Bill Pavelic Forum | Information on William Bill Pavelic

Panel Discussion On The O.J. Simpson Civil Trial

CNBC News Transcripts

February 22, 1996, Thursday 11:15 AM

SHOW: RIVERA LIVE (9:00 PM ET) 

Panel Discussion On The O.J.  Simpson Civil Trial

ANCHORS: Geraldo Rivera

BYLINE: CONAN NOLAN

LENGTH: 6325 words

HOST: Geraldo Rivera

EXECUTIVE PRODUCER: Andy Friendly

GERALDO RIVERA: Hi, everybody.  I’m Geraldo Rivera.  For the last two days we have been reporting exclusively on the information we’ve discovered on the West Los Angeles’ psychotherapist Jennifer Ameli.  The headline has been the revela-tion that Nicole Brown was seeing the therapist because she was desperately frightened by her ex-husband, O.J. Simpson, and seeking help.  In fact, accord-ing to Dr.  Ameli’s notes, three days before she was murdered Nicole was, quote, “extremely upset about her relationship with her husband,” and had a, quote, “fear of confrontation and getting hurt.”

Now as provocative as that information may be, as our experts have been indi-cating all week, most of it is hearsay, and, therefore, probably inadmissible in court.  There is, however, more information that we can reveal to you tonight.  According to our sources, two eyewitnesses saw Nicole leave Dr.  Ameli’s office, quote, “A black man came up and shook her shoulders and her arms and made her very upset, saying she shouldn’t be around there,” end quote.  When asked about the incident which took place a week before the murders, Nicole said, according to our very reliable source, quote, “This is my husband.  I’m used to crazy things like this.  It is no big deal,” end quote.

In addition, I can report that in the days and weeks before the killings, Nicole apparently begged Simpson to accompany her to this therapist for joint counseling at the ca–at the suggestion of the therapist.  When Nicole told her ex-husband how much she liked and trusted Dr.  Ameli, Simpson said–again, ac-cording to our source–quote, “You like her because she’s another hole like you,” end quote.  Nicole apologized for the obscenity when relating Simpson’s response, adding, quote, “This is the way he talks,” end quote.

As I’ve said before, ladies and gentlemen–trust me on this–there’s much more information, including other eyewitness accounts that are relevant to this situation.  We’ll be reporting those as soon as we are able.

Meanwhile, as you may have heard, Simpson returned to court today to resume his deposition, and as he left his Rockingham home, he held up a sign with the 800 number for his made-for-profit video.  KNBC reporter Conan Nolan has the latest on the tape and the legal developments.  Conan.

Mr.  O.J.  SIMPSON: (From video) …thousand people outside of my house…

CONAN NOLAN reporting:

It’s the most controversial comment of the entire two-hour video–O.J. Simp-son’s declaration that he, not the families of the murder victims, had suffered the most.

Mr.  SIMPSON: (From video) I lost more than he lost.  I lost someone I loved just as much as he loved, and I lost my life.
NOLAN: The father of murder victim Ron Goldman called the remark outrageous.

Mr.  FRED GOLDMAN (Father of Ron Goldman): I think it’s the most disgusting piece of garbage that I’ve heard come out of him.

NOLAN: O.J.  Simpson today resumed his deposition in the wrongful death civil suit.  For the first time his former father-in-law, Lou Brown, was present.  At-torneys say Simpson, on several occasions, became visibly agitated with the questioning, which dealt with domestic violence.

Mr.  MICHAEL BREWER (Attorney for Ron Goldman’s Mother): As I said before, it’s a touch subject matter for Mr.  Simpson, so, you know, I think that it’s reflected in the demeanor that we see today.

NOLAN: Simpson claims he never beat his ex-wife and that Nicole Brown had no reason to fear him.  But there may be new evidence to the contrary. Documents obtained by CNBC’s RIVERA LIVE program show that Nicole Brown visited a Santa Monica therapist June 9th, 1994, three days before the murders.  After the ses-sion, Dr.  Jennifer Ameli wrote that, quote, “The patient was extremely upset about relationship with husband.  Fears confrontation and getting hurt.  Wants to work on getting stronger in order to leave.” The documents were never made available to the prosecution in the criminal trial.  Fred Goldman believes the therapist isn’t the only one who may have new information.

Mr.  GOLDMAN: …and that I would implore them, plead with them on Ron’s be-half, on Nicole’s behalf, to come forward.
NOLAN: In Los Angeles, Conan Nolan for RIVERA LIVE.

RIVERA: In that same exchange with the–the news media today, Fred Goldman referred to our reports on Dr.  Ameli.

Mr.  GOLDMAN: In light of the fact that there is this videotape out there now for sale, out for the world to see, with his spin on what I will loosely refer to as the truth, and in light of the fact that there has been a woman that has come forth in the past several days with some information that had not been available before, that it reminds me that there are, without a doubt, probably a–a substantial number of people out there with pertinent information to this case, and that I would implore them, plead with them on Ron’s behalf, on Nicole’s behalf, to come forward, stand up and be counted, and help us, once and for all, have some justice in this case.

RIVERA: Stand Up and Be Counted.  Before I introduce our fine panel, let me just suggest that, as you may know, the National Enquirer this week reported on the–the existence of Dr.  Ameli and said that they were basing their story on her stolen file, somehow obtained–or at least the information contained therein–obtained by the National Enquirer.  We know from our sources that, in-deed, there was allegedly–there was complained about, a burglary–or several–at the offices of Dr.  Ameli contemporaneous to the trial.

Jay Monahan, when exactly did the trial start?

Mr.  JAY MONAHAN (Criminal Defense Attorney): Now you got me.  The trial started the end of January, about–I–I believe it was in September of ‘94.

RIVERA: The burglary was.

Mr.  MONAHAN: So…

RIVERA: Right.

Mr.  MONAHAN: …actually they weren’t contemporaneous.

RIVERA: OK.  So police reports reviewed by the Associated Press show that on September 15th, 1994, Ameli reported a burglary at her office.

Mr.  MONAHAN: That’s prior to the trial.

RIVERA: Right.  Prior to the trial.

Mr.  MONAHAN: Exactly.

RIVERA: But that on September 15th, 1994, she reported a burglary at her of-fice, telling police that files, a calendar book and other papers were taken.  Again, according to the Associated Press, there was no mention in the police re-port that the material pertained to either Ronald Goldman or Ms.  Simpson, al-though the National Enquirer, as I suggested, is claiming exactly that.  Ameli, again, according to the Associated Press, filed a second police report a short time later which also has been reviewed by the AP claiming that somebody fol-lowed her to her office and threatened her from behind.  In the report she quoted the person as saying, Don’t turn around.  Keep walking.  You’ve been talking about Goldman.  You better keep your mouth shut, if you know what’s good for you.’

OK.  That and much more.  Let me introduce the panel–Jay Monahan, the civil and criminal attorney who provides that fine legal commentary for Fox TV; Paul Callan, becoming a familiar face around these parts, another civil and criminal trial attorney, former deputy chief of homicide at Brooklyn DA’s office; in Washington, the fine attorney William Moffitt, one of the directors of the Na-tional Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.  And shortly we’ll be joined by our old pal Manny Medrano out in LA to get his take on all this.

Let me go–well, I’ll start right here–Jay…

Mr.  MONAHAN: Mm-hmm.

RIVERA: …what, if any, impact do you believe the revelation of the thera-pist, her existence, the pattern of treatment with first Ron and later Nicole, the documents, the eyewitnesses who allegedly saw Simpson on the same…

Mr.  MONAHAN: Well, you know so much more than I do, Geraldo.  But just look-ing at the notes, which is what we’ve–what we can touch and feel, I don’t find them definitive about anything.  I find them very ambiguous. They can be actu-ally construed to help O.J.’s story a little bit.  When O.J.  met with Vannatter and Lange the day after the–the murders, he said that he and Nicole had been dating up until three weeks before the murder.  That roughly coincides with the first entry that you had on the–on the bill.

RIVERA: May 26th.

Mr.  MONAHAN: OK.  That’s about the same time frame.  And, actually, what the–what the–what the document says–Dr.  Ameli’s document–Patient extremely upset about her relationship with husband, fear of c-o-n-f.’ It does not say confrontation…
RIVERA: Our–our sources say…

Mr.  MONAHAN: …but you may know more than I do.

RIVERA: Yeah.

Mr.  MONAHAN: …and getting hurt; needs to become stronger to leave.’ And then we apparently have a witness who says that–somebody said O.J. begged–that Nicole begged O.J.  to go with her for joint counseling.  So what does all that mean?  Does that–if we take what O.J.’s been saying, that they tried to get back together, there was a period of time after the divorce that Nicole was pur-suing him.  Are we talking about emotional hurt?  Are we talking about two peo-ple who have been having a love and hate relationship for a long time, and the breakup is a hard thing and she wants joint counseling; he doesn’t?  Or are we talking about physical harm?

RIVERA: Paul, you have a different spin?

Mr.  PAUL CALLAN (Trial Attorney): I disagree totally with Jay.  I mean, this adds substantial evidence to the fact that there was domestic violence and do-mestic abuse prior to this homicide.  It’s very important on the issue of mo-tive.  There’s also a link here with Goldman for the first time.  There’s talk that possibly Goldman and Nicole Brown were seeing the same therapist and that O.J.  was aware of a link between the two.  That would give motive–that motive of rage that everyone thought he felt as he committed the homicides.  I think it’s important evidence that will be very helpful in the civil trial.

Mr.  MONAHAN: But you’re still going to need the witnesses you alluded to, who saw O.J.–or “a black man” shaking her as she came out of the office.

RIVERA: Right.

Mr.  CALLAN: There’s a wa–there’s a way in a side door on this.  I mean, we’re talking about hearsay and lawyers don’t say…

RIVERA: Wait, let me just say, is that a live shot?

Unidentified Man #1: Just happened.

RIVERA: Just happened.  OK.  We’ll get to it then.

Mr.  CALLAN: There’s a way…

RIVERA: They have Michael Brewer just breaking from the depo.  It’s on tape, though, so we’ll get it in a second.

Mr.  CALLAN: There’s a way that the civil lawyers can develop this evidence without the hearsay rule, and that is, if O.J.  Simpson testifies in the civil case–and he has to–he can be asked about his knowledge of this therapist.

Mr.  MONAHAN: Mm-hmm.  Mm-hmm.

Mr.  CALLAN: He can be asked about the knowledge of Goldman’s relationship with the therapist and the doors will be opened in a way that they never were in the criminal case.

Mr.  MONAHAN: And I th–I think Paul’s right in some ways about getting some of this hearsay–getting around the hearsay thing.  I mean, I think this doctor, if she’s going to testify, can say, for example, Nicole came to see me.’ Maybe they can’t get into what they discussed, but, She came to see me shortly before then,’ and then put another witness on saying…

RIVERA: Or how–how ab…

Mr.  MONAHAN: I saw O.J., or somebody who looked like O.J., shaking her…

RIVERA: …or how about this–Nicole…’

Mr.  MONAHAN: …as he left the office.

RIVERA: Nicole came to see me?’ What’s your specialty, Doctor?’

Mr.  MONAHAN: Mm-hmm.

RIVERA: I’m a specialist in domestic violence.’

Mr.  MONAHAN: Right.  I think maybe you can get that far.

RIVERA: OK.  Bill Moffitt, ke–ke…

Mr.  MONAHAN: He’s laughing.  I hear Bill giggling.

RIVERA: Let me–Bill’s–Bill’s about to give us–he’s about to weigh in. But I tell you, Bill, I–so we can get the entire impact of the fine William Moffitt, let me take the break right now, and then we’ll–when we come back, the second segment won’t be quite as short as it normally is. Stand Up and Be Counted, said Fred Goldman.  We’ll be right back.  Stay tuned.

(Announcements)

Mr.  BREWER: I–I think that this whole area is a difficult topic for Mr. Simpson.  At some points it doesn’t appear to be too much of a problem. At other times, he appears to be a little bit agitated.  I–I don’t want to say agitated–I would say animated is a better description, in terms of–of talking about these issues.  And certainly, when you–when there is discussion or questions relative to the ‘89 incident, that seems to be one of the areas that he–he has a great deal of difficulty discussing. He has acknowledged in the ‘89 incident that they wrastled.  I think today I heard a different term, tussled.’ But in terms of actually physically striking her with his hand or his fist, he has never acknowledged that he’s done that.

RIVERA: That’s Mike Brewer just minutes ago outside the offices–is that Pet-rocelli’s office where the depo was happening in–in Los Angeles?

Mr.  MONAHAN: Yes.

RIVERA: Yes.  OK.  William Moffitt, I’ll give you–you want a specific ques-tion, or you want to give me your overview first?  I’ll tell you, do that first.

Mr.  WILLIAM MOFFITT (Criminal Defense Attorney): Well, I–I–I think–let’s–let’s start with…

RIVERA: On recent developments.

Mr.  MOFFITT: Le–let’s start inversely.  This identification of–of this black man–O.J.  Simpson probably was one of the most recognizable black men in this country.

RIVERA: He certainly is today.

Mr.  MOFFITT: If–if–i–if–i–if people can’t identify him–and I–I recog-nize that there are a lot of rumors about how–how many black–how black people lo–all look a lot alike.

RIVERA: They say that about Puerto Ricans, too.

Mr.  MOFFITT: An–and–but–but it seems to me that if we’re–all we’re going to hear is that some black man walked up to Nicole and they can’t do any better than that in terms of a–in terms of an identification of this particular indi-vidual, that really doesn’t amount to anything, and I certainly would love to cross-examine that.

RIVERA: But here’s my follow-up question: Would Nicole’s alleged subsequent telephone conversation with Dr.  Ameli, saying that, That was just my husband O.J., and he always acts like that’–would that be admissible?

Mr.  MOFFITT: Why w–it’s hearsay.  I–i–i–it’s hearsay.  It is not admis-sible.  I mean, it’s not any–it’s not any better a quality of evidence than all the other stuff that–that’s hearsay.  I–presumably, however, they’re going to depose Dr.  Ameli now, since she’s released this information, and we’re probably going to learn a lot more about what was said, what she meant by what’s in the notes, and–and all of those kinds of things.

RIVERA: I did not suggest that the source for the confrontation was Dr. Ameli.  Paul, do you agree on the hearsay?
Mr.  CALLAN: Yes, he’s correct on the hearsay.

Mr.  MONAHAN: Mm-hmm.

Mr.  CALLAN: But what we don’t know at this point–if we depose Dr. Ameli, for instance, did she have contact with O.J.  Simpson?  Many times in a thera-peutic relationship, the therapist contacts the ex-husband, tries to arrange a meeting.  There may be a lot more information that’s out there that we haven’t even developed yet.  Plus, we have the specter of O.J.  Simpson on the witness stand being asked specifically about what Nicole told him about the therapist, and it opens the whole door.  I say a good civil attorney will get this informa-tion out.

Mr.  MONAHAN: I think that Paul’s right, that you can nibble away a–at this type of stuff.

RIVERA: At the hearsay …(unintelligible).

Mr.  MONAHAN: You can have sort of a witness say that Nicole came for the ap-pointment and she left from the appointment, and there could, maybe–and I–I have t–the more I think about it, the more I think Bill’s right.  If you just have someone saying there’s a generic black man there, maybe that’s not going to ring the bell.  I have to point out, though, that Paul and I are both Irish Catholic…

Mr.  CALLAN: We all look alike.  Don’t say it.

Mr.  MONAHAN: But I don’t think anyone would say that we look alike.  I’m not …(unintelligible).

Mr.  CALLAN: That’s right.  I know.

RIVERA: That’s right.  That’s just–you–you were–tha–that Irish reference totally threw me off.  I want to…
Mr.  MONAHAN: It frequently does that.  We–we’re approaching St. Patrick’s Day.

RIVERA: Me and Arenella look alike.  That’s what they say.

Mr.  MONAHAN: You’ll have to forgive me.

RIVERA: That’s right.  Well, that’ll be a party that night.

Mr.  MONAHAN: We’ll be more lucid that night.

RIVERA: I’ll have you both on that day.

Mr.  MONAHAN: OK.

RIVERA: We’ll be the–the slurring lawyers.  OK.  Play–pl–play the bite I indicated.  We’ll go to the–the break.  Stand Up and Be Counted, and certainly that is what Fred Goldman would like us to do, and here’s Fred Goldman.

Mr.  GOLDMAN: I think it’s the most disgusting piece of garbage that I’ve heard come out of him.  I think he has a lot of colossal gall to say something like that.  He equates his money to human life.  He ought to be ashamed of him-self, but then, again, he’s not ashamed of himself.  He’s committed two murders.

RIVERA: There is–of course, Fred was referring to Simpson’s statement that he’s suffered as much as the family.  Bill Pavelic, an investigator for Simpson during the criminal trial is the only reaction to Ameli we see.  He’s calling her a fraud.

(Announcements)

(Excerpt from video, courtesy H&K, LLC)

Mr.  SIMPSON: I’m sorry.  I’m getting a little pissed.

Mr.  ROSS BECKER: That’s OK.  You’re speaking your mind, I assume.

Mr.  SIMPSON: Yeah.  Well, you know, I–it’s–I’d–I’ve never accepted ex-cuses in my day.  Every person–when you talk about these incidents in my life, the 911 call, whatever, no one–no–the police officer ever walked up to me, didn’t say, Hey, he’s made no excuses.  He accepted the responsibility.’ I’ve done that my entire life, and I’m watching people here trying to judge me who won’t take the responsibility, who won’t listen to facts, who’ll–who’ll get these skewered opinions that they get on TV, who made up their mind before any evidence was in this case.  And then they’re going to criticize people.  I hear Goldman, who I have a lot of compassion for…

Mr.  BECKER: Mm-hmm.

Mr.  SIMPSON: …because I know how he feels.

Mr.  BECKER: Mm-hmm.

Mr.  SIMPSON: I lost more than he lost.  I lost someone I love just as much as he loved.  And I lost my life.

(End of excerpt)

Unidentified Reporter #1: Is there w–is there reason to believe that Simpson was lying when he said never met Ron Goldman, never saw Ron Goldman?

Mr.  JOHN QUINLAN KELLY (Attorney for Brown Family): Well, I tell you, we question his credibility on a number of things right now, and I can’t get spe-cific, but, yeah, there are credibility issues on–on several things.

Unidentified Reporter #2: What are your…

Unidentified Reporter #3: On the videotape, Mr.  Simpson says that he lost more than the families.  Would you like to respond to that?

Mr.  KELLY: Well, I’ll tell you, Mr.  Simpson has never failed to disappoint me with his attacks on the victims in this case, or his commercial exploitation of these murders.  That’s all.  I’ll see you later.

Unidentified Reporter #4: John, Lou Brown is here.  Is that against your ad-vice?

Mr.  KELLY: Not at all.

RIVERA: In Los Angeles–he has come in from his day job, came–this is Manuel Medrano, the former assistant US attorney who has taught law and done it well at several LA universities.

Rank hearsay, hey, Man?

Mr.  MANUEL MEDRANO (KNBC-TV Legal Affairs Analyst): Oh, rank hearsay, in-credible hearsay.  And I have some–some profound question as to whether or not a lot of that stuff is going to get in.  I know you’ve alluded to it repeatedly on your show already, Geraldo, about the therapist notes, etc.; and let me tell you, unless there is some creative legal analysis by plaintiffs’ counsel for the Goldman and the Brown family, etc., tha–that stuff is ju–tha–that ain’t com-ing in, and–no how, no way.

RIVERA: No how, no way.  N–no way to nibble around it, as we are–you know, we’re being cute here and suggesting ways that you might get it in.

Mr.  MEDRANO: Well, let me–let me give you a–a go–good way to–to really go to the heart of the matter here.  The prosecution team, I’m sure, had analo-gous type of–of information or evidence that they desired to use in that case, but Judge Ito cut back a lot of it if and when it encroached into the arena of hearsay.  And that’s why Judge Ito, for example, in the first criminal case only allowed evidence where you had, for example, a person who saw something or–or the words coming from O.J.’s mouth.  But when you have Nicole Brown saying some-thing to X person, and that somehow then coming here before a trier of fact, Judge Ito wouldn’t let it in, because–because of the–of the hearsay rules. And the hearsay rules don’t change overnight by virtue of the fact that we’re now in the civil arena.  So…

Mr.  CALLAN: Civil judges, though, Geraldo, are a lot more flexible in their application of the rules, because it’s only money that’s at stake in a civil case.  And you’ll find that most judges will be a lot freer in allowing more evidence to be considered by a jury in a civil case than in a criminal case, where you have strict constitutional guidelines to prevent certain things from going into evidence.  So I think better shot that this evidence will get in in the civil case than in the criminal.

Mr.  MOFFITT: What–what piece of this evidence will get in?  That–that’s an interesting question because it’s a lo–it’s a lot of different things, and–and–and–and I wonder what particular piece you are suggesting is going to come in.

Mr.  CALLAN: Well, with respect, for instance, to the therapist notes, if O.J.  Simpson is asked whether he knew that Nicole was seeing a therapist, I think you can develop a line of questioning there that would eventually open the door to even putting the therapist on the stand to testify about aspects of her relationship.  So as of what we know right now, I agree with you.  It looks troublesome, but certainly, there’s a way that a clever and resourceful lawyer can get some of this material in.

RIVERA: Let me also add, by note of semi-e–editorial comment, the rest of it is historical recollection.  Bill Pavelic, you recall, the investigator who’s now saying that Ameli is a fraud, is the same guy who vouched for the credibil-ity of Rosa Lopez.  Where is Rosa Lopez?

Mr.  MONAHAN: I don’t know.  I think he was also the guy who passed the phone to F.  Lee Bailey from the Marine sergeant, if I recall.  You remember that in-cident.

RIVERA: I do.

Mr.  MONAHAN: OK.

RIVERA: I do.  Yeah, I do.

Mr.  MONAHAN: Mano a mano.

RIVERA: Man—mano a mano, yeah.

Mr.  MONAHAN: Marine to–Marine to Marine.

RIVERA: Right.  Run tape G.  It’s the last one I’m going to run from–from Brewer and the lawyers today, then I want to move on to another area.  OK.  Roll it.

Unidentified Reporter #5: …the information that–th–that Simpson knew Ron Goldman and may have even threatened him at some point?

Mr.  BREWER: That hasn’t come up yet.

(Unintelligible comments from reporters)

Unidentified Reporter #6: Are you going to start today or is it going to be tomorrow?

Mr.  BREWER: No comments on the therapist or any of those discussions.

Unidentified Reporter #7: But are there indications that Simpson had lied in his deposition when he said he’d never met, never knew Ron Goldman, either through Faye Resnick or from anyone else?

Mr.  BREWER: Well, that’s what he testified to–that he had never even seen Mr.  Goldman or met him or knew of him.
Reporter #7: And didn’t Faye Resnick say that that’s not true?

Mr.  BREWER: Well, she said that there was a–an episode at Starbucks where Mr.  Goldman was present while Mr.  Simpson was present.

Unidentified Reporter #8: Did she meet with Nicole on June 9th?–Dr. Ameli?

Mr.  BREWER: Well, that’s what the records indicate.

Reporter #8: And what happened on that day?  Do you know?

Mr.  BREWER: Well, only what the records reflect, so…

Unidentified Reporter #9: What did the records reflect?

Unidentified Reporter #10: So, that–that being…

Mr.  BREWER: Well, they speak for themselves.  I think you-all have seen them and the entries that she made.

Unidentified Reporter #11: That she was afraid for her life?

Mr.  BREWER: Well, you’ve seen the entries.  The records speak for them-selves.

Unidentified Reporter #12: What entries?  We haven’t seen them.

Mr.  BREWER: Well, you’ve seen the–I’m certain you’ve all seen the entries.  They’ve been on national television relative to that particular day.

RIVERA: They all should be watching.  Let me go to Bill Moffitt.  Is this–all of this going to hopelessly taint the jury pool in exactly the opposite way that, perhaps, they were tainted in the last time?

Mr.  MOFFITT: Well, I–I think it’s going to be a major problem. I–y–y–you know, this is all being lived out on television every night and–and–and every day, and we have videotapes that people are selling and various other things.  I–I–the voir dire in this particular case is–is–i–is going to be trouble-some, and a judge is going to have a difficult time finding a jury in this case.  And one–one of the other problems is that you, ultimately, are going to end up with a jury that people are contesting–or contending that they know very little about, because they didn’t watch it on television, they haven’t read about it in the newspapers.  And–and that kind of a jury is going to be very difficult for an–e–either side to persuade one way or another.

RIVERA: Manny Medrano…

Mr.  MEDRANO: Geraldo?

RIVERA: …I know you’ve reflected on that.

Mr.  MEDRANO: Yes, Geraldo.  I–I’ve got two cents to add to this.  Let me tell you, the first criminal case in O.J.  Simpson was truly an incredible th–thing for all of us to perceive and–and watch and observe, but I personally, as a lawyer, and frankly, just as a citizen of the state of California–the thing that troubled me the most out of the entire O.J.  Simpson criminal case is the fact that you had jurors–a good quantity of jurors who either affirmatively lied to get on the jury. And, ultimately, when they were busted by Judge Ito, he started kicking them off right and left.  And to me, personally, that is so pro-foundly disturbing because I think we’re going to have to–to deal with the identical problem in the selection of the jury or the voir dire process, in the civil context, because you’re going to have people who are going to die to get on this jury.  And God knows, look at how jurors have fared after the first criminal case…
RIVERA: Really.

Mr.  MEDRANO: …making dollars right and left.  So I’m very, very concerned about that, and I hope that the judge at the trial level in the civil case and the lawyers for both sides work very diligently to weed out the bad apples, be-cause they’re there, I can assure you.

RIVERA: Can you get a change of venue in a civil case?

Mr.  MONAHAN: Sure.

Mr.  CALLAN: Sure.

Mr.  MEDRANO: Sure, why not?  But where you going to go?

RIVERA: Where you going to go?

Mr.  MOFFITT: Where you going to ch–where you–where you going to change this week?

RIVERA: Denver.  Why not?  Denver’s really in this week.  Right back. Stay tuned.

Mr.  MOFFITT: We–we–we…

RIVERA: Sorry, Bill.  Right there.

(Announcements)

(Excerpt from courtroom proceedings one year ago today)

Mr.  JOHNNIE COCHRAN (Defense Attorney): You said in your testimony you saw some blood spots on the back–on the rear gate there at Bundy on June 13th, 1994.  Is that correct?

Detective TOM LANGE (Los Angeles Police Detective): Yes.

Mr.  COCHRAN: Those spots had been pointed out to you by Detective Phillips?

Det.  LANGE: That’s correct.

Mr.  COCHRAN: You, in turn, pointed them out to Mr.  Fung?

Det.  LANGE: That’s correct.

Mr.  COCHRAN: Did you direct Mr.  Fung to collect those particular blood spots?

Det.  LANGE: I directed him to do that, and I believe I mentioned to check the entire gate.

Mr.  COCHRAN: All right.  And you expected that to be done, isn’t that cor-rect?

Det.  LANGE: Yes.

Mr.  COCHRAN: Now it was not done on June 13th, was it?

Det.  LANGE: No.

Mr.  COCHRAN: In fact, it wasn’t done on June 14th, was it?

Det.  LANGE: That’s correct.

Mr.  COCHRAN: In fact, it was not done until July 3rd, three weeks later. Is that right?’

Det.  LANGE: That’s correct.

(End of excerpt)

RIVERA: A year ago today.  I remember how frustrated Christopher Darden was when he called into this program and talked about how specifically Detective Lange was not being very–he was not–certainly not waxing eloquent.  He wasn’t being very glib.  He wasn’t…

Mr.  MONAHAN: He wasn’t being aggressive.

RIVERA: He wasn’t being aggressive as a witness either.  And there you saw Johnnie Cochran just beating the hell out of him.
Mr.  MONAHAN: Mm.

RIVERA: Some quick news, again, from the Associated Press.  Four of Simpson’s scientific evidences ex–I’ll start again. 

Four of Simpson’s scientific experts during the trial distanced themselves from the proceedings in the civil trial.  Dr.  Henry Lee, the defense’s star witness, said he would not testify without a subpoena.  Forensic chemist Herbert MacDonell also said he didn’t plan to tes-tify.  But former New Yorker coroner Michael Baden said there was a possibility he would return.  Forensic toxicologist Fredric Rieders, though, was the only one who said he could possibly testify but only if he has the time.  So Dr. Lee out unless he is subpoenaed.

What I want to do now is–OK.  Let’s–as we stand today–you know, we–we litigated this in the makeup room prior to getting out.  Manny suggests that the jury pool–hopelessly tainted.  Wa–I say change of venue.  You say it is possi-ble in the civil case.

Mr.  MONAHAN: Mm-hmm.

RIVERA: But where–where would they go?  How would they find–what would the voir dire be like in this case?  Wh–are we going to see a real circus in the–in the prelim here?

Mr.  MONAHAN: I would–I would think…

RIVERA: I mean…

Mr.  MONAHAN: I would think that the…

RIVERA: …is that–post-deposition pre-trial.

Mr.  MONAHAN: I would think that in the–the voir dire, which is what we call it east of the Mississippi–I think that’s.  Right, Paul?

Mr.  CALLAN: Right.  That’s right.

Mr.  MONAHAN: I would think it would be very extensive and I don’t know what you could do.  I think it’s–it’s–it’s–in a way, it’s a good thing that the actual plaintiffs’ lawyers are be–being kind of circumspect about this because they don’t want to blow the whistle and tell everybody about everything going on in every deposition so that they can be accused of trying to taint a jury pool.  On the other hand, I think people like Leonard Marks, who represents Faye Res-nick, has become a shield for the plaintiff.  He comes running out on the street, knowing that 98 percent of what Faye Resnick says will never be admissi-ble, but he can sort of, from a PR aspect, do a lot of damage to O.J.  and a po-tential jury pool because everyone’s reporting all over the place exactly what Faye Resnick’s saying Nicole told her about her relationship with O.J.
Mr.  CALLAN: You know, the reality of the situation, though–O.J.–Geraldo, is that O.J…

RIVERA: More people do that.  That’s like the fourth time.

Mr.  MONAHAN: I thought he was saying that to me.

RIVERA: Is there…

Mr.  CALLAN: I know.  Every time–you’re getting associated…

RIVERA: Is there any more unlikely–oxymoron then, huh?

Mr.  CALLAN: You’re getting very associated with those initials.  But when you think about the first jury selection process…

RIVERA: Oh, God forbid.

Mr.  CALLAN: …everybody in the country knew about the case.  Everybody in Los Angeles knew about the case.  They had watched the preliminary hearing and we all said, How can you pick an untainted jury?’ Well, what happened was jurors came in and said, Yes, I’ve heard about the case, but I can be fair and impar-tial.  I’ll keep an open mind.’ And I guarantee you in the civil case there will be hundreds of people willing to say that.  You will get a jury in Los Angeles County…
Mr.  MOFFITT: The question is…

Mr.  CALLAN: …that will be able to sit on this case.

Mr.  MOFFITT: The ques…

Mr.  MONAHAN: And you’ll probably have a couple bounced.

Mr.  MOFFITT: The q–the question is…

RIVERA: Go ahead, Bill.

Mr.  MOFFITT: …whether peop–anybody will be telling the truth…

Mr.  MONAHAN: Mm-hmm.

Mr.  MOFFITT: …when they say that.  We have now had a–the criminal trial.  We have had a verdict.  And we have had the reaction to that verdict that we all have observed and talked about.  And now we’re going to try to pick a second jury in this case?  W–don’t you think some of the people who might want to sit on that jury want to vindicate, as Mr. Goldman has–has said, want what–their form of justice to be done?  And how are we going to elicit that?  How are we going to find that out?  How are we…

Mr.  CALLAN: You know, ironically, the fairest thing to do in this situation would be to waive a jury and let a judge try this case.

RIVERA: How interesting.  How…

Mr.  CALLAN: And, you know, both sides could decide to waive a jury. They’re waived in civil cases.  Plaintiffs usually don’t like to do it because juries award huge amounts of money.  But who knows the way the publicity plays out by the summertime in this case?

RIVERA: All right.  Manny, do you see this as a battle for the hearts and minds then of the prospective jurors?

Mr.  MEDRANO: Well, very much so.  And just to clarify something because per-haps I wasn’t as–as cogent as I’d have like to have been earlier.  I’m not say-ing that the jury pool is hopelessly tainted.  I’m saying that there are 12 ju-rors out there, but you got to work long and hard to find the honest jurors.  And I’ll tell you what.  I have a solution to this entire problem because I–every time I see it, it just absolutely appalls me.  A good example is the first state criminal case for Heidi Fleiss, where after her conviction, jurors come out and said, Oh, we ignored the judge’s admonition to not discuss the case.’ So that was almost grounds for a new trial.  Here’s my suggestion…
RIVERA: It should have been in that case.

Mr.  MEDRANO: Well, here’s what should happen in the state of California, be-cause I’m a strong advocate for this.  When you’re picking that jury in the civil case, I want the trial judge to tell those prospective jurors, Folks, there’s a penal code felony statute on the books that says if any of you lie during this process and we discover that after the fact, you will be prose-cuted.’ I can assure you, if you brought such a case in the state of California one or t–once or twice, you–it would do away with this kind of ridiculous problem.

Mr.  MOFFITT: Well–but–but you also have a fundamental problem here that in the midst of a trial process, you’re going to get jurors to the point where they’re–they feel like they’re being investigated.  And the question of juror privacy and various other kinds of things are raised by all of these kinds of things…

Mr.  MONAHAN: Well, that…

Mr.  MOFFITT: …because–if–if we–if we’re suddenly going to investigate jurors, the side that has the ability to do the most investigation gains an ad-vantage under those circumstances.

Mr.  MONAHAN: Well, that raises another question, Bill, because what are you going–are you going to sequester this jury?  I can’t imagine that…

Mr.  CALLAN: No way.  No.

Mr.  MOFFITT: Well, I mean–I mean…

Mr.  MONAHAN: …they would ever go for sequestration.  And how do you handle that problem with all the reporting, even though the cameras won’t be in the courtroom?

Mr.  MOFFITT: But–but–but…

RIVERA: Will the cameras absolutely not be in the courtroom?

Mr.  MONAHAN: I don’t know.  The judge–Judge Haber…

RIVERA: Every time there’s a motion before him…

Mr.  MONAHAN: …has let them in on occasion and maybe it hasn’t been defi-nitely decided…

Mr.  MOFFITT: Well, but–but–you know…

Mr.  MONAHAN: …but it raises another problem.

Mr.  MOFFITT: Well, yeah, but what…

Mr.  MONAHAN: You know, how are you going to keep this jury at night from watching all the news programs…

RIVERA: Right.

Mr.  MOFFITT: Absolutely.

Mr.  MONAHAN: …and all the commentators?

Mr.  MOFFITT: It really doesn’t make that much difference be–whether there–there’s a camera there because there are going to be hundreds of news reports about it, and it’s going to be written about all over. There’s a real problem in–in–in–in picking a jury in this case.  It is a real live problem.

RIVERA: Well, I–I sided with Dominick Dunne yesterday.  It is unbelievable the fascination people still have with this still-unconcluded kind of real-life–I was going to say soap opera.  That would be demeaning to the two victims in the brutal double homicide.  But this saga goes on and on and on.

Manny, have you heard–I want to get on to Warren Moon and this execution that’s scheduled to take place later tonight.
Mr.  MOFFITT: Warren Moon’s not going to be executed, is he?

RIVERA: No.  God, no.  Please.  Warren Moon has–is exactly the opposite. He has…

Mr.  MEDRANO: Well, there are tough laws in Texas, but I don’t think they’re that tough.

RIVERA: OK.  Right.  What about cameras in the courtroom in the Simpson civil matter?

Mr.  MEDRANO: Where it stands now on that issue–an–and this is as far as I know, that has not ultimately been decided yet.  As you know, the judge in that case currently allows the cameras sort of after the fact. The camera’s in there, but it’s taped delayed before we can actually use it on the air here and else-where.  But that ultimate issue is yet to be decided.  So I think there’s still a good chance that the camera will be permitted in the courtroom.

Mr.  CALLAN: And, you know, the most persuasive argument on that is the Me-nendez brothers are on trial in California, in their second case now. The judge banned cameras in the courtroom.  And the second Menendez case with no cameras has taken longer than the first one.  So there’s a good argument there…

Mr.  MONAHAN: With one jury.

Mr.  CALLAN: That’s right.

Mr.  MONAHAN: With one jury.

RIVERA: And with a lot of the evidence excluded, a lot of the character evi-dence …(unintelligible)

Mr.  CALLAN: With a lot of the evidence excluded.  With the judge trying to–to streamline the process, it’s a longer trial.  So the cameras had nothing to do with the length of the O.J.  Simpson case.

Mr.  MONAHAN: And–and with one jury this time.

RIVERA: And with one jury instead of two.

LOAD-DATE: February 22, 1996

LANGUAGE: English

TYPE: Interview