All right. Back on the record. All parties are again present. We have with us Miss Sager. Miss Sager, you've had the opportunity to meet with counsel for both sides and the court.

Yes, your Honor, I have.

I've decided to let you be heard.

I appreciate that.

I can understand why the court's concerned having seen the shot, but I would hope that it would also be obvious what the intent was of the shot and had nothing to do with--

I understand it's a benign intent, but the result is pretty obvious; wouldn't you say?

Well, your Honor, perhaps your eyes are better than mine, but I could not make out anything on the legal pad, and I understand from everyone else's view of the tape, they weren't able to make out any of the writing. It's clear that he was writing on the legal pad and--

In hindsight, it was an error in judgment and certainly--

Anybody up there on the kill swatch today?

There was, your Honor. And my understanding is, having seen the shot go in, they were attempting to focus on the hand as Miss Clark was arguing about Mr. Simpson's hand and they couldn't read any of the writing. And if the shot had proceeded--

It doesn't matter. Nobody should be having that kind of a close-up on anything that's on counsel table.

I understand the court's concern and we would certainly--

I think this is pretty obvious, don't you?

Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "Obvious."

They shouldn't be cruising up and down Defense counsel table with their notes and computers there.

I appreciate that concern, your Honor, and I certainly think that it would not be appropriate for them to reveal anything that would be attorney-client privilege communication in this instance whether by fortuity or whether they were trying to be careful and succeeded. I don't think any communications were in fact revealed. But we certainly can instruct the camera people that kind of shot should not be repeated during any of the proceedings in this case. And to the extent they want to have a shot of Mr. Simpson's expression or counsel's expression, to keep it on that and not get on anything that's on counsel table. But as your Honor indicated, it's clear the purpose of the shot was to coincide with something Miss Clark was saying and not to reveal any communications. But I am certain that they can and will abide by an instruction by this court not to focus on anything on the tables even if it relates to something that's being said by counsel and to focus only on faces and on counsel speaking and exhibits and not anything closer to the tables.

You recollect the static shot we had during opening statements?

I do, your Honor. And while that is certainly an option that the court could employ because of--

I mean, I've had to interrupt Miss Clark and it's a great detriment to her because of this.

I understand, your Honor. And I know that the camera people and everyone that's involved is deeply apologetic for any harm that's been caused to either side as a result of this. I know that it should be I hope relevant to the court that neither side is asking for the camera to be turned off, and I think it would be doing a grave injustice to the public as well as to the parties to not allow this portion, a very critical portion of the trial to be seen publicly when everything that has led up to this point has indicated to be of enormous public interest and what's happening, and this is a crucial part of the trial and may well affect how the jury ultimately decides.

And it's all the more reason those involved should be discreet and use good judgment in what they're doing; wouldn't you agree?

I agree, your Honor. As I said, to the extent there was an error in judgment, I can assure you they have said it will not be repeated. But there was--I hate to use a basketball analogy here, but there was no foul committed, no attempt to commit a foul because there wasn't anything--

You mean no harm, no foul.

That's the phrase. But there was nothing actually shown and they were trying to be very careful not to get in close enough to show any actual writing, just to focus on the hand. And if your Honor noted on the tape, at the point where they could have either gone in closer or push back the camera, the operator actually did pull back from the shot so that the point was made with the showing of the hand, which was the only point trying to be made, and then they pulled back so that they wouldn't inadvertently disclose something they have been ordered by the could not to disclose. And I know I have been here before, your Honor, asking for the court's leniency and apologizing, but I think in this very crucial part of the trial, it is appropriate not to turn off the cameras and to continue the electronic coverage of the proceedings. And I think both sides would not argue against having the electronic coverage continue for a crucial part of the trial. But as I said, we are happy to live with the instruction that no--nothing on the table would be shown and no more hand shots or elbow shots or shots of the table or anything else, but just to have any reaction shots on faces and the counsel that's speaking.

How about a static shot?

Well, your Honor, the only problem with that, counsel is not static. I've been watching some of the proceedings this morning as well, and I think it would do them injustice in terms of their presentation if the camera could only capture the podium and they are actually moving around, pointing to exhibits and showing the jury evidence. And in order to adequately present their presentation to the jury, I think it would be doing these lawyers an injustice to restrict them in that way. I think the same purpose can be achieved by simply not having any shots that might cover anything on the table and restricting it to the faces of participants and the counsel who's speaking.

What do you think the appropriate fine should be? I was thinking about 10,000.

Well, your Honor, I think that seems very excessive in light of the fact that there was no bad intent and no actual harm committed and the fact Mr. Cochran mentioned to me that they already had to pay for the cost of missing part of Miss Clark's presentation and the cost of having a lawyer come down to again implore the court on their behalf.

How much are you charging them to do this?

I'm happy to double my rate if that would make the court more agreeable. I feel they have been punished more--

Well, your Honor, to the extent that there has been any misconduct, if the court wants to punish anyone, I would suggest the court look to the fines that it has imposed on the lawyers on the instances when it has found misconduct by one of the lawyers. And in those instances, the same interest of justice may be affected and may be even to a much greater extent more. Yet, the court has been I think in every instance very reasonable in the amount of fine imposed on each counsel in instances where it felt that sanctions was appropriate, and I would ask the court to be guided by that and punish no more an entity that is performing a public service just as counsel are in this case and to employ the same structure of fines to another entity that may have committed a wrongdoing as it would to any counsel member or counsel table who has committed an act that the court felt was sanctionable. And those instances, I think the fines have been somewhere in the range of $50 to $250. One instance, I believe a lawyer may have been sanctioned $500 by Judge Bascue. To my knowledge, that's the highest fine that has been imposed.

950 is the highest fine so far.

950?

Mr. Douglas and Mr. Cochran.

That's 475 apiece.

Anything further?

Your Honor, I would simply ask the court be guided by what it would deem to be appropriate sanctions on other matters where somebody either deliberately or inadvertently committed some act, that the court set the same sanction if it feels sanctions are appropriate and not to punish the viewing public who is interested in this by restricting electronic coverage.

Mr. Darden, what's the People's position?

Well, it seems to me that the networks have already made millions and millions of dollars off the--really the backs of the lawyers and the Defendant in this case. I think a sanction, monetary sanction is appropriate. As far as keeping the television camera on or not, we leave that to the discretion of the court. We only ask that if it's going to stay off, that it remain off, if it's going to be on, it remains on. We think you should just fine them--fine them, and we like the idea of a static shot if the court's inclined to keep the camera.

Mr. Cochran.

Your Honor, the Defendant, Mr. Simpson, will submit it too, your Honor.

Thank you.

My only response would be, your Honor, I think it's not only erroneous, but inappropriate for the court to consider whether or not any of the media made money on the coverage of this trial. It is not an accurate statement that members of the media covering this trial made millions and millions of dollars and, in fact, many of them have lost money covering the trial. I don't think it's appropriate to take that into account any more than appropriate to consider how much money relative members of even the Defense or Prosecution is making in assessing a fine for misconduct.

All right. Thank you, counsel.

Your Honor, may I be heard?

Mr. Mirell, do you think you really need to?

I hope not, your Honor. But to the extent that the court is considering terminating coverage or restricting coverage, I would like to be heard still.

Well, no. I think we've wasted enough time for this particular issue, but I appreciate your interest as always.

All right.

You know, I was hoping to finish this segment without any further problem. All right. I agree that the transgression here was benign in its intent. However, its impact by cruising along Defense counsel table--and I think you can read what's there in careful evaluation of what's there. Mr. Bancroft, I'm going to instruct you shoulders and above.

Yes, your Honor. I apologize for any inconvenience to the court.

You've done a heck of a job so far, but this is a transgression that I could not ignore.

I understand.

Yes, your Honor.