OKAY. IS THERE ANY -- IS THERE ANY DISPUTE THAT FAYE RESNICK WENT INTO THIS DRUG PROGRAM?
WAIT A MINUTE. THE ISSUE IS RELEVANCE AND NOT WHETHER OR NOT THESE THINGS OCCURRED. IT IS IRRELEVANT AND HEARSAY AS TO THIS DETECTIVE, BUT WHAT I REALLY WANT IS GUIDANCE FROM THE COURT. IF MR. COCHRAN IS GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO EXPLORE THIS LINE OF TESTIMONY CONCERNING FAYE RESNICK AND THE BOOK, THEN THE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO COME BACK ON RECROSS -- ON REDIRECT AND ASK THE DETECTIVE WHETHER OR NOT IN THAT BOOK FAYE RESNICK INDICATES THAT THE DEFENDANT THREATENED TO KILL NICOLE ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS, THE LAST OF WHICH SHE RECALLS BEING SHORTLY BEFORE THE MURDERS, OF HIS STALKING BEHAVIOR, OF HIS BRUTAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BEHAVIOR WITH REGARD TO NICOLE. OPEN THAT DOOR.
MAY I BE HEARD? I DON'T THINK SHE IS RUNNING THIS COURT YET, I HOPE. THE QUESTION IS, AM I PERMITTED SOME LEEWAY ON THIS DRUG THING, BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT I'M ASKING. HE IS UP THERE CLAIMING THAT HE DOESN'T KNOW FAYE RESNICK WAS IN EXODUS. A VERY SIMPLE QUESTION. WE NEVER GOT AN ANSWER, THOUGH. WE ALL HAVE THE RECORDS AT EXODUS. SHE CALLS THAT NIGHT. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT ANY THREATS OPENING ANY DOORS ANY MORE THAN SHE IS OPENING THE DOORS. I'M JUST ASKING ABOUT EXODUS, ABOUT THE DRUG TREATMENT, ABOUT HIS POSTULATION THIS IS NOT A DRUG KILLING. THAT IS WHAT I ASKED HIM ABOUT AND I THINK I AM PERMITTED TO DO THAT. FOR INSTANCE, HE READ THE BOOK BECAUSE HE SAID BEFORE THEIR WHOLE INVESTIGATION STARTED WHEN THEY READ THIS BOOK, SO I'M ASKING THAT AND I THINK I AM PERMITTED TO ASK THAT. THAT IS ALL I WANT TO ASK HIM.
KEY QUOTEOBVIOUSLY ASKING FOR HEARSAY AND ALSO OBVIOUSLY IRRELEVANT, BUT THAT IS FINE. IF THE COURT IS INCLINED TO ALLOW THAT, THE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO -- AS I INDICATED BEFORE, THE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE ASKING THE COURT TO ALLOW US TO GO BACK ON REDIRECT.
BECAUSE THE IMPORT OF COUNSEL'S QUESTIONING IS THAT THESE WERE DRUG-ELATED KILLINGS BECAUSE FAYE RESNICK WAS THE ACTUAL TARGET, FAYE RESNICK WAS A DRUG USER, OTHERWISE WHY GO INTO THIS LINE? OKAY? AND THAT IS A HALL ISSUE AS WELL THAT I THINK THEY CANNOT ESTABLISH ANY RELEVANCE BASED ON FAY RESNICK'S DRUG USAGE TO JUSTIFY THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THIS KIND OF INFORMATION. BUT IF THEY DO, THEN IN ORDER TO REBUT THAT INFERENCE, I THINK WHAT IS SAUCE FOR THE GOOSE IS SAUCE FOR THE GANDER AND THE FAIR THING TO DO IS THEN COME BACK AND SAY, OKAY, BUT IN THAT BOOK FAYE RESNICK, ALTHOUGH SHE ADMITS DRUG USAGE, INDICATES THE FOLLOWING, DOES SHE NOT?
WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS AN OFFER OF PROOF. THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE -- AND THEY HAVE TALKED TO CHRISTIAN REICHARDT AND FAYE RESNICK. SHE MOVED IN ON JUNE 3RD. ON JUNE 8TH SHE WAS USING DRUGS FREEBASING SO BADLY -- IN FACT, CHRISTIAN REICHARDT PUT HER OUT ON JUNE 3RD. THEN ON JUNE 8TH SHE WAS PUT INTO EXODUS WITH NICOLE BEING PART OF THE INTERVENTION AND THAT ON JUNE 12TH SHE CALLED AND THAT THE INFORMATION IS THAT I THINK THAT WHEN THEY HEARD SYDNEY SIMPSON TALKING AT THE POLICE STATION, SHE SAYS TO JUSTIN SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT "YOU HEARD MOMMY'S BEST FRIEND CALLED AND MOMMY WAS CRYING AFTER THIS" AND THE TESTIMONY IS THAT SHE ALSO CALLED AND THAT IS THE WHOLE THING. WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH O.J. THREATS OR WHATEVER THEY WENT INTO IN EVERYTHING, AS THEY TRIED TO DO YESTERDAY? NOW WHEN THEY ARE GETTING STUNG WITH THEIR OWN MEDICINE THEY CAN'T STAND IT. SO I AM POINTING OUT TO THE COURT I DON'T THINK THAT OPENS ANY DOOR BY ASKING THAT QUESTION.
IT IS A HALL ISSUE. THEY ARE TRYING TO RAISE THE SPECTRE OF THIRD PARTY DRUG DEALS HERE AND USING THE BOOK AND USING FAY RESNICK TO DO THAT. FINE. IF THAT IS WHAT THEY WANT TO DO, I THINK IT IS A HALL ISSUE AND IRRELEVANT AND THEY CAN'T LINK IT UP ALL. IT IS ANOTHER SINISTER INNUENDO THEY THROW UP THAT HAS ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS IN FACT. CHRISTIAN REICHARDT DID NOT PUT HER OUT. FAYE RESNICK LEFT HIM. THAT IS THE REAL STORY. THE STATEMENT FROM SYDNEY, SYDNEY HAS INDICATED REPEATEDLY DURING THE COURSE OF THE INVESTIGATION SHE DOES NOT REMEMBER ANY SUCH THING HAPPENING. SHE WAS IN A HALF WAKENED STATE AT THE TIME THAT SHE SAID IT, AND SO IT HAS NO RELEVANCE EITHER. COUNSEL WANTS TO ALLOW ALL OF THESE RED HERRINGS OUT THERE FOR THE JURY TO STUMBLE OVER. THEY CANNOT ESTABLISH THEIR REQUIREMENTS UNDER HALL AND SHOULD NOT BE ADMITTED FOR THAT REASON, BUT IF IT IS, THE PEOPLE SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO REVISIT THAT ISSUE AND CLEAR IT UP, BECAUSE WHAT THE BOOK MAKES VERY CLEAR IS THAT THIS IS NOT A DRUG-RELATED KILLING.
YOU SEE, THAT IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO AVOID HERE. IF MR. COCHRAN ASKS THE QUESTION DID YOU CONSIDER, IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION, FAY RESNICK'S STAYING WITH NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON FOR THIS LIMITED PERIOD OF TIME AND WHAT APPEARS TO BE A RATHER SEVERE DRUG PROBLEM IN YOUR CONSIDERATION WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS A DRUG-RELATED MURDER? YES OR NO. HE WILL PROBABLY SAY -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT HE IS GOING TO SAY. BUT IF -- AND I THINK HE IS ENTITLED TO DO THAT, IN LIGHT OF WHAT HAS TRANSPIRED SO FAR.
BUT I THINK THAT IS ABOUT THE EXTENT OF IT. NOW, IF ASSUMING FOR THE SAKE OF THE ARGUMENT THAT I SUSTAINED YOUR OBJECTION AT THIS POINT, THEN HE IS GOING TO ALSO DRAG FAYE RESNICK IN HERE TO SAY WHERE DID YOU LIVE ON SUCH AND SUCH A TIME AND HERE ARE THE RECORDS FROM EXODUS, WHICH SEEMS TO ME TO BE A LOT TO DO THAT WE CAN DISPOSE OF WITH TWO QUESTIONS HERE.
DISPOSE OF UNFAIRLY, BECAUSE WE ARE CREATING AN INNUENDO WITH ALL THIS DRUG USAGE STUFF WHICH IS UNFAIR AND FAYE RESNICK SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO ADDRESS.
OTHER QUESTIONS I CAN ASK AND MOVE ON AFTER THAT. I HAVE ENOUGH TO TALK ABOUT. I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THE AREA OF INQUIRY.
YOUR HONOR, I THINK THIS IS ALL HEARSAY, IRRELEVANT AND IMMATERIAL. IT IS INAPPROPRIATE TO MISLEAD AND CONFUSE THE JURY THIS WAY. THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE BEING ALLOWED TO DO. IF THEY WANT TO CALL FAYE RESNICK AND TRY AND BRING ALL THIS STUFF WITH FAYE, THAT IS FAIR GAME, THEY DO CAN DO, THAT BUT TO DRAG IN THROUGH THIS DETECTIVE TO CREATE AN INFERENCE WHICH THERE IS NO BASIS UNDER HALL WOULD BE VERY UNFAIR, MISLEADING TO THE JURY. IT IS THE TRUTH THAT THIS WOMAN USED DRUGS AT THIS POINT. IT IS THE TRUTH THAT SHE WENT INTO EXODUS AT SOME POINT. BUT THE INFERENCE THEY ARE SEEKING TO DRAW FROM THAT IS UNTRUE, PATENTLY UNTRUE, AND THAT IS WHAT IS UNFAIR.
UNFORTUNATELY SHE DOESN'T HAVE THE VOTE. CAN YOU RULE AND GIVE ME THE AREAS AND I WILL MOVE ON AND GET THIS DONE THIS AFTERNOON? WE HAVE ARGUED IT.
KEY QUOTEALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO OVERRULE THE OBJECTION AND I'M GOING TO ALLOW YOU TO ASK THE QUESTION IF IN MAKING THE DETERMINATION THAT THIS WAS NOT A DRUG -- WHETHER OR NOT THIS WAS A DRUG-RELATED KILLING, ANY INFORMATION HE HAD ABOUT FAYE RESNICK STAYING AT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE FROM THE 3RD TO THE 8TH AND ALSO HER SUBSEQUENT IMMEDIATE RESIDENCE AT A DRUG REHABILITATION PROGRAM PERIOD.
WHETHER OR NOT HE CONSIDERED, IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THIS WAS A DRUG-RELATED CRIME --
-- THE FACT THAT FAYE RESNICK STAYED WITH NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, THE ALLEGED INFORMATION THAT SHE STAYED WITH NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON FROM THE 3RD TO THE 8TH AND THEN IMMEDIATELY WENT INTO A DRUG REHABILITATION PROGRAM PERIOD.
IF MR. COCHRAN IS GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO EXPLORE THIS LINE OF TESTIMONY CONCERNING FAYE RESNICK AND THE BOOK, THEN THE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO COME BACK ON REDIRECT AND ASK THE DETECTIVE WHETHER OR NOT IN THAT BOOK FAYE RESNICK INDICATES THAT THE DEFENDANT THREATENED TO KILL NICOLE ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS, THE LAST OF WHICH SHE RECALLS BEING SHORTLY BEFORE THE MURDERS
I DON'T THINK SHE IS RUNNING THIS COURT YET, I HOPE.
THOSE ARE APPLES AND APRICOTS. THAT IS NOT EVEN APPLES AND ORANGES.
UNFORTUNATELY SHE DOESN'T HAVE THE VOTE. CAN YOU RULE AND GIVE ME THE AREAS AND I WILL MOVE ON AND GET THIS DONE THIS AFTERNOON?