Your Honor, this morning, I spoke to Mr. Douglas over the phone at approximately 9:00 o'clock. He indicated to me which items--which of those items the Defense will be objecting to today. And I agree with him on a couple of counts.
And I did receive a--by facsimile this morning a letter. Do you have a copy of this letter that has a list of the Defense objections?
All right. Mrs. Robertson, would you have one of the law clerks, perhaps Miss Cardswell could make a couple photocopies of this.
Why don't you hold on. I'm having a photocopy made of the Defense written objections for you, and we can just go down and check them off and do this in an orderly fashion.
Okay. While we wait for that, we marked at some time--some point in time exhibit 379, which apparently was a box containing shoe soles. We need the box back.
All right. If you'll prepare the appropriate removal order. For what period of time do you need that?
This is just a cardboard box that once contained all of the soles. We need it back.
All right. If there's no objection, we'll allow its release. And, Mr. Darden, why don't you approach.
All right. Mr. Darden, you were saying there were a few of these items that we can agree upon immediately?
16 and 16-A. Item 16 is Nicole Brown's will and 16-A I believe is the envelope that at once contained the will. There was a written inscription on the envelope which said "Do not open unless in the presence of a lawyer" or words to that effect. We will withdraw 16 and 16-A.
Items 87 through 96, those are the exhibits that relate to the Rosa Lopez conditional examination.
All right. They will remain marked. However, for identification purposes. I'll note that they'll be withdrawn at this time unless and until that witness testifies.
And Mr. Clarke has sent us word that we should withdraw 407 through 411. Those exhibits apparently were introduced during a 402 hearing and not introduced before the jury.
Your Honor, Mr. Douglas is just coming up the elevators momentarily, and we'll address the remaining issues with the Court's permission.
All right. I look forward to the argument on number 8, the objection being Harris E.
All right. And, counsel, have you each received a copy of the clerk's printout of exhibits? Mrs. Robertson, have you given each counsel a copy of the Court's exhibit list? No. I'm just asking, have you?
It appears to be approximately how many pages? About 50 pages. No, you don't need to do it right now. I just want to make sure it's available.
The Court's copy appears to be approximately 50 pages. So let me have one of the--let's have one of the law clerks make a copy of this. All right. The record should reflect that we've been joined now by Mr. Douglas. Good morning.
All right. Are you prepared to go forward on the--your arguments regarding the various items of evidence to which the Defense has additional objections to?
Yes, I am, your Honor. If the Court pleases, I would like to also put on the record that I am going to be giving to Mr. Darden a reduced list of proposed Defense witnesses. I will be giving him as well a list of witnesses whom the Defense is withdrawing, and I have in my briefcase and I will give to him as soon as we have a little respite documents that would be discoverable given our current status of the case, that the People have now rested. There are some Defense witnesses whom we intend to call whom we may have statements that were not earlier discoverable under the Court's--under the reciprocal discovery act, and I will turn those documents over at the first opportunity.
Your Honor, turning next to the question of exhibits, has the Court received a faxed copy of a letter?
Yes, I did. I have a letter before me with today's date that is a two-page letter that lists various Prosecution exhibits and a brief explanation of the Defense objection.
Would the Court wish me to formally go through that list, or if the Court please, I can introduce it as an exhibit and have it lodged or--
Well, we'll file this as a letter to the Court so that the record is clear as to what it is you are objecting to. I'd like to take these--since we only have objections to approximately 20 or 25 exhibits out of the almost 500, my suggestion is we take them one at a time since they appear to--although some of these can be grouped together.
Your Honor, if the Court pleases, I'd like to first give an overview of certain categories of certain exhibits I would like to lodge objections to.
The first concerns those exhibits of the crime scene and the victims at the crime scene. As the Court will recall, there were objections lodged at the opening of the trial on 352 grounds to several of the crime scene photographs. I recall arguing then that I recognized that this was a murder case and that in all murder cases, there are crime scene photographs. I objected, however, to the number, which I thought was repetitive, which I thought was unnecessary and which I thought that there were other ways in which the relevant facts could be displayed in a less prejudicial form and fashion. I simply for the record renew my objection to those exhibits now. It is my hope that all of the relevant photographs of crime scene victims are listed, and it is my intention to formally lodge an objection to the crime scene photographs with the exception of one view of Mr. Goldman and one view of Miss Brown Simpson. Any repetitive photographs, I hereby lodge an objection on 352 grounds. Similarly, your Honor, the Court will recall that the Defense lodged very vocal and strenuous objections to the autopsy photographs. And for the record generally, I would renew our objections now. Certainly, in the light of clear reflection, the Court can see why the Defense had strong objections to some of the more graphic photographs that were shown to the jury. Our worse fears were apparently realized because there were several different occasions when several jurors appeared to suffer some manner of dis-ease upon viewing the photographs. I think that on 352 grounds, they should not be allowed to be introduced into evidence, and I want to confirm for the record our objection to those exhibits as well.
Turning--so those are the general categories, your Honor. There's also--I have a question, and I spoke briefly with Mr. Darden about it this morning, as to the propriety of introducing resumes of some of the experts, particularly the resume of Dr. Lakshmanan as well as the resume of Mr. Weir. I think that on 352 grounds, they are really unnecessary because there was extensive qualification of each of those experts as to their background.
And the only relevant other resume would be People's exhibit 295, which is the resume of Dr. Lakshmanan.
Then as to that one, your Honor, I think particularly with Dr. Lakshmanan, there was extensive testimony elicited from Mr. Kelberg as to his background, as to the nature and extent of his education, as to the quality of his past experience; and given the care with which he was qualified as an expert, I would argue on 352 grounds that the introduction of his resume is unnecessary and an undue use of the process. Turning specifically, your Honor, to the objections that are listed in the letter to the Court, exhibit no. 8 was a lesson plan that allegedly concerned a conversation that Mr. Shipp may have had either with Mr. Simpson or with Miss Brown Simpson, and we lodge an objection to that exhibit on hearsay grounds. The next exhibit would be exhibits 9 and 10 and 11 and I may--I believe these are the photographs that concern Miss Brown Simpson that were allegedly recovered from the bathroom drawer in their home where there was an attempt to introduce the photographs through Mr. Shipp, but there was no foundation laid. There was then a second attempt to introduce the photographs through Denise Brown, and the only foundation that was offered was that she found them in `89 or so in a drawer, but she could not authenticate them, particularly as to time. I recall there being a sidebar in an effort to clarify the problems evidentiary wise, and I on behalf of the Defense lodge objections to each of those three photographs at this point.
That's correct, your Honor. I next lodge objections on behalf of Mr. Simpson to exhibits 14 and 15. I believe that those were two of three photographs brought to the Court during Mr. Shipp's testimony. Only exhibit 13 was offered before the jury, and for those reasons, I think that there's no basis to introduce exhibits 14 and 15.
Exhibit 16 and its corollary, 16-A, I believe--and please, Mr. Darden, correct me if I'm wrong--that exhibit will be withdrawn.
Very well. Consistent with the arguments that I stated preliminarily, we lodge objections to exhibit 43 concerning the victims found at Bundy, the large board, and exhibit 43-A through E, which are included on that board.
Similarly, your Honor, we lodge objections to exhibit 59 as well as 59-A and B. Those, again, are crime scene photographs of Mr. Goldman at Bundy. The next two exhibits, your Honor, concern a photograph that was taken inside Bundy, the kitchen area I believe of a knife that was displayed on a counter inside the Bundy residence. I don't think that there was any testimony demonstrating the relevance of that knife to the issues that are germaine to the jury in this matter. It was simply one item that was found on a counter. It was never offered or displayed to Mr. Lakshmanan suggesting that it could have had any relevance in terms of a weapon used in the case, and I think both on relevance and really 352 grounds as well, that there's no real need to have either of those two photographs introduced into evidence. Generally, your Honor, exhibits 87 through 96 are--
Correct. There--next we return to exhibits 132, 133 and 134. They are photographs inside the Rockingham garage.
I recall there was an effort through Mr. Lange to authenticate and to lay a foundation for the introduction of those pictures, unsuccessfully so. I have listed on my sheet that there was another attempt to introduce the photographs through Mr. Kaelin. Quite frankly, I don't recall the nature of that testimony and I was unable to locate that transcript prior to coming to Court. But as a cautionary note, I would lodge an objection on foundational grounds because I do not recall Mr. Kaelin's ability to properly attest to when those photographs were taken. I've spoken already about exhibit 295. Exhibit 334 and 335, your Honor, were two knives that were initially at least shown to Dr. Lakshmanan. I don't recall the quality of foundation being laid as to those two knives as I do recall having been laid to exhibits 332 and 333. My recollection was that each of the four knives were initially presented to the doctor, but that there was more extensive effort to discuss exhibits 332 and 333, and I don't specifically recall the same care in seeking to draw some connection even theoretical of exhibits 334 and 335, and that's the basis for my objections to those two exhibits. Exhibit 337, your Honor, was a print-out from a book from Verner Spitz and a Mr. Fisher. I had occasion to review that document on Wednesday. I do not think however--I do not recall specifically what was offered as to the relevance, and as a precaution, therefore, I lodge an objection to it.
339, your Honor--withdrawn. That's incorrect. The next would be those boards consistent with our stated effort to exclude and eliminate from presentation into evidence of any autopsy-related photographs. As the Court will recall, during the eight days of direct testimony, there was meticulous attention paid to each wound both from the graphic photographs to the same locations on the blow-ups of the actual diagrams to there also being a verbal recitation and description of the various wounds. I do think that on 352 grounds, given the totality of the evidence and that which the jury has already been allowed to view, that there is a balancing that can be done in favor of objections that have been lodged to the introduction of the boards. Certainly it's one thing for these boards and these photographs to be displayed in an academic setting if you will, such that there can be some reference to the testimony and in some manner give life to the words in a visual reflection and description of the wound. I think, however, that the ends of justice would be better served by excluding those photographs and not allowing them to be displayed into the jury room. There is a legitimate concern that the overwhelming horror of the photographs when placed in a small room that the jury will be deliberating might take some unfair resonance and might serve to make it difficult to recall the nature of the testimony as it concerned the wounds. They are going to have the boards with them to which there were no objections. They are going to have the diagrams with them to which there were no objections, both in a small compact version and expanded and enlarged. And I do think that when there is a fair balancing of the concerns given the value of hindsight and recognizing that there was legitimate concern with even the placement of those boards and the proximity of those photographs to some of the seated jurors that the natural extension of those concerns would follow into allowing those photographs into the jury room, and I urge the Court to exclude the introduction of those boards into evidence. Exhibits 358-A and 358-B, if the Court will recall, are very graphic and disturbing close-ups of wounds, one of Miss Brown Simpson and one of Mr. Goldman. There was strenuous objection at that time by Mr. Shapiro. The Court considered those graphic photographs with some consideration and required some portions of one of the photographs to be excised. I would ask the Court to go one step better and to disallow the introduction of those photographs into evidence. I've spoken already, your Honor, about the Defense's objection to exhibit 407. The last exhibit would be exhibit 411, which was--
Good morning, your Honor. Your Honor, the individual Prosecutors who had introduced each of the items of evidence that the Defense is now objecting to will be speaking to the issue of admissibility on each of those items. I, however, have exhibits 8, 9 through 11, 14 through 15--yeah--14 through 15. As for exhibit no. 8, the lesson plan, this was the lesson plan that Ron Shipp used while he was an instructor at the LAPD police academy. It is the same lesson plan that he Xeroxed, took to Nicole Brown, discussed with her and showed it to her. She then asked Shipp to take it to the Defendant and to discuss the batterer's profile as contained in that document with the Defendant. Ron Shipp did that. He testified to having done that. He testified to having gone over each of the indicators or each of the elements of the batterer's profile with the Defendant, and he testified that when he reached a point in the profile regarding pathological jealously, that the Defendant indicated to him or stated to him rather that he, the Defendant, was a little bit pathologically jealous. That testimony is contained on pages 12,748 through -50. And as for the photographs marked 9 through 11, the relevant testimony relating to those photographs can be found at pages 13282 through -4 and 13,309 through -10. Denise Brown testified that she took exhibits 10 and 11, that she took those photographs herself after the 1989 incident. She identified those photographs. They were placed on the elmo before the jury and there was testimony about those photographs.
It's 13282 through -4 and 13309 through -10. Then there was the other photograph. I believe it's People's 9.
Which I will withdraw. I believe that's the photograph of Miss Brown approximately 19 or 20 years old.
People's 14 through 15, 14 and 15, those are the photographs that depict the Defendant and Ron Shipp on a movie set as I recall. The Defense raised the issue that Mr. Shipp and the Defendant were not friends--not very good friends at all and that they had not spent much time together, and so the Prosecution introduced a series of photographs depicting the Defendant and Ron Shipp doing various things. 14 and 15 were shown to the witness and testimony was given.
My recollection is that I did not allow 13 because it depicts Mr. Simpson handcuffed in a theatrical situation.
No. My recollection is that during the course of the testimony, I sustained the objection to that photograph being shown to the jury is my recollection.
But I do have before me 14, which appears to be a four by six photo of Mr. Simpson and Mr. Shipp apparently at some social function, appears to be at the Defendant's house, and 14 is a smaller photograph which appears to have Mr. Simpson with his arm around Mr. Shipp.
Your Honor, that's my mistake then. I meant to lodge an objection to the handcuffing in particular. That's my mistake.
Okay. And that's why I wasn't speaking to item 14--13 rather because there had been no objection. At any event, I will withdraw 13.
Okay. 14 and 15, as I indicated, the testimony--the relevant testimony is at pages 12966 and -67 and there was testimony--
There's also People's 124, your Honor, which is the video. While I'm up, I thought I should mention this. That is the video of the Defendant handcuffed and the release of the handcuffing--handcuffs by Detective Vannatter. I'm not seeking to introduce that video into evidence at this time.
Okay. In any event, those are the only exhibits that I'm here this morning to address, your Honor.
Good morning. I think the only exhibits the Defense is objecting to of the ones that I marked are 132 through 134 concerning lack of foundation with respect to those photographs. The foundation was laid, and we cite the Court to the transcript, pages 19815 to 19819 beginning with Brian Kaelin testifying in response to the following question: "Do you know what the contents of the garage were or what the garage looked like inside as of June the 12th, 1994? "Answer: Of some things. "Okay. "Question: Okay." Sorry.
"If I show you a photograph of the interior of that garage, will you be able to tell us whether it fits your memory of the appearance of that location?" We then proceed to mark the photographs and go through them one and one and he authenticates as indicated in the photographs, and all of them were authenticated by him as items he recalls in the garage in the locations in which depicted as of June the 12th, 1994. And I believe that's all the foundation that's needed for that. May I also address the Court with respect to exhibits I think should be withdrawn at this time or do you want me to wait?
Okay. Actually, your Honor, I mean, if the Court prefers, we can wait to withdraw exhibits until the end of the case. So whatever the Court prefers.
All right. Then when we conclude this discussion, then we'll take up what you want to withdraw.
Okay. So that's that. And I think Mr. Kelberg has the balance. I'll get out of the way.
I am not, your Honor. And once again, People have accused me unjustifiably, and anybody who saw my materials know that I use yellow pads with red and blue ink and I don't rely too frequently on green binders except to have the exhibit list provided for me.
And raggedy boxes. That's the most telltale circumstantial evidence that I've been around. Again, your Honor, it's a pleasure to be down here to address the Court. I think it is interesting that the largest volume of objections appears to be to the evidence that was provided through Dr. Lakshmanan which may reflect not on the length of the examination, but the force of the evidence that was given the jury from Dr. Lakshmanan.
Let me start--I didn't actually mark 43, 59, 59-A and 59-B, but I gather by default, I've been asked to comment on those because those are crime scene photographs, and they really fall into the same genre of photographs, in particular, 354, which is a board that has I believe at least one of the photographs, 43, on it. So I'd like to talk about those when I talk about the crime scene photographs. I would initially respond to Mr. Douglas' objection to Dr. Lakshmanan's curriculum vitae. I remind the Court, although I doubt the Court needs reminding, that 352 says that the probative value must be substantially outweighed by the prejudicial effect. I can see no prejudicial effect to having provided the jury a concise 9- or 10-page summary of Dr. Lakshmanan's qualifications. We did not go into every entry that is on his curriculum vitae. And in the event the Defense produces Dr. Baden and/or Dr. Wolf, I assume that they will have their curriculum vitaes marked and the jury will have them to compare and contrast to see the relative experience, education, training, publications and so forth. So on the--from the standpoint of prejudice, it's difficult for me to understand how there is unfair prejudice. In fact, it helps the jury because it concisely provides the information.
I understood Mr. Douglas' argument though to be the second phrase of 352, that since we did go through a long and extensive testimony from the doctor regarding his many board certifications and et cetera, et cetera, that it's really redundant.
Well, it's not redundant if, for example, the jurors did not write down everything that was said and the jury then has a question and let's say, again, Dr. Baden and/or Dr. Wolf testifies and the jurors are back there trying to decide, well, gee, do I want to rely on this expert versus that expert and the jury instruction tells us that we should look at their qualifications, and I don't remember exactly what their qualifications were. Am I going to ask the Court to have a read back of the relevant qualifications of the experts so that I'll have that information. If we give the jury the curriculum vitae of these experts, the jury has it available immediately, concisely and quickly to go over and evaluate the relative merits. And again, I would have no objection to the curriculum vitae of any Defense expert being marked and received as an exhibit because I think it helps the jury, it saves time and it is not cumulative because no one goes over everything that is in a curriculum vitae and particular publications. It's summarized by number and type, but not in the detail that the curriculum vitae provides. So understanding the objection as the Court understands the objection, I still believe it is not well-taken. With respect to the knives, Mr. Douglas may not recall the testimony, but the thrust--probably a bad word--the tenor of the testimony regarding those other knives deals with class characteristics of knives and to differentiate how knives--for example, there are single-edged knives, there are several of them presented, but they have different lengths, they have different widths and different thicknesses which go into how wounds can be different in appearance when inflicted by different kinds of knives. One of the knives is a double-edged knife, which I believe is exhibit 335 if I--let me get my little cheat sheet here if I could for a second.
Yes. 335 we have marked as the double-edged knife, which is to show the different characteristics that that knife has from a single-edged knife. The other knives are different types of single-edged knives to give the jury an understanding. Again, under 352, we have never suggested--in fact, I think we made it clear to the jury, these are not knives that we suggest in any way were involved in this case. We have in no way tried to suggest that Mr. Simpson is connected to any of these knives. These were offered for a specific purpose. Mr. Shapiro objected at the time, made his argument to the Court. I believe he even renewed the argument a second time regarding the knives. The Court overruled those objections. I see no basis to change the Court's ruling at this time. They were offered for a limited purpose. That was the purpose they were used for and that is the purpose for which they should be received. And clearly, they're not going to go into the jury deliberation room unless the jury I would assume makes a request for them, and then they would have them under some sort of supervision. So the concern that they might injure themselves I think is not well-taken. Jurors in many, many cases have received weapons of various types, and to my knowledge, have come through unscathed from the experience. Let me then talk about 337. In fact, the lines of Langer were discussed by Dr. Lakshmanan. In fact, the Court may recall we had a little refresher course in geometry. I think I used the term "Trigonometry" with Mr. Fairtlough whose artistic success in drawing a right angle was put in some question. But that page showing the lines of Langer was used by Dr. Lakshmanan to explain how wounds can become gaping wounds rather than very narrow wounds that one might expect from an incised type of knife wound. And clearly, there are a number of gaping wounds that were received by the victims in this case. We are then left with the photo boards. And actually, the list that I have, which is a handwritten list--and I don't know if this was faxed to us or somebody got the information and wrote it down, somebody within our office. So the list I have, for example, does not include board 358. It has 358-A and B, but I understand 358 to be a board, and I'm sure that Mr. Douglas is objecting to that board and I take his objection to be basically to all the Coroner photographs.
Okay. First of all, the Court has already sustained the objection to 358-A. And Mr. Douglas is mistaken as to what that photograph is. The Court may recall that we presented I think three photographs to the Court for its consideration in a 402 ruling in the middle of Dr. Lakshmanan's testimony. These are photographs all of Mr. Goldman, all taken at the scene, all demonstrating the area of the front of his neck with respect to those two superficial incised wounds which I think are shown in photograph G-37 of the board, which is 358 I believe. The Court sustained a 352 objection to the use of the first photograph, which was 358-A. So we don't quarrel with the objection having been sustained. It's sustained and that photograph is not being received in evidence. We understand that. 358-B, the Court ruled that the probative value did in fact outweigh the prejudicial effect, but the Court did order that the photograph be cropped. The photograph was cropped and that is what the jury should receive. Now, I think it's important to remember, at least as I listened yesterday on the radio, that the Court has already heard Mr. Cochran's renewed motion under 352 to exhibits 354, 358-B and 359. As part of the stipulations regarding those photographs, Mr. Cochran, to preserve the record, renewed the 352 objection. The Court basically said it stands by its ruling, and unless there's something that I missed, I don't see any basis to have a change between yesterday and today in the Court's ruling. If the Court wishes me to address those exhibits, I will. But for the reasons that the Court expressed, nothing's changed. If anything, the evidence takes on even stronger importance, more critical importance for the jury's understanding now because it fits the circumstances of these two murders together along with the hair and trace evidence which was presented through Mr. Deedrick's testimony as our last witness. These photographs have compelling probative value. The Court found that initially and there's no basis to say that that probative value has in any way been undermined. It ties the case together. There is no chart, there are no words that can convey what those photographs convey. No one's said they would be pleasant to look at. But that's not the job of this jury. This jury's job is to look at evidence that is probative and will help this jury one way or the other decide this case. The Court found that these would be helpful photographs and I believe that through Dr. Lakshmanan's testimony, that of Mr. Deedrick, the jury has a very good understanding of why they are important.
And it will be a matter of argument perhaps for the counsel on both sides to suggest to the jury whether they are important or they aren't important. But from my view of what the jury paid attention to during the course of the time that I did a very lengthy direct examination, that jury paid attention. And although they may be disturbing photographs to some extent, as they should be disturbing photographs, they are not disturbing in a way that the law says keeps them from being considered. These photographs show what happened to these two people. These photographs show premeditation, they show deliberation, they show expressed malice, they show one person with the power to murder two human beings could accomplish that. They explain the wounds, for example, to the back of Mr. Goldman's hands as not being caused by a blow to the perpetrator's face. And so any theory on that line suggested by the Defense is I think quite nicely undermined by the photographs and of course Dr. Lakshmanan's testimony. They show all of these issues that are relevant to the jury's consideration. They also show the blood that will be caused to flow and which can justify why the shoeprints are there for 86 feet to the end of that walkway at the back of the property. All of these factors, your Honor, are factors that the jury will have to consider in saying is this the man who murdered these two people, have we proved it beyond a reasonable doubt; and if we have proved the identity beyond a reasonable doubt, is it a first degree murder or a second degree murder with respect to each of these two cases. So with respect to those photos, I suggest to the Court that their value was demonstrated when the Court, after a very lengthy consideration and then lengthy argument from both sides, ruled that these photographs should be seen by the jury. And nothing has changed. If anything, all that's been changed is to understand even more so their importance. And I think that's what the Court indicated yesterday when it overruled Mr. Cochran's renewed 352 objection. So unless the Court has any questions for me with respect to this group of photos--and I include really 43, 59, 59-A and 59-B, I will sit down and hopefully not to be heard from again unless dragged in by Miss Clark or Mr. Darden to do a little cross-examination.
All right. My recollection, the photograph obviously that troubled the Court the most in this entire sequence was that of 358-B, which was the photograph of Mr. Goldman at the scene. And my recollection is that the issue was, was it an antemortem, were these small--not small--the incised superficial wounds antemortem; the issue being, was there evidence of bleeding into the tissue at the crime scene.
May I address the Court, your Honor, with respect to, there are additional issues with respect to 43, 59 and 59-A and B. And I hope that Mr. Kelberg can be invited back into the courtroom as opposed to being dragged back in. But with respect to those photographs, your Honor, 43 not only is illustrative for the purposes of the Coroner in terms of where the bodies were found, but is illustrative of Robert Riske's testimony concerning the positions in which the bodies were found, the lighting in the location and the location of evidence as he found it. And so the condition of the scene as found by each of the officers is relevant to all of the inquiries concerning where everything was in relationship to each other, issues of surprise, Ronald Goldman had been taken by surprise, the keys dropped one location, the pager in another, the lighting and what officers could or could not see, and, therefore, by inference, what the Defendant could or could not see and thus left behind in his haste to get away from the crime scene. All of these issues are illuminated--no pun intended there either--considerably by the photographs that show the location of the items as they were found by the first officer at the scene. If I could briefly look at 59, 59-A and B. I think the Court has them on the bench.
The Court will recall that 43 was the board marked with Officer Riske of the victims at the crime scene.
As far as I know--well, as far as I can tell by the list proffered by the Defense, it's only of this series 59 and 59-A and B that are objected to. The board and this series--this 43 series is not in issue. The only objection I have in front of me, according to what the Defense has proffered, is 43, the board,
If the Court will recall, there was considerable testimony in cross-examination about the location of items of evidence and where they were in relation to the bodies of the victims and subsequently whether they had been moved, and if so, how much. The photographs in 59 and 59-A and B show the view of the--of the victim in place as seen by Officer Phillips--Detective Phillips and is, therefore, relevant to show the position of the body when the detectives arrived. And his testimony illuminates that further. And you can see that on 59-B, the initials RP are shown. It's also shown in this--in these photographs--the testimony went to explain what the officer could see from various positions around the body of the victim. And those zoom-ins which are shown in 59 and 59-A and B are important because they focus specifically on what the officer was talking about in terms of what he was able to see from where he stood around the bodies of the victims at the Bundy location.
So obviously there is great probative value. The prejudicial value is virtually nil. They are--the photographs shown there are neither particularly gory or gruesome in any way or shape or form, especially in light of other photographs that have been received by the Court. But they are very informative in terms of the ability of what can be seen from various positions. And if you recall, with respect to the issue of contamination of a crime scene, the officers were careful to stand just outside the gate and then to walk around behind over to the north side of the gate in order to see into the crime scene, purposely avoiding stepping through the crime scene as much as possible. So those positions and those views are very important to illustrate the measures taken to avoid contamination of the crime scene. So for all of those reasons, we have great probative value with very little if any prejudicial value in view of all of the evidence that is coming before this jury in other manner, in another matter. With respect to 75 and 76, your Honor, the photographs of the knife on the table--
The issue raised here is relevance. Frankly, your Honor, I think it's very--it could be very probative. And let me explain this. We have a very clean kitchen with nothing out of place except this big butcher knife lying on the counter top. I think it doesn't take a great leap to infer that Nicole heard someone coming up from the rear as opposed to from the front. She knew that Ronald Goldman was coming to the front to return the glasses. And if he had and when he did, he obviously had to ring the bell. He obviously had to ring the buzzer in order to get in. That would not have caused her fear or concern. But someone coming up from the rear where no one should be at that time of night would have. And so she might have armed herself, hearing the sounds of someone coming up from the rear, only then to put the knife down when she realized that perhaps no one was there as Mr. Simpson hid; and having heard nothing further, no further sounds, put the knife down and went out to let in Ronald Goldman, who had just rung the bell, only then to be surprised by the fact that indeed someone was there.
So I think that this knife has great probative value. And the fact that it lies out there alone in a very clean and orderly kitchen I think is highly significant. So I think the relevance is demonstrated by that argument alone, and I'll leave it with that. With respect to 43, does the Court wish to have it brought out so that I can point out--
It's been a long time I know, but the Court may recall that the view of the crime scene by both police officers and by civilians and what they were able to see from various points on the sidewalk was extremely important and I suspect may become even more important when we begin the Defense case. These photographs were authenticated not only by Robert Riske, who was the first officer on the scene, but also Sukru Boztepe, who was the first person to see the body and have the police called in order to have the crime scene taken care of. And these photographs and the appearance of the walkway from the sidewalk is extremely important for many reasons. No. 1, it shows what could or could not be seen in the dark, how dark the area was and the placement of the victim. It also shows the lack of any shoeprints going down the walkway to the sidewalk, which is obviously important both from the standpoint of proving that one person did it as well as establishing that the only escape route could have been down the walkway to the west where we have the bloody shoeprints and the blood drops. This photograph, 43-C, as authenticated by Robert Riske, demonstrates clearly the position of the body as first seen, as first found by him with her legs underneath the gate, which I think will be extremely important, and this--43-D shows the placement of the envelope next to--in just position between the two bodies, that is Nicole and Ron, Ronald Goldman. And that's important. These two photographs, 43-D and E are important next to each other. We have no photograph in which the bodies of both victims with the evidence between them is depicted in one photograph. We've had to put two together or three together in order to give the jury a view of all of the evidence in its relationship to the victims.
And as I've pointed out earlier, the location of all of that evidence in relation to the victims is very probative to demonstrate how they were taken by surprise and demonstrate how evidence could have been dropped like the hat and the bloody glove by the Defendant without being able to later locate it to take it away with him. And these photographs are extremely illustrative of all of the issues that I've indicated as well as the issues pointed out by Mr. Kelberg concerning the area in which Ronald Goldman was basically pinned by the Defendant, the location in which he was basically caged, hemmed in and unable to run. And it demonstrates that very well in 43-E and F, not to mention the location of shrubbery and shoots and branches on which he was--on which his hands were cut in the flailing motions in an effort to get away from the Defendant. So I would--I would submit that the probative value of these photographs highly outweighs any prejudicial value, and it's illustrative of the testimony of not only civilians and officers, but the Coroner as well. Can I have a moment, your Honor?
Also, with respect to 75 and 76, your Honor, the kitchen with the butcher knife on the counter, Mr. Kelberg points out a very good point, which is that if the Defense wished to contend that Miss Brown ate again after she came home from Ben and Jerry's, that very clean kitchen with no evidence of any food in sight would be further evidence to demonstrate the fact that the stomach contents that were viewed during her autopsy could only have come from the meal she had at the Mezzaluna for the purpose of fixing the time when she last ate. And that could very well become an issue if Dr. Baden does take the witness stand. So that's the further reason for that.
I do, your Honor, briefly. Your Honor, the crime scene photographs create prejudice from the collective impact of the shear number of photographs that the Prosecution is seeking to introduce. As I said in my preliminary comments, we recognize that this is a murder case, and with all murder cases, there are gory photographs. The concept of a gory photograph per se, we do not have an objection to. However, there is indeed some sort of psychic impact of continuing to display repeated photographs that we think are cumulative and are not necessary. Let them show four photographs of Nicole Brown Simpson that adequately shows the items and the correlation and the relationship between the bodies and pieces of evidence which--that they want to show. Let them pick out the best four. Let them show three photographs of Mr. Goldman that would adequately reflect the correlation between the fencing and the gloves and the shrubbery. But there is we believe a real danger of bombarding the jury with countless numbers of photographs all that seem to show a minute distinction between the other, and I think collectively, there is a colorable basis for an argument that they are cumulative and that they are all are not necessary--they all are not necessary. As to the discussion of the weapons and the four knives if you will that Mr. Kelberg showed to Mr. Lakshmanan, we believe, your Honor, that the education boards, which I recall are boards specifically talking about single-edged and double-edged knives, single-edged and double-edged wounds, the distinction, the corollary, the relationship between both, there was fine attention made and given to those sorts of differences in the knives. Nothing is added I argue to having those actual knives introduced into evidence given the state of the record, that there is no indication that this sort of knife created the wound, that this is something of more probative value than simply having show a particular knife. The jury has now been able to appreciate the value that the People sought by introducing that knife for identification. If there was an objection lodged, the Court ruled, and for identification such as a demonstrative board or a demonstrative piece of evidence, that has now shown and exhausted its usefulness. Mr. Kelberg realizes and recognizes indeed that the actual knife would never be allowed to be brought into the jury unless accompanied by some juror attendant or bailiff. Therefore, there's no real need to have that particular--those particular knives introduced. As to their argument concerning exhibit 75 and 76, it was a creative bit of lawyering, I'll give Miss Clark credit, seeking to pull from the air some colorable argument for why a particular photograph is relevant. But I do not think, your Honor, with all due respect that rank speculation should ever provide the basis for relevance or should be a substitution for relevance, particularly given this record where there is no evidence whatsoever that gives any insight into Miss Brown Simpson's actions that night after the phone call from her mother, Juditha Brown. Unless the Court has any other questions, I'll submit the matter.
All right. Thank you, counsel. All right. As to item no. 8, which is the lesson plan that was testified to by Mr. Shipp, I'm going to take that objection under submission. I want to review the transcript because I don't have a clear recollection in my mind as to what Mr. Shipp said about that. As to no. 9, that is withdrawn. As to 10 and 11, the Court's recollection is similar to Mr. Darden's, that Denise Brown did testify that she did in fact take those Polaroid photos, and I believe that there was a sufficient foundation laid for that--those two photographs. The objection on those will be overruled. Court's ruling on no. 13, sustaining the objection, will remain. As to 14 and 15, those photographs are relevant to the nature of the relationship between Mr. Shipp and Mr. Simpson. There was a foundation laid. Objection will be overruled. As to 43, the board, the interesting thing is that there is no overall photograph available that depicts each of these items and their relative location, and the position of items is critical both to the Defense and to the Prosecution as to their relative positions, whether anything was moved. There is no other source of information other than this series of photographs, each one depicting something that is unique to that photograph which is relevant to the case. So I will overrule the objection to that as well. As to 59-A and B, the objection was previously sustained to 59--I'm sorry. All right. As to 59 and 59-A and B, the objections--Court's ruling previously will stand. The objections will be overruled.
As to 75 and 76, which are the photographs of the kitchen at Bundy and the close-up of the--what appears to be a butcher knife on a--on the island counter, what that indicated to the Court was, one, it was a very clean kitchen; two, that there was no disorder in the condo itself. There was an issue as to whether or not any of the assault had taken place inside the Bundy residence. There was testimony regarding whether or not there was any discoloration in the carpeting, whether or not there were any apparent footprints, any blood that was tracked into the Bundy condo. And to the Court's recollection, these are the only two photographs that exist of anything in the interior. It goes to the nature of the investigation good and bad, the fact that these are the only two photographs taken. We have no photographs of the entry exit in the garage, we have no photographs of the interior of the living room. I think there is significant probative value and the objection will be overruled. As to 132, 133, 134, these are the photographs of the garage. The Court's recollection is that Mr. Kaelin did in fact testify to the items that are depicted there, the interior of the garage.
The Court also notes that this was one of the items that was on the jurors' visit itinerary and that the jurors did themselves look into and examine the garage and its contents. I believe there's a sufficient foundation and the objection to those will be overruled. As to 334, 335, the knives that were used by Mr. Kelberg for demonstration purposes, the demonstration boards that depict single-edged, double-edged knives are two-dimensional. The knives themselves are three-dimensional. They are for the purpose of demonstrating class characteristics only, which I think are important to see in three dimensions. So the objection will be overruled. As to 337, the lines of Langer, this is an interesting concept in explaining why wounds appear as they do, something that a layperson doesn't ordinarily consider or know about. I think its probative value is significant and I will overrule the objection. As to 358-A, the Court will sustain the objection to that. As to 358-B, Court will overrule the objection and that photograph is cropped as directed by the Court. As to the overall category of the autopsy photographs--
Haven't gotten there yet. I was just about to flip the page. As to the autopsy photographs, which are 352, 354, 355, 358, 360, 361 and 362, the Court previously had taken a considerable period of time to consider each and every one of the photographs that was submitted, and the Court issued its ruling in written form previously. And as the Court observed yesterday in discussing the matter again with Mr. Cochran, that those photographs now combined with the testimony of Dr. Lakshmanan take on additional meaning and probative value, and the objections under 352 renewed are again overruled. All right. Mr. Douglas?
No, I did not. 295 was Dr. Lakshmanan's resume if I'm not mistaken, correct? And that objection will be overruled. All right. Do we have anything that's left on that?
Your Honor, I think there was. Mr. Douglas objected to 359. I'm assuming the Court is adopting its ruling from yesterday. That was one of the ones Mr. Cochran renewed his 352 objection to. Those are the photographs at the scene for the environmental sources for the blunt force trauma to the back of Mr. Goldman's hands and arms.
Without the show soles or the whole enchilada?
These photographs show what happened to these two people. These photographs show premeditation, they show deliberation, they show expressed malice, they show one person with the power to murder two human beings could accomplish that.
We have a very clean kitchen with nothing out of place except this big butcher knife lying on the counter top... she might have armed herself, hearing the sounds of someone coming up from the rear, only then to put the knife down when she realized that perhaps no one was there as Mr. Simpson hid.
I do not think, your Honor, with all due respect that rank speculation should ever provide the basis for relevance or should be a substitution for relevance.
There is indeed some sort of psychic impact of continuing to display repeated photographs that we think are cumulative and are not necessary. Let them show four photographs of Nicole Brown Simpson... Let them pick out the best four.