JANUARY 13, 1997

(Jurors resume their respective seats.)
THE COURT: Morning.
JURORS: Good morning.
MR. PETROCELLI: Good morning, Your Honor.
MR. BAKER: Morning. ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, previously called as a
witness on his own behalf, was sworn and testified as follows:
THE CLERK: You are still under oath. Would you please state your
name again for the record.
THE WITNESS: Orenthal James Simpson.
MR. BAKER: Morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Q. Morning, O.J.
A. Morning.
Q. When we left off on Friday we were discussing -- we had gone up
to about June 6th of 1994. Was June 6 a busy week for you?
A. Yes.
Q. And when did you leave Los Angeles that week?
A. I believe -- I believe I left Tuesday -- Tuesday evening.
Q. Okay. And did you take the redeye out?
A. Not quite a redeye. I took a 4 o'clock afternoon flight to
Washington, D.C.
Q. And what were you doing in Washington, D.C.?
A. I was doing a customer event for the Hertz Corporation where we
bring in some of our top customers, and it was a golf tournament and
breakfast meeting, and we were having that Wednesday -- Wednesday
morning, so I flew out in the afternoon on Tuesday to be there for
Wednesday morning.
Q. How long did you actually remain in Washington, D.C.?
A. I got there, I'm guessing, about midnight. We started the event
around 7, 7:30 the next morning, and I was there all day. And I
believe around 7 or so I headed for the airport and caught a plane
to Connecticut and got to Connecticut near midnight. I mean it was
rather late by the time I got to Connecticut; it was 10 or 11
o'clock, I believe.
Q. What was in Connecticut?
A. I had a board meeting the next day for a company called Fortuner.
And I had -- you know, part of the board meeting is I visit the
employees and take pictures, sign autographs for all the employees
at the factory.
Q. And Fortuner is the Swiss Army Watch people?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. Okay. And how long did you remain in Connecticut then, O.J.?
A. Well, I got there that night. I was there until, I'm guessing, 12
or 1 o'clock the next day.
Q. That would have been Thursday?
A. That was Thursday, yes. And then I took a limousine from there
down to Long Island, New York where I joined some friends at a golf
course. And I spent the night there.
Q. Okay. And that was in New Jersey?
A. No, that was in Long Island, New York.
Q. Who did you see there?
A. I actually stayed with a couple of friends of mine, Robert, Bobby
Q. Okay.
A. And I played golf with him and some other friends that day.
Q. All right. Now, Thursday -- that was Thursday. And on Friday what
did you do?
A. Friday I got up, we played golf again. As the day went on we
played 18 holes, and they were going to play another 18, they were
trying to -- Bobby Bender, they were trying to talk me into staying
but I felt I had to get back to Los Angeles.
Q. Now, why did -- Bobby Bender wanted you to stay the weekend, did
he not?
A. He knew I had to be in Chicago on Monday. This was Friday
afternoon, and so obviously if I went to LA, Sunday I would have to
head back to Chicago. So he felt it would be best for me to stay
there for the weekend, play some golf with and some friends, and
then, you know, go into Chicago from there and then from Chicago
back into Los Angeles.
Q. And you wanted to get back to LA; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And why was that?
A. Mainly because I had missed my daughter's first communion, and
she was having a dance recital and I -- I felt I had to be at the
dance recital.
Q. Now, tell us and the ladies and gentlemen why you missed your
daughters first communion?
A. I had, what was for us, the most important event for the year for
Hertz, for my obligation for Hertz, it's called the ASTA convention,
it's all -- the American Society of Travel Agents, and I had been
scheduled to be a morning speaker there to 5,000 travel agents. It'd
been scheduled for virtually a year, certainly for months, and
people sent in cards and said they'll be there. All the other
agencies, as well as hotels, as well as airlines, are all competing
to get the travel agent to come to whatever their event is and hear
their message. About a week before this, I was told by Nicole that
my daughter was going to have her communion. So immediately I
contacted Hertz to see if they could reschedule me, if I could speak
the day before or the day after. The guy from Hertz said that he
didn't think so because people had already agreed to come and they
had some other activities with clients that they had already
scheduled for me. I then called the chairman of the board of Hertz
and asked him could he do something to help me, and unfortunately he
Q. So you were out of town for your daughter's first communion on
business, right?
A. That's right.
Q. All right. Now, you then flew back to Los Angeles on Friday the
A. Yes.
Q. And who picked you up at the airport?
A. Paula Barbieri picked me up from the airport.
Q. And the following morning, Saturday the 11th, did you go to --
what did you do?
A. I got up and played golf; my regular golf game. There was an --
after the golf game I came home and I guess took a nap, and -- I'm
not really sure, and I had an event that I told Paula we might go
to, and we -- to benefit the First Lady of Israel and to raise funds
for a hospital in Israel. So I took Paula to that event.
Q. On the way home from golf on Saturday, June 11, 1994, did you
call Paula from the car phone in your Bronco?
A. I don't know if -- I probably did. I don't really recall. I know
that night I did -- that day. I'm not really sure if I did or
Q. Okay. Fair enough. Now, after you did in fact go with Paula to
the charity benefit for the First Lady of Israel -- did you not?
A. That's correct.
Q. Did you have a nice time that night?
A. We had a great time.
Q. Did you have any argument?
A. No at all.
Q. Mild even?
A. No. We even talked about this house, it was a beautiful house
with a lot of rooms, and we had a conversation about filling a house
like that up with babies.
Q. Now, did Paula want you to stay with her that night, the night of
the 11?
A. Yes.
Q. And you went home, did you not?
A. Yeah. I think she assumed we would stay together. I had been out
of town and obviously you assumed you would, but I was really
THE WITNESS: Exhausted. I was tired.
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, I move to strike the speculation,
talking about what Paula's assuming.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, then you went back to Rockingham and got up
again early in the morning on the 12?
A. Yeah.
Q. To go play golf?
A. I got up, as I usually do, about 5 and got my act together. I
think I may have been a little late for my group. We started our tee
off time before 7 o'clock.
Q. Now, did you have a little disagreement with Craig Baumgartener
in that golf game?
A. Yes.
Q. And tell us what happened?
A. Craig is a guy who has sort of a temper on the golf course; he
gets rid of his frustration, he throws his clubs a lot. He's been
reported by members of our group for doing it. On the first hole he
had great shots, and everybody else wasn't in great shape, but we
all were on the green in regulation. I know you don't know much
about golf maybe, but he sculled his third shot over the green; it
was a par 5. In any event, we all parred the first hole. Craig
bogied the hole and Craig took off for the next tee, which is not
unusual because when he's playing bad he normally takes off from the
group. We were all talking and socializing first, you know,
beginning in the morning, walking to the next tee. And he teed off
before we got there and hit a bad shot and turned around and said --
said that, Juice, you're always doing this, you're talking through
my swing. I said I wasn't talking through your swing, you should
have waited 'til we got here. And he took off, which he's not
supposed to do. You're supposed to play behind the group playing
golf until everybody hits. Then I get up next and I hit a bad shot
and I was a little angry because he, you know, had started an
argument and he was walking off. Well, the guys were teasing me. As
we went to our ball, Craig was down the fairway and I was waiting
for him to get out of the way so I can hit my second shot, and when
he wouldn't, I went and swung anyway and hit a bad shot, my second
shot. So now I was really pissed and I went up to Craig, who was
standing in the middle of the fairway, and I told him in no
uncertain terms that he was, you know, sort of a butt-hole, and he
said something to me, and we hit and went to the green and putted
out, and on the next green we all -- you know, we looked at each
other and started laughing and hugged and continued to play. My
group is -- we had bets in our group for years about when will the
first argument be, on the first shot of the first hole or the second
shot of the second hole or on the first tee or the second tee. They
normally last just like that. I mean two strokes, if you want to
call it an argument. It was nothing beyond that and it was Craig who
initiated it and not me. I just happened to be the focal point of
his frustration for hitting his bad shot. And then he became the
focal point of my frustration when I hit my second bad shot.
Q. Now, you guys -- your usual golf group, you don't tease each
other, do you?
A. Quite a bit.
Q. You wouldn't rib each other, would you?
A. Quite a bit.
Q. There's no bets going on back and forth?
A. As I said, the words, which may have been 10 or 15 seconds -- all
the other guys were ribbing me pretty good about the argument and
Craig once again was gone down the fairway.
Q. Now, after you played golf on the 12th and you were going back
from the golf course to your house, did you call over to Bundy?
A. Yes. At some point I called -- I made a few calls while I was in
my car. It was tough getting through because if you drive down
Sunset and you have a cell phone, your phone will ring, then it cuts
out because you're going in and around Sunset. And at one point I
decided to go home, and I called Bundy to inquire about, basically
Justin, because I figured Nicole would be working with Sydney,
getting her ready for the recital, and I wanted to know if Justin
wanted to come and hang with me.
Q. And what was decided about Justin coming with you?
A. Well, we spoke a little bit about tickets; she didn't know if my
older kids were going, if there were tickets for them. Nicole wanted
to know if I could get there early to hold seats because this
event is always sold out, it's always standing room only, this
recital. In fact, I guess Sean or Aaron, our nephews, were coming
up. I don't recall if they were already there or coming up, but
Justin was going to be playing with them, and I told her I didn't
know if I can get there early. Jason was going to go, maybe Jason
would get there early. It would be pretty tough for me to hold seats
because everybody coming to me for autographs. As I said, it's
family -- it's hard to hold seven or eight or nine seats at the
Q. That was the extent of the conversation you had with Nicole?
A. Basically, yes.
Q. Okay. Now, while we're at -- let me ask you about 875 South
Bundy. Before June 12, you've told this jury that you've been over
there a number of times and you spent the night over there many,
many times; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, the dog Kato, did you purchase that dog?
A. Yes.
Q. And when did you get that dog?
A. Either in the late fall of -- I mean in the winter, but I can't
recall if it was at end of '93 or the beginning of '94, but yeah,
around that time, the fall of '93.
Q. Okay. And that dog -- you got that dog and then gave it to Nicole
and the kids?
A. No, I think I bought it for Justin and me, my son and I. We had
just lost one of our dogs. Actually, we had just lost two dogs and,
you know, Justin wanted a dog, and I wanted another dog for Chachi,
so Justin and I went and bought a dog.
Q. And did that dog -- was that dog at Rockingham at the time?
A. Yes, yes. Normally he would go to the other house if I was out of
town. He would stay there more, but I know, being a young dog and
pretty frisky, he likes to run around, and my property had a lot of
grounds and her's didn't.
Q. Now, before the 12th when -- had you had to go over the week
previous and chase that dog over at Bundy?
A. Yes. Our dogs go out a lot; when the gate's open they're out. I
had come over at -- I believe it was the Sunday. I don't think it
was Monday. I'm pretty sure it was the Sunday before, and Justin was
going in to get something, one of his games, and I think Faye
Resnick was there and she opened the gate and the dog ran out.
Q. And did Nicole call you to come over and chase that dog?
A. No. Nicole had called me just a little previous to that because
both dogs were at her house and they were fighting, and I gathered
Nicole was having a problem with a neighbor, and I had to come over
and get the other dog. I don't know if it was a day before or two
days before.
Q. Now, did that dog Kato -- was that dog transported in your
A. Yes.
Q. And the kids were in your Bronco?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, I want to go to -- after you talked to Nicole in the
afternoon of Sunday the 12th, you were running around a little bit
and then you went to the recital?
A. Yes, I was a little late. I think I may have dozed off, I think
there was a basketball game, I was reading a book, and I -- when I
looked up, it was just about 5, and I kind of got dressed in a hurry
and went down to the recital.
Q. All right. Now, were you in a dark mood --
A. No.
Q. -- on June 12, 1994 when you went to the recital?
A. No.
MR. BAKER: Phil, you want to show that tape, please.
MR. P. BAKER: Exhibit 825, dance recital videotape.
(Videotape is played.)
MR. BAKER: Phil, be prepared to stop, will you please.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Who is that?
A. That's Ron Fischman.
Q. We'll get back to him in a second.
(Tape continues playing.)
MR. BAKER: Now stop it, Phil. Can we get a little clearer or back it
up a bit.
(Mr. P. Baker complies.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, who's the other man right next to you that
you're talking to now?
A. That's Lou Brown.
Q. And that's -- Lou Brown was Nicole's father?
A. Father, yes.
MR. BAKER: Okay, go ahead.
(Tape resumes playing.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And that's Justin?
A. Yes, that's my son.
Q. And that's Judy Brown, Juditha?
A. Juditha Brown. And Ron Fischman.
Q. Now, that's Lou again?
A. Yes.
MR. BAKER: And stop it right there.
(Tape is halted.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Right there, when you were bent over, right there,
what were you -- were you in a pretty dark mood right there?
A. No.
Q. What were you laughing about?
A. Well, Lou and I, previous to even when this tape started, was
talking about women and, you know, he was teasing me and I was
teasing him about his daughter and I and Paula Barbieri.
Q. And what were you teasing about?
A. Well, Lou -- Judy had been walking around, talking about dinner,
where was Nicole, 'cause they had lost track of Nicole, and Judy
thought that they were going to dinner and figured Nicole had left
them, and at one point said something to me about you're not joining
us for dinner, and I said no. I told Lou, I've got to stay away
from your daughter now, I have got to go back to the way it was a
year ago. And we were -- we were kind of teasing about that.
MR. BAKER: Go ahead, Phil.
(Tape resumes playing.)
MR. BAKER: I think that's -- cut it.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Was there any animosity between you, Lou, Judy,
Denise, any of the Browns, on June 12, 1994?
A. Absolutely none.
Q. And was there any animosity between you and Nicole Brown Simpson?

A. Absolutely none. She had saved my seat for me and had my tickets
for me, and I sat two seats from her, and they were bolted seats to
the ground, like theater seats.
Q. And where did Denise sit relative to you?
A. We were in the very last row. Denise was in the seat directly in
front of me. Next to her was Cora Fischman, and then the two Browns
and Ron Fischman was in the seats in front of them.
Q. All right. Now, at the recital, in your conversations with Ron
Fischman, did you learn about the intervention with Faye Resnick?
A. Yes. During the course of the -- of a break in the thing, Ron
Fischman walked up to me and said, boy --
MR. KELLY: Objection to anything Mr. Fischman said.
THE COURT: Sustained.
A. Well, Ron --
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) What did you learn relative to Faye Resnick being
-- having -- having a --
MR. PETROCELLI: I'd ask for an offer of proof. This seems to be
forbidden by the Court's prior orders.
THE COURT: Okay. Approach the bench.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench with the
MR. PETROCELLI: We've had --
THE COURT: You want an offer of proof of what?
MR. PETROCELLI: On what -- the relevance of these conversations with
Ron Fischman which, under hearsay, concerning Faye Resnick's drug
MR. BAKER: Well, they raised the issue of Ron Fischman. And this
goes to the -- to the issue of his lack of motive. They spent a lot
of time in this courtroom trying to prove that Mr. Simpson had a
motive to -- to murder his ex-wife, and he, in fact, of course, in
our view had no motive, and the conversation with Fischman about
Resnick goes to the issue that he wanted out of this whole mess, the
whole mess with Faye and Fischman and Cora and Nicole. And so I
think it goes to that issue. They raised that issue when they
interrogated him on the 22nd and the 25th of November.
MR. PETROCELLI: Fischman testified about observations concerning Mr.
Simpson at the recital. And there was nothing about Faye Resnick in
regard to Ron Fischman's testimony, nor would that have been
admissible because it would have been rank hearsay. He now wants to
get into conversations that Fischman had with Simpson about things
he learned from Resnick and other third parties. And apart from the
hearsay problem, it doesn't seem too relevant to any issue. He
really wants to get before the jury that Faye Resnick, who was
previously living with Nicole for a few days, was in a drug rehab
center, and raise this whole specter of Nicole living in a world of
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, just one point. This is in direct rebuttal
to the inference in direct evidence that they elicited through Dr.
Fischman, that Mr. Simpson was -- somehow was in a dark mood, that
he had some concerns that he was -- that he was agitated. They
elicited from Dr. Fischman some portions of a discussion he had with
Mr. Simpson. This is his explanation, his version of the discussion.
I can't -- it's obviously admissible, it's admissible on the --
MR. PETROCELLI: We have double hearsay. We not only have Simpson
saying what Fischman's saying, but Fischman is reporting what other
people said too.
MR. BAKER: It's not offered for the truth. It goes to the state of
mind of O.J. Simpson relative to what he did subsequently.
MR. PETROCELLI: Even if you could get by the first level, you still
have the second level.
MR. LEONARD: Both go to the state of mind.
MR. PETROCELLI: You can't get -- by Fischman learning information by
talking to Christian Reichardt, by talking to Faye Resnick, by
talking to his wife, whoever he spoke to, you can't get -- you can't
get all that in.
MR. LEONARD: Doesn't matter if it's true or not. It's not offered
for the truth. It's offered for how it affected Simpson.
THE COURT: Finished?
THE COURT: Objection sustained. 352. Resnick's -- conversation about
Resnick is second double hearsay, and I don't see any probative
(The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence
of the jury.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, at the -- let me ask you this: Was Faye
Resnick a friend of Nicole's as contrasted to a friend of yours?
A. Yes.
Q. And was Ron Fischman, Dr. Fischman, was he a friend of Nicole's?
A. I would say I became friendly with him because of Nicole. So I
know that she spoke to him more than I did. And she had been a -- I
guess he had advised her quite a bit during the, you know, the time
when she had to make some decisions about housing and stuff.
Q. Now, during the time that you were at the recital, did you learn
some information from Ron Fischman? You can answer that yes or no.
A. Yes.
MR. PETROCELLI: Same objections, Your Honor. It's going to be
contained in the questions rather than in the answers now.
MR. BAKER: I'm glad --
THE COURT: Last question and answer overruled.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And as a result of the information you've learned
in your being around some of Nicole's friends, did you -- did you
give Ron Fischman any advice at the recital?
A. Yes. The same advice I had given him, oh, two or three -- two or
three weeks previous, when he had a problem with Nicole and his wife
and stuff.
Q. What advice did you give to Ron Fischman?
MR. PETROCELLI: Relevance.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) At that time, were you making any efforts to
separate yourself from the friends and problems of Nicole?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you suggest to him that he should do the same?
A. Yes.
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. PETROCELLI: Move to strike.
THE COURT: Stricken.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) After you returned from the -- from the recital,
as a result of the information you got at the recital, did you call
Christian Reichardt?
A. Later that evening, yes.
Q. What time, approximately, was that?
A. Approximately 9 o'clock.
Q. And did you suggest to -- Christian Reichardt's relationship to
Faye Resnick was what?
A. I gather right up till this weekend, her fiance.
Q. Okay. And did -- was it your understanding that he had broken up
with Faye?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you suggest anything to Christian Reichardt that would occur
in the next week or so?
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, same as before.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BAKER: On what grounds, Your Honor?
MR. PETROCELLI: Relevance, 352, hearsay.
THE COURT: Relevance.
MR. BAKER: Then I want to be heard on it.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench with the
MR. BAKER: He'll testify that he called Christian Reichardt, that he
said, look, I'm going to be back in town on Wednesday, let's go out
and have dinner, Paula and I have a date that night, we'll go out
and have dinner. Now, they spent a lot of time and effort saying
that Simpson knew Paula had broken up with him, and this is to
confirm that he had no knowledge that Paula had purportedly broken
up with him. It's terribly relevant to the issue they spent a lot of
time and effort on, and it's not hearsay, it's what he said to
Christian Reichardt.
MR. PETROCELLI: I have no objection to what he said in the
conversation. But his question was about information he was learning
from Reichardt and then what advice he was giving Reichardt in
regard to Reichardt's problems. He wants to testify about what
Simpson said concerning his plans and so forth, I have no objection
to that. It's the other stuff I'm objecting to.
THE COURT: Sustained as to the other stuff.
MR. BAKER: I don't know what the other stuff is but...
(The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence
of the jury.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) In the telephone conversation you had with
Christian Reichardt, did you make any plans with him for that week?
A. Yes.
Q. Tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what you discussed with
Christian relative to -- what you said to him concerning your plans?

A. I was kind of feeling for him a little bit. I told him I would
be back in town Wednesday, I had to come back in town to go to San
Diego, do another Hertz thing. I would be back Wednesday night. I
said then I'm going to take off with Paula and go to San Francisco
Wednesday night. I'll be in town. I'll see if Paula's got a
girlfriend and, you know, she's got some good looking girlfriends,
maybe we'll double date, I'll get you a blind date Wednesday night
and we'll go out Wednesday night. And he said okay.
Q. Now, at this point in time, did you think you'd broken up with
A. No.
Q. And you had broken up, or at least she had broken up, on several
occasions, correct?
A. Well, I can't say we broke up on several occasions.
Q. She said she broke up?
MR. PETROCELLI: Object. That's hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. All right. In any event, sir, you called Sydney that night?
A. Yes.
Q. And that was also close to 9 o'clock?
A. I believe the calls were together.
Q. All right.
A. Like, one, and then the other one.
Q. And you made another call to -- around 10 o'clock to Paula?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, did you make that from your cell phone?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, did you have any cordless phones in your house at this time?

A. No.
Q. Do you have any cordless phones now?
A. No.
Q. And did you use your cell phone as a cordless phone?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, did the LAPD make an audio analysis of that cell phone call
that you made to determine whether there were any automobile sounds?

MR. PETROCELLI: Object, Your Honor. He has no personal knowledge.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Where did you make the cell-phone call from?
A. In my front yard.
Q. Were there any auto sounds that you could hear when you made the
cell-phone call in your front yard?
A. No.
Q. And was there any evidence -- you sat through the entire criminal
trial -- was there any evidence introduced at that criminal trial --

MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. Completely irrelevant, what was
introduced at some other trial.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, from your front yard -- well, strike that.
Your dog, Chachi -- we've heard about Chachi, and Chachi getting in
and out of the gates -- did Chachi get in and out of gates?
A. All my dogs did, and -- including Chachi, yes.
Q. Did you ever form any habit on how you would get in and out of
the house -- the gates so that you would reduce the amount of times
the dog got out of the yard?
A. Yes. As I stated before, I had been warned by the SPCA, on
numerous occasions, that there had been some confrontations between
Nicole and various neighbors of mine about my dogs being out. So
over the years, you just develop a pattern. My pattern, is I get in
my car; I start the car up; I hit the button to open the gate, and
the gate opens. And as I determine the gate's about to close, then I
drive out of the gate -- out of the -- out of the house.
Q. Okay.
MR. BAKER: Now, while we're on your area, Phil. Can you get me the
blow-up of the Rockingham -- the diagramatic. You remember there was
a neighbor of yours, Charlie Cale, or -- were you at the custody
A. I was at my children's custody hearing.
Q. All right. Now, let me ask you this: Was there anybody else
besides yourself that you were friends with that had a white Bronco
in 1994?
A. Yes.
Q. Who?
A. Al Cowlings and Paula Barbieri. They were -- all three cars were
about identical.
Q. And when Al Cowlings would come to your house -- by the way, did
he have a key to your house?
A. Yes.
Q. Did he have a key to the gate, the front gate?
A. Yes.
Q. Where would Al Cowlings park his Bronco?
A. Right where my Bronco was parked the morning of the 13th.
Q. And that is by the Rockingham gate, on Rockingham, pointed north?

A. Yes.
Q. And did Paula Barbieri, when she came over to your house, when --
where did she park her white Bronco?
A. She parked all over the place; but more than not, on Rockingham,
not exactly where that car was parked. Often, even across the
street, for some reason, of the intersection.
Q. Okay. And from north on Rockingham --
MR. BAKER: Yeah, this one. I'm sorry, Phil
(indicating to Mr. P. Baker.)
MR. P. BAKER: That's 1174.
( Exhibit 1174 displayed.)
Q. Now, there's a streetlight right here, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And that's on the corner of Ashford and Rockingham, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And if you are up on Rockingham, 150, 200 feet, and it's dark,
it's 9 o'clock at night or so, and you're out walking, and you're
walking south on Rockingham, and there's a car parked right there
(indicating), can you see it?
MR. KELLY: Objection. Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Not only can you see it, you can see about another 100 to 150
feet beyond it.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, there are trees in this property over here
A. Yes.
Q. When you're walking south on Rockingham, you can look right under
those trees, because the tree trunks, they're old, mature trees, and
you can see directly into your gate, can you not, if it's open?
A. Yes. There's many more trees now than then, but you can still see
directly through it.
Q. Okay. Now, you've gone over in some detail reports when you
returned from McDonald's. I want to ask you, what were you, in fact,
wearing when you went to McDonald's with Kato and got the burger and
A. I was wearing the same blue pants, golf pants, Bugle Boy, that I
had worn and played golf in that day. I had put on a -- the -- a
blue -- you could call it a warm-up, I guess. I use it as a wind
kind of jacket, it's -- if it's kind of cold in the morning when I
play golf. And I -- I believe a white golf shirt -- I'm not 100
percent sure of that -- and tennis shoes.
Q. And they're white Reebok tennis shoes?
A. That's right.
Q. I want to fast-forward a little bit. But on June 13, after you
got back from Chicago and you had been down to LAPD, did Detective
Lange go up into your closet and have you identify the clothes that
you were wearing?
A. Yes. Not only my closet, but the pants -- where I have a habit of
laying the pants across my tub, because when you play golf, your
pants don't necessarily get dirty, but sometimes I want them ironed
and pressed. So, myself, Mr. Kardashian, Mr. Taft, and Mr. Lange
went into my closet. He had asked what was I wearing, and pointed
out to him what I was wearing, and took him in the bathroom and
showed him the -- the pants.
Q. And the only thing Lange took was your tennis shoes, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. And he didn't ask to take any of your clothes?
A. That's correct.
Q. Do you -- in '94, did you own a black sweatsuit or workout suit
with a white stripe around the zipper and white zipper down the
A. No; not to my knowledge, no.
Q. You own one now?
A. I have some -- my daughter bought me some -- things inside the
home -- my older daughter -- they're not cotton; they're rayon or
something. I think I have some pants and a cashmere coat, top, just
sort of -- I use it as a pajama top.
Q. When you left your home to go to Chicago to get in a limousine
and get on the airplane, what were you wearing then?
A. I was wearing some stone-washed jeans, white, probably, polo
shirt, and a sort of a stone-washed jean top. And I also had a wind
-- I can't recall if I put it in a bag -- I had a windbreaker with
me, sort of a blue windbreaker.
Q. Now, at any time on the 12th, were you in a black sweatsuit
outfit with a white zipper stripe on it?
A. At no time was I, no.
Q. Now, when you're on the airplane, you talked to Howard Bingham?
A. I talked to a couple guys. Yes, Howard Bingham.
Q. And Howard Bingham was what, Mohammed Ali's personal
A. Yes.
Q. You've known him for quite a while?
A. Yes.
Q. You talked to the captain?
A. Yes. I talked to Craig Baumgarten's partner.
Q. And signed autographs at the airport, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. On both ends. When you arrived in Chicago, did you -- you were
picked up at airport?
A. Yes. The guy was at the plane.
Q. Okay. And that's this Jim Merrill?
A. Yes.
Q. Now --
A. Yes.
Q. Now, Jim Merrill accompanied you to the luggage detention area --
the luggage pick-up area?
A. Yes.
Q. You got your baggage -- and -- at that area, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You put your golf bag and the Louis Vuitton bag back -- in the
back of the car?
A. Yes. Yes.
Q. Did you expect to see your golf bag between the time it was put
in the trunk at any time before you were on the golf course the next
A. No.
Q. Now, when you go to these golf outings that you were -- you did
for Hertz, you're taken care of rather well; would you agree with
A. Yes.
Q. So what happens to your golf bag when you're picked up at the
A. Well, this particular trip -- it differs. If the golf course is
at the hotel that you're playing -- for instance, in Washington, a
week before, I got there late. The golf course was at the hotel. So
when you check in, the -- the bell guy takes your clubs and puts it
in a golf room, and you could pick it up the next morning, or
they'll send it to the -- to the golf course. And in this type of
tournament, the course wasn't where the -- where the hotel was. So
what happens is, they -- I leave the clubs in his car. He would have
driven me to the golf course. When we get there, they -- we have
these hostesses and guys, and they take your golf bag and unzip it.
You can touch it. They put it in the golf cart. They take your balls
out, your shoes out. They lay everything for you. My expectation on
this trip would be, the next time -- once I got in this guy's car at
the airport, I would see my golf clubs -- even though I didn't think
about it -- but I knew when I got to the golf course the next day,
all -- my bag would have been emptied and laid up on the golf cart
-- on the golf cart, with all my things out of the bag.
Q. Now, when you travel, you have -- you have your golf clubs --
they would normally -- the clubs -- the golf bag, rather, that you
use when you play golf, with all your clubs in it -- correct?
A. That's right.
Q. And then it has a zippered cover that goes over the top of it,
A. That's correct.
Q. And that zippered cover, as we can see here, because it's now in
the courtroom, is considerably larger than the bag, isn't it?
A. Yes.
(Mr. P. Baker raises golf bag in carrying case for jurors to view.)
MR. BAKER: Let's take the bag out.
THE COURT REPORTER: What number is the golf bag, please?
MR. P. BAKER: Pardon me?
THE COURT REPORTER: What number is the golf bag?
MR. P. BAKER: I'll find it in a second.
(Golf bag removed from carrying case.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, the golf bag generally has this piece with
the -- with the cover on it, does it not?
A. Yes.
Q. And this also comes off, does it not?
(Mr. Baker dismantles golf bag.)
A. Yes.
Q. The next time you anticipated seeing your golf bag, it would have
been outside of the zipper cover?
A. Yes.
Q. The cover on the bag would have been off and the bag would be
strapped to a golf cart?
A. Golf cart. My shoes would have probably either been laid out on
the golf cart, or they would have brought it into the, you know, the
locker room. And many times, because you play with your own balls,
the guy would take out my balls and have the balls sitting on the
golf cart.
Q. Now --
MR. LEONARD: Mr. Baker, do we have numbers for those?
MR. P. BAKER: I'll get it.
THE CLERK: Is it that Swiss Army golf bag?
THE CLERK: That's 896 by reference.
(Exhibit 896 displayed.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Okay. That particular golf bag was relatively
unique, was it not?
A. Yes. It was the -- as far as I knew, to my knowledge, it was only
given to people who work for Swiss Army. There was only about, from
what I gather, 15 or 16 of them. And it had just recently, within
the month, been sent to me. This may have been the first, if not the
second, but the first time I've ever used it.
Q. Okay.
A. And they only make -- because it became an issue in the other
trial, Swiss Army only made one bag.
Q. And that's the only bag they made, this black one with the Swiss
Army on it?
A. Yes. Despite the fact someone said it was a different Swiss Army
MR. PETROCELLI: I'll object to what he said someone else said. I'd
ask the witness not to talk about other testimony.
THE COURT: Sustained. That portion is stricken.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Okay. And this -- the cover came with it that had
the Swiss Army on it?'
A. That's right.
Q. Okay. That golf bag stayed in Jim Merrill's car when you left
the airport?
A. There was no need for me to take it to the hotel room.
Q. You never waited for that golf bag the following morning, on the
13th, after you'd received the phone call in the -- in the hotel,
did you?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. Now, when you were in the hotel room and you received the phone
call, did you, in fact, make efforts of your own, as well as have
Kathy Randa make efforts, to get you back to Los Angeles?
A. Yes. Kathy started -- my second -- maybe my first call out was to
Kathy to get me a flight out. As you can imagine, I was, you know,
pretty -- I don't know -- you know, and I -- I just started calling,
myself, also. I just started calling the airlines and people, trying
to get a flight as soon as I could.
Q. Now, after you received the phone call that you told us about
6:30 in the morning on -- in -- 8:30, I guess would be Chicago time
-- did you make a lot of phone calls in that hotel room before you
left the hotel room?
A. I believe so.
Q. Why did you -- where did you call, O.J.?
A. I -- I don't -- I can't really tell you exactly where every call
went, because I was calling the airlines; I was calling my house.
I called Nicole's house. I believe I called -- the cell phones of --
that were given to me by the first officer who called me. I was just
-- it was just tough to be sitting, trying to do nothing, so I was
calling every -- I was just calling.
Q. When you called Nicole's phone, did you get anybody?
A. At some point, I did, yes.
Q. Did you get a police officer?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ask what had happened?
A. Everybody I called, I asked what happened, every person I talked
to, that was either a police officer or my daughter or whoever, what
Q. Did you talk to Arnelle that day?
A. Yes.
Q. The morning of the 13th?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ask her what happened?
A. Yes. Or, you know, I don't know if I asked specifically, but I
was asking what's going on. And she was saying whatever she knew.
And I was, you know. . .
Q. Did you get yourself a flight to get out of Chicago, back to LA?
A. Kathy had gotten a 10 o'clock flight, first class. But I had
found a 9:15 flight, which, as you can imagine, I -- I think there
was 8:10 or so -- when I got the call from L
A. I didn't know if I can make it, but I wanted to get -- I had to
get out of the hotel, get back to the airport, and get on a flight.
And Chicago is one of the biggest airports in the world. I had a
9:15 flight. And I was about to be -- to be lucky enough to get on
it. I was rushing to go get on it, instead of waiting for Kathy. My
flight --
Q. Now, you made -- and we've heard from Jim Merrill's deposition
that you made two or three phone calls to him --
A. Yes.
Q. -- in his car --
A. Yes.
Q. -- or on his cell phone. And in his car, on the cell phone?
A. Um-hum.
Q. And before you left the hotel, you were aware that he was a
couple minutes from the airport -- from the hotel?
A. Yes. Based on my last -- my last call to him, you know, which had
been maybe ten minutes previous, and he was -- he should have been
driving up any minute.
Q. And did you want to wait around and make sure you got your golf
bag so you could take your golf bag home to Los Angeles?
A. No. I wanted to get home, to Los Angeles.
Q. And so you got home. You got in the car and -- with Mr. Kilduff,
and got to the airport?
A. I got the first ride that was available to me.
Q. Were there any cabs available?
A. Absolutely none. We had called. I had gone back in and said
where's the cab? And I think she called again said one was coming.
There was no cabs around anywhere.
Q. And Kilduff was the first available ride to get to the airport?
A. I don't know Kilduff, but a Hertz -- Hertz guy that I did know
had showed up with some other customers and stuff. And the minute he
showed up, I said, "I got to go. Can one of you guys take me to the
Q. Now, on the way back in the airplane, did you again start
A. Yeah. I believe also in the car to the airport, I was calling.
Q. And who did you talk to?
A. You know, as I said, I can't recall who I talked to, when. I know
in the hotel room, I had spoken to a police officer, who I later
found out was Phillips. And Arnelle. I think on two occasions, I
talked to Arnelle. I believe I spoke to -- someplace in here, I
believe I talked to Officer Lange. That may have been at Nicole's
house, but I'm not 100 percent sure. I didn't know who these guys
were at the time. And I spoke to another officer at my house at one
point, who, if I had to guess, I would say it was Fuhrman, but I
know it wasn't Phillips.
Q. All right. And what did -- first of all, did you ever express a
concern about your kids?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you ask about your children?
A. Well, the first thing I was told is that my kids were all right,
and that my kids were at a police station, and that concerned me. At
some point, I asked -- I don't know if it was in the first
conversation or when I -- I talked to people at my house -- that I
wanted to know if my kids were exposed to anything. And the guy said
no; whatever had happened, had taken place in front, and they had
taken my kids down the back -- down the back stairs, and that my
children didn't see anything.
Q. And were you told that your ex-wife had been murdered?
A. I believe the first thing that Phillips told me -- I thought he
said "murder" -- he may have said "killed." But I knew when I was on
my way home that she had been murdered.
Q. How did you know that?
A. Because someone told me that.
Q. You recall who?
A. I thought it was Phillips, as I said. Phillips, I believe the
first words he told me was that my wife had been -- first he said my
kids were all right -- your wife was murdered. Arnelle may have said
it. But that's what I knew. I was on my way home. I knew it wasn't a
car accident.
Q. Now, did you know that there was somebody other than your wife
who had been involved in the crime of June 12, 1994?
A. I think that I knew, possibly, someone else was a victim or also
involved. I didn't know if that was for sure. That's why I believe
that may have come from Arnelle, and not the police officer.
Q. And you talked to Arnelle before you ever got on the airplane,
did you not?
A. Yes. I talked to Arnelle twice.
Q. When did you talk to Arnelle?
A. During the first conversation with Phillips. She was very
upset. And we talked then. I called back at some point, and I
believe I talked to another officer first, and then Arnelle. And
maybe it was Arnelle. And then she gave it to another officer.
Q. Now, by the time you got to LAX on the 13th, the media was -- had
they become aware, to your knowledge, of the crimes at 875 South
A. See, I was told by one of the police officers that they weren't
telling the media, and so that's why I was, you know, trying not to
really say anything, you know, even to the Hertz people. But by the
-- I can't recall. When I got into the car with Skip and Kathy, I
know that Skip had told me the police were at my house. I don't
recall if they said the media was. I think we were all surprised
when we drove up Rockingham and saw all of the big satellite trucks
and -- and, you know, the media trucks.
Q. About what time did you get to your Rockingham estate?
A. I have no idea.
Q. Okay. When you walked up or drove up, rather, you were in Skip's
A. Yes.
Q. And the trucks were out there with their headlights raised?
A. Yes. We had come around the -- went on Rockingham, and we saw the
trucks. And Skip stopped and backed up and started down another
street and said -- well, we're talking about should we go around the
other side, and Skip suggested, should we go to the office. And I
told him no; the police officer I talked to said he'd be at my
house; I've got to go home. So we just backed up and drove up to the
gate and tried to drive in.
Q. And they wouldn't let you in?
A. No.
Q. So what --
A. They wouldn't let the car in. Well, I jumped out. I believe Kathy
was jumping out with me. Skip was maybe going to move the car out,
once I jumped out. I just started through the gate, and -- and was
stopped by an officer.
Q. Did the officer handcuff you?
A. Yes. Spoke to me, and then handcuffed me.
Q. And then what occurred, O.J.?
A. He was speaking to me, and he said he had to -- I couldn't go in.
And then he said he had to handcuff me; he was told he had to
handcuff me. And he handcuffed me. And I was asking, why are you
handcuffing me? And he walked me over to this -- my daughter's
playhouse. And I was just trying to act -- ask him why am I being
handcuffed. And another officer, who I believe was Phillips -- he
had a mustache -- was talking to me. And at some point, my lawyer
came in, Skip Taft, with Howard Weitzman. And at some point, what I
eventually learned is that -- Vannatter showed up, and they were
saying, "Why is he handcuffed?" And they were talking. And Vannatter
asked me at one point, you know, they needed to talk to me. And I
agreed. And then we -- then he took the handcuffs off. And my
lawyers wanted me to drive downtown with them. And there was a
conversation about that. And I said it didn't matter with me --
didn't matter to me.
Q. And you ended up driving downtown, not with your lawyers, but
with Vannatter and another officer?
A. Yes.
MR. BAKER: Okay. Now, is this a good point, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Okay. Ten-minute recess, ladies and gentlemen. Don't talk
about the case. Don't form or express any opinions.
(Jurors resume their respective seats.)
MR. BAKER: Thank you, Your Honor.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, O.J., when -- when you were in the police car
going down to Parker Center in downtown Los Angeles, did you have
your black -- you call it a grip, I call it a leather duffel bag;
was that with you?
A. Mr. Vannatter, when we were getting in the car, took it and put
it in the trunk of his car.
Q. Okay. That was the car that you rode down to Parker Center in?
A. Yes.
Q. And did he keep that grip after you ultimately left Parker
A. Yes. I asked for it and he said it was in his car and he asked
would it be all right if he just dropped it back at the house when
he got back there.
Q. Okay.
A. I said sure.
Q. Okay. So that grip was then in his possession from about 1:30 --

MR. BAKER: That's okay, Erin, thank you.
Q. -- about 1:30 to whenever he got back to Rockingham?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Did he ever ask you if he could look in the grip?
A. No.
Q. I mean you didn't care, but he never asked you; is that right?
MR. PETROCELLI: I'm going to object to his preamble, him not caring.
Ask him a question.
THE COURT: Ask him if he cared.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you care whether he looked in your grip?
A. If he asked I would have said sure, but he didn't ask.
Q. All right. And in any event, that piece of luggage was then
returned to you at about 5:30 on the 13th, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, did Vannatter or Lange or any other LAPD officer on the 13th
ask you for your luggage?
A. No one ever asked me or, to my knowledge, asked anyone with my
defense team throughout any of the other trial for any of my luggage
including my golf clubs.
MR. PETROCELLI: Object to his comments to other people outside of
THE COURT: Okay. Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And during the criminal trial, were you requested
to produce your golf bag, the one we've seen here in court today?
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, relevance.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I think it's relevant. I'd like to be heard.
THE COURT: Sustained. This is a civil trial.
MR. LEONARD: Bob. Bob.
MR. BAKER: Let's be heard on that. Let me at least put it on the
MR. PETROCELLI: Hold on. Maybe you can tell me where you're going
with this.
MR. BAKER: Let's just put it on the record.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench with reporter:)
MR. BAKER: They've tried to infer that the golf bag is of great
importance in this case, and it was -- had some nefarious things in
it, and obviously we think it's important. He will testify that he
is the one that told his lawyers to bring the golf bag to the
criminal trial, and it was of absolutely no importance.
THE COURT: You could ask him that.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you.
THE COURT: But whether somebody asked him, there's an objection,
it's sustained.
MR. BAKER: Okay.
(The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence
of the jury.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you request during the criminal trial that
your golf bag and your Louis Buitton bag, your luggage, be brought
down into the Courthouse in the criminal trial?
A. Yes. I was tired of hearing about my luggage and I wondered why
nobody seemed to want it, so I told my defense team -- I said, will
you guys please go get all my luggage that I had, bring it down here
and let them test it and do whatever they need to do with it.
Q. And what you meant is test it for blood?
A. Yes. I mean there seemed to be a lot of talk about my Louis
Vuitton bag and golf bag and no one ever asked for it, and I felt
maybe we can stop all the talk about it by bringing it in.
Q. Now, Mr. Simpson, on the way to -- O.J., on the way down to
Parker Center when you were in the vehicle with Vannatter and
another officer, did they talk to you about your whereabouts the
evening before?
A. Yes.
Q. Did they ask you where you had been?
A. Yes.
Q. And did they talk to you about whether or not you had been to get
a hamburger and your whereabouts the evening before?
A. Yes. I told them. They didn't ask me if I had done that. I told
them what I had done.
Q. And when you got to the police station, you had an opportunity to
discuss for a period of time with your lawyers, did you not, before
the recorded statement?
A. I talked to the police for a while. Then my lawyers showed up and
I talked to my lawyers and then I went back in with the police
Q. Okay. Now, when you got back in with the police officers, you
heard a tape recording of the interview that they did with you on
the afternoon of June 13, 1994, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Before that interview was tape-recorded, did they turn on the
tape recorder and stop it and rewind it?
A. I don't -- I can't recall if they rewound it or put another tape
in when they started interviewing me, but they stopped and started
Q. Tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what occurred the first
time that they tape-recorded you?
A. Well, they turned it on and they started reading; they explained
what they were doing, they started reading my rights. When they got
to the part about a lawyer being present I made a comment.
Q. What comments did you make?
A. I don't know. Just, oh, yeah, sure, that's what you say here, or
something to that effect. And he stopped it and he says, oh, come
on, O.J., we just want to get this thing over with. I mean if you
want your lawyers in here, they can come in here and we'll be here
all day. You said you wanted to talk to us. And I said, I do. And he
said, well, you know, we just want to get it over with. We can get
back -- we can -- you give some answers, you can go home, you can
see your kids. And I said start it over again. And he did it again.
I kind of chuckled at that point and the second time, but I didn't
care if they talked to me or not. I didn't feel I needed a lawyer.
Q. Now, did you think you had anything to hide from the police at
the time that you were in Parker Center LAPD on June 13, 1994?
A. Absolutely nothing.
Q. And were you tired?
A. I was tired. I was a lot of things; I was kind of -- you know,
you can imagine what I had heard. I hadn't slept. I was tired. I was
in shock. I was disbelieving. I was a lot of things.
Q. Now, in the ride down, and before you were -- turned on the
second time on the tape recorder, did you ever ask Vannatter or
Lange or the third officer what had happened?
A. I asked him every time I spoke to a police officer or one of the
detectives, I constantly asked him, you know, what happened.
Q. Did anybody ever tell you what had happened?
A. Not -- nothing other than, you know, my kids didn't see anything
and that type of stuff.
Q. Would any of the LAPD ever give you any indication as to what
A. No.
Q. And did you bring it up again in your recorded statement that the
police officers -- you guys haven't told me anything, did you say
that to him?
A. No, no.
Q. Did you tell him that you had no idea what happened?
A. Yes.
Q. And you said:
(Mr. Baker read a portion of the transcript of O.J. Simpson's police
interview.) You guys haven't told me anything. Every time I ask you
MR. BAKER: Page 23.
(Mr. Baker read a portion of the transcript of O.J. Simpson's police
interview.) Every time I ask you guys, you say you're going to tell
me in a bit.
Q. Is that what you said to them?
A. Yes.
Q. And was Vannatter doing most of the questioning?
A. He and Lange, they both were.
Q. Now, you indicated on that recording -- they said there was blood
all over and you volunteered to take a blood test, did you not?
A. Yes.
Q. Why?
A. Because I didn't do anything, I was innocent. I didn't know if it
would help them. I'd do whatever I can do to help them.
Q. And they mentioned guns or -- strike that. When they said that
we don't have a lot of answers ourselves, you told them you had a
bunch of guns, correct?
A. Yes. And I was a little nervous about that because I had a gun in
my car and I never locked my car and so I had a little concern about
Q. Why did you have a gun in your car, O.J.?
A. Well, a month previous to this I was going down to Laguna to the
recital and on Mother's Day, about 4 in the morning, and three cars
attempted to run me off the road. I don't know if they were -- they
had me encircled and they were slowing down to try to stop me, and
so I held up my cell phone so they can see I may have been making a
cell call and they took off. And I chased them for a little bit,
chased one of them, to make him think I was chasing him. And after
that I, you know, had a gun in my car.
Q. Now, did Nicole know that you had guns?
A. Very much so, yes. She had shot -- I had her years previous shoot
them so that she'd know how they would feel. And she was always
concerned about guns in the house, so she had gone out and bought
all the locks for the pistols that I had, revolvers. And in the last
month of her life, whenever I was picking the kids up to go to
school or whatever, she would always say, and I did, but she'd
always say put that gun in the trunk while the kids were in the
Q. Now, when you talked about locks, you're talking about trigger
A. Yes.
Q. Now, were you in this courtroom the day Nancy Ney testified from
the Sojourn House that somebody named Nicole had called that didn't
know if -- didn't know if her husband had any guns?
A. I wasn't here, but I heard that testimony and saw that -- that
list in my child custody case.
Q. Now, there wasn't any question in your mind Nicole knew you had
guns and knew you had them in the car in the month before she died?
A. Most definitely.
Q. Now, you also told the officers that you had to go out to the
Bronco to get your phone, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you testified that you placed a cell phone call at about
10:00 on the 13th out by your automobile out in the driveway, right?

A. Yes.
Q. Now, why did you need to go out to the Bronco to get your cell
phone if you already had your cell phone, O.J.?
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, assumes facts.
MR. LEONARD: I think there was a misstatement, 1213.
MR. PETROCELLI: It's argumentative also.
MR. BAKER: You're objecting my question to my client is
MR. PETROCELLI: And it's been leading all day, too.
MR. BAKER: Anything else you want to put down?
MR. PETROCELLI: That's it for now.
THE COURT: Start over.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Tell us how your cell phone works?
A. Like most cell phones. But mine comes in a -- I had a package
like a small purse and I would keep an extra battery in it. It would
also have a battery charger, real small battery charger, so you can
recharge it in any hotel room. It also had a plug in so you can plug
it into any phone -- car, you know, car lighter. And it came in a
real small package or purse, I guess you would call it.
Q. Is that what you were going to get in from the Bronco just before
you left?
A. Yes. And I -- as I said, I was tired and I sort of indicated that
to the police. If you'll listen to the tape, I said the cell phone
-- I think I said or whatever that is, and that -- whatever that is
was referring to those -- the little package. And I said that to the
police when they interviewed me, if you listen to that tape.
Q. Okay. It says:
(Mr. Baker read a portion of the transcript of O.J. Simpson's police
MR. BAKER: Page -- Page 15, line 22. Do you recall bleeding at all
in your truck in the Bronco? I recall bleeding at my house and I
went to the Bronco. The last thing I did before I left, I was
rushing, was went and got my phone out of the Bronco.
MR. BAKER: And there's a sound apparently, and you say -- well,
whatever that is.
MR. PETROCELLI: The sound is um.
MR. BAKER: I don't know if that's um or not.
A. Whatever that is is what I was talking about the case and all the
other stuff.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, in that statement you gave to the police, you
said something about calling Paula on the 12th, do you recall that,
or driving to Paula's?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you in fact driving to Paula's on the 12th or the 11th?
A. On the 11th.
Q. You didn't go to Paula's after the recital, did you?
A. No.
Q. Was that a mistake?
A. Yes, it was. I think I was con -- I have a way of talking, when
someone will call and say what are you doing, I'll say I'm going to
somebody's place, and in fact I'm at home. But I was sort of running
both nights and things together because I didn't really have a
Sunday night because I hadn't slept, and at the exact same time on
Saturday night I was on my way to Paula's and I called Paula when I
was on my way to Paula's at that particular time. I don't know the
significance of it. I just had those two nights running together.
Q. Okay. Fair enough. Now, after the statement was completed by the
officers, what occurred next at LAPD Parker Center?
A. They said, well, let's go down and -- I guess either take blood
or take pictures or something. And we went down. I can't recall if
we took the pictures first or second, I don't recall, and then we
went and, you know, they kind of inspected my hand and -- hand, and
Nurse Peratis cleaned the -- the cut.
Q. When you say they kind of inspected your hand, O.J., what do you
mean they kind of inspected your hand?
A. Well, both Vannatter and Lange, and the nurse, because they
were -- they were looking at my hand, you know, I don't know if they
were looking for any bits of anything there, but -- so they took my
hand and inspected it, and then I put it down on the thing and Nurse
Peratis came in with a swab and cleaned it.
Q. Did they inspect both of your hands, your left and your right?
A. I don't recall if they did anything to my right hand. I don't
Q. Did they rotate your hand around, did they look at it?
A. They had it and looked at it and cleaned it.
Q. And Lange and Vannatter were right there, as well as Peratis
obviously, when he was bandaging it?
A. Yes. As a matter of fact, when they were taking the picture of
it, I can't recall if it was Vannatter or Lange, they took it and
positioned my hand, how they wanted the picture to be taken.
Q. Now, at that time, did you have any cut on your left hand other
than a cut that was on the knuckle of your middle finger?
A. No.
Q. Now, you ultimately went back to your office after you left LAPD?

A. Yes. Vannatter told me I shouldn't go back to the house just yet,
they were about finished, but he would let me know when I could go
back to the house. And we told them where we would be. And after
being at the office for an hour or so, you know, I was sort of
restless, I wanted to get home, and I called, and someone said it
was okay, come home.
Q. All right. And so you then went back to Rockingham, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it a zoo by then, with the media?
A. Yes, outside, yes.
Q. And did you view the television as to accusations that were being
made against you that night?
A. Yes. What -- we were looking for information and -- everyone
seemed to be in shock, and we went into my living room and put all
three TV's on and -- and, you know, didn't get much information.
Q. Did you get a lot of accusations.
A. Yeah. People were saying some things that I didn't feel were
accurate or true.
Q. Did you leave Rockingham the following day?
A. The following morning, yes.
Q. And went to where?
A. I went to meet my kids. I went directly to -- well, directly up
to -- I went to my office. I'm sorry. I went to my office.
Q. When did you meet your kids?
A. A little later. We had been calling, and
A.C. I guess was a little late leaving Laguna, and we ended up
meeting -- we ended up meeting, I believe, up on -- on -- I'm sorry,
I'm getting when I got out of incarceration and that day sort of
confused here. I met them at Bob Kardashian's house.
Q. And you stayed at Bob Kardashian's house from the 14th to the
17th, with the exception of when you went to the wake and the
funeral, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, on June 15, did you direct your attorneys to offer the
services of Henry Lee and Michael Baden to the officers of the LAPD?

A. Yes, I knew their reputations, I thought they were police
officers, both of them. I had spent a lot of time in Connecticut,
and I heard a lot about Henry Lee. And we felt if -- I felt -- I
wanted whoever did this to be caught, and I said I'll pay their
expenses and their costs for them to come out and work with LAPD
and, you know, not to work for me, but to work with the Los Angeles
Police Department, 'cause I understood them to be the best people in
the world at this type of stuff.
Q. Did the LAPD reject that?
A. Yes.
MR. PETROCELLI: I'm going to object, Your Honor. He has no personal
knowledge. It's also stricken from Lee's.
THE COURT: Last portion is stricken.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Were you under the care of a doctor that week?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you medicated?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know with what?
A. No. It was a couple things.
Q. Did you attend the wake of Nicole Brown Simpson?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have a conversation with Juditha Brown at that event?
A. Yes.
Q. Did she ask you if you were responsible for Nicole's death?
A. Yes, she asked me if I had anything to do with it, she really got
right up in my face and asked me.
Q. What did you say?
A. I told her no, I didn't, Judy, and I told her I loved Nicole.
Q. Now, you were here when Judy testified relative to when you and
Nicole broke up the second time, something about it's going to hurt;
remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you tell us what was said in that conversation, sir?
A. I had made up my mind that I wanted to not be involved with
whatever was going on in Nicole's life, other than the kids. It had
been a real tough month. I mentioned some of it yesterday, but there
are a few other things. And I called Judy 'cause I had a big concern
about Nicole, I wanted Judy to help me or for Judy to -- and Lou to
talk to Nicole to get her to go back to the therapy that she had
been going to evidently immediately before she asked me to get back
in the relationship. And I told Judy -- I shared with Judy some
things then that I had not told her before, like the car. And I told
her, Judy, you got to do something, you know, the first time it was
my fault, but this time -- I can't do this anymore, Judy, you know,
it hurts to do it, but I've got to distance myself from this, you
guys have got to do something. Judy was concerned, was every bit as
frightened as me. Judy said things to me that she was concerned
about, but she felt she couldn't say anything.
MR. KELLY: Object to what Judy felt or her concerns.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KELLY: Ask that the prior statement be stricken with regard to
THE COURT: Stricken.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) From the conversation, did you form the opinion
that Judy understood your concerns; Judy Brown?
A. Yes, very much so.
MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for operation of mind, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BAKER: Calls for what?
MR. KELLY: Just sustained.
THE COURT: Calling for somebody else's state of mind.
MR. BAKER: Calls for his opinion.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BAKER: Concern of the other person.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, on June 17, were you examined by various
A. Yes.
Q. And did you have any bruises on your body, Mr. Simpson?
A. Not that I know of, no.
Q. The area underneath your right -- on your bicep of your left arm.

A. Yes.
Q. You saw that picture here in court?
A. I wasn't -- I don't think I was here the day that we spoke of it,
but I was aware that, you know, they made some allegation about
Q. How long has that mark been on -- been on your arm?
A. Since I retired from football.
Q. Is it still there today?
A. Yes. Along with many other imperfections in my -- coloration of
my body, because of football.
Q. Now, on the 17th, you knew that the LAPD was going to arrest you,
didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. And what did you ask Al Cowlings to do?
A. Well, early on, I had asked him to give some money to my kids, my
older kids, because I felt they wouldn't want to go to work, and I
had some cash, and then at one point I just turned to him and asked
him to take me to Nicole's grave.
Q. Why?
A. Well, I was -- I -- I was feeling a lot of pain and I just wanted
it to end and I wanted to go to Nicole's grave and I, you know, I
was I guess feeling suicidal.
Q. And you had a gun in your duffel bag. Did you --
A. Yes.
Q. Did you plan to end your life?
A. I certainly -- I just wanted my pain to end, and I just sat with
A.C. and -- we drove down and we couldn't get into the cemetery
because there was a police car there, and we went and sat in an
orange grove. And at some point
A.C. got out of the car to go use the restroom and I got into --
then I got into the back of the car and I took a gun out, and,
A.C. came back and said, hey, I'm taking you home, and I said, well,
take me to my mom. And we started back up the freeway, and he called
the police as we started back up the freeway.
Q. Were you -- were you feeling grief stricken?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you feel that you had been unfairly accused of killing your
A. I'm sure, among all the things I was feeling, that I was in a lot
of pain, I was -- I was missing Nicole, my kids didn't cry, I -- you
know, I guess they had attacked me somewhat, and that hurt, hurt me.
And I just didn't know what to do.
Q. And what, if anything, or what -- what was it that kept you from
ending your life that day?
A. Well, partially it's the -- my mother told me years ago that you
couldn't go to heaven if you commit suicide, and I was kind of
dealing with that. And thank God for
Q. Didn't you think that that was an act of cowardice. You had four
children, two young kids?
A. Yes, I was totally ashamed of myself right after that. And I'm
ashamed that I ever thought that.
Q. Did you ever tell anyone at the time that you had contemplated
ending your life or thereafter, that you were in any way responsible
for Nicole Brown Simpson's death?
A. Never, never at any time, and never would I, 'cause I wasn't.
Q. And how many days did you spend in jail for crimes you didn't
A. 14, 16 --
MR. PETROCELLI: Facts not in evidence, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) 15 months?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you also just about lost every material possession that
you've had as a result of this incident?
MR. PETROCELLI: You know, Your Honor, you made an order forbidding
us to get into this.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. PETROCELLI: Opening the door. I'm happy to go into it.
MR. BAKER: I don't have anything further at this time.
Q. You told this jury on Friday Mr. Simpson, that you never, ever,
attempted to lie about anything important in your life. Do you
remember that?
A. Not anything that was germane to anything.
Q. Excuse me. Do you remember that testimony? Please answer yes or
A. Yes.
Q. And when you told this jury on Friday that you never, ever
attempted to lie about anything important, you understood that your
credibility is a crucial issue in this case, right?
MR. BAKER: Argumentative, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You understand that it's important that you
be believed by this jury, correct?
MR. BAKER: Same thing, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BAKER: Argumentative. Irrelevant.
THE COURT: You may answer.
A. I believe it's important for me to be honest to the jury, yes.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You understand that it's important -- that
it's important for you to be believed by this jury, true.
MR. BAKER: Same objection.
A. I believe it's important for me to be honest to the jury.
MR. PETROCELLI) Can you answer my question, sir.
A. I can't answer your question the way it's worded. I believe it's
important for me to be honest to the jury.
Q. Let me ask it again, and try to answer it. My turn now.
A. Okay.
Q. You understand how important it is for you to be believed by this
jury? Yes or no?
A. I can't answer that.
MR. BAKER: Objection. Argumentative.
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, direct him to answer yes or no.
MR. BAKER: Let me get my objection out first.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MR. BAKER: It's argumentative; it's irrelevant as to his
understanding in that regard; and it's certainly argumentative.
MR. PETROCELLI: Evidence Code 780, motivation, attitude toward
giving testimony, bias.
THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.
A. I believe it's important for me to be honest to the jury. I don't
think you've given much consideration --
Q. Excuse me. Ask that the witness answer the question yes or no.
THE COURT: Answer it yes or no.
THE WITNESS: I can't answer yes or no.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Let me ask the question again. And answer yes
or no; the Court has ordered you to.
MR. BAKER: I object to the Court ordering my client to answer it yes
or no. And he can't answer it yes or no.
THE COURT: Ask the question.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You understand how important it is for you to
be believed by this jury; true?
A. I can't answer that true or false. I know it's important for me
to be honest --
Q. Do you understand?
A. -- to the jury.
Q. That it's important for you to be believed; yes or no? Do you
understand that, sir?
A. I can't answer that yes or no. I think it's important for me to
be honest to the jury.
MR. PETROCELLI: Move to strike, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Petrocelli, move on to the next question. You got
your answer.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You have lied repeatedly to this jury,
haven't you, sir?
A. No.
Q. And you have lied repeatedly throughout your life, haven't you?
A. No.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, this is argument.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. PETROCELLI: Excuse me, Mr. Baker.
THE COURT: You may proceed.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You lied. When you first met Nicole, you were
married to your first wife, true?
A. Yes.
Q. And living with her, right?
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, this is subject to a motion in limine. This
is --
MR. PETROCELLI: It is not, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained. Let's get on with the examination. You're
got not going to go through the entire --
THE COURT: -- span of life.
MR. PETROCELLI: His credibility on his testimony.
THE COURT: You may impeach on material matters.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) When you were married to Nicole, you were
repeatedly unfaithful to her, were you not?
A. There were times.
MR. BAKER: I object. I want to approach on this. This is ridiculous.

MR. BAKER: This is the subject of a motion --
MR. PETROCELLI: I'll cite chapter and verse.
THE COURT: Approach the bench.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench, with the
MR. PETROCELLI: First of all, Your Honor --
MR. P. BAKER: Motion in limine number 3.
MR. PETROCELLI: -- he put this witness on. And I intend -- and he
had this witness say that he never even attempted to lie. I intend
to show that this witness has been lying about everything important
in this case. One of the issues he had him discuss was how he had a
great relationship, good relationship with -- loving relationship
with Nicole, specifically during the time frame of 1985 to 1987; and
then some other time frames, he was engaged in a longstanding
affair, was a cause of great animosity between him and his wife, and
led to this beating in 1989 -- and I have writings on this --
THE COURT: Would you keep your voice down.
MR. PETROCELLI: I'm sorry. I have writings of her that I intend to
get into, as well, that will reflect this. It shows that, A, he was
lying; and B, directly undercuts the direct testimony elicited, that
he had a great, loving relationship throughout his marriage.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, this is total collateral issues. Let me say
two things: One, that on motion in limine number 3 the issue of his
infidelity was raised, and granted by you. Number 2, that, if they
go back and try to get in these diaries, that is total hearsay of
Nicole Brown Simpson. These diaries -- these diaries were made
because she was told by her lawyers to make those diaries to upset
the prenuptial agreement after he had, in fact, written that
document that says that he will not -- he will give her half of his
property; rip up the prenuptial agreement. And this is the rankest
of hearsay.
THE COURT: Just a minute.
MR. PETROCELLI: I'm not referring to any of these diaries he's
talking about, Your Honor.
THE COURT: What -- which writings are you talking about?
MR. PETROCELLI: I'm talking about writings that she made after the
1989 beating in which it describes how Mr. Simpson was consistently
unfaithful, beat the shit out of her, beat her up in 1989, directly
undercuts what the testimony that he was --
THE COURT: How is that admissible?
MR. PETROCELLI: It shows her state of mind as to the nature of this
relationship which he elicited on direct examination.
MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. And these have nothing to do with divorce. And
they were written long before they were separated. He's talking
about something totally different. He cannot put this witness on in
front of this jury to describe this loving relationship, paint this
wonderful picture, say he was this -- this great guy, he never lied,
and then deprive me of the right to cross-examine him, when his
credibility is the single most crucial issue in the case. Your
motion in limine number 3 specifically said granted if they raise
these issues.
MR. BAKER: I didn't raise the issue of infidelity.
MR. PETROCELLI: Of course, you did.
THE COURT: Erin, give me the left-hand binder.
(The Clerk complies, hands binder to the Court.)
THE COURT: Thank you.
(Pause for the Court to review binder.)
MR. PETROCELLI: You have the transcript?
THE COURT: I need to see a transcript.
(Mr. Petrocelli hands transcript page to the Court.)
THE COURT: He talks about his Hall of Fame speech, how character is
everything to this man. And basically, he spent three hours talking
about his character.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I --
(Court reviews page 19 of September 16, 1996 transcript.)
THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Petrocelli, what date was that from, that
page of transcript?
MR. PETROCELLI: I think it was the 17th or 16th of September.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MR. BAKER: I didn't raise the issue of infidelity. Under Evidence
Code 1227, I can bring up hearsay, but they cannot bring up hearsay.

MR. PETROCELLI: That's absolutely wrong.
MR. BAKER: Let me finish. And this -- this is collateral issue. And
they've raised a million collateral issues in this case. But he has
to cross-examine him on the issues that I raised. And I didn't raise
infidelity. They're already had two and a half days cross-examining
him, and gone into everything. And now, they have to narrow their
cross-examination to the exact issues that were raised in this. They
can characterize it as character or anything else they want. And if
that were what I -- what I went on and examined him on that, then
there is no categorization; there's no limit to what they can raise.
And that's what their argument is. It's a fallacious argument.
They can't keep this man up there for six days.
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, under 1227, he's entitled to elicit
admissions of -- statement of decedent. As an exception to the
hearsay rule, we are able to probe fully the same acts, durations,
and occurrences under 356. You can't have a one-way street on
eliciting testimony about conversations and events. I mean, that's
never been the law of this state.
THE COURT: All right. The objection is overruled. I think the issue
of character of the defendant has been put into issue by the
defendant's testimony.
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence
of the jury.)
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) During the course of your relationship with
Nicole, Mr. Simpson, you were unfaithful to her; true?
MR. BAKER: Objection. 352 motion in limine number 3.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. From time to time, yes.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) And that was dishonest on your part, wasn't
A. I think morally, yes.
Q. That was a lie, wasn't it, sir?
A. I think morally it was dishonest of me, yes. I don't know if I
would characterize it as a lie.
Q. I -- excuse me?
A. I don't know if I would characterize it as a lie. I felt it was
morally wrong, when I look at it, yes.
Q. You don't think cheating on your wife and mother of your two
children is a lie? Is that what you're saying to this jury?
A. I'm saying to this jury --
Q. Yes or no, sir?
MR. BAKER: No. Let him --
A. Yes. You asked me what I said to the jury.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You have to answer my questions.
THE COURT: Just a minute.
MR. BAKER: He doesn't have to say yes or no.
MR. PETROCELLI: Yes, he does.
THE COURT: Ask your question again.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Are you saying that you don't consider it to
be a lie to your wife to cheat on her?
A. It's not the word I would use for it, no. I would say morally it
was wrong.
Q. You didn't tell her about these affairs at the time they were
happening, did you?
A. At the time they were happening, no. But I told her about
everybody -- one of them, yes.
Q. Now, in 1989, when you had this altercation with Nicole, you had
beaten Nicole in the past, hadn't you?
A. No.
Q. And in this 1989 incident, it was the last straw for Nicole,
wasn't it?
A. No.
Q. And she told you that, didn't she?
A. No.
Q. You had beaten her in the past, and on one occasion, you and she
went to a doctor and lied about what happened. True?
A. No.
Q. And told the doctor that she fell off a bicycle. True?
A. I told the doctor what she told me, yes.
Q. Now, you've seen writings of Nicole referring to that incident,
have you not, sir.
MR. BAKER: I'm going to object to this, Your Honor. I want to
approach again.
THE COURT: Okay. Approach again.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench, with the
MR. PETROCELLI: 732. This is on the Joint Trial Exhibit 732, and
these are writings which this witness testified he saw when he was
in jail. And Nicole describes these various things that we're
talking about, Your Honor. And she also described the 1989 incident,
where she talked about Mr. Simpson beating her. And it talks about
the incident where, previous to that, he beat her and she had to go
-- they had to go lie to the doctor. And I intend to show him this
and ask him why Nicole would lie about such things in her writings,
if he has any reason to know that, directly relevant to her state of
mind, directly relevant to the issues the defense that questioned
Mr. Simpson about. I'm entitled to probe on the issue of his
MR. P. BAKER: Your Honor the evidence --
MR. BAKER: All previously argued --
MR. P. BAKER: Evidence Code 1370, as specific writings, that -- that
this statement was made at or around the time of hearing. This
doesn't do it. It says unless -- it must be -- it must be made
within five years of the state of filing of this action. This
doesn't say --
MR. PETROCELLI: That new section I'm --
MR. P. BAKER: Yeah.
MR. PETROCELLI: -- I'm not relying on.
THE COURT: What is your --
MR. P. BAKER: That's a hearsay statement.
MR. PETROCELLI: That's hearsay statement. It comes under your
state-of-mind exception.
THE COURT: Excuse me. What part of her state of mind is being
established at this point?
MR. PETROCELLI: Her state of mind that they had had a hostile
physical relationship, and that's what led to it being terminated.
That's exactly what this letter's about. He got on -- on the stand
and said just the opposite, Your Honor. He's put his state of mind,
and he even said that Nicole's state of mind --
MR. P. BAKER: The jury can hear all of this.
MR. BAKER: Your voice is too damn loud.
MR. PETROCELLI: Excuse me, Mr. Baker. There's no need to lose
control because --
MR. BAKER: I'm not losing control; you are.
MR. PETROCELLI: I'll lower my voice. He has elicited testimony of
Mr. Simpson that Nicole and he had a great, loving relationship,
talked about that at length yesterday. It's all false. And this --
and he knew -- he knew these documents existed, Your Honor. His
client has seen these. He can't mislead the jury like that.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, this is --
THE COURT: Excuse me. This document was made when?
MR. PETROCELLI: This document was made sometime prior to 1990,
probably, because it was well before their divorce, and she -- it's
after this New Year's Eve incident that we've been talking about.
THE COURT: With regard to the circumstances of this document --
MR. PETROCELLI: This is Nicole's handwriting. It's talking about the
state of their marriage, which he characterizes as a loving,
beautiful marriage.
THE COURT: What's the foundation for this? When was this made? Who
MR. PETROCELLI: He will testify this is Nicole's handwriting. He
will testify he has seen this before. And he has to have some
explanation why Nicole would write in here that he beat her in '89,
he beat her prior to '89.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, excuse me.
THE BAILIFF: The jurors can hear the words you're saying up here.
MR. PETROCELLI: In any event --
THE COURT: Jurors, you're excused for ten minutes. Don't talk about
the case. Don't form or express any opinion.
(The following proceedings were held in open court, outside the
presence of the jury.)
THE COURT: Everyone in the audience, we are still in session. It's
just for the jury.
MR. PETROCELLI: I'm not using those lawyer documents you're talking
about. This is the only one I'm intending to use.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I would --
THE COURT: You may step down.
(Addressing the witness, Mr. Simpson)
THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.
MR. PETROCELLI: So, I'm trying to respond to Your Honor's questions
here. He recognizes the handwriting. He knows that this is Nicole's
handwriting. By the content, we know about when it was prepared. It
was during the marriage, and it was after the 1989 incident, so it's
sometime in 1990 or 1991. And she specifically talks about the
incident that they spent a lot of time on direct examination. And
she -- it reflects her state of mind about what happened in this
relationship, which he spent a great deal of time characterizing
on his part and on her part. And she's deceased. And he elicited all
kinds of admissions, statements by Nicole, hearsay statements,
purportedly, under 1227. And the law entitles us to go into those
same events, acts, occurrences, and declarations, including 1989.
Your Honor, you can't have a one-way examination of a --
MR. P. BAKER: It says Supreme Court case --
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I would ask that the Court read California
versus Green, 399 U.S. 149. That case is on point. This is hearsay.
He's trying to say because we explored the state of mind --
THE COURT: What's the citation?
MR. BAKER: 399 U.S. 149. He is trying to say that since we explored
the state --
THE COURT: What's the name of the case?
MR. BAKER: California versus Green. -- since we explored the state
of mind of Mr. Simpson, that somehow that piggy-backs the state of
mind of Nicole Brown Simpson in the evidence. It does not. This is a
straight hearsay document that can't be used to impeach this
MR. PETROCELLI: The state of mind of Mr. Simpson during the course
of the marriage was -- was proffered by you to show the nature of
the relationship; it obviously wasn't proffered to show anything in
regard to the specific motive at the time. You're trying to paint
the picture through this witness and this couple that it was a
loving, great relationship, marred by one minor incident in 1989.
And you used him to do that. And you just said you put his state of
mind in issue. For that reason, we are entitled to show her state of
mind which relates to the same relationship and the same marriage
that he's talking about.
MR. BAKER: It does not.
MR. PETROCELLI: It will, subject --
THE COURT: Do you have anything you want me to look at?
MR. PETROCELLI: I don't. I never heard of this case he's talking
THE COURT: It's an old case.
MR. PETROCELLI: I'm not familiar with it. I would rely on Section
356 of the Evidence Code, and I would rely on the state-of-mind
exception. We're not arguing this is hearsay, that it's not hearsay;
we're arguing that it's admissible hearsay, for all the reasons that
I've been expressing on the record.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, Nicole Brown Simpson didn't kill herself.
Her state of mind is irrelevant to this issue. They -- I didn't talk
about it. And no matter how many times he keeps saying it, what we
were talking about, his state of mind, they're trying to make him a
raging maniac. And we put in his character and his evidence relative
to his state of mind; we didn't put in her state of mind.
MR. PETROCELLI: He just made my argument for me, Your Honor, because
by that being relevant, her state of mind to the same relationship
is relevant. He just made my argument.
(Court retires to chambers to review documents.)
(At 11:50
A.M. a recess was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the same day.) SANTA
THE COURT: At this time the Court will conduct further proceedings
with regards to the objection and try to ascertain exactly what is
being objected to and what is being offered and for what purpose.
Let's start with you, Mr. Petrocelli. Go ahead. What is it you are
seeking to bring before the jury?
MR. PETROCELLI: Yes. I'm seeking to question Mr. Simpson about the
statements in Nicole's letter that in between Sydney and Justin's
birth, Mr. Simpson beat the holy hell out of her and that they lied
at the X-ray lab and said that she fell off of a bike. And I'm also
seeking to introduce the statements in there in which Nicole
describes the New Year's evening incident as a beat up,
wife-beating, and further refers to Mr. Simpson's infidelity, and
also indicates at the end of this letter that since that night that
she has never loved him since or been the same. And I proffer this
as evidence of Nicole's state of mind in regard to the nature of
this relationship in the days and time period leading up to the
'89 incident and then culminating in their divorce a few years
thereafter, and some specific response to Mr. Baker's eliciting from
Mr. Simpson that during this same period of time O.J. Simpson and
Nicole enjoyed a wonderful, loving relationship. And on page 123 of
the transcript of yesterday's testimony, he goes into that and he
goes into it, in other places as well, and he conceded at sidebar,
Mr. Baker did, that he was attempting to elicit evidence to show Mr.
Simpson's state of mind in regard to that relationship, which he
thought was relevant, to show that at no time could Mr. Simpson, and
would Mr. Simpson, ever have a motive to kill Nicole. And once you
accept the proposition, as I do, that that evidence is relevant, and
clearly equally relevant is the evidence of Nicole's state of mind
in regard to the identical issue, that is their relationship and
whether or not it was as he portrayed it or she portrayed it, and
whether or not he could and did have a motive to kill sometime
thereafter. And under the state of mind exception to the hearsay
rule, I believe this is admissible. The only question is relevance.
And relevance has been established by no less than Mr. Baker's own
reasoning. You cannot -- You cannot put on half of a story, Your
Honor. You cannot elicit testimony from Mr. Simpson about their
relationship and then bar us from inquiring about Nicole's portrayal
of that same relationship from her own words. I offer to prove those
points with the passages that I just described. Also it impeaches
his testimony, Your Honor. Remember, he made a big point on the
stand of saying at the outset of his testimony that he has never
even attempted to lie about anything important.
THE COURT: Well, Mr. Petrocelli, you kind of shotgunned this thing.
I think for the purposes of the Court's ruling, I want to ask you to
be more specific in terms of what specific item are you -- are you
seeking to introduce.
MR. PETROCELLI: The sentence -- well, first of all, I would seek to
introduce the entire document, Your Honor. But in particular, I
would seek to introduce on the fourth page, exhibit -- what.
MR. PETROCELLI: This is Exhibit 732. For the record, Exhibit 732 --
Erin, on page 5, the following paragraph:
(Mr. Petrocelli read from Exhibit 732.) There was also that time
before Justin and after a few months, Sydney, I felt really good
about how I got back into shape. You beat the holy hell out of me
and we lied at the X-ray lab and said I fell off the bike, remember!

MR. PETROCELLI: I asked Mr. Simpson about that incident, he denied
it under oath. I seek to offer that sentence, that paragraph, to
impeach him and to show what was really going on in that
relationship. On the next page, I would offer the paragraph:
(Mr. Petrocelli read from Exhibit 732.) And since Justin's birth is
the mad New Year's Eve beat up --
THE COURT: Just a minute.
(Court reviews real time screen.)
THE COURT: What next do you want to offer?
MR. PETROCELLI: Next sequence of passages, Your Honor, begin on the
next page, and they are as follows. Top of the fifth page:
(Mr. Petrocelli read from Exhibit 732.) And since Justin's birth
is the mad New Year's Eve beat up.
MR. PETROCELLI: And then skipping the next paragraph.
THE COURT: Wait a minute. That's page 6?
MR. PETROCELLI: That sixth page. It's 2763 at the top of some number
THE COURT: What are you offering that for?
MR. PETROCELLI: To show that she was beaten up by Mr. Simpson on New
Year's Eve.
THE COURT: For the truth of the matter asserted?
MR. PETROCELLI: Yes. And also for her state of mind as to what
happened on that evening. And also on the -- skip a paragraph,
following paragraph, she says:
(Mr. Petrocelli read from Exhibit 732.) I just don't see how that
compares to infidelity, wife-beating, verbal abuse.
MR. PETROCELLI: To again -- once again show A, that she was beaten
by him, and B, that he was unfaithful and C, what her state of mind
was in regard to the relationship which --
THE COURT: What do you seek to offer that for?
MR. PETROCELLI: Because Mr. Simpson offered his state of mind as to
the relationship and portrayed it as a loving, great relationship
that everyone else enjoyed, and therefore he could not have killed
her. And then on the next page --
THE COURT: Just a minute.
MR. PETROCELLI: Actually, the bottom of that same page I would begin
and prove the following:
(Mr. Petrocelli read from Exhibit 732.) And if I wanted to hurt you
or had it in me to be anything like the person you are, I would have
done so after the New Year's incident. But I didn't even do it then.
I called the cops to save my life whether you believe it or not. But
I didn't pursue anything after that; I didn't prosecute, I didn't
call the press, and didn't make a big charade out of it, I waited
for it to die down and asked for it to, but I've never loved you
since or been the same.
MR. PETROCELLI: And I would offer those statements for the same
reasons. And I will add, Your Honor, that they put into evidence
Nicole's letter in March of 1993, in which Nicole went on and on
about pursuing Mr. Simpson, how much she loved him and how much she
wanted him to come back, and she wanted to come home. And all of
that, of course, was put in to show both of their states of minds
regarding the relationship and what it was really like. And he, of
course, was trying to suggest that, you know, Nicole was always
pursuing him and he never had any friction or conflicts with her. So
therefore, he didn't have any motive to kill. I can't see how he can
be permitted to get up on that stand and talk about Nicole's letters
and Nicole's statements and characterize the relationship, and we
are forbidden from doing so when we have right before us letters and
writings of herself, in her own words, that relate to the very
matters that he is eliciting on direct.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, you can't prove state of mind by incompetent
evidence. And as I suggested to the Court, her state of mind
relative to this issue is irrelevant. They put in issue Mr.
Simpson's state of mind, that he was in a black mood, he was a
terrible, heinous person. They've done a character assassination
on him, or attempted to, in this courtroom, and we had to respond to
that. And we responded to it in a number of ways including the March
'93 letter which is dated -- this letter is undated. We have no date
on it. We don't know when it was written. We have a pretty good idea
of why it was written, and that is because it was written, we
believe, in terms of combatting the divorce in 1992, and the
document where O.J. Simpson would be liable for 50 percent of all of
his assets to Nicole if he had done anything to her. This document
goes to those issues. And I would suggest that, for example, Mr.
Simpson had never seen this document, it was never given to him. She
never mailed it, she never sent it, she never did anything to it. It
was -- the first time he ever saw it he was incarcerated during the
time of the criminal trial. We have two things to get in the 7 --
the March 1993 letter. And that -- and I don't know why we're
discussing that except he brought it up, that's Evidence Code
Section 1227, and the ability to combat what they put in issue
relative to his state of mind. State of mind of Nicole Brown
Simpson, as I have said from the beginning of this case, is
irrelevant to any issue in this case, for obvious reasons. What
they're talking about is obviously sometime in '89, and maybe
thereafter -- I mean the bike incident which Mr. Simpson denies ever
having occurred, that is her beating him -- him beating the hell out
of her and lying to some doctor relative to a bike incident, I don't
know when that occurred. That is the bike incident when he took her
to the hospital and had her looked at because she had fallen off a
bike. To assert and to do a character assassination on Mr. Simpson
from this letter that is undated, and we have no right to confront
and cross-examine the author thereof, is, as I have suggested to
this Court, improper. Mr. Simpson will deny he ever beat the hell
out of her and will deny he ever lied or suggested that she lie to a
doctor. And we have no right way to cross-examine her. That's the
case that we had suggested to you, the California versus Green. We
have no right of confrontation of the witness and we have a document
that is undated. They can't prove to you why it was written, when it
was written. We can prove to you that it was never mailed to Mr.
Simpson, and it should not be subject of the scurrilous accusations
that are in here. Further, you have a subsequent letter, I guess, a
subsequent letter that was written that would indicate that this
is nonsense.
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, for the record, very briefly, I want to
point out that the letter itself states:
(Mr. Petrocelli read from Exhibit 732.) I'd like you to keep this
letter if we split.
MR. PETROCELLI: And that's on the very first page. It was obviously
written after the 1989 incident and obviously written prior to the
split of the parties in January of 1992. It's obviously in her
handwriting. And under the Evidence Code, documents like this, once
the handwriting is authenticated, can also be self-authenticated by
their content. She specifically talks about the fact that she would
like this letter to be kept by him in the event that they split,
meaning they hadn't split yet. And finally, in responding to Mr.
Baker's point, if he was only interested in undercutting the motive
in regard to the months and weeks and days leading up to June 12,
1994, then why did he spend a considerable amount of time talking
about the 80's, in fact the 70's throughout the 80's, and
characterizing the relationship during that period of time, and
saying to us in argument earlier that he did so to elicit Mr.
Simpson's state of mind in regard to the relationship at that period
of time in the 80's.
MR. BAKER: Those incidences, as the Court is aware, were all raised
by the plaintiffs in this case in opening, and continued to raise
them throughout their case in chief, so we obviously had to combat
and confront those incidences which we did by the evidence we put
THE COURT: All right. The Court had preliminarily addressed this
issue in regards to defendants' motion in limine 10. At that time,
the Court ruled that the admissibility of any piece of evidence, and
in light of what is now being offered in this particular piece of
evidence, depends upon the circumstances under which these were made
and the purposes for which they are being offered. The Court, at
that time, referred to, and at present time will refer to, People
versus Thompson, a 1988 case, California Supreme Court 45 Cal.Ap.3d
86, and People versus Ortiz, 1995 case, 38 Cal.Ap. 4th, 377, as
controlling on these issues. California versus Green, that was cited
by the defense, 399 U.S. 149, this morning, really was a case that I
don't think could fit within the factual circumstances of our
present case. The Green case involved preliminary hearing testimony
given by a witness who was attempting to recant his former
statements at the trial. People versus Thompson, the 1988 case,
involved a statement of a decedent who was no longer subject to
cross-examination who made certain statements concerning her
physical -- that the defendant might kill her and the prosecution
sought to offer that evidence in under Evidence Code Section 1250 as
to the declarant's state of mind on the evening that she was killed.
There was evidence that the victim had sexual intercourse near the
time of death and the prosecution's theory was that it was rape and
not consensual intercourse. That state of -- the issue in that case
therefore was the state of mind as to the decedent, what the
circumstances were in regards to the intercourse in connection with
her death. People versus Ortiz was a situation where, also, the
declarant was not available for cross-examination; she had been
murdered. In that case the prosecution offered into evidence the
prior conduct of the defendant beating the decedent, where the
decedent declared that the defendant had, six months prior to her
death while she was in her bedroom changing clothes, the defendant
tried to grab her. She also told another informant that the
defendant tried to take advantage of her in the bedroom, lift up her
skirt, and told a third informant that the defendant tried to rape
her. In both of these cases, the Court of Appeals and the Supreme

admissible for the truth of the matter asserted and are not
otherwise admissible except under an exception to the hearsay rule.
And for that reason, insofar as the plaintiffs' contention in this
case, it's admissible for the purpose of impeaching the defendant's
testimony about what occurred on those occasions, they're not
admissible for impeachment purposes. And I -- on that ground the
Court would exclude it. And with regard to the admissibility, as a
statement in support of the declarant's state of mind, both the
Ortiz case and the Thompson case said, yes, they may be admissible
for the purpose of establishing the decedent's state of mind, if the
decedent's state of mind is in issue. I'm satisfied that the
decedent's state of mind has been put into issue insofar as it is
the defendant's contention that the relationship was a loving
relationship and that the defendant had no basis in that
relationship which would cause him to commit the acts resulting in
the deaths of the decedents. So I think that's clearly an issue.
However, both the Thompson case and the Ortiz case further state
that simply because they go to the decedent's state of mind does not
make them necessarily admissible. I think the Court in both cases
said that the trial court has to address the issue of whether or not
the Court makes a determination under 352 of the Evidence Code as to
weighing the probative value as against its prejudicial effect. And
I'm prepared to hear from plaintiff with regards to that issue.
MR. PETROCELLI: Well, Your Honor, because evidence is probative and
damaging to the defense doesn't mean it's prejudicial. The evidence
is highly probative because it shows that Nicole's beliefs were in
regard to this relationship and that it addresses the issues that
Mr. Simpson testified to in his -- in his direct examination. And
we're talking about one document; we're talking about several
passages from this document. It's not an undue consumption of time
and obviously the --
THE COURT: Well, excuse me. Let me --
THE COURT: -- interrupt you just a second. I think the Supreme Court
and Court of Appeals in Thompson and Ortiz, respectively, were
referring to the fact that evidence of this kind, particularly in
Thompson and Ortiz, is so highly prejudicial, highly inflammatory,
and highly susceptible to a trier of fact treating those
statements as proof of the truth of the matters asserted in those
statements, that the Court has to be very careful in determining
whether or not those pieces of evidence and those cases had a
sufficient probative value in terms of the decedents's state of
mind, that the Court should properly rule for their admissibility.
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, the defense has clearly tried to sell
the jury the last four hours on the fact that this was a
relationship that, beyond any relationship, was incapable of
terminating in death, that they had the model relationship, people
envied them. That was what their -- that whole Friday was about and
a little bit this morning. And this describes the other side of that
relationship and what -- how Nicole perceived it. And I think that
the dynamic in this relationship is very important to understanding
that it was a relationship in turmoil and conflict, that it
ultimately ended in death. Now, Mr. Simpson has flatly denied in
absolute unequivocal terms ever hitting her, ever touching her, ever
striking her. That was damaging. That was prejudicial to us.
THE COURT: Mr. Petrocelli --
MR. PETROCELLI: This beats the thrust of that evidence.
THE COURT: I think if that's your theory I would have to keep it out
because you're going to the truth of the matters asserted in the
letters. The only issue upon which those statements were admissible
in Ortiz and Thompson was the decedent's state of mind. In Thompson
it was to show a state of mind that the intercourse that preceded
the death was really a rape and not consensual intercourse. And that
evidence was admissible to show her state of mind vis a vis consent.
In Ortiz, similarly, the issue was whether or not the decedent would
have invited the defendant over to the house. And it was -- the
statements were received to show that the decedent's state of mind
was such that it would be reasonable to conclude that she would not
have invited him over to the house. Now, you're arguing essentially
the truth of the matter asserted, not the state of mind of the
MR. PETROCELLI: I was trying to respond specifically to Mr.
Simpson's testimony about the way they got along and how he claimed
they both perceived the relationship. We were very much in love, we
traveled all over the world, our house was loaded with people, et
cetera, et cetera. I can't imagine anybody's home being so full of
friends, it was a super relationship, totally enjoyed it. And then
he goes on again and describes -- describes the relationship to the
jury. It was a good relationship, obviously we were very much in
love. And then he goes on. And I think that this shows that Nicole
did not have the state of mind of that relationship that Mr. Simpson
did. Whether or not she had a basis for that state of mind, it shows
that she had a state of mind which was very different from Mr.
Simpson's state of mind.
MR. BAKER: We don't know what her state of mind was when this -- at
the best, this letter was written in 1991, somewhat three and a half
years before the murder. Thompson was at the same time. Ortiz was
six months before. And the state of mind in both of those cases is
terribly relevant. Every time you ask him about state of mind, he
talks about the truth of the matter stated. Every time. This is
inadmissible hearsay evidence. It is -- He keeps talking about we
put on evidence that it was a model relationship. We put on evidence
THE COURT: Mr. Baker, I've already determined that it's admissible
hearsay. The question is does it meet the threshold of 352 or not.
I'm past admissibility.
MR. BAKER: If you look at the eight pages of this document, he has
indeed picked out only the most provocative pages of the document.
MR. PETROCELLI: No, I haven't.
MR. BAKER: And the admissibility of this evidence that is at least
-- at least three to four years before any murders, is so outweighed
by the probative value of it. In other words, if you take this
letter and you compare it to the March 1993 letter, she'd obviously
changed her mind completely. That's a letter that was actually
delivered to Mr. Simpson. This letter could be characterized easily
as venting because it was never delivered to Mr. Simpson, and
they'll never have evidence it was because it was not. And so then
you have put before this jury some highly inflammatory accusations
and nobody knows why she made these accusations. I don't. They never
will. No one ever will. And I think the probative value of her state
of mind in 1991 versus putting this kind of inflammatory evidence
before this jury, when we don't have it for the reasons why it was
written. The only reason that Mr. Simpson can give is because of the
divorce in 1992, because there's a bunch of information contained
herein that's absolutely untrue.
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, this letter shows how Nicole --
MR. BAKER: May I finish?
MR. PETROCELLI: I'm sorry, Mr. Baker.
MR. BAKER: You take, for example, that she talks about weight gain
and is accusing Mr. Simpson of being upset with her about weight
gain because he thought she should only gain 22 pounds. He'll
testify that was absolutely untrue. He had three kids before with
Marguerite; she gained a lot more than that. His sisters had
children; they gained more than 22 pounds. The weight issue was an
issue of the Brown family, not an issue of Mr. Simpson. He was never
concerned about weight gain in his wife when she was pregnant. So to
have to start combatting the document, the accusations in here that
are made that are inaccurate, add that to the inflammatory areas
that Mr. Petrocelli wants to introduce to inflame this jury, I would
suggest that under 352 that it should be excluded under that basis,
and I indicated that earlier this morning when we were at the side
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, just get the last word in on this. This
letter shows how Nicole felt about the relationship, her view,
whether or not they think she was entitled to have that view, this
was her state of mind about the relationship. The reason this is
relevant is because we contend, and they dispute, that Nicole
rejected Mr. Simpson at the very end when, after they tried to make
a go of it, and when she finally -- when the two came very close to
moving back in right before -- around May of 1994, Nicole said no, I
don't want to do this, I don't want to be with you. And that's what
caused the last two months to sort of spiral the way they did and
end up in her murder. And this state of mind shows how hurt she was,
shows how she felt about the relationship and shows how her conduct
was, and explains her conduct several years later when, after the
divorce, and they tried to make a go of it, and it didn't go, and
she talked to the feelings she had in this letter and said I don't
want to have anything to do with you and that's the end. They
dispute all of that. He tried to not only argue that he's the one
who rejected Nicole but that she was off doing all sorts of crazy
and childish things and living an erratic lifestyle, and he felt
compelled to leave her and distance from her, and put himself as far
away as possible. As though she didn't have any basis to do what she
was doing. She was doing what she was doing because she felt this
way. She felt this way in 199 -- since 1989 through the end of the
marriage. As she says here, she had those feelings in '94 when she
rejected Mr. Simpson for the last time. And that helps to explain
how this thing spiraled the way it did. Mr. Simpson retaliated
against her. We went day by day showing what happened until the very
end, and I think that her state of mind about what had happened in
the past, her feelings, whether they think she was entitled to them
or not, are relevant to understanding her behavior and his behavior
in the last weeks and days.
MR. BAKER: That is the most preposterous thing I ever heard, that
this letter from two and a half years earlier, reflects her feelings
in 1994. And apparently, Mr. Petrocelli knows exactly what those
feelings were in 1994 from the letter that was written and never
sent two and a half years earlier. I mean he should be guessing on
the stocks. He shouldn't be in the courtroom if he's got that kind
of mind. This is ridiculous.
MR. PETROCELLI: Nicole knew her feelings, Mr. Baker.
MR. BAKER: The point is this letter is so remote in time and is, as
I suggested, is backed up by a letter that's totally different from
this. And to put this is -- the probative value is so minimal, it
has nothing to do with what Mr. Petrocelli told the Court, and the
prejudicial effect certainly outweighs, at least in our view, the
probative value.
THE COURT: The fact that it is uncertain as to when it was executed
is a factor that notates against its admission. But on the other
hand, the handwriting and the content of the document would tend to
establish it to be within the period of between 1989 and the time of
death. The probative value lies in the fact that it would explain
the conduct of the decedent, during the course of the relationship,
and the conduct leading up to her conduct, that is, leading up to --
and her attitude leading up to that point of and the date of her
death. It's arguable, but that's what a trial is about, and under
these circumstances, with the appropriate instruction to the jury
that it is going to be received only to explain those aspects of
this case and not the truth of the matter asserted. The Court would
be inclined to overrule the objection and I'll instruct the
plaintiff to prepare a jury instruction to that fact.
MR. PETROCELLI: Very well, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Bring the jury in. Oh, there's a memorandum limiting the
testimony of Richards and Bodziak.
MR. P. BAKER: Judge, this a little different issue than the issue
raised yesterday. The issue raised yesterday was whether or not
they're calling these witnesses in their rebuttal case was timely
because the issues were raised in opening statements. This motion
deals with the fact that neither Gerald Richards nor William
Bodziak testified as to these new photos at their deposition which
occurred in early summer of 1994, we believe --
MR. BAKER: 1996.
MR. P. BAKER: 1996. As this Court is well aware this is a civil case
not a criminal case. There's expert cut-off, there's discovery
cut-off. We asked whether those were all the opinions that Mr.
Richards and Mr. Bodziak were going to discuss when they took the
stand and they informed us that they were. We believe that 2034 is
applicable. We believe that Kennemer versus State of California is
directly on point. Neither Mr. Bodziak nor Mr. Richards can go
outside what they testified to at their deposition, and starting
tomorrow and testify as to these new photos. The reason being, that
in any civil case one side could just hold their experts until after
the case had already started and then have them testify as to
further issues on new discovery. It violates the discovery laws, it
violates the expert cut-off discovery laws, and we believe the Court
should make a ruling similar to when it did not allow Dr. Henry Lee
to testify to a swatch experiment he did after the cut-off date.
This is the same issue, we believe. Mr. Richards and Mr. Bodziak
should be limited to the opinions expressed at their deposition
pursuant to 2034 and pursuant to Kennemer.
MR. PETROCELLI: The only thing complete -- absent his being offered
for testimony outside a copy of deposition that deposition would be
limited to criminal trial testimony. We discussed this yesterday,
and our position and the Court so ordered, that if they're going to
take the position that they're challenging those photos and Simpson
is not wearing Bruno Magli's, then we get to put on these people. If
they're not going to take that position, then we don't need them. At
this point we still don't know, we don't know what their position
is. I intend to ask Mr. Simpson about that, whether he's wearing
those shoes, whether he agrees that those shoes are his shows at the
time, whether he agrees they're Bruno Magli shoes. That's relevant
to, among other things, to impeach his testimony that the Scull
photo is a fraud, that those are not his shoes, and that under 2034
-- in any event, you can offer an expert for purposes of impeachment
who has not been disclosed when you're dealing with the attack on
the underlying facts and not merely a different opinion, and that's
what this classically is. Among other things it responds to the
underlying premise under which Groden relied on making his opinions.
So we are going to have Bodziak testify that these are Bruno Magli
shoes that Mr. Simpson is wearing, and we're going to have Mr.
Richards testify that the pictures are authentic.
MR. BAKER: Well --
MR. PETROCELLI: We, of course, did not have them until just over the
Christmas break.
MR. BAKER: They say that these pictures have been around for three
years. They say that. And the point is if this were -- if what he
said were the law, we ought to throw out all the discovery statutes.
All you have to do is sandbag somebody, wait and put on the
evidence, your main evidence, and your impeachment in the rebuttal
case, and in fact the law is exactly the opposite of what Mr.
Petrocelli just informed the Court. 2034
(m) says you can't use an undisclosed expert. That's exactly what it
says; you can't use an undisclosed expert for opinions in a rebuttal
case. You can't do it. He just told you that you can do it. To have
these people that you've -- we've spent a lot of time and effort
obtaining their opinions, and now to say you can have any new
opinions you want is putting a mockery to the designation of experts
and to the discovery process of experts. And they ought to be
precluded from -- they can argue whatever they want to argue
relative to these photos, but you can't sandbag us, wait till the
last minute, after we spent thousands of dollars having experts
look at photos. We still don't have the negatives to these photos.
And I guess because they're copyrighted and being sold to the
National Enquirer we never will have a right to examine these
photographs, the originals thereof, that is the negatives, like we
did in the Scull photograph. And they just come in and you let them
put it on, and now they say now we can call experts, and Mr.
Petrocelli says he can do it because, I guess, he doesn't agree with
the -- with the statutes relative to the designation and opinions of
MR. PETROCELLI: If the pictures have been around for three and a
half years --
THE COURT: Just a minute. What section says you can't use experts on
MR. BAKER: He just told you 2034
(m), as I recall, says -- he just told you you can use an
undesignated expert in rebuttal opinions. And my recollection of
that statute is it says exactly the opposite, that you cannot use
undesignated experts in rebuttal on opinion.
MR. BAKER: And fundamentally, of course, is what opinions are they
MR. PETROCELLI: They're impeaching Mr. Groden's opinion and Mr.
Simpson's testimony.
MR. P. BAKER: No. Mr. Groden didn't say anything about the Flammer
photos, the authenticity.
MR. PETROCELLI: He said at the end of his testimony that if the
Flammer photos were real that would affect his opinion on the Scull
photograph and obviously since --
MR. BAKER: It's not impeachment.
MR. PETROCELLI: If these photos have been around for three and a
half years as Mr. Baker just said, I assume he's stipulating that
they are authentic.
MR. BAKER: I'm stipulating by your version of the facts, which I
have not agreed with at all, they've been around three and a half
years, and you can't now waltz into court and say they're newly
discovered so we can throw them up in front of the jury and then get
experts to come in and say they're valid.
THE COURT: All right. The Court will -- under 2034
(m) the plaintiff may offer a witness to authenticate the photo.
MR. P. BAKER: Are the experts allowed to offer opinions as to this?
THE COURT: No. May not offer any opinion with regards to somebody
else's opinion.
MR. P. BAKER: For example, in terms of the Court's ruling, is Mr.
Bodziak allowed to testify that these photos or Bruno Magli photos
-- he was retained as an expert by them, we are held to strict
compliance with the statutes, cross-examine doesn't mean examine.
When we file the motion 2034 goes out the window. When they file a
motion --
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, what are they -- could you just put on the
record for me what they're rebutting if they come in here and
testify as to the shoes and as -- as to the authenticity of the
photos? Would you please elucidate and tell me what in God's name
they're rebutting?
MR. PETROCELLI: We are impeaching Mr. Simpson's sworn testimony that
he was not wearing Bruno Magli shoes, that that picture is a fake.
MR. BAKER: Then all they have to do is authenticate it through
Flammer or whatever the heck his name is. They don't need an expert
for that.
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, this is a big game.
MR. BAKER: It is a big game. And I'm tired of the rules of evidence
being swayed in their behalf. We can't put on any evidence that we
haven't had in the deposition of your case and they can come in here
and throw up 30 photographs or whatever they want because of this
Court's ruling.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. BAKER: You're welcome.
(Jurors resumed their respective seats.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence
of the jury.)
(Counsel displays Exhibit 116 for jurors.)
THE COURT: You may proceed.
(Continued) BY
Q. Mr. Simpson, you have described this physical altercation with
Nicole in 1989 as something that -- in which you were simply trying
to restrain Nicole from hitting you and getting her out of your
room, true?
A. Well, she jumped on me and I was trying to get her out of my
room. That's the main portion of it, yes.
Q. That was the sole reason why there was any physical altercation,
particularly on your part, because you were simply trying to get her
out of your bedroom, true?
A. That's true.
MR. BAKER: Asked and answered, Your Honor, page 39, 11 to 22, of
November 20.
MR. P. BAKER: Asked and answered, page 39, lines 6 through 13, of
November 22.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, he went into the reasons for his conduct
in the -- in the direct examination and I'm following up on that.
I'm not going into the --
THE COURT: I believe you excessively examined on that subject matter
on your 776 examination, so you certainly have the record. We have
it all -- you have it all printed up. You can use it in your closing
argument. Let's not waste our time.
MR. PETROCELLI: I'm not going to waste any time, Your Honor. I'm
making some specific reference to testimony he made on page 139 on
Friday. Let me get to it if I --
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You testified, sir, on Friday, that your
offering Nicole an agreement to tear up the prenuptial agreement may
have been more of a governor for yourself. Do you recall that
testimony, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. And by governor for yourself, sir, you meant that it would
operate to restrain or govern yourself from being involved in any
kind of physical altercation with her again, true?
A. Yes, among other things, yes.
Q. And as you indicated, that governor or restraint was worth a lot
of money to you, about $5 million at the time?
A. Yes, approximately.
Q. Now, is it your testimony, sir, that you agreed to give Nicole --
or excuse me -- that you agreed to impose this governor, as you put
it, simply because you were trying to get Nicole out of your
A. I don't understand the question.
Q. In other words, sir, the reason why you were prepared to give
Nicole this agreement to tear up the prenuptial is you wanted to
assure her that there would be no further incidents of violence in
your relationship, correct?
A. Yeah, among other things, yes.
Q. That's because there had been a history of violence in your
relationship, correct?
A. No.
Q. You didn't give her a $5 million agreement just because you were
trying to get her out of your bedroom on one evening, correct?
MR. BAKER: Objection, misstates the evidence, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. The way you're wording it, I don't think that when I wrote that
up, that getting her out of my bedroom was on my mind. What was on
my mind was I saw her -- she was bruised when I saw her a few days
later, she was very depressed by it, I was very depressed by it,
and that's why I did it.
A. Among other things.
Q. And in terms of what you did wrong that evening, so to speak, is
that you got -- you wrestled her in terms of getting her out of the
bedroom and nothing more than that?
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, this was all gone into, asked and answered,
on November 25.
MR. PETROCELLI: He spent a lot of time on it this Friday.
THE COURT: I'll allow a reasonable examination but I'm not going to
go through the entire testimony
MR. PETROCELLI: I have no intention. I've only asked a few
A. You have to reask the question, please.
Q. In other words, sir, Nicole and you had discussed that you -- she
would not get back with you unless there was some absolute assurance
following this incident that such violence would never occur again,
A. I don't believe so, no.
Q. And -- and in fact, that evening you were doing more than just
trying to get her out of your bedroom, true?
MR. BAKER: Page 28 on November 22, 1996, you went into this whole
area, Your Honor, and this is asked and answered.
THE COURT: I don't have the transcript. Am I going to have to sit up
here and read the transcript.
MR. BAKER: Here you go.
(Mr. Baker hands transcript to the clerk.)
(The clerk hands transcript to the Court.)
MR. PETROCELLI: He put this testimony on to indicate --
MR. BAKER: I object to him telling anybody why I put testimony on.
You can't read my mind any more than you can read the stock --
THE COURT: Excuse me, Mr. Baker. What page?
MR. P. BAKER: Page 28, November 22, sir.
MR. PETROCELLI: I'll refer the Court to page 139 on Friday.
(Pause for the Court to read transcript.)
(The Court reviews real time computer screen.)
THE COURT: Overruled. Go ahead and ask that question.
MR. PETROCELLI: Can you please repeat the question.
(Reporter reads the record as follows: "
Q. And -- and in fact, that evening you were doing more than just
trying to get her out of your bedroom, true?"
A. That evening when we were in my bedroom, I was trying to get her
out of my bedroom, yes.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) When you referred to your bedroom, it was
also her bedroom, you both --
A. Yes.
Q. -- You both slept there?
A. Yes.
Q. You could have left the bedroom and let her stay there?
A. I didn't want to. I had done that on other occasions.
Q. And after you got her out of your bedroom, you ended up some
point later on, having another altercation with her in a room
outside the property, all the way to the end where the maid lived,
MR. BAKER: Page 31, asked and answered, November 22, 1996.
(court reviews realtime computer screen.)
THE COURT: You can answer that question.
THE WITNESS: Verbal, yes.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) And physical, true?
A. Well, she jumped across the bed. I don't think it was any more
physical than that.
Q. Once you got her out of your room -- out of your bedroom, the
only reason you ended up in that other room on the other side of the
property, clear across the end of the property, was because you went
there, right, you went there after Nicole had left your bedroom,
A. Yes, as I told you before, yes, she went there, I went there.
Q. So isn't the real reason for this governor, again, Mr. Simpson,
that you needed something to convince Nicole to stay in the
relationship, to assure her there would be no more violence?
MR. BAKER: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. No, she -- it was for me, and I wanted to do something I thought
would be meaningful for her. It was always -- prenuptial was always
a thing for her.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) After this incident -- this was a very
traumatic and devastating incident to Nicole, was it not?
A. To both of us, yes.
Q. To Nicole, right?
A. To both of us.
Q. I was just asking you about Nicole?
A. Yes.
Q. And after that incident, she expressed her attitude to you, did
she not, sir, that she didn't think this relationship could last
much longer?
A. No.
Q. And did she not change in her behavior towards you thereafter,
A. I would say for about a week and a half, yes.
Q. And didn't things sort of continue to deteriorate for the next
year to two until they terminated in her leaving you sometime early
A. As a matter of fact, I think in '91 things were possibly better
than they had ever been, at least I was under the impression they
Q. You are aware of writings of Nicole in which she has described
your beating her prior to this incident, correct?
A. I'm -- when I was incarcerated, I read some things that she
prepared for her lawyers in our divorce proceedings, yes.
Q. And you are aware of documents that she prepared even before
she left you, are you not?
A. Well, she left me before our divorce proceedings began.
Q. You are aware of her expressing her feelings and attitude and her
state of mind of the relationship prior to leaving you in January of
1992, true?
A. No.
MR. BAKER: Vague.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. PETROCELLI: Which exhibit -- you want to put that up there.
(Exhibit 732 is displayed.)
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Take a look at Exhibit 732.
(Witness reviews Exhibit 732.)
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Now, you recognize this as Nicole's
handwriting, correct?
A. I assume so, yes.
Q. And let me read to you the first two paragraphs.
MR. BAKER: Well --
MR. PETROCELLI: In terms of the timing issue I'm focused on.
(Reading:). "O.J., I think I have to put this all in a letter. Lot
of years ago I used to do much better in a letter. I'm going to try
it again now. I'd like you to keep this letter if we split so that
you'll always know why we split. I'd also like you to keep it if we
stay together as a reminder." Now, doesn't that, sir, refresh your
memory about your and Nicole's troubles following this incident for
the remainder of the three years that you lived and were married
A. First of all, I never saw this until I was incarcerated. And
secondly, right up until May of '92, even after she moved out, we
didn't know if we were going to for sure split. As I told you, I
pushed for a divorce and said we had plenty of time to decide one
way or the other before the divorce was final.
Q. Nicole and you were fighting around this time about issues of
A. No.
MR. BAKER: Objection, vague, ambiguous. Around what time?
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Around 1992?
A. You're saying 1991?
Q. I'm saying around 1991, Nicole and you were having difficulties
and straining over the issue of your infidelity?
MR. BAKER: Objection, outside the scope, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. This -- the argument began on New Year's Day of 1989 concerning
what she thought Kathryn Alan had said to her about earrings, so I
guess that would be about infidelity.
Q. You were involved in a relationship with another woman for
several years leading up to this 1989 incident, true?
MR. BAKER: Outside the scope. Motion in limine, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Not leading up to '89, no.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) What years were you involved in that
extramarital relationship?
A. I believe '86.
Q. And it lasted for more than one year, did it not?
A. Our friendship has lasted to today, but the relationship between
the two of us lasted to '86. I believe she got married in '87.
Q. And, sir, that was with a woman named Tawny Catang
A. That's correct.
Q. Sir, you and Nicole had many arguments and discussions about your
relationship with Tawny Catank while you were married to Nicole,
A. Nicole and I had --
Q. Can you answer that?
A. Absolutely false. Absolutely false. We had one conversation about
Tawny. That was after we were split.
Q. You never told Nicole about Tawny?
A. When we were splitting, I did.
Q. You have any reason why Nicole would write about infidelity in
these letters?
A. Because of what she perceived was infidelity.
Q. And the only thing you were aware of that Nicole and you ever
discussed about infidelity was her misinterpreting Kathryn Allen's
A. No.
Q. So there were many other discussions about infidelity?
A. Not in that discussion. There were times she'd find a phone
number and say, whose phone number is this. And Nicole is not a
person who would sit down and say --
Q. Nicole wrote in this letter, she called the cops on New Year's
Eve to save her life. Whether you believe that or not, she was in
a complete state of fear, as you understood it that evening, true?
MR. BAKER: I object. That calls for speculation.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You could tell by her conduct, by her
demeanor, by what she was saying, by the fact she was hysterical,
that she was in a total state of fear that evening?
MR. BAKER: That's argumentative. It's a speech.
THE COURT: Overruled. You may inquire as to whether or not --
A. I would have in my mind, if she was afraid of me, she wouldn't be
trying to stay in a room that I was trying to get out. I -- she
would have been trying to get away and left the room.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) So what is the answer to my question?
A. Can you please reask the question. I didn't see her in a state of
fear, no. I didn't. She was fighting and trying to stay in the room.

Q. She was not in a state of fear, based on what you observed?
A. Correct.
Q. This is New Year's Eve, 1989?
A. That's correct.
Q. And Nicole, wrote in this Exhibit 732, that: "I've never loved
you since or been the same." She ever say that to you?
A. No. As a matter of fact, she told me just the opposite, and wrote
just the opposite after that, that she always loved me.
Q. And you have any reason or understanding why, prior to you and
Nicole splitting up January 1992, she would write such things in her
MR. BAKER: I object, Your Honor. There's no date on this letter. He
didn't know when it was written. Mr. Petrocelli is trying to date
the letter, and he doesn't have any ability to do that.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You have any understanding why she would
write some of the things I read to you in Exhibit 732?
A. Well, she told me that her lawyers had her write various things
following our divorce, 'cause they wanted her to get me to tear up
the prenuptial agreement. But she would never testify to it. And, of
course, in her deposition and when we were in court, would not
testify to it.
Q. Well, my question was focused, Mr. Simpson, on prior to the time
she left you, do you have any idea why she would write such things?
MR. BAKER: I object. Again, that assumes she wrote this prior to
the time she left. There's nothing to substantiate that question.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Did Nicole lie to you frequently in the
course of your marriage?
A. Did she lie to me?
Q. Was she a liar?
A. She's lied, but I can't say frequently.
Q. Has she lied to you often, sir?
A. Well, after we split.
Q. Before you split?
A. I'm saying after we split and we talked, she had admitted some
things that had happened that I have definitely -- I can't say she
lied to me because I would never have thought she would have done
some of the things she said she did.
Q. She admitted to -- some things to you that she had not told you
about before?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you admit to her in these conversations that you also lied to
A. I told her I had been unfaithful, and I told her -- yes, I told
her that.
Q. Did you tell her that you had lied to her?
A. I don't think those were the words we used, no.
Q. Now, isn't it true, sir, that you and Nicole had been
considering the possibility of divorce for at least three years
prior to the time of the divorce?
A. We hadn't talked about it. I certainly hadn't talked about it
with her.
Q. And if Nicole testified to that in the very same deposition that
you've just mentioned, at page 14, you wouldn't dispute that, would
you, sir?
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I object. They are not under -- they don't
have Evidence Code Section 1227, and that's an improper question. It
calls for --
MR. PETROCELLI: He elicited the testimony from the very deposition,
and the witness offered it in his answer.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, this -- there is a different standard under
Evidence Code 1227, and he knows it.
THE COURT: Just a minute, please.
MR. PETROCELLI: Also admissible under 1291.
(Pause for the Court to review realtime screen.)
THE COURT: I'll see you at the bench.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench, with the
THE COURT: I don't understand which question you're objecting to.
What is the objection, Mr. Baker? This is the question I have here.
(Referring to realtime screen.)
MR. BAKER: And Nicole testified you were considering -- you and
Nicole considered a divorce for three years. That isn't what this
says. It says Nicole considered divorce; it doesn't say anything
about --
MR. PETROCELLI: Excuse me. They said they discussed it, right here.
They discussed a divorce for three years.
MR. BAKER: Many times.
MR. PETROCELLI: From '89 to '92.
MR. BAKER: He can't, from 1291, unless I get Fuhrman in, use this
deposition. I can use it under 1227. He can't use it under 1291. I
guess, to -- to get Fuhrman, if he wants to do that, that's fine
with me.
THE COURT: Excuse me. What is this right here?
MR. PETROCELLI: This is her deposition in the divorce case in 1992,
to which Mr. Baker was permitted, over my objection, to ask Mr.
Simpson about. And Mr. Simpson testified on Friday as to the fact
that Nicole is saying here that since 1989, she had never been hit.
MR. PETROCELLI: I'm offering this testimony to show that, in fact,
their marriage is -- is not as portrayed, and they have been
discussing divorce for three years and having problems. And I submit
to you that he is not permitted, under this section, to get in
hearsay, and then I'm barred. I would refer to Court to Section 356
THE COURT: Okay. Section 1227, quote: Evidence of a statement by the
deceased is not made inadmissible by hearsay rule if offered against
the plaintiff in an action for wrongful death brought under section
377 of the Code of Civil Procedure. What are you saying?
MR. PETROCELLI: I'm saying, once he's able to get into events, acts,
and declarations, I can get in the rest of it under Section 356 of
the California Evidence Code. And secondly --
THE COURT: Your contention is, if he gets in one part, that you can
get the whole thing in?
THE COURT: I ruled against you on that point.
MR. PETROCELLI: Secondly --
THE COURT: I don't know where you get the law for that.
MR. PETROCELLI: Well, I just don't -- I just didn't understand
that's the law. He can do half of the conversation and I can't
impeach him?
THE COURT: Just because he uses part of the deposition doesn't mean
you're entitled to use the entire deposition. I never heard of that.

MR. PETROCELLI: Secondly, Section 1291 of the Evidence Code, Ms.
Simpson was a party to this proceeding, and she is unavailable. And
this, too, is former testimony and is being offered against him.
It's totally different from the Fuhrman situation. My clients were
not parties to that case. I think it applies as an exception under
the former-testimony exception to the hearsay rule.
THE COURT: I'm going to sustain the objection. You can ask him what
the conversation was, as he recalls it, but I'm not going to get
into that transcript.
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence
of the jury.)
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Let me ask you this question: After the 1989
incident, had you and Nicole discussed between the two of you, for
three years, getting a divorce? Yes or no?
A. Discussed?
Q. Yes.
A. That would -- I don't know if that would be the right word. If we
had a fight, she may have said something, or I may have said
something. We never -- I don't think we took it any more seriously
than that.
Q. Until 1989, until the end of the marriage in January of 1992, or
when she left you, did you continue to have problems in your
relationship with her? Yes or no?
A. I'm saying '92, no. And '91, I can't recall in '91. In '92 -- I'm
sorry, '91 -- I would say no. In the beginning of '90, we were doing
a lot of construction on our house, and possibly, but not trouble
where we ever went to a lawyer or anybody to talk about divorce.
Q. Now, you are aware that Mr. Cowlings has testified that Nicole
said you hit her and pulled her hair?
A. Yes.
MR. BAKER: I'm going to object. That's irrelevant and immaterial.
It's argumentative in that form, Your Honor.
MR. PETROCELLI: I didn't even ask my question.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You believe Nicole lied to Mr. Cowlings?
A. I didn't.
Q. You didn't what?
A. I didn't hit her, and I don't -- I know I didn't pull her hair.
Q. So you have no explanation for why Nicole told that to Mr.
Cowlings, true?
A. Well, yeah. She was mad. She was like I was. She had been
drinking. She was mad. We just had an altercation. I assumed through
the heat of her anger, that's what she said.
Q. Well, it was the next day she said this.
A. Well, I wasn't aware of that.
Q. Well, he wasn't there during the fight, right, Mr. Cowlings?
A. I believe Mr. Cowlings was there, as my memory serves. I think he
came that night. I thought he came that night.
Q. So are you saying that Nicole lied to Mr. Cowlings?
MR. BAKER: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Yeah. She was wrong.
MR. BAKER: Argumentative, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Are you saying that Nicole didn't tell Mr.
Cowlings the truth about what happened?
MR. BAKER: Objection. It's irrelevant whether he thinks Nicole did
or did not.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) And are you aware that Nicole told officer Ed
Ward that you slapped, punched, kicked, and pulled her hair?
MR. BAKER: This is argument, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Now, you talked a little bit about this 1993
episode, as well. Let me ask you some questions about that, sir.
A. Yes.
Q. You said that when you kicked this door, it was a reflex, true?
A. Well, I could have -- I could have hit the door as she was
closing it, but I just kind of -- I just kind of kicked it. I was
walking, and I just kind of kicked it with my foot. I didn't raise
my foot high and kick it; it was just --
Q. So we can be clear on this, Nicole closed the door and went in
the house, and you kicked it open. True? Yes or no?
A. Yes. We were both -- I was walking behind her in the house. As
she walked into the house, she did this. And then I -- I was
walking, I just went, boom, kicked it with my foot.
Q. And when you kicked it, it broke some pieces off, right?
A. I think a piece -- a lower piece may have cracked off it.
Q. And when you said you were venting, that was a word to describe
that you were screaming and yelling obscenities, right?
A. I'm sure there was some profanity and talking about, you know --
I was talking about Heidi Fleiss and hookers and drug people. And I
think you heard that on that video, on that tape, if you listen to
Q. By the way, this conversation with Nicole about Heidi Fleiss and
hookers and drug people and all that, that wasn't something that was
going on at that time, in October of 1993, in Nicole's house,
A. I don't know, because I wouldn't --
Q. Can you just answer that?
A. The answer is, I don't know. But some people that were in drugs,
still are in drugs, and was hooking, that was around her house at
this time, yes.
Q. And her relationship with Mr. Slomowitz, Mr. Simpson, that was
the subject of this argument?
A. Not -- her relationship was not the subject of that argument.
Q. Excuse me, sir. Her relationship with Mr. Slomowitz, which came
up in this conversation that you had, that was a relationship that
she had had over a year and a half earlier, in about April of 1992,
A. Yeah.
Q. Yes or no?
A. I don't understand the question. Please ask it again.
Q. She had been seeing Mr. Slomowitz in April of 1992, correct?
A. I think they were friends then, and they were -- as far as I
knew, they spoke and they were still friends at this time.
Q. She wasn't dating him in October of 1993, correct?
A. As far as I knew, she wasn't dating him back then.
Q. Okay. Now, moving forward a little bit to a period of about April
1994 and thereafter --
A. Yes.
Q. -- you described a time when you just came back from Cabo San
Lucas and had a great weekend with Nicole, correct? Remember that?
A. I had a great weekend with her in Cabo, and then she returned to
A. the following weekend, and we had another great weekend. And we
had had some good months leading up to except for problems with
her and various people coming over to my house.
Q. This was the first time in your reconciliation attempt that you
believed that things might work out, she might move in, and you
would have a happy relationship again; true?
A. It was -- it's first time that I believed that I may be willing
to let her move back in.
Q. Let her?
A. Yes, 'cause she had asked on numerous occasions to move back in.
Q. At this point in time, after this great weekend in LA sometime in
April of 1994, you were thinking that you might give it a go, right?

A. The next day, I was going to the airport and calling her parents,
and told her that -- that it might work out; it might work out.
Q. Then, when you went into -- when you went down to Puerto Rico,
what happened, sir, is that you began getting no response from
Nicole; correct?
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I'm going to object. With all of this page --
this is page 95 -- on November 22, this was all gone into by Mr.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. I don't think that's the correct characterization.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Well, what was happening is contrary to the
way you left things in Los Angeles; things were now dramatically
different with her, correct?
A. No. Things with -- her -- for her were --
Q. Can you just answer my question? We'll move a along more quickly.
Just answer yes or no, sir, unless I ask for --
A. Would you please reask the question.
Q. In other words, you experienced a response from Nicole and an
attitude in your conversations with her that was very different from
the very positive feelings you were -- experienced with her in Los
Angeles before you went to Puerto Rico; correct.
MR. BAKER: Objection. Asked and answered: Pages 95, 96, November 22,
THE COURT: You may answer.
A. Off and on, yes. Sometimes she was great, and next day she
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) And what was happening there is that Nicole
was telling you in these telephone conversations, sir, that,
contrary to what she had just told you in Los Angeles, she was no
longer prepared to make a commitment to you and to go forward with
moving in and having a relationship with you; correct?
A. No, that's not correct.
Q. And you were confused by her and her responses and her
reactions on the telephone; correct?
A. In terms of what?
Q. Of the way she was acting towards you, correct?
A. And the way she was acting, period. A lot of it had nothing to do
with me; it had to do with her girlfriends.
Q. And you told -- excuse me -- you told her best friend the
A. Who is her best friend?
Q. Cora Fischman.
MR. BAKER: I'm going to object, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Did you not make the following statements:
MR. BAKER: I'm going to object. I want to go to side bar. This is
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, it's right out of his deposition. He's
just trying to -- he is just trying to interrupt the entire
MR. BAKER: I'm not trying to interrupt anything.
THE COURT: Approach the bench.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench, with the
MR. PETROCELLI: What's your objection?
MR. BAKER: I thought you were talking about what Cora Fischman said.

MR. PETROCELLI: No. You told Cora Fischman this, right out of
deposition. It's right here, right there, body and substance. Those
were my attitudes. It's right there.
MR. BAKER: Okay. I apologize.
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence
of the jury.)
MR. BAKER: What page again?
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You told Ms. Fischman the following. What's
going on here? I left Nicole in April. In Cabo, we were like lovers;
we were planning to be together. She was going to move in. You know,
we had the best sex. You know, she was going to follow me to
Florida, and then she was going to go to Florida, because there was
a wedding there; she was going to go to Florida. And she was going
to go to Puerto Rico with me. And all of a sudden, what happened?
What happened? You said that to Cora Fischman in trying to find
out what was going on with Nicole, true?
A. I think that's misleading.
Q. Did you or did you not?
A. No, sir. I think those things were stated --
Q. Excuse me. Next question.
A. No, sir. I'm saying those things were stated to Cora Fischman in
May, not in April.
Q. Mr. Simpson, I'm asking you to answer the question. Did you make
those statements to Cora Fischman in April or May?
A. Words to that effect, after I had split up with Nicole, yes.
Q. Now, in terms of when you split up with Nicole and after you
split up with Nicole, you -- when you came back to -- came back from
Puerto Rico, you and Nicole met to discuss what was going on with
her, her attitude, correct?
A. I went to her house; I told her I needed to talk to her.
Q. Then you and she, as you testified on Friday, decided to date,
A. Yes.
Q. This was now different from the attitude and the situation that
existed when you left Los Angeles three weeks earlier, when you
thought things might work out and she might move in, right?
A. No. You're totally misstating what I told you.
Q. Excuse me?
A. That's -- you're wrong.
Q. Then just answer the question.
A. The answer to the question is, when I thought I would let her
move back in with me.
Q. And you had sort of regressed as of the early part of May of 1994
from the place you were with Nicole in April of '94, correct?
A. Yes. Very much so.
Q. Okay. You dated Wednesday, you said, of that first week in May.
You had a good time, correct?
A. I had a great time, yes.
Q. And then you had another date on Saturday, a Mother's Day, that
wasn't so good, right?
A. As soon as we got out, we had a great time, yes. Just leading up
to it wasn't too good.
Q. Thereafter, after that Mother's Day date, which is Saturday, May
7, you didn't date Nicole the next week, correct?
A. I started dating Paula the next week.
Q. You went out with Paula on May 10 to talk about whether or not
she -- you and she would resume a relationship?
MR. BAKER: All asked and answered, page 102, November 22.
THE COURT: I'm going to permit it so you have some continuity, Mr.
A. I believe so. It was right at the beginning of the week, so. . .
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Okay. And when Nicole got -- And by the way,
when Nicole was shaking, as you described it, on Saturday night,
Mother's Day, that was about a week and a half later that she came
down with double pneumonia, true?
A. Well, I don't know. I -- when I came back from New York, after
the next weekend, she was -- she had double pneumonia.
Q. That was about a week later?
A. Probably a little over a week, yes.
Q. Okay. And when you came back and you saw that she was sick, you
went to her house and helped her out. And you've testified about
that, right?
A. Yeah. We talked on the phone, and I did what I would have
normally done. I went and got her some soup.
Q. And then you had this event that you've testified to at your
house, the picnic for your son's school, on May 22, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And Nicole came over for a bit, and then you testified on
Friday, would lay on your lap a little bit, went upstairs, and laid
in your bed?
A. Yes.
Q. That sort of bothered you, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And one of the reasons it bothered you is because you didn't know
where you stood with Nicole, and you didn't want her just sort of
coming into your house and pretending like you were back together,
when you didn't know where things stood, right?
A. No.
Q. And after she left your house, you then took the kids and you met
with her that evening, right?
A. I -- yes.
Q. And that --
A. I believe it was that evening. I'm pretty sure.
Q. -- the 22nd, that's when she returned the jewelry from you?
A. Yes. That's when I wanted my money, and we talked about a lot of
Q. And just to make this clear, that's the night when the earrings
was returned, the bracelet was returned, and you talked about the
money and the TV set, right?
A. Basically, the main focus of the conversation was about the kids
and how we would react with one another with the kids. That was
the major focus of the conversation. And we both agreed that -- and
I was doing it more out of just wanting to get out of there -- that,
well, maybe we got together too soon. Maybe in the future, we can do
it again.
Q. And that, in your mind, was the night when the two of you split
for good; true?
A. No. If I felt we split for good, then I wouldn't have gone to
Paula, after having hurt her before, to tell her that it was over
with Nicole. And I -- I felt we had been -- we had split for good
about that time.
Q. You told the police on June 13, --
MR. PETROCELLI: Page 29, Mr. Baker.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) -- the following in talking about the
earrings and bracelet: Did she keep them or did she return them, was
the question put to you. "When we split, she gave me both the
earrings and the bracelet back."
A. Yes.
Q. And that was referring, of course, to the evening of the 22nd,
when she gave them back to you?
A. Not really. As I told you before, I was a little --
Q. Was it or wasn't it?
A. It wasn't.
Q. You were confused when you were talking to the police?
MR. BAKER: I object.
A. I told her -- I gave her the earrings for Mother's Day or
Valentine's Day. I actually given her the earrings three years
previous to that, sir. So it was not correct.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You were referring to the night of the 22nd,
three weeks earlier, when you told the police that you split and she
gave the earrings and the bracelet back; true?
A. She gave me the earrings and bracelet back then. But I started
seeing Paula at least ten days before then. Nicole knew it; her
friends knew it. Everyone knew it, that I wasn't seeing Nicole after
the 10th or so of March. And I don't think you can bring anyone in
here to dispute that, sir.
Q. It's not an argument. I'm just trying to ask you questions, and
you can give me the answers, and your lawyer --
A. I can give you an honest answer. And they all knew it. They had
seen me with Paula during that week, including my kids.
MR. PETROCELLI: Move to strike, Your Honor. Nonresponsive argument.

MR. BAKER: Nonresponsive --
THE COURT: Stricken as nonresponsive.
MR. BAKER: Strike his words, about the word "argument."
THE COURT: Ask another question.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Now, sir, after this May, withdrawn --
Earlier today, you testified that there was no animosity between
Nicole and you as of June 12, 1994. Remember that testimony in
response to your lawyer's question?
A. Yes. I don't think the day of June 12 --
Q. Do you remember the testimony, is all I'm asking.
A. I don't, really.
Q. Is it true, it's your testimony now, right now, asking you again:
Was there any animosity between Nicole and you as of June 12, 1994?
A. On June 12, I didn't think there was any animosity with Nicole
and I at all.
Q. None at all?
A. None at all.
Q. Things were hunky-dory between you; is that what you're saying?
A. I can't say things were hunky-dory. We spoke on the phone. There
was no animosity. Our concern was about the kids. Our concern was
about getting seats together. She saved me a seat two seats from
her. We weren't arguing with one another. Yes, my attitude then was,
maybe, still some concern of hers, and I was certainly avoiding her.

Q. Let's talk about that.
A. When we speak, we certainly didn't have any animosity towards one
Q. I showed you her diary entry of June 3, 1994, in which she
described a very ugly conversation, and you denied that that
occurred, true?
MR. BAKER: I'm going to object. This is outside the scope. And it's
been asked and answered.
MR. PETROCELLI: He raised the issue of whether there was any
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BAKER: Not as of June 3. It's totally out of the scope. It's
page 149 of November 22.
THE COURT: Overruled. Go ahead.
A. I didn't deny we had a conversation, no not at all.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You denied that you said any of the things
that Nicole wrote about that you -- Nicole said you said in her
diary of June '93?
A. Yes.
Q. You have no explanation for why she would make them up?
A. I have no explanation for that, no. Except that was -- would have
been indicative of how she had been acting the last few weeks.
Q. Crazy?
A. Or last few months, I should say.
Q. Kind of crazy?
A. Certainly not the Nicole that I knew. And her mother stated the
same thing that I stated.
Q. Let me ask you this, sir: Since Nicole wasn't acting so
rationally, did you do anything during the months of May and June to
take the children away from her? Yes or no?
A. What do you mean, to legally take the kids?
Q. To remove the children from her custody and put them in the hands
of someone who could look out safely for their welfare. Yes or?
A. No. Whatever Nicole was doing, she was always, in my mind, a
great mother.
Q. Can you answer my question? Did you do anything --
A. No.
Q. -- during this time when you say Nicole was not acting rationally
A. No.
Q. -- to do -- to take the kids away from her, or look out in any
way for their welfare, because their mother was not rational?
A. I thought she was a great mother, even during this period of
time, yes.
Q. And you did nothing. You had no such concern, correct?
A. Absolutely correct.
Q. And following this June 3, 1994, which was a Friday, you had
virtually no contact with Nicole through June 12, correct?
A. What do you mean by "virtually?"
Q. Barely talked to her.
A. Yes; I barely talked to her the week leading up to it.
Q. On June 4, you went over to the house to fix Justin's Nintendo.
You went upstairs to the bedroom where the Nintendo game was?
A. Was that Sunday?
Q. That was Saturday.
A. Yeah, Saturday or Sunday, yes.
Q. And?
A. It wasn't really to fix it; it was really to check out how it was
hooked up, because we were trying to hook up a similar thing at my
MR. BAKER: I object. This is outside the scope and it's all been
previously gone into.
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, I'm demonstrating the last three or four
days leading up to the murders.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) There was -- she was in the very next room,
and you did not speak to her on that occasion, correct?
A. She was upstairs in the bedroom, and I came into the house and
went to my son's room.
Q. And you didn't speak to her that day?
A. No.
Q. Okay. And when you came the next day to pick up the dog, which
had gotten out of the gate -- and you described that earlier --
that's June 5 -- that's a Sunday, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you saw Nicole on the balcony, correct?
A. I believe -- she wasn't on the balcony. She may have come down.
Q. You had no conversation with her on that occasion, correct?
A. Other than the dog is out, or get the dog, or whatever, you know,
whatever those things were.
Q. No conversation of any kind with her on June -- on June 5th,
Sunday, true?
A. I don't believe so. Other than something about the dog, it was
no real conversation. I don't recall that conversation.
Q. You can't recall any conversation at all?
A. When she came out, said what happened to the dog, Faye went
around looking for the dog, I'll go out here, I'll take the other
dog home. If that's a conversation, I don't really consider that a
conversation. It was, you know --
Q. Then, on June 7, you went back east, as you said, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And on June 8, you called to speak to Justin again. You did not
talk to Nicole on that occasion, either, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you had no conversation with her on June 9, June 10, June 11,
MR. BAKER: It's all been asked and answered, Your Honor.
A. Correct.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) On June 12, you have a brief conversation
with her in the afternoon, in which you offered to take Justin and
she said no, correct?
A. She said the kids, either -- I can't recall if kids were there or
her cousins were coming there. And the conversation was about
that, and it was about holding seats, and whoever got there first
would hold seats for the other person. And could I get there and
hold seats for everyone. And she told me who was coming. And I told
her I would have a tough time holding those seats. I'll let -- I'll
find out if Jason will go. I don't know if they're going. I haven't
heard from them. Maybe he will.
Q. And at the recital, you had no conversation with her, correct?
A. No.
Q. Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And at the 9 o'clock phone call, you had no conversation with
her, other than to ask for Sydney, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And, for example, you didn't say anything like, how you doing;
did you enjoy the recital; wasn't Sydney terrific; none of that kind
of conversation occurred when you called Nicole at the 9 o'clock on
the evening of June 12; correct?
MR. BAKER: Objection. In view of the last answer, that question is
irrelevant; no probative value to it.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Is that correct?
A. At the recital, we looked at and said Sydney was beautiful.
Outside of that, no.
Q. You said -- at the recital you said that?
A. No. I'm telling you. I told that at my deposition, also.
Q. At 9 o'clock, you had no such conversation?
A. No. I was calling to talk to Sydney.
Q. Now, one of the reasons you called at 9 o clock is because you
were upset with Nicole, that she had taken the kids away from you at
the recital so quickly, correct? Yes or no?
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I'm going to object. This is the same thing
we got in November. This is all asked and answered. It's outside the
MR. PETROCELLI: It's not outside the scope, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled. Finish your question.
A. I don't believe I was upset when I called. I didn't have an
opportunity, really, to speak to Sydney because they took off, so
(sic). I wanted to tell her two things: One, she did a great job;
and two, when I got back the next week, I would take her to Knott's
Berry Farm, because she wanted to go to Knott's Berry Farm, and I
had been promising I would take her, but I couldn't take her that
week because of the affairs, and I couldn't take her the previous
week because I took her to a pediatric AIDS event. And I would
take her. I'd be back the next weekend, and I would take her the
next weekend.
Q. So the answer is, you did call to talk to Sydney because Nicole
took the kids out of there so quickly, you didn't have a chance to
do so at the recital?
A. Yeah. They were all gone. They were all gone rather quick, yes.
Q. You told that to the police the next day, correct?
A. I believe so, yes.
Q. Okay. Now, the kids had become sort of an issue of contention
between Nicole and you in the last week and the last week of her
life, true?
MR. BAKER: Objection, Your Honor; again, outside the scope.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. I don't believe so.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Okay. Nicole was extremely upset when she got
the IRS letter, and she viewed that as a threat to her and the kids.

A. I didn't know that. I didn't talk to her, as I told you. I don't
know how she felt. I don't know how it could be a threat. She had
money to pay the taxes. She wasn't going to lose her house, despite
what you're trying to indicate.
Q. You've heard testimony of others who have testified in this
court, Nicole was definitely frightened when she received the letter
that you wrote?
A. I don't believe so.
MR. BAKER: I object. This is --
THE WITNESS: I don't believe I've heard that testimony.
MR. BAKER: It's also beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) And when you called Nicole on the evening of
June 12 at 9 o clock p.m., you and she fought?
A. No.
Q. Did you and she fight because you were extremely upset that she
had taken the kids away so quick?
MR. BAKER: Can't he save it for argument, Your Honor? He knows he's
asked this question of this witness three times. He knows the
answer. This is just to argue before the jury his theory of the
THE COURT: Sustained as argumentative.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) It's true, sir, that you had come back
specifically for Sydney's recital, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you gave some testimony earlier today about the sweatsuit
subject. Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, if we're going into another area, can we take
a break?
THE COURT: Okay. Ten minutes, ladies and gentlemen.
(The following proceedings were held in open court outside the
presence of the jury.)
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I've been informed by -- we'll rest tomorrow,
I assume. I've been informed by Mr. Petrocelli they have 12
witnesses they're going to call in rebuttal. I request that neither
Bodziak nor Richards be called until we get a ruling on the Court of
Appeal relative to the ruling you made this afternoon because we
intend to take that up on a writ and we'll file it tomorrow.
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, they're already here from out of town
and they're going on tomorrow and or Wednesday -- I should say
tomorrow and or Wednesday, and these witnesses are very short and we
could be finished in a matter of two days.
THE COURT: With regards to Bodziak and Richards, Richards is going
to testify to what?
MR. PETROCELLI: Richards is going to testify to the authenticity of
the Scull photo and rebut Groden's testimony, and B, he's going to
testify that the Flammer photos, if challenged by the defense, are
authentic. I don't know that they're going to take that position.
THE COURT: What is Mr. Bodziak . . .
MR. PETROCELLI: All Mr. Bodziak is going to say is that the shoes in
the Flammer photos are Bruno Magli shoes as they are in the Scull
THE COURT: All right. And Richards is going to testify only as to
the Scull photo.
MR. PETROCELLI: No. And also if challenged, authenticate the -- you
know, say that the Flammer photos are authentic too, if they're
challenged by the defense.
THE COURT: In what respect?
MR. PETROCELLI: That they're not doctored or altered or anything
like that. I don't know if they're taking that position, if they're
saying these 30 photographs are fraudulent, as they are saying in
regard to the Scull photo. If they take that position, he would say
they're not.
THE COURT: Well, under 2034
(m), the Court is of the opinion -- the Court rules that you may
offer testimony of Bodziak to establish that the photograph of
Flammer shows that those shoes are Bruno Magli shoes, but he
cannot testify with regards to any opinions that Mr. Groden, the
defense expert --
THE COURT: Groden.
MR. PETROCELLI: No, he doesn't intend to.
THE COURT: Can not testify to any opinion, but he may testify
insofar as establishing the photograph -- that the photograph itself
is the rebuttal evidence. And in establishing the photographs as the
rebuttal evidence he may testify that the shoes are what he says the
shoes are. And he already testified as an expert as to those shoes.
THE COURT: I'm not quite sure what you're proposing with regards to
Richards as to the Flammer photographs. I'm a little concerned about
MR. PETROCELLI: If they challenge these photographs as being a
fraud, he will say that he has looked at them and they're not a
fraud. I don't know what their position is on that.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, we, of course, can't have a position because
nobody will give us the negatives. We have been placed in a position
to try -- Mr. Petrocelli -- and I assume if Richards is ready to
testify that the Flammer photos have not been doctored, altered or
changed in any way, shape or form, that he has looked at original
negatives. That's the only way you can tell, if you can tell at all.
And we are put at an extreme disadvantage. We've asked for them, we
haven't got them. They obviously have them. They obviously gave them
to their experts. They obviously pass them wherever they want. And
we can't get them. We don't get any return phone calls from any of
these people and we are at a distinct disadvantage. When you -- when
you talk about Bodziak saying that he can -- allowing Bodziak to
testify that those are shoes in the Flammer photos because he's
already testified, that is an opinion, and that is an opinion, we
believe, so that the record is clear, is precluded under 2034
THE COURT: Okay. Fine.
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, on the subject of negatives, they never
once asked me for any negatives. I don't have the negatives. The
negatives are in Buffalo with the photographer. Now the
photographer's here in town and they have been free to go look at
them. They've never called, they never asked to see them, to my
knowledge, and our expert had to fly to Buffalo to go look at them.
We don't control this. They haven't made any attempt to look at them
and they've been on notice now for three weeks, and I gave them
prints of everything that we have so they have nothing more than
what we have.
THE COURT: Bring the jury in and let's finish.
MR. P. BAKER: Just one more point, Judge. We did ask to see the
photograph. I sent a letter to Mark Kramer; I got no response. Mark
Kramer is an attorney for E.J. Flammer. I haven't got a phone call.
I haven't seen the negatives. I tried to see them.
MR. BAKER: Another fellow back in -- with Mr. Kelly back in Buffalo.
We're being stonewalled. I think it's totally unfair and violative
of the code.
THE COURT: Well, I can only rule on what I got before me. Bring the
THE BAILIFF: Jury walking.
MR. BAKER: Are you going to allow them to put those people on before
I can get to the Court of Appeals because then I'm going to call my
people off, there's no sense in wasting money.
THE COURT: Well, you got till Thursday.
MR. BAKER: Okay.
MR. PETROCELLI: Richards is for tomorrow. He's from out of town.
THE COURT: If Richards only testifies as to Scull I don't see the
relevance of an appeal.
MR. PETROCELLI: Until we know what their position is we'll have them
testify tomorrow as to --
THE COURT: All right.
MR. PETROCELLI: -- as to Scull.
THE COURT: Put them in the box.
(Jurors resume their respective seats.) CROSS-EXAMINATION
(continued) BY
Q. Before the break we were going to the area of the sweat suit. You
said -- you testified that you did not own as of June 12, 1994, a
dark sweat suit with a white zipper?
A. Yes.
Q. And it has always been your testimony that you didn't own as of
June 12, 1994, any dark sweat suit of any type, correct?
A. I think I had a Buffalo Bills jersey with Buffalo Bills on it.
But no, I didn't really wear sweat suits then.
Q. And you did -- you saw the photographs of the sweat suit outfit I
showed you?
A. I sort of recall them.
Q. It's your testimony, sir, that you did not have those items as of
June 12, 1994, correct?
A. No. I tell you, I have refreshed my memory on one element of
that -- of that photo.
Q. Leslie Gardner gave testimony in this case that she never
received those items back from you; are you aware of that testimony?

MR. BAKER: I object. It's irrelevant whether he's aware.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. I'm not aware, as I just mentioned to you. There is something I
would like to say about that sweat suit.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Leslie Gardner testified that she provided
black wardrobe outfits to you in connection with the Playboy video;
are you aware of her testimony, sir?
A. Not really, but --
Q. And that she did not get any of those items back to her?
MR. BAKER: That's argumentative.
MR. BAKER: In view of the testimony that he just said, that question
is simply argument.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. I'm not really aware of that.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You recall your prior testimony that the
sweat suit outfits that you used in that Playboy video you gave back
to the people involved in making the video, the wardrobe
A. I recall it wouldn't -- would only have been one portion. I kept
the top. It was a cashmere top, not a cotton top. It was cashmere. I
do recall telling her I wanted to keep the top.
Q. What about the cotton top that Leslie Gardner provided to you in
connection with the video?
A. No, I never kept it, if there was one.
MR. BAKER: I object. She never said one thing about cotton. There
has not one bit of testimony about her saying anything other than
THE COURT: Just a minute.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Did you receive a cotton top?
A. No. But I had a Donna Karen cashmere top that believe I was
wearing in that. That's why I was looking at the picture so hard. I
had one like it before. I used it as a pajama top. It's cashmere. I
sort of recall saying I wanted to keep it. I don't know if someone
else took it.
Q. Is it your testimony, sir, that you did not receive a cotton
sweat suit top or bottom from Leslie Gardner?
A. That's absolutely correct. I did not.
Q. You did not?
A. Did not.
Q. At no time?
A. At no time.
Q. Now, in regard to cuts, you talked about that this morning as
well, do you recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. And you said that you had this one cut on your middle finger as
of the time you spoke to the police on June 13, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, from the time that you got back from Chicago on June 13 to
let's say Wednesday, June 15, you never were alone except when you
were sleeping in bed, right?
A. I took a walk alone one day. There were moments when I may have
walked around the house alone, especially at night.
Q. Pretty much with other people?
A. Yeah. I didn't go stay in an apartment anywhere alone, no.
Q. On June 15, you previously testified you went to see Dr. Huizenga
and he found three cuts and seven abrasions as of that day?
A. Yes.
Q. And have you no explanation for this jury how you got the other
two cuts and seven abrasions.
MR. BAKER: Objection, all asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. No, except that I do know that on a few occasions that week I had
to change the bandage 'cause there was blood all over my hand, and I
assumed it came from the original.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) And you can't produce a single witness to
testify about how you got any of those seven abrasions and two cuts,
MR. BAKER: That's argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
A. I just know they weren't there on Monday.
MR. PETROCELLI: Move to strike, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Stricken.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) In regard to the golf bag that we spoke about
earlier today, you testified that you asked that it be produced to
the Court. Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. And some of your other items of luggage, right?
A. Yes. It was a big deal to everyone except the prosecution and the
Q. Excuse me, just try to answer with yes or no, please.
A. Yes. Okay.
Q. And those items were produced in court a number of months after
you were initially arrested, correct?
A. At least the day I asked for them, I think we were in trial, so
it would have been seven, eight months later.
Q. During that seven or eight month period of time, those items of
luggage were in your home, correct?
A. I believe maybe the travel luggage was. I believe, and I'm not
100 percent sure of this, I believe the golf clubs were at Bob
Q. So all of those items were either in the possession of Mr.
Kardashian or people at your home, correct?
A. Yes. In my closet, I presume.
Q. Now, you recall your testimony about -- withdrawn. You testified
that the shoes that you were wearing on September 26, 1993 that were
depicted in the photo, were not shoes that you were actually
wearing, do you remember that?
A. I testified I didn't recognize those shoes, no.
Q. And you said that you thought the picture was fraudulent, right?
A. I think you said something about if they were -- these are Bruno
Magli shoes, and I testified I didn't believe so, yes.
Q. You said you weren't wearing Bruno Magli shoes of the type
depicted in that photograph that was displayed to you in front of
the jury last time you testified. Do you remember all that?
A. Yes. I said those shoes are not shoes that I recognize that I've
ever owned.
Q. And you said there was no doubt in your mind that those were not
shoes that you were wearing. Do you remember that?
A. I never buy any shoes that I ever owned.
Q. There wasn't any doubt in your mind, correct?
A. I don't believe I've ever owned those shoes, no.
Q. Since your testimony, you have learned that there are 30 new
photographs of you wearing shoes at that game --
MR. BAKER: I object to the --
Q. -- correct?
MR. BAKER: They haven't been authenticated.
MR. PETROCELLI: They've been marked for I.D.
MR. BAKER: -- form of the question.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BAKER: It's argumentative as well.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Sir, since you gave testimony, you have
learned there are 30 new photographs of you wearing shoes.
A. Other photos, yes.
Q. Correct. Let me show you. They've been previously marked for
(Counsel approaches witness with photographs.)
MR. PETROCELLI: For the record, 2295, 2296, 2297, 2298, 2299, 2300,
2301, 2302, and I have the two contact sheets which are 2303 and
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Now, you've seen those photos before today,
have you not?
A. I think sitting here one day, I briefly looked at them.
Q. Okay. And these photos are true and accurate depictions of you,
A. To an extent, yes, that looks like me.
Q. In other words, you don't believe that anything about these
photographs has been doctored or is incorrect, right?
MR. BAKER: I object. There's no foundation for him being an expert
knowing that.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Do you have any reason to believe that
there's anything wrong with you in this photo I'm holding up?
MR. PETROCELLI: For the record, 2301.
MR. BAKER: That's argumentative. Those pictures haven't been
authenticated. He can't testify whether they've been doctored or
anything else.
THE COURT: Overruled. You may inquire whether he has an opinion in
regards to himself.
A. Yes, I have an opinion. My only opinion is I do not recognize
ever owning these shoes.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) The shoes in these photos?
A. Yes.
Q. So you don't believe that you were wearing shoes like this in
this photo; is that what you're saying?
A. I don't believe I ever owned shoes like that.
Q. Were you wearing them?
A. I don't believe so, no.
Q. Okay. And you would agree that these shoes are very much like the
shoes shown in the other photograph?
MR. BAKER: I'm going to object.
A. I don't recall -- show me the other one.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. PETROCELLI: He asked to put it up. Let's put it up.
MR. BAKER: I -- that is sustained. Don't put it up.
THE COURT: Objection sustained. You may put up anything you want to
put up.
MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. Thank you. Can you focus -- do you have a
better picture of the shoes, Steve?
MR. FOSTER: 1917.
(Exhibit 1917 is displayed.)
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You remember these photos from before?
A. Photos, yes.
Q. Those are the shoes you are sure, without a doubt, you were not
wearing, correct?
A. No, I never recall owning shoes like that, ever.
Q. And your testimony now for the record is exactly the same then
with regard to the shoes in each of the photos I just showed you,
that you don't recall ever wearing any of the shoes in any of these
photos, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Now, let's talk a little bit about some of the other items, sir.
Do you recognize any of the people in these photos?
A. One.
Q. Okay. Well, first of all -- let me back track. You remember
that there was some event commemorating the 20-year anniversary of
your breaking the 2,000 yards per season record?
A. Is this that event?
Q. I'm asking you if you remember that, the folks in Buffalo?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. And you know something about a Quarterback Club in Buffalo?
A. I know that Buffalo has a Quarterback Club.
Q. And you see the pin that you're wearing on the lapel of your
jacket? Do you recall that as a button or a pin you got from a
member of the Quarterback Club?
A. No.
Q. Okay. You don't have any reason to quarrel with that, though, do
A. I don't recall that.
Q. You know a man named Jerry Flashner
A. No.
Q. Now, let me show you a photograph -- a group photograph marked as
2295, okay, showing you with one, two, three, four, five other
people. You recognize those people?
A. I recognize Munson.
Q. That's Bill Munson on the left; right? Far left?
A. And this guy is with the Bills.
Q. Danny Lynch?
A. Danny Lynch is with the Bills.
Q. Okay.
A. I seem to have seen this guy around -- these two guys.
Q. Mr. Flashner?
A. Yeah, I seem to have seen him around.
Q. That's who you're pointing to. There's another man -- does E.J.
Flammer, Sr. mean anything to you?
A. No.
Q. Or Mike Lacata?
A. No.
Q. But you don't have any reason to believe that you didn't pose for
this photograph with all these people, right?
A. No. I know I take a lot of pictures. I mean possibly -- I don't
have any reason not to believe it, no.
Q. And you don't have any reason to believe that you weren't wearing
all of the clothing in the photograph of you in that picture -- I
mean the photograph bearing Exhibit Number 2295, right? You don't
quarrel with any of the clothing that you're wearing there?
A. The pants a little bit, but I do own -- I can't tell if this is a
blue or black sport coat. I certainly own that -- I mean I own
those. The tie looked very familiar. Even though I can't find this
particular tie in my home. And I can't tell, on these pictures about
this shirt, but on that exhibit, I knew I liked the shirt
(indicating to Elmo screen Exhibit No. 1917.)
Q. The only one you quarrel with is the shoes and maybe the pants or
definitely the pants?
A. I don't know -- maybe the pants. I'm normally a pretty sharp
dresser, and that is very -- not like me. They don't look like they
Q. So your opinion, sir, is that all of these pictures are once
again doctored; is that right?
A. I don't know.
MR. BAKER: Objection.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Is that your opinion?
MR. BAKER: I objected. I'd like a ruling.
THE COURT: Overruled. Asking his opinion.
A. I don't know. I just know that the pants don't look right to me.
I don't ever recall owning shoes like this.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You saying you don't recall the shoes? Or are
you saying, sir, you did not wear those shoes in those photographs?

A. I would say no.
Q. What is it?
A. I would say no, I didn't wear those shoes.
Q. You did not wear those shoes, right?
A. No.
Q. Do you have any explanation for why all these photographs show
you wearing those shoes?
A. No.
MR. BAKER: That's argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Do you have any explanation, sir?
A. No.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, that assumes he's required to give one, and
that's why it's argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. PETROCELLI: Where's the other newspaper?
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Let me show you a newspaper dated November
1993, called The Buffalo Bills Report. You've heard of this paper,
have you not?
A. Not really.
Q. You've seen it before, haven't you?
A. I don't know.
Q. You played in Buffalo for a lot of years, right?
A. I don't recall when I played in Buffalo. Maybe should see -- the
inception has been almost 30 years, 20 years.
Q. November 1993, of course, is many months before Nicole's death?
A. Yeah.
Q. And you see the photograph of you in this paper here?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And can you see the clothing there that you're wearing?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And you don't have any reason to doubt that this photograph
is genuine, do you?
A. No.
Q. Including the shoes, correct?
A. Well, I can't tell the shoes in this photograph.
Q. Let's see if we can put them up on the Elmo.
(Newspaper article displayed on the Elmo screen.)
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Do you have any reason to -- You don't have
any reason to doubt that you're wearing the shoes in that picture in
the newspaper, many months before Nicole's murder?
A. I can't tell. I can't tell those shoes from these shoes.
Q. These look similar to the shoes in those photos?
MR. BAKER: Objection. Irrelevant whether they looked similar to him.

THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Remember testifying in your deposition that
the shoes of the type depicted in the Scull photo were ugly
aesthetically and stylewise?
A. No.
Q. You don't remember that?
A. No. I remember saying that about the shoes that were shown to me
in court.
Q. And you had testified that you believe that the shoes that I
showed you in the Scull photo, the last time that you testified,
were also ugly, correct?
A. No. I told you -- I'm sure I said that they looked better than
what they showed me in court, but they still didn't look like shoes
I would wear.
Q. They were not attractive, correct?
A. I think I told you that they weren't as bad looking as the ones
that were shown me in court, but I still didn't think they were
shoes that I would wear.
Q. And you also said they were not attractive, correct?
A. I don't think they are attractive, even looking at them now.
Q. And you're positive you're not wearing those shoes?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, did you ever get -- I mean, 1993 is 20 years after you broke
the record?
A. I believe.
Q. You broke the record in 1973, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you ever read the full spread feature of your breaking of
the record in which this photograph appears?
A. No.
Q. Since you saw this photograph, you indicated you know Mr. Munson
and Mr. Lynch?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you called Mr. Munson or Mr. Lynch up to discuss this
A. No.
Q. To discuss what you're wearing in the photograph?
A. No.
Q. Or to discuss your view that the shoes are not the shoes you
were really wearing? Have you talked to them about any of those
MR. BAKER: I object, Your Honor. There's no foundation he talked to
them at all.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BAKER: It's argumentative.
A. No, I haven't talked to him at all.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You haven't bothered to contact him?
A. I don't know. It's been three or four years since I talked to
anybody in Buffalo, for that matter.
Q. Mr. Simpson, when you testified last time on this witness stand
in November, you did not know about the existence of these 30
photographs, correct?
A. No.
Q. And you told this jury that you were not wearing those shoes
depicted in the Scull photograph, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And now there are 30 pictures that have come forward showing that
you are wearing the same shoes; correct?
MR. BAKER: That argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You lied to this jury?
A. No.
Q. You lied to this jury when --
MR. BAKER: He can argue at the end of the case instead of here. I
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Didn't you, sir?
A. No.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You lied to the jury?
A. No.
Q. It's still your testimony, sir, that you would never attempt to
tell a lie, correct?
A. Not in a court of law, no.
Q. Or in anything important in your life, correct?
A. Certainly not nothing close to this important.
Q. By the way, did you contact anyone else in these pictures to
discuss the shoes that you're wearing?
A. No.
Q. Did you call them to discuss what clothes they're wearing?
A. No.
Q. Have you made any attempt -- you, yourself, made any attempt to
find out anything about these photographs?
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, that's irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. PETROCELLI: I have nothing further.
MR. KELLY: I have no questions.
MR. BREWER: No questions.
MR. PETROCELLI: I'm going to mark the newspaper the next in order.
THE CLERK: 2317.
(The instrument herein referred to as a newspaper photograph was
marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2317.) REDIRECT
Q. O.J., during 1987-1991, did Nicole plan vacations for you?
A. Many, yes.
Q. Did those vacations include the kids?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you go to Yosemite with the kids and Nicole?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you go to Hawaii with the kids and Nicole?
A. Yes.
Q. You go to Cabo San Lucas with the kids and Nicole?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have pictures all over your house of those trips, of the
happy times?
A. Yes.
Q. Was Nicole ever, during the time that -- from the birth of
Sydney, to June 12, 1994, did she ever try to keep you from seeing
your kids?
A. Never.
Q. Did you -- was she sometimes, to your knowledge, upset about the
fact that you weren't home enough to see the kids?
A. Yes. She would -- if any complaints she had, is that she wanted
me to spend more time with the kids, not less time.
Q. O.J., on June 12 -- June 12, 1994, did you, with your children in
the house, upstairs in their bedroom, asleep, murder your wife --
your ex-wife, and leave her body where the kids would find it?
A. No. Absolutely not.
MR. BAKER: Nothing further. Nothing further.
MR. PETROCELLI: Nothing, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You may step down. 8:30 tomorrow. Ladies and gentlemen,
don't talk about the case. Don't form or express any opinions.
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, I'd like to be heard on the record.
THE BAILIFF: Quiet in the audience; the Judge is still on the bench.

(The following proceedings were held in open court, outside the
presence of the jury.)
THE BAILIFF: The jurors have now left the courtroom.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, wait till the door closes.
MR. PETROCELLI: In view of Mr. Simpson's testimony that these 30
pictures are bogus, I would like Mr. Richards to testify about this
subject. And I'm more than happy to make him available first thing
in the morning to give a deposition on the subject, if they would
like. But I believe that they've now put this issue into play, and
we need to -- we'd like to put Mr. Richards on, in addition to the
Scull photo, to talk about these photos.
MR. BAKER: That's a very interesting concept, that we have put the
issue in play. I didn't ask any question about those shoes. He put
the issue in play. He cannot now bootstrap this individual into
being an expert for these photographs. And we've argued this. And I
think the record is clear on our position, and our position, I
believe, is clear on the issue.
MR. PETROCELLI: We've argued it, too, Your Honor. I mean, he was
impeached by those photographs. He now says they're a fraud. And we
are entitled to respond to that. And we can respond to that by
demonstrating that they're not a fraud. And it's not -- it wasn't
our choice that he was going to give the testimony he did, and then
get caught by these 30 photos. We had no way of knowing that. It was
his choice.
THE COURT: Well, Mr. Petrocelli, you have offered those photographs.
You indicated you're going to lay foundation for the photographs.
You may do all that. But I'm not looking towards technical
impeachment with regards to the issue of whether they're a fraud or
not, because there's nothing to impeach at this point, other than
bare-faced denial.
MR. PETROCELLI: Well, if they try to attack them, then that's what
we'll do.
THE COURT: We'll cross that bridge when we get to it.
MR. PETROCELLI: Fair enough.
(At 4:30 P.M., an adjournment was taken until Tuesday, January 14, 1997, at 8:30 A.M.)