After awhile, Darden pulls his associates into the hallway -- one-by-one -- and seeks their opinion of Fuhrman.
• "Woerner was adament. He was a racist."
• After most had left, Fuhrman tells Darden he will lie on the N-word question.

THE COURT: ... There is a potential that one side or the other may wish to call my wife as a witness with regard to Mr. Fuhrman. If that happens, then under the code of civil procedure section 171.1, Sub (a) sub (1), I'm required to disqualify myself as the trial Judge in this case.

MR. COCHRAN: ... If the Prosecution insists--we're telling you, we're not going to call Captain York.

... If they want corroboration, I'll get them corroboration, the people this police officer beat out in Hollenbeck almost to death where he had 66 counts of ADW in his packet--that was investigated--all the people he stopped. We know the people. We know the party when he talks about Tom, Tom Betriano. This will come alive for you when he talks about Commander Hickman being a dickhead and all these people over and over, all the people, you know, Commander Fricke, Chief Frankle.

These are real people. These are real incidents. This is this man's view, and it's chilling and it's frightening and they have to face up to it. So it has nothing to do with Captain York, because he didn't like anybody. He doesn't like women. Captain York, to be convenient, falls in that category. That's not what we're going to be talking about. We're talking about how it relates to the Simpson case. As you said yesterday so well, let's try the Simpson case. And that's the scenario.

THE COURT: --Where I lay out it is the combination in that particular incident with Kathleen Bell. It was racial animus, interracial couples, willingness to fabricate. It was those three things that got that admissible.

She continues:
Our case is--if we took that Rockingham glove and threw it out, we'd have overwhelming proof of the Defendant's guilt. I mean, that's how strong this case is. That's how little this case relies on Detective Fuhrman. And I smile when Mr. Uelmen says--argues the point about Mr. Fuhrman being such a critical witness. He knows better than that. Mr. Fuhrman's not necessary to our testimony at all because we have Detective Lange, Detective Vannatter, Detective Phillips who all saw the glove in place.
That last bit is priceless. The only reason they saw anything was because of Fuhrman. Keeping in mind that she KNEW Fuhrman would lie under oath about the N-word, If she didn't need him why did she put him on?
Johnnie Cochran interview reported, 27 September 1996:
Let me clear this up, You don't support perjury, you don't use witnesses you know are lying. But you certainly go after the key prosecution witness who's a virulent racist. I mean, is that so hard for people to understand?"

Ultimately, THE COURT will tell her: Miss Clark, you say that the court shouldn't split the baby here and that the court should come down on one side or the other, and you urge me of course to come down on the side that you would prefer me to land on. But in the same breath, you also say that you're willing to stipulate that Detective Fuhrman used the term numerous times and you're willing to agree to the 2.21 instruction that a witness willfully false. So aren't you splitting the baby there yourself in your argument?