Yes. We anticipate calling Mr. Roderic Hodge, your Honor. I just spoke with my colleagues to give the court some indication. We are at this point anticipating calling Mr. Hodge, followed by Mr. Blasini. We have told you about him I think before, not directly relating to Fuhrman, regarding the Bronco. We will then be calling the photographer, Rokahr, that is, supposed to have him here, and then Miss McKinny. As to the other witnesses, that is as far as we perhaps will get today, because there are some motions prior to McKinny's testimony, if the court pleases.
Well, your Honor, the court may have already noticed, we have sat here and we have taken it on the chin with regard to these witnesses and their testimony as it relates to Mark Fuhrman's racial animus. The message is certainly clear to me. I think it is clear to the rest of the nation and everyone else who is watching these proceedings this morning. I think the Defense has clearly established that Fuhrman is a racist, among many, many other things. But at some point it gets to be too much and at some point I think this court, and I think the jury certainly as well, may well lose focus as to what the real issue is here in this case, and the real issue is O.J. Simpson and what he did the night of June 12th, and not Mark Fuhrman. And what we have heard is that Mark Fuhrman espouses genocide, genocide of African Americans. We heard about his racial hatred, his sexism, his hatred for interracial couples, he will find something to stop interracial couples, he wants to burn all African Americans or bomb African Americans. We have heard it and we have not disputed it. It is done. Okay? Everything that they wanted to accomplish today I think is done. Okay? The Goldmans shouldn't have to sit here and hear any more of this and we shouldn't have to hear any more of it. Okay? When it comes time to argue this issue to the jury--we offered to stipulate last week or the week before, he used these word, Judge. We know it, you know it. Now the jury knows it. It is cumulative. The court ought to cut it off now under 352 and let's get back to the matter of trying O.J. Simpson for killing these two people. It is time to get back to that.
Just briefly, your Honor. We are in fact trying the case of People versus O.J. Simpson. Mark Fuhrman hasn't been arrested, he hasn't been in jail for fourteen months or fifteen months. This is the man who is on trial. What Mark Fuhrman did on June 12th is what is important and we are going to link it up. What I would offer to do--and we have been mindful of your Honor's concerns under 352. And that is why you didn't hear me call Andrea Terry. I think she would be cumulative--cumulative is the word, your Honor--of perhaps Kathleen Bell, so you didn't hear me call her. Roderic Hodge stands in a different position, your Honor. We have heard from these ladies who have dealt with this man and been appalled and aghast at his behavior, clearly. Other than Laura McKinny, we don't intend to call any other ladies, and she, because of the tape, as the court is aware. Roderic Hodge stands differently, your Honor. As you recall from the offer of proof last week, he's the man who was arrested by Mark Fuhrman, and you will recall what--Mark Fuhrman turns around, addresses him and says, "I told you we would get you" blank, and I think it becomes very relevant. Here is a man who encountered this man on the street, had to deal with him. He was stopped 20 to 25 times by Mark Fuhrman so he is in a different position. It is very relevant. It goes from what this man talked about to actually having done it. The direct exam will be very brief and right to the point. And then I have told you the other witnesses we expect to call after that. I don't think it is cumulative at all. I think it gets the picture before the jury. Your Honor, again we have taken one morning, less than one morning, versus six months. We have had less than six weeks and now everything becomes cumulative.
And we are trying to pare it down, being mindful of your Honor's order. It seems to me this witness is very relevant for the limited issues I have indicated to you. He is the only witness we are going to call of people who have been arrested by this man. We have a number of others. As you know, we could call witnesses for the next week, but again, we have tried to pare this down. The fact that they now know he is a bad man, took us a long time to convince them also. We are fighting for our client's life and we say this man is a key witness in this case. We are not taking any chances and we want to do enough so it is reasonable and so your Honor feels it is reasonable and can move on and that is what we are seeking to do.
Aren't we really in danger now of having four witnesses to testify to the same thing, that Detective Fuhrman was not telling us the truth about his use of the particular racial epithet and you have painted his bias and his willingness to use this word in an abusive manner? I mean, after--after a certain point in time it is pretty apparent, wouldn't you say?
Well, I think it becomes apparent except I think you can distinguish this man, as I have tried to do. I mean, clearly if it was Andrea Terry said I was at Hennessey's bar and said the same thing, then I think that argument might make more sense. This is a man who is arrested out in the street harassed by this man. This man, Mr. Hodge, made repeated complaints to internal affairs. He told the LAPD about this man Fuhrman. Everybody knew about how Fuhrman was treating this man, yet he continued doing it, so I think he is in a different situation. We are not going to belabor it. We told you what the issues were. It is also relevant, I think, your Honor, that Hodge was asked by Fuhrman, what are you? What is your mother? What race are you? And I think that goes again because Hodge has I believe a white mother and a black father. So it is again this same M.O. of this particular officer involved who they put such credence in early on. So I mean that is all I'm seeking to do, then we move on, as I told you, to Blasini, to Rokahr, and once we have argued our motions, to McKinny.
There you go again, your Honor. I certainly don't think so. I think that in view of everything we've been through in this case, we have spent--you have taken two days to reach a decision. We have been away from jury for five or six days. I don't think she becomes cumulative. When this officer engages 41 times and another 18 times, I think that is the centerpiece. You know, your Honor, you said get some testimony before this jury.
Let me tell you why. You always want to get testimony before this jury. You don't want to waste any time. We are trying to do that today when you get to McKinny. We have got motions for reconsideration, we have got to revisit the motion for suppression, and we have got further Brady motions, and I don't want this jury sitting back there writing us notes. There is no method to this, your Honor. Trying to get all the other witnesses off the plate so they will get something done so there won't be this level of frustration that we all have felt over the last week or so and get to it.
I will be glad to get to the centerpiece. McKinny's lawyers are here she is going to be here this afternoon, but we are trying to have witnesses, so we don't run out, that are relevant, not cumulative and right to the point, and that is all we are trying to do, Judge.
Why can't you present the centerpiece in the--within the parameters of the court's order? If I change my mind, you can come back and add more to it.
I am just telling you if you put Hodge on--I'm giving you fair warning, you put Hodge on, you may make McKinny cumulative, because three witnesses testifying about a collateral issue of impeachment.
Well, your Honor, we disagree that this is collateral, as you can see when we link it up. The problem is this then: Why don't I go with Blasini and I would like to be able to argue Hodge before McKinny when Jerry argues the motion--when Professor Uelmen argues the motion for reconsideration. I hear you, and--
Well, you will heard Miss Lewis saying that they want to file a response to that motion, so I wouldn't anticipate hearing that motion today.
They just filed--your Honor, they just filed their brief this morning with regard to the reconsideration motion, if that is what you are referring to. We just received it this morning.
We are trying to keep this going. We don't want to have the jury frustrated. We want to move ahead.
I like plan B. Let's go with Blasini now. You can think about what you want between Hodge and McKinny.
In the meantime, before Mr. Cochran leaves the podium, I don't believe I've heard that Mr. Fuhrman stopped Hodge 20 to 25 times. There seems to be some discovery I think that is owed to us as more seems to be heaped on the pile as it relates to Mr. Hodge, and I would ask for that discovery.
Your Honor, the other thing I am reminded by one of my colleagues is that in this whole scenario we have heard from, and we will hear from four or five white women with regard to their level of frustration dealing with this man and that is all nice, but you have not heard from one African American and that is why I think this is different. As I have tried to point out with Hodge, he is the focus of this man's genocidal talks and he lived this. He was the man out in the street on who he was doing it. I won't argue it now. Perhaps you will allow me to come back to that just prior to McKinny, we are talking about fifteen minutes of testimony, and I think you will see the relevance of this.
We are talking very, very lengthy cross-examination of Hodge and still an additional 402 issues that relate to him in particular. For instance, he was apparently arrested in one case--
One case was dismissed, one he was acquitted on, and it is going to require additional rebuttal because there are other officers who had contact with Mr. Hodge.
We can't--we are not threatened by them doing that. I mean, if they want to do that, that is their business. This man was acquainted of this charge when this officer was--arrested him. So if they want to bring that in, that is their problem. If they want to engage in those tactics, fine. I am telling you what we would like to do. I will accept your offer. I don't want to waste time.
With respect to Mr. Blasini, I would like to--I have the materials being brought down now. He has a prior--he has a couple of prior convictions that I would like leave of the court to impeach him with on cross-examination, and I would like to show the court and counsel his rap sheet.
May we approach, your Honor? Rather than trashing every witness that comes up, may we approach the bench? He doesn't have any felony convictions. This is typical of the Prosecution's behavior. May we approach the bench? I want her to show any felonies they have of this man.
I have it being brought down now. I thought I had it with me this morning and I guess I don't. It is up on my desk. And I wanted to show that to the court. As I understand it, since prop 115 and prop 8, we are not confined to felony convictions. We can also use misdemeanor convictions.
Yes, your Honor, and I don't use--call requesting the court's leave--the court's permission to impeach a witness with prior convictions trashing the witness. I have them and it is physical proof that I have of that.
I am not aware of any felony convictions. I know he had some problems I thought twenty years ago. I would like to see the date.
All right. Would it have an impact--his criminal record, would that have an impact on your decision to call him?
I don't think so, but I certainly want an opportunity to see whatever they are claiming.
It is on its way right now. Why don't we begin the examination. If Mr. Cochran is going to call him regardless of the court's ruling, why don't we start.
Your Honor, may I inquire? Regarding Detective Fuhrman, his lawyer was just on the phone. I do not want to run out of witnesses, so given the court is aware of some motions that are going to be heard this afternoon, shall I have him here this afternoon also? Six o'clock day?
I thought we had the Brady motion, the suppression motion, we have a motion we filed today with regard to the questions that you approved, I believe, the proffer to the D.A.'s, and I'm not sure that has been responded to yet, but I think that certainly those first two.
Your Honor, I don't know. They keep giving us this witness list with all these names on them and he is dropping down now--there were 17 names on this list. He is dropping down to name 16. What happened to all the people they want to have in here? What about Rivas?
I'm saying, your Honor, why don't we get something realistic from the Defense about who they intend to call.
We can do them at any time, your Honor. We wanted to file a response on the reconsideration of the McKinny tapes, but--
Yes, your Honor. We've already I think visited the issue through the request of reconsideration of Christian Reichardt's cross-examination--excuse me--testimony, and I think that all we need to do is represent the points and authorities on this issue to the court again in the context of the McKinny tapes. And we don't need to file paper. We can argue it orally. We want to get this going, too, and I don't think the court needs to have us file more paper on the issue. I think that we can just submit it to you orally.
My question on Fuhrman. I was asking the court what shall I tell Darryl Mounger regarding Detective Fuhrman?
I don't know, counsel. You are asking me to read your mind as to where you want to go with us. You have Mr. Blasini. I take it this has to do with access to the Bronco if I remember correctly?
We want to talk about Hodge, hopefully, and McKinny and Rokahr. Rather, first Rokahr. We will have Rokahr, your Honor.
The law tells us who to call. I'm telling no one. Counsel might want to read the law and 1538.5(I).
This is that 1538.5(I) originally presented at the preliminary hearing and renewed in the superior court? Is that the issue that you are framing.
We don't have that many witnesses. Let's see if we call all the witnesses that we have at least for the day. For instance, Vettraino can't be here if he has got problems with his lawyer, so let's go as far as we can.
On the McKinny matter, if there is going to be a redacted videotape or audiotape, can I have that before lunch?
It has already been displayed to you and the excerpts have been clearly delineated, so I mean, you have seen it.
Yes, I have seen the complete tape. I'm just wondering if there is a shorter version that is going to be used, as opposed to the one we saw last week?
All right. Miss Clark, it appears that Mr. Gordon has handed you a priors package with a CII rap sheet.
That's correct, your Honor. He did not hand me a prior in the sense of a package we usually get on a Defendant with certified documents. It is a rap sheet which indicates that Mr. Blasini was arrested in 1974, January of `74 for burglary.
Your Honor, on January 17, 1974, in Oceanside, it says Mr. Blasini was apparently arrested for burglary. There is no disposition whatsoever on that. Under that there is a 148 PC.
In March of `74, your Honor, which was a misdemeanor which would have nothing to do with truth telling or whatever. What good faith basis do they have for this?
It says 415, your Honor, in 1974, 21 years ago. Maybe we should just invite them to do this, but that preposterous, your Honor. Where is the package? Where is it certified? There is no relevance to this.
Counsel, any party who wishes to impeach somebody with a prior conviction or prior criminal record needs to have a good faith basis upon which to ask questions on cross-examination which traditionally a rap sheet is sufficient for the bases--as the bases of a good faith offer. The next issue being, A, is a 415 a crime of moral turpitude, and B, whether or not something that occurred in 1974 is untimely or stale.
I would say at the very minimum it is untimely, stale, and can I see that one second, please? Apparently--let me just indicate what happened on this. Talk about stale, your Honor. This is from 1974, so it is 21 and one-half years ago. This man is a responsible businessman in this community now and has been for sometime. This was an alleged misdemeanor where he got three months, I guess, summary probation. It doesn't even show a fine for a 415. Another charge there is no disposition. And your Honor, in this case in 1995 where we are so concerned about prejudice and that sort of thing, how could they even be allowed to do this? Certainly it is stale. Certainly this is a misdemeanor, doesn't involve truth telling, so can we dispense with this and proceed with the witness? We want to call the witness.
Actually, we are going to call the jury in and tell them we are going to start with the next witness. I had to deal with something.
Can we get some indication, your Honor, as to what--whether we can expect to see Andrea Terry or Ernesto Rivas on the witness stand?
I think the indication from Mr. Cochran is that he concedes that Andrea Terry, in light of Kathleen Bell's testimony, is probably cumulative.
The Goldmans shouldn't have to sit here and hear any more of this and we shouldn't have to hear any more of it. Okay? When it comes time to argue this issue to the jury--we offered to stipulate last week or the week before, he used these word, Judge. We know it, you know it. Now the jury knows it. It is cumulative.
Mark Fuhrman turns around, addresses him and says, 'I told you we would get you' blank, and I think it becomes very relevant. Here is a man who encountered this man on the street, had to deal with him. He was stopped 20 to 25 times by Mark Fuhrman.
If I change my mind, you can come back and add more to it.
You have not heard from one African American and that is why I think this is different. As I have tried to point out with Hodge, he is the focus of this man's genocidal talks and he lived this.
I think about it all the time, Mr. Cochran.