YOUR HONOR, FIRST, THERE WAS AN OBJECTION INTERPOSED REGARDING OBTAINING EVIDENCE FROM DETECTIVE VANNATTER REGARDING CHICAGO.
WE BELIEVE THAT THE JURY HAS BEEN BY INNUENDO GIVEN A SUGGESTION THAT THE INJURY COULD HAVE ONLY HAPPENED IN LOS ANGELES WHEN VANNATTER AT THE TIME HE OBSERVED THE INJURY HAD KNOWLEDGE THAT THE INJURY WAS AT LEAST REPORTED TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE IN CHICAGO AND THAT HE ALSO HAD INFORMATION THAT THERE WAS A BROKEN GLASS IN CHICAGO AND THAT THERE WAS BLOOD ON THE SHEET AND THE PILLOWCASE IN THE HOTEL ROOM IN CHICAGO WHERE O.J. STAYED, WHICH WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THAT EVIDENCE. NOW, WE CAN GET THAT IN BY BRINGING IN THE DETECTIVES WHO WERE IN CHICAGO TO TESTIFY AS TO WHAT TOOK PLACE THERE, BUT I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY DISPUTE AS TO THOSE FACTS.
THERE'S A DISPUTE AS TO WHETHER IT'S TRUE OR NOT. IN ANY EVENT, IT'S ALL RANK HEARSAY AS PROFESSOR UELMEN WOULD SAY. IT IS HEARSAY.
IT DOESN'T GO TO THE TRUTH THAT IT HAPPENED. IT GOES TO INFORMATION THAT HE HAD, WHICH HE WAS EVALUATING THE INJURY AND WHAT HE DID IF HE IN FACT HAD INFORMATION THAT THERE WAS A BROKEN GLASS, THAT MR. SIMPSON HAD TOLD HIM HE CUT HIS HAND ON GLASS.
WAIT. BUT AT THAT POINT IN TIME, WE CAN AT LEAST ARGUE TO THE JURY IF HE HAD THAT INFORMATION, IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON HIM TO VERIFY OR REJECT THAT STORY BY TAKING HIM TO A HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONAL WHO COULD SAY YES OR NO TO THE GLASS.
IT'S A SIMPLE ISSUE OF HEARSAY AND IT GOES TO THE STATE OF MIND OF THE DETECTIVE AS TO, IN HIS INVESTIGATION, IF HE IS BEING FAIR AS HE SAYS HE IS, TO LOOK AT BOTH SIDES OF THE PICTURE, IF HE HAD SUCH INFORMATION, ISN'T THAT SOMETHING HE WOULD HAVE INVESTIGATED.
BUT HE ALSO INDICATED THAT HE DIDN'T DO THAT. SO I'M GOING TO SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION ON HEARSAY GROUNDS.
THE SECOND THING WE WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS WITH THE COURT IS, WE WANT TO DISCUSS THE SEARCH WARRANT. AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY PROBLEM NOW THAT THE OFFICER SAID THESE ARE HIS NOTES AND TO CROSS-EXAMINE HIM ON PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS AND ON CREDIBILITY ISSUES.
THE THIRD ITEM IS, WE ARE GOING TO ASK HIM ABOUT THE EXTENT OF THE SEARCH AT ROCKINGHAM OR BOTH SEARCHES AND THAT THEY WERE COMPLETE SEARCHES LOOKING FOR A WEAPON CONSISTENT WITH THE ONE THEY HAD PURCHASED FROM ROSS CUTLERY, AND THEN WE ARE GOING TO SHOW HIM THE KNIFE AND ASK HIM IF THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOUND.
WELL, THE PROBLEM IS, FIRST OF ALL, VANNATTER DID NOT CONDUCT THE SEARCH. HE WAS NOT PRESENT DURING THE SEARCH. HE WAS DOWNTOWN WITH THE DEFENDANT. SO HE WOULD NOT HAVE ANY PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE.
BOTH. I WAS THERE AT THE SECOND SEARCH, AND THEN VANNATTER WAS AROUND, BUT HE WAS NOT CONDUCTING THE SEARCH.
HE BROUGHT THE WARRANT, HE ISSUED THE WARRANT AND HE ISSUED THE DIRECTIONS. WE HAD A 1538.5 MOTION AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING WHERE HE TALKED ABOUT THE GAME PLAN, HOW HE BROUGHT EVERYBODY AROUND --
IN ANY EVENT, EVEN IF HE CONDUCTED THE SEARCH, THE FACT THAT THIS KNIFE WAS ALLEGEDLY FOUND SEVERAL DAYS LATER BY A SPECIAL MASTER, I MEAN DO WE REALLY WANT TO GET INTO THAT? THE KNIFE IS NOT THE MURDER WEAPON. WHAT IS THE RELEVANCY OF THAT KNIFE? WHAT DOES IT PROVE? IT PROVES NOTHING. IT PROVES NOTHING AT ALL.
WE BELIEVE IT PROVES A LOT, AND WE DON'T WANT TO GIVE AN OFFER OF PROOF IN FRONT OF MR. DARDEN BECAUSE IT WILL GO TO OUR TACTICS AND STRATEGY, BUT WE WILL GIVE IT TO THE COURT.
WELL, I THINK THERE OUGHT TO BE SOME RELEVANCY, AN OFFER OF PROOF AS TO HOW IT POSSIBLY CAN BE RELEVANT. IT WOULD BE ONE THING IF THE KNIFE WAS THE KNIFE, THERE WAS BLOOD ON IT. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE KNIFE HAS EVER BEEN USED IN ANY MANNER OR ANYTHING.
BUT DOESN'T THAT GO TO THE THOROUGHNESS OF THE SEARCH THAT'S INVOLVED HERE IF NOTHING ELSE AND THE QUALITY OF THE PROFESSIONALISM OF THE OFFICERS HERE?
NOW, THIS MAY NOT BE THE RIGHT WITNESS THOUGH IF HE'S NOT THE PERSON WHO DID THE SEARCH OF THE BEDROOM OR --
OR WHAT I MIGHT ALLOW -- SINCE WE'VE ALL BEEN IN THE BEDROOM, WHAT I MIGHT ALLOW IS A QUESTION, "OFFICER, YOU'VE BEEN IN THE BEDROOM." YOU CAN ASK HIM FOUNDATIONAL QUESTIONS ABOUT BEING THE AFFIANT ON THE SEARCH WARRANT, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, AND, "YOU'VE BEEN IN THE BEDROOM. YOU SAW THE PARTITION BETWEEN THE ENTRYWAY GOING INTO THE BATHROOM AND TO THE CLOSET AND THE MIRRORED SURFACE THERE. WERE YOU SURPRISED THAT --" I MEAN, "ARE YOU AWARE OF WHAT IS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN FOUND THERE? TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, WAS THERE ANYTHING -- TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, WAS THAT ITEM -- THAT LOCATION SEARCHED?"
THAT ALL CALLS FOR HEARSAY AND SPECULATION ON THE PART OF VANNATTER. I MEAN WHAT DOES IT --
WHAT HE CAN SAY IS, HE CAN SAY, "I'VE SEEN THE LOCATION, THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION, THE MIRRORED SURFACE THERE." AND YOU CAN ASK THE QUESTION, "SHOULD THAT -- IN A THOROUGH SEARCH, SHOULD THAT LOCATION BE SEARCHED AS PART OF A WARRANT FOR THESE ITEMS? YES OR NO?" AND HE CAN SAY YES OR NO. AND THEN -- I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT, THAT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEARCHED OR COULD HAVE BEEN SEARCHED WITHOUT GETTING INTO THE FACT THAT A KNIFE WAS LATER FOUND. THAT WILL BE THROUGH A DIFFERENT WITNESS. BUT YOU CAN ASK HIM SHOULD THAT AREA HAVE BEEN SEARCHED.
THE OTHER THING I WANT TO BRING UP ABOUT THE KNIFE IS -- AND I WOULD LIKE TO DO THIS EX PARTE BECAUSE I THINK IT'S A SENSITIVE ISSUE, AND THEN YOU CAN REPORT IT IF YOU WANT TO TO THE PEOPLE. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO REPORT IT TO YOU, AS TO WHAT OUR THEORY IS, THE SHOWING OF THE KNIFE.
BUT, COUNSEL, DON'T RELEVANCY OFFERS OF PROOF HAVE TO BE MADE IN THE PRESENCE OF THE OTHER PARTY?
NO. I THINK THIS IS AN UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE WITH THIS ENVELOPE AND WITH NOBODY REALLY STILL KNOWING THE CONTENT OF IT OR THE SIGNIFICANCE OF IT, AND I'M AFRAID QUITE FRANKLY, BY REVEALING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF IT IN OUR OFFER OF PROOF, THAT IT WILL CAUSE A GREAT DEAL OF STRATEGIC --
THAT'S ONE OF THE PERILS OF PRESENTING EVIDENCE IN A TRIAL. WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE AN OFFER OF PROOF, ESPECIALLY IN CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE THESE.
WELL, HERE'S THE PROBLEM I HAVE, MR. SHAPIRO. GIVEN THAT WE PRETTY MUCH INFORMALLY HAVE AGREED THAT THE KNIFE WE'RE SPEAKING OF IS PROBABLY NOT THE WEAPON AND I THINK THE EXAMINATION REPORTS THAT HAVE BEEN TURNED OVER INDICATE IT'S PROBABLY NOT, I THINK THE CAT IS PRETTY MUCH OUT OF THE BAG.
I THINK AS A SEPARATE GROUND OF RELEVANCY, EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED THAT THE POLICE BOUGHT A KNIFE. THEY WENT TO THE STORE. THE MERCHANT SAID THIS LITTLE ONE OR THIS BIG ONE. THE MERCHANT DIDN'T HAVE ANY RECORDS OF THE SALE AND SOMEHOW REMEMBERED IT WAS THE BIG ONE. THEY HAD IT IN COURT. THEY SHOWED IT TO DR. GOLDEN, AND IT WAS THE LITTLE ONE ALL THE TIME. THAT'S THE ONLY KNIFE THAT WAS EVER BOUGHT THERE. SO I THINK THAT IS RELEVANT.
IT WOULD BE RELEVANT IMPEACHMENT IF WE WERE GOING TO OFFER THAT SALESMAN IN AS TO -- IN THIS TRIAL. BUT WE'RE NOT. SO WHAT ARE THEY TRYING TO IMPEACH? THE PRELIM? THEY COULD HAVE DONE THAT AT THE PRELIM IF THEY SO CHOSE. IT'S CERTAINLY NOT RELEVANT NOW.
WITHOUT GOING -- IT IS VERY RELEVANT FROM THE STANDPOINT IF WE INTEND THROUGHOUT THIS CASE TO QUESTION THE VARIOUS THINGS THEY DID, WE HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO DO THAT.
I THINK YOU HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO GO INTO THE FACT THEY WERE LOOKING FOR THIS PARTICULAR KNIFE. THERE'S NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT.
NO. I SAID VANNATTER CAN TESTIFY HE'S FAMILIAR WITH THE MASTER BEDROOM AREA AND THAT THIS PARTICULAR GLASSED AREA IS A LOCATION THAT UNDER THIS SEARCH WARRANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEARCHED.
RIGHT. WE KNOW THAT THERE WERE THREE OFFICERS INVOLVED IN THE SEARCH OF THE BEDROOM PLUS CRIMINALIST FUNG. AND THEN I ASSUME THAT THE PROSECUTION IS GOING TO BRING IN THOSE PEOPLE TO SAY THAT THEY DID THIS SEARCH BECAUSE THEY'VE GOT TO DO THAT TO GET THE SOCKS IN.
I THINK IT'S FAIR TO ASK THE LEAD INVESTIGATOR, IS THIS A SURFACE OR LOCATION THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEARCHED, I AGREE, CAREFULLY SEARCHED.
CAN I ASK HIM THE FOLLOWING QUESTION? "WOULD YOU BE SURPRISED TO FIND THAT WHILE YOU WERE SEARCHING IT, THE KNIFE YOU WERE LOOKING FOR WAS THERE?"
NO. I'M NOT INCLINED TO ALLOW THAT BECAUSE IT'S A LEGAL TANGLEMENT ISSUE. I REALLY WANT THE OTHER WITNESSES TO SAY, "YEAH, WE SEARCHED, WE DIDN'T FIND ANYTHING," OR, "WE DIDN'T LOOK THERE."
WE WANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE MR. GOLDBERG COME DOWN AND -- HANK GOLDBERG COME DOWN AND ARGUE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE KNIFE AND FILE SOME PAPERS.
AS PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS. OKAY. WE HAVE BLOOD TESTS AND WE HAVE AN UNPLANNED TRIP.
AND DIRECT SHOULD DEFINE THE PERIMETERS OF CROSS, DON'T YOU THINK? YOU WILL WHEN YOU PRESENT YOUR CASE IN CHIEF.
IN OTHER WORDS, THE QUESTION WOULD BE, SOME THINGS HE SAID HE OBSERVED WHICH WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO INCLUDE IN THE WARRANT IF HE REALLY OBSERVED THEM, AND THEY'RE NOT INCLUDED IN THE WARRANT.
ALL THAT'S NECESSARY IS THAT HE WROTE A WARRANT, YOU KNOW, A PROBABLE CAUSE WARRANT. HE DOESN'T HAVE TO WRITE INTO THE WARRANT EVERYTHING IMAGINABLE. DO WE WANT TO GO INTO --
PLEASE DO. I WILL TELL YOU THIS, YOUR HONOR. A SEARCH WARRANT IS NOT RELEVANT TO A TRIAL. YOU KNOW, THAT IS A PRETRIAL ISSUE THAT IS LITIGATED BEFORE A COURT TO DETERMINE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE, WHICH ONCE THE COURT DETERMINES IS ADMISSIBLE OR NOT ADMISSIBLE, END OF LINE. WE DON'T GO BACK BEFORE THE JURY AND TALK ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE SEARCH WAS REASONABLE OR UNREASONABLE OR IN OR WITHOUT THE 4TH AMENDMENT. THAT IS NOT WITHIN THEIR PROVINCE.
WAIT, WAIT, WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY WAIT, MISS CLARK? THE PROBLEM IS, IT IS A STATEMENT MADE UNDER OATH TO A JUDGE. SO IT IS A PRIOR STATEMENT. AND IF THAT STATEMENT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THEIR TESTIMONY HERE OR IS CONTRARY TO THE EVIDENCE, THEN THEY ARE ENTITLED TO GO AFTER THAT AS IMPEACHMENT.
THE FACT THAT DETECTIVE VANNATTER MADE STATEMENTS THAT ARE NOW WE KNOW TO BE UNTRUE --
THAT WE NOW KNOW TO BE UNTRUE IS THE VERY ISSUE. AT THE TIME HE WROTE IT, THAT'S THE IMPORTANT THING; WAS HE MISREPRESENTING IT AT TRIAL. AND YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT. AT THE TIME, HE BELIEVED THAT BASED ON WHAT HE SAW. HOWEVER, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET A PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT OUT OF IT BECAUSE HIS DIRECT TESTIMONY DOESN'T GO INTO THAT. IF IT DID, THAT'S A DIFFERENT STORY. THEN YOU HAVE GROUNDS FOR ADMISSIBILITY. YOU DON'T HAVE THAT HERE. YOU HAVE SOMEBODY TESTIFYING TO WHAT HE SAW, WHAT HE OBSERVED AND NO STATEMENTS AS TO WHETHER THE TRIP WAS PLANNED OR UNPLANNED OR NO STATEMENT AS TO WHETHER IT WAS HUMAN BLOOD OR ANY OTHER KIND OF BLOOD ON THE DOOR. YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO SET UP FOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS. SO THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY BASIC -- THE ONLY VALID GROUND FOR GETTING IN THE STATEMENTS FROM THE SEARCH WARRANT, AND IT DOESN'T EXIST. SO NOW YOU'RE GOING TO ASK TO -- YOU ARE GOING TO SAY COUNSEL IS ALLOWED TO SET UP HIS OWN IMPEACHMENT. COUNSEL IS NOT ALLOWED TO SET UP HIS OWN IMPEACHMENT BY GOING INTO AREAS THAT ARE IRRELEVANT AND BEYOND THE SCOPE. YOU CAN'T OPEN YOUR OWN DOOR.
YOU CAN'T OPEN YOUR OWN DOOR. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN. YOUR HONOR, YOU CAN NOT OPEN YOUR OWN DOOR TO GO INTO TANGENTIAL AREAS OF IMPEACHMENT. IF HE HAD TESTIFIED ON DIRECT CONTRARY TO WHAT HE PUT IN HIS SEARCH WARRANT, THAT WOULD BE VALID IMPEACHMENT. HE HAS NOT. AND THE FACT THAT IT WAS LEARNED AT SOME LATER POINT DUE TO DEVELOPING INVESTIGATION, THAT SOME OF WHAT HE BELIEVED WAS INACCURATE, THAT DOESN'T IMPEACH HIM, SHOULD NOT BE ADMISSIBLE FOR THAT PURPOSE. A LOT OF OFFICERS IN THE BEGINNING OF INVESTIGATIONS, YOUR HONOR, BELIEVE CERTAIN THINGS BASED ON WHAT THE EVIDENCE SAYS THEY HAVE AT HAND. LATER ON, THE INVESTIGATION TAKES THEM ANOTHER WAY. IS THAT IMPEACHING, TO SAY THAT THEY KNEW AT POINT A LESS THAN THEY KNEW AT POINT B? ABSOLUTELY NOT, OR EVERY OFFICER OUT THERE WOULD BE IMPEACHED. AND TO ALLOW HIM TO GO INTO IMPEACHMENT BASED ON THE SEARCH WARRANT ON AN ISSUE NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THIS COURT IS OPENING IT UP WAY PAST THE SCOPE OF DIRECT AND IS IRRELEVANT, IMPROPER IMPEACHMENT, AND I WOULD LIKE THE CHANCE TO WRITE POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IF THE COURT IS INCLINED TO PERMIT THIS BECAUSE I THINK IT'S VERY INAPPROPRIATE AND TOTALLY IRRELEVANT TO THE OFFICER'S EITHER CREDIBILITY OR HIS TESTIMONY.
KEY QUOTEAS AN OFFER OF PROOF, WE WILL PROVE THROUGH THIS OFFICER THAT HE HAD THAT INFORMATION BEFORE HE WROTE THE WARRANT AND THE INFORMATION WAS, AT A MINIMUM, RECKLESS AND PROBABLY FALSE BASED ON HIS OWN --
IT IS NOT THE PROVINCE OF THIS JURY TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT A SEARCH WARRANT IS VALID. IT IS THE PROVINCE OF THIS JURY TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS WITH HIS TRIAL TESTIMONY THAT WOULD IMPACT ON HIS CREDIBILITY; AND THERE IS NOT.
I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING SHE HAS SAID AND THAT'S EXACTLY THE WAY WE ARE GOING TO PORTRAY IT, INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS WITH HIS TRIAL TESTIMONY AND PRIOR TESTIMONY.
CERTAINLY NOT BASED ON THE FACT THAT LATER INVESTIGATION TURNED UP MORE INFORMATION.
NO. WE ARE GOING TO PROVE THAT EARLIER INVESTIGATION TURNED UP MORE INVESTIGATION. AND ALSO, MR. BAILEY HAS SUGGESTED THAT IF AN OFFICER MAKES A FALSE REPRESENTATION TO GET A SEARCH WARRANT, THAT SHOWS BIAS.
WELL, MISS CLARK, THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT APPEARED OBVIOUS TO ME AS A PROBLEM AT TRIAL WHEN I RULED AT THE 1538 THAT THE STATEMENTS WERE MADE WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE TRUTH IF YOU RECALL.
KEY QUOTEI RECALL. WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THOSE STATEMENTS IN TRIAL?
NO. YOU'RE ASKING FOR TIME TO WRITE POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THOSE STATEMENTS SHOULD COME IN TO IMPEACH DETECTIVE VANNATTER, CORRECT?
ALL RIGHT. ISN'T THAT AN ISSUE THAT WAS RED FLAGGED AS A PROBLEM WITH THIS WITNESS MONTHS AGO?
NO, BECAUSE PROBABLE CAUSE TO ISSUE A SEARCH WARRANT AND THE MANNER IN WHICH A SEARCH WARRANT IS WRITTEN IS NOT PROPERLY BEFORE A JURY. THAT'S A PRETRIAL MATTER.
MISS CLARK, PUT THAT OUT OF YOUR MIND. JUST KEEP IN MIND THIS IS A SWORN STATEMENT UNDER OATH THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE STATE OF THE FACTS.
YOU KNOW SOMETHING? THAT IS NOT THE REAL ISSUE. THE REAL ISSUE IS WHETHER OR NOT IT'S INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT HE KNEW AT THE TIME HE WROTE THE WARRANT AND --
HOLD ON. LET'S ASSUME ARNELLE SIMPSON AND CATHY RANDA TOLD OR CATHY RANDA TOLD THE DETECTIVES THAT HE IS IN CHICAGO FOR A HERTZ MEETING, THAT IT WAS -- ARRANGEMENTS HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY MADE, "HE'S STAYING AT A PARTICULAR HOTEL, HERE'S HIS HOTEL NUMBER." ALL RIGHT. THAT IS DIFFERENT OR CONTRARY TO VANNATTER'S STATEMENT IN THE SEARCH WARRANT WHICH WAS DONE LATER, THAT THIS WAS AN UNSCHEDULED TRIP TO CHICAGO.
WAIT. THEN FUNG'S PRESUMPTIVE TESTS FOR BLOOD ON THE BRONCO WAS A PRESUMPTIVE TEST. THAT'S ALL IT WAS. IT IS NOT A TEST THAT IS POSITIVE FOR HUMAN BLOOD, CORRECT?
THE PROBLEM WITH IT IS, NUMBER ONE, DETECTIVE VANNATTER DID NOT SPEAK TO CATHY RANDA. ANOTHER OFFICER SPOKE TO CATHY RANDA AND HE GOT HIS INFORMATION SECOND - OR THIRD HAND. OKAY. SO THAT'S NUMBER ONE. THE PROBLEM, YOU HAVE TO LAY THE FOUNDATION FOR AN INCONSISTENCY. THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN BECAUSE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. FURTHERMORE, IT'S WHAT DETECTIVE VANNATTER KNEW AND UNDERSTOOD AT THE TIME HE WROTE THE WARRANT. THAT'S THE ISSUE. NOT WHETHER LATER INVESTIGATION TURNED OUT TO BE DIFFERENT OR OTHERWISE. THAT HAPPENS IN EVERY CASE. WHEN DETECTIVE VANNATTER WROTE THE WARRANT, HE BELIEVES CERTAIN THINGS TO BE TRUE BASED ON WHAT HE KNEW. BUT ALL OF THAT IS AN ISSUE FOR THE COURT TO DETERMINE, NOT FOR THE TRIAL JURY TO DETERMINE. SINCE WHEN DO THEY GO BACK AND DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THERE WERE INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS IN THE SEARCH WARRANT. NOW, THE NUMBER ONE THING, ON DIRECT, WE HAVE NOT ELICITED ANY INFORMATION ABOUT SEEKING OF A SEARCH WARRANT, WRITING OF A SEARCH WARRANT OR ANYTHING ABOUT THAT, OKAY.
NUMBER TWO, NONE OF THE STATEMENTS HE HAS GIVEN IN DIRECT ARE INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT HE WROTE IN THE WARRANT OR INCONSISTENT WITH THE STATE OF EVIDENCE AS WE KNOW IT TO BE. SO WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS AN ATTEMPT TO IMPEACH HIM WITH INFORMATION THAT WAS USED AT THE RELEVANT POINT IN TIME, WHICH HE DID NOT HAVE, REGARDING A SEARCH WARRANT WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PLACED IN ISSUE IN HIS DIRECT TESTIMONY, TO IMPEACH HIM WITH TESTIMONY THAT IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH HIS DIRECT OR EVEN HIS CROSS-EXAMINATION TESTIMONY THUS FAR; AND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS, DEFENSE NOW GETS TO EXCEED THE SCOPE OF DIRECT. THAT'S NUMBER ONE OBJECTION. NUMBER TWO, DEFENSE GETS TO --
WELL, BUT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ARGUING HERE, CONTENT, NOT THE FACT THAT HE GOT ONE. EVERYBODY KNOWS HE GOT A WARRANT. HE HAD TO GET INTO THE HOUSE SOMEHOW.
WELL, MISS CLARK, WEREN'T THESE ISSUES SORT OF RED FLAGGED? WEREN'T YOU CONCERNED ABOUT DETECTIVE VANNATTER TESTIFYING BECAUSE OF THOSE PROBLEMS?
NO, I WAS NOT, BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW IS THAT DIRECT TESTIMONY IS WHAT GUIDES AND DEFINES THE PERIMETERS OF CROSS. AND IF THEY SOUGHT TO --
MISS CLARK, WAIT. BACK WHEN WE DID THE SEARCH WARRANT MOTIONS, THE 1538.5, WASN'T THIS A BIG ISSUE AND DIDN'T THAT CAUSE YOU SOME CONCERN, WHEN DETECTIVE VANNATTER TESTIFIES THAT THERE'S A SWORN STATEMENT UNDER OATH THAT APPEARS TO CONTAIN INACCURACIES?
NO. THAT'S A PRETRIAL ISSUE WE LITIGATED BEFORE, YOUR HONOR. IT GAVE ME CONCERN THAT YOUR HONOR HAD THE FEELINGS THAT IT DID, YOU DID ABOUT DETECTIVE VANNATTER AND THE SEARCH WARRANT. THAT DID GIVE ME CAUSE FOR CONCERN. BUT THAT A JURY WAS GOING TO HEAR ABOUT THAT -- WHY SHOULD A JURY EVER HEAR ABOUT A COURT'S RULING ON A PRETRIAL MOTION LIKE A 1538.8. I'VE NEVER HEARD OF SUCH A THING.
THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO HEAR. THEY'RE GOING TO HEAR THAT DETECTIVE VANNATTER MADE STATEMENTS LONG AGO THAT TURNED OUT NOT TO BE TRUE. THOSE TWO, CORRECT?
AND THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS, THE ONLY WAY THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IS IN THE DEFENSE CASE. THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING THAT THE SEARCH WARRANT STATEMENTS ARE IRRELEVANT. THE DETECTIVE HAS, FIRST OF ALL, NOT EVEN GONE INTO UNEXPECTED FLIGHT OR THE EXPECTED FLIGHT OR THE BLOOD ON THE BRONCO, WHICH I WILL TELL YOU RIGHT NOW, BLOOD -- THAT ISSUE ABOUT HUMAN BLOOD IS ONE OF THE STUPIDEST ISSUES I'VE EVER HEARD RAISED IN A COURT OF LAW. AND I'VE HEARD SOME STUPID ONES. I MEAN THAT'S ONE OF THOSE REASONABLE INFERENCES THAT ANY COP SHOULD BE MAKING. THEY'RE NOT EVEN GOING TO PAUSE OVER THAT, WHOSE BLOOD IS GOING TO BE ON THE DOOR HANDLE OF A CAR. THAT'S RIDICULOUS. BUT, NUMBER TWO, TO IMPEACH HIM WITH THE FACT THAT HE UNDERSTOOD A CERTAIN SET OF FACTS TO BE TRUE THAT LATER TURN OUT NOT TO BE TRUE WHICH DID NOT CAUSE THE COURT TO INVALIDATE THE ENTIRE WARRANT -- IF YOU RECALL, EVEN IN YOUR -- IN THE WORSE POSSIBLE BLUSH, YOU REMOVE IT, YOU EXCISE IT, YOU DETERMINE IT TO HAVE BEEN WILLFULLY FALSE, WHICH IS THE ONLY REASON FOR ITS EXISTENCE, AND YOU STILL HAVE A VALID WARRANT. SO EVEN IF YOU TAKE OUT THE PART THAT WAS NOT -- THAT IS NOW LATER DETERMINED DO BE INACCURATE, YOU STILL HAVE A VALID WARRANT. SO HOW TANGENTIAL ARE WE GOING TO GET ON CROSS HERE? HE MADE A STATEMENT THAT YOU FIND TO BE IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE TRUTH, WHICH I STILL DISPUTE. I DON'T THINK THAT THE COURT HAD THE RECORD TO DO THAT. WE DIDN'T CALL THE OFFICER TO THE STAND TO DO THAT. NEVERTHELESS, YOU MADE YOUR FINDING. BUT WAS IT MATERIAL ENOUGH TO KILL THE WARRANT? NO, IT WASN'T. SO WHY IS IT NOW MATERIAL ENOUGH TO GO INTO ON CROSS-EXAMINATION?
MISS CLARK. SORRY TO DISRUPT YOU. I THOUGHT THAT IT WAS EXTREMELY RUDE FOR THEM TO DO THAT.
I DID TOO, BUT I'M USED TO IT. WITH RESPECT TO THE DETECTIVE'S ASSERTIONS THAT -- I MEAN, EVEN IF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT RECKLESS DISREGARD, YOU EXCISE, YOU STILL HAVE --
MISS CLARK, HOLD ON. TIME OUT. YOU ARGUE THIS SO STRENUOUSLY AND SO VIGOROUSLY. DO YOU HAVE A CASE?
WELL, LET ME GO GET THEM. LET ME DO THAT. THAT'S ALL I AM ASKING FOR A CHANCE TO DO.
GIVE ME A CASE BECAUSE WE'RE IN THAT NEVER-NEVER LAND WHERE IT SEEMS SO CLEAR TO ME THAT THEY GET TO DO IT AND YOU ARE ARGUING SO VIGOROUSLY THAT I'M CRAZY, THAT IF YOU'VE GOT A CASE THAT TELLS ME I AM WRONG, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT.
KEY QUOTEYOUR HONOR, PERHAPS I COULD JUST INTERJECT A THOUGHT HERE. THE INFORMATION THAT VANNATTER HAD AT THE TIME HE PRESENTED THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS CLEARLY THAT O.J. SIMPSON HAD LEFT ON A FLIGHT TO CHICAGO FOR HERTZ CORPORATION. HE PUT THAT IN HIS OWN HANDWRITING, IN HIS ONLY NOTE THAT HE TOOK IN THIS ENTIRE CASE WHEN HE DEBRIEFED KATO KAELIN AT 6:00 A.M. HERE IS A COPY OF THE STATEMENT. I THINK WE CAN SHORTEN IT, THIS ARGUMENT.
WELL, MISS CLARK, THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT APPEARED OBVIOUS TO ME AS A PROBLEM AT TRIAL WHEN I RULED AT THE 1538 THAT THE STATEMENTS WERE MADE WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE TRUTH IF YOU RECALL.
THAT ISSUE ABOUT HUMAN BLOOD IS ONE OF THE STUPIDEST ISSUES I'VE EVER HEARD RAISED IN A COURT OF LAW. AND I'VE HEARD SOME STUPID ONES.
GIVE ME A CASE BECAUSE WE'RE IN THAT NEVER-NEVER LAND WHERE IT SEEMS SO CLEAR TO ME THAT THEY GET TO DO IT AND YOU ARE ARGUING SO VIGOROUSLY THAT I'M CRAZY.
THE INFORMATION THAT VANNATTER HAD AT THE TIME HE PRESENTED THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS CLEARLY THAT O.J. SIMPSON HAD LEFT ON A FLIGHT TO CHICAGO FOR HERTZ CORPORATION. HE PUT THAT IN HIS OWN HANDWRITING, IN HIS ONLY NOTE THAT HE TOOK IN THIS ENTIRE CASE WHEN HE DEBRIEFED KATO KAELIN AT 6:00 A.M.
YOU CAN'T OPEN YOUR OWN DOOR. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN. YOUR HONOR, YOU CANNOT OPEN YOUR OWN DOOR TO GO INTO TANGENTIAL AREAS OF IMPEACHMENT.