Your Honor, the People would like to be heard with respect to the last ruling. I think that--I think that the Court mischaracterized the testimony offered by the witness concerning what he heard and it has nothing to do with the Defendant's statement at all. Matter of fact, I don't even know if the Court has ever read the Defendant's statement, but I think that would be germaine. Excuse me, Mr. Scheck. Let me address the Court if you don't mind. I have read the statement and am very familiar with it. The statement bears no resemblance to what this witness testified to. This witness testified to a news report where it was I believe stated, at least in his recollection, that the Defendant was in Chicago at the time that he received the call. We already have testimony to that effect. That's nothing new and it's certainly not a part of his testimony--I mean a part of the Defendant's statement. To say that his recollection of a news report somehow opens up the Defendant's statement makes no sense at all. And I think that the Court needs to look at the statement itself. But the testimony, if we have it read back, will make that very clear. He was watching the news. He saw a news program saying the Defendant was in Chicago, and he--so he concluded, this witness concluded--
The witness knows what he testified to. He just said it. And to say somehow--for the Defense to argue that somehow that opens up the Defendant's statement is ridiculous. He's talking about a news report and conclusion he drew from that news report. What does that have to do with what the Defendant said?
Well, here's the problem. What Mr. Yamauchi said was, quote, "Like I was saying, I heard on the news, well, yeah, he's got an air-tight alibi. He's in Chicago and, you know, that--and it's his ex-wife and this and that, and I go, oh, well, he's probably not related to the scene." The problem here is, he's got an air-tight alibi. Now--
I understand that. The problem is, a party has brought in part the alibi part, "He's got an alibi." They have brought in--I think you've got a 356 problem.
KEY QUOTEWe don't have a 356 problem, your Honor. We brought out this witness' entire knowledge of the events and he's not premising that on his knowledge of the Defendant's statement because he didn't know what the Defendant's statement was. No one did. How could that possibly be a 356 issue with respect to a Defendant's statement when he didn't even know about it? He's not talking about that. He's talking about his conclusion drawn from the fact that he heard the Defendant was in Chicago. How could that possibly relate to the content of the Defendant's statement? He made no mention of the content of the statement.
The statement is--the statement is, "He's got an air-tight alibi. He was in Chicago."
That was this witness' conclusion, your Honor. Not in reference to that statement. He made no reference to the Defendant's statement, and he didn't even know about the Defendant's statement. How could we possibly have a 356 in a situation where the witness doesn't even know what that is? The witness is talking about his state of mind, what he concludes from a news report, nothing to do with the Defendant's statement. So how can we have a 356 issue with reference to a statement this witness never talked about, never knew about, never mentioned?
You asked him a question that elicited, "He's got an air-tight alibi. He's in Chicago."
That was this witness' opinion, your Honor. What does that have to do with the Defendant's statement, which by the way does not state that he had an air-tight alibi because he was in Chicago. That was not his statement.
We're certainly not going to yell at your Honor and become hysterical. We would point out--
I object to that characterization, your Honor. That kind of personal attack is very improper and inappropriate. The Court knows that it's simply advocacy. I'm not yelling at anyone, and for Mr. Cochran to make that kind of sexist remark, "Hysterical," I take great umbrage at it and I think the Court should not countenance that kind of behavior.
KEY QUOTEIs she finished? Your Honor, I'm not going to yell at your Honor. I'm going to try to deal with the facts. Mr. Scheck, as the Court is quite aware, tried to object at the appropriate time and we even had a sidebar in this regard. The People brought this matter out. They're hoisted by their own petard. We will welcome the opportunity to do this, your Honor. I think you're absolutely right, it's a 356 problem. This witness was very clear. They brought it out to the jury, and now we think we have the right to bring out Mr. Simpson's entire statement. We have no objection to your Honor seeing that statement. We have no objection to the points and authorities, but we think it's very clear they've opened the door, your Honor, with a Mac truck, and we think we can walk through it, and I think it's very appropriate to do that.
All right. Points and authorities tomorrow morning, 9:00 o'clock. All right. We'll take a 15-minute recess.
To say that his recollection of a news report somehow opens up the Defendant's statement makes no sense at all.
The problem is, a party has brought in part the alibi part, 'He's got an alibi.' They have brought in--I think you've got a 356 problem.
They're hoisted by their own petard. We will welcome the opportunity to do this, your Honor... they've opened the door, your Honor, with a Mac truck, and we think we can walk through it.
I object to that characterization, your Honor. That kind of personal attack is very improper and inappropriate... for Mr. Cochran to make that kind of sexist remark, 'Hysterical,' I take great umbrage at it.