Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present before the Court with his counsel, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Neufeld, Mr. Blasier. The People are represented by Miss Clark, Mr. Darden, Mr. Escobar, Mr. Wooden. Good morning, counsel.
Yes, your Honor. Yesterday we were provided with two more charts or at least proofs of charts that the Prosecution intends to use with Mr. Deedrick. I wanted to bring our objections to the Court's attention now so that the Prosecution can have time to change these before Mr. Deedrick testifies. I don't know if the Court has been provided with these or not. These are two--
Mrs. Robertson, would you make a quick photocopy for me, please, or do you have additional copies?
No, I don't. I have my own here. The charts purport to show comparisons between various known samples and various evidence samples. They indicate that known samples are consistent with evidence samples and we don't have a problem with that. That is the way these things are described. What we have a problem with is two things. They have pictures on these to demonstrate what the known samples are. As you can see on the hair chart, they have "Defendant." Now, the proof that you have doesn't have the pictures on it. The picture they want to put on this is the mugshot of Mr. Simpson and then they have other pictures titled "Nicole, Ron," with pictures from the crime scene of the dead bodies. We feel that that is clearly unduly prejudicial, that it is intended to inflame the jury. It is certainly not necessary to have Mr. Simpson's mugshot to demonstrate that exemplar hairs came from him. All of these boxes do show the associations of the hair and fiber evidence for the evidence talk in terms of Ron's shirt, Nicole's dress and they are not referred to by their last names, which is the conventional way to do that in court. I think it is not coincidental that they use the names Ron and Nicole and Defendant rather than O.J. Simpson and Goldman. I think that was done for a specific purpose, to show a contrast between Mr. Simpson with his booking photo, and the victims, and I think it is unnecessary to the purpose of this chart and we object to those aspects of the chart. We would request that they use last names as they have used in other charts, I believe, and not be allowed to use the Defendant's mugshot.
No, your Honor, and that is why I very much appreciate counsel's taking this up at this time, because once we finalize the boards, to change it is very difficult, and with the Court's ruling, this final ruling, we will be able to finalize the board. Let me indicate to the Court, no. 1, to obviate the one argument made by counsel, we are not using the crime scene photographs of the victims as they were found at Bundy for the identifying pictures in the hair summary board. We are using live photographs of them. With respect to--
All right. We've already scene two live photographs of both Miss Brown Simpson and Mr. Goldman.
Mrs. Robertson, I think they are in the book, in the front box. Those are People's exhibits?
I'm not using the Time magazine photograph, no, your Honor. With respect to type--to the other objections, let me indicate to the Court, Mr. Scheck made certain objections to me about these boards and of the objections he made I found one to be a fair objection, which was we initially had the boards entitled simply "Hairs" and then the other one "Fibers." Mr. Scheck objected on the grounds that the arrows simply going from the Defendant, Nicole, Ron, Kato, the dog, for example, to the items, inferred identity or uniqueness where the witness' testimony would really just say "Consistent with," and even though I felt that his testimony would clarify that and would indicate with no--in no uncertain terms that we are not indicating through his testimony uniqueness and it was nice and simple this way simply, having the title "Hairs" with the arrows, fewer words, I thought that perhaps if there was any indication by such a title that we are trying to indicate uniqueness, that it would be unfair. And it is untrue and I intend to bring it out completely and fully with Mr. Deedrick, that we are not indicating uniqueness or identity so what we did is I asked that the board be modified to indicate "Fibers of" for the exemplar items, then "Consistent with" and "Fibers of," and the same thing is going to be done with hairs, so I did modify the boards to that extent.
No, the arrows are there because it indicates the transfer, but the title indicates that it is not identity we are saying. We are saying it is consistent with and that will be the testimony as well. So now there is no misleading--no arguably misleading aspect to it.
All right. Well, then the two things we need to discuss, from what I understand from Mr. Blasier's comment, is the use of the booking photo and the use of the first names, the use of Defendant and the comparison of Ron and Nicole. There is no objection to Kato, the dog.
I don't know what his last name is, your Honor. With respect to Ron and Nicole, we used their first name because they are shorter. I wanted to make these boards as simple as I possibly. I really honestly did not think, had no conscious thought of the psychological aspects that counsel is mentioning. It is simple and short. They have been referred to in testimony repeatedly as Ron and Nicole, and in fact, some of boards refer to the Defendant as O.J. We have section--"Item no. 213, fibers rear cargo, O.J. Bronco." I mean, people are referred to by their first names throughout this trial and this is no exception. I don't think there is the psychological impact that counsel is worried about. With respect to the use of the booking photo, it is a fair depiction of the Defendant. I will show the Court the photograph, but what are we supposed to do? Show him carrying the football over the--I mean, this is a fair depiction of the Defendant with his hair and the hair is the important thing here and it is one full head shot. There is nothing--
That is usually the Defense objection to these kind of pictures is that the photograph includes the number and we do not have that, and I should indicate this is going to be in that fashion. Right now there is a name tag but it is going to be in this fashion.
And then I should indicate to the Court the other photographs that are going to be used.
All right. Mr. Blasier, I think the People have obviated your objection to the photographs of Miss Brown Simpson and Mr. Goldman.
We strenuously object to the two professionally taken photographs of the victims and a mugshot of Mr. Simpson. We suggest--they don't need pictures at all. You don't need to look at a picture of any of these people. None of the hair comparisons are going to be done based on a photograph. They are going to be done on a microscopic analysis. If they have to use pictures, they can use driver's license pictures of all three. That would at least be equal. "O.J." Is a lot shorter than all the names on here. "Defendant" is shorter or longer than "Goldman." I think that is a ridiculous reason to give. They should all be stated in the same way.
Okay. With respect to the photographs, I don't know, I think that too much is being made of this. The People are entitled to use the best photographs they took to depict what is in issue here and the photographs that we have selected had been selected because their hair is shown clearly in these photographs whereas in driver's license photographs they are not nearly as well depicted. Those are not--the booking photo is a professional shot.
My recollection of Mr. Goldman's driver's license is he is wearing some kind of bandanna.
Correct, which obscures his hair. Let me also indicate that with respect to the photographs on the fiber board, the boxes for Ron's shirt, pants and the knit hat and glove show those items in the crime scene photographs in context, and the reason that they are shown in that manner, the victims are not shown. I mean, the faces are not shown, but their bodies are shown. Let me show the Court what I'm talking about so that it will be a little easier. I will show Mr. Blasier.
With respect to the jeans, with respect to the glove, we have these items depicted in the crime scene because the context in which these items exist are very important to explain the transfer of hair and fiber. What we are showing by these boards is that they receive the hairs and fibers that they did as a result of contact between the Defendant and both victims and items of fiber that he transferred to them and that was transferred between them, and so the context in which the bodies are found, their location vis-à-vis each other and the items of evidence that was found--were found near them is very important to explain the evidence and why we find it where we do. So that is why we use those photographs for the boards, the fiber board, as opposed to separate photographs taken in the lab.
Your Honor, we will provide a picture of Mr. Simpson if the Court feels that pictures are necessary to any of this. We don't think they are, but we should be provided the opportunity to provide a photograph rather than a mugshot.
Your Honor, since when does the Defense get to construct the People's exhibits?
KEY QUOTEOur position is these are all argumentative. We don't think there should be any pictures at all. If there are to be pictures, they should be of equal quality.
All right. As to the use of photographs of Miss Brown Simpson and Mr. Goldman, I agree that the photograph does depict their facial characteristics and their hair, which is the whole issue here, and the objection will be overruled as to the use of the photograph of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. As to the use of the photograph of Mr. Simpson, this is a professionally taken photograph. I mean, this is a photographer employed by the Los Angeles Police Department who took this photograph. The relevance is its proximity in time to the events of June the 12th and it depicts Mr.--the condition of Mr. Simpson's hair at a time contemporaneous or almost contemporaneous to the time in question and it appears to be dated June the 13th. So I find the objection, which I take to be a 352 objection, I find that the probative value here clearly outweighs any prejudicial impact. It appears to be a normal photograph. I will direct the Prosecution, however, to delete the name tag at the bottom. As to the photographs of the shirt of Ronald Goldman, the shirt itself appears to be one of the lab demonstration photographs that the jury has already seen. I will overrule the objection to that. The pants does depict Mr. Goldman in the planter area, it does depict a--the presence of the ferns and the other--the agapantha plants and other material and accurately depicts the state in which Mr. Goldman was found vis-à-vis hair, fiber and other debris that is found, so I will overrule the objection to that. However, as to the nomenclature on the board, I think we need to be consistent on that and I think that the dignity of the victims indicates that they should be referred to by their formal names.
All right. And that the Defendant should also be referred to by his formal name. All right. That is the Court's order. Are we clear? Miss Clark?
The Court will recall yesterday that the Court had instructed the People to give us the list of their remaining witnesses at nine o'clock today.
Your Honor, Mr. Hodgman will be down a little later in the morning with that information at about 10:30, if that is okay.
Good morning, your Honor. Your Honor, it came to our attention yesterday that Mr. Rockne Harmon sent another letter to Dr. Kary Mullis. You may recall two things about this, your Honor: One is that you were concerned--
All right. This is not a matter we need to take up right now. I want to use the time in front of the jury with the jury.
Your Honor, before the jury comes out, may I present another photograph and would you consider that?
The picture they want to put on this is the mugshot of Mr. Simpson and then they have other pictures titled 'Nicole, Ron,' with pictures from the crime scene of the dead bodies. We feel that that is clearly unduly prejudicial, that it is intended to inflame the jury.
What are we supposed to do? Show him carrying the football over the-- I mean, this is a fair depiction of the Defendant with his hair and the hair is the important thing here.
Your Honor, since when does the Defense get to construct the People's exhibits?
I think that the dignity of the victims indicates that they should be referred to by their formal names... And that the Defendant should also be referred to by his formal name.