Your Honor, I have a motion after we finish this next matter.

I'm sorry?

I have a motion I would like to bring to the court's attention after we finish.

Your Honor, I have a--

All right. Mr. Scheck, you filed a supplemental memorandum of points and authorities?

Yes, your Honor. It really is, frankly, nothing more than the case that--I said there was a Pennsylvania case from the Supreme Court, it was Pennsylvania versus Richie, and I would command to the court's attention that these are cases directly on point with respect to statutory privileges. And I'm sure the court is familiar with other related case law concerning informant's privileges, but the point is simply that our Brady rights trump any absolute prohibition here, and we think there are a number of different ways that we should--the court can pursue these records. Obviously it is futile to pursue a pitchess motion that limits us to something that goes back to--limits us to five years, when the material that arose in the course of the investigation in this case by internal affairs indicates that what we are all interested in is something that is over five years old. And I think the constitution and due process requires that these records be ordered turned over to the court for its inspection and possibly turning over to the Defense. And therefore the statutory restrictions of pitchess have to be overruled.

All right. Any other comment?

Thank you, your Honor. The think the statute speaks for itself. The requested materials by the--by the Defense in this case have no bearing whatsoever to the issues in this case. My client hasn't worked with Mark Fuhrman since 1989. There is no showing he had anything to do with anything that happened at Bundy or Rockingham. As counsel has still not addressed 1047, and even if one were to expansively view 1047 of the evidence code, you still get to the situation where my client wasn't there. He has absolutely no connection whatsoever--counsel submitted a hypothetical in a footnote in the brief that he submitted. That hypothetical has no bearing whatsoever to the facts of this case. There is not even a suggestion that my client had anything to do with anything that happened on June 12th of 1994. I would also note that in the--the Defense's purported search for the truth, they haven't exactly engaged in a rush for discovery. The information related to this matter was known to them as early as possibly February, certainly as early as April. They have sat on it. They have not attempted to get arrest reports and transcripts which they are seeking from my client's personnel file. If there are any such materials like that in my client's personnel file, your Honor, they have to show first under pitchess that they have made a good faith effort to find those materials. They haven't. They certainly haven't given us anything in their declaration to show that they have made a good faith effort to find any of these materials. The whole essence of the pitchess at that time, your Honor, is a balancing, it is a balancing of certain constitutional rights; the Defendant's constitutional right of confrontation and my client's California constitutionally based right to privacy. And in this particular case, before they can invade my client's personnel file, they have to show there is a necessity for it, and they haven't done it, they have not met the requirements of the statute and they should be denied access to the file.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

As to the relevancy of this case, I think it is clear that this officer, in the course of an investigation for Brady material in this case, indicated that he burned a diary that contained information about misconduct of Detective Fuhrman because he knew it was being sought, that this officer, with respect to the swastika incident and with respect to this incident where he could, if we got the records, help us prove that Detective Fuhrman had falsified evidence, and asked a police report--and asked this officer or got this officer to conform his testimony, to prove the code of silence, I think it is all potentially highly relevant. And there might have been more in that diary. We think that this officer, and the answers he gave us, in light of what we found on the McKinny tapes, was not telling us the truth and we had no--we did not know and we still don't know whether the internal affairs reports that the court has reviewed in camera contain anything about this diary and this information.

So we think it is relevant and we still think that it is extraordinary that the legislature has this statute. Here is Mark Fuhrman in the Fuhrman tapes bragging about all the different internal affairs investigations that he has been able to beat in terms of his own misconduct, and when we make a pitchess motion for Fuhrman and we make other related pitchess motions, not one thing came out. The only reason we even became clear that Detective Purdy had relevant information as to Fuhrman's racial attitude, perhaps dealing with the swastika incident and other misconduct in terms of fabricating evidence, is because of the statements that Detective Purdy himself made to a District Attorney in this case who Miss Clark told to get out of her office. And only because we continued to pursue that, and in light of the new evidence in the McKinny tapes and in additional interview with Detective Purdy and others, are we now on the trail of something that we think will be additional exculpatory evidence. And if internal affairs interviewed him in relation to those materials in this case, how can they rely upon a statute saying that we are not entitled to see what files internal affairs might have reviewed or ought to have reviewed when they interviewed Purdy in this case within the five-year period just because it relates to something five years back? I think that is nuts, but besides that, we have the constitution to rely upon and that is where we place our faith.

All right. Thank you, counsel. All right. The request under pitchess for discovery of the personnel file of Detective Purdy will be denied for the following reasons: One, the issue goes to a collateral matter, which is the credibility of Mr. Fuhrman. The conduct and contact between Detective Purdy and Detective Fuhrman dates back to 1989. It is unlikely that the--their contact would lead to exculpatory evidence in this particular case. Also, the file that has been suggested here, that information is a matter of public record in the records of the court. It is accessible to counsel. Also, the court is restricted by evidence code section 1047 from going further on this. I agree with you, Mr. Scheck, that that appears to be in conflict with certain rulings of the United States Supreme Court and I would encourage to take a writ on the matter. All right.