Skip to: Site menu | Main content

Simpson Trial Rosa Lopez Recess Wrapup - Part 5

2008-06-29

CNN

March 1, 1995

SHOW: NEWS 1:45 pm ET

GUESTS: LEXIS-NEXIS Related Topics Full Article  Related Topics Overview

This document contains no targeted Topics.

BYLINE: JIM MORET

SECTION: News; Domestic

LENGTH: 1171 words

HIGHLIGHT: The prosecution has been granted additional time to assemble its cross examination of defense witness Rosa Lopez. The court recessed today to consider the handling of the witness's testimony.

JIM MORET, Anchor: Welcome back to our special look at the O.J. Simpson trial.  I'm Jim Moret in Los Angeles.  We've just heard portions of yesterday's Court session in which both sides talked about investigator, William Pavelic's interviews with Rosa Lopez and how they affect the trial.  Let's get reaction now from our CNN legal analysts, Greta Van Susteren and John Burris.

John, first to you.  There's an issue of credibility here and I suppose it's really threefold.  One, with the judge.  Two, with the jury and three, with the public.  How- address each if you could with respect to William Pavelic.

JOHN BURRIS, Criminal Defense Attorney: Well, certainly from the investigator's point of view I don't think he had a duty to maintain any of those notes that he took of the statements.  I mean, his obligation was to turn over any statements that he had, audio and otherwise in a timely manner.  Certainly, the credibility issue is for him is, for the Court, there was some misrepresentations made, or at least there appeared to be, about whether he had statements or notes or etc., and he appeared to be cagey about responding to the judge's inquiry before he went on, before he took an oath.

Once he took that oath, then he became a little clearer.  So, from a judge's point of view, he sort of looked at this person as saying, 'You are not being candid with us and you seem to be evasive.' From the public's point of view, of course, he looked like an investigator who had a duty to maintain something.  He was being evasive and that he had destroyed a real piece of evidence.  So I think he's gotten a real bad rap with respect to the public at large.  And certainly, from the Court, he appeared to be evasive.  But in terms of his obligation to keep notes, I think he did not do anything illegal or improper.

JIM MORET: Greta Van Susteren, are we seeing a credibility gap emerging here, both with Bill Pavelic and with the defense team as a whole?

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, Trial Attorney: I think we're certainly seeing one with the defense team.  It may have been Bill Pavelic who perhaps didn't turn over the statements to his lawyers, but a lawyer is responsible for the entire team and this happened under the watch of Johnnie Cochran and Mr. Shapiro.  So, they really are ultimately responsible.

What I'm surprised about though is that the judge really hasn't zeroed in on exactly what it is that happened.  Why didn't the defense do the inventory and come up with a month ago?  Why are we revisiting this issue?  Was it negligence or was it deceitful?  And we simply don't have that answer yet.  And if I were Judge Ito, I would zero in on that.  And if there is deceit, I would punish the defense lawyers.  Not, O.J. Simpson, but the lawyers.  I'd probably give them a hefty fine so they don't do it again.

JIM MORET: Greta, in the past, in seems that Carl Douglas, one of the defense attorneys, has been chosen to fall on the sword and it looked like yesterday Bill Pavelic was the person chosen to do so.

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN: Well certainly, every time Carl Douglas takes the lectern, there's always sort of a thought that goes through my head 'What has happened now on the defense team in terms of discovery?' But I don't think the defense team really expected that Bill Pavelic would get hauled into Court and have to answer questions.  I think that Mr. Douglas seems to be the appointed man to take all the wrath from the Court, every time there's a problem on the defense team.  I think it was only accidental that Bill Pavelic got pulled in.

JIM MORET: After hearing from both sides on the issue of the audio taped interview, Judge Ito settled on a compromise ruling.  He called Rosa Lopez' lawyer forward to explain.

Judge LANCE ITO, Los Angeles Superior Court: Ms. Hamburger, would you approach please?  All right, good afternoon, counsel.  We've had a few developments transpire, as you know, over the last two days.  The defense has turned over a tape recording of a statement made by your client, Rosa Lopez, in July of last year.  And that tape recording was turned over late this morning and a transcript was just provided by the Court to counsel for both sides.  The prosecution has asked for a continuance of the 1335 until Friday morning so that they can evaluate the tape recorded statement and correlate it with all the other evidence that has been engendered, excuse me- has been created by this situation.

I am probably not going to grant the continuance until Friday.  I am probably going to grant a continuance until Thursday, for this reason.  I do not believe we can complete this conditional examination in one additional day.  I think we're going to go longer than an additional day.  And I'm therefore going to be ordering your client to return back here at 9:00 on Thursday morning, the 2nd of March, and I understand your client is very reluctant to stay.  The Court has already, through the Clerk, made arrangements to change her plane reservations for her flight out of town.  So I maintain my believe that she is, in fact, going to leave the jurisdiction.

My alternative is that if she does not accept my order to return on March 3rd on 9:00 a.m., then having already determined that she is a material witness, I will have to require her to post a substantial bond.  All right, do you want to discuss that with you client?

Ms. HAMBURGER, Rosa Lopez Attorney: May I please, Your Honor.

Judge LANCE ITO: Certainly.

JOHNNIE COCHRAN: March 2nd?

Judge LANCE ITO: March 2nd, which is Thursday.  And the reason for that-.

Ms. HAMBURGER: May I have 10 minutes, Your Honor?

Judge LANCE ITO: Certainly.

Ms. HAMBURGER: Thank you.

Judge LANCE ITO: And the reason for that counsel, let me just explain to counsel.  I think Ms. Clark, that you're entitled to a substantial amount of time and perhaps overnight is not enough.  But I don't believe we're going to complete this conditional examination in one additional day.  And if we go to Friday, then we're going to dribble over into Saturday and Sunday and I have other commitments Saturday that I can't break.  So, that's that.

JIM MORET: After consulting with her lawyer for several minutes, an obviously unhappy Rosa Lopez again addressed the judge.

Judge JIM MORET: Your attorney has indicated that you wish to talk to me about this.

ROSA LOPEZ: Yes, Your Honor.  I want to tell you that I was very honest with you.  You told me come back-.

JIM MORET: We're interrupting that taped portion.  Judge Lance Ito is once again on the bench.  Let's listen in to the Court proceedings as they occur now live.

Judge LANCE ITO: Deputy McNair, let's have the jurors please.

The preceding text has been professionally transcribed.  However, although the text has been checked against an audio track, in order to meet rigid distribution and transmission deadlines, it may not have been proofread against tape.

LOAD-DATE: March 1, 1995

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

TYPE: Package

Link to This | Back to top

[ Back to top ]

Created with ShoutPost