ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I HAVE A COUPLE MATTERS I NEED TO TAKE CARE OF OUT OF YOUR PRESENCE. I'M GOING TO EXCUSE YOU FOR LUNCH NOW. PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU; DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONGST YOURSELVES, DON'T FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, DON'T CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU, DO NOT ALLOW ANYBODY TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU WITH REGARD TO THE CASE. ALL RIGHT. LET'S EXCUSE THE JURY AND LET ME SEE MR. WALSH AND ONE COUNSEL FROM EACH SIDE AT THE SIDEBAR, PLEASE.
BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. ALL PARTIES ARE AGAIN PRESENT. THE JURY IS NOT PRESENT. MR. COCHRAN, ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ADDRESS OR BRING UP BEFORE WE INVITE THE JURORS TO REJOIN US?
AND MRS. ROBERTSON, WOULD YOU ASK IF MR. HODGMAN CAN BE DOWN HERE AT 3:15 SO THAT WE CAN CLEAR UP SOME OF THOSE THINGS. MR. SCHECK, ANY ITEMS WE CAN CLEAR UP SO THAT WE CAN TURN YOU LOOSE FOR THE AFTERNOON? ANY ITEMS WE CAN CLEAR UP SO THAT WE CAN TURN YOUR LOOSE FOR THE AFTERNOON?
YES. I RESUBMITTED A LETTER TO THE COURT WITH THE TRANSCRIPT OF YESTERDAY'S TESTIMONY WITH THE WITNESS AND SOME OF THE COLLOQUY AND MADE A PROPOSED CURATIVE INSTRUCTION AND I THINK OUR LETTER SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. AND I WOULD URGE THE COURT TO GIVE THE INSTRUCTION AS WRITTEN.
YES, YOUR HONOR. THE PEOPLE HAVE ALSO SUBMITTED THE PROPOSED ADMONITION. I THINK THAT COUNSEL'S LETTER IS AN EXTREME EXAGGERATION OF BOTH THE IMPORTANCE AND THE IMPACT OF THE QUESTION AND ANSWER THAT ARE IN ISSUE AND THE REQUESTED ADMONITION GOES FAR BEYOND THE PALE OF ANYTHING NECESSARY. WE ALL KNOW THIS TESTIMONY IS GOING TO OCCUR, THIS EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE PRESENTED. COUNSEL'S PROPOSED ADMONITION MAKES IT SOUND LIKE THERE WAS A DEVASTATING THING THAT OCCURRED IN COURT YESTERDAY AND THAT IS NOT THE CASE. THAT IS SIMPLY NOT THE CASE. I THINK THAT IF ANYTHING AT ALL IS REQUIRED HERE IS THAT THE ANSWER AND THE QUESTION BE STRICKEN, PERIOD.
YOUR HONOR, JUST IN REACTION TO THAT, I THINK IT IS CLEAR FROM THE LETTER THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CURATIVE INSTRUCTION THAT WE OFFERED AND THE ONE THE PROSECUTION OFFERED IS THAT WE ARE ESSENTIALLY SAYING THAT THE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS -- THE QUESTIONS WERE IMPROPER, BUT THAT DETECTIVE LANGE DOES NOT HAVE THE SCIENTIFIC TRAINING OR QUALIFICATIONS TO STATE AN OPINION ABOUT THESE TEST RESULTS AND YOU ARE INSTRUCTED TO DISREGARD HIS ANSWERS. I THINK THAT THAT IS REASONABLE AND PLAIN, AND I THINK AS I LAY OUT IN THIS MEMO, THE PROSECUTION IS WELL AWARE OF THE SCIENTIFIC ISSUES WITH RESPECT TO THE BLOOD SCRAPINGS AND THE TESTS. THEY ARE SUBTLE AND THEY ARE COMPLICATED AND I THINK THAT THEY PLAINLY GAINED A TACTICAL ADVANTAGE HERE. AND IN LOOKING BACK AT THE RECORD, I THINK IT WAS MUCH MORE EGREGIOUS THAN ANY OF US THOUGHT. FIRST OF ALL, THE QUESTION: "ARE YOU AWARE OF THE RESULTS OF THOSE SCRAPINGS, THE DNA -- THAT THE DNA TESTS AND THE NAIL SCRAPINGS? "YES, I AM. "AND DID THAT TEST REVEAL THE BLOOD TO BE HERS? "YES." NOW, THAT QUESTION EVERYBODY KNOWS IS IMPROPER BECAUSE NO DNA TEST CAN DO THAT DEFINITIVELY, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE PROSECUTOR YESTERDAY INDICATED THAT SHE WAS TRYING TO RAISE THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE, JUST TO SHOW HOW AS OBLIQUELY -- JUST TO SHOW HOW THIS DETECTIVE'S INVESTIGATION OR THE FOCUS OF HIS INVESTIGATION CHANGED. AND THAT -- THAT REALLY CAN'T BE THE CASE, BECAUSE THESE TESTS WERE PERFORMED AFTER THE TRIAL STARTED, SO TO BE CLAIMING THAT SHE WAS ASKING THESE QUESTIONS TO FOCUS -- TO EXPLAIN HOW THE DETECTIVE'S INVESTIGATION WENT BEFORE THE TRIAL STARTED, UMM, IS ILLOGICAL AND WITHOUT ANY FACTUAL BASIS. I THINK WHAT WAS CLEARLY GOING ON IS MISS CLARK WAS TRYING TO ELICIT DNA TEST RESULTS FROM A WITNESS WHO WAS NOT QUALIFIED TO DO SO IN ORDER TO GAIN AGAIN A TACTICAL ADVANTAGE IN TERMS OF WHEN THE TESTIMONY WILL COME OUT FROM THE SCIENTIFIC WITNESSES WHERE IT WILL COME OUT QUITE DIFFERENTLY IN TERMS OF DIRECT AND CROSS OF THE PROPER WITNESSES. SO I TRIED TO CRAFT AN INSTRUCTION THAT WAS LIMITED PARTICULARLY IN LIGHT OF THE DISCOVERY VIOLATION.
IT SEEMS TO ME PERFECTLY PLAIN THAT DETECTIVE LANGE, WHO SEEMS TO HAVE FAR-RANGING EXPERTISE IN LOTS OF AREAS, BUT I'M SURE ONE OF THEM IS NOT THAT HE IS QUALIFIED TO STATE AN OPINION ABOUT THESE DNA TEST RESULTS, AND IT SEEMS FAIR TO TELL THE JURY TO DISREGARD IT, BECAUSE I THINK THAT IS THE WAY WE WERE PREJUDICED.
ONLY THAT THE CURATIVE INSTRUCTION REQUESTED IS INAPPROPRIATE. THE QUESTION WAS NEITHER INAPPROPRIATE NOR IMPROPER. THE ONLY ISSUE WAS DISCOVERY. I IN GOOD FAITH BELIEVED THAT THEY KNEW OF THESE RESULTS AND THAT IS REALLY THE ISSUE I THOUGHT THE COURT WAS ADDRESSING. AND DETECTIVE LANGE DID NOT OFFER A SCIENTIFIC OPINION OF ANY KIND. HE SIMPLY INDICATED IT DID NOT CHANGE THE FOCUS OF HIS INVESTIGATION, AND THAT HAD TO DO WITH THE IMPACT ON HIS STATE OF MIND, THE ISSUE AS TO RUSH TO JUDGMENT, THE ISSUE AS TO HIS THEORY OF THE CASE, WHICH IS CONTINUING TO BE A LINE OF CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT IS BEING ENGAGED IN BY COUNSEL. OBVIOUSLY THE RESPONSE TO THAT LINE OF QUESTIONING IS THERE IS A WEALTH OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE THAT INDICATES THAT THESE ARE NOT DRUG-RELATED KILLINGS, THAT THIS IS NOT THE RESULT OF SOME COLOMBIAN CARTEL OR SOME MAFIA KILLING AND THAT IS WHAT THIS LINE OF QUESTIONING GOES TO. IT WAS OPENED UP ON CROSS-EXAMINATION WHICH COUNSEL BEGAN TO ASK ABOUT DRUG-RELATED KILLINGS AND OTHER MOTIVES, AND IN RESPONSE THAT THE PEOPLE ARE APPROPRIATELY ENTITLED TO SAY WHAT LED YOU TO FILE AND WHAT LED YOU TO CONCLUDE TO THIS DAY THAT YOU HAVE MADE NO MISTAKE IN REQUESTING THE FILING IN THAT MANNER? AND I MEAN THAT IS THE BIG PICTURE. THAT IS WHERE THIS ALL FITS IN AND THERE IS NO EFFORT TO MISLEAD OR CONFUSE THE JURY. QUITE THE CONTRARY. THE COURT KNOWS THAT THE PEOPLE WILL PRESENT WITNESSES, EXPERTS, TO TESTIFY IN MUCH MORE DETAIL AS TO THE NATURE OF THE TESTING AND THOSE RESULTS, BUT AT THIS MOMENT ALL WE WERE ASKING TO DO WAS ASK DETECTIVE LANGE TO TESTIFY TO HIS STATE OF MIND AND WHY HE BASES HIS OPINION -- WHAT HE BASES HIS OPINION ON AND WHY HE DOES NOT BELIEVE IT TO GO DRUG-RELATED KILLINGS, SO I BELIEVE IT IS A TOTALLY SEPARATE LINE OF INQUIRY. MR. SCHECK IS MISSING THE POINT. WHAT THE COURT I THOUGHT WANTED TO ADDRESS TURNED OUT TO BE A DISCOVERY ISSUES WHICH THE PEOPLE WERE NOT AWARE IT WAS A DISCOVERY ISSUE KNOWING THAT THE DEFENSE EXPERT WAS STANDING OVER THEIR SHOULDER LITERALLY WHEN THE TESTING WAS DONE. I THINK I WILL BE ENTITLED TO BELIEVE THAT THEY WOULD KNOW WHAT THOSE RESULTS WERE AND I'M NOT SURE SO THAT THEY DIDN'T. NEVERTHELESS, I UNDERSTAND THE COURT'S CONCERN. THAT IS WHY AT BEST THE COURT SHOULD INSTRUCT THE JURY TO DISREGARD THE QUESTION AND ANSWER AND ADVISE THEM THAT THAT SUBJECT MATTER WILL BE TAKEN UP BY THE EXPERT WITNESSES AT THE APPROPRIATELY TIME.
YES. JUST AN AREA OF INQUIRY BRIEFLY, YOUR HONOR, WITH REGARD TO THE PROSECUTOR ELICITED SOME TESTIMONY THAT THIS DETECTIVE FOLLOWED UP ALL OF THESE LEADS AND CLUES AND EVERYTHING. AND I THINK THE QUESTION I PONDERED OR PROFFERED WAS WHETHER OR NOT HE FOLLOWED UP ANY CLUES OR LEADS THAT HAD POINTED TOWARD MR. SIMPSON'S INNOCENCE AND I WANTED SOME DOCUMENTATION ON THAT. THAT WAS THE AREA WE WERE LOOKING AT JUST BRIEFLY.
ALL RIGHT. I HAD SORT OF ANTICIPATED YOU WERE GOING TO LAUNCH INTO A LITANY OF 450 LEADS THAT WERE OTHERWISE --
KEY QUOTENO, YOUR HONOR. I MENTIONED TO THE COURT YESTERDAY YOU SHOULD NEVER PRESUPPOSE ANYTHING WITH REGARD TO ME. I THINK I'M PERFECTLY CAPABLE OF TELLING THE COURT THAT IS ALL I PLAN TO DO. THAT IS WHY I WANTED TO ASK HIM ABOUT IT. IN FACT, WE CAN ASK HIM NOW.
ALL RIGHT. DEPUTY MAGNERA, LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE. AND COUNSEL, WE ARE GOING TO GO THROUGH UNTIL 3:15.
MAY WE INQUIRE OF MR. COCHRAN, DOES HE PLAN TO FINISH THIS AFTERNOON AND CAN WE SEND THE NEXT WITNESS AWAY?
I THINK WHAT WAS CLEARLY GOING ON IS MISS CLARK WAS TRYING TO ELICIT DNA TEST RESULTS FROM A WITNESS WHO WAS NOT QUALIFIED TO DO SO IN ORDER TO GAIN AGAIN A TACTICAL ADVANTAGE IN TERMS OF WHEN THE TESTIMONY WILL COME OUT FROM THE SCIENTIFIC WITNESSES WHERE IT WILL COME OUT QUITE DIFFERENTLY IN TERMS OF DIRECT AND CROSS OF THE PROPER WITNESSES.
DETECTIVE LANGE DID NOT OFFER A SCIENTIFIC OPINION OF ANY KIND. HE SIMPLY INDICATED IT DID NOT CHANGE THE FOCUS OF HIS INVESTIGATION, AND THAT HAD TO DO WITH THE IMPACT ON HIS STATE OF MIND.
I HAD SORT OF ANTICIPATED YOU WERE GOING TO LAUNCH INTO A LITANY OF 450 LEADS THAT WERE OTHERWISE --
DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. ARE WE GOING TO FINISH THIS AFTERNOON?