All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. The jury is not present. All right. Mr. Cochran, what is your position on the Defense, since you haven't rested at this time?
Well, let me indicate the following to the court. Thank you, your Honor. Good afternoon, your Honor.
As the court is aware, the Defense really never rests, but more specifically in this case, we cannot rest at this point for a number of reasons. First of all, if the court pleases, we would like an opportunity to take a writ regarding the ruling of the court this morning. The court will recall that I guess it was last Thursday the Prosecution indicated they wanted to take a writ and the court was kind enough to give them in fact more time than Miss Clark could ask for. We are very mindful of our jury back there, but we want to take a writ on this whole issue because we are in a situation, your Honor, where we talked a lot about a search for truth where this jury will basically be lied to, that they will not understand what has really happened in this courtroom. You are not permitted to give a jury instruction. So far we can't call him back. This man has lied and perjured himself to the entire world.
Yes, we want to take a writ and we would like to take a writ, your Honor, and I just was about to ask our court reporters how soon we can get the transcript. And I would ask--I talked to Mr. Dennis Fisher, who will be handling the writ, and he needs basically until tomorrow afternoon because he has got to get the transcript and all the documents together to do that. That is the first thing I would like to point out to the court. Secondly, there is another issue regarding our inability to rest. The court will recall that Mr. Scheck and I appeared in your chambers under 1054.7. There is a critical witness in this case, who shall remain nameless at this point, that we think there will be startling evidence regarding before this week is out and we may want to impeach further, may want to call back for further cross-examination. We expect by Wednesday that information will be available. We think there are also Brady implications regarding this entire witness, so we can't rest regarding him. Finally, in addition to the writ, we would like to call Detective Fuhrman back to the stand for a specific testimonial circumstance and it is as follows: You will recall that during Mr. Darden's cross-examination of Miss McKinny it seems as though he attacked her credibility and you will remember the colloquy between the two of them. They can say all they want in argument, but we know what has happened before this particular jury, and so we would like to call Mark Fuhrman before the stand and I would like to have him--specifically have him utter those words that were played on that tape so that once and for all we can determine that is his voice and the jury knows that is his voice. We have an absolute right to do that and he is under no 5th amendment problems regarding that and so we would like to do those things. Those are the various things we would like to do at this point. If we can get Fuhrman down here, we can do that and go on and--but other than that, we need a stay involving the writ, but I think the thing involving the witness will become obvious I think by Wednesday at the latest. As far as being able to do other things, your Honor, my colleagues are very, very anxious to be able to argue to your Honor the balance of the motion regarding scope. There is some issue regarding RFLP results. There is all kind of things that we can do.
The Bronco, Gary Sims, I think that is set for five o'clock this afternoon is my recollection.
I think the balance of the scope argument, maybe we can hear that perhaps before that time I think. I think Mr. Blasier has more on the balance of the Prosecution's idea of scope, if the court pleases.
I believe that one of the orders issued by the Court of Appeal was that there would be no further stays. Secondly, when the People requested their stay, there was no minute of time lost. The court indicated we would begin rebuttal on Monday morning and we then proceeded immediately, during the time that the writ was being prepared, to argue the admission of exhibits. There was not one minute of time lost in this trial. We did not start one minute later than we would have. So our writ took no time away from the jury or away from the court. With respect to Mr. Cochran's request to delay again until Wednesday, I think it is ridiculous. It is up to this court. This court is aware of what the information is, and I am not, so you know, we are operating at a real deficit here. I don't know what would qualify under 1054.7 at this late date, but Mr. Cochran, if he has no further witnesses to call before this jury, has to rest. That is all he has to do. And if he wants to take a writ, he may take the writ. He is always entitled to do that, that is fine, but not take any more time away from this jury. If he has no further witnesses for this jury to hear, he is through and the court has the power and in fact the duty at this point to say it is over. It is over. There is just so much that they can do to mess around and fantasize about other people that have startling new evidence. Only the court is aware of how startling or new it might really be or if it is even admissible before the jury.
Nothing startles me any more. I can understand that and I think I share that, your Honor. But nevertheless, this is another filibuster proposed by the Defense. It is the eleventh hour. We have witnesses siting upstairs that we have flown in waiting to testify in front of this jury, but we will not begin, we can't begin our rebuttal case until they rest and it is time that they do. I mean, that enough monkeying around here.
KEY QUOTEMay I respond, your Honor? First of all, we don't need--I don't need counsel to tell us when to rest our case. I have indicated to the court where we are in this situation. And that is flat out an untruth. What happened was she had asked for until Friday noon until--she had asked until Friday morning. Your Honor gave her until Friday noon and then you said we were being to start rebuttal Friday afternoon. It had nothing to do with her. The jurors had something planned on Friday afternoon, so I mean, they can't ever get the record straight. Yes, there was a delay. There was no question there was a delay by virtue of them seeking a writ. Now when we ask for a writ--and under the circumstances it would seem to me they join in this because the record--your Honor's hands have been somewhat tied. We've talked all this time about truth to this jury. This jury is not getting the truth and we cannot say we rest in good conscience. As officers of the court we are not going to say those words. Further, you do know about the 1054.7 and I think they should know and that is why I said there is Brady implications about this. A lot of people know about this. Certainly now that we have become aware of it we have brought it to your Honor's attention. We have a right to pursue that, a key witness in this case. Also, for those reasons, we are not wasting anytime. We ask leave of court to do these various things. They brought this writ. We have a right to do it. And the point I should point out, your Honor, is this is how unfair it all is. What happened was they bring their writ. The Court of Appeals issues some kind of preliminary stay. We never get a chance to file anything. Your Honor then withdraws the jury instruction. They then resume. The issue is mooted. Mr. Simpson hasn't been able to file one piece of paper at this point. What kind of fairness is this? He is talking about wasting time. Nobody is monkeying around. This is serious business and we want our opportunity to have--our chance to file some papers. And just before lunch Dean Uelmen and I spoke with Mr. Fisher. He's prepared to go forward at this point. So this is serious business. We want to make this thing as clear as possible. The court can see where we cannot rest at this point. And I think that, you know, it is a little late for the People to be arguing this, your Honor, because they are the ones who precipitated this problem. If you had gone ahead as we had asked you to, to give that jury instruction, we wouldn't have had this problem, it would have been over at this point. They saw fit to take their writ and we have a right to do the same thing. The court gave them a stay. And as far as the Court of Appeals I think they misconstrue. I cannot believe that a Court of Appeals in this state would tell you that you can't grant any further stays at all in this case no matter what happens. They might as well come down and try the case if that is the case. Maybe they want to do that. But that sounds to me to be rather illogical. And you may take it up on that perhaps, from the look on your face, but I can't believe that was the intent. I know Judge turner and I'm sure that wasn't his intent or his import.
Yeah. Well, Judge, he also has a lot of reading to do as you were aware earlier a couple weeks ago. He would have a lot of reading to do before he can catch up with this case. But I think we have a right to do that, your Honor. This is not wasting any time and there is other things that we can do. I am not, on behalf of my client, prepared to rest. You can imagine how Mr. Simpson felt on Friday. All these things went by through fax machines and telephone and we are finding out on the news what is happening. What do we say to our client there? All he wants is a fair trial and all these things are going on and he never gets a chance to file one piece of paper and all of a sudden it is mooted out and you are told you can't do that. We don't have to accept that. You might want to accept it. We don't accept it. We want to do something about it.
Well, no. Well--no. You are too kind, your Honor. You are much more than that. But I think what we have a right to do that, your Honor, because really all of us have roles, transitory roles. But with regard to Mr. Simpson and seriousness, this has an effect upon him, it affects his life and the rest of his life, his ability to get a fair trial and that is what we are trying to do, your Honor. That is why it is so serious.
All right. Thank you, counsel. All right. At this point, the court is mindful first and foremost of the burdens that we've placed on our jury and the fact that they have been seated in our lounge waiting for the presentation of additional evidence today. Likewise, on the basis of the request--these are extraordinary issues. I don't think anybody would agree that--I think everybody would agree that these are unusual and unique legal issues. And if the Defense wishes to pursue their writ remedies, then they have every right to do so. And I am not going to require the Defense at this time to rest. What I will do, though, is exercise my discretion under the penal code and direct that the Prosecution, having indicated their ability to go forward with their rebuttal case, direct that they begin presenting their rebuttal witnesses at this time. The Defense will have leave to present further witnesses in their case in chief on Defense.
Before you do that, what we are facing here then is for the ability--the People have to go forward with their rebuttal evidence?
And the Defense will then be allowed to resume its case in chief at some point during that rebuttal case, perhaps even including witnesses to rebut what we put on during our rebuttal case?
Their case in chief, counsel, subject to the same scope issues. All right. Let's proceed.
Will the court at least require that the Defense put on the record outside the presence of the People exactly what witnesses they intend to present in their case in chief to conclusion so that nothing is added as a result of the People's rebuttal evidence?
At what point is the court going to determine that the People have a right to find out to get disclosure of the secret information?
As soon as the investigation as to that issue has been concluded and the issue is available for public dissemination. That may happen sooner than you think.
Perhaps by the end of the week? What if the People have to rest their rebuttal case without knowing about that?
They haven't rested their case yet so I am not inclined to take the waiver from the Defendant at this point.
Is there any limitation that the court is going to place on the nature of the testimony they present in their case in chief?
And there are no other witnesses other than what is contained in the proffer under 1054.7 that they can call in their case in chief at this time?
Then perhaps we offer to the court the option of asking them to rest subject to the availability of the information under 1054.7.
I'm not going to require them to do so and it is within my discretion not to require them to do so. I exercise my discretion in that manner. All right. Deputy Magnera, let's bring the jurors down, please.
One other question, your Honor. Did your Honor care to resume on the aspect--we wanted to call Detective Fuhrman for the purpose of having him state those words that were allowed and the one incident your Honor allowed us to play that was on tape. I don't think he claimed the 5th amendment for that.
Your Honor, it was my understanding that you ordered that all the glove evidence be brought down so we could evaluate. That hasn't been done. I have not received the letter that they wrote to Ruben with the pictures that he was sent. I have seen some boards over here. I have never seen any boards. I thought the pictures I got last week are the ones that they are going to use. I am not ready for Mr. Rubin. I heard a rumor that they are going to call him right now. I am not ready for that. I am not ready for the direct or the cross. Photographers, fine, if we can sort out which pictures they can use and which ones they can't.
Good afternoon, your Honor. I advised Mr. Blasier earlier that there were two witnesses that we certainly were not going to call who are on the list, nor were we going to use their photographs. There was a third witness who I advised him was more--most likely not going to be called as well.
Mark Krueger, Bill Renken, Kevin Schott, Karen--I'm sorry--Karen Brown, Stewart West, Jim Chegia, Mike Romano, Robert Seib.
All right. While we are bringing the jurors down, I'm going to ask you to exhibit to counsel the photographs that you are going to use.
For the record, I have never received a print on Schott. All I've got is a color--a bad color Xerox. That doesn't show you anything.
Your Honor, Renken they have ten pictures of the same game. I don't know why they really need ten. I was told that they were going to use two. Krueger, he is not down here yet.
There are taken from different angles, your Honor, and at different times during the day, which is important, because at one point a flash was used; another point a flash was not used, so all of these pictures are relevant. I mean, this is--
All right. I just want to make sure that they have been shown to Mr. Blasier, that he has had copies of them, he has had the ability to look at them. And the second witness, you don't have the photographs down here yet?
I thought that the court had ordered that I be provided with photographs, the same size, the same quality as theirs, so I could show them to experts. I haven't seen this one.
Let me advise the court that photomicrographs introduced with Mr. MacDonnell were not shown to me until he was on the witness stand.
Wait. Apples and oranges, counsel. All right. You have a copy, however, of that photograph, correct, Mr. Blasier?
All right. Bring them down here. Let's get the jury down here. All right. Let's proceed.
This jury is not getting the truth and we cannot say we rest in good conscience. As officers of the court we are not going to say those words.
This is another filibuster proposed by the Defense. It is the eleventh hour. We have witnesses sitting upstairs that we have flown in waiting to testify in front of this jury, but we will not begin, we can't begin our rebuttal case until they rest and it is time that they do.
Nothing startles me any more.
I'm just a poor trial court Judge.
We would like to call Mark Fuhrman before the stand and I would like to have him specifically utter those words that were played on that tape so that once and for all we can determine that is his voice and the jury knows that is his voice.