ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, LET'S PROCEED. LET'S PROCEED.

LET'S GET THE AUDIENCE AND GO FORWARD.

BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. THE DEFENDANT IS AGAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT WITH HIS COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. DOUGLAS, MR. BAILEY. THE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED BY MISS CLARK. WHAT HAPPENED TO MR. DARDEN? ALL RIGHT. MR. DOUGLAS, MISS CLARK, YOU HAD A MATTER YOU WANTED TO TAKE UP BEFORE WE RESUME WITH THE JURY?

MS. CLARK: YES. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

YES, YOUR HONOR. WE ARE GOING TO BE STIPULATING TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE CELL PHONE RECORDS THAT WERE SUBPOENAED FROM AIR TOUCH, BUT THE STIPULATION THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY FRAMED NEEDS TO BE REWORKED A LITTLE BIT AND THEN WE WILL PRESENT THAT TO THE COURT. AND I WANTED TO INDICATE TO COUNSEL THAT BEFORE I WAS LOOKING FOR A CLEAN COPY OF THE PHONE RECORDS FOR THE LIMO AND I NOW HAVE THEM AND I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THESE RECORDS IN LIEU OF THE ONES PREVIOUSLY GIVEN, WHICH HAD MARKINGS ON THEM.

ALL RIGHT. THAT WAS PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT?

148.

MRS. ROBERTSON, PEOPLE'S 148, WAS THAT THE CELL PHONE RECORDS?

YES.

ALL RIGHT. IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION, MR. DOUGLAS, WE WILL SUBSTITUTE -- SUBSTITUTE THE CLEAN COPY FOR 148.

ALL RIGHT. WE ARE NOW REJOINED BY MR. DARDEN. ALL RIGHT. MR. DOUGLAS, ANYTHING ELSE WE NEED TO TAKE UP BEFORE WE INVITE THE JURORS TO JOIN US?

I DO HAVE A MATTER, YOUR HONOR, THAT I DO THINK MERITS SOME CONCERN AND ATTENTION BY THE COURT. YOUR HONOR, AS THE COURT WILL RECALL, ON MONDAY THERE HAD BEEN AN OBJECTION LODGED TO A QUESTION ASKED BY MISS CLARK OF MR. KAELIN. THE QUESTION CONCERNED WHETHER OR NOT MR. KAELIN HAD BEEN TOLD BY MR. SIMPSON THAT HE HAD HAD AN ANGRY ARGUMENT WITH HIS FORMER WIFE EARLIER THAT DAY. THERE HAD BEEN AN OBJECTION LODGED BY MR. SHAPIRO ARGUING THAT A GOOD FAITH BASIS FOR THAT QUESTION HAD NOT EXISTED AND THERE HAD BEEN AN OFFER OF PROOF MADE BY MISS CLARK AT SIDE BAR. I HAVE HAD OCCASION, YOUR HONOR, LAST NIGHT, TO REVIEW THOSE PARTICULAR RECORDS AND ALSO TO REVIEW A TRANSCRIPT OF THE SIDE BAR HEARING WHICH HAS BEEN COVERED QUITE BROADLY IN MANY OF THE MEDIA YESTERDAY, AND I'M TROUBLED, YOUR HONOR, BY SOME OF THE REPRESENTATIONS THAT WERE MADE AND THAT APPARENTLY FORMED THE BASIS FOR THE COURT TO OVERRULE MR. SHAPIRO'S OBJECTION TO THE GOOD FAITH BASIS FOR MISS CLARK HAVING ASKED THE QUESTION. I AM REFERRING SPECIFICALLY, YOUR HONOR, TO REFERENCES THAT MISS CLARK MADE THAT THERE HAD BEEN A WITNESS THAT WOULD TESTIFY THAT MR. SIMPSON ON THAT AFTERNOON OF JUNE THE 12TH HAD BEEN ANGRY AND YELLING AND THAT THERE WAS A SUGGESTION THAT THE ONLY CONVERSATION THAT THEIR RECORDS CONFIRMED HIS HAVING AT ABOUT THE TIME THAT HE WAS AT THE RIVIERA COUNTRY CLUB WAS IN FACT A CONVERSATION THAT HE HAD HAD WITH NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON. SPECIFICALLY, THERE WAS A COLLOQUY BETWEEN THE COURT AND MISS CLARK WHERE THE COURT ASKED: "SO THERE IS ONLY ONE CELL PHONE CALL ON HIS RECORDS THAT AFTERNOON?" MISS CLARK RESPONDS: "THAT WOULD MATCH THE TIME THAT HE WAS AT THE COUNTRY CLUB WHEN THIS WITNESS COULD HAVE SEEN HIM." THE COURT THEN ASKS: "WHEN YOU SAY 'MATCH THE TIME,' I MEAN ARE THERE OTHER CELL PHONE CALLS IN THE AFTERNOON?" MISS CLARK RESPONDS: "OTHER CELL PHONE CALLS BUT NOT WITHIN THE TIME FRAME WHEN HE WAS AT THE COUNTRY CLUB. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN?" AND THE COURT RESPONDS: "UH-HUH." YOUR HONOR, IN REVIEWING THE CELL PHONE RECORDS OF MR. SIMPSON ON THAT DAY, I NOTED THAT THERE WERE TWELVE PARTICULAR -- I'M SORRY, SEVEN PARTICULAR CALLS THAT OCCURRED ON HIS CELL PHONE BETWEEN 2:12 IN THE AFTERNOON AND 2:24 IN THE AFTERNOON. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE TIME FRAME THAT HE WAS AT THE COUNTRY CLUB. OF THOSE SEVEN CALLS THE THIRD OF THE SEVEN WAS THE FOUR-MINUTE CALL TO NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON ABOUT WHICH SHE REFERRED, MISS CLARK REFERRED. THAT MEANT, YOUR HONOR, THAT THERE WERE SIX OTHER CALLS OF MAYBE ONE OR TWO-MINUTE DURATION THAT WERE WITHIN THE TIME FRAME THAT COULD WELL HAVE BEEN ONE OF THE CALLS WHEN THE WITNESS SUPPOSEDLY SAW MR. SIMPSON ON THE PHONE, BUT IS DIRECTLY CONTRARY TO THE SUGGESTION OF MISS CLARK THAT THERE WAS ONLY ONE CALL THAT OCCURRED WITHIN THE TIME FRAME WHEN HE WAS AT THE COUNTRY CLUB. I'M ALSO TROUBLED, YOUR HONOR, BECAUSE IN REVIEWING A STATEMENT FROM THAT WITNESS THAT PROVIDED THE BASIS I'M SURE FOR MISS CLARK TO ARGUE THAT SHE HAD A GOOD FAITH BELIEF THAT MR. SIMPSON WAS ANGRY AND WAS YELLING ON THAT CONVERSATION, I SEE THAT THERE WAS NO REFERENCE AT ALL IN THE ENTIRE POLICE STATEMENT THAT MR. SIMPSON WAS YELLING, THAT HE WAS VERY ANGRY. INDEED, THE ONLY STATEMENT THAT IS WRITTEN IS THAT "O.J. APPEARED SERIOUS CONVERSATION, STERN FACE, DIFFERENT FACE, STRIKING A DIFFERENT O.J." AND WE HAD AN OCCASION TO SPEAK WITH THE WITNESS HERSELF YESTERDAY EVENING AND WHEN SHE WAS INFORMED THAT THERE WAS A SUGGESTION THAT SHE WOULD TESTIFY THAT MR. SIMPSON WAS ANGRY AND WAS YELLING, SHE WAS SOMEWHAT DISAPPOINTED THAT HER STATEMENTS TO THE POLICE COULD BE SO MISCONSTRUED BECAUSE SHE REFERRED TO THE FACT THAT TYPICALLY WHEN MR. SIMPSON WOULD GREET THIS INDIVIDUAL HE WOULD CALL HER HONEY BUNNY OR SOME SORT OF ENDEARING TERM AND ON THAT PARTICULAR DAY HE WAS SIMPLY ENGAGED IN SOME SORT OF CONVERSATION AND DID NOT ACKNOWLEDGE HER IN THAT TYPICAL WAY. AND THAT WAS THE ONLY SENSE THAT SHE WAS ATTEMPTING TO CONVEY IN TERMS OF THERE BEING A DIFFERENT O.J., BUT THAT HE WAS NEVER VERY ANGRY, HE WAS NEVER YELLING. I AM THEN THEREFORE, YOUR HONOR, TROUBLED BY THIS ERROR, BECAUSE IT APPEARS THAT IT WAS THE REPRESENTATION THAT GAVE THE COURT --

-- IT APPEARED THAT IT WAS THE REPRESENTATION THAT GAVE THE COURT THE BELIEF THAT THE QUESTION BEING ASKED WAS IN GOOD FAITH AND THAT THERE WAS IN FACT A BASIS FOR HER TO SUGGEST IN FRONT OF THE JURY TO MR. KAELIN THAT THERE HAD BEEN AN ARGUMENT BETWEEN MR. SIMPSON AND MISS BROWN SIMPSON. THE CALL THAT OCCURRED WAS ONLY A FOUR-MINUTE CALL. WE HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE CALL CONCERNED SIMPLY AN ARRANGEMENT OF TICKETS FOR THE RECITAL BETWEEN MR. SIMPSON AND MISS BROWN SIMPSON WHO HAD IN FACT THE TICKETS IN HER POSSESSION AT THAT TIME. THERE WERE SIX OTHER CALLS THAT OCCURRED WITHIN THE SAME TIME FRAME. THERE APPEARS TO BE A MISREPRESENTATION TO THE COURT. I WOULD ARGUE, YOUR HONOR, THAT THIS MISREPRESENTATION TO THE COURT, GIVEN THAT IT OCCURRED IN A QUESTION THAT WAS POSED TO MR. KAELIN, TO WHICH THERE WAS AN OBJECTION, MERITS SOME SORT OF A STERN REMEDY. I WOULD ARGUE, YOUR HONOR, THAT THE REMEDY THAT WE WOULD SEEK FOR THIS TRANSGRESSION WOULD BE FIRST A STERN ADMONISHMENT TO MISS CLARK TO BE VERY CAREFUL IN HER QUESTIONING IN FRONT OF THE JURY. SECOND, THAT THERE BE AN ADMONISHMENT TO THE JURY THAT LAWYERS MUST HAVE A GOOD FAITH BASIS BEFORE ASKING A PARTICULAR QUESTION TO A WITNESS AND THE COURT FINDS THAT THERE WAS A QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED OF MR. KAELIN CONCERNING MR. SIMPSON APPARENTLY BEING ENGAGED IN AN ARGUMENT WITH HIS WIFE THAT WAS NOT ASKED IN GOOD FAITH AND THAT THE JURY IS SUPPOSED TO -- IS DIRECTED TO DISREGARD THE QUESTION AND THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE QUESTION BECAUSE IT WAS OFFERED IN BAD FAITH. AND I DO THINK, YOUR HONOR, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THAT THIS IS A TRANSGRESSION THAT MERITS SOME SORT OF A FINANCIAL SANCTION SO AS TO FULLY IMPRESS UPON EVERYONE IN THIS CASE THE OBLIGATIONS TO PLAY FAIR AND THAT IT IS CLEAR FROM MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, I KNOW, THAT A FINANCIAL SANCTION CERTAINLY CATCHES ONE'S ATTENTION. THE COURT HAS SUGGESTED ITS NEW POLICY OF IMPOSING SANCTIONS FOR SPEAKING OBJECTIONS, AND I THINK THAT THAT HAS RESULTED IN THEIR HAVING BEEN A GREAT SHORTAGE OF SPEAKING OBJECTIONS NOW, AND I THINK -- AND I'M NOT ONE WHO FREELY AND EASILY ASKS THE COURT TO IMPOSE SANCTIONS ON ANOTHER COUNSEL OF A FINANCIAL NATURE, BUT I THINK THIS IS NOT THE FIRST OCCASION THAT WE HAVE WITNESSED OCCURRENCES OF THIS KIND BEFORE THE JURY. I AM TROUBLED BY THAT AND I WOULD HOPE THAT SOMETHING COULD BE DONE SO THAT WE COULD OBVIATE THE NEED FOR THESE SORTS OF OCCURRENCES TO BE RAISED IN THE FUTURE.

THANK YOU, COUNSEL. MR. DARDEN.

YOUR HONOR, CAN I SHOW YOU THE CELLULAR PHONE BILL?

AND CAN I SHOW YOU THE STATEMENT?

SURE.

THANK YOU.

AND YOUR HONOR, IF I MAY BE HEARD BRIEFLY? IT HAS BEEN REMINDED TO ME THAT THE STATEMENT OF THE WITNESS SUGGESTED THAT THE CONVERSATION HAD OCCURRED AT APPROXIMATELY FOUR O'CLOCK ON THAT EVENING, AND AS THE COURT WILL SEE BY LOOKING AT THE PHONE RECORDS, THERE WAS NO CELLULAR PHONE CALL MADE AT APPROXIMATELY FOUR O'CLOCK THAT DAY.

WHICH IS OUR POINT EXACTLY. MISS ARTOONIAN COULD NOT BE EXACT ON THE TIME ON WHICH SHE OBSERVED THE DEFENDANT UPSET AND ANIMATED WHILE TALKING ON THE CELLULAR PHONE AT THE RIVIERA COUNTRY CLUB, BUT WE DO KNOW THAT HE WAS THERE AT 2:18 IN THE AFTERNOON. AS FOR THOSE 1.0, 2.0 MINUTE CALLS, THE CELLULAR PHONE COMPANY CAN TELL YOU, LIKE THEY HAVE TOLD US, THAT THIS DOESN'T MEAN THAT HE SPOKE TO ANYONE. ANYONE WHO HAS A CELLULAR PHONE CAN TELL YOU THAT AS WELL. WE STAND BY OUR REPRESENTATION. WE HAVE TALKED TO MISS ARTOONIAN. WHEN SHE TESTIFIES, HER TESTIMONY WILL BE VERY MUCH AS I BELIEVE AS WE REPRESENTED TO THE COURT. MISS ARTOONIAN CALLED US LAST NIGHT AND TOLD US THAT THE DEFENSE HAD CALLED HER AND ASKED HER ABOUT THE STATEMENT AND SHE SAID SHE STOOD BY HER STATEMENT, AND THAT APPARENTLY WAS THE GIST OF THE CONVERSATION THAT SHE HAD WITH THE DEFENSE. ON THE ISSUE OF GOOD FAITH, I HAVE SAT HERE THROUGHOUT THIS TRIAL AND I HAVE SEEN MANY, MANY INSTANCES OF BAD FAITH QUESTIONING ON THE PART OF THE DEFENSE; HOWEVER, I RECOGNIZE THAT THAT SOMETIMES IS SIMPLY THE NATURE OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LITIGATION. TIME AND TIME AGAIN THE DEFENSE HAS SUGGESTED THAT THE BLOOD AT ROCKINGHAM WAS PLANTED BY THE POLICE WHEN EVEN THEY KNOW BY THE DEFENDANT'S OWN STATEMENT THAT HE WAS BLEEDING AT ROCKINGHAM PRIOR TO LEAVING FOR THE AIRPORT THAT NIGHT. EVERY TIME THEY MAKE THAT SUGGESTION TO THIS JURY AND TO THIS COURT THEY MAKE IT IN BAD FAITH. THIS IS A NON-ISSUE.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. I WOULD LIKE TO READ THE -- CAREFULLY THE STATEMENT AND REVIEW THE PHONE RECORDS WHEN I HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY. I WOULD LIKE TO USE THE TIME WITH MR. PARK, HOWEVER, IN FRONT OF THE JURY AT THIS TIME, AND SINCE THIS ISSUE DOES NOT INVOLVE THIS PARTICULAR WITNESS, I WILL TAKE THIS UP AT A LATER TIME.

YOUR HONOR, WOULD THE COURT LIKE TO SEE A COPY OF THE SIDE BAR WHERE THAT PORTION WAS REFERENCED?

YES, THAT WILL HELP ME IMMENSELY, TOO, IF YOU WILL GIVE THAT TO ME LATER. ALL RIGHT. BUT I DO WANT A COPY OF EACH OF THOSE ITEMS.

ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE THE JURY, PLEASE, AND WE WILL TAKE ONE TEN-MINUTE RECESS AT 11:00.

WE WANTED TO LODGE AN OBJECTION TO THE BAGS BEFORE THEY ARE SHOWN TO THE JURY.

OKAY. HOLD THE JURY. HOLD THE JURY. MR. DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN.

WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO INTRODUCING TO THE WITNESS THE GOLF CLUBS AND BAG AND THE LOUIS VITTON BAG, HOWEVER AS FOR THE OTHER TIMES, IT APPEARS THAT --

THE WITNESS IS HERE. I'M SORRY.

MR. PARK, WHY DON'T YOU STEP OUTSIDE, PLEASE.

MR. DARDEN.

THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE DEFENSE PRESENTING TO THE WITNESS THE GOLF CLUB BAG, THE LOUIS VITTON BAG OR THE DUFFEL BAG ENROUTE FROM THE GRAND JURY; HOWEVER, THE OTHER TWO BAGS, THE BLACK GARMENT BAG AND THE SMALL BROWN LEATHER BAG WITH THE BLUE TRIM, WE DO HAVE OBJECTIONS TO BRINGING THOSE TO THE WITNESS. AND NO WITNESS HAS DESCRIBED EITHER ONE OF THOSE TWO BAGS DURING THEIR TESTIMONY. AND AS THE COURT NOTED IN CHAMBERS, THE SMALLER BAG APPEARS TO BE BRAND NEW AND IT HAS THE KEYS STILL ATTACHED TO IT, AS WELL AS THE TAG.

MR. COCHRAN.

YES. IF I MIGHT, YOUR HONOR, I THINK, FIRST OF ALL, WITH REGARD TO THE BLACK GARMENT BAG, THE BAG WITH THE "O.J.S." ON IT, I THINK WE COULD CERTAINLY REASONABLY UNDERSTAND THAT IF THAT BAG WAS FULL WITH CLOTHES AND FOLDED OVER IT WOULD VERY CLOSELY MATCH THE DESCRIPTION WE HAVE DESCRIBED OF A SECOND BLACK DUFFEL BAG.

AND I THINK THE BEST WAY TO FIND OUT OBVIOUSLY IS TO ASK THE WITNESS. I MEAN, THIS IS WHY THIS WITNESS IS HERE. WE DON'T WANT TO BRING EVERYBODY BACK FOUR OR FIVE TIMES. AND I THINK THE BAG NOW IS EMPTY, BUT IF HE HAD CLOTHES IN IT, AS YOU WOULD EXPECT IF SOMEONE WAS TAKING A TRIP, I THINK IT BECOMES VERY RELEVANT, AND THE BEST WAY IS TO ASK THE WITNESS. WITH REGARDS TO THE OTHER BAG AND THE NEWNESS OF THE BAG, MR. SIMPSON HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO GO BACK OUT AND PICK OUT WHICH BAG OR WHATEVER. HE HAS BEEN IN CUSTODY. WITH REGARD, HOWEVER, YOU WILL NOTICE EVEN THE GOLF CLUBS STILL HAVE THE LABELS. THAT IS OF NO MOMENT. AND THE GOLF CLUBS HAVE OBVIOUSLY BEEN USED, SO THE FACT THAT IT LOOKS NEW OR HAS SOME KEYS ON IT I THINK IS NOT OF ANY MOMENT. THE QUESTION IS CAN THIS WITNESS DESCRIBE THESE? BECAUSE AFTER ALL, WE WERE NOT OUT THERE AND WE CAN'T PUT OUR JUDGMENT IN THIS. WE HAVE TO ASK THE WITNESS WHO WAS THERE.

ALL RIGHT. AT THIS POINT I'M INCLINED TO SUSTAIN THE PROSECUTION OBJECTION UNTIL THE WITNESS TESTIFIES DESCRIBING THESE ITEMS IN PARTICULARITY, ANYTHING THAT EVEN COMES CLOSE TO THESE ITEMS.

I AM NOT VERY CLEAR YOUR HONOR. YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT JUST THE TWO ITEMS?

THAT'S CORRECT.

ALL RIGHT. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I KNEW WHAT YOU WERE SAYING.

WE HAVE HEARD A LOT THIS MORNING ABOUT GOOD FAITH AND I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO INQUIRE OF THE DEFENSE. IS IT THEIR CONTENTION THAT THAT SMALL LEATHER BAG, THE ONE WITH THE BLUE TAG, IS THE BAG MR. SIMPSON CARRIED?

ACTUALLY IT IS A BLUE BAG WITH BROWN LEATHER TRIM.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

IS IT THEIR CONTENTION THAT THE WITNESS (SIC) CARRIED THAT BAG ON THE PLANE? IF NOT, THEY ARE ACTING IN BAD FAITH. WHY INTRODUCE IT TO THE WITNESS? THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH AND WE SHOULDN'T BE TRYING TO TRICK WITNESSES TO GET TO THEM SAY SOMETHING THAT MIGHT AFFECT THEIR CREDIBILITY.

NOBODY IS TRYING --

THAT SEEMS TO BE WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO DO.

NOBODY IS TRYING TO TRICK ANYBODY. WITH ALL THEIR SEARCH WARRANT POWERS AND ALL THE THINGS THEY DID, THEY NEVER EVEN TRIED TO FIND THESE BAGS, JUST TALK ABOUT IT AND THROW ALL THESE THEORIES UP. LET'S NOT TRY AND TALK ABOUT TRICKING ANYBODY. WE ARE THE ONES, WITH THE COURT'S INDULGENCE AND HELP, WHO BROUGHT THESE BAGS IN HERE. YOU WILL ALLOW SOME FURTHER QUESTIONING AND WE WILL FIND OUT. I WASN'T THERE AND NEITHER WAS MR. DARDEN, SO CLEARLY THE WITNESS IS THE ONE WHO IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO TELL US WHETHER OR NOT THIS COMPORTS WITH HIS DESCRIPTION AND HIS RECOLLECTION THAT NIGHT. THAT IS ALL WE ARE TYING TO DO.

WE HOPE TO PRESENT MORE EVIDENCE TOMORROW RELATIVE TO WHAT HAPPENED TO THE BAG IN WHICH THE BLOODY CLOTHES WERE CARRIED IN AND TONIGHT I HOPE TO PRESENT TO THE DEFENSE DISCOVERY ON THAT ISSUE AS SOON AS IT COMES INTO OUR POSSESSION. IN ANY EVENT, WE SHOULDN'T BE TRYING TO TRICK WITNESSES.

ALL RIGHT. I NOTED THE OBJECTION. I SUSTAINED THE OBJECTION. UNLESS I HEAR A BETTER FOUNDATION, I HAVE INDICATED THAT I'M SUSTAINING --

YOU RULED AND AS USUAL THEY ARE TRYING TO GIVE A SOUND BITE FOR WHAT MIGHT BE OR FOR WHAT HE HOPES IS GOING TO HAPPEN. THEIR WHOLE CASE IS BASED UPON HOPES AND DREAMS AND THEY'RE EVAPORATING.

COUNSEL, THE REPARTEE IS NOT NECESSARY. ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE.