Xref: world alt.fan.oj-simpson:50296 alt.fan.oj-simpson.transcripts:248 Newsgroups: alt.fan.oj-simpson.transcripts,alt.fan.oj-simpson Path: world!uunet!in2.uu.net!news.sprintlink.net!noc.netcom.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!myra From: myra@netcom.com (Myra Dinnerstein) Subject: SIDEBARS - July 19, 1995 Message-ID: Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 01:41:09 GMT Approved: myra@netcom.com Lines: 164 Sender: myra@netcom20.netcom.com Sidebars from July 19, 1995 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, MY OBJECTION TO THE PHOTOGRAPH IS I THINK THAT PHOTOGRAPH WAS TAKEN, ACCORDING TO MR. SCHECK, IN AUGUST OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, SO IT IS UNFAIR. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CONDITION WAS. THIS WAS JUNE 15TH. THAT WASN'T TAKEN BY THAT POINT. IT WOULD BE UNFAIR TO ASK HIM. MS. CLARK: NO ONE -- SOMEONE TOOK THAT DOME LIGHT COVER OR LIGHTBULB OFF. IN FACT, IT WAS FIRST DISCOVERED BY THE POLICE WHEN THEY TOOK THE PASSENGER SEAT OUT OF THE CAR. THERE IS TESTIMONY THAT WILL BE ELICITED. AND I WILL SUBMIT IT IS SUBJECT TO A MOTION, ASK THE COURT RECEIVE IT SUBJECT TO A MOTION TO STRIKE. WE WILL LAY THE FOUNDATION FOR IT. THE COURT: MISS CLARK, AREN'T WE WASTING A LOT OF TIME WITH THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT, BECAUSE TOW TRUCK DRIVERS AREN'T GOING TO PAY ANY ATTENTION TO THE INSIDE LIGHTS OF A CAR. I'M NOT SAYING IT IS RIDICULOUS, BUT IT IS NOT LIKELY THAT A TOW TRUCK DRIVER IS GOING TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE DOME LIGHTS IN THE CAR, WHETHER OR NOT THEY BURNED OUT OR TAKEN OUT. THEY ARE JUST INTERESTED IN THE DAMAGE THAT WOULD COME FROM TOWING. MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, THE REMOVAL OF A DOME LIGHT COVER -- WE ARE NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT A BURNED OUT LIGHTBULB HERE. THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND. MS. CLARK: A MISSING PIECE. THE COURT: YOU CAN ASK HIM IF HE NOTED IT, YES OR NO. MS. CLARK: OKAY. THE COURT: THEN SOMETIME LATER YOU WILL BE ABLE TO PUT IN THE PHOTOGRAPH. MR. COCHRAN: WELL, YOUR HONOR -- MS. CLARK: BUT -- THE COURT: HE SAID, "I INSPECTED THIS CAR --" MR. COCHRAN: YEAH. CAN I -- THE COURT: -- "FOR BLOOD." MR. COCHRAN: I ASKED FOR THIS APPEARANCE AND I JUST WANT TO INDICATE -- AND I AGREE WITH YOU, YOUR HONOR, BUT THE OTHER POINT, WE DON'T KNOW WHEN THAT WAS TAKEN. THIS CAR WAS SO INSECURE, ISN'T THAT ALSO RELEVANT? THE COURT: ALL I'M SAYING IS SHE CAN ASK DID YOU HAPPEN TO SEE IF THE DOME LIGHT WAS THERE. MR. COCHRAN: I THINK WE HAVE ASKED THAT ALREADY. THE COURT: HE SAID HE DIDN'T PAY ANY ATTENTION TO THAT. MR. COCHRAN: THAT IS THE POINT. THE COURT: BUT IF YOU EVER SEE BLOOD IN A CAR AND THE CAR IS MOVING, THE WIND IN THE CAR BLOWS BLOOD UP INTO THE BACK. I MEAN, PEOPLE LOOK AT HEADLINERS FOR BLOOD IN CARS ALL THE TIME. IT IS NOT AN UNCOMMON EXPERIENCE IF YOU TOW THESE THINGS. BUT YOU DON'T GET TO USE THE PHOTOGRAPH WITH THIS WITNESS. MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. **** (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: MISS CLARK, WHAT IS YOUR OFFER OF PROOF? MR. COCHRAN: WHAT IS YOUR OFFER OF PROOF? WHAT IS THIS? MS. CLARK: NO. THIS WAS QUESTIONING THAT WE BEGAN WITH A PRETRIAL HEARING, BUT AS HE HAS ALREADY CONCEDED, IT IS PRETTY EVIDENT HE GOT ADVICE FROM THE DEFENSE ABOUT HIRING LAWYERS WHO HELPED HIM WITH THE WRONGFUL TERMINATION BUT FOR WHICH HE WOULD NOT HAVE PURSUED IT IN THE MANNER HE HAS. AND IT IS JUST TO SHOW BIAS. THE COURT: NO, NO. I LET YOU BRING IT IN REGARDING BIAS. MS. CLARK: UH-HUH. THE COURT: AND IF THERE IS AN INDICATION THAT HE WAS STEERED TO CERTAIN ATTORNEYS BY SOMEBODY CONNECTED WITH THE DEFENSE, I AGREE THAT THAT GOES TO BIAS, BUT WHAT IS THE ANSWER GOING TO BE? HE SAID HE DISCUSSED WHO HE SHOULD HIRE WITH THE DEFENSE? MS. CLARK: RIGHT. THE COURT: INVESTIGATOR? MS. CLARK: RIGHT, RIGHT. THE COURT: BUT ISN'T THAT IN THE RECORD AT THIS POINT? MS. CLARK: THAT IS IN THE RECORD. THE COURT: OKAY. ISN'T THAT PRETTY MUCH IT? MS. CLARK: YEAH. THE COURT: OKAY. MS. CLARK: AND THEN AFTER THAT HE HIRED LAWYERS. MR. COCHRAN: LET ME INDICATE THIS: BOB SHAPIRO AND I, AS FAR AS WE KNOW WE HAVE NEVER TALKED TO THIS GUY ABOUT ANY LAWYERS. WE DIDN'T REFER THESE TWO GUYS. THAT IS A VERY UNFAIR IMPRESSION. I DON'T KNOW WHAT SHE IS TALKING ABOUT. THE COURT: YOU CAN CLEAN IT UP. MR. COCHRAN: I WANT TO ASK THESE LAWYERS. I THINK THESE LAWYERS HAVE A RIGHT, TOO. THEY -- THEY -- I DON'T KNOW WHO THESE GUYS ARE, WHERE THEY CAME FROM. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS, I WILL INDICATE THAT, AND I THINK THAT THAT IS WHY THEY WANTED TO APPROACH, AND IF I CAN GO OVER AND ASK HIM -- MR. SHAPIRO: I HAVE NEVER SEEN EITHER OF THESE GENTLEMEN BEFORE THIS CASE AND I DON'T KNOW WHO THEY ARE. MS. CLARK: WAIT A MINUTE. THIS IS A BIG DEFENSE TEAM. I'M NOT SAYING MR. COCHRAN OR MR. SHAPIRO RECOMMENDED THESE GUYS. IN FACT, I THINK I CAN IN GOOD FAITH SAY THEY WOULD NOT; THEY WOULD HAVE HIRED MR. HACK. THE COURT: MISS CLARK, LET'S NOT WASTE ANY MORE TIME. MR. COCHRAN: THAT WAS FUNNY. THE COURT: DID HE DISCUSS WITH THE DEFENSE INVESTIGATOR THE HIRING OF ATTORNEYS IN THIS CASE? YES, HE DID. THAT IS ALREADY IN THE RECORD. MS. CLARK: THAT IT IS. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THEN LET'S MOVE ON. **** (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: WE'VE ALREADY PLAYED THIS THREE TIMES NOW. MR. DARDEN: WHO PLAYED IT THREE TIMES? THE COURT: YOU'VE PLAYED IT ONCE ALREADY. MR. DARDEN: BRIAN PLAYED IT YESTERDAY DURING -- THE FULL LENGTH, THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE VIDEO. THE COURT: YOU'VE PLAYED IT ONCE. MR. DARDEN: WHO PLAYED IT? THE COURT: TODAY YOU DID. MR. DARDEN: THIS AUDIO PORTION ABOUT THE WIFE? THE COURT: YES. MR. DARDEN: I HAVEN'T PLAYED THAT. MR. COCHRAN: ABSOLUTELY. THE COURT: YES, WE DID. MR. COCHRAN: WE HEARD IT. THE COURT: GIVE YOUR OFFER. THIS WITNESS HAS SOMETHING SPECIFIC? MR. DARDEN: WELL -- THE COURT: WHAT'S HE GOING TO SAY? MR. DARDEN: HE IS GOING TO SAY HE THOUGHT IT WAS IN POOR TASTE. HE'S GOING TO SAY HE WAS SURPRISED TO HEAR IT. HE'S GOING TO SAY THAT WASN'T THE SUBJECT OF THE CONVERSATION. HE'S GOING TO SAY HE MADE TWO SUCH COMMENTS LIKE THAT THAT DAY. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. HIS OPINION IS IRRELEVANT. MR. COCHRAN: IT'S IRRELEVANT, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. YOU CAN -- WAIT. MR. DARDEN: IN ADDITION, IT WASN'T SCRIPTED, IT WASN'T PART OF THE SCRIPT. IT WAS AD-LIBBED. THIS IS A FREEBEE BY THE DEFENDANT. MR. COCHRAN: IT'S BEEN PLAYED ALREADY. STATE OF MIND? MR. DARDEN: WE ARE TRYING TO CONVICT THE GUY. WE'RE NOT HERE TO HOLD HIS HAND, JUDGE. HE MADE THE STATEMENT AND I WANT TO ASK THE WITNESS ABOUT THE STATEMENT, WAS IT PART OF THE SCRIPT, WAS IT AD-LIBBED WAS HE EXPECTING IT. MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION. THEY PLAYED IT ALREADY. IT'S CUMULATIVE. WE WENT THROUGH THIS YESTERDAY. IN ADDITION TO THAT, HIS STATE OF MIND IS NOT IMPORTANT. THEY'VE DONE IT PREVIOUSLY, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: WE'VE PLAYED IT TWICE. MR. DARDEN: WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO; ASK HIM QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT PART? WELL, I CAN HANDLE IT. I'M A BIG GUY. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANKS. MR. COCHRAN: I'LL BE OBJECTING.