Your Honor, the other matter--we have one other motion we'd like to address the court on, which may be relevant at this point.
This is the so-called Brady motion that I told the court earlier this week I'd be filing, and I think this matter deserves this court's very, very serious consideration, and it's a very serious motion and we take it seriously. And specifically what I'd like the court to be aware of is the declaration of a Deputy District Attorney by the name of Lucienne Coleman. In this declaration, she spells out in detail conversations with Shawn Snider Chapman of my office what we think--
My recollection is that during one of our--I don't recollect if it was a 1054.7 or a pitchess--I think it was a pitchess motion. My recollection is that I ordered the disclosure of a statement that Miss Coleman gave; is that correct?
Yes, you did, your Honor, a redacted statement that addresses--and I'd like to talk about that. The statement we got does not comport with what she says the facts are, and it's very, very serious. And so if the court will allow me, I would like to spell this out. This is a matter in which Miss Coleman is on a day off today. She is standing by the phone and is available should you want her to testify today. She has been a Deputy District for some 16 years, and I might indicate that I was the assistant D.A. when she was hired, and I've known her for a very long time. It has nothing to do with what she's done in this case however. She--on July 19, 1994, she was working in complaints, and at that time, she had a conversation with LAPD homicide Detective Andy Purdy here in this building. And Purdy was there to file a case. At that time, the story had first surfaced about the possibility of Fuhrman planting the glove at Rockingham. And she indicated to Purdy at that time and commented how ridiculous she thought that thought was. Purdy responded these allegations were not ridiculous at all and that he wouldn't put any such thing past Fuhrman.
He then went on to tell Lucienne Coleman about his experiences in working with Fuhrman at West L.A. Station, your Honor. At that time, Purdy had recently married a Jewish woman and he returned from apparently his honeymoon or whatever, and it was his contention that Fuhrman had painted Purdy's locker with swastikas. And during this conversation, Purdy, Miss Coleman and another D.A. by the name of Julie Sergojan walked up and they heard many of the things that Purdy was saying about Fuhrman. Later on and in July of 1994, Deputy D.A. Ellen Burke told Lucienne Coleman about a black officer who had heard Fuhrman at a picnic or a barbecue talking about and discussing his relationship with Nicole Simpson, quote, that her, quote, unquote, boob job had looked real great. Burke did not tell the name of the black officer at the time, but Miss Coleman later confirmed that it was an officer named Maxwell. So these names may become relevant to you when you think about what you saw. And then continuing on, a day or two later, an LAPD detective by the name of Mark Arneson--this is in July of 1994, your Honor--came to file a case before Lucienne Coleman. The topic, as usual, then turned to Simpson. And Arneson--
Excuse me, Mr. Cochran. Your Honor, I'd point out for the court at this point in time, Mr. Cochran is reading apparently for the benefit of the public what is contained in a declaration filed under seal to the court. Has the court had an opportunity to review this declaration?
Two things. First of all, it's not filed under seal and I'm not reading it. I'm using the references to speak out to the facts as I understand it. As usual, your Honor, they want to cut off everything that relates to them. This is a very important motion. I have a right to spell this out to the court. It's very serious and it bears upon our ability to go forward at this point.
Thank you, your Honor. So as I indicated to the court, Arneson said that he already knew about the boob job comment and that he had talked to two other officers and said they had heard Fuhrman make such statements about Nicole's breasts as well. Arneson did not say who these two officers were.
Then in the first two weeks of August of 1994, this Deputy D.A., Lucienne Coleman, went to see Marcia Clark and Bill Hodgman as she was troubled about the information that she had heard. Miss Clark she says had been a friend of hers for many years and they had been friends. And she found Clark and Hodgman in Clark's office and told them what she had heard, what I just indicated to the court. By then, she had also heard that Fuhrman walked around on weekends wearing nazi paraphernalia. When she told Clark and Hodgman what she knew, Clark stated, "This is `BS'" in no uncertain terms. Hodgman suggested the office should look into these allegations. Clark said, "This is just `BS' being put out by the Defense." Coleman then indicated that she hadn't heard any of these allegations from the Defense, but rather from LAPD officers and she suggested that the L.A. County District Attorney's office look into these allegations. Now, your Honor, it's important as I go through this, this was in the first two weeks of August of 1994. She then spoke with Clark and Hodgman about matters unrelated to Detective Fuhrman, and thereafter, she suggested that--
Mr. Cochran, excuse me for interrupting you, but refresh my recollection as to when it was those matters were--those--Miss Coleman, Miss Burke, Miss Sergojan, Detective Maxwell, Detective Purdy--my recollection is that the court ordered the disclosure of those reports to you with those names. But just refresh my recollection as to when that occurred.
As I recall, your Honor, and I don't have the exact date, Mr. Hodgman came down and indicated that he had a matter to discuss with the court. This was brought to the court's attention at some point. It started off by him saying he didn't think this had any basis in fact, but it was much, much later. It was this year. But it was in maybe February or March of this year, and we can find out and let you know.
What we got, your Honor, is a redacted version. And you'll see when I tie this in, the version we got certainly speaks a cover up or something because what we got, you couldn't tell anything from this. And so that's the point I want to point out. And let me continue on if I might, your Honor. This--so Marcia Clark continues on, "This is `BS,'" says that over and over again. And then it goes on and says, "I again suggest to the D.A.'s office look into these allegations because the Defense would one day learn of the information and questions might be asked about why it had not been revealed to the D.A.'s--by the D.A.'s office sooner." This is what this witness is prepared to testify as an honest Deputy District Attorney. She said--and this is what she quotes her former friend Marcia Clark as saying. She then angrily stated, Clark said she was tired of other D.A.'s trying to get involved in her case for their own self aggrandizement, and she went on to say that she had no interest in this case other than doing the right thing and understanding what Brady mentioned. She also mentioned that she thought the information might prove false and they should really check it out. Later on, she saw Detective Arneson in the hall and asked him if the Defense knew about the allegations against Fuhrman. Of course, he said, well, perhaps they do because of Pavelic. And there's another Deputy D.A., Jeannette Bernstein, who was present during that conversation.
On August 24th, 1994, your Honor, another key date, this Deputy D.A. received a call, an irate call from Officer Purdy. Purdy wanted to know if she had contacted the media about what he had told her. She told him he hadn't. Purdy wanted to know why she had informed Clark and Hodgman about their conversation. He was upset and he told her at that time that he would deny having told her anything about Fuhrman and that he would lie about the whole thing. "And I told Purdy if ever I had to testify, I would tell the truth, and he said he would lie." And she's in fact doing that now. On August 25th, 1994, your Honor, after that, Purdy left a message for her to call him back. When she did, Purdy told me that his, quote, unquote, "Story" was going to be that Fuhrman was only suspected of having left the swastikas in his locker, that it was never proven. She reminded him that it was not what he had told her in July. Purdy indicated that that was going to be his story now. Purdy also said that he kept a log. And this is a key thing. Purdy told Juliann--Lucienne Coleman that he had kept a log of all incidents involving Fuhrman when they both worked in West Los Angeles Station, but that he had destroyed the log that morning at 3 o'clock A.M. so that he would not have to turn it over to the Prosecution. And that becomes a very key matter because Purdy, of course, remembers what's in that log even if he did destroy it. On February 13th, 1995, Lucienne Coleman spoke to Bill Hodgman by telephone, and Hodgman told her that he had heard from two Deputy D.A.'s in the branch and area offices that they had some negative information about Fuhrman. And this is in February now. Keep in mind, this all occurred in July and August earlier. She then had to remind Bill Hodgman of the conversation she had had with Clark and he back in August. Hodgman claimed to have had no recollection of her ever discussing Fuhrman during that conversation. And she reminded Mr. Hodgman of the information that she had given back in August. He wanted names of the officers who had given her the information and said he needed to check with the officers--and she said she needed to check the officers first before she gave out their names. My recollection is that she called Purdy and told him she was going to give Hodgman his name. Purdy indicated he would tell Hodgman "The story" he had mentioned in his prior conversation, not what he told her originally.
She then proceeded to call Hodgman and gave him Purdy's name. She also told Hodgman about Purdy's log. And I don't think we ever saw anything about this log ever in any of the documents, and you'll have to search your memory as to what you were told in the conversation or what you got the records from IA. She relayed the conversation she had had with Detective Arneson and gave Hodgman the names of Sergojan and Burke as D.A.'s who had also heard some portions of these conversations. Hodgman and she had three or four conversations that night, and that's in February of 1995. Hodgman said that Detective Lange would be conducting the investigation into these allegations. Later, Hodgman said that internal affairs would be conducting the investigation. She called Burke and Sergojan to tell them that she had given Hodgman their names and that internal affairs would be contacting them shortly. On February 14th, your Honor, 1995, while she was on vacation, she got a call from Purdy at home, and Purdy said that he had destroyed the logs again and that he would not testify against the Prosecution no matter what. Purdy said that the LAPD was protecting Mark Fuhrman because it felt that the Defense was using Fuhrman as a scapegoat. Purdy said that he could lose his job for speaking out against Fuhrman in view of the fact that the LAPD and she quotes, "Was circling the wagons," end quote. On February 15th, she was in fact interviewed by internal affairs, and I think that will probably be the date you will find if you look back. She indicates this interview was more like a--was more than an interview. It was more like an interrogation because of the hostile tone of the questioning and the type of questioning from these so-called investigators from IA. She said she was asked questions, "Isn't it true that you think O.J. Simpson is innocent and you want to have him acquitted? And did anyone besides your husband ever hear your telephone conversations with Officer Purdy?" On February 16th to February 24th, this Deputy D.A. requested of her office a copy of the tape of her interview with internal affairs. On February 24th, Mr. Hodgman indicated to her that a tape might available for her that day. Later that day, Mr. Hodgman came to her and informed her that he had discussed the matter with assistant D.A. Frank Sundstedt and that it had been decided that no copies of the tape should be released while the case was pending, while this case was pending because the tape might be Brady material and would then have to be turned over to the Defense.
Hodgman further indicated that it had also been decided that the tape should only be turned over as part of a pitchess motion by the Defense and would therefore not be given to me at that time. She still to this date does not have that tape and has told me that their office will not ask for the tape until the Simpson case is over. "I told the officers"--she goes on to say to internal affairs--"Everything I had been told, including the fact that Purdy had kept logs and had told me that he had destroyed them as he would never testify against the Prosecution." Internal affairs asked her if she thought Purdy had destroyed evidence. I said that I thought that Purdy would do anything to avoid testifying in this case and further that Purdy had specifically told her he did not want to testify under any circumstances. This lady came to our office the other day. I didn't want to put her in a compromising position. I didn't issue a subpoena for her. She gave us this declaration. I asked her not not to sign it, but to verify that it was true because she was told, has been told by one of her supervisors that the D.A.'s office wants to go slow on this and that if she believes that if she signs this and she has to appear in this court--let me quote. During the course of her conversation just last night with Shawn Chapman, she's been told, that at least one of her supervisors told her to go slow on this matter, and it's her feeling that if she signs this declaration, appears in this court, it will adversely affect her status of a Deputy District Attorney. However, she said she's willing to make that sacrifice because what they've done is wrong. It's from one of their own people. The court needs to take this and look back at what you gave us. The redacted version we have bears no semblance of this. We are entitled to this information. We should have had it back in July and August. We should have had it in February. What we got is a travesty. If you look at what we got, it doesn't make any sense at all and we need this before we can go forward with Fuhrman. They can talk all they want about witnesses and moving ahead. We have an absolute right in defending our client to have this information. This supposedly is a search for truth. I have my doubts, but I have to do everything I can for my client in this instance. And when these kinds of things happen, we have to demand an investigation.
It doesn't matter to me if we work on Saturday, Sunday, holidays or whatever. We do that anyway, your Honor. That doesn't matter. But the point is, we need to have these matters resolved before we can go forward and effectively represent our client. And I mentioned in court the other day that we were going to ask your Honor to provide us with the questions asked of the D.A.'s in camera regarding the meeting where Detective Fuhrman was prepared because we think that now with the additional information, we think it's entirely relevant. The court may not have known the appropriate questions to ask. All we're trying to do, your Honor, is have a level playing field here and to be able to get this information before the jury. Because I don't hardly have to point out to this court, this is a jury trial. This is not a court trial. The jurors will decide the evidence in this case. And we have a right in representing Mr. Simpson, it's a fundamental constitutional right to have this information under Brady. And you've seen other examples such as those photographs where we have possible exculpatory evidence. We want it. We have a right to have that before we go forward in this critical part of our case at the very end. And now we have somebody from their own office. And there are other D.A.'s who I think will also back her up. She's a very credible person who puts her job on the line in the interest of telling the truth and being honest in this matter, and we find out that there's been an attempt to cover it up. So--that's the only one way to put it. We need a hearing on this. They can take as much time as they want. She's on call. She can come down here today if they want. What I indicated to you she will say on the stand, and we need to resolve this.
All right. Mr. Cochran, just so I understand, the two matters that you find of interest in this discussion with Miss Coleman is the observation by Detective Fuhrman regarding Nicole Brown Simpson's anatomy and, secondly, the racial animosity regarding Jews; is that correct?
Well, yes. Well, the swastikas and that sort of thing. But also, your Honor, the log. I think--
Obviously if there's a log of all his misconduct in West Los Angeles, I'm sure it will track some of the things he's telling Laura McKinny about. We have a right to those things, Judge. I mean I think--
Let me ask a question though. If your recollection is correct that in March, February or March, these names were turned over to you--and my recollection of our discussions in the hearings that I conducted, I recollect Detective Maxwell, Detective Purdy, obviously Miss Coleman, Miss Sergojan, Miss Burke, Detective Arneson, these names coming up. And those names were disclosed to you. And my recollection of the comment about Nicole Brown Simpson's breast enlargement was mentioned in those reports. I don't recollect if there was inquiry about the swastika incident. I don't recollect that, but I recollect something about swastikas. Have you had the opportunity to interview all of these individuals besides Miss Coleman, Miss Sergojan?
We haven't. Let me put it this way, your Honor. First of all, your Honor, let me say this as respectfully as I can. You might find it hard to believe, but some of us believe there is a conspiracy of silence. Police officers aren't going to talk to us about this case. They don't talk to anybody. There are special rules regarding this case, your Honor. They're not going to talk to us about this case. Deputy D.A.'s, where their job is on the line, it's very hard to talk to them also. This Lucienne Coleman is a very unique person, and there are some very fine Deputy D.A.'s up there who well may do this, who may speak out regarding this. But there's no mention. And the point we have, we had to rely upon your Honor looking at this stuff. And I think there may have been some mention about Nicole Brown Simpson's anatomy. Nothing about these logs. I'm pretty clear about that, as I recall, that we ever got, and we can show you the redacted copy. What we got left--because, let me tell you, in talking to Miss Coleman, the redacted version was something she could hardly recognize. She wants the tape. She says if you get the tape, you will see how IA works. They came at her as though she was the worst person in the world. It was an interrogation where she was made to feel like she was some sort of a traitor in this instance and it's outrageous. That's what's actually happening here. So I mean, I don't think it's fair to put that back on us. We knew about certain things and we're now trying to say to you that if these things are covered up--and there are other things, and I think you have to take this altogether, your Honor. Just with regard to Henry Lee, as Barry Scheck has pointed out, those photographs that all of a sudden have been enhanced, we've been told there's no log and now we find out all these things that Henry Lee looks at the photographs and can tell there are imprints walking in the back. They have exculpatory evidence that they may not even know about. I mean, may be partly inadvertence, partly may be negligence, partly may be hiding it, but we have a right to Mr. Simpson. We cannot go any further without this.
So specifically--let me just--let's just get back to the fundamental what you're asking here for. Specifically what you're asking for then is to make inquiry of Detective Purdy regarding this log and his recollection; is that correct?
We want--assuming the things that Miss Coleman has indicated, we want to look at--
Because the interesting--I mean, the evidence that would be of interest to you and your client would be observations, direct observations by another LAPD officer, supposedly Purdy or Maxwell, regarding relevant misconduct or racial animosity by Detective Fuhrman, correct?
And especially--and it also becomes very relevant if the Prosecution knew about this early on because they embraced this witness. And so we have--that's a pretty good starting point. Purdy, Coleman if necessary. We have her declaration.
Well, Coleman is interesting only because she's the hearsay source for, you know, "Somebody told me that Fuhrman said this."
See, Judge, the problem is, if you recall--and I'll try to provide this for you. What we get from you is a little redacted thing. Everything's all cut out, you know. And so you may want to go back yourself and take a look at this. We want though Purdy, Maxwell, Arneson, we want all those people under oath. That's what we want. We want them under oath. We're not going to trust what they tell us. We're not going to trust them. We want them under oath. And we think we have a right to do that, and that's why I'm bringing this motion up now. You know the witnesses. I've been telling you for the last week and a half the witnesses I have at the end. But we have--and so there's no secret about that. But in view of your Honor's ruling and what you've cut out of what we're able to do, we have to--we cannot go forward until we pursue these thing. And it's very important to do that. So it doesn't matter. We don't mind working every day. If you want to have a hearing and have these officers here tomorrow, we'll be here. You want to have it tonight, we'll be here. You want to have it Sunday morning after I go to church, we'll be here. But the question is, let's--let's get it on. But I think we have a right to this. And as soon as we can, I want to take a break because I want to talk to Mr. Mounger also as I indicated to the court. That's another thing we have to deal with, your Honor.
Your Honor, I have to confess I'm a might perplexed by the Defense bringing a motion at this particular time. As the court will recall, in February of this year, I brought these matters to the attention of the court. The court reviewed in camera a variety of material. I'm not sure what material, but presumably statements of the witnesses involved and various tapes. The court issued an order on March the 8th, 1995, directing that these materials be given to the Defense. The Defense had these witnesses' names apparently and is quite obvious. They've interviewed Miss Coleman. They've had Officer Purdy's name, Detective Maxwell and a number of other people's names per the court's order since March of this year, and I don't understand what we're doing here now. I presume that the court will make inquiry of the Defense, have they interviewed Detective Purdy or Officer Purdy, have they interviewed Detective Maxwell.
Well, they raise this now. They indicate they'd like to have a Saturday session in order to pursue these matters. Where have they been with this information for the last five months? I brought it to the attention of the court last February. This information was in the hands of the Defense before Detective Fuhrman even testified. So I ask the court to take this into consideration as they review this motion. But the Defense has had these materials. Apparently they've had tapes, they've had redacted reports that the court provided to them. I don't understand what they're doing here now filing this motion. I can suspect certain things, but I leave that unstated.
All right. Mr. Cochran, would you provide to the court a copy of the reports and witness statements that you received?
I will. I just asked Mr. Douglas. Apparently it's in my office. I'm going to have it brought down here as soon as I can. He's going to call and get it down. Let me just respond briefly to Mr. Hodgman's question. First of all, I think you'll find--and I don't recall ever seeing anything about this log until Miss Coleman told us about the log kept of Fuhrman's activities. Also, your Honor, as Lucienne Coleman will tell you--
I have to tell you, you know, that's why I asked if you would produce those materials, because my recollection of reading those materials was that the log was mentioned and that Purdy's desire not to get dragged into this case was apparent from the statement of Miss Coleman. But be that as it--let me see what's there, and then we'll take it from that point.
Let's do that. The other thing I just want to point out to the court, I mean, it's the height of naiveté to stand here and say that--we've been told Purdy is going to lie. He tells the D.A. he's going to lie, Deputy D.A. Lucienne Coleman--he's really going to tell us the truth. The question is, if he's going to lie, you know, we need him under oath. We've seen other--we know that Fuhrman has lied. And we need him under oath. This whole thing has brought out the worst in these people and we need to get them under oath and see. That's all we're saying. And so we can't be held to that standard. I mean, we know about these people. Are we going to go over to the station and talk to Arneson? They'd stonewall IA and IA takes this hostile tone toward this one witness who is trying to tell the truth and says gets this stuff out. It may not be true. That's the point.
Purdy indicated that that was going to be his story now. Purdy also said that he kept a log... but that he had destroyed the log that morning at 3 o'clock A.M. so that he would not have to turn it over to the Prosecution.
When she told Clark and Hodgman what she knew, Clark stated, 'This is `BS'' in no uncertain terms... Clark said, 'This is just `BS' being put out by the Defense.' Coleman then indicated that she hadn't heard any of these allegations from the Defense, but rather from LAPD officers.
It is her feeling that if she signs this declaration, appears in this court, it will adversely affect her status of a Deputy District Attorney. However, she said she's willing to make that sacrifice because what they've done is wrong.
Where have they been with this information for the last five months? I brought it to the attention of the court last February. This information was in the hands of the Defense before Detective Fuhrman even testified.
Give me the stuff.