All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. Counsel, did you learn anything new?

Yes, your Honor. Based on both of my conversations with both of the Fiatos, the federal government would persist in a protective order. Both Craig Fiato and Larry Fiato--and I would like to break them down and deal with them separately first, your Honor. With respect to Craig Fiato, although this individual is not in the witness security program, the FBI has taken steps to protect Mr. Craig Fiato. He has granted an interview with ABC. This interview has not yet aired. I have spoken with him and he has stated to me that he is concerned with the cameras trained on him at this witness stand for his personal safety. With respect to Mr. Larry Fiato, Mr. Larry Fiato vehemently--he also has been protected by the FBI and has been given a new identity. He vehemently denies ever giving any interviews to ABC or anyone. He is concerned for his safety as well and feels that if his likeness or voice would be broadcast it would jeopardize his safety. And based on those reasons the government believes that there is sufficient cause to prohibit broadcast media of these witnesses likenesses.

All right. Any response?

Your Honor, it was a very short time. We tried to reach folks at ABC to confirm. We can essentially confirm what I told you earlier which I think is what you've just been told, is that at least one of these individuals has given an interview, possibly more than one, I don't know. There is footage of these individuals, both of them, and they were not disguised, did not request to be disguised, and that exists. And again, your Honor, just because somebody comes up and says they are fearful for their safety, we are concerned about that, but that alone is not a reason that a witness' request to prohibit the public from having access to what could be very critical testimony in this case--

You are not being denied access. You are in the courtroom.

Your Honor I think understands how difficult it is to get into this courtroom.

Okay. Thank you, counsel.

Your Honor, we have slightly a different position. That is, we do not have any change in our previous position regarding the photographs of the Fiatos, but we do believe that the audio should be broadcast, and if the court wants to somehow muffle the voice in some way, but I don't think that is really an identity issue. But I would also like to be addressed on the scope of the direct examination as it relates to the issues that have been raised by the United States Attorney. In particular, I believe we should be entitled to present to this jury the following information: That the United States Attorney's office does have a vested interest in the Fiato brothers and in their welfare, that these--these men have for the last twelve years been cooperating with the United States government, that they have frequently testified before grand juries and juries on the trial level and that their testimony has resulted in the conviction, in their own words, of fifty to sixty individuals of serious crimes. And that they do have a cooperation agreement with the United States government and the United States Attorney's office whereby they are required by that agreement to give truthful testimony. And a violation of that agreement, in and of itself, is cause for prosecution of them. And I think those issues are very important for the jury to hear, not for purposes of identity or disclosure, but for purposes of credibility, because we believe that without any question, based on the interviews from the District Attorney's office, that they will directly contradict and impeach Detective Vannatter and their credibility then becomes an issue.

Your Honor, I don't anticipate any position being posited by our office that the Fiato brother or brothers are untruthful based upon the review of what they have told us in the interviews at least in which I have participated. It seems to me that the law is quite clear that until their credibility is attacked, there is no need to rehabilitate their credibility. The issue is was a statement made or were statements made, the context in which the statements were made. That seems to be the bottom line, short and simple.

All right. Thank you, counsel.

Your Honor, in that regard then, if there is not going to be any issue as to truthfulness, we would be willing to stipulate that the interview that was conducted by Mr. Hodgman and Mr. Kelberg on September the 13th, which takes about 27 minutes, be played to the jury, and we have no need to call the witness or jeopardize his life whatsoever.

We are talking about Larry Fiato's?

Yes, yes, Larry Fiato's interview that you conducted.

May I have a moment to talk to Mr. Hodgman?

Your Honor, we would, however, want him for purposes of authenticating the tape, just for that limiting purpose.

If there would be an offer to stipulate, we would stipulate that it is authentic.

We would like the jury to see visually who the person is.

No, no, that--you get--if we were willing to stipulate, it would be a stipulation and the tape would be played and it would be with stipulation as to authentication. It is not you get one-half of the loaf and then you get the rest of the loaf, too.

All right. Okay. Then we will proceed with the witness. All right. The application of the United States Attorney for the modification of rule 980 is granted. No photography will take place during the testimony of Larry Fiato. All photographers are excluded from the courtroom. There will be no courtroom sketch artists. All sketch artists are excluded from the courtroom. All electric recording devices, other than the court's recording devices, will be excluded, and the video and audio feed will be terminated. All right.

Your Honor, if I may, is there any reason why we cannot just have audio even if it is altered, your Honor?

Thank you.