Xref: world alt.fan.oj-simpson:63265 alt.fan.oj-simpson.transcripts:382 Newsgroups: alt.fan.oj-simpson.transcripts,alt.fan.oj-simpson Path: world!uunet!in1.uu.net!news.sprintlink.net!simtel!noc.netcom.net!netcom.com!myra From: myra@netcom.com (Myra Dinnerstein) Subject: SIDEBARS - September 6, 1995 Message-ID: Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 23:03:55 GMT Approved: myra@netcom.com Lines: 559 Sender: myra@netcom4.netcom.com Sidebars from September 6, 1995 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE ARE OVER AT THE SIDE MR. COCHRAN. MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR -- THE COURT: WHAT IS YOUR INTENDED QUESTION? MR. COCHRAN: WELL, MY INTENDED QUESTION WAS THAT HE TALKED WITH -- MR. FUHRMAN IN THE COURSE OF THESE TAPES TALKED ABOUT COVER-UPS, MEN AGAINST WOMEN OR HOW WOMEN REACTED. HE OPENED THE DOOR, YOUR HONOR. HE TALKED ABOUT COVER-UPS AND HE TRIED TO LIMIT IT TO MISS CLARK OR MISS LEWIS ASKING THE QUESTION. THERE ARE MANY OTHER COVER-UPS THAT TOOK PLACE AND WE HAVE A RIGHT TO BRING THAT UP. I DIDN'T BRING THAT UP. YOU LIMITED US AND I DIDN'T DO IT. I SAT DOWN. THE COURT: MR. DARDEN, WHY DID YOU WRITE THAT UP. MR. DARDEN: I DIDN'T BRING THAT UP. SHE UNLOADED ON ME, OKAY, AND MENTIONED THE WORD COVER-UP AND I WENT BACK TO IT TO CLARIFY THE FACT THAT WHAT SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT WAS I ASKED ABOUT RECOGNITION BY THE LAPD, THAT THEY RECOGNIZED THAT FEMALE OFFICERS DON'T PERFORM WELL IN THE FIELD AND THAT -- AND THAT -- AND THAT IN FUHRMAN'S VIEW THE DEPARTMENT COVERED THAT PROBLEM UP. SHE UNLOADED THAT ON ME. THAT WASN'T IN DIRECT RESPONSE TO A QUESTION. SHE UNLOADED THAT ON ME IN FRONT OF THE JURY. SHE IS THEIR WITNESS. IT IS OBVIOUS SHE IS BIASED FOR THE DEFENSE. WHAT AM I TO DO? WE HAVE THIS HIGHLY INFLAMMATORY AND VOLATILE ISSUE HERE IN FRONT OF THE JURY. I'M TRYING TO DO MY CROSS. SHE UNLOADED ME. I TRIED TO REPAIR SOME OF THE DAMAGE. I DID NOT GO INTO THE ISSUE OF COVER-UPS. THE COURT: SO WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO ASK IN RESPONSE TO THIS, MR. COCHRAN? MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE THE RIGHT, IT SEEMS TO ME, TO ASK THE QUESTION. THE COURT: THAT IS NOT WHAT I ASKED. I ASKED YOU WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO ASK? MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I RESENT THAT TONE. I'M A MAN JUST LIKE YOU ARE, YOUR HONOR. I RESENT THAT TONE, YOUR HONOR. I RESENT THAT TONE, YOUR HONOR. **** (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE ARE OVER AT THE SIDE BAR. MR. COCHRAN. MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THE REASON I WANTED TO APPROACH IS I THINK WE SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO PLAY -- THERE ARE CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE TAPE WHICH I THINK ARE NOW OPEN THAT DEAL WITH MEN AGAINST WOMEN. MY COLLEAGUES ARE TELLING ME WE CAN FIND IT. THAT IS FAIR, FROM THE QUESTION, AND WHAT WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT DEALING WITH MEN AGAINST WOMEN AND COVER-UPS. AND TO THE EXTENT THAT IS IN THERE, I WOULD LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT. I'M NOT TRYING TO DELAY. I THINK WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO RULE -- THAT IF YOU DON'T RULE ALL OF IT, THEN THAT PORTION THAT RELATES TO COVER-UPS, MEN AGAINST WOMEN, AND I WOULD LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO IT. THE COURT: DO YOU WANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO FIND IT AND REVIEW IT AND SEE IF YOU WANT TO DO IT? MR. COCHRAN: I WANT TO TRY TO DO IT. SO WE DON'T DELAY IT, I COULD PUT HODGE ON RIGHT AFTER THIS, AND IT IS GOING TO BE VERY LIMITED, BY THE WAY, AND THEN COULD I BRING HER BACK IF I DO FIND THAT, IF YOU WILL PERMIT US TO DO SO. WE CAN DO IT AND HAVE OVER THE LUNCH HOUR TO DO THAT. MR. DARDEN: YOU ISSUED AN ORDER RELATED TO MC KINNY, WRITTEN ORDER. YOU ISSUED AN ORDER TODAY REGARDING COVER-UPS. NONE OF IT HAS BEEN FOLLOWED, NOT ONE IOTA IN NO MANNER, NO WAY, NO HOW. WHERE ARE WE GOING NOW? WHERE ARE WE GOING NOW? YOU KNOW, THERE IS SUPPOSED TO BE RULES FOLLOWED BY BOTH SIDES SO THAT COUNSEL KNOWS, YOU KNOW HOW, TO PLAN A CASE, HOW TO EXAMINE WITNESSES. ALL THESE RULES SEEM TO BE GETTING THROWN OUT THE DOOR, JUDGE. YOU JUST LIMITED HIM SUPPOSEDLY TO A PASSAGE AND A TRANSCRIPT, BUT NOW WE HAVE GONE INTO MARK FUHRMAN AND COVER-UPS AND HOW MALE OFFICERS -- FEMALE OFFICERS WON'T COVER-UP FOR MALE OFFICERS AND ALL THIS OTHER NONSENSE. OKAY. I MEAN, WHERE IS 352? OKAY? NONE OF THIS HAS ANY PROBATIVE VALUE. IT IS -- SHUT THIS DOWN AND GET THIS WITNESS OUT OF HERE. I MEAN, HAVE YOU WATCHED THE JURY? HAVE YOU WATCHED THEIR FACES AS ALL THESE EPITHETS ROLL OFF OF MR. BAILEY'S TONGUE AND MR. COCHRAN'S AND EVERYBODY ELSE'S? AT SOME POINT, YOU KNOW, WE GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE ARE NOT GETTING A FAIR TRIAL. MS. CLARK: WE ARE THERE. MR. UELMEN: YOUR HONOR, IF I COULD JUST INTERJECT? THE COURT: NO. NO, YOU MAY NOT. MR. COCHRAN: I WOULD LIKE THAT OPPORTUNITY, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS NOTHING WE OPENED UP. THEY OPENED IT UP. THE COURT: WELL, NO. MR. COCHRAN, IT IS NOT AN ISSUE THAT YOU DIDN'T OPEN IT UP. THAT WAS A NONRESPONSIVE ANSWER. MR. COCHRAN: WELL, WE WILL TALK ABOUT THAT LATER. THE COURT: NO. THE QUESTION TO MISS MC KINNY WAS DID YOU STOP HIM FROM USING THE "N" WORD? AND THEN SHE GOES ON TO SAY THAT SHE GRATUITOUSLY TOSSES IN THIS COVER-UP STUFF. MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE, WHEN YOU HAVE A "WHY" QUESTION, WHY DIDN'T YOU STOP HIM, WHY DIDN'T YOU DO THIS, IT OPENS UP. THE COURT: IT DOES. MR. COCHRAN: WHEN YOU SAY WHY YOU DO SOMETHING, THAT PERSON HAS A RIGHT TO EXPLAIN TO IT. THE COURT: JUST BECAUSE IT IS OPENED IT DOESN'T MEAN I HAVE TO SPEND COURT TIME GOING INTO IT. MR. COCHRAN: WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS MISINFORMING THE JURY IN SOME TINY PASSAGE. THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, EXCUSE ME. FORGIVE ME FOR INTERRUPTING YOU, BUT THE REASON I'M DOING THAT, WHAT I'M GOING TO SUGGEST WE DO IS FINISH YOUR REDIRECT THAT YOU HAVE NOW. MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. THE COURT: WE WILL HIT THE LUNCH HOUR SHORTLY, IN ANY EVENT. OVER THE LUNCH HOUR YOU CAN FIND YOUR EXCERPT. MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. THE COURT: I DON'T RECOLLECT THE PARTICULAR EXCERPT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. MR. COCHRAN: WHAT I WANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT -- THE COURT: WE WILL LOOK AT IT. IF SHE IS STILL AVAILABLE, IF IT IS AN APPROPRIATE SECTION, YOU CAN RECALL HER. IF NOT, WE WILL MOVE ON. MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. SO WE SAVE SOME TIME, I WILL SAY SOMETHING LIKE WHEN I FINISH "NO FURTHER QUESTIONS." IF THEY HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO THE NEXT WITNESS SO WE WON'T LOSE ANY TIME ON THAT, BUT I WILL SAY "NO FURTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME" SO I WILL HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY. MR. DARDEN: IF SHE RETURNS AFTER LUNCH I WILL IMPEACH HER WITH HER LOVE LETTERS TO MARK FUHRMAN. MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, IF THEY HAVE GOT SOMETHING ELSE -- MR. DARDEN: LET'S KEEP ON GOING WITH THIS. THIS IS RIDICULOUS. MR. COCHRAN: THIS IS HOW WE GOT INTO THIS PROBLEM, BY ATTACKING HER. MR. DARDEN: WE GOT INTO THIS PROBLEM BECAUSE WE ARE CHASING DOWN ISSUES THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS TRIAL. IF MR. SIMPSON IS ACQUITTED JUST BECAUSE MARK FUHRMAN UTTERED AN EPITHET, WELL, THEN THERE IS NO JUSTICE, JUDGE. MR. COCHRAN: IT WON'T BE BECAUSE OF THAT BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE AHEAD IF I CAN. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S PROCEED. MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU. **** (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: WE ARE OVER AT THE SIDE BAR. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTAND MR. HODGE IS NEXT, CORRECT? MR. COCHRAN: YES. HODGE IS NEXT AND I WOULD LIKE TO USE THIS AS A POSSIBLE MOTION IN LIMINE ALSO. I'M GOING TO DIRECT HIM DIRECTLY AND I WILL TELL YOU WHAT IT IS GOING TO BE. CONTRARY TO WHAT MR. DARDEN SAID, THE ARREST WAS ON JANUARY 12, 1987; IT WASN'T ON THE 13TH OR WHATEVER. HE WAS ARRESTED, HE WAS LAYING IN THE ALLEY AND HE WAS PICKED UP AND ARRESTED BY MARK FUHRMAN AND HIS PARTNER, TOM VETTRAINO, AND PUT IN THE CAR. FUHRMAN TURNS AROUND AND SAYS, "I TOLD YOU I WOULD GET YOU, NIGGER," AND THAT IS BASICALLY IT. I UNDERSTAND YOU TOLD ME I CAN'T GO INTO THE FACT THAT THEY YANKED HIM UP BY THE HANDCUFFS OR THEY HAD HIM BENT OVER. THE OTHER THING, HE HAS A LAWYER FROM CHICAGO AND THEY KEEP TALKING ABOUT 1054.7. THIS MAN HAS NEVER BEEN CONVICTED OF A FELONY. I DON'T KNOW -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS INFORMATION IS THAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT, BUT THIS LAWYER IS HERE FROM CHICAGO. HE REPRESENTS HIM BACK THERE. AND HE DOES NOT HAVE ANY FELONY CONVICTIONS AND THE LAWYER WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THAT, SO I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME, IN VIEW OF THE RESTRICTIONS THE COURT HAS PLACED ON US, AND I WILL ABIDE BY THEM, THIS IS A VERY LIMITED CROSS-EXAMINATION, IF MARK FUHRMAN SAID THIS OR NOT. MR. DARDEN: I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM COUNSEL FROM ILLINOIS. MR. COCHRAN: HE IS HERE AND I WOULD LIKE TO GET HIM UP. MS. CLARK: I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COURT ON THIS MATTER. THE COURT: ARE YOU GOING TO HANDLE THIS MATTER? MS. CLARK: I MAY. MR. COCHRAN: WELL, YOUR HONOR -- MS. CLARK: I WANT TO ADDRESS A LEGAL ISSUE HERE, AND THAT IS THAT WHAT COUNSEL IS GOING TO ATTEMPT TO DO TO GET IN THROUGH THIS PURPORTED STATEMENT IS THE INSINUATION THAT MARK FUHRMAN HAS BEEN THREATENING TO GET HIM FOR A LONG TIME, THAT THERE WERE PREVIOUS CONTACTS. THIS HAS EXPRESSLY BEEN SAID BY THE COURT TO BE INADMISSIBLE AND INAPPROPRIATE SUBJECT FOR EXAMINATION. BY PUTTING IN THE STATEMENT THAT MR. COCHRAN HAS JUST REFERRED TO, HE IS ATTEMPTING TO GET BY IMPLICATION WHAT HE CAN'T DO EXPLICITLY AND THE JURY WILL GET THE MESSAGE. THIS HAS ALREADY GONE ON FOR SO LONG AND THE BOUNDS OF THE ORDER HAVE BEEN STRETCHED TO THE SNAPPING POINT AND COUNSEL HAS PUSHED THIS ENVELOPE REPEATEDLY WITH IMPROPER QUESTION AFTER IMPROPER QUESTION ATTEMPTING TO ELICIT EVERYTHING THAT THE COURT HAS RULED INADMISSIBLE. THIS COURTROOM HAS BEEN FILLED WITH SLUDGE FOR THE LAST TWO DAYS. THEY HAVE HAD MORE THAN THEIR BITE OF THIS APPLE. THEY'VE HAD THREE APPLES, ALL OF THEM. AND I'M BEGGING THE COURT PLEASE PUT A STOP TO THIS AND LET US GET BACK TO TRYING THIS CASE. MR. HODGE DOES NOT NEED TO BE HEARD FROM. THE STATEMENT REFERRED TO BY COUNSEL IS IN VIOLATION OF THE COURT'S ORDER. IT WILL IMPLICITLY INFORM THE JURY OF WHAT THE COURT HAS SAID CANNOT BE BROUGHT OUT AND IT ADDS NOTHING OF PROBATIVE VALUE TO WHAT HAS BEEN ALREADY ESTABLISHED BEYOND ANY DOUBT ABOUT MARK FUHRMAN. HOW MANY TIMES WE HAVE TO SAY IT, I DON'T KNOW, BUT I FRANKLY AM OF THE FIRM OPINION THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE NO LONGER ANY RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL. IT HAS BEEN THROWN OUT THE DOOR AND ALL WE ARE HEARING NOW IS THE REPEATED EPITHETS TO MAKE THIS JURY FORGET WHAT THE EVIDENCE IS. MR. HODGE IS NOT NECESSARY TO THE DEFENSE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. THEY HAVE HEARD IT AND HEARD IT AND HEARD IT. AND NOW WE ARE GOING TO BRING IT IN ONE MORE TIME EXCEPT EVEN MORE -- IN A MORE INFLAMMATORY WAY. THERE IS NOTHING OF PROBATIVE VALUE HERE. THE FACT THAT MR. HODGE IS AFRICAN AMERICAN DOES NOT ADD PROBATIVE VALUE TO IT. THE ISSUE IS NOT WHETHER OR NOT HE SAID IT TO MR. HODGE OR ANYONE ELSE, BUT WHETHER HE USES THE EPITHET. IF YOU THINK OR ANYONE THINKS THAT WE ARE GOING TO GET UP IN FRONT OF THIS JURY AND ARGUE THAT HE WOULD NEVER ADDRESS AN AFRICAN AMERICAN IN THAT MANNER, ALL HE WOULD DO IS TALK ABOUT THEM IN THE THIRD PERSON, YOU ARE ALL NUTS. THERE IS NO WAY WE ARE GOING TO SAY ANY SUCH THING. THE COURT KNOWS THAT. I KNOW THE COURT KNOWS THAT I WOULDN'T DO IT, AS THE COURT WOULDN'T DO IT. THIS IS A CONCESSION AND WE HAVE BEEN CONCEDING ALL THROUGHOUT. WE HAVE NOT BEEN FIGHTING THIS. WE HAVE TAKEN IT ON THE CHIN. BUT NOW WE ARE GETTING KICKED IN THE GUTS. THIS IS BELOW THE BELT AND THIS IS NOT FAIR. MR. COCHRAN: FIRST OF ALL, THEY ARE VIOLATING THE TWO-LAWYER RULE, BUT WE HAVE RULED ON THIS AND WE ARE UP HERE TO FIND OUT FROM THIS LAWYER ABOUT THE 402. I UNDERSTOOD YOUR RULING YESTERDAY. MISS CLARK CAME UP TO TALK ABOUT IT THEN. YOU TOLD US WHAT THE RULING WAS. IT IS OUR WITNESS IN THIS AREA. I WOULD LIKE YOU TO HEAR FROM THIS LAWYER IN CASE IT BECOMES AN ISSUE. THE COURT: IN CASE IT BECOMES AN ISSUE? MR. COCHRAN: HE IS HERE NOW. MR. SHAPIRO: HE RULED YESTERDAY. MR. COCHRAN: I'M TELLING YOU THERE IS NO GOOD FAITH BASIS BECAUSE HE'S HERE AND THEY CAN GO BACK AND TALK TO HIM, SO I WANTED TO LET THE COURT KNOW THAT. WHY WE ARE MAKING THESE SPEECHES WE CAN BE FINISHED WITH THE EXAMINATION. MS. CLARK: LOOK WHOSE TALKING ABOUT THE SPEECHES. INTERESTING. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S PROCEED. MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. **** (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. DARDEN, WHERE ARE YOU GOING WITH THIS? MR. DARDEN: I'M TRYING TO ESTABLISH WHAT THE DATE IS, BECAUSE -- I WILL GIVE THIS TO MR. COCHRAN. THIS IS THE PRINTOUT ON THE F.I.'S WITH THAT TIME WITH MR. HODGE. THERE WERE MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY CONTACTS BY LAPD, FROM THE NARCOTICS AND GANG UNITS, OF MR. HODGE. MR. HODGE WAS A CRACK DEALER OVER ON CORNING AVENUE, AN AREA WHERE CRACK WAS SOLD BY HIM AND MEMBERS OF THE PLAYBOY GANGSTER CRIPS. THE COURT: LET ME ASK YOU THIS QUESTION. LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION. WHY WOULDN'T YOU AT THIS POINT SAY, MR. HODGE, YOU WERE OFFENDED, THAT WAS A HORRIBLE THING? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD-BYE? MR. DARDEN: WELL, I JUST HAVE A COUPLE OTHER THINGS, OKAY? ALL I WANT TO DO IS MAKE SURE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME INCIDENT, OKAY? THAT IS ALL I WANT TO DO. I CAN SHOW HIM THE PIECE OF PAPER AND THEN IDENTIFY IT AND MAKE SURE THAT IS THE DATE. AND EVEN IF THAT IS THE DATE, I HAVE THREE MORE QUESTIONS AND WE ARE DONE. JUST THE BOOKING SLIP, NOT THE ARREST REPORT. MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE, CAN I RESPOND? MR. DARDEN: OTHERWISE I DON'T KNOW IF HE IS TALKING ABOUT SOME OTHER DAY, SOME OTHER CONTACT, BUT -- (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.) MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE ISN'T THE ISSUE WHETHER OR NOT FUHRMAN ARRESTED THIS MAN AND INDICATED TO HIM -- THE ISSUE HE WAS CALLED FOR YOU LIMITED VERY SPECIFICALLY WAS WHETHER FUHRMAN TURNED AROUND AND SAID, "I TELL YOU I WILL GET YOU NIGGER." THAT IS THE QUESTION. IT HAPPENED IN JANUARY OF 1987. THAT IS THE QUESTION. MR. DARDEN: WE HAVE EIGHT MINUTES MORE, OKAY? NOW, ALL I WANT TO DO, YOU KNOW, HE FILED A -- THE COURT: I'M SORRY. MR. DARDEN: HE COMPLAINED TO IAD, RIGHT? JANUARY 13, '87, HE COMPLAINED TO IAD. HE DIDN'T COMPLAIN ABOUT THIS. HE COMPLAINED ABOUT EVERYTHING ELSE UNDER THE SUN, BUT HE DIDN'T COMPLAIN ABOUT THIS AND THAT IS WHY I WANT TO MAKE SURE OF THE DAY. THE COURT: THEN WHY DON'T YOU ASK HIM WITH REGARDS TO THIS PARTICULAR ARREST DID YOU MAKE A COMPLAINT TO THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT ABOUT THE MANNER WHICH YOU WERE TREATED? ANSWER, YES OR NO. MR. DARDEN: OKAY. THE COURT: IS THIS A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT? YES OR NO. I'M TRYING TO RESTRICT THE SCOPE HERE, COUNSEL. MR. COCHRAN: I WANT TO WAIT UNTIL YOU FINISH BECAUSE DOESN'T IT OPEN THE DOOR? THIS MAN WAS ACQUITTED AND YOU SAID WE CAN'T GET INTO THAT. HE MADE LOTS OF COMPLAINTS AGAINST THESE OFFICERS. MR. DARDEN: FUHRMAN IS NOT A WITNESS IN THE DRUG PROSECUTION. FUHRMAN DID NOT WITNESS THE DRUG PROSECUTION. MR. COCHRAN: HE TOOK HIM DOWN AND HE WAS ARRESTED ORIGINALLY FOR BATTERY ON A POLICE OFFICER. MR. DARDEN: AND FUHRMAN DID NOT TESTIFY AT TRIAL. MR. COCHRAN: BATTERY ON A POLICE OFFICER. THE COURT: I KNOW. I KNOW, COUNSEL. MR. DARDEN: AND WE KNOW AND JOHNNIE KNOWS THAT THE PROSECUTION WAS DISMISSED BECAUSE WHEN IT CAME FOR TRIAL DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WASN'T IN THE STATE. HE NEVER TESTIFIED AT TRIAL, BUT IT WAS DISMISSED. MR. COCHRAN: I DIDN'T KNOW THAT. MR. DARDEN: 148 ON FUHRMAN, OKAY? AND THE NARCOTICS ISSUE AND THE 148 OCCURRED WHEN HE TRIED TO ARREST HIM AFTER A NARCOTICS -- THE COURT: WHY ARE WE DRAGGING THIS OUT? IF YOU WANT THIS OVER, JUST SAY, GEE, THAT IS HORRIBLE, GOOD-BYE. MR. DARDEN: JUDGE, YOU KNOW, I FEEL NO NEED TO LAY DOWN OR ROLL OVER AND DIE JUST BECAUSE THE JURY HAS BEEN POLLUTED WITH THESE EPITHETS. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, HE DID THE MURDERS. I'M GOING TO CONVICT HIM. THE COURT: WHY DON'T YOU ASK HIM IF HE MADE A COMPLAINT ABOUT THIS INCIDENT? MR. DARDEN: I WAS TRYING TO ASK ABOUT THE DATE AND YOU SUSTAINED THE OBJECTION. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO. **** (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: OKAY. MR. COCHRAN: WHAT I WAS -- THE COURT: HOLD ON. MR. DARDEN'S MAKING THE OBJECTION. MISS LEWIS, WOULD YOU STEP BACK, PLEASE. STEP BACK. MR. DARDEN, WHAT'S YOUR OBJECTION? MR. DARDEN: THE QUESTION WENT TO IMPROPER -- WHAT WAS IN THE BOX IN THE UPPER RIGHT-HAND CORNER SHOWS IMPROPER TACTICS AND EXCESSIVE FORCE, WHICH IS IRRELEVANT. MR. COCHRAN: COUNSEL IS WRONG ABOUT THAT. IT DOES SAY THAT. LET ME MAKE AN OFFER OF PROOF. WHAT IT SAYS -- HE OPENED THE DOOR ON THIS. IT SAYS "IMPROPER TACTICS, EXCESSIVE FORCE AND DISC," DISCOURTESY. LET ME SHOW YOU SOMETHING, JUDGE. I HAVE ANOTHER DOCUMENT, SUMMARY OF ADJUDICATION CASES DATED ON MARCH 9, 1987 THROUGH MARCH 13TH, 1987, AND WHAT IT SHOWS IS THAT THIS 22-YEAR OLD BLACK MALE ALLEGED IMPROPER TACTICS, EXCESSIVE FORCE AND DISCOURTESY AGAINST THE POLICE. IT'S ALL BLACKED OUT. THE DISCOURTESY IS THE WORD "NIGGER," AND WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BRING THAT OUT. THEY'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT SEEM LIKE IT WASN'T THERE. THAT'S WHAT I INDICATED TO THE COURT. MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, BUT THE DOCUMENTS ALSO SHOW -- WHAT COUNSEL IS REFERRING TO IS THE ALLEGATION MADE BY ANOTHER PERSON, NOT BY RODERIC HODGE, AGAINST A DIFFERENT OFFICER, NOT FUHRMAN. MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE, SHE'S WRONG. THIS IS MR. DARDEN'S WITNESS. SO SHE SHOULDN'T BE TALKING. THE COURT: THAT'S CORRECT. MR. DARDEN. MR. DARDEN: WHAT'S CORRECT? THE COURT: ARE YOU HANDLING THIS OR MISS CLARK? MR. DARDEN: YEAH. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS CONTAINED IN THIS INVESTIGATION, AND WE WILL BRING SOMEONE OVER FROM IAD TO EXPLAIN WHAT THE PAGES ARE BECAUSE THEY RELATE TO OTHER OFFICERS BY THE WAY. AT ANY EVENT, THERE ARE COMPLAINTS BY MR. HODGE AND THE OTHER PERSONS HE WAS ARRESTED WITH THAT OFFICERS SAID THINGS LIKE, "SHUT THE FUCK UP," AND, "GET BACK, GET BACK." THERE'S AN ALLEGATION THEY CALLED SOMEONE A "FAT ASS." BUT THERE'S NO ALLEGATION IN THE ENTIRE PACKAGE THAT THE EPITHET WAS EVER USED. I'VE GIVEN HIM A STACK OF MATERIAL. I ASKED HIM WHETHER OR NOT THE EPITHET IS CONTAINED IN THE MATERIAL AND IT IS NOT, OKAY. NOW YOU'RE TELLING ME IT OPENS THE DOOR TO EVERYTHING, TO EVERYTHING ELSE? THE COURT: NO, IT DOESN'T OPEN THE DOOR TO EVERYTHING PROBABLY, BUT IT CERTAINLY DOES AT THE LEAST, YOU KNOW, OPEN THE DOOR TO THE FACT HE MADE AN ALLEGATION OF DISCOURTESY. MR. DARDEN: OKAY. WELL, IF HE WANTS -- MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, SHE'S -- MS. CLARK: I'M TELLING MR. DARDEN. THE COURT: WELL, MR. DARDEN. MR. DARDEN: THAT'S CORRECT. NOT AGAINST FUHRMAN. IN FACT, LOOK AT THE COMPLAINT IN THE NARRATIVE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE DOCUMENT AND YOU SEE WHAT THE ALLEGATIONS ARE, JUDGE, IN GENERAL. JUST BECAUSE WE, YOU KNOW, DO CROSS-EXAMINE A WITNESS OR ATTEMPT TO DEFEND AGAINST IRRELEVANT, IMMATERIAL ALLEGATIONS DOESN'T MEAN IT OPENS THE DOOR TO EVERYTHING IMAGINABLE. IF HE WANTS TO ASK HIM -- I DON'T THINK THEY CAN ASK ABOUT THE WORD "DISCOURTESY" UNLESS HE USED THE WORD ITSELF. IT IS A WORD THAT IS UNIQUE TO LAPD AND INTERNAL AFFAIRS DIVISION AND HE IS NOT COMPETENT TO EXPLAIN THAT TERM. THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, YOU CAN CROSS-EXAMINE HIM -- EXCUSE ME -- REDIRECT ON THE FACT THAT HE DID INCLUDE A COMPLAINT FOR DISCOURTESY. MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU. LET ME ASK -- THE COURT: BUT THE EXCESSIVE FORCE AND IMPROPER TACTICS ARE NOT PART OF THIS. MR. COCHRAN: CAN I ASK ONE THING, PLEASE, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: YES. MR. COCHRAN: WHILE WE ARE HERE? YOUR HONOR, CAN -- THERE'S SO MUCH NOISE OVER HERE. IN ADDITION TO THAT -- HE DIDN'T MARK THIS. CAN YOU LOOK AT THE FIRST THING HERE? THIS MAN -- I SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO GO INTO -- I'D LIKE YOU TO READ THIS PART. HE COMPLAINS THAT HE GOT PULLED UP BY HIS ARMS BY FUHRMAN AND SUFFERED INJURIES AND HE WAS STRUCK WITH A BATON. IN FACT, IN THIS INVESTIGATION -- I WANT TO BRING THIS OUT -- THERE ARE NINE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN OF THIS MAN'S INJURIES AND ANOTHER REPORT -- ANOTHER REPORT DOWN -- TAKEN PLACE. LOOK AT THIS, JUDGE. HE REFUSED TREATMENT -- AND THEY TOOK NINE PHOTOGRAPHS OF HIS RIGHT LEG -- FOR HIS BACK WHERE SOMEBODY PUT A GUN IN HIS BACK, RIGHT LEG AND THIGH AND HIS WRIST WHERE HE WAS HIT WITH A BATON. WE CAN BRING THAT IN. YOU SPECIFICALLY STOOD HERE AGAIN AND TOLD MR. DARDEN WHAT TO DO AND HOW TO CONDUCT -- NOT TOLD HIM. MADE A SUGGESTION. JUDGE, WHEN THEY OPEN THE DOOR, I HAVE THE RIGHT -- MAY I FINISH? I HAVE THE RIGHT TO TALK ABOUT DISCOURTESY OR THIS OTHER THING BECAUSE HE OPENED THE DOOR. HE IS THE ONE WHO ASKED THOSE QUESTIONS. I ABIDED BY WHAT YOU SAID. I ASKED MY FIVE OR SIX QUESTIONS AND I SAT DOWN. THIS OPENS THE DOOR. HE'S OPENING THIS UP WITH HANDCUFFS, JUDGE. HE HAD PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN. AND THEY ARE TRYING TO GIVE A MISLEADING IMPRESSION TO THIS JURY. THEY'RE TRYING TO SAY HE DIDN'T MAKE THIS REPORT. HE MADE THREE REPORTS DIFFERENT LOCATIONS. THIS REPORT IS MISSING 11 PAGES OR SO RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF IT. THERE ARE PHOTOGRAPHS BACKING UP WHAT HE SAYS ABOUT VIOLENT TREATMENT AND EVERYTHING AND ALSO SAYS -- THE COURT: KEEP YOUR VOICE DOWN. MR. COCHRAN: -- ALSO SAYS DISCOURTESY, JUDGE, AND I HAVE GOOD FAITH. I SHOWED YOU THIS OTHER REPORT WHERE IT SAYS IN THE SUMMARY OF LAPD THINGS HOW HE MADE A REPORT FOR DISCOURTESY AND IT TALKS -- DOESN'T TALK ABOUT -- THEY TALK ABOUT, ROBBERY-HOMICIDE, HODGE IS A 22-YEAR OLD -- THE COURT: WHICH ONE OF THESE REPORTS? IS THIS THE ACTUAL EXHIBIT? MR. COCHRAN: IT MAY NOT BE THE EXHIBIT. THAT'S MY COPY OF THE EXHIBIT. MR. DARDEN: THE WITNESS HAS IT. MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S MY COPY OF IT. MR. DARDEN: THIS IS A COPY. THE COURT: THAT'S A COPY. OKAY. I'VE HEARD ENOUGH. YOU CAN -- MR. DARDEN: MAY I PLEASE MAKE ONE ADDITIONAL POINT? THE COURT: NO. I'VE HEARD ENOUGH. YOU CAN REDIRECT ON THE FACT THAT HE DID INCLUDE IN HIS COMPLAINT AN ALLEGATION OF DISCOURTESY. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S IT. MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S IT. THE COURT: THAT'S IT. MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. **** (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, THE PROBLEM WE HAVE IS THAT I'M NOT SURE WE ARGUED THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT. I WANTED SOME CLARIFICATION. WE'RE THE ONES THAT PAID TO HAVE HIM BROUGHT HERE. SO IT WOULD FALL ON US WHETHER HE STAYS OVER. BUT WE OBVIOUSLY WOULD WANT HIM TO BE ABLE TO BRIEFLY ARGUE WHAT OUR RIGHTS ARE IN THIS REGARD. NOW THAT HE'S CLAIMED THE 5TH AMENDMENT, THEY CAN'T JUST TRY TO HIDE THAT FROM THE JURY. WE ARE GOING TO PROPOSE EITHER A JURY INSTRUCTION OR WHATEVER, SOME WAY -- WE ARE BEING DISQUALIFIED FROM FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THIS MAN, AND WE PROPOSE A PARTICULAR REMEDY. AND SO I MEAN -- SURE, THEY'D LIKE TO RUSH HIM AWAY QUIETLY. IT'S NOT THAT EASY. WE WILL ACCOMMODATE MR. MOUNGER'S SCHEDULE. WE HAVE TOTAL RESPECT FOR HIM, BUT WE HAVE -- I THINK THE COURT WANTS SOME ASSISTANCE, SOME ARGUMENT FROM US, POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ABOUT WHAT OUR REMEDY IS IN REGARD TO THIS. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING YOU WANT TO DO BY THE SEAT OF YOUR PANTS. THE COURT: I ASSUMED YOU ALL HAD THOUGHT ABOUT THIS. MR. COCHRAN: WE DID. WE THOUGHT ABOUT IT AND WE'D LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY -- THE COURT: AND MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT THE PROSECUTION INDICATED THEY HAD A MEMORANDUM, POINTS AND AUTHORITIES READY TO GO. MR. COCHRAN: MR. DARDEN SAID THAT. WE HAVEN'T SEEN IT. MS. CLARK: WE HAVE IT. WE'VE RESEARCHED THIS ISSUE, WE'RE PREPARED TO ARGUE IT. THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO HAVE HIM INVOKE IN FRONT OF THE JURY. MR. COCHRAN: NASTY ATTITUDE. WE'RE NOT -- MS. CLARK: JUST AN ASSERTION. MR. COCHRAN: ALL WE'RE SAYING, YOUR HONOR, WE WOULD LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND, TO GIVE YOU OUR BRIEF IN THAT REGARD AND WE DON'T WANT HIM TO LEAVE UNTIL THAT POINT. IT WOULD JUST BE A DAY OR SO. SO I THINK IT'S THE SAME PROBLEM AS WITH MC KINNY. WE DON'T WANT TO LET HER GO BEFORE WE RESOLVE THE ISSUE AND WE WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT IT TOMORROW. THE COURT: MR. MOUNGER, WHAT I'M INCLINED TO DO IS ALLOW COUNSEL THE OPPORTUNITY TO BRIEF THE ISSUE AND HAVE YOUR CLIENT ON CALL FOR TOMORROW. MR. MOUNGER: AND IF IT DOESN'T MATERIALIZE BY TOMORROW, ARE WE FREE TO -- THE COURT: THEN HE WILL BE RELEASED SUBJECT TO RECALL AND I'D SAY WITHIN 72 HOURS' NOTICE. BUT I ASSUME WE'LL RESOLVE THIS ISSUE TOMORROW. MR. MOUNGER: ALL RIGHT. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU ACCEPT THE RESPONSIBILITY TO CONVEY THAT ORDER TO YOUR CLIENT? MR. MOUNGER: YES, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE? MR. MOUNGER: SO I UNDERSTAND IT CLEARLY, IF WE HAVE NO ORDER BY THE CLOSE OF COURT TOMORROW, THEN -- THE COURT: HE'S FREE TO TRAVEL BACK. MR. MOUNGER: -- FREE TO TRAVEL? MR. SHAPIRO: ON 72-HOUR CALL. I WILL CALL HIM. WE HAVE SOME WITNESSES WE WANT TO GET ORDERED BACK FOR TOMORROW. THE COURT: AND, MISS CLARK, IF YOU WOULD FILE YOUR POINTS AND AUTHORITIES. MS. CLARK: YES. YES. MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, CAN WE GO OFF THE RECORD FOR SCHEDULING ON THE BRADY MOTION? THE COURT: YES.