Judge Ito's First Ruling on Fuhrman Tapes

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Date: 21 August 1995
Department 103
Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge
Deirdre Robertson, Deputy Clerk
People v. Orenthal James Simpson
Case # BA097211

The court has reviewed the Defense Offer of Proof Re: "Fuhrman Tapes" along with 12 audio cassette tapes and transcripts labeled Tape 1- Tape 12. The defense seeks to offer as evidence before the jury 30 incidents where Fuhrman uses a particular racial epithet and 18 examples of misconduct.

RACIAL EPITHETS

1. The first example at page 9 of the defense proffer: "That we've got females... and dumb niggers, and all your Mexicans that can't even write the name of the car they drive." The proffer cites to "p.11." The court's examination of page 11 of each of the 12 tape transcripts does not reveal the quoted statement.

2. The second example at page 9 of the defense proffer: "If I'm wrestling with some-- nigger, and he gets me on my back, and he gets his hands on my gun, it's over." The proffer cites to "p.12." The court's examination of page 12 of each tape transcripts does not reveal the quoted statement.

3. The third example at page 9 of the defense proffer: "She was afraid. He was a big nigger, and she was afraid." The proffer cites to "p.20." The court's examination of page 20 of each of the 12 tape transcripts does not reveal the quoted statement.

4. The fourth example at page 9 of the defense proffer: "He was a nigger. He didn't belong. Two questions. And you're going: Where do you live? 22nd and Western. Where were you going? Well, I'm going to Fatburger. Where's Fatburger? He didn't know where Fatburger was? Get in the car" The proffer cites to "p.33." The court's search of each of the submitted transcripts does not reveal the quoted passage.

5. The fifth example at pages 9 and 10 of the defense proffer: "Commander Hickman, what a dickhead. He should be shot. He did that for one thing. He wants to be chief, so he wants the city council, and the police commissioner, and all these niggers in LA City government and all of 'em should be lined up against a wall and fuckin' shot." The proffer cites to "p.41." Only the transcript for tape 6 has 41 or more pages. Page 41 does not reveal the quoted passage.

From the court's examination of the first five examples proffered by the defense, it appears that further examination and comparison would prove less than fruitful.

INCIDENTS OF MISCONDUCT

1. The first incident proffer at page 17 begins with: "Q: What do you do if someone calls you a mother fucker, what do you do?" The proffer cites to "p.22." The court's examination of each of the 12 transcripts at page 22 does not reveal the quoted passage.

2. The second incident proffer at page 18 begins with: "Well, I'm sure he will have, because if he's got that attitude, he's probably gotten several tickets from policemen, and he hasn't taken care of them." The proffer cites to "p.23." The court's examination of each of the 12 transcripts at page 23 does not reveal the quoted passage.

3. The third incident proffer at page 18 begins with: "So if that's considered falsifying a report..." The proffer cites to "p.25." The court's examination of each of the 12 transcripts at page 25 does not reveal the quoted passage.

4. The fourth incident proffer at page 19 begins with: "Where would this country be if every time a sheriff went out with a posse to find somebody who just robbed and killed a bunch of people, he stopped and talked to them first." The proffer cites to "p.25." The court's examination of each of the 12 transcripts does not reveal the quoted passage.

5. The fifth incident proffer at page 19 begins with: "And I don't want them to think that I'm a coward." The proffer cites to "p.25." The court's examination of each of the 12 transcripts does not reveal the quoted passage.

From the court's examination of the first five examples of incidents of misconduct proffered by the defense, it appears that further examination and comparison would prove less than fruitful.

REJECTION OF PROFFER

It is the obligation of the party seeking the admission of controverted evidence to present a coherent offer of proof. It is not the obligation of the trail court to read the written offer of proof, listen to the 12 audio cassette tapes and compare them with hundreds of pages of what has been offered to the court as a transcription of the conversations contained on those tapes. The defense did not provide the court with a copy of the purported transcript on computer disc so that the court might have conducted a word search within its word processing program. Given the fact that there are more than a dozen attorneys working for the defense, it is not too much to ask that there be some basic correlation between the quoted proffer, the purported transcript and the audio tapes. The proffer is incoherent. It will not be further considered by this court in its current form.

The clerk of the court is directed to immediately serve a copy of this order upon counsel for the parties by facsimile and upon their next appearance in court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Return to previous page.