ROBERT C. BAKER, ESQ., BAR ID #49255
MELISSA S. BLUESTEIN, ESQ., BAR ID #130055
PHILLIP A. BAKER, ESQ., BAR ID #169571
BAKER, SILBERBERG & KEENER
2850 Ocean Park Boulevard, Suite 300
Santa Monica, California 90405
Telephone: (310) 399-0900
ROBERT D. BLASTER, ESQ., BAR ID #47480
6622 Benham Way
Sacramento, California 95831-1143
Telephone: (916) 427-1600
F. LEE BAILEY, ESQ.
DANIEL P. LEONARD, ESQ.
BAILEY, FISHMAN AND LEONARD
66 Long Wharf
Boston, Massachusetts 02110
Telephone: (407) 687-3700
Attorneys for Defendant
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
SHARON RUFO,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, et al.,
Defendants.
FREDRIC GOLDMAN, etc., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. SC 031947;
C/W Case No. SC 036340;
C/W Case No. SC 036376
MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE THE INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT REGARDING THE ISSUES OF PURPORTED PRIOR DRUG USE OR PURPORTED INFIDELITY; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF ROBERT C. BAKER
[No. 3 of 15]
LOUIS H. BROWN, etc.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON.
Defendant.
DISCOVERY AND MOTION CUT-OFF: 6/15/96
TRIAL DATE: 9/17/96
TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
COMES NOW, defendant, ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, hereby moves this Court for an order precluding plaintiffs from offering, introducing, intimating or suggesting at the time of Trial any evidence in reference to any conduct by Orenthal James Simpson regarding drug use or adultery occurring prior to the allegations set forth by plaintiffs. Any such evidence would be inadmissible in the civil action because such evidence is immaterial of the essential element of any cause of action contained in plaintiffs' Complaints and the admission of such evidence would be prejudicial to defendant.
This Motion will further be based upon the Memorandum of Points and Authorities attached hereto, the Declaration of Robert C. Baker, on the papers and records on file herein, and on such oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing of this Motion.
DATED: August 20, 1996
BAKER, SILBERBERG & KEENER
By /s/
ROBERT C. BAKER
Attorneys for Defendant
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
As this Court is aware, the pending action relates to a double homicide occurring on June 12, 1994.
2. EVIDENCE OF PRIOR DRUG USE OR EXTRAMARITAL AFFAIRS IS IRRELEVANT AND INADMISSIBLE.
According to California Evidence Code, Section 351, only relevant evidence will be admissible in any proceeding. The relevancy of evidence depends on the issues in the case. Evidence which does not relate to a matter in issue is immaterial. People v. Rhinehart (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1. In the instant case, any purported evidence of drug use or purported infidelity by defendant which occurred in the years prior to plaintiffs' allegations does not relate to any matters at issue in this case and is therefore irrelevant. As such, it should be excluded at the time of Trial, pursuant to Section 351.
3. EVEN IF THE EVIDENCE IS RELEVANT. THE PREJUDICIAL IMPACT OF EVIDENCE OF PURPORTED PRIOR DRUG USE FAR OUTWEIGHS ANY PROBATIVE VALUE.
California Evidence Code, Section 352 provides that:
"The court in its discretion may exclude evidence if its - - probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury."
A. Undue Consumption of Time.
In the present action, the admission of purported evidence of prior drug use by Orenthal James Simpson presents great risks of undue consumption of time by extending the Court's resources to litigate a peripheral, irrelevant matter as well as creating the need for lengthy examination of witnesses. Preclusion of such matters would greatly reduce the duration of a trial already projected to last as long as six months.
B. Substantial Danger of Undue Prejudice, Confusion of the Issues, and Misleading the Jury.
The prejudicial impact of evidence of purported prior drug use must not only be weighed against the probative value of such evidence, but also must be assessed in light of the remoteness of the instances and the impact upon fair consideration of the defense being presented. While remoteness ordinarily goes to the weight to be accorded evidence, it is especially significant in exercising discretion pursuant to Section 352 where the danger of prejudice is grave. See Casey v. Casey (1950) 97 Cal.App.2d 875
In the within matter, there is absolutely no relevancy to any purported previous drug use, or any purported infidelity. The Trial of this matter is simply to determine whether or not Mr. Simpson was the murderer of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman on June 12, 1994. The issue of any purported drug use is absolutely irrelevant to who caused the deaths of plaintiffs' decedent. In fact, any allegation or purported drug use goes back to a period of more than seven (7) years before the murders. (See deposition transcript of Alan Cowling at page 297, lines 13-25 and page 298, lines 11- 15, attached hereto as Exhibit "A". See also, deposition transcript of Joe Stellini at page 132, at/ached hereto as Exhibit "B".)
Indeed, the evidence of any purported drug use is an attempt by plaintiffs to do a character assassination on the defendant, Orenthal James Simpson, and to have the jury disregard the evidence, or lack thereof, relative to Mr. Simpson's culpability in the murders of June 12, 1994.
As this Court is aware, evidence of "prior offenses" such as drug use, should be received with caution and admitted only when its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect. People v. Evers (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 588. As the Court is aware, Mr. Simpson has never had a prior offense of drug use.
4. EVIDENCE OF PURPORTED EXTRAMARITAL AFFAIRS IS PERIPHERAL AND PREJUDICIAL AND SHOULD NOT BE ADMITTED.
Similarly, any evidence of purported prior extramarital affairs by Mr. Simpson is peripheral and will unduly prejudice his defense. In Carr v. Pacific Telephone Company, another wrongful death suit, evidence of an extramarital affair was found to be so remote so as to be more prejudicial than probative, and this evidence was excluded. Carr v. Pacific Telephone Company (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 537, 545-46.
Evidence of Mr. Simpson's purported extramarital affairs have no bearing on the allegations of plaintiffs' complaints. Such evidence is remote, likely to lead to undue consumption of time, and likely to mislead a jury. Evidence of infidelity may be of interest for the tabloid media, but such a peripheral issue should not be litigated in this courtroom.
Nicole Brown Simpson and Orenthal James Simpson, were separated in early 1992, and divorce proceedings commenced in February of 1992. By November of 1992, the divorce proceedings between Mr. Simpson and Nicole Brown Simpson had become final.
Hence, for a period more than two (2) years before the murders of June 12, 1994, Mr. Simpson and Nicole Brown Simpson were not living together, and were divorced a substantial period prior to the murders taking place. The issue of whether or not Mr. Simpson had any extramarital relationships is therefore totally irrelevant and remote from any issue that will be litigated by the jury in the within matter.
5. CONCLUSION. -
For the foregoing reasons, defendant respectfully requests that any and all evidence of purported prior drug use and purported extramarital affairs be excluded from this Trial.
DATED: August 20, 1996
BAKER, SILBERBERG 8 KEENER
By /s/
ROBERT C. BAKER
Attorneys for Defendant
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON
DECLARATION OF ROBERT C. BAKER, ESQ.
I, ROBERT C. BAKER, declare and state as follows:
1. 1 am an Attorney at law duly licensed to practice law before all of the Courts of the State of California, and am a partner in the law firm, Baker, Silberberg & Keener, Attorneys of record for defendant, ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON. If called upon to testify, I could and would competently testify to the following:
2. Attached as Exhibit "A" is a true and correct copy of pages 297 and 298, of the deposition transcript of Allen Cowlings.
3. Attached as Exhibit "B" is a true and correct copy of page 132, of the deposition transcript of Joe Stellini.
I declare under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 23 day of August, 1996, at Santa Monica, California.
/s/
ROBERT C. BAKER, ESQ.