The Defense will call Tracie Savage.

All right. Miss Savage.

Tracie Savage, (402) called as a witness by the Defendant, pursuant to evidence section 402, was sworn and testified as follows:

Please raise your right hand. You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this court, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God.

I do.

Please have a seat on the witness stand and state and spell your first and last names for the record.

My name is Tracie Savage and it is spelled T-R-A-C-I-E S-A-V-A-G-E.

Mr. Uelmen.

Thank you, your Honor.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. UELMEN

Miss Savage, what is your occupation?

I'm a television news reporter.

And by whom are you employed?

I work for KNBC TV here in Los Angeles.

Were you employed by KNBC in that capacity in September of 1994?

Yes, I was.

On September 21, 1994, did you broadcast a news report related to the case of People versus OJ Simpson?

Yes, I did.

And in that news report did you report information with respect to some socks that had been allegedly recovered from Mr. Simpson's bedroom?

That's correct.

All right. And what did you report about those socks?

And did you report any information with respect to the nature of the tests that had been performed?

Yes, I did.

And what was that?

I reported that a DNA test had been conducted.

And that the results of that DNA test had been reported?

That is correct.

Now, I take it that in making that report you were reporting what you believed were accurate information?

All right. How many sources?

I'm afraid I cannot answer that question. That is protected by the shield law.

But you are asserting that what you reported was an accurate presentation of what the sources had told you?

That is correct.

And were these sources knowledgeable about the investigation of the case of People versus OJ Simpson?

I object. That calls for conclusion.

Sustained. I think what you can do is ask if she in fact reported that these were knowledgeable sources and then ask her what her definition is of "Knowledgeable."

Thank you, your Honor.

Did you report any information about the knowledge of the sources whom you were quoting in this report?

Yes, I did report that they were knowledgeable sources.

And what did you mean by "Knowledgeable"?

They were sources, and this has been stated already on the record, close to the investigation.

So these sources then were the--the source of your information that sock had been recovered from Mr. Simpson's bedroom?

Calls for a conclusion and opinion.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

When you reported that socks had been recovered from Mr. Simpson's bedroom, you were relying then on these sources who were close to the investigation?

And it was these sources who informed you that socks had been recovered from the bedroom?

That was part of the information that the sources had given to me.

And it was these sources who told you that the socks had blood on them?

That is correct.

And it was these sources who told you that the blood on the socks had been tested?

That is correct.

And it was these sources who told you that the tests had revealed a match to the blood of Nicole Brown Simpson?

That is correct.

And it was these sources who told you that the tests that were conducted were DNA tests?

That is correct.

Now, did you make any promise to these sources that their identity would be kept confidential?

And this is true with respect to each of the sources that you spoke to?

I gave my word to my sources that I would never reveal their identities.

And you gave that word explicitly? You told them "I will not reveal that you were the source of this information"?

Yes, that's true.

Now, were these sources persons who have given you information in the past?

That is true.

And the information they had given you in the past was also related to the case of People versus OJ Simpson?

Not--well--

Your Honor, if I can interpose an objection here, I know this is somewhat unusual, but this I think goes well beyond what the Court indicated what Miss Savage would be asked to testify about, was merely the foundation that she is a reporter and the information given to her during the course of new gathering activity and she made promises of confidentiality. With all due respect, Mr. Uelmen is not conducting the inquiry of Miss Savage which he is entitled to conduct.

Sustained.

Your Honor, we would maintain that this is information that has already been disseminated in the letter to the Court from KNBC that the reports were based on.

Counsel, I agree with you that I'm already aware that that is a representation that has been made. The issue is, is to establish the foundation for invoking the shield law and then I have to make a determination going beyond that once we get to that point. The question is premature.

Now, could you tell us what you mean, Miss Savage, when you indicate that your sources were close to the investigation?

Same objection, your Honor. We are beyond now the scope and I think the foundation has already been laid. There is no need to go beyond what Miss Savage has already testified to.

Overruled. How do you define generally knowledgeable and close to the investigation?

Mr. Uelmen.

Well, Miss Savage, did you assume that the information given by your sources was accurate because they were close to the investigation?

Well, that is not relevant.

We are beyond the scope of the inquiry at this point.

Did your sources include any officers or agents of the Los Angeles Police Department?

I respectfully decline to answer that question. I now assert the shield law.

Again, your Honor, he is now asking the questions beyond foundational questions.

No. The foundational question--one of the foundational questions were if you were asked what the sources were would you invoke the shield? That is where we are. That has been now accomplished. Mr. Uelmen.

All right.

And at this time then you decline to indicate any of the sources on whom you relied for the report of September 21st?

That is true at this time.

Nothing further, your Honor.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Uelmen. Mr. Goldberg, do you have any questions?

May I just have one moment, your Honor?

Certainly.

Your Honor, I don't have any questions.

All right. Miss Savage, thank you very much. All right. The Court will make a finding that a preliminary foundation has been established. The Court will take under submission the Delaney issues.