00:00:02.640 - 00:00:44.040

Yeah, absolutely not. Well, we promised everybody would go out on the steps. I think it's better like that. No, you can't. No. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Right here. Mhm. You've got a brief statement to me? Mhm. I feel um I took the stand because I was willing

00:00:44.040 - 00:01:08.430

to explain What happened, what happened up to 72, The cases that I'm charged with in 72 and Mr Horner kept on insisting Mr judge has already ruled that the Fifth Amendment was not applicable, that if she took the Fifth Amendment, she would not be granted Uh

00:01:08.440 - 00:01:25.080

the judge wouldn't respect it. So even if she did take the 5th amendment, he would still order her to answer. And if she didn't answer, she would be held in contempt. We feel really strongly that If she did take the 5th amendment beyond that, that we

00:01:25.080 - 00:01:38.620

all know as a matter of common knowledge, that people think that if you take the 5th amendment, you've got something to hide. But ah as Garrick said, the judge made it very clear that even if she did exercise her Fifth Amendment privilege, that he would not

00:01:38.620 - 00:01:55.320

sustain that. So we felt that the situation was exactly the same either way. And uh as Wendy has said, and as she stated in court yesterday, she has very strong principles that she's held throughout her life. Her whole experience has led her to this particular position,

00:01:55.320 - 00:02:11.090

she thought about it very carefully before she decided to take this position in court and that's what we wanted to stand on, not some legal technicality. Why did you rest? We had no further witnesses. Mr Larson. What does this do to you to the case? Does

00:02:11.090 - 00:02:29.270

this favor you? The fact that the prosecution now has had her testimony stricken. Doesn't that effectively eliminate cross examination and doesn't the jury already know what miss Yoshimura has said? Well that was the choice that Mr Horner had to make. He obviously chose to try to

00:02:29.270 - 00:02:47.720

prejudice her By going into post 1972 events. We had made it very clear that she would not talk about post 1972 events. She was perfectly willing as she said to talk about everything up to the time that she fled in 1972 and those are the pertinent

00:02:47.720 - 00:03:04.090

facts that have to do with this case. Now, whatever effect that is going to have on the jury, I don't know. The judge will certainly instruct the jury again as he did today that they're to disregard the testimony whether or not the prosecution has met its

00:03:04.090 - 00:03:22.040

burden approved and I do not think that it has. The prosecution's case in my opinion was extremely weak. It was all based on circumstances and I think the law provides that she can be fined or she can be sentenced up to six months in jail for

00:03:22.050 - 00:03:45.540

each citation of contempt. The judges stated that he will take up that matter after the rest of the case is finished. Take one what remains to be done Now we will discuss jury instructions on monday, we will discuss the whether or not Wendy's father's testimony will

00:03:45.540 - 00:05:11.360

be stricken And then we'll have closing arguments on Tuesday and it will be submitted to the jury at the close of closing argument. Was it settled that Margo White and testimony will remain their testimony? Dr yes. So yes he wasn't gonna sustain. The

00:05:11.360 - 00:05:32.650

only difference is that he said that the jury has the only thing that's true to the original proof of the D. A. That's all. That's the only thing that they should come to the legal mm hmm. Judge bullet recessed the yeah judge public recessed the trial

00:05:32.650 - 00:06:18.470

until Tuesday to give himself and the opposing attorneys and Apple Apple. Sure why not? You know how long the cross examination will last and they go beyond the instructions with the judge and then closing argument would follow. Perhaps the next day. Yeah. Yesterday you had some

00:06:18.470 - 00:06:36.530

misgivings or at least doubts about putting your client on the stand. Is it going well for you and why did you decide to do it? Well, the problem is we've said over and over again is what relevance to the events having to do with the SLA

00:06:36.540 - 00:06:55.080

have to do with this particular case. And everyone that's been following the trial knows that we've objected repeatedly to any evidence of that association as being very remote in time from the events that are charged in this indictment. We feel that it's prejudicial effect outweighs whatever

00:06:55.090 - 00:07:14.930

evidentiary value it might have. So we've been repeatedly objecting to that. The last argument that we had which preceded the decision to put Wendy understand was what the scope of cross examination was going to be. Did you did you did you did you settle that? Which

00:07:14.930 - 00:07:29.970

one do you want me to ask? Did you settle that question of what the scope of the cross examination would be? The judge has ruled on it? Yes. And you'll see this afternoon. He he has ruled that the district attorney will be entitled to ask her

00:07:29.970 - 00:07:45.880

certain questions about that period. Do you think they've been reversible errors in the case? Well, I hope we don't get to that point because I'm still confident that we can get an acquittal in this case. Do you expect a Stiff Cross examination regarding that one particular

00:07:45.880 - 00:08:06.780

period? Post 72? I don't know. This is a matter of tactics for the district attorney to decide. It's up to him. I really can't anticipate what he's very thorough but that's about all I can say. Yeah, Wendy. How do you feel? Understand? I feel pretty much

00:08:06.790 - 00:09:58.120

fine. You lost your composure there once, Composer, you were upset when you were crying. Well, some things, you know, it gets to me emotionally. It's going well, I feel it is okay. What do you think I said? And

00:09:58.120 - 00:10:20.630

some of the statements made by these jurors were very astounding two members of the fair trial and to the people attending the court trial where they openly admitted that they use the term jab? They had some very disparaging remarks to make about the japanese because comments

00:10:20.640 - 00:10:41.420

and different things were going on in the jewelry in the pal room where people were discussing different things and I was concerned in her having a fair trial which is telling us are instructing us each time we would leave the jury room that we were to

00:10:41.420 - 00:11:11.490

keep an open mind and and that impressed me off a lot. What specific comments did they make that make you think that they were present? What? Well, comments about There was one Pacific Day uh there were flowers on her table and as if it was some

00:11:11.490 - 00:11:34.430

celebration or something, someone had given her flowers and when we went back up for a coffee break someone said she is so jolly, she is so sure of herself. Uh and even has flowers. The comment to me was something like making light that she shouldn't have

00:11:34.430 - 00:12:07.010

received her. What do you say about her racist comments? Not necessarily racist, but it seems as if just the idea of her receiving the flowers was improper. The way they spoke. What was that if anything about a relationship? Right? Um now during the time uh the

00:12:07.010 - 00:12:26.260

trial was going on, well see we were excused, I was excused before the liberation as you know and so during the comments about him, I wasn't able to be in on that. What about the newspaper articles? What did you see? Who brought them in? What were

00:12:26.260 - 00:12:47.180

the circumstances? Tell us about these questions until after the last Mhm Yeah, can I ask you again about the newspaper brought them in? What were they what were the circumstances as an alternate in the paper which I hadn't seen anyplace else? Uh this lady had brought

00:12:47.180 - 00:13:09.010

in. Why didn't you tell anyone about this then? Because the jurors weren't supposed to read about? That's right, that's right. We had been one what not to do. But these things were being done. Well, I didn't feel justified at exploring any any news to anyone really.

00:13:09.300 - 00:13:27.070

I was just trying to control myself or keep myself intact. Had the trial begun in this time when they brought in the Yeah, it would seem to me on in her affidavit if it's being distributed and tv personnel in regard to how she felt about it

00:13:27.120 - 00:13:44.960

and how she was coerced in order to change her vote, it would be contained in the brief that the lawyers will be finding tomorrow. She's not here because the threats made upon her. I don't know about that. Whether she was told not to be here tomorrow

00:13:44.970 - 00:13:52.480

today, but I hear that she has received threats in regard to the comments she made to the media following the conclusion