Thank you. (WHEREUPON, THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN CHAMBERS)

I just wanted to discuss a couple of things that we talked about earlier. One of those was AN additional table. And I was told that it just wouldn't fit, in terms of the number of people. And that the fire marshal, apparently, is already, I guess, not happy about how many people we have in the courtroom. And therefore, I don't think that's going to be possible. With regard to the jury room, there is actually a JURY that's deliberating in that jury room that, we're making reference to, on another criminal case. So, it's not available. Additionally, unlike many of the Municipal courtrooms that I'm used to, although my own courtroom I usually utilize, doesn't have a jury room at all, the jury room here is in the back hallway, and they have the security up here. Everybody needs passes to go in and out, and it's just not feasible, in terms of security. And so reluctantly, I'm going to have to deny that request. You're just going to have to do the best you can. I'm sorry about that.

Can we just store some water, maybe, in your chambers here? Everybody could use it. We'll give it to everybody.

What I'm going to try to do is get carafes of water for each counsel.

There is a sign, "don't drink the water," on the water bucket.

No, on the drinking fountains, you don't want to drink that.

We'll bring a couple of cases of Evian, leave it up here, so everybody has water.

That's fine. I have no problem with that.

We'll bring that up tomorrow.

With regard to subpoenaed records, there's been a number of different records coming in at various times, directed to the clerk's office. Additionally, there has been a lot of mail directed to me. You'll probably start getting mail now, Rose. And just for your own information, in terms of mail from the public addressed to me, I'm not reading it at all. I'm saving it in a file, I'm just not going to look at it. I'm not going to read it. I don't know who's writing what, or what they have to say, but I just don't think that it's appropriate for me to consider what any particular member of the public has to say at this point. And so I just want you all to know that I'm just not reading it, but it is being maintained, should any question ever come up, at some point in time, about a communication from the public. The clerk wanted me to ask you to please emphasize to those persons to whom you are subpoenaing records from, to address those records to the clerk of the court, as opposed to any of the lawyers individually. Because with regard to the mail that's been addressed to any of you, they are just giving it to you. And should there come any kind of question on the records, and they weren't maintained, or opened in the presence of the other party, it could affect the admissibility of those records. My clerk mentioned something, at least today, about some kind of federal express package coming, and being addressed to somebody, and I don't recall who it was. And she said, "what do I do? What if they're records?" I said, "it's not up to you. If its addressed to the lawyer, you're to give it to him. Give it to him. And if it's a addressed to the clerk, handle it as you always would."

We got that, your Honor, and it was a personal letter to Mr. Simpson. But we'll not open any mail that comes in. We'll turn it over to the court.

The things that are addressed to you, that's fine.

We don't want it. We get enough mail. I can't walk into the office anymore, it looks like Christmas at the post office.

What you do with the mail is up to you. We're going to give it to you. Whatever you do with it, it's up to you. I just want to know if there's any problem with the records, you ought to make sure that that's handled, so it is addressed to the clerk of the court, as opposed to anybody, or any particular individual.

Understood, your Honor.

I'm trying to think. I think I had something else I had to mention, but my mind is drawing a blank at this point in time. Oh, couple of things with regard to the motion on the hairs. People's 1 and 2 were never moved into evidence, they were simply marked for identification. I don't know whether you want to move those into evidence, or just leave them marked for identification, or just -- it didn't happen. They're now marked for identification.

I'd like to move them into evidence, for the purpose of that hearing, your Honor. I neglected to do so, we were moving rather rapidly at the time. I'm sorry.

I think we should probably do that, but on the record, in the presence of the defendant tomorrow. Oh, the other thing I wanted to say is with regard to witnesses, I'm telling each witness, as you CAN tell when they leave, that they're not to discuss their testimony until they've been officially excused from giving testimony. So far, I have not excused any witness. I don't know whether you want the witnesses excused. If you'd like them not to be excused at this point in time, so that they don't talk, and that the matter can just occur in the courtroom, without whatever might go on outside. And I mean, in the normal course of a regular preliminary hearing, I normally ask, at the conclusion of a witness's Testimony, "may this witness be excused?" I haven't done that, because we hadn't talked about it. And I guess I'm looking for your input.

I would ask that you not excuse them, your Honor. I want these witnesses not to talk to the press anymore. I don't know how much more plain we could ever make it to them. But I really, anything that you can do to keep them quiet throughout these proceedings, and I don't think that the court would have jurisdiction to do that, unless we kept them on call. If we excuse them, I think it's all over. I mean, Mr. Shapiro has a copy of the grand jury transcript. I even, in my opening statement, I said, "don't watch the news, don't get involved," and they did. And the witnesses, I spent the first ten minutes of every interview, "just don't talk to anybody." And it didn't matter. It didn't matter. I mean, you see what happens.

Is there any problem with that on the defense side?

Excusing the witnesses?

Not excusing witnesses until the preliminary hearing is over.

No.

I think it's a better course, in the sense, at this particular point in time, at least from my perspective, now the testimony and the evidence is coming out, it's in public, and it's there on the record. Anybody that's interested can watch it. And when it's all over, these people can talk to whoever they want to, obviously. But I would sort of like to confine it to what comes out on the record.

I agree.

That is going to be the way we proceed with regard to the remaining witnesses.

Thank you.

May I address something regarding the grand jury transcripts?

Yes.

Our transcript starts on page 50, and it starts with the testimony of a witness who is now resumed.

What?

Is resumed.

Oh.

So what you're saying is you're missing pages 1 through 49?

Well, they were redacted by order of the Superior Court, I believe. But there is a reference, my recollection -- I don't have the transcript in front of me -- It probably would be better off reading from it. Maybe if the people have it, they can go get it. But my recollection is it starts out the first person is being recalled as a witness, and his testimony resumed, which seems to indicate that there was some previous testimony. There may or may not have been.

There wasn't, I was there. The witness they're referring to is Kato Kaelin, who, on the advice of this attorney, for reasons still unknown to me, exercised this fifth amendment right not to testify. And let me make it -- let me start from the beginning, so everybody is clear about this. I will be going back, look at the transcript. If I have the pages, you can have them. I didn't know they were redacted. Nothing happened.

That's fine. If we can get the first 50 pages, that would solve the problem.

Fine. That will explain what happened.

Was he granted immunity?

Not at all, not at all. I'm still mistified what happened. We had subpoenaed him as a witness before the grand jury. I was getting ready to make my opening statement. He came in with a lawyer, who said, "I need to talk to him, to make sure he is not going to subject himself to any possible prosecution." I said, "what? Look at his witness statement. There is no possibility of witness prosecution here." I still don't know what he was thinking of. He demanded time to confer with his client, and I said -- I asked the court to give him half an hour in the office. He refused that, and wanted to take three days. That was basically the only argument we had. The court ordered the defense attorney -- the attorney to speak with the witness, and come back on Monday, to decide whether or not he would advise the witness to invoke. He came back on Monday, and voluntarily testified. So, no testimony was taken on anything that transpired, and I still, still don't know why.

And he was the first witness?

First witness, Brian Kaelin, Kato. So, if I have those pages, you've got them.

You'll check on that, get them to them tomorrow?

Certainly. I'll bring them with me tomorrow. If I don't bring them with me, that means I don't have them.

All right. With reference to the opening of subpoenaed records, as much as possible, if that could be done off the record, unless there is some specific need for it to be done on the record. And that both sides can examine those records while we're not, sort of everyone kind of waiting and looking at you. It would be helpful. If there's some need to open them on the record, that's fine. I don't have a problem with that.

All right, that's fine. Then no records will be opened off the record. From this point, everything there will be done on the record. That's fine.

Thank you. I'll do it as quickly as I possibly can, but I really do want a record.

can they be done at side bar?

Yes. We can do them in chambers.

That's fine.

That's fine.

The reason why we're having, by the way, these discussions here, is that there are the microphones all over. Not all over, but in the courtroom, there really is not the typical side bar we have in other courtrooms. I hope that is clear.

Certainly is, your Honor.

Certainly, your Honor.

are there any other points that somebody wants to bring up to me, something I should try to do something about?

We were going to try to call Kato as a witness on the suppression motion. Do you have him subpoenaed for prelim testimony tomorrow?

I don't know if he's coming in. Let me see. Yes, we'll get to him tomorrow afternoon.

Want to do him all at once?

Why don't we do that. Tell you what, you're going to want to take him on direct for that part. That would be great. I'll do my part of it, that I was going to do, and indicate that that's where my direct stops. You can do cross.

What I was going to suggest is that that be done Tuesday, when we're doing the motion. Because we wouldn't be putting direct on until after you've put your case on.

That's right. But we're going to be kind of interrupting the case anyway, to do the motion. Because we won't be done with the People's case on Tuesday.

That's what I'm saying. It may make sense to put him on after the motion. Because part of what he's testifying to, took place at the house the morning of --

Right. But what you want from him is actually after the testimony I'm going to elicit. So, it would make sense. I'll go ahead and take him through all the testimony he's going to give, that I intended to elicit. Because I wasn't going to elicit certain questions from him. So, you can cross on that, and then take him on direct for -- because chronologically speaking, your search issues come up after I'm done with my direct.

You're indicating, if I am understanding correctly, that you have questions totally unrelated to the issues involved in the motion?

Right.

And that you want to call him, and handle that part of it, and then not get into any of the issues with regard to the motion, until such time as we get to the motion?

No. Actually, what I was offering counsel, is that I would do his part of the testimony, that I intended to put in the preliminary hearing, and allow counsel to cross on that. And then in order to accommodate counsel, because he's already here, let them elicit -- let them take him as their witness, and elicit what they wanted to elicit from him, for the purpose of the motion, while he's here, so they don't have to get him in again.

We can just keep him on call, if he could be instructed to return to testify on the motion.

I think that it will be clear, if that testimony is given.

Your Honor, we would prefer that he testify first on the motion to suppress. Or then if they want to do direct examination, we'll reserve cross-examination, and put him back on the motion to suppress, and then cross-examine him.

All right.

But that doesn't make sense, your Honor. The cross is going -- let me explain. This witness has testimony to offer concerning the night of June 12th, 1994. And the testimony I intended to elicit, would conclude by about 11:15 that night. The testimony concerning the motion to suppress picks up some five, six hours after that.

Well --

So, chronologically speaking, all I'm saying is that it makes the most sense, and it's easily divisible testimony. It's very divisible testimony. He is going to testify for the People's case concerning a set of events concerning June 12th. Counsel wants him for the early morning hours of June 13th. But what I think is most clear and understandable, easiest to follow, is to let him testify to the events of the night of June 12th, be cross-examined on those events, because they do not pertain to the search issue at all, and then let counsel, if they wanted to take him on direct, on that same day. If they don't, if they would prefer to have him brought back for the motion, that's up to them. But he's their witness on that motion. I'm simply trying to accommodate. I Believe we agreed we would address the motion on Tuesday. It's our burden as to the warrantless aspect of the search, and I intend to call witnesses. But Kato was not one of them. And if they want to call him, they can.

Mr. Shapiro, miss Clark can call the witness when she wants, with regard to those issues unrelated to the motion. If it is your desire at that point to reserve your cross-examination, and we'll put on the record that you, at the time of the motion, are then going to handle cross-examination with regard to the preliminary hearing, I'll allow you to do it. But I think it may be clearer, in terms of the chronology, to just cross-examine him on what part they present. But I'm not telling you can't do it that way. You can decide.

Your Honor, I'm not going to do that, tell you why. I can't cross-examine partially, when credibility becomes an issue. And in order to cross-examine effectively, I have to examine all aspects of his testimony and previous statements. To avoid confusion, I ask the court's permission to reserve cross-examination until after the motion to suppress is heard.

that's fine.

That's also inappropriate. Because he's their witness on the motion. They'd be examining him on direct, not on cross, as to the motion.

They can examine him on direct, and I assume, Mr. Uelmen, you're going to be handling that part of it?

Yes.

Then they can cross-examine him with regard to the motion, and Mr. Shapiro will do that. And we'll just make it clear on the record, as to what function he's testifying as to. And the different rules, of course, applying to cross-examination and direct examination, will stand as to those different parts of his testimony.

Perhaps the record should reflect my objection. Because I think what Mr. SHAPIRO is proposing, makes very little sense. Because the cross-examination with respect to the events of the night of June 12th, have no bearing on anything he is going to testify to with regard to the search and seizure issues at all.

All right. Your objection is noted for the record. Now, you filed a request, a copy of which was given to the D.A., according to the proof of service, to have a number of people be allowed, material witnesses, to visit Mr. Simpson in jail.

If it was given to the D.A., it's a mistake. It should be an ex parte motion.

It was described as ex parte, but there was proof of service indicating a copy had been given to them.

That's incorrect.

the proof of service is incorrect.

That's incorrect.

We would state, for the record, we have not received such a motion.

I'm not going to discuss it further at this point. I relied upon the proof of service. Just a moment, please.

Your Honor, I do apologize for that error.

Okay. All I'm going to say at this point is that I'm not prepared to rule on that at this point, and I'll get back to you on that.

Thank you.

With regard to these proceedings that we've had here in chambers, should that be transcribed, and be part of the public record? Or shall we not transcribe it, and make it part of the public record at this point in time?

I know the question came up in the context of the previous proceedings, and we indicated we would make the in-chambers proceedings available to the public. And I think we have the request from one of the newspapers to produce the transcripts.

All right, that's fine. We haven't discussed anything, except for my mention of that last motion, which I'm sorry about. I relied on the proof of service.

No. That presents no problem, whatsoever. It's really more a housekeeping matter, and something we have to discuss with the court regarding the Sheriff.

Anything else?

Your Honor, if I may, just one point that strikes me, in light of the court's ruling with regard to the testimony of Mr. Kaelin. Sequentially, and in terms of the way in which we have subpoenaed witnesses, I mean we're pretty much on schedule now.

Good.

We had anticipated, however, significant treatment of Mr. Kaelin in testimony, in terms of the direct and cross.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "significant treatment."

Meaning he would be on the stand for quite a period of time. We don't -- sequentially, for us, we're really -- following Mr. Kaelin, we're getting to a point where we're beginning to get into the search issues, which have now been put over to Tuesday.

Right.

We'll do what we can to bring in additional evidence -- excuse me -- witnesses, so that we may fill the court time tomorrow. But this does present a bit of a shift for us, logistically. We'll do our best to comply.

All right. You know, if you come to a point where you're out of witnesses, we'll probably discuss timing again, at some point, as we're doing today, and see how we're doing.

We're ready to proceed on the motion at any time. If we get to it tomorrow, we're ready on it.

We'll see how we're progressing. It's hard to say how fast we're going. It may not go as quickly as it did this afternoon. We'll simply play it by ear at this point, okay? All right. Thank you very much.

Thank you, your Honor.

Thank you, Judge.

Thank you, your Honor.