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 22, 1997
VOLUME 47
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
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 22, 1997
8:02 AM
DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
(Per Cover Page)
(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)
(Jurors resume their respective
seats.)
THE COURT: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
JURORS: Morning.
THE COURT: One of your number inquired whether
we're going to be dark Friday. Assuming that the
argument concludes as predicted by the attorneys, you
will be deliberating Friday, so bear that in mind.
MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you, Your Honor. I will
be concluding this morning in about an hour or so,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: You said an hour at 4 o'clock
yesterday.
MR. PETROCELLI: We're trying.
PLAINTIFF'S CLOSING ARGUMENT (continued)
MR. PETROCELLI: Good morning, ladies and
gentlemen.
JURORS: Good morning.
MR. PETROCELLI: Bear with us, it's been a long
trial, there's a lot of evidence, and I'm working my
way near the end. Okay.
MR. BAKER: Can you keep your voice up, sir. I
can't hear you, Dan.
MR. PETROCELLI: I will.
We were talking about, yesterday, before
we left, the animosity and hostility between
Nicole Brown Simpson and Mr. Simpson through the last
week of Nicole's life. And I showed you the vile
argument that was recorded in Nicole's last written
words.
MR. BAKER: I'm going to object, Your Honor,
that's only been admitted for her state of mind and
not for the truth of the argument.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BAKER: Jury's been admonished to that
again.
MR. PETROCELLI: Hadn't even finished my next
sentence, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Finish your next sentence.
MR. PETROCELLI: And I was about to say these
written words of Nicole show you how she was feeling
about this relationship at this point in her life,
nine days before her death.
I showed you the letter that Mr. Simpson
sent on June 6, three days after the June 3rd diary
entry, all about the IRS, and that letter, on its
face, in the words of Mr. Simpson, show acrimony and
hostility, and not a relationship as -- hunky-dory is,
I guess, the word that they like to use.
In addition, ladies and gentlemen, we
have further evidence of Nicole's state of mind, what
she believed, what she thought, what she feared around
this time.
You heard the testimony of Nancy Ney from
the battered women's shelter. And you heard what
Nancy Ney said about Nicole's state of mind; how she
feared her ex-husband. And there isn't any doubt that
Nancy Ney was talking to Nicole Brown Simpson.
Can you put on the exhibit.
And focus it up, Steve, a little bit.
Ex-husband has been -- has been stalking.
Has called police over eight times.
Do you remember the testimony of Officer
Edwards in regard to the 1989 incident?
When he reported how Nicole told him in
her sweats and brazier, hysterical, you guys never do
anything, been out here eight times and you never do
anything.
Low and behold, we have eight times here.
Length of relationship, eight years.
This is Nicole Brown Simpson and there's
no question about it (indicating to document on Elmo).
Can you go down to the end. And go to
the beginning.
(Elmo adjusted.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Nicole.
Keep going, slowly.
(Elmo adjusted)
MR. PETROCELLI: Children, two.
And then she gave you other details in
her other notes, further making clear that the person
she was talking to was Nicole Brown Simpson.
Has been abusive for many years. Police
called a lot, nothing much ever done.
Keep going (indicating to Elmo).
This is what Nicole was feeling.
What happened that week? Mr. Simpson
went out of town, he missed his son's elementary
school graduation, he had missed his daughter's
communion.
He went out of town.
Did he have any conversation with Nicole
that week? None.
Before he left town, he went over and saw
the dog, to pick up the dog. He went inside to do
something for his son. He ran into Nicole on two
occasions.
Did he say a word to her? None.
Did she say a word to him? None.
These people were not talking to each
other. They were at war with each other.
Don't believe when this man gets on the
stand, with his ex-wife not here to defend herself,
and let him tell you that he had no hostility toward
her and she had no hostility toward him.
That is an absolute lie.
You heard testimony from Mr. Simpson
himself, that he spoke to a friend in New York about
his relationship with Nicole, how it had just broke
up, and that he was upset, and they talked about the
children.
And you heard Mr. Simpson say that he
made a special trip to come all the way back from New
York to go to this recital on Sunday, then he had to
fly all the way back to Chicago.
And the reason he did that, is he knew
how further angry Nicole would be with him if he
missed that recital. Having missed several other
events, and still hopeful in stopping the steady
deterioration of this relationship, and he came all
the way back for that event, all the way back from the
East Coast only to have to fly to Chicago that night.
Now, we'll talk about what happened when
he made such a -- in his mind, extraordinary,
Herculean effort to be there for Nicole at the
recital.
Mr. Simpson returns from this trip on
Friday night, June 10th. He spends the evening with
his friend, Paula Barbieri.
He gets up the next morning and he plays
golf.
The next day he has a conversation --
excuse me, later that day he has a conversation, after
golf, with Kato Kaelin; and he's talking about Nicole,
he's talking about not being a family anymore, missing
the kids, the white picket fence, the whole image that
he wanted so desperately at this time in his life, to
have his life back with Nicole.
You heard Mr. Kaelin describe those
conversations on that Saturday afternoon. That
evening he goes to this formal event with
Ms. Barbieri, it's a formal dinner party, and they
have a conversation about the recital, and here's
another big lie Mr. Simpson tells.
At the end of that night, instead of
going back to Rockingham and spending the evening
together as they did the night before, Ms. Barbieri is
taken home to her apartment on Wilshire. Mr. Simpson
goes to Rockingham.
I asked Mr. Simpson, now, you and Paula
fought about Nicole that night, didn't you?
No.
You and she had an argument because she
wanted to go to the recital and you wouldn't take her?
No.
She wanted to go to the recital, because
once and for all, you're having broken her heart a
year ago when you left her for Nicole, then you tried
to bring her back in again, into your life, when
things were bad for Nicole.
Once and for all, she put her foot down,
and she said to you, I'm either going to be with you
with Nicole there, or I'm not going to be in your life
at all. You have to make a choice here.
That's the conversation that happened,
and he said, no, you can't come. I don't want you
there.
And he goes home alone and she goes home
alone. And how do we know that conversation occurred,
and how do we know that they fought once again over
Nicole? And remember, they had fought a week or two
ago about Nicole when Paula left Palm Springs over the
Memorial Day weekend because Mr. Simpson told her he
still loved Nicole. We heard that from Donna Estes.
How do we know they fought on the
evening of June 11, and why does Mr. Simpson lie about
it?
Well, we know they fought because the
very next morning he went on the golf course, as he
does every morning, and he almost had a fist fight
with his good friend, Craig Baumgarten, who testified
in court.
Now, this is one of his closest friends.
And he testified, first of all, that he had never seen
Mr. Simpson get that angry before.
Never.
They'd known each other a long time.
That's how raw Mr. Simpson's feelings were.
And secondly, Mr. Baumgartener (sic),
under oath, had to admit Mr. Simpson told him about
having an argument with Paula about the recital.
His own friend came in court and said
they had an argument the night before about Paula.
And Mr. Simpson, with a straight face, is trying to
tell you, no, they didn't discuss it at all.
And then when Mr. Simpson spoke to this
psychologist, this domestic violence psychologist,
back in 1995, he even told her -- he even told her
that Paula was upset because she couldn't go to the
recital.
Do you have those notes (indicating to
Mr. Foster).
(Typed notes from Lenore Walker
displayed.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Mr. Simpson possibly never
believed these notes would ever show up. He said he
thought that Paula wanted to be -- to go there, but he
thought it was not appropriate.
Is there another reference, Steve?
That's a different one. We'll get to
that.
It's even in his notes.
It was not appropriate. He didn't want
Paula to go. He told her. They fought about it. He
told his friend Craig Baumgarten about it.
What happens the next morning?
7 o'clock in the morning -- we played you
the videotape of Ms. Barbieri's deposition. She left
a long message on Mr. Simpson's machine, his
voice-mail, on his cell phone, breaking up with him;
that's it, it's over. And she also testified she went
out of town and didn't tell him where she was going.
Just left.
She had had it. She wasn't going to have
her heart broken again.
And she also testified that she got
several messages from Mr. Simpson that day, that she
checked in from Las Vegas where she ended up going.
At least three messages from him,
acknowledging her message breaking up with him.
Now comes another big lie.
Mr. Simpson tells us, with a straight
face, he never picked up that message from Paula.
This avid telephoner, he never picked up
that message.
Can you believe that?
Well, we asked him.
He sat there with a straight face and
said, no, I didn't pick it up. And he wants you to
believe he didn't pick it up because he knows how much
of an effect that hearing that message had on him, and
he knows what it did to his state of mind.
See, we can't get inside his mind 'cause
only he knows.
He knows what's important and he knows
what he doesn't want to tell you. And that's one
thing he doesn't want to tell you; that he picked up
that message.
But we know he picked it up.
We know from at least three places that
he picked it up. He was caught in this big lie at
least three places.
No. 1, he told the police the next day
he picked it up when he came back from Chicago.
You have that, Steve. Page 13.
Want to put that on the Elmo.
(Portion of Mr. Simpson's
statement to police on June 13,
1994, displayed on Elmo.)
MR. PETROCELLI: This is his statement to the
police hours after Nicole's death and about 24 hours
or so after he picked up this message. Less than
that.
(Mr. Petrocelli read a portion of
Mr. Simpson's statement to police
on June 13, 1994.)
I was going over there, I called her
a couple of times, and she wasn't there and
that she had left a message and then I
checked my messages.
She had left me a message that she
wasn't there, that she had to leave town.
(Lenore Walker's notes displayed
on Elmo.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Lenore Walker's notes. The
notes he probably believed would never come out.
This is a private discussion between his
domestic violence counselor while Mr. Simpson was in
jail. The woman he hired to help him in his defense.
(Mr. Petrocelli is referring to
Lenore Walker's notes.)
He called Paula when he got home
from the recital. She was not home, call
forward on car phone. That's his
voice-mail. That's where Paula said she
left the message.
He listened to the message on
Paula's -- phone message from Paula. It was
a whole long message about golf and didn't
see you. He wasn't sure in Arizona or
Las Vegas if angry with. He was listening
to her phone message when Kato goes by in
the house, and Kato testified that he came
by to see Mr. Simpson after Mr. Simpson came
back from the recital.
Somewhere between 6:30 and 7 o'clock
p.m., Mr. Kaelin walks in, apparently while
Mr. Simpson is picking up this message. So we know
Mr. Simpson picked up this message.
If that were not enough -- put on the
last exhibit, Steve. Telephone computer record.
(Telephone computer log displayed
on the Elmo.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Where's the 1856. 6:56.
Right when Kaelin is in the house after the recital.
6:56. There you have it. Mr. Simpson's phone number.
Paula's number.
How could it be any closer?
So he's lying about picking up the
message.
After he came back from golf, Mr. Simpson
called Nicole on the way back from the Bronco -- in
his Bronco, on the way back from the golf course, and
there's a cell phone record.
Can you get out the cell phone board.
(Cell phone record board
displayed.)
MR. PETROCELLI: 2:18 to 2:22 p.m.
We don't know everything that was said in
that conversation on the afternoon of the 12th.
Mr. Simpson did tell us a few things. He
said he offered to take Justin, his little boy, off
Nicole's hands so she could get Sydney ready for the
recital. And Nicole said, no, that Justin's cousins
were over there, they were going to play. I suspect
there was a little more said in that conversation.
But the bottom line is this: Mr. Simpson
called up and wanted his son, and Nicole says, no.
That call is 2:18 to 2:22 to Nicole.
As you can see, he's constantly trying to
get in touch with Paula all throughout the day, into
the evening. Talked about 10:03, while he's in the
Bronco driving someplace, possibly looking for Paula,
probably going to Nicole's in his Bronco, as we saw
yesterday. Not at home.
Mr. Simpson goes to this recital, ladies
and gentlemen, about 5 o'clock p.m., not a
particularly pleasant experience for him. He had come
all the way back from the East Coast to be there.
Was he able to sit and enjoy his family?
No.
Was he invited to go to dinner with them?
No.
Was he included as part of the family?
No.
Did he have any contact with Nicole?
No.
Did they talk?
No.
Did they kiss?
No.
Did they embrace?
No.
Was there obvious hostility and
animosity?
Yes.
Mr. Simpson barely had a moment to see
his daughter. Nicole had left the recital immediately
when it was over and taken Sydney with her, and I
suggest to you that this just contributed to
Mr. Simpson's anger; that in his view, Nicole was not
even letting him see his daughter.
In his view.
And the next day, what did he tell the
police?
Quote:
(Mr. Petrocelli read a portion of
Mr. Simpson's statement to police
on June 13, 1994.)
Nicole took kids away from recital so
quick.
So quick. That's what he told the police
the next day when the police were asking him about
this. She took the kids away so quick.
Got a picture taken of him and his
daughter taken at that recital.
Did Nicole take that picture?
No. That was a picture taken by a
friend, Ron Fischman, or his wife, Cora Fischman.
You were shown a video of Mr. Simpson
smiling at the end of this recital.
Let me say a few things about that video.
First of all, that video captures the
last 30 seconds of what was a two-hour event for
Mr. Simpson, from 5 to 6:30, probably an hour and a
half.
You're seeing the last 30 seconds when
he's saying good-bye. And they want you to say see,
he's not in a smoldering rage.
They want you to believe that man's in a
smoldering rage.
Well, if he were in a smoldering rage,
then I'm sure he wouldn't be showing it to everybody
out in the front of a school.
When people are upset inside, and burning
up, and confused, and anger is building, they don't
grow fangs and hair. That's the image they want you
to think you see here. This monster. Monster.
I suggest to you that far more accurate
of Mr. Simpson's mood and demeanor at that recital is
not 30 seconds from a video where they're in front of
a lot of people -- and here's the guy who all the time
is smiling in front of people.
He even puts a smile on a suicide note.
If he puts a smile on a suicide note,
he's going to smile in front of people.
His good friend, a fellow he spent the
weekend talking to, Ronald Fischman, who testified
here when Mr. Brewer questioned him, Ronald Fischman
said, quote:
(Mr. Petrocelli read a portion of
the transcript from the civil
trial testimony of Ronald
Fischman, examined by Mr. Brewer.)
Q. In all the years that you knew
O.J. Simpson, he never appeared the way he
appeared at that recital to you, true?
A. That's true.
So people who knew him knew something was
bothering this man and things were not going well.
And indeed, when he was asked about the
recital by the police the next day, he said, look, we
have problems, always had problems. Problem
relationship.
When Mr. Simpson returns from that
recital, he returns alone, while his family goes to
dinner just a short distance away.
He picks up this message, and who knows
what kind of impact that had on his state of mind at
that time, but we know one thing, it had such a
profound impact that he will lie to you in the face of
absolute records and notes from his own therapist or
counselor and statements from his own friends.
It was that important an element, what
happened to him that night, that ultimately made him
lose control at 10 o'clock or 10:30, that he wants to
lie in the face of black-and-white records.
When he got home from that recital -- you
heard Mr. Kaelin, who bumped into him, who said that
Mr. Simpson told him Nicole was playing, quote,
hardball, end of quotes, with him in regard to the
children.
And I suspect Nicole was playing a little
hardball with him because Mr. Simpson was playing some
big time hardball with her.
Writing her a letter, he gave her two
options, come up with all your savings and give it to
the government right now or move out of the house with
the children. Those were the two options she had.
So I suspect he was playing a little
hardball.
After he picked up this message,
Mr. Simpson then, as you can see, made some other
phone calls.
7:32, he called Gretchen Stockdale,
another name from the past, a woman he had known, and
he leaves a message saying that he's -- hey, Gretchen,
it's O.J., I'm unattached for the first time in my
life, or words to that effect.
But right after he gets a message from
Paula dumping him, Nicole doesn't want to have
anything to do with him, he's trying to get in touch
with somebody, make some connection, have somebody,
gets an answering machine, and he says he's unattached
for the first time in his life.
I guess that further shows us that he's
lying about not having received Paula's message.
And then he makes more phone calls, and
then we get to 9 o'clock.
You can see how incessantly he's trying
to get in touch with Paula. By the way, at 8:55 --
can you put that up -- he called his message machine
again, retrieved a phone call from Paula. 8:55.
Can you show the numbers?
Not only 6:56, but 8:55, two times.
God knows what went through his mind when
he hung up on that phone call.
Then he calls Nicole immediately, he
said, at 9 o'clock. We don't see phone calls from him
to Nicole because we don't have local phone call
records. We don't know how many times he called her.
We don't know how long they spoke.
The only thing we have, ladies and
gentlemen, the only thing we have to tell us what
contact he had with her is him. Nothing else, just
his words.
So what does he say about the 9 o'clock
phone call? Oh, he just called to congratulate Sydney
and say let's go to Knott's Berry Farm.
He said he had absolutely no conversation
with Nicole at all, no argument, nothing. In fact,
they didn't talk, he said. He said, can I speak to
Sydney, is she asleep, or words to that effect.
Sydney takes the phone. And he hangs up after he
speaks to his daughter and that's the end of the call.
That's what he says. There's nobody here
to contradict that.
But I tell you that even accepting that
version of the conversation, that doesn't sound like
things are all too well.
How about how is dinner? How did the
kids enjoy dinner? How was the family? What did your
mom have to say? Where'd you guys go to eat? Wasn't
that recital terrific? Wasn't Sydney wonderful at the
recital? Wasn't she beautiful? Did you see how she
danced? Did you take any pictures? Do you have any
video? How about all those things?
None of that was said.
Isn't that normal conversation between
two people, even if -- even if their romantic
relationship has come to an end. Wouldn't that be
normal conversation?
Mr. Simpson will probably never tell us
what happened in that conversation, nor will he ever
tell us what happened in the next hour and a half.
But I tell you, ladies and gentlemen, and
there's absolutely no question about this, next time
he saw Nicole Brown Simpson after he hung up that
phone, he had a knife to her throat. That's the next
time he saw her. He had a knife in his hand.
And who can imagine the words of hatred,
revenge, that he last spoke to her.
Who can imagine?
Rage. Words of rage.
(Pause.)
In the end, it all comes down to this:
There's blood, there's hair, there's fibers, there's
cuts, there's sweatsuits, there's hats, there's no
alibi, there's plenty of time, and there's motive.
And that's on our side of the scale.
What's on his side?
His word that he didn't do it, his
credibility, his truth telling.
This is what's on his side.
Did he tell the truth to you?
He's lied to you about everything
important in this case, covered his tracks and hid his
guilt.
The Judge will read you a jury
instruction that states as follows. Forgive me for
reading it.
A witness willfully false in one part of
his or her testimony is to be distrusted in others.
Is to be distrusted.
You may reject the entire testimony of a
witness who willfully has testified falsely on a
material point unless from all of the evidence you
believe that the probability of truth favors his or
her testimony in other particulars.
What this means is that if you believe
O.J. Simpson lied to you on just one important point,
and that's what the word material is, you can reject
his entire testimony.
In fact, if you believe that he was
willfully false in one part of his testimony, you are
obligated to distrust his testimony in other parts.
We have a case here where this man has
been willfully false in all parts of his testimony.
Can you bring out the board, Joe.
(Exhibit board is displayed.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Apart from the physical
evidence that tells us he is lying, for him to be
innocent and for him to be believed, you have to
disbelieve all of them.
Either Simpson is lying or all of these
witnesses and documents are lying or mistaken or
faked.
All these people, all these writings, all
these photographs, they either have to be fraudulent,
lying, altered, mistaken. Bottom line, they all have
to be wrong, and only he is right.
And here's the man who told you that he
never, ever even attempted to tell a lie about
anything important. A man who wrote in his
autobiography, quote, I am a pretty effective liar,
end of quotes. And then tried to disavow it. First
by saying he didn't read it, and then by saying it was
a joke.
I'm not going to take the time to go
through this in the interests of saving time.
You've heard all these witnesses. You've
seen all these documents in one form or another.
These people have to be wrong.
Whether it be Nicole's diaries, Nicole
herself --
MR. BAKER: I'm going to object to that, Your
Honor. That's improper argument. That goes -- only
goes to her state of mind.
THE COURT: You'll get your chance to argue.
Overruled.
MR. PETROCELLI: As to her state of mind,
Mr. Baker.
These photos all have to be false, police
all have to be liars, mistaken about everything they
did.
His own counselor, Lenore Walker, she's
wrong, all those things she wrote in her notes,
they're wrong.
Medical records of Nicole's '89 beating,
wrong.
People who witnessed domestic violence
incidents, wrong.
GTE telephone records showing he picked
up the message, wrong.
His good friend, Jackie Cooper, about
obsessing about Nicole, wrong.
His lawyer, Skip Taft, who saw the cut on
his fourth finger the day when he came back from
Chicago, wrong. And then he agreed to lie for
Mr. Simpson.
His lawyer friend of, what, 20, 30 years,
Robert Kardashian, wrong. Lied. He lied. He lied
when he said Simpson asked him to go get the golf
clubs. That was a lie.
Everybody. I don't want to take the
time.
And Orenthal James Simpson, I guess he's
got to be a liar, too, because he told us how mistaken
he was when he told the police all those things that
he now wants to recant, all the things in the police
statement, all the times he said he cut his finger in
Los Angeles. I was wrong. I was assuming.
When he said he was driving over to
Paula's after the recital. I was wrong, that wasn't
Sunday, that was Saturday.
When he said he picked up Paula's
message. Oh, I was wrong about that, too, I didn't
pick it up.
So I guess he's a liar.
Can you bring out the next board.
(A demonstrative board containing
of Flammer and Scull photos is
displayed.)
MR. PETROCELLI: And then if all that's not
enough, this is just a good illustration of how a liar
gets trapped in his lies.
As you heard in Court, I took this man's
deposition early in 1996, at a time he believed it
would never surface, a photograph of him wearing the
murder shoes. February 1996, January 1996, at a time
when he believed there would never surface a
photograph, he felt confident, because none had come
to light.
And so I asked him in his deposition
about those Bruno Magli shoes, and he was emphatic. I
would never wear those "ugly ass shoes." He was
emphatic. Left no room, no room for doubt. I would
never wear them.
Then a couple months later, a young
photographer finds a photograph among his many, many
photographs of O.J. Simpson over the years, young kid,
25 years old, Harry Scull, and guess what, a couple
months later, he's wearing the shoes.
He's got a problem now, doesn't he?
What's he going to do? How does he get out of this
one?
That picture came out in about March or
April.
Well, maybe I could say those are not
Bruno Magli. That's not going to work. They're going
to get an expert. You know what, you can see the sole
on that shoe. That is not going to work. Think of
something else.
Hum, what else is there?
That's a Bruno Magli. That sure looks
like me. I was at that game. Those are my clothes.
I got it. The picture's a fake, it's a
fraud. Okay. Let's work on that one.
So what does he do?
Better get somebody in here to say that's
a fraud. Scour the country. Let's get the -- let's
find a photographic expert, top guy. Hey, there's
this guy used to work at the FBI named Jerry Richards,
let's call him up.
MR. BAKER: There's no evidence of this, Your
Honor. He's just making this up.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. PETROCELLI: Who did he bring in here?
Who did he bring in here?
He had the wherewithal, the motivation,
the resources, to hire the best person in the world to
come in here and tell you that picture was a --
picture is a fake. And I'm telling the truth.
He has the best lawyers in this
courtroom. He could have hired the best experts.
He brought in a guy named Groden, I
think, Robert Groden. You heard Robert Groden. What
did Robert Groden say?
Well, first of all, Robert Groden never
testified as an expert before, ever, in court. Never.
First time.
His occupation is writing about the
conspiracy to kill President Kennedy; and even so,
sold autopsy pictures of a deceased president to the
tabloids.
He was working giving guided tours of the
Kennedy assassination, complete with sounds of bullets
firing, peddling videos in Dealey Plaza.
And this guy comes in here 2,000 bucks a
day -- that's why he came in here; they paid him
$2,000 a day -- gets up on this stand, tells us that
picture's a phony.
That's what he did. Hey, that picture's
a phony.
By it's why he didn't show you that
picture was a phony; he told you that picture was a
phony. He said, the frame -- that frame was longer
than the others; it had a suspicious blue line; it was
out alignment; it had a false edge; and it had some
strange marks on it. That's what he said.
Okay. We'll have to deal with that now
because we've got this expert on the stand. So we
bring in a man named Gerry Richards, a true experts
witness.
Who is Gerry Richards? He used to work
for the FBI for a lot of years, headed up their photo
lab, held high positions in numerous professional
photographic organizations.
This man was not only -- Robert Groden
was not only not a member of those organizations, he
never heard of them. He never heard of these
professional organizations.
And Gerry Richards didn't tell you; Gerry
Richards showed you the key frame is exactly the same
length as the other frames. Many frames had blue
lines because they were typical of scratches.
He showed you; he didn't tell you.
Several sets of frames were out of
alignment because of a perfectly natural movement of
the film in the camera. And this so-called false edge
was merely the --
He wants to get this right, my partner.
Mr. Gelblum handled this, as you will remember.
Underexposed photograph of the lines of
the football field, complete with the red, white, and
blue marks on the 20-yard line, nothing suspicious if
you know what you're doing.
Robert Groden didn't even know, when he
used his own Xerox machine to blow up the negative, to
try to measure it, and that when it blows up three or
four times, it distorts in dimensions and proportions.
He didn't even know that.
So that's the guy they come in here with
and tell you -- and base their whole case on that
picture's a fraud.
And remember what I said earlier.
We have evidence, after evidence, after
evidence, after evidence. You can find this man
liable on the basis of one blood drop at Bundy. You
don't need anything more than that.
But they rest their whole case on that
picture being a phony.
If you think that picture is real, if you
believe Gerry Richards over Robert Groden, he is
guilty; he is the killer. And he's got nowhere to run
anymore. (Indicating to Mr. Simpson.)
And if that were not enough, even during
this trial, we have 30 more pictures that a
photographer has undeveloped in his basement in
Buffalo, where Mr. Simpson worked a lot of years.
And they'll try to tell you, oh, how suspicious it is
that these photos are emerging; how suspicious is
this? Where were they two and a half years ago?
Well, do you think all this is
suspicious?
These are people that know Mr. Simpson.
He identified some of them.
You think all these pictures are frauds?
So now, when we confronted him with these
photographs -- and understand something: He took this
witness stand in his own defense, with his whole case
riding on this one point; his case, not ours, his
case, his whole case riding on this one point. Did
his lawyer ask him a single question about these
photographs?
What's more telling than that?
Not even his lawyer would ask him.
Did he ask him a single question?
No. I had to ask him.
I walked up here and asked him about
those photographs. And maybe for the first time in
life, I guess he realized he was out of room to run.
Yeah, I was there. Those -- That's me.
Those are people I know. Those are my clothes, not my
shoes.
Not my shoes.
Wait a minute, Mr. Simpson.
Can you reach that for me, because I
can't.
(Indicating to Joe.)
(Joe removes magazine from
demonstrative display board)
Q. Are you saying these are
all fakes?
A. Yes, I am.
Well, wait a minute. This came out in
the newspaper, November 1993. How could this be a
fake, wearing the shoes?
And we put on Mr. Bodziak, who testified
these are Bruno Magli shoes. And you've heard him
testify these are, in effect, the same shoes in the
Scull photo. They have the same class
characteristics. That was his testimony.
When we tried to cross-examine him,
that's what happened.
These are the same class characteristics
as the Scull photo.
These are the same shoes, ladies and
gentlemen.
Come on. It's like that Groucho Marx
story: He's in bed with another woman and his wife
walks in, and he bolts up and says, "Who you going to
believe, me or your lying eyes?"
This is it for him. This is it.
And not even Robert Groden was called
back to dispute these pictures.
Not even Robert Groden.
Are you going to believe O.J. Simpson?
We now come to the final remarks I'm
going make to you today. And for me, this is the most
difficult area.
We're going to talk very, very briefly
about my client, Fred Goldman, my client's loss, the
loss of his son.
And you will be called upon, if you agree
Mr. Simpson is liable for the death of Ronald
Goldman -- there will be no question that he is -- you
will be asked to compensate Mr. Goldman for his loss.
And I don't need to tell you that there
is no amount of money that could ever compensate Fred
Goldman for the loss of his son. We cannot put a
value on human life. You do not put a price on human
life, when there is a loss of life.
There can never be true justice for Fred
Goldman. There can never be true justice for anyone.
True justice would be to see Ron Goldman
walk through those doors right now, or Nicole Brown
Simpson, playing with her children. That's true
justice.
That will never happen. They're gone
forever.
There's nothing I can do; there's nothing
you can do; there's nothing this good judge can do;
and there's nothing that man can do (pointing to
Mr. Simpson) to bring these people back.
All you have in your power to do is to
bring about some small measure of justice by
recognizing the incalculable loss my client has
suffered, and to require the man who is responsible
for this to pay for this, to pay for the loss he
caused this man.
I would like to talk to you -- say a few
words about that loss.
I think we would agree, whatever your
ethnic, racial, cultural background is, there isn't
any loss greater than a parent losing a child.
That loss is no less if a child grows
into a young man.
We don't have to look beyond this
courtroom. In fact, we don't have to look beyond
counsel's table to see the love and the pride that a
father has for his grown man -- for his grown child,
his grown son. You've seen that right here in this
courtroom.
And that is the love and pride that Fred
Goldman will have only in memory. In memory, in his
heart, and his soul.
He will never see the beaming look of
satisfaction on Ron's face as Ron might have ushered
him through his restaurant.
He will never sit down with Ron at a
Fourth of July barbecue or Passover Seder, or a
birthday party.
He will never share the joy of running
off to the hospital to see his grandchild, perhaps his
first grandchild, a baby that Ron wanted to name
Dakota, if you remember.
He will never see again the smile on his
son's face. You will never see any tears in his eyes
(indicating to Mr. Goldman).
Fred has lost all of that and infinitely
more forever, and his life will never be the same.
His life will never be the same.
I can't, you can't, give him back his
son. All you can do is make Mr. Simpson pay for what
he did.
MR. BAKER: I'm going to object, Your Honor.
That's not the law in this state.
MR. PETROCELLI: You can make --
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. PETROCELLI: You can make Mr. Simpson
compensate my client, that man, that grieving man, for
what he has suffered: The loss of companionship,
support, love, and affection that he enjoyed with his
son; gone forever, ladies and gentlemen.
And I am not going to tell you, or even
suggest to you how much you should award him.
I'm just going to leave it up to your
good judgment.
I'd like to play for you one more time,
one of Fred Goldman's last treasures that he has, he
will always have to remember his son by.
Can you play it, Steve.
(Videotape played.)
MR. PETROCELLI: There was a sixteenth-century
poet, named Guillaume Du Bartas, who best expressed a
relationship between a father and son in a few simple
words. Let me read them to you.
My lovely living boy,
My hope, my happiness,
My love, my life, my joy.
Fred Goldman's lovely, living boy is no
more.
THE COURT: Ten-minute recess, ladies and
gentlemen.
(Recess.)
(A bench conference was held which
was not reported.)
(Jurors resume their respective
seats.)
THE COURT: Mr. Kelly.
MR. KELLY: Yes.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
JURORS: Good morning.
PLAINTIFF'S CLOSING ARGUMENT
MR. KELLY: I also want to thank you for the
time and attention you've given this case, and looking
at all the notebooks each of you have is a testimonial
to all the time and effort you've put in on this case.
And we all understand that it's been an
extraordinary sacrifice for all of you, it's been a
lot of hard work, not only in the courtroom, but to
avoid this outside the courtroom, too, which called
for a certain amount of effort. And we just all
appreciate your time and your effort, at this point.
Now, the first thing I want to reiterate
right now is the fact that we will never know with
certainty, nor are we required to prove, what exactly
caused Mr. Simpson to kill Nicole Brown Simpson and
Ron Goldman that night.
To wantonly and maliciously kill someone,
to take someone's life, this errant behavior, in and
of itself, defies human sensibility.
Unless Mr. Simpson tells us, which he
hasn't up to this point, we'll never know what twisted
his state of mind to act in that manner that night.
What we do ask of you is for you to use
your collective human experiences and common sense to
weigh certain evidence you have here before you, and
make certain determinations.
What I want to talk to you about is the
evidence regarding who Mr. Simpson was, who Nicole
Brown Simpson was, and the nature of that relationship
over a course of many years, because that also holds a
lot of answers to this case.
I would suggest, that during the course
of this trial, the defense has staked out the position
that Mr. Simpson loved Nicole, that he was not capable
of killing her, and would never be capable of killing
her with two children sleeping upstairs.
What we believe the evidence demonstrates
is not only that he was capable of killing her, but
Nicole believed he was capable of killing her, even
with children sleeping upstairs.
Now, during opening statements, and when
Mr. Simpson testified, himself, you heard a certain
quote, and I think it went something like this:
Fame is a vapor, popularity is an
accident, money takes wings, but only one thing
endures, and that's character.
And we agree that character endures.
Whether it's good character or bad
character, it endures.
And we've learned a lot about
Mr. Simpson's character; we know it was formidable, we
know it was complex, and we also know it was
frightening.
And we've seen occasions when a sick,
twisted mind would trigger the fury of an animal and
the actions of a coward.
And Mr. Simpson is a coward.
You've heard about the public
Mr. Simpson, the polished veneer.
I mean, how many times are you going to
hear about the fact he won a Heismann Trophy, he
shattered professional football rushing records, he
was a spokesman for corporate America, and a
commentator for the networks.
But, ladies and gentlemen, winning the
Heismann Trophy doesn't give you a license to kill.
You also heard about the private
Mr. Simpson. You've seen and you've heard that he
would not always control his rage, his temper, during
the course of this relationship with Nicole; he
battered her.
And you've seen and heard from Nicole
herself, that she lived in fear of him.
He did not treat Nicole the way he
expected the world to treat him.
When we revisit this evidence, we are not
in any way suggesting simply that what happened on
June 12, 1994, was an instance of abuse that escalated
to murder. Nor are we trying to tell you simply that
since he had hit her on previous occasions, he killed
her that night.
Rather, what we believe the evidence
shows is that Nicole was the subject of violent
outbursts from this man, outbursts, and on occasion he
could not control regardless of what the circumstances
were or who was there.
Before I get there, I want to address one
other thing.
When Mr. Simpson was on the stand, and I
think this says a lot about his character and the kind
of man Mr. Simpson is, he told you people after he had
separated from Nicole, when she had left him, that
Nicole came to him and indicated she was pregnant.
This was never corroborated by anybody or
anything and had nothing to do with this case, but I
can tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that if that had
ever been true, the last person in the world Nicole
would have told was this man.
And if he had ever found out, this man
would never, ever, have let that go. This man had a
mind like Krazy Glue, and he didn't let go of things.
They stuck.
He also told you about the time he was
shamelessly peeping into Nicole's window late at
night, sneaking around, looking in.
What does he tell you? The next day, he
said, I shook the guy's hand. After that I'd see him,
I'd talk to him about his golf.
If you listen to that 1993 tape,
October '93, 18 months later and that man exploded
about that incident. Exploded.
And the only reason Mr. Simpson talked
about these things on the stand, ladies and gentlemen,
is to cheapen Nicole's life in front of you people.
To talk about the murdered mother of his
children, the mother that he murdered; that one
purpose, to cheapen her life.
Don't buy it.
Nicole was precious. She was a gem. She
was a total package.
And to Mr. Simpson, she was the Heismann
Trophy of women. But just like that trophy, an object
to him.
She was a great mother. You've heard
that from everybody. She was a great daughter. She
was a great sister. She was a great friend. She was
beautiful. She was happy. And she was healthy.
She was everything Mr. Simpson was not.
She was private. She was caring. She was sensitive.
And during the two incidences where the
police got involved prior to the murders, the one
thing you'll hear is that Nicole's only concern was
the fact that these two children, Sydney and Justin,
were in the house.
And diametrically opposed to Nicole's
concern about those two children in the house, was
Mr. Simpson. His only concern was him and him and
more him.
And one of the hardest things to
understand and learn about, probably, is a
relationship between a man and woman, husband and
wife. That's been part of the exercise here.
But at different times both Nicole and
Mr. Simpson have given us insight into this
relationship. Both of them, at different times, both
of them in a sense, both of them at unguarded moments.
Mr. Simpson, on June 13, 1994, when he
was talking to the police, he stated it's always been
a problem relationship.
And Nicole, when she was talking to the
police on October 25, 1993, after things had calmed
down there a little bit, she says we haven't
communicated in 15 years.
One thing Nicole and Mr. Simpson agreed
upon, contrary to Mr. Simpson's testimony on the stand
here, was the relationship was less than perfect.
With regard to some of these incidences;
first of all, you heard that, back in 1983, from India
Allen, she was at Dr. Shipp's animal hospital, and
Nicole was there, she was there, and her two-seater
Mercedes, the white one.
India Allen testified how she was
bringing the two chows out to the car, walking along
with her, and Mr. Simpson pulled up in his
dark-colored Rolls Royce, at that time, and India
Allen described Nicole; spandex, fur coat, headband,
sunglasses.
With all due respect to my client, you
couldn't make up an outfit like that.
But in any event, she described
Mr. Simpson's demeanor and his appearance as he pulled
up in that car and parked sideways to Nicole's car.
And she described how he approached the
car; his anger, his clinched fist, how he grabbed the
fur coat, struggled with her, and slapped her, slapped
her in public with other people standing there,
knocking her sunglasses off and her headband off,
right there in the middle of the day.
India Allen testified other people were
there. Someone was loading dog food into the car at
the same time. She remembered clearly. She told the
story many times over the years to her family. For
years. She remembered it so clearly because of the
celebrity status of Mr. Simpson.
And what did Mr. Simpson tell you on the
stand?
That it couldn't have happened.
Why?
Because of Nicole's headband, because of
the fur coat, and because of her spandex.
He said she only wore a headband when she
played tennis.
You all heard that Nicole was a fitness
freak. She has spandex on. She wants to keep the
hair out of her eyes just like when you play tennis,
you wear a headband.
With regard to the fur coat, he didn't
deny she owned one. He learned his lesson with the
pictures. Obviously, he just said she would only wear
it in cold weather like in Colorado and places.
It's interesting when you hear what
predicated this argument and ultimately this physical
fight, was that coat, that he didn't want her wearing
it.
And finally, and most remarkably,
Mr. Simpson said that Nicole didn't own gold spandex.
What I find so remarkable about this is
he can't remember his own designer shoes in 1993, but
he remembers what color spandex she owned in 1983.
Next we hear in '84 where Mark Day of
Westec Company is called to the Rockingham residence.
He arrives there; Nicole's upset, there's a bat,
there's damage to the car, there's a cracked
windshield.
Mr. Simpson doesn't deny any of this
happening. He just says it happened during a normal
conversation.
Well, I would suggest that Mr. Simpson
with a bat in his hand and a cracked windshield could
be quite menacing.
And there would be only one reason Nicole
would call for security, and that was because she was
frightened.
Mr. Simpson said I pay for everything
around Rockingham regardless of who broke it or what
it was, so I don't know why, in this instance, she
would call security to make sure he paid for this.
She called for one reason only.
In 1986 -- and you'll remember that
Mr. Simpson testified specifically that between 1985
and 1987 their relationship was great.
In 1986 you heard that Mr. Aguilar was
walking along the beach; Victoria Beach. This is a
man who knew Mr. Simpson from his days at USC, knew
very well who he was, familiar with him, saw him on
the beach that day.
You heard Nicole and Mr. Simpson engaged
in conversation. And the next thing he sees is that
same lighting quick right hand across Nicole's face.
The same right hand that India Allen had witnessed
three years ago. And that right hand, this time,
drops Nicole like a stone to the sand.
Now, try to imagine the humiliation of
being struck in public, of lying in the sand, ears
ringing, eyes tearing, with your husband standing over
you, eight inches taller, 100 pounds heavier.
This is a reflection of the relationship.
This should let you think about Nicole's
state of mind with regard to this.
Simpson said -- he told us this long
story about playing golf in the morning and putting
chairs out on the beach and everything else.
Then he went on to say specifically that
he was not down in Victoria Beach on July 3, 1987, he
was not down in Victoria Beach on July 1, 1986, but he
never, ever, mentioned July 28th.
You can have that checked back and read
back, if you want, ladies and gentlemen.
Just ignores that day which is around the
time Mr. Aguilar testified that this incident
happened.
Now, at this time, this '85 to '87
period, is when Mr. Simpson, as I said, said the
relationship was great.
As you recall, Sydney was born October of
'85. In '87, Justin hadn't been born yet.
Now, contrary to how Mr. Simpson said the
relationship was -- I'd like you to look at something
that reflects on how Nicole saw the relationship at
that time.
Steve, 732A.
(Exhibit 732A displayed on Elmo.)
MR. BAKER: I object to her -- the phraseology,
this is not for the truth.
THE COURT: Overruled.
(Mr. Kelly read a portion from Ms.
Simpson's diary.)
"There was also that time before
Justin, and a few months after Sydney, I
felt really good about myself getting back
into shape.
You beat the holy hell out of me and
we lied at the X-ray lab and said I fell off
a bike. Remember!??"
MR. KELLY: Exclamation point, question mark,
question mark.
Mr. Simpson and Nicole were sharing a
dirty little secret.
(Indicating to Mr. Simpson.)
MR. KELLY: You can take that down, Steve.
I'd like to go to 1989.
If you could play that tape, please.
(911 tape played.)
MR. KELLY: Well lost our audio, Judge.
(Pause for tape to be played.)
MR. KELLY: Okay, Steve, that's fine.
Now, you heard the testimony of Sharon
Gilbert, who is on the other end of that call,
although it's not clearly audible to you.
What she told you was that she could hear
someone being hit at that time.
And what she transmitted was.
(Counsel displayed board entitled
1989 Computer Printout of Police
Log.)
MR. KELLY: So you people would never think
this was some sort of fabrication, she brought into
the courtroom to testify to at that time, female being
beaten at location, could be heard over the phone.
That call was changed to a high priority.
And it was Police Officer Edwards who went over there.
And when he arrived -- he told you exactly what he saw
on his arrival there that day.
And when he pulled up, about that time,
Nicole Simpson came running out of some bushes from
the house. She was wearing only a bra and sweat-type
pants, and she had mud down the right side of the
pants. She ran to a driveway, to a post containing
the gate release button. She collapsed on the post
and pushed the button hard several times.
She was yelling during this time, he's
going to kill me, he's going to kill me. As she said
this, the gate opened, and she ran out to me. She
grabbed me and hung on to it (sic) as she cried
nervously and repeated, he's going to kill me.
At this time, when Officer Edwards first
saw her, she had a lump over her right eye, she had
abrasions on her face, she had a split lip, and she
had finger marks on her throat.
Steve, do you have No. 4, please.
(Photograph displayed.)
MR. KELLY: That's what he saw that morning.
If you throw up No. 9, Steve.
This is one of the photos from Nicole's
safety deposit box, as you recall.
Same injuries, massive bruise under her
right arm also.
That was from wrestling.
Now -- you can take that down, Steve.
He's going to kill me.
That's in and of itself sort of an
everyday expression, often used, and I'd agree with
you people with that. I say it in terms of you've
been dealing with kids to parents' going to kill me if
I get home too late, things like that.
But in this instance, I would suggest to
you it was more than that.
This wasn't hysteria, the movement of
Nicole, this was not just her present state of mind at
that particular time. On reflection, and after that,
she felt the same way.
Steve, if I could see 732, please.
(Exhibit 732 displayed on Elmo)
Could you move it up. Move the top of
the page, Steve.
And since Justin's birth,
the mad New Year's Eve beat up, I just
don't see how that compares to
infidelity, wife beating, verbal abuse.
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 -- flip the page,
Steve -- 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.
So as opposed to Mr. Simpson saying he
would never be capable or have the state of mind to
kill Nicole, Nicole's state of mind was such that she
had no doubt that he had the capability of killing
her.
Now, after Edwards arrived there in '89,
Simpson came out to the car that Nicole had gotten
into, and what did he go out there for? He certainly
wasn't contrite about the injuries to Nicole.
Certainly wasn't accepting responsibility at that
time. Nor was he concerned about Nicole. Didn't even
ask about her. Nor was he concerned about the kids in
the house.
What did he tell Edwards, though? And
what did he tell you on the stand? He told Edwards at
that time that it was a family matter, that if you
beat your wife in the house with the kids in the house
and you stay behind closed doors, it's a family
matter, no matter what you do, how you do it or when
you do it.
He then sent his housekeeper out to try
to fetch Nicole since he couldn't get her out of the
car himself. When that didn't work, he was told he
was going to be arrested for spousal battery.
Mr. Simpson denies that he was ever told
that or knew that he was going to be arrested or the
cops were looking for him.
But what does Al Cowlings tell you? He
comes in here and directly contradicts Mr. Simpson.
This is his best friend since they were
about 8 years old. Mr. Cowlings.
He tells how Mr. Simpson switched cars at
Schwartz's house and came back because he said the
cops were looking for him.
Cowlings told you how Simpson parked that
car around the corner so he wouldn't be seen by the
cops.
Mr. Cowlings told you how Mr. Simpson
told him how he had climbed over a fence, snuck
through the backyard to get into the house, and later
when he asked Mr. Cowlings to drive him back there
again, Mr. Cowlings told you how Mr. Simpson
instructed him to take a particular route back to
avoid the cops.
When they saw a cop car, they took off
again.
This is a man who is hiding from the
cops, and more importantly, he was lying to you people
when he testified about that incident.
Now, I don't think there's any doubt in
anybody's mind that Mr. Simpson not only hit but
battered Nicole on that night in 1989.
I think the photos speak for themselves.
Nicole told Edwards that Mr. Simpson had
hit her, kicked her and pulled her hair.
A.C. Cowlings came in here and testified
that Nicole had told him that Simpson had hit her and
pulled her hair.
You can look at the medical records from
that night, the night Mr. Cowlings took her to the
hospital, and she told the intake people that she had
been hit around the face by fist and open hands and
assaulted by her husband.
And even in 1993, in October, on the
tape, you hear her allude to this assault again.
Now, what's most interesting about that
night, and I mentioned earlier, is that when
Mr. Simpson lost it, he couldn't control himself.
Didn't matter who was there or what the circumstances.
And on that particular night, Mr. Simpson
wanted to represent to you that this was just a
wrestling match in his bedroom. It ended when he got
her out of the room.
But you heard how he not only got her out
of his bed and then got her out of his room, he
followed her downstairs out of his house across his
courtyard into his maid's room, and attacked her in
there and chased her out of there, too.
And that was even in Lenore Walker's
notes, once again his own expert, in talking to her,
he admitted to all these things.
And when Nicole got out of the room, she
was left outside, cold, shivering, half naked,
frightened, beaten, battered, muddy, outside the
house.
And who was upstairs? The children.
Mr. Simpson would love you to believe
that he would never do anything, anything like that,
with the children around.
But they were right there in his house.
No one recognized the uncontrollable rage
Nicole could evoke from Mr. Simpson more than
Mr. Simpson himself.
And you people have seen the agreement
that he signed, Nicole signed, about eight months
later, that he referred to as a governor. A governor.
Something to help him control his own rage.
And the reason that that governor was
necessary and the substance of that governor was
necessary was Mr. Simpson's own recognition of his own
state of mind.
And what he knew and what he recognized
was that he could not control himself out of love and
respect for Nicole, he could not control himself out
of love and respect for his children being present
when he lost it.
What he recognized was the only thing
that could help him control himself was his
possessions. Fear of losing his worldly possessions,
part of them, were the only things that he felt could
help him control his rage.
Now, it's interesting, I think Mr. Baker
alluded to it earlier, that when they put a price tag
of about $5 million, this would be worth to Nicole if
he violated this again, $5 million.
Now, all the writings you will see from
Nicole, or every time you will hear Nicole's voice in
this courtroom, it was either before this governor was
put into effect or after Mr. Simpson and Nicole were
divorced.
So there's absolutely no possibility, no
motive for fabrication in terms of any time you ever
see Nicole's writings or you hear her voice. The one
thing Nicole Brown Simpson never did, ever, for even
$5 million, was to try to fabricate a lie or say
something that wasn't true.
Now, on January 2, 1992, three years
after this, Nicole tells Mr. Simpson that she wants to
separate and move out.
And you heard Mr. Simpson say that he was
caught off guard, that he was devastated.
Now, here's a man who's slapped,
repeatedly hit his wife in public, driven her to the
ground, humiliated her, here's a man who totally
humiliated her in '89 in this police situation and
what they witnessed at this time, what she had to go
through publicly after this incident, he's caught off
guard.
But in any event, he indicates he tries
to get her back for three or four months, falls on
deaf ears, and they're divorced.
Now, we also talked about how Nicole flew
out to New York in -- Christmas in 1992. I'm sure you
people remember that testimony. How she called, she
wanted to be out there with the kids and they had a
great time, and she wanted to speak to him afterwards.
Well, I would suggest to you people that
Nicole did love Mr. Simpson at one time. And for the
sake of the kids -- just like when you lose a loved
one or you're separated for a long time, you tend to
remember the good times and forget the bad. I'm sure
over that Christmas time, she saw a part of
Mr. Simpson she had loved for so many years, and she
did want to get back.
But you will hear on the Lally tape, the
'93 tape, that it wasn't quite as Mr. Simpson
represented. It wasn't just that she was desperate
for him. She says it was for the sake of the
children.
I would suggest it's quite normal for any
woman with children who's been married for a number of
years to want to try to put things aside again, start
over again, for the sake of the children.
But the one thing she does not do is move
back in.
Now we fast forward a little bit and we
get to October of 1993.
Do you recall at this time Simpson was
over at the house that night with Nicole --
MR. BAKER: I object. This is cumulative, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELLY: Simpson's over at the house that
night on October 25, 1993, and he just leaves, there's
no explosion at that time, nothing, he just walks out
of the house.
But subsequently, during phone calls that
night on October 25, 1993, Nicole leaves the phone off
the hook.
Mr. Simpson is being ignored by Nicole.
So what does he do? He gets in his car,
he drives over there, leaves the car in the middle of
the street, lights on.
He was being ignored. Just like at the
recital on June 12, 1994. He was being ignored.
Now, the other thing Mr. Simpson told you
on the stand, even in the face of that 911 tape from
1993, is that Nicole wasn't frightened.
Do you have that tape, Steve.
(Audiotape is played.)
MR. KELLY: That's it, Steve.
(Audiotape is halted.)
"The kids are upstairs sleeping and I
don't want anything to happen."
This is a woman who's known this man for
16 years. She's gone from being a child to being a
woman with him. She's had two children with him. She
spent all of her intimate moments with him.
But the one thing that she knows eight
months before these murders, children upstairs in the
house or no children upstairs in the house, nothing
will deter this man, and she knows it's not going to
make any difference when he snaps, just like in 1989
when the kids were in the house, whether they're there
that night. And she knows it's not even a
consideration.
And she's frightened.
And she tells us that she's frightened
later on.
And I'm sure Mr. Baker will probably play
the rest of the tape where Nicole calms down, but keep
in mind, ladies and gentlemen, the 911 operator tells
her to hang on to the phone till the cops get there.
That's her umbilical cord. That's her lifeline.
And Kato shows up also.
Now, one other thing Mr. Petrocelli
touched on, also in terms of our ability to try this
case, is the fact that the one thing Mr. Baker's been
able to do is put his client on the stand and explain
things. And we haven't had that opportunity. And
he's been able to say, O.J., tell us this, Juice, what
about that.
And we haven't been able to do that.
And one of the really, I think,
interesting parts of even being an attorney is
learning your client. And, you know, I can talk to
Lou and I can talk to Judy and find out what kind of
daughter Nicole was. Or I can talk to her sisters and
find out what kind of sister she was. Or I can talk
to friends and find out what kind of friend she was.
And everybody's been able to say what kind of great
mother she was.
But I don't have Nick.
And I'd love to be able to say, Nick,
they're saying things about you. Nick, they said that
in 1993, when you made that phone call, you weren't
frightened. Tell us about that. Or, Nick, they're
saying, without you here to respond, that you're
running around with hookers, drug users. What do you
have to say about that? Or, Nick, they're saying that
Mr. Simpson would never have that state of mind, never
have that capability to kill you. What do you have to
say about that, Nick?
Tell the jurors.
Now, fortunately in this instance, she
can tell you.
Steve, can you put up the picture first.
(Photo is displayed.)
MR. KELLY: Bring it up close.
Nick (indicating to Elmo screen), my
client.
First of all, I want her in her own words
to tell you people whether she was frightened, whether
she was scared, that night of October 25, 1993.
Steve, can you play that, please.
(Audiotape is played.)
MR. KELLY: "You're scared of him?" "Yes."
What more would you want.
She tells you right there, from as close
as we can get to her, that she was scared that night.
The next thing you heard a lot about,
whether it was Mr. Baker in his opening statement or
Mr. Simpson with his rambling testimony on the stand,
was, in his demented imagination, these things about
her running around with hookers, Heidi Fleiss, drug
users.
Well, Nicole, I want to know what you
have to say about that.
(Audiotape is played.)
MR. KELLY: "I don't know any of these people,
I don't hang around with them, they're not my
friends."
She's telling you that, ladies and
gentlemen of the jury, and in that tape she's telling
you eight months before the murders about those
allegations regarding her.
The last thing I want to ask my client
about is this fact of whether she, in her state of
mind, believed that Mr. Simpson was capable of taking
her life.
MR. BAKER: Objection, relevance, there's no
testimony. I wasn't on --
THE COURT: Excuse me?
MR. BAKER: I object on the grounds that it's
irrelevant for state of mind.
THE COURT: I'll see counsel.
(The following proceedings were
held at the bench, with the
reporter.)
THE COURT: It would appear inappropriate to
offer her state of mind as to Mr. Simpson's
intentions. Sustained.
MR. KELLY: As to the relationship, Your Honor,
this is -- Your Honor, that's why this whole tape was
admitted into evidence -- I'm playing one more
excerpt.
THE COURT: Excuse me; that's not what you told
the jury.
MR. KELLY: I'll ask that be stricken and just
put it to her state of mind and her state of the
relationship, eight months before the relationship --
THE COURT: I'll strike it as to that.
MR. PETROCELLI: I believe this tape came in
under not the state-of-mind exception, I think this
came in as spontaneous statements for the truth of the
matter asserted, Your Honor. I don't think this tape
came in for state of mind.
I'd have to go back and check, but I
don't -- I don't think that's the record. I think
this came in as -- under another exception to the
hearsay rule for the truth of the matter asserted, and
I don't think there's a state-of-mind issue here at
all.
MR. BAKER: I don't think that it's relevant
for anything, how it came, that it came in, a
spontaneous declaration. It's not relevant to her
state of mind, then it's not relevant to what happened
June 1994. You have an eight-month period.
THE COURT: Her state of mind as to her belief
that Simpson's going to kill her, I don't think that's
appropriate. I'll sustain the objection.
MR. KELLY: As to the state of relationship, is
that okay?
THE COURT: Do I have trouble speaking?
MR. KELLY: No, not at all.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. KELLY: Your Honor, if I could, one more
moment, please.
Your Honor, this is a tape that was
properly laid in foundation. It's material; it's
relevant; it was offered.
THE COURT: Mr. Kelly, that's not the
objection. The objection is that you are offering it
for an improper purpose. You want to offer it for her
state of mind and her fear, that's one thing; but
you -- you're offering it to show Simpson's intent.
MR. KELLY: I'll rephrase the question.
(The following proceedings were
held in open court, in the
presence of the jury.)
MR. KELLY: Ladies and gentlemen, the next
thing you will hear is an excerpt from a recording to
reflect on what Nicole's state of mind was and her
view of the relationship eight months before the
murders.
Steve?
(Audio tape played.)
MR. KELLY: That's all, Steve.
(Audio tape finishes playing.)
MR. KELLY: To will further corroborate what
Nicole's state of mind was, to show what her view of
the relationship was.
I also recall that after her death, it
went to her -- they went to her safety deposit box,
and in there, they found her writings and photographs
of her taken in 1989. And she wanted you to know how
she felt and what her view of this relationship was,
if people needed to know some day.
Once again, as I said, the fact that she
felt this way wasn't -- was in spite of, in addition,
to the fact that those two children were sleeping
upstairs that night too, eight months before the
murders.
You can take the picture down, Steve.
(Mr. Foster complies.)
MR. KELLY: Now, you heard in November and
December, 1993, Mr. Simpson was busy finishing a
movie. Then, in December of '93, he went back to New
York. And in January, February and March of 1994, he
said he was away most of the time, in New York. He
said when he was in L.A., he saw Nicole, but most of
the time, he was gone.
And I just want to reiterate the fact, in
April, again, when he made that phone call to the
Browns, and he told them he thought it was going to
work, I would suggest that that is when Nicole got
cold feet, and what Mr. Simpson describes as erratic
behavior was simply Nicole not wanting to talk to him,
not wanting to be around him.
On the day before Mother's Day, when he
drove down there, on May 7 -- and I described the
tension in the Brown house. I would suggest it's
because he was not wanted down there by Nicole.
And that night, when he was supposed to
go out with Nicole, and she said she just can't do
this, she just can't handle it, she wasn't having a
nervous breakdown; she didn't want to be with the man
anymore.
Simple as that.
Mr. Simpson, through his skewed view of
the world, the world through O.J. Simpson, saw this as
something totally different. He saw this behavior as
bizarre, that this woman, who pulled him back into the
relationship, didn't want him anymore.
And for that last month, Mr. Simpson was
like a coiled spring.
And they were not talking, and they were
not interacting.
And try as he may, Mr. Simpson can say
that he was ignoring Nicole, but she wasn't sending
him those musical tapes; she wasn't coming by with
videos. There were no cookies to Rockingham, no
pictures of the kids. She wasn't showing up at
Riviera Country Club. She wasn't following him down
to Palm Springs because she wanted to be with him.
And when he came by her house to pick up
the dogs or look at computer games or anything that
last couple weeks in June, she didn't even come out of
her room or come out of the house, and they didn't
exchange a word.
Don't let him tell you there was no
animosity at that time.
With regard to the recital, that was
covered in some detail by Mr. Petrocelli, I just want
to make a couple comments.
I'm sure that Mr. Baker is going to play
the infamous videotape again. And you know what? He
can play it a hundred times to you people. But just
keep a couple things in mind: That the tension wasn't
between Mr. Simpson and Lou or Mr. Simpson and Judy or
Mr. Simpson and Dennis: It was between he and Nicole.
And you can play that video all night long, and every
time, it's going to have the exact same ending. And
that ending is a black Cherokee pulling up and Nicole
Simpson not getting out or not saying goodbye, and
Sydney not getting out of the car and not saying
goodbye, and that car pulls away, and Mr. Simpson is
left there, ignored and alone.
That's what that video tells you, ladies
and gentlemen of the jury.
And it was the first time Nicole had
publicly humiliated him. And Mr. Simpson had flown
all the way back from New York, and she had made all
the plans, and she had excluded him. She was in
charge. And she was happy. And she wanted nothing to
do with him. And he knew it.
Now, a couple other things just about
that night, with regard to the time line, that window
of opportunity between 9 o'clock and 10:45.
At 9 o'clock, we know that when
Mr. Simpson had made a phone call and spoke to Sydney,
he was home alone; the housekeeper wasn't coming back
to Rockingham. He knew Nicole was home alone. He
knew the kids were going to bed.
Consider this in the context of what the
killer did that night.
He put on soft-soled shoes to move
quietly -- rare designer soft-soled shoes -- to move
quietly that night.
He wore a ski cap to avoid
identification.
He wore rare designer gloves so he
wouldn't leave fingerprints.
And he used a knife to so he could kill
quietly.
But if the killer took all these measures
to avoid detection -- shoes, the gloves, the hat, the
knife -- why go out in a relatively early hour, at
10:30 at night, when the lights are still on and
people are awake?
And there's only one reason, ladies and
gentlemen, and that's because that killer had a plane
to catch that night.
And if Ron Goldman had not shown up there
when he did, Sydney and Justin would have come down
the next morning and found their mother in a pool of
blood, and Mr. Simpson was -- when Mr. Simpson was out
playing golf.
Couple other things we talked about:
Length of struggle. I think struggle is one of the
biggest misnomers of this case. You heard Nicole
received a blow to the brain with such velocity, that
a bruise --
MR. BAKER: I'm going to object. This is
cumulative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELLY: A blow to the brain that bruised
it.
And Ron Goldman, relaxed, unsuspecting,
finished with work, off to meet his friends, dropping
off glasses, was ambushed in a pitch black area, pitch
black.
And I won't repeat all the details. You
people shouldn't have to listen to them: The knife,
the savagery, the rage, the size of the area.
It wasn't a struggle; it was a slaughter.
And when the police arrived, that first
officer on the scene -- and people know it, and I've
got to say it again, and you've got to just keep
telling yourselves that he saw the same thing that the
next 15 police officers saw, also.
They saw Mr. Simpson's -- what they saw,
his glove. And they saw his size 12 Bruno Magli,
Lorenzo-style, Silga-soled footprints leading out
there. They saw his blood there. They saw his blood
on the back gate and the trace evidence from his
clothes, his body, and his Bronco were all there and
collected.
And don't think about a second glove ever
being there or being transported anywhere, because
when you hold that knife in your right hand, your
gloved right hand, that glove -- that right-hand glove
cannot even come off when you're holding the knife.
You can lose the left glove; you're not going to lose
the right.
No detective saw anything after 15
officers had been there.
When they headed to Rockingham, they
didn't know if there was an eyewitness to the case,
whether someone was going to confess to the murders,
or Mr. Simpson had been in Europe for a year.
I don't want to keep going over the
physical evidence. Mr. Petrocelli did a tremendous
job on that.
The last thing I want to talk about is
one of the last questions Mr. Baker asked Mr. Simpson
when he was on the stand this last time.
And I think the question was,
Mr. Simpson, have you ever told anybody that you were
responsible for the death of Nicole?
And obviously, his answer was no.
And had it been yes, I don't think we'd
be sitting here right now.
But what I want to do is put it in
context of this conversation that Mr. Simpson had at
the wake with Nicole's brother, [sic] Judy.
Now, you -- Judy, you heard, was very
close to Nicole, and she understood Mr. Simpson, too.
In fact, Mr. Simpson, himself, said she was like a
shrink to him, and she was suspicious. As Mr. Simpson
said, Judy got in his face, and asked him whether he
had anything to do with these murders.
Now, Judy didn't know about any of the
evidence in this case. She didn't know about hair,
fiber, trace evidence, blood, anything.
What she did know, the only thing she
knew of, was the nature of the relationship. And she
asked him if he had anything to do with this.
And the one thing Judy wanted to be
convinced of was whether this man, who Nicole had
dedicated her life to, who was the father of her
grandchildren, had not taken her baby from her.
And when Mr. Simpson had said, I loved
your daughter, Judy, or -- no -- I loved your
daughter, Judy, the response in Judy's mind was the
same. She wanted to see indignation, outrage, hurt,
out of Mr. Simpson. And when she didn't see it, when
she didn't hear it --
MR. BAKER: There's no evidence of it, Your
Honor.
MR. KELLY: -- and she didn't feel it --
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KELLY: -- the question was not answered in
her mind.
And what you people have to do is now
answer that question: Did he kill Nicole and did he
kill Ron?
And you have to look at all of the
evidence. And you can't rely on Mr. Simpson's
testimony, because he's not to be trusted.
And you have to make this man
understand -- understand things; that when you do
things like -- you hop fences, you hide things in
trash cans, or you run from the cops, or you peep in
your wife's window late at night, without her knowing,
you're a sneak. And when you look at a photograph of
you in the killing shoes, and you say it's a fake,
you're a liar.
And when you are unfaithful to your wife,
you're a cheater.
And when you kick her, and when you hit
her and you pull her hair, you're a batterer.
And when you slaughter two people in the
primes of their lives, you're a killer.
And all Nicole and all Ron are asking you
people to do is to assign that responsibility to a man
who refuses to accept it.
Thank you.
THE COURT: Ten-minute recess, ladies and
gentlemen.
(Recess.)
(Jurors resume their respective
seats.)
THE COURT: Mr. Brewer.
MR. BREWER: Thank you, Your Honor.
PLAINTIFF'S CLOSING ARGUMENT
MR. BREWER: Morning.
JURORS: Good morning.
MR. BREWER: It's my pleasure to have the
opportunity to address you in this closing argument.
Like my brethren, my colleagues, before
me, I'd like to extend the thanks of myself, my
client, for yourselves on service on this jury. This
is a part of citizenship. You come in, you dedicate
yourself to perform functions as a juror. We've
watched you. You've been attentive, you've been here
every day, and for that we are deeply -- you have our
deep gratitude.
Mr. Petrocelli and Mr. Kelly have talked
to you about the evidence.
I'm going to talk to you a little bit
about the law and take you through what's called a
special verdict form.
Steve, can you put that on the monitor.
(Special verdict form displayed on
Elmo.)
MR. BREWER: Focus it a little bit.
Now, when it's all said and done, when
you deliberate the evidence, and talk amongst
yourselves, and decide the issues of fact, evaluate
the credibility of witnesses, your verdict which
you -- what you have say about this case will be
contained on this special verdict.
And to start with, there are essentially
three cases here.
There's a wrongful death case that is
brought by the parents of Ron; Sharon Rufo, my client,
who's Ron's mother, and Mr. Goldman, Ron's father.
There are two other cases; they're
brought by really the victims themselves, Ron and
Nicole.
But because they're dead, there has to be
a legal entity. That's an estate.
MR. BAKER: I object. They are not brought by
Ron and Nicole. That's a misstatement of the law
because --
MR. BREWER: Can I finish? There has to be an
estate in order for an action to be filed, and there
are such estates filed in this action; one on behalf
of Ronald Goldman, and Mr. Fred Goldman is the
administer of that estate, and the estate for Nicole
Brown Simpson, and her father, Louis Brown, is the
administer for that estate.
Now, the wrongful death case basically
asks you to find that Mr. Simpson, on June 12, 1994,
willfully and wrongfully took the life of Ron Goldman.
The estate cases are going to ask you to
make a finding that at that very same time,
Mr. Simpson committed a battery.
Now, Steve, if you could put up the jury
instruction on battery.
(Jury instructions displayed.)
MR. BREWER: Now, in a case where two people
have been killed, it may seem a little bit odd that
you're being asked to make a finding of battery. This
is the legal definition, and I'll have these jury
instructions -- the judge will read these instructions
to you. This is the law that will govern this case.
You'll have an opportunity to have these
back with you during the jury deliberations.
Essentially, what a battery is means the
elements the defendant intentionally did an act which
resulted in harmful contact with Ron's person.
No. 2, Ron did not consent to the
contact, and 3, the harmful contact caused injury,
damage, loss, or harm to Ron.
Just to simplify your analysis, I think
the way you ought to approach this case is that the
battery -- this legal definition is really what we are
talking about -- is that the deaths of Ron and Nicole
began with an attack upon their person. That's what
the battery is.
The process of the attack was the
battery. That led to their respective deaths. The
death of Ron is the wrongful death action.
So if we go back to the special verdict
form, Steve, if you would, please.
(Special verdict form displayed on
Elmo.)
MR. BREWER: First question you've going to
answer and this will walk you through all of the
questions you that have address in this case.
If you could turn the page, please
(indicating to Mr. Foster).
This is the first question you're going
to be presented with after considering all of the
evidence and all of the jury instructions.
"Do you find by a preponderance of the
evidence that defendant Simpson willfully and
wrongfully caused the deaths of Ronald Goldman?"
Check either yes or no.
If you check no, then you'll see -- you
will be given instructions with respect to which
question you should go on to next.
If you check yes, then you go on to the
next question.
Steve.
(Elmo adjusted.)
MR. BREWER: You go to question No. 2. This is
a question that relates to Ron's estate.
"Do you find by a preponderance of the
evidence that defendant Simpson committed battery
against Ronald Goldman?"
Now, if you answer question No. 1 yes,
the logical conclusion is you're going to answer
question No. 2 yes, because if he killed them, then
certainly he committed the battery that eventually led
to their deaths.
If you answer yes, which we believe the
evidence compels you to do, to 1 and 2, then you're to
go to question No. 3.
Steve.
(Elmo adjusted.)
MR. BREWER: Question No. 3 is going to ask to
you make a finding.
"Do you find by clear and convincing
evidence that defendant Simpson committed oppression
in the conduct upon which you have based your finding
of liability for battery against Ronald Goldman?"
Again, you must answer that question yes
or no.
You must indicate whether you believe,
given the facts and the evidence from this case,
whether Mr. Simpson, if you find that he killed Ronald
Goldman --
MR. BAKER: I'm going to have to object. I
apologize.
That's not correct. If they answer
question No. 1, they don't answer that question at
all, Your Honor, so -- he said you have to answer that
question. That's -- he's misrepresenting the law to
these people.
MR. BREWER: I indicated, Your Honor, that if
they answered no, they follow the instructions. If
they answer yes, they go to 2. If they answer yes,
they go to 3.
THE COURT: Go ahead and argue.
MR. BREWER: Thank you, Your Honor.
This is a question that you answer yes or
no based upon your finding of the evidence.
If you answer yes to question 2, proceed
to question 4. Okay.
Question 4: "Do you find by clear and
convincing evidence defendant Simpson committed malice
in the conduct upon which you base your finding of
liability for battery of Ronald Goldman?"
You'll have a separate instruction that
will define malice. I'll talk to you about that in a
minute.
You have to answer this question yes or
no.
There has to be a finding by you, based
upon all of the evidence, whether you believe -- if
you find Mr. Simpson is responsible for Ron Goldman's
death, whether he acted with malice.
Move it up here, Steve, a bit, so we can
see the bottom.
(Elmo adjusted.)
MR. BREWER: After you answer question 4, as it
tells you right here, you will proceed to question 5.
Now, this question relates to Mr. Kelly's
client, which is the estate of Nicole Brown Simpson.
The question you're going to have to
answer there is the same question you answered with
Mr. Goldman.
"Do you find by a preponderance of the
evidence that defendant Simpson committed battery
against Nicole Brown Simpson?"
You must answer that simply yes or no.
If you find that Mr. Simpson is
responsible for the death of Ron and Nicole, this is a
logical extension of that, you will find that he
committed a battery.
If your answer -- it tells you right
here. If your answer to No. 5 is yes, you proceed to
question 6.
If your answer to question Nos. 1 and 5
are no, you proceed to date, sign, and return the
verdict form.
If you answer question 6, you're going to
have to make another finding with respect to Nicole
Brown Simpson's claim.
"Do you find by clear and convincing
evidence that defendant Simpson committed oppression
in the conduct upon which you base your finding of
liability for battery against Nicole Brown Simpson?"
Again, it tells you right here, yes or
no.
But you have to make a specific finding
one way or the other if you are answering this
question.
Scroll up a little bit, Steve.
If you answer yes to question 5, you're
going to go to question 7.
Thank you.
You're going to have to answer -- "Do you
find by clear and convincing evidence that defendant
Simpson committed malice in the conduct upon which you
base your finding of liability for battery against
Nicole Brown Simpson?"
You must answer this question. You must
indicate yes or no. And if you answer yes, question
number 1, then you go and answer yes, question number
8, and this will be the last question on the verdict
form. And this will ask you to award damages against
defendant Simpson in favor of plaintiffs Goldman and
Ruffo in the aggregate, meaning a lump sum, as
follows. And whatever you decide that amount is, you
will enter it here.
You need not concern yourself with a
specific award with respect to the battery claims by
both of these estates. You simply have to make sure
that you answer the questions if you find liability
against Mr. Simpson, against the estates, on the
questions that we showed you.
Now, if we can go back to question number
1, Steve, for a moment.
(Elmo is adjusted.)
MR. BREWER: You have to make a finding by a
preponderance of the evidence, and -- so that's the
legal standard, and in this case, the civil case,
there's no presumption of innocence for a defendant.
This is not a criminal case. We're not held to a
criminal burden of proof or a criminal standard. And
so what you have to do is, you have to find liability
based upon a preponderance of the evidence.
Well, what does that mean?
You'll have an instruction -- Steve, put
that up on the board, please.
The instruction you're going to have is
that -- it says preponderance of the evidence means
evidence that has more convincing force than that
opposed to it.
If evidence is so evenly balanced that
you're unable to say that the evidence on either side
of an issue preponderates, your finding on that issue
must be against the party who had the burden of
proving it.
You should consider all of the evidence
bearing upon every issue regardless of who produced
it.
That doesn't go a long way to really
help. It's a legal definition. Let me give you some
terminology that we possibly use every day that you
possibly used in this courtroom that will help you
sort through the evidentiary issues.
Preponderance means the same thing as a
probability.
Mr. Simpson probably is responsible. He
probably did it. Those are the terms that I would use
to reflect the preponderance standard.
Another way of representing it is, it's
more likely than not that Mr. Simpson is responsible
for the deaths of Ron and Nicole. Numerically
expressed, 50.5 or 51 percent. That can reflect
preponderance.
And if you find yourself saying, well,
based upon the evidence, based upon everything we've
seen and heard over the past four months, Mr. Simpson
probably is responsible for these murders, then we
have proved our case, we have proved his
responsibility by a preponderance of the evidence.
Now, we went way beyond that in this
case. We believe that we proved this case to a
certainty without a doubt.
We had the choice of how we were going to
present the evidence in this case. We could, in our
view, have presented a fraction of the evidence, the
blood evidence at Bundy, the shoe evidence, the
evidence of Mr. Simpson's cuts on his hands that he
can't explain, taken independently, in our view, those
meet the legal burden that we're obligated to prove to
you in order to prevail in this case, and we have gone
well beyond that.
Now, another legal standard that you're
going to be presented with as you read through the
special verdict form is clear and convincing evidence.
Can you put that up, please?
There's two standards, and you're going
to see that you're going to have to evaluate
preponderance which we just talked about clear and
convincing evidence.
Now, this is going to appear when you
answer questions with respect to whether Mr. Simpson
acted with malice and oppression. And it will say in
the question itself, "clear and convincing evidence."
So what does that mean? How do you as
jurors evaluate this evidence? How do you take that
legal standard and apply it to the facts of this case.
I'll start with the instruction. Clear
and convincing evidence means evidence of such
convincing force that it demonstrates a contrast to
the opposing evidence, a high probability of the truth
of the facts for which it is offered as proof. Such
evidence requires a higher standard of proof than
proof by a preponderance of the evidence. You should
consider all of the evidence bearing upon every issue
regardless of who produced it.
The best I can represent this standard is
if we start with a criminal standard, beyond a
reasonable doubt, up here, and we have a civil
standard, preponderance of the evidence, right here,
this one falls somewhere in the middle, it falls
somewhere between preponderance and beyond a
reasonable doubt, the criminal standard.
We believe that any of the evidence we
presented during the course of this trial taken
independently satisfies this standard as well.
Taken collectively, all of the evidence
you've heard from our side and from the defense over
the past four months indicates, without a doubt, to a
certainty that Mr. Simpson is responsible for the
deaths of two young people, two young people.
When you're finished with this verdict
form, the special verdict form, you should sign it,
your foreperson will sign it, and it will be returned.
The last issue that you're going to have
to decide when you go through the verdict form --
Steve, if you'll put up the next instruction.
(Elmo is adjusted.)
MR. BREWER: -- is you're going to be asked --
we read through it. What is oppression, what is
malice, what does that mean as it's reflected in the
special verdict form you're going to have? This is
the legal definition of what malice means, oppression
means, despicable conduct that subjects a person to
cruel and unjust hardship and conscious disregard of
that person's rights.
Malice means conduct which is intended by
the defendant to cause injury to another or to
despicable conduct which is carried on by the
defendant with a willful conscious disregard for the
rights and safety of others.
A person acts with conscious disregard of
the rights and safety of others, which, when he is
aware of the probable dangerous consequences of his
conduct, willfully and deliberately fails to avoid
those consequences.
Despicable conduct is conduct which is so
vile, base, contemptible, miserable, wretched or
loathsome that it would be looked down upon and
despised by ordinary decent people.
This instruction will help you define and
understand what the law means by malice and
oppression, and those are questions that you're going
to have to answer as you proceed through that special
verdict form.
This is not a case of an accidental
death. By no means was there any accidental or
negligent actions here.
This is a willful, vicious, deliberate
act of murder against two people.
If you find that Mr. Simpson is
responsible, and if you find that we've met our burden
by a preponderance and by clear and convincing
evidence that he is responsible, you're going to find
that he acted with oppression and malice.
The tragic murder, the vicious murder,
the brutal murder of two people certainly satisfies
any definition imaginable under the law as it relates
to these two issues, malice and oppression.
Now, I'll say a few words about my
client, Ron's mother.
28 years ago, on a warm summer day, in
the early morning, Sharon Rufo gave birth to her first
child and her only son.
On that day, a bond was created between a
parent and a child, a mother and a son. That's an
unbreakable bond. Many of us who have children can
fully understand and appreciate the bond that I'm
talking about.
And most of us -- certainly, all of us
would understand that the bond between the parents and
the child is based upon an absolute love for that
child. It's based upon unconditional love. And it's
a love that my client, Sharon, had for her son from
the day of his birth to the day he was killed.
Now, my client, Sharon Rufo, will never
see Ron Goldman again; she will never talk to him
again; she will never have any relationship with him
again.
Because the case is not really -- it is
about what was, and it's also about what will never
be.
And will never be --
MR. BAKER: Objection, Your Honor. That's not
the law.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BREWER: And what will never be is the
chance for Ron's mother, both of his parents to ever
see, speak to, hug, love, touch, him again. A kiss on
the cheek, a hug during the holidays, an "I love you,"
the comfort of a warm voice, a familiar voice. That's
what we look for in family. That's what a parent
looks to in a child and a child looks to in a parent.
That's the essence of the loss that parents and
Mrs. Rufo suffered as a result of the loss of her son.
I'd like to read to you, ladies and
gentlemen, a poem.
In a large garden on the other
side of the wall,
Stands my son, so very strong and
tall,
Always so brave and quick to
defend,
The way you were, I'm sure, to
the bitter end.
So, son, I want you to listen to
what I'm about to say,
Because as we all know, we will
not have another day.
I never saw the grass so green,
the sky so peaceful and serene;
I never heard the robin's song
till the day you came along.
I believed we could again come
together;
And when given the chance, you
were taken from me forever.
So now I sit and wonder if any of
this you comprehend.
And if you and I will be given
the chance to meet again.
I can only hope that one day I
see you,
To hold and protect you from all
that I can.
Until then, all this try to
understand,
Because you will always be my
special little man.
I looked for a very long time for
something to read to you that would have the meaning,
so I could convey the feelings of Ron's mother to you.
And I found that in her own words. She wrote it for
me to read to you. I could not better express the
loss that she feels with her son, and these are in the
words I just read you, because these are her words.
Finally, ladies and gentlemen, you will
be given the opportunity to talk about this case among
yourselves.
And shortly, Mr. Baker will get up here
and talk to you, and there may be some rebuttal from
our side.
And then the case will be entrusted in
your hands; it will be given to you, for you to
decide.
And this is a case, as my colleagues have
told you ahead of me, that Mr. Simpson has not and
will not take responsibility for his actions.
By your verdict, ladies and gentlemen, in
this courtroom, you can do what needs to be done; that
is, tell O.J. Simpson: Mr. Simpson, you killed two
people, sir; you killed two people on June 12, 1994,
two young people in the prime of their lives, who had
everything to live for. And, sir, they did not
deserve to die.
We're going to ask you to tell
Mr. Simpson that with your verdict.
Thank you.
Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, we'll resume
at 1:30.
Don't talk about the case. Don't form or
express any opinions.
THE BAILIFF: Ladies and gentlemen, we are
still in session.
If you are going to remain, please be
seated.
Quiet, please, until the jury leaves.
(The following proceedings were
held in open court, outside the
presence of the jury.)
THE COURT: I have a note saying defendant
wants to make some argument.
MR. BAKER: I didn't want to make some
argument; I wanted to know whether or not we had got
another jury instruction. I thought this issue was
decided by you yesterday.
THE COURT: So did I.
MR. BAKER: I just wanted to know whether or
not there was going to be any change, because it may
affect my argument.
That's all, sir. I don't want to argue
at all. We will submit.
THE COURT: I'll stand on my ruling yesterday.
MR. BAKER: Thank you.
MR. GELBLUM: May I be heard very briefly?
I think the arguments --
THE COURT: No.
MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, the reason I don't
feel too bad, the defendants reopened their argument
after you had ruled previously on the argument, on the
instruction.
What I realized, perhaps belatedly but
accurately, is that discussion we had yesterday and
the basis for your ruling, that you had limited
defendant somewhat in talking about the proper
procedures, that rationale doesn't apply at all to
planting.
That's not what -- whether somebody
followed proper procedures about picking up evidence
or testing evidence, whether they did the right number
of swatches collected, dirty evidence. This has to do
with deliberate, intentional misconduct.
And that argument just doesn't apply to
that. We think this accurately states the law. We
have revised it, cut it down to its bare bones. I
think it clearly, accurately reflects the law.
We did -- there are, in fact, specific
statutes that prohibit a police officers from filing
false reports. That's Penal Code Section 118.1.
Preparing false evidence, that's Penal Code Section
134, case of People versus Gordon which expressly says
it's not an official duty of a police officer to frame
innocent persons by planting evidence. It's clear
through an accurate statement of law.
And again, it is not affected by the
argument.
And the discussion and the ruling, I
believe Your Honor made yesterday, which was based on
your prior ruling limiting the instruction of evidence
having to do with whether proper procedures were
followed -- that's why we took the time to resubmit it
and re-edit it.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
MR. LEONARD: I submit I can never remember
what I argued yesterday.
(At 11:40 a.m., a luncheon recess
was taken until 1:30 p.m. of the
same day.)
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 22, 1997
1:35 PM
DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
(Per Cover Page)
(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)
(The following proceedings were
held in open court outside the
presence of the jury.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Couple things, Your Honor.
No. 1, there's a board in there or two that I object
to. One board has a list of missing witnesses,
missing from this trial, and on that is Mark Fuhrman.
That is violative of motion in limine No. 13.
There's a Fifth Amendment invocation, and
neither side is permitted to argue his unavailability.
I'd ask that name be stricken off the list, covered up
in some way.
That's issue No. 1.
MR. BAKER: The plaintiffs precluded him from
coming in. And forget the Fifth Amendment. They
precluded him from coming vis-a-vis the testimony
relative to the criminal trial. We had testimony
including that of Rachel Ferrara, who testified and
was -- was never crossed, and it was agreed to by the
plaintiffs, and she was put on by the prosecution in
the criminal trial and testified as a prosecution
witness.
Hence 1291(a) or 1291(b) do not apply, so
we should be able to inform the jury of the missing
Detective Mark Fuhrman.
THE COURT: Within the context of BAJI 2.02, if
that chart makes reference to witness Fuhrman in that
context, I will grant the motion.
MR. P. BAKER: The chart doesn't refer to the
Fifth Amendment. It has a name, four names, persons
who ought to be called.
THE COURT: Within 2.02 I would sustain the
objection. With regards to any additional comments as
to him whatever reasonable inferences there are from
the evidence you may comment.
MR. BAKER: All right. Thank you.
MR. PETROCELLI: He simply can't comment that
neither side attempted not to call him. He's not here
and those kind of arguments -- we tried to notice his
deposition. He took the Fifth. They noticed it. He
took the Fifth.
THE COURT: That's my ruling.
MR. PETROCELLI: Yesterday, I saw Mr. Baker
with Mr. Simpson working with the gloves. I see the
gloves up there, and I don't know what Mr. Baker has
in mind, but I would absolutely object to any attempt
during closing to put any gloves on Mr. Simpson.
That