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 14, 1997
VOLUME 42
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
PLAINTIFFS' WITNESSES: PAGE
CLAIBORNE, SANDRA
DIRECT (G) 77
DIRECT, FURTHER (K) 90
CROSS (PB) 93
FLAMMER, E.J.
DIRECT(K) 94
CROSS (B) 128
CROSS (B) 138
REDIRECT (K) 144
RECROSS (B) 145
REDIRECT (K) 147
GARDNER, LESLIE
DIRECT (MO) 156
CROSS (L) 163
CROSS(L) 163
REDIRECT(MO) 166
RECROSS(L) 169
RICHARDS, GERALD
DIRECT(G) 171
DIRECT (G) 204
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
(MO) = Ms. Molinaro
CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
DEFENDANTS' WITNESSES: PAGE
THOMPSON, DONALD
DIRECT (PB) 7
CROSS (M) 9
REDIRECT (PB) 14
SIMPSON, ARNELLE
DIRECT (L) 16
CROSS (P) 39
REDIRECT (L) 50
RECROSS (P) 52
FURTHER REDIRECT (L) 54
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
2320 Monday Morning Quarterback Club pin 100
2321 Invoice 111
2322 Check stub 111
2323 Field credential 112
2354 Negatives contained in plastic 125
sleeving of photographs taken by
Mr. Flammer on September 26, 1993
2355 Negatives contained in plastic 126
sleeving of photographs taken by
Mr. Flammer on September 26, 1993,
770 Photo of Mr. Simpson 170
1828 Curriculum vitae of Gerald Richards 178
2357 Enlarged version of Exhibit 1830 185
2358 Microscopic enlargementphotograph 212
of film
2359 Enlargement 215
2360 Enlargement 215
2361 Contact sheet 220
2362 Document depicting squares 230
2363 Computer-generated graphic 235
2364 Roll of negatives 235
2365 Demonstrative chart 238
2366 Enlarged contact sheet of the roll 239
that has the picture of
Mr. Simpson walking through the
end zone
2367 Artist's drawing of a railroad 243
track
2368 Enlargement 246
DEFENDANTS'
NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE
2318 Photo 24
2319 Photo 24
2356 Copy of E.J. Flammer declaration 155
1310 Photograph showing item #102 255
1388 Contact sheet 256
1830 Photograph of Mr. Simpson 256
INDEX OF EXHIBITS RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFFS'
NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE
2317 148
2295 149
2296 149
2297 149
2298 149
2299 149
2300 149
2301 149
2302 149
2303 150
2304 150
2320 150
2321 150
2322 150
2323 150
2324 150
2325 151
2326 151
2327 151
2328 151
2329 151
2330 151
2331 151
2332 152
2333 152
INDEX OF EXHIBITS RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFFS'
NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE
2334 152
2335 152
2336 152
2337 152
2338 152
2339 153
2340 153
2341 153
2342 153
2343 153
2344 153
2345 153
2346 154
2347 154
2348 154
2349 154
2350 154
2351 154
2352 154
2353 155
2354 155
2355 155
770 170
INDEX OF EXHIBITS RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE
DEFENDANTS'
NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE
271 9
835 56
847 56
859 56
860 57
862 57
878 57
887 57
891 57
892 57
901 57
905 58
911 58
915 58
918 58
924 58
925 58
926 58
939 59
943 59
955 59
987 59
992 59
1025 59
1174 59
INDEX OF EXHIBITS RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE
DEFENDANT'S
NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE
1178 60
1180 60
1187 60
1248 60
1279 60
1281 60
1303 60
1321 61
1324 61
1342 61
1349 61
1350 61
1352 61
1353 61
1359 62
1360 62
1362 62
1366 62
1367 62
1368 62
1375 62
1376 63
1422 63
1436 63
1532 63
INDEX OF EXHIBITS RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE
DEFENDANT'S
NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE
1730 63
1798 63
1869 63
1870 64
1877 64
1885 64
2024 64
2038 64
2040 64
2046 64
2049 65
2100 65
2104 65
2105 65
2106 65
2107 65
2108 65
2130 66
2131 66
2132 66
2133 66
2134 66
2135 66
2136 66
2146 67
INDEX OF EXHIBITS RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE
DEFENDANT'S
NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE
2147 67
2166 67
2249 67
2253 67
2263 67
2266 67
2267 68
2276 68
2277 68
2278 68
2279 68
2280 68
2283 68
2307 69
2308 69
2314 69
2315 69
2316 69
2318 69
2319 69
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA; TUESDAY, JANUARY 14, 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: Morning.
MR. PETROCELLI: Good morning, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, yesterday you
listened to cross-examination regarding a certain
exhibit, that was Exhibit 732; a writing that purports
to be a letter from Nicole Brown Simpson allegedly
directed to defendant Simpson.
And it had been the intention of the
Court to give you an instruction on that, especially
at the conclusion of the trial, but since this has
been kind of a long trial and there have been several
instances where evidence has been received for a
limited purpose, and this is one of those instances
where the evidence was received for a limited purpose,
I've come to the conclusion that it's best to advise
you at this time what the limitation is so that when
at the end of the case you get the final instructions,
you won't have to search out the particular item that
we have referenced to, and if you're making notes you
can make notes on it at this time.
You're instructed that the letter of
Nicole Brown Simpson directed to defendant Simpson,
that is Exhibit 732, was received into evidence for
the limited purpose of allowing plaintiffs to offer
evidence of the state of mind of Nicole Brown Simpson
regarding the relationship between Nicole Brown
Simpson and defendant Simpson, and it cannot be
considered by you as proof of any truth of any matter
that is self-contained or alleged in the letter; in
other words, the substance of the letter.
The letter cannot be used as evidence to
establish anything in the letter, the truth of
anything in the letter. It's received only for the
purpose of allowing the plaintiffs to offer evidence
as to what the state of mind of Nicole Brown Simpson
was with respect to her relationship with Mr. Simpson
during that period of time.
Everybody understand the limitation?
JURORS: Yes, sir.
MR. BAKER: May we approach?
THE COURT: You may.
(The following proceedings were
held at the
bench with the reporter:)
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I just want the record
to reflect that we were not given the opportunity to
review that instruction just given to the jury before
you did read it to the jury and I think that under
California law we're required to review all of the
instructions before they're given to the jury.
No. 2, Exhibit 732 has not been offered
into evidence, to my knowledge, it was never offered
at conclusion of the plaintiffs' case.
No. 3, the Court's characterization of it
as a letter, I think, gives it more credence than it's
entitled to.
I wanted to make those objections.
MR. PETROCELLI: We are offering it into
evidence.
MR. BAKER: I would object to it, Your Honor.
They only asked for -- they only asked questions about
one portion of that letter, and it had -- where Nicole
said that she called the cops because she was afraid
for her life. And it seems to me that we would do
away with most of the problems with that letter if
they want to put that portion of it in and redact all
the rest, because that's the only portion that got
before the jury; that's one thing, but to put that
entire letter in when Mr. Simpson was not asked about
it, and then not given a chance to explain anything
about it, would be, in my view, improper.
MR. PETROCELLI: We first --
THE COURT: Well, No. 1, the reason the Court
has addressed the jury with regards to this matter is
that it was being received for a limited purpose. To
not advise the jury as to this limited purpose would
be prejudicial to the defendant, and to wait until the
end would be doubly hard on the jury. So I'm doing it
for the convenience of the jury.
With regard to formal instructions, I
invite you to offer formal instructions. This is
simply a limiting advisement to the jury for the
purpose for which it was received.
No. 2, I agree with counsel that only a
portion of it was referred to in the examination and I
think it is objectionable with regards to the rest of
the letter.
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, I'd like to
respond.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MR. PETROCELLI: The portions that I'm
interested in are the ones I read out loud in oral
argument.
THE COURT: Oral argument. I thought it was an
examination.
MR. PETROCELLI: No. In the argument before
the -- the witness took the witness stand you asked me
what I wanted to --
THE COURT: Um-hum.
MR. PETROCELLI: -- use in the letter, what I
wanted to seek to offer. I read you the portions, and
those limited portions are what I'm offering into
evidence.
THE COURT: Then you offer the redacted version
of it.
Let Mr. Baker take a look at it to raise
his further objection to it.
MR. BAKER: He -- he says to you that the areas
he wants to go into, that's what you ruled upon. Then
when Mr. Simpson gets on the stand he doesn't ask him
about those areas at all, so Mr. Simpson doesn't
explain those areas. He asked him about one area and
that was the area relative to the note that just
suggested -- where Nicole said she was essentially
afraid for her life, that's why she called the police
on January 1, 1989.
To now say he can put in evidence other
portions of that letter that were before --
Mr. Simpson was never interrogated about seems to me
to be absolutely improper.
THE COURT: Well, Mr. Petrocelli can offer that
in his rebuttal. You can call Mr. Simpson back at
this time to rebut those items. The question is what
is admissible as evidence when he offers it.
At this point perhaps the Court should
not receive it into evidence, so I won't receive it
into evidence until your rebuttal and then --
MR. PETROCELLI: You want me to prepare a
redacted version of it?
THE COURT: Yeah.
MR. PETROCELLI: Okay.
THE COURT: With regards to advising the jury
that it is an exhibit, if you want I'll tell them it's
not received until I actually receive it, if it makes
you feel any better.
MR. BAKER: And that it's a writing, No. 2, and
No. 3, that there's no evidence that Mr. Simpson ever
received this from her.
THE COURT: I didn't say he did.
MR. PETROCELLI: Didn't say he did. That's
argument at this point.
(The following proceedings were
held in open court In the presence
of the jury.)
THE COURT: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen,
Exhibit No. 732 is not formally received as yet into
evidence. It has been referred to in the evidence, so
you're to consider the limitation to the portion thus
far received, and if and when the document itself is
received, then at the end of trial the Court's going
to read to you the same or similar instruction with
regards to it.
Okay.
MR. P. BAKER: Defense calls Donald Thompson
back.
DONALD THOMPSON,
called as a witness on behalf of the Defendant, was
previously duly sworn and testified further as
follows:
THE CLERK: Sir, you have been sworn
previously.
Would you state your name again for the
record.
THE WITNESS: Yes. Donald Thompson.
THE CLERK: Thank you.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. P. BAKER:
Q. Morning, Mr. Thompson.
A. Good morning.
Q. You were at 360 North Rockingham on
June 13, 1994, were you not?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. You received some orders from Detective
Vannatter that day, did you not?
A. Yes.
Q. Detective Vannatter told you to handcuff
O.J. Simpson when he arrived there, did he not?
MR. KELLY: Objection, leading.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Yes.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) If Mr. Vannatter told
this jury that he didn't tell you that, he would have
lied to this jury, correct?
A. No.
MR. MEDVENE: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
The jury is to disregard that question.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Detective Vannatter
told you to handcuff O.J. Simpson when you got there
on the 13th; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Mr. Thompson, I want to show you a
vehicle impound report which they marked as Civil 271.
Have you seen that document before?
(Witness reviews document.)
A. Yes, I have.
Q. That's the impound report prepared by
your partner?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Angela Guzman?
A. Yes.
Q. It was prepared on June 13, 1994, at
3:30 p.m.?
A. Yes. I'm not familiar with this, though.
Q. Okay.
It was prepared at 3:30 p.m. on June 13,
1994?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And that vehicle impound report referred
to the 1994 Ford Bronco parked out on the west side of
Rockingham?
A. It does.
Q. And that impound report was prepared in
the normal course and business of your work there,
correct?
A. Yes, it was.
MR. P. BAKER: I have no further questions.
THE COURT: Cross-examine.
MR. P. BAKER: Move 271 into evidence, Judge.
THE COURT: Received.
(The instrument herein described
was received in evidence as
Defendants' Exhibit
No. 271.)
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. MEDVENE:
Q. Officer Thompson -- I notice that on the
impound report there's a check under the Y column for
battery and generator?
A. Yes.
MR. P. BAKER: Outside the scope, Judge.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Can you explain the
circumstances under which those checks were put there?
MR. P. BAKER: No foundation that he knows.
THE COURT: Testified he compared it.
Overruled.
A. Under those particular items -- you
mentioned battery and alternator.
Q. Yes, sir?
A. Well, the vehicle impound report here
states that there was a battery and an alternator
that, in fact, should be unknown because --
MR. P. BAKER: Judge, I'm going to object to
this. It calls for hearsay. He just testified his
partner prepared the report.
THE COURT: Did you prepare it or your partner
prepare it?
THE WITNESS: It was prepared by my partner,
sir, but my partner and I are responsible for the
report since both our names are on it.
THE COURT: Lay a foundation as to his personal
knowledge.
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) What hours,
approximately, were you at Rockingham on the morning
of June 13?
A. I arrived at Rockingham approximately at
8 o'clock in the morning and I left the scene about
3:45 that afternoon.
Q. And what was your assignment in terms of
the Bronco, and supervision and security of the
Bronco?
A. My assignment was to protect the Bronco
and also to protect the property in general.
Q. Did your -- did your fellow officer,
Ms. Guzman, under your supervision, prepare the report
that's been marked 271?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you sign on the report and write
your name on the report?
A. Yes. My name is on the report.
Q. Was the report made in your presence?
MR. P. BAKER: Your Honor, I'm going to object.
He hasn't said he filled out the report or saw it
filled out.
THE COURT: Well, so far you haven't reached a
point of objection. Overruled.
A. I'm sorry. Repeat the question again,
please.
Q. Yes. Was the report filled out by
Officer Guzman in your presence?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you sign the report?
A. No. Neither officer signs the report.
We put our -- we print our names there.
Q. Did you print your name there?
A. My name isn't printed -- well, my name is
printed on here but I didn't print my name on it, and
we usually don't do that. One partner will print both
officers' names on it. The officer completing the
report will do that.
Q. And who printed both officers' names on
this?
A. Officer Guzman did.
Q. You told us the report was prepared in
your presence and under your supervision?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. Was the vehicle, the Ford Bronco, ever
opened in your presence between the time you arrived
at Rockingham and the time you filled out the impound
report?
A. No, it wasn't.
Q. Okay.
Could you explain why battery and
alternator were checked if the car and the hood were
never opened?
MR. P. BAKER: No foundation, calls for
speculation, calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Was the battery and
hood ever opened?
MR. P. BAKER: Same objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. No.
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Did the car, to you,
appear operable and workable?
A. Yes, it did.
Q. Did the car, in any way, appear to be
stripped?
A. No.
Q. Did you assume the car had a battery and
alternator in it?
A. That assumption could be made, yes.
Q. Did you make that assumption?
A. No. I didn't make the assumption, no.
My partner made the assumption.
MR. P. BAKER: Objection, move to strike.
THE COURT: Stricken. Jury to disregard that
last answer.
Q. When you sign or when you permitted your
name -- strike that.
You saw this report after it was filled
out, did you not?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you believe at the time you signed
the report that since the vehicle appeared not
stripped and operable that it had a battery and
accelerator -- or a battery and an alternator in it,
even though the hood was never opened?
MR. P. BAKER: Irrelevant, misstates the
testimony.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Did the vehicle appear
locked at all times, Officer Thompson, when you saw it
at Rockingham from the time you came on duty to the
time the impound report was filled out somewhere
around 3:30?
A. Yes, it did.
Q. And did you ever see anyone attempt to
unlock the vehicle?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. Did you ever see anyone inside the
vehicle?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever attempt to unlock the
vehicle?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. Did you ever open the hood?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever see anyone open the hood?
A. No.
MR. MEDVENE: I have no further questions.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. P. BAKER:
Q. Did you maintain a constant watch over
that Bronco, Officer Thompson?
A. A constant watch?
Q. While you were there, did you have your
eyes on the Bronco the whole time you were there?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. When you handcuffed Mr. Simpson pursuant
to Detective Vannatter's orders, were you inside the
compound?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. Were you looking at the Bronco?
A. No.
MR. P. BAKER: Nothing further.
THE COURT: You may step down.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
MR. LEONARD: Call Arnelle Simpson.
ARNELLE SIMPSON,
called as a witness on behalf of the Defendant, was
duly sworn and testified as follows:
THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the
testimony you may give in the cause now pending before
this Court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
THE WITNESS: I do.
THE CLERK: Please state and spell your name
for the record.
THE WITNESS: Arnelle Lorraine Simpson,
A-r-n-e-l-l-e L-o-r-r-a-i-n-e S-i-m-p-s-o-n.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. LEONARD:
Q. Morning, Ms. Simpson.
A. Good morning.
Q. You are O.J. Simpson's daughter?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Are you his oldest child?
A. Yes.
Q. What's your date of birth?
A. 12/4/68.
Q. Does that have another significance, that
date?
A. Yes, it does.
Q. What's that?
A. It was the same day that my dad received
the Heisman Trophy.
Q. Now, just briefly I'd like to get some
background on you.
You grew up in the Los Angeles area?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Okay.
And you went to grammar and high school
here?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And when did you graduate from high
school?
A. In '87.
Q. And did you go on to college after that?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Where did you go to college?
A. I first attended University of Colorado
at Boulder. Then I transferred to Howard University
in Washington, D.C.
Q. And when did you graduate from Howard
University?
A. '92.
Q. Now, during the period that you were
at -- away at college, would you come back and visit
from time to time?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you see your mother?
A. Yes.
Q. And would you stay with her when you came
back to visit most of the time?
A. Sometimes.
Q. Okay.
And sometimes you'd stay with your dad?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
And during the period that you were away
at college, your father was living at Rockingham?
A. Off and on, yes.
Q. Okay.
Now, I want to direct your attention to
the morning of June 13, 1994.
First of all, where had you been the
night before, that was the night of June 12?
A. I was out at the movies.
Q. What time did you return home
approximately?
A. I had to have returned home around 12:30;
between 12 and 12:30.
Q. By the way, did you have a vehicle that
you drove?
A. Yes.
Q. And what was that?
A. A Saab.
Q. Black Saab?
A. Black Saab.
MR. LEONARD: If I can -- with the assistance
of Mr. Baker, I just need a diagram at this point. If
I can approach.
THE COURT: (Nods affirmatively.)
MR. LEONARD: This is Civil 116, for the
record.
(Exhibit 116 is displayed.)
MR. LEONARD: I'm going to try to position it
so you can see it and the jury can see it.
Everyone see it in the jury?
(The jury panel nods
affirmatively.)
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Can you see it?
A. Um-hum.
Q. Okay.
Now, I think there's a pointer -- I see
there's a retractable pointer there.
If you would just step down for a minute,
please, Ms. Simpson.
Just take a look at that diagram.
Do you recognize that diagram as -- as a
schematic or diagram of the residence at Rockingham?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
By the way, before we get to this, I
think I skipped something. When you returned to
Los Angeles from college in '92, did you live at
Rockingham too, start to live there?
A. No.
Q. When did you move back into Rockingham?
A. I moved back into Rockingham, March of
'93.
Q. And you lived there continually until
June 12 and thereafter?
A. Yes.
Q. '94?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
Now, just -- I want you to show the jury,
when you pulled into Rockingham after returning from
the movies on the -- in the early morning of June 13,
show us where you parked your Saab?
A. I pulled in here, Ashford, and I drove
all the way to here (indicating).
Q. And you parked it right there?
A. Parked my car there.
Q. Was there another vehicle in front of
your car when you parked?
A. Yes.
Q. What was that?
A. My dad's Bentley.
Q. And you never moved that -- your vehicle
until sometime the next -- late the next morning or
next afternoon, is that correct, on the 13th?
A. Did I move my car?
Q. Yeah.
A. No, I did not.
Q. Until when, approximately?
A. Oh, God, not until later on that week.
Q. Okay.
Now, at some point early in the morning
on the 13th, was there a knock at your door --
A. Yes.
Q. -- where you were staying?
Show the jury where your room was, where
you were staying that night?
A. Right here (indicating to Exhibit 116.)
Q. Now, describe to the jury what happened
after you heard the knock on the door?
A. Two men knocked on my door. I opened the
door. They asked me who I was. I told them who I
was. They asked me where my father was and I told
them that I didn't know where he was but I knew
somebody that could get in touch with him.
At that point, I put my clothes on to go
into the house.
Q. At that point, did the police -- do you
recall which -- we've had several police detectives
testify here. Do you recall which ones, right now,
came to your door and spoke to you?
A. Vannatter and Lange.
Q. Okay.
Was there another police officer that you
saw at some point up on the terrace?
A. Yes, there's two more police officers
that I saw that day.
Q. Okay.
Now, they came to your door, they knocked
on your door, they asked you where your father was,
right?
A. Yes.
Q. At that point, did they ask you any other
questions, such as did you hear any strange noises,
did you see anything unusual or are there any people
that are injured on the property, anything like that?
A. No.
Q. Just asked you if you knew where your
father was?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you put your clothes on, and the
officers accompanied you back into the house; is that
right?
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, I'm going to
object at this point to leading. We're past
foundation.
MR. LEONARD: It's foundation.
MR. PETROCELLI: No, it's not.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) What did you do next?
A. They followed me into the house and -- I
left my room to go into the house.
Q. Show us the route you took?
A. I left my room to go into the house going
this way.
Q. Um-hum.
A. And I went around and went to the front
door.
Q. Okay.
Now, you've -- what you've described is
going around the north side of the house, correct?
A. Yes, going through here, the backyard.
Q. You're going by the pool in a northerly
direction?
A. Yes. And going on the side of the house.
Q. The north side of the house along that
path --
A. Yes.
Q. -- that runs in between the house and
Ashford Street, correct?
A. Correct.
And then this way.
Q. Okay.
Now, why did you go that way?
A. Because I had to go inside the house.
Q. Okay.
Now, three detectives have testified
before this jury that you went right in -- there's a
back door right here?
A. Yeah, there's a door right here.
Q. They testified that you had your keys out
and you had to open up a lock with the keys and you
went in that way.
Did you do that night?
A. No. It's impossible.
MR. PETROCELLI: Object to the
mischaracterization of the testimony.
MR. LEONARD: They testified --
THE COURT: Excuse me.
MR. PETROCELLI: I think he misstated the
details of their testimony.
THE COURT: Okay. Strike that. And ask the
question as to what she did.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Did you go in the back
door?
A. No, I did not.
Q. You can resume your seat.
MR. PETROCELLI: For the record, these are
exhibits and photos I've not seen before, not on the
joint trial statement, but I have no objection.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you.
MR. BAKER: Half of your exhibits are not on
the joint trial statement (indicating to photographs
shown to him by Mr. Leonard).
MR. LEONARD: I'll show you what I'll mark next
in order.
THE CLERK: 2318.
(The instrument herein described
as a photo was marked for
identification as Defendants'
Exhibit No. 2318.)
MR. LEONARD: And 2319.
(The instrument herein described
as a photo was marked for
identification as Defendants'
Exhibit No. 2319.)
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) I ask you to take a
look at those two photographs, Ms. Simpson.
I'm going to ask you if they accurately
depict the back door that we've just been talking
about as it existed on June 12 -- excuse me -- the
morning of June 13, 1994?
A. Yes.
Q. Is there a lock on that door --
A. No.
Q. -- that you can open with a key from the
outside?
A. No, there's not.
Q. Is there an alarm and was there on
June 13, 1994?
A. No.
Q. Is there a key pad to activate the alarm
there?
A. No.
Q. Was there on the morning of June 13,
1994?
A. No.
Q. Now, when you -- after you walked all the
way around with the detectives, did you enter the
house?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Okay.
MR. LEONARD: This is depicting 22 -- what's
the second one?
THE CLERK: 2319.
MR. LEONARD: 2319.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Is that correct,
Ms. Simpson?
A. Yes.
(Exhibit 2319 is displayed on
Elmo.)
MR. LEONARD: If we could show 2318.
MR. BAKER: Why don't you zoom in on the door
handle.
(Elmo is adjusted to zoom in on
door handle.)
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Again, that was the
handle that was on that door on the morning of
June 13, 1994?
A. Correct.
Q. I just want to show -- no, that's fine,
we'll get it back (indicating to exhibit in the
witness' possession).
Now, what was the purpose of going into
the house?
A. I was going into the house to go to get
in touch with somebody that could find out where my
dad was.
Q. At that point, can you tell the jury
whether or not you knew that your father was out of
town?
A. I knew he was out of town but I didn't
know where he was.
Q. And who was it that you were going to
contact to find out where he was?
A. I was going to call Kathy Randa.
Q. Who is Kathy Randa?
A. My father's personal secretary.
Q. Now, you --
A. Assistant.
Q. You had to -- tell us what you did as you
entered the house -- before you entered?
A. I had to turn off the alarm and open the
door with my key.
Q. Now, when you got inside, did you -- did
you call Kathy Randa?
A. I went into the kitchen and went to call
her, realizing that I didn't have her home phone
number, so I had to -- to go to my car to get my phone
book.
Q. All right.
And how did you do that, how -- describe
where you went to get the phone book and how you got
there?
A. Do you want me to get up?
Q. Yes, please.
(Witness approaches Exhibit 116.)
A. I used the phone which is like somewhere
in this area, and I walked out the kitchen door to
walk this way to my car, and I went into the trunk of
my car to get my phone book out.
Q. Now, did you get your phone book out?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Now, at the point you got the phone book
out, can you tell us whether or not you had a
discussion with the police officers that were with
you, the detectives?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Describe for us the discussion, please.
A. I was going out to the car, I had asked,
I believe Lange, I said you have to tell me what's
going on, I'm not understanding, you're scaring me,
can you please tell me what has happened.
And at that point he told me that
Nicole -- he asked me if I knew Nicole Brown Simpson,
and I said yes. And he said that she had been killed
and that -- at her house and that there was somebody
else with her.
Q. Okay.
How did you react?
A. I was shocked, I was stunned, I was
upset, confused, scared.
Q. You can resume the stand.
Now, at that point, did you reenter the
house?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And did you call Kathy Randa?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And at some point did you turn the phone
over to the police?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Now, I want to -- I'm going to come back
to this -- this point. I want to ask you some other
questions first.
Would you -- could you tell the jury
whether or not from the period, let's say, January 1,
1994, until Nicole's death, that you would have
occasion to go over and visit with Nicole on Bundy?
A. Yes.
Q. And would you sometimes take care of the
children, Justin and Sydney?
A. Yes.
Q. And would you sometimes transport the
children back and forth from Bundy to Rockingham?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
Which vehicles would you use to do that?
A. Either my car or the Bronco or Nicole's
car.
Q. Would Nicole sometimes use the Bronco
during that period?
A. Yes.
Q. And would she transport the kids back and
forth with the Bronco?
A. Yes, she would.
Q. And the dogs?
A. Yes.
Q. And you would do that as well?
A. Um-hum. Yes.
Q. Let's talk about the dogs for a minute.
We've seen a photograph of a dog laying
in the driveway named Chachi.
Would you describe Chachi as a swift,
greyhound-type dog?
A. No.
Q. Did Chachi sometimes have trouble getting
around?
A. Sometimes.
Q. Okay.
But let me ask you this: Do you recall
occasions when you were living at Rockingham when
Chachi would get out of the gate nonetheless?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
Was -- was the issue -- and let me ask
you this: There were other dogs that would be at
Rockingham from time to time, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. There was a dog named Kato?
A. Yes.
Q. As opposed to the person Kato?
A. Yes.
Q. And would Kato -- Kato would be going
back and forth from Bundy to Rockingham, sometimes
he'd be at Bundy, sometimes at Rockingham?
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, leading.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) How often, if you can
tell us, would you see Kato at Rockingham?
A. Off and on. It was -- you'd just see
him, depending, you know -- he would be there off and
on. No particular, you know, Monday through
Wednesday. He would just come and go.
Q. Tell us whether or not there was a
problem with Kato running out of the gate?
A. There was a problem with all the dogs
running out of the gate. We had two other dogs --
well, one other dog also that would occasionally go
out the gate, and it would be a problem because of the
neighbors. And our dogs are very lazy so they would
sit in the middle of the street and not move when the
cars came around.
Q. And the -- let's -- first of all, I want
to direct your attention to January 1, '94 through
June 12, '94. At that time, is it fair to say the
only dogs around would be Chachi and Kato?
A. Yes. And Chubbs, but he had passed in
February of that year I believe.
Q. Now, did this -- did the dogs getting out
and laying in the street, did that generate complaints
from neighbors?
A. Yeah.
Q. Now, as a result of that, did you have
a -- were you conscious of the dogs running out, did
you have any particular habit with regard to being
vigilant when you drove your car out of the gate?
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, I'm going to
object. The only issue as to dogs is the dog Chachi
on June 12, the only dog --
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor --
MR. PETROCELLI: The only dog on the property.
MR. LEONARD: I object.
MR. PETROCELLI: This is irrelevant.
MR. LEONARD: Excuse me.
He's arguing in front of the jury. If he
wants to approach the side bar --
THE COURT: Sustained, irrelevant as to other
dogs.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, can we approach?
THE COURT: No.
MR. LEONARD: Can we approach?
THE COURT: No.
MR. LEONARD: I guess I shouldn't ask the third
time.
THE COURT: No.
MR. LEONARD: Okay.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Can you tell us whether
or not you were aware of your father being concerned
about dogs leaving the property?
MR. PETROCELLI: Calls for hearsay,
speculation, lack of foundation.
THE COURT: You may answer yes or no.
A. Yes.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) And did you -- tell us
whether or not you know if your father had a
particular habit with regard to when he left the
property with his car in relation to that property?
A. Yes. We all did.
Q. What was that?
A. To, you know, pulling into Ashford gate,
we have a clicker, so as soon as we get in we usually
close the gate. But going out of the Rockingham gate,
it's on a timer, so normally we would pull out, kind
of wait there until the -- till the gate closed and
then pull out, to make sure the dogs wouldn't get out.
Q. Okay.
I want to go back to the morning of
June 13 now.
After the phone call with Kathy Randa,
did you at any point talk to your father?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Okay.
Tell us how that --
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, hearsay.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Tell us how that --
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Tell us, first of all,
when the first conversation you had with your father
occurred?
A. I believe that my father called after
Kathy and I know that they had a conversation with my
father; I can't remember if he called or if they
called them.
Q. Okay.
When you say them, who are you referring
to?
A. Vannatter and Lange.
Q. Okay.
A. And at that point, I had to -- I had a
discussion with Lange about the kids and getting the
kids and picking them up. I told them that I just
couldn't do it by myself, I would have to call
somebody, A.C., to help me. So as I was walking to my
room to change, 'cause I was in my pajamas, the phone
rang again, and I picked up the phone, it was my
father, and I had a discussion with him then.
Q. Tell us what you recall of that
discussion?
MR. PETROCELLI: Hearsay, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. LEONARD: Can we approach?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you.
(The following proceedings were
held at the bench with the
reporter.)
MR. LEONARD: This is in direct rebuttal or
it's meeting directly the argument this guy's going to
make for sure (indicating to Mr. Petrocelli).
Based on the testimony from the passenger
Partridge on the plane ride back that Simpson knew
some of the details, they already started off --
details of the murders, they already started out by
putting Phillips on the stand to suggest that he never
said -- gave any details and that O.J. didn't even ask
what happened, if you recall, that Phillips says he
didn't say, "How did it happen." And they then put
Partridge on to say O.J. -- this is -- there were two
people, and so this is -- this is absolutely relevant
and absolutely a fair response to that.
MR. PETROCELLI: There's no impeachment
exception to the hearsay rule. If it's hearsay, it's
hearsay, regardless of the purpose. He can't offer
admission statements of his own client. They're
self-serving. He can't put witnesses on the stand
to -- I can offer in statements of O.J. Simpson. You
can't get on the stand and put in statements of
O.J. Simpson by your witnesses. These are clearly
hearsay. They're not covered by an exception to the
hearsay rule.
MR. LEONARD: It goes to Simpson's state of
mind. They're trying to suggest consciousness of
guilt, that he's talking to Partridge and he knows
some details and --
MR. PETROCELLI: Wait. And you could have
asked him those questions yesterday.
MR. LEONARD: And they're trying to cut off our
proof. That's what they're trying to do here.
MR. PETROCELLI: It's self-serving hearsay.
THE COURT: How do you get around self-serving
hearsay?
MR. LEONARD: It's not offered for the truth;
therefore, it's not hearsay.
MR. PETROCELLI: It is absolutely offered for
the truth, Your Honor.
THE COURT: It's not offered for the truth of
it?
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, we have a right to
elicit this. They have -- we've had a lot of state of
mind exceptions to the hearsay rule floating around
here.
THE COURT: Who's the state of mind?
MR. LEONARD: Simpson's state of mind. It's
going to the state of mind. The full conversation
will be that when he said, what happened, what
happened, now, obviously, that shows a consciousness
of innocence; he doesn't know what happened, number
one.
And number two, she tells him what she
knows, which explains how Partridge -- how he could
know that to tell Partridge, okay. And that's in
direct rebuttal to hearsay of Simpson.
And number three -- I can't remember
right now, but I know -- I know it was a good point.
Oh, yeah. I can elicit -- I'm sure you're going to
allow me to elicit his demeanor during the call and
his reaction.
THE COURT: She could see his demeanor through
the phone?
MR. LEONARD: She could hear his reaction, his
verbal demeanor, she could hear how he reacted.
MR. PETROCELLI: This is all hearsay.
MR. LEONARD: That isn't hearsay. That's
definitely offered, his reaction to it is not (sic)
offered.
MR. PETROCELLI: Her statements -- her
statements are not her statements. He can elicit what
she said, not what he said.
MR. LEONARD: Well, that's really -- I mean,
you have the completion doctrine.
MR. PETROCELLI: That's been the rule of the
law for a long time. That's what we've been observing
in this courtroom; otherwise, you could put in --
THE COURT: It's self-serving hearsay. It's
also evidence of cooperation. Overruled.
(The following proceedings were
held in open court, in the
presence of the jury.)
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) You were -- we were
discussing your conversation with your father that
morning when he called in to the house. Tell us what
you recall of that discussion, please.
A. He had called and he had said, "Arnelle,
what's going on?"
I had said, "Dad, I don't know. It's
crazy. I'm scared. They tell me I have to go pick up
the kids."
He had said, "What's going on? What's
going on?"
And I said, "I don't know. They just
keep saying that Nicole is dead and that there was
somebody else with her."
Q. Now, can you tell us what your father's
reaction was when you told him that -- when you gave
him that information, his demeanor, at least, you
could tell from his voice, from what he said.
A. Shocked, very upset, sad. Confused.
Q. Now, moving to one final area.
In the month preceding Nicole's death,
did you ever hear your father complain that Nicole was
keeping the children from him?
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. Hearsay, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: That's sustained.
MR. LEONARD: Can we approach?
THE COURT: No.
MR. LEONARD: I don't have any further
questions.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q. Morning, Ms. Simpson.
A. Good morning.
Q. Let's get this business of the dog out of
the way.
MR. PETROCELLI: Can you put up the exhibit?
MR. FOSTER: 1984.
(Exhibit 1984 displayed.)
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) That's Chachi,
right?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that the Ashford gate or the
Rockingham gate?
A. It looks like the Ashford gate, Ashford
gate.
Q. And the gate is open, right?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Now, it is true that as of June 12,
Chachi was badly arthritic? Correct?
A. True.
Q. And it is also true, that as of June 12,
it was not Chachi's habit to run outside when the
gates opened, correct?
A. No.
Q. Correct?
A. No.
Q. It's not?
A. Not correct.
Q. It was his habit?
A. Sometimes.
Q. But generally, he did not run outside of
the gate when the gates opened, correct?
MR. LEONARD: It's a she --
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Excuse me.
Generally, Chachi did not run outside when the gates
opened?
A. Sometimes, she did.
Q. But again, generally, she did not,
correct?
A. Generally . . . correct.
Q. Okay. And, in fact, when you came home
that evening, one o'clock in the morning, June 13 --
A. Yes.
Q. -- you came up Ashford, approached the
Ashford gate, and made a left into the Ashford
driveway, right?
A. True.
Q. And Chachi didn't run outside, right?
A. No.
But then, also, when I pulled in, I
stopped and waited for the gate to close, so she
wouldn't have a chance to run out.
Q. Nothing unusual happened and you didn't
see the dog running outside toward the gate, correct?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. I object to that. He
appears to be reading from the deposition, not an
inconsistent statement.
THE COURT: He can posture however he wants.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you, Your Honor.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Is that correct?
A. Can you repeat the question, please.
Q. Yeah.
When when you came in that evening,
nothing unusual occurred with regard to Chachi,
correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay.
And Chachi was the only dog on the
property on that evening, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay.
Now, let's talk a little bit about --
let's talk a little bit about the layout here of the
property.
You lived, Ms. Simpson, in these rooms
back here, where it says "Arnelle's room," right?
A. Yes.
MR. PETROCELLI: The exhibit number is what,
here?
MR. FOSTER: 116.
MR. PETROCELLI: Excuse me. 116. Right.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) And there's a
door -- these are French doors that go into the main
residence, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And this is -- there's a door here at the
end. In fact, we just saw the picture of it. That
doesn't have the lock on the outside, right?
A. True.
Q. And that's a door that you use
frequently, and used when you were living there in
June of 1994, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And, in fact, that's the quickest way,
now, to get into the house. Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And your normal procedure would be to go
to that door, and if it was not locked, you would go
inside that door, right?
A. Depending on what time of the day it is,
yes.
Q. And if the door is locked, then you're
out of luck and have you to go all the way around to
the front, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And if the door is not locked, you can go
in, right?
A. True.
Q. Now, there's no alarm pad on the outside
of this door, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. So you don't know when you're about to
open the door, whether or not the alarm is on,
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, if you open that door and the alarm
is on, you hear a beeping sound, and you have a
certain amount of time to go and deactivate that
alarm, right?
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I object. There is
absolutely no foundation for that question. It's
beyond the scope and it misstates the evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Go ahead.
THE WITNESS: Repeat the question, please.
MR. PETROCELLI: Yeah.
(The reporter read the record as
follows:)
Q. Now, if you open that
door and the alarm is on, you hear
a beeping sound, and you have a
certain amount of time to go and
deactivate that alarm, right?
A. I'm saying that there is no -- the alarm
goes off automatically. There's no time for me to run
to turn the alarm off. I -- I -- I have to do it
immediately.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Do you remember
giving testimony at the criminal trial?
A. Yes.
MR. PETROCELLI: I'd like to -- I'm going to
look at page 35698, Mr. Leonard. Reading from the top
of the page:
Q. There's an alarm sensor for
the rear door, isn't there?
A. Yes.
Q. And that alarm sensor has
a 40 second delay, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. So if you enter through
the rear door, you have 40 seconds to
get to a key pad to disarm the alarm,
correct?
A. Yes.
When -- you gave that testimony under
oath in the criminal case -- do you remember that?
A. Correct.
Q. Now, on the morning of June 13, when you
were awakened by the police officers --
By the way, Detectives Vannatter and
Lange, they treated you well that morning, right?
A. Yeah.
Q. You had no complaint?
A. No.
Q. They didn't ransack your room, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. They didn't ransack the house or do
anything like that, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Now, when you -- when they came to your
room, obviously, seeing police officers or police
detectives early in the morning, that must have been
frightening for you, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you were confused and frazzled and
frightened, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
And after you left the room, your purpose
in mind was to try to locate your father, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you took with you some keys, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you had a phone book that was in your
car, in the Saab?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
Now, in order to walk from your room with
the detectives, you have to walk past that rear door,
correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And then walk all the way around to the
front, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, it is your testimony that you did
not go into the rear door, right?
A. I did not.
Q. It's also your testimony that you didn't
even check to see if it was locked or unlocked,
correct?
A. Correct.
Q. So you had no idea whether it was locked
or unlocked at that particular point in time; is that
your testimony?
A. Yeah. Because only -- at 5:30 in the
morning, the alarm would be on. It would be my
natural instinct to go to the front door.
Q. But you didn't check?
A. No, I did not.
Q. You didn't know at that point in time,
when you were walking past the rear door, whether the
alarm was on or off?
A. I assumed it was on.
Q. You didn't know?
A. I assumed that it was on.
Q. I know you assumed it. But you didn't
know for a fact, right?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. All right.
And it's your testimony that when you
were first told by some of the detectives about
Nicole's death, you would already be inside of the
house and had come out, on your way to the car, right?
A. No.
Q. And it was on your way to the car that
you were informed of Nicole's death?
A. True.
Q. After you had been inside, right?
A. True.
Q. So the sequence of event is, you went
inside the house, came out; and then, on your way to
the car, is when you learned about Nicole?
A. Actually, on our way from the car, back
into the house.
Q. Back into the house?
A. Yes.
Q. Having already been in the house?
A. Yes.
Q. All right.
And before then, you didn't know anything
about Nicole have been killed?
A. No.
Q. And when you were outside, on your way
back into the house, and when you were first told by
the detectives about it, you were very, immediately
and visibly, shaken and upset?
A. Most definitely.
Q. In terms of your schedule that week,
Ms. Simpson, as I understand it, your father was out
of town Tuesday through Friday night?
A. Correct.
Q. And you slept over a girlfriend's house
Friday, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you didn't see your father Tuesday,
Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday, correct?
A. I don't -- it's hard for me to say during
the week, no.
Q. Well, when he was out of town?
A. Yeah.
Q. And you didn't come back to Rockingham
Friday night, right?
A. True.
Q. And on Saturday, you came back to
Rockingham, and then you left and went out with some
girlfriends, and came back and spent most of the time
in your room, right?
A. Came home -- I didn't come home until
Saturday evening, I guess. Then I stayed home for the
rest of that evening.
Q. And your father was out Saturday evening,
and you didn't see him Saturday evening?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Then you got up the next morning, and by
the time you left the house -- it was to go to see a
girlfriend -- it was around noontime, right?
A. No. I went to church Sunday morning.
Q. Right. Then came back?
A. Yes.
Q. Then you left about noontime, I think?
A. Yes.
Q. And you didn't see your father that
morning, either?
A. No.
Q. You were gone all day Sunday and did not
return until, as you've said, sometime around 1:00 in
the morning, right?
A. True.
Q. So you really hadn't seen your father in
a long time, right?
A. Yeah.
Q. And you hadn't spoken to him in that
while?
A. Correct. Correct.
Q. It's also true that, as of the moment the
police officers awakened you Monday morning, June 13,
you had no idea where your dad was, right?
A. I didn't -- no, I didn't know his
whereabouts.
MR. PETROCELLI: I have nothing further.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. LEONARD:
Q. Following up on Mr. Petrocelli's last
question, you knew your father was out of town?
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. Leading
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Did you -- did you not
know that your father was out of town?
A. I knew he was going to be in and out of
town. I didn't know exactly where.
Q. Was it or was it not a planned trip, to
your knowledge?
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. Leading, lacks
foundation, hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. I knew that he was going out of town.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Okay.
Now, you were shown some testimony from
the criminal trial with regard to this issue of the
delay on the alarm?
A. Yes.
Q. Was that -- were you incorrect at the
criminal trial?
A. What I was trying to relay was that, when
you turn on the alarm, there is a delay.
Q. So when you leave, there's a delay?
A. Exactly.
Q. That's the state now and it was the state
then?
A. True.
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. Leading.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Is there any question
in your mind that you entered through the front door
and went around the north side of the house?
A. It's my normal practice, like, during the
week, if Gigi is home, to go through the back door.
If I know on the weekend that she's not there, it is
my practice to go to the front door, either at night
or in the morning.
Q. That's what you did that morning?
A. Exactly.
MR. LEONARD: I don't have any further
questions.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q. Now, in the criminal trial, when you were
asked about this 40-second delay, you were
specifically asked about entering through the rear
door and disarming the house -- disarming the alarm
from the inside of the house, correct?
A. Repeat that.
Q. You were specifically asked, when you
answered the question about the 40-second delay about
entering the house through the rear door and disarming
the alarm from the inside of the house, correct, not
arming it when you leave the house, but this disarming
it when you enter the house. That was your testimony
in the criminal trial?
A. You're asking me that?
Q. Yes. That was what you were asked and
those were the answers that you gave, right?
A. I'm confused. Please bear with me.
Q. Okay. No problem.
MR. PETROCELLI: Can you put this on the Elmo,
Steve.
(Copy of criminal trial testimony
displayed on the Elmo screen.)
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Can you see that,
Ms. Simpson?
A. Yes, I can.
Q. Okay.
And those were the questions and answers
that you gave at the criminal trial?
(Witness reviews transcript.)
Q. And you see the reference to the maid's
room?
A. Um-hum.
Q. Now, outside the maid's room, where the
laundry room is, that's on the outside of the inside
of the house?
A. Yes.
Q. And going to that key pad, when you enter
the rear door, if the alarm is on, you can disarm the
alarm from the key pad on the inside of the house
that's near the maid's room, right?
A. That room or the front door.
Q. Or the front door?
A. Yes.
Q. In fact, there's one upstairs?
A. Yes.
MR. LEONARD: Object. Beyond the scope. He is
now talking about a different door.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) So if you enter
through the rear door, you have 40 seconds to get to a
key pad to disarm the alarm, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And the maid's room has a key pad in it
for the alarm, right?
Not in the maid's room, but just outside
it?
A. Yeah.
Q. And what you were talking about is how
you disarm the alarm from the inside of the house when
you enter through the rear door, because the rear door
has a 40-second delay on it, as you laid out in your
testimony in the criminal trial, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay.
MR. PETROCELLI: You can take that off, Steve.
I have nothing further.
FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. LEONARD:
Q. Ms. Simpson, when you testified in the
criminal trial, did you testify just as you did today,
that you went around and went in the front door?
A. Yes, I did.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you.
No further questions.
MR. PETROCELLI: Nothing.
THE COURT: Thank you.
You may step down.
MR. P. BAKER: Your Honor, we have a number of
exhibits to move into evidence at this time.
There's one remaining witness. We're
close to a stipulation with Mr. Lambert's request that
he be put over until, potentially, surrebuttal.
THE COURT: I don't see Mr. Lambert.
MR. P. BAKER: I know.
MR. PETROCELLI: He sent you a revised
stipulation, asking to hear back from you.
Do you have it?
MR. P. BAKER: I do not have the stipulation.
Correct.
MR. BAKER: Other than the stipulation and
these exhibits, the defense rests, Your Honor.
MR. PETROCELLI: Reserve on the exhibits, as
they've reserved on ours.
THE COURT: Okay. Ten-minute recess.
MR. BAKER: Do you want us to read these in?
THE COURT: Whenever you want to do it.
MR. BAKER: I don't know.
THE CLERK: We need to read them in if there
are any objections or anything.
MR. PETROCELLI: I'm not sure what they are.
Why don't you read them, and we'll let you know.
MR. P. BAKER: Ready Gina?
THE REPORTER: Yes.
MR. P. BAKER: 835, 847, 859, 860, 862, 878,
887, 891, 892, 901, 905, 911, 915, 918, 924, 925, 926,
939, 943, 955, 987, 992, 1025, 1174, 1178, 1180, 1187,
1248, 1279, 1281, 1303, 1321, 1324, 1342, 1349, 1350,
1352, 1353, 1359, 1360, 1362, 1366, 1367, 1368, 1375,
1376, 1422, 1436, 1532, 1730, 1798, 1869, 1870, 1877,
1885, 2024, 2038, 2040, 2046.
2049 is not identified on the record, but
it was referenced during Dr. Lee's testimony by a
videotape.
2100, 21 -- 2104, 2105, 2106, 2107, 2108,
2130, 2131, 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2136, 2146, 2147,
2166, 2249, 2253, 2263, 2266, 2267, 2276, 2277, 2278,
2279, 2280, 2283, 2307, 2308, 2314, 2315, 2316, 2318,
2319.
THE COURT: Okay. Subject to objection,
they're all received.
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 835 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 847 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 859 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 860 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 862 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 878 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 887 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 891 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 892 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 901 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 905 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 911 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 915 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 918 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 924 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 925 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 926 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 939 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 943 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 955 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 987 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 992 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 1025 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 1174 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 1178 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 1180 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 1187 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 1248 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 1279 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 1281 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 1303 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 1321 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 1324 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 1342 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 1349 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 1350 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 1352 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 1353 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 1359 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 1360 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 1362 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 1366 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 1367 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 1368 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 1375 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 1376 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 1422 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 1436 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 1532 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 1730 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 1798 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 1869 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 1870 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 1877 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 1885 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 2024 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 2038 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 2040 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 2046 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 2049 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 2100 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 2104 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 2105 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 2106 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 2107 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 2108 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 2130 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 2131 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 2132 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 2133 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 2134 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 2135 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 2136 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 2146 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 2147 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 2166 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 2249 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 2253 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 2263 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 2266 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 2267 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 2276 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 2277 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 2278 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 2279 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 2280 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 2283 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 2307 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 2308 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 2314 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 2315 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 2316 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 2318 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 2319 was
received in evidence.)
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, ten minutes'
recess.
Don't talk about the case. Don't form or
express any opinions.
(Recess.)
(The following proceedings were
held in open court outside the
presence of the jury.)
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, we have been informed
that a couple of witnesses are proposed by the
plaintiffs in their rebuttal case.
One is Dennis Fung. We would object to
Mr. Fung being recalled by the plaintiffs in rebuttal.
Anything that we put into evidence through Mr. Fung
while he was on the stand last week, they had the
opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Fung in the
courtroom.
And in our view -- I mean they then, you
know, in my opinion woodshed him, they get him in
here, in the jury room, and then now they want to
recall him, I guess, to change some of his testimony.
Well, regardless of what they want to
recall him for, every item that we opened up when he
was here last week, they had an opportunity to
cross-examine him and fully cross-examine him, and
that's their opportunity.
They can't now come back, and in my view
of rebuttal evidence, in the case and try to
additionally put on new evidence.
And well, it's not new evidence. It's to
alter evidence that he's already put on. And I think
that is inappropriate rebuttal and ought not be
allowed.
No. 2 is the same situation. They told
us they want to put on Leslie Gardner. Leslie Gardner
was their witness. We haven't put on one bit of
evidence about Leslie Gardner, who you may recall was
the equipment person for the exercise video, and we
haven't put on any evidence relative to the clothing
or anything else concerning the clothing, what was at
the exercise video and et cetera.
And hence, we would object to anything
about Leslie Gardner especially since we heard that
they wanted to put her on today, and we are required
to get three days notice like throughout the trial,
and we just heard about this one, I believe it was
this morning.
MR. P. BAKER: Last night.
MR. BAKER: Last night. We would object to her
going on, in any event, today. I think she ought to
be precluded in her intent.
This has to stop sometime. You can't put
on witnesses and then say we're going to change this
testimony and change that testimony. The idea -- they
had full opportunity to examine Leslie Gardner. They
had full opportunity to examine Dennis Fung. We would
object to those two witnesses.
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, yesterday
Mr. Simpson testified that Leslie Gardner did not give
him any cotton-type sweat suit outfits at any time in
connection with the exercise video. And she will be
called to impeach him on that point.
It's a very critical point. They are
taking the position, contrary to Ms. Gardner's
testimony in our case, that she provided him cashmere.
She did not provide him cashmere. She acquired a
cashmere suit, returned it, and gave Mr. Simpson some
other items including cotton. And she will so
testify.
And it's directly responsive to his
testimony yesterday, and I didn't even hear the
testimony until about 4:15. Immediately when
Mr. Simpson stepped off the stand, I told Mr. Baker
that we were calling Leslie Gardner.
We've contacted Ms. Gardner. The only
time she's available to testify this week is this
afternoon. We're going to have her on for literally
three minutes, five minutes tops. And I've just given
you the offer of proof as to --
And by the way, this is important because
they're going to argue that the jury -- that Leslie
Gardner testified that she provided cashmere clothing
and she did not so testify.
Secondly, as to Dennis Fung, they're
making this argument, frankly a new argument now, that
the Bundy glove is planted, and they tried to elicit
some testimony from Mr. Fung that there was a hole in
this -- in the glove that was in the photograph, and
the glove here in court does not have a hole, and
create this real sinister mystery.
We are going to call several witnesses
that have been identified several days ago to rebut
that assertion. It's as simple as that. They have
the burden of proof on this planting issue.
THE COURT: What are you calling Mr. Fung for?
MR. PETROCELLI: To rebut that assertion. He
will provide testimony in regard to his observations
of the glove; the photograph. He's had more time to
study the photograph. And we have photographers
coming in and we have Mr. Matheson coming in.
This was a photograph put in front of
Mr. Fung for the first time. He had never seen it
before, never. Mr. Baker asked some very strident,
leading questions, and there was some confusion from
Mr. -- testimony from Mr. Fung in regard to that
photograph, and we want to set the record straight.
We don't want the jury to be misled in
any way, shape or form. They're trying to take the
position, Your Honor, that that glove that was here in
court and that glove that was there in the criminal
court is not the same glove found at the murder scene;
a preposterous assertion. We need to make sure we set
the record straight on that.
Again, Mr. Fung's testimony would be
very, very brief. There's no prejudice at all and
this is rebuttal to their argument of planting.
I don't even understand why they think
that Dennis Fung, just because he previously testified
in our case, can't come back. They called him. We're
entitled to call other witnesses back in regard to the
topics that they raised.
MR. BAKER: Well, Mr. --
MR. PETROCELLI: We're talking about very short
witnesses. In fact, our rebuttal case should be
concluded by Thursday.
MR. BAKER: I'm underwhelmed, No. 1, by their
assertion that because it's short that means it should
come in.
The point is that whatever Mr. Fung said
on the witness stand they had a right to cross-examine
him right then. They had the opportunity to
cross-examine him right then and they did
cross-examine him right then.
I asked him no leading questions. Page
59, I said:
(Mr. Baker read a portion of the
transcript of Dennis Fung.)
Q. How did you, in your view, in
looking at the gloves, did you determine
where the cuts were on those gloves, if any?
We were -- we're talking about the
gloves now?
Q. Yes, the gloves. Yes, sir. I
switched to the gloves, sorry.
A. I did note when I got back to
the laboratory some cuts on them.
MR. BAKER: That's what he testified to. That
was not leading or suggestive. That's what he
testified to.
Then we went into what he said was the
cuts on the left glove or the Bundy glove. Now, they
had opportunities to fully examine him at the time.
They get these police witnesses in here,
they get them in the back room, they woodshed them,
and they come in here and say we want the jury to know
the truth. Nonsense, they don't want the jury to know
the truth. They want to win the lawsuit.
And I would suggest the Leslie Gardner
issue -- he made a representation to this court that
Mr. Simpson said he was never given any cotton sweats
at the exercise video in May of 1994. That's untrue.
What he testified was that he never took
any cotton sweats from there. There is no reason to
call her now except that they believe they left
something out of their case. It's not rebuttal to
anything.
I would suggest that neither of these
witnesses can be called.
THE COURT: All right. You may.
MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you.
THE COURT: Bring in the jury.
MR. BAKER: What a shock.
MR. BAKER: And the three-day rule is out the
window, too, Your Honor, along with 2034 and Kennemer.
(Jurors resume their respective
seats.)
MR. GELBLUM: Plaintiffs call Sandra Claiborne.
SANDRA CLAIBORNE,
called as a witness on behalf of the Plaintiffs, was
duly sworn and testified as follows:
THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the
testimony you may give in the cause now pending before
this court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
THE WITNESS: I do.
THE BAILIFF: Please be seated.
THE CLERK: And would you please state and
spell your name for the record.
THE WITNESS: Sandra Claiborne, S-a-n-d-r-a
C-l-a-i-b-o-r-n-e.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q. Morning, Ms. Claiborne?
A. Morning.
Q. What is your occupation?
A. I am a forensic print specialist.
Q. Who do you work for?
A. For the City of Los Angeles, the Los
Angeles Police Department.
Q. How long have you had that job?
A. I've been with the police department for
12 and a half years. I've been a forensic print
specialist for seven and a half years.
Q. And were you working in that position
then, on June 13, 1994?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. Were you on duty that night?
A. Yes.
Q. The night of June 12, the morning of
June 13?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. At some point did you get a call to go to
a crime scene at 875 South Bundy Drive in Brentwood?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Do you recall what time you arrived?
A. Around 3:00 a.m.
Q. And do you recall what time you left?
A. Little after 8:00 a.m.
Q. Okay.
And what work did you do at the crime
scene?
A. The only thing that I did was I printed
the front door, printed the front side and the back
side.
Q. Of the condominium?
A. Yes.
Q. And was that the last thing you did
before you left?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. You left right after you finished that?
A. Shortly thereafter, yes.
Q. And how long did that take you to do?
A. Less than an hour.
Q. So you left a little after 8, and it took
you a little less than an hour, you were printing
during that front work around 7 o'clock; is that
right?
MR. P. BAKER: Leading.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) What time would you
estimate you started printing the door?
A. Around 7:00 a.m.
Q. Now, what did you do between the time you
arrived around 3:00 a.m. and around 7 a.m. when you
started printing the door?
A. I was sitting inside one of the police
vehicles.
Q. Were you sitting with anyone else?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. Who was that?
A. The photographer Dieter Rokahr.
Q. Rokahr?
A. Yes.
Q. Is he also known as Rolf?
A. I don't know.
Q. You know him as Dieter?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Okay.
Were you and he sitting in the car for a
long time?
A. Yes. Yes, we were.
Q. Several hours?
A. Yes.
MR. P. BAKER: Leading.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) About how long were you
in the car, do you have any idea?
A. Several hours.
Q. What were you waiting for?
A. Waiting for one of the investigating
officers to tell us to start working.
Q. At some point did a detective come to the
car?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. And did the detective ask Mr. Rokahr to
come into the scene, into the crime scene?
A. Yes. He went in before I did.
Q. Is that the normal -- is that normal for
the photographer to go in first?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. About how long before -- am I right that
you went into the crime scene around 7?
A. Yes.
Q. And about how long before you went in to
the crime scene did Mr. Rokahr go into the crime scene
to take pictures?
A. No more than 20 to 30 minutes.
Q. So if you went in around 7, he would have
gone in around what time?
MR. P. BAKER: Leading.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Between 6:20, 6:40, somewhere around
there.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) And did you see him
come back to the car after that?
A. No, I don't recall.
Q. Okay.
Do you recall whether it was light
outside when Mr. Rokahr went into the crime scene for
the first time?
A. Yes, it was light.
Q. Okay.
I want to show you Exhibit 1388.
MR. GELBLUM: Is this 1388?
MR. FOSTER: Yes.
(Exhibit 1388 displayed.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Can you see that from
there?
A. Bring it a little closer.
MR. PETROCELLI: Put it up against the TV.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) I'll put it here. Can
you see it?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
It's been testified to that these are the
first photographs that Mr. Rokahr took at the crime
scene, around the crime scene, and then the last --
inside the crime -- the last two inside the crime
scene.
Do you recall, as you can see in some of
these pictures, the sky getting light as you were
sitting with Mr. Rokahr before he went in?
MR. P. BAKER: Leading.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Do you recall it
getting light before Mr. Rokahr went in?
MR. P. BAKER: Same objection.
THE COURT: Overruled. That's what she
testified to.
A. Yes, I recall it getting light.
MR. GELBLUM: I have no further questions.
THE COURT: Cross-examine.
MR. P. BAKER: Ms. Claiborne, are you a
fingerprint specialist, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You testified that you arrived at about
3 o'clock?
A. Yes.
Q. The Bundy crime-scene log says 3:55. You
would agree with that, would you not?
A. That's incorrect. It should say 2:55.
Q. Would you like to look at Exhibit 829.
That's your name.
MR. P. BAKER: Do you want to see it,
Mr. Gelblum?
MR. GELBLUM: I'm sorry?
MR. P. BAKER: Do you want to see it?
MR. GELBLUM: No.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) 8 -- I'm losing my
mind. 829, what time does it say you signed in there?
A. It's 0255.
Q. That's a 2?
A. That's a 2. Yes, it is.
Q. That's not a 3?
A. No.
Q. Okay.
Mr. Rokahr, was he there when you
arrived?
A. Pardon?
Q. Was Mr. Rokahr already there when you
arrived?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Did you see Mr. Rokahr -- Strike that.
How much time did you spend with Mr.
Gelblum before you came on the stand today?
A. Only about 10 minutes.
Q. Did Mr. Gelblum tell you that they kind
of had a problem, they had Mark Fuhrman pointing at a
Bundy glove before he went to Rockingham?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection.
MR. P. BAKER: If he asked her.
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Did he tell you that
Mr. Rokahr had testified that that picture was taken
at night? Did he ever tell you that?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, hearsay.
THE COURT: I'll overrule that.
A. Yes, he mentioned that.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) He told that you Rolf
Rokahr testified that this picture was taken at night,
correct?
MR. GELBLUM: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Yes.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Okay.
You didn't see Mr. Rokahr take the
overalls at Bundy, did you?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. Did you see Mr. Fuhrman wearing a jacket
at 875 South Bundy?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Did you see
Mr. Fuhrman lift up the Bundy glove?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, asked and answered,
ask that these questions be stricken.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Did you ever see Mark
Fuhrman at 875 South Bundy?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. Did you tell Mr. Gelblum that?
A. I'm not sure if I mentioned that or not.
Q. Did he ever ask you, Ms. Claiborne, did
you see Mark Fuhrman there?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, relevance.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) It's relevant whether
or not she saw this photo taken.
THE COURT: You can ask her whether that was
photo was taken.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Did you see Mark
Fuhrman pointing to a glove when that photograph was
taken?
A. I don't recall that.
Q. You never saw that photograph,
Ms. Claiborne, right?
A. That particular photograph, no.
Q. Okay.
And you never saw the overalls taken
prior to that picture, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you never saw Mr. Rokahr take any
photos of the sidewalk going south on Bundy, did you?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, relevance.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. No.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) And if Mr. Rokahr
testified that he took these pictures before that, you
wouldn't have any reason to disagree with him, would
you?
MR. GELBLUM: I'm sorry. Can I have the
question read back.
THE COURT: You may.
MR. P. BAKER: I'll reask it.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) If Mr. Rokahr
testified he took the overalls before he took this
picture of Mark Fuhrman, you wouldn't have any reason
to disagree with him, would you?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) You --
THE COURT: That's not hearsay.
MR. GELBLUM: He's asking her to comment about
the hearsay.
THE COURT: Excuse me.
MR. GELBLUM: It's also argumentative, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: I'll sustain that.
MR. P. BAKER: They can just keep throwing up
whatever they want.
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, ask that be stricken.
THE COURT: It's stricken.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) You never saw
Rolf Rokahr take the pictures of the Ferrari, did you?
A. No.
Q. You never saw him stand out in front of
the Bundy condominium and take the pictures, did you?
A. No.
Q. You never saw him take the pictures
directly after that, of the walkway, did you?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. And did Mr. Gelblum ever ask you if you
saw Rolf Rokahr do that?
A. I don't believe he did.
Q. He never asked you?
A. No.
Q. You don't know when this picture was
taken, Exhibit 13 -- it's Criminal 1328?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) You never looked
through the lens when Rolf Rokahr took photos, did
you?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, relevance.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) You have no idea when
that photograph was taken, do you?
A. No, I don't.
Q. And you would agree, Ms. Claiborne, that
the photographer who took the photo may have a better
idea of when this photo was taken as opposed to you,
correct?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Ms. Claiborne, are you
a latent fingerprint specialist, correct?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. You assisted in the collection of 17
latent prints at 875 South Bundy?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, outside the scope.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Not one matched O.J?
MR. GELBLUM: Outside the scope.
THE COURT: Sustained. Excuse me. Jury to
disregard that.
MR. P. BAKER: I'll take her and call her back.
THE COURT: I don't care what you do. But you
know better than that.
MR. P. BAKER: I'll reopen on that one issue.
THE COURT: You can reopen.
MR. P. BAKER: Okay.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) You know that 17
fingerprints were taken at the Bundy scene, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Not one matched O.J. Simpson, correct?
A. To my knowledge, no.
MR. P. BAKER: Nothing further.
MR. KELLY: Can I ask some questions regarding
the aspects of fingerprints, Judge? They just --
THE COURT: Why don't you agree among
yourselves who's going to go next.
MR. GELBLUM: Give us a minute, Your Honor.
THE CLERK: For the record, the criminal
exhibits referred to as 1328 is actually Defense
Exhibit 1310.
MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, may I, to clarify,
ask questions about the photograph --
THE COURT: Excused.
MR. GELBLUM: May I ask questions about the
photograph and Mr. Kelly ask questions about the
fingerprints since they were allowed to reopen and
that was his area.
MR. P. BAKER: I object to them telling me --
THE COURT: Go ahead.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Ms. Claiborne, is there
any doubt whatsoever in your mind that it was light
out when the Detective asked Mr. Rokahr to come and
take pictures?
MR. P. BAKER: Objection, she doesn't know if
it was the first time. She has no independent
knowledge of that.
MR. GELBLUM: It's a question.
THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection as to
form. There's no evidence to show that she was there
when any question was asked of Mr. Rokahr for the
first time.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Ms. Claiborne, were you
with Mr. Rokahr from the time you got there until when
he was called into the crime scene?
A. The majority of the time, yes.
Q. Okay.
Did you see any detective other than --
about 6:30, I think you said, 6:20 to 6:40, approach
and ask him to come to the crime scene to take
pictures?
A. No, I didn't see anyone.
Q. Other than around 6:20 to 6:40?
A. That's correct.
Q. That's the time you saw anybody come and
ask him to take pictures?
A. Yes.
Q. And you did not see him return after
that?
A. No, I didn't see him return.
Q. And it was light out when -- the time you
saw somebody come and ask him to take pictures?
A. Yes, it was.
MR. GELBLUM: Okay. I have nothing further.
FURTHER DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. KELLY:
Q. Morning, Ms. Claiborne.
A. Good morning.
Q. You were there the morning of the 13th
regarding lifting potential fingerprints from the
crime scene; is that correct?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Did you, in fact, lift 17 fingerprints
from 875 South Bundy that morning?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Were you present there while someone else
did?
A. No, I wasn't present the entire time. I
left after 8 o'clock that morning.
Q. Okay.
Did there come a time, though, that you
gained access to a number of fingerprints that were
lifted from that location?
A. Yes. I saw the prints, yes.
Q. Okay.
There were 17 of them; is that correct?
A. Somewhere around that number. I don't
have the paperwork in front of me so I'm not sure.
Q. You remember there were some steps taken
to determine whether those prints could be matched up
to certain individuals; is that correct?
A. Yes. But I'm not responsible for any of
that. I didn't do anything with those prints.
Q. Okay.
But you knew enough to know that none of
those prints had been definitively matched to
Mr. Simpson?
A. That is correct.
Q. Were you also familiar with the fact that
three of those prints that had been lifted had not
been eliminated as potential left hand prints of
Mr. Simpson?
MR. P. BAKER: Outside the scope, misstates the
evidence, lack of foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. I don't know anything about those prints.
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Well, you indicated you
knew that they were not definitively matched up to
Mr. Simpson?
A. I knew -- I don't know the exact number
that