Your Honor, I am aware that there has been a dispute or a question concerning the discoverability of an alleged sketch that was prepared by a witness whose name is Tom Lang. I am also aware now, having spoken with Mr. Hodgman last night, that his office was in fact in receipt in January of this year of that sketch, and for reasons that I am not quite clear on, chose not to turn it over to the Prosecution. I am also aware that that sketch was the subject of the 1054.07 hearing in chambers with the Court last night. I endeavored, your Honor, to review the witness list that the Prosecutors submitted on January the 5th of 1995. That was an updated list from the one that had been prepared in September of last year and Tom Lang was on that list as a Prosecution witness. As such, your Honor, I do not feel that there is a legal basis under 1054 of the penal code for there to be any argument that that sketch, having been received from a witness, was not immediately discoverable to the Defense, and I believe that there has been a violation of the discovery rules and that that document should have been turned over in January when it was first received. That is the first issue. The second issue concerns a witness, Steve Valerie, who we expect to call today on the witness stand. Mr. Valerie was a witness who was mentioned in the opening statement as being one of the passengers who sat directly across from Mr. Simpson in first class on the Chicago bound airplane who had the entire flight to observe Mr. Simpson's demeanor and who will testify that not only was he in a relaxed calm mood, but on various occasions during the flight he had occasion to look over at his hands and saw no injuries or other marks or bandages on his hands. Mr. Valerie told me, when Mr. Cochran and I spoke with him last night, that he spoke to law enforcement officers on or about September 15 of 1994 when he was in London, and there was a conversation with a particular officer, because they had contacted Mr. Valerie through Mr. Valerie's family who lived in Irvine. Shortly after the murders, your Honor, Mr. Valerie was seen on television on one of the network programs talking about his observations of Mr. Simpson that evening and he believes it was through those conversations that the District Attorney's office learned of his identity and then sought to talk with him. When he talked from London he was--he was a business school student at UCLA at the time and he was working in London for an American corporation. They spoke some about his observations on that day and he recalls specifically that there was an officer who spoke with him because his family lived in Irvine and the officer was from Irvine and there was some discussion about the both of them sharing the common home of Irvine, California. Since he was in London at that time there was an agreement that he would speak again with the officer upon his return to the states, and Mr. Valerie returned on September the 30th, and there was immediately at that time a message from the officer. And he recalls specifically calling the police department on either October the 1st, the next day, or on October the 3rd, that following Monday, and spoke with the officers for perhaps twenty to thirty minutes over the telephone as well. Both occasions he gave statements consistent with his initial observations, that there were no cuts or bruises on Mr. Simpson's hands and that he was at all time relaxed. I looked on my list again this morning, the January 5th list of the Prosecution, and Steve Valerie was a witness in January on the Prosecution's list. He was also a witness on the Defense list, as was Mr. Lang. Because he was a Prosecution witness, your Honor, I am of the opinion that there was similarly an obligation to turn over reports of any such conversations that occurred on September the 15th by telephone when he was in London and on either October the 1st or the 3rd where there was a much more lengthy and extensive conversation reaffirming the earlier observations he had made on June the 13th.
I'm sorry, Mr. Douglas. Did Mr. Valerie indicate to you the name of the police officer to whom he spoke?
The only recollection he had was as to the first conversation, that the officer lived in Irvine because they shared the Irvine thing. There was an earlier conversation with Detective Kilcoyne, and he was not sure that it was the same officer on the other two occasions, your Honor.
Your Honor, as the Court is aware, I appeared before the Court yesterday and I will incorporate my previous remarks with regard to the information regarding Mr. Lang. I would submit that Mr. Lang was on the Defense witness list from an early point in time preceding January of `95. We did not intend to call Mr. Lang as a witness for reasons personal to ourselves, and as evidenced by our case in chief, he was not presented. So I would submit that Mr. Douglas' point is a difference without a distinction and I will simply incorporate my previous remarks with regard to whatever ruling the Court might make in this regard.
You concede, however, at this point, that Mr. Lang was on the Prosecution's witness list as of January 5?
With regard to the second point, your Honor, we are not in possession of any September statement or notes from Mr. Valerie. I will look into the matter. But I would submit that the same rationale applies, that this is a difference without a distinction in the sense that Valerie--I would have to check whether Valerie was on our January witness list, but he was certainly on the Defense witness list, I know that for a fact, so for the moment I will have to look into that for the Court before asserting 1054.07, possibly, or before I can better educate the Court as to what that issue is, but we do not have a statement from September of last year.
Briefly, your Honor. The test is not whether in actuality they are going to call him, which triggers their discovery obligations from October, your Honor. Certainly from October they did not know that they were not going to call Mr. Valerie. Certainly in January, your Honor, January 25th or 26th, I believe, he was still--Tom Lang was still on the Prosecutor's list. We have been given thousands of pages of documents of interviews from witnesses who they haven't called, so that is not the test, your Honor. That is all I want to say.
Your Honor, the only additional point I wish to make is simply to remind the Court of what it is already well aware, and that is the language of the statute; "Witnesses that the People or a party intends to call."
All right. The Court finds that the--both of these individuals, Valerie and Lang, were on the Prosecution's witness list as of January 5, 1995. As such, any statements that were in possession of the Prosecution at that time should have been turned over. The Court will direct that the notes from October of `94 of Mr. Valerie be disclosed to the Defense forthwith and also the sketch from January of 1995 from Mr. Lang be disclosed forthwith.
KEY QUOTEI do not feel that there is a legal basis under 1054 of the penal code for there to be any argument that that sketch, having been received from a witness, was not immediately discoverable to the Defense, and I believe that there has been a violation of the discovery rules and that that document should have been turned over in January when it was first received.
Mr. Valerie told me, when Mr. Cochran and I spoke with him last night, that he spoke to law enforcement officers on or about September 15 of 1994 when he was in London... and spoke with the officers for perhaps twenty to thirty minutes over the telephone as well. Both occasions he gave statements consistent with his initial observations, that there were no cuts or bruises on Mr. Simpson's hands and that he was at all time relaxed.
We are not in possession of any September statement or notes from Mr. Valerie. I will look into the matter.
The Court finds that the--both of these individuals, Valerie and Lang, were on the Prosecution's witness list as of January 5, 1995. As such, any statements that were in possession of the Prosecution at that time should have been turned over. The Court will direct that the notes from October of '94 of Mr. Valerie be disclosed to the Defense forthwith and also the sketch from January of 1995 from Mr. Lang be disclosed forthwith.
The test is not whether in actuality they are going to call him, which triggers their discovery obligations from October, your Honor. We have been given thousands of pages of documents of interviews from witnesses who they haven't called, so that is not the test, your Honor.