(JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR NO. 4855, OFFICIAL REPORTER.) (CHRISTINE M. OLSON, CSR NO. 2378, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER.
MR. SIMPSON IS AGAIN PRESENT WITH COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. DOUGLAS, MR. BAILEY.
THE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED BY MISS CLARK, MR. HODGMAN, MR. DARDEN.
THE JURY IS NOT PRESENT.
COUNSEL.
MS. LEWIS: I'M HERE, TOO, JUDGE.
THE COURT: I'M SORRY, MISS LEWIS. I DIDN'T SEE YOU.
A FEW MATTERS TO TAKE UP BEFORE WE RESUME WITH MR. GLADDEN.
WE HAVE TWO MOTIONS ON THIS MORNING.
MR. DOUGLAS: I HAVE A DISCOVERY.
THE COURT: AND A DISCOVERY MATTER.
MR. DOUGLAS: MAY I BE HEARD, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: MR. DOUGLAS.
MR. DOUGLAS: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
GOOD MORNING.
THE COURT: GOOD MORNING, COUNSEL.
MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, I AM AWARE THAT THERE HAS BEEN A DISPUTE OR A QUESTION CONCERNING THE DISCOVERABILITY OF AN ALLEGED SKETCH THAT WAS PREPARED BY A WITNESS WHOSE NAME IS TOM LANG.
I AM ALSO AWARE NOW, HAVING SPOKEN WITH MR. HODGMAN LAST NIGHT, THAT HIS OFFICE WAS IN FACT IN RECEIPT IN JANUARY OF THIS YEAR OF THAT SKETCH, AND FOR REASONS THAT I AM NOT QUITE CLEAR ON, CHOSE NOT TO TURN IT OVER TO THE PROSECUTION.
I AM ALSO AWARE THAT THAT SKETCH WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE 1054.07 HEARING IN CHAMBERS WITH THE COURT LAST NIGHT.
I ENDEAVORED, YOUR HONOR, TO REVIEW THE WITNESS LIST THAT THE PROSECUTORS SUBMITTED ON JANUARY THE 5TH OF 1995. THAT WAS AN UPDATED LIST FROM THE ONE THAT HAD BEEN PREPARED IN SEPTEMBER OF LAST YEAR AND TOM LANG WAS ON THAT LIST AS A PROSECUTION WITNESS.
AS SUCH, YOUR HONOR, I DO NOT FEEL THAT THERE IS A LEGAL BASIS UNDER 1054 OF THE PENAL CODE FOR THERE TO BE ANY ARGUMENT THAT THAT SKETCH, HAVING BEEN RECEIVED FROM A WITNESS, WAS NOT IMMEDIATELY DISCOVERABLE TO THE DEFENSE, AND I BELIEVE THAT THERE HAS BEEN A VIOLATION OF THE DISCOVERY RULES AND THAT THAT DOCUMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN TURNED OVER IN JANUARY WHEN IT WAS FIRST RECEIVED.
THAT IS THE FIRST ISSUE.
THE SECOND ISSUE CONCERNS A WITNESS, STEVE VALERIE, WHO WE EXPECT TO CALL TODAY ON THE WITNESS STAND.
MR. VALERIE WAS A WITNESS WHO WAS MENTIONED IN THE OPENING STATEMENT AS BEING ONE OF THE PASSENGERS WHO SAT DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM MR. SIMPSON IN FIRST CLASS ON THE CHICAGO BOUND AIRPLANE WHO HAD THE ENTIRE FLIGHT TO OBSERVE MR. SIMPSON'S DEMEANOR AND WHO WILL TESTIFY THAT NOT ONLY WAS HE IN A RELAXED CALM MOOD, BUT ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS DURING THE FLIGHT HE HAD OCCASION TO LOOK OVER AT HIS HANDS AND SAW NO INJURIES OR OTHER MARKS OR BANDAGES ON HIS HANDS.
MR. VALERIE TOLD ME, WHEN MR. COCHRAN AND I SPOKE WITH HIM LAST NIGHT, THAT HE SPOKE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ON OR ABOUT SEPTEMBER 15 OF 1994 WHEN HE WAS IN LONDON, AND THERE WAS A CONVERSATION WITH A PARTICULAR OFFICER, BECAUSE THEY HAD CONTACTED MR. VALERIE THROUGH MR. VALERIE'S FAMILY WHO LIVED IN IRVINE.
SHORTLY AFTER THE MURDERS, YOUR HONOR, MR. VALERIE WAS SEEN ON TELEVISION ON ONE OF THE NETWORK PROGRAMS TALKING ABOUT HIS OBSERVATIONS OF MR. SIMPSON THAT EVENING AND HE BELIEVES IT WAS THROUGH THOSE CONVERSATIONS THAT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE LEARNED OF HIS IDENTITY AND THEN SOUGHT TO TALK WITH HIM.
WHEN HE TALKED FROM LONDON HE WAS -- HE WAS A BUSINESS SCHOOL STUDENT AT UCLA AT THE TIME AND HE WAS WORKING IN LONDON FOR AN AMERICAN CORPORATION.
THEY SPOKE SOME ABOUT HIS OBSERVATIONS ON THAT DAY AND HE RECALLS SPECIFICALLY THAT THERE WAS AN OFFICER WHO SPOKE WITH HIM BECAUSE HIS FAMILY LIVED IN IRVINE AND THE OFFICER WAS FROM IRVINE AND THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THE BOTH OF THEM SHARING THE COMMON HOME OF IRVINE, CALIFORNIA.
SINCE HE WAS IN LONDON AT THAT TIME THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT THAT HE WOULD SPEAK AGAIN WITH THE OFFICER UPON HIS RETURN TO THE STATES, AND MR. VALERIE RETURNED ON SEPTEMBER THE 30TH, AND THERE WAS IMMEDIATELY AT THAT TIME A MESSAGE FROM THE OFFICER.
AND HE RECALLS SPECIFICALLY CALLING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT ON EITHER OCTOBER THE 1ST, THE NEXT DAY, OR ON OCTOBER THE 3RD, THAT FOLLOWING MONDAY, AND SPOKE WITH THE OFFICERS FOR PERHAPS TWENTY TO THIRTY MINUTES OVER THE TELEPHONE AS WELL.
BOTH OCCASIONS HE GAVE STATEMENTS CONSISTENT WITH HIS INITIAL OBSERVATIONS, THAT THERE WERE NO CUTS OR BRUISES ON MR. SIMPSON'S HANDS AND THAT HE WAS AT ALL TIME RELAXED.
I LOOKED ON MY LIST AGAIN THIS MORNING, THE JANUARY 5TH LIST OF THE PROSECUTION, AND STEVE VALERIE WAS A WITNESS IN JANUARY ON THE PROSECUTION'S LIST.
HE WAS ALSO A WITNESS ON THE DEFENSE LIST, AS WAS MR. LANG.
BECAUSE HE WAS A PROSECUTION WITNESS, YOUR HONOR, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THERE WAS SIMILARLY AN OBLIGATION TO TURN OVER REPORTS OF ANY SUCH CONVERSATIONS THAT OCCURRED ON SEPTEMBER THE 15TH BY TELEPHONE WHEN HE WAS IN LONDON AND ON EITHER OCTOBER THE 1ST OR THE 3RD WHERE THERE WAS A MUCH MORE LENGTHY AND EXTENSIVE CONVERSATION REAFFIRMING THE EARLIER OBSERVATIONS HE HAD MADE ON JUNE THE 13TH.
THE COURT: PEOPLE.
MS. CLARK: MAY WE HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: CERTAINLY.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
THE COURT: I'M SORRY, MR. DOUGLAS.
DID MR. VALERIE INDICATE TO YOU THE NAME OF THE POLICE OFFICER TO WHOM HE SPOKE?
MR. DOUGLAS: THE ONLY RECOLLECTION HE HAD WAS AS TO THE FIRST CONVERSATION, THAT THE OFFICER LIVED IN IRVINE BECAUSE THEY SHARED THE IRVINE THING.
THERE WAS AN EARLIER CONVERSATION WITH DETECTIVE KILCOYNE, AND HE WAS NOT SURE THAT IT WAS THE SAME OFFICER ON THE OTHER TWO OCCASIONS, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. DOUGLAS: WE DO HAVE KILCOYNE'S REPORT FROM JUNE.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
MR. HODGMAN: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: GOOD MORNING.
MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, AS THE COURT IS AWARE, I APPEARED BEFORE THE COURT YESTERDAY AND I WILL INCORPORATE MY PREVIOUS REMARKS WITH REGARD TO THE INFORMATION REGARDING MR. LANG.
I WOULD SUBMIT THAT MR. LANG WAS ON THE DEFENSE WITNESS LIST FROM AN EARLY POINT IN TIME PRECEDING JANUARY OF '95. WE DID NOT INTEND TO CALL MR. LANG AS A WITNESS FOR REASONS PERSONAL TO OURSELVES, AND AS EVIDENCED BY OUR CASE IN CHIEF, HE WAS NOT PRESENTED.
SO I WOULD SUBMIT THAT MR. DOUGLAS' POINT IS A DIFFERENCE WITHOUT A DISTINCTION AND I WILL SIMPLY INCORPORATE MY PREVIOUS REMARKS WITH REGARD TO WHATEVER RULING THE COURT MIGHT MAKE IN THIS REGARD.
THE COURT: YOU CONCEDE, HOWEVER, AT THIS POINT, THAT MR. LANG WAS ON THE PROSECUTION'S WITNESS LIST AS OF JANUARY 5?
MR. HODGMAN: HE WAS.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. HODGMAN: WITH REGARD TO THE SECOND POINT, YOUR HONOR, WE ARE NOT IN POSSESSION OF ANY SEPTEMBER STATEMENT OR NOTES FROM MR. VALERIE. I WILL LOOK INTO THE MATTER.
BUT I WOULD SUBMIT THAT THE SAME RATIONALE APPLIES, THAT THIS IS A DIFFERENCE WITHOUT A DISTINCTION IN THE SENSE THAT VALERIE -- I WOULD HAVE TO CHECK WHETHER VALERIE WAS ON OUR JANUARY WITNESS LIST, BUT HE WAS CERTAINLY ON THE DEFENSE WITNESS LIST, I KNOW THAT FOR A FACT, SO FOR THE MOMENT I WILL HAVE TO LOOK INTO THAT FOR THE COURT BEFORE ASSERTING 1054.07, POSSIBLY, OR BEFORE I CAN BETTER EDUCATE THE COURT AS TO WHAT THAT ISSUE IS, BUT WE DO NOT HAVE A STATEMENT FROM SEPTEMBER OF
LAST YEAR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
DO YOU HAVE A STATEMENT FROM OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR?
MR. HODGMAN: WE HAVE SOMETHING FROM OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR, YEAH. IT APPEARS TO BE SOME NOTES.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE?
MR. DOUGLAS: BRIEFLY, YOUR HONOR.
THE TEST IS NOT WHETHER IN ACTUALITY THEY ARE GOING TO CALL HIM, WHICH TRIGGERS THEIR DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS FROM OCTOBER, YOUR HONOR. CERTAINLY FROM OCTOBER THEY DID NOT KNOW THAT THEY WERE NOT GOING TO CALL MR. VALERIE.
CERTAINLY IN JANUARY, YOUR HONOR, JANUARY 25TH OR 26TH, I BELIEVE, HE WAS STILL -- TOM LANG WAS STILL ON THE PROSECUTOR'S LIST.
WE HAVE BEEN GIVEN THOUSANDS OF PAGES OF DOCUMENTS OF INTERVIEWS FROM WITNESSES WHO THEY HAVEN'T CALLED, SO THAT IS NOT THE TEST, YOUR HONOR.
THAT IS ALL I WANT TO SAY.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, THE ONLY ADDITIONAL POINT I WISH TO MAKE IS SIMPLY TO REMIND THE COURT OF WHAT IT IS ALREADY WELL AWARE, AND THAT IS THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE; "WITNESSES THAT THE PEOPLE OR A PARTY INTENDS TO CALL."
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. HODGMAN: THANK YOU.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THE COURT FINDS THAT THE -- BOTH OF THESE INDIVIDUALS, VALERIE AND LANG, WERE ON THE PROSECUTION'S WITNESS LIST AS OF JANUARY 5, 1995.
AS SUCH, ANY STATEMENTS THAT WERE IN POSSESSION OF THE PROSECUTION AT THAT TIME SHOULD HAVE BEEN TURNED OVER.
THE COURT WILL DIRECT THAT THE NOTES FROM OCTOBER OF '94 OF MR. VALERIE BE DISCLOSED TO THE DEFENSE FORTHWITH AND ALSO THE SKETCH FROM JANUARY OF 1995 FROM MR. LANG BE DISCLOSED FORTHWITH.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
MR. HODGMAN: MAY WE HAVE A MOMENT?
THE COURT: CERTAINLY.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. NEXT ISSUE.
MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, SINCE WE ARE THE PROPONENT OF THE TESTIMONY OF LORI MENZIONE, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE WOULD HAVE THE BURDEN OF JUSTIFYING HER ADMISSION.
THE COURT: I AGREE.
MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, LORI MENZIONE, ON JUNE THE 12TH, 1994, WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THOMAS COOK TRAVEL AGENCY, WHICH IS NOW AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVEL AGENCY.
SOMETIME THAT MORNING SHE RECEIVED A CALL FROM A HERTZ REPRESENTATIVE, WHOM SHE KNOWS FROM HAVING HAD PRIOR DEALINGS, AND WAS INFORMED THAT THERE IS A MR. SIMPSON ON THE LINE THAT HAS A DEATH REQUEST AND NEEDS TO MAKE AN EMERGENCY CHANGE IN HIS RESERVATIONS.
SUBSEQUENTLY THERE WAS ANOTHER PARTY PUT ON THE PHONE AND THEN MR. SIMPSON. WE BELIEVE THAT WAS THROUGH A CONFERENCE CALL THAT MR. SIMPSON HAD MADE WITH EITHER CATHY RANDA OR SKIP TAFT WHO HAD CALLED HERTZ TO SET UP THIS CONVERSATION.
AND DURING THE COURSE OF THE SUBSEQUENT CONVERSATION WITH MISS MENZIONE MR. SIMPSON WAS ATTEMPTING -- THE NAME WAS ORENTHAL SIMPSON. HE WAS ATTEMPTING TO MAKE NEW ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE RETURN FLIGHT TO LOS ANGELES, HAVING JUST BEEN INFORMED OF THE DEATHS OF HIS FORMER WIFE AND ANOTHER PERSON.
MISS MENZIONE, I CAN TELL YOU AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT, WOULD TESTIFY THAT DURING THE COURSE OF HER CONVERSATION WITH MR. SIMPSON SHE HEARD A CRASH LIKE SOUND IN THE BACKGROUND AND MR. SIMPSON SAID, "HOLD ON, HOLD ON, HOLD ON."
SHE THEN HEARD A SOUND THAT SHE DISTINCTLY THOUGHT WAS THE SOUND OF WATER RUNNING. SHE WILL TESTIFY, YOUR HONOR, THAT THE CRASH LIKE SOUND THAT SHE HEARD WAS SIMILAR TO A SOUND OF SOMEONE WIPING CLEAN A TABLE OR SOMETHING NEARBY AND THEN THINGS SCATTERING, AND THAT IS THE MOTION THAT SHE WAS USING WHEN SHE WAS TRYING TO DESCRIBE THE NATURE OF THE SOUND THAT SHE HEARD.
I SPOKE WITH HER ABOUT IT YESTERDAY.
SHE WILL SAY THAT AFTER HEARING THE, "HOLD ON," SHE THEN HEARD WATER RUNNING AND MR. SIMPSON THEN RETURNED TO THE PHONE AND SAID, "I CUT MYSELF AND I'M BLEEDING."
AND THEN THERE WERE FURTHER CONVERSATIONS THAT WERE MADE ABOUT TRYING TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS ABOUT THE DEATH OF HIS WIFE. THERE WERE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT HIS HAVING TWO KIDS; ONE WAS NINE, ONE WAS ALMOST SIX. THEY WERE ALL CONVERSATIONS CONCERNING MR. SIMPSON'S EFFORTS TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS FOR HIS RETURN FLIGHT TO LOS ANGELES.
THERE IS ONE ARGUMENT THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE SUGGESTED THAT THERE IS NO VERIFICATION OR ABILITY TO CORROBORATE THE FACT THAT THE ORENTHAL SIMPSON WHO MISS MENZIONE WAS SPEAKING WITH WAS IN FACT MR. O.J. SIMPSON.
I DON'T THINK THAT THERE IS A GREAT DEAL OF STOCK IN THAT PARTICULAR ARGUMENT, SO I WOULD LIKE TO FOCUS MY COMMENTS ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THAT STATEMENT AND WHY I FEEL THAT IT IS ADMISSIBLE.
CERTAINLY, YOUR HONOR, THE CONVERSATION AND THE TESTIMONY ABOUT WHAT SHE HEARD ON THE PHONE, THAT SHE HEARD A CRASH LIKE SOUND OVER THE PHONE, THAT SHE HEARD RUNNING OF WATER, THAT MR. SIMPSON HAD SAID, "HOLD ON, HOLD ON," CERTAINLY THAT THE CRASH LIKE SOUND AND THE WATER RUNNING WERE PERCIPIENT SOUNDS THAT ARE ADMISSIBLE, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHATEVER WORD OR CONVERSATIONS SHE MAY HAVE HAD WITH THE ACCUSED, SO THERE IS A THRESHOLD RELEVANCE CLEARLY.
THERE IS A THRESHOLD BASIS TO OFFER THE ADMISSIBILITY OF HER TESTIMONY, AND IT BECOMES MORE RELEVANT, YOUR HONOR, WHEN THE COURT APPRECIATES THE CONTEXT OF HER TESTIMONY WITH OTHER FACTS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN BEFORE THE JURY AND OTHER FACTS STILL TO COME.
AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT, YOUR HONOR, CERTAINLY THE COURT IS AWARE THAT KATO KAELIN, ALLAN PARK, WAYNE STANFIELD, MIKE NORRIS, MIKE GLADDEN, HAVE ALL TESTIFIED THAT THEY SAW MR. SIMPSON BEFORE -- BEFORE AND DURING THE COURSE OF HIS CHICAGO FLIGHT AND THEY NOTICED NO CUTS, NO BRUISES, NO BANDAGES, NO EVIDENCE OF BLOOD ON HIS HANDS.
I'M SURE THERE WILL BE THE ARGUMENT, WELL, THEY DIDN'T LOOK, BUT THAT GOES TO THE WEIGHT RATHER THAN TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE TESTIMONY.
AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT I WILL TELL YOU THAT THERE WILL BE OTHER WITNESSES WHO WILL TESTIFY TODAY. HOWARD BINGHAM, WHO WAS ALSO ON THE FLIGHT AND HAD A CONVERSATION WITH MR. SIMPSON RIGHT NEXT TO HIS SEAT, STEVE VALERIE WHO WAS SEATED IN FIRST CLASS ACROSS THE AISLE FROM MR. SIMPSON AND HAD OCCASION TO OBSERVE HIM THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE FLIGHT, AND JAMES MERRILL WHO WAS THE HERTZ EMPLOYEE WHO PICKED UP MR. SIMPSON AT THE GATE WHO TRAVELED WITH HIM TO THE BAGGAGE CLAIM AREA WHO WILL TESTIFY THAT HE SAT WITH HIM IN THE BAGGAGE CLAIM AREA FOR FIFTEEN OR TWENTY MINUTES WAITING FOR THE BAGS TO COME, WATCHING A RELAXED BUT TIRED O.J. SIMPSON GREET SOME FANS AND BYSTANDERS, GIVE AUTOGRAPHS, SHAKE HANDS AND THEN DRIVING MR. SIMPSON FROM THE AIRPORT TO HIS HOTEL, HELPING HIM WITH HIS BAGGAGE, AND THAT THERE WAS NO CUTS, NO BRUISES, NO BLEEDING ON HIS HANDS AS OF THAT POINT.
AND NOW WE HAVE MR. SIMPSON WALKING INTO THE HOTEL AND THERE HAS NOT BEEN ONE WITNESS WHO HAS PERCEIVED HIM THAT EVENING WHO NOTICED ANY CUTS OR BRUISES ON HIS HANDS.
THE COURT: COUNSEL, COUNSEL --
MR. DOUGLAS: WE THEN HAVE THE TESTIMONY --
THE COURT: COUNSEL, I APPRECIATE THE RELEVANCE. I DON'T THINK YOU NEED TO TELL ME MORE ABOUT THAT.
MR. DOUGLAS: I'M TRYING TO CORROBORATE, YOUR HONOR, WHY THIS EVIDENCE HAS INDICATIONS OF TRUSTWORTHINESS SEPARATE FROM THE WORDS THAT WERE SPOKEN, WHICH IS PART OF MY OBLIGATION UNDER EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 1252.
THEN WE HAVE, YOUR HONOR, HE GOES INSIDE HIS HOTEL, AND DAVE KILDUFF, WHO IS A VICE-PRESIDENT AND REGIONAL MANAGER OF HERTZ, SEES MR. SIMPSON OUTSIDE THE HOTEL, HE IS DISTRESSED. MR. KILDUFF IS DROPPING OFF HERTZ EMPLOYEES, AND BASICALLY MR. SIMPSON TAKES HIS CAR AND KILDUFF THEN DRIVES MR. SIMPSON TO THE AIRPORT.
KILDUFF WILL TESTIFY THAT AS HE WAS PULLING UP MR. SIMPSON WAS DISTRESSED, HE WAS CRYING, HE HAD HIS HANDS UP TO HIS FACE AND THERE WAS A BANDAGE, THERE WAS BLEEDING AND IT WAS PROFUSE.
WE THEN WILL HAVE TESTIMONY --
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. DOUGLAS: WE THEN HAVE TESTIMONY OF
MARK PARTRIDGE WHO WILL CONFIRM THAT THERE WAS A BANDAGE ON THE MIDDLE FINGER OF HIS LEFT HAND.
YOUR HONOR, I SUGGEST TO YOU THERE IS INDEPENDENT CORROBORATION THAT THE STATEMENTS THAT MR. SIMPSON MADE, "I'M BLEEDING AND I CUT MYSELF," ARE INDEPENDENTLY TRUSTWORTHY.
AND YOUR HONOR, UNDER EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 1250, THESE STATEMENTS GO TO THE PHYSICAL SENSATION OF THE DECLARANT AND THERE IS A SPECIFIC CLAUSE THAT SAYS PHYSICAL SENSATION INCLUDES THE BODILY HEALTH.
THE PEOPLE HAVE CONCEDED THAT IF MR. SIMPSON WERE TO HAVE SAID, "I'M HURT AND I CUT MYSELF" THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ADMISSIBLE. I ARGUE THE STATEMENT, "I'M BLEEDING AND I CUT MYSELF" IS ALSO ADMISSIBLE AND IT IS A DISTINCTION WITHOUT DIFFERENCE.
A STATEMENT OF HIS PHYSICAL BODILY HEALTH IS THAT I'M BLEEDING AND I CUT MYSELF. A STATEMENT OF PHYSICAL SENSATION IS THAT "I'M HURT AND I CUT MYSELF."
FOR ALL REASONS OF FAIRNESS AND PROBATIVE VALUE AND WITH THE OTHER CORROBORATION THAT WILL BE PRESENT, I SUGGEST TO THE COURT THAT THOSE STATEMENTS ARE AN ADMISSIBLE EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE AND SHOULD BE ADMITTED.
THE COURT: MISS LEWIS.
MS. LEWIS: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.
YOUR HONOR, I SPOKE WITH MS. MENZIONE AS WELL ON MONDAY MORNING WHEN SHE WAS, I BELIEVE, STILL IN CHICAGO.
THE CONVERSATION THAT SHE HAD SHE MADE TYPED NOTES WITH REGARD TO AND THOSE ARE APPENDED TO MY BRIEF, AND IT SHOWS THE CONVERSATION IN SOME DETAIL AS SHE RECALLED IT WITHIN A FEW DAYS AFTER THE CONVERSATION ITSELF, SO THAT IS CERTAINLY THE MOST TRUSTWORTHY REPRESENTATION OF WHAT THE CONVERSATION WAS.
IN ANY EVENT, SHE WAS TRANSFERRED A CALL WHERE SOME CALLER, SOME PERSON PRESUMABLY FROM HERTZ, I BELIEVE, SAID THAT THEY HAD A MR. SIMPSON ON THE LINE WHO NEEDED HELP BECAUSE OF A DEATH NOTIFICATION, NEEDED HELP WITH RESERVATIONS.
THAT BY ITSELF OF COURSE IS IRRELEVANT AND HEARSAY.
SHE PROCEEDED TO TALK TO MR. SIMPSON AND HAD TROUBLE FINDING HIS RESERVATION WITHIN THE COMPUTER SYSTEM THAT SHE WAS USING.
SO THEY HAD RATHER A LENGTHY TIME ON THE PHONE. DURING THAT TIME HE SOUNDED LIKE HE WAS MOVING AROUND THE ROOM. AT ONE POINT HE SAID, "HOLD ON," PUT THE PHONE DOWN AND SHE HEARD WHAT SOUNDED TO HER LIKE A PHONE FALLING, A CRASHING NOISE.
AT ANY RATE, HE DID, AFTER A PAUSE, COME BACK ON THE PHONE AND SHE SAID, "ARE YOU ALL RIGHT?"
AND HE SAID -- AND WHAT SHE DESCRIBED BACK THEN -- IN A SOMBER TONE OF VOICE, "YES, I'VE CUT MYSELF AND I'M BLEEDING." SOMETHING ABOUT "I WAS JUST NOTIFIED THAT MY WIFE WAS KILLED."
AND SHE SAID, "I'M SORRY, WAS SHE ILL?"
AND HE SAID, "NO, SHE WAS KILLED," SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
NOW, THE PROBLEM WITH THIS IS A VERY ELEMENTARY ONE TO BEGIN WITH AND THAT IS THAT THERE WAS NO FOUNDATION THAT THAT WAS MR. SIMPSON WHO MADE THE CALL.
WE CAN TALK ABOUT WHAT IS REPORTED IN THE PRESS AND WE CAN TRY THIS CASE BASED UPON WHAT PEOPLE TO KNOW BASED UPON VARIOUS PRESS REPORTS OR WE CAN RESUME OUR TRIAL OF THIS CASE AS WE ARE DOING IN A COURT OF LAW AND GO BY THE RULES OF EVIDENCE.
THE RULES OF EVIDENCE REQUIRE THE QUITE ELEMENTARY FOUNDATION THAT THERE BE AUTHENTICATION OF THE DECLARANTS OF THE PERSON MAKING THE STATEMENT, WHO IN THIS CASE IS A CALLER OVER THE TELEPHONE.
MISS MENZIONE TOLD ME ON MONDAY THAT SHE HAD NEVER SPOKEN TO O.J. SIMPSON BEFORE THAT OCCASION. SHE DIDN'T EVEN REALIZE UNTIL THE MIDDLE OF THE CALL THAT SHE HAD PRESUMABLY MR. SIMPSON ON THE LINE WHEN SHE FINALLY PUT TOGETHER THE ORENTHAL WITH THE O.J.
IT WASN'T UNTIL HALFWAY THROUGH THE CALL THAT SHE EVEN THOUGHT THAT IS WHO IT MIGHT BE.
WE HAVE HIM SAYING THAT IS WHO HE WAS, BUT SHE HAS NEVER SPOKEN TO HIM BEFORE THEN. SHE HAS NEVER SPOKEN TO HIM SINCE THEN. AND AS SHE TOLD ME MONDAY, SHE DID NOT RECOGNIZE HIS VOICE DURING THAT CONVERSATION, STILL DOES NOT RECOGNIZE IT, AND STILL CANNOT SWEAR FROM PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE THAT THAT WAS HIS VOICE ON THE PHONE.
SO WHILE MR. DOUGLAS BREEZES OVER THIS PROBLEM, I BELIEVE HE DOES SO BECAUSE THERE IS NO ANSWER FROM THE DEFENSE TO THIS PROBLEM THAT THEY HAVE PRESENTED.
THIS IS A BASIC AND ELEMENTARY FOUNDATIONAL PROBLEM WHEN YOU HAVE A HEARSAY DECLARATION MADE OVER THE TELEPHONE.
I WILL ADDRESS ONLY BRIEFLY THE EXCITED UTTERANCE EXCEPTION, SINCE MR. DOUGLAS HAS CHOSEN NOT TO RELY ON IT. I DID INCLUDE IT IN MY BRIEF.
IT IS CLEARLY NOT AN EXCITED UTTERANCE BECAUSE THE -- AS THE COURT RULED EARLIER WITH REGARD TO DENISE BROWN'S STATEMENT WHEN SHE LEARNED OF NICOLE'S DEATH, THAT, "OH, MY GOD, HE DID IT" OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BECAUSE SHE DID NOT WITNESS THE MURDERS THEMSELVES, THERE WAS NO TRAUMATIC EVENT TO WHICH SHE WAS A PERCIPIENT WITNESS.
AND THAT WHERE THE SPONTANEOUS UTTERANCE EXCEPTION APPLIES, AND CUTTING ONE'S SELF IS CERTAINLY UNDER THE CASE LAW NOT A TRAUMATIC EVENT THAT IS GOING TO CAUSE SOMEONE TO BE EXTREMELY UPSET AND AGITATED SO THAT THEY SAY SOMETHING SPONTANEOUSLY THAT THAT IS TRUSTWORTHINESS, SO IT FAILS TO QUALIFY UNDER THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION FOR A SPONTANEOUS STATEMENT.
AND THE ONLY OTHER ONE I WAS LOOKING TO SEE, WELL, COULD IT POSSIBLY BE AN EXPRESSION OF A -- ASSUMING THEY COULD CROSS THAT FIRST FOUNDATIONAL HURDLE, WHICH THEY CAN'T, COULD IT POSSIBLY BE AN INDICATION OF PHYSICAL SUFFERING OF SOME KIND? AND IT IS NOT.
HE STATES THAT HE CUT HIMSELF. HE DOESN'T EVEN SAY THAT IT HURT. AND I'M NOT CONCEDING AT ALL THAT IT WOULD COME IN NECESSARILY IF HE HAD SAID IT HURT HIM, BUT THE POINT OF THAT EXCEPTION IS TO ALLOW IN CIVIL ACTIONS TESTIMONY AS TO PAIN AND SUFFERING, BECAUSE THAT IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE A HEARSAY TYPE OF DECLARATION THAT COMES OUT TO PROVE WHAT SOMEBODY IS FEELING, SINCE YOU CAN'T OTHERWISE PROVE WHAT THEY ARE FEELING, SO IT IS A SENSATION AND NOT THE VISIBLE RESULT THEY COULD TESTIFY TO, BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER WAY THAT THAT COULD COME IN UNDER THE LAW WITHOUT MAKING AN EXCEPTION FOR IT.
AND THE FINAL THING I WANT TO POINT OUT, MR. DOUGLAS STANDS UP HERE AND SAYS AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT HE CAN REPRESENT THAT ALL OF THESE WITNESSES SAW NO CUT ON MR. SIMPSON'S HANDS REPEATEDLY THROUGHOUT THE TIME THAT HE WAS ON THE FLIGHT AND SO FORTH.
I DON'T SEE HOW HE CAN -- HOW HE CAN LOOK YOU IN THE FACE, YOUR HONOR, AND SAY THAT AND SAY THAT THOSE ARE TRUSTWORTHY WHEN HE KNOWS THAT HIS CLIENT'S OWN TAPED STATEMENT THAT MR. SIMPSON MADE AFTER RETURNING FROM CHICAGO HE SAYS -- HE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HE CUT HIMSELF IN LOS ANGELES. HE DIDN'T REMEMBER HOW, BUT HE REMEMBERED CUTTING HIMSELF, THAT HE HAD CUT HIMSELF, THAT HE WAS BLEEDING.
HE SAID HE WAS RUNNING AROUND, DIDN'T KNOW HOW HE DID IT. HE HAD NO EXPLANATION FOR HOW HE CUT HIMSELF, BUT HE DID ACKNOWLEDGE THAT HE CUT HIMSELF.
AND IN FACT WHEN HE WAS ASKED ABOUT CHICAGO, HE SAID, "I THINK IT WAS A CUT -- THAT I REOPENED THE CUT THAT I MADE IN LOS ANGELES THAT I REOPENED."
SO HOW MR. DOUGLAS CAN GET UP HERE AND SAY WITH ALL ETHICAL PRESUMPTION, AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT, THAT HE BELIEVES THAT STATEMENT IS TRUSTWORTHY WHEN HE KNOWS THAT HIS OWN CLIENT TOLD THE POLICE THAT HE HAD CUT HIMSELF IN LOS ANGELES, IS GALLING, IT IS ABSOLUTELY GALLING.
SO FOR THAT REASON, BECAUSE WORDS OUT OF THE DEFENDANT'S OWN MOUTH UNDER A CALM VOLUNTARY MIRANDIZED SITUATION WHICH WAS TAPE-RECORDED, BECAUSE HE ACKNOWLEDGES HAVING CUT HIMSELF IN LOS ANGELES, ALL OF THESE OTHER SUPPOSED INDICIA WHERE SOMEONE IS SUPPOSED TO NOTICE WHETHER SOMEONE HAS A CUT ON THEIR HAND AND BECAUSE THEY DON'T THAT ASSUMES TO PROVE THAT THEY DON'T HAVE A CUT, ALL OF THOSE INDICIA IS RENDERED ABSOLUTELY UNTRUSTWORTHY BECAUSE THE COURT HAS THE DEFENDANT'S STATEMENT, HIS ADMISSION OUT OF HIS OWN MOUTH.
SO THE FIRST AND FOREMOST AND THE EASIEST BASIS UPON WHICH THE COURT CAN RULE, WHICH IS THE ONE FRANKLY I FEEL THE COURT IS BOUND TO RULE, AND THAT IS THAT THERE IS NO FOUNDATION THAT THIS CALLER WAS INDEED MR. SIMPSON, AS WE KNOW THE LAW REQUIRES.
THE COURT: MR. DOUGLAS.
I'M CONCERNED ABOUT TWO THINGS. ONE, THE INABILITY TO IDENTIFY THE PERSON TO WHOM SHE WAS SPEAKING, AND I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE OFFER OF PROOF REGARDING THE INDICIA OF RELIABILITY POINT RAISED BY MISS LEWIS CONCERNING STATEMENTS THAT YOUR CLIENT MADE.
MR. DOUGLAS: FIRST OF ALL, YOUR HONOR, THE WITNESSES WILL SAY THAT MR. SIMPSON WAS NOT BLEEDING UNTIL AFTER WALKING OUT OF THE HOTEL AND THEN HE WAS BLEEDING AND THAT IS THE MAJOR CUT THAT WAS ON THE TOP OF MR. SIMPSON'S FINGER THAT WITNESSES WILL SAY THEY DIDN'T SEE.
NOW, THERE WERE OTHER CUTS ON OTHER PORTIONS OF HIS HAND, BUT THE MAJOR CUT ON THE TOP OF THE MIDDLE FINGER OF THE LEFT HAND, WITNESSES WILL SAY WAS NOT BLEEDING AND IT WAS NOT SEEN UNTIL -- MR. KILDUFF AND MR. PARTRIDGE WERE THE FIRST WITNESSES THAT WOULD SEE AND WOULD TESTIFY ABOUT THAT CUT AND ABOUT THE CUT BLEEDING.
IN TERMS OF THE -- THE INDICATION OF WHO THE PERSON WAS ON THE PHONE, YOUR HONOR, CERTAINLY IF THE COURT CONSIDERS THE TOTALITY OF ALL OF THE OTHER INFORMATION IN THE CASE, AS THE COURT MUST, THERE ARE SUFFICIENT INDICATION OF TRUSTWORTHINESS.
ONE, WE KNOW IT WAS A HERTZ EVENT. THE WITNESS WILL TESTIFY THAT SHE GOT A CALL FROM A WOMAN SHE HAS DEALT WITH IN THE PAST WHO IS A HERTZ EMPLOYEE.
THE COURT: IS THERE ANY RECORD OF THIS THREE-WAY PHONE CONVERSATION OR ANY PHONE RECORD CONTEMPORANEOUS WITH YOUR CLIENT'S HOTEL ROOM?
MR. DOUGLAS: THERE ARE RECORDS, YOUR HONOR, OF MR. SIMPSON HAVING CALLED MR. TAFT. THERE ARE RECORDS OF SEVERAL CALLS THAT MR. SIMPSON MADE TO CATHY RANDA. THERE ARE RECORDS OF CALLS THAT WERE MADE TO MR. MERRILL WHO WAS THE PERSON THAT HAD TAKEN HIM TO THE AIRPORT AND THERE WERE ARRANGEMENTS THAT WERE MADE AND THERE WERE OTHER CALLS THAT WERE MADE, YOUR HONOR --
THE COURT: NO, MR. DOUGLAS.
WHAT I'M INTERESTED IN, DO YOU HAVE PHONE RECORDS THAT SHOW THIS CALL TO THOMAS COOK, NOW AMERICAN EXPRESS?
MR. DOUGLAS: IT WASN'T A DIRECT CALL FROM MR. SIMPSON, YOUR HONOR. IT WAS A CALL THAT WAS RECEIVED FROM HERTZ.
THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND THAT.
MR. DOUGLAS: AND IT WAS A CALL, YOUR HONOR, THAT MISS MENZIONE WILL SAY THAT WHEN THE HERTZ PERSON FIRST CAME ON TO THE PHONE AND TALKED ABOUT THERE BEING THIS MR. SIMPSON AND AN EMERGENCY AND A NEED FOR A CHANGE, THERE WAS THEN ANOTHER PERSON ON THE PHONE FIRST.
THE COURT: I'M ASKING -- ALL RIGHT.
DO YOU HAVE -- VIRTUALLY EVERY HOTEL CHARGES FOR PHONE CALLS THESE DAYS.
MR. DOUGLAS: I HAVE RECORDS.
THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE A RECORD SHOWING A PHONE CALL FROM YOUR CLIENT'S ROOM TO THE HERTZ PERSON?
MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, THAT IS NOT HOW IT WENT. THAT IS WHY I'M TELLING THE COURT, AND IF THE COURT WILL INDULGE ME, THERE WERE CALLS THAT MR. SIMPSON MADE TO CATHY RANDA.
THERE HAS BEEN TESTIMONY FROM MISS SIMPSON, ARNELLE SIMPSON, THAT MISS RANDA AND MR. SIMPSON HAD A PRACTICE OF MAKING THREE-WAY CALLS. WHEN THE HERTZ CALL CAME THROUGH THERE WAS FIRST ANOTHER PERSON ON THE PHONE AND THEN MR. SIMPSON CAME ON THE PHONE.
MISS MENZIONE WILL SAY THAT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE CALL MR. SIMPSON SAID, "THANK YOU, CATHY" TO MISS MENZIONE, WHICH SUGGESTS TO ME THAT CERTAINLY THERE WAS ONE INDICATION OR ONE OCCASION WHEN THERE WAS A THREE-WAY CALL WITH MR. SIMPSON HAVING CALLED CATHY RANDA, SHE PUTTING SIMPSON IN TOUCH WITH HERTZ, HERTZ THEN CALLING TO MENZIONE AND ARRANGEMENTS WERE MADE FOR TRAVEL.
CLEARLY, YOUR HONOR, THE ARRANGEMENT FOR THE RESERVATION THAT WAS MADE WAS FOR THE O.J. SIMPSON WHO THEN HAD A TICKET WHO THEN BOARDED THAT FLIGHT AND WHO THEN SAT IN THOSE SEATS.
SO I --
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. DOUGLAS: WHEN THEY WERE ASKING ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE EMERGENCY. THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT MY WIFE HAD JUST BEEN KILLED. THEY HAD ASKED WAS IT AN ACCIDENT? NO, SHE HAD BEEN KILLED. THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT HIS CHILDREN. THERE WAS ONE 9 AND THERE IS ONE ALMOST 6.
THESE ASPECTS OF THE CONVERSATION WERE REFLECTED IN THE NOTES THAT MISS MENZIONE PREPARED THAT WERE ATTACHED WITH THE MOTION.
WHO WOULD HAVE KNOWN, YOUR HONOR, OTHER THAN O.J. SIMPSON EARLY ON THE MORNING OF JUNE THE 13TH, THAT THERE HAD BEEN A DEATH OF AN O.J. SIMPSON THAT WASN'T NEWS IN CHICAGO AT THAT POINT, YOUR HONOR, THAT THE CALLER HAD A CHILD THAT WAS 9 AND ALMOST 6, THAT THE CALLER WANTED TO MAKE A PARTICULAR FLIGHT FROM AMERICAN AIRLINES?
THEY TRIED TO GO TO DIFFERENT AIRPORTS, DIFFERENT AIRLINES, BUT THERE WAS NONE THAT WOULD GET HIM INTO LOS ANGELES AS QUICKLY AS THE FLIGHT THAT WAS BOOKED.
I THINK, YOUR HONOR, THERE IS SUFFICIENT INDICATION THAT THE CALLER WAS O.J. SIMPSON, THE NAME WAS ORENTHAL, THE RESERVATION WAS ORENTHAL. HE WAS ASKED TO SPELL THE NAME ORENTHAL AND DURING THE COURSE OF THE CONVERSATION SHE SAID, "OH, YOU MEAN YOU ARE THE MOVIE GUY?"
"YEAH," AND THERE WAS SOME REFLECTION, DURING THE COURSE OF THE CONVERSATION, THAT SHE WAS SPEAKING WITH THE O.J. SIMPSON.
THE COURT: SO GETTING BACK TO MY QUESTION NOW, DO YOU HAVE A CALL FROM CATHY RANDA TO THIS HERTZ PERSON?
MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, I DO NOT AT PRESENT HAVE RECORDS FROM CATHY RANDA TO HERTZ.
THE COURT: MR. DOUGLAS, ORENTHAL IS CLEARLY A UNIQUE AND DISTINCTIVE NAME. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES INDICATE PROBABLY SO.
DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING INDEPENDENT OF THIS CONVERSATION THAT CAN ESTABLISH TO ME THAT THE LIKELIHOOD IS THIS IS THE PERSON?
MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, I DO NOT HAVE BEFORE ME TODAY CATHY RANDA'S PHONE RECORDS FROM JUNE OF '94. I DO MR. SIMPSON'S TELEPHONE RECORDS FROM HIS HOTEL AND I DO HAVE TWO CALLS THAT WERE MADE TO
MISS RANDA'S HOME BEFORE THE FIRST CALL THAT WAS MADE TO JIM MERRILL'S CELLULAR PHONE AND HE CALLED
JIM MERRILL TO PICK HIM UP TO TAKE HIM TO THE AIRPORT.
I HAVE THREE CALLS TO JIM MERRILL, BUT PRECEDING THOSE THREE CALLS WERE TWO CALLS TO CATHY RANDA.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. DOUGLAS: AND THAT IS ALL THAT I HAVE AT THIS TIME, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
DO WE HAVE ONE OF THOSE COMPUTER TRAVEL AGENCY PRINTOUTS THAT GIVES US THE TIME OF THE CALL AND WHAT ARRANGEMENTS WERE MADE?
MR. DOUGLAS: MISS MENZIONE DOES NOT HAVE THAT, NO, YOUR HONOR.
BUT YOUR HONOR, BEFORE THE CALL WAS MADE TO THE DRIVER TO COME PICK ME UP AND TAKE ME BACK TO THE AIRPORT, THERE WERE TWO CALLS MADE TO CATHY RANDA.
CERTAINLY, YOUR HONOR, THAT SUPPLIES THE INDICATION. AT THE END OF THE CALL HE SAYS, "THANK YOU, CATHY" TO MISS MENZIONE. SHE WILL TESTIFY TO THAT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. IS MISS RANDA AVAILABLE?
MR. DOUGLAS: AS A WITNESS IN THE CASE?
THE COURT: YES.
MR. DOUGLAS: SHE IS. MISS MENZIONE FLEW OUT HERE FROM CHICAGO. SHE IS GOING BACK TODAY AND I WOULD LIKE TO GET HER TESTIMONY ON TODAY.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. DOUGLAS: SHE LEAVES AT 2:45 TODAY.
THE COURT: WELL, SHE KNOWS HOW TO CHANGE RESERVATIONS.
MR. DOUGLAS: PROBABLY SO.
THE COURT: COUNSEL, I THINK MISS LEWIS' POINT IS WELL TAKEN AT THIS POINT REGARDING FOUNDATION, BUT THERE IS NOT MUCH MORE THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE, BUT I'M INDICATING TO YOU I NEED SOMETHING A LITTLE MORE THAN WHAT IS THERE, BECAUSE RELATING A CONVERSATION WITH SOMEBODY THAT YOU'VE NEVER TALKED TO BEFORE, I THINK YOU NEED SOMETHING MORE THAN WHAT YOU'VE GOT HERE.
MR. DOUGLAS: EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE INDEPENDENT CONFIRMING EVENTS DURING THE COURSE OF THE CONVERSATION THAT SUGGEST ONLY ONE PERSON?
THE COURT: IT IS THE FOUNDATION FOR THE CONVERSATION ITSELF.
MR. DOUGLAS: VERY WELL, YOUR HONOR.
MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, I WANTED JUST THE COURT TO BE AWARE OF AN ADDITIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE.
THE COURT: COUNSEL, NO. I'VE RULED AND I'VE FOUND AN INADEQUATE FOUNDATION AT THIS POINT.
MS. LEWIS: ALL RIGHT.
YOUR HONOR, SINCE THE -- IF THE COURT -- IF THE COURT IS MOVING ON --
THE COURT: YES.
MS. LEWIS: SINCE THE PEOPLE DID FILE A 402 MOTION TO BRING THIS TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION, MAY THE PEOPLE HAVE THE FIRST ARGUMENT WITH REGARD TO CHRISTIAN REICHARDT?
THE COURT: YES.
MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, IT APPEARS, FROM ALL I CAN TELL, THAT THE DEFENSE IS ATTEMPTING TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE REGARDING FAYE RESNICK'S PAST DRUG USAGE AND HER INTERVENTION AND ALLEGED PAST PROBLEMS WITH DRUGS THROUGH HER EX-BOYFRIEND CHRISTIAN REICHARDT.
THERE IS ALMOST NO TESTIMONY THAT MR. REICHARDT HAS TO OFFER THAT I BELIEVE IS ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE LAW. UNDER HALL, AND THE PROGENY THAT HAS COME SINCE THEN, ALL OF THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT CASES DURING THE 1990'S WHICH FOLLOW HALL ALL REQUIRE THAT MERE EVIDENCE OF MOTIVE, EVEN IF THERE IS ALSO OPPORTUNITY, THOSE THINGS ARE NOT ALONE SUFFICIENT TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE THAT SOME THIRD PARTY ACTUALLY COMMITTED THE CRIMES.
THIS CASE LAW IS WELL-ESTABLISHED.
IN THE PRIDE CASE THE TRIAL COURT KEPT OUT EVIDENCE THAT THE HUSBAND OF THE MURDER VICTIM HAD RECEIVED $40,000 IN LIFE INSURANCE MONEY AND REMARRIED A YEAR LATER, BECAUSE THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT SAID IN THAT CASE WHERE THE DEFENDANT WAS SITTING ON DEATH ROW THAT THAT WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO RAISE A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED THE MURDERS, AS A MATTER OF LAW.
IN THE ALCALA CASE, A PAROLED MURDERER, A KNOWN MURDERER WAS ON PAROLE WAS ACTING SUSPICIOUSLY IN THE AREA OF THE MURDERS TWO DAYS AFTER THE VICTIM DISAPPEARED.
THE TRIAL COURT KEPT THAT OUT. THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT SAID INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO RAISE A REASONABLE DOUBT. THERE WAS NOTHING LINKING HIM TO THE ACTUAL PERPETRATION OF THE CRIME.
IN PEOPLE VERSUS CLARK THERE WAS A THIRD PARTY CONNECTED WITH THE CASE WHO HAD COMMITTED A MURDER BY DECAPITATION AND IN THIS CASE THE MURDER WAS BY DECAPITATION.
THE SUPREME COURT SAID IN THAT CASE -- ALL OF THESE CASES THE DEFENDANTS ARE NOW SITTING ON DEATH ROW.
THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT SAID IN THAT CASE THAT IS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO RAISE A REASONABLE DOUBT AS TO THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT.
NOW, IN THOSE --
THE COURT: IS DECAPITATION, AS A MANNER OF KILLING, SEMI DISTINCTIVE?
MS. LEWIS: CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT SAID THAT IS INSUFFICIENT. YOU WOULD THINK SO. I MEAN, THAT IS SIMILAR M.O., BUT THAT IS NOT ENOUGH. THERE HAS TO BE SOMEBODY ACTUALLY --
THE COURT: AS I RECOLLECT, THAT WAS
MULTIPLE --
MS. LEWIS: MULTIPLE DECAPITATIONS.
THE COURT: -- DECAPITATIONS.
MS. LEWIS: I BELIEVE SO.
SO THERE HAS TO BE EVIDENCE, THERE HAS TO BE A LOT MORE EVIDENCE THAN THE DEFENSE COULD EVER HOPE FOR HERE.
NO. 1, THERE HAS TO BE AN IDENTIFIED THIRD PARTY. THEY CAN'T JUST SAY SOME DRUG SELLER SOMEWHERE IN THE UNIVERSE. THERE HAS TO BE SOME IDENTIFIED SUSPECT AS A THIRD PARTY. THEY DON'T HAVE THAT.
THERE HAS TO BE -- TO START WITH, THERE HAS TO BE MOTIVE AND THEY HAVE -- THEY DON'T HAVE THAT. THEY HAVE A TORTURED ARGUMENT THAT SOMEHOW BECAUSE FAYE RESNICK MAY HAVE HAD A MINOR DRUG HABIT, THAT WOULD CAUSE AND WARRANT SOME COLOMBIAN DRUG LORD TO COME MURDER HER FRIEND AND SOMEONE IS COMING BY HER HOUSE AT THE TIME.
THE COURT: WELL, LET'S --
MS. LEWIS: THAT STRETCHES CREDULITY.
THE COURT: LET'S ASSUME THAT IT WAS A MORE THAN SIGNIFICANT THAN MINOR DRUG PROBLEM. LET'S ASSUME THAT WHEN FRIENDS WHO CARE FOR SOMEBODY TAKE THAT PERSON AND PUT THEM INTO A DRUG PROGRAM, I MEAN, THAT IS MORE THAN MINOR.
MS. LEWIS: SUPPOSE THE PERSON IS AN ADDICTED PERSON THAT THEY ARE ABOUT TO FALL DOWN DEAD? THERE IS NO --
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
MS. LEWIS: MISS CLARK FEELS STRONG ABOUT THIS ISSUE, AS WE ALL DO, BECAUSE THE CASE LAW IS CLEAR IN THIS AREA.
I MEAN, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE HERE OF ANYTHING OTHER THAN THIS WOMAN MAY HAVE HAD A DRUG PROBLEM. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT SHE OWED MONEY BECAUSE OF THAT PROBLEM. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT SHE WAS INVOLVED IN SELLING DRUGS.
PEOPLE -- FROM WHAT THE DEFENSE IS SPECULATING, IT IS ABSURDITY, IS ABSOLUTELY ABSURD THAT SOMEBODY WOULD GO TRY --
THE COURT: HOW WAS MISS RESNICK EMPLOYED AT THE TIME?
MS. LEWIS: HOW WAS SHE EMPLOYED AT THAT TIME?
THE COURT: WHAT WAS HER SOURCE OF INCOME?
MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, I DON'T THINK THAT --
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS)
MS. LEWIS: I'M TOLD THAT WAS MR. REICHARDT, HER EX-BOYFRIEND, WHO WAS SUPPORTING HER AT THE TIME.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
MS. LEWIS: ON THEIR OWN SAVINGS, THEIR OWN MONEY, BUT AT ANY RATE, YOUR HONOR, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, FORGIVE THE COLLOQUIAL EXPRESSION, ABOUT A NICKEL AND DIME HABIT OF SOMEONE, AND ON THE OTHER HAND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT MURDER, AND THESE THINGS DON'T EVEN LOGICALLY NECESSARILY LINK ONE TO THE OTHER.
AND I HAVE CITED A CASE IN MY BRIEF THAT TALKS ABOUT YOU DON'T DRAW SPECULATIVE INFERENCES FROM SPECULATIVE INFERENCES. I MEAN, THOSE OF US WHO LIKE TO GET INTO DETAIL CAN KIND OF GET INTO DETAIL AND GET INTO THIS STUFF WAY OFF ON THE LIMB OF A TREE WHEN THE TRUNK OF THE TREE IS LOOKING AT IT WONDERING WHAT THE HECK WE ARE DOING STANDING OUT ON THE LIMB, AND THAT IS WHAT THE DEFENSE IS ATTEMPTING TO DO WITH THIS SUPPOSED EVIDENCE OF ANY DRUG DEALING THAT WOULD CAUSE SOMEBODY TO MURDER FAYE RESNICK'S FRIEND OR EVEN FAYE RESNICK.
THERE IS JUST SIMPLY -- THERE IS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.
THE THIRD -- THE THIRD OBVIOUS THING -- I SHOULDN'T SAY OBVIOUS, BUT THE THIRD THING THAT THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT CONSISTENTLY REQUIRES BEFORE SAYING THAT THERE IS ANY POSSIBILITY THAT IT MIGHT RAISE A REASONABLE DOUBT IS AN ACTUAL LINK TO THE MURDERS OF THIS NAMED THIRD PARTY, EVIDENCE ACTUALLY CONNECTING, AND THAT IS WHERE WE CAN -- THE DEFENSE WOULD TRY TO GET INTO SPECULATION, AND BASED UPON SPECULATION, BY TRYING TO ARGUE THAT THERE IS MORE THAN ONE MURDERER, AND THEREFORE, IF THERE IS MORE THAN ONE MURDERER, MAYBE THAT WAS THE DRUG SELLER, AND EVEN THOUGH WE DON'T HAVE A NAME OF A PERSON BECAUSE FAYE RESNICK MAY HAVE HAD A DRUG HABIT, IT IS LIKELY TO BELIEVE IT WAS A DRUG SELLER.
IT IS RIDICULOUS, YOUR HONOR. THERE IS JUST TOO MANY INFERENCES AND TOO MUCH SPECULATION. NONE OF THIS EVIDENCE IN THIS ENTIRE TRIAL WARRANTS FINDING THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE ACTUALLY LINKING ANYBODY OTHER THAN THE DEFENDANT, ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, TO THESE MURDERS. IT IS JUST NOT THERE.
NO MATTER HOW MUCH MR. COCHRAN AND THE OTHER DEFENSE TEAM MEMBERS WOULD TRY AND WAVE THAT SPIN IN FRONT OF THE JURY, IT JUST DOES NOT SURVIVE. THERE IS JUST NOT EVIDENCE THERE.
AND THE CASE LAW IS CLEAR, OUR CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT HAS SPOKEN ON THIS TOPIC REPEATEDLY OVER THE 1990'S CURRENT LAW, THAT THAT IS INSUFFICIENT.
NOW, IN ADDITION, YOUR HONOR, THERE IS, IN ADDITION TO THAT LINE OF AUTHORITY AND THAT BASIC PROBLEM WITH THE DEFENSE ATTEMPT, THERE IS OF COURSE THE ALWAYS PRESENT, WHENEVER YOU HAVE SUCH INFLAMMATORY EVIDENCE OR INFLAMMATORY SPIN ON EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 352.
AND HERE, ACCORDING TO OUR TRANSCRIPT OF OUR INTERVIEW WITH MR. REICHARDT, THERE IS HARDLY A THING IN THERE THAT ISN'T OBJECTIONABLE BASED ON 352 GROUNDS AND RELEVANCY.
THERE IS SOME DISCUSSION IN THERE OF A SEXUAL ENCOUNTER BETWEEN FAYE RESNICK AND NICOLE. I DON'T KNOW IF THE DEFENSE IS TRYING TO ELICIT THAT OR NOT. THERE IS SIMPLY NO RELEVANCE TO THAT. IT IS UNDULY INFLAMMATORY. EVEN WHEN WE COME BACK TO THE BASIC ISSUE AND THE MAIN ISSUE OF HER DRUG USE, THAT IS INFLAMMATORY AND IRRELEVANT.
IT IS LIKELY TO MISLEAD AND CONFUSE THIS JURY. IT IS THERE FOR NO GOOD REASON THAN TO TRY TO SULLY THE VICTIMS, MAKE THEM LOOK BAD, MAKE NICOLE LOOK BAD BECAUSE SHE HAD A FRIENDS WHO MAY HAVE HAD A DRUG PROBLEM, AND CAST ASPERSIONS ON THE VICTIMS, ALL AS A MEANS TO DEFLECT ATTENTION AWAY FROM THE EVIDENCE SHOWING MR. SIMPSON IS HIMSELF GUILTY AND WAS THE MURDERER.
THE COURT: DOESN'T IT SHOW THAT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON CARED FOR HER FRIEND ENOUGH TO GET HER INTO A DRUG PROGRAM?
MS. LEWIS: AND WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE OF THAT?
THE COURT: YOU SAY IT IS TO SULLY THE REPUTATION OF THE VICTIMS. THAT DIDN'T STRIKE ME THAT WAY.
MS. LEWIS: WELL, THEIR MOTIVES ASIDE, IT IS WHAT ENDS UP COMING OUT AND WHAT THE EVIDENCE SAYS THAT MATTERS.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
MS. LEWIS: THAT'S RIGHT, YOUR HONOR.
WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE A MINI TRIAL AS TO FAYE RESNICK AND HER DRUG -- POTENTIAL PAST DRUG USAGE.
I'M NOT SURE TO THE EXTENT THAT SHE HAS ACKNOWLEDGED DRUG USAGE, SO I DON'T WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE ANY ON HER BEHALF. SHE CERTAINLY HASN'T TOLD ME OF ANY.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
MS. LEWIS: THAT'S RIGHT.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THAT ANYBODY HAD ANY ILL WILL TOWARD HER BECAUSE OF THAT DRUG HABIT, ANYBODY THAT WAS LIKELY TO MURDER HER. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY DRUG SELLER THAT HAD THREATENED HER OR TO WHOM SHE OWED MONEY THAT WAS IN TOWN THAT NIGHT THAT WAS ANYWHERE NEAR THE PREMISES. THERE IS NOTHING EVEN TO LINK UP THAT MOTIVE.
AND EVEN IF YOU HAD THAT LINK, THAT LINK UNDER THE MOTIVE, YOU DON'T HAVE THE EVIDENCE OF ACTUAL PERPETRATION. ALL OF THAT IS STILL SPECULATION. THERE IS STILL NO EVIDENCE ACTUALLY LINKING SUCH A HYPOTHETICAL PERSON TO BEING THE MURDERER AND THE PERSON WHO KILLED THOSE TWO INNOCENT VICTIMS.
SO THE -- THE DEFENSE HAS GONE FAR AFIELD IN TRYING TO BACK DOOR IN, I GUESS, MR. -- OR
MISS RESNICK'S USE OF DRUGS THROUGH HER EX-BOYFRIEND.
I SEE THE COURT HAS ACQUIRED A TEXTBOOK. I WILL PAUSE.
THE COURT: I JUST HAD A POINT OF CURIOSITY HERE.
MS. LEWIS: YOU KNOW, ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE ARE A FEW THINGS WHICH WE DON'T FIND OBJECTIONABLE, IF THE DEFENSE WOULD CHOSE TO PUT ON MR. REICHARDT FOR THOSE REASONS ALONE, AND THAT IS THAT SHORTLY BEFORE THE MURDERS THE DEFENDANT TOLD FAYE RESNICK, AND MISS RESNICK REPEATED IT TO CHRISTIAN REICHARDT, THAT HE WAS GOING TO KILL NICOLE AND SHE TOLD HIM THAT BEFORE THE MURDERS OCCURRED.
SO IF THE DEFENSE WANTS TO ALLOW THAT HEARSAY WHEN MR. REICHARDT COMES IN AND TESTIFIES THAT FAYE RESNICK TOLD HIM THE DEFENDANT SAID THAT, WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO ADMIT, WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO ALLOW THEM TO QUESTION HIM WITH REGARD TO THE LENGTHY CONVERSATIONS THE DEFENDANT HAD OVER THE TWO WEEKS PRECEDING THE MURDERS WITH FAYE RESNICK AND WHY WHEN HE WAS TALKING ABOUT WHY WON'T NICOLE RETURN MY TELEPHONE CALLS, WHY WON'T SHE CALL HIM, WHERE HE APPEARED TO BE OBSESSED WITH HER THEN, CONTRARY TO THE IMAGE THAT THE DEFENSE IS TRYING TO PORTRAY THAT HE WAS HAPPY-GO-LUCKY ABOUT THEM HAVING BROKE UP.
AND WE ALSO DON'T OBJECT TO MR. REICHARDT ACKNOWLEDGING THAT MR. SIMPSON GAVE HIM $5000 FOR DOING A FIVE-PAGE I BELIEVE OUTLINE FOR A VIDEO OF HIS.
BUT, YOUR HONOR, THE -- THE GRAVAMEN OF THIS MOTION IS THAT THE DEFENSE HAS FAILED TO SHOW ANY LINK OF ANY THIRD PARTY WITH THESE MURDERS AS IT IS REQUIRED TO BY OUR CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT AND AS IT IS REQUIRED TO UNDER THE LAW.
REGARDLESS OF HOW THEY WANT TO TRY THIS CASE IN FRONT OF THIS JURY, THEY ARE OBLIGED TO FOLLOW THE LAW AND THEY CANNOT DO IT IN THIS REGARD.
THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
MR. COCHRAN.
MR. COCHRAN: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: GOOD MORNING.
MR. COCHRAN: JUST BRIEFLY, YOUR HONOR.
YOU HAVE BEEN VERY PATIENT THIS MORNING LISTENING TO THE LAWYERS, AND SO I'M NOT GOING TO BELABOR THIS, BUT I THINK WE SHOULD GET THE RECORD STRAIGHT ON A COUPLE OF THINGS.
MISS LEWIS SPECULATES FAR TOO MUCH ABOUT WITH WHAT WE EXPECT TO DO. SHE DIDN'T HAVE THE BENEFIT OF OUR CONVERSATION BACK IN CHAMBERS WHICH YOU NOW HAVE WITH COUNSEL, MR. DARDEN AND MISS CLARK THERE.
BUT LET ME JUST INDICATE THAT WITH REGARD TO DR. REICHARDT, DR. CHRISTIAN REICHARDT, HE DOES HAVE VERY, VERY RELEVANT TESTIMONY.
FIRST OF ALL, LET'S TALK ABOUT DEMEANOR.
DR. REICHARDT SPOKE WITH OUR CLIENT, MR. O.J. SIMPSON, AT ABOUT NINE O'CLOCK ON JUNE 12TH, 1994, IN A PHONE CONVERSATION WHICH HE WOULD, I BELIEVE, TESTIFY ABOUT MR. SIMPSON'S DEMEANOR, THAT HE WAS CALM, HE WAS RELAXED LIKE HE ALWAYS WAS.
THAT AT THAT CONVERSATION THEY MADE A DATE TO HAVE DINNER, ALONG WITH PAULA BARBIERI, ON THE WEDNESDAY PRECEDING OR SUCCEEDING THAT SUNDAY EVENING, SO I GUESS THAT WOULD BE WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH OF JUNE.
HE HAS HAD A LONG-STANDING RELATIONSHIP WITH MR. SIMPSON.
AND FOR COUNSEL TO COME AND MAKE THESE SPECULATIONS BASED UPON JUST A SCINTILLA OF KNOWLEDGE IS UNFORTUNATE BECAUSE SHE WOULD KNOW THIS MAN IS A CHIROPRACTIC DOCTOR AND HIS LAWYER HAS ASSURED ME HE WOULD HE HAVE MADE A LOT MORE THAN $5,000 IF HE HAD BEEN IN HIS OFFICE FOR THE WORK HE DID ON A PLAYBOY VIDEO ON HOW YOU CONDUCT YOURSELF ON FLIGHTS AND HOW YOU AVOID JET LAG AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
WE CAN QUARREL ABOUT THAT. MR. SIMPSON DIDN'T GIVE HIM ANYTHING. HE WAS PAID FOR WHAT HE DID AT THE TIME, SO WE CLEARLY HAVE THE DEMEANOR.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, PERHAPS THE PROSECUTION DOESN'T KNOW, DR. REICHARDT SPOKE WITH NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON ONLY ABOUT 4:30 OR 5:00 ON THAT AFTERNOON. HE ALSO SPOKE WITH HER, AS I HAVE INDICATED TO THE COURT, ON FRIDAY EVENING. HE WAS A FRIEND OF ALL THE PARTIES HERE INVOLVED.
NOW, IT IS INTERESTING THAT MISS LEWIS WOULD SPECULATE OUT LOUD ABOUT SOME RELATIONSHIP. THE COURT WILL RECALL THAT ON THE DEFENSE SIDE WE HAVE NEVER SAID ONE BAD THING ABOUT EITHER OF THESE VICTIMS AND WE WILL NOT DO THAT.
ALL THE THINGS THAT HAVE COME IS FROM THEIR OWN WITNESSES OR FROM FAYE RESNICK IN HER BOOK. WE HAVE NEVER SAID ANYTHING BAD AND WILL NOT PLAN AND WILL NOT DO THAT DURING THE COURSE OF THIS CASE.
BUT WITH REGARD TO THE OTHER ASPECT THAT SHE TALKS ABOUT -- SO CLEARLY THERE IS RELEVANCE TO HIS TESTIMONY, AND IT SEEMS AS THOUGH IN A SEARCH FOR TRUTH IT SEEMS LIKE THERE IS THEIR TRUTH AND THERE IS THE REAL TRUTH.
SO ALL WE ARE SAYING IS WE HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO BRING THIS MAN ON. WE WILL MAKE THAT JUDGMENT OF.
WITH REGARD TO FAYE RESNICK, THAT IS WHAT SHE IS REALLY WORRIED ABOUT, YOUR HONOR, AND THAT IS WHY SHE GOES TO SUCH EXTENT AND EXTREME.
THE COURT HAS CLEARLY POINTED OUT WE EXPECT THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT MISS FAYE RESNICK HAD A BREAST ENLARGEMENT SURGERY IN MARCH OF 1994, THAT DR. REICHARDT TOLD HER AT THE TIME HE WAS AFRAID FOR HER GETTING BACK ON MEDICATION, THAT SHE RETURN TO BINGEING AND USING DRUGS. THAT IS WHAT I EXPECT THE EVIDENCE TO SHOW.
AND HE KNEW YOU ABOUT HER. THIS WASN'T LIKE ANY MINOR DRUG PROBLEM. HE HAD BEEN AS THE SOBER PERSON THROUGH THE BETTY FORD CLINIC WITH THIS LADY TO TRY TO HELP HER STAY STRAIGHT, ALONG WITH HER MINOR CHILD WHO RESIDED WITH HER, YOUR HONOR.
BUT YET AFTER SHE HAD THIS BREAST ENLARGEMENT, SURE ENOUGH, SHE RETURNED TO THE USE OF DRUGS JUST AS SHE FEARED.
YOU ASKED A VERY APPROPRIATE QUESTION. SHE WAS NOT GAINFULLY EMPLOYED. SHE LIVED WITH HIM AND HE DOES NOT USE DRUGS AND WOULD NOT GIVE HER ANY MONEY FOR DRUGS. I WOULD EXPECT THE TESTIMONY TO BE THAT AND HE WILL BE ADAMANT ABOUT THAT IF HE DOES IN FACT TESTIFY.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, OVER A PERIOD OF TIME HER DRUG USAGE BECAME SO BAD, YOUR HONOR, THAT ON THE FRIDAY, THE PREVIOUS FRIDAY, I THINK JUNE THE 3RD, IT BECAME SO BAD THAT THEY SEPARATED. SHE MOVED IN OR WENT OVER TO NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S HOUSE AS A FRIEND. HE LEFT, WENT TO SAN DIEGO.
SHE CALLED HIM FROM MISS BROWN SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE INDICATING SHE WAS STAYING THERE NOW. AND HE RETURNED HOME ON SUNDAY. SHE WAS STILL AT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE.
SHE WOULD ONLY COME HOME DURING THE DAY TO CHANGE CLOTHES OR TO GET CLOTHES, BUT SHE WAS RESIDING AT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE.
WE THINK THIS IS VERY RELEVANT BECAUSE WHEN I HAD DETECTIVE LANGE ON THE STAND THERE WAS SOME QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER SHE MOVED IN WITH NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON. I THINK WE CAN SHOW THAT THROUGH CHRISTIAN REICHARDT.
MORE IMPORTANT IS THE FACT THAT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON WAS A VERY GOOD FRIEND OF THIS LADY AND SHOULD NEVER BE MALIGNED AT ALL, THEY SHOULDN'T EVEN THINK ABOUT HER BEING MALIGNED, ON WEDNESDAY OF THAT WEEK, THE 8TH, THE SITUATION WITH FAYE RESNICK BECAME SO BAD WITH HER USE OF COCAINE THAT HER FORMER HUSBAND, PAUL RESNICK, CONTACTED CHRISTIAN REICHARDT, YOUR HONOR, SAID, "LOOK, IT HAS GOTTEN SO BAD, I'M CONCERNED FOR FRANCESCA, I'M CONCERNED FOR HER."
AND DR. REICHARDT WAS SUPPOSED TO GO TO A FAMILY GATHERING THAT EVENING AND HE DIDN'T SHOW UP BECAUSE THEY MET AT A RESTAURANT OUT IN BRENTWOOD TO TALK ABOUT THEIR APPROACH. AT THIS RESTAURANT ON JUNE 8TH WAS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, PAUL RESNICK AND CHRISTIAN REICHARDT, ALL TO DISCUSS THE DRUG PROBLEM, THE SERIOUS DRUG PROBLEM OF FAYE RESNICK.
THEY TALKED ABOUT IT. FAYE RESNICK WAS AT A PARTY THAT PARTICULAR EVENING, THE PARTY THAT DR. REICHARDT WAS TO ATTEND, BUT HE DIDN'T ATTEND THAT PARTY.
AND AT THE DINNER THAT THEY HAD IT WAS DETERMINED THEY WOULD -- IT WAS SO SERIOUS THAT THEY WOULD HAVE AN INTERVENTION THAT NIGHT, AN INTERVENTION IN WHICH THE FAMILY AND FRIENDS WOULD COME TOGETHER AND SAY TO THIS LADY, YOU CAN'T HELP YOURSELF, WE'VE GOT TO HELP YOU GET SOME HELP.
AND SURE ENOUGH, IT WAS AGREED THAT LATER THAT EVENING AT DR. REICHARDT'S HOUSE THAT THEY WOULD HAVE THIS INTERVENTION, THAT MISS RESNICK WOULD COME OVER, HER FORMER HUSBAND, PAUL RESNICK, WOULD COME BY, AND THEY IN FACT DID AT ABOUT ELEVEN O'CLOCK THAT EVENING.
AND AS OFTEN HAPPENS, FAYE RESNICK WAS IN DENIAL. IN FACT, SHE DENIED USING DRUGS, DENIED HAVING ANY DRUGS IN THE HOUSE, AND IT WAS MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON WHO WENT OVER, ACCORDING TO DR. REICHARDT, AND SHOWED WHERE SHE WAS HIDING A STASH OF COCAINE AT THAT POINT IN THAT HOUSE.
AND THEY RECOVERED IT. I BELIEVE THE UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT EVENING IT WAS FLUSHED DOWN THE TOILET BECAUSE EVERYBODY ELSE THERE APPARENTLY WAS ANTI-DRUG EXCEPT FAYE RESNICK.
AND IT WAS DETERMINED AT THIS POINT THAT SHE WOULD GO INTO EXODUS THE VERY NEXT DAY.
AND THE RECORD WILL REFLECT THAT DR. REICHARDT TOOK HER INTO EXODUS THE VERY NEXT DAY, WHICH WILL BE ON THURSDAY, THE 9TH, AND WE KNOW THAT IN THE FROM THE RECORDS, YOUR HONOR.
SHE REMAINED IN THERE FOR APPROXIMATELY TWO WEEKS AND HE CONTINUED -- HE PAID FOR THIS, YOUR HONOR. COST HIM $7,000. EVEN THOUGH AT THIS POINT THEY WERE SEPARATED, HE PAID FOR THIS, AS A FRIEND, AND MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON HAD BEEN A FRIEND OF THIS PARTICULAR LADY.
JUDGE, WHEN YOU BUY DRUGS, YOU GENERALLY HAVE TO PAY FOR THEM. THEY CAN TALK ABOUT THE SPECULATION THEY WHAT. THIS IS AXIOMATIC. AND YOU CAN TALK ABOUT A NICKEL AND DIME THING. THIS IS FAR MORE THAN THIS. THIS IS GOING ON OVER A PERIOD OF TIME, SOMEONE WHO HAS NO GAINFUL MEANS OF PAYING FOR THESE DRUGS, AND THOSE ARE ABSOLUTELY THE FACTS.
YOU TAKE THAT -- AND THAT IS WHY -- ONE OF THE REASONS THAT WE -- LET ME STATE AGAIN FOR THE RECORD, WE DON'T PLAN OR WANT TO CALL SYDNEY SIMPSON TO THE STAND. ALL WE HAVE ASKED IS TO TALK TO HER ALONG WITH MISS CLARK IN AN EFFORT TO TRY AND ASCERTAIN AND TO DO A STIPULATION WHY SYDNEY SIMPSON SAYS THAT NIGHT MOMMY'S BEST FRIEND CALLS AND MOMMY WAS CRYING THEREAFTER.
THE COURT WILL RECALL THAT.
AND THEN FURTHER, YOUR HONOR, THE SITUATION WE HAVE HERE IS THERE IS TESTIMONY FROM SEVERAL WITNESSES THAT ONCE THESE HORRIBLE CRIMES OCCURRED, FRIENDS OF ALL PARTIES, FAYE RESNICK, NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, EVERYONE INDICATED AND EVERYONE SAID, AND THE PROSECUTION IS AWARE OF THIS, IF O.J. ISN'T GUILTY OF THIS, THEN WE ARE ALL IN TROUBLE.
AND THERE IS TESTIMONY, FOR INSTANCE, WITH DR. REICHARDT, THAT HE SLEPT WITH A GUN FOR SEVERAL WEEKS OR TEN DAYS AFTER THIS HAPPENED. THERE WAS GREAT FRIGHT AND CONCERN AT EXODUS WHERE FAYE RESNICK WAS WHEN CHRISTIAN REICHARDT WENT TO SEE HER AT THE DRUG TREATMENT FACILITY. THEY THOUGHT THIS WAS A DRUG-RELATED SITUATION AND THAT THIS WAS A PAY BACK FOR NOT PAYING FOR THESE DRUGS.
AND ALL THESE PEOPLE FELT THAT EXACT SAME WAY. THEY ALL FELT THAT WAY. AND WE THINK THAT IS RELEVANT AND IT CERTAINLY TIES IN.
AND SO WHAT I'VE TRIED NOW IS TO DEMONSTRATE TO YOUR HONOR WHAT I EXPECT IS RELEVANT TESTIMONY THAT WE CAN DEMONSTRATE, WHAT YOU SAID TO US IN CHAMBERS, BECAUSE IN THIS CASE WE ARE TRYING TO MOVE ALONG AT A PACE WHERE WE DON'T FORSAKE QUALITY FOR SPEED.
AT THE SAME TIME WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS JURY, SO WE ARE MAKING TACTICAL DECISIONS AS WE GO ALONG. WE HAVEN'T MADE THE FINAL DECISION, ALTHOUGH DR. REICHARDT IS ON OUR LIST FOR TODAY, BUT CERTAINLY HIS TESTIMONY IS RELEVANT, CERTAINLY ON THE DEMEANOR, AND WE THINK IT IS ALSO RELEVANT, YOUR HONOR, WITH REGARD TO THE OTHER THINGS I HAVE INDICATED REGARDING FAYE RESNICK AND HER DRUG USAGE.
AND IT IS NOT PARTICULARLY HELPFUL TO YOU TO TALK ABOUT THESE OTHER THINGS OR TO BE WORRIED ABOUT WHAT WE MAY BE DOING.
FURTHER, AS I SAID, WE DON'T PLAN TO GO INTO ANYTHING THAT IS NEGATIVE, AND FURTHER, ANY HEARSAY STATEMENT WE DON'T PLAN TO ELICIT, AS I MENTIONED TO YOU BACK IN CHAMBERS. ANY HEARSAY STATEMENT MADE BY FAYE RESNICK ATTRIBUTED TO OUR CLIENT IS DOUBLE HEARSAY.
IN THAT SAME INTERVIEW THAT MR. DARDEN CONDUCTED MR. -- DR. REICHARDT WAS NEVER ON THE PHONE AT ANY TIME AND DIDN'T HEAR -- HE JUST HEARD WHAT FAYE RESNICK WAS SAYING AND HE ALSO TOLD MR. DARDEN THAT DURING THIS TIME THAT SHE WAS ALLEGEDLY TALKING TO MR. SIMPSON SHE WAS HIGH ON DRUGS AT THAT VERY TIME, AND HE HAD BEEN WORKING ALL DAY AND CAME HOME AND DIDN'T WANT TO HEAR WHAT HE CONSIDERED NONSENSICAL CONVERSATION.
SO I PROMISE NOT TO BE LENGTHY, BUT I THOUGHT I SHOULD MAKE AN EFFORT TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS, I WILL BE MORE THAN PLEASED TO TRY AND ANSWER THEM.
THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, MR. COCHRAN HAS JUST MADE MY POINT PERFECTLY.
WE HAVE GOTTEN OFF INTO AN INTRIGUE WITH REGARD TO FAYE RESNICK AND HE STILL HAS FAILED TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CASE LAW. WHO WAS HER DEALER? WHO DID SHE OWE MONEY TO? DID SHE OWE MONEY TO ANYBODY? WAS THE PERSON BENT OUT OF SHAPE? WAS THAT PERSON SOMEBODY WHO THE DEFENSE CAN IDENTIFY? WAS THAT PERSON SOMEBODY THAT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO KILL HER?
I MEAN, HE HAS STILL FAILED TO GO THROUGH AND ENUMERATE SOMETHING, SOME EVIDENCE ACTUALLY LINKING THE PERPETRATION OF THESE CRIMES WITH ANYBODY OTHER THAN MR. SIMPSON.
AND IT IS CLEAR FROM ALL THAT HE SAID, THAT NONE OF THAT DOES, THAT IT IS ALL SPECULATION.
ALL IT DOES IS CONFUSE AND MISLEAD THE JURY.
AND BY THE WAY, HE MENTIONED THAT THERE IS SO MUCH CONCERN ABOUT SOME OTHER MURDERER, AS A MATTER OF FACT, IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT MR. KARDASHIAN'S CHILD WAS SPENDING -- WAS STAYING AT FAY RESNICK'S HOUSE AS LATE AS FEBRUARY, SO CLEARLY THAT IS JUST SOMETHING HE IS SHOOTING OFF AT THE MOUTH, AND SHE STILL SPENDS THE NIGHT OCCASIONALLY I AM TOLD.
BUT ALL OF THIS HAS BECOME RIDICULOUS, YOUR HONOR. IT IS FAR OUT ON THAT LITTLE TWIG AT THE VERY END OF A LIMB ON A TREE WITH A BIG TRUNK AND THAT BIG TRUNK IS ALL THE EVIDENCE AGAINST MR. SIMPSON. THAT LITTLE LEAF SITTING OUT THERE IN THE WIND BLOWING IN THE WIND IS THE DEFENSE HOPE THAT THEY CAN SOMEHOW GET THE JURY TO BELIEVE THAT SOME DRUG SELLER IS THE ONE WHO ACTUALLY COMMITTED MURDERS.
AND YOUR HONOR, MR. COCHRAN TALKED AT LENGTH ABOUT THAT, BUT HE ALSO SPOKE ABOUT CONVERSATIONS OVER THE PHONE.
BY THE WAY, THE CONVERSATIONS THAT CHRISTIAN REICHARDT HAD WITH FAYE RESNICK ARE CLEARLY HEARSAY. I DON'T KNOW WHY HE THINKS THAT WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE.
AT ANY RATE, THE CONVERSATIONS --
MR. COCHRAN: I DIDN'T HEAR WHAT SHE SAID.
THE COURT: HE WAS JUST ASKING IF YOU COULD REPEAT THE LAST COMMENT. HE DIDN'T HEAR THAT.
MS. LEWIS: OH, THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WERE HAD OVER THE PHONE OR THE CONVERSATIONS THAT MR. REICHARDT HAD WITH FAYE RESNICK CLEARLY ARE HEARSAY, REGARDLESS OF WHAT -- WHETHER CHRISTIAN REICHARDT HEARD THE DEFENDANT OVER THE PHONE OR IF HE WAS JUST SPEAKING TO FAYE RESNICK.
AT ANY RATE, THE -- MR. COCHRAN WAS ALSO TALKING ABOUT CONVERSATION THAT MR. REICHARDT HAD WITH THE DEFENDANT ALLEGEDLY AT NINE O'CLOCK ON
JUNE 12TH, BEFORE THE MURDERS, AND AS FURTHER DEMEANOR EVIDENCE.
WELL, I WOULD SUBMIT THAT THE LIKELIHOOD OF MISLEADING OR CONFUSING THE JURY VERSUS THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF SOMEBODY'S DEMEANOR AS INTERPRETED OVER A TELEPHONE WEIGHS AGAINST THAT EVIDENCE COMING IN.
BECAUSE TO SAY HOW SOMEBODY SOUNDED OVER THE PHONE, WITHOUT AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE THEIR DEMEANOR, THEIR PHYSICAL BODY LANGUAGE, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THAT VOICE, DISEMBODIED VOICE ON THE TELEPHONE, IS REALLY VIRTUALLY MEANINGLESS.
FURTHER, YOUR HONOR, IN THAT REGARD, THE DEFENSE -- I DON'T KNOW, SINCE I -- WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE HAS BEEN DISCUSSION OF THIS PREVIOUSLY, BUT THE DEFENSE IS TREADING ON DANGEROUS GROUND WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT MR. SIMPSON'S DEMEANOR. THEY ARE GETTING INTO HIS CHARACTER FOR PEACEFULNESS UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT A MURDERER OR THAT SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT COMMIT MURDER ACTS PEACEFULLY UP UNTIL THE TIME OF THE MURDER.
I DIDN'T PHRASE THAT VERY WELL, BUT --
THE COURT: MISS LEWIS, LET'S NOT LAUNCH INTO THAT ISSUE.
THE ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT RIGHT NOW IS THE HALL ISSUE.
MS. LEWIS: ALL RIGHT.
IT IS CLEAR THAT NOTHING MR. COCHRAN HAS SAID HAS IDENTIFIED ANY THIRD PARTY OR HAS SHOWN ANY LINK OF EVIDENCE BESIDES A MOTIVE OF SOME UNIDENTIFIED THIRD PARTY. HE HAS FAILED TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT.
ALL OF THE CASE LAW THAT OUR CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT HAS REPEATEDLY HELD WITH REGARD TO DEFENDANT'S WHO ARE SITTING ON DEATH ROW WAITING TO BE EXECUTED REPEATEDLY HELD THAT THE TRIAL COURT'S PROPERLY RULED TO KEEP OUT THAT EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT DIDN'T RAISE THE REASONABLE DOUBT AS TO THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT WHEN THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE LINKING ANY THIRD PARTY, AND IN THOSE CASES THERE WAS A KNOWN IDENTIFIED THIRD PARTY LINKING ANY THIRD PARTY TO THE ACTUAL MURDERS THEMSELVES.
HERE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE SHOWS AND POINTS TO MR. SIMPSON AS BEING THE PERSON WHO MURDERED NICOLE BROWN AND RONALD GOLDMAN.
THERE HAS JUST BEEN A FAILURE, ABSOLUTE DISMAL FAILURE TO SHOW ANY OF THAT ACTUAL EVIDENTIARY LINK WHICH THE CASE LAW REQUIRES.
THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR --
THE COURT: I'M SORRY.
MR. COCHRAN, IS THERE SOMETHING THAT IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY? NORMALLY PROPONENT --
MR. COCHRAN: I CONSIDER -- ABOUT ONE MINUTE OF ABSOLUTE NECESSARY THINGS.
THE COURT: ONE MINUTE.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
IN THAT REGARD, I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT TO THE COURT WITH REGARD TO PEOPLE VERSUS HALL THAT WHERE THERE IS EVIDENCE OF THIRD PARTY CULPABILITY WOULD RAISE A REASONABLE DOUBT OF --
CAPABLE OF RAISING A REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE MINDS OF THE JURORS OR THE TRIER OF FACT, WE BE PERMITTED TO PUT THAT ON.
THE QUESTION SHE RAISED IS NOT OUR QUESTION. WE HAVE TRIED TO LINK AND SHOW THE COURT WHAT THE EVIDENCE WILL BE IN THAT REGARD. IT SEEMS TO ME IT IS TOTALLY REASONABLE, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, FOR A TRIER OF FACT TO FIND THAT REASONABLE DOUBT, GIVEN THE NATURE OF WHAT WAS HAPPENING, WHAT HAPPENED THAT NIGHT AND UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.
AND THE PROSECUTION HAS A LOT OF THEORIES, BUT THE THEORIES OFTTIMES ARE MANGLED BY THE FACTS OF THE CASE.
AND SO I THINK -- I JUST WANT TO POINT THAT OUT TO THE COURT. THAT IS THE CRUX OF THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE, BUT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DR. REICHARDT TESTIFYING.
I THINK THE COURT WILL CONCEDE THAT THERE IS AN ABUNDANCE OF TESTIMONY THAT HE COULD MAKE. AS TO WHETHER OR NOT WE WOULD LUNCH INTO THAT AREA IS THE ISSUE WHERE WE GET TO HALL.
THAT IS ALL I WANTED TO SAY, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THE ISSUE HERE IS THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE OF THIRD PARTY CULPABILITY.
THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT IN PEOPLE VERSUS HALL, WHICH IS AT 41 CAL.3D, ADDRESSED THIS ISSUE VERY SUCCINCTLY AND GAVE THE TRIAL COURT A GREAT DEAL OF GUIDANCE, AND SPECIFICALLY THE COMMENTS MADE BY JUSTICE MOSK AT PAGE 833 THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT HAS FOLLOWED THAT REASONING.
ALSO IN PEOPLE VERSUS KAURISH, K-A-U-R-I-S-H, 52 CAL.3D AT 648, ALSO AS MENTIONED BY COUNSEL, PEOPLE VERSUS CLARK AT 37 CAL.4TH, PEOPLE VERSUS PRIDE AT 3 CAL.4TH, AND ALSO THE JUSTICE PRO TEM'S RULING IN PEOPLE VERSUS VON VILLAS.
THESE CASES ALL INDICATE THAT BEFORE THIRD PARTY CULPABILITY EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE THERE MUST BE EVIDENCE OF MOTIVE, OPPORTUNITY AND DIRECT OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE LINKING A THIRD PARTY TO THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME.
I FIND THAT THERE WAS, GIVEN THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, OPPORTUNITY FOR A THIRD PARTY; HOWEVER, I FIND THAT THE OFFER OF PROOF REGARDING MOTIVE TO BE HIGHLY SPECULATIVE AND I FIND THE OFFER DOES NOT ADEQUATELY ADDRESS EITHER DIRECT OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE LINKING A THIRD PARTY TO THE SCENE.
SO THE COURT WILL SUSTAIN THE MOTION IN LIMINE TO TESTIMONY FROM DR. REICHARDT REGARDING DRUG USAGE BY FAYE RESNICK.
ALL RIGHT.
MR. COCHRAN: SO THAT WE ARE CLEAR, YOUR HONOR, AS TO THE DEMEANOR, IF THE COURT INDICATES HE CAN --
THE COURT: THOSE OTHER ISSUES THAT WE DISCUSSED, DR. REICHARDT'S CONTEMPORANEOUS DEALINGS WITH MR. SIMPSON ON THE DATE IN QUESTION, IS CLEARLY RELEVANT.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
LET'S TAKE A RECESS, 15, FOR THE COURT REPORTER.
MR. DARDEN: MAY I JUST ADDRESS THE COURT FOR FIFTEEN SECONDS?
I JUST HEARD MR. COCHRAN MENTION THE CONTENTS OR APPARENTLY SOME CONVERSATIONS MR. REICHARDT HAD WITH NICOLE BROWN.
I HAVE NOT SEEN THAT IN ANY DISCOVERY AND HE IS THEIR WITNESS AND I WOULD LIKE THAT, IF AT ALL POSSIBLE.
IN ADDITION, ON THE 1054 ISSUE AS IT RELATES TO CHRISTIAN REICHARDT, I HAVE MY NOTES, SOME NOTES, PERSONAL NOTES THAT I WOULD LIKE TO HAND TO THE COURT ON THE 1054 ISSUE, EX PARTE.
MS. LEWIS: 1054.07.
THE COURT: HAND IT TO MRS. --
MR. DARDEN: 1054.07.
THE COURT: HAND TO IT MRS. ROBERTSON, PLEASE, AND WE WILL TAKE 15.
MS. LEWIS: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
(RECESS.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER.
MR. SIMPSON IS AGAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT WITH HIS COUNSEL.
ALL RIGHT.
ANYTHING ELSE WE NEED TO TAKE UP?
ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE THE JURORS,
DEPUTY MAGNERA.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
PLEASE BE SEATED.
ALL RIGHT.
LET THE RECORD REFLECT WE HAVE BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL.
GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.
THE COURT: GLAD TO SEE YOU ARE ALL STILL WITH US.
MY APOLOGIES TO YOU FOR THE LATE START. WE HAD A NUMBER OF LEGAL ISSUES THAT I HAD TO TAKE UP OUT OF YOUR PRESENCE BEFORE WE GOT RESTARTED AGAIN THIS MORNING.
ALL RIGHT.
MR. MICHAEL GLADDEN, WOULD YOU RESUME THE WITNESS STAND AGAIN, PLEASE, SIR.
MICHAEL GLADDEN,
THE WITNESS ON THE STAND AT THE TIME OF THE EVENING ADJOURNMENT, RESUMED THE STAND AND TESTIFIED FURTHER AS FOLLOWS:
THE COURT: AND MRS. ROBERTSON, DO YOU HAVE THOSE TWO EXHIBITS AVAILABLE?
ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, MR. GLADDEN.
THE WITNESS: GOOD MORNING.
THE COURT: YOU ARE REMINDED, SIR, YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH.
MR. COCHRAN, HAVE YOU CONCLUDED YOUR DIRECT EXAMINATION?
MR. COCHRAN: YES, I HAVE, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.
MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. DARDEN:
Q GOOD MORNING, MR. GLADDEN.
A GOOD MORNING.
Q MR. GLADDEN, WHEN YOU SAW THE DEFENDANT, O.J. SIMPSON HERE, HE LOOKED PRETTY MUCH THE WAY YOU EXPECTED HIM TO LOOK, RIGHT?
A YES.
Q YOU HAD SEEN HIM ON TELEVISION BEFORE?
A YES.
THE COURT: MR. GLADDEN, WOULD YOU PULL THE MICROPHONE A LITTLE CLOSER TO YOU.
THE WITNESS: (WITNESS COMPLIES.)
THE COURT: THANK YOU.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: WAS IT YOUR TESTIMONY THAT HE LOOKED LIKE HE WAS ADVERTISING JEANS?
A YEAH. I HAD SEEN AN AD WITH HIM WEARING BASICALLY THE SAME THING HE WAS WEARING THAT DAY.
Q I TAKE IT YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN O.J. SIMPSON AT HOME, AT HIS HOME?
A NO.
Q OKAY.
YOU DIDN'T KNOW HIM BEFORE THAT NIGHT?
A NO, I DIDN'T.
Q THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME YOU HAD EVER MET THE DEFENDANT?
A YES.
Q THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME YOU HAD EVER BEEN FACE TO FACE WITH THE DEFENDANT?
A YES.
Q SO YOU REALLY CAN'T TELL US THEN HOW HE NORMALLY BEHAVES?
A THAT'S TRUE.
Q OKAY.
YOU CAN'T TELL US WHAT HIS USUAL DEMEANOR IS, CAN YOU?
A NO.
Q YOU NEVER SAW THE DEFENDANT CARRY ANY LUGGAGE?
A I SEEN HIM TRYING TO CLOSE A TALL BAG AND I THINK HE LAID SOMETHING ON THE CART AFTER THE OTHER -- AFTER THE LIMO DRIVER HAD PUT A BUNCH OF STUFF ON THE CART.
Q OKAY.
BUT YOU DIDN'T SEE HIM CARRY ANY LUGGAGE, DID YOU?
A I REALLY WASN'T PAYING ATTENTION TO THAT.
Q SO YOU DIDN'T SEE HIM CARRY ANY LUGGAGE?
A NO.
Q YOU DIDN'T SEE HIM CARRY SOMETHING OVER HIS SHOULDER?
A I WASN'T -- AFTER HE GAVE ME THE AUTOGRAPH, MIKE NORTH CAME AND ASKED ME SOMETHING THEN, SO I REALLY WASN'T WATCHING WHAT HE WAS DOING.
Q AND AFTER -- WELL, STRIKE THAT.
WHEN YOU GOT THE AUTOGRAPH, YOU HANDED THE DEFENDANT A PAD, A POST-IT THAT YOU SHOWED US YESTERDAY; IS THAT RIGHT?
A YES.
Q DID YOU ALSO HAND HIM AN INK PEN?
A YES, I DID.
Q DID HE TAKE THAT INK PEN OUT OF YOUR HAND WHEN YOU EXTENDED YOUR HAND?
A NO.
Q DID HE DROP THE INK PEN?
A NO.
Q DID HE SEEM TO HAVE ANY TROUBLE GRASPING THE INK PEN?
A NO.
Q AND HE TOOK THAT INK PEN AND HE TOOK THAT PAD, RIGHT?
A YES.
Q OKAY.
DID HE HAVE ANY TROUBLE GRASPING THE PAD?
A NO.
Q OKAY.
DID HE GRIMACE IN PAIN AT ALL WHEN HE TOOK THE INK PEN FROM YOU?
A NO.
Q BY THE WAY, DID YOU SHAKE THE DEFENDANT'S HAND?
A NO, I DIDN'T.
Q HE DIDN'T EXTEND HIS HAND TO YOU?
A WELL, HE JUST TOOK THE AUTOGRAPH -- THE THING, AUTOGRAPHED IT AND HANDED IT BACK.
Q DID YOU EVER EXTEND YOUR HAND TO HIM AS IF TO OFFER A HANDSHAKE?
A NO. I JUST SAID "THANK YOU" AND HE SAID, "YOU ARE WELCOME."
Q DID THE DEFENDANT HAVE A CUT ON HIS LEFT HAND?
A NO, I DIDN'T SEE ONE.
Q DID YOU LOOK AT HIS LEFT HAND?
A I MEAN, I DIDN'T COME UP TO HIM AND START EXAMINING HIS HAND. I JUST ASKED FOR AN AUTOGRAPH.
Q WELL, DID YOU SEE HIS LEFT HAND?
A YES, I SEEN BOTH HIS HANDS.
Q OKAY.
DID YOU SEE BOTH OF HIS HANDS, HIS ENTIRE LEFT AND RIGHT HAND?
A PRETTY MUCH SO.
Q YOU SAW THE TOP OF HIS HAND, THE PALM?
A YES.
Q YOU SAW THE BOTTOM OF HIS HAND?
A WELL, HE HELD THE THING LIKE THIS WHEN HE SIGNED IT AND JUST HANDED IT BACK SO --
Q DID YOU SEE THE BOTTOM OF HIS HAND?
A NOT REALLY THAT CLOSELY.
Q DID YOU SEE THE BOTTOM OF HIS HAND?
A NO.
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, WHEN HE SAYS
"BOTTOM" --
THE COURT: EXCUSE ME, MR. DARDEN.
WHEN YOU WERE SAYING "THE BOTTOM OF YOUR HAND" AND ASKING THE QUESTION, YOU WERE RUBBING THE BACK OF YOUR LEFT HAND WITH THE PALM OF YOUR RIGHT HAND.
MR. DARDEN: EXACTLY.
Q DID YOU SEE THE BACK OF THE DEFENDANT'S HAND LEFT?
A NOT WHEN I WAS STANDING REAL CLOSE, NO.
Q DID YOU EVER SEE THE BACK OF THE DEFENDANT'S LEFT HAND?
A WHEN HE GOT OUT OF THE LIMO I SEEN HOW BIG HE WAS AND I WAS LIKE CHECKING OUT HOW BIG HIS HANDS WERE AND STUFF.
Q OKAY.
NOW, ON OCTOBER 7, 1994, YOU RECEIVED A TELEPHONE CALL FROM LAPD DETECTIVE RICHARD CROTSLY; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES.
Q AND HE READ TO YOU A WRITTEN STATEMENT THAT YOU HAD GIVEN THE DEFENSE; IS THAT RIGHT?
A YES.
Q AND HE ASKED YOU WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAD OBSERVED THE BOTTOM OF THE DEFENDANT'S LEFT HAND, DIDN'T HE?
MR. COCHRAN: ONE MINUTE, YOUR HONOR. I DON'T THINK I HAVE SEEN THIS STATEMENT.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
THE WITNESS: YES, HE ASKED.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: AND YOU TOLD HIM THAT YOU HAD NOT SEEN THE BOTTOM OR OBSERVED THE BOTTOM OF THE DEFENDANT'S HAND THAT NIGHT, CORRECT?
A RIGHT.
Q OKAY.
AND WHEN YOU REFERRED OR RATHER USED THE TERM "BOTTOM," YOU WERE REFERRING TO THE BACK OF THE DEFENDANT'S HAND, WEREN'T YOU?
A YES.
Q YOU CANNOT TELL THIS JURY THAT THE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE A CUT ON HIS LEFT HAND WHEN YOU SAW HIM?
A I CAN TELL IF HE WAS BLEEDING OR NOT.
Q YOU CAN TELL?
A I MEAN, HE ASKED ME DID I SEE ANY BLOOD AND I SAID NO.
Q OKAY.
YOU DIDN'T SEE ANY BLOOD ON THE DEFENDANT?
A NO.
Q OKAY.
YOU DIDN'T SEE ANY BLOOD ON THE BACK OF HIS LEFT HAND?
A NO.
Q THEN AGAIN, YOU DIDN'T SEE THE BACK OF HIS LEFT HAND, RIGHT?
A RIGHT.
Q SO YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE DEFENDANT'S -- WHETHER THE BACK OF THE DEFENDANT'S FINGER OR FINGER ON THE LEFT HAND WAS CUT OR NOT,
DO YOU?
A NO.
Q NOW, DURING THE TIME THAT YOU WERE SPEAKING TO THE DEFENDANT, O.J. SIMPSON --
A YES.
Q -- WERE YOU STANDING UP ON THE SIDEWALK?
A NO, I WAS AT MY VAN.
Q PARDON ME?
A I WAS LIKE NEAR MY VAN.
Q OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
WERE YOU ON THE SIDEWALK NEAR YOUR VAN?
A NO, ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE VAN.
Q OKAY. BUT WERE YOU ON THE SIDEWALK?
A NO, I WASN'T.
Q OKAY. WHERE WAS THE DEFENDANT?
A HE WAS BY THE BACK OF THE LIMO.
Q OKAY.
IS THAT THE ONLY PLACE YOU SPOKE TO THE DEFENDANT?
A YES.
Q NOW, HOW DID YOU DESCRIBE THE DEFENDANT'S DEMEANOR YESTERDAY?
A PRETTY CALM, JUST TAKING HIS TIME.
Q OKAY.
DID HE APPEAR CALM THROUGHOUT YOUR CONTACT WITH HIM?
A YES, PRETTY MUCH SO.
Q WAS THERE EVER A POINT DURING YOUR CONTACT WITH THE DEFENDANT THAT HE DID NOT APPEAR CALM?
A NO.
Q MR. GLADDEN, YOU WORK AT A VONS SUPERMARKET, DON'T YOU?
A YES.
Q AND THAT SUPERMARKET IS LOCATED AT 230 --
MR. COCHRAN: COUNSEL --
Q BY MR. DARDEN: EXCUSE ME. THAT SUPERMARKET IS LOCATED ON --
THE COURT: HOLD ON. JUST THE CITY IS FINE.
MR. DARDEN: OKAY.
Q THE SUPERMARKET IS LOCATED IN THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA?
A YES.
Q OKAY. AND WHAT DO YOU DO THERE?
A I WORK IN THE SERVICE DELI.
Q WERE YOU THERE THIS PAST MONDAY,
JULY 10TH?
A YES.
Q AND WHILE YOU WERE THERE MONDAY, JULY 10TH, YOU WERE TELLING PEOPLE ABOUT YOUR OBSERVATIONS OF THE DEFENDANT THAT NIGHT, CORRECT?
A YES.
Q WAS THERE A POINT DURING YOUR CONTACT WITH THE DEFENDANT THAT HE LOST HIS CALM OR WAS NOT CALM?
A NO.
Q DURING THE TIME THAT YOU WERE SPEAKING TO THE DEFENDANT A CAR PULLED UP; IS THAT RIGHT?
A NOT THAT I WAS AWARE OF.
Q NOT THAT YOU ARE AWARE OF?
A THERE WAS CARS COMING AND GOING ALL THE TIME.
Q OKAY.
DO YOU REMEMBER A CAR PULLING UP AND STOPPING AND SOMEONE BLOWING A HORN?
A NO, I DON'T RECALL THAT.
Q YOU DON'T RECALL THE DEFENDANT BECOMING STARTLED AFTER SOMEONE BLEW A HORN?
A NO.
Q DO YOU KNOW SOMEONE NAMED ROBERT DRISCOLL?
A NO, I DON'T.
Q DO YOU KNOW A DRIVER FOR VONS GROCERY NAMED ROBERT?
A NO.
Q OR BOB?
A NO.
Q DID YOU HAVE CONTACT WITH A DRIVER FOR VONS GROCERY ON MONDAY, JULY 10TH?
A I MEAN I COME IN CONTACT WITH DRIVERS ALL THE TIME. USUALLY -- USUALLY OUR LOADS COME IN ON TUESDAYS.
Q OKAY.
DID YOU HAVE -- DID YOU HAVE CONTACT WITH A DRIVER ON MONDAY?
A I'M NOT SURE. I DON'T THINK SO.
Q ISN'T IT TRUE, MR. GLADDEN, THAT YOU TOLD A DRIVER FOR VONS GROCERY THAT WHILE YOU WERE TALKING TO THE DEFENDANT A VEHICLE PULLED UP?
A NO, THAT IS NOT TRUE.
Q DID YOU TELL ANYONE THAT?
A I TOLD NOBODY THAT.
Q OKAY.
DIDN'T YOU TELL THE DRIVER FROM VONS GROCERY THAT A VEHICLE PULLED UP AND THE DRIVER HONKED THE HORN?
A NO, I NEVER HAVE.
Q AND DIDN'T YOU TELL THAT DRIVER THAT WHEN THE DRIVER HONKED THAT HORN THE DEFENDANT, O.J. SIMPSON, ALMOST JUMPED OUT OF HIS SKIN?
A I NEVER SAID THAT.
Q YOU NEVER SAID THAT, MR. GLADDEN?
A NO, I DIDN'T.
Q DID YOU TELL SOMEONE, A DRIVER FOR VONS GROCERY, THAT THE DEFENDANT APPEARED STARTLED WHEN HE HEARD THAT HORN?
A NO.
Q MR. GLADDEN, YOU ASKED FOR THE DEFENDANT'S AUTOGRAPH BECAUSE HE WAS A CELEBRITY; IS THAT CORRECT?
A THAT'S TRUE.
Q AND YOU HAVE ASKED OTHER CELEBRITIES FOR THEIR AUTOGRAPHS, HAVEN'T YOU?
A YES.
Q HOW MANY CELEBRITY AUTOGRAPHS HAVE YOU OBTAINED?
A SINCE I'VE BEEN WORKING THERE PROBABLY ABOUT THREE OR FOUR MAYBE.
Q OKAY.
WHAT OTHER AUTOGRAPHS HAVE YOU OBTAINED?
A CECIL FIELDER.
Q HE IS A BASEBALL PLAYER?
A YES. AND I GOT I THINK STEVE GARVEY. I GOT IT FOR SOMEBODY ELSE.
Q HE IS A BASEBALL PLAYER?
A YES.
Q WHO ELSE?
A AND LOU HOLTZ WAS A FOOTBALL COACH.
Q NOTRE DAME'S FOOTBALL COACH, NEW COACH?
A HE WAS OUT THERE PRACTICING HIS GOLF SWING.
Q SOMEBODY ELSE?
A O.J. SIMPSON.
Q YOU DON'T HAVE ANY CELEBRITY AUTOGRAPHS FROM ACTRESSES?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THAT, YOUR HONOR. IRRELEVANT AND IMMATERIAL.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: TAI BABALONIA CAME IN THE STORE ONE TIME AND I GOT HER AUTOGRAPH.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: OKAY.
BUT FOR THE MOST PART, THE CELEBRITY AUTOGRAPHS THAT YOU HAVE ARE AUTOGRAPHS FROM SPORTS HEROES, RIGHT?
A YES.
Q OKAY.
YOU WATCH A LOT OF SPORTS, DO YOU?
A YES, I DO.
Q NOW, YOU TOLD US YESTERDAY WHAT THE DEFENDANT WAS WEARING WHEN YOU SAW HIM, CORRECT?
A YES.
Q WAS HE WEARING SOCKS, MR. GLADDEN?
A I HAVE NO IDEA.
Q YOU DIDN'T LOOK DOWN TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANT WAS WEARING SOCKS?
A HE WAS WEARING BOOTS.
Q BOOTS?
A KIND OF LIKE -- LIKE DRESS BOOTS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, LOOKED LIKE.
Q CAN YOU DESCRIBE THOSE FOR US, PLEASE?
A KIND OF LIKE TAN COLOR, LIKE A BASEBALL GLOVE COLOR.
Q OKAY.
DID YOU SEE THE DEFENDANT'S ANKLE?
A NO.
Q YOU CAN'T TELL US WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANT WAS WEARING SOCKS AT THAT TIME?
A NO, I CAN'T.
Q NOW, AFTER YOU OBTAINED THAT AUTOGRAPH FROM THE DEFENDANT, HE TURNED AND HE WALKED AWAY; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES.
Q NOW, AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO THAT DID THE DEFENDANT EVER APPEAR TO YOU TO BE IN PAIN?
A NO.
Q OKAY.
AND AS HE TURNED AND WALKED AWAY, YOU WATCHED HIM?
A WELL, MIKE NORRIS WALKED TOWARD ME AND HE ASKED ME WHAT DID HE SAY WHEN HE ASKED ABOUT -- IF HIS SON WAS STILL PLAYING FOOTBALL, AND I SAID I REALLY DIDN'T KNOW.
Q LET ME STOP YOU THERE.
THAT IS NONRESPONSIVE.
WELL, BUT YOU SAW THE DEFENDANT WALK AWAY?
A YES.
Q DID HE HAVE ANY TROUBLE WALKING?
MR. COCHRAN: CALLS FOR SPECULATION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: NO, NOT THAT I WAS AWARE OF.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: OKAY.
YOU DIDN'T NOTICE ANYTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT THE WAY THE DEFENDANT WALKED AWAY, DID YOU?
A NO.
Q NOW, DID YOU SEE HIM WALK OVER TO THE SKYCAP STATION?
A HE WAS LIKE KIND OF STANDING IN BETWEEN THE SKYCAP AND LIKE WHERE THE DOOR WAS.
Q AND THERE IS A TRASH CAN LOCATED BETWEEN THE DOORJAMB AND THE SKYCAP STATION?
A YEAH, THERE IS.
Q IS THAT RIGHT?
A I THINK THERE IS A COUPLE OF THEM LIKE ON EACH SIDE.
Q DID YOU SEE THE DEFENDANT PLACE ANYTHING ON TOP OF THAT TRASH CAN?
A NO.
Q YOU DIDN'T SEE HIM PLACE A BAG ON TOP OF THE TRASH CAN?
A NO.
Q DID YOU SEE SOME GOLF CLUBS THAT NIGHT?
A NOT THAT I WAS AWARE OF, NO.
Q OKAY.
DID YOU SEE ANYONE TAKE A GOLFING BAG, GOLF CLUB BAG, OUT OF THE TRUNK OF THE LIMO?
A NO. I SEEN LIKE A BIG BLACK BAG. I DON'T KNOW WHAT WAS IN IT.
Q WAS THAT BLACK BAG ABOUT FOUR AND A HALF FEET TALL?
A YES.
Q AND DID YOU AND MICHAEL NORRIS LEAVE THE CURB AT THE SAME TIME?
A I THINK I PULLED OUT BEFORE HE DID.
Q NOW, DID YOU TELL US YESTERDAY THAT YOU SAW THE DEFENDANT AT THE REAR OF THE LIMOUSINE?
A YES.
Q OKAY.
AND YOU SAW HIM OPEN UP A BAG?
A NO, I NEVER SAID THAT.
Q OKAY.
YOU DIDN'T SEE THE DEFENDANT OPEN UP A BAG?
A NO.
Q DID YOU SEE HIM REACH INTO A BAG?
A NO.
Q DID YOU SEE HIM REMOVE ANYTHING FROM A BAG?
A NO.
Q YOU WEREN'T LOOKING AT THE DEFENDANT'S HANDS SPECIFICALLY TO SEE IF HE HAD A CUT ON HIS HAND?
A NO, I WASN'T.
MR. COCHRAN: ASKED AND ANSWERED, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: YOU HADN'T HEARD ANYTHING ABOUT RON GOLDMAN HAVING BEEN MURDERED AT THAT POINT?
MR. COCHRAN: BEYOND THE SCOPE OF DIRECT, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: NO.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: AND YOU HADN'T HEARD ANYTHING ABOUT NICOLE BROWN HAVING BEEN MURDERED AT THAT POINT?
A NO, I HADN'T.
Q AND SO THAT THE RECORD IS CLEAR, YOUR ASSESSMENT OF THE DEFENDANT'S DEMEANOR THAT NIGHT IS BASED SOLELY ON THE BRIEF CONTACT YOU HAD WITH HIM, RIGHT?
A YES.
Q OKAY.
AND THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME YOU EVER MET HIM?
A YES.
Q DID YOU SEE THE DEFENDANT SPEAK TO THE SKYCAP?
A NO.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
Q BY MR. DARDEN: DID YOU LEAVE -- STRIKE THAT.
Q DID YOU SEE THE DEFENDANT APPROACHING THE SKYCAP?
A NO, I DID NOT.
MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU. THAT IS ALL I HAVE.
THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.
MR. COCHRAN: NOTHING FURTHER, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. GLADDEN, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR.
YOU ARE EXCUSED.
MR. COCHRAN: THE NEXT WITNESS WE WILL BE CALLING, YOUR HONOR, IS MR. HOWARD BINGHAM.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. BINGHAM, PLEASE STAND AT THE PODIUM THERE. HOLD ON JUST A SECOND.
HOWARD L. BINGHAM,
CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE DEFENDANT, WAS SWORN AND TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
THE CLERK: PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
YOU DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU MAY GIVE IN THE CAUSE NOW PENDING BEFORE THIS COURT, SHALL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD.
THE WITNESS: I DO.
THE CLERK: PLEASE HAVE A SEAT ON THE WITNESS STAND AND STATE AND SPELL YOUR FIRST AND LAST NAMES FOR THE RECORD.
THE WITNESS: HOWARD BINGHAM. HOWARD, H-O-W-A-R-D, L. BINGHAM, B-I-N-G-H-A-M.
THE CLERK: THANK YOU.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. BINGHAM, WOULD YOU JUST SIT BACK AND PULL THE MICROPHONE CLOSE TO YOU, PLEASE.
THE WITNESS: (WITNESS COMPLIES.)
THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. COCHRAN:
Q GOOD MORNING, MR. BINGHAM.
A HI YA, SIR. HOW YOU DOING?
Q MR. BINGHAM, SIR, WHAT IS YOUR OCCUPATION?
A I AM A PHOTOGRAPHER.
Q AND ARE YOU A WORLD RENOWN PHOTOGRAPHER?
A THE WORLD'S GREATEST.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND JUST SO WE ARE CLEAR ABOUT THAT, HAVE YOU RECENTLY PUBLISHED A THIRTY-YEAR JOURNEY OF HOWARD BINGHAM, YOUR OWN PERSONAL BOOK?
A YES, I DID.
Q AND DO YOU HAVE AN ACQUAINTANCE WITH A MAN BY THE NAME OF MUHAMMAD ALI?
A YES, I DO.
Q WHAT ABOUT THAT ACQUAINTANCE? HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN KNOWING HIM?
A I HAVE BEEN KNOWING ALI EVER SINCE 1962. I HAVE BEEN ALL OVER THE WORLD WITH HIM AND SOME SAY HE IS MY BEST FRIEND. I TALK TO HIM ALL THE TIME EVERYDAY.
I JUST LEFT HIM THE NIGHT BEFORE LAST. I HAD TO COME HERE.
Q ALL RIGHT.
YOU HAVE COME HERE PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES. I WAS AT THE ALL-STAR GAME.
Q AND IN ADDITION TO BEING A -- THE BEST PHOTOGRAPHER IN THE WORLD, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER OCCUPATION?
A UMM, YES. I AM -- I WILL BE PRODUCING A MOVIE WITH SONY AND SONY HOME COMPUTERS ON MUHAMMAD ALI'S LIFE WHICH WE JUST SIGNED A FEW DAYS AGO.
Q ARE YOU NERVOUS TODAY?
A VERY.
Q DO YOU HAVE A SLIGHT SPEECH IMPEDIMENT?
A YES, BUT THAT IS NO HINDRANCE. I AM HERE.
Q THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING.
SIR, ARE YOU ACQUAINTED WITH THE GENTLEMAN OVER HERE, MR. O.J. SIMPSON?
A YES, I AM.
Q ABOUT HOW LONG HAVE YOU KNOWN MR. SIMPSON?
A I HAVE BEEN SEEING AND KNOWING HIM EVER SINCE ABOUT 1968 WHEN HE WAS AT SC.
Q AND SO YOU CAME TO KNOW HIM THERE. DID YOU EVER TAKE PICTURES AT THAT TIME?
A YES. THAT IS HOW I MET HIM. I AM A PHOTOGRAPHER AND I WAS AT THE GAMES AND IN THE LOCKER ROOMS AND JUST TAKING PICTURES AT THE -- AT THE GAME HERE AND THERE.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND AS SUCH WOULD YOU SAY THAT HE IS AN ACQUAINTANCE OF YOURS, SOMEBODY YOU HAVE KNOWN OVER THE YEARS?
A YES, SIR.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, MR. BINGHAM, SIR, I WANT TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION BACK TO THE DATE OF SUNDAY EVENING, JUNE 12TH, 1994.
DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO BE AT LOS ANGELES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ON THAT EVENING?
A YES, I DID.
Q DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO LEAVE LOS ANGELES TO GO SOMEPLACE THAT EVENING?
A YES.
Q AND WHERE WERE YOU GOING?
A I WAS ON THE WAY TO CHICAGO.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND WHY WERE YOU GOING TO CHICAGO?
A I -- I HAD A MEETING THAT MONDAY MORNING WITH MUHAMMAD ALI AND A FRIEND OF MINE, JOHN J. HOOKER.
Q ALL RIGHT.
SO DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT TIME YOUR FLIGHT WAS DUE TO LEAVE THAT EVENING?
A 11:45.
Q DO YOU REMEMBER ABOUT WHAT TIME YOU GOT ON THE FLIGHT?
A I'M ALWAYS LATE, SO IT WAS ABOUT 11:30. IT -- 11:40 MAYBE, 11:35 OR 40, AROUND THERE SOMETIME.
Q BY THE WAY, WERE YOU FLYING FIRST CLASS?
A NO, I WAS NOT FLYING FIRST CLASS; COACH.
Q YOU WERE IN COACH?
A I WAS IN COACH, UNFORTUNATELY.
Q LET ME ASK YOU THIS:
HAVE YOU PROVIDED ME WITH A COPY OF A BOARDING PASS YOU HAD THAT PARTICULAR NIGHT?
A YES, I DID.
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO MARK THAT AS DEFENDANT'S NEXT IN ORDER IF THE COURT PLEASES.
THE COURT: I'M SORRY, WHICH?
THE CLERK: 1244.
THE COURT: 1244.
(DEFT'S 1244 FOR ID = BOARDING PASS)
MR. COCHRAN: MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: YOU MAY.
MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE GIVEN COUNSEL A COPY AND I WOULD LIKE TO APPROACH THE WITNESS.
Q MR. BINGHAM, I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU HAVE THE ORIGINAL.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO KEEP THE ORIGINAL?
A YES, I WOULD.
Q LET ME SHOW YOU A COPY.
A ALL RIGHT.
Q I WILL PLACE THIS BEFORE YOU.
IS THIS A FAIR AND ACCURATE COPY OF THE BOARDING PASS THAT YOU PROVIDED US WITH FOR YOUR TAKING THAT FLIGHT, FLIGHT, I BELIEVE, 668, CHICAGO, ON JUNE 12TH, AT 11:45 P.M.?
A IT IS.
Q AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IT ALSO HAS YOUR SEAT NUMBER, IF WE CAN MAKE THAT OUT, ON THAT NIGHT?
A YES.
Q AND WHAT WAS YOUR SEAT NUMBER?
A ON HERE IT SAYS 21E.
Q ALL RIGHT.
A I THINK. I DON'T HAVE MY GLASSES.
MR. COCHRAN: I DON'T KNOW IF YOU NEED THEM.
YOUR HONOR, I'M GOING TO SHOW THIS QUICKLY TO COUNSEL AND THEN --
THE COURT: I HAVE THINK WE HAVE SEEN THESE BEFORE.
THE WITNESS: RIGHT, THAT'S RIGHT.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: 21E?
A YES.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THIS DIAGRAM BEFORE, MR. BINGHAM?
A YES.
Q AND I WANT YOU TO LOOK TO YOUR RIGHT THERE AND THERE IS AN INDICATION THAT YOU WERE BACK IN ROW 21, AND WERE YOU AT THE WINDOW SEAT?
A I WAS IN THE -- I WAS IN THE MIDDLE BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENED WAS I HAD THE WHOLE ROW. I WAS GOING TO SLEEP THAT NIGHT.
Q ALL RIGHT. SO YOU HAD --
A AS A MATTER OF FACT, WHAT HAPPENED WAS -- OKAY. I'M SORRY.
Q THAT IS OKAY.
YOU HAD 21E AS DEPICTED HERE?
A YES.
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, MAY I MARK THIS AS OUR NEXT EXHIBIT?
THE COURT: YES, 1245.
MR. COCHRAN: 1245. I WILL PUT "1245" OVER HERE.
(DEFT'S 1245 FOR ID = DOCUMENT)
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: SO YOU WERE ABOUT TO TELL US THAT YOU HAD 21E, THE MIDDLE SEAT; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES.
Q BUT YOU WORKED IT OUT SO THAT YOU COULD GET ALL THREE SEATS AND GO TO SLEEP?
A YES, I DID.
Q ALL RIGHT.
SO THE AREA WHERE WE HAVE DEPICTED ON HERE, "HOWARD BINGHAM" WITH 21F AND NEXT TO IT IS E AND D, THAT IS THE ROW THAT YOU OCCUPIED THAT NIGHT?
A YES, IT WAS.
Q OKAY, SIR.
NOW, AFTER YOU GOT ON THIS FLIGHT, AS YOU HAVE DESCRIBED FOR US, 11:30, 11:35, 11:40, DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO SEE SOMEONE ELSE COME ON THAT FLIGHT?
A YES, I DID.
Q AFTER THAT WHO WAS THAT PERSON?
A IT WAS MR. O.J. SIMPSON.
Q AND WHEN YOU SAW MR. O.J. SIMPSON, DID YOU HAVE ANY CONTACT WITH HIM SHORTLY THEREAFTER?
A YES, I DID.
Q ALL RIGHT.
WHERE WAS HE IN REGARD TO WHERE YOU WERE SEATED ON THE PLANE?
A HE WAS -- HE HAD -- HE HAD JUST ENTERED THE AIRPLANE AND I SAW HIM GET ON AND SO I HAD GOT UP OUT OF MY SEAT AND WALKED UP TO JUST SAY HELLO TO HIM.
Q ALL RIGHT.
SO YOU WALKED UP FROM ROW 21 UP TO THE FIRST CLASS AREA; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, THERE IS AN AREA ON THIS DIAGRAM -- CAN YOU SEE IT FROM THERE -- THAT SHOWS THE FIRST CLASS AREA JUST GENERALLY, THE FRONT PART OF THE PLANE.
IS THIS THE AREA IN WHICH YOU WENT?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND WHEN YOU WALKED UP THERE, DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH MR. O.J. SIMPSON?
A I DID.
Q WHAT DID YOU SAY TO HIM, IF ANYTHING?
A I WALKED UP THERE AND I TAPPED HIM ON THE SHOULDER. HE LOOKED AROUND AT ME AND SAID, "HEY, BINGHAM, HOW YOU DOING?"
Q ALL RIGHT.
DID YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER CONVERSATION?
A YES, I DID. I WAS ASKING HIM WHERE WAS HE GOING AND SO HE ASKED ME WHERE WAS I GOING, SO I LIKE TO MENTION THAT I WAS GOING TO CHICAGO.
Q ALL RIGHT.
HOW LONG DID YOUR CONVERSATION LAST WITH MR. SIMPSON?
A A MINUTE OR SO. AFTER THAT THE HOSTESS HAD ASKED ME TO GO BACK TO MY SEAT BECAUSE WE WAS ABOUT TO LEAVE.
Q THE PLANE WAS ABOUT TO TAKE OFF?
A YES, THE PLANE WAS ABOUT TO TAKE OFF.
Q NOW, DURING THIS CONVERSATION THAT YOU HAD WITH MR. SIMPSON, DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO LOOK AT HIM AND LOOK AT HIS DEMEANOR, HOW HE APPEARED?
A YES.
Q CAN YOU DESCRIBE FOR THIS COURT AND JURY HOW MR. SIMPSON APPEARED TO YOU AT THAT TIME? HOW DID HE SEEM?
A HE HAD SEEMED LIKE THE OLD O.J. THAT I ALWAYS SEE HERE AND THERE. I SEE HIM ALL OVER EAST COAST, NEW YORK, FLORIDA, ALL OVER ALL THE TIME WITH ALI SOMETIMES AND SOMETIMES ON MY OWN BECAUSE I'M ALL OVER, FOOTBALL GAMES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
DID HE SEEM RELAXED TO YOU?
A HE DID.
Q WHILE YOU WERE TALKING TO HIM, DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO LOOK AT HIS HANDS AT ALL?
A UMM, I REMEMBER WHEN I HAD WALKED UP THERE HE WAS SITTING IN THE -- IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SEATS THERE PUTTING MONEY OR SOMETHING IN HIS POCKET OR SOMETHING.
Q ALL RIGHT.
HE HAD SOME MONEY IN HIS POCKET?
A WHICH HE HAD IN HIS HAND OR SOMETHING.
Q LET ME SEE IF I UNDERSTAND.
A I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS GOING FROM ONE HAND TO ANOTHER.
Q HE HAD MONEY IN HIS HANDS?
A SOME KIND OF THING.
Q SOMETHING HE WAS PUTTING IN HIS POCKET?
A YEAH.
Q DID YOU OBSERVE THAT?
A YES, I DID.
Q AND WHEN YOU SAW THAT, COULD YOU SEE HIS HAND? LET'S SAY, FIRST OF ALL, COULD YOU SEE HIS LEFT HAND?
A I SAW HIS -- I SAW HIS -- I SAW HIS LEFT AND RIGHT HAND.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND DID YOU NOTICE ANYTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT EITHER HIS LEFT OR RIGHT HAND?
A I DID NOT NOTICE ANYTHING UNUSUAL.
Q DID YOU SEE ANY CUTS ON EITHER HIS LEFT OR RIGHT HAND?
A I DON'T THINK SO, NO.
Q DID YOU SEE ANY BLOOD ON EITHER HIS LEFT OR RIGHT HAND?
A I DID NOT.
Q DID YOU SEE ANY BLOOD ON ANY OF HIS CLOTHING AT THAT TIME?
A I DID NOT.
Q NOW, AFTER SEEING HIM AND TALKING TO HIM BRIEFLY AND WHEN THE STEWARDESS TOLD YOU THAT YOU HAD TO RETURN TO YOUR SEAT, DID YOU RETURN TO YOUR SEAT?
A I DID.
Q SO THAT WE ARE CLEAR, YOU WENT BACK TO THE AREA OF ROW 21; IS THAT CORRECT?
A I DID.
Q AND THEN DID YOU TALK TO MR. SIMPSON AT ALL DURING THAT FLIGHT ANY MORE?
A NO, I DID NOT.
Q AND YOU ARE BOTH GOING TO CHICAGO AND WHEN YOU GOT TO CHICAGO DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO SEE HIM AT ALL?
A I DID.
Q AND WHERE DID YOU NEXT SEE MR. SIMPSON AFTER THE ENCOUNTER YOU JUST TOLD OUR JURY ABOUT?
A I SAW HIM -- THE NEXT TIME IT WAS IN THE BAGGAGE AREA AT THE CHICAGO AIRPORT DOWNSTAIRS.
Q WAS HE MET BY SOME PERSON, IF YOU KNOW?
A THERE WAS AN INDIVIDUAL -- THERE WAS A -- THERE WAS A PLAN WITH HIM AT THE TIME I SAW HIM BECAUSE --
Q THERE WAS A MAN DOWN THERE WITH HIM?
A YES.
Q AND DID YOU SAY ANYTHING TO HIM WHEN YOU SAW HIM DOWN THERE AT ALL?
A I DID.
Q WITHOUT GOING INTO IT, DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO STAY AROUND THAT AIRPORT FOR AWHILE BEFORE YOU LEFT TO GO DOWNTOWN TO CHICAGO?
A I DID.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND DID MR. SIMPSON LEAVE BEFORE YOU LEFT?
A HE DID, YES.
Q AND WHO DID HE LEAVE IN THE COMPANY OF, IF ANYONE?
A WITH ANOTHER GUY. I DON'T KNOW HIS NAME OR ANYTHING.
Q ALL RIGHT.
WAS THAT THE SAME INDIVIDUAL YOU JUST DESCRIBED BEFORE?
A YES, YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND WHEN YOU SAW MR. SIMPSON DOWNSTAIRS, WAS THAT IN THE BAGGAGE AREA AT O'HARE?
A IT WAS.
Q WERE YOU AT O'HARE AIRPORT?
A O'HARE AIRPORT.
Q AND WHEN YOU SAW HIM THERE WAS HIS DEMEANOR THE SAME AS IT HAD BEEN WHEN YOU SAW
HIM --
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, LEADING.
MR. COCHRAN: COUNSEL IS CORRECT.
Q HOW DID MR. SIMPSON APPEAR TO YOU WHEN YOU SAW HIM DOWN IN THE BAGGAGE AREA BEFORE HE LEFT?
A IT WAS THE SAME AS I ALWAYS SEE HIM, YOU KNOW.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY, VERY MUCH FOR COMING TODAY, MR. BINGHAM. WE APPRECIATE IT.
NOTHING FURTHER AT THIS POINT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MS. CLARK:
Q MR. COCHRAN JUST SAID HE WOULD GIVE MR. DARDEN YOUR BOOK IF I SAID "NO QUESTIONS."
A THANK YOU. I WILL LEAVE NOW.
Q IT WILL BE VERY, VERY, VERY BRIEF, SIR.
ALL RIGHT.
NOW, YOU HAVE BEEN SEEING THE DEFENDANT OFF AND ON IN YOUR TRAVELS FOR MANY YEARS, CORRECT?
A YES, I HAVE.
Q HAVE YOU EVER SOCIALIZED WITH HIM, SIR?
A NO, NOT REALLY.
Q OKAY.
DID YOU EVER VISIT HIM IN HIS HOME?
A NO, I HAVE NOT.
Q HAS HE EVER VISITED YOU IN YOUR HOME?
A HE HAS NOT.
Q HAVE YOU EVER GONE OUT TO DINNER WITH HIM?
A I HAVE NOT.
Q OR LUNCH?
A I HAVE NOT. I HAVE -- I HAVE -- I HAVE -- I WAS AT EVENTS WHERE HE WAS AT LUNCH, YOU KNOW, WITH ALI, AND SO HE WAS IN THE AUDIENCE.
Q YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT A BIG --
A IN A BIG -- HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE.
Q -- AUDITORIUM.
OKAY?
A NOT ALONE, NO.
Q NOT ALONE?
A NO.
Q ON THOSE OCCASIONS, SIR, WERE YOU SEATED AT THE SAME TABLE WITH HIM OR JUST IN THE SAME ROOM?
A SAME ROOM AND UP FRONT BECAUSE I WAS ALWAYS WITH ALI AND SO --
Q SO ALL THE BIG PEOPLE SIT UP FRONT?
A NOT ALL THE TIME.
Q BUT SOMETIMES?
A YEAH, SOMETIMES.
Q OKAY. HE WOULD BE THERE, TOO?
A YES.
Q BUT YOU WERE NOT ALONE TOGETHER ON THOSE OCCASIONS, CORRECT?
A YES.
Q THEY WERE PUBLIC EVENTS?
A YES, RIGHT.
Q ON ALL OCCASIONS WHEN YOU SAW THE DEFENDANT, WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY, SIR, THAT YOU SAW HIM ONLY IN PUBLIC?
A MOST OF THE TIME, YES.
Q WAS THERE ANY OCCASION WHEN YOU SAW HIM IN PRIVATE? WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS ALONE IN A ROOM WHERE THERE WAS NO ONE ELSE AROUND?
A THERE HAVE BEEN TIMES, SAY, LIKE I REMEMBER WE WAS IN FLORIDA AND I SAW HIM IN THE -- IN THE -- IN THE BAR AREA, HOTEL BAR AREA.
Q OKAY.
AGAIN THAT IS A PUBLIC AREA, YEAH, TOO?
A YEAH, YEAH, RIGHT.
Q THERE WAS A BARTENDER?
A OVER TO THE SIDE, YES.
Q OKAY.
WHAT I MEAN IS ALONE IN A ROOM WHERE THERE WAS NO ONE ELSE?
A NO.
Q NEVER HAPPENED?
A NO, NEVER.
THE COURT: EXCUSE ME.
MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY.
THE COURT: MR. BINGHAM, IF YOU WOULD YOU, WOULD YOU ALLOW MISS CLARK TO FINISH ASKING YOU THE QUESTION BEFORE YOU START TO ANSWER, BECAUSE THE COURT REPORTER IS HAVING A HARD TIME BECAUSE YOU ARE BOTH TRYING TO TALK AT THE SAME TIME.
THE WITNESS: I SHALL.
THE COURT: OKAY.
YOU WILL GET OUT OF HERE A LOT QUICKER IF WE DO IT THAT WAY.
THE WITNESS: THANK YOU.
THE COURT: MISS CLARK.
Q BY MS. CLARK: NOW, YOUR BOOK, DOES IT ATTEMPT TO DEPICT THE DIFFERENT SIDE OF MUHAMMAD ALI?
A YES, IT IS.
Q AND SO THERE IS ONE ASPECT OF MUHAMMAD ALI THAT YOU SEE IN PUBLIC; IS THAT CORRECT?
MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION. ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE COURT: YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.
Q BY MS. CLARK: YOU CAN ANSWER.
A NOW?
Q IT IS OKAY, YES, YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.
DO YOU REMEMBER IT?
A NO.
Q OKAY. I WILL DO IT AGAIN.
YOUR BOOK ATTEMPTS TO DEPICT THE DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF MUHAMMAD ALI, CORRECT?
A YES.
Q AS HE BEHAVES PRIVATELY AND AS HE BEHAVES PUBLICLY; IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?
A YES.
Q NOW --
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY. THANK YOU.
SORRY, SIR.
Q NOW, WHEN YOU GOT ON THE PLANE IN LOS ANGELES WAS THE DEFENDANT THE LAST PERSON TO BOARD?
A I DON'T KNOW IF HE WAS THE LAST, BUT HE WAS ONE OF THE LAST.
Q OKAY.
AND WHEN YOU WENT UP TO SEE HIM HE WAS SEATED IN FIRST CLASS; IS THAT CORRECT, SIR?
A YES, HE WAS.
Q I WANT TO SHOW YOU A COUPLE OF PICTURES AND SEE IF YOU RECOGNIZE WHAT I'M SHOWING YOU.
OKAY?
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT I HAVE SHOWN TO MR. COCHRAN. I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW THEM TO THE WITNESS.
MARK THE FIRST ONE PEOPLE'S NEXT IN ORDER, 503.
THE COURT: 503.
(PEO'S 503 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)
MS. CLARK: I THINK THAT IS RIGHT.
Q ALL RIGHT, SIR.
SHOWING YOU PEOPLE'S 503, CAN YOU TELL US IF YOU RECOGNIZE IN GENERAL THAT AS THE APPEARANCE OF THE INSIDE OF THE PLANE?
A YES, IT IS.
Q DOES THAT LOOK LIKE FIRST CLASS, SIR?
A IT DOES.
Q LET ME SEE IF I CAN GET THIS ON THE ELMO SO THE JURY CAN SEE IT, TOO, YOUR HONOR.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
Q BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT.
AND THAT IS WHERE YOU -- YOU WALKED UP TO THAT AREA TO SPEAK WITH THE DEFENDANT; IS THAT RIGHT, SIR?
A YES.
THE COURT: MR. BINGHAM, THERE IS A MONITOR RIGHT TO YOUR RIGHT THERE.
THE WITNESS: THANK YOU.
THE COURT: MR. WOODEN, I THINK WE NEED THE STYROFOAM OVERHEAD.
YES. THANK YOU.
MISS CLARK.
Q BY MS. CLARK: NOW, DO YOU SEE THE BLUE SEATS FARTHER TO YOUR REAR? CAN YOU SEE ON YOUR MONITOR, SIR?
A YES, YES.
Q YOU DON'T HAVE TO TWIST AROUND THERE.
DO YOU SEE THE BLUE SEATS TO THE REAR OF THE FIRST CLASS SEATING, SIR?
A YES, I SEE THEM.
Q IS THAT WHERE YOU WERE SEATED?
A UNFORTUNATELY IT WAS THAT NIGHT.
CAN I SAY SOMETHING?
Q DID YOU HAVE THE WHOLE ROW TO YOURSELF, SIR?
A I DID.
Q NOW, YOU HAD -- OKAY.
YOU TOLD US, SIR, THAT YOU SPENT ABOUT ONE MINUTE WITH THE DEFENDANT AT THAT POINT?
A YES, IT WAS AROUND THERE, A MINUTE, A MINUTE AND A HALF, HALF MINUTE. I DON'T KNOW. I WASN'T TIMING, BUT IT WAS FAST.
Q AND WAS THERE A STEWARDESS THAT WORKS IN FIRST CLASS WHO WAS THERE AT THE TIME?
A YES, THERE WAS.
Q WAS SHE THE ONE THAT TOLD YOU TO HAVE A SEAT BECAUSE THEY WERE GOING TO TAKE OFF?
A YES.
Q FIRST CLASS HAS ITS OWN BATHROOM, DOESN'T IT, SIR?
A YES, IT DOES.
MS. CLARK: AND I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU ANOTHER PHOTOGRAPH -- WELL, ANOTHER COUPLE PHOTOGRAPHS.
PEOPLE'S 504, YOUR HONOR.
(PEO'S 504 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)
Q BY MS. CLARK: LET ME SHOW YOU FIRST CLOSE UP, SIR, AND ASK YOU -- YOU HAVE SAT IN FIRST CLASS BEFORE, HAVEN'T YOU?
A NORMALLY I DO.
Q THIS WAS AN EXCEPTION THIS NIGHT?
A I HAVE A LOT OF PHONE CALLS THAT SAID, "BINGHAM, YOU IN COACH?"
Q HOW DID THAT HAPPEN?
A WHAT?
Q THAT THEY PUT YOU IN COACH?
A NO. WHAT HAPPENED WAS IT WAS AT NIGHT AND SO I HAD A WHOLE ROW AND SO I JUST WENT TO SLEEP.
Q SO THAT IT WAS OKAY?
A IT WAS FOR ME BECAUSE I REST.
Q OKAY.
A BUT I HAD A LOT OF PHONE CALLS THAT NEXT AFTERNOON -- THAT NEXT MORNING THAT I WAS ON THE OPENING STATEMENTS SAID, "BINGHAM, YOU ARE CHEAP."
Q WORLD CLASS PHOTOGRAPHER SITTING IN COACH; IS THAT RIGHT?
THE COURT: WORLD'S GREATEST.
THE WITNESS: RIGHT, I'M SORRY. YOU ARE A SMART MAN, JUDGE.
Q BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT.
I'M SHOWING YOU WHAT APPEARS TO BE A DOOR ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE OF THE SEATING AND I'M GOING TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION -- YOUR ATTENTION TO THAT AREA FOR MY FOLLOWING QUESTIONS.
THIS APPEARS TO BE FIRST CLASS, DOES IT NOT?
A YES, IT IS.
Q YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE?
A YES.
Q AND THE DOOR THAT I'M POINTING TO ON THE LEFT, SIR, IS THAT A BATHROOM DOOR?
A YES, I THINK SO. I THINK IT IS FROM HERE. I CANNOT SEE THE SIDE.
Q LET ME SHOW YOU ANOTHER PICTURE THAT MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT BETTER.
A UH-HUH.
MS. CLARK: PEOPLE'S 505, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: 505.
(PEO'S 505 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)
Q BY MS. CLARK: MR. BINGHAM, IF I CAN SHOW YOU PEOPLE'S 505, A LITTLE BIT CLOSER VIEW OF THAT DOOR IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE OTHER PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN FROM A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE.
A YES.
Q DOES IT APPEAR TO BE A LAVATORY DOOR, SIR?
A IT IS.
MS. CLARK: THANK YOU.
IF I MAY SHOW IT TO THE JURY, YOUR HONOR, I MEAN ON THE ELMO.
THE COURT: YES.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
Q BY MS. CLARK: MR. BINGHAM, FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE JURY, SIR, CAN YOU TELL US, WE WERE JUST DISCUSSING THE DOOR TO THE LEFT -- THIS IS IN FIRST CLASS, CORRECT?
A RIGHT.
Q OKAY.
YOU ARE FACING -- THERE IS THAT WHITE ARROW THERE?
A YES.
Q IS THAT WHITE ARROW POINTING TO THE DOOR?
A IT IS.
Q THAT IS A LAVATORY DOOR, CORRECT?
A IT IS.
Q AND IN PEOPLE'S 505 -- PEOPLE'S 505, SIR, ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE OF THIS PHOTOGRAPH WE ARE FACING FROM THE OTHER DIRECTION, IS THAT THE FIRST CLASS LAVATORY DOOR ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE?
A IT IS.
Q ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, SIR.
NOW, THAT WAS A REDEYE FLIGHT, WAS IT NOT, SIR?
A YES.
Q SO YOU SLEPT THROUGH IT, RIGHT?
A MOST OF THE FLIGHT.
Q AND HOW LONG A FLIGHT WAS IT?
A IT WAS UNDER FOUR HOURS I THINK.
Q OKAY.
AND DID YOU -- HAD YOU PLANNED TO SLEEP THROUGH THAT FLIGHT, SIR?
A I ALWAYS WOULD LIKE TO. SOMETIMES I CANNOT.
Q OKAY.
AND THAT NIGHT YOU DID?
A MOST OF IT I DID, YES.
Q WERE THE LIGHTS DIMMED ON THAT REDEYE?
A YES, SURE.
Q ISN'T THAT PRETTY USUAL, WHEN YOU ARE ON A REDEYE FLIGHT THEY DIM ALL THE LIGHTS?
A YES.
Q BECAUSE PEOPLE LIKE TO SLEEP?
A YES.
MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE LAST PART, YOUR HONOR; SPECULATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT.
SO YOU DID NOT SEE THE DEFENDANT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE FLIGHT, CORRECT?
A I DID NOT.
Q NOW, DO YOU RECALL WHAT THE DEFENDANT WAS WEARING WHEN YOU WENT UP TO SEE HIM IN FIRST CLASS FOR THAT ONE-MINUTE CONVERSATION?
A I DO NOT, NO, NO.
Q DID YOU EVER HAPPEN TO NOTICE WHETHER HE WAS WRITING ANYTHING OR SIGNING ANY AUTOGRAPHS AT THAT TIME?
A I DID NOT SEE HIM SIGNING ANY AUTOGRAPHS. HE WAS ALONE AND HE WAS DOING SOMETHING -- PUTTING SOME MONEY IN HIS HAND OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT.
Q OKAY.
AND WAS HE STANDING OR WAS HE SEATED AT THE TIME YOU SPOKE TO HIM?
A HE WAS ACTUALLY SITTING IN THE -- SITTING ON THE MIDDLE SEATS IN THE MIDDLE AT THAT TIME.
Q SO HE WAS ALREADY SITTING DOWN WHEN YOU SAW HIM?
A NOT ALL -- NOT ALL THE WAY DOWN, BUT ON THE MIDDLE.
Q ON THE ARMREST?
A ON THE ARMREST IN THE MIDDLE, YES.
Q OKAY.
A THANK YOU.
Q AND WHICH HAND WAS IT THAT HE PUT INTO HIS POCKET, IF YOU KNOW?
A I DIDN'T SEE HIM PUT HIS HANDS INTO HIS POCKET. I JUST SAW HIM DO SOMETHING WITH HIS HANDS.
Q DO SOMETHING WITH?
A YEAH, RIGHT. HE HAD SOME MONEY IN IT. I DON'T KNOW.
Q WAS HE TAKING HIS HAND OUT OF HIS POCKET?
A I DID NOT SEE THAT.
Q WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY, SIR, YOU WEREN'T PAYING PARTICULARLY CLOSE ATTENTION TO HIS HANDS?
A I WAS -- NO, I WAS NOT. NO, I WAS NOT.
Q YOU WEREN'T EXPECTING TO SEE ANY INJURY ANY CUTS ON HIM, WERE YOU, SIR?
A I WAS NOT LOOKING FOR ANYTHING.
Q RIGHT. YOU WEREN'T LOOKING FOR ANY AND THEN YOU SAW HIM AGAIN IN CHICAGO, CORRECT?
A I DID.
Q AND AT THAT TIME, SIR, DID YOU SPEND A LONG TIME TALKING TO HIM?
A A WHILE, WHILE HE WAS WAITING ON HIS BAGS AND I WAS WAITING ON MY LUGGAGE.
Q HOW LONG IS A WHILE, SIR?
A A FEW MINUTES. A COUPLE MINUTES, SO WHAT HAPPENED WAS -- OKAY, YES.
Q OKAY.
AND AT THAT TIME WERE YOU PAYING CLOSE ATTENTION TO HIS HAND OR TRYING TO OBSERVE --
A NO, I WAS NOT.
Q TRYING TO MAKE ANY OBSERVATION -- THAT IS ALL RIGHT.
I WILL JUST STOP. HE KNOWS.
SO YOU WEREN'T LOOKING TO SEE IF HE WAS INJURED PARTICULARLY; IS THAT TRUE?
A I DID NOT.
Q ALL RIGHT.
SO YOU AND THE DEFENDANT ARE NOT CLOSE PERSONAL FRIENDS; WOULD THAT BE A FAIR STATEMENT?
A RIGHT.
Q YOU ARE ACQUAINTANCES, CORRECT?
A YES.
Q AND IF THERE WAS SOME SUBTLE DIFFERENCE IN THE WAY HE WAS ACTING ON THAT PARTICULAR NIGHT, YOU WOULD NOT DETECT IT; WOULD THAT BE A FAIR STATEMENT?
A I DON'T KNOW. I JUST KNOW HOW HE WAS WITH ME. HI, BINGHAM, HOW YOU DOING, YOU KNOW, LIKE THAT.
Q IF HE WAS PUTTING ON ACT TO TRY AND COVER UP WHAT WAS GOING ON INSIDE, IF HE WAS FEELING DIFFERENTLY THAN HE APPEARED, YOU WOULDN'T KNOW THAT, WOULD YOU?
MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THE QUESTION. CALLS FOR --
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
Q BY MS. CLARK: YOU COULD ONLY TELL US WHAT YOU WERE ABLE TO OBSERVE, CORRECT?
A YES.
Q YOU SAW HOW HE BEHAVED OUTWARDLY; IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?
A YES.
Q DON'T KNOW WHAT HE WAS FEELING INSIDE?
MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MS. CLARK: YOU CAN ANSWER THAT.
A WHAT IS THAT NOW?
Q YOU CAN ANSWER THAT.
A WHAT WAS THAT?
Q YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT HE WAS FEELING INSIDE, DO YOU, SIR?
A I'M NOT A PSYCHIATRIST OR A PSYCHOLOGIST.
MS. CLARK: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. BINGHAM.
THE WITNESS: THANK YOU.
THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. COCHRAN:
Q MR. BINGHAM, IF MR. SIMPSON WAS ACTING THAT NIGHT, HE HAD BEEN ACTING THAT SAME WAY SINCE 1968; IS THAT RIGHT?
A HE WAS THE SAME TO ME. WHENEVER I SEE HIM, HE KNOWS ME BECAUSE OF ALI, "HEY, BINGHAM," ASKS ME ABOUT ALI.
MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING AND GIVE OUR BEST TO THE CHAMP.
THE WITNESS: I SHALL.
THE COURT: MISS CLARK, ANY REDIRECT?
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
MS. CLARK: NO. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. BINGHAM, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING IN, SIR.
THE WITNESS: THANK YOU.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. COCHRAN, YOUR NEXT WITNESS, PLEASE.
MR. COCHRAN: YES, YOUR HONOR.
THE NEXT WITNESS IS MR. STEVE VALERIE. WE ARE READY TO PROCEED.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. VALERIE, WOULD YOU STAND AT THE PODIUM THERE, PLEASE, AND FACE THE CLERK.
STEPHEN VALERIE,
CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE DEFENDANT, WAS SWORN AND TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
THE CLERK: PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
YOU DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU MAY GIVE IN THE CAUSE NOW PENDING BEFORE THIS COURT, SHALL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD.
THE WITNESS: I DO.
THE CLERK: PLEASE HAVE A SEAT ON THE WITNESS STAND AND STATE AND SPELL YOUR FIRST AND LAST NAMES FOR THE RECORD.
THE WITNESS: STEPHEN VALERIE, S-T-E-P-H-E-N V-A-L-E-R-I-E.
THE CLERK: THANK YOU.
THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. COCHRAN:
Q GOOD MORNING, MR. VALERIE.
A GOOD MORNING.
Q MR. VALERIE, DID YOU FLY BACK INTO LOS ANGELES LAST NIGHT TO BE HERE TO TESTIFY WITH US TODAY?
A I SURE DID.
Q MR. VALERIE, I WANT YOU TO LOOK AT THE GENTLEMAN TO MY LEFT OVER HERE, MR. O.J. SIMPSON.
HAD YOU EVER SEEN HIM IN PERSON PRIOR TO JUNE 12TH OF 1994?
A NEVER.
Q ON THAT DATE, ON JUNE 12TH OF 1994, DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO BOARD AN AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT 668 FROM LOS ANGELES TO CHICAGO?
A THAT IS CORRECT.
Q AND BEFORE WE GET TO THAT, WHAT IS YOUR PRESENT OCCUPATION OR AVOCATION?
A I JUST GRADUATED FROM A MBA PROGRAM AT UCLA.
Q UCLA?
A CORRECT.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND AT THAT TIME -- IN JUNE OF '94, WERE YOU A STUDENT AT UCLA AT THAT POINT?
A CORRECT. JUST COMPLETED MY FIRST YEAR.
Q NOW, IN THAT CONNECTION DO YOU REMEMBER APPROXIMATELY WHAT TIME IT WAS THAT YOU BOARDED THIS PARTICULAR FLIGHT, 668?
A I BOARDED JUST RIGHT AS THEY WERE CLOSING THE GATE, SO I WOULD SAY PROBABLY AT ABOUT 11:40.
Q ALL RIGHT.
WHEN YOU BOARDED THE FLIGHT WERE YOU SEATED IN EITHER COACH OR IN FIRST CLASS?
A I WAS UPGRADED TO FIRST CLASS AND SAT IN SEAT 4A.
Q WHEN YOU WERE UPGRADED YOU USE YOUR STICKERS?
A CORRECT.
Q FREQUENT TRAVELER?
A ABSOLUTELY.
Q THEY TAKE YOUR COACH TICKET AND YOU ARE ABLE TO BUY YOUR WAY INTO FIRST CLASS?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT.
MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR, 1245?
THE COURT: YOU MAY.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: I WANT YOU TO TAKE A QUICK LOOK -- HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THIS DIAGRAM BEFORE, 1245?
A I SAW IT ON THE OPENING STATEMENTS.
Q OKAY.
AND IN THAT CONNECTION THE FRONT PART OF THE PLANE UP HERE IS FIRST CLASS; IS THAT CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND THERE IS AN AREA HERE THAT GENERALLY PUTS YOU IN ROW 5 -- I GUESS THAT IS ROW 5.
AT ANY RATE, LET ME -- STRIKE THAT, YOUR HONOR.
WHAT ROW DID YOU OCCUPY THAT NIGHT IN FIRST CLASS?
A I SAT IN WHAT THEY NUMBER ROW NO. 4. IN FACT, IT WAS THE SECOND ROW ON THAT SIDE OF THE PLANE AND THE THIRD ROW FROM MR. SIMPSON'S SIDE.
Q LET ME SEE IF I CAN UNDERSTAND THIS.
THIS WAS A SUPER 80 PLANE. IN THAT PLANE THERE IS TWO SEATS ON EACH SIDE OF FIRST CLASS IN ONE AISLE?
A CORRECT.
Q ALL RIGHT. YOU CAN TURN BACK.
A (WITNESS COMPLIES.)
Q IN THAT CONNECTION DID YOU SIT IN A WINDOW SEAT OR IN AN AISLE SEAT?
A I SAT IN THE WINDOW SEAT.
Q SO YOUR SEAT NUMBER WAS WHAT?
A 4A.
Q AND MR. SIMPSON THEN WOULD BE ACROSS THE AISLE FROM YOU IN WHICH SEAT, IF YOU RECALL?
A 4D.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, WHEN YOU FIRST GOT ON THE PLANE DID YOU SEE MR. SIMPSON AT THAT TIME?
A WHEN I FIRST GOT ON THE PLANE, NO. I ENTERED FIRST.
Q ALL RIGHT.
A WAS STANDING ORGANIZING MY BAGS, PUTTING THEM IN THE OVERHEAD AND THEN SAW HIM ENTER RIGHT AFTER I DID.
Q ALL RIGHT.
YOU SAW MR. SIMPSON ENTER A SHORT TIME AFTER YOU DID?
A CORRECT.
Q ALL RIGHT.
WHEN YOU FIRST SAW HIM, DID YOU RECOGNIZE HIM?
A SURE, IMMEDIATELY.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND AFTER HE FIRST ENTERED DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO OBSERVE HIM AT THAT POINT?
A I OBSERVED HIM PRETTY MUCH FROM THE MOMENT HE ENTERED THE FLIGHT.
Q ALL RIGHT.
TELL US WHAT YOU OBSERVED ABOUT HIM AT THE TIME AS YOU SAW HIM ENTER THE FLIGHT.
A UMM, I NOTICED FIRST OFF THAT OBVIOUSLY HE CAME ON BOARD LAST. I HAD EXPECTED I WOULD BE THE LAST ON BOARD.
SO HE CAME ON AND I LOOKED BACK AND HE -- I THINK OTHERS IN THE FIRST CLASS AND ALSO IN THE CABIN CLASS NOTICED HIM, SO EVERYONE WAS -- HAD HIS EYES GAZED UPON MR. SIMPSON.
AND I PROCEEDED TO TAKE MY SEAT AND HE PUT HIS -- ONE OF HIS BAGS IN THE OVERHEAD COMPARTMENT AND SHOOK -- THEN THE GENTLEMAN SITTING BEHIND ME IN SEAT 5B THAT WOULD BE ACKNOWLEDGED -- SAID HELLO TO HIM AND THEY KNEW EACH OTHER, IT SEEMED LIKE, FROM THEIR CONVERSATION.
IT WAS A BRIEF CONVERSATION. THEY SHOOK HANDS, AND THE FLIGHT ATTENDANT, YOU KNOW, MOTIONED THAT IT WAS TIME TO SIT DOWN, TIME TO GET READY FOR TAKE OFF, AND SO I ALSO BELIEVE RIGHT BEFORE TAKE OFF MR. SIMPSON ASKED FOR A GLASS OF WATER AND THAT WAS BROUGHT OUT TO HIM BEFORE TAKE OFF.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, YOU MADE ALL THESE OBSERVATIONS FROM YOUR LOCATION THERE AT 4A PRIMARILY, RIGHT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND WHEN MR. SIMPSON FIRST ENTERED, CAN YOU DESCRIBE -- AND AS HE WAS INTERACTING WITH THE OTHER PASSENGERS -- CAN YOU DESCRIBE FOR THE JURY HIS MOOD, HOW HE APPEARED TO YOU?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, NO FOUNDATION.
MR. COCHRAN: HOW HE APPEARED?
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: HE WAS VERY PLEASANT, SMILING. I NOTICED HIS CLOTHING WAS VERY WELL-PRESSED. LOOKED VERY SHARP.
IN FACT, I WAS LOOKING -- PARTICULARLY JUST BECAUSE OF HIS CELEBRITY FROM HIS HERTZ COMMERCIALS AND THE FACT THAT HE WAS SO LATE ON BOARD, I WAS LOOKING TO SEE IF HE WAS SWEATING AND HE LOOKED ABSOLUTELY NORMAL.
HIS FLIGHT -- HIS CLOTHING WAS VERY WELL PRESSED AND HE SAT DOWN, AND UMM, LOOKED OVER ACTUALLY A COUPLE TIMES AT THE BEGINNING AND THEN LATER ON IN THE FLIGHT AND SMILED AND SEEMED VERY APPROACHABLE.
Q ALL RIGHT.
YOU MENTIONED HIS CLOTHES WERE NEATLY PRESSED. DO YOU HAVE A RECOLLECTION -- CAN YOU -- THE BEST YOU CAN NOW, DESCRIBE FOR THIS JURY HOW HE WAS DRESSED IN YOUR BEST RECOLLECTION.
A SURE. HE WAS WEARING, TO MY RECOLLECTION, A BUTTON-DOWN SHIRT WITH LONG SLEEVES WITH A T-SHIRT UNDERNEATH. HE HAD SOME KIND OF COTTON PANTS ON. YOU KNOW, EITHER KHAKI OR LIGHT BLUE OR SOMETHING.
HE WAS WEARING LEATHER LOAFERS WITH LEATHER MESH ON THE FRONT PORTION OF THE SHOE. HE WASN'T WEARING ANY SOCKS THAT EVENING. AND HAIR WAS TRIM. I MEAN, HE --
Q THAT IS WHAT YOU RECALL ABOUT HIM; IS THAT CORRECT?
A CORRECT.
Q DO YOU KNOW -- STRIKE THAT.
NOW, YOU MADE THESE OBSERVATIONS AGAIN FROM -- FROM YOUR SEAT IN 4A; IS THAT CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND AT SOME POINT THE STEWARDESS TOLD YOU TO OR THE FIRST -- STRIKE THAT.
THE FLIGHT ATTENDANT IS PROBABLY A MORE APPROPRIATE STATEMENT, YOUR HONOR.
THE FLIGHT ATTENDANT SUGGESTED THAT EVERYBODY SHOULD GET IN THEIR SEATS BECAUSE THE FLIGHT WOULD BE TAKING OFF; IS THAT CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT. MR. SIMPSON WAS THE ONLY ONE REALLY STANDING AT THAT POINT.
AND SO IT WAS -- IT WAS JUST A QUICK GETTING READY FOR TAKE OFF SO EVERYONE TAKE THEIR SEATS.
Q ALL RIGHT.
SO AFTER A PERIOD OF TIME THE FLIGHT DID IN FACT TAKE OFF; IS THAT CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q DID YOU, FOR A PERIOD OF TIME AFTER YOU WERE AIRBORNE, HAVE OCCASION TO OBSERVE MR. SIMPSON ADDITIONALLY?
A YES. I -- AFTER TAKE-OFF I WAS AWAKE FOR PROBABLY ABOUT I WOULD ESTIMATE A LITTLE OVER AN HOUR OF THE FLIGHT, OF THE THREE AND A HALF OUR FLIGHT, I POSITIONED MYSELF ACTUALLY FACING HIM USING THE FUSELAGE OF THE PLANE AS A BACKREST, IF YOU WILL.
Q LET ME SEE IF I CAN EXPLAIN THAT.
A SURE.
Q WHEN YOU SAY USING THE FUSELAGE OF THE PLANE, IF YOU ARE SEATED -- SO I CAN USE THIS DEMONSTRATION, YOUR HONOR -- IF YOU ARE SEATED AND THIS IS THE PILOT UP HERE, YOU WOULD NORMALLY BE SITTING STRAIGHTFORWARD; IS THAT CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND MR. SIMPSON, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WOULD BE OVER TO YOUR RIGHT ON THE WINDOW SEAT; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES.
Q YOU ARE DEMONSTRATING FOR US HOW YOU MOVED AROUND SO YOU CAN SEE MR. SIMPSON?
A ROTATE LIKE THIS. I LEANED ABOUT THIS ANGLE AND HAD MY FEET UP, ELEVATED THE -- I ELEVATED THE LEG REST OF THE OTHER SEAT, AS WELL AS MINE, SO I WOULD HAVE JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE LEG ROOM SO IN THAT POSITION HAD A PRETTY CLEAR VIEW OF MR. SIMPSON THROUGHOUT THE FLIGHT.
MR. COCHRAN: SO FOR THE RECORD, YOUR HONOR, HE HAS INDICATED HE TURNED HIS BODY I GUESS TO THE LEFT.
Q SO HIS BACK WOULD BE AGAINST THE WINDOW BEHIND YOU?
A CORRECT.
Q YOU HAD A CLEAR VIEW TOWARD WHERE MR. SIMPSON WAS SEATED?
THE COURT: ACTUALLY IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE YOU ARE TURNING TO THE RIGHT AT A 40 TO 45-DEGREE ANGLE FACING DIAGONALLY IS WHAT IT APPEARS TO ME.
MR. COCHRAN: YOU KNOW WHAT, I THINK YOU ARE RIGHT. MOVING TO THE RIGHT 45 DEGREES.
THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
Q FROM THAT VANTAGE POINT THEN WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE MR. SIMPSON?
A YES, I WAS.
Q ALL RIGHT.
A AND OBSERVED HIM --
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, NONRESPONSIVE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
ASK ANOTHER QUESTION.
MR. COCHRAN: I WILL ASK ANOTHER QUESTION.
Q NOW, FROM THAT VANTAGE POINT WHAT DID YOU OBSERVE, IF ANYTHING, ABOUT MR. SIMPSON? TELL US WHAT YOU SAW IN YOUR OWN WORDS.
A THE FIRST THING I NOTICED WAS BEFORE TAKE-OFF HE WAS ASKED TO PUT HIS BAG UNDERNEATH HIS SEAT AND HE PUT THAT BAG, A SMALL BLACK LEATHER DUFFEL BAG, UNDERNEATH THE SEAT DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF HIM BEFORE TAKE-OFF.
AFTER WE TOOK OFF HE PULLED THE -- THAT SAME BAG OUT AND PUT IT ON THE EMPTY PASSENGER SEAT NEXT TO HIM AND PROCEEDED TO OPEN THAT BAG UP AND PULLED OUT A MANILA ENVELOPE -- I'M SORRY, NOT AN ENVELOPE -- A MANILA FOLDER WITH A DOCUMENT INSIDE.
WHY I CALL IT A DOCUMENT, I WAS ABLE TO SEE THAT IT WAS A DOUBLE-SPACED TYPED DOCUMENT ON WHITE PAPER, EIGHT-AND-A-HALF-BY-11, AND IT LOOKED -- IT WAS LOOSE-LEAF, SO HE PROCEEDED TO READ THAT DOCUMENT AT THE POINT AT WHICH I WAS OBSERVING HIM.
MR. DARDEN: I'M GOING TO OBJECT TO LEADING.
MR. COCHRAN: ASKING HIM WHAT HAPPENED.
MR. DARDEN: NO FOUNDATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
ASK HIM WHAT HAPPENED NEXT.
MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. OKAY, YOUR HONOR, I WILL DO THAT.
Q WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
A HE PROCEEDED TO READ THAT, SIPPED ON HIS WATER, AND IT WAS PRETTY UNEVENTFUL REALLY. I MEAN, WE WERE JUST FLYING ON A REDEYE FLIGHT. HE AGAIN, BECAUSE OF MY POSITION --
MR. DARDEN: OBJECT AS NONRESPONSIVE, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. NEXT QUESTION.
MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT, CERTAINLY.
MR. VALERIE, AS YOU WATCHED MR. SIMPSON FROM THIS VANTAGE POINT, DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO LOOK AT HIS FACE?
A I SURE DID.
Q DID YOU SEE ANY BRUISES OR CUTS OR ABRASIONS ON HIS FACE AT THAT POINT?
A NONE WHATSOEVER.
Q DID YOU HAVE OCCASION FROM THIS VANTAGE POINT YOU HAVE DESCRIBED FOR US TO LOOK AT MR. SIMPSON'S HANDS?
A I DID.
Q AND WHAT, IF ANYTHING, DID YOU SEE WITH REGARD TO HIS HANDS?
A UMM, I VIEWED MR. SIMPSON'S HANDS AT THAT TIME LOOKING FOR CHAMPIONSHIP RING. GIVEN HE IS A FAMOUS PROFESSIONAL PLAYER, THAT WAS THE MOTIVATION FOR MY LOOKING AT HIS HANDS.
I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING UNUSUAL, NO BAND-AIDS, NO LARGE ABRASIONS OR ANYTHING TO THAT EFFECT.
Q DID YOU SEE ANY CUTS AT ALL?
A I DIDN'T SEE ANY.
Q DID YOU SEE ANY BLOOD ON HIS HANDS?
A NO BLOOD.
Q BY THE WAY, YOU SAID YOU WERE LOOKING FOR A CHAMPIONSHIP RING. IS THAT LIKE A SUPERBOWL RING?
A YES.
Q SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE?
DID YOU SEE ONE AT THAT TIME?
A NO, I DID NOT.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND SO YOU HAD A PRETTY CLEAR UNOBSTRUCTED VIEW OF MR. SIMPSON AS YOU WERE LOOKING AND MAKING THESE OBSERVATIONS; IS THAT CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT. HIS LEFT HAND WOULD HAVE BEEN THE HAND I SAW CLOSEST AND BEST VIEW OF.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND I DON'T RECALL WHETHER OR NOT-- DID HE EVER TAKE A BOOK OUT OF HIS BAG THAT YOU WERE DESCRIBING?
A I SAW THE BOOK OUT. I DIDN'T ACTUALLY SEE HIM TAKE THAT OUT. I SAW IT OUT ON THE SEAT.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND WITH REGARD TO THESE PAPERS THAT YOU SAY, THE DOUBLE-SPACED PAPERS THAT HE WAS READING, COULD YOU TELL WHAT THAT WAS?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR SPECULATION.
MR. COCHRAN: I'M ASKING IF HE COULD TELL.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: COULD YOU TELL WHAT THAT WAS? YOU CAN ANSWER THAT.
A YES. I COULD NOT TELL WHAT IT WAS, NO.
Q ALL RIGHT.
BUT IT WAS SOMETHING HE WAS APPARENTLY READING; IS THAT CORRECT?
A CORRECT.
Q WHAT YOU HAVE TOLD US ABOUT NOW, DID THIS TAKE PLACE DURING THE FIRST HOUR OR SO OF THE FLIGHT THAT YOU HAVE DESCRIBED FOR US?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AT SOME POINT, MR. VALERIE, DID YOU GO TO SLEEP THAT NIGHT?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND AT THAT TIME WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU OBSERVED ABOUT MR. SIMPSON THAT YOU HAVEN'T TOLD US ABOUT DURING THIS HOUR PERIOD OF TIME REGARDING HOW HE APPEARED TO YOU AND HIS MOOD?
A NO. HE -- LIKE I SAID, HE GLANCED OVER OCCASIONALLY AND SMILED IN A FRIENDLY MANNER ON A COUPLE OF OCCASIONS.
Q ALL RIGHT.
WHEN HE FIRST GOT ON THE PLANE AND YOU SAID HE WAS INTERACTING WITH OTHER PASSENGERS, HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE HIM AT THAT POINT WHEN HE FIRST GOT ON THE PLANE?
A JOVIAL. HE CAME ON, MET -- LIKE I SAID, SHOOK HANDS WITH THE GENTLEMAN BEHIND ME AND THEN ANOTHER GENTLEMAN CAME UP FROM THE CABIN CLASS AND GREETED HIM AND HAD A SHORT WORD WITH HIM AS WELL.
AGAIN SEEMED TO KNOW -- THEY SEEMED TO KNOW EACH OTHER.
Q THE GENTLEMAN WHO CAME UP FROM THE CABIN CLASS, DID YOU SEE HIM JUST GO OUT OF THIS COURTROOM A SHORT TIME BEFORE YOU CAME IN?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q ALL RIGHT.
SO AT SOME POINT HE WENT TO SLEEP; IS THAT CORRECT?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q STRIKE THAT. AT SOME POINT YOU WENT TO SLEEP?
A YES, I DID.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND DID YOU AWAKEN PRIOR TO ARRIVING IN CHICAGO?
A YES.
Q AND WHEN YOU WOKE UP, WERE YOU STILL ABLE TO SEE MR. SIMPSON?
A CORRECT.
Q DO YOU KNOW -- DID YOU EVER AT ANY POINT SEE THE PILOT, THE CAPTAIN OF THAT PLANE, WAYNE STANFIELD, COME OUT AND INTERACT WITH MR. O.J. SIMPSON?
A I DID NOT WITNESS THAT, NO.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND WHEN YOU AWAKENED DID YOU SEE MR. SIMPSON?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT. WHERE WAS HE AT THAT TIME?
A SEATED IN THE SAME SEAT, 4D.
Q OKAY.
DID YOU -- WHAT WAS HE DOING AT THE TIME YOU AWAKENED?
A UMM, JUST PREPARING FOR LANDING. YOU KNOW, BUCKLING SEATBELTS AND PUTTING THE SEAT FORWARD AND THE LIKE.
Q YOU WERE GETTING CLOSE TO LANDING AT THAT POINT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q ALL RIGHT.
SO THEN THEREAFTER THE PLANE OF COURSE LANDED SAFELY?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q YOU WERE AT O'HARE AIRPORT, RIGHT?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q YES?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND THEN AFTER YOU LANDED, CAN YOU DESCRIBE FOR THE JURY WHO GOT UP FIRST TO PROCEED OUT THE DOOR OF THAT PLANE AND DESCRIBE THAT FOR US.
A WE LANDED, TAXIED TO THE GATE AND THE FIRST PERSON TO THE FRONT OF THE AISLEWAY WAS MR. SIMPSON AND I FOLLOWED HIM DIRECTLY AFTERWARDS.
WE WERE ASKED TO WAIT JUST BEHIND THE DOOR THAT THEY WERE GOING TO OPEN, OBVIOUSLY FOR SAFETY REASONS, AND SO MR. SIMPSON STOOD IN FRONT OF ME WAITING TO DEPLANE.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, AS MR. SIMPSON STOOD IN FRONT OF YOU, DID HE HAVE -- IF YOU RECALL, WAS HE CARRYING ANY BAG AT THIS POINT?
A YEAH. HE HAD HIS -- HIS GARMENT BAG OVER HIS RIGHT SHOULDER, WHICH IS THE SIDE I REALLY COULDN'T SEE WELL. HIS LEFT SHOULDER WAS TO ME AS WE WERE GOING TO DEPLANE ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE PLANE.
Q WAS THERE A STRAP ON THAT GARMENT BAG, IF YOU RECALL?
A YES. IT WAS OVER HIS SHOULDER.
Q OKAY. WHAT COLOR WAS THAT BAG?
A IT WAS A DARKER COLOR. I DIDN'T REALLY SEE. THAT WAS THE ONE THAT HE STOWED OVERHEAD.
Q ALL RIGHT.
THAT WAS OVER THE RIGHT SHOULDER AND THEN WHAT ABOUT THE -- DID YOU SEE ANY OTHER BAG?
A YEAH. THEN THE SECOND BAG THAT HE HAD WITH HIM IN THE SEAT AND HE HAD THAT POSITIONED OVER HIS SHOULDER CARRYING IT WITH THE TWO STRAPS IN HIS HAND HANGING OVER HIS BACK, AND THAT WAS CLOSEST TO ME.
MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT.
FOR THE RECORD, THE WITNESS IS INDICATING A LEFT -- HIS LEFT HAND WITH THE BAG OVER HIS LEFT SHOULDER.
THE COURT: YES. THANK YOU.
MR. COCHRAN: IS THAT CORRECT?
THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
Q YOU INDICATED THAT WAS CLOSEST TO YOU?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q WERE YOU STANDING RIGHT BEHIND MR. SIMPSON?
A YES, I WAS.
Q FROM THAT VANTAGE POINT COULD YOU SEE MR. SIMPSON'S LEFT HAND OR PART OF HIS LEFT HAND?
A UMM, I COULD HAVE. I WASN'T LOOKING SPECIFICALLY AT HIS HAND AT THAT POINT.
Q COULD YOU SEE HIS RIGHT HAND AT ALL?
A NO.
Q ALL RIGHT.
SO YOU WERE VERY CLOSE TO HIM AT THIS POINT; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YEAH.
Q DID THE TWO OF YOU HAVE ANY CONVERSATION OR INTERACTION AT THAT POINT?
A YEAH. I MADE A BRIEF COMMENT TO HIM WHEN HE SMILED AND I THINK IN A GROGGY STATE ACKNOWLEDGED ME.
Q ALL RIGHT.
HE SEEMED GROGGY AT THIS POINT?
A YEAH. I THINK WE WERE ALL PRETTY GROGGY AT 4:30 IN THE MORNING.
Q ALL RIGHT.
THE PLANE WAS LANDING AT ABOUT 4:30?
A YEAH.
Q AND AT THAT POINT WHAT DID YOU SAY, IF ANYTHING?
A I SAID TO HIM, "BETTER BE CAREFUL, SOMEONE MIGHT THINK YOU ARE GOING TO BE DOING A COMMERCIAL." THE WAY HIS POSE WAS AND THE FACT THAT HE WAS FIRST TO GET OFF, IT LOOKED LIKE HE WAS READY TO GET OFF THAT FLIGHT. HE LOOKED -- I MADE THAT COMMENT IN JEST.
Q AND DID HE SAY ANYTHING IN RESPONSE TO THAT?
A HE SMILED AND INDICATED, "YEAH, I'M HERE TO SEE HERTZ" OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT. I DIDN'T HAVE A CLEAR MEMORY REALLY OF WHAT HE SAID BACK TO ME BECAUSE RIGHT AT THAT MOMENT THE DOOR FLEW OPEN AND WE WERE WALKING DOWN, SO I WAS JUST WALKING WITH HIM AND THOUGHT I MAY EVEN GET ANOTHER WORD WITH HIM, SO I WAS PRETTY MUCH CLOSE TO HIM WALKING OUT THE -- THE GANGWAY THERE AND INTO THE TERMINAL.
AND THEN IMMEDIATELY HE WAS GREETED BY A GENTLEMAN AT THE GATE.
Q ALL RIGHT.
A WHERE WE BOTH ACTUALLY STOPPED TO READJUST OUR BAGS AND HE SHOOK HANDS WITH WHOEVER GREETED HIM AND SAID HELLO AND THE LIKE.
Q ALL RIGHT.
SO THAT WAS SOME GENTLEMAN THAT MET MR. SIMPSON AND WAS THAT YOUR LAST CONTACT WITH HIM THAT DAY?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q YOU DIDN'T SEE HIM ANY FURTHER AFTER THAT POINT?
A WE ACTUALLY WALKED IN TANDEM THROUGH THE CHICAGO O'HARE TERMINAL UNTIL HE VEERED OFF TO GO TO BAGGAGE CLAIM. I WAS CONNECTING ON A FLIGHT TO WASHINGTON D.C.
Q SO YOU WERE CATCHING ANOTHER FLIGHT AND YOUR BAGGAGE WAS GOING THROUGH?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q WAS THERE ANY OTHER CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE TWO OF YOU AS YOU WALKED IN TANDEM UNTIL HE VEERED OFF?
A NONE. HE WAS TALKING TO THE OTHER GENTLEMEN.
Q NOW, THERE WERE THREE OF YOU BASICALLY; IS THAT CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q NOW, DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO TALK WITH AN INVESTIGATOR FROM THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT BY THE NAME OF CROTSLY ON OR ABOUT
OCTOBER 5TH OF 1994?
A YES, I DID.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A COPY OF HIS REPORT BEFORE TODAY?
A I SAW IT EARLIER THIS MORNING.
Q THIS IS THE FIRST TIME?
A YES.
MR. COCHRAN: AND -- I WOULD LIKE TO APPROACH, YOUR HONOR, JUST PLACE IT BEFORE HIM AND ASK THE WITNESS TO READ IT.
MR. DARDEN: I WILL OBJECT, FOUNDATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
JUST SHOW IT TO HIM AT THIS POINT AND SEE IF HE RECOGNIZES IT.
MR. COCHRAN: YES, YOUR HONOR.
MR. DARDEN: IT IS LEADING, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: WOULD YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THAT REPORT AND SEE WHETHER OR NOT THAT REFRESHES YOUR RECOLLECTION OR YOU RECOGNIZE THE WORDS THEREON, THE CONVERSATION WITH AN INVESTIGATOR BY THE NAME OF CROTSLY, C-R-O-T-S-L-Y?
MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, THE WITNESS HASN'T INDICATED HE CANNOT RECALL.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE QUESTION WAS DO YOU RECOGNIZE THIS DOCUMENT?
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
MR. DARDEN: HE HAS NEVER SEEN IT BEFORE.
THE COURT: WHETHER THE CONTENT IS HEARSAY OR NOT IS ANOTHER ISSUE.
THE WITNESS: YES, I DO.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU RECOGNIZE THIS CONVERSATION AS A COPY OF YOUR CONVERSATION WITH DETECTIVE CROTSLY?
A IT IS A SUMMARY OF THE STATEMENTS I GAVE TO DETECTIVE CROTSLY.
Q WHEN YOU TALKED TO THE DETECTIVE WERE YOU TRYING TO BE AS ACCURATE AS YOU COULD?
A YES, I WAS.
Q WAS THIS A TELEPHONIC CONVERSATION?
A YES.
Q BY THE WAY, DO YOU REMEMBER WHETHER OR NOT -- DID THE DETECTIVE READ YOU A STATEMENT PRIOR TO TALKING TO YOU THAT DAY? DID HE READ ANY STATEMENT?
A THAT I HAD MADE EARLIER?
Q YES.
A UMM, HE READ SOME PORTION OF IT. HE DID NOT READ AN ENTIRE TRANSCRIPT. HE WAS REFERRING, I BELIEVE, TO THE SHOES ON THAT SECOND OCCASION, SO HE WANTED TO JUST READ HOW I DESCRIBED THE SHOES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
DID YOU DESCRIBE THE SHOES FOR THIS DETECTIVE IN OCTOBER?
A YES.
Q AND WHAT WAS YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE SHOES?
A UMM, MY DESCRIPTION WAS THAT THEY WERE LEATHER EUROPEAN-LOOKING LOAFERS WITH BLACK OR DARK BLUE LEATHER AND THE MESH LEATHER IN THE FRONT TOP PANEL OF THE SHOE.
Q THEY APPEARED TO BE LOAFERS OF SOME KIND?
A CORRECT.
Q DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO DESCRIBE FOR THE DETECTIVE MR. SIMPSON'S APPEARANCE AND HIS CLOTHING?
A CAN YOU REPEAT THAT QUESTION, I'M SORRY?
Q DID YOU HAVE OCCASION DURING THIS CONVERSATION WITH DETECTIVE CROTSLY TO DESCRIBE MR. SIMPSON'S APPEARANCE, HOW HE APPEARED TO YOU ON THAT EVENING?
A YEAH, THE SAME GENERAL THING I HAVE SAID HERE TODAY AND I HAVE SAID ALL ALONG.
MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT.
MAY I HAVE JUST A SECOND MORE, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: CERTAINLY.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL AND
THE DEFENDANT.)
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: NOW -- THIS WILL BE IT, YOUR HONOR.
YOU HAD NOT SEEN MR. SIMPSON THAT NIGHT AT 11:15, HAD YOU?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q YOU HAD NOT SEEN HIM AT 11:15 P.M. ON THAT SUNDAY NIGHT, HAD YOU?
A NO, I HAD NOT.
Q YOU HADN'T SEEN HIM AT ELEVEN O'CLOCK THAT NIGHT?
A NO, I HAD NOT.
Q YOU HAD NOT SEEN HIM AT 10:45, HAD YOU?
A I DID NOT SEE HIM AT 10:45.
Q DIDN'T SEE HIM UNTIL 11:40 OR THEREABOUTS?
A THAT IS CORRECT.
Q THAT IS WHAT YOU HAVE TOLD US HERE TODAY?
A YES, I HAVE.
Q YOU TOLD US THE TRUTH HERE TODAY?
A YES, I HAVE.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY FOR COMING.
THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.
MR. DARDEN: HOW LONG ARE WE GOING TO GO, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: ABOUT FOUR MINUTES.
DO YOU WANT TO START NOW OR DO YOU WANT TO START AFTER LUNCH?
MR. DARDEN: IF IT IS OKAY WITH YOU, I WOULD LIKE TO START AFTER LUNCH, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: MR. VALERIE, I'M GOING TO ORDER YOU TO COME BACK THEN AT 1:30 AND WE WILL RESUME WITH YOUR CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DARDEN.
YOU CAN STEP DOWN NOW, MR. VALERIE.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, PLEASE REMEMBER ALL OF MY ADMONITIONS.
DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONGST YOURSELVES, DON'T FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, DON'T CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU, DO NOT ANYBODY MAYBE TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU WITH REGARD TO THE CASE.
WE WILL STAND IN RECESS UNTIL 1:30.
AND WE WILL BE IN SESSION TODAY UNTIL 6:00.
MR. COCHRAN: MAY WE APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?
(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)
(AT 11:57 A.M. THE NOON RECESS
WAS TAKEN UNTIL 1:30 P.M. OF
THE SAME DAY.)
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; THURSDAY, JULY 13, 1995
1:35 P.M.
DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
(APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)
(JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR NO. 4855, OFFICIAL REPORTER.) (CHRISTINE M. OLSON, CSR NO. 2378, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
BACK ON THE RECORD.
ALL RIGHT.
ALL PARTIES ARE AGAIN PRESENT.
ALL RIGHT.
MR. SHAPIRO: MAY WE APPROACH?
THE COURT: SURE.
(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
DEPUTY MAGNERA, LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
PLEASE BE SEATED.
ALL RIGHT.
LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT WE'VE BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL.
GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
THE JURY: GOOD AFTERNOON.
THE COURT: MR. VALERIE, WOULD YOU RESUME THE WITNESS STAND, PLEASE.
STEVE VALERIE,
THE WITNESS ON THE STAND AT THE TIME OF THE LUNCH RECESS, RESUMED THE STAND AND TESTIFIED FURTHER AS FOLLOWS:
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. VALERIE.
THE WITNESS: HI.
THE COURT: YOU ARE REMINDED, SIR, YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH.
MR. DARDEN.
MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. DARDEN:
Q GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. VALERIE.
A HELLO.
Q SIR, WHAT DO YOU DO FOR A LIVING?
A RECENT GRADUATE OF THE ENDERSON SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT AT UCLA AND CURRENTLY ON VACATION.
Q OKAY.
YOU WERE ON VACATION BACK IN JUNE OF 1994, WEREN'T YOU?
A UH, JUST ABOUT TO, YEAH. I WAS AT A -- I WAS STUDYING AT GEORGETOWN ON AN EXECUTIVE PROGRAM THERE FOR A MONTH.
Q AND WHAT CITY DO YOU LIVE?
A I GUESS THESE DAYS, IRVINE WOULD BE MY ADDRESS.
Q OKAY.
NOW, YOU -- WHEN YOU SAW THE DEFENDANT, YOU PAID SPECIAL ATTENTION TO HIM, DIDN'T YOU?
A UH, DID YOU SAY WHEN I SAW THE DEFENDANT? IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID?
Q YEAH.
A OKAY. I DIDN'T HEAR YOU.
YEAH. I SURE DID.
Q OKAY.
AND YOU DON'T USUALLY LOOK AT EVERYONE YOU MEET AS CLOSELY AS YOU LOOKED AT THE DEFENDANT, CORRECT?
A DEPENDS ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Q WELL, WHEN YOU MEET OTHER PEOPLE -- WELL, STRIKE THAT.
WELL, WHEN YOU SEE PEOPLE IN PASSING, DO YOU LOOK AT THEM TO SEE IF THEY'RE SWEATING OR NOT?
A SURE.
Q SO WHENEVER YOU SEE SOMEONE, YOU LOOK TO SEE IF THEY'RE SWEATING?
A WHEN I SEE SOMEONE, I LOOK -- I LOOK AT THEM, AND YOU MIGHT NOTICE SWEATING IF THAT WERE THE CASE.
Q WELL, YOU TESTIFIED THIS MORNING THAT YOU LOOKED AT MR. SIMPSON SPECIFICALLY TO SEE IF HE WAS SWEATING; IS THAT RIGHT?
A AND IN THIS CASE, THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND YOU HADN'T HEARD ANYTHING ABOUT NICOLE BROWN'S MURDER AT THAT POINT, RIGHT?
