All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present before the Court with counsel. Well, maybe it will be a lot shorter if we do it this way. All right. Counsel, on the issue regarding the blood splattering and blood testing, Mr. Neufeld, you provided to the Court certain citations to the transcript regarding whether or not there was testimony regarding soaking through to the other side. The citation that you gave me, 27766 through 27767, does not support that.

However, the Court in its own examination of the transcript found other references to the same type of testimony regarding whether or not opposite the main cutout, whether or not there was any evidence of soaking through. I'm not confident in the citations that you've given to me, and I'm going to examine the transcript myself because I have found on my own other references. So I want to have a complete record. And I didn't have time over the lunch hour to complete reading the transcript, reviewing Mr. Sims' testimony. We have to break early today at 4 o'clock to allow for a juror dental appointment. So hopefully at 4 o'clock, I'll be able to resume looking at the transcript. So in other words, I'm not prepared to rule because I haven't found everything I need in the transcript.

Your Honor, would it make sense though at least that I--for scheduling purposes, to have Dr.--I'm sorry--Professor MacDonell stick around until 5:00 or--you want to--are you going to address the issue you think at 5 o'clock this afternoon?

I hope to be able to get to it. Because, for example, if you look at the pages that you cited to me--

Yes, sir.

--27766 through 67, none of those pages address that particular issue.

Yes, it--I believe it addresses the powdering.

The powdering, yes. But the issue is, does it soak through and did he find any evidence--

Oh, what he's saying there is that all he did find is that it didn't soak through, but there was--there is powder. And then in the other references--

That's my point though. The record here that you cited to me doesn't have both parts of this discussion. All you've got is powder references. That doesn't help me. The issue is--isn't the issue, is there a soak through from one side to the other?

Right. And he says actually on the same page where he says powder--

But, counsel, my point is, I don't have both pieces in front of me. And having to take the time to go through the transcript to find both pieces, I didn't have time over the lunch hour. Because I recollected that testimony as well.

Right.

But I needed to find it, and you didn't give it to me.

All right. So give me another half hour to look at it.

All right.

Okay. All right. Let's continue with Mr. Meraz, please.

Your Honor, was there something--we resolved the objection, didn't we? So I've concluded here?

Which--where were we? We were at--I'm sorry. Refresh my recollection as to where we were.

There was an objection when I asked if he believed that Mr. Simpson had declined to prosecute and thus protected him from theft charges, and that was my last question. So--

All right. Mr. Cochran has now joined us.

Yes. I was in the hall.

As I indicated, we'll take that objection up when we come back from lunch. We're there now. The objection regarding Miss Clark's question as to whether or not Mr. Simpson's decision to waive any Prosecution of Mr. Meraz should be allowed regarding evidence of bias.

And my question, as I framed it in that regard, was carefully framed, that is to refer to this witness'--

In your own opinion?

In my--artful as far as I'm concerned--was simply--was narrowly directed towards the witness' belief that as to whether or not Mr. Simpson had declined to prosecute, and that goes to bias. That's what--artful as in the eye of the beholder, but that was the intent.

I won't comment on the artful aspect of it. But just the fact of--

Your Honor, could we have the witness excused for this, please?

No.

May I proceed, your Honor?

Yes, please.

For substance, your Honor, just quickly, is, I think that the prejudicial effect far outweighs any alleged probative value. And if I might just briefly indicate to the Court in my understanding of what transpired. First of all, nobody from LAPD ever has talked for obvious reasons--

Objection, your Honor. This is why I think the witness should be excluded.

He's out. Excuse me. I'm sorry. Mr. Meraz, would you step out, please. Thank you.

Mr. Cochran.

Yes, your Honor. As I understand it, nobody from LAPD has talked with Mr. Simpson obviously about any desires he may or may not have, vis-à-vis any Prosecution of some misdemeanor in this matter. In that regard, I did in fact receive several phone calls or--from Detective Kelly--Kelly Muldorfer asking me about whether or not we had any interest in this. And as I recall, my indication was look, we're involved in a--it was after this matter started trial. I said, "We're involved in a rather serious matter. I have no interest in talking about that or pursuing that and neither does my client at this point," having interest in--being concerned about that. He didn't need to be occupied with this. And--

Very well. I'm always very credible. So he's given me some statement about this. And let me read what Muldorfer says I said and see if she's credible. Let's see.

Well, she's on your witness list.

May I have a moment, your Honor?

Well, I don't--she says: "Mr. Cochran says Simpson was not cooperative, was pleading for his life in court right now."

That's not all she said.

So the facts and the essence of what she says is basically correct. I didn't have time really to be bothered with this, your Honor, and we were--I was talking to her in the evenings after court. But the point was, nobody ever talked to Mr. Simpson. I did in fact mention it to him. I said, look, I don't want to be bothered with that. My issue is in fighting my case.

But isn't the issue though whether or not Mr. Meraz is aware of the fact that your client has no interest in pursuing a criminal Prosecution of him for the taking of items from his car and--isn't that the issue?

Perhaps. But I'm not sure whether he's aware of that or not. I haven't discussed that with him. As I said, I talked to Muldorfer, and that's pretty much it, your Honor.

But it's Mr. Meraz' understanding, not your client's understanding that's at issue here.

Well, that's probably true. That's probably true. But I think that--again, I think that it's so tenuous, your Honor. I mean, I don't know what the response is going to be. Perhaps we can have an offer because these questions--you know, if there's a question of what's artfully phrased, perhaps we can have some offer that's going to be regarding this because I think it wastes a lot more time.

I thought it was pretty--

All right. I agree that whether or not somebody is going to prosecute somebody or request Prosecution for somebody clearly goes to the issue of bias. How do you propose to frame the question?

I thought that I phrased it in that manner before. Let me find out, your Honor. I intended to ask him whether he believes that Mr. Simpson declined to prosecute.

All right. Then I'd ask you to rephrase that since it's not Mr. Simpson who's declined.

Is that--I'm sorry?

I'd ask you to rephrase that since it's not actually Mr. Simpson who has declined.

I think--all right. You would prefer that I phrase it as Mr. Cochran declined to prosecute?

Have I understood the Court correctly, that you would like me to phrase it as Mr. Cochran declined?

Well, I would rather not phrase it at all.

I understand. But I think clearly it goes to the issue of bias. The issue is whether or not Mr. Meraz is aware that the Defendant has expressed no interest in pursuing criminal Prosecution.

Right. And not whether even that's true or not, but whether he believes that.

That's the issue.

Right.

So you can ask him, are you aware or do you believe or is it your understanding that the Defendant has expressed no desire to prosecute?

As opposed to decline to prosecute?

The only problem with that, that misstates it, your Honor. The conversations with me, they never talked with Mr. Simpson at all.

All right. The Defense--his attorney has expressed no interest in pursuing criminal Prosecution.

As opposed to decline to prosecute? All right.

You're talking about the attorney?

The attorney.

Mr. Simpson--they never talked to Mr. Simpson.

Okay.

All right. And then you're going to wind this up? That's the last question?

Can I have a moment?

Can I have placed on the record, your Honor, the names of the next two witnesses?

I'm sorry. Who are the next two witnesses?

I believe they will be Richard Walsh and I think Willie Ford.

That will take up the rest of the afternoon?

If we're leaving at 4:00, I would suspect it will, although we have one other witness too and maybe Muldorfer, Bill St. John. We'll have another witness.

Mr. Ford and Detective Muldorfer are in the building. Mr. Ford and Muldorfer, they're on 18.

All right. Let's have the jurors, please.

There's one other item that I meant to mark with Mr. Meraz that will be very brief. But I'm--

You're done.

I am really. May I also ask, your Honor, for leave to address the Court on the issue of perhaps holding a 402 with testimony concerning the matters taken up this morning. I don't know when the Court would like to address that, but--

Which part, Miss Clark?

We have Mr. Sims, Mr. Matheson and Mr. De Forest present, who would actually welcome the opportunity to address the Court on their observations and subject matter that we took up this morning.

But the issue is really, has an appropriate offer been made and does the transcript support the relevance of the issue. That's really what I need to decide.

Well, but that doesn't go to the substantive similarity issue with the experiments and all the rest of it.

I thought we discussed that already, counsel. Let's have the jury, please. All right. Mr. Douglas, could you summon Mr. Meraz, please.