All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. The Defendant is again present before the court with counsel. The People are represented. The jury is not present. The court has had an in camera hearing with Defense counsel concerning the ability to go forward with cross-examination of the People's next product witness, Mr. Rubin. And Mr. Darden--is Mr. Yochelson gone already?
All right. On the basis of that offer, my inclination at this point is to require Mr. Blasier to go forward with the cross-examination of Mr. Rubin, however, he may reserve cross-examination as to one or two of the items, pending further revelations in discovery, which will require Mr. Rubin, unfortunately, probably having to return one more time in the next week to ten days.
One thing, your Honor. We are concerned about what we talked about back in chambers and we need an immediate conference with your Honor and we have talked with Mr. Dershowitz and we have a prospective that we want to bring to your Honor's attention and I want to give your Honor a head's up on that matter. We need to talk to you right now.
Your Honor, in chambers during the last break one of the jurors, who shall remain nameless, has a potential problem and brought that to your Honor's attention with regard to--shall I proceed--with regard to some rental property that she is having and I understand she wants--
I think you can be a little more oblique in how you discuss it. I understand what we are talking about.
You understand. All right. And the court's offer to this juror we find totally unacceptable to the point that it would be--I think would have a tremendously adverse effect if that is done, and we think it is unprecedented. We took the step of calling Mr. Dershowitz and our other appellate lawyers. They feel so strongly they want to take a writ on it right away.
We will do that. We will do that. We wanted to let you know we will do that, but I think I should try to talk you out of this process because what it does, it will taint that particular juror. The rest of those jurors aren't getting that benefit and those are public funds. I don't think we can do that. It is over and above someone's salary and we don't think it is appropriate. And I think I should bring it to you in the strongest possible terms, and furthermore, this juror will even be more beholden to your from the standpoint of not that you give her any cues or clues--
No, I don't. I don't think there is precedent for that particular thing for what is happening in this case. I don't think--
We will take the writ, your Honor, but we would like to be heard further because we think this is unfair to the other jurors, unfair to this particular lady, and it is just--I think that it is--it sends a message that is just--it is hard to express. And so I wanted to at least indicate to the court how strongly we felt about this and I would like for you to reconsider this because I think it is going to a real dangerous precedent to do this when we are not doing it for other jurors. More importantly, what it says about the system, to pay a juror above and beyond, is inappropriate.
The other thing and another motion I can bring, we have a motion regarding sequestration of the jurors, and do you want to hear that at the end of the day?
All right. And we have a motion regarding scope of the rebuttal, which the balance of the scope--
All right. All right. Then we may have some further remarks regarding this juror problem at that time, if the court would allow us.
We think this is unfair to the other jurors, unfair to this particular lady, and it is just--I think that it is--it sends a message that is just--it is hard to express.
Take a writ.
We took the step of calling Mr. Dershowitz and our other appellate lawyers. They feel so strongly they want to take a writ on it right away.
This juror will even be more beholden to you from the standpoint of not that you give her any cues or clues--