BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. ALL PARTIES ARE AGAIN PRESENT. THE JURY IS NOT PRESENT. I HAVE NOW RECEIVED WHAT --
ALL RIGHT. I'VE REVIEWED THIS -- WHAT APPEARS TO BE A CLEAR AND FULL SIZE COPY OF A LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 21ST, 1994, ADDRESSED TO A DANIEL LA BATO OF THE NORTHHAMPTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, NORTHHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS. ALL RIGHT. EITHER COUNSEL WISH TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE OR DO YOU WANT TO PROCEED WITH THE JURY?
ALL RIGHT. WELL, I INDICATED I WANTED TO WAIT UNTIL I HAD THE CHANCE TO READ THE ENTIRE THING AND -- WITHOUT ANY OBS -- ANY PASSAGES BEING OBSCURED. I'M NOW READY TO HEAR THAT.
YOUR HONOR, I BELIEVE THAT THE LETTER PLAINLY SEEKS TO ADVANCE THE FINANCIAL POSITION OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN TO THE EXTENT THAT IN SEEKING COUNSEL, ONE ASSUMES THAT EXPENSES AND FEES WOULD ARISE. THIS LETTER, WHICH PROCLAIMS THE HIGH MORAL CHARACTER OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AND DECLAIMS FALSE ACCUSATIONS OF RACISM, SEEKS TO HAVE POLICE OFFICERS -- AND I BELIEVE IT WENT AROUND THE COUNTRY -- CONTRIBUTE, TO MAKE UP THE COSTS THAT HAD BEEN INCURRED AND WERE EXPECTED TO BE INCURRED. IT LISTS SOME OF THE SALIENT VICTORIES OF THE TOURTELOT FIRM IN REPRESENTING FUHRMAN AND CLAIMS THAT TOURTELOT AND BUTLER HAD FRONTED OUT-OF-POCKET COSTS WHICH HAVE ALREADY REACHED OVER A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS, "AND TO CLEAR HIS GOOD NAME, THE COST OF EXPERTS, INVESTIGATORS AND PARALEGAL CONTINUE TO MOUNT AT A RATE WE CAN NO LONGER SUSTAIN." GROUND ONE, I BELIEVE THAT ANY MONEY CONTRIBUTED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR SOMETHING THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WOULD OWE AS A LEGITIMATE FEE OR COST OF REPRESENTATION, IF THERE WERE ANY, IS A SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL ADVANTAGE TO HIM. SECOND, HE SAYS HE'S FAMILIAR WITH THE LETTER. I THINK WE'RE ENTITLED TO ASK HIM WHICH PORTIONS OF THE LETTER HE WAS AWARE OF BEFORE THEY WENT OUT. AND THIRD, I THINK WE'RE ENTITLED TO INQUIRE WHETHER ANYTHING APPROACHING A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS IN COSTS HAD BEEN INCURRED BY SEPTEMBER 21, 1994 OR WHETHER THE UNITED STATES MAILS WERE USED FOR A FRAUDULENT ATTEMPT TO MAINTAIN MONEY BY MAKING MISREPRESENTATIONS AS TO COSTS WHICH RECIPIENTS WOULD HARDLY BE IN A POSITION TO SECOND-GUESS.
YOU WANT TO EXPLAIN TO THE COURT HOW IT IS THAT THIS LETTER RELATES TO ANY BIAS, INTEREST OR MOTIVE AS IT PERTAINS TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S TESTIMONY HERE TODAY?
YES, I DO, BECAUSE PRESUMABLY, IF HIS TESTIMONY IS ACCEPTED OR ADMIRED BY THE RECIPIENTS OF THIS LETTER, THE SOLICITATION IS STILL HANGING OUT THERE. IF HE CAN CONVINCE THEM THAT HE'S A GOOD GUY AND HE'S TELLING THE TRUTH, O.J. SIMPSON IS A BAD GUY, SOME OF THIS MONEY MAY COME IN.
BUT I DON'T BELIEVE IN AN UNDERTAKING OF THIS SORT, THAT THE RESULT IS NECESSARILY ESSENTIAL. IT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE EXERCISE.
THAT IS TORTURE LOGIC TO SAY THE LEAST, YOUR HONOR. THE WITNESS IS HERE IN COURT TO PRESENT TESTIMONY CONCERNING THE WORK HE DID IN THIS CASE. HE'S NOT HERE SOLICITING FUNDS FOR ANYTHING. NUMBER ONE, THIS LETTER IS IRRELEVANT TO ANY ISSUE OF BIAS OR THE -- OR DETECTIVE'S CREDIBILITY. NUMBER TWO, WITH RESPECT TO HOW MONIES HAVE BEEN SPENT IN HIS -- IN THE MOUNTING OF THE LAWSUITS FOR DEFAMATION IS PRIVILEGED. SO COUNSEL'S NOT PERMITTED TO GET INTO THAT. I CAN NOT SEE ANY RELEVANCE TO THIS LETTER PERTINENT TO THIS DETECTIVE'S TESTIMONY. I MEAN IT'S JUST ABSOLUTELY ABSENT.
WELL, THE ISSUE, AS I UNDERSTAND MR. BAILEY'S ARGUMENT, IS THAT THERE IS SOME POTENTIAL FOR FINANCIAL GAIN THAT WOULD IMPACT ON MOTIVATIONS TO TESTIFY OR HOW TO TESTIFY. DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THAT PARTICULAR?
NOT REFLECTED IN THIS LETTER THERE ISN'T, YOUR HONOR.
WHAT THIS LETTER REFLECTS IS THE NEED TO DEFRAY COSTS OF LEGAL EXPENSES INCURRED AS A RESULT OF LAWSUITS WHICH WERE -- WHICH WERE MADE NECESSARY BY THE DEFAMATORY NATURE OF THE FALSE ALLEGATIONS MADE AGAINST DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. BUT THERE'S NO -- THERE'S NO FINANCIAL GAIN INVOLVED IN -- THAT PERTAINS TO HIS TESTIMONY. THE TWO ARE TOTALLY DESPERATE. HE'S TESTIFYING HERE TODAY AND THIS LETTER WAS GENERATED WHEN? BACK IN SEPTEMBER BEFORE HE -- LONG BEFORE HE TOOK THIS WITNESS STAND IN AN EFFORT TO DEFRAY LEGAL COSTS. HIS APPEARANCE TODAY HAS NO BEARING. THERE'S JUST NO CONNECTION BETWEEN HIS APPEARANCE IN COURT AND THIS LETTER AND THE MONEY IT SEEKS TO GET. AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DEFRAYING LEGAL COSTS THAT WERE MADE NECESSARY BY VIRTUE OF THE ACTIONS OF THE LAWYERS FOR THE DEFENSE IN THIS CASE. SO THERE IS NO GAIN TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IN THAT REGARD, AND IT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN THAT THERE IS ANY NOR THAT THERE WILL EVER BE. TO THE EXTENT THAT THE COURT SEES THERE IS A FINANCIAL INTEREST THIS WITNESS HAS IN HAVING AT LEAST BEGUN WORK OR CONTEMPLATED LAWSUITS FOR DEFAMATION AGAINST THE LAWYERS IN THIS CASE, THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN EXPLORED AND THAT ISSUE IS NOT ILLUMINATED IN ANY RESPECT BY THIS LETTER OTHER THAN TO INDICATE THAT HE DOESN'T REALLY HAVE THE MONEY TO PAY FOR THESE LAWYERS. I DO NOT SEE HOW IT CAN HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S CREDIBILITY ON THE WITNESS STAND, ESPECIALLY IF VIEW OF THE FACT THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN NEVER READ THE LETTER. THIS IS SOMETHING ISSUED BY HIS LAWYER, IS THE WORK PRODUCT OF HIS LAWYER AS WAS THE DECISION AS TO WHO TO SUE AND WHAT TO SUE THEM FOR WAS THE WORK OF HIS LAWYER. I UNDERSTAND THE AGENCY THEORIES, YOUR HONOR. I'M NOT ARGUING WITH THAT. BUT THIS LETTER WAS NOT GENERATED AT THE BEHEST OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AND I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION TO -- TO MAKE.
WELL, WHEN YOU CALL SOMETHING THE MARK FUHRMAN JUSTICE FUND AND IT'S ISSUED BY YOUR ATTORNEY, DON'T YOU THINK THAT ANY ATTORNEY WOULD SEND A COPY OF THESE THINGS OUT FOR APPROVAL BY THE CLIENT BEFORE THEY'RE SENT OUT, ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A NATIONWIDE FUND RAISING CAMPAIGN AND THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT THAT TAKES? I MEAN, JUST IN POSTAGE, YOU ARE TALKING A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF MONEY.
WELL, LEAVING THAT TO ONE SIDE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAS INDICATED HE'S AWARE A LETTER WENT OUT THAT HE DID NOT READ THAT HIS LAWYER DRAFTED.
BUT, YOU KNOW -- DO WE REALLY WANT TO DO THIS -- YOUR HONOR, DO WE REALLY WANT TO SPEND TWO HOURS NOW TALKING ABOUT HOW DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S LAWYER IS SAYING HE NEEDS TO DEFRAY LEGAL COSTS INCURRED AS A RESULT OF THE DEFAMATION SUITS THAT MAY BE FILED AT THE END OF THIS CASE WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN FILED YET? I MEAN, IS THAT WHERE THIS CASE IS GOING? HOW FAR AFIELD DO WE HAVE TO GO ON THIS WITNESS? I MEAN, WE HAVE GONE WAY OUT THERE WITH, IN THE PAST 10 YEARS, HAVE YOU EVER USED A RACIAL SLUR AND A WOMAN WHO MAKES ALLEGATIONS ABOUT HIM 10 YEARS AGO AND WHAT OTHER CASES HE'S EVER TESTIFIED IN. AND -- I MEAN, WE HAVE REALLY HIT THE OUTER LIMITS HERE AND THIS IS FAR BEYOND THE OUTER LIMITS. THIS IS THE TWILIGHT ZONE. THIS LETTER REALLY HAS NO BEARING ON THIS DETECTIVE'S CREDIBILITY, YOUR HONOR. IT'S A LETTER HE HIMSELF HAS NOT DRAFTED. AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE COURT IS SAYING. HE GAVE PERMISSION FOR IT TO GO OUT, BUT THE LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN IT, WHICH MR. BAILEY IS GOING TO WANT TO ATTRIBUTE TO HIM, IS NOT HIS LANGUAGE. SO WE'RE CREATING AN UNFAIR INFERENCE THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WROTE A LETTER, PUT LANGUAGE IN IT AND SOLICITED AN AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT HE DID NOT DO. IT'S THE WORK OF HIS LAWYER FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFRAYING LEGAL COSTS AND IT IS PRIVILEGED MATERIAL, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE MR. BAILEY WHO HAS NOW SAID HE NOW WANTS TO EXPLORE EXACTLY HOW MUCH MONEY WAS SPENT AND WHETHER $100,000 IS A FAIR REPRESENTATION. I CAN ASSURE THE COURT THAT IT IS AND THE PAPERWORK EXISTS, BUT IT'S NOBODY'S BUSINESS. IT'S PRIVILEGED.
IS MR. TOURTELOT GOING TO APPEAR AND CLAIM THAT PRIVILEGE OR IS DETECTIVE FUHRMAN GOING TO ASSERT THAT PRIVILEGE?
YES. YES. THIS IS NOT TERRITORY THAT I THINK IS REALLY PROPER FOR MR. BAILEY TO EXPLORE WITH THIS WITNESS OR ANY WITNESS FOR THAT MATTER. BUT -- I MEAN, THIS IS PRIVILEGED MATERIAL AND THAT MR. BAILEY WANTS TO GET INTO. AND THE REAL THRUST OF HIS CROSS-EXAMINATION ON THIS IS WHETHER A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS WAS REALLY DRUMMED UP IN COSTS OR NOT. THAT'S A PRIVILEGED ISSUE. WOULD THE COURT PERMIT US TO GO INTO HOW MUCH A WITNESS WHO TESTIFIES IN THIS COURT WHO HAPPENS TO HAVE A LAWYER IS PAYING THAT LAWYER TO REPRESENT THEM AS A WITNESS IN THIS CASE?
BUT ONLY AFTER THEY CONFERRED. THAT WAS CLEARED FIRST. I REMEMBER MR. DARDEN WENT OVER TO CARL DOUGLAS -- WENT OVER TO CARL JONES AND ASKED HIM, "HEY, I'M GOING TO GO INTO THE FEE ARRANGEMENTS." CARL JONES WAIVED ANY PRIVILEGE AND SAID THAT WAS FINE.
HE DID NOT ASSERT THE PRIVILEGE AND HE COULD HAVE. HE WAS GIVEN EVERY OPPORTUNITY. THE COURT FLAGGED THE ISSUE FOR HIM AND HE ELECTED NOT TO DO SO.
WELL, I DON'T THINK -- MISS CLARK, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I DON'T THINK YOU'RE IN A POSITION TO CLAIM THE PRIVILEGE ON DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S BEHALF.
SO EITHER DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HIMSELF HAS TO CLAIM THE PRIVILEGE OR HIS ATTORNEY ON HIS BEHALF.
YOUR HONOR, SOMETHING ELSE, YOUR HONOR, THAT'S DIFFERENT HERE. WITH RESPECT TO ROSA LOPEZ, CARL JONES WAS REPRESENTING HER IN HER CAPACITY AS A WITNESS, NO OTHER CAPACITY. SHE WASN'T FILING ANY LAWSUIT. SHE HAD NO INDEPENDENT LEGAL CAUSE OF ACTION GOING, AND DETECTIVE FUHRMAN DOES BECAUSE HE'S NOT BEING REPRESENTED BY MR. TOURTELOT --
WELL, THAT'S -- BUT THE TESTIMONY SO FAR, HASN'T IT BEEN THAT MR. FUHRMAN HAS NOT FILED ANY LAWSUITS YET?
BUT -- NO, IT'S NOT. NO, IT'S NOT, NOT AT ALL, BECAUSE MR. TOURTELOT IS REPRESENTING DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WITH RESPECT TO WHAT MAY BE FILED --
HOLD ON. THE ISSUE IS, IS THERE SOMEBODY PLAUSIBLY WHO CAN RAISE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT ISSUE HERE REGARDING THE AREA OF COSTS. MAY BE. THAT'S WHAT I'VE DETERMINED THUS FAR. I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM MR. TOURTELOT. SO RATHER THAN ARGUE APPLES AND ORANGES BETWEEN THE ROSA LOPEZ SITUATION AND DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S ISSUE -- IT'S AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION, BUT I DON'T THINK IT REALLY BEARS UPON THE SPECIFIC ISSUE REGARDING THIS LETTER.
YOUR HONOR, MAY I POINT OUT THAT MR. TOURTELOT CLAIMS VICTORY BASED ON YOUR RULINGS. IF THAT'S NOT REPRESENTING A WITNESS, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS. BUT IT'S IN THE BODY OF THE LETTER. HE TOOK CREDIT FOR RULINGS YOU MADE IN FUHRMAN'S FAVOR.
WHAT? WHAT WAS THAT? NO ONE GETS TO TAKE ANY CREDIT EXCEPT YOUR HONOR FOR YOUR HONOR'S RULINGS.
"FIRST JUDGE ITO DENIED THE DEFENSE TEAM'S RIGHT TO REVIEW MARK'S RECORDS," THAT'S ONE OF THE VICTORIES.
AND, MR. BAILEY, I UNDERSTAND THIS IS ABOUT THE LAST AREA OF INQUIRY THAT YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE AT THIS POINT.
NO, NO. I'M JUST SAYING, THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE IS THE LAST ISSUE ON CROSS UNLESS -- UNLESS SOMETHING LEAPS OUT AT YOU OVERNIGHT?
WELL, SOMETHING JUST CAME IN, BUT IT IS SO FAR AS I KNOW EXCEPT FOR QUESTIONS PROMPTED BY THE LAST PHONE CALL, WHICH IS VERY BRIEF.
NO. I WAS JUST TRYING FOR SCHEDULING REASONS TO SEE MAYBE WE COULD AT LEAST WRAP UP THE CROSS TODAY.
MINE TOO. BUT IF COUNSEL IS REFERRING TO ANOTHER WITNESS THAT THEY INTEND TO PROFFER, THEN THE PEOPLE ARE ENTITLED TO KNOW ABOUT IT.
ALL RIGHT. THE ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED IN THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF YOUR CLIENT, MR. FUHRMAN, CONCERNING ANY POTENTIAL MONETARY INTEREST HE MAY HAVE IN THE OUTCOME OF THIS LITIGATION, AND THIS LETTER HAS BEEN PROFFERED TO THE COURT AS SOME INDICIA OF MONETARY INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME OF THIS LITIGATION, AND SPECIFICALLY THE ISSUE OF THE PARAGRAPH THAT INDICATES THAT YOUR LAW FIRM HAS BEEN FRONTING SO TO SPEAK THE OUT-OF-POCKET EXPENSES THAT HAVE REACHED OVER $100,000, AND MR. BAILEY HAS INDICATED HE WISHES TO CROSS-EXAMINE IN THAT AREA.
AND IN OUR DISCUSSION, THE PROSECUTION HAS RAISED AN OBJECTION OF RELEVANCY AND 352 AND UNDUE CONSUMPTION OF TIME AS TO THAT ISSUE. AND I DON'T RECALL SPECIFICALLY WHO IT WAS WHO ALSO OPINED THAT THERE PERHAPS IS AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT ISSUE REGARDING THE SPECIFICS OF THE REPRESENTATION, THE PARAMETERS, THE COST AND THAT SORT OF THING, AND THERE'S ALSO A POTENTIAL OF WAIVER IF IN FACT THIS LETTER ITSELF WAS PUBLISHED, CONSTITUTES A WAIVER OF THAT.
WELL, NUMBER ONE, I WILL REPRESENT TO THE COURT THAT WE HAVE EXPENDED, INCLUDING ATTORNEYS FEES, IN EXCESS OF $100,000 AS OF THE DATE OF THAT LETTER. THAT'S NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, I'LL REPRESENT TO THE COURT THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN TO MY KNOWLEDGE HAS NEVER SEEN THE LETTER. I HAVE NEVER GIVEN HIM THE LETTER. I ASKED HIM IF WE COULD SEND OUT A LETTER TO COVER SECRETARIAL, EXPERT FEES, INVESTIGATORS AND PARALEGALS. IF THE LETTER ISN'T CLEAR, I'LL MAKE IT VERY CLEAR. WE HAVE MADE AN ARRANGEMENT WITH MR. FUHRMAN THAT WE WERE NOT CHARGING HIM ONE CENT. WE HAVE NOT CHARGED HIM A PENNY, WE DO NOT INTEND TO CHARGE HIM A PENNY AND THAT WE WERE DOING IT PRO BONO.
AND THAT'S WHAT THE LETTER IS MEANT TO IMPLY. BUT WE CANNOT CONTINUE -- AS OF SEPTEMBER, WE COULD NOT CONTINUE TO FRONT AND PUT UP ALL OF THE COSTS THAT WE'VE BEEN PUTTING UP IN PARALEGALS AND ASSOCIATES. I GUESS I'LL LET --
YOUR HONOR, WE DO CLAIM THE PRIVILEGE. I WANTED TO EXPLAIN WHY. I REALLY APPRECIATE MISS LEWIS' HELP, BUT I DID INTEND TO CLAIM THE PRIVILEGE, BUT I WANTED TO EXPLAIN BECAUSE I'VE BEEN IN FRONT OF THE WHOLE WORLD ACCUSED OF MAIL FRAUD, WHICH IS OUTRAGEOUS, OUTRAGEOUS STATEMENT. AND I WILL TELL THE COURT AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT, WE HAVE EXPENDED OVER A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS AS OF THE DATE OF THAT LETTER, AND THE INSINUATIONS AND ACCUSATIONS BY MR. BAILEY ARE OUTRAGEOUS AND I RESENT THOSE. BUT WE DO CLAIM THE PRIVILEGE.
ALL RIGHT. AND DO YOU WANT TO EXPLAIN TO ME HOW IT IS THAT YOU FEEL EXPENSES AND EXPENDITURES ON BEHALF OF A PRO BONO CLIENT FALL WITHIN THE PRIVILEGE?
THE SERVICES RENDERED, WHETHER THEY'RE PRO BONO OR THEY'RE FOR A FEE, THE DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES ARE CERTAINLY PRIVILEGED. WHAT WE CHECKED INTO WITH RESPECT TO THE OUTRAGEOUS CHARACTER ASSASSINATION THAT THE DETECTIVE'S BEEN SUBJECTED TO IN THE LAST NINE MONTHS AND THE WORK THAT WE'VE DONE IS DEFINITELY PRIVILEGED AND OUR PREPARATION IN CONNECTION WITH POTENTIAL DEFAMATION SUIT IS PRIVILEGED.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, SIR. MR. BAILEY, DO YOU WISH TO RESPOND TO THAT CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE?
I CERTAINLY DO, YOUR HONOR. IT APPEARS THAT THE LETTER IS IN FACT FRAUDULENT. WE'RE NOW TOLD THAT IT IS TO COVER FEES. THE PLAIN LANGUAGE, WHICH EVERY LAWYER UNDERSTANDS, IS UNEQUIVOCAL, IS, OUT-OF-POCKET COSTS HAVE EXCEEDED $100,000. NOW, WE'RE PRO BONO, WE'RE COVERING FEES AND WE'RE OUT OF POCKET. NONE OF THIS LETTER APPARENTLY IS TRUE IN TOTO. BUT AS IT RELATES TO THE WITNESS, THIS OFFICE, IF THEY'RE ACTING PRO BONO ON THE ONE HAND, NONETHELESS PURPORT TO REPRESENT HIM IN A MONEY DAMAGES CLAIM FOR DEFAMATION TO BE BROUGHT WHEN THIS CASE CONCLUDES AND NOT BEFORE BASED ON CORRESPONDENCE WE'VE RECEIVED ON BEHALF OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.
I'VE SEEN NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT THE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS, WHATEVER IT WAS, IF IT WAS, IS SEGREGATED OUT AS FOR REPRESENTING MR. FUHRMAN AS A WITNESS, AND I CONTEND THAT THIS LETTER SAYS THAT THEY'RE REPRESENTING HIM AS A WITNESS AND IN FACT HAVE WON TWO IMPORTANT VICTORIES THAT RELATE TO RULINGS YOU MADE RELATING TO MILITARY RECORDS AND HIS LAPD PERSONNEL RECORDS. WE ALSO KNOW -- AND WE DON'T KNOW OF ANY CONTINGENT AGREEMENT -- THAT LAWSUITS ARE BEING PREPARED BECAUSE COUNSEL SAYS THEY'RE BEING PREPARED AND THE WITNESS MORE IMPORTANTLY SAYS THAT THEY'RE BEING PREPARED. NOW, HOW MUCH OF THIS MONEY TO BE RECEIVED FROM THE SOLICITATION IS APPLIED TO THE LAWSUIT WHERE NORMALLY THE CLIENT PAYS THE COSTS EVEN IN A CONTINGENT FEE ARRANGEMENT IS NOT SPECIFIED. BUT I THINK IT IS A FAIR AVENUE OF INQUIRY. AND I THINK THE TEST IS, IF THE HUNDRED THOUSAND COMES IN, DOES ANY OF THAT INURE TO MARK FUHRMAN'S BENEFIT AND DID HE EXPECT IT TO WHEN THE LETTER WENT OUT AND IS IT NOT SOLELY BECAUSE OF HIS POSITION AS A WITNESS IN THIS CASE THAT THE SOLICITATION WAS MADE WITH THE HOPE OF IT BEING SUCCESSFUL. IF THE ANSWERS TO THOSE QUESTIONS ARE YES, I THINK WAIVER IS PATENT IN THIS CASE. WHEN YOU GO OUT REPRESENTING TO PEOPLE THROUGH THE UNITED STATES MAILS THAT YOU'VE SPENT A HUNDRED THOUSAND ON EXPERTS, INVESTIGATORS AND PARALEGALS, AN ON-GOING EXPENSE, THAT'S A PRETTY SERIOUS ALLEGATION, AND IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE UNDER FEDERAL LAW COMPLETELY TRUTHFUL. I STILL DOUBT WHETHER OR NOT OUT-OF-POCKET WENT THAT HIGH AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 21, BUT I DON'T KNOW. MISS CLARK ALLEGES THAT SHE KNOWS AND ASSURES THE COURT THAT IT DID. I WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK MARK FUHRMAN IF ANY ACCOUNTING HAS BEEN GIVEN TO HIM AS AGAINST FUTURE OBLIGATIONS HE MAY HAVE IN THESE CIVIL LAWSUITS OR AS AGAINST ANY FEES THAT MAY HAVE BEEN CHARGED, BECAUSE WE JUST HEARD THE FEES WERE INCLUDED BY THE TOURTELOT FIRM, AND WHAT HE UNDERSTANDS HIS POSITION TO BE VIS-A-VIS THE SUCCESSFUL PRODUCTION OF MONEY FROM THE POLICE OFFICERS WHO ARE BEING ASKED TO GIVE IT, LIKE DANIEL LA BATO AND THE PEOPLE IN OKLAHOMA. THAT'S WHAT I THINK THE CROSS-EXAMINATION SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO TOUCH.
YOUR HONOR, I HAVE NOT REPRESENTED DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AS A WITNESS. I'VE NEVER DISCUSSED HIS TESTIMONY EVER. I REPRESENT TO YOU AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT I HAVEN'T BEEN PRESENT AT ANY MEETINGS AND I HAVE HAD NO CONVERSATIONS WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN REGARDING THE FACTS OF THE CASE PURPOSELY. MY REPRESENTATION HAS BEEN AS A RESULT OF THE INCREDIBLE CHARACTER ASSASSINATION CAMPAIGN THAT COMMENCED IN JULY WITH THE NEW YORKER ARTICLE, AND THAT'S IT. AND TO SAY THAT PART OF OUR WORK, THE ASSUMPTION MR. BAILEY MAKES, HAD TO DO WITH PREPARING HIM AS A WITNESS IS LUDICROUS. AGAIN, I REPRESENT TO YOU AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT, I HAVE NEVER DISCUSSED DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S TESTIMONY WITH HIM NOR HAVE I DISCUSSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE WITH HIM.
ALL RIGHT. WELL, THE FACTUAL ISSUE, MR. TOURTELOT, THOUGH THAT I NEED TO RESOLVE IS WHETHER ANYTHING -- ANY OF THE FUNDS THAT WERE ANTICIPATED OR RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER SEPTEMBER THE 21ST -- AND I TAKE IT THIS WAS A MASS MAILING.
NO. WELL, THERE WERE LIKE 425 OR SOMETHING. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY THERE WERE. WE GOT VERY LITTLE MONEY. BUT I DO WANT TO SAY THIS. I REPRESENTED HIM AS A POLICE OFFICER. AND UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, A POLICE OFFICER HAS A RIGHT OF PRIVACY, AND IT'S A SEPARATE RIGHT. AND HE HAS THE RIGHT TO HAVE A PRIVATE ATTORNEY COME INTO COURT AND DEFEND HIS RIGHTS OF PRIVACY, WHICH IS WHAT I DID BEFORE YOU.
MR. TOURTELOT, BEFORE YOU LAUNCH INTO THAT, LET ME JUST ASK -- LET ME FINISH THE QUESTION TO YOU THAT I WAS TRYING TO ASK.
YEAH, SEEMS THAT WAY. MR. TOURTELOT, THE QUESTION I HAVE IS WHETHER OR NOT ANY OF THE FUNDS THAT WERE GENERATED OR ANTICIPATED TO BE GENERATED BY THIS LETTER, DID ANY OF THESE GO TO THE DIRECT BENEFIT OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?
BECAUSE IT GOES TO MY BENEFIT. I'M THE ONE THAT'S OUT THE LEGAL FEES. I'M THE ONE THAT'S OUT PAYING MY ASSOCIATES AND MY PARALEGALS AND MY SECRETARIES. MR. FUHRMAN IS NOT OBLIGATED TO PAY ONE PENNY, NOT ONE CENT. THEREFORE, THE BENEFIT IS TO ME, WHO'S DOING THIS WORK, AND TO MY PARTNER, LAURIE BUTLER, AND TO OUR FIRM. THERE'S NO BENEFIT TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WHATEVER HAPPENS TO THIS CASE, IS NOT GOING TO OWE A PENNY TO US. I'M DOING IT PRO BONO.
IN FACT, I'LL CATCH THE NEXT PLANE TO HAWAII IF I COULD GET SOMEONE TO GO WITH ME. THEY'D LOVE IT. HIS COMMENT WAS, "PLEASE DO," BUT --
ALL RIGHT. WELL, TODAY'S BEEN A PRETTY CONTENTIOUS DAY. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMENT FROM THE PARTIES, MR. BAILEY, MISS CLARK?
YOUR HONOR, I THINK THAT EVENTUALLY AS LOATHE AS DEFENSE IS TO LET ANY DETECTIVE OFF THE WITNESS STAND, AT SOME POINT WE HAVE TO. AND IF WE GET INTO THIS LETTER, THIS IS GOING TO BE ANOTHER -- LOOK AT WHAT IT JUST CAUSED NOW, JUST TO CLAIM A PRIVILEGE, JUST TO ARGUE THE ISSUE.
WE WERE AND WE ARE. BUT JUST UNDER 352 ALONE, THE CONSUMPTION OF TIME TO GO INTO AN ISSUE THAT IS BASICALLY A PRIVILEGED MATTER -- BECAUSE THE HEART OF IT IS A PRIVILEGED MATTER FOR -- TO IMPEACH SOMEONE'S CREDIBILITY, IT HAS NO IMPEACHMENT VALUE ON DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. HE HAS NO BENEFIT TO GAIN FROM THIS LETTER. HIS LAWYER HOPES TO BE MADE WHOLE BY IT BECAUSE HE HAS EXPENDED SO MUCH TIME AND EFFORT AT HIS -- ON HIS BEHALF WITHOUT ANY RECOMPENSE. AND THAT'S ALL YOU HAVE HERE. SO THE BIAS AND MOTIVE ISSUE, WHICH IS WHAT THIS SHOULD BE GOING TO, IS NONEXISTENT. SO THE LETTER IS REALLY AND TRULY IRRELEVANT IN ADDITION TO BE PRIVILEGED.
WELL, I THINK I'VE EXPRESSED, YOUR HONOR, THE FACT THAT EVEN IF NOTHING MORE, MR. FUHRMAN IS GETTING A FREE LAWYER, IF HE IS -- AND TO ME THAT'S VERY CLOUDY -- BY VIRTUE OF THIS SOLICITATION WHERE HE WOULD NOT HAVE GOTTEN A FREE LAWYER PERHAPS IF HE HADN'T AUTHORIZED THIS SOLICITATION, THAT IS A FINANCIAL BENEFIT SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT CROSS-EXAMINATION.
THANK YOU, COUNSEL. THE ISSUE OF CROSS-EXAMINATION, THE EXTENT OF CROSS-EXAMINATION IS SOMETHING THAT THANKFULLY THE APPELLATE COURTS HAVE RESTED SIGNIFICANT DISCRETION IN THE HANDS OF THE TRIAL COURT. AND IN SOME AREAS WHEN WE DEAL WITH SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, RACIAL BIAS, THE COURTS HAVE INDICATED THAT I MUST GIVE EITHER SIDE WIDE LATITUDE IN CROSS-EXAMINATION ON RACIAL BIAS AND THOSE ISSUES, AND THE COURT HAS DONE THAT. THIS IS AN ISSUE OF FINANCIAL BIAS. AND GIVEN THE REPRESENTATIONS OF MR. TOURTELOT, THE FINANCIAL INTEREST OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WITH REGARDS TO THIS PARTICULAR LETTER IS REMOTE AND I FIND IT NOT TO BE RELEVANT. WERE IT TO BE RELEVANT, IT WOULD CAUSE AN UNDUE CONSUMPTION OF TIME GIVEN THE VARIOUS ISSUES THAT ARE HERE, AND THE CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE ALSO GOES TO THE HEART OF THE LETTER. SO THE PROSECUTION OBJECTION WILL BE SUSTAINED.
MAY WE ASK, YOUR HONOR, THEN THAT THE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS POSED BY MR. BAILEY YESTERDAY IN ADVANCE OF OUR HAVING BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEE THIS LETTER BE STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD?
NO. HE WAS ALLOWED TO CROSS-EXAMINE ON WHETHER OR NOT MR. FUHRMAN CONTEMPLATED LEGAL ACTION AGAINST THE LAWYERS IN THIS CASE. THAT'S A FAIR -- THAT'S FAIR CROSS-EXAMINATION.
I THINK THERE'S ONLY -- IF YOU CAN SHOW ME WHERE THAT IS IN THE RECORD. I THINK THERE'S ONLY A QUESTION OR ANSWER THAT'S PRETTY INNOCUOUS, AND WE STOPPED AT THAT POINT WITH THE PURPOSE OF GETTING THE LETTER TO EXAMINE IT.
ALL RIGHT. THEN MAY I READDRESS THAT WITH THE COURT AFTER I FOUND THE PASSAGE? IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN THERE IS NO POINT. BUT --
I HAVE TO TELL YOU, I'M NOT -- MY RECOLLECTION OF IT IS THAT IT'S SO INNOCUOUS THAT I'M NOT REALLY WILLING TO STIR THE POT ANYMORE.
VERY WELL, YOUR HONOR. WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS FINAL ARGUMENT THOUGH AND ADDRESSING AN ISSUE THAT THE COURT HAS DEEMED TO BE IRRELEVANT UNDER 352.
WELL, IF THERE'S NO LETTER TO ARGUE, THEN I SUSPECT IT WON'T BE ARGUED. GIVEN THE PANOPLY OF ISSUES THAT ARE HERE TO ARGUE IN FINAL ARGUMENT, A PASSING REFERENCE IN TWO QUESTIONS AND TWO ANSWERS I SUSPECT WON'T CARRY THE CASE. IF YOU DISAGREE, LOOK IN THE RECORD, SEE WHAT YOU THINK.
I'M JUST NOT INCLINED TO ADDRESS WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE SUCH A MINIMAL ISSUE AT THIS POINT. MAYBE IF I THINK ABOUT IT TOMORROW MORNING, MAYBE I'LL THINK ABOUT IT DIFFERENTLY. BUT I'VE GOT TO TELL YOU AT THIS POINT, I'M NOT REAL PERSUADED.
ALL RIGHT. LET ME LOOK IT UP AND SEE IF IT IS WORTH IT, YOUR HONOR. I APPRECIATE THAT.
IT SHOULD BE. THE CLEAN COPY WILL BE IDENTIFIED AS COURT'S EXHIBIT NEXT IN ORDER, 8? 8.
IT'S 3:00 O'CLOCK, YOUR HONOR. I WOULD LIKE A CHANCE TO -- WE HAVE INFORMATION COMING IN AS WE SPEAK. I WOULD LIKE A CHANCE TO CONFER WITH MY COLLEAGUES BEFORE WE DECIDE. THOSE ARE THE ONLY REMAINING QUESTIONS. I HAVE A QUESTION I CAN PUT TODAY IF YOU WANT TO SAVE THAT MUCH TIME. IT'S ABOUT THREE MINUTES' WORTH.
NOT TO DRAG THE JURY OUT AND SEND EVERYBODY HOME. ALL RIGHT. DEPUTY MAGNERA, LET'S HAVE THE JURY AND I'LL EXCUSE THEM. AND DO WE HAVE ANY DNA LINGERING ISSUES TODAY? AN AFTERNOON WITHOUT DNA. HOW WONDERFUL. OKAY.
IT APPEARS THAT THE LETTER IS IN FACT FRAUDULENT. WE'RE NOW TOLD THAT IT IS TO COVER FEES. THE PLAIN LANGUAGE, WHICH EVERY LAWYER UNDERSTANDS, IS UNEQUIVOCAL, IS, OUT-OF-POCKET COSTS HAVE EXCEEDED $100,000. NOW, WE'RE PRO BONO, WE'RE COVERING FEES AND WE'RE OUT OF POCKET. NONE OF THIS LETTER APPARENTLY IS TRUE IN TOTO.
MR. FUHRMAN IS NOT OBLIGATED TO PAY ONE PENNY, NOT ONE CENT. THEREFORE, THE BENEFIT IS TO ME, WHO'S DOING THIS WORK, AND TO MY PARTNER, LAURIE BUTLER, AND TO OUR FIRM. THERE'S NO BENEFIT TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.
WE HAVE GONE WAY OUT THERE WITH, IN THE PAST 10 YEARS, HAVE YOU EVER USED A RACIAL SLUR AND A WOMAN WHO MAKES ALLEGATIONS ABOUT HIM 10 YEARS AGO... I MEAN, WE HAVE REALLY HIT THE OUTER LIMITS HERE AND THIS IS FAR BEYOND THE OUTER LIMITS. THIS IS THE TWILIGHT ZONE.
GIVEN THE REPRESENTATIONS OF MR. TOURTELOT, THE FINANCIAL INTEREST OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WITH REGARDS TO THIS PARTICULAR LETTER IS REMOTE AND I FIND IT NOT TO BE RELEVANT. WERE IT TO BE RELEVANT, IT WOULD CAUSE AN UNDUE CONSUMPTION OF TIME GIVEN THE VARIOUS ISSUES THAT ARE HERE, AND THE CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE ALSO GOES TO THE HEART OF THE LETTER.
I'VE BEEN IN FRONT OF THE WHOLE WORLD ACCUSED OF MAIL FRAUD, WHICH IS OUTRAGEOUS, OUTRAGEOUS STATEMENT. AND I WILL TELL THE COURT AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT, WE HAVE EXPENDED OVER A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS AS OF THE DATE OF THAT LETTER, AND THE INSINUATIONS AND ACCUSATIONS BY MR. BAILEY ARE OUTRAGEOUS AND I RESENT THOSE.