LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; TUESDAY, MARCH 14, 1995
                     9:42 A.M.
DEPARTMENT NO. 103            HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
            (APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)
 
  (JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR NO. 4855, OFFICIAL REPORTER.) (CHRISTINE
M. OLSON, CSR NO. 2378, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)
 
            (PAGES 18574 THROUGH 18589,
             VOLUME 106A, TRANSCRIBED AND
             SEALED UNDER SEPARATE COVER.)
 
            (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
             HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE
             PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
 
      THE COURT:  BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER.
            MR. SIMPSON IS AGAIN PRESENT WITH HIS COUNSEL, MR.
SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. DOUGLAS, MR. BAILEY.  THE PEOPLE ARE
REPRESENTED BY MISS CLARK, MISS LEWIS, MR. DARDEN.
            THE JURY IS NOT PRESENT.
            COUNSEL, ANYTHING WE NEED TO ADDRESS BEFORE WE INVITE
THE JURORS TO REJOIN US?
            I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO DISCUSS PARAMETERS OF
CROSS-EXAMINATION OR ANY OTHER OFFERS  OF PROOF?  ANYBODY WISH TO
BE HEARD?
      MR. COCHRAN:  THE WITNESS, YOUR HONOR, SHOULD BE OUT,
THOUGH.
      THE COURT:  THAT IS TRUE.  DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WOULD YOU
STEP OUT IN THE HALLWAY, PLEASE.
      THE WITNESS:  YES, YOUR HONOR.
      THE COURT:  THANK YOU.
 
            (DETECTIVE FUHRMAN EXITS THE
             COURTROOM.)
 
      THE COURT:  GOOD MORNING, COUNSEL.
      MR. BAILEY:  ARGUING WITH A HUMBLE, YOUR HONOR.
            I HAVE FURNISHED YOU IN CAMERA A NUMBER OF INCIDENTS
WHICH WE BELIEVE FALL WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF RELEVANCE, ONE AS
LATE AS 1993.  POLICE REPORTS WERE TURNED OVER AS TO THAT
INCIDENT.
            THERE ARE NO NOTES OR OTHER MATERIALS TO TURN OVER,
BUT I HAVE REVIEWED WITH YOU THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WOULD
INDICATE CONTINUING STRONG ANTI-RACIAL FEELING WHERE THE MALE IS
BLACK AND THE FEMALE IS WHITE.
            AND I THINK THAT FAIR GAME FOR QUESTION AS TO WHY ONE
WOULD WALK OUT IN THE MIDDLE OF AN INVESTIGATION.
 
 
       THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
            MR. BAILEY, IN THE 1054.7, WE HAVE TO BE NECESSARILY
OBLIQUE ABOUT THIS.
      MR. BAILEY:  I'M SORRY, I'M NOT HEARING YOU, YOUR HONOR.
      THE COURT:  IN THE 1054.7 HEARING, IN CAMERA HEARING THAT
WE HAD, ARE YOU WITHDRAWING THE LAST ITEM?
      MR. BAILEY:  YES.  THE ONE I TOLD YOU I HAD SOME
RESERVATIONS ABOUT.
      THE COURT:  YES?
      MR. BAILEY:  UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, UNTIL SOMETHING HAPPENS
TO CORROBORATE OR AUTHENTICATE, I WILL NOT RUN WITH THAT
ACCUSATION.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.  THEN LET'S ADDRESS THE POLICE
REPORT ISSUE THEN.
      MR. BAILEY:  I'M SORRY, YOUR HONOR, I HAVE BEEN CORRECTED
BY MR. DOUGLAS.
            THERE IS A WRITTEN REPORT WITH RESPECT TO THAT
WITNESS.  IT HAS NOT BEEN TURNED OVER BECAUSE THE DECISION HAS
NOT BEEN MADE TO CALL THE WITNESS.
            OBVIOUSLY IF THE INCIDENT IS DENIED, RATHER THAN
EXPLAINED, THE WITNESS WILL BE CALLED. IF THE INCIDENT IS
EXPLAINED RATHER THAN DENIED, THERE WILL BE NO NEED TO CALL A
WITNESS, UNLESS IT WINDS UP A CONTRADICTION AND RECOLLECTION AS
TO WHAT WE SAID, BUT WE ARE NOT RELYING ON WHAT WAS SAID, AS YOU
KNOW, FROM THE PROFFER.
            WELL, I'M SORRY, I TAKE THAT BACK; PART OF IT WAS
VERBAL.
      THE COURT:  YES.
      MR. BAILEY:  PART OF IT WAS CONTENT.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.  BUT AT THIS POINT YOU ARE NOT GOING
TO OFFER THAT WITNESS?
      MR. BAILEY:  NOT UNLESS THERE IS A DENIAL BY THIS WITNESS
AS TO THE INCIDENT.  IF THERE IS --
      THE COURT:  WAIT A MINUTE.  WHICH ONE ARE WE TALKING ABOUT
HERE?  THE ONE THAT YOU HAVE TOLD ME THAT YOU HAVE RESERVATION
ABOUT, THE POLICE REPORT INCIDENT?
      MR. BAILEY:  NO, NO, NO.  STRIKE THAT ONE FROM OUR
DISCUSSION.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
      MR. BAILEY:  THE POLICE REPORT.
      THE COURT:  BUT THERE IS A STATEMENT?
      MR. BAILEY:  I'M NOW TOLD THAT THERE IS.  I HAVE NOT SEEN
IT.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
      MR. BAILEY:  DATED JANUARY 23, A WRITTEN REPORT.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
            LET ME SEE WHAT THE PEOPLE'S RESPONSE IS AS TO THAT
INCIDENT.
      MS. CLARK:  YOUR HONOR, COUNSEL CAN'T CIRCUMVENT 1054.7
BASED ON THE WITNESS' ANSWER WE WILL NOT KNOW WHETHER OR NOT WE
NEED TO CALL THEM.
            THAT PERSON IS A WITNESS THEY REASONABLY ANTICIPATE
CALLING.  THEY CAN EXPECT IF THERE IS MORE OF THE SAME KIND OF
NONSENSICAL ALLEGATIONS THAT THEY HAVE BROUGHT OUT FROM KATHLEEN
BELL, AND OTHERS OF HER ILK, THEN IT WILL BE DENIED, BECAUSE IT
IS INDEED FALSE AND THEY KNOW THAT AND THEY -- THAT MEANS THEY
REASONABLY ANTICIPATE CALLING THIS PERSON AND THEY MUST TURN THIS
STATEMENT OVER.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
            MISS CLARK, LET ME ASK MR. DOUGLAS. MR. DOUGLAS, YOUR
NOTES INDICATE THAT THAT JANUARY 23RD STATEMENT HAS BEEN TURNED
OVER?
      MR. DOUGLAS:  NO, YOUR HONOR.  IT WAS DISCUSSED IN
CHAMBERS.  THE DECISION WAS APPROVED THAT WE WOULD TURN OVER THE
STATEMENT, THE POLICE REPORT STATEMENT.
      THE COURT:  RIGHT, BUT IT WAS NEVER REPRESENTED TO ME -- IT
WAS REPRESENTED TO ME THAT THERE WAS NO STATEMENT.
      MR. DOUGLAS:  THERE IS A STATEMENT, YOUR HONOR, OF THAT
INTERVIEW.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
      MR. DOUGLAS:  THERE IS A REPORT OF AN INTERVIEW OF THAT
PERSON.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.  HOLD ON.
            LET ME GET THE PROFFER THEN, BECAUSE MY RECOLLECTION
IS THAT THE PROFFER THAT WAS GIVEN TO ME DURING THE 1054.7 DOES
NOT MENTION A STATEMENT.
 
       MR. BAILEY:  I HAVE THE PROFFER WITH ME, YOUR HONOR.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.  WELL, LET ME GET MY COPY, BECAUSE I
HAVE MY NOTES ON IT.
 
            (BRIEF PAUSE.)
 
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
            MR. BAILEY, THE PROFFER THAT WAS PROVIDED TO THE
COURT UNDER SEAL AND IN CAMERA MENTIONS THAT THERE IS NO
STATEMENT.
            THAT APPEARS TO BE INCORRECT?
      MR. BAILEY:  WELL, ALTHOUGH I DID NOT KNOW THIS AT THE
TIME, YOUR HONOR, THERE IS NO STATEMENT FROM THE WITNESS.  THERE
IS AN INVESTIGATOR'S REPORT TO MR. DOUGLAS.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
      MR. BAILEY:  THAT IS THE ONLY WRITING APPARENTLY.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.  THEN LET ME ORDER THIS:
            I'M GOING TO DIRECT THAT MR. DOUGLAS PROVIDE THAT
STATEMENT TO THE PROSECUTION FORTHWITH.
            DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF IT HERE?
      MR. DOUGLAS:  I HAVE AN ORIGINAL, YOUR HONOR. I NEED A COPY
MADE, IF THE COURT PLEASE.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.  MRS. ROBERTSON.
 
       MR. DARDEN:  MAY WE HAVE THREE COPIES, YOUR HONOR?
      THE COURT:  AND COUNSEL, WHAT I PROPOSE TO DO IS PRECLUDE
DISCUSSION OF THAT PARTICULAR INCIDENT UNTIL THE PROSECUTION HAS
HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THIS.
            IF THEY WISH TO MAKE FURTHER OBJECTION, WE WILL GO
INTO THAT.
      MR. BAILEY:  UNDERSTOOD.
      THE COURT:  I'M GOING TO PRECLUDE YOU FROM GOING INTO THAT
ON CROSS-EXAMINATION AT THIS TIME.
      MR. BAILEY:  UNDERSTOOD.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.  ANYTHING ELSE?
      MS. CLARK:  ARE WE -- ARE WE GOING TO HEAR THE REST OF THE
PROFFERED CROSS-EXAMINATION?
      THE COURT:  MR. BAILEY?
      MR. BAILEY:  I HAVE GIVEN IT TO THE COURT. THAT WAS THE
RULING.
      MS. CLARK:  NO, THAT WAS NOT THE RULING AT ALL, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT RULED THAT WE WOULD DISCUSS AT SIDE BAR OR OUTSIDE THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY --
      THE COURT:  CORRECT.
      MS. CLARK:  -- IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PEOPLE.
      THE COURT:  ANY OTHER OFFERS AS TO OTHER AREAS OF
CROSS-EXAMINATION?
            YOU HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED KATHLEEN BELL.  THE COURT
HAS RULED THAT THAT IS FAIR GAME.
 
             YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE STATEMENT OR YOU ARE AWARE
OF ANDREA TERRY.
      MS. CLARK:  AND WE WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ABOUT THE
ADMISSIBILITY OF THAT, YOUR HONOR, AND WE DO NOT HAVE A STATEMENT
FROM THEM.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
      MS. CLARK:  FROM HER.  WE ARE AWARE THROUGH NEWS ACCOUNTS,
AND NOW FINALLY WE'VE HAD THE INTERVIEW WITH HER LAST NIGHT, BUT
WE WANT TO BE HEARD ABOUT THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THAT.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.  MISS CLARK,
ANDREA TERRY.
      MS. CLARK:  TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE,
YOUR HONOR, THE STATEMENT OF ANDREA TERRY IS DIFFERENT THAN THAT
OF KATHLEEN BELL.  SHE ALLEGEDLY MET THE DEFENDANT -- MET
KATHLEEN BELL AT HENNESSEY WHERE KATHLEEN BELL INTRODUCED HER TO
MARK FUHRMAN AND HENNESSEY'S BAR OR TAVERN, WHATEVER, AND AT THAT
TIME ALLEGEDLY MADE A COMMENT THAT SHE WAS ATTRACTED TO MARCUS
ALLEN AND ALLEGEDLY MARK FUHRMAN, IN RESPONSE, IN THIS CROWDED
BAR, SAID, "I THINK THAT INTERRACIAL COUPLES ARE A CRIME AGAINST
NATURE" --
 
            (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
             BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
             ATTORNEYS.)
 
 
       MS. CLARK:  -- AND THAT IF HE SAW A BLACK AND WHITE COUPLE
TOGETHER IN A CAR HE WOULD FIND A REASON TO PULL THEM OVER.
 
            (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
             BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
             ATTORNEYS.)
 
      MS. CLARK:  NOW, THIS ALLEGED MEETING TOOK PLACE, I WOULD
REMIND THE COURT, AFTER KATHLEEN BELL SUPPOSEDLY HEARD THE
COMMENT THAT HAS BEEN WIDELY REPORTED MADE BY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN
AT THE MARINE RECRUITING OFFICE, AND AFTER SHE LEFT IN TEARS AND
HYSTERICAL AFTER HEARING THAT COMMENT, SHE THEN INTRODUCED MARK
FUHRMAN TO HER FRIEND ANDREA TERRY.
 
            (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
             BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
             ATTORNEYS.)
 
      MS. CLARK:  IN ORDER TO -- SHE INTRODUCED HER TO ANDREA
TERRY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THEM GOING OUT ON A DATE.  ANDREA TERRY
THEN COMES UP SOME SEVEN MONTHS LATER WITH THIS STATEMENT;
HOWEVER, THE STATEMENT IS NOT AS PROBATIVE AS THAT OF THE
STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO MARK FUHRMAN BY KATHLEEN BELL.
            IN KATHLEEN BELL'S STATEMENT, SHE ALLEGES THAT MARK
FUHRMAN STATED THAT HE WOULD MAKE UP A  REASON IN ORDER TO STOP
THEM, THAT HE WOULD ACTUALLY FABRICATE EVIDENCE WAS HER
STATEMENT.
            ANDREA TERRY DOESN'T SAY THAT.  ANDREA TERRY STATES
THAT HE WOULD FIND A REASON.  THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT ONE DOES
NOT EXIST.  THAT MEANS THAT HE IS LOOKING FOR A REASON AND GOING
WITH WHAT HE HAS.
            THE ALLEGATION THAT IS IMPORTANT IN THE KATHLEEN BELL
STATEMENT IS FABRICATION.  THAT IS MISSING FROM THE STATEMENT IN
ANDREA TERRY.  SO ANDREA TERRY'S STATEMENT IS IRRELEVANT AND
SHOULD BE RULED INADMISSIBLE UNDER 352.
      THE COURT:  MR. BAILEY.
      MR. BAILEY:  WELL, I THINK MISS CLARK IS ENDEAVORING TO GET
YOU TO DECIDE CREDIBILITY QUESTIONS.  THAT IS NOT WHAT WE
ANTICIPATE ANDREA TERRY WILL SAY.
            SHE WILL SAY HE MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT HE WOULD PULL
THEM OVER BECAUSE HE WAS BLACK AND SHE WAS WHITE.
            NOW, FOR MISS CLARK TO SUGGEST HE WOULD THEN TRY TO
FIND A LEGAL REASON TO JUSTIFY WHAT HE HAD ALREADY DONE IS A
LITTLE BIT LUDICROUS. CERTAINLY THAT IS PROBATIVE, IN ADDITION TO
CORROBORATIVE, OF THE SAME EXPRESSION GIVEN TO KATHLEEN BELL ON A
PRIOR OCCASION STANDING IN FRONT OF THE RECRUITING STATION AFTER
BEING INTRODUCED TO FUHRMAN BY JOE FOSS, THE MARINE.
 
             NOW, FOR A MAN WHO HAS NEVER SEEN KATHLEEN BELL IN
HIS LIFE, AS FUHRMAN CLAIMS, HAVING A WITNESS WHO IS WITH
KATHLEEN BELL IN HENNESSEY'S WOULD BE ENOUGH ALL BY ITSELF, BUT
HIS OFFER THAT IT WAS A CRIME AGAINST NATURE FOR A BLACK MAN TO
BE WITH A WHITE WOMAN SHOULD IN AND OF ITSELF BE ENOUGH TO ALLOW
CROSS-EXAMINATION ON HIS RACIAL BIAS.
            WE CLAIM THAT HE HAS GONE OUT OF HIS WAY IN THIS CASE
TO HURT A BLACK MAN THAT HE SAW WITH A WHITE WOMAN IN 1985 AND
KNEW THEREAFTER BECAUSE OF THE 1989 INCIDENT OF THEIR
RELATIONSHIP.
            SO I DON'T THINK ANDREA TERRY IS EVEN A PLAUSIBLE
ARGUMENT FOR PROHIBITION.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
            NEXT MATTER IS I BELIEVE MAX CORDOBA.
      MR. BAILEY:  YES.  MAX CORDOBA IS A BLACK MARINE, AFRICAN
AMERICAN.
            AS I INDICATED IN THE PROFFER,
MAX CORDOVA WAS STANDING IN THE RECRUITING STATION WHEN DETECTIVE
FUHRMAN CAME UP WITH SOME PAPERS. THERE WILL BE EVIDENCE THAT
DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WAS MAKING APPLICATION TO JOIN THE RESERVE UNIT
OR THAT THE MARINES OR SOME OF THEM WERE CONCERNED ABOUT WHERE IN
THE WORLD THEY COULD PUT HIM THAT HE WOULDN'T HAVE TO ASSOCIATE
WITH AFRICAN AMERICANS, BECAUSE HE HAD MADE HIS FEELINGS PLAIN
ABOUT THAT.
            NOW, AS CORDOBA WAS STANDING THERE AND FUHRMAN
APPROACHES WITH THE PAPERS, CORDOBA SAYS, "I  REALLY DON'T KNOW
ANYTHING ABOUT THIS APPLICATION, YOU SOUGHT TO SEE RON," MEANING
SERGEANT RONALD ROHR.
            RON, AT ABOUT THAT MOMENT, WHO LIKES TO HANG AROUND
AT THE PLACE NEXT DOOR, AS ANOTHER WITNESS WILL TESTIFY, STARTS
COMING ACROSS THE STREET AND CORDOBA SAYS, "HEY, ROHR, YOUR BOY
IS HERE."
            AND FUHRMAN TURNS ON CORDOBA AND SAYS, "LET'S GET
SOMETHING STRAIGHT.  THE ONLY BOY HERE IS YOU, NIGGER," AND THEN
CORDOBA LEAVES THE BUILDING AND FUHRMAN FOLLOWS HIM OUT INTO THE
PARKING LOT AND REPEATS THE SAME EPITHET.
            I THINK THAT SHOWING OF RACIAL BIAS AT THE TIME WE
CLAIM HE WAS EXPRESSING SIMILAR VIEWS TO A WITNESS HE DENIES
MEETING, NOT ONLY STANDS ON ITS OWN AS EVIDENCE OF THE BIAS HE IS
NOW DISCLAIMING, BUT ALSO CORROBORATES THE LIKELIHOOD THAT MS.
BELL IN THE SAME PERIOD OF TIME WOULD HAVE HEARD THESE REMARKS.
      THE COURT:  MISS CLARK.
      MS. CLARK:  THESE ALLEGATIONS GET MORE OUTRAGEOUS BY THE
MINUTE AND I'M STRICKEN AGAIN BY THE PREPOSTEROUSNESS OF THE
CLAIMS OF THE DEFENSE.
            NOT ONLY DID THESE ALLEGED INCIDENTS NEVER OCCUR, BUT
THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THEY ARE BEING ADMITTED COULD NEVER HAVE
OCCURRED.
            AND MAX CORDOBA GAVE US A STATEMENT THAT SAYS NONE OF
THAT.  WE HAVE INTERVIEWED MAX CORDOBA A  LONG TIME AGO.  HE
NEVER MADE SUCH A STATEMENT AND HE NEVER ALLEGED THAT MARK
FUHRMAN EVER MADE SUCH A STATEMENT.
            AND IF THE DEFENSE HAS A STATEMENT THAT INDICATES
THAT HE IS GOING TO SO TESTIFY, WE ARE ENTITLED TO SEE IT,
ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT WE HAVE INTERVIEWED MAX
CORDOBA TWICE AND HE HAS NEVER INDICATED ANY SUCH THING TO ANYONE
WHO HAS INTERVIEWED HIM.
            I THINK WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A FALSE OFFER OF PROOF
BY THE DEFENSE, AN OFFER THAT THEY ARE GOING TO USE TO SLUR MARK
FUHRMAN AGAIN UNFAIRLY IN THE EYES OF THIS JURY AND NEVER PRODUCE
THE WITNESS TO BACK UP THIS STATEMENT, BECAUSE ACCORDING TO THE
STATEMENTS HE HAS GIVEN US, HE NEVER SAID ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
      MR. BAILEY:  I HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THAT, YOUR HONOR.
      MS. CLARK:  CAN I HAVE ONE MOMENT, PLEASE, YOUR HONOR?
      THE COURT:  SURE.
 
            (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
             BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
             ATTORNEYS.)
 
      THE COURT:  MISS CLARK.
 
       MS. CLARK:  SO THAT WE CAN PUT THIS IN PERSPECTIVE, YOUR
HONOR, MR. CORDOBA WAS INTERVIEWED ON TELEVISION AND INDICATED
THAT HE ALWAYS GOT ALONG WITH MARK FUHRMAN.
            HE HAD A INTERVIEW WITH TONY PELLICANO
IN WHICH HE INDICATED HE ALWAYS GOT ALONG WITH
MARK FUHRMAN.  MONTHS AND MONTHS LATER AN INTERVIEW WAS CONDUCTED
IN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WHERE HE MADE REFERENCE TO A
JOKING COMMENT EXCHANGED ABOUT SOMEBODY SAID "BOY" AND MARK SAID
"BOY."
            THE "N" WORD WAS NEVER USED BY
MARK FUHRMAN, ACCORDING TO MAX CORDOBA, AND THAT WAS IN ALL THREE
STATEMENTS HE HAS GIVEN OVER THE PAST SEVEN MONTHS.  HIS FIRST
TWO STATEMENTS INDICATE THERE WAS NO PROBLEM, SO THAT IS WHERE WE
START WITH MAX CORDOBA.
            AND THEN BELATEDLY IN FEBRUARY, I THINK, OR JANUARY
OF THIS YEAR, HE VAGUELY RECALLS SOME STATEMENT WHERE THERE WAS
AN EXCHANGE OF THE TERM "BOY" BY TWO PEOPLE THERE, BUT THE "N"
WORD WAS NEVER USED BY MARK FUHRMAN, ACCORDING TO MAX CORDOBA.
            SO IF THE DEFENSE HAS A STATEMENT INDICATING THAT HE
WILL SO TESTIFY, WE NEED TO SEE IT, AND IF THEY DON'T, THE COURT
SHOULD REFUSE TO ALLOW IT BECAUSE THIS IS DEFINITELY A FALSE
OFFER OF PROOF WITHOUT SOME STATEMENT TO BACK IT UP THAT THEY ARE
GOING TO USE TO INFLAME THE JURY UNFAIRLY AND  NEVER PRODUCE ON.
      THE COURT:  ISN'T THIS A FOOTNOTE 14 ISSUE, WHERE MAX
CORDOBA IS ON THE WITNESS LIST AS A PROSECUTION WITNESS?
            MR. DOUGLAS, I DON'T NEED THE COACHING HERE.
            WHERE MR. CORDOBA OR SERGEANT CORDOBA PROBABLY IS A
PEOPLE'S WITNESS AND THIS IS AN IMPEACHING STATEMENT OF A
PROSECUTION WITNESS, SO ARE THEY COMPELLED TO TURN THAT OVER?
      MS. CLARK:  IT IS DIFFERENT, YOUR HONOR, BECAUSE THAT IS
TALKING ABOUT THE IMPEACHMENT OF THAT WITNESS HIMSELF.  THEY ARE
NOT TALKING ABOUT IMPEACHMENT OF MAX CORDOBA.  THEY ARE TALKING
ABOUT IMPEACHMENT OF A DIFFERENT WITNESS.
            THE FOOTNOTE 11 OR 14, WHICHEVER ONE THAT IS, REFERS
TO THE IMPEACHMENT OF THAT WITNESS THAT THEY HAVE THE STATEMENT
ON, SO IF THEY HAD A STATEMENT THAT IMPEACHED MAX CORDOBA, THAT
WOULD BE A DIFFERENT ISSUE.  BUT THAT IS NOT THE REASON, THAT IS
NOT THE PROFFER, AND THAT IS NOT WHY THEY WANT THAT STATEMENT IN.
            IT IS NOT TO IMPEACH MAX CORDOBA.  WE HAVE
IMPEACHMENT ON MAX CORDOBA.  WE HAVE THE PRIOR INCONSISTENT
STATEMENTS OF MAX CORDOBA.  THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE HERE, SO A
DIFFERENT SITUATION.
            AND IF THEY DO HAVE THAT STATEMENT, WE NEED TO SEE
IT, BUT AT THE VERY LEAST I THINK THAT  THE COURT SHOULD REFUSE
TO ALLOW THAT STATEMENT IN UNTIL MAX CORDOBA TESTIFIES.  HE CAN
BE QUESTIONED OF COURSE ON WHETHER HE KNOWS HIM, BUT THAT THAT
STATEMENT THAT THEY ARE NOW ATTRIBUTING TO MARK FUHRMAN THROUGH
MAX CORDOBA SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED AT THIS TIME AS UNDULY
INFLAMMATORY, WITHOUT PROBATIVE VALUE AND NO BASIS IN FACT
BECAUSE IT IS BEING ADMITTED SOLELY TO INFLAME THE JURY.
            I DON'T BELIEVE IT WILL EVER BE PRODUCED, NOT AT ALL,
AND SO IF THE COURT ALLOWS THE JURY TO HEAR THAT EPITHET AS
ATTRIBUTED TO MARK FUHRMAN BY THE WITNESS MAX CORDOBA, THAT IS
SOMETHING THAT IS NEVER GOING TO BE DELIVERED ON AND THE COURT
WILL HAVE ALLOWED THE JURY TO BE INFLAMED BY SOMETHING THAT WILL
EVAPORATE INTO THIN AIR AS SOON AS THE WORDS ARE GOING TO BE
SHOUTED THROUGH THIS COURTROOM BY MR. BAILEY.
            AND I THINK THAT THAT DOES NOT PRODUCE ANYTHING NEAR
A FAIR TRIAL AND THAT IS ONE STATEMENT THAT SHOULD NOT BE
ALLOWED.
            LET THEM CALL THE WITNESS.  I WANT TO HEAR HIM SAY
THIS.  THE COURT IS NEVER GOING TO HEAR IT, SO I THINK THE COURT
SHOULD NOT PERMIT CROSS-EXAMINATION WITH RESPECT TO THAT SPECIFIC
ALLEGATION ON THAT WITNESS.
 

        THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.  SO THERE ARE ACTUALLY TWO ISSUES
HERE:
            WHETHER OR NOT IT IS APPROPRIATE FODDER FOR
CROSS-EXAMINATION ON THE ISSUE OF RACIAL BIAS. AND SECONDLY, A
DISCOVERY ISSUE WHETHER OR NOT YOU ARE ENTITLED TO SEE THIS
STATEMENT AT SOME APPROPRIATE POINT IN TIME?
      MS. CLARK:  YES.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.  MR. BAILEY.
 
            (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
             BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
             ATTORNEYS.)
 
      MR. BAILEY:  MISS CLARK, WHO SO LIGHTLY CASTS ASPERSIONS ON
ALL THE DEFENSE TEAM FOR MAKING UP OFFERS OF PROOF AND FURNISHING
THEM TO THIS COURT, HAS RATHER DIRTY HANDS IN THIS MATTER.
            AS YOU KNOW FROM THE PROFFER, MAX CORDOBA WANTED TO
TELL MR. DARDEN AND MISS LEWIS ABOUT THIS INCIDENT AND THEY SHUT
HIM OFF.  THEY SAID WE ARE ONLY INTERESTED IN WHAT MISS BELL SAID
AND THAT IS WHAT HE WILL TESTIFY TO.
            AND YOUR HONOR, I HAVE SPOKEN WITH HIM ON THE PHONE
PERSONALLY, MARINE TO MARINE.  I HAVEN'T THE SLIGHTEST DOUBT THAT
HE WILL MARCH UP TO THAT WITNESS STAND AND TELL THE WORLD WHAT
FUHRMAN CALLED HIM ON NO PROVOCATION WHATSOEVER.
            AS FAR AS DISCOVERY IS CONCERNED, THERE IS NO WRITTEN
STATEMENT, THERE ARE NO NOTES THAT I KNOW OF.
            WHEN I HEARD ABOUT THIS, BECAUSE HE CALLED US WANTING
TO MAKE IT KNOWN THAT THESE PEOPLE HAD TRIED TO SUPPRESS THIS
INFORMATION, I SPOKE TO HIM PERSONALLY.  I DON'T EVER TAKE NOTES
AND I DIDN'T ON THAT OCCASION.
      MS. CLARK:  PRETTY CONVENIENT.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
 
            (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
             BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
             ATTORNEYS.)
 
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.  PHILIP COLEMAN.
      MR. BAILEY:  PHILIP COLEMAN.
            PHIL COLEMAN, THERE ARE NO SECRETS ABOUT, YOUR HONOR,
BECAUSE WE GOT A LETTER THAT MR. COLEMAN DRAFTED ON HIS OWN, IT
WAS TURNED OVER TO THE PROSECUTION A LONG TIME AGO AND PROMPTLY
HANDED TO THE PRESS BY SOMEBODY, SO IT HAS BEEN AIRED.
            BUT I THINK IN VIEW OF WHAT IS IN THE LETTER, AND THE
ESSENCE OF IT WAS THAT MR. COLEMAN UNDERSTOOD THAT DETECTIVE
FUHRMAN WAS CRITICAL OF THE FACT THAT WHITE WOMEN WERE UNDRESSING
IN A BUSINESS RUN BY A BLACK PARTNER AND A WHITE WOMAN PARTNER,
THE BLACK PERSON BEING MR. COLEMAN.
            HE ALSO UNDERSTOOD THAT MR. FUHRMAN HAD SERVED IN
VIETNAM AND WAS APPLYING TO GET BACK IN THE MARINE CORPS AND THAT
HE WAS VERY UNHAPPY ABOUT MR. COLEMAN'S SITUATION.  MR. COLEMAN
HIMSELF HAD SERVED IN VIETNAM AND WANTED TO TRY TO DISPEL ANY
SUGGESTION OF IMPROPRIETY THAT WOMEN WERE UNCLAD IN HIS STORE AND
THAT SOMEHOW WAS OFFENSIVE.
            AND SO AT ONE POINT SERGEANT ROHR, I BELIEVE IT WAS,
IT IS IN THE REPORT, WAS STANDING WITH FUHRMAN IN THE PARKING LOT
BETWEEN THE RECRUITING STATION AND COLEMAN'S STORE AND HE SAID,
"HEY, VIETNAM, COME OVER HERE," OBVIOUSLY TO MAKE AN
INTRODUCTION.
            MR. COLEMAN WALKED UP, STUCK OUT HIS HAND LIKE A MAN
AND MARK FUHRMAN FOLDED HIS ARMS AND TURNED LIKE THAT AWAY FROM
HIM.  CERTAINLY NO CLEARER ACT OF DISDAIN FOR A BLACK PERSON WHO
ASSOCIATED WITH A WHITE WOMAN COULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN ABSENT ANY
VERBALIZATION.
            FOR THAT REASON WE THINK THAT THAT INCIDENT IS
ADMISSIBLE BECAUSE ONCE AGAIN IT IS CLOSE IN TIME TO THE CORDOBA
AND BELL AND TERRY INCIDENTS WHEREIN DETECTIVE FUHRMAN EXHIBITED
HIS RACIAL BIAS TO A VERY EXTREME NATURE AND BECAUSE THESE ARE
PROXIMATE TO ONE ANOTHER, THEY TEND TO SUPPORT ONE ANOTHER.  THAT
IS TO SAY, IF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IS GOING TO SAY THAT BELL IS A
LIAR, HE NEVER MET HER, TERRY IS A LIAR, HE NEVER MET HER, OR IF
HE DID HE  NEVER SPOKE TO HER, AND IF HE SPOKE TO HER HE NEVER
SAID THOSE WORDS.
            JOE FOSS IS A LIAR BECAUSE FOSS NEVER INTRODUCED BELL
TO FUHRMAN AND COLEMAN IS A LIAR BECAUSE THIS INCIDENT NEVER
HAPPENED, AND CORDOBA IS A LIAR BECAUSE HE NEVER CALLED HIM A
NIGGER, THEN I THINK THE JURY IS ENTITLED TO FIND THAT THE WORLD
IS OUT OF STEP WITH JOHNNY AND EVERYBODY LIES BUT DETECTIVE
FUHRMAN, IF THAT IS THE STORY HE WANTS TO SELL.
            CERTAINLY THEY ARE ENTITLED TO HEAR OF THE INCIDENTS.
      THE COURT:  MISS CLARK.
      MS. CLARK:  YOU KNOW, YOUR HONOR, ALL WE ARE GETTING HERE
IS A LOT OF VERY DRAMATIC POSTURING, BECAUSE WHEN THESE WITNESSES
TAKE THE WITNESS STAND, IF THEY EVER DO, THE COURT IS GOING TO
HEAR A VERY DIFFERENT STORY THAN MR. BAILEY HAS LAID OUT FOR THE
COURT TODAY.  YOU CAN REST ASSURED.
            I WANT THIS FILM CLIP SAVED FOREVER BECAUSE THIS IS
GOING TO BE VERY FUNNY WHEN THE ACTUAL WITNESSES TAKE THE STAND.
            NEVERTHELESS, WITH RESPECT TO MR. COLEMAN, ALL HE HAS
TO OFFER IS HEARSAY.  HE NEVER HEARD MARK FUHRMAN SAY ANYTHING
ABOUT INTERRACIAL COUPLES.  HE HIMSELF NEVER HEARD MARK FUHRMAN
SAY ANY RACIAL EPITHET OR SLUR.  HE HIMSELF WAS NEVER PRIVY TO
THE CONVERSATION THAT  ALLEGEDLY TOOK PLACE BETWEEN KATHLEEN BELL
AND MARK FUHRMAN.
            HE WITNESSED NOTHING.  HE CLAIMS AT SOME POINT IN
TIME THAT MARK FUHRMAN FOLDED HIS ARMS WHEN HE WAS INTRODUCED.
HOWEVER, THERE IS VERY LITTLE RELIABILITY TO THAT STATEMENT AND
IT IS NO COINCIDENCE, BY THE WAY, THAT IT ALL HAPPENED AROUND THE
SAME TIME, BECAUSE KATHLEEN BELL, ANDREA TERRY, PHIL COLEMAN AND
MAX CORDOBA ALL WORKED THIS SAME AREA AND KNEW EACH OTHER, SO IT
IS NOT A REAL SURPRISE THAT THEY HAVE ALL COOKED UP THESE
STORIES, NOT AT ALL.
            AND WHAT YOU WILL SEE WHEN THEY TESTIFY, TRUST ME,
YOUR HONOR, IS GOING TO BE VERY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT HAS BEEN
OFFERED TODAY.
            AT SOME POINT THIS GETS CUMULATIVE AND IT GETS
RIDICULOUS.  WE HAVE ANDREA TERRY'S STATEMENT THAT ISN'T EVEN
PROBATIVE BECAUSE IT DOES NOT GO TO THE ISSUE THAT MADE THE COURT
-- COMPELLED THE COURT TO ADMIT KATHLEEN BELL'S STATEMENT.  IT IS
MISSING THAT PROBATIVE VALUE.
            PHILIP COLEMAN HAS NOTHING BUT HEARSAY AND FOLDED
ARMS TO OFFER, WHICH IS, UNDER 352, OF NO PROBATIVE VALUE
WHATSOEVER AND IT IS AN AMBIGUOUS GESTURE AT BEST, IF EVER
BELIEVED, BY THE WAY, WHICH IT WILL NOT BE WHEN ALL IS SAID AND
DONE.
            AND WITH RESPECT TO THE STATEMENT BY -- ALLEGED
STATEMENT BY MAX CORDOBA, WE HAVE ZERO  RELIABILITY TO THAT.  WE
HAVE NO STATEMENT, WE HAVE NO NOTES, WE HAVE NO TAPES, WE HAVE
NOTHING TO ESTABLISH THAT THAT -- THAT THAT CONVERSATION MR.
BAILEY REFERS TO EVER OCCURRED.
            ALL WE HEAR ARE PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS, PRIOR
STATEMENTS BY THIS WITNESS THAT ARE VASTLY DIFFERENT THAN
ANYTHING THAT HAS BEEN OFFERED BY COUNSEL TODAY.
            SO WE HAVE A TOTALLY UNRELIABLE OFFER HERE THAT IS
CUMULATIVE TO THE ISSUE AND THAT ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT GO TO THE
INTERRACIAL COUPLE ISSUE, THE FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE ISSUE.
            I MEAN, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THINGS THAT ARE WAY
BEYOND THE SCOPE OF WHAT IS -- WHAT SHOULD BE EVEN DREAMED ABOUT
AS BEING ADMISSIBLE AS TO THIS WITNESS.
            WE GET TO THE POINT THAT ALL WE ARE DOING IS SLINGING
AT SOMEONE IN AN AREA WHERE, YES, CREDIBILITY IS IN ISSUE, BUT WE
HAVE TO ATTACK ON ISSUES THAT ARE RELEVANT TO CREDIBILITY.
            WHETHER OR NOT MAX CORDOBA HEARD HIM SAY THE WORDS
ATTRIBUTED TO HIM, THAT DOES NOT TO GO INTERRACIAL COUPLES, THE
FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE OR THE PLANTING OF EVIDENCE.
            THESE STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO THE DETECTIVE BY
ANDREA TERRY DO NOT GO TO THE FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE.  AND THE
REFUSAL TO SHAKE THE HAND OF PHILIP COLEMAN, ANOTHER FANTASY
COOKED UP  BY THE DEFENSE WHICH NEVER TRANSPIRED THAT CERTAINLY
DOES NOT GO TO INTERRACIAL COUPLES OR THE FABRICATION OF
EVIDENCE.
            THE PEOPLE RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT TO THE COURT THAT WHAT
WE HAVE HERE IS NOT A DEFENSE, IT IS A SMEAR CAMPAIGN AND THERE
IS NOT ANY OF IT RELEVANT TO THE DETECTIVE'S CREDIBILITY WITH
RESPECT TO THE ACTIONS HE TOOK ON THE DAY IN QUESTION.
            LET'S REMEMBER THIS IS A DOUBLE HOMICIDE CASE.  THIS
IS NOT A CASE CONCERNING THE CHARACTER OF MARK FUHRMAN WITH
RESPECT TO THE ISSUES OF RACE.
            THIS IS A CASE INVOLVING THE HOMICIDE OF TWO MURDER
VICTIMS AND A JUNIOR DETECTIVE WHO FOUND EVIDENCE BASED ON THE
STATEMENT OF A WITNESS.  THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE HERE.
            AND IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE ALL REMEMBER THAT.
            WHATEVER ANYONE MAY ULTIMATELY DECIDE ABOUT MARK
FUHRMAN'S PERSONAL LIFE OR PERSONAL VIEWS OF THE WORLD HAS
NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT HE IS CREDIBLE AS AN OFFICER
AND WITH THE ISSUES THAT RELATE TO HIS HONESTY AND VERACITY AND
THAT IS A MUCH MORE NARROW PARAMETER THAN COUNSEL WOULD HAVE THIS
COURT BELIEVE.
            BUT THE COURT KNOWS BETTER.  I KNOW THE COURT DOES
BECAUSE THE COURT HAS INDICATED WHAT ITS RULINGS ARE BASED ON,
WISELY SO.
 
             WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE CHARACTER FOR TRUTH AND
VERACITY.  WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WHETHER THERE IS A PROPENSITY TO
FABRICATE EVIDENCE WITH RESPECT TO INTERRACIAL COUPLES.  THAT IS
WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE, AND LET'S NOT FORGET THAT.
            NOW, THE REST OF THE IMPEACHMENT THAT HAS BEEN
PROFFERED BY COUNSEL HAS ZERO RELEVANCE AND THE COURT WILL
ULTIMATELY FIND, IF THEY ARE EVER CALLED AND THE COURT DOES
DECIDE TO ADMIT THEIR TESTIMONY, WHICH I WOULD SUBMIT WOULD NOT
BE PROPER, NO CREDIBILITY WHATSOEVER.
            WE HAVE A SITUATION HERE THAT IS DESIGNED SOLELY TO
INFLAME THE JURY AND DISTRACT THEM FROM THE ISSUES AT HAND AND
THAT IS FAR MORE PREJUDICIAL THAN PROBATIVE.
            AND ALL WE ARE GOING TO DO HERE IS ENGAGE IN A SMEAR
CAMPAIGN SO THAT THE JURY WILL FORGET THAT WE HAVE TWO PEOPLE
MURDERED AND AN OFFICER WHO FOUND KEY EVIDENCE BASED ON THE
EVIDENCE OF A WITNESS WHO WILL NOT BE ABLE TO BE IMPEACHED WITH
RESPECT TO WHAT HE HEARD AND SAW ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE THE 12TH.
            SO I SUBMIT TO THE COURT RESPECTFULLY THAT THIS IS
THE COURT'S OPPORTUNITY TO KEEP THIS TRIAL ON TRACK AND PREVENT
COUNSEL FROM ENGAGING IN A SMEAR CAMPAIGN THAT WILL MISLEAD,
CONFUSE AND INFLAME THIS JURY.
      THE COURT:  THANK YOU, MISS CLARK.
 
       MR. BAILEY:  MAY THE COURT NOTE AND MAY THE WORLD LONG
REMEMBER THAT MISS CLARK CHARACTERIZED THIS EVIDENCE AS FUNNY.
      MS. CLARK:  I DIDN'T SAY THIS WAS FUNNY.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
            COUNSEL, MISS CLARK, LET ME JUST ASK YOU AN INFORMAL
QUESTION.
            YOU INDICATED THE PROSECUTION HAS INTERVIEWED ANDREA
TERRY, CORRECT?
 
            (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
             BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
             ATTORNEYS.)
 
      MS. LEWIS:  I SPOKE TO HER LAST NIGHT, YOUR HONOR.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
            WITH REGARDS TO ANDREA TERRY, I AM GOING TO ALLOW
CROSS-EXAMINATION AS TO THAT ISSUE.  IT DID INVOLVE INTERRACIAL
COUPLES AND IT DID INVOLVE THE MANIPULATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE FOR
THE PURPOSES OF STOPPING, WHICH IS SIMILAR ENOUGH TO THE FACTS
AND SITUATION OR THE ALLEGATIONS HERE.
            AS TO MAX CORDOBA, I'M GOING TO ALLOW
CROSS-EXAMINATION ON THAT; HOWEVER, ONLY AFTER THE PROSECUTION
HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REINTERVIEW MR. CORDOBA AS TO THIS
PARTICULAR ALLEGATION, SINCE THERE ARE NO STATEMENTS TO BE TURNED
OVER.
            I DON'T THINK THIS IS A FOOTNOTE 14 ISSUE, AS MISS
CLARK POINTS OUT TO THE COURT.  THIS GOES TO THE IMPEACHMENT OF
ANOTHER WITNESS, NOT TO MAX CORDOBA HIMSELF, SO I FIND THAT THAT
IS DISCOVERABLE AND THAT THE PROSECUTION SHOULD HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO INTERVIEW MR. CORDOBA REGARDING THAT SECOND
STATEMENT.
            MR. FUHRMAN, AS A RESULT, WILL NOT BE RELEASED AS A
WITNESS BUT WILL BE KEPT ON CALL AND SUBJECT TO RECALL.
            AS TO THE ALWYN MARTIN MATTER, THE REPORT, SINCE THE
PROSECUTION HAS JUST RECEIVED THE REPORT REGARDING HER STATEMENT,
THAT THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE WILL NOT BE ALLOWED FOR
CROSS-EXAMINATION UNTIL THE PROSECUTION HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY
TO REVIEW THAT REPORT AND CONDUCT ANY ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATION.
            AS I INDICATED, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WILL LIKELY BE
RECALLED IF THAT IS AN ISSUE.
            AS TO MR. COLEMAN, THE COURT WILL DENY
CROSS-EXAMINATION ON THAT ISSUE.  THE REFUSAL TO SHAKE HANDS WITH
AN INDIVIDUAL CAN BE EXPLAINED BY ANY NUMBER OF REASONS, AND THAT
WILL BE HIGHLY SPECULATIVE.
            THE COURT FINDS THAT NOT TO BE RELEVANT UNDER
EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 350 AND ALSO AN UNDUE CONSUMPTION OF THE
COURT'S TIME UNDER 352.
            ALL RIGHT.  LET'S PROCEED.
      MR. DARDEN:  YOUR HONOR, BEFORE WE CALL THE JURY IN, CAN WE
JUST HAVE ONE MOMENT?
 
            (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
             BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
             ATTORNEYS.)
 
      MS. CLARK:  YOUR HONOR, THE STATEMENT JUST GIVEN TO US
GENERATED ON JANUARY 23RD IS STATED TO BE A DRAFT AND INCOMPLETE.
THERE ARE MANY ASPECTS OF THIS STATEMENT THAT ARE AMBIGUOUS AND
CLEARLY THIS IS NOT THEIR FINAL REPORT.
            THERE IS MORE -- THERE IS MORE TO THIS THAT WE HAVE
NOT RECEIVED AND WE ARE TALKING -- I'M TALKING NOW ABOUT THE
STATEMENT -- ALLEGED STATEMENT BY ALWYN MARTIN.
      MR. BAILEY:  MR. MC KENNA IS HERE.  LET'S PUT HIM ON THE
STAND.
            MISS CLARK, AS USUAL, IS TALKING THROUGH HER HAT.
THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE AND WON'T BE UNTIL FUHRMAN DENIES IT AND
THEN WE WILL BE BACK TALKING TO HER, BUT MR. MC KENNA WILL BE
GLAD TO TESTIFY THAT THERE WILL BE NOTHING FURTHER.
      MS. CLARK:  THEIR OWN REPORT, YOUR HONOR, SAYS
"INCOMPLETE," IT SAYS "DRAFT."  WAS DOES THAT MEAN? ISN'T THAT
CLEAR?  WE WRITE "DRAFT," WE WRITE "INCOMPLETE," "FIRST VERSION,"
SAME THING.  IT MEANS THERE IS A SECOND VERSION.  IT MEANS THERE
IS MORE.
      MR. BAILEY:  NO, IT DOESN'T.
      MS. CLARK:  OR AT LEAST THERE ARE ADDITIONAL NOTES.
            YEAH, LET'S PUT MR. MC KENNA ON THE WITNESS STAND.  I
WANT HIM UNDER OATH.  THAT SOUNDS GOOD.
      THE COURT:  NO, WE ARE NOT GOING TO DO THAT, MISS CLARK, AT
LEAST NOT AT THIS POINT.
            THE THING IS I HAVE GIVEN YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO
REVIEW THE STATEMENT.
            I WILL NOT ALLOW CROSS-EXAMINATION AS TO MISS
MARTIN'S STATEMENTS UNLESS AND UNTIL YOU HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY
TO REVIEW THIS.
            I WILL GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO MR. MC
KENNA TO SEE IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER NOTES, AND MY RECOLLECTION IS
THAT THIS IS LISTED IN THE DISCOVERY INDEX WITH REGARDS TO THE
AVAILABILITY OF NOTES AND OTHER THINGS, SO WE CAN TAKE THAT UP
LATER.
            WE HAVE KEPT THE JURY WAITING FOR A CONSIDERABLE
PERIOD OF TIME.
            MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO, SINCE I'M PRECLUDING
CROSS-EXAMINATION ON THAT ISSUE ANYWAY AT THIS POINT, WHY DON'T
WE PROCEED WITH WHAT WE HAVE WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.
            YOU CAN CONSULT WITH MR. MC KENNA.  IF THERE IS A
NEED TO EXPLORE FURTHER, WE CAN DO THAT.
      MS. CLARK:  MAY I BRING UP ONE FURTHER ISSUE?
      THE COURT:  SURE.
      MS. CLARK:  IT WOULD APPEAR THAT MR. BAILEY HAS A NUMBER OF
BOOKS NEXT TO HIS COMPUTER.  I'M ASSUMING HE INTENDS TO USE THEM
FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION.
            IF HE DOES, I'M ASSUMING HE WON'T USE EVERY PAGE FROM
THE BOOK, I WOULD APPRECIATE BEING GIVEN THOSE PASSAGES HE DOES
INTEND TO USE WITH THE WITNESS WELL IN ADVANCE SO THAT I CAN READ
THEM AND BE READY FOR THE CROSS-EXAMINATION ON THAT MATTER,
RATHER THAN HAVING TO READ AT THE LAST MINUTE AND EXCUSE THE JURY
AS OCCURRED BEFORE DURING MR. COCHRAN'S CROSS-EXAMINATION.
      THE COURT:  WHAT BOOKS ARE WE SPEAKING OF?
      MS. CLARK:  "PHYSICAL EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION,"
"PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AND CONNECTICUT STATE POLICE," "PHYSICAL
EVIDENCE AND FORENSIC SCIENCE."
      THE COURT:  I DON'T RECALL DETECTIVE FUHRMAN SAYING THAT HE
REFERRED TO ANY OF THESE MATERIALS, SO I DON'T KNOW THAT IT IS
RIPE FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION.
            MR. BAILEY, DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE?
      MR. BAILEY:  MRS. CLARK ALWAYS LEAPS BEFORE JUDGING THE
SIZE OF THE CHASM.  THESE BOOKS ARE WAY OVER FUHRMAN'S HEAD.
THEY ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE USED ON HIM.
            THEY ARE FOR MY EDIFICATION SHOULD THE REASON ARISE.
I LIKE TO ASK QUESTIONS OF WITNESSES, EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY NOT BE
EXPERTS, THAT ARE  PROPERLY GROUNDED IN SCIENTIFIC FACT AND THESE
ARE REFERENCE MATERIALS FOR THAT PURPOSE.
            I WILL BE GLAD TO LOAN THEM TO THE PROSECUTION IF
THEY HAVE COME TO ADMIRE THE BOOKS, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE ANY NEED
TO HAVE THEM NOW.
            I WOULD OF COURSE LIKE TO HAVE THE SCRIPT THAT SHE
HAS BEEN USING WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AND HAVEN'T BEEN OFFERED
THAT.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
      MS. CLARK:  I THINK I PROBABLY READ BOOKS FAR MORE ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY THAT WHAT ARE HERE.  THESE ARE VERY BASIC PRIMERS.
            AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF MR. BAILEY INTENDS TO
USE THEM WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.
            IS IT HIS STATEMENT THAT HE WILL NOT?
      THE COURT:  THE INDICATION THAT I JUST HEARD WAS I THINK
NO.
      MR. BAILEY:  DR. HENRY LEE WILL BE GLAD TO KNOW ABOUT THE
INSULT, SINCE HE WROTE ALL THREE OF THEM.
      MS. CLARK:  THAT IS NOT INSULTING THAT HE WROTE A BASIC
PRIMER.
      THE COURT:  I TAKE THAT THE ANSWER TO BE NO.

[AT THIS POINT FUHRMAN'S CROSS-EXAMINATION BEGINS]