PUBLIC NOTICE RE: ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT COPY CERTIFIABILITY
WARNING: This electronic transmission of the official transcript of proceedings
is deemed certifiable only to the extent that the reader of this message is
viewing a first-generation authorized transmission. All subsequent
transmissions of this first-generation electronic copy and all copies printed
therefrom are unauthorized and non-certifiable, and the Official Reporter
assumes no responsibility for consequences stemming from the use of such
unauthorized non-certifiable copy. Responsibility for such consequences is that
of the person or organization whose use of a non-certifiable unauthorized
transmission or printed copy creates those consequences, including civil
liability arising therefrom. No portion of this file may be redistributed or
resold without permission, pursuant to California Government Code Section
69954(d). Authorized certifiable transcript copies are protected by digital
signature. If you would like to purchase an official transcript of the
proceedings, contact NetCourt, 1316 Harding Place, Charlotte, North Carolina,
28204 or click here.
REPORTER'S DAILY TRANSCRIPT NOVEMBER 6, 1996 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SHARON RUFO, ET AL., N/A, PLAINTIFFS, VS. ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1996 8:45 A.M. DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE (REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER) (Jurors resume their respective seats.) (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury.) THE COURT: Morning, ladies and gentlemen. JURORS: Morning, Your Honor. THE COURT: You may proceed. MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, we call as our next witness, Michael Romano. THE COURT: Mike Romano or Romero? MR. GELBLUM: Romano, R-O-M-A-N-O. MICHAEL ROMANO, called as a witness on behalf of Plaintiffs, was duly sworn and testified as follows: THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? THE WITNESS: I do. THE CLERK: Please be seated. THE COURT: Out of curiosity, how come this name isn't on the list you gave me? MR. PETROCELLI: Should have been. THE COURT: I've been provided. MR. GELBLUM: It might be lower down on the list other than first of these of this group of witnesses. He's the only one we have live. I thought we'd get him in and out quickly for his convenience. THE COURT: I'd appreciate it if you'd give me an updated list that is accurate. THE CLERK: Sir, if you would, please state and spell your name for the record. THE WITNESS: Mike Romano, M-I-K-E, R-O-M-A-N-O. THE CLERK: Thank you. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GELBLUM: Q. Morning, Mr. Romano. A. Morning. Q. How are you? A. Fine. Q. You here under subpoena? A. Yes. Q. Did you ask to come here today? A. No, sir. Q. Are you a freelance photographer, sir? A. Yes, I am. Q. When you take pictures as a freelance photographer, you try to sell them? A. Yes, I do. Q. And did you do that same -- were you also a freelance photographer in January 1994? A. Yes, sir, I was. Q. Do you recall where you were on January 15 1994? A. I was in Buffalo, New York. Q. And what were you doing there? A. Covering a football game. Q. Who was playing? A. Los Angeles Raiders and the Buffalo Bills. Q. While you were there, did you take any photographs of Mr. Simpson, the defendant in this case? A. Yes, I did. Q. Was that -- at what point in the game was that? A. That was after the game, in the press room. Q. Press room? A. Yes, sir. Q. About what time was that? A. After the game, was possibly about 4:00, 4:15. Q. I'd like to show you Exhibit 660. MR. GELBLUM: Put it on the Elmo, please. (Mr. Foster complies.) MR. GELBLUM: Would you turn and look at the screen, sir. Would you dim the lights, please. Back it up a little bit, Steve. (Mr. Foster adjusts Elmo.) (The instrument herein referred to as a Photograph of Mr. Simpson with left hand wearing black glove, taken by freelance photographer Michael Romano on January 15, 1994, was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 660.) Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Do you recognize that Exhibit 660 that's on the screen, sir? A. Yes, sir. Q. What is that? A. That is one of the photographs I shot that day. Q. Okay. How far away were you from Mr. Simpson when you took that picture? A. Three, four feet. Q. Three to four feet? A. Three to four feet. Q. Do you recall what kind of lens was on your camera? A. Just a standard 15 millimeter. Q. Did you use a flash? A. Yes, I did. Q. You can see the reflection of the flash in the photo? A. Yes, I do. Q. How did you have that picture developed? A. Just through my normal photo lab. Q. Did you have any special processing? A. No, sir. Q. And did you subsequently sell that picture -- A. Yes, I did. Q. -- as part of your work as a freelance photographer? A. Yes, sir. Q. To whom did you sell it? A. I sold it to the National Enquirer. MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, I would move into evidence, Exhibit 660. THE COURT: Received. (The instrument herein referred to as a Photograph of Mr. Simpson with left hand wearing black glove, taken by freelance photographer Michael Romano on January 15, 1994, previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 660, was received in evidence.) MR. GELBLUM: Nothing further. THE COURT: Cross? MR. BLASIER: Mr. Romano -- Leave it on, please. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER: Q. Mr. Romano, this was January 15, 1994? A. Yes, sir. Q. It was how cold that day in Buffalo, New York? A. It was thirty-plus below zero. Q. And did you know if Mr. Simpson had any hand warmers in the glove? A. No, sir, I didn't. Q. How much did you sell the photo for? MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Relevance. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Do you normally sell photos of Mr. Simpson to the National Enquirer, Mr. Romano? A. No, I don't. Q. This was a one-time shot because it was Mr. Simpson and it was after he was charged with murder? MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Argumentative. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: Repeat the question, please. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) It was a one-time shot after Mr. Simpson was charged with murder, correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. And how much did you get for the photo? MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Relevance. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) How much do you usually get for a photo, Mr. Romano? A. It depends on the photo. Q. Did you get more for this photo than any other photo of Mr. Simpson? MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Relevance. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. BAKER: On what basis? THE COURT: It's not relevant. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, did you try to market that photo before you sold it? A. No, sir. Q. Did you analyze this photo before you sold it? I mean, did you take a good look at it, Mr. Romano? A. What do you mean by, did I take a good look? Q. Did you -- for example, did Mr. Simpson's fingers go to the end of the gloves in that glove (sic)? MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Calls for conclusion. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you make a determination as to whether or not that glove was a tight-fitting glove on Mr. Simpson? MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Calls for conclusion. The photo speaks for itself. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You made no -- well, did you ever even look at the picture before you sold it? A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay. And when did you sell it? A. I think it was July or August of '95, not positive. Q. After the criminal trial was ongoing, sir? A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay. MR. BAKER: Thanks. I don't have anything further. MR. GELBLUM: Nothing, Your Honor. THE COURT: You may step down. MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, next we have a series of four people, also who are photographers who took pictures of Mr. Simpson. All of them are unavailable, and all of them, we'd like to read in their criminal trial testimony. MR. BAKER: I'd object to the reading of -- there's been no showing of unavailability. There has been no showing of unavailability of Stewart West. MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, he lives in the Oakland area. And 20 -- 2025, we can use his deposition if he's more than 150 flight miles from here. It's trial testimony. MR. BAKER: Your Honor, they subpoenaed him and they have served him, and he should be here to be examined. I think that the subpoena power is in effect throughout the state. THE COURT: What is the code section we referred to earlier with regards to distances? MR. GELBLUM: I'm sorry, Your Honor; I referred to 2025, which is for depositions, Your Honor. 2025(u), I believe it is. THE COURT: Not if this witness has been subpoenaed. MR. GELBLUM: We did send him a subpoena. THE COURT: Excuse me? MR. GELBLUM: We did send him a subpoena. THE COURT: Did you send him or serve him? MR. GELBLUM: We sent him a subpoena. We contacted him by phone. He agreed to accept service; we sent it by mail, and we haven't heard back. THE COURT: Excuse me? MR. GELBLUM: We sent him -- we mailed him, after he agreed to accept the subpoena by mail, and we have not heard back from him since. MR. BAKER: There's a proof of service, Your Honor? That doesn't look like a proof of service to me. THE COURT: All right. With regards to all of the other named persons in the declaration, I'll allow the deposition. You may offer me some points and authorities as to whether or not this witness should be ordered to appear by body attachment or otherwise. MR. GELBLUM: Very good. Thank you, Your Honor. We'd like to do it similarly as we did before, with reading of the testimony. I'd like to have my colleague, Yvette Molinaro, take the stand. THE COURT: You may. (Ms. Molinaro assumed the witness stand and reads the answers from the deposition of Mark Krueger.) (Mr. Gelblum reads the questions and narrative portions of the deposition of Mark Krueger.) (Criminal exhibit numbers have been replaced with the corresponding civil case exhibit numbers by the readers.) MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, we would like to start with the witness Mark Krueger. Again, these are all witnesses who testified under oath at the criminal trial. "Q. Can you state and spell your name. "A. Mark Krueger, M-A-R-K, K-R-U-E-G-E-R. "Q. Mr. Krueger, can you tell us, are you a professional photographer? "A. No. "Q. Directing your attention to the date of December 29, 1990, on that date, can you tell us where you were? "A. Soldier Field in Chicago, Illinois. "Q. And why were you in Soldier Field in Chicago? "A. I was shooting photos for my stepfather's newspaper he's the editor of the newspaper and I went in and took shots for the paper. "Q. And what kind of shots were you taking? What were you there for? "A. Chicago Bears shots, just anything I could get that's interesting. "Q. Was that -- that was a football game? "A. Yes. "Q. The Bears versus who? "A. Kansas City Chiefs. "Q. Where exactly were you? "A. All over. "Q. Where on the field? "A. I was on the sidelines, in the end zone, probably every spot on the field." MR. GELBLUM: Put up 642, please. (The instrument herein referred to as Photograph of O.J. Simpson with right gloved hand near brow area, taken by Mr. Krueger on December 29, 1990, at Soldier Field in Chicago, Illinois, during a Chicago Bears versus Kansas City Chiefs football game, was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 642.) MR. GELBLUM: (Reading.) "Q. Showing you People's 642 -- MR. GELBLUM: Could we have the back lights. (Bailiff complies.) MR. GELBLUM: Thank you very much. That's much better. MR. GELBLUM: (Reading.) "Q. Showing you" -- MR. GELBLUM: I'm sorry. (Reading.) "Q Showing you 642-A, could you please tell me if you recognize the photograph? "A. Yes, I do. "Q. What is that? "A. A picture of O.J. Simpson at a football game, at the game I was at. "Q. Was that the photograph that you took? "A. Yes, it is. "Q. Now, does the photograph show him wearing any gloves? "A. Yes." (Continued reading as follows:) "Q. Showing you 643, can you tell us if this is an accurate enlargement of the photograph that we previously marked 642, that you took on December 29, 1990?" (The instrument herein referred to as Enlargement of Exhibit 642 taken by Mr. Krueger on December 29, 1990, at Soldier Field in Chicago, Illinois, during a Chicago Bears versus Kansas City Chiefs football game, was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 643.) MR. GELBLUM: (Reading.) "A. Yes, they look like the same ones to me." (Continued reading as follows:) "Q. Now, what color are these gloves? "A. They appear to be black to me. "Q. Do you recall what time it was that you took this photograph? "A. Not exactly. I knew it was at the end of the Bears' game. I would assume it was possibly 2:00 to 2:30 in the afternoon, Chicago time. "Q. Do you recall where you were, how far away from him you were when you took this picture? "A. Probably ten to fifteen feet. "Q. Can you describe the weather for us? "A. It was rainy, just a dark, cloudy day. It wasn't like pouring rain; it was a constant drizzle all day. (Continued reading as follows:) "Q. Now, when you had these developed, did you develop them yourself, or send them out to a lab? "A. I sent them to a photo shop, one-hour photo shop. "Q. Any special processing? "A. No." MR. GELBLUM: Nothing further, Your Honor. THE COURT: Cross? MR. BAKER: Nothing. THE COURT: Okay. MR. GELBLUM: I'd like to move in Exhibits 642 and 643, Your Honor. THE COURT: Received. (The instrument herein referred to as Photograph of O.J. Simpson with right gloved hand touching brow area, taken by Mr. Krueger on December 29, 1990, at Soldier Field in Chicago, Illinois, during a Chicago Bears versus Kansas City Chiefs football game, previously marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 642, was received in evidence.) (The instrument herein referred to as Enlargement of Exhibit 642, taken by Mr. Krueger on December 29, 1990, at Soldier Field in Chicago, Illinois, during a Chicago Bears versus Kansas City Chiefs football game, previously marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 643, was received in evidence.) MR. GELBLUM: Next witness is a gentleman by the name of Bill Renken. Would you spell your name, please. (Continued reading as follows:) "A. Bill Renken, B-I-L-L R-E-N-K-E-N. "Q. Are you a professional photographer? "A. Yes, I am. "Q. And do you have a photo lab of your own? "A. I work with a custom photo lab, Western Hills Photo, in Cincinnati. "Q. Now, directing your attention to the date of January 6, 1991, can you tell us where you were on that date? "A. I was at Riverfront Stadium, covering a playoff game between the Cincinnati Bengals and the Houston Oilers. "Q. When you say you were covering the game, where was that? "A. It was at Riverfront Stadium. "Q. In Cincinnati? "A. Cincinnati, yes. "Q. Were you covering it for the purpose of taking photographs in your professional capacity? "A. That's correct. "Q. Can you tell us where you were when you took those photographs? "A. I was on the sidelines. "Q. What sidelines were you on? "A. I was on the Bengals' side. "Q. Did you take photographs of Mr. Simpson during that game? "A. Yes, I did." MR. BAKER: Would you read it correctly, please. MR. GELBLUM: It says "of the defendant." (Reading.) "Q. Did you take photographs of the defendant during that game? "A. Yes, I did. "Q. How far away were you from him when you took those photographs? "A. I'd say approximately, roughly, ten to maybe fifteen feet away. "Q. And did you cause one of those photographs to be enlarged? "A. Yes. MR. GELBLUM: Put 641 up, please. "Q. I show you Exhibit 641, which -- THE REPORTER: What is the exhibit number, please? MR. GELBLUM: I will, in one minute, (Continued reading as follows:) "Ask you to tell us if this is the photograph you took on January 6, 1991, in Cincinnati. This is 641. "A. Yes, it does. (The instrument herein referred to as a small vertical photograph of O.J. Simpson with Boomer Esiason taken by Bill Renken January 6, 1991, in Cicinnati, Ohio, was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 641.) MR. GELBLUM: Do you have this on you? Can you put this on the Elmo. (Reading:) "Q. Does this photograph accurately depict the shot that you took? "A. Yes, it does. "Q. With respect to that particular -- did you take photographs throughout the day during that game? "A. Yes, I did. "Q. And did you take some at halftime? "A. Yes, I did. "Q. Did you also take some at the end of the game? "A. Yes, I did. "Q. Can you tell us what time this one was taken? "A. I'd say it was -- obviously, that one is a post-game interview. It could be 5:30, 6 o'clock, Cincinnati time. "Q. Can you tell us whether there was any artificial lighting when you took this photograph? "A. No, there wasn't. "Q. Did you use a flash? "A. Not on this picture." MR. GELBLUM: You can put that down. (Reading:) "Q. 644 is an 8 by 11 showing the defendant holding a microphone, turned toward his left. It's in a slightly different posture than the one that is 641. Showing you this photograph, can you tell us if there was another photograph that you took of the defendant at the Bengals game on January 6, 1991? "A. Yes, it is. (Continued reading as follows:) "Q. Now, you say you took a photograph of the defendant during halftime, as well? "A. Yes, I did. "Q. I'm going to show you a photograph that's approximately eight and a half by eleven, appears to be the defendant -- the defendant holding an umbrella. This one is a vertical photograph, Exhibit 645." (The instrument herein referred to as photograph of O.J. Simpson holding a microphone conducting interview with Boomer Esiason standing behind O.J. Simpson, taken by Bill Renken on January 6, 1991, in Cicinnati, Ohio, was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 644.) (The instrument herein referred to as Vertical photograph of O.J. Simpson holding a blue umbrella, taken by Bill Renken on January 6, 1991, in Cicinnati, Ohio, was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 645.) "MR. GELBLUM: That's 645, Your Honor. And a horizontal photograph of the defendant holding an umbrella, which is 646. (The instrument herein referred to as Horizontal photograph of O.J. Simpson holding a blue umbrella, taken by Bill Renken on January 6, 1991, in Cicinnati, Ohio, was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 646.) "Q. Are 645 and 646 photographs that you took? "A. Yes, they are. "Q. And are those accurate depictions of the photographs that you took on that date, January 6, 1991? "A. Yes they are. "Q. What color are the gloves? "A. These have a -- Brown. (Continued reading as follows:) "Q. Can you tell us first of all, with respect to this photograph 646, when was what taken during the game? "A. This was taken at halftime. "Q. How far away from him were you when you took this photograph? "A. Roughly ten to fifteen feet. "Q. Can you describe the weather? "A. Very -- rain, kind of rainy, obviously damp. "Q. Throughout the game? "A. Yes. "Q. For this photograph did you use a flash? "A. Yes, I did. "Q. Was there any artificial lighting? "A. The artificial lighting was from the TV cameras -- I mean the TV lights. "Q. You mean the lights that are on the video cameras? "A. On the video cameras. Or I'm pretty sure -- they might have had some lights that are on the field. "Q. Can you tell us what kind of camera you used? "A. I used a Nikon -- I have two Nikons, an 8000A and FA. "Q. Was there any special processing you gave to this photograph? "A. Nope. "Q. Or any of those photographs? "A. Nope. (Continued reading as follows:) "Q. Do you see what appear to be rain drops or any moisture on those gloves on 646? MR. GELBLUM: Could you zoom in on the gloves. (Mr. Foster complies.) (Reading:) "A. Yes. "Q. I'm going to show you 647." (The instrument herein referred to as photograph of O.J. Simpson wearing gloves, similar photo to exhibit 644, taken by Bill Renken on January 6, 1991 without artificial lighting, in Cicinnati, Ohio, was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 647.) "Q. Can you identify this photograph? "A. Yes. It was a picture also taken after the game that was used without a, flash. "Q. And this is another photograph of the defendant wearing those gloves at that game? "A. Yes. "Q. Was this a post-game or halftime photograph? "A. A post-game. "Q. There was no artificial lighting in this photograph? "A. Right." MR. GELBLUM: And this is how it reads in the transcript, Your Honor: (Continued reading as follows:) "Q. I have here photographs 648 through 653. These are obviously -- I'm substituting the new numbers of what's marked and shown to counsel. I'm going to show them to the witness and ask him if he recognizes it." MR. GELBLUM: Steve, could you put up one after the other, 648 through 653. MR. BAKER: Where are you reading? MR. GELBLUM: Page 45004, middle of the page. MR. GELBLUM: Is this the second one? MR. FOSTER: This is 649. MR. GELBLUM: This is 649. The last one was 648. (The instruments herein referred to as Series of photographs taken of O.J. Simpson similar photo to exhibit 644 by Bill Renken on January 6, 1991, in Cicinnati, Ohio, at a post-game interview, were marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit Nos. 648, 649, respectively.) (The instruments herein referred to as Series of photographs taken of O.J. Simpson interviewing Boomer Esiason, by Bill Renken on January 6, 1991, in Cicinnati, Ohio, at a post-game interview, were marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit Nos. 650, 651, 652, and 653, respectively.) "Q. Can you tell us whether you recognize those photographs we've just marked 648 to 653? "A. Yes. "Q. What are those photographs of? "A. Pictures of the defendant. "Q. And -- "A. During an interview, a post-game interview. "Q. Can you tell us as you review them, if these are all post-game interview photographs that you took? "A. Yes. "Q. Of the same game on January 6, 1991? "A. Yes, they are. (Continued reading as follows:) "Q. Now, are all these true and accurate prints of the photographs that you took on January 6, 1991? "A. Yes, they are." MR. GELBLUM: I'd like to move into evidence, Your Honor, 641, and then 644 through 653. THE COURT: Received. (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 641 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 644 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 645 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 646 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 647 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 648 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 649 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 650 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 651 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 652 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 653 was received in evidence.) MR. GELBLUM: Nothing further. MR. P. BAKER: Page 45024, (Reading:) "Q. Mr. Renken, good afternoon. "A. Good afternoon, sir. "Q. January '91 in Cincinnati, that's pretty -- January 1991 in Cincinnati, that's a pretty cold time of year there; isn't it? "A. Yes, it is. "Q. And at this game, was it very cold? "A. It was cold, rainy, moist. "Q. It's not unusual -- I take it, there are a lot of other people in the stadium with gloves? "A. I imagine. "Q. Brown gloves? "A. All different kinds of gloves. "Q. It's not particularly unusual to have brown gloves in the cold in the winter? "A. I assume. "Q. In fact, did you notice in the video --" MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, I apologize. There's a gap in the transcript. I apologize, Mr. Baker. There's another Exhibit to put in through this witness that he just referred to in the video. I apologize, Mr. Baker. MR. P. BAKER: Okay. MR. GELBLUM: I'm sorry. MR. BAKER: We can do it after we finish. MR. GELBLUM: He asked questions about it. That's fine if you want. MR. GELBLUM: Sorry. We're now on page 45020. (Reading:) "First of all, Mr. Renken, I'm going to ask you to look at this video and tell us if you recognize what's being -- what is depicted in it." MR. GELBLUM: Would you play the video? This is Exhibit 654. (The instrument herein referred to as a video of O.J. Simpson giving commentary was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 654.) MR. GELBLUM: I think this is during the video. (Reading:) "A. It's the defendant doing a commentary about I imagine, probably the first half scores, stats, overall commentary on the first half of the game. "Q. When you say "the game," ... (sic) what game are you referring to? "A. That was the play-off game with the Bengals versus the Oilers." MR. GELBLUM: One second, please. Stop it there. (Reading:) "Q. And where was that? "A. At River Front Stadium, Cincinnati. "Q. And is this the same game from which he took -- you previously identified still photographs that you took in exhibits 648 to 653? "A. Yes, they are. "Q. Okay. So this is the videotape of the game that we have still photographs for from you? "A. Correct. "Q. Can you tell us, noting the umbrella in the defendant's hand in this frame -- I'm sorry." (Video is rewound.) " ... In this frame, ... (sic) at what point in the game this video's shot? "A. Again, it's at half time and could be 2:45, around that area, 3 o'clock." MR. GELBLUM: Okay. Can you get to the frame where it stopped at the criminal trial. (Video tape continues playing.) MR. GELBLUM: Okay. (Reading:) "... Can -- directing your attention to the defendant's left hand holding the microphone, can you tell us if you see what appear to be rain drops on that glove? "A. Yes. "Q. Thank you." MR. GELBLUM: Continue playing. (Videotape resumes playing.) MR. GELBLUM: (Reading:) "Q. Do you see rain or what might be rain or some kind of mild snow on the hat and jacket -- what's his last name?" MR. GELBLUM: And the Court says (reading): "THE COURT: Esiason" MR. GELBLUM: E-S-I-A-S-O-N. This is at frame 5439. We'll get to that frame. Q. Do you see rain or what may be rain or some kind of mild snow on Esiason's hat? (Reading:) "A. Yes ... Yes, I do. "Q. Thank you." (Tape resumes playing.) "Q. ... (sic) Do you recognize that video clip ... (sic)? "A. Yes, I do. "Q. And that's a clip of? "A. Bengals, Oilers play-off game, January 6, 1991 at River Front Stadium in Cincinnati." MR. GELBLUM: Thank you. I apologize. MR. P. BAKER: No problem. Do you want me to start over, Ms. Malinaro. MR. GELBLUM: I would move into evidence, 654, the video. THE COURT: Received. (The instrument herein referred to as a video of O.J. Simpson giving commentary was received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 654.) MR. P. BAKER: (Reading:) "Q. Mr. Renken, good afternoon. "A. Good afternoon, sir. "Q. January '91 in Cincinnati, that's a pretty cold time of year there, isn't it? "A. Yes, it is. "Q. And at this game, was it very cold? "A. It was cold, rainy, moist. "Q. It's not unusual -- I take it there are a lot of other people in the stadium with gloves? "A. I imagine. "Q. Brown gloves? "A. All different kinds of gloves. "Q. It's not particularly unusual to have brown gloves in the cold in winter? "A. I assume. "Q. In fact, did you notice in the video that everybody that was walking around in the background behind Mr. Simpson was also wearing gloves? "A. I didn't really pay that much attention, but I assume in that climate of weather, individuals wear gloves of any nature. "Q. Now, just how cold was it that particular day? "A. It could have been in the 20's, early 30's. "Q. Did you at any time, get close enough to Mr. Simpson to determine whether or not he had a heat pack in the palm of his hand -- in the palm of his gloves? "A. No, I couldn't tell. "Q. You know what I mean by heat pack? "A. Yes. I'm familiar. "Q. Have you seen those used at football games to keep your hands warm? "A. Sort of. "Q. Now, you said you notified the prosecution that you had pictures, when, for the first time. "MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Irrelevant. "THE COURT: Overruled. "THE WITNESS: Do I need to answer that? "Q. Yeah. "A. It was June, around 26th. "Q. June 26? "A. June around the 26th." MR. GELBLUM: Line 24, I think. (Ms. Molinaro continues reading:) "A. Around June 26th, Jack Webster, former employee of Euro photo, sent out a 20 by 30 poster print. "Q. ... (sic) I think you indicated that some of those pictures are at the beginning of the game and some are at the end of the game. Is that what you indicated? ""A. Half time and at the end of the game, right. "Q. Do you have any from the beginning? "A. No, I don't. "Q. All right. Now, the ones up here, which one is from half time and which one is at the end of the game? "A. The ones from half time, sir, are the horizontal, him holding the blue umbrella. "Q. All right. The first one of your pictures on the left? "A. Yes." "Q. And the one from after the game is the one on the right? "A. Yes." (Photos are displayed.) "Q. ... (sic) was it raining during this whole game? "A. Pretty much. "Q. Did Mr. Simpson have an umbrella most of the time when he wasn't on camera? "A. There were times I remember seeing him out without it in the runway area, but then, when they did the interviews, except for the postgame, there was no umbrella used. But the half time there was. "Q. Okay. Now, you notice in the picture that you indicated is from the half time -- you can come down here and look at it a little more carefully if you'd like -- around the wrist area of the gloves, they appear to be bunched up like there's extra leather. MR. GELBLUM: Objection." MR. GALBLUM: Calls for conclusion. MR. BAKER: Is that objection in the transcript? MR. GELBLUM: No. MR. BAKER: Then I object to his objection. MR. GELBLUM: You can make new objections. MR. BAKER: I don't think so. Not when they offer the deposition or the prior -- Prior testimony. They can't offer an objection to it. MR. GELBLUM: I didn't offer this portion, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. BAKER: Your Honor, may I be heard on that? THE COURT: You may. MR. BAKER: Thank you. (The following proceedings were held at the bench:) MR. BAKER: Objection was first of all overruled in the criminal court. Second of all, he asked this witness for exactly the same conclusions. He's asked him about now. He asked about rain drops. He asked this witness through the deposition, or the trial transcript, rather, to make the very same conclusions that we're asking this witness to make. And hence, there's no basis that this witness doesn't have any foundation for -- plus when they offer the prior trial transcript, it's my understanding that they can't object when it hasn't been objected to. In this case, it's been overruled. MR. GELBLUM: We can offer new objections. from anything. I don't know of anything at all that prevents us from doing that. It's evidentiary issues. Secondly, we did not ask for this kind of conclusion about "the glove was bunched up." Thirdly, they could have objected. Just because they didn't object, doesn't mean we can't object and the objection would be improper. THE COURT: Well, you cite me the code section. MR. GELBLUM: Which code section? THE COURT: Cite me a code section. MR. GELBLUM: I'm not aware of a code section. I'm not aware of code section. THE COURT: You're not aware of a code section dealing with the use of depositions? MR. GELBLUM: This is not deposition. This is prior testimony from the criminal case, Your Honor. THE COURT: Why are you calling it a deposition? MR. GELBLUM: I wasn't, Your Honor. This is prior -- I thought I made it clear. This is the testimony. I said to the jury, this is testimony offered at the criminal trial. MR. PETROCELLI: 1291 of the evidence code. MR. GELBLUM: That's prior testimony. I apologize if I said something to mislead you. THE COURT: I think this testimony is being offered under 1291 of the evidence code. MR. GELBLUM: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. And 1291 says, subdivision B says the admissibility of former testimony under the section is subject to the same limitations and objections as though the declarant were testifying at the hearing, except that former testimony offered under this section is not subject to 1) objections, 2) the form of the question, which was not made at the time the former testimony was given. And objections with regards to competency. MR. GELBLUM: This objection was made. MR. BAKER: It was not. The objection was made, I think, from -- you want to look at it? MR. GELBLUM: It wasn't the form. It was relevance. MR. BAKER: "Photograph speaks for itself," and I think under the -- this is not an objection that can be well taken. MR. PETROCELLI: The objection was as to form. THE COURT: Wait a minute. Let me read it. I can't chew gum and walk at the same time. (There was a pause in the proceedings to allow the Court to read the testimony.) MR. GELBLUM: I think -- THE COURT: Will you stop it. Let me read. (Pause in the proceedings.) THE COURT: After looking at the rest of the testimony, what you're arguing about, I don't know. I'm going to overrule. There's nothing of consequence that follows. Overruled. MR. GELBLUM: I have an extra set of the testimony. Would you like -- THE COURT: Not really. Okay. MR. P. BAKER: I'm going to read the question back. (Reading:) Now, you notice in the picture that you've indicated is from the half time -- you can come down here and look at it a little more carefully, if you'd like to -- around the wrist area of the gloves, they appear to be bunched up like there's extra leather." THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me can you tell me what number that is, the board, for the record? (Mr. P. Baker displays Exhibit No. 646.) MR. P. BAKER: (Reading:) "Q. Did you notice that? "A. Sure. "Q. And that's consistent with what you saw that day? "A. Well, I wasn't looking at his gloves. I wasn't looking at how they were bound up. I was just shooting the ... (sic) I was not so much shooting the gloves. I was shooting the individual at the time. "Q. Now, take a look at the one from the post game. Do you see that it's bunched up around the wrist area, there's some extra leather?" MR. P. BAKER: 606 is displayed. 606 -- 641. 641 is actually displayed. (Exhibit 641 is displayed.) MR. P. BAKER: (Reading:) "Q. Would you take a look at after the game? "A. Uh-huh." (Continues reading on page 45028, line 18:) "Q. Now, would you like to look at your other pictures and tell me if they appear to be consistent with the ones you've just talked about on the board? "A. Yes, they are, sir. "Q. Okay. And those are all consistent with what you've told us about? "A. Yes. "Q. Now, I think you indicated that the video was -- the first part of the video was half time? "A. Yes. "Q. About 2:45 I think you said? "A. About that time." MR. P. BAKER: Okay. Could we put the video up at frame 544? (Video at frame 544 displayed.) MR. P. BAKER: (Reading:) "Q. See the time on that tape Mr. Renken? "A. Yes, sir. "Q. That's not half time, is it? "A. That's not half time? "Q. That's the beginning of the game, isn't it, before the game? "A. ... (sic) Could be. It's -- Uh, oh, I see. Okay. The five -- I'm sorry. I didn't understand what -- the 544. Okay. That's the actual time of footage, right? "Q. You're the one that identified the videotape. You tell me. "A. That's correct. "Q. What? "A. ... (sic) That was -- that was quite awhile. "Q. The video indicates it was 12:03, doesn't it? "A. Excuse me? "Q. The video indicates 12:03, doesn't it? "A. Yes. "Q. And that's the pre-game, isn't it? "A. Oh, okay? Excuse me. That was the pre-game interview." (Continues reading as follows:) "Q. Does the video here, the right hand area, the wrist, look the same as your pictures? "A. Yes, they do. MR. P. BAKER: "That's all I have." MR. GELBLUM: Nothing further. The next witness, Your Honor, is Kevin Schott, S-C-H-O-T-T. (Ms. Molinaro assumed the witness stand and reads the answers from the deposition of Kevin Schott.) (Mr. Gelblum reads the questions and narrative portions of the deposition of Kevin Schott.) "THE CLERK: State and spell your first and last names for the record. "THE WITNESS: Kevin J. Schott, K-E-V-I-N, middle initial J., Schott, S-C-H-O-T-T. "Q. Mr. Schott, can you tell us what you do for a living? "A. I'm a teacher. "Q. And what do you teach? "A. I teach photography. "Q. And where is this that you teach photography? "A. Orchard Park High School. "Q. Where is that? "A. In Orchard Park, New York. "Q. New York? "A. Correct." "Q. All right. Now, directing your attention to the date of November 21, 1993, can you tell us where you were on that date? "A. I was at Rich Stadium in Orchard Park, New York. "Q. And for what purpose were you at that stadium? "A. To take photographs for my students. "Q. Was there a game going on at that time? "A. Correct. "Q. What game was that? "A. Buffalo Bills against the Indianapolis Colts. "Q. Where did that take place? "A. At Rich Stadium. "Q. In which state? "A. New York. "Q. Is that up state New York? "A. Western New York. "Q. Now, while you were there, did you take photographs? "A. Yes, I did. "Q. I show you Exhibit 655, and ask you if this is the photograph that you sent to the District Attorney's office?" (Exhibit 655 is displayed on Screen.) "A. It is a photo that I sent to my lawyer. "Q. Okay. Is that the photograph that you took at the game on November 21, 1993 in New York? "A. Yes, it is." (Reading continued as follows:) "Q. Showing you these photographs" -- and that's 655 which we have on the screen now, 656, and 657 -- "can you tell us if you recognize these photographs? "A. Yes, I do. "Q. How do you recognize them? "A. They're photographs that I took at the game. "Q. Can you tell us, where you were when you took these photographs? "A. I was on the sideline of the Buffalo Bills. I was on the Bill's side. "Q. So you were actually on the field? "A. Correct. "Q. Can you tell us how far away you were from the defendant when you took these pictures? "A. I would say approximately 10 to 14 feet. "Q. Do you recall what kind of camera you used? "A. A Canon EO630. "Q. Did you use a flash? "A. No, I did not. "Q. Can you tell us what time of day it was when you took these photographs? "A. Approximately 11:30. "Q. And what were the lighting conditions? What was the weather like? "A. Relatively sunny. I believe it was a little cool towards the morning." (Continues reading as follows:) "Q. Did you send these photographs out for development at a lab? "A. The film to be developed. "Q. I'm sorry. Yes. "A. Yes. I sent the film out to be developed. "Q. All right. Was there any special processing that you requested on this film? "A. No." MR. GELBLUM: Okay. Your Honor, I'd move into evidence exhibits 655, 656, and 657. THE COURT: Received. (The instrument herein referred to as front view photo of O.J. Simpson with glove on right hand holding microphone was marked for identification and received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 655.) (The instrument herein referred to as close-up photo of O.J. Simpsons' gloved right hand was marked for identification andreceivedd in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 656.) (The instrument herein referred to as enlarged, side-view photo of O.J. Simpson with glove on right hand was marked for identification and received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 657.) MR. GELBLUM: Nothing further. MR. P. BAKER: 45044. (Reading:) "Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Schott? "A. Good afternoon. "Q. How are you doing? "A. Fine, thank you. "Q. November of '93 is when these pictures were taken, correct? "A. Correct. "Q. In Buffalo? "A. In Buffalo. "Q. Do you live in Buffalo? "A. I live in Orchard Park. "Q. Is that near Buffalo? "A. It's near Buffalo. "Q. November in the Buffalo area generally isn't cool. It's generally very, very cold. Was this an unusually warm day or a cold day? "A. I'm not a weatherman, but in Buffalo in November, we could have some days where they start out cool. For example, today I believe it's getting warmer, and the afternoons can warm up. "Q. Okay. But November -- I mean, we're just in early September? "A. Correct. But in November, you could have some nice days where it's cool in the morning and then it will warm up. "Q. Okay. How many people were in the stadium roughly, if you know? Was it sold out? "A. My best guess is yes, it was but I don't know that for a fact. "Q. A lot of people wearing gloves? "A. I don't believe so. I wasn't looking for that. "Q. Okay. So you don't know? "A. I really don't know. "Q. Is there anything particularly unusual about wearing gloves on that day? "A. No. "Q. Do you have men's gloves? "A. Yes, I do. "Q. Now are these the only pictures that you took? "A. No, they're not. "Q. All right. And where are the other pictures? ... (sic) I meant that afternoon of Mr. Simpson? "A. Of Mr. Simpson? "Q. Yes. "A. I believe the District Attorney has what I printed up." MR. P. BAKER: And where are the other pictures? (Reading:) "Q. Those are the ones you've identified here in court today and it's actually only two different pictures, is it? Am I correct in that? "A. Correct. "Q. Now, I think you indicated you had a lawyer? "A. Yes, I do. "Q. Dealing with these pictures? "A. Yes, I do. "Q. When did you send the pictures that you took of Mr. Simpson to the prosecution?" MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Irrelevant. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. P. BAKER: Down at the bottom of the page (reading): "A. I talked to my friend, who happens to be my lawyer, and I believe it was somewhere between June 23 and June 26. "Q. Of this year? "A. Of this year, 1995. "Q. Did you try to sell them to Inside_Edition before you sent them to the prosecution? "A. I did not try to sell them to Inside_Edition. "Q. Did your attorney, on your behalf, try to sell them? "A. I don't believe he did either. I'm not sure. "Q. Was contact made with Inside_ Edition to try and negotiate the sale of these pictures? "A. It may have been. I don't know. "Q. Did you authorize him to do that? "A. No, I did not. "Q. Do you have any knowledge of your attorney trying to sell these pictures on your behalf?" THE COURT: I'll sustain my own objection to that. It's getting irrelevant. MR. P. BAKER: Okay. Page 45048, down in the middle of the page, "who is your lawyer?" MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Irrelevant. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. P. BAKER: That's all I have. MR. GELBLUM: Nothing further. And that's it. That's it for these witnesses, Your Honor. THE COURT: I'm ready to rule on West. MR. GELBLUM: Okay. THE COURT: Okay. Objection sustained. Witness served within the jurisdiction. This is -- he is not unavailable under 240 of the evidence code. MR. GELBLUM: We'll try to bring him in, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. KELLY: Next witness, Judge, or do you want to break. THE COURT: Take ten minute recess. Ladies and gentlemen, don't talk about the case, don't form or express any opinion. (Recess.) (Jurors resume their respective seats.) (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury.) MR. KELLY: Your Honor, we'd like to call our next witness, Richard Rubin. Judge, well, he's on his way. Could we approach? THE COURT: Okay. MR. KELLY: Judge, this witness, Richard Rubin, was a former employee, the general manager, and VP of Aris, the manufacturer of this glove. We're putting him on the stand to discuss the characteristics of this particular glove, to identify the glove, some of the photographs that were just put into evidence, and to discuss the manufacture and et cetera, the crime scene photos. And I don't want to be put in the position where I -- where on cross, Mr. Baker may ask for a demonstration, or put up on the Elmo, photographs or video from the criminal trial of Mr. Simpson's deposition. And I just don't want that put to the jury without any notice, because once that's done, there's no way to get away from that. We certainly do not intend to approach that on our direct case, Your Honor. MR. BAKER: Your Honor, they have listed this guy as an expert. And I don't think you can play hide the ball with every witness. They played it with about 15 others so far. Whatever the number is, you can't play hide the ball with experts. I get to cross-examine on full breadth of his experience. And he was called back in the criminal trial for the express purpose, after the gloves didn't fit, and testified relative to that. And he is an alleged expert on these gloves. And I think I am entitled to a full and complete cross-examination, including the video of Mr. Simpson, those gloves not fitting. MR. KELLY: Judge, first of all, that's only one man's opinion of whether they fit or not. But secondly, that was from the criminal trial, Mr. Simpson -- THE COURT: If you're offering this man as an expert, certainly that's within the cross-examination. MR. KELLY: I'm not questioning the bounds of the cross-examination; it's the demonstration part, the videotape that might pop up on the screen. First of all, Your Honor, there was -- at the criminal case, he was not subject to cross-examination. It was done under questionable controls. We don't know whether his weight has changed, whether his hand size has changed; we don't know any of those things. We have no control over it. It was not put on for purposes -- THE COURT: If you're going to ask about fit -- MR. PETROCELLI: We're not. MR. KELLY: We're not. THE COURT: What are you going to ask him? MR. KELLY: He's going to be identifying the photographs of Mr. Simpson, identifying the gloves he's wearing in there, and identifying the crime-scene gloves, also, in terms of the manufacture, make, model, style, size, whether they're a pair or not, things like that. THE COURT: With the idea of what? MR. KELLY: Hooking them up to the receipts, Your Honor, that we put into evidence yesterday. THE COURT: With the idea of what? MR. KELLY: To suggest that he owned these gloves. THE COURT: Well, but "doesn't fit" have something to do with it? MR. PETROCELLI: He can't -- MR. KELLY: He can't -- go ahead. MR. PETROCELLI: You can't -- THE COURT: If you open it up, he's going to cross-examine. MR. PETROCELLI: That's what we're here to find out. He cannot put on in this case a videotape that's not in the official record. A camera -- videotape from Court TV or image of Mr. Simpson trying on gloves in the criminal case, it's hearsay as to this case. This expert's not relying on that. He can -- he can ask -- THE COURT: He's not -- I'm sure he's not relying on it. Mr. Baker wants to cross-examine. MR. PETROCELLI: He can cross-examine this expert about his observations in the courtroom, but he can't play the TV coverage of that event. And I think under 352, as well as the hearsay rule, it's not proper. Your Honor, there was a lot of controversy surrounding how he put the gloves on. He had latex gloves underneath those in the criminal case. We don't want to get into that in this case. MR. BAKER: But -- MR. PETROCELLI: You can cross-examine him fully. You can't bring in TV coverage. MR. BAKER: Yes, I can. MR. PETROCELLI: No, you can't, any more than I can bring in TV coverage of witnesses who testified. In the criminal trial, Mr. Simpson was not subject to cross-examination. THE COURT: There is no cross-examination; it's a visual depiction of him trying on gloves, period. There's no testimony. MR. PETROCELLI: He can testify as to what he saw. But, Your Honor, I think it's highly inappropriate to let him play television coverage from another trial. And also, Mr. Simpson -- THE COURT: You showed pictures of him at football games with gloves on. MR. PETROCELLI: Those are authenticated by independent witnesses. THE COURT: I don't have any problem with authenticating those glove pictures. Do you? MR. PETROCELLI: We think it's highly prejudicial and hearsay to put this guy up in front of this jury to go through a dog and pony show of how other lawyers decided to make him try on gloves. THE COURT: You put him on -- MR. PETROCELLI: We're -- THE COURT: -- I'm going to allow him to -- MR. PETROCELLI: You're not going to -- THE COURT: -- to be cross-examined. MR. PETROCELLI: We're going to ask him -- to ask him to identify in the photos. THE COURT: No; you want to connect the gloves up with the defendant. MR. PETROCELLI: Absolutely. THE COURT: Fine. I think fit is part of it. MR. PETROCELLI: We have no -- THE COURT: Yes -- MR. PETROCELLI: Why should he show a video of what happened in that court case be played in the trial? THE COURT: What happened? MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, he even -- he had latex gloves underneath. That wasn't a control. THE COURT: That's something you can establish on your examination, on your redirect. MR. PETROCELLI: We vigorously object to this, Your Honor. THE COURT: Well, your objection is noted. MR. PETROCELLI: I think it's highly improper to poison this jury when what happened in that case. It's hearsay, in addition, to have him get up in front of this jury -- THE COURT: It's appropriate cross-examination. You're putting on an expert for the purpose of connecting the defendant to this glove; and I think the defense has to have a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine everything, including this purported demonstration. MR. PETROCELLI: He can cross him on that, but why play the video? THE COURT: So we can see it. What's better than seeing it? MR. PETROCELLI: Because we had nothing to do with how those gloves were put on, nor did this expert here, either. THE COURT: I don't think that's relevant. MR. PETROCELLI: Oh, Your Honor, I disagree with that. Very respectfully, I think this is highly prejudicial to our case. THE COURT: That's part of your case? MR. PETROCELLI: Not what this these criminal lawyers did is not part of our case. You're going to turn us into -- I'm not going to mention anything on the record beyond what I've said. THE COURT: All I'm saying is that the visual depiction of what Mr. Simpson did with the gloves is an appropriate part of the cross-examination, where you are offering a witness trying to connect up the glove to Simpson. MR. KELLY: Judge -- MR. PETROCELLI: I can't make my argument any more clear. THE COURT: Well, I can't make my ruling any clearer. MR. PETROCELLI: Judge, could we take ten minutes? Because -- MR. BREWER: Yeah, we need to talk about this. THE COURT: Excuse me? MR. KELLY: Could we take a few minutes? THE COURT: Mr. Baker, they're still talking. MR. BAKER: I'm sorry. THE COURT: If you don't want to be part of it, that's okay. MR. BAKER: No. I thought we just -- I apologize, sir. I thought we finished. THE COURT: They don't want to go away. MR. PETROCELLI: Better off staying back. I haven't said a word. THE COURT: All right. Say what you said in his absence. MR. PETROCELLI: Your ruling -- THE COURT: Wait a minute. He said something in his absence. MR. PETROCELLI: Say it again. MR. KELLY: All I asked was for ten or fifteen minutes at this time to discuss it. MR. BAKER: Fine. MR. PETROCELLI: It's your ruling that he can play the video of the criminal trial? THE COURT: My ruling is if you offered this witness to testify as to the gloves, and in an effort to connect the defendant up with the gloves, by definition, the question of whether or not the glove fit him has to be part of the connection. And that's an area that the defense has a right to cross-examine about. And the cross-examination may include any demonstration, physical depiction of Mr. Simpson allegedly trying on the gloves. And that's part of the cross-examination. MR. PETROCELLI: Can we have a ruling through our witness he can't put the gloves on his client during this phase? THE COURT: I will make this ruling: If Mr. Simpson wants to try on the gloves, he's going to have to try it on without latex gloves. MR. PETROCELLI: Can we have him putting the gloves on out of the presence? THE COURT: I'm not going to make him put on the gloves. MR. PETROCELLI: We don't want to, either. We want a ruling if he is, are you going to permit him to put on gloves in this phase of the examination in our case? THE COURT: Only if he puts it on without latex. MR. PETROCELLI: You plan to have him do that? THE COURT: I don't think it's a fair depiction, a fair cross-examination. To that extent, I agree with you. But nevertheless, that's part of the physical evidence on which the defense can cross-examine, and -- MR. PETROCELLI: I would request that if you do decide to put the gloves on, in addition to no latex, that they be put on out of the presence of the jury, and that he can show the jury the gloves on his hand, but not struggling -- not struggling to get the gloves on, Your Honor. MR. BAKER: No. MR. PETROCELLI: We have no control over that. If he wants to do that in his case when he puts his client on, that's one thing; he doesn't have to do that in our case. He wants to cross-examine the witness, that's fine, but not going to have his client showing up in the middle of our case and put on the gloves under circumstances we don't control. THE COURT: Okay. We'll cross that bridge when we get to it. MR. PETROCELLI: You'll give us fair warning? MR. BAKER: Of course. MR. KELLY: Can we take 15 minutes, Judge? THE COURT: Go to your room. (Indicating to jury.) (Laughter.) THE COURT: It will be about 15 minutes. (Jurors resume their respective seats.) (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury.) THE CLERK: Please raise your right hand. RICHARD RUBIN, called as a witness on behalf of Plaintiffs, was duly sworn and testified as follows: THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? THE WITNESS: I do. THE CLERK: Thank you. Please be seated. THE WITNESS: Good morning, THE CLERK: Sir, would you please state an spell your name for the record. THE WITNESS: Richard Rubin, R-U-B-I-N. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KELLY: Q. Morning, Mr. Rubin. A. Good morning. Q. Mr. Rubin, are you presently employed? A. Yes, I am. Q. And where are you employed? A. I work for Westport Corporation, a manufacturer of small leather goods, in the New York area. Q. How long have you been employed there? A. Six years. Q. Prior to that, were you employed somewhere else? A. Yes, I was. Q. Where was that? A. At Aris Isotoner, Inc., in New York City. Q. And what type of company is Aris Isotoner? A. It's a glove manufacturer and distribution organization. Q. And approximately what time did you leave Aris' employ? A. In August of 1990. Q. And when you left there in August of 1990, what position did you hold with Aris? A. I was vice-president and general manager. Q. And how long had you worked for Aris up to that point? A. Little over 14 years. Q. And as vice-president/general manager, what basically were your duties and responsibilities at Aris during that time period? A. My primary responsibility was the men's glove division, and my secondary responsibility was leather manufacturing in the raw material and leather manufacturing and the finished product for both men's and ladies'. Q. Were you familiar with basically every aspect in terms of the styling, manufacture, and final production marketing of the gloves made by Aris? A. Yes, I was. Q. Okay. And getting more specific now, are you familiar with the Aris men's leather light glove? A. Yes, I am. Q. Okay. And could you describe that particular glove for me in general terms, first of all? A. In the most general terms, the uniqueness of the glove is the fact that the leather is approximately 30 percent lighter than men's weight leather, ten percent heavier than ladies' weight leather. It's actually about five millimeters in thickness and it has a very unusual stitch pattern that puts the gloves together, known as a Brossar stitch. Q. Before we go any further, how would you describe this glove, once again in general terms, in terms of top of the line, middle-market type item? A. It's a real top-of-the-line product. Q. Would you consider it a dressy glove? A. It is a dress glove. Q. And what colors was this particular glove, the Aris men's leather light, made in, say, 1990? A. Black, brown, medium brown, which was called mink, and gray. Q. Okay. And what sizes? A. Small, medium, large, and extra large. Q. Okay. Now, this Aris men's leather light was manufactured by Aris; is that correct? A. Yes, it was. Q. Okay. And where was that manufactured? Where was -- where was the manufacturing taking place, actually? A. For that glove, it was Metro Manila. Q. And in what country? A. Philippines. Q. Okay. Were there any particular years in which this Aris men's leather light glove was manufactured? A. It started in manufacturing in 1983, and commenced manufacturing with that stitch pattern in 1992. Q. Okay. And was there anybody in particular that this glove was manufactured for? A. It was manufactured exclusively for Bloomingdale's Department Stores, New York City-based. Q. When you say "manufactured exclusively," what do you mean by that? A. Bloomingdale's, being a store of its caliber, they wanted to separate themselves from competition, so they wanted a little bit higher quality product that they could advertise that was exclusively theirs. It made them, you know, just really feel that they were more important in that segment of the industry, and they, you know, supported it by buying quite a bit of it. Q. Okay. Mr. Rubin, before we go on, I want to go back to one thing. You indicated there was a particular stitch unique to this glove that we're talking about, the Aris men's leather light glove? A. The Brossar stitch. Q. Do you know what year they started utilizing this stitch? A. In this style or in any style? Q. In any style. A. Possibly over 100 years ago it was used in the production of gloves in France. But to my knowledge, at Aris, it had not really been used in a men's glove up until about 1983. Q. Did there come a time that the stitch you're referring to in 1983 was subsequently changed in terms of the manufacture of that particular glove? A. Yes. At the end of '91 beginning of '92. Q. So, I believe earlier, you had stated that that particular stitch started being utilized. MR. BAKER: I move to strike "relative to when that stitch was changed." There is no foundation. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. KELLY) You stated earlier, I don't know, that you realized they started utilizing that Brossar stitch in 1992? A. '82. Q. '82. Okay. And there came a time later on, that stitch -- they started using a different stitch. In what year was that? A. '92. Q. Okay. Now, I want to direct your attention to 1990, specifically. Mr. Rubin, first of all, could you just tell me how many gloves -- how many pairs of gloves, total, across the nation, Aris Isotoner manufactured and shipped for sale that year? A. Over four million pair. Q. Okay. And in 1990, did Aris still have this exclusive relationship with Bloomingdale's you spoke of? A. Yes, they did. Q. So all the Aris men's light leather gloves made by Aris were only sold in Bloomingdale's; is that right? A. That's right. Q. And focusing on 1990, could you tell me how many pair of the Aris men's leather light gloves were shipped to Bloomingdale's for sale? A. It was approximately 10,000 pair. Q. Okay. And could you tell me, staying with 1990 still, approximately how many of those 10,000 pair were in the brown color? A. Approximately 3600. Q. And taking this one step farther still, how many of those brown Aris men's leather light gloves were in an extra-large size, shipped to Bloomingdale's? A. Approximately 300. Q. And from, you know, out of those approximately 300 brown extra large pair of gloves shipped to Bloomingdale's for sale in 1990, approximately how many of those pairs were actually sold? A. Between 200 and 240 pairs. Q. Okay. Can you tell me what was the largest size Aris men's leather light glove that was sold in 1990? A. Extra large. Q. Didn't come bigger than that, did it? A. No, it did not. Q. Okay. Now, in talking about this exclusive arrangement, Bloomingdale's -- MR. KELLY: I'm sorry, Your Honor. Q. (BY MR. KELLY) In speaking of this exclusive arrangement Bloomingdale's had with Aris, you mentioned it were only sold in the Bloomingdale's Department Stores? A. That's correct. Q. In 1990, do you recall where those Bloomingdale's Department Stores were generally located? A. There were 13 of them, the majority being in the metro New York/New Jersey area. There was one store that opened up in Chicago that year. Q. And could you tell me in 1990 where the closest Bloomingdale's was relative to Los Angeles? A. Chicago. Q. None in between? A. No. Q. Okay. And there wasn't any in Los Angeles? A. Not at that point in time. Q. Do you know if Bloomingdale's ever opened in Los Angeles? A. I think they opened a store last week here. Q. Okay. Now, before, when we were discussing your familiarity with the Aris men's leather light glove, we talked about the colors and sizes that it comes in, correct? A. Yes. Q. And you also indicated a familiarity with the specific design and manufacture of that glove, also? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Now, could you, in more detail if possible, describe in 1990 the style and manufacture of the men's Aris leather light glove? A. Well, the two most distinctive features were the Brossar stitches, which were extremely tight and close, approximately 22 to 24 stitches to the inch. And the second most visible characteristic was the blind hem, which was very much in vogue, and still is in vogue in ladies' gloves, but very rare in men's gloves. And once you go past those two, you get a little more traditional. You have three needle points on the back, and you have a palm vent on the palm side to help pull it on. And then another very unique characteristic was the lining being extra lightweight. It was a -- one single thread of cashmere yarn knitted on a ten-gauge machine, which made the entire glove very thin and very slender looking. Q. What about the gauge of the leather itself? A. And the very lightweight leather, being 5.5 millimeters. Q. And most of these characteristics, are these things that you would be able to identify by looking at the glove? A. Yes. Q. And could you tell me whether these particular gloves were designed to fit in a specific way? A. They were designed to fit skin tight, be very slender. Q. And the gloves that were being sold in 1990 in the Bloomingdale's Department Stores, when would they have been manufactured? A. In the late fall: November, December of 1989; in the spring, once, of 1990. Q. And the characteristics that you just attributed to these gloves, that held true for all those gloves manufactured in 1990, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Did there come a time that any of these characteristics that you just mentioned previously did change? A. They changed the stitching from a Brossar stitching to a -- what is called a half pique stitch in 1992. Q. Is the half PK stitch something you're able to visibly identify by looking at the glove? A. It's very distinctive. Q. Would it be fair to say you would be able to, in effect, date the manufacture of the glove, at least by examining that stitch? A. Yes, I would. Q. Okay. Now, with regard to the extra large gloves, is there a standard approximate length of these gloves when they're manufactured? MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I think that's a contradiction of terms. In those two questions there are two words, "standard" and "approximate." It's vague and ambiguous. THE COURT: You understand the question? MR. KELLY: I'll rephrase it, Judge. Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Is there -- with the extra large Aris gloves, is there a standard length of that glove for the extra large? A. In the manufacturing process, there is a pattern; and if it came out perfectly, it would be around ten and three-eighths inches long. Q. Is there usually some variation on that length? A. Every piece of leather will have a little bit different flexibility and elasticity to it, so there can be a variance. But the standard would be ten and three-eighths in a finished product. MR. KELLY: Your Honor, if I might hand these to the witness. THE COURT: Okay. Q. (BY MR. KELLY) I'm going to ask you to look at these two items. And one of them is 129 and one of them is 204. (Witness reviews exhibits.) THE WITNESS: Do you want me to look at them through the bag, or do you want me to take them out of the bag? MR. KELLY: Is it all right if opens the bag and takes them out, Your Honor? THE COURT: It's all right with me. (Witness opens bag and removes glove.) THE REPORTER: Excuse me. Is there a number? May I have that number? MR. BAKER: May we ask the witness not to pull the gloves. THE COURT: Don't pull the gloves. THE WITNESS: The number on the right hand is 164-A. MR. PETROCELLI: Those are the wrong numbers. Those are the exhibit numbers from the criminal trial. The two -- MR. KELLY: The exhibit number in this matter is on the plastic itself. THE WITNESS: The number on this, number 9 -- MR. KELLY: It should be in the upper right-hand corner, 129. THE WITNESS: 204 or 1464-E. MR. PETROCELLI: And this? THE WITNESS: And this one is 129. And the right hand was 204 and the left hand was 129. (Witness removed both gloves from their packaging.) Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Have you seen those gloves prior to today, Mr. Rubin? A. Yes, I have. Q. And you saw them over a year ago, actually, in Mr. Simpson's criminal trial; is that correct? A. Yes, I did. Q. Did you have an opportunity at that time to measure the length of those gloves? A. Yes, I did. Q. You measured those gloves at this time. What was the length of the gloves when you measured them, if you recall? A. Nine and three-eighths inches long. Q. Approximately an inch less than the standard length? A. Approximately. Q. What percent is smaller than the standard extra large would that have made them at this time? A. Between 10 and 11 percent. Q. And what would you attribute, or could you attribute that differential of the 10 or 11 percent to anything? MR. BAKER: I'm going to object. Foundation; calls for speculation. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: Combination of normal wear and tear, time, and shrinkage. Q. MR. KELLY: Are you familiar with the sales receipts of Bloomingdale's? A. I've seen them. Q. Okay. You familiar with the different descriptions on them in viewing them? A. Yes, I am. Q. Okay. MR. KELLY: If we can see 390, Steve. (Mr. Foster displays Exhibit 390.) Q. MR. KELLY: Are you able to see that where you're sitting, Mr. Rubin, or would you like to step over? A. I can see it. I'm familiar with it. Q. Okay. Can you describe -- MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I'm going to object. This is beyond the scope of this criminal testimony, trial testimony. THE COURT: Overruled. You want him to look at that? Go ahead. MR. KELLY: Yes. MR. BAKER: Your Honor, may we be heard on this? We had a stipulation relative to these witnesses, that they wouldn't go beyond their criminal trial testimony. And that's what they're attempting to do here. Plus, this is cumulative, Your Honor. MR. KELLY: There was some testimony from the criminal trial -- THE COURT: Okay. Approach the bench. (The following proceedings were held at the bench, with the reporter:) THE COURT: What stipulation haven't I seen? MR. BAKER: We have a stipulation, and I think the stipulation was that we wouldn't take everybody's depositions, if they were not going to go into the criminal-trial testimony -- he's an expert; he's part of the stipulation. And unless I missed testimony -- I've been through three days of his testimony in the criminal trial -- this was not in there. THE COURT: Okay. Cite me chapter and verse. MR. KELLY: Where he cites it? THE COURT: Yeah. MR. KELLY: Okay. Your Honor, this is foundational. THE COURT: I don't care. When there's an objection, I have to rule. MR. KELLY: Okay. Let me see if we can pull that out. (Pause in the proceedings.) MR. KELLY: Pull it up on our computer quickly. Judge, in the prior testimony there, he repeatedly refers to the SKU and style number used by Bloomingdale's of 70263. This was the only thing I was going to ask him to testify to for foundational purposes, is to the style number of the glove that's listed on that receipt, also. It's mentioned approximately 15 times in the trial transcript in his testimony in terms of the style number of this glove sold by Bloomingdale's. THE COURT: Okay. (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury.) Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Mr. Rubin, were you aware of a SKU number that was assigned to this style of glove by Bloomingdale's for sales purposes. A. I was aware of our SKU number. Q. Was that a style number? A. Yes. Q. What style number was that? A. 70263. Q. And what was 70263 collective of? A. Well, the first two digits reflected the fact that it was a men's leather glove, and the next few digits are sequential as part of the design process. Each new design was the next number. Q. Okay. By the way, do you know whether -- Do you know, in December of 1990, what the list -- THE COURT: Mr. Kelly. MR. KELLY: I'm sorry, Your Honor. I'm sorry. An old habit. THE COURT: I don't want Mr. Kelly to feel disadvantaged by the fact I keep telling him to move over. I know it's kind of annoying, sometimes, to have somebody standing behind you talking. And I'm trying to make it comfortable for the jurors, so that none of the attorneys stand behind the jurors when they're talking. So I'm asking all of the attorneys to stay well to the right of that last juror. MR. KELLY: I'm not the only one that doesn't listen. (Laughter.) THE COURT: Thank you. MR. KELLY: Okay. Could I have my last question read back. (The reporter read the record as follows:) "Q. Okay. By the way, do you know whether -- Do you know, in December of 1990, what the list --" Q. (BY MR. KELLY) The list price of these men's Aris leather light gloves was? A. Fifty-five dollars. Q. Do you know whether there was a sale going on at Bloomingdale's? A. On occasion, they had sales. And yes, at this time, they did have a sale. Q. Do you know what the sale price of that item was? A. It was -- this particular sale was a 30-percent discount. MR. BAKER: No foundation, Your Honor. THE COURT: Lay a foundation. MR. BAKER: To this witness' knowledge. Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Do you have any personal knowledge as to whether or not the list price in Bloomingdale's for the Aris men's leather lights had been changed at all in December of 1990? A. On occasion, it was changed. Q. Well, I have to ask you, specifically, do you have your own knowledge whether that list price had been changed in December of 1990? A. Yes, it was. Q. And do you know what it was changed to? A. Certain times it was 25 percent off; at certain times it was 30 percent off. Q. In December of 1990, do you know what the percentage was? A. Thirty percent off. Q. Do you know what that would reduce that fifty-five-dollar list price to? A. Thirty-eight fifty. Q. Would it be fair to say that two pair of those gloves at $55 each, reduced by 30 percent, would be a total of -- A. Seventy-seven dollars. Q. Now, I want to go back to Exhibits 129 and 204 a little bit. Do you have those in front of you still? A. Yes. Q. When you indicated that you recognize those from the criminal trial of Mr. Simpson's -- A. I recognized them long before the criminal trial, but I do recognize these from the criminal trial, yes. Q. Those particular gloves I'm speaking of. A. This pair. Q. Okay. And did you have occasion, when you were testifying in the criminal trial, to observe Mr. Simpson's conduct, a demonstration where he was asked to put the gloves on? MR. BAKER: I'm going to object. That misstates the evidence. The prosecution and the judge ordered Mr. Simpson to put those gloves on. THE COURT: It's a neutral question. Overruled. MR. KELLY: Can you read the question back to him, please. (The reporter read the record as follows:) "Q. And did you have occasion, when you were testifying in the criminal trial, to observe Mr. Simpson conduct a demonstration where he was asked to put the gloves on?" THE WITNESS: Yes, I do. Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Were you able to -- You actually saw him conduct that demonstration himself, where he did put the gloves on; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. And did you form an opinion, yourself, as to whether or not the gloves fit? A. Yes, I did. Q. And what was your opinion on that? A. They fit with a poor quality of fit, but they fit. Q. And when you say they fit with a poor quality, what do you base that opinion on, the poor-quality aspect? A. They were -- They were one inch short in the wrist. Q. And do you have an opinion as to what would have caused them to be that one inch shorter in the wrist? MR. BAKER: Objection. Foundation; calls for speculation. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: In this particular case, there were two issues: One was the fact that he was required to. MR. BAKER: I move to strike as nonresponsive, Your Honor, as to his opinion, not the issues in the case. THE COURT: You may state your response to the question MR. KELLY: Can you read the question back to him, please. (The reporter read the record as follows:) "Q. And do you have an opinion as to what would have caused them to be that one inch shorter in the wrist?" Q. Were there any factors you take into consideration? A. The first factor was that the gloves were actually one inch shorter than standard -- Q. Okay? A. -- in a north/south position. The second factor was that there was a requirement to utilize latex linings over the hands prior to putting the gloves on. Q. You mean in simple terms, Mr. Simpson had latex gloves on; is that correct? A. Correct. Q. Okay. A. And the third issue was that the actual overall condition of the gloves, being crumbled up quite a bit and not straightened out, I would call it refurbished. It's really just they hadn't been used in a long, long time. Q. So when you put gloves on, you -- A. Work them out a little bit. Q. To the best of your knowledge, that had not been done with these particular gloves? MR. BAKER: Objection. Leading. THE COURT: Sustained as leading. Q. (BY MR. KELLY) And those were the three factors that you base your opinion on; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And I believe earlier, you mentioned -- you stated your reasons for the apparent difference of one inch between the normal length of the extra large glove and these gloves when you measured them. A. Yes, I did. Q. Once again, what was that attributed to? A. Normal wear and tear, time, and shrinkage. Q. Okay. Now, looking at 129 again -- Do you have that it in front of you, there Mr. Rubin? A. This is the left-hand glove? Q. Yes. A. Yes. Q. Okay. I'm going to ask you to examine that glove closely at this time. (Witness complies, reviews exhibit.) THE WITNESS: Okay. Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Okay. You had a chance to look at it? A. Could I put my hand in it? Q. Sure. Yes. (Witness puts hand in exhibit.) MR. BAKER: Can you put your hands in it where I can see? (Witness complies.) (Witness puts on Exhibit 129.) Q. (BY MR. KELLY) While you are on this, Mr. Rubin, if you can, take a look at the characteristics we used earlier, the stitching and the three needle points on the back of the hand, et cetera. A. Yes. Q. Can you describe all the characteristics of that particular glove that you observed? A. One would be the unique stitching, sewing the glove completely together. Two is this blind hem at the end of the wrist. Q. I'm sorry. Going back, is there a name you had for that stitching? A. Brossar stitching. Q. Okay. I'm sorry? A. The blind hem at the end of the wrist. Then the other more common characteristics are the three, needle points, where there are actually three needles with thread that create these design elements. And then there's a palm vent in the wrist. And then there's this thin cashmere lining, ten-gauge liner. Q. Okay. Are you able to tell me, after looking at all those specific characteristics, what type of glove it is? A. It's still 70263, brown, extra large. Q. There's another men's Aris leather light? A. Yes. Q. Is there a label? A. Yes, there is. Q. It says the same thing? A. It says the name and the size and the content and manufacturer; it does not say the style number. Q. Okay. Now, have you had an opportunity to look at the inside of the lining of the glove, underneath? A. I did during the criminal trial. Q. If you recall still, are there any identifying characteristics or anything that appear on the lining of the -- the inside of that glove? A. There's a size marking, there's a cutter number, and a sequence control number. Q. Okay. First of all, we know the size number just indicates the size of the glove, correct? A. Correct. Q. Okay. What is the cutter number? A. I'm going to have to pull the lining out for a second to -- Q. Okay. A. -- see that. Q. Sure. A. The cutter number is 359. The sequence or control number is 9. And then the XL is the size. Q. Now, what exactly is a cutter number? A. The cutter number is the actual individual who was given the leather to cut X amount of pair of this style during the manufacturing process. It was a way of controlling the leather. Q. And what is the sequence number, by definition? A. The sequence number was to keep all the parts together so that the colors matched, because they did vary across the skins. They would actually -- the cutter would say, this is the first pair; I made the second, the third, the fourth. And he would keep all the parts together. That way -- this was nine pair of that particular lot of leather that was given to the cutter. Q. Okay. There was an extra large; the cutter number sequence number 9? A. Yes. Q. I'm going ask you to look at 204, which would be the right-hand glove there. Also, if you can go through the same process, first of all, of trying it on. MR. BAKER: I don't understand why he's trying it on, Your Honor. I don't understand why this is relevant to any issue in this case. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Now, while you're trying that glove on and looking at it, I'm going to ask you to examine it closely once again for all the specific characteristics we discussed before. A. It has the same characteristics as the other half pair. Q. That's the Brossar stitch and the three-point needles -- the three needle points; I'm sorry, and the lined hem and the other things? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And are you able to tell me with certainty who the manufacturer of that glove is, also? First of all, can you tell me, without looking at the label, Mr. Rubin, who made that glove? A. This is an Aris 70263 brown glove. Q. Okay. Now, I see you're already doing it. I was going to ask you to look inside the lining of that glove, also, for those identifying characteristics. (Witness complies, turns glove inside out.) A. Yes. The cutter number was 359; the sequence number is 9; and the size is XL, makes it a pair. Q. As a result of looking at those identifying characteristics of the two gloves, are you able to tell me what, if any, relationship there is between the two of those gloves? A. They are a pair. Q. No doubt about that? A. No doubt about it. Q. Okay. MR. KELLY: Now, if I could just have one minute. (Pause in proceedings.) MR. KELLY: Steve, if we could go to -- Well, before we go to that -- Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Mr. Rubin, also in the criminal trial that we discussed earlier, you had the opportunity to view a number of photographs, also, did you not? A. Yes, I did. Q. Okay. Those were basically Mr. Simpson wearing gloves at different times? A. That's correct. Q. And in addition to viewing them in court, did you make some sort of independent investigation and examination of those photos, also? A. Yes. Q. Okay. MR. KELLY: Now, first of all, can we put up Exhibit 642, Steve (Mr. Foster complies.) Q. Now, first of all, do you recognize the individual in the photograph? A. Yes, I do. Q. And that's Mr. Simpson? A. I believe so. Q. Okay. The man you saw with the gloves in the criminal trial; is that correct? A. Correct. Q. Okay. Now, looking at 642 -- MR. KELLY: First of all, I didn't see -- Steve, can you put up 643? (Mr. Foster complies.) MR. KELLY: Steve, it's just the close-up. I want the close-up, please. (Mr. Foster complies.) Q. (BY MR. KELLY) This is basically the close-up of the picture you were looking at a second ago, Mr. Rubin. Could you examine the glove closely that's blurred on the screen right now? A. I can do my best. Q. Okay. MR. KELLY: Steve, can you take it back a little further, even? (Mr. Foster complies.) MR. KELLY: That's good. Q. (BY MR. KELLY) I'm going ask you if you can look at this and identify the specific characteristics of the manufacturer of that particular glove. A. I can see three characteristics. Q. What characteristics? A. The very fine rib stitches, which is indicative of the Brossar stitch; the vent in the palm; and then on the lower left, if you see where the shadow is, it would appear to be that the hem didn't have any stitching on it; it was a blind hem. Q. Okay. And based on those characteristics, are you able to conclude the manufacture and make model and style of that particular glove? A. It would appear to me to be a Brossar 70263 style. Q. The Aris men's leather light? A. Yes. Q. And based on the type of stitching, would you be able to opine as to when that was manufactured, approximately? A. The bulk of the gloves that we made Brossar stitches on were made in the late '80s. So '88, '89, '90. Q. That stitch wasn't used after '92, I believe you indicated. A. That's correct. MR. KELLY: Now, 655 Steve. Q. (BY MR. KELLY) By the way, that picture that was just taken down. What color was that glove? A. It appeared to be black. Q. Okay. MR. KELLY: And just before you put that up, Steve, I want to ask him one other question. Q. (BY MR. KELLY) The previous glove -- I'm sorry, Mr. Rubin. I'm going put this photo back up one more time. I'm going to ask you, excluding color, would you be able to tell me how it compares to Exhibit 129 and 204, the gloves in front of you now? A. It's the same. Q. Identical manufacture, make, model, style, and everything? A. Yes. THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. Is a that 643? MR. PETROCELLI: Yes. (Exhibit 643 displayed.) MR. KELLY: Now 645. I'm sorry. Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Now, I'd ask you to look at that glove in that photo, first of all, Mr. Rubin. A. Yes. Q. Are you able to observe some of the characteristics we've spoken of before? A. I can see two characteristics. Q. Which ones are those? A. The Brossar stitching and the three needle points that is in the middle of the glove to the left. Q. Okay. MR. KELLY: And can you throw up 656, Steve? Would it help for the lights to be turned off? JUROR: Sure. MR. KELLY: Your Honor, could we turn the lights off for this viewing? THE COURT: You may. (Exhibit 656 displayed.) MR. KELLY: Little further back. Q. Looking at that photo, are you able to observe any of the specific characteristics we're speaking of? A. Just the Brossar stitching at the top of the gloves, where it goes around -- around the top. Q. Okay. And based on those, I believe you referred to them as "unique details;" is that right? A. Yes. Q. Are you able to reach a conclusion as to the manufacture, make, and model and style of that glove? A. Both -- that is the most unique detail to style 70263, so I would say this is a style 70263. Q. I'm sorry. What is the most unique? A. The Brossar stitching. Q. Okay. And excluding color, can you tell me how that glove compares to the two gloves there in front of you, the 129 and 204, the right-hand and left-hand gloves? A. They're the same. Q. Excluding color; is that correct? A. That's correct. MR. KELLY: Now, 660, please. (Exhibit 660 is displayed.) MR. KELLY: Focus in a little on that glove, Steve. (Mr. Foster complies.) Q. (BY MR. KELLY) I'll ask you to take a look at that glove. Tell me when you can observe any of the specific characteristics we've been speaking of. A. In this glove, I can see the Brossar stitching around the fingers, the three needle points down -- down the back of the glove. And then actually, it appears that the Aris label is actually sticking out, to the left bottom. Q. You can actually see the tag, can you not? A. But that is not an unusual characteristic; that just happens to be there because every Aris glove had a label. Q. This is sort of a throw-in? A. Yes. MR. KELLY: I'll withdraw the last comment. Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Can you actually identify that as an Aris label? A. I cannot read anything on the label. It appears to be in the same location that we put our labels in, compared to other manufacturers, and it appears to be the color that we use, compared to other manufacturers. So I believe it's an Aris glove. Q. Okay. And even excluding the tag altogether, would you be able to identify that from the other specific characteristics you spoke of before? A. Yes. And in this one, there also -- you can see the brown tint to the cashmere lining. Q. And where is that, by the way, THE WITNESS: Can you raise the glove up a little bit on the screen? Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Can you point that out, please. A. It would be in this area right here. (Indicating.) Q. And the stitch you spoke of, what year did they stop using that particular stitch? A. In 1992. Q. Okay. So if you had to date that glove in a particular time, would you? A. Bulk of it is late '80s. Q. But before '92? A. Yes. Q. And in looking in that glove, would you tell me how that compares to the two gloves you have there in front of you, also? A. Same style. Q. Would it be fair to say it's identical, except for color? A. Yes. Q. Okay. MR. KELLY: Now, if we could go to -- you can take that off, Steve. (Mr. Foster removes exhibit from TV screen.) (Counsel displays blow-up photo.) MR. KELLY: Is that better, to use a picture? Actually, if I could hand this to the witness first, Judge. THE COURT: You may. MR. KELLY: Yeah. Take a look at that. Can you put that 641 up. THE WITNESS: Okay. (Witness reviews Exhibit 641.) MR. KELLY: Why don't you lay it flat here for reference. If you could, zoom in a little on the gloves, Steve. (Mr. Foster adjusts TV screen.) Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Now, looking at that glove, both on the screen and the enlargement before you, are you able to observe any of the specific characteristics we've been discussing before? A. I can see the Brossar stitching on the photo. I really can't see it on this screen, but I can see the blind hem and the points in both places. MR. KELLY: Get that in, Steve. (Mr. Foster adjusts TV screen.) Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Is that better, Mr. Rubin? A. It is. Q. Looking at the photograph, enlargements from the view, are you able to -- A. I'd like to stick to the photo, please. Q. Okay. What specific characteristics are you able to observe? A. The Brossar stitching on the top of the forefinger at the top, and the three point, and the blind hem. And also the characteristics of the light leather shows -- up here, where you can see the wrinkles, you can see that it's very thin. Q. And what color of manufacture is that glove, by the way? A. It's a brown shade. Q. That's a brown. MR. KELLY: Steve, could I briefly see 645? (Mr. Foster displays Exhibit 645.) MR. KELLY: If you could, zoom in on the gloves a little bit. (Mr. Foster adjusts TV screen.) Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Are you able to see the -- any of the specific characteristics from that photo? A. On the screen, it's a little blurry, Mr. Kelly. I've seen the photo before. Q. Okay. A. I've identified the photo before on the screen. I'm not -- I can't say that I can identify much on the screen. MR. KELLY: Can we try 646 to see if it's any better? (Mr. Foster displays Exhibit 646.) THE WITNESS: This is better. Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Okay. Are you able, from that photograph there, to identify the -- any of the specific characteristics we've been speaking of? A. I can see the fine ridge of the Brossar stitching on a couple -- on a couple of the fingers, and I can see the point. Q. Can you make any observation as to the hem we've been speaking of? A. It's a little -- it's a little dark to -- I'll reserve judgment on that. Q. Okay. Looking on the photo you have in front of you, though -- A. The hem is clear. Q. And what observation do you make about the photo in front of you? A. It's a blind hem. (Referring to photo Exhibit 646.) MR. KELLY: I'm going ask you to put up pictures 645 and 646 again, see if they're clearer there. (Witness reviews actual photo.) THE WITNESS: Yes, I can see on both photos. I can see the Brossar stitching, the points and the blind hem from these photos. Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Okay. If you could, just -- MR. KELLY: Actually, let me take them back from you. Steve, if I could see 654, please, if we go to frame 4583. Q. (BY MR. KELLY) I ask you to look specifically at the left-hand glove in that picture, Mr. Rubin. A. Yes. Q. Can you make any observation as to specific characteristics we discussed before with regard to that glove? A. Yes. The palm vent is visible on the left hand. Q. And what exactly do you mean by "the palm vent?" You keep mentioning that. A. In the palm of the hand, there's usually a vent that would help a person slip the gloves on and off a little bit more easily and gives you something to pull on. Q. With 129 or 204, could you hold one of those up for the jury and demonstrate, if you could, what the palm vent is? A. This is the vent. (Indicating to glove.) MR. KELLY: I've shown you -- if we could go to, Steve, 5548, 49. If you could look at the -- Take it back down, Steve. Stop right there. Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Are you able to make an observation -- I don't know if it's real clear -- as to the right-hand glove? A. It's totally blurred to me. Q. Okay. (Reviewing videotape.) Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Would you agree with me that all of these photographs were the same time, place -- same place? A. It appears that way. Q. Okay. You've seen them all before, have you not? MR. BAKER: Wait. I object. He is asking this witness to say that all these photographs were at the same time and the same place. MR. KELLY: I'll withdraw the question, Your Honor. Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Okay. With regard to 641, once again, which would be the enlargement down here -- A. Yes. Q. Okay. MR. KELLY: And if you could flip up, Steve, on the video once again, frame 4583. Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Could you state for me all the specific characteristics of the Aris men's leather light that you're able to observe between those two photographs? A. There are four of them. Q. What are those? A. The Brossar stitching on the fingers closing the glove down the side, the three needle points, and the blind hem and the palm vent. Q. And based on those specific characteristics you just mentioned, are you able to tell me with certainty what the manufacture, make, model and style of those gloves are? A. 70263, brown. Q. That's the Aris men's leather light? A. Yes, it is. Q. Okay. Can you tell me how that 70263 Aris men's leather light brown, those gloves depicted in those photographs, compare to the two gloves you have in front of you there? A. Same style, color. Q. Is it fair to say they're identical? A. Yes. MR. KELLY: If I could have one moment. (Pause in proceedings.) MR. KELLY: I have no further questions. THE COURT: Cross-examine. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER: Q. Mr. Rubin, how much time have you spent with the plaintiff attorneys since Mr. Simpson was acquitted in October of 1995? A. Less than three hours. Q. How much time on the telephone and in person? A. On the telephone, less than 15 minutes. Q. If -- and the other three hours you've been together with them? A. Yes. Q. And how much time did you spend with the district attorney, when you were testifying for them in the criminal trial? MR. KELLY: Objection. Irrelevant. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: I lost count. However, I was out there four different times. If I had to guess, 12 to 15 hours. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And you viewed the videotape many times with Mr. Simpson trying the gloves on in the courtroom, did you not? MR. KELLY: Objection. Irrelevant. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: You've seen it. MR. BAKER: And let's play that now, Phil. MR. PETROCELLI: Our position is on the record, Your Honor. THE COURT: It is. MR. BAKER: We're going to get there. I'm sorry. You want to -- MR. KELLY: I'd object to the audio. THE COURT: Excuse me? MR. KELLY: I object to the audio being played. THE COURT: All right. Keep the audio off. (Video of Mr. Simpson putting on gloves is played while audio is turned off.) THE COURT: What are you doing? MR. BAKER: I think he put the other one -- (Video continues playing.) MR. BAKER: Okay. (Video stops playing.) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) That's what you saw in the courtroom? A. That's correct. Q. Those gloves fit across the palm, did they? A. I didn't say that. Q. I just asked you that? A. They actually did fit across the palm. Q. They did? A. Yes. Q. What we saw is, in your opinion, those gloves both fit Mr. Simpson, right? MR. KELLY: Objection. Argumentative. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) In your opinion, sir, those gloves both fit Mr. Simpson; yes or no? A. Yes. Q. And in your opinion, is that -- the latex makes it easier or harder to put gloves on? A. Harder. Q. You should have never put the latex on in that courtroom that Mr. Simpson put on, and you don't know whether or not talcum is over that latex glove; isn't that true? A. That's not true. Q. Let me ask you a couple of questions. Relative to your viewing of, first of all, the -- did you look at the measurements of the gloves when they were first collected? A. No, I did not. MR. KELLY: Objection. Well -- Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You don't know whether the D.A. measured the glove, that is, the LAPD measured the glove and it was exactly the same measurements as when you measured the glove? MR. KELLY: Objection. Irrelevant, beyond the scope. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: I have no knowledge of that. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, let's talk about you say the gloves were unused, that is, they hadn't been used in a while. Do you know how many District Attorneys put those gloves on before the glove demonstration that you just saw? A. I have no knowledge of that. Q. So you don't know, as you sit here today whether or not those gloves had been used multiple, multiple times before Mr. Simpson was required to put those on in the criminal trial; isn't that true, sir? A. I -- that's not true. I had an indication that they had not been used, or tried on due to the appearance of the gloves when I was first shown them, upon arrival in Los Angeles, my first visit. Q. Well, when Mr. Simpson put the gloves on, it wasn't your first visit, was it, Mr. Rubin? A. Yes, it was. Q. Well, is it your testimony that you were told that no one, since those gloves had been collected, had put those gloves on before they were tried on Mr. Simpson? MR. KELLY: Objection. Asking for hearsay, Your Honor. MR. BAKER: Goes to the state of his mind, Your Honor. MR. KELLY: Could I ask -- THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection. MR. KELLY: Could I have that picture taken off the screen while we're at this part of the examination? THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did anyone indicate to you that the gloves had not been used -- strike that. In forming the opinions that you gave here today in court, was it your opinion, based upon what you had learned from the D.A.'s office in your multiple visits and your conversations with the District Attorney, that the gloves had not been put on by anybody from the time they were collected until the time Mr. Simpson put them on in the courtroom? MR. KELLY: Objection. Calls for hearsay, Your Honor. THE COURT: You may answer, yes or no. THE WITNESS: It was not discussed with me. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) So, you didn't have any knowledge based upon the D.A.'s conversations with you, the amount of times those gloves had, in fact, been dried on before Mr. Simpson put them on, correct? MR. KELLY: Objection. Calls for hearsay, asked and answered. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, assuming those gloves had been tried on multiple times, including the day of the demonstration, you would agree that that wouldn't have inhibited their ability to be put on by Mr. Simpson, true? MR. KELLY: Objection. Argumentative. THE COURT: Assumes a fact not in evidence. MR. KELLY: Assumes -- MR. BAKER: It's a hypothetical, obviously. This is an expert witness. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. BAKER: On which ground? THE COURT: Not a basis for the hypothetical. MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I will tie it up. THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection at this point. MR. BAKER: Let me make an offer of proof. We will tie it up but those gloves had been tried on multiple times. He's from another state. MR. PETROCELLI: We object to his testifying. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. KELLY: Ask that last comment be stricken also. THE COURT: It's stricken. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, let's talk a little bit about Brossar stitching, may we, Mr. Rubin? MR. KELLY: Objection to the form of the question. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, Mr. Rubin, Brossar stitching has been used for over 100 years, has it not? A. That's correct. Q. And Brossar stitching is a particular type of stitching made from a Singer sewing machine, right? A. In the facility that I'm familiar with, it was. Q. And it's been made, not only in the facility that's run by Aris, but it's been made by other glove manufacturers for years, hasn't it? A. I'm not aware of that. Q. Did you check to find out? A. Yes, I did. Q. You checked with two glove manufacturers. How many glove manufacturers are there, Mr. Rubin, in the United States? A. None. Q. Well, how many glove -- how many people do we import our gloves for that distribute out gloves under their brand names? Let me ask you that question. A. There may be six or ten. Q. It's over a dozen people, manufacturers that have labels on gloves in this country, are there not? A. No, there may be licensed products and importers, but as far as manufacturers, there may be only 6 or 10. Q. All right. Then, let's start back in. The Brossar stitching was not unique to Aris. You would agree with that? A. For my 14 years in the business, I was not aware of Brossar stitching being used by anybody in present men's product. I did see it in some lady's product, but I never saw it in a men's glove. Q. Before you became involved in this case, you didn't do an analysis to determine whether or not there was Brossar stitching in any glove other than the Aris leather light, true? A. Prior to this case? Q. Yes. A. I did nothing. Q. Now, in manufacturers in the world, how many manufacturers in the world are there that make penny leather gloves, to your knowledge? A. I don't have a good answer on that. There may be hundreds and hundreds of them. They may be small, but I'm only familiar with a handful of large manufacturers. Q. And did you say that the answer would be true relative to Brossar stitching that you're not sure how many of those hundreds and hundreds of -- or hundreds, at least, of manufacturers would use Brossar stitching? A. I'm not aware of them. Q. In fact, smaller companies would generally use Brossar stitching over large companies; isn't that true? A. I don't have any knowledge to verify that. Q. Well, the machines that you're company used were manufactured in the 40's were they not? A. Or before. Q. And they were old machines that could be purchased relatively cheaply because of the fact that they were -- had seen a lot of years of service; isn't that correct? A. The only reason I would have to disagree with what you're saying is that the Brossar stitching system was so slow and so labor intensive, it wasn't really very profitable. So that on balance, one would really not want to be using this equipment. They would probably want to using other equipment. Q. Sir, maybe my question is a poor one. Certainly in modern countries we want to, regardless of the look of the Brossar stitching, we probably want to do it quicker and make it more efficient; isn't that correct? A. True. Q. In -- a lot of gloves are manufactured in third world countries; isn't that correct? A. Correct. Q. And in third world countries, the issue of efficiency isn't as great as the issue of trying to get a machine that will, in fact, make a stitch; isn't that true? A. It's a combination of both. Q. All right. Now, the three points on a glove, virtually every machine's dress glove has that; isn't that true? A. They have the three points. They're not all necessarily in the same configuration. Q. But I mean there's one down the middle and then they usually have points to either side, don't they, sir? A. That's -- I'm talking about a three-needle point versus just a point. Q. All right. And the palm, virtually every dress glove that are made for men, and indeed women, have a palm fit, don't they? A. Mainly in men's. Q. Okay. Now, as I understand it, these gloves are made to fit skin tight and that's the style that they are made to; that's what their uniqueness is, correct, these 70263 series? A. Very dressy, very skin tight. Q. And so they're not what one would consider a glove that you would wear, for example, certainly at a ski lodge, right? A. I wouldn't recommend it. Q. If it gets 20 degrees below zero, it's not the type of glove you want on; true? A. That's correct. Q. You want a bulky glove that has more leather an certainly a thicker lining? I'll get it out yet. A. That's correct. Q. Just for the warmth of the glove? A. That's correct. Q. Especially, if you're going to use a glove, you know, and you're going to be out in the -- in the weather for two to three hours, that's not the type of glove you would choose. You agree about that -- with that? A. Not in severe weather. Q. Okay. Now, the lining of that glove is as you suggested, I think, particularly thin, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And the lining of that glove would be the first thing to wear out in the glove being normally used, correct? A. In this model, yes. Q. And in the linings, when you first look at those gloves, showed very little wear at all; isn't that true? A. That's true. Q. And the palm of the glove should wear out after the lining in normal usage, you would agree with that? A. Yes, I would. Q. And the palm in these gloves are in, I believe, which one is it, the right or the left? A. I don't know what the question is, so -- Q. That's a good point: There's wear indications in the right glove, correct, all the way through the leather? A. That's correct. Q. In the palm. True? A. True. Q. With no corresponding wear in the lining underneath it, correct? A. True. Q. And indeed, Mr. Rubin, the gloves -- and I watched you put them on -- you've even measured, pursuant to court order in the criminal trial, Mr. Simpson's hands, haven't you? A. Yes, I did. Q. And Mr. Simpson's hands are considerably larger than yours, you would agree? A. They're larger than mine. Q. The gloves are designed to be put on and then as you did, pushed down between the fingers and to get a skin tight fit, true? A. Yes. Q. And those aren't gloves that come off very easily, are they, once you get them skin tight and on a hand such as Mr. Simpson's -- and let's put up number 641, if we may. MR. P. BAKER: I have no idea what that is. MR. KELLY: Your Honor, objection. I believe there's a question pending right now that if we could have that read back, I believe there's a question, no answer, we intend to request for an -- MR. BAKER: I'll withdraw it. MR. KELLY: Thank you. THE COURT: Take the lights down. (Lights are lowered in courtroom.) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now looking at the glove, that glove appears tight; is it not? A. Across the knuckle area, yes. Q. And that glove, to come off a human being such as -- well, strike that. In terms of your measurements, Mr. Simpson has a pretty wide palm, does he not? MR. KELLY: Objection to the form of the question. THE COURT: Can't you get it better focused than that? MR. KELLY: Objection was to the form, "pretty wide." THE COURT: Rephrase it. (Exhibit No. 641 is displayed.) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) I take it, in measuring the palm and the breadth of Mr. Simpson's hand, you had measured others prior to the measurements of Mr. Simpson, correct? A. I've measured thousand of people's hands. Q. In Mr. Simpson -- in terms of -- through the palm, that is the width of the palm is relatively wide. You would agree? A. Mr. Simpson's exact size is a -- is a perfect extra large in the palm and a size large in the fingers. Q. Well, in terms then of the width of his hand, the width, you say is extra large as well as the meat, that is the breadth the between the palm of his hand and the distal portion of his hand? A. Gloves are measured across. Q. Now, you have to answer my question. A. He is a perfect, extra large across where you measure for size. Q. And as I was attempting to ask you, sir, in terms of the size across the palm, as well as across the back, how big is he, if you measured? A. Nine and a half on the left and nine and five eighths on the right at that point in time. Q. All right. And his hand is rather thick, is it not? That is the area of the meat between the palm and the distal portion of the hand. MR. KELLY: Objection as to the form of question, Judge. THE COURT: What's wrong with it? I don't understand the objection. Thick is -- thick isn't it -- MR. KELLY: Guess it's overruled then, right? THE COURT: Yeah. (Laughter.) THE WITNESS: Mr. Simpson's hand is larger at the bottom compared to proportion to where we measure a glove in the knuckle area. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) All right. And so once you would put these brown gloves on, those are brown gloves that you see in photo 641, right? A. They're a shade of brown. Q. Those brown gloves in 641, which were a different shade than the gloves you have in front of you. Would you agree with that? A. I would. Q. All right. So those aren't -- you're not suggesting those are the same color when you suggested they were brown, were you? A. I can't say that, because my experience is that gloves do darken with age. And based upon the fact that there was lighting involved in it, I stated prior that I will not make any speculations on color when it comes to photographs or video. Q. All right. So are you familiar with the Cincinnati Bengals uniforms at all? A. Yes. Q. The colors that you see in Boomer Esiason's -- below his jacket. Does that look authentic, like the Cincinnati Bengal's uniform? It's a terrible question. I ask too many of those. Let me -- You're familiar with their kind of -- their Bengal colors, are you not? Does this look like the Bengal colors? MR. KELLY: Objection. Compound question. Lack of foundation, Judge. THE COURT: He said he's familiar with them, overruled. MR. KELLY: Oh. THE WITNESS: It's in the same family of colors of the Bengal's uniform. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) All right. And you don't have any indication that the color that is indicated in that photo is the hue or anything in -- if that thing is off? A. I wouldn't know one way or another. Q. Okay. Now, in terms of then putting on the gloves, this is the type of glove that you have to pull on and then push the finger webbing down into the hand, correct; cause it's a tight fitting, skin tight fitting glove? A. Each individual does it differently. But if you want to get it on the best possible way, you'd have to gradually work your fingers into the lining and pull the lining down a little bit. The biggest problem with this glove, with this lining is you put your hand in, there's a tendency to push the lining down into the fingers which restricts the fit. So . . . Q. Once you get the glove on, as you suggested earlier, it is exceedingly skin tight. That's the design of it, right? A. Yes. Q. And so -- and that Mr. Simpson up there, that glove, whatever glove it is, is tight on his hand. You would agree with that? A. I would agree. Q. All right? A. Based upon the fact that his hand is cupped, that's what broadens out the hand. That's what will make it appear tight. Q. And to get that glove off, you're going to have to pull it off by the finger tips, correct? That's how the 70263 Aris leather light glove is made, is it not, so it comes off hard and comes on hard so it looks sleek on the hand? A. It shouldn't come off hard if your hand is straight. Q. It's not going to fall off, is it? A. It should not fall off. Q. It's not going to fall off in two different locations, is it? MR. KELLY: Objection. Argumentative, irrelevant, speculative. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Do you know if Mr. Simpson was ever known for fumbling -- I'll withdraw the question. MR. KELLY: Ask that the previous question be withdrawn. Also, there's no answer to it. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, let's talk a little bit about the production of these particular gloves. They were produced, you say, from 1983 to 1992 with the Brossar stitch, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And they were sold at Bloomingdale's, that has 179 stores, correct? A. They don't have -- to my knowledge, they do not have 179 stores. Q. Did they have 179 stores in 1990? A. They had 13 stores in 1990. Q. Total? It's your testimony they had total of 13 stores in 1990? A. Yes. Q. What was the -- you seem to know specific numbers for 1990, the production of these gloves, correct? A. That's correct. Q. All right. Now, tell me what the specific production of -- of the 70263 was in 1983? A. I was asked that question. I estimate the production from '83 to 1988 and including the production of '89 for '90. I estimated there were probably between 30- and 35,000 pairs made totally. Q. Well, in 1989 -- for 1990, Bloomingdale's ordered 12,096 pairs, did they not? A. That -- they didn't order 12,000. I put 12,000 into production. They ordered 10,000. Q. So the 12, the 12,008 (sic) pairs was not the Bloomingdale's order for 1990? A. That was the -- that was the manufacturing order. Q. Now, is it true -- well, strike that. What was the 1991 production? A. I wasn't there. Q. What was the 1992 production? A. I was not there. Q. What was the 1990 production? A. A thousand dozen. Q. I thought that was 1989 for sale in 1990? A. No, no the production order was written probably in June of 1989 for production at the end of '89 and into 1990 for delivery into 1990. So that in affect was the 1990 production. Q. Okay. What was the '89 production then? A. Probably about 6,000 pair. Q. How about '88, do we have an estimate of that, sir? A. When I started with 1200 pair in '83 and I started graduating it up based upon performance and it came to about 30, 35,000 pair total. Q. Do you have an estimate of 1988 production, was the question. I didn't ask you for history? A. 4800 pair. Q. And you don't know what colors were manufactured of those 30, 35,000 pairs, for example, in mean, do you? A. Totally less than 5,000 pair. Q. Now, that pair that you have in front of you is brown, correct? A. Correct. Q. The pair in 641 appears to be the color mean, does it not or does it? THE COURT: It's not up there. MR. BAKER: Put it back up. A. I'm really not sure what color it is. Otherwise it looks -- it's a brownish shade. We had tremendous problems with brown. Every lot of brown gloves that we produced, came out a different color. I've never been able to be specific on the color, but it's in the brown family. Q. Thanks so much. (Exhibit 641 is displayed.) Q. The glove you have in front of you are in the dark brown family, aren't they? A. These are in the brown family. Q. The dark brown family as contrasted to the gloves in 641, which is -- are not in the dark brown family? A. They are dark brown now. Q. All right. Tell me about the cuts that you know on those gloves. You've done an inspection on those gloves, have you not? A. I've seen them. Q. And have you seen -- you've inspected them in detail, have you not? A. Yes, I have. Q. Tell me if there are any cuts over the left middle finger on the left-hand glove which I believe is 129? A. On the left hand, I do not see any cuts. Q. Not a cut at all, correct? A. Not on the left-hand glove. Q. Okay. I want you to inspect the palm. I want you to inspect every finger of the glove and tell the jury whether or not there's any cuts on that leather glove, Exhibit 129, whatsoever? A. I do not see any. Q. Okay. Now, please look at Exhibit 204. That's the right-hand glove, sir. Thank you. And tell me if you find any indication of a cut as contrasted to a wear mark? A. I don't think I'm qualified to tell the difference between a wear mark and a cut. Q. Well, then, we'll frame it a different way, if we can. In terms of the indications on the palm of 204, the right-hand glove, is there any indication that that's wear to you; or if you're not qualified, just say so? A. It doesn't appear as wear because it would -- if it was wear, it would graduate like toward the weakness and tear a part, where it seems to be just torn a part. Q. Now, on the back of the glove is there any indication that a knife may have been put in the glove up by the ribbons, those are petty, pretty sharp, delineated lines on that glove, are they not? A. I'm not qualified to answer that. Q. Anything on the right thumb? MR. KELLY: Objection. He's indicated he's not qualified to answer that question, Your Honor. THE COURT: I think he only asked anything on the right thumb. MR. KELLY: It was a follow-up to the previous question that he indicated. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. KELLY: Okay. THE WITNESS: There's an opened cut mark of some sort on the thumb, too. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Okay. Now, did you -- when you inspected those gloves, did -- you looked at the linings, did you not Mr. Rubin? A. Yes. Q. Did you know whether or not there was any appearance of anything that appeared to be blood on the interior of the linings at all? A. I wouldn't know it if I saw it. Q. Was there any dark stains on the interior of the linings, Mr. Rubin? A. I did not see any. Q. Did you see any stains at all on the lining? A. I did not. Q. Now, in the right-hand glove, there is an opening on the right thumb, the back of the glove and two openings on the palm of the glove, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Now, did you have any discussions with anyone from the LADA's office as to whether or not there had been any tests done to determine if there was any blood on the linings of either of those gloves? MR. KELLY: Objection. Calls for hearsay, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. Mr. Baker. MR. BAKER: Thank you, sir. THE COURT: 1:30, ladies and gentlemen. Don't talk about the case. Don't form or express any opinions. (At 11:58 A.M. a recess was taken until 1:35 P.M. of the same day.) SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1996 1:35 P.M. DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE (REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER) (Jurors resume their respective seats.) RICHARD RUBIN, the witness on the stand at the time of the recess, having been previously duly sworn, was examined and testified further as follows: THE COURT: You may proceed. MR. BAKER: Thank you. CROSS EXAMINATION (CONTINUED) BY MR. BAKER: Q. Good afternoon, sir. A. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Q. Did you tell me -- What -- did you get paid for your testimony in the District Attorney -- From the DA's office in the criminal trial, sir? MR. KELLY: Objection. Irrelevant. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: Not to this point. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you bill them, let me ask you that? A. I filled out the form. I was never paid. (Laughter.) Q. You mean our tax dollars aren't being spent wisely? Now, how much are you billing the plaintiffs' in this case? A. I am not billing them anything. Q. You're not charging anything? A. No. Q. And you became kind of enamored with the fact that you were testifying in the criminal trial and wanted to keep some memorabilia from that trial. A. I don't believe I become enamored. Q. Well, you suggested ways for the prosecution to get additional evidence to convict my client, Mr. Simpson, did you not? MR. KELLY: Objection. Hearsay, irrelevant, speculative, argumentative. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. BAKER: All known grounds. THE WITNESS: Excuse me? THE COURT: You may answer. THE WITNESS: They asked me how they could find as much information as possible regarding the gloves and what else was there regarding the gloves. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) All right. So they asked you, regarding the gloves, and you told them about -- this would be a new exhibit. This is your correspondence of July 6, 1995, Mr. Rubin, is it not, sir? MR. GELBLUM: We'll mark the document 2147 and the videotape as 2146. (The instrument herein referred to Court TV videotape of glove demonstration dated June 14, 1995 was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2146.) (The instrument herein referred to as correspondence from Richard Rubin dated July 6, 1995 was marked for identification as Defendant's Exhibit No. 2147.) THE WITNESS: I'm familiar with this. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Okay. Now, this letter is July 6 of '95, right? A. That's correct. Q. And that was before, of course, the defense had ever even started putting on a defense in the case, right? A. That's correct. Q. And you say you're telling the D.A. there in your letter (reading): As a point of reference, have all of the mens coats/jackets been checked in the pockets in New York apartment and LA residence for a second pair. It is highly probable that Mrs. Simpson bought one black, one brown." That's what you were telling -- giving advise to the district attorney's office to do, correct? A. That was actually in response to a question that was asked to me. Q. I see. Was the next paragraph in response to a question that was asked of you (reading): "... If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me at any time. Please, thank everyone for their hospitality during my visit. Maybe I can make it to the victory party!" Exclamation point. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Was that in response to a question, Mr. Rubin? A. Actually the first two sentences are probably the end of every letter I've dictated in my business career, but the last comment was being gest. Q. Gest about the victory party. You figured you did a pretty good job for them and you were going to have a victory party as result of your testimony in the case; isn't that true, sir? A. Actually, I didn't think I did a very good job. Q. I see. So you were just kidding around about the victory party for the prosecution; is that right, sir? A. As I said before I -- Q. Is that right? A. It was in gest. Q. Were you just kidding around? A. Yes. Q. And then you said, just kidding around. (Reading): "At your convenience, could you obtain business cards from all the members of your staff as I want to make one and only one place or piece for my office as memorabilia of my experience. Please include Mr. Hodgman and Mrs. Clark." Were you kidding around with that, sir? A. No, I was not. Q. Okay. You wanted all that. Did you ask for the cards of all the lawyers representing all of the plaintiffs in this case? A. They actually gave me their cards. Q. You want mine? A. If you like to give it to me, I'll take it. Q. I don't think so. (Laughter.) Q. Now, relative to -- relative to the -- this morning, we took about a 20 minute break and you were asked by the lawyers, specifically Mr. Kelly, about the videotape with Mr. Simpson's and him trying on the glove that didn't fit, right? MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. MR. KELLY: Objection. Argumentative, foundation, speculative, assumes facts not in evidence. THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You asked -- Strike that. You told Mr. Kelly that you could convince this jury, did you not, that the gloves would have fit Mr. Simpson in the criminal trial if you were allowed to go on the stand today in this case, true? MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. There's no good faith basis to that question at all. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) For 15 minutes, you were huddled right here at this podium with Mr. Kelly, talking about the videotape of Mr. Simpson trying on the gloves in the criminal trial, were you not, sir? MR. KELLY: Objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: No, we were not. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You were here talking to Mr. Kelly how long about the videotape of Mr. Simpson trying on the gloves in the criminal trial? A. Mr. Baker was not even aware that the tape would be shown when I arrived here. Q. I'm not talking about when you arrived here, sir. I was talking about before, just immediately before you went on the witness stand, you talked about the -- Mr. Kelly told you the judge ruled that tape could be played and talked about the tape being played of Mr. Simpson trying on the gloves, did you not, sir? A. No, we did -- did not. Q. Never touched on that at all? A. Not today. Q. When did you touch on it? A. It was mentioned when I first arrived that the tape might eventually get shown. Q. And so you went over the fact that you could, in your mind -- Strike that. I have nothing further. MR. KELLY: Can I have one moment, Judge? REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KELLY: Q. Mr. Rubin, Mr. Baker had asked you to -- for an estimate of total number of gloves manufactured by Aris. The Aris men's leather light, between '83 and '89, you mentioned about 35,000 pairs; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. Did that number include gloves of every manufacturer make, size, color, style, et cetera? A. Every color, size within that style. Q. Okay. That wasn't just the brown? A. No, it was not. Q. Okay. I have no further questions. MR. BAKER: Nothing further. THE COURT: Thank you. You're excused. MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. MR. PETROCELLI: We have a two-hour and 50 plus minute videotape of the deposition of Harry Scull, which we would like to play as plaintiffs' next witness. We can break it up as long as you would -- THE COURT: Two hours and what? MR. PETROCELLI: 50. THE COURT: Two hours and five zero? MR. PETROCELLI: 47 minutes, Your Honor. The direct is very short, but the cross-examination is somewhat extended. THE COURT: Okay. You can run it 'till about 1:30, we'll take a break -- 2:30, we'll take a break. MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. THE COURT: Okay. MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you. I guess we should have the lights down. (Recess.) THE COURT: It's 2:30 and 3:30. MR. PETROCELLI: 2:30 and 3:30. THE COURT: Okay. Defense . . . Hello. MR. BAKER: I'm sorry, sir. THE COURT: Can we get a stipulation that the reporter does not have to take down the testimony? MR. BAKER: Yes, sir. No objection. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. PETROCELLI: I am proposing to have all the objections as to form that appear on this video waived, deemed overruled so we don't have you rule on that. MR. BAKER: I'm not so willing. I can't remember what's on the video. I didn't -- so I'm not willing to do that. MR. PETROCELLI: As to form. THE COURT: Would you -- unless you verbally state an objection live. MR. BAKER: Okay. That's fair. THE COURT: We'll deem it to be waived MR. BAKER: That's totally fair. That means I have to stay in the room for this. THE COURT: Well, yes. (Laughter.) (The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence of the jury:) Q. In the event an objection is interjected, I'll stop the videotape. (At 2:55 P.M., the videotaped deposition of Harry Scull was played.) THE COURT: Okay. Take a ten minute recess, ladies and gentlemen. (The tape was stopped and a recess Taken.) (Jurors exit courtroom.) (The follo