All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. The jury is not present. Counsel, there are a number of legal issues we need to resolve before we resume with and complete the Defense case, correct?
Yes, your Honor. I believe that is correct. If the court pleases, just as a matter of direction, I would ask the court to listen to Dean Uelmen first for our recitation, please.
This would be as to the suppression motion, your Honor, and I also have an offer of proof with respect to the remaining testimony of Laura McKinny.
All right. Perhaps the offer of proof. It is our contention that in the cross-examination of Laura McKinny by Mr. Darden, the questioning with respect to discussions between Miss McKinny and Detective Fuhrman with respect to cover-up opened the door to allow the jury to hear the portion of McKinny transcript no. 1. Actually this is not a taped transcript, but it would be page 41 of McKinny transcript no. 1 in which there is a discussion of the departmental cover-up with respect to the performance of women within the department. It starts with Fuhrman, the second time the name "Fuhrman" appears on page 41 and goes down to the end of the page. We believe the door has also been opened to a discussion which appears in transcript no. 11 beginning at page 19 and proceeding through page 26. This is a discussion between Miss McKinny and Detective Fuhrman regarding how she could portray in her screenplay the cover-up that would be necessary where an officer is being investigated and needs to create the appearance of being one place rather than another and Detective Fuhrman describes how logs can be falsified. Alternatively, if your Honor will not allow us to play the tapes, we believe that Miss McKinny could describe these conversations in terms of their general tenor.
The exchange in tape no. 11 that I'm talking about relates directly to Miss McKinny's testimony and Mr. Darden's questions about the relationship between the men versus women theme of her screenplay and the topic of cover-ups. That is, the ability of male officers to cover up and female officers not having the same ability to cover up their tracks.
I have an idea of what Mr. Uelmen is talking about and I think we argued these issues this morning for the most part, and I would say objection, same grounds as stated this morning. I would say that it is hearsay, that one--and the no. 11 proffer is one that was clearly fictional and why do we have to go back there. The damage is done. I think the court understands what happened this morning with that particular witness and we object.
This is from transcript no. 1, pages 41 to 42. They don't relate directly to the issue counsel has attempted to raise at this point. They're irrelevant to that testimony, to Miss McKinny's testimony as it related to cover-ups and when--
With respect to the hearsay issue, your Honor, of course, these portions of the transcript are not offered for the truth of what is asserted. They are offered to demonstrate the nature of the conversation between Miss McKinny and Detective Fuhrman. There was an attempt to portray the nature of these conversations in a false light through Mr. Darden's cross-examination. He was suggesting that Miss McKinny was attempting to sensationalize this screenplay, that there was even allusions to a possible illicit relationship between Miss McKinny and Detective Fuhrman. There was a suggestion that she was attempting to get Mr.--Detective Fuhrman to portray the information that he was presenting to her in a dramatic and exploitative way, and we believe that the jury is entitled to see and to hear how these conversations took place, especially in the context of the question of cover-up that Mr. Darden alluded to so the jury can see the context. And the context, as your Honor knows, makes all the difference in the world in explaining how these conversations took place and what was actually going on between Laura McKinny and Detective Fuhrman.
All right. Thank you, counsel. All right. As to the second example first, the discussion within the context of the screenplay, the question being from Miss McKinny as to how would a certain cover-up be portrayed for the purposes of the screenplay, that's clearly in the discussion of the creation of a fictional screenplay. As such, it's not relevant. The objection will be sustained. As to the issue of the department's cover-up of the performance of women as police officers, interesting topic, but not for this trial. The objection likewise is sustained on the basis of relevancy. All right. Next issue.
Detective Fuhrman describes how logs can be falsified.
There was an attempt to portray the nature of these conversations in a false light through Mr. Darden's cross-examination. He was suggesting that Miss McKinny was attempting to sensationalize this screenplay, that there was even allusions to a possible illicit relationship between Miss McKinny and Detective Fuhrman.
The question being from Miss McKinny as to how would a certain cover-up be portrayed for the purposes of the screenplay, that's clearly in the discussion of the creation of a fictional screenplay. As such, it's not relevant.
As to the issue of the department's cover-up of the performance of women as police officers, interesting topic, but not for this trial.
The damage is done. I think the court understands what happened this morning with that particular witness and we object.