Back on the record. The record should reflect the jury has withdrawn from the courtroom. All right. The issue before the Court is the People's desire to call as a witness Mr. Robert Kardashian, a member of the California State bar, and one of the counsel of record for the Defendant in this matter, Mr. Simpson. Previously the Court had heard the argument of counsel and had agreed that the most appropriate way to do this was to attempt to do this by stipulation. Requested the parties to meet and confer. A proposed stipulation was submitted by counsel for Mr. Kardashian. The People have had now, I take it, the opportunity? Miss Lewis good, afternoon.
All right. Have you had any further opportunity to confer with Ms. Levine or Mr. Michaelson?
Your Honor, I was under the impression that this afternoon was meant to be an informal in chambers conference for that purpose.
I wanted to know if there was any chance if we had settled it at this point, but if there is a need for to us met and confer, I will be more than happy to do.
We have not settled it, your Honor, and I'm not sure a meet and confer would settle it either. Frankly, your Honor, the whole world saw Mr. Kardashian leave Mr. Simpson's home from Rockingham--
Well, not terribly mild, given the notoriety of this case, but the whole world saw him leave with that bag. The whole world is wondering what was in that bag. And the declaration which apparently the Defense chose to release to the press--
Mr. Kardashian chose to leave those premises with that bag. At that time we know he wasn't even an active member of the State bar.
The issue is can we reach a stipulation as to the facts, and if not, then we will have to have a hearing.
No, we cannot, your Honor. I don't believe we really cannot, excuse me, since we don't know the basis for these facts. There is an additional information that hasn't been articulated. Some of these facts are inconsistent with Mr. Kardashian's recollection, vague recollection as to what baggage he had when he testified before the grand jury under oath many months ago and a lot closer to the opportunity that he had to remember what happened.
It was taken up briefly before the grand jury in terms of the bags that he took from the Rockingham home when he took Mr. Simpson to his home in Encino. So in the proposed stipulation Mr. Kardashian indicates that he took the bag back to Rockingham and then was--when Mr. Simpson went with him to stay at his house in Encino Mr. Simpson had the bag with him at that time.
No. My question is if you already have Mr. Kardashian's statements under oath to the grand jury, I mean, what more do you need?
We don't, your Honor. Basically, Mr. Kardashian was questioned with regard to the grand jury proceedings concerning the events surrounding June 16th and 17th. There was only some very brief questioning along these lines because at that point in time what was material to the Cowlings' investigation was the black bag which contained the which I believe contained the gun, the thousands of dollars, the disguise that Mr. Simpson had with him, and that is what was material. That particular bag was material only by accident in the course of the questioning there did it come out that Mr. Kardashian had very little recall as far as what bags Mr. Simpson had with him on the earlier date when he left--when they left together to go to his house in Encino. So that lack of recall back when it was much closer to the time that that happened is--makes it sort of astounding that in his declaration or draft stipulation, I should say, which isn't even under penalty of perjury, he states when they left he had several bags with him, Mr. Simpson did, including the Louie Vitton garment bag. So it is amazing to us how his recollection can be so strong now 10, 11 months after the fact, when he testified at the grand jury last August, I believe it was, he had only a vague recollection of what bags Mr. Simpson took with him. So we do not believe that we are going to be able to reach a stipulation in this matter, your Honor, without having Mr. Kardashian be subject to cross-examination about that and about other areas as well, in addition to gleaning additional information, which is not addressed by the stipulation.
Well, Mr. Kardashian indicates that he took several bags, that the Defendant took several bags with him to Mr. Kardashian's house. He doesn't say what happened to any of those bags or why they were taken there. He also indicates that the Louie Vitton garment bag was left at Mr. Kardashian's premises for weeks. He says for several weeks until it was picked up by Cathy Randa, Mr. Simpson's 20-year long administrative assistant. I'm not willing and I don't think the Prosecution is willing to stipulate that Mr. Kardashian did not look inside that bag for a several-week period. Even under normal human courtesy if someone has someone else's bag which apparently would contain their clothing, you think they would open it just to air it out, if nothing else, but certainly, given the circumstances of this case and these double murders with which Mr. Simpson was charged, it would certainly behoove anybody to look inside this bag and see what was in there. So we find that very difficult to accept, your Honor, as an honest recollection on Mr. Kardashian's part. And there are additional--there are additional questions as well. What caused Cathy Randa to pick up that bag several weeks later? What conversation did he have with her that caused her to pick it up? How did Mr. Kardashian know when he pointed out, as Judge Wong testified when he pointed out this particular bag at Mr. Simpson's residence, when there were several of these Louie Vitton garment bags present there, at least at the time of the jury view, what caused Mr. Kardashian to point out this particular bag to Judge Wong? There are several unanswered questions along those lines, your Honor.
Aren't we pretty sure that this is the same bag, given the luggage tags, the American Airline luggage tag that is on it?
I'm not sure of anything at this point, your Honor. Those tags can be subject to transfer from one bag to another and I think we have a right to ask these questions with Mr. Kardashian under oath. And obviously there is no lack--there is no problem as far as the ethics or rules are concerned with having him testify out of the presence of the jury to these matters, but I think it would be important for us to be able to observe his demeanor and cross-examine him and try and get out the full truth, what caused--what happened to these bags, and the one that is in court in particular.
I mean are you asking me to do that without any further ado in front of the jury or are you suggesting a hearing outside of the presence of the jury to in essence depose Mr. Kardashian?
I think a hearing outside the presence of the jury would be the appropriate forum to handle that, your Honor, and then at that time, if it appears that we can reasonably stipulate to something, if we are satisfied that there is a sufficient factual basis that we can stipulate and have a desire to stipulate to something, then we can make that assessment after that hearing.
With all due respect to Ms. Lewis, your Honor, she seems to have missed the entire problem here. It is not whether or not Mr. Kardashian was percipient to anything. If he weren't percipient--
Let me just ask counsel over here to the side bar without the court reporter, please.
the whole world saw him leave with that bag. The whole world is wondering what was in that bag.
Mild exaggeration.
it is amazing to us how his recollection can be so strong now 10, 11 months after the fact, when he testified at the grand jury last August, I believe it was, he had only a vague recollection of what bags Mr. Simpson took with him.
I'm not willing and I don't think the Prosecution is willing to stipulate that Mr. Kardashian did not look inside that bag for a several-week period.