Miss Clark is on her way, your Honor. We thought we were going to the motion to suppress.
Mr. Uelmen is trying to catch a plane out. Perhaps he would enjoy doing the motion to suppress--
I thought we had an agreement on order of our discussion, that the length of argument was going to go first and then the videos. Let's move on to the additional motion to suppress.
All right. Good afternoon, Miss Clark. Are you prepared to go forward with the length of argument discussion?
Your Honor, I think it's poetic justice that as I stand before you to argue the length of motion--argument for closing argument, I want to make this a short argument. I think that's very appropriate. Our papers I think will speak for what we are talking about here, your Honor. We've all seen this jury. We've seen their faces. We've seen and we remember that during voir dire, we promised them that they would get this case in April. They will now get this case close to October. That probably says something about all of our credibility, and it seems to me that in order for this jury--to restore their credibility in the counsel, certainly at least we need to limit our argument. I think one of the worse things we could do is to get up and try to talk to them for two or three days based upon some idea that this case is complex. They've heard the evidence. You've said so many times, your Honor, these are smart people, they've heard the evidence. Certainly we hope they've kept an open mind, but they know what they feel about all these witnesses at this point. I think some of your recent rulings have tried to tell us enough already, and that's really the theme that we picked up here from you and from the jury. It seems that everybody understands that except the Prosecution. And so toward that end, we've said, given this case, given all of our experience in trying cases, we believe that we should be able to concise our arguments, even with videotape, into one full day, both sides. If Miss Clark starts to argue on Tuesday, she has from 9:00 until 5:00 or whatever hours you said, if we start to argue on Wednesday, we have a like amount of time. In fact, I think what really we're saying is that she has perhaps a little less than we do because in the total of her argument, it's going to come to the same amount. In other words, we wouldn't have all day Thursday to try to rebut what we do on Wednesday. That would be unfair I think we all agree. But at any rate, what I'm concerned about is that they get up and try to argue for like two and a half days. And then let's assume that she does. Let's assume it's unwise to try to argue two and a half days next week. We would then go to Thursday afternoon. You are going to be dark on Friday and Monday. What are we to do? Start my argument on Thursday afternoon, then come back on Tuesday? I want to tell you, I had that experience during opening statement. That's not fair to Mr. Simpson or to the jurors.
KEY QUOTEThat might be an ideal time for you because you could leave them with the last thought over a long weekend.
Well, if I thought I could finish it in a half day, that might be an ideal time. But I think, your Honor, we need a little more than a half day. So what I'm asking really is for some fundamental fairness at the end and I am asking you to do what you've done so very often in this case, is use your discretion. This is an area of discretion. You want to protect these jurors, and that's all we are saying.
We're not trying to dictate anything anybody does, because in the final analysis, we have to use our own good judgment. And I think Miss Clark will do that also. But it seems to me, as very often in this case, we need some guidelines to help us use our good judgment. And all I want is fairness. You know, her rebuttal argument is limited to rebut what we have. So if you give us a finite amount of time, if we have six hours and she uses five and a half, then she's going to be left with only a half hour at the end. So I think that's the way it should be carved out and I think that's fair to everybody. I just venture to guess if you submitted this to the jurors, they'd probably ask for less than a day of argument, if it was left up to them. And so I think we have to have them in mind. After all, this is supposedly for them to tie this case together. We welcome this opportunity, but I think we have to make the most of the opportunity. And in order to make the most of the opportunity, it seems to me we do it in a concise, cogent, persuasive fashion so these people get the message. That's all I'm really asking. So specifically, we ask that the argument be limited to one day per side--we understand what is going to happen--and we get this case to the jury by the end of Thursday, September 28th, 1995, this case goes to that jury. We want to be part of that, your Honor.
Thank you, your Honor. We filed a brief with the court in response to this request. I find it interesting there was case law in the area. I didn't think there would be. People versus green, it's almost a hundred years old, but it has been the recognized principal for over a hundred years that the length of argument has to be governed by the length and the complexity of the case. As the court has seen, this is a very complex case, made more so by the manner in which it's been tried. It's a physical evidence case. This court knows very well the complexities of the circumstantial evidence premised on physical evidence. We have had enormous amounts of scientific testimony. We have had testimony from a number of experts on each area of physical evidence, blood, hair, fiber as well as the Coroner. It's been extensive.
If it was the intent of the Defense to get this case quickly to the jury, then the Defense did not have to spend almost a week talking to the jury through their expert about the movement of an envelope a few inches because the Coroner moved the body. If the Defense wanted to limit the time that it took this case to get to the jury, it did not have to question Detective Lange for eight days on cross-examination. If the Defense wanted to limit the time it took to get this case to the jury, it did not have to question Dennis Fung for nine days. As the court has seen repeatedly, our witnesses have been subjected to the most thorough blistering cross-examination I have ever seen in 17 years of practice. It has been lengthy, it has been detailed and I suppose reasonable minds can differ as to whether or not it's been overdone. Be that as it may, many, many issues were raised. We bear the burden of proof. It is very clear that the reason for the Defense wanting to limit closing argument is to gain what they perceive to be a tactical advantage. I understand the tactical advantage that they want to achieve here. The Defense says they can tie their case together in just a few hours or maybe a day. That's because they have very little to tie together, your Honor. This was not a semantics Defense in terms of evidence.
No. I mean, that's not true. I mean in other cases, I've talked to other Judges, the Judge who handled the night stalker case, the Judge who handled the McMartin case, the Judge who handled the Denny case, and we've all discussed whether or not it's an appropriate exercise of the court's discretion to limit argument. So your basic argument, it's not fair because it's our burden of proof and we have a lot of stuff to prove.
Yeah. That's right. We are the ones that have a lot to tie together. We're the ones that have literally a mountain of evidence to weave together with the testimony of lay witnesses concerning motive and opportunity to present as a cohesive fabric to this jury.
But isn't it a very powerful argument that the Defense makes, that this court should do everything it possibly can to encourage counsel to be precise and concise in their argument and that a time limit would cause both sides to evaluate what it is that's important in this case and what isn't, what the big picture is and not get lost in the minutiae of 12 days of argument?
I agree with you, your Honor. I don't think--I don't think the court needs to worry that the People are going to get lost in minutiae. We're--you can--we're professional. We don't attempt to sit home. We would be able to--we are going to make every effort to be as concise as we can. We know that the jury is tired. We know that they don't want to hear a lot of "We's." We know the best thing to do is get it to them as quickly as we can.
Miss Clark, taking into consideration the length of the trial, the complexity of the case, the number of witnesses that you've called, the burden of proof, what do you think is a reasonable amount of time for the Prosecution for opening and closing arguments?
How can I possibly estimate that not knowing what the Defense is going to do or how long the Defense will take, what they are going to go into? I can't.
I think--I can't. You know, your Honor, it's unfair at this point. We have not--as the court knows, there's going to be graphics, you know.
--let me put it to you this way. You know, we discussed at the very beginning of this case limitations on the number of counsel who will argue and that the court was contemplating a limitation on the argument. So you should have some rough idea of how long you believe it's going to take.
Very rough. I don't know. The opening portion of the People's case would probably take roughly two days. And I don't think that's a long time considering the amount of evidence we have here, a civil evidence case. The problem I really have is estimating the amount of time on rebuttal. I mean, you're asking me to estimate in a blind. I don't know what they're going to do.
Uh-huh. I mean, that's a very rough estimate without having paced through it with the exhibits and laser boards.
And I assume that your colleagues will assist you in marshaling all the exhibits, and I've indicated to you that my staff will be available to both sides to organize. I mean, we've prepared, Mrs. Robertson, a list of exhibits, and we will do everything we can. All of my law clerks will be standing in the wings with exhibits. You ask for the exhibit and it will be produced.
And I appreciate that, your Honor. That will be very, very helpful to us. But a large part of the presentation will involve graphic displays that will not involve the court's cooperation, although we do accept it as the very gracious offer that it is. I would also indicate to the court that the real I think intent of the Defense motion is to limit the rebuttal by the People. What they'd like to see is their case, their presentation not attacked as thoroughly as it can be and will be, and that's the limitation they really seek and that's what would be so unfair. I've never had--I've never tried a case where the court has imposed a time limit. And I'm not saying that that's a precedent for anything. All I'm saying is that I have never--over-lengthy argument has not been my problem with juries, and I don't intend to break that habit now given the fact that the jury is tired and we don't want to tax them more than we already have. I think that the court can trust me when I say absolutely that there is going--we will trim our sails and be as tight and concise as we can possibly be. But to impose a time limit in a case that already has gone on this long with this much evidence produces the unfair burden only to the People. This is a motion that is punitive only to the People. The Defense can get up, raise questions, confuse evidence, misstate testimony that quick. And in a case of this complexity, it's easy to do, create the confusion and the distortion. It takes something for the People to unravel it and put it back together and put things in their proper context for the jury, and limiting our ability to do is nothing but limiting the People's right to a fair trial, limiting our ability to explain to the jury how the evidence has overwhelmingly proven the Defendant's guilt, and there can be no justice in that. And what the People propose, we don't propose to limit the Defense argument. We propose that the Defense take as long as they think they need for their argument. And let me remind the court that the People's opening statement was shorter than the Defendant's, even when you put it altogether and you take out the delays. So we have precedent here for the manner in which the People present their case, and all I'm asking from the court at this final 11th hour is, please give us the chance to pull it together for the jury. After all of the obstacles that have been put in our way with things that we could never have anticipated, we need the opportunity to explain this to the jury in an unfettered manner and to be trusted as the professionals that we are that we will not abuse the jury's patience too much.
Good afternoon again, your Honor. Your Honor, I'm certainly not going to get personal and talk about misleading and distorting, all that stuff. You know, I want to elevate the discussion. You know, this is not about one side or the other. This is about the search for truth, Judge.
And as we said before, the--Miss Clark stands before you and says, "Trust us, we are going to get this case over with real quickly." The same people say "Trust us," and they took eight months to put their case on. They talk about eight months. We had eight weeks. And they're talking about our cross-examination. So, Judge, you know, you can trust us all you want. I am saying trust us, but give us some direction and some guidance. That's why you're the Judge. And you have not been bashful about doing that. One thing I'm concerned about, Miss Clark kept talking about graphics. We haven't seen any graphics. I think there must be some--the real reason I'm back up here is, we want to see their graphics obviously as early as possible before they start because we're entitled to do that. Talking about displays and various things, when are we going to see those? So I hope the court will take care of that. Let me get to her response. You know, there are complex cases. The World Trade Center case, the Judge in that case giving the lawyers a time limit, four hours. We have this all the time. Judges give you--say, counsel, you have four hours to finish your argument, you have two hours, you have one day. I mean, this is not unusual at all. Lawyers don't stand up before you and say, please don't do this to us, your Honor, the People are being punished. Lawyers deal with what they're dealt with. When you ruled this morning, you didn't see us crying. We just moved on to the next issue. We don't do that. That's what a professional does. You move forward.
Well, sometimes. One time we did cry, your Honor. I have to admit there was one ruling that made us cry a little bit. Short of that, you have to admit, throughout this whole trial, we have usually moved forward in the water like a shark, and that's what we want to do.
Not shark. Probably not a good analogy. We moved forward in the water like a dolphin, graceful. I hope that's better. But seriously, Judge, we don't stand before you asking--you know, it's not a question of doing a favor for the Prosecution, doing a favor for the Defense. This is about 14 people who get $5 a day who've been here, Judge, since September 26th, 1994. I don't have to tell you that.
Tuesday will be the first anniversary we went upstairs and met these people. We promised them certain things. And we're lawyers. We're professional. Let's get this case over. It's not any advantage we're trying to get. If I argue two days, I could argue four days. I feel so passionate about this case, I could argue from now on. I just have to concise it. We're not trying to shorten anything. She hasn't seen passion yet. I told them once before, they're in the fight for their lives, and now they understand. We are going to argue in that same vein next week. It doesn't matter if I argue one day or one week. They'll understand how we feel about this man's innocence. So it's not about time. I'm just asking you step up, give us some rules. We'll abide by them. That's all I'm asking. And for heaven's sakes, give us--we want some time to see those graphics. Thank you, your Honor.
All right. Thank you, counsel. Counsel, in contemplating limiting the argument here, I had to take into consideration a lot of things. First of all, the unique facts and circumstances of this particular case, the conduct of the lawyers and their argument to date, the length of time that this trial has gone on and the increasingly limited endurance of our jurors. The court's experience--I had to go outside my own experience to talk to other Judges to see what their experience has been and to hopefully gain some wisdom from them; and in discussing the matter with Judge Tynan, who tried the night stalker case, which went on for eight or nine months, discussing the matter with Judge Pounders who tried the first McMartin case, which went on for almost two years--and if I recollect correctly, Judge Tynan's case involved 17 counts of homicide, highly complex issues involved in that case and just putting together all the evidence--and my own experience as a trial lawyer--and I recollect one argument that went on for four days where the Defendant was charged with five counts of murder in a circumstantial evidence case. But I also watched the jurors' eyes when I was arguing to them. And that's one of the great benefits of attorney argument, is that the argument is to the jurors; and when you are arguing to the jurors, you look at them eyeball to eyeball and you can tell when they're being receptive hopefully and you can tell when you're boring them or when you've just said something that they don't believe.
That's one of the great advantages of argument. I'm very concerned about maintaining control of this proceeding, especially at this point given the limited endurance of our jury, and I am sorely tempted to impose a time limit, but I am not going to do so. And I'm going to trust the lawyers. But by having said that, I will come back to the start of this argument with probably three good nights of sleep. So I'll be on the top of my game as far as staying on top of the lawyers and I will make sure that there is no redundancy and that we keep moving and I will not hesitate to call you over to the sidebar and tell you to get moving or move on to something else and I won't hesitate to do that also in front of the jury if I feel it's appropriate. So be prepared, be ready, be concise, knowing that I'm usually tolerant of lawyers, but this jury is going to have the last say. All right.
We need to know about that. Also, just a question of point of information. If Miss Clark does take say two days, there is a chance there will be a break in our argument.
We have until Tuesday, 8:00 o'clock. Thank you. That vacates the 5:00 o'clock Friday?
I think it's poetic justice that as I stand before you to argue the length of motion--argument for closing argument, I want to make this a short argument.
The Defense says they can tie their case together in just a few hours or maybe a day. That's because they have very little to tie together, your Honor.
I am sorely tempted to impose a time limit, but I am not going to do so. And I'm going to trust the lawyers. But by having said that, I will come back to the start of this argument with probably three good nights of sleep. So I'll be on the top of my game.
We moved forward in the water like a shark, and that's what we want to do... Not shark. Probably not a good analogy. We moved forward in the water like a dolphin, graceful.