All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. And we need to make inquiry of Mr. Bosco. Mr. Shapiro.
Yes, your Honor. I had a chance to talk to him this morning. He has chosen to have counsel. Mr. Mirell has just arrived to advise him. I have furnished Mr. Mirell with a copy of the article, and I have no objection certainly to Mr. Bosco and Mr. Mirell taking as much time as they need to prepare this matter.
All right. Mr. Mirell, we have a 4:00 o'clock end of the court day today. So whatever--you've very familiar with these issues I'm sure. So--
Well, I'm not here representing the ACLU, your Honor. I'm here representing Mr. Bosco, and I was called on this matter 20 minutes ago. And I apologize for not watching this morning's proceedings. I was engaged across the street in the federal court. So I really am very much at sea in terms of what has already occurred. I don't want to be duplicative. I don't want to waste the Court's time. Perhaps if we could arrange to take this matter up tomorrow morning, I would be at least more prepared at that point to address whatever the issues are.
All right. Why don't you converse with Mr. Shapiro, who is the person interested in calling your client, talk to Mr. Bosco and then let me know what your status is.
Good afternoon, your Honor. I would like, if I could, to put something on the record at this point as I indicated to the Court earlier. The Court is aware that last week, the Court was kind enough to issue a subpoena for Miss Laura Hart McKinney in North Carolina, and I had the pleasure of journeying to North Carolina on Friday morning where I was able to read transcripts and listen to a very small portion of a tape. There are some 11 or 12 hours of tapes, your Honor, regarding Mark Fuhrman. The Judge allowed us to listen to a very small portion of those tapes back in chambers. The thing that I wanted to call to your Honor's attention and solicit your Honor's assistance on, the Court and Judge Wood in Winston-Salem, North Carolina failed to give full faith and credit to the subpoena that your Honor had issued on some basis that he felt this wasn't material. I argued strenuously, your Honor, that after having heard the portion of the tape that I heard--and I can represent to the Court it was Detective Fuhrman's voice and I can tell the Court that these tapes and these transcripts were from a period April of 1985 to July of 1994. We didn't hear all of those tapes, but we heard just enough to make sure it was his voice. I also called this lady, Miss Laura Hart McKinney, to the stand, and she indicated this was Detective Fuhrman's voice, these were her tapes, she had met him in Westwood in 1985, he became like a technical consultant for her. And, Judge, it is chilling, these tapes and what was said by this man in view of what he said here in court. He uses the term "Dumb Nigger," "Niggers" and "Mexicans." He uses it throughout and this is not in any story line when he does that. He's talking about in giving her background about the LAPD and that sort of thing. I would think the LAPD would be very, very concerned. The title of the screenplay of course that she comes up with your Honor is men against women, maw, this organization that we know--this clandestine organization that we know existed within the LAPD. But having gone through and taken some notes, I wanted to at least make a record and I want to solicit your Honor's assistance in something. In addition to using racial epitaphs and slurs against blacks and Mexicans and women, Detective Fuhrman talks about his philosophy, disagrees with the LAPD philosophy. He shoots to kill, not to stop. He talks about arresting people simply because they're "Niggers." He talks, your Honor, if you can imagine, about arresting a person, stopping a black person in Westwood and you ask him where he lives and he says 22nd and Westwood--and the Court knows generally where that area is--and then he takes him into custody because he didn't belong in Westwood, that when he wants to fabricate something to arrest someone, he takes the person's license, tears the license up and then says this person has no identification. It is absolutely frightening. He goes and talks about--and this is--you got to understand the time frame. This is near the letter to Kathleen Bell. There was a big concern at the time about feeding people in Ethiopia, and his response is he didn't care at all about feeding a bunch of "Dumb Niggers" in Ethiopia, on and on and on it goes about chokeholds and "Niggers" and on and on. It's absolutely frightening.
And the lawyers for this lady were likewise taken aback. Everybody was as this Court would. It is absolutely material because I don't have to remind this Court that Mr. Bailey in his examination asked Detective Fuhrman had he ever used that word in the last 10 years within the time frame and was he as sure about not having used that word as he was about finding the Rockingham glove. You will recall that. So it's very, very relevant. It's very, very material. 95 percent or more of what is on the tapes and in the transcripts have to do with Detective Fuhrman's background, not any characters or not any situation like that. He even talks, if you can imagine, about a lieutenant, a female lieutenant that we heard briefly about who comes out to investigate maw in West Los Angeles. I think the Court appreciates the possible relevance of that. We just ran out of time. This Judge listened to this and said he heard enough. Everybody in that courtroom assumed along with us that this was certainly material, this was certainly relevant, that a man's life was at stake.
In fact, near the end of the hearing, your Honor, the lawyers for this lady said things like, "We just want Mr. Cochran to make sure she's put up in a nice hotel and perhaps she can bring her husband with her." Everybody seemed to see the relevance except his honorable Court there in North Carolina. Now, this is a bombshell. This is a critical bit of evidence for a critical witness in this case. It goes even beyond this case. It talks about a culture. It talks about so many of the things we've talked about. It talks about framing people, setting up people, falsifying reports. And so we need this lady out here. Obviously efforts are going on to still get her here. We expect to file, if not by this afternoon, by tomorrow morning in Raleigh, Durham an appeal, a writ of mandamus and a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals there. We will go all the way to the Supreme Court. We will go to the U.S. Supreme Court if we have to on this issue. I don't want to delay the proceeding. Your Honor understood the materiality of this. And what I'm going to ask you to consider doing is to give us a declaration regarding the materiality of these tapes, of getting this lady out here to California and in these proceedings.
I will be glad to provide your Honor with hopefully some authority with regard to that. After all, it was your subpoena, and you know these facts certainly better than the Judge in North Carolina, and as an Officer of the Court, so do I. And so we--justice should not be thwarted by some bizarre decision by a Judge in North Carolina under these circumstances. So we're not just going to take it laying down. We're going to move ahead. I have this morning been in touch again with the lawyers for Miss McKinney. They're also back in California. So in the Court--my request then today is to make the record clear how strongly we feel about this and how this man, the bottom line is, he's committed perjury. He should be investigated by an office other than the District Attorney's office because of their alliance with this man, perhaps the Attorney General, perhaps the U.S. Attorney. Someone should investigate this for perjury. The police commission has to look at this because this whole aspect of everything that took place here, this is frightening and it's extremely serious. And those of us who heard this in that courtroom were chilled by what we heard and what took place.
And so what I'm asking the Court to do is assist us in getting this information, and I think perhaps a declaration, a further declaration regarding materiality might be the way to go, your Honor.
One other thing that I wanted to say before Miss Clark started to speak. And one other very, very chilling reference that had nothing to do with any screenplay or whatever, there is a statement in his own voice of the ACLU and N double a CP should be bombed. That kind of language, that kind of thought processes, that person who spent 20 years on the LAPD--and I understand he's about to retire, your Honor, to move to this area in Idaho--is just beyond the pale and we need your assistance. We're seeking to do justice here. The primary argument of counsel in North Carolina was the same argument you've heard here today. She--as a journalist, she wanted to have some kind of right of privacy and didn't want to divulge this. But it has been divulged. You know, it's clear we've all heard it, and I think that even the lawyers expected her to be here. Only the Judge made this ruling, which we think is entirely inappropriate, and we're asking you to step in and assist us in that regard.
I don't--my response is only a legal one. I don't know if this Court can really make a declaration based on the representations of counsel without--not having heard the tapes yourself, your Honor. I don't know legally speaking what the proper response of this Court could possibly be without firsthand knowledge of the material in issue. My review of the transcript to date indicates to me that there was a consistent position taken by the author that this was a screenplay, that Mr. Fuhrman was requested to adopt a character for her in helping her to write this fictional account. This was not a documentary she was writing, your Honor. It's fiction. And my understanding was, Detective Fuhrman was furnishing fictional material for her as a fictional character. So I think that is important to the consideration of whether or not it's material, and I think the Court should know what the matter is before adopting any position in terms of the declaration to oppose another Court. That's the only thing I would indicate.
All right. Mr. Cochran, Miss Clark raises a good point. One, the Court issued the subpoenas under the interstate compact. And there is a procedure that this Court and courts in the receiving states follow. And if the receiving state court made a determination adverse to the issuance of those subpoenas, then there's an appellate remedy, a writ of appellate remedy available in North Carolina. I've made the determination of materiality here. A Judge in a different state has apparently made a different ruling however, and I can not in any way criticize that ruling from this vantage point, nor do I think it's ever appropriate for another Judge to comment or criticize the rulings of another court, especially in matters that are pending. It's unethical and it's inappropriate. And Miss Clark does raise the issue that I have not seen a transcript of those proceedings. I have--but you were there.
I was there and as an Officer of the Court, I also--someone was kind enough to give up a copy of the tape. Let me indicate this to you. And I will ask the lawyers themselves to come down here tomorrow if you would like to. 95 percent of what's in these transcripts was not part of the play. This was Detective Fuhrman speaking about his experiences as an LAPD officer as a technical consultant. This was not any fiction. You think men against women--that's not a fiction. Miss Clark wasn't there, your Honor. I was there.
Well--all right. Mr. Cochran, here's the problem though. The legal issue before the Court, is there anything that the trial court here in California has the authority to do to enforce an out-of-state subpoena. The answer at this point I believe is no. I've issued the subpoena. It's gone to a reviewing court in another state, and that state has declined to Honor that subpoena after holding a hearing. I'm not in a position I don't think to--I don't have any authority or jurisdiction to do anything more at this point, although I will confess to you this is not a situation that has come before this Court before.
It has not, and I'm thinking, your Honor, about something analogous to extradition situations. And, you know, you made an interesting point. And we're not here to necessarily criticize anyone in another state. Obviously we've got to go to North Carolina and appeal to another court. So we're not seeking to do that. But, Judge, you know, by this Judge taking this decision or making this decision, he somewhat criticizes your decision regarding materiality. And who, Judge, would know more about materiality in this case that you've been trying since September 26th? You or this Judge back in North Carolina? So I just put that in perspective. I think you're being too kind. Perhaps I can say that. I mean, you would not know a lot more. And I don't expect you to criticize your brethren on the bench, but I think that what we're saying--and if I can give you some authority or some assistance--all we're saying is to ask you to give us something that further buttresses what we're talking about. This is not any fiction. This is the way this man lived. This is the way this man thinks. This is when he talks about Hitler celebrations and things like that throughout. And this isn't all of it, your Honor. There's like 12 hours up until the time after he investigated these particular crimes that this thing went on. It is absolutely frightening. And what it is is, bottom line, it's perjury. It's absolutely perjury. He didn't claim any exception for anything. And that's what it boils down to. This cannot be allowed to stand. And so I'm really frankly surprised that Miss Clark would even say anything. When we talk about a search for truth, this is the truth. We got his own voice. This is not anything anybody made up. It's his voice, his words. And so I think that if you would even just reaffirm your finding of materiality in light of these facts on the tapes, I mean, I think what's what we need. And I want to give you some time to think about it. I want to get back to the jury. If you'll think about it and not rule at this point. You're never precipitous and you wouldn't be now. And think about it and let me see if I can provide you with something additional. After all, we're talking about your subpoena that they failed not to give. I didn't have a subpoena. It was yours, your Honor. And so--but from that standpoint, I think we have an interest in doing the right thing here, being honest and pursuing the truth.
But, Mr. Cochran, we have to put this in perspective. While I have the benefit of having sat through this trial everyday since June the 22nd, so I know something about the facts and circumstances, that court heard the tapes, saw the transcripts and talked to the parties involved, the author and her counsel. So that Judge has more information than I do about the particulars.
No. I'm not trying to get you to criticize anyone. I'm just saying, I have a copy of the proceedings. So you can see those very easily. And let me tell you something, Judge. We went back into chambers for about maybe a half hour, and we read transcripts of the first 48 pages that talked about framing people and that sort of thing, tearing up licenses, what you do for this. And we read this and we then listened to enough of the tape and then brought the client in to say, "Is that Mark Fuhrman's voice," and of course it was.
You got to understand, this happens from `85 up to `94. 90 percent of the information we never heard. But in talking to the lawyers who had heard this, they were very clear. This has nothing to do with any screenplay. This was background. There's perhaps one or two references about a screenplay. She then took what she wanted from him as a resource person. In fact, she talks to another police officer too somewhere on these tapes. There's far more to this than the Prosecution is aware of. This is a situation where these tapes ultimately must come to California, Judge, because it's critical to the Defense. And as I said, we're going to take this all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if she doesn't come forward voluntarily. But it is not--they cannot hide behind an absence of materiality. And I don't want you to criticize anybody. I just want you to stand up for what you believe. You know that Fuhrman is material as I've indicated. If the jury disbelieves his testimony, your Honor, who could quarrel with the fact that's very important to this particular case where he's committed perjury. And so that's what we're talking about here. So I would like an opportunity to perhaps see if there's any cases that might assist us, anything analogous to this in the law that will help us. But I wanted to bring it to your Honor's attention at the first available time.
All right. Are we ready to proceed? All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.
Your Honor, just as a reminder to save time, I'll finish my direct in probably 10 minutes. The Court had already ruled that before the Prosecution can begin its cross-examination, they have to turn over disclosure of any impeachment material they intend to use before they begin the cross. In particular, transcripts of any other proceedings they intend to use have to be given to counsel. And also, your Honor, it's my understanding that we agreed that before they go into any of the cases, that we will have a sidebar on those issues as well.
Thank you. So you may realize that in eight minutes, there's going to be a brief recess to deal with some of those issues. Okay.
He uses the term 'Dumb Nigger,' 'Niggers' and 'Mexicans.' He uses it throughout and this is not in any story line when he does that. He's talking about in giving her background about the LAPD and that sort of thing.
He talks about arresting people simply because they're 'Niggers.' He talks, your Honor, if you can imagine, about arresting a person, stopping a black person in Westwood... and then he takes him into custody because he didn't belong in Westwood, that when he wants to fabricate something to arrest someone, he takes the person's license, tears the license up and then says this person has no identification.
There is a statement in his own voice of the ACLU and N double a CP should be bombed.
I can not in any way criticize that ruling from this vantage point, nor do I think it's ever appropriate for another Judge to comment or criticize the rulings of another court, especially in matters that are pending. It's unethical and it's inappropriate.
Detective Fuhrman was furnishing fictional material for her as a fictional character. So I think that is important to the consideration of whether or not it's material.