LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1995 9:05 A.M.
DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE
APPEARANCES: (APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED;
ALSO PRESENT, CARL JONES, ESQUIRE,
APPEARING ON BEHALF OF MARGUERITE THOMAS.)
(JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR NO. 4855, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)
(CHRISTINE M. OLSON, CSR NO. 2378, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE PRESENCE
OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. MR.
SIMPSON IS NOT PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT. TWO -- THREE OF HIS COUNSEL, MR.
SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. BAILEY ARE PRESENT, PEOPLE REPRESENTED BY MISS
CHERI LEWIS AND PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE SUBPOENAED WITNESS IS COUNSEL
CARL JONES. GOOD MORNING, MR. JONES.
MR. JONES: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: MR. JONES, YOU HAVE A MOTION TO QUASH THE SUBPOENA FOR
MARGUERITE SIMPSON THOMAS?
MR. JONES: WE HAVE, YOUR HONOR. WE ARE MOVING TO QUASH THE SUBPOENA
BASED ON THE OUTRAGEOUS MANNER IN WHICH THE SERVICE TOOK PLACE,
ACTIVITIES WHICH WE FEEL SHOULD SHOCK THE CONSCIENCE OF THE COURT
AND/OR BECAUSE THE WITNESS HAS NO RELEVANT MATERIAL TESTIMONY TO
OFFER. YOU HAVE BEEN PRESENTED WITH TWO SETS OF FACTS. BOTH CANNOT BE
TRUE. OUR VERSION HAS A SUBTERFUGE TAKING PLACE AT THE FRONT DOOR OF
THE THOMAS HOME ON DECEMBER 27TH. THE PEOPLE'S VERSION, AS REFLECTED IN
THE REPORTS, READ AS IF MR. THOMAS DOES NOT EXIST, AS IF NOTHING HAPPENED
BETWEEN THE POLICE OFFICERS AND MR. THOMAS AND THAT THEIR ACTIVITIES
START AT THE FRONT DOOR WITH MRS. THOMAS WHEN THEY KNOCKED AT THE
DOOR, IDENTIFIED THEMSELVES AND POLITELY SERVED HER WITH THE SUBPOENA,
AT WHICH POINT SHE RESPONDED, "YOU CHICKEN SHITS," QUOTE, END QUOTE. NOW,
WE THINK THAT THE COURT HAS THE POWER TO QUASH THE SUBPOENA IN THIS
CASE BECAUSE OF THE POWER INHERENT IN THE COURT TO CONTROL THE
PROCEEDINGS THAT TAKE PLACE BEFORE IT. WE ALSO THINK THAT THE COURT HAS
THE POWER TO QUASH THE SUBPOENA BASED ON THE CASES IN WHICH
OUTRAGEOUS POLICE MISCONDUCT TOOK PLACE AND SERIOUS CRIMINAL CHARGES
HAVE BEEN DISMISSED OR CONTRABAND HAS BEEN SUPPRESSED. AND WE TALKED
AT ONE PAST APPEARANCE ABOUT THE POWER TO DO THE GREATER SHOULD
INCLUDE THE POWER TO DO THE LESSER. IT IS OUR POSITION THAT IF THE COURT
BASED ON OUTRAGEOUS POLICE MISCONDUCT, CONDUCT WHICH SHOCKS THE
CONSCIENCE OF THE COURT HAS THE POWER TO DISMISS CHARGES AND TO
SUPPRESS EVIDENCE, THEN CERTAINLY IT HAS THE POWER TO DO WHAT WE ARE
ASKING, WHICH IS TO QUASH THE SUBPOENA. WE ALSO THINK THAT THE POWER OF
THIS COURT TO SUPPRESS THE SUBPOENA COMES BY ANALOGY TO OTHER CASES
WHERE PRETEXTS HAVE BEEN USED AND THEN CONDEMNED, PRETEXTS, FOR
EXAMPLE, IN THE AREAS OF TRAFFIC STOPS WHERE THEY ARE USED AS A
SUBTERFUGE TO CONDUCT SEARCHES FOR EVIDENCE OF OTHER CRIMES. WE HAVE
PRETEXTUAL VEHICLE IMPOUNDING AS AN EXCUSE TO DO AN INVENTORY TO
RUMMAGE FOR EVIDENCE OF OTHER CRIMES. WE HAVE PRETEXTUAL ARRESTS
WHERE ONE ARREST IS MADE AS A RUSE TO CONDUCT A SEARCH FOR EVIDENCE OF
OTHER CRIMES. ALL OF THOSE CASES GIVE THIS COURT THE POWER TO QUASH THIS
SUBPOENA BECAUSE OF THE PRETEXT THAT WAS USED AT THE DOOR OF THE
THOMAS HOME; NAMELY, ASKING MR. THOMAS TO COME OUTSIDE IN RESPONSE TO
AN INVESTIGATION HAVING TO DO WITH AN AUTO BURGLARY, A BURGLARY OF HIS
VEHICLE, AND WHEN HE DISAPPEARED WITH THE OFFICERS, HAVING THEM COME
BACK TO THE DOOR IN HIS ABSENCE, INFER TO MRS. THOMAS THAT HER HUSBAND,
HER LOVED ONE, WAS EITHER INJURED OR DEAD AND SHE SHOULD COME OUTSIDE
IMMEDIATELY, AT WHICH TIME THEY SERVED HER WITH A SUBPOENA. WE THINK
THAT WAS OUTRAGEOUS. WE THINK THAT ALL OF THESE CASES THAT CONDEMN
PRETEXTS APPLY AND WE THINK THAT IF THE COURT IS LOOKING FOR ANOTHER
REASON TO QUASH, SOME FACTOR IN ADDITION TO THE IMPROPER SERVICE, THEN
WE CAN LOOK TO THE FACT THAT MRS. THOMAS HAS NO RELEVANT OR MATERIAL
TESTIMONY TO OFFER IN THIS CASE. NOW, IN MY PAPERWORK, I HAVE BEEN
SUPPLIED WITH REPORTS THAT SAY OR THAT QUOTE MRS. THOMAS AS INDICATING
THAT, "THE DEFENDANT SIMPSON NEVER HIT ME, NEVER BEAT ME, NEVER ABUSED
ME, NEVER BATTERED ME." I DON'T THINK THEY WOULD CALL HER IN THEIR CASE TO
ESTABLISH THAT. SHE ALSO IS QUOTED AS SAYING, "MR. SIMPSON TOLD ME HE WAS
INNOCENT AND THAT HE WAS BEING FRAMED." I DON'T THINK THAT THEY WOULD
CALL HER TO TESTIFY TO THAT. SHE ALSO IS QUOTED AS SAYING, "MR. SIMPSON
ASKED ME TO KEEP HIS YOUNGER CHILDREN INVOLVED IN THE BLACK CHURCH AND
IN TOUCH WITH THE BLACK SIDE OF THEIR HERITAGE." I DON'T THINK THEY WOULD
CALL HER TO TESTIFY TO THAT. THE ONLY THING THAT I HAVE BEEN SUPPLIED WITH
AS COMING CLOSE TO ANY BASIS FOR CALLING HER IS A REPORT COVERING AN
INCIDENT BY -- THAT CAN BE SUMMARIZED AS THIS.
ON SOME UNKNOWN DATE ABOUT 20 YEARS AGO, A BACK-UP OFFICER RESPONDED
TO AN UNKNOWN ADDRESS WITH UNKNOWN PRIMARY OFFICERS AND TOOK MRS.
THOMAS, SIMPSON AT THAT TIME TO AN UNKNOWN LOCATION WHERE SHE STAYED
FOR AN UNKNOWN TIME AND THAT THIS BACK-UP OFFICER, THE ONE THING HE IS
CERTAIN IN THE MIDDLE OF ALL OF THOSE UNKNOWNS IS THAT SHE, MRS. THOMAS,
HAD NO VISIBLE INJURIES. AND I THINK THAT THAT IS NOT RELEVANT, THAT IS NOT
MATERIAL AND THAT IS NO REASON TO HAVE HER COME IN HERE. THE OTHER THING
THAT I WOULD POINT OUT TO THE COURT -- AND YOU HAVE THIS REPORT ATTACHED
TO THE PEOPLE'S RESPONSE -- IS THAT IT APPEARS THAT ON DECEMBER 27TH, WHICH
IS THE POINT IN TIME THAT WE SHOULD BE TESTING WHEN THE SUBPOENA WAS
SERVED, THAT THE PEOPLE DID NOT HAVE THIS INFORMATION IN THEIR POSSESSION
BECAUSE THE NOTATION IN THE BOTTOM LEFT CORNER INDICATES, "RECEIVED
1-9-95." NOW, IF 1-9-95 MEANS JANUARY 9TH, '95, THEY DID NOT HAVE THIS ON
DECEMBER 27TH, '94 AND I DON'T THINK IT -- I THINK A GOOD ARGUMENT COULD BE
MADE THAT THIS PROVIDES NO BASIS WHATSOEVER AND ATTACHING IT TO THIS --
THESE PAPERS IN OPPOSITION DOES NOT HELP YOU DECIDE WHAT RELEVANT
MATERIAL INFORMATION SHE HAD ON DECEMBER 27TH. NOW, I WOULD ASK THE
COURT TO DO THE FOLLOWING: OBSERVE THAT NOT ONE SINGLE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY HAS ATTACHED AN AFFIDAVIT TO THESE MOVING PARTIES. AND THAT IS
TO THEIR CREDIT I WOULD SUBMIT BECAUSE THESE REPORTS WHICH TEND TO
JUSTIFY THIS SERVICE IS A HALF TRUTH, A DISTORTION AND MISLEADING IN THE
SENSE THAT IT STARTS AT THE FRONT DOOR AS IF NOTHING HAD EVER HAPPENED. I
WOULD ASK THE COURT TO REJECT THE INVITATION BY THE TITLES USED IN THAT
POLICE REPORT OF CHAPLAIN OFFICER SO AND SO DOING SUCH AND SUCH
BECAUSE THOSE TITLES ARE MISLEADING. AND THE TITLES THAT COME TO MY MIND
ARE REVEREND JIM JONES OF THE JAMESTOWN MASSACRE AND REVEREND JIM
BAKER AND OTHER REVERENDS THAT DON'T MATCH THE INVITATION THAT'S BEING
EXTENDED TO THIS COURT BY THE USE OF THE TERM "CHAPLAIN." I WOULD ASK
YOUR HONOR TO CONSIDER THE INCREDIBLE SCENARIO THAT THE PEOPLE WANT
YOU TO SWALLOW, WHICH IS, THIS LADY IS IN HIDING AND THEY GO UP TO THE
DOOR AND THEY KNOCK ON THE DOOR AND THEY SAY, "MISS THOMAS, POLICE
OFFICERS. WOULD YOU PLEASE OPEN THE DOOR," AND THIS LADY WHO IS IN HIDING
AND WHO IS IN CONCEALMENT OPENS THE DOOR AND THEY GIVE HER THE
SUBPOENA. THAT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH SOMEONE WHO IS IN HIDING. HER
RESPONSE HOWEVER, "YOU CHICKEN SHITS," IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR VERSION OF
THE FACTS, WHICH IS, THEY HAD LURED HER HUSBAND OUTSIDE BASED ON A LIE
ABOUT HIS VEHICLE BEING BURGLARIZED.
THE COURT: WELL, MR. JONES, LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION. MY RECOLLECTION
OF THE CIVIL CODE THAT DEALS WITH THE SERVICE OF SUBPOENAS DOES ALLOW A
COURT TO ISSUE ORDERS TO ALLOW POLICE OFFICERS TO EVEN BREAK AND ENTER
TO SERVE SUBPOENAS UNDER THE APPROPRIATE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THESE
OFFICERS APPARENTLY DIDN'T RESORT TO THAT.
MR. JONES: YOU ARE CORRECT, YOUR HONOR. AND THE DIFFERENCE IS GIGANTIC
BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS IN THE SITUATION THAT YOU ARE TOUCHING ON IS THAT
A DETACHED NEUTRAL MAGISTRATE, MUCH LIKE THE MAGISTRATE WITH A SEARCH
WARRANT, IS GIVEN ALL OF THE INFORMATION THAT THEY HAVE, AND THAT
DETACHED, NEUTRAL MAGISTRATE THEN DECIDES WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS
SUFFICIENT CAUSE TO AUTHORIZE THESE OFFICERS TO BREAK OPEN THE DOOR IN
ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH THE SERVICE. THERE IS NO CODE, CIVIL PROCEDURE, CIVIL,
CRIMINAL, PENAL OR ANY OTHER CODE THAT ALLOWS THE OFFICERS TO DO THAT
WITHOUT THE EVALUATION OF THE DETACHED, NEUTRAL MAGISTRATE. IN THIS
CASE, THE PEOPLE BYPASSED THAT MAGISTRATE AND THEY WENT OUT TO THE
HOUSE, AND WHAT THEY DID IS TRAUMATIZE MRS. THOMAS BY INFERRING THE
INJURY TO HER HUSBAND.
NOW, THERE ARE CASES WHICH PERMIT THE POLICE TO SAY, TELEGRAM, FLORIST,
FEDEX OR SOME INNOCUOUS EXCUSE IN ORDER TO GET THE OCCUPANT TO OPEN
THE DOOR, BUT THERE IS NO CASE THAT SAYS YOU CAN CREATE THE STRESS AND
THE ATTENTION AND THE CLIMATE OF FEAR THAT WAS CREATED IN THIS CASE.
THE COURT: SO YOU'RE ANALOGIZING TO THE INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL HARM CASES.
MR. JONES: WELL, I WOULD EXCEPT THAT SOUNDS LIKE SHE WANTS TO SUE
SOMEBODY, AND SHE IS NOT INTERESTED IN SUING. WHAT SHE WANTS IS TO BE
TREATED WITH THE RESPECT AND DIGNITY THAT SHE'S ENTITLED TO. SHE'S NOT A
SUSPECT, SHE'S NOT A DEFENDANT. SHE HAS DONE NOTHING WRONG EXCEPT BE
THE VICTIM OF A CRUEL HOAX BY THESE PEOPLE. THESE REPORTS -- YOU KNOW, IT'S
MUCH LIKE WATERGATE. WATERGATE STARTED OFF AS A SECOND-RATE BURGLARY
AND IT REACHED A NATIONAL SCANDAL LEVEL BECAUSE OF THE COVER-UP. THESE
PEOPLE DID WHAT THEY DID AT THE DOOR AND THEN THEY FILED REPORTS WITH
YOU NOT BY ANY POLICE OFFICER WHO WAS INVOLVED, NOT BY ANY DEPUTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY WHO WAS INVOLVED AND OMITTING ALL REFERENCES TO
WHAT HAPPENED BETWEEN THEM AND THE HUSBAND AND THEN USES THE TERM
"CHAPLAIN" IN ORDER TO INVITE YOU TO ATTACH SOME CREDIBILITY TO THAT AND
THEN THEY ATTACH A REPORT THAT THEY APPARENTLY RECEIVED IN JANUARY TO
JUSTIFY CONDUCT IN DECEMBER. I THINK IT'S OUTRAGEOUS. I THINK THAT WHAT
THEY DID IS TOTALLY INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT THEY CLAIM. THEY CLAIM IN
THESE REPORTS THAT SHE WAS NOT IN HIDING. HER RESPONSE INDICATES THAT HER
HUSBAND HAD BEEN TRICKED OUTSIDE. AND THEIR REPORTS WHICH INDICATE THAT
SHE WAS NOT HIDING I WOULD ADD IS TOTALLY CONTRARY TO THE
REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY MRS. CLARK HERE ON JANUARY 3RD WHEN I FILED
THESE PAPERS AND I COMPLAINED OF THIS CONDUCT, AND MISS CLARK SAID ON
JANUARY 3RD AT 9:00 O'CLOCK, "WE HAD TO DO THAT BECAUSE SHE WAS HIDING
FROM US." THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: MISS LEWIS?
MS. LEWIS: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: GOOD MORNING.
MS. LEWIS: GOOD MORNING. YOUR HONOR, IN DECIDING WHETHER THE COURT
SHOULD INDEED QUASH THE SUBPOENA, THERE'S ONLY ONE RELEVANT ISSUE FOR
THE COURT TO DECIDE; AND THAT IS WHETHER THIS WITNESS HAS RELEVANT AND
MATERIAL INFORMATION TO OFFER. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO AUTHORITY FOR THE
PROPOSITION THAT THE COURT CAN QUASH THE SUBPOENA ON ANY GROUND
OTHER THAN THAT, AND THAT WAS THE GIST OF OUR RESPONSIVE BRIEF AND THE
PEOPLE VERSUS SUPERIOR COURT LONG CASE, WHICH INDEED HOLDS THAT THAT IS
THE ONLY MEANS IN WHICH A SUBPOENA FOR A WITNESS CAN BE QUASHED. THE
AUTHORITY CITED BY COUNSEL DOES NOT APPLY HERE. THIS MORNING, I SUPPLIED
THE COURT AND COUNSEL WITH THE FABRICANT CASE, WHICH INDICATES THE
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 1987.1 HAS NO APPLICATION IN CRIMINAL
CASES. THAT CASE SQUARELY HELD THAT. IN ADDITION, I WAS GOING TO REMIND
THE COURT, WHICH THE COURT ALREADY TOOK NOTE OF, OF CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE SECTION 1988, WHICH CERTAINLY CARRIES WITH IT A HARSHER
MANNER OF ACCOMPLISHING SERVICE THAN ANYTHING THAT WAS NEARLY
APPROACHED IN THIS CASE; AND THAT IS TO ALLOW THE SHERIFF'S TO GO BREAK
DOWN SOMEONE'S DOOR. CERTAINLY, IF SOMEONE WERE GOING TO SUFFER
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AS A RESULT OF BEING SERVED WITH A SUBPOENA, THAT
WOULD BE THE SITUATION WHERE THAT HAPPENS. FURTHER, THE CASE LAW THAT
COUNSEL CITES WITH REGARD TO OUTRAGEOUS GOVERNMENTAL CONDUCT HAS
NO APPLICATION HERE. THERE'S NOT A SINGLE STATUTE OR SINGLE CASE THAT I'M
AWARE OF -- AND I LOOKED TO SEE WHETHER THAT HAS EVER BEEN APPLIED IN THIS
INSTANCE IN TERMS OF MOVING TO QUASH A SUBPOENA, AND IT HAS NOT. THERE IS
SIMPLY NO AUTHORITY FOR THAT. AS LONG AS COUNSEL MENTIONED THE IDEA OF
PRETEXT STOPS, THE EVOLUTION OF THAT LAW INDEED IS THAT SO LONG AS THE
POLICE ACT LAWFULLY, IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT WAS IN THEIR MIND OR WHAT
SUBJECTIVE THINKING THEY HAD. IN FACT, I'M AWARE OF THE MOST RECENT
PRETEXT STOP CASE BY THE COURT OF APPEAL WAS PEOPLE VERSUS TODD, DECIDED
A COUPLE MONTHS AGO I BELIEVE AT 30 CAL. APP. 4617, AND I THINK THAT WAS THE
FOURTH ADVANCE SHEET FROM NOW OR THIRD ADVANCE SHEET FROM NOW. AT
ANY RATE, THAT HAS NO APPLICATION HERE EITHER. THAT'S NOT AN ANALOGOUS
SITUATION ANYMORE THAN THE CASES WHICH DISMISS BASED ON GOVERNMENT
CONDUCT IS. SO WHAT THE COURT REALLY HAS TO DO AND ALL THE COURT HAS TO
DECIDE HERE IS WHETHER MARGUERITE SIMPSON HAS RELEVANT AND MATERIAL
INFORMATION TO OFFER IN TESTIMONY. AND SHE DOES. WE KNOW FIRST OF ALL
THAT SHE WAS MARRIED TO THE DEFENDANT FOR 12 YEARS FROM THE PERIOD OF
1967 TO 1979. AND THE POLICE OFFICER, WHO BY THE WAY, I RECEIVED
INFORMATION WITH REGARD TO THAT POLICE OFFICER'S KNOWLEDGE BEFORE WE
GOT THE REPORT IN HAND. THAT POLICE OFFICER INDICATED THAT HE HAD BEEN
OUT TO THAT LOCATION OF WHERE THE DEFENDANT WAS LIVING WITH HIS FIRST
WIFE APPROXIMATELY 20 YEARS PRIOR TO THAT, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN 1974
SINCE THE POLICE OFFICER'S REPORT IS DATED LATE 1994; AND 1974 WOULD HAVE
BEEN SQUARELY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE 1967 TO 1979 YEARS DURING WHICH
MARGUERITE SIMPSON WAS MARRIED TO THE DEFENDANT SIMPSON. AND HE
RECALLS THAT WELL ENOUGH TO RECALL THAT SHE HAD CLAIMED SHE HAD BEEN
HIT AND THAT SHE AND THE CHILDREN WERE REMOVED FROM THE HOME. THAT IS A
SIGNIFICANT EVENT, ESPECIALLY WHEN ONE CONSIDERS THAT IT TOOK PLACE 20
YEARS AGO. AS THE COURT IS CERTAINLY AWARE, THE EVOLUTION OF THE
SERIOUSNESS WITH WHICH POLICE RESPOND TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CALLS HAS
BROUGHT US TO THE POINT WHERE THERE IS A SERIOUS RESPONSE. 20 YEARS AGO, I
SUBMIT THERE WAS NOT A SERIOUS RESPONSE. SO THE FACT THAT THOSE CHILDREN
AND THE WIFE HAD TO BE REMOVED FROM THE HOME CERTAINLY LENDS CREDENCE
TO THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT INCIDENT.
THE COURT: WHEN WAS THAT INFORMATION MADE AVAILABLE TO THE
PROSECUTION? WHEN DID YOU BECOME AWARE OF THAT?
MS. LEWIS: YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T MAKE A NOTE OF THE DATE, YOUR HONOR. I JUST
-- THE OFFICER WHO HAD THAT REPORT BROUGHT IT INTO THE OFFICE AT SOME
TIME AFTER THAT. I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T MAKE NOTE OF THE DATE THAT I BECAME
AWARE OF IT, BUT I DID BECOME AWARE OF IT BEFORE WE ACTUALLY GOT THE
REPORT.
THE COURT: WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE TO MR. JONES' ARGUMENT THAT THE -- THAT
INFORMATION WAS NOT MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PROSECUTION PRIOR TO THE
DECEMBER 27TH DATE OF THE SERVICE OF THE SUBPOENA?
MS. LEWIS: I THINK THOUGH I CAN NOT HONESTLY TELL THE COURT ONE WAY OR
THE OTHER. I THINK IT WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO US BEFORE THEN, BUT I AM NOT
SURE. AT ANY RATE, YOUR HONOR, THAT IS NOT --
THE COURT: WELL, LET ME ASK YOU ANOTHER QUESTION THEN. LET'S EXCISE THEN
FROM THE THOUGHT PROCESS OF ISSUING A SUBPOENA FOR HER. WHAT IS THERE
THAT'S MATERIAL THEN THAT'S LEFT?
MS. LEWIS: THERE -- IN TERMS OF HER RELEVANCE IN TESTIMONY?
THE COURT: YES.
MS. LEWIS: THERE IS A LOT, YOUR HONOR. SHE SPOKE TO A POLICE DETECTIVE
WITH ROBBERY-HOMICIDE DIVISION JUNE 23RD, 1994 AND SHE HAD SEVERAL THINGS
TO SAY WHICH WE, AS THE PROSECUTION, FEEL IT IS INCUMBENT UPON US TO
INVESTIGATE AND TO DETERMINE WHAT CAN BE GLEANED FROM THAT
INFORMATION. INITIALLY, SHE RECEIVED A THREATENING PHONE CALL ON HER
ANSWERING MACHINE WHICH WAS MADE TO, AS SHE DESCRIBED, HER UNLISTED
HOME TELEPHONE NUMBER; AND DURING THAT MESSAGE THAT WAS LEFT, THE MAN
WHO LEFT THE MESSAGE THREATENED TO KILL HER. NOW, SHE WAS ADVISED BY
DETECTIVE HARO I BELIEVE IT WAS OF RHD, ROBBERY-HOMICIDE DIVISION, TO SAVE
THAT MICROCASSETTE. WE WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO HER ABOUT THAT. WE WOULD
LIKE TO OBTAIN THAT MICROCASSETTE AND DO VOICE COMPARISONS. ALTHOUGH
MISS SIMPSON THOMAS INDICATED THAT SHE DID NOT RECOGNIZE THE VOICE ON
THAT TAPE, WE AS PROSECUTORS WOULD LIKE TO DO SOME COMPARISONS WITH
KNOWN VOICES AND SEE IF THERE'S --
THE COURT: EXCUSE ME. MISS LEWIS, WAS THAT THREATENING PHONE CALL, THE
MESSAGE, WAS IT RELEVANT TO ANY FACTS OR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE?
MS. LEWIS: WELL, WE DON'T KNOW. THE TIMING WAS VERY INTERESTING, THAT IT
HAPPENED ON JUNE 23RD, YOUR HONOR, ONLY 13 DAYS OR 10 DAYS, 11 DAYS AFTER
THE MURDERS IN THIS CASE. SO WE NEED TO FIND OUT WHAT THAT -- EXACTLY
WHAT IS ON THAT TAPE. WE NEED TO DO COMPARISONS. PART OF THE DIFFICULTY
IS THAT IN THAT -- AND I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO A FACTUAL DISPUTE, BUT PART
OF THE DIFFICULTY WAS THAT MARGUERITE SIMPSON THOMAS WAS INDEED
EVADING CONTACT WITH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SO WE COULD NOT
DETERMINE THAT IN ANOTHER MANNER. BUT OF EVEN GREATER SALIENT
RELEVANCE TO THIS PARTICULAR CASE WAS A CONVERSATION SHE HAD ON JUNE
17TH WITH THE DEFENDANT AT BOB KARDASHIAN'S HOME IN ENCINO, AND SHE
INDICATED TO THE POLICE DETECTIVES WHO INTERVIEWED HER THAT THE
DEFENDANT SIMPSON ASKED HER TO GO TO HIS HOME ON ROCKINGHAM. THAT'S
ALL THE REPORT INDICATES IN THAT REGARD. WE NEED TO KNOW WHY, FOR WHAT
PURPOSE. THIS WAS HOURS BEFORE THE DEFENDANT FLED WITH MR. COWLINGS IN
THE FORD BRONCO AND AFTER HE KNEW HE WAS GOING TO BE ARRESTED. WE
WANT TO KNOW THE DETAILS OF THAT CONVERSATION. IN ADDITION, YOUR
HONOR, APPARENTLY SHE ALSO SPOKE TO MR. SIMPSON WHEN SHE DID ARRIVE AT
THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE BY CELL PHONE. APPARENTLY THE DEFENDANT
CALLED HER ON THE CELL PHONE FROM THE BRONCO AND SPOKE TO HER AT THAT
TIME. WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE DETAILS OF THAT CONVERSATION. THESE ARE
ALL FACTS THAT COULD WELL BE VERY IMPORTANT TO THE CASE. NOW,
RECOGNIZING THAT THE COURT HAS MADE VALIANT ATTEMPTS TO LIMIT BOTH
SIDES TO ONLY THE ONE ARGUMENT IN CASES, I WANT TO ADDRESS FOR A MOMENT
THE IDEA THAT EVEN IF THE COURT WERE TO ACCEPT A NOTION THAT THE COURT
HAS THE AUTHORITY EVEN WITHOUT STATUTE OR WITHOUT CASE LAW ON POINT TO
DISMISS THE SUBPOENA OR TO QUASH THE SUBPOENA BASED ON OUTRAGEOUS
GOVERNMENTAL CONDUCT, THIS DECLARATION WHICH MR. JONES HAS PROVIDED,
YOUR HONOR, ACTUALLY READ MORE LIKE TO ME A CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR
INTENTIONAL OR NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS. I FOUND IT
INTERESTING THAT THE COURT MADE A SIMILAR TYPE OF OBSERVATION BECAUSE IT
CONCENTRATES A GREAT DEAL ON MARGUERITE SIMPSON THOMAS' STATE OF MIND
AS A RESULT OF THE ALLEGED CONDUCT. BUT WHAT I WANT TO DO AND I DO -- I
WANT TO MAKE IT CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THE ALLEGATIONS AS SET FORTH WITH
REGARD TO DECEMBER 27TH IN MR. JONES' DECLARATION ARE NOT THE WAY THAT
IT HAPPENED, AND WE CAN HAVE A FULL-BLOWN HEARING AND TAKE UP THIS
COURT'S TIME DESPITE HAVING A SEQUESTERED JURY AND ASK THE COURT TO
MAKE THAT DETERMINATION. BUT I DO WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WE ARE NOT
SAYING THOSE FACTS HAPPENED. THEY DID NOT HAPPEN. BUT I WOULD ASK THE
COURT TO TREAT THAT DECLARATION SORT OF LIKE A COMPLAINT IN A CIVIL CASE
AND A DEMURRER WHICH IS BROUGHT AGAINST IT AND LOOK AT THE ALLEGATIONS
ON THEIR FACE. EVEN ACCEPTING THEY'RE TRUE -- AND AGAIN, I CAN'T SAY IT
ENOUGH ESPECIALLY WITH A CAMERA AND THE WAY NON-LAWYERS UNDERSTAND
THESE THINGS, THAT DID NOT GO DOWN THAT WAY AND WE HAVE THE
INVESTIGATORS INVOLVED IN IT HERE PREPARED TO TESTIFY, AND WE CAN TAKE
ALL THE COURT'S TIME THE COURT I'M SURE DOESN'T WANT TO DO IN THAT REGARD.
BUT IF THE COURT LOOKS AT THE ALLEGATIONS THAT ARE MADE WITH REGARD TO
THE CONDUCT IN MR. JONES' DECLARATION, ALL IT ALLEGES IS THAT THE POLICE
CALLED THE HUSBAND OUTSIDE ON A PRETEXT, YELLED SOMETHING ABOUT HER
HUSBAND WHICH CAUSED HER TO OPEN THE DOOR. IT DOES NOT EVEN INDICATE
WHAT IT WAS THAT WAS YELLED WITHIN THE DECLARATION, BUT YELLED
SOMETHING ABOUT HER HUSBAND WHICH CAUSED HER TO OPEN THE DOOR AND
PUT THEIR FOOT IN THE DOOR LONG ENOUGH TO THROW A SUBPOENA INSIDE. AND
THAT'S THE END OF THE FACTUAL ALLEGATION. THEN IT TALKS ABOUT HER MENTAL
STATE. SO BY IMPLICATION, LAW ENFORCEMENT LEFT AT THAT TIME. SO WHAT I'M
SUGGESTING, YOUR HONOR, IS, EVEN IF THE COURT WERE TO WANT TO LOOK
BEYOND, WANTED TO LOOK AT THE FACTS THEMSELVES, WHICH THE COURT NEED
NOT DO IN THIS REGARD, AS A MATTER OF LAW, THERE IS NO OUTRAGEOUS
GOVERNMENTAL CONDUCT EVEN UNDER THE ALLEGATIONS THAT MR. JONES'
DECLARATION, WHICH APPARENTLY IS NOT INFORMATION AND BELIEF, ALLEGES. IN
FACT, THE TRUSTWORTHINESS OF THOSE ALLEGATIONS IS INHERENTLY
UNTRUSTWORTHY. MISS MARGUERITE THOMAS, WHEN SHE APPEARED ON THE
BARBARA WALTERS SHOW INDICATED THAT THE POLICE HAD SAID THERE HAD BEEN
A RASH OF BURGLARIES AND FOR HER HUSBAND TO COME OUTSIDE AND CHECK.
EVEN THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT IS STATED IN THIS DECLARATION, WHICH
WAS THAT THE HUSBAND WAS TOLD HIS CAR WAS BURGLARIZED. SO -- BUT LIKE I
SAID, I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO A FACTUAL DISPUTE BECAUSE IT'S NOT
IMPORTANT. IT'S A WASTE OF THIS COURT'S TIME AND RESOURCES, AND WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT A SUBPOENA ON A WITNESS. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT
SOMETHING THAT GOES TO THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT OR INNOCENCE DIRECTLY AND
SHOULD CONSUME THIS COURT'S TIME. BUT, YOUR HONOR, THE ONLY ISSUE THAT
THE CASE LAW ALLOWS THIS COURT TO DECIDE IS WHETHER INDEED THIS WITNESS
HAS RELEVANT AND MATERIAL INFORMATION TO OFFER. AND FOR THE REASONS
SET FORTH, WE CERTAINLY BELIEVE THAT SHE DOES AND CONSEQUENTLY WE ASK
THE COURT TO DENY THE MOTION TO QUASH THE SUBPOENA.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MISS LEWIS. MR. JONES, DO YOU HAVE ANY
BRIEF RESPONSE?
MR. JONES: VERY BRIEF, YOUR HONOR. YOUR HONOR, COUNSEL REFERS TO SOME
ADDITIONAL HEARING SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE. I'VE BEEN HERE THREE TIMES. IT
WAS MY IMPRESSION THIS IS THE HEARING. IF THEY HAVE WITNESSES, IF THEY HAVE
INFORMATION, IF THEY HAVE DOCUMENTS, IF THEY HAVE BARBARA WALTERS, THEN
THIS IS THE TIME FOR IT. WE ARE ASKING THE COURT TO QUASH THIS SUBPOENA.
THEY SAY THEY WANT -- THEY NEED TO INVESTIGATE THINGS. WELL, THE THIRST
FOR KNOWLEDGE IS ADMIRABLE, BUT YOU DON'T DO IT BY SUBPOENA. IT'S THE
REVERSE. YOU DO THE INVESTIGATION, YOU DEVELOP RELEVANT AND MATERIAL
INFORMATION AND THEN YOU SERVE THE WITNESS WITH A SUBPOENA. YOU CAN
NOT SERVE THE WITNESS WITH A SUBPOENA AND GO FISHING ONCE SHE IS ON THE
STAND, AND I THINK THAT THAT'S LUDICROUS. SECONDLY, THEY TALK ABOUT THE
WEAKNESS OF OUR FACTUAL SCENARIO. I WOULD JUST SUBMIT IT TO THE COURT
THAT THE RESPONSE BY THIS LADY AFTER THIS APPROACH, KNOCK, KNOCK, POLICE
OFFICERS, MRS. THOMAS, MAY WE COME IN, OPEN THE DOOR, AND SHE SAYS YOU
CHICKEN SHITS, THAT SPEAKS VOLUMES FOR WHAT HAPPENED AND WHERE THE
TRUTH LIES WITH RESPECT TO THIS FACTUAL CONTROVERSY. AND LASTLY, THIS
CASE THAT THEY GAVE ME THIS MORNING SAYS YOU CAN'T ASSESS FEES AFTER
YOU QUASH THE SUBPOENA. I CONCEDE THAT. WE'RE NOT REQUESTING FEES. WE DO
ASK THE COURT TO QUASH THE SUBPOENA.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. I ACCEPT THE
ARGUMENT BY MR. JONES THAT THE COURT DOES HAVE INHERENT POWER TO
QUASH SUBPOENAS IN THE FACE OF OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT BY EITHER PARTY IN
THE SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA ALTHOUGH I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIND ANY CASE
AUTHORITY THAT DIRECTLY SAYS SO, BUT I ACCEPT THAT AS A GIVEN AND I WILL BE
SURPRISED IF ANY APPELLATE COURT WOULD OVERTURN THAT PARTICULAR
FINDING. IN EXAMINING THE ASSERTIONS IN THE MOVING PAPERS, HOWEVER, I FIND
THAT FACTUALLY THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS SITUATION DO
NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF OUTRAGE THAT WOULD SHOCK THE CONSCIENCE OF
THE COURT. AND SO ON THAT GROUNDS, I DECLINE TO QUASH THE SUBPOENA. THEN
THE COURT HAS TO FOCUS ITS ATTENTION TO WHETHER OR NOT THE WITNESS HAS
SOME RELEVANT INFORMATION WITH REGARDS TO THIS CASE. THE FACT THAT THE
WITNESS ON JUNE THE 17TH DID IN FACT HAVE OR IS ALLEGED TO HAVE HAD TWO
TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE DEFENDANT AND WAS -- WHICH RELATE
BOTH TO THE DATE OF THE ARREST AND THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE, I FIND THAT
THAT IS A SUFFICIENT SHOWING FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE ISSUANCE OF A
SUBPOENA. SO THE MOTION TO QUASH THE SUBPOENA IS DENIED. ALL RIGHT.
COUNSEL, WE HAD PREVIOUSLY ISSUED AND HELD A BODY ATTACHMENT FOR YOUR
CLIENT UNTIL TODAY'S DATE. YOU WANT TO MAKE HER AVAILABLE ON SOME DATE
IN THE FUTURE AND I'LL HOLD THE WARRANT -- EXCUSE ME -- HOLD THE BODY
ATTACHMENT TO THAT DATE?
MR. JONES: YES, YOUR HONOR. I WOULD APPRECIATE BEING GIVEN A DATE BY
UPON WHICH THE PEOPLE INTEND TO PLACE MRS. THOMAS ON THE STAND WITHOUT
ANY PRIOR INTERVIEWS.
THE COURT: SHE'S DECLINING ANY PRIOR INTERVIEWS?
MR. JONES: I BEG YOUR PARDON?
THE COURT: SHE IS GOING TO DECLINE TO BE INTERVIEWED?
MR. JONES: ABSOLUTELY. AS A RESULT OF THIS TREATMENT, SHE HAS NO
WILLINGNESS TO BE INTERVIEWED BY THE PEOPLE WHO WERE INVOLVED.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MS. LEWIS: MAY I HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: CERTAINLY.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MR. JONES: I WOULD ADD SHE LIVES IN ORANGE COUNTY. SO I WOULD APPRECIATE
A REALISTIC DATE WHEN THEY WILL PUT HER ON THE STAND.
MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, I JUST WANT TO --
THE COURT: I WOULD SUGGEST THEN THAT WE PLACE HER -- GIVE US A RELATIVELY
-- WE'LL GET A DATE AND THEN WE'LL PLACE HER ON CALL AND MAKE THE
ARRANGEMENTS THROUGH YOUR OFFICE, MR. JONES, IF THAT'S AGREEABLE TO YOU.
MR. JONES: I WILL REPRESENT THAT WE WILL COOPERATE AND SHE WILL BE HERE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MS. LEWIS: MAY I MENTION, YOUR HONOR, THAT MISS THOMAS HAS BEEN IN THE
AUDIENCE OBSERVING THESE PROCEEDINGS QUITE A BIT DURING THE TRIAL. IT
DOESN'T SEEM TO HAVE BEEN A HARDSHIP FOR HER TO ARRIVE FROM ORANGE
COUNTY.
THE COURT: WELL, AS A MATTER -- SHE IS GOING TO BE HERE WITH HER COUNSEL
AS WELL THOUGH. SO KNOWING MR. JONES' SCHEDULE AS WELL, I'M WILLING TO
ACCOMMODATE BOTH MR. JONES AND THE WITNESS.
MS. LEWIS: TENTATIVELY FOR MARCH 3RD, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: MARCH 3?
MS. LEWIS: UH-HUH.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MARCH 3. BODY ATTACHMENT WILL BE CONTINUED TO BE
HELD UNTIL FRIDAY, MARCH 3 AT 9:00 A.M. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
MR. JONES: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
MS. LEWIS: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT WE'VE BEEN JOINED
BY THE DEFENDANT, MR. SIMPSON. MISS CLARK, ARE YOU PREPARED TO CALL YOUR
NEXT WITNESS?
MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. COCHRAN, ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE ASK THE JURY
TO JOIN US?
MR. COCHRAN: THERE'S ONE OTHER MATTER, BUT I THINK WE CAN DO IT LATER. I
DO HAVE A QUESTION, YOUR HONOR, THAT I WOULD LIKE TO APPROACH ON
WITHOUT THE REPORTER.
THE COURT: CERTAINLY.
MR. COCHRAN: IT HAS TO DO WITH THE WEATHER.
(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)
THE COURT: MISS CLARK, I'M GOING TO INVITE THE JURY TO JOIN US.
MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: DEPUTY MAGNERA, LET'S HAVE THE JURY, PLEASE.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE PRESENCE OF
THE JURY:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. BE SEATED. LET THE
RECORD REFLECT THAT WE HAVE NOW BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF
OUR JURY PANEL. GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.
THE COURT: MISS CLARK, YOU MAY CALL YOUR NEXT WITNESS.
MS. CLARK: WE WOULD CALL EVA STEIN.
THE COURT: I'M SORRY, MISS CLARK. WHAT WAS THE NAME?
MS. CLARK: EVA STEIN.
THE COURT: EVA STEIN. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. MISS STEIN, WOULD YOU COME
FORWARD, PLEASE. MISS STEIN.
MS. CLARK: I THOUGHT YOU WERE CALLING ME.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS STEIN, WOULD YOU STEP AROUND COUNSEL TABLE
HERE AND STAND OVER BY OUR COMPUTER PROJECTOR.
EVA STEIN, CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE PEOPLE, WAS SWORN AND TESTIFIED AS
FOLLOWS:
THE CLERK: WILL YOU PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. YOU DO SOLEMNLY
SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU MAY GIVE IN THE CAUSE NOW PENDING BEFORE
THIS COURT, SHALL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE
TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD?
THE WITNESS: I DO.
THE CLERK: PLEASE HAVE A SEAT IN THE WITNESS STAND AND STATE AND SPELL
YOUR FIRST AND LAST NAMES FOR THE RECORD.
THE WITNESS: EVA STEIN.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. HAVE A SEAT. ALL RIGHT. COULD YOU SPELL YOUR NAME,
PLEASE.
THE WITNESS: EVA STEIN, E-V-A S-T-E-I-N.
THE COURT: THANK YOU, MA'AM. MISS CLARK.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS. CLARK:
Q: GOOD MORNING, MISS STEIN.
A: GOOD MORNING.
Q: ARE YOU A LITTLE NERVOUS?
A: YES, I AM.
Q: TAKE A DEEP BREATH. I'M GOING TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT WHERE YOU WERE
LIVING ON THE DATE OF JUNE THE 12TH, 1994.
A: I WAS LIVING ON 873 SOUTH BUNDY.
Q: AND DO YOU KNOW WHERE THAT IS IN RELATIONSHIP TO 875 SOUTH BUNDY?
A: IT'S JUST NORTH.
Q: IS THAT RIGHT NEXT DOOR?
A: YES. IT'S THE BUILDING RIGHT NEXT DOOR.
Q: AND WAS THERE SOMEONE LIVING THERE WITH YOU AT THE TIME?
A: YES. MY BOYFRIEND.
Q: AND HIS NAME?
A: LOU KARPF.
THE COURT: HOW DO YOU SPELL KARPF?
THE WITNESS: K-A-R-P-F.
THE COURT: THANK YOU.
Q: BY MS. CLARK: TO YOUR LEFT IS A BIG BOARD THAT'S BEEN MARKED AS PEOPLE'S
26. DO YOU SEE THE LOCATION I'M POINTING TO, THE INTERSECTION OF DOROTHY
AND BUNDY (INDICATING)?
A: YES, I DO.
Q: OKAY. IF THIS PURPLE HOUSE -- EXCUSE ME. IF THIS RED HOUSE HERE IS 875
SOUTH BUNDY, WHAT WOULD THIS BLUE HOUSE BE (INDICATING)?
A: THAT BLUE HOUSE WOULD BE 873 SOUTH BUNDY.
Q: YOUR RESIDENCE?
A: YES.
Q: NOW, YOUR PARTICULAR APARTMENT AT 873 SOUTH BUNDY, DID IT FACE THE
STREET?
A: UMM, IT -- YES. IT WAS IN THE BACK OF THE CONDO UNIT AND IT DID FACE THE
STREET.
Q: A STREET WHERE CARS DRIVE BACK AND FORTH OR WAS IT AN ALLEY?
A: WELL, THE BEDROOM WHERE I'M -- THE BEDROOM PART FACED THE ALLEY.
Q: OKAY.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
AND MR. FAIRTLOUGH.)
Q: BY MS. CLARK: CAN YOU LOOK ON YOUR MONITOR NEXT TO YOU THERE? THANK
YOU. DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE LOCATION SHOWN THERE? DOES THAT LOOK
FAMILIAR TO YOU?
A: WELL, IT'S THE BACK ALLEY OF UMM -- IT'S THE BACK ALLEY.
Q: NOW, DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE BUILDING THAT IS ON YOUR RIGHT AS
YOU FACE THE PHOTOGRAPH WITH THE LIGHTS ON THE BALCONY AND A JEEP
PARKED IN THE DRIVEWAY, SEE WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT?
A: WELL, I SEE A FEW CARS PARKED IN THE DRIVEWAY.
Q: OKAY. DO YOU SEE ONE THAT'S PARKED FACING INTO THE DRIVEWAY?
A: YES, I DO.
Q: OKAY. IF THAT WAS 875 SOUTH BUNDY, WHERE WOULD YOUR APARTMENT HAVE
BEEN IN RELATION TO THAT?
A: WELL, IT'S RIGHT BEHIND -- IT'S RIGHT BEHIND THAT WHERE THE LIGHTS ARE ON.
Q: I'M GOING TO USE THE LASER POINTER. SEE THAT MOVING CROSS?
A: YES, I DO.
Q: OKAY.
MS. CLARK: CAN YOU MOVE IT UP, JONATHAN?
Q: BY MS. CLARK: WOULD YOUR BUILDING BE RIGHT THERE WHERE THAT MOVING
CROSS IS SHOWN?
A: YES.
Q: OKAY. AND SO DO YOU HAVE AN ENTRY THAT OPENS ONTO THE ALLEY THERE?
A: YES, I DO.
Q: IS THAT THE ENTRANCE THAT YOU USE FOR YOUR -- THAT YOU USED FOR YOUR
APARTMENT BACK IN JUNE OF '94?
A: THAT IS THE ENTRANCE THAT I USED, YES. IT IS THE GARAGE ENTRANCE.
THE COURT: EXCUSE ME, MISS CLARK. WHICH EXHIBIT IS THIS?
MS. CLARK: I AM SORRY, YOUR HONOR. IS THAT PEOPLE'S 38?
THE COURT: PEOPLE'S 38. ALL RIGHT. AND ARE WE GOING TO BE ABLE TO PRESERVE
THAT PARTICULAR MARK?
MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR. WE'RE GOING TO PRINT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THEN THE PRINT WE'LL DESIGNATE AS PEOPLE'S 38-A.
Q: BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. NOW, I'M -- DID YOU HAVE AN ENTRY THAT OPENED
ONTO BUNDY AS WELL?
A: YES.
MS. CLARK: ARE YOU PRINTING?
MR. FAIRTLOUGH: YES.
MS. CLARK: OKAY.
Q: BY MS. CLARK: ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE THE 12TH, 1994, WHAT TIME DID YOU GET
HOME?
A: UMM, I GOT HOME LATE IN THE -- LATER ON IN THE AFTERNOON.
Q: AND DO YOU RECALL WHETHER LOUIS KARPF WAS HOME ON THAT DAY?
A: NO, HE WAS NOT.
Q: DO YOU KNOW WHERE HE WAS?
A: HE WAS VISITING FAMILY IN SAN JOSE FOR THE WEEKEND.
Q: AND DO YOU RECALL WHAT TIME YOU WENT TO BED THAT NIGHT?
A: I WENT TO BED A COUPLE MINUTES BEFORE 10:00 O'CLOCK.
Q: NOW, YOUR BEDROOM -- DID YOUR APARTMENT HAVE AN UPSTAIRS AND A
DOWNSTAIRS?
A: YES.
Q: AND WHERE WAS THE BEDROOM?
A: UPSTAIRS.
Q: SO WHEN YOU WENT TO BED, YOU WENT UPSTAIRS TO GO TO BED?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: DID SOMETHING AWAKEN YOU?
A: YES.
Q: WHAT?
A: A VERY LOUD BARKING OF DOGS.
Q: AND WHAT DID YOU DO WHEN THAT LOUD BARKING WOKE YOU UP?
A: WELL, UMM, I WAS SLEEPING AND I HAD HEARD THE DOGS BARKING AND I TRIED
TO GO BACK TO SLEEP AND I COULDN'T BECAUSE THE DOGS -- THE BARKING
SEEMED TO BE VERY, VERY PERSISTENT, NONSTOP AND VERY, VERY LOUD AND IT
ACTUALLY KEPT ME FROM FALLING BACK TO SLEEP.
Q: COULD YOU TELL IF IT WAS ONE DOG OR TWO DOGS?
MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION. THAT ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: UMM, WHEN I HAD FIRST AWOKEN OUT OF MY SLEEP, IT SOUNDED
LIKE -- YOU KNOW, IT SOUNDED LIKE A FEW DOGS.
Q: BY MS. CLARK: OKAY. COULD IT HAVE BEEN ONE, COULD YOU TELL.
MR. COCHRAN: CALLS FOR SPECULATION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WAY IT'S PHRASED, IT'S COMPOUND HOWEVER.
MS. CLARK: SORRY. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
Q: BY MS. CLARK: COULD YOU TELL FOR SURE WHETHER IT WAS ONE OR MORE
DOGS?
A: NO.
Q: HAD YOU EVER HEARD BARKING THAT LOUD AND THAT INSISTENT IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD BEFORE?
A: NOT AT THAT HOUR OF THE EVENING. IT'S A PRETTY QUIET AREA. I'VE NEVER
REALLY HEARD, YOU KNOW, VERY MUCH BARKING.
Q: SO THE BARKING WOKE YOU UP AND YOU COULDN'T GO BACK TO SLEEP?
A: NO, I COULDN'T GO BACK TO SLEEP BECAUSE IT JUST WAS VERY UNUSUALLY
LOUD. IT WAS JUST LIKE A REGULAR BARK. IT JUST SEEMED VERY, YOU KNOW, LIKE
INSISTENT LOUD BARK. IT JUST DIDN'T STOP AND I REMEMBER BEING VERY
ANNOYED BECAUSE I COULDN'T FALL BACK TO SLEEP.
Q: COULD YOU TELL OR DID YOU HAVE A SENSE OF WHERE THAT BARKING WAS
COMING FROM, WHAT DIRECTION?
A: WELL, FACING, YOU KNOW, THE ALLEY FROM MY BEDROOM, IT SEEMED TO BE
COMING FROM THE LEFT A DISTANCE DOWN ON THE LEFT SIDE.
Q: SO IF YOU WERE FACING THE ALLEY, IT WOULD BE TO YOUR LEFT?
A: IT WOULD BE TO MY LEFT.
Q: AND WOULD THAT BE SOUTH OF YOU?
A: UMM, YES.
Q: CAN YOU LOOK AT YOUR MONITOR? SEE WHERE THE CROSS IS?
A: YES, I DO.
Q: WOULD IT BE FROM THAT LOCATION THAT YOU HEARD THE BARKING COMING?
MR. COCHRAN: LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE, YOUR HONOR. SHE SAID DISTANCE
DOWN THE ALLEY. OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THE QUESTION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND YOUR ANSWER WAS, WAS IT COMING FROM THAT AREA
WHERE YOU SEE THE CROSS?
A: IT SEEMED TO BE COMING -- YES, FROM THAT AREA, BUT LIKE, YOU KNOW,
FURTHER DOWN.
Q: HOW ABOUT THERE (INDICATING)?
A: ALMOST FROM THE END OF THE ALLEY LIKE FROM WHERE THE STREET STARTS.
Q: SEEMED TO BE COMING FROM --
MR. COCHRAN: COULD WE HAVE THAT MARKED, YOUR HONOR, THE ALLEY WITH
THE STREET?
MS. CLARK: WELL, EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR. COULD COUNSEL ALLOW ME TO
QUESTION THE WITNESS?
THE COURT: COUNSEL, YOU CAN DO THAT ON CROSS-EXAMINATION IF YOU LIKE.
MS. CLARK: COUNSEL WILL HAVE PLENTY OF TIME I'M SURE.
THE COURT: YES.
MS. CLARK: COULD YOU -- JONATHAN, COULD YOU MOVE IT DOWN FARTHER,
PLEASE? THERE WE GO.
Q: BY MS. CLARK: TELL US WHEN TO STOP.
A: YES. AROUND -- AROUND THAT AREA (INDICATING).
MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. COULD YOU PUT A CIRCLE THERE?
Q: BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. NOW, THAT WAS A GENERAL SENSE OF DIRECTION?
A: THAT WAS THE GENERAL SENSE, YES.
Q: SO IT WOULD HAVE BEEN TO THE SOUTH OF WHERE YOU WERE?
A: YES.
Q: AT SOME POINT, DID MR. KARPF GET HOME?
A: YES, HE DID.
Q: WHEN HE DID, WAS THE DOG STILL BARKING?
A: YES, IT WAS.
Q: AND WHEN HE GOT HOME, ABOUT HOW LONG WAS THAT AFTER THE DOG
BARKING WOKE YOU UP?
A: IT WAS APPROXIMATELY HALF AN HOUR AFTER I WOKE UP.
Q: HOW COULD YOU TELL WHEN MR. KARPF GOT HOME?
A: I ASKED HIM WHAT TIME HE CAME HOME THE FOLLOWING DAY.
Q: OKAY. AND HE TOLD YOU?
A: QUARTER TO 11:00.
Q: SO YOU BEGAN TO HEAR THE DOG BARK AT APPROXIMATELY 10:15?
A: AT APPROXIMATELY 10:15.
Q: NOW, DID YOU SEE -- DID YOU SEE MR. KARPF WHEN HE GOT HOME THAT NIGHT?
A: YES.
Q: AND WHEN YOU SAW HIM, WHERE WAS THAT; UPSTAIRS OR DOWNSTAIRS?
A: DOWNSTAIRS.
Q: AND HAD HE -- DID YOU SEE ANYTHING IN HIS HANDS?
A: NO.
Q: WAS THE DOG STILL BARKING AT THAT POINT?
A: I DON'T REMEMBER.
Q: DID YOU EVER GO BACK TO SLEEP?
A: I DID GO BACK UPSTAIRS AND I TRIED TO GO BACK TO SLEEP, UMM, KIND OF
DOSED IN AND OUT, NOT REALLY, YOU KNOW, FELL BACK TO SLEEP.
Q: AND WHY IS THAT?
A: I JUST -- UMM, I JUST COULDN'T FALL BACK TO SLEEP.
Q: WAS THERE SOMETHING PREVENTING YOU FROM FALLING BACK TO SLEEP?
A: I THINK JUST BECAUSE I HAD BEEN ALREADY UP AND WAS WOKEN UP AND LOU
HAD COME HOME, MY BOYFRIEND, AND I WAS JUST -- I GUESS I WAS JUST KIND OF
WAITING FOR HIM TO COME UP AND NO OTHER REASON I COULD THINK OF.
Q: WAS THERE ANY NOISE OUTSIDE?
A: I DON'T REMEMBER.
Q: DO YOU REMEMBER HEARING THE POLICE ARRIVE?
A: YES, I DO.
Q: AND WAS THAT -- HOW LONG WAS THAT APPROXIMATELY AFTER LOUIS GOT
HOME?
A: WELL, LOUIS STAYED DOWNSTAIRS FOR A WHILE AND CAME UP, YOU KNOW,
CLOSE TO MIDNIGHT, AND THEN SOMETIME AFTER MIDNIGHT, I DON'T REMEMBER
THE EXACT TIME, IS WHEN I STARTED -- WHEN I HEARD THE POLICE COME AND ALL
THE COMMOTION IN THE ALLEY, YOU KNOW, JUST FROM THE POLICE CARS.
Q: SO IT WAS SOMETIME AROUND MIDNIGHT, AFTER MIDNIGHT?
A: AFTER MIDNIGHT.
Q: AND DID YOU AND LOUIS HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT A DOG THAT HE SAW
THAT NIGHT?
A: NO.
Q: WAS IT AFTER THAT? DID HE AT SOME POINT TELL YOU ABOUT A DOG HE HAD
SAW THAT NIGHT?
A: YES. THE NEXT DAY AFTER WE FOUND OUT WHAT HAPPENED.
Q: WHAT DID HE TELL YOU?
MR. COCHRAN: HEARSAY, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q: BY MS. CLARK: AS OF JUNE THE 12TH, 1994, HOW LONG HAD YOU BEEN LIVING
THERE?
A: APPROXIMATELY A YEAR.
Q: AND HAD YOU EVER HEARD A DOG BARKING LIKE THAT BEFORE?
A: NOT IN THAT -- NOT IN THAT INTENSE WAY, NO. I MEAN I'VE HEARD DOGS
BARKING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT NOT AS INTENSE AS I HEARD IT THAT
EVENING AND NONSTOP LIKE THAT.
Q: THANK YOU, MISS STEIN.
THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY, YOUR HONOR.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. COCHRAN:
Q: GOOD MORNING, MISS STEIN.
A: GOOD MORNING.
Q: I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU JUST A FEW QUESTIONS IF I MIGHT. YOU LIVED AT A
HOUSE JUST NORTH OF THE 875 SOUTH BUNDY RESIDENCE AT 873; IS THAT CORRECT?
A: YES, THAT IS.
Q: AND AS I UNDERSTAND YOUR TESTIMONY, MISS STEIN, THE BEDROOM WINDOW
OF YOUR RESIDENCE FACES WEST KIND OF LOOKING OVER THIS ALLEY WE SEE
DEPICTED ON PEOPLE'S 38 I GUESS; IS THAT CORRECT?
A: YES. THE BEDROOM FACES OVER THE ALLEY.
Q: AND YOU RECALL TALKING WITH THE POLICE IN CONNECTION WITH WHAT YOU
HAD OBSERVED ON JUNE 12TH, 1994 BACK ON 11-9-94? DO YOU RECALL TALKING TO
THE POLICE OFFICERS?
A: I RECALL TALKING TO TWO.
Q: TO SOME POLICE OFFICERS ABOUT WHAT YOU OBSERVED?
A: AT MY WORK. THEY CAME TO MY WORK.
Q: YES. IN FACT, YOU TALKED WITH THE INVESTIGATING OFFICERS IN THIS CASE,
DETECTIVES LANGE AND VANNATTER; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
A: YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
Q: AND THEY CAME TO YOUR PLACE OF WORK IN THE CITY OF VERNON?
A: YES.
Q: AND THEY SPOKE TO YOU; IS THAT CORRECT?
A: YES.
Q: AND WHEN YOU SPOKE TO THE OFFICERS, YOU OF COURSE TRIED TO BE AS
ACCURATE AS YOU COULD; IS THAT CORRECT?
A: YES.
Q: AND YOU TOLD THEM WHAT YOU RECALL; IS THAT CORRECT?
A: YES.
Q: AND WOULD I BE CORRECT IN ASSUMING THAT IN NOVEMBER OF 1994, THE
EVENTS WERE FRESHER IN YOUR MIND AT THAT TIME FOR THINGS THAT HAPPENED
IN JUNE THAN THEY ARE NOW? IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?
A: I ASSUME SO.
Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, WHEN TALKING TO DETECTIVES LANGE AND VANNATTER, YOU
TOLD THEM, DID YOU NOT, THAT YOU WENT TO SLEEP BETWEEN 9:45 AND ABOUT
10:00 O'CLOCK -- OR STRIKE THAT. THAT YOU WENT -- YOU GOT INTO BED BY 9:45,
BETWEEN THAT AND 10:00 O'CLOCK; IS THAT CORRECT?
A: I DON'T RECALL SAYING I GOT INTO BED BETWEEN 9:45 AND 10:00 O'CLOCK. I
RECALL SAYING THAT I WENT TO SLEEP AT APPROXIMATELY 10:00 O'CLOCK.
Q: ALL RIGHT. WELL, LET ME --
MR. COCHRAN: WELL, IF I MIGHT APPROACH, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: SURE.
MR. COCHRAN: REFERRING TO PAGE 1371.
Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: I'M JUST GOING TO ASK YOU JUST TO REVIEW A CERTAIN
PORTION OF THE REPORT TO SEE IF IT MIGHT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION. WILL
YOU READ THIS FIRST PART TO YOURSELF? WHY DON'T YOU READ FROM HERE TO
HERE, JUST READ THAT PART (INDICATING). THANK YOU.
A: (THE WITNESS COMPLIES).
Q: YOU READ THAT NOW?
A: YES.
Q: AND DOES THAT TEND TO REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION THAT YOU INDICATED
TO THE POLICE THAT YOU RETIRED TO THE UPSTAIRS BEDROOM AND WENT TO SLEEP
BETWEEN 10:45 AND 10:00 O'CLOCK P.M. ON JUNE 12TH?
A: IT DOES NOT REFRESH MY MEMORY ABOUT THE EXACT WORDS THAT I USED.
Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU -- IT DOES NOT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION?
A: OF THE EXACT WORDS THAT I USED.
Q: OKAY. BUT --
THE COURT: EXCUSE ME, COUNSEL. DID YOU MISSPEAK YOURSELF WHEN YOU SAID
BETWEEN 10:45 AND 10:00 O'CLOCK?
MR. COCHRAN: I'M SORRY. I PERHAPS DID, YOUR HONOR. I INTENDED TO SAY
BETWEEN 9:45 -- THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR -- AND 10:00 O'CLOCK P.M. ON JUNE
12TH.
Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION AT ALL?
A: I REMEMBER SAYING THAT I WENT TO SLEEP APPROXIMATELY 10:00 O'CLOCK. I
DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT WORDS THAT I USED.
Q: OKAY. SO ABOUT 10:00 O'CLOCK WOULD BE ACCURATE?
A: YES.
Q: OKAY. AND WHEN YOU WENT TO SLEEP, YOU DIDN'T HEAR ANY DOGS BARKING
AT THAT POINT, DID YOU?
A: NO.
Q: OKAY. NOW, DID YOU THEN TELL THE POLICE OFFICERS THAT SOMETIME
BETWEEN 10:15 P.M. AND 10:45 P.M., YOU WERE AWAKENED BY WHAT YOU
DESCRIBED AS, QUOTE, INTENSE BARKING BY A, QUOTE, A FEW DOGS?
A: YES.
Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THAT'S WHAT YOU TOLD THEM, ISN'T IT?
A: YES.
Q: AND AT SOME TIME BETWEEN 10:15 AND 10:45, YOU WERE AWAKENED BY THIS
INTENSE BARKING BY A FEW DOGS, RIGHT?
A: YES.
Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU WENT ON TO TELL THE POLICE, DID YOU NOT, THAT YOU
HAD NEVER HEARD THIS MUCH BARKING OF DOGS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD BEFORE
THAT PARTICULAR NIGHT?
A: THAT'S CORRECT.
Q: IS THAT CORRECT? ALL RIGHT. THAT AFTER YOU WERE AWAKENED, YOUR
FIANCE', MR. KARPF RETURNED TO THE RESIDENCE APPROXIMATELY 30 TO 45
MINUTES AFTER YOU WERE AWAKENED BY THESE BARKING DOGS.
A: CORRECT.
Q: IS THAT CORRECT?
A: YES, IT IS.
Q: ALL RIGHT. HE CAME UPSTAIRS AND CHANGED AND HE WENT TO BED
ULTIMATELY; IS THAT RIGHT?
A: YES.
Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, AT ANY TIME THAT EVENING, DID YOU HEAR ANY SCREAMS OR
ANY SOUNDS ANYWHERE IN THAT AREA?
A: NO.
Q: YOU NEVER HEARD ANY SCREAMS OR ANY SOUNDS OR ANYTHING?
A: NO.
Q: AND THESE DOGS THAT YOU HEARD BARKING, IT'S YOUR BEST RECOLLECTION
THAT THE SOUND OF THESE DOGS BARKING CAME SOMEWHERE SOUTH OF YOUR
LOCATION NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF DOROTHY AND BUNDY; IS THAT CORRECT?
A: YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
Q: AND --
MR. COCHRAN: CAN I HAVE A SECOND, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: SURE.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL AND MR.
FAIRTLOUGH.)
Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AND THE AREA HERE -- YOU CAN SEE THAT ON YOUR
MONITOR, CAN YOU? WHERE THAT CIRCLE IS, THAT IS WHERE, THE GENERAL AREA
WHERE YOU BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS THE BARKING DOG; IS THAT CORRECT?
A: YES, THE GENERAL AREA.
Q: AND IF YOU COULD TELL FROM THAT LOCATION, IF YOU COULD TELL, IS
DOROTHY SOMEWHERE RIGHT AROUND IN THIS AREA (INDICATING)? IS THAT NEAR
THE END OF THE STREET?
A: YES.
Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THAT'S ABOUT THE LOCATION AS YOU UNDERSTOOD IT?
A: YES.
Q: NOW, WHEN YOU HEARD THESE BARKING DOGS, THE INTENSE BARKING DOGS,
YOU NEVER GOT UP AND LOOKED OUT THE WINDOW; IS THAT CORRECT?
A: NO, I DID NOT.
Q: AND YOU NEVER SAW ANY OF THESE DOGS?
A: NO.
Q: YOU HAVE HEARD DOGS BARKING IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD BEFORE, BUT NOT TO
THIS INTENSITY; IS THAT CORRECT?
A: RIGHT.
Q: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU KNOW ABOUT WHAT TIME IT WAS THAT YOU BECAME AWARE
THERE WAS SOME ACTIVITY IN THE ALLEYWAY BEHIND YOUR RESIDENCE? DO YOU
KNOW WHAT TIME IT WAS?
A: YOU MEAN AS FAR AS THE POLICE COMING THERE?
Q: YES, AS FAR AS THE POLICE.
A: I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT TIME. I KNOW THAT IT WAS AFTER MIDNIGHT, BUT I DO
NOT KNOW THE EXACT TIME.
Q: ALL RIGHT. SOMETIME AFTER MIDNIGHT; IS THAT CORRECT? DID YOU GET UP AND
GO LOOK OUTSIDE?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: YOU SAW POLICE CARS OUT THERE?
A: I SAW POLICE CAR DOWNSTAIRS, RIGHT.
Q: DID YOU SEE ANY OTHER CARS OTHER THAN THE POLICE CAR?
A: NO. JUST THE POLICE CARS.
Q: AND YOU DIDN'T --
A: ACTUALLY ONE POLICE CAR.
Q: ONE POLICE CAR? AND YOU DIDN'T TALK TO THE POLICE THAT NIGHT, DID YOU?
A: NO.
Q: DID THEY COME AND TRY TO TALK TO YOU THE NEXT MORNING AT ALL?
A: NO.
Q: ALL RIGHT. SO IT WASN'T UNTIL NOVEMBER THAT YOU SPEAK TO THE POLICE; IS
THAT RIGHT?
A: RIGHT.
Q: THAT'S WHEN LANGE AND VANNATTER CAME OUT TO TALK TO YOU AT YOUR
PLACE OF BUSINESS; IS THAT RIGHT?
A: THAT'S RIGHT.
Q: AS BEST YOU CAN TELL, MR. KARPF CAME HOME FROM THIS TRIP TO SAN JOSE
SOMETIME BETWEEN 10:50 P.M. AND 11:00 O'CLOCK P.M.; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
A: I ASKED MR. KARPF WHAT TIME HE GOT HOME AFTER WE FOUND OUT ABOUT THE
INCIDENT.
Q: YES, MA'AM.
A: AND HE SAID THAT HE CAME HOME ABOUT QUARTER TO 11:00 IS WHAT HE TOLD
ME.
Q: SO ABOUT 10:45 IS YOUR BEST THOUGHT?
A: YES, ACCORDING TO WHAT HE TOLD ME.
Q: AND THAT WAS DURING THE TIME THAT YOU HAD BEEN SLEEPING; IS THAT
CORRECT?
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.
MR. COCHRAN: I'M ASKING, I'M NOT MISSTATING THE TESTIMONY.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: WELL, BY THE TIME HE CAME OVER, I WAS ALREADY AWAKE.
Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. SO IF YOU SLEPT BETWEEN 10:15 AND 10:45 AND
WERE AWAKENED BY THE BARKING DOGS AT 10:45, RIGHT, YOU WERE ALREADY
AWAKE, RIGHT?
A: I WAS AWAKE WHEN HE GOT HOME.
Q: AND HAVE YOU SEEN THIS STATEMENT TO THE POLICE ABOUT WHAT TIME HE
ARRIVED HOME?
A: NO.
Q: BUT IT IS YOUR RECOLLECTION THAT YOU WERE AWAKE BY THE TIME HE
ACTUALLY GOT IN?
A: I WAS DEFINITELY AWAKE BY THE TIME HE WAS HOME. I HAD BEEN AWAKE FOR
SOME TIME.
Q: HOW LONG?
A: IT SEEMED APPROXIMATELY A HALF AN HOUR.
Q: SO COULD HE HAVE GOTTEN HOME LATER, PERHAPS 11:15?
A: I DON'T THINK SO.
Q: YOU DIDN'T LOOK AT A CLOCK HOWEVER?
A: THE ONLY TIME I LOOKED AT A CLOCK IS RIGHT BEFORE I WENT TO SLEEP.
Q: AND THAT WAS AT WHAT TIME?
A: THAT WAS A FEW MINUTES BEFORE 10:00 O'CLOCK.
Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THAT WAS THE ONLY TIME YOU LOOKED AT IT?
A: THAT WAS THE ONLY TIME.
MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY KINDLY. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: MISS CLARK, DO YOU HAVE ANY REDIRECT?
MS. CLARK: JUST VERY BRIEFLY.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS. CLARK:
Q: SO YOUR MOST ACCURATE STATEMENT OF TIME IS THAT YOU WERE AWAKE FOR
HALF AN HOUR BY THE TIME LOUIS CAME HOME?
A: YES, APPROXIMATELY HALF AN HOUR.
Q: IT FELT LIKE THAT?
A: IT FELT LIKE THAT.
Q: AND YOU FEEL CERTAIN OF THAT?
A: IT JUST FELT LIKE ABOUT HALF AN HOUR.
Q: OKAY. AND WHEN HE CAME HOME, THAT WAS HALF AN HOUR AFTER YOU HEARD
THE DOG START BARKING?
A: YES.
Q: AND THEN YOU LEARNED THAT HE CAME HOME AT 10:45 APPROXIMATELY?
A: YES.
MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)
MS. CLARK: NOTHING FURTHER.
THE COURT: RECROSS.
MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER. THIS LADY MAY BE EXCUSED.
THE COURT: MA'AM, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING IN. PLEASE DON'T
DISCUSS YOUR TESTIMONY WITH ANY OTHER PERSON UNTIL AFTER THE CASE IS
OVER. HOWEVER, YOU MAY DISCUSS IT FURTHER WITH THE ATTORNEYS. ALL RIGHT?
THE WITNESS: THANK YOU.
THE COURT: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, LET ME ASK YOU A
QUICK QUESTION. ON THE TWO HARD COPY PRINTOUTS OF THE ITEMS THAT WERE
CIRCLED, DO YOU HAVE ONE OR TWO?
MR. FAIRTLOUGH: WE HAVE TWO.
THE COURT: 38-A WILL BE THE CROSS BY THE -- UP BY THE WINDOWS I BELIEVE AND
THEN 38-B WILL BE THE CIRCLE DOWN BY THE END OF THE ALLEY.
MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
(PEO'S 38-A AND 38-B FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPHS)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. BAILEY, YOU HAVE A COMMENT ON THAT?
MR. BAILEY: I DO, YOUR HONOR. I THINK THERE WILL BE QUITE A VOLUME OF
THESE. I SUGGESTED TO MR. FAIRTLOUGH THAT WE MIGHT PUT THE NAME OF THE
WITNESS WHO IS TESTIFYING WHEN THE PRINTOUT IS MADE FOR LATER SORTING
OUT BY THE JURY.
THE COURT: THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. THANK YOU.
MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, COUNSEL. I'LL WRITE IT ON NOW.
THE COURT: MR. CLARK, MR. DARDEN, YOUR NEXT WITNESS.
MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. PEOPLE CALL LOUIS KARPF. THE COURT:
MADAM REPORTER, HOW'S YOUR PAPER SUPPLY?
THE COURT REPORTER: FINE.
THE COURT: HOW DOES 10:30 SOUND?
THE COURT REPORTER: THAT'S FINE.
THE COURT: MR. KARPF, STEP OVER HERE, PLEASE, BY THE COURT REPORTER. WHY
DON'T YOU FACE THE CLERK.
LOUIS KARPF, CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE PEOPLE, WAS SWORN AND TESTIFIED
AS FOLLOWS:
THE CLERK: RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, PLEASE. YOU DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT
THE TESTIMONY YOU MAY GIVE IN THE CAUSE NOW PENDING BEFORE THIS COURT,
SHALL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP
YOU GOD?
THE WITNESS: YES, I DO.
THE CLERK: PLEASE HAVE A SEAT IN THE WITNESS STAND AND STATE AND SPELL
YOUR FIRST AND LAST NAMES FOR THE RECORD.
THE WITNESS: MY NAME IS LOUIS KARPF, THAT'S L-O-U-I-S K-A-R-P-F.
THE COURT: MISS CLARK, DON'T TRIP OVER THE BAG THERE.
MS. CLARK: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. RIGHT HERE.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS. CLARK:
Q: GOOD MORNING, MR. KARPF.
A: GOOD MORNING.
Q: SIR, DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE DATE OF JUNE THE 12TH, 1994, AS OF
THAT DATE, SIR, WHERE WERE YOU LIVING?
A: I WAS LIVING AT 873 SOUTH BUNDY DRIVE.
Q: AND WHERE WOULD THAT BE IN RELATION TO 875 SOUTH BUNDY?
A: THAT IS THE NEXT CONDOMINIUM NORTH OF THAT UNIT.
Q: SO 875 SOUTH BUNDY WOULD BE JUST SOUTH OF YOU?
A: JUST SOUTH OF ME.
Q: RIGHT NEXT DOOR?
A: RIGHT NEXT DOOR.
Q: I ASK YOU TO TURN AND LOOK AT THE EXHIBIT THAT'S BEEN MARKED AS
PEOPLE'S 26 AND TAKE THE POINTER, AND JUST TO ORIENTATE YOU, IF THIS RED
SQUARE HERE WAS 875 SOUTH BUNDY, WHAT WOULD THAT BLUE SQUARE BE
(INDICATING)?
A: IT WOULD BE THE UNIT THAT I LIVED IN.
Q: 873 SOUTH BUNDY?
A: THAT'S CORRECT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. JUROR 1492, COULD YOU HEAR THAT ANSWER?
JUROR NO. 1492: YES.
THE COURT: THANK YOU.
Q: BY MS. CLARK: I'M GOING TO ASK YOU, SIR, TO LOOK AT THE MONITOR TO YOUR
RIGHT. LOOK DOWN. THERE YOU GO. DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE LOCATION THAT'S
SHOWN THERE IN THAT PHOTOGRAPH?
A: YES, I DO.
Q: YOU SEE THAT MOVING CROSS?
A: YES.
Q: FIRST OF ALL, I'M GOING TO SHOW WITH THE CROSS --
MS. CLARK: JONATHAN, COULD YOU PUT IT ON THE JEEP? THANK YOU.
Q: BY MS. CLARK: IF THAT CROSS IS NOW AT A JEEP THAT'S PARKED AT 875 SOUTH
BUNDY, COULD YOU PLEASE TELL THE JURY WHERE YOUR UNIT WOULD HAVE BEEN
IN RELATION TO THAT?
A: JUST NORTH OF THAT.
Q: WOULD THAT BE WHERE IT'S INDICATED WITH A CROSS?
A: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q: THANK YOU.
MS. CLARK: CAN YOU PRINT --
THE COURT: NOW AN X.
MS. CLARK: NOW AN X. AND I THINK -- WE ARE GOING TO PUT THE INITIALS OF THE
-- EXCUSE ME, COUNSEL. I'M SORRY?
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MS. CLARK: CAN WE PUT AN LK AT THE TOP OF THE VERY, VERY, VERY TOP IN THE
CENTER OR -- THAT'S FINE. THANK YOU, JOHN.
Q: BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. NOW, DO YOU HAVE AN ENTRANCE THAT OPENS OUT
ONTO THAT ALLEY, SIR?
A: MY GARAGE OPENS OUT INTO THE ALLEY.
Q: DO YOU USE THAT GARAGE TO GO IN AND OUT OF YOUR APARTMENT?
A: YES, I DO.
Q: AND AS OF JUNE THE 12TH, 1994, SIR, HOW LONG HAD YOU BEEN LIVING THERE?
A: IT WOULD BE ABOUT FOUR AND A HALF YEARS.
Q: DID YOU EVER KNOW WHO WAS LIVING AT 875 SOUTH BUNDY IN JUNE OF 1994?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: AND WHO WAS THAT?
A: NICOLE SIMPSON BROWN.
Q: AND DID YOU KNOW SHE HAD A DOG?
A: I HEARD IT ON OCCASION. NEVER SAW IT.
Q: YOU OCCASIONALLY HEARD IT BARKING?
A: YES.
Q: ON THE DATE OF JUNE THE 12TH, 1994, SIR, WERE YOU IN YOUR -- WERE YOU IN
LOS ANGELES?
A: NO, I WASN'T.
Q: WHERE WERE YOU?
A: I WAS IN SAN JOSE.
Q: DID YOU RETURN SOMETIME THAT NIGHT?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: ABOUT WHAT TIME?
A: I GOT HOME APPROXIMATELY QUARTER TO 11:00 AT NIGHT.
Q: WHAT -- WELL, HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?
A: WELL, I KNOW WHAT TIME MY FLIGHT APPROXIMATELY TOOK OFF, AND THAT
WAS LATE, AND I'M AWARE OF THE TIME WHEN I -- YOU KNOW, I WAS IN A HURRY
TO GET HOME, SO I KNOW IT WAS LATE. I SHOULD HAVE BEEN HOME AT LEAST A
HALF HOUR EARLIER.
Q: SO WHAT TIME DID YOUR FLIGHT LAND?
A: IT LANDED APPROXIMATELY 10:00 P.M.
Q: AND SO -- DO YOU TAKE THAT FLIGHT OFTEN FROM SAN JOSE TO LOS ANGELES?
A: I WOULD SAY TWO TO FOUR TIMES A YEAR.
Q: OKAY. DO YOU DO A LOT OF FLYING?
A: NOT EXCESSIVELY.
Q: HAVE YOU LANDED AT LAX BEFORE?
A: MANY TIMES.
Q: AND HAVE YOU DRIVEN FROM THE LAX PARKING LOT TO YOUR HOME ON BUNDY
MANY TIMES?
A: YES, I HAVE.
Q: AND ARE YOU VERY FAMILIAR WITH HOW LONG IT TAKES YOU TO GET TO THE
AIRPORT PARKING LOT AND FROM THERE TO YOUR HOME?
A: YES, I AM.
Q: SO YOUR FLIGHT LANDED AT 10:00 O'CLOCK THAT NIGHT?
A: YES.
Q: AND THEN YOU GOT TO THE AIRPORT PARKING LOT ABOUT WHAT TIME?
A: I WOULD SAY NO LATER THAN 10:15.
Q: AND FROM THERE, YOU HAD TO DRIVE HOME?
A: YES.
Q: AND THAT TAKES YOU HOW LONG?
A: 20 MINUTES TO HALF HOUR MAXIMUM.
Q: AND SO THAT NIGHT, HOW LONG DID IT TAKE YOU TO GET HOME FROM THE
AIRPORT PARKING LOT AT 10:15?
A: I WOULD SAY WITHIN THAT PERIOD OF 20 MINUTES TO HALF HOUR.
Q: SO YOU GOT HOME NO LATER THAN 10:45?
A: NO LATER.
Q: WHAT DID YOU DO WHEN YOU GOT HOME, SIR?
A: FIRST THING I DID, I WENT OUT TO RETRIEVE MY MAIL, WHICH IS OUT TOWARDS
BUNDY.
Q: LET ME BACK UP FOR A MINUTE. I WANTED TO ASK YOU SOMETHING. IN YOUR --
IN THAT UNIT, SIR, WHEN YOU COME IN, DID YOU GO IN THROUGH THE GARAGE?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: AND DOES THAT GARAGE DOOR KIND OF SQUEAK?
A: IT'S NOISY. IT RATTLES AND SHAKES THE UNIT A LITTLE BIT.
Q: AND WHEN YOU OPEN THE DOOR THAT LEADS INTO THE ACTUAL UNIT ITSELF, IS
THERE A NOISE THAT YOUR ALARM GIVES OFF TO INDICATE IT --
A: YES. I HAVE IT SET SO IT BEEPS SO WHEN THE DOOR OPENS, SOMEONE KNOWS
SOMEONE'S COMING.
Q: SO IT BEEPS?
A: YES, IT DID.
Q: SO SOMEONE INSIDE CAN HEAR SOMEONE ENTER?
A: DEFINITELY.
Q: AND YOU WENT IN THROUGH THAT PARTICULAR ENTRANCE THAT NIGHT?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: OKAY. THEN WHAT DID YOU DO?
A: AS I WENT OUT TO MY MAILBOX, WHICH IS IN THE FRONT OF THE CONDO
COMPLEX AND AT THAT POINT, I WAS -- NOTICED A DOG BARKING QUITE
PROFUSELY.
Q: WHEN YOU SAY "THE FRONT," WOULD THAT BE ON THE STREET OF BUNDY ITSELF?
A: YES. IT FACES THE STREET OF BUNDY.
Q: AND WHERE EXACTLY WERE YOU WHEN YOU SAW THIS DOG?
A: WELL, I HAD REACHED MY MAILBOX AT THAT POINT, WHICH IS MAYBE 10 FEET
FROM THE CURB, AND I SAW A DOG IN THE STREET COMING AT ME BARKING VERY
PROFUSELY.
Q: NOW, AFTER THAT NIGHT, DID YOU SEE THAT DOG ON NEWSCASTS AND
TELEVISION?
A: YES. SUBSEQUENTLY, I DID SEE IT, YES.
Q: AND DID YOU RECOGNIZE THE DOG YOU SAW ON TELEVISION AS THE ONE YOU
HAD SEEN THAT NIGHT BARKING IN THE STREET ON BUNDY?
A: YES, I DID.
MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE HERE A BOARD. I SHOWED IT TO COUNSEL
YESTERDAY. I WOULD ASK THAT IT BE MARKED PEOPLE'S 40.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. PEOPLE'S 40.
(PEO'S 40 FOR ID = POSTERBOARD/3 PHOTOS)
MS. CLARK: THANK YOU.
Q: BY MS. CLARK: YOU SEE THE DOG DEPICTED IN THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT HAVE
BEEN MARKED AS PEOPLE'S 40?
A: YES, I DO.
Q: AND DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE DOG THAT IS SHOWN TO YOU THERE?
A: I WOULD SAY THAT'S THE SAME DOG.
Q: THE SAME DOG THAT YOU SAW BARKING IN THE STREET ON BUNDY ON THE
NIGHT OF JUNE THE 12TH AT APPROXIMATELY 10:45?
A: THAT IS CORRECT.
MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY, 1045. HE'S
NOT CLEAR WHAT TIME IT IS, AT WHAT POINT HE WENT TO THE MAILBOX.
THE COURT: APPROXIMATELY. THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID, APPROXIMATELY.
OVERRULED. JUST SO THE RECORD IS CLEAR, PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT 40 IS A BOARD THAT
APPEARS TO CONTAIN FOUR PHOTOGRAPHS, THREE OF WHICH ARE A DOG AND THE
FOURTH APPEARS TO BE A -- WHAT IS IT, COLLAR?
MS. CLARK: COLLAR. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
Q: BY MS. CLARK: YES, SIR. YOU GOT HOME AT 10:45. DID YOU GO DIRECTLY INTO
YOUR APARTMENT AND OUT TO THE STREET TO GET TO YOUR MAIL?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: SO 10:45 OR -47, YOU SAW THE DOG?
A: I WOULD SAY THAT'S PRETTY ACCURATE.
Q: AND WHERE IN THE STREET WAS THE DOG WHEN YOU SAW IT?
A: AT THAT POINT, IT WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET JUST RUNNING OR
WALKING AIMLESSLY.
Q: AND BARKING?
A: BARKING VERY LOUDLY.
Q: AND WHAT DID IT DO WHEN YOU APPROACHED YOUR MAIL BOX?
A: IT STARTED TO APPROACH ME, WHICH IT DID SCARE ME. SO I ACTUALLY
RETREATED BACK INSIDE MY GATE UNTIL IT MOVED ON.
Q: WHEN YOU RETREATED BACK INSIDE YOUR GATE, WHAT DID IT DO?
A: AFTER THAT, A FEW, MAYBE 20 SECONDS OR SO, IT STARTED BACK INTO THE
STREET WALKING UP TOWARDS MONTANA.
Q: WHEN YOU SAW THAT DOG, DID YOU HAPPEN TO SEE ANYBODY ELSE IN THE
STREET?
A: YES. I SAW SOMEBODY WALKING ACROSS THE STREET WITH A DOG ALSO
HEADING NORTH.
Q: WAS IT A COUPLE OF PEOPLE OR WAS IT ONE PERSON?
A: ONE PERSON. I BELIEVE IT WAS A MAN.
Q: A MAN.
A: UH-HUH.
Q: IS THAT YES?
A: YES.
Q: SO IN WHAT DIRECTION DID YOU SEE THE DOG, THE AKITA GO -- EXCUSE ME --
THE DOG GO?
A: THE DOG WAS HEADING NORTH TOWARDS MONTANA.
Q: WHEN YOU WERE OUTSIDE IN FRONT OF YOUR -- IN FRONT OF YOUR APARTMENT
UNIT, YOU SAW THE DOG, DID YOU LOOK AROUND TO SEE WHAT WAS CAUSING THE
DOG TO BARK?
A: NO, I DIDN'T.
Q: CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE LIGHTING IN THAT FRONT AREA ON YOUR STREET?
A: THE LIGHTING IS NOT -- IT'S NOT GREAT. WE HAVE LIGHTS IN FRONT OF OUR
PLACE WHICH ILLUMINATE THE FRONT PART OF OUR UNIT. THERE'S A STREETLIGHT
JUST MAYBE 30 FEET TO THE SOUTH, BUT BASICALLY IT'S FAIRLY DARK.
Q: AND THE APARTMENT OR THE CONDOMINIUM TO YOUR -- THAT'S JUST SOUTH OF
YOU, 875 SOUTH BUNDY, WAS IT DARK IN FRONT OF THAT UNIT AS WELL?
A: YES, IT WAS.
Q: AT SOME POINT AFTER YOU GOT HOME, DO YOU RECALL HEARING THE ACTIVITY
OF POLICE ARRIVING TO THE LOCATION?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: DO YOU RECALL APPROXIMATELY WHEN THAT WAS?
A: I BELIEVE IT WAS ABOUT 1:00 A.M.
Q: AT 1:00 A.M., WHAT MADE YOU THINK THAT IT WAS THE POLICE THAT WERE
THERE?
A: WELL, I LOOKED OUT OF MY WINDOW.
Q: YOU SAW THEM THERE.
A: RIGHT.
Q: DO YOU KNOW IF THAT'S ACTUALLY WHEN THEY ARRIVED OR IS THAT JUST
WHEN YOU NOTICED THEM?
A: NO. SINCE I LIVE IN THE BACK OF THE UNIT, OF HER UNIT, THAT WOULD BE --
THAT'S WHEN I STARTED HEARING A LOT OF NOISE.
Q: WHEN YOU SAY YOU LIVE IN THE BACK OF THE UNIT, DOES THAT MEAN THAT
YOUR UNIT DOES NOT HAVE ACCESS TO BUNDY?
A: NO, IT DOESN'T.
Q: SO YOUR UNIT FACES THE ALLEY AND THAT'S YOUR EXIT AND ENTRANCE?
A: WELL, I HAVE TWO ENTRANCES. I CAN COME THROUGH THE FRONT, BUT I ENTER,
SINCE I DRIVE IN, FROM THE ALLEY.
Q: THE FRONT PART OF THAT UNIT THAT FACES BUNDY, IS THAT ALSO PART OF
YOUR UNIT?
A: NO, IT'S NOT.
Q: THAT BELONGS TO SOMEONE ELSE?
A: YES, IT DOES.
Q: SO DID YOUR UNIT HAVE ANY WINDOWS THAT FACE OUT ONTO BUNDY?
A: NO, IT DOESN'T.
Q: HOW MANY DOGS DID YOU SEE BARKING THAT NIGHT?
A: ONE.
Q: THE ONE YOU'VE DESCRIBED?
A: YES.
Q: AND YOU INDICATED -- I BELIEVE YOU INDICATED THAT YOU HAD HEARD --
WITHDRAW THAT. HAD YOU HEARD DOGS BARKING IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD
BEFORE?
A: ON OCCASION, YES.
Q: HAD YOU EVER HEARD A DOG BARKING THE WAY YOU HEARD THIS ONE BARKING
ON THAT NIGHT?
A: I WOULD SAY NO.
Q: DID YOU KNOW WHO WAS LIVING NEXT DOOR TO YOU AT 875 SOUTH BUNDY,
SIR?
A: YES --
THE COURT: YOU ASKED THAT QUESTION.
MS. CLARK: I DID?
THE COURT: YES.
MS. CLARK: I AM SORRY. I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER. THANK YOU.
THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. COCHRAN:
Q: GOOD MORNING, MR. KARPF.
A: GOOD MORNING, MR. COCHRAN.
Q: JUST A FEW QUESTIONS IF I MIGHT. SIR, WITH REGARD TO THE TRIP THAT YOU
TOOK TO SAN JOSE, YOU RETURNED SUNDAY EVENING AND YOU RECALL THAT YOU
RETURNED ABOUT 10:00 O'CLOCK IN THE EVENING?
A: THAT'S CORRECT.
Q: AND ON WHAT AIRLINE WERE YOU TRAVELING, DO YOU RECALL?
A: SOUTHWEST.
Q: AND WAS THE FLIGHT DUE IN AT 10:00 O'CLOCK OR JUST HAPPENED TO GET IN AT
10:00 O'CLOCK?
A: I THINK IT WAS DUE IN AT ABOUT 9:30.
Q: SO IT WAS LATE, ABOUT HALF AN HOUR?
A: YES.
Q: AND HAD YOU CHECKED ANY LUGGAGE?
A: NO, I DIDN'T.
Q: AND SO YOU HAD CARRY-ON?
A: CORRECT.
Q: AND WITH REGARD TO ARRIVING ABOUT 10:00 O'CLOCK, AFTER YOU RETRIEVED
YOUR CARRY-ON LUGGAGE, WHERE WERE YOU -- HOW DID YOU GET HOME? DID
YOU HAVE YOUR CAR PARKED THERE SOMEWHERE?
A: I HAD A CAR.
Q: AND WHERE WAS THE CAR PARKED?
A: IT WAS PARKED RIGHT NEXT TO THE TERMINAL. I THINK IT'S CALLED PARK ONE.
Q: ALL RIGHT. SO TERMINAL ONE IS WHERE SOUTHWEST IS?
A: RIGHT.
Q: AND THEN YOU WOULD PARK IN THAT NEW PARKING AREA THERE, PARK ONE?
A: THAT'S CORRECT. WALKED RIGHT TO IT.
Q: AND THEN YOU WALKED ACROSS, GOT YOUR CAR; IS THAT CORRECT?
A: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q: AND YOU THEN HEADED HOME TO THE 873 BUNDY ADDRESS; IS THAT CORRECT?
A: THAT'S CORRECT.
Q: NOW, DO YOU RECALL SPEAKING WITH TWO OFFICERS, OFFICER R.O. HARO,
H-A-R-O, AND J.A. HARPER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS MATTER BACK ON JULY 7,
1994 ABOUT 4:00 O'CLOCK IN THE AFTERNOON?
A: I DON'T REMEMBER THEIR NAMES, BUT I DID SPEAK TO TWO OFFICERS.
Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHERE DID YOU TALK TO THEM, SIR, IF YOU RECALL?
A: THEY CAME TO MY BUSINESS, PLACE OF BUSINESS.
Q: AND THAT WAS SOMEWHERE DOWNTOWN L.A.?
A: YES, IT WAS.
Q: AND YOU TALKED TO THEM ABOUT THE EVENTS AND YOUR INVOLVEMENT IN
THOSE EVENTS OF THE NIGHT OF JUNE 12TH, 1994; IS THAT CORRECT?
A: THAT'S CORRECT.
Q: AND SPECIFICALLY, DO YOU RECALL TELLING OFFICERS HARO AND HARPER THAT
MR. KARPF INDICATED THAT HE ARRIVED HOME FROM LAX AIRPORT (SAN JOSE) AT
APPROXIMATELY 2250 TO 2300 HOURS, THAT IS 10:50 TO 11:00 O'CLOCK? DO YOU
REMEMBER TELLING THEM THAT?
A: I MIGHT HAVE SAID IN THAT APPROXIMATE TIME, YES.
Q: AND THAT WOULD BE FAIRLY ACCURATE; WOULD IT NOT BE?
A: WITHIN 10 MINUTES EITHER SIDE, YES. MAYBE FIVE MINUTES.
Q: FIVE OR 10 MINUTES.
MR. COCHRAN: MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?
Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU THE REPORT AND ASK YOU TO
READ THIS. AND I'LL ASK YOU READ IT TO YOURSELF FIRST, MR. KARPF. WHY DON'T
YOU JUST READ FROM HERE TO THERE FIRST.
A: (THE WITNESS COMPLIES).
Q: ALL RIGHT. HAVE YOU NOW READ THAT?
A: YES, I HAVE.
Q: AND DOES THAT TEND TO REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION THAT YOU DID IN FACT
TELL THESE OFFICERS THAT YOU HAD --
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THERE'S BEEN NO INDICATION THIS WITNESS NEEDS HIS
MEMORY REFRESHED.
MR. COCHRAN: MAY I FINISH THE QUESTION?
THE COURT: YOU MAY.
Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DOES THE REVIEW OF THE REPORT THAT I JUST PROVIDED TO
YOU IN ANY WAY REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION THAT YOU TOLD THE OFFICERS
THAT YOU ARRIVED HOME FROM LAX AIRPORT AT APPROXIMATELY 10:50 TO 11:00
O'CLOCK P.M.?
A: I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY 10 -- YOU KNOW, WITHIN FIVE MINUTES EITHER SIDE, YES.
Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHEN YOU WERE TALKING TO THE OFFICERS, YOU WERE TRYING
TO BE AS ACCURATE AS YOU COULD, WEREN'T YOU?
A: YES.
Q: AND YOU HAD NO REASON TO NOT TO BE ACCURATE IN TELLING THEM THAT,
WOULD YOU?
A: NO.
Q: AND WHEN YOU WOULD TALK TO THEM, YOU SAW THEM WRITE DOWN WHAT
YOU WERE SAYING; IS THAT CORRECT?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: YOU TOLD THEM YOU HAD BEEN TO SAN JOSE AND THEY WROTE THAT DOWN; IS
THAT RIGHT?
A: THAT'S CORRECT.
Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, AFTER YOU ARRIVED HOME, YOU DESCRIBED HOW YOU CAME --
YOU COME IN THE REAR, THAT REAR ALLEYWAY THERE THAT PARALLELS BUNDY; IS
THAT CORRECT?
A: THAT'S CORRECT.
Q: YOU THEN CAME IN THE GARAGE. DID YOU GO INTO THE HOUSE AT ALL BEFORE
YOU WENT TO YOUR MAILBOX, IF YOU RECALL?
A: WELL, I HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE HOUSE TO GET TO THE MAILBOX.
Q: ALL RIGHT. SO YOU COME IN THE GARAGE, THEN YOU UNLOCK THE DOOR AND I
PRESUME THEN YOU GO IN THE HOUSE?
A: YES.
Q: AND THEN YOU PUT YOUR LUGGAGE DOWN, THAT SORT OF THING?
A: I WOULD JUST DROP IT ON THE FLOOR.
Q: DROP IT. AND THEN YOUR FIRST GOAL WAS THEN TO GET OUT AND TRY TO GET
YOUR MAIL; IS THAT CORRECT?
A: THAT'S WHAT I DID.
Q: OKAY. AND THEN SO YOU GO THROUGH THE HOUSE TOWARD BUNDY TO GO AND
TRY TO FIND YOUR MAIL; IS THAT RIGHT?
A: CORRECT.
Q: AND IT WAS AT THAT POINT -- WOULD YOU SAY THAT WOULD BE WITHIN THREE
TO FIVE MINUTES OF YOUR ARRIVAL IN THE GARAGE THAT YOU WENT OUT TO YOUR
MAILBOX?
A: I THINK THREE MINUTES WOULD BE ACCURATE.
Q: THREE MINUTES? OKAY. SO YOU GOT HOME AT 10:50 OR 11:00 O'CLOCK. SO
WITHIN THREE MINUTES OF THAT OR WHATEVER TIME IT WAS, YOU THEN WENT OUT
TO YOUR MAILBOX; IS THAT RIGHT?
A: THAT WOULD BE CORRECT.
Q: AND AT THAT POINT, THAT'S WHEN YOU SAW THIS DOG THAT YOU BELIEVED IS
THE DOG DEPICTED ON PEOPLE'S 40 THERE; IS THAT CORRECT, SIR?
A: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q: AND AT THE TIME YOU SAW THAT DOG, YOU HAD NEVER SEEN THAT DOG BEFORE;
IS THAT CORRECT?
A: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q: AT SOME POINT, EVEN THOUGH YOU RETREATED BACK INSIDE YOUR GATE, YOU
WERE ABLE TO GET YOUR MAIL AT SOME POINT; IS THAT CORRECT?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: AND DID YOU EVER HAVE OCCASION TO LOOK TO YOUR RIGHT IN THE GENERAL
DIRECTION OF 875 SOUTH BUNDY? DID YOU LOOK IN THAT GENERAL DIRECTION AT
ALL?
A: I DON'T THINK I DID, NO.
Q: ALL RIGHT. SO YOU HAVE NO RECOLLECTION OF -- WELL, YOU DON'T THINK YOU
DID ACTUALLY LOOK TO YOUR RIGHT?
A: IF I DID, I WOULDN'T SEE ANYTHING ANYWAY.
Q: ALL RIGHT. SO FROM YOUR VANTAGE POINT, YOU COULDN'T SEE ANYTHING; IS
THAT RIGHT?
A: THAT'S CORRECT.
Q: ANSWER OUT LOUD. AND THE DOG WAS OUT IN THE CENTER OF THE STREET; IS
THAT CORRECT?
A: IN THE CENTER, RIGHT.
Q: NOW, SIR, WITH REGARD TO THIS OTHER INDIVIDUAL THAT YOU SAW, YOU
INDICATED I BELIEVE THAT YOU SAW ANOTHER MALE WHO WAS ACROSS THE
STREET. THAT WOULD BE THEN ON THE EAST SIDE OF BUNDY; IS THAT CORRECT?
A: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q: AND IN WHICH DIRECTION WAS THIS MALE THAT WAS WALKING THE DOG
HEADED?
A: HE WAS HEADED NORTH.
Q: SO HE WAS HEADED ON THE EAST SIDE HEADED NORTH?
A: WHICH WOULD GO TOWARDS MONTANA.
Q: TOWARDS MONTANA; IS THAT CORRECT?
A: THAT'S CORRECT.
Q: WAS THAT SOMEONE THAT YOU KNEW?
A: NO.
Q: WAS THAT SOMEONE YOU HAD EVER SEEN BEFORE?
A: IT'S HARD TO SAY. IT WAS DARK, YOU KNOW, THAT SIDE OF THE STREET.
Q: ALL RIGHT. I UNDERSTAND, SIR. HAVE YOU SEEN THAT PERSON SINCE THAT TIME,
THIS MALE?
A: NOT THAT I NOTICED.
Q: HAVE YOU SEEN THE DOG IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD SINCE THAT TIME?
A: I DON'T THINK SO.
Q: ALL RIGHT. CAN YOU DESCRIBE FOR US THE INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS WALKING THE
DOG AS HE PROCEEDED NORTHBOUND ON BUNDY APPROACHING MONTANA ON THE
EAST SIDE OF THE STREET?
A: I REALLY CAN'T DESCRIBE HIM. HE WAS A MALE CAUCASIAN.
Q: MALE CAUCASIAN. YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW TALL HE WAS OR HOW MUCH HE
WEIGHED?
A: NO.
Q: YOU HAVE NO RECOLLECTION HOW HE WAS DRESSED?
A: NO.
Q: CAN YOU IN ANY WAY DESCRIBE THE DOG AT ALL?
A: NO, I CAN'T.
Q: WAS HIS DOG ON A LEASH?
A: IT WAS ON A LEASH.
Q: WITH REGARD TO THE DOG THAT YOU BELIEVED WAS THE DOG DEPICTED IN
PEOPLE'S 40 THERE, DID THAT DOG HAVE A LEASH ON THAT NIGHT IF YOU RECALL?
A: I BELIEVE HE DID.
Q: YOUR RECOLLECTION IS, HE HAD A LEASH?
A: YES.
Q: ALL RIGHT. AND AS YOU SAW THE DOG RUNNING IN THE STREET WITH THIS
LEASH, THE ONLY OTHER PERSON THAT YOU EVER SAW WAS THIS MAN, MALE
CAUCASIAN, ACROSS THE STREET WALKING THE DOG; IS THAT CORRECT?
A: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q: WHEN YOU CAME BACK INSIDE YOUR HOUSE, DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO GO
BACK OUT IN THAT ALLEYWAY AT ALL?
A: NO, I DIDN'T.
Q: WHEN YOU DROVE UP -- AND AS I UNDERSTAND --
MR. COCHRAN: CAN WE HAVE -- MAY I HAVE JUST A SECOND, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: CERTAINLY.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: NOW, YOU CAN WATCH YOUR MONITOR IF YOU --
THE COURT: PEOPLE'S 38 AGAIN?
MR. COCHRAN: PEOPLE'S 38 I BELIEVE. IS THAT PEOPLE'S 38?
MS. CLARK: 38.
MR. COCHRAN: 38. THANK YOU.
Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: MR. KARPF, SIR, WITH REGARD TO YOUR RETURNING HOME,
WOULD I BE CORRECT IN ASSUMING THAT YOU PROCEEDED FROM DOROTHY INTO
THIS ALLEYWAY HEADING NORTH TO GO INTO YOUR PARTICULAR RESIDENCE?
A: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q: IS THAT CORRECT? AND AS YOU THEN OF NECESSITY IN PROCEEDING
NORTHBOUND, YOU PASSED BY 875; IS THAT CORRECT?
A: THAT'S CORRECT.
Q: AND DID YOU SEE ANY VEHICLES OUT THERE WHEN YOU DROVE PAST AT --
A: NOTHING THAT I RECALL.
Q: -- 10:50 OR 11:00? YOU DON'T RECALL ANYTHING AT ALL?
A: NO.
Q: DID YOU SEE ANY OTHER PARTIES IN THAT ALLEY WHEN YOU DROVE IN THERE
THAT YOU RECALL AT THIS POINT?
A: NO.
Q: YOU -- DID YOU FIRST BECOME AWARE OF THE POLICE AFTER ABOUT 1:00
O'CLOCK THAT PARTICULAR MORNING --
A: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q: -- THE MORNING OF THE 13TH? BUT YOU DID NOT TALK TO THE POLICE AT THAT
TIME?
A: NO, I DIDN'T.
Q: YOU JUST KNEW THEY WERE OUT THERE?
A: YES.
Q: AND YOU DIDN'T TALK TO THE POLICE ACTUALLY IN CONNECTION WITH THIS
CASE UNTIL ABOUT JULY 7TH; IS THAT CORRECT?
A: I WAS INTERVIEWED ON JULY 7TH.
Q: AND THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME YOU WERE INTERVIEWED?
A: WHEN I WALKED OUT FRONT THE NEXT MORNING AND GAVE A -- THEY ASKED ME
A COUPLE QUESTIONS.
Q: DID THEY WRITE THAT DOWN?
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. SPECULATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED. HE CAN ANSWER.
Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU WALKED OUT FRONT THE NEXT MORNING, THAT'S JUNE
13?
A: THAT'S CORRECT.
Q: AND WHO DID YOU TALK TO, IF YOU KNOW?
A: I DON'T RECALL THE OFFICER'S NAME.
Q: ALL RIGHT. WAS THIS OFFICER IN UNIFORM OR WAS THIS OFFICER --
A: HE WAS IN UNIFORM.
Q: HE WAS IN UNIFORM? HAVE YOU SEEN THAT OFFICER SINCE THAT TIME?
A: NO, I HAVEN'T.
Q: CAN YOU IDENTIFY HIM AT ALL?
A: NO.
Q: HE JUST ASKED A FEW QUESTIONS?
A: JUST A FEW BASIC QUESTIONS.
Q: LIKE WHAT KIND OF BASIC QUESTIONS?
A: WHERE I WAS LAST NIGHT. HE WOULDN'T TELL ME WHAT WAS HAPPENING IN THE
CRIME SCENE. SO -- AND THERE WAS NOTHING THAT I EVEN KNEW ABOUT THE
CRIME SCENE UNTIL MUCH LATER IN THE DAY.
Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU JUST HAD A BRIEF CONVERSATION?
A: VERY BRIEF.
Q: AND THEN YOUR FIRST FORMAL INTERVIEW THEN WAS ON JULY 7TH, 1994?
A: THAT'S CORRECT.
Q: WHEN -- HOW CLOSE DID YOU GET TO THE AKITA THAT PARTICULAR NIGHT?
A: I WOULD SAY HE CAME WITHIN 15 FEET.
Q: AND THAT'S WHEN YOU KIND OF RETREATED; IS THAT CORRECT?
A: YES.
Q: ALL RIGHT. WHEN YOU ARRIVED -- WHEN YOU FINALLY GOT INTO THE HOUSE
AND UPSTAIRS, I PRESUME IF WE FOLLOW YOUR TRAIL, YOU GOT THE MAIL AND
THEN YOU CAME BACK INSIDE; IS THAT CORRECT?
A: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q: AND DID YOU AT SOME POINT GO UPSTAIRS TO YOUR BEDROOM AREA?
A: I DID AROUND 12:00 O'CLOCK.
Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU DIDN'T GO UP UNTIL 12:00 O'CLOCK?
A: RIGHT.
Q: HUM. SO WHEN YOU GOT THERE AT 12:00 O'CLOCK -- IN OTHER WORDS, YOU HAD
NOT BEEN UP THERE UNTIL 12:00 O'CLOCK FROM THE TIME YOU ARRIVED HOME, IS
THAT RIGHT, UPSTAIRS?
A: THAT'S CORRECT.
Q: AND WOULD THAT BE THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU SAW YOUR FIANCE', MISS STEIN,
AT ABOUT 12:00 O'CLOCK THAT PARTICULAR NIGHT?
A: ACTUALLY, I PROBABLY WENT UP TO PUT SOMETHING IN, BUT SHE WAS IN BED,
SO I DIDN'T WAKE HER UP.
Q: SHE WAS SLEEPING WHEN YOU WENT UP, IS THAT RIGHT, AS NEAR AS YOU CAN
TELL?
A: AS NEAR AS I CAN TELL, YES.
Q: SO WHEN YOU WENT UP THERE ABOUT 12:00 O'CLOCK, IS THAT WHEN --
A: THAT'S WHEN I DECIDED TO GO TO BED.
Q: AND DID YOU WAKE HER UP AT THAT POINT?
A: TO BE HONEST, I DON'T REMEMBER IF I WOKE HER. I'M SURE I DID. I HAD BEEN
GONE FOR ALL WEEKEND.
Q: SO YOU THINK YOU PROBABLY WOKE HER UP? ALL RIGHT. THAT WOULD HAVE
BEEN ABOUT 12:00 O'CLOCK?
A: YES.
Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THE POLICE -- YOU BECAME AWARE OF THE POLICE IN THAT
ALLEYWAY SOMETIME AROUND AN HOUR AFTER THAT; IS THAT CORRECT?
A: APPROXIMATELY, YES.
Q: HAD YOU FALLEN ASLEEP BY THAT TIME?
A: I THINK I DID, YES.
Q: SO IT WAS THE NOISE IN THE ALLEY THAT AWAKENED YOU ALSO?
A: THAT'S CORRECT.
Q: ALL RIGHT. WITH REGARD TO THE AKITA, DID YOU EVER SEE ANYTHING ON THE
PAWS OF THE AKITA AT ALL?
A: NO, I DIDN'T.
Q: YOU DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING AT ALL ON THE PAWS OF THE AKITA?
A: NO.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. KARPF.
THE WITNESS: YOU ARE WELCOME.
THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE MUCH REDIRECT, MISS CLARK?
MS. CLARK: 10 MINUTES.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A
RECESS AT THIS TIME. PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITION TO YOU; DON'T DISCUSS
THE CASE AMONGST YOURSELVES, DON'T FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE,
ALLOW ANYBODY TO TALK TO YOU OR PERFORM ANY DELIBERATIONS UNTIL THE
MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU. AND WE'LL TAKE THEM UP TO THE LOUNGE
UPSTAIRS. ALL RIGHT. MR. KARPF, YOU ARE EXCUSED FOR ABOUT 25 MINUTES.
DON'T DISCUSS YOUR TESTIMONY WITH ANYBODY OTHER THAN THE ATTORNEYS.
ALL RIGHT. YOU ARE ORDERED TO COME BACK AT 11:00 O'CLOCK. THANK YOU, SIR.
DON'T FORGET YOUR JACKET. WE'LL STAND IN RECESS.
(RECESS.)
(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. ALL THE PARTIES ARE
AGAIN PRESENT. COUNSEL, ANYTHING WE NEED TO DISCUSS BEFORE WE RESUME
WITH MR. KARPF? ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE.
MS. CLARK: CAN THE WITNESS RESUME THE WITNESS STAND?
THE COURT: YES, PLEASE. THANK YOU.
MS. CLARK: THANK YOU.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE PRESENCE OF
THE JURY:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. BE SEATED. MR.
KARPF, HAVE A SEAT, PLEASE. I WOULD LIKE THE RECORD TO REFLECT WE HAVE
BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL. MR. LOUIS KARPF IS
STILL ON THE WITNESS STAND. MR. KARPF, YOU ARE REMINDED THAT YOU ARE
STILL UNDER OATH, SIR. AND MISS CLARK, YOU MAY COMMENCE YOUR REDIRECT
EXAMINATION.
MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS. CLARK:
Q: MR. KARPF, DID YOU AND I HAVE A LITTLE CONVERSATION OVER THIS PAST
BREAK?
A: A LITTLE CONVERSATION.
Q: VERY LITTLE? I'M SORRY.
MR. COCHRAN: MOVE TO STRIKE THAT LAST STATEMENT; TESTIFYING.
THE COURT: OVERRULED. MISS CLARK.
Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND DO YOU RECALL THAT I ASKED YOU IF YOU REMEMBERED
YOUR GIRLFRIEND COMING DOWNSTAIRS TO SEE YOU WHEN YOU GOT HOME FROM
THE AIRPORT?
A: I DIDN'T REMEMBER THAT SHE DID, NO.
Q: DO YOU REMEMBER MY ASKING YOU THAT?
A: YES, YOU DO.
Q: AND YOUR ANSWER WAS?
A: I DIDN'T RECALL THAT SHE DID. IT IS POSSIBLE, BUT I DIDN'T RECALL THAT SHE
DID.
Q: IT IS POSSIBLE THAT SHE DID, BUT YOU DON'T REMEMBER ANY MORE?
A: THAT'S CORRECT.
Q: IN THIS CASE, AFTER -- THE DAY AFTER YOU FOUND OUT ABOUT THE MURDERS,
DO YOU RECALL THAT SHE TOLD YOU THAT HALF AN HOUR BEFORE YOU GOT HOME
SHE WAS AWAKENED BY DOGS BARKING?
MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THIS QUESTION AS HEARSAY, YOUR
HONOR.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
MS. CLARK: MAY WE APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: SURE.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE ARE OVER HERE AT THE SIDE BAR. THE OBJECTION IS
HEARSAY. WHAT IS THIS, 1335?
MS. CLARK: YES.
THE COURT: PRIOR CONSISTENT --
MS. CLARK: OR IS IT 1235?
THE COURT: 1235.
MS. CLARK: IT IS 35, I KNOW YOU ARE RIGHT, PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT.
MR. COCHRAN: NO. YOUR HONOR, THIS IS NOT -- THIS IS NOT THE WAY YOU
DEMONSTRATE ANY PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT OR WHATEVER. THIS IS
HEARSAY AND IT IS NOT AN EXCEPTION AND IT IS NOT ANY PRIOR CONSISTENT
STATEMENT. AND I WOULD LIKE AN OFFER OF PROOF.
MS. CLARK: COUNSEL JUST HAD IT AND COUNSEL HAS NO ARGUMENT WITH THIS
ONE. IT CLEARLY IS A PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT. IS ATTEMPTING TO IMPEACH
EVA STEIN'S TESTIMONY THAT SHE WAS AWAKENED HALF AN HOUR BEFORE THIS
WITNESS CAME HOME BY DOGS BARKING BY THIS WITNESS' STATEMENT THAT HE
DOESN'T RECALL SEEING HER COME DOWNSTAIRS AND TALK TO HIM AND SHE HAS
A PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT WHERE SHE HAS TOLD HIM THE SAME THING THAT
SHE HAS TOLD US. CLASSIC 1235.
MR. COCHRAN: SHE MISSES THE ENTIRE POINT. THE POINT IS SHE IS TRYING TO
FORCE EVERYTHING ON 1045 AND OVERLOOKING WHAT THESE WITNESSES TOLD
EVERYBODY ELSE. SHE CAN'T -- THAT IS THE BIG PICTURE, AND THE SMALLER
PICTURE, WHAT THIS WITNESS SAYS IS HE GOES -- GOES HOME, GETS HOME --
THE COURT: NO. THE ISSUE IS WHAT EVA STEIN SAID.
MR. COCHRAN: YES. WHAT SHE SAID TO HIM IS STILL HEARSAY AND THAT IS NOT
ANY PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT.
MS. CLARK: WELL, IF THAT IS NOT A PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT, THEN I
SUPPOSE NOTHING THAT COUNSEL WAS DOING -- MAYBE COUNSEL'S CROSS OF
THIS WITNESS COULD ALL BE STRICKEN, BECAUSE IT SEEMED TO ME LIKE THE
INTENT OF IT WAS IMPEACHMENT OF EVA STEIN.
MR. COCHRAN: I'M NOT EVEN RESPONDING TO THAT, IT IS TOO RIDICULOUS, AND
I'M BEING NICE TODAY.
MS. CLARK: TODAY IS THE NICE DAY.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THE OBJECTION WILL BE OVERRULED. IT IS A PRIOR
CONSISTENT STATEMENT.
MR. COCHRAN: WHAT IS THE OFFER OF PROOF, YOUR HONOR? CAN I HEAR THE
OFFER OF PROOF?
MS. CLARK: CAN WE NOT HAVE ARGUING AFTER THE RULING, MR. COCHRAN.
MR. COCHRAN: I'M NOT ARGUING WITH ANYBODY. I WANT THE OFFER OF PROOF.
THE COURT: WHAT IS HE GOING TO SAY?
MS. CLARK: YEAH, SHE DID, OF COURSE.
THE COURT: OKAY. THANK YOU.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. PROCEED.
MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THE OBJECTION IS OVERRULED?
THE COURT: YES.
Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND SO THE DAY AFTER THIS DID MISS -- DID YOUR GIRLFRIEND,
MISS STEIN, TELL YOU THAT SHE WAS AWAKENED BY DOGS BARKING A HALF HOUR
BEFORE YOU GOT HOME?
A: WE DID DISCUSS THAT SHE WAS AWAKENED FROM THE PREVIOUS NIGHT BY THE
DOGS BARKING, YES.
Q: AND DID SHE TELL YOU THAT SHE WAS AWAKENED ABOUT A HALF HOUR BEFORE
YOU GOT HOME BY THE DOGS BARKING?
A: I WOULD SAY THAT IS FAIRLY ACCURATE. I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS A HALF HOUR, 45
MINUTES, BUT IT IS IN THAT AREA, YES.
Q: I'M SORRY?
A: IT WOULD BE WITHIN THAT AREA, A HALF HOUR BEFORE SHE -- BEFORE I GOT
HOME AT LEAST, MAYBE EVEN MORE.
Q: THAT IS WHAT SHE TOLD YOU?
A: RIGHT.
Q: AND THAT WAS THE DAY AFTER THE MURDERS?
A: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q: AND YOU DIDN'T SPEAK TO THE POLICE TO GIVE AN ACTUAL STATEMENT UNTIL
JULY 7?
A: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q: NOW, YOU INDICATED THAT WITHIN FIVE MINUTES OR SO OF 10:45 IS WHEN YOU
GOT HOME FROM THE AIRPORT?
A: I WOULD SAY IT IS CLOSER TO 10:45, 10:50, IN THAT AREA.
Q: SO ARE YOU -- ARE YOU CERTAIN THAT YOU GOT HOME BEFORE 11:00?
A: YES, I AM.
Q: ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN?
A: ABSOLUTELY.
Q: ARE YOU CERTAIN THAT YOU GOT HOME BEFORE 10:50?
A: NOT ABSOLUTELY, NO.
Q: OKAY. WHAT IS THE VERY LATEST YOU THINK YOU COULD HAVE GOTTEN HOME?
A: BY 10:50.
Q: NO LATER THAN THAT?
A: NO.
Q: THE GENTLEMAN THAT YOU INDICATED THAT YOU SAW WALKING THE DOG, YOU
DON'T REMEMBER HIS HEIGHT OR HIS WEIGHT? WAS THAT YOUR TESTIMONY?
A: YES, I DID. I REALLY DIDN'T -- WASN'T TRYING TO OBSERVE HIM.
Q: SO GIVEN THAT FACT, SIR, IF YOU DID SEE HIM AGAIN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD,
WOULD YOU HAVE RECOGNIZED HIM?
A: NO, I WOULDN'T.
Q: OKAY. DO YOU RECALL HOW LONG YOU WERE OUTSIDE IN FRONT OF BUNDY
WHEN YOU WENT TO GET THE MAIL?
A: THE WHOLE PROCESS MAY HAVE TAKEN ONE TO TWO MINUTES.
MS. CLARK: EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)
MS. CLARK: I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER.
THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.
MR. COCHRAN: YES, YOUR HONOR, JUST A FEW MORE QUESTIONS.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. COCHRAN:
Q: MR. KARPF, SIR, WHEN YOU SPOKE WITH INTERVIEWING OFFICERS HARO AND
HARPER AND YOU TOLD THEM THAT YOU HAD ARRIVED HOME BETWEEN 10:50 AND
ELEVEN O'CLOCK, YOU WERE BEING AS ACCURATE AS YOU COULD AT THAT TIME;
ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
A: THAT'S CORRECT.
Q: AND HERE WE ARE NOW IN FEBRUARY OF 1994 AND YOUR MEMORY FOR EVENTS
THAT ARE TAKING PLACE ON JUNE 12, 1994, WAS BETTER ON JULY 7, 1994, THAN IT IS
NOW; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
A: I WOULD SAY YES.
Q: YOU AGREE WITH THAT? ALL RIGHT. NOW, WITH REGARD TO THIS
CONVERSATION, SIR, THAT YOU HAD WITH YOUR FIANCE, WHAT SHE TOLD YOU,
ISN'T IT, THAT SHE TOLD YOU THAT YOU RETURNED TO THE RESIDENCE, SHE
BELIEVED, APPROXIMATELY 30 TO 45 MINUTES AFTER SHE WAS AWAKENED BY THE
BARKING DOGS; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
A: THAT WOULD BE ABOUT CORRECT, YES.
Q: AND SHE ALSO TOLD YOU, DID SHE NOT, THAT SHE -- SHE TOLD YOU THAT SHE
HAD HEARD MORE THAN ONE DOG BARKING, DIDN'T SHE, A FEW DOGS? DO YOU
RECALL THAT?
A: I DON'T RECALL THAT, BUT IT IS POSSIBLE.
Q: ALL RIGHT. AND SHE TOLD YOU THAT SHE HAD FALLEN ASLEEP ABOUT TEN
O'CLOCK THAT PARTICULAR EVENING, RIGHT?
A: THAT'S CORRECT.
Q: AND THAT SOME TIME BETWEEN 10:15 P.M. AND 10:45 P.M. SHE WAS AWAKENED
BY THIS INTENSE BARKING BY A FEW DOGS AS THE -- THE WINDOW WAS OPENED IN
THE BACK PART OF YOUR HOUSE? IS THAT RIGHT?
A: THAT'S CORRECT.
Q: ALL RIGHT. AND SO WHEN YOU TALKED TO THESE OFFICERS ON JULY 7 --
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. OBJECTION. THAT MISSTATES NOT ONLY THE TESTIMONY,
BUT THE POLICE REPORT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
MR. COCHRAN: I READ FROM THE POLICE REPORT, YOUR HONOR. I WAS READING
DIRECTLY FROM IT. MAY I PROCEED? THANK YOU.
Q: WITH REGARD TO -- WHEN YOU TALKED TO THE POLICE ON JULY 7, YOU WERE
TRYING TO BE AS ACCURATE AS YOU COULD?
A: YES.
Q: IN TELLING THEM THE TIME; IS THAT RIGHT?
A: THAT'S CORRECT.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. KARPF.
THE WITNESS: THANK YOU.
THE COURT: MISS CLARK.
MS. CLARK: DIRECTING COUNSEL'S ATTENTION TO PAGE 908 OF THE MURDER BOOK.
FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS. CLARK:
Q: MR. KARPF, I'M SHOWING YOU A STATEMENT HERE. DO YOU SEE YOUR NAME AT
THE TOP?
A: YES, I DO.
Q: ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO A LINE RIGHT HERE WHERE
IT SAYS "WITNESS FURTHER STATED."
MR. COCHRAN: MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: YES.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND
DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
THE COURT: MISS CLARK.
MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
Q: NOW, THIS IS YOUR WITNESS STATEMENT, RIGHT, MR. KARPF?
A: RIGHT.
Q: YOUR NAME IS AT THE TOP?
A: UH-HUH.
Q: IT SAYS HERE:
"WITNESS FURTHER STATED THAT HIS GIRLFRIEND, EVA STEIN, HEARD DOGS
BARKING EARLIER IN THE EVENING BETWEEN TEN O'CLOCK AND 10:30." WAS THAT
YOUR STATEMENT TO THE POLICE, SIR?
A: THAT IS WHAT I SAID, YES.
Q: WAS THAT YOUR BEST RECOLLECTION BACK ON JULY 7 AS TO WHAT SHE HAD
TOLD YOU?
A: THAT WOULD BE MY BEST RECOLLECTION, YES.
Q: AND DO YOU RECALL HER ALSO TELLING YOU, SIR, THAT SHE WAS AWAKENED BY
DOGS BARKING A HALF AN HOUR BEFORE YOU GOT HOME?
A: THAT'S CORRECT.
Q: NOW, IN YOUR STATEMENT ALSO YOU INDICATED THAT YOU ARRIVED HOME
FROM LOS ANGELES AIRPORT AT APPROXIMATELY 10:50 TO ELEVEN O'CLOCK?
A: THAT'S CORRECT.
Q: HOW CAREFULLY WERE YOU QUESTIONED AS TO THE TIMING OF YOUR ARRIVAL
FROM THE AIRPORT?
MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q: BY MS. CLARK: AT THIS TIME, SIR, YOU'VE MADE AN EFFORT TO RECALL VERY
PRECISELY WHAT TIME YOU GOT HOME; IS THAT CORRECT?
A: YES, I HAVE.
Q: AT THE TIME THAT YOU SPOKE TO THE POLICE WERE YOU AWARE THAT THAT
PARTICULAR ASPECT OF YOUR STATEMENT WOULD BE VERY IMPORTANT?
MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION, YOUR HONOR.
ARGUMENTATIVE AND I WOULD --
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q: BY MS. CLARK: SIR, CAN YOU TELL US, DID YOU HAVE ANY IDEA -- DID YOU MAKE
AN EFFORT TO BE -- TO BE VERY PRECISE IN THE TIMES THAT YOU GAVE THE POLICE
OFFICERS WITH RESPECT TO WHEN YOU ARRIVED HOME FROM THE AIRPORT?
MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION, YOUR HONOR. IT HAS
BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED. 10:50 TO ELEVEN O'CLOCK IS FAIRLY APPROXIMATE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q: BY MS. CLARK: DO YOU REMEMBER THE QUESTION?
A: STATE IT AGAIN SO I CAN ANSWER IT CORRECTLY.
MS. CLARK: LET ME FIND IT.
THE COURT: THE QUESTION WAS DID YOU TRY TO BE VERY PRECISE IN HIS
ANSWERS TO THE OFFICERS AS TO THE TIMES.
MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
Q: DID YOU MAKE AN EFFORT TO BE VERY PRECISE IN THE TIME THAT YOU GAVE THE
POLICE OFFICERS WITH RESPECT TO WHEN YOU ARRIVED FROM THE AIRPORT?
A: YES. I KNEW IT WAS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION AND DID TRY TO BE ACCURATE.
Q: OKAY. AND YOU TOLD THEM BETWEEN 10:50 AND ELEVEN O'CLOCK?
A: THAT IS WHAT I SAID.
Q: AND WAS THAT ACCURATE?
A: I WOULD SAY IT WAS -- IT WAS FAIRLY -- YES, IT WAS ACCURATE.
Q: WELL, TODAY YOU ARE SAYING IT WAS NO LATER THAN 10:50?
MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT, YOUR HONOR. SHE IS ARGUING WITH THE WITNESS, YOUR
HONOR. I WOULD LIKE TO APPROACH.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I WOULD SAY IT WAS CLOSER TO 10:50 THAN 11:00, BUT WITHIN THAT
TEN MINUTES, WITHOUT DOCUMENTING IT, THAT WOULD BE ACCURATE.
Q: BY MS. CLARK: SO IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY AT THIS TIME THAT YOU COULD HAVE
ARRIVED HOME AT ELEVEN O'CLOCK?
A: I DON'T THINK SO, BUT THAT WOULD BE A POSSIBILITY.
Q: WHAT IS YOUR RECOLLECTION TODAY, SIR, AS TO WHEN YOU GOT HOME?
MR. COCHRAN: ASKED AND ANSWERED, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: IT WAS CLOSER TO 10:50.
Q: AND SO IF YOU WERE TO GIVE THE MOST ACCURATE ESTIMATE OF WHEN YOU
GOT HOME, THAT TIME WOULD BE?
MR. COCHRAN: ASKED AND ANSWERED, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q: BY MS. CLARK: SIR, YOU INDICATED THAT YOU GOT -- YOUR PLANE LANDED AT
TEN O'CLOCK AND YOU FELT THAT YOU --
MR. COCHRAN: THIS HAS BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED, YOUR HONOR.
MS. CLARK: FOUNDATIONAL.
THE COURT: COUNSEL, LET'S APPROACH WITH THE COURT REPORTER, PLEASE.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE ARE OVER AT THE SIDE BAR. MARCIA, THIS GUY HAS
SAID, HEY, MY BEST RECOLLECTION IS 10:50. HE SAID THIS FOUR TIMES NOW.
JOHNNIE HAS GOT HIM TO SAY, YEAH, I TOLD THE POLICE IT WAS SOMETIME
BETWEEN 10:50 AND 11:00. HE SAID FOUR TIMES NOW MY BEST RECOLLECTION NOW
IS 10:50. HOW MANY TIMES ARE WE GOING TO GO OVER THIS? JUST A QUESTION.
MS. CLARK: YOU ARE RIGHT.
MR. COCHRAN: YOU ARE RIGHT. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
MS. CLARK: OKAY.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU. LET'S SIT DOWN NOW.
MS. CLARK: OKAY.
THE COURT: OKAY.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)
THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL. MISS CLARK.
MS. CLARK: MAY I HAVE ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: CERTAINLY.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)
Q: BY MS. CLARK: SIR, WHAT WAS THE CLOSEST YOU EVER GOT TO THAT DOG THAT
WAS IN THE STREET, THE AKITA?
MR. COCHRAN: ASKED AND ANSWERED.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q: BY MS. CLARK: WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE THE DOG'S PAWS AND LEGS CLEARLY?
A: I COULD SEE HIS LEGS CLEARLY. HIS PAWS I WASN'T LOOKING AT.
Q: WAS IT DARK IN THE STREET WHERE THAT DOG WAS?
A: IT WAS FAIRLY DARK, YES.
Q: DID YOU EXAMINE HIS LEGS OR HIS PAWS CAREFULLY WHEN YOU LOOKED AT
HIM?
MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT, YOUR HONOR. IMPROPER REDIRECT. OBJECT TO THAT.
THE COURT: THAT OBJECTION IS OVERRULED.
MR. COCHRAN: ASKED AND ANSWERED.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: NO, I DIDN'T LOOK AT HIS PAWS, OR DO YOU WANT TO REPHRASE
THAT ONE MORE TIME?
Q: BY MS. CLARK: WERE YOU EXAMINING ITS LEGS OR ITS PAWS VERY CAREFULLY
WHEN YOU SAW IT OUT IN THE STREET THERE?
A: NO, I WASN'T.
Q: YOU WERE FRIGHTENED BY IT IN FACT?
A: FRIGHTENED BY HIS BARKING.
Q: ABOUT HOW LONG DID YOU LOOK AT THAT DOG?
MR. COCHRAN: ASKED AND ANSWERED.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. HE HAS TESTIFIED TO THIS ALREADY.
MS. CLARK: I DIDN'T ASK HIM ABOUT THIS, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS IN RESPONSE TO
COUNSEL'S QUESTIONING ABOUT WHETHER HE SAW BLOOD ON THE LEGS, AND I
DON'T THINK I DID.
THE COURT: WELL, IT IS A SIMPLE QUESTION AND ANSWER. IT WILL TAKE ME MORE
TIME TO GO BACK THROUGH MY NOTES TO SEE, SO GO AHEAD AND ANSWER THE
QUESTION.
MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: HOW LONG DID YOU LOOK AT THE DOG?
THE WITNESS: I WOULD SAY I SAW THE DOG NO MORE THAN A MINUTE, BASICALLY,
MAYBE A MINUTE AND A HALF.
Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND DURING WHICH TIME THE DOG WAS MOVING AROUND AND
BARKING?
A: THAT IS CORRECT.
MS. CLARK: I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER.
MR. COCHRAN: MERCIFULLY I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, MR. KARPF. YOU
MAY BE EXCUSED. THANK YOU.
THE COURT: MR. KARPF, I'M GOING TO EXCUSE YOU FROM FURTHER ATTENDANCE
THIS MORNING. PLEASE DON'T DISCUSS YOUR TESTIMONY WITH ANYBODY ELSE,
EXCEPT FOR THE ATTORNEYS, UNTIL THE MATTER IS CONCLUDED. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH.
THE WITNESS: THANK YOU.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, YOUR NEXT WITNESS, PLEASE.
MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THE PEOPLE CALL MR. STEVEN SCHWAB.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. IS ONE OF YOUR COLLEAGUES BRINGING MR. SCHWAB IN?
MS. CLARK: I WILL GO GET HIM.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. SCHWAB, COULD YOU STAND OVER HERE BY THE
COURT REPORTER, PLEASE, AND FACE THE CLERK.
STEVEN SCHWAB, CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE PEOPLE, WAS SWORN AND
TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
THE CLERK: PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT
THE TESTIMONY YOU MAY GIVE IN THE CAUSE NOW PENDING BEFORE THIS COURT,
SHALL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP
YOU GOD.
THE WITNESS: I DO.
THE CLERK: PLEASE BE SEATED ON THE WITNESS STAND AND STATE AND SPELL
YOUR FIRST AND LAST NAMES FOR THE RECORD.
THE WITNESS: MY NAME IS STEVEN SCHWAB. THAT IS S-T-E-V-E-N S-C-H-W-A-B.
THE CLERK: THANK YOU.
THE COURT: MISS CLARK.
MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS. CLARK:
Q: GOOD MORNING, MR. SCHWAB.
A: GOOD MORNING.
Q: I'M GOING TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THE EVENTS THAT OCCURRED ON THE
NIGHT OF JUNE 12, SUNDAY, 1994.
A: UH-HUH.
Q: AS OF THAT DATE, SIR, CAN YOU TELL US WHERE YOU WERE LIVING?
A: YES. I WAS LIVING AT 11965 MONTANA AVENUE. THAT IS BETWEEN BUNDY AND
SAN VICENTE.
Q: OKAY. THERE IS A MAP THAT HAS BEEN MARKED AS PEOPLE'S 26 TO YOUR LEFT.
A: UH-HUH.
Q: COULD YOU INDICATE ON THIS MAP WHERE, APPROXIMATELY, YOU WERE LIVING.
A: MAY I USE THIS HERE?
Q: THERE SHOULD BE A BIGGER ONE. THIS ONE IS BETTER.
A: THANK YOU. THIS IS WHERE I LIVED, (INDICATING).
MS. CLARK: FOR THE RECORD, THE WITNESS HAS POINTED TO I GUESS IT IS A GREEN
HOUSE THAT IS INDICATED ON MONTANA.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. NOTED.
Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND WERE YOU A PET OWNER AT THAT TIME, SIR?
A: YES, I WAS.
Q: WHAT DID YOU OWN?
A: I HAVE A DOG SHERRY AND I ALSO OWN A CAT.
Q: DO YOU WANT TO PULL THAT MICROPHONE IN A LITTLE BIT, SIR, AND SPEAK
RIGHT INTO IT LIKE A TELEPHONE.
A: OKAY. THANKS. (WITNESS COMPLIES.)
Q: OKAY. DID YOU HAVE A HABIT WITH RESPECT TO WALKING YOUR DOG?
A: YES. I WOULD WALK THE DOG THE SAME TIME EVERY NIGHT DURING THE WEEK
AND ON THE WEEKEND I ALSO HAD A HABIT THAT WAS THE SAME WEEK TO WEEK.
Q: AND WHAT WAS THAT HABIT?
A: WELL, DURING THE WEEK I WOULD WALK MY DOG BETWEEN 11:00 AND 11:30 SO
THAT WHEN I GOT HOME I WAS ABLE TO WATCH THE DICK VAN DYKE SHOW ON T.V.
ON THE WEEKENDS I WALKED THE DOG BETWEEN 10:30 AND 11:00 BECAUSE THE
DICK VAN DYKE SHOW ENDS AT 10:30 ON THE WEEKEND, SO I HAD THE SAME HABIT
AND ROUGHLY A HALF HOUR EACH NIGHT WHEN I WALK MY DOG.
Q: NOW, THE SHOW THAT YOU WATCHED ON THE WEEKEND, IS THAT ALSO DICK
VAN DYKE?
A: YEAH. IT IS A LITTLE -- THE SCHEDULE IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT, BUT AT THAT TIME
IT WAS THAT THE DICK VAN DYKE SHOW RAN FROM 10:00 TO 10:30. I WOULD WALK
MY DOG FROM 10:30 TO 11:00 AND ELEVEN O'CLOCK I WOULD GO HOME AND WATCH
THE MARY TYLER MOORE SHOW. THAT WAS MY SUNDAY EVENING.
Q: WAS THAT A HABIT OR ROUTINE FOR YOU?
A: THAT WAS WHAT I DID, YOU KNOW, TO RELAX BEFORE STARTING A NEW WORK
WEEK.
Q: AND ON JUNE 12, A SUNDAY, DID YOU FOLLOW THAT SAME ROUTINE, SIR?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: NOW, ON THAT PARTICULAR NIGHT DO YOU RECALL WHAT YOU -- WHAT EPISODE
YOU WERE WATCHING OF THE DICK VAN DYKE SHOW?
A: NOT -- I'M NOT COMPLETELY CLEAR ON WHAT EPISODE IT WAS ON THAT
PARTICULAR NIGHT.
Q: BUT YOU KNOW YOU WERE WATCHING THE DICK VAN DYKE SHOW?
A: I KNOW THAT I WATCHED THE DICK VAN DYKE SHOW AND IT ENDED JUST PRIOR
TO 10:30.
Q: SO WHEN IT ENDED, SIR, WHAT DID YOU DO?
A: WHEN IT ENDED I TOOK MY DOG'S LEASH FROM THE CLOSET AND PUT IT ON MY
DOG AND TOOK MY DOG OUT FOR A WALK.
Q: AND YOU LEFT YOUR APARTMENT HOW LONG AFTER THE SHOW ENDED, SIR?
A: SHORTLY AFTER -- AFTER THE SHOW ENDED, WITHIN A FEW MINUTES. DIDN'T
TAKE VERY LONG.
Q: OKAY. WITHIN, WHAT?
A: TWO -- TWO OR THREE MINUTES.
Q: OKAY. SO AT WHAT -- AT 10:32 OR 10:33 YOU LEFT?
A: APPROXIMATELY, YEAH.
Q: NOW, CAN YOU TELL US WHERE YOU WENT WHEN YOU LEFT YOUR APARTMENT?
A: WELL, AGAIN, THIS IS A HABIT THAT I HAVE. I WALK MY DOG DOWN BUNDY AND I
WENT -- I'M SORRY. I WALK MY DOG DOWN MONTANA TOWARDS BUNDY AND THEN
I WENT PASSED BUNDY AND I MADE A LEFT ON A STREET CALLED GRETNA GREEN
OVER HERE AND THEN I MADE A LEFT AND I WALKED DOWN ONE BLOCK AND MADE
A RIGHT ON GORHAM AND CONTINUED ALONG GORHAM UNTIL I GOT TO THIS
STREET HERE, THIS STREET HERE, WHICH IS AMHURST AND THEN I MADE A LEFT ON
AMHURST AND THEN MADE A LEFT ON DOROTHY AND WALKED ALONG DOROTHY
UNTIL I GOT BACK TO BUNDY, WHICH IS THE CORNER OVER HERE, (INDICATING),
AND I WALK DOWN BUNDY THEN AND RETURN TO MY HOUSE ON MONTANA.
Q: OKAY. I WILL TELL YOU WHAT. IF YOU DON'T MIND, WE ARE GOING TO PUT THIS
UP ON THE MONITOR.
A: UH-HUH.
Q: AND WE ARE GOING TO TRACE THE ROUTE AS YOU TELL IT TO US. OKAY?
A: OF COURSE.
Q: NOW, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE A MONITOR THAT IS TO YOUR RIGHT.
A: OKAY.
Q: ALL RIGHT.
A: WHAT AM I SUPPOSED --
Q: YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING. WE ARE GOING TO DO IT FOR YOU AS YOU
SPEAK AND YOU TELL US IF WE ARE DOING RIGHT.
A: OKAY.
THE COURT: LET'S SLIDE THIS OVER.
MS. CLARK: A LITTLE BIT OVER THAT WAY. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
Q: DOES THAT COVER THE AREA?
A: YEAH. A LITTLE -- YEAH, THAT COVERS THE AREA ENTIRELY. THIS MAP DOESN'T
HAVE THE SYMBOL FOR MY HOUSE, BUT IT IS JUST ABOVE THE "B."
Q: BUNDY?
A: IT IS ABOUT THE THIRD HOUSE FROM THE CORNER OF BUNDY AND MONTANA.
Q: I WILL TELL YOU WHAT. DO YOU SEE WHERE THE CROSS IS?
A: A LITTLE FURTHER.
Q: OKAY.
A: ABOUT THERE.
Q: THERE?
A: ROUGHLY.
MS. CLARK: CAN WE PUT AN "X"? THERE. WE HAVE A CROSS THERE.
Q: IS THAT ACCURATE?
A: THAT IS VERY ACCURATE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S CALL THIS PEOPLE'S 41.
MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
(PEO'S 41-A THRU 41-E FOR ID = 5 PHOTOGRAPHS)
MS. CLARK: WE ARE GOING TO PUT THE INITIALS "S.S." THERE WE GO. GOOD. ALL
RIGHT.
Q: CAN YOU TELL US THE ROUTE THEN AND WE ARE GOING TO TRACE IT FOR YOU
ON THIS.
A: OKAY. I LEAVE MY HOUSE ON MONTANA AVENUE AND I WALK DOWN MONTANA
TOWARD BUNDY. I CROSS THE STREET AT BUNDY AND CONTINUED ALONG
MONTANA UNTIL I GET TO GRETNA GREEN. AT GRETNA GREEN I MAKE A LEFT AND
THEN CONTINUE ON UNTIL I GET TO GORHAM. AT GORHAM I MAKE ANOTHER LEFT
AND CONTINUE ON TO THE NEXT CROSS STREET WHICH IS -- WHICH IS AMHURST. AT
AMHURST I TURN LEFT AND CONTINUED ON TO DOROTHY. AT DOROTHY I TURNED
LEFT AGAIN AND CONTINUED ON DOROTHY PASSED -- PASSING GRETNA GREEN
AGAIN AND CONTINUED UNTIL I GOT TO DOROTHY AND BUNDY. AT THE CORNER OF
DOROTHY AND BUNDY I TURNED LEFT AND CONTINUE ON BUNDY DOWN PASSED
GORHAM, ALL THE WAY TO MONTANA, AND THEN I WALK DOWN MONTANA UNTIL I
RETURN TO MY HOME.
Q: ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO LEAVE THAT THERE BECAUSE WE ARE GOING TO MARK
IT AGAIN. OKAY?
A: UH-HUH.
Q: NOW, YOU LEFT YOUR HOME WITH YOUR DOG AT ABOUT YOU SAID 10:32 OR 10:33?
A: SHORTLY AFTER 10:30. NOT EXACTLY. THE SHOW ENDS EXACTLY AT 10:30
BECAUSE THE NEXT SHOW STARTS AT 10:30, BUT I LEFT SHORTLY AFTER THE END OF
THE DICK VAN DYKE SHOW, SO A COUPLE OF MINUTES.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)
Q: BY MS. CLARK: WE ARE GOING ON TO HIGHLIGHT THAT IN RED TO MAKE IT A
LITTLE MORE VISIBLE.
A: UH-HUH.
Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, HOW CAN YOU BE SO CERTAIN OF THIS ROUTE?
A: WELL, IT IS A ROUTE THAT I USE FREQUENTLY. IT IS ONE THAT I DESIGNED TO
TAKE ABOUT A HALF HOUR TO GET ME HOME SO I CAN WATCH WHATEVER SHOWS I
WANT. IF I CHOOSE TO VARY THE ROUTE, I CAN, BUT THIS IS A BASIC ROUTE, KIND
OF A CIRCLE. I MEAN, YOU CAN SEE THAT IT TAKES ME HOME AGAIN VERY EASILY.
ALSO, IT IS A VERY BEAUTIFUL NEIGHBORHOOD. I PASS A LOT OF NICE HOUSES
ALONG THE WAY AND IT IS PLEASANT, PLEASANT WALK.
Q: NOW, CAN YOU TELL US WAS THERE ANY POINT AT WHICH YOU CHECKED YOUR
WATCH TO SEE WHAT TIME IT WAS?
A: ON THIS PARTICULAR EVENING I CHECKED MY WATCH ONCE AT THE CORNER OF
GRETNA GREEN AND MONTANA.
Q: OKAY. WHAT TIME WAS IT WHEN YOU GOT TO GRETNA GREEN AND MONTANA?
A: MY DOG HAD TAKEN CARE OF ITS DUTY AND I CLEANED UP AFTER IT AND I
CHECKED MY WATCH TO SEE WHETHER I SHOULD CONTINUE ON OR RETURN HOME.
FOR THE DOG'S SAKE I DIDN'T HAVE TO CONTINUE ON IF I DIDN'T WANT TO, AND
THAT WAS BETWEEN 10:35 AND 10:40 WHEN I CHECKED MY WATCH, SOMEWHERE --
YOU KNOW, SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE THERE, BECAUSE I DIDN'T -- I DIDN'T HAVE
A DIGITAL WATCH. I HAVE AN ANALOG WATCH AND THAT IS WHERE THE HAND WAS.
Q: SO THE HAND ON THE WATCH IS BETWEEN 10:35 AND 10:40?
A: YES.
Q: YOU MADE A POINT OF LOOKING AT YOUR WATCH AT THAT POINT?
A: YES.
Q: OKAY. THAT WAS AT THE CORNER OF GRETNA GREEN AND MONTANA?
A: YES.
MS. CLARK: CAN YOU WRITE IN AT THAT INTERSECTION, AT THAT CORNER OF
GRETNA GREEN AND MONTANA -- YELLOW? BLACK? OKAY. OKAY. 10:35 TO 10:40.
JOHN MADDEN HE IS NOT, BUT CAN YOU MAKE THAT "5" A LITTLE BIT BETTER, JOHN.
THE COURT: I THINK THE JURY CAN READ THE MAP AS WELL AND FIGURE OUT
WHERE THE CORNER OF GRETNA GREEN AND MONTANA IS.
MS. CLARK: I JUST WANTED HIM TO WRITE THE NUMBER. THAT WILL BE RIGHT
THERE. ALL RIGHT.
Q: IS THAT ACCURATE, SIR?
A: YES.
Q: ALL RIGHT.
A: YES.
Q: THEN YOU CONTINUED WALKING?
A: YES.
Q: AND AT SOME POINT DURING YOUR WALK, SIR, DID SOMETHING UNUSUAL
OCCUR?
A: YES. AS I CONTINUED ON, AFTER I HAD STARTED DOWN DOROTHY PASSED
GRETNA GREEN, IT WAS ROUGHLY HALFWAY DOWN THE BLOCK ABOUT WHERE
THAT ALLEY IS, I SAW THAT THERE WAS A DOG AT THE CORNER OF DOROTHY AND
BUNDY. NOW, AT THAT TIME I DIDN'T -- I DIDN'T THINK THERE WAS ANYTHING
UNUSUAL. I THOUGHT THE OWNER WAS PROBABLY AROUND THE CORNER ON
BUNDY SOMEWHERE AND IT WAS ANOTHER DOG WALKER.
Q: APPROXIMATELY, IF YOU KNOW, HOW LONG DID IT TAKE YOU TO GET FROM THE
CORNER OF GRETNA GREEN AND MONTANA TO THE CORNER OF DOROTHY AND
BUNDY?
A: WELL, AGAIN IT TAKES -- THE HALFWAY POINT OF MY ROUTE IS ROUGHLY ON
AMHURST, SO THAT TAKES ME ABOUT FIFTEEN MINUTES, SO IT WAS AFTER -- IT WAS
AFTER THAT. BASICALLY I MEAN IN TERMS OF WHAT TIME I GOT HOME, THIS WAS
TOWARD THE END OF MY ROUTE, SO THIS I WOULD SAY WAS BETWEEN ABOUT --
ABOUT 10:55 OR SO THAT I SAW THE DOG. THAT IS ANOTHER FIVE -- BETWEEN FIVE
AND TEN MINUTES FOR ME TO GET HOME FROM THAT POINT FROM THE CORNER OF
DOROTHY AND BUNDY.
Q: SO APPROXIMATELY 10:55 YOU GOT TO THE CORNER OF DOROTHY AND BUNDY?
A: THAT'S CORRECT.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)
MR. FAIRTLOUGH: 10:55?
MS. CLARK: UH-HUH. JUST PUT "APPROXIMATELY."
THE COURT: I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO GET TOO DETAILED ON THESE THINGS
BECAUSE THE JURORS HAVE THEIR NOTEBOOKS.
MS. CLARK: RIGHT. THAT'S IT. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
Q: ALL RIGHT. SO YOU GOT TO THE CORNER OF DOROTHY AND BUNDY AND YOU
SAW A DOG?
A: YES.
Q: WAS THERE ANYONE WITH THAT DOG?
A: NO. AS I GOT TO THE CORNER I SAW THAT THE DOG WAS ALONE. AT THAT POINT
IT WAS JUST STANDING ON THE CORNER.
Q: WHAT DID YOU DO?
A: WELL, I APPROACHED THE DOG AND I WANTED -- I SAW THAT IT WAS ALONE AND
I OBSERVED THE DOG FOR A MINUTE OR TWO AND IT WAS DOING AN UNUSUAL
THING. IT WOULD TURN AWAY FROM ME AND LOOK DOWN -- THERE IS A HOUSE ON
THE CORNER OF DOROTHY AND BUNDY AND IT WOULD LOOK DOWN THE PATH
LEADING TO THE DOORWAY OF THAT HOUSE AND BARK AT THE HOUSE FOR A BRIEF
-- FOR A BRIEF INTERVAL AND THEN IT WOULD STOP AND THEN IT WOULD TURN
BACK TO ME AND IT WOULD BARK AT THIS HOUSE, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT I
HAD NEVER SEEN BEFORE. I DIDN'T KNOW -- I DIDN'T KNOW QUITE WHAT TO MAKE
OF THAT.
Q: COULD YOU TELL WHAT HOUSE IT WAS BARKING AT?
A: IT WAS -- IT WAS BARKING AT THE CORNER HOUSE. AGAIN THERE IS A PATH AT
THAT PARTICULAR CORNER HOUSE THAT LEADS ALMOST DIRECTLY TO THE CORNER,
AND IT WAS LOOKING DOWN THE PATH AND BARKING ESSENTIALLY AT THE FRONT
DOOR.
Q: AND WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE ANYTHING -- WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE THAT HOUSE?
A: YEAH. I COULD SEE THAT HOUSE CLEARLY FROM WHERE I WAS STANDING.
Q: AND DID THERE SEEM TO BE ANYTHING UNUSUAL IN THAT HOUSE?
A: NO. IT WAS -- IT WAS QUIET. IT WAS DARK. I DIDN'T KNOW IF THE PEOPLE WERE
ASLEEP OR NOT HOME, BUT THERE WAS NOTHING GOING ON IN THE HOUSE,
ESSENTIALLY.
Q: NOW, THIS WAS THE HOUSE THAT WAS ON THE CORNER OF DOROTHY AND
BUNDY?
A: ON THE CORNER OF DOROTHY AND BUNDY, YES.
Q: AND WHEN YOU SAW THE DOG BARKING THERE, WHAT DID YOU DO?
A: WELL, AGAIN I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO MAKE OF IT, BUT CLEARLY AT THIS POINT,
BECAUSE THERE WAS NO ONE WITH THE DOG, I FIGURED THAT THIS WAS A LOST
DOG, SO I WANTED TO CHECK THE COLLAR TO SEE IF THERE WAS A NAME TAG WITH
AN ADDRESS SO THAT I COULD BRING THE DOG HOME, BUT I KNOW THAT AKITAS
CAN BE VERY PROTECTIVE DOGS, SO BEFORE I WENT TO TOUCH THE COLLAR, I LET
THE DOG SMELL ME AND THEN I PATTED IT ON THE HEAD AND SAID, YOU KNOW,
"GOOD BOY" AND YOU KNOW, "GOOD DOG," TO SHOW THAT I WAS FRIENDLY. AND
WHEN I SAW THAT THE DOG WASN'T GOING TO BITE ME OR ATTACK ME IN ANY
WAY, I PUT MY HAND ON THE COLLAR AND TURNED IT AROUND TO SEE IF THERE
WAS A TAG.
Q: YOU KNEW THERE WAS AN AKITA?
A: YES, I KNEW THE BREED. I'M A DOG OWNER AND I KNEW SOME BREEDS OF DOGS,
AND AKITAS IS ONE OF THE BREEDS I'M FAMILIAR WITH.
MS. CLARK: I HAVE HERE A BOARD ENTITLED "NICOLE'S AKITA."
Q: CAN YOU TELL US DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE DOG DEPICTED IN THESE
PHOTOGRAPHS, SIR?
A: YES. YES, THIS LOOKS LIKE THE DOG THAT -- IT LOOKS LIKE THE SAME COLLAR
THAT I SAW THAT NIGHT.
Q: AND YOU SAW THE COLLAR THAT IS DEPICTED IN THAT LAST PHOTOGRAPH?
A: YES. I SAW THE COLLAR AND NOTICED THAT IT WAS EMBROIDERED, THAT IT WAS
RED AND BLUE WITH EMBROIDERED SYMBOLS ON IT. IT SEEMED EXTENSIVE TO ME.
IT WASN'T SOMETHING THAT I COULD AFFORD TO GET FOR MY OWN DOG, BUT I
NOTICED THAT. AND AGAIN I TURNED -- I LOOKED AT IT EXTENSIVELY TO SEE IF
THERE WAS A TAG OR SOMETHING WRITTEN ON THE COLLAR, BUT THERE WASN'T.
THE COURT: WHAT EXHIBIT IS THIS?
MS. CLARK: I AM SORRY?
THE COURT: WHAT EXHIBIT IS THIS?
MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY, PEOPLE'S 40.
Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, AS YOU LOOKED AT THE DOG AND YOU EXAMINED IT FOR A
TAG --
A: UH-HUH.
Q: -- DID YOU HAPPEN TO NOTICE ITS PAWS OR ITS LEGS?
A: YES. AS I GOT CLOSER TO THE DOG THE FIRST THING I SAW WAS SOME BLOOD ON
ONE OF THE BACK PAWS. THE FIRST THING I NOTICED ABOVE THE PAW SLIGHTLY ON
THE LEG WAS A STREAK OR BLOOD OR DRIP OF BLOOD ON ONE OF THE BACK PAWS,
AND THAT WAS UNUSUAL, SO I OBSERVED MORE CLOSELY AND SAW THAT THERE
WAS ALSO BLOOD ON THE BOTTOM OF THE PAWS. ALSO, THE UNDERSIDE OF THE
DOG WAS DIRTY. IT WAS -- IT WAS -- THERE WAS BROWN STUFF ON THE BOTTOM OF
THE DOG.
Q: OKAY. COULD YOU TELL -- YOU MEAN ON THE STOMACH?
A: ON THE STOMACH AND EVEN IN THE CHEST AREA.
Q: OKAY. COULD YOU TELL WHETHER THAT BROWN STUFF WAS BLOOD OR DIRT?
A: NO, I COULDN'T TELL. IT COULD HAVE BEEN EITHER. I JUST DIDN'T KNOW.
Q: ON THE LEGS AND THE PAWS, COULD YOU TELL IF IT WAS BLOOD OR DIRT?
A: THERE I KNEW THAT IT WAS BLOOD. IT WAS RED. IT HADN'T -- IT WASN'T BROWN,
THAT WAS CLEARLY RED, AND THE -- THE ONE -- STUFF ON THE LEG WAS MOIST. I
DIDN'T TOUCH IT. I DIDN'T GET BLOOD ON ME, BUT IT WAS -- IT WAS RED.
Q: OKAY. AND IT APPEARED STILL TO BE MOIST TO YOU?
A: YES.
Q: DID YOU -- DID YOU LOOK TO SEE WHAT THE SOURCE OF THAT BLOOD WAS?
A: WELL, I EXAMINED THE PAWS AND I CONSIDERED THAT PERHAPS THE DOG HAD
CUT ITS PAW AND THAT IS WHERE THE BLOOD THE CAME FROM. I DIDN'T NOTICE
ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE DOG'S PAWS, BUT ALSO, IT IS A DARK CORNER, SO I
WASN'T COMPLETELY SURE, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THERE MIGHT BE A PIECE OF
GLASS WEDGED INTO ONE OF THE PAWS OR SOMETHING, BUT I DIDN'T -- I DIDN'T SEE
ANYTHING LIKE THAT AT THAT TIME.
Q: OKAY. SO WAS IT DARK -- IT WAS DARK IN THAT AREA, SIR?
A: THAT IS A VERY DARK CORNER. THAT IS A DARK AREA -- THAT SIDE OF THE
STREET IS DARK.
Q: THAT SIDE OF THE STREET MEANING THE WEST SIDE OF BUNDY?
A: YES. THE WEST SIDE OF BUNDY IS -- IS DARKER -- IS DARKER THAN THE EAST SIDE
OF BUNDY, JUST BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE STREET LIGHTS THAT ARE THERE.
Q: SO WHAT HAPPENED AFTER YOU LOOKED AT THE DOG? YOU NOTICED ITS PAWS
AND ITS LEGS AND ITS COLLAR?
A: YEAH.
Q: WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
A: WELL, I WAS -- I WAS CONFUSED, I DIDN'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT TO MAKE OF
THE SITUATION, AND I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE DOG WOULD DO. AT THAT POINT I
CROSSED THE STREET. I CROSSED FROM THE EAST SIDE OF BUNDY -- I'M SORRY --
FROM THE WEST SIDE OF BUNDY TO THE EAST SIDE OF BUNDY TO SEE BASICALLY
WHAT THE DOG WOULD DO.
Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU SAY YOU WENT FROM THE WEST SIDE TO THE EAST SIDE OF
BUNDY?
A: YES. THAT IS ANOTHER PART OF MY ROUTE. THAT IS WHAT I DO. I CROSS THE
STREET AT THAT POINT. THAT IS WHAT I DO. IT IS A LITTLE LIGHTER ON THAT SIDE OF
THE STREET.
Q: SO YOU LIKE IT BETTER BECAUSE IT IS LIGHTER ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE STREET?
A: YES.
Q: NOW, I'M POINTING TO YOU THIS RED -- THIS RED HOUSE AND THE BLUE HOUSE.
A: YES.
Q: ON THE WEST SIDE OF BUNDY.
A: YES.
Q: OKAY. AND YOU SAW THE DOG ON THE CORNER OF DOROTHY AND BUNDY ON
THE WEST SIDE?
A: THAT WAS ON THE WEST SIDE, YES.
Q: AND AFTER YOU LOOKED AT THE DOG YOU CROSSED OVER TO THE EAST SIDE?
A: YES.
Q: AND WHAT DID YOU DO THEN?
A: WELL, I BASICALLY WANTED TO SEE WHAT THE DOG WOULD DO. IF THE DOG
WOULD GO IN A PARTICULAR DIRECTION, THEN MAYBE COULD I FOLLOW IT AND
FIND OUT WHERE IT CAME FROM. BUT THE DOG STAYED WITH MYSELF AND MY DOG.
IT CROSSED THE STREET WITH US. IT STAYED WITH US.
Q: AND DID IT FOLLOW YOU?
A: YEAH. AT THAT POINT I TURNED LEFT TO HEAD BACK -- AT THAT POINT I
CONTINUED. I TURNED LEFT TO GO DOWN BACK TOWARDS MONTANA AND THE DOG
STAYED WITH US AS WE WALKED, BUT IT THEN CONTINUED ITS -- ITS ROUTINE OF AS
WE PASSED A HOUSE IT WOULD LOOK DOWN THE PATH AND BARK AND HOWL AT
THE HOUSES THAT WE PASSED.
Q: DID IT DO THAT AT EVERY HOUSE THAT YOU PASSED?
A: IT DID THAT AT EVERY HOUSE ALONG HERE, (INDICATING), ON THIS SIDE -- ON
THIS SIDE OF BUNDY. IT DID THAT AT SEVERAL HOUSES ALONG HERE PRETTY
CONSISTENTLY WHEN THERE WAS A PATH THAT LED -- YOU KNOW, THAT LED UP
THE STREET. SOMETIMES THERE WERE STEPS AND THINGS LIKE THAT AND THERE
WAS EVEN A WALL, BUT WHEN THERE WAS A SITUATION WITH A PATH LEADING TO A
DOOR, IT WOULD BARK DOWN THE PATH.
MS. CLARK: FOR THE RECORD, WHEN THE WITNESS SAID "ALONG HERE," HE WAS
POINTING TO THE EAST SIDE OF BUNDY IN THE AREA OF THE TWO ICONS THAT ARE
DEPICTED ON THAT SIDE OF THE STREET.
THE COURT: YES, ON PEOPLE'S 40.
MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
Q: SO EVERY TIME IT WOULD PASS A HOUSE ON THE EAST SIDE OF BUNDY WHERE
YOU WERE WALKING --
A: UH-HUH.
Q: -- THAT HAD A PATH LEADING UP TO IT, IT WOULD STOP AND BARK?
A: IT WOULD STOP AND BARK -- BARK DOWN THE PATH.
Q: AND HOW MANY TIMES DID IT DO THAT?
A: I WOULD SAY APPROXIMATELY THREE TIMES.
Q: OKAY.
A: THERE WAS SEVERAL. THERE WAS MORE THAN ONE. IT WASN'T LIKE ABOUT TEN
OR TWELVE. IT WAS APPROXIMATELY, I WOULD SAY, THREE TIMES IT DID THAT.
Q: DID THAT SEEM UNUSUAL TO YOU?
A: THAT SEEMED VERY UNUSUAL TO ME. I HAD NOT SEEN A DOG BEHAVE IN THIS --
IN THIS MANNER EVER AND I DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER IT WAS BECAUSE IT WAS LOST
OR BECAUSE IT HAD COME FROM ONE OF THESE HOUSES, BUT THAT DIDN'T APPEAR
TO BE THE CASE EITHER, BECAUSE IT DIDN'T TURN DOWN THE PATH TO ANY OF
THESE HOUSES. IT WOULD JUST BARK AT THEM.
Q: OKAY. NOW, WAS IT -- WHAT WAS THE TRAFFIC IN THAT AREA AT THAT TIME?
WAS IT VERY HEAVY? WAS IT VERY LIGHT?
A: BUNDY IS VERY QUIET THAT TIME OF NIGHT, ESPECIALLY A SUNDAY NIGHT.
THERE IS NOT A LOT OF TRAFFIC ON THE STREET. I DON'T RECALL SEEING A
PARTICULAR NUMBER OF CARS. I WOULDN'T NECESSARILY SAY THERE WERE NO
CARS, BUT THERE WAS NOT VERY MUCH TRAFFIC AT ALL. THERE GENERALLY ISN'T
WHEN I WALK THAT TIME OF NIGHT.
Q: DID YOU CONTINUE TO WALK AND THE DOG CONTINUE TO FOLLOW YOU?
A: YES, I CONTINUED DOWN -- I CONTINUED DOWN BUNDY TOWARDS GORHAM.
Q: HOW -- DID THE DOG STAY CLOSE TO YOU?
A: YES. THE DOG STAYED VERY CLOSE AND IT WOULD DO THIS -- THIS THING OF
BARKING AT THE HOUSES, AND THE FIRST COUPLE OF TIMES I KIND OF WATCHED
JUST TO SEE WHAT WAS GOING ON, BUT THEN LATER I CONTINUED WALKING AND
THE DOG WOULD -- WOULD CATCH UP TO US IN ORDER TO STAY WITH US. IT WOULD
BARK, BUT IT VERY CLEARLY WANTED TO STAY WITH MYSELF AND MY DOG.
Q: NOW, DID YOU JUST SAY THAT YOU TURNED ON TO GORHAM OR YOU CROSSED
GORHAM?
A: NO. I WAS WALKING TOWARDS GORHAM AT THAT POINT. I HAD TURNED LEFT AT
BUNDY AND DOROTHY AND WAS WALKING ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF THE STREET
TOWARDS BUNDY AND GORHAM.
Q: OKAY. WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
A: WELL, AT THAT POINT I SAW A POLICE OFFICER DRIVE BY, AND THE UNUSUAL
NATURE OF ALL THIS, I FLAGGED DOWN THE POLICE OFFICER TO TELL HIM THAT I
HAD -- I HAD FOUND THIS LOST DOG AND THAT IT WAS UNUSUAL TO SEE A LOOSE
DOG IN BRENTWOOD AT THIS TIME OF NIGHT. IT IS UNUSUAL TO SEE A LOOSE DOG
IN BRENTWOOD AT ANY TIME. THIS WAS THE ONLY TIME I HAVE SEEN IT.
Q: ALL RIGHT. WERE YOU CONCERNED WITH WHAT TO DO WITH THE DOG?
A: I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE DOG. BEING A PET OWNER MYSELF, I'M VERY
SENSITIVE TO A DOG BEING SEPARATED FROM ITS OWNER, SO WHAT I HAD DONE IN
THE PAST, WHEN MY WIFE AND MYSELF HAD FOUND A LOST DOG, WAS TO BRING
THE DOG HOME AND TRY TO FIND THE OWNER BY PUTTING UP POSTERS. AND YOU
SEE THEM ALL THE TIME, LOST DOG, MAYBE TAKE A PICTURE OF THE DOG AND PUT
THAT WITH IT BECAUSE I DIDN'T -- I HAD NO IDEA HOW LONG THIS DOG HAD BEEN
LOST FOR. THE DIRTINESS OF IT LED ME TO BELIEVE IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN SOME
TIME.
Q: DID YOU ENCOUNTER ANY POLICE ON YOUR WALK?
A: YES. AS I WAS WALKING BETWEEN DOROTHY AND GORHAM ON BUNDY I SAW A
POLICE OFFICER DRIVE BY AND I FLAGGED HIM DOWN.
Q: DID YOU HAVE SOME CONVERSATION WITH HIM?
A: YES. AT THAT POINT I TOLD HIM THAT I HAD FOUND THIS LOST DOG AND
INDICATED THE CORNER AT WHICH I HAD FOUND THE DOG AND TOLD HIM THAT I
DIDN'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT TO DO IN THIS SITUATION, THAT I WANTED TO ALERT
HIM AND MAYBE SOMEONE HAD REPORTED A LOST DOG IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR
MAYBE HE COULD CALL SOMEONE WHO WOULD KNOW IF THERE WAS A LOST DOG
REPORTED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
Q: AND DID YOU ASK HIM FOR SOME HELP?
A: YEAH. I TOLD HIM -- I DIDN'T HAVE A LEASH -- AN EXTRA LEASH OR ANYTHING ON
ME, SO I DIDN'T, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE DOG WAS GOING TO DO, SO I TOLD HIM
ABOUT THE SITUATION, THAT THE DOG WAS LOOSE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND HE
TOLD ME NOT -- NOT TO WORRY ABOUT IT, HE WOULD TAKE CARE OF IT AND THAT I
SHOULD CONTINUE HOME AND I SAID "OKAY."
Q: WHAT HAPPENED THEN?
A: WELL, I CONTINUED WALKING TOWARDS -- TOWARD MY HOUSE, WALKING THEN
DOWN TOWARDS GORHAM, BUT THE DOG STAYED WITH ME STILL. THE DOG
CONTINUED TO STAY RIGHT NEXT TO MYSELF AND MY DOG.
Q: SO HE WOULDN'T STAY WITH THE POLICE OFFICER?
A: HE DIDN'T STAY WITH THE POLICE OFFICER. THE DOG WAS STILL INTENT ON
STICKING WITH MYSELF AND MY DOG.
Q: DID THE DOG CONTINUE TO BARK AS YOU WENT HOME?
A: YES. THE DOG BARKED CONSIDERABLY AT THE CORNER OF GORHAM AND BUNDY.
THIS WAS LIKE THE LOUDEST BARKING REALLY THAT IT DID DURING THE COURSE OF
THE TIME THAT I WAS WITH IT. AND IT WENT ON FOR A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME
THAN IT HAD BARKING AT THE INDIVIDUAL HOUSES. IT REALLY, YOU KNOW,
BARKED AND HOWLED QUITE A BIT HERE, (INDICATING). RIGHT ABOUT HERE,
(INDICATING). AGAIN, THIS IS MY HABIT. I CROSS THE STREET HERE. I CROSS -- I
HAVE TO CROSS GORHAM AND I END UP CROSSING FROM THE EAST SIDE AND
ENDING UP BACK ON THE WEST SIDE AT BUNDY, SO I CROSSED THE STREET HERE
AND THE DOG STOOD AT THIS POINT HERE AND BARKED CONSIDERABLY AS MY DOG
AND I CONTINUED TO WALK DOWN BUNDY TOWARDS MONTANA.
Q: CAN YOU LOOK AT YOUR MONITOR, SIR. YOU SEE WHERE THAT PINK ARROW IS?
A: THAT IS BASICALLY CORRECT EXCEPT IT IS THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET.
Q: OKAY. THAT YELLOW ARROW?
A: IT WAS ON THE -- AGAIN AT THIS POINT IT WAS THE WEST SIDE OF BUNDY.
Q: ON THE WEST SIDE OF BUNDY?
A: YES.
MS. CLARK: CAN YOU MOVE THAT A LITTLE BIT TO THE LEFT, JOHN. A LITTLE BIT
MORE.
THE WITNESS: IT IS --
Q: BY MS. CLARK: HOW IS THAT?
A: THAT IS PRETTY CLOSE. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN GET THE ARROW TO POINT
FROM THE OTHER DIRECTION, FROM THE OTHER SIDE.
Q: OKAY?
A: BACK IT UP. A LITTLE TO THE LEFT. FURTHER TO THE LEFT. YEAH, LIKE THAT. AT
THAT POINT THERE THE DOG BARKED CONSIDERABLY AS MY DOG AND I HEADED ON
BUNDY. NOW BACK ON THE WEST SIDE OF BUNDY BACK TOWARDS MONTANA.
Q: OKAY. AND THEN DID YOU CONTINUE HOME?
A: I CONTINUED HOME, AND AT THAT POINT I WASN'T CERTAIN WHETHER THE DOG
WOULD CONTINUE TO FOLLOW US, BECAUSE IT WAS BARKING AND THE POLICE
OFFICER WAS THERE, BUT IT DID. IT STOPPED BARKING AFTER A MINUTE OR SO AND
CAUGHT UP TO MYSELF AND MY DOG AND CONTINUED WITH US.
Q: AND WHEN YOU GOT -- SO WHEN YOU WALKED INTO YOUR APARTMENT
BUILDING, WAS IT STILL FOLLOWING YOU?
A: YES, YES.
Q: NOW, AT YOUR BUILDING, THERE IS A COURTYARD THAT YOU WALK INTO FROM
THE STREET?
A: YES. OUR BUILDING HAS A COURTYARD WITH A POOL.
Q: AND DID THE DOG FOLLOW YOU INTO THAT COURTYARD?
A: YES.
Q: IS YOUR APARTMENT -- WAS IT UPSTAIRS OR WAS IT DOWNSTAIRS?
A: I LIVE ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF MY APARTMENT COMPLEX.
Q: DID YOU WALK UP TO YOUR APARTMENT ON THE SECOND FLOOR?
A: YES. YES, I WALKED UP THE STAIRS TO MY APARTMENT.
Q: AND DID THE DOG FOLLOW YOU UP TO YOUR APARTMENT ON THE SECOND
FLOOR?
A: YES, IT DID. IT FOLLOWED ME ALL THE WAY UP TO THE LANDING OUTSIDE OF MY
APARTMENT.
Q: DO YOU RECALL WHAT TIME YOU GOT HOME?
A: WELL, IT WAS APPROXIMATELY FIVE MINUTES AFTER ELEVEN O'CLOCK. I CAME IN
THE DOOR AND I OPENED THE DOOR AND MY WIFE WAS SITTING AT THE COMPUTER
AND BEHIND HER I SAW THE T.V. SET AND THE MARY TYLER MOORE SHOW WAS ON
AND IT WAS THE BEGINNING OF THAT EPISODE AND I WAS RELIEVED THAT IT HADN'T
TAKEN ME MUCH LONGER TO GET HOME THAN USUAL BECAUSE MY WIFE
SOMETIMES WORRIES ABOUT ME IF I'M OUT MORE THAN A HALF HOUR. SHE KNOWS
I HAVE THIS ROUTINE, SO IF I HAD BEEN OUT CONSIDERABLY LONGER, SHE MIGHT
HAVE BEEN WORRIED, BUT SHE WASN'T.
Q: OKAY. SO THE MARY TYLER MOORE SHOW HAD JUST STARTED?
A: YEAH, IT WAS THE BEGINNING OF THE EPISODE.
Q: AND DO YOU KNOW WHAT TIME IT BEGAN -- THAT SHOW BEGAN ON SUNDAY
NIGHT ON JUNE THE 12TH?
A: YES. THAT SHOW BEGINS AT ELEVEN O'CLOCK.
Q: DO YOU REMEMBER THE EPISODE THAT WAS ON?
A: YES, I REMEMBER. IT WAS AN EPISODE THAT I HAD SEEN PREVIOUSLY INVOLVING
MARY DATING SOMEONE FROM A RIVAL STATION.
Q: THAT HAD JUST BEGUN?
A: IT WAS THE BEGINNING OF THAT PARTICULAR EPISODE.
Q: YOU SAID IT WAS APPROXIMATELY 11:05?
A: APPROXIMATELY THAT IS WHAT TIME IT WAS.
Q: DID YOU LET THE DOG INTO YOUR APARTMENT?
A: NO, I DIDN'T. AS I SAID PREVIOUSLY, I HAVE A CAT AND I DIDN'T WANT TO UPSET
THE CAT BY BRINGING THE LARGE DOG IN RIGHT AT THAT POINT, SO I CLOSED THE
DOOR BEHIND ME. THE DOG WAS ON THE LANDING OUTSIDE AND I HADN'T TOLD MY
WIFE YET, SO I TOLD MY WIFE LINDA THAT THIS BIG AKITA HAD FOLLOWED ME
HOME.
Q: AND WHAT DID YOU DO WITH THE DOG?
A: THE DOG WAS ON THE LANDING OUTSIDE MY APARTMENT AND I TOLD LINDA
THAT THE DOG HAD FOLLOWED ME HOME AND SHE SAID SOMETHING LIKE "YOU ARE
KIDDING?" AND I SAID "NO" AND I OPENED THE DOOR AND SHOWED HER THAT THE
DOG WAS STANDING THERE AT THE LANDING TO OUR APARTMENT.
Q: IT JUST STAYED THERE?
A: IT JUST STAYED THERE.
Q: OKAY.
A: AND, UMM, SHE WENT OUT TO SEE THAT IN FACT THERE WAS -- THAT IT WAS
REAL, THERE WAS THIS BIG AKITA STANDING ON LANDING TO OUR APARTMENT.
Q: WHY WAS THAT SO STRANGE, THAT THE DOG -- THAT THIS DOG WOULD STAY
THERE ON THE LANDING?
A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
MR. DOUGLAS: CALLS FOR SPECULATION, YOUR HONOR.
MS. CLARK: SORRY?
MR. DOUGLAS: CALLS FOR SPECULATION.
THE COURT: ARE YOU HANDLING THIS WITNESS, MR. DOUGLAS?
MR. DOUGLAS: YES, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHY DID YOU THINK THAT IT WAS STRANGE?
A: IT WAS UNUSUAL.
THE COURT: I WILL OVERRULE THE OBJECTION. GO AHEAD.
MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY?
THE COURT: LET ME THINK ABOUT IT.
MS. CLARK: I THOUGHT MAYBE I THOUGHT OF A BETTER QUESTION.
Q: WHY DID YOU THINK THAT WAS STRANGE?
A: I THOUGHT IT WAS UNUSUAL FOR A DOG TO, YOU KNOW, ATTACH ITSELF
QUICKLY TO -- TO ANOTHER PERSON -- TO A PERSON THAT IT DIDN'T KNOW.
I HAD NEVER SEEN THE DOG BEFORE, SO IT WAS -- IT WAS STRANGE THAT THE DOG
WOULD STAY WITH US.
Q: ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE -- WITH HOW MUCH AN AKITA COSTS?
A: I KNOW THAT THEY ARE EXPENSIVE DOGS.
Q: DID IT SEEM UNUSUAL THAT AN EXPENSIVE DOG LIKE THAT WOULD BE OUT
RUNNING AROUND ALONE?
A: ABSOLUTELY. THE DOG SEEMED WELL-BRED AND WELL CARED FOR, AND AGAIN,
THE COLLAR WAS VERY EXPENSIVE, SO I KNEW THAT THIS WAS NOT SOME STRAY
STREET DOG, BUT THAT THIS WAS AN EXPENSIVE DOG.
Q: OKAY. SO WHAT DID YOU DO WITH THE DOG?
A: WELL, I HAD -- I HAD SPOKEN TO THE POLICE OFFICER AS WE WERE COMING
HOME ALONG BETWEEN -- AS I WAS WALKING HOME ON BUNDY BETWEEN -- I'M
SORRY. AS I WAS WALKING ON MONTANA BETWEEN BUNDY AND MY HOUSE, THE
POLICE OFFICER HAD STOPPED AGAIN SEEING THAT THE DOG WAS NOT STAYING IN
THE AREA, BUT WAS FOLLOWING ME, AND I SPOKE TO HIM AND HE SAID, "IT IS
OBVIOUS THE DOG WANTS TO FOLLOW YOU. WHY DON'T YOU CONTINUE HOME,"
AND HE SAID HE WOULD CALL ANIMAL CONTROL AND THEY WOULD COME BY TO
TAKE CARE OF THE DOG. AND I SAID THAT WAS FINE. I GAVE HIM MY NAME,
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER AND WENT HOME. AND SO AFTER SHOWING MY
WIFE THAT I HAD THE DOG, WE GOT A SPARE LEASH AND WENT OUT TO STAND AT --
TO SIT ON THE STEP LEADING TO MY APARTMENT COMPLEX ON MONTANA AND
WAIT FOR THE PEOPLE FROM ANIMAL CONTROL TO SHOW UP.
Q: DID THEY SHOW UP?
A: NO, THEY DID NOT SHOW UP.
Q: SO WHAT DID YOU DO?
A: SO NOW THAT WE HAD THIS SPARE LEASH ON THE DOG, WE DECIDED TO WALK
THE DOG BACK TOWARDS WHERE I FOUND IT. MAYBE THE PEOPLE HAD COME -- HAD
NOTICED THAT IT WAS MISSING AND HAD COME OUT BY THAT TIME, SO OUR
INTENTION WAS TO TAKE THE DOG BACK TO THE CORNER OF BUNDY AND
DOROTHY.
Q: AND WHAT HAPPENED?
A: WELL, AS I WALKED THE DOG TOWARDS BUNDY ALONG MONTANA, THE DOG
PULLED BACK. THE DOG SHIED AWAY FROM GOING TOWARD BUNDY. IT KEPT
PULLING BACK TOWARDS MY APARTMENT COMPLEX.
Q: IT WAS PULLING BACK?
A: IT WAS PULLING BACK. IT WAS NOT ALLOWING ME TO WALK IT TOWARDS
BUNDY. IT WAS PULLING AWAY.
Q: CAN YOU DESCRIBE WHAT THE WEATHER WAS LIKE THAT NIGHT?
A: IT WAS -- IT WAS A RELATIVELY COOL NIGHT. IT HAD BEEN HOT DURING THE DAY,
BUT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, SO CLOSE TO THE OCEAN, IT GETS MUCH COOLER AT
NIGHT, AND THIS WAS NO EXCEPTION, IT HAD COOLED DOWN CONSIDERABLY FROM
THE DAY.
Q: HOW WAS THE DOG BEHAVING?
A: WELL, AT THIS POINT, WITH THE DOG PULLING AWAY, AGAIN THIS WAS ALSO
UNUSUAL. I NOTICED AT THAT POINT THAT THE DOG WAS DEHYDRATED, THAT IT
WAS PANTING, THAT ITS TONGUE WAS DRY, AND IT SEEMED TO NEED WATER,
BECAUSE AT THIS POINT IT WASN'T BARKING ANY LONGER; IT WAS CONTINUALLY
PANTING.
Q: SO IT SEEMED DEHYDRATED?
A: YES, IT DID.
Q: LIKE IT NEEDED WATER?
A: YES.
Q: SO WHAT DID YOU DO?
A: SO WE WALKED THE DOG BACK TO THE COURTYARD OF MY BUILDING AND I
WENT UPSTAIRS TO GET SOME WATER FOR THE DOG.
Q: DID THE DOG DRINK?
A: YEAH. I WENT UPSTAIRS. I TOOK MY DOG'S DISH, FILLED IT WITH WATER, AND AS I
WAS GOING BACK I NOTICED THAT MY LIGHT ON MY ANSWERING MACHINE WAS
BLINKING, B