Xref: world alt.fan.oj-simpson:40514 alt.fan.oj-simpson.transcripts:151 Newsgroups: alt.fan.oj-simpson.transcripts,alt.fan.oj-simpson Path: world!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.com!myra From: myra@netcom.com (Myra Dinnerstein) Subject: SIDEBARS - June 16, 20 & 21 Message-ID: Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 05:09:57 GMT Approved: myra@netcom.com Lines: 338 Sender: myra@netcom17.netcom.com Sidebars from June 16, 1995 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: OVER AT THE SIDE BAR. MR. DARDEN, I THINK YOU WERE ABOUT TO ASK THIS WITNESS IS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT THE WAY THAT HE PUT ON THE GLOVES THAT SEEMED UNUSUAL TO YOU OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WHICH COUNSEL, THE JURORS GOT TO SEE WHAT WENT ON. MR. DARDEN: OKAY, OKAY. MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE, THAT QUESTION -- THE COURT: AND I'M SURE THAT WHEN WE COME TO FINAL ARGUMENT I'M SURE YOU WILL TROT OUT THE VIDEOTAPE. MR. COCHRAN: I WILL BE TROTTING IT OUT, TOO. THE COURT: I'M SURE YOU WILL. MR. COCHRAN: BUT JUDGE, JUDGE -- THE COURT: I'M SUSTAINING THE OBJECTION. MR. COCHRAN: VERY WELL. MR. DARDEN: CAN WE HAVE ONE MOMENT? MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE, I NEED A COUPLE MINUTES. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.) (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.) MR. DARDEN: ANYWAY, I NEED HIM TO PUT THE GLOVES ON AND TELL US WHAT SIZE THEY ARE NOW. MR. COCHRAN: WHO? MR. DARDEN: HIM. THE COURT: ARE YOU GOING TO DO THAT WITH OR WITHOUT LATEX GLOVES? MR. COCHRAN: WAIT A MINUTE, JUDGE. MR. DARDEN: WITH LATEX GLOVES FOR HIM. MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE -- MS. CLARK: HE CAN SIZE THEM. MR. COCHRAN: WE OBJECT TO THAT QUESTION. HE CAN'T TELL US WHAT SIZE THEY ARE. I MEAN THIS IS -- MR. DARDEN: WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? MR. COCHRAN: HE HAS BEEN GONE SINCE 1990 FROM THIS PLACE. WE ARE ALLOWING IN ALL THIS STUFF. HE IS GOING TO TELL US. THE SIZE SAYS EXTRA LARGE. THAT IS SPECULATION. HE CAN TRY THEM ON. MR. DARDEN: WE HAVE GOTTEN GLOVES OUT OF O.J.'S MASTER BEDROOM AND OUT OF HIS DRAWER AND THEY ARE ALL EXTRA LARGE, SOME ARE ACTUALLY LARGE, BUT WE WILL GET INTO THIS LATER. MR. COCHRAN: I LOVE WHEN YOU GUYS GET INTO STUFF. THE COURT: AT THIS POINT THE COURT SUSTAINS THE OBJECTION TO THE LAST QUESTION. YES, YOU CAN HAVE HIM TRY ON THE GLOVES. MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. **** (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: WE'RE OVER AT THE SIDEBAR. I'M SURE GLAD IT'S FRIDAY. WHERE ARE WE GOING WITH THIS? MR. DARDEN: WELL, MR. COCHRAN WANTS TO BRING OUT THE NATURE OF OUR CONVERSATION. THE COURT: I'M JUST CURIOUS ABOUT THE BOX. TELL ME ABOUT THE BOX. MR. DARDEN: I'M JUST TELLING YOU, HE LOOKED AT THE GLOVES THAT WE HAD, THEN WE HAD MEN WITH HANDS, LARGER HANDS THAN O.J.'S COME IN AND TRY ON DIFFERENT KINDS OF GLOVES, SIZES OF GLOVES SMALLER THAN THE ONE WE HAVE HERE IN EVIDENCE; AND EVEN MEN WITH HANDS LARGER THAN O.J.'S WERE ABLE TO GET THEIR HAND INTO THOSE GLOVES. THE COURT: MR. DARDEN, THIS MAN IS AN EXPERT ON GLOVES AND AN EXPERT ON SIZING. WHAT MORE DO YOU NEED FROM THIS GUY? HE AGREED WITH YOU THAT THEY SHOULD FIT. MR. COCHRAN WENT INTO YOUR DISCUSSIONS WITH THIS GUY AFTER COURT AND THIS MORNING, AND YOU'RE ENTITLED TO GO INTO, "WHAT DID WE DISCUSS," THAT SORT OF THING. YOU CAN DO THAT. BUT TO BRING OUT THAT YOU DID THAT DEMONSTRATION WITH, YOU KNOW -- MR. COCHRAN: WE WEREN'T PRESENT. WE DIDN'T SEE THAT. THE COURT: ONE PERSON. YOU CAN ASK, "WHAT DID WE DO," BUT THE RESULTS IS SOMETHING DIFFERENT. YOU CAN TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU DID. MR. DARDEN: ALL RIGHT. MR. COCHRAN: BUT THE RESULTS ARE WHAT WE ARE OBJECTING TO. THE COURT: LET'S FINISH. LET'S GET THIS GUY HOME. **** Sidebars from June 21, 1995: (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: ON THE RECORD. MR. COCHRAN: MY OBJECTION IS THAT THE COURT RECALLS THAT WE SAID THAT -- YOU KNOW, DANCING AROUND WITH ALL THIS STUFF. I JUST DON'T SEE THAT AS BEING THAT IMPORTANT, AND IF THEY ARE GOING TO MAKE SOME MEASUREMENTS, LET THEM DO IT IN FRONT OF THE JURY BUT WHY IS BELL RELEVANT? IT IS A RELEVANCE OBJECTION. AND IF HE WANTS TO DO THAT, THAT IS FINE, BUT I'M JUST SAYING THAT WE OBJECT. I MEAN, MR. SIMPSON HAS A RIGHT TO GO OVER AND HAPPY TO DESCRIBE IT. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ALL HE IS SHOWING IS MEASURING TECHNIQUES HERE. HE CAN SHOWN IT ON MISS CLARK IF HE WANTS. MR. COCHRAN: SHE HAS LITTLE GLOVES. MS. CLARK: I'LL SUBMIT IT. I'M EXTRA SMALL. IT IS RIDICULOUS. THE COURT: I EXPECT YOU TO DO THE SAME THING WITH MR. SIMPSON, BUT IT IS RELEVANT, SO THE OBJECTION IS OVERRULED. **** (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: WE ARE OVER AT THE SIDE BAR. MR. DARDEN. MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, THE WITNESS WILL TESTIFY THAT MR. BELL HAS THE SAME SIZE HAND AS THE DEFENDANT HAS. AND OUR CONCERN IS THAT MR. SIMPSON IS JUST GOING TO ACT OUT IN FRONT OF THE JURY AND ATTEMPT TO TESTIFY UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE HE CAN'T BE CROSS-EXAMINED. THAT IS SUBSTANTIAL SIMILARITY. BUT THE MEN BOTH HAVE THE SAME SIZE HANDS. THE COURT: I DON'T THINK THE RECORD SUPPORTS THAT, THOUGH, BECAUSE MR. RUBIN INDICATED THAT MR. BELL'S FINGERS WERE ACTUALLY SHORTER, SO I DON'T THINK THEY ARE THE SAME SIZE, SO I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE A FOUNDATION TO DO THAT. WE HAVE MR. SIMPSON HERE. HE'S THE RELEVANT FIT. BUT IF YOU WANT THE DEMONSTRATION, IT WILL BE DONE AT MY DIRECTION WITHOUT ANY COMMENT FROM ANY COUNSEL. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.) MR. DARDEN: OBVIOUSLY WE ARE CONCERNED THAT WE ARE JUST -- MR. COCHRAN: FINE. WE ARE READY TO PROCEED, YOUR HONOR. MR. DARDEN: -- INVITING ANOTHER CIRCUS-LIKE SITUATION INVOLVING THE DEFENDANT. MR. COCHRAN: WE ACCEPT THAT. THE COURT: WELL, I DON'T THINK MR. BELL'S HANDS ARE -- I'M NOT CONVINCED THAT HE AND MR. SIMPSON HAVE THE SAME SIZE HANDS AT THIS POINT. AND BASED UPON MR. RUBIN'S TESTIMONY I DON'T THINK IT IS AN APPROPRIATE DEMONSTRATION. MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. MR. DARDEN: WAIT. I'M NOT FINISHED YET. WE DO HAVE OUR OWN PAIR OF LETTER GLOVES WHICH HAVE BEEN KEPT IN MY CUSTODY, SO MR. SIMPSON -- IT IS ANOTHER PAIR OF GLOVES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN ALTERED IN ANY WAY -- WHAT THE DEFENSE CAN PUT ON MR. SIMPSON'S HANDS. MR. COCHRAN: NO. MR. DARDEN: AND THEY DO HAVE THEIR OWN PAIR OF GLOVES. MR. COCHRAN: I OBJECT FOR THE REASONS WE TALKED ABOUT, YOUR HONOR. THESE GLOVES ARE PRISTINE, AND AS I SAID, YOUR HONOR, THIS DEMONSTRATION IS SPENDING MUCH MORE TIME THAN IT IS WORTH. THE COURT HAS RULED AND I DON'T WANT TO USE THEIR GLOVES. THEY HAVE BEEN TRIED ON BY OTHER PEOPLE AND IT IS NOT RECOMMENDED TO HAVE SOMEBODY ELSE DO IT. IT IS EITHER SIMPSON OR SOMEONE ELSE AND YOU HAVE SET THE GROUND RULES AND I TAKE UMBRAGE ABOUT SIMPSON ACTING UP. THE EVIDENCE NOW IS THAT THAT LEFT GLOVE WAS MORE LIKE A LARGE, SO NO ONE WAS ACTING UP. THOSE GLOVES ARE SMALLER AND THAT IS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, SO I WOULD JUST SUBMIT IT. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.) MR. DARDEN: ADDITIONAL CONCERN I HAVE OF COURSE IS -- MR. SHAPIRO: ONE SECOND. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.) MR. DARDEN: PEOPLE USED TO SAY "PLEASE" WHERE I COME FROM. MR. SHAPIRO: I'M SORRY. MR. DARDEN: ANOTHER CONCERN OF COURSE IS THAT MR. SIMPSON HAS ARTHRITIS AND WE LOOKED AT THE MEDICATION THAT HE TAKES AND SOME OF IT IS ANTI-INFLAMMATORY AND WE ARE TOLD THAT HE HAS NOT TAKEN THE STUFF FOR A DAY AND IT CAUSED SWELLING IN THE JOINTS AND INFLAMMATION IN HIS HANDS AND I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, THE MAN HAS -- MY DEAR FRIENDS ARE BEING PARANOID, YOUR HONOR. THE MAN HAS MEDICINE. HE DOESN'T WANT TO BE SICK. AND THEY ARE DOING THIS, YOUR HONOR. WE HAVEN'T ASKED TO DO THIS. MR. COCHRAN: SO MAY WE PROCEED, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THE OBJECTION IS SUSTAINED. MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. MR. DARDEN: MAY I HAVE ONE MOMENT? THE COURT: SURE. ***** (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE ARE OVER AT THE SIDE BAR. MR. COCHRAN. MR. COCHRAN: YOU JUST SAID THAT ONCE YOU GAVE ME THE VOIR DIRE OPPORTUNITY THAT I COULD RENEW MY OBJECTION. AND JUST THAT THE LAST QUESTION I ASKED, YOU KNOW, I JUST FAIL TO SEE, IF THEY STILL WANT TO GO FORWARD WITH IT, HOW THIS BECOMES RELEVANT. AND I WOULD JUST LIKE TO BRIEFLY STATE IT, YOUR HONOR, IF YOUR HONOR WOULD ALLOW ME, THAT THERE ARE THREE DIFFERENT SIZES WITHIN THE EXTRA LARGE. THE COURT: I HEARD THE TESTIMONY. MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. THE COURT: I HEARD THE TESTIMONY. MR. COCHRAN: THAT FITS 99.5 PERCENT AND THAT HE HAS ALREADY TOLD, YOUR HONOR, THAT THE LEFT GLOVE, THE BUNDY GLOVE, IS DOWN TO ALMOST A LARGE SIZE. I MEAN, THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE, FOR WHATEVER REASON, WITH REGARD TO THE GLOVES HERE, AND SO I THINK UNDER THE SUBSTANTIAL SIMILARITY TEST YOU LAID OUT THE GROUND RULES, BUT I WOULD JUST RENEW MY OBJECTION. BUT I DON'T THINK IT IS FAIR AND THAT IS THE WHOLE ISSUE. I DON'T THINK IT IS A A FAIR TEST, BUT WE WILL SEE. THE COURT: MR. DARDEN. MR. DARDEN: WELL, OBVIOUSLY THE TEST IS SUBSTANTIAL SIMILARITY AND I THINK THE BOTTOM LINE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT THOSE GLOVES COULD HAVE BEEN WORN BY THE DEFENDANT, OKAY? EXCUSE ME. OBVIOUSLY THEY ARE EXTRA LARGE GLOVES. OBVIOUSLY THE DEFENDANT'S BLOOD AND THE VICTIM'S BLOOD ARE ON THOSE GLOVES AND OBVIOUSLY THOSE GLOVES WERE TRANSPORTED TO THE MURDER SCENE AND THEY WERE USED ON THE COMMISSION OF THAT MURDER, OKAY? SO OBVIOUSLY THOSE GLOVES WERE USED DURING THE COMMISSION OF THE MURDER. THEY ARE BOTH EXTRA LARGES, THAT IS THE CRIME SCENE GLOVES AND THE GLOVES THAT WE HAVE HERE, AND IN FACT THESE GLOVES MAY BE A LITTLE SMALLER THAN THOSE WERE ORIGINALLY. THEY MAY NOT BE THE EXACT SAME SIZE, BUT THAT ISN'T THE TEST, AND THE FACT THAT THEY ARE NOT PERFECT EXTRA LARGES, THEN THAT IS TO THE DEFENDANT'S BENEFIT. BUT IN ANY EVENT, WE HAVE CLEARLY MET OUR BURDEN IN TERMS OF SUBSTANTIAL SIMILARITY AND I DON'T KNOW WHY MR. COCHRAN IS SO AFRAID TO HAVE THIS MAN PUT THESE GLOVES ON. AT SOME POINT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A PICTURE OF HIM WITH THE GLOVES ON, SO HEY, YOU KNOW, WHY WE ARE BURNING UP ALL THIS PAPER? THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. COCHRAN: I DON'T WANT TO ENGAGE IN ANYTHING OF A PERSONAL NATURE. I'M JUST DOING THE BEST JOB I CAN FOR MY CLIENT. ALL I'M SAYING, AND COUNSEL MISSES THE POINT, LAST WEEK I INVITED THEM AND SAID THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT YOU SAID, TO PUT THE GLOVES ON. WE SAW WHAT HAPPENED. WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT NOW IS THIS EXAMPLE. WHAT HE MISSES IS THIS DEMONSTRATION HERE I'M SAYING IS NOT SUBSTANTIAL SIMILARITY, DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE THAT 99.5 PERCENT OF ALL MEN IN AMERICA COULD WEAR THOSE PRISTINE GLOVES THERE THAT ARE EXTRA LARGE NO MATTER WHAT SIZE. THAT IS THE QUESTION. THAT IS THE RELEVANT QUESTION. AND SO I DON'T THINK IT MAKES ANY DIFFERENCE REGARDING, YOUR HONOR, THE CONDITION OF THE GLOVES IN THIS CASE AND THAT WAS THE POINT I WAS MAKING. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. DARDEN: I HAVE AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION. THE COURT: WHAT IS THAT? MR. DARDEN: WELL, DO YOU WANT TO RULE ON THE OBJECTION AND THEN I CAN MAKE -- THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO OVERRULE THE OBJECTION. I WILL ALLOW THE TRYING ON OF THE GLOVES. MR. DARDEN: OKAY. GIVEN THAT MR. COCHRAN HAS POINTED OUT THAT THERE IS VARIANCE WITHIN THE EXTRA LARGE GLOVES, I WOULD ASK THAT THE COURT INSTRUCT MR. COCHRAN TO SURRENDER HIS PAIRS AND I WILL SURRENDER MY PRISTINE PAIR AND LET'S HAVE HIM TRY ON ALL THREE. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.) MR. COCHRAN: THESE GLOVES -- MY OBJECTION IS AS WE SAID BEFORE, THESE GLOVES -- FIRST OF ALL, YOUR HONOR -- WELL, OBVIOUSLY WE WILL ABIDE BY WHATEVER YOU SAY, BUT THIS IS BECOMING CLOSE TO SILLY JUST FOR THEM TO REDEEM AND RECOOP AND THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO RECOOP BECAUSE THIS IS NOT THE SAME TEST. AND THE PURPOSE FOR THE PRISTINE GLOVES WHICH YOU ASKED US ABOUT WHICH WE COMPLIED AND WE DIDN'T -- WE HAD PEOPLE PUTTING THEIR HANDS IN HIS GLOVES AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY HAVE DONE AND WE HAVE TRIED OUR GLOVES ON ALSO AND THAT IS UNFAIR. MR. DARDEN: I MADE THE REPRESENTATION ABOUT THE GLOVES. WHY ARE YOU SO AFRAID? MR. COCHRAN: I AM NOT AFRAID OF ANYTHING. MR. DARDEN: WE HAVE A PRISTINE PAIR OF GLOVES. THE COURT: WELL, THE COURT HAS A PRISTINE PAIR OF GLOVES WHICH IS NOW PEOPLE'S 401. THE JURY HAS HEARD MR. RUBIN'S TESTIMONY AND DESCRIPTION OF THAT AND I WILL ALLOW THE USE OF THAT PAIR OF GLOVES. MR. COCHRAN: THIS PAIR? THE COURT: THIS PAIR. MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. **** (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: WE ARE OVER AT THE SIDE BAR. WE'VE GOT A FOUNDATIONAL PROBLEM WITH THOSE CHARTS. MR. COCHRAN: BROCKBANK. MR. DARDEN: I WAS OBJECTING TO THOSE TYPES OF QUESTIONS RELATIVE TO THOSE CHARTS WHEN HE WAS ASKING QUESTIONS AND THEY WERE ALLOWED. MR. COCHRAN: BUT THAT -- I DID NOT BRING THOSE CHARTS OUT AND THE COURT HAD ME REPHRASE IT. HE KNOWS THAT. THROW THEM UP ON THE ELMO? (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.) MR. DARDEN: OKAY. I'M SORRY, WERE YOU MOANING AGAIN? THE COURT: YOU KNOW -- WAIT A MINUTE. I'VE ABOUT HAD ENOUGH OF THIS BETWEEN THE TWO OF YOU. MR. DARDEN: HE STARTED IT, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: YOU ARE BOTH BAITING EACH OTHER. YOU BOTH VIOLATED THE COURT'S ORDER. 250 BUCKS BOTH OF YOU TODAY. MR. DARDEN: I AM VERY SHORT TODAY, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I'VE HAD ENOUGH OF THIS. ALL RIGHT. YOU'VE GOT A FOUNDATIONAL PROBLEM. I WILL SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION. MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. ****