ALL RIGHT. BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. MR. SIMPSON IS AGAIN 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. ALSO PRESENT, MR. WALSH FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, MR. TOURTELOT ON BEHALF OF MR. FUHRMAN. COUNSEL, THE FIRST MATTER WE HAVE ON THE COURT'S CALENDAR TODAY IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE -- OR A CONTINUATION OF THE PITCHESS MOTION REGARDING DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. MR. DOUGLAS.
YOUR HONOR, THERE REALLY IS, AS I SEE IT, NO REAL BASIS TO CHALLENGE THE RELEVANCE OF THE SOUGHT INFORMATION AND THE FACT THAT IN FACT THIS INFORMATION WOULD BE CRITICAL TO A FULL CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MR. FUHRMAN. I THINK, YOUR HONOR, IN THIS REGARD, IT WILL BE IMPORTANT TO REVIEW NOT ONLY THE PERSONNEL FILES FROM PARKER CENTER, BUT ANY RELEVANT PERSONNEL FILES FROM WEST LOS ANGELES AS WELL. I'M UNSURE WHETHER THE COURT HAD THE BENEFIT OF REVIEWING EACH OF THE SEPARATE PERSONNEL FILES LAST FALL WHEN THE COURT REVIEWED AND VISITED THIS QUESTION EARLIER CONCERNING MR. FUHRMAN, BUT I SPECIFICALLY IN THIS MOTION -- THIS AMENDED MOTION, SOUGHT TO HAVE THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATORY FILES OF EACH PARTICULAR OFFICE, BECAUSE I AM INFORMED THAT IT IS THE PRACTICE OF THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT TO RETAIN A PERSONNEL FILE AT THE LOCAL DIVISION LEVEL AND A SEPARATE FILE DOWNTOWN AT PARKER CENTER. THERE ARE, YOUR HONOR, I BELIEVE, THREE AREAS OF INQUIRY THAT I DO NOT THINK THERE IS REALLY ANY DISPUTE TO THE WISDOM OF HAVING AN IN CAMERA REVIEW, AND ALL THAT WE ARE SEEKING BY THIS MOTION AGAIN IS AN IN CAMERA REVIEW. I THINK THAT THE COURT CAN TAKE NOTICE OF THE RECORD THAT WAS MADE IN THE OTHER HEARING, THE CHALLENGES THAT WERE MADE THERE AS TO THE PROPRIETY OF EXAMINING THE PERSONNEL FILE OF MR. FUHRMAN AND WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE ISSUES OF RELEVANCE THAT MAY BE GERMANE TO DISCOVERY. THE THREE AREAS THAT WE ARE SEEKING, THOUGH, CONCERNS AN INVESTIGATION THAT WAS PUBLISHED THAT WAS CONDUCTED BY THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS DIVISION AFTER MR. TOOBIN'S ARTICLE WAS RELEASED IN THE NEWYORKER MAGAZINE. THE DETAILS OF THAT INVESTIGATION, YOUR HONOR, WILL IMPEACH WITNESSES WHO MAY WELL TESTIFY IN THE FUTURE, BUT MAY ALSO BE VERY GERMANE TO OUR ATTEMPTS TO FURTHER IMPEACH WITNESSES WHO HAVE TESTIFIED IN THE PAST. I AM STRUCK, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT OFFICERS RISKI, ROSSI, LANGE AND PHILLIPS WERE ALL PRESENT AT THE SCENE BEFORE THE ARRIVAL OR NEAR IN TIME TO THE ARRIVAL OF MR. FUHRMAN, AND I AM CERTAIN OR I SUSPECT THAT EACH OF THESE OFFICERS WERE AMONG THE FOURTEEN OR SO THAT WERE INTERVIEWED IN CONNECTION WITH THAT EARLIER INVESTIGATION. I THINK IT ALSO VERY IMPORTANT, YOUR HONOR, THAT THE INVESTIGATION OVER THE POSSESSION OF SOME CARTOON OR OTHER PICTURE THAT MAY HAVE INCLUDED A NAZI-LIKE SYMBOL OR INSIGNIA IS ANOTHER MATTER THAT HAS SOME POSSIBLE RELEVANCE TO A FULL CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MR. FUHRMAN. THIS INFORMATION, AS THE COURT IS AWARE, CAME TO EVERYONE'S KNOWLEDGE THROUGH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WHO INFORMED BOTH COUNSEL AND THE COURT OF THEIR AWARENESS OF THIS INVESTIGATION. WE WERE ALSO INFORMED IN CHAMBERS OF THE D.A.'S AWARENESS OF AN INVESTIGATION THAT OCCURRED OVER STATEMENTS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY MR. FUHRMAN SUGGESTING THAT MR. FUHRMAN MAY HAVE HAD SOME INTIMATE KNOWLEDGE OF MISS BROWN SIMPSON OR IN FACT PORTIONS OF HER ANATOMY. CLEARLY BOTH AREAS OF INQUIRY ARE VERY GERMANE TO THE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE PUT FORWARD AND TO THE AREAS THAT THE COURT HAS ALREADY RULED IS RELEVANT. AS TO THE THIRD AREA, CERTAINLY IF IN FACT THERE IS ANY PROOF THAT THERE WAS SOME PERSONAL CONTACT OR ACQUAINTANCESHIP BETWEEN MR. FUHRMAN AND MISS SIMPSON, THAT WOULD BE VERY PROBATIVE IN PROVIDING PERHAPS SOME BIAS OR BASIS FOR BIAS OR BASIS FOR SOME OTHER ILL WILL OR MOTIVE AGAINST MR. SIMPSON IN PARTICULAR. CERTAINLY IF THERE IS SOMETHING TO SUGGEST THAT MR. FUHRMAN WAS IN POSSESSION OF SOME NAZI-LIKE SYMBOL OR OTHER CARTOON OR IN ANY OTHER CONTEXT, THAT ALSO WOULD BE VERY RELEVANT TO OUR CLAIM THAT MR. FUHRMAN MAY WELL HARBOR CERTAIN RACIAL ATTITUDES OR THOUGHTS OR OPINIONS THAT MIGHT BE CONTRARY TO A FAIR AIRING OF THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE AND THAT MIGHT BE VERY RELEVANT TO A JURY'S ASSESSMENT OF HIS CREDIBILITY AS A WITNESS. I THINK THAT THERE IS NO CHALLENGE THAT THESE INVESTIGATIONS EXISTED. I THINK THERE CAN BE NO REAL CONTRAVENTION THAT IN FACT IT IS NECESSARY FOR A FULL EXAMINATION OF MR. FUHRMAN THAT WE RECEIVE THESE DOCUMENTS. THESE ARE NOT MATTERS THAT WE ARE ON A FISHING EXPEDITION ABOUT OR PULLING OUT OF THIN AIR. IN TWO OF THE THREE AREAS WE WERE INFORMED BY THE D.A.'S OFFICE THAT IN FACT THESE INVESTIGATIONS HAD RECENTLY BEEN COMPLETED AND THAT THE ONLY MECHANISM BY WHICH THE DOCUMENTS COULD BE OBTAINED WOULD BE BY THE FILING OF THIS MOTION.
GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. I HAVE A COUPLE POINTS UPON WHICH I AGREE WITH MR. DOUGLAS AND A COUPLE THAT I DISAGREE. FIRST OF ALL, I CERTAINLY AGREE THAT IT IS APPROPRIATE TO HAVE AN IN CAMERA REVIEW OF ANY DOCUMENTS WHICH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT MIGHT POSSESS WHICH BEAR ON THE MATTERS RAISED BY MR. DOUGLAS' MOTION. SECOND, I AGREE THAT THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF A PREVIOUSLY HELD PITCHESS MOTION. WE ARE NOT CHALLENGING MATERIALITY; HOWEVER, A DETERMINATION OF RELEVANCE, UNLIKE MR. DOUGLAS' POSITION, WILL BE MADE BY YOU IN CHAMBERS PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 1043 AND 1045. AND ASSUMING THAT THERE ARE DOCUMENTS WHICH RELATE TO THE MATTERS DESCRIBED IN MR. DOUGLAS' MOTION, I HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT THE COURT WILL MAKE THAT DETERMINATION OF RELEVANCE AFTER IT HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THOSE DOCUMENTS. AND WE ARE PREPARED AT THIS TIME TO GO IN CHAMBERS AT THE COURT'S CONVENIENCE.
ONLY TO SAY, YOUR HONOR, THAT I AM CONFIDENT THE COURT WILL FIND NOTHING WITHIN ANY OF THESE FILES TO BE RELEVANT TO THESE PROCEEDINGS.
GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. BASICALLY I ECHO WHAT MR. WALSH SAID. WITH RESPECT TO THE PERSONNEL FILES, WE HAVE NO OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, AS WE DIDN'T HAVE AN OBJECTION IN AUGUST, REVIEWING IN CAMERA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EVIDENCE CODE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S PERSONNEL RECORDS. WE DIDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM THEN AND WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM NOW. AS TO THE ALLEGED RUMORS THAT ARE PART OF AN ALLEGED INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATION, WE DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT. I ONLY KNOW WHAT I READ IN THE PAPER. ONE OF THE RUMORS WAS THAT -- THAT --
WITH RESPECT TO THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATION, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAS NO INFORMATION AS TO WHAT THOSE ARE ABOUT. I HAVE NO INFORMATION. AS YOUR HONOR KNOWS, INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATIONS, IF ONE IS TAKING PLACE, GO ON IN A PROCESS. THEY INTERVIEW DIFFERENT OFFICERS TO ASK THAT -- THAT THE COURT ORDER THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS DIVISION OF THE LAPD TO RELEASE WHATEVER MATERIAL THEY HAVE AS TO AN INVESTIGATION THAT MAY BE IN PROCESS WOULD BE VERY UNFAIR TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, IF INDEED IT WAS ABOUT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. THESE ARE ONLY RUMORS, UNSUBSTANTIATED RUMORS. AND I WOULD SAY WITH RESPECT TO THE PERSONNEL FILES, WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO YOUR HONOR REVIEWING THOSE IN CAMERA. WE DIDN'T THE LAST TIME. AND I AM CONFIDENT YOUR HONOR WILL FIND THERE IS NOTHING IN THOSE FILES THAT WILL BE RELEVANT TO THESE PROCEEDINGS. BUT TO START DIGGING INTO INTERNAL AFFAIRS IN CONNECTION WITH AN INVESTIGATION THAT IS IN SOME STAGE OF -- OF INVESTIGATION, IS TERRIBLY UNFAIR. WAIT UNTIL IT IS COMPLETED, IF IN FACT THERE IS SUCH AN INVESTIGATION. THESE ARE JUST UNSUBSTANTIATED RUMORS THAT WERE FLOATED UP AND ALL OF A SUDDEN I READ IN THE L.A. TIMES THAT INTERNAL AFFAIRS IS ALLEGEDLY INVESTIGATING RUMORS WITH RESPECT TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.
SO I WOULD ASK THAT YOU DENY THE MOTION AS TO THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS AND THAT YOU WOULD REVIEW DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S PERSONNEL RECORDS IN CAMERA.
BRIEFLY, YOUR HONOR. MR. TOURTELOT WASN'T PRIVY TO THE CONVERSATIONS IN CHAMBERS WHICH GAVE RISE TO THE FILING OF THIS MOTION, BUT WE WERE NOTIFIED BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE THAT THERE WAS AN INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATION AND IT HAD BEEN HOPED THAT THE D.A.'S OFFICE WOULD BE ABLE THEMSELVES TO OBTAIN THE RESULTS OF THAT INVESTIGATION AT ITS CONCLUSION. ONCE THE INVESTIGATION HAD BEEN CONCLUDED, WE WERE THEN NOTIFIED BY THE D.A.'S OFFICE THAT WE WOULD BE UNABLE -- THEY WOULD BE UNABLE TO OBTAIN THE RESULTS OF THAT INVESTIGATION SAVE FOR BY THE FILING OF THIS MOTION, AND IT WAS NOT ANY RUMORS BUT OUR BEING PLACED ON NOTICE BY THE D.A.'S OFFICE THAT THERE WAS THIS INVESTIGATION, THAT IT HAD BEEN CONCLUDED AND THAT THE ONLY WAY THAT THE RESULTS WOULD BE RELEASED WOULD BE BY THE FILING OF THIS MOTION THAT INSTITUTED THIS PROCEDURE TODAY. AND WE ARE SPECIFICALLY LOOKING AT THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS DIVISION AND THOSE RECORDS AND THAT WAS SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED IN MY REQUEST.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. DOUGLAS. MISS CLARK, LET ME ASK YOU, WHEN DO YOU ANTICIPATE, IN THE SCHEME OF THINGS, ASSUMING THAT WE FINISH DETECTIVE LANGE TODAY, WHEN DO YOU ANTICIPATE CALLING DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AS A WITNESS?
ALL RIGHT. MR. WALSH, THEN WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS I ANTICIPATE IT WILL TAKE US THE REMAINDER OF THE MORNING, AT THE VERY LEAST, TO CONCLUDE DETECTIVE LANGE. WE HAVE NOT FINISHED CROSS-EXAMINATION AND WE HAVE REDIRECT, RECROSS.
RE, RE, RE. OKAY. WHAT I'M GOING TO DO -- MR. WALSH, IS THE CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS PRESENT?
SERGEANT ROSE, I'M GOING TO ORDER YOU TO RETURN TO THIS COURTROOM AT 12:00 NOON WITH THE PERSONNEL RECORDS THAT HAVE BEEN MENTIONED. SERGEANT ROSE: YES.
COUNSEL, I WILL CONDUCT THE IN CAMERA REVIEW AT NOONTIME. I WOULD LIKE TO START WITH THE JURY AND GET THAT DONE AND THEN I WILL CONDUCT THE IN CAMERA REVIEW OVER THE LUNCH HOUR. ANYTHING ELSE?
ALL RIGHT. MR. COCHRAN, MISS CLARK, ANYTHING WE NEED TO DISCUSS BEFORE WE INVITE THE JURORS TO REJOIN US?
WE WERE ALSO INFORMED IN CHAMBERS OF THE D.A.'S AWARENESS OF AN INVESTIGATION THAT OCCURRED OVER STATEMENTS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY MR. FUHRMAN SUGGESTING THAT MR. FUHRMAN MAY HAVE HAD SOME INTIMATE KNOWLEDGE OF MISS BROWN SIMPSON OR IN FACT PORTIONS OF HER ANATOMY.
I AM CONFIDENT THE COURT WILL FIND NOTHING WITHIN ANY OF THESE FILES TO BE RELEVANT TO THESE PROCEEDINGS.
THESE ARE ONLY RUMORS, UNSUBSTANTIATED RUMORS. AND I WOULD SAY WITH RESPECT TO THE PERSONNEL FILES, WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO YOUR HONOR REVIEWING THOSE IN CAMERA.
IT WAS NOT ANY RUMORS BUT OUR BEING PLACED ON NOTICE BY THE D.A.'S OFFICE THAT THERE WAS THIS INVESTIGATION, THAT IT HAD BEEN CONCLUDED AND THAT THE ONLY WAY THAT THE RESULTS WOULD BE RELEASED WOULD BE BY THE FILING OF THIS MOTION.