Back on the record in the Simpson matter. The record should reflect the jury has withdrawn. I have before me two P's and A's from the People regarding apparent expert witness to be called by the Defendant, Mr. MacDonell, and this specifically has to do with some type of testing, and there is a motion to preclude testimony of Mr. MacDonell based upon a failure of reciprocal discovery I will hear from the People. All right. Mr. Goldberg, this is your matter.
Good afternoon, your Honor. Miss Clark wanted to address the issue as to the preclusion of MacDonell's testimony on the ground that the testing is not substantially similar, if she may. We feel that the two issues are closely connected and perhaps should be considered together by the Court, that the Court might want to consider both points and authorities in advance and then hear this matter at some subsequent time. I don't know if your Honor has had an opportunity to read the points and authorities we just filed.
Okay. We would respectfully ask the Court, though, to take a look at the points and authorities perhaps prior to argument or after, but in any case, prior to ruling, because we did try to lay out the issues as carefully as we do, but Miss Clark will address that in somewhat more detail. The discovery issue relates to Mr. MacDonell's testimony and I would like to make a couple general comments about discovery. I don't think I need to spend a lot of time because your Honor has heard these arguments in various contexts over and over again and has made a variety of rulings already. And then after doing that I would like to go into some of the specific items where we claim that there were violations, and I think that there were violations as a matter of law and I have about four items that I specifically listed. First of all, generally speaking, I think it was the Court's understanding and the party's understanding of the Hines case that the notes that underlie an examination or analysis of evidence themselves are discoverable. I believe that that was the Court's ruling, in addition to any more formalized report that is made during that analysis, and I believe one of the cases that the Court is familiar with also discussed the issue of whether the underlying test results, such as the personal inventory, would be discoverable and concluded that that kind of underlying data is discoverable under proposition 115. It is in this area that we say that there were a number of violations by the Defense, in addition to failing to disclose the more formal reports of the analysis on the socks. Just by way of background, and Miss Clark will discuss this in a little more detail, Mr. MacDonell is a blood spatter expert and he took a look at the socks in this case that were LAPD item no. 13. If the Court can envision the socks as having four sides to them, one exterior side and then a corresponding interior side and then another interior side and then another exterior side, if that makes sense to the Court--
Okay. I just wanted to make sure, because sometimes when trying to visualize that kind of thing when it is described orally it is difficult for me, so I just wanted to make sure the Court was following along. What the gravamen of his testimony would be, that he did experiments with socks to determine socks--sock drying time, the drying time of the socks, and he is going to try to make some conclusions with respect to what the drying time would be on the socks in this case, and Miss Clark will be discussing this in a little more detail, and that he then also examined the socks in this particular case, and concluded that with respect to the Nicole Brown stain on sock a there is a stain on the exterior, that that bled through to the interior of the same side of the sock, and then bled through to the other interior, in other words, side 3, but is not on side 4.
The conclusion being presumably, that no one was wearing the sock at the time that the stain was deposited or that is the inference the Defense will be asking to draw from that experiment, and Miss Clark will discuss it in more detail in terms of the substance of that testimony. I'm just--I just want to discuss the discovery issues related to that testimony. Now, the other principle of discovery that the Court has ruled on that we have argued and that Mr. Uelmen argued and stated very succinctly, was his interpretation of what the phrase "Immediately" means in the usage of that term in proposition 115 dealing with immediate disclosure and he said very simply immediate means immediate, that is their interpretation. You get the report, you get the underlying notes, you turn it over to the other side. You don't do it a day later, a month later, a week later. They take the proposition it is just what it says, immediate. Personally I think there is a little bit more flexibility there that might depend on the exact context of what you are talking about and the circumstances, but here the delays that we are talking about under anyone's definition of the term "Immediate," and clearly under Mr. Uelmen's definition of the term "Immediate," are about six weeks late from the time that they were originally generated. So it seems to me that as a matter of law that we are dealing with a discovery violation. I'm going to go into the specifics a little bit and then talk about the issue of remedy, because it does appear to us that because this was done for tactical reasons, I think we've already discussed this as well, that exclusion of the evidence is the appropriate remedy, because that is what the cases have held and that is what your Honor has held specifically in the context of expert reports where I think there were a couple of admonishments to the Defense about exclusion being proper if it was found that it was done for tactical reasons, and we believe that the circumstantial evidence clearly indicates that it was. Now, the first category is with respect to a June 6th, 1995, experiment on sock drying time which I already explained to the Court a little bit in terms of what that was, and Miss Clark will discuss it in a little more detail. It was performed on June the 6th, 1995, and on July the 11th of 1995 we get what I would term a final report, a typewritten type of report from MacDonell, so that is almost six weeks after the experiment was conducted.
And the report begins with the phrase "At your request I have prepared the following report," which is interesting, because it was counsel's position that they did not have to prepare reports and it was simply up to the expert and that they weren't giving any input at all one way or the other, so one wonders why suddenly they asked him to prepare a report, unless perhaps previously they had asked him not to and they were concerned somehow about their discovery position. This particular report mentions the experiment that I discussed in terms of sock drying time, but did not state any of the particulars in terms of what kind of sock was used, how much blood was put on, how long did they wait to see whether it dried, how it was it conducted and so on. It just simply said I conducted experiments and based on these experiments I have concluded that no one was likely to have worn the socks at the time the blood was deposited. It didn't say anything specific. So we have what I would term a sort of sanitized report that gives us a conclusion but does not give us any of the underlying data that was used to reach that conclusion. Therefore, the People filed this discovery motion seeking sanctions in response to what we had been provided with, a typewritten report, and then after filing that motion, the motion that your Honor now has before the Court, the Defense then turned over to us yesterday on July the 15th, the underlying notes relating to this experiment.
Excuse me. They were--these notes were generated on the 15th and I believe that they were turned over to us yesterday.
And these notes do provide more detail and obviously were made contemporaneously with the experiments and provide some of the information that I was alluding to that was lacking in the sanitized typewritten report that we received. So not only do we have, as a matter of law--there is a discovery violation. There may be an issue as to what the socks is, but as a matter of law, yes, that is a discovery violation under Mr. Uelmen's interpretation, ours and the Court's, where these experiments are done June 6th and don't get the underlying data until yesterday. This deprives us of the opportunity of fully being able to analyze this legally. We quickly and hurriedly put together the brief that is now in front of the Court and Miss Clark has tried to prepare to argue it, but I think we are disadvantaged in terms of being able to analyze it properly from a legal perspective to be able to fully argue and analyze it to the Court. And clearly we are disadvantaged in terms of being able to analyze it from a factual perspective to fully understand everything that are in those notes from a lawyer perspective and then to submit to your own experts for the purposes of having them look at it and inform us about what they see and what they believe the notes raise. So we are prejudiced by this discovery violation. We would also like to see the sock from the sock drying experiment and I believe that we are entitled to that since we are entitled to the underlying data that the Defense has relied on and that would be part of the underlying data.
Are you saying--so did you not file with the Court any of these documents that you are referring to, either the typewritten report that was produced on July the 11th, nor the underlying notes?
I thought that I filed the typewritten report in a declaration that was appended to the discovery sanction motion, your Honor. It is not on there?
Okay. Well, we can file those and we can also file any other document that the Court wants to take a look at before ruling, if the Court wants to take a look at the underlying--
I mean, it would help me to see how complete the notes are and how complete the report is to see whether or not what you are complaining about makes any sense.
In other words, whether--whether--whether when I say that the report was sanitized, that is in fact the case? Yeah, we will provide that to the Court, but I would point out that, at any rate, even the typewritten report we didn't get until July the 11th.
Yeah. Okay. Now, the next category of note is handwritten notes relating to the April the 4th sock examination. This witness did an examination of the socks on April the 4th where apparently he rendered certain conclusions respecting the bleed through of the socks that I described previously, and these handwritten notes were not turned over to us until yesterday. That was part of the materials that we were given yesterday. And the conclusions were not turned over again until July the 11th in the same report that I already indicated to the Court that also briefly mentioned the sock experiments without really describing them in detail. So this again appears, as a matter of law, to be a violation of the discovery and certainly violation of Mr. Uelmen's interpretation immediately means immediately. This April the 4th, 1995, handwritten material that we received yesterday, which apparently is the underlying notes that were done contemporaneously with the exam, says that microphotographs or photo micrographs, however you have been referring to them, were taken concurrently, and clearly the photographs are documentation, they are notes. They have been described by a criminalist, photographs in general, as being photo documentation. The Court is familiar with that phrase. And clearly if the witness draws a picture of the socks, which they did, and shows where the cut-out was of the Nicole Brown stain and documents where the other stains were, those are without question discoverable. If a witness then photographs that, an expert witness, for the purposes of documenting the same information, that photograph is equally discoverable and there is no legal basis to distinguish between a written or sketched depiction of the sock and an actual photograph of the sock. And the Defense has previously taken the position, as the Court knows, that microphotographs of an item of evidence that were taken by an expert are discoverable, and the Court has ruled that, so I don't really think that is an issue that necessarily needs to be relitigated. We did not receive these, according to the Defense, until the 12th of July. We can't verify that because apparently we have not located those yet, but that was what was represented to us by Mr. Neufeld and we are still looking for that. He has a discovery receipt that is dated on the 12th, but at any rate, between June the 6th and July the 12th clearly does not fall within the requirement of the code requiring immediate disclosure. The fourth item, your Honor, is the curricula vitae of doctor--of Mr. MacDonell, which was provided to us yesterday in yesterday's discovery materials, and although that doesn't necessarily qualify under the language of the code, it has been the practice of both sides that we are required to provide this information. The Defense has demanded this kind of information be provided to them by our experts and we have done so, so I think that the reciprocal aspect of the discovery law should be applied equally to the Defense in that regard. So in these four areas, the June 6th experiment, the April the 4th examination, the microphotographs and the curriculum vitae, as well as the socks themselves, there has been a discovery violation. If the Court looks at the sequence of events, it appears that this is for tactical reasons. It has deprived us the opportunity of making the best possible legal argument, has deprived us of the opportunity to be able to have our experts analyze their notes, look at the socks themselves. We began to do that yesterday, just yesterday having our experts look at these things. They still haven't looked at the microphotographs, and all of those things need to be done by the person who is going to cross-examine this witness. All of those things need to be done really in order, in my view, to be able to fully litigate the issue as to whether or not the experiments are going to come in at all, which is the issue Miss Clark will address. So we would ask the Court to make a finding that this has been done for tactical reasons and to apply the sanction of preclusion of this testimony. Thank you.
Yes, your Honor. I will address the issues with respect to discovery and preclusion and Mr. Neufeld will address the issues with respect to relevancy raised in trial brief no. 9. I want to emphasize that our lack of a written response to these motions is not to be taken as any lack of zeal or commitment to our position. We wanted to allow the Court to hear this issue and decide it as quickly as possible, and I believe, with respect to the discovery issue, your Honor is well familiar with the case law that is involved. We have been over these issues a number of times, and the trial brief no. 9 was just served on us at four o'clock this afternoon, so of course we have not had an opportunity to file a written response. In short, with respect to discovery, our position is that there is not a discovery violation, that the Defense in good faith has turned over more than is required by the discovery statute. We have turned it over just as soon as it became available to us, and in fact we resolved any doubts as to what is discoverable in favor of making a full disclosure to the Prosecution as quickly as possible. But I think we do need to back up for a moment, because I think Mr. Goldberg's interpretation of the discovery statute is essentially incorrect in terms of what notes have to be turned over. He is assuming that the discovery statute requires that all notes related to the expert's preparation have to be turned over pursuant to the discovery statute, and that is clearly wrong. That is not what the discovery statute says. That is not what your Honor's order respecting discovery in this case says and it is not what the case law says that interprets the discovery statute. We start with the Sandeffer case, 1993, which offered the conclusion, quite clearly, that an order to turn over all notes of an expert's analysis is overbroad, that it is not permitted under the statute. The Court said: "We are nevertheless motivated to make brief comment for the lower Court's possible guidance in terms of future orders on the subject. The Court required production not only of the expert's report, if any, but also her notes. The new provisions of the act are exclusive in the sense that no discovery shall occur except as provided by this chapter, other expressed statutory provisions or as mandated by the constitution. "Section 1054.3 subdivision (A) Provides the discovery of information pertaining to expert witnesses, include," quote: "Any reports or statements of the expert made in connection of the case and include the results of physical or mental examinations, scientific tests, experiments or comparisons which the Defendant intends to offer in evidence at trial. "We are of the opinion that an order requiring the expert to produce his notes in most circumstances would go beyond the specification of discoverable items set forth in the statute." So Sandeffer clearly holds that a broad order to disgorge all notes of the expert would not come within the discovery statute. Now, the follow-up case, the Hines case, 20 cal.app.4th 1818, the same Court that decided Sandeffer then offered an explanation, a further explication of the dictum contained in Sandeffer with respect to expert's notes. The Hines order, the discovery order in Hines, required the Defense to, it said: "Reports shall include all written documentation including handwritten notes of the findings of said expert upon any examination done by said expert intended to memorialize the findings of said examination." And the Defense objected and said, well, this order violates Sandeffer by requiring the production of the expert's notes, and the Court looked carefully at the language of that order and concluded, and now I'm quoting from the Hines opinion: "The order does not require production of preliminary drafts of reports or of an expert's notes to himself which reflect his own opinions or interim conclusions. We construe findings in the order to mean factual determinations of the expert from observations made during an examination." Now, the rationale of that decision is readily apparent. The Court was--was holding that you cannot, by means of putting the report together, insulate notes that reflect findings or conclusions with respect to an experiment or an examination, and those are the kind of notes that are discoverable at the same time that the report is discoverable. And here again I think the Prosecution is--is essentially wrong in suggesting that somehow, even if a note does reflect a finding or conclusion, that the expert is then required to ship the note off and make discovery of it before the report has even been prepared. The whole gist of Hines is to say you are not limited to what is in the report. You have a right to see the notes as well that reflect the same conclusions that are reported in the report, but those are the only notes.
Why would an expert wait from June the 6th until mid-July to prepare a report on experts and examinations--
I think I can readily explain, your Honor. The expert that we are concerned with here, herb MacDonell, is a criminalist of some repute with a practice in corning, New York. At any given time he is consulting on as many as fifteen to twenty different homicides all over the country. This case is not the only case he is working on. And if I could just go through the chronology of what he did in response to what the Defense asked him to do, leading up to the information that is in dispute here, I think it will answer a lot of your Honor's questions. The first time that Mr. MacDonell ever even personally examined any physical evidence in this case was on April 2nd, 1995, not April 4th, as Mr. Goldberg indicated, but April 2nd, and at that time he simply accompanied Dr. Henry Lee to a laboratory in Pasadena, the Mark Taylor laboratory, to look, physically look at the socks in this case. Those socks were brought to Mr. Taylor's laboratory by Mr. Matheson who maintained physical custody of the socks throughout the examination. Mr. Matheson was present and himself made numerous notes reflecting the examination made of the socks by Dr. Lee and by Mr. MacDonell. Mr. MacDonell did not at that time prepare any notes that stated any factual conclusions. In fact, your Honor can now look at the notes, because even though we contend these notes are not produceable, they would be produceable when he testified, but they are not produceable under the reciprocal discovery law. Nevertheless, we have turned those notes over, but those notes are not the kind of notes that Sandeffer and Hines talk about. They were simply notes to the expert himself indicating what he looked at, the socks and where a hole had been cut out of the socks and where the stains were on the socks and so on. The first time he presented any conclusions to the Defense was on June 3rd and at that time he was asked to prepare a report and he agreed that he would prepare that--prepare that report as expeditiously as possible, but he was about to leave on a trip to Sweden and in fact he left for Sweden on June the 7th, 1995. Now, the day before he left for Sweden he conducted the drying experiment that has been referred to to test how long it would take for blood to dry on similar socks, and the notes that he made at the time of that experiment were turned over just as soon as we learned of their existence and obtained them and were able to turn them over to the Prosecution.
He returned home from Sweden on June 25th. On June 28th or 29th Mr. Neufeld again contacted him and told him we were awaiting the report and needed it as quickly as possible. At that time he asked to see the photographs that were taken on April 2nd by Dr. Henry Lee. Those photographs were immediately forwarded to him and he completed a report and gave it to the Defense on July 11th and we immediately turned it over the same day that we received it. We turned over a copy of the report when we, in reading the report, realized that there were notes conducted or prepared with respect to the experiment he conducted on June 6th, we asked him to immediately forward those notes, and as soon as we received those notes on July 17, they were also turned over. Also turned over were the microphotographs which we have a receipt dated July 12th indicating the receipt of those photographs. Mr. MacDonell conducted a second experiment on July 15th with respect to testing, how long it would take blood to dry on gloves similar to the gloves involved in this case. He wrote a report with respect to that experiment which was received on July 17th and turned over immediately to the Prosecution. So in every respect, just as quickly as we have obtained the reports and we requested the reports to resolve any question about whether anybody is playing games here, and you know, it is a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Now they are saying, well, because they requested a report, that must mean at some prior time they had told him not to prepare a report. MacDonell will testify that his practice is not to prepare a report until it is requested, that he did receive a request for a report from the Defense on June 3rd, and that he prepared that report as expeditiously as he could, turned it over to us on July 11th and it was immediately delivered to them. And as soon as we became available of any notes that at all come within the Sandeffer/hines requirement that notes be turned over, we secured those notes and turned them over. So there has certainly been no deliberate attempt to delay discovery for any--any tactical reason. This information has been made available to the Prosecution just as quickly as it has been made available to us.
All right. Thank you, counsel. Mr. Goldberg, when do you anticipate being able to make available copies of these documents to the Court?
Your Honor, it occurs to me that before I can make my argument to the Court the Court has to see this stuff and so I had a package prepared for the Court to be made.
All right. I need to release my court reporters in about four minutes, so what I propose we do is would you submit the documentation, I will read it over the evening hours and I will rule first thing in the morning.
On the discovery issue. All right. Mr. Neufeld, I take it you are going to argue the scientific aspect of the test, correct?
Yeah. I will respond to Miss Clark's motion that we received at four o'clock this afternoon. I think I can do so very expeditiously, but it probably makes more sense to do that after you have looked at the document, and the reason being that a lot of these points will be answered themselves by your Honor once you look at our document.
Your Honor, can I just make sure that every single item that we turned over in discovery is turned over in the packet?
Your Honor, perhaps Mr. Goldberg could be heard more briefly tomorrow morning before the Court issues its final ruling?
Okay. I would just like to discuss a couple factual things and then counsel's interpretation of woods and Sandeffer, which we are all familiar with, and Hines--I know the Court has read those three cases on a number of different occasions, so I don't have to discuss them too much. First of all, Mr. Matheson was present during part of the April the 2nd analysis, but he was asked to leave the room during part, so it is not true that he was there all the time. I'm not sure how relevant that is, but I just wanted to set that straight in case the Court felt it was relevant. Second, factually, there is no--nothing in the record, not a declaration submitted by counsel, as to when their expert was in and out of the country, although again I don't think that that is particularly significant legally, because that clearly would not be an excuse that we could use. I mean Matheson is obviously a very busy person; all criminalists are. We are clearly understaffed in this community in terms of our law enforcement at the local level and we cannot use that as an excuse for not generating reports and turning them over in a timely fashion. As to counsel's interpretation of the three cases that we are dealing with, we are all familiar with the language that he quoted from Sandeffer and we also know--
Yes. I just don't know why counsel cites that when we have a case that specifically says that it is dicta and that notes in fact are discoverable and discusses at length that language that we all know is dicta. And according to the Wood's Court, notes are discoverable, notwithstanding that dicta, but just to put this in some kind of a context, because we do have a reciprocal discovery law--
Well, Mr. Goldberg, the decision I have to make is, is there a violation? And if so, what are the sanctions? You are asking for preclusion at this point, correct, and that is the only remedy you are seeking?
Your Honor, if--if a party seeks one remedy, which is the maximum remedy that the Court can give under the law, obviously your Honor can give any other remedy. It is kind of a lesser included offense. It is the Court's prerogative to determine what the appropriate sanction is.
All right. But see, your comment hasn't given me any guidance in that form. I mean, let's say, for example, that I was not inclined to preclude, but I was inclined to grant a reasonable continuance to prepare to meet this information, and one of the reasons I asked to see this is because I would like to see for myself the extent of what went on here and gauge for myself what type of preparation will be necessary to meet this.
Well, your Honor, the Court could simply apply, if the Court wanted to do a continuance as a remedy, the same sanction that the Prosecution incurred earlier in this trial where we had to put certain evidence on at the end of our case and that the Defense should simply have to put this at the very tail end of their case, but clearly not this week, because at a very minimum it would take us the rest of this week and probably part of next week to be able to get all these materials to our experts and have them then generate a final report that could be turned over as to their analysis.
And we would also ask the Court to defer, if the Court is not going to entirely preclude this testimony, to defer ruling on the question of whether a continuance will be granted until after the Court has had an opportunity to hear from Miss Clark as to the substantive issues, because perhaps your Honor will more fully understand all of the issues that we perceive to be involved in the admissibility of this kind of evidence and all of the issues that we feel that it raises. I think the Court will be in a better position to determine how much time it would take the People reasonably to be able to confront that evidence if your Honor were inclined to allow that evidence.
I don't know. All right. We will continue this argument then in phase 2, I was going to suggest tomorrow morning at 8:30.
I just wanted to make the point, and I think it is an important one, that we are dealing with a reciprocal discovery law and certainly the obligation on the Defense is no greater than the obligation on the Prosecution.
And if you recollect--and counsel, if you recollect, I precluded the Prosecution from presenting very significant evidence from the FBI based upon a discovery violation, based upon a discovery violation on the eve of calling that witness.
The point I want to make is that at no time did the Defense receive notes of an expert prior to receiving the expert's report or at no time did the Defense get discovery of notes or reports before the Prosecution had even received them. So all we are saying is we want to be treated the same. We are turning stuff over just as quickly as we get it and we are turning the notes over at the time the reports are being produced.
Gil Garcetti, District Attorney by: Marcia R. Clark, William W. Hodgman, Christopher A. Darden, Cheri A. Lewis, Rockne P. Harmon, George W. Clarke, Scott M. Gordon Lydia C. Bodin, Hank M. Goldberg, Alan Yochelson and Darrell S. Mavis, Brian R. Kelberg, and Kenneth E. Lynch, Deputies 18-000 Criminal Courts Building 210 West Temple Street Los Angeles, California 90012
Robert L. Shapiro, Esquire Sara L. Caplan, Esquire 2121 Avenue of the Stars 19th floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr., Esquire by: Carl E. Douglas, Esquire Shawn Snider Chapman, Esquire 4929 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1010 Los Angeles, California 90010 Gerald F. Uelmen, Esquire Robert Kardashian, Esquire Alan Dershowitz, Esquire F. Lee Bailey, Esquire Barry Scheck, Esquire Peter Neufeld, Esquire Robert D. Blasier, Esquire William C. Thompson, Esquire
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I N D E X
Index for volume 189 pages 37284 - 37414
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day date session page vol.
Tuesday July 18, 1995 A.M. 37284 189
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Clark-mc Mr. Hodgman-h Mr. Darden d Mr. Kahn-k Mr. Goldberg-gb Mr. Gordon-g Mr. Shapiro-s Mr. Cochran-c Mr. Douglas-cd Mr. Bailey-b Mr. Uelmen-u Mr. Scheck-bs Mr. Neufeld-n
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
DEFENSE witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.
Huizenga, 189 Robert (Resumed) 37297BK 37337S 37389BK (Further) 37413
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
WITNESSES direct cross redirect recross vol.
Huizenga, 189 Robert (Resumed) 37297BK 37337S 37389BK (Further) 37413
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBITS
PEOPLE'S for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.
522 - Videotape 37308 189 of the Defendant giving a speech on March 31, 1994
523 - 1-Page document 37322 189 letter dated 6/28/95 from Dr. William Martel to Bertram a. Maltz, MD.
524 - 1-Page document 37324 189 handwritten notes of Bertram a. Maltz, MD.
507-A - diagram 37335 189 of a human body with red markings (Computer printout)
516-A - photograph 37335 189 of a close-up view of abrasions on the Defendant's hand (Computer printout)
518-BB - photograph 37336 189 of a close-up view of the Defendant's hand (Computer printout)
525 - 1-Page document 37337 189 identified as a report by Frank W. Jobe, MD.
526 - Photograph 37397 189 of a left and right hand from a textbook (Computer printout)
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Department no. 103 Hon. Lance a. Ito, Judge
The People of the State of California,)
Plaintiff,)
Vs.) No. BA097211)
Orenthal James Simpson,)
Defendant.)
Reporter's transcript of proceedings Tuesday, July 18, 1995
Volume 189A pages 37415 through 37644, inclusive
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gil Garcetti, District Attorney by: Marcia R. Clark, William W. Hodgman, Christopher A. Darden, Cheri A. Lewis, Rockne P. Harmon, George W. Clarke, Scott M. Gordon Lydia C. Bodin, Hank M. Goldberg, Alan Yochelson and Darrell S. Mavis, Brian R. Kelberg, and Kenneth E. Lynch, Deputies 18-000 Criminal Courts Building 210 West Temple Street Los Angeles, California 90012
Robert L. Shapiro, Esquire Sara L. Caplan, Esquire 2121 Avenue of the Stars 19th floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr., Esquire by: Carl E. Douglas, Esquire Shawn Snider Chapman, Esquire 4929 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1010 Los Angeles, California 90010 Gerald F. Uelmen, Esquire Robert Kardashian, Esquire Alan Dershowitz, Esquire F. Lee Bailey, Esquire Barry Scheck, Esquire Peter Neufeld, Esquire Robert D. Blasier, Esquire William C. Thompson, Esquire
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I N D E X
Index for volume 189A pages 37415 - 37644
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day date session page vol.
Tuesday July 18, 1995 A.M. 37415 189A
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Clark-mc Mr. Hodgman-h Mr. Darden d Mr. Kahn-k Mr. Goldberg-gb Mr. Gordon-g Mr. Shapiro-s Mr. Cochran-c Mr. Douglas-cd Mr. Bailey-b Mr. Uelmen-u Mr. Scheck-bs Mr. Neufeld-n
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
DEFENSE witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.
Moore, Juanita 37419C 37438MC 37457C 189A
Thompson, 37462C 37501D 37552C 37576D 189A Donald (Further) 37583C
Meraz, John 37593C 189A
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
WITNESSES direct cross redirect recross vol.
Meraz, John 37593C 189A
Moore, Juanita 37419C 37438MC 37457C 189A
Thompson, 37462C 37501D 37552C 37576D 189A Donald (Further) 37583C
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBITS
PEOPLE'S for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.
527 - Videotape 37545 189A of the Defendant and police officers on June 13, 1994
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEFENSE for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.
1250 - Videotape 37476 189A of the Defendant being handcuffed at 360 north Rockingham
1251 - Videotape 37497 189A of the Defendant at 360 north Rockingham on June 13, 1994
1252 - LAPD form 37599 189A vehicle investigation form
1253 - LAPD form 37601 189A vehicle investigation form
So we have what I would term a sort of sanitized report that gives us a conclusion but does not give us any of the underlying data that was used to reach that conclusion.
I put socks on everyday.
if you recollect, I precluded the Prosecution from presenting very significant evidence from the FBI based upon a discovery violation, based upon a discovery violation on the eve of calling that witness. You should keep that in mind.
Four minutes. Make it three.
It is a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Now they are saying, well, because they requested a report, that must mean at some prior time they had told him not to prepare a report.