Your Honor, we'd ask the court to consider striking the testimony of Mr. Camacho, as being a witness that has been presented by the District Attorney, who the District Attorney does not believe. The Los Angeles Times, in their lead story this morning --
Your Honor, I'm going to object at this time. I would ask for an offer of proof, and I would ask to be able to approach. Because I don't want anything unfair, improper or prejudicial to get into the record. I'm not sure what Mr. Shapiro is going to read, but we're dealing with a media source. One of the things that miss Clark and I have enjoyed thus far about this proceeding, is the ability to present evidence in court, in a lawyer-like fashion. So, your Honor, if we may, may we approach, so we can discuss this in a more professional manner?
I mean aren't -- let's have the walkie talkies off. Anything that we're going to talk about is going to be recorded. Are you asking for, like a sidebar on this?
All right. The record should reflect that we're in chambers, that MISS Clark and Mr. Hodgman are present. Mr. UELMEN and Mr. SHAPIRO are present.
I just GLANCED at it. THE lead story is written by senior times writer Jim Newton and Andrea FORD. And it quotes miss Clark as follows: "PROSECUTOR MARCIA Clark said after the hearing, that, quote, 'PATTY,'" END QUOTE, "is Patty Joe FAIRBANKS," comma, "senior secretary in the special trials division." period.
"Clark," comma, "however, denied that FAIRBANKS gave Camacho approval to talk." period. Quote, "I was there," comma, end QUOTE, "Clark said." Period. Quote, "I can tell you that she did not tell him that he could talk to the press." period. "I can guarantee you that 200 percent,"comma, "absolutely." end QUOTE.
Your Honor, my concern is simply this, and I'm sure my concern is shared by the court. We're trying, under difficult circumstances for all of us, to preserve THE Integrity of these proceedings. It is very difficult to ensure fairness for all parties, under this intense media SCRUTINY. I think you know the testimony of Mr. CAMACHO, GAVE us some idea of the type of pressure that all sorts of people are under in this matter. With regard to this particular article, first of all, Mr. Camacho, as a matter of record yesterday, on REDIRECT, stated that HE WAS less than certain about whatever directions A Patty gave to him. Secondly, miss Clark can ATTEST to the factual nature of whatever she -- whatever she said yesterday, and I think a record should be made of that. And, finally, I just don't THINK this is fair, to be doing this in a court of law. The credibility is a matter for the court to decide.
You know, I mean, I don't know that you finished your motion, because there was a request that we come back here. And basically, I guess you're going to ask me to strike Mr. CAMACHO'S testimony as what? Some kind of a sanction? Because you're saying that miss Clark disbelieves his part of the testimony, where he claimed that Patty OSTENSIBLY gave him some kind of authority to speak to the press?
First, I'd like to ask for a hearing. At that hearing, I would LIKE to have Jim Newton testify as to whether or not this quote was given by miss Clark. If this QUOTE was given, because I certainly agree, that people can be misquoted, jim Newton, in my experience, is a very, very careful reporter, and takes copious notes. And generally READS quotes back to people, especially on very, very important areas. So, first, I'd like to establish whether or not Mr. Newton can substantiate this was said by miss Clark. If that can be Substantiated, then I would ask the court to consider striking the testimony, both as sanctions or, in the alternative, based on the fact that the people are not fulfilling their duty of fair play and FUNDAMENTAL justice in presenting credible witnesses. They are in a position where if Mr. Newton is correct, and this quote attributed to miss Clark is correct, that they are calling their witness a liar.
Number one, I did not speak to Jim Newton, I spoke to Andrea FORD. I'd like to see the article, please, if I may, counsel. I'd like to see the entire quote. Number one, I think that is inaccurate, in that I was not the one who told them who Patty was. Someone in our media relations department did that. So, that's inaccurate. Number two, what concerns me is that this has almost no bearing on the credibility of the witness. And to the extent that I have indicated that he did -- what patty did or did not say, Has to do with what the witness understood. A lot of us can be ascribed to misunderstanding by a witness, who we were able to observe in court. English is not his first language. He was considerably rattled at the time he was testifying. I think that was visible to the court. The idea concerning credibility of any witness is something that is solely for the court to determine. And whether or not this aspect of his testimony is critical to the balance of his testimony, is something for the court to determine, also. But our disagreement as to the instructions PATTY Joe gave this witness, has nothing to do with the credibility of his testimony concerning the sale of the knife, which is the key to his testimony. That's what he was here appearing about. Now, whether or not he was given permission, he said he was instructed by Patty Joe to go to the media, and that was the question posed to me, "did Patty Joe tell him to go and talk to press?" And my answer was, "NO, she did not." And he never testified to that, either. He testified that she said, I believe -- and we can have it read back -- that he could do what he wanted, that whatever he wanted to do, it was up to him.
That is exactly -- if I could look at what the balance of my quote was, I know what I said, I do not know whether it was completely reported. I know what I said. And if I may be allowed to -- no, they did not complete the statement I gave to Andrea FORD. I told Andrea FORD that she said exactly that, she said that he -- no, this is not accurately quoted here, she did not -- okay. I can tell you that she did not tell him that he could talk to the press. I can guarantee you that 200 percent, absolutely. So, that is correct. The balance of my statement was that she told him she could not prevent him, but that she urged him not to. And that was what the instructions were. However, I don't see why this should be the basis of a motion to strike his testimony. We aren't indicating disbelief. And whatever my belief is concerning this witness, about the instructions given to him by PATTY Joe, has no bearing on the Court's duty to determine his credibility.
I just feel that we're not going to get anywhere with this, Mr. SHAPIRO. What miss Clark did or did not say to the press, with regard to this particular witness, I just don't see that that somehow is going to rise to some kind of a level, even if it's the worse case scenario, of supposedly what the version of what she said was, that somehow they should be sanctioned, or that Mr. camacho's testimony should be stricken. I mean the credibility of his testimony is in Question, based upon everything he said, and the motivations involved. and, you know, the demeanor and manner, and so forth, as they would be with any witness. And I just don't see that the D.A. making some comment, and her comment, even as it's reported, isn't that I believe he's lying. The comment is that that's not the way it happened. But Mr. Camacho may have his own recollection, and may be very honest in his belief as to his own recollection of what happened. Even so, I don't think that it rises to some kind of a level that somehow Mr. Simpson is being denied of due process, or there's been misconduct engaged in by the prosecution, to justify the court striking his testimony. And it is, indeed, my call as to credibility. And I, quite frankly, don't care what the paper says about the witnesses, and I don't care what miss Clark says about how the witnesses did, or what Mr. Hodgman says, or what you or Mr. UELMEN, or anyone else says about how they did. Ultimately, I'm going to have to decide.
Thank you. This incident, in and of itself, is something that I would clearly agree with the court's position on, and it would not be raised if this was something isolated. But we have several other events leading up to this incident. Last weekend, we had the 911 tapes being released. We had the District Attorney of Los Angeles stating that he had no knowledge of them being released, that they were released by the city attorney. We had the chief of police of Los Angeles, Willie Williams, on television, saying that is not the case, that he talked directly to a member of the prosecution team in the D.A.'S office, told him about it, and they authorized him to release the tapes. Now, we have the position of the D.A. saying that the foreperson of a grand jury telling somebody under penalty of contempt, "do not discuss this with anyone." and a representative of the District Attorney's Office says, "do what you want. You can talk to whoever you want." Coupled with the strong positions that the prosecutors have taken in this case publicly, that Mr. Simpson is guilty, that Mr. simpson is likely to confess, and that Mr. Simpson is the sole killer, at some point in time, we have a vested interest by the prosecutor in gaining a conviction. And at some point in time, if we have things that are released, that are inadmissible or questionably admissible, and we continue to have comments to the press that are prejudicial, and we continue to have the District Attorney's office either have some credibility problems as to whether or not they allowed prejudicial material to be released, or, in this case, did not do everything to dissuade a witness from publicly discussing this with the press, under order by the foreperson of the grand jury, I think we're running into due process problems. I think it's something that the court should seriously look at.
Well, one of the things, hopefully, that this preliminary hearing is affording to both sides, is the opportunity to have the evidence come out in a court with everyone present. And anyone who's interested, and apparently a lot of people are, can watch and hear it and see it. And, I mean, I think that does a lot to counteract all of these unnamed sources, or all this stuff that's been coming out about this case since it began, and printed in the paper, on news reports and -- I mean I think and I hope, that this is, in fact, contributing to the fairness of the proceedings with regard to Mr. Simpson, and perhaps restoring some confidence, and the confidence of the lawyers in the system, that this is where the guilt or innocence is going to be determined. And, you know, dealing with the media, obviously, is a difficult issue for everyone. But I don't think that every time that there's some kind of a report, and some kind of a quotation, that I'm in a position to do something. I mean, the 911 tapes release is a whole other issue, and I don't think I have any jurisdiction, anything I can do with that, whatsoever. I don't think that miss Clark's statement is tantamount to saying that she thinks Mr. Camacho is a liar. She has her own version of apparently the instructions, and -- but I just don't see where that implicates the due process. I mean everybody had a chance to see Mr. Camacho and draw their own conclusions.
in That case, I think I should indicate, if we're making records, that Mr. Shapiro has not accurately reflected many of the events he is attempting to depict for the court. Especially considering the 911 tape. There is another side to that, I don't want to take up the court's time with it, because I agree, it's not something that has any part of this hearing. Unless the court wants me to air that side, and the court is shaking its head no.
I will not. Let me just indicate, then, for the record, that I do object to his rendition of the events that transpired prior to this preliminary hearing. So, I'll leave it at that, and put off further comment until any time the court thinks it --
We filed it under affidavit, that I have filed under penalty of perjury, we filed a declaration under penalty of perjury, re-alleging the specific events. if i misspoke, I was trying to summarize, in generalities, of what took place prior to this.
I really don't want us to lose the focus of the purpose of this preliminary hearing, and I think this is kind of a side issue, that really doesn't -- we're not progressing, either side, by, you know, dealing with the sort of individual personal attacks from one lawyer to the other, the suggestions or innuendo that someone's not being forthright. I would like to see if that could be avoided, and we can just professionally carry on with putting on this particular case.
Your Honor, one other matter I called to Mr. Hodgman's attention to last night, that we had two taped interviews of two witnesses, that were on microcassette disk, and that we were going to transfer them last night to cassette disk. We did not have the equipment to do that, we're working on that today, and hopefully, I'll have that by noon to give to Mr. Hodgman.
In view of that, those witnesses will not be called until we have the tapes in hand, and have had an opportunity to hear them. This is a very late date to turn over a tape of an interview, that was conducted certainly way before this preliminary hearing began. And I will have to change the witness order, and call the remaining civilian witnesses in lieu of those two.
All right. So, you think by noon you're going to have that, and you're going to be able to turn this over to miss Clark?
And these are interviews of witnesses that were listed on the prosecution's witness list?
they're interviews of a man referred to as Kato, who lives in the guest house at the Simpson house. And a man referred to as Mr. Allen, who was the limousine driver.
KEY QUOTEAll right. In light of that, are you going to have sufficient witnesses to fill today?
I may. I don't know how long cross will be, once again, but I think I may, and I would certainly attempt to do so.
they are in a position where if Mr. Newton is correct, and this quote attributed to miss Clark is correct, that they are calling their witness a liar.
our disagreement as to the instructions PATTY Joe gave this witness, has nothing to do with the credibility of his testimony concerning the sale of the knife, which is the key to his testimony.
I quite frankly, don't care what the paper says about the witnesses, and I don't care what miss Clark says about how the witnesses did... Ultimately, I'm going to have to decide.
they're interviews of a man referred to as Kato, who lives in the guest house at the Simpson house. And a man referred to as Mr. Allen, who was the limousine driver.