Sidebar: annoying phone calls

📄 Sidebar: annoying phone calls — Monday, March 6, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\MAR\6\SIDEBAR-ANNOYING-PHONE-CALLS.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 31 of 167

◀ Cross-examination of Tom Lange (afternoon, part 8) Cross-examination of Tom Lange (afternoon, part 9) ▶

Date: Monday, March 6, 1995 • Utterances: 37

Defense attorney Cochran attempted to cross-examine an investigator about a 1992 report of annoying/sexual phone calls to Nicole Brown Simpson, arguing the identity of the suspect was relevant. Judge Ito sustained the objection under People v. Hall, ruling the defense failed to establish a sufficient link between the phone caller and the murders, and told Cochran to review the case law overnight.

# 1 THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT. OVER AT THE SIDE BAR. THE OBJECTION IS RELEVANCE?

# 2 MR. COCHRAN:

AS AN OFFER OF PROOF, IN A CASE WHERE THE INVESTIGATOR IS GOING TO LOOK AT REPORTS FROM 1992 OF HAVING ANNOYING PHONE CALLS WHERE A MALE WOULD CALL UP AND MAKE ALL KIND OF SEXUAL TERRIBLE THINGS, AND I THINK THAT IS RELEVANT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF IN '92 IF THIS HAPPENS, WHETHER OR NOT HE KNEW ABOUT THIS OR LOOKED AT THIS, AND THE POSSIBLE SUSPECT, AND THERE WAS A SUSPECT IN THAT MATTER. CERTAINLY THAT IS RELEVANT.

# 3 MS. CLARK:

AND THE CASE WAS CLOSED AND IT WAS CLEARED.

# 4 MR. COCHRAN:

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS? SHE WAS KILLED TWO YEARS LATER AND THEY ARE GOING BACK TO '89? WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HERE? I AM NOT PERMITTED TO GO INTO AND ASK ABOUT THAT?

# 5 MS. CLARK:

A CASE THAT OCCURRED TWO YEARS AGO, WAS CLEARED TWO YEARS AGO WELL. FIRST OF ALL, I DON'T REMEMBER IT BEING NEARLY AS GRAPHIC AS COUNSEL IS DESCRIBING, BUT A CASE THAT WAS RESOLVED TWO YEARS AGO AND DETERMINED TO BE NOTHING. THERE WAS NOTHING BUT AN ATTEMPT TO MISLEAD AND CONFUSE THIS JURY.

# 6 MR. COCHRAN:

THAT IS PREPOSTEROUS. THEY HAVE A REPORT OVER THERE OF ANNOYING PHONE CALLS. THEY HAVE THE NAME OF A MAN WHO SUPPOSEDLY THEY FOUND WAS MAKING THESE PHONE CALLS, AND THAT IS ABSOLUTELY RELEVANT.

# 7 THE COURT:

DO WE HAVE A HALL PROBLEM HERE?

# 8 MR. COCHRAN:

HUM?

# 9 THE COURT:

DON'T WE HAVE A HALL PROBLEM HERE?

# 10 MR. COCHRAN:

I THINK ANYBODY WHO HARASSES SOMEONE OR MAKES PHONE CALLS AND SAYS THINGS -- IS THE COURT SAYING TO ME YOU ARE LIMITED ONLY TO SOMEBODY WHO CALLS AND SAYS, "I'M GOING TO KILL YOU"?

# 11 THE COURT:

NO, NO, NO, THAT IS NOT WHAT I'M SAYING. THAT IS NOT WHAT I'M SAYING.

# 12 MR. COCHRAN:

OKAY.

# 13 THE COURT:

I'M JUST ASKING DO WE HAVE A HALL PROBLEM HERE?

# 14 MR. COCHRAN:

I'M SORRY I THOUGHT YOU SAID A CALL PROBLEM.

# 15 THE COURT:

HALL.

# 16 MS. CLARK:

HALL.

# 17 THE COURT:

HALL.

# 18 MR. COCHRAN:

I DON'T THINK SO, BUT --

# 19 MS. CLARK:

YOUR HONOR, I DON'T KNOW IF COUNSEL EVEN KNOWS WHAT THAT MEANS.

KEY QUOTE

# 20 MR. COCHRAN:

BUT I'M NOT CLEAR.

# 21 THE COURT:

WELL, COUNSEL, WE DON'T NEED TO TRADE THE PERSONAL SHOTS BACK AND FORTH.

# 22 MR. COCHRAN:

I AM NOT TALKING TO HER; I'M TALKING TO YOU.

# 23 THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT.

# 24 MR. COCHRAN:

SHE CAN DO WHATEVER SHE WANTS TO DO.

KEY QUOTE

# 25 MS. CLARK:

WE DO HAVE --

# 26 MR. COCHRAN:

I THINK WITH REGARD TO THIS, YOUR HONOR, UNDER CROSS-EXAMINATION I CAN BE PERMITTED TO ASK HIM, AS THE CO-LEAD INVESTIGATOR WHETHER OR NOT HE LOOKED AT THIS.

# 27 MS. CLARK:

YOUR HONOR --

# 28 MR. COCHRAN:

THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT WANTING TO GET OUT THE FACTS. I THINK WE HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH CROSS-EXAMINATION. THEY HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING EXCEPT LOOK AT ONE PERSON.

# 29 THE COURT:

MISS CLARK.

# 30 MS. CLARK:

YOUR HONOR, THERE HAS BEEN NO OFFER OF PROOF SHOWN YET. ALL COUNSEL IS REPEATEDLY STATING TO THE COURT IS HE HAS THE NAME OF A MAN THAT WAS FOUND TO BE THE SOURCE OF PHONE CALLS TWO YEARS PRIOR TO THE MURDERS. COUNSEL HAS MADE NO SHOWING TO THIS COURT CONCERNING HIS OPPORTUNITY OR ANY MOTIVE OR ANYTHING LIKE LINKING HIM TO THIS CRIME WHATSOEVER. UNDER HALL THIS IS EXACTLY THE KIND OF SITUATION THE COURTS HAVE FOUND TO BE INADMISSIBLE AS BEING MISLEADING AND INAPPROPRIATE FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION. IF COUNSEL CAN COME UP WITH SOME MORE INFORMATION THAT SOMEHOW LINKS THIS GUY TO THIS CASE OR LINKS HIM TO NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AT THE MOMENT RELEVANT FOR THE MURDERS, THAT IS A DIFFERENT STORY, BUT WE HAVE NOTHING HERE, NOTHING MORE THAN THE USUAL RANK SINISTER INNUENDO THROWN OUT TO MISLEAD AND CONFUSE THE JURY. THERE IS NO RELEVANCE TO THIS MAN AT ALL OR HIS NAME. IT HAS NEVER BEEN CONNECTED.

# 31 THE COURT:

AT THIS POINT I'M GOING TO SUSTAIN THE HALL OBJECTION. WHY DON'T YOU TAKE A LOOK AT IT. UNFORTUNATELY --

# 32 MR. COCHRAN:

I UNDERSTAND ABOUT HALL.

# 33 THE COURT:

LET ME JUST TELL YOU SOMETHING. YOU KNOW, OUR SCHEDULE HAS US ENDING AT 3:00 AND ONE OF THE JURORS HAS A MEDICAL APPOINTMENT AT 4:00, SO WE HAVE TO QUIT AT 3:00, I UNDERSTAND. SO YOU'VE GOT SOME TIME TO LOOK AT IT, BUT I THINK YOU'VE GOT A HALL PROBLEM.

# 34 MR. COCHRAN:

WELL, I THINK THAT I HAVE MORE OF AN OFFER OF PROOF. I HAVE THE ACTUAL REPORT HERE, BUT -- AND I THINK THAT THERE WILL BE NOT BE A HALL PROBLEM, AS I INDICATED, BUT I WILL DEAL WITH THAT.

# 35 THE COURT:

WHY DON'T YOU LOOK AT IT OVERNIGHT AND WE WILL TALK ABOUT IT TOMORROW.

# 36 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

# 37 THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. PROCEED.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (4)

Marcia Clark

NOTHING MORE THAN THE USUAL RANK SINISTER INNUENDO THROWN OUT TO MISLEAD AND CONFUSE THE JURY.

Clark frames the defense's third-party culpability tactics as a pattern, not an isolated argument.

Lance A. Ito

I THINK YOU'VE GOT A HALL PROBLEM.

The judge's repeated use of this phrase signals a clear legal barrier — People v. Hall limits third-party suspect evidence without a foundational link to the crime.

Marcia Clark

YOUR HONOR, I DON'T KNOW IF COUNSEL EVEN KNOWS WHAT THAT MEANS.

A pointed personal shot at Cochran's legal knowledge, which Ito immediately shut down.

Johnnie Cochran

SHE CAN DO WHATEVER SHE WANTS TO DO.

Cochran's dismissive response to Clark's jab, maintaining he was addressing only the judge.

Evidence (1)

Informal

1992 police report of annoying/sexual phone calls to Nicole Brown Simpson, with a named suspect

discussed, challenged — Cochran references having the actual report but it is not entered

Notable Exchanges (2)

Lance A. Ito•Johnnie Cochran

Cochran mishears 'Hall' as 'call' repeatedly, leading to a confusing back-and-forth before the legal reference is clarified.

awkward/unintentionally comic

Marcia Clark•Johnnie Cochran

Clark questions whether Cochran even understands the Hall doctrine; Ito intervenes to stop the personal attacks.

heated

Light Moments (1)

Johnnie Cochran

Cochran repeatedly mishears Judge Ito saying 'Hall problem' as 'call problem,' leading to a confused exchange before the legal case name is clarified.

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ LAPD investigator (unnamed)

omission/tunnel vision

Cochran argues the co-lead investigator should be asked whether he ever looked at the 1992 phone call report and its named suspect, implying investigative tunnel vision focused solely on OJ Simpson.

Objections

1 objections (1 sustained, 0 overruled)

Proceeding 5175 • 37 utterances

Criminal Trial

Department 103