June 30th, 1994.
This is not a trial, but it sure looks like one on TV.
I'm representing a man who was charged with two counts of first degree murder,
where the people may be asking for the death penalty.
O.J. Simpson's defense team takes the offensive, turning a routine hearing into high courtroom drama.
It seems like a little bit of grandstanding, but I think it is.
If the two of you excuse me, I can't believe I heard Mr. Shapiro say that.
And the first witnesses take the stand.
He had an interest in some knives that we saw.
Blood stains and blue dots. Will the Simpson case turn into a scientific showdown?
Seldom has the evidence, forensic science evidence, truly been challenged in American courtrooms.
Chris Wallace asks, when the prosecution dials DNA for murder, how does the defense answer the call?
You've got to destroy the science that the prosecution puts forward.
And we'll analyze today's hearing with a panel of experts.
ABC legal correspondent Cynthia McFadden, former prosecutor Robert Philobocian,
noted defense attorney Leslie Abramson, and legal expert Jonathan Turley.
From ABC News, with anchors Diane Sawyer, Sam Donaldson,
chief correspondent Chris Wallace, Jed Rose, Sylvia Chase, John Quinones, and Renée Poussaint,
this is prime time.
And now from Washington, Sam Donaldson.
Good evening. Diane is off tonight.
High drama in Los Angeles as O.J. Simpson went to court today to find out if he'll have to stand trial for murder.
Does the prosecution have enough evidence to warrant holding a trial?
That's the question that a Los Angeles municipal court judge began hearing testimony on in a preliminary hearing in the Simpson case.
We're going to devote our entire program to today's court highlights and what they mean.
So let's begin.
...
Simpson was brought to court from his jail cell, dressed in conservative suit and tie,
to join his attorneys Robert Shapiro and Gerald Ullman.
Prosecutors Marcia Clark and William Hodgman were ready to present their case before Judge Kathleen Kennedy Powell.
At this preliminary hearing, which will last for several days,
the prosecutors must convince the judge that there is enough evidence against Simpson
to believe he may be guilty of the double murder with which he's charged.
Not that he is guilty. That would be for an actual trial itself to determine.
Now the police still have not found the murder weapon.
But in the afternoon court session, the first prosecution witness was a man who owns a knife store.
The name of our business is Ross Cutlery.
Under questioning from Assistant Prosecutor William Hodgman,
Alan Wattenberg said that while Simpson was shooting a television pilot movie in the neighborhood last May 3rd,
he came into the store and bought a knife.
He had an interest in some knives that we sell.
What type of knives did the defendant express an interest in?
The item that I recall was a large lock blade knife.
Wattenberg said his employee, Jose Camacho, took over showing Simpson the knife, and he went to the back of the store.
Mr. Camacho came to the back where I was, and he handed me the knife
and told me that the customer wished to have it sharpened.
I took it in the back where we do our sharpening, and I sharpened the knife,
and then I returned to the front with it, and I put it on the counter.
On June 14th, Wattenberg said, police detectives came to his store,
and he sold them a knife similar to the one Simpson bought.
That knife was introduced in evidence and marked People's Exhibit 1.
I believe it's about maybe eight, eight and a half inches in length.
It has a stag handle on it with a shiny stainless steel blade.
At the end of Wattenberg's testimony, he acknowledged that he, his brother, and his employee, Jose Camacho,
had sold their story about the knife to the National Enquirer.
My brother and I, being equal partners in the business, are going to divide this money up three ways.
Mr. Camacho will receive one-third, my brother one-third, and myself one-third.
And what sum of money are we talking about, Mr. Wattenberg?
The figure, I believe, is $12,500.
Robert Shapiro, Simpson's lawyer, got Wattenberg to make the point that there is no written record of the sale.
This one copy of one receipt?
Yes, sir.
And that goes to the customer?
That's correct, sir.
So what you are telling us is you have no records whatsoever to establish that this particular item,
for this particular price, was sold on this particular day?
That would be correct, sir.
The next witness was the employee of the store, Jose Camacho, who said he sold Simpson the knife.
That's the item I sold him.
Or more accurately, an item like the one you sold him. Is that correct to your knowledge?
Yes, as far as I know, that's the item or like the one I sold to him.
How did the defendant pay for the knife?
He paid me with a $100 bill. The total price was $81.17.
Camacho said when some reporters asked him if he'd sold a knife, he told them no.
But he acknowledged that he talked to the National Enquirer.
And it turns out he had testified before the grand jury. Simpson's lawyer made a point of that.
And right before you left the grand jury, did the person who was in charge of the grand jury tell you the following?
Mr. Camacho, you are admonished not to reveal to any other person except as ordered by the court
what questions were asked of you and what responses were given.
I wish to advise you also that a violation of this order can be the basis of a contempt charge against you.
Were you read that, sir?
Yes, he told us that also, but he said that was up to us if he wanted to talk. We could if we wanted to.
Who said that to you?
The lady.
Where did she look like?
I don't want to put her in trouble.
She told us that we could talk to the President if we wanted to. That was it.
Isn't it a fact, sir, that you were told by district attorney's office representatives not to speak to the press?
That's what I understand, that we could talk, but if he wanted to say something.
Are you a little uncertain about this, Mr. Camacho?
Yes.
The next witness was John DiBello, the manager of Mezzaluna Restaurant. Assistant Prosecutor Marcia Clark showed him some pictures.
Do you recognize the person depicted in that photograph?
Yes, I do, Nicole Brown.
How did you know her?
She was eating in my restaurant that night, for the murders.
Had you seen her before that night, sir?
Yes, I have, several times.
Would you call her a regular in that restaurant?
She frequent the restaurant quite often.
After Nicole Brown left, Ronald Goldman clocked out. Another employee had found something on the sidewalk.
Did you see a pair of glasses that evening?
Yes, I did.
Where did you see them?
I saw Karen Crawford pick them up on the sidewalk outside the restaurant.
At what time did she pick them up?
I would say somewhere around 9, 9.15, in that time frame.
DiBello said Goldman clocked out at 9.33, but didn't leave the restaurant for about 15 to 17 minutes.
Simpson's lawyer Robert Shapiro made the point that he told the grand jury Goldman didn't leave for about 20 minutes.
And with that, DiBello was excused.
Before we go on with what happened today in court, let's ask some experts about the importance of the testimony we've just heard.
With us tonight are ABC's legal correspondent Cynthia McFadden, Los Angeles attorney Leslie Abramson, who's defending Eric Menendez,
Jonathan Turley, law professor at George Washington University, as well as a pro bono criminal defense attorney,
and Robert Philobosian, a former district attorney of Los Angeles County.
First, Cynthia, exactly what does the prosecution have to demonstrate at this preliminary hearing?
Well, the standard is low at this preliminary hearing, Sam.
Really all they have to prove is it's more likely than not that Mr. Simpson committed these crimes.
If the standard is called probable cause, and most lawyers think about it as 51 percent,
is it 51 percent more likely that he did what he's charged with doing than that he didn't?
Well, how often at a preliminary hearing does the prosecution fail?
Not very often. In fact, most defense lawyers out here say that it would be a rare day indeed if this were to fail.
There have been statistics thrown around. I'm not sure there are very good statistics available,
but something like one in a hundred is what most people I think would agree to.
Leslie Abramson, is this business about buying a knife, a bombshell? Is that important? Tell us how much.
It's only important if the forensic evidence, the coroner's evidence, is it like the one they testified about today?
Could have been or was used.
Okay, I think we can't get to Leslie. We hope to get back to her. Jonathan Turley, what about the same question to you?
How important is the business about buying a knife?
Well, I think it's great theater. I'm not quite sure it's a takedown blow for the other side.
What they have is the guy bought possibly a knife on one occasion on May 3rd.
Well, you know, he could be seen shopping with the pirates of Panzance, and it won't matter.
They still don't have a murder weapon. They don't have a confession.
And all they've got is some forensics which may or may not get in. So that knife is a long distance from conviction.
Well, now, without a receipt, have they really established that he bought the knife?
No. I mean, the entire knife as a piece of evidence is in serious question.
They don't have proof of a purchase. They don't have proof necessarily that he actually took it back to his residence.
So that knife may be interesting, but it's certainly not compelling evidence.
Robert Philobosian, is Jose Camacho in trouble because he talked after his grand jury appearance?
Theoretically, he could be held in contempt of court, but I seriously doubt that that's going to happen.
What he's done, though, is he's caused a problem for the prosecution by selling his story.
That doesn't necessarily mean he's not telling the truth, and there are other reasons to believe Mr. Camacho.
Prosecution is going to have to get over that problem.
But if the marks on the victims and the stab wounds on the victims match that knife, then it's going to be a big problem for the defense.
I want to get back to this checkbook journalism in just a moment, but Marcia Clark, the prosecutor, held a news conference after the hearing.
She said there was a woman in the office named Patty, but this is what she said about what Patty said to Camacho.
Well, I was present during the grand jury proceedings, as you all know, and I know what Patty told the witnesses,
which is that she urged them not to speak to the press, but that she admitted she could not prevent them from doing so, if that's what they chose to do.
But she did strenuously urge them not to.
All right. Checkbook journalism, $12,500 to split from the National Enquirer.
Jonathan Turley, what does that do to the case? Anything?
You know, it's one more part of this annoying approach of Mr. Shapiro.
I think he's doing a great job in yanking the chain of the prosecution.
After all, these witnesses are not very compelling themselves.
Selling out a story after a grand jury proceeding doesn't exactly endear you to a jury.
Leslie McFadden, or rather, I'm sorry, Cynthia McFadden. I wonder whether we had Leslie Abramson back.
Cynthia, what about the checkbook journalism?
Well, I don't think any of us like it, Sam. I mean, certainly those of us in the legitimate news business don't like it.
We don't like to see people who will only tell what they say is true because they're paid money to do so.
And whether or not it will have an effect at trial, I mean, the real question is credibility.
Will the judge now decide that these witnesses are incredible or not believable because they sold their stories?
My guess is it may have more of an effect at the trial if we get there than it will on this judge at this stage.
All right, thanks to all of you. Stick around. We'll be back and we'll have more from today's hearing in just a moment.
Coming up, splitting hairs in court.
It's impossible to, from one hair, to make any kind of determination microscopically.
The prosecution wants the hair on Simpson's head, but how much is enough when primetime continues?
Here in the motor pool, we get rid of our hazardous waste the right way, like this antifreeze.
When we're through with it, we pour it in here because we know that pouring it in the wrong place could contaminate our drinking water and yours.
Used motor oils, cleaning solids, battery acids, they're all harmful.
If you have any questions, ask your supervisor or call your supporting DEH environmental office.
Welcome back to this old house.
Need an idea?
Yeah, sure, come on in.
They're full of ideas.
That is slick. I knew I could depend on you for the latest in high-tech wizardry.
Okay.
This old house, Saturday mornings on AFN.
Rabies. What comes to mind when you hear this word?
The facts? Keep your pets under a close watch and make sure their vaccinations are up to date.
Rabies. A preventable disease.
Eastern European countries are open for travel now, and Budapest is one of the most popular destinations.
At the border, exchange some money to cover small expenses, such as a meal and filling your gas tank if you're driving.
Hotels and official exchange offices have better rates because they take less commission.
In Hungary, the currency is 4-cent.
The exchange rate is constantly fluctuating, but an approximate rate gives you 73 forints for one U.S. dollar.
Eastern Europe is a great place to visit, but remember some common-sense rules and plan ahead.
Witnesses testified today in the afternoon, but the contest in O.J. Simpson's preliminary hearing began in earnest right after court convened this morning.
Any scientist, no matter how inexperienced, is aware of that fact.
The sparring got underway immediately over the prosecution's request that Simpson provide hair samples from his head to be compared with hair found on prosecution evidence.
Ms. Clark, how much hair do people need?
In order to be effectively compared with an evidence sample recovered from a crime scene, it has to be taken from each area of the suspect's head.
And that means that a minimum of 5 to 10 hairs from each area, which usually amounts to about 100 hairs.
Robert Shapiro, Simpson's lawyer, said his expert maintains that only 1 to 3 hairs are necessary.
This is what I'm prepared to do at this point in time, and that is to order no more than 10 hairs at this point.
So that's going to be the order at this point in time, subject to a further hearing with evidence, if necessary, from both sides for anything beyond 10 hairs.
Prosecutor Marcia Clark immediately called an expert, Michelle Kessler of the Los Angeles Police Department.
I am the assistant laboratory director for the criminalistics laboratory.
The prosecutor then asked Kessler the key question.
Did I inform you yesterday that the defense was making a request to limit the samples of hair taken from the defendant to one hair?
Yes, you did.
And what was your response?
Well, I was shocked at this. First of all, I said, you've got to be kidding, I think, was my response.
And why was that?
Because it's impossible from one hair to make any kind of determination microscopically for a reference standard from one hair to determine whether that's similar to other hairs.
What is the standard?
The recommendation in several articles, including that made by the FBI, is 30 to 100 hairs.
Then it was Robert Shapiro's turn, the lawyer for the defense, who sought to show that while Kessler might be an expert on some things, not on everything.
Do you consider yourself an expert in DNA?
Not in DNA. I consider myself an expert in preservation, collection, and evaluation of evidence for all types of tests.
Do you consider yourself an expert in serology?
No. Not in today's current serology. Again, evaluation. And I understand it. I can review reports and I can review people's analysis. I would never try to do it at the bench, but I do understand it.
Do you consider yourself an expert in the comparison of hair?
Yes, I do.
And what scientific training have you had academically regarding the comparison of hair?
Well, there isn't really any academic training other than my master's program in which part of the courses in chromalistics involve comparison of hair.
And also the McCrone School hairs and fibers, that's one of the academic courses, and I've been trained on the job training in the FBI method of hairs and fibers analysis.
Shapiro then moved to questioning the witness about each item the police would be testing.
Shapiro wants his forensic experts to test each item independently of the prosecution.
The problem is there may not be enough of a particular item left over after the prosecution laboratory finishes its work.
As Shapiro started down the list, he and Prosecutor Clark tangled in a sharp exchange.
This is going to take all day in the manner in which counsel is proceeding, and I don't think it's going to assist before that in being able to determine its ruling.
Your Honor, with all due respect, I am representing a man who is charged with two counts of first degree murder where the people may be asking for the death penalty.
And if it takes two hours to determine whether or not there will be enough of a sample for an independent evaluation where we believe samples can be contaminated, where false positives are possible, and where errors can take place in laboratory procedure, I don't think that's being excessive at all.
Your Honor, I take exception to the manner in which counsel has characterized my response.
I am making a suggestion to counsel that would allow him to have much more information than he's going to obtain in the manner in which he's proceeding.
If he wants the information so that he can make a determination as to how he wants to proceed with the evidence and what he wants to argue to the court, what I am suggesting would allow him to learn far more than you will in this manner.
I'm trying to assist counsel in being more efficient and more objective.
We certainly appreciate that.
Mr. Shapiro, you know, I'm going to allow you to present your motion your way.
Thank you. It's not going to be that time consuming. We've been here since 930 and so far I've been asked, allowed to ask one question.
Well, I think you'd ask a few more.
Well, on the direct evidence, there are 60 items, about 30 are blood, and I think the responses should take less than a minute.
So if we don't have any further interruptions or suggestions as to how we should present our case, perhaps we can finish this.
Excuse me, I don't think that's necessary from either one of you. So let's just proceed.
Thank you.
Shapiro resumed going over a list of police evidence, which included a red stain from the driver's door of Simpson's Ford Bronco parked outside his residence,
a red stain from Simpson's driveway, a right handed brown leather glove with red stains on it from Simpson's walkway,
a red stain from Simpson's master bathroom floor, a pair of Reebok athletic shoes from where the list does not say,
a plaid cap from Simpson's Bronco, and a brown carpet with a red stain resembling a partial shoe print from the driver's side of Simpson's Bronco.
Shapiro wanted to find out if there was enough of all these stains and whatnot to give some to him for testing.
But along the way, he slipped in some other questions. Listen.
What's the next item where blood was found?
Number nine.
I was testing the none on that.
Yes.
What test? What was the first test that was done on item number nine?
The first test, because the sample appears to be very weak, was PCR.
Is there anything remaining of that sample?
The glove gives quite a bit of positive area for blood.
Shapiro learned at least some of the red stains were blood and more.
This is what the police expert said was found on the glove recovered from Simpson's driveway.
In that item, there were three human head hairs, blonde in color, and they ranged in length from 3.5 to 29.5 centimeters
and exhibited predominantly Caucasian characteristics.
They also exhibited indications of possible chemical treatment, bleaching.
And this is what the expert said was found on a knit cap found in the Bronco.
And that contains, among the hairs were six human head hairs ranging in color from brown to black,
ranging in length from 1.1 to 2.2 centimeters, and exhibiting predominantly Negro characteristics.
Finally, Judge Kennedy Powell ruled the prosecution was entitled to from 40 to 100 hairs from Simpson's head.
What did asked for?
And to reassure the defense that the police tests were being done right, the judge had a further ruling.
In order to safeguard Mr. Simpson's rights in this matter, the court does order that the defense be entitled to be present
as indicated, and not just by mere invitation, but as a requirement in this case.
So what's the importance of all that?
Well, once again, let's ask our experts.
Leslie Abramson, what is the struggle over the hairs all about?
Well, I think it has to do with the fact that the defense wants the opportunity to independently test all the hair evidence
by both of the methods that have been discussed.
One of those methods is microscopic examination.
And for that purpose, you need a large number of samples from the questioned person, such as Mr. Simpson
or from Nicole Simpson or from Mr. Goldman, to compare it to what's known as the evidence hairs,
the few that are found on objects somehow related to the scene.
The other thing they want, and this is the thing you only need one or two hairs for,
is to do DNA testing on the hairs by what's called the PCR method.
So all the defense is saying is, we'd like a chance independently to do with this evidence
what the prosecution gets to do because they start out owning it.
Now we learned...
Go ahead.
I'm sorry.
Go ahead.
Well, what we heard today is that the assistant director of the laboratory is saying that it is unlikely
that there is enough of the blood samples or enough hairs to allow the defense to do independent testing.
And that's of some concern to the defense.
It's not the same to be looking over their shoulder.
And it's funny, but I can anticipate a situation now that they have been ordered not to do the tests
unless the defense expert is there, where disputes can break out between the police department analysts
and the defense experts.
And I don't know who's going to referee those contests.
If, for example, Henry Lee says, no, no, you can't do it that way.
We do it differently in Connecticut.
What happens then?
Okay, Jonathan Turley, what do you think happened?
And do you think it's a plus for the defense that it has been ordered to be present?
You know, I don't.
I think that actually having the defense experts there could be an enormous mistake.
That's not exactly what Shapiro wanted.
He wanted independent tests, and the court gave him presence.
Now, he was saying that presence would be nice, but independent tests would be better.
I think that it could ultimately come back to haunt him.
Ultimately, he wants to go in front of a jury and tear apart the testing of DNA.
The best way to do that is to suggest that some guy in a room alone was doing shoddy work.
It's going to be more difficult if on cross the prosecutor can ask his experts, did you object?
Did you make a suggestion?
If you made a suggestion, perhaps they carried out your suggestion.
Okay, Mr. Turley, what we learned today, apparently, was that there was blood found in a number of places
at O.J. Simpson's residence and in the Bronco.
But, of course, we don't know whose blood it was at this point.
That's right.
We still don't know if we've got a match.
And also, you have to understand that even though this thing called PCR is a DNA test,
it is not the highest form of DNA test.
Often, PCR will only result in a finding in one in 5,000,
as opposed to one in 10 million that you often hear about.
Robert Philobosian, how telling is it that we now know that a glove found at O.J. Simpson's
has blonde hair, bleached hair, Caucasian hair associated with it?
Well, it's not telling at all until some comparisons are done.
When the comparisons are done, if in fact that turns out to be Nicole Brown Simpson's hair,
it could be important, but also there could certainly be an argument on the other side
that Nicole Simpson may have had some reason to be at that home.
She is the ex-wife.
The glove may have been dropped there on some occasion.
It will depend on what else is on that glove, what the analysis shows.
There is a lot more evidence that has to come in in this case before we can reach any conclusions.
Before we go any further, explain for us PCR and DNA.
What are we talking about?
Well, these are tests that are known as genetic fingerprinting.
Although fingerprinting is somewhat of a misnomer,
there is an attempt to identify one particular individual by genetic analysis
as having a particular blood type which can be reflected in the hair.
This science is subject to some discussion.
Here in California, some courts have ruled it admissible.
Other courts have had questions about it.
It certainly will go at least to the weight of the evidence.
If and when it is admitted in court before the jury,
the defense will still have an opportunity to argue that it's unreliable
or that there's something wrong with the testing procedure.
The prosecution, of course, will argue that it's reliable and the testing procedure was done correctly.
So you're saying that unlike a fingerprint, which I think is now accepted as being almost 100 percent a match,
it's not the same case here?
Not quite the same as a fingerprint.
The state of the technology hasn't quite reached that level,
but it will be one more item of evidence and the jury will determine its weight after the case goes to that point.
Cynthia McFadden, so far what we've heard is what would be called what?
Circumstantial evidence, even if everything matches up.
How impressive is that?
Well, Sam, you know, I think circumstantial evidence may have a bad name.
I mean, you'll feel, well, it's only circumstantial evidence.
Well, many people are in prison today even for very serious crimes based on circumstantial evidence.
It's not bad evidence. It's just not direct evidence.
And what the prosecutor is going to do is to weave together all of these pieces of circumstantial evidence,
and Marcia Clark will say at the end to the judge,
together all of this gives this probable cause that Mr. Simpson did what we said he did.
Circumstantial evidence is perfectly good evidence.
It just takes a little bit more craft by the prosecutor.
But as you point out, it doesn't have the same weight as if you had one or more eyewitnesses who said,
I saw so-and-so do such-and-such.
Well, you know, Sam, sometimes eyewitnesses are more troubled than they're worth.
Eyewitnesses can be impeached.
Eyewitnesses can give contradictory statements, and eyewitnesses can have other problems that may impeach them,
problems with past lies that they may have told in other circumstances.
So eyewitnesses aren't always the best witnesses.
Sometimes you have several eyewitnesses.
You also have several stories which don't match up.
Okay, let's go to something which is not an eyewitness, but it's a piece of paper that may be very telling.
At the end of the morning session came another moment of drama.
It began when the prosecutor, Marcia Clark, asked the court for permission to open an envelope
that had the GTE telephone company return address on it.
Here it is.
And I will ask to open it now on the record in open court so the counsel can observe the opening
and the content of the envelope.
Yes.
Thank you.
Your Honor, can this possibly be done in the appropriate manner?
This is the appropriate manner, Your Honor.
Well, I don't know that it has to be on the record.
It seems like a little bit of grandstanding, but maybe it is.
If the two of you excuse me.
I can't believe I heard Mr. Shapiro say that.
I'm glad to conduct everything on the record, Your Honor, in open court.
All right, then open the envelope.
Open the envelope.
Go ahead.
Cynthia, what's in that envelope?
Do we know?
Well, it's a $10,000 question, Sam.
No, I don't know.
At the end of the day today, the prosecutors know and the defense lawyers know.
We may know before very long.
We could see clearly that it was a GTE envelope.
We don't think it was the phone records, but we did hear the judge say that it came along
with another envelope which may have contained the phone records.
By phone records, I mean the records between Nicole Brown Simpson's mother
and Nicole Brown Simpson on the night that she was murdered.
We know that there was a phone call made, and the question is,
at what time did that phone call come?
Because what time the phone call came is going to make an enormous difference.
Leslie Abramson, whether it was or wasn't the phone records,
what did you make of that by-play?
At one point, Marcia Clark offered the envelope to Robert Shapiro,
and he clearly didn't want to touch it.
It was like a snake.
Well, it's because she was grandstanding so badly,
holding up the envelope for the camera.
By the way, I think I do know what that letter is.
Whenever you subpoena records from a business, particularly from the phone companies,
the custodian of those records sends back a little statement, a little letter that says,
in compliance with your subpoena, enclosed, please find the following.
And I sensed that that was that notification record that they were complying with the subpoena,
and that the envelope that the judge was talking about was the actual phone records.
Now, whether they're the records of Nicole Simpson's condominium or O.J. Simpson's home or both,
since I believe it's the same telephone company, we don't know yet.
But as far as the holding of the envelope and showing it to him,
what she was doing was play-acting a little about, look how fair we are on discovery.
And I'm showing it to you right away.
And he did not like the fact that she was doing that grandstanding in front of the cameras.
Jonathan Turley, Ms. Abramson has just made that point about grandstanding.
Why is it important, if at all, in a preliminary hearing?
There is not a jury there. Who's being influenced?
I'm shocked at the thought that either of these people were acting.
That's exactly what was going on.
A preliminary hearing has less to do about getting the case thrown out.
It's more of a probing, not only of the witnesses but of the prosecutor and the defense attorney.
They're going to push each other.
And you could see Shapiro doing that with some of the witnesses.
They want to lay a ground for possible impeachment of witnesses, but they also want to probe each other's case.
What the prosecution is going to try to do is give the smallest morsel in order to feed this case and get it to trial.
And the defense is going to try to take that morsel and make it into a feast.
They're going to try to force the prosecution to put more and more in.
And so it is that much theater, but it's deadly theater. It's very serious.
What happens in a preliminary hearing can well give an advantage to the defense that it would not normally have.
Okay, thank you all. Stay with us. We're going to want you to come back later in the program.
And we'll be back with more on the O.J. Simpson case.
Coming up, the battle over the evidence. You've got to fight to keep the DNA out.
And this may ultimately be the biggest legal issue in the case.
When primetime continues.
Ready? We're ready.
Do you want a body like this? It looks great.
Thanks. What you need is a plan.
Before you train, carbohydrates, oatmeal, fruit. After you train, protein. Feed that muscle.
Now, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday mornings, get your aerobic workout with basic training, the workout.
Tuesday and Thursday mornings, it's weight training with body shaping.
Two great programs, one great plan. Get in shape weekday mornings on AFN.
Okay, passing your seat belts. Let's go.
In Europe, it's easy for a traveler to cross several international borders in a day's drive.
Each could have different requirements. You should be sure of what documents are needed for yourself and your passengers.
Know about currency or customs restrictions. And about immunization, insurance, and vehicle entry requirements.
Know what you need before you leave. Make sure your trip doesn't end at the border.
Dog, on it.
I'm every woman, my time is now.
I can censor every knee, woman, man, or child.
I ain't bragging, it's a brand new day.
It took a lot to reach the top, and now we're here to stay.
I'm every woman, that's how I feel.
I'm every woman, it's about to be real.
You really need to think about the planet Earth and understand that there's only so much resource that the Earth can provide to the people.
Recycling allows us to maximize the use of the materials that is available to us, and it's not that hard.
Recycling is a good cause, and we all live here, and we have to do something.
We can make a better world if everybody started doing it.
Separating or recycling your trash, everybody's doing it.
Prime time will continue.
When you do a job every day, you get to know it like no one else, and your insights can make a big difference in productivity or point out where problems could occur.
So if you know of a way to make work go a little smoother, make the workplace safer or more efficient,
if you can think of any way to improve your job, be sure to send it to your suggestion program.
You could get recognition, an award, or maybe just make things better.
For details, contact your suggestion program representative or supervisor.
Lyndon Johnson, George Orwell, Chris Christofferson, George C. Scott, Plato, Clara Barton, Andy Sullivan, D.H. Lawrence, Booker T. Washington, Aristotle, Albert Einstein, and my mother and father.
Throughout history, in every field of human endeavor, whenever men and women achieve greatness, they share it with others by becoming teachers.
Here's to everyone who can and does.
The more you know about anything, the more likely you are to teach.
Meet me at the fair.
One thing that's clear after today's court session is that you may need a degree in biology or chemistry to understand much of the testimony,
because in many ways it is the evidence itself which is also on trial in the O.J. Simpson case.
Chief correspondent Chris Wallace examines legal strategy when the evidence is in a test tube.
As the Simpson case heats up, it looks more and more as if it will be a battle of scientific experts, not about eyewitnesses or a murder weapon, but an alphabet soup of scientific jargon.
Both PCR, some conventional serology, and possibly RFLP, which would consume the sample.
The reason both sides are focused on the science is because it appears all that witnesses can say is that Simpson could have been at the crime scene.
Police continue to search for evidence that under scientific analysis will prove he was there.
Can the prosecution convict Simpson of murder based largely on circumstantial evidence?
Rockne Harmon, a California prosecutor who's an expert on the growing use of DNA testing in the courtroom, says relying on science instead of people can actually be a strength.
Juries are more acceptable of these type cases because the evidence speaks for itself.
Compare that with a case that depends exclusively on the testimony of an eyewitness or a jailhouse informant or an accomplice where a jury might have a difficult time assessing the credibility of a witness.
In that sense, is a forensic case easier for a prosecutor to try?
Sure, I think so, and I think much more easily comprehended by a jury.
How will the defense try to undercut the prosecution's case?
Harvard law professor Arthur Miller says the key is to persuade the jury any way you can, but the evidence is not as black and white as it seems.
You start by destroying the prosecution's expert, then you destroy the prosecution's science, then you destroy the prosecution's methodology, and then you bring on your expert who looks like everybody's grandfather.
And you say to the jury, here comes the truth.
Over the years, there have been victories for both sides in these kinds of cases.
When Cleophas Prince was tried for murdering six women in San Diego in 1993, prosecutors introduced a lot of evidence.
But late in the trial, when DNA test results were submitted, juror Kim Bennett says the impact was enormous.
It was very clear to us as jury members that this defendant was at the scene of the murder.
It was as if there was a big bloody fingerprint right over the dead body.
Or the prosecution's case can be undercut.
Not guilty.
Lomric Nelson was acquitted of charges he murdered an acidic Jew in the Crown Heights section of New York after the defense argued that evidence linking him to the murder had been mishandled by police, making DNA tests inconclusive.
The victim's brother was furious.
Now the jury has the blood of Yanko Rosenbaum on their hands.
Then there was the case of Kerry Kotler, who went to prison for rape based on the graphic testimony of the victim.
I will never forget the eyes on that man. There's no way you can possibly forget them.
Kotler spent 11 years behind bars until his lawyers were able to run a DNA test on old evidence that showed he could not have committed the crime.
A judge set him free, believing the science over the victim.
I knew I was innocent and having faith in the science from what I knew of it at the time.
It seemed like how could I go wrong?
It appears that the Simpson case will also hinge on DNA testing, which has been submitted in more than a thousand criminal cases since it was first introduced in a U.S. courtroom in 1987.
The big argument over DNA testing, and you'll likely hear it in the Simpson case, is just what it tells you.
Scientists compare genetic material taken from crime evidence with genetic material taken from a suspect.
The more similarities they find, the greater the likelihood the suspect committed the crime.
Scientists say if they can make as many as five genetic matches, then the chances that the evidence could have come from anyone other than the suspect can go up to one in 10 million.
This is the laboratory where we do the DNA testing.
Dr. David Bing, a DNA expert who has testified in more than two dozen criminal cases, says the power of the results is that the jury can see them for themselves, as in this test from a murder case.
In this particular lane here is blood taken from a victim, and these dots represent her genetic markers.
This lane over here represents a blood stain taken from the pants of the suspect, and that's a match.
To the layman, it's just that simple because this band matches this band. Comes at the same place down in the lane, as you call it.
That's right.
That's a match?
That's a match.
But critics like Attorney Barry Sheck, who's part of the Simpson defense team, say DNA testing is not as definitive as it seems.
Everybody in the world has a unique fingerprint. It's not like that. It's a question of probabilities.
So what are the special battles that will be fought in the Simpson case?
One of the biggest will almost certainly be whether the prosecution can present DNA evidence.
There have been several California appeals court rulings that such testing should not be admitted. A point the defense will certainly press.
You've got to fight to keep the DNA out, and this may ultimately be the biggest legal issue in the case.
Which tests are available and appropriate to be performed on various types of evidence?
If the prosecution is able to introduce DNA results, the defense may challenge their accuracy.
Experts acknowledge one problem could be in trying to analyze evidence in which the blood of the victims and the murderer may have been mixed.
There's a possibility that there will be mixtures of more than one individual, maybe even three individuals.
Mixtures are very difficult to sort out by any forensic method.
Something else that's special about this case from a legal point of view is that the defendant has the money to hire top experts to conduct their own tests.
The danger, according to New York law school professor Randolph Johnakite, is that the defense may end up proving the prosecution's case.
Prosecution tests have to be disclosed to the defense, defense tests have to be disclosed to the prosecution.
So if the defense conducts these tests, the prosecution will find out what the results are?
That's correct.
All sides agree that if government testing can't link Simpson to the crime, then the prosecution's case will likely be blown apart.
But there's another scenario that's more intriguing, that even if they tie Simpson to the murders, the defense will still find some way to get him off or convicted of a lesser charge.
Juries are wild cards. We've seen it in DeLorean. We've seen it in Mary, Mayor Barry. We saw it in Simi Valley in the Rodney King Part One.
That's the voice of the people. And for better or for worse, that is our system.
And this note, when DNA is tested for the purposes of a criminal case, about one-third of the time it shows the prime suspect is innocent.
Prime Time, an ABC News magazine, will continue in a moment.
Never before has one nation moved so much, so far, so fast.
Coordinating troop and supply movements for Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm was a complex logistical mission.
Most of the 525,000 troops and over half a million tons of cargo were delivered by air.
The remaining equipment and supplies, nearly 10 million tons, arrived by sea.
One convoy of ships quickly earned the nickname, the Steel Bridge.
On one day, 28 ships were unloading in ports, another 132 were steaming for the Gulf, and 44 others were returning home.
Everything from hospital equipment to helicopters made up the tons of cargo that were delivered each day.
Desert Shield and Desert Storm, the most intense logistical operation in U.S. military history.
Strangely enough, the first bazooka to see war action was this one.
It was a musical instrument made up of two pipes and a whiskey funnel, and invented by comedian Bob Bazooka Burns.
During World War I, as a private in the Army, Burns took his bazooka with him and entertained troops all across France.
During World War II, a powerful new weapon was developed by the Army.
It was the first weapon that gave foot soldiers the means of destroying heavily armored vehicles and fortified positions.
A long tubular rocket launcher, this new weapon looked so much like Bob Burns' bizarre musical instrument that it, too, was called a bazooka.
With its armor-piercing rockets, the bazooka saw plenty of action from World War II right up until the Korean War.
That's how a rocket launcher became known as a bazooka, and how the word bazooka became a part of American military heritage.
You work hard as a team to get the job done, but when sexual harassment occurs on the job,
it can be so overwhelming and destructive that it can affect even the hardest-working military person, and that affects the mission.
Put an end to sexual harassment. Report all incidents to your commander or supervisor.
Perhaps the most important thing that has happened so far in this preliminary hearing was something that won't be settled.
In fact, it was not even argued in court today. It'll be argued next week.
The defense filed a motion to suppress, that is, throw out, all that evidence we've been talking about that the police found at O.J. Simpson's residence that night.
Here's the motion that the defense filed, about 15 pages worth. Let's ask our experts what it means.
ABC's Cynthia McFadden, Los Angeles defense attorney Leslie Abramson, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, and former Los Angeles County District Attorney Robert Philobosian.
Jonathan Turley, what is it the defense says the police did that night?
Well, the defense is alleging that four detectives on June 13th went into this home and conducted an illegal search.
And then they used some of the evidence from that illegal search to go out and get a warrant and come back and take more evidence from the house.
Now, the whole theory is that if the original search was unconstitutional, then all that evidence that they gathered at that time and later is fruit of the poisonous tree and can be kept out of trial.
Now, this is the ultimate shot below the water line. If they win on this one, they blow a very big hole in a case that's primarily forensics at this point.
Leslie Abramson, let's talk about what the defense says happened. As I read this document, the defense says that the police came, they rang the bell, no one answered.
They used the telephone, no one answered. So they jumped over the wall and opened up the gate. Now, was that reasonable?
Well, before we get to that, let me just say, Sam, what I heard in court today was this isn't what the defense says happened.
This is what the defense attorneys found out happened after they read the grand jury transcripts.
So apparently the police themselves have admitted that this is what they did.
Now, the question, is it reasonable, depends on what they saw outside the gates that they could use to justify jumping over them.
In the search warrant affidavit, they claim they're only at the premises to notify Mr. Simpson of his ex-wife's death.
They claim when they get there, they see a Ford Bronco that they later find out is his parked outside,
and they claim to see what they recognize as human blood, although that's exaggerating because they couldn't know it's human.
But they say they see blood on the handle of that Bronco. Now, the way the affidavit to the warrant reads,
at that point they decided to jump the fence. And I'm not sure that that's going to be considered reasonable for them to jump the fence at that point,
after which they made other observations, a trail of blood spots up to the door, the glove, whatever they removed from inside the house.
On the other hand, the search of the car which was parked outside, after they had seen the blood on the door handle,
they may be okay on that, even if a judge holds that the search of the premises, looking around and eventually seizing things, was not legal.
Okay, Robert Philobosian, you're a former prosecutor, district attorney. What about this? These are two experienced police detectives,
and a lot of experienced policemen. They certainly must have understood that they couldn't just break in there and have that evidence be admitted in court.
Well, that's right, and they didn't break into the house, and we're not sure exactly what they did,
because all we have at this point is the defense's assertion, which may or may not be based on a grand jury transcript.
On Tuesday, there's going to be a hearing. There's going to be live witnesses. The police officers will be in court, most likely.
They will testify as to what they did and why they did it.
What the court has to determine is whether or not the police officers were reasonable in what they did.
That's the standard in California for determining whether or not the search is going to result in the admissibility of that evidence.
If the court decides what they did was reasonable, under a reasonable person's standard, under all of the circumstances, then the evidence will come in.
I think based on all that we've heard so far, it is highly unlikely that that evidence will be excluded.
It will probably come in, and it will be used when what is significant is once it's admitted at the time of the preliminary hearing,
it's going to be there for all purposes a trial.
Cynthia McFadden, once the police got in and they saw whatever they saw, they then applied for a warrant.
And I noticed in reading this document that one of the things they cited to the judge in asking for a warrant was that O.J. Simpson had taken an unexpected flight.
And what do you make of that?
Well, Sam, whether or not this is going to be important, we'll have to wait and see.
I mean, this is the question of whether or not they had reason to believe once they got on the premises that perhaps he was involved in some way.
It is clear from the papers that we have in front of us that they didn't have a search warrant for the first five hours.
They were perhaps almost six hours they were on the premises.
Essentially, all that's going to matter to the judge is whether or not they had a reasonable reason to jump the fence and to make the observations they made.
And if she decides that they had a reason, that'll be good enough.
I think that probably most legal minds would agree, though, that it's unlikely she'll rule this out.
And whether or not Mr. Simpson had fled, I'm not sure is going to play much of a role in her determination.
Well, I'm just curious about the language.
Jonathan Turley, what do you make about this phrase of unexpected flight?
The police were implying, were they not, that somehow this man was a fugitive without actually saying it?
Well, this is a very curious and I think a controversial affidavit supporting this warrant.
They use words like unexpected flight to suggest that there might be what are called exigent circumstances, circumstances in which the police have to move suddenly.
They make it sound as if O.J. Simpson was a fleeing felon, and that was clearly not the case.
They were aware that O.J. Simpson was going to Chicago.
He had been cooperating up to that point.
But most importantly, they knew that they could secure that house and get a warrant.
That was never in question.
So making out exigent circumstances, these emergency circumstances, will be a pretty high bar to clear on this case.
But I agree that it is unlikely this evidence will be kept out.
But that's a different question to whether it should be kept out.
All right, Cynthia, we have about 15 seconds.
Tell us what's the schedule now in this hearing.
Well, Sam, what we're going to see tomorrow are more witnesses who aren't police witnesses.
They agreed that they wouldn't present any evidence that might have been out of this search warrant, search that we've been talking about.
So tomorrow we'll hear more real people talking about how they, what they have to tell us about this.
Thank you very much to all of you.
Thanks for being with us tonight.
And I'll be back with a program note in just a moment.
So the two one over operation posse complete.
Oh,
And the third grade, it was Miss Ames.
The seventh, it was Miss Levy.
And in high school, it was Mr. Bing.
Now those were my special teachers, the ones who turned me on to the joy of learning.
Now one day you'll find your special teacher, Andrew, realized that the more you know about language, math, music, and art,
the more you want to know.
But you got to be in school to make it happen.
And once it does, you will never think about dropping out of school again.
I'm Sam Donaldson in Washington.
Diane Sawyer will be back next week.
Be sure to join us then for another edition of prime time live
tonight on the Friday late show.
It's terror time.
Stephen King's sleepwalkers airs at eleven fifty five central right now, though.
It's time for murder.
Prime time is a presentation of ABC News.
More Americans get their news from ABC News than from any other source.