May we be heard? Thank you. Just before the break Mr. Scheck posed a question that was so unethical and so improper that I think that the transcript should be sent to the state bar. I think he should not be permitted to practice pro hoc vice. I find it not only appalling, but I am ashamed as an officer of the Court to see this kind of behavior. It was a deliberately improper question that Mr. Scheck knew to be improper, bringing out such information in front of the jury with no--no appropriate focus, other than to give information to the jury which is inappropriate, which cannot be brought out in that manner in an effort to prejudice the right of the People to a fair trial in a very inflammatory manner, no less. I think that the sanction should be very severe and I think that the Court should not take this lightly because the Court could see this coming. The Court knew that Mr. Scheck was going to try and get that in front of the jury. I'm sure that you did. We anticipated it and then the question sure enough was asked and Mr. Scheck knows it is improper because there is no lawyer with half a brain with an IQ. Above 5 who would not have known that such a question is improper. And to deliberately ask such improper questions, such inflammatory questions deliberately designed to thwart justice, should not be treated lightly. And we are asking the Court to impose a sanction and we are going to draft a proposal for that sanction. I would like the opportunity to confer further with counsel concerning that, but at the very least the jury should be ordered to disregard the statement made by Mr. Scheck and should be admonished that Mr. Scheck's conduct was highly inappropriate, and that is just for starters. May I have a moment, your Honor?
Further, your Honor, at this time the Defense should be ordered not to make any references to that statement. The references on the statement are an effort to hide behind inferences that can be thrown out in front of jury so that Mr. Simpson never takes the witness stand. This is an effort to hide behind a lawyer's argument and a lawyer's statement so that he will not have to take the witness stand and face cross-examination. If Mr. Simpson wants to testify, let him do so. As I said before, we welcome the opportunity to hear what he has to say, but to hide behind implication, inferences and innuendoes that are improperly made before this Court is highly inappropriate and unethical and a deliberate effort to thwart justice and prejudice the right of the People to a fair trial. So no further reference should be allowed by this Court to be made by any statement by the Defense as to the ends that I have indicated and the jury should be order to disregard any statement thus far and should also be instructed to the effect that Mr. Scheck acted in an unethical manner in doing so.
Your Honor, I don't think there is anything wrong. There is evidence that Mr. Simpson gave a statement. The contents of it are not in the record and we went down that road. The question I asked Mr. Yamauchi, which is an area which I think I'm entitled to explore, and to get his answers under oath, are to what extent he has knowledge about information from robbery/homicide. Now, I did not ask what I think would be objectionable questions, and that is are you aware that Mr. Simpson said A, B, C and D? That I can't ask, but I can ask, and in fact it is foundational to some more questions that I want to ask him now, about was he aware or did he know that Mr. Simpson made the statement? Did he know it through Dennis Fung? Did he know it through Greg Matheson? Did he know it from listening to news reports? Now, if he says, yes, that he was aware of it, then I might be able to go further in terms of what he knew in terms of the door that they opened. I obviously can't say by my questions did he--were aware that Mr. Simpson said A, B, C and D? But I am allowed to ask whether he was aware that Mr. Simpson made a statement, and the fact is, on--that we've already had in the record the fact that Mr. Simpson went down, and the evidence has been, that Detective Vannatter and Detective Lange took a statement from him, so the jury knows this is even--there was one other incident, as I recall, and the Court will recall the details a little better than I, I'm sure, where there was another door opening problem with respect to characterizations of what he did or didn't say with respect to the other detectives. But my--I believe my question was very careful and I think I am allowed--what I want to ask, frankly, and I would like the Court to rule, is whether I am allowed to ask him--
Okay. Well, I wanted to propose further questions along this line that I think I should be entitled to ask as to the state of this witness' knowledge, without getting into the contents.
Well, as I understood the Court's ruling with respect to opening the door, and I am not sure the witness should be here for this, but a lot of it turned on the extent to which this witness had knowledge of certain information, via what sources. The Prosecution has elicited hearsay statements with respect to a statement of airtight alibi on their direct examination and deliberately elicited hearsay as to Fung's conversations with Yamauchi and his state of knowledge which I didn't object to and it came out. And the reason I didn't object to it is I want to probe it now and I think I should be entitled to probe it. Now, I want to probe it in a way, and I think I have done it in a way that is perfectly responsible, where I'm not saying what Mr. Simpson said. I'm not introducing the content. I think I'm perfectly allowed to establish what, if anything, he knew about whether a statement was taken and what other sources of information he had through Dennis Fung about facts that came via robbery/homicide. I mean, the Court made a ruling at a certain point with respect to door opening that was based on the representations of the Prosecutors as to what Mr. Yamauchi would say and what he had said so far on direct. I think I am allowed to go into the state of his knowledge to see whether or not, umm, I can elicit more information that will allow me to go somewhat further. To do it carefully, but I think that under the Court's ruling I am allowed to do that.
Well, the 352 problem I don't think applies with respect to information that Mr. Yamauchi would get via the detectives of robbery/homicide that would go to the analysis of samples. Now, with respect to whether or not the blood at Rockingham was undisputedly Mr. Simpson's, or whether he had any information to that effect, without saying that that--Mr. Sims said that is relevant in terms of how the samples were handled and what he knew and whether the samples should have been handled at the same time and the level of DNA content of the samples. That is all relevant. I think I indicated to the Court before I was going to go down that road and that is one of the things I wanted to explore with this witness. And frankly--
To couch your questions in terms of a statement that you cannot bring in through this witness I think is unduly confusing and time consumptive, isn't it?
Your Honor, before I propose that, can I again ask that Mr. Yamauchi be excused for just a minute if we are going to discuss what he will or will not say?
Yes. Obviously this area also goes to the whole issue that they brought up of examiner bias and what the source of his knowledge was and wasn't. They brought it up; not me. And they brought it up earlier in terms of Detective Lange volunteering this. Now, I think I am allowed to go into--I mean, just because the Prosecutors get up and say he didn't know anything except what he heard on television doesn't mean I can't probe it on cross-examination. Frankly, I think it is highly incredible that we have in the notes of Matheson that Yamauchi was present at a meeting between him and Detective Lange and along with Mr. Fung, and that Detective Lange was in the evidence processing room--well, was in SID that morning and this man has no recollection of even seeing him. I mean, I think it is perfectly clear that we should be able to explore whether his memory got very convenient about what contact he had with the investigators and what Mr. Fung told him the investigators believed and the basis for the investigator's knowledge, because to the extent that he has knowledge of that, it goes to the issue of examiner bias and it goes, frankly, to the issue of how much--how far that door can be opened. And I don't see why I'm restricted in cross-examination from exploring those areas when they brought it up, just because they say, oh, he heard it all from news reports and it doesn't have any--it didn't emanate at all from the police. Why should I be bound by that? I should be able to explore what information he got from the police, without explicitly indicating what the content of the statement is.
But you can't do it without bringing in the contents of statements if what you suggest is true.
Well, I didn't--I haven't gone that far yet. All that I have said, and I have been very careful, that is the point, I asked him whether he knew through Mr. Fung or through police that there was a statement. The next question I want to ask him is that he said that he had listened to news media reports, was he aware that Mr. Simpson had made a statement through news media reports. That is all. I mean, we've all seen the videotapes where Mr. Simpson was taken down to the Parker Center and there was reports of the statement being made.
But what is part of the record is that they had him testify to airtight alibi. Now they get up and say be assured none of that information came through detectives at robbery/homicide; all of that information came through television news media broadcasts. Well, if that is the case, I think I should be able to ask him if he learned through television news media broadcasts on the evening of June 13th that Mr. Simpson had made a statement. And if he did learn that from television news media broadcasts, why shouldn't I ask him if he inquired of Mr. Fung about that statement and about what the--what the detectives had told him? I mean, I think I should be allowed to go down that line without getting into the content of the statement.
All right. I'm going to sustain the 352 objection to that. I think it is way too overbroad. It takes us down avenues that we don't need to go with this particular witness. You are directed not to ask any further questions regarding statements made by Mr. Simpson. Let's proceed.
Your Honor, can I then make the request, if that is going to be the ruling, that the jury should be, umm, instructed to disregard the statement he made about airtight alibi?
Your Honor, this is in direct derogation to your own order before saying there was no 356 problem here. The witness was testifying to his state of mine based on a newscast.
Counsel, that should not have been gone into in the first place. I then asked, if you recollect, I asked the Defense if they wanted it stricken. They indicated they did not. Let's have Mr. Yamauchi.
KEY QUOTEI think there is no lawyer with half a brain with an IQ above 5 who would not have known that such a question is improper.
This is an effort to hide behind a lawyer's argument and a lawyer's statement so that he will not have to take the witness stand and face cross-examination.
Don't we have a huge 352 problem here, though?
Counsel, that should not have been gone into in the first place. I then asked, if you recollect, I asked the Defense if they wanted it stricken. They indicated they did not.
I mean, I think it is perfectly clear that we should be able to explore whether his memory got very convenient about what contact he had with the investigators.