFL. I MEAN THERE WERE 11 GUYS ON EACH SIDE. IT WAS FAIR. OF COURSE, THEY HAD MR. SIMPSON ON THEIR TEAM. I JUST WANT A FAIR SHOT. WE JUST WANT A FAIR TRIAL. THIS AIN'T ALL ABOUT JUST WINNING AND LOSING. IT'S ABOUT FAIRNESS. IT'S ABOUT JUSTICE. I'M STARTING TO SOUND LIKE COCHRAN, AREN'T I? ALTHOUGH THERE IS LITTLE CASE LAW OR NO CASE LAW ON THE ISSUE OF REOPENING AN OPENING STATEMENT, THERE IS CASE LAW ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF REOPENING CLOSING ARGUMENTS.
I'M FAMILIAR WITH THOSE CASES. I WAS LOOKING FOR ONE THAT DEALT WITH OPENING STATEMENTS.
AND I KNOW THAT THE COURT KNOWS THE COURT HAS DISCRETION IN TERMS OF THE ORDER OF PROOF, IN TERMS OF THE ORDER OF PROCESSES HERE IN THIS CASE. AND I WOULD SAY SOMETHING ELSE, YOUR HONOR, ABOUT WHAT HAS HAPPENED HERE. WE HAVE SOMETHING IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CALLED THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT. IT'S ETHICS. AND I'M NOT HERE TO ACCUSE MY DISTINGUISHED COLLEAGUES OF BEING UNETHICAL, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT IF I MAY TO THE COURT THAT THERE EXISTS IN THE STATE BAR RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT SECTION 65220 ENTITLED SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE. AND THAT SECTION INDICATES THAT:
"A MEMBER OF THE BAR SHALL NOT SUPPRESS EVIDENCE, THAT THE MEMBER OR THE MEMBER'S CLIENT HAS A LEGAL OBLIGATION TO REVEAL OR TO PRODUCE." AND THERE'S ALSO SECTION 5-200, SUBSECTION B, WHICH STATES THAT:
"MEMBERS OF THE BAR SHALL NOT SEEK TO MISLEAD THE JUDGE OR THE TRIER OF FACT." WHAT HAS HAPPENED HERE OVER THESE PAST MONTHS HAS BEEN MISLEADING. WE'VE BEEN MISLED. I BELIEVE THE COURT HAS BEEN MISLED. THERE'S CLEAR INDICATION, A CLEAR INDICATION THAT THEY HAVE SUPPRESSED EVIDENCE, INFORMATION THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE TURNED OVER TO THE PROSECUTION. AND I'M NOT SAYING, HEY, YOU SHOULD CALL THE STATE BAR OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I'M NOT SAYING THAT. THESE ARE MY FRIENDS. BUT I DO THINK THAT THEY HAVE COMMITTED A FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF THE DISCOVERY RULES AND THEY HAVE CAUSED THE PEOPLE TO SUFFER EXTREME PREJUDICE. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO UNRING THE BELL? HOW ARE YOU GOING TO GET BACK THE BULLET ONCE IT'S ALREADY FIRED? THEY BROUGHT THIS ON THEMSELVES. WE DIDN'T DO IT TO THEM. WE WOULD LIKE A FAIR TRIAL, A FAIR SHOT AT PRESENTING TO THIS JURY THE TRUTH. WE'RE NOT GETTING THAT AND WE WON'T GET IT AS LONG AS THEY ARE ALLOWED TO PLAY FAST AND LOOSE WITH THE RULES. MAY I HAVE ONE MOMENT?
MR. DARDEN, MAYBE THIS WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE TIME TO TAKE A COURT REPORTER RECESS.
COUNSEL HAS VERY CAREFULLY AND VERY CYNICALLY WEIGHED THE RISKS AND THE BENEFITS OF HIS MISCONDUCT AND HE HAS RIGHTFULLY ASSURED HIMSELF THAT THE RISKS, IF ANY AT ALL, ARE FAR OUTWEIGHED BY THE BENEFIT.
WE HAVE ONLY KNOWN OF THIS WITNESS 24 HOURS, AND ALREADY WE KNOW SHE HAS NINE LAWSUITS PENDING. AND THE D.A.'S OFFICE IN OUR BAD CHECK SECTION, THERE ARE $10,000 APPROXIMATELY IN BAD CHECKS THAT RELATE TO THIS PERSON. SHE HAS DEFRAUDED THE J.W. MARRIOTT CORPORATION OF $23,000 BY STAYING IN THEIR HOTEL AND NOT PAYING FOR IT.
I'M ALWAYS PROUD OF MR. COCHRAN WHENEVER I SEE HIM IN COURT, YOUR HONOR. I LOVE HIM. I JUST DON'T LIKE TO GO UP AGAINST HIM. BUT IF HE HAD TIME TO TYPE HIS OPENING STATEMENT, THEN HE HAD TIME TO TURN IT OVER.
THEY HAD THE AUDACITY TO STAND HERE AND DEMAND THAT YOU SANCTION US ALL THE WHILE KNOWING THAT THEY HAD STATEMENTS, STATEMENTS FROM MATERIAL WITNESSES THAT THEY TOOK FOUR, FIVE AND SIX MONTHS PRIOR, AND THEY KNEW THEY HAD THEM, THEY KNEW THEY HADN'T TURNED THEM OVER AND THEY STOOD HERE AND ASKED YOU TO SANCTION US. THE GALL.
YES, IT'S COUCHED IN NICE SMILES AND INGRATIATING REMARKS, BUT THAT SHOULD NOT DECEIVE THE COURT AND I'M SURE IT DOESN'T. WHAT LIES BEHIND IT IS A WILLFUL DESIRE TO FLOUT THE LAW.