Thank you. As your Honor is aware, the Defense first raised issues with respect to the suppression of evidence seized at the Rockingham residence in the preliminary hearing. We renewed that motion in the--in this court prior to trial. And as a result of the newly discovered evidence, which just came into the possession of the Defense essentially two weeks ago, we believe we have very credible and important new evidence that must be considered by the court with respect to the ruling on the suppression issues.
Well, the evidence essentially is contained in our offer of proof and, your Honor, of course, has considered that offer of proof only in the context of the presentation of that evidence to a jury and the 352 implications of that. Of course, there are no 352 implications in the context of a suppression hearing. We believe that the court should reopen the suppression issue, it should consider all of the evidence contained in the Fuhrman tapes and it should give us an opportunity to confront and cross-examine Detective Fuhrman with this newly discovered evidence so the court can make an informed judgment with respect to his credibility.
When do you anticipate being able to submit your points and authorities in writing with specific references to which parts of the tapes and transcripts you wish to consider as newly discovered evidence? When do you anticipate being able to do that?
I'm sure we could do that by Tuesday morning, your Honor. We also believe the recently made available evidence with respect to the contact prints may be highly relevant to determining the credibility of Detective Fuhrman on these issues. What we have filed today addresses the propriety of the court hearing a motion in the midst of trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence and a declaration establishing that indeed this evidence is newly discovered, was not available to the Defense prior to the release of the Fuhrman tapes.
Well, then I think the court has to revisit not only the offer contained in our offer of proof, but the tapes as a whole in terms of the light that they shed on the credibility of Detective Fuhrman with respect to the manufacturing of probable cause. Here we're talking about his believability in terms of all of the circumstances leading up to the decision to go over the wall and enter Mr. Simpson's premises. That was a very close issue both at the preliminary hearing and I believe in the motion that was renewed in this court, and we believe that this newly discovered evidence is of such weight that the court will be compelled to come to a different conclusion with respect to the credibility of the explanation of the reason that the officers entered the premises and will be required to suppress all of the evidence found as a result.
Any response to the Defense request to reopen based upon 1538.5--excuse me--newly discovered evidence?
I would just urge the Defense to file their motion, but I would remind the court that--I'd like to see what the Defense has to argue in this regard. I would remind the court that the testimony regarding probable cause was elicited from Detective Vannatter and I believe Detective Lange as well in numerous motions, but Detective Fuhrman's testimony was cumulative to theirs. So how the tapes may impact on his credibility, it--I frankly fail to see how that's going to have any impact on the ultimate determination of probable cause, but if the Defense thinks they have an argument to make, of course, they'll make it and we'll--
Yes, your Honor. Yeah. There's no dispute about that. Whether they'll relevant or whether they have any impact on the determination of probable cause is another matter, but they are newly discovered.
All right. Just for scheduling purposes then, Dean Uelmen, you'll probably have that filed by Tuesday?
I'm going to need time to examine it and respond, your Honor. Obviously, if they file it Tuesday morning, I'm not going to be able to respond Tuesday morning.
I understand. When they file it, you can take a look at it, see how much time you need to respond. But since the issues have already been framed and since we have significant testimony already in the record and that the subsequent hearing would likely involve the recalling of Detective Fuhrman--I mean it's a pretty precise issue since the newly discovered evidence deals only with Detective Fuhrman.
Well, we would urge the court to urge the Defense to give us some points and authorities as to why they feel they would need to recall Detective Fuhrman for that purpose. They have the tapes. On what--no, I'm serious, your Honor. To the extent that have impeaching material on them, they are 10 years prior to the events of the night of June the 12th, 1994. So--
I'm not even attempting to. I just don't know why we have to elicit further testimony from him.
Well, I mean it might be interesting to know if some--if there's a factual basis for some of those matters.
KEY QUOTEI'm sorry. The motion was filed this morning. The only thing we still need to file at your Honor's request is a specific identification of portions of the Fuhrman tapes that we believe are relevant to this determination. We believe we're entitled to reopen the motion and re-examine Detective Fuhrman prior to calling and cross-examining him as a witness at the trial. So we'd like to proceed with that as expeditiously as possible so we can then proceed to concluding our case for the trial.
All right. Mr. Uelmen, let me direct you then to fax to the Prosecution and to the court any additional--any supplemental memorandum points and authorities if you work on it over the weekend, and so hopefully we can get this up and running because I'm concerned that our jury is sitting here again.
we believe that this newly discovered evidence is of such weight that the court will be compelled to come to a different conclusion with respect to the credibility of the explanation of the reason that the officers entered the premises and will be required to suppress all of the evidence found as a result.
Well, let's assume that you'll probably prevail on that point.
Detective Fuhrman's testimony was cumulative to theirs. So how the tapes may impact on his credibility, it--I frankly fail to see how that's going to have any impact on the ultimate determination of probable cause.
Well, I mean it might be interesting to know if there's a factual basis for some of those matters.