PUBLIC NOTICE RE: ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT COPY CERTIFIABILITY
WARNING: This electronic transmission of the official transcript of proceedings is deemed certifiable only to the extent that the reader of this message is viewing a first-generation authorized transmission. All subsequent transmissions of this first-generation electronic copy and all copies printed therefrom are unauthorized and non-certifiable, and the Official Reporter assumes no responsibility for consequences stemming from the use of such unauthorized non-certifiable copy. Responsibility for such consequences is that of the person or organization whose use of a non-certifiable unauthorized transmission or printed copy creates those consequences, including civil liability arising therefrom. No portion of this file may be redistributed or resold without permission, pursuant to California Government Code Section 69954(d). Authorized certifiable transcript copies are protected by digital signature. If you would like to purchase an official transcript of the proceedings, contact NetCourt, 1316 Harding Place, Charlotte, North Carolina, 28204 or click here.

REPORTER'S DAILY TRANSCRIPT
DECEMBER 3, 1996

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

SHARON RUFO, ET AL., N/A, PLAINTIFFS,

VS.

ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.


SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1996
9:00 A.M.

DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ
HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE

(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)

(The following proceedings were held in the Court's chambers, outside
the presence of the jury.)

THE COURT: Okay. Now that I have you in chambers, my turn to surprise
you.

I'm going to be giving special instructions to the jury regarding Mr.
Simpson's examination by Mr. Petrocelli. I've written it out; I'm
going to pass it out to you. Look it over before I come out or before
we have the jury come out. If you want to make a record, we'll do that
before I make any statements to the jurors.

(Court hands document to counsel.)

THE COURT REPORTER: Are we still on the record?

THE COURT: My suggestion is, you guys go out and study it.

(The following proceedings were held in open court, outside the
presence of the jury.)

THE COURT: Okay.

The Court, in chambers, gave counsel the special instruction that the
Court intends to give to the jury with regards to examination of Mr.
Simpson last week.

And at this time, if you have any comments for the record, you may
make them.

MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you, Your Honor.

I just read the Court's proposed instruction. As I understand it, it
basically points out to the jury that Mr. Baker, in his opening
statement, spoke on the subject of the lie-detector test and thereby
opened up the subject to examination by the plaintiff.

The Court then goes on to say that, however, by Mr. Baker opening the
door, he didn't permit me to inquire into confidential communications.

None of my questions, Your Honor, inquired into confidential
communications in regard to this subject matter. That's point 1.

Point number 2: In the Court's proposed instruction to the jury, it
operates under the assumption that I asked questions of Mr. Simpson
about Mr. Schiller's book and literally referenced Mr. Schiller's
book.

At no time did I do so.

I specifically avoided mentioning Mr. Schiller's book at all in my
questions because I didn't want to get into the thorny issues of
privilege.

I've just had an occasion to review the transcript of my examination
of Mr. Simpson on this subject, and there is absolutely no mention, as
far as I can see, to Mr. Schiller or his book.

And so I would object to the text of this being mentioned to the jury
because you're pointing out things that are actually not accurate. I
at no time referenced the Schiller book. The jury shouldn't be told
that I did so.

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Petrocelli, if you recall from your examination
of the transcript, that you made pointed reference to the book at side
bench, so I think there was a reasonable inference that that's what
you were referring to.

MR. PETROCELLI: But the jury doesn't have any knowledge about the
Schiller book, and the side-bar conferences were out of the presence
of the jury. And I didn't bring up the Schiller book. I mean, that was
a point that Mr. Baker kept bringing up in regard to the privilege
issue.

And the issue -- point I want to make, Your Honor, is that this issue
of the lie-detector test, first of all, this was brought up initially
by Mr. Baker, who made a very strong point in his opening statement,
that Mr. Simpson was absolutely willing to take one and the police
refused. And the only inference to be drawn therefrom, and the only
reason why he made such a statement, is to suggest that Mr. Simpson
was innocent; if he took a lie-detector test, he would have passed it.
There is no other reason to make such an argument to the jury.

THE COURT: You made no objection at that time, if you recall.

MR. PETROCELLI: The statement is out.

THE COURT: You could have made an objection.

MR. PETROCELLI: And secondly --

THE COURT: You didn't make an objection, so I assume you had something
in mind when you failed to make your objection.

MR. PETROCELLI: Mr. Baker opened the door and fully intended to follow
up on it.

And the second thing, Your Honor, is that -- I think if you go back
and look the at transcript, I didn't launch into this line of
examination. Mr. Simpson brought out the issue of the lie-detector
test, once again, or his willingness to take one. And I then followed
up on it. In other words, I believe if you'll look at the transcript,
that he volunteered it again on his own, not in response to a question
of mine, but just added something about wanting to take a lie-detector
test.

And then I followed up on it, now having been -- it having been
referred to twice by the defense: Once by Mr. Simpson and once by Mr.
Baker.

I did not initiate any of this dialogue about a lie-detector test.

Having said all that, I believe that if Your Honor wants to give some
kind of instruction, it has to be more balanced and more even-handed.
I don't believe this accomplishes that.

And I also believe that this is highly inaccurate because it says that
I referred to a book written by Mr. Schiller, and I at no time did so.
And you have a big, long paragraph here about my talking about the
Schiller book. And I don't think it's appropriate to be telling the
jury anything at all about the Schiller book, in particular that I
referred to the Schiller book, Your Honor, because I did not do so.
And I was steadfast in avoiding the subject altogether.

So I would ask that this be modified. I would propose drafting
something if Your Honor would like, but this, I don't believe, is
appropriate.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor --

THE COURT: Yes?

MR. BAKER: Two things. One, in my opening statement I didn't refer to
him taking a lie-detector test; I referred to the offer to take a
lie-detector test. And there is, in a total of six hours of opening
statement, two sentences, as I went back and looked at it, because we
had prepared a motion that we were going to file with the Court this
afternoon on this very issue, requesting a mistrial because of the
introduction of the evidence of the lie detector -- the polygraph
information.

As the Court will recall, we made -- Mr. Blasier made a motion
relative to the Schiller book before Mr. Simpson took the stand, and
the Court overruled that motion. The Schiller book was sitting right
on counsel table with Post-Its, in front of Mr. Petrocelli during his
examination of Mr. Simpson.

I had asked on two occasions that that book be removed from counsel
table. The plaintiffs' attorneys would not and did not do it.

They certainly referred to it.

I went back yesterday -- I looked at the -- the piece in the book
relative to the polygraph examination that is mentioned in the book
and -- and that indicates that that examination, which was never an
examination, was done on the 14th, when Mr. Simpson admitted that he
was hooked up to it, but the test was never completed.

Mr. Petrocelli, in an effort to mislead this jury, kept talking about
the 15th in the transcript because he wanted to mislead the jury,
because on the 15th was the letter written to Vannatter and Lange,
indicating that Mr. Simpson would take a polygraph test.

But we made that motion and I don't think that any jury instruction is
curative of the evidence that has gone before the jury.

In fact, I'll have the motion here momentarily. We were waiting, Your
Honor, to file that motion because Schiller, on November 25, on MSNBC,
in an interview, indicated that he didn't know what the content of
this purported hook-up was, whether there were any questions asked
about the murders. All he apparently reported was that there was a
test score; that he doesn't know whether it was a completed test or
anything.

I wanted to include that.

But in any event, there are California cases which I will have
momentarily and cite to the Court, where after a curative instruction
such as the Court proposes, was given to a jury. And after a jury
verdict was returned, on appeal -- the Court of Appeals reversed,
saying you cannot -- a curative instruction simply does not work.

And so I would suggest that the Court mistry this case and,
unfortunately, start all over again.

We did not discuss taking of a lie-detector test, which I would
suggest to the Court, is far different than what Mr. Petrocelli put
before the jury. He got them to assume that a test was taken, it was
completed, that the score was minus 22. That was extremely deceptive.

If the Court will review -- I believe it's Evidence Code Section
351.1, the Court will see that before any of that evidence can get to
the jury, there has to be a stipulation. There was never a stipulation
by this side; and therefore, I think it is imperative and obligatory
that the Court mistries this case, and this case be sent down for
trial again, at some subsequent date.

And that is because, even after we were at the side bar, we had an
unlimited discussion relative to this issue. The Court overruled my
objection. Mr. Petrocelli went right into it, went right into the fact
that -- that there was a polygraph test taken, went right into the --
this purported score.

There's only one place that I've ever read that, and that's in the
Schiller book.

MR. PETROCELLI: First of all, Your Honor, I haven't gotten any motion
for a mistrial yet, so it's premature to argue that.

I will point out that Section 351.1 applies specifically and only to
criminal proceedings, not civil proceedings.

THE COURT: Well, I'm not inclined to do anything other than to
instruct the jury relative to your examination of Mr. Simpson.

And I'll take a few moments to review my instruction and make any
alterations I feel that are necessary. And I'll have the jury come
out, and I'm going to give the instruction, and then we'll proceed
with the trial.

MR. PETROCELLI: The pertinent questions are Section 191 of the -- Page
191 of the transcript, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I will give the Court cases citing the 351.1
application to civil cases within -- shortly.

THE COURT: Mr. Baker, you know, I've come this far, and if it's your
opinion that a curative instruction will not do, then that's your
opinion.

MR. BAKER: I understand.

THE COURT: I'm doing what I have to do.

MR. BAKER: I understand that, sir.

Let me say, you said I spoke on the subject of a lie-detector test.
There are two sentences in six hours. So I don't think I spoke on the
subject. I mentioned the offer to take a lie-detector test.

THE COURT: Mr. Baker, you slipped that in, and Mr. Petrocelli took
advantage of it.

MR. BAKER: Well, I mean, you can have your opinion, Judge, and --

THE COURT: That is my opinion.

MR. BAKER: Obviously, the Court of Appeals will have the last word.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. KELLY: Your Honor, I had one other matter before the jury came in,
before witnesses --

THE COURT: Well . . .

MR. KELLY: Okay.

(Recess.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, outside the
presence of the jury.)

MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you, Your Honor.

I have reviewed the revised instruction proposed by the Court. I have
a couple of comments for the record.

First of all, on the second page, at the top of the page, the first
sentence says that there is no other evidence before you that Mr.
Simpson took the lie-detector test and so forth. I have no quarrel
with that statement.

I do quarrel with the statement two paragraphs down, where the Court
says there is no evidence before you that Mr. Simpson took a
lie-detector test, because there is evidence that Mr. Simpson gave, in
the form of his answers, that he was hooked up to a test, and the jury
can draw their own conclusion about what that meant. They don't have
to accept Mr. Simpson's characterization; they can accept his exact
factual rendition and conclude that he did take the test.

So I think that -- that is not accurate and it is inconsistent with
the first statement made by the Court.

And secondly, the Court has only directed that the jury disregard my
questions concerning the lie-detector test, but does not likewise ask
the jury to disregard Mr. Baker's statements about the lie-detector
test. And I think that it should be mutual in that regard.

THE COURT: Well --

MR. BAKER: Your Honor --

THE COURT: -- you had your opportunity to object to that statement at
the time the opening statement was made, so that's gone.

MR. BAKER: I won't belabor that issue.

I would request again, without waiver of -- of our view that curative
instructions are not adequate based upon People versus Aragon,
A-R-A-G-O-N, 1957, 154 Cal.Ap.2d 646, People versus Schiers,
S-C-H-I-E-R-S, 1970, 19 Cal.Ap.3d 102, and People versus Bentley 1955,
131 Cal.Ap.3d -- or 2d. Pardon me. 131 Cal.Ap.2d 687.

And I would request that -- the jury hasn't heard about
attorney-client communications. Second paragraph of your proposed
special instructions indicates something about attorney-client
communications. And I think that -- that to raise that in a -- in an
instruction that's meant to be curative, raises the issue that the
information that Mr. Petrocelli gave the jury, through his questions
to Mr. Simpson, came through attorney-client communications.

And that raises the sphere, at least in my mind, that that -- that the
jury will believe that came through communications from
attorney-client. And I think that just red-flags the issue, and would
request that the second full paragraph be deleted. And other than
that, without waiving the objections that we have, have no further
objections to the Court's proposed special instruction.

THE COURT: Well, the Court put that in there because that seemed to
have been one of the major points that you raised at the side-bench
argument on that issue. So I -- out of an abundance of caution, the
Court is going to give it.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, we also raised the issue of the book. If we're
going to put anything about communications, then -- I mean, you've
deleted that.

Because it was raised at side bar, I'd respectfully request that the
communications concerning attorney-client -- because I certainly did
raise it, but I raised it at side bar out of the presence of the jury
for the particular reason that you did not want the jury to infer that
these communications came from his attorney, either now or at the
criminal case.

And I think that we would be pleased to present the Court with the
transcript of Mr. Schiller on MSNBC, which we will have momentarily,
that indicates he doesn't know what was in this purported hook-up on
June 14. Now he doesn't know if any questions were asked relative to
the murders at all.

And so we're heightening this to a level that I think is
inappropriate, in view of what we're trying to do is offer a curative
instruction, I would submit.

MR. PETROCELLI: We object to any reference to the Schiller book, as it
was not part of any of my questions.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I apologize. The plaintiffs didn't object to
taking communications between attorney client out, I did.

THE COURT: I'm going to leave it in, for the -- there was reference in
Mr. Petrocelli's examination about attorneys from San Francisco and
Mr. Simpson -- some arrangement being made with Mr. Gelblum, I
believe, in regards to the "demonstration," as Mr. Simpson put it.

So I'm going to leave it out, out of an abundance of caution.

Bring the jury in.

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, we have a couple things.

We had subpoenaed a document, and the attorney for the organization
which it is from, which it was subpoenaed, is here. She was under an
order from probably a year ago now, from Judge Ito, not to disclose
it.

Judge Ito said as long as you tell her to turn it over, he doesn't
care; she can turn it over; but she wants to hear it from you, that
she can turn it over.

MS. WITHEY: Pamela Withey appearing for the witness that was
subpoenaed today, the Ocean Park Community Center, for certain
documents. They were also subpoenaed in the criminal trial. And during
the course of that trial, a motion to quash was made and heard. At the
conclusion of that, Judge Ito issued an order to me personally,
stating -- since I was an officer of the Court, he could have control
over that -- that I maintain the original of the documents and not
allow them to be copied for any purpose at any time.

He also allowed one copy to be made for the prosecution, one for the
defense, and ordered them also not to disseminate them to anyone, and
so we have not.

We've now received the subpoena to produce a document here today. We
have the documents. I would like to be relieved, of course, of the
Court's order from Judge Ito.

In order to do so, I contacted Judge Ito's clerk, Yolanda, who
indicated to me that basically, a motion may need to be made, but my
discussion with counsel here this morning was that she indicated that
Judge Ito would do whatever you felt was appropriate, since it is now
within your jurisdiction.

THE COURT: Well, I don't have any motion before me. I don't even know
what the document is.

MR. GELBLUM: We just subpoenaed it, Your Honor. It's a subpoena for
some documents from a battered women's shelter, Sojourn House. We have
a witness that we intend to call today who will be testifying about
that document.

We have not ever had a chance to see the document. Yesterday, I spoke
with Yolanda, Judge Ito's clerk, who was on the phone, and spoke to
Judge Ito, and came back, he said, as long as Judge Fujisaki says it's
okay to turn over the documents, it's okay with him; that was his case
and this is your case now, and he doesn't feel -- it's your decision.

MR. P. BAKER: This is the first we've heard of the subpoena and the
witness he's referring to, Nancy Ney, is subject to a motion to strike
witnesses, which was filed this morning. Nancy Ney is a witness who
says she received a phone call from a person named Nicole -- she
doesn't know who -- if it's Nicole Brown Simpson, totally hearsay, and
we object to the introduction of this document of her testimony as a
result, and Nancy Ney's not a witness.

THE COURT: What's the document?

MS. WITHEY: These documents were documents in the possession of the
Ocean Park Community Service Center and the witness here the custodian
is Vivian Rothstein, who is the director of that program.

The documents are call sheets filled out by a counselor working for
the Community Service Center, a calendar and some additional notes
filled out by the counselor with regard to a call that was made into
the shelter.

The motion to quash was subject to Evidence Code 1035, which had
nothing to do with the civil matter; it had to do with admissibility
of call sheets in a criminal case. But during that hearing, Judge Ito
did find that the documents -- made a threshold finding of elements of
the documents, after having reviewed the documents.

The evidentiary issues are another matter. All I'm here to say is that
I'd be delighted to turn them over, but I just need to be relieved of
the court order; that's all.

THE COURT: Okay. It's within my power. You're relieved.

MS. WITHEY: Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. P. BAKER: I would like to put on the record that Judge Ito quashed
the subpoena.

THE COURT: I don't have any -- there's no standing on that issue at
all.

Anything else?

MR. KELLY: Yes, Judge.

Judge, with regard to two issues regarding witnesses on our witness
list. One witness, Alfredo Acosta, who's under subpoena and was listed
to appear today, he's in El Paso, Texas; his father is very ill, and
he's not expected back for several days. And he's expressed a
willingness to testify and will appear when he's able to get back from
caring for his father in El Paso.

The second one is Robert Kardashian, who is not subpoenaed, but I had
dealt with Janet Levine, his attorney, and had spoken to her last
Wednesday and last Friday, and she had indicated there was no reason
at that time to serve Mr. Kardashian, and that he was out of town; he
would be back last Saturday or Sunday. And she discussed with him his
appearance. We talked about his appearing Wednesday morning to
testify, the scope of his examination, and whether or not she was
going to appear with him.

And she never -- she indicated to me there was no reason to serve him
at that time.

I expressed a willingness to do so. She asked to hold off as a
courtesy.

It was only yesterday, at 2:30 in the afternoon, that she left a
message in my New York office that he would not appear without a
subpoena, and that she would not accept a subpoena on his behalf. And
he is still on the east coast at this time.

And what I would ask for, Your Honor, based on her prior
representation, that with regard to Mr. Acosta and Mr. Kardashian,
that when they become available, that we be allowed to reopen our case
if we've rested, at the time when they do become available, just for
the limited purpose of calling them. And we expect it to be short and
limited testimony.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, obviously, in view of the way that the
plaintiffs have put on their case, I would object to that. I mean,
when we had Detective Vannatter on the witness stand, or Detective
Lange, they wouldn't let us go into anything that was outside the
scope of what they felt were the parameters of their case.

And I certainly am not going to, at least without objection, agree
that they can interrupt our case to put their witnesses on.

He had the right to subpoena Kardashian and he had the right to
subpoena and get Mr. Acosta in here.

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Acosta, I think, has a reasonable excuse. So I
will permit Mr. Acosta to be called out of order.

Mr. Kardashian - if you wanted him, you should have subpoenaed him.

MR. P. BAKER: Can we have Mr. Acosta testify following the
presentation of our case?

THE COURT: Whenever he's available.

MR. P. BAKER: Can we find out beforehand if he's available come
January?

MR. KELLY: Yes. I'll find that out.

With regard to Mr. Kardashian, we relied on representations of
counsel.

THE COURT: Maybe you shouldn't have.

MR. KELLY: Obviously, not at this point. Seemed like it would be a
good cause.

THE COURT: Doesn't sound like a good cause to me.

THE BAILIFF: The jury is right here.

MR. BAKER: We have another issue, on the issue of Mr. Wayne Hughes.

Mr. Wayne Hughes is apparently their first witness. Mr. Hughes, I
think, at least in his statement to the District Attorney, indicated
there was an incident that he may be asked about this morning, and
that was an incident that occurred, he now has recollection, in 1979
and 1980, when Nicole Brown Simpson came to his house, saying that Mr.
Simpson may have had physical contact with her.

Mr. Hughes never discussed this matter with Mr. Simpson and will so
testify. He has no knowledge of whether Nicole Brown Simpson's
representations to him were accurate. He asked Nicole Brown Simpson --
at least he'd be prepared to testify that if she wanted him to ever
discuss this with O.J. Simpson, she said no.

And based upon the hearsay nature of it, the remote nature of '79 or
'80, we move to exclude any reference to -- to incident number one, if
you will.

And then he discussed the 1989 incident, and he's prepared to testify.
And we have no objection, obviously, of him testifying about that.

MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, under People versus Zack and People versus
Linkenauer, the relationship -- the relationship between the defendant
and the victim is relevant to the issue of motive and identity. And
the Court specifically pointed out that acts of physical violence in
that relationship are particularly relevant, in addition to evidence
of quarrels and antagonism or enmity.

Now, in addition to that, Your Honor, which Mr. Hughes will testify
about, Mr. Simpson categorically denied ever hitting Nicole. And this
evidence is offered to directly impeach that testimony.

Moreover, Mr. Baker, in his opening statement, described for about the
first hour or so, the nature of the relationship between Nicole Brown
Simpson and Mr. Simpson, and specifically represented to the jury that
there was only one physical altercation in 1989.

And we will be producing a series of witnesses, each lasting about
five to ten minutes, to evidence that there were other acts of
violence in the relationship.

MR. P. BAKER: Judge, regarding the remoteness, People versus Zack does
not say that. People versus Zack is a murder case where the decedents
died in 1982 and the issue was the stormy -- and the Court said it --
the stormy up and down relationship from 1978 to 1980. That's four
years.

This issue is 16 years, and we believe the Court should be directed to
People versus Gonzales, where it held the victim's representation to
violence seven years before the crime was held too remote for
evidentiary value.

Thirdly, Judge Ito already rendered a ruling on this, and I submitted
it as Exhibit A to my motion, and Judge Ito found that it was too
remote, and he said "this event provides only indirect evidence of
assaultive conduct. The probative value of this incident is,
therefore, much diminished when compared with the Court's time that
would be -- would be required in the presentation. It's been
collaterally estopped. It's too removed. We think People versus
Gonzales binds the Court --

THE COURT: How is it collaterally estopped?

MR. P. BAKER: Judge Ito rendered a ruling when it was remote in time
in relation to the crimes of June 12, 1994.

THE COURT: I don't think the concept of collateral estoppel applies
here.

MR. P. BAKER: The same issues reliance -- they've relied on collateral
estoppel throughout the case, we relied on Judge Ito's ruling, holding
O.J. Simpson over for their motion for punitive damages. This opinion
was rendered. It was decided it was held too remote. It's
characterized by hearsay.

THE COURT: Well, I think the doctrine of collateral estoppel would
apply to Mr. Simpson, but would not apply to Mr. Goldman.

MR. P. BAKER: The issues were the same.

THE COURT: Parties.

MR. BAKER: You still --

THE COURT: Am I getting two timed?

MR. BAKER: Yes absolutely. You still have to put the evidence on by
competent evidence. You -- that's what we're talking about here is the
hearsay.

THE COURT: Well, it's not collateral estoppel, so that's out.

You want to address the hearsay issue?

MR. PETROCELLI: Yes, Your Honor.

First of all, unlike the criminal case, the defense in this case has
proffered Nicole's state of mind as -- and as was ruled on the 16th of
September in connection with the motions in limine, Nicole's state of
mind is directly relevant to the issue of the relationship between Mr.
Simpson and Nicole.

So, number one, her state of mind furnishes an exception to get in
this testimony.

And secondly, in this particular case, as Mr. Hughes will testify, Mr.
-- Nicole came running to his house after being hit by Mr. Simpson,
was extremely upset, and it would qualify, certainly, as a spontaneous
statement. She also showed Mr. Hughes the mark on her body where Mr.
Simpson had hit her.

And again, I emphasize that in opening statement, Mr. Baker's spent
quite a bit of time characterizing this relationship between the two
and pointing out that there wasn't any violence or physical
alterations, except on one occasion. And Mr. Simpson, at no time in
his testimony, limited his answers. He said "never," categorically,
did he ever touch Nicole, slap her, strike her, hit her, and so forth.

MR. BAKER: In 1979 -- first of all, the -- my remarks in opening
statement were in response to the plaintiffs' remarks. They proffered
her state of mind, not us.

Number two is the -- the hearsay statements are -- are definitely not
spontaneous declarations. You're not going to hear that Mr. Wayne
Hughes lives next door to O.J. Simpson.

Number three, they're so remote in the time as to be irrelevant and
immaterial to any issue in this case. They're talking about 15, 16
years prior to the murders that they are attempting, in this case, to
hold Mr. Simpson responsible for.

THE COURT: Okay. I'll permit Mr. Hughes to testify to the '89
incident, but not the '79 incidents.

MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor --

THE COURT: Let's get on with the trial.

MR. PETROCELLI: Well, Your Honor, I object to this. I -- just because
he makes this argument -- I mean, Mr. Simpson categorically testified
that he never once hit Nicole and --

THE COURT: Mr. Petrocelli, I've heard your argument. I've made my
ruling.

Okay.

THE BAILIFF: Jury walking in.

MR. PETROCELLI: Well, I'm not going to call Mr. Hughes.

THE COURT: All right; don't call him.

MR. PETROCELLI: What's the ground, Your Honor, remoteness?

THE COURT: That's right. 352.

(The jurors resumed their respective seats.)

THE COURT: Morning, ladies and gentlemen.

JUROR: Morning, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, the Court at this time will give you
specific instructions regarding the plaintiffs' examination of Mr.
Simpson which was just completed concerning lie detectors.

I want you to listen very closely.

All communications between an attorney and his client are absolutely
privileged.

This means that such communications cannot be used by anyone for any
purpose except with the permission of the client.

Mr. Simpson cannot be asked any questions about any communications
with his attorneys. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Mr. Simpson
consented to the publication of any of his communications with his
attorney.

You will recall, Mr. Simpson's attorney, Mr. Baker, in his opening
statement to you, spoke on the subject of a lie-detector test. By this
opening statement, Mr. Simpson opened the subject of lie detectors to
examination by the plaintiff. This, however, did not open the subject
of any communication on this matter between Mr. Simpson and his
attorneys, or persons acting for the attorneys for any purpose.

In this trial, Mr. Petrocelli questioned Mr. Simpson whether he took a
lie-detector test, any score and meaning thereof. I instruct you that
his questions do not and cannot establish that Mr. Simpson took a die
lie-detector test, a score and meaning thereof. Statements of counsel,
that is, the statements or questions of Mr. Petrocelli, are not
evidence and may not be considered by you for any purpose. The
references or statements regarding a lie-detector test and Mr.
Petrocelli's questions are not evidence unless they were adopted by
Mr. Simpson in his answers. A question by itself is not evidence. You
may consider questions only to the extent the content of the questions
are adopted by the answer. Mr. Simpson's answer to the question of
whether he took a lie-detector test was that he was given an
explanation of how the test worked and that he did not take the test.

There is no other evidence before you that Mr. Simpson took a
lie-detector test, and the plaintiff is bound by Mr. Simpson's
response.

Likewise, when Mr. Petrocelli asked Mr. Simpson whether he knew what
the score on the test was, whether it was a minus 22, or whether it
indicated extreme deception, these were questions by an attorney and
do not constitute evidence. Mr. Simpson denied any test score or any
knowledge of what test scores meant, and there is no evidence before
you of any test score or what a score means. There was only Mr.
Petrocelli's questions which were not adopted by an answer. Plaintiff
is bound by Mr. Simpson's response.

Therefore, there is no evidence before you that Mr. Simpson took a
lie-detector test, no evidence about any score on such a test, nor any
evidence of what any score means. You must totally disregard the
questions about taking lie-detector tests, test scores and their
meanings, and treat the subject as though you had never heard of it.

Do all of the jurors understand these instructions?

JURORS: Yes.

THE COURT: Do any of the jurors have any questions about these
instructions?

JURORS: (Nod negatively.)

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

Plaintiffs may call their next witness.

MR. KELLY: India Allen, please.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, we want to approach.

THE COURT: Okay.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench, with the reporter.)

MR. BAKER: This, well, allegedly is going to comment about a 1980
incident where she observed Mr. Simpson make contact with -- with
Nicole. And we would object on the issue --

THE COURT: You mean physical contact?

MR. BAKER: We -- yes physical. On the issue of remoteness.

THE COURT: Overruled.

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of
the jury.)

INDIA ALLEN, called as a witness on behalf of Plaintiffs, was duly
sworn and testified as follows:

THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in
the cause now pending before this Court shall be the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

THE WITNESS: I do.

THE CLERK: And if you would, please state and spell your name for the
record,

THE WITNESS: Okay. My name is India Allen, spelled I-N-D-I-A. My last
name is A-L-L-E-N.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KELLY:

Q. Morning, Ms. Allen.

A. Morning.

Q. You're married; is that correct?

A. Yes, I am. I think my husband is in here. He's an officer in the
Marine Corps.

Q. And your married name is?

A. India Rose.

Q. Okay.

And is it my understanding that you use the name India Allen for
professional purposes; is that correct?

A. Yes. I used to be a model; I'm retired now.

Q. Okay.

And you use the name India Allen?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Now, by the way, do you have any children?

A. Yes, I do. I have two, and I have one on the way.

Q. You're expecting?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, taking you back a little bit, about -- did you ever work in a
veterinary hospital?

A. Yes, I did. I worked for Dr. Shipp in Beverly Hills.

Q. And when you say veterinary hospital, this is where you took care
of animals, cats, dogs, et cetera?

A. Yes; they were a full service. They did flea baths, they did
surgery, everything, shots, everything.

Q. And do you recall the location of this veterinary hospital that you
worked at?

A. Yes. It was -- I think it was 351 Foothill Drive, I think,
something like that.

Q. Okay. That's Beverly Hills?

A. Yes, Beverly Hills.

Q. Do you recall approximately what year you worked at this hospital?

A. It was in the early '80s. I think it was '83.

Q. Okay.

And what exactly did you do there when you worked there?

A. I washed dogs and cleaned up after them, and cleaned the kennels,
and all that glamorous stuff.

Q. And how old --

A. That's what I did.

Q. How old were you at this time?

A. I think I was about 20. I think I went through a birthday there, so
I'm not really sure at this time.

Q. How long did you work there for?

A. Not very long. I think about six months, something like that.

Q. Okay.

Now, during the time you worked there, did you ever have occasion to
meet Nicole Brown during your employment there at the hospital?

A. Yes, I did. I don't know if you'd call it meet. She didn't pay that
much attention to me. I washed her dogs.

Q. Okay.

A. Yeah.

MR. KELLY: Can I see 2194.

(Exhibit 2194 displayed.)

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Do you recognize the individual on the screen there?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Is that Nicole Brown?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Okay.

And can you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, under what
circumstances you first dealt with Ms. Brown while working at the
hospital there?

A. Well, the first -- I saw her a couple of times. She came in with
her two Chows to get them washed. I usually did the washing 'cause
they -- they kind of had little tempers on them, so I usually did it.
And so I saw her a couple of times, and -- and then one day she came
in, she was wearing actually a very similar head band to that one she
always wore, and she --

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) If I could interrupt you.

Did there ever come a time that you observed Mr. Simpson at this
animal hospital also?

A. Yes. Only I only saw Mr. Simpson once.

Q. Was that after you had met or dealt with Nicole Brown a couple
times there?

A. Yes, yes, it was.

Q. Okay.

And could you tell me what, if anything, you observed the time that
Nicole Brown was there at the hospital and Mr. Simpson arrived there
also?

A. Well, she came in to pick up her dogs -- and she always wore
sunglasses, she always came in sunglasses and the head band, and
always very glamorous. She was wearing -- I think she was wearing a
gold Spandex exercise outfit. She was wearing a full-length fur coat
over it. I think it was a silver fur but I'm not positive, I'm not
that well versed in furs. And she came in to pick up her Chows and --

MR. BAKER: I'm going to move to strike as nonresponsive.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) You can go ahead.

A. Okay.

She came in to pick them up, and I brought -- I always brought them
out to the car for her. And another guy was with me. I carried out a
bag of dog food and put it in her trunk, and I had the dog, and she
opened the car door, and when she opened the car door, Mr. Simpson
pulled into the parking lot and sort of parked sideways, he didn't
actually pull into a spot, he was kind of parking sideways.

This was on the side of the building. We came out the side door.

And he was very angry. When he got out of the car, he came kind of
around the car very quickly and started yelling at her about wearing
the coat out during the day. And he was very upset; he told her that
he -- I don't know if I can say this or not, out loud.

MR. BAKER: I'm going to object on hearsay grounds in any event, Your
Honor.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) This is referring to a statement of Mr. Simpson?

A. Yes, it is.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Okay.

You can tell us what you heard Mr. Simpson state at this time.

A. He said, I didn't buy this fur coat for you to go fuck somebody
else, is what he said. And then he said -- then he said, I want the
coat back, and he grabbed her by the back of the coat and started
trying to pull the coat off of her.

And she said she was -- at the time they were kind of going around and
around about the coat, she was saying she wasn't going to give the
coat back, it was her god damn coat; and so, anyway, she jerked away
from him, and that's when I saw him strike her. He hit her across the
face, and her glasses and her head band flew off and her hair kind of
flew to the side when she came back up.

It was the only time I ever saw her without her sunglasses.

She had sort of a fading bruise under her eye.

Q. And in addition to that fading bruise under her eye, did you see
any other marks on her face at this time?

A. Just her face was red where he hit her.

Q. Okay.

And what if -- let me ask you a couple questions.

First of all, do you remember what kind of car Nicole Brown had at the
time when you were putting the dogs in it?

A. I know it was a Mercedes. I think it was a white Mercedes, but I
always get the white of her Mercedes and her gold pants mixed up, so
it could have been one or the other. It might have been white pants
and gold Mercedes.

Q. Was it a large Mercedes, small one; do you remember what type it
was?

A. No, it was small, I think it was a 450SL.

It was very nice, nice car.

Q. You also indicated that Mr. Simpson was angry when he exited his
car.

A. Yes.

Q. Would you describe exactly what you observed about Mr. Simpson when
he exited his car?

MR. BAKER: Asked and answered, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Well, he got out of the car, and he was mad. I mean he looked like
he was gritting his teeth, and his fists were clenched, and it was --
it was kind of intimidating. I stayed where I was. It was enough to
keep me where I was with the dogs, and they were a little agitated, so
it was difficult to hold onto them.

Q. And how did you feel when you observed Mr. Simpson first come out
of the car?

MR. BAKER: Objection, relevance.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Well, I was a little -- first I was shocked because they were two
famous, beautiful people and what I thought getting ready to have a
knock-down, drag-out right in front of me, so -- while I was holding
these dogs. So I was -- I was -- I was shocked and a little intimated
standing there.

Q. Now, what, if anything, happened after Nicole was hit and her
sunglasses and head band came off?

A. She kind of held the coat close to her, didn't look like she was
going to give up the coat, and she picked up her sunglasses, and she
picked up her head band, and she stomped over to the car, and she
said, I'm going home.

And she took the dogs from me; she put the dogs in the car.

And he said, I'll talk to you about this when we get home.

Then she got kind of intimidated and said, fine, I'll talk to you
about it when we get home.

And she got in the car and jerked out of the parking lot first, and
then he got in his car and he followed her.

MR. KELLY: Steve, can I see the picture, please. (Photo displayed.)

MR. KELLY: I'm going to show you one other picture up on the board,
please.

THE COURT REPORTER: Do we have an exhibit number, please.

MR. FOSTER: Next in order.

MR. KELLY: Next in order, Erin.

THE CLERK: 2222.

(The instrument herein described as a photo of O.J. Simpson and Nicole
Brown Simpson in fur coat was marked for identification as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 2222.)

Q. First of all, do you recognize the person wearing the long fur coat
in that picture there?

A. Yes, that's -- that's Nicole. I'm not used to seeing her hair that
way, but yes.

Q. The individual next to her?

A. Looks like Mr. Simpson.

Q. And by the way, do you recognize the coat?

A. Yes, that looks like the coat, yes.

Q. That she was wearing that day in the parking lot?

A. Um-hum.

Q. And one other thing. Prior to Mr. Simpson pulling in the parking
lot that day, were you familiar with who he was before then?

A. Only from television, only from commercials, yeah. I had never
actually seen him in person before. Only from TV. But I recognized him
immediately.

And the car was -- was pretty fancy. I think it was a -- I think it
was a big, blue Rolls Royce.

Q. And is this the first time you've ever testified regarding what you
witnessed that day?

A. Yes, it is.

MR. KELLY: Okay.

I have no further questions.

THE COURT: Cross.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER:

Q. Good morning.

A. Good morning.

Q. Do you have an agent?

A. Do I have an agent?

Q. Yes.

A. No, I don't.

Q. Did you have an agent?

A. Yes, I used to.

Q. Did you ever appear in Playboy magazine?

A. Yes, I did.

MR. KELLY: Objection, relevance.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Do you have a web page presently?

MR. KELLY: Objection, relevance.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) In the web page did you have -- do you appear
without clothes?

MR. KELLY: Objection, relevance, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, this goes to the issue of bias.

MR. PETROCELLI: No speaking objections, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, did you ever, at any time during the criminal
trial, report what you've just told this jury, to the Police
Department?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Now, you were aware of the murders in June of 1994, were you not,
from all the media hype on this incident?

A. Yes, I was, but I was in the process of moving at the time.

Q. Well, the trial went on for nine months, and you were aware that
there was some issue of domestic violence during that time, were you
not?

A. Yes, I was. And I was also aware that they had decided not to use
it.

MR. BAKER: I move to strike everything after "yes, I was."

THE COURT: Stricken.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, so this -- your report of this incident, during
the entire nine months of the criminal trial, was never made to the
LAPD, was never made to the D.A.'s office, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And now -- in terms of your recollection of this event, you seem
now to have a pretty clear recollection of an event that took place
some 13 years ago, correct?

A. I wouldn't say that it's that clear, but, yeah, correct.

Q. And how much time did you spend with Mr. Kelly before you got on
the witness stand here today?

A. Probably about 15 minutes.

Q. And how much time did you spend looking at pictures before you got
on the witness stand here today?

A. Actually, none.

Q. Never looked at those pictures that you've seen here?

A. I've seen one shot of the fur coat picture.

Q. Okay.

A. That's it.

Q. And how much time did you spend with the other plaintiffs other
than Mr. Kelly.

A. The other plaintiffs?

Q. Yeah. Mr. Petrocelli.

A. Oh, Mr. Petrocelli. I met with Mr. Petrocelli one time, just to
tell him my story.

Q. When was that?

A. I believe it was in February.

Q. How long did you spend with him then?

A. He spent about 25, 30 minutes with me; not much time.

Q. And now, you say that this occurred, you believe, in 1983?

A. Yes, I believe it was, yeah.

Q. What month?

A. I'm not sure.

Q. Do you know whether it was in the summer? Do you know whether she
was wearing a fur coat in the summer, the winter, the fall, the
spring?

A. I think it was spring, but I'm not positive.

Q. And you said in terms of Mr. Simpson, that he was driving a blue
Rolls Royce. You have a pretty clear recollection then?

A. I think it was. I remember it was a dark color.

Q. But you're really clear?

A. I'm pretty sure.

Q. A Rolls Royce is a pretty distinctive car?

A. Yes.

Q. And you have no doubt in your mind, as you sit here today, that Mr.
Simpson got out of a Rolls Royce in 1983, correct?

A. I'm pretty sure it was.

Q. Well, I mean --

A. When I -- I was not that sophisticated back then so I -- I wasn't a
connoisseur of car models, so I'm not positive.

Q. I understand that. I'm not trying to assert that you are. But a
Rolls Royce doesn't look like any other car? At least to me it
doesn't.

A. No.

It was a big car, yes.

Q. Your best recollection is it was a blue or dark Rolls Royce, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you indicated that they exchanged words and you have a clear
recollection, as you sit here now, of this incident 13 years ago, that
Mr. Simpson was gritting his teeth? You recall that?

A. Yes. Yeah, he was mad, he was very angry. That's one thing I
remembered.

Q. All right.

A. Yes.

Q. You recall looking specifically at his fists, and both of the fists
were clenched, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Who was this employee that went out with you that put the food in
the car of Ms. Simpson?

A. I think his name was Greg or Paul. And -- he was another assistant
that worked there.

Q. And what was his last name?

A. I'm not sure.

Q. How long did he work there?

A. I have no idea. Longer than I did. He was a professional.

Q. Now, the recollection that you have of this incident some 13 years
ago, is that -- well, strike that.

Where was the dog food placed in Ms. Simpson's car?

A. It was in the -- they put it in the trunk.

Q. Where were the dogs placed by Ms. Simpson when she put them in?

A. One of them rode in the front seat and the other one was kind of
squished in the middle.

Q. Now, you said -- in response to a questions by Mr. Kelly, you
indicated that you always get mixed up between the coat and the pants,
the colors?

A. No, not the coat. The pants and the car.

Q. Oh, that's right. I'm sorry.

A. Yeah.

Q. Well, how many times have you told this story that you always get
mixed up?

A. I've told it to my family a number of times over the years, just
because it was the only time I'd ever seen two people like that fight.

Q. I see.

So -- and it always kind of -- you get them mixed up, the color of the
pants and the color of the automobile; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. I see.

Now, in terms of your recollection, you have a clear recollection that
Ms. Simpson (sic) backed out earlier after they had words earlier,
that they were going to discuss this further at home?

A. Um-hum.

Q. And you saw Mr. Simpson's hand come in contact with Ms. Simpson,
correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Where?

A. On her check, her face; right there.

Q. Open handed?

A. It was open handed, yes, it was.

Q. And this is -- you have no problem with your recollection of this
event 13 years ago, correct?

A. No.

Q. And the only thing you didn't do is you didn't report it to the
LAPD or the D.A.'s office at any time during the investigation of the
case, or during the trial, and only came forward in February of 1996
for this case, true?

A. That's correct, yes.

MR. BAKER: I don't have anything further.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KELLY:

Q. Was there a particular reason -- first of all, you were aware of
the criminal trial going on, were you not?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. And I think Mr. Baker asked you if you knew whether domestic
violence was an issue in that or not.

A. Yes.

Q. Did you know?

A. I did know, but I heard that they were not going to make an issue
of it, so I didn't think there was any reason for me to come forward,
'cause it wasn't going to be allowed in the trial.

Q. Did you intend at the time to come forward?

A. I would have if they would have needed me, yes.

Q. Okay. Was there any --

MR. BAKER: Move to strike. Objection to speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Was there any other personal reason that you didn't
want to, if you could avoid it, testify at the criminal trial?

A. Yeah. Well, I -- I -- I've retired from being a model, and I had
seen a little taste of that, and I didn't want it. I have two kids,
and I retired for a reason, not to be involved in it any more.

Q. Was there any physical condition at that time?

A. Yeah, I was pregnant at that time also.

MR. KELLY: Okay. I have no further questions.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER:

Q. Well, now, in 1994, as I understand it, you had retired and you
didn't want to have any more of a career in the public limelight,
correct?

A. I did one more job after that. It wasn't really a job, though.

Q. Actually, in 1995, you appeared nude in Cigar Aficionado magazine,
did you not?

MR. KELLY: Objection, relevance.

THE COURT: You opened it. Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you not?

A. Yeah. That was the one job I was talking about.

Q. And you certainly wanted the limelight if you appeared without any
clothes, in a magazine, smoking a cigar, did you not?

MR. KELLY: Objection, argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I thought it was very artistic and a beautiful layout. It was one
of the best I ever did.

Q. And one of the -- you also appeared in an unrated film, "Seduce
Me," did you not?

MR. KELLY: Objection, relevance.

THE COURT: As to time, sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Isn't it true, Ms. Allen, that you want to resurrect
your fledgling acting career and you came forward with this because of
that?

A. No. I can't really work with a big belly anyway. I'm getting ready
to have another baby, so...

Q. And you had already had how many babies when you appeared without
clothes on in Cigar Aficionado magazine?

A. I had had one, and had one on the way, actually.

MR. BAKER: Thank you. Nothing further.

MR. KELLY: Nothing further, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You may step down.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

THE COURT: Call your next witness.

MR. KELLY: I'd also like to move in 2222.

THE COURT: Received.

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2222.)

THE CLERK: Can we get a spelling of Ms. Rose. Is it R-o-s-e?

THE WITNESS: Yes, it is.

THE CLERK: Thank you.

MR. KELLY: Albert Aguilera, please.

ALBERT AGUILERA, called as a witness on behalf of Plaintiffs, was duly
sworn and testified as follows:

THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in
the cause now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

THE WITNESS: I do.

THE CLERK: Please be seated.

And, sir, would you please state and spell your name for the record.

THE WITNESS: Albert Aguilera. Last name A-g-u-i-l-e-r-a.

THE CLERK: Albert, A-l-b-e-r-t?

THE WITNESS: Yes. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KELLY:

Q. Good morning, sir.

A. Morning.

Q. You currently employed?

A. Yes.

Q. And what type of work do you do?

A. I'm a pharmacist in retail.

Q. And did you receive a doctorate in pharmacy?

A. A doctorate pharmacy degree, yes.

Q. And where did you receive that from?

A. From the University of Southern California.

Q. And what years did attend U.S.C. prior to receiving your doctorate
there?

A. 1965 to 1969.

Q. And when you were attending U.S.C., did you have occasion to know
who O.J. Simpson was?

A. Yes.

Q. And why did you have occasion to know that?

A. Well, everybody knew about the SC football team. We were doing
great. During the whole four years I was there, we did very well.

Q. Did you ever see Mr. Simpson on campus when you were there?

A. Yes, on numerous occasions.

Q. You were familiar with his appearance?

A. Oh, yes.

Q. Knew him by sight?

A. Oh, yeah.

Q. Okay.

Now, I want to draw your attention to approximately July 1, 1986.

Do you recall where you were living at that time?

A. I lived in Laguna Beach at a place called the Blue Lagoon.

Q. And who did you live there with?

A. Art Sorce.

Q. And did Art Sorce have any affiliation with football himself?

A. Yes. He was a former All American from Colorado, and he also played
briefly with the Green Bay Packers.

Q. Now, going back -- going back to early July, 1986, do you recall
having an occasion to be on Victoria Beach one afternoon?

A. Yes, we were walking on the beach that day.

Q. When you say we, who were you walking with?

A. Art Sorce.

Q. Okay.

And do you recall where you had started walking from?

A. We started from Blue Lagoon, which is the south end of Victoria
Beach.

Q. And proceeded in what direction?

A. Proceeded north, walking down the water.

Q. Okay.

And do you recall what time of day it was, approximately?

A. Middle of the day, between 12, 1, 2, o'clock.

Q. And what, if anything, did you observe or anyone, did you observe,
as you were walking along at that time?

A. As we were walking and talking, about three-fourths up the way --
of the way up the beach, we saw O.J. and Nicole.

Q. Okay.

Were you walking on the sand or in the water at this time?

A. In the water.

Q. And how far out in the water were you, when you were walking along?

A. About 15, 20 yards in.

Q. And how far away were you from Mr. Simpson and Nicole when you
first observed them?

A. Oh, probably were about 50, 60 yards away.

Q. And after first observing them, what, if anything, did you continue
to observe about them at this time?

A. Well, she was standing in front of him, he was facing the beach,
she had her back to us and she was --

Q. When you say he was facing the beach, you mean the water or the
sand?

A. He was facing the water.

Q. Okay.

And she was facing?

A. She was facing him. She was standing in front of him so she had her
back to us. She was -- looked -- appeared like she was teasing, him or
laughing and kind of animated in front of him.

Q. Were you able to observe him at that time also?

A. Yes. He had a more serious look on his face, and was standing
still.

Q. Okay.

And what, if anything, did you observe next?

A. Well, I was -- as we watched him and -- we would walk, and as we
got almost directly in front of him, suddenly he slapped her and she
fell down.

Q. All right.

When you say he slapped her, what exactly did you observe Mr. Simpson
do at that time?

A. He swung his right hand and hit her across the face. And she went
down.

Q. And how far were you from them when you made this observation?

A. About 30 yards.

Q. Okay.

What, if anything, happened next?

A. We kept walking and watching. And he crouched down over her. First
looked like he was consoling her. Then he became agitated. And she --
couple times I heard her say, no, no, and it appeared to be in a
crying voice.

Q. When you saw her go down, did she fall to the side, or how did she
exactly fall?

A. Almost straight down.

Q. Okay.

And she was -- when she was on the ground, what position was she in on
the ground at this time?

A. She was on her knees.

Q. Okay.

A. On the sand.

Q. Okay.

A. He was crouching over her.

Q. Okay.

And you indicated there was some conversation between them?

A. Couldn't hear the conversation. I heard her say no, no, at least
twice.

Q. Okay.

What happened next?

A. We kept walking, and looking back, and didn't know what to think.
She suddenly stood up and ran away from the -- towards the back of the
beach, away from the beach area.

Q. Okay.

Directly away from the water at this time?

A. Um-hum. Yes.

Q. What happened next?

A. Then we -- we -- at this point we were turning around, walking
back, and we kept looking to see if he was going to pursue her. And he
didn't; he stayed a little while longer. And we looked back once, and
he was walking away in her direction.

Q. Okay.

I'm going to ask you to look up on the screen there, Mr. Aguilera
(referring to Exhibit 2194).

Do you recognize the individual in that photograph?

A. Yes. Nicole Simpson.

Q. Is that the person you saw Mr. Simpson hit that day on the beach?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

MR. KELLY: I have no further questions.

THE COURT: Cross.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER:

Q. Mr. Aguilera, what year was this that this event allegedly took
place?

A. 1986.

Q. You're sure of that?

A. Yes.

Q. And that's what you testified in Mr. Simpson's custody hearing last
-- two weeks --

MR. KELLY: Objection. Could we approach, briefly?

THE COURT: Yes.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench, with the reporter.)

MR. KELLY: Your Honor, I believe that the custody proceeding is a
totally sealed proceeding, both the transcript and everything
testified to therein.

I would object to any potential impeachment Mr. Baker may be
contemplating with regard to this witness and that testimony.

MR. BAKER: Well, Your Honor, you can't testify one place independent,
perjure one thing and someplace else. Regardless of whether he -- --
that whole custody thing is such a -- you know -- I mean, Mr. Kelly's
associate in this case is -- his associate in this case is pursuing
that case down there.

They're using the very same witnesses.

If they're going to misrepresent the truth in one case, they're going
to misrepresent the truth in the other case.

I think I'm entitled to go through this. I've got transcripts of this
guy down there. I think I'm entitled to go into it.

MR. PETROCELLI: I object to -- I want to object to this record -- I've
had zero access to any of the materials or the transcripts in that
case. I don't have access to Simpson's transcript. I don't know what
Mr. Kelly's position is regarding access, but it seems fundamentally
unfair if there's a sealing order in that case and Mr. Baker has
testimony that I don't have.

That's number one.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. KELLY: Thank you.

(The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence of
the jury.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, this event that you say you witnessed was July
4, 1986, right?

A. No.

Q. When was it?

A. Approximately two or three days before.

Q. You told -- well, strike that.

By the way, you didn't report this to the LAPD, did you? It was your
ex-wife that did, true?

A. No.

Q. You're saying you reported it to the LAPD, your purported viewing
of this incident, Mr. Aguilera?

A. I didn't report it to the LAPD.

Q. You had a statement taken by the D.A's office, did you not?

A. Yes.

Q. On December 17, 1994?

A. Correct.

Q. I take it that your recollection of this incident that occurred two
or three days before July 4th of 1986 was better than it is now?

A. No.

Q. You told the interviewer that it was -- you're pretty sure it was
1987, when you were interviewed in December of 1994, correct?

A. No.

Q. Let me read from your statement. Page 1.

MR. PETROCELLI: Object. This is not his statement. This is -- there's
got to be some foundation laid that he saw this, reviewed this, and so
forth.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Lay a foundation.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Were you investigated by Investigator Mike Stevens,
with Investigator Dana Thompson, on December 17, 1994 at approximately
3:25 p.m.?

A. Yes.

MR. KELLY: Objection --

MR. PETROCELLI: He said investigated.

MR. KELLY: Form. Investigated.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAKER: I'm sorry.

MR. KELLY: You said investigated.

MR. BAKER: I apologize; I misspoke.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Were you interviewed by Investigator Mike Stevens,
with Investigator Dana Thompson, on December 17, 1994 at 3:25 p.m. in
the afternoon?

A. Yes.

Q. And you were aware that a recorded statement was being taken of
what you were -- the questions that were being asked of you and the
answers you were giving, true?

A. Correct.

Q. And you were asked about this purported incident that you say you
witnessed in 1986, right?

A. Correct.

Q. And you told the investigators that you were pretty sure it was
1987, isn't that true?

A. No.

Q. Okay.

And have you -- you've seen the transcript of your interview, have you
not?

A. Yes.

Q. And I'm showing you a copy of the transcript of your interview,
correct?

A. Um-hum.

Q. And when you were asked about the incident you observed, what year,
you said, I'm pretty sure it was '87, did you not?

MR. KELLY: Can you continue reading, Mr. Baker.

MR. BAKER: Let me ask these questions, will you, Mr. Kelly.

THE COURT: Sustained.

You may proceed.

A. At that time, yes.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And you -- you told them that it was the 4th of
July, or the day before the 4th, correct?

A. No.

Q. You want to read what you told them?

A. I know what's on there. That isn't what I told them.

Q. So the transcript of the investigators is incorrect, true?

A. There's quite a few inaccuracies in that transcript.

Q. So -- and the reason that you now say that it's incorrect is
because you subsequently learned, did you not, that O.J. Simpson was
never in Victoria Beach on July 3, July 4 of any year, because he was
hosting a charity softball game; isn't that true?

A. That's not true, no.

Q. Of course if Mr. Simpson were hosting a charity softball game on
July 3 and July 4, you couldn't have seen him at Victoria Beach. You
would agree with that?

MR. KELLY: Objection, argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now let's talk a little bit about what you say you
purportedly observed.

Now, it's three days or so before July 4, is that it, sir?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. And you were 15 to 20 yards from the water, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, this purported day that you say you saw this, July 1 or
whatever it was -- what day of the week was that, sir?

A. It was about Wednesday, Wednesday or the day before.

Q. And it wasn't the holiday weekend, then, huh?

A. Well, it was -- the holiday weekend was coming up. 4th of July was
Saturday.

Q. Well, was there a lot of people around the beach -- that beach is
pretty crowded, isn't it, in July?

A. No, it's not.

MR. KELLY: Objection, argumentative. Time frame, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) The houses are 60 feet wide and they adjoin each
other along the whole beach, don't they, sir?

A. That's true.

Q. And the people can walk out of their houses on the beach, can they
not, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. And there are generally a lot of people and kids playing in the
summer, during the time period that you say you observed this
incident, isn't that true, sir?

A. Not generally, no.

Q. You say it's untrue that there are a lot of people on the beach in
July, say July 2, 3 or 4, 1986?

MR. KELLY: Objection, argumentative, Your Honor. We need specific date
and time and place; not generally.

THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection.

MR. BAKER: On what grounds sir?

THE COURT: Specificity.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Early July -- had you ever been on that beach in
early July before this purported time that you say you saw Nicole
Brown Simpson in 1986, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. And is it your testimony as you -- or before this jury today, that
you believe that beach is an uncrowded beach in the July time frame?

MR. KELLY: Objection, vague, argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Yes.

Q. And so were you and this friend of yours, who isn't available to
testify, did you see anybody else on the beach that day besides you
two?

A. There were a few people on the beach, yes.

Q. Were there any other witnesses to this event -- strike that.

How long is Victoria Beach, Mr. Aguilera?

A. It's about, I'd say, 400 yards at the most.

Q. And how deep is it till the houses start?

A. Another 50 yards from the water, I think.

Q. And so there's -- and that's all sand, isn't it, up to those
houses?

A. Yes.

Q. And that's a beach that's used not only by the people that live
there, but by people who park their cars and walk into that beach
area, correct?

A. They can.

MR. KELLY: Objection, argumentative, vague.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. If they can find parking, yes.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And that beach is a pretty popular beach down in
Laguna, is it not?

A. I wouldn't say it's real popular, no.

Q. What was the -- you were out, in the water was it -- you say 15 to
20 yards from the waterline to where you and this friend of yours were
walking, right?

A. Right.

Q. And you say that Nicole Brown Simpson and O.J. Simpson were 150 to
180 feet away from you, correct?

MR. KELLY: Objection, misstates the testimony.

A. No.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You said 50 to 60 yards away. That's what you
testified to?

A. When I first saw them, not when we were right in front of them, no.

Q. So you were in the water, Nicole Brown Simpson was not facing you,
and you say that you observed her teasing Mr. Simpson, right?

A. Yes.

Q. You didn't see her face?

A. No.

Q. You didn't -- couldn't hear her because there were waves breaking
and they were a distance away from you, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. So you didn't hear her and you couldn't see her, but you knew she
was teasing you (sic), right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

This transcript is incorrect although there is an audio tape of this,
isn't there?

A. I think so.

Q. And you're sure on that audio tape that you didn't say the 3rd or
the 4th of July, correct?

A. I don't recall, no.

Q. Well, let's get this straight. This is important.

You've testified here in questions I've asked you, sir, that it -- and
the questions that Mr. Kelly asked you about July 1, and this
transcript of your recorded statement to the police in December of
1994 indicates July 3 or July 4.

Now, which was it?

A. 1st.

Q. You're sure of that?

A. It wasn't the 4th or the 3rd, I'm sure of that, yes.

Q. And you're sure that on the audio tape it is going to say, not July
3 or 4th, that was a mistake, it's going to say July 1, right?

A. It will say -- it will be -- the audio will back me up, but I
wasn't sure which date it was. It wasn't the 4th or the 3rd.

Q. You never mentioned July 1, at any time, to the Los Angeles Police
Department on December 17, 1994, did you, sir?

A. I didn't talk to the Los Angeles Police Department.

Q. The investigators. Pardon me.

A. They were from the D.A.'s office.

Q. The investigators?

A. Yes.

Q. You never mentioned July 1 at all, did you, sir?

A. No, that's not true.

Q. The fact that it doesn't appear anyplace, you still believe that
you mentioned it was July 1, 1986, as contrasted to another date?

A. That's correct.

Q. All right.

Now, you indicated to the investigators that you were 30 to 40 yards
away from them at the time you observed the incident, correct?

A. It's approximate.

Q. You were 90 to 120 feet away from these two individuals?

A. Possibly closer to 20 yards.

Q. Well, you said, when you were asked, and how far again were you now
approximately 30 to 40 yards away, but directly in front. That's what
you told the police or the investigators -- D.A. investigators on
December 17, 1994, correct?

A. That's about right.

Q. And so, as I understand it, Nicole Brown Simpson, according to your
testimony, never even turned around while you were out in the water,
waves are breaking, Mr. Simpson and Nicole Brown Simpson are up on the
sand some 90 to 120 feet away, and you hear what they say; is that
right?

A. I didn't hear what she said, no.

Q. Well, I thought you said you heard -- well, strike that.

Is it your testimony now you didn't hear any comments of Nicole Brown
Simpson?

A. No, I didn't hear any conversation.

Q. Is it your testimony, sir, that when you were 90 to 120 feet away
out in the water, surf breaking, and the Simpsons are in front of you,
that you heard or didn't hear anything that was said between the two
of them, yes or no?

A. I heard -- I heard some things, yes.

Q. So you heard, as you testified here, Nicole Brown Simpson say no,
no, in a crying voice in between the surf, and being 90 and 120 feet
away, you could discern all of that, right?

A. I was pretty focused at this time.

Q. You could discern all of it, you heard what she said, you noticed
the connotation that it was a crying voice, you knew all of that from
your location 90 to 120 feet away, right?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Thank you.

Now, and you observed Mr. Simpson stay there, you say, after -- a
while after Nicole Brown Simpson left the area?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

Let me show you this page 2 of the statement and ask you if you
remember the question asked by Investigator Stevens, where he says do
you remember the specific date, month and day.

Do you remember your response to that?

A. That isn't accurate, what it says there.

Q. Is it your testimony -- your response, according to the transcript
of the tape, that you had seen before you testified today was, quote,
it was either the 4th of July morning or the day before the 4th of
July, correct? That's what this transcript indicates, true?

A. That's what is says there, yes.

Q. And you, of course, say now, that you would never say -- have said
that it was the 3rd or the 4th of July, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay.

And you don't know why that it appears in two places in the matter of
about 10 questions, the 3rd and 4th of July, as contrasted to what you
now say is the date, that being the 1st of July, right?

A. I can't account for that, no.

Q. And you have no explanation for that at all, right?

A. No.

Q. And by the way, sir, how many television shows have you been on
relative to this purported story of July 4, 1986?

MR. KELLY: Objection, relevance.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Zero.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, how about "CBS This Morning," the name of the
show being "CBS This Morning," you been on that show?

A. They taped me on my beach.

Q. Well, didn't you think that when they taped you on your beach, that
you were going to be on the show?

A. I thought you were referring if I was in the studio. They
interviewed me.

Q. And you haven't shied away from publicity in this case, have you,
sir?

A. That's not true.

Q. How about the "L.A. Times," did you grant them an interview telling
your purported story?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you ever -- after you saw the transcript that I put in front of
you at least three times today, did you ever ask anybody from the LA
D.A.'s office to change any of the remarks that are attributed to you
in that statement?

A. Those are -- those remarks, the first time I saw them was last week
sometime.

Q. Did you ever ask anybody from the LA D.A.'s office to change any of
the remarks that were attributed to you in that statement?

A. Never had an opportunity.

Q. In the last week, you have never had an opportunity and you've
never asked to hear the same tape?

A. First time I --

MR. KELLY: Objection.

A. -- Wednesday morning.

THE COURT: Excuse me.

MR. BAKER: I don't have anything further of this witness.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KELLY:

Q. Mr. Aguilera, have you ever made a nickel from anyone or anything
with regard to your observations that day in July, 1986?

A. No.

Q. Okay.

With regard to July 4th in '86, do you recall what day of the week
that was on?

A. Saturday.

Q. And were you even in Blue Lagoon where you were living at the time,
on that day, July 4th?

A. No.

Q. Do you recall when you had left there that early July, 1986?

A. I left about Thursday.

Q. Okay.

And is that why you can remember now what date it was that you made
those observations?

MR. BAKER: Leading and suggestive.

A. Yes.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Do you have any reason you specifically recall what
date it would have been you made these observations?

A. Yes. When Art and I were walking on the beach, one of the things we
were talking about was whether I was going to stick around for the
4th. I told him I didn't think so.

Q. Now, Mr. Baker also made reference to this friend of yours who was
unavailable to testify here today -- that you were walking along with
that day.

What was his name again?

A. Art Sorce.

Q. Is he, in fact, unavailable to testify here at this time, before
the ladies and gentlemen of the jury?

A. Yes.

Q. And why is that?

A. He passed away.

Q. How long ago?

A. In 1989.

Q. Okay.

And also, you were asked about testifying a certain way because you
had learned of Mr. Simpson engaging in a charity softball event, or
something on the 4th of July, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you ever learned anything, at any time, about any of Mr.
Simpson's activities, prior to your testifying here?

A. No.

Q. Okay.

And one last thing: You were asked about whether at Victoria Beach
there is -- it is crowded or not.

First of all, did you observe any other people on the beach that day,
at that time when you made those observations?

A. Mainly, there was 8 to 10 people on the beach that day.

Q. Was there anyone closer, that you could see?

A. No.

Q. Now, is there any public access to Victoria Beach where you made
those observations?

A. At the north end of the beach, yes.

Q. Okay.

But in the area you made these observations, is that --

A. Pretty much from the homes that are right on the beach.

Q. Okay.

There's no public parking there either?

A. No.

Q. And was it your experience, down there, that this was generally not
too crowded an area during the week on that beach?

A. During the week, yes.

Q. Okay.

MR. KELLY: I have no further questions.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I want to be heard on this issue, on the other
hearing issue.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench with reporter:)

MR. BAKER: When he asked about did you hear from any source about Mr.
Simpson's charity softball game or anything else, I think he's opened
the door to those custody hearings because he testified to those
custody hearings and he testified on the 3rd and 4th is my
recollection, and I don't have the transcript here.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. KELLY: Your Honor, I was just asking a question in response to Mr.
Baker's cross-examination. That was it.

THE COURT: I will not reopen it. Denied. (The following proceedings
were held in open court in the presence of the jury.)
RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER:

Q. Were you interviewed by "The Globe," Mr. Anguilera?

A. No, I was not.

Q. Your ex-wife reported this whole incident that you say occurred to
"The Globe," correct?

MR. KELLY: Objection, hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You were aware, because you were subsequently
contacted after this appeared in "The Globe" by the LAPD or LA D.A.'s
office, that your wife had put your purported rendition of this event
in "The Globe," correct?

MR. KELLY: Same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAKER: On what grounds, sir.

THE COURT: It's hearsay.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you ever read this article -- any article in
"The Globe" relating to this purported event?

MR. KELLY: Objection.

THE COURT: You can answer yes or no.

A. Yes.

Q. Did you read the portion that is attributed to you in the article?

A. Yes.

Q. And is it your testimony, as you sit here today, that you never had
any interview with "The Globe" whatsoever?

A. I never even talked to my ex-wife about this incident.

Q. I didn't ask you if you talked to your wife about it. I asked you
if you, in fact, talked to "The Globe" about it.

MR. KELLY: Objection, asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

You may answer.

A. No, I did not.

Q. And so the -- what is it attributed to the -- to you in "The
Globe," you never said that either?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, did you -- did you indicate to the police that you could hear
Nicole talking from 90 to 120 feet away to -- to Mr. Simpson?

MR. KELLY: Objection, improper recross.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you, at any time, indicate to anyone, that you
could hear Nicole Brown Simpson communicating with O.J. Simpson when
you were 30 yards out in the water, waves crashing, and Mr. and Mrs.
Simpson were up on the beach?

MR. KELLY: Same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) So all of these comments that you made to the
investigators in the LA D.A.'s office, indicating that when you
purportedly saw this incident, being the 3rd or 4th of July, are
absolutely incorrect, and you have no explanation, whatsoever, how
they could have mixed up the 1st of July for the 3rd or 4th?

A. That's correct.

MR. KELLY: Same objection, argumentative and compound.

MR. BAKER: I don't have anything else.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. KELLY: Nothing further.

THE COURT: You may step down.

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, we need to go a little bit out of order
because of the subject matter, because of scheduling. Charles Cale is
the next witness.

THE CLERK: Sir, if you step up behind the court reporter. Right there
is fine.

Please raise your right hand to be sworn.

CHARLES CALE was called as a witness on behalf of the Plaintiffs, was
duly sworn and testified as follows:

THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in
the cause now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

THE WITNESS: I do.

THE CLERK: Thank you. Please be seated.

And, sir, if you would please state and spell your name for the
record.

THE WITNESS: My name is Charles, C-h-a-r-l-e-s, Griffin,
G-r-i-f-f-i-n, Cale, C-a-l-e.

THE CLERK: Thank you.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GELBLUM:

Q. Morning, Mr. Cale.

Morning.

Are you here under subpoena, sir?

A. Yes, sir, I am.

Q. Where do you live?

A. I live on North Rockingham Avenue.

Q. How far away from Mr. Simpson's house?

A. Several hundred yards.

Q. Do you know where Mr. Simpson lives?

A. Yes, sir, I do.

Q. Which direction from Mr. Simpson's house?

A. I live north on Rockingham -- from the corner of Ashford and
Rockingham.

Q. How long have you lived there?

A. Approximately 14 years.

Q. Since about 1982?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What's your occupation, sir?

A. I'm a self-employed investor, private trustee, and corporate
director.

Q. Okay.

And in your career, have you ever done any work with the Olympic
movement?

A. Yes, sir, I have.

Q. What's that?

A. I was Group Vice President of Sports and responsible for sports in
a number of other areas for the 1984 Olympic Games with the Los
Angeles Olympic Organizing Committee. That was the 1982 to 1984
organization.

From 1985 through 1992, I was assistant to the president of the United
States Olympic Committee and Assistant Chief of the United States
Olympic team in South Korea in 1988.

Q. What year?

A. 1988.

Q. And have you been involved with any other sporting organizations?

MR. BAKER: Objection, relevance.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Yes, sir, I have.

Q. What's that?

A. I was a member of the board, co-chairman and CEO of the World Cup
Organizing Committee for the Soccer World Cup, CEO and co-chairman for
a year, little over a year, and member of the board for a total of
about five years.

Q. That was the World Cup just held in the United States?

A. In 1994.

Q. You lived up the street from Mr.Simpson on June 12, 1994?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Did you walk your dog that night?

A. Yes, sir, I did.

Q. About what time?

A. Neighborhood of 9:30 to 9:45.

Q. How do you know it was that time?

A. Well, I was leaving for a trip early the next morning, it's a trip
I regularly take, or not irregularly at least, and I was having to
leave my house before 7 and get up at 6, and when I do that I pack the
evening before and make sure that I get in bed by approximately 10
o'clock or shortly thereafter.

Q. That's a routine you have when you take this trip?

A. Yes, sir, it is.

And that evening I went out with the dog, after I packed, and before I
turned in.

MR. GELBLUM: Steve, can you put up Exhibit 2067, please. (The
instrument herein described as an aerial photograph of North
Rockingham Avenue and Ashford Avenue was marked for identification as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2067.)

Q. Do you recognize what's on the monitor?

A. Yes, sir. It's a little hard from this angle, but it --

Q. If you want to get up, you can go ahead and get up.

A. It's North Rockingham Avenue, and the street coming in from the
right appears to be Ashford.

May I?

Q. Sure.

(Witness stepped down from the witness stand to view Exhibit 2067.)

A. Yes.

Q. It appears -- there should be a pointer on the stand up there.

Just show generally what direction you live.

Can you point out Mr. Simpson's house, first of all.

A. This -- I believe this is Ashford. It comes into Rockingham. This
is North Rockingham. Mr. Simpson's property is at this corner, which
would be the southeast corner of Rockingham and Ashford.

(Witness indicates.)

Q. And you live?

A. I live in the northerly direction, yes, sir.

Q. Now, that night on June 12, did you walk south on Rockingham at
all?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. From your house?

A. Yes, sir. At the conclusion of my walk, I believe I started up,
perhaps, to the north, and then walked back down south, and then
turned around and went back to my house.

Q. How far was the farthest point south you got on Rockingham?

A. To my best recollection, it's right in this area here.

Q. Okay.

A. Down in the area of the -- of the -- somewhere by the driveway, I
remember the property there, or slightly south.

Q. It's the first driveway on the east side of Rockingham, north of
Ashford?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. For the record, it's, I'd say, about halfway down from the top of
the photograph to Ashford.

A. Yes, sir. I'd say, again, in this area here.

Q. Okay.

Did you have a clear view down south on Rockingham?

A. Yes.

Q. Are there street lights?

A. There's some, yes, sir. There's one street light right here at the
corner.

Q. You can take a seat.

(Witness complies.)

Q. When you took your walk between 9:30 and 9:45, was there a car
parked on the east side of Rockingham, between Ashford and the
Rockingham driveway, from Mr. Simpson's property?

A. No, sir, there was not.

Q. Was there a car parked anywhere between -- if I can have the
pointer, please.

(Witness hands pointer to counsel.)

Q. Anywhere between Ashford, here on the north, and this driveway of
Mr. Simpson's estate, here on the east side?

A. No, I don't believe there was a car anywhere on Rockingham, that I
could see, down south.

Q. And you believe that was between 9:30 and 9:45 on June 12?

A. Yes, sir. I would say closer to 9:45.

Q. Did you see anybody walking out in that area, while you were out?

A. No, sir, I did not.

Q. Did you see the defendant, Mr. Simpson?

A. No, sir, I did not.

Q. Now, as of that night, June 12, 1994, you had lived up the street
from Mr. Simpson for about 12 years; is that right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And during those 12 years, on the average, how many times did you
drive down Rockingham, past Mr. Simpson's property, how frequently?

A. More than once a day I would pass that -- his property.

Q. Okay.

And in all that time, do you recall ever once having seen a white Ford
Bronco parked on the east side of Rockingham, by Mr. Simpson's
property?

A. No, sir, I did not.

MR. BAKER: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Now, did you ever see a white Ford Bronco parked
on Ashford?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Frequently?

A. Not infrequently.

Q. Now, the next morning you said you had to catch a plane?

A. That's correct.

Q. What time did you leave your house?

A. Slightly before 7 in the morning.

Q. What route did you take?

A. We came out and went south on Rockingham, and we're going to turn
left, normally we would turn -- turn left on -- on Ashford and go
across to Cliffwood, but I -- we saw there was a -- a police car
parked just east of the intersection, sort of between Rockingham and
the gate on Ashford of Mr. Simpson's property, so I was -- I was being
dropped off at the airport, and I said, let's turn, I don't know what
that is, let's keep going south on Rockingham.

Q. And you proceeded past Mr. Simpson's property on Rockingham?

A. That is correct.

Q. Did you see a white Ford Bronco parked outside Mr. Simpson's house
at the time?

A. Yes, sir, I did.

Q. Where was it parked?

A. It was parked north of the Rockingham gate, on the east side of
Rockingham, pointed north.

Q. Can you point to approximately where you saw it?

(Witness indicates.)

MR. GELBLUM: Can you see?

Q. Can you stand on the other side so the jury can see.

A. Excuse me.

It was here at the Rockingham gate, and it was right -- right in that
area.

Q. Thank you.

MR. GELBLUM: I have no further questions.

THE COURT: Cross.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER:

Q. Mr. Cale, as I understand it, from 9:30 to 9:45 you started -- can
you put that back on the Elmo, please, on the monitor -- you started
north of Mr. Simpson's home and then you proceeded down south,
correct?

A. That's my recollection, yes.

Q. And you didn't see any cars on Rockingham, parked on either side of
the street, right?

A. That is correct.

Q. You didn't see a limo driver come down the street, up Rockingham
towards Ashford, either, did you?

A. Not when I was out there, no, sir, I did not.

Q. You didn't see a limousine driver pull down Ashford, did you?

A. No, sir, I did not.

Q. You didn't see a limousine driver, at the time you were walking,
come out of -- out of Ashford and go back down and pull in by the gate
area on Rockingham, did you?

A. I think that was covered by my prior answer. It was no.

Q. So you didn't.

And you saw -- and you didn't hear any vehicles during that time come
north or south or east or west on -- on Rockingham or Ashford,
correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. So as I understand your testimony then, it was 9:30 to 9:45, and
you were walking south on Rockingham, and it was obviously dark out,
right?

A. It was evening, yes, sir.

Q. All right.

And there was a street light over across on the north side of --

A. On the corner.

Q. Yeah.

And there's no street lights down here in the -- south of Mr.
Simpson's property, correct?

A. The predominant light is that one on the corner.

Q. All right.

And as you sit here today, as you testified in the criminal trial, you
had no recollection of seeing any vehicles whatsoever that night,
correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. And you are an attorney, are you not, sir?

A. I'm not practicing, but I'm a law school graduate and I did
practice law.

Q. You practiced law in the State of California for a while, did you
not, sir?

A. I did.

Q. And as I recall, you didn't file a report relative to any of this
until January of 1995 because you said you didn't know how to contact
the police; is that right?

A. I don't believe that's completely accurate. I think I said that I
did not know that what I had not seen had any relevance to the -- to
the matter.

Q. You made no contact, no attempts to contact the police until
January of 1995; is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. Now, you and other neighbors in the area certainly are not, let's
say, pleased about all of the activities that have gone on in the
neighborhood since June of 1994, correct?

A. I think that would be a safe statement.

Q. In fact, you -- would you possibly agree with me, that there have
been meetings as to how to get Mr. Simpson to leave the area; isn't
that true?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection, relevance.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I believe that there have been.

Q. And would it be also fair to say that you've talked to your
neighborhood, and Mr. Simpson is, as the Latin phrase, persona non
gratia, he's not terribly welcome in the neighborhood because of the
June 1994 murders, and the activities that have gone on, and the
looky-loos and all that around your neighborhood; is that correct?

A. I think there have been discussions. I don't believe that I really
discussed it with people.

Q. Well, I'm sorry, sir, maybe my question wasn't very clear.

I asked you if you had -- I said you would agree with me that in the
neighborhood, because of the murders of June of 1994, Mr. Simpson is
persona non gratia in your neighborhood.

MR. GELBLUM: Objection, irrelevant.

He didn't participate.

THE COURT: It's irrelevant except as to this witness's state of mind.

You may inquire as to his state of mind, not to the neighbors.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Your state of mind is you want him out of there,
too?

A. I would prefer that there weren't looky-loos, and people that came
through the streets all the time.

Q. You would prefer that he be out of there, correct?

A. I think probably.

Q. Now, you had -- that night you didn't see, for example, did you --
you didn't see Kato Kaelin's 300ZQ that night either, did you?

A. I did not see any cars on Rockingham.

Q. Okay.

And did -- strike that.

The closest you got to Mr. Simpson's property was approximately 200
feet north of his property, as it intersects Ashford, up in this area,
correct?

A. I believe it was in the neighborhood of 200 feet. I think it was
somewhere down around the -- the driveway that I pointed out.

Q. Okay.

And you were on the east side of the street or the west side of the
street?

A. I was probably walking in the middle of the street or from side to
side as the dog dictated.

Q. And, Mr. Cale, that area where you've resided for the last 14 years
is exceedingly quiet, especially on a Sunday night, is it not?

A. It is, yes.

Q. And from where you were, 200 feet north of Mr. Simpson's property,
if a car came north on Rockingham, after it turned from Sunset onto
Rockingham and came north, you could see that car and its headlamps
half a mile --

A. I don't think --

Q. -- south?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection, calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I don't know that you could as far as a half mile because of the
bend, but you could certainly see several hundreds of yards, I
believe.

Q. And so, if any vehicle had been on Rockingham and going north, you
would have seen at least the headlamps, correct, while you were
walking your dog that evening?

A. I believe, certainly, after it had passed Parkyns which is the next
street to the south.

Q. And this obviously wasn't the first time you walked your dog, I
assume, sir?

A. No, sir.

Q. And you had obviously been in tune, I take it, to some extent, to
the noise levels in the area, correct?

A. I think -- I think so, yes.

Q. All right.

And --

A. It's a fairly quiet neighborhood, if that's what you're asking.

Q. Yes.

And Parkyns is a street that goes off to the east as well below the
picture that we have on the monitor now, correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. Even before you see any headlamps, because Rockingham turns a
little bit to the east as it gets to Parkyns, doesn't it?

A. Yes, sir, it does.

Q. You could hear a vehicle if a vehicle was coming in that direction,
could you not?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection, relevance.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I don't know that you could -- I know you could -- probably could
see the headlights a lot sooner than you could ever hear it.

Q. Okay. Thank you.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GELBLUM:

Q. Mr. Baker asked you some questions about whether you saw a
limousine driving around that night.

Were you outside at 10:15, 10:20 that night?

A. No, sir, I was not.

Q. So if a limousine drove around the corner at 10:23, 10:24, 10:25,
you were not in a position to see it?

A. I was in bed, if not asleep.

Q. Mr. Baker asked you some questions about seeing headlights and
hearing cars on Rockingham.

Did you go over that night and stand by Mr. Simpson's Ashford gate and
get inside a car and turn the radio on and look for cars?

A. No, sir.

MR. BAKER: I object to the leading and his pointing as indicating
where the car was when there's no evidence of that.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Did you go on Ashford at all that night?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you go look down Ashford to see Mr. -- whether Mr. Kaelin's
Datsun was there?

A. No, sir.

MR. GELBLUM: Nothing further.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER:

Q. Did you see any cars, sir, on Rockingham at all on June 12, 1994?

A. I thought I indicated earlier that I --

THE COURT: This is during that time period?

MR. BAKER: No. At all during --

THE COURT: There is 24 hours in a day, Mr. Baker.

MR. BAKER: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: There's 24 hours in a day.

MR. BAKER: I understand that.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Let me put it this way, did you observe any vehicles
the afternoon of the 12th?

MR. GELBLUM: Outside the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained. That is irrelevant.

You may inquire, if your question is as to the specific time period.
That's relevant. You may inquire.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you know in June of 1994, after Fuhrman's
testimony to the grand jury hearing, that the issue --

MR. GELBLUM: Objection.

MR. PETROCELLI: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAKER: How do we know what the question is?

THE COURT: Because it's -- I will sustain the objection.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You were aware in June of 1994, that the Bronco was
an issue relative to the accusations that O.J. Simpson murdered two
people on June 12, 1994, correct?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection, outside the scope of redirect.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You may answer that.

A. No, I was not.

Q. And at no time, from June of 1994 to January of 1995, did you
become aware that the Bronco was an issue relative to the innocence or
guilt of Mr. Simpson in the murders of June 12, 1994?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection, overbroad, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. GELBLUM: Whether the Bronco was an issue, that's a broad
statement.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Let me it put it this way, did you know the Bronco
was an element of the case?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Same objection.

During what time period?

MR. BAKER: Let's say July of 1994.

MR. GELBLUM: We're talking about where the Bronco was parked.
Overbroad.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAKER: I'd like to read from the criminal trial testimony, 21201,
lines 2 through 7.

MR. GELBLUM: Objection. It's the same question you just sustained an
objection to.

MR. BAKER: Objection wasn't made at the criminal trial.

MR. GELBLUM: Same questions.

MR. PETROCELLI: Lack of foundation.

THE COURT: You may ask a question.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You knew as early as July of 1994, that the Bronco
was at least an issue in the case, did you not?

MR. GELBLUM: Same objection.

THE COURT: I'll sustain that.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You knew as early as July of 1994 that the Bronco
was at least an issue in the criminal case, being a lawyer, did you
not?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You knew it was an element in the case in July of
1994 and never talked to the police until January of 1995?

MR. GELBLUM: Same objection, compound.

THE COURT: The question was asked and answered by this witness on the
first cross-examination.

Sustained.

MR. BAKER: Nothing further.

MR. GELBLUM: Nothing further.

THE COURT: You are excused.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

THE COURT: 1:30, ladies and gentlemen. Don't talk about the case,
don't form or express any opinions.

(At 12:01 P.M., a recess was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the same day).


SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1996
1:51 P.M.

DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ
HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE

(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)

(The jurors resumed their respective seats.)

THE COURT: Okay. You may proceed.

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor move in Exhibit 2067.

(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2067 was
received in evidence.)

THE COURT: It's received.

MR. KELLY: Thank you.

Mr. Cowlings, please.

ALLEN COWLINGS, called as a witness on behalf of Plaintiffs, was duly
sworn and testified as follows:

THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in
the cause now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

THE WITNESS: I do.

THE CLERK: You may be seated.

And, sir, would you please state and spell your name.

THE WITNESS: Allen Cowlings, A-L-L-E-N C-O-W-L-I-N-G-S.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KELLY:

Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Cowlings.

A. Good afternoon.

Q. Okay. Your first name is Allen; is that correct?

A. It's Allen.

Q. And you also are commonly referred to as -- as AC; is that correct
also?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. And, in fact, some people also refer to you as AC Cowlings on
occasion, do they not?

A. I have no knowledge of that.

Q. You corrected me once?

A. That's right.

Q. Okay.

I'm the only one that made that mistake?

A. No.

Q. Okay.

Anyway, today, you and I have not discussed prior to you taking the
stand, your testimony you're giving here today, have we?

A. No.

Q. Okay.

And I haven't told you any questions that I'm going to ask you and
gone over answers you might give, either, have we not?

A. No, you haven't.

Q. Okay.

Now, as you sit here today, would it be fair to say that Mr. Simpson
is your closest and dearest friend?

A. Yes; he still is.

Q. And he has been since childhood, has he not?

A. Yes, he has.

Q. Played high school, college, professional football together?

A. Yes.

Q. And you, in fact, stood up for him at his wedding when he married
Nicole Brown --

A. Yes.

Q. -- did you not?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And, in fact, you were over at his house the morning of June 13,
1994, when you found out that Nicole Brown Simpson had been killed,
were you not?

A. Yes, I have. [Sic]

Q. Okay.

Now, with regard to Nicole, you knew her from almost the time Mr.
Simpson started dating her, did you not?

A. Yes.

Q. And you -- would it be fair to say that you had a very strong
relationship with her?

A. Yes.

Q. And she was like a sister to you?

A. Yes.

Q. You loved her, did you not?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

Now, Mr. Cowlings, I want to take you to New Year's Eve, 1988. With
me?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

And do you recall where you were the night of New Year's Eve 1988?

A. At a New Year's Eve party.

Q. And whose party was that?

A. Mr. Peter Loche and his wife Karen.

Q. And do you recall approximately how many people were there at that
party?

A. I couldn't tell the you exact number.

Q. Pretty good size party, though?

A. Yes.

Q. And among the people present there were Mr. Simpson and Nicole?

A. Yes, they were.

Q. Okay.

And you talked to them over the course of the night?

A. I think -- Yes, we did. We did talk.

Q. And you were there past midnight, were you not?

A. Yeah. We all embraced each other at the striking hour of 12.

Q. And you specifically recall Mr. Simpson and Nicole being there past
midnight, also, do you not?

A. Yes.

Q. And that night, when you -- at least your observations, first of
all, of Mr. Simpson, do you recall him appearing intoxicated at all to
you, at any time when you saw him at that party?

A. I don't remember that.

Q. Okay.

And what about Nicole? When you spoke to her that night at all or
interacted with her, did she appear to be intoxicated at all to you?

A. I don't remember.

Q. Okay.

Now, do you recall approximately what time it was that you left this
party?

A. No. I couldn't tell you.

Q. Would you be able to approximate for me?

A. It was after 12 o'clock. I couldn't tell you exactly what time I
left.

Q. Okay.

And did you go back to your own house that night, after you left the
party?

A. Yes.

Yes, I did.

Q. Went home?

A. Yes.

Q. Went to bed?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

Did there come a time after you had gone to sleep that you received a
phone call?

A. Yes.

Q. And did you recall approximately what time that was?

A. I didn't look at the clock, so I couldn't tell you exactly what
time.

Q. Okay.

Who was the phone call from?

A. I'm -- I don't know if he -- if it was Arnelle or if it was
Michelle, the housekeeper. It was somebody from the Rockingham house
that called me.

Q. You're saying Michelle, the housekeeper, that was Mr. Simpson's
housekeeper at that time?

A. That was the Simpsons' housekeeper.

Q. I'm sorry; both of them, Mr. Simpson and Nicole?

A. Right.

Q. And what, if anything, was said to you in that phone call at the
time you received it?

MR. LEONARD: Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. KELLY: To explain subsequent conduct, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You may proceed subject to motion to strike.

MR. LEONARD: Same objection.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) What, if anything, was said to you when you picked
up the phone?

A. To be honest with you, I don't remember what was said.

Whatever was said was something urgent, and I was asked to come.

Q. Okay.

And you don't recall the reason you were asked to come over?

A. I'd be speculating. If I did say something, I don't remember
exactly what was said.

Q. Okay.

And what did you do upon being asked to come to Rockingham --

A. I got up --

Q. -- if anything?

A. -- got in the car, and drove over there.

Q. Approximately how much time elapsed from the time you got the phone
call until the time you got in the car and headed over to Rockingham?

A. Minutes. At that time I was living in Santa Monica, so it wasn't --
I wasn't that far away.

Q. But what I'm asking you, from the time you received the phone call
till the time you got in the car, how much time elapsed?

A. I couldn't tell you. It could have been minutes, five minutes, ten
minutes. I really don't know.

Q. And how long from the time you received the phone call did you
actually arrive at Rockingham?

A. I don't remember.

Q. Would you be able to approximate for me?

A. No.

Q. More than ten minutes?

A. I couldn't remember, sir.

Q. Now, can you tell me what you did upon your arrival at Rockingham
that --

By the way, was it still dark out when you headed over to Rockingham?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

And could you tell us what you did when you arrived at Rockingham?

A. Walked in. I don't know if I used the key or the gate was open.
Came into the house, and Nicole was in the kitchen.

Q. Was there anybody with Nicole at this time in the kitchen, when you
saw her?

A. No.

Q. And was she standing or sitting?

A. She was standing.

Q. And could you tell me what she was wearing at this time when you
observed her?

A. I think she had on a -- a -- warm-up bottoms and a leather jacket,
looked like an officer's leather jacket.

Q. Do you recall what color that jacket was?

A. Could have been brown; it could have been black. It was dark; it
was a dark color.

Q. And what was Nicole's state at this time?

What was her demeanor when you arrived there?

A. Upset, pissed.

Q. Okay.

Had she been crying?

MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation.

A. I don't know.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Can you tell whether she had been crying or not?

A. No, I couldn't say.

Q. And could you describe her physical appearance from what you could
observe in terms of her face, hair, things like that?

A. What do you mean by that?

Q. Well, first of all, did you see her face?

A. Yes.

Q. And can you describe it as you saw it that morning, when you first
arrived there?

A. Upset, looked like she was pissed, face was red.

Q. Did you make any other observations about her face, other than the
fact it was red?

A. No.

Q. Okay.

Did you see any lumps on her forehead at that time?

A. No.

Q. Did you see any lump on her cheek at that time?

A. No.

Q. Did she have a lump?

A. Not that I noticed.

Q. Okay.

Did you notice any lump on her cheek?

A. No.

Q. Did you notice any scratches on her?

A. No.

Q. Did you notice a split lip?

A. No.

Q. Did you notice any hand imprint on her neck?

A. No.

Q. Now, was it that you -- are you able to say that she did not have
these different marks on her at this time, Mr. Cowlings?

A. I didn't notice any of those marks. I wasn't looking for any marks.
My concern was that she was upset and pissed off, and I was there to
assist her if she needed help.

Q. And what, if anything, did you say to her at the time when you
arrived?

MR. LEONARD: Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) What in particular did she say to you at this time?

MR. LEONARD: Objection. Hearsay, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Was she still upset at that time when you were --
when you arrived there at the house?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

And was it your understanding that she was still upset as to something
that had occurred just prior that you remember, that you were called
over there for?

MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation; lack of foundation, and
hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: May I have the question again, sir?

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Was it your impression that she was still upset
about something that had occurred earlier there that you had come over
there for, Mr. Cowlings?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

Now, once again, can you tell me what you said to her at this time.

MR. LEONARD: Objection; hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) And can you tell me what she said to you.

MR. LEONARD: Objection; hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. KELLY: Your Honor, I believe that --

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I ask for no speaking objections; if we can
approach side bar.

THE COURT: I sustained the objection.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) After you were in the kitchen, what, if anything,
did you observe next?

A. That she was upset, she was angry. She didn't talk that much. She
was just kind of like pouting, with herself, and that was about it.

Q. Okay.

And did you see anybody else there in the kitchen at any time, other
than Nicole?

A. I heard some noise coming from the dining room. And as I looked
towards that opening of the door, I saw O.J. step in, into the area
where Nicole and I were.

Q. Was that the first time you had seen him since you arrived there at
Rockingham?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, what, if anything, happened then, when he came into the
kitchen doorway?

A. He said that he wanted --

MR. LEONARD: Objection, Your Honor. Object to the hearsay.

THE COURT: That's overruled.

THE WITNESS: The question again?

Q. I'm sorry.

What, if anything, did Mr. Simpson say and/or do after you observed
him in the kitchen doorway?

A. He wanted to talk to Nicole.

Q. And did he talk to her?

A. She didn't want to hear from him.

Q. She didn't converse with him at that time?

A. No; she didn't want to talk to him.

Q. And what, if anything else, did she do other than indicate she
didn't want to talk to him at this point in time?

MR. LEONARD: Object to any hearsay response at this point; what she
did, not what she did.

THE COURT: What did she do, other than indicate she didn't want to
talk to him at this time?

Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Did you see her take any actions, also?

A. She picked up the phone.

Q. Did you see her dial a number?

A. No. She told me if he didn't leave, that she was going --

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I'd object to the hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled. Simpson was present.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) I'm sorry?

A. That she was going to call the police.

Q. And what, if anything, did Simpson do after Nicole stated that?

A. He left.

Q. Do you recall seeing how Mr. Simpson left, first of all, the room?

A. Not really. I mean, he went back to -- back through the dining
room.

Q. And do you know whether he left over the front or rear of the house
at this time.

MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation.

A. I couldn't tell you for sure.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Can you tell me which -- which part of the house he
headed to after he left the kitchen?

A. He walked back into the dining room there, which was --

Q. Is that towards the rear of the house?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

And what, if anything, did you do after Mr. Simpson went back to the
rear part of the house?

A. I asked her whether she going to be okay.

She said, AC, I just want to be alone.

And then I left.

Q. Went home?

A. Yes.

Q. Went to bed?

A. I don't know if I went back to bed, but I went home.

Q. Okay.

Did there come a time that you received another phone call?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Okay. Was it early that same morning, still?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. And who was that call from?

A. I don't know if was O.J. or if it was Alan Schwartz, but I was
called from -- someone from the house, from Alan's house.

Q. And did they ask anything of you at that time?

MR. LEONARD: Objection. Hearsay.

THE WITNESS: They wanted me to come over.

THE COURT: Just a minute.

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.

MR. LEONARD: Withdrawn.

THE COURT: Okay.

Okay. Go ahead.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) What was said to you over the phone?

A. Without -- that I was asked to come over.

Q. And do you recall whether or not if it was Mr. Simpson that called
you?

A. I don't remember.

Q. And what did you do after you were asked to come over Schwartz's
house?

A. Got up and drove over to Alan's house.

Q. Okay.

And how long a time period lapsed from the time you received that
second phone call and you got over to Alan Schwartz's house?

A. Minutes.

Q. Okay.

By the way, who was Alan Schwartz?

A. Who is he?

Q. Yeah. I mean, he's a friend of yours?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

Friend of Mr. Simpson's, also?

A. Yes.

Q. And he lived in -- close by to the Rockingham residence, also?

A. He lived on Mandeville Canyon.

Q. When you arrived at Schwartz's house -- first of all, did you see
Mr. Simpson's car there, when you arrived at Schwartz's house?

A. I don't remember seeing O.J.'s car, no.

Q. Okay.

Did you later learn it was in Mr. Schwartz's garage?

A. Later on, I was told that it was in the garage.

Q. Okay.

What, if anything, did you observe when you arrived at Schwartz's
house and went inside?

A. Alan talking to me.

Q. I'm sorry?

A. Alan talking to me.

Q. Okay.

And you had a conversation with Schwartz?

A. Mostly Alan was talking. I was just listening, 'cause nothing made
sense, 'cause I didn't know at that time what had happened.

Q. And did you then see Mr. Simpson there, also?

A. Yes, I did see him.

Q. Okay.

And first of all, can you describe Mr. Simpson as he appeared to you
when you saw him at that time?

A. Upset, bothered.

Q. And how was he dressed, or what was his appearance at the time when
you saw him?

A. He was sitting down when I first saw him. He had a blanket over his
shoulders. He was cold, he said.

Q. And did you have a conversation with him at that time?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

And can you tell me what the substance of that conversation was?

A. To the extent what had happened, and he talked -- and I never
really got a detailed -- exactly what happened.

Q. Well, did he -- did he ask you to do something, also, in the course
of that conversation?

A. Not right at that time.

Q. Well, a short time later, when you're there and still talking to
him?

A. Alan had said something to me.

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I object to anything Mr. Schwartz said unless
there's a foundation laid.

THE COURT: Lay a foundation, who was present.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) When you had a conversation -- first of all, you
indicated you had a conversation with Mr. Schwartz when you arrived
there, correct?

A. Right.

Q. Okay.

And was that in the den of their house there, or what room was it in?

A. That was in the family room.

Q. Okay.

And Mr. Simpson was present there, also?

A. No.

Q. Okay.

Did you later go to where Mr. Simpson was seated?

A. Yes.

Q. What room was that?

A. That was in the den.

Q. Okay.

Was Mr. Schwartz in there with you, also?

A. I'm not sure. He could have been.

Q. Okay.

Well, did you ever have a discussion -- further discussion with Mr.
Schwartz as to something he wanted you to do or retrieve?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. What was that, with Mr. Schwartz or Mr. Simpson?

A. I think it was with Alan first.

Q. Okay.

First of all, what did Alan -- that's Alan Schwartz?

A. Alan Schwartz, yes.

Q. What did Alan Schwartz say to you, first of all?

MR. LEONARD: Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Was Mr. Simpson present there when you had this
discussion with Alan Schwartz?

A. I don't remember.

Q. What was the discussion you had with Mr. Simpson?

MR. LEONARD: Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled. He didn't answer.

MR. LEONARD: He said he had a discussion about the event.

THE COURT: He was asked what was said. He did not answer.

You may respond what Mr. Simpson and you discussed, said.

THE WITNESS: Could I have the question again.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Well, you indicated you went into the room with Mr.
-- where Mr. Simpson was seated with the blanket around him, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. There was a reason Mr. Simpson had called you to Mr. Schwartz's
house also, was there not, Mr. Cowlings?

MR. LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Yes, there was a reason.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Okay.

And you had a conversation with Mr. Simpson regarding something he
wanted you to do, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

And can you relate that conversation to the jury, Mr. Cowlings.

A. He wanted to know how Nicole was doing. He wanted me to retrieve
some stuff that he had taken with him.

Q. What stuff, first of all, that he had taken from Rockingham?

A. Well, the first thing that was brought to my attention through both
parties that was there -- that there was a set of car keys that were
lost.

Q. And whose car keys were those?

A. Those car keys were Alan Schwartz's.

Q. Okay.

And were you told, first of all, where those car keys were lost?

A. It had to be somewhere between the time that he went back to the
house.

Q. What I'm asking, "he" meaning Mr. Simpson?

A. Yes, O.J.

Q. Did Mr. Simpson indicate to you, first of all, where he had lost
Schwartz's car keys?

A. It had to be between where he got out of Alan's car to come back
into the house.

Q. Okay.

And did he give you some sort of description of the route he had taken
to look for those keys?

A. Yes.

Q. And what did he tell you?

A. The car was parked on Bristol, a block east of O.J.'s house, like
around the corner. His travels took him through his neighbor's yard,
across the tennis court, through a gate, across his tennis court, into
his house.

Q. Did he tell you how he had gotten from the street --

First of all, when you say the neighbor's yard, that's the Von Watts?

A. Yes, Eric Von Watts.

Q. Did he tell you how he got into Von Watts's yard?

A. I don't remember.

Q. Mr. Cowlings, you testified on a prior occasion about these
specific matters?

A. In a case.

Q. On this case, this incident I'm asking about right now. You've
testified on a prior occasion regarding it, have you not?

A. You're talking about the deposition?

Q. Yeah.

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And you were under oath at that time?

A. Yes.

Q. And I asked you -- I asked you questions and you gave me answers?

A. Yes.

Q. And did you remember more about this incident than you do now, Mr.
Cowlings?

A. Somewhat.

Q. Do you recall stating, first of all, that Mr. Simpson told you that
you -- he had jumped over a fence on Ashford to get into the Von
Watts' property and into the backyard?

A. I may have said that.

Q. Would it refresh your recollection to see your prior testimony, Mr.
Cowlings?

A. Probably.

MR. KELLY: If I can have a moment, please, Judge.

(Pause.)

MR. KELLY: 363, 364 -- actually, strike that. 357, lines 12 to 21.

THE COURT: I got "actually, strike that," and nothing else is showing
on the . . .

THE REPORTER: I'll have to check it at a break, Judge.

(Referring to computer screen.)

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Do you see the monitor there, Mr. Cowlings?

A. Yes.

Q. The first question I asked.

(READING:)

All right okay go on, I'm sorry to interrupt you. This is talking
about what he told you at Von Watts, and your answer is, "So, I said,
well, where did you hide it. He says, well, I know I went over -- no,
no, I take that back, I take that back. Besides the jewelry bag, he
had lost his keys, his car keys, so I said, well, let's back track and
how did you leave, so he -- meaning Simpson, had went over the Von
Watts's wall. And at that time I don't think they had the tennis court
then, so I back tracked, I'm climbing over fences."

Does that refresh your recollection, Mr. Cowlings?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall now that Mr. Simpson told you he had gone over the --
the fence between Ashford and the Von Watts' property?

A. When I said over, I probably meant he went over there, on over the
property, not saying that he went over the fence.

MR. KELLY: Steve, can you put on page 360, please. 360, lines 10 to
20.

(Transcript displayed on Elmo.)

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Starting at line 10. (Reading.)

"Q. Okay. What specific directions did Simpson give you in terms of
finding those keys? "A. It was over a fence. "Q. What fence? "The Von
Watts. "Q. What type of fence was that? "A. Chain link fence -- it
could have been a wooden fence. "Did he indicate to you that he had
climbed over that chain link fence? "A. Yes."

Do you remember being asked those questions and giving those answers?

A. Yes.

MR. KELLY: 363, 364, Steve. Line 21 to 25.

(Transcript displayed on Elmo.)

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) This is a continuous answer starting at 21.
(Reading.) "I looked around there. I continued towards -- he said he
had jumped the wooden fence that runs along Ashford, so I went over --
"Q. Not to his property? "A. No. From the Von Watts. I mean Eric and
Val have a -- there's a brick about 3 feet then it's wood. "Right. "It
goes maybe five foot high, four foot, I don't know exactly. "So I went
to where he approximately said and I looked around the -- on the house
side the yard and I didn't see it, and when I put my hands up to jump
over the fence, I kind of looked down and I saw the keys in the brick
and the grass, right there was two keys."

Do you remember being asked those questions and giving those answers,
Mr. Cowlings?

A. Yes.

Q. Did that refresh your recollection now that Mr. Simpson told you he
had gone over the fence on Ashford of the Von Watts' property?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

Now -- and in fact, when you went back to Rockingham to -- you went
back there to look for a couple items. It was the keys and something
else, was it not?

A. Yes.

Q. And what else was it Mr. Simpson asked you to go back there and
look for?

A. There was a bag of some kind that he had put in a neighbor's
garbage can.

Q. Okay.

And do you recall where that garbage can was located?

A. The house was on Bristol.

Q. And Bristol runs perpendicular to Ashford; is that right?

A. Right.

Q. And how many houses down Bristol was this house from Ashford?

A. It was -- it was up the block, it was north of Ashford.

Q. Okay.

And how many houses from Rockingham was that?

A. No, it wasn't on Rockingham. I said Ashford.

Q. I mean from Ashford?

A. About three blocks up north of Ashford on Bristol.

Q. Okay.

And where had Mr. Simpson told you he had placed this -- this bag that
was in the garbage can?

A. He said about the third house up the block, walked down, walked the
driveway, and as you got to the end of driveway, there was three
garbage cans or -- one garbage can -- that the satchel bag was in one
of the garbage cans.

Q. It was right where he told you to look, in the garbage can?

A. Yes.

Q. Had you already found the keys there also?

A. No, no, I had found the -- looked in the bag first.

Q. And after you had found the bag, how did you proceed back to
Rockingham?

A. I proceeded the way that I came, came that way, still, you know,
looking for the keys.

Q. Okay.

Was that when you went up to the fence along Ashford and went to go
over it?

A. I didn't go over the fence. I walked through the gate they have
there.

Q. Okay.

And then did you go back to the fence where you had been directed by
Mr. Simpson?

A. I went back, I was back tracking 'cause I hadn't found the keys
yet.

Q. And then you found them at the base of the fence on Ashford?

A. After I went back, way back to O.J.'s house, I didn't find them, so
I came back towards the Von Watts and retracked my tracks again, and
when I got back to the outer fence that faced Ashford, I just braced
myself, I lifted myself up on top of the fence, that's when I saw the
keys.

Q. You were getting ready to go over the fence yourself at this time?

A. I didn't know if I was going to go over or not. I just lifted
myself to look along the fence.

Q. You saw them right at the base there?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

Now, after you had recovered both the keys and the bag out of the
trash can, what, if anything, did you do next?

A. I took the items back to Alan Schwartz's house.

Q. Schwartz -- you had Schwartz's keys?

A. Schwartz's car keys, yes -- no, I take that back. I drove Alan's
car back to his house.

Q. Okay.

And you gave him his car and his car keys back at that time?

A. Yes.

Q. And you gave Mr. Simpson the bag?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

And did you have any other conversation with Mr. Simpson at that time?

A. I probably did, but I don't remember --

Q. Okay.

A. -- what was said.

Q. Okay.

By the way, when you were over there and you found the -- located the
keys and the bag in the trash can, did you go into the Rockingham
house at all?

A. No.

Q. Didn't see Nicole at all?

A. No.

Q. Now, after you returned the keys and the bag, what, if anything,
did you do next?

A. I probably stayed at Alan's house for a while.

Q. Did you have occasion to go back to Rockingham after that time?

A. Not at that time, no.

Q. Was there some point that morning after you had been to Schwartz's
you went back to Rockingham?

A. During that morning?

Q. Yeah.

A. I think I called to see how she was doing.

Q. Was there a time you went over that morning, and in fact, she was
feeding the baby in the kitchen there, Mr. Cowlings?

A. No, it wasn't that morning.

Q. When was the next time you were over at Rockingham?

A. Later on that evening.

Q. And it's your testimony as you sit here today, after you returned
the keys and the bag to Schwartz's, you did not go over to Rockingham
at that time?

A. No, I don't think so.

Q. And you didn't testify in April this year, after you returned the
keys and bag to Mr. Simpson, you went back over to Rockingham and saw
Nicole again to check on her?

A. I saw Nicole later on that day. It wasn't that morning.

MR. KELLY: Steve, can I see that for a moment.

If I could have one moment, Judge.

(Pause.)

(Transcript displayed on Elmo.)

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Page 388, line 18. Question from myself to Mr.
Cowlings. (Reading.) "And, Mr. Cowlings, what did you do after leaving
Alan Schwartz's house at that time where you just returned with the
keys and jewelry bag? "A. What did I do once I left Alan's house? "You
did leave, didn't you? "Yes, I did. "Okay. And what did you do next?
"A. I went by the house to see Nicole. "Okay. Did you have any bearing
as to what time it was then? "Still in the morning. I don't know if it
was 8 o'clock, 8:30, I don't know for sure. Somewhere in that time
range, though."

Now, does that refresh your recollection as to whether you went by
that morning after leaving Mr. Schwartz's house, Mr. Cowlings?

A. When I said that in the depo, now I know I didn't go back over
there until later on that day. I didn't go back over there that
morning. I knew -- I remember that I did go, but now I know I went
back later on in the day that day, not in the morning.

Q. And you recall saying also that you went over that morning, that we
wanted to check on her, she was feeding the baby in the kitchen, Mr.
Cowlings?

A. That happened when I went back that afternoon -- I mean later on
that day, she was feeding the baby.

Q. Okay.

And when you testified that you had offered to take her to the
hospital that morning, that never happened?

A. I took her to the hospital that evening.

Q. I understand that. But --

A. No, I did not.

Q. -- Did you see her that morning, offer to take her to the hospital?

A. No, not that morning, sir.

Q. And did you have occasion to look at Nicole's head or forehead that
morning at all?

A. I didn't see Nicole that morning. Only -- at the time I saw her, I
was called over there the first time. The second time I saw Nicole was
when I went back that evening.

Q. So the entire incident you related to me --

MR. KELLY: If I could have a moment, please, Your Honor.

(Pause.)

MR. KELLY: Can I approach the witness, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You may.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Mr. Cowlings, I'm going to ask you to read a number
of pages here in your deposition, starting right here, where I put it
up on the Elmo, okay.

If you can take a couple minutes and read all of this here, and I'll
ask you a couple questions.

A. Sure.

(Witness complies, reads transcript.)

MR. BAKER: What did you ask him to read, counsel?

MR. KELLY: Excuse me?

MR. BAKER: Would you tell us what you're asking him to read.

MR. KELLY: I think it was page 390, three pages.

A. Turn the page?

Q. Yeah.

(Witness complies, continues reading.)

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Now, Mr. Cowlings, does that refresh your
recollection as to a rather substantial amount of testimony you gave
under oath, during your deposition, on April 17 of this year?

A. Yes. What I said then. But what I know now is what wasn't -- what I
meant to say. What I thought -- well, let me slow down.

What I said there, I was -- I had the times wrong. It was later on
that afternoon when I saw her.

Q. Mr. Cowlings, did I not ask you another series of questions about a
return visit that evening where you gave a different -- an entirely
different account of what happened when you saw Nicole that evening
also?

MR. LEONARD: Objection, argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. May I have the question again?

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Did you not -- when I asked you another series of
questions at that same deposition regarding a third visit over seeing
Nicole that evening, you described an entirely different scenario
again about observations you made in conversations with Nicole, did
you not?

A. Sir, you asked me was I -- when I was taking her to the hospital. I
didn't take Nicole to the hospital until later on that day. You said
-- you were saying that I took her that morning or suggested I took
her that morning, and I didn't.

Q. I understand that. But when you testified -- did you not at one
time in your deposition testimony indicate that you offered to take
Nicole to the hospital that morning -- evening and she refused?

A. I may have said that at the deposition. Yes, I did say that. But as
I'm telling you now, I didn't see Nicole until later on that afternoon
when I went back over there.

Q. So when you recounted a whole incident about Nicole complaining
about her head hurting, and you looking at her forehead, and what she
told you about how she had hurt her head, and things like that, none
of that happened that morning, Mr. Cowlings?

A. Not that morning, sir.

Q. And even though you testified that it happened about 8:30, in the
conversation you had while she was in the kitchen that morning feeding
the baby, it's now your testimony that never occurred?

A. I'm saying she was feeding the baby later on that day when I saw
her.

Q. Okay.

Mr. Cowlings, Mr. Simpson has always helped you out whenever you
needed it, hasn't he?

A. That's what friends do.

Q. He's lent you money at times, hasn't he?

A. Yes, he has. So I've had to lend him money back too, sure.

Q. Sometimes you paid him back; sometimes you didn't?

A. That's right, sir.

Q. One time he and his friend, Wayne Hughes bought your condominium
from you?

A. No, they didn't buy it. I bought it.

Q. From them?

A. No.

Q. With them?

A. No.

Q. Okay.

You went on trips with Mr. Simpson?

A. Excuse me?

Q. Mr. Simpson take you on trips with him?

A. I've been on trips with O.J., yes.

Q. Okay.

He got you in movies where he was in?

A. Yes, he has.

Q. Okay.

And always took care of you if you needed help?

A. I was able to provide for myself. If I needed something, I could
always go to O.J.

Q. Okay.

And I believe you've testified before that you'd always be there to
help Mr. Simpson if he needed it, always?

A. That's what friends are about, sir.

Q. Okay.

At this time it's your testimony that that visit you earlier testified
to, did not now occur that morning; is that right?

MR. LEONARD: Objection, asked and answered and argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Could I have the question again?

Q. This -- your prior testimony in the deposition regarding this --
this visit to Nicole at 8:00, 8:30 in the morning where -- there was
detailed testimony you gave as to the conversation you had with her,
her physical condition, things she had said