We are over at the side bar. I just want to make sure we understand Mr. Hodge is next, correct?
Yes. Hodge is next and I would like to use this as a possible motion in limine also. I'm going to direct him directly and I will tell you what it is going to be. Contrary to what Mr. Darden said, the arrest was on January 12, 1987; it wasn't on the 13th or whatever. He was arrested, he was laying in the alley and he was picked up and arrested by Mark Fuhrman and his partner, Tom Vettraino, and put in the car. Fuhrman turns around and says, "I told you I would get you, Nigger," and that is basically it. I understand you told me I can't go into the fact that they yanked him up by the handcuffs or they had him bent over. The other thing, he has a lawyer from Chicago and they keep talking about 1054.7. This man has never been convicted of a felony. I don't know--I don't know what this information is that they are talking about, but this lawyer is here from Chicago. He represents him back there. And he does not have any felony convictions and the lawyer would like to talk to you about that, so I don't have any problems or questions about that, but it seems to me, in view of the restrictions the court has placed on us, and I will abide by them, this is a very limited cross-examination, if Mark Fuhrman said this or not.
I want to address a legal issue here, and that is that what counsel is going to attempt to do to get in through this purported statement is the insinuation that Mark Fuhrman has been threatening to get him for a long time, that there were previous contacts. This has expressly been said by the court to be inadmissible and inappropriate subject for examination. By putting in the statement that Mr. Cochran has just referred to, he is attempting to get by implication what he can't do explicitly and the jury will get the message. This has already gone on for so long and the bounds of the order have been stretched to the snapping point and counsel has pushed this envelope repeatedly with improper question after improper question attempting to elicit everything that the court has ruled inadmissible. This courtroom has been filled with sludge for the last two days. They have had more than their bite of this apple. They've had three apples, all of them. And I'm begging the court please put a stop to this and let us get back to trying this case. Mr. Hodge does not need to be heard from. The statement referred to by counsel is in violation of the court's order. It will implicitly inform the jury of what the court has said cannot be brought out and it adds nothing of probative value to what has been already established beyond any doubt about Mark Fuhrman. How many times we have to say it, I don't know, but I frankly am of the firm opinion that the People have no longer any right to a fair trial. It has been thrown out the door and all we are hearing now is the repeated epithets to make this jury forget what the evidence is. Mr. Hodge is not necessary to the Defense in any way, shape or form. They have heard it and heard it and heard it. And now we are going to bring it in one more time except even more--in a more inflammatory way. There is nothing of probative value here. The fact that Mr. Hodge is African American does not add probative value to it. The issue is not whether or not he said it to Mr. Hodge or anyone else, but whether he uses the epithet. If you think or anyone thinks that we are going to get up in front of this jury and argue that he would never address an African American in that manner, all he would do is talk about them in the third person, you are all nuts. There is no way we are going to say any such thing. The court knows that. I know the court knows that I wouldn't do it, as the court wouldn't do it. This is a concession and we have been conceding all throughout. We have not been fighting this. We have taken it on the chin. But now we are getting kicked in the guts. This is below the belt and this is not fair.
First of all, they are violating the two-lawyer rule, but we have ruled on this and we are up here to find out from this lawyer about the 402. I understood your ruling yesterday. Miss Clark came up to talk about it then. You told us what the ruling was. It is our witness in this area. I would like you to hear from this lawyer in case it becomes an issue.
I'm telling you there is no good faith basis because he's here and they can go back and talk to him, so I wanted to let the court know that. Why we are making these speeches we can be finished with the examination.
Fuhrman turns around and says, 'I told you I would get you, Nigger,' and that is basically it.
This courtroom has been filled with sludge for the last two days. They have had more than their bite of this apple. They've had three apples, all of them.
I frankly am of the firm opinion that the People have no longer any right to a fair trial. It has been thrown out the door and all we are hearing now is the repeated epithets to make this jury forget what the evidence is.
We have taken it on the chin. But now we are getting kicked in the guts. This is below the belt and this is not fair.
Look whose talking about the speeches. Interesting.