Mr. Cochran has I think impressed the jury with the notion that LAPD or this officer in particular had no cause to arrest the Defendant within 30 seconds of his arrival at home. The fact of the matter is that this particular officer went to Bundy, he saw the bloody shoeprints, he knew about the blood drops, he knew about the dead bodies in front of the place. He knew it was Nicole Brown Simpson. He went to Rockingham, he saw the blood in the Bronco, he saw the blood trail behind the Bronco, he saw the blood going up the driveway, he saw the blood in the foyer. And this officer is going to testify that they should have hooked OJ Simpson up.
They should have hooked him up at that time. Counsel raised the notion that he had no cause to arrest him, and all I'm asking for is permission to rebut that notion and the fact of the matter that if it was anybody else, they would have been hooked up, as Mr. Cochran put it, and there was more than sufficient legal cause to do it. And I think under the circumstances, the jury needs to know that.
All I tried to show is what happened when he came home. He was arrested or hooked up at this point until Howard Weitzman came. He already knew. I didn't go into Bundy. We specifically approached to discuss the limited inquiry I would ask about, and that's all I went into. 352. We're not raising the issue of that. We're just indicating he was arrested, hooked up. It wasn't even this guy's idea anyway. He was I guess junior to Vannatter. That's not the issue. The issue is what happened on that particular morning. That's all.
This is cross-examination. He shouldn't be allowed to restrict, you know, what is reasonable cross. And this is reasonable. You raised these issues, and I would like to finish.
I did not raise that issue, your Honor. And I approached the bench and went through this. I didn't raise that issue about that. I just raised the issue this man handcuffed Mr. Simpson, and that's the issue I raised and talked about the coffee cup. That is all I did, as you said with us before. They presented their case. This is our case or part of the case. How does that become relevant, going over to Bundy? We went through that already. I mean after that, we're just trying to put our case on in a way that you've said they could put on their case. We've done exactly the same thing. I don't see how he can go far afield of that, how this is even relevant.
I never heard the term "Far afield" until I encountered Mr. Cochran and Mr. Shapiro. I watched their cross.
Mr. Cochran, what was the relevance of putting this guy on in the first place; that he was handcuffed when he arrived, within 30 seconds of his arrival?
The relevance of that is they--this is on June 13th at 12:00 o'clock. There's nothing back, nothing at all, and he's handcuffed at that point.
Not at all. That is a fact. You are saying I can't put this on? It has nothing to do with any probable cause.
I'm saying, the relevance of it has to do with whether or not there's a rush to judgment, which is far different from probable cause. Whether they make a decision whether to handcuff this man within 30 to 45 seconds, this seems to be extremely relevant. The fact to allow them to parade up these blood spots over here, we've already heard that. It's cumulative. They don't get to retry their case. They tried there case. At this point, this is our case.
My recollection, however, Mr. Darden, is that the direction to Officer Thompson came from Detective Vannatter.
KEY QUOTEThen the determination of probable cause is Detective Vannatter's or Detective Vannatter to testify to.
Judge, that is not the issue. He could have taken this up with Vannatter, okay, which they did. Now they called this other guy up here to raise the issue again in the Defense, and he is the officer who actually placed him in physical custody. How can his state of mind not be an issue? It's not fair, Judge.
What do you mean it's not fair? Your Honor, this is the Defense case. This is the Defense case. We have the right to put that on. It has nothing to do--that's unfair. I mean, I approached the bench to talk to the Court about that. We're trying to move this case along. This is ridiculous. His state of mind, how can it be relevant to doing something?
He's raised this rush to judgment stuff in his Defense, Judge. The witness is here.
He can testify to his--even though Vannatter is his senior, he has the right not to place someone under arrest if he doesn't believe there is probable cause. He is a police officer employed by the LAPD. You know, this officer has the right not to mind an unlawful order. If there was insufficient probable cause, he didn't have to arrest OJ Simpson.
KEY QUOTEWait. How long is this going to take? He's going to say he was there, "I saw this, I saw that."
Well, you know, I'm on cross. I can, you know--I get to lead. I can lead him. 10 or 12 questions to finish that aspect.
Judge, what I ask you to do in this case is--we are trying to do what we can to get this case finished.
I understand you don't want to go back into this. I am going to let the jury go. Hold on. Stay there.
All right. Ladies and gentlemen, this discussion is going to take a little longer than I thought. We're going to take our break right now. So why don't you all step back into the jury room, take your mid-afternoon break, and then I'll chat with the lawyers here for a few moments. All right. Remember all my admonitions to you. All right, officer. You can step down. Don't go away. Madam reporter, would you resume your spot there, please.
The fact of the matter is that this particular officer went to Bundy, he saw the bloody shoeprints, he knew about the blood drops, he knew about the dead bodies in front of the place... And this officer is going to testify that they should have hooked OJ Simpson up.
The relevance of that has to do with whether or not there's a rush to judgment, which is far different from probable cause. Whether they make a decision whether to handcuff this man within 30 to 45 seconds, this seems to be extremely relevant.
My recollection, however, Mr. Darden, is that the direction to Officer Thompson came from Detective Vannatter. Then the determination of probable cause is Detective Vannatter's or Detective Vannatter to testify to.
He can testify to his--even though Vannatter is his senior, he has the right not to place someone under arrest if he doesn't believe there is probable cause. He is a police officer employed by the LAPD. You know, this officer has the right not to mind an unlawful order.
Is he finished? Who's kidding whom?