All right. The record should reflect the jury has withdrawn from the courtroom. All right. Mr. Darden, my understanding is that you wish to inquire on cross-examination of Officer Thompson what information he had that in his mind justified detaining Mr. Simpson at the time that he arrived at his premises approximately noon on June the 13th, correct?
That's correct, your Honor. Mr. Cochran has made an issue of the fact that the Defendant was handcuffed in 30 seconds or 45 seconds upon his arrival at the house and that he has raised this rush to judgment issue before this jury, and I think that--I'm sure that the Court would agree, I think any lawyer would agree that there's more than sufficient probable cause at that point to place this Defendant in handcuffs, and we would like the opportunity to rebut this inference that counsel has raised before this jury, a wrongful inference, and establish before the jury and show the jury that in normal police practice, given the information known to this officer, it was more than sufficient probable cause to arrest him, to place him in handcuffs. There's nothing wrong with what happened with this Defendant at 360 Rockingham. And had he not been a celebrity or somebody else, he would have been arrested and handcuffed in less than 30 seconds, and I think the jury should be made aware of that.
But isn't the testimony of this officer that he was following the directions of Detective Vannatter?
And he was instructed by somebody else and that it was Detective Vannatter who made the probable cause determination, not this particular officer?
That's correct, your Honor. But this officer, as a member of the LAPD, has no duty to follow or comply with an unlawful order from a Detective III, which Vannatter was. Had he not believed in the propriety of placing this Defendant in handcuffs, he could have objected. He didn't have to do it. But he did, and he did it because he knew or he had some information about the crime scene at Bundy because he had been there. He knew about the bodies, he knew about the footprints, he knew about the blood drop I believe that ended at the driveway. He knew and saw the blood in the Bronco, he knew about that. He saw the blood drops leading away from the Bronco and the blood drops leading up the driveway into the foray of the house. And because we're talking about an issue of probable cause, I suggest as well that he has a right to rely on hearsay and he should be allowed to tell the jury everything he knew and heard that morning that would suggest to any reasonable police officer that this Defendant had killed two people. He should have been arrested and the jury should be made aware of that and they should be made aware of it in the context of this so-called rush of judgment.
He was aware of the blood at the Rockingham address, and based upon that, he saw no reason to disagree with Detective Vannatter's determination to hook up Mr. Simpson?
Well, I'm not. Not anymore. But, you know--also, you know, I think it's important--
KEY QUOTEWell, but I think also, I think it's important to establish before the jury that these officers acted in good faith, your Honor, and that this is not some conspiracy and that the officers did not act maliciously toward this Defendant.
Yes, your Honor. First of all, all we're trying to get here is a fair trial. Before we started this proceeding, this record should reflect that I approached the bench to your Honor and asked you, went through this officer's report as an offer of proof, told you what I would go into. There's a particular area I would not go into. You indicated that would not be allowed to go into. You know, the reason why this trial has lasted so long is because we have all these--whatever their minds may think up, they want to go over and rehash. We've heard this for six months in their case, and now I cannot believe the Court is entertaining the thought of allowing them to do it again. We made it very clear what I was going to go into. Then I did exactly that, your Honor. I mean, what we want is a fair trial here, your Honor. It seems whatever--we limit everything we're doing. We're the ones moving this case and it's grossly unfair. This officer's state of mind has nothing to do with it. All we sought to prove is just the facts. They're always talking about the truth of the situation. The truth of the matter is, Mr. Simpson returned here at 12:00 o'clock on June 13th, and within 30 to 45 seconds, he was handcuffed. Now, that's what I brought out and there were two coffee cups on the Bronco. Now, to allow them to go back and talk about some blood on Bundy, we heard about this for months, your Honor. We've heard about all that. Probable cause is not in issue. His state of mind is not an issue. Vannatter is the one that specifically elicited. Vannatter is the one who said hook him up. The fact that the Court can ask those questions in two or three questions, that's very nice, your Honor. But then your Honor is no longer in the District Attorney's office. That's their job. And as the Judge, we ask you to--I want Mr. Simpson to have a fair trial, and the fair trial comes about when we approach, ask you for certain rulings in advance so we can rely upon those things. And when the People come right behind and starts talking about Bundy, and I objected as beyond the scope clearly, you know, what can we rely on? And that's--I think that's the point, your Honor, that we're asking. This is not relevant. His state of mind is not relevant, has nothing do with it at all. All I sought to bring out was what the facts were, your Honor, as they existed on that morning, and that's all we elicited. And I tried to use the videos--they want to talk about truth--of what actually took place. This officer told a straightforward story and that was all. And in no way did I attack him. I just elicited the facts from what they were. Now, counsel wants to go and now bring out his state of mind, and they make all these statements. I mean, you know, your Honor, that's what this trial is all about, isn't it, as to who did it. I mean, the fact that they think Mr. Simpson is guilty has nothing to do with reality. There's the truth and there's the truth according to them. And I just would ask your Honor to counsel--counsel, all of us as advocates, we don't make those kinds of statements. We just like go right down the middle. He's presumed to be innocent. That's the rule in America when last I looked. So all these statements about he should have been hooked up if he hadn't been him, that's preposterous. A jury, the conscience of this community will make the judgment in that regard. It doesn't matter if the state of mind or whether Vannatter was right or whatever. Ultimately, all of these facts we put together in a search for truth, your Honor. Not that there was blood over there. We know about that. It's not as though they've been precluded. You gave them six months to get everything they wanted to until they finally sat down and said they rested. Now, they want to put on their case during our case. And I cannot count the times that we would approach the bench and you would say, "Counsel, it's their case. They can put it on any way they want to." It's our turn now. And so what we do is approach you and ask you to limit certain things. You say we're going to limit it. And now we're wasting time again with another major argument. And the fact that you can do it in three questions--your Honor, I apologize. I don't perceive it to be a cheap shot. What he said was, he says, "I'm out of drama." I said yes, after the gloves. Now, that wasn't a cheap shot.
Well, it's your court. So if you think it was, then I apologize. But I don't think it was a cheap shot. I was responding to what Mr. Darden said, two of my colleagues.
Counsel, Mr. Darden and I were discussing a matter, and you piped in with that, which I took to be a cheap shot.
Well, I didn't think it was a cheap shot. And I was talking to Mr. Shapiro. I did not--when you say piped in--but you heard very well, your Honor.
I could do that in three questions.
Well, it would be more dramatic if you did it in 15, your Honor.
But we're not here for drama, are we, Mr. Darden?
Well, I'm not. Not anymore.
He's presumed to be innocent. That's the rule in America when last I looked.