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.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE
SHARON RUFO, ET AL., )
)
PLAINTIFFS, )
)
VS. )NO. SC031947
)
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, ET AL., )
)
DEFENDANTS. )
_________________________________________)
REPORTER'S DAILY TRANSCRIPT
JANUARY 13, 1997
VOLUME 41
REGINA D. CHAVEZ, CSR #8446
OFFICIAL REPORTER
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: DANIEL M. PETROCELLI ESQ.,
THOMAS LAMBERT, ESQ.,
PETER GELBLUM, ESQ., and
EDWARD MEDVENE, ESQ.
Firm: MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP
11377 West Olympic Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90064-1663
For: Plaintiff Goldman
JOHN QUINLAN KELLY, ESQ.
330 Madison Ave.
New York, NY 10017-5090.
For: Plaintiff the Estate of
Nicole Brown Simpson
MICHAEL A. BREWER, ESQ.
Firm: HORNBERGER & CRISWELL
444 South Flower St.
Los Angeles, CA 90071.
For: Plaintiff Rufo
PAUL F. CALLAN, ESQ.
Firm: CALLAN, REGENSTREICH,
KOSTER & BRADY
One Whitehall St.
New York, NY 10004
For: Plaintiff Estate of.
Ronald L. Goldman
FOR THE DEFENDANTS: ROBERT C. BAKER, ESQ.,
MELISSA BLUESTEIN, ESQ., and
PHILIP BAKER, ESQ.
Firm: BAKER, SILBERBERG & KEENER
2650 Ocean Park Blvd., #300
Santa Monica, CA 90405-2936.
-and-
DANIEL LEONARD, ESQ. and
ROBERT D. BLASIER, ESQ.
Firm: BAILEY, FISHMAN & LEONARD.
6355 Riverside Blvd.
Suite 2-F
Sacramento, CA 95831
CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
DEFENDANTS' WITNESSES: PAGE
SIMPSON, ORENTHAL
DIRECT (RESUMED) (B) 1
CROSS (P) 68
CROSS (P) 115
REDIRECT (B) 183
Legend: (B) = Mr. Robert B. Baker
(BL) = Mr. Blasier
(BR) = Mr. Brewer
(C) = Mr. Callan
(G) = Mr. Gelblum
(K) = Mr. Kelly
(L) = Mr. Leonard
(M) = Mr. Medvene
(MB) = Ms. Bluestein
(P) = Mr. Petrocelli
(PB) = Mr. Philip Baker
(TL) = Mr. Lambert
INDEX OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR I.D.
PLAINTIFFS'
NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE
2317 Newspaper photograph 183
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, JANUARY 13, 1997
9:00 AM
DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE
APPEARANCES: (PER COVER PAGE)
(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)
(Jurors resume their respective
seats.)
THE COURT: Morning.
JURORS: Good morning.
MR. PETROCELLI: Good morning, Your Honor.
MR. BAKER: Morning.
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON,
previously called as a witness on his own behalf, was
sworn and testified as follows:
THE CLERK: You are still under oath. Would
you please state your name again for the record.
THE WITNESS: Orenthal James Simpson.
MR. BAKER: Morning, ladies and gentlemen.
JURORS: Morning.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED)
BY MR. BAKER:
Q. Morning, O.J.
A. Morning.
Q. When we left off on Friday we were
discussing -- we had gone up to about June 6th of
1994.
Was June 6 a busy week for you?
A. Yes.
Q. And when did you leave Los Angeles that
week?
A. I believe -- I believe I left Tuesday --
Tuesday evening.
Q. Okay.
And did you take the redeye out?
A. Not quite a redeye. I took a 4 o'clock
afternoon flight to Washington, D.C.
Q. And what were you doing in Washington,
D.C.?
A. I was doing a customer event for the
Hertz Corporation where we bring in some of our top
customers, and it was a golf tournament and breakfast
meeting, and we were having that Wednesday --
Wednesday morning, so I flew out in the afternoon on
Tuesday to be there for Wednesday morning.
Q. How long did you actually remain in
Washington, D.C.?
A. I got there, I'm guessing, about
midnight. We started the event around 7, 7:30 the
next morning, and I was there all day. And I believe
around 7 or so I headed for the airport and caught a
plane to Connecticut and got to Connecticut near
midnight. I mean it was rather late by the time I got
to Connecticut; it was 10 or 11 o'clock, I believe.
Q. What was in Connecticut?
A. I had a board meeting the next day for a
company called Fortuner. And I had -- you know, part
of the board meeting is I visit the employees and take
pictures, sign autographs for all the employees at the
factory.
Q. And Fortuner is the Swiss Army Watch
people?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. Okay.
And how long did you remain in
Connecticut then, O.J.?
A. Well, I got there that night. I was
there until, I'm guessing, 12 or 1 o'clock the next
day.
Q. That would have been Thursday?
A. That was Thursday, yes. And then I took
a limousine from there down to Long Island, New York
where I joined some friends at a golf course. And I
spent the night there.
Q. Okay.
And that was in New Jersey?
A. No, that was in Long Island, New York.
Q. Who did you see there?
A. I actually stayed with a couple of
friends of mine, Robert, Bobby Bender.
Q. Okay.
A. And I played golf with him and some other
friends that day.
Q. All right.
Now, Thursday -- that was Thursday.
And on Friday what did you do?
A. Friday I got up, we played golf again.
As the day went on we played 18 holes, and they were
going to play another 18, they were trying to -- Bobby
Bender, they were trying to talk me into staying but I
felt I had to get back to Los Angeles.
Q. Now, why did -- Bobby Bender wanted you
to stay the weekend, did he not?
A. He knew I had to be in Chicago on Monday.
This was Friday afternoon, and so obviously if I went
to LA, Sunday I would have to head back to Chicago.
So he felt it would be best for me to stay there for
the weekend, play some golf with and some friends, and
then, you know, go into Chicago from there and then
from Chicago back into Los Angeles.
Q. And you wanted to get back to LA; is that
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And why was that?
A. Mainly because I had missed my daughter's
first communion, and she was having a dance recital
and I -- I felt I had to be at the dance recital.
Q. Now, tell us and the ladies and gentlemen
why you missed your daughters first communion?
A. I had, what was for us, the most
important event for the year for Hertz, for my
obligation for Hertz, it's called the ASTA convention,
it's all -- the American Society of Travel Agents, and
I had been scheduled to be a morning speaker there to
5,000 travel agents. It'd been scheduled for
virtually a year, certainly for months, and people
sent in cards and said they'll be there.
All the other agencies, as well as
hotels, as well as airlines, are all competing to get
the travel agent to come to whatever their event is
and hear their message.
About a week before this, I was told by
Nicole that my daughter was going to have her
communion. So immediately I contacted Hertz to see if
they could reschedule me, if I could speak the day
before or the day after. The guy from Hertz said that
he didn't think so because people had already agreed
to come and they had some other activities with
clients that they had already scheduled for me.
I then called the chairman of the board
of Hertz and asked him could he do something to help
me, and unfortunately he couldn't.
Q. So you were out of town for your
daughter's first communion on business, right?
A. That's right.
Q. All right.
Now, you then flew back to Los Angeles on
Friday the 10th?
A. Yes.
Q. And who picked you up at the airport?
A. Paula Barbieri picked me up from the
airport.
Q. And the following morning, Saturday the
11th, did you go to -- what did you do?
A. I got up and played golf; my regular golf
game.
There was an -- after the golf game I
came home and I guess took a nap, and -- I'm not
really sure, and I had an event that I told Paula we
might go to, and we -- to benefit the First Lady of
Israel and to raise funds for a hospital in Israel.
So I took Paula to that event.
Q. On the way home from golf on Saturday,
June 11, 1994, did you call Paula from the car phone
in your Bronco?
A. I don't know if -- I probably did. I
don't really recall. I know that night I did -- that
day. I'm not really sure if I did or didn't.
Q. Okay. Fair enough.
Now, after you did in fact go with Paula
to the charity benefit for the First Lady of Israel --
did you not?
A. That's correct.
Q. Did you have a nice time that night?
A. We had a great time.
Q. Did you have any argument?
A. No at all.
Q. Mild even?
A. No. We even talked about this house, it
was a beautiful house with a lot of rooms, and we had
a conversation about filling a house like that up with
babies.
Q. Now, did Paula want you to stay with her
that night, the night of the 11?
A. Yes.
Q. And you went home, did you not?
A. Yeah. I think she assumed we would stay
together. I had been out of town and obviously you
assumed you would, but I was really exhausted.
THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me?
THE WITNESS: Exhausted. I was tired.
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, I move to strike
the speculation, talking about what Paula's assuming.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, then you went back
to Rockingham and got up again early in the morning on
the 12?
A. Yeah.
Q. To go play golf?
A. I got up, as I usually do, about 5 and
got my act together. I think I may have been a little
late for my group. We started our tee off time before
7 o'clock.
Q. Now, did you have a little disagreement
with Craig Baumgartener in that golf game?
A. Yes.
Q. And tell us what happened?
A. Craig is a guy who has sort of a temper
on the golf course; he gets rid of his frustration, he
throws his clubs a lot. He's been reported by members
of our group for doing it.
On the first hole he had great shots, and
everybody else wasn't in great shape, but we all were
on the green in regulation. I know you don't know
much about golf maybe, but he sculled his third shot
over the green; it was a par 5. In any event, we all
parred the first hole. Craig bogied the hole and
Craig took off for the next tee, which is not unusual
because when he's playing bad he normally takes off
from the group.
We were all talking and socializing
first, you know, beginning in the morning, walking to
the next tee. And he teed off before we got there and
hit a bad shot and turned around and said -- said
that, Juice, you're always doing this, you're talking
through my swing. I said I wasn't talking through
your swing, you should have waited 'til we got here.
And he took off, which he's not supposed
to do. You're supposed to play behind the group
playing golf until everybody hits.
Then I get up next and I hit a bad shot
and I was a little angry because he, you know, had
started an argument and he was walking off. Well, the
guys were teasing me. As we went to our ball, Craig
was down the fairway and I was waiting for him to get
out of the way so I can hit my second shot, and when
he wouldn't, I went and swung anyway and hit a bad
shot, my second shot.
So now I was really pissed and I went up
to Craig, who was standing in the middle of the
fairway, and I told him in no uncertain terms that he
was, you know, sort of a butt-hole, and he said
something to me, and we hit and went to the green and
putted out, and on the next green we all -- you know,
we looked at each other and started laughing and
hugged and continued to play.
My group is -- we had bets in our group
for years about when will the first argument be, on
the first shot of the first hole or the second shot of
the second hole or on the first tee or the second tee.
They normally last just like that. I mean two
strokes, if you want to call it an argument. It was
nothing beyond that and it was Craig who initiated it
and not me. I just happened to be the focal point of
his frustration for hitting his bad shot. And then he
became the focal point of my frustration when I hit my
second bad shot.
Q. Now, you guys -- your usual golf group,
you don't tease each other, do you?
A. Quite a bit.
Q. You wouldn't rib each other, would you?
A. Quite a bit.
Q. There's no bets going on back and forth?
A. As I said, the words, which may have been
10 or 15 seconds -- all the other guys were ribbing me
pretty good about the argument and Craig once again
was gone down the fairway.
Q. Now, after you played golf on the 12th
and you were going back from the golf course to your
house, did you call over to Bundy?
A. Yes. At some point I called -- I made a
few calls while I was in my car. It was tough getting
through because if you drive down Sunset and you have
a cell phone, your phone will ring, then it cuts out
because you're going in and around Sunset. And at one
point I decided to go home, and I called Bundy to
inquire about, basically Justin, because I figured
Nicole would be working with Sydney, getting her ready
for the recital, and I wanted to know if Justin wanted
to come and hang with me.
Q. And what was decided about Justin coming
with you?
A. Well, we spoke a little bit about
tickets; she didn't know if my older kids were going,
if there were tickets for them. Nicole wanted to know
if I could get there early to hold seats because this
event is always sold out, it's always standing room
only, this recital. In fact, I guess Sean or Aaron,
our nephews, were coming up. I don't recall if they
were already there or coming up, but Justin was going
to be playing with them, and I told her I didn't know
if I can get there early. Jason was going to go,
maybe Jason would get there early. It would be pretty
tough for me to hold seats because everybody coming to
me for autographs. As I said, it's family -- it's
hard to hold seven or eight or nine seats at the
recital.
Q. That was the extent of the conversation
you had with Nicole?
A. Basically, yes.
Q. Okay.
Now, while we're at -- let me ask you
about 875 South Bundy.
Before June 12, you've told this jury
that you've been over there a number of times and you
spent the night over there many, many times; is that
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, the dog Kato, did you purchase that
dog?
A. Yes.
Q. And when did you get that dog?
A. Either in the late fall of -- I mean in
the winter, but I can't recall if it was at end of '93
or the beginning of '94, but yeah, around that time,
the fall of '93.
Q. Okay.
And that dog -- you got that dog and then
gave it to Nicole and the kids?
A. No, I think I bought it for Justin and
me, my son and I. We had just lost one of our dogs.
Actually, we had just lost two dogs and, you know,
Justin wanted a dog, and I wanted another dog for
Chachi, so Justin and I went and bought a dog.
Q. And did that dog -- was that dog at
Rockingham at the time?
A. Yes, yes. Normally he would go to the
other house if I was out of town. He would stay there
more, but I know, being a young dog and pretty frisky,
he likes to run around, and my property had a lot of
grounds and her's didn't.
Q. Now, before the 12th when -- had you had
to go over the week previous and chase that dog over
at Bundy?
A. Yes. Our dogs go out a lot; when the
gate's open they're out.
I had come over at -- I believe it was
the Sunday. I don't think it was Monday. I'm pretty
sure it was the Sunday before, and Justin was going in
to get something, one of his games, and I think Faye
Resnick was there and she opened the gate and the dog
ran out.
Q. And did Nicole call you to come over and
chase that dog?
A. No. Nicole had called me just a little
previous to that because both dogs were at her house
and they were fighting, and I gathered Nicole was
having a problem with a neighbor, and I had to come
over and get the other dog. I don't know if it was a
day before or two days before.
Q. Now, did that dog Kato -- was that dog
transported in your Bronco?
A. Yes.
Q. And the kids were in your Bronco?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, I want to go to -- after you talked
to Nicole in the afternoon of Sunday the 12th, you
were running around a little bit and then you went to
the recital?
A. Yes, I was a little late. I think I may
have dozed off, I think there was a basketball game, I
was reading a book, and I -- when I looked up, it was
just about 5, and I kind of got dressed in a hurry and
went down to the recital.
Q. All right.
Now, were you in a dark mood --
A. No.
Q. -- on June 12, 1994 when you went to the
recital?
A. No.
MR. BAKER: Phil, you want to show that tape,
please.
MR. P. BAKER: Exhibit 825, dance recital
videotape.
(Videotape is played.)
MR. BAKER: Phil, be prepared to stop, will you
please.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Who is that?
A. That's Ron Fischman.
Q. We'll get back to him in a second.
(Tape continues playing.)
MR. BAKER: Now stop it, Phil. Can we get a
little clearer or back it up a bit.
(Mr. P. Baker complies.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, who's the other man
right next to you that you're talking to now?
A. That's Lou Brown.
Q. And that's -- Lou Brown was Nicole's
father?
A. Father, yes.
MR. BAKER: Okay, go ahead.
(Tape resumes playing.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And that's Justin?
A. Yes, that's my son.
Q. And that's Judy Brown, Juditha?
A. Juditha Brown. And Ron Fischman.
Q. Now, that's Lou again?
A. Yes.
MR. BAKER: And stop it right there.
(Tape is halted.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Right there, when you
were bent over, right there, what were you -- were you
in a pretty dark mood right there?
A. No.
Q. What were you laughing about?
A. Well, Lou and I, previous to even when
this tape started, was talking about women and, you
know, he was teasing me and I was teasing him about
his daughter and I and Paula Barbieri.
Q. And what were you teasing about?
A. Well, Lou -- Judy had been walking
around, talking about dinner, where was Nicole, 'cause
they had lost track of Nicole, and Judy thought that
they were going to dinner and figured Nicole had left
them, and at one point said something to me about
you're not joining us for dinner, and I said no. I
told Lou, I've got to stay away from your daughter
now, I have got to go back to the way it was a year
ago. And we were -- we were kind of teasing about
that.
MR. BAKER: Go ahead, Phil.
(Tape resumes playing.)
MR. BAKER: I think that's -- cut it.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Was there any animosity
between you, Lou, Judy, Denise, any of the Browns, on
June 12, 1994?
A. Absolutely none.
Q. And was there any animosity between you
and Nicole Brown Simpson?
A. Absolutely none. She had saved my seat
for me and had my tickets for me, and I sat two seats
from her, and they were bolted seats to the ground,
like theater seats.
Q. And where did Denise sit relative to you?
A. We were in the very last row. Denise was
in the seat directly in front of me. Next to her was
Cora Fischman, and then the two Browns and Ron
Fischman was in the seats in front of them.
Q. All right.
Now, at the recital, in your
conversations with Ron Fischman, did you learn about
the intervention with Faye Resnick?
A. Yes. During the course of the -- of a
break in the thing, Ron Fischman walked up to me and
said, boy --
MR. KELLY: Objection to anything Mr. Fischman
said.
THE COURT: Sustained.
A. Well, Ron --
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) What did you learn
relative to Faye Resnick being -- having -- having
a --
MR. PETROCELLI: I'd ask for an offer of proof.
This seems to be forbidden by the Court's prior
orders.
THE COURT: Okay. Approach the bench.
(The following proceedings were
held at the bench with the
reporter.)
MR. PETROCELLI: We've had --
THE COURT: You want an offer of proof of what?
MR. PETROCELLI: On what -- the relevance of
these conversations with Ron Fischman which, under
hearsay, concerning Faye Resnick's drug use.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. BAKER: Well, they raised the issue of Ron
Fischman. And this goes to the -- to the issue of his
lack of motive. They spent a lot of time in this
courtroom trying to prove that Mr. Simpson had a
motive to -- to murder his ex-wife, and he, in fact,
of course, in our view had no motive, and the
conversation with Fischman about Resnick goes to the
issue that he wanted out of this whole mess, the whole
mess with Faye and Fischman and Cora and Nicole. And
so I think it goes to that issue.
They raised that issue when they
interrogated him on the 22nd and the 25th of November.
MR. PETROCELLI: Fischman testified about
observations concerning Mr. Simpson at the recital.
And there was nothing about Faye Resnick in regard to
Ron Fischman's testimony, nor would that have been
admissible because it would have been rank hearsay.
He now wants to get into conversations
that Fischman had with Simpson about things he learned
from Resnick and other third parties.
And apart from the hearsay problem, it
doesn't seem too relevant to any issue.
He really wants to get before the jury
that Faye Resnick, who was previously living with
Nicole for a few days, was in a drug rehab center, and
raise this whole specter of Nicole living in a world
of drugs.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, just one point. This
is in direct rebuttal to the inference in direct
evidence that they elicited through Dr. Fischman, that
Mr. Simpson was -- somehow was in a dark mood, that he
had some concerns that he was -- that he was agitated.
They elicited from Dr. Fischman some portions of a
discussion he had with Mr. Simpson. This is his
explanation, his version of the discussion. I
can't -- it's obviously admissible, it's admissible on
the --
MR. PETROCELLI: We have double hearsay. We
not only have Simpson saying what Fischman's saying,
but Fischman is reporting what other people said too.
MR. BAKER: It's not offered for the truth. It
goes to the state of mind of O.J. Simpson relative to
what he did subsequently.
MR. PETROCELLI: Even if you could get by the
first level, you still have the second level.
MR. LEONARD: Both go to the state of mind.
MR. PETROCELLI: You can't get -- by Fischman
learning information by talking to
Christian Reichardt, by talking to Faye Resnick, by
talking to his wife, whoever he spoke to, you can't
get -- you can't get all that in.
MR. LEONARD: Doesn't matter if it's true or
not. It's not offered for the truth. It's offered
for how it affected Simpson.
THE COURT: Finished?
MR. LEONARD: Yes.
THE COURT: Objection sustained. 352.
Resnick's -- conversation about Resnick is second
double hearsay, and I don't see any probative value.
(The following proceedings were
held in open court in the presence
of the jury.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, at the -- let me ask
you this: Was Faye Resnick a friend of Nicole's as
contrasted to a friend of yours?
A. Yes.
Q. And was Ron Fischman, Dr. Fischman, was
he a friend of Nicole's?
A. I would say I became friendly with him
because of Nicole. So I know that she spoke to him
more than I did. And she had been a -- I guess he had
advised her quite a bit during the, you know, the time
when she had to make some decisions about housing and
stuff.
Q. Now, during the time that you were at the
recital, did you learn some information from Ron
Fischman? You can answer that yes or no.
A. Yes.
MR. PETROCELLI: Same objections, Your Honor.
It's going to be contained in the questions rather
than in the answers now.
MR. BAKER: I'm glad --
THE COURT: Last question and answer overruled.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And as a result of the
information you've learned in your being around some
of Nicole's friends, did you -- did you give Ron
Fischman any advice at the recital?
A. Yes. The same advice I had given him,
oh, two or three -- two or three weeks previous, when
he had a problem with Nicole and his wife and stuff.
Q. What advice did you give to Ron Fischman?
MR. PETROCELLI: Relevance.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) At that time, were you
making any efforts to separate yourself from the
friends and problems of Nicole?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you suggest to him that he should
do the same?
A. Yes.
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. PETROCELLI: Move to strike.
THE COURT: Stricken.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) After you returned from
the -- from the recital, as a result of the
information you got at the recital, did you call
Christian Reichardt?
A. Later that evening, yes.
Q. What time, approximately, was that?
A. Approximately 9 o'clock.
Q. And did you suggest to -- Christian
Reichardt's relationship to Faye Resnick was what?
A. I gather right up till this weekend, her
fiance.
Q. Okay.
And did -- was it your understanding that
he had broken up with Faye?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you suggest anything to Christian
Reichardt that would occur in the next week or so?
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, same as before.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BAKER: On what grounds, Your Honor?
MR. PETROCELLI: Relevance, 352, hearsay.
THE COURT: Relevance.
MR. BAKER: Then I want to be heard on it.
THE COURT: Okay.
(The following proceedings were
held at the bench with the
reporter.)
MR. BAKER: He'll testify that he called
Christian Reichardt, that he said, look, I'm going to
be back in town on Wednesday, let's go out and have
dinner, Paula and I have a date that night, we'll go
out and have dinner.
Now, they spent a lot of time and effort
saying that Simpson knew Paula had broken up with him,
and this is to confirm that he had no knowledge that
Paula had purportedly broken up with him.
It's terribly relevant to the issue they
spent a lot of time and effort on, and it's not
hearsay, it's what he said to Christian Reichardt.
MR. PETROCELLI: I have no objection to what he
said in the conversation. But his question was about
information he was learning from Reichardt and then
what advice he was giving Reichardt in regard to
Reichardt's problems. He wants to testify about what
Simpson said concerning his plans and so forth, I have
no objection to that. It's the other stuff I'm
objecting to.
THE COURT: Sustained as to the other stuff.
MR. BAKER: I don't know what the other stuff
is but...
(The following proceedings were
held in open court in the presence
of the jury.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) In the telephone
conversation you had with Christian Reichardt, did you
make any plans with him for that week?
A. Yes.
Q. Tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury
what you discussed with Christian relative to -- what
you said to him concerning your plans?
A. I was kind of feeling for him a little
bit.
I told him I would be back in town
Wednesday, I had to come back in town to go to San
Diego, do another Hertz thing. I would be back
Wednesday night. I said then I'm going to take off
with Paula and go to San Francisco Wednesday night.
I'll be in town. I'll see if Paula's got a girlfriend
and, you know, she's got some good looking
girlfriends, maybe we'll double date, I'll get you a
blind date Wednesday night and we'll go out Wednesday
night.
And he said okay.
Q. Now, at this point in time, did you think
you'd broken up with Paula?
A. No.
Q. And you had broken up, or at least she
had broken up, on several occasions, correct?
A. Well, I can't say we broke up on several
occasions.
Q. She said she broke up?
MR. PETROCELLI: Object. That's hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. All right.
In any event, sir, you called Sydney that
night?
A. Yes.
Q. And that was also close to 9 o'clock?
A. I believe the calls were together.
Q. All right.
A. Like, one, and then the other one.
Q. And you made another call to -- around
10 o'clock to Paula?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, did you make that from your cell
phone?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, did you have any cordless phones in
your house at this time?
A. No.
Q. Do you have any cordless phones now?
A. No.
Q. And did you use your cell phone as a
cordless phone?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, did the LAPD make an audio analysis
of that cell phone call that you made to determine
whether there were any automobile sounds?
MR. PETROCELLI: Object, Your Honor. He has no
personal knowledge.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Where did you make the
cell-phone call from?
A. In my front yard.
Q. Were there any auto sounds that you could
hear when you made the cell-phone call in your front
yard?
A. No.
Q. And was there any evidence -- you sat
through the entire criminal trial -- was there any
evidence introduced at that criminal trial --
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. Completely
irrelevant, what was introduced at some other trial.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, from your front
yard -- well, strike that.
Your dog, Chachi -- we've heard about
Chachi, and Chachi getting in and out of the gates --
did Chachi get in and out of gates?
A. All my dogs did, and -- including Chachi,
yes.
Q. Did you ever form any habit on how you
would get in and out of the house -- the gates so that
you would reduce the amount of times the dog got out
of the yard?
A. Yes.
As I stated before, I had been warned by
the SPCA, on numerous occasions, that there had been
some confrontations between Nicole and various
neighbors of mine about my dogs being out. So over
the years, you just develop a pattern.
My pattern, is I get in my car; I start
the car up; I hit the button to open the gate, and the
gate opens. And as I determine the gate's about to
close, then I drive out of the gate -- out of the --
out of the house.
Q. Okay.
MR. BAKER: Now, while we're on your area,
Phil. Can you get me the blow-up of the Rockingham --
the diagramatic.
You remember there was a neighbor of
yours, Charlie Cale, or -- were you at the custody
hearings?
A. I was at my children's custody hearing.
Q. All right.
Now, let me ask you this: Was there
anybody else besides yourself that you were friends
with that had a white Bronco in 1994?
A. Yes.
Q. Who?
A. Al Cowlings and Paula Barbieri. They
were -- all three cars were about identical.
Q. And when Al Cowlings would come to your
house -- by the way, did he have a key to your house?
A. Yes.
Q. Did he have a key to the gate, the front
gate?
A. Yes.
Q. Where would Al Cowlings park his Bronco?
A. Right where my Bronco was parked the
morning of the 13th.
Q. And that is by the Rockingham gate, on
Rockingham, pointed north?
A. Yes.
Q. And did Paula Barbieri, when she came
over to your house, when -- where did she park her
white Bronco?
A. She parked all over the place; but more
than not, on Rockingham, not exactly where that car
was parked. Often, even across the street, for some
reason, of the intersection.
Q. Okay.
And from north on Rockingham --
MR. BAKER: Yeah, this one. I'm sorry, Phil
(indicating to Mr. P. Baker.)
MR. P. BAKER: That's 1174.
( Exhibit 1174 displayed.)
Q. Now, there's a streetlight right here,
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And that's on the corner of Ashford and
Rockingham, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And if you are up on Rockingham, 150, 200
feet, and it's dark, it's 9 o'clock at night or so,
and you're out walking, and you're walking south on
Rockingham, and there's a car parked right there
(indicating), can you see it?
MR. KELLY: Objection. Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Not only can you see it, you can see
about another 100 to 150 feet beyond it.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, there are trees in
this property over here correct?
A. Yes.
Q. When you're walking south on Rockingham,
you can look right under those trees, because the tree
trunks, they're old, mature trees, and you can see
directly into your gate, can you not, if it's open?
A. Yes. There's many more trees now than
then, but you can still see directly through it.
Q. Okay.
Now, you've gone over in some detail
reports when you returned from McDonald's.
I want to ask you, what were you, in
fact, wearing when you went to McDonald's with Kato
and got the burger and returned?
A. I was wearing the same blue pants, golf
pants, Bugle Boy, that I had worn and played golf in
that day. I had put on a -- the -- a blue -- you
could call it a warm-up, I guess. I use it as a wind
kind of jacket, it's -- if it's kind of cold in the
morning when I play golf. And I -- I believe a white
golf shirt -- I'm not 100 percent sure of that -- and
tennis shoes.
Q. And they're white Reebok tennis shoes?
A. That's right.
Q. I want to fast-forward a little bit. But
on June 13, after you got back from Chicago and you
had been down to LAPD, did Detective Lange go up into
your closet and have you identify the clothes that you
were wearing?
A. Yes. Not only my closet, but the
pants -- where I have a habit of laying the pants
across my tub, because when you play golf, your pants
don't necessarily get dirty, but sometimes I want them
ironed and pressed.
So, myself, Mr. Kardashian, Mr. Taft, and
Mr. Lange went into my closet. He had asked what was
I wearing, and pointed out to him what I was wearing,
and took him in the bathroom and showed him the -- the
pants.
Q. And the only thing Lange took was your
tennis shoes, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay.
And he didn't ask to take any of your
clothes?
A. That's correct.
Q. Do you -- in '94, did you own a black
sweatsuit or workout suit with a white stripe around
the zipper and white zipper down the front?
A. No; not to my knowledge, no.
Q. You own one now?
A. I have some -- my daughter bought me
some -- things inside the home -- my older daughter --
they're not cotton; they're rayon or something. I
think I have some pants and a cashmere coat, top, just
sort of -- I use it as a pajama top.
Q. When you left your home to go to Chicago
to get in a limousine and get on the airplane, what
were you wearing then?
A. I was wearing some stone-washed jeans,
white, probably, polo shirt, and a sort of a
stone-washed jean top. And I also had a wind -- I
can't recall if I put it in a bag -- I had a
windbreaker with me, sort of a blue windbreaker.
Q. Now, at any time on the 12th, were you in
a black sweatsuit outfit with a white zipper stripe on
it?
A. At no time was I, no.
Q. Now, when you're on the airplane, you
talked to Howard Bingham?
A. I talked to a couple guys. Yes, Howard
Bingham.
Q. And Howard Bingham was what,
Mohammed Ali's personal photographer?
A. Yes.
Q. You've known him for quite a while?
A. Yes.
Q. You talked to the captain?
A. Yes.
I talked to Craig Baumgarten's partner.
Q. And signed autographs at the airport,
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. On both ends.
When you arrived in Chicago, did you --
you were picked up at airport?
A. Yes. The guy was at the plane.
Q. Okay.
And that's this Jim Merrill?
A. Yes.
Q. Now --
A. Yes.
Q. Now, Jim Merrill accompanied you to the
luggage detention area -- the luggage pick-up area?
A. Yes.
Q. You got your baggage -- and -- at that
area, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You put your golf bag and the Louis
Vuitton bag back -- in the back of the car?
A. Yes. Yes.
Q. Did you expect to see your golf bag
between the time it was put in the trunk at any time
before you were on the golf course the next morning?
A. No.
Q. Now, when you go to these golf outings
that you were -- you did for Hertz, you're taken care
of rather well; would you agree with that?
A. Yes.
Q. So what happens to your golf bag when
you're picked up at the airport?
A. Well, this particular trip -- it differs.
If the golf course is at the hotel that you're
playing -- for instance, in Washington, a week before,
I got there late. The golf course was at the hotel.
So when you check in, the -- the bell guy takes your
clubs and puts it in a golf room, and you could pick
it up the next morning, or they'll send it to the --
to the golf course.
And in this type of tournament, the
course wasn't where the -- where the hotel was. So
what happens is, they -- I leave the clubs in his car.
He would have driven me to the golf course. When we
get there, they -- we have these hostesses and guys,
and they take your golf bag and unzip it. You can
touch it. They put it in the golf cart. They take
your balls out, your shoes out. They lay everything
for you.
My expectation on this trip would be, the
next time -- once I got in this guy's car at the
airport, I would see my golf clubs -- even though I
didn't think about it -- but I knew when I got to the
golf course the next day, all -- my bag would have
been emptied and laid up on the golf cart -- on the
golf cart, with all my things out of the bag.
Q. Now, when you travel, you have -- you
have your golf clubs -- they would normally -- the
clubs -- the golf bag, rather, that you use when you
play golf, with all your clubs in it -- correct?
A. That's right.
Q. And then it has a zippered cover that
goes over the top of it, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And that zippered cover, as we can see
here, because it's now in the courtroom, is
considerably larger than the bag, isn't it?
A. Yes.
(Mr. P. Baker raises golf bag in
carrying case for jurors to view.)
MR. BAKER: Let's take the bag out.
THE COURT REPORTER: What number is the golf
bag, please?
MR. P. BAKER: Pardon me?
THE COURT REPORTER: What number is the golf
bag?
MR. P. BAKER: I'll find it in a second.
(Golf bag removed from carrying
case.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, the golf bag
generally has this piece with the -- with the cover on
it, does it not?
A. Yes.
Q. And this also comes off, does it not?
(Mr. Baker dismantles golf bag.)
A. Yes.
Q. The next time you anticipated seeing your
golf bag, it would have been outside of the zipper
cover?
A. Yes.
Q. The cover on the bag would have been off
and the bag would be strapped to a golf cart?
A. Golf cart. My shoes would have probably
either been laid out on the golf cart, or they would
have brought it into the, you know, the locker room.
And many times, because you play with
your own balls, the guy would take out my balls and
have the balls sitting on the golf cart.
Q. Now --
MR. LEONARD: Mr. Baker, do we have numbers for
those?
MR. P. BAKER: I'll get it.
THE CLERK: Is it that Swiss Army golf bag?
MR. BAKER: Yes.
THE CLERK: That's 896 by reference.
(Exhibit 896 displayed.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Okay.
That particular golf bag was relatively
unique, was it not?
A. Yes. It was the -- as far as I knew, to
my knowledge, it was only given to people who work for
Swiss Army. There was only about, from what I gather,
15 or 16 of them. And it had just recently, within
the month, been sent to me.
This may have been the first, if not the
second, but the first time I've ever used it.
Q. Okay.
A. And they only make -- because it became
an issue in the other trial, Swiss Army only made one
bag.
Q. And that's the only bag they made, this
black one with the Swiss Army on it?
A. Yes.
Despite the fact someone said it was a
different Swiss Army bag.
MR. PETROCELLI: I'll object to what he said
someone else said. I'd ask the witness not to talk
about other testimony.
THE COURT: Sustained. That portion is
stricken.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Okay.
And this -- the cover came with it that
had the Swiss Army on it?'
A. That's right.
Q. Okay.
That golf bag stayed in Jim Merrill's car
when you left the airport?
A. There was no need for me to take it to
the hotel room.
Q. You never waited for that golf bag the
following morning, on the 13th, after you'd received
the phone call in the -- in the hotel, did you?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. Now, when you were in the hotel room and
you received the phone call, did you, in fact, make
efforts of your own, as well as have Kathy Randa make
efforts, to get you back to Los Angeles?
A. Yes. Kathy started -- my second -- maybe
my first call out was to Kathy to get me a flight out.
As you can imagine, I was, you know,
pretty -- I don't know -- you know, and I -- I just
started calling, myself, also. I just started calling
the airlines and people, trying to get a flight as
soon as I could.
Q. Now, after you received the phone call
that you told us about 6:30 in the morning on -- in --
8:30, I guess would be Chicago time -- did you make a
lot of phone calls in that hotel room before you left
the hotel room?
A. I believe so.
Q. Why did you -- where did you call, O.J.?
A. I -- I don't -- I can't really tell you
exactly where every call went, because I was calling
the airlines; I was calling my house. I called
Nicole's house. I believe I called -- the cell phones
of -- that were given to me by the first officer who
called me. I was just -- it was just tough to be
sitting, trying to do nothing, so I was calling
every -- I was just calling.
Q. When you called Nicole's phone, did you
get anybody?
A. At some point, I did, yes.
Q. Did you get a police officer?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ask what had happened?
A. Everybody I called, I asked what
happened, every person I talked to, that was either a
police officer or my daughter or whoever, what
happened.
Q. Did you talk to Arnelle that day?
A. Yes.
Q. The morning of the 13th?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ask her what happened?
A. Yes. Or, you know, I don't know if I
asked specifically, but I was asking what's going on.
And she was saying whatever she knew. And I was, you
know. . .
Q. Did you get yourself a flight to get out
of Chicago, back to LA?
A. Kathy had gotten a 10 o'clock flight,
first class. But I had found a 9:15 flight, which, as
you can imagine, I -- I think there was 8:10 or so --
when I got the call from LA. I didn't know if I can
make it, but I wanted to get -- I had to get out of
the hotel, get back to the airport, and get on a
flight. And Chicago is one of the biggest airports in
the world.
I had a 9:15 flight. And I was about to
be -- to be lucky enough to get on it. I was rushing
to go get on it, instead of waiting for Kathy. My
flight --
Q. Now, you made -- and we've heard from
Jim Merrill's deposition that you made two or three
phone calls to him --
A. Yes.
Q. -- in his car --
A. Yes.
Q. -- or on his cell phone. And in his car,
on the cell phone?
A. Um-hum.
Q. And before you left the hotel, you were
aware that he was a couple minutes from the airport --
from the hotel?
A. Yes. Based on my last -- my last call to
him, you know, which had been maybe ten minutes
previous, and he was -- he should have been driving up
any minute.
Q. And did you want to wait around and make
sure you got your golf bag so you could take your golf
bag home to Los Angeles?
A. No. I wanted to get home, to Los
Angeles.
Q. And so you got home. You got in the car
and -- with Mr. Kilduff, and got to the airport?
A. I got the first ride that was available
to me.
Q. Were there any cabs available?
A. Absolutely none. We had called. I had
gone back in and said where's the cab? And I think
she called again said one was coming. There was no
cabs around anywhere.
Q. And Kilduff was the first available ride
to get to the airport?
A. I don't know Kilduff, but a Hertz --
Hertz guy that I did know had showed up with some
other customers and stuff. And the minute he showed
up, I said, "I got to go. Can one of you guys take me
to the airport?"
Q. Now, on the way back in the airplane, did
you again start calling?
A. Yeah. I believe also in the car to the
airport, I was calling.
Q. And who did you talk to?
A. You know, as I said, I can't recall who I
talked to, when.
I know in the hotel room, I had spoken to
a police officer, who I later found out was Phillips.
And Arnelle. I think on two occasions, I talked to
Arnelle.
I believe I spoke to -- someplace in
here, I believe I talked to Officer Lange. That may
have been at Nicole's house, but I'm not 100 percent
sure.
I didn't know who these guys were at the
time.
And I spoke to another officer at my
house at one point, who, if I had to guess, I would
say it was Fuhrman, but I know it wasn't Phillips.
Q. All right.
And what did -- first of all, did you
ever express a concern about your kids?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you ask about your children?
A. Well, the first thing I was told is that
my kids were all right, and that my kids were at a
police station, and that concerned me.
At some point, I asked -- I don't know if
it was in the first conversation or when I -- I talked
to people at my house -- that I wanted to know if my
kids were exposed to anything.
And the guy said no; whatever had
happened, had taken place in front, and they had taken
my kids down the back -- down the back stairs, and
that my children didn't see anything.
Q. And were you told that your ex-wife had
been murdered?
A. I believe the first thing that Phillips
told me -- I thought he said "murder" -- he may have
said "killed." But I knew when I was on my way home
that she had been murdered.
Q. How did you know that?
A. Because someone told me that.
Q. You recall who?
A. I thought it was Phillips, as I said.
Phillips, I believe the first words he told me was
that my wife had been -- first he said my kids were
all right -- your wife was murdered.
Arnelle may have said it. But that's
what I knew. I was on my way home. I knew it wasn't
a car accident.
Q. Now, did you know that there was somebody
other than your wife who had been involved in the
crime of June 12, 1994?
A. I think that I knew, possibly, someone
else was a victim or also involved. I didn't know if
that was for sure. That's why I believe that may have
come from Arnelle, and not the police officer.
Q. And you talked to Arnelle before you ever
got on the airplane, did you not?
A. Yes. I talked to Arnelle twice.
Q. When did you talk to Arnelle?
A. During the first conversation with
Phillips. She was very upset. And we talked then.
I called back at some point, and I
believe I talked to another officer first, and then
Arnelle. And maybe it was Arnelle. And then she gave
it to another officer.
Q. Now, by the time you got to LAX on the
13th, the media was -- had they become aware, to your
knowledge, of the crimes at 875 South Bundy?
A. See, I was told by one of the police
officers that they weren't telling the media, and so
that's why I was, you know, trying not to really say
anything, you know, even to the Hertz people.
But by the -- I can't recall. When I got
into the car with Skip and Kathy, I know that Skip had
told me the police were at my house.
I don't recall if they said the media
was. I think we were all surprised when we drove up
Rockingham and saw all of the big satellite trucks
and -- and, you know, the media trucks.
Q. About what time did you get to your
Rockingham estate?
A. I have no idea.
Q. Okay.
When you walked up or drove up, rather,
you were in Skip's car?
A. Yes.
Q. And the trucks were out there with their
headlights raised?
A. Yes. We had come around the -- went on
Rockingham, and we saw the trucks. And Skip stopped
and backed up and started down another street and
said -- well, we're talking about should we go around
the other side, and Skip suggested, should we go to
the office.
And I told him no; the police officer I
talked to said he'd be at my house; I've got to go
home.
So we just backed up and drove up to the
gate and tried to drive in.
Q. And they wouldn't let you in?
A. No.
Q. So what --
A. They wouldn't let the car in.
Well, I jumped out. I believe Kathy was
jumping out with me. Skip was maybe going to move the
car out, once I jumped out. I just started through
the gate, and -- and was stopped by an officer.
Q. Did the officer handcuff you?
A. Yes. Spoke to me, and then handcuffed
me.
Q. And then what occurred, O.J.?
A. He was speaking to me, and he said he had
to -- I couldn't go in. And then he said he had to
handcuff me; he was told he had to handcuff me. And
he handcuffed me.
And I was asking, why are you handcuffing
me?
And he walked me over to this -- my
daughter's playhouse. And I was just trying to act --
ask him why am I being handcuffed. And another
officer, who I believe was Phillips -- he had a
mustache -- was talking to me. And at some point, my
lawyer came in, Skip Taft, with Howard Weitzman.
And at some point, what I eventually
learned is that -- Vannatter showed up, and they were
saying, "Why is he handcuffed?" And they were
talking. And Vannatter asked me at one point, you
know, they needed to talk to me. And I agreed. And
then we -- then he took the handcuffs off. And my
lawyers wanted me to drive downtown with them. And
there was a conversation about that.
And I said it didn't matter with me --
didn't matter to me.
Q. And you ended up driving downtown, not
with your lawyers, but with Vannatter and another
officer?
A. Yes.
MR. BAKER: Okay.
Now, is this a good point, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Okay. Ten-minute recess, ladies
and gentlemen.
Don't talk about the case. Don't form or
express any opinions.
(Recess.)
(Jurors resume their respective
seats.)
MR. BAKER: Thank you, Your Honor.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, O.J., when -- when
you were in the police car going down to Parker Center
in downtown Los Angeles, did you have your black --
you call it a grip, I call it a leather duffel bag;
was that with you?
A. Mr. Vannatter, when we were getting in
the car, took it and put it in the trunk of his car.
Q. Okay.
That was the car that you rode down to
Parker Center in?
A. Yes.
Q. And did he keep that grip after you
ultimately left Parker Center?
A. Yes. I asked for it and he said it was
in his car and he asked would it be all right if he
just dropped it back at the house when he got back
there.
Q. Okay.
A. I said sure.
Q. Okay.
So that grip was then in his possession
from about 1:30 --
MR. BAKER: That's okay, Erin, thank you.
Q. -- about 1:30 to whenever he got back to
Rockingham?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
Did he ever ask you if he could look in
the grip?
A. No.
Q. I mean you didn't care, but he never
asked you; is that right?
MR. PETROCELLI: I'm going to object to his
preamble, him not caring. Ask him a question.
THE COURT: Ask him if he cared.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you care whether he
looked in your grip?
A. If he asked I would have said sure, but
he didn't ask.
Q. All right.
And in any event, that piece of luggage
was then returned to you at about 5:30 on the 13th,
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, did Vannatter or Lange or any other
LAPD officer on the 13th ask you for your luggage?
A. No one ever asked me or, to my knowledge,
asked anyone with my defense team throughout any of
the other trial for any of my luggage including my
golf clubs.
MR. PETROCELLI: Object to his comments to
other people outside of himself.
THE COURT: Okay. Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And during the criminal
trial, were you requested to produce your golf bag,
the one we've seen here in court today?
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, relevance.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I think it's relevant.
I'd like to be heard.
THE COURT: Sustained. This is a civil trial.
MR. LEONARD: Bob. Bob.
MR. BAKER: Let's be heard on that. Let me at
least put it on the record.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. PETROCELLI: Hold on. Maybe you can tell
me where you're going with this.
MR. BAKER: Let's just put it on the record.
(The following proceedings were
held at the bench with reporter:)
MR. BAKER: They've tried to infer that the
golf bag is of great importance in this case, and it
was -- had some nefarious things in it, and obviously
we think it's important. He will testify that he is
the one that told his lawyers to bring the golf bag to
the criminal trial, and it was of absolutely no
importance.
THE COURT: You could ask him that.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you.
THE COURT: But whether somebody asked him,
there's an objection, it's sustained.
MR. BAKER: Okay.
(The following proceedings were
held in open court in the presence
of the jury.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you request during
the criminal trial that your golf bag and your Louis
Buitton bag, your luggage, be brought down into the
Courthouse in the criminal trial?
A. Yes. I was tired of hearing about my
luggage and I wondered why nobody seemed to want it,
so I told my defense team -- I said, will you guys
please go get all my luggage that I had, bring it down
here and let them test it and do whatever they need to
do with it.
Q. And what you meant is test it for blood?
A. Yes. I mean there seemed to be a lot of
talk about my Louis Vuitton bag and golf bag and no
one ever asked for it, and I felt maybe we can stop
all the talk about it by bringing it in.
Q. Now, Mr. Simpson, on the way to -- O.J.,
on the way down to Parker Center when you were in the
vehicle with Vannatter and another officer, did they
talk to you about your whereabouts the evening before?
A. Yes.
Q. Did they ask you where you had been?
A. Yes.
Q. And did they talk to you about whether or
not you had been to get a hamburger and your
whereabouts the evening before?
A. Yes. I told them. They didn't ask me if
I had done that. I told them what I had done.
Q. And when you got to the police station,
you had an opportunity to discuss for a period of time
with your lawyers, did you not, before the recorded
statement?
A. I talked to the police for a while. Then
my lawyers showed up and I talked to my lawyers and
then I went back in with the police officers.
Q. Okay.
Now, when you got back in with the police
officers, you heard a tape recording of the interview
that they did with you on the afternoon of June 13,
1994, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Before that interview was tape-recorded,
did they turn on the tape recorder and stop it and
rewind it?
A. I don't -- I can't recall if they rewound
it or put another tape in when they started
interviewing me, but they stopped and started again.
Q. Tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury
what occurred the first time that they tape-recorded
you?
A. Well, they turned it on and they started
reading; they explained what they were doing, they
started reading my rights. When they got to the part
about a lawyer being present I made a comment.
Q. What comments did you make?
A. I don't know. Just, oh, yeah, sure,
that's what you say here, or something to that effect.
And he stopped it and he says, oh, come on, O.J., we
just want to get this thing over with. I mean if you
want your lawyers in here, they can come in here and
we'll be here all day. You said you wanted to talk to
us. And I said, I do. And he said, well, you know,
we just want to get it over with. We can get back --
we can -- you give some answers, you can go home, you
can see your kids.
And I said start it over again. And he
did it again. I kind of chuckled at that point and
the second time, but I didn't care if they talked to
me or not. I didn't feel I needed a lawyer.
Q. Now, did you think you had anything to
hide from the police at the time that you were in
Parker Center LAPD on June 13, 1994?
A. Absolutely nothing.
Q. And were you tired?
A. I was tired. I was a lot of things; I
was kind of -- you know, you can imagine what I had
heard. I hadn't slept. I was tired. I was in shock.
I was disbelieving. I was a lot of things.
Q. Now, in the ride down, and before you
were -- turned on the second time on the tape
recorder, did you ever ask Vannatter or Lange or the
third officer what had happened?
A. I asked him every time I spoke to a
police officer or one of the detectives, I constantly
asked him, you know, what happened.
Q. Did anybody ever tell you what had
happened?
A. Not -- nothing other than, you know, my
kids didn't see anything and that type of stuff.
Q. Would any of the LAPD ever give you any
indication as to what occurred?
A. No.
Q. And did you bring it up again in your
recorded statement that the police officers -- you
guys haven't told me anything, did you say that to
him?
A. No, no.
Q. Did you tell him that you had no idea
what happened?
A. Yes.
Q. And you said:
(Mr. Baker read a portion of the
transcript of O.J. Simpson's
police interview.)
You guys haven't told me
anything. Every time I ask you --
MR. BAKER: Page 23.
(Mr. Baker read a portion of the
transcript of O.J. Simpson's police
interview.)
Every time I ask you guys, you
say you're going to tell me in a bit.
Q. Is that what you said to them?
A. Yes.
Q. And was Vannatter doing most of the
questioning?
A. He and Lange, they both were.
Q. Now, you indicated on that recording --
they said there was blood all over and you volunteered
to take a blood test, did you not?
A. Yes.
Q. Why?
A. Because I didn't do anything, I was
innocent. I didn't know if it would help them. I'd
do whatever I can do to help them.
Q. And they mentioned guns or -- strike
that.
When they said that we don't have a lot
of answers ourselves, you told them you had a bunch of
guns, correct?
A. Yes. And I was a little nervous about
that because I had a gun in my car and I never locked
my car and so I had a little concern about that.
Q. Why did you have a gun in your car, O.J.?
A. Well, a month previous to this I was
going down to Laguna to the recital and on Mother's
Day, about 4 in the morning, and three cars attempted
to run me off the road. I don't know if they were --
they had me encircled and they were slowing down to
try to stop me, and so I held up my cell phone so they
can see I may have been making a cell call and they
took off. And I chased them for a little bit, chased
one of them, to make him think I was chasing him.
And after that I, you know, had a gun in
my car.
Q. Now, did Nicole know that you had guns?
A. Very much so, yes. She had shot -- I had
her years previous shoot them so that she'd know how
they would feel. And she was always concerned about
guns in the house, so she had gone out and bought all
the locks for the pistols that I had, revolvers. And
in the last month of her life, whenever I was picking
the kids up to go to school or whatever, she would
always say, and I did, but she'd always say put that
gun in the trunk while the kids were in the car.
Q. Now, when you talked about locks, you're
talking about trigger locks?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, were you in this courtroom the day
Nancy Ney testified from the Sojourn House that
somebody named Nicole had called that didn't know
if -- didn't know if her husband had any guns?
A. I wasn't here, but I heard that testimony
and saw that -- that list in my child custody case.
Q. Now, there wasn't any question in your
mind Nicole knew you had guns and knew you had them in
the car in the month before she died?
A. Most definitely.
Q. Now, you also told the officers that you
had to go out to the Bronco to get your phone, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you testified that you placed a cell
phone call at about 10:00 on the 13th out by your
automobile out in the driveway, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, why did you need to go out to the
Bronco to get your cell phone if you already had your
cell phone, O.J.?
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, assumes facts.
MR. LEONARD: I think there was a misstatement,
1213.
MR. PETROCELLI: It's argumentative also.
MR. BAKER: You're objecting my question to my
client is argumentative?
MR. PETROCELLI: And it's been leading all day,
too.
MR. BAKER: Anything else you want to put down?
MR. PETROCELLI: That's it for now.
THE COURT: Start over.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Tell us how your cell
phone works?
A. Like most cell phones. But mine comes in
a -- I had a package like a small purse and I would
keep an extra battery in it. It would also have a
battery charger, real small battery charger, so you
can recharge it in any hotel room. It also had a plug
in so you can plug it into any phone -- car, you know,
car lighter. And it came in a real small package
or purse, I guess you would call it.
Q. Is that what you were going to get in
from the Bronco just before you left?
A. Yes. And I -- as I said, I was tired and
I sort of indicated that to the police. If you'll
listen to the tape, I said the cell phone -- I think I
said or whatever that is, and that -- whatever that is
was referring to those -- the little package. And I
said that to the police when they interviewed me, if
you listen to that tape.
Q. Okay.
It says:
(Mr. Baker read a portion of the
transcript of O.J. Simpson's
police interview.)
MR. BAKER: Page -- Page 15, line 22.
Do you recall bleeding at all in
your truck in the Bronco?
I recall bleeding at my house and
I went to the Bronco. The last thing I
did before I left, I was rushing, was
went and got my phone out of the Bronco.
MR. BAKER: And there's a sound apparently, and
you say -- well, whatever that is.
MR. PETROCELLI: The sound is um.
MR. BAKER: I don't know if that's um or not.
A. Whatever that is is what I was talking
about the case and all the other stuff.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, in that statement
you gave to the police, you said something about
calling Paula on the 12th, do you recall that, or
driving to Paula's?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you in fact driving to Paula's on
the 12th or the 11th?
A. On the 11th.
Q. You didn't go to Paula's after the
recital, did you?
A. No.
Q. Was that a mistake?
A. Yes, it was. I think I was con -- I have
a way of talking, when someone will call and say what
are you doing, I'll say I'm going to somebody's place,
and in fact I'm at home.
But I was sort of running both nights and
things together because I didn't really have a Sunday
night because I hadn't slept, and at the exact same
time on Saturday night I was on my way to Paula's and
I called Paula when I was on my way to Paula's at that
particular time. I don't know the significance of it.
I just had those two nights running together.
Q. Okay.
Fair enough.
Now, after the statement was completed by
the officers, what occurred next at LAPD Parker
Center?
A. They said, well, let's go down and -- I
guess either take blood or take pictures or something.
And we went down. I can't recall if we took the
pictures first or second, I don't recall, and then we
went and, you know, they kind of inspected my hand
and -- hand, and Nurse Peratis cleaned the -- the cut.
Q. When you say they kind of inspected your
hand, O.J., what do you mean they kind of inspected
your hand?
A. Well, both Vannatter and Lange, and the
nurse, because they were -- they were looking at my
hand, you know, I don't know if they were looking for
any bits of anything there, but -- so they took my
hand and inspected it, and then I put it down on the
thing and Nurse Peratis came in with a swab and
cleaned it.
Q. Did they inspect both of your hands, your
left and your right?
A. I don't recall if they did anything to my
right hand. I don't recall.
Q. Did they rotate your hand around, did
they look at it?
A. They had it and looked at it and cleaned
it.
Q. And Lange and Vannatter were right there,
as well as Peratis obviously, when he was bandaging
it?
A. Yes.
As a matter of fact, when they were
taking the picture of it, I can't recall if it was
Vannatter or Lange, they took it and positioned my
hand, how they wanted the picture to be taken.
Q. Now, at that time, did you have any cut
on your left hand other than a cut that was on the
knuckle of your middle finger?
A. No.
Q. Now, you ultimately went back to your
office after you left LAPD?
A. Yes. Vannatter told me I shouldn't go
back to the house just yet, they were about finished,
but he would let me know when I could go back to the
house. And we told them where we would be. And after
being at the office for an hour or so, you know, I was
sort of restless, I wanted to get home, and I called,
and someone said it was okay, come home.
Q. All right.
And so you then went back to Rockingham,
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it a zoo by then, with the media?
A. Yes, outside, yes.
Q. And did you view the television as to
accusations that were being made against you that
night?
A. Yes. What -- we were looking for
information and -- everyone seemed to be in shock, and
we went into my living room and put all three TV's on
and -- and, you know, didn't get much information.
Q. Did you get a lot of accusations.
A. Yeah. People were saying some things
that I didn't feel were accurate or true.
Q. Did you leave Rockingham the following
day?
A. The following morning, yes.
Q. And went to where?
A. I went to meet my kids. I went directly
to -- well, directly up to -- I went to my office.
I'm sorry. I went to my office.
Q. When did you meet your kids?
A. A little later. We had been calling, and
A.C. I guess was a little late leaving Laguna, and we
ended up meeting -- we ended up meeting, I believe, up
on -- on -- I'm sorry, I'm getting when I got out of
incarceration and that day sort of confused here.
I met them at Bob Kardashian's house.
Q. And you stayed at Bob Kardashian's house
from the 14th to the 17th, with the exception of when
you went to the wake and the funeral, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, on June 15, did you direct your
attorneys to offer the services of Henry Lee and
Michael Baden to the officers of the LAPD?
A. Yes, I knew their reputations, I thought
they were police officers, both of them. I had spent
a lot of time in Connecticut, and I heard a lot about
Henry Lee. And we felt if -- I felt -- I wanted
whoever did this to be caught, and I said I'll pay
their expenses and their costs for them to come out
and work with LAPD and, you know, not to work for me,
but to work with the Los Angeles Police Department,
'cause I understood them to be the best people in the
world at this type of stuff.
Q. Did the LAPD reject that?
A. Yes.
MR. PETROCELLI: I'm going to object, Your
Honor. He has no personal knowledge. It's also
stricken from Lee's.
THE COURT: Last portion is stricken.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Were you under the care
of a doctor that week?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you medicated?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know with what?
A. No. It was a couple things.
Q. Did you attend the wake of Nicole Brown
Simpson?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have a conversation with Juditha
Brown at that event?
A. Yes.
Q. Did she ask you if you were responsible
for Nicole's death?
A. Yes, she asked me if I had anything to do
with it, she really got right up in my face and asked
me.
Q. What did you say?
A. I told her no, I didn't, Judy, and I told
her I loved Nicole.
Q. Now, you were here when Judy testified
relative to when you and Nicole broke up the second
time, something about it's going to hurt; remember
that?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you tell us what was said in that
conversation, sir?
A. I had made up my mind that I wanted to
not be involved with whatever was going on in Nicole's
life, other than the kids.
It had been a real tough month. I
mentioned some of it yesterday, but there are a few
other things.
And I called Judy 'cause I had a big
concern about Nicole, I wanted Judy to help me or for
Judy to -- and Lou to talk to Nicole to get her to go
back to the therapy that she had been going to
evidently immediately before she asked me to get back
in the relationship.
And I told Judy -- I shared with Judy
some things then that I had not told her before, like
the car. And I told her, Judy, you got to do
something, you know, the first time it was my fault,
but this time -- I can't do this anymore, Judy, you
know, it hurts to do it, but I've got to distance
myself from this, you guys have got to do something.
Judy was concerned, was every bit as
frightened as me. Judy said things to me that she was
concerned about, but she felt she couldn't say
anything.
MR. KELLY: Object to what Judy felt or her
concerns.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KELLY: Ask that the prior statement be
stricken with regard to that.
THE COURT: Stricken.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) From the conversation,
did you form the opinion that Judy understood your
concerns; Judy Brown?
A. Yes, very much so.
MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for operation of
mind, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BAKER: Calls for what?
MR. KELLY: Just sustained.
THE COURT: Calling for somebody else's state
of mind.
MR. BAKER: Calls for his opinion.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BAKER: Concern of the other person.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, on June 17, were you
examined by various people?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you have any bruises on your
body, Mr. Simpson?
A. Not that I know of, no.
Q. The area underneath your right -- on your
bicep of your left arm.
A. Yes.
Q. You saw that picture here in court?
A. I wasn't -- I don't think I was here the
day that we spoke of it, but I was aware that, you
know, they made some allegation about that.
Q. How long has that mark been on -- been on
your arm?
A. Since I retired from football.
Q. Is it still there today?
A. Yes. Along with many other imperfections
in my -- coloration of my body, because of football.
Q. Now, on the 17th, you knew that the LAPD
was going to arrest you, didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. And what did you ask Al Cowlings to do?
A. Well, early on, I had asked him to give
some money to my kids, my older kids, because I felt
they wouldn't want to go to work, and I had some cash,
and then at one point I just turned to him and asked
him to take me to Nicole's grave.
Q. Why?
A. Well, I was -- I -- I was feeling a lot
of pain and I just wanted it to end and I wanted to go
to Nicole's grave and I, you know, I was I guess
feeling suicidal.
Q. And you had a gun in your duffel bag.
Did you --
A. Yes.
Q. Did you plan to end your life?
A. I certainly -- I just wanted my pain to
end, and I just sat with A.C. and -- we drove down and
we couldn't get into the cemetery because there was a
police car there, and we went and sat in an orange
grove. And at some point A.C. got out of the car to
go use the restroom and I got into -- then I got into
the back of the car and I took a gun out, and,
fortunately, A.C. came back and said, hey, I'm taking
you home, and I said, well, take me to my mom.
And we started back up the freeway, and
he called the police as we started back up the
freeway.
Q. Were you -- were you feeling grief
stricken?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you feel that you had been unfairly
accused of killing your ex-wife?
A. I'm sure, among all the things I was
feeling, that I was in a lot of pain, I was -- I was
missing Nicole, my kids didn't cry, I -- you know, I
guess they had attacked me somewhat, and that hurt,
hurt me. And I just didn't know what to do.
Q. And what, if anything, or what -- what
was it that kept you from ending your life that day?
A. Well, partially it's the -- my mother
told me years ago that you couldn't go to heaven if
you commit suicide, and I was kind of dealing with
that. And thank God for A.C.
Q. Didn't you think that that was an act of
cowardice. You had four children, two young kids?
A. Yes, I was totally ashamed of myself
right after that. And I'm ashamed that I ever thought
that.
Q. Did you ever tell anyone at the time that
you had contemplated ending your life or thereafter,
that you were in any way responsible for
Nicole Brown Simpson's death?
A. Never, never at any time, and never would
I, 'cause I wasn't.
Q. And how many days did you spend in jail
for crimes you didn't commit?
A. 14, 16 --
MR. PETROCELLI: Facts not in evidence, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) 15 months?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you also just about lost every
material possession that you've had as a result of
this incident?
MR. PETROCELLI: You know, Your Honor, you made
an order forbidding us to get into this.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. PETROCELLI: Opening the door. I'm happy
to go into it.
MR. BAKER: I don't have anything further at
this time.
THE COURT: Cross-examine.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q. You told this jury on Friday Mr. Simpson,
that you never, ever, attempted to lie about anything
important in your life. Do you remember that?
A. Not anything that was germane to
anything.
Q. Excuse me. Do you remember that
testimony?
Please answer yes or no.
A. Yes.
Q. And when you told this jury on Friday
that you never, ever attempted to lie about anything
important, you understood that your credibility is a
crucial issue in this case, right?
MR. BAKER: Argumentative, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You understand that
it's important that you be believed by this jury,
correct?
MR. BAKER: Same thing, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BAKER: Argumentative. Irrelevant.
THE COURT: You may answer.
A. I believe it's important for me to be
honest to the jury, yes.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You understand that
it's important -- that it's important for you to be
believed by this jury, true.
MR. BAKER: Same objection.
A. I believe it's important for me to be
honest to the jury.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Can you answer my
question, sir.
A. I can't answer your question the way it's
worded.
I believe it's important for me to be
honest to the jury.
Q. Let me ask it again, and try to answer
it.
My turn now.
A. Okay.
Q. You understand how important it is for
you to be believed by this jury? Yes or no?
A. I can't answer that.
MR. BAKER: Objection. Argumentative.
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, direct him to
answer yes or no.
MR. BAKER: Let me get my objection out first.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MR. BAKER: It's argumentative; it's irrelevant
as to his understanding in that regard; and it's
certainly argumentative.
MR. PETROCELLI: Evidence Code 780, motivation,
attitude toward giving testimony, bias.
THE COURT: Overruled.
You may answer.
A. I believe it's important for me to be
honest to the jury.
I don't think you've given much
consideration --
Q. Excuse me. Ask that the witness answer
the question yes or no.
THE WITNESS: I can't.
THE COURT: Answer it yes or no.
THE WITNESS: I can't answer yes or no.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Let me ask the
question again. And answer yes or no; the Court has
ordered you to.
MR. BAKER: I object to the Court ordering my
client to answer it yes or no. And he can't answer it
yes or no.
THE COURT: Ask the question.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You understand how
important it is for you to be believed by this jury;
true?
A. I can't answer that true or false.
I know it's important for me to be
honest --
Q. Do you understand?
A. -- to the jury.
Q. That it's important for you to be
believed; yes or no?
Do you understand that, sir?
A. I can't answer that yes or no.
I think it's important for me to be
honest to the jury.
MR. PETROCELLI: Move to strike, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Petrocelli, move on to the next
question. You got your answer.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You have lied
repeatedly to this jury, haven't you, sir?
A. No.
Q. And you have lied repeatedly throughout
your life, haven't you?
A. No.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, this is argument.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. PETROCELLI: Excuse me, Mr. Baker.
THE COURT: You may proceed.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You lied.
When you first met Nicole, you were
married to your first wife, true?
A. Yes.
Q. And living with her, right?
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, this is subject to a
motion in limine. This is --
MR. PETROCELLI: It is not, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Let's get on with the examination.
You're got not going to go through the entire --
MR. PETROCELLI: I'm --
THE COURT: -- span of life.
MR. PETROCELLI: His credibility on his
testimony.
THE COURT: You may impeach on material
matters.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) When you were
married to Nicole, you were repeatedly unfaithful to
her, were you not?
A. There were times.
MR. BAKER: I object. I want to approach on
this. This is ridiculous.
MR. PETROCELLI: I have --
MR. BAKER: This is the subject of a motion --
MR. PETROCELLI: I'll cite chapter and verse.
THE COURT: Approach the bench.
(The following proceedings were
held at the bench, with the
reporter.)
MR. PETROCELLI: First of all, Your Honor --
MR. P. BAKER: Motion in limine number 3.
MR. PETROCELLI: -- he put this witness on.
And I intend -- and he had this witness say that he
never even attempted to lie.
I intend to show that this witness has
been lying about everything important in this case.
One of the issues he had him discuss was
how he had a great relationship, good relationship
with -- loving relationship with Nicole, specifically
during the time frame of 1985 to 1987; and then some
other time frames, he was engaged in a longstanding
affair, was a cause of great animosity between him and
his wife, and led to this beating in 1989 -- and I
have writings on this --
THE COURT: Would you keep your voice down.
MR. PETROCELLI: I'm sorry.
I have writings of her that I intend to
get into, as well, that will reflect this. It shows
that, A, he was lying; and B, directly undercuts the
direct testimony elicited, that he had a great, loving
relationship throughout his marriage.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, this is total
collateral issues.
Let me say two things: One, that on
motion in limine number 3 the issue of his infidelity
was raised, and granted by you.
Number 2, that, if they go back and try
to get in these diaries, that is total hearsay of
Nicole Brown Simpson. These diaries -- these diaries
were made because she was told by her lawyers to make
those diaries to upset the prenuptial agreement after
he had, in fact, written that document that says that
he will not -- he will give her half of his property;
rip up the prenuptial agreement. And this is the
rankest of hearsay.
THE COURT: Just a minute.
MR. PETROCELLI: I'm not referring to any of
these diaries he's talking about, Your Honor.
THE COURT: What -- which writings are you
talking about?
MR. PETROCELLI: I'm talking about writings
that she made after the 1989 beating in which it
describes how Mr. Simpson was consistently unfaithful,
beat the shit out of her, beat her up in 1989,
directly undercuts what the testimony that he was --
THE COURT: How is that admissible?
MR. PETROCELLI: It shows her state of mind as
to the nature of this relationship which he elicited
on direct examination.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. And these have nothing
to do with divorce. And they were written long before
they were separated.
He's talking about something totally
different.
He cannot put this witness on in front of
this jury to describe this loving relationship, paint
this wonderful picture, say he was this -- this great
guy, he never lied, and then deprive me of the right
to cross-examine him, when his credibility is the
single most crucial issue in the case.
Your motion in limine number 3
specifically said granted if they raise these issues.
MR. BAKER: I didn't raise the issue of
infidelity.
MR. PETROCELLI: Of course, you did.
THE COURT: Erin, give me the left-hand binder.
(The Clerk complies, hands binder to
the Court.)
THE COURT: Thank you.
(Pause for the Court to review binder.)
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. PETROCELLI: You have the transcript?
THE COURT: I need to see a transcript.
(Mr. Petrocelli hands transcript
page to the Court.)
THE COURT: He talks about his Hall of Fame
speech, how character is everything to this man. And
basically, he spent three hours talking about his
character.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I --
(Court reviews page 19 of
September 16, 1996 transcript.)
THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Petrocelli, what date
was that from, that page of transcript?
MR. PETROCELLI: I think it was the 17th or
16th of September.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MR. BAKER: I didn't raise the issue of
infidelity. Under Evidence Code 1227, I can bring up
hearsay, but they cannot bring up hearsay.
MR. PETROCELLI: That's absolutely wrong.
MR. BAKER: Let me finish.
And this -- this is collateral issue.
And they've raised a million collateral issues in this
case. But he has to cross-examine him on the issues
that I raised. And I didn't raise infidelity.
They're already had two and a half days
cross-examining him, and gone into everything. And
now, they have to narrow their cross-examination to
the exact issues that were raised in this.
They can characterize it as character or
anything else they want. And if that were what I --
what I went on and examined him on that, then there is
no categorization; there's no limit to what they can
raise. And that's what their argument is. It's a
fallacious argument. They can't keep this man up
there for six days.
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, under 1227, he's
entitled to elicit admissions of -- statement of
decedent. As an exception to the hearsay rule, we are
able to probe fully the same acts, durations, and
occurrences under 356. You can't have a one-way
street on eliciting testimony about conversations and
events. I mean, that's never been the law of this
state.
THE COURT: All right. The objection is
overruled. I think the issue of character of the
defendant has been put into issue by the defendant's
testimony.
(The following proceedings were
held in open court, in the
presence of the jury.)
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) During the course of
your relationship with Nicole, Mr. Simpson, you were
unfaithful to her; true?
MR. BAKER: Objection. 352 motion in limine
number 3.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. From time to time, yes.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) And that was
dishonest on your part, wasn't it?
A. I think morally, yes.
Q. That was a lie, wasn't it, sir?
A. I think morally it was dishonest of me,
yes.
I don't know if I would characterize it
as a lie.
Q. I -- excuse me?
A. I don't know if I would characterize it
as a lie.
I felt it was morally wrong, when I look
at it, yes.
Q. You don't think cheating on your wife and
mother of your two children is a lie? Is that what
you're saying to this jury?
A. I'm saying to this jury --
Q. Yes or no, sir?
MR. BAKER: No. Let him --
A. Yes. You asked me what I said to the
jury.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You have to answer
my questions.
THE COURT: Just a minute.
MR. BAKER: He doesn't have to say yes or no.
MR. PETROCELLI: Yes, he does.
THE COURT: Ask your question again.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Are you saying that
you don't consider it to be a lie to your wife to
cheat on her?
A. It's not the word I would use for it, no.
I would say morally it was wrong.
Q. You didn't tell her about these affairs
at the time they were happening, did you?
A. At the time they were happening, no.
But I told her about everybody -- one of
them, yes.
Q. Now, in 1989, when you had this
altercation with Nicole, you had beaten Nicole in the
past, hadn't you?
A. No.
Q. And in this 1989 incident, it was the
last straw for Nicole, wasn't it?
A. No.
Q. And she told you that, didn't she?
A. No.
Q. You had beaten her in the past, and on
one occasion, you and she went to a doctor and lied
about what happened. True?
A. No.
Q. And told the doctor that she fell off a
bicycle. True?
A. I told the doctor what she told me, yes.
Q. Now, you've seen writings of Nicole
referring to that incident, have you not, sir.
MR. BAKER: I'm going to object to this, Your
Honor. I want to approach again.
THE COURT: Okay. Approach again.
(The following proceedings were
held at the bench, with the
reporter.)
MR. PETROCELLI: 732. This is on the Joint
Trial Exhibit 732, and these are writings which this
witness testified he saw when he was in jail.
And Nicole describes these various things
that we're talking about, Your Honor. And she also
described the 1989 incident, where she talked about
Mr. Simpson beating her. And it talks about the
incident where, previous to that, he beat her and she
had to go -- they had to go lie to the doctor.
And I intend to show him this and ask him why
Nicole would lie about such things in her writings, if
he has any reason to know that, directly relevant to
her state of mind, directly relevant to the issues the
defense that questioned Mr. Simpson about. I'm
entitled to probe on the issue of his credibility.
MR. P. BAKER: Your Honor the evidence --
MR. BAKER: All previously argued --
MR. P. BAKER: Evidence Code 1370, as specific
writings, that -- that this statement was made at or
around the time of hearing.
This doesn't do it. It says unless -- it
must be -- it must be made within five years of the
state of filing of this action. This doesn't say --
MR. PETROCELLI: That new section I'm --
MR. P. BAKER: Yeah.
MR. PETROCELLI: -- I'm not relying on.
THE COURT: What is your --
MR. P. BAKER: That's a hearsay statement.
MR. PETROCELLI: That's hearsay statement. It
comes under your state-of-mind exception.
THE COURT: Excuse me. What part of her state
of mind is being established at this point?
MR. PETROCELLI: Her state of mind that they
had had a hostile physical relationship, and that's
what led to it being terminated.
That's exactly what this letter's about.
He got on -- on the stand and said just the opposite,
Your Honor. He's put his state of mind, and he even
said that Nicole's state of mind --
MR. P. BAKER: The jury can hear all of this.
MR. PETROCELLI: He --
MR. BAKER: Your voice is too damn loud.
MR. PETROCELLI: Excuse me, Mr. Baker. There's
no need to lose control because --
MR. BAKER: I'm not losing control; you are.
MR. PETROCELLI: I'll lower my voice.
He has elicited testimony of Mr. Simpson
that Nicole and he had a great, loving relationship,
talked about that at length yesterday.
It's all false. And this -- and he
knew -- he knew these documents existed, Your Honor.
His client has seen these.
He can't mislead the jury like that.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, this is --
THE COURT: Excuse me. This document was made
when?
MR. PETROCELLI: This document was made
sometime prior to 1990, probably, because it was well
before their divorce, and she -- it's after this
New Year's Eve incident that we've been talking about.
THE COURT: With regard to the circumstances of
this document --
MR. PETROCELLI: This is Nicole's handwriting.
It's talking about the state of their marriage, which
he characterizes as a loving, beautiful marriage.
THE COURT: What's the foundation for this?
When was this made? Who --
MR. PETROCELLI: He will testify this is
Nicole's handwriting. He will testify he has seen
this before. And he has to have some explanation why
Nicole would write in here that he beat her in '89, he
beat her prior to '89.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, excuse me.
THE BAILIFF: The jurors can hear the words
you're saying up here.
MR. PETROCELLI: In any event --
THE COURT: Jurors, you're excused for ten
minutes.
Don't talk about the case. Don't form or
express any opinion.
(The following proceedings were
held in open court, outside the
presence of the jury.)
THE COURT: Everyone in the audience, we are
still in session. It's just for the jury.
MR. PETROCELLI: I'm not using those lawyer
documents you're talking about. This is the only one
I'm intending to use.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I would --
THE COURT: You may step down.
(Addressing the witness,
Mr. Simpson)
THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.
MR. PETROCELLI: So, I'm trying to respond to
Your Honor's questions here.
He recognizes the handwriting. He knows
that this is Nicole's handwriting. By the content, we
know about when it was prepared. It was during the
marriage, and it was after the 1989 incident, so it's
sometime in 1990 or 1991. And she specifically talks
about the incident that they spent a lot of time on
direct examination. And she -- it reflects her state
of mind about what happened in this relationship,
which he spent a great deal of time characterizing on
his part and on her part.
And she's deceased. And he elicited all
kinds of admissions, statements by Nicole, hearsay
statements, purportedly, under 1227.
And the law entitles us to go into those
same events, acts, occurrences, and declarations,
including 1989.
Your Honor, you can't have a one-way
examination of a --
MR. P. BAKER: It says Supreme Court case --
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I would ask that the
Court read California versus Green, 399 U.S. 149.
That case is on point.
This is hearsay. He's trying to say
because we explored the state of mind --
THE COURT: What's the citation?
MR. BAKER: 399 U.S. 149.
He is trying to say that since we
explored the state --
THE COURT: What's the name of the case?
MR. BAKER: California versus Green.
-- since we explored the state of mind of
Mr. Simpson, that somehow that piggy-backs the state
of mind of Nicole Brown Simpson in the evidence. It
does not. This is a straight hearsay document that
can't be used to impeach this witness.
MR. PETROCELLI: The state of mind of
Mr. Simpson during the course of the marriage was --
was proffered by you to show the nature of the
relationship; it obviously wasn't proffered to show
anything in regard to the specific motive at the time.
You're trying to paint the picture through this
witness and this couple that it was a loving, great
relationship, marred by one minor incident in 1989.
And you used him to do that. And you
just said you put his state of mind in issue. For
that reason, we are entitled to show her state of mind
which relates to the same relationship and the same
marriage that he's talking about.
MR. BAKER: It does not.
MR. PETROCELLI: It will, subject --
THE COURT: Do you have anything you want me to
look at?
MR. PETROCELLI: I don't. I never heard of
this case he's talking about.
THE COURT: It's an old case.
MR. PETROCELLI: I'm not familiar with it.
I would rely on Section 356 of the
Evidence Code, and I would rely on the state-of-mind
exception.
We're not arguing this is hearsay, that
it's not hearsay; we're arguing that it's admissible
hearsay, for all the reasons that I've been expressing
on the record.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, Nicole Brown Simpson
didn't kill herself. Her state of mind is irrelevant
to this issue. They -- I didn't talk about it. And
no matter how many times he keeps saying it, what we
were talking about, his state of mind, they're trying
to make him a raging maniac.
And we put in his character and his
evidence relative to his state of mind; we didn't put
in her state of mind.
MR. PETROCELLI: He just made my argument for
me, Your Honor, because by that being relevant, her
state of mind to the same relationship is relevant.
He just made my argument.
THE COURT: Okay.
(Recess.)
(Court retires to chambers to
review documents.)
(At 11:50 A.M. a recess was
taken until 1:30 P.M. of the
same day.)
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, JANUARY 13, 1997
1:47 PM
DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
(PER COVER PAGE)
(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)
THE COURT: At this time the Court will conduct
further proceedings with regards to the objection and
try to ascertain exactly what is being objected to and
what is being offered and for what purpose.
Let's start with you, Mr. Petrocelli. Go
ahead.
What is it you are seeking to bring
before the jury?
MR. PETROCELLI: Yes. I'm seeking to question
Mr. Simpson about the statements in Nicole's letter
that in between Sydney and Justin's birth, Mr. Simpson
beat the holy hell out of her and that they lied at
the X-ray lab and said that she fell off of a bike.
And I'm also seeking to introduce the
statements in there in which Nicole describes the New
Year's evening incident as a beat up, wife-beating,
and further refers to Mr. Simpson's infidelity, and
also indicates at the end of this letter that since
that night that she has never loved him since or been
the same.
And I proffer this as evidence of
Nicole's state of mind in regard to the nature of this
relationship in the days and time period leading up to
the '89 incident and then culminating in their divorce
a few years thereafter, and some specific response to
Mr. Baker's eliciting from Mr. Simpson that during
this same period of time O.J. Simpson and Nicole
enjoyed a wonderful, loving relationship.
And on page 123 of the transcript of
yesterday's testimony, he goes into that and he goes
into it, in other places as well, and he conceded at
sidebar, Mr. Baker did, that he was attempting to
elicit evidence to show Mr. Simpson's state of mind in
regard to that relationship, which he thought was
relevant, to show that at no time could Mr. Simpson,
and would Mr. Simpson, ever have a motive to kill
Nicole.
And once you accept the proposition, as I
do, that that evidence is relevant, and clearly
equally relevant is the evidence of Nicole's state of
mind in regard to the identical issue, that is their
relationship and whether or not it was as he portrayed
it or she portrayed it, and whether or not he could
and did have a motive to kill sometime thereafter.
And under the state of mind exception to
the hearsay rule, I believe this is admissible. The
only question is relevance. And relevance has been
established by no less than Mr. Baker's own reasoning.
You cannot -- You cannot put on half of a
story, Your Honor. You cannot elicit testimony from
Mr. Simpson about their relationship and then bar us
from inquiring about Nicole's portrayal of that same
relationship from her own words.
I offer to prove those points with the
passages that I just described.
Also it impeaches his testimony, Your
Honor. Remember, he made a big point on the stand of
saying at the outset of his testimony that he has
never even attempted to lie about anything important.
THE COURT: Well, Mr. Petrocelli, you kind of
shotgunned this thing.
I think for the purposes of the Court's
ruling, I want to ask you to be more specific in terms
of what specific item are you -- are you seeking to
introduce.
MR. PETROCELLI: The sentence -- well, first of
all, I would seek to introduce the entire document,
Your Honor.
But in particular, I would seek to
introduce on the fourth page, exhibit -- what.
MR. GELBLUM: 732.
MR. PETROCELLI: This is Exhibit 732. For the
record, Exhibit 732 -- Erin, on page 5, the following
paragraph:
(Mr. Petrocelli read from Exhibit
732.)
There was also that time before
Justin and after a few months, Sydney, I
felt really good about how I got back
into shape. You beat the holy hell out
of me and we lied at the X-ray lab and
said I fell off the bike, remember!
MR. PETROCELLI: I asked Mr. Simpson about that
incident, he denied it under oath.
I seek to offer that sentence, that
paragraph, to impeach him and to show what was really
going on in that relationship.
On the next page, I would offer the
paragraph:
(Mr. Petrocelli read from Exhibit
732.)
And since Justin's birth is the
mad New Year's Eve beat up --
THE COURT: Just a minute.
(Court reviews real time screen.)
THE COURT: What next do you want to offer?
MR. PETROCELLI: Next sequence of passages,
Your Honor, begin on the next page, and they are as
follows. Top of the fifth page:
(Mr. Petrocelli read from Exhibit
732.)
And since Justin's birth is the
mad New Year's Eve beat up.
MR. PETROCELLI: And then skipping the next
paragraph.
THE COURT: Wait a minute. That's page 6?
MR. PETROCELLI: That sixth page. It's 2763 at
the top of some number there.
THE COURT: What are you offering that for?
MR. PETROCELLI: To show that she was beaten up
by Mr. Simpson on New Year's Eve.
THE COURT: For the truth of the matter
asserted?
MR. PETROCELLI: Yes. And also for her state
of mind as to what happened on that evening.
And also on the -- skip a paragraph,
following paragraph, she says:
(Mr. Petrocelli read from Exhibit
732.)
I just don't see how that
compares to infidelity, wife-beating,
verbal abuse.
MR. PETROCELLI: To again -- once again show A,
that she was beaten by him, and B, that he was
unfaithful and C, what her state of mind was in regard
to the relationship which --
THE COURT: What do you seek to offer that for?
MR. PETROCELLI: Because Mr. Simpson offered
his state of mind as to the relationship and portrayed
it as a loving, great relationship that everyone else
enjoyed, and therefore he could not have killed her.
And then on the next page --
THE COURT: Just a minute.
MR. PETROCELLI: Actually, the bottom of that
same page I would begin and prove the following:
(Mr. Petrocelli read from Exhibit
732.)
And if I wanted to hurt you or
had it in me to be anything like the
person you are, I would have done so
after the New Year's incident. But I
didn't even do it then. I called the
cops to save my life whether you believe
it or not.
But I didn't pursue anything
after that; I didn't prosecute, I didn't
call the press, and didn't make a big
charade out of it, I waited for it to
die down and asked for it to, but I've
never loved you since or been the same.
MR. PETROCELLI: And I would offer those
statements for the same reasons.
And I will add, Your Honor, that they put
into evidence Nicole's letter in March of 1993, in
which Nicole went on and on about pursuing
Mr. Simpson, how much she loved him and how much she
wanted him to come back, and she wanted to come home.
And all of that, of course, was put in to
show both of their states of minds regarding the
relationship and what it was really like. And he, of
course, was trying to suggest that, you know, Nicole
was always pursuing him and he never had any friction
or conflicts with her. So therefore, he didn't have
any motive to kill.
I can't see how he can be permitted to
get up on that stand and talk about Nicole's letters
and Nicole's statements and characterize the
relationship, and we are forbidden from doing so when
we have right before us letters and writings of
herself, in her own words, that relate to the very
matters that he is eliciting on direct.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, you can't prove state
of mind by incompetent evidence. And as I suggested
to the Court, her state of mind relative to this issue
is irrelevant.
They put in issue Mr. Simpson's state of
mind, that he was in a black mood, he was a terrible,
heinous person. They've done a character
assassination on him, or attempted to, in this
courtroom, and we had to respond to that. And we
responded to it in a number of ways including the
March '93 letter which is dated -- this letter is
undated. We have no date on it. We don't know when
it was written.
We have a pretty good idea of why it was
written, and that is because it was written, we
believe, in terms of combatting the divorce in 1992,
and the document where O.J. Simpson would be liable
for 50 percent of all of his assets to Nicole if he
had done anything to her. This document goes to those
issues.
And I would suggest that, for example,
Mr. Simpson had never seen this document, it was never
given to him. She never mailed it, she never sent it,
she never did anything to it. It was -- the first
time he ever saw it he was incarcerated during the
time of the criminal trial.
We have two things to get in the 7 -- the
March 1993 letter. And that -- and I don't know why
we're discussing that except he brought it up, that's
Evidence Code Section 1227, and the ability to combat
what they put in issue relative to his state of mind.
State of mind of Nicole Brown Simpson, as
I have said from the beginning of this case, is
irrelevant to any issue in this case, for obvious
reasons.
What they're talking about is obviously
sometime in '89, and maybe thereafter -- I mean the
bike incident which Mr. Simpson denies ever having
occurred, that is her beating him -- him beating the
hell out of her and lying to some doctor relative to a
bike incident, I don't know when that occurred.
That is the bike incident when he took
her to the hospital and had her looked at because she
had fallen off a bike. To assert and to do a
character assassination on Mr. Simpson from this
letter that is undated, and we have no right to
confront and cross-examine the author thereof, is, as
I have suggested to this Court, improper.
Mr. Simpson will deny he ever beat the
hell out of her and will deny he ever lied or
suggested that she lie to a doctor. And we have no
right way to cross-examine her.
That's the case that we had suggested to
you, the California versus Green. We have no right of
confrontation of the witness and we have a document
that is undated. They can't prove to you why it was
written, when it was written.
We can prove to you that it was never
mailed to Mr. Simpson, and it should not be subject of
the scurrilous accusations that are in here.
Further, you have a subsequent letter, I
guess, a subsequent letter that was written that would
indicate that this is nonsense.
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, for the r