BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. MR. SIMPSON IS PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT WITH HIS COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. DOUGLAS, MR. BAILEY. THE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED BY MISS CLARK, MR. DARDEN AND MISS LEWIS. THE JURY IS NOT PRESENT. COUNSEL, IS THERE ANYTHING WE NEED TO TAKE UP BEFORE WE INVITE THE JURORS IN?
THERE IS, YOUR HONOR. PARTLY BECAUSE I PERSONALLY REPRESENTED TO YOU YESTERDAY THAT I HAD SPOKEN TO MAX CORDOBA, AND YOU MAY HAVE HEARD REPORTS THAT HE GAVE CONFLICTING STATEMENTS, I WANT THE COURT TO BE ASSURED THAT I DID INDEED, ABOUT TWO WEEKS AGO ON A WEEKEND IN MR. COCHRAN'S OFFICE, TALK TO MR. CORDOBA. MR. MC KENNA WAS TALKING TO HIM AND INTERVIEWING HIM. HE CALLED US. MR. MC KENNA RECOGNIZED HIS VOICE AND HE HAD SPOKEN TO HIM BEFORE. HE HANDED ME THE PHONE JUST TO SAY HELLO AS ONE MARINE TO ANOTHER. I DID THAT AND HANDED THE PHONE BACK. HE REACHED MR. CORDOBA LAST NIGHT AND HE SAID, "YES, THAT'S CORRECT, I WAS CONFUSED WHEN THE FELLOW ASKED ME THE QUESTION," BUT THE DISTURBING THING IS THAT NBC WOULD AIR THAT STATEMENT NATIONWIDE WITHOUT PICKING UP THE PHONE TO EITHER MYSELF OR MR. MC KENNA. WELL, THEY ARE PERFECTLY ABLE TO HOUND US WHEN THEY WANT SOMETHING. THEY KNOW WHERE WE ARE ALL THE TIME. THEY COULD HAVE AVOIDED THIS WHOLE MISTAKE. AND THAT LEVEL OF JOURNALISM IS SINKING WAY BELOW WHAT ONE EXPECTS FROM NBC. AND I HAVE REPORTED TO IT DATELINE AND I AM EXPECTING A CORRECTION THIS EVENING WHEN THE MATTER IS PURSUED. MORE TO THE POINT OF THIS TRIAL, YOUR HONOR, YOU HAD RULED OUT THE TESTIMONY OF MR. COLEMAN WHO RUNS THE LADY'S WEAR SHOP NEXT DOOR.
I BELIEVE THAT IF ONE OF THE INFERENCES THAT COULD BE DRAWN FROM THE CONDUCT OF THE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WAS A DELIBERATE RACIAL SLUR, THAT THIS SHOULD BE A JURY QUESTION AND NOT FOR THE COURT TO RULE OUT, BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS.
YOUR HONOR, I'M GOING TO OBJECT. THE COURT HAS RULED. I THOUGHT THE COURT INDICATED ONCE IT HAS RULED --
I'M TAKING A LEGAL POSITION, YOUR HONOR, BECAUSE WE HAVE A LETTER FROM MR. COLEMAN, IN ORDER THAT THIS SUBJECT CAN BE PROPERLY SCRUTINIZED ON APPEAL, IN THE HORRENDOUS EVENT THAT SHOULD EVER BECOME NECESSARY. I'M ASKING THAT YOU GIVE ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO PUT MR. COLEMAN ON THE STAND OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY AND ASK HIM TO TELL US WHAT HAPPENED AND THE WAY IT HAPPENED SO A REVIEWING COURT CAN DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THE QUESTION AS TO WHAT THE CONDUCT MEANT IS A FACTUAL, AS OPPOSED TO A LEGAL QUESTION. SECOND, MR. COLEMAN CORROBORATES MAX CORDOBA, BECAUSE AFTER DETECTIVE FUHRMAN CALLED HIM A NIGGER INSIDE THE BUILDING AND FOLLOWED HIM OUT TO THE PARKING LOT AND DID IT AGAIN, CORDOBA CAME TO COLEMAN'S PLACE OF BUSINESS, COLEMAN REMEMBERS THE INCIDENT, AND SAID, "I HAD TO CALM HIM DOWN, HE WAS VERY UPSET" AND HE WAS VERY EXCITED BY THE WHOLE THING.
I UNDERSTAND THAT AND I'M BRINGING THAT TO YOUR ATTENTION BECAUSE I LEARNED IT A SHORT TIME AGO WHEN I CALLED TO SEE IF MR. COLEMAN WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO COME DOWN AND MAKE AN OFFER OF PROOF ON THE RECORD. THAT TO ME IS THE POSSIBLE FORM AND WE THINK IT WOULD BE WORTH THE COURT'S TIME TO PRESERVE IT.
HOW ABOUT A STATEMENT IN WRITING? I DON'T WANT TO TAKE UP THE COURT'S TIME DOING EXTRANEOUS HEARINGS ALL THE TIME, COUNSEL.
ALL RIGHT. IF YOU CAN ENABLE ME TO UNDERSTAND, YOUR HONOR, YOU HAVE A RATHER ELABORATE STATEMENT ON THE FIRST PART. CORDOBA, IT SEEMS TO ME, IS A SEPARATE ISSUE ENTIRELY.
AND HIS TESTIMONY WOULD BE RELEVANT IF CORDOBA TESTIFIES, AS HE TOLD DATELINE HE WOULD LAST NIGHT, AND IS ATTACKED ON THE GROUND THAT HE MADE THE INCIDENT UP. OTHER THAN THAT, I'M NOT SURE THAT A PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE, BUT SHOULD IT BE TERMED A RECENT FABRICATION ON CORDOBA'S PART, AND THAT IS THE DRIFT I GET FROM THIS SIDE OF THE TABLE, THEN THE FACT THAT HE SAID THAT TO COLEMAN HARD ON THE HEELS, EVEN IF IT IS NOT PART OF THE RES GESTAE, WOULD BECOME ADMISSIBLE UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW. I DON'T THINK THAT QUESTION IS GOING TO BE PRESENTED TO YOU AS TO THE CORDOBA PART UNLESS AND UNTIL THAT ATTACK IS MADE. I DO THINK THAT I WOULD LIKE A BETTER FORM, AND IF YOU ARE SUGGESTING I REWRITE OR WE PUT TOGETHER A NEW MORE FORMAL STATEMENT, SINCE THOSE WERE ALL MR. COLEMAN'S WORDS, PINPOINTING THE ISSUE THAT WE WISH YOU TO TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT PERHAPS, I WILL BE HAPPY TO DO THAT RATHER THAN TAKE UP THE COURT'S TIME PUTTING HIM ON THE WITNESS STAND. I DON'T THINK IT WOULD TAKE LONG, BUT I WILL BE HAPPY TO PURSUE THAT.
OKAY. NOW, IN ADDITION TO THAT, YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE A CASE THAT WE WOULD LIKE THE COURT TO CONSIDER. IT IS A COURT CASE THAT WAS THROWN OUT BECAUSE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN LOST A DOOR IN WHICH A BULLET HOLE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE, CALLED THE GOULD CASE IN THE SUPERIOR COURT. WE BELIEVE THAT HIS CONDUCT IN THAT CASE IS RELEVANT TO THIS ONE. WE ARE GOING TO ASK YOU TO TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THE BRITTON CASE ON WHICH YOU PREVIOUSLY RULED, PERHAPS WITH SOME ADDITIONAL FACTS. BEYOND THAT, YOUR HONOR, THE PHONES ARE RINGING AND RINGING HARD, PEOPLE CALLING IN WHO WATCHED THE DETECTIVE AND NOW WISH TO OFFER EVIDENCE CONTRADICTING HIS CLAIMS, AND AS THESE PEOPLE COME UP, AS RAPIDLY AS I CAN, I WILL SUBMIT THEM TO THE COURT AS A PROFFER, THE WAY I DID ORIGINALLY, AND THEN AWAIT YOUR DIRECTION AS TO WHAT, IF ANYTHING, MUST BE TURNED OVER, BUT THIS IS AN ONGOING PROCESS AND I EXPECT IT WILL CONTINUE FOR SOME DAYS.
I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO PLAY A TAPE FOR THE COURT, BECAUSE NOT ONLY DID MR. BAILEY MAKE A DIRECT MISREPRESENTATION TO THE COURT YESTERDAY, HE HAS DONE IT AGAIN THIS MORNING, AND I THINK THAT THE -- AS I SAID YESTERDAY, AS I PREDICTED, THE TAPE WOULD BE VERY ILLUMINATING AND PROVIDE THE COURT WITH SOME VERY GRAPHIC EVIDENCE OF THE WAY COUNSEL TAKES HIS ROLE AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT SO LIGHTLY. I WANT TO PLAY THIS TAPE NOW SO THAT THE COURT WILL BE REMINDED OF EXACTLY AND PRECISELY THE LANGUAGE MR. BAILEY USED YESTERDAY WHEN HE SOUGHT TO MISINFORM AND MISLEAD THIS COURT AS TO THE NATURE OF HIS CONTACT WITH MR. CORDOBA.
HIS APPEARANCE IN COURT YESTERDAY IN WHICH HE STATED TO THIS COURT -- EXCUSE ME -- IN WHICH HE STATED TO THIS COURT THAT HE HAD A CONVERSATION MARINE TO MARINE WITH MR. CORDOBA AND THAT MR. CORDOBA TOLD HIM, NOT MR. MC KENNA, HIM, THE STATEMENTS THAT HE LATER REPORTED TO THIS COURT.
YOU ARE REFERRING TO THE -- TO THE COMMENTS BY MR. BAILEY AT 18606 BEGINNING AT LINE 15?
THAT IS NOT WHAT MISS CLARK SAYS I SAID. I DID NOT CLAIM THAT HE RELATED THE INCIDENT TO ME. I SAID I SPOKE TO HIM AND I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT HE WILL APPEAR, AND I DON'T HAVE ANY DOUBT.
THIS IS THE KIND OF NONSENSE THAT GIVES LAWYERS A BAD NAME, YOUR HONOR. YOU KNOW, IT IS VERY CLEAR WHAT HE SAID TO THE COURT AND WHAT HE WAS INTENDING TO CONVEY. HE WAS INTENDING TO CONVEY TO THE COURT THAT HE HAD PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT THIS MAN SAID BECAUSE THIS MAN SAID IT TO HIM PERSONALLY MARINE TO MARINE, AND NOW HE IS STANDING UP AND HAIR SPLITTING WITH US. I NEVER SAID HE SAID THIS TO ME, I JUST SAID HE SPOKE TO ME PERSONALLY. THAT IS NONSENSE. THAT SHOWS YOU WHAT KIND -- WHAT WE HAVE OVER HERE IN THE WAY OF ETHICS ON THIS SIDE OF THE TABLE. THEY GET UP AND THEY WILL MISREPRESENT TO THEIR HEART'S CONTENT, UNTIL THEY CAUGHT, AND THEN THEY HAVE EXCUSES.
AND THEN THEY START SPLITTING HAIRS AND THEN, WELL, THIS MEANS THIS, AND NO, THAT MEANS THAT, THAT I FELT LIKE ALICE IN WONDERLAND. WE HAVE GOT JABBERWOCKY HERE. NOTHING MEANS WHAT IT SAYS IT DOES. "NO" MEANS I DON'T REMEMBER. "I DON'T REMEMBER" MEANS NO. SAME THING. NOW IT IS COMING OUT OF MR. BAILEY AND -- BUT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE EXPECT TO HAPPEN WHEN THE WITNESS TAKES THE STAND, IF WE RELY ON HIS OFFERS. AND WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO REACH MR. CORDOBA AND WE NEED TO TALK TO THIS MAN PERSONALLY. I CAN ASSURE THE COURT ABSOLUTELY NO ONE CUT MR. CORDOBA OFF. NO ONE REFUSED TO LISTEN TO HIM. AS A MATTER OF FACT, MR. DARDEN KEPT SAYING TELL US MORE, TELL US MORE. PLEASE, IS THAT ALL? IS THERE THINKING ELSE YOU WANT TO TELL US? AND WITH RESPECT TO MR. CORDOBA'S PRIOR STATEMENTS, THEY HAVE BEEN AIRED ON NATIONAL TELEVISION. I MEAN, IF MR. BAILEY DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE HAS SAID BEFORE, I GUESS HE HAS NEVER TURNED ON HIS TELEVISION SET, BUT THEY ARE A MATTER OF RECORD THAT ALL THE WORLD HAS SEEN. SO IF HE IS NOW CLAIMING TO HAVE SAID -- TO HAVE HEARD SOMETHING AS VOLATILE AND INFLAMMATORY AS WHAT MR. BAILEY IS REPRESENTING, WE DO HAVE SOME SERIOUS IMPEACHMENT, BUT NO ONE CUT THAT MAN OFF.
WE HAVE NOT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO HIM SO WE DO NOT KNOW EXACTLY WHAT -- WE DO NOT KNOW EXACTLY WHAT HE HAS -- WHAT HE IS GOING TO SAY AT THIS POINT, AND I CERTAINLY DO NOT FEEL COMFORTABLE ACCEPTING ANYTHING THAT MR. BAILEY OFFERS TO THIS COURT, ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF WHAT WE HAVE HEARD. AND I WOULD LIKE TO PLAY THE CLIP FOR THE COURT FROM MR. CORDOBA BECAUSE MR. CORDOBA, WHEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY I SPOKE WITH A MEMBER OF THE DEFENSE TEAM, I SPOKE WITH AN INVESTIGATOR AND THEN SOMEONE ELSE CAME ON THE LINE, SAID NOTHING OF THE KIND, AND I THINK THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT -- THAT IS NOT A MATTER OF OUR RECORD. I THINK THE COURT NEEDS TO SEE THAT BECAUSE MR. BAILEY, YOU CAN SEE HOW AGITATED HE IS, HAS BEEN CAUGHT IN A LIE, AND YOU KNOW SOMETHING, NOT IN THIS CASE YOU DON'T GET AWAY WITH THAT. THERE IS JUST TOO MANY PEOPLE WATCHING.
EXCUSE ME. DON'T PLAY THE TAPE WHILE THERE IS AN OBJECTION. IF MISS CLARK IS GOING TO TAKE THE STAND AND AUTHENTICATE THE TAPE, LET HER DO IT, BUT TAPES ARE NOT SELF-AUTHENTICATING. WE HAVE NO CHANCE HAD TO SEE IT, AS YOU ALWAYS REQUIRE BEFORE WE ARE ALLOWED TO SHOW ANYTHING TO YOU, AND I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHERE IT CAME FROM.
I'M JUST SHOWING IT TO THE COURT, IF YOU PLEASE, YOUR HONOR. IT IS SELF-AUTHENTICATING. THE MAN ON IT SAYS HE IS MAX CORDOBA.
WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SELF-AUTHENTICATING ARGUMENT BEFORE, WHICH I DID NOT ACCEPT, IF YOU RECALL, BUT BE THAT AS IT MAY, WHAT IS THIS?
THIS IS THE TAPE OF AN INTERVIEW WITH DATELINE WHICH WAS CONDUCTED YESTERDAY AFTER MR. BAILEY MADE HIS REPRESENTATIONS THAT HE HAD SPOKEN TO MAX CORDOBA. AFTER HE MADE THOSE REPRESENTATIONS COURT, DATELINE WENT AND INTERVIEWED MAX CORDOBA AND ASKED IF HE HAD HAD AN INTERVIEW WITH MR. BAILEY, MARINE TO MARINE AND MR. CORDOBA SAID, "NO, I DID NOT."
I AM AWARE OF THAT, YOUR HONOR. WE ARE NOT OFFERING BILL COSBY AT THIS TIME. AND WHILE HE IS CUEING IT, YOUR HONOR, IF I MAY REQUEST THE NOTES MR. MC KENNA SURELY MUST HAVE TAKEN AS A RESPONSIBLE INVESTIGATOR OF THAT INTERVIEW THAT WE NOW LEARN OCCURRED, WHICH OBVIOUSLY MR. BAILEY DID NOT WANT US TO KNOW YESTERDAY, WE WANT THE NOTES OF MR. MC KENNA'S INTERVIEW WITH MR. CORDOBA YESTERDAY.
YOU KNOW, IT IS INTERESTING THAT OTHER STATES HAVE RULES OF RECIPROCAL DISCOVERY THAT REQUIRE THE -- AT LEAST SOME OFFER OR INDICATION OF ANTICIPATED TESTIMONY IN THEIR RECIPROCAL DISCOVERY STATUTES, WHICH IS SOMETHING CALIFORNIA DOES NOT HAVE.
RIGHT. I FIND IT INTERESTING, THOUGH, THAT IT WOULD APPEAR THE INVESTIGATORS FOR THE DEFENSE IN THIS CASE HAVE PREPARED REPORTS AND TAKEN NOTES ON ALL OTHER WITNESSES, BUT SURPRISINGLY, NOTHING ON THIS ONE.
OUR MEDIA RELATIONS DEPARTMENT DID, YOUR HONOR, AFTER CONTACTING DATELINE TO FIND OUT WHEN THE INTERVIEW WAS CONDUCTED.
AND ARE YOU REPRESENTING TO THE COURT THAT THIS IS A VIDEOTAPE OF THE DATELINE BROADCAST WHEN?
LAST NIGHT, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS A VIDEOTAPE OF THE DATELINE BROADCAST LAST NIGHT, AN INTERVIEW THAT WAS CONDUCTED WITH MAX CORDOBA AFTER MR. BAILEY'S REPRESENTATIONS TO THIS COURT YESTERDAY CONCERNING HIS CONTACT WITH MR. CORDOBA.
BY THE WAY, THAT REPRESENTATION WILL BE DISPROVEN AS WELL. NOW, MR. CORDOBA HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY, WELL, YES, I HAD SOME BRIEF CONVERSATION WITH MR. BAILEY, BUT WE DIDN'T DISCUSS THE CONTENTS OF MY TESTIMONY, OR YES, WE HAD A BRIEF CONTACT, HE SAID HELLO TO ME. MR. CORDOBA SAID NONE OF THE ABOVE. HE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY AS WELL TO SAY, "MR. MC KENNA SPOKE WITH ME. I KNOW HE IS A DEFENSE INVESTIGATOR." HE DID NOT SAY THAT EITHER.
ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, LET'S ASSUME, FOR THE SAKE OF THE ARGUMENT, THAT WHAT YOU SAY IS CORRECT, THAT THIS MISREPRESENTATION HAS BEEN MADE TO THE COURT. WHAT ACTION OR SANCTION DO YOU SEEK AS A RESULT?
I THINK THAT THE WITNESS SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM TESTIFYING. I THINK THAT MR. BAILEY SHOULD BE CITED FOR CONTEMPT AND FINED SUBSTANTIALLY. AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT HE HAS LIED TO THIS COURT.
I OBJECT TO THAT, YOUR HONOR, AND I ASK THAT YOU PUT A STOP TO IT. EITHER PUT CORDOBA ON THE STAND OR STOP HER FROM TESTIFYING.
MR. BAILEY, DO NOT INTERRUPT COUNSEL. I UNDERSTAND THIS IS A VOLATILE ISSUE, BUT IT IS A BIG PROBLEM FOR THE COURT. I WOULD ASK YOU TO CONTROL YOURSELF, SIR. MISS CLARK.
I THINK THAT WHAT HAS OCCURRED IS VERY SERIOUS AND I THINK THAT THE INTERVIEW WITH MR. CORDOBA MAKES IT -- IT IS VERY STARK. THERE ARE NO GRAY AREAS HERE. THIS IS NOT A MATTER OF HAIR SPLITTING ANY MORE. AS MR. BAILEY GOT UP TO REPRESENT TO THE COURT THIS MORNING, MR. CORDOBA WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE STATEMENT THAT HE -- THAT MR. BAILEY MADE THAT THEY SPOKE. HE SAID NO, WE DID NOT, AND I WOULD REMEMBER, AND THERE WAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY WE HAD SOME CONVERSATION AND HE DID NOT DO SO.
I DO, YOUR HONOR. AND I DO NOT APPRECIATE BEING CALLED A LIAR IN ANY COURT AND I WILL ASK AT THE PROPER TIME FOR CORRECT ACTION TO BE TAKEN AGAINST THE OFFENDER. THE PROPER WAY TO PROCEED, IF THERE WAS ANY CLAIM OF MISLEADING THE COURT, WOULD BE TO PUT THE WITNESS ON THE WITNESS STAND UNDER OATH AND LET HIM BE QUESTIONED IN THE COURT'S PRESENCE. WHAT THEY ELIMINATED FROM THE TAPE THAT I SAW ON NBC NEWS THIS MORNING WAS THAT STONE PHILLIPS SAID WHY DIDN'T YOU MENTION THESE THINGS BEFORE? HE SAID I ONLY GIVE VERY NARROW ANSWERS TO EVERY QUESTION. AS HE EXPLAINED TO MR. MC KENNA LAST NIGHT, HE DID NOT HAVE AN INTERVIEW WITH ME, NOR DID HE TELL ME HIS STORY. WHEN HE WAS TALKING WITH MR. MC KENNA IN THE OFFICE, MR. MC KENNA HANDED ME THE PHONE TO INTRODUCE ME, AND I SAID, "MAX, AS A MARINE I'M PROUD THAT YOU HAVE THE COURAGE TO COME FORWARD AND SAY THIS. I KNOW THAT IT IS PAINFUL." AND HE SAID, "I AM WILLING TO DO IT." AND MY COMMENT TO THE COURT WAS IN RESPONSE ONLY TO THE UNFOUNDED IRRESPONSIBLE AND FALSE ASSERTION BY MISS CLARK THAT CORDOBA WOULD NEVER APPEAR. SHE HAD NO BASIS TO SAY THAT WHATSOEVER, AS SHE HAS JUST SHOWN WITH HER OWN VIDEOTAPE. NOW, I EXPECT NBC TO CORRECT IT AND SOMEWHERE DOWN THE LINE I HOPE THAT THIS COURT RECORD IS MADE PLAIN. MR. MC KENNA IS SITTING RIGHT HERE AND HE IS AVAILABLE TO GET ON THE WITNESS STAND AND ASSURE THE COURT THAT MAXIMUM CORDOBA SAID LAST NIGHT, OKAY, I NOW REMEMBER I SPOKE BRIEFLY ON THE PHONE. THAT IS NOT AN INTERVIEW. PHILLIPS COULD HAVE SAVED HIMSELF SOME EMBARRASSMENT IF HE BOTHERED TO PICK UP THE PHONE AND CALL ME. NBC ALWAYS FINDS ME WHEN THEY WANT TO.
I AM CONCERNED, THOUGH, MR. BAILEY, THAT THE -- THE STATEMENT "I HAVE SPOKEN WITH HIM ON THE PHONE PERSONALLY MARINE TO MARINE," THAT SORT OF CONNOTATES SOMETHING MORE THAN JUST HI, HOW ARE YOU, I'M GLAD TO TALK TO YOU.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU ARE CONCERNED. YOU RAISED NO QUESTION ABOUT WHAT WAS SAID. I WAS SIMPLY, IF YOU ARE READING THE TRANSCRIPT CORRECTLY, GIVING YOU MY ASSURANCE THAT I EXPECTED HIM TO APPEAR WHEN CALLED, THAT HE WAS UNDER SUBPOENA AND THAT I DID NOT THINK HE WOULD VANISH AND THAT I HAD SPOKEN TO HIM AND RECEIVED AN ASSURANCE ON THAT ALONE. I DO NOT INTERVIEW WITNESSES. GOOD LAWYERS GENERALLY DON'T. THEY MIGHT BE IN A POSITION OF HAVING TO TESTIFY IF THE WITNESS WERE TO ACCUSE THEM OF SOMETHING OR TELL A DIFFERENT STORY. MR. MC KENNA IS EMPLOYED FOR THAT PURPOSE. WE HAPPENED TO BE IN THE SAME ROOM WHEN CORDOBA CALLED US, AS HIS PHONE RECORD WILL SHOW, IF HE HAS MADE THE CALL FROM A PRIVATE PHONE AND WAS BILLED FOR IT. NOW, YOU ARE PERFECTLY ABLE TO EXPLORE THIS RIGHT NOW WITH MR. MC KENNA, AND I WISH YOU WOULD, AND IF YOU READ THE TRANSCRIPT CAREFULLY, I WAS REACTING TO THE ONLY THING THAT CONCERNED ME, BECAUSE AN OFFER OF PROOF IS AN OFFER OF PROOF AND THE COURT HAS TO ACCEPT IT AS THAT, BUT THE COURT MIGHT BE CONCERNED THAT IF CROSS-EXAMINATION WERE PUT FORTH AND THE WITNESS NEVER APPEARED, THAT THE DAMAGE WOULD BE DONE AND YOU COULDN'T UNRING THE BELL. AND IT WAS MY PURPOSE TO ASSURE THE COURT THAT I FELT THIS FELLOW WOULD APPEAR BASED ON HIS STATEMENT TO ME THAT HE WOULD, AND THAT IS ALL THAT TRANSCRIPT SAYS, AND YOU CAN'T READ IT ANY OTHER WAY. IF YOU'VE GOT A CONTRARY IMPRESSION, I'M SORRY, THAT WAS NOT MY PURPOSE. I WANTED YOU TO KNOW THAT I BELIEVED HE WOULD APPEAR OR I WOULDN'T PUT THE QUESTIONS, AND THAT IS THE SUM TOTAL ON THE SUBJECT.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. BAILEY. ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, WE HAVE AN INTERESTING SITUATION HERE, NOT UNEXPECTEDLY. COUNSEL, WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO WITH REGARDS TO MR. CORDOBA -- MISS CLARK, WHERE DOES MR. CORDOBA RESIDE?
HE RESIDES IN CALIFORNIA. HE IS NOT IN CALIFORNIA, I DON'T BELIEVE, TODAY. HE RESIDES IN BELLFLOWER, IF THAT IS A TOWN. HE HAS A SUBPOENA.
MISS CLARK, I AGREE WITH MR. BAILEY'S COMMENT THAT TELEVISION NEWS BROADCASTS ARE NOT BASES FOR THE COURT TO PRECLUDE AT THIS TIME THE OFFER OF MAX CORDOBA AS A DEFENSE WITNESS, UNLESS AND UNTIL I HEAR TESTIMONY FROM MR. MC KENNA AND MR. CORDOBA HIMSELF REGARDING THESE ISSUES. I THINK YOU AGREE WITH THAT.
SO AT THIS POINT I'M GOING TO PRECLUDE ANY CROSS-EXAMINATION REGARDING ANYTHING WITH REGARDS TO MAX CORDOBA, WHICH I HAD PREVIOUSLY DONE, BUT I'M GOING TO EXTEND THAT PROHIBITION THROUGH THE REMAINDER OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S TESTIMONY. UNDER THE CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE CODE A PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT MAY BE OFFERED AS LONG AS A WITNESS HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FROM THE REQUIREMENT OF PROVIDING FURTHER TESTIMONY UNDER 770 OF THE EVIDENCE CODE. SO IF IT SHOULD TRANSPIRE THAT MR. BAILEY IS CORRECT IN HIS ASSERTIONS, THEN PERHAPS WE WILL HEAR FROM MAX CORDOBA, BUT UNLESS AND UNTIL I'M SATISFIED THAT THE OFFER OF PROOF IS -- THERE IS A SOUND BASIS FOR IT, I DON'T BELIEVE MAX CORDOBA WILL SURFACE.
WELL, I WAS GOING TO ASK WHETHER I COULD ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT ALWYN MARTIN BECAUSE THEY HAD A TAPE-RECORDED INTERVIEW WITH HER LAST NIGHT, WE ARE GIVEN TO UNDERSTAND, BUT I WOULD LIKE A CLARIFICATION OF WHAT THE COURT IS SAYING YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER MAX CORDOBA IS GOING TO SURFACE BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW IF HE WILL REPEAT WHAT HE SAID ON TELEVISION?
-- THAT HAS SINCE ARISEN, I'M NOT GOING TO ALLOW ANY CROSS-EXAMINATION WITH REGARDS TO ANYTHING MAX CORDOBA MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT SAY, UNLESS AND UNTIL WE HEAR FROM HIM FIRST, BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME ISSUES WE NEED TO RESOLVE BEFORE HE HIT THE WITNESS STAND IN FRONT OF THE JURY IS WHAT I'M SAYING.
ALL RIGHT. ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU WILL POSTPONE EXAMINATION OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN ON THE CORDOBA ISSUE UNTIL THE DEFENSE CASE HAS BEGUN?
WELL, I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THAT, YOUR HONOR. YOU HAVE THE POWER TO GET CORDOBA IN HERE WHILE THE PROSECUTION'S CASE IS GOING ON AND HEAR FROM HIM AND MAKE YOUR PRELIMINARY FINDINGS, BUT TO PUT IT THAT FAR DOWN THE ROAD IS COMPLETELY UNFAIR IN THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THIS CRITICAL WITNESS.
I DIDN'T CREATE IT EITHER, YOUR HONOR. WE INTERVIEW WITNESSES AND WE MAKE PROFFERS TO THE COURT AND THAT IS ALL WE HAVE DONE. WE SUBPOENA WITNESSES. THAT, TOO. I DIDN'T INTERVIEW HIM FOR DATELINE OR ASK HIM TO TALK TO DATELINE, NOR DID I CONFUSE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT HE HAD EVER TALKED TO ME.
WHAT ARE WE BEING PENALIZED FOR? I DON'T UNDERSTAND.
YOU ARE BEING PENALIZED AT THIS POINT MERELY UNDER THE PROCEDURE OF THE CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE CODE, WHICH SAYS PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS CAN BE OFFERED IN ONE OF TWO WAYS: EITHER THE WITNESS IS CONFRONTED OR THE WITNESS IS STILL AVAILABLE TO BE CROSS-EXAMINED, AND THAT IS HOW WE ARE GOING TO DO IT. THANK YOU, SIR.
GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. YOUR HONOR, THE PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO LODGE A 352 OBJECTION TO THE ADMISSION OF ANY INFORMATION RELATIVE TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S CONTACT WITH ALWYN, A-L-W-Y-N, DARLA MARTIN. MISS MARTIN WAS THE VICTIM OF A CARJACKING ON MAY 20, 1993, AND DURING THE COMMISSION OF THAT ASSAULT AND ROBBERY SHE APPARENTLY WAS STABBED. SHE WAS TAKEN TO THE HOSPITAL WHERE SHE WAS TREATED. SHE WAS TAKEN TO SURGERY. TWO DAYS LATER DETECTIVE FUHRMAN VISITED HER AT THE -- AT THE HOSPITAL, AS I UNDERSTAND IT.
WHEN HE WALKED INTO THE ROOM MISS MARTIN'S BOYFRIEND WAS THERE AND MISS MARTIN IS CAUCASIAN, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, AND HER BOYFRIEND AT THE TIME WAS AFRICAN -- I THINK HE WAS BRITISH, ACTUALLY, SO NOT NECESSARILY AFRICAN AMERICAN, BUT OF AFRICAN DECENT. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN MET HIM, THEY SHOOK HANDS, INTRODUCED THEMSELVES, AND DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAD A CONVERSATION WITH MISS MARTIN RELATIVE TO THE DESCRIPTION OF THE CARJACKING SUSPECT. LAST NIGHT ONE OF OUR D.A. INVESTIGATORS, BRIAN HALE, INTERVIEWED MISS MARTIN. MISS MARTIN COULD POINT TO KNOW RACIAL EPITHET UTTERED BY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. SHE COULD POINT TO NO RACIAL SLUR. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN DID NOT TELL HER THAT ONLY BLACKS OR AFRICAN AMERICANS COMMIT CARJACKINGS. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN DID NOT TELL HER THAT HE DISLIKED INTERRACIAL COUPLES OR THAT -- OR THAT RACE MIXING WAS A CRIME AGAINST NATURE OR ANYTHING OF THAT SORT. WE HAVE REVIEWED THE FILE AND THE INVESTIGATIVE FILE IN THIS CASE. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE FILE TO INDICATE THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HARBORED ANY TYPE OF HOSTILITY OR ANIMOSITY TOWARD MISS WILLIAMS OR HER BOYFRIEND BECAUSE OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE -- I'M SORRY, MARTIN -- THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, NO INDICATION, NO FIRM EVIDENCE, NO FIRM ALLEGATION BY THE WITNESS, MISS MARTIN, THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAS DONE ANYTHING BUT ACT PROFESSIONALLY. I DON'T KNOW WHY THE DEFENSE WANTS TO INTRODUCE THIS INCIDENT OR THIS CONTACT, BUT I CAN ASSURE THE COURT THAT THERE IS NOTHING HERE WHICH SUGGESTS THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HARBORED ANY RACIAL ANIMUS OR BIAS AGAINST MISS MARTIN OR HER BOYFRIEND BECAUSE OF THEIR INTERRACIAL RELATIONSHIP. I'M AT A LOSS TO EXPLAIN OR UNDERSTAND WHY THEY WANT TO INTRODUCE THIS. IT SHOULDN'T COME IN. IT JUST SHOULDN'T COME IN. I'M SURE THAT ONCE COUNSEL BEGINS ASKING HIS QUESTIONS RELATIVE TO THIS ISSUE AND ONCE HE PUTS HIS OWN SPIN ON IT THAT PERHAPS HE CAN SOMEHOW TRANSFORM IT INTO A RACIAL ISSUE, BUT BASED ON OUR CONVERSATION LAST NIGHT WITH MISS MARTIN, THERE IS NO RACIAL ISSUE HERE. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE AT ALL THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN ACTED IN ANY WAY OTHER THAN AS A PROFESSIONAL POLICE OFFICER.
FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THE TAPE. MR. DARDEN HAS CHOSEN NOT TO CONFRONT THE OFFER OF PROOF IN ANY WAY. YOU WERE NEVER TOLD IN WRITING OR IN ANY ORAL DESCRIPTION BY ME FROM THIS PODIUM THAT RACIAL EPITHETS WERE USED OR ANY OF THE OTHER THINGS HE HAS ATTEMPTED TO NEGATE TOOK PLACE. WHAT YOU WERE TOLD WAS THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WAS ASSIGNED TO INVESTIGATE A STABBING AND A ROBBERY OF AN AUTOMOBILE, THAT PURSUANT TO THAT ASSIGNMENT HE CAME TO THE HOSPITAL TO INTERVIEW THE VICTIM WHO HAD BEEN INJURED IN THE STOMACH WITH A SHARP INSTRUMENT. THAT SHE TOLD HIM THE ASSAILANTS WERE WHITE. THAT HE SUGGESTED THAT THEY MAY HAVE BEEN LIGHT-SKINNED BLACKS, AND WHEN SHE REFUSED TO BUDGE ON THAT ISSUE, HE LEFT THE ROOM, FILED NO REPORT AND NEVER RETURNED. THAT WAS THE OFFER OF PROOF. I HAVE NOT HEARD THAT CONTRADICTED, BUT BECAUSE WE ARE HAVING THESE PROBLEMS, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE COURT LISTEN TO THE TAPE THAT WAS MADE LAST NIGHT AND THAT WE MAKE IT PART OF THE RECORD. IF YOU ARE RELYING TO ANY EXTENT ON HIS INTERPRETATION OF WHAT HE THINKS SOMEONE ELSE HEARD FROM MISS MARTIN, THE COURT NEEDS TO HEAR IT DIRECTLY, AND THEN IF THE OFFER OF PROOF IS SOMEHOW IMPROPER, YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO CATCH IT RIGHT NOW, BUT THE TAPE IS THE BEST EVIDENCE, NOT MR. DARDEN'S SPIN ON THAT TAPE, AND I THINK WE SHOULD HEAR IT.
I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THEIR TAPES, YOUR HONOR. OUR TAPES ARE IMPEACHMENT, IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT MR. -- MR. BAILEY HAS BEEN READING, BUT APPARENTLY HE HASN'T READ THE COMPLETE FILE IN THIS CASE. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN DID FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT, AND NOT ONLY DID HE FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT, HE ALSO TOOK TO MISS MARTIN A MUG BOOK CONTAINING MANY, MANY WHITE ARRESTEES AND POTENTIAL SUSPECTS, ALL CAUCASIAN. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN DID HIS JOB, YOUR HONOR. NOW, HE QUESTIONED MISS MARTIN APPARENTLY ABOUT HER DESCRIPTION OF THE SUSPECT, AS ANY DETECTIVE WOULD DO. WHERE IS THE RACIAL ISSUE? YOU KNOW THERE IS NONE. MR. BAILEY PERHAPS SHOULD GET THE REST OF THE POLICE FILE IN THIS CASE, AND ONCE HE DOES HE WILL SEE THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN ATTEMPTED TO RUN DOWN PARTIAL FINGERPRINTS RECOVERED FROM HER VEHICLE, HE TOOK HER MUG BOOKS, HE LOOKED AT OTHER REPORTS, OKAY, TO SEE IF THERE WAS SOME TYPE OF M.O. BETWEEN THIS CARJACKING AND OTHERS. HE DID EVERYTHING A POLICE OFFICER IS SUPPOSED TO DO IN A CASE LIKE THIS.
WHILE THAT IS BEING DONE, YOUR HONOR, MIGHT I POINT OUT THAT MISS MARTIN CALLED DETECTIVE TAPIA AT THE WEST LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT TO ASK FOR THE REPORT AND HE SENT HER TWO PAGES AND SAID THAT IS ALL THERE WAS. FURTHERMORE, I AM STARTLED TO LEARN TODAY THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS SO MANY FACTS ON THE MARTIN CASE. THEY WERE VERY SILENT ABOUT THEM YESTERDAY WHEN WE FIRST DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE. PERHAPS THIS IS SOMETHING THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN NEVER MENTIONED UNTIL AFTER WE TALKED ABOUT IT.
YOU KNOW, WE WEREN'T PARTICULARLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE ALWYN MARTIN CASE, YOUR HONOR. WHY SHOULD WE BE? THERE IS NO ISSUE OF RACIAL ANIMUS CONTAINED IN THIS CASE. IN ANY EVENT, BEFORE COUNSEL STANDS BEFORE THE COURT AND MAKES THESE ALLEGATIONS, ALLEGATIONS OF THIS NATURE, HE OUGHT TO CHECK OUT THE FACTS. HE OUGHT TO KNOW WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT.
ANOTHER -- IN ADDITION, YOUR HONOR, LAPD DOES NOT TURN OVER UNSOLVED SUPPLEMENTAL INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS TO VICTIMS OR TO ANYONE. THIS CASE IS NOT CLOSED. THIS CASE IS STILL AN OPEN CASE.
AND I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO DIRECT COUNSEL NOT TO DISTRIBUTE THE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT TO ANYONE AND THAT NO COPIES BE MADE AS WELL. THERE WAS A PARTIAL FINGERPRINT RECOVERED FROM THE -- FROM THE VICTIM'S VEHICLE WHICH AT SOME POINT MAY BE MATCHED TO A PARTICULAR SUSPECT OR DEFENDANT.
IN ADDITION, YOUR HONOR, WHEN -- AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WHEN MISS MARTIN CONTACTED DETECTIVE TAPIA AT WEST L.A. DETECTIVES RELATIVE TO THIS REPORT, SHE MENTIONED TO DETECTIVE TAPIA THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAD DONE A GOOD JOB AND THAT HE ACTED AS A TRUE PROFESSIONAL DURING THE CONTACT THAT SHE HAD WITH HIM.
IF I CAN STATE FURTHER, YOUR HONOR, I DON'T WANT TO HAVE A MINI TRIAL ON RACIAL ISSUES, COLEMAN AND MARTIN AND CORDOBA AND ALL OF THESE OTHER PEOPLE. I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO CALL 25 WITNESSES IN THIS CASE JUST TO REBUT THESE MALICIOUS ALLEGATIONS THE DEFENSE HAS LODGED AGAINST DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, AND WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO. AT SOME POINT THIS BECOMES CUMULATIVE. AT SOME POINT 352 HAS TO COME INTO OPERATION AND CUT THE DEFENSE OFF, OKAY? I MEAN, THIS IS RIDICULOUS AND IT IS GOING TO RESULT IN A MINI TRIAL AND THE JURY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO SIT HERE AN EXTRA TWO WEEKS AND I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO SIT HERE AN EXTRA COUPLE OF WEEKS TO LITIGATE THESE COLLATERAL ISSUES. NOT EVERY CONTACT EVERYONE HAD WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, YOU KNOW, IS A CASE OF RACIAL ANIMUS OR REFLECTS SOME RACIAL BIAS ON DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S PART, YOUR HONOR, ESPECIALLY THIS ONE. IT LOOKS LIKE GOOD POLICE WORK HERE AND NOTHING MORE; NOTHING LESS.
IF IT PLEASE THE COURT, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH NICER IF DETECTIVE TAPIA WOULD HAVE BEEN TRUTHFUL TO MISS MARTIN AND SAID THERE IS MORE OF A REPORT I CAN'T GIVE YOU. SHE WAS GIVEN TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE TWO PAGES WERE ALL THAT EVER HAPPENED, AND UNDER THAT WE QUITE PROPERLY DREW AN INFERENCE THAT THERE WAS NO FOLLOW-UP. ALL THAT ASIDE, MISS MARTIN CAME TO US BECAUSE OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S CONDUCT. SHE DESCRIBED IT AS WE HAVE DESCRIBED IT TO YOU. THAT WAS THE OFFER OF PROOF IN CAMERA AND THAT IS THE OFFER OF PROOF AS IT EXISTS. IF SHE MADE STATEMENTS ABOUT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN BEING A NICE FELLOW, DOING A GOOD JOB, THAT IS PERFECTLY AVAILABLE FOR IMPEACHMENT, BUT THE EVIDENCE ABOUT TRYING TO SUGGEST THAT A WHITE SUSPECT, VERY CLEARLY WHITE IN THIS REPORT, MIGHT HAVE BEEN A LIGHT-SKINNED BLACK, WAS WHAT BROUGHT THE WHOLE MATTER TO OUR ATTENTION TO BEGIN WITH AND I HAVE NOT HEARD THAT CONTROVERTED YET. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE MARKED, HOWEVER, YOUR HONOR, BECAUSE THE SUBJECT IS STILL VERY MUCH ALIVE, A DOCUMENT THAT JUST CAME OVER THE FAX FROM PHIL COLEMAN, AND I WOULD LIKE YOUR HONOR TO READ IT.
I ALLOW YOU TO, BUT NOT TODAY. DON'T PRESS IT. MY CONCERN, COUNSEL, IS NOW I HAVE A REPORT THAT IS DATED JUNE OF 1993 WHICH CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE SUSPECT WAS WHITE, CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE VICTIM STATED THE MALE WHITE SUSPECT. IT CLEARLY INDICATES A SUSPECT DESCRIPTION. IT IS SIGNED BY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. IT INDICATES AN INQUIRY INTO OTHER POSSIBLE CONNECTIONS THAT MIGHT BE A FACTOR IN THE ROBBERY, INDICATES THE RECOVERY OF THE VEHICLE, THE GARNERING OF FINGERPRINT EVIDENCE, AND THE DETECTIVE TAKING MUG BOOKS TO THE VICTIM FOR POSSIBLE SUSPECT IDENTIFICATION. THIS IS CONTRARY TO THE OFFER OF PROOF.
THAT WITNESS HAS NO ACCESS TO POLICE REPORTS, PARTICULARLY WHEN SHE IS TOLD THEY DON'T EXIST.
ALL RIGHT. I FIND THE OFFER OF PROOF TO BE CLEARLY CONTRADICTED. THE PROSECUTION OBJECTION WILL BE SUSTAINED.
YOUR HONOR, IF I CAN BE HEARD. RELATIVE TO THE ISSUE OF THE FOLLOW-UP INVESTIGATION --
YOUR HONOR, WOULD THE COURT KINDLY ORDER DEFENSE COUNSEL TO RETURN THE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS TO THE COURT AND WILL THE COURT SEAL THE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS?
YES, YOUR HONOR. A COUPLE OF MATTERS THAT MAY ARISE, AND I THOUGHT I WOULD PREVIEW THEM FOR YOUR HONOR, RATHER THAN HAVE TO GO TO THE BENCH IN THE MIDDLE OF CROSS-EXAMINATION. I HAVE PURCHASED A LIGHT WHICH I BELIEVE IS IDENTICAL, OR AT LEAST VERY SIMILAR, TO THE ONE THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAS DESCRIBED REPEATEDLY IN HIS TESTIMONY.
YEAH, AND I WOULD SIMPLY LIKE TO KNOW FROM HIM BEFORE THE JURY COMES IN WHETHER IT IS A REPLICATION SO THAT IT WOULD BE FAIR TO USE IT IN CROSS AND ASK HIM WHERE HE WAS HOLDING IT, WHERE IT WAS KEPT. I ALSO HAVE, WHICH DOES NOT PURPORT TO BE THE SAME SIZE OF MANUFACTURE, A BROWN LEATHER GLOVE IN A ZIP-LOCK BAG THAT I WOULD LIKE TO REFER TO IN CROSS-EXAMINATION WITHOUT SUGGESTING THAT IT BE MARKED AS EVIDENCE, UNLESS THE PROSECUTION WISHES THAT THAT BE DONE, AS WITH THE FLASHLIGHT. THE THIRD ITEM IS I INTEND TO ASK DETECTIVE FUHRMAN TO NAME HIS THREE BEST FRIENDS AND I INTEND TO DO THAT IN RELIANCE ON YOUR RULING THAT THAT WAS A PROPER QUESTION FOR ROSA LOPEZ. WE WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO THOSE FRIENDS.
IF IT PLEASE THE COURT, WE TRIED TO LOCATE A COPY OF THE HELP FUHRMAN LETTER THAT WAS REFERRED TO IN THE TESTIMONY. WE HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO PROCURE ONE. WE HAVE ITS CONTENTS DESCRIBED IN THIS ARTICLE WHICH WAS SENT TO US FROM OKLAHOMA, AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT FROM MR. FUHRMAN, HE HAS SOME KNOWLEDGE OF THE LETTER THAT WENT OUT. I BELIEVE THAT IF HE DOES NOT HAVE A COPY WITH HIM, HIS LAWYER, MR. TOURTELOT, WHO AS WE SPEAK IS I BELIEVE ON THE 12TH FLOOR PREPARED TO WATCH HIS TESTIMONY, AND I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THAT THE PROSECUTION ATTEMPT TO MAKE THAT LETTER AVAILABLE BEFORE THE CROSS IS CONCLUDED. I WOULD LIKE THE COURT TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE BASIS OF MY REQUEST, WHICH IS THIS ARTICLE.
WELL, I THINK IF MR. TOURTELOT IS ON THE 12TH FLOOR, I COULD ASK THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER TO GO UP THERE AND SEE IF MR. TOURTELOT HAS A COPY OF THAT AVAILABLE.
WITH RESPECT TO THE FLASHLIGHT, YOUR HONOR, NO OBJECTION. WITH RESPECT TO THIS PLASTIC BAG, THIS IS RIDICULOUS. ZIP-LOCK BAG FOR WHICH THERE IS NO -- THERE IS NO CONNECTION TO THIS CASE. A LEATHER GLOVE OF A DIFFERENT SIZE, A DIFFERENT COLOR, A DIFFERENT MAKE, A DIFFERENT STYLE THAT HAS NO RELEVANCE TO THIS CASE EITHER.
IT IS OBVIOUSLY SMALLER. LOOKS LIKE MY SIZE. AND I THINK COUNSEL EVEN CONCEDED THAT IT IS A DIFFERENT SIZE. THIS IS UNDER 352 THERE IS NO VALID PROBATIVE PURPOSE TO THIS. I'M SURE THE COURT KNOWS THAT WHAT MR. BAILEY AGAIN INTENDS TO DO IS MAKE ANOTHER INFLAMMATORY ARGUMENT WITH NO EVIDENTIARY BASIS WHATSOEVER IN AN ATTEMPT TO CONFUSE, MISLEAD AND DECEIVE THIS JURY. THIS HAS NO PART IN ANY SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH. THIS IS A FANTASY WOVEN BY THE DEFENSE FOR WHICH THERE IS NO EVIDENTIARY BASIS, NO LOGICAL OR FACTUAL CONNECTION TO THIS CASE.
LET ME ASK YOU THIS: WHAT IS THE GLOVE SIZE THAT IS ON THE GLOVE THAT WAS RECOVERED AT BUNDY?
NOT ONLY THAT, BUT THE GLOVE IN ISSUE IS AN ARIS AND IT IS NOT A BROOKS BROTHERS. I CAN'T EVEN TELL IF IT IS A MAN'S OR WOMAN'S GLOVE. SIZE SMALL. I GUESS IT IS MR. BAILEY'S. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RELEVANCE IS TO THIS CASE, YOUR HONOR. I CAN'T SEE ANY POSSIBLE VALID EVIDENTIARY PURPOSE FOR THE ADMISSION OF SUCH AN ITEM THAT BEARS NO RESEMBLANCE TO THE GLOVES IN THIS CASE OR ZIP-LOCK BAG THAT HAS NO -- ABSOLUTELY ABSENT FROM THIS CASE, NO SUCH EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE WHATSOEVER. AND I THINK THAT THE COURT SHOULD PREVENT THESE KIND OF THEATRICS THAT ARE MISLEADING AND INFLAMMATORY AND DECEPTIVE IN FRONT OF THIS JURY.
WITH RESPECT TO THAT, I WOULD OBJECT TO THE ADMISSION OF THE ARTICLE. WITH RESPECT TO THE LETTER ITSELF, I HAVE A REAL DIFFICULT TIME SEEING THE RELEVANCE OF THAT, YOUR HONOR. MR. -- DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAS SOUGHT LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFENDING HIMSELF AS A RESULT OF THE MALICIOUS ATTACKS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE ON HIM BY THE DEFENSE, AND IN THAT REGARD HIS LAWYER ATTEMPTED TO DEFRAY SOME OF THE COSTS OF HIS LEGAL EXPENSES. THIS WAS NOT A LETTER DRAFTED BY THIS WITNESS, BY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. IT WAS A LETTER THAT WENT OUT BY HIS LAWYER THAT THIS WITNESS APPARENTLY IS NOT EVEN FAMILIAR WITH ENOUGH TO SAY WHAT IS IN IT OR NOT IN IT. THAT ALONE I THINK SHOULD PRECLUDE THE USE OF IT. I DON'T SEE ITS RELEVANCE IN THIS CASE. IT DOES NOT SHOW ANY FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME OF THIS CASE THAT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO BIAS, SO I THINK UNDER 352 THAT LETTER IS OF NO PROBATIVE VALUE AT ALL. I SHOULD ALSO INDICATE THAT MR. BAILEY HAS GIVEN US NO PROOF, NO OFFER OF PROOF EVEN AS TO HOW DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WHICH I'M SURE IS THE INFERENCE THAT HE WANTS US TO DRAW, PUT THE GLOVE THAT WAS -- THAT HE FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM INTO A PLASTIC BAG. THERE IS NO OFFER OF PROOF. THERE WILL NEVER BE ANY PROOF. THERE WILL NEVER BE ANYTHING BUT MR. BAILEY'S THEATRICS, DRAMATIC, ALL BE IT ELOQUENT STATEMENTS TO THIS COURT, THAT ARE ABSOLUTELY EMPTY OF ANY EVIDENCE OR ANY FACTUAL SUPPORT. AND THAT IS WHY HE IS SEEKING TO TAKE A DIFFERENT PAIR OF GLOVES, DIFFERENT STYLE, DIFFERENT SIZE IN A ZIP-LOCK BAG THAT THIS CASE DOES NOT CONTAIN. THERE IS NO ZIP-LOCK BAG IN EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE. HE IS MANUFACTURING EVIDENCE. HE DOESN'T LIKE THE TRUTH SO HE IS MANUFACTURING HIS OWN AND THAT IS WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT. AND THAT IS WHY THIS IS THE KIND OF THING THAT SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED. MAY I HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?
IS THE COURT -- LET ME ASK THIS: IS THE COURT INCLINED TO ALLOW IN A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE OR IS THE COURT GOING TO SEEK TO ALLOW -- WAS THE COURT GOING TO ALLOW COUNSEL TO USE THE ACTUAL LETTER?
YOU DON'T KNOW YET. I THINK THAT AS FAR AS THE LETTER GOES, I THINK WE HAVE GONE AS FAR AS WE NEED TO GO. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN INDICATED HE WAS AWARE OF THE LETTER. HE DID NOT DRAFT IT. HE IS UNAWARE OF THE PRECISE CONTENTS OF IT. IT WAS AN ARTICLE DRAFTED BY HIS LAWYER, BUT COUNSEL HAS RECEIVED THE ADMISSION FROM DETECTIVE FUHRMAN THAT HE SAW IT.
YES. WITH RESPECT TO THE LETTER, I THINK NO, I HAVE SAID IT. WITH RESPECT TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AND THE PLASTIC BAG AND THE GLOVE THAT COUNSEL NOW WANTS TO ADMIT, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN PUT ANYTHING IN ANY PLASTIC BAG AT ANY TIME RELEVANT TO THIS CASE, JUNE 12, JUNE 13 OR JUNE 28 OR JULY, AUGUST, SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER; NONE. AND SO THERE IS NO VALID PURPOSE FOR THE ADMISSION OF THAT NON-EVIDENCE.
MAY I RESPOND TO THAT, YOUR HONOR? I TAKE IT THERE IS NO ISSUE AS TO THE THREE GOOD FRIENDS?
I'M SORRY. I FORGOT TO ADDRESS THAT. ALLOW ME, PLEASE, COUNSEL. WITH RESPECT TO THE THREE GOOD FRIENDS, YOUR HONOR, NO. 1 THING, WE HAVE A PRIVACY ISSUE AS TO THOSE THREE PEOPLE. I WONDER IF IT IS FAIR TO HAVE THEIR NAMES AIRED PUBLICLY FOR NO VALID PURPOSES. WITH RESPECT TO THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF ROSA LOPEZ, THIS IS KIND OF A PETTY TIT FOR TAT. YOU GET TO DO IT SO WE DO. THEY OBVIOUSLY DON'T UNDERSTAND. MR. DARDEN WAS CROSS-EXAMINING ROSA LOPEZ BECAUSE SHE CLAIMED TO HAVE WITNESSED SOMETHING VERY IMPORTANT, VERY SIGNIFICANT CONCERNING THIS CASE, AND OBVIOUSLY IT WOULD BE LOGICAL FOR ONE TO EXPECT THAT SHE WOULD TELL THAT VERY SIGNIFICANT OBSERVATION AND EXPERIENCE TO HER CLOSEST FRIENDS AND SO THAT WENT TO AN IMPORTANT AREA OF IMPEACHMENT. WHAT IS THE VALID PURPOSE OF HIM INQUIRING OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WHO HIS BEST FRIENDS ARE? THERE IS NONE.
THIS IS JUST A PETTY VENGEFUL KIND OF TACTIC EMPLOYED BY THE DEFENSE. IF THE COURT IS INCLINED TO ALLOW FOR THIS KIND OF NONSENSE, THEN AT LEAST ALLOW DETECTIVE FUHRMAN TO WRITE THEM ON A PIECE OF PAPER AND ALLOW COUNSEL TO SEE THOSE NAMES.
BUT I THINK THAT THERE IS NO VALID PURPOSE FOR THIS. I REALLY THINK IT IS JUST A PETTY RIDICULOUS KIND OF FORM OF PAYBACK BY THE DEFENSE. THERE IS NO VALID EVIDENTIARY PURPOSE TO IT AS THERE WAS IN THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF ROSA LOPEZ. I WOULD LIKE FOR COUNSEL TO PERHAPS GIVE THIS COURT AN OFFER OF PROOF AS TO THE RELEVANCE OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S THREE BEST FRIENDS.
BUT I SUSPECT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S THREE BEST FRIENDS WOULD BE PROUD TO STAND UP AND BE COUNTED.
I'M SURE THEY WOULD, YOUR HONOR. I JUST WANT TO GIVE THEM THE OPTION OF DOING SO, BUT IF COUNSEL WANTS TO -- YOU KNOW SOMETHING, AS THE COURT IS WELL AWARE --
AND I WOULD SUGGEST -- AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IN MOST CASES THEY ARE ENTITLED TO LOOK INTO. OBVIOUSLY THE PEOPLE YOU WANT TO TALK WITH ARE THE PEOPLE WHO KNOW THE PERSON THE BEST.
IF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAS NO OBJECTION TO REVEALING THAT PRIVATELY TO YOU AND TO COUNSEL, FOR INVESTIGATION PURPOSES, THEN IT IS A NON-ISSUE.
I WILL BE GLAD TO HANDLE IT THAT WAY. IT IS JUST THAT, YOU KNOW, WE ARE ALL SENSITIVE TO THE PRIVACY ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN FOISTED UPON US AND I JUST DON'T WANT TO DO THAT WITHOUT ANYBODY'S SAY SO AHEAD OF TIME.
YOUR HONOR, THE LETTER MR. BAILEY ALLUDED TO A MOMENT AGO IS HERE AND THE CLERK IS MAKING COPIES OF THAT LETTER.
ACTUALLY SEE IT. THE TRANSCRIPT, IF IT PLEASE THE COURT, PAGE 18750 AND BEFORE, SHOWS THAT THE WITNESS KNEW ABOUT THE LETTER, WAS UNCLEAR AS TO HIS UNDERSTANDING OF ALL OF ITS CONTENTS. THE FLASHLIGHT IS SOLVED?
LET ME STATE VERY CLEARLY, AND I SHOULD POINT OUT, THAT IF MISS CLARK THINKS THAT HAND AND THIS GLOVE WOULD EVER WORK TOGETHER, HER EYESIGHT IS AS BAD AS HER MEMORY. BUT MARINES, IF IT PLEASE THE COURT, HAVE A HABIT MOST OF THEM ACQUIRE AS TO WHERE THEY CARRY THINGS BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THEIR DUTIES, DRILLS AND ACTIVITIES IN THE NATURE OF THE ISSUED GARMENTS THAT THEY WEAR. THE PROSECUTION HAS OPENED THIS DOOR RATHER DELIBERATELY, KNOWING FULL WELL THAT THERE WOULD BE QUESTIONS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE SOMEONE, AND THERE HAS TO BE SOMEONE, WHO TRANSPORTED THAT GLOVE TO ROCKINGHAM COULD HAVE BEEN DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. THEY WERE AT PAINS TO HAVE DETECTIVE PHILLIPS SAY THAT HE NEVER WORE A COAT OR ALMOST NEVER WORE A COAT, SUGGESTING THAT HE WOULD NOT HAVE HAD THE MEANS TO CONCEAL THE SUSPECT GLOVE HAD HE REQUIRED IT. A GENEROUS OFFER WOULD BE TO USE BOTH THE BULK OF WHICH EXCEEDS THE LARGE GLOVE THAT WILL BE IN EVIDENCE IF THEY EVER GET THROUGH TESTING IT. THE PLASTIC BAG I THINK IS REASONABLY SIMILAR, AND THE WITNESS CAN TELL US, TO THOSE CONTAINED IN THE HOMICIDE KIT IN THE CAR THAT HE WAS DRIVING THAT NIGHT OR RIDING IN.
THE RUBBER GLOVE, WHICH IS HERE FOR A DIFFERENT PURPOSE, IS SIMILAR TO THE ONE THAT WE HAVE SEEN ON DETECTIVE LANGE AND THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN SAID WAS IN THE HOMICIDE KIT AND AVAILABLE TO HIM. WE HAVE SUGGESTED THAT HE HAS DESCRIBED WITH GREAT DIFFERENCES A KEY TRIP TO THE BODY OF RONALD GOLDMAN. WE SUGGEST THAT MOST KILLERS DON'T LEAVE ONE GLOVE AT THE SCENE AND CARRY THE OTHER ONE TO PRIVATE PROPERTY, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, AND I SUSPECT THAT EVERY DETECTIVE WHO IS ASKED IF HE HAS HAD THAT EXPERIENCE WILL HAVE TO SAY NO. SO THE LIKELIHOOD IS THAT WHEN THE KILLERS LEFT THE SCENE BOTH GLOVES WERE THERE OR BOTH WOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN. YOU HAVE SEEN THAT THE ONE GLOVE WHICH IS ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE WAS UNDER SOME LEAVES AND NOT EASILY VISIBLE UNTIL THE LEAVES WERE POKED BACK. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN DESCRIBED THAT AS LEAVES CASCADING DOWN OVER THE GLOVE AND PARTIALLY BLOCKING THE VIEW OF IT. ASSUMING, SINCE THAT GLOVE IS RIGHT AGAINST THE FENCE, THAT THE OTHER ONE WAS SEEN SEVERAL FEET AWAY FROM THE VANTAGE POINT ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE FENCE IN THE SHRUBBERY WHERE IT WOULD NOT BE IMMEDIATELY VISIBLE UNLESS SPECIFICALLY LOOKED FOR WITH A FLASHLIGHT, IF THAT WAS SPOTTED, EVEN WITH THIS LITTLE LIGHT WHICH THROWS A PRETTY GOOD SPOT FOR A SHORT DISTANCE IN DARKNESS, HOW WAS IT TRANSPORTED TO ROCKINGHAM? CERTAINLY THE PROSECUTION IS GOING TO ASK THAT QUESTION. IF IT WERE PLACED IN A BAG, WHICH WOULD EXPLAIN THE REASON THAT IT DIDN'T DRY, AND WE WILL OFFER EVIDENCE TO THIS COURT THAT HAD IT BEEN SITTING OUT IN THE AIR AT SIXTY DEGREES UNDER THE CONDITIONS WHICH EXISTED THAT NIGHT IT WOULD HAVE DRIED AND THAT WILL BE GIVEN BY SOMEONE WHO HAS SEEN THE GLOVE AND THE AMOUNT OF BLOOD ON IT AND IS AN EXPERT IN SUCH MATTERS, SO ONE WAY TO EXPLAIN ITS FAILURE TO DRY WOULD BE TO HAVE IT SEALED OFF FROM THE AIR. DETECTIVES FREQUENTLY, AS WE HAVE SEEN IN THIS CASE, COLLECT EVIDENCE IN PLASTIC BAGS, SOMETHING YOU WERE NEVER SUPPOSED TO DO IF YOU ARE DEALING WITH BLOOD, BECAUSE EVERYTHING THAT PLASTIC BAGS DO, AS YOU WILL RECALL FROM AN INCIDENT IN THE COURTROOM, THE BLOODY OBJECTS IS BAD FOR EVIDENTIARY AND DETECTION PURPOSES. MARINES TEND TO CARRY THINGS IN THEIR SOCKS, THE SAME WAY SOME DETECTIVES CARRY AN ANKLE HOLSTER FOR A BACK-UP WEAPON. THIS PACKAGE COULD EASILY HAVE BEEN KEPT IN A MAN'S SOCK, SHORT OR TALL, FOR THE LENGTH OF TIME THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN NECESSARY FROM THE FINDING OF THE GLOVE, IF IT OCCURRED WHEN WE BELIEVE IT DID, ON HIS VISIT TO THE NORTH FENCE DESCRIBED IN DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT WAYS ON TWO DIFFERENT OCCASIONS IN WAYS THAT CAN'T BE RECONCILED. IT COULD HAVE BEEN CONCEALED UP TO THE TIME THAT HE BOLTED OUT OF THE HOUSE WITHOUT TELLING ANYONE AND MAKING SURE EVERYBODY ELSE WAS OCCUPIED AND FOR FIFTEEN MINUTES DID SOMETHING, WHICH WE BELIEVE EXPLAINS THE PRESENCE OF THE GLOVE, THE BLOOD IN THE BRONCO, ET CETERA. AND WE ASK YOUR HONOR TO NOTE THAT THIS MAN SAID THAT FOR FIVE TO SEVEN MINUTES HE INVESTIGATED THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE WONDERING WHO DROPPED THE GLOVE AND WHERE HE HAD GONE AND FAILED TO NOTICE A SET OF STEPS AND A DOOR LEADING INTO THE HOUSE. IF THAT DOES NOT CONTRADICT ANY POSSIBILITY THAT HE OCCUPIED HIS TIME, AS HE SAYS, I CAN'T IMAGINE A STRONGER CONTRADICTION. A DOOR IS HARD TO MISS AND MR. FUHRMAN HAS EXPERIENCE WITH DOORS, AS WE WILL SHOW YOU IN THE GOULD CASE. NOW, BASED ON ALL THAT CIRCUMSTANCE, I THINK IT FAIR TO ASK DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IF IT WOULD HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE FOR HIM TO PUT A GLOVE IN A PLASTIC BAG TO WHICH HE HAD ACCESS AND TO STICK IT IN HIS SOCK AND TO LATER PULL IT OUT AND DISPOSE OF THE PLASTIC BAG. NOT A COMPLICATED QUESTION, NOT ONE HE WILL HAVE TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING, BUT A FAIR QUESTION, IT SEEMS TO ME, BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY THE JURY IS GOING TO HAVE TO DECIDE, BETWEEN THE CHOICES GIVEN THEM, WHETHER THIS DEFENDANT JUMPED OVER A FENCE OR DID SOMETHING UNREASONABLE AND DROPPED A BLOODY GLOVE ON HIS PROPERTY, WHETHER A KILLER, WISHING TO DIVERT THE POLICE, AND IF THIS HAPPENED, HE WAS EMINENTLY SUCCESSFUL, FROM ANY ATTENTION TO HIMSELF, DEPOSITED THE GLOVE SIMPLY BY THROWING IT OVER THE FENCE, AS IS EASY TO DO FROM THE PROPERTY WHERE ROSA LOPEZ LIVES, OR WHETHER DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WHO WELL COULD HAVE AND HAD THE MOTIVE, AND WE SAY THE OPPORTUNITY, CARRIED THAT GLOVE -- EXCUSE ME -- FROM WHERE HE FOUND IT AT THE CRIME SCENE AND DEPOSITED IT IN A WAY THAT WOULD ACCOMPLISH TWO THINGS: NO. 1, IT WOULD KEEP HIM INEXORABLY IN THE LAWSUIT, AND NO. 2, IT WOULD PUNISH A BLACK MAN WHO HAD THE TEMERITY TO ASSOCIATE WITH A WHITE WOMAN IN A ROMANTIC WAY. NOW, THAT IS THE THEORY OF THE CASE AND I THINK THAT THE EVIDENCE THAT WE ARE OFFERING TO SUPPORT IT OUGHT NOT TO BE EXCLUDED. I THINK THE QUESTION GOES TO THE WEIGHT. IF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WANTS TO SAY THE KIND OF SOCKS I WEAR ARE SO FRAGILE THAT THEY WOULDN'T HAVE CARRIED THE PACKAGE, THAT MAY BE HIS ANSWER. THE QUESTION IS ARE WE ENTITLED TO ASK?
AS TO THE LETTER I AM HOLDING -- DOES THE COURT HAVE A COPY OF THIS LETTER?
IT IS A LETTERHEAD SPECIALLY MADE UP FOR THIS CASE AND IT SAYS, "MARK FUHRMAN JUSTICE FUND." IT SEEKS FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS. AND I RESPECTFULLY SUGGEST, YOUR HONOR, THAT IT IS ADMISSIBLE FOR SEVERAL REASONS. FIRST, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN KNEW ABOUT IT AND IT WAS TO HIS FINANCIAL ADVANTAGE IF OTHERS WOULD PAY HIS LEGAL BILLS SO THAT HE WOULDN'T HAVE TO. NO. 2, UNLESS AND UNTIL MR. TOURTELOT CAN PROVIDE SOME EVIDENCE THAT THE EXPENSES, NOT FEES, BUT EXPENSES OF HANDLING MARK FUHRMAN'S REPRESENTATION IN THIS CASE HAD CAUSED HIM TO SPEND $100,000 OF HIS FIRM'S MONEY, AS THIS SAYS, THAN HE HAS COMMITTED A RATHER NEAT VIOLATION OF TITLE 18 SECTION 1341, MAIL FRAUD, BY TRYING TO INDUCE PEOPLE TO PAY MONEY ON THE GROUND THAT $100,000 HAD BEEN SPENT. AND IF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN KNOWS HOW THAT MONEY WAS SPENT IN REPRESENTING HIM IN THIS CASE BY TOURTELOT AND BUTLER, I THINK HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO TELL US, AND IF HE DOESN'T KNOW, THEN HE SHOULD TELL US WHETHER OR NOT HE EVER QUESTIONED THIS ASSERTION BEFORE THIS LETTER WAS PUT IN THE MAIL TO HIS FELLOW POLICE OFFICERS TO INDUCE THEM TO DEPART WITH THEIR HARD-EARNED INCOME. I THINK THAT WOULD BE FAIR CROSS-EXAMINATION AND THAT IS THE BASIS FOR FURTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS LETTER.
NOW THAT I FINALLY READ THE LETTER, YOUR HONOR, NOW I'M REALLY STUMPED AS TO THE RELEVANCE. I CANNOT SEE HOW -- I MEAN, COUNSEL HAS ALREADY GONE INTO THE EXISTENCE OF THE LETTER. PROBABLY SHOULD NOT -- I SHOULD HAVE OBJECTED TO IT AT THAT TIME, AND NOW THAT I CAN SEE THE LETTER I CAN TELL THE COURT ABSOLUTELY I DO NOT SEE THE RELEVANCE OF THIS. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAS AN ATTORNEY WHO IS REPRESENTING HIM. THIS IS NOT -- THIS DOES NOT GIVE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN A FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THE CASE. THIS IS SUPPOSEDLY TO DEFRAY COSTS, BUT IT HAS REALLY GOTTEN WAY OFF OF THE END OF THE SCALE OF RELEVANCE. WHAT IS THE PROBATIVE VALUE FOR WHICH IT HAS BEEN OFFERED? I HAVEN'T EVEN HEARD A THEORY PROFFERED BY COUNSEL THAT WOULD MAKE THIS RELEVANT TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S CREDIBILITY. THIS IS A LETTER DRAFTED BY HIS LAWYER. HE WAS AWARE THAT SUCH A LETTER WAS DRAFTED. HE HIMSELF DID NOT DRAFT IT. HE HIMSELF RECEIVED NO MONEY AS A RESULT OF IT. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE UNDERSTANDING I HAVE IS THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO MONEY RECEIVED AS A RESULT OF THIS LETTER. I THINK THAT THERE IS SIMPLY NO RELEVANCE TO THIS. YOU KNOW, THERE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN CROSS-EXAMINATION. AND AS A MATTER OF FACT, WHAT THE PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO DO IS SIMPLY ASK THE COURT TO STRIKE THE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN ASKED AND PERTAINED TO THIS LETTER AS IRRELEVANT AND NOT ADMIT THIS LETTER ITSELF, WHICH IS THE HEIGHT OF IRRELEVANCE. I DON'T SEE THE PROBATIVE VALUE WITH RESPECT TO THE TESTIMONY OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. THE ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT IS WHAT CAN COUNSEL USE WITH REGARDS TO THESE ITEMS FOR THE CROSS-EXAMINATION -- CONTINUING CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. THERE BEING NO OBJECTION TO THE FLASHLIGHT, THE MAG LIGHT, THAT WILL BE ALLOWED. THE COURT WILL SUSTAIN THE PROSECUTION OBJECTION TO THE USE OF THE GLOVES FOR THIS REASON: THE GLOVE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE IS AN EXTRA LARGE GLOVE. ITS SPECIFIC BULK AND DIMENSION, AS MENTIONED BY THE DEFENSE THEORY, IS THEREFORE CRITICAL TO HOW IT COULD BE TRANSPORTED BY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, GIVEN HIS GARMENTS THAT PARTICULAR EVENING, HOW HE WAS DRESSED AND WHAT MEANS HE HAD AVAILABLE TO HIM. I WILL PRELIMINARILY ALLOW THE PLASTIC BAG, HOWEVER, TO BE USED IF, MR. BAILEY, YOU CAN ESTABLISH A FOUNDATION THAT A SIMILAR BAG OF SIMILAR SIZE WAS AVAILABLE TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IN THE HOMICIDE KIT. AND AS TO THE LETTER, I'M GOING TO RESERVE JUDGMENT ON THAT. I WOULD LIKE TO READ IT SENTENCE BY SENTENCE AND I DON'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY NOW. I WOULD LIKE TO AT LEAST PROCEED WITH WHAT YOU HAVE LEFT WITH THE JURY THIS MORNING.
THAT IS FINE, YOUR HONOR. I TAKE IT YOU WILL GO TO 12:00 AND PERHAPS BE PREPARED TO ADDRESS THESE MATTERS THIS AFTERNOON, IF WE ARE STILL GOING? WELL, IN THE EVENT I SHOULD CONCLUDE CROSS WITH THE POSTPONEMENTS THAT CONFRONT ME, AND REDIRECT IS BEGUN, BECAUSE YOU WISH TO USE THE JURY'S TIME PROFITABLY, I WOULD LIKE, ONCE YOU HAVE RULED, TO BE ABLE TO COME BACK AND COMPLETE THE CROSS.
ALL RIGHT. LAST MATTER, YOUR HONOR. THE LETTER THAT WAS FURNISHED TO ME, AND THIS MAY BE A COPYING FAULT, IS BLURRED ON THE LINE THAT RECITES THE AMOUNT CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN EXPENDED.
YOUR HONOR, I'M SHOWING MR. BAILEY THE COPY DELIVERED TO ME THIS MORNING IN COURT AND --
YOUR HONOR, MAY I MAKE INQUIRY OF THE PROSECUTION AS TO WHETHER EITHER THE LEFT OR RIGHT-HANDED GLOVE THAT WAS ACTUALLY INVOLVED IN THE MURDERS, WE BELIEVE, IS ACCESSIBLE? THE REASON I TRIED TO BUY ONE IS BECAUSE WE WERE TOLD THEY WERE STILL BEING TESTED SOMEWHERE, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME IF EITHER ONE IS AVAILABLE, THE BULK WOULD BE SUFFICIENTLY SIMILAR TO MAKE THE QUESTION FAIR.
BUT THIS IS AN ARIS BRAND. GLOVES ARE COMMONLY AVAILABLE. I MEAN, THAT IS A MAJOR BRAND OF GLOVES. I ASSUME A SIMILAR GLOVE IS AVAILABLE COMMERCIALLY.
WELL, IF WE CAN GET AN EXTRA LARGE GLOVE NOT USED IN THE MURDER, WOULD THAT BE FAIR?
YOUR HONOR, WITH RESPECT TO THE THREE BEST FRIENDS ISSUE, CAN WE HANDLE THAT OVER THE NOON HOUR?
HE HAS BEEN CAUGHT IN A LIE, AND YOU KNOW SOMETHING, NOT IN THIS CASE YOU DON'T GET AWAY WITH THAT. THERE IS JUST TOO MANY PEOPLE WATCHING.
HE IS MANUFACTURING EVIDENCE. HE DOESN'T LIKE THE TRUTH SO HE IS MANUFACTURING HIS OWN AND THAT IS WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT.
THEY ARE OUT OF EXTRA LARGE, YOUR HONOR.
THAT IS BILL COSBY, MISS CLARK.
WHAT ARE WE BEING PENALIZED FOR? I DON'T UNDERSTAND.