BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. MR. SIMPSON IS AGAIN PRESENT WITH HIS COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. DOUGLAS, MR. BAILEY. THE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED BY MISS CLARK, MISS LEWIS, MR. DARDEN. THE JURY IS NOT PRESENT. COUNSEL, ANYTHING WE NEED TO ADDRESS BEFORE WE INVITE THE JURORS TO REJOIN US? I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO DISCUSS PARAMETERS OF CROSS-EXAMINATION OR ANY OTHER OFFERS OF PROOF? ANYBODY WISH TO BE HEARD?
ARGUING WITH A HUMBLE, YOUR HONOR. I HAVE FURNISHED YOU IN CAMERA A NUMBER OF INCIDENTS WHICH WE BELIEVE FALL WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF RELEVANCE, ONE AS LATE AS 1993. POLICE REPORTS WERE TURNED OVER AS TO THAT INCIDENT. THERE ARE NO NOTES OR OTHER MATERIALS TO TURN OVER, BUT I HAVE REVIEWED WITH YOU THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WOULD INDICATE CONTINUING STRONG ANTI-RACIAL FEELING WHERE THE MALE IS BLACK AND THE FEMALE IS WHITE. AND I THINK THAT FAIR GAME FOR QUESTION AS TO WHY ONE WOULD WALK OUT IN THE MIDDLE OF AN INVESTIGATION.
IN THE 1054.7 HEARING, IN CAMERA HEARING THAT WE HAD, ARE YOU WITHDRAWING THE LAST ITEM?
UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, UNTIL SOMETHING HAPPENS TO CORROBORATE OR AUTHENTICATE, I WILL NOT RUN WITH THAT ACCUSATION.
I'M SORRY, YOUR HONOR, I HAVE BEEN CORRECTED BY MR. DOUGLAS. THERE IS A WRITTEN REPORT WITH RESPECT TO THAT WITNESS. IT HAS NOT BEEN TURNED OVER BECAUSE THE DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE TO CALL THE WITNESS. OBVIOUSLY IF THE INCIDENT IS DENIED, RATHER THAN EXPLAINED, THE WITNESS WILL BE CALLED. IF THE INCIDENT IS EXPLAINED RATHER THAN DENIED, THERE WILL BE NO NEED TO CALL A WITNESS, UNLESS IT WINDS UP A CONTRADICTION AND RECOLLECTION AS TO WHAT WE SAID, BUT WE ARE NOT RELYING ON WHAT WAS SAID, AS YOU KNOW, FROM THE PROFFER. WELL, I'M SORRY, I TAKE THAT BACK; PART OF IT WAS VERBAL.
WAIT A MINUTE. WHICH ONE ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HERE? THE ONE THAT YOU HAVE TOLD ME THAT YOU HAVE RESERVATION ABOUT, THE POLICE REPORT INCIDENT?
YOUR HONOR, COUNSEL CAN'T CIRCUMVENT 1054.7 BASED ON THE WITNESS' ANSWER WE WILL NOT KNOW WHETHER OR NOT WE NEED TO CALL THEM. THAT PERSON IS A WITNESS THEY REASONABLY ANTICIPATE CALLING. THEY CAN EXPECT IF THERE IS MORE OF THE SAME KIND OF NONSENSICAL ALLEGATIONS THAT THEY HAVE BROUGHT OUT FROM KATHLEEN BELL, AND OTHERS OF HER ILK, THEN IT WILL BE DENIED, BECAUSE IT IS INDEED FALSE AND THEY KNOW THAT AND THEY -- THAT MEANS THEY REASONABLY ANTICIPATE CALLING THIS PERSON AND THEY MUST TURN THIS STATEMENT OVER.
ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, LET ME ASK MR. DOUGLAS. MR. DOUGLAS, YOUR NOTES INDICATE THAT THAT JANUARY 23RD STATEMENT HAS BEEN TURNED OVER?
NO, YOUR HONOR. IT WAS DISCUSSED IN CHAMBERS. THE DECISION WAS APPROVED THAT WE WOULD TURN OVER THE STATEMENT, THE POLICE REPORT STATEMENT.
RIGHT, BUT IT WAS NEVER REPRESENTED TO ME -- IT WAS REPRESENTED TO ME THAT THERE WAS NO STATEMENT.
ALL RIGHT. HOLD ON. LET ME GET THE PROFFER THEN, BECAUSE MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT THE PROFFER THAT WAS GIVEN TO ME DURING THE 1054.7 DOES NOT MENTION A STATEMENT.
ALL RIGHT. MR. BAILEY, THE PROFFER THAT WAS PROVIDED TO THE COURT UNDER SEAL AND IN CAMERA MENTIONS THAT THERE IS NO STATEMENT. THAT APPEARS TO BE INCORRECT?
WELL, ALTHOUGH I DID NOT KNOW THIS AT THE TIME, YOUR HONOR, THERE IS NO STATEMENT FROM THE WITNESS. THERE IS AN INVESTIGATOR'S REPORT TO MR. DOUGLAS.
ALL RIGHT. THEN LET ME ORDER THIS: I'M GOING TO DIRECT THAT MR. DOUGLAS PROVIDE THAT STATEMENT TO THE PROSECUTION FORTHWITH. DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF IT HERE?
AND COUNSEL, WHAT I PROPOSE TO DO IS PRECLUDE DISCUSSION OF THAT PARTICULAR INCIDENT UNTIL THE PROSECUTION HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THIS. IF THEY WISH TO MAKE FURTHER OBJECTION, WE WILL GO INTO THAT.
NO, THAT WAS NOT THE RULING AT ALL, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT RULED THAT WE WOULD DISCUSS AT SIDE BAR OR OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY --
ANY OTHER OFFERS AS TO OTHER AREAS OF CROSS-EXAMINATION? YOU HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED KATHLEEN BELL. THE COURT HAS RULED THAT THAT IS FAIR GAME.
YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE STATEMENT OR YOU ARE AWARE OF ANDREA TERRY.
AND WE WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ABOUT THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THAT, YOUR HONOR, AND WE DO NOT HAVE A STATEMENT FROM THEM.
FROM HER. WE ARE AWARE THROUGH NEWS ACCOUNTS, AND NOW FINALLY WE'VE HAD THE INTERVIEW WITH HER LAST NIGHT, BUT WE WANT TO BE HEARD ABOUT THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THAT.
TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, YOUR HONOR, THE STATEMENT OF ANDREA TERRY IS DIFFERENT THAN THAT OF KATHLEEN BELL. SHE ALLEGEDLY MET THE DEFENDANT -- MET KATHLEEN BELL AT HENNESSEY WHERE KATHLEEN BELL INTRODUCED HER TO MARK FUHRMAN AND HENNESSEY'S BAR OR TAVERN, WHATEVER, AND AT THAT TIME ALLEGEDLY MADE A COMMENT THAT SHE WAS ATTRACTED TO MARCUS ALLEN AND ALLEGEDLY MARK FUHRMAN, IN RESPONSE, IN THIS CROWDED BAR, SAID, "I THINK THAT INTERRACIAL COUPLES ARE A CRIME AGAINST NATURE" --
-- AND THAT IF HE SAW A BLACK AND WHITE COUPLE TOGETHER IN A CAR HE WOULD FIND A REASON TO PULL THEM OVER.
NOW, THIS ALLEGED MEETING TOOK PLACE, I WOULD REMIND THE COURT, AFTER KATHLEEN BELL SUPPOSEDLY HEARD THE COMMENT THAT HAS BEEN WIDELY REPORTED MADE BY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AT THE MARINE RECRUITING OFFICE, AND AFTER SHE LEFT IN TEARS AND HYSTERICAL AFTER HEARING THAT COMMENT, SHE THEN INTRODUCED MARK FUHRMAN TO HER FRIEND ANDREA TERRY.
IN ORDER TO -- SHE INTRODUCED HER TO ANDREA TERRY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THEM GOING OUT ON A DATE. ANDREA TERRY THEN COMES UP SOME SEVEN MONTHS LATER WITH THIS STATEMENT; HOWEVER, THE STATEMENT IS NOT AS PROBATIVE AS THAT OF THE STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO MARK FUHRMAN BY KATHLEEN BELL. IN KATHLEEN BELL'S STATEMENT, SHE ALLEGES THAT MARK FUHRMAN STATED THAT HE WOULD MAKE UP A REASON IN ORDER TO STOP THEM, THAT HE WOULD ACTUALLY FABRICATE EVIDENCE WAS HER STATEMENT. ANDREA TERRY DOESN'T SAY THAT. ANDREA TERRY STATES THAT HE WOULD FIND A REASON. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT ONE DOES NOT EXIST. THAT MEANS THAT HE IS LOOKING FOR A REASON AND GOING WITH WHAT HE HAS. THE ALLEGATION THAT IS IMPORTANT IN THE KATHLEEN BELL STATEMENT IS FABRICATION. THAT IS MISSING FROM THE STATEMENT IN ANDREA TERRY. SO ANDREA TERRY'S STATEMENT IS IRRELEVANT AND SHOULD BE RULED INADMISSIBLE UNDER 352.
WELL, I THINK MISS CLARK IS ENDEAVORING TO GET YOU TO DECIDE CREDIBILITY QUESTIONS. THAT IS NOT WHAT WE ANTICIPATE ANDREA TERRY WILL SAY. SHE WILL SAY HE MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT HE WOULD PULL THEM OVER BECAUSE HE WAS BLACK AND SHE WAS WHITE. NOW, FOR MISS CLARK TO SUGGEST HE WOULD THEN TRY TO FIND A LEGAL REASON TO JUSTIFY WHAT HE HAD ALREADY DONE IS A LITTLE BIT LUDICROUS. CERTAINLY THAT IS PROBATIVE, IN ADDITION TO CORROBORATIVE, OF THE SAME EXPRESSION GIVEN TO KATHLEEN BELL ON A PRIOR OCCASION STANDING IN FRONT OF THE RECRUITING STATION AFTER BEING INTRODUCED TO FUHRMAN BY JOE FOSS, THE MARINE.
NOW, FOR A MAN WHO HAS NEVER SEEN KATHLEEN BELL IN HIS LIFE, AS FUHRMAN CLAIMS, HAVING A WITNESS WHO IS WITH KATHLEEN BELL IN HENNESSEY'S WOULD BE ENOUGH ALL BY ITSELF, BUT HIS OFFER THAT IT WAS A CRIME AGAINST NATURE FOR A BLACK MAN TO BE WITH A WHITE WOMAN SHOULD IN AND OF ITSELF BE ENOUGH TO ALLOW CROSS-EXAMINATION ON HIS RACIAL BIAS. WE CLAIM THAT HE HAS GONE OUT OF HIS WAY IN THIS CASE TO HURT A BLACK MAN THAT HE SAW WITH A WHITE WOMAN IN 1985 AND KNEW THEREAFTER BECAUSE OF THE 1989 INCIDENT OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP. SO I DON'T THINK ANDREA TERRY IS EVEN A PLAUSIBLE ARGUMENT FOR PROHIBITION.
YES. MAX CORDOBA IS A BLACK MARINE, AFRICAN AMERICAN. AS I INDICATED IN THE PROFFER, MAX CORDOVA WAS STANDING IN THE RECRUITING STATION WHEN DETECTIVE FUHRMAN CAME UP WITH SOME PAPERS. THERE WILL BE EVIDENCE THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WAS MAKING APPLICATION TO JOIN THE RESERVE UNIT OR THAT THE MARINES OR SOME OF THEM WERE CONCERNED ABOUT WHERE IN THE WORLD THEY COULD PUT HIM THAT HE WOULDN'T HAVE TO ASSOCIATE WITH AFRICAN AMERICANS, BECAUSE HE HAD MADE HIS FEELINGS PLAIN ABOUT THAT. NOW, AS CORDOBA WAS STANDING THERE AND FUHRMAN APPROACHES WITH THE PAPERS, CORDOBA SAYS, "I REALLY DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS APPLICATION, YOU SOUGHT TO SEE RON," MEANING SERGEANT RONALD ROHR. RON, AT ABOUT THAT MOMENT, WHO LIKES TO HANG AROUND AT THE PLACE NEXT DOOR, AS ANOTHER WITNESS WILL TESTIFY, STARTS COMING ACROSS THE STREET AND CORDOBA SAYS, "HEY, ROHR, YOUR BOY IS HERE." AND FUHRMAN TURNS ON CORDOBA AND SAYS, "LET'S GET SOMETHING STRAIGHT. THE ONLY BOY HERE IS YOU, NIGGER," AND THEN CORDOBA LEAVES THE BUILDING AND FUHRMAN FOLLOWS HIM OUT INTO THE PARKING LOT AND REPEATS THE SAME EPITHET. I THINK THAT SHOWING OF RACIAL BIAS AT THE TIME WE CLAIM HE WAS EXPRESSING SIMILAR VIEWS TO A WITNESS HE DENIES MEETING, NOT ONLY STANDS ON ITS OWN AS EVIDENCE OF THE BIAS HE IS NOW DISCLAIMING, BUT ALSO CORROBORATES THE LIKELIHOOD THAT MS. BELL IN THE SAME PERIOD OF TIME WOULD HAVE HEARD THESE REMARKS.
THESE ALLEGATIONS GET MORE OUTRAGEOUS BY THE MINUTE AND I'M STRICKEN AGAIN BY THE PREPOSTEROUSNESS OF THE CLAIMS OF THE DEFENSE. NOT ONLY DID THESE ALLEGED INCIDENTS NEVER OCCUR, BUT THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THEY ARE BEING ADMITTED COULD NEVER HAVE OCCURRED. AND MAX CORDOBA GAVE US A STATEMENT THAT SAYS NONE OF THAT. WE HAVE INTERVIEWED MAX CORDOBA A LONG TIME AGO. HE NEVER MADE SUCH A STATEMENT AND HE NEVER ALLEGED THAT MARK FUHRMAN EVER MADE SUCH A STATEMENT. AND IF THE DEFENSE HAS A STATEMENT THAT INDICATES THAT HE IS GOING TO SO TESTIFY, WE ARE ENTITLED TO SEE IT, ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT WE HAVE INTERVIEWED MAX CORDOBA TWICE AND HE HAS NEVER INDICATED ANY SUCH THING TO ANYONE WHO HAS INTERVIEWED HIM. I THINK WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A FALSE OFFER OF PROOF BY THE DEFENSE, AN OFFER THAT THEY ARE GOING TO USE TO SLUR MARK FUHRMAN AGAIN UNFAIRLY IN THE EYES OF THIS JURY AND NEVER PRODUCE THE WITNESS TO BACK UP THIS STATEMENT, BECAUSE ACCORDING TO THE STATEMENTS HE HAS GIVEN US, HE NEVER SAID ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
SO THAT WE CAN PUT THIS IN PERSPECTIVE, YOUR HONOR, MR. CORDOBA WAS INTERVIEWED ON TELEVISION AND INDICATED THAT HE ALWAYS GOT ALONG WITH MARK FUHRMAN. HE HAD A INTERVIEW WITH TONY PELLICANO IN WHICH HE INDICATED HE ALWAYS GOT ALONG WITH MARK FUHRMAN. MONTHS AND MONTHS LATER AN INTERVIEW WAS CONDUCTED IN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WHERE HE MADE REFERENCE TO A JOKING COMMENT EXCHANGED ABOUT SOMEBODY SAID "BOY" AND MARK SAID "BOY." THE "N" WORD WAS NEVER USED BY MARK FUHRMAN, ACCORDING TO MAX CORDOBA, AND THAT WAS IN ALL THREE STATEMENTS HE HAS GIVEN OVER THE PAST SEVEN MONTHS. HIS FIRST TWO STATEMENTS INDICATE THERE WAS NO PROBLEM, SO THAT IS WHERE WE START WITH MAX CORDOBA. AND THEN BELATEDLY IN FEBRUARY, I THINK, OR JANUARY OF THIS YEAR, HE VAGUELY RECALLS SOME STATEMENT WHERE THERE WAS AN EXCHANGE OF THE TERM "BOY" BY TWO PEOPLE THERE, BUT THE "N" WORD WAS NEVER USED BY MARK FUHRMAN, ACCORDING TO MAX CORDOBA. SO IF THE DEFENSE HAS A STATEMENT INDICATING THAT HE WILL SO TESTIFY, WE NEED TO SEE IT, AND IF THEY DON'T, THE COURT SHOULD REFUSE TO ALLOW IT BECAUSE THIS IS DEFINITELY A FALSE OFFER OF PROOF WITHOUT SOME STATEMENT TO BACK IT UP THAT THEY ARE GOING TO USE TO INFLAME THE JURY UNFAIRLY AND NEVER PRODUCE ON.
ISN'T THIS A FOOTNOTE 14 ISSUE, WHERE MAX CORDOBA IS ON THE WITNESS LIST AS A PROSECUTION WITNESS? MR. DOUGLAS, I DON'T NEED THE COACHING HERE. WHERE MR. CORDOBA OR SERGEANT CORDOBA PROBABLY IS A PEOPLE'S WITNESS AND THIS IS AN IMPEACHING STATEMENT OF A PROSECUTION WITNESS, SO ARE THEY COMPELLED TO TURN THAT OVER?
IT IS DIFFERENT, YOUR HONOR, BECAUSE THAT IS TALKING ABOUT THE IMPEACHMENT OF THAT WITNESS HIMSELF. THEY ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT IMPEACHMENT OF MAX CORDOBA. THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT IMPEACHMENT OF A DIFFERENT WITNESS. THE FOOTNOTE 11 OR 14, WHICHEVER ONE THAT IS, REFERS TO THE IMPEACHMENT OF THAT WITNESS THAT THEY HAVE THE STATEMENT ON, SO IF THEY HAD A STATEMENT THAT IMPEACHED MAX CORDOBA, THAT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT ISSUE. BUT THAT IS NOT THE REASON, THAT IS NOT THE PROFFER, AND THAT IS NOT WHY THEY WANT THAT STATEMENT IN. IT IS NOT TO IMPEACH MAX CORDOBA. WE HAVE IMPEACHMENT ON MAX CORDOBA. WE HAVE THE PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS OF MAX CORDOBA. THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE HERE, SO A DIFFERENT SITUATION. AND IF THEY DO HAVE THAT STATEMENT, WE NEED TO SEE IT, BUT AT THE VERY LEAST I THINK THAT THE COURT SHOULD REFUSE TO ALLOW THAT STATEMENT IN UNTIL MAX CORDOBA TESTIFIES. HE CAN BE QUESTIONED OF COURSE ON WHETHER HE KNOWS HIM, BUT THAT THAT STATEMENT THAT THEY ARE NOW ATTRIBUTING TO MARK FUHRMAN THROUGH MAX CORDOBA SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED AT THIS TIME AS UNDULY INFLAMMATORY, WITHOUT PROBATIVE VALUE AND NO BASIS IN FACT BECAUSE IT IS BEING ADMITTED SOLELY TO INFLAME THE JURY. I DON'T BELIEVE IT WILL EVER BE PRODUCED, NOT AT ALL, AND SO IF THE COURT ALLOWS THE JURY TO HEAR THAT EPITHET AS ATTRIBUTED TO MARK FUHRMAN BY THE WITNESS MAX CORDOBA, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS NEVER GOING TO BE DELIVERED ON AND THE COURT WILL HAVE ALLOWED THE JURY TO BE INFLAMED BY SOMETHING THAT WILL EVAPORATE INTO THIN AIR AS SOON AS THE WORDS ARE GOING TO BE SHOUTED THROUGH THIS COURTROOM BY MR. BAILEY. AND I THINK THAT THAT DOES NOT PRODUCE ANYTHING NEAR A FAIR TRIAL AND THAT IS ONE STATEMENT THAT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED. LET THEM CALL THE WITNESS. I WANT TO HEAR HIM SAY THIS. THE COURT IS NEVER GOING TO HEAR IT, SO I THINK THE COURT SHOULD NOT PERMIT CROSS-EXAMINATION WITH RESPECT TO THAT SPECIFIC ALLEGATION ON THAT WITNESS.
ALL RIGHT. SO THERE ARE ACTUALLY TWO ISSUES HERE: WHETHER OR NOT IT IS APPROPRIATE FODDER FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION ON THE ISSUE OF RACIAL BIAS. AND SECONDLY, A DISCOVERY ISSUE WHETHER OR NOT YOU ARE ENTITLED TO SEE THIS STATEMENT AT SOME APPROPRIATE POINT IN TIME?
MISS CLARK, WHO SO LIGHTLY CASTS ASPERSIONS ON ALL THE DEFENSE TEAM FOR MAKING UP OFFERS OF PROOF AND FURNISHING THEM TO THIS COURT, HAS RATHER DIRTY HANDS IN THIS MATTER. AS YOU KNOW FROM THE PROFFER, MAX CORDOBA WANTED TO TELL MR. DARDEN AND MISS LEWIS ABOUT THIS INCIDENT AND THEY SHUT HIM OFF. THEY SAID WE ARE ONLY INTERESTED IN WHAT MISS BELL SAID AND THAT IS WHAT HE WILL TESTIFY TO. AND YOUR HONOR, I HAVE SPOKEN WITH HIM ON THE PHONE PERSONALLY, MARINE TO MARINE. I HAVEN'T THE SLIGHTEST DOUBT THAT HE WILL MARCH UP TO THAT WITNESS STAND AND TELL THE WORLD WHAT FUHRMAN CALLED HIM ON NO PROVOCATION WHATSOEVER. AS FAR AS DISCOVERY IS CONCERNED, THERE IS NO WRITTEN STATEMENT, THERE ARE NO NOTES THAT I KNOW OF. WHEN I HEARD ABOUT THIS, BECAUSE HE CALLED US WANTING TO MAKE IT KNOWN THAT THESE PEOPLE HAD TRIED TO SUPPRESS THIS INFORMATION, I SPOKE TO HIM PERSONALLY. I DON'T EVER TAKE NOTES AND I DIDN'T ON THAT OCCASION.
PHILIP COLEMAN. PHIL COLEMAN, THERE ARE NO SECRETS ABOUT, YOUR HONOR, BECAUSE WE GOT A LETTER THAT MR. COLEMAN DRAFTED ON HIS OWN, IT WAS TURNED OVER TO THE PROSECUTION A LONG TIME AGO AND PROMPTLY HANDED TO THE PRESS BY SOMEBODY, SO IT HAS BEEN AIRED. BUT I THINK IN VIEW OF WHAT IS IN THE LETTER, AND THE ESSENCE OF IT WAS THAT MR. COLEMAN UNDERSTOOD THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WAS CRITICAL OF THE FACT THAT WHITE WOMEN WERE UNDRESSING IN A BUSINESS RUN BY A BLACK PARTNER AND A WHITE WOMAN PARTNER, THE BLACK PERSON BEING MR. COLEMAN. HE ALSO UNDERSTOOD THAT MR. FUHRMAN HAD SERVED IN VIETNAM AND WAS APPLYING TO GET BACK IN THE MARINE CORPS AND THAT HE WAS VERY UNHAPPY ABOUT MR. COLEMAN'S SITUATION. MR. COLEMAN HIMSELF HAD SERVED IN VIETNAM AND WANTED TO TRY TO DISPEL ANY SUGGESTION OF IMPROPRIETY THAT WOMEN WERE UNCLAD IN HIS STORE AND THAT SOMEHOW WAS OFFENSIVE. AND SO AT ONE POINT SERGEANT ROHR, I BELIEVE IT WAS, IT IS IN THE REPORT, WAS STANDING WITH FUHRMAN IN THE PARKING LOT BETWEEN THE RECRUITING STATION AND COLEMAN'S STORE AND HE SAID, "HEY, VIETNAM, COME OVER HERE," OBVIOUSLY TO MAKE AN INTRODUCTION. MR. COLEMAN WALKED UP, STUCK OUT HIS HAND LIKE A MAN AND MARK FUHRMAN FOLDED HIS ARMS AND TURNED LIKE THAT AWAY FROM HIM. CERTAINLY NO CLEARER ACT OF DISDAIN FOR A BLACK PERSON WHO ASSOCIATED WITH A WHITE WOMAN COULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN ABSENT ANY VERBALIZATION. FOR THAT REASON WE THINK THAT THAT INCIDENT IS ADMISSIBLE BECAUSE ONCE AGAIN IT IS CLOSE IN TIME TO THE CORDOBA AND BELL AND TERRY INCIDENTS WHEREIN DETECTIVE FUHRMAN EXHIBITED HIS RACIAL BIAS TO A VERY EXTREME NATURE AND BECAUSE THESE ARE PROXIMATE TO ONE ANOTHER, THEY TEND TO SUPPORT ONE ANOTHER. THAT IS TO SAY, IF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IS GOING TO SAY THAT BELL IS A LIAR, HE NEVER MET HER, TERRY IS A LIAR, HE NEVER MET HER, OR IF HE DID HE NEVER SPOKE TO HER, AND IF HE SPOKE TO HER HE NEVER SAID THOSE WORDS. JOE FOSS IS A LIAR BECAUSE FOSS NEVER INTRODUCED BELL TO FUHRMAN AND COLEMAN IS A LIAR BECAUSE THIS INCIDENT NEVER HAPPENED, AND CORDOBA IS A LIAR BECAUSE HE NEVER CALLED HIM A NIGGER, THEN I THINK THE JURY IS ENTITLED TO FIND THAT THE WORLD IS OUT OF STEP WITH JOHNNY AND EVERYBODY LIES BUT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, IF THAT IS THE STORY HE WANTS TO SELL. CERTAINLY THEY ARE ENTITLED TO HEAR OF THE INCIDENTS.
YOU KNOW, YOUR HONOR, ALL WE ARE GETTING HERE IS A LOT OF VERY DRAMATIC POSTURING, BECAUSE WHEN THESE WITNESSES TAKE THE WITNESS STAND, IF THEY EVER DO, THE COURT IS GOING TO HEAR A VERY DIFFERENT STORY THAN MR. BAILEY HAS LAID OUT FOR THE COURT TODAY. YOU CAN REST ASSURED. I WANT THIS FILM CLIP SAVED FOREVER BECAUSE THIS IS GOING TO BE VERY FUNNY WHEN THE ACTUAL WITNESSES TAKE THE STAND. NEVERTHELESS, WITH RESPECT TO MR. COLEMAN, ALL HE HAS TO OFFER IS HEARSAY. HE NEVER HEARD MARK FUHRMAN SAY ANYTHING ABOUT INTERRACIAL COUPLES. HE HIMSELF NEVER HEARD MARK FUHRMAN SAY ANY RACIAL EPITHET OR SLUR. HE HIMSELF WAS NEVER PRIVY TO THE CONVERSATION THAT ALLEGEDLY TOOK PLACE BETWEEN KATHLEEN BELL AND MARK FUHRMAN. HE WITNESSED NOTHING. HE CLAIMS AT SOME POINT IN TIME THAT MARK FUHRMAN FOLDED HIS ARMS WHEN HE WAS INTRODUCED. HOWEVER, THERE IS VERY LITTLE RELIABILITY TO THAT STATEMENT AND IT IS NO COINCIDENCE, BY THE WAY, THAT IT ALL HAPPENED AROUND THE SAME TIME, BECAUSE KATHLEEN BELL, ANDREA TERRY, PHIL COLEMAN AND MAX CORDOBA ALL WORKED THIS SAME AREA AND KNEW EACH OTHER, SO IT IS NOT A REAL SURPRISE THAT THEY HAVE ALL COOKED UP THESE STORIES, NOT AT ALL. AND WHAT YOU WILL SEE WHEN THEY TESTIFY, TRUST ME, YOUR HONOR, IS GOING TO BE VERY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT HAS BEEN OFFERED TODAY. AT SOME POINT THIS GETS CUMULATIVE AND IT GETS RIDICULOUS. WE HAVE ANDREA TERRY'S STATEMENT THAT ISN'T EVEN PROBATIVE BECAUSE IT DOES NOT GO TO THE ISSUE THAT MADE THE COURT -- COMPELLED THE COURT TO ADMIT KATHLEEN BELL'S STATEMENT. IT IS MISSING THAT PROBATIVE VALUE. PHILIP COLEMAN HAS NOTHING BUT HEARSAY AND FOLDED ARMS TO OFFER, WHICH IS, UNDER 352, OF NO PROBATIVE VALUE WHATSOEVER AND IT IS AN AMBIGUOUS GESTURE AT BEST, IF EVER BELIEVED, BY THE WAY, WHICH IT WILL NOT BE WHEN ALL IS SAID AND DONE. AND WITH RESPECT TO THE STATEMENT BY -- ALLEGED STATEMENT BY MAX CORDOBA, WE HAVE ZERO RELIABILITY TO THAT. WE HAVE NO STATEMENT, WE HAVE NO NOTES, WE HAVE NO TAPES, WE HAVE NOTHING TO ESTABLISH THAT THAT -- THAT THAT CONVERSATION MR. BAILEY REFERS TO EVER OCCURRED. ALL WE HEAR ARE PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS, PRIOR STATEMENTS BY THIS WITNESS THAT ARE VASTLY DIFFERENT THAN ANYTHING THAT HAS BEEN OFFERED BY COUNSEL TODAY. SO WE HAVE A TOTALLY UNRELIABLE OFFER HERE THAT IS CUMULATIVE TO THE ISSUE AND THAT ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT GO TO THE INTERRACIAL COUPLE ISSUE, THE FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE ISSUE. I MEAN, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THINGS THAT ARE WAY BEYOND THE SCOPE OF WHAT IS -- WHAT SHOULD BE EVEN DREAMED ABOUT AS BEING ADMISSIBLE AS TO THIS WITNESS. WE GET TO THE POINT THAT ALL WE ARE DOING IS SLINGING AT SOMEONE IN AN AREA WHERE, YES, CREDIBILITY IS IN ISSUE, BUT WE HAVE TO ATTACK ON ISSUES THAT ARE RELEVANT TO CREDIBILITY. WHETHER OR NOT MAX CORDOBA HEARD HIM SAY THE WORDS ATTRIBUTED TO HIM, THAT DOES NOT TO GO INTERRACIAL COUPLES, THE FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE OR THE PLANTING OF EVIDENCE. THESE STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO THE DETECTIVE BY ANDREA TERRY DO NOT GO TO THE FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE. AND THE REFUSAL TO SHAKE THE HAND OF PHILIP COLEMAN, ANOTHER FANTASY COOKED UP BY THE DEFENSE WHICH NEVER TRANSPIRED THAT CERTAINLY DOES NOT GO TO INTERRACIAL COUPLES OR THE FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE. THE PEOPLE RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT TO THE COURT THAT WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS NOT A DEFENSE, IT IS A SMEAR CAMPAIGN AND THERE IS NOT ANY OF IT RELEVANT TO THE DETECTIVE'S CREDIBILITY WITH RESPECT TO THE ACTIONS HE TOOK ON THE DAY IN QUESTION. LET'S REMEMBER THIS IS A DOUBLE HOMICIDE CASE. THIS IS NOT A CASE CONCERNING THE CHARACTER OF MARK FUHRMAN WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES OF RACE. THIS IS A CASE INVOLVING THE HOMICIDE OF TWO MURDER VICTIMS AND A JUNIOR DETECTIVE WHO FOUND EVIDENCE BASED ON THE STATEMENT OF A WITNESS. THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE HERE. AND IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE ALL REMEMBER THAT. WHATEVER ANYONE MAY ULTIMATELY DECIDE ABOUT MARK FUHRMAN'S PERSONAL LIFE OR PERSONAL VIEWS OF THE WORLD HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT HE IS CREDIBLE AS AN OFFICER AND WITH THE ISSUES THAT RELATE TO HIS HONESTY AND VERACITY AND THAT IS A MUCH MORE NARROW PARAMETER THAN COUNSEL WOULD HAVE THIS COURT BELIEVE. BUT THE COURT KNOWS BETTER. I KNOW THE COURT DOES BECAUSE THE COURT HAS INDICATED WHAT ITS RULINGS ARE BASED ON, WISELY SO.
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE CHARACTER FOR TRUTH AND VERACITY. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WHETHER THERE IS A PROPENSITY TO FABRICATE EVIDENCE WITH RESPECT TO INTERRACIAL COUPLES. THAT IS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE, AND LET'S NOT FORGET THAT. NOW, THE REST OF THE IMPEACHMENT THAT HAS BEEN PROFFERED BY COUNSEL HAS ZERO RELEVANCE AND THE COURT WILL ULTIMATELY FIND, IF THEY ARE EVER CALLED AND THE COURT DOES DECIDE TO ADMIT THEIR TESTIMONY, WHICH I WOULD SUBMIT WOULD NOT BE PROPER, NO CREDIBILITY WHATSOEVER. WE HAVE A SITUATION HERE THAT IS DESIGNED SOLELY TO INFLAME THE JURY AND DISTRACT THEM FROM THE ISSUES AT HAND AND THAT IS FAR MORE PREJUDICIAL THAN PROBATIVE. AND ALL WE ARE GOING TO DO HERE IS ENGAGE IN A SMEAR CAMPAIGN SO THAT THE JURY WILL FORGET THAT WE HAVE TWO PEOPLE MURDERED AND AN OFFICER WHO FOUND KEY EVIDENCE BASED ON THE EVIDENCE OF A WITNESS WHO WILL NOT BE ABLE TO BE IMPEACHED WITH RESPECT TO WHAT HE HEARD AND SAW ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE THE 12TH. SO I SUBMIT TO THE COURT RESPECTFULLY THAT THIS IS THE COURT'S OPPORTUNITY TO KEEP THIS TRIAL ON TRACK AND PREVENT COUNSEL FROM ENGAGING IN A SMEAR CAMPAIGN THAT WILL MISLEAD, CONFUSE AND INFLAME THIS JURY.
MAY THE COURT NOTE AND MAY THE WORLD LONG REMEMBER THAT MISS CLARK CHARACTERIZED THIS EVIDENCE AS FUNNY.
KEY QUOTEALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, MISS CLARK, LET ME JUST ASK YOU AN INFORMAL QUESTION. YOU INDICATED THE PROSECUTION HAS INTERVIEWED ANDREA TERRY, CORRECT?
ALL RIGHT. WITH REGARDS TO ANDREA TERRY, I AM GOING TO ALLOW CROSS-EXAMINATION AS TO THAT ISSUE. IT DID INVOLVE INTERRACIAL COUPLES AND IT DID INVOLVE THE MANIPULATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE PURPOSES OF STOPPING, WHICH IS SIMILAR ENOUGH TO THE FACTS AND SITUATION OR THE ALLEGATIONS HERE. AS TO MAX CORDOBA, I'M GOING TO ALLOW CROSS-EXAMINATION ON THAT; HOWEVER, ONLY AFTER THE PROSECUTION HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REINTERVIEW MR. CORDOBA AS TO THIS PARTICULAR ALLEGATION, SINCE THERE ARE NO STATEMENTS TO BE TURNED OVER. I DON'T THINK THIS IS A FOOTNOTE 14 ISSUE, AS MISS CLARK POINTS OUT TO THE COURT. THIS GOES TO THE IMPEACHMENT OF ANOTHER WITNESS, NOT TO MAX CORDOBA HIMSELF, SO I FIND THAT THAT IS DISCOVERABLE AND THAT THE PROSECUTION SHOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO INTERVIEW MR. CORDOBA REGARDING THAT SECOND STATEMENT. MR. FUHRMAN, AS A RESULT, WILL NOT BE RELEASED AS A WITNESS BUT WILL BE KEPT ON CALL AND SUBJECT TO RECALL. AS TO THE ALWYN MARTIN MATTER, THE REPORT, SINCE THE PROSECUTION HAS JUST RECEIVED THE REPORT REGARDING HER STATEMENT, THAT THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE WILL NOT BE ALLOWED FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION UNTIL THE PROSECUTION HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THAT REPORT AND CONDUCT ANY ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATION. AS I INDICATED, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WILL LIKELY BE RECALLED IF THAT IS AN ISSUE. AS TO MR. COLEMAN, THE COURT WILL DENY CROSS-EXAMINATION ON THAT ISSUE. THE REFUSAL TO SHAKE HANDS WITH AN INDIVIDUAL CAN BE EXPLAINED BY ANY NUMBER OF REASONS, AND THAT WILL BE HIGHLY SPECULATIVE. THE COURT FINDS THAT NOT TO BE RELEVANT UNDER EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 350 AND ALSO AN UNDUE CONSUMPTION OF THE COURT'S TIME UNDER 352. ALL RIGHT. LET'S PROCEED.
YOUR HONOR, THE STATEMENT JUST GIVEN TO US GENERATED ON JANUARY 23RD IS STATED TO BE A DRAFT AND INCOMPLETE. THERE ARE MANY ASPECTS OF THIS STATEMENT THAT ARE AMBIGUOUS AND CLEARLY THIS IS NOT THEIR FINAL REPORT. THERE IS MORE -- THERE IS MORE TO THIS THAT WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED AND WE ARE TALKING -- I'M TALKING NOW ABOUT THE STATEMENT -- ALLEGED STATEMENT BY ALWYN MARTIN.
MR. MC KENNA IS HERE. LET'S PUT HIM ON THE STAND. MISS CLARK, AS USUAL, IS TALKING THROUGH HER HAT. THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE AND WON'T BE UNTIL FUHRMAN DENIES IT AND THEN WE WILL BE BACK TALKING TO HER, BUT MR. MC KENNA WILL BE GLAD TO TESTIFY THAT THERE WILL BE NOTHING FURTHER.
THEIR OWN REPORT, YOUR HONOR, SAYS "INCOMPLETE," IT SAYS "DRAFT." WAS DOES THAT MEAN? ISN'T THAT CLEAR? WE WRITE "DRAFT," WE WRITE "INCOMPLETE," "FIRST VERSION," SAME THING. IT MEANS THERE IS A SECOND VERSION. IT MEANS THERE IS MORE.
OR AT LEAST THERE ARE ADDITIONAL NOTES. YEAH, LET'S PUT MR. MC KENNA ON THE WITNESS STAND. I WANT HIM UNDER OATH. THAT SOUNDS GOOD.
NO, WE ARE NOT GOING TO DO THAT, MISS CLARK, AT LEAST NOT AT THIS POINT. THE THING IS I HAVE GIVEN YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE STATEMENT. I WILL NOT ALLOW CROSS-EXAMINATION AS TO MISS MARTIN'S STATEMENTS UNLESS AND UNTIL YOU HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THIS. I WILL GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO MR. MC KENNA TO SEE IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER NOTES, AND MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT THIS IS LISTED IN THE DISCOVERY INDEX WITH REGARDS TO THE AVAILABILITY OF NOTES AND OTHER THINGS, SO WE CAN TAKE THAT UP LATER. WE HAVE KEPT THE JURY WAITING FOR A CONSIDERABLE PERIOD OF TIME. MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO, SINCE I'M PRECLUDING CROSS-EXAMINATION ON THAT ISSUE ANYWAY AT THIS POINT, WHY DON'T WE PROCEED WITH WHAT WE HAVE WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. YOU CAN CONSULT WITH MR. MC KENNA. IF THERE IS A NEED TO EXPLORE FURTHER, WE CAN DO THAT.
IT WOULD APPEAR THAT MR. BAILEY HAS A NUMBER OF BOOKS NEXT TO HIS COMPUTER. I'M ASSUMING HE INTENDS TO USE THEM FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION. IF HE DOES, I'M ASSUMING HE WON'T USE EVERY PAGE FROM THE BOOK, I WOULD APPRECIATE BEING GIVEN THOSE PASSAGES HE DOES INTEND TO USE WITH THE WITNESS WELL IN ADVANCE SO THAT I CAN READ THEM AND BE READY FOR THE CROSS-EXAMINATION ON THAT MATTER, RATHER THAN HAVING TO READ AT THE LAST MINUTE AND EXCUSE THE JURY AS OCCURRED BEFORE DURING MR. COCHRAN'S CROSS-EXAMINATION.
"PHYSICAL EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION," "PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AND CONNECTICUT STATE POLICE," "PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AND FORENSIC SCIENCE."
I DON'T RECALL DETECTIVE FUHRMAN SAYING THAT HE REFERRED TO ANY OF THESE MATERIALS, SO I DON'T KNOW THAT IT IS RIPE FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION. MR. BAILEY, DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE?
MRS. CLARK ALWAYS LEAPS BEFORE JUDGING THE SIZE OF THE CHASM. THESE BOOKS ARE WAY OVER FUHRMAN'S HEAD. THEY ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE USED ON HIM. THEY ARE FOR MY EDIFICATION SHOULD THE REASON ARISE. I LIKE TO ASK QUESTIONS OF WITNESSES, EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY NOT BE EXPERTS, THAT ARE PROPERLY GROUNDED IN SCIENTIFIC FACT AND THESE ARE REFERENCE MATERIALS FOR THAT PURPOSE. I WILL BE GLAD TO LOAN THEM TO THE PROSECUTION IF THEY HAVE COME TO ADMIRE THE BOOKS, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE ANY NEED TO HAVE THEM NOW. I WOULD OF COURSE LIKE TO HAVE THE SCRIPT THAT SHE HAS BEEN USING WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AND HAVEN'T BEEN OFFERED THAT.
I THINK I PROBABLY READ BOOKS FAR MORE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY THAT WHAT ARE HERE. THESE ARE VERY BASIC PRIMERS. AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF MR. BAILEY INTENDS TO USE THEM WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. IS IT HIS STATEMENT THAT HE WILL NOT?
DR. HENRY LEE WILL BE GLAD TO KNOW ABOUT THE INSULT, SINCE HE WROTE ALL THREE OF THEM.
KEY QUOTEI TAKE THAT THE ANSWER TO BE NO. ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE RUSSELL, CAN WE HAVE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. DEPUTY MAGNERA, CAN WE HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE. MADAM REPORTER, CAN YOU GO UNTIL NOON? REPORTER OLSON: (NODS HEAD UP AND DOWN.)
THE ONLY BOY HERE IS YOU, NIGGER
I WANT THIS FILM CLIP SAVED FOREVER BECAUSE THIS IS GOING TO BE VERY FUNNY WHEN THE ACTUAL WITNESSES TAKE THE STAND.
MAY THE COURT NOTE AND MAY THE WORLD LONG REMEMBER THAT MISS CLARK CHARACTERIZED THIS EVIDENCE AS FUNNY.
I HAVEN'T THE SLIGHTEST DOUBT THAT HE WILL MARCH UP TO THAT WITNESS STAND AND TELL THE WORLD WHAT FUHRMAN CALLED HIM ON NO PROVOCATION WHATSOEVER.
DR. HENRY LEE WILL BE GLAD TO KNOW ABOUT THE INSULT, SINCE HE WROTE ALL THREE OF THEM.