ALL RIGHT. NOW, AFTER WE HAVE FINISHED THAT, THEN WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO PRESENT? I UNDERSTAND THERE IS A TAPE-RECORDING I NEED TO LISTEN TO.
WHILE SHE IS DOING THAT, YOUR HONOR, TWO MATTERS: WE HAVE NOT SEEN ANY VIDEO OUTTAKES. WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEM BEFORE THE JURY DOES, AND I RESPECTFULLY SUGGEST, YOUR HONOR, THAT YOU MIGHT WISH TO REPEAT THE EXHORTATIONS THAT COUNSEL MADE ON THE OPENING DAY. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT PERSONALLY DIRECTED EPITHETS ADD ANY GRACE WHATSOEVER TO THIS PROCEEDING.
I WAS ACTUALLY -- MR. BAILEY, I THINK I HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME JUMPING ON THEM TODAY, SO I WAS WAITING FOR ONE OF YOU TO DO THAT SO I CAN JUMP ON YOU TO MAKE THE POINT, SO --
YES. MR. DARDEN, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW FROM YOU IS YOU INDICATED TO ME AT SIDE BAR OFF THE RECORD THAT YOU WERE GOING TO PRESENT APPARENTLY THE AUDIOTAPE OF THE 1989 OR 1985 911 CALL.
ALL RIGHT. AND ALSO YOU INDICATED THAT IN THE COURSE OF THE REOPENED OPENING STATEMENT THAT YOU WERE GOING TO PRESENT OUTTAKES FROM AN EXERCISE VIDEO; IS THAT CORRECT?
WE RECEIVED THE OUTTAKES SOME DAYS AGO AND WE PRESSED THEM ON TO A LASER DISK YESTERDAY.
ALSO, THERE IS A CUT VERSION OF THE ROY FIRESTONE INTERVIEW WHICH THEY HAVE NOT SEEN.
YES, YOUR HONOR. MR. COCHRAN HAS SUGGESTED TO ME, AND I ENDORSE THE NOTION THAT IN FAIRNESS TO A WITNESS WHO IS BEING BATTERED ALL OVER THE COURTROOM FOR MERELY HAVING THE UNPLEASANT EXPERIENCE OF BEING A WITNESS, THAT WE MIGHT HAVE A HEARING ON THESE ALLEGED IMPEACHING WITNESSES TO SEE IF THEY EXIST AND WHAT THEY REALLY SAY BEFORE THE JURY IS GIVEN THAT TAINT, WHICH CAN'T UNDO FOR THREE MONTHS. COULD THEY BE BROUGHT IN AND APPEAR BEFORE YOUR HONOR JUST LONG ENOUGH TO ASSURE US THAT THEY EXIST AND THEY HAVE SUCH TESTIMONY TO GIVE? PRETTY GOOD JOB HAS BEEN DONE ON MARY ANNE GERCHAS THUS FAR. WE ARE GOING TO FIND OUR WITNESSES GOING TO OTHER COUNTRIES PRETTY SOON.
I WILL THINK ABOUT THAT, BUT AT THIS POINT LET ME SEE THESE OTHER ITEMS. DO WE HAVE THE LASER DISK OF THE --
YES, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS A FULL CUE TAPE OF THE TEN-MINUTE SEGMENTS OF OUTTAKES.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE BEEN ADVISED THAT THE OUTTAKE MATERIAL IS STILL COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL, SO ITS RELEASED TO THE OUTSIDE VIDEO FEED WILL BE INTERRUPTED FOR THE PLAYING OF THIS ITEM.
ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, IT IS TEN MINUTES AFTER 4:00 RIGHT NOW. I STILL NEED TO HEAR THE AUDIOTAPE, STILL NEED TO HEAR ARGUMENT, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, ON THAT. I DON'T THINK WE ARE GOING TO FINISH WITH THE JURY TODAY. MY INCLINATION IS TO SEND THEM OUT AT THIS POINT.
AS FAR AS THE AUDIOTAPE IS CONCERNED, I ASSUME IT IS THE SAME AUDIOTAPE THE COURT LISTENED TO REGARDING BACK WHEN WE DID THE MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING THE DV HEARING.
BY THE TIME WE FINISH THIS ARGUMENT ON THE OUTTAKES, OBJECTION WITH SPECIFICS, IT WILL BE 4:30. DEPUTY MAGNERA, WHY DON'T YOU CALL UP AND LET THE JURY LOOSE FOR THIS AFTERNOON. THANK YOU.
YOUR HONOR, I'M REMOVING THE TAPE FROM AN EXHIBIT THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN SENT TO COURT. IT IS A TAPE LABELED "P-55."
I SHOULD INDICATE THAT THE DISPATCHER WILL BE HERE TO TESTIFY AND SHE WILL AUTHENTICATE THE TAPE.
IF I MAY HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR, I'M NOT QUITE FAMILIAR WITH THIS NEW TAPE DECK.
WHILE HE IS SEARCHING FOR THE GOODS, YOUR HONOR, WHAT IS THIS REMEDIAL TO? OBVIOUSLY MR. DARDEN COULD HAVE PLAYED IT IN HIS OPENING AND DECIDED NOT TO.
NO, NO. THIS IS THE -- YOU OBJECTED AND LODGED AN OBJECTION AS TO TO THIS. THIS IS PART OF OUR 402 HEARING AS TO THE TAPE.
I FIGURED SINCE WE ARE HERE, WE SENT THE JURY HOME, WE GOT ALL THE EQUIPMENT, WE MIGHT AS WELL LISTEN TO IT ALL AT ONE TIME.
AS TO THAT, I ASSUME IF YOU PERMIT THEM TO DESCRIBE IT AND SHOW IT IN REOPENING, IT WILL BE ON A COMMITMENT THAT IT WILL BE INTRODUCED IN THE CASE IN CHIEF AND IT IS ADMISSIBLE FOR ALL PURPOSES AND NOT SOME LIMITED PURSUANCE?
YOUR HONOR, WE BELIEVE WE SOLVED THE TECHNICAL PROBLEM. IT WAS A MISPLACED PLUG.
WE APPARENTLY TURNED THE VOLUME UP DURING THE MIDDLE OF THE SCREAMS. AS I SAID, THE DISPATCHER WILL BE HERE.
IT IS NOT CLEAR, YOUR HONOR, WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO HEAR. DID WE PLAY THE WHOLE THING?
WHO IS GOING TO IDENTIFY AND AUTHENTICATE THAT? WHO DO THEY HAVE WHO WAS THERE THAT CAN IDENTIFY AND AUTHENTICATE SLAPS?
THE DISPATCHER. AND IF YOU LISTEN TO THE TAPE, YOU CAN HEAR IT, TOO, AND AS I SAID, I THINK WE TURN THE VOLUME UP DURING THE MIDDLE OF THE SCREAM.
ALL RIGHT. WELL, LET ME HEAR IT AT THE TOP THEN BECAUSE THAT IS ALL AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TAPE.
I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THAT AGAIN, YOUR HONOR. HOW CAN THE DISPATCHER TELL US THEY ARE SLAPS? SHE CAN'T DO THAT.
NOW YOU ARE GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY. GENTLEMAN, REALLY THIS IS GETTING OUT OF CONTROL, AND LADIES, THIS IS GETTING OUT OF CONTROL GOING BACK AND FORTH. YOU CAN MAYBE THE SAME POINTS. YOU DON'T HAVE TO ENGAGE IN THE PERSONAL INVECTIVE. THERE IS ONLY ONE THING THAT REALLY IRRITATES ME. I'M VERY PATIENT, I LET YOU GUYS TALK A LOT, BUT THE THING THAT IRRITATES ME IS THE PERSONAL INVECTIVE. ALL RIGHT. LET'S HEAR IT FROM THE TOP.
LET ME ASK YOU THIS, MR. DARDEN: WHAT IS THE -- WHAT GENERATION TAPE IS THIS? IS THIS A FIRST GENERATION OFF THE LARGE 24-HOUR REEL-TO-REEL THAT LAPD HAS?
LET ME SEE EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE GOT AND LET'S DO ALL THE SHOW AND TELL AND THEN WE WILL TAKE THEM ONE AT A TIME. MR. HARRIS, SO GOOD OF YOU TO COME BACK.
IN ANY EVENT, I SHOULD INDICATE TO YOU, WORKING WITH THE CONTROL WE WILL FILTER OUT SOME OF THE NOISE AND YOU WILL HEAR, AS THE DISPATCHER HEARD JUST LAST WEEK, AS DID OTHER DISPATCHERS HEAR, AS I DID HEAR AND OTHER PEOPLE IN THIS OFFICE, YOU WILL BE ABLE TO HEAR IT.
I HOPE THE DELAY PERSON CAUGHT THAT. ALL RIGHT. LET ME SEE THE ORIGINAL. DO YOU HAVE THE FULL REPORT WITHOUT THE EMPHASIZED PORTION, MR. HARRIS?
OKAY. ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, JUST SO WE UNDERSTAND THE PARAMETERS OF WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE, AS FAR AS THE QUESTION FOR REOPENING OF OPENING STATEMENTS BY THE PROSECUTION, THE ISSUE WAS THE COURT WANTED TO SEE THE WORKOUT TAPE, SO-CALLED OUTTAKES, THAT THE PROSECUTION WISHES TO PRESENT BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY REGARDING EXPERT WITNESSES REGARDING THE DEFENDANT'S ARTHRITIC CONDITION WERE NOT DISCLOSED TO THEM PRIOR TO THE OPENING STATEMENTS, THEN ALSO THE PROSECUTION WANTED LEAVE OF THE COURT TO COMPLETE THE PICTURES, QUOTE-UNQUOTE, FAR AS THE EAP BLOOD TYPE. AND I REVIEWED THE EXHIBIT JUST NOW, SO LET'S SETTLE THE ISSUE OF REOPENING OPENING STATEMENT AND THEN I WILL HEAR THE 402 OBJECTIONS TO THE EVIDENCE. MISS CLARK.
THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. AND I WILL BE VERY BRIEF, YOUR HONOR. WITH REGARD TO THE WORKOUT TAPE, I MEAN, WE ALL SAW THE WORKOUT TAPE, AND I THINK THAT I WILL SUBMIT IT EXCEPT TO SAY THAT THERE WAS SOME PART, SOME MOMENT OF LEVITY ABOUT GIVING YOUR WIFE ROOM OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT IS RELEVANT TO ANYTHING AT ALL. THE LATTER PART WHERE MR. SIMPSON IS TALKING TO THE TRAINER APPARENTLY AND SAYING YOU HAVE TO GIVE YOUR WIFE ROOM OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, SOME STATEMENT WHEN THEY ARE MOVING THE ARM, I DON'T KNOW IF THE COURT NOTED THAT, I DON'T THINK THAT IS RELEVANT AND I THINK THAT COULD BE AMBIGUOUS AND MISCONSTRUED. THE --
YOU CAN TURN THE AUDIO OFF AT THAT POINT IF YOU WANTED TO JUST SHOW IT. HOW WOULD YOU NEED THE AUDIO AT THAT POINT? IN ADDITION TO THAT, I STILL FAIL TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE SAID THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO DO THIS IN A RE-REOPENING WHICH THE COURT HAS ALREADY SAID IS SO UNUSUAL.
AS I INDICATED TO THE COURT BEFORE, ONE OF THE ADVANTAGES, AND I THINK THIS SEEMS TO GET LOST SO VERY OFTEN HERE, IS THAT WHO WOULD KNOW BETTER THAN O.J. SIMPSON THAT HE HAS RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS, IN ADDITION TO THE FACT THAT WE DO HAVE DOCTORS WHO HAVE TREATED HIM SO WE WOULD KNOW THAT, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS TAPE HELPS WITH THE RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS. HE TALKS ABOUT HIS KNEES, HE TALKS ABOUT THOSE THINGS. SO I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT, SO IF YOU DO THINK THAT IT IS RELEVANT AND SHOULD BE DONE, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT I THINK WE ARE STRETCHING IT, NO. 1, BUT SECONDLY, ANY CONVERSATION WITH REGARD TO YOUR WIFE OR GIVING YOUR WIFE ROOM OR WHATEVER THAT STATEMENT WAS, WE MAY WANT TO LOOK AT THAT AGAIN, I THINK THAT WOULD BE IMPROPER AND AMBIGUOUS AND WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE TO BE SHOWN TO THE JURY. THE OTHER ASPECT YOU ASKED ME TO ADDRESS WHICH IS WITH REGARD TO THE EAP BLOOD. AS THE COURT CAN SEE, IN THE SHOW AND TELL IT IS HOOKED INTO THE LASER DISK, PUT THE WHOLE -- WE PUT THE WHOLE EXHIBIT UP, TOOK OUT THE PORTION. THE COURT COULD SEE WHAT WE TOOK OUT. IT WAS SHOWN TO MISS CLARK AND IT WAS SHOWN TO EVERYBODY. THIS IDEA THAT THEY WERE RUSHING, THAT IS NOT TRUTH AT ALL. THEY WERE SHOWN THIS AND THEY LOOKED AT IT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE. THEY CONTINUED TO OBJECT. EVEN TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE, YOUR HONOR, THIS MORNING MISS CLARK HAS THIS SELECTED MEMORY. SHE HAD FORGOTTEN ABOUT THE FUHRMAN THING. OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION AGAIN TOLD YOU ABOUT FUHRMAN AND SHE RECALLED THAT AND SHE ARGUED ABOUT VANNATTER AND SAID SHE COULDN'T DO THAT AND YOU ALREADY RULED ON THAT. SHE WILL REARGUE EVERYTHING. I THINK THAT IS THE POINT WITH THE EAP. WE MADE THIS CLEAR AND IT IS ABSOLUTELY OUTRAGEOUS TO TALK ABOUT MISLEADING. WE DON'T HAVE TO ACCEPT THE FACTS THAT WHENEVER EVERYTHING POINTS AWAY FROM THEIR THEORY OF GUILT TOWARDS INNOCENCE. AND THEY WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT BEING DEGRADED, YOUR HONOR. THERE WILL BE A LOT OF EVIDENCE ABOUT POSSIBLE DEGRADING, BUT AGAIN, THAT IS THEIR -- THAT IS THEIR QUALIFIER, THAT IS THEIR SPECULATION. WE DON'T HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT. WE TOOK THE POINT THAT WAS MADE AT THAT POINT, IF THE COURT PLEASES, AND I THINK IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR.
YOUR HONOR, FIRST OF ALL, WITH RESPECT TO THE VIDEOTAPE, I THINK THE STATEMENT THAT IS MADE BY MR. SIMPSON IS RELEVANT AND SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO REMAIN IN.
WELL, THAT GOES TO A DIFFERENT ISSUE. YOU KNOW, WHETHER OR NOT IT IS RELEVANT TO ISSUES OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND FLIPPANT COMMENTS MADE ABOUT SPOUSAL ABUSE, THAT IS A DIFFERENT ISSUE. YOU WANT TO USE IT TO REOPEN REGARDING ARTHRITIS. THAT IS WHAT YOU HAVE ASKED FOR AND NOT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. THE FIRST SEGMENT DEALS WITH A WORKOUT. THE SECOND SEGMENT CONTAINS I THINK THE COMMENT, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, SINCE THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I HAVE SEEN IT.
ALL RIGHT. IF THE ISSUE IS THE ARTHRITIS, AT THIS TIME I'M INCLINED TO ALLOW YOU TO USE THE FIRST SEGMENT ONLY.
WHY DON'T WE JUST TAKE THE SOUND OUT SINCE THE ISSUE IS THE ARTHRITIS FOR THE OPENING? WOULDN'T THAT RESOLVE IT?
ABSOLUTELY NOT. WHERE HE TALKS -- WE WANT THE SOUND OUT BECAUSE HE SAID I'VE GOT THESE BAD KNEES, CAN'T USE THESE KNEES? WHAT IS THIS? I THINK THAT WOULD BE TOTALLY UNFAIR.
THIS IS OUR CASE IN CHIEF, YOUR HONOR. COUNSEL CAN PUT THIS WHEREVER THEY WANT TO PUT IN WHEN IT IS THEIR TURN.
MISS CLARK, HERE IS THE PROBLEM: SECOND SEGMENT CLEARLY HAS PROBLEMS WITH THAT STATEMENT. I'M NOT SAYING IT IS NOT COMING IN, BUT THAT IS NOT THE PURPOSE YOU NEED IT FOR THE OPENING STATEMENT.
ALL RIGHT. SO YOU ARE ASKING FOR TOO MUCH TO GET THAT IN AT THIS POINT. THE FIRST SEGMENT SHOWS MR. SIMPSON DOING VARIOUS EXERCISES, STRETCHING. HE MENTIONED THE KNEES. THAT IS WHAT YOU NEED. THAT IS WHAT YOU WANT FOR YOUR OPENING STATEMENT. THAT IS WHAT YOU CAN HAVE.
WE -- YOUR HONOR, IF WE DON'T WANT TO USE THE SOUND, IT IS EASY TO TAKE OUT. WE CAN SIMPLY --
DO YOU WANT TO USE IT OR NOT? YES OR NO? USE THE VIDEOTAPE, DON'T USE THE VIDEOTAPE, IT IS UP TO YOU. THE FIRST SEGMENT, THAT IS ALL I'M GOING TO ALLOW IS BECAUSE THAT IS ALL IT GOES TO IS THE ARTHRITIC CONDITION.
OKAY. THE SECOND THING IS THE EAP, THE THING ON THE LASER DISK. I HAVE SEEN IT NOW. ANY OTHER COMMENT?
I THINK THE COURT CAN SEE HOW MISLEADING IT IS AND I ONLY WANTED TO INDICATE TO THE COURT THAT THE DEFENSE VIOLATED THE COURT ORDER REGARDING THE SHOW AND TELL SHOWING UP LATE WITH IT ON MONDAY. I DO NOT RECALL HAVING SEEN IT, BUT WE WERE HIT WITH SO MUCH AT THE LAST MINUTE AND AS A RESULT OF THE DEFENSE VIOLATION OF THE COURT'S ORDER AS TO WHEN THOSE EXHIBITS WERE SUPPOSED TO BE SHOWN TO US, WE WERE PRESSED IN OR EXAMINING A HUGE NUMBER OF EXHIBITS ALL AT THE LAST MINUTE WITH ABOUT SECOND FOR EACH ONE. THE RESULT OF A DEFENSE VIOLATION OF A COURT ORDER SHOULD NOT BE THAT THE PEOPLE ARE UNDER THE GUN AND HELD THEIR FEET TO THE FIRE. THAT SHOULD NOT BE THE RESULT. THE PEOPLE SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO EXAMINE THINGS IN A MORE LEISURELY FASHION. AND THE DEFENDANT IS SIMPLY PUSHING THE COURT AND PUSHING THE COURT IN ORDER TO GET THE COURT TO PUSH THE PROSECUTION UNFAIRLY IN ORDER TO GAIN MORE TACTICAL ADVANTAGE WHICH IS WHAT THEY DID EXACTLY WITH THE EXHIBIT AS WELL. IT IS A VERY CONSISTENT PATTERN HERE. WE HAVE A CONSTANT EFFORT TO SANDBAG AND TAKE THE PROSECUTION BY SURPRISE AND TRY AND MAKE THIS A TRIAL BY AMBUSH. THEY DON'T WANT THE TRUTH TO COME OUT. THEY WANT TO PUT A STRANGLEHOLD ON US SO THAT WE CANNOT MEET THEIR EVIDENCE AND MEET THEIR REPRESENTATIONS AND THAT IS WHY EVERYTHING IS BEING HIDDEN AND POPPED OUT AT THE LAST MINUTE, TOO MANY LAST MINUTE SURPRISES. AND NOBODY IS PERFECT, YOUR HONOR. YOU KNOW, IF WE MADE A MISTAKE, THEN I APOLOGIZE TO THE COURT. THAT IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN PEOPLE DO THINGS IN A HURRY. MISTAKES GET MADE.
ONE THING TO THE COURT. THIS WAS ARGUED ON THE 23RD. THE COURT DIDN'T EVEN RULE ON THIS UNTIL THE 24TH I THINK YOU WILL FIND THE RECORD WILL SHOW.
COUNSEL, THE COURT'S RULING STANDS AS TO THE PROSECUTION MOTION TO REOPEN. THEY WILL BE ALLOWED TO REOPEN AS TO MISS GERCHAS, AS TO THE INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS. THEY WILL BE ALLOWED TO REOPEN TO SHOW THE FIRST SEGMENT OF THE WORKOUT VIDEOTAPE. THEY WILL BE ALLOWED TO REOPEN AS TO THE -- AS TO MR. WEITZMAN SINCE MR. WEITZMAN WAS NEITHER ON THE WITNESS LIST OR DISCLOSED PRIOR TO THE OPENING STATEMENTS. I AM GOING TO SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION TO REOPENING AS TO THE EAP BLOOD TYPE. ALL RIGHT. LET'S DISCUSS THEN IN THE OPENING STATEMENT -- EXCUSE ME -- THE PROSECUTION'S FIRST WITNESSES.
YOUR HONOR, CAN I SAY ONE THING TO THE COURT? WITH REGARD TO JUST ONE THING, MAY I ASK YOU A QUESTION?
QUESTION, QUESTION. THE QUESTION HAS TO DO WITH, YOUR HONOR, THE COURT INDICATED THAT HE WASN'T ON THE WITNESS LIST OR WHATEVER. I AM INDICATING TO THE COURT, HE WASN'T ON THE WITNESS LIST BUT FOR THE PROSECUTION TO MAKE THE STATEMENT I'M REPRESENTING TO THE COURT MR. WEITZMAN IS GOING TO SAY ALONG WITH MR. TAFT THAT HE WAS ASKED TO LEAVE AND WAS NOT ALLOWED IN THAT ROOM.
-- THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL MADE THIS REPRESENTATION TO YOU. WE ARE GOING TO PRESENT WITNESSES WHO ARE GOING TO TELL YOU THAT THAT IS NOT TRUE. THIS IS WHAT OUR EVIDENCE IS GOING TO SHOW. AND THAT IS ALL THEY ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO SAY. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE, BECAUSE WEITZMAN, IF THE COURT ALLOWS, IS GOING TO BE COMING IN, ALONG WITH SKIP TAFT AND OTHERS, WHO WILL SAY ACTUALLY WHAT HAPPENED.
THAT IS CORRECT. TWO ISSUES WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE ARE THE 911 TAPE AND THE ROY FIRESTONE TAPE.
LET ME TAKE -- YOU ASKED ME ABOUT ROY FIRESTONE FIRST. LET ME TAKE ROY FIRESTONE FIRST. IT IS A TELEVISION INTERVIEW, YOUR HONOR, AND I'M NOT CLEAR FOR WHAT PURPOSE THIS IS OFFERED. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IF THEY ARE GOING TO CALL ROY FIRESTONE, I'M NOT SURE IF THEY ARE CALLING ROY FIRESTONE OR THEY ARE JUST PLAYING THE TAPE. IT SEEMS TO ME THEY WOULD HAVE TO CALL ROY FIRESTONE AS OPPOSED TO JUST PLAYING THE TAPE OR IS THERE GOING TO BE A COMBINATION THERE OF? MAY I ASK THAT QUESTION FIRST? WHAT RELEVANCE -- ARE YOU GOING TO PLAY A TAPE AND THAT IS ALL THAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN?
I THINK THE TAPE IS SELF-AUTHENTICATING. I DON'T THINK I HAVE TO CALL ROY FIRESTONE. IT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. EITHER THAT IS O.J. SIMPSON OR IT IS AN IMPOSTER.
WELL, THE PROBLEM IS HOW DO WE CROSS-EXAMINE THE TAPE? THAT TAPE IS CUT AFTER AN INTERVIEW. WHEN YOU GO -- IF THE COURT IS AWARE, WHEN YOU DO AN INTERVIEW -- I SHOULDN'T USE THAT AS AN EXAMPLE, SHOULD I, YOUR HONOR? FORGIVE ME, YOUR HONOR. WHEN ONE DOES AN INTERVIEW SOMETIMES THEY LAST LIKE FIVE DAYS OR WHATEVER, YOU KNOW. LET ME TELL YOU, JUDGE, THEY CUT THESE INTERVIEWS.
NO, YOUR HONOR. NO, NO, YOUR HONOR, NO. THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE, YOUR HONOR, WAS THAT THIS INTERVIEW IS CUT IN A PARTICULAR FASHION TO BE OVER, LET'S SAY, A 22-MINUTE PERIOD OF TIME IF HE HAS A HALF HOUR SHOW. WE CAN'T CROSS-EXAMINE THAT. I'M SURE MR. SIMPSON, AS HE SEES THAT INTERVIEW, WILL SAY, WAIT A MINUTE, THEY CUT THIS OTHER PART OUT THAT I SAID. IF WE HAVE ROY FIRESTONE -- OTHERWISE IT IS BASICALLY HEARSAY, A FORM OF HEARSAY. IF WE HAVE ROY FIRESTONE, I CAN ASK HIM DIDN'T MR. SIMPSON SAY SO AND SO IN ADDITION TO THAT? SO WE DON'T HAVE THAT. THAT IS MY FIRST OBJECTION TO THIS. I THINK AGAIN IT SEEMS LIKE IT IS MUCH TO DO ABOUT NOTHING, BUT IT SEEMS HERE IS AN INTERVIEW IN '89 WHERE THEY ARE GOING TO SHOW THE TAPE WITHOUT ROY FIRESTONE, AND JUDGE, I THINK WE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO HAVE MR. FIRESTONE AS PART OF THEIR CASE BECAUSE, OTHERWISE IT IS HEARSAY, I CANNOT CROSS-EXAMINE OR SHOW THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS PARTICULAR TAPE, AND I THINK THAT IS UNFAIR TO THE DEFENDANT. WE ARE DEPRIVED OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT IN THAT REGARD.
911 TAPE, YOUR HONOR, I WAS A LITTLE SURPRISED TO HEAR MR. DARDEN SAY HE IS GOING TO CLEAN THAT UP. NOW, HERE WE ARE --
DON'T TALK TO ME. YOUR HONOR, I'M TALKING ONLY TO THE COURT. I THOUGHT THAT MR. DARDEN SAID SOMETHING ABOUT CLEANING SOMETHING UP OR WHATEVER. WE DON'T WANT THAT TAPE ALTERED AND I'M TELLING YOU, YOUR HONOR, YOU I'M SURE YOU HEARD A LOT OF TAPES IN YOUR LIFE, AND FOR HIM TO HAVE GOTTEN UP AND SAID THOSE WERE SLAPS, I THINK THAT THAT IS GOING TO BE A MAJOR PROBLEM. I DON'T THINK THAT ANY DISPATCHER CAN TALK ABOUT THESE BEING SLAPS. I THINK WE HAVE A FURTHER HEARING REGARDING THAT PERSON'S QUALIFICATION BASED UPON THE TAPE THAT WE GAVE HEARD. I WOULD ASK THE COURT WHETHER OR NOT THIS COURT IS PREPARED TO ALLOW ANYBODY TO TESTIFY THOSE ARE SLAPS. CERTAINLY DIDN'T SOUND THAT WAY TO ME.
WELL, I DON'T -- OH, NO. I MEAN, IF THERE IS SOMEBODY WHO WAS SCREAMING, IF IT IS IDENTIFIED WITH THIS CASE WHEN YOU SAY YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT, I WOULD RATHER NOT HAVE THAT, OF COURSE, BUT I MEAN, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THEIR ORDER OF PROOF, IF THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO DO, BUT HE GOT UP AND TOLD THE JURY THEY WERE GOING TO PROVE SLAPS. I DON'T HEAR THAT. AND THEN HE TELLS US THAT THE DISPATCHER CAN HEAR IT, HE CAN HEAR IT AND HE IS GOING TO DO SOMETHING WITH IT TO MAKE IT CLEAR, AND I DON'T THINK THAT IS TRUE AT ALL. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE 403 HEARINGS, SO I DO OBJECT BASED ON THAT, YOUR HONOR, UNTIL IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS RELEVANT AND UNTIL IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS NOT SPECULATIVE. AND YOUR HONOR, I WANT YOU TO NOTE, I'M NOT ASKING TO REOPEN MY OPENING STATEMENT TO SAY HE MISLED THIS JURY. SOMETIME OR OTHER WE HAVE GOT TO TRY THIS CASE, DON'T WE?
BOY, I HOPE SO. MR. DARDEN, LET ME ASK YOU THIS: AS TO THE ROY FIRESTONE TAPE, I SEEM TO RECALL THAT I SUSTAINED OBJECTIONS TO THE DEFENSE USING A MONTAGE OF VIDEOTAPES WHICH I COULD TELL WERE THE CRIME SCENE AT BUNDY. I RECOGNIZE THE PERSONS WHO WERE THERE, BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHERE, WHEN, HOW AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE OUTTAKES, AND THERE IS A FOUNDATIONAL PROBLEM WITH IT THAT THE PROSECUTION ADVANCED AND I SUSTAINED THAT OBJECTION IN YOUR BEHALF. MR. COCHRAN RAISES THE SAME OBJECTION TO THE FIRESTONE VIDEOTAPE. IT IS APPARENT WHO IS THERE. IT IS MR. SIMPSON, IT IS MR. FIRESTONE AND THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT THE '89 INCIDENT. BUT THERE IS STILL AN AUTHENTICATION FOUNDATION THAT HAS TO BE LAID. IT IS NOT INHERENTLY SELF-AUTHENTICATING.
I THINK THAT IT IS IN, YOUR HONOR, IN DISCOVERY AND DURING THE DV HEARING I PROVIDED THE COURT AND COUNSEL WITH A COMPLETE COPY OF THE PROGRAM, YOUR HONOR, AND THAT IS A PORTION OF THAT PROGRAM, AND SO WHATEVER CONCERN MR. COCHRAN MAY HAVE THEN REGARDING THE AUTHENTICATION OF THAT PARTICULAR TAPE, IT IS -- THERE IS NO ISSUE THERE AND YOU CAN'T CROSS-EXAMINE A VIDEOTAPE. THAT IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
WELL, HERE IS THE PROBLEM, MR. DARDEN: THERE IS AN OBJECTION, THERE IS A FOUNDATIONAL OBJECTION IS WHAT I'M HEARING FROM MR. COCHRAN.
WHAT IS THE OBJECTION? HE HAS THE COMPLETE PROGRAM AND I WANT TO PLAY A PORTION OF IT. I HAVE NO DUTY TO PLAY THE ENTIRE PROGRAM, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE FACT THAT IT IS NOT RELEVANT TO THESE PROCEEDINGS, AND SO I WANT TO PLAY FOUR MINUTES OF THAT PROGRAM THAT RELATES DIRECTLY FOR AN INCIDENT WHICH THE COURT HAS AGREED IS RELEVANT AND ADMISSIBLE IN THIS CASE.
ALL RIGHT. WELL, MR. DARDEN, LET'S ASSUME THAT I DON'T BUY THE ARGUMENT THAT IT IS SELF-AUTHENTICATING. WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE US?
YOU ARE THE JUDGE. THAT IS WHERE IT LEAVES US. I SAY IT IS. I SAY THE EVIDENCE CODE WOULD LIKELY AGREE WITH ME. I MEAN, IT IS A PORTION OF A COMPLETE T.V. PROGRAM WHICH THE COURT HAS SEEN.
I HAVE THE EVIDENCE CODE BEFORE ME. DO YOU WANT TO CITE ME TO A CODE SECTION THAT SAYS THAT VIDEOTAPES ARE SELF-AUTHENTICATING?
IT IS LIKE ANY OTHER WRITING, OKAY? VIDEOTAPES, LIKE WRITINGS, CAN BE SELF-AUTHENTICATING. YOU HAVE THE DATE OF THE INTERVIEW RIGHT THERE. WE RECOGNIZE THE PEOPLE IN THE VIDEOTAPE. THEY ARE IDENTIFIED IN THE VIDEOTAPE, OKAY? WE KNOW THE DATE THAT IT WAS AIRED. WE KNOW IT IS A ESPN VIDEO.
LOOK AT THE VIDEOTAPE, THE CONTENT OF IT. YOU WANT TO KNOW WHO PRODUCED IT, YOU WANT TO KNOW THE DATE OF INTERVIEW, YOU WANT TO KNOW THE SUBJECT MATTER, YOU WANT TO KNOW THE NAME OF THE INTERVIEW AND INTERVIEWEE, IT IS ALL RIGHT THERE. WHAT CAN BE MORE AUTHENTICATING THAN THAT? IT IS RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF US.
WELL, ISN'T WHAT IS IN THERE, THE DATE ON IT, HEARSAY, UNTIL SOMEBODY AUTHENTICATES IT?
DOES SOMEONE HAVE TO COME IN AND AUTHENTICATE THE DATE? I MEAN, THE LETTER SPEAKS FOR ITSELF, JUST LIKE THE VIDEOTAPE SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.
WE JUST CAN'T BRING IN LETTERS. SOMEBODY HAS TO TESTIFY WHO WROTE IT, WHOSE HANDWRITING IT IS.
EXCEPT IN THIS CASE YOU DON'T NEED THAT BECAUSE YOU SEE THE FACES OF THE PERSONS WHO ARE SPEAKING. YOU SEE THE FACE OF THE PERSON WHO IS ASKING THE QUESTIONS. IF YOU WANT SOMEONE FROM ESPN IN HERE, FINE, OKAY. I MEAN THAT IS FINE. THAT IS NO PROBLEM. I WILL GET SOMEONE.
NO, IT IS NOT ME WHO WANTS IT. THEY ARE RAISING THE OBJECTION. I WOULD JUST AS SOON LEAVE ESPN PEOPLE AT HOME.
SURE. I WILL GET A CLERK TO COME IN AND SAY THIS IS A PROGRAM THAT AIRED AT ESPN, THIS IS A T.V. PROGRAM, THIS IS OUR VIDEOTAPE, IT IS A TRUE COPY AND THAT IS THAT AND THAT IS ALL THAT IS REQUIRED UNDER THE LAW.
ALL RIGHT. WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE TO THE SCREAMING WOMAN ASPECT, THE SLAPPING ASPECT OF THE SCREAMING WOMAN TAPE?
WELL, I THINK THAT LAY PEOPLE CAN GIVE THEIR OPINIONS. I'M NOT GOING TO CUT THE TAPE OR ALTER THE TAPE SO THAT YOU CAN HEAR SLAPS. I'M SIMPLY GOING TO ADJUST THE DIALS ON THE TAPE-RECORDER HERE. IF THERE ARE NO SLAPS, THE JURY WILL FIGURE THAT OUT, BUT LET ME ADD THIS: YOU HAVE THE TAPE OF THE SCREAMING WOMAN, YOU HAVE THE -- YOU HAVE THE OPERATOR SAYING THAT THE CALL ORIGINATES FROM 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM AND YOU HAVE HER DISPATCHING POLICE CARS TO THAT LOCATION. YOU HAVE OFFICERS ARRIVING MOMENTS LATER, YOU HAVE NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON WHO HAS EVIDENCE -- PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, PHYSICAL PROOF OF HAVING BEEN SLAPPED, PLUS YOU HAVE HER SPONTANEOUS STATEMENTS, OKAY? AND I THINK THAT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I THINK, A, YOU ARE GOING TO HEAR SLAPS AS WE ADJUST THE KNOBS ON THE TAPE, BUT THEN AGAIN, THERE IS ALSO PHYSICAL PROOF THAT THE DEFENDANT SLAPPED HER. AND HE ADMITTED IT LATER ON. HE ADMITTED HARMING HER IN HIS LETTERS TO HER, SO WHAT IS THE ISSUE? WHAT IS THE PROBLEM, MR. COCHRAN?
I WILL TELL HIM WHAT THE PROBLEM IS. THE PROBLEM IS THE EVIDENCE CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THAT IS THE PROBLEM, AND HEARSAY AND OTHER THINGS LIKE THAT. I MEAN, IT IS PRODUCTIVE TO TELL YOU THAT YOU ARE GOING TO HEAR SLAPS. HE HAS TOLD THE JURY THAT ALREADY. WE HAVE ALL HEARD THIS TAPE, AND YOU ARE NOT GOING TO HEAR SLAPS. IT IS A MATTER OF INTERPRETATION. WHAT I THINK WE SHOULD MAKE VERY CLEAR, YOUR HONOR, THAT COUNSEL NEEDS TO READ THE EVIDENCE CODE WITH REGARD TO THAT VIDEOTAPE AND REGARDING HIS ANALYSIS OF THAT. AND A LETTER, THAT IS NOT FOUNDATIONAL, AND I THINK WE STILL HAVE A PROBLEM AND I DON'T THINK YOU CAN JUST BRING A CLERK IN HERE. WE ARE GOING TO OBJECT IF HE BRINGS A CLERK IN HERE TO TRY TO LAY SOME FOUNDATION FOR THIS PARTICULAR TAPE. AS YOU CORRECTLY POINTED OUT, JUDGE, WHEN WE WERE SEEKING TO SHOW A TAPE WHICH EVERYBODY HAD SEEN AT THE SCENE, THE COURT KEPT THAT OUT ON VARIOUS GROUNDS, BUT IT WAS A MONTAGE. THESE THINGS ARE CUT, PASTED, PUT TOGETHER, AND IT IS A REAL PROBLEM IF WE DON'T HAVE THE PERSON WHO DID THE CUT AND PASTING, IF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE TRUTH AND GETTING THE FACTS OUT TO THE JURORS, IN WHICH THEY CLAIM THEY WANT TO DO, SO I WOULD -- I WOULD RESERVE FURTHER OBJECTION. AND I WAS REMINDED WHEN I RETURNED TO MY SEAT THAT WHAT COUNSEL HAD INDICATED WAS THAT THEY WERE GOING TO FILTER OR SOMETHING, USE THE WORDS "FILTER" WITH REGARDS TO THIS NOISE. WE ARE ENTITLED TO HAVE THAT TAPE JUST THE WAY IT IS, NOT ENHANCED, AND NOT FIDDLING WITH THE KNOBS, BUT THE WAY WE HEARD IT THERE, NOT SO THAT THEY CAN BRING UP SOMETHING TO TRY TO PROVE SOMETHING. FURTHER, THERE IS A FOUNDATIONAL PROBLEM WITH THAT TAPE. THE ADDRESS, I THINK IT WAS 360 ROCKINGHAM, APARTMENT B, AND THERE IS NO APARTMENTS AT THAT LOCATION AND THERE ARE NO APARTMENTS AT 360 ROCKINGHAM. I DON'T KNOW -- I'M NOT CLEAR ABOUT WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH REGARD TO THAT, BUT I THINK THAT THERE ARE SOME FURTHER FOUNDATIONAL THINGS. AND I APPRECIATE THE COURT -- THAT IS WHY WE HAVE THESE HEARINGS, BUT COUNSEL HAS NOT GIVEN YOU -- YOU ASKED HIM FOR A CASE, YOU ASKED HIM FOR A CITE WITH REGARD TO THE VIDEOTAPE, AND YOU KNOW THE PROBLEMS INHERENT WITH THIS TAPE, AND THEY HAVEN'T EVEN CALLED THEIR FIRST WITNESS YET, JUDGE, AND THESE ARE THE PROBLEMS THEY ARE HAVING WITH THIS EVIDENCE.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. MR. DARDEN, I THINK YOU HAVE -- I ACCEPT YOUR OFFER OF PROOF THAT YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE THE DISPATCHER COME IN WHO WAS THE PERSON WHO TOOK THIS CALL, CORRECT?
SHE WILL EXPLAIN, I'M SURE NOT TO MR. COCHRAN'S SATISFACTION, BUT I'M SURE TO EVERYBODY ELSE'S, AND SHE WILL AUTHENTICATE THE TAPE AND SHE WILL ALSO INDICATE THAT AS SHE LISTENED TO THE SLAPS AND THE BEATING THAT SHE TYPED INTO HER KEYBOARD THERE CONTEMPORANEOUSLY THAT FACT, THE FACT THAT SHE COULD HEAR THE WOMAN BEING BEATEN.
ALL RIGHT. MR. DARDEN, ACCEPTING YOUR REPRESENTATION THAT YOU WILL HAVE THE DISPATCHER HERE WHO WILL AUTHENTICATE THE TAPE, I'M GOING TO OVERRULE THE OBJECTION AT THIS TIME.
HOWEVER, THE TAPE APPEARS TO ME TO BE OVERLY LONG BECAUSE IT GOES ON TO OTHER THINGS AND OTHER INCIDENTS AND OTHER -- HOW FAR -- HOW FAR INTO THE TAPE DO WE GET THE ACTUAL DISPATCH OF THE UNIT?
THAT PROCESS FROM THE TIME THAT YOU HEAR THE FIRST SCREAM UNTIL YOU HEAR THE DISPATCHER NOTIFYING POLICE UNITS.
RIGHT, IS ABOUT THREE MINUTES, AND THE PROBLEM HERE IS THAT THE DISPATCHER RECEIVES THE CALL, SHE HEARS THE SCREAMING, AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE LINE IS LEFT OPEN, OKAY, AND SO ALTHOUGH YOU MAY HERE OTHER DISPATCHERS COMING ON AND DISPATCHING OTHER UNITS TO OTHER LOCATIONS IN OTHER MATTERS, THE LINE IS LEFT OPEN AND THE DISPATCHER IS STILL LISTENING IN.
ALL RIGHT. THE TAPE IS RELEVANT UP UNTIL THE POINT WHERE THE CAR IS DISPATCHED, BUT THERE IS A LOT OF EXTRANEOUS STUFF THAT IS GOING ON THERE, SO WHAT I'M TELLING YOU, I'M GOING TO LET YOU PLAY THE FIRST PART OF IT UP UNTIL WE GET TO THE ACTUAL DISPATCH OF THE CAR, BECAUSE I THINK THAT PRETTY MUCH ENDS THE RELEVANCE OF THE TAPE.
IS THE COURT ALLOWING THE DISPATCHER TO SAY SHE HEARD SLAPS? WE OBJECT TO THAT. I DON'T THINK YOU RULED ON THAT YET. HOW DOES SHE -- IS SHE ABLE TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION?
MR. DARDEN, WHY DON'T YOU PULL UP THE SHEETS THAT YOU HAVE ON HER NOTES AND WE WILL TAKE A LOOK AT IT TOMORROW MORNING. ALL RIGHT.
LOOKS LIKE THE DEFENDANT WAS SLAPPING NICOLE. THAT MAY BE THE POINT IN TIME WHEN HE GRABBED HER AROUND THE NECK AND LEFT THE HAND IMPRINT. I DON'T KNOW.
ALL RIGHT. THAT IS ENOUGH, COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. AS TO THE FIRESTONE TAPE, I'M GOING TO SUSTAIN THE FOUNDATIONAL OBJECTION SUBJECT TO FURTHER PROOF.
OKAY. TOMORROW MORNING THEN. SO THAT WE ARE CLEAR, TOMORROW MORNING AT 9:00 A.M. THE PROSECUTION WILL HAVE TEN MINUTES TO BRIEFLY REOPEN THEIR OPENING STATEMENT, THEN WE WILL PROCEED TO THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE.
JUST FOR THE RECORD, I WANT TO CLARIFY THE COURT'S RULING WITH RESPECT TO SUSTAINING THE DEFENSE OBJECTION TO ADDRESSING THE BLOOD. IS THE COURT MAKING A FINDING THAT THE DEFENSE POINT WAS NOT MISLEADING?
NO. I'M MAKING A FINDING THAT WE HAD TWO DAYS OF SHOW AND TELL, THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS MANY LAWYERS AVAILABLE, AT LEAST TWO, PERHAPS THREE WHO WERE ASSIGNED THE BLOOD EVIDENCE, THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE SHOW AND TELL WAS FOR COUNSEL TO LOOK AT THESE THINGS AND TO RAISE ANY OBJECTIONS. NO OBJECTION WAS RAISED. IT IS TOO LATE AT THIS POINT IN TIME TO ASK TO REOPEN AS TO THAT ISSUE. THAT IS THE REASON FOR THE COURT'S RULING.
YOU ARE JUST ASKING ME FOR THE RULING, COUNSEL; NOT ARGUING. ALL RIGHT. I WILL SEE COUNSEL AT SIDE BAR.
THERE IS ONLY ONE THING THAT REALLY IRRITATES ME. I'M VERY PATIENT, I LET YOU GUYS TALK A LOT, BUT THE THING THAT IRRITATES ME IS THE PERSONAL INVECTIVE.
WHEN YOU GO -- IF THE COURT IS AWARE, WHEN YOU DO AN INTERVIEW -- I SHOULDN'T USE THAT AS AN EXAMPLE, SHOULD I, YOUR HONOR? FORGIVE ME, YOUR HONOR.
OH, MR. COCHRAN, YOU REALLY KNOW HOW TO HURT A GUY.
YOU HAVE THE TAPE OF THE SCREAMING WOMAN, YOU HAVE THE OPERATOR SAYING THAT THE CALL ORIGINATES FROM 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM AND YOU HAVE HER DISPATCHING POLICE CARS TO THAT LOCATION. YOU HAVE OFFICERS ARRIVING MOMENTS LATER, YOU HAVE NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON WHO HAS EVIDENCE -- PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, PHYSICAL PROOF OF HAVING BEEN SLAPPED.
THEY DON'T WANT THE TRUTH TO COME OUT. THEY WANT TO PUT A STRANGLEHOLD ON US SO THAT WE CANNOT MEET THEIR EVIDENCE AND MEET THEIR REPRESENTATIONS AND THAT IS WHY EVERYTHING IS BEING HIDDEN AND POPPED OUT AT THE LAST MINUTE.