All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present before the Court with his counsel, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Douglas, Mr. Bailey. The People are represented by Miss Clark, Mr. Darden and Mr. Kelberg.
All right. Keep it short. All right. Counsel, Mr. Cochran, you had some additional comment you wanted to make to protect your record?
Thank you, your Honor. Your Honor, there--there is two things. First of all, the Court will recall, I believe during the testimony of witness Mr. Valerie yesterday, he indicated that in a conversation with Detective Kilcoyne of the LAPD he said the statement was tape-recorded because he could hear the beep, beep, beep in the background. We never have received a tape-recorded statement. And the Court will recall, in our spirit of cooperation, I did walk over to the Prosecutors at that moment. I did not jump up before the jury and say anything, and I just talked about it. And now I want to put on the record what the witness said and I need some official response regarding whether or not there is a tape-recorded statement from Detective Kilcoyne regarding the witness Steve Valerie because we have never received such a statement. That's the first issue for today, your Honor.
The second issues deals with the fact that--just a point of clarification. The Court will recall that during my cross--during my short cross-examination of Detective Lange at one point I elicited--
She won't stipulate to that. But at any rate, your Honor, in all seriousness, with regard to Detective Lange, the subject matter came up of whether or not Faye Resnick resided, starting I think with Friday, June 3rd, at Nicole Brown Simpson's condominium. And there was some--we were cut off at some point or whatever, and based upon the Court's ruling yesterday I think it would be unfair to the Defendant were I not to either have a stipulation, which I hope to work out with Mr. Darden, that between the dates of the 3rd and certainly the date of the intervention on the 8th Faye Resnick did in fact reside at that location. And I am perfectly willing to stipulate that after the 9th she went into intervention and went into exodus and on the date of the murders was in fact in exodus and apparently for like a two-week period of time, and I think we can work that out.
Oh, well, I'm not tying to be funny. Yes, I forgot. So if we get into drugs, that she was away or whatever we want to call it. I just want a stipulation.
Living elsewhere? No, that is correct. I mean, the issue did come up as to the dates that Faye Resnick was residing at 875 South Bundy and we agreed was a period of time approximately a week before this incident and that did come up in the cross-examination of Detective Lange.
Well, apparently the Court considers that relevant, and if I can just have the weekend, I will write out a stipulation and we can resolve this Monday morning.
Your Honor, the other thing is--and so there is no confusion regarding this, last week I indicated to the Court that the Defense would like to--one member of the Defense would like to, along with the Prosecution, speak to the minor Sydney Simpson. So the record is abundantly clear, the last thing in the world we want to do is to call Sydney Simpson to the stand. Mr. Simpson doesn't want it and neither do we. But we would have--we think we have an obligation to try and talk to her, and I just talked to Miss Clark about it who has she indicated she will do what she can to try and set up a meeting through the Brown family. If she and I or whom she designates or I designate to do, we will try to have a stipulation, as we did with Juditha Brown, hopefully next week. That is the other thing. The final thing, your Honor, with regard to your Honor's ruling yesterday regarding the Faye Resnick drug dealers issue, if I might, we wanted to indicate, and I'm not sure I indicated specifically, that the Court's ruling, it seems to us, violates Mr. Simpson's right to present a Defense and to due process of law under both the state and federal constitutions. And I wanted the Court to have that in mind with regard to your ruling as to our preclusion from doing--presenting a Defense in that regard by your ruling, because basically we are precluded from doing it at this point because of our absence of the showing of motive, as you have indicated, among other things.
All right. I think the Court was cognizant of that issue, as was the California Supreme Court Justice Mosk, when he contemplated the issues in the Hall case. And that was an issue that was--that I think every Judge things about in making those rulings, but every time you make a 352 ruling you take into consideration the same issues.
All right. Your Honor--and I understand on the issue regarding Menzione, based upon what the Court has indicated to us, based upon a further foundation the Court certainly is going to reconsider that ruling.
Your Honor, there is a motion with respect to the next witness, if it is Dr. Huizenga.
I was provided records through other lawyers in our office, as well as Dr. Huizenga's report, and as well as Dr. Maltz', and I couldn't help but notice from the report of Dr. Huizenga dated June 15, 1994--and I have a clean copy which I can give the Court to look at for the purposes of this motion, if the Court wishes.
The first page is basically blank with respect to any summary of what acute problem no. 1 is and the first half of page 2 is also blank, which I assume is a continuation of whatever is discussed on page 1. And my understanding would be that the Court probably in an in camera proceeding ruled that a 5th amendment privilege still was applicable with respect to the contents of that information relying upon the cases of Woods, Rodriguez and so forth that have indicated that even under the rules of reciprocal discovery that there can be applicable privileges because the privileges are preserved through the statutes themselves dealing with reciprocal discovery. However, if Dr. Huizenga is called to the witness stand, then I submit to the Court that any 5th amendment privilege is waived. And the case law I think is quite clear starting with the Lyons case, 13 cal.3d 500, which deals with more work product than attorney/client privilege, and onto other cases, I think rich is one of the cases, 45 cal.3d, and a series of similar cases. There is no compulsion from the Prosecution, because it is the Defense that is calling their witness. Once that witness is called, your Honor, his report in its entirety is fair game. Whether they want to go into the contents of that area or not, we still have the right to see the entire report. And I submit to the Court that before this witness is called, if he is in fact going to be called, I ask this Court to release to the Prosecution pages 1 and a half, page 1 and the first half of page 2, so that I can review that information and have it available to use in cross-examination, if appropriate. That is the first aspect of my motion. The second aspect deals with the possibility--again I don't know what the direct will actually be, but the possibility that Dr. Huizenga will be asked any statement made by the Defendant regarding how he got injuries that are observed on his primarily left hand. And I anticipate, if it is in accordance with Dr. Huizenga's report, that it would be alleged by Mr.--
Your Honor, excuse me for interrupting. I've already told Mr. Kelberg we are not going to do that.
Well, again, your Honor, whether they want to do it, I have been told by Mr. Shapiro they are going to go into the nature of the injuries, and apparently Dr. Huizenga is going to offer opinions regarding the source or sources for these injuries, including the possibility that glass is a source for at least one of the cuts that is identified in this June 15th examination by Dr. Huizenga, possibly a June 17th examination as well. My concern is if there is going to be testimony elicited in any way regarding that Mr. Simpson is the one who told Dr. Huizenga that he cut his hand on glass, and if Dr. Huizenga relied on that in any way in forming his opinion or considered it--and quite frankly, your Honor, doctors will have to admit that they rely to a large degree and consider to a large degree the history given to them by the patient in forming opinions--then my concern is that it is inadmissible hearsay and the jury should not hear the content of it. But if the Court should rule it comes in under 801.b as matters reasonably relied upon by experts in the field, then I would submit to the Court that patients who go to doctors in non-litigation possibility settings, they do--have indicia of trustworthiness in their histories. A situation of Dr. Huizenga seeing Mr. Simpson at the request of Mr. Shapiro doesn't quite have that same trustworthiness element that one might attach to the history as given. It is self-serving motivation for Mr. Simpson to explain these injuries certainly may be evident on June 15th. But setting all that aside, if the Court feels, for whatever reason, that the content is discloseable to the jury, I would ask for a limiting instruction that that information may only be considered as a basis for the expert opinion and is not to be considered by the jury for the truth of the matter asserted.
Your Honor, as to the first issue, as the Court will recall, there was an occasion in March this year where I presented to the Court the full unredacted version of Dr. Huizenga's report. There was a portion that was concerning certain impressions of Dr. Huizenga which was outside of his particular specialty that I assured the Court we did not intend to elicit from him during the course of his examination and therefore we felt it was not discoverable. The Court agreed. I shared with the Court the redacted version that I intended to turn over that the Court approved. As to the second portion of the objection, it is my understanding that Mr. Shapiro does not intend to go into any statements that may have occurred between Mr. Simpson and Dr. Huizenga. I have no objection, however, to the limiting instruction as proposed.
All right. Counsel, the Court did review the report in its entirety previously in a hearing authorized under 1054.7 of the penal code and the Court's ruling at that time was that that part of the statement was not discoverable. That ruling stands. As to the issue regarding statements by Mr. Simpson, the representation is, is that no statements will be elicited. The Court accepts that representation and will proceed with the witness. All right. One other issue. Miss Clark, are you going to look into the Valerie/kilcoyne tape issue?
There is no tape and I appreciate Mr. Cochran's deft handling of the matter. There are police telephones that have a beeping on them and he may have called in on that line, and there is no tape of Mr. Valerie at all, and I did inform Mr. Cochran of that yesterday when that issue came up.
All right. So the record is clear. Thank you. Let's have the next witness and also have the jury first.
They dragged me down here, your Honor. What can I say?
The last thing in the world we want to do is to call Sydney Simpson to the stand. Mr. Simpson doesn't want it and neither do we.
The Court's ruling, it seems to us, violates Mr. Simpson's right to present a Defense and to due process of law under both the state and federal constitutions.
There is no tape. There are police telephones that have a beeping on them and he may have called in on that line, and there is no tape of Mr. Valerie at all.
Not short. It was succinct and to the point.