Counsel, have a seat, please.

All right. Back on the record. All parties are again present. Deputy Smith, let's have the jurors, please.

Your Honor, before the jury comes in could we address the court?

One issue, yes.

Your Honor, when I began my closing argument yesterday there was an objection that Miss Clark made with respect to improper argument which she misheard the testimony and we said I believe an innocent man was accused and the transcript bore it out. However, I do have some concerns here with respect to improper vouching. I think it is improper to make an argument to the jury that Marcia and I are the ones with courage. That is classic improper vouching. I don't think a District Attorney is allowed to say that in closing argument and that is why we objected. I think it is improper for the District Attorney to talk about I prosecute police officers so I know. The implication is either, A, don't worry, I will take care of mark Fuhrman, I will prosecute; B, if Detective Vannatter is lying, don't worry, I would know that. I think that is improper vouching. I think it is improper to make an argument everybody knows he is guilty. That is wrong. I don't think that that kind of argument is permissible. I think it is impermissible. If they wanted to call an expert about domestic violence, that is one thing, but I think it is impermissible to say I know a lot about certain things with respect to domestic violence issues. And most importantly, there was this whole thing where they put up the video, where as was indicated, the court had ordered that that part be redacted and indicated deception. But worse of all, he then makes an argument that Dr. Lee--that those--that infers to the jury or directly states that those shoeprints could have been left by those officers taking the blanket away when Agent Bodziak specifically testified, agreeing with Dr. Lee that they could not be, so that directly misstates the evidence.

Finally, I would make this request, because this is the Prosecution's rebuttal summation and we do not have a chance to get back up, and if there were misstatements of evidence in their opening and closing argument we were able to get back up and read transcript and correct it. If we make an argument with respect to misstating the evidence, I would respectfully request that if the court is going to overrule it, overrule it with the caveat, which I know is the thrust and substance of the court's ruling, the jury's recollection controls, because I think that is the fair and neutral way to do it. And so I make that request of the court and I would also request the court caution counsel and that we have no more of this improper vouching because I think it is an improper form of argument, and I'm talking about those specific matters.

All right. Matter submitted?

Submitted.

All right. The objection is noted. They are overruled. Let's have the jury, please.

Your Honor, before that, there are a series of photographs of officers that the Prosecution expects to show that I was shown during this break, during Miss Clark's presentation, and I wanted--I have an objection I wanted to lodge.

What is your objection?

I think it is it is very similar to when we wanted to show the photographs of Mr. Simpson with the gloves on. That was a still. These are photographs of Riske and the various officers, Lange and the others, and we object. And with regard to the last two photographs that I was shown, that still has the KTLA channel 5 logo on those, so I wanted to lodge my objection, having just seen these things at this point. I think it is analogous and I think it is what the court has said. I haven't seen these before and I presume they would be pictures put up there that she will be testifying about.

Is this four--four-photograph--

No, no. I think they are one at a time. You can see them if you care to.

They are still photographs of the police officers.

Mostly police officers. I think Mazzola is in there also.

They are still photos. I just told Mr. Cochran, when he said he was going to object to this, that the court overruled my objection. I had objected to the stills that they were going to use. They elected not to use them ultimately, but the court overruled it saying the stills were proper. So I made this exhibit on that ruling.

Well, again the court can see the last photo with the KTLA seal.

Well, the KTLA seal is irrelevant.

I thought it was irrelevant, but you had us cover it up before, I thought. You had us cover that up. That was--

That is at a time where the source of it was not relevant to the issue.

All right. All right.

All right.

Your Honor, one more--

Noted.

--objection I want to note for the record and that is I also think it was an improper argument that Mr. Simpson gave his bags to his lawyer on the way in. First of all, there is no facts in the record establishing that Mr. Kardashian was in the act of representing Mr. Simpson at that point in time or that there was any attorney/client relationship at that point in time, and I think it is highly inflammatory and improper argument, and also, it is not in accord with the known facts in the case. And another one I think that came perilously close to with respect to the discussion of darkness at Bundy, and that is, we all were at the scene. Now, Mr. Darden wasn't, I appreciate that, on the night that we did the jury view, and I have no objection to him citing from certain specific points in the record, but I would just like it noted, we all know what the lighting was like there because we recreated the best we could and then the Prosecution chose not to take the jury on a nighttime jury view. It was their decision. And it seems to me that in terms of good faith arguments based on what is not--what is knowledge of all the parties here, that I think they have to be very, very careful in terms of raising inferences to the jury about what could be seen and couldn't be seen, in light of what we know.

Well, what we know is from a recreation, counsel. The testimony of the witnesses as to approaching that walkway under conditions of darkness on June the 12th and June the 13th are in the record and it is a fair inference.

To--

I understand that. I'm just saying that it is perilously close.

It is a fair inference that can be drawn from the record. Also, I'm going to admonish counsel on both sides not to make any head shakes, gestures grimaces. I have seen it on both sides. And if I see it again, I'm going to stop you in front of the jury and I'm going to upbraid you in front of the jury. Both sides. Both sides have done it.