Browse sidebar discussions from the O.J. Simpson preliminary hearing, criminal trial, and civil trial, with links to each discussion in the record.
Defense attorney Robert Shapiro requested a brief chambers meeting with the judge for scheduling purposes. Prosecutor Marcia Clark reminded the court that all matters must be on the record, and the judge agreed before calling a recess at 9:55 a.m.
Court's action: The judge directed counsel to meet in chambers with the reporter.
Defense counsel objected to displaying an index-finger photograph beside two glove photographs on one board as unduly prejudicial, citing possible media dissemination to future jurors.
Court's action: The judge overruled the defense objection to displaying the hand and glove photographs together on one board.
A bench conference was held between counsel and the judge, but the content was not recorded by the court reporter. No details of the discussion are available from the transcript.
Counsel disputed the proposed BWS expert testimony and oversized charts, while the court addressed limited chart visibility and the threshold admissibility issues for the expert evidence.
Court's action: The judge directed that the easel and placards face the court and said the admissibility fundamentals had to be addressed before calling the expert.
Scott Gordon requested a brief bench conference after the proceeding was marked as being held in open court. The conference was held but not reported by the court reporter, leaving its content unknown.
Court's action: The judge permitted counsel to approach for an unreported bench conference.
Hodgman requested a brief sidebar with the judge on a matter unrelated to the pending motion. The conference was held but not reported by the court reporter, so no content is available.
Court's action: The judge permitted counsel to approach for an unreported bench conference.
A brief bench conference was requested by attorney Scott Gordon and granted by Judge Ito. The conference was not reported by the court reporter, so no content is available from this sidebar.
Court's action: The judge permitted counsel to approach for an unreported bench conference.
Prosecutor Cheri Lewis requested a brief off-the-record sidebar conference before the court adjourned. Judge Ito agreed, and the conference was held but not transcribed.
Court's action: The judge permitted an off-the-record bench conference before adjournment.
Judge Ito called attorneys Shapiro and Gordon to an unreported bench conference. The substance of the discussion is unknown as it was not recorded by the court reporter.
A brief bench conference was held between counsel and the judge, but its contents were not recorded by the court reporter. No information is available about what was discussed.
Defense sought objections to prosecution crime-scene photographs and time for prosecution review of revised defense opening-statement graphics; the court turned first to the photograph objections.
Court's action: The court directed that defense graphics be reviewed over the lunch hour and asked defense to state its objections to the prosecution's exhibits.
Defense clarified that it objected to six of roughly nine prosecution photographs, while the prosecution explained that the selected views showed the victims' positions and related evidence.
Court's action: The court directed the prosecution to display the challenged photographs for the court's review.
Counsel raised concern that videotape footage could show a body being removed; the parties also identified additional crime-scene footage on a videotape in San Francisco.
Court's action: The court cut the video feed to the courtroom and directed the operator to stop the videotape.
Defense sought to show the jury Simpson's knee scars and physical limitations; the prosecution argued the request was testimonial and could instead be shown through photographs.
Court's action: The court gave counsel until the following morning to address the proposed demonstration.
This is a sealed sidebar conference from January 24, 1995, the contents of which were transcribed separately and placed under seal. The transcript itself contains no substantive content beyond a marker indicating the sealed pages.
The judge addressed Clark's display of photographs showing victims in pools of blood without enough warning to cut the courtroom video feed.
Court's action: The court instructed Clark to give advance notice before displaying sensitive material so the video feed could be cut.
Defense raised concern that Clark was presenting matters in opening statement as personal assertions rather than describing what the evidence would show.
Court's action: The court characterized the exchange as a caution, not a sustained objection, and instructed counsel to be careful.
Cochran requested a brief sidebar conference with Judge Ito, which was granted. The conference itself was not reported, so its substance is unknown.
Darden requested an unreported sidebar conference with the judge. The brief exchange contains no substantive content on the record, as the conference was explicitly held off the record without a court reporter.
A bench conference was held between the judge and attorneys, but was not reported by the court reporter. No content from this sidebar is available in the transcript record.
Judge Ito called a sidebar to hear objections related to the witness list. Cochran suggested going off the record to resolve the matter, and despite Darden's request to have the court reporter present, Ito denied it and the conference proceeded unreported.
Court's action: The court denied the request to have the reporter present for the sidebar.
The prosecution challenged use of a three-page July 28, 1994 letter in opening as hearsay, while the defense said it had been reviewed in show and tell and concerned coroner-report changes.
Court's action: The court overruled the hearsay objection after finding that the parties had already litigated the letter and its points during show and tell.
The parties disputed defense references to searches of sinks and traps after presumptive blood-test evidence had been excluded, and discussed how the issue could be addressed in opening.
Court's action: The court directed counsel to say that a presumptive test came back positive and defer discussion of its meaning to the evidence, and barred further expert testimony on the point.
Defense proposed referring to a court-held envelope as evidence supporting innocence, while prosecution asserted a discovery problem because it lacked information about the envelope's source and contents.
Court's action: The court precluded defense from using or alluding to the envelope in opening statement, but permitted defense to say the evidence would prove police searched the house for a knife and weapons.
The prosecution argued that the defense displayed a misleading excerpt from Gray Matheson's report because the next line qualified that the marker could be Nicole Brown's and degraded quickly.
Court's action: The court overruled the objection, finding the parties had an opportunity to litigate the display and that any defect had been waived.
The prosecution objected to a defense reference to Simpson talking with police and then disputed the defense's characterization of the prosecution's stated return-time timeline.
Court's action: The court directed defense counsel to omit the reference to talking with police and denied the request to correct the claimed misstatement of the prosecution's opening timeline.
The defense previewed alleged suspicious incidents and sought to mention them in opening; the court questioned the foundation for the carjacking and limited proposed Star 69 testimony.
Court's action: The court permitted Kathy Randa to testify that Star 69 was installed at Simpson's request, but barred testimony about what he told her.
A brief sidebar in which F. Lee Bailey asked Judge Ito to instruct courtroom photographers to stop photographing the computer screens. The judge agreed immediately.
Court's action: The court agreed to direct photographers not to photograph computer screens.
Cochran lodged a continuing objection to domestic-discord testimony and discussed disclosure concerns, while counsel also raised whether defense investigators and domestic-violence experts could observe testimony.
Court's action: The court noted Cochran's continuing objection, deferred the Footnote 11 issues, required case-by-case requests for expert observation, and allowed Lenore Walker to watch by television.
Cochran sought additional foundation before a form describing a female as being beaten was displayed, questioning what the form was and how its entry was made.
Court's action: The objection was sustained pending foundational questions about the form and how it was completed.
Cochran raised concern that a nearby juror could observe or hear Clark consulting investigators; Clark proposed folded notes, and the court addressed moving the seating arrangement.
Court's action: The court directed that they be slid over.
The prosecution sought to elicit a statement attributed to Michelle Abudrahm as an excited utterance or to explain an officer's conduct; Cochran objected on hearsay and relevance grounds.
Court's action: The hearsay objection was sustained because, if the statement was not offered for its truth, the court found it irrelevant and immaterial.
Cochran moved to strike a witness's characterization of photographs as conclusory, arguing that the pictures spoke for themselves and did not fairly reflect what the witness took.
Court's action: The objection was overruled; the court said Cochran could address his disagreement with the witness's answer on cross-examination.
Defense sought to ask whether the witness knew Nicole Brown Simpson later wanted to drop charges; prosecution objected on hearsay grounds and offered city-attorney evidence instead.
Court's action: The court allowed foundational questions about the witness's awareness of later discussions, directed that photographs be distributed to jurors, and allotted 10 minutes for their review.
Cochran argued that asking whether the witness had spoken with O.J. Simpson was a preliminary yes-or-no question and did not yet seek the substance of any hearsay statement.
Court's action: The court allowed Cochran to ask whether the witness had a conversation with O.J. Simpson, limited to a yes-or-no answer, and overruled the objection.
Judge Ito called a sidebar to address Cochran's redirect examination opening the door to testimony about a party, which Darden welcomed as an opportunity to explore further. Ito also warned both sides about making speaking objections.
Court's action: The court warned both counsel against speaking objections.
Darden objected to testimony that she wanted to drop charges, while Cochran argued the evidence was available through the investigating officer and protested the court's discussion of its relevance.
The court addressed an objection to further questioning about plea-bargain and probation terms after evidence of physical violence, a screaming tape, and a no-contest plea.
Court's action: The court limited further examination to report taking and searches, finding additional plea-bargain and probation details unnecessary.
The prosecution argued that cross-examination created a misconception about domestic violence and sought further inquiry, while defense disputed that the traffic officer could provide the necessary expert foundation.
Court's action: The court preliminarily sustained the objection unless the prosecution established that the witness was qualified to testify as an expert on battered woman's syndrome, while leaving open further testimony.
Counsel disputed whether Shipp's reported statement about dreams of killing Nicole could be separated from its polygraph context, while the court requested authority and a conflict waiver.
Court's action: The court directed counsel to put Cochran's relationship to Shipp and Simpson's no-conflict agreement on the record, and to submit authorities for discussion the next morning.
The prosecution described planned testimony about the January 1, 1989 incident to establish relationship closeness, and the defense sought clarity about the permitted subject areas.
Court's action: The court permitted occasional leading questions for foundational purposes to redirect attention.
Counsel disputed use of a domestic-violence profile and Shipp's conversations with Nicole and the defendant, including whether Evidence Code 1107 permitted the testimony.
Court's action: The court instructed that testimony about conversations with Nicole and the defendant was limited to evaluating the parties' conduct regarding the 1989 incident.
The court considered whether the witness could identify and date photographs of injuries, with defense counsel challenging the time foundation and the photographs' identification.
Court's action: The court sustained the foundational objection but declined to strike the witness's testimony describing photographs he had been shown.
Defense counsel sought clarification on a hearing conducted during witness testimony and requested voir dire before other subject matter; the prosecution opposed the request.
Court's action: The court permitted defense voir dire limited to foundational questions concerning the witness's ability and competency to testify.
Defense counsel alleged that the witness looked toward Simpson and made comments during testimony, requested an admonition, and the court said it did not see the reported direction.
The court raised a potential conflict because McNeill represented an adverse witness while appearing on Simpson's attorney visitation list, and defense counsel acknowledged one visit.
Court's action: The court stated it would inquire of Simpson regarding the potential conflict involving McNeill's representation of an adverse witness.
Defense sought to question a witness about unannounced late-night visits, women, and drinking; the prosecution objected on relevance and prejudice grounds.
Court's action: Allowed questioning about the frequency and timing of the witness's visits as part of the relationship's nature, while cautioning counsel not to expand the inquiry excessively.
The prosecution withdrew its prior objection but requested an offer of proof and a hearing before any allegation that Ron Shipp beat his wife was presented to the jury.
Court's action: Ordered counsel to approach sidebar before introducing the proposed impeachment information.
Defense argued that June through August 1994 drinking incidents impeached the witness's claim that he no longer had an alcohol problem; the prosecution called the evidence irrelevant character attack.
Court's action: Allowed brief questioning about a 1994 drinking incident at Cathy Randa's house and indicated that inquiry into Randa's drinking would probably be allowed.
Defense sought to use alleged abuse of Ron Shipp's first wife to challenge his credibility and interpretation of Simpson's conduct; the prosecution argued the allegation lacked a logical connection.
Court's action: Sustained the objection to questioning Ron Shipp about alleged abuse of his first wife.
Defense sought to impeach Ron Shipp with his failure to mention a dream conversation in the Cowlings grand jury, while the prosecution said that grand jury could not investigate Simpson or the murders.
Court's action: Sustained the objection and barred inquiry into the Cowlings grand jury testimony.
Defense sought to ask whether Ron Shipp had been told not to make unannounced visits, arguing the statement challenged his claimed access to Simpson's property and was offered for state of mind.
Court's action: Overruled the hearsay objection but limited the inquiry to whether the witness had been advised not to do this and possibly one follow-up question.
Defense objected to calendar testimony because the witness had not seen or prepared the calendars; the prosecution proposed establishing details through the witness and later calling Cathy Randa.
Court's action: Barred the witness from testifying about the calendar without prior familiarity with it or participation in its preparation, while permitting other foundation.
Defense proposed additional questions about alleged contact with Angela Spilker and the identity of a woman in a Jacuzzi incident after the witness had denied a relationship.
Court's action: Sustained the objection to further collateral impeachment concerning Angela Spilker and the Jacuzzi incident.
Outside the jury's presence, the court confirmed the ordered tape redaction and rejected a defense request to remove an additional expletive from the recording.
Court's action: The court declined to redact the additional expletive and directed that the jurors be brought in.
Counsel disputed whether questions about a recording could establish foundation without eliciting hearsay, while the court noted the witness had heard the tape but its content was hearsay.
Court's action: The court stated that the tape's content was hearsay.
Defense counsel sought an offer of proof on proposed relationship testimony, and the court addressed both the phrasing of a question and the witness's need to await objection rulings.
Court's action: The court directed counsel to rephrase a question about why entry was denied and instructed that the witness wait for rulings on objections before answering.
The court focused proposed questioning on what the defendant told the witness about the relationship after raising a hearsay concern about the witness's other observations.
Counsel disputed access to LEXIS search documents attributed to Denise Brown, and the court suggested staff make a copy subject to restrictions before an unreported conference.
Defense attorney Carl Douglas requested a brief bench conference without the court reporter present. The conference was held but its contents were not recorded. Nothing substantive is available from the transcript.
Defense counsel challenged questions about the parties' relationship in 1977, while the prosecution described them as foundational questions developing the relationship timeline.
Court's action: The court overruled the defense objection.
The court barred testimony about a 1977 Red Onion incident because it had not been litigated among the past-conduct incidents allowed under the domestic violence ruling.
Court's action: The court sustained the defense objection and admonished the jury to disregard the last answer.
Defense sought to strike volunteered character comments and renewed objections to prior-act evidence; the court confined this witness's testimony to domestic-violence incidents and precise answers.
Court's action: The court limited this witness's testimony to domestic-violence incidents and said it would ask her to listen carefully and answer the precise question.
Defense objected to the witness sitting near jurors and to volunteered comments; the court directed her removal and required testimony to stay within domestic-violence incidents.
Court's action: The court directed that the witness be taken out and told the prosecutor to keep the testimony within the domestic-violence incidents and have the witness answer the exact question.
Defense renewed its objection to the 1101(b) incidents and requested a witness admonition; counsel then addressed identifying a signature on a Bloomingdale's glove-purchase receipt.
Court's action: The court stated it had already cautioned the witness to answer only the precise question and would intervene if anything went amuck.
Defense challenged the foundation and date for a photograph. The court asked whether it could be tied to an approved incident, and the prosecutor said he did not know the related incident.
The court warned that questions about repeated phone calls exceeded the approved 1101(b) incidents and ruled that this line of inquiry was not one of the permitted incidents.
Court's action: The court ruled that repeated phone calls were not among the specific incidents permitted under its 1101(b) ruling.
The prosecutor disclosed a proposed line of testimony about calls after fights. Defense raised hearsay and foundation objections, and the court asked whether the calls tied to approved incidents.
The prosecutor sought testimony about weight loss, separation, and career concerns; the court distinguished the agreed 1992 evidence from statements not included in the 1101(b) offer.
Court's action: The court ruled that the proposed statements were beyond what was offered under 1101(b).
The prosecutor proposed asking whether Nicole wore her earrings in the same manner to rebut a robbery theory, and defense objected to the relevance of that testimony.
Court's action: The objection to jewelry testimony was sustained because the court found no probative value.
Defense sought to ask whom the witness dated to challenge the prosecution's portrayal of the defendant. The court excluded dating questions but permitted questions about other occasions in his presence.
Court's action: The court barred questions about whom the witness dated but allowed questions about her presence with the defendant on other occasions.
The court questioned a redirect inquiry concerning Dr. Fischman, found it speculative and inappropriate for this witness, and sustained the defense objection.
Court's action: The court sustained the objection to the redirect question as speculative and inappropriate.
Counsel discussed limiting Candace Garvey’s testimony to the recital while the prosecution raised an unrecognized 1993 Christmas party incident involving Joseph Perulli.
Defense requested page-and-line support before use of a claimed prior consistent statement, and the prosecutor identified page 19, line 20.
Court's action: The court agreed that further foundation was needed for the prior consistent statement.
Defense objected to a quoted prior statement mentioning possible drug use as prejudicial, and defense agreed not to object to a leading question proposed to avoid the disputed wording.
The prosecution sought to admit a witness’s statement after she saw a letter as a spontaneous declaration; the defense objected that the proposed statement was hearsay.
Court's action: The court sustained the hearsay objection, finding that seeing the letter was insufficient foundation for a spontaneous declaration.
The prosecution argued that a witness’s emotional reaction after reading a letter supported admission under Evidence Code 1240, while the defense maintained the statement remained hearsay.
Court's action: The court sustained the objection after the prosecution attempted to lay additional foundation under Evidence Code 1240.
The defense objected to newly disclosed information that Tanner had lived near Nicole in Monarch Bay and described an encounter with the defendant before the murders.
Court's action: The court limited Stewart Tanner’s testimony that day to the Mezzaluna aspect and allowed the defense to reinterview him before any later testimony on the newly disclosed matter.
The defense proposed stipulating to handwriting on an envelope, while the prosecution sought to present the exhibit and link it to the witness’s testimony.
Court's action: The court allowed the prosecution to lay foundation for the envelope and deferred whether it would go to the jury in its present form.
The defense objected to the prosecutor’s gesture and mouthed words to a witness and to repeated use of photographs and an envelope during the witness’s testimony.
Court's action: The court directed the prosecutor to have no more private conversations with the witness.
A brief, unreported sidebar conference was requested by Johnnie Cochran and granted by Judge Ito. The substance of the discussion is not recorded in the transcript.
Court's action: The court granted counsel’s request to approach.
The prosecution sought to use a prior consistent statement to address claimed police-report discrepancies, and the defense also raised a concern about a witness’s pin.
Court's action: The court deferred the concern about a witness’s pin for later consideration.
Cochran requested to approach without the reporter regarding the weather, and the resulting bench conference was not reported.
Court's action: The court permitted an unreported bench conference.
The court overruled Cochran's hearsay objection to a statement offered to support Eva Stein's account of being awakened by dogs barking.
Court's action: The court overruled the hearsay objection, finding the statement a prior consistent statement.
Judge Ito called counsel to the sidebar to put a stop to repetitive questioning about a witness's time recollection. The witness had stated four times that his best recollection was 10:50, and both Marcia Clark and Johnnie Cochran quickly agreed to move on.
The prosecutor argued that redirect about the circumstances of the June 17 statement was within the scope of cross-examination; defense said cross addressed only inaccuracies.
Court's action: The objection was overruled as to redirect concerning the circumstances of the June 17 statement.
Clark challenged Cochran's use of a police report while questioning Boztepe about whether he heard or saw Schwab make particular statements.
A sidebar conference was held at the bench but was not recorded by the court reporter. No content from this conference is available in the transcript record.
Clark asked the court to bar Shapiro from allegedly telling reporters that future prosecution witnesses watched television; Shapiro denied making the statements.
Court's action: The court recessed for the afternoon.
Christopher Darden requested an unreported sidebar conference, which Judge Ito granted. No content from the conference was recorded, as it was held off the record without a court reporter present.
Court's action: The court permitted an unreported bench conference.
Counsel examined the jury-box view of crime scene displays, disputed whether six photographs were cumulative, and discussed cutting the television feed during their use.
Court's action: The court permitted questions about what the officer could see without a flashlight but not speculative conclusions, and found the six photographs were not cumulative.
The defense challenged repetitive foundational questioning about crime-scene procedures; the court allowed the prosecution to address scene integrity but cautioned against redundant confirmation of answers.
Court's action: The court overruled the objection while cautioning that the questioning could become redundant.
Counsel disputed chart placement during questioning, with the court finding that defense counsel needed to see the witness's use of the chart despite the poor viewing angle and jury-visibility concern.
Court's action: The court instructed that defense counsel was entitled to see what the witness was doing with the chart.
The prosecution argued that a crime-scene log could not refresh recollection without prior witness knowledge of arrival times; the court allowed its use to test what the witness would say.
Court's action: The court overruled the objection to using the material to refresh the witness's recollection.
Defense sought to establish the meaning of the officer's scene-related statement, but the court said other witnesses could establish the point and defense withdrew the question.
The parties disputed whether video-derived photographs of a person at the crime scene lacked a reliable date and time foundation; the court brought in the jury to view the underlying video.
Court's action: The court directed that the jurors be brought in to view the video.
Judge Ito called counsel to the bench for an unreported sidebar conference. No content from the discussion was transcribed.
The defense sought to use laser-disc frames suggesting that a glove and cap had moved; the court excluded the four photographs as to Officer Riske, who had no role in photographing or collecting the evidence.
Court's action: The court sustained a 352 objection to the four photographs as to this witness.
Marcia Clark requested a brief sidebar with Judge Ito. The conference was held at the bench but was not reported, so the content of the discussion is unknown.
Cochran requested a brief bench conference just before the end of the court day, which was not reported by the stenographer. Court then adjourned until the following morning.
Cochran requested a sidebar conference, which Judge Ito granted. The substance of the conference was not reported and its content is unknown.
Court's action: The court granted counsel's request to approach and directed the jurors to be seated.
The court considered whether the assistant watch commander could be questioned about a requirement to notify the coroner while the patrol division controlled the crime scene.
Court's action: The court overruled the objection and limited further inquiry to a very narrow area.
Judge Ito called counsel to an unreported sidebar conference. No transcript exists of what was discussed, as the court reporter was explicitly excluded.
Court's action: The court directed counsel to confer at sidebar without the reporter.
Counsel sought a large Bundy-to-alley walkway diagram for footprint questioning, while the parties also disputed exhibit disclosure and identification of manual pages.
Court's action: The court directed that the jurors be sent back before counsel searched for the diagram.
Cochran challenged the characterization of a blood drop as near shoeprints, contending that the items appeared significantly separated in the photograph.
Court's action: The court overruled the objection, stated that Cochran could address the distance on cross-examination, and told Clark that she was leading.
Cochran objected to the prosecution's use of "VIP treatment" to describe personal notification procedures, while Clark argued the questioning bore on the officer's state of mind.
Court's action: The court overruled the objection and directed counsel not to spend substantial time on the issue.
The parties disputed admission of a statement that Detective Fuhrman would obtain directions to Rockingham from Officer Riske, with Clark offering future intent and subsequent-actions grounds.
Court's action: The court sustained the objection under section 352 and allowed Clark to revisit the issue if cross-examination raised it.
Cochran raised possible relevance of redacted calls on Detective Phillips's cell-phone chart and stated that the defense would later make an offer of proof.
A brief bench conference was held off the record at the request of the court. No content was reported, as the sidebar was conducted without the court reporter.
Cochran asked to remove material from the ELMO and approach the bench because of concern about other people; the ensuing conference was not reported.
Court's action: The court allowed counsel to approach the bench.
Cochran objected to questions about whether Simpson asked how his wife was killed, arguing they sought an unfair negative inference from his response after notification of her death.
Court's action: The objection was overruled.
The court said Clark was asking the detective to explain transcript phrases before establishing the underlying conversation and required more specific questioning.
Court's action: The court instructed Clark to go through the conversation and ask specific questions before asking the detective to explain transcript phrases.
The defense planned to play recordings of two conversations with accompanying transcripts; Clark sought to resume direct examination after learning the full transcript would be used.
Court's action: The court overruled the objection and declined to allow Clark to reopen direct examination.
Clark objected that Cochran was attempting to impeach Rolf Rokahr through a report before he testified, while Cochran had only asked whether it refreshed the witness's recollection.
Court's action: The objection was found premature.
Clark sought to require foundation before Cochran showed the witness a photograph depicting a blue plastic bag or container near the glove.
Court's action: The objection was found premature.
Clark objected to an unidentified document with no discovery number; Cochran said he would first show it to the witness only to refresh recollection.
Court's action: The court found the objection premature and barred reading from the document into the record without foundation.
Counsel disputed whether asking if Arnelle Simpson said her father was out of town was hearsay or was offered to explain the subsequent contact with Cathy Randa.
Defense counsel reported that Juror 602 had stared into space and appeared not to follow the proceedings, and asked the court to give the juror particular attention.
Court's action: The court said it would make its own observations of Juror 602 and watch the juror.
Counsel sought clarification of the agreed handling of the glove and ring for DNA testing, including exhibit marking, photography, shipment, testing, and return.
Court's action: The court stated that the glove and ring would go into evidence, photographs would be substituted by order, and the items could be tested over the weekend and returned to court.
Defense counsel objected to storing blood evidence in sealed plastic bags and requested original packaging; counsel also raised concern about handling the gloves at counsel table.
Court's action: The court instructed counsel to be cautious with the gloves.
The court discussed Juror 98's family loss and anticipated funeral arrangements, including possible time away from trial and travel with the sheriff's department.
Court's action: The court directed Juror 98 to advise the bailiff of funeral arrangements, stated that it would recess for the day if reasonably possible, and said the sheriff's department would accompany the juror.
A sidebar was transcribed and sealed under separate cover before the jury entered; the court later explained that morning legal issues had delayed the restart of testimony.
The parties disputed whether Denise Brown's phone statement after learning of her sister's death qualified as a spontaneous utterance or was inadmissible opinion testimony.
Court's action: The court sustained the hearsay objection to Denise Brown's statement at that point and allowed the prosecution time to revisit the issue.
The parties disputed whether a detective could explain the significance of keys in a victim's hand as indicating surprise, with the court requiring a foundation for opinion testimony.
Court's action: The court stated that, if the appropriate foundation were established, it would allow the detective's opinion question and answer.
Clark argued that a question by Miss Ratcliffe could not be hearsay because it asserted no fact, while Cochran objected that the proposed inquiry was hearsay.
Court's action: Judge Ito ruled that the proposed question was hearsay.
Clark complained that Cochran was making argumentative objections before the jury; Ito required one-word recognized objections and directed counsel to address the disputed record through cross-examination.
Court's action: Judge Ito warned that he would sanction the next lawyer who made an objection other than a one-word recognized objection, and overruled Cochran's objection.
A bench conference was held but not reported by the court reporter. No content is available from this sidebar.
An unreported bench conference was held. No transcript exists of what was discussed, as the court reporter did not record the proceedings.
Cochran sought to use a prowler report to show the Bundy scene was unsecured; Clark challenged the report as hearsay lacking foundation and irrelevant to the stated purpose.
Court's action: Judge Ito sustained the objection to use of the hearsay report without further foundation, but allowed Cochran to ask whether the witness was aware of any intrusions, requiring personal knowledge.
Cochran sought testimony from the investigating officer about Bundy fingerprint comparison results, while Clark argued that the officer could not relay an expert technician's analysis.
Court's action: Judge Ito sustained the objection to the investigating officer testifying about fingerprint comparison results.
Clark objected to use of a coroner investigator's report concerning lividity as hearsay and improper impeachment; Cochran said he sought only to refresh the witness's recollection.
Court's action: Judge Ito allowed Cochran to ask whether the report refreshed the witness's recollection, required a clean copy of the document, and found Clark's objection premature.
Cochran sought limited questioning of Detective Lange about the blood collection, while Clark argued that the subjects were beyond direct examination and belonged in the defense case.
Court's action: Judge Ito sustained the objection to limited questioning about the blood and stated that Cochran could recall Detective Lange during the defense case.
Marcia Clark requested a brief bench conference without the court reporter present. The conference was held off the record and its contents are unknown.
The defense sought to ask whether the lead investigator knew an officer had interviewed Sydney, while the prosecution objected that the question invited hearsay and an unfair inference.
Court's action: The objection was overruled, permitting questioning limited to the lead investigator's awareness that an officer interviewed Sydney.
The parties disputed whether Faye Resnick resided at a particular address in June 1994 and whether the defense's questioning improperly introduced hearsay; the exchange escalated between counsel.
Court's action: The judge instructed the jury to step into the jury room.
The defense raised uncertainty over the number of eyeglass lenses in an envelope and was permitted to question the witness only about what the witness observed at the scene.
Court's action: The defense may ask whether the witness saw one or two lenses in the envelope at the scene, after establishing that the witness looked inside.
Cochran requested a sidebar conference with the judge. The conference was held but not reported by the court reporter, so no content is available.
Counsel discussed the witness's airline and hotel after Cochran noted reporters at the hotel, and Darden sought information about the witness's whereabouts.
Court's action: The court found the airline not relevant and stipulated that it was Southwest for this purpose.
A brief bench conference was requested by Christopher Darden, with Cochran agreeing to approach. The conference itself was not reported. Following the conference, Judge Ito called for Cochran's next witness.
Darden requested a brief off-the-record bench conference without the court reporter present. The conference was held but not transcribed, followed by an off-the-record discussion among the deputy district attorneys.
A bench conference was held but not reported by the court reporter. No content is available from this proceeding.
A bench conference was held but not reported by the court reporter. No content from this sidebar is available in the transcript record.
Counsel addressed a Salvadoran interpreter, court and prosecution camera recordings, the scope of cross-examination of Rosa Lopez, and discovery concerning investigation materials.
Court's action: The court indicated that cross-examination about the witness's willingness to testify was covered by section 220 but should be limited to about five minutes.
Counsel raised concerns about Spanish translation for Rosa Lopez, while the court and prosecution described the interpreter as appropriate; counsel also discussed her overnight accommodations.
Counsel raised a discrepancy between the witness's apparent reference to Mark Fuhrman and the interpreter's rendering of Mike Fuhrman; the conference also addressed anticipated discovery turnover.
Court's action: The court directed counsel to clarify whether the witness said Mark or Mike Fuhrman.
Counsel sought clarification on using a July 29 statement on direct examination, and the court addressed Lopez's overnight accommodations and the next day's witness and jury schedule.
Court's action: The court deferred consideration of the July 29 statement until counsel made an offer, directed that Lopez receive the same accommodations as the prior night, and set reconvening for 9:00 a.m. with the jury to return at 1:30 p.m.
Cochran requested a sidebar conference with the judge. The bench conference itself was not reported by the court reporter, leaving no record of what was discussed.
Cochran requested a bench conference, which Judge Ito granted. The sidebar itself was not reported by the court reporter, so no details of the discussion are available.
The court addressed limits on examination concerning Sylvia and late-produced tape and statement material, while confirming that the jury could not hear the bench conference.
Court's action: The court granted the motion to strike the last two questions and answers concerning Sylvia, barred inquiry into the late-produced tape or statement at that point, and directed counsel to wait before asking how the tape was made.
The parties discussed use of a statement attributed to the witness, with the defense arguing she had never seen the document and the court requiring further foundation.
Court's action: The court required additional foundational questions before use of the statement and permitted inquiry because the statement was attributed to the witness.
The defense objected to use of a KABC interview tape it had not received, citing apparent editing and inadequate foundation; the court addressed providing a copy and allowed the examination to proceed.
Court's action: The court directed the prosecution to provide a copy of the KABC tape by 9:30 the next morning and overruled the defense objection.
The court addressed proposed questions about the witness's close friends during conditional examination and established a procedure for counsel's objections; equipment failure was also reported.
Court's action: The court permitted questions seeking the first names of the witness's three closest friends and whether she had told them the information, and directed counsel to state only an objection before giving legal grounds.
The defense challenged late-produced phone-bill exhibits and their impeachment value, while the prosecution described calls to the Salingers; the court addressed copies for counsel.
Court's action: The court overruled the objection to the phone bill and instructed the prosecution to provide exhibits to the clerk for photocopying before their use.
The defense raised a possible translation issue involving “testimony” or “testimonial,” and the court consulted interpreters about the Spanish terms used in courtroom testimony.
Court's action: The court summoned the interpreters and asked how “testimony” and related courtroom terms were translated into Spanish.
The court raised concern over a seven-year birth-date discrepancy associated with a driver's license, and the witness's counsel objected to receiving the information only at sidebar.
Court's action: The court took a brief recess for the witness's counsel to consult with her after raising a possible perjury concern arising from differing birth dates.
Robert Shapiro requested a brief sidebar conference with the judge. The conference was held at the bench but not recorded by the court reporter, so its contents are unknown.
Court's action: The court permitted a bench conference.
Counsel discussed whether redirect could explain the birth date on the witness's driver's license without opening recross into other official-record discrepancies.
Court's action: The court stated that it would have to sustain a Fifth Amendment objection and could not compel the witness to testify.
Defense requested any clue sheet or report concerning investigators' contact with Sylvia, while prosecutors said they knew of no written report and would inquire further.
Court's action: The court directed Clark to make a phone call.
A brief sidebar during the civil trial in which Cochran sought to establish that Rosa had visited Sylvia's home on multiple occasions, to impeach Sylvia's credibility. Darden conceded the point, and Ito narrowed the permitted questioning to frequency of visits and description of the home's interior.
Court's action: The court limited questioning to how often the witness had been at the home, a description of the house, and how many times the witness had been inside.
Defense objected to use of an unidentified linguist's fax about the witness's responses, while the court allowed inquiry into whether the subject had been discussed with her.
Court's action: The court permitted questions whether anyone had discussed the subject with the witness, but did not permit use of the unidentified writer's letter with the witness.
A brief sidebar in which Cochran asks to see an F.I. card related to the current witness. Clark says counsel has all the F.I. cards, but she did not bring this card with her. The court makes no ruling in the supplied exchange, which ends with Cochran asking whether the card can be brought down.
Defense sought to question Detective Lange using newspaper articles about prosecutor criticism and coroner concerns; the court limited inquiry to Lange's knowledge of the matters.
Court's action: The court allowed questions whether article-related information or coroner call-out controversy had been communicated to Lange, but barred specific newspaper content as hearsay.
Counsel met at sidebar without a reporter; the transcript does not report the discussion or any court action.
Judge Ito called counsel to the bench for an unreported sidebar conference. The brief exchange was held off the record without a court reporter present, and proceedings then resumed in open court. No content from the sidebar was preserved in the transcript.
Counsel disputed use of a photograph of an envelope altered by criminalists to question a witness about looking inside it, and discussed an FBI package of shoeprint photographs the defense had reviewed.
A brief sidebar in which Cochran confirmed to the judge that Goldman's clothing was present in the courtroom. No substantive argument or ruling occurred.
Judge Ito called counsel to an unreported bench conference. The sidebar was not recorded by the court reporter, so its content is unknown. The proceedings then resumed in open court.
Counsel disputed whether Detective Lange could be questioned from a crime scene checklist identifying Mazzola and Fung as officers in charge, given that another criminalist completed the form.
Court's action: The court found insufficient foundation to question Detective Lange about Defense Exhibit 1039 but allowed questions about the criminalist assigned to the case.
The defense sought to question an investigator about a 1992 report of annoying phone calls and a possible suspect; the prosecution argued no link had been shown to the murders.
Court's action: The court sustained the Hall objection and directed Cochran to review the issue overnight for discussion the next day.
Counsel disputed whether additional KCBS footage showing Simpson getting into a car could be shown after the prosecution said it had not seen that portion, and also raised a smoking-related tape.
Court's action: The court recessed the jury and stated it would review the videotapes outside the jury's presence.
The parties disputed redirect questioning about whether trace-evidence analysis affected the investigation, with the defense arguing that any reliance on reports or criminalists would be hearsay.
Court's action: The court overruled Cochran's hearsay objection, stating that Detective Lange could offer opinions as the lead investigator.
The prosecution sought to ask what blood-test results Detective Lange knew when the case was filed to counter the defense's rush-to-judgment theory, while the defense objected on hearsay grounds.
Court's action: The court overruled the hearsay objection and said the jury would be instructed that the testimony was admitted only for Detective Lange's state of mind.
Counsel sought an instruction after Detective Lange answered before rulings, and the court barred his testimony about coroner procedures and time-of-death matters as beyond his expertise.
Court's action: The court instructed Detective Lange and sustained the objection to testimony about coroner practices as beyond his expertise.
Counsel objected to redirect about indicators of a drug-related homicide, while the prosecution argued that cross-examination opened the door to the detective's reasons for ruling out that theory.
Counsel objected that a question about the detective's theory of the case called for a guilt opinion; the prosecution agreed the question was too broad and would make it more specific.
Court's action: The court directed the prosecution to phrase its question carefully to avoid eliciting an opinion on guilt or innocence.
The prosecution sought to show a videotape of officers closing the crime scene and walking the Bundy walkway; counsel objected on relevance and foundation grounds and noted late disclosure.
Court's action: The court stated it would review the videotape before it was played and then hear argument.
The prosecution objected that counsel asserted Caucasian hairs were on both gloves without a witness answer and then continued questioning as though the assertion had been confirmed.
Court's action: The court directed Cochran to restart the line of questioning.
Counsel sought to question the detective about investigative leads away from Simpson, while the prosecution argued that specific clues would introduce extensive hearsay from anonymous sources.
Court's action: The court deferred discussion of investigative clues until after the jury was excluded and stated it would distribute Internal Affairs materials to both parties.
Counsel sought to ask whether the detective considered Faye Resnick's stay with Nicole Brown Simpson and drug rehabilitation when assessing a drug-related crime theory.
Court's action: The court overruled the objection and permitted inquiry whether the detective considered Faye Resnick's stay and immediate rehabilitation when determining whether the crime was drug-related.
The court addressed an attempt to use Dr. Golden's testimony to impeach the investigating officer's opinion about bruises.
Court's action: Judge permitted impeachment through an expert witness but barred reading the expert's contrary statement to the witness as hearsay.
Counsel sought to show that Simpson spoke after receiving constitutional-rights warnings to rebut testimony that he was uncooperative; the prosecution also raised an alleged juror-contact concern.
Court's action: The court sustained the hearsay objection to questioning about Simpson's statement, ended proceedings for the day, and stated it would review the redirect record.
Cochran briefly approached the bench to flag that a female juror was wearing an angel pin in violation of a prior court order. The juror was already removing it by the time the sidebar occurred. Ito acknowledged the violation and thanked Cochran.
Court's action: The court acknowledged that the angel pin violated its order.
The parties disputed whether defense counsel could ask an investigator about a conversation concerning a cut finger without eliciting an explanation.
Court's action: The court permitted asking whether the witness discussed the cut on the finger, but not whether he gave an explanation.
Defense counsel sought to question Detective Lange about a statement attributed to Cora Fischman in connection with an investigation of drug-related homicides.
Court's action: The court ruled that the proposed questioning exceeded the scope.
The parties disputed defense counsel's use of a publication the witness had mentioned, with the prosecution seeking time and the complete text for review.
Court's action: The court allowed questioning about the publication, directed that Clark receive time to review it, and ordered a 15- to 20-minute recess.
The parties disputed whether a medical publication provided a foundation for questioning an expert about principles concerning stomach contents and time of death.
Court's action: The court sustained the foundation objection and stated that cross-examination could proceed if the witness said he relied on the publication in forming his opinion.
The parties disputed whether an expert could be asked broadly how coroner procedures might have affected a time-of-death estimate.
Court's action: The court sustained the speculation objection, finding the question overly broad, and identified a narrower question concerning a liver-temperature reading.
Defense counsel challenged testimony about an ice cream experiment because the witness was not present for it and viewed only photographs afterward.
Court's action: The court overruled the objection, ruling that concerns about the ice cream experiment went to the weight of the testimony rather than admissibility.
Defense counsel asked the court to strike testimony suggesting that Ron Goldman drove a vehicle to the location, arguing it assumed facts not in evidence.
Court's action: The court denied the request to strike testimony concerning Ron Goldman driving the vehicle.
A brief sidebar called by prosecutor Christopher Darden to arrange showing the defense some visual boards before Detective Mark Fuhrman takes the stand. The judge agreed to send the jury back so the boards could be reviewed.
Court's action: The court directed the jury to step back so counsel could review the boards.
Marcia Clark requested a bench conference without the court reporter present. The conference was held off the record and its contents are unknown.
A brief sidebar was held at the bench while the jury was being brought in. Cochran requested to approach on an unspecified matter, and the judge asked whether a court reporter was needed. The conference was held off the record and its contents were not reported.
A brief bench conference was held off the record, followed by the judge noting he had not finished reviewing a videotape provided at the break. Plaintiff's counsel raised a discovery matter, which the judge deferred until later in the morning session.
Court's action: The court said the matter would be finished that morning.
The court called counsel to a sidebar without the court reporter, and the transcript reports no substance from the resulting bench conference.
Defense counsel offered the prosecution a copy of a preliminary-hearing tape concerning the Bronco; the court required advance review and objection opportunity before it was shown.
Court's action: The court ordered a break, directed counsel to remain to review the preliminary-hearing tape, and set resumption for 1:30.
The court considered whether contemplated defamation suits involving defense lawyers could be explored as evidence of the detective's bias or interest.
Court's action: Judge overruled the objection and permitted inquiry into contemplated actions and the people to be sued, while barring further explanation of those actions.
The parties disputed whether defense counsel could ask what purportedly irrelevant evidence a witness had prepared for; the court found the prosecution's earlier question had opened the area for inquiry.
Court's action: The court permitted the defense to ask the witness about the question at issue after sending the jury back.
A brief end-of-day sidebar focused on scheduling and witness order logistics. Bailey requested an adjournment so the prosecution could contact witnesses Max Cordoba and Alwyn Martin before cross-examination continued with Fuhrman. The attorneys also mapped out the upcoming witness sequence through the following week.
Court's action: The court broke for the day, allowed the prosecution to contact Max Cordoba and Alwyn Martin, and stated that Fuhrman's examination might have to be bifurcated.
Defense requested an in camera hearing and delayed expert disclosure because its experts were dispersed; the prosecution opposed further delay and the court set a noon deadline.
Court's action: Defense was given until noon on its request for additional time before expert-witness disclosure.
The prosecution argued that questioning about witness-preparation timing was misleading and implicated work product; defense proposed asking only whether a plan had been communicated.
Court's action: The objection was overruled if the question was limited to whether a plan had been communicated before publication.
Defense sought to question Detective Fuhrman about a fundraising letter as evidence of financial bias, while his attorney stated that Fuhrman would receive none of the funds.
Court's action: The prosecution objection was sustained because Detective Fuhrman's financial interest in the fundraising letter was remote and not relevant.
Darden requested a brief off-the-record bench conference, which Judge Ito granted. The substance of the discussion was not reported by the court reporter.
Court's action: The court permitted an off-record bench conference.
After the prosecution described anticipated questions about Weitzman's request to speak privately with his client and the ensuing interview, the defense withdrew its hearsay objection.
Darden requested an unreported bench conference during cross-examination. The discussion was held off the record at the bench and its contents are unknown.
The prosecution raised advance objections to items seized by Judge Wong and a search warrant, and defense counsel said neither would be used in the current session.
Court's action: The court directed counsel to speak one at a time and to proceed.
Defense proposed asking Detective Vannatter whether Simpson offered to take a blood test; the prosecution objected that the defendant's statement was hearsay.
Court's action: The hearsay objection to the proposed question about Simpson offering a blood test was sustained.
Defense sought to impeach testimony about bloody socks using notes and later testing, arguing blood was not identified on June 13; the prosecution challenged the proposed impeachment.
Court's action: The court sustained objections to the proposed sock-impeachment questions under Evidence Code 352, indicating the information could be obtained through an expert.
The court barred multiple hearsay concerning Paula Barbieri's statements while allowing testimony about the defendant's feelings for her and his ambivalence about taking her to the recital.
Court's action: Sustained the objection to multiple hearsay about Paula Barbieri's statements and permitted testimony about the defendant's feelings for Paula and ambivalence about taking her.
The defense sought an advance offer of proof on expected testimony about the defendant's statements concerning Nicole, Sydney, and Nicole's clothing; the court overruled the hearsay objection.
Court's action: Overruled the defense hearsay objection to the proposed testimony.
A very brief on-record notation about Marcia Clark having a conversation with Kato Kaelin outside the courtroom. Shapiro flagged it for the record, and Clark defended herself by noting Shapiro had already heard everything Kaelin told her.
Court's action: Noted defense counsel's statement that Clark had been speaking with Kaelin.
A brief sidebar in which Judge Ito asked Marcia Clark to explain where her questioning was headed. Clark indicated she was laying foundation for a prior inconsistent statement, then thought better of it and withdrew, saying she would return to it later.
A bench conference was held between counsel and the judge, but its contents were not recorded by the court reporter.
The prosecution sought defense interview notes used in cross-examination, and the court required submission of notes bearing on impeachment for the court's review during the break.
Court's action: Stated that defense notes relevant to impeachment of the prosecution witness had to be turned over and directed Shapiro to submit the notes to the court during the break for review.
The court addressed objections to cross-examination of Kaelin about character and relationship matters, then found the proposed account involving Nicole and housekeeper Michelle irrelevant.
Court's action: Found the proposed inquiry into Nicole's dispute with housekeeper Michelle irrelevant to the case.
A brief sidebar was held at the bench without a court reporter present, so no record of the discussion exists. The proceeding title indicates it concerned the relevance of 'week-before testimony,' but the substance of the argument was not captured.
Defense counsel sought to use Kato Kaelin's experience with his daughter to support testimony about the defendant's disappointment at missing his daughter's recital.
Court's action: The court sustained the objection to questioning Kato Kaelin about his daughter as a foundation for fathers' relationships with young daughters.
The prosecution objected that questioning could reveal Kaelin's decision to wait for counsel before grand-jury testimony; Shapiro stated he intended to ask only whether the testimony was honest.
Court's action: Judge instructed Shapiro to lead the witness carefully in questioning about grand-jury testimony.
The parties debated a proposed question that the defendant called Nicole a derogatory term, with the prosecution relying on the previously heard 911-call tape to support the inquiry.
Court's action: The court found the 911-call tape an adequate offer of proof and stated that the point did not need to be presented again.
The court addressed testimony concerning the 1989 incident and Michelle after concluding that Kaelin lacked personal contact and knowledge of the matter.
Court's action: The court stated it would instruct the jury to disregard testimony about 1989 and Michelle because Kaelin had no contact with the people involved and was not competent to testify about that incident.
Judge Ito called counsel to an unreported sidebar conference as the jury was entering the courtroom. No content from the discussion was recorded, as the court reporter was excluded.
Judge Ito called counsel to the bench for an off-the-record conference. No testimony or arguments were recorded, and the discussion between the deputy district attorneys prior to the sidebar was also off the record.
The prosecution argued that alleged missed child pickups could impeach testimony portraying the defendant as a caring father, but the court found Kaelin lacked firsthand knowledge.
Court's action: The court sustained the objection, barring Kaelin from testifying about two alleged occasions when the defendant failed to pick up the children because he lacked personal knowledge.
The prosecution sought hostile-witness treatment for Kaelin based on perceived reluctance and inconsistent statements, while the defense disputed that he was hostile to either side.
Court's action: The court allowed the prosecution to treat Kaelin as a hostile witness with wider leeway for leading questions, and stated it would tell the jury to disregard counsel's comment about the designation.
The parties disputed whether cell phone records and a country-club witness supplied a good-faith basis to ask Kaelin about an alleged argument during a call to Nicole.
Court's action: The objection to questioning Kaelin about the phone conversation's contents was overruled.
Defense counsel requested time to confer before pursuing a possible further examination of Kaelin, and the court recessed to address juror and discovery matters with counsel later that day.
Court's action: The court recessed, directed counsel to return at 1:45 that day for juror and discovery matters, and set the jury to return the following morning.
Cochran requested a brief bench conference without the court reporter present. The conference was held off the record and its contents are unknown.
Court's action: The court permitted counsel to approach without the reporter.
The parties disputed whether Ferrara could recount Kaelin's stated intent to investigate a noise as a prior consistent statement; the court found no inconsistent statement and sustained the objection.
Court's action: The court sustained the hearsay objection to testimony about Kaelin's stated intent to investigate the noise.
The parties disputed testimony that Kaelin called an instruction to turn on the alarm system weird, with the prosecution asserting prior consistent and inconsistent statement theories.
Court's action: The court sustained the hearsay objection to testimony that Kaelin characterized the alarm request as weird.
The parties discussed proposed testimony that Kaelin asked Park about an earthquake and later requested a flashlight; defense counsel withdrew the objection after the offer of proof.
Court's action: The court recorded the objection as withdrawn and directed counsel to proceed.
A brief sidebar in which Cochran seeks to impeach a witness using prior preliminary hearing testimony about what the witness saw parked to his left and whether there was an obstruction to his right. Clark argues Cochran is merely corroborating her own witness rather than impeaching him. Ito allows the question.
Court's action: The court allowed questioning about the witness's prior testimony concerning a parked object to the left and an obstruction to the right.
The parties disputed showing Park bags that were now empty, and the court limited questioning to their apparent contents when he placed them in the limousine.
Court's action: The court sustained a foundational objection to presenting the bags in their current condition and permitted questions about their apparent contents when Park saw them.
Defense counsel sought to establish the golf bag's custom nature, but the court limited questioning to whether the witness knew anything about custom-made golf bags.
Court's action: The court sustained the objection to the form of the question and permitted questioning only about the witness's knowledge of custom-made golf bags.
A brief sidebar dispute over whether Marcia Clark had already asked a question about OJ Simpson lifting a golf bag during previous rounds of examination. Cochran argued Clark had already covered the lifting question; Ito checked the record and overruled the objection, allowing Clark to proceed.
Court's action: The court overruled the objection to questioning about the witness's observations of Simpson lifting the golf bag.
Defense counsel sought to question the court's special-master witness about recovery of a Rockingham knife, while the prosecution objected that the inquiry was irrelevant and premature.
Court's action: The objection was sustained; inquiry into the Rockingham knife was deferred until the parties' presentation of their cases.
The prosecution proposed calling Kardashian to authenticate a tape concerning a garment bag, but the court delayed his testimony so he could consult counsel and discussed substitute witnesses.
Court's action: Kardashian was permitted time to consult his attorney before being called, and the court directed the parties to finish the remaining court day.
The parties discussed photographs of a podium and trash can, while the prosecution described a newly identified witness who allegedly saw Simpson reach near the trash can and zip a bag.
Court's action: The photographs could be used only to ask the witness whether they depicted the podium and trash can as they appeared on June 12.
The parties disputed showing trash-can photographs to the jury after testimony placed the defendant near the area, and defense counsel invoked an earlier agreement against their use.
Court's action: Darden was directed to remove his hands from Cochran, and the trash-can photographs were not to be shown to the jury at that time because of the parties' agreement.
Marcia Clark requested a bench conference, which Judge Ito granted. The conference itself was not reported by the court reporter, leaving its content unknown.
Before cross-examination, the prosecution sought to prevent disclosure of Cale's residence, while defense counsel argued that the witness's general location mattered to his observation of the Bronco.
Court's action: Shapiro was directed not to elicit Cale's address; any location questioning could be expressed in yards and meters.
Counsel disputed whether complete police-report materials were available, distinguishing a narrative report from a written report; the prosecution stated that Cochran appeared to have all materials.
A bench conference was held between the judge and attorneys that was not recorded by the court reporter. No content from this sidebar is available in the transcript.
Defense challenged the enlarged rear-gate photograph as undisclosed and insufficiently examinable; the court found no apparent distortion and overruled the objection.
Court's action: The objection to the blown-up photograph was overruled, and counsel were instructed to identify each day's exhibits before proceedings begin.
The parties addressed the jury's display of unredacted airline-ticket items in a property report despite an agreement not to use or mention them.
Court's action: The prosecution was directed to proceed without Exhibit 175; if it is used again, it must be redacted with whiteout rather than blackout.
Defense counsel challenged notes and measurements used by the witness; he described them as a personal testimony aid summarizing material in his notebook.
Court's action: The defense was ordered to receive a photocopy of the witness's notes at the next break.
The parties disputed use of original evidence notes to impeach a witness about missing collector notations and preserve the complete original document set.
Court's action: Defense counsel was allowed to use the original notes for impeachment, but only a photocopy would be admitted into evidence.
The court found no foundation to question the witness on a draft field-procedures manual that he had not used in forming case opinions.
Court's action: Defense counsel was barred from cross-examining the witness about the draft manual because the witness had not referred to it in forming opinions in the case.
Defense argued that instructions given to the witness were offered to explain his state of mind and subsequent conduct, while the prosecution disputed their relevance.
Court's action: The court imposed a limit of two lawyers per side at sidebars.
The court instructed defense counsel to reask a question; no further discussion of the question or its subject was reported.
Court's action: Defense counsel was instructed to reask the question.
Defense proposed first showing a photograph of Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove, then cropping the victim's body from the display for questioning.
Court's action: The court permitted use of the photograph rather than locating the previously marked exhibit.
Counsel disputed impeachment of Fung with grand jury testimony referring to an unavailable photograph and discussed displaying a glove photograph without the victim's body.
Court's action: The court required the grand jury exhibit before transcript-based impeachment and permitted use of the original photograph followed by a cropped Elmo display.
The prosecution challenged a hypothetical about secondary transfer as speculative and argumentative, while defense argued that the criminalist's expertise supplied a foundation.
Court's action: The objection was overruled; the court described looking toward jurors while questioning as a trial-practice technique.
Judge Ito called counsel to an unreported bench conference. No testimony or argument was recorded, and court then resumed in open session.
A brief sidebar conference was held at the bench but was not recorded by the court reporter. No content from the discussion is available.
Counsel discussed the court's investigation of a reported juror-contact incident, and the prosecution announced a best-evidence objection to a defense videotape said to depict a glove.
Court's action: The court said it would interview Jeanette Harris, the two other involved people, and probably each juror individually, and would address the matter directly the next day.
The prosecution argued that two videotape snippets were misleadingly edited, while defense maintained the footage and time counter showed a continuous sequence relevant to collection timing.
Court's action: The court requested to view the videotape.
The parties disputed whether a crime-scene videotape had been edited and looped, and whether any segment could be used to impeach testimony about evidence collection timing.
Court's action: The court sustained the foundational objection but permitted only the first continuous shot of the videotape.
The parties disputed whether defense counsel could use a document while questioning the witness about procedures learned orally, before a specific cross-examination question had been posed.
Court's action: The court noted the objection as premature.
Defense sought to question Fung about the June 28 Bronco search and later discoveries, arguing that the prosecution's direct examination covered vehicle searches and related documents.
Court's action: The court sustained the scope objection except as to confusion between the two vehicle-checklist documents, limiting inquiry to those documents.
Counsel disputed whether Dennis Fung could be questioned about a June 28 search for a knife after direct examination addressed earlier search activity; the court sustained the objection.
Court's action: The court sustained the objection.
Defense counsel sought to question the witness about a lab note whose original was missing to examine chain of custody; the court required foundation regarding the document's preparation and original.
Court's action: The court directed Scheck to ask foundational questions about whether the witness prepared the document and knew where the original was.
Defense counsel stated that he intended to question Dennis Fung about Lab Report 16 and sought production of an original note that had surfaced but was not known to prosecutor Goldberg.
Court's action: The court directed Goldberg to contact Matheson during lunch to see whether the original sheet could be produced.
The court explained the condensed four-pages-per-page transcript format, made it available to counsel, and addressed Clark's interruptions during Goldberg's examination matter.
Court's action: The court instructed Clark to let Goldberg handle the examination matter and not interrupt again.
Counsel discussed an apparent inconsistency between testimony on presumptive testing of the towel and the driver's-door bottom, with the defense seeking to explore contradictory answers.
Court's action: The objection was overruled.
A brief sidebar in which Johnnie Cochran clarifies to prosecutor Hank Goldberg that he promptly passed along a document copy as soon as he received it. Goldberg indicates he was unaware Cochran had received it. The exchange resolves a minor document-sharing miscommunication with no apparent dispute.
The court overruled an objection and directed counsel to an unreported sidebar; the transcript does not report the conference's subject or discussion.
Court's action: The court overruled the objection.
Marcia Clark requested an unreported sidebar conference with the judge. No content was recorded by the court reporter, so the substance of the discussion is unknown.
Defense counsel questioned whether the prosecution had discussed a barred issue with Fung; the prosecutor denied discussing videotapes and described questions about blood-vial and airline-ticket times.
Court's action: The court directed defense counsel to explore the issue further with Fung.
The court raised concerns about five days of cross-examination over a blood-sample collection discrepancy and the jury's attention, while defense counsel maintained the issue was significant.
Court's action: The court encouraged counsel to move the examination along.
The transcript reports only an off-record discussion between defense counsel; no substantive discussion or court action is recorded.
Defense counsel began to refer to a document, but the transcript ends before the subject of the conference is stated.
An off-the-record discussion was held between defense counsel. No substantive content was captured in the transcript.
The transcript records an off-the-record discussion between defense counsel; no substantive discussion or court action is reported.
A brief sidebar conference was held at the bench during the April 13, 1995 criminal trial proceedings. The content of the discussion was not recorded by the court reporter.
A brief sidebar conference was held at the bench but was not reported by the court reporter. No content from this proceeding is available.
A brief sidebar conference was held at the bench during the criminal trial proceedings. No details of the discussion were recorded, as the court reporter did not transcribe the exchange.
Defense challenged the prosecution's production of another purported original crime-scene checklist as a discovery violation that impaired cross-examination; the parties also addressed a newly received videotape.
Court's action: The court allowed Clark to review the documents, deferred argument on the document dispute to 8:30 the next morning, and directed that defense counsel see the videotape first.
Defense sought an immediate jury instruction stating that prosecution-produced documents represented as originals were not originals and had misled counsel; the prosecution disputed that claim.
Court's action: The court invited the parties to submit additional material on the requested instruction by Tuesday.
Defense challenged questioning about discovery obligations as an effort to exploit delayed disclosure; the court overruled the objection, cautioned counsel, and directed the examination to move on.
Court's action: The objection was overruled, and counsel was cautioned to move on.
The parties disputed use of a KABC videotape time code to establish event sequence, with defense seeking review and foundation; the court sustained the foundational objection.
Court's action: The foundational objection to the videotape was sustained.
Defense objected to redirect use of videotape exhibit 1103, including footage of Detective Vannatter, after it was not offered on cross-examination; the court sustained the scope objection.
Court's action: The scope objection was sustained because the videotape had not been offered during cross-examination.
Counsel placed concerns about courtroom treatment on the record, then the prosecution agreed to provide defense copies of Kaelin-related audiotapes and related book materials.
The parties disputed redirect use of Fung's grand jury testimony concerning stain no. 14 and whether it could show that another person participated in collecting the stain.
Court's action: The court permitted the prosecution to ask whether Fung testified before the grand jury that "we collected" stain no. 14 in the master bathroom, but did not permit the proposed broader reading.
The parties disputed whether redirect concerning Fung's Griffen hearing testimony and item no. 52 was proper rehabilitation after defense impeachment.
Court's action: The court overruled the objection and permitted the prosecutor to ask the originally intended question.
The parties disputed whether defense questioning opened phenolphthalein testing beyond the Bronco; the court limited prosecution examination to written Bronco reports and barred a sink-drain testing argument.
Court's action: The prosecution may examine phenolphthalein testing on the Bronco only through written reports, and the defense may not argue an absence of sink-drain testing in closing argument.
A brief sidebar during the criminal trial where Judge Ito ruled that Goldberg's question to a witness was argumentative in form, though the underlying topic was permissible. The exchange also devolved into a side dispute about speaking objections, with Cochran and Darden trading barbs about courtroom etiquette.
Court's action: Counsel was directed to rephrase the question.
The prosecution sought to use a televised Saferstein interview as support for expert opinion; the court sustained the hearsay objection and warned defense counsel about audible comments near the jury.
Court's action: The objection was sustained, and defense counsel was warned to keep Mr. Neufeld's voice down or face an admonition before the jury.
Defense objected to a question characterizing a Bronco carpet mark as a shoeprint without expert identification; the court permitted a rephrased question and overruled the objection.
Court's action: The objection was overruled, and counsel was directed to rephrase the last question.
The parties disputed whether the witness could be asked about phenolphthalein testing of the sink, shower, and wire without disclosing results, given the risk of implying positive presumptive tests.
Court's action: The court sustained the objection under its prior ruling and instructed counsel to watch the jury after observing two jurors nodding.
A brief bench conference to manage the transition between examinations. Goldberg signals he is nearly finished, Scheck requests a few minutes to set up materials, and Clark asks to preview what videotapes Scheck plans to use before he begins.
Court's action: The court said it would take a brief break after Goldberg finished before shifting examinations.
The defense challenged redirect questions about fibers and hair as misleading test-result evidence, while the prosecution characterized them as limited to contamination in crime-scene processing.
Court's action: The court directed the prosecutor to frame the remaining question as whether collection could have caused contamination and overruled the defense objection.
The parties disputed whether the defendant could attend inquiries of jurors concerning misconduct, and the court recessed while its law clerks researched the issue.
Court's action: The court recessed to research whether the defendant could be present during juror inquiries.
The prosecution challenged the foundation for a surveillance tape's time code, which was said to be inaccurate; the defense proposed addressing the discrepancy through prior testimony or a stipulation.
Court's action: The court sustained the foundation objection to playing the tape with an erroneous time code.
A brief sidebar where Goldberg argues that prior testimony about investigating evidence movement doesn't specifically cover interviewing witnesses, so it can't be used for impeachment. Scheck counters that 'inquiries' and 'interviews' are close enough to constitute direct impeachment. Ito overrules the objection.
Court's action: The court overruled the objection.
The parties disputed Scheck's selective use of prior testimony about an envelope's heft, with the prosecution seeking the surrounding exchange and the defense maintaining the excerpt was not misleading.
Court's action: The court overruled the objection and said approximately 20 minutes of Scheck's stated hour remained.
The defense sought to question the witness about the blood level in a vial on June 13 to test his recollection, while the prosecution argued the subject was outside the scope of redirect.
Court's action: The court sustained the scope objection.
Counsel disputed proposed impeachment questions concerning references to four red stains and the witness's earlier difficulty with the number four.
Court's action: The objection to the first passage was sustained; the objection to the second passage was overruled.
The defense sought to establish the witness's awareness before testifying that alleged tampering with the blood vial was at issue, after the prosecution objected to presenting defense contentions through him.
Court's action: Under Evidence Code 352, the court sustained its own objection, finding the line of questioning speculative and an undue consumption of time.
The defense sought to play a videotape after redirect testimony described its contents, but the court found that no foundation had established the tape's precise recording time.
Court's action: The objection to playing the videotape was sustained for lack of a foundation establishing precisely when it was recorded; the defense may seek to introduce it in its case in chief after presenting foundation witnesses.
Goldberg requested a brief off-the-record bench conference. The content of the discussion was not reported by the court reporter.
The defense objected to the prosecution using prior testimony to impeach its own witness concerning her selection of stains at Bundy.
Court's action: The objection was overruled because California permits any party to impeach any witness, including the party's own witness.
The parties agreed that questioning could cover the numbered items' collection time and locations without identifying the airline ticket and baggage claim.
Court's action: Questioning may identify items 15 and 16 by number and collection location and address their collection time, but may not identify the items themselves.
The prosecution proposed asking whether Dennis Fung told the witness to discard a document and generate a new form, and the defense renewed its hearsay objection.
Court's action: The hearsay objection was overruled because the proposed question concerned the absence of a statement, not a statement offered for its truth.
The defense sought to question the witness about Dennis Fung's post-testimony review of who collected evidence, asserting the inquiry was impeachment and relevant to her state of mind.
Court's action: The objection was overruled as to a question whether Dennis Fung reviewed with the witness who collected evidence after her August 23 testimony; the defense could ask that question.
Defense counsel offered prior testimony concerning crime-scene collection training, and the prosecution argued it was not inconsistent with the witness's testimony.
Court's action: The court found the cited testimony not directly inconsistent and directed counsel to ask another question to establish the point.
Judge Ito called counsel to the sidebar to warn defense attorney Peter Neufeld that he had been asking the same line of questioning about accuracy and completeness repeatedly. The judge ordered him to move on.
Court's action: Defense counsel was instructed to move on after repeatedly questioning the witness about accuracy and completeness.
The prosecution objected to questions based on photographs after the witness said she lacked an independent recollection of seeing the stains.
Court's action: The objection was overruled, and the defense may ask whether the photograph refreshes the witness's recollection of the car's configuration and whether stains would have been visible with the door closed.
Counsel disputed testimony that item 11 produced a positive phenolphthalein result, noting later presumptive testing was negative on the stain and no further testing was possible.
Court's action: The court directed the jury to disregard the report of a positive phenolphthalein result while allowing consideration of questions about collecting the wire.
The court found item 1120 supported a good-faith inquiry about a recorded meeting and permitted questioning on whether the witness ever handled the defendant's blood sample.
Court's action: The court permitted an open-ended question whether the witness ever handled the defendant's blood sample and directed that the witness remain available rather than switching witnesses.
Counsel disputed whether cross-examination about items 15 and 16 in a plastic bag permitted a description of their material, size, and weight; the court postponed the issue pending review.
Court's action: The court deferred a decision on physically describing items 15 and 16 until the items could be reviewed the following morning.
A brief sidebar in which both sides agree to stipulate to the admission of exhibits 15 and 16, withdrawing any prior objections. The parties and judge quickly aligned on how to announce the agreement to the jury without drawing attention to the judge's earlier instruction to ignore the items.
The prosecution sought to ask about the witness's admission that she could drop tweezers after cross-examination addressed her ability to drop swatches.
Court's action: Objection sustained.
Defense sought to play audio from the demonstration tape to challenge testimony about whether anyone suggested concealing fallen swatches; the court left its prior ruling in place.
Court's action: The court's previous ruling stands.
A brief sidebar in which defense counsel Peter Neufeld requested a moment, followed by an off-the-record discussion among defense attorneys and a brief pause. No substantive matters were addressed on the record.
A very brief sidebar in which defense counsel Peter Neufeld asserts that witness Dennis Fung has already addressed the issue under discussion. The substance of the issue is not captured, as the preceding defense discussion was held off the record.
Judge Ito called counsel to the bench for an unreported sidebar conference. No content from the discussion was recorded.
Defense counsel held an off-record discussion. No substantive discussion or court action was reported.
Judge Ito called counsel to the bench for an off-the-record conference. The discussion was not reported by the court reporter, so no content is available.
A brief bench conference took place between counsel and the judge, but the content was not recorded by the court reporter.
Defense requested a way for Mr. Simpson to view exhibit boards as displayed; the judge directed placement on the usual wall easel for the jury.
Court's action: The judge directed that the exhibits be placed on the usual wall easel for the jury to see.
Defense sought clarification that evidence sent to Albany was released for defense inspection, and the judge instructed the prosecutor to ask a leading question on that purpose.
Court's action: The judge instructed the prosecutor to ask a leading question that the evidence was released for defense inspection.
Defense challenged the foundation for comparing ground blood sample 42 with blood under fingernails; the judge overruled the objection.
Court's action: The judge overruled the foundation objection to testimony analogizing sample 42 with blood under fingernails.
Judge Ito called counsel to the bench for an unreported sidebar conference. No content from the discussion was recorded, as the court reporter was excused.
The prosecutor objected that photographs of a blood vial were not produced in discovery; the judge overruled the objection at that time, subject to later review.
Court's action: The judge overruled the discovery objection at that time and allowed the prosecutor to raise it again after reviewing the photographs if they were not already provided.
Counsel disputed use of a serology report containing results beyond direct examination, including inconclusive findings not otherwise presented to jurors.
Court's action: The court permitted use of results for items 42 and 84 but barred showing the document.
A bench conference was held but not reported by the court reporter. No content from the sidebar is available in the transcript record.
A bench conference was held but not reported by the court reporter. No content is available from this sidebar.
A brief bench conference was held off the record and was not reported by the court reporter. No content from the sidebar is available in the transcript.
Judge Ito stated that Goldberg's question and Blasier's objection were inappropriate and instructed both counsel to stop creating the problem.
Court's action: Judge Ito instructed both counsel to stop, stating that Goldberg's question and Blasier's objection were inappropriate.
A brief sidebar conference was held at the bench but was not reported by the court reporter. No content from the conference is available in the transcript.
Counsel disputed the factual basis for a hypothetical using a 6.5-to-7-milliliter blood draw rather than the prior preliminary-hearing estimate.
Court's action: The objection to the 6.5-to-7-milliliter blood-volume hypothetical was overruled.
A sidebar conference was held at the bench but was not reported by the court reporter. No content from the discussion is available in the transcript record.
Judge Ito briefly interrupted Clarke mid-argument to call an unreported bench conference. The substance of the discussion is unknown, as the court reporter was excluded.
Neufeld sought clarification that Dr. Blake made the cuttings and samples stayed at Cellmark, and challenged testimony about the Defense declining to observe testing.
Court's action: The court directed Clarke to immediately clarify that Dr. Blake made the ten-percent cuttings and the samples remained at Cellmark.
Neufeld argued that a microbiologist lacked foundation to testify on cross-loci probability methods, while Clarke cited the witness's training, prior cases, and California authority.
Court's action: The court overruled the objection to the witness testifying about methods for calculating probabilities across multiple DNA loci.
Neufeld reported that his discovery autoradiograph showed markings in the Goldman lane that were absent from other copies; Clarke said the copies were made simultaneously.
Court's action: The court stated the display was for demonstration rather than comparison purposes and overruled an objection.
Neufeld objected that no witness had testified to collecting the blood drop from the boot, while Clarke cited records describing collection, packaging, and shipment.
Court's action: The court overruled the foundation objection subject to a motion to strike, required foundation, and directed the prosecution to check the record and notify Neufeld.
Neufeld challenged the chain of custody for fingernail materials sent from DOJ to Cellmark and objected to a board's zero-control notation for an inconclusive DQ-Alpha result.
Court's action: The court overruled the fingernail-scrapings foundation objection subject to a motion to strike and overruled the board objection as no harm, no foul.
Neufeld argued that population-substructure and frequency-range opinions required a population geneticist or biostatistician rather than a molecular biologist.
Court's action: The court overruled the qualification objection and recognized a standing objection to all frequency-range calculations.
Clarke argued that a hypothetical assuming contact between Bundy and Rockingham samples misstated the evidence; Neufeld cited simultaneous processing in the same room.
Court's action: The court overruled the objection to the cross-contamination hypothetical.
Counsel disputed whether reading and considering the NRC report supplied a foundation for cross-examination, or whether the expert had to rely on it in forming an opinion.
Court's action: The objection was sustained because California law requires a witness to have relied on the material in forming an opinion.
A sidebar conference regarding the Kardashian matter was held at the bench but was not reported by the court reporter. No transcript of the discussion exists.
The court limited proposed questioning about a scientific letter to whether the expert read and considered it in forming an opinion; counsel also discussed Dr. Cotton's availability.
Court's action: The court permitted only questions whether the witness had read the letter and considered it in forming her opinion, subject to further proceedings depending on the answer.
Counsel sought to place a "third person identity unknown" label on a DNA chart, and the court found it argumentative while also addressing direct remarks to jurors.
Court's action: The court barred the "third person identity unknown" label as argumentative and instructed counsel not to speak directly to jurors except to say good morning.
The court considered an objection to a DNA hypothetical concerning Fung and Mazzola, with the prosecution arguing that it assumed facts not in evidence and was misleading.
Court's action: The objection to the hypothetical question was sustained.
The court called counsel to the bench while an unidentified woman was doing something, but the conference was not reported and no discussion or action is stated.
The court limited Sims's testimony about evidence-board items to his own handling and packaging, excluding questions about later names and dates appearing on the packages.
Court's action: The court allowed Sims to identify packages and testify about what he had, packaged, and sent to LAPD, but barred questioning about whether he added other names and dates.
Judge Ito convened a sidebar to limit Harmon's examination of Gary Sims, ruling that going through all 61 DOJ items individually would be cumulative and time-consuming. The attorneys also addressed a procedural concern raised by Cochran about counsel whispering too close to the jury during bench conferences.
Court's action: The court declined a 61-item review, directed counsel to move to the opposite side of the jury when whispering, and set a 2:30 break.
The parties disputed whether Sims could address the compatibility of database systems after using the same restriction enzyme, rather than offer population-genetics opinions.
Court's action: The objection was overruled.
Counsel objected that questions about testing time constraints suggested disputed evidence-access issues; the court ruled timing and access matters irrelevant for the jury.
Court's action: The court ruled timing and access issues irrelevant and told the prosecutor not to revisit who had access to what evidence and when.
Scheck challenged the foundation for Sims to report D1S80 results, asserting Montgomery performed the testing; Harmon said Montgomery would testify, and Scheck sought a subject-to-connection jury instruction.
Court's action: Judge Ito overruled the foundation objection to D1S80 results subject to a motion to strike.
Scheck offered to permit introduction of the item 117 seven-probe RFLP match during the current testimony, but Harmon said he was unprepared and lacked the autorads.
Scheck objected that an undisclosed FBI worldwide population study was outside the disclosed databases and the witness's calculations; Harmon said he would ask only whether the witness knew it.
Court's action: Judge Ito overruled the objection so long as the question was limited to whether the witness was familiar with the FBI worldwide study.
Scheck preserved a relevancy and undue-confusion objection to questions about six probes duplicative of Cellmark probes, arguing their presentation overstated the samples' rarity.
Court's action: Judge Ito noted Scheck's objection for the record.
The court set limits on testimony using scientific articles, allowing reliance on literature while barring a question that could imply Dr. Blake approved the testing.
Court's action: The court barred the question whether this was the same Dr. Blake who observed the testing.
The parties disputed defense cross-examination slides as argumentative; Ito excluded slide 5-E's exploding graphic, and Sims confirmed he had PCR-strip photographs requested by the defense.
Court's action: Judge Ito sustained the objection to slide 5-E's exploding graphic and requested a substitute test-tube image for review.
The court sustained an objection to a hypothetical about separately processing known and unknown blood samples because the alleged police statement was not before the jury.
Court's action: The objection was sustained at that time.
Scheck sought projected total DNA amounts from swatch weights using an assumed random distribution, while Harmon raised reciprocal-discovery concerns and Ito found the assumption unsupported.
Court's action: Judge Ito sustained the foundational objection because the proposed DNA estimate assumed a random or uniform distribution on the swatches.
Scheck sought to question Sims about possible reversal of item 11 control and specimen swatches after differing presumptive-test results; Ito excluded the inquiry under Evidence Code 352.
Court's action: Judge Ito sustained the objection under Evidence Code 352, finding the proposed control-swab inquiry's probative value outweighed by the time needed to explain the testing.
At a sidebar conference, Cochran informed the judge that Simpson wished to waive his presence during the upcoming hearing on autopsy photographs. Simpson also requested that the courtroom feed be cut if the photographs were displayed. The court accepted the waiver without objection from the prosecution.
Court's action: Judge Ito accepted counsel's representation that Simpson waived his appearance for the autopsy-photograph hearing.
The defense proposed a DQ-Alpha genotype chart for stain 305; the prosecution challenged its completeness, and the court required foundation through Sims before its use.
Court's action: The court required a foundation through Sims before use of the DQ-Alpha genotype chart, declined further Bronco questioning, and set a noon May 26 recess with reconvening at 9 a.m. May 30.
The prosecution sought redirect on EAP and PGM evidence concerning stain 117's age, while the defense argued the inquiry exceeded cross-examination and lacked foundation through Sims.
Court's action: The court allowed the prosecution limited redirect on the age of stain 117 at the gate.
The defense objected that a slide used “Bundy trail” three times despite the court's prior ruling that the term was improper for the samples.
Court's action: The court said it would ask that the slide be relettered if possible.
The defense proposed questioning Yamauchi about one proficiency test with an unexpected allele; the prosecution objected that broad testing inquiry would be irrelevant and time-consuming.
Court's action: The court overruled the prosecution's objection after the defense limited its inquiry to one proficiency test.
The prosecution challenged computer-scanned photograph projections as altered from the original data, while the defense offered to provide the witness and jury with the originals.
Court's action: The court directed the prosecution to lay a foundation concerning the computer-scanned photographic material.
Counsel disputed whether a printout omitted visible data and distorted the original exhibit; the court observed a faint feature and anticipated a later Evidence Code 352 objection if offered.
The prosecution sought to address examiner bias through Yamauchi's awareness of media accounts, while the defense objected that the subject was irrelevant and inflammatory hearsay.
Court's action: The court overruled the objection but limited questioning to whether Yamauchi had heard the term “examiner bias.”
After the court raised striking an answer, the defense stated that doing so would open the door to the witness's entire statement, and the court acknowledged that consequence.
Court's action: The court acknowledged that striking the answer would open the door to the witness's entire statement and directed counsel to proceed.
Counsel disputed whether DQ-Alpha strips lacking a visible C dot could be shown to the jury, with the prosecution arguing the observed data remained meaningful.
Court's action: The court took the objection under submission, barred discussion of no-C-dot results that afternoon, and requested supporting testimony excerpts by 8:30 a.m. the next day.
The defense objected that questions about handling reference tubes and correct procedures suggested the answers on an important issue for the witness.
Court's action: The court found the challenged questions plainly leading.
The parties disputed whether item 31's laboratory-classified inconclusive result, described as a mixture with a visible C dot, could be presented to the jury.
Court's action: The court overruled the objection to presentation of item 31 data.
The defense sought to question the witness with LAPD validation-study records that it said showed two discrepancies between expected and reported typing results.
Court's action: The court found a foundational problem but permitted use of the documents if foundation could be laid through the witness's answers.
The defense said discovery records and analysis sheets showed discrepancies, while the court explained that the witness needed to consult his own notes before answering.
Court's action: The court instructed the witness to confirm the validation records over the weekend and said the parties would return to the claimed discrepancies.
The defense sought to display Fung's crime-scene notes concerning a hair removed from a glove, but the parties disputed hearsay, foundation, and admission.
Court's action: The court stated that Fung's notes could not be displayed because they had not been admitted into evidence.
The prosecution demanded defense material used for impeachment, while the defense maintained that the referenced document was not a discovery item and no report existed.
Court's action: The court held that material used for impeachment was discoverable and warned that witnesses would not testify if supporting reports did not exist.
The prosecution sought to describe phenolphthalein testing on a sock spot and demonstrate the test, but no written report documenting the results was available.
Court's action: The court sustained the objection to phenolphthalein testing under its prior ruling and barred results because no report from Matheson was available.
The defense challenged proposed stereomicroscope examination of the socks on redirect, while the prosecution argued it concerned Sims's prior sock examination and report.
Court's action: The court permitted Sims's redirect examination to proceed and directed Harmon to show the report to the court at the lunch break.
A brief sidebar about taking a break and planned photographs. Harmon says he is done, and the court says it will take one picture, reset, and then take another.
Court's action: The court directed that photographs be taken of the current display, then that it be reset for another photograph.
A brief bench conference was requested simultaneously by both Rockne Harmon (prosecution) and Barry Scheck (defense). The contents were not reported, so nothing is known about what was discussed.
The parties disputed whether questioning Matheson about communications concerning LAPD testing exceeded permissible testimony about visible sock markings and stain locations.
Court's action: The court limited questioning to whether Matheson knew of LAPD testing on the sock, where it occurred, and whether he could identify the location by looking at the sock.
The defense sought Golden's performance-review records and proposed jury instructions on sanctions and an air-tight alibi; the parties were directed to submit written points and authorities.
Court's action: The court directed defense counsel to prepare a subpoena for Golden's review records and ordered both sides to file their points and authorities by the following Friday.
Defense counsel Robert Shapiro requested a sidebar conference with the judge. The bench conference was held but not reported, so no content from the discussion is available.
The defense objected to displaying knives for classification testimony as prejudicial, while the prosecution described them as demonstrative examples unrelated to any alleged weapon.
Court's action: The court overruled the objection to displaying the knives and required the prosecution to make clear that the knives were for demonstrative purposes only and had no connection to the case.
Defense counsel Johnnie Cochran requested a bench conference, which Judge Ito granted. The content of the sidebar was not reported by the court reporter.
Cochran objected that courtroom artist Steve Werblen appeared to be drawing during the period, and Clark said she saw him looking down to draw and then looking up.
Court's action: The court directed sheriffs to have Steve Werblen remain after recess so the judge could review any drawing he had.
Brian Kelberg concluded his examination with 'Nothing further,' after which Judge Ito called for the jury to return and briefly convened an unreported bench conference with Cochran and Kelberg. The sidebar's content is unknown as it was not recorded by the court reporter.
A brief bench conference in which defense attorney Robert Shapiro objected to the prosecution's use of a newspaper photograph of a demonstration, arguing it was asked and answered. Judge Ito overruled the objection and allowed the examination to proceed.
Court's action: The objection was overruled, and the court directed counsel to proceed.
Shapiro objected to hypotheticals that treated assumed facts as established and challenged the rigatoni premise; Kelberg disputed both objections, and the court said the objection was on the record.
Court's action: The court stated that Shapiro had made his record and objection.
Shapiro challenged a hypothetical as unsupported and suggestive of Simpson's guilt; the court found support in the blood evidence and footprints but required removal of "rage" and "motivated."
Court's action: The court found sufficient record support for the hypothetical but ordered the terms "rage" and "motivated" omitted before the question was read back.
Counsel and the court discussed a juror who appeared distressed after leaving the box, concerns about juror concentration, and the board's placement; the court then ended the day.
Court's action: The court ended the day's session.
At Cochran's request, the court convened an unreported bench conference after calling for the jury; the discussion was not reported.
Cochran confirmed his client would waive appearance at the Kardashian hearing, while counsel discussed discovery and the hearing date for the targeting juror motion.
Judge Ito called counsel to the bench for an off-the-record sidebar conference before testimony resumed. The substance of the discussion was not reported by the court reporter.
Court's action: The court permitted Kelberg to come through the well.
Marcia Clark requested an off-the-record bench conference while the jury was being brought in. The conference was held but not transcribed by the court reporter.
Court's action: The court permitted counsel to approach without the reporter.
Counsel discussed when the prosecution would decide whether Dr. Weir would offer likelihood-ratio evidence, which could require a Section 402 hearing.
The court scheduled a 4:45 Thursday adjournment to allow Juror No. 1290 to attend a doctor’s appointment regarding her hip.
Court's action: The court directed that proceedings end at 4:45 Thursday so Juror No. 1290 could attend a hip-related medical appointment.
Judge Ito called counsel to sidebar with the court reporter. The actual sidebar discussion was transcribed and sealed under separate cover, so no content is available from this proceeding.
Court's action: The court directed counsel to meet at sidebar with the court reporter.
A bench conference was held but not reported by the court reporter. No transcript of the discussion exists.
The defense raised hearsay and foundation objections to chain-of-custody records, and the court treated the objection as continuing while evidence had not yet been offered.
Court's action: The court treated the chain-of-custody objection as continuing and stated that counsel could object after a foundation was laid if it was inadequate.
Judge Ito called counsel to an unreported sidebar conference. The brief exchange before the bench was not recorded by the court reporter, leaving the substance of the conference unknown.
Court's action: The court directed counsel to meet at sidebar without the reporter.
Judge Ito called Robert Shapiro and Brian Kelberg to the bench for a brief sidebar. The conference was not reported, so its substance is unknown.
The parties disputed foundation and timing for exemplar gloves proposed for a future try-on, and the court examined the gloves before sending the jury out for further questioning.
Court's action: The court overruled the foundation objection to similar extra-large exemplar gloves and directed the jury to leave for questioning outside its presence.
Defense counsel objected to a glove demonstration being filmed closely, requested latex gloves and further questioning, and raised concerns that the event would appear performative.
Court's action: The court declined to restrict camera coverage and said defense counsel could recross the witness after redirect.
The prosecution sought a glove expert's assessment of Simpson's hand size and glove fit after the demonstration, while defense counsel argued that the jury had already observed the relevant evidence.
Court's action: The court allowed questions about the effect of latex gloves and permitted the glove expert to approach Simpson to examine his hands.
The parties disputed whether the witness could identify the gloves' size after trying them on, with defense counsel characterizing a size opinion as speculation.
Court's action: The court sustained the objection to the witness's glove-size question and allowed the witness to try on the gloves.
The court addressed redirect examination concerning a post-court glove demonstration involving men with larger hands, limiting testimony after defense counsel objected to evidence gathered outside its presence.
Court's action: The court allowed inquiry into what occurred during the glove demonstration but barred testimony about its results.
Judge Ito called a sidebar to warn both sides that counsel were talking too loudly near the jury box, where jurors could overhear their conversations. There was also a brief exchange about a break so Cochran could review exhibits with his client, punctuated by a sarcastic quip from Marcia Clark.
Court's action: The court instructed counsel not to hold conversations near the jury box, said there would be no lunch break, and permitted defense counsel to show items to the client during a later break.
A brief bench conference was held off the record and not transcribed. Court then resumed in open session with the jury present, and Judge Ito directed FBI shoe print expert William Bodziak to retake the witness stand for cross-examination by F. Lee Bailey.
Counsel discussed scheduling the Weir and domestic-violence hearings, the remaining prosecution evidence, a possible glove hearing, and a potential sock witness for whom no discovery yet existed.
Court's action: Defense counsel was directed to decide by the following morning whether the Weir hearing could proceed on Wednesday.
A bench conference was held between the judge and counsel, but the content was not recorded by the court reporter. No information is available about what was discussed.
An open court conference was held but not reported by the court reporter. No transcript of the proceedings exists.
During a sidebar, Cochran objected to the prosecution using a Mr. Bell to demonstrate glove measurements, arguing his involvement was irrelevant. Judge Ito overruled the objection, suggesting Clark herself could be used as the demonstrator instead, which prompted a brief light exchange about glove sizes.
Court's action: The relevance objection was overruled, and a demonstration of measuring techniques was allowed.
The court rejected a Bell-hand comparison for lack of foundation, then sustained the defense objection after the prosecution proposed an alternate glove pair for the demonstration.
Court's action: The court found no foundation for a Bell-hand comparison and sustained the defense objection to using an alternate pair of gloves.
Defense counsel renewed an objection that pristine extra-large gloves were not substantially similar to the degraded Bundy glove; the court allowed a try-on using People's 401.
Court's action: The renewed objection was overruled; the court allowed the glove try-on using the court's pristine pair, People's 401.
The court identified a foundation problem with charts, fined both attorneys for baiting each other and violating its order, and sustained the objection.
Court's action: The court fined both attorneys $250 for baiting each other and sustained the objection because of a foundational problem with the charts.
Judge Ito called Peter Neufeld to the bench for a sidebar conference. The content of the conference was not reported by the court reporter.
A brief sidebar conference was held at the bench but was not reported by the court reporter, leaving no record of its content or participants. No transcript exists for this proceeding.
Counsel disputed cross-examination seeking frequency calculations for DNA-mixture contributors despite the witness's methodological disagreement and the prosecution's relevance objection.
Court's action: The court overruled the objection, limited questioning to two areas, and required counsel to allow the witness to state his disagreement.
Judge Ito held a sidebar to limit Neufeld's cross-examination use of the NRC (National Research Council) report on DNA statistics. Ito ruled that the report was only relevant to mixture calculations, not broader methodology debates, and sanctioned Neufeld $250 for speaking too loudly at the bench.
Court's action: The court limited cross-examination to mixture calculations, barred broader NRC-report debate under Evidence Code 352, and imposed a $250 sanction for counsel's loud voice.
Counsel argued that the witness had reviewed the letter and knew its signers, but the court noted that the letter itself was unsigned.
Court's action: The court sustained the objection to the unsigned letter on hearsay and Evidence Code 352 grounds.
The prosecution sought redirect testimony that court-ordered mixture-frequency calculations followed a defense request, and defense counsel asked to review the question's framing.
Court's action: The court permitted a leading redirect question that, after a hearing, the prosecution had been ordered to provide frequency calculations.
Counsel disputed whether redirect could address Rockingham and Bundy stains after cross-examination challenged DNA databases and frequency-calculation methods.
Court's action: The court allowed questioning on databases only and restricted redirect examination to that subject.
A very brief sidebar was held at the bench before the jury was brought in. Cochran requested to approach while waiting for jurors, and the conference was not reported by the court reporter.
Judge Ito called counsel to the sidebar, but the contents of the conference were transcribed and sealed under separate cover. The actual substance of the discussion is not available in this transcript.
A brief bench conference covering three administrative matters: Cochran paying a fine on behalf of attorney Neufeld, a discussion about whether a John Grisham novel a juror was reading warranted concern, and Judge Ito scolding both sides for letting courtroom doors swing open. No rulings of legal substance were made.
Court's action: Judge Ito allowed Cochran to pay Neufeld's money, permitted counsel to review the Grisham book overnight, and instructed both sides to grab the courtroom doors.
The defense objected to testimony concerning evidence taken to Cal Labs, arguing it would imply defense testing despite its chain-of-custody stipulation.
Court's action: Judge Ito overruled the objection and allowed testimony that the evidence was transported to Cal Labs, available for defense examination, observed during examination, then repackaged and returned; he directed that the question be leading.
Judge Ito said the prosecution had opened limited cross-examination on hair-comparison technique but that the questioning had gone on long enough because the witness had not made comparisons.
Court's action: Judge Ito directed counsel to wind up cross-examination on hair-comparison technique and reminded counsel that objections must be made while standing.
The defense reported that a Coroner's Office videotape had not been produced in discovery; the parties discussed obtaining it during the lunch recess, and Clark sought sealing of a personal comment.
Court's action: Judge Ito directed that the Coroner's office be called about the videotape and confirmed that Clark's personal sidebar comment had been sealed.
Cochran sought time to prepare a typed submission identifying additional passages in the Grisham novel that he said concerned physical violence, bruises, and threats.
Court's action: Judge Ito permitted Cochran to provide typed material about the Grisham book the next morning.
Bailey objected to the hair and fiber expert's use of "match," arguing that the applicable terminology was "consistent with" or "similar" rather than a definitive match.
Court's action: Judge Ito sustained the objection to use of the term "match" and instructed Clark to tell the witness not to use it.
Bailey questioned whether fiber photographs resembled material associated with the excluded Bronco carpet report, while the prosecution described them as instructional cross-section examples.
Court's action: Judge Ito allowed the photographs as examples of electron-microscope photography of synthetic fibers and deferred any further issue about them.
Cochran argued that domestic-violence passages in the Grisham novel created concern for jurors, while Darden argued that jurors could distinguish fiction from the trial evidence.
Court's action: Judge Ito ruled that the novel would be returned to the jurors, stating that jurors were obligated to decide the case from the facts and evidence presented in court.
After Clark said she had inadvertently used the prohibited term, Judge Ito warned that any further use of it would lead to someone spending the weekend in jail.
Court's action: Judge warned that another use of the prohibited word would result in someone being jailed over the weekend.
Judge Ito sustained an objection to a hypothetical question as inappropriate, then called counsel to an unreported bench conference. The substance of the sidebar is unknown as it was not transcribed.
Court's action: Objection sustained because the hypothetical question was not appropriate.
Judge Ito called a sidebar after noticing a juror react to something near the jury box. Bailey explained he had only asked co-counsel Morton to avoid blocking a juror, and Ito issued a general caution to all counsel about conduct near the jury box.
Court's action: Judge cautioned all counsel against comments near the jury box and specifically cautioned Bailey to be careful.
The court addressed the carpet-fiber expert's permissible testimony, allowing opinions from the initial microscopic comparison while counsel stated later inquiry findings would not be discussed.
Court's action: Judge permitted testimony about the initial microscopic examination, comparison with known carpet fibers, and the fibers' apparent unusualness and similarity.
Bailey challenged a question assuming dark blue clothing, citing testimony describing black or blue clothing like cotton; Judge Ito overruled but required wording tied to Kaelin's testimony.
Court's action: Objection overruled; Clark was instructed to rephrase the question in terms of Kaelin's testimony.
Clark objected to Bailey's use of hair-comparison materials without advance review. Judge Ito required exhibits intended for use to be shown to opposing counsel, but not necessarily the witness.
Court's action: Counsel must show demonstrative exhibits to opposing counsel before use, but need not show them to the witness; the court directed that copies be provided for review.
Defense counsel requested access to juror correspondence and information from deputies who read another letter. Judge Ito addressed obtaining the physical letter and investigating the other letter's contents.
Court's action: Judge said he would ask juror 1290 to give the physical letter to the sheriffs and that the sheriff's department was interviewing deputies about the other letter's contents.
Clark objected to undisclosed prior recorded testimony for impeachment. Judge Ito stated that the prosecution must receive a transcript if it is used to refresh the witness's recollection.
Court's action: If Bailey uses a transcript to refresh the witness's recollection, the prosecution is entitled to a copy.
The court overruled the prosecution's objection to a defense slide stating that no hair consistent with O.J. Simpson was found on the Rockingham glove.
Court's action: The objection to the slide was overruled.
The court addressed the prosecutor's question about whether hairs from the same individual would match in every way, finding a violation but no resulting harm in the stated context.
Court's action: The court found a violation in the prosecutor's hair-comparison terminology but deemed it no harm, no foul and cautioned the prosecutor to be careful.
The court declined a renewed instruction concerning a question about hair from Simpson's head, set return for 1:30, and deferred a prosecution discovery complaint.
Court's action: The court declined an additional curative instruction, finding its prior sustained objection and jury instructions sufficient, and set the return time for 1:30.
Judge Ito called a brief, unreported bench conference with Johnnie Cochran and Marcia Clark. The substance of the discussion is unknown as it was not recorded by the court reporter.
The defense sought a hearing on statements made while watching television, while the prosecution challenged their hearsay exceptions and the court indicated the offered foundation was inadequate.
Christopher Darden requested a brief bench conference off the record. The entire substance of the conference was not reported, leaving no content to analyze beyond the request itself.
Robert Shapiro requested to approach, the court agreed, and a bench conference was held but not reported.
The court found a good-faith basis for questions to Arnelle Simpson about a Hawaii trip with Paula Barbieri and the defendant, and referenced prior defense questioning.
Court's action: The court found a good-faith basis to question Arnelle Simpson about the Hawaii trip and confirmed it had overruled objections to Shapiro's questions on that subject.
Defense attorney Robert Shapiro requested a bench conference, Judge Ito granted it, and the sidebar was held off the record. No content from the conference was reported.
Counsel disputed whether the full displayed statement was admissible under Evidence Code 356 and as a prior consistent statement about dog barking.
Court's action: The court allowed use of the document except for its last three sentences and excluded the opinions addressed by counsel.
Defense sought to ask about the witness's claimed offense at questions concerning immigration status, arguing the treatment showed the prosecution's approach to witnesses.
Court's action: The court sustained the objection because the witness's reaction was hearsay and subject to Evidence Code 352.
Counsel disputed a proposed question based on a report describing an angry voice as sounding Black, with defense challenging both its premise and the lack of advance bench review.
Court's action: The court called a 15-minute recess and warned both counsel that repeated conduct could result in contempt.
Counsel disputed foundation for asking whether the witness said the second voice was O.J. and addressed possible testimony that the witness expected payment from the District Attorney's office.
Court's action: The court permitted inquiry into statements that the witness would make money from the District Attorney's office.
Defense sought to question the witness about Baret's possible bias, including her acquaintance with Ron Goldman and reported television interviews, while counsel also raised a tape-discovery issue.
Court's action: The court permitted non-leading inquiry into the witness's knowledge of Patricia Baret's possible bias and deferred the Tom Lang tape issue to 1:30.
The prosecution sought to impeach the witness with same-day phone statements about a second voice and a white Bronco; defense objected to the late disclosure and lack of investigation.
Court's action: The court required additional foundation connecting the witness to Anders and Kane, directed that their statements be marked as People's exhibits, and granted leave to recall the witness later.
The transcript reports an off-record discussion between the Deputy District Attorney and defense counsel; no discussion or court action is reported.
Marcia Clark requested a brief bench conference with Judge Ito, which was held off the record and not reported. The entire content of the sidebar is unknown.
Defense counsel sought to elicit Partridge's account of Simpson saying his ex-wife had died, that he loved her, and that he was in shock as state-of-mind evidence; the prosecution called it self-serving hearsay.
Court's action: The court sustained the hearsay objection to the proposed testimony about Simpson's statements to Partridge.
The defense challenged testimony identifying a call to Skip Taft as hearsay and lacking foundation; the court treated the identification as an admission.
Court's action: Allowed the call identification as an admission.
Counsel disputed whether questioning about the June 17 examination could address its location or surrounding circumstances, while agreeing on inquiry into the examination's adequacy.
Court's action: Limited the inquiry to length and held that the examination location was not relevant.
The defense objected to asking what a photograph showed during a July 17 examination, arguing prior limits barred examination details; the prosecution described a narrow inquiry.
Court's action: Overruled the objection to limited questioning about the photograph and instructed counsel to be quick.
The parties addressed an objection to comments on an exercise-video outtake, proposed contextual testimony about appearance and gait, and use of a doctor's declaration for a medical hearing.
Court's action: Found the offered Park and Merrill testimony adequate and directed the prosecution to file the doctor's declaration.
The defense challenged the length and scope of cross-examination of a medical expert and objected to the Juice Plus exercise video under section 352.
Court's action: Directed the prosecutor to wind up cross-examination and overruled the objection to the Juice Plus video.
Defense described proposed testimony about the defendant's last haircut and who was present, while prosecution challenged the relevance and completeness of the prior informal offer of proof.
Court's action: The court directed counsel to proceed with the examination.
The prosecution sought to ask whether family members treated their hair as a possible source of tinted, non-matching hairs found in a knit cap; the defense objected on scope.
Court's action: Allowed limited cross-examination on tinted hair.
The parties disputed whether cross-examination of the officer who handcuffed Simpson could address evidence known at Bundy and Rockingham to rebut a claimed rush to judgment.
Court's action: Recessed the jury for its mid-afternoon break while counsel continued the scope discussion.
Marcia Clark requested a sidebar before the defense called witness Meraz, clarifying her concern was not about familiarity with the witness's testimony. Judge Ito granted the sidebar with the court reporter present.
Court's action: The court granted a sidebar with the court reporter present.
The parties disputed whether Meraz's June 15 contact with the Bronco was relevant to blood evidence collected beginning June 14 and later evidence collection.
Court's action: The court overruled the prosecution's objection to Meraz's testimony.
Judge Ito addressed Miss Clark, Mr. Cochran, and Mr. Scheck before a bench conference that was not reported.
The parties disputed use of a later photograph of the Bronco's missing dome light cover while questioning a tow truck driver who had inspected the vehicle.
Court's action: The court permitted a yes-or-no inquiry whether the witness noted the dome light and barred use of the photograph with this witness.
The prosecution identified a witness's discussion with a Defense investigator about hiring attorneys as potential bias; defense counsel denied personally making any referral.
Court's action: The court directed the parties to move on after confirming that the witness's discussion with a Defense investigator about hiring attorneys was already in the record.
The parties disputed further questioning about an audio portion of a video exhibit, including whether a comment was unscripted, after the segment had already been played.
Court's action: The court ruled the witness's opinion about the video comment irrelevant.
The defense sought to question a witness about prior testimony placing collection of socks between 4:30 and 4:40 after the videographer had left.
Court's action: The court sustained the initial objection and limited questioning to whether the witness had seen the log, discussed Mazzola's testimony, or was aware of it.
The defense offered prior testimony on the socks collection timeline, then the parties disputed timing for Dr. Rieders' testimony in light of his medical appointment and travel.
Court's action: The court sustained the objection to the proposed socks-collection question as argumentative and directed the parties to provide Dr. Rieders' and Agent Martz's reports for noon review.
The court apologized to Cochran for its prior tone, pressed counsel to finish the photographer's limited testimony, and directed counsel to address upcoming witnesses and scheduling off the record.
Court's action: The court directed counsel to move the photographer's testimony along and take up witness scheduling off the record.
The court restricted questions about a call seeking permission to remain at Knotts Berry Farm and barred proposed testimony about officers' conduct during a June 28 search as tangential collateral impeachment.
Court's action: The court limited questioning about the Knotts Berry Farm call to the witness's purpose in calling and whether she stayed later, and sustained the objection to inquiry about the June 28 search as collateral impeachment under section 352.
The prosecution sought to question a witness about photographs changed in the house after the murders and before the jury view; the court found the proposed cross-examination beyond the current scope.
Court's action: The court sustained the scope objection to cross-examination about changes to photographs in the house, while stating the prosecution could recall the witness during rebuttal.
A brief bench conference was held off the record and not reported by the court reporter. No content from this sidebar is available in the transcript record.
The defense proposed using asserted inconsistencies between Fung's testimony, a collection timeline, and video timing; the court barred that phrasing but allowed questions about the witness's awareness of Fung's testimony or log.
Court's action: The court sustained the objection to asking the witness about Dennis Fung's testimony and collection timing as hearsay and argument, but permitted inquiry into whether the witness had seen Fung's testimony or log or knew its contents.
The court questioned whether a water-quality study could support expert testimony on EDTA photodegradation in dried stains, while the defense argued the point was the absence of testing for high-intensity light exposure.
Court's action: The court identified foundational concerns about using a Neckar River water study to support an expert opinion on EDTA photodegradation in dried blood and stated that those concerns could be addressed on cross-examination.
The court found insufficient scientific foundation to support expert opinions that EDTA in blood photodegrades based on a river-water study, while allowing limited inquiry about relevant literature.
Court's action: The court sustained the section 352 objection for insufficient foundation for opinions that EDTA in blood photodegrades, while allowing inquiry into whether the literature contained anything on the subject other than the discussed article.
The defense sought to use a 1954 study, an EPA document, and calculations concerning EDTA absorption and expected blood levels; the court excluded the proposed material on section 352 and discovery grounds.
Court's action: The court sustained the objection to the proposed 1954 EDTA study and related calculations on section 352 and discovery-violation grounds.
The judge warned Clark that additional commentary on testimony would bring severe sanctions and directed the proceedings to continue.
Court's action: Judge warned Clark that further commentary on testimony would result in severe sanctions.
A brief bench conference was held off the record and was not reported by the court reporter. No content from the discussion is available in the transcript.
The court arranged Dr. Rieders' return to complete testimony Friday and discussed the next day's witness order, MacDonell hearings, and the early adjournment.
Court's action: The court set Friday's session to begin at 8:30 a.m. and instructed Dr. Rieders to be present at 8:00 a.m.
The defense sought to use a letter describing Agent Martz's testing assignment, arguing it bore on what he did and why; the prosecutor objected on relevance.
Court's action: The court overruled the relevance objection to the letter to Agent Martz.
The parties disputed whether questioning could address a witness's ability to perform EDTA tests that had not been conducted, rather than only the tests performed.
Court's action: The court sustained the objection to further questioning of Dr. Ballard on his ability to perform tests and overruled it as to Dr. Rieders.
The defense proposed charts adjusting paint-sample ion counts to illustrate a hypothetical quantity variation; the prosecutor argued the charts misstated testimony and would mislead the jury.
Court's action: The court overruled objections to the defense charts comparing ion-count data from paint samples.
The defense sought to use photographs showing five- and ten-microliter blood drops to challenge visual estimates of blood quantity; the prosecutor cited differing substrates and purposes.
Court's action: The court sustained the objection to using photographs of blood drops to question whether blood quantity can be determined by appearance.
The court required neutral questions about testing opportunities, rejected questions implying a defense duty to test, and deferred a dispute over Martz' reported statement until recess.
Court's action: Judge directed the prosecution to rephrase questions neutrally about any scientist's opportunity, time, equipment, and skill to conduct testing, without suggesting that the defense had an obligation to test; he deferred discussion of Martz'
Peter Neufeld briefly addressed the court before an off-the-record discussion was held among defense counsel. No substantive content from the discussion is captured in the transcript.
Peter Neufeld requested a brief sidebar conference with Judge Ito, stating he had a matter to raise with the court. The sidebar was held at the bench but was not reported, leaving its substance unknown.
The court said "Sustained" before asking to see counsel at a sidebar without the court reporter. A conference was held at the bench and was not reported, so its substance is unavailable in the supplied transcript.
Court's action: Objection sustained; counsel directed to a sidebar without the court reporter.
Counsel disputed whether a witness could offer a blood drying-time opinion from general experience rather than the excluded June 6 experiment; the court would hear foundation but remained skeptical.
Court's action: Clark's objection was deemed premature; the court would hear the foundation and expressed skepticism that adequate foundation would be established.
The court found the witness insufficiently qualified to give opinions on sock drying experiments, dew point, or surface body temperature, and barred a drying-time estimate without further foundation.
Court's action: Without further foundation, the witness was not permitted to estimate drying time; the court also found no foundation for dew-point or surface-body-temperature testimony.
Counsel discussed potential use of prior-testimony transcripts and articles for impeachment; the court said transcripts would be provided if used, while no advance disposition of the articles was stated.
Court's action: The court said transcripts need be provided if they were going to be used.
The parties disputed whether an article and broader bloodstain issues exceeded the limited direct examination concerning a sock stain.
Court's action: Judge sustained the scope objection in part, permitting questions about blood on the particular sock stain and related expertise but barring broader explanations of how much blood may be found elsewhere.
Neufeld sought sanctions over Clark's reference to other cases and requested a copy of the material proposed for use with the witness.
Court's action: Judge took the sanctions request under submission until completion of the witness's testimony and ordered that proceedings not continue until Neufeld received a copy.
The prosecution explained that distilled water used during testing incidentally rehydrated an outside sock stain, which could be relevant to transfer onto the inner surface of the opposite side.
Court's action: The court called a 15-minute recess.
At a sidebar, Peter Neufeld said he had no objection to the photographs and offered to stipulate that they were taken in February, while seeking to avoid leaving the jury with a mistaken impression about whether an unnamed person was seen performing the referenced act. Marcia Clark agreed without issue.
The prosecution sought photo-based questioning about possible blood transfer; the court rejected that approach but allowed general transfer-mechanism questions and postponed a dispute over witness notes.
Court's action: The court declined photo-based questioning about possible transfer and allowed general questioning about how compression or swipe transfers occur; it deferred the dispute over the witness's notes.
The parties disputed use of Life magazine quotes to impeach a witness; the court excluded the anti-jury quote under Evidence Code 352 but allowed the quote concerning giving hope to the hopeless.
Court's action: The objection to the "Twelve naughty things" quote was sustained under Evidence Code 352, and the objection to the "Hopeless" quote was overruled.
The prosecution requested an admonition over defense speaking objections, while defense counsel sought guidance on whether objection grounds such as asked and answered could be stated.
Court's action: Counsel was permitted to state the legal grounds for an objection.
Defense sought to question the witness about presumptive blood testing of socks, arguing the prosecution's questioning opened the door; the court maintained its prior exclusion.
Court's action: The court sustained the objection and left its prior phenolphthalein ruling in effect.
Counsel addressed an answer referring to the excluded sock-drying experiment and disputed whether a proposed stain-timing opinion was newly disclosed.
Court's action: The court struck the witness's answer.
Defense argued that the prosecution's wet-blood hypothetical permitted expert testimony on drying time; the court maintained its prior rulings.
Court's action: The court left its prior rulings in effect.
Cochran requested a brief sidebar conference, Ito granted it, and the attorneys approached the bench. The substance of the conference was not recorded by the court reporter.
Court's action: The court permitted counsel to approach.
Judge Ito called counsel to the bench for an unreported sidebar conference. No transcript exists of what was discussed, as the court reporter was excluded.
Court's action: The court directed counsel to meet at the bench without the reporter.
Defense counsel held a brief private discussion off the record. No content from the exchange was captured in the transcript.
Defense counsel held an off-record discussion among themselves. The transcript provides no content from the exchange.
Defense counsel held a brief off-the-record discussion among themselves. No content from the exchange is available in the transcript.
A brief off-the-record discussion was held between defense counsel. No content from the exchange was captured in the transcript.
The transcript records only that a discussion took place off the record between defense counsel. No content from the exchange is captured in the record.
A brief off-the-record discussion was held between the deputy district attorneys. No content from the exchange was recorded in the transcript.
A brief sidebar conference was held at the bench between counsel and the judge, but the contents were not recorded by the court reporter. No information is available about what was discussed.
A brief bench conference was held at the request of Barry Scheck, following an off-record discussion between prosecution and defense counsel. The conference itself was not reported, leaving no substantive content on record.
The court sustained foundational objections to questions about the Rockingham glove, finding no specific testimony that the expert evaluated how that glove was handled.
Court's action: The court sustained the foundational objections because it had not heard testimony that the expert evaluated handling of the particular Rockingham glove.
The court allowed use of NRC report material over objection, but required removal of the entire sentence that included the reference to judges and juries.
Court's action: The objection was overruled, and Scheck was allowed to use the material only after removing the entire sentence rather than just the clause.
The court barred questioning about the chart's reference to ongoing RFLP testing until the parties argued whether the subject could be introduced.
Court's action: No questioning about the chart's RFLP-testing box was permitted until the parties had argued the issue; counsel were to stop before that box.
A brief off-the-record discussion was held between the Deputy District Attorneys. No transcript of the exchange exists, as it was not recorded.
A brief off-the-record discussion took place between Defense counsel. No content from the exchange is available in the transcript record.
A brief off-the-record sidebar discussion took place between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel. No transcript of the exchange exists, as it was explicitly held off the record.
A brief off-the-record discussion took place between the Deputy District Attorneys. No content from the exchange was captured in the transcript.
Judge Ito called a brief bench conference that was held off the record, without the court reporter present. No content from the conference was captured in the transcript.
Defense challenged impeachment concerning prior testimony on RFLP confirmation and independent testing; the court limited the issue to whether the witness had maintained the position recently.
Court's action: The court overruled the objection after finding sufficient foundation that the witness had maintained the position within the relevant period.
Defense proposed limiting Dr. Speed's testimony to scientists whose views he personally knew to avoid using a letter; the court addressed the permissible basis for that testimony.
Court's action: The court ruled that, in this context, personal conversations and nonpublished reports were not an adequate basis under Rule 801(B).
Defense objected when the prosecution produced a letter from Dr. Speed to Professor Weir during cross-examination after counsel said the letter had not been disclosed.
Court's action: The court directed defense counsel to read the witness's letter before examination continued.
Counsel disputed use of a sentence from Dr. Speed's letter, with the defense arguing its context concerned the ceiling principle and product rule rather than error-rate testimony.
Court's action: Judge Ito precluded Harmon from displaying the letter on the Elmo and restricted use of the quoted sentence to a comment on the report authors' eminence or non-eminence.
Cochran raised concern over the court telling Neufeld to sit down; Judge Ito said he was impatient with both sides over the time spent on a simple issue.
Court's action: Judge Ito instructed both counsel to sit down.
Judge Ito disclosed his wife's Internal Affairs command and suggested that another judge rule on the motion seeking Internal Affairs records under the subpoena.
Counsel discussed referring the Internal Affairs records subpoena matter to another judge and gave notice of possible motions and prospective witnesses.
Court's action: Judge Ito directed all counsel to return at 1:30 while he consulted the supervising judge about assigning the Internal Affairs records matter to another judge.
Cochran requested a brief sidebar, which Judge Ito granted. The conference itself was not reported by the court reporter, leaving its contents unknown.
Kelberg sought compliance with the prior order to provide intended-expert notes and unmarked exhibits for review; the ensuing bench conference was not reported.
Court's action: Judge Ito directed Kelberg to call Shapiro's office at recess and stated the court could take up compliance at one o'clock if necessary.
A bench conference was held but not recorded by the court reporter. No content from this sidebar is available.
The parties disputed use of a letter offered to show Dr. Baden's cooperation with police and address impeachment concerning the expense of his work in the case.
Court's action: The court sustained the objection to use of the letter because it referenced polygraph, but permitted questions about the witness's willingness to cooperate with Dr. Lakshmanan; the letter could not be used before the jury.
The defense objected to questioning Baden about his June 17 examination, arguing the rushed circumstances required context; the prosecution relied on direct examination having addressed it.
Court's action: Judge Ito allowed Kelberg to use the question that Baden was with O.J. on June 17 and overruled the defense objection as within the scope of direct examination and a prior inconsistent statement.
Shapiro withdrew an objection, and Kelberg clarified that his question concerned a question asked on the 17th rather than a statement to police.
Court's action: Judge Ito instructed Kelberg to phrase the question carefully.
Counsel disputed whether textbook photographs of defensive wounds could illustrate the presence or absence of such wounds on the two victims during cross-examination.
Court's action: Judge Ito allowed use of the defensive-wound photographs, limited to three questions per photograph, and overruled the objection.
Judge Ito called counsel to an unreported bench conference. The content of the discussion is unknown as no court reporter was present. The proceeding immediately returned to open court.
Marcia Clark approaches the bench to raise a potential conflict of interest for Judge Ito in handling the Fuhrman tapes matter, having reviewed the transcripts and tapes herself. Before she can elaborate publicly, both Clark and Cochran agree to move the discussion into chambers to keep it off the record.
Court's action: Judge Ito agreed to move the discussion to chambers.
Blasier challenged questioning about the Sconce case and a memo, while Clark argued it bore on Rieders' truthfulness and competence as an expert.
Court's action: Judge Ito allowed the Sconce questioning to continue but limited the memo to refreshing Rieders' recollection; if it did not refresh his recollection, the inquiry would end.
Clark sought to use dismissal of the Sconce case to impeach Rieders, while Blasier argued that a charging decision could rest on factors beyond the witness's conduct.
Court's action: Judge Ito sustained the objection, finding it highly speculative to connect Rieders' conduct to dismissal of the Sconce case.
Clark alleged that the court's tone, rulings, and comments undermined the People's cross-examination of Rieders; Ito said the relevant Sconce inquiry had already been established.
Court's action: Judge Ito noted Clark's objection and found it not well taken.
Cochran opposed court involvement in a private dispute over tape access, while the clerk reported that Schwartz was inclined to permit viewing but not copying pending client approval.
Court's action: Judge Ito clarified that he had not ordered tape production, recommended that Butler follow up with Schwartz, and said she need not remain in court.
The prosecution sought to question Dr. Rieders about samples sent to Dr. Ballard, citing chain of custody and unperformed testing, and the defense objected as beyond the direct examination.
Court's action: The court sustained the defense objection because the proposed questioning was beyond the scope.
Counsel discussed a videotape and reports concerning the transfer of autopsy tissue samples from Dr. Finkle to Dr. Henion, including the defense request to view the video first.
The parties disputed proposed impeachment of Dr. Rieders concerning whether Dr. Henion tested 1985 autopsy samples, using a videotape, billing record, and a second report.
Court's action: The court sustained the videotape objection, allowed use of the bill to refresh recollection, and permitted inquiry whether Dr. Rieders had seen the other report.
The defense sought to use Matheson's handwritten notes to refresh a witness's recollection, while the prosecution challenged the notes' authorship and relevance to meetings.
Court's action: The court overruled the objection and instructed counsel to highlight the relevant excerpts.
An off-the-record discussion was held between defense counsel. No content from the discussion is available in the transcript record.
Counsel discussed use of item 14 from a handout given to criminalists, including foundation and authentication concerns before the prosecution withdrew its objection.
Court's action: The court required a foundation and limited questioning to item 14.
The defense objected to calling uncorroborated stains blood, and the parties agreed the witness would instead use terms such as red stains or substances.
Court's action: The court allowed the witness to describe the material as red stains or substances rather than blood.
The prosecution objected to latent-print lifts from the white Ferrari because the prints could not be dated or identified and there was no indication the murderer entered the garage.
Court's action: Objection overruled.
Judge Ito called counsel to an unreported sidebar conference. No testimony or argument was recorded, as the court reporter was explicitly excluded.
Judge Ito called counsel to a brief sidebar conference that was not recorded by the court reporter. No content from the discussion is available in the transcript.
Defense sought to present evidence-falsification testimony; after confirming there were no falsified fingerprints in the case, the court left its prior ruling in place.
Court's action: The prior ruling excluding the proposed falsification testimony remained in effect.
The prosecutor challenged the chronology chart as untimely disclosed and inaccurate; defense described its times as approximate and intended to show processing delays.
Court's action: Defense may not use the chart until the prosecutor has had an opportunity to check the times.
The court addressed questioning about whether Bronco blood spots could be seen with the door open or closed, finding the issue relevant to Detective Fuhrman's credibility but requiring a direct question.
Court's action: The court directed defense counsel to ask directly whether the investigator saw the blood spots with the Bronco door open and closed.
The prosecution sought to question the defense criminalist about photographs showing his Bronco examination without gloves, a hairnet, or a lab coat; the defense argued the inquiry exceeded direct examination.
Court's action: The court found the proposed inquiry beyond the scope of direct examination.
The prosecution sought to address protective clothing and PCR sensitivity after defense questioning, including whether the Bronco console remained available for PCR collection when photographs were taken.
Court's action: The court overruled the objection and allowed five minutes for the proposed examination.
A bench conference was held but not reported by the court reporter. No content is available from this proceeding.
A bench conference was held but not reported by the court reporter. No transcript of the discussion exists.
Counsel disputed the basis for a question about a statement that O.J. seemed upset and depressed; the court noted that using the statement would create a section 356 issue.
Defense objected to questioning Reichardt about a report that he said others got what they deserved, while the prosecutor asserted a good-faith basis for the question.
Court's action: The court sustained the 352 objection to questioning Reichardt about the report, but stated that inquiry into a financial interest was proper.
Counsel identified Howard Weitzman as the next witness and noted he needed to leave by lunchtime; the prosecution raised a section 352 objection and requested an off-record discussion.
Defense counsel reported that subpoenaed witness Mr. Al'n had not brought a tape-recorded interview with Kato Kaelin and sought an order requiring its production.
Court's action: The court directed defense counsel to prepare and serve a written order requiring Mr. Al'n to bring the tape to court, and stated it would sign the order.
The court admitted a blow-up of the Chicago hotel washcloth photograph over a claim that enlargement altered its colors and made apparent blood more prominent.
Court's action: The court overruled the objection to Defense Exhibit 1331-A, finding the blow-up was not a misrepresentation and could be used for illustrative purposes alongside the original photograph.
The court obtained Dr. Lee's July report for overnight review of a discovery issue and discussed when the pending Menzione issue might be argued.
Court's action: The court directed counsel to provide Dr. Lee's July report before leaving for the day.
The parties disputed how an evidence item had been handled, and defense counsel sought to avoid attorneys becoming witnesses on the issue.
Court's action: The court declined to take judicial notice of disputed evidence handling and stated that Dr. Lee could explain what occurred, without requiring attorney testimony.
A brief sidebar conference was held at the bench regarding scheduling. The proceedings were not reported by the court reporter, leaving no transcript of what was discussed.
Counsel discussed exchanging original photographs, deferring proposed thread removal from evidence items, and arranging upcoming defense witnesses.
Court's action: The court took a break and deferred cutting threads from evidence items until Monday or Dr. Lee's return.
The prosecution said it planned brief questioning of Dr. Lee about the Crafts case using DNA and conventional serology, and defense counsel requested specifics.
Court's action: The court instructed counsel to proceed after discussion of the prosecution's proposed brief questioning of Dr. Lee about the Crafts case.
Defense counsel sought to preview a video of a police officer walking up a path before deciding whether to raise a relevancy objection.
Court's action: The court directed that the proposed video be shown to defense counsel on the counsel-table monitor before it was presented to the jury.
The court considered proposed impeachment of an expert with a blood-spatter hypothetical from the Hoeplinger case and found it insufficiently relevant to this case.
Court's action: Objection sustained to impeachment using the Hoeplinger hypothetical.
The defense challenged magnet-mounted enlargements of previously disclosed Bronco photographs, while the prosecution said they would illustrate stain comparisons.
Court's action: Objection overruled; the enlarged photographs could be used.
Outside the jury's presence, defense exhibit 1368 was played for the prosecutor, who raised a foundation issue concerning the recording's date.
Court's action: The court directed counsel to ask a foundational question about the tape's date.
The defense proposed questioning about references to cover-ups in the Fuhrman tapes, while the prosecution said the witness had volunteered the subject during cross-examination.
The defense sought additional tape excerpts on Men Against Women and cover-ups after McKinny's answer, and the court deferred review until after redirect.
Court's action: The court directed counsel to finish redirect, locate the excerpt over lunch, and permitted a possible recall of McKinny if the excerpt was appropriate and she remained available.
The defense proposed limited testimony that Fuhrman used a racial epithet during Hodge's 1987 arrest, and the prosecution argued it exceeded prior limits.
Court's action: The court allowed the examination of Hodge to proceed.
The prosecution sought to establish the incident date and question Hodge about an IAD complaint that did not mention the alleged racial epithet.
Court's action: The court directed the prosecution to limit cross-examination to whether Hodge made a complaint about the particular arrest and to identify the complaint.
The defense sought redirect concerning Hodge's complaint allegations, including discourtesy, excessive force, and improper tactics, after questioning about his report.
Court's action: Redirect was permitted only on Hodge's allegation of discourtesy, not on excessive force or improper tactics.
Judge Ito concluded a witness examination, had a document returned to Mr. Darden, and then called counsel to an unreported sidebar conference. The substance of the sidebar is unknown as it was held off the record without a court reporter.
Defense sought time to brief a remedy after Fuhrman invoked the Fifth Amendment and asked that he remain available while the issue was resolved.
Court's action: Counsel may brief the proposed remedy by the following day; Fuhrman must remain on call through that day, then may travel subject to 72 hours' recall notice.
The parties disputed whether a videotape was sufficiently authenticated and noncumulative of photographs, with the prosecution asserting it showed hand movement and greater detail.
Court's action: The jury will be excused so the court can preview the videotape if the prosecution cannot establish the stated foundation.
Judge Ito held a brief sidebar to ask defense counsel Johnnie Cochran whether court staff should assemble materials for a writ, as it had offered to the prosecution. Cochran confirmed that the defense wanted assistance, and Ito directed him to submit a materials list to Mrs. Robertson.
Court's action: Defense counsel must submit to Mrs. Robertson a list of materials for court staff to prepare.
Defense objected that testimony about black gloves was cumulative and minimally probative; the prosecution also provided a same-day reinterview report concerning photography lighting.
Court's action: The objection is overruled; the witness may proceed, and the examination should be brief.
A brief off-record discussion was held among Defense counsel with no transcript of the content. Nothing was captured on the record.
Defense said it lacked a newly received video needed for cross-examination, while the prosecution described difficulties obtaining the NBC tape and its authentication witness.
Court's action: The parties must conclude Miss Guidera's testimony.
Judge Ito called counsel to the sidebar for an off-the-record bench conference. The exchange was not recorded by the court reporter, so no content is available.
Counsel discussed whether the prosecution's review of the Indianapolis Colts videotape might require recalling Rubin for foundational testimony.
Court's action: The court released Rubin for the day while leaving both sides free to recall him if the Indianapolis Colts videotape warranted it.
Scheck sought to question Sims as a defense witness about a July 17 sock examination, while the prosecution invoked notice requirements and Sims's anticipated return.
Court's action: The court sustained the People's objection to making Sims a defense witness at that time.
The court addressed the limited-purpose instruction for an edited videotape of Peratis and rejected use of his taped statements as substantive evidence.
Court's action: The court limited the videotape to showing Peratis's unavailability and court-directed editing, and sustained the objection to offering his taped statements for their truth.
Neufeld said the defense had not seen a witness report and requested time to review it before continuing cross-examination.
Court's action: The court granted a brief recess to locate the report before Neufeld resumed cross-examination.
Witness Stephen Oppler asks whether he will be required to return, Judge Ito confirms he will, then immediately calls counsel to an unreported sidebar conference. The substance of the bench conference is unknown as the court reporter was excluded.
Court's action: The court confirmed that Oppler remained subject to recall.
A brief bench conference about the remaining portion of a videotape. Clark argues the full tape should be played to show there was minimal time between segments, undercutting any claim of witness coaching. Ito is satisfied and allows the proceedings to continue.
Court's action: The court permitted the parties to proceed after counsel addressed playing the remaining videotape segment.
Judge Ito paused a videotape being played in court and called counsel to an unreported sidebar conference. Before going off the record, he noted the tape counter positions (350-351) for the record.
Court's action: The court paused the videotape and recorded counter positions 350 and 351.
Clark proposed asking Deedrick whether fabric damage on the shirt and jeans indicated weapon type, and Scheck challenged the question as beyond rebuttal.
Court's action: The court directed Clark to ask Deedrick about the proposed fabric-damage question during the break.
Defense counsel challenged the characterization of Dr. Lee's testimony about a wavy bloody tile imprint; the court overruled the objection and refused to extend the day because of jurors' appointments.
Court's action: The court overruled the objection to the characterization of Dr. Lee's testimony and declined to extend the session, requiring adjournment at 12:00 because jurors had scheduled activities.
The court released the jury for the weekend with standard admonitions and comments on its attention to exhibits, then granted the prosecutor's request to approach; no bench discussion is reported.
Court's action: The court granted the prosecutor's request to approach.
A brief sidebar conference was held at the bench, but the contents were not reported by the court reporter. No substantive transcript exists for this proceeding.
Counsel disputed whether Bodziak could address how jeans test impressions were made and whether rolling stretched the fabric; the court directed questioning to whether he compared the impressions.
Court's action: The court directed counsel to ask whether Bodziak compared the impressions.
Defense counsel sought to discuss the four-hour drying period in a glove-shrinkage experiment, but the court limited testimony to whether blood smearing can cause this type of shrinkage.
Court's action: The court allowed testimony on whether blood smearing can cause glove shrinkage but excluded drying time.
The prosecution objected that the witness lacked meteorological expertise to address dew point and humidity at a Brentwood location; the court overruled the objection.
Court's action: The court overruled the objection to testimony concerning dew point and relative humidity.
Defense counsel proposed rebuttal testimony that light and heavy bloodstains undergo the same color-change process; over the prosecution's qualification and relevance objections, the court allowed it.
Court's action: The court overruled the objection to proposed rebuttal testimony concerning the chemical process of blood color changes.
The court told the prosecutor to avoid code-of-silence and police-conspiracy topics and proceed to the relevant statement, then denied the defense request to introduce Larry Ragle statements.
Court's action: The court instructed the prosecutor to avoid code-of-silence and police-conspiracy topics and denied the defense request to introduce Larry Ragle statements.
The court considered a cumulative-evidence objection to Craig Fiato and permitted narrowly focused testimony about a statement by Detective Vannatter and Fiato's later media report.
Court's action: The objection was overruled, and Craig Fiato's testimony was limited to Detective Vannatter's statement, its circumstances, and his later report of the information to news media.
The court limited rehabilitation questioning of Detective Vannatter in the Belushi case to the timing of family notification, rejecting questions about the Coroner and crime-scene procedures.
Court's action: Cross-examination was limited to the timing of family notification in the Belushi case; questioning about the Coroner and crime scene was barred.
The court ended debate over police knowledge of the victim's identity and restricted the inquiry to whether Detective Vannatter had been ordered to make notification.
Court's action: Questioning was limited to whether Detective Vannatter had an order to make notification.
Judge Ito called counsel to the bench for an unreported sidebar conference related to a PC 1538.5 motion (a motion to suppress evidence). The discussion was not recorded by the court reporter, so no details of the exchange are available.
Counsel identified possible issues in instructions 1.03 and 2.13, discussed scheduling, and requested the final jury-instruction packet; the court addressed the scheduling and copying requests.
Court's action: The court said it would provide the scheduling information by Monday and have the final jury-instruction packet photocopied when completed.
Cochran requested a brief sidebar conference, which Judge Ito granted. The substance of the discussion was not reported by the court reporter. Darden was called over to participate.
Court's action: The court granted Cochran's request to approach with Darden.
Cochran challenged arrows in the prosecution's visual display as inconsistent with testimony about a person's location, and the court directed that the display assistant be admonished.
Court's action: The court directed Clark to admonish Mr. Fairtlough regarding the display, and Clark said she would tell him to wait for her.
The court raised a television camera's close-up of Simpson's notes as a violation, discussed possible termination or a fine, and Simpson agreed to cover his notes.
The court told Clark that comments on the defendant's courtroom conduct were inappropriate because he was not testifying; Clark said she would not return to the subject.
Court's action: The court instructed Clark to avoid commenting on the non-testifying defendant's courtroom conduct and to move on.
Judge Ito called counsel to the bench for an unreported conference immediately following Mr. Darden's remarks. The sidebar was held off the record with no court reporter present, so its contents are unknown.
Court's action: The court directed counsel to a sidebar without the court reporter.
Cochran requested a brief sidebar, which Ito granted. The conference was not reported by the court reporter, so its contents are unknown.
Court's action: The court granted Cochran's request to approach.
A bench conference was called by Judge Ito summoning Mr. Cochran and Miss Clark, but the contents of the sidebar were not reported. No substantive content is available from this proceeding.
Clark challenged Scheck's use of “We also believe” in closing argument; Scheck disputed the wording, and the court stated it had cautioned him.
Court's action: The court cautioned Scheck concerning the phrase “We also believe.”
Judge Ito called counsel to an unreported sidebar conference immediately after thanking Johnnie Cochran. The conference was not recorded by the court reporter, so its contents are unknown.
Court's action: The court directed counsel to a sidebar without the court reporter.
Counsel disputed whether the record supported argument about blood-related testing near the Rockingham air conditioner; the court deferred the point pending review of the full record.
Court's action: The court directed counsel to skip the point while it pulled the full record.
Counsel disputed whether testimony supported an inference that a rear-gate EAP result degraded from BA to B; the court overruled the objection after reviewing the cited record.
Court's action: The court overruled the objection and permitted the prosecution to read the cited testimony to the jury.
Defense counsel challenged prosecution closing arguments about item 42, PCR testing, blood-search testimony, and requested police DNA exemplars as unsupported or misleading.
Court's action: The court declined to review disputed closing-argument testimony item by item and reiterated that counsel argue at their peril if the jury recalls facts differently.
The court reviewed concluding instructions, while defense counsel objected to a closing demonstration concerning Agent Bodziak and sought an admonition about overruled objections.
Court's action: The court removed the proposed "the world is watching" instruction, overruled the Bodziak objection, and declined a further closing-argument admonition.
Cochran requested a brief bench conference at the close of proceedings. The conference was not reported by the court reporter, so its contents are unknown.
The parties disputed whether plaintiff's opening could address anticipated defense positions concerning the length of the struggle and alleged conspiracy theories.
Court's action: The court barred plaintiff's counsel from stating Baker's anticipated defense in opening and directed counsel to state the evidence he would offer, reserving argument for closing.
Plaintiff's counsel objected to defense use of a Bundy diagram before plaintiffs introduced it, arguing that the chart required explanation by a plaintiff witness.
Court's action: The court allowed Baker to use the Bundy diagram in opening.
A brief bench sidebar about whether Baker would finish his examination that day. Baker confirmed he would finish, and Petrocelli noted he had released his witnesses based on that expectation.
The parties disputed whether testimony about police handling of other-suspect information was permissible after the court's order concerning alternative-killer theories.
Court's action: The court permitted a narrow inquiry that police focused on Simpson, while barring use of that inquiry to introduce drug-lord or other collateral theories.
Plaintiff's counsel objected that testimony officers did not see blood on the Bronco was an indirect planting argument barred by a prior court order.
Court's action: The court permitted officers to testify that they did not see blood but prohibited arguing that their observations established planting.
The court discussed a letter supporting alternate juror 205's extended college leave and jurors' concerns about returning to work during dark days and facing workplace questions.
Defense counsel sought to question the witness about efforts to reach O.J. Simpson and the timing of a case transfer as bearing on credibility and Fuhrman's arrival at the scene.
Court's action: The relevance objection to the proposed cross-examination was sustained.
Defense counsel sought latitude to examine witnesses about Fuhrman's whereabouts and access to the condominium in support of a theory that a glove could have been moved from there.
Court's action: The objection to the proposed questioning was sustained.
Defense counsel requested exclusion of Officers Thompson and Phillips so they would not hear other testimony; plaintiffs' counsel stated they did not need to be inside.
Court's action: Officers Thompson and Phillips were directed to remain outside the courtroom.
Defense counsel said his questioning provided foundation for witness bias because the witness supervised Fuhrman and might have an interest in denying Fuhrman's involvement in planting evidence.
Defense counsel argued questioning about blood and a ransacked residence created a misleading impression that police collected all important evidence, including a Levis jacket allegedly associated with Fuhrman.
Court's action: The court adhered to its prior ruling, stated jacket evidence could be offered in the defense case if supported by a witness, and said it would consider whether the door had opened if Medvene persisted in that presentation.
Counsel disputed the foundation for testimony that keys found in O.J. Simpson's bag opened a lock made from a key associated with Nicole Brown's condominium.
Court's action: The court required locksmith testimony before admitting the key-fitting evidence and allowed a question whether Detective Lange gave a key to a locksmith.
Defense counsel sought to cross-examine a co-detective about O.J. Simpson's recorded Parker Center statement, invoking the witness's expert designation and role in the investigation.
Court's action: The defense was precluded from cross-examining the witness about the tapes because that subject was not covered on direct examination.
The court rejected plaintiffs' effort to limit cross-examination to specific blood evidence, holding that testimony about blood permits reasonable inquiry into related matters.
Court's action: The court allowed reasonable latitude in cross-examination concerning blood, including ancillary effects on the length-of-struggle issue.
A juror sent a note confused by the term 'transfer evidence' used during testimony. The judge flagged it at sidebar, Baker suggested the correct term is 'trace evidence,' and Petrocelli clarified the witness had actually used the word 'transfer.'
Court's action: The court directed counsel to clarify the term “transfer evidence” for the confused juror.
Defense argued that the witness had been treated as an expert on blood trailing and candle burning, but that the pending question required expertise outside those subjects.
Court's action: The court sustained the objection, finding that the pending question about drop-kicking a hat was outside the witness's area of expertise.
The court reconsidered the basis for admitting Exhibit 216 after counsel identified it as a summary of voluminous records rather than a business record.
Court's action: The court set aside its prior business-record ruling and received Exhibit 216 under Evidence Code section 1509.
The court resolved objections to prior criminal-trial testimony, admitted three glove photographs, limited irrelevant questioning about their sale, and found Stewart West was not unavailable.
Court's action: The court overruled the objection to the prior criminal-trial testimony, admitted Exhibits 655 through 657, limited questioning about sale of the photographs as irrelevant, and sustained the objection to prior testimony from Stewart West.
The court held that plaintiffs' effort to connect Simpson to the gloves made fit a proper cross-examination subject and permitted physical depictions of him trying them on.
Court's action: The court allowed cross-examination on glove fit and physical depictions of Simpson trying on the gloves; if Simpson tried them on, he had to do so without latex gloves.
Defense asserted that a stipulation confined the expert's testimony to criminal-trial subjects; plaintiffs responded that the glove style number appeared repeatedly in that prior testimony.
The judge called counsel to sidebar, but the proceedings were held off the record without a court reporter present. No substantive content was captured.
Defense objected to plaintiff's request to read cross-examination portions omitted from the selective deposition reading, arguing redirect had already passed.
Court's action: Allowed plaintiff's counsel to read omitted portions of the deposition cross-examination.
Defense attorney Dan Leonard objected to testimony on hearsay grounds during a sidebar conference. Petrocelli argued the statement qualified as an admission, and Judge Fujisaki overruled the objection. Leonard's closing remark was notably sarcastic.
Court's action: Overruled the hearsay objection to the deposition excerpt.
Counsel disputed proposed deposition passages about the room's condition; the court identified the account of what Phillips and another person said as double hearsay.
Court's action: The court stated that testimony relaying what Phillips was told about the room was double hearsay.
Defense challenged use of an expert's book and photographs on direct examination, while plaintiff's counsel could not confirm whether the witness took the photograph offered for comparison.
Court's action: The court ordered a ten-minute recess and instructed jurors not to discuss the case or form or express opinions.
Plaintiff's counsel argued cross-examination opened the door to Dr. Spitz's conversations with Dr. Golden, but the court limited questioning to the autopsy report and its order.
Court's action: The court barred the witness from rehabilitating his opinion with conversations with Dr. Golden that occurred after the deposition.
Plaintiff's counsel sought to present Bronco-registration and carpet-fiber probability figures; the court found the numerical presentation more prejudicial than probative.
Court's action: Sustained the objection under Evidence Code 352 to the proposed carpet-fiber numbers and statistical presentation.
Plaintiff objected that extended questioning about RFLP matches was irrelevant after admissions of the results, while defense said it addressed what a match does and does not mean.
Court's action: Permitted ten more minutes of cross-examination about the meaning of an RFLP match.
Defense sought juror 15's removal based on repeated sleeping, while plaintiff opposed dismissal and requested that the court first determine what testimony the juror had missed.
Court's action: The court said it would continue to monitor juror 15 and reconsider if she appeared to be attempting to sleep.
Counsel disputed questioning about the defense's available testing and whether the jury could draw an inference from evidence the defense did not present.
Court's action: The court overruled the objection to questioning about available testing.
The court overruled an objection to Mr. Sims's C.V., received Exhibits 2186 and 319 in evidence, and then permitted an unreported bench conference.
Court's action: The court overruled the objection to Exhibit 2186 and received Exhibits 2186 and 319 in evidence.
After jurors resumed their seats, the judge called counsel to an unreported bench conference; no substantive discussion or ruling was reported.
Court's action: The judge called counsel to the bench without the reporter.
The court barred examination of a DNA analyst's proficiency-test performance as cumulative while permitting inquiry and argument concerning the analyst's inconclusive results.
Court's action: The court barred examination about the analyst's proficiency but permitted questioning and argument about inconclusive results.
The court barred cross-examination references to the Christopher Commission but allowed inquiry into alleged threats the officer made to Mr. Simpson.
Court's action: The court sustained the objection to references to the Christopher Commission and permitted inquiry about threats the officer allegedly made.
The court overruled an objection to evidence about an alleged 1984 or 1985 incident involving a baseball bat and a car windshield.
Court's action: The court overruled the objection to evidence concerning the 1984 or 1985 windshield incident.
Petrocelli asked the judge to excuse a waiting witness. The judge called counsel to the bench for a brief, unreported conference.
Court's action: The judge called counsel to the bench.
The court allowed examination despite ambiguity over whether the transcript reference concerned Exhibit 1456 or Exhibit 139 and left the exhibit identification to the jury.
Court's action: The court permitted examination concerning the ambiguous transcript exhibit and directed the jury to decide which exhibit was referenced.
Counsel disputed whether Park's earlier interview could rehabilitate his testimony about Simpson's location, clothing, and a bag after impeachment.
Court's action: The court permitted counsel to read the prior interview for rehabilitation but declined to admit the document without foundation.
Baker objected to testimony suggesting a sole impression in the Bronco carpet, citing Bodziak's earlier inability to determine whether one was present.
Court's action: The court allowed the challenged testimony and stated that Baker could impeach the witness.
Baker objected to use of Walker's notes and deposition because she had been retained to rebut experts who would not testify; Petrocelli asserted the deposition could be used for impeachment.
Court's action: The objection was overruled.
Baker challenged diary entries for lack of a prior hearing, hearsay, and authenticity; Petrocelli argued they were relevant to Nicole's state of mind and the relationship.
Court's action: The court overruled the hearsay and hearing objections, finding the diary relevant.
Baker sought to exclude the May 2 and June 3 diary entries as double hearsay, untrustworthy, and prejudicial; Petrocelli argued they were admissions relevant to state of mind.
Court's action: The court found Evidence Code section 1370 constitutional and allowed the documents to show the decedent's state of mind regarding the relationship.
Petrocelli sought to question Simpson about a polygraph after testimony and opening-statement remarks; Baker denied that Simpson took or failed a test and asserted privilege.
Court's action: The court stood on its ruling and overruled the objection.
The court limited co-counsel's examination to specified unaddressed subjects and rejected repetitive or argumentative questioning after Petrocelli's examination.
Court's action: The court allowed examination on the Chicago flight, Barbieri, suicide-note statements, and the 1989 incident from Michelle's room; it barred the proposed witness-list and additional Bronco questioning.
Defense attorney Robert Baker objected to India Allen's anticipated testimony about a 1980 incident where she allegedly witnessed OJ Simpson make physical contact with Nicole, arguing the evidence was too remote in time. Judge Fujisaki overruled the objection.
Court's action: The objection based on remoteness was overruled.
A brief sidebar in which attorney John Kelly objected to Robert Baker's attempt to use testimony from a sealed custody proceeding to impeach a witness. Petrocelli joined the objection on fairness grounds, noting he had no access to the sealed materials. Judge Fujisaki sustained the objection.
Court's action: The court sustained the objection to using sealed custody-proceeding testimony for impeachment.
Baker argued at the bench that Kelly's question about whether Simpson heard from any source about his charity softball game opened the door to testimony about custody hearings. Fujisaki denied the request to reopen testimony.
Court's action: The court denied the request to reopen testimony concerning custody hearings.
Plaintiffs proffered testimony about Simpson's statements concerning his relationship with Nicole during a Palm Springs weekend, arguing relevance to motive and impeachment.
Court's action: The court overruled the objection to the proposed testimony.
Plaintiffs sought to question a friendly witness about Simpson's statement concerning Paula's reaction to a recital and his response upon learning of Nicole's murder.
Court's action: The court sustained the objection to the witness's state of mind, permitted inquiry into Simpson's conversation, and allowed leading on that issue.
Plaintiffs argued that a hotline caller's statements were admissible under the state-of-mind exception and offered identifying characteristics; defense challenged the evidence as hearsay.
Court's action: The court directed plaintiffs to brief the cited hearsay cases.
Plaintiffs sought to use pages 69 through 73 of Olson's deposition to impeach Simpson, while defense argued the material chiefly concerned Olson's reactions and was cumulative.
Court's action: The court sustained the objection, finding Olson's reactions irrelevant, and allowed a later offer during the defense case.
Defense challenged private investigator Randall Petee's planned testimony about travel times from route-driving tests conducted the prior Sunday.
Court's action: The court ruled that Petee was not an expert witness and overruled the objection.
Defense objected to portions of a proposed special instruction as favoring plaintiffs, while plaintiffs argued it explained the limited purpose of the evidence.
Court's action: The court gave the instruction and stated that the evidence was received solely for the decedent's state of mind.
Counsel resolved deposition-designation objections concerning a call after Simpson returned from Chicago, including whether Merrill's stated surprise at receiving the call could be read.
Court's action: The court struck the speculative answer and sustained the objection to Merrill's surprise reaction, while permitting testimony that the caller apologized.
Counsel disputed defense deposition designations concerning Mrs. Rufo's marriages and her post-murder television interviews, with the defense asserting the interview questions showed bias or interest.
Court's action: The court overruled the objection to questions about Mrs. Rufo's marital history and permitted questions about her post-murder television interviews as bearing on interest in the damages phase.
Before Juditha Brown testified, counsel disputed whether cross-examination could address her participation in a sealed Orange County child-custody proceeding as relevant to bias.
Court's action: The court permitted inquiry into whether Juditha Brown was involved in a proceeding, but barred inquiry into the substance of that proceeding.
Counsel stipulated that funeral expenses paid for Ron Goldman totaled $7,961.40 and discussed whether the final witness could finish that day without limiting cross-examination.
Court's action: The court directed that the final witness begin and be completed Monday rather than split the examination before the weekend.
Counsel disputed questions about restaurant plans found in Ron Goldman's apartment after his death, with plaintiff offering them as relevant to the relationship and loss of society.
Court's action: The court overruled the relevance and hearsay objection to questions about Ron Goldman's restaurant plans.
Plaintiff challenged defense use of the full tape as self-serving hearsay, while defense argued that plaintiff's introduction of a portion entitled it to present the remainder.
Court's action: The court overruled the objection under the completion doctrine after plaintiff confirmed it had offered part of the tape.
After reviewing a June 15, 1994 letter concerning a possible polygraph, the court addressed whether either side could make further references to polygraph evidence or argument.
Court's action: The court precluded further references to polygraphs pending further points and authorities, including defense argument on the issue.
Counsel disputed use of a June 1994 video of the south walkway, fence, and foliage to question a witness about whether the area showed an opening or evidence of a crossing.
Court's action: The court overruled the objection to use of the video with the witness.
Plaintiffs objected to treating city employee witnesses as hostile; the court permitted defense cross-examination based on prior testimony adverse to Simpson and denied plaintiffs reciprocal leading.
Court's action: The defense may examine the city employee witnesses by cross-examination, and plaintiffs may not lead them.
Counsel questioned the custody of a box containing debris, and the clerk described obtaining it through LAPD and SID contacts before counsel withdrew the objection.
Court's action: The court treated the chain-of-custody objection as withdrawn.
A brief sidebar about establishing foundation for photographs taken inside an airplane cabin. Petrocelli began explaining how he planned to authenticate the exhibits through witnesses, but defense attorney Leonard withdrew any objection before Petrocelli could finish, making the whole exercise unnecessary.
Court's action: The court recognized that the defense had withdrawn its objection to the proposed foundation.
Dan Leonard requested a brief sidebar conference with the judge. The substance of the conference was not reported by the court reporter.
Plaintiffs sought to use a Promega paper's statement that Simpson acknowledged cutting himself to examine its connection to a contamination hypothesis; the court allowed jury-free questioning but not use of the paper.
Court's action: The court barred use of the Promega paper as an exhibit and required examination about its highlighted statement to occur outside the jury's presence before permitting examination in the manner conducted without the exhibit.
Plaintiffs invoked a stipulation limiting MacDonell to criminal-trial testimony as defense pursued crime-scene blood-stain interpretation to rebut Spitz's timing opinion.
Court's action: The court sustained the objection pending production of the stipulation, subject to setting that ruling aside if the stipulation was not shown, and allowed coagulation testimony only if the witness had given it at the criminal trial.
Plaintiffs challenged proposed drying-time experiments for lack of comparable fabric, blood quantity, temperature, and humidity conditions; the court limited the witness to general blood-drying testimony.
Court's action: The court sustained the objection to testimony about the particular material but allowed general testimony about how long blood takes to dry.
Defense attorney Blasier objected to plaintiffs potentially playing a clip from a Geraldo Rivera show featuring Dr. Michael Baden, arguing there was no known inconsistency to justify it. Judge Fujisaki required the plaintiffs to provide an offer of proof before any TV appearance could be shown to the jury.
Court's action: The court required an offer of proof before plaintiffs could play material from any television show.
Defense counsel withdrew an objection after stating that questioning about Dr. Baden's political dispute with Mayor Koch was a subject the defense intended to address.
Counsel disputed whether Dr. Lee had identified more than one set of bloody shoe prints, and the court required the transcript to resolve the objection.
Court's action: The court required counsel to produce the prior testimony transcript and declined to rely on counsel's representations concerning the shoe-print evidence.
The defense sought testimony about a person seen near 875 South Bundy around 9 p.m.; the court limited the evidence to suspicious activity rather than a rush-to-judgment claim.
Court's action: The court permitted evidence of a suspicious person near 875 South Bundy at the stated time, but barred using that evidence for a rush-to-judgment argument.
A bench conference was held at sidebar but was not recorded by the court reporter. No content is available from this proceeding.
The court distinguished between proposed indicators that a photograph was altered and unsupported testimony that it had been digitized, permitting the former while excluding the latter.
Court's action: The court sustained the objection to testimony that digitization was present in the photograph, then overruled the objection to testimony supporting an alteration opinion without asserting that digitization was used.
Judge Fujisaki called counsel to an unreported sidebar conference at the conclusion of a session. The substance of the discussion was not recorded by the court reporter.
Plaintiffs sought to question a photographic expert about Pat Clark's examination of photographs; the court limited inquiry to whether the witness had spoken with Clark.
Court's action: The court sustained the objection to questioning about Pat Clark's examination or opinion, but allowed counsel to ask whether the witness had spoken with Clark.
The court barred use of Gerald Richards' opinion through another expert unless plaintiffs established that the testifying expert relied on it.
Court's action: The court sustained the objection and required a foundation that the testifying witness relied on Gerald Richards' opinion before it could be used.
Defense reported that a spectator may have displayed a graphic composite photograph near two elevator jurors, then plaintiffs sought Groden's deposition transcript from the Assassination Records Review Board.
Court's action: The court said it would address the reported elevator-juror incident and declined to order production of the Assassination Records Review Board deposition transcript.
A brief sidebar in which Judge Fujisaki reassures defense attorney Robert Baker that a juror safety incident Baker had raised concerns about did not occur, citing confirmation from the bailiffs escorting elevator jurors. The proceeding ends with holiday greetings as court breaks until January 6.
Defense argued that Sergeant Merrin's testimony about a caller reporting a double murder was circumstantial evidence inconsistent with plaintiffs' timeline and single-perpetrator theory; Merrin was then sworn.
Counsel disputed use of a television interview to impeach India Allen and Fiato's proposed account of statements by Vannatter; the court addressed both impeachment proffers.
Court's action: The court allowed impeachment through Dr. Shipp but not the television video, and permitted Fiato's proposed impeachment testimony over plaintiffs' objection.
Plaintiffs sought to question Simpson about infidelity and use writings by Nicole Brown Simpson after arguing his direct testimony portrayed a loving relationship and strong character.
Court's action: The court overruled the objection, finding that defendant's testimony had put character at issue, and permitted questioning about infidelity.
Counsel disputed whether an expert could discuss how examining the Flammer photographs affected an opinion on the Scull photograph without addressing the Flammer photographs' authenticity.
Court's action: The court said it would permit examination of the photograph through the witness's testimony, directed defense to state that in its Court of Appeals filing, and postponed questioning until Thursday.
After a stipulation, the court received the McElroy price sheet as Defendants' Exhibit 2406 and a redacted letter from Nicole Brown Simpson to O.J. Simpson as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 732.
Court's action: The court received Defendants' Exhibit 2406, the McElroy price sheet, and received Plaintiffs' Exhibit 732 as redacted.
The sidebar confirmed the reporter had not read the challenged line; the court then provided the jury's requested readback of Park's testimony, the Lange-Simpson recording, and Simpson's testimony.
Court's action: The court confirmed the reporter had not read the challenged line, then directed readback of the prior question and answer and the jury's requested testimony and interview recording.
Counsel disputed whether discovery disclosed the disposition of Corner Stone proceeds, with Gelblum stating the general ledger did not show the funds and Baker asserting the requested records were provided.
The defense sought to call Gilbert to challenge Roesler's testimony about the memorabilia market, while plaintiff's counsel argued Gilbert had not been produced for a requested deposition.
Court's action: The court excluded Gilbert and allowed the defense to call the other two witnesses.
No sidebars match these filters.