Good morning, counsel. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present with his counsel, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Blasier, Mr. Scheck, Mr. Neufeld. The People are represented by Mr. Darden and Mr. Clarke. The jury is not present. I assume there are a few things we need to discuss before we resume with the jury?
Good morning, Dr. Cotton has spent overnight actually toiling at very late hours in preparation of these population frequencies that the Court has requested. It is my opinion that she is not prepared at this time to present those with the type of preparation that is necessary. It is our intent to call another witness to describe the frequencies with these mixtures in which we will comply with the Court's direction. We will provide frequencies for those numbers. It is our intent not to do it at this time.
He will be available and what it is our intent to do with Dr. Weir is to have him discuss obviously not just these frequencies as to these particular two mixtures, but also other frequencies in the case as well, so what we will await for his testimony is a description of the results in this case and then to conclude that in terms of once frequencies are discussed or described by the witnesses who are yet to be presented, he will then present testimony about those calculations.
All right. So you anticipate under your proposal we finish with Dr. Cotton this morning, move on to the California Department of Justice? Are we going to get any other lab results from any other lab?
Good morning. As you may recall, you issued a ruling in this case stating that DNA results of a match or of a consistency could not be presented without some number, although you said that every time you use the word "match" you don't have to at that point articulate a number. With respect to Dr. Cotton, you issued a ruling saying that at some point during her testimony she had to provide these aggregated frequencies for the mixtures pursuant to the NRC position.
We were talking in terms of mixtures, not specifically in terms of Dr. Cotton's testimony.
Both mixtures and Dr. Cotton's testimony. In any event, she did apparently produce numbers. The numbers were given to us this morning. The suggestion, at least in the pieces of paper that I received, is that they concur with our numbers on the steering wheel, item 29. Is that--just from the papers that they have presented to us, and then they calculated different numbers for item no. 78 using--applying three different assumptions. I believe that under the Court's ruling I didn't go into this on cross-examination because it was an understanding that we had at the bench, side bar, that Mr. Clarke would be allowed to reopen his direct testimony to introduce their numbers for these mixtures through Dr. Cotton.
If they don't intend to do so now and the Court is going to allow them not to do that now, then I have an absolute right, your Honor, to reopen my cross-examination as to these two limited issues, and ask her questions about frequencies pertaining to item 78 and frequencies pertaining to item 29. I have a right to do that with this jury while this witness is still here and this jury is assessing the totality of this witness' testimony. I gave up that right to do that as part of my cross because I was under the impression, based on the Court's ruling, that I would have an opportunity to do that through this witness once they reopen their direct. And even if you are going to allow them to postpone their presentation, then certainly since genotype frequencies were brought out for lots of different items on direct examination, I should be entitled to cross-examine her now based on the frequencies for 29 and 78.
Just that I think that under those circumstances, that testimony, cross-examination testimony would clearly be beyond the scope of direct examination. I don't think there is any requirement that we elicit a particular fact from a particular witness when we are going to comply with the Court's order.
All right. Okay. All right. Well, the Court's ruling in this matter was in concurrence with the NRC report, that frequencies with regards to mixed stains, there had to be some report of some number, some statistical importance attached to that conclusion. The Defense did withhold any cross-examination as to that issue; however, there is nothing within the scope of the direct examination that can be cross-examined at this point with regards to frequencies on the mixtures. Mr. Neufeld, I'm not preventing you from questioning Dr. Cotton as to those issues. If you want to call Dr. Cotton in your Case in Chief during your Defense, you are entitled to do so, if you want to question those frequencies. You asked me to make this ruling to require the Prosecution to provide the statistical information. They have chosen not to present that at this time. They have indicated they have another witness that they are going to use to present that information. They are entitled to present their case in the manner which they wish to.
Your Honor, in this matter I wanted to just point out a matter to the Court, and in our ever ongoing attempt to keep the Court abreast of things that are happening. In driving around the city recently, your Honor, I have seen these billboards--I have seen only the ones that say "guilty," which is troubling to me, but I understand there are also some that say "innocent." I'm not sure who put up these billboards, whether they are some kind of promotion or some kind of a movie or whatever, but I wanted to point out to the Court, because I'm concerned that as our jury goes on these outings--the Court was aware that somebody shouted out something at a lacer game when the jury was there.
And I wanted the Court to be aware of that so that if and when the jury is taken out on outing we need to know about this so if they are taken down routes that have signs saying one thing or the other, that could be prejudicial to either side of this case. And I thought it was incumbent upon me to bring this to the Court's attention at this point. The other thing I wanted to point out to the Court is that we do have a number of matters that kind of slipped off our plate, as it were, and I would like at the appropriate time for both sides to try and meet with the Court to try and get some things rescheduled. I know we have been very busy and it is good to have the matters move along, but we need to meet at some point.
I think need to have Mrs. Robertson make up a list of the other items that are yet to be resolved and we will start with that and then we will schedule a meeting amongst principal counsel for both sides to schedule resolving those issues. Unfortunately, we just had the autopsy Coroner's hearings changed to the afternoon of the 19th, which would have been an ideal time.
And I anticipate, since we are talking about 50 photos and some significant legal and medical issues on that, I anticipate probably having to spend the whole afternoon with that motion.
Okay. All right. Then Mrs. Robertson, would you advise Sergeant Smith I would like to speak with him regarding outings.
Your Honor, I was just proposing to Mr. Cochran that perhaps we can discuss some of these matters that we have pending before the Court. Some of those motions perhaps can be resolved between counsel without need to take up the Court's time, and if that is possible, we will do that. I wanted to indicate to the Court that I have seen those billboards. The ones I saw were "innocent," and I mean there is something other worldly about this, but I kind of thought it was a promo for something else. I'm hopeful that that is the case, in any case, but if there is any possibility of making sure that the bailiffs look at the route that would be taken by the jurors wherever they are going to make sure they see neither of those billboards.
No. My instructions and the Sheriff's Department precautions always include a survey of the route to and from before, but I just wanted to make--that is why I asked Mrs. Robertson to contact Sergeant Smith for me. I just want to make sure that we both understand that that is still the policy. That has been the policy, but just to give Sergeant Smith a head's up to avoid this.
One last matter then before the conclusion of Robin Cotton. In light of the Court's ruling, I would ask the Court to strike the testimony of Robin Cotton with respect to the mixture on item 78. I think that as you may recall, there were several times during my cross-examination of Dr. Cotton where I tried to introduce certain facts subject to connection and the Court said that wasn't appropriate and said that if I wanted to do so during my case I can go right ahead and do so. I think that out of fairness, your Honor, the same result and the same approach is warranted here. You had ruled that evidence of mixtures and matches would not be--
No, no. No, I'm not. I'm asking for you to strike that portion of the testimony. I'm not talking about my right to cross-examine her on this point at this time. I'm simply asking that since the Court has taken the tact that it has taken, that the appropriate relief is with respect to item 78, that that should be stricken from the record at this point.
Well, Mr. Neufeld, first you want me to make a ruling requiring the Prosecution to present the evidence in a certain manner. I grant that. They decide in light of that they have to adjust their case, so you can't have it both ways.
KEY QUOTEYour Honor, I'm not sure where we left off with Dr. Cotton in terms of questioning.
I gave up that right to do that as part of my cross because I was under the impression, based on the Court's ruling, that I would have an opportunity to do that through this witness once they reopen their direct.
No. That was the ending of the argument. Next item. Next item.
Well, Mr. Neufeld, first you want me to make a ruling requiring the Prosecution to present the evidence in a certain manner. I grant that. They decide in light of that they have to adjust their case, so you can't have it both ways.
In driving around the city recently, your Honor, I have seen these billboards--I have seen only the ones that say 'guilty,' which is troubling to me, but I understand there are also some that say 'innocent.'
I mean there is something other worldly about this, but I kind of thought it was a promo for something else.