MAY I CONTINUE, YOUR HONOR?

THANK YOU, COUNSEL. MR. COCHRAN, YOU MAY CONTINUE.

THANK YOU VERY KINDLY. NOW, I THINK WHEN WE STOPPED, I WAS ADDRESSING THE ISSUE THAT WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT MR. SIMPSON'S TIME WILL BE ACCOUNTED FOR AND NOT UNACCOUNTED DURING THIS PARTICULAR PERIOD FROM 9:45 TO 11:00 O'CLOCK. IN LOOKING AT MY REMARKS THE LAST TIME I SPOKE TO YOU, I NOTICE THAT I MISSPOKE WHEN I SAID AT ONE POINT THAT DR. CARY MULLINS HAD WON I THINK I SAID THE NOBLE PEACE PRIZE, AND I THINK I MUST HAVE HAD DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING ON THE MIND WHEN I TALKED ABOUT HIM. HE WON THE NOBLE PRIZE FOR CHEMISTRY. BUT WHEN I WAS ADDRESSING YOU ABOUT THE PROSECUTION'S THEORY A FEW MOMENTS AGO IN THIS CASE, I RECALL THAT MISS CLARK HAD INDICATED THAT SHE BELIEVES THE TIME OF DEATH WAS 10:15 BASED UPON THE WAIL OF A DOG. AS TO THE TIME SHE ALLEGES THAT MR. SIMPSON GOT BACK TO THE PREMISES, THAT WILL BE UP TO HER TO PROVE AND I SUPPOSE THAT I SHOULDN'T SPECULATE WITH REGARD TO THAT. NOW, I WOULD LIKE NOW FOR MR. DOUGLAS TO BRING SOME CHARTS UP THAT RELATE TO CERTAIN JURY INSTRUCTIONS WHICH I THINK WILL BE VERY APPROPRIATE FOR YOU TO HAVE IN MIND AS WITH ALL OF THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS THAT THE COURT HAS GIVEN YOU WITH REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, HOW YOU'RE GOING TO GO ABOUT YOUR TASK OF RENDERING A DECISION NOW THAT YOU HAVE AN OVERVIEW OF THIS EVIDENCE. WE WILL HAVE FOUR CHARTS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO STEP DOWN AND --

FIRST, YOUR HONOR, EXHIBIT 214.

NOW, THIS CHART IS 2.20, WHICH IS THE CALJIC -- THE JURY INSTRUCTION. I THINK YOU'VE ALREADY HEARD IT. AND THE REASON I WANTED TO POINT THIS OUT TO YOU AGAIN IS THAT WITH -- AS IN THIS CASE AND IN ALL CRIMINAL CASES, THIS IS KIND OF A GUIDE FOR YOU TO LOOK AT THE WITNESSES WHO GET ON THE WITNESS STAND TO HELP YOU IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT YOU FIND THAT PARTICULAR WITNESS TO BE CREDIBLE OR BELIEVABLE IF YOU WILL. AND THEY SET OUT CERTAIN THINGS THAT YOU MIGHT LOOK AT. YOU CAN LOOK AT THINGS LIKE THE ABILITY OF THE WITNESS TO REMEMBER OR TO COMMUNICATE ANY MATTER ABOUT WHICH THE WITNESS HAS TESTIFIED, CHARACTER AND QUALITY OF THE TESTIMONY OF THAT PARTICULAR WITNESS, THE DEMEANOR, HOW THAT WITNESS ACTS ON THE STAND, THE MANNER OF THAT TESTIMONY, EXISTENCE OR NONEXISTENCE OF A BIAS, DOES THE WITNESS HAVE ANY INTEREST OR BIAS IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE YOU LOOK AT. SO ATTITUDE OF THE WITNESS TOWARDS THIS ACTION WILL BE THINGS THAT YOU WILL LOOK AT. AND THE COURT HAS READ THIS TO YOU. THE CHARACTER OF THE WITNESS FOR HONESTY OR TRUTHFULNESS OR ANY STATEMENT PREVIOUSLY MADE OR WHATEVER. THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT I WOULD ASK YOU TO USE WITH REGARD TO REALLY TO ALL WITNESSES CALLED BY THE PROSECUTION OR THE DEFENSE. REMEMBER, NO SIDE HAS A CLAIM TO THE TRUTH IN THIS CASE AS WE GO ABOUT THIS SEARCH FOR TRUTH WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT. THE NEXT JURY INSTRUCTION, AND THAT IS NUMBER -- MR. DOUGLAS, THE NUMBER? WE WILL GET THE NUMBER, YOUR HONOR.

215.

NUMBER 215. AND NUMBER 215 IS THE SO-CALLED ALIBI INSTRUCTION. AND YOU WILL RECALL THAT I ASKED YOU IN VOIR DIRE A LONG TIME AGO THAT YOU WOULD NOT PUT ANY BAD CONNOTATION ON THE TERM "ALIBI" IF THAT'S WHAT THE LAW CALLED IT. THAT NO MATTER WHO IS CHARGED WITH A PARTICULAR OFFENSE, IF YOU WERE SOMEPLACE ELSE, CAN PRODUCE EVIDENCE THAT YOU WERE SOMEPLACE ELSE, THE LAW CALLS THAT AN ALIBI. AND ESSENTIALLY THIS INSTRUCTION SAYS THAT: THE DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE -- ACTUALLY WE'LL BE INTRODUCING OR EXPECT TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SHOWING THAT HE WAS NOT PRESENT AT THE TIME AND PLACE OF THE COMMISSION OF THE ALLEGED CRIMES IN THIS CASE FOR WHICH HE'S HERE ON TRIAL.

"IF, AFTER CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE EVIDENCE, YOU HAVE A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS PRESENT AT THE TIME THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED, YOU MUST FIND HIM NOT GUILTY." NOW, AGAIN, THIS INSTRUCTION IS IMPORTANT AS ALL THE REST. BUT THE ALIBI INSTRUCTION, IF WE ESTABLISH THE ALIBI TO YOUR SATISFACTION, HE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO AN ACQUITTAL UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES. I WOULD LIKE YOU TO THINK ABOUT THAT IN THE COMING MONTHS AS YOU LISTEN TO THIS EVIDENCE.

EXHIBIT 216.

THANK YOU, MR. DOUGLAS. YOU WILL RECALL ALL THE EXAMPLES WE ASKED DURING VOIR DIRE AGAIN REGARDING DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. WELL, IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, THIS IS A CASE THAT WILL REST PRIMARILY ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. AND YOU KNOW WHAT THAT EVIDENCE IS. AND THERE'S A JURY INSTRUCTION THAT APPLIES TO THAT THAT'S EXTREMELY APPROPRIATE, AND I THINK -- I APPLAUD JUDGE ITO FOR HAVING GIVEN YOU THIS INSTRUCTION EARLY ON BECAUSE I THINK IT'S VERY, VERY IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO BE AWARE OF THIS AS YOU CONSIDER THIS EVIDENCE, ESPECIALLY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND HOW IT WILL BE APPLIED AT THE VERY END OF THIS PARTICULAR CASE. THIS IS PART OF THAT INSTRUCTION, AND THE RELEVANT PORTIONS WOULD BE AS FOLLOWS, THAT:

"A FINDING OF GUILT AS TO ANY CRIME MAY NOT BE BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE UNLESS THE PROVED CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT ONLY, ONE, CONSISTENT WITH THE THEORY THAT THE DEFENDANT IS GUILTY OF THE CRIME, BUT CANNOT BE RECONCILED WITH ANY OTHER RATIONAL CONCLUSION.

"FURTHER, EACH FACT WHICH IS ESSENTIAL TO COMPLETE A SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT MUST BE PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. IN OTHER WORDS, BEFORE AN INFERENCE ESSENTIAL TO ESTABLISH GUILT MAY BE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, EACH FACT OR CIRCUMSTANCE UPON WHICH SUCH INFERENCE NECESSARILY RESTS MUST BE PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

"ALSO, IF THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AS TO ANY PARTICULAR COUNT --" THERE ARE TWO COUNTS HERE.

"-- SUSCEPTIBLE TO TWO REASONABLE INTERPRETATIONS, ONE OF WHICH POINTS TO THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT AND THE OTHER TO HIS INNOCENCE, YOU MUST ADOPT THAT INTERPRETATION WHICH POINTS TO THE DEFENDANT'S INNOCENCE AND REJECT THAT INTERPRETATION WHICH POINTS TO HIS GUILT." SO IF AFTER YOU LISTEN TO THIS EVIDENCE, AS WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW, THAT YOU HAVE A BELIEF THAT MR. SIMPSON IS NOT OR DID NOT GO BACK OVER TO THAT LOCATION, GO TO THE LOCATION, THAT HE WAS NEVER BUNDY -- STRIKE THAT -- THAT HIS BRONCO NEVER LEFT THE PREMISES THAT NIGHT --

OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS ALL ARGUMENT.

WELL, LET ME PHRASE IT A DIFFERENT WAY.

PLEASE.

THE BALANCE OF THE INSTRUCTION WAS NOT READ TO THE JURY.

I WAS GOING TO GET TO THAT. IF AFTER YOU'VE HEARD ALL THE EVIDENCE -- AND YOU KNOW WHAT CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS -- YOU WILL THEN BE IN A POSITION TO MAKE A JUDGMENT AS TO WHETHER IT APPLIES TO THIS PARTICULAR POINT, WITHOUT ARGUING WHAT IT IS NOW. WE'LL HAVE A CHANCE TO ARGUE IT AT A LATER TIME. THE POINT I WANTED TO MAKE AT THIS POINT IS FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS INSTRUCTION WOULD BE AS THE COURT HAS. AND LASTLY, AS MISS CLARK POINTED OUT:

"IF ON THE OTHER HAND, ONE INTERPRETATION OF SUCH EVIDENCE APPEARS TO YOU TO BE REASONABLE AND THE OTHER INTERPRETATION TO BE UNREASONABLE, YOU MUST ACCEPT THE REASONABLE INTERPRETATION AND REJECT THE UNREASONABLE." IT SEEMS REASONABLE, DOESN'T IT? THE POINT IS THAT YOU, NO ONE ELSE, WILL BE THE SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE JUDGES OF THE FACTS AND THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. THAT'S A DETERMINATION THAT YOU MUST MAKE, AND NO ONE CAN TELL YOU WHAT TO MAKE IN THAT REGARD. AND EACH OF YOU IN VOIR DIRE HAS PROMISED TO GIVE US YOUR INDIVIDUAL OPINION IN DOING THAT. AND THE LAST JURY INSTRUCTION --

EXHIBIT 217, YOUR HONOR.

-- IS THE SO-CALLED PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, REASONABLE DOUBT, BURDEN OF PROOF INSTRUCTION. IT'S THE LAST INSTRUCTION I WANT TO LEAVE WITH YOU TODAY.

"A DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL ACTION IS PRESUMED TO BE INNOCENT UNTIL THE CONTRARY IS PROVED AND IN A CASE OF REASONABLE DOUBT WHETHER HIS GUILT IS SATISFACTORILY SHOWN, HE IS ENTITLED TO A VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY. THIS PRESUMPTION OF COURSE," AS YOU KNOW, "PLACES UPON THE PEOPLE THE BURDEN OF PROVING HIM GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT." AND:

"REASONABLE DOUBT HAS BEEN DEFINED AS FOLLOWS: IT IS NOT A MERE POSSIBLE OR IMAGINARY DOUBT BECAUSE EVERYTHING RELATING TO HUMAN AFFAIRS DEPENDING UPON -- THAT EVERYTHING RELATED TO HUMAN AFFAIRS IS OPEN TO SOME POSSIBLE OR IMAGINARY DOUBT. IT IS THAT STATE OF THE CASE WHERE AFTER THE ENTIRE COMPARISON AND CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE EVIDENCE LEAVES THE MINDS OF THE JURORS IN THAT CONDITION THAT THEY CANNOT SAY THEY FEEL AN ABIDING CONVICTION OF THE TRUTH OF THE CHARGE." NOW, THAT'S WHAT REASONABLE DOUBT IS IN THIS CASE, IN EVERY CASE. AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU AGAIN WERE AWARE OF THAT AS YOU LISTEN TO THIS CASE. THIS IS A MURDER CASE WITH TWO CHARGES, TWO COUNTS. THIS IS NOT A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASE. NOW, AS WE CONCLUDE FINALLY, AS I PROMISED YOU TODAY, I BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT -- MAY WE APPROACH, YOUR HONOR? MAY WE APPROACH?