Xref: world alt.fan.oj-simpson.transcripts:194 Newsgroups: alt.fan.oj-simpson.transcripts Path: world!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!news.moneng.mei.com!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!myra From: myra@netcom.com (Myra Dinnerstein) Subject: Jeannette Harris - 3/30/95 Message-ID: Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 1995 20:39:36 GMT Approved: myra@netcom.com Lines: 324 Sender: myra@netcom3.netcom.com LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; THURSDAY, MARCH 30, 1995 10:05 A.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 CAMERA:) THE COURT: LET'S FINISH OUR INQUIRY REGARDING 462. LET'S GO ON THE RECORD REGARDING 462. CAN I HAVE DEPUTY MAGNERA HERE AS WELL TOO? (BRIEF PAUSE.) THE COURT: ANY FURTHER COMMENT REGARDING 462? I INDICATED TO YOU THAT I WOULD CONSIDER MR. BAILEY'S ARGUMENT TO BE A LITTLE MORE RELAXED IN OUR DECISION TO EXCUSE CERTAIN JURORS FROM THE JURY GIVEN THE FACT THAT WE ARE NOW DOWN TO SEVEN ALTERNATES AND THAT THE COURT -- AND THAT WE FORESEE MANY, MANY MONTHS YET OF TRIAL PRESENTATION IN THIS CASE AND THAT IT WOULD BE WISE TO HOLD ON TO AS MANY JURORS AS WE POSSIBLY CAN. I'VE CONTEMPLATED THAT, AND I'LL HEAR IF ANYBODY HAS ANY FURTHER COMMENT BEFORE I RULE ON THE STATUS OF 462. MR. COCHRAN: I WOULD ASK TO BE HEARD BRIEFLY AND ASK THE COURT TO WAIVE THE ONE-LAWYER RULE TO GIVE SOMEBODY ELSE A CHANCE TO TALK IF SOMEBODY ELSE WANTS TO TALK. I'D JUST ASK THE COURT -- THE COURT WILL RECALL THAT I ASKED YOU TO CONSIDER THE SOURCE OF HOW THESE THINGS CAME TO US AND CALL SOME WITNESSES, WHICH I PRESUME YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DO. BUT I WOULD LIKE, AT LEAST BEFORE THE COURT MAKES A FINAL DECISION REGARDING THIS ISSUE, TO INQUIRE OF THE JUROR ABOUT THIS SO-CALLED AFFIDAVIT WHICH SHE ADMITS WAS HER AFFIDAVIT AND HER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT TOOK PLACE VIS-A-VIS THESE THINGS. AND THE REASON I SAY THAT IS, SOMETIMES WHEN LAWYERS IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE GET INVOLVED -- AND I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS A LAWYER INVOLVED OR NOT -- THERE'S A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF PUFFING AND YOU HARDLY RECOGNIZE YOURSELF WHEN PEOPLE ARE SAYING THINGS. SO I JUST THOUGHT THAT PROBABLY YOU NEED -- WE WOULD NEED MAYBE SOME FURTHER QUESTIONING OUT OF FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS TO HER. AND THEN I WILL PIGGYBACK ON WHAT MR. BAILEY SAYS, WHICH KIND OF PIGGYBACKS ON SOMETHING I SAID. ONE OF THE WORSE THINGS THAT COULD HAPPEN IN THIS CASE WOULD BE THAT WE SPEND THREE MILLION DOLLARS OF THE COUNTY'S MONEY AND IT'S JUNE 15TH AND WE'RE OUT OF JURORS. NOW, WE ARE USED TO GETTING CRITICIZED AS THE LAWYERS. BUT THERE WOULD BE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF CRITICISM UPON YOUR HONOR THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE UNPRECEDENTED. I THINK WE ALL WANT TO GUARD AGAINST THAT. SEQUESTRATION IS NOT PUNISHMENT. I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH FUN THE JURORS ARE HAVING. I IMAGINE -- NOW, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU READ THAT QUESTIONNAIRE, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME WE TALKED ABOUT APRIL OR MAY FINISHING THIS CASE, DIDN'T WE? AND THAT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THAT'S AS FEASIBLE AS WE ONCE THOUGHT. I DON'T KNOW -- SOMEBODY NEEDS TO TELL THESE PEOPLE THAT. AND WHEN THEY DO HEAR THAT, I DON'T THINK THEY'LL BE TOO HAPPY. I EXPECT WE MAY LOSE ONE OR TWO MORE JUST OUT OF ATTRITION OR WHATEVER, ALSO OF THE ACTS OF GOD. WE'VE HAD FIVE DEATHS ALREADY, AND HOPEFULLY WE WON'T HAVE ANYMORE. BUT THERE'S A LIKELIHOOD WE WILL HAVE SOME OTHER DEATHS. AND DEPENDING ON THE CLOSENESS OF THE PERSON, SOMEBODY MAY USE THAT TO GET OUT OF HERE. SO I JUST THINK IT'S A GOOD POSITION, THAT WE SHOULD BE CAREFUL ABOUT EXCLUDING JURORS WHO SOME HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING WRONG SINCE THEY'VE BEEN HERE, AND I JUST ASK THE COURT TO TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT AND ALSO CONSIDER TALKING WITH HER FURTHER ABOUT YOUR CONCERNS ON THE DECLARATION. MS. CLARK: CAN I BE HEARD? THE COURT: MR. BAILEY. LET ME HEAR FROM ONE SIDE. THEN I'LL HEAR FROM THE OTHER SIDE. MR. BAILEY: IF YOU SHOULD FIND A BASIS ON THE QUESTIONING OF THIS JUROR, WHO SEEMS SURPRISED AT ALLEGATIONS THAT HER HUSBAND USED -- BUT NONETHELESS FILED A DOCUMENT WHICH APPARENTLY YOU SHOULD FIND AS A FACT, AS IS FACTUALLY THE CASE BECAUSE NOTHING IS MORE VOLATILE THAN DOMESTIC LITIGATION WHETHER LAWYERS ARE INVOLVED OR NOT -- BUT IF THAT WAS AN EXAGGERATION IN ANGER TO GET SOME RELIEF FROM THE COURT TO PUNISH THE HUSBAND AND THAT THE REST OF THE STATEMENTS ARE TRUTHFUL, THAT IS, THERE WAS IN FACT NOTICE OF ABUSE, I THINK THE QUESTION RAISED IS TO WHETHER THAT ALONE MERITS DISQUALIFICATION. IF THE QUESTIONNAIRE SAID SPECIFICALLY, "HAVE YOU EVER FILED ANY," THAT'S ONE THING. IF IT SAID, "HAVE YOU EVER BEEN ABUSED," SHE MAY SAY SHE HASN'T. IF YOU LOOK AT IT CAREFULLY, IT'S A WEAK ALLEGATION OF ABUSE, VERBAL ABUSE, SHOVING, COMPARED TO WHAT WE NORMALLY SEE IN THESE CASES WITH PHYSICAL STRIKING, BRUISES, THINGS OF THAT SORT. THAT'S NOT A VERY HEADY ISSUE FOR DOMESTIC ABUSE. IF THAT IS FALSE AND NOT WHAT'S HAPPENED, THEN I QUESTION WHETHER THIS JUROR'S HONESTY OUGHT TO BE IMPUGNED TO THE EXTENT WE LOSE HER. THE COURT: PEOPLE? MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR. I'M MINDFUL OF THE NEED TO NOT IMPROVIDENTLY EXCUSE JURORS IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE CASE IS APPARENTLY GOING TO TAKE LONGER THAN WE THOUGHT. BUT WHEN YOU HAVE A SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE A JUROR WHO MADE REPRESENTATIONS IN SUCH SHARP CONTRAST TO REALITY, ONE HAS TO ASK IS THERE MUCH VERACITY IN THE OTHER REPRESENTATIONS OF FAIRNESS AND IMPARTIALITY IN THAT JUROR. AND THIS IS ONE JUROR WHO IS ABSOLUTELY IN VERY STARK CONTRAST BETWEEN WHAT HAS OCCURRED IN HERE AND WHAT SHE HAS SAID ON VOIR DIRE. I QUESTIONED HER. I REMEMBER THIS WOMAN -- WHAT SHE PUT IN HER QUESTIONNAIRE WAS NOT ONLY -- DISAVOWED ANY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, BUT CLAIMED TO HAVE SOME TANGENTIAL CONTACT WITH ANOTHER PERSON WHO HAD THE EXPERIENCE. SO I MEAN IT WAS AN ABSOLUTE FABRICATION ON TOP OF AN ADMISSION, WHICH IS SOMETHING VERY -- THE COURT HAS BEEN GIVEN A VERY CLEAR INDICATION ABOUT THIS JUROR AND HER -- AND HER CREDIBILITY AND VERACITY, WHICH SHOULD NOT PERMIT HER TO STAY ANY LONGER. I THINK THAT IF THIS WERE MORE OF A GRAY AREA SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE ONE JUROR SAYING, "WELL, THIS JUROR KIND OF SAID SOMETHING ABOUT ONE OF THE LAWYERS," OR, "WON'T SIT WITH US DURING EVERY MEAL," YOU KNOW, THEN YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT GRAY AREA SITUATIONS THAT ARE NOT MISREPRESENTATIONS MADE TO THE COURT AND COUNSEL UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY. THAT'S A DIFFERENT SITUATION, AND MAYBE WE SHOULD HOLD OFF ON THOSE AND SEE HOW THOSE WORK OUT. THAT IS NOT -- I THINK WE SHOULD HOLD OFF ON THE EXCUSAL OF JURORS WHEN YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE WAY THEY'RE INTERACTING PERHAPS WHERE IT'S NOT ABSOLUTELY CLEAR IN THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE YOU DON'T HAVE ABSOLUTE ACTS OF PERJURY. YOU HAVE AN ACT OF PERJURY BEFORE YOU, YOUR HONOR. THAT'S NOT A GRAY AREA, AND WE CANNOT AFFORD IN GOOD CONSCIENCE TO LEAVE A JUROR LIKE THAT SITTING ON THIS JURY WHO'S OBVIOUSLY NEVER BEEN OF A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL FRAME OF MIND. SO THERE'S A DISTINCTION THERE AND IT'S NOT -- I THINK MR. BAILEY HAD A GOOD POINT ABOUT NOT JUMPING TO EXCUSE THEM. I AGREE IN THOSE GRAY AREAS. THE COURT: WE HAVEN'T. WE THOUGHT ABOUT THIS FOR SEVERAL DAYS. THIS IS NOT A CONCLUSION WE ARE JUMPING TO. MS. CLARK: I DON'T THINK WE JUMPED TO ANY OF THEM. EVERY SINGLE EXCUSAL HAS BEEN PONDERED, REPONDERED, ARGUED, ARGUED REPEATEDLY, RESEARCHED AND INVESTIGATED FULLY. THIS COURT HAS TAKEN A GREAT DEAL OF PAINS TO MAKE SURE THAT NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE IMPULSIVELY. I CAN'T THINK OF WHAT THE OPPOSITE OF THE SPECTRUM OF IMPULSIVE IS, BUT THAT'S WHAT THIS COURT HAS DONE. IT HAS MADE EVERY EFFORT, RETHINKING ITS POSITION. EVERYTHING HAS BEEN VERY CAREFULLY DECIDED. WE STILL HAVE THE SIX ALTERNATES, AND I THINK THAT WILL BE PLENTY TO COMPLETE THE CASE. AND I CANNOT IMAGINE THAT ANYONE IS GOING TO HAVE ANY CRITICISM ON THIS COURT AFTER HAVING 12 ALTERNATES. I MEAN THAT'S -- THAT'S BEYOND BELIEF. THAT WOULD BE A SECOND GUESSING. THAT WOULD BE -- I THINK WOULD NOT OCCUR AND WOULD NOT BE FAIR. BUT THAT'S NOT OUR SITUATION AND WE ARE NOT GOING TO WIND UP WITH TOO FEW JURORS. BUT WE DO HAVE A JUROR HERE WHO HAS COMMITTED PERJURY. I WOULD REMIND THE COURT ALSO, THIS IS NOT A SITUATION OF LAWYER PUFFING. MR. COCHRAN AND I ARE BOTH WELL AWARE OF THE FACT THAT DOMESTIC LAWYERS WILL TAKE A MINOR ALLEGATION AND PUFF IT UP UNTIL IT'S A MAJOR STORY. BUT THIS WAS AN ALLEGATION FILED BY THIS WOMAN HERSELF -- SHE WAS IN PRO PER -- TO ALLEVIATE A SITUATION WHICH WAS UNTENABLE FOR HER. WE CAN ONLY SPECULATE AS TO HOW SEVERE THE HARASSMENT WAS TO ACTUALLY CAUSE HER TO SEEK THE ASSISTANCE OF THE COURT IN A SITUATION WHERE SHE WASN'T WILLING TO LEAVE HER HUSBAND. I MEAN, THIS IS A VERY TELLING SITUATION. IT'S ONE THING IF YOU'RE TRYING TO GAIN ADVANTAGE IN A DIVORCE SITUATION. SHE WASN'T. SHE WAS SEEKING ASSISTANCE FROM THE COURT TO INTERFERE SO SHE COULD STAY WITH HER HUSBAND WHO WAS MAKING HER LIFE MISERABLE. THIS IS A VERY DIFFERENT SITUATION THAN THE JOCKEYING FOR POSITION THAT YOU MIGHT FIND IN A DIVORCE CASE, FOR EXAMPLE, WHERE THE HUSBAND IS SIMPLY SEEKING TO SAVE MONEY ON CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BUT IN THIS SITUATION, SHE WROTE THESE ALLEGATIONS HERSELF. AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MR. BAILEY COULD POSSIBLY KNOW IF THEY WERE EXAGGERATED. IT ACTUALLY SOUNDS LIKE IT WAS A MORE MUTE VERSION OF WHAT WAS GOING ON GIVEN THE FACT SHE SOUGHT COURT INTERVENTION WHEN SHE WAS NOT GOING TO SEPARATE FROM HIM. FURTHERMORE, I DON'T KNOW HOW ANYONE COULD CALL THESE WEAK ALLEGATIONS OF ABUSE. WHAT THIS WOMAN DESCRIBED TO IS RAPE. I DON'T CALL THAT WEAK. I CALL THAT APPALLING. AND SHE INDICATED IN THAT DECLARATION THAT NOT ONLY HAD SHE BEEN RAPED ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION, BUT THAT SHE FEARED THAT THE PUSHING AND SHOVING WOULD ESCALATE INTO ACTUAL PHYSICAL BEATING, WHICH IT APPEARS IT HAS; AND THE EXPERTS HAVE TOLD US IT USUALLY DOES, AND IT OBVIOUSLY HAS SO OCCURRED IN HER SITUATION. SO THIS IS A -- THIS IS A VERY OBVIOUS CASE FOR EXCUSAL, A SITUATION IN WHICH YOU HAVE A JUROR WHO HAS PERJURED HERSELF ON A VERY KEY ISSUE IN THIS CASE AND WHICH IS INDICATIVE OF STRONG BIAS AND A LACK OF CREDIBILITY WITH THE COURT. AND I THINK THAT THE SITUATION IS A VERY SAD ONE AND I HAVE GREAT EMPATHY FOR THIS, JUDGE. NEVERTHELESS, I DON'T SEE HOW THERE COULD POSSIBLY BE -- HOW IT COULD POSSIBLY BE APPROPRIATE TO ALLOW HER TO REMAIN AT THIS JUNCTURE. CAN I ASK IF MR. DARDEN HAS ANYTHING HE WOULD LIKE TO ADD? MR. DARDEN: NOT AT THIS POINT. I'LL WAIT UNTIL MR. COCHRAN FINISHES. MR. COCHRAN: ALL I WOULD SAY, YOUR HONOR, IN RESPONSE TO WHAT MISS CLARK SAID, THAT THIS IS NOT NEARLY THE CASE OF SOMEBODY WHO VIOLATES A COURT ORDER, WHO DOES ACTIONS ONCE THEY'VE BEEN HERE LIKE 602 HAS CLEARLY PERJURED HIMSELF REGARDING THE LIST, GETTING THE LIST, WHATEVER. THIS IS A LADY WHERE EVERYTHING WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PRECEDED HER COMING HERE. THIS WOULD BE A DIFFERENT MOTION IF THIS WERE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT SHE HAD ANY PROBLEMS WITH DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. WE AREN'T MAKING THAT MOTION. IF YOU LOOK AT THE PLEADINGS THAT COME TO US IN A STRANGE FASHION, SHE SAYS, "MY HUSBAND NEVER HIT ME, NEVER STRUCK ME." I THINK AT A MINIMUM, I'M SAYING THAT THE COURT NEEDS TO MAKE SOME FURTHER INQUIRY ABOUT THIS, BECAUSE TO GO FROM THAT TO SAY SHE COMMITTED PERJURY, THIS BECAME A RAPE -- NOBODY ASKED ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS. I THINK MARCIA CLARK AND I CERTAINLY WOULD AGREE THAT WE WOULDN'T JUST TAKE WHAT SOMEBODY PUTS DOWN ON PAPER AS GOSPEL. SO I THINK SHE'S ENTITLED TO AT LEAST THAT. I'M TALKING ABOUT NOT RUSHING TO JUDGMENT. ONE OF THE PARTS OF NOT RUSHING TO JUDGMENT, YOU GET ALL THE FACTS AND YOU JUST DON'T SAY, "THIS IS WHAT IT SAYS HERE, SO YOU'RE GONE." SUPERIMPOSED UPON THAT IS THE FACT THAT WE ARE LOSING JURORS AT A PRETTY GOOD CLIP. WE'RE HALFWAY THROUGH THE TRIAL AND MAYBE WE'VE LOST HALF OF OUR ALTERNATES. I DON'T KNOW -- MARCIA SAYS YOU CAN'T DO THINGS BASED ON CRITICISM. NONE OF US DO. I THINK THERE WILL BE CRITICISM IF THERE'S A HUNG JURY IN THIS CASE, AND I THINK WE'D ALL BE SURPRISED IF THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. SO THAT'S NOT THE FINAL TEST. BUT IT SEEMS TO BE A WISE PERSON WHO WOULD CERTAINLY TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE TIME, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE GENESIS OF MR. BAILEY'S THOUGHT IS. I JUST WOULD ASK YOU TO QUERY THIS PERSON. I THINK SHE DESERVES THAT. EVERY TIME A JUROR IS KICKED OFF -- AND THIS IS SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT -- THERE'S A CERTAIN STIGMA ATTACHED TO IT, AND I THINK THIS IS DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE LADY WHO WAS KICKED OFF, THE LETTER CARRIER, BECAUSE SHE WAS BEING BEATEN. WE POINTED IT OUT TO YOUR HONOR, AND WE POUND OUT THE RELATIONSHIP WAS SEVERELY VOLATILE. THEN WE ALSO TALKED TO A WITNESS. WE TALKED TO THAT PERSON AND WE KNEW THERE WOULD BE GREATER PROBLEMS. WE HAVEN'T SEEN HER HUSBAND. SHE SAID SHE WASN'T BEATEN. SO WE HAVEN'T TALKED TO HIM ABOUT IT. WE HAVEN'T TALKED TO THOSE NEIGHBORS WHO SUPPOSEDLY HEARD ANYTHING, A LITTLE DIFFERENT FACTS. I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO CONSIDER THAT. THERE'S NO RUSH ON THIS THING, AND THAT'S THE POINT I WOULD MAKE. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WELL, I'LL PONDER THIS SOME MORE BECAUSE THE THING THAT CONCERNS ME, I DON'T WANT TO LOSE ALL THESE JURORS EITHER, AND I HAPPEN TO HAVE LIKED THIS PERSON, THIS PARTICULAR JUROR A LOT. BUT I'M CONFRONTED WITH A PRETTY BLACK AND WHITE SITUATION HERE IS MY PROBLEM. MR. DARDEN: MAY I INTERJECT THIS? AND IT IS A SITUATION I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND THE COURT OF. JUROR NUMBER 320, THE JUROR THAT WE LOST, AS I RECALL, THE DATE OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED BY HER NEIGHBORS, THE ABUSIVE INCIDENTS, DIDN'T THEY OCCUR AFTER THIS JURY HAD BEEN SELECTED? THE COURT: YES. BUT I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT I'M NOT REALLY CONSIDERING THOSE OTHER NEIGHBORS' REPORTS. IT SPEAKS TO DEPUTY DOWNS' AND DEPUTY BROWN'S VERY GOOD INVESTIGATION. I MEAN, I DON'T NEED TO TELL THEM TO FOLLOW UP ON THINGS. THEY GO ON THEIR OWN INITIATIVE AND FERRET THESE THINGS OUT. BUT I'M MORE CONCERNED WITH -- THE BASIS OF MY DECISION IN THIS CASE IS THE QUESTIONNAIRE, THE VOIR DIRE AND THE DECLARATION IN THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS FILE FROM 1988, THE VOIR DIRE AND THE QUESTIONNAIRE THAT SQUARE WITH THE DECLARATION. THAT'S THE PROBLEM. MR. DARDEN: WHEN WE HAD THE ISSUE WITH 320 -- THE COURT: I HAVE TO TELL YOU, I DON'T COMPARE THEM. THIS IS A UNIQUE SITUATION. MR. DARDEN: YOU KNOW, I JUST WANT TO SAY THIS. WHEN IT FIT THEIR PURPOSES FOR 320, THEY WERE ALL HOT AND BOTHERED TO GET 320 OFF THE PANEL. NOW WE HAVE THIS OTHER JUROR, SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, A BLACK JUROR WHOM THEY WANT TO KEEP, AND I POINT THAT OUT. THE COURT: MR. DARDEN, FORGIVE ME FOR INTERRUPTING YOU, BUT I DON'T SEE A RACIAL COMPONENT IN ANY OF THESE ISSUES AND -- MR. DARDEN: I DON'T EITHER. I DON'T EITHER. IN ANY EVENT, YOU KNOW THAT -- THE COURT HAS BEEN PRETTY CONSISTENT IN TERMS OF WHICH JURORS WERE EXCUSED AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES, AND I FEEL THAT IF THE COURT REMAINS CONSISTENT WITH THE STANDARDS AND POLICIES THE COURT HAS BASICALLY SET ALREADY, THAT THIS JUROR FALLS SQUARELY WITHIN THAT. THE COURT: WHAT'S THE FAMOUS SAYING? CONSISTENCY IS THE SOMETIMES INDICATOR OF A SMALL MIND, SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT. MR. DARDEN: YOU SAID IT. I DIDN'T. MR. BAILEY: ALSO THE GOD OF THE COMMON LAW. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMENT? NO. ALL RIGHT. I'LL LET YOU KNOW TOMORROW MORNING. ALL RIGHT. THEN WE SHOULD BE PREPARED TO GO FORWARD WITH KAELIN. MS. CLARK: KAELIN IS NOT HERE. AND I'LL LET YOU KNOW BY 5:00 O'CLOCK. LIKE I SAID, HE'S OUT OF TOWN. MR. COCHRAN: WE'RE TRYING TO BE COOPERATIVE. WE WERE NOT TOLD ABOUT THIS WITNESS UNTIL NOW AND THERE'S A THREE-DAY RULE. WE DO ACTUALLY PULL STUFF AND CHECK IT OUT. I THINK IT'S A VIOLATION. MR. DARDEN: HE'S BEEN ON THE WITNESS LIST TWO MONTHS AND, YOU KNOW, YOU PULLED THE BAGS OUT YESTERDAY. WE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THAT. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. HOLD ON. DON'T SPEAK AT THE SAME TIME. ALL RIGHT. TAKE A LOOK AT YOUR NOTES, MR. COCHRAN, AND, MR. DARDEN, YOU'LL GIVE DEFENSE COUNSEL NOTICE IF WE ARE GOING TO SEE THIS PERSON TOMORROW? MR. DARDEN: ABSOLUTELY, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: OKAY. THEN WE WILL STAND IN RECESS UNTIL 1:30 WITH THE DNA PEOPLE. SEND THE JURORS BACK. (AT 10:20 A.M., IN CAMERA PROCEEDINGS WERE CONCLUDED.)