I just want to ask him briefly about a couple points contained on those statements--in the Anders statement. My focus will be on this portion where Mr. Anders asked him about the voices, and Heidstra said with regard to the second voice that, "The thing is clear to me it was O.J.," and then on the Kane statement, according to Miss Kane, he stated that he saw a white Bronco pull out of the alley behind Bundy. And so those basically are the two areas I want to ask him about. Then I have a few brief questions. Just so the Court and counsel are aware, I will be finished in 10 minutes.
First of all, I've never seen these statements before. I'm mindful of the fact these are presumably phone calls that occurred over the lunch hour. I haven't had a chance to check this out, and I think this is extremely unfair. I remember with regard to cross-examination of Fuhrman, you made us submit things and go into a lot of detail before we presented the witness as to what they would say. We haven't had the chance to check out these statements. We haven't talked to them. Apparently they talked telephonically with Detective Lange. And I think in a case of such high publicity, that will be grossly unfair to us. How can I cross-examine, deal with this when I don't know anything about this. I don't know these people. If they want to bring him back for this part, so be it. We need to find out who these people are, what their background is, what they said to Lange or whatever. They never even met with these people. There was a telephonic interview. This is extremely unfair. We've never tried to take a witness, call him that day, get a statement and then try to cross-examine some witness on it the entire trial. So I think that's extremely unfair and I would object to it, especially this statement that--and the statement is so confusing. And one of the statements counsel alluded to in Miss Kane's statement, he said he didn't mention a certain voice. It also has in here, he observed a white van at some point. So these are people calling over the phone. I don't think the Prosecutor ever interviewed them or even knows their names or who these people are, and to be allowed to ask that I think is grossly unfair.
He didn't know anybody by the name of Lanue. He said he thought he knew someone by the name of Kane or the other. That is not the test, your Honor. It's still unfair to us from the standpoint of cross-examination. As I said, in the past, you required us to present witnesses--offer of proof, go talk to these people before you allowed us to ask questions like this. This is extremely prejudicial. Assume he denies he ever said this, which will be consistent with what he said before. And it's still extremely unfair under the circumstances without some further checking. I don't think that's fair.
That's not required under the evidence code. And if we want to put witnesses on that we have not--or admit evidence or attempt to admit evidence, witness--statements from witnesses we have not seen face-to-face, that's a risk we take. At any event, the witness is here. He is here now, and we just got the information and we should be allowed to take 65 or 70 seconds of the jurors' time to ask these few questions. He can always bring Mr. Heidstra back later if he wants to with some additional testimony on this issue. Of course, you can do redirect today.
I can't do any redirect until I find out--I don't know anything about this at all. We were put in a position of discovery. The Court saw it the same time we saw it.
The problem we have though, this is impeachment of a witness. So the discovery obligation arises when that witness is called and is about to be impeached with that witness statement. So as far as discovery is concerned, you're on the same footing as you would be any other situation. But what I would like for you to do, Mr. Darden, is to lay a better foundation as to Mr. Heidstra's knowledge of these people and any connection he has with them so that we're certain we're talking about the same people.
KEY QUOTEMay I say also, the difference in the footing is, even though they hold the statement back from the standpoint of impeachment, they never talked to this person except over the phone. Imagine how many calls we've all gotten in this case from people who are crazy as it turns out who don't have any credibility?
Which is why I'm asking Mr. Darden before he goes forward to ask more foundational questions regarding knowledge and connection with these people.
Can I just indicate, the statement says he's been washing Miss Kane's car for five years. Mr. Anders' statement indicates he's known Mr. Heidstra for several years.
Well, I would like you to elicit it down in the record. I'm also going to ask you to mark these two statements as People's exhibits so if there's any record that has to be examined, we'll know what the statements were.
On cross-examination, Judge--I mean on redirect examination, I don't know these people. Am I to proceed on that right away?
Or call these witnesses or--we won't excuse him. We'll just let him loose subject to recall.
My focus will be on this portion where Mr. Anders asked him about the voices, and Heidstra said with regard to the second voice that, 'The thing is clear to me it was O.J.'
I remember with regard to cross-examination of Fuhrman, you made us submit things and go into a lot of detail before we presented the witness as to what they would say. We haven't had the chance to check out these statements.
Imagine how many calls we've all gotten in this case from people who are crazy as it turns out who don't have any credibility?
The problem we have though, this is impeachment of a witness. So the discovery obligation arises when that witness is called and is about to be impeached with that witness statement.