And in this regard Mr. Goldberg was very cooperative to make sure--before we left last night, to make sure we had all the reports regarding Mr. Sam Poser--regarding Mr. Sam Poser. And I would ask the Court, this has been in the nature like a 402 hearing regarding Mr. Poser's testimony. If he is present I would ask for him to step out for a moment, please.
All right. The record should reflect he has withdrawn from the courtroom. Mr. Cochran.
Thank you very kindly, your Honor. As I indicated that this would be in the nature of a 402 hearing regarding this gentleman's testimony. First of all, the Court may want to hear an offer of proof from the People, but it is my understanding from reviewing all the reports, from looking at all the receipts, there is no receipt linking Mr. Simpson as having purchased the shoes that FBI agent Bodziak talked about yesterday. This man can only tell us that he waited on Mr. Simpson in very vague terms. In fact, there is one receipt for $38.00 for some slippers. He has no information. There is no linking up of this. And the fact is, that the prejudicial effect of his testimony of bringing somebody else from Bloomingdales to talk about Mr. Simpson having shopped at some point but never having purchased these shoes is far outweighed by any probative value. So I think as officers of the Court we have an obligation to bring this to your Honor's attention as soon as possible. I appreciate that since we weren't totally aware he was going to be called last evening the Court gave us this time overnight to deal with this, so I'm prepared to argue it. Perhaps the Court would want to hear from the People. I can tell you what the summary is regarding their offer of proof, but I don't think that this offer of proof will be sufficient for his testimony. And so when we get into talking about 352 problems, I think this is it.
I'm not sure what the basis for counsel's objection is. He said that this was prejudicial. I can certainly see the prejudicial effect of evidence that a person shops at Bloomingdales. I'm sure the jury will be far more likely to convict the Defendant as soon as they learned that he previously shopped at Bloomingdales.
But there is no prejudice whatsoever. His testimony is very simply that the Defendant shopped there, he purchased shoes there on about five occasions, he is a size 12. He does not have a specific recollection of every instance where he sold him shoes. They would not necessarily have records of instances where there were cash transactions or gift certificate transactions. And that they did sell the Lorenzo shoe. That would be the sum and substance of his testimony. It would take approximately fifteen minutes to put on. There is zero prejudice and it is probative. So I just don't understand the nature of Mr. Cochran's objection. I know that they are very, very concerned and worried about this evidence, they must have asked me about half a dozen times yesterday about the scope of this man's testimony, and I told them what it was. My representations to them yesterday and on previous days are the same, consistent with what I've told you. I understand the concern that they have, but this is relevant testimony and it clearly is not prejudicial.
We are not worried. We are the same people who sat for eight days while Brian Kelberg put the Coroner on for eight days just like the evidence of Bodziak and just like this man. Your Honor, they are whistling in the wind. This is the dying grasp of the Prosecution. This is not relevant testimony. To put on this man to say that sometime in 1990 or 1991 he saw Mr. Simpson in Bloomingdales, they can never link it up to those shoes. Those are the facts. And so what I was saying, it wastes all the Court's time, it doesn't lead anywhere and it is just--it is analogous to the testimony that we elicited from Dr. Lakshmanan, that Golden made all these mistakes but he still couldn't tell us the various things, and you saw the contrast. They spent eight days on direct.
Mr. Shapiro spent, what, a half day in cross-examination. And so we are just saying to the Court, the Court wants to move this case along, this is a good example of that, and the reason why we kept asking counsel, Mr. Goldberg, and I complement him at the beginning, we asked him because we couldn't believe he wanted to put this man on, given what he has to say. And so I think now the Court understands it, we have a summary of his testimony. Listen to this, your Honor. That during the time Mr. Poser was the manager of the shoe department he met O.J. Simpson several times. Mr. Poser was asked to read the sales receipt. Mr. Poser stated just by looking at the sales receipt he was unable to tell what was purchased. Mr. Poser did not have any recall of any slippers priced at $38.00. And there is no linkage, your Honor, so they could be bring anybody in here and that doesn't add anything. And counsel says, well, if the jury hears he shopped at Bloomingdales they are likely to convict him. He hasn't been down in this trial everyday, obviously, if he thinks that. That has nothing to do with this case.
I didn't think so either, but the point is, your Honor, and I think you now have the picture, I ask for an offer of proof. You now have it. How does this link up with O.J. Simpson? If they would ask us we would stipulate that he has on occasion bought a size 11, size 12, size 13, in that range. He has bought shoes in that range. They went all through yesterday to do that. I mean, that doesn't add anything. How many men in American do you think wear size 10 and a half, 11's, 12's, 12 and a half, 13's? That is not instructive.
Isn't that just 12's ten percent, so if you add those other sizes, I think it is even larger. So that is the point, your Honor. So I'm saying this is the point where the Court has been very, very lenient with the Prosecution in allowing them to advance these various--various theories that don't lead anywhere. And so we are just saying this is an appropriate time to say that this man shouldn't be called because it doesn't add anything to where we are.
Rather than actually a request for a 402, because it appears that there is nothing that I can see would bar his testimony if it is relevant. The fact that he is going to testify that he is the manager or was the manager of the shoe department at Bloomingdales gives him a certain amount of credibility as far as his expertise as to what the practices are at Bloomingdales. The fact that he has personal acquaintanceship and knowledge of the Defendant's shoe purchasing and that he has purchased a size 12 is--does have probative value. The fact that Bloomingdales was one of the forty stores here in the United States that sold this particular shoe, the Lorenzo, is of probative value. And I accept Mr. Goldberg's self-imposed time limit of fifteen minutes in getting to this.
I can certainly see the prejudicial effect of evidence that a person shops at Bloomingdales. I'm sure the jury will be far more likely to convict the Defendant as soon as they learned that he previously shopped at Bloomingdales.
It was not particularly helpful.
This is the dying grasp of the Prosecution. This is not relevant testimony. To put on this man to say that sometime in 1990 or 1991 he saw Mr. Simpson in Bloomingdales, they can never link it up to those shoes.
The fact that Bloomingdales was one of the forty stores here in the United States that sold this particular shoe, the Lorenzo, is of probative value.