MAY IT PLEASE BE THE COURT, WE AS CITIZENS DO NOT GIVE UP OUR RIGHTS BECAUSE MR. O.J. SIMPSON OR ANYONE ELSE IS ACCUSED OF A CRIME IN THIS CASE. MY CLIENT, MICHELLE ABOUDRAM, IS NOT A DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE, IS NOT ACCUSED OF ANY CRIME, IS NOT INVOLVED IN ANY WRONGDOING. SHE IS ONLY LISTED AS A WITNESS FOR THE DEFENSE IN THIS MATTER. MY CLIENT WAS A HOUSEKEEPER FOR MR. SIMPSON'S FAMILY IN 1988 THROUGH 1990, FROM 1992 BACK THROUGH UP TO AND INCLUDING THE EARLY PART OF 1994. THEREAFTER SHE LEFT THE SIMPSON EMPLOYMENT, WENT TO WORK IN A RESIDENCE IN BEVERLY HILLS AS A HOUSEKEEPER. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, IN ITS PRESENT FORM IN THIS SUBPOENA, IF LEFT UNTOUCHED, WOULD ALLOW ANYONE AT ANY TIME TO GET ANYONE'S RECORDS. LET ME LOOK AT THE APPROACH THAT THE D.A. HAS TAKEN IN THIS CASE. FIRST OF ALL, YOUR HONOR, ON NOVEMBER 10TH THEY ISSUED A SUBPOENA. THE SUBPOENA WAS FROM NOVEMBER 1ST, 1994, THROUGH FEBRUARY 10TH, 1995. AS THE COURT CAN SEE FROM THOSE DATES, THE COMMENCING PART OF THE SUBPOENA WAS FOUR AND A HALF MONTHS AFTER THE HOMICIDE. THE SUBPOENA WAS RETURNABLE ON THE 24TH IN THIS COURTROOM.
AS REQUIRED BY CIVIL LAW, SINCE THE MOTION TO QUASH IS CIVIL, COUNSEL AND MY FIRM, FILED A MOTION TO QUASH ON THE 23RD. WE FILED A DECLARATION FOR MY CLIENT AND SUPPORTING POINTS AND AUTHORITIES. THIS COURT ISSUED A MINUTE ORDER SEALING THOSE RECORDS AND THOSE RECORDS HAVE NOT BEEN TURNED OVER TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OR THE D.A. THEY ARE PRESENTLY UNDER SEAL BEFORE THIS COURT. THE DECLARATION IN QUESTION, YOUR HONOR, AS SEEN ON THE FIRST BOARD, STATES THAT THE MATERIALITY IS, QUOTE, "FILED BY THE D.A. NECESSARY TO PROVE THE CHARGES FILED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT." THAT STATEMENT, YOUR HONOR, DOES NOT COMPLY WITH CCP 1985 OR 1985.7. THERE IS NO FACTUAL SHOWING OF MATERIALITY. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO WITH THE COURT, THERE ARE THREE KEY CASES. WE FILED EXTENSIVE POINTS AND AUTHORITIES. I CAN ONLY COMMENT THAT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS NOT FILED ANY POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO THE LAW ON THE SUBJECT. THE FIRST CASE I WOULD LIKE TO GO INTO, YOUR , HONOR IS PEOPLE VERSUS SCHMITT. IN THE SCHMITT CASE THE DEFENDANT WAS ON TRIAL FOR A CONSPIRACY, GRAND THEFT AND OTHER MATTERS. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY IN THAT CASE FILED A MOTION TO SUPPRESS SUBPOENAS ISSUED BY THE DEFENSE. THE COURT, IN AFFIRMING THE TRIAL COURT'S QUASHING, INDICATED, AND IT IS SHOWN HERE ON THE FIRST BOARD, YOUR HONOR: "THE ALLEGATIONS OF DEFENDANT'S AFFIDAVITS WERE WHOLLY INSUFFICIENT TO SHOW WHAT MATERIAL FACT, IF ANY, WOULD OR COULD HAVE BEEN PROVED BY THE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT TO BE PRODUCED." AND THEN THE COURT ON THE NEXT PAGE SUSTAINED THE QUASHING OF IT. THE KEY CASE, YOUR HONOR, IS JOHNSON VERSUS SUPERIOR COURT. IN JOHNSON VERSUS SUPERIOR COURT THE LANGUAGE WAS: "NECESSARY TO PROVE THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE CASE." AND OUR LANGUAGE IS, QUOTE: "NECESSARY TO PROVE THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE DEFENDANT." THE JOHNSON COURT SAID NO GOOD, SUSTAINED THE QUASHING. NOW SUBSEQUENTLY, IN THE PACIFIC AUTOMOBILE CASE, YOUR HONOR, THE COURT OF APPEALS SAID THAT SUBSEQUENT FACTS ADDUCED IN COURT ARE NOT SUFFICIENT BASIS TO BE USED TO SUPPORT THE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM. NOW, WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THIS CASE, YOUR HONOR, YESTERDAY MORNING AROUND NINE O'CLOCK I RECEIVED BY FAX FROM MISS LEWIS, A SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION ALLEGING SOME, QUOTE, "NEW FACTS" THAT THEY ARE NOW TRYING TO USE TO BOOTSTRAP THE SUBPOENA THAT WAS ISSUED SOME WEEKS AGO. UNDER THE PACIFIC AUTOMOBILE CASE, THAT AUTHORITY DOES NOT ALLOW FOR THAT, YOUR HONOR. NOW I NOTE, YOUR HONOR, THAT THE -- HAS THE COURT RECEIVED THE SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION?
LET ME CHECK WITH MRS. ROBERTSON. MRS. ROBERTSON, DO WE HAVE THE SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE SDT?
YOUR HONOR, MY CONCERN -- THE SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION SAYS -- IN A FOOTNOTE SAYS: "WE ARE FILING THIS RESPONSE UNDER SEAL TO PROTECT THE PHONE NUMBERS IN QUESTION FROM BEING REVEALED TO THE PUBLIC BY THE PRESS." THE WANT TO GO INTO THE FACTS OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION, BUT I WON'T REFER TO THE PHONE NUMBERS. IS THAT APPROPRIATE, YOUR HONOR?
THE DECLARATION IS APPROXIMATELY FIVE PAGES AND IT CONCERNS NOT ONLY MY CLIENT, BUT ABOUT EIGHTY PERCENT OF IT CONCERNS MR. SACKS' CLIENT. I WILL ONLY REFER TO THOSE PARAGRAPHS THAT RELATE TO MY CLIENT, YOUR HONOR. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY NOW -- AND IT IS SIGNED BY CHERI LEWIS YESTERDAY, SO THIS IS WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO USE TO BOOTSTRAP THE SUBPOENA ISSUED SOME WEEKS AGO. IT SAYS: "ON FEBRUARY 10TH, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ISSUED A SUBPOENA DT." AND THEN THEY SAY ON PARAGRAPH NO. 5: "ON JANUARY 31, 1995, DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE INTERVIEWED A WOMAN BY THE NAME OF ZIONA FREEMAN. MISS FRIEDMAN IS A MAID WHO CURRENTLY LIVES IN WEST HOLLYWOOD," AND I AM LEAVING OUT THE ADDRESSES AND PHONE NUMBERS.
IT SAYS: "OVER THE EIGHT-YEAR PERIOD PRIOR TO THE MURDERS IN THIS CASE, MISS FRIEDMAN WAS REGULARLY CALLED BY THE DEFENSE MAID, MICHELLE ABOUDRAM, TO HELP HER AT THE DEFENDANT'S ROCKINGHAM ESTATE," AND THEN THEY TALK ABOUT SOME WORK THAT MAID DOES. "ON FEBRUARY 8TH, 1995, ZIONA FRIEDMAN WAS INTERVIEWED A SECOND TIME IN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. DURING THAT INTERVIEW SHE SUPPLIED MANY ADDITIONAL DETAILS OF INFORMATION SHE SAYS MICHELLE ABOUDRAM," WHICH IS MY CLIENT, "TOLD HER REGARDING THE 1989 SPOUSAL ABUSE INCIDENT BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON." AND THEN THE ONLY THING LEFT IN THERE REGARDING MY CLIENT IS PARAGRAPH 8(C). "MISS FRIEDMAN SAID SHE TALKED WITH MICHELLE ABOUDRAM BY TELEPHONE ALMOST EVERYDAY. ONE OF THE THINGS MICHELLE TOLD HER WAS MICHELLE HAD A LAWYER, TO WIT, SHAPIRO. MICHELLE HAD NOT CALLED FRIEDMAN IN A WEEK, THE WEEK PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 8. MISS FRIEDMAN WAS VERY WORRIED AND SCARED ABOUT THAT SINCE SHE WAS ACCUSTOMED TO MICHELLE CALLING HER EVERYDAY." THE OTHER ONLY THING LEFT RELATING TO MY CLIENT IS, QUOTE: "THE TELEPHONE RECORDS OF MY CLIENT ARE NECESSARY TO AID IN ASSESSING THE CREDIBILITY OF MISS FRIEDMAN BY AIDING AND DETERMINING THE EXTENT OF HER CONTACT WITH THOSE WITNESSES." WHAT WE REALLY HAVE HERE IS A LOT TO DO ABOUT NOTHING IN REGARD TO MISS FRIEDMAN. IF THEY WANT TO SEE WHO MISS FRIEDMAN TALKED TO, THEY CAN LOOK AT MISS FRIEDMAN'S TELEPHONE RECORDS, AND THEY DO HAVE A SUBPOENA OUT FOR THAT. THE SUBSEQUENT DECLARATION DOESN'T HAVE ANY LEGAL EFFECT IN TERMS OF THE SUBPOENA THAT WAS ISSUED SOME MONTH AGO, AND THAT IS THE PACIFIC CASE. IT IS ALSO INTERESTING TO NOTE, YOUR HONOR, THAT THE STAFF OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS NOT RESPONDED TO ANY LEGAL AUTHORITIES SET FORTH BY MYSELF OR MR. SACKS. AND WHAT YOU HAVE TO BALANCE HERE, YOUR HONOR, IS MY CLIENT HAS A RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF ASSOCIATION. WHO SHE CALLS ON HER OWN PHONE, HER FRIENDS AND WHAT SHE DOES IS HER OWN BUSINESS. SHE IS NOT A DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE. SHE IS NOT ACCUSED IN THIS CASE. SHE IS NOT INVOLVED IN ANY WRONGDOING. NOW, WHAT THE COURT HAS TO DO, YOUR HONOR, IS BALANCE HER RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION TO THE GOVERNMENT'S COMPELLING RIGHT TO LOOK AT SOME PHONE RECORDS. NOW, UNDER THE FIRST DECLARATION IT SHOULD BE QUASHED. UNDER THE SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION IT SHOULD BE QUASHED. I WOULD SUSPECT, HOWEVER, THAT THE D.A. WILL PROBABLY COME IN AGAIN AND TRY FACTUALLY SOMETHING ELSE. THE ONLY -- THE ONLY RELEVANCE I COULD SEE TO ANY PART OF THIS, YOUR HONOR, IS MISS SEE A FRIEDMAN'S PHONE RECORDS, AND I WOULD SUSPECT AND SUGGEST ON BEHALF OF MY CLIENT, THAT IF THE COURT WANTED TO TAKE THOSE RECORDS IN CAMERA, GO THROUGH MY CLIENT'S PHONE CARDS AND REDACT OUT ANYTHING EXCEPT MISS SEE A FRIEDMAN'S PHONE RECORDS APPEARED THERE, THEN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY COULD HAVE WHAT IT WANTS AND THEN THE COURT COULD PROTECT MY CLIENT'S RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, AND THAT WOULD BE THE LEAST OBTRUSIVE WAY TO RESOLVE THIS PROBLEM, YOUR HONOR. UNLESS THE COURT HAS ANY SUGGESTIONS, I WOULD SUBMIT THAT THAT WOULD BE THE BEST APPROACH TO PROTECT MY CLIENT'S RIGHTS AND GIVE THE GOVERNMENT WHAT THEY WANT, BUT NOT OPEN THIS UP TO ALLOWING ANYBODY AT ANY TIME TO LOOK AT ANY PHONE RECORDS, BECAUSE BASED ON WHAT THEY HAVE DONE HERE, I SUSPECT THE DEFENSE COULD TAKE EVERY PROSECUTION WITNESS AND REQUEST ALL THEIR PHONE RECORDS AND THE PROSECUTION COULD TAKE EVERY DEFENSE AND REQUEST THEIR PHONE RECORDS. AND THAT IS NOT WHAT IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE, YOUR HONOR. I'LL SUBMIT IT, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU.
IN REGARDS TO THE SITUATION HERE, WE ARE REALLY CONCERNED WITH THE CITIZEN'S RIGHT TO PRIVACY, AND IN DEALING WITH THE ISSUE AS TO WHY MY CLIENT OBJECTS, AS ANY CITIZEN HAS A RIGHT IN CALIFORNIA TO ANYBODY LOOKING AT HER RESIDENTIAL TELEPHONE RECORDS, IS BECAUSE THE LEGISLATURE IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, WHEN THEY ENACTED 2991 OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE, THEY MADE A FINDING THAT IT WAS OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE THAT THE RESIDENTIAL TELEPHONE RECORDS OF ALL OUR CITIZENS IN THIS STATE ARE ACCORDED THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY, AND ONLY IF THE GOVERNMENT CAN SHOW BY THE USE OF LAWFUL PROCESS IN A CRIMINAL CASE CAN THEY OBTAIN THOSE RECORDS. NOW, IN THIS SITUATION MR. SOLOMON HAS ALLUDED TO THE DEFICIENCIES IN THE DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE SUBPOENA, AND WHEN WE LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE WHERE IT SAYS, "NECESSARY TO PROVE THE CHARGES FILED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT," THE CASES WE HAVE CITED SHOW THAT THERE IS NO FACTUAL BASIS OF MATERIALITY OR GOOD CAUSE THAT WOULD JUSTIFY THE ISSUANCE OF THE SUBPOENA. AND IF WE USE THAT LANGUAGE AND SAY THAT JUSTIFIES THE ISSUANCE OF THE SUBPOENA, AND THAT ALONE WOULD OVERCOME THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO PRIVACY, THAT THE LEGISLATURE ENACTED UNDER THE PUBLIC UTILITY CODE, EXCEPT WHEN A GOOD SHOWING IN A CRIMINAL CASE IS MADE, THE COURT WOULD AUTHORIZE THE SEIZING OF 300 DEFENSE WITNESS' RESIDENTIAL TELEPHONE RECORDS. AND IF WE TOOK THE SAME AFFIDAVIT AND CHANGED ONE WORD AND SAID "NECESSARY TO DISPROVE THE CHARGES FILED AGAINST THE NAMED DEFENDANT," THE COURT WOULD BE AUTHORIZING THE SEIZURE OF 400 OF THE -- OF THE PROSECUTION'S WITNESS' RESIDENTIAL TELEPHONE NUMBERS, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE DETECTIVES LANGE'S RESIDENCE TELEPHONE NUMBERS, MARK FUHRMAN'S, PHILIP VANNATTER'S AND RON PHILLIPS'. AND I DON'T THINK THE COURT WOULD ALLOW THE DEFENSE NO GREATER SHOWING THAN IS SHOWN IN THIS AFFIDAVIT TO SEIZE NOT ONLY 400 RECORDS OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES, BUT THE DETECTIVE'S AS WELL, AND OTHER POLICE OFFICERS INVOLVED IN THE CASE. NOW, IN DEALING WITH THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY, WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IN THIS COURTROOM ARE CITIZEN RIGHTS. THIS COURT SO FAR HAS BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT CERTAIN RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES. THEY HAVE BEEN CONCERNED WITH THE RIGHTS OF THE PROSECUTION TO GET A FAIR TRIAL; PROPERLY SO. THE COURT IS CONCERNED WITH THE RIGHTS OF MR. SIMPSON TO GET DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND A FAIR TRIAL, AND PROPERLY SO. THE COURT HAS BEEN CONCERNED WITH THE RIGHTS OF THE JURORS AND THE RIGHTS OF THOSE JURORS TO HAVE THEIR ANONYMITY AND NOT BE HARASSED BY THE PRESS AND THE PUBLIC. NOBODY HAS --
AND PROPERLY SO. NOBODY HAS ADDRESSED TO THIS POINT THE RIGHTS OF THESE WITNESSES. AND WHAT WE HAVE IN THIS CASE IS 700 PEOPLE THAT ARE ON A LIST. THEY ARE ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS. UNDER THE STATUES ENACTED IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ALL OF THESE WITNESSES HAVE A RIGHT TO PRIVACY UNLESS THERE IS A SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE TO GO BEYOND WHAT THE LEGISLATURE SAID IS A RIGHT OF PARAMOUNT CONCERN WHEN THEY PASSED THE LEGISLATION. SO I WOULD SUBMIT TO THE COURT, NO. 1, THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK TO THE FACT THAT WITNESSES HAVE NOT BEEN SPOKEN FOR UP UNTIL THIS POINT UNDER THESE SUBPOENAS. NOW, MY CLIENT HAS HAD EIGHT SUBPOENAS SERVED ON HER IN REGARDS TO THIS LITIGATION; THREE SUBPOENAS TO TESTIFY BEFORE THE GRAND JURY UNDER THE GUISE OF THE AL COWLINGS INVESTIGATION, BUT ALL OF THE QUESTIONS THAT SHE WAS ASKED BEFORE THE GRAND JURY CONCERNED THIS CASE ITSELF. SINCE SHE WENT TO THE GRAND JURY SHE HAS RECEIVED THREE OTHER SUBPOENAS TO TESTIFY IN THIS CASE, ONE OF WHICH SHE WAS ON CALL FOR OVER THREE MONTHS BEFORE SHE WAS RELEASED. SHE HAS ALSO RECEIVED, IN ADDITION TO THOSE THREE WITNESS SUBPOENAS, ONE OTHER SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM THAT REQUIRED HER PRESENCE AND THESE TWO SUBPOENA DUCES TECUMS FOR TELEPHONE RECORDS, THE ONE THAT IS BEING LITIGATED HERE, AND THERE WAS ANOTHER ONE THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY ISSUED IN JULY, BUT SHE HAD NO COUNSEL AT THAT POINT; NO OPPOSITION WAS RAISED. NOW, IN DEALING WITH THE RIGHTS OF THE WITNESSES AND THE FACT THAT NOBODY HAS SPOKEN IN TERMS OF WITNESS' RIGHTS, WE HAVE A LOT OF SITUATIONS ARISING WHERE THERE HAVE BEEN COMMENTS MADE IN THIS COURTROOM, AND I KNOW THE COURT HAS TRIED TO BE VERY FAIR TO ALL CONCERNED, BUT THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT PLAY OUT IN THIS COURTROOM THAT GET TELEVISED THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY AND IT LOOKS A LITTLE DIFFERENT TO THE WITNESS THAN IT MAY LOOK TO YOUR HONOR. AND I WILL SAY ONE THING ABOUT YOUR HONOR. YOU HAVE BEEN VERY ACCOMMODATING, AS FAR AS I COULD SEE, TO ALL THE PARTIES THAT HAVE APPEARED BEFORE YOU. ALL THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE COME INTO COURTROOM HAVE BEEN ACCORDED NOTHING BUT THE UTMOST RESPECT BY THIS COURT, AND I THINK YOU'VE ESTABLISHED A FRIENDLY ENVIRONMENT FOR THE PEOPLE COMING BEFORE YOUR HONOR. BUT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED THROUGH THE LITIGANTS PLAYS OUT THROUGH THE PUBLIC, AND THE WITNESSES THAT ARE UNDER SUBPOENA SEE THIS AND THERE HAVE BEEN CERTAIN COMMENTS MADE. FIRST BACK IN SEPTEMBER THERE WERE COMMENTS MADE ABOUT MY CLIENT AND SOME EVIDENTIARY ISSUES IN REGARDS TO SOME EVIDENCE THAT MAY HAVE BEEN DESTROYED, AND UNDER A PROFFERED OFFER OF PROOF THAT NOBODY REQUIRED, MY CLIENT SORT OF HAD A LITTLE CHARACTER ASSASSINATION MADE PUBLIC. NOW, TIED IN WITH THAT THERE WERE OTHER COMMENTS MADE BY DEFENSE WITNESSES THAT THE PROSECUTION SAID, I WILL TELL YOU ABOUT THE DEFENSE WITNESSES, THEY ARE FELONS, THEY ARE HEROIN ADDICTS, THEY ARE COURT CERTIFIED PATHOLOGICAL LIARS AND FELONS. NOW, NOBODY MENTIONED WHAT WITNESSES -- DEFENSE WITNESSES WERE BEING SPOKEN ABOUT, BUT WHAT HAPPENS IS BEYOND THIS COURTROOM WHEN THE WITNESSES SEE IT, IT HAS TO HAVE A CHILLING EFFECT ON PEOPLE, BECAUSE AS FAR AS I CAN SEE, ANYTIME A DEFENSE WITNESS HEARS THEIR NAME MENTIONED, AT THIS POINT THEY SHOULD BE DOING TWO THINGS: JUMPING FOR COVER AND SEEKING LEGAL REPRESENTATION. NOW, IN DEALING WITH THAT, THAT GIVES AN OVERALL PICTURE OF THE CHILLING EFFECT THAT CAN HAPPEN WHEN COMMENTS ARE MADE IN THE SHAPE OF LITIGATION WHERE IN A NORMAL CASE NOBODY WOULD KNOW ABOUT IT. YOUR HONOR WOULD HEAR A COMMENT MADE, THE PARTIES HERE WOULD HEAR IT, WOULD KNOW ABOUT IT IN A COURTROOM. A FEW COURTROOM HAWKS TO THAT WOULD BE SITTING IN THE COURTROOM, WOULD KNOW ABOUT IT, BUT IT WON'T GO ANY FURTHER. BUT HERE IN THIS SITUATION WITH WITNESSES -- AND WHY I AM CONCERNED WITH WITNESSES' RIGHTS, BECAUSE IT DOES HAVE A DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON THE PEOPLE THAT ARE COMING IN AS CITIZENS TO DO THEIR CIVIC DUTY TO TAKE THIS WITNESS STAND AND TO TESTIFY TO THE BEST OF THEIR ABILITY. AS THE PUBLIC HAS SEEN, AS THE COURT WELL KNOWS, SOME WITNESSES TESTIFY BETTER THAN OTHERS DUE TO ONE REASON OR ANOTHER. SO TIED IN WITH THE HISTORY OF WHY I AM CONCERNED WITH WITNESS' RIGHTS, AND MORE SPECIFICALLY WITH THE SUBPOENA, MY CLIENT HAS EVERY RIGHT TO HAVE HER PRIVACY PROTECTED, NOT ONLY UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT, BUT UNDER THE STATUTES RECITED IN OUR POINTS AND AUTHORITIES. AND UNLESS THE GOVERNMENT CAN SHOW A GOOD -- MAKE A GOOD SHOWING AS TO WHY THAT PRIVACY SHOULD BE INVADED, THE PRIVACY SHOULD BE PROTECTED. NOW, IN DEALING WITH THE SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION, I STILL DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT MAKES A FACTUAL STATEMENT THAT WOULD SATISFY A SHOWING OF MATERIALITY AND GOOD CAUSE, BUT IF THE COURT WERE GOING TO TAKE A QUANTUM LEAP AND SAY THAT YOU FEEL IT DOES MAKE A SHOWING THAT WOULD JUSTIFY SOME OF THE RECORDS POSSIBLY BEING TURNED OVER, I WOULD CONCUR WITH WHAT MR. SOLOMON SUGGESTED IN THE WAY OF ACCOMMODATION, THAT THE COURT IN CAMERA LOOK AT THE RECORDS AND LIMIT ANY RELEASE OF THOSE RECORDS, FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT AT THIS POINT, TO THE PROSECUTION ONLY LIMITED TO THE TWO PARTIES THAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT, MISS FRIEDMAN AND RON SHIPP. AND LIMIT IT TO THOSE TWO NUMBERS ALONE AND PRESERVE THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY AS FAR AS THE OTHER CALLS ARE MADE, BECAUSE AS WE HAVE SHOWED UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT, THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF MISS RAN TODAY, AS WELL AS ANY OTHER CITIZEN, COVERS THEIR PERSONAL CONTACT WITH THE PEOPLE THEY ASSOCIATE WITH DAY IN AND DAY OUT, AND WHAT MORE OF A PERSONAL CONTACT DO YOU MAKE OTHER THAN FACE-TO-FACE THAN WHEN YOU CALL SOMEBODY FROM YOUR OWN RESIDENCE. SECONDLY, I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF THE VIOLATION OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW UNDER 1985.3 WHERE THERE IS A BURDEN PLACED ON THE PROSECUTION OR ANY OTHER PARTY SEEKING TO GET A SUBPOENA FROM A CONSUMER RECORD, WHICH THE TELEPHONE COMPANY RECORDS ARE, THAT DUE NOTICE HAS TO BE GIVEN TO THE CONSUMER, IN THIS CASE IT IS MY CLIENT, CATHY RANDA. THE PROSECUTION, UNDER 1985.3 SUBDIVISION (E), IS REQUIRED TO SERVE A COPY OF THE SUBPOENA WITH THE DECLARATION ON THE CONSUMER AND GIVE THEM NOTICE THAT THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO CONTEST THE SUBPOENA IN COURT. NOW, I WOULD LIKE TO STATE THAT IN REGARDS TO THE FIRST SUBPOENA ISSUED LAST JULY, NO NOTICE WAS GIVEN TO MISS RANDA AND I FILED A SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION TO THAT EFFECT. SHE RECEIVED NO NOTICE ON THE FIRST SUBPOENA. SHE RECEIVED NO NOTICE ON THE SECOND SUBPOENA. IN ADDITION, THE PROSECUTION HAS KNOWN SINCE SEPTEMBER THE 19TH THAT I HAVE BEEN REPRESENTING CATHY RANDA AND THEY MADE NO ATTEMPT TO GIVE ME NOTICE BY SUPPLYING MY OFFICE WITH A COPY OF THE SUBPOENA OR THE DECLARATION. AND THIS WAS EVEN AFTER I REQUESTED FROM MISS CLARK AND MR. HODGMAN BY WAY OF FAX, ON BOTH THE 18TH OF FEBRUARY AND THE 21ST OF FEBRUARY, THAT MY OFFICE BE PROVIDED A COPY OF THE SUBPOENA AND THE DECLARATION SO WE COULD TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION. THE ONLY REASON I RECEIVED A COPY IS I REQUESTED THE ASSISTANCE OF MR. COCHRAN'S OFFICE AND THROUGH THEIR GOOD OFFICES I DID RECEIVE A COPY. NOW, THE ONLY REASON I KNEW TO ASK FOR A COPY OF THE SUBPOENA WASN'T BECAUSE WE RECEIVED ANY NOTICE FROM THE PROSECUTION. THE ONLY NOTICE WE RECEIVED WAS FROM PACIFIC BELL AND PACIFIC BELL HAS A COMPANY POLICY NOT REQUIRED BY LAW, BUT A POLICY OF THEIR COMPANY, TO NOTIFY THEIR CONSUMERS AND THEIR CUSTOMERS WHEN A SUBPOENA HAS BEEN SERVED UPON THE COMPANY FOR THOSE RECORDS. IF IT WASN'T FOR THE FACT THAT THE TELEPHONE COMPANY SENT MY CLIENT A LETTER, THIS MOTION WOULD HAVE BEEN HEARD IN SILENCE AND SECRECY BECAUSE THE COURT WOULD HAVE HAD NO OPPOSITION, THE SUBPOENAED RECORDS WOULD HAVE ARRIVED IN COURT AND PURSUANT TO THE SUBPOENA IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HANDED OVER TO THE PROSECUTION. SO WITH A TOTAL ELEMENT OF SECRECY AND NO NOTICE BEING GIVEN TO MY CLIENT, HER PRIVACY WOULD HAVE BEEN INVADED IN VIOLATION OF NOT ONLY THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION LAW, AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 2891, BUT IN VIOLATION AS WELL OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CONSUMER NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF 1985.3. BASED ON TWO INTENTIONAL VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW, I WOULD REQUEST THIS COURT ISSUE SANCTIONS AT THIS POINT BECAUSE THIS IS NO DIFFERENT THAN THE SITUATION WHERE SANCTIONS HAVE BEEN ISSUED AGAINST THE DEFENSE AND THE PROSECUTION FOR FAILURE ON BOTH SIDES TO COMPLY WITH 1054 OF THE PENAL CODE. AND I THINK THAT IT SETS A STANDARD THAT THE PROSECUTION, IF THEY ARE GOING TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS OR IF THE OTHER SIDE IS GOING TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS AS WELL, THEY HAVE GOT TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THESE WITNESSES. BECAUSE THESE WITNESSES ARE AMERICAN CITIZENS. THEY ARE ENTITLED TO EVERY PROTECTION UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND EVERY PROTECTION UNDER THE SPECIAL STATUTES THAT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA HAS PASSED TO DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE. AND BASED ON THOSE -- THOSE ARGUMENTS, I WOULD SUBMIT THAT THE SUBPOENA SHOULD BE QUASHED. IN THE ALTERNATE, SANCTIONS THAT THE COURT DEEMS APPROPRIATE SHOULD BE ISSUED AGAINST THE PROSECUTION FOR THE VIOLATION OF MY CLIENT'S RIGHTS TO PRIVACY UNDER THE LAW AND AN ATTEMPT TO INVADE HER PRIVACY WITHOUT DUE NOTICE. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
MR. SACKS, LET ME ASK YOU THIS: WITH REGARD TO YOUR REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS, WHAT DO YOU THINK ARE APPROPRIATE?
WELL, MY CLIENT'S -- TO BE QUITE FRANK, MY CLIENT HASN'T INCURRED ANY LEGAL EXPENSES. WITHOUT BREECHING THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE, CAN JUST SAY THAT MY WORK HERE IS PRO BONO. BUT I THINK SOME MONETARY SANCTIONS MAY BE APPROPRIATE JUST AS AN OUT-OF-POCKET EXPENSE TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUT I'M NOT LOOKING TO UNJUSTLY ENRICH MYSELF, BUT I THINK IN TERMS OF SANCTIONS, IF THE COURT ISN'T CONCERNED WITH DEALING WITH MONETARY SANCTIONS, I THINK AN ADMONITION TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WITH FURTHER COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE STATUTES THAT I HAVE CITED WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. AND I THINK IF ANY OF THIS EVIDENCE COMES BEFORE THE JURY, THAT AN APPROPRIATE SANCTION SHOULD BE ASSESSED AGAINST THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY WHERE THE JURY IS INFORMED OF THE FACT THAT THE PROSECUTION, IN REGARD TO MY CLIENT'S RIGHTS, WHEN SHE IS CALLED AS A WITNESS, HAS BEEN INFRINGED UPON, AND WHEN THEY CROSS-EXAMINE ABOUT TELEPHONE RECORDS AND SO FORTH AND SO ON, I THINK AN APPROPRIATE ADMONITION TO THE JURY INFORMING THEM THAT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY ACTED IMPROPERLY IN TRYING TO SEIZE THE WITNESS' RECORDS. AND I THINK IT IS SOMETHING THAT I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO HEAVILY CONSIDER AND I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE TAKEN LIGHTLY AND IT SETS THE STANDARD, AS THIS CASE COMMENCES DOWN THE LINE, THAT THE -- EITHER PARTY ISSUES SUBPOENA DUCES TECUMS THAT WOULD FALL WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THIS STATUTE OR SOME OTHER RIGHT TO PRIVACY BEING INVADED IS COMPLIED WITH, BECAUSE I THINK ALL THE WITNESSES SHOULD FEEL AS COMFORTABLE AS POSSIBLE COMING INTO THIS COURTROOM TO TESTIFY. I SAID IT ONCE BEFORE IN ANOTHER FORUM, THAT THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT LIKE COMING INTO COURTROOMS ARE THE PEOPLE THAT WORK HERE; YOUR HONOR, THE ATTORNEYS, THE COURT STAFF. WE DO THIS FOR A LIVING. WE ARE USED TO WHAT GOES ON HERE DAY IN AND DAY OUT. BUT THE AVERAGE CITIZEN THAT IS CALLED UPON TO COME THROUGH THESE DOORS AND TAKE THAT WITNESS STAND DOES HAVE A LOT OF APPREHENSION BECAUSE THEY CAN SEE WHAT HAPPENED TO ROSA LOPEZ. WHETHER IT IS GOOD, BAD OR INDIFFERENT, IT WAS FOUR DAYS ON THE WITNESS STAND. DETECTIVE LANGE HAS BEEN ON THE WITNESS STAND FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME, BUT THERE IS LITTLE COMPENSATION IN HIS REGARD, HE IS MORE OR LESS A PROFESSIONAL WITNESS BECAUSE WITH HIS JOB OVER THE YEARS HE DOES TESTIFY ON A NORMAL BASIS. BUT THE AVERAGE CITIZEN HERE IN AMERICA THAT IS CALLED INTO THIS COURTROOM TO TESTIFY, ESPECIALLY THE FACT THAT IT IS GOING INTO EVERY BIG CITY, SMALL HAMLET, TOWNSHIP AND COUNTY THROUGHOUT THIS GREAT LAND OF OURS, KNOWS THAT WHATEVER THEY SEE, NOT ONLY IS EVERYBODY SEEING WHAT IS BEING SAID, THE PUBLIC AT LARGE, BUT THEIR FRIENDS, ASSOCIATES, PEOPLE THEY WORK WITH, AND ALL OF THE COMMENTATORS ON T.V. ARE NITPICKING AND ANALYZING TO THE NTH DEGREE -- THE TENTH DEGREE, EXACTLY WHAT THIS WITNESS SAID, HOW HE SAID IT OR SHE SAID IT, WHETHER OR NOT SHE IS CREDIBLE OR MAYBE LYING, MISTAKEN OR WHATEVER, AND THAT DOES HAVE A DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON THESE PEOPLE. SO WHAT I'M CONCERNED WITH, AND I THINK EVEN THOUGH I'VE POINTED OUT, I THINK THE COURT HAS BEEN OVERACCOMMODATING TO BE AS GENEROUS AND AS COURTEOUS TO EVERYBODY THAT WORKS IN THIS COURTROOM AND COMES IN HERE, THERE IS A CHILLING EFFECT THAT THESE WITNESSES FEEL JUST FROM THE FACT THAT IT IS ABNORMAL TO COME IN AND HAVE TO TESTIFY. AND MOST PEOPLE THINK THEY ARE GOING TO GET ON THAT WITNESS STAND THEY ARE GOING TO BE GRILLED RIGHT AND LEFT, BUT THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT. WHAT HAPPENS IN THIS CASE WHEN IT GOES OUT TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE AND THE PEOPLE SEE WHAT HAPPENS TO EACH WITNESS AS THEY COME IN, MOST PEOPLE, IF THEY HAD THEIR DRUTHERS, WOULD NEVER WANT TO COME IN AND TESTIFY IN THIS CASE. OTHER CASES, YOU KNOW, YOU WORK YOUR NERVE UP, YOU GO IN AND YOU TESTIFY AND THEN YOU ARE BACK TO WHAT YOU NORMALLY DO, BUT WITH THIS CASE WITH THAT CAMERA IN THIS COURTROOM IT HAS AN EXTREME AFFECT ON THE WITNESSES. AND I THINK WHEN I ASK FOR SANCTIONS IT IS NOT JUST IN TERMS OF MY CLIENT ALONE. I'M CONCERNED WITH THE WITNESSES WHO HAVE TO COME FORWARD, WHETHER THEY ARE PROSECUTION OR DEFENSE WITNESSES. THEY HAVE CERTAIN RIGHTS. AND I THINK THE COURT SHOULD BEND OVER BACKWARDS TO PROTECT THEIR RIGHTS AS WELL. AND I DO HAVE TO APOLOGIZE WHEN I WAS TALKING ABOUT PROTECTING RIGHTS, THE VICTIM'S RIGHTS ARE PROPERLY PROTECTED IN THIS CASE. WE HAVE TWO DECEDENTS. THE COURT HAS EVERY INTENTION TO TREAT THOSE PEOPLE WITH DIGNITY AND THE RESPECT THAT THEY ARE ENTITLED TO. I'M JUST ASKING FOR THE SAME THING FOR MY CLIENT AND THE OTHER CIVILIAN CITIZENS THAT ARE CALLED UPON TO DO THEIR CIVIC DUTY AND COME IN HERE AND TESTIFY.
GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU. FIRST OF ALL, YOUR HONOR, I THINK WE NEED TO BACK DOWN A LITTLE BIT FROM SOME OF THE RHETORIC AND SEE WHAT THE SCOPE OF THIS PARTICULAR HEARING IS. WHILE IT IS I THINK EVIDENT THAT I AGREE WITH PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF WITNESSES, PARTICULARLY GIVEN THE MOTIONS THAT I HAVE FILED AND ARGUED REGARDING DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN AND HIS PRIVACY RIGHTS, WE ARE HERE TODAY TO TALK ABOUT TWO PARTICULAR SUBPOENAS THAT WERE ISSUED FOR PHONE RECORDS OF TWO PARTICULAR PERSONS, MICHELLE ABOUDRAM WHO WAS THE DEFENDANT'S MAID FOR MANY YEARS OVER ON ROCKINGHAM, AND CATHY RANDA WHO WAS THE DEFENDANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT FOR PROBABLY LIKE TWENTY YEARS, SOMETHING LIKE TWENTY YEARS. WHAT CONCERNS ME, YOUR HONOR, IS THAT THE COURT HAS NOT READ THE SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION THAT I FILED. AS YOUR HONOR KNOWS, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ISSUES THOUSANDS OF SDT'S PER MONTH THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY FOR RECORDS OF ALL SORTS, INCLUDING PHONE RECORDS. WE ARE AWARE THAT IT IS THE CUSTOM AND PRACTICE OF PACIFIC BELL TO ALERT CONSUMERS SHOULD THEY HAVE ANY CONCERN ABOUT THAT. YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO GO INTO A LENGTHY RHETORIC MYSELF ABOUT THE COST CURRENTLY OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, THE DIFFICULTIES OUR OFFICE HAS IN OBTAINING APPROPRIATE BUDGETING, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE CURRENT THREE STRIKES LAWS. WE DO THE BEST WE CAN UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, YOUR HONOR. NOW, BECAUSE THERE WAS CONCERN RAISED IN THIS CASE WITH THE PRIVACY OF THE TWO PARTICULAR WITNESSES INVOLVED, I TOOK A LOOK AT THE DECLARATION WHICH WE SENT OUT WHICH IS A PRO FORMA DECLARATION, FRANKLY, THAT SAYS THAT THEY ARE NECESSARY TO PROVE THE CHARGES, THE RECORDS ARE. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT OUR OFFICE ROUTINELY PUTS ON SUBPOENAS, AS I'M SURE YOUR HONOR IS AWARE, AND TO TAKE THE TIME IN EVERY CASE AND EVERY TYPE OF SUBPOENA FOR RECORDS TO HAVE TO DETAIL THE REASONS FOR IT WOULD REQUIRE SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONAL TIME ON THE PART OF D.A.'S HANDLING ALL THESE CASES FOR WHICH WE ISSUE THESE THOUSANDS OF SUBPOENAS.
BUT YOUR HONOR, BECAUSE THE PRIVACY CONCERNS WERE RAISED, I DID DETAIL IN -- I SET FORTH IN DETAIL THE REASONS WHY WE INDEED SUBPOENAED THESE PARTICULAR RECORDS, AND THE TIMING IS SELF-EVIDENT. WE ARE NOT TRYING TO MANUFACTURE OUR FACTS LATER. THESE RECORDS WERE SUBPOENAED ON FEBRUARY 9TH AND 10TH AND THEY FOLLOWED OUR SECOND INTERVIEW OF ZIONA FRIEDMAN WHICH WAS ON FEBRUARY 8TH. THAT LADY IS ALSO A MAID AND SHE WAS A MAID WHO MICHELLE, THE DEFENDANT'S MAID FOR APPROXIMATELY EIGHT YEARS, CALLED REGULARLY TO ASSIST HER WHEN THE DEFENDANT WAS ENTERTAINING. SHE IS ALSO SOMEONE -- MICHELLE AND ZIONA FRIEDMAN WERE CLOSE TOGETHER AND IN FACT THEIR RECORDS WERE SUBPOENAED ON THE SAME SDT. AND ZIONA FRIEDMAN HAS NOT SOUGHT LEGAL COUNSEL TO MOVE TO QUASH THE SUBPOENA FOR HER RECORDS. WHEN WE INTERVIEWED HER, YOUR HONOR, ON FEBRUARY 8TH, AND THIS IS SET FORTH IN MORE DETAIL IN MY DECLARATION, SHE INITIALLY, IN BEING DRIVEN TO THE INTERVIEW, SHE EXPRESSED CONCERNS TO ONE OF OUR D.A. INVESTIGATORS THAT SHE FELT SHE WAS BEING PRESSURED AND HARASSED BY MS. RANDA TO DISASSOCIATE HERSELF FROM THE PROSECUTION AND SHE WAS VERY ADAMANT ABOUT THOSE CONCERNS. WHEN WE GOT TO THE INTERVIEW, THE TAPED INTERVIEW, SHE DENIED THAT, BUT SHE STILL ACTED VERY SCARED, SAID SHE WAS VERY SCARED, VERY CONCERNED. IT APPEARED THAT SHE HAD WANTED TO TALK TO US BUT SHE WAS TERRIFIED OF DOING SO. IN ADDITION, SHE SET FORTH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT SHE HAD NOT PROVIDED WITH REGARD TO MICHELLE'S RECOUNTING OF THE 1989 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INCIDENT. IF THE COURT RECALLS, I BELIEVE THE COURT HEARD TESTIMONY DURING TRIAL AND/OR DURING THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE DURING THE 1101(B) HEARINGS THAT MICHELLE WAS THE PERSON INDEED WHO TRIED TO PULL NICOLE SIMPSON OUT OF THE CAR, OUT OF THE POLICE CAR BACK IN 1989, SO -- AND MICHELLE AS WELL IS SOMEONE WHO HAD, DURING THE PERIODS OF TIME IN QUESTION, CALLED THIS OTHER MAID, ZIONA FRIEDMAN, WHO HAS BEEN COOPERATIVE WITH THE PROSECUTION, ALMOST EVERYDAY, ACCORDING TO ZIONA, SO THAT HER TELEPHONE RECORDS WOULD BE THE ONE THAT WOULD SHOW THOSE CALLS TO ZIONA, RATHER THAN VICE VERSA. IN ADDITION, THE COURT WILL RECALL THE TESTIMONY OF RON SHIPP WHERE HE INDICATED THAT HE WAS -- CONSIDERED HIMSELF A GOOD FRIEND OF THE DEFENDANT AND OF CATHY RANDA AND HE ALLUDED TO HIM AND CATHY RANDA AS SHARING MUTUAL -- SUPPORTING EACH OTHER WITH REGARD TO DRINKING PROBLEMS. IT WAS THE ILLUSION THERE. AND BECAUSE MR. SHIPP DID NOT COME FORTH TO THE PROSECUTION UNTIL JANUARY 28 I BELIEVE IT WAS, WITH REVEALING THE DEFENDANT'S INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS ABOUT HAVING HAD DREAMS OF KILLING NICOLE SIMPSON, BECAUSE HE DID NOT COME FORTH UNTIL THAT DATE, THE PHONE RECORD OF CATHY RANDA SHOWING CALLS DURING THE TIME IN QUESTION FROM NOVEMBER, DECEMBER AND JANUARY, NOT ONLY TO THESE MAIDS IN QUESTION, BUT ALSO TO MR. SHIPP, FURTHER CORROBORATES HIS EXPLANATION THAT HE WAS A FRIEND OF THE DEFENDANTS, AND HIS BIAS, HIS NATURAL BIAS WAS FOR THE DEFENSE. AND IT DOES CORROBORATE WHY HE DID NOT COME FORTH UNTIL LATE IN TIME IN REVEALING THAT INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS OF THE DEFENDANT'S WAS BECAUSE HE DID NOT WANT NICOLE'S BLOOD ON HIS HANDS AND BECAUSE HIS GUILTY CONSCIENCE COULD NOT STOP HIM ANY LONGER. I WOULD CERTAINLY ASK THE COURT TO READ THE DECLARATION IN DETAIL. WHAT WE HAVE IS A SITUATION HERE, YOUR HONOR, WHERE THE -- LET ME MAKE MENTION OF ONE OTHER THING. MISS RANDA WAS NOTIFIED WITH REGARD TO HER PHONE RECORDS WHICH WERE OBTAINED EARLIER BY PACIFIC BELL. IT IS ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT C TO MR. SACKS' SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH CATHY RANDA -- I'M SORRY, IN SUPPORT OF MOTION BY CATHY RANDA TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM, AND THAT SHOWS THAT SHE WAS NOTIFIED.
IN ADDITION, YOUR HONOR, MR. SACKS MAY BE UNAWARE, BUT WE DID PROVIDE THE DISCOVERY TO THE DEFENSE IN THIS CASE, WHO HAS STANDING FOR THAT, THAT THOSE PHONE RECORDS WERE ALSO OBTAINED PURSUANT TO A SEARCH WARRANT WHICH COVERED NOT ONLY THOSE RECORDS, BUT SEVERAL OTHERS HAVING TO DO WITH THAT PERIOD OF TIME OF THE WEEK DURING WHICH THE DEFENDANT WAS FINALLY ARRESTED ON THE 17TH OF JUNE. SO SHE DID -- BUT SHE WAS NOTIFIED BECAUSE WE ALSO STD'D THEM. SHE WAS ALSO NOTIFIED BY PACIFIC BELL ABOUT THOSE. WE ARE HERE AT A POINT IN TIME, YOUR HONOR, WHERE THESE WITNESSES HAVE HAD NOTICE NOW. THEY HAVE STARTED TO HIRE, THEY DO HAVE ATTORNEYS, THEY HAVE ATTORNEYS WHO HAVE FILED POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ON THEIR BEHALF. THE COURT I BELIEVE HAS THE RECORDS BEFORE IT. THE COURT -- WE ARE IN A SITUATION WHERE THE COURT IS ABLE TO MAKE A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION, BASED ON THE ADDITIONAL FACTS I SET FORTH IN OUR SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION, AND THAT IS ALL THAT SHOULD BE REQUIRED AT THIS POINT IN TIME. WE CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO UNDULY HARASS EITHER OF THESE WITNESSES BY RESUBPOENING THE DOCUMENTS JUST SO I CAN SET FORTH MY FOUR OR FIVE-PAGE DECLARATION WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF OUR STANDARD SDT FORMAT.
I ALSO WANTED TO MENTION A COUPLE OF CASES THAT -- IT IS ACTUALLY ONE CASE BY THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT, ASSOCIATED BREWERS DISTRIBUTING COMPANY VERSUS SUPERIOR COURT, A 1967 CASE AT 65 CAL.2D 583 AT 587 AND A CASE WHICH QUOTES THAT CASE AND INVOKES ITS HOLDING, PEOPLE VERSUS BIGELOW, B-I-G-E-L-O-W, A 1988 CASE AT 200 CAL.APP.3D 59 AT PAGE 61. BOTH OF THOSE CASES TALK ABOUT WHEN THE SUBPOENA POWER IS INVOKED TO SECURE DISCOVERY, THE GOOD CAUSE AND MATERIALITY REQUIREMENTS OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 1985, WHICH RELATES TO THE ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS, MUST BE GOVERNED BY DISCOVERY STANDARDS AND THEY ALSO SAY: "THE OBJECTIVE IS NOT MERELY THE DISCOVERY OF ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE, BUT ALSO EFFECTIVE PREPARATION FOR TRIAL." SO WHEN THE COURT REVIEWS THE SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION WHICH I FILED, I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO -- I WOULD REMIND THE COURT THAT EVEN THOUGH WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF TRIAL AND THE COURT IS DECIDING ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE, THE STANDARD ON DISCOVERY IS WHETHER THE RECORDS SOUGHT WILL TEND TO LEAD TO ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OR WOULD ENHANCE OR ALLOW FOR THE EFFECTIVE PREPARATION FOR TRIAL.
SO YOUR HONOR, WHILE MR. SACKS TALKS ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF 300 WITNESSES AND SO FORTH, WE HAD GOOD REASON TO SUBPOENA THESE PARTICULAR RECORDS IN QUESTION AND I SET FORTH THOSE REASONS, WHICH WERE NOT AFTER DISCOVERED FACTS, BUT FACTS THAT HAPPENED RIGHT BEFORE THE TIME WE SUBPOENAED THEM, AND THAT IS WHY WE SUBPOENAED THEM. I DID ALL THAT TO ALLOW THE COURT TO MAKE AN INTELLIGENT DECISION AS TO WHETHER INDEED THERE IS MATERIALITY SHOWN, AND IN ADDITION, I DON'T THINK I MENTIONED IN THE DECLARATION, BUT OF COURSE THESE RECORDS ARE NOT AVAILABLE FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE, AND THAT IS ALWAYS ONE OF THE REASONS GIVEN WHY RECORDS ARE NECESSARY FROM A PARTICULAR SOURCE, SO I WOULD WANT THAT IN THE RECORD AS WELL. OF COURSE THESE RECORDS, PHONE RECORDS, ARE NOT AVAILABLE FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE THAT WE ARE AWARE OF.
MISS LEWIS, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS REGARDING THE REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS AND WHETHER OR NOT THE POLICY OF PACIFIC BELL TO NOTIFY THEIR CUSTOMERS IS REALLY SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE WITH THE PUBLIC UTILITY CODE?
I BELIEVE IT IS SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE, YOUR HONOR. I WOULD NOT WANT YOUR HONOR TO SET PRECEDENTS THAT WOULD REQUIRE, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY, BUT SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONAL MONEY EXPENDED BY THE BUDGET ALLOTTED BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FROM THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WHICH COMES FROM THE TAXPAYERS, BECAUSE IF WE WERE REQUIRED TO NOTIFY THE CONSUMER IN EVERY CASE, THAT WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE THE EXPENSE TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE OF HAVING TO DO SO, AND ESPECIALLY GIVEN OUR KNOWLEDGE THAT IT IS PACIFIC BELL'S CUSTOM AND PRACTICE TO SUBMIT, WHENEVER THEY RETURN A SUBPOENA, THEIR POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AND THEIR NOTIFICATION, YOU KNOW, WITH THE RECORDS.
WELL, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE POLICY OF ALL THE PHONE COMPANIES IS THE SAME, BUT I HAVE TO TELL YOU I HAVEN'T CALLED GTE IN PARTICULAR AND ASKED THEM THAT.
MISS LEWIS, BOTH MR. SOLOMON AND MR. SACKS HAVE SUGGESTED THAT ASSUMING THE WORSE CASE SCENARIO, THAT I FIND THAT THERE IS SOME MATERIALITY AND THAT RATHER THAN REQUIRE YOU TO REISSUE A SUBPOENA FOR THE FIVE-PAGE DECLARATION IN SUPPORT, THAT THEY ARE RECOMMENDING THAT THE COURT REVIEW THE PHONE RECORDS IN CAMERA AND REDACT THOSE RECORDS JUST TO REFLECT THE PHONE CALLS BETWEEN THE PERSONS THAT YOU HAVE INDICATED ARE MATERIAL, RATHER THAN ALLOWING THE PROSECUTION UNFETTERED ACCESS TO THE COMPLETE PHONE RECORDS OF MISS RANDA AND MISS ABOUDRAM.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE, YOUR HONOR. WITH REGARD TO MS. RANDA, I THINK AS THE COURT WILL SEE FROM THE DECLARATION, THERE ARE OTHER -- THERE ARE OTHER PERSONS WHICH -- WHICH WOULD BE RELEVANT. FOR EXAMPLE, ZIONA FRIEDMAN WAS ADVISED TO -- BY CATHY RANDA, I BELIEVE I HAVE SET IT FORTH IN DETAIL IN MY DECLARATION -- TO CALL BILL PAVELIC. SHE SAID SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT, "MY GOD, PLEASE, FOR O.J., CALL BILL PAVELIC BEFORE YOU TALK TO THE PROSECUTION." WE DIDN'T FIND THIS OUT UNTIL THE SECOND INTERVIEW WE DID OF HER ON FEBRUARY 8TH AND SHE SAID SHE DID CALL BILL PAVELIC INDEED AND SHE CLAIMS THAT MR. PAVELIC TOLD HER ONLY TO TELL THE TRUTH. WELL, THE LENGTH OF THE PHONE CONVERSATION BETWEEN THOSE TWO WOULD BE USEFUL IN ASSESSING THE ACCURACY OF THAT STATEMENT, SO -- AND SHE ALSO INDICATED THAT SHE CALLED A.C. COWLINGS.
ALL RIGHT. MISS LEWIS, FORGIVE ME FOR INTERRUPTING YOU, BUT MY SPECIFIC QUESTION, THOUGH, IS THAT WOULD YOU ACCEPT A REDACTED PHONE RECORD RATHER THAN THE COMPLETE PHONE RECORD THAT YOU SUBPOENAED?
YES, YOUR HONOR. WE WOULD JUST NEED TO MAKE THE COURT SPECIFICALLY AWARE OF THE PHONE NUMBERS THAT WE ARE INTERESTED IN.
YES, YOUR HONOR. I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF THE LARGEST, I GUESS, PUBLIC LAW FIRM IN AMERICA, SAYING THAT THEY DON'T HAVE THE TIME, EFFORT ABILITY OR STAFF TO FILL OUT A SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM APPROPRIATELY. IF IN THE CIVIL COURT I HAD DONE WHAT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY HAD USED AND COME IN AND SAID, WELL, WE DON'T HAVE THE STAFF TO DO IT, THEY WOULD BE LOOKING FOR ME TO DO ANOTHER JOB, YOUR HONOR. YOU CAN'T DELEGATE THE FUNCTIONS OF SUBPOENA DT'S TO ONE LINE. YOU HAVE GOT TO USE THE APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE TO PROTECT PEOPLE. NOW, I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT THE REST OF THE WORLD, I AM WORRIED ABOUT MY CLIENT. THAT IS ALL I REPRESENT HERE. NOW, I HAVE HEARD NO JUSTIFICATION, OTHER THAN THIS IS THE WAY WE HAVE DONE IT FOR YEARS. WELL, THE CONSUMER NOTICE REQUIREMENT THEY DON'T EVEN GIVE. 1985.3 IS MANDATORY, NOT ON THE TELEPHONE COMPANY, BUT ON THE GOVERNMENT, WHOEVER WAS ATTEMPTING TO ISSUE THE SUBPOENA.
I'VE HEARD NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE COURT NOT TO IMPOSE SANCTIONS. AND THE QUESTION YOU ASKED MR. SACKS IS WHAT KIND OF SANCTIONS TO IMPOSE. WELL, FIRST OF ALL, IT SHOULD BE PAYABLE TO THE COURT, NOT TO COUNSEL. AND SECOND OF ALL, IT SHOULD BE APPROPRIATE WITH ANY OTHER TYPE OF SANCTIONS THAT THIS COURT HAS GIVEN IN THE PAST, EITHER AGAINST THE PROSECUTION OR THE DEFENSE, AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU ADMONISH THE JURY IS SOMETHING THAT IS NOT REALLY AN ISSUE I THINK. I THINK IT SHOULD BE A FINANCIAL SANCTION TO IMPOSE UPON BOTH THE PROSECUTION AND ANYBODY ELSE WHO APPEARS IN THIS COURT, THAT IF THEY ARE GOING TO SUBPOENA RECORDS OF PEOPLE, YOU BETTER COMPLY WITH THE LAW. I WOULD ALSO COMMENT THAT THE COMMENTS MADE BY MISS LEWIS REGARDING WHO SAID WHAT TO WHERE, ET CETERA, IS ALL HEARSAY DECLARATION BY MISS LEWIS. THERE IS NO DECLARATION IN THIS COURT IN THIS CASE FOR THESE SUBPOENAS BY ANY OF THE INVESTIGATORS OR BY MISS CLARK WHO WAS IN THE INTERVIEW. IT IS BY MISS LEWIS WHO HEARD IT FROM X, Y AND Z, SO WE HAVE A TRAIL OF HEARSAY HERE. ALSO, IN REGARD TO MY CLIENT, THEY ARE NOT ASKING FOR RECORDS WHEN SHE WAS THERE, YOUR HONOR. THEY ARE ASKING FROM NOVEMBER 1ST TO FEBRUARY 10, SOME FOUR AND A HALF MONTHS AFTER THE INCIDENTS. IN SPITE OF ALL THAT, WE WILL STILL GO ALONG WITH A REDACTED VERSION TO SAVE US FROM COMING BACK AGAIN, BUT I THINK AS MR. SACKS INDICATED, IT IS APPROPRIATE IN THIS CASE TO SANCTION THE PROSECUTION. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
YES, YOUR HONOR. IN RESPONSE TO THE DECLARATION ITSELF, AND WHAT WE HAVE HEARD IS HEARSAY ON HEARSAY, WE ARE NOT HERE TO LITIGATE THE TRUTHFULNESS OF THAT DECLARATION, JUST WHETHER OR NOT THAT DECLARATION WILL SUFFICE AS GOOD CAUSE. MY CLIENT CATEGORICALLY DENIES ANY ALLEGATIONS OF WRONGDOING MADE AGAINST HER IN THAT DECLARATION. BUT IN DEALING WITH THE POSITION OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, MY LAW OFFICE DOESN'T HAVE 125 OR 150 MILLION DOLLAR A YEAR BUDGET AND YET I FIND TIME TO DRAFT A DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF A SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM AS AN ATTORNEY PRACTICING BY MYSELF. I CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHY ATTORNEYS CLAIM THAT THEY DON'T HAVE THE MONEY WHEN ALL IT DOES IS TAKE TIME AND EFFORT TO PROPERLY DRAFT A DOCUMENT.
I THINK THE COURT, IF THEY WANT A BRIEF ON SOMETHING, YOU EXPECT AN ISSUE TO BE FULLY BRIEFED BY BOTH SIDES AND NOT TO GET SLOPPY LAWYERING IN THE PROCESS. NOW, IN ADDITION TO THE SANCTIONS SITUATION, I THINK MISS LEWIS MISSED THE POINT. SHE IS TELLING THIS COURT THAT SANCTIONS SHOULDN'T BE IMPOSED BECAUSE OF THE POLICY, THE COMPANY POLICY OF PACIFIC BELL, MY CLIENT DID GET NOTICE. WELL, MY CLIENT GOT NOTICE THAT THERE WAS A SUBPOENA, BUT SHE NEVER GOT THE SUBPOENA, AND IT IS NOT THE REQUIREMENT UNDER THE LAW FOR THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE COMPANY TO GIVE NOTICE TO THEIR SUBSCRIBERS. THEY DO THAT AS A COURTESY. BUT IF THEY STOPPED THAT COURTESY TOMORROW, WHO EVEN GETS ANY NOTICE THAT THEY ARE HOLDING A SUBPOENA FOR THOSE RECORDS? 1985.3(E) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE REQUIRES ON THE GOVERNMENT, OR ANY OTHER PARTY SEEKING A SUBPOENA UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, TO GIVE DIRECT NOTICE TO THE CONSUMER OR THEIR ATTORNEY. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY DIDN'T STAND BEFORE THIS COURT SAYING IN THE FUTURE WE ARE GOING TO GIVE NOTICE TO THE WITNESSES. SHE SAID WE ARE GOING TO RELY ON PACIFIC BELL TO CONTINUE WITH THE COMPANY POLICY, AND THAT IS NOT WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES. AND I THINK THAT EMPHASIZES THE REASON WHY THE COURT SHOULD SERIOUSLY CONSIDER THE REQUEST OF SANCTIONS BEING IMPOSED AT THIS TIME, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT GOING TO CHANGE THEIR WAYS AND THEY ARE NOT GOING TO CHANGE THEIR MIND. THEY ARE JUST GOING TO CONTINUE TO DO THINGS IN THE SAME WAY THAT THEY THINK IS APPROPRIATE, WHICH AMOUNTS TO NOTHING MORE THAN GOVERNMENTAL ABUSE AGAINST A CITIZEN OF THIS STATE THAT IS PROTECTED UNDER THE LAW TO RECEIVE THE NOTICE THAT THE LAW SAYS THEY SHOULD GET. AND TO DO OTHERWISE IS A VIOLATION OF THE LAW. AND TO STAND BEFORE THIS COURT AND SAY WE ARE GOING TO DO THE SAME OLD THING BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A 32-CENT STAMP TO SEND OUT THE SUBPOENA TO MISS RANDA OR HER ATTORNEY, IS THE BASIS OF WHICH THEY ARE STATING THEY ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO NOT COMPLY WITH THE LAW. AND I FIND THAT LUDICROUS AT THE PRICE OF A 32-CENT STAMP AND THE COST OF XEROXING TWO PIECES OF PAPER, WHICH IS THE SUBPOENA AND THE DECLARATION OF SUPPORT, IS THE BASIS TO INTENTIONALLY TO CONTINUE TO VIOLATE THIS LAW. AND I WOULD SUBMIT ON IT THAT BASIS.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. I'M GOING TO TAKE THE MATTER UNDER SUBMISSION SO I CAN READ THE DECLARATION FILED BY MISS LEWIS, AND I WILL ISSUE A WRITTEN RULING. ALL RIGHT.
YOUR HONOR, JUST FOR THE RECORD, I READ THE TRANSCRIPT OF ZIONA FRIEDMAN AND I LISTENED TO THE OTHER TAPED INTERVIEW, SO IT IS NOT HEARSAY UPON HEARSAY UPON HEARSAY.
THE RECORD SHOULD ALSO REFLECT THAT IT IS GTE THAT RESPONDED; NOT PACIFIC BELL.
KEY QUOTETHE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, IN ITS PRESENT FORM IN THIS SUBPOENA, IF LEFT UNTOUCHED, WOULD ALLOW ANYONE AT ANY TIME TO GET ANYONE'S RECORDS.
IF WE TOOK THE SAME AFFIDAVIT AND CHANGED ONE WORD AND SAID 'NECESSARY TO DISPROVE THE CHARGES FILED AGAINST THE NAMED DEFENDANT,' THE COURT WOULD BE AUTHORIZING THE SEIZURE OF 400 OF THE PROSECUTION'S WITNESS' RESIDENTIAL TELEPHONE NUMBERS, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE DETECTIVES LANGE'S RESIDENCE TELEPHONE NUMBERS, MARK FUHRMAN'S, PHILIP VANNATTER'S AND RON PHILLIPS'.
TO STAND BEFORE THIS COURT AND SAY WE ARE GOING TO DO THE SAME OLD THING BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A 32-CENT STAMP TO SEND OUT THE SUBPOENA TO MISS RANDA OR HER ATTORNEY, IS THE BASIS OF WHICH THEY ARE STATING THEY ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO NOT COMPLY WITH THE LAW.
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT OUR OFFICE ROUTINELY PUTS ON SUBPOENAS, AS I'M SURE YOUR HONOR IS AWARE, AND TO TAKE THE TIME IN EVERY CASE AND EVERY TYPE OF SUBPOENA FOR RECORDS TO HAVE TO DETAIL THE REASONS FOR IT WOULD REQUIRE SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONAL TIME ON THE PART OF D.A.'S HANDLING ALL THESE CASES.
THE RECORD SHOULD ALSO REFLECT THAT IT IS GTE THAT RESPONDED; NOT PACIFIC BELL.