Since the People did file a 402 motion to bring this to the Court's attention, may the People have the first argument with regard to Christian Reichardt?
Your Honor, it appears, from all I can tell, that the Defense is attempting to introduce evidence regarding Faye Resnick's past drug usage and her intervention and alleged past problems with drugs through her ex-boyfriend Christian Reichardt. There is almost no testimony that Mr. Reichardt has to offer that I believe is admissible under the law. Under Hall, and the progeny that has come since then, all of the California Supreme Court cases during the 1990's which follow Hall all require that mere evidence of motive, even if there is also opportunity, those things are not alone sufficient to introduce evidence that some third party actually committed the crimes. This case law is well-established. In the Pride case the trial court kept out evidence that the husband of the murder victim had received $40,000 in life insurance money and remarried a year later, because the California Supreme Court said in that case where the Defendant was sitting on death row that that was insufficient evidence to raise a reasonable doubt that the Defendant committed the murders, as a matter of law. In the Alcala case, a paroled murderer, a known murderer was on parole was acting suspiciously in the area of the murders two days after the victim disappeared. The trial court kept that out. The California Supreme Court said insufficient evidence to raise a reasonable doubt. There was nothing linking him to the actual perpetration of the crime. In People versus Clark there was a third party connected with the case who had committed a murder by decapitation and in this case the murder was by decapitation. The Supreme Court said in that case--all of these cases the defendants are now sitting on death row. The California Supreme Court said in that case that is insufficient evidence to raise a reasonable doubt as to the Defendant's guilt. Now, in those--
California Supreme Court said that is insufficient. You would think so. I mean, that is similar m.o., but that is not enough. There has to be somebody actually--
I believe so. So there has to be evidence, there has to be a lot more evidence than the Defense could ever hope for here. No. 1, there has to be an identified third party. They can't just say some drug seller somewhere in the universe. There has to be some identified suspect as a third party. They don't have that. There has to be--to start with, there has to be motive and they have--they don't have that. They have a tortured argument that somehow because Faye Resnick may have had a minor drug habit, that would cause and warrant some Colombian drug lord to come murder her friend and someone is coming by her house at the time.
Let's assume that it was a more than significant than minor drug problem. Let's assume that when friends who care for somebody take that person and put them into a drug program, I mean, that is more than minor.
Suppose the person is an addicted person that they are about to fall down dead? There is no--
Miss Clark feels strong about this issue, as we all do, because the case law is clear in this area. I mean, there is no evidence here of anything other than this woman may have had a drug problem. There is no evidence that she owed money because of that problem. There is no evidence that she was involved in selling drugs. People--from what the Defense is speculating, it is absurdity, is absolutely absurd that somebody would go try--
I'm told that was Mr. Reichardt, her ex-boyfriend, who was supporting her at the time.
On their own savings, their own money, but at any rate, your Honor, we are talking about, forgive the colloquial expression, about a nickel and dime habit of someone, and on the other hand we are talking about murder, and these things don't even logically necessarily link one to the other. And I have cited a case in my brief that talks about you don't draw speculative inferences from speculative inferences. I mean, those of us who like to get into detail can kind of get into detail and get into this stuff way off on the limb of a tree when the trunk of the tree is looking at it wondering what the heck we are doing standing out on the limb, and that is what the Defense is attempting to do with this supposed evidence of any drug dealing that would cause somebody to murder Faye Resnick's friend or even Faye Resnick. There is just simply--there is insufficient evidence. The third--the third obvious thing--I shouldn't say obvious, but the third thing that the California Supreme Court consistently requires before saying that there is any possibility that it might raise a reasonable doubt is an actual link to the murders of this named third party, evidence actually connecting, and that is where we can--the Defense would try to get into speculation, and based upon speculation, by trying to argue that there is more than one murderer, and therefore, if there is more than one murderer, maybe that was the drug seller, and even though we don't have a name of a person because Faye Resnick may have had a drug habit, it is likely to believe it was a drug seller. It is ridiculous, your Honor. There is just too many inferences and too much speculation. None of this evidence in this entire trial warrants finding that there is evidence actually linking anybody other than the Defendant, Orenthal James Simpson, to these murders. It is just not there. No matter how much Mr. Cochran and the other Defense team members would try and wave that spin in front of the jury, it just does not survive. There is just not evidence there. And the case law is clear, our California Supreme Court has spoken on this topic repeatedly over the 1990's current law, that that is insufficient. Now, in addition, your Honor, there is, in addition to that line of authority and that basic problem with the Defense attempt, there is of course the always present, whenever you have such inflammatory evidence or inflammatory spin on evidence, evidence code section 352. And here, according to our transcript of our interview with Mr. Reichardt, there is hardly a thing in there that isn't objectionable based on 352 grounds and relevancy. There is some discussion in there of a sexual encounter between Faye Resnick and Nicole. I don't know if the Defense is trying to elicit that or not. There is simply no relevance to that. It is unduly inflammatory. Even when we come back to the basic issue and the main issue of her drug use, that is inflammatory and irrelevant. It is likely to mislead and confuse this jury. It is there for no good reason than to try to sully the victims, make them look bad, make Nicole look bad because she had a friends who may have had a drug problem, and cast aspersions on the victims, all as a means to deflect attention away from the evidence showing Mr. Simpson is himself guilty and was the murderer.
Doesn't it show that Nicole Brown Simpson cared for her friend enough to get her into a drug program?
You say it is to sully the reputation of the victims. That didn't strike me that way.
Well, their motives aside, it is what ends up coming out and what the evidence says that matters.
That's right, your Honor. We don't want to have a mini trial as to Faye Resnick and her drug--potential past drug usage. I'm not sure to the extent that she has acknowledged drug usage, so I don't want to acknowledge any on her behalf. She certainly hasn't told me of any.
That's right. There is no evidence of that anybody had any ill will toward her because of that drug habit, anybody that was likely to murder her. There is no evidence of any drug seller that had threatened her or to whom she owed money that was in town that night that was anywhere near the premises. There is nothing even to link up that motive. And even if you had that link, that link under the motive, you don't have the evidence of actual perpetration. All of that is still speculation. There is still no evidence actually linking such a hypothetical person to being the murderer and the person who killed those two innocent victims. So the--the Defense has gone far afield in trying to back door in, I guess, Mr.--or Miss Resnick's use of drugs through her ex-boyfriend. I see the Court has acquired a textbook. I will pause.
You know, on the other hand, there are a few things which we don't find objectionable, if the Defense would chose to put on Mr. Reichardt for those reasons alone, and that is that shortly before the murders the Defendant told Faye Resnick, and Miss Resnick repeated it to Christian Reichardt, that he was going to kill Nicole and she told him that before the murders occurred. So if the Defense wants to allow that hearsay when Mr. Reichardt comes in and testifies that Faye Resnick told him the Defendant said that, we would be happy to admit, we would be happy to allow them to question him with regard to the lengthy conversations the Defendant had over the two weeks preceding the murders with Faye Resnick and why when he was talking about why won't Nicole return my telephone calls, why won't she call him, where he appeared to be obsessed with her then, contrary to the image that the Defense is trying to portray that he was happy-go-lucky about them having broke up. And we also don't object to Mr. Reichardt acknowledging that Mr. Simpson gave him $5000 for doing a five-page I believe outline for a video of his. But, your Honor, the--the gravamen of this motion is that the Defense has failed to show any link of any third party with these murders as it is required to by our California Supreme Court and as it is required to under the law. Regardless of how they want to try this case in front of this jury, they are obliged to follow the law and they cannot do it in this regard.
Just briefly, your Honor. You have been very patient this morning listening to the lawyers, and so I'm not going to belabor this, but I think we should get the record straight on a couple of things. Miss Lewis speculates far too much about with what we expect to do. She didn't have the benefit of our conversation back in chambers which you now have with counsel, Mr. Darden and Miss Clark there. But let me just indicate that with regard to Dr. Reichardt, Dr. Christian Reichardt, he does have very, very relevant testimony. First of all, let's talk about demeanor. Dr. Reichardt spoke with our client, Mr. OJ Simpson, at about nine o'clock on June 12th, 1994, in a phone conversation which he would, I believe, testify about Mr. Simpson's demeanor, that he was calm, he was relaxed like he always was. That at that conversation they made a date to have dinner, along with Paula Barbieri, on the Wednesday preceding or succeeding that Sunday evening, so I guess that would be Wednesday, the 15th of June. He has had a long-standing relationship with Mr. Simpson. And for counsel to come and make these speculations based upon just a scintilla of knowledge is unfortunate because she would know this man is a chiropractic doctor and his lawyer has assured me he would he have made a lot more than $5,000 if he had been in his office for the work he did on a playboy video on how you conduct yourself on flights and how you avoid jet lag and things like that. We can quarrel about that. Mr. Simpson didn't give him anything. He was paid for what he did at the time, so we clearly have the demeanor. In addition to that, perhaps the Prosecution doesn't know, Dr. Reichardt spoke with Nicole Brown Simpson only about 4:30 or 5:00 on that afternoon. He also spoke with her, as I have indicated to the Court, on Friday evening. He was a friend of all the parties here involved. Now, it is interesting that Miss Lewis would speculate out loud about some relationship. The Court will recall that on the Defense side we have never said one bad thing about either of these victims and we will not do that. All the things that have come is from their own witnesses or from Faye Resnick in her book. We have never said anything bad and will not plan and will not do that during the course of this case. But with regard to the other aspect that she talks about--so clearly there is relevance to his testimony, and it seems as though in a search for truth it seems like there is their truth and there is the real truth.
So all we are saying is we have an absolute right to bring this man on. We will make that judgment of. With regard to Faye Resnick, that is what she is really worried about, your Honor, and that is why she goes to such extent and extreme. The Court has clearly pointed out we expect the evidence will show that Miss Faye Resnick had a breast enlargement surgery in March of 1994, that Dr. Reichardt told her at the time he was afraid for her getting back on medication, that she return to bingeing and using drugs. That is what I expect the evidence to show. And he knew you about her. This wasn't like any minor drug problem. He had been as the sober person through the Betty Ford clinic with this lady to try to help her stay straight, along with her minor child who resided with her, your Honor. But yet after she had this breast enlargement, sure enough, she returned to the use of drugs just as she feared. You asked a very appropriate question. She was not gainfully employed. She lived with him and he does not use drugs and would not give her any money for drugs. I would expect the testimony to be that and he will be adamant about that if he does in fact testify.
In addition to that, over a period of time her drug usage became so bad, your Honor, that on the Friday, the previous Friday, I think June the 3rd, it became so bad that they separated. She moved in or went over to Nicole Brown Simpson's house as a friend. He left, went to San Diego. She called him from Miss Brown Simpson's residence indicating she was staying there now. And he returned home on Sunday. She was still at Nicole Brown Simpson's residence. She would only come home during the day to change clothes or to get clothes, but she was residing at Nicole Brown Simpson's residence. We think this is very relevant because when I had Detective Lange on the stand there was some question about whether she moved in with Nicole Brown Simpson. I think we can show that through Christian Reichardt. More important is the fact that Nicole Brown Simpson was a very good friend of this lady and should never be maligned at all, they shouldn't even think about her being maligned, on Wednesday of that week, the 8th, the situation with Faye Resnick became so bad with her use of cocaine that her former husband, Paul Resnick, contacted Christian Reichardt, your Honor, said, "Look, it has gotten so bad, I'm concerned for Francesca, I'm concerned for her."
And Dr. Reichardt was supposed to go to a family gathering that evening and he didn't show up because they met at a restaurant out in Brentwood to talk about their approach. At this restaurant on June 8th was Nicole Brown Simpson, Paul Resnick and Christian Reichardt, all to discuss the drug problem, the serious drug problem of Faye Resnick. They talked about it. Faye Resnick was at a party that particular evening, the party that Dr. Reichardt was to attend, but he didn't attend that party. And at the dinner that they had it was determined they would--it was so serious that they would have an intervention that night, an intervention in which the family and friends would come together and say to this lady, you can't help yourself, we've got to help you get some help. And sure enough, it was agreed that later that evening at Dr. Reichardt's house that they would have this intervention, that Miss Resnick would come over, her former husband, Paul Resnick, would come by, and they in fact did at about eleven o'clock that evening. And as often happens, Faye Resnick was in denial. In fact, she denied using drugs, denied having any drugs in the house, and it was Miss Nicole Brown Simpson who went over, according to Dr. Reichardt, and showed where she was hiding a stash of cocaine at that point in that house. And they recovered it. I believe the understanding was that evening it was flushed down the toilet because everybody else there apparently was anti-drug except Faye Resnick. And it was determined at this point that she would go into exodus the very next day. And the record will reflect that Dr. Reichardt took her into exodus the very next day, which will be on Thursday, the 9th, and we know that in the from the records, your Honor. She remained in there for approximately two weeks and he continued--he paid for this, your Honor. Cost him $7,000. Even though at this point they were separated, he paid for this, as a friend, and Miss Nicole Brown Simpson had been a friend of this particular lady. Judge, when you buy drugs, you generally have to pay for them. They can talk about the speculation they what. This is axiomatic. And you can talk about a nickel and dime thing. This is far more than this. This is going on over a period of time, someone who has no gainful means of paying for these drugs, and those are absolutely the facts. You take that--and that is why--one of the reasons that we--let me state again for the record, we don't plan or want to call Sydney Simpson to the stand. All we have asked is to talk to her along with Miss Clark in an effort to try and ascertain and to do a stipulation why Sydney Simpson says that night Mommy's best friend calls and Mommy was crying thereafter. The Court will recall that. And then further, your Honor, the situation we have here is there is testimony from several witnesses that once these horrible crimes occurred, friends of all parties, Faye Resnick, Nicole Brown Simpson, everyone indicated and everyone said, and the Prosecution is aware of this, if OJ isn't guilty of this, then we are all in trouble. And there is testimony, for instance, with Dr. Reichardt, that he slept with a gun for several weeks or ten days after this happened. There was great fright and concern at exodus where Faye Resnick was when Christian Reichardt went to see her at the drug treatment facility. They thought this was a drug-related situation and that this was a pay back for not paying for these drugs. And all these people felt that exact same way. They all felt that way. And we think that is relevant and it certainly ties in. And so what I've tried now is to demonstrate to your Honor what I expect is relevant testimony that we can demonstrate, what you said to us in chambers, because in this case we are trying to move along at a pace where we don't forsake quality for speed. At the same time we are concerned about this jury, so we are making tactical decisions as we go along. We haven't made the final decision, although Dr. Reichardt is on our list for today, but certainly his testimony is relevant, certainly on the demeanor, and we think it is also relevant, your Honor, with regard to the other things I have indicated regarding Faye Resnick and her drug usage. And it is not particularly helpful to you to talk about these other things or to be worried about what we may be doing. Further, as I said, we don't plan to go into anything that is negative, and further, any hearsay statement we don't plan to elicit, as I mentioned to you back in chambers. Any hearsay statement made by Faye Resnick attributed to our client is double hearsay. In that same interview that Mr. Darden conducted Mr.--Dr. Reichardt was never on the phone at any time and didn't hear--he just heard what Faye Resnick was saying and he also told Mr. Darden that during this time that she was allegedly talking to Mr. Simpson she was high on drugs at that very time, and he had been working all day and came home and didn't want to hear what he considered nonsensical conversation.
So I promise not to be lengthy, but I thought I should make an effort to set the record straight. If you have any questions regarding this, I will be more than pleased to try and answer them.
Your Honor, Mr. Cochran has just made my point perfectly. We have gotten off into an intrigue with regard to Faye Resnick and he still has failed to satisfy the requirements of the case law. Who was her dealer? Who did she owe money to? Did she owe money to anybody? Was the person bent out of shape? Was that person somebody who the Defense can identify? Was that person somebody that had an opportunity to kill her? I mean, he has still failed to go through and enumerate something, some evidence actually linking the perpetration of these crimes with anybody other than Mr. Simpson. And it is clear from all that he said, that none of that does, that it is all speculation. All it does is confuse and mislead the jury. And by the way, he mentioned that there is so much concern about some other murderer, as a matter of fact, it is my understanding that Mr. Kardashian's child was spending--was staying at Faye Resnick's house as late as February, so clearly that is just something he is shooting off at the mouth, and she still spends the night occasionally I am told. But all of this has become ridiculous, your Honor. It is far out on that little twig at the very end of a limb on a tree with a big trunk and that big trunk is all the evidence against Mr. Simpson. That little leaf sitting out there in the wind blowing in the wind is the Defense hope that they can somehow get the jury to believe that some drug seller is the one who actually committed murders. And your Honor, Mr. Cochran talked at length about that, but he also spoke about conversations over the phone. By the way, the conversations that Christian Reichardt had with Faye Resnick are clearly hearsay. I don't know why he thinks that would be admissible. At any rate, the conversations--
Oh, the conversations that were had over the phone or the conversations that Mr. Reichardt had with Faye Resnick clearly are hearsay, regardless of what--whether Christian Reichardt heard the Defendant over the phone or if he was just speaking to Faye Resnick. At any rate, the--Mr. Cochran was also talking about conversation that Mr. Reichardt had with the Defendant allegedly at nine o'clock on June 12th, before the murders, and as further demeanor evidence. Well, I would submit that the likelihood of misleading or confusing the jury versus the probative value of somebody's demeanor as interpreted over a telephone weighs against that evidence coming in. Because to say how somebody sounded over the phone, without an opportunity to see their demeanor, their physical body language, in conjunction with that voice, disembodied voice on the telephone, is really virtually meaningless. Further, your Honor, in that regard, the Defense--I don't know, since I--well, I don't know if there has been discussion of this previously, but the Defense is treading on dangerous ground when they talk about Mr. Simpson's demeanor. They are getting into his character for peacefulness under the assumption that a murderer or that someone who does not commit murder acts peacefully up until the time of the murder. I didn't phrase that very well, but--
Miss Lewis, let's not launch into that issue. The issue before the Court right now is the Hall issue.
All right. It is clear that nothing Mr. Cochran has said has identified any third party or has shown any link of evidence besides a motive of some unidentified third party. He has failed to satisfy the requirement. All of the case law that our California Supreme Court has repeatedly held with regard to Defendant's who are sitting on death row waiting to be executed repeatedly held that the trial Court's properly ruled to keep out that evidence because it didn't raise the reasonable doubt as to the Defendant's guilt when there was insufficient evidence linking any third party, and in those cases there was a known identified third party linking any third party to the actual murders themselves. Here all of the evidence shows and points to Mr. Simpson as being the person who murdered Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman. There has just been a failure, absolute dismal failure to show any of that actual evidentiary link which the case law requires.
I'm sorry. Mr. Cochran, is there something that is absolutely necessary? Normally proponent--
Thank you, your Honor. In that regard, I just wanted to point out to the Court with regard to People versus Hall that where there is evidence of third party culpability would raise a reasonable doubt of--capable of raising a reasonable doubt of the minds of the jurors or the trier of fact, we be permitted to put that on. The question she raised is not our question. We have tried to link and show the Court what the evidence will be in that regard. It seems to me it is totally reasonable, under the circumstances, for a trier of fact to find that reasonable doubt, given the nature of what was happening, what happened that night and under these circumstances. And the Prosecution has a lot of theories, but the theories ofttimes are mangled by the facts of the case. And so I think--I just want to point that out to the Court. That is the crux of that particular issue, but it has nothing to do with Dr. Reichardt testifying. I think the Court will concede that there is an abundance of testimony that he could make. As to whether or not we would lunch into that area is the issue where we get to Hall. That is all I wanted to say, your Honor.
All right. The issue here is the presentation of evidence of third party culpability. The California Supreme Court in People versus Hall, which is at 41 Cal. 3D, addressed this issue very succinctly and gave the trial court a great deal of guidance, and specifically the comments made by Justice Mosk at page 833 the California Supreme Court has followed that reasoning. Also in People versus Kaurish, K-A-U-R-I-S-H, 52 Cal.3D at 648, also as mentioned by counsel, People versus Clark at 37 Cal. 4th, People versus Pride at 3 Cal. 4th, and also the Justice Pro Tem's ruling in People versus Von Villas. These cases all indicate that before third party culpability evidence is admissible there must be evidence of motive, opportunity and direct or circumstantial evidence linking a third party to the commission of the crime. I find that there was, given the facts of this case, opportunity for a third party; however, I find that the offer of proof regarding motive to be highly speculative and I find the offer does not adequately address either direct or circumstantial evidence linking a third party to the scene. So the Court will sustain the motion in limine to testimony from Dr. Reichardt regarding drug usage by Faye Resnick. All right.
So that we are clear, your Honor, as to the demeanor, if the Court indicates he can--
Those other issues that we discussed, Dr. Reichardt's contemporaneous dealings with Mr. Simpson on the date in question, is clearly relevant.
That stretches credulity.
Those of us who like to get into detail can kind of get into detail and get into this stuff way off on the limb of a tree when the trunk of the tree is looking at it wondering what the heck we are doing standing out on the limb.
It was Miss Nicole Brown Simpson who went over, according to Dr. Reichardt, and showed where she was hiding a stash of cocaine at that point in that house. And they recovered it.
There is testimony, for instance, with Dr. Reichardt, that he slept with a gun for several weeks or ten days after this happened. There was great fright and concern at exodus where Faye Resnick was when Christian Reichardt went to see her at the drug treatment facility. They thought this was a drug-related situation and that this was a pay back for not paying for these drugs.
I find that there was, given the facts of this case, opportunity for a third party; however, I find that the offer of proof regarding motive to be highly speculative and I find the offer does not adequately address either direct or circumstantial evidence linking a third party to the scene.