Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present before the Court with counsel, People represented. The jury is not present. All right. Counsel, we've had an extended lunch hour to allow the attorneys to confer and hopefully to reach some stipulations. And, Miss Clark, have you consulted with Mr. Cochran regarding these matters?
What are the stipulations? You don't have to read me the stipulations, but what are the topics of the stipulations?
Yes. The first stipulation is concerning the testimony of Juditha Brown concerning--the Court's I think familiar with the subject matter.
The second would be stipulation concerning the admissibility of telephone records. These concern the phone bills for the home telephone of the Defendant and for Juditha Brown.
All right. This will be subject to our agreement that if at a subsequent time there are phone numbers that are not relevant to the case, those will be redacted.
Right. And even days--dates. At this time, it seems apparent that at least June 12th and 13th are relevant, but it may be that that's all that's relevant and the rest can be stricken. So neither side waives the opportunity to object on grounds of relevancy later on.
That is correct. That's my understanding, your Honor. Both sides reserve that right to object on relevancy and the fact that we want to maintain the privacy of these numbers if at all possible, and further, there are other people who may have made these phone calls other than the parties involved.
KEY QUOTEAnd the third stipulation concerns the photographs contained in People's 354, 358-B and 359 which I propose, when I read them to the jury, I want to be able to show the exhibits to the jury so they know what we are talking about. The only exception is 358-B, which depicts the cropped photograph of the front of the neck of Ronald Goldman, and I would simply say that it depicts the front of the neck of Ronald Goldman as found by the Coroner's investigators on June the 13th without showing it to the jury cause--
Yes. And I would like to be heard with regard to a 352 objection, a further 352 objection as to exhibits 354 and 358-B for the record, and then we can proceed with the stipulation.
All right. Then I think we should--then I should hear the objections--352 objections as to 354 and 358-B. Let's start with 358-B. I do have that in front of me.
And the clerk was kind enough to place that before you, your Honor. I believe that--the Court will recall that Mr. Shapiro I believe had strenuously objected to this particular photograph. And that if the Court looks at that photograph--and even the Court has agreed in part because that is a cropped photograph, which certainly went along with our argument that the prejudicial effect of that photograph of Mr. Goldman and his injuries far outweighs any probative value. As the Court will recall, there are a number of photographs showing these injuries in this matter, and we felt that particular photograph was just beyond and above and unnecessary, and I wanted to renew that objection even for the stipulation, that we do not at this point waive our 352 objection even though it's been overruled at this point. And so I wanted to at least renew that.
All right. Your stipulation then as far as you're concerned maintaining your previous 352 objection is to stipulate to the authenticity of the photograph.
That is correct, your Honor. That someone would call for--to come in and testify who took that photograph and it's a fair portrayal. But the question of the portrayal is what concerns us, and we don't think it's necessary and we think, as I said, it's a 352 problem.
Yes. Very briefly. The Court has ruled and ruled appropriately for the appropriate reasons. Those--the photograph, particularly the one in issue now with counsel, is very relevant to depict and to illustrate the testimony of Dr. Lakshmanan, and the appearance of those injuries as the victims were found at the scene is critical to the foundation for his testimony and the formulation of his opinions, and the Court has already ruled pursuant to lengthy argument with Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Kelberg, who were more well versed in the issues involved. And the Court has seen and heard the testimony now and can see how relevant that photograph really was and how necessary it was as an illustrative tool for the witness' testimony.
The final thing I would say is, the Court does have the benefit now of hindsight and the Court has heard the eight days of direct of Dr. Lakshmanan. And then putting it in perspective, there is a real question of whether or not we need that photograph for his eight days of direct and Mr. Shapiro's perhaps a day of very, very four hours, which reminds me of very, very crisp and cogent cross-examination. I don't want to be self-serving, but I think that from this standpoint, if the Court pleases, that this photograph doesn't add anything and it tends to be extremely gruesome and disturbing. You used those words yourself. So I'll submit it. I think that that's my concern, and I don't think it adds anything that's necessary. I do appreciate the fact that counsel is not asking that that photograph be displayed to the jury at this point.
All right. Well, you're right, Mr. Cochran. I do have the benefit of hindsight at this point, and I have now and even--now, having heard the doctor's testimony, I have an even clearer idea in my mind as to the relevance of this particular photograph. So the Court's previous ruling will stand.
354, again, with regard to these photographs--and the Court will see those depicted there. People's 354 shows various photographs of Miss Nicole Brown Simpson's body, including the condition of her right and left hands. The jury has seen this before. And again, I wanted to renew our 352 objection. Again, these photographs are--the prejudicial effect of these photographs is outweighed by the probative value and they're not necessary further at this point. I would ask also that--given the 352 nature of it, I wanted to again reiterate that. I also would object further--I don't think the jury needs to see these again. They've seen these photographs before. I see no reason for that at this point. We're not going to show them any of the other exhibits at this point and we didn't show them the--we're not going to show them anything with regard to the telephone bills or whatever. So I think at this point of the case, we're now wrapping the case up, we expect the People to rest, and so I would submit it.
Yes, your Honor. With respect to showing the jury the photographs we stipulate to, how are they going to understand what the stipulations mean or refer to if we don't? With respect to telephone records, that's self explanatory. Photographs is a different matter. And if we can't show them to the jury and we're entering a dry stipulation, when it comes time for them to look at the exhibits, they're not going to have any recollection at all to the fact that--to what is descriptive in the stipulation concerning the change in circumstances with respect to one and the condition that is specifically referred to in these photographs, which is the key point of this stipulation in the other. So--
May I be heard on that? I think, first of all, these are very intelligent people, your Honor. They have the numbers. They've seen exhibit 354. It's a photograph of, as we indicated, of Miss Nicole Brown Simpson and 358-B is a photograph of Mr. Goldman. With regard to--and 359 and what that is. It seems to me it's pretty clear of what these areas portray. These photographs have been up so many times for this jury. And the Court will recall that on a couple occasions, the jurors had to take time out because of the nature, not necessarily of these photographs, but some of these photographs of the decedents.
And so I just don't think we need that at this point. I think we can enter into the stipulation, make it clear to the jurors we're talking about People's exhibit 354 and 359 and 358-B and move on. I mean I think that's what we were talking about here, although they don't ask to put in 358-B at any rate. But I think the other two are clear what we're talking before, and I think that we don't need to parade them around anymore and I would ask the Court not to do that.
All right. The probative value of 354, the board, I think is not only the individual photographs, but the group of photographs together because they give different perspectives to how Miss Brown Simpson was found and relative to the footprints and other things that are there. So the renewed objection under 352 is overruled for the previously stated reasons. I will allow the display, the brief five-second display merely to say, "This is what it is," five seconds so they can see which exhibit it is, and then it comes back down. Five seconds literally and I mean five seconds.
No. The--Mr. Bancroft will be directed not to take--capture any of those images as will the photographers.
As a matter of fact, your Honor, the People had anticipated doing it in that manner if we were allowed to do it and I've already requested that Dana, Mr. Escobar assist us in that he will simply hold it up and put it down. So we're ready to.
Mr. Cochran has offered us to use his wristwatch. It goes a lot faster than mine.
KEY QUOTEAll right. Let's get back to serious matters, counsel. My understanding is that you've discussed these stipulations with your client and they're acceptable to him, Mr. Cochran.
Yes, your Honor. I have discussed them with Mr. Simpson and it's--he understands these stipulations and it's agreeable to him at this point, and he appreciates that we will be reserving his rights under the stipulation regarding the phone records until a later time.
All right. One other matter. My understanding is that we are agreed that tomorrow we will take up the arguments regarding the admissibility of the Prosecution's evidence. We're waiting for Mr. Douglas to return from being out of state. Also, that you are reserving the right to make an 1118.1 motion.
Yes, your Honor. We at this point will be discussing that aspect tonight or whether or not that motion will be made and how if at all it will be made, and we expect to make that tomorrow and it to be brief. We expect Mr. Douglas will be returning to this state tonight. He will be charged with the responsibility of objecting to any inappropriate exhibits that we think there are. We expect to conclude this matter with regard to the exhibits and the motion pursuant to 1118.1 before noon. We would then, given the fact we have only have a half day tomorrow, would ask to begin the Defense presentation on Monday morning at 9:00 clock.
All right. You are giving the Court permission then to tell the jury that we will commence with the Defense case Monday morning.
All right. And you've discussed with your client his right at this point not to present a Defense, he understands he has the right to rest upon the evidence as it's been presented by the Prosecution?
All right. And you give the Court permission to advise the jury that you will be presenting a Defense tomorrow. Excuse me. Monday.
Mr. Simpson's only concern was that if I proceeded with the motion, he said that if the motion were granted, we don't have to put on anything. But I told him that this is arguendo and we'll assume for the sake of argument you will not be granting that motion, and if that's the case--
I will allow the display, the brief five-second display merely to say, 'This is what it is,' five seconds so they can see which exhibit it is, and then it comes back down. Five seconds literally and I mean five seconds.
I also would object further--I don't think the jury needs to see these again. They've seen these photographs before. I see no reason for that at this point. We're not going to show them any of the other exhibits at this point.
Mr. Cochran has offered us to use his wristwatch. It goes a lot faster than mine.
Well, he bills for his time.
That is correct.