Okay. I guess I'd just like to get a feel for where we're at. It seems to me that in our discussions before, we thought that this would be about the point where we'd start the motion, after this witness gave his direct.
Now, I have still yet to read your entire opposition to their suppression motion. But at the beginning you indicated that you're not seeking to introduce any of the evidence that was recovered pursuant to the execution of the search warrant.
So is it a fair statement then that those items 1 through 34, with the exception of the blood sample from Mr. Simpson, were not recovered pursuant to the search warrant?
All I have is a property -- I have a copy of a return, but the return refers to the property report, I believe, for the items. I'll have to go back and look.
I'm going to be asking to admit the glove. I mean, I'm just confining my statement now to the Rockingham address, because there's no issue about anything else.
The glove, and the blood on the door handle of the Bronco, and blood drops in the driveway leading up to the property. Nothing recovered from the inside of the house will be offered at the preliminary hearing. In other words, nothing recovered pursuant to search warrant.
KEY QUOTESo just so that I understand, the return of the search warrant you say -- but you'll provide copies to everyone this afternoon -- just refers to the property report?
I'll have to look. I'm unclear right now. I'll get it from the investigating officer.
I guess we need to see that, because if it indicates any of these items as things that were returned pursuant to the search warrant, then conceivably the search warrant is in issue in this proceeding.
We believe it will be in issue in any event with respect to the credibility of the officers in terms of the statements made in the affidavit.
No, it's not going to be brought into issue at all, and is not by law unless I'm asking to admit items that were seized pursuant thereto.
The affidavit is the statement under oath by the officers as to what they observed.
KEY QUOTEYou're indicating that perhaps statements in the affidavit might come in for some purpose of impeaching a witness that testifies?
May or may not. I don't know at this point. Now, do we have any indication as to timing of how long we expect or how many witnesses you expect to call for the motion?
Sure. Detective Vannatter, detective Fuhrman and perhaps detective Phillips. Oh, Excuse me. And Dennis Fung.
All right. Do you know at this time, Mr. Uelmen, whether you intend to present any evidence with regard to the motion?
Okay. Is there -- do we have any sort of an indication, just for time estimate, as to how long we think this particular portion is going to take?
I would think it would probably take that at least, that if not longer, if we're talking about six witnesses. Okay.
I was thinking we could probably conclude it by the end of tomorrow. What do you think?
I don't know that it will take all day tomorrow. We may be able to conclude it in the morning tomorrow.
Then I'll have, you know -- okay. Probably by noon tomorrow, you think? Okay. I have another civilian witness who is very, very brief. I forgot. She showed up after I left for court. If I could call her briefly before we begin the motion. Rachel Ferrara. The Rachel that he referred to in the phone call.
Okay. For your information, I received a request from A.B.C. news for the release of the photographs. It was just by way of a letter. And I just asked the press liaison to inform them that at this point in time I was not going to release -- we're referring to the crime scene photographs.
That I felt that it would be detrimental at this time to release those. And that's all that I have relayed back to them. So I don't know, you know, whether -- what they intend to do from there. But just so that you're aware of what's going on with that. It seems to me there was another --
Your Honor, may I raise something? I know I'll forget otherwise. You know, I'm glad you raised that. I'm going to ask to remove photographs from the board as it presently exists, because I do not want to put into evidence the more graphic photographs that are on it. As far as graphic goes, the one that has been shown to the witness is as about as graphic that I want to get.
That one. And it's just for position, so that they can have something to refer to. The others I'll be asking to admit, I'm going to ask to take them off the board. Those are the ones that show evidence. The envelope, the hat, the glove. Other than that I'll -- so what I'd like to do is take them off and mount them singularly, and I'll withdraw the others.
Let me just inquire. Were these particular boards, with the photographs as they are arranged on them now, exhibits in the grand jury proceeding?
Okay. I just don't want there to be any kind of a problem or a mix up if the photographs are removed from where they were mounted and there was testimony somehow in the grand jury proceeding identifying those photographs by a number or a letter that they will not have in this proceeding. You know, will we end up in some kind of a very confusing situation? And I haven't read the grand jury testimony, but --
The photographs that I am asking not to admit now were referred to only by police officer witnesses, not civilians. I don't think they're going to create -- their absence will create a problem for the record.
And Your Honor, what I would suggest is, say, at the conclusion of the hearing when we're seeking to introduce exhibits, we will provide the court with perhaps a listing indicating what photograph is a preliminary hearing exhibit, which came from which grand jury exhibit, that you will see, you will have a record, if that will suffice for you.
It's fine with me. I'm more concerned for a record that might ultimately be read by someone else that there not be a confusion in the record.
And with reference to the one exhibit -- there was one particular exhibit, the one that you did show to the people that discovered the body, and even when you were walking up from the counsel table up to where you were showing it to the witness, that white paper that you had sort of draped over it sort of came away a little bit, and the court could see, not specifically, but I could see just in general some of what the other photos that were concealed were shown -- what it contains.
It was a white cardboard which I thought would actually -- not white paper, white cardboard, which is -- I mean, I wanted to use it that way so it wouldn't fly around the way the butcher paper does.
Whatever it was, I could see just a little bit. Are you talking now about taking that picture off of what it's attached to, because that exhibit is in the clerk's custody at this point.
Do you have a problem with that, removing that one photograph from the cardboard so that it's not -- we're not traipsing around the courtroom with all the other photographs?
Well, I have read the grand jury transcript, and there are references to specific numbered exhibits in the grand jury; and if we're going to be questioning witnesses about their grand jury testimony and not be able to reconstruct what exhibits were presented, it may present a problem.
Do you have a duplicate of that photograph that somehow you can utilize for purposes of our proceeding here instead of carrying that other board back and forth?
I don't have a duplicate now, but I'm going to go and ask the officers if they can duplicate those.
I mean, it doesn't even have to be a large photograph. It could be just a small photograph that is handed to the witness and the witness says whatever the witness is going to say about it.
That's no problem. Let me go back to my office and see if I can find it and/or see if they can get me eight-by-ten duplicates, which they may have, in time so I won't have to mess with an exhibit that's already existing. But I don't want -- I just wanted to avoid to have to traipse around with it. As you say, it's true, it's very hard to avoid it being seen and I really don't want to. It's unnecessary.
Because I just feel that if the media does have access to it, that they'll just -- they will show it every time they talk about the case.
They'll print it whenever they decide they should print it, which would be all the time, or some portion of the media would print it all the time.
I really agree. That's why I'd like to limit what I put into evidence, so if at some point there is litigation about what you have to show the press and not, at least we've ferreted it down. I certainly would be willing to stipulate that they never be given access to it, but I don't know what --
Of course, they feel that they have a different interest from yours and yours and my interest, and their position is they're entitled to everything. And I did try to find case law on the issue, did not find a case particularly exactly on point, but I feel that the court does have inherent power to control its own records and it is own exhibits, and particularly here where -- I mean, ultimately I don't know if this proceeding is going to go beyond the preliminary hearing because the evidence isn't finished. But at this point in time, just to protect everyone's rights, including the defendant's right to a fair trial, if it gets that far, the court would want to be overprotective rather than the other way. And I just feel that to protect Mr. Simpson's due process rights -- and I could see that the victim's families wouldn't want to see this splashed across newspapers and television --
-- all over the place, that it's just better, more prudent, to not release the crime scene photos.
And that would be the Court's indication, as I've told you before, and what I've relayed to the press through the liaison. So I guess that's where I'll leave it at this point in time. All right. I suppose there is nothing of a confidential nature that would prevent this transcript of this in-camera proceeding from being -- or not in-camera proceeding; I should not say that -- in-chambers conference -- because this is not an in-camera proceeding -- from being released.
All right. Then this can go ahead and be transcribed in the ordinary course of the record.
The glove, and the blood on the door handle of the Bronco, and blood drops in the driveway leading up to the property. Nothing recovered from the inside of the house will be offered at the preliminary hearing. In other words, nothing recovered pursuant to search warrant.
The affidavit is the statement under oath by the officers as to what they observed.
I feel that the court does have inherent power to control its own records and its own exhibits, and particularly here where -- I mean, ultimately I don't know if this proceeding is going to go beyond the preliminary hearing because the evidence isn't finished.
I could see that the victim's families wouldn't want to see this splashed across newspapers and television all over the place.