Fuhrman Records Discovery Order
Return to previous page.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Date: 8 March 1995
Hon. Lance A. Ito
Deirdre Robertson, Deputy Clerk
People v. Orenthal James Simpson
Case # BA097211
The Court has read and considered the Defendant's MOTION FOR
DISCLOSURE OF PEACE OFFICER'S PERSONNEL FILE, the LOS ANGELES
POLICE DEPARTMENT'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION RE DISCOVERY
OF POLICE OFFICER PERSONNEL RECORDS; REQUEST FOR IN CAMERA
INTERVIEW, heard the argument of counsel, including counsel for
the officer whose records are sought, and has conducted an in
camera review of the records produced by the custodian of records
of the Los Angeles Police Department.
Defendant, by way of a renewed /FN1/ "Pitchess" motion, /FN2/
seeks discovery of personnel and departmental records relating to
three additional incidents or allegations:
1. An Internal Affairs Division investigation of
allegations that the subject officer planted evidence, which
includes interviews of at least 14 officers who were present at
the crime scene on Bundy Avenue.
2. Possession by the subject officer of a swastika or
other Nazi Style symbol.
3. The subject made comments regarding intimate parts of
Nicole Brown Simpson's anatomy indicating a prior undisclosed
The Court Finds and orders as follows:
1. The Los Angeles Police Department shall disclose the
interviews of the officers at the Bundy Avenue crime scene.
2. The court finds no relevance to the swastika
allegations and the alleged incident to be well beyond the time
limits of Evidence Code Section 1045 (b)(1). /FN3/
3. The Los Angeles Police Department shall disclose the
statements of DDA Ellen Burke, DDA Lucienne Coleman, Detective
Daryl Maxwell and Detective Mark Arneson, each redacted to
reflect only the investigation into those statements rumored to
have been made by the subject officer regarding Nicole Brown
Simpson's breast augmentation. The custodian of records is to
provide the redacted statements to the court for its inspection,
comparison and approval. The court will then provide one copy to
4. No copies of the statements referred to in item 3
directly above shall be made, nor shall the contents be shared
with any person not directly involved in the prosecution and
defense of this case. Said court provided copies shall be
returned to the court upon the conclusion of the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FN1: See the previous Court Order filed 30 August 1994.
FN2: Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 C.3d 531 and Evidence
Code Section 1043 et seq.
FN3: ". . . (b) In determining relevance the court shall examine
the information in chambers in conformity with Section 915, and
shall exclude from disclosure:
(1) Information consisting of complaints concerning conduct
occurring more than five years before the event or transaction
which is the subject of the litigation in aid or which discovery
or disclosure is sought."
Return to previous page.