|
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1997 8:35 AM JUROR: No. THE COURT: We have a different foreperson. Who is now the foreperson? JUROR: Number 290. THE COURT: Number 290. Has the jury reached the verdict on the second phase of the trial? JUROR: Yes. THE COURT: Did you seal that verdict and give it to the bailiff? JUROR: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. Bailiff, would you return the sealed envelope to the foreperson. (Bailiff complies.) THE COURT: Check that, please, to see whether that is the verdict form that you had sealed. (Juror complies.) JUROR: Yes. THE COURT: If you would give it back to the bailiff, please. (Juror complies) (Bailiff hands verdict form to the Court.) THE COURT: Clerk will read the verdict. THE CLERK: Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Sharon Rufo, plaintiff versus Orenthal James Simpson, et. al. defendant, Frederic Goldman et cetera et. al., plaintiffs versus Orenthal James Simpson et. al., defendants Louis H brown et cetera, plaintiff versus Orenthal James Simpson, defendant case number SC031947 consolidated with case number SC036340 and case number SC036876 special verdict. Special verdict. We the jury of the above entitled action find the following special verdict on the question submitted to us. Answer the following question yes or no. Question number one, shall punitive damages be assessed against defendant Orenthal James Simpson in favor of plaintiff Frederic Goldman. Answer yes. If your answer is yes, answer the next question. If your answer is no, proceed to question No. 3. Question number 2, we assess punitive damages against defendant Orenthal James Simpson in favor of plaintiffs Frederic Goldman as follows: Amount $12,500,000. Answer the following question yes or no. Question No. 3, shall punitive damages be assessed against defendant Orenthal James Simpson in favor of plaintiff, Louis Brown. Answer, yes. If your answer is yes, answer the next question. If your answer is no, have your foreperson sign and date this verdict. Question number 4. We assess punitive damages against defendant Orenthal James Simpson in favor of plaintiff Louis Brown as follows: 12 thousand -- Excuse me $12,500,000. Dated February 10, 1997, Juror Number 290, foreperson. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, as a jury, is this your verdict? JUROR: Yes. THE COURT: Poll the jury. THE CLERK: I'm going to ask each of you again, individually, if each question answered on this verdict form is your personal answer to the question. Question number one: Shall punitive damages be assessed against defendant Orenthal James Simpson in favor of plaintiff Frederic Goldman? Answer is yes. Is this your verdict Juror Number 199? JUROR: No. THE CLERK: Juror No. 341? JUROR: Yes. THE CLERK: Juror number 186? JUROR: Yes. THE CLERK: Juror number 294? JUROR: Yes. THE CLERK: Number 266? JUROR: Yes. THE CLERK: Number 257? JUROR: Yes. THE CLERK: Number 369? JUROR: Yes. THE CLERK: Number 290? JUROR: Yes. THE CLERK: No. 326? JUROR: Yes. THE CLERK: Number 400? JUROR: Yes. THE CLERK: Number 88? JUROR: Yes. THE CLERK: Number 227? JUROR: Yes. THE CLERK: 11 to 1. Question number 2. We assess punitive damages against defendant Orenthal James Simpson in favor of plaintiff Frederic Goldman as follows: Amount $12,500,000. Is this your verdict, juror number 199? JUROR: No. THE CLERK: No. 341? JUROR: Yes. THE CLERK: Number 186? JUROR: Yes. THE CLERK: Number 294? JUROR: No. THE CLERK: Number 266? JUROR: Yes. THE CLERK: Number 257? JUROR: Yes. THE CLERK: No. 369? JUROR: Yes. THE CLERK: Number 290? JUROR: Yes. THE CLERK: No. 326? JUROR: Yes. THE CLERK: Number 400? JUROR: Yes. THE CLERK: Number 88? JUROR: Yes. THE CLERK: Number 227? JUROR: Yes. THE CLERK: 10 to 2. Question No. 3. Shall punitive damages be assessed against defendant Orenthal James Simpson in favor of plaintiff Louis Brown. Answer is yes. Is this your verdict, number 199? JUROR: No. THE CLERK: No. 341? JUROR: Yes. THE CLERK: Number 186? JUROR: Yes. THE CLERK: Number 294? JUROR: Yes. THE CLERK: Number 266? JUROR: Yes. THE CLERK: Number 257? JUROR: Yes. THE CLERK: No. 369? JUROR: Yes. THE CLERK: Number 290? JUROR: Yes. THE CLERK: No. 326? JUROR: Yes. THE CLERK: Number 400? JUROR: Yes. THE CLERK: 88? JUROR: Yes. THE CLERK: And 227? JUROR: Yes. THE CLERK: That's 11 to 1. And question number 4. We assess punitive damages against defendant Orenthal James Simpson in favor of plaintiff Louis Brown as follows: Amount $12,500,000. Is this your verdict, juror number 199? JUROR: No. THE CLERK: No. 341? JUROR: Yes. THE CLERK: Number 186? JUROR: Yes. THE CLERK: Number 294? JUROR: No. THE CLERK: Number 266? JUROR: Yes. THE CLERK: Number 257? JUROR: Yes. THE CLERK: No. 369? JUROR: Yes. THE CLERK: Number 290? JUROR: Yes. THE CLERK: No. 326? JUROR: Yes. THE CLERK: Number 400? JUROR: Yes. THE CLERK: Number 88? JUROR: Yes. THE CLERK: Number 227? JUROR: Yes. THE CLERK: 10 to 2. THE COURT: Okay. The verdict is ordered entered as read. Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes your services on this case. On behalf of the Superior Court, on behalf of the citizens of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, I would like to express to our sincere and deepest thanks and appreciation for your sacrifices in serving on this case. It's been a difficult case. It's been a long case. I'm thankful and grateful that you have abided by the Court's instructions with regards to your conduct so that we could reach this point. I would personally like to thank you, individually, but I am not able to do so because while this case is over for you, it is probably not over for me and I will, undoubtedly, have some matters that I would have to attend to in this case for some time to come. So it is more appropriate that I not have any personal contact with you in connection with this case. So please accept my sincere thanks and appreciation for all of your sacrifices and I extend this thanks and appreciation not only to the jurors who sat and rendered the verdict but those alternates who had to sit by and suffer through with the rest of us, these numerous days. And when it came down to the final part of the trial on making the decision, you were not called upon to participate in that decision making process. But the fact that you were here and you were available to us made it possible for us to continue to try this case with some ease of mind that we knew that you were there to assist us if we needed you. So thank you very much. I am going to excuse myself now. Judge Candace Cooper, who is the supervising Judge of the Santa Monica courthouse will address you at this time. Thank you. MR. BAKER: Judge, are you going to come back to the bench because we have some requests. THE COURT: I will. MR. BAKER: Thank you. (The Hon. Candace Cooper addresses 6the jury.) JUDGE COOPER: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I'm going to have you exit out that door and you're going to be escorted down to another room probably your usual will escort. (Jurors exit courtroom.) JUDGE COOPER: And if the attorneys will stay in place, I'll check with Judge Fujisaki to see if he wants to come handle this matter right now. THE BAILIFF: Take your notebooks, any personal property. (The following proceedings were held in open court outside the presence of the jury.) (The Hon. Hiroshi Fujisaki resumes the bench.) MR. BAKER: Yes, Your Honor. We would request on behalf of the defense that execution be stayed until the Court has ruled on post trial motions and that the gag order be in effect until post trial motions. MR. PETROCELLI: We would ask that the gag order be immediately extinguished. There's no further purpose in this to be served. The jury's discharged and we would oppose any stay of execution of the judgment. THE COURT: Is there some reason why the gag order should remain in effect at this point since the jury is discharged? MR. BAKER: I understand that the only possible reason is if our motion were granted and we retried the case, we've thoroughly contaminated any other juror. THE COURT: I don't see how that can be any different than from the end of the first. MR. BAKER: You're probably right. THE COURT: So I will not extend the gag order. With regard to stay of execution, you may be heard. MR. PETROCELLI: Well, what is the -- I think the statute only called for a ten day period of time. THE COURT: I'll stay it for 10 days if there are additional requests being made, you may make them. MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, we would ask a -- have a motion to ask the court if you would release, to the lawyers only, the address -- names and addresses of the jurors. THE COURT: I'm not inclined to do that. MR. PETROCELLI: Only because I think everybody else has them. (Laughter.) MR. BAKER: I would join that motion, Your Honor. THE COURT: At this time, if you can file a written application indicating everybody else has it, then let me know. MR. PETROCELLI: Fair enough. THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Petrocelli prepare the judgment. MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you. (The Hon. Candace Cooper addresses counsel.) (The following proceedings were held in open court, outside the presence of the jury.) JUDGE COOPER: I would like the attorneys to stay in place and audience to stay in place for a few minutes. We will be asking the jurors if they are willing to have a meeting with the press. If they are willing to do that, it will in the jury assembly room. Jerrianne Hayselett -- that will be next, in at least 45 minutes to an hour before that will commence, however. And if none of them choose to -- to wait, we will let you know. So this court adjourns. I'd like to speak to the attorneys. I have a few questions I need to ask of you. THE BAILIFF: We are in recess. Audio feed is turned off. (At 2 P.M. proceedings in this matter concluded.) |