ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE IT QUIET IN THE COURTROOM, PLEASE. ALL RIGHT. BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. MISS CLARK, MR. DARDEN. IS THERE AN OFFER REGARDING THE SUBSTANCE OF REOPENING OPENING STATEMENT?
YES, YOUR HONOR, THERE IS. THANK YOU. THE PEOPLE WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE RIGHT TO ADDRESS THE JURY WITH RESPECT TO, NO. 1, MARY ANNE GERCHAS.
WHAT DO YOU PROPOSE TO SAY -- WHAT WOULD YOU MENTION IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT REGARDING MISS GERCHAS?
COUNSEL FAILED TO GIVE US NOTICE THAT HE INTENDED TO CALL THIS WITNESS. DUE TO THE FACT THAT HE WILLFULLY WITHHELD THE INFORMATION, WE WERE UNABLE TO INVESTIGATE HER, BUT AS OF THIS DATE, IN THE LAST THREE DAYS, OUR INVESTIGATION HAS UNCOVERED THE FOLLOWING, AND I BELIEVE MR. DARDEN HAS ALREADY INDICATED TO THE COURT WHAT THAT WAS: THE $24,000 DEBT OWED TO THE MARRIOTT FOR STAYING AT THE HOTEL ON A BAD CREDIT CARD, THE TWENTY SOME ODD LAWSUITS PENDING AGAINST HER.
34, THANK YOU. 34 LAWSUITS PENDING AGAINST HER, HER FAILURE TO MAKE -- HER COMPLETE FAILURE TO MAKE MENTION OF THE ALLEGED OBSERVATIONS SHE MADE TO ANYONE FOR A PERIOD OF AT LEAST TWO TO THREE WEEKS AFTER THE MURDERS, THE FACT THAT SHE IS AN AVID O.J. FAN, HAS COLLECTED EVERYTHING CONNECTED WITH THIS CASE, ESPECIALLY ALL TABLOIDS, AND -- MAY I HAVE ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?
THIS INFORMATION IS COMING AT US SO QUICKLY IT IS HARD TO REMEMBER ALL OF IT. ESPECIALLY, I WANT TO APOLOGIZE TO THE COURT I HAD ABOUT THREE HOURS SLEEP BECAUSE OF CHILD PROBLEMS. THEY DIDN'T WANT TO SLEEP AND THEREFORE I DON'T GET TO EITHER. THE OTHER FACT IS THAT SHE TOLD OTHERS THAT SHE WAS NOT IN FACT LOOKING FOR A CONDOMINIUM IN THAT LOCATION THAT NIGHT, AND TOLD OTHERS OF THAT FACT, THAT SHE HAD NOT BEEN THERE. ALSO, THAT THERE ARE -- SHE HAS THREE VARIATIONS TO HER NAME AND IT LOOKS LIKE THREE DIFFERENT SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS. WITH RESPECT TO ROSA LOPEZ, I WOULD INDICATE TO THE COURT THAT ROSA LOPEZ GAVE -- THE STATEMENT EVEN SHE GAVE TO COUNSEL DOES NOT REFLECT THAT SHE GAVE ANY OF THE OBSERVATIONS CONCERNING THE BRONCO TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, YET THAT IS WHAT COUNSEL REPRESENTED; THEREFORE, WE DO NOT HAVE DISCOVERY OF THIS FURTHER STATEMENT THAT COUNSEL MUST BE IN POSSESSION OF. HER STATEMENT REFLECTS ONLY THAT SHE TOLD DETECTIVE FUHRMAN SHE HEARD SOME NOISES THAT NIGHT. THAT IS ALL SHE SAID. COUNSEL'S STATEMENT INDICATES QUITE DIFFERENTLY, THAT SHE HAD INDICATED TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN SHE HAD SEEN THE BRONCO THERE AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION AT 10:15. THAT IS NOT WHAT THE STATEMENT REFLECTS. AND WE WOULD ASK LEAVE OF THE COURT TO ADDRESS THE JURY WITH RESPECT TO ROSA LOPEZ' PRIOR STATEMENTS OF ANIMOSITY AND BIAS AGAINST NICOLE, THAT SHE HATED NICOLE. SHE MADE STATEMENTS TO OTHERS INDICATING THAT SHE LOVED O.J. AND WOULD DO ANYTHING FOR HIM AND WOULD TESTIFY TO ANYTHING FOR HIM. FURTHERMORE, THAT SHE MADE OTHER STATEMENTS TO OTHER PARTIES, INDICATING THAT SHE ALSO HAD NO AWARENESS OF ANY UNUSUAL EVENTS THAT TRANSPIRED THAT NIGHT AND THAT -- AND THAT HER STORY WAS SO INCREDIBLE THAT WHEN SHE ATTEMPTED TO SELL IT TO THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER THEY DECLINED TO PRINT IT. AND THAT WE WOULD HAVE TOLD THE JURY ABOUT ALL OF THESE THINGS, ABOUT THESE WITNESSES, HAD WE BEEN --
SO WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A TRIAL ABOUT THE CREDIBILITY OF THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER?
KEY QUOTEWE ARE GOING TO HAVE A TRIAL ABOUT THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES WHO ARE SO UNCREDIBLE THAT EVEN THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER WOULD NOT USE THEIR STORY.
KEY QUOTETHAT TELLS YOU HOW -- IT CERTAINLY TELLS THE COURT HOW UNCREDIBLE THAT WITNESS IS IF EVEN THEY DECLINED TO USE IT. AND THAT WE WOULD HAVE INFORMED THE JURY OF THOSE WITNESSES AND OF THOSE FACTS BUT WE WERE UNABLE TO DO SO BECAUSE COUNSEL WILLFULLY WITHHELD THEM. THIRDLY, WITH RESPECT TO THE RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS, THE CHRONIC AND ACUTE PHASE AS DESCRIBED BY COUNSEL, AGAIN THESE WITNESSES WERE NOT DISCLOSED TO US AND NO STATEMENTS WERE DISCLOSED TO US INDICATIVE OF THE POSSIBILITY THAT THEY WOULD BE CALLED FOR THE PURPOSES OUTLINED BY COUNSEL, AND HAD WE KNOWN, WE WOULD HAVE SHOWN THEM THE VIDEOTAPE OF THE WORKOUT TAPE MADE BY THE DEFENDANT TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE MURDERS AND WE WOULD LIKE TO SHOW THEM SOME OF THE OUTTAKES OF THAT VIDEOTAPE. AND FINALLY, TO CORRECT COUNSEL'S ENTIRELY MISLEADING -- MISREPRESENTATIVE STATEMENTS CONCERNING THE EAP MARKERS ON THE VICTIM'S BLOOD AND VICTIM'S THIGH AND ON HER NAILS. COUNSEL MISREPRESENTED THE NATURE OF THE REPORT TO THE JURY IN A MANNER THAT IS SO CONFUSING AND MISLEADING THAT IF WE HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THAT TESTIMONY IS FORTHCOMING, THE JURY WILL BE HOPELESSLY LOST. THE PROBLEM IS THAT WE HAVE A DIAMETRIC OPPOSITION BETWEEN THE REPORT AND WHAT WAS ACTUALLY SAID TO THE JURY BY MR. COCHRAN. THE REPORT INDICATED THAT THE B TYPE THAT CAME UP ON EAP MARKER WAS INCONSISTENT WITH ANY OF THE THREE PARTIES AND WENT ON TO STATE, WHICH IS WHAT MR. COCHRAN NEVER LET THE JURY KNOW, THAT THAT DID NOT RULE OUT NICOLE SIMPSON AS A POSSIBLE SOURCE BECAUSE HER TYPE BEING A BA, THIS IS A VERY LABILE MARKER, WHICH MEANS THAT IN ESSENCE THE A FALLS OFF WHEN THERE IS DEGRADATION, THAT THERE WAS IN FACT EVIDENCE OF DEGRADATION OF THIS BLOOD BECAUSE HER HAND WAS FOUND CLUTCHING HER NECK UNDER HER BODY WHERE THE BLOOD WAS WARM, VERY WET AND VERY SUBJECT TO DEGRADATION IN A RAPID MANNER, WHICH IS WHAT CAUSED THE DEGRADATION FROM BA TO B AND THAT IS WHAT THE REPORT REFLECTS. AND MOREOVER, COUNSEL DIRECTLY MISREPRESENTED THE CONCLUSION OF THE EXPERT WITH RESPECT TO THE BLOOD ON THE THIGH. THAT BLOOD INDICATED A FAINT A ACTIVITY. IT WAS A FAINT A ACTIVITY THAT IS INDICATIVE OF THE POSSIBILITY THAT IT WAS HER BLOOD, IT WAS CONSISTENT WITH HER, AND SO THE CONCLUSION WAS INCONCLUSIVE, NOT THAT IT WAS NOT CONSISTENT WITH HER AT ALL. SO RIGHT NOW THE JURY IS SITTING THERE HAVING BEEN TOTALLY MISLED AS TO THE NATURE OF THE FINDINGS, NOT ONLY THAT, AND MISLED AS TO THE CONTENTS OF THE REPORT BECAUSE COUNSEL EXCERPTED PORTIONS UNFAIRLY. I UNDERSTAND COUNSEL DOESN'T HAVE TO READ THE WHOLE REPORT, BUT IT SHOULD BE READ WITH RESPECT TO ALL OF THE CONCLUSIONS, NOT JUST THE ONE THAT SUITS COUNSEL WITH RESPECT TO THIS PARTICULAR ITEM OF EVIDENCE, AND THAT IS WHAT WAS UNFAIR. WE WOULD ASK LEAVE OF THE COURT TO INFORM THE JURY OF THE FACT THAT THEY WERE MISLED, THAT THE REPORT ACTUALLY STATES AS FOLLOWS, AND TO HIGHLIGHT ALL OF THE PORTIONS. AT THIS POINT, YOUR HONOR, COUNSEL'S STATEMENTS TO THE JURY HAVE CAUSED, BECAUSE OF THE NATIONAL TELEVISED NATURE OF THIS TRIAL, THE WHOLE COUNTRY HAS BEEN MISLED AS TO THE TRUTH. THE TRUTH HAS BEEN HIDDEN, HAS BEEN OBSCURED BY COUNSEL WILLFULLY. COUNSELS KNOWS THE TRUTH, COUNSEL KNOWS WHAT WE HAVE IN THIS BLOOD, COUNSEL KNOWS THAT THE PGM SUBTYPING HAS SHOWN THAT IT IS HER BLOOD, AND COUNSEL KNOWS THAT TESTS ARE ONGOING, THAT IT WILL FURTHER ESTABLISH THAT IT IS HER BLOOD UNDER HER NAILS AND ON HER THIGH, BUT WE HAVE A WHOLE NATION HOW WHO HAS BEEN MISLED AS TO THE NATURE OF THIS EVIDENCE. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, THAT THIS JURY HAS BEEN WILLFULLY MISLED AND BEEN MADE TO BELIEVE THAT THE CONCLUSIONS ARE DIAMETRICALLY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THEY REALLY WERE. SO WE WOULD ASK LEAVE OF THE COURT TO ADDRESS THE JURY WITH RESPECT TO THAT ITEM AS WELL.
LET ME ASK YOU THIS, MISS CLARK. LET'S TAKE IT FROM THE TOP. AS TO MISS GERCHAS, THERE IS THE CLAIM OF RIGHT TO REOPEN SINCE THERE WAS NO NOTICE GIVEN OF THIS PERSON'S STATEMENT. THIS IS THE PERSON WHO IS ALLEGED TO HAVE SEEN FOUR INDIVIDUALS IN THE VICINITY LEAVING THE SCENE ROUGHLY AT A TIME CONSISTENT WITH THIS PARTICULAR CRIME, SO OBVIOUSLY THIS IS AN IMPORTANT WITNESS IF THIS TESTIMONY PANS OUT. WHAT IN YOUR OFFER OF PROOF DO YOU BELIEVE SHOWS LACK OF CREDIBILITY AND WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE AS IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE? I MEAN, YOU HAVE GIVEN ME THE FACT THAT SOMEBODY HAS 34 PENDING LAWSUITS AGAINST THEM DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THEY ARE NOT A CREDIBLE PERSON. I MEAN, THEY COULD BE ALL CAR CRASHES FOR ALL WE KNOW. I DON'T KNOW.
I MEAN, OTHER STATEMENTS THAT ARE INCONSISTENT, THAT SORT OF THING. I MEAN, THAT IS A DIFFERENT ISSUE. IT HAS TO GO DIRECTLY TO CREDIBILITY, OTHER BAD ACTS.
YES. I APPRECIATE THAT, YOUR HONOR. WITH RESPECT TO THOSE LAWSUITS, WE WILL BE CALLING WITNESSES TO TESTIFY TO THE FACT THAT THEY WERE FOR FRAUD, WHICH DOES GO DIRECTLY TO CREDIBILITY.
HOW MANY OF THESE LAWSUITS ARE ACTUALLY FINAL WITH JUDGMENTS RENDERED AGAINST MISS GERCHAS FOR FRAUD OR FRAUDULENT ACTIVITY, BECAUSE I'M NOT WILLING TO LITIGATE TWENTY OTHER LAWSUITS IF THERE ISN'T SOME VERDICT IN THEM.
WE COULD SIMPLY CALL THE PARTIES TO THE LAWSUIT TO INDICATE WHY THEY HAVE SUED HER. THEY WOULD INDICATE THAT I BELIEVE WITH RESPECT TO ALMOST ALL OF THESE LAWSUITS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, ALL 34, THEY ALL DEAL WITH FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATIONS IN THE OPERATION OF HER BUSINESS, AND --
BECAUSE COUNSEL HAS HAMSTRUNG US BY HIDING THIS WITNESS, WE HAVE NOT HAD A GREAT DEAL OF TIME TO COMPLETE THE INVESTIGATION, AND WE HAVE OBTAINED A LIST OF ALL OF THE -- THAT IS WHAT MR. DARDEN IS HOLDING RIGHT NOW -- A LIST OF ALL THE FILES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE AGAINST HER, BUT WE HAVE TO INVESTIGATE EACH AND EVERY ONE TO DETERMINE THE RESOLUTION OF EACH ONE. IF COUNSEL HAD GIVEN US THIS INFORMATION IN A TIMELY FASHION, YOUR HONOR, I COULD HAVE STOOD HERE BEFORE THE COURT AND EXPLAINED AND GIVEN THE ANSWERS TO ALL OF THIS A LONG TIME AGO, BUT IT HAS BEEN SEVEN MONTHS SINCE THEY TOOK THE STATEMENT AND WE JUST GOT THE NOTION OF HER EXISTENCE LAST WEEK.
WELL, MISS CLARK, THEN SINCE THESE REVELATIONS ON WEDNESDAY, YOU HAVEN'T SENT A LAW CLERK OVER TO THE CIVIL INDEX TO GO CHECK THE STATUS OF ALL THESE CASES?
WE ARE CHECKING MANY DIFFERENT -- WE ARE MAKING CHECKS ON ALL OF THE REPRESENTATIONS OF COUNSEL. THERE IS A LOT TO CHECK, YOUR HONOR, AND WITH ROSA LOPEZ AS WELL.
WOULDN'T YOU SAY THIS IS A RATHER KEY -- KEY PLACE WHERE YOU SHOULD FOCUS YOUR EFFORT?
IT IS ONE OF THEM, YES, AND WE HAVE BEEN. WE HAVE INVESTIGATORS OUT RIGHT NOW AND WE HAVE HAD. THAT IS ONE OF THE MANY AREAS REGARDING MISS GERCHAS THAT WE ARE INVESTIGATING, BUT THERE IS A LOT TO INVESTIGATE IN MISS GERCHAS, JUST -- A LOT, NOT TO MENTION THE THREE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS, THE THREE PHONY NAMES. THERE IS A LOT TO TALK ABOUT WITH THIS GIRL.
RIGHT IN FRONT OF US WE HAVE FOUR JUDGMENTS SHOWN AND WE HAVE ADDITIONAL PAPERWORK THAT WE ARE GOING THROUGH UPSTAIRS AS WE SPEAK.
SO WHAT ARE YOU ASKING FOR ME TO DO? TO DELAY THESE PROCEEDINGS UNTIL YOU COMPLETE YOUR INVESTIGATION?
I DON'T THINK IT IS ASKING FOR VERY MUCH TO ASK FOR SOME ADDITIONAL TIME TO BE ABLE TO PRESENT TO THE JURY AN OPENING STATEMENT THAT COMPRISES ALL OF THE FACTS, SINCE IT IS NOT OUR FAULT THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO INVESTIGATE THIS PERSON.
ALL RIGHT. LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT ROSA LOPEZ. MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT HER NAME DOES APPEAR ON THE DEFENSE WITNESS LIST AND THAT YOU DID HAVE INFORMATION REGARDING HER PREVIOUSLY; IS THAT CORRECT?
YES. WE HAD LIMITED INFORMATION REGARDING HER. WE HAVE NEW REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY COUNSEL THAT INDICATE THAT THERE ARE OTHER STATEMENTS THAT WE ARE NOT IN POSSESSION OF. THE ACTUAL STATEMENT GIVEN TO US BY COUNSEL INDICATES THAT WHAT SHE TOLD DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WAS THAT SHE HEARD SOME NOISES LAST NIGHT. THAT IS ALL IT SAYS. COUNSEL MADE REPRESENTATIONS THAT SHE TOLD DETECTIVE FUHRMAN THAT SHE WAS OUT AT 10:15 AND SAW THE BRONCO ON ROCKINGHAM, THAT SHE WAS OUT EARLIER AT 8:30 AND SAW THE BRONCO ON ROCKINGHAM, THAT --
-- THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WAS IN POSSESSION OF ALL OF THESE FACTS AND ALL OF THOSE DETAILS WHEN IN FACT THEIR OWN WITNESS STATEMENT INDICATES ONLY THAT SHE TOLD DETECTIVE FUHRMAN SHE HEARD SOME NOISES LAST NIGHT, PERIOD. NO MENTION OF A BRONCO, NO MENTION OF BEING OUT WALKING HER DOG, NO MENTION OF SEEING THE BRONCO ANYWHERE.
SEPTEMBER 1, SO WHAT COUNSEL REPRESENTED AS HAVING BEEN STATED BY THIS WITNESS TO THE JURY IS NOT AT ALL WHAT WAS CONTAINED IN THE JURY STATEMENT THAT HE GAVE TO US.
ALL RIGHT. HERE IS ONE OF THE DIFFICULTIES, MISS CLARK. YOU ARE ARGUING ROSA LOPEZ. THIS IS THE FIRST ARGUMENT REGARDING ROSA LOPEZ FROM THE PROSECUTION POINT OF VIEW. SHE WAS NOT PART OF OUR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS MOTION, TO MY RECOLLECTION.
NO, I KNOW. I KNOW, YOUR HONOR. WE HAD TO GO THROUGH THE TRANSCRIPT -- YOU HAVE TO -- YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU TELL US TO GO AND DO SOMETHING, IT DOESN'T JUST HAPPEN LIKE THAT. WE HAVE TO GO UP AND WE HAVE TO WORK, WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE TRANSCRIPT. WE WERE UP ALL NIGHT AND WHAT WE FOUND IS THAT WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THE TRANSCRIPT WE FOUND THAT THERE WERE MANY DIFFERENT STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO HER THAT WE DID NOT HAVE.
WELL, COUNSEL, HERE IS THE PROBLEM, WE TOOK OUR RECESS TO DO THAT. I ASKED YOU TO GO THROUGH THE RECORD AND FIND ALL OF THESE SANCTIONS -- ALL OF THESE DISCOVERY TRANSGRESSIONS THAT YOU COULD FIND. THE PROBLEM THAT THE COURT HAS IS I'M JUST THE REFEREE HERE. I'M NOT PRIVY TO WHAT INFORMATION EITHER SIDE HAS. YOU KNOW THE DETAILS OF YOUR CASE, YOU KNOW WHAT YOU HAVE IN DISCOVERY. I HAVE NO IDEA. I WENT THROUGH THE RECORD. I FOUND THE NAMES OF THE FOURTEEN WITNESSES WHOSE STATEMENTS WERE GIVEN OVER LAST WEDNESDAY. I WENT THROUGH THE RECORD AND FOUND THE EXPERT WITNESSES WHO HAD BEEN DISCUSSED THAT HAD NOT PREVIOUSLY BEEN DISCLOSED OR IT WAS UNCLEAR FROM THE RECORD WHO THEY WERE AND THOSE THAT YOU OBJECTED TO. NOW YOU ARE RAISING AN ADDITIONAL OBJECTION TO ROSA LOPEZ THAT HAS NOT BEEN LITIGATED AND YOU ARE RAISING A DIFFERENT OBJECTION TO THE -- MR. COCHRAN'S STATEMENTS REGARDING THE BLOOD -- THE EAP BLOOD TIMING, CORRECT?
I DID OBJECT ON THE BLOOD BEFORE. I DID. WE WENT TO SIDE BAR AND I MADE AN OBJECTION FOR THE RECORD TO THE COURT CONCERNING THE MISLEADING NATURE OF COUNSEL'S REMARK. I AM ON THE RECORD WITH RESPECT TO THAT, YOUR HONOR, AT SIDE BAR, AND --
PART OF THE PROBLEM IS THAT WAS PART OF OUR SHOW AND TELL WHERE THAT WAS EXHIBITED TO YOU AND YOU HAD NO OBJECTION TO THAT EXHIBIT. THAT IS WHY I OVERRULED YOUR OBJECTION. THERE WERE TWO DAYS WHERE COUNSEL EXCHANGED EXHIBITS, SHOWED THEM TO EACH OTHER, AND IT WAS A LITTLE LATE IN THE MIDDLE OF COUNSEL'S OPENING STATEMENT TO THEN START LODGING OBJECTIONS TO AN EXHIBIT THAT BOTH SIDES HAD SEEN AND HAD WAIVED ANY OBJECTION TO.
BUT I DID NOT REALIZE THAT COUNSEL WAS GOING TO EXCERPT A HALF OF A SENTENCE, WHICH IS WHAT HE DID. I WOULD LIKE TO -- IF I MAY, YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW THE COURT. IF THE COURT DOESN'T REALIZE THERE IS A PARAGRAPH, COUNSEL TOOK OUT TWO LINES FROM THAT PARAGRAPH AND IT ACTUALLY IS -- I THINK THE COURT SHOULD SEE IT, I REALLY DO. I THINK IF THE COURT SEES IT, IT WOULD REALIZE I WAS MISLED. I THOUGHT THIS ENTIRE PARAGRAPH WAS GOING TO BE SHOWN. IF IT HAD BEEN, I WOULDN'T HAVE OBJECTED, BUT IT WASN'T. AS A MATTER OF FACT, ANOTHER THING THAT HAPPENED, YOUR HONOR, WAS THAT I WAS SHOWN THE FRONT PAGE OF THE CORONER'S TRANSCRIPT AND I BELIEVE THAT THAT ONE AREA WAS GOING TO BE HIGHLIGHTED FOR THE JURY ON THAT FRONT PAGE, AND LO AND BEHOLD IN FRONT OF THE JURY I SEE COUNSEL GOING AFTER PAGE AFTER PAGE AFTER PAGE WHICH I WAS NOT TOLD ABOUT. I DIDN'T BOTHER TO OBJECT BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANT TO INTERRUPT OPENING STATEMENT ANY MORE THAN I NEEDED TO, BUT AS A MATTER OF FACT, I WAS MISLED, BOTH WITH RESPECT TO THIS AND WITH RESPECT TO THE CORONER'S REPORT. COUNSEL PUT IN A LOT MORE OR IN THIS CASE A LOT LESS THAN WHAT I WAS LEAD TO BELIEVE HE WAS GOING TO DO.
WELL, MISS CLARK, LET ME ASK YOU THIS, THOUGH, AFTER WE SPENT TWO COURT DAYS DOING A SHOW AND TELL AND YOU WAIVED YOUR OBJECTIONS, I MEAN, HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO GO BACK AND NOW REVISIT THIS AND ALLOW YOU TO REOPEN OPENING STATEMENTS? BECAUSE SO FAR THE ONLY THING THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT REMOTELY APPROACH BEING ABLE TO REOPEN ON YOUR COMMENTS AS TO MISS GERCHAS AS TO JUDGMENTS AGAINST HER AND THE EXERCISE VIDEO CONTRAVENING THE ARTHRITIS EXPERTS, THAT HAD BEEN NOT BEEN PREVIOUSLY DISCLOSED, BUT ROSA LOPEZ IS AN OBJECTION JUST NOW BEING RAISED AND THE EAP IS SOMETHING, ALTHOUGH YOU DID RAISE THAT OBJECTION EARLIER, I THINK -- I THINK YOU HAVE WAIVED THAT OBJECTION, HAVING PASSED ON THE EXHIBIT.
I DIDN'T PASS ON THE EXHIBIT, YOUR HONOR. THAT IS THE PROBLEM. THAT IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO EXPLAIN TO THE COURT. NO. 1 THING, LET ME GET BACK TO ROSA LOPEZ. AS TO ROSA LOPEZ, SHE WAS MENTIONED BY COUNSEL TODAY.
NO, NO. IF YOU ARE REALLY WORRIED ABOUT THE EAP, LET'S QUIT JUMPING AROUND. TELL ME ABOUT THE EAP AND WHY YOU FEEL YOU WERE MISLED.
I THINK WHAT THE COURT DOESN'T REMEMBER IS WE WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE SHOW AND TELL ON FRIDAY AND COUNSEL ONLY SHOWED ME A TENTH OF WHAT THEY HAD. WE CAME BACK IN ON MONDAY AND AT THE 11TH HOUR, BEFORE WE WERE TO BEGIN OUR OPENING STATEMENT, COUNSEL SPRUNG TWENTY NEW BOARDS ON US AND THEN PULLED OUT THE REPORTS. THOSE REPORTS WERE NOT SHOWN TO ME ON FRIDAY. AND TO THE EXTENT THAT I WAS SHOWN THE REPORTS, THE CORONER AND THIS ONE, IT WAS -- I WAS MISLED AS TO WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO USE, AND ONLY WHEN IT WAS SHOWN BEFORE THE JURY DID I REALIZE WHAT HE INTENDED TO DO. I MADE THE OBJECTION AS TIMELY AS I POSSIBLY COULD; THE MOMENT HE DID IT. I WAS OVERRULED. NEVERTHELESS, I WAS MISLED, AND IF I SHOW THE COURT HOW THIS PARAGRAPH APPEARS, I THINK THAT THE COURT WILL UNDERSTAND WHY I WAS MISLED. YOU KNOW, COUNSEL POINTED TO THIS PORTION OF THIS -- OF ONE PARTICULAR RESULT ON THIS PAGE, AND I BELIEVED THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE FAIRLY EXHIBITED TO THE JURY IN CONTEXT.
THE PART THAT I HAVE DRAWN, YOUR HONOR, THE BRACKET AROUND, THAT IS THE ITEM IN ISSUE.
"ITEM 84-A" IS THAT "84-B AND 118-A COULD NOT HAVE COME FROM NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, RONALD GOLDMAN OR O.J. SIMPSON; HOWEVER, NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON CANNOT BE EXCLUDED AS A SOURCE OF THE STAIN IN THE EAP. TYPE B OBSERVED ON THE ITEMS WERE DEGRADED FROM A TYPE B A." NOW, THERE WILL BE SUBSTANTIAL LITERATURE, YOUR HONOR, TO THE EFFECT THAT A TYPE BA FREQUENTLY DOES BREAK DOWN TO A TYPE B, AND THERE IS EVIDENCE OF DEGRADATION HERE THAT INDICATES THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT HAPPENED, BUT WHAT COUNSEL DID WAS HE TOOK THAT FIRST LINE AND DROPPED OFF THE REST AND THE REST OF IT IS VITAL TO THE CONCLUSION OF THE EXPERT.
THIS PAGE AND THAT PARAGRAPH WAS POINTED TO ME; NOT THAT ONE LINE, THAT ENTIRE PARAGRAPH.
YOUR HONOR, WE WENT THROUGH ALL THE LASER DISKS AND WE ONLY HAD THE HIGHLIGHTED PORTION THAT WE SHOWED ON TWO BOARDS, ONE WITH THE COVER HIGHLIGHTED AND THEN PULLING OUT THE HIGHLIGHT. WE ONLY SHOWED THE LASER BOARD. ALL OF OUR PRESENTATION WAS SHOWN.
YOUR HONOR, I DON'T EVEN REMEMBER SEEING A LASER ON THIS. ALL I REMEMBER HAVING COUNSEL TELL ME WAS SHOWING ME A REPORT -- YOU KNOW, I WOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN COUNSEL TO SIDE BAR AND OBJECTED TO SOMETHING HAD I KNOWN WHAT HE WAS GOING TO DO. AS A MATTER OF FACT, I WOULD HAVE OBJECTED STRENUOUSLY AHEAD OF TIME HAD I REALIZE THAT HE WAS GOING TO TAKE ONE LINE OUT OF CONTEXT OUTSIDE OF A PARAGRAPH.
ALL RIGHT. YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFICULTY I HAVE HERE. I MEAN, YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO LITIGATE IT AND NOW YOU WANT TO COME BACK AND DO IT AGAIN. THAT IS MY PROBLEM. WHERE IS MR. HARRIS?
WE WEREN'T TOLD ANYTHING ABOUT THE LASER DISK WOULD BE USED IN REOPENING, SHOULD YOU PERMIT IT.
ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, THIS IS REALLY SOMETHING THAT I CAN'T DEAL WITH THEN IF THE LASER DISK ITSELF, THE EXHIBIT THAT THEY SHOWED YOU, IS IN FACT GONE, BECAUSE I NEED TO MAKE A FACTUAL FINDING AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS SOME -- THAT YOU WERE MISLED IN SOME WAY AS TO WHAT IT WAS.
WELL, LET'S -- MISS CLARK, LET'S LOOK AT THE LASER DISK AND SEE WHAT IS THERE, BECAUSE THAT IS PRETTY MUCH FROZEN IN ITS STATE. YOU KNOW, THAT IS NOT EASY TO MANIPULATE, SO LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT IT. UNFORTUNATELY, WE PROBABLY WON'T BE ABLE TO SEE IT FOR QUITE SOME TIME SINCE MR. HARRIS IS ON HIS WAY. WE WILL HAVE TO CATCH HIM AND CALL HIM BACK.
YOUR HONOR, I CAN REPRESENT TO THE COURT THAT WE DID NOT HAVE THE DOCUMENT HERE ON MONDAY, WE HAD ONLY THE LASER DISK, AND THE COURT REQUIRED THAT WE GO THROUGH AND SHOW EVERYTHING.
BUT WHY WASN'T IT BEING SHOWN TO US ON MONDAY? WHY WAS IT ONLY BEING SHOWN ON FRIDAY? THIS IS VERY UNFAIR. THE DEFENDANT WAS REQUIRED TO SHOW ALL THEIR EXHIBITS ON FRIDAY. AS WE DID FOR THEM. WE SPRUNG NOTHING ON THEM. THEY CAME MARCHING IN ON MONDAY WITH TWICE AS MANY EXHIBITS AS WE WERE SHOWN ON FRIDAY. WE WERE EXPECTED TO ABSORB EVERYTHING IN A NANOSECOND AND COME UP WITH COGENT OBJECTIONS TO EACH AND EVERY ITEM. THAT IS VERY UNFAIR. THE PEOPLE WERE PUT AT A GREAT DISADVANTAGE AND HAVING TO ABSORB A GREAT DEAL IN A SMALL AMOUNT OF TIME AND COME UP WITH OBJECTIONS. I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE ALL THAT SURPRISING THAT I COULDN'T REMEMBER SEEING ONE OF ABOUT FIFTY NEW EXHIBITS THAT WAS THROWN AT ME MONDAY MORNING BEFORE OUR OPENING STATEMENTS WERE TO BEGIN, AND THAT ALONE SHOULD CAUSE THE COURT TO REALIZE THAT THE PEOPLE WERE PUT AT A DISADVANTAGE WITH RESPECT TO BEING ABLE TO MAKE INTELLIGENT OBJECTIONS TO ALL OF THE WEALTH OF NEW INFORMATION THAT WAS UNJUSTIFIABLY THROWN AT US AT THE 11TH HOUR. WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN MORE TIME AT THIS POINT.
I DID AND THE COURT WAS -- I INDICATED TO THE COURT AT THE TIME, YOUR HONOR, THAT I DID NOT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE IT CAREFULLY, AND YOU ASKED ME TO IMMEDIATELY GO THROUGH BOARD BY BOARD AND EXHIBIT BY EXHIBIT WITH ABOUT TEN SECONDS FOR EACH. THERE REALLY WAS NOT A LOT OF TIME. THE COURT IS CONCERNED, I UNDERSTAND, ABOUT HAVING THE TIME OF THE JURY SPENT FRUITFULLY AND I'M MINDFUL OF THAT, AND I APPRECIATE THAT, AND THE COURT, YOU KNOW, WAS FEELING THE TIME CONSTRAINT, UNDERSTANDABLY SO, AND SO WAS I, BUT THE RESULT OF WHAT HAS BEEN MISCONDUCT BY COUNSEL IN FAILING TO TURN OVER EXHIBITS IN A TIMELY FASHION SHOULD NOT INURE TO THE PEOPLE'S DETRIMENT AS IT HAS BEEN AND I THINK THAT IS VERY UNFAIR.
SO YOU ARE SAYING THAT LAST MONDAY, THE 9TH -- EXCUSE ME, I'M SORRY, THE 23RD, JUST SO I CAN CHECK THE RECORD, IF I HAVE TO. ALL RIGHT. I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE UP THAT ISSUE UNLESS AND UNTIL I SEE THE ACTUAL LASER DISK EXHIBIT, WHICH HAS UNFORTUNATELY LEFT THE COURTROOM. THAT LEAVES ME WITH GERCHAS AND THE ARTHRITIS EXPERTS.
OKAY. WITH RESPECT TO THOSE WITNESSES WHICH WE -- THE COURT KNOWS WE WERE NOT INFORMED OF, EITHER THEIR NAMES OR THEIR STATEMENTS OR THEIR PROPOSED TESTIMONY, WE WOULD ASK LEAVE OF THE COURT TO ADDRESS THE JURY WITH RESPECT TO THE FACT THAT WE WERE NOT APPRISED OF THEIR INTENTION TO CALL SUCH WITNESSES, TO DESCRIBE THE DEFENDANT'S PHYSICAL CONDITION AT THE TIME OF THE MURDERS, AND THAT HAD WE KNOWN WE WOULD HAVE DISCUSSED THAT WITH THE JURY AT GREATER LENGTH, PUTTING ON THE EXERCISE TAPE. NOW, COUNSEL SHOWED US PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE DEFENDANT'S BODY THAT THEY INTENDED TO INTRODUCE, BUT THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS GAVE US ABSOLUTELY IN NOTICE THAT THEY WERE GOING TO BE PRESENTING TESTIMONY CONCERNING RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS.
FURTHERMORE, WITH RESPECT TO THE EXISTENCE OF HOWARD WEITZMAN, THAT WAS ANOTHER MATTER THAT WAS NOT TURNED OVER TO US IN DISCOVERY. THE NAME WAS NOT EVEN ON OUR WITNESS LIST. HAD WE KNOWN THAT THEY WOULD MAKE THESE REPRESENTATIONS TO THE JURY THAT MR. WEITZMAN WAS EXCLUDED FROM THE CONFERENCE ROOM, WE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ADDRESS THE JURY ON THE FACT THAT NOT ONLY DID THAT NOT HAPPEN, BUT THE OFFICERS ARE VERY WELL AWARE THAT WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF LAW. AS A MATTER OF FACT, IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS CONTAINED IN THE MIRANDA ADVISEMENT, THAT MR. WEITZMAN WAS IN FACT POINTEDLY INVITED IN WITH MR. SIMPSON, THAT HE DECLINED TO REMAIN WITH MR. SIMPSON, AND HIMSELF DECIDED TO LEAVE THE FACILITY, AND WE WOULD HAVE TOLD THE JURY ALL ABOUT THAT. WE WOULD HAVE EVEN MAYBE READ THE MIRANDA ADVISEMENT TO THE JURY SO THAT THEY CAN UNDERSTAND THIS IS AN OBLIGATION OF THE POLICE TO AFFORD ANYONE WHO APPEARS WITH HIS ATTORNEY THE RIGHT TO HAVE THE ATTORNEY PRESENT DURING QUESTIONING AND THAT MR. SIMPSON WAS SO ADVISED AND THAT HE ELECTED TO PROCEED WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF HIS ATTORNEY AND THAT THAT -- I MEAN, WE COULD HAVE DONE ALL OF THAT, BUT COUNSEL -- AS A MATTER OF FACT, WE HAVE THAT WAIVER ON TAPE. COUNSEL IS AWARE OF THAT, BUT YET COUNSEL DELIBERATELY CHOSE TO MAKE A STATEMENT THAT WAS FALSE TO THIS JURY CONCERNING MR. WEITZMAN. HAD WE KNOWN HE INTENDED TO DO SO AND HAD WE KNOWN MR. WEITZMAN INTENDED TO SO TESTIFY, WE WOULD HAVE PUT THAT BEFORE THE JURY. FURTHERMORE, ALL OF THE EVIDENCE WITH RESPECT TO THE CIRCLE OF BENEVOLENCE, THE CHARITY AND THE GIFT GIVING, WE HAVE NO DISCOVERY OF ANY OF THAT, YOUR HONOR, THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL WANTED TO PRESENT THAT, AND WITH RESPECT TO AT LEAST THE REPRESENTATION OF ANONYMOUS GIFT GIVING TO LINKS, WE BELIEVE THAT WE WILL HAVE EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT IT WAS -- THAT TO THE EXTENT MONEY WAS GIVEN, IT WAS NOT ANONYMOUSLY GIVEN, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO THE PRESENT TO THE JURY THAT THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT GIVEN TO CHARITY WAS MINUSCULE COMPARED TO THE AMOUNT OF NET WORTH THIS DEFENDANT HAD. AND SO WE WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COUNTER SOME OF THAT EVIDENCE WHICH WAS ALSO -- STILL HAS NOT BEEN TURNED OVER IN DISCOVERY, STILL ONLY KNOWLEDGE WE HAVE OF THAT IS THE REPRESENTATIONS OF COUNSEL IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT TO THE JURY.
FURTHERMORE, WITH RESPECT TO SKIP TAFT, I ALSO BELIEVE COUNSEL AGAIN -- THIS IS ANOTHER NAME THAT WAS NOT PUT ON THE DEFENSE WITNESS LIST FOR WHOM WE HAVE NO STATEMENT, BUT COUNSEL REPRESENTED THAT MR. TAFT WOULD TESTIFY CONCERNING THE CONTENTS OF A PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT. MAY I HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?
THERE WERE CERTAIN REPRESENTATIONS MADE WITH RESPECT TO WHAT SKIP TAFT WOULD TESTIFY TO IN THAT PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT, THAT HE WOULD TESTIFY TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING IT, THAT -- AND IT WAS REPRESENTED TO THIS JURY AS BEING ANOTHER ACT IN THE CIRCLE OF BENEVOLENCE, THAT IN FACT IT WAS A CIVIL COMPROMISE ATTEMPT AND NOTHING MORE BY THE DEFENDANT IN AN EFFORT TO PRESSURE NICOLE TO WITHDRAW HER SUPPORT FOR THE PROSECUTION OF THAT CASE. AND WE WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE JURY AS TO THE TRUTH OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH IT WAS WRITTEN.
THERE WAS SOMETHING ELSE, YOUR HONOR. I JUST CAN'T -- IT DOESN'T COME TO MIND AT THIS MOMENT.
IF IT PLEASE THE COURT, IN ASKING THIS COURT TO SET WHAT I THINK WOULD BE A PRECEDENT IN CRIMINAL CASES, THE PROSECUTION NOW WISHES TO ESCALATE THAT REMEDY TO A FULL BLOWN REBUTTAL OF THINGS THEY WISH THEY THOUGHT OF WHEN THEY GAVE THEIR OPENING STATEMENT. THEY KNEW BEFORE THEY OPENED THAT MR. SIMPSON INTENDED TO EXHIBIT HIS SCARRED AND TORN UP KNEE TO THE JURY AND CLAIM THAT HE WAS DISABLE TO A DEGREE. THEY HAD THE EXERCISE TAPE; THEY ELECTED NOT TO PLAY IT. NOW IN RETROSPECT IT SEEMS A BAD IDEA THAT THEY DIDN'T. SINCE YOU HAVE STRICKEN FROM OUR OPENING THE NAMES AND ANY SUMMARY OF WHAT THEY MIGHT SAY OF THE WITNESS' ENUMERATED IN YOUR ORDER, IT SEEMS TO BE MOST ANOMALOUS TO SILENCE US AND LET THE PROSECUTION GET UP AND TRASH THEM WITHOUT REBUTTAL, MAKING WILD STATEMENTS LIKE ROSA LOPEZ IS AN O.J. SIMPSON FAN WHEN SHE HAS NEVER MET HIM OR NICOLE. FURTHERMORE, ALL THIS CLAIM OF SURPRISE ON ROSA LOPEZ IS TOTALLY INCREDIBLE. YOU WILL RECALL THAT AS PART OF OUR OFFER OF PROOF, IN RESPONSE TO THE GOVERNMENT'S DEMAND TO YOU, WE CITED TWO PRELIMINARY INCIDENTS, BOTH OCCURRING ON THE 13TH, WHICH SHOWED BAD FAITH ON THE PART OF MARK FUHRMAN. ONE WAS THE GLOVE AND THE OTHER WAS SUPPRESSING A STATEMENT THAT ROSA LOPEZ HAD GIVEN HIM. IT WAS IN THE PAPERS, IT WAS FAXED TO THE GOVERNMENT ON SUNDAY, THE 8TH. IT WAS ARGUED ORALLY HERE AND IT WAS IN PART I GUESS THE BASIS FOR YOUR RULING, TOGETHER WITH THE ANTHONY CASE. MR. COCHRAN, LONG AFTER THE STATEMENT WAS TAKEN AND BEFORE THIS REPRESENTATION WAS MADE TO THE COURT, PERSONALLY WANTED TO VERIFY THAT SHE CLAIMED THAT SHE HAD MADE THOSE STATEMENTS TO FUHRMAN AND ON THAT BASIS WE ASSERTED IT TO YOUR HONOR. I NEVER HEARD IT DENIED IN THE COURSE OF THE WHOLE ARGUMENT. I DON'T THINK ROSA LOPEZ IS ANY PART OF ANY REOPENING. PERHAPS -- PERHAPS AS TO GERCHAS, IF SOME ADMISSIBLE INFORMATION CAN BE GOTTEN, THE COURT CAN NOW PERMIT THIS NOW THOROUGHLY TRASHED WOMAN WHO HAS NEVER HAD A DAY TO APPEAR, ALTHOUGH SHE HAS EXPRESSED AN INTEREST IN DOING THAT, TO BE IMPEACHED IF IN GOOD FAITH THEY CLAIM AND AS OFFICERS OF THE COURT THEY ASSURE YOU THAT THEY WILL PRODUCE ON THE WITNESS STAND UNDER OATH PEOPLE WHO WILL TESTIFY THAT SHE HAS MADE THE STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO HER -- I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT JUDGMENTS NOW OR CHECK CASES -- I'M TALKING ABOUT IMPEACHING STATEMENTS -- IF THOSE REPRESENTATIONS CAN BE MADE IN GOOD FAITH, PERHAPS YOUR HONOR MIGHT PERMIT THEM TO TALK ABOUT IT. I HAVEN'T HEARD ANOTHER THING IN ALL MRS. CLARK'S PRESENTATION THAT MAKES ANY SENSE AT ALL AS REOPENING AS A REMEDY FOR THE SANCTIONS AS PART OF THE SANCTIONS YOU HAVE IMPOSED. INSOFAR AS THE BLOOD EVIDENCE IS CONCERNED, WE HAVE AN ASSERTION OF FACT COULD NOT HAVE COME FROM NICOLE SIMPSON, AND IN AN ATTEMPT TO BAIL OUT BY SOMEBODY WHO OBVIOUSLY IS IN THE PROSECUTION'S CORNER SPECULATING THAT IF THE BLOOD WERE DEGRADED AB MIGHT HAVE SHOWN UP AS B AND THEREFORE THAT WOULD EXPLAIN IT WITHOUT BRINGING IN ANOTHER PARTY, IT WOULD SHOW THAT ON THE SCREEN, IT IS IN THE STATEMENT. IF WE HAD IT TO DO ALL OVER AGAIN, I DON'T THINK ANY COURT COULD COMPEL US TO LINK THE AUTHOR'S SPECULATION WITH HIS ESTABLISHED FACT AND THAT IS ALL THAT SECOND SENTENCE IS. WE PAY IT NO IMPORTANCE AT ALL AND WE DON'T THINK THAT IT IS GOING TO PAN OUT, BUT IN ANY EVENT, IN OPENING STATEMENT, WE ARE ENTITLED TO SHOW THE JURY THOSE AREA THAT FAVOR US. NOW, APART FROM MISS GERCHAS, I DON'T BELIEVE YOUR HONOR SHOULD PERMIT ANY OF WHAT HAS BEEN REQUESTED BY THE PROSECUTION. IT IS NOTHING MORE THAN A CHANCE TO COME BACK AND REBUT THE DEFENSE OPENING STATEMENT. THEY COULD HAVE HANDLED ALL OF THESE MATTERS BEFOREHAND IF THEY HAD THOUGHT ABOUT WHAT THEY WERE DOING AS CAREFULLY AS MR. COCHRAN DID WHEN HE LAID OUT HIS VERY DETAILED PRESENTATION.
WITH RESPECT TO THE BLOOD ARGUMENT JUST GIVEN BY MR. BAILEY, HE DEMONSTRATES NOTHING BUT HIS IGNORANCE. AS A MATTER OF FACT, WHAT MR. MATHESON PUT IN THAT REPORT IS A MATTER OF ESTABLISHED SCIENCE. WE ARE TALKING HERE A MATTER THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF TREATISES THAT ARE MANY YEARS OLD. IT IS A KNOWN FACT THAT THE EAP MARKER IS VERY LABILE, THAT A BA DEGRADES TO A B VERY RAPIDLY, AND THE COURT CAN ENVISION IT. YOU HAVE FOUR BANDS IN THIS MARKER; HEAVY BAND, FAINT BAND, HEAVY BAND, FAINT BAND. THE FAINT BANDS ARE A, THE HEAVY BANDS ARE B. THE FAINT BAND, BEING A, DEGRADES FIRST. BA GOES TO B VERY RAPIDLY. IT IS A KNOWN THING WHICH IS WHY WHEN THERE IS EVIDENCE OF DEGRADATION AND YOU HAVE A B RESULT ON THE EAP, YOU CANNOT EXCLUDE THE BA AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THE JURY HAS BEEN COMPLETELY MISLED ABOUT, NOT TO MENTION THE FACT THAT AT LEAST ON THE THIGH MARKER WHERE COUNSEL TOLD THE JURY THAT IT EXCLUDED HER AS WELL, THERE WAS FAINT A ACTIVITY, SO I MEAN --
MISS CLARK, I'M NOT PREPARED TO REALLY MAKE A RULING AS TO THE BLOOD ISSUE UNTIL I SEE THE LASER DISK EXHIBIT TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS SOME REAL DANGER OF THE JURY HAVING BEEN MISLED THERE. I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR YOUR OBSERVATIONS ON MR. BAILEY'S ARGUMENT THAT YOU WERE AWARE THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE SOME ALLEGATION THAT MR. SIMPSON WAS UNABLE TO -- BECAUSE OF HIS ARTHRITIC CONDITION, UNABLE PHYSICALLY TO EVEN CONTEMPLATE COMMITTING THESE ACTS, WHY IT DIDN'T OCCUR TO YOU, KNOWING THAT, TO PLAY THE EXERCISE VIDEO DURING YOUR OPENING.
WHEN THE MOTION WAS MADE FOR THE DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO ADDRESS THE JURY DURING OPENING STATEMENTS AND TO EXHIBIT HIS SCARS.
THAT'S RIGHT, WHICH WE OBJECTED TO, BUT BEING ABLE TO SHOW A SCAR, WHICH IS WHAT MY ARGUMENT WAS TO THE COURT AT THE TIME, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DOCTORS WHO ARE GOING TO TESTIFY TO RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS. THERE IS WAS NO OFFER OF PROOF FORTHCOMING WITH RESPECT TO HOW THAT SCAR WAS GOING TO BE LINKED UP. I REPEATEDLY ARGUED TO THE COURT WHAT IS THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF SHOWING THE JURY A SCAR? BELIEVING THAT THAT IS ALL THAT THE DEFENSE WOULD DO, I ELECTED AT THAT TIME TO LET IT BE, BECAUSE I DID NOT THINK THAT COUNSEL -- NOR BECAUSE COUNSEL DID NOT GIVE US DISCOVERY. THIS IS THE PROBLEM WITH BEING SANDBAGGED, YOUR HONOR. COUNSEL NEVER GAVE US DISCOVERY OF THE FACT THAT THE DOCTORS WERE GOING TO BE RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS SPECIALISTS, WERE GOING TO COME FORWARD AND LINK UP THAT SCAR TO SOMETHING MEANINGFUL IN TERMS OF HIS PHYSICAL CAPABILITIES ON THAT DAY, AND COUNSEL DELIBERATELY AND WILLFULLY DID NOT INFORM THE COURT OR THE PROSECUTION OF HIS INTENT TO LINK UP THAT SCAR TO A DOCTOR'S TESTIMONY. NOW, HOW WAS I ABLE TO ANTICIPATE WHAT COUNSEL WAS GOING TO DO WHEN HE WILLFULLY WITHHELD THAT INFORMATION?
NOW, MISS CLARK, LET ME ASK YOU ONE OTHER THING. CAN YOU MAKE AN OFFER OF PROOF TO THE COURT THAT YOU WILL HAVE WITNESSES AS TO MISS GERCHAS WHO WILL TESTIFY TO INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS SUCH AS TELLING OTHER PERSONS THAT SHE WAS TRULY NOT THERE, THAT SHE WAS NOT IN FACT LOOKING FOR A CONDO OR APARTMENT IN THAT AREA, ANY OTHER SPECIFICS REGARDING CREDIBILITY SPECIFICALLY AS IT COMES TO THIS CASE?
TELL ME ABOUT THAT. YOU CAN MAKE THAT REPRESENTATION THAT YOU WILL HAVE THOSE WITNESSES?
WITH RESPECT TO -- WITH RESPECT TO ROSA LOPEZ, I CAN ONLY INDICATE, YOUR HONOR, THAT WE WERE UNFORTUNATELY SANDBAGGED BADLY IN THAT RESPECT AS WELL. UPON READING THE TRANSCRIPT, I WAS STUNNED TO REALIZE THAT COUNSEL ATTRIBUTED MANY STATEMENTS TO HER THAT ALLEGEDLY WERE MADE TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN ON THE MORNING FOLLOWING THE MURDERS WHEN IN FACT HIS OWN STATEMENT INDICATES THAT ALL SHE SAID TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WAS SHE HEARD NOISES. IT TOOK AN EXTENSIVE AND EXHAUSTIVE REVIEW OF THE TRANSCRIPT TO REALIZE -- TO GO BACK TO FIND EXACTLY WHAT THOSE STATEMENTS WERE AND COUNSEL THEN REITERATED IT AGAIN TODAY TO THIS JURY, WHICH COMPOUNDED THE HARM IN HIS FAILURE TO TURN OVER THAT REPORT WHICH WE STILL DON'T HAVE. WE STILL HAVE NO STATEMENT INDICATING THAT.
BECAUSE WE WENT AND TALKED TO THE WITNESS. WE TALKED TO HER. THEY HAD THE REPORT WHEN WE GOT THE REPORT, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS A KEY WITNESS OBVIOUSLY, JUDGE. THEY KNOW THAT SHE TALKED TO FUHRMAN THAT MORNING. DON'T THEY HAVE AN OBLIGATION -- DO WE HAVE TO DO THEIR JOB ALSO, JUDGE? DON'T THEY HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO GO TALK TO HER? I DID. THAT IS WHAT IS SO AMAZING. WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THEIR INVESTIGATION, JUDGE. WE ARE THE DEFENSE IN THIS CASE. WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THEIR INVESTIGATION. THIS IS UNPRECEDENTED, TO HAVE THEM WHINING AND MOANING. THIS IS OPENING STATEMENT. WE HAVEN'T EVEN STARTED THE TRIAL, JUDGE, AND ALL THIS EMOTIONAL VITRIOLIC AND EVERYTHING IS MISLED AND EVERYTHING THEY DO IS PERFECT AND EVERYTHING WE DO IS WRONG. AND WE ARE JUST DOING OUR JOB. JUDGE. IT IS ABSOLUTELY INCREDIBLE THAT ALL THESE EXHIBITS AND ALL THESE THINGS -- AND WANTS TO REHASH EVERYTHING WITH YOU. YOU HAVE RULED ON THE OTHER THINGS. WE HAVE TO RELITIGATE EVERYTHING OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN, YOUR HONOR, AND I DON'T THINK THAT IS FAIR. IT IS NOT FAIR TO MR. SIMPSON.
YOUR HONOR, I AM APPALLED -- YOU KNOW, DOES COUNSEL THINK IT IS HIS JOB TO MISLEAD AND TO SANDBAG AND TO IGNORE THE LAW AND TO FLAUNT THE LAW?
COUNSEL, I'M JUST ASKING FOR -- I JUST ASKED MR. COCHRAN FOR AN EXPLANATION. IS THERE A STATEMENT OF ROSE LOPEZ THAT CONTAINS THE -- ATTRIBUTES TO HER THE COMMENTS THAT MR. COCHRAN MADE TODAY AND THE DAY BEFORE?
YEAH. THIS IS THEIR WITNESS AND WHEN THEY TAKE A FURTHER STATEMENT FROM A WITNESS THEY ARE OBLIGATED TO TURN THAT STATEMENT OVER AND AS WE ALWAYS HAVE. THERE HAVE BEEN MULTIPLE STATEMENTS FOR SOME WITNESSES IN OUR CASE AND THE PROSECUTION HAS NEVER BEEN DERELICT IN ITS DUTY, HAS ALWAYS FULFILLED THAT DUTY TO TURN ALL OF THEM OVER.
MISS CLARK, HERE IS THE PROBLEM: THERE HAS BEEN A REPRESENTATION MADE TO ME THAT NO SUCH WITNESS STATEMENT WAS TAKEN.
NEVERTHELESS, OBVIOUSLY THE STATEMENTS WERE MADE, WEREN'T THEY, AND WE WERE GIVEN NO NOTICE OF THE FACT THAT THE WITNESSES MADE FURTHER STATEMENTS OF A MUCH DIFFERENT NATURE.
ALL RIGHT. WHEN THAT WITNESS IS CALLED, WHEN THAT WITNESS IS CALLED, YOU MAY MAKE A NEW OBJECTION AND I WILL CONTEMPLATE PRECLUDING THAT WITNESS FROM TESTIFYING BASED UPON THE FACT THAT IT APPEARS THAT AT THE TIME OF OPENING STATEMENT THERE WAS A CLEAR INTENT TO DO THAT, THAT NO STATEMENT WAS IN EXISTENCE, THAT THAT PERSON -- THAT ADDITIONAL STATEMENT WAS NOT DISCLOSED. I HAVE ALREADY MADE FINDING AS TO OTHER WITNESSES THAT THIS FAILURE TO DISCLOSE WAS INTENTIONAL AND DELIBERATE. YOU CAN RENEW YOUR MOTION THEN, BUT AT THIS POINT I'M NOT GOING TO ENTERTAIN ANY FURTHER SANCTION AS TO ROSA LOPEZ.
WE WOULD NOT ASK THE COURT TO PRECLUDE HER TESTIMONY, YOUR HONOR. WE WOULD ASK THAT AN ADMONITION BE GIVEN CONCERNING HER TESTIMONY.
ALL RIGHT. THE COURT WILL RULE AS FOLLOWS: THE PROSECUTION WILL BE ALLOWED TO BRIEFLY REOPEN ITS OPENING STATEMENT. IT WILL BE ALLOWED TO GO INTO INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS, SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARD TO THIS CASE REGARDING MARY ANNE GERCHAS. THE PROSECUTION, BECAUSE THE DEFENSE DID NOT DISCLOSE THE IDENTITY AND NATURE OF EXPERT WITNESSES WHO WOULD BE TESTIFYING REGARDING ARTHRITIC CONDITION, MAY MERELY SAY THAT NOW THAT WE KNOW THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE AN ISSUE, WE ARE GOING TO SHOW YOU THIS VIDEOTAPE OR THESE OUTTAKES. THE PROSECUTION MAY MENTION THE FACT THAT HOWARD WEITZMAN WAS NOT -- HAVING NOT BEEN DISCLOSED, THAT THE INFORMATION THAT YOU HAVE, THE EVIDENCE YOU WILL PRESENT WILL BE THAT THAT WAS NOT IN FACT WHAT HAPPENED, THAT MR. WEITZMAN WAS IN FACT ALLOWED OR HOWEVER YOU FEEL THE EVIDENCE WILL COME OUT AS TO THAT. AS TO THE ALLEGATIONS OF MISLEADING THE JURY REGARDING THE EAP BLOOD TYPES, I'M GOING TO DEFER RULING ON THAT UNTIL I HAVE SEEN THE LASER DISK. I'M GOING TO SUSTAIN THE COURT'S OWN OBJECTION UNDER 352, UNDUE USE OF THE COURT'S TIME, AS TO THE CIRCLE OF BENEVOLENCE ARGUMENT AND THE TAFT PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT, BECAUSE THERE IS ANY SUBSTANTIAL -- THAT IS A MATTER OF INTERPRETATION THAT CAN BE DONE THROUGH THE EVIDENCE AND NOT THROUGH PRESENTATION OF ARGUMENT THROUGH OPENING STATEMENT. AND MISS CLARK, I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU A TEN-MINUTE TIME LIMIT ON THAT.
VERY WELL, YOUR HONOR, BUT WE ARE GOING TO NEED -- I WOULD LIKE FOR THE COURT TO -- I WOULD LIKE TO AWAIT THE PRESENTATION OF THE OPENING STATEMENT UNTIL WE KNOW THE COURT'S DECISION ON THE BLOOD ISSUE.
THAT IS A MUCH DIFFERENT ISSUE. THAT DOESN'T GO TO SANDBAGGING AT DISCOVERY. THAT GOES TO THE SHOW AND TELL ISSUE. THAT IS A DIFFERENT ISSUE.
WELL, THAT IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ISSUE THAT I'M NOT GOING TO ENTERTAIN UNTIL I SEE THE LASER DISK. ALL RIGHT? BUT WE HAVE AN HOUR LEFT OF COURT TIME. THERE ARE OTHER SANCTIONS THAT I CAN IMPOSE BESIDES THAT, BUT I'M NOT CONVINCED THAT I NEED -- THAT A SANCTION IS APPROPRIATE IN THAT CASE.
THAT'S CORRECT. I WANT TO SEE THE EXHIBIT ITSELF. IF THE EXHIBIT -- THIS IS MY THOUGHT ON THAT: IF THE EXHIBIT, ALTHOUGH HIGHLIGHTS ONE SECTION, IF THE REST OF THE SENTENCE IS VISIBLE AND THERE IS A COMPLETE SENTENCE AVAILABLE THAT WAS EXHIBITED FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME IN GREAT DETAIL TO THE JURY, IT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN MISLEADING IN THAT CONTEXT. AND MISS CLARK, PLEASE DON'T MISUNDERSTAND ME. I REALIZE THE PRESSURES THAT YOU ARE UNDER, BOTH PROFESSIONALLY AND OTHERWISE, AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THEM, BUT AT SOME POINT IN TIME WHEN WE HAVE OUR SHOW AND TELL AND WE MAKE RULINGS AND WE AGREE NOT TO -- WE WAIVE OBJECTION TO THINGS, THAT SHOULD BE THE END OF IT.
I AGREE WITH YOU THAT IS AN IMPORTANT PART. I AGREE WITH YOU THAT IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE, BUT I NEED TO SEE IT BEFORE I CAN RULE ON IT. I AM GIVING YOU SOMETHING THAT IS VIRTUALLY UNPRECEDENTED IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE I HAVE EVER SEEN, THE OPPORTUNITY TO REOPEN, BUT IT IS A SANCTION I THINK THAT IS AVAILABLE TO ME WITHIN THE SPIRIT OF 115, BUT THOSE ARE THE ONLY THREE ITEMS THAT I WILL ALLOW YOU TO REOPEN ON AND YOU HAVE A TEN-MINUTE TIME LIMIT.
SO WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A TRIAL ABOUT THE CREDIBILITY OF THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER?
WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A TRIAL ABOUT THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES WHO ARE SO UNCREDIBLE THAT EVEN THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER WOULD NOT USE THEIR STORY.
WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THEIR INVESTIGATION. THIS IS UNPRECEDENTED, TO HAVE THEM WHINING AND MOANING. THIS IS OPENING STATEMENT. WE HAVEN'T EVEN STARTED THE TRIAL, JUDGE.
I AM GIVING YOU SOMETHING THAT IS VIRTUALLY UNPRECEDENTED IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE I HAVE EVER SEEN, THE OPPORTUNITY TO REOPEN, BUT IT IS A SANCTION I THINK THAT IS AVAILABLE TO ME WITHIN THE SPIRIT OF 115, BUT THOSE ARE THE ONLY THREE ITEMS THAT I WILL ALLOW YOU TO REOPEN ON AND YOU HAVE A TEN-MINUTE TIME LIMIT.
THE PROSECUTION NOW WISHES TO ESCALATE THAT REMEDY TO A FULL BLOWN REBUTTAL OF THINGS THEY WISH THEY THOUGHT OF WHEN THEY GAVE THEIR OPENING STATEMENT.