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]