ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, YOU'VE EACH RECEIVED A PHOTOCOPY OF THE COURT'S RULING REGARDING REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS. MY APOLOGIES TO COUNSEL FOR THE COURT'S FAILURE TO FAX YOU A COPY EARLIER THAN TODAY. I EXPERIENCED A COMPLETE BREAKDOWN IN MY FAX PROGRAM AT HOME. I ATTEMPTED TO FAX THIS TO ALL PARTIES YESTERDAY AND WAS APPARENTLY OBVIOUSLY NOT ABLE TO DO SO. IF THE PARTIES WISH, I WILL GIVE THEM LEAVE TO REVIEW THE RULING, AND I WOULD -- COURT'S RULING ASKS FOR INPUT FROM BOTH PARTIES REGARDING OPENING STATEMENTS AND THE JURY INSTRUCTION.
I WOULD LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW IT MORE CAREFULLY, YOUR HONOR. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ITEMS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE UP WITH THE COURT AND HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONFER WITH COCOUNSEL CONCERNING THE COURT'S RULING.
WELL, LET ME -- MISS CLARK, LET ME TELL YOU WHAT I THINK THE TWO ISSUES ARE THAT WE NEED TO RESOLVE THIS MORNING. YOU'VE SEEN THE COURT'S RULING AND THE COURT'S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY TO DISREGARD OPENING STATEMENT COMMENTS REGARDING THE WITNESSES THAT ARE LISTED ON PAGE 4.
THIS IS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT THAN THE INSTRUCTION THAT YOU REQUESTED. YOU REQUESTED AN INSTRUCTION DIRECTING THE JURY TO DISREGARD THE COMMENTS OF COUNSEL. I THINK THAT IS OVERBROAD, AND I THINK THE ONLY REMEDY IS TO MENTION OR TO ASK THE JURY TO DISREGARD DEFENSE COUNSEL'S REFERENCE TO THESE PARTICULAR WITNESSES OR IF THERE ARE ANY OTHERS YOU FEEL THAT HAD BEEN MENTIONED IN THE RECORD THAT WHOSE MENTION WAS INAPPROPRIATE.
THAT'S ONLY -- WITH RESPECT TO THIS AREA, I WAS REVIEWING THE TRANSCRIPT LAST NIGHT AND I THOUGHT THAT THERE WERE MORE REFERENCES TO OTHER WITNESSES.
WELL, THAT'S WHY I ASKED FOR A DRAFT -- I SUGGEST -- I ASKED BOTH SIDES FOR A PROPOSED INSTRUCTION BECAUSE I WAS SEEKING PARTICULARITY WITH REGARDS TO THE COURT'S INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY. THIS IS -- THE LIST THAT I HAVE HERE ON PAGE 4 AS A RESULT OF MY GOING THROUGH THE RECORD LINE BY LINE NOTING WHERE THESE PERSONS HAD BEEN MENTIONED AND THEN COMPARING IT WITH THE WITNESS LIST THAT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN DISCLOSED.
THERE ARE CERTAIN NOTABLE WITNESSES WHO ARE NOT MENTIONED THAT WE SPECIFICALLY DELINEATED TO THE COURT WHEN WE WERE LAST IN SESSION, EXPERT WITNESSES PROMISED BY THE DEFENSE ALTHOUGH NOT BY NAME WHO HAVE NEVER EVEN BEEN DISCLOSED BY NAME TO THE PROSECUTION SUCH AS AN EXPERT IN TIRE TRACKS, AN EXPERT IN SHOEPRINTS, AN EXPERT ON FINGER CUTS, AN EXPERT ON RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS. NONE OF THESE HAVE EVEN BEEN NAMED TO US. AND THEN AGAIN, THE STATEMENTS MADE BY COUNSEL CONCERNING ALLEGED CONCLUSIONS DRAWN BY EXPERTS DR. BADIN AND DR. LEE, WE HAVE NO REPORTS, WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT COUNSEL INTENDS TO PRESENT BY WAY OF THEIR TESTIMONY, HAVING HAD NO DISCOVERY. SO THERE ARE MANY MORE THAT I WOULD ADD TO THIS LIST AND THAT THE COURT IS AWARE OF WERE NOT DISCLOSED TO THE PROSECUTION IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM.
WELL, YOU'LL NOTICE THAT THE COURT'S ORDER INCLUDES THOSE SPECIFIC PERSONS, AND I MAKE REFERENCE TO THE TRANSCRIPT WHERE CERTAIN EXPERT TESTIMONY IS MENTIONED AND IT INCLUDES THE ONES THAT YOU'VE JUST LISTED NOW. AND I THINK THAT THE REQUIREMENT AT THIS POINT IS THAT THEY BE DISCLOSED SINCE OBVIOUSLY THERE HAS BEEN INDICATED AN INTENTION TO CALL THOSE PERSONS AS WITNESSES.
I DON'T -- WHERE DOES THE COURT INDICATE TO THE JURY THAT THOSE EXPERTS HAVE BEEN --
NO, NO. WE'RE NOT THERE YET. FLIP BACK TO PAGE 2 WHERE WE START WITH THE SECTION ON EXPERT WITNESSES. ALL RIGHT. FIRST FULL PARAGRAPH AFTER THE QUOTATION FROM THE CODE SECTION, THERE'S AN ORDER FROM THE COURT DIRECTING DISCLOSURE OF THESE PERSONS' REPORTS, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, AND IN ADDITION, OTHER EXPERTS MENTIONED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL AT THESE PARTICULAR PLACES IN THE TRANSCRIPT, WHICH INCLUDE THE ONES THAT YOU'VE JUST MENTIONED.
NO, BECAUSE I THINK WHAT I NEED TO DO FIRST IS DETERMINE WHO THESE PEOPLE ARE BECAUSE THEY MAY BE PERSONS ALREADY DISCLOSED TO YOU. BUT I'M CONCERNED -- MY CONCERN HERE IS ALSO THE REPORTS.
THERE WERE PEOPLE WHO WERE NOT MENTIONED BY NAME TO THE JURY IN OPENING STATEMENT, THE -- THOSE WITNESSES -- THE PEOPLE ARE NOT AWARE OF WHO THESE EXPERTS MIGHT BE EVEN BY NAME.
MISS CLARK, IF YOU READ THE FIRST SENTENCE, IT SAYS, "THE DEFENSE IS THEREFORE ORDERED TO IMMEDIATELY DISCLOSE," BLAH, BLAH BLAH, "AND THE IDENTITY OF THESE PERSONS."
SO I ASSUME THAT THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TODAY. NOW, AFTER YOU'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO FIND OUT WHO THOSE PEOPLE ARE, THEN YOU CAN MAKE YOUR JUDGMENT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE COURT'S INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY.
THEN I'M UNABLE AT THIS TIME TO INDICATE TO THE COURT WHAT THE PEOPLE'S POSITION IS WITH RESPECT TO THIS RULING BECAUSE THERE'S INFORMATION WE STILL DON'T HAVE.
WELL, IT'S A RULING. AFTER YOU RECEIVE -- AFTER YOU'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK THAT OVER -- I'M GOING TO PROCEED TODAY. MY INCLINATION IS TO INSTRUCT THE JURY AS I'VE INDICATED TODAY AND TO MOVE ON WITH THE CASE. AND IF IT COMES TO LIGHT THAT THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE, I CAN ALWAYS INSTRUCT THE JURY AS TO OTHER PARTICULARS.
WELL, THERE'S ALREADY AN INDICATION OF THERE ARE WITNESSES NOT DISCLOSED TO US BY VIRTUE OF COUNSEL'S OPENING STATEMENT CONCERNING THOSE EXPERTS.
WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I FINALLY HEAR THIS TODAY THIS MORNING. THE PEOPLE ARE ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY, YOUR HONOR, NOT AN ASSUMPTION AND NOT A SUSPICION.
ALL RIGHT. I AGREE. AND, MISS CLARK, THAT'S WHY I ORDERED ITS IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE, WHICH IS TODAY.
AND I APPRECIATE THAT, YOUR HONOR, I REALLY DO. BUT I'M ASKING FOR THE COURT TO INFORM THE JURY THAT WE WERE NOT INFORMED OF ANY OF THAT EITHER. THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED TO US AS WELL. NOT JUST THESE WITNESSES, BUT THE EXPERTS AND WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO TESTIFY TO. WHY DO WE FIND OUT ONLY IN OPENING STATEMENT THAT MR. COCHRAN INTENDS TO CALL THESE EXPERT WITNESSES TO TESTIFY TO VARIOUS THINGS OF WHICH WE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE? THE CODE REQUIRES THEM TO DO SO. THOSE EXPERTS AS HE MENTIONED IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT, OF WHICH WE HAD NO DISCOVERY, AND ONLY NOW BASED ON THE COURT'S STATED SUSPICION DO WE HEAR THAT THAT'S WHO WAS GOING TO TESTIFY TO WHAT HE REPRESENTED TO THE JURY, FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER WHEN WE HEARD IT, THAT'S A BLATANT VIOLATION AS WELL. WE ARE ENTITLED TO KNOW --
WE WERE ENTITLED TO KNOW ABOUT THOSE WITNESSES JUST AS WE WERE ENTITLED TO KNOW ABOUT THE WITNESSES LISTED BY THE COURT IN ITS ORDER. THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING FOR THE COURT TO INCLUDE THEM IN THE ORDER. WHY WOULD THEY BE ANY DIFFERENT?
ALL RIGHT. LET ME ASK ANOTHER QUESTION. WHAT IS YOUR POSITION ON YOUR REQUEST TO REOPEN AT THIS TIME?
THE PEOPLE STRENUOUSLY URGE THE COURT TO ALLOW US TO REOPEN. I WILL CITE TO THE COURT THE CIVIL CASE THAT I BROUGHT DOWN TO COURT THE OTHER DAY. I KNOW THE COURT ALREADY HAS IT THROUGH LEXIS. BUT IT DOES AUTHORIZE THE REOPENING OF OPENING STATEMENT. I WOULD LIKE FOR THE COURT TO SEE THAT AND WE WOULD LIKE TO REOPEN. THE COURT HAS REQUESTED A PROFFER AS TO WHAT WE WOULD ADDRESS IN THE OPENING STATEMENT --
AND WE WILL -- UNTIL MR. COCHRAN COMPLETES THE OPENING STATEMENT, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO KNOW THE ENTIRETY OF IT BECAUSE ALTHOUGH IT'S BEEN REPRESENTED TO US WE HAVE FULL AND COMPLETE DISCOVERY, WE OBVIOUSLY DO NOT. AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT OTHER SURPRISES ARE GOING TO BE FORTHCOMING FROM MR. COCHRAN. SO I'M NOT -- I CAN'T GIVE A COMPLETE PROFFER AS TO WHAT WE WOULD STATE AT THIS TIME.
WELL, AS TO THE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE LISTED IN THE COURT'S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION, AS TO THOSE LIMITED INDIVIDUALS, WHAT IS YOUR PROFFER?
WELL, WE DON'T HAVE A STATEMENT YET FROM MICHELLE. WE DON'T HAVE A STATEMENT FROM MARK PARTRIDGE. WE DON'T HAVE A STATEMENT FROM HOWARD WEITZMAN. WE DON'T HAVE A STATEMENT FROM SKIP TAFT. WE DON'T HAVE A STATEMENT FROM CHRISTIAN RIECHARDT. WE STILL DON'T HAVE DISCOVERY OF THEM. AND IN ORDER TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY IN RESPONSE, I NEED TO HAVE THOSE STATEMENTS.
MY RECOLLECTION IS, THAT IS A LIST OF PEOPLE WHOSE STATEMENTS WERE BELATEDLY GIVEN TO YOU AND/OR -- YES. THOSE STATEMENTS WERE GIVEN TO YOU, ALBEIT AT THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS AFTER THE FIRST DAY OF OPENING STATEMENT BY THE DEFENSE.
NO, YOUR HONOR. WE HAVE NEVER RECEIVED A STATEMENT FOR MICHELLE -- MARK PARTRIDGE I BELIEVE IS A ONE-PARAGRAPH REPRESENTATION THAT HE SPOKE TO DEFENSE COUNSEL, BUT NO PARTICULARS AS TO WHAT HE SAID. HOWARD WEITZMAN, WE HAVE NO STATEMENT. SKIP TAFT, NO STATEMENT. CHRISTIAN RIECHARDT, NO STATEMENT. THERE'S ONLY ONE WITNESS HERE FOR WHICH WE REALLY HAVE A STATEMENT. THAT'S MARY ANNE GERCHAS. AND WE ARE PUTTING TOGETHER A PROFFER AS TO HER AT THIS TIME. I BELIEVE THAT MR. DARDEN WILL BE BRINGING IT DOWN WITH HIM.
WELL, HOLD ON JUST A MINUTE, MR. COCHRAN. I JUST WANTED TO SETTLE WHERE WE ARE AT THIS POINT. ALL RIGHT. MR. COCHRAN.
GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. WE -- I JUST GOT YOUR HONOR'S ORDER THIS MORNING, PROPOSED ORDER, AND WE'VE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW IT. I WOULD LIKE TO FIRST OF ALL TURN OUR ATTENTION TO THE LIST OF WITNESSES THAT THE COURT PROPOSES TO TELL THE JURY ABOUT IN THE JURY INSTRUCTION, WHICH I THINK IS THE HEART OF YOUR HONOR'S PROPOSED ORDER OBVIOUSLY. WITH REGARD TO MARY ANN GERCHAS, MR. DOUGLAS HAS INDICATED THAT -- AND OUR POSITION IS AND WILL ALWAYS BE AND ABSOLUTELY IS THAT WHEN I READ THE NAME MARY ANN GERCHAS, I BELIEVED THAT THAT STATEMENT HAD BEEN TURNED OVER. IT IN FACT HADN'T, AND WE INDICATED THAT. WITH REGARD TO MICHELLE ABUDRAHM, THERE IS NO STATEMENT. WITH REGARD TO MARK PARTRIDGE, THE PROSECUTION, YOUR HONOR, HAD IN FACT BEEN GIVEN A PORTION OF HIS STATEMENT. IN FACT, IN A LETTER THAT HE WROTE AFTER A MEMO WHERE -- HE'S A LAWYER AS THE COURT IS AWARE. HE RETURNED BACK TO CHICAGO IF I RECALL -- AND I'LL TRY TO FIND THIS -- MR. PARTRIDGE WROTE A LETTER DETAILING HIS OBSERVATIONS OF MR. SIMPSON AND SENT A COPY TO THE PROSECUTION AND TO THE DEFENSE. MR. DOUGLAS TURNED OVER ANOTHER TWO PAGES I THINK AFTERWARDS. THEY HAD ALREADY BEEN NOTIFIED OF MR. PARTRIDGE AND HAD AN EARLIER STATEMENT, AND I BELIEVE THEY ALSO HAD HIS LENGTHY MEMO OF ABOUT WHAT HAD TAKEN PLACE. WITH REGARD TO HOWARD WEITZMAN, SKIP TAFT, THERE ARE NO STATEMENTS. THESE ARE BOTH LAWYERS, AND WE TRIED TO EXPLAIN THAT TO THE COURT. THERE ARE NO STATEMENTS. THERE IS NO SUBTERFUGE. THE COURT IS AWARE OF THE RELATIONSHIP WE WOULD HAVE WITH SKIP TAFT, A BUSINESS LAWYER THAT WE TALKED TO ON A DAILY BASIS. THERE IS NO REPORT.
WELL, THE PROBLEM, MR. COCHRAN, IS THAT NEITHER OF THESE PERSONS APPEAR ON YOUR WITNESS LIST.
AND I APPRECIATE THAT. BUT I'M SAYING THERE IS NO REPORT REGARDING THOSE TWO. WITH REGARD TO CHRISTIAN RIECHARDT --
BUT THE FACT THAT THEY WERE NOT PLACED ON THE WITNESS LIST, THERE'S NO NOTIFICATION TO THE OTHER SIDE THAT THEY ARE GOING TO BE WITNESSES, THAT'S THE PROBLEM.
AND I UNDERSTAND AND I INDICATE TO THE COURT THAT IS THROUGH INADVERTENCE AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR HONOR'S SANCTION ON THAT. WITH REGARD TO CHRISTIAN RIECHARDT, THEY HAVE INTERVIEWED CHRISTIAN RIECHARDT AT LENGTH. HE'S ON THE LIST. THEY INTERVIEWED HIM AT LENGTH WITH DOMINIC RUBALCAVA, THE LAWYER. THERE'S A TRANSCRIPT TO THAT EFFECT I BELIEVE AND WE HAVE NO STATEMENT, WE HAVE NO REPORT OF CHRISTIAN RIECHARDT. SO I GUESS WHAT I'M ASKING THE COURT WITH REGARD TO RIECHARDT -- I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PREJUDICE IS. WE HAVE NO REPORT. THEY KNOW ABOUT HIM. HE'S FAY RESNICK'S FORMER FIANCE'. YOU HEARD WHAT MR. DARDEN SAID. AND IT'S VERY INTERESTING, YOUR HONOR, HOW MR. DARDEN CAN IMMEDIATELY MAKE SOME STATEMENT MALIGNING CHRISTIAN RIECHARDT WHEN HE KNOWS EVERYTHING ABOUT HIM OR, FOR INSTANCE, WITH REGARD TO MARY ANN GERCHAS, WHEN THEY HEARD THE NAME, IT SEEMS THAT THEY ALREADY HAD KNOWN ABOUT HER. AND THE COURT WILL RECALL THAT WITH REGARD TO MARY ANN GERCHAS -- THIS IS NOT TO OBVIATE WHATEVER YOU FEEL IS PROPER. I'M PREPARED TO GO FORWARD AND ARGUE. MARY ANN GERCHAS HAD TRIED TO CONTACT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. THE COURT SHOULD READ THAT STATEMENT. SHE NOT ONLY TALKED TO PATTY FAIRBANKS IN THE D.A.'S OFFICE. SHE PUTS IN THE STATEMENT IF I RECALL THE PHONE NUMBER OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE THAT SHE CALLED.
MR. COCHRAN, THOUGH, THAT'S DANCING AROUND THE ISSUE. THE ISSUE IS, WAS THIS PERSON NAMED AS A WITNESS BY THE DEFENSE --
-- AND WERE THE STATEMENTS IN YOUR POSSESSION TURNED OVER PRIOR TO TRIAL. THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS NO.
SHE WAS NAMED. SHE WAS NAMED I BELIEVE AND THE STATEMENT WAS NOT TURNED OVER AS I INDICATED TO THE COURT.
AND I APPRECIATE THAT, YOUR HONOR. BUT I THOUGHT THE COURT SHOULD HAVE ALL THE FACTS. AND I THINK WHAT IT DOES, IT GOES TO THE STATE OF MIND -- OUR STATE OF MIND. YOUR HONOR -- AND IF I CAN SAY THIS AGAIN. NO WAY IN THE WORLD -- WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD WE WANT TO WITHHOLD WITNESSES FROM THEM THAT YOU COULD POSSIBLY PRECLUDE DOWN THE ROAD? WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING TO DAMAGE MR. SIMPSON. IN THE EFFORT -- THIS IS A MASSIVE VOLUME OF WORK WITHOUT AN EXCUSE. WE WANT TO GET THIS CASE UNDERWAY. WE ARE NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING TO HARM THAT. WE WANT TO TRY THE CASE. WE'RE THE ONES WHO DID NOT WAIVE TIME AND WANT TO GET IT FORWARD. WE UNDERSTAND WE HAVE TO ALL ABIDE BY THE RULES, AND WE ACCEPT THAT. THE OTHER THING I THINK THAT THE COURT SHOULD LISTEN TO IS THAT THIS VIOLATION -- IN THE JURY INSTRUCTION, PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION, THE COURT SAID -- THE COURT PROPOSES THIS WAS VIOLATION OF THE LAW AND THE CAUSE OF THE TWO-DAY DELAY. WELL, THAT'S NOT COMPLETELY CORRECT BECAUSE AS YOU INDICATE LATER, PART OF THE CAUSE OF THE DELAY WAS THE ILLNESS OF D.A. WILLIAM HODGMAN. SO I THINK THE COURT NEEDS TO MODIFY THAT IN SOME WAY SO IT MORE ACCURATELY REFLECTS THE FACTS. IF THAT WAS THE ONLY CAUSE, PERHAPS WE COULD HAVE ARGUED ON FRIDAY OR WHATEVER. SO I THINK THAT -- I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO CONSIDER THAT. WITH REGARD TO THE EXPERTS, WE WILL COMPLY WHEREVER POSSIBLE, YOUR HONOR. WE DO NOT HAVE REPORTS YET BECAUSE MUCH OF -- THE REASON WE DON'T HAVE REPORTS, YOUR HONOR, IS BECAUSE OUR EXPERTS HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO ACTUALLY EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE. WE'RE MAKING A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT, TO BE ABLE TO EXAMINE THIS EVIDENCE IN THEIR LAB THAT THEY CAN THEN MAKE THE REPORT. WE KNOW GENERALLY FROM THEIR OBSERVATIONS WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO SAY. AND FOR COUNSEL TO SAY THAT THEY DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT DRS. BADIN AND DRS. LEE -- AND DR. LEE AND DR. WOLF WERE OUT HERE THE WEEK OF JUNE 12TH, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT IS AWARE. THE OTHER THING, AS THE COURT CORRECTLY POINTS OUT, IN THIS REOPENING OF THE OPENING STATEMENT, IT IS ILLOGICAL AT BEST AND I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE CONFUSING AT WORSE TO ALLOW THEM TO REOPEN TO TALK ABOUT MARY ANN GERCHAS, FROM THAT STANDPOINT. I THINK THAT IF YOU ADMONISH THE JURY TO DISREGARD IT, THEN THEY GET UP AND THEN TALK ABOUT HER, THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE, YOUR HONOR. THEN DO I GET A CHANCE TO RESPOND TO WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY? YOUR HONOR, WHAT'S HAPPENED IN THIS COURTROOM IS, THEY HAVE CONTINUALLY MALIGNED WITNESSES. AND THAT HAS AN INTIMIDATING EFFECT AND THAT IS WRONG. SO WHILE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE DEFENSE, LET'S TALK ABOUT THEM. OVER THIS WEEKEND, EVERY ONE OF THESE WITNESSES THAT WERE MALIGNED BY MR. DARDEN NOW HAVE LAWYERS; MARY ANN GERCHAS, CHRISTIAN RIECHARDT, RON FISCHMAN AND ROSA LOPEZ.
I'M GOING TO INSTRUCT COUNSEL NOT TO INTERRUPT OTHER COUNSEL'S STATEMENTS. THIS COURT IS MORE THAN PATIENT. I ALLOW EACH SIDE TO COMPLETELY SAY WHAT IT IS THEY WANT TO SAY. I'M NOT GOING TO TOLERATE ANY MORE INTERRUPTIONS BY COUNSEL FROM EITHER SIDE. THAT'S A WARNING TO ALL COUNSEL. NEXT VIOLATION WILL BE DEALT WITH BY SANCTIONS, INCLUDING CONTEMPT.
THANK YOU. YOUR HONOR, WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY IS, I THINK IT'S TOTALLY IMPROPER TO DO THOSE THINGS BECAUSE IT HAS AN EFFECT ON THESE WITNESSES AND I THINK IT'S TOTALLY UNFAIR. NOW, WHAT THE COURT IS GOING TO SEE IN THE COMING WEEKS, THESE LAWYERS WILL ALL BE ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE; AND IT HAS A PRONOUNCED EFFECT WHEN A DISTRICT ATTORNEY STANDS UP AND SAYS THAT AND DOES THAT IN OPEN COURT. AND I THINK THAT IS GERMAINE TO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AND TO PROCEDURES, YOUR HONOR. SO I WOULD JUST LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY, IF THE COURT WOULD ALLOW US, TO RESPOND TO THE PEOPLE'S REQUEST FOR THIS REOPENING. AS I SAID, I THINK THAT'S TOTALLY -- WOULD BE IMPROPER --
WELL, MR. COCHRAN, WHAT I ANTICIPATE DOING IS, AFTER I HEAR THE PROSECUTION'S PROFFER AS TO WHAT IT IS THEY WOULD GO INTO AND HOW IT IS THAT THEY WOULD APPROACH IT, THEN I'LL ALLOW YOU TO RESPOND TO THAT TO SEE IF IT'S APPROPRIATE.
THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. BECAUSE I THINK WHAT WE'VE SEEN SO FAR AGAIN IS TRIAL IN THE MEDIA. WHAT WE SAW IN COURT HERE, TO HAVE A WITNESS WHO'S NEVER BEEN BEFORE THIS COURT, I PRESUME BRANDED AS A CERTIFIED PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, YOUR HONOR, THAT'S OUTRAGEOUS. AND IF NOT -- WOULD NOT BE DONE EXCEPT UNDER THE AEGIS OF SOME KIND OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY HERE IN COURT. AND I THINK THAT'S UNFAIR. AND THE WITNESS THEN OBVIOUSLY HAD A GREAT EFFECT UPON HER. AND WHAT KIND OF MESSAGE DOES THAT SEND OUT TO OTHER WITNESSES, YOUR HONOR? FURTHERMORE, ALL THE THINGS THAT WERE INTRODUCED, YOUR HONOR, THE THINGS THAT WERE INTRODUCED WOULD PROBABLY NOT EVEN BE ADMISSIBLE FROM A STANDPOINT OF ATTACKING THIS LADY'S CREDIBILITY. SHE HAS SOME CIVIL LAWSUITS, HOW IS THAT RELEVANT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT ON JUNE 12TH OF 1994 AT ABOUT 10:45 IN THE EVENING, SHE SAW FOUR MEN RUNNING FROM THE VICINITY OF 875 SOUTH BUNDY? THAT'S GOING TO BE REALLY THE ISSUE, YOUR HONOR, ISN'T IT?
THAT'S THE ISSUE. AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE OTHER THINGS THAT HAPPENED SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN AGAIN BECAUSE I'M JUST SAYING TO THE COURT THAT THIS IS HAVING A PRONOUNCED EFFECT, AND I KNOW THAT BECAUSE I'M BEING CONTACTED BY THESE PEOPLE.
THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. YOUR HONOR, MAYBE I SHOULD SAY ONE OTHER THING. AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 1, I THINK IT WAS CLEAR, AS WE INDICATED TO THE COURT, THE OTHER WITNESSES THAT WERE TURNED OVER -- BECAUSE THE COURT HAD ORDERED MR. DOUGLAS TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION, AND WE SHOULD MAKE IT CLEAR THAT HE DID EXACTLY AS YOU HAD ASKED AND MAKE IT CLEAR ALSO THAT THIS HAS NOT BEEN HIS RESPONSIBILITY PRIOR TO JANUARY 2ND OF 1995.
OH, I THINK THE RECORD SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. MR. DOUGLAS DID INDICATE THAT THAT WAS HIS RESPONSIBILITY AS OF THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR.
YES. AND HE TOOK IT OVER. AND OF THAT LIST, OF THE TOTAL LIST THAT WE'VE HEARD SO MUCH ABOUT, YOUR HONOR -- AND WE DISPUTE MARK PARTRIDGE BECAUSE WE THINK THEY DID KNOW HIM AND HAD A STATEMENT FROM HIM -- THE ONLY TWO PEOPLE THAT WERE BASICALLY MENTIONED IN THE OPENING STATEMENT WERE MARY ANNE GERCHAS AND MICHELLE ABUDRAHM, AND APPARENTLY THERE IS NO REPORT THAT WE HAVE ON MICHELLE. YOUR HONOR -- AND THE OTHER THING THAT ALSO COMES TO MIND, MR. DOUGLAS REMINDS ME IS, THE COURT WILL RECALL THAT IN ONE OF HIS DIATRIBES, MR. DARDEN STOOD UP AND SAID, IF RON FISCHMAN TELLS THE TRUTH, HE'LL SAY THAT O.J. SIMPSON MADE A STATEMENT ABOUT GETTING SOMEBODY. NOW, YOUR HONOR, WE'VE NEVER SEEN ANY REPORT LIKE THAT. WE'VE NEVER SEEN ANY SUCH STATEMENT. SO WHEN HE MAKES THOSE KINDS OF STATEMENTS OR WHEN HE IMMEDIATELY HE KNOWS ABOUT MARY ANNE GERCHAS -- AND ANOTHER STATEMENT HE SAYS, IF YOU RECALL, IF MR. COCHRAN HAD ASKED ME, I WOULD HAVE TOLD HIM ABOUT THIS WITNESS OR THESE WITNESSES. HOW DOES HE KNOW THOSE THINGS, YOUR HONOR, IMMEDIATELY IF HE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THESE WITNESSES? I THINK THE COURT IN BEING EVEN-HANDED, WHICH YOU ARE, WOULD WANT TO INQUIRE ABOUT THAT.
WELL, I'VE ALREADY SANCTIONED THE PROSECUTION SEVERELY FOR THEIR TRANSGRESSIONS IN THE DISCOVERY PROCESS. AND THIS SANCTION PROCEEDING PROCESS I SUSPECT WILL CONTINUE THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL.
I CERTAINLY HOPE NOT AFTER TODAY, YOUR HONOR. IT WILL NOT -- IT WON'T BE NECESSARY. BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT I'M SAYING, HOW WOULD HE THEN BE IN A POSITION TO GIVE ME ADVICE ABOUT WITNESSES IF HE HAD KNOWN OR TO KNOW -- HAVE A STATEMENT ABOUT RON FISCHMAN IF HE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT RON FISCHMAN? I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT AND I DON'T THINK IT MAKES SENSE. SO I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO INQUIRE ABOUT THAT. TO CONCLUDE MY POINT THOUGH, OTHER WITNESSES THAT YOU ASKED MR. DOUGLAS TO PROFFER FOR THE COURT, WE DID THAT. AS MR. DOUGLAS HAS INDICATED, MANY OF THESE WITNESSES WERE OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION, PROBABLY NEVER BE CALLED. BUT SECONDLY, THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW ABOUT IT AND WE'VE DONE THAT. BUT NONE OF THOSE -- ALMOST NONE OF THOSE WITNESSES WERE MENTIONED IN THE OPENING STATEMENT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF GERCHAS AND MICHELLE ABUDRAHM, AS I SAID, REFERRING TO THE LIST AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 1, YOUR HONOR.
WELL, YOU DID MENTION GERCHAS, ABUDRAHM, PARTRIDGE, WEITZMAN, TAFT AND RIECHARDT IN YOUR OPENING COMMENTS.
RIGHT. I WAS REFERRING TO THE LIST AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 1. AND I DID IN FACT MENTION THE OTHERS. AND AS I SAID, THERE ARE NO REPORTS, BUT I DID IN FACT MENTION THEM. BUT I THINK AGAIN, YOUR HONOR, THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW -- THE PROSECUTION, YOUR HONOR, KNOWS ABOUT HOWARD WEITZMAN AND SKIP TAFT BECAUSE THEY WERE DOWN THERE WITH MR. SIMPSON AT THE TIME HE GAVE A STATEMENT. NOW, WE DON'T HAVE A STATEMENT AND IT WAS AN OVERSIGHT AND THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUT ON THE LIST. THESE ARE TWO LAWYERS. NOW, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK THE COURT IS GOING TO SHOOT ME OVER THAT. I MEAN I THINK THAT -- YOU MAY WANT TO.
I DON'T THINK YOU ARE GOING TO SHOOT ME OVER THAT. AND CHRISTIAN RIECHARDT, YOUR HONOR, THEY KNOW ABOUT -- THEY EVEN INTERVIEWED HIM. THEY KNOW THAT'S FAY RESNICK'S BOYFRIEND. AND I THINK, AS I SAID, WITH MARK PARTRIDGE, THEY HAD A STATEMENT ON HIM. SO I THINK THE COURT SHOULD LISTEN TO US. I WOULD LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND SPECIFICALLY WHEN THEY'RE READY. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED, YOUR HONOR. LET ME JUST CLOSE BY SAYING, THE COURT CAN GIVE THESE PROPOSED SANCTIONS, AND YOU'VE DONE THAT FOR THE PROSECUTION. I MEAN IT SHOULD BE CLEAR THEY WERE SANCTIONED, AND YOU DID THAT, AND NOW YOU IMPOSE SANCTIONS UPON US. WE WILL PROCEED WITH THOSE. I THINK YOU SHOULD MAKE SOME ADJUSTMENT IN THE ORDER REGARDING THE DELAY. I THINK IT'S NOT FAIR TO SAY IT'S ONLY THE DEFENSE. BUT WE'RE THEN READY TO PROCEED, YOUR HONOR, AND I WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO PROCEED THIS MORNING. KEEP IN MIND, IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT SANCTIONS, HOW UNFAIR IT IS TO MR. O.J. SIMPSON, THAT, NUMBER ONE, THROUGH NO FAULT OF HIS, I COULDN'T RESPOND IMMEDIATELY WHEN THE PROSECUTORS WERE FINISHED ON TUESDAY. THE COURT DECLARED A RECESS. ON WEDNESDAY, I WAS ABLE TO START RESPONDING, AND WE HAD ALL THESE OBJECTIONS FROM THE PROSECUTION. THEN MR. HODGMAN GETS SICK. AND THURSDAY AND FRIDAY, WE'VE BEEN OFF. THE COURT SAYS BE READY AT 9:00 O'CLOCK. WE COME IN, WE GET THE ORDER ABOUT 8:30. WE'RE READY, READY AGAIN. I'VE BEEN READY FOR ABOUT NOW 10 DAYS TO GIVE THIS OPENING STATEMENT. NOW THE PROSECUTOR SAYS, GEE, JUDGE, WE NEED NOW UNTIL 1:30. I MEAN SOMETIME, AT SOME TIME, I SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO COMPLETE THE OPENING STATEMENT, JUDGE. AND I THINK THAT THAT ALSO HAS TAKEN THE FORM OF A SANCTION AND I THINK IT'S A SANCTION THAT IS NOT ONLY UPON THE DEFENSE, BUT DIRECTLY UPON MR. SIMPSON, AND I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO ALLOW US TO GO FORWARD AT THIS POINT.
KEY QUOTEMISS CLARK. I THINK WHAT I'M MOST INTERESTED IN IS HEARING WHAT YOUR CONTEMPLATION IS OF YOUR PROFFER REGARDING THE REOPENING OF OPENING STATEMENT.
WE HAVE AMASSED INFORMATION ON SEVERAL OF THE WITNESSES MENTIONED BY MR. COCHRAN THAT ALLOWS US TO UNDERSTAND PRECISELY WHY HE HID THEM THE WAY HE DID, AND WE ARE GOING TO PREPARE THOSE REMARKS FOR THE COURT. WE HAVE BEEN ASSEMBLING THAT INFORMATION OVER THE WEEKEND, AND NOW THAT WE'RE FINALLY IN POSSESSION OF THE COURT'S RULING, WE WILL ADDRESS WHAT THE COURT ASKED US TO ADDRESS. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PUT THAT TOGETHER IN A FORM THAT WILL ALLOW ME TO SUCCINCTLY STATE FOR THE COURT WHAT THE POINTS ARE THAT WE INTEND TO ADDRESS WITH EACH WITNESS. I WOULD SIMPLY INDICATE THAT THE STATEMENT TAKEN FROM MARY ANNE GERCHAS MOST RECENTLY REFLECTS THE FACT THAT COUNSEL, COUNSEL ALONE WAS IN POSSESSION OF HER STATEMENT, THAT SHE ASKED COUNSEL TO TURN HER STATEMENT OVER TO THE PROSECUTION AND COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE NEVER DID. SHE INDICATES VERY SPECIFICALLY THAT SHE SPOKE TO MR. HOSTETLER, WHO WE KNEW TO BE ONE OF THE INVESTIGATORS FOR THE DEFENSE, AND SHE TOLD HIM THAT SHE WANTED THEM TO TURN THE STATEMENT OVER TO US. SO EVEN THE WITNESSES ASKED TO DO THAT AND DEFENSE WILLFULLY REFUSED TO DO SO.
WELL, MISS CLARK, YOU ARE ARGUING AN ISSUE AND RULING THAT THE COURT HAS ALREADY MADE. I'VE ALREADY MADE A FINDING ADVERSE TO THE DEFENSE. I'VE GRANTED A LARGE NUMBER OF THE SANCTIONS THAT YOU'VE REQUESTED. I AM GOING TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT A TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW OF DISCOVERY HAS OCCURRED AND HAS BEEN PART OF THE CAUSE OF THE DELAY. SO TO ARGUE THE BASIS FOR THE COURT'S RULING AT THIS POINT DOESN'T HELP ME A LOT. WHAT I NEED TO KNOW IS, ASSUMING I AM WILLING TO ALLOW YOU TO REOPEN, SINCE THIS IS A HIGHLY UNUSUAL REMEDY THAT YOU ASKED FOR AND THE FACT THAT THERE'S ONLY ONE CIVIL CASE THAT DEALS WITH THAT -- I HAVE NEVER SEEN A CASE ALLOWING REOPENING AFTER A DISCOVERY SANCTION HAS BEEN PROPOSED.
WHEN HAS THE COURT SEEN AN ABUSE -- BUT WHEN HAS THE COURT SEEN A VIOLATION THIS SEVERE?
YOU ARE ARGUING -- I'VE ALREADY RULED IN YOUR FAVOR, MISS CLARK. YOU DON'T NEED TO TELL ME HOW SEVERE IT IS. YOU DON'T NEED TO TELL ME WHAT THE BASIS IS. I THINK THE RULING SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.
ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE NATURE OF THE COURT'S FINDING AS TO INTENT AND TACTICAL ADVANTAGE, WHICH IS AS HARSH A FINDING THAT THE COURT CAN MAKE UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. SO MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, IF I GRANT YOUR MOTION TO REOPEN, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO SAY TO THE JURY? THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE.
KEY QUOTEAND WHAT I WOULD ANTICIPATE YOU ARE GOING TO SAY IS THAT YOU ARE GOING TO TELL THE LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF OUR JURY, HAD THE PROSECUTION KNOWN OF THESE PERSONS, WE WOULD HAVE TOLD YOU ABOUT THEM, X, Y AND Z, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO PROVE. I THINK THAT'S ABOUT THE MAXIMUM PERIMETER THAT I WOULD ENTERTAIN, AND I STRESS THE WORD "ENTERTAIN". ALL RIGHT. AT THIS POINT THEN, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE PROCEED THEN WITH THE CONCLUSION OF MR. COCHRAN'S OPENING REMARKS. AND THAT AFTER THE LUNCH HOUR, YOU WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK AND ASK ME TO REOPEN, AND I'LL RULE AT THAT TIME BASED UPON YOUR PROFFER AFTER I HEAR MR. COCHRAN'S OBJECTIONS. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT SO WE CAN MAKE GOOD USE OF THE COURT TIME SINCE WE HAVE OUR JURORS SEATED READY, WILLING, ABLE TO GO. YOU WANT TO DISCUSS THAT WITH MR. DARDEN FOR A MOMENT?
MR. COCHRAN INDICATED JUST NOW THAT SOME OF THE EXPERTS HAVE NOT EVEN EXAMINED THE EVIDENCE, AND I FIND IT INCREDIBLE THAT ANY OFFICER OF THE COURT COULD STAND BEFORE A JURY AND REPRESENT WHAT CONCLUSIONS AND FINDINGS HAVE BEEN MADE WHEN THE EXPERTS HAVE NOT EVEN CONDUCTED AN EXAMINATION. THAT ASSERTION THAT THEY HAVE NOT EVEN EXAMINED THE EVIDENCE IS INCREDIBLE TO ME. IF THAT IS THE CASE, AND HE'S MADE REPRESENTATIONS AS TO WHAT THEIR FINDINGS ARE, I THINK THAT THERE'S A GREAT DEAL OF CREDIBILITY LOST WITH RESPECT TO THOSE WITNESSES. OBVIOUSLY IT'S GOING TO BE A BOOTSTRAP CONCLUSION. COUNSEL, WHO IS NOT AN EXPERT, CAN STAND UP AND TELL THIS JURY BEFORE AN EXAMINATION OF EVIDENCE IS CONDUCTED WHAT THE RESULT WILL BE, I FIND THAT REMARKABLE, AND I THINK THE JURY SHOULD BE INFORMED OF THAT FACT. I THINK THEY SHOULD BE TOLD, YOUR HONOR.
MISS CLARK, THAT'S AN INTERESTING POINT, BUT I DON'T KNOW THE FULL PERIMETERS OF WHAT IT IS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT UNTIL THE DISCLOSURES OF EXPERT WITNESS LISTS HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED AS I ORDERED TODAY. I CAN ALWAYS REINSTRUCT AND READMONISH THE JURY AT ANY TIME DURING THE COURSE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. YOU CAN ALSO BRING UP DURING THE COURSE OF YOUR CLOSING ARGUMENT THAT CONTRADICTION.
I AM AWARE OF THAT, YOUR HONOR. BUT THAT DOESN'T ADDRESS THE HARM THAT'S ALREADY BEEN CAUSED IN THAT COUNSEL HAS INDICATED TO THE JURY CERTAIN EXPERTS EXIST WHO WILL TESTIFY TO THE FOLLOWING, AND WE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE AND NO PRIOR DISCOVERY OF ANY -- NOT EVEN THEIR NAMES. ONLY THIS MORNING, BECAUSE THE COURT INDICATED IT HAD A SUSPICION ABOUT WHO THAT WAS, DID WE FIND OUT WHO THAT WAS. NOW HE TELLS US --
WELL, IT'S NOT A SUSPICION. IT'S JUST A LOGICAL CONCLUSION FROM WHAT WE ALREADY ALL KNOW ABOUT THE CASE.
SO COUNSEL IS INDICATING NOW THAT HE IS GOING TO TESTIFY TO TIRE TRACKS AND TO SHOE PRINTS THAT WERE FOUND AT BUNDY, WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO REPORT, NO KNOWLEDGE AND NO INFORMATION THAT ANY SUCH TESTIMONY WOULD BE FORTHCOMING. THOSE SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE DISCOVERY SANCTIONS AS WELL. WITH RESPECT TO LENORE WALKER, I'M PARTICULARLY SURPRISED AND DISMAYED AT WHAT COUNSEL HAS REPRESENTED TO THIS COURT. COUNSEL REPRESENTED TO THIS COURT WHEN LAST WE WERE HERE THAT LENORE WALKER WAS ONLY ADDED TO -- WAS ONLY CONTACTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF TESTIFYING IN THIS MATTER IN JANUARY, WHAT, JUST A FEW DAYS BEFORE THE DISCOVERY HEARINGS OCCURRED. THAT'S FALSE. IT WAS STATED IN THE LOS ANGELES TIMES BY DR. LENORE WALKER HERSELF THAT SHE WAS RETAINED BY COUNSEL IN THE SUMMER OF '94 AND THAT SHE HAS SPOKEN TO THE DEFENDANT FOR HOURS IN PREPARATION FOR HER TESTIMONY. SO THE VIOLATION IS EVEN MORE FLAGRANT WITH RESPECT TO HER. AT LEAST THAT'S ACCORDING TO WHAT SHE SAID TO THE L.A. TIMES. SO COUNSEL HAS -- IS NOW CONTINUING TO PERPETRATE A FRAUD UPON THIS COURT, IS CONTINUING TO MAKE MISREPRESENTATIONS CONCERNING THE NATURE OF THE WITNESSES THAT THEY HAVE CONTACTED AND THEIR INVOLVEMENT IN THE CASE. HE IS STILL WITHHOLDING MORE INFORMATION. THERE ARE WITNESSES WHOSE NAMES WE STILL DON'T HAVE, AND OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE NO REPORTS. THAT'S A FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF THE LAW. AND NOW IT'S COMPOUNDED BY COUNSEL'S WILLFUL ASSERTIONS TO THE CONTRARY WHERE THE WITNESSES ARE TELLING US IN TERMS OF WHEN THEY WERE RETAINED. HOW CAN THAT POSSIBLY BE SWEPT UNDER THE RUG? THE JURY SHOULD BE TOLD ALL OF THIS.
THAT'S AN ARTICLE IN THE L.A. TIMES TODAY I UNDERSTAND OR YESTERDAY. WAS IT YESTERDAY OR TODAY?
I HAVE IT UPSTAIRS. I BELIEVE IT'S IN THE SUNDAY TIMES, YOUR HONOR. AND IF THE COURT WOULD LIKE, I COULD HAVE IT BROUGHT DOWN.
BUT BEFORE WE -- MR. COCHRAN, YOU INDICATED A DESIRE TO ADDRESS THAT SPECIFIC ISSUE?
I THINK I READ THE ARTICLE. AND WHAT IT INDICATED -- FIRST OF ALL, IT SAID, IF I RECALL, DR. LENORE WALKER HAD KNOWN ME SINCE THE TIME I WAS ASSISTANT D.A. AND WORKED IN THIS OFFICE, IN THE D.A.'S OFFICE, THAT I HAD -- SHE AND GERALDINE BUTTS STAHLY HAD WORKED ON CASES THAT I HAD THE BATTERED WOMEN'S SYNDROME AS A DEFENSE IN OTHER MURDER CASES. I THINK IT ALSO INDICATED THAT SHE WAS CONTACTED I BELIEVE IN DECEMBER, BUT SHE WAS NOT RETAINED OR BROUGHT FORWARD ON THIS CASE, YOUR HONOR, UNTIL AFTER YOU RULED ON THE DOMESTIC DISCORD. IT DIDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. WE DIDN'T NEED HER UNTIL THAT POINT. WE DON'T HAVE A REPORT. IF THE COURT CHECKS YOUR HONOR'S RECORDS WHEN WE MADE AN APPLICATION FOR LENORE WALKER TO GO INTO THE JAIL TO SEE MR. SIMPSON ALONG WITH GERALDINE BUTTS STAHLY, WHO SAW HIM -- HAS NOT EVEN CONCLUDED -- SAW HIM AS LATE AS THIS PAST FRIDAY -- THE COURT WILL KNOW THE TIME SHE WENT TO SEE HIM. WE DON'T HAVE A REPORT AND SHE CAME ABOUT -- SHE IS ONLY RELEVANT, YOUR HONOR, AFTER YOU RULED ON THE DOMESTIC DISCORD. I'VE KNOWN HER FOR SOME TIME, BUT SHE WAS NOT RELEVANT IN THIS CASE UNTIL THAT TIME. SO I THINK -- I WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY -- SHE HAS PROBABLY TALKED TO -- I CALLED FIRST TIME IN THE FALL, BUT SHE DIDN'T GET INVOLVED IN THE CASE UNTIL AFTER THE DOMESTIC DISCORD. I KNEW HER EVER SINCE 19 -- SINCE THE 80'S.
ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, LET ME ASK YOUR STAFF TO BRING DOWN THE L.A. TIMES ARTICLE, ALTHOUGH OBVIOUSLY THAT SOURCE IS HEARSAY.
IT'S RIGHT FROM THE WITNESS' MOUTH, YOUR HONOR. LET ME ALSO INDICATE THAT WITH RESPECT TO MARY ANN GERCHAS, IN HER STATEMENT TO US TAKEN MOST RECENTLY AFTER COUNSEL'S OPENING STATEMENT, SHE INDICATES THAT SHE TURNED OVER HER DAILY RUNNER, THAT'S A DAILY CALENDAR, TO COUNSEL.
OKAY. AND THAT HAS NEVER BEEN TURNED OVER TO US. IN FACT, IT WAS NEVER EVEN MENTIONED THAT THEY HAD IT. SHE INDICATES THAT SHE TURNED IT OVER TO THEM AND THEY HAVE NEVER TURNED IT OVER.
ALL RIGHT. WELL, I CAN SEE THIS IS GOING TO BE AN ON-GOING PROCEDURE HERE. MISS CLARK, HOWEVER, I THINK MY SUGGESTION, THAT AFTER THE DEFENSE HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDER REGARDING EXPERT WITNESSES, WE CAN REVISIT THE MATTER AGAIN, AND I CAN STILL REINSTRUCT THE JURY AT ANY TIME DURING THE COURSE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS REGARDING DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT IN OUR PROFFER TO REOPEN, WE WOULD LIKE TO INCLUDE THOSE EXPERT WITNESSES.
ALL RIGHT. WELL, WHEN I HEAR THE PROFFER, I'LL RULE ON IT. BUT MY INCLINATION THIS MORNING IS TO GO FORWARD WITH THE JURY, HAVE MR. COCHRAN COMPLETE HIS OPENING STATEMENTS, THEN I'LL HEAR YOUR PROFFER AND WE'LL SEE WHERE WE ARE. ALL RIGHT?
CAN WE AT LEAST HAVE THE DEFENSE GIVE US THE NAMES OF THE WITNESSES THEY INTEND TO CALL AS TO THE MATTERS I DESCRIBED, THE TIRE TRACKS, THE SHOE PRINTS, THE FINGER CUT, THE RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS, THOSE MATTERS?
ALL RIGHT. THAT SEEMS TO ME TO BE A CLEAR INTENT TO CALL THESE PERSONS AS WITNESSES. SO I THINK THEIR IDENTITY NEEDS TO BE DISCLOSED OR SHOULD HAVE PREVIOUSLY BEEN DISCLOSED. MR. COCHRAN? I AGREE THAT HER REQUEST IS WELL TAKEN.
CERTAINLY, YOUR HONOR. WE WILL PREPARE THAT, YOUR HONOR, IF YOU GIVE US A FEW MINUTES.
WELL, WE WILL HAVE TO TAKE A 20-MINUTE BREAK JUST TO BRING THE JURY DOWN IN ANY EVENT.
I'M GOING TO ORDER YOU TO RETURN TO THIS COURTROOM ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY THE 9TH, AT 9:00 A.M. WITHOUT FURTHER ORDER, NOTICE OR SUBPOENA. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE ORDER, MA'AM?
MR. COCHRAN INDICATED HE AND MR. DOUGLAS WERE GOING TO CONFIRM AND PREPARE A LIST FOR YOU IN THE 20 MINUTES THAT IT TAKES TO BRING THE JURY DOWN. ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE THE JURY, DEPUTY MAGNERA. THANK YOU.
NEXT VIOLATION WILL BE DEALT WITH BY SANCTIONS, INCLUDING CONTEMPT.
COUNSEL HAS -- IS NOW CONTINUING TO PERPETRATE A FRAUD UPON THIS COURT, IS CONTINUING TO MAKE MISREPRESENTATIONS CONCERNING THE NATURE OF THE WITNESSES THAT THEY HAVE CONTACTED AND THEIR INVOLVEMENT IN THE CASE.
SOMETIME, AT SOME TIME, I SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO COMPLETE THE OPENING STATEMENT, JUDGE. AND I THINK THAT THAT ALSO HAS TAKEN THE FORM OF A SANCTION AND I THINK IT'S A SANCTION THAT IS NOT ONLY UPON THE DEFENSE, BUT DIRECTLY UPON MR. SIMPSON.
ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE NATURE OF THE COURT'S FINDING AS TO INTENT AND TACTICAL ADVANTAGE, WHICH IS AS HARSH A FINDING THAT THE COURT CAN MAKE UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.
I DON'T THINK YOU ARE GOING TO SHOOT ME OVER THAT. I MEAN I THINK THAT -- YOU MAY WANT TO.