THE O.J. SIMPSON MURDER TRIAL : Excerpts of Opening Statements by Simpson Defense

Excerpts of opening statements Wednesday by defense attorney Johnnie L. Cochran Jr. in the O.J. Simpson double-murder trial:

Judge Ito, my colleagues on the right--the prosecutor--my colleagues on the defense side, to the Brown family, the Simpson family, to the Goldman family--ladies and gentlemen, good morning to you. . . .

We started this process of trial back on Sept. 26, 1994, on the first day we all met. . . . And here we are now, several months later, in this search for justice. You’ve heard a lot about this talk of justice. I guess Dr. Martin Luther King said it best when he said that ‘injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.’ So we are now embarked upon a search for justice, this search for truth, this search for the facts. . . .

You, as jurors, are the conscience of this community. Your verdicts set the standards of what we should have and what should happen in this community. You have this rare opportunity, it seems to me, to be participants in this search for justice and for truth. . . .

‘A Rush to Judgment’

In the course of my statement today, let me tell you some of the things they (prosecution attorneys) didn’t tell you yesterday, and we’ll have to wonder why they didn’t do that.

The evidence in this case, we believe, will show that O.J. Simpson is an innocent man wrongfully accused. (Prosecutor Christopher) Darden said yesterday that in Richmond, Calif., and someplace in Georgia, people were asking questions. Well, I’d like to think in my hometown of Shreveport, La., my mother-in-law in New Orleans, La., and other places throughout this country, today they’re asking why did Mr. Darden spend all that time on domestic violence? This is a murder case. Why’d he do that? He was going to give me an answer. He was going to answer the question for all of America. It’s a little presumptuous, don’t you think, because the answer of O.J. Simpson’s guilt or innocence can only be determined by you if you’re able to do it.

None of us were out there on June 12, 1994. You can only deal with the witnesses as they were. It seems to me that this case, the prosecution’s case, based on what we heard from the evidence, will show this case is about a rush to judgment, an obsession to win at any cost and by any means necessary. . . .

Let me just briefly talk about the witnesses they didn’t talk about yesterday and they didn’t tell you about. There’s a lady who lives next door, that works next door to Mr. Simpson’s home on Rockingham. This lady was interviewed, I think, as far back as July. She indicated, essentially, that on this night in question, she came out to walk her dog on several occasions. She knew Mr. Simpson, she knew his voice, she knew the Bronco. She’d seen it parked there many times. She will indicate that when she came out to walk her dog at about 8 o’clock, that Bronco was parked at the curb there. . . .

This lady will testify that she was out with her dog and saw that Bronco parked at that particular angle at about 8, 8:30, on June 12, 1994, a Sunday evening. She will indicate to you that she heard Mr. Simpson’s voice at or about the time he and Mr. Kato Kaelin went to McDonald’s to get the hamburger and that she could hear, because her quarters are right across the fence there, that after he left, she heard something very strange. She heard a prowler, as she described, out there in the yard, with like hard-soled shoes. And she was concerned about this prowler . . .

And then she heard Mr. Simpson’s voice again about 11. She could hear his voice at that time, as though he was leaving--we know that’s correct because he’s leaving to go on a trip to Chicago for a pre-planned trip. And then she didn’t hear his voice anymore.

Among the important things she tells me is that after Mr. Simpson had left, after 11 o’clock, she heard men’s voices over on the Simpson property between 12 o’clock up till about 2:30 or 3 o’clock in the morning. She heard these men’s voices over there talking. She didn’t know what was going on. I hope I told you that when she came out to walk her dog at 10:15 that same night--the Bronco was parked exactly the same way at that curb.

When she saw the Bronco the next morning, it was parked at that same spot at that same place. And one of the most unique things about this lady is the fact that the morning of June 13th, that Monday morning, a police officer came over to her residence, asked her what she heard and to put her on alert that if she found any weapons or the gardeners found any weapons, let them know. And she can identify that officer as Detective Mark Fuhrman. Detective Mark Fuhrman will play an integral part in this case for a number of reasons.

It’s very interesting that the prosecution never once mentioned his name yesterday. It’s like they want to hide him, but they can’t hide him. He’s very much a part of this case. And we ask ourselves, “Why didn’t they mention him?” I think that answer will become very clear to you as the case progresses.

And she will identify Detective Fuhrman as the person who spoke with her, and she told him that time about her observations, about hearing this prowler, and about the fact she heard these voices that went on to about 3 o’clock because she couldn’t go to sleep until about 4. When she woke up it was around 7:30 or 8 and he was there. . . . She saw him on television at the preliminary hearing, so that’s how she can identify him. He said that somebody from the LAPD will get back to you. But they never came back. They never came back at all because there’s a rush to judgment here.

There’s another witness, Mary Ann Gerchas. Very interestingly, has her own business. On this particular night of June of 1994, she wanted to find a place in the West Los Angeles-Brentwood area. She drove her car--she closed up her business Sunday evening and went to Catholic church, went to Mass, went to park her car . . . over there on Bundy.

Very interesting. Let me tell you what she has to say. Let me tell you her contact with law enforcement. The evidence will show that Mary Ann Gerchas, had she become aware of what she had seen, had some great relevance to this case. She started calling the police, she kept being transferred and transferred around, couldn’t get anybody really to talk to her. Finally, when she finally reached a police officer, they told her, “We’ve got that case wrapped up.” They didn’t want to hear from anybody else. . . .

So ultimately she called the defense and we talked to her, walked with her out at the scene. Here’s what she will testify about, that on June 12th, 1994, sometime after 10:30 in the evening, she’s walking down Bundy Street. She’s looking--it was a warm night, she says--she’s looking for a place with signs on them for rent or to lease.

‘She Sees Four Men’

That Nicole Brown Simpson’s condo, you recall, is on one side of the street, that’s the west side, and she’s on the east side of the street. And at about 10:45 p.m., she sees four men who come within 10 feet of her, two of which--gentlemen--appear to be Hispanic and the others are Caucasian, several of which, I believe, have knit caps on their heads. The two who are behind apparently have something in their hands they are carrying. She thinks they may be undercover police. She doesn’t know. They get into an unmarked car and they speed away and she sees them. And that’s what this lady was trying to tell the police, trying to tell the district attorney, trying to tell anybody who will listen. They didn’t want to listen because they made that decision and this rush to judgment. . . .

They (prosecutors) told you how Mr. Simpson was, how did you describe it, (in) an ugly mood on June 12, 1994. They told you also that Mr. Simpson came in with some flowers--I will forgive him for that. He went, got the flowers and then came back.

Shortly after this concert at Paul Revere High School, this picture was taken and I think you’ll see the dates: 6-12-94. This picture was taken by a Dr. Ron Fishman who was at that particular recital. They were all friends. He will tell you, because Christopher Darden wasn’t there, he’s got his facts all wrong. O.J. Simpson, according to the testimony, wasn’t in an ugly mood. He talked to Ron Fishman--he was there to see his child. And you will hear that he came back to Southern California from New York City, where he was on business. He was out of town almost all that week.

‘Getting Ready for a Trip’

I think that it’ll be interesting when you hear from Mr. Kato Kaelin about Mr. Simpson and how he appeared that night . . . at his home getting ready for a trip to Chicago that was long pre-planned. That he was hungry. The evidence will be that he didn’t have any dollar bills or any $20 bills, and he asked to borrow some money from Kato Kaelin. Kato Kaelin gave him this money and he went and had a Big Mac. You’d have to believe that he was planning to kill his wife before he got this Big Mac and went and got the Big Mac.

Kato Kaelin will describe that he (Simpson) was dressed in some kind of sweats and some tennis shoes. If you follow the people’s case, you’d have to believe that he then came home and said, “Gee, I think what I’ll do is I’ll go over and I’ll kill my wife now and I think I’ll take these tennis shoes off and put on some dress shoes--some hard-sole shoes--and change clothes,” knowing that he’s going to be leaving shortly to go to the airport. . . .

And to make their theory work they’ve spent all this time talking about a plaintive wail of a dog since they’ve got to make this as early as possible at 10:15. We know that’s not correct based upon the facts that you’ve heard. . . .

To conclude, isn’t it interesting that in all the discussion yesterday by these two very excellent lawyers, they never once mentioned their coroner, Dr. Golden, another mysterious mystery witness they don’t want to talk about? When we come back this afternoon, let’s talk about why the prosecution doesn’t want you to know about Dr. Golden. Let’s talk about why Miss Clark says, well, you can’t really fix the time of death here with any precision.

And yet, in this case because the coroner was not called for 10 hours after these bodies were found--or eight hours, they got out there about 10 hours, violating the state law--we are precluded from pinpointing this. They have to tell you that it’s about a dog’s wail when a man’s life is at stake.

‘Not a Predictable Science’

. . . When Dr. (Lenore) Walker comes and testifies to you, she will talk about the fact that life-threatening violence usually precedes a homicide incident, and she does not find that in this case. She will, I believe, testify that according to the National Institute of Justice, approximately 2.5 million women are battered in this country every year, an intolerable situation. Statistics indicate, however, that between 1,200 and 4,000 of those women are killed, that’s 1,200 to 4,000 of the 2.5 million battered.

Dr. Walker will testify that it is impossible to use these statistics to prove that anybody who allegedly batters becomes a murderer. You might liken it to an example of smoking. Somebody may get lung cancer. The fact that they get lung cancer may mean they smoke and may not. But if you smoke, I can’t automatically predict you’re going to get lung cancer. . . .

Although domestic violence is a very, very serious problem in this country, the level of violence in this case, the pattern is atypical, atypical--it means untypical--of those relationships where a lethal incident often occurs. For instance, stalkers don’t go all across the United States working, doing commercials, shooting movies, having a new girlfriend, going on with their life, doing all the things you’re going to find this evidence is about. They don’t have a new girlfriend by the name of Paula Barbieri, who they’ve been very serious about from the time, from April of 1992 to April of 1993, till Nicole Brown Simpson asked to reconcile to get back together. . . .

Dr. Walker will also tell you there is a major, major, major difference between a wealthy person who gives gifts and someone who uses material possessions to gain power and control. And so the prosecution would have you believe that if Mr. Simpson gives Nicole Brown Simpson a gift, it’s going to be bought and paid for. Nothing could be further from the truth. . . .

(Nationally known pathologist Michael) Baden, as the expert, will testify that the L.A. county coroner’s office violated their own procedures performing these two autopsies. He will indicate further that the autopsy findings in this case are consistent with the struggle that resulted in hand-to-hand combat, that Mr. Goldman did, in fact, bleed profusely, and he bled slowly, and that he was standing through most of this, and that, in his opinion, the perpetrator would be covered with Mr. Goldman’s blood. . . .

And so, what I expect the evidence to show through our testimony and through cross-examination, as I’ve indicated, that the coroner’s investigators who came to that scene also didn’t wear any covering over their shoes. We expect you’ll be able to see this scene was tracked through and traipsed through by the coroner’s people just as it had been by the LAPD people. And at some time in this trial, we hope to have some graphic video evidence of that fact. . . .

Ms. Clark talks about a trail of blood where there is no trail. And we will expect to have evidence showing that, whereas she told you yesterday time and time again that they were looking for matches to exclude, to exclude, to exclude, that what she did not tell you is that there are trails that lead toward innocence. And they were not pursued. . . .

Expect the evidence to show that there was blood under Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson’s fingernails. It came back a type B in an EAP genetic marker. And that does not fit the genetic profile of Mr. Simpson, Mr. Goldman or Ms. Brown. Some other person. That there was blood found on Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson’s thigh. That came back also a type B. . . .

As I said earlier, given Mr. Simpson’s statement to the police, the evidence of anything, any blood in the Bronco, is far more consistent, we believe the evidence will show, with Mr. Simpson’s innocence than any guilt. And the fact that there’s almost no blood of anyone else, if any, in that Bronco, is just the opposite of what you’d expect if somebody committed a crime and used that vehicle as a means of transportation.

‘Evidence of Innocence’

. . . In her conclusion yesterday, (prosecutor Clark) indicated that--something about, it was devastating proof of something or other, you remember? It seems to me . . . that the fact that there is no blood where there should be blood is devastating evidence of innocence. And we’ll be talking more about this, that the fact that blood voluntarily given by a defendant mysteriously disappears when it should be there, is devastating evidence that something is wrong. And finally, it seems to me that the fact that blood mysteriously appears on vital pieces of evidence and it’s predicted what the results will be regarding DNA when that evidence is still in the police lab, is devastating evidence of something far more sinister.

There will be testimony that O.J. Simpson suffers with chronic rheumatoid arthritis . . . and that when he’s in remission he can function fairly well, but when it’s in acute phase he has great trouble functioning.

We expect there will be testimony that on the date of June 12th Mr. Simpson was involved in the acute phase of his rheumatoid arthritis. And on that date, after he had played golf, the problems with his hands were so severe he could not shuffle the cards when he played gin rummy at the country club thereafter. . . .

I’d like to demonstrate . . . the extent of his knees, and say to you what no NFL, National Football League, defense could do, Mother Nature and Father Time have taken their toll.

Cochran is scheduled to conclude his opening statement Thursday morning.