All right. Back on the record. All parties are again present. Mr. Darden, is there something?
You know, I don't talk much, your Honor. I haven't asked a lot of questions over the last several weeks, but I need to reopen again, just ask a few more follow-up questions with Mr. Rubin.
During the break, Mr. Rubin turned one of the gloves inside out, and it appears that the lining in the fingers were knotted and that that might have impeded--
In any event, the lining did not extend all the way through the fingers as they normally would, which might have provided an excuse or impediment for the Defendant not to be able to place his hand all the way into the glove.
Well, you don't have to tell me what the significance is, but I would like to see what it looks like. Mr. Rubin, would you turn the glove inside out for me so I can see that?
Mr. Rubin has been--Mr. Rubin during the break turned the glove inside out and noticed it at that time. And I think--Mr. Rubin, did you--
77? Mr. Rubin, did you replace any of the lining into the fingers during the break?
Basically, the fingers are not in the fingers to the point you can put this hand into the lining. So you couldn't get your hand in the glove all the way (Indicating).
All right. It appears--Mr. Darden, you said it was knotted. It appears to me that it's merely--that the fingers--the lining portion of the fingers is merely out of the fingers themselves, not knotted.
Well, knotting implies something significantly more sinister than merely the lining not being in the fingers.
KEY QUOTENot to me. But I understand the distinction, your Honor. In any event, the lining was out.
So you're going to ask the question of Mr. Rubin: "Over the recess, did you have the opportunity to turn the glove inside out to see what if there's a problem with the lining? "Answer: Yes, I did. "Question: What was that? "The lining is pulled out of the fingers. "What problem does that create? "It makes it hard to get your hand in." Three questions, right?
Your Honor, yesterday when Mr. Darden informed us before the break that he was going to ask Mr. Simpson to try on the gloves, he showed the gloves to myself and Mr. Cochran. He asked--he allowed us to look at them. He asked us to do that with rubber gloves on. I put the gloves on each hand. Mr. Cochran put it on. There was no obstruction. I put the glove on. After the Court broke last night, the Court allowed us an opportunity to further examine the gloves. We did that with Dr. Baden, myself and Mr. Simpson; and at that time, Dr. Baden took the glove, turned it inside out, took out the lining to make a visual comparison of the lining. So I can tell this Court as an Officer of the Court that when I put the glove on right before Mr. Simpson did, there was no obstruction. And if there is any obstruction now, it resulted from the glove being turned inside out and examined after the Court session yesterday which I told Mr. Rubin and Mr. Cochran. Is that correct, sir?
Your Honor, we're not the ones that created an obstruction inside the glove if there was one created last night. At any event, the witness was before the jury and he was unable to place his hand through the glove to give us an assessment as to the size of the glove at this present time. So he ought to be allowed to do that.
Your Honor, I think clearly at this point in time, that the demonstration has been done and that clearly this glove has been subject to examination after the fact that has changed the condition of the glove and also stretched it out.
I'm not asking to have Mr. Simpson put the glove on today. We intend to secure an original pair and have him put those on at a later date. I just want the witness here to be able or allowed to tell the jury the size of the glove in its present state today.
I can't get the lining back in without some instruments. It could take me some time. Maybe I'd get lucky. I'll try.
Your Honor, I think the record should indicate that Mr. Rubin did have these gloves on this morning.
I agree this dislodging of the lining is not attributable to your client since it appears this glove has been handled several times since.
KEY QUOTENo, because this obstruction has not been shown to the jury yet. But what we can do is have Mr. Rubin see if he can replace the lining appropriately and tell us what size this glove is. That he can do.
Your Honor, it appears we're at an impasse on the timing of the 402 hearing on the mixture statistics. The Prosecution has proposed that we do it next Wednesday. My proposal is that we do it a week from Monday. The reason that Wednesday is bad is, I have an appearance in another matter in another court on that morning, and also I don't feel that gives us enough time to prepare. The Prosecution has just provided us with a reference to the scientific authority on which Dr. Weir is preparing these reports. It's a rather lengthy book of over 200 pages full of dense statistical formulas. We apparently will be able to get that book only this weekend, perhaps tomorrow, but it's going to take some time for our experts to look through this book, to compare it with Dr. Weir's report, which we're not going to get until Monday evening apparently; and having a single day, Tuesday, to prepare for a 402 hearing is just not enough. So I'm asking for more time than that and preferably through the weekend until the next Monday.
Well, if you recall, your Honor, this was their request to force us to do these mixture calculations, and now they claim they want to contest the way that we've done them, which was the issue all along. We'd be happy to drop the whole mixture statistical calculation just so they don't have to prepare. But we are getting to the end of the case. That is merely one reference among many of the references that's in Dr. Weir's report or the initial draft report. So if we lose the hearing, then we don't calculate the frequency mixture or the mixture estimates. I just point that out as an observer in this event. So--we are running out of court days that the Prosecution case will take and we have tried to structure the last witnesses in a way that makes sense to conclude this case, your Honor.
All right. Mr. Thompson, would you provide me with a copy of the--of Dr. Weir's draft report so I can have some feeling for what it is that we're talking about, and then I'm going to ask both sides to give me a list of the availability of the experts that they anticipate for the 402. I'll make my own assessment as to how difficult this is to understand and prepare for and take into consideration the availability of both sides' witnesses and I'll set the day.
Your Honor, the other related point is, Gary Sims will be back here in anticipation of testifying on wed--on Tuesday rather. The report that covers the results that he'll be presenting, I'll be delivering that to the Court Monday morning. Dr. Blake has already reviewed many of those results. I understand he has an appointment today or tomorrow to re-review them. So I just want to alert the Court. And we've talked to Mr. Neufeld about this, that the most substantive result is one that the Defense tried to elicit themselves on cross-examination about 117, and you sustained my objection at that point. So it would appear that these results are not something that they intend to challenge, and we'd like to proceed with Mr. Sims' testimony on Tuesday. I had been advised a couple days ago that Mr. Neufeld or Mr. Scheck might not be here Tuesday, and I just advise you that. We intend to proceed whether they're here or not because they're part of the team. So that's just a little heads up, your Honor.
That's one of the problems I've been saying consistently. Mr. Harmon has been on vacation for a couple weeks now and perhaps he hasn't been down here. But I've been saying consistently, we have lawyers spread out around the country. Mr. Scheck and Neufeld, as far as I know, are both in New York. We need time for that. For him to tell us on Friday at 11:00 o'clock he's going to bring in a witness in on Tuesday that either one or both of them will be working together on, we need a little more time, your Honor. And we've said--I've been saying consistently to the Court I need to know this in advance. It violates our three-day rule among other things and so we can move right ahead, there would be no delays because you said you don't want a delay. So we need a little more time than that.
Well, what is the availability of Mr. Scheck and Mr. Neufeld? And this is a case in progress. So this should take legal precedence over anything else, any other engagements that they have.
It should, your Honor. But the Court is aware they live in New York and they've been out here for about six months off and on. And so I have to speak with them, your Honor. But we have a three-day rule and I'm hearing this now. It violates that rule. So we need a little more time. Obviously, we're going to try to accommodate the Court's schedule, but we need a little more time in that regard. They both are--
Your Honor, that--perhaps Mr. Cochran was on vacation when Miss Clark announced on Tuesday morning what the next sequence of witnesses will be.
That hasn't changed. What I have just described is consistent with Miss Clark's--if the transcript will bear us out. And we haven't just announced this today. Mr. Neufeld was advised two days ago. So two plus two is four. And I think we're well in compliance with the three-day rule.
Well, let me say this, your Honor. The Prosecution has changed their list of witnesses on a daily basis. In fact, they told us last week we'd see something else. We were going to have hair and trace next or Bodziak next. We're not clear what we're having. I have a list from Mr. Darden now. It doesn't have anything at all about Gary Sims on it. But at any rate, if we're given a chance to speak with Mr. Scheck and Neufeld, I'll report back to the Court. But I'm just saying that could be a problem, and that's why I wanted to bring it to the Court's attention.
And, your Honor, I will need some time to contact experts and find the scheduling information, and perhaps I could notify the Court later this afternoon.
The lining is slightly torn away at the back. It was torn anyway. But the lining is now inserted into the glove.
Your Honor, may we have some indication--because he did in fact say something about, "I can't get this on," that I don't want it to be at our detriment. So I would ask the Court to have some clarifying questions or whatever in that regard. The Court can ask a clarifying question.
All right. Do we want to stipulate that between the time that Mr. Simpson tried the glove on in front of the jury, that it was examined by Mr.--by counsel for the Defendant and by Dr. Baden?
And it was further examined according to the clerk by Mr. Rubin this morning before court started.
Somebody looked at it from the Prosecution side. We can ask the clerk to come out.
May we ask Deirdre, your Honor? I would like the stipulation to include everybody who looked at the glove and examined it.
Mrs. Robertson, this morning, with regards to the two evidentiary gloves, were they inspected by anybody?
All right. She indicates no. All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please. And, Mr. Rubin, why don't you just remain seated.
This is actually closer to a large than an extra large at this point.
I can tell this Court as an Officer of the Court that when I put the glove on right before Mr. Simpson did, there was no obstruction. And if there is any obstruction now, it resulted from the glove being turned inside out and examined after the Court session yesterday.
Well, knotting implies something significantly more sinister than merely the lining not being in the fingers.
I agree this dislodging of the lining is not attributable to your client since it appears this glove has been handled several times since.