All right. Ladies and gentlemen, as far as the jury is concerned, we are going to take our recess just a little bit early. Please remember all my admonitions to you. And we will probably call you back in about twenty minutes. All right.
I will repeat my offer of proof as of Friday, your Honor. Miss Singer, who had for nine days been the roommate of a woman named Karel Hannak, wound up in a local hospital with a condition that required emergency treatment. While there Miss Hannak encountered two policemen named Vettraino and Fuhrman and Miss Hannak began to date Officer Vettraino who the evidence will show was Fuhrman's partner. Miss Singer went home, she did not spend overnight in the hospital, and a few weeks later was present in the living room of the two-bedroom apartment where she was at that time sleeping because there were four girls in the two-bedroom apartment, and Mr. Fuhrman entered with Mr. Vettraino who was courting Miss Hannak.
Yes, your Honor. She was in the hospital September 24, 1987, and within about three weeks thereafter, she has no means of ascertaining the exact date, these two men came into the apartment, Vettraino, to visit Miss Hannak, Fuhrman tagging along. During that conversation Officer Fuhrman gratuitously offered the fact upon been asking what he did that he and Vettraino were assigned to gangs and that as part of his business he would take "N" word people into and alley and he would hit them with a stick or baton, she is not sure which word he used, and then he would kick them until he could see them twitch and that relieved his tensions, and he smiled as he said it. The evidence will be that he came, when she was at home, she knows he came a number of times when she wasn't at home, but when she was at home, three or four more times. And when Officer Fuhrman came in she would leave the room so as not to be present when language of the kind she had heard on her very first encounter was uttered. After about the fourth occasion, and probably late in 1987, she was in the bathroom looking out the window of this second floor apartment when she saw a car pull up and Officer Vettraino pull up or get out of the car with Officer Fuhrman. They started up the walkway. And she said out the window, "Hello, Tom," and she saw Fuhrman with an angry face say something to Vettraino. The part she could hear was, "That fucking bitch." At which point she said, "That man is not coming in this house any more. Tom, you can come in if you like." Mr. Vettraino then came in and left she believes with Miss Hannak. She never saw Mr. Fuhrman in her apartment again. That is what she will testify to.
Well, the court has already ruled that these comments as they relate to excessive force are highly inflammatory and prejudicial. I am not interested in hiding the ball. If the court feels that use--that Detective Fuhrman's use of the "N" word is somehow relevant but in the context--the context provided to us today finally by Mr.--
When they throw those epithets around, Judge, I just go blank. But given the context in which the word was used in this case, I think it is highly inflammatory and prejudicial. If they want to call Miss Singer in to say that he uttered the epithet in a derogatory manner, in a disparaging manner--
--in 1987 or three weeks after September 17, 1987, I will not object at this point; however these are horrible, horrible things that Miss Singer will testify were said by Mr. Fuhrman and I think it takes it to another level, a higher level of emotionalism, and I think the court should exercise its discretion under 352 and limit--
--this testimony. In addition, I would say this: If Miss McKinny is also going to testify to 42 or 41 uses of the word, I think we are at the point where this is cumulative.
If it please the court, when the Prosecution thought it could get away with trashing Miss Bell and calling her a liar, as they did in this court, they thought it a smart tactic to introduce into evidence 102 in which genocide is mentioned, a somewhat more inflammatory event than merely beating someone up until he twitched but presumably leaving him alive. Suddenly they have a queasy stomach because the tables have turned and they are in no position to start calling these people liars because the consequences are fairly obvious. The tapes are corroborative and could then be admitted. I do not believe the fact that their strategy has backfired, the fact that an officer they have long known, according to Commander Ball of the police department, since 1978 was a big problem because of his attitude, was put on this witness stand and vouched for is any basis for them to come whining in here with estoppel. Mr. Fuhrman chose those words. He chose on this location, as he did before, to visit them on a total stranger on a first encounter. It says a great deal about who he is and how much he is to be trusted. And to withhold this information from the jury because they can't live with it I think is pushing the envelope a long way up. They thought the jury could hear about burn or bomb them all. Now they think kicking is too bad because they realize that Fuhrman is lying in his teeth and these people are telling the truth and they are stuck with it. That wasn't a legal argument he gave, that is tucking your tail between your legs and trying to get out of it and as the court you ought not to permit it.
You know, I'm going to save the heated remarks that I have for Mr. Bailey for another day and another time when it is just Mr. Bailey and I when we can talk this over. You know, we have a right under the law to ask the court to exercise its discretion under 352, and by the way, Mr. Bailey, we didn't call Kathleen Bell a liar, and the letter was introduced because his Honor--
The letter was introduced because his Honor ruled the letter relevant. We take the evidence as it comes. We deal with it. Okay? We are not running with our tails tucked between our legs, Mr. Bailey. And I would ask the court--I would say to the court, so that Mr. Bailey can hear and understand, but I live with this everyday, Mr. Bailey. I understand what the word means. I can't run away from it and I certainly can't run away from it in this courtroom when it is thrown about in the careless manner that it is by Mr. Bailey. In any event, 352 is in the evidence code for a reason and it has been there many years. This is not the trial of People versus Fuhrman, not yet, and when it is the time for Mr. Fuhrman's Prosecution, if there is one, then they can deal with that issue, but this is the case of People versus Simpson. And I would ask the court to limit Miss Singer's testimony.
Your Honor, it is the case of a leading witness for the Prosecution, a badge carrying detective who provided probable cause for a search and found evidence which purports to point to this Defendant, very severely lying to the court and lying to the jury. And I think within limits, and certainly there is a point at which you might find it cumulative--unless they are willing to step up to the bar and say, ladies and gentlemen, we made a mistake, this guy is a perjurer and we are stuck with it and we admit it. Until that happens I think we are entitled to provide, at least in two or three different sources from people who don't know each other, from people who made their statements before these tapes ever emerged, and they knew they would be corroborated by people who have been publicly called liars by this Prosecution team in this court in argument, I think the jury is entitled to have a sampling of the consistency of this man's conduct.
You know what they say, Judge, "Yet he without sin cast the first stone," and I don't think anybody here is going to be throwing the first stone. It is highly inflammatory and prejudicial, Judge.
All right. Thank you, counsel. I will allow the testimony of Miss Singer as it relates to 1987, the acquaintanceship with Detective or Officer Vettraino. You can lay the foundation that that officer was Mr. Fuhrman's partner at the time, the fact that he was working gangs with Mr. Vettraino and that he used the "N" word in a vile and disparaging manner as to African Americans. I am going to limit and not receive the testimony regarding beating of suspects. There is no allegation that that occurred in this case. It is not relevant to this case. I find it highly inflammatory. And I will exercise my discretion to keep that out.
May we introduce the fact that his derogatory reference to people of the ilk of the "N" word relieved his tensions?
All right. May I have a moment to acquaint the witness with the limitations of your Honor's ruling?
And with respect to the encounter where he is entering the house and calls her an epithet, may she testify to that?
I think it is her and his reaction to each other based upon these discussions, so I would say yes.
Mr. Fuhrman chose those words. He chose on this location, as he did before, to visit them on a total stranger on a first encounter. It says a great deal about who he is and how much he is to be trusted.
he and Vettraino were assigned to gangs and that as part of his business he would take 'N' word people into and alley and he would hit them with a stick or baton, she is not sure which word he used, and then he would kick them until he could see them twitch and that relieved his tensions, and he smiled as he said it.
I live with this everyday, Mr. Bailey. I understand what the word means. I can't run away from it and I certainly can't run away from it in this courtroom when it is thrown about in the careless manner that it is by Mr. Bailey.
I am going to limit and not receive the testimony regarding beating of suspects. There is no allegation that that occurred in this case. It is not relevant to this case. I find it highly inflammatory.
unless they are willing to step up to the bar and say, ladies and gentlemen, we made a mistake, this guy is a perjurer and we are stuck with it and we admit it.