All right. Well, I think that wraps it up at this point as far as all your comments. All right. I think the thing we need to address first is whether or not we're going to have any testimony this morning. The court's previous ruling regarding Kathleen Bell was that her testimony was relevant for this reason. We have a unique situation where Detective Fuhrman met Mr. Simpson and Nicole Brown Simpson in 1985, that Mr. Fuhrman is again in contact indirectly with the Defendant in 1989 at the request of the Los Angeles city attorney's office to prepare a statement regarding the 1985 incident. My recollection of that statement that Detective Fuhrman provided to the city attorney's office for use in the domestic violence Prosecution was that it was an incident that was indelibly impressed upon his memory or words to that effect. Then we have the unusual circumstance in 1994 of Detective Fuhrman then being brought to--brought into this case, being called out from his home as a homicide investigator. So we have that unusual circumstance first. We understand that Nicole Brown Simpson was Caucasian and that Mr. Simpson is African American. The offer of proof as to Kathleen Bell was that Detective Fuhrman, in her presence and directly to her, made a statement that was indicative of racial animus, that was indicative of contempt of interracial couples and was indicative of a willingness to harass and unlawfully detain interracial couples because of that fact. And I indicated at that time that I felt that that was a sufficient unusual and unique combination of events to make Kathleen Bell's testimony relevant. Subsequent to that finding, Detective Fuhrman testified that he did not in fact refer to African Americans in a--with a particular racial epitaph, and it appears that the offer of proof regarding Mr. Hodge does indicate that he was arrested by Mr. Fuhrman, that Mr. Fuhrman referred to him in a racially disparaging way and made two comments to him that are disparaging in nature and using the particular racial epitaph in question. So that would appear to be direct impeachment evidence of Detective Fuhrman. So I think there's an independent basis, a basis independent of Miss Bell, the issue being, are you available--are you ready to cross-examine Mr. Hodge.
I've never gotten the discovery to cross-examine Mr. Hodge on this issue. I'm hearing about this stuff for the first time.
Investigators' notes are the only thing that was ever taken down. They were turned over other than the attorney interview. That's it.
Not only am I not being allowed an opportunity to prepare to cross-examine this witness--
Do I have a name and address for Mr. Hodge? Yes, in Chicago, some place in Illinois.
My recollection is that Mr. Hodge, his name came up in our discussions back in January if I recollect correctly.
I think his name came up in April frankly and he was the subject of a 352 motion and hearing filed by the Prosecution and argued by Cheri Lewis. The court said he couldn't testify. So why would I go out and interview him, Judge?
The court thought it might be that there might be a 352 issue, it might be cumulative.
Well, Kathleen Bell hasn't testified and Mr. Hodge has testimony with regards to the--that is directly impeaching.
So the court's prior ruling is out the door, I don't get to argue it, I don't get to prepare. We just jam the Prosecution and put this man up here and have him testify in front of the jury, Judge?
KEY QUOTEWell, counsel, if you've known about him for five months and you haven't bothered to interview him, that's a problem, I agree.
KEY QUOTEUntil Kathleen Bell had testified. All right. The offer of proof that I've heard here today is that he has direct impeachment testimony. We may not see Kathleen Bell.
Is your Honor suggesting that Kathleen Bell wouldn't come to court as I promised you she would?
No. No. I just said we may not see her testify. You may make a tactical decision after certain witnesses are called not to call her. I don't know.
I want you to bet your life on the fact that that decision will not be made.
KEY QUOTEYou know, I would like a 402 on this witness' testimony now. Are we going to do that today? I have two boxes of material on Mr. Hodge. How much time will I get to prepare?
There are no mini trials. What we'll do is--we've had two requests now for a recess for Mr. Cochran to talk to Mr. Mounger. And, Mr. Bailey, I'm going to direct you to make Mr. Hodge and Miss Singer available to Mr. Darden.
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt. I apologize. But it's going to be Hodge and Singer as well?
Unless you can tell me a good reason why, since you've known about them, that you're not ready.
Because you said they weren't going to be a witness in this case, because you have not ruled that their testimony is admissible, Judge.
KEY QUOTEMr. Fuhrman referred to him in a racially disparaging way and made two comments to him that are disparaging in nature and using the particular racial epitaph in question. So that would appear to be direct impeachment evidence of Detective Fuhrman.
So the court's prior ruling is out the door, I don't get to argue it, I don't get to prepare. We just jam the Prosecution and put this man up here and have him testify in front of the jury, Judge?
Well, counsel, if you've known about him for five months and you haven't bothered to interview him, that's a problem, I agree.
I want you to bet your life on the fact that that decision will not be made.
Because you said they weren't going to be a witness in this case, because you have not ruled that their testimony is admissible, Judge.