All right. Back on the record then in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is not present. However, he is represented by his counsel, Carl Douglas. And, counsel, I need your appearances for the record.
Mary house appearing on behalf of the custody of records, Los Angeles Police Department.
Good morning, counsel. All right. The motion is to return property filed by Mr. Cochran's office on behalf of the Defendant, Mr. Simpson.
your Honor, I'm struck by the absence of a representative of the District Attorney's office at this proceeding. I think that speaks volumes. We take the position--
Correct, your Honor. And we take the position that while the other litigants that are present in court may well have an occasion to seek relief in a civil court, that they have no standing in this proceeding to appear. I gave courtesy copies to the counsel simply as a courtesy at the request of Mr. Yochelson, but I argue initially they would have none or no standing to even participate in this particular hearing. your Honor, Mr. Goldman, from whom I have received a formal opposition, is not a party to this particular proceeding, does not claim any ownership interest in any of the items sought to be returned, and I think that there is no basis legally to deny or delay hearing this matter based on the arguments that they have made in their responsive pleadings. I think it very interesting, your Honor, that there has been no cited authority for the proposition that it would be appropriate for a criminal court to delay what is usually a pro forma procedural matter, that is seeking the return of the items that were seized or items that were admitted into evidence from the Defense, and I think that speaks volumes to the clear ability of civil litigants within the confines of the rules of civil procedure to seek the production of different items or property, to seek examination of same.
And certainly, as the court is aware, Mr. Simpson has already been placed on notice that there is the risk of their being an amended complaint for the exfoliation of evidence were there to be any circumstance that would affect the integrity of any of the items that he is seeking to have returned. Now, your Honor, I think it's important to remember that Mr. Simpson is not seeking the return by this motion of any prosecutory exhibits. I think that is very important because the only information or property that is being sought to be returned would be personal property of his that was not introduced in a nine-month trial and personal property of his that was introduced by the Defense. I think by the very nature of these items which we seek to have returned, they are items that would be more favorable to Mr. Simpson's interest, and by that corollary, prejudicial to the interest of the Defense. We are also seeking, your Honor, the return of charts and boards that were used in the case for which Mr. Simpson purchased himself, and we are not seeking by that same instance any of the boards or exhibits, as I've said, that the Prosecution had introduced in the case.
This motion was filed on the 23rd of October, 1995. The resources of the firm of Mitchell, Silberberg & Knupp got together the following day and then served subpoenas on both the District Attorney's office, this court, the LAPD, and I argue they were doing so to thwart the clear right of--that Mr. Simpson has to have returned his property; and I do not think it would be fair that they could seek to go around the clear language of the penal code by serving a subpoena, for example, on the LAPD, and by that act, prevent the fair return of property that has been in the possession of LAPD and that is entitled to be returned to Mr. Simpson. I do not think, for example, your Honor, that Mr. Goldman can claim a paramount right through some legal artifact for the return of Mr. Simpson's own property. He has been deprived of this property for now going on more than 16 months. It includes personal items of jewelry. It includes photographs and pictures--including pictures of his children. It includes credit cards and other sorts of--frequent flyer card. The plaintiffs, your Honor, cannot suggest that these items are items that they are going to be offering in their trial nor I think can they fairly argue that there is some concern that the integrity of these items in any way will be changed or altered so as to affect the probative value if in fact it is necessary to be introduced in the civil case. Hundreds of different items, your Honor, were seized by the police department in this case both during the execution of two search warrants on June the 13th and June 28th, during the course of a search of Mr. Simpson's Bronco. And just as an aside, we are not seeking the return of the actual Bronco automobile. As well, your Honor, there were some items of personal nature that were seized during the course of Mr. Simpson's arrest on June 17th of 1994. Certainly, your Honor, as I said earlier, if in fact there is some damage to the integrity of any of the items that were seized, the plaintiffs in the civil case have a variety of options at their disposal. First and foremost--and we have been placed on notice of this--is the ability to filing an amended complaint. I think as importantly, there is always the option of a jury instruction which, in fact, can notify the trier of fact that there were certain items that were then in the exclusive control of Mr. Simpson, that if those items were not produced or do not retain the value and the probative value when they are released, they can infer untoward motives against Mr. Simpson if they're in fact lost or in some way materially damaged. So I do think, your Honor, that there are remedies that are available to the civil litigants in this action. I do not think that simply because this is a case that has generated some mild degree of public interest, that that justifies thwarting Mr. Simpson's bona fide entitlement to the return of his property nor does it require there be a delay for a companion civil case because there are options that are nonetheless available to these litigants to inspect and to observe each of the items that we are seeking to have returned. Unless the court has any questions, I'll submit the matter.
your Honor, our position here is very simple. First of all, we want to make it clear that this property is not in the possession of the Prosecution. It's in the possession of either the Superior Court, the Grand Jury or the Los Angeles Police Department. Our concern here is only that there be an orderly disposition of this property. Penal code section 1536 provides that property seized pursuant to a search warrant may be returned upon order of the court. Notice has been given. We have no position other than that the court will make its order according to the request of all the parties. We take no position on whether the civil litigants have any standing here. We simply wanted to have this hearing to proceed in an orderly fashion. We'll submit it.
Thank you. I'll hear from the city of Los Angeles. Miss house. Good morning again, Miss House.
Good morning, your Honor. Just like the District Attorney's office, we are in a catch-22 position. We do retain some property that was not brought to this courtroom that was not entered into evidence, but merely as being retained by the city of Los Angeles incident to Mr. Simpson's arrest. If the court will know, we were not provided notice of this hearing regarding the return of property as to those items held by the Los Angeles Police Department. However, we were provided in direct notice by Mr. Goldman serving us with a subpoena duces tecum on October 24th.
So rather than have it be a problem, we have prepared for this hearing in a somewhat hurried fashion, but also stress to the court we're in the position of having two conflicting claims for these items of evidence and we are looking to the court to provide us some guidance. And in looking to the court to provide us some guidance, we have in fact joined with Mr. Goldman's motion because we are sort of in a position of interpleader. I know the property is going to be provided to someone, and in what manner and fashion in which it's going to be provided, we feel that's best done by the court who is handling all the related lawsuits incident to this particular situation.
Daniel Petrocelli for Fred Goldman. your Honor, we got into this case only about 10 days ago. One of the first things that happened is, I heard about this motion for the return of Mr. Simpson's evidence; and our concern was simply to protect the status quo so that we could get a handle on things, have a chance to inspect the evidence, determine what evidence is of no consequence to the civil action, in which case we could withdraw any position to withhold any property of Mr. Simpson's. With respect to that evidence that we think was crucial to preserve and protect for the civil action, we thought it best to present the issue to the civil court in the form of a motion to the presiding Judge over this case, who was Judge Alan Haber in Santa Monica. So that's exactly what we did, your Honor. We subpoenaed all the records to make sure that we had some legal process with respect to them. We then filed the motion before Judge Haber to preserve and protect the evidence, put it in the hands of a neutral custody, whether it be the court or somebody else; not us, not any of the parties, not Mr. Simpson, but a neutral custody until all of us has had the time to examine the evidence, determine what is needed and was not needed. As your Honor knows better than anyone, Mr. Simpson made as the centerpiece of his defense in the criminal trial the poor handling of the evidence, the contamination of the evidence, chain of custody problems. We want to make sure that in the civil action, he does not have any of those concerns. We want to make sure that the evidence is protected and remains intact.
And, your Honor, I might add that the evidence that he seeks the return of in this motion that he filed is all the items set forth on numerous pages of his property report, and some of them include things as swatches, blood and other biological items. You know, I take it from Mr. Douglas' comments that he is desirous and intends at this point to get those items back, and I'm glad to hear that. However, it does include such items as plastic bag containing one fake goatee, one fake mustache, one bottle of cement make-up adhesive, one bottle of make-up adhesive removal. Now, these could be important items, your Honor, and our position is simply that this court should defer ruling on this motion today for a mere two weeks and let your companion court, Judge Haber, decide our motion. He's the Judge who is now going to have responsibility for this case. The civil case is going to involve virtually the same issues of liability as were involved in the criminal case, whether Mr. Simpson is responsible for the deaths of these two people, and we are going to need much of the same evidence.
And it strikes me that the prejudice to the civil litigants, the plaintiffs in that case, if something were to happen to that evidence, would be irreparable, whereas there isn't any conceivable prejudice to Mr. Simpson if the evidence is not given back to him for the next two weeks. What is he going to do with a fake goatee in the next two weeks? All of these credit cards that are on here, they're probably all expired by now. I don't think he used them in the last year and a half. So, your Honor, when you're balancing the equities, we don't think there's any legitimate position that he needs to get these materials back and that he can't wait another two weeks. I might also add that this court does have the inherent power under long-established law to ensure the orderly administration of justice. This court has the inherent power to regulate the proceeding. The civil court is not a different court. It's all part of the Los Angeles Superior Court. We're all dealing with one and the same court, and the intention here of all parties is just to make sure that we are in a position to protect and preserve the evidence and get to the--get to a trial where we are assured that nothing has happened to this evidence in the meantime.
your Honor, I would agree with Mr. Petrocelli's comments. I would just add that if the court is inclined to grant Mr. Douglas' motion, I believe that at a minimum, the plaintiffs in this case should be afforded an opportunity to inspect and photograph the evidence before it is returned because one of the issues that relates to the exfoliation, we have to have an understanding with respect to the condition of the property to the extent that it's changed so we can amend our complaint. So to the extent that the court is inclined to grant this motion, we would ask for at least an opportunity to inspect, photograph all of the evidence. Thank you.
Our suggestion is just put this over for about a week after the 15th, let Judge Haber make his ruling, and the court doesn't have to do anything, just expose of the evidence as the civil Judge says. Thank you.
Briefly, your Honor. I'm struck by their being no suggestion that the litigants here have standing in this proceeding to seek the return of any of or to speak to the objection to the return of any of this property. That I think is very interesting because certainly we are not suggesting that there be the return of any items belonging to Mr. Goldman, to Miss Brown, any of the items that were collected at the Bundy crime scene. That's the first point that I want to make. Also, your Honor, I do think, having sat through over a year of this trial, that there is no Judge in America better able to dispose properly and fairly of this evidence than this honorable court. Judge Haber is a fine Judge. He has a calendar call of 20 or 30 cases each day. I do not think that that is the best use of judicial economy, for that Judge to be given the awesome task of sifting through and making determinations and decisions as to the proper disposal of different pieces of evidence. I think that Mr. Simpson has waited patiently for 16 months for the return of his property. He now wishes to have his rights assured and to have the property back now.
We are not seeking the return of any biological evidence. We are not seeking the return of any prosecutorial exhibits. Therefore, we are not seeking to change in any way or to alter the integrity of items of evidence that we challenged and that will be a centerpiece of the civil case as well. We did not challenge the handling of the pictures that were never introduced. We did not challenge the handling of credit cards, pieces of personal property, clothing, et cetera, that was never introduced into evidence. This was a prosecutorial effort, your Honor, that was handled by an array of very fine, experienced, talented lawyers who dedicated much of their lives to reviewing this evidence and putting forward that case which they thought best proved the burden that they had of proving Mr. Simpson guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I argue, therefore, that these lawyers best know those pieces of items that have been relevant. And there were over 600 prosecutorial exhibits, your Honor, over 300 Defense exhibits. But cold among those exhibits I argue were those items that many lawyers in their eminent wisdom believed best demonstrated Mr. Simpson's responsibility for these crimes and, therefore, by inference, they argued or they decided that these items that were seized and yet not introduced into evidence did not hold sufficient probative weight to justify their introduction into evidence. What we are now seeking, however, is an effort to hold everything, as is frequently the want of civil attorneys, and to wait so that another forum and another Judge can do that which this court I argue is better able to do now. If there is perhaps a desire to examine and to photograph items before they are returned, I would not disagree with that. I think that would be prudent. I think that would be good so we can demonstrate there has been no material alteration in the evidence, but I would like that to occur sooner rather than later so that we can have this property returned and Mr. Simpson can put forth the evidence to defend himself in the civil proceeding.
Thank you, counsel. Certainly an issue of first impression, the court never having seen under 1536 of the penal code a motion to return property after an acquittal where it's opposed by other parties and parties technically without standing in the criminal matter. Having said that, this court does not operate in a vacuum. The court is aware of the civil litigation that has been mentioned on the record here, and in the filings with regard to the specific issue by the parties, the court is again on notice that the civil litigation does--is in progress in the Santa Monica branch court before Judge Haber. I'm also aware that and I have as part of my court file that the plaintiffs' counsel have filed various motions to preserve evidence and various motions to produce evidence now in the custody of the court, the Los Angeles Police Department and District Attorney's office, although the District Attorney's office indicate they are not physically in possession of any of the items.
KEY QUOTEGrand jury. That is the legal process under the rules that apply to civil litigation. And this court, like any other court, any other governmental body, is bound to comply with lawful process from other courts. That having been accomplished by plaintiffs' counsel, I'm going to deny the motion to return the property without prejudice until the conclusion of the parallel proceeding before Judge Haber concerning preservation of evidence, and I'm going to transfer further litigation on this matter to Judge Haber for his determination. And the court has already transferred to Judge Haber the transcripts of the criminal trial. And as soon as I have finished--it has taken me 11 days so far to organize the criminal file--I will be sending that to Santa Monica as well. Thank you.
What is he going to do with a fake goatee in the next two weeks? All of these credit cards that are on here, they're probably all expired by now. I don't think he used them in the last year and a half.
I think that Mr. Simpson has waited patiently for 16 months for the return of his property. He now wishes to have his rights assured and to have the property back now.
Certainly an issue of first impression, the court never having seen under 1536 of the penal code a motion to return property after an acquittal where it's opposed by other parties and parties technically without standing in the criminal matter.
I do not think that simply because this is a case that has generated some mild degree of public interest, that that justifies thwarting Mr. Simpson's bona fide entitlement to the return of his property.