OJ Simpson Trial Defense Opening Statement - Johnnie Cochran Part 1 (1995)

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Great to see you, Your Honor. Thank you very much. My name is J.D. Allen, to my colleagues on the right here, the prosecutors, to my colleagues on the defense side, to the Brown family, to the Simpson family, to the Goldman families. Ladies and gentlemen, good morning to you. Good morning. As the court indicated yesterday, I would have liked to have had this opportunity about 3.30 to address you. And it's my opportunity, and it's my honor and privilege, on behalf of the defense, and our defense team, as it were, to stand before you now and address you in what is called opening statement. Now, the opening statement is not opening argument, but it's just that, opening statement. If you've had occasion to go to a movie, you know that there's something called the previews of coming attractions. And that's what this is supposed to be. It's supposed to be a guide. Our road map, if you will, what we expect the evidence to show. As an officer of this court, and in the course of my remarks this morning, and maybe this afternoon, I would expect to tell you as honestly and as forthrightly as I can what I expect the evidence to be. As the court has so appropriately indicated, what I say is not evidence. It's just to aid you and guide you. I hope you remember something else the judge said to you last night. You heard the prosecutor's opening statement yesterday, that you were the same admonition applied to them. Those were not facts. But you kept an open mind, because you promised to do that throughout. We started this process of trial back on September 26th, 1994. That was the first day we all met, when you came down to that jury room up on the 11th floor. And here we are now, several months later, in this search for justice. You hear a lot about this talk about justice. I guess Dr. Martin Luther King said it best when he said that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. And so we are now embarked upon this search for justice, this search for truth, this search for the facts. Each of you made a number of promises in the course of the void hour examination, which is basically unprecedented, and due mainly to the largesse of Judge Ito, in understanding the possibility of media taint associated with this case. So we know a lot about you at this point. And we, of course, all sides, are very, very pleased with the fact that you've agreed to serve as jurors, to give us your time, to leave your lives, to be sequestered, as it were. That's a remarkable sacrifice. Abraham Lincoln said it best when he said that the highest act of citizenship is jury service. And you're embarked upon that jury service. But it doesn't stop with just coming down and taking notes. It doesn't stop with the inconvenience of being away from your families. When it stops is when you, if you can, render a verdict in this case. And whether or not that verdict reflects the evidence in this case. A verdict rendered devoid of sympathy for or passion against Mr. Simpson or any side of this case. You made these promises. And both sides are mindful of those promises. And we know that you're going to keep those promises. Cicero said that he who violates his oath profanes the divinity of faith itself. And, of course, we know that you will live up to your promises. And be fair. And keep an open mind. And decide this case, not on speculation, not on conjecture, not on surmise, but based upon the facts. You, then, as jurors, are the conscience of this community. Your verdicts set the standards of what we should have and what should happen in this community. You have this rare opportunity, it seems to me, to be participants in this search for justice and for truth. And in the final analysis, hopefully by April of this year, I'm optimistic still, you'll be able to render perhaps the most important decision of your lives. And so we want to keep your minds open and fresh so that you can render that decision impartially to both sides. So that people all across the world can say, this system works. This was a fair trial. These were fair people. So thank you in advance, again, for your service, for the verdict that you're likely to render, and for all the things that you're doing here for us. [00:04:54] Speaker 2: Your Honor, the court knows me, and I know Mr. Conklin knows me. I have to interject at this point. [00:05:03] Speaker 3: This is argumentative. I think there were introductory remarks that were similar in nature to the prosecution's opening remarks. I think Mr. Cochran has just concluded his opening remarks. [00:05:16] Speaker 2: And I trust the director, and again, I hesitate to interrupt another lawyer's opening statement, but I simply wanted to make sure that this type of statement was ceasing. Thank you, Mr. Cochran. [00:05:32] Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Eisner. I was just about to compliment the district attorney's office on their opening statement yesterday. Maybe I'll take that out now. I was about to say they did a thorough job as far as they went. But they're advocates. And all of us, as you will see today, have an obligation to tell you the whole truth of these facts. So in the course of my statement today, let me tear with you some of the things they didn't tell you yesterday. And we'll have to wonder why they didn't do that. This, the evidence in this case, we believe will show that O.J. Simpson is an innocent man, wrongfully accused. Mr. Darden said yesterday that in Richmond, California, and someplace in Georgia, people were asking questions. Well, I'd like to think that in my hometown of Shreveport, Louisiana, my mother-in-law is in New Orleans, Louisiana, and other places throughout this country. Today they're asking, why did Mr. Darden spend all that time on domestic violence if this is a murder case? Why did he do that? And then when he gave you this answer, he was going to answer the question for all of America. It's a little presumptuous, don't you think? Because the answer of O.J. Simpson's guilt or innocence will only be determined by you if you're able to do it. None of us were out there on June 12, 1994. We can only deal with the witnesses as they were. And it seems to me that this case, the prosecution's case, based on what we heard and the evidence, will show this case is about a rush to judgment. An obsession to win at any cost and by any means necessary. Let me just briefly talk about the witnesses that they didn't talk about yesterday and they didn't tell you about. There's a lady who lives next door and works next door to Mr. Simpson's home on Rockingham. This lady was interviewed as far back, I think, as July. She indicated, essentially, that on this night in question, she came out to walk her dog on several occasions. She knew Mr. Simpson. She knew his voice. She knew the Bronco. She'd seen it parked there many times. She will indicate that when she came out and walked her dog at about 8 o'clock, that Bronco was parked at the curb there. And it was parked at kind of a unique angle so that she noticed it. The rear wheels were a little bit further from the curb. And when you go out there, and I think the court will probably share with you that at some point, you're going to get a chance to go out to each of these scenes to see for yourself these areas. When you come out of the Rockingham gate and you make your turn, the evidence will show it's a quick turn. And so you can't land the car up quite like you'd like to. But this lady will testify that she was out with her dog and saw that Bronco park at that particular angle at about 8 o'clock, 8.30, on June 12, 1994, Sunday evening. She will indicate to you that she heard Mr. Simpson's voice at or about the time he and Mr. Cato Kaelin went to McDonald's to get the hamburger. But she could hear, because her quarters are right across the fence there, that after he left, she heard something very strange. She heard a prowler that she described, out there in the yard, with like hard-soled shoes. And she was concerned about this prowler, is what her statement was. She relaxed when she heard Mr. Simpson return back, could hear his voice back over in the yard. But she was concerned because the people she works for were out of town at this time. She was concerned about this prowler, and we'll talk about that more later. She went about her business, and then she heard Mr. Simpson's voice again about 11 o'clock. She could hear his voice at that time, as though he was leaving. We know that's correct, because he was leaving to go on a trip to Chicago, a pre-planned trip. And then she didn't hear his voice anymore. One of the important things that she tells us is that after Mr. Simpson had left, after 11 o'clock, she heard men's voices over on the Simpson property between 12 o'clock up till about 2.30 or 3 o'clock in the morning. She heard these men's voices over there talking, and she didn't know what was going on. I hope I told you that when she came out to walk her dog at 10.15, that same night, she looked at the Bronco, and the Bronco was parked exactly the same way, at that curb, same way. When she saw the Bronco the next morning, it was parked that same spot, the same place. And one of the most unique things about this lady is the fact that the morning of June 14th, that Monday morning, a police officer came over to her residence to ask her what she'd heard, and to put her on alert that if she found any weapons, or if the gardeners found any weapons, let them know. And she can identify that officer as Detective Mark Furman. Detective Mark Furman will play an integral part in this case for a number of reasons. Now, it's very interesting that the prosecution never once mentioned his name yesterday. It's like they just want to hide him. But they can't hide him. He's very much a part of this case. We can only ask ourselves, why didn't they mention him? I think that answer will become very clear to you as the case progresses. But she will identify Detective Furman as the person who came over and spoke with her. And she told him at that time about her observations, about hearing this prowler, and about the fact that she heard these voices that went on until about 3 o'clock, because she couldn't go to sleep until about 4. And when she woke up, it was like 7.30 or 8, and he was there showing his badge through the door. And she saw him on television at the preliminary hearing. So that's how she could identify him. He said that somebody from the LAPD will get back to you. But they never came back. They never came back at all. Because there's a rush to judgment here. There's another witness, Mary Ann Gurchis. A very interesting lady. Has her own business. On this particular night, in June of 1994, June 12th again, she wanted to find a place in the West Los Angeles Brentwood area. She drove her car after she closed up her business on Sunday evening and went to Catholic Church. Went to Mass. Went and parked a car. And she came over there on Bundy. Very interesting. Well, I'll tell you what she has to say. Let me tell you her contact with law enforcement. The evidence will show that Mary Ann Gurchis, after she became aware that what she had seen had some great relevance to this case, she started calling the police. She kept being transferred and transferred around. Couldn't get anybody really to talk to her. Finally, when she finally reached the police officer, they told her, we've got that case all wrapped up. They didn't want to hear from anybody else. And then, lo and behold, she called the district attorney's office, spoke to a person whose name will be revealed during the testimony. And she didn't feel she was treated quite appropriately. In fact, she will say that the person put her on hold and said, "Excuse me, I'm talking to a psychic right now and I'll get back to you." I guess it was part of that hotline they had, so it seems, though, more interesting talking to a psychic than talking to her. So, ultimately, she called the defense, and we talked to her. Walked with her out of the scene. Here's what she will testify about. That on June 12th, 1994. Sometime after 10:30 in the evening. She's walking down Bundy. She's looking. It's a warm night, she says. She's looking for places that have signs up to rent or to lease. That Miss Nicole Brown Simpson's condo, you'll recall, is on one side of the street. That's the west side. And she's on the east side of the street. And at about 10:45 p.m. She sees four men who come within 10 feet of her. Two of which, gentlemen, appear to be Hispanic. I think the other are Caucasian. Several of which, I believe, have knit caps on their heads. The two who are behind, apparently, have something in their hands they're carrying. She thinks they may be undercover police, she doesn't know. They get into an unmarked car, and they speed away, and she sees them. And that's what this lady was trying to tell the police, trying to tell the district attorney, trying to tell anybody who would listen. But they didn't want to listen because they made their decision in this rush to judgment. There are other witnesses that I won't bother you with right now because we'll talk about them later on in the course of the opening statement that bear upon that evening. But I will share just two of you because it sets the stage for many of the remarks that Ms. Clark made yesterday. You'll recall that in her opening statement, quite well done, Ms. Clark kept telling you that she had to fix the time of death in this case at about, what'd she say, about 10:15 p.m. She had to make a 10:15 p.m. She had to make a 10:15 p.m. And she made it based upon a dog's whale. Now, this is the first case you'll ever hear where the prosecution's theory is that you've got to determine the cause of the time of death by a dog's whale. And this is the most scientific of all cases. But there's a reason why she wants that, because she wants to give enough time for her theory about O.J. Simpson to work. But we will produce for you, and hopefully all these witnesses will be available, as you're well aware. These witnesses are afraid. This could be because of all the media attention, but we're going to try to get them. And what I say to you is what these witnesses have said to us at this point. There's two people who have been to Mezzaluna Restaurant, the same restaurant, Mr. Dan Mandel and Ms. Ellen Aronson. They've been on a blind date, it's like their first date, and they're walking home. They walk home, and they come right down Bundy also. It's very interesting, as they walk down Bundy. They walk on the west side of the street, right past 875, Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson's residence. And they walk past there, and it's interesting, because as you saw from those pictures, and we all apologize if you have to look at those pictures, and certainly to the family. And we want to be as careful as we can with those pictures. But if you saw those pictures, you could see with the gate open, and you walk right past, the sidewalk comes right down, and the bodies were very visible with the gate open. They didn't see any gate open, or any bodies, or anything. And it was like 1025. 1025 at that point. So what does that do to their theory about 1015 and the dogs will? Now, who are we going to, well, I won't be argumentative. At any rate, there will be evidence that at 1025, that people who walk past, we have no axe to grind. They have nothing to do with this case, who they know about and we know about, don't see any crime having been committed. There are other witnesses who are going to testify. They don't hear any dog barking at 1015, or no plaintiff will, whatever that means. And so, in this initial phase of the opening statement, what I've tried to share with you is that all of us, it seems to me, have an obligation to share with you and be as honest and forthright as we can. In that connection, you'll recall that Ms. Clark yesterday talked on a number of occasions about the limousine driver and what he saw. You'll recall she said to you that the limousine driver, when he came and left to take Mr. Simpson to the airport, she told you that he did not see the Bronco Park there. That's not exactly what he said in his testimony at the preliminary hearing in the grand jury. And I'd like to read that to you if I might. He says this question. Did you make an effort to look and see if there were any cars there? Answer, I looked to the right to see if there were any cars coming down the street. Well, I'm asking you if you looked. [00:19:22] Speaker 4: Made an effort to see if there was a car parked. [00:19:37] Speaker 1: Answer, no. There might have been a car there and you didn't see it? Correct. Now that's under oath before the grand jury. Now let's look at the preliminary hearing. What he says there, the second time this man testified. Then did you leave? Yes. What gate did you leave from? The Rockingham gate. And which way did you go on Rockingham as you exited the gate? I made a left. So you'll have to picture that as he's coming out of that gate. He's in the driver's compartment. He's going to make a left. The Bronco would be to the right. And which way did you go on the Rockingham as you exited the gate? I made a left. Question. Did you look to see whether any cars were parked on the right side as you faced the driveway of Rockingham outside the residence? Answer. I didn't look to see. You weren't looking at the parked cars? Answer. Yeah. You were looking to see if there was traffic. Answer. Yes, of course. So, I used those examples early on to talk about our contention that there is this rush to judgment in this case. That when Ms. Clark said yesterday that they did everything they could to exclude Mr. Simpson, we're going to talk to you about the trails that they didn't pursue. It didn't go down today. We can also talk to you about this evidence, what we call the lack of integrity of much of the prosecution's evidence. You saw yesterday some pictures of this crime scene. And the crime scene was certainly bloody. We all acknowledge that. But I think you'll find the evidence will show that the LAPD in its infinite wisdom in this case assigned a trainee named Mazzola, who was the office in charge of collecting this evidence. This was her third crime scene. And contrary to what you heard yesterday from Ms. Clark, our experts, and we have a number of experts that we call to testify. In fact, one of our experts is named Dr. Carey Mullis. Let me tell you who Dr. Carey Mullis is. Dr. Carey Mullis is a DNA expert. He is the man who invented PCR. Colomerase chain reaction. He is the man who received the Nobel Peace Prize for this invention. And he will come in here and tell you about this evidence, how sensitive it is, and how these police departments are not trained in the collection and use of it. And this is, by all accounts, 21st century cyberspace technology that is being used by these police departments with covered wagon technology. And so when Ms. Clark tells you yesterday that it's possible just like cooking or doing something like that, she said she wasn't an expert, and I agree now on that, at least. She's an expert lawyer, but not in this area. The experts will say that's just not true. And so the collection of the evidence becomes very, very, very important in this case. And so, you know, when they were trying to hide Furman yesterday, there were a couple of pictures yesterday of an officer leaning down pointing at the glove and the cap and everything. And you notice that as they talked about it, that was Officer Furman. Never bothered to mention his name. Never bothered that. And so, we have then this concept of the prosecution's theories. You heard Mr. Darden stand up and tell you his theory of how this happened. And a theory is only good until the facts come along and makes clear to you what actually took place. And so, we think that if you keep an open mind, you'll be able to deal with these theories and then apply the facts, which is your job as the sole, exclusive judges of the evidence in this case. Now, Mr. Darden, when he addressed you yesterday, he spent a long period of time talking about Mr. OJ Simpson's marriage to Miss Nicole Brown Simpson. And he spent a lot of time and he told you a number of things. He told you how, for instance, that this was like a terrible marriage and that all kind of bad things happen and these people were together 17 years and was just terrible all 17 years. I think you'll find that's not exactly true. He told you how Mr. Simpson was in, how did he describe it? An ugly mood on June 12, 1994. He told you also that Mr. Simpson came there with some flowers. Well, we'll forgive him for that. Mr. Simpson didn't come with flowers. He was there. The testimony will be he was there. He left and went and got the flowers and then came back. But let me try to show you graphically Mr. Simpson with his daughter. And shall we, Your Honor, I'm now referring to a photograph and I need to check with my colleagues and I believe this will be Defendants 1 if the court would allow or A, whichever court would. Defense 1. [00:25:24] Speaker 3: Defense 1. [00:25:25] Speaker 1: Thank you, Your Honor. This is a photograph of Mr. O.J. Simpson and his sweet little daughter, Sydney Brooke Simpson, shortly after this concert at Paul Revere High School. This picture was taken, and I think you'll even see the date, you see 6-12-94. This picture was taken by a Dr. Ron Fishman who was at that particular recital. They were all friends. He will tell you that since Mr. Darden wasn't there, he's got his facts all wrong. O.J. Simpson, according to the testimony, was not in any ugly mood. He talked to Ron Fishman. He was there to see his child. And you'll hear that he came back to Southern California from New York City where he was on business. He was out of town almost all that week, specifically to try and come to this recital. He had to leave right after this to go to Chicago. He was already back east in New York. And we will produce a friend who told him, "Why don't you just stay back here?" And Mr. Simpson told him, "I missed my daughter's first communion because I was out of town on business, so I want to go to this dance recital." And that's what he did. Does that look like he's in an ugly mood to you there? And you'll see the two of them there at that point. Wherever we can, we're going to bring to you the facts versus their speculations and theories about this man. They don't know this man. The evidence, you will know him by the conclusion of this case. And so, Mr. Darden kind of apologizes at the end and says, "This isn't character assassination." You know, when somebody says that, who said it was character assassination? Because he knew that's exactly what it was. So at the very end when he said it wasn't character assassination, that's exactly what he had done for an hour to OJ Simpson. He's not charged with any domestic violence. This is a murder case. And in their pursuit to win, they're trying to dredge up some theory to give you a motive because they don't have a motive for this and these particular crimes. And who's to say that those four men we saw running from the area of 875 hadn't followed Mr. Ron Goldman there as opposed to looking for Mr. Cole Brown Simpson? Can they-- Can they-- [00:27:57] Speaker ?: Can I say? [00:27:58] Speaker 2: Your Honor, I interject once again on the grounds previously stated. This is argumentative. This is not a recitation of evidence. We've gone beyond the normal scope of opening statement. [00:28:10] Speaker 3: All right. The objection's overruled at this time. Thank you, Mr. Carter. Thank you, Carter. [00:28:14] Speaker 4: Got a little sidetrack there. [00:28:22] Speaker 1: Let me see. I think I was indicating to you who's to say based upon the facts in this case and the evidence that those four men that Marianne Gurchis will testify about hadn't followed Mr. Ron Goldman to that location. Another thing that happened yesterday that was not true that they told you. Ms. Clark told you that Mr. Ron Goldman checked out of work. He was going to come over and do a favor for Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson to bring the glasses and she described for you how he was dressed. I think she said with some white shirt and black pants or whatever that he then came over to the residence. You saw those pictures as terrible as they were. He was in some jeans and some kind of shoes that are far different. And the evidence will be he went home, dropped off a book, changed clothes before he came to Nicole Brown Simpson. But the reason that you weren't told those facts is because it's important they keep this 10-15 time. They've got to keep everything squashed in there so they can tell you, oh, he had plenty of time to commit this crime. And when we conclude today, you're going to see there was no time to commit this crime. And so, to wrap up this part about the so-called character assassination or whatever, what I'd like you to do, as with all of the evidence in this case, is to keep an open mind until you've heard both sides. They may try to bring out incidents about this marriage. And these people did divorce in 1992. And unfortunately in our society, there are far too many divorces. People don't always get along. And we sometimes get divorced. Some of you probably have gotten divorced. And it's unfortunate when that happens. But I'd like you to keep an open mind. But I think perhaps the most important thing about this whole area is this as a response to Mr. Darden. There is an expert in the United States whose name is Dr. Lenore Walker. She's, by all accounts, the number one expert in America on the field of domestic violence. She's been called by some the mother of the battered woman syndrome. Now, they didn't talk about this yesterday. But Lenore Walker will be a witness for the defense. And I want to talk to you about her and her testimony, because I think it will be relevant as we talk about Mr. Darden and what he has to say on this area. We know that Mr. Darden is not an expert in this area, and he's a lawyer conveying the facts that he understood them. But he wasn't there. Dr. Lenore Walker, this number one expert in America, perhaps in the world, in this concept, has seen and interviewed and tested Mr. Simpson. She hasn't concluded all the testing yet, but she will testify to you about the results of those tests when she's completed. But she has and does have some feelings about this case and about Mr. Darden's remarks. In fact, as an expert, she's permitted to watch Mr. Darden. And she watched him yesterday. And she was kind enough to share with me last night what her thoughts were about this theory. I'm going to tell you what the evidence is going to be. [00:32:00] Speaker 4: All right, Mr. Darden. He's going to offer to the jury Ms. Walker's feelings about my specific comments yesterday. My opening statement was not evident, Your Honor. Ms. Walker ought to confine her opinions to the evidence in the case. And this is argumentative. And it's been argumentative. Objections overruled. Thank you. [00:32:24] Speaker 1: Dr. Walker, along with a number of us in the courtroom when Mr. Darden was speaking yesterday, felt that it's offensive to women to say that they never had a job. Mr. This is argument. All right. [00:32:40] Speaker 3: You're right, Your Honor. And let me rephrase that. If she was going to testify as to her analysis of Mr. Simpson or what her testimony is going to be, that's one thing. Commentary upon Mr. Darden is something else. You're right. [00:32:51] Speaker 1: You're absolutely right about that. Let me see if I can restate that in a positive way, Your Honor. With regard to Mr. Darden's statements yesterday, you recall how Mr. Darden said that Nicole Brown Simpson never held a job and he wanted to paint this picture for her for being, you know, totally under control and being controlled by O.J. Simpson and under his thumb and that sort of thing. Well, I think that some of us would feel that somebody who raises two children, who's an excellent mother, that's a pretty major job, being a homemaker. And we'll talk about whether or not Nicole Simpson was a Barbie doll that one could just make in their own mode. Because even in Darden's statement, he said this was a strong, tough lady. I think you'll find that's what the evidence is going to be. But with regard to this whole aspect of battering, in this case, let me say up front, that Mr. Simpson is not proud at all of the fact that he and his wife got into an altercation and she was struck on January 1st, 1989. He's not proud of that. In fact, in the course of this evidence, you're going to see perhaps three letters that he wrote apologizing to his wife. But what Mr. Darden and what the evidence hasn't shown you so far was that from 1989, January 1st, 1989, I made a big thing out of that. From that day forward to the present day, there's no evidence that O.J. Simpson ever struck his wife again. You know, you should never strike your wife. But even when he made a mistake on January 1st, 1989, he paid his debt for that. He went to court and he pled no law contender. He pled no contest for that. He was sentenced to community service and he paid his debt. Now they want to retry that, I suppose. They don't tell you that. There was not any touching after that. In fact, O.J. Simpson did something else. After that incident, he was so contrite that he had a prenuptial agreement with Nicole Brown Simpson. So if they got a divorce, what her share would be. And he went and he had his lawyer put in writing, which was later signed by her, that if I ever strike you again, the prenuptial agreement is voidable. And until the date of her death, that agreement was never made void or voidable. Now those are the facts. And so when Dr. Walker comes and testifies to you, she will talk about the fact that life-threatening violence usually precedes a homicide incident. And she does not find that in this case. She will, I believe, testify that according to the National Institute of Justice, approximately two and one-half million women are battered in this country every year. An intolerable situation. Statistics indicate, however, that between 1,200 and 4,000 of those women are killed. That's 1,200 to 4,000 of the two and one-half million battered. Dr. Walker will testify that it is impossible to use these statistics to prove that anybody who allegedly batters becomes a murderer. You might liken it to an example of smoking. Somebody may get lung cancer. The fact they get lung cancer may mean they smoke and may not. But if you smoke, I can't automatically predict you're going to get lung cancer. And so this is not a predictable science, according to the lady who's the mother of this particular area. That although domestic violence is a very, very serious problem in this country, the level of violence in this case, the pattern is atypical. Atypical means untypical of those relationships where a lethal incident often occurs. For instance, stalkers don't go all across the United States working, doing commercials, shooting movies, having a new girlfriend, going out with their life, doing all the things you're going to find this evidence is about. They don't have a new girlfriend by the name of Paula Barberi, who you've been very serious about from the time from April of 1992 to April of 1993 until Nicole Brown Simpson asked to reconcile and get back together. She did it in this way. She sent to Mr. Simpson, among other things, a video of their marriage, a video of the birth of their children, accompanied by a long letter spelling out how much she wanted to get back with his family. I think you'll find that's not stalking. Mr. Simpson's response was, "You've had problems in the past. I have a girlfriend now. I'm happy. Let's take our time about this." But she pursued. She followed up on that. She pursued. She wanted to move back to Rockingham. She didn't like the housekeeper there. She wanted him to fire. Michelle is her name. And ultimately, she got into an altercation and struck Michelle. He didn't want to fire Michelle. Ultimately, Michelle did leave after being struck. It was her who pursued this in May of 1993 to May of 1994. When Darden talked to you yesterday, he didn't mention that. We will conclusively prove that to you so that when Dr. Walker talks to you about stalkers demonstrate obsessive behavior that concentrates on controlling the woman at all times and is inconsistent with making a new life, beginning a new relationship with a woman such as Paula Barberi, traveling away from home on business assignments, all of those things go against any idea of stalking that they would have you believe in this case. Dr. Walker will also tell you that there is a major, major, major difference between a wealthy person who gives gifts, someone who uses material possessions to gain power and control. And so the prosecution would have you believe that if Mr. Simpson gives Nicole Brown Simpson a gift to be bought and paid for. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let me give you an example of the testimony that will come out in this case. Before Mr. Simpson ever got married to his wife, he bought her a condominium in San Francisco and paid $500,000 for it and gave it to her free and clear in her name. So she could have money up to $3,000 a month. He never, ever saw any of that money, wanted that money, there were no strings attached. This is before they got married. And later on in this discussion I'm going to talk to you about what I call his circle of benevolence. Those who have come within the ambit and sphere of O.J. Simpson and his philanthropic largesse, what he's done for them. And there are many other things. This $500,000 condo free and clear, he then gave her some more money to buy the condo on Bundy. These are all her own separate things, while they're still separated. He asked for no control, she had her own bank accounts. He gave her $4,000 a month for food at the house. And he paid all of the bills when they were together. Let me talk about this circle of benevolence while we're on it right now. It extended not just to Mr. Nicole Brown Simpson, but to her family, to Mr. Lou Brown. He helped him become a Hertz licensee at the Ritz-Carlton in Laguna Beach for seven years. The sisters, Dominique, he paid the tuition for Dominique for a couple of years at USC until she dropped out. Paid the tuition for Tanya, the other sister, I think, to San Diego State for a year or so until she dropped out. There's a cousin, Rolf Bauer, who worked for seven years in Mr. O.J. Simpson's chicken franchise, pioneer chicken franchises. The mother, Judith, was a travel agent. He gave her his business and encouraged his friends to do likewise. This man had a great relationship with his in-laws. He did wonderful things for them. Took them all on trips. Paid their way. Took them all out to dinner. They'd go to Hawaii and Cabo San Lucas. This is the same man that Mr. Darden was talking to you about. Mr. Darden says that she never worked. O.J. Simpson encouraged her to become a decorator. She became a decorator. He helped her get jobs from his friends. She redecorated the Rockingham House to the tune of one-half million dollars. And he paid her. He paid his own wife a fee to decorate the house. This man that Darden was talking about. This man gives $5,000 every year to the Angel City Links, an inner city black organization. And the condition of his gift every year is it has to be anonymous. That he doesn't want to know he does that. The thing that he's perhaps proudest about are these next two things I'm going to tell you about. Number one is his mother Eunice Simpson there. As soon as he was able, he bought her a house. She still lives in that house in San Francisco. This is a man, 47 years old, who grew up in the poor areas of San Francisco and Potrero Hill. But he never forgot. Became rich and famous, but he didn't forget. So that to this day, he buys the uniforms for the kids at the Potrero Hill Gymnasium, where the kids go to work out. He still does that. Even right now. Even while in his jail cell. Bought his mother's house. You'll hear about those kinds of things. And the second thing he's most important and proud about is that he had a child who drowned at a young age. That's always a tragedy. You'll hear evidence about that. And the pronounced effect that it had upon him. And after that, he became involved in all these kind of pediatric endeavors. And he has participated in raising hundreds of thousands of dollars for Camp Goodtime. For kids who have cancer. He's very proud about that. There's testimony and evidence about that. People who know him, not people who speculate about him, will come in and testify about those things. And so, when Dr. Walker tells you that for a wealthy person to give gifts doesn't mean you're exercising any control. One of the sisters needed some money, up to $5,000. And he gave it to the sister and her boyfriend. And the condition was, don't tell Nicole. It's a lot of control, isn't it? So, when you hear about theories, I'm going to tell you about the facts. So, you'll hear from Dr. Walker and you'll hear ultimately about the battery of tests. And I think you'll find that she will say that in looking at O.J. Simpson and interviewing him, and looking at him at this point, she finds no evidence of antisocial personality disorder. I think you'll find that becomes very important in this case. And understand that this is no Janie come lately. This is the leading lady in America who testifies in these kind of cases where a battered woman shoots and kills her husband. So, this is an area where, obviously, you get a chance to see her qualifications and her ability as she goes about this. Now, back to Mr. Darden's discussion. It tells you a number of things that I'd like to address, at least some of them, with you now. We've already covered the so-called ugly mood by showing you the photograph. We've covered the aspect of the flowers, because Mr. Simpson did get flowers, but he went out and got those flowers. We'll cover the aspects. Let me talk to you about Mr. Simpson at that particular recital. I've told you how he came back to California specifically to go to that recital. That he'd come in to Paul Revere at about five o'clock and saw his ex-wife. He had to get his ticket and take his ticket back to the person at the door. That his daughter was 30-something on the program. You've been to those programs where your child is going to come up and she's like, there's probably a hundred people there, and your child is like 99th, and you have to be very interested until you get there. So this was like 30-something, and she was at the very end. But as law parents, you kind of sit there and you're really proud of the youngsters and you do that. As the program was going, he remembered that he didn't have any flowers. So when he first got there and he was sitting, he was two seats away from his ex-wife, Mr. Cole Brown Simpson. He wasn't staring at anybody. He wasn't glaring at anybody. He wasn't jealous about anything. In fact, you'll hear the conversation he had with Ron Goleman. He was still in the group. There was a group of them who ran around together in Brentwood. And O.J. Simpson was commiserating with Ron Goleman about his problems he was having. Please forgive me. Ron Fishman. Excuse me. I heard those sounds. I'm sorry about that. Thank you. Ron Fishman. He's the man who took this picture here. He was talking about his problems with Cora Fishman and the group that ran around together. The testimony will be that he was saying, "I'm glad to be out of it. I'm back with Paula." And was he back with Paula? Yes, he's back with Paula. The night before, before this trial is over, we'll have another picture, but this picture will do for now. By the way, this is Mr. Douglas is going to help us because there are some graphics and things. Hope you'll bear with us. Thank you, Mr. Douglas. I thought we had agreed that it would be defense one, two, three, four. [00:47:59] Speaker 2: I think the clerk is not changing. Right. [00:48:06] Speaker 3: But we're going to have so many, Mrs. Robertson. I thought we'd agree on this. For now, we'll call it defense two. And Mrs. Robertson will explain to me the error of my ways at lunchtime. [00:48:27] Speaker 4: Do you want a chair? No, I'm not. Oh, I see. [00:48:33] Speaker 1: Then this is the 201. And number 201 is another example of O.J. Simpson. This photograph, there'll be testimony, was taken on June 11th, on Saturday, June 11th. It is a charitable fundraiser. I think $25,000 a plate, by the way, for, to the benefit of Israel. And that's O.J. Simpson there. Now, that night, on Saturday, June 11th, he went with his girlfriend, Paula Barberi, who had picked him up at the airport on Friday evening, June 10th, and he came back from working in the East from New York. They spent that time together, and they went out Saturday evening. And so, this picture, again, is graphic evidence of O.J. Simpson, and who he really is, it seems, to us. As I said, there is another picture of Paula Barberi with him there that we don't have yet, but that we will. Now, Mr. Darden talked a lot about Ms. Simpson being weak and that he exercised all this control over her and picked her friends. The evidence will show that Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson was a very strong, independent woman. A very attractive and an excellent and wonderful mother. The one thing they never fought over and never had any arguments about were those children. But they both mutually loved those beautiful children. And that was very, very important, it seems, to both of them. That she picked and chose her own friends. That Moe J. Simpson or no one else could tell her who her friends were to be. She had whatever friends she wanted. She did whatever she wanted. He tells you about two incidents where he alleges they're stalking. Let me tell you the facts and the true facts about those incidents. Backed up with witnesses. There's a man in Los Angeles named Joe Stolini, who owns a restaurant on the west side, out on Pico. He's a good friend of O.J. Simpson's. They went out to dinner one night. And while out to dinner, they became aware of Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson and their party. This was the time when they were separated. And they had an agreement, generally, that if one or the other came in while they were there, the friend who was there first would leave or whatever. There wouldn't be any problems. The incident regarding Joe Stolini had nothing to do with Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson or her party. They went out to dinner. They might frequent the same kinds of places. You'll hear from Joe Stolini. And you'll see there was not anything about any stalking. The other incident was about Mezzaluna, I believe. It was an incident where they both were at this restaurant. Mr. Simpson's party had already been seated when he came in. And again, you'll hear from these parties who would tell you that these were not any stalking incidents. If you live in Brentwood and there are hot restaurants in that area and you go out to dinner a lot, you're going to run into each other. And there was no hostility, no stalking, no jealousy, no nothing. And so he tries to paint O.J. Simpson as a jealous man. Let me tell you what the evidence is going to be about that. You heard about this incident of Keith Zolomowitz. I'm sure there's a witness who's going to be called. Mr. Gardner described it. Remember he said yesterday, well, he didn't punch out Nicole and he didn't punch out Keith or words of that effect. He certainly didn't. What happened was, Mr. Simpson, in one of these incidents, had seen his ex-wife out. They went out dancing afterwards. He stopped by our house afterwards to try to talk to her. He would go back and woo her on occasion. And the evidence will be that when they first broke up, he was advised in January of 1992 that she wanted a divorce. Between January and April of 1992, it was hard on him. I've been married to somebody for 17 years and he didn't want to lose her. He likes family. He learned that from his mother and he's got this close-knit family. And he likes that. He loved his children. He didn't want to lose his wife. But something happened in April of 1992. As soon as he became aware that she had a boyfriend. From that point on, his interests changed and he went on. And when he saw what he saw with Keith and Mrs. Simpson, he then went on with his life with Paula. That's when it started, in April of 1992. And so, what happened was he wasn't peering any windows. He came to the front door to try to see his wife. And he looked in and he saw his wife. Making love to a gentleman on that couch. Now, according to Chris Darden, wouldn't you expect that he would just blow up, become ballistic? He went home. The evidence will be. He came back the next day to talk to Mrs. Simpson about the fact that the kids were upstairs. And what he saw them doing, he didn't think would be appropriate. One of the kids came downstairs. And so, when he came back on the next day of this incident, he saw Keith, I think, sitting astride Miss Nicole Brown Simpson giving her a massage or something in her shoulders. O.J. Simpson talked to both of them, shook Keith's hand, went on his way and said essentially, look, I don't think you should be doing this in front of the kids or whatever. They didn't tell you that Keith Zlamowicz moved in with Nicole that summer. But O.J. Simpson was back with Paula. Didn't bother him. He knew she was there. That Keith was there. [00:54:32] Speaker ?: Was he stalking? [00:54:33] Speaker 1: Was he jealous? Was that a rage? I think not. So, again, I want you to take these facts and look at them. But there's an even more painful incident, probably, that tells you that he's not jealous. He has a very close friend. Somebody who's very near and dear to him. The evidence will show he had a relationship with Nicole Brown Simpson. Because she told him so when they got back together. And this gentleman told him so. And it was hurtful. But he never said a harsh word to her or this gentleman. He didn't go ballistic. He didn't do any of those things. In fact, you know what he did? He let this gentleman get married at his Rockingham house. After learning this gentleman had been intimate with his wife. That's what O.J. Simpson did on that occasion. [00:55:40] Speaker 3: The gentleman, we're going to take a ten minute recess. Love the tie. Love the suspenders. All right. Let's take a ten minute recess, ladies and gentlemen, if you'll just step back into the jury room. And we'll resume in ten minutes. [00:56:06] Speaker ?: All right. [00:56:07] Speaker 3: Back on the record. And the Simpson matter. All parties and counsel are again present. The jury is not present. Counsel will take up at noon. Apparently, the public information office has received several comments. Apparently, jurors are visible in the reflection off of the bailiff cubicle there. I have looked at the videotape. It does not appear apparent to me, but I only took about 30 seconds to look at it. We'll look into it at noon. But I just thought I'd let you. Don't go away. [00:56:39] Speaker 1: Well, I guess I could put a spot there, but there's security concerns today, right? No. [00:56:43] Speaker 3: What I'm going to do is I'm going to take hairspray so that it won't reflect is what I'm going to do. But rather than have everybody move while I hairspray it, we'll -- All right. Deputy McNair, let's have the jurors, please. And Mr. Cochran, I'll allow you to -- if you want to slop over a couple of minutes there, but close to 12, you know, conclude your thought. My guess is we're -- if I had to guess, that was the introduction. [00:57:27] Speaker 1: I'm sorry. Yeah, we've got a little -- we've got -- it'll be this afternoon. You're worried about witnesses? We're leaving at 3:30 today, you judge? Yeah. I'll make sure I finish before then. [00:57:36] Speaker 4: And I will. [00:57:37] Speaker 3: That's all right. I'll -- you know. All right. Here are the jurors. [00:57:44] Speaker 4: Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much. [00:57:47] Speaker 1: I wanted to try to pick up where we left off. To conclude, there's remarks about this friend. I think that speaks volumes about Mr. Simpson, his stability, his relationship with his ex-wife. I think the evidence will also show that in about May of 1992, Mr. Cole Brown Simpson came over to the Rockingham House. And said she'd found a boyfriend. Somebody different than Keith, where the incident was April of 1992. And said -- and asked Mr. Simpson for some advice. He, of course, knew at that point that it was over and he was back with Paula and went on with his life. As I said, until such time as in 1993, she decided she wanted to get back together at that point. Now, to clear up -- I want to always keep the faith with you about being as accurate as I can -- the two incidents that they talked about. On the one incident involving the man Joe Stilini, that was at Mezzaluna. The other incident was a restaurant called Trist. In both incidents, there was no problem, no fight. In fact, in the Trist incident, I believe it was, the Mezzaluna incident, Mr. Simpson went home with his wife that night. So that there was not any incident where they were stalking or fighting or anything like that. There was no obsessive behavior. I hope that we put those in some kind of perspective. Mr. Darden talked in his opening statement about a 1985 incident in which some damage was done to a vehicle. And as I understand it, the testimony will be that it was not any incident in 1985 because Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson was pregnant, had a C-section later in that year, and they didn't have any situation like that. We did have some discussion, apparently, maybe in '86 or in '84. There was some damage done to a car, and she was not in that car. She was not struck on that occasion. So I think you'll find an incident of not great consequence. And Mr. Darden talked about the 1993 9-1-1 tape that you've heard so much about. And I think even he conceded yesterday that in that situation, although you could hear Mr. Simpson's voice, and he was angry, Mr. Simpson never laid a hand on his wife, never called her a name. And I think the important thing about a trial is that finally you're going to get to hear all of this tape. And what you're going to hear, and Mr. Darden didn't tell you this yesterday, is that there was a discussion on this 9-1-1 tape. And he alluded to the fact that Mr. Simpson couldn't get out of his mind what he'd seen back on April 1992. Well, now, first of all, most of us might have a problem getting that picture out of our mind of seeing your wife making love to someone else. But at any rate, this wasn't the reason for the argument. What had happened was, and the facts will be, that when they started trying to get back together again in '93, they had an agreement that they would take the pictures of their boyfriends and girlfriends out of the... You know, he'd put them away, basically, which seemed to be a reasonable request. And there was a dispute, because when Ms. Brown Simpson would ever see Paula Barberi's picture, she was very upset about that. And Mr. Simpson, on this date, I believe, saw a picture of somebody that she had dated during the time they'd been separated. And he said, "Gee, what's fair for me would be fair for you." And they got into this conversation that went over a period of time. At some point, it was just a verbal conversation that escalated, and tempers flare. It sometimes happens with married couples. It doesn't make it right, but sometimes it happens. He came over to her house, and he did, in fact, kick a French door. The evidence will be the door was already broken, and he fixed it. But he never, at any time, struck his wife during this period of time. And what he was saying, at some point, she says, "O.J., O.J., be quiet. What about the kids?" And he says, essentially, "You weren't thinking about the kids and being quiet when you were on the couch with Keith." And I think you'll hear that on the tape. So you put it in perspective, and the important point to make is that nobody was ever injured during this period of time. In fact, there is a tape recording and a transcript from some police officers who came out and talked with these parties. And in that tape, you'll get a chance to hear what Ms. Brown Simpson thought about that incident. And they also talked to O.J., who waited there for him. He agreed to fix that door. And they went on with their lives. They went on and continued during that period of time to get along. This was the time they were back together. You should note that Mr. Simpson, because of how he's conducted his life and the things he's done in his life, has been able to amass some assets. Not bad for a young man, a spindly-legged youth from San Francisco, who suffered with rickets, who had trouble walking, was cared for by his mother, who grew up to become the greatest running back in the history of the National Football League. And so, because of that and his commercial endorsements and things, he's able to have several homes. He has a home in New York. And the evidence will be that in August of each year, because of his commitments with NVC, he would go and live in New York. And so he wouldn't try to control Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson. I mean, she would do what she wanted to while he was here. Even during '93, he was living in New York from, like, August to, like, January. Maybe after the Super Bowl or whatever, till August to January. He'd be back there at his New York house. He also had a house in Laguna Beach in Orange County. And one thing I forgot to tell you about the circle of benevolence. He assisted his wife in buying a condo in Laguna for herself, separate from his house. So when she was at Rockingham, she had two condos in her own name. One in Laguna, one in San Francisco that she's getting money from, and living at Rockingham. They didn't tell you about that. He also had bought some property in Cabo San Lucas, where he planned to build. All of the things that he was doing was about the family. Like keeping the family together. Like doing things with in-laws, and with friends, and with the children. So I think you'll hear evidence about the fact that he was away at great periods of time. And while I'm about that, let me tell you about the kind of schedule this man had. You won't be able to see his calendar yet. But at some point, hopefully we will. If you went back and looked at Mr. O.J. Simpson's daily calendar from January to June of 1994, you found a man that in January was out of town and probably still living in New York almost every day. But he was out of New York because he was traveling. Some of you who know this is Super Bowl week, you can imagine that he was in Atlanta that week because that's what the Super Bowl was last year. That the evidence will be that this was a time that he and his wife were trying to make it. That he took some family members, the Browns from Germany, to the Super Bowl in Atlanta. Paid for all of them. Got them 50 yard seats. Took them to all the big parties that are going on this week. He was again out of town during almost all of that particular month. If you looked at his calendar and you're able to be testimony that in February, he spent a lot of time in Cabo San Lucas. He was in Nashville, in St. Louis, in Miami. In Miami again, involved in charitable work. A few days when you find he was even here in Los Angeles. If you looked at March, you'd find that he was in New York. He was doing Brian Gumbel's charitable golf tournament in Orlando, Florida. He was back in New York again. He was all over the country doing various and sundry things. He got to the month of April. He was back in Cabo. From there he came back to Los Angeles. Then he went to Puerto Rico. Evidence will be that he, some of you know, he's an actor. A would-be actor. And that he made this movie, Frogman, during that period of time in Puerto Rico. Again, very much out of California. And in May, with the exception of some things that he came to do for his children. And by the way, again, talking about the kind of things that he would do at Rockingham. And you'll see this place at Rockingham. On May 22nd, he had a school picnic at Rockingham. He had a number of kids. And I think that's for the Sunshine Preschool. That is where his son Justin went. It was a fundraiser for this school. They have all these kids and all the people who would come to his house at Rockingham to raise money for the school. On May 22nd, he did that. And Nicole Brown Simpson was there. And even though they had agreed in May, earlier that month in May, and he was now back with Paula. When Nicole Brown Simpson got sick the week of May 15th, 1994, she had pneumonia. O.J. Simpson was the one who took her soup and tried to nurse her back to get her back on her feet. Even though they agreed they weren't going to be together anymore. You heard testimony with regard to that. And he continued, of course, being in and out of town. In June of 1994, he'd had and had taken his two children, Sydney and Justin. And let me say something at this point. Mr. Simpson has two other children that he's equally proud of. The minors cannot be here, obviously, for obvious reasons. Mr. Simpson has two other children that he's equally proud of. And they're here in court today. And there's Arnel Simpson over there and Jason Simpson, sitting between his two sisters. Carmelita Duro and Shirley Baker and the balance of the family. And you've met Mr. Eunice Simpson already. So he, on May 5th, attended a pediatric AIDS affair. Again, his interest in children and AIDS and charitable work, along with Paula. And he took the two younger children. It was a real fine day. And that was on that Sunday. On that Tuesday, he left to go to Washington, D.C. Again, he left town. He had to work. On Wednesday, he was working for Hertz in Washington, D.C. On Thursday, he's in Connecticut, working again, at one of his board meetings. He's on these various boards. Some charitable, some profitable, hopefully. He was in Connecticut. On Friday and Thursday night, he was in New York with his friend Bender. And he'd work, and he'd try to play golf during these periods of time. You'll recall I mentioned that Mr. Bender had suggested you're going to be in Chicago on Tuesday. Or Monday night. [01:09:44] Speaker ?: Stay over. [01:09:45] Speaker 1: He came home for the recital. And when you see his calendar, you'll see it's planned all the way out. Far beyond June, of course, of 1994. But it gives you a sense of this man, this man's life. What he'd been able to do with his life and with himself. I point out these things to you. Because I think as you look at all of the incidents that Mr. Darden talked about, it puts them in perspective. This is not a case about domestic abuse. It's a murder case. It's a murder case about who did these horrible crimes. That's going to be your decision. Not to think that O.J. Simpson's a bad guy, or a good guy, for that matter. But to get a picture of him. I think that you'll agree with me that after you hear the facts, you'll have a clearer picture. Now, about the 19, we talked about the 1993 incident, I think we did. And I think that's, those are the main incidents that Mr. Darden talked about. One thing I wanted to point out to you is that there will be, I believe, testimony that as these parties got a divorce, as so often happens, Mr. Nicole Brown Simpson had her deposition taken. And she made a statement in that deposition with regard to whether or not he'd ever physically struck her after the '89 incident. It'll be interesting to hear what that is. That this Mark Furman becomes even more relevant in this case as we go along and discuss it. Because he was the officer who had supposedly responded, he says, in '85. There's evidence that the incident involving the Bat and the Mercedes was not in '85 because she was pregnant. But he writes a report four years later in '89 saying he had an indelible impression of Mr. O.J. Simpson and coming to that location. An indelible impression. So we'll have to pursue what that means in this report that he wrote about that incident some four years later and whether or not it was accurate. It was not done contemporaneously with the incident. Mr. Darden also said to us that this was not a tabloid prosecution. Well, that's interesting, isn't it? He used those words, didn't he? He said, first of all, this wasn't character assassination, which we now know it was. And he says it's not a tabloid prosecution. Well, I think the evidence will be that after this book that you've heard about from this so-called friend Faye Resnick came out, that's when the people started getting all these witnesses who wanted to come forward, talk about these incidents. So whether or not it's a tabloid prosecution is not for me to say, it's going to be for you to say. Let me say this about Faye Resnick. [01:12:31] Speaker 2: Counselor. [01:12:32] Speaker ?: Counselor. [01:12:32] Speaker 2: I'm sorry to interrupt. Okay. Your Honor, once again, my objection has been previously noted. [01:12:41] Speaker 3: I caution you, Mr. Carpenter, about what you're just about to launch into, because there's not -- that person's not on the witness list. And when you say, let me tell you about somebody, I'm concerned. You're right. [01:12:54] Speaker 1: You're right. If there's a possibility that -- All right. [01:12:57] Speaker 3: I think we should hear these objections at the sidebar. However, Mr. -- [01:13:01] Speaker 1: I'll tell you, let's do it without reporting. I think we need to apologize, okay? Please. I talked just briefly about this witness, Faye Resnick. And you may or may not hear from her. She's on our witness list. There's a possibility. I objected, Your Honor. There's only a possibility. [01:13:17] Speaker ?: Cancel. Overruled. [01:13:18] Speaker 1: The reason why I think the evidence will show and will be relevant to you is that on or about June 3rd of 1994, Faye Resnick, who had had a long-time relationship with a Dr. Christian Reichardt, whom we will definitely be calling, they'd been living together for a long time. And because of her drug usage, because of the fact she was freebasing cocaine, he put her out, literally. They broke up. She was one of these parties who they ran in this circle out there in Brentwood. And when she was put out on June 3rd, which I think was a Friday, she then moved over and lived with Nicole Brown Simpson. Because they were friends. They would go out at night. These were all friends. The evidence will be these ladies would go out two, three, four nights a week and stay out till five o'clock in the morning. Nobody was controlling these women. There's a group of them, and you'll hear about it. They'd go out dancing. They'd do whatever they would do. And we know Faye Resnick was using drugs in this period of time. It got so bad, the evidence will be that on June 8th, 1994, they had what we call an intervention. That Nicole and Christian Reichardt and her former husband Paul Resnick all got together to try and convince her that she had to go into a drug treatment facility called Exodus. And on the 8th of June. Excuse me, counsel. I'm sorry. [01:14:51] Speaker 2: Once again. Your Honor, you had asked us or given us leave to address these issues. Overruled. Please be seated. At the noon hour. Please be seated. Very well. [01:15:00] Speaker ?: Thank you. [01:15:00] Speaker 1: Goes into a drug treatment facility on June 8th. And she remains there, and she's there on June 12th. And I think you hear from the evidence that she is one of the people who calls Miss Nicole Brown Simpson on the night of June 12th. Perhaps after 9 o'clock, that particular night, from this drug treatment facility. We'll be talking about that and her role in this whole drama. To conclude then, what I've tried to do in this opening statement is to lay out for you the fact that in almost everything you hear in this case, there are two sides. That as jurors, I'm sure you're not going to rush to judgment. That this should not be a case about character assassination. And I hope you will keep an open mind until you hear all of the evidence as it relates to who Mr. Simpson is. Now shifting our attention now to the discussion, the very able discussion, of Miss Marsha Clark yesterday. It seemed to me, as you summarized what she had to say to you, that her argument broke down, or, well, it was argument at the end, but her opening statement broke down into a discussion of timeline and so-called evidence trails. Let me, first of all, talk to you about the concept of the timeline. We've talked a little bit about that. And let me tell you what she didn't tell you about. And some of this we'll cover, so I won't be redundant. But there are witnesses like the lady who lived next door to Mr. Simpson. There's a Mr. Tom Lang that she knows about and didn't tell you about, who on this particular night, June 12, 1994, is walking his dog on a street called Dorothy Street. Right down the way from Mr. Cole Brown Simpson's condo at 875. That from his vantage point, just a short distance, on the corner, he looked up and he saw a lady that he believes was Miss Nicole Brown Simpson. Either embracing someone at a vehicle at the curb, and behind Mr. Simpson, he saw a man that he described as a Hispanic or Caucasian standing with his hands clenched, standing there looking as though he was angry. And he didn't know why this man was looking like this. And this is about 10 o'clock on June 12. Whether he was angry because Mr. Lang didn't know whether he was angry because his dog was loose or what. But again, this is what I expect his testimony to be. This is at 10 o'clock. And he sees a lady that he believes is Nicole Brown Simpson at that point. I talked to you briefly before about Ellen Aronson and Dan Mandel, who she didn't talk to, but she's talked to them, but she didn't talk about them yesterday, as they walk past this place. Right at about 10:25 or thereabouts. Then there's another witness whose name is Robert Heidstra. Robert Heidstra is in an alley one street over. But when you go out there, you'll be able to see how well you can hear late at night, especially on a Sunday night at this location. And Mr. Heidstra, according to his statements, is walking in this alley. And now it's about 10:35 or 10:40 as he walks parallel to where the Bundy residence is. He would be then looking west. He hears the sound of, like, arguing. And he hears someone or a voice say, "Hey, hey, hey." And he hears the sound of a fence closing. And he continues on walking his dog. Now this is at 10:40 or thereabouts. And you know then at 10:45, Marianne Gurchis sees these four men running from 8:75 down toward her direction. And she believes they're coming after her at that point. In her statement to you yesterday, Ms. Clark talked to you a lot about Alan Park. And I read you some of his transcripts, some of his testimony that you didn't hear about. And I think there will be considerably more with regard to Mr. Park and to Mr. Cato, Cato Kalin. An interesting man. And I think that it will be interesting when you hear from Mr. Cato Kalin about Mr. Simpson and how he appeared that night. Just before we wrap up for lunch, I think the evidence will show you that in order to believe that O.J. Simpson committed these horrible murders, you'd have to believe that he came back from back east where he'd been working, to come to his daughter's recital. He attended that recital. You see his picture there. He was home getting ready for a trip to Chicago that had been long pre-planned, that he was hungry. And the evidence will be that he didn't have any dollar bills or $20 bills, that he asked to borrow some money from Cato Kalin. Cato Kalin gave him this money. He went and had a Big Mac. You'd have to believe that he was planning to kill his wife, either before he got this Big Mac, or then went and got the Big Mac, that Cato Kalin will describe. He was dressed in some kind of sweat clothes and some tennis shoes. If you follow the people's case, you'd have to believe that he then came home and said, "Gee, I think what I'll do is I'll go over and kill my wife now, and I think I'll take these tennis shoes off and put on some dress shoes, some hard-soled shoes and change clothes, knowing he's going to be leaving shortly to go to the airport." And then you'd have to believe that, to believe their theory. And then to make their theory work, they spent all this time talking about the plaintiff whale of a dog. Because they've got to make this as early as possible at 10:15. We know that that's not correct, based upon the facts that you've heard. And to conclude, isn't it interesting that in all of the discussion yesterday by these two very excellent lawyers, they never once mentioned their coroner, Dr. Golden. He's another mysterious mystery witness they don't want to talk about. And when we come back this afternoon, let's talk about why the prosecution doesn't want you to know about Dr. Golden. And let's talk about when Ms. Clark says, "Well, you can't really fix the time of death here with any precision." We will have testimony from one of the leading pathologists in the United States, Michael Batten, who's also worked for the L.A. County District Attorney's Office, who's written a book about the John Belushi death. He was able to pinpoint the time of death to within one hour. And yet in this case, because the coroner was not called for 10 hours after these bodies were found, or eight hours, and they got out there about 10 hours, violating the state law, we are precluded from pinpointing this. And they have to tell you that it's about a dog's whale when a man's life is at stake. We'll pick up after lunch, Your Honor. [01:22:56] Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Cochran. All right, ladies and gentlemen, we will stand in recess for the jury until 1:30. Let me speak to counsel after the jury has departed. All right, let's clear the courtroom, please. [01:23:10] Speaker 2: I thought Mr. Cochran was hiding from me, and perhaps Willie should. Okay, no, I see you, Mr. Cochran. And, Your Honor, let me say this. I was about to say you asked me to examine the record for instances of inappropriate remarks for an opening statement. I want to make the people's position absolutely clear this afternoon with regard to when objections are likely to be opposed because I want to give Mr. Cochran fair notice. What we heard in large part this morning was not an opening statement, but could very well pass for argument. And, if given an argument, would not be objectionable. But this morning, and as I stated to the court, I am reluctant in any case to interfere with opposing counsel's opening statement. It was with great restraint this morning that I did object to a number of clearly objectionable remarks made by Mr. Cochran. I will highlight those in just a few moments. However, Your Honor, what the people are seeking this afternoon is, first of all, an admonition to Mr. Cochran not to engage in argument in the guise of an opening statement. Secondly, with regard to various passages, which I will highlight and pinpoint for the court in just a moment, I am going to be asking for a motion to strike and, in addition, an admonition to the jury to disregard such statements, because not only are they not evidence, but they are improper remarks for an opening statement, and the jury should be so advised. In addition, Your Honor, after I address the opening statement issue, I have an additional issue to raise with regard to discovery, because it appears we are about to revisit the events of Monday to some degree. I will begin, Your Honor, by stating generally, many of Mr. Cochran's remarks were in the form of a rhetorical question. Many of his remarks were in the form of a personal attack on my colleagues, Ms. Clark and Mr. Darden. Such remarks are not fitting, nor are they appropriate in an opening statement. Absolutely, 100%, not fitting, not appropriate. Let me give you just a few examples, and I have to cite to the reference that we were given off the disc that the court reporters were able to provide us. For instance, and I cite to what appears to be 0553 of this morning's transcript, where the defense argues that this case is about a rush to judgment, an obsession to win at any cost, by any means necessary. Your Honor, such a remark is fitting for argument, perhaps not fitting for an opening statement. Clearly, that is outside the bounds. And again, Your Honor, I... [01:26:17] Speaker 3: Well, Mr. Hodgman, how does that compare to Mr. Darden's argument that the issue is that you have to establish the relationship and that the person who is guilty of this crime is a life-beater, batterer, controller, blah, blah, blah. Sounds like the same argument to me. [01:26:33] Speaker 2: Well, does the court intend to make an equity call? I'm simply posing to the court things that I found to be objectionable. [01:26:42] Speaker 3: No, the problem, Mr. Hodgman, here's the problem. Each side has to present what their theory of the case is. That involves some type of short explanation as to what that argument is going to be, and here's the evidence that's going to back up our theory of the case. That's opening statement. [01:26:59] Speaker 2: And I understand that, Your Honor, and you stated a short... Yes. And I would submit to the court that, based on what we heard this morning, that line got crossed very, very early on. [01:27:14] Speaker 3: All right, we'll continue. Mr. Hodgman, let me do this. And please forgive me for interrupting you again, but we did discuss this also informally. My suggestion is that we do this. Because we have to break early for one of the juror's medical appointments this afternoon, let me let you put these matters on the record when we conclude. Let me just caution at this time, Mr. Cochran, because I did mention to him that I felt that we were about to cross over the line into argument. You can tell them what the theory is. Mr. Hodgman, they are entitled to say that the prosecution has indicated this is their theory of the case and how they're going to proceed. And he's entitled to say this is what we're going to present to counter that. And he gets to explain how they get to do that. Now, I agree with you that evaluating it and telling, saying that your case is trash for this reason or that reason, that gets into argument. I agree. Okay. All right. I will be more, I, I, my feeling was that the defense gave both Mr. Darden and Ms. Clark widely weigh in arguing and presenting their opening statements. All right. [01:28:30] Speaker 2: But what the defense didn't do yesterday, your honor, was engage in rhetorical attacks upon opposing counsel, such as, you know, why didn't Mr. Darden tell you about this yesterday? Why didn't Ms. Clark, uh, state something else yesterday? I agree. Mr. Mr. -- I agree. I agree. [01:28:49] Speaker 3: Argumentative and -- I agree. Okay. So what can be said is that the prosecution did not complete -- did not give you a complete picture. We're going to add this piece, this piece, and this piece for a clear picture. I think Mr. Cochran can phrase it that simply without referring to what the prosecution said. [01:29:07] Speaker ?: Okay. [01:29:08] Speaker 2: We have additional language. And I raise this now, your honor. I will detail these objections more clearly at the time suggested by the court. But time and time again, Mr. Cochran stated this morning, and you would have to believe, and you would have to believe, and then you would have to believe time and time again, which again, your honor, this goes to argument, not to opening statement. Opening statement is supposed to be a recitation of the evidence that they expect to produce. And what you have clearly is argument. This is entirely inappropriate language, your honor. [01:29:38] Speaker 3: Counsel, I've chosen to caution Mr. Cochran. I can tell by his response to me, he takes my caution seriously. Although I'm beginning to feel like the Rodney Dangerfield of judges these days. In fact, I'll have to call Barry Langberg later today. But Mr. Cochran, you will take seriously my caution. Absolutely. All right. I just want to get the ball rolling today because we have a short-court day. And your honor, and I agree with you. [01:30:06] Speaker 2: And the only reason I raise this now so that we can have appropriate opening statement this afternoon. Reference to hearsay. I lodged my objection this morning. I trust that the court and counsel understand the basis for that. I would point out as well that based upon the record produced thus far in this case, that reference to Mark Furman by name should not have been made. Based upon, no, I am referring to page 11479 of the record. This is Monday, January 23rd. The court states, I am precluding the defense from making mention of Detective Furman during the course of their opening statement. Solely on the basis of the fact of the late turning over of other statements of Kathleen Bell today. [01:30:54] Speaker 3: I thought that was pretty clear, Your Honor. What happened later in the record, there was a request for clarification. I indicated that they could not mention Detective Furman in the context of Kathleen Bell. They could mention his participation in the investigation. However, they could not, in opening statement, mention the Kathleen Bell aspect. There was a later clarification in the record. [01:31:18] Speaker 2: Very well, Your Honor. We'll stand by that clarification. Then the last point I'll raise, and I will raise this in greater detail this afternoon. I know the court wants to move along. And that is the discovery issue. I can point out two names in particular this morning that were mentioned in the defense opening statement. Marianne Gurchies and Joe Stilini. These are names which are on the defense witness list. But the way Mr. Cochran referred to these witnesses this morning, it was evident that these witnesses have been interviewed, that there have to be statements outstanding someplace. Now, we have gone through this over the past couple days. The defense is supposed to disgorge witness statements to the people. [01:31:57] Speaker 3: And, Your Honor. I have in my notes that these are items as well that I was concerned about. [01:32:02] Speaker 2: And I share the court's concern, Your Honor. I share the court's concern for this reason. Because, as we have stated throughout these proceedings, going back to late June and early July in municipal court and security court. [01:32:17] Speaker 3: Please forgive me. I recognize it as a discovery issue. We'll take it up as soon as we get the jurors on their way at 3:30. Then we'll have a full hour that we can sit and talk about this. I am concerned and I do recognize it as a discovery issue. And I'm going to make further inquiry. Very well, Your Honor. [01:32:35] Speaker 2: What I'm concerned about is the prospective aspect this afternoon when Mr. Cochran speaks. What else are we going to hear about? The people are being denied the right to a fair trial, Your Honor. That is what's occurring. This is surprise. The court sees the issue. The court sees and senses are concerned. It is happening in opening statement. And the people have not received reciprocal discovery. I think that is evident to the court. The people are not getting their fair shot, Your Honor. [01:33:01] Speaker ?: All right. [01:33:05] Speaker 3: All right, let's have the jurors, please. [01:33:07] Speaker 4: Mr. Cochran? I think that's probably good idea. If you're cutting your time, I'll see that now. We have taken 10 minutes from Mr. Cochran's time. All right. What time would you like them back tomorrow? [01:33:30] Speaker 3: 9 o'clock. All right, let the record reflect that we've been rejoined by all members of our jury. Be seated, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you. All right, ladies and gentlemen. At this time, we will resume with Mr. Cochran's opening statement. Please remember that the opening statements by the attorneys are not evidence. Mr. Cochran. [01:33:50] Speaker 1: Thank you very kindly, Your Honor. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. When we broke this morning, we had just gotten to the point of discussing the coroner who previously testified in this matter, Dr. Golden. And I think I alluded to the fact that in the course of the opening statement yesterday, we didn't hear his name. And we expect that he will, in fact, be called in this case. Either if people don't call him, then we will. And I think that you will hear evidence to the effect that you can, in fact, determine the time of death with greater precision than you heard yesterday. That if one is qualified, one can look at the state of rigor mortis, the state of lividity of the body, the state of the temperature of the body, and also the ambient temperature. And we have to use things like the stomach contents. In this case, there was a major problem. Dr. Golden's testimony is that he would place the time of death between 9 and 12 o'clock. Now, between 9 and 12 o'clock, you now have heard enough of the evidence to understand. At 12 o'clock, Mr. Simpson was in the air. And at 9 o'clock, there will be testimonies you've heard as to where he was at his house. So we have a problem with regard to trying to fix the time of death. And you heard the prosecution's theory yesterday about the time of death being about 10:15. You've heard from me this morning that the defense advances the theory that that's clearly wrong based upon the witnesses that you've heard. Now, with regard to Dr. Baden, who is our expert, and I should tell you a little bit about him. Dr. Michael Baden is a former forensic pathologist, the chief medical examiner for the city of New York. He resides in New York. As I said, he has worked for the L.A. County District Attorney's Office in the past. He's considered one of the foremost forensic pathologists in America. He came to, the evidence will be, he came to Los Angeles shortly after Mr. Simpson's return from Chicago. And in fact, went to the L.A. County Coroner's Office that week, the week of June 13th. And it was after Dr. Michael Baden's conferences with Dr. Golden and his superior, along with Dr. Baden's colleague, Dr. Barbara Wolfe, that the coroner's office wrote a letter to Mr. Hodgman with an amendment to the coroner's report they filed. And I'd like, at this time, to turn our attention to the graphics. This is a letter that is directed to our colleague, Mr. William Hodgman. You'll see Mr. Hodgman there. And we'll proceed on. D-88. [01:36:51] Speaker 4: D-88. [01:36:54] Speaker 1: It'll become clearer. [01:36:57] Speaker 2: Your Honor, excuse me. May we have. I have an objection to interpose. I wish to approach that sidebar. And I would like this image stricken from the stream.