Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present before the Court with his counsel Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Blasier, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Scheck. The People are represented by Mr. Darden and Mr. Harmon. The jury is not present. Counsel, anything we need to discuss before we invite the jurors to rejoin us?
Yes, your Honor. Two points. We had a side bar yesterday about denial of reciprocal discovery concerning statements Mr. Yamauchi allegedly made in Mr. Taylor and Mr. Gerdes' company, and I would like to revisit that when we are done with Mr. Sims today because I think that is the tip of the iceberg. Another point is, umm--
Mr. Douglas, are you going to be available at the conclusion of today to discuss these matters with Mr. Harmon?
Okay. And the other point, just to alert you, I don't have a lot of redirect with Yamauchi, and Mr. Sims is waiting in the wings, but just to alert the Court, at the close of business yesterday we requested an opportunity to take possession of the socks, item 13. Those socks were taken back to the LAPD laboratory and this morning they were examined with a stereomicroscope by Greg Matheson in the company of Mr. Yamauchi. At that time Mr. Matheson--and the whole point of this exercise was to be able to show the jury that even when these socks are waived under their noses there is still blood on them. There is blood on them today. Mr. Matheson conducted a phenolphthalein test in Mr. Yamauchi's presence and that gave a positive presumptive result, and then subsequent to that we brought a stereomicroscope over here, we've got it in the box right here, and we intend to identify, through Mr. Sims, not through Mr. Yamauchi, who is waiting in the wings, blood-stained areas that Mr. Sims has previously examined and identified and done his own form of presumptive testing, the o-tolidine testing on, and then to request the Court to allow the jury to see the reddish bloodstains that are imperceptible to the naked eye so that the jury can see that the fraud has finally been revealed and that there is blood on those socks today. And so I just wanted to let you know that that is how we are going to end up this whole segment, your Honor, with the Court's permission.
Good morning, your Honor. First is I, umm--I would ask leave of the Court to reopen my cross-examination for about ten to fifteen minutes just to cover a point or two that I have to cover with this witness and no other witness, that I neglected in the rush to finish yesterday.
Well, it hasn't really expanded that much, but I'm just trying to be conservative. The second thing is that I do have some--I do have objections to what Mr. Harmon is proposing. Certainly I have objections to the use of phenolphthalein tests without any confirmatory tests. I think the Court is clear in the ruling about that, so I don't think that those could be admissible on the redirect examination, and I also think it is beyond the scope of the cross-examination of Mr. Sims and would be improper redirect, and I think that if they want to call--I just don't think it is within the scope of redirect examination of Mr. Sims at this point, certainly if they are going to offer it through him. So whenever they get to that, I want to put the Court on notice, too, that I have some objections. Finally, there is the--I would just like to put the Court on notice that at some time, and I don't want to take up in front of the jury--jury time right now, maybe at the end of the day--I have some applications with respect to the rules concerning discourse between lawyers, and ad homonym statements in argument. And finally, I have a query of the Court as to how we can handle the issue that the Prosecution raised with its board concerning Dr. Lee in terms of how the statements of lawyers are going to be presented to the jury. They brought this up over my objection. They are putting up a board which shows Mr. Harmon and Mr. Clarke as percipient witnesses standing at the shoulder of Dr. Lee. Mr. Harmon and Mr. Clarke have indicated--well, Mr. Harmon on the record and Mr. Clarke--I don't see him here, but I'm sure Mr. Harmon knows, have both indicated that--oh, there you are. Sorry. Have both indicated that neither of them can say whether or not Dr. Lee changed gloves during the course of that examination. They didn't notice that he did or did not do so. They cannot corroborate any affirmative statement of Mr. Yamauchi on that point.
All right. Well, that is an issue, though, that we can take up after we conclude with these two witnesses, so let's not take up the time to--I appreciate your bringing that to my attention so that I am aware that we will need to discuss that.
And then finally, your Honor, at the time you consider appropriate, we have submitted to the Court, after rereading the text of everything yesterday and considering it, what we would propose is a curative instruction on the whole issue of the statements of airtight alibi and the Defendant's statements.
We have reviewed the record and following the Court's practice, we have given the matter some thought, and the only issue is when you want to take it up.
All right. Well, Mr. Darden, I take it from your comment that means that you would like some additional time to study that?
All right. Then we will take that up after we conclude with Mr. Yamauchi. All right. Mr. Harmon, any other comment?
Just on when we get to the Henry Lee board thing, it would be helpful if they provided us some of the reciprocal discovery that they are clearly obligated to at this point in the case, so I think we need to throw that into the mix when they start complaining. He took a lot of notes during that. We saw that. In terms of why I didn't see him change gloves, I wasn't there the whole time. I don't know what happened when I wasn't there. Mr. Clarke, same with him. So we will be happy to discuss that at the appropriate time and look forward to getting the reciprocal discovery we should have gotten months ago.
All right. We will take that up at the appropriate time then today. All right. Let's have the jurors, please.
the whole point of this exercise was to be able to show the jury that even when these socks are waived under their noses there is still blood on them. There is blood on them today.
the jury can see that the fraud has finally been revealed and that there is blood on those socks today.
I have some applications with respect to the rules concerning discourse between lawyers, and ad homonym statements in argument.
They brought this up over my objection. They are putting up a board which shows Mr. Harmon and Mr. Clarke as percipient witnesses standing at the shoulder of Dr. Lee.